uc-NRLi;, 
 
 $B 2b6 413 
 
J 
 
w 
 
 ••St:::-*^'^--*^^" rStnC^t 
 
 OAJ 
 
 /^3L.-^^-^^---t 
 
THE 
 
 ESSENTIAL FAITH 
 
 THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH; 
 
 DEDUCED FROM 
 
 THE SACRED RECORDS. 
 
 BY HARRIET MARTINEAU, 
 
 ' Nulli prj^;clusip Wigio| d,«j[t':' b|i;«ijbui:^ jpaiet/'omnes aJ- 
 mittit, omnes' iiivit'ai;- iioa eligi*; doniurii; ndc'*i6nsum; nu- 
 
 do homine contenta est. 
 
 BOSTON, 
 
 LEONARD C. BOWLES. 
 
 1833. 
 

 
ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 In March 1830 the Committee of the Brit- 
 ish and Foreign Unitarian Association offered 
 ' a premium for three tracts, to be approved 
 by them, the object of which should be the 
 introduction and promotion of Christian Uni- 
 tarianism among the Roman Catholics, the 
 Jews, and the Mahommedans respectively.' 
 Each of the Essays was to be sent to the 
 Committee with the name of the writer in a 
 sealed note, which would be opened only after 
 the decision in favor of the successful candi- 
 date. Miss Martineau obtained the three 
 prizes. The celebrity which she has acquired 
 in this country by those of her works which 
 have been reprinted here has induced the be- 
 lief that these Essays would be read with in- 
 terest, although if they had come from an un- 
 known author the nature of the subjects might 
 
 mmmo 
 
prevent their general circulation. The abili- 
 ty, the tact, and the fine spirit which they dis- 
 play must increase the admiration of Miss 
 Martineau's talents which already prevails 
 among us. For grasp and vigor of thought, 
 for a rich and fehcitous style of expression, 
 and for general power of argument, without 
 the slightest mixture of asperity or unfairness, 
 they will bear comparison with almost any 
 writings of the same class. The author has 
 judiciously adopted a different method of treat- 
 ing each subject, and may therefore expect 
 that opinions will be various about the com- 
 parative merits of the three Essays, according 
 to the intellectual habits or tastes of readers. 
 But no one can fail to pronounce them all re- 
 markable productions. 
 
 The Essay addressed to the Catholics was 
 first published. It is therefore now first re- 
 printed, and will be followed immediately by 
 those written for the Jews and the Mahomme- 
 dans. E. S. G. 
 
 Boston, May 1st, 1S33. 
 
PRELIMINARY ADDRESS. 
 
 As Christians addressing Christians, we, 
 whose faith is called Unitarianism, invite you, 
 our Roman Catholic brethren, to join with us 
 in investigating the origin and true nature of 
 that Gospel which we agree in believing wor- 
 thy of the deepest study, the most unremitting 
 interest, and the highest regard. We agree 
 in believing every Christian to be bound to 
 promote the welfare of his race to the utmost 
 of his ability; and that that welfare is best 
 promoted by the extensive spread and firm 
 establishment of Divine truth. We agree in 
 believing that all other gifts which the Father 
 of men has showered on human kind are insig- 
 nificant in comparison with V the dispensation 
 of grace: or rather, that their value is unrec- 
 ognised till interpreted by it. We alike feel 
 1 
 
r 
 
 thatUhe material frame of the universe, fair 
 as it is, is but as a silent picture till a living 
 beauty is breathed into it, and a divine har- 
 mony evolved from it by its being made the 
 exponent of God's purposes of graceTI We 
 alike feel that the round of life is dull and 
 ta^i)^, ^nd its^ vicissitudes wearisome and irri- 
 tatihg'j.tlll it^l>6C(>me5 Iclfear .that they are pre- 
 pai;atiy^,j:o^^^bigber,st^te*<^B[e alike feel that 
 .VolMs ptcriywt^* 5aj:\(J ^V^n.i/ltellectual employ- 
 ments, are objectless and uninteresting, till 
 they can be referred to purposes whose com- 
 plete fulfilment must take place beyond the 
 grave. ^ We alike feel how pervading, how 
 perpetual is the influence of Gospel principles 
 in ennobling every incident, in hallowing 
 every vicissitude of life; in equalizing human 
 emotions; in animating the sympathies, in viv- 
 ifying the enjoyments, and blunting the sor- 
 rows, of all who adopt those principles in full 
 conviction of the understanding, and in perfect 
 sincerity of heart. We agree in feeling how 
 the whole aspect of existence changes, as the 
 power and beauty of the Gospel become more 
 influential; — as we learn where to deposit our 
 cares, where to fix our hope, what to prize as 
 a real possession, and what to regard as but 
 
loss in comparison of our inestimable gain. 
 We feel in common how endurance may be- 
 come a privilege, and earthly humiliation our 
 highest honor, when sustained in the spirit, 
 and incurred for the sake, of the Gospel. 
 Feeling thus alike respecting the value of a 
 common possession, desiring ir]icoi;nmon th8ft;'dll 
 our race should be paifak^-rs df^ii, making it 
 the most earnest of but ^'^ra^^f^rs^" th'it-^^'ljmy 
 receive it in its purity 'and'tihiploy it /iglltebilS- 
 ly, why should we not help one another to 
 apprehend it and hold it firmly ? We know, 
 from the records of history, how the adherents 
 of your faith have so prized it as to sacrifice 
 all things for it; how Catholic confessors have 
 borne long and painful testimony, and how 
 Catholic martyrs have triumphantly sustained 
 the last proof ofthe strength of their convictions. 
 We can refer you to similar examples among 
 those who believed as we believe ; and neither 
 you nor we can doubt, that should occasions 
 of self-sacrifice again arise, every true Chris- 
 tian in your body and in ours would show once 
 more what the Gospel can do in divesting the 
 world of its allurements and death of its ter- 
 rors. Why then should we not congratulate 
 each other on our common hope? Having 
 
laid hold on the same anchor of the soul, why 
 should we not rejoice in each other's strength? 
 And, differing as we do in the mode of holding 
 a common privilege, why should we not reason 
 together to ascertain where the difference lies, 
 whence it arose, and hy what means it may 
 be ♦ job\iated ii^ ^.Thojuish J you and we may not 
 regard VariatiVn^ •ftiJ Christian faith with an 
 ^qpCiL:d<?gKe«*ojr: regret and dread, we yield 
 •■not t6*y6u 6r*to»arrf • on 'e'afth in our apprecia- 
 tion of the value of truth, and in our desire 
 that it may become the common possession 
 of our race. Therefore it is that we now pro- 
 pose to you an investigation into its principles; 
 and therefore it is that we seek the removal of 
 all impediments to our joining in hand as we 
 already do in heart, in bringing those who are 
 astray to the fold of the true Shepherd. 
 
 The same means of ascertaining Divine truth 
 are in your hands and in ours, if, as your best 
 writers declare and as we believe, you have 
 free access to the Scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testaments. Our versions of those Scrip- 
 tures are, it is true, not exactly alike. It ap- 
 pears to us that yours are, in various minor, 
 and in some considerable points, less correct 
 than our own: but fair investigation will settle 
 
this difference as well as others; and if not, 
 such variations constitute no insurmountable 
 hindrance. The essential truth of the Gospel 
 is not involved in any or all of those modes of 
 expression in which our respective versions of 
 the Scriptures differ. The difficulties which 
 are thus originated are of very inferior moment 
 to those by which our separation is perpetua- 
 ted, and which depend on our application of 
 the spirit rather than our interpretation of the 
 letter of the sacred records. When we can as 
 perfectly agree in our opinions concerning the 
 person of Christ, as we do in our veneration 
 and gratitude for his holiness and love; when 
 we shall mutually rejoice in the universality as 
 well as in the blessedness of the salvation he 
 brought, we shall not dispute respecting the 
 letter of some of his instructions, or long la- 
 ment the difficulty of reconciling some apparent 
 discrepancies. If, as you declare, the Scrip- 
 tures are in common use among you, they 
 must be allowed to be the rule of your faith as 
 well as of your practice; they must be intend- 
 ed for your instruction as well as your confirm- 
 ation; they must supply subjects of thought as 
 well as of feeling. Do us the justice then, 
 
 thus to use them as often as you hear us appeal 
 
 1* 
 
10 
 
 to them. Compare our interpretation of the 
 Gospel with the records themselves. Compare 
 our deductions from facts with the original 
 statement of those facts, and with all which 
 throws light on them from the history, the dis- 
 courses, the epistles which follow. To what^ 
 ever common ground there is between us, let 
 us repair; and since that common ground is the 
 very spot where the living waters first sprang 
 up, there can be no doubt but that a patient 
 search will bring vital refreshment to us all. 
 
 We know, brethren, that our mode of belief 
 appears to you under the greatest possible dis- 
 advantage, as being, even more than Protes- 
 tant religion generally, divested of the claims 
 and graces of antiquity. You regard our sect 
 as newly formed from the dispersed elements of 
 other sects which have melted away. You 
 find no mention of our heresy in the records of 
 the middle ages, or only such hints of the doc- 
 trines now held by Unitarians as might serve 
 as suggestions of our present opinions: and you 
 therefore naturally conclude that the parts of 
 our faith to which you object are but of yester- 
 day, and consequently the impious inventions 
 of men. If it were so, our present address 
 would indeed be indefensible; our challenge to 
 
11 
 
 investigation would be an insult; our appeal to 
 the Scriptures would be blasphemy. But to 
 shake your conviction of this assumed fact, to 
 convince you if possible that the reverse is the 
 fact, is the object of the exposition of our opin- 
 ions which we now present to you, and of 
 every effort to explain and defend our faith. It 
 is because we believe our religion to be primi- 
 tive Christianity that we are attached to it as 
 other Christians are to theirs. It is because 
 we feel that we can carry back our opinions to 
 a remoter antiquity than other Churches, that 
 we prefer them; and though they were com- 
 pletely hidden under the unauthorized institu- 
 tions of the middle ages, we find no difficulty 
 in establishing their identity with those which 
 were diffused by the messengers and under the 
 sanction of God. He who sees a stream gush- 
 ing forth from the cave, and can trace it back 
 no further than the darkness whence it issues, 
 may reasonably conclude that he stands near 
 its source ; but there may be a wayfarer who by 
 observation and experience knows and can at- 
 test that this is no subsidiary spring, but the re- 
 appearance of a hidden stream, whose source 
 is hallowed and whose current is inexhaustible. 
 We only ask you to listen to our evidence of 
 
12 
 
 this, and to admit it or not, as you shall be after- 
 wards disposed. 
 
 We agree with you in your reverence for an- 
 tiquity in respect of the faith; and desire no- 
 thing more than that by their comparative 
 claims to antiquity our respective religions 
 should be judged. We feel that grace as well 
 as authority is conferred by every evidence of 
 long duration. We can enter into your rever- 
 ence for your doctrines, because they were 
 held by Saints in cloisters which have crumbled 
 to dust, by heroes and anchorites whose arms 
 were the reUcs of centuries gone by, or whose 
 rocky abodes have retained their sanctity for a 
 thousand years. We can understand your 
 emotions on receiving sacraments or witnessing 
 ceremonies which fostered the devotion of the 
 saintly and the heroic of the olden time, and 
 which filled the Christian temples abroad with 
 music and fragrance, while in our land the 
 smoke of Druidical sacrifices was ascending 
 offensively to Heaven. But we thus sympa- 
 thise because we too refer our worship to an- 
 cient days. Our hearts also thrill under the 
 impulses which are propagated from afar. We 
 also delight in spiritual exercises, because 
 they are sanctified by long-tried efficacy ; and 
 
13 
 
 enjoy our devotion more, because the same 
 hopes exhilarated, the same trust supported our 
 spiritual kindred of the remotest Christian an- 
 tiquity. In our Churches we believe we feel 
 the spirit of brotherhood which first gave to the 
 believers one heart and one soul. In the si- 
 lence of our chambers, or amidst the solitudes 
 of nature, we are open to the same incentives 
 to prayer and praise which visited Peter on the 
 house-top, and Paul amidst the perils of the 
 sea. When intent upon the words of life, we, 
 like the Apostle, are impelled to exclaim, ^O ! 
 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and 
 knowledge of God !' And were the times of 
 persecution to recur, we doubt not but that, at 
 the very stake, the consciousness of fellowship 
 with the holy Stephen would add vigor to our 
 courage and splendor to our hopes. We re- 
 fuse to perpetuate the imposing ritual of the 
 early ages because it is not antique enough: 
 but whenever we behold two or three gathered 
 together to worship with the heart and voice 
 alone; when we see men assembling on the first 
 day ofthe week to break bread in remembrance 
 of Christ, in the simplicity ofthe primitive or- 
 dinance; when we see teachers, in all external 
 things like their brethren, gathering wisdom 
 
14 
 
 from the fowls of ttie air and the lilies of the 
 field, — we could almost forget the lapse of ages 
 in sympathy with those from whom tliey sepa- 
 rate us. 
 
 Such a sympathy, if originated here, will be 
 perfected hereafter; for it is too purely spirit- 
 ual to be dissolved by death. It will then be 
 also extended to all in whom the spirit of the 
 Gospel is a vivifying principle ;*as it would be 
 here, if we could throw off our prejudices and 
 see each other as we are. If it is to be, why 
 should it not already be. ^ With the Gospel be- 
 fore us, with some portion of its light beaming 
 on each of us, some measure of its kindly 
 warmth glowing within us, why should we turn 
 away coldly and silently from communion re- 
 specting our best treasure ? 
 
 If either body believe their brethren in er- 
 ror, is it right to leave them so without an ef- 
 fort to reclaim them .'* If both believe the truth 
 destined to prevail, is it not incumbent on them 
 to assist that prevalence.'* We believe it is; 
 and therefore we address you; minghng with 
 our entreaties for your co-operation in the de- 
 velopment of Divine truth earnest prayers that 
 the Father will abundantly administer to all the 
 resources of that intellectual power and Chris- 
 tian love which constitute a sound mind. 
 
THE ESSENTIAL FAITH OF THE 
 UNIVERSAL CHURCH. 
 
 The primitive Christian Church, gathered to- 
 gether in Jerusalem by the command of Christ, 
 and sanctified by the descent of the Holy Spirit, 
 consisted exclusively of Jews. The three 
 thousand who were baptized on that memora- 
 ble occasion, the numbers which were daily 
 added to the Church, the multitude who were 
 converted to Christianity during the next fif- 
 teen years, were all Jews. In some cases, the 
 process of conversion was probably gradual; 
 but in many, we know it was sudden, being 
 caused by^ the immediate and irresistible evi-^^ 
 dence of miracles./ The change of conviction 
 which it was necessary to work in converting a 
 Jew, was of a nature which could be effected 
 
16 
 
 speedily and completely by the display of one 
 miraculous testimony. It was not a change in 
 all, or any of his views of Deity and Providence. 
 He was not required to relinquish a single arti- 
 cle of religious belief which he had previously 
 held under a divine sanction. The fundamen- 
 tal doctrine of the Jewish religion, — the strict 
 Unity of Jehovah, — he was authorized to re- 
 tain. He was confirmed in his dependence on 
 all that the Prophets had spoken, in his con- 
 ceptions of the Divine attributes, and in his 
 trust in Divine Providence. The only question 
 on which depended his adhering to the Old, or 
 embracing the New Dispensation, was, wheth- 
 er Jesus of Nazareth was or was not the prom- 
 ised Messiah. As the Jews were bound by the 
 requisitions of their own law (Deut. xviii. 19) 
 to receive implicitly whatever should be taught 
 in God's name by a divinely authorized proph- 
 et, their reception of the doctrines of Christ- 
 ianity was a sure consequence of their ac- 
 knowledgement of the Messiah; and that their 
 acknowledgement of Jesus in that character was 
 the only thing essential to make them Chris- 
 tians we have consistent and abundant evidence 
 in the whole Scripture history. In the preach- 
 ing of the Apostles to the people of their own 
 nation, we find no intimations of any needful 
 
17 
 
 change in their conceptions of God, and of his 
 mode of government. On the contrary, it was 
 because the Jews were already prepared for 
 their reception of Christianity by their behef in 
 the Unity of God and the consistency of his 
 moral government, that they were the most im- 
 mediately and the most easily incorporated with 
 the Christian church. For proof of this, we 
 refer to the whole of the discourse delivered by 
 the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, and 
 to every other discourse addressed by the Apos- 
 tles to Jewish hearers. 
 
 The first Gentiles who were converted to 
 Christianity were not worshipers of a plurality 
 of Gods; but men who from intercourse with 
 Jews, or from other opportunities of spiritual 
 advancement, had attained to the belief of One 
 God, indivisible in his nature and unrivalled in 
 his supremacy. The same mode of teaching 
 which sufficed for the Jews, sufficed for them 
 also, as far as the essential truth of Christiani- 
 ty was concerned; and the same method was 
 therefore adopted, as may be seen in the dis- 
 course of Peter in the house of Cornelius. 
 
 The next converts were from the disciples of 
 the Pagan theology of Greece and Rome, 
 with them a different method of instruction was 
 2 
 
18 
 
 needed. Till they knew something of the Di- 
 vine nature, it was useless to open to them the 
 Divine dispensations. The discourse of Paul 
 at Athens did not therefore begin with anoun- 
 cing the Saviour: if it had, his inquisitive hear- 
 ers would perhaps have inquired whether this 
 messenger was sent by Jupiter himself, or 
 whether he was a deputy of some of the inferior 
 gods. The Apostle named not the name of 
 Christ till he had taught the fundamental doc- 
 trine — that Jehovah is not only supreme, but 
 sole; that all infinite attributes are centered in 
 him; that all dispensations proceed from him; 
 not only those of nature, by which the human 
 race is created and preserved; but — the way 
 being now prepared for the annunciation — that 
 of grace, by which the world is to be redeemed 
 through him whom God had ordained to be a 
 Prince and a Saviour. 
 
 The heathen converts of the latter class 
 had much more to learn, before they could be- 
 come confirmed Christians, than their more 
 enlightened brethren who had been prepared 
 by intercourse with Jews. They were equally 
 ^eady in admitting the evidence of miracles, 
 but not equally clear as to the object for which 
 those miracles were wrought. When Paul ■ 
 
19 
 
 and Barnabas restored the cripple at Lystra, 
 the priests and people could scarcely be re- 
 strained from offering sacrifice to them as 
 gods, even after the Apostles had explained 
 to them the true nature of Deity. Yet the 
 true religion, being patiently and faithfully 
 taught, was, at length, fully understood and 
 received; and the three classes of converts, 
 Jews, proselytes, and pagans, were made one 
 in Christ; holding, in undisturbed harmony of 
 conviction, the essential doctrines of the strict 
 Unity of Jehovah, the divine authority of Je- 
 sus Christ, and consequently, the divine ori- 
 gin of the Gospel he brought. 
 
 This unity of the faith seems to have been 
 first broken in upon by the introduction of a 
 fourth class of converts, who, by incorpora- 
 ting their former philosophical doctrines with 
 the new theology they had embraced, origina- 
 ted the first heresy. There had been dis- 
 putes, it is true, in the church; but not con- 
 cerning matters of faith. In these disputes 
 the Apostles themselves had been not only 
 involved, but actually opposed to each other. 
 These questions related to the fancied neces- 
 sity of the adoption by the Gentiles of the 
 forms of the Jewish law: questions of great 
 
18 
 
 needed. Till they knew something of the Di- 
 vine nature, it was useless to open to them the 
 Divine dispensations. The discourse of Paul 
 at Athens did not therefore begin with anoun- 
 cing the Saviour: if it had, his inquisitive hear- 
 ers would perhaps have inquired whether this 
 messenger was sent by Jupiter himself, or 
 whether he was a deputy of some of the inferior 
 gods. The Apostle named not the name of 
 Christ till he had taught the fundamental doc- 
 trine — that Jehovah is not only supreme, but 
 sole; that all infinite attributes are centered in 
 him; that all dispensations proceed from him; 
 not only those of nature, by which the human 
 race is created and preserved; but — the way 
 being now prepared for the annunciation — that 
 of grace, by which the world is to be redeemed 
 through him whom God had ordained to be a 
 Prince and a Saviour. 
 
 The heathen converts of the latter class 
 had much more to learn, before they could be- 
 come confirmed Christians, than their more 
 enlightened brethren who had been prepared 
 by intercourse with Jews. They were equally 
 ^eady in admitting the evidence of miracles, 
 but not equally clear as to the object for which 
 those miracles were wrought. When Paul 
 
19 
 
 and Barnabas restored the cripple at Lystra, 
 the priests and people could scarcely be re- 
 strained from offering sacrifice to them as 
 gods, even after the Apostles had explained 
 to them the true nature of Deity. Yet the 
 true religion, being patiently and faithfully 
 taught, was, at length, fully understood and 
 received; and the three classes of converts, 
 Jews, proselytes, and pagans, were made one 
 in Christ; holding, in undisturbed harmony of 
 conviction, the essential doctrines of the strict 
 Unity of Jehovah, the divine authority of Je- 
 sus Christ, and consequently, the divine ori- 
 gin of the Gospel he brought. 
 
 This unity of the faith seems to have been 
 first broken in upon by the introduction of a 
 fourth class of converts, who, by incorpora- 
 ting their former philosophical doctrines with 
 the new theology they had embraced, origina- 
 ted the first heresy. There had been dis- 
 putes, it is true, in the church; but not con- 
 cerning matters of faith. In these disputes 
 the Apostles themselves had been not only 
 involved, but actually opposed to each other. 
 These questions related to the fancied neces- 
 sity of the adoption by the Gentiles of the 
 forms of the Jewish law: questions of great 
 
20 
 
 importance to the Jews, as affecting their views 
 of the uhimate design of Christianity; to the 
 Gentiles, as involving their spiritual liberties; 
 and to us and the Christian world at large, as 
 throwing light on the transactions of the 
 primitive times, and as having originated 
 some of the Epistles of Paul. 
 
 But they bore no relation to the essential doc- 
 trines, which were held free from corruption, 
 controversy, or even doubt, till some converts 
 from the philosophical sect of the Gnostics 
 introduced, within twenty years after the 
 death of Christ, the first taint of that corrup- 
 tion from which the true faith has never since 
 been freed. 
 
 The fundamental doctrine of the Gnostic 
 philosophy was, that all mind is ultimately de- 
 rived from the Supreme mind; that the souls 
 of all men have therefore pre-existed; that 
 there is a higher order of spirits, more imme- 
 diately emanating from the Supreme; that 
 these superior iatelligences descend occa- 
 sionally to inhabit the bodies of men, or to 
 assume their apparent form. This doctrine, 
 to which they were much attached, the Gnos- 
 tic converts easily contrived to connect with 
 their new theology, believing Jesus to be one 
 
21 
 
 of these superior intelligences in a visible 
 form, or that the man Jesus was animated by 
 such a spirit, who was in reality the Christ. 
 Against this corruption of the simplicity of the 
 faith the Apostle John protested in his First 
 and Second Epistles, in which he followed 
 the example of Peter, Paul, and Jude. That 
 the Gnostics were the persons he had in view, 
 is evident from the fact that no other schismat- 
 ics at that period troubled the peace of the 
 church, and also from his own application of 
 his censure to such as 'confess not that Jesus 
 Christ is come in the flesh/ (2 John 7.) The 
 'fables and endless genealogies' which Paul 
 reprobates (1 Tim. i. 4.) had the same origin; 
 and the practices to which they led, of 'for- 
 bidding to marry, and commanding to abstain 
 from meats,' are condemned by him as the 
 work of 'seducing spirits.' Of the same class 
 were the ^false teachers,' accused by Peter of 
 bringing in fatal heresies, 'by reason of whom 
 the ways of truth shall be evil spoken of.' All 
 the opinions and practices denounced by Jude, 
 were either publicly maintained by the Gnos- 
 tics, or generally ascribed to them. 
 
 In order to disprove the truth of this repre- 
 sentation, it will be necessary to show who be- 
 2# 
 
24 
 
 countenances, nor alludes to any such doc- 
 trine. 
 
 Even the philosophizing Christians of the 
 first century, against whom the Apostles wrote, 
 went no further than to suppose the Christ to 
 be a superior inteUigence, inhabiting a mortal 
 form, or assuming the appearance of one: 
 Cerinthus maintaining that Jesus was a man 
 born of Joseph and Mary, and that at his 
 baptism the Christ descended upon him; while 
 Marcion held that the Son of God took the 
 exterior form of a man, and appeared as a man ; 
 and without being born, or gradually growing 
 up to the full stature of a man, he showed 
 himself at once in Galilee as a man grown. It 
 was not till Justin Martyj*, himself a philoso- 
 pher, wrote an apology for Christianity to a 
 philosophical Roman emperor (A. D. 140), 
 that any distinct mention appears to have been 
 made of the doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. 
 It is not surprising that — feeling how great a 
 reproach the death of the cross must be in 
 the eyes of the potentate whom he wished to 
 conciliate, and finding his mode of exposition 
 prepared by the Gnostic Christians, and by 
 the application made by the learned Philo of 
 the Platonic doctrine of the Logos, — Justin 
 
25 
 
 Martyr should have been tempted to recom- 
 mend his new theology by introducing an ad- 
 mixture of that philosophy which has proved, 
 according to the warnings of the Apostle, a 
 'vain deceit.' Such we have no hesitation in 
 calling it. A doctrine of this nature cannot 
 be in part true, but liable to mistake: k must 
 be absolutely true or absolutely false. We hold 
 it to be the latter; because it was not made a 
 subject of distinct revelation by Christ, a pri- 
 mary article of belief by the Apostles, or 
 even a matter of distinct mention for a century 
 and a half from the birth of Christ. 
 
 All that, from the study of the records of 
 Revelation, we hold to be the primary and es- 
 sential doctrines of Christianity, stand forth 
 conspicuously in the teachings, are confirmed 
 by the deeds, and illustrated in the lives of the 
 Saviour and his followers. We propose to 
 bring them forward, with their evidence, in the 
 following order. 
 
 I. The strict Unity of God. 
 
 II. The unlimited nature of the Redemption 
 by Christ. 
 
 III. The existence of a Future State. 
 From these, various subordinate principles 
 
 may be derived, some of the most important of 
 
26 
 
 which we shall afterwards specify; and then 
 proceed to treat of the temporary sanctions and 
 institutions of Christianity, in distinction from 
 its permanent principles. 
 
 It cannot be necessary for Christians, when 
 addressing Christians, to enter upon<^the evi- 
 dence for the divine authority ynder which the 
 Saviour offered his Gospel, 7or for the conse- 
 quent divine origin of that Gospel. The name 
 adopted by both parties is a sufficient testimony 
 to the unity of their faith thus far. Concern- 
 ing the nature of Christ, we have already de- 
 clared that, in accordance with what we be- 
 lieve to have been the faith of the primitive 
 ages, Iwe regard the Saviour as human in his 
 nature, but superhuman in his powers, and di- 
 vinely appointed and sanctioned in his officer 
 The title 'Son of God' is peculiarly and inde- 
 feasibly his own; for to no other being, as far 
 as our knowledge extends, has so immeasura- 
 ble a portion of authority, of power, of grace 
 and truth, been vouchsafed; in no other has 
 dwelt 'all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' 
 The homage of reverence cannot be too fully 
 and freely rendered to him who was with God 
 in His manifest presence; who was one with 
 Him in his purposes of eternal salvation to the 
 
27 
 
 human race; who was the exponent of those 
 purposes, and the means of that salvation. 
 The homage of love cannot be too fully and 
 freely rendered to him who suffered for our 
 transgressions, and died for our justification; 
 who loved us with more than earthly love; who 
 suffered in his compassion for the sins and sor- 
 rows of men, as well as in the inflictions he 
 sustained for their sakes; and who, though 
 wounded in spirit and tortured in body, made 
 use of the rule, authority, and power with 
 which he was invested, not for his own relief, 
 but for our deliverance. To him who brought 
 us salvation, it is little to offer deep gratitude 
 and unbounded love. The homage of obe- 
 dience cannot be too fully and freely rendered 
 to him who was wise with the wisdom of God, 
 pure in heart, sinless in his life, and sanctified 
 by grace from the beginning. Even if we did 
 not know that obedience to Christ is the way to 
 life eternal, that obedience would be due to his 
 divine claims: but knowing this, it should be 
 steadfast as our faith, cheerful as our hope, and 
 boundless as our love. Such was the obe- 
 dience, such were the reverence and love of the 
 holy Apostles; and we desire to participate in 
 ithem as fully as we join, with heart and mind, 
 
28 
 
 in all that they have said concerning him. 
 They bow before his celestial authority, — so do 
 we. They venerate his perfect holiness, — so 
 do we. They bless his love, testified in his 
 sufferings, sealed by his death, and glorified by 
 his resurrection, — so do we. They strove to be 
 obedient in all things, — and we acknowledge 
 the obligation incumbent on us to be so like- 
 wise; and that we may be so, we diligently in- 
 quire what were the doctrines which he con- 
 firmed and revealed. 
 
 The great fundamental doctrine of the strict 
 Unity of Jehovah was abundantly confirmed by 
 the Gospel. It had been long held in its puri- 
 ty by the Jews, and was apprehended by a few, 
 a very few, enlightened heathens. It is called an 
 essential doctrine of Christianity, — not because 
 it was originated by Christianity, but because 
 it was thus first introduced to the world at 
 large, and because no other doctrine could 
 stand without it. It has accordingly been ac- 
 knowledged in words by all who have taken on 
 themselves the name of Christ, while in its 
 substance it has been held pure by very few, 
 we apprehend, since the apostolic age. By 
 the Unity of God we understand not a uni- 
 ty of substance connected with a variety of 
 
29 
 
 persons, or a unity of persons accompanied 
 with a division of attributes; but a concentra- 
 tion of the attributes of Deity in one eternal, 
 indivisible substance. This, our fundamental 
 religious belief, is derived both from reason 
 and from Scripture, and is confirmed equally 
 by both. 
 ' If we examine our own minds, we find that 
 our first notions of a God are low and earthly. 
 We conceive of Him as of an earthly parent, 
 watching over our sleep with bodily eyes, fur- 
 nishing our food with a bodily hand, and fol- 
 lowing us from place to place with a material 
 presence. As infancy passes away, our con- 
 ceptions become less gross. We think of 
 Him as omnipresent and invisible; but, deri- 
 ving our notions from our experience, we con- 
 ceive of him as subject to emotions and pas- 
 sions. We believe in the real existence — if 
 not of his smiles and frowns — of his joy, sorrow 
 and anger, pleasure and pain. We can then 
 imagine his knowing and remembering ; 11 that 
 has ever taken place, but can scarcely conceive 
 of his unlimited presence. Our childish obe- 
 dience is then yielded as to our parents, — 
 partly through fear, partly through a desire 
 of approbation, and partly with the hope of 
 3 
 
30 
 
 of giving pleasure. All the qualities or attri- 
 butes which we ascribe to God have their 
 origin and counterparts in our parents, or 
 those who supply their place to us: and in no 
 other way can the conception of Deity be 
 originated. JVo mind can arrive at the recog- 
 nition of a general principle, but through an 
 observation of its particular applications; nor 
 can a conception be formed, otherwise than by 
 the gradual reception of its elements; or en- 
 larged, but by adding to their number. From 
 the watchfulness of its parent in satisfying its 
 wants and defending it from injury, the child 
 forms its first notion of Providence; and from 
 the visitings of parental approbation and dis- 
 pleasure, of a moral governor. When the 
 presence of Deity is thus recognised, some 
 more abstract qualities are by degrees attribu- 
 ted to him. Instances of the strength, fore- 
 sight, and knowledge of the parent are daily 
 witnessed; and these, somewhat magnified^ 
 are transferred to Deity; — and the moral attri- 
 butes have the same origin. Steadiness in 
 awarding recompence, tenderness in inflicting 
 punishment, or readiness in remitting it on re- I 
 pentance, gradually communicate the abstract f 
 ideas of justice, compassion, and mercy. Our 
 
31 
 
 first low notions of holiness are formed by put- 
 ting together all the best qualities we have ob- 
 served in the persons around us, and supposing 
 them to be unimpaired by the faults we are 
 conscious of in ourselves. All these attributes 
 are ascribed to one Being; and the conception, 
 already more exalted than any we have formed 
 of any other individual being, is further impro- 
 ved by the richer elements of a more extended 
 experience. The imagination becoming strong- 
 er as the materials supplied to its activity be- 
 come more abundant, the conception of Deity 
 perpetually grows in grandeur and beauty, till 
 it absorbs the intellect of a Newton and en- 
 grosses the affections of a Fenelon. Still, 
 this notion of a Being whom we know and 
 feel to be infinite, is formed from the results 
 of our finite experience; and the conception, 
 however improved in degree, is unchanged in 
 kind. Let it be magnified to the utmost extent, , 
 it is still only magnified, not metamorphosed. | 
 As there is a strict analogy between the moral / 
 attributes of God and of men, there is also a 
 strict analogy between their natural modes of 
 being. Justice in God is the same quality as 
 justice in men, however perfected and enlar- 
 ged; and Unity in God is the same as individ- 
 
32 
 
 uality in men, though ascribed to an almighty 
 and omnipresent Being. 
 
 A perpetual and perfect concentration of 
 attributes is essential to our notion of one God. 
 We can conceive of his manifesting one attri- 
 bute in an especial manner on one occasion, 
 and another on another; we can imagine him 
 conferring power analogous to his own on an 
 inferior being; but we cannot conceive of his 
 laying aside, of his depriving himself of any 
 of the attributes of his nature, or of delegating 
 his power, — if by such delegation be implied 
 any diminution or inactivity of it in Himself. 
 It is conceivable that he might employ some 
 superior intelligence in creating the material 
 world (though we have no authority to suppose 
 that he did so;) but it is not conceivable that 
 the work was not, at the same time, wholly 
 his own. It is conceivable that he might 
 send — it is certain that he did send — a being 
 divinely furnished for the work, to institute a 
 dispensation of grace, and to offer pardon and 
 peace to sinful men. But it is not conceivable 
 that the divine attribute of mercy could previ- 
 ously, or subsequently, or ever, be laid aside, 
 or transferred, or suspended; that his unalter- 
 able purposes could be changed, his compassion 
 
33 
 
 roused, his sympathies moved by any act of 
 any being, human or angelic. To suppose so, 
 is supposing his purposes mutable, and his 
 compassion dormant; that is, divesting him of 
 Deity. We can, in accordance with our con- 
 ception of Deity, understand how the dispen- 
 sation of grace may be committed, as it was 
 committed, to a finite being. But to suppose 
 it the indefeasible prerogative of any eternal 
 Being but God, is clearly to suppose two 
 Gods: and if the office of sanctification be ap- 
 propriated in a similar manner, we must sup- 
 pose three Gods. However long and deeply 
 we may reflect and strive to reconcile contradic- 
 tions, we shall find at length that it is essen- 
 tial to our belief in One God, that we ascribe 
 creation, redemption and sanctification, ulti- 
 mately wholly to Him 'of whom, and through 
 whom, and to whom are all things.' 
 
 This unalterable decision of the reason is con- 
 firmed in every possible way by revelation. It 
 is needless to adduce proof from the Scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, as it is universally known 
 that the Jews held, as the fundamental doctrine 
 of their religion, the strict Unity of Jehovah, 
 in nature, person, and attributes. There is 
 not the slightest intimation, in the records of 
 3* 
 
34 
 
 the new dispensation, that any change took 
 place in the opinions of the Apostles, or of any 
 other Jewish converts, respecting the nature 
 or person of God. They speak and write of 
 Him as One, ordaining the salvation of the 
 world through Christ, and Himself sanctify- 
 ing those who were appointed to assist in the 
 work. Jesus ever spoke of himself as the 
 servant of the Most High, deriving his pur- 
 poses and his powers from on high, and ascri- 
 bing his achievements to the grace manifested 
 thence: 'I do nothing of myself; but as my 
 Father hath taught me I speak these things. 
 And he that sent me is with me: the Father 
 hath not left me alone; for I do always those 
 things that please him.' (John viii. 28, 29.) 
 *My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 
 If any man will do his will, he shall know of 
 the doctrine (whether it be of God, or whether 
 I speak of myself.' Johnvii. 16, 17.) Again, 
 in intimating the share which should be appor- 
 tioned to his disciples in publishing the new 
 dispensation, he says, *Ye are they who have 
 continued with me in my trials . And I ap- 
 point unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath 
 appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink 
 at my table in ray kingdom, and sit on thrones, 
 
35 
 
 judging the twelve tribes of Israel.* (Luke 
 xxii. 28, 29, 30.) It is not conceivable that, 
 anxious as he ever was to attract the attention 
 ofmentothe nature of his mission, and to 
 magnify the importance of the new covenant, 
 he should have concealed the most wonderful 
 and important circumstance belonging to it, 
 and have not only left men in ignorance of his 
 highest claims to their homage and obedience, 
 but have led them into it. That even his im- 
 mediate followers and the primitive Church 
 had no suspicion of the Christ being more than 
 the most exalted of God's messengers, we 
 have already declared our conviction; a con- 
 viction which is confirmed by every page of 
 their writings. Paul was careful to declare 
 'the whole counsel of God.' Yet in the pas- 
 sage of his writings in which, above all others 
 he exalts the Saviour, he tells how, for the 
 meekness >vith which he bore the honors which 
 constituted in him a resemblance to God, for 
 the humility with which he took on him the of- 
 fice of a servant, and the compassion which 
 caused his submission to the death of the cross, 
 — he was yet more exalted by God, and favor- 
 ed with that name which is above every 
 name, through which every man is privileged 
 
m 
 
 to worship, and every tongue permitted to 
 offer praise, confessing 'that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord to the glory of God the Father/ (Phil. 
 a. 5 — 11.) Peter, in the discourse by which 
 three thousand persons were converted to 
 Christianity, spoke of Jesus of Nazareth as 
 *a man approved of God by miracles, and won- 
 ders, and signs, which God did by him;' and 
 as being made Lord and Christ, raised from 
 death and exalted to heaven by God. John 
 repeats, in every form of expression, that, the 
 love of God was especially manifested by his 
 sending his Son to be the Saviour of the 
 world; and that as the Lord manifested his 
 love for us by laying down his life, we also 
 should be ready to lay down our lives for one 
 another. Jude addresses his Epistle to the 
 Christians as to men 'sanctified by God the 
 Father;' and in almost every apostolic bene- 
 diction and salutation we find the work of sanc- 
 tification as well as of grace ascribed to the 
 Father. 
 
 But it is more satisfactory as well as easy to 
 appeal to the whole body of the sacred writings 
 (wliich we confidently do, )than to separate passa- 
 ges for proof that God the Father is the sole orig- 
 
37 
 
 inator of every work of nature and of grace; 
 that as winds are his messengers, and flaming 
 fires his ministers in the world of matter, — 
 righteous men, prophets, apostles, and above 
 all, Christ, the Holy One, are his agents in 
 the administration of the spiritual world, and 
 the establishment of the dispensation of grace. 
 
 Jehovah being thus sole in the possession of 
 the attributes of Deity, is the sole object of re- 
 ligious worship; for to God alone may such 
 adoration be innocently paid. This assertion 
 rests not alone on the commands delivered 
 from above to the Israelites; though we hold the 
 authority of the second commandment of the 
 Decalogue, as it stands in Protestant Bibles, and 
 is included in the Jewish version of the com- 
 mandments, to be equal to that of any part of 
 the Mosaic law. *Thou shalt worship Jehovah 
 thy God, and him only shalt thou serve/ is a 
 summary of the entire purposes and details of 
 the first dispensation; and the fundamental 
 principle on which the second is based. 
 
 The prohibitions to the Jews to pray to any 
 but Jehovah are too numerous to be adduced, 
 and too clear to need any further notice than a 
 passing reference. That the Israelites are not 
 forbidden to seek the intercession of departed 
 
38 
 
 spirits is accounted for by their ignorance at 
 first of a life beyond the grave, and their 
 uncertainty respecting its value afterwards: but 
 that there was a total absence of all desire to 
 seek the intercession of a mediator in spiritual 
 communion, is evident. When Elisha stood by 
 Jordan to witness the ascent of Elijah, no 
 prayers were wafted to heaven in the chariot of 
 fire; no grace was sought through the medium 
 of the glorified prophet. When dangers com- 
 passed round the prophet and his servant in 
 Dothan, and a vision of heavenly hosts was 
 opened to them, no supplication was offered 
 through the radiant messengers; but Elisha 
 offered his prayer immediately to Jehovah. 
 He, with all his nation, would have felt the lib- 
 erty of direct communion with God too great a 
 privilege to be forgone, even if the notion had 
 occurred to them. No just fears which they 
 could entertain could be obviated by the em- 
 ployment of an intercessor; no desired blessing 
 could be so easily obtained as by a direct ap- 
 peal to the compassion of the Father of mer- 
 cies. It would have been well if the partakers 
 of a fuller measure of grace had, in this respect, 
 been like-minded with their ancient brethren; 
 had felt like them, that the highest spiritual 
 
^9 
 
 privilege is a free access to the divine presence, 
 the fairest spiritual promise that v^^hich declares 
 *If thou wilt call, Jehovah shall answer thee. 
 Come nigh unto me, and I will hear thee.' — 
 This privilege it was which Jesus himself used 
 most abundantly; and this promise he sanction- 
 ed by word and example, and taught his fol- 
 lowers to appropriate. He exhorted them to 
 pray as he himself prayed, in full assurance of 
 faith, freely and immediately. On no subject 
 were his teachings more explicit, or his own 
 practice and that of his Apostles more fully as- 
 certained. He taught them in what spirit, in 
 what manner, and for what objects to pray; 
 viz. believing that what they asked should be 
 given, that what they sought should be found; 
 — retiring into recesses where none could in- 
 termeddle with the communion of the heart; 
 seeking whatever is needful for the body and 
 the soul; supplies of the means of life, pardon, 
 grace and peace. After this manner his 
 followers prayed and taught others to pray. 
 Paul mingled prayers for forgiveness of his 
 early misguided zeal with thanksgivings for 
 the grace vouchsafed to him, and ascriptions 
 of praise to the supreme ordainer of salvation. 
 Peter prayed for strength to sustain persecu- 
 
40 
 
 tion, and for guidance in his mission. James 
 directed his hearers to ask of God, if they 
 sought wisdom. In all their exhortations to 
 prayer, however, there is no intimation of 
 a possibility that it may be offered otherwise 
 than immediately to Him to whom the Saviour 
 prayed. Believing^ as we are convinced they 
 did, that Christ was the son and servant of 
 Him who heareth prayer, and not authorised 
 to usurp that holy prerogative, no purpose 
 could be answered by addressing supplications 
 to him, but that of alienating the heart of the 
 suppliant from the prime Giver of good, and 
 no motive could be assigned for the act hut a 
 criminal distrust of the divine love, or a ground- 
 less hope of evading his justice; motives little 
 likely to actuate apostolic minds. To prevent, 
 however, the supposition that such motives 
 could have occurred, that the practice of praying 
 to Christ could have subsisted, we are in pos- 
 session of a declaration from Jesus himself 
 which obviates all doubt. When about to bid 
 farewell to his Apostles, and to resign himself 
 to death, he promised them comfort from above; 
 and from the fountain of prophetic light within, 
 casts gleams upon the stormy future for the 
 guidance of the trembUng pilgrims whom he 
 
41 
 
 left behind. He told them that joy should 
 visit the world through their sorrow; and that 
 his name, exalted by the results of his mission 
 and sanctified by death, should be the seal of 
 the rectitude of their prayers, and the pledge 
 of their success; while he distinctly disclaimed 
 any part in the reception of their prayers, any 
 assumption of the offices of mediation or inter- 
 cession. *Ye now have sorrow; but I will see 
 you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and 
 your joy no man taketh from you. And in that 
 day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily I say un- 
 to you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my 
 name, he will give it you. Hitherto ye have 
 asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall 
 receive, that your joy may be full. These 
 things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: 
 but the time cometh when I shall no more 
 speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show 
 you plainly of the Father. At that day ye 
 shall ask in my name ; and I say not unto you, 
 that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father 
 himself loveth you, because ye love me, and 
 believe that I came forth from God.' (John 
 xvi. 22-27.) 
 
 According to these sayings, the Apostles 
 made their requests for the more abundant 
 4 
 
42 
 
 effusions of grace in the name of Christ; but, 
 believing that the Father himself loved them, 
 they felt no need of other supplication than 
 their own, for benefits which he was more ready 
 to grant than they could be eager to receive. 
 If we may judge of their opinions by the re- 
 cords which remain, we should be convinced 
 that they regarded the Holy Spirit as a divine 
 power only, and not a divine person. As a 
 power, as influence exerted by God himself, is 
 the spirit spoken of in all the writings of the 
 Apostles; as when Paul expresses the relation 
 which the spirit bears to God to be the same 
 as the spirit of a man bears to man; 'What 
 man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
 spirit of man which is in him? Even so, the 
 things of God knoweth no man, but the spir- 
 it of God.' (1 Cor. ii. 11.) The mode in which 
 the operations of the spirit are described by 
 them is perfectly inconsistent with the notion 
 of its being a separate person. Converts were 
 said to be baptized with the spirit and j^/Zerf with 
 the spirit, and they were exhorted not to quench 
 the spirit. By the direction given to ^baptize 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Spirit,' nothing more was under- 
 stood by the primitive Christians, as we learn 
 
43 
 
 from themselves, than the duty of spreading 
 that religion which was given by God through 
 Jesus Christ, and comfirmed by miraculous 
 power, though, in comparatively modern times, 
 it began to be used as a form prescribed by 
 Christ. As a form it does not appear to have 
 been adopted by his followers, who seem to 
 have baptized in the name of Jesus only. 
 Like Christians of the present day, they believ- 
 ed the Holy Spirit to have been the same by 
 which the ancient prophets spoke; but, unlike 
 the modern belief their conviction evidently 
 was, that this spirit was the same which moved 
 on the face of the waters when the universe 
 was called up from chaos ; the same which was 
 manifested at Sinai; the same which filled the 
 temple of Solomon and abode in the Holy of 
 Holies; the same which wrought the works 
 which Christ declared were not of himself; the 
 same which was and ever shall be, ^above all, 
 through all, and in all.' They believed the 
 Spirit to be God himself, working in his crea- 
 tures 'to will and to do of his good pleasure.' 
 
 The peculiar endowments which were con- 
 ferred on the disciples in the apostolic age were 
 called the gifts of the Spirit; and the thanksgiv- 
 ings which were presented for them were always 
 
44 
 
 offered immediately to God, from whom every 
 good and perfect gift was known to come. When 
 this Spirit was spoken of as an impersonal ex- 
 istence, as an influence, a power, it could not, 
 of course, be made the object of worship any 
 more than the gifts it brought. When regarded 
 as a personal existence, i. e. as God, it was, of 
 course, the object of direct worship. But, as 
 possessing any power of intercession, we may 
 confidently declare it never was appealed to, 
 till the Christian theology had been mixed up 
 with the principles of the heathen philosophy. 
 Among all the figurative illustrations of the offi- 
 ces and powers of the Spirit, among all the high- 
 ly wrought personifications and bold metaphors 
 which characterize the Hebrew style of the apos- 
 tolic writings,we find no intimation that homage 
 may be offered, or intercession made, through 
 it or any existence whatever, personal or im- 
 personal. Even the highly figurative passage 
 which we meet with Romans viii. 25 — 28, and 
 which is, we believe, the chief basis on which 
 rests the practice of false worship in the Chris- 
 tian world, admits of no such interpretation as 
 is commonly given to it. It needs only a care- 
 ful reading of the whole chapter to perceive 
 thai: 'the spirit' there spoken of is not the Holy 
 
45 
 
 Spirit; not the immediate divine influence of 
 which we hear so much; but the new life sup- 
 posed to be introduced by the Gospel, in oppo- 
 sition to *the flesh* or evil principle by which 
 men were liable to condemnation under the old 
 dispensation. After declaring that the fulness 
 of salvation must be waited for with Christian 
 hope, the apostle continues, 'Likewise this spir- 
 it, also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not 
 what we should pray for as we ought, but the 
 spirit itself maketh intercession for us with 
 groans which cannot be expressed. But He who 
 searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind 
 of the spirit, that it intercedeth for the saints 
 according to the will of God. And we know 
 that all things work together for good to them 
 that love God, who are called according to his 
 purpose.' In the weakness of our nature, we 
 know not what most to desire and pray for, but 
 the spirit of the Gospel informs and aids us; 
 obtaining for us benefits which we could not 
 otherwise have enjoyed. And the benefits thus 
 obtained are such as the divine will designed 
 for us; all things thus tending to our good; the 
 divine purposes, the aids of the Gospel, and the 
 circumstances amidst which that aid supports 
 
 us. All this has a very clear reference, not to 
 
 4* 
 
46 
 
 any mediation of the Holy Spirit, to which there 
 is no allusion whatever; but to the agency of 
 the new dispensation in delivering men 'from 
 the bondage of corruption into the glorious liber- 
 ty of the children of God.' — If the intercession of 
 Christ be needless because the Father himself 
 loveth us, much more needless must be the 
 mediation of the Spirit, even were there such a 
 separate personal existence ; and yet more need- 
 less must be the good offices of Saints, suppos- 
 ing them capable of rendering such a service 
 to their mortal brethren. 
 
 Those who, like ourselves, derive their re- 
 ligious belief from the Bible alone, can scarce- 
 ly meet on the ground of argument those who 
 profess 'most firmly to admit and embrace 
 apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions,' if the 
 subject of discussion be other than the author- 
 ity of such traditions. On this discussion we 
 shall enter hereafter. It only belongs to the 
 present division of our subject to observe, 
 that, not admitting the authority of ecclesias- 
 tical traditions in matters of faith, and finding 
 in the Scriptures no intimation of homage be- 
 ing due to the mother of Christ, or the holy 
 men who glorified the Gospel in their lives 
 and deaths, we offer no such homage, and 
 
47 
 
 that the worship and invocation of such are 
 a direct infringement of the command, *Thou 
 shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only 
 shalt thou serve.' 
 
 It is not difficult to trace the origin and pro- 
 gress of a custom which, though founded 
 on a natural veneration for holiness sealed hy 
 death, is in our opinion more fatal to the purity, 
 and inimical to the dignity of the[Gospel that 
 any other which its professors have adopted. — 
 It was a custom in the early times of Chris- 
 tianity, to meet for worship at the tombs of the 
 Martyrs ; not for the sake of paying homage to 
 the departed, but because the survivors found 
 their devotional feelings more sensibly excited 
 there. Their imaginations were at the same 
 time possessed by the poetical fictions of the 
 pagan philosophy, which represented the souls 
 of the departed as hovering round the place of 
 interment, and conscious of what was passing 
 near. From this superstition arose the prac- 
 tice of making offerings annually in the name 
 of the deceased, as an acknowledgement that 
 jthey were still considered members of their re- 
 spective churches. This practice appears to 
 have been first adopted at the death ofJPoly- 
 carp, and to have speedily grown into a rite 
 
48 
 
 scarcely distinguishable from the superstitions 
 of heathenism. Tertullian observes, 'We 
 make oblations for the dead and for their mar- 
 tyrdom, yearly, on certain days.* At this 
 time it was the general belief that the usual 
 abode of the dead was in subterraneous places, 
 or at least 'below,' somewhere near the earth, 
 and as long as this belief subsisted, prayers 
 were offered/or the dead, — for their present 
 repose and joyful future resurrection. The 
 Virgin Mary was thus prayed for. As the 
 Martyrs were more highly thought of, however, 
 than other deceased Christians, it began to be 
 imagined, about the middle of the fourth cen- 
 tury, that they were, by peculiar favor, ad- 
 mitted earlier to the immediate presence of God, 
 and permitted to exert influence even over his 
 purposes. Then began the solicitations ad- 
 dressed to men doomed to death, that they 
 would be mindful of the survivors; and the 
 agreements of companions, that whichever 
 should first depart should petition at the foot 
 of the heavenly throne for his mortal friend. 
 In a few more years arose the custom of invok- 
 ing the spirits supposed to hover near the 
 tombs; some hesitation being implied in the 
 expression 'if they were indeed present, and 
 
49 
 
 had any influence in things below.' It was yet a 
 long time before prayer was offered to Saints 
 in general, and in the public services of the 
 Church. That the practice, if it had been 
 originated, was not approved by the Fathers of 
 the Church in the third century, we know on 
 the direct testimony of Origen, who says that 
 men are not to pray to any derived being 
 (not even to Christ himself), but to God the 
 Father of all. Austin disapproved of praying 
 for the Saints, though he believed that the 
 Church might be helped by their intercession ; 
 at the same time acknowledging, 'It is true the 
 Saints do not themselves hear what passes be- 
 low, but they hear of it by others who die and 
 go to them.' 
 
 The time when the custom of invoking the 
 Saints was first countenanced by the Church 
 may be fixed about the end of the fourth cen- 
 tury. In the fifth, all opposition to it had ceas- 
 ed, and the images of Martyrs began to be re- 
 garded with pecuUar honor; it being imagined' 
 by many that the homage paid to the image 
 drew down into it the propitious presence of 
 the celestial being whom it represented; in the 
 same manner as the statues of Jupiter and 
 other pagan gods were believed by heathen 
 
50 
 
 worshipers to become instinct with divine life . 
 The temples of the Martyrs were now, as The- 
 odoret informs us, ornamented with little fig- 
 ures, of gold and silver, representing eyes, 
 feet, hands, &c., deposited for the acceptance 
 of the lords of the temples, as memorials of 
 cures wrought by them on these several mem- 
 bers: these memorials proclaiming the power 
 of the dead; whose power, again, demon- 
 strates their God to be the true God. How 
 changed was this Christianity from that given 
 by him who forbade his followers to ask any- 
 thing even of him, because the Father him- 
 self loved them! 
 
 Concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, those 
 who have not vowed to admit ecclesiastical tra- 
 ditions as matters of faith, pretend to little 
 knowledge from the time of the death of Christ. 
 Her name is mentioned but once in the Book 
 of Acts, when she is enumerated among the 
 disciples who were collected after the ascension 
 of Jesus; and how and where she lived and 
 died, we have no means of ascertaining. The 
 first act of respect to her memory which is on 
 record is censured by Epiphanius, as 'a heresy 
 of the women.' It consisted of an offering of 
 cakes, prepared and offered by women only, 
 
51 
 
 and generally disapproved of, (though oblations^ 
 on tombs were then very common,) because it 
 was not known where she was interred. It may 
 be inferred, however, from the account given 
 by Epiphanius, that prayers were by some per- 
 sons offered to the Virgin, though he rebukes 
 the new superstition. The first person of au- 
 thority who is known to have introduced and 
 countenanced the worship of Mary, is Peter 
 Gnapheus, bishop of Antioch, who in the fiflh 
 century appointed her name to ^e invoked in 
 the prayers of the Church. If such homage 
 were her due, how came the Apostles and the 
 apostolic Fathers to withhold it from her ? Why 
 was her claim disallowed so long? 
 
 We can fully enter into, and are far from dis- 
 approving ofjthe natural curiosity which prompts 
 an inquiry into the fate of one whom all genera- 
 tions unite in calling blessed. When we pon- 
 der, as we cannot but do, her privileges above 
 all womanhood besides; when we imagine the 
 intentness of soul with which she must have 
 watched the course of her holy Son; perceiv- 
 ing perhaps before all others the manifestations 
 of divine grace in him; becoming more and 
 more elated in her hopes, as the presence of 
 God in him became more evident; trembling 
 
52 
 
 at the malignity of the rulers and the madness 
 of the people; and finally sinking in desolation 
 of heart when every vital hope appeared extin- 
 guished; we cannot but search for an authentic 
 record of what befell her after the day when 
 the beloved disciple took her to his own home. 
 But being convinced, as we are, that no such 
 record exists, we dare not fill up the history 
 with conjectures of our own; much less admit 
 the claims founded on fable and supported by 
 superstition, which are advanced in her favor 
 by writers who possessed no more knowledge 
 of her state than ourselves, and who were much 
 less impressed by experience with the impor- 
 tance of keeping religion pure, simple, and un- 
 defiled. We regard Mary as one of the most 
 interesting persons presented by history, but 
 as in no respect connected with the Gospel we 
 receive. Christianity was not revealed till 
 Christ became a man; and as Mary had no act 
 or part in its diffusion, she bears no other rela- 
 tion to us than as a being whose lot engages 
 our sympathies, and whose tender nature and 
 pious character should excite our affection and 
 emulation. For the same reasons, however 
 largely we may share the universal curiosity 
 respecting the state of the dead, however ra- 
 
53 
 
 tionally our philosophy may conceive, or how- 
 ever vividly our imaginations may represent 
 them as living, as observing the course of events, 
 as participating in our emotions, as enjoying 
 the manifest presence of God, we dare not 
 found any religious belief or practice on such 
 speculations. If our religious observances had 
 been in any way connected with the dead, we 
 should have known something of their state and 
 offices; but as no such knowledge is imparted, 
 as there was no pretension to it in the earliest 
 ages, and especially as Christianity clearly 
 points to God as the sole object of religious wor- 
 ship, we invoke the departed for no other pur- 
 pose than to satisfy our speculative doubts, we 
 attribute to them no other office than that of 
 endearing the past and hallowing the future, 
 and offer no other oblations than those of the 
 memory and the affections. Even if we be- 
 lieved them permitted to intercede for us with 
 our Father, we should be slow to seek their aid; 
 for if there be one privilege more precious than 
 another, it is that of direct, intimate commun- 
 ion with Him who knoweth our weakness and 
 our strength; if there be one provision more 
 sacred than another in the charter of our 'glo- 
 rious liberty,' it is that by which they who are 
 5 
 
54 
 
 far off and they who are near have equal acces^SF 
 unto the Father; not through the ministrations 
 of inferior spirits, but face to face in the sanc- 
 tuary of his presence. He is not only our 
 sure, but our near refuge ; not only our unfailing, 
 but our very present help; not only our hope^ 
 but our perpetual joy. The deepest of our 
 joys and griefs, those which it is most necessa- 
 ry to confide to Him who caused them, are ab- 
 solutely incommunicable to all besides; and 
 what is emphatically true of our self-commu- 
 nings, that 'the heart knoweth its own bitter- 
 ness,' is yet more true of spirit worship, *no 
 stranger intermeddling with its joy . ' 
 
 Having thus stated the grounds of our dis- 
 sent from that clause of the symbol ofPius IV. 
 which declares that 'the Saints reigning togeth- 
 er with Christ are to be honored and invocated, 
 and that they offer prayers to God for us,' it is 
 needless to notice what follows; viz. that their 
 relics are to be venerated; 'that the images of 
 Christ and the Mother of God, ever Virgin, and 
 also of the other saints, are to be had and re- 
 tained; and that due honor and veneration are 
 to be given to them.' Such practices we hold 
 to be utterly inconsistent with the principle that 
 God is the sole object of religious worship; 
 which principle is derived from what we have 
 
55 
 
 laid down as the first essential doctrine of Rev- 
 elation, — the Unity of Jehovah. 
 
 The next essential doctrine is, 
 
 II. The unlimited extent of the Redemption 
 by Christ. 
 
 A large proportion of the differences which 
 have arisen in the Christian world respecting 
 the doctrine of redemption, proceed from the 
 variety of meanings which is attached to the 
 term salvation. While one party understands 
 by it an admission to the privileges of the Gos- 
 pel, and a consequent emancipation from the 
 penalties of the old dispensation; another, the 
 state of virtue and peace which will prevail 
 when Christianity has compassed the globe; 
 and a third, a future state of perfect bliss in 
 contrast to one of eternal torment; there is lit- 
 tle hope of a mutual understanding respecting 
 the doctrine of Justification. Our part now is 
 to state our own views, and not to enter on any 
 discussion of those of others. 
 
 We believe that by salvation the Scripture 
 writers commonly signified the state of privi- 
 lege into which Christian believers were brought 
 by their adoption of the principles of holiness 
 and peace which the Gospel affords. Thus, 
 according to its original meaning, the term was 
 
56 
 
 appropriated to a state of comparative blessed- 
 ness in this world; but as the principles of the 
 Gospel exert the most powerful influence over 
 our spiritual state, over our capacity for happi- 
 ness in a future world, the term Salvation has 
 naturally and not improperly been accommoda- 
 ted to signify a state of future safety and bliss. 
 That it did not always mean this, however, is 
 evident to all attentive readers of the Scriptures; 
 as there is not one of Paul's epistles or discour- 
 ses which would be intelligible, if he were sup- 
 posed to declare his converts saved from the 
 pains of hell, instead of from the dominion of 
 the evils of heathenism, or the condemnation of 
 the Jewish law. By redemption, we understand 
 a release from the same evils and penalties effec- 
 ted by a sacrifice on the part of a benevolent 
 mediator. By remission of sins, we understand 
 the forgiveness and consequent remission of 
 punishment which are promised in the Gospel 
 on condition of repentance and newness of life. 
 By justification, we believe the sacred writers 
 sometimes to signify the process by which be- 
 lievers are released from all obligations incur- 
 red towards the old law, and brought into a state 
 of spiritual freedom; and sometimes that free 
 state itself. We conceive that this interpreta- 
 
67 
 
 tlon of terms — not new and arbitrary, but only 
 divested of the false associations which have 
 been long gathering round them — will clear up 
 most of the mysteries which obscure a very im- 
 portant Christian doctrine, and enable us, in 
 comparing scripture with scripture, to discern 
 a consistency of views and a depth of truth which 
 afford an irresistible evidence of their divine 
 authority . 
 
 The whole scheme of revelation we conceive 
 to be the method designed by the divine wis- 
 dom, and adopted by the divine benevolence, 
 for bringing the human race into a state of pu- 
 rity and peace more rapidly than could be ef- 
 fected by the religion of nature. The welfare 
 of the whole race was no less the object of the 
 Jewish than of the Christian dispensation, 
 though its apparent privileges were confined to 
 the peculiar people. These privileges, imme- 
 diately and positively advantageous to the cho- 
 sen people, were remotely and relatively so to 
 others, by establishing before their eyes evi- 
 dences of a divine moral government; and as 
 a moral government implies consistency of au- 
 thority, it affords a strong presumption of the 
 unity of the Governor. The Jews were led on 
 from the fundamental principle of the Divine 
 5* 
 
58 
 
 Unity to the apprehension of a divine moral 
 government; while observant heathens, per- 
 ceiving the moral results of the national vicis- 
 situdes of the Hebrew people, deduced thence 
 the truth of the Unity of the Deity. Mean- 
 while, both were advancing to a state of fitness 
 for a fuller revelation; the Jews more rapidly 
 than the heathens, as being specially placed 
 under the schoolmaster who was to bring them 
 unto Christ; but still, dispensing spiritual 
 benefits towards the heathen, for whose sake 
 as well as for their own they were placed in a 
 state of privilege. The old dispensation, though 
 a condition of light and privilege compared 
 with that of nature, was a state of darkness 
 and bondage when contrasted with Christiani- 
 ty. Though the Hebrews had more elevated 
 conceptions of God and clearer notions of du- 
 ty than the Gentiles, they yet could not appre- 
 ciate the riches of divine grace, or the extent 
 of divine and human relations, or the full beau- 
 ty of holiness. They were burdened by a 
 heavy yoke of ritual observances; an escape 
 from the penalties of the law was impossible; 
 and especially, they had no certain knowledge 
 /of a future life. The blessings therefore which 
 1/ Christianity offered, — ^the redemption from the 
 
69 
 
 bondage of the law, the remission of the penal- 
 ties of sin on repentance, the Justification by 
 which they were placed in a condition of spirit- 
 ual power and freedom, — were worthy of all the 
 exultation experienced and all the thanksgivings 
 expressed by those who were thus redeemed, 
 forgiven, and justified. These blessings were 
 yet more valuable to the Gentiles, in propor- 
 tion to the more rigorous bondage and deeper 
 moral darkness to which they had been sub- 
 jected. Instead of the strict but salutary dis- 
 cipline of the law, they had sustained the ty- 
 ranny of lawless appetites and passions, had 
 lived without other restraints than those of na- 
 ture; and had no hope in death, but the glim- 
 mering and uncertain presages which their own 
 faculties or long-corrupted traditions supplied. 
 The mode of preparation for the introduc- 
 tion of the Gospel affords a strong presumption 
 that its benefits were intended for the whole 
 race. The Jews had been led on to the point 
 when their spiritual development absolutely re- 
 quired a more expansive revelation; and the 
 Gentiles were prepared, by their observation 
 of the Hebrew people, and by their own wants, 
 sins, and sorrows, to receive with joy happier 
 tidings than their fondest hopes could antici- 
 
60 
 
 pate, and richer benefits than their desires 
 could previously have comprehended. The 
 benefits of the Gospel, afler being offered to 
 the Jews and partially accepted by them, were 
 freely held out to the whole human race, and 
 received by all who were conscious of the need 
 of them: so that the Gospel was truly what the 
 aged Simeon declared it, 'the salvation which 
 God had prepared before all people; a light to 
 lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his peo- 
 ple Israel.' 
 
 Yet there were many among the people of Is- 
 rael who were blind to this glory, and many of 
 the Gentiles who rejected this guiding light. 
 This rejection was not caused by any restric- 
 tive quality in the revelation, any provision in 
 the Gospel itself for the limitation of its privi- 
 leges: nor was it caused by any previous arbi- 
 trary decree of the ordainer of salvation, that 
 on account of some very ancient event, totally 
 unconnected with the present dispensation, a 
 large majority of the human race should be ren- 
 dered absolutely incapable of participating in 
 the blessings of redemption . It was occasion- 
 ed by the prejudices of narrow minds, by the 
 ignorance of darkened minds, by the spiritual 
 pride of presumptuous minds, by the petty 
 
61 
 
 hopes and fears of selfish minds, — prejudices, 
 ignorance and selfishness naturally arising in 
 the then state of the world, and not to be im- 
 mediately or speedily got rid of but by miracle: 
 a mode of agency which the Divine Being has 
 frequently made use of to sanction his revela- 
 tions, but never to prepare the human mind for 
 their reception. Thus spiritual ignorance and 
 moral blindness are, we apprehend, the only 
 obstacles to universal redemption; and we 
 firmly believe that these obstacles are only 
 temporary. The Gospel itself bears such an 
 indisputable character of permanence and uni- 
 versality (as we shall hereafter show), and so 
 evident a provision is made for the gradual dis- 
 sipation of darkness and error, that we may con- 
 fidently anticipate the time when the hope of 
 the Gospel shall be the rich possession of every 
 individual of every nation. 
 
 That it will be so we conclude, not from the 
 persuasion of our own hopes, or at the bidding 
 of our reason in opposition to the declarations of 
 Scripture; but because every principle derived 
 from the Gospel sanctions the commands of our 
 reason and affords a warrant of our hope. 
 There is in no Gospel, History, or Epistle, a 
 hint of any restriction or limitation of the bless- 
 
ings of redemption. Christ is ever spoken of 
 as having died for all; there are thanksgivings 
 in the name of all, invitations embracing all, 
 and anticipations of the ultimate bliss of all. 
 Those who are mourned over, reproached, en- 
 treated, compassionated, because they will not 
 accept freedom and peace, are spoken of as ex- 
 cluded by their own unfitness for grace, arising 
 from natural causes, and not by any sin of any 
 ancestor, or by any arbitrary decree of God, or 
 by any repellant and exclusive character in the 
 dispensation of grace itself. Its most distin- 
 guishing character, on the contrary, was its 
 boundlessness. Its first work was to throw 
 down the wall of partition which had separated 
 the favored people from others, to abolish arbi- 
 trary distinctions, to exchange the multifarious 
 conditions of the old law for the few, simple 
 and universal requisites of salvation declared 
 in the new. If other distinctions have since 
 been instituted, other conditions imposed, other 
 requisites insisted on, they are no part of Chris- 
 tianity, and shall no more impede its ultimate 
 prevalence than the cloud which shrouds the 
 lightning can prevent its shining from one part 
 of the heaven unto the other. 
 
 It may be objected, and with justice, that 
 
63 
 
 this method of considering the scheme of justi- 
 fication makes out the gift of grace to be only 
 ultimately and not strictly universal; unlimited 
 in its tendencies, but hitherto very limited in 
 the diffusion of its blessings: and hence may 
 arise an inquiry concerning the fate of those 
 who have died without the hope of the Gospel. 
 As to the limited spread of the Gospel thus 
 far, it is our business not to assign the final 
 cause of the fact, but to admit and reason on 
 the fact itself. The fact occasions no horror 
 in our minds, and less regret than is felt per- 
 haps by any denomination of Christians besides 
 ourselves; and for this reason, that we do not 
 hold perdition to be the only alternative to sal- 
 vation by Christ. We find no sanction for so 
 fearful a collocation of terms in the record of 
 the covenant; no mode of reconciling the doc- 
 trine thus originated with the attributes of Dei- 
 ty, or with our conceptions of justice, much 
 less of benignity. Moreover we can clearly 
 discern through what misconception the mon- 
 strous belief in the everlasting destruction of 
 unbelievers, whether by natural or moral neces- 
 sity, has sprung to birth. We believe it to 
 have arisen from the before-mentioned misap- 
 
64 
 
 prehension of the terms Salvation, Remission 
 of sins, and Justification. 
 
 To the enjoyment of the blessings of the 
 Gospel no alternative could be opposed but 
 their non-possession; to the remission of sins, 
 but their retention; to justification, but con- 
 demnation under the law. But it does not fol- 
 low that when these terms are shifted from 
 their original use, and accommodated to a sub- 
 ject to which they do not naturally belong, they 
 should be still opposed to each other, no others 
 being allowed to intervene. If it be general- 
 ly agreed to understand by Salvation a state of 
 perfect bliss afler death, it is well: but if any 
 man then choose to transfer the term Perdition 
 from meaning the loss of the privileges of Chris- 
 tianity to the loss of the happiness of heaven 
 and a consequent subjection to the pains of 
 hell, he goes further than the customary use of 
 language allows, further than reason can sanc- 
 tion, and much further astray from a true the- 
 ology than he can at present estimate, or can 
 hereafter sufficiently deplore. It is mournful 
 enough that myriads have died in ignorance 
 and error, that thousands have rejected offered 
 light; but no words can express the horror of 
 the popular doctrine of the eternal condemna- 
 
65 
 
 tion of all who have not died in the faith of 
 Christ, or our reprobation of the corruption 
 through which such a doctrine has been origin- 
 ated, received, and retained. While we be- 
 lieve that grace and truth came by Jesus 
 Christ, and that *all things are but loss for the 
 excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus 
 our Lord,' we cannot believe that wrath from 
 above and misery from below, sin from within 
 and darkness around, destined to be dissipated 
 only by the flames of hell, are the portion of all 
 but those who are equally happy with ourselves. 
 Our belief appears to us more consistent with 
 our apprehensions of the perfections of our Fa- 
 ther, with our interpretations of his providence, 
 and with the spirit of his revealed law. We 
 believe that though Christianity is the focus in 
 which all the lights of reason and religion are 
 concentrated, every ray is not there absorbed. 
 We believe that though shadows brood more 
 or less darkly over every heathen land, there 
 is in the most remote a glimmering of the dawn; 
 a ray which may direct the eye towards the 
 fountain of glory, and engage the attention to 
 watch the rising of that sun which shall set no 
 more. 
 
 We believe that the rewards of righteousness 
 6 
 
66 
 
 are promised to all; and that the practice of 
 righteousness is not limited to any kindred, 
 tongue, or people, or essentially connected 
 with any religious belief. We hold that retri- 
 bution is the universal sanction of the universal 
 moral law; and if the nature of the sanction be 
 more fully understood by Christians, and there- 
 fore practically admitted with greater readi- 
 ness, let them be as grateful as they will for 
 the great privilege, but beware of supposing 
 that the sanction is abolished to all besides. 
 Under the various obscurations of this sanc- 
 tion, savage virtue may be inferior to civilized, 
 — Hottentot to Roman virtue', as both are to 
 Christian holiness; but there is every reason to 
 believe that the savage who surrendered his 
 hard-earned meal to the hungry stranger, and 
 the Pagan senators and warriors who toiled 
 and bled for their country, were as sure of an 
 appropriate reward as the most benevolent and 
 heroic of Christians. 
 
 The unlimited nature of salvation in this 
 sense, leads us on to another great doctrine of 
 the Gospel; viz. 
 
 III. A Future State. 
 
 This truth, the most important to human im- 
 provement, the most interesting to human af- 
 
67 
 
 fections, was so fully brought to light by the 
 Gospel, that Christians have differed respect- 
 ing it no further than as to the time and mode 
 in which future retribution will take place. 
 That Jesus died on the cross, was inclosed in 
 the sepulchre, and was led forth thence by the 
 manifest power of God, are facts too well au- 
 thenticated to be questioned to any purpose by 
 the most hardy sceptic; and on them securely 
 rests the sublime belief which, from the midst 
 of obscurity, had already cheered the bereav- 
 ed, animated the martyr, and exalted the hopes 
 and fears of the great body of the Hebrew na- 
 tion. They had been led, like many of the 
 Gentiles, by the mournful questionings of their 
 affections, to inquire concerning a future state, 
 and at length to believe in it; but their indis- 
 tinct belief was widely different in nature and 
 far inferior in power to the firm and clear faith 
 with which the resurrection of Christ author- 
 ized them to look forward. Their former be- 
 lief was strong enough to reconcile them to 
 death; and perhaps they had sufficiently clear 
 convictions that the future life would be a 
 scene of retribution, to govern their own con- 
 duct by some regard to it; but the evidence 
 was not such as to authorize their pressing on 
 
/ 
 
 68 
 
 the minds of others the motives which the doc- 
 trine now affords. Without the evidence of 
 the facts of Christ's resurrection, Paul could 
 not have made Felix tremble at the prospect 
 of judgement to come; or have enforced the 
 duties of masters to their servants by consider- 
 ations of their accountability to a master in 
 heaven; or have felt how far better it was to 
 depart and be with Christ than to pursue his 
 earthly labors. Without this evidence, Stephen 
 could not have met his fate as if he had been 
 welcoming the hour of rest from which the 
 beams of a new day should awaken him. 
 Without this evidence, no one of the Apostles 
 could have passed through his labors and suf- 
 ferings with zeal, patience, and cheerfulness; 
 for we have their own testimony, that if in this 
 life only they had had hope in Christ, they 
 would have been of all men the most miserable. 
 Without this evidence, not only would the 
 hopes of millions who have since lived have 
 vacillated, the peace of millions have been at 
 the mercy of sickness and death, and their 
 spiritual strength in perpetual peril from temp- 
 tation, but the state of morals through the 
 whole civilized world, imperfect as it yet is, 
 would have been far inferior to what we see it, 
 
69 
 
 and could never attain the purity which we 
 confidently anticipate in some future age. 
 Without this evidence, Christianity would be 
 almost nothing; for the doctrine of future ret- 
 ribution is not only its most important revela- 
 tion, but it is so intimately connected with ev- 
 ery other, as a sanction, that the Church might 
 as well be supposed complete without its chief 
 corner-stone, as Christianity to be efficacious 
 if deprived of this last grand truth. This ev- 
 idence we have, however; and possessing it, it 
 is of comparatively little importance how wide- 
 ly men differ in their speculations as to the 
 time and mode in which the future life shall 
 succeed to the present, and as to the nature of 
 the rewards and punishments which shall fol- 
 low their probation. The belief in a certain 
 and righteous retribution is all that is enforced 
 upon us by Christianity, all that is a necessary 
 consequence of our faith in the resurrection of 
 Christ. Yet, as a tendency to unauthorized 
 speculation, and also a misapprehension of 
 some Scriptural expressions, appear to us to 
 have caused a very extensive forgetfulness 
 that retribution is not only certain, but will be 
 righteous, we must enter on some explanation 
 of our views respecting the extent of punish- 
 es 
 
/ 70 
 
 ment of which the life to come is to be the 
 scene. 
 
 We say respecting the extent only, because 
 the nature of the punishment is a subject of far 
 inferior importance, and one on which we pos- 
 sess so little light that it may fairly be left to 
 the imagination of each individual to conceive 
 for himself Some persons, perhaps the great 
 majority of every denomination of Christians, 
 believe that the pains of actual burning will be 
 inflicted on a corporeal frame, susceptible of 
 suffering in the same way as the body which 
 we at present inhabit, but rendered indestruc- 
 tible. Others conceive that the Scripture lan- 
 guage which describes the wicked as tormented 
 by fire is metaphorical, and that it clearly re-, 
 fers, by way of allusion, to the valley of Hin- 
 nom, where corrupt substances were devoured 
 by worms, and where human sacrifices were 
 offered by fire to Moloch. Such imagine that 
 the future sufferings of the wicked will be 
 purely mental, but not therefore the less severe 
 and awful. If it had been necessary to form 
 clear conceptions on this subject, a fuller light 
 would have been cast upon it; and as that ful- 
 ler light is not granted, we may fairly suppose 
 that we cannot at present understand the exact 
 
71 
 
 nature of the evil of which we are emphatically 
 called on to beware. But of the duration of 
 the evil, we believe ourselves so far qualified 
 to judge, as to anticipate that it will not be 
 eternal. 
 
 Our reasons for thus determining are vari- 
 ous. It is, in the first place, utterly inconceiv- 
 able that God should appoint to any individual 
 of his creatures a lot in which misery predomi- 
 nates over happiness. sOur belief in the Divine 
 prescience requires that we suppose the fate of 
 every man to be ordained from the beginning.^ 
 Our faith in the Divine mercy requires that we 
 should expect an overbalance of good in the 
 existence of -every being thus ordained; and 
 that in no case can the punishment be dispro- 
 portionate to the offence. Our faith in the Di- 
 vine benevolence inspires a conviction tliat all 
 evil is to be made subsidiary to good, and that 
 therefore all punishment must be corrective, all 
 suffering remedial . Thus far the light of nature 
 teaches us to anticipate the final restitution of 
 sinners. 
 
 It is confirmed by revelation, — by every pas- 
 sage of the sacred records which represents God 
 as a tender Father to all the human race, as 
 just and good, as incapable of being 'angry for 
 
ever,' or of taking pleasure in the punishment 
 of the wicked, and as chastising in mercy, for 
 corrective purposes. It is confirmed by every 
 passage which describes the good brought into 
 the world by Christ as overbalancing the evil 
 produced by the introduction of sin and death. 
 It is confirmed by every passage which prophet- 
 ically announces the triumph of the Gospel over 
 all adverse powers, — death, sin, and sorrow. 
 Above all, it is confirmed^by the whole tenor of 
 the preachings and writings of the Saviour and 
 his followers, — by the spirit of boundless be- 
 nevolence, of joyful faith, of exulting hope, 
 which is every where blended with their em- 
 phatic^ warnings of the perils of sin, and their 
 mournful regret for^^the infatuation of sinners. 
 It appears to us that against all this array of 
 evidence on the^one side, Jittje or none can be 
 adduced on the other. 
 
 That whichUs brought forward most frequent- 
 ly and with the most show of reason is the ex- 
 pressions commonly translated everlasting, and 
 which are applied both to the future happiness 
 of the righteous and misery of the wicked. These 
 terms (which are much less frequently applied 
 to a future state than is commonly supposed) 
 do not invj^riably signify 'everlasting' and *eter- 
 
73 
 
 nal,' as is evident from their being applied to 
 various institutions and states which have al- 
 ready come to an end and passsd away: as to 
 the covenant with Abraham, which is declared 
 to have been long since annulled; to the priest- 
 hood of Aaron, of which no vestiges remain; 
 and to the flames of Gehenna, which have been 
 quenched for ages. The strictly correct ren- 
 dering of the terms in these cases is permanent, 
 continual J lasting, and not absolutely eternal . 
 
 In order to reconcile the terms as usually 
 rendered with the attribute of Divine justice, 
 some Christians have imagined that the limited 
 punishment of the wicked will be followed by 
 immediate destruction; but this supposition 
 leaves the difliculty where it was before, and is 
 besides destitute of all support from reason or 
 Scripture; as it is incompatible with the char- 
 acter of the Divine dispensations that punish- 
 ment should be appointed for any but correc- 
 tive purposes, or that sin and sorrow should 
 triumph in the annihilation of any individual of 
 God's creatures. 
 
 If we are asked why then we firmly believe 
 in the immortality of the righteous? we reply, 
 that we found our faith on much better evidence 
 than the use of the terms we have now been 
 
74 
 
 considering. We believe it, because the hap- 
 piness of the creature is the fulfilment of the 
 ends of creation and providence; because hap- 
 piness is an eternal principle, while misery is 
 only a temporary influence; and because it would 
 argue imperfection in the Deity, if he were 
 either unable or unwilling to prolong a holy 
 and blissful existence. 
 
 This doctrine, — of the limited and corrective 
 nature of future punishment, — is often likened 
 by those who disbelieve and disapprove it, to 
 the Catholic doctrine of purgatory ; a likeness 
 which Catholics and Unitarians are perhaps 
 equally unwilling to admit, though the latter 
 have little doubt that the belief in purgatory is 
 a corruption of the genuine doctrine as they 
 hold it now. 
 
 It was the opinion of many of the Fatjbers in 
 very early times, that the world would be de- 
 stroyed by fire; that the good would be purified 
 by the process, and the v/icked consumed. It 
 is clear that they derived a part of this belief 
 from some other source than the Scriptures; 
 but it is equally clear that they had no notion 
 of an eternity of torment. Origen, Clemens 
 Alexandrinus, his master, with Gregory Nazi- 
 anzen, and others of the Fathers, held that the 
 
75 
 
 wicked would survive this punishment, and 
 come out purified and fit for a blissful state. 
 Tke Catholic doctrine of purgatory probably 
 arose out of some of these opinions, though it 
 embraces much which does not appear to have 
 entered into the imaginations of the Fathers. 
 Its substance, as declared in the councils of 
 Florence and Trent, is that every man is liable 
 both to temporal and eternal punishment for 
 his [sins; that the eternal punishment may 
 be escaped by faith in the atonement of Christ; 
 but that the temporal must be borne by the in- 
 dividual in this world or at his entrance on the 
 next; that the sufferings of those who undergo 
 purgation may be relieved by the prayers and 
 suffrages of their earthly brethren, though in 
 what manner this relief is wrought, whether by 
 a process of satisfaction, or of intercession, or 
 of any other method, it is not essential to true 
 faith to be certified. Neither is it necessary to 
 know where the place of purgation is; of what 
 nature its pains are, and how long sufferers may 
 be detained there. The belief in purgatory was, 
 for some ages, held by all Christians, except 
 the ancient Waldenses, who left the Church 
 of Rome before the doctrine was established 
 there, and who never admitted it. Soon after the 
 
76 
 
 Reformation, it was abandoned by all who left 
 the Church of Rome; so that it has since been 
 peculiar to that church. 
 
 Our reasons for rejecting it are, that we find 
 no trace of it in Scripture, and that, as we de- 
 clared before, we do not admit ecclesiastical 
 traditions as matters of faiths We also reject 
 the notion that any part of the punishment of 
 sin can be escaped through the sacrifices, or 
 mediation, or intercession of any being whom- 
 soever. We have been frequently accused of 
 impairing a divinely appointed sanction by as- 
 serting the limited extent of future punishment; 
 but we think that the sanction is, in reality, 
 abolished by the admission that the Divine de- 
 crees may be set aside by human acts, and that 
 the relations of good and evil, virtue and vice, 
 which are declared to be immutable, may be 
 changed at the pleasure of mortal agents. UNq 
 believe the punishment of sin to be of limited 
 duration ,*Jbut as certain as the existence of the 
 moral agent, and as little capable of remission 
 through the will of any created being as the law 
 which regulates the rise and fall of the tides, 
 the changes of the moon, and the revolutions 
 of the planets. We hold it to be awful, not on- 
 ly from its certainty, but from its concealed na- 
 
77 
 
 ture. It will doubtless transcend all that the 
 experience of earth can suggest to the imagina- 
 tion. Can it be said that we impair this sanc- 
 tion when we hold that the suffering consequent 
 on guilt is absolutely certain, lasting in its du- 
 ration, and inconceivably dreadful in its nature ? 
 What apprehensions could be fitted to excite 
 greater dread? 
 
 For the purpose of explaining why we be- 
 lieve that no part of the consequences of guilt 
 can be evaded through the sacrifices, media- 
 tion, or intercession of any being whatsoever, 
 it is necessary to pass on to the next division 
 of our subject. Having stated the three lead- 
 ing doctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God, 
 the unlimited scope of the plan of redemption, 
 and a future state, we now proceed briefly to 
 examine the principles of morals proposed by 
 the Gospel. 
 
 The fundamental truths of Morals are eter- 
 nal as He to whom they primarily relate, and 
 immutable as the purposes which they sub- 
 serve. But it is necessary that they should be 
 communicated to men under different forms and 
 according to various methods, as minds are 
 prepared to receive them: and their application 
 must also be regulated according to the cir- 
 
78 
 
 cumstances in which men are placed. The 
 same principle was proposed to Adam in Par- 
 adise, to Abraham in Beersheba, and to Paul 
 when he set his face steadfastly to go to Jeru- 
 salem, knowing that bonds and afflictions 
 awaited him there. Obedience to God was the 
 motive proposed for abstaining from the forbid- 
 den fruitj for sacrificing an only son, and for 
 facing suffering and death. But an intimation 
 which was all powerful with Abraham was in- 
 sufficient to secure a much less painful obe- 
 dience from Adam; and the self-devotion of 
 Paul was ennobled in all its manifold instances, 
 by its springing, not from so many express di- 
 rections, but from a principle, undeviating and 
 perpetual in its operation. In the infancy of 
 the race, it would have been utterly useless to 
 reveal the grand principles of morals in any 
 other way than that which was adopted, viz. by 
 exhibiting their application in various instances. 
 The Divine will was therefore made known in 
 express directions, probably very few in num- 
 ber at first, and gradually increasing in num- 
 ber and importance, so as to enable observers, 
 from remarking the similar tendency of several, 
 to infer a general principle from them. All 
 the records which we possess of the history of 
 
79 
 
 the race to the calling of the Israelites out of 
 Egypt, prove this to have been the method 
 adopted. The commands of God, and the 
 promises and threats by which they were sanc- 
 tioned, bore an analogy, in their gradual ele- 
 vation, to those by which we influence an 
 opening mind in its progress from the first 
 manifestation of intelligence to the age when 
 the power of conscience is recognizable. In 
 the Mosaic system, a considerable advance 
 was made, a direct appeal to conscience being 
 instituted, and the gradual revelation of amor- 
 al government being provided for. Men were 
 then taught, not what we now know, that the 
 relation between virtue and happiness, vice 
 and misery, is immutable (which they could 
 not have understood.) but that in their particu- 
 lar case, obedience to certain laws would se- 
 cure prosperity, and disobedience adversity. 
 Such obedience, the most virtuous were incited 
 to render, from a fear and love of God; but 
 they could not have rendered it in any but spe- 
 cified cases, because, not yet being made ac- 
 quainted with the principle as a principle, they 
 could not direct its application for themselves. 
 The case was the same with the other great 
 principle, Benevolence, as with Piety; and, ac- 
 
80 
 
 cordingly, the body of laws which was prepar- 
 ed for the Israelites was voluminous, and their 
 sanctions were expressed in a copious variety 
 of promises and threatenings, and embodied in 
 a burthensome ritual, consisting chiefly of pe- 
 nal acts. When the nation had thus been ex- 
 ercised long enough to prepare it for entering 
 on a new course of moral agency (as we pre- 
 pare a child for the spontaneous exercise of fil- 
 ial duty and fraternal love by a discipline of ex- 
 press commands and particular acts,) Christian- 
 ity was dispensed, and men were at length fur- 
 nished with the principles themselves, withwhose 
 application they were henceforth to be entrusted. 
 
 Christianity was designed to be permanent 
 and universal; and, therefore, though it was 
 first communicated in the form best adapted to 
 those who were first to receive it, it contains 
 within itself that which shall fit it to be a rev- 
 elation to the mind of man in every stage. 
 
 It contains eternal principles of doctrine and 
 morals, embodied in facts, which are the only 
 immutable and universal language. The char- 
 acter of Christ affords a never-failing sugges- 
 tion, and a perfect illustration of the principles 
 of morals ; a suggestion which only the most care- 
 less minds can fail to receive, and an illustration 
 
81 
 
 by which only the most hardened can fail to be 
 impressed . From him it was learned what part of 
 the moral law of Moses was to be retained and 
 what forgone ; how much was vital and permanent 
 and how much external and temporary. From 
 him it was learned, and shall be learned to the 
 end of time, how the sympathy which caused 
 tears at the grave of Lazarus, the compassion 
 which relieved the widowed mother of JVain, 
 the tenderness which yearned towards the re- 
 pentant Apostle, the diffusive love which em- 
 braced in its prayer all of every age and nation 
 who needed the gospel of grace, combined to 
 enforce and adorn the principle of Benevolence. 
 His parables are eloquent in their praise of 
 benevolence; his entreaties to mutual love are 
 urgent, and his commands decisive; but the 
 eloquence of his example is by far more 
 urgent and irresistible. From him it was, and 
 ever shall be, learned that the rule of life is to 
 be found in the will of God. From his devo- 
 tion to the work which God had given him to 
 do, from his perpetual reference of all things 
 to the Divine will, from his unhesitating sub- 
 mission to suffering and death, from his su- 
 preme delight in devotional communion, we 
 learn how Piety is the pre-eminent principle of 
 
82 
 
 feeling and action which men are required to 
 adopt. The parables which inculcate ready- 
 filial obedience and sorrow for disobedience, 
 the declarations that it was his meat and drink 
 to do the will of God, and that he was not 
 alone because the Father was with him, are 
 powerful enforcements of the principle ; but not 
 so powerful as the acts of obedience and resig- 
 nation in which its power shone forth. The 
 whole scheme of morals is comprehended in 
 the precepts, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and 
 strength, and thy neighbor as thyself;' but the 
 concentration of truth and beauty is less re- 
 splendant, less engaging, less universally clear 
 and interesting, than in the character of him 
 who deduced these two principles from all the 
 law and the prophets. 
 
 With these two principles, and all the sub- 
 ordinate ones which are derived from them, 
 are connected sanctions from above, which at- 
 test their origin and secure their adoption. By 
 an irreversible decree of Him who founded na- 
 tiiire and vouchsafed a revelation, certain states 
 of enjoyment and suffering are connected with 
 the practical adoption or rejection of the prin- 
 ciples of duty, not by way of arbitrary appoint- 
 
83 
 
 tnent, but of natural consequence. The rela- 
 tions of holiness and happiness, of guilt and 
 misery, are unalterable ; shown to be so by the 
 teachings of nature and experience, by the ex- 
 pUcit declarations of Scripture, and by every 
 species of evidence which the mind of man is 
 capable of receiving. 
 
 Though the chief object of the Christian 
 revelation was to make this relation more ev- 
 ident than it had ever been before, many who 
 received the Gospel imagine that it discovers 
 to them a means by which the relation may be 
 suspended or destroyed. This misapprehension 
 we hold to be more fatal in its moral conse- 
 quences than any other which human preju- 
 dice has originated. By what appears to us a 
 strange perversion of Scripture language, and 
 by the gradual increase of some subordinate 
 errors, it began to be imagined, some centuries 
 ago, that, though misery is necessarily connect- 
 ed with guilt, yet that the guilt may be perpe- 
 trated by one person, and the consequent mis- 
 ery endured by another; and this belief has 
 subsisted in almost every Christian church till 
 this day. It is well that it has been confined 
 to the churches, and that its application has 
 been limited, by all but Catholics, to one very 
 
 n 
 
84 
 
 peculiar case ; for if it had become the common 
 doctrine of our schools, and colleges, and 
 homes, if it had been enforced by parents and 
 moral philosophers and professors as a general 
 truth, as it is by divines with reference to a 
 particular case, the very foundations of virtue 
 would have been overthrown, and the force of 
 its sanctions not only wasted but fatally per- 
 verted. 
 
 Happily the accents of reason and religion 
 have been too distinct and harmonious to be 
 overpowered by the dictates of error, or very 
 extensively neglected. Notwithstanding all 
 that religious teachers have erroneously incul- 
 cated of the possible and actual separation of 
 guilt and its punishment on the principle of vi- 
 carious suffering, education has still proceed- 
 ed, and moral discipline been enforced as if no 
 such false principle had ever been advocated. 
 Children are swayed by hope and fear of the 
 consequences of their actions to themselves; 
 and self-government is enforced at a riper age 
 by the same motives, though enlarged and ele- 
 vated. In religion alone has an error, as ab- 
 surd in its nature as injurious in its tendencies, 
 been retained thus long by the force of preju- 
 dice; and that it has not spread further we 
 
85 
 
 hold to be owing to its manifest folly and to its 
 evidently noxious influence when applied to any 
 case but that to which it is appropriated. 
 There can be no surer proof that the principle 
 itself is false. 
 
 It is difficult to know where to begin in dis- 
 proving a doctrine which is repugnant to every 
 other doctrine, inconsistent with every received 
 truth, and incompatible with every admitted di- 
 vine and human relation, with every known at- 
 tribute of mind, divine or human . It will be suf- 
 ficient to state one reason for utterly rejecting 
 as we do the doctrine of vicarious suffering; 
 that reason being suggested and confirmed both 
 by our own understandings and by Scripture, 
 
 It is clear that no man can sin for another. 
 He may sin at the instigation of another, or 
 for the supposed benefit of another; but in the 
 first case, the sin remains with both, and in 
 the last, with the perpetrator only. Moral dis- 
 ease thus bears an exact analogy to natural dis- 
 ease. Natural disease may be communicated, 
 or even incurred for the benefit of another, but 
 it cannot be so transferred as to be annihilated 
 with respect to the person who was first subject 
 to it. The case is precisely the same with the 
 pain which is the inseparable consequence of sin. 
 
86 
 
 If endured by any but the sinner, it is actually 
 and completely disconnected with the sin. It 
 is no longer a punishment, but a gratuitous in- 
 fliction. This is so evident that, if proposed in 
 any court of justice but that from which our 
 purest conceptions of justice are derived, the 
 reason and conscience of every man would ex- 
 claim against the monstrous notion of a substi- 
 tution of punishment. If a man had trans- 
 gressed the laWs of his country by theft, would 
 he not be the most unjust judge upon earth 
 who would sentence his elder brother, known 
 to be innocent and virtuous, to imprisonment 
 or death for the offence ^ 
 
 Would the case be altered, except in the 
 way of aggravation, if the sentence were inflict- 
 ed at the desire of the innocent man } Would any 
 purpose of justice be answered by such a pro- 
 cess? Would not every principle of equity — 
 to say nothing of benevolence — be violated.^ 
 Would not the sufferer be as foolish and blind 
 in his submission as the judge arbitrary in the 
 infliction.^ Is it not utterly impossible that a 
 transaction, perfectly analagous in principle, 
 though infinitely more momentous in its influen- 
 ces, should take place between the just Judge, 
 the tender Father of men, a creature made fal- 
 ible by Him, and His holy and beloved Son } 
 
87 
 
 ^ But we are told it is not for us to argue thus on 
 the right and wrong of a transaction which has 
 taken place, and is continually taking place, 
 by Divine appointment. It is enough that God 
 has appointed this method of salvation. 
 
 The lawfulness of examining the Divine de- 
 crees with intent to understand them, will be 
 discussed hereafter. Our business now is to 
 declare why we do not believe this to be the 
 appointed method of salvation, set forth in the 
 sacred records. Repentance (^including not 
 merely shame and sorrow for sin, but newness 
 of life) appears to us to stand forth on the face 
 of the sacred records as the grand, the sole, 
 condition of forgiveness of sins. The faith in 
 Christ, which is so strenuously insisted on as 
 a requisite, is valuable as inducing sorrow for 
 sin and purity of life. Our obligations to 
 Christ, which are so vividly described, are due 
 to him for the benefits he has bestowed on us 
 through his Gospel, and not for any subsequent 
 arbitrary gift, which we feel it impossible for him 
 to have offered, for us to avail ourselves of, 
 and for God to accept. Our obligations to 
 him are boundless and eternal; — for having de- 
 voted and sacrificed his life to furnish us with 
 the conditions of salvation, — ta teach us re- 
 
88 
 
 pentance, and incite us to holiness. He was 
 truly a sacrifice for men; he suffered and died 
 because they were sinners, and in order to 
 bring them salvation. This the Scripture 
 teaches, and this we readily admit; finding, 
 however, no intimation that any sin has ever 
 been forgiven on any other condition than that 
 of repentance; that repentance has ever failed 
 to procure forgiveness; that any being whatev- 
 er has at any time exercised or possessed the 
 power of separating sin and suffering by tak- 
 ing either upon himself, or of transferring both 
 from the consciousness of another to his own; 
 that if the endurance of suffering by substitu- 
 tion were possible, it could not be righteous; 
 or that if it were not unrighteous, it could be 
 available to any beneficent purpose. Finding 
 none of these suppositions, but all their oppo- 
 sites in the spirit and detail of the sacred re- 
 cords, we absolutely reject the popular doc- 
 trine of the atonement by Christ, while we re- 
 gard his sacrifices for us with reverential grat- 
 itude, and our obligations to him with awe and 
 rejoicing. 
 
 The more attentively we ponder his instruc- 
 tions and the more amply we estimate the ben- 
 efits he brought us, the more conscious do we 
 
89 
 
 become of the impiety of withholding from the 
 Supreme Author of our salvation the gratitude 
 and praise which are due to his free, unpur- 
 chased grace. It is given through Christ, but 
 it originates in God. It comes through a me- 
 diator; but that mediator was appointed, in- 
 formed, guided by God. "Fb him Christ ascri- 
 bed, not only the acceptance of his sacrifice 
 and mediation; but the design in which it 
 originated, the means by which it was wrought, 
 and the end which it should ultimately accom- 
 plish; and the more we contemplate the de- 
 sign, become acquainted with the means, and 
 joyfully anticipate the end, the more eagerly 
 do we join with Christ in ascribing to Jehovah 
 the glory and the pf'aise. 
 
 We will now explain our meaning in saying 
 that the Catholics alone, of all Christians who 
 have admitted the doctrine of satisfaction for 
 sin, have not restricted its application to one 
 very peculiar case. They have been perfect- 
 ly consistent in not so restricting it; and they 
 would have been more extensively consistent 
 if they had gone as much beyond the point 
 they have reached, as they have beyond the 
 Church of England and the disciples of Calvin. 
 If the principle be sound, it will bear a bound- 
 
90 
 
 less application; if it be unsound, it can be no 
 part of revelation, and should be instantly relin- 
 quished. If atonement for sin by a transfer- 
 rence of punishment be possible in any case, 
 it cannot be pronounced impossible in any 
 similar case. If spiritual guilt can be atoned 
 for by ritual sacrifices, in any instance, no 
 one knows that it may not in any other instance. 
 Therefore if the Church of England holds 
 that the Jewish sacrifices were in strict analo- 
 gy with that of Christ, they cannot reasonably 
 condemn the offering of the mass, and pious 
 gifts offered by the innocent on behalf of the 
 sinner. Neither can the Calvinists, who re- 
 gard the Mosaic offerings as atonements for 
 spiritual sin, consistently object to the practice 
 of penance, or the principle of granting indul- 
 gences. It appears to us that there is no ten- 
 able ground between the ultimate extension of 
 the principle and its absolute rejection, — be- 
 tween dissolving to each individual the con- 
 nection between guilt and punishment, and as- 
 serting that connection to be absolutely indis- 
 soluble: thereby maintaining the genuine Scrip- 
 ture doctrine that repentance alone can obtain 
 remission of sins. 
 
 The lawfulness of the practice of penance 
 
91 
 
 and the enjoyment of indulgences is, we per- 
 ceive, defended by Catholics as being estab- 
 lished on the same ground as the Jewish sac- 
 rifices. They expressly state that the eternal 
 pain due to guilt cannot be removed by indul- 
 gences, or averted by penance, but only the 
 temporal pain over which the death of Christ 
 has no power of remission. This bears a 
 strong analogy to the case of the Mosaic sac- 
 rifices, which were ceremonial atonements for 
 breaches of the ceremonial law, and were not 
 of themselves, as is universally allowed, intend- 
 ed to avert the penalties of spiritual guilt. 
 But this analogy yields no countenance to the 
 Catholic practices we are considering, unless 
 it can be proved that two distinct species of 
 punishment were divinely ordained, and two 
 distinct methods of atonement prescribed. And 
 even if this were proved, the case would not 
 be complete: for though we should suppose 
 two kinds of punishment, and two methods of 
 reconciliation appointed, it is further necessary 
 that the offender should be liable to two dis- 
 tinct species of offence; a position in which 
 none but an ancient Jew was ever placed. 
 
 The Divine sanctions were altogether so dif- 
 ferent under the Jewish from what they are 
 
92 
 
 declared to be under the Christian dispensa- 
 tion, that no analogy which can be instituted 
 between them will hold with any completeness. 
 A future state of retribution formed no part of 
 the revelation made to the Jews. To them, the 
 ultimate punishment which they could antici- 
 pate was national adversity, which was the in- 
 fallible consequence of moral guilt (unless 
 averted by repentance), as ritual penalties were 
 were the necessary atonement for breaches of 
 the external law. Of Christians, a higher obe- 
 dience is required, — a more spiritual devotion 
 to the will of God; and this higher obedience is 
 enforced by more elevated sanctions. Chris- 
 tians are free from the Divine imposition of ex- 
 ternal observances, and therefore from all di- 
 vinely appointed external penalties. They are 
 to worship in spirit and in truth; to yield the 
 obedience of the heart; and all their outward 
 manifestations of devotion are of human ap- 
 pointment; — salutary, no doubt, and even nec- 
 essary to the maintenance of piety, but still 
 optional, possessing only a derived value, and 
 in their very nature incapable of being made 
 atonement for sin. Spiritual atonement, i. e. 
 repentance, is the only atonement which the 
 Gospel prescribes or supposes possible for 
 
98 
 
 spiritual guilt. Reparation indeed is to be 
 made by the guilty to the injured person, when 
 the case admits of it; but this reparation does 
 not constitute the atonement, nor does it par- 
 take of the nature of penance. It is only an 
 external atonement for an external injury, and 
 is an evidence that the spiritual atonement, — 
 repentance, has been already made . It bears 
 a relation to that class of offences only which 
 immediately respects our fellow-men, and is 
 impracticable in cases where the offence is 
 against God and ourselves. In such cases, 
 external penance bears no other relation to the 
 offence than such as the weak will of man has 
 originated; — a relation arbitrary, unsanctioned 
 by God, and therefore perilous to man. 
 
 This relation, being thus arbitrary, fails of 
 the object for which it was established. Their 
 belief in the efficacy of penance is thus stated 
 by Catholics. (We copy from the universally 
 accredited work, entitled 'Roman Catholic 
 Principles in reference to God and the King,' 
 first published in 1680, and ever since acknowl- 
 edged as a faithful exposition.) 'Though no 
 creature whatsoever can make condign satis- 
 faction, either for the guilt of sin, or the pain 
 eternal due to it, this satisfaction being proper 
 
 n 
 
94 
 
 to Christ our Saviour only, yet penitent sin- 
 ners, redeemed by Christ, may, as members of 
 Christ, in some measure satisfy by prayer, 
 fasting, alms-deeds, and other works of piety, 
 for the temporal pain which, in the order of 
 Divine justice sometimes remains due, after 
 the guilt of sin and pains eternal have been 
 remitted. Such penitential works are, not- 
 withstanding, no otherwise satisfactory than as 
 joined and applied to that satisfaction which 
 Jesus made upon the cross, in virtue of which 
 alone all our good works find a grateful accep- 
 tance in the sight of God.' 
 
 As we have already stated our opinion re- 
 specting the nature of the sacrifice of Christ, 
 we have only to inquire, in our examination of 
 this passage, into the meaning of the words 
 temporal pain. If they be intended to signify 
 the natural evil consequences of sin in this 
 world, it is clear that no penance of human in- 
 stitution can avert them; since the very effica- 
 cy of this penance would prove these conse- 
 quences not to be natural but arbitrary. A 
 man who has defrauded his neighbor cannot 
 preserve or recover his character for honesty, 
 or secure the confidence of those around him 
 ^by prayer, fasting, almsdeeds, or other works 
 
95 
 
 of piety/ The means are not adapted to the 
 end. The method he must pursue, and the on- 
 ly one which can be used with effect, is to re- 
 store that which he had unjustly obtained, and 
 to persevere in a course of integrity till the rec- 
 titude of his motives becomes unquestionable. 
 If in the meanwhile he employs prayer, fasting, 
 and alms-deeds as means of rousing his highest 
 affections and confirming his virtuous resolu- 
 tions, he may find them so far efficacious; but 
 the removal of the temporal pain, the stain upon 
 his reputation, is not ascribable to them, but is 
 the consequence of his well attested repent- 
 ance. 
 
 But it appears doubtful whether we have 
 rightly inter [>reted the words temporal pain', 
 since the being obnoxious to this pain is one 
 of the qualifications for the discipline of purga- 
 tory. We wish that an exact account could be 
 obtained of its real nature: though, be it what 
 it may, it is clear to us that no natural penalty 
 can be averted by so arbitrary an institution as 
 that of penance. The clause on indulgences 
 is as follows. We quote the doctrinal part of 
 it, that we may avoid the danger, of which it 
 warns us, of charging on the Church such 
 abuses or mistakes as have been sometijies 
 
96 
 
 committed in point of granting and gaining in- 
 dulgences, through the remissness or ignorance 
 of individuals. 
 
 *The guilt of sin, or pain eternal due to it, is 
 never remitted by what Catholics call indulgen- 
 ces; but only such temporal punishments as re- 
 main due after the guilt is remitted: these in- 
 dulgences being nothing else than a mitigation 
 or relaxation, upon just causes, of canonical 
 penances, enjoined by the pastors of the 
 Church on penitent sinners, according to their 
 several degrees of demerit.' 
 
 Our conviction of the absolute inefficacy of 
 canonical penances to obtain the end for which 
 they are practised having been stated, we pro- 
 ceed to consider the legitimacy of the power 
 hy which such acts are imposed, and a remis- 
 sion from them granted. We shall ground our 
 arguments on some of the subordinate princi- 
 ples, which are clearly deducible from the pri- 
 mary principles of doctrine and morals which 
 we have already stated and arranged. 
 
 One of these principles, whose claim to ad- 
 mission is seldom unequivocally denied in the- 
 ory, though too often practically disallowed, is 
 Christian Liberty, — the indefeasible right of 
 evepy man to freedom from all human control 
 
97 
 
 in spiritual concerns. This comprehends the 
 right of entire privacy of conscience, of exemp- 
 tion from all inquiry and interference in spirit- 
 ual matters, of examining, interpreting, com- 
 paring and understanding the sacred records 
 under a responsibility to none but God; and of 
 forming, changing, and announcing opinions 
 without hinderance or molestation. We are 
 aware that this principle is seldom carried out 
 to its utmost length, even in speculation; and 
 as seldom is it absolutely rejected. But, as 
 we have said with respect to another principle, 
 and as we would say of all, let it be put to the 
 test of reason and experience; and if sound, 
 let it be fully admitted with all its consequen- 
 ces; if unsound, let it be discarded. The pro- 
 cess of attestation which we have instituted 
 obliges us to receive it unhesitatingly, and to 
 act on it unreservedly. 
 
 The primary spiritual relation of men is to 
 God; their highest subordinate relationj is to 
 each other. Their conduct in the subordinate 
 relation is to be regulated by a regard to the 
 primary ; but the primary relation is not to be 
 invaded by any influences from below. The 
 relations between man and man are established 
 by God and guided by Him to the fulfilment 
 
98 
 
 of purposes known only to Him, except in so 
 far as it has pleased Him to reveal them. The 
 relation of the mind of man to its Maker is, on 
 the contrary, so intimate as to admit of no in- 
 tervention ; and of a nature which cannot be 
 affected by any influence whatever. This re- 
 lation may be unperceived ; (though there is 
 perhaps no instance on record of its being so) 
 it may be heedlessly forgotten; it may be, as 
 alas! it too often is, obscured by the shades of 
 vice or the influences of spiritual tyranny; but 
 it can never be usurped or changed; and the 
 time must come when this indissoluble relation 
 shall be recognized and claimed as comprehend- 
 ing all the manifold privileges of existence. 
 The course of nature seems designed to lead 
 men to its perception, and the grand object of 
 revelation is to blazon it forth; while every in- 
 timation of its nature describes it as sacred 
 from all invasion. Every manifestation of the 
 Divine will must, therefore, be made to each 
 individual mind as exclusively as if no other 
 mind existed. The religion of nature, though 
 iadopted in various countries, and amidst its 
 different aspects among diflferent nations, em- 
 braced by myriads under every form, is yet a 
 bond between God and every individual man 
 
99 
 
 ns complete as if that man alone had been cre- 
 ated. In like manner the Gospel is a covenant 
 between God and the human race only as it is 
 a covenant between God and every individual 
 of that race who shall embrace it: and there 
 can be two parties only to the transaction, — he 
 who offers the conditions, and he who accepts 
 or rejects them. To no one has the Author of 
 this covenant deputed the power of imposing 
 the conditions, or of judging how far they have 
 been fulfilled, or of passing sentence accord- 
 ingly. To none could he depute this power 
 without making him, in fact, the only person 
 with whom the inferior party has to do, i. e. the 
 God of the inferior party. It may be objected 
 that we argue upon a metaphor; but, let the 
 Gospel be regarded under every possible as- 
 pect, the same truth will still be demonstrable, 
 — that between the Creator and the created 
 no created power can, without the Divine con- 
 currence, interfere; and that in the spiritual 
 creation, the powers requisite for interference 
 being above those of humanity, such concur- 
 rence never can have been, and never can be 
 granted. 
 
 If the nature of Christian obedience had been 
 different, — if it had been ritual instead of spir- 
 es 
 
100 
 
 itual, it may be conceived possible that God 
 might have committed to man the power of judg- 
 ing and sentencing; but the things of the heart, 
 the desires, the struggles with temptation, the 
 silent conflicts, the unapparent defeats and vic- 
 tories of conscience, are known and can be 
 known by none but God. Through the medi- 
 um of confession alone can one man gain any 
 insight into the spiritual state of another; and 
 no medium can be more deceptive. It is per- 
 haps impossible for the most conscientious mind 
 to communicate to the most congenial fellow- 
 mind a faithful detail of the thoughts, wishes, 
 hopes, and fears of any single hour; and if it 
 were possible, the fellow-mind would still be 
 incapable of forming an estimate of the spiritu- 
 al statCjOr of directing the necessary discipline; 
 because the apparent results of operations which 
 he does not understand are all the materials 
 that he has to judge from; whereas the object 
 of discipline is to rectify the operations them- 
 selves. If a man confesses to his bosom friend 
 that his devotional feelings have been for some 
 time past sensibly weakening; that he looks 
 on the beautiful world of nature with apathy, 
 and thinks on the perpetual presence of God 
 without awe or delight; that his spirit is dead 
 
101 
 
 in the public offices of devotion, and roving 
 when it ought to be fixed in prayer; his friend 
 may mourn with him o^e.f So-painfuJ, '^i\' expe- 
 rience, and suggef^t, more pr l,ess wisely, meth- 
 ods of arousing -the' sleeping faCujt?<^s* a>id 
 kindling anew the failing fires of devotion. 
 But he does this as an adviser, and not as a 
 judge; for the power of judging is not given to 
 him. He knows not whether the origin of the 
 distemper be bodily or mental : he knows nothing 
 of the thousand influences, from within and from 
 without, which have of late modified the del- 
 icate processes of the intellect and the soul. 
 He cannot therefore know what restorative 
 influences are most needed; whether mute con- 
 verse with nature or busy intercourse with 
 men; whether the terrifying or the alluring ap- 
 peals of the Gospel; whether the awful claims 
 of the Divine holiness, or the mild persuasions 
 of the Divine compassion; whether any or all 
 of these, or of the manifold influences besides 
 which are perpetually dispensed by Him who 
 knoweth our frame, but have never been confi- 
 ded to the empirical disposal of man. 
 
 If, as is evidently the case, all human judg- 
 ment of sin and holiness is comparative instead 
 of positive, and therefore ever changing as the 
 8t 
 
102 
 
 means of comparison become more ample and 
 the faculty stronger, it is manifestly impossible 
 for ariy one mirid'td T6vi>i tin exact estimate of 
 the qualities of another by aay but its own im- 
 p^rfe'c1>^'a4*V^ryihg mea-suretand since to God 
 alone are the principles of morals present in 
 their complete development, to Him alone can 
 their infallible application belong. The agency 
 of men on each other is appointed accordingly. 
 They may confess their sins one to another 
 for their mutual relief and guidance; but such 
 confession must be strictly voluntary, and 
 carefully disconnected with all inclination to- 
 wards spiritual usurpation on the one hand and 
 subservience on the other. 
 
 There is no subject on which the sacred wri- 
 ters are more explicit than this, and none on 
 which their practice exhibited a more eloquent 
 commentary. Hear what the Apostle of the 
 Gentiles asserts in defence of the spiritual lib- 
 erty of the least enlightened members of the 
 Church, who were, as he believed, in error re- 
 specting some modes of practice which were 
 very important at that time. 'Him that is 
 weak in the faith, receive ye ; but not for doubt- 
 ful disputings. One believeth that he may eat 
 ^11 things; but another who is weak eateth herbs 
 
103 
 
 only. Let not him that eateth despise him that 
 eateth not; and let not him that eateth not 
 judge him that eateth; for God hath received 
 him. Who art thou that judgest the servant 
 of another.? To his own master he standeth or 
 falleth. But he shall be established, for God 
 is able to establish him. It is written, *As I 
 live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to 
 to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' 
 So then every one of us shall give account of 
 himself to God. Let us not therefore judge 
 one another any more.' (Romans xiv.) This 
 was the rule which the Apostle observed in all 
 his transactions with the infant churches which 
 referred their spiritual concerns to him, as their 
 father and guardian in the faith. He denounc- 
 ed guilt, expounded the faith, guarded against 
 error, and used every method of argument, 
 persuasion, and entreaty, with which his head 
 and heart could furnish him to establish them 
 in righteousness; he set before them every mo^ 
 tive of hope and fear, and faithfully declared 
 the whole counsel of God, as bound by his of- 
 fice, and privileged by his unequalled qualifica- 
 tions; but he throughout abstained from inter- 
 meddling with any man's conscience, not only 
 by direct interference, but by indirect influence. 
 
104 
 
 Let us see how scrupulous was his regard to 
 liberty of conscience. 'I know and am per- 
 suaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing 
 unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any- 
 thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. All 
 things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that 
 man who eateth with offence. It is good 
 neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any- 
 thing by which thy brother stumbleth, or is of- 
 fended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? 
 Have it to thyself before God.' (Romans 
 xiv.) A yet more eminent example is on re- 
 cord, whose conduct bears a reference to a 
 case of still more awful responsibility than that 
 instanced by the Apostle. *If any man hear 
 my words and believe not, I judge him not: for 
 I came not to judge the world, but to save the 
 world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth 
 not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the 
 word that I have spoken, the same shall judge 
 him in the last day. For I have not spoken of 
 myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave 
 me a commandment what I should say and 
 what I should speak. (John xii. 47 — 49.) 
 How, in the face of these declarations, can 
 men impeach the faith and pronounce sentence 
 on the practice of their brethren, assuming 
 
105 ' 
 
 their own judgments as the standard of truth, 
 and their own conceptions as the measure of 
 hohness ? How, in the face of these declarations, 
 can ministers of the Gospel have ever grasped, 
 as a right, the power which Christ himself dis- 
 claimed; not leaving judgment till the last day, 
 but delivering over to reproach and death those 
 who were 'weak in the faith,' or perplexed with 
 'doubtful disputations'? How, in the face of 
 these declarations, can priests of any church 
 have denied that to his own master every man 
 stands or falls, and have made close inquisition 
 into the secrets of the soul, pretending to un- 
 derstand its errors, and presumptously under- 
 taking to cleanse its secret faults by methods 
 which no voice from above has sanctioned as 
 lawful, and no sign from on high has shown to 
 be efficacious? Could such inquisitors and 
 such priests (and they are to be found in every 
 Church) have mingled with the followers of Je- 
 sus, they would have cried out for fire from 
 heaven on the Samaritans, notwithstanding ev- 
 ery prohibition; they would have questioned 
 the sinful Mary, not satisfied with her loving 
 much, till they had ascertained how much; 
 they would have pronounced the young lawyer 
 very far from the kingdom of God unless he 
 
106 
 
 could have made a fuller profession of faith; 
 and, meeting the adulteress in the outer courts 
 of the temple as she left the mild presence of 
 Jesus, would have prescribed her penance with 
 a rigor well pleasing to the accusers, who were 
 themselves too modest to cast the first stone. 
 Since Jesus, who knew what was in the hearts 
 of those around him, forbore to condemn, 
 much more ought they to forbear who have no 
 such knowledge. If he awarded no punish- 
 ment to those who rejected the Gospel he un- 
 derstood so well, much less should they who are 
 themselves but learners inflict pain of body or 
 mind on their fellow-disciples who understand 
 differently, or the unbelievers who cannot un- 
 derstand at all. If he who spake as his Father 
 commanded him left it to the Father to enforce 
 these commands, it ill becomes those on whom 
 the Spirit has not descended to assume an au- 
 thority which inspiration itself could not sanc- 
 tion. It becomes them to learn what they 
 themselves are, before they judge how little 
 their brethren are what they ought to be. It 
 becomes them to ascertain their own superior- 
 ity over the Apostles, before they claim an au- 
 thority with which no Apostle ever believed 
 himself to be invested; and which, if he had so 
 
107 
 
 imagined, he would have prayed for permission 
 to resign. Far less perilous, far less burden- 
 some would be a commission from on high to 
 guide the seasons, to dispense showers and 
 sunshine, and regulate the produce of the 
 fields, than to control the spiritual movements, 
 and administer the fertilizing influences under 
 which the fruits of holiness are to spring up un- 
 to everlasting life. 
 
 That any such commission was ever given, is 
 as tru e in the one case as in the other ; and the be- 
 lief of any individual that to himself it was ever 
 confided, is a proof of unsoundness in heart or 
 brain. To any man it is honor enough, as it 
 was to Paul and Apollos, to plant and to water. 
 To God alone it belongs to give and to meas- 
 ure the increase. 
 
 We therefore disapprove of the practice of 
 confession as adopted by Catholics, for one 
 reason among many, that it infringes liberty of 
 conscience, by making man practically ac- 
 countable to man, and countenancing an as- 
 sumption of that power to judge and punish 
 which belongs to God alone . The punishments 
 of canonical penances are, it is true, of human 
 institution; but they are awarded to spiritual 
 guilt, of which no one has a right to take 
 
108 
 
 cognizance but God. We therefore deny the 
 right of any man to impose penances, or, in 
 consequence, to issue indulgences; and we 
 hold that wherever such a right is claimed, 
 the prerogative of God is invaded and the cause 
 of his Gospel injured. 
 
 Christian liberty secures to every man the 
 right, not only of reading the sacred records 
 for himself, but of interpreting them for him- 
 self; of ascertaining by his own unbiassed 
 judgment what they teach, and of holding 
 the opinions thus formed without being account- 
 ble to any man or to any body of men. In 
 advocating the free perusal of the Scriptures 
 and the formation of individual opinions from 
 them, we shall be careful to avoid any bias 
 from the popular and false impression, that 
 the faithful pastors of the Catholic Church 
 would prohibit their flocks from reading the 
 Bible: and we shall enter on no discussion 
 respecting the comparative fidelity of Catholic 
 and Protestant English translations of the 
 Scriptures. On the latter point, much must 
 be said, if anything; so much, that no room 
 would be left us for matters of greater impor- 
 tance. Important as it is that the sacred books 
 should be faithfully rendered, that it should be 
 shown how long-prevalent errors, supposed to 
 
109 
 
 be countenanced by them, are not so counte- 
 nanced; important as it is, for instance, to decide 
 whether the sacred teacher said 'Repent,' or 
 *Do penance,' it is yet more important to de- 
 velope the principles to which all modes of ex- 
 pression are subservient: to attend to the spirit 
 rather than the letter, to establish truths and 
 explode errors to the perception of which 
 every intellect is adequate, than to debate 
 matters to which, though of inferior moment, 
 peculiar qualifications are requisite. 
 
 We willingly accept the following testimony 
 of Fenelon to the fact of the unrestricted use 
 of the sacred writings in the early times of 
 Christianity ; though we dissent from the con- 
 cluding remark. The passage is translated 
 from a letter from Fenelon to the Bishop of 
 Arras. (CEuvres Spirituels de Fenelon, 8vo. 
 tom. 4, p. 241.) 'I think that much trouble 
 has been taken in our times very unnecessarily, 
 to prove what is incontestible, than in the 
 first ages of the Church the laity read the 
 Holy Scriptures. It is clear as daylight, that 
 all people read the Bible and service in their 
 native languages; that as a part of good edu- 
 cation, children were made to read them; that 
 in their sermons, the ministers of the Church 
 
110 
 
 regularly explained to their flocks whole books 
 of the sacred volume; that the sacred text of 
 the Scriptures was very familiar to the people; 
 that the clergy exhorted the people to read 
 them; that the clergy blamed the people for 
 not reading them, and considered the neglect 
 of the perusal of them as a source of heresy 
 and immorality. But in all this the Church 
 used a wise economy; adapting the general 
 practice to the circumstances and wants of 
 individuals. It did not, however, think that a 
 person could not be a Christian, or not be 
 well instructed in his religion, without peru- 
 sing the sacred writings. Whole countries 
 of barbarians, innumerable multitudes of 
 the faithful were rich (to use the words of 
 St Paul) in words and science, though they 
 had not read the sacred writings. To listen 
 to the pastors of the Church who explain the 
 Scriptures to the faithful and distribute among 
 them such parts as are suited to their wants, 
 is to read the Scriptures.' 
 
 This last proposition is in perfect accordance 
 with the creed which declares that 'to the holy 
 Mother Church it belongs to judge of the true 
 sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,' 
 but inconsistent with the principle held by 
 
Ill 
 
 US, that no man has the power of judging fbr 
 another or the right to prescribe the opinions of 
 another. * What then is to be done/ it is asked, 
 'with those who cannot read for themselves?' 
 They must take what they can obtain from 
 their pastors, or from any other medium of 
 communication. If the medium be as faithful 
 as human fallibility allows, much truth may be 
 learned and the means of holiness may be 
 abundantly aiforded: but yet the learner is 
 precluded by his ignorance from the full enjoy- 
 ment of his Christian liberty; and to hang on 
 the lips of his instructor is far, very far from 
 being the same thing as reading the Scriptures 
 for himself 
 
 Such a 'wise economy' as Fenelon speaks 
 of seems to us but a fleshly wisdom, a narrow 
 policy originated by men, discountenanced by 
 God, and available to perpetuate, not the Gos- 
 pel itself, but the corruptions which were ear- 
 ly mixed with it, and which will not stand the 
 test of examination. Who was to decide what 
 'parts were suited to their wants?' Who 
 knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of 
 a man which is in him? Who gave the power 
 of prohibition to read the Scriptures over such 
 as 'were not disposed to read them to their ad- 
 8t 
 
112 
 
 vantage?' Who was to judge of the disposi- 
 tion; who could discern the tendency of inqui- 
 ry; who could estimate the advantage and dis- 
 advantage of the results? How dared the 
 Church to 'withhold from the laity the perusal 
 of the Bible without permission of their pastors,' 
 from the assumption that it was 'unsafe to allow 
 the people at large to read the sacred text?' 
 How unsafe? For the Gospel itself? The 
 Divine care would have provided a prevent- 
 ive or a remedy, if the danger had been real. 
 For the honor of God ? He would have made 
 provision for its vindication. For the spiritu- 
 al welfare of the people ? It could not have 
 been injured by the free use of the means 
 ordained to perfect it: nor was it ever the pro- 
 vince of pastors to promote that welfare by 
 other means than the Gospel authorizes. And 
 where is the patent for the monopoly of the 
 Scriptures to be found? But it is alleged that 
 there are many passages in the sacred volume 
 which, being hard to be understood, are 
 wrested by the unstable and the ignorant to 
 the destruction of the purity of their faith. 
 True. But the case was the same in the days 
 of the Apostles; and did Peter ever desire 
 that Paul's writings should therefore be kept 
 
113 
 
 back from the unlearned and unstable? Or 
 did he enjoin an explanation of them from the 
 wise, to which the foolish should be required 
 to assent? No; he recommended caution in 
 giving heed to other men's errors, and growth 
 in the knowledge of Christ Jesus; both which 
 must be better promoted by independent 
 thought and judgment than by subservience 
 to any mind, however pure and enlightened. 
 Christ himself, though he knew what was in 
 man, never required this subservience from 
 any one of his followers. He gave his instruc- 
 tions in as many different forms as we have 
 them in now: in discourses, in parables, in fa- 
 miliar dialogue, and by actions; and invariably 
 he left to the hearers the application of the 
 principles thus conveyed, except when press- 
 ed by his immediate followers for an interpre- 
 tation. He took no pains to preserve his Gos- 
 pel from 'the rash criticisms of the vulgar,' as 
 the piety of Fenelon erroneously advises. He 
 did not act upon the belief that previous in- 
 struction was necessary to the comprehension 
 of the word of life, or that 'the people should 
 be full of the spirit of the Gospel before they 
 are entrusted with the letter.' The letter of 
 the Gospel now is the same as the letter of 
 9 
 
114 
 
 the Gospel then; the spirit now, as then, is 
 only to be got at through the letter; and the- 
 letter now, as then, is only valuable as it com- 
 municates the spirit. Christ did not think that 
 'it should only be permitted to the simple, the 
 docile, and the humble; to those who wish to 
 nourish themselves with its divine truths in 
 silence; and withheld from those who merely 
 seek to satisfy their curiosity, to dispute, to 
 dogmatize, to criticize.' This doctrine of 
 Fenelonis, we are told, and ever has been, the 
 doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Were 
 the disciples to whom Christ spoke of the bread 
 of life and who therefore forsook him, 'docile 
 and humble I' Yet what saying was more 'hard 
 to be understood?' When he declared the na- 
 ture of his Gospel, and the authority under 
 which he proposed it, were the Pharisees in 
 the temple 'simple and docile t' Was there no 
 disposition 'to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize' 
 among the elders, the scribes, the Sadducees 
 whom he referred to his works, assured of 
 the temporary nature of the Jewish coven- 
 ant, and besought to« listen to the truth 
 which should make them free? The glad 
 tidings of salvation were then preached, as they 
 ought to be now, to the poor and ignorant 
 without fear that what is truly the Gospel can 
 
115 
 
 be dangerously misapprehended, and without 
 intimation that the faith needs the interpretation 
 of fallible understandings, or the guardianship 
 of human wisdom. 
 
 If we believed (which we do not) that error 
 in matt-ers of faith could of itself endanger sal- 
 vation, — i.e. exclude from the happiness of a 
 future state, — we should be convinced that 
 those were much more liable to error who 
 adopted the faith after it had passed through a 
 fallible mind, than those who received it from 
 Christ himself, speaking directly, as in fact he 
 does, in the faithful records which the Bible 
 presents. And the more feeble and ignorant 
 the recipient mind, the more liable will it be to 
 admit the errors of others, as well as to origin- 
 ate some of its own. While, if referred to the 
 sacred volume itself for his faith, a man is in 
 danger of entertaining no errors but his own. 
 However imperfect his mental vision may be, 
 he is thus more likely to behold the object in 
 its true form and colors, than by the interposi- 
 tion of a faulty medium. If it be objected that 
 the medium, so far from being faulty, corrects 
 the imperfections of the natural faculty, we ask 
 for the test of its possessing this quality, and 
 for the proof that it was ever conferred. 
 
116 
 
 But, being convinced, for reasons given be- 
 fore, that the possession of the true faith is not 
 an indispensable requisite for future happiness, 
 and that the non-possession of it is not to be 
 followed by eternal misery, or by any arbitrary 
 infliction whatever, we cannot admit the plea 
 of care for the souls of men as any reason or 
 excuse for trenching on the natural liberty of 
 the mind, or prescribing opinions which Christ 
 himself only administered the means of forming, 
 and which his Apostles presumed not to impose. 
 Purity of faith is the most exalted attainment 
 of the most exalted mind, — the richest of the 
 myriads of rich blessings which the Father of 
 our spirits has placed within our reach. It 
 should be sought as the most precious of all 
 treasures; it should be guarded as the most 
 sacred of all trusts: but though it may be won 
 by any, it can be communicated by none. It 
 is the especial reward of individual search, and 
 loses its very nature by being transferred: for 
 that which is truth to a man who has discover- 
 ed it for himself, can be truth to another man 
 only so far as his faculties are exercised upon 
 it, apprehend, and adopt it. This, which maybe 
 justly said of all truth, may be especially de- 
 clared of religious truth, which is of no value 
 
117 
 
 unless made a vivifying principle, and can 
 never become a vivifying principle unless per- 
 ceived by the understanding and recognized 
 by the heart. 
 
 The true office of the pastors of the Church 
 (and likewise of all believers) is to lead others 
 to that knowledge of the truth which can never 
 be imposed. Their concern for the spiritual 
 welfare of their brethren can never be too 
 earnest; their diligence in guidance and guar- 
 dianship, too eager; their value for purity of 
 faith, too high; or their apprehension of spirit- 
 ual danger, too ready or too ardent. But all 
 this concern and apprehension should be justly 
 directed, and this guidance and guardianship 
 exercised with a regard to the rights with 
 which God has invested every man. The first 
 -object to be desired is spiritual advancement, 
 to which intellectual rectitude is subsidiary. 
 The first object of dread is moral corruption, 
 and not mental error. The guidance to be ex^ 
 ercised is that of an experienced over an inex- 
 perienced person. The one points out to the 
 other the snares and dangers into which he is 
 liable to fall, the labyrinth in which he may lose 
 himself, and the various tendencies of different 
 
 paths; but he has no lawful power to insist up- 
 9# 
 
118 
 
 on a particular path being pursued, or to con- 
 demn his companion to destruction for inter- 
 preting differently the invitation on which they 
 both proceed. The guardianship is faithful as 
 long as it consists in warning off the attacks 
 of temptation, declaring the threats and promi- 
 ses of the Gospel, and educating for indepen- 
 dent action; but it becomes tyranny when re- 
 straints are imposed on the exercise of the 
 faculties, and any impediments are thrown in 
 the way of a free range through the spiritual 
 world of which God has made every man an 
 inhabitant. It is the office of Christian pastors 
 to study the sacred records with all diligence, 
 striving to ascertain by the help of learning 
 and philosophy, and every other help, what 
 the true faith is, and how other minds may be 
 best disposed for its apprehension; to place be- 
 fore those minds whatever may best tend to 
 enlighten, convince, and establish them; to ex- 
 cite them to activity and stimulate them to fur- 
 ther action when aroused. But further than 
 this they must not go. The mind must work 
 out the results for itself; and for those results 
 none but itself can be answerable. Its safety 
 or peril rests with God, who hath given into 
 no man's hand the souls of his brethren. 
 
119 
 
 It is justly observed by Catholics, that many 
 of the very persons who complain of the dis- 
 couragement by them thrown in the way of 
 the general perusal of the Scriptures, circulate 
 the Book of Common Prayer of the Chui^ch of 
 England ^as a safeguard against the misinter- 
 pretation of the Bible,' and by their doubt and 
 dread of the consequences of making the Bible 
 common, seem to admit the probability and dan- 
 ger of such misinterpretation. It is very true 
 that such inconsistencies obtain among Protes- 
 tants, and such inconsistencies will exist as 
 long as there is any dread of carrying out a 
 good principle to its full extent. If all Protes- 
 tants adhered to the grand principle of the 
 Reformation, that the Bible alone is the reli- 
 gion of Protestants, there would not only be 
 no damnatory clauses in their creeds, but no 
 creeds, — no embodying in an unchanging form 
 of words principles which were given in no such 
 form, which cannot be received under the same 
 aspect by minds differently prepared, and which 
 are too expansive in their nature to be long 
 confined within arbitrary limits of human im- 
 position. The Church of England forsakes 
 its fundamental principle of dissent from the 
 Roman Catholic Church when it would secure 
 9t 
 
120 
 
 uniformity of faith by framing articles of faith, 
 by keeping back the Bible from the feeblest in- 
 tellect, or appointing]'a safeguard/ or interfer- 
 ing in any way between the Bible and the 
 minds which are to derive their religion from 
 it. If uniformity of faith cannot be thus ob- 
 tained, it is a necessary consequence of the 
 Protestant principle that uniformity of faith is 
 not necessary to salvation. This consequence, 
 which we fully admit, the Church of England, 
 in the letter and spirit of her articles and 
 creeds, inconsistently denies. 
 
 It is manifestly absurd to exhort a man to de- 
 rive his faith from the Bible, if it is declared to 
 him beforehand what he is bound at his eternal 
 peril to believe. Yet this is in fact done, when 
 the Book of common Prayer is circulated as a 
 safeguard to the Bible, and also when a 
 Catholic is made to declare on his admission to 
 the Church, * I also admit the Sacred Scriptures 
 according to the sense which the holy Mother 
 Church has held and does hold,' &c. For 
 purposes of faith, all use in reading the Bible 
 is over when this declaration is made. The 
 disciple can only, while striving to learn his 
 duty from the sacred pages, wonder at what 
 he finds there; — at the appeals to individual 
 
121 
 
 judgment; at the addresses to the intimate con- 
 sciousness of every man; at the freedom allow- 
 ed and encouraged among the first Christians; 
 at the absence of all pretension to authority in 
 matters of opinion, of all wish to prescribe, of 
 all tendency to domineer. If he be intelligent, 
 it will occur to him as surprising that no creed, 
 if creeds be good things, was given by our Sa- 
 viour to his Apostles before he left them, weak 
 and divided in the faith as they at that time 
 were. And again, when they were strong and 
 united, but when doubt and disagreement were 
 creeping into their churches, it must seem 
 strange that Christ, who manifestly watched 
 over the interests of his Church, should not 
 have authorized and communicated a profes- 
 sion of faith more ample and particular than 
 that which had hitherto accompanied baptism; 
 viz. that Jesus was the Christ, and that remis- 
 sion of sins came by repentance . 
 
 Finding no trace of the Apostles' Creed 
 among all the sacred books, he will inquire in- 
 to its origin, and discover that it was not com- 
 posed by the Apostles, =^ and that when, in an 
 evil hour, it was proposed for general adoption, 
 
 '^(♦See'Lord King's 'Critical History of the Apostles' 
 Cieed.' 
 
122 
 
 its main purpose was to exclude the Gnostics, 
 who would have mixed up their false philosophy 
 and vain deceits with the simple faith in Christ 
 which then, as now, constituted a man a Chris- 
 tian. Having gone thus far, the disciple begins 
 to doubt whether he has hitherto possessed and 
 exercised the spiritual liberty which is his birth- 
 right. If he pursue the inquiry he will, un- 
 doubtedly cast off the restraints which man's 
 wisdom has imposed on his faculties, and inter- 
 pret, judge, and believe for himself If he 
 look back to his promise to admit the sense of 
 Scripture only as the Church declares it, and 
 renews that promise, he must lay aside every 
 hope of purifying and strengthening his faith 
 by his scriptural studies. Henceforth it will 
 indeed be, as Fenelon declares, the same thing 
 to him to read the words of Christ, and to hear 
 an explanation of them from his pastor. Not for 
 this were the Berseans cited as an example by 
 Paul ; not by these means was Timothy prepar- 
 ed for his extensive labors; not thus did A pol- 
 ios learn how to apply his vigorous talents to 
 the service of the infant churches. All these 
 men searched the Scriptures, knew the Scrip- 
 tures from their youth up, were learned in the 
 Scriptures, from which they ascertained for 
 themselves the promise of Christ's coming, and 
 
123 . 
 
 themselves applied the tests which proved 
 that Jesus of Nazareth was this Christ. 
 4L Every man has a natural right, not only to 
 form his opinions for himself, but to change 
 them as frequently as he shall believe himself 
 led to do 80.^ This natural right is not only 
 sanctioned, but its exercise is approved, by the 
 Gospel. As long as the opinions of men are 
 not absolutely right, as long as they fall short 
 of the truth as it will be perceived in heaven, 
 there is room and occasion for a change; and 
 such a change, wherever recorded in the 
 New Testament, is recorded with approbation. 
 Where was there ever a more extensive change 
 of opinion than in Apollos on his conversion.^ 
 Yet in his youth, Apollos was as orthodox, as 
 undoubtedly correct in his religious opinions 
 before the introduction of Christianity, as any 
 Christian who now subscribes all the creeds of 
 the Catholic Church. But what would have 
 been the consequence if he had engaged never 
 to ' take and interpret the Scriptures otherwise 
 than according to the unanimous consent of 
 the' Rabbis; or if he had promised, vowed, and 
 sworn most constantly to profess his present 
 faithVhole and entire, with God's assistance, 
 to the end of his life ? It is true that no reve- 
 
124 
 
 lation is likely to supersede the faith of Chris- 
 tians; but it is, at the same time, as little pro- 
 bable that no developement of the principles ^f 
 Christianity should cause gradual changes of 
 opinion in the course of a lifetime, as it then 
 was that Judaism should not be expanded into 
 the fuller revelation of the Gospel. If, like 
 ApoUos, we believe rightly now, it is impossi- 
 ble to answer for no change of opinion being 
 necessary to enable us to believe rightly twen- 
 ty years hence. The view which we have al- 
 ready taken of the expansive tendency of the 
 eternal principles of Christianity authorizes our 
 declaring that a gradual enlargement of views, 
 i.e. change of opinions, is a necessary conse- 
 quence of the correct apprehension of religious 
 truth. 
 
 Creeds are intended to be permanent and uni- 
 versal professions of faith; and are the instru- 
 ment by which a uniformity of faith is to be 
 secured, if such a thing be yet possible. But 
 creeds never have fulfilled, and never can ful- 
 fil, any one of these purposes. No uniformity 
 of faith has existed since the first creed was 
 framed; no one formulary has been universally 
 received among Christians; and experience al- 
 ready indicates, what the lapse of time will 
 
125 
 
 prove, — that no creed will be permanent. If 
 the most ancient of creeds, commonly called 
 the Apostles', be named in answer to the last 
 remark, let it be remembered that the first ver- 
 sion of this formulary given by Irenseus, and 
 the subsequent ones by Tertullian, Cytil of 
 Alexandria, and others, were as widely differ- 
 ent from those now in use as from each other. 
 Widely different versions of this creed are 
 used in the Catholic Church and the Church 
 of England;, and those who subscribe to the 
 same form of words understand those words 
 variously. The permanence of this most an- 
 cient of creeds is in name only; and the name 
 itself is a false assumption. 
 
 Creeds cannot be permanent and universal, 
 unless the language of which they consist is 
 also permanent and universal; which no lan- 
 guage has ever been. There is no test by 
 which it can be proved that any two minds 
 affix precisely the same meaning to the com- 
 monest terms; while we have abundant evidence 
 that very abstract terms (such as abound in 
 creeds) convey very different notions to differ- 
 ent minds. Thus, if the terms of a language 
 were absolutely immutable, and if one language 
 prevailed over the whole earth, there would 
 
126 
 
 i' 
 
 Still be room for a variety of interpretations of 
 anything expressed in that language. But the 
 mutations which time occasions in every tongue, 
 and the necessity of translation and re-transla- 
 tion, increase a thousandfold the chances of 
 such a variety, and indeed render it absolutely 
 unavoidable. 
 
 Itis well, therefore, that the truths of religious 
 doctrine cannot be made one with the language 
 in which any age or nation chooses to clothe 
 them, as that language is necessarily mutable. 
 And it would be well if believers were henceforth 
 and for ever to desist from the attempt to con- 
 nect what is mutable with what is immutable, 
 that which is perishable with that which is im- 
 mortal, by requiring the present age to adopt the 
 language of the past, and providing for a similar 
 adoption by the future. If they wish the spiritual 
 conceptions of former ages to be perpetuated, 
 this may best be done by changing the terms 
 as their meanings become modified, and not 
 by retaining them the more pertinaciously, the 
 more varied are the conceptions they originate. 
 If the Gospel itself had been inseparably con- 
 nected with any form of language, or embodied 
 in anything but facts, it would ere now have 
 passed away, or have been so far transformed 
 
127 
 
 as to be a different religion. It would have 
 been untranslateable ; it would have been un- 
 transferrable to any country beyond that in 
 which it originated; it would have been unin- 
 telligible to succeeding generations of even na- 
 tive inhabitants of that country. It is only in 
 so far as Christianity is disencumbered of for- 
 mularies of faith, and emancipated from the 
 guardianship of Councils, that it becomes the 
 religion of mankind. The metaphysical claus- 
 es of the Apostles' Creed, and the canons of 
 the Council of Trent, may contain the belief 
 of a few, a very few, speculative minds. The 
 declaration that God sent Christ Jesus into 
 the world to save sinners, contains the sub- 
 stantial belief of Christendom, which will be 
 the faith of the whole world, — because it is 
 Christianity. i 
 
 It is as impossible for a man to prescribe to 
 himself the faith of his future years, as for one 
 age to prescribe the faith of a succeeding age: 
 and for the sam« reasons. He may in his 
 youth state an opinion in unambiguous terms, 
 and with perfect sincerity, which, if he still 
 hold, he cannot state in the same terms ten 
 years after. The opinion may be substantially 
 the same, and yet have such a bearing upon - 
 
128 
 
 some other opinion, or may be so modified by 
 some other opinion that the same form of words 
 may not express it fully, or perhaps correctly. 
 It is yet more probable that the conceptions 
 which are now attached to the terms are en- 
 'W larged by his improved experience; so that, if 
 he would declare the same truth, he must change 
 his terms; or if he can conscientiously retain 
 the terms, he must have modified his opinion. 
 What enlightened, reflecting Christian under- 
 stands exactly the same by any one parable, 
 any one axiom, any one fact of Scripture that 
 he did when he first admitted its truth .^ He 
 believed it then; he believes it now; but how 
 diflerently since science has brought new ev- 
 idence to light, since philosophy has develop- 
 ed its origin and tendencies, since experience 
 has tested its truth, and faith invested it with 
 a hallowed interest and an indestructible beau- 
 ty! How, therefore, is it possible for anyone 
 faithfully to engage that his views even of eter- 
 nal truth shall never be modified! Witness- 
 ing, as every reflecting man does, the gradual 
 evolution of truth from the vicissitudes of hu- 
 man experience, and from the successive dis- 
 pensations and the progressive course of Prov- 
 idence, he may with safety declare that Gospel 
 
129 
 
 truth is immutable and divine; but he will avoid 
 the presumption of supposing that all her rich- 
 es are already shed into his bosom, that her 
 brightest light is poured upon his feeble eye. 
 He will rather hope that his apprehension will 
 continually become clearer, his powers invigo- 
 rated, and his capacities enlarged, till his 
 views of religious truth become as unlike what 
 they were when first admitted, as the fair face 
 of nature appears to the new-born infant and to 
 the mighty poet. He will reject, as an infringe- 
 ment of his inalienable rights, every attempt to 
 bind him down to engagements which it may 
 not be in his power to fulfil. He will refuse to 
 promise that his intellect shall remain station- 
 ary; and to permit that any individual, any 
 council, or any church, shall usurp that spirit- 
 ual influence which he trusts shall be immedi- 
 ately dispensed from the fountain of grace and 
 truth. Desiring wisdom, he asks of God; not 
 profaning and annulling his prayer by engag- 
 ing to receive it only in certain measure; and 
 if any church on earth interfere to prescribe 
 the measure, he rejects the interference as un- 
 authorized by the letter of the Gospel and con- 
 demned by its spirit. 
 
 Christian liberty comprehends an entire free- 
 
130 
 
 dom from restraint in the publication of opin- 
 ions. To his own master every man standeth 
 or falleth, not only in the formation of his opin- 
 ions, but in the use he makes of them when 
 formed. According to his conscientiousness 
 in seeking for truth, and not according to the 
 accuracy of his judgment, will he be judged 
 by God in forming his opinions; and when 
 formed, he will be responsible, not for the rec- 
 titude of his influence, but for the rectitude of 
 his intentions in exerting it. What a man be- 
 iieves to be the truth, it is his duty to declare 
 in the method and degree which benevolence 
 and prudence may point out to be the best. 
 For what but this do we venerate the heroic 
 Stephen, and every other martyr who bore 
 witness to the truth in the early days of Chris- 
 tianity? Yet for what but this have Christians 
 been led to the stake by Christians,age after age, 
 under the pretended sanction of a religion of 
 liberty and brotherly love ? For what but this 
 have Catholics and Protestants vied with each 
 other in torturing in body and mind men whose 
 conscience was omnipotent over the love of 
 liberty and life, and who thus showed that, 
 whether their intellects were or were not un- 
 faithful, their souls were true to God? For 
 
131 
 
 what but this are the lovers of truth even yet too 
 often punished, directly or indirectly, for invi- 
 ting others to participate in the benefits^which 
 they believe they have gained. Stephen was 
 stoned because he was a heretic ; Paul wor- 
 shiped the God of his fathers according to a 
 way which was then called heresy, and for 
 which he was persecuted through life and un- 
 to death. Peter and John were brought be- 
 fore the high priest and rulers for publishing 
 their heresy, and punished for refusing to 
 cease to publish it. Yet has this their heresy 
 prevailed; and thus shall every new truth pre- 
 vail, and its promulgators be honored, in des- 
 pite of the wrath of man; while the more freely 
 errors are canvassed, the sooner will they be 
 exposed. What was once said with truth in 
 relation to the Gospel of truth, — 'If this coun- 
 sel or this work be of men, it will come to 
 nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot over- 
 throw it,' — may be said with equal wisdom of 
 every other kind of truth and the test of in- 
 vestigation is a much surer one than that 
 which is furnished by the prejudices and the 
 passions of men. There is no natural, no 
 Divine law which sanctions the infliction of 
 pain for the exercise of the intellect, or for 
 11 
 
132 
 
 communicating the results of that exercise; 
 and that any human law or custom should have 
 existecj by which injury of mind, body, or estate 
 is made the consequence of the formation and 
 publication of opinions, is a proof that the nat- 
 ural rights of man have not been understood^ 
 and that the spirit of Christian liberty has not 
 pervaded Cristian society. As long as reproach 
 is attached to the act of promulgating opinions 
 (independent of the manner,) as long as the 
 holder of opinions is treated with the same 
 reprobation as the opinions themselves, a& 
 long as he is prospectively consigned over ta 
 perdition as they are to detestation, as long 
 as ideas of merit and demerit are associated 
 with the convictions of the understanding, or 
 blame is attached to the act of making those 
 convictions known, not only will the subordi- 
 nate principles of the Gospel remain in part 
 unrecognized, but its essential principles will 
 be violated; for it is clearly a duty of piety to 
 reveal all that is believed to have been discov- 
 ered of the works and ways of God; — and of 
 benevolence to communicate what, being con- 
 ceived to be truth, is conceived to be intended 
 for the universal benefit of the race. 
 
 It may excite surprise that we have not here 
 
133 
 
 examined the claim of the Holy Catholic Church 
 to spiritual supremacy; but it will better accord 
 with our plan to take that claim into considera- 
 tion while treating of the temporary institutions 
 of Christianity. 
 
 From the essential principles of the Gospel 
 we derive our belief that Christianity, is not 
 designed for any union, permanent or tempo- 
 rary, with wordly power and grandeur; that it 
 is incapable of such a connexion; being injur- 
 ed instead of confirmed by the support of tem- 
 poral authority, and impaired instead of adorn- 
 ed by the adjuncts of worldly pomp. This 
 principle is asserted in words by every Chris- 
 tian Church in existence; but violated, in fact, 
 by almost as many. Christianity is acknowl- 
 edged to be a religion of poverty of spirit, of 
 self-denial, of looseness from the world and its 
 possessions. If this principle were carried out 
 into each individual case, it is plain that the 
 pomp and ambition which have despoiled the 
 Gospel of its purity could no longer exist. It 
 is remarkable that this poverty and self-denial 
 are most insisted on in those Churches where 
 the temporal power and luxury are the most 
 excessive. We hear of them above all from 
 Catholics, whose popes, cardinals, and bish- 
 
134 
 
 ops have, in every age, exceeded all temporal 
 princes in the enjoyment of splendor and lux- 
 ury. We hear of them from the Church of 
 England, whose superior officers revel in un- 
 bounded wealth, and especially prize the con- 
 nexion with the State which their office occa- 
 sions. While we Unitarians, who hold that 
 Christianity is of a purely spiritual nature, 
 and therefore dishonored by the pretended 
 support of powers inferior to its own, insist 
 much less earnestly than the Catholic Church 
 on the duty of self-mortification and voluntary 
 poverty. Our Church, were it as extensive 
 as the Catholic, would contain no ecclesiasti- 
 cal princes, and no friars; no potentates clothed 
 in purple and fine linen and faring sumptuous- 
 ly every day from the revenues of the Church, 
 and no believers whose piety is testified by a 
 vow of poverty. We believe that our religion 
 ought to be exerted in controling the passions, 
 exalting the desires, and equalizing the affec- 
 tions, not so much by regulating the external 
 manifestations of those passions and desires, 
 as by influencing the heart. Self-denial is taught 
 much better by inspiring the love of our neigh- 
 bor, than by the prohibition of innocent com- 
 forts and pleasures. Spirituality is much bet- 
 
135 
 
 t^r taught by making spiritual things the ob- 
 jects of supreme desire, than by commanding 
 an ostentatious avoidance of the enjoyments of 
 life. But while the Gospel thus leaves men 
 free to follow the bent of innocent desires, — to 
 decide, each for himself, what is lawful and 
 expedient, — it lays a powerful restraint on all 
 the passions, and curbs all propensities which 
 are inconsistent with its purity and spirituality. 
 All worldly ambition, all selfish luxury are ut- 
 terly incompatible with the faith of the Gospel, 
 which disallows every claim founded on itself 
 to distinctions of rank, to abundance of wealth, 
 to power over the possessions of other men, 
 to the indulgence of earthly desires. The Gos- 
 pel affords no sanction to the accumulation of 
 wealth, or to the assumption of authority . It 
 affords examples, on the contrary, of submission 
 to temporal authority, of the endurance of 
 voluntary poverty in hardship, not because pov- 
 erty and hardship are in themselves spiritually 
 desirable, but because they were necessary to 
 the attainment of some benevolent end. From 
 the Gospel we learn that Jesus utterly disclaim- 
 ed all pretensions to authority, except in those 
 matters where his authority was supreme. 'Who 
 made me a judge or a divider over you?' was 
 
136 
 
 his remonstrance with those who referred the 
 disposal of an inheritance to him: and his re- 
 ply respecting the lawfulness of paying tribute 
 was such as ought to have obviated all doubt 
 whether temporal and spiritual power could 
 ever be properly united; 'Render unto Csesar 
 the things that are Csesar's, and unto God the 
 things that are God's/ What could be meant 
 by the declaration 'My kingdom is not of this 
 world/ but that his authority was of a spiritual 
 nature only? Why did he strenuously oppose 
 every attempt to make him a king? Why did 
 he send forth the seventy disciples without gold 
 and silver and changes of raiment ? Why did 
 he recommend to the rich man to sell his pos- 
 sessions, if wealth and power can be made the 
 means of serving the interests of the Gospel? 
 Why was his indignation so perpetually roused 
 by the spiritual assumptions of the Pharisees, 
 but because religion was in them disgraced by 
 its connexion with worldly greatness ? Yet not 
 a few Christians have loved the chief seats in 
 public assemblies, and homage in the streets; 
 not a few have made proclamation when they 
 dispensed their alms, and prayed in the high 
 ways; not a few have taken on themselves to 
 appoint places in the Messiah's kingdom which 
 
li 
 
 the Messiah himself refused to promise, because 
 such power belonged to God alone. While 
 he declined all interference in matters of tem- 
 poral concern, and rejected all support to his 
 Gospel from magisterial authority, and all ben- 
 efit from the resources of wealth, it is clear 
 that such support must ever be needless and 
 such resources unhallowed. 
 
 How does it happen, it is perpetually asked, 
 that while the right to temporal power is ab- 
 jured in words by every Church, the State re- 
 ligion of every country affords an instance of 
 its assumption? It happens, as many other 
 strange and inconsistent things happen, through 
 the misuse of terms. What we call temporal 
 power, the advocates of a State religion call 
 spiritual power; and thus have all ecclesiasti- 
 cal abuses been justified from the day that ec- 
 clesiastical domination wds established. By 
 spiritual authority have kings been enthroned 
 and deposed; by spiritual authority have trib- 
 utes been raised, wars been originated and 
 conducted, properties been confiscated, and 
 lives forfeited! By spiritual authority were 
 the Crusades begun and carried on; by spirit- 
 ual authority have popes divided and distribu- 
 ted kingdoms, have cardinals negotiated and 
 
 lit 
 
133 
 
 priests intrigued! By spiritual authority did 
 Wolsey amass his treasures, and rule his sove- 
 reign at home, and the agents of his sovereign 
 abroad! By spiritual authority does the 
 Church of England demand tithes, and under 
 the same sanction do her bishops legislate. 
 What then is temporal power? What are worldly 
 pomp and wealth? 
 
 The abuses which have deformed every State 
 religion in turn are evident to all, — even to 
 those who still help to support them; but the 
 origin of those abuses is not generally ascer- 
 tained. We ascribe them to the error of mix- 
 ing up the permanent principles of Christianity 
 with its temporary institutions. 
 
 Spiritual principles can only be recognized 
 by means of external manifestations; but the 
 principles and the manifestation are not the 
 same thing; nor can they have a lasting con- 
 nexion, as every thing external is mutable, 
 while the principles of truth are immutable. 
 As long as mind is connected with body, as 
 long as the intellect can only be reached through 
 the senses, and the heart through the intellect, 
 truth must be invested with a form, and reali- 
 ties be accompanied by shadows. But that 
 form is changeable, and those shadows are 
 
139 
 
 fleeting: the proximate cause of which is the 
 constitution of all material things; and the final 
 cause, the ultimate universal recognition of the 
 principles of truth. We have already describ- 
 ed how these principles were communicated to 
 the Israelites by means of ordinances which 
 the mind of man has long since outgrown. 
 The principles of Christianity were, in like 
 manner, embodied in institutions, some of 
 which are obsolete, while others remain; but, 
 since Christianity is destined not to be super- 
 seded by any other scheme, it appears to fol- 
 low necessarily from the principles on which 
 we have been reasoning, that none of its insti- 
 tutions were, like the Jewish, positive, but 
 avowedly adopted from motives of expediency. 
 It is therefore the belief of a portion of the 
 Unitarian body, that Christ himself appoint- 
 ed no ordinance for permanent adoption, 
 and that those which were appointed by the 
 Apostles, and sanctioned by their practice, 
 were established on the ground of expedi- 
 ency alone. They were not therefore the less 
 obligatory upon their disciples in those times, 
 nor upon us, as far as the original ground of 
 the ordinances remains; but as some apostolic 
 practices have, through the revolutions of hu- 
 
140 
 
 man affairs, become obsolete, it is desirable to 
 to search into the foundation of all. 
 
 Baptism cannot be called a Christian institu- 
 tion, since the rite was practised long before 
 the mission of the Baptist; but some of our 
 body adopt it as a Christian ordinance, because 
 it was countenanced by Jesus and administered 
 by his followers: while other Unitarians, deem- 
 ing the practice of baptism inexpedient in their 
 circumstances of age and country, decline the 
 rite themselves, but recommend its use in 
 cases analogous to those in which it was first 
 adopted, i. e. in cases of conversion from Pa- 
 ganism. There are others who wish to abolish 
 it altogether, from a fear of encouraging super- 
 stition by an ungrounded attachment to exter- 
 nal observances. 
 
 The ordinance of the Lord's Supper is con- 
 sidered a positive institution of Christianity by 
 almost the whole of the Christian world, the 
 great majority of Unitarians included. The 
 Society of Friends, and the Free-thinking 
 Christians, are perhaps the only sects who pos- 
 itively decline, from principle, the practice of 
 the rite; while some Unitarians deem it in- 
 consistent with their principles to believe that 
 Christ designed the ordinance for permanent 
 
141 
 
 and universal adoption. It is practised by 
 many as a means, a very important means, of 
 increasing love and exciting to obedience, 
 while they yet cannot plead a Divine sanction 
 in its favor, or much less suppose that any pe- 
 culiar quality resides in what is eaten and 
 drank, or any peculiar virtue in the act of eat- 
 ing and drinking by which any peculiar privi- 
 lege can be attained. In these last suppositions 
 all our body are agreed, since no intimation 
 can be found in the Scriptures that the sacra- 
 mental bread and wine were at any time used 
 otherwise than as merely emblematical of the 
 sacrifice of Christ. It was the practice of the 
 early Christians to assemble for the supper, 
 each carrying his portion of the feast, which 
 was eaten like any other feast, and frequently 
 with excess on the part of the rich, while his 
 poorer neighbor hungered. 'When ye come 
 together,' says the Apostle (I Cor. xi. 20 — 
 23,), it is not to eat the Lord's Supper; for 
 in eating, every one taketh before another his 
 own supper, and one is hungry and another is 
 drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat 
 and drink in.^ Or despise ye the Church of 
 God, and shame them that have not?' (v. 33.) 
 ' Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come 
 
142 
 
 together to eat, wait one for another. And if 
 any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye 
 come not together unto condemnation.' — It is 
 not conceivable that these Christians had any 
 notion that what they ate and drank was in it- 
 self sacred, or that the Apostle was aware of 
 any other purpose of the rite but that of ' show- 
 ing forth the Lord's death till he came.' 
 
 This rite was usually practised on the first 
 day of the week, when the disciples met to com- 
 memorate the resurrection of their Lord, and 
 to worship together. The custom of meeting 
 on a stated day for worship has been continued 
 ever since; and the day has been wisely set 
 apart for purposes of rest and refreshment to 
 body and mind. An institution so simple for 
 purposes so salutary will probably, however 
 abused, be of very long standing, even after it 
 is more generally allowed than at present not 
 to be a Divine appointment. The Jewish 
 Sabbath was a Divine ordinance for the use of 
 the Jews; and by them alone has the last day of 
 the week been regarded as sacred. The Lord's 
 Day, or, as it sometimes called, the Christian 
 Sabbath, is a totally different institution, and 
 one which is professedly arbitrary, though sub- 
 servient to very important objects. If the Jews 
 
143 
 
 were encouraged by their Messiah to look to 
 the final purposes of their sabT^atical institution, 
 much more ought we, the subjects of a more 
 enlarged dispensation, to bear in mind that 
 all external observances are but means to 
 ends; ordinances of which it is certain that 
 they were made for man, and not man for them. 
 
 Whatever may be the diversity of opinion 
 among Unitarians respecting the ground of the 
 three ordinances just referred to, there is none 
 with regard to those institutions whose period 
 appears to have been determined at the moment 
 of their origin. 
 
 The institution of Apostolic Ordination, 
 which the Roman Catholic Church holds to be 
 of a permanent nature, we believe not to have 
 been designed to outlive the Apostles. We 
 perceive no intimation in the various instruc- 
 tions given them which can lead us to imagine 
 that their office was intended to be or could be 
 bequeathed. They were chosen to be wit- 
 nesses of the circumstances of the life and 
 death of Christ, and the depositaries of miracu- 
 lous powers aftjer his ascension ; but as the assis- 
 tance of the Holy Spirit, that is the power con- 
 ferred from on high, was only a temporary sanc- 
 tion, the peculiar office with which it was con- 
 
144 
 
 nected could also be only temporary. The 
 evidence which we posses's on this very impor- 
 tant subject consists of the words of Christ 
 himself, addressed to his Apostles respecting 
 their mission, their own incidental observations, 
 and the facts which ecclesiastical history pre- 
 sents. From all these sources of evidence we 
 derive our belief that the office of ivitnessing, 
 which is absolutely untransferrable,was the pe- 
 culiar office of the twelve Apostles; that they 
 were especially qualified by it for the task of 
 preaching and establishing the new Gospel, 
 and that to enable them to do so with sufficient 
 efTect, among the many and great difficulties 
 which the state of the world then presented, 
 the miraculous gifls of the Spirit were granted 
 to them, with power to impart them to whom- 
 soever they would, and that this miraculous 
 power was coexistent with the apostolic age, — 
 with what is variously called 'the age,' 'the 
 kingdom of God,' Hhe kingdom of Christ,' 'the 
 kingdom of heaven;' that is, from the descent 
 of the Holy Spirit to the abolition of Judaism 
 on the overthrow of Jerusalem. (. We find no 
 evidence of miracles after that time which is 
 at all to be compared with that on which we 
 rely respecting the apostolic gifts; none which 
 
145 
 
 allows us to hesitate in our opinion, that with 
 the apostles expired the power of communica- 
 ting miraculous privileges; and that on thena 
 alone were such privileges immediately confer- 
 redj These gifts of the Spirit served as a 
 Divine sanction to their testimony, and were 
 therefore coexistent with that testimony; and 
 the same evidence which recorded their testi- 
 mony after their death, recorded the Divine 
 sanction likewise; and upon this broad and im- 
 mutable foundation is built the Christian faith, 
 against which, according to the Saviour's 
 promise, no opposition has prevailed or can 
 prevail. When some who could not deny the 
 peculiarity of his mission, but would not admit 
 his pre-eminent claims, supposed him to be 
 John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others- 
 Jeremiah or another of the prophets, Simon 
 Peter, who was not blinded by prejudice, and 
 who believed for the works' sake in opposition 
 to the opinions of men, boldly declared him to 
 be 'the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus 
 pronounced him blessed, because he believed 
 what the power of God made manifest, and 
 not what men declared; and promised that on 
 such testimony as his should the Gospel be es- 
 tablished, so that no opposition should pre- 
 
146 
 
 vail against it; and further declared that it 
 should be in the power of Peter to admit men 
 into the privileges of the Gospel, and to have 
 extensive influence over their spiritual state. 
 ^Blessed art thou, Simon; for flesh and blood 
 hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father 
 who is in heaven , And I also say unto thee 
 that thou ^rt Peter (a rock,) and on this rock 
 I will build my church, and the gates of death 
 shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
 unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; 
 and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall 
 be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou 
 shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' 
 This promise was fulfilled. Peter bore testi- 
 mony far and wide, with all the zeal and ener- 
 gy by which he was characterized, to the life, 
 teachings and death of his divine master; and 
 from this testimony, in conjunction with that of 
 his brethren, is derived the evidence on which 
 Christianity is received to this day. Peter 
 had also preeminent power in the infant 
 Church, converting three thousand persons on 
 the day of Pentecost, and afterwards preach- 
 ing, baptizing, and adding multitudes to those 
 who were pressing into the kingdom of God. 
 No record exists of any attempt on his part 
 
147 
 
 lo delegate any portion of his power; none of 
 which could be transferred but such authority 
 in the Church as he possessed under the mode 
 of church government which then subsisted. 
 That which constituted the chief glory of the 
 Prince of the Apostles belonged to him as the 
 follower of Jesus and as an eminent recipient 
 of the gifts of the Spirit. It appears exceeding- 
 ly improbable that Peter ever was Bishop of 
 Rome, though he suffered imprisonment and 
 perhaps martyrdom there. The authority of 
 the Apostles was general, and seems to have 
 been exercised generally, instead of being fixed 
 in any one congregation. At all events it is 
 clear that that the Bishops of Rome did not 
 lay claim to any preeminence over the patri- 
 archs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch 
 and Jerusalem, (further than as they all claim- 
 ed precedence of one another on account of 
 the dignity of their several cities, and the su- 
 perior wealth of their sees,) till the Arian con- 
 troversy afforded them various opportunities of 
 extending their power. When remonstrances 
 were offered by the sixth Council of Carthage, 
 in A. D. 426, and by many other assemblies, 
 against the encroachments of the Bishops of 
 Rome, the pleas which are now brought for- 
 
 11$ 
 
148 
 
 ward in support of their claim to supremacy 
 had never been heard of; and they were in fact 
 never adduced till many centuries after the 
 death of Peter. It was not till the beginning 
 of the seventh century that the title of Pope 
 was appropriated by the Bishops of Rome; it 
 being applied to all bishops at first, and after- 
 wards to those who held the larger sees, as when 
 Cornelius, Bishop of Rome; called Cyprian the 
 Pope of Carthage. The assumption of the ti- 
 tle of Universal Bishop by John of Constanti 
 nople, towards the end of the sixth century, 
 was condemned by Gregory the Great, then 
 Bishop of Rome, as presumption and even blas- 
 phemy; and he further showed his sense of the 
 presumption by investing himself with the hum- 
 bler title of Servus Servorum Dei. Yet so soon 
 after as A. D. 606, Boniface ITI. obtained of 
 the Emperor Phocas that the Bishops of Rome 
 alone should henceforth call themselves Uni- 
 versal Bishops: the claim being founded on the 
 dignity of the city and the wealth of the see, 
 and not on the transmission of the apostolic 
 office from Peter, of which not the slightest 
 hint appears to have been given till Leo 
 complained that the Council of Chalcedon had 
 granted his claim to preeminence on no better 
 
149 
 
 ground than the importance of the city where 
 he presided. Even he, however, had no 
 thought of advancing pretensions to infallibility, 
 as the successor of an infallible Apostle; this 
 additional claim being reserved for Agatho, 
 who, in 680, brought forward the novel doc- 
 trine *that the chair of Rome — never erred, 
 nor can err in any point;' and that 'all the 
 constitutions of the Roman Church are to be 
 received as if they had been delivered by the 
 divine voice of St Peter.' So that there is an 
 utter absence of proof that 'the Catholic or 
 Universal Church has been visibly continued 
 through all ages in one uniform faith, being 
 guided and preserved from error in matters of 
 faith by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.' 
 On the contrary, there is every kind of evidence 
 to prove that the supernatural influences of 
 the Spirit ceased with the close of the apostolic 
 age; that divisions of various kinds and de- 
 grees existed in the Christian Church, over 
 which the Bishops of Rome for five or six cen- 
 turies exerted no preeminent control, and 
 which the decrees of Councils were of no 
 avail to soothe and unite. We therefore hold 
 apostolic ordination to have been a temporary 
 institution, and at the time more universally 
 12 
 
150 
 
 nnderstood to be so than perhaps any other pro- 
 vision for the spread of the Gospel. 
 
 Of any such institution as a Church, perma- 
 nent or temporary, established by Christ, and 
 distinct from the simple exhibition of his Gos- 
 pel, we find not the most remote hint in any 
 records but those of the vain imaginations of 
 men. Ji Church means literally an assemblage ; 
 and the Church of Christ signifies, everywhere 
 in the sacred writings, those who believe in 
 Christ. Where the term is limited, it signifies 
 assemblages of Christians in different places, 
 as the Church at Corinth, the Church at Eph- 
 esus, &c. By the universal Church it is im- 
 possible to understand any thing but the total 
 number of Christian believers: nor can we con- 
 ceive of any means by which it can be shown 
 that tlie primitive Christians understood oth- 
 erwise, or that the term can admit of any oth- 
 er interpretation. We hold, therefore, that the 
 propositions we are about to quote from the doc- 
 ument to which we have before referred ('Ro- 
 man Catholic Principles,' &c.) are founded on 
 an unauthorized and erroneous conception of 
 the nature of the Christian Church. *The way 
 or means by which man may arrive at the knowl- 
 edge of the mysteries of the Gospel' are declar- 
 
151 
 
 ed to be 'not by the reading of Scripture, inter- 
 preted according to the private judgment of each 
 disjunctive person or nation in particular; but 
 by an attention and submission to the voice of 
 the Catholic or Universal Church, established 
 by Christ for the instruction of all; spread for 
 that end through all nations, and visibly con- 
 tinued in the succession of pastors and people 
 through all ages. From this Church, guided 
 in truth, and secured from error in matters of 
 faith by the promised assistance of the Holy 
 Ghost, every one may learn the right sense of 
 the Scriptures, and such Christian mysteries 
 and duties as are necessary to salvation. This 
 Church, thus established, thus spread, thus 
 continued, thus guided, in one uniform faith and 
 subordination of government, is that which is 
 called the Roman Catholic Church: the quali- 
 ties just mentioned, unity, indeficiency, visibil- 
 ity, succession, and universality, being evident- 
 ly applicable to her. From the testimony and 
 authority of this Church it is that we receive 
 the Scriptures, and believe them to be the word 
 of God; and as she can assuredly tell us what 
 particular book is the word of God, so she can, 
 with the like assurance, tell us also the true 
 sense and meaning of it in controverted points 
 
152 
 
 of faith; the same Spirit that wrote the Scrip- 
 tures, directing her to understand both them 
 and all matters necessary to salvation.' 
 
 As we believe ourselves included in the uni- 
 versal Church, i. e. in the number of Christian 
 believers, we acknowledge no authority but 
 that which thus included us, — the authority of 
 Christ himself: to no other voice but his, as de- 
 livered in Scripture, do we listen with submis- 
 sion; and to none do we commit the office of 
 interpretation ; believing that God has given to 
 every man the inalienable right and sufficient 
 power to ascertain for himself what doctrines 
 and duties are necessary to salvation. What 
 the Romish Church may be which, so far from 
 being ' universal* expressly assumes the power 
 of guiding and informing Christian believers, 
 we profess not to understand, having received 
 no evidence of its origin and no attestation of 
 its claims ; but we know that in the Chmstian 
 Church there has never been, since the apos- 
 tolic age, 'one uniform faith and subordination 
 of government;' nor do we believe that such 
 subordination is designed by Providence, or 
 that such uniformity is compatible with the 
 present nature of man, or essential to his safe- 
 ty and peace. Believing that the Scriptures 
 
153 
 
 contain the word of God, and that the natural 
 faculties of man are its appropriate interpre- 
 ters, we dare not commit to others the task of 
 receiving a message which we know to be ad- 
 dressed immediately to ourselves; especially as 
 we are convinced that, since the apostolic age, 
 no peculiar gifts of wisdom or of tongues have 
 been conferred on any man. The same Spirit 
 which dictated the Gospel we believe to pervade 
 the whole spiritual universe, giving wisdom 
 liberally to all who seek it, and enlightening 
 those who do the will of God respecting the 
 doctrine which is of God. 
 
 Since the Roman Catholic Church cannot 
 find a basis for its claims in the Scriptures, 
 those claims must be founded on the * apostol- 
 ical and ecclesiastical traditions' which she re- 
 quires her members 'most firmly to admit and 
 embrace.' The question between the Catholic 
 and Protestant Churches on this subject is, — 
 what traditions are to be received and what 
 rejected; for the one Church would be as un- 
 willing to receive all that have been current, 
 as the other to reject all that have been substan- 
 tiated. It is evident, as the Protestant Church 
 admits, that the Christians who were not con- 
 verted by the Apostles themselves, and who 
 
154 
 
 lived before the publication of the canonical 
 Scriptures, could have had no other foundation 
 for their faith than tradition; and on the same 
 ground we establish our belief in the genuine- 
 ness of the Scriptures; i. e., we declare them 
 canonical. 
 
 When we reject traditions therefore, it is not 
 as traditions, but in proportion to their evidence. 
 If they appear inconsistent with the sacred 
 writings, incompatible with the convictions of 
 reason, or disagreeing with the circumstances 
 of the age, we feel that the balance of evidence 
 is against them. If they be merely vague and 
 inconsequential, and not contradictory to each 
 other or to any known truth, we hold them 
 loosely, without firm conviction and without 
 positive disbelief If they be, not only consis- 
 tent with, but corroborative of ascertained truth, 
 clear in the origin, and early and extensively 
 held, our faith in them is willing and steadfast. 
 Of the first class are those traditions which 
 were pleaded before the second Council of 
 Nice, A. D. 787, on behalf of the worship of 
 images, which we reject on all the grounds men- 
 tioned above; viz. because they are inconsis- 
 tent with the spirit and letter of the sacred 
 books; because they are incompatible with the 
 
155 
 
 convictions of our reason, and because they are 
 perfectly irreconcileable with the practice of 
 the Apostles and the discipline of the primitive 
 Church. Of the second class are those which 
 relate the various fate of the first followers of 
 Christ, and which we admit in the absence of 
 all other evidence, though on such slight grounds 
 as to have no firm conviction of their truth. Of 
 the third class are those by which we receive 
 the sacred books as genuine, and which com- 
 mand belief from their universal prevalence, 
 their strong inherent probability, and perfect 
 consonance with the contents of the books 
 themselves. It will be easily anticipated from 
 what we have said, that we reject those tradi- 
 tions which corroborate the claims of the Ro- 
 man Catholic Church to a special divine com- 
 mission; since such traditions are in opposition 
 to what we recognize as the spirit of the Gos- 
 pel, and unsanctioned by the conduct of the 
 Apostles, especially of Peter. Rejecting these 
 traditions, we hold the opinion suggested by 
 the record of the Acts of the Apostles, that 
 their special commission expired with themsel- 
 ves; that apostolical ordination was a tempora- 
 ry institution; and that the special influence of 
 12t 
 
156 
 
 the Holy Spirit was designed to be a tempora- 
 ry sanction. 
 
 The church of England appears to us to> 
 merit the censure and even the ridicule cast 
 upon her by the Roman Catholic Church for 
 the inconsistency of her institutions with the 
 principle on which she professes to act, — the 
 principle of the Reformation, — that the Bible 
 alone is the religion of Protestants. Catholics 
 and protestants Dissenter join in challenging 
 her to produce from the Bible the grounds of 
 the practice, among others, of episcopal ordi^ 
 nation; including, as it does, the declaration 
 of the regular transmission of the office, with 
 its peculiar gifts of the Spirit, from the times 
 of St Peter till the present day. Rejecting, 
 as she does, the ecclesiastical traditions on 
 which the Catholics depend, and unable as she 
 is to adduce authority from the Scriptures to 
 which Dissenters appeal, she has no alterna- 
 tive but to own the practice ungrounded, or to 
 adduce some third authority, hitherto unheard 
 of. 
 
 Some of the most objectionable forms of or- 
 dination for Christian pastorship were, not- 
 withstanding, retained by various denomina- 
 tions of Dissenters long after their separation 
 
157 
 
 from the Church of England, and are still par- 
 tially held; but Unitarians have altogether re- 
 linquished the conception that the teachers of 
 the Gospel are peculiarly qualified for their 
 office otherwise than by their voluntary devo- 
 tion to it, and by those natural means of study, 
 reflection and prayer which their duty requires 
 them strenuously to employ. 
 
 We conceive that the Church of England 
 has been led into the inconsistency mentioned 
 above by conceiving in common with the 
 Catholics, and as we think erroneously, that 
 the institutions of Church government estab- 
 lished in the apostolic age are a part of Chris- 
 tianity, and therefore destined to be perma- 
 nent. Her Church government is, it is true, 
 not the same, because it cannot, by possibility, 
 be so, the lapse of ages having wrought una- 
 voidable changes; but this mutability, which 
 ought to prove to her the temporary nature of 
 the institution, only makes her cling the more 
 eagerly to the points of resemblance which she 
 conceives to have been preserved between her 
 own constitution and that of the primitive 
 Church; forgetting that such supposed resem- 
 blance is immediately derived from that very 
 Catholic Church whose superstitions inspired 
 
158 
 
 her with so much horror at the Reformation. 
 Whatever resemblance the two Churches bear 
 to the primitive Church in its external offices, 
 they bear in common. 
 
 This resemblance, however, is but slight. In 
 the primitive Christian Church, regulated by el- 
 ders chosen from the people, and in no way dis- 
 tinguished from them in rank or learning, and 
 served by deacons, whose office was to distrib- 
 ute the funds held by all in common, we can 
 scarcely recognize the original of the pompous 
 establishments in which religion is now believ- 
 ed to be preserved in its purity, till, on exam- 
 ining the history, we trace the degrees by 
 which spiritual domination was secured. The 
 most distinguished of the elders served the of- 
 fice of moderator in the assemblies which 
 met for the transaction of business. In time, 
 the office became permanent, and the 'constant 
 president' was allowed to appropriate the title 
 of 'bishop/ which had before been common to 
 all the elders. When numbers increased so 
 that smaller congregations were separated 
 from one larger, each colony had an elder at 
 its head, and the chief of the parent Church 
 became a diocesan bishop. Large country 
 congregations were, however, empowered to 
 
159 
 
 choose a complete set ofofficers for themselves, 
 consisting of bishops, elders, and deacons, 
 and were independent of the city Churches, 
 till the Council held at Antioch A. D. 341 for- 
 bade country bishops to ordain priests or dea- 
 cons, and allowed them the power of choosing 
 only the inferior officers of the Church. The 
 next step was to abolish the order of country 
 bishops; country deans and arch priests being 
 substituted. At length, synods were held, at 
 which the bishops met as deputies of the peo- 
 ple, to communicate concerning affairs of com- 
 mon interest, forgetting from time to time the 
 character in which they appeared, and ventur- 
 ing to make decrees by their own authority, 
 and even to claim a power of prescribing in 
 matters of faith and discipline. The principal 
 bishop in a large district was employed by his 
 brethren to convoke these assemblies; and as 
 the choice usually fell on the chief officer of 
 the metropolitan Church, the title of met- 
 ropolitan bishop or arch-bishop was applied to 
 him; which term became common in the Church 
 after the year 430. The patriarchs were of a 
 higher rank still; and there were only five of 
 them, belonging to the sees of Rome, Constan- 
 tinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. 
 
160 
 
 They were not called Primates till the time of 
 Leo I. The ambition of the clergy found ex- 
 tensive means of gratification in the changes 
 made by Constantino, who adapted the gov- 
 ernment of the Church to that of the State, 
 which he had newly divided and ordered. As 
 the superior clergy grasped at greater power, 
 the inferior clerg*y pressed upon their steps; 
 and we soon hear of arch-presbyters and arch- 
 deacons, and of the occasional union of the 
 offices of priest and deacon in the same indivi- 
 dual. Thus did the servants gradually become 
 the masters of the Church; and thus, in four 
 centuries, was the constitution of Christian con- 
 gregations so entirely changed, that scarcely 
 a shadow of their original institutions remained. 
 This brief detail (the truth of which is so 
 well known that it is needless to give as our 
 authority every accredited ecclesiastical histo- 
 ry) affords the best argument for the tempora- 
 ry nature of the institutions of Church govern- 
 ment, and sanctions the declaration of those 
 who are charged by either Church with schism, 
 that before they can again be required to join 
 the Establishment, that Establishment must 
 be reduced to the simplicity of government and 
 discipline which characterized the primitive 
 
161 
 
 church. The bishops must assume nothing 
 over their brethren, and be superior in no re- 
 spect but in holiness; they must be stewards 
 of God, not given to lucre, but eminent in 
 faith, in temperance, in charity. The deacons 
 must administer the common revenues of the 
 church for the benefit of those who have need, 
 appropriating nothing themselves nor suffering 
 others to appropriate. The church itself must 
 be, in all its views and objects, not of this world; 
 having no respect of persons, not awarding to 
 the man in goodly apparel a better place than 
 to the poor man in vile raiment, rejecting every 
 inducement to the usurpation of secular power, 
 and leaving to the conscience of every man, 
 as Peter referred to the conscience of Ananias, 
 the obligation of contributing to the common 
 revenue. 'While the land remained, was it 
 not thine own? And after it was sold, was 
 not the price in thine own power?' is not the 
 language of ecclesiastical tax-gatherers in the 
 present day: and till all contributions to the 
 churches become strictly voluntary, till the 
 churches abjure all temporal authority, and 
 free their discipline and ritual from the en- 
 croachments of spiritual tyranny and the defile- 
 ments of superstition, neither the one nor the 
 
162 
 
 other can advance any claim to spiritual allegi- 
 ance, and men who dissent from both may hold 
 themselves innocent of the sin of schism. 
 
 Thus much we say on the supposition that it 
 might be possible or desirable to restore the 
 ancient constitution of the Church. But we 
 make such a supposition only for the sake of 
 meeting the views of those who, feeling that 
 the ecclesiastical establishments of the present 
 day are unchristian, would fain substitute for 
 them the simple institutions of the primitive 
 Church. Believing as we do, that all such 
 institutions must be classed among the non- 
 essentials of Christianity, we would have them 
 modified according to the circumstances of the 
 age and country in which they are to be used. 
 It is not possible that some of the original 
 Christian ordinances can be advantageously 
 employed in every country and through every 
 age. The first Christians belonged, for the 
 most part, to the middling and lower classes of 
 society, and consequently had few possessions. 
 These possessions, with whatever was volun- 
 tarily oflfered by the few rich men among them, 
 were gathered into a common stock, in order 
 that all might be so far freed from secular cares 
 as to be able to devote their minds and hearts 
 
163 
 
 to the furtherance of the cause of the Gospel. 
 It is obvious that the same reasons for estab- 
 Hshing a communitj of goods do not exist in a 
 Christian country, where the faith has no lon- 
 ger to maintain a struggle with the powers 
 which opposed its first promulgation. Nor 
 could such a community of goods answer the 
 same purposes in a wealthy commercial state 
 and among the cantons of Switzerland, among 
 the nobles and boors of Russia, and the back- 
 woodsmen of America; in states where civiliz- 
 ation is most advanced, and in regions where 
 the rights of property are almost unrecognized. 
 The same may be said of the external modes 
 of worship. Granting that the complex cere- 
 monies of Roman Catholic worship, so nearly 
 resembling the rites of Paganism, might, by 
 possibility, admit of a connexion with pure 
 Christian faith, it cannot be supposed that the 
 cross, wax lights, and incense can ever form a 
 ritual appropriate to the customs of Arabs or 
 Indians, or that they will help the devotion of 
 the fiftieth generation from the present. Primi- 
 tive modes of worship have, by a singular or- 
 dering of circumstances, been preserved among 
 the Vaudois, and are still consonant with their 
 secular state: but men who dwell amidst ravines 
 
164 
 
 and mountain forests think and feel differently, 
 and therefore worship differently from those who 
 inhabit the cities of the plain; while the faith 
 of all is essentially the same. It is, therefore, 
 unreasonable of the Catholic Church to re- 
 quire of all her members,dwell where they may, 
 in the north or in the south, in the metropolis 
 or the wilderness, the vow, 'I also receive and 
 admit the ceremonies of the Catholic Church, 
 received and approved in the solemn adminis- 
 tration of all the seven sacraments.' 
 
 Far more reasonable is the Gospel in its 
 requisitions, the sole condition of whose prom- 
 ises is, that men shall 'worship the Father in 
 spirit and in truth.' We have said that the es- 
 sence of Christian faith is the same through 
 all varieties of manifestation. It has ever been 
 so, and it shall ever be so, for these varieties 
 of manifestation are ordained for the very pur- 
 pose of preserving the essence. They are or- 
 dained, lest men, too much regarding things 
 seen and temporal, should confound with them 
 things unseen and eternal; should not only in- 
 corporate religion in material forms, but iden- 
 tify it with them. They are ordained that men 
 may learn what Christianity really is, what the 
 Lord God requires of them concerning it, what 
 
165 
 
 He promises them in it, what He purposes to 
 effect by it; and furthermore, that men may 
 mutually recognize the new bond of brother- 
 hood which the Gospel discloses, by which all 
 are made heirs of God and joint-heirs with 
 Christ Jesus. This recognition must take place 
 as soon as the nature and design of Christian- 
 ity are understood, be it here or hereafter, in 
 this world or in the next; and surely the sooner 
 the better. 
 
 That mode of belief which encourages the 
 closest investigation into the principles of Chris- 
 tianity; which discovers the most clearly all 
 spiritual relations; which affords the most dis- 
 tinct apprehension of the permanence and uni- 
 versality of the Gospel ; which discerns how its 
 promises are ratified, its threatenings confirmed, 
 its truths corroborated by all other spiritual in- 
 fluences, by all the results of human experience, 
 and all the developments of Providence, — must 
 be the best adapted to the needs and capabil- 
 ities of an ever-expanding and immortal spirit. 
 That mode of belief which adapts itself to all 
 times and circumstances, and which is inde- 
 pendent of all influences but those which are 
 unfailing, must be the truest and best: and such 
 a faith actually exists in those views of Chris- 
 
 I2i 
 
166 
 
 tianity under which it appears as simple and 
 diffusive as natural religion. 
 
 The Greenlander, who sees how rapidly all 
 natural influences combine to enhance the bloom 
 of his transient summer, recognizes the same 
 attributes of Providence as the philosopher who 
 marks the expansion of mind under the vicissi- 
 tudes of events: both are natural religionists. 
 The great truths of Christianity may be also 
 common to both. The Greenlander loses the 
 wife of his bosom, and wanders on the icy 
 shore to watch if any skiff traverses the horizon, 
 to bring him tidings from the world of spirits ; 
 he listens to the sullen roar of the waves and 
 the moaning of the wind, in the intense hope 
 that the voice of a spirit may mingle with their 
 murmurs. The philosopher who has suffered 
 bereavement feels a similar want, though his 
 yearnings are differently expressed. His rea- 
 son is adjured, and not his senses, to yield ev- 
 idence of a life beyond the grave; and the in- 
 tellect of the one is as intently fixed as the eye 
 and ear of the other on whatever may bring a 
 solution of his doubts. Is not the main fact of 
 Christianity that which is preeminently fitted 
 to afford consolation and hope to both? To 
 each in the proportion in which he is able to 
 
167 
 
 receive it? The Greenlander, who believes 
 that there has been an actual resurrection in 
 proof that all men shall live after death, is sooth- 
 ed and cheered by hope. He is brave when 
 tossed by the storms ofthe ocean or half-buried 
 in a snow-drift, because death is no longer the 
 fearful thing it was. He is patient when his 
 winter store of provisions is exhausted and his 
 children ask him for food, because his faith 
 teaches him that he who can restore the dead 
 from the grave can preserve the living, though 
 the means may not be immediately appar- 
 ent. This faith is the same with that on which 
 the philosopher reposes his trust, when he sees 
 things that yet are not as though they were, 
 — the revelations ofthe grave, the spiritual and 
 intellectual communion of a higher state, and 
 the blessed results of the trials and privations 
 of the present. And a similar congeniality pre- 
 vails respecting every other essential doctrine 
 and principle of the Gospel; and even respect- 
 ing its minor details. The universal spread 
 of Glad Tidings is a fit subject for universal re- 
 joicing. The moral beauty of the Saviour's 
 character is recognizable by all; the spirit of 
 his teachings is congenial to all ; and the very 
 illustrations in which they are set forth are of 
 
168 
 
 a universal nature. Storms everywhere beat 
 on human dwellings, and in all regions flowers 
 spring, and the lights of heaven shine and are 
 obscured. The filial and fraternal relations 
 subsist everywhere; widowed mothers mourn 
 over the bier of a son, and rejoicings are wit- 
 nessed at marriage feasts. The parables of 
 the Gospel are the most appropriate elementary 
 teachings for all minds from pole to pole; and 
 the principles which Christ proposed command 
 the assent of every intellect, from that of the 
 child whom he set in the midst of his followers, 
 to that which, exalted by all holy influences, 
 is surrounded on its release from the grave by 
 a throng of perfected spirits. It is for man to 
 beware how he limits what God has thus made 
 universal; how he monopolizes what God de- 
 signs to be diflused ; how he encumbers by hu- 
 man inventions that truth which Divine wisdom 
 has made free to all. 
 
 By the Gospel, a new relation is established 
 between Him who gives and him who receives 
 it; and it is for man to beware how he attempts 
 to modify this relation, or to intrude on the spe- 
 cial communion which it establishes. It is not 
 in the power of man to take away any thing 
 from the Gospel, though he may narrow the 
 
169 
 
 capacity of its recipients; but he must beware 
 how he adds to it the teachings of his own low 
 and vain imaginations. He can do nothing to 
 impair Divine truth, for it is made invulnerable 
 by God: but he may impair and destroy its effi- 
 cacy for himself and his brethren, by mistaking 
 its nature and perverting its influences; by 
 transferring to others the task which he may 
 not delegate, of admitting its evidences and 
 interpreting its commands. It is not in the 
 power of man to silence the voice of God speak- 
 ing on earth through Christ; but he must beware 
 of listening to any other exponent of the Divine 
 will, whether or not he refer his claim to St Pe- 
 ter; whether or not he appeal to human wisdom 
 throned in the papal chair or attested by the 
 unanimity of Councils; whether or not he entitle 
 himself the Vicar of Christ on earth. 
 
 It is not in the power of man to restrict the 
 influences of the Gospel. What they have 
 been, they will be; what they have done, they 
 will continue to effect. They will bless the 
 spirit in its wanderings and in its retirements, 
 making the universe the record of its history, 
 and its inmost recesses the dwelling-place of 
 Deity. They will restrain the excesses, chas- 
 ten the emotions, and ennoble the sympathies of 
 
170 
 
 humanity. They will bless life, and hallow the 
 grave. They will develope themselves perpet- 
 ually as ages roll on, till it shall be their low- 
 est office to still the sighings and subdue the 
 conflicts of the spirit; while their highest shall 
 still be, so to direct its pursuit of ultimate ob- 
 jects, so to invigorate its natural and moral pow- 
 ers, as to evidence to itself its ever-growing 
 resemblance to its Maker. /It is for man to be- 
 ware lest he exclude himself from these influ- 
 ences or impair their operation by mistaking 
 superstitiori for religion, and by supinely relin- 
 quishing the intellectual and spiritual liberty 
 with which Christ has made him free/ > 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recalL 
 
 20Nov'6mT 
 
 ['i.^.L.^^j * 
 
 D V.U 
 
 Hb:c Q LP 
 
 C T13'65-5PM 
 
 If 
 
 1QR? 
 
 |Kf 4W7 
 
 ^E - WED 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 3^ 
 
 T^ 
 
 iVH 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 JUN 13 07-12 AM 
 
 APR 4 '84 -2 PM 
 
 ■'. ^ -„ <^ •-■'■ — -" 
 
 -gtw 
 
 ;^Q4^ft 
 
 $EP 2 8 1978 
 
 8EC. CIR. SEP 20 "78 
 
 RCC'D LP 
 
 my 3 'G4-iapM - 
 
I A uoi n 
 
 ,v »it I 
 
 iyi36690 
 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY