{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_33672/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_33672","id":"gutenberg_33672","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33672","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Unitarian churches -- Doctrinal and controversial works","Unitarianism"],"text":"Produced by Julia Miller, Josephine Paolucci and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE\n\nESSENTIAL FAITH\n\nOF\n\nTHE UNIVERSAL CHURCH;\n\nDEDUCED FROM\n\nTHE SACRED RECORDS.\n\nBY HARRIET MARTINEAU.\n\n'Nulli praeclusa religio est; omnibus patet, omnes admittit, omnes\ninvitat; non elegit domum nec censum; nudo homine contenta est.'\n\nBOSTON,\nLEONARD C. BOWLES.\n1833.\n\n_Minot Pratt,----Printer._\n\n\n\n\nADVERTISEMENT.\n\n\nIn March 1830 the Committee of the British and Foreign Unitarian\nAssociation offered 'a premium for three tracts, to be approved by them,\nthe object of which should be the introduction and promotion of\nChristian Unitarianism among the Roman Catholics, the Jews, and the\nMahommedans respectively.' Each of the Essays was to be sent to the\nCommittee with the name of the writer in a sealed note, which would be\nopened only after the decision in favor of the successful candidate.\nMiss Martineau obtained the three prizes. The celebrity which she has\nacquired in this country by those of her works which have been reprinted\nhere has induced the belief that these Essays would be read with\ninterest, although if they had come from an unknown author the nature of\nthe subjects might prevent their general circulation. The ability, the\ntact, and the fine spirit which they display must increase the\nadmiration of Miss Martineau's talents which already prevails among us.\nFor grasp and vigor of thought, for a rich and felicitous style of\nexpression, and for general power of argument, without the slightest\nmixture of asperity or unfairness, they will bear comparison with almost\nany writings of the same class. The author has judiciously adopted a\ndifferent method of treating each subject, and may therefore expect that\nopinions will be various about the comparative merits of the three\nEssays, according to the intellectual habits or tastes of readers. But\nno one can fail to pronounce them all remarkable productions.\n\nThe Essay addressed to the Catholics was first published. It is\ntherefore now first reprinted, and will be followed immediately by those\nwritten for the Jews and the Mahommedans.\n\nE. S. G.\n\nBOSTON, May 1st, 1833.\n\n\n\n\nPRELIMINARY ADDRESS.\n\n\nAs Christians addressing Christians, we, whose faith is called\nUnitarianism, invite you, our Roman Catholic brethren, to join with us\nin investigating the origin and true nature of that Gospel which we\nagree in believing worthy of the deepest study, the most unremitting\ninterest, and the highest regard. We agree in believing every Christian\nto be bound to promote the welfare of his race to the utmost of his\nability; and that that welfare is best promoted by the extensive spread\nand firm establishment of Divine truth. We agree in believing that all\nother gifts which the Father of men has showered on human kind are\ninsignificant in comparison with the dispensation of grace: or rather,\nthat their value is unrecognised till interpreted by it. We alike feel\nthat the material frame of the universe, fair as it is, is but as a\nsilent picture till a living beauty is breathed into it, and a divine\nharmony evolved from it by its being made the exponent of God's purposes\nof grace. We alike feel that the round of life is dull and tame, and its\nvicissitudes wearisome and irritating, till it becomes clear that they\nare preparative to a higher state. We alike feel that worldly pursuits,\nand even intellectual employments, are objectless and uninteresting,\ntill they can be referred to purposes whose complete fulfilment must\ntake place beyond the grave. We alike feel how pervading, how perpetual\nis the influence of Gospel principles in ennobling every incident, in\nhallowing every vicissitude of life; in equalizing human emotions; in\nanimating the sympathies, in vivifying the enjoyments, and blunting the\nsorrows, of all who adopt those principles in full conviction of the\nunderstanding, and in perfect sincerity of heart. We agree in feeling\nhow the whole aspect of existence changes, as the power and beauty of\nthe Gospel become more influential;--as we learn where to deposit our\ncares, where to fix our hope, what to prize as a real possession, and\nwhat to regard as but loss in comparison of our inestimable gain. We\nfeel in common how endurance may become a privilege, and earthly\nhumiliation our highest honor, when sustained in the spirit, and\nincurred for the sake, of the Gospel. Feeling thus alike respecting the\nvalue of a common possession, desiring in common that all our race\nshould be partakers of it, making it the most earnest of our prayers\nthat we may receive it in its purity and employ it righteously, why\nshould we not help one another to apprehend it and hold it firmly? We\nknow, from the records of history, how the adherents of your faith have\nso prized it as to sacrifice all things for it; how Catholic confessors\nhave borne long and painful testimony, and how Catholic martyrs have\ntriumphantly sustained the last proof of the strength of their\nconvictions. We can refer you to similar examples among those who\nbelieved as we believe; and neither you nor we can doubt, that should\noccasions of self-sacrifice again arise, every true Christian in your\nbody and in ours would show once more what the Gospel can do in\ndivesting the world of its allurements and death of its terrors. Why\nthen should we not congratulate each other on our common hope? Having\nlaid hold on the same anchor of the soul, why should we not rejoice in\neach other's strength? And, differing as we do in the mode of holding a\ncommon privilege, why should we not reason together to ascertain where\nthe difference lies, whence it arose, and by what means it may be\nobviated? Though you and we may not regard variations in Christian faith\nwith an equal degree of regret and dread, we yield not to you or to any\non earth in our appreciation of the value of truth, and in our desire\nthat it may become the common possession of our race. Therefore it is\nthat we now propose to you an investigation into its principles; and\ntherefore it is that we seek the removal of all impediments to our\njoining in hand as we already do in heart, in bringing those who are\nastray to the fold of the true Shepherd.\n\nThe same means of ascertaining Divine truth are in your hands and in\nours, if, as your best writers declare and as we believe, you have free\naccess to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Our versions of\nthose Scriptures are, it is true, not exactly alike. It appears to us\nthat yours are, in various minor, and in some considerable points, less\ncorrect than our own: but fair investigation will settle this\ndifference as well as others; and if not, such variations constitute no\ninsurmountable hindrance. The essential truth of the Gospel is not\ninvolved in any or all of those modes of expression in which our\nrespective versions of the Scriptures differ. The difficulties which are\nthus originated are of very inferior moment to those by which our\nseparation is perpetuated, and which depend on our application of the\nspirit rather than our interpretation of the letter of the sacred\nrecords. When we can as perfectly agree in our opinions concerning the\nperson of Christ, as we do in our veneration and gratitude for his\nholiness and love; when we shall mutually rejoice in the universality as\nwell as in the blessedness of the salvation he brought, we shall not\ndispute respecting the letter of some of his instructions, or long\nlament the difficulty of reconciling some apparent discrepancies. If, as\nyou declare, the Scriptures are in common use among you, they must be\nallowed to be the rule of your faith as well as of your practice; they\nmust be intended for your instruction as well as your confirmation; they\nmust supply subjects of thought as well as of feeling. Do us the justice\nthen, thus to use them as often as you hear us appeal to them. Compare\nour interpretation of the Gospel with the records themselves. Compare\nour deductions from facts with the original statement of those facts,\nand with all which throws light on them from the history, the\ndiscourses, the epistles which follow. To whatever common ground there\nis between us, let us repair; and since that common ground is the very\nspot where the living waters first sprang up, there can be no doubt but\nthat a patient search will bring vital refreshment to us all.\n\nWe know, brethren, that our mode of belief appears to you under the\ngreatest possible disadvantage, as being, even more than Protestant\nreligion generally, divested of the claims and graces of antiquity. You\nregard our sect as newly formed from the dispersed elements of other\nsects which have melted away. You find no mention of our heresy in the\nrecords of the middle ages, or only such hints of the doctrines now held\nby Unitarians as might serve as suggestions of our present opinions: and\nyou therefore naturally conclude that the parts of our faith to which\nyou object are but of yesterday, and consequently the impious inventions\nof men. If it were so, our present address would indeed be indefensible;\nour challenge to investigation would be an insult; our appeal to the\nScriptures would be blasphemy. But to shake your conviction of this\nassumed fact, to convince you if possible that the reverse is the fact,\nis the object of the exposition of our opinions which we now present to\nyou, and of every effort to explain and defend our faith. It is because\nwe believe our religion to be primitive Christianity that we are\nattached to it as other Christians are to theirs. It is because we feel\nthat we can carry back our opinions to a remoter antiquity than other\nChurches, that we prefer them; and though they were completely hidden\nunder the unauthorized institutions of the middle ages, we find no\ndifficulty in establishing their identity with those which were diffused\nby the messengers and under the sanction of God. He who sees a stream\ngushing forth from the cave, and can trace it back no further than the\ndarkness whence it issues, may reasonably conclude that he stands near\nits source; but there may be a wayfarer who by observation and\nexperience knows and can attest that this is no subsidiary spring, but\nthe reappearance of a hidden stream, whose source is hallowed and whose\ncurrent is inexhaustible. We only ask you to listen to our evidence of\nthis, and to admit it or not, as you shall be afterwards disposed.\n\nWe agree with you in your reverence for antiquity in respect of the\nfaith; and desire nothing more than that by their comparative claims to\nantiquity our respective religions should be judged. We feel that grace\nas well as authority is conferred by every evidence of long duration. We\ncan enter into your reverence for your doctrines, because they were held\nby Saints in cloisters which have crumbled to dust, by heroes and\nanchorites whose arms were the relics of centuries gone by, or whose\nrocky abodes have retained their sanctity for a thousand years. We can\nunderstand your emotions on receiving sacraments or witnessing\nceremonies which fostered the devotion of the saintly and the heroic of\nthe olden time, and which filled the Christian temples abroad with music\nand fragrance, while in our land the smoke of Druidical sacrifices was\nascending offensively to Heaven. But we thus sympathise because we too\nrefer our worship to ancient days. Our hearts also thrill under the\nimpulses which are propagated from afar. We also delight in spiritual\nexercises, because they are sanctified by long-tried efficacy; and\nenjoy our devotion more, because the same hopes exhilarated, the same\ntrust supported our spiritual kindred of the remotest Christian\nantiquity. In our Churches we believe we feel the spirit of brotherhood\nwhich first gave to the believers one heart and one soul. In the silence\nof our chambers, or amidst the solitudes of nature, we are open to the\nsame incentives to prayer and praise which visited Peter on the\nhouse-top, and Paul amidst the perils of the sea. When intent upon the\nwords of life, we, like the Apostle, are impelled to exclaim, 'O! the\ndepth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!' And were\nthe times of persecution to recur, we doubt not but that, at the very\nstake, the consciousness of fellowship with the holy Stephen would add\nvigor to our courage and splendor to our hopes. We refuse to perpetuate\nthe imposing ritual of the early ages because it is not antique enough:\nbut whenever we behold two or three gathered together to worship with\nthe heart and voice alone; when we see men assembling on the first day\nof the week to break bread in remembrance of Christ, in the simplicity\nof the primitive ordinance; when we see teachers, in all external things\nlike their brethren, gathering wisdom from the fowls of the air and the\nlilies of the field,--we could almost forget the lapse of ages in\nsympathy with those from whom they separate us.\n\nSuch a sympathy, if originated here, will be perfected hereafter; for it\nis too purely spiritual to be dissolved by death. It will then be also\nextended to all in whom the spirit of the Gospel is a vivifying\nprinciple; as it would be here, if we could throw off our prejudices and\nsee each other as we are. If it is to be, why should it not already be?\nWith the Gospel before us, with some portion of its light beaming on\neach of us, some measure of its kindly warmth glowing within us, why\nshould we turn away coldly and silently from communion respecting our\nbest treasure?\n\nIf either body believe their brethren in error, is it right to leave\nthem so without an effort to reclaim them? If both believe the truth\ndestined to prevail, is it not incumbent on them to assist that\nprevalence? We believe it is; and therefore we address you; mingling\nwith our entreaties for your co-operation in the development of Divine\ntruth earnest prayers that the Father will abundantly administer to all\nthe resources of that intellectual power and Christian love which\nconstitute a sound mind.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ESSENTIAL FAITH OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH.\n\n\nThe primitive Christian Church, gathered together in Jerusalem by the\ncommand of Christ, and sanctified by the descent of the Holy Spirit,\nconsisted exclusively of Jews. The three thousand who were baptized on\nthat memorable occasion, the numbers which were daily added to the\nChurch, the multitude who were converted to Christianity during the next\nfifteen years, were all Jews. In some cases, the process of conversion\nwas probably gradual; but in many, we know it was sudden, being caused\nby the immediate and irresistible evidence of miracles. The change of\nconviction which it was necessary to work in converting a Jew, was of a\nnature which could be effected speedily and completely by the display\nof one miraculous testimony. It was not a change in all, or any of his\nviews of Deity and Providence. He was not required to relinquish a\nsingle article of religious belief which he had previously held under a\ndivine sanction. The fundamental doctrine of the Jewish religion,--the\nstrict Unity of Jehovah,--he was authorized to retain. He was confirmed\nin his dependence on all that the Prophets had spoken, in his\nconceptions of the Divine attributes, and in his trust in Divine\nProvidence. The only question on which depended his adhering to the Old,\nor embracing the New Dispensation, was, whether Jesus of Nazareth was or\nwas not the promised Messiah. As the Jews were bound by the requisitions\nof their own law (Deut. xviii. 19) to receive implicitly whatever should\nbe taught in God's name by a divinely authorized prophet, their\nreception of the doctrines of Christianity was a sure consequence of\ntheir acknowledgement of the Messiah; and that their acknowledgement of\nJesus in that character was the only thing essential to make them\nChristians we have consistent and abundant evidence in the whole\nScripture history. In the preaching of the Apostles to the people of\ntheir own nation, we find no intimations of any needful change in their\nconceptions of God, and of his mode of government. On the contrary, it\nwas because the Jews were already prepared for their reception of\nChristianity by their belief in the Unity of God and the consistency of\nhis moral government, that they were the most immediately and the most\neasily incorporated with the Christian church. For proof of this, we\nrefer to the whole of the discourse delivered by the Apostle Peter on\nthe day of Pentecost, and to every other discourse addressed by the\nApostles to Jewish hearers.\n\nThe first Gentiles who were converted to Christianity were not\nworshipers of a plurality of Gods; but men who from intercourse with\nJews, or from other opportunities of spiritual advancement, had attained\nto the belief of One God, indivisible in his nature and unrivalled in\nhis supremacy. The same mode of teaching which sufficed for the Jews,\nsufficed for them also, as far as the essential truth of Christianity\nwas concerned; and the same method was therefore adopted, as may be seen\nin the discourse of Peter in the house of Cornelius.\n\nThe next converts were from the disciples of the Pagan theology of\nGreece and Rome; with them a different method of instruction was\nneeded. Till they knew something of the Divine nature, it was useless to\nopen to them the Divine dispensations. The discourse of Paul at Athens\ndid not therefore begin with announcing the Saviour: if it had, his\ninquisitive hearers would perhaps have inquired whether this messenger\nwas sent by Jupiter himself, or whether he was a deputy of some of the\ninferior gods. The Apostle named not the name of Christ till he had\ntaught the fundamental doctrine--that Jehovah is not only supreme, but\nsole; that all infinite attributes are centered in him; that all\ndispensations proceed from him; not only those of nature, by which the\nhuman race is created and preserved; but--the way being now prepared for\nthe annunciation--that of grace, by which the world is to be redeemed\nthrough him whom God had ordained to be a Prince and a Saviour.\n\nThe heathen converts of the latter class had much more to learn, before\nthey could become confirmed Christians, than their more enlightened\nbrethren who had been prepared by intercourse with Jews. They were\nequally ready in admitting the evidence of miracles, but not equally\nclear as to the object for which those miracles were wrought. When Paul\nand Barnabas restored the cripple at Lystra, the priests and people\ncould scarcely be restrained from offering sacrifice to them as gods,\neven after the Apostles had explained to them the true nature of Deity.\nYet the true religion, being patiently and faithfully taught, was, at\nlength, fully understood and received; and the three classes of\nconverts, Jews, proselytes, and pagans, were made one in Christ;\nholding, in undisturbed harmony of conviction, the essential doctrines\nof the strict Unity of Jehovah, the divine authority of Jesus Christ,\nand consequently, the divine origin of the Gospel he brought.\n\nThis unity of the faith seems to have been first broken in upon by the\nintroduction of a fourth class of converts, who, by incorporating their\nformer philosophical doctrines with the new theology they had embraced,\noriginated the first heresy. There had been disputes, it is true, in the\nchurch; but not concerning matters of faith. In these disputes the\nApostles themselves had been not only involved, but actually opposed to\neach other. These questions related to the fancied necessity of the\nadoption by the Gentiles of the forms of the Jewish law: questions of\ngreat importance to the Jews, as affecting their views of the ultimate\ndesign of Christianity; to the Gentiles, as involving their spiritual\nliberties; and to us and the Christian world at large, as throwing light\non the transactions of the primitive times, and as having originated\nsome of the Epistles of Paul.\n\nBut they bore no relation to the essential doctrines, which were held\nfree from corruption, controversy, or even doubt, till some converts\nfrom the philosophical sect of the Gnostics introduced, within twenty\nyears after the death of Christ, the first taint of that corruption from\nwhich the true faith has never since been freed.\n\nThe fundamental doctrine of the Gnostic philosophy was, that all mind is\nultimately derived from the Supreme mind; that the souls of all men have\ntherefore pre-existed; that there is a higher order of spirits, more\nimmediately emanating from the Supreme; that these superior\nintelligences descend occasionally to inhabit the bodies of men, or to\nassume their apparent form. This doctrine, to which they were much\nattached, the Gnostic converts easily contrived to connect with their\nnew theology, believing Jesus to be one of these superior intelligences\nin a visible form, or that the man Jesus was animated by such a spirit,\nwho was in reality the Christ. Against this corruption of the simplicity\nof the faith the Apostle John protested in his First and Second\nEpistles, in which he followed the example of Peter, Paul, and Jude.\nThat the Gnostics were the persons he had in view, is evident from the\nfact that no other schismatics at that period troubled the peace of the\nchurch, and also from his own application of his censure to such as\n'confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.' (2 John 7.) The\n'fables and endless genealogies' which Paul reprobates (1 Tim. i. 4.)\nhad the same origin; and the practices to which they led, of 'forbidding\nto marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,' are condemned by him as\nthe work of 'seducing spirits.' Of the same class were the 'false\nteachers,' accused by Peter of bringing in fatal heresies, 'by reason of\nwhom the ways of truth shall be evil spoken of.' All the opinions and\npractices denounced by Jude, were either publicly maintained by the\nGnostics, or generally ascribed to them.\n\nIn order to disprove the truth of this representation, it will be\nnecessary to show who besides the Gnostics denied that the man Jesus\nwas the true Christ; who besides the Gnostics propounded fables,\noriginated schisms, and were addicted to superstitious practices, at the\ntimes in which the Apostles wrote. This, we conceive, cannot be done.\n\nThat the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ must have been new and\nstrange to the faithful teachers of the church we know, not only from\ntheir own intimation that it was so, but from the positive proof which\nthe Scriptures afford of the absence of all preparation for it. The\npreaching of John the Baptist, and the conduct and discourses of Jesus\nwere such as to give his disciples the idea of his being truly and\nentirely man; divine indeed in his derived power and spiritual\nperfection, but human in his nature. His disciples accordingly testified\nin their words and actions that they had no thought of his being any\nthing else. They received him as their Messiah; but in all besides they\nremained Jews, ascribing to God alone all divine attributes, worshiping\nhim alone, and paying honor to Jesus only as his most exalted messenger.\nIf they had been required to regard him as God, the history of their\nconversion would have been widely different from what it is. A doctrine\nto them so new and wonderful, would have engrossed their minds, would\nhave banished familiarity from their intercourse with the Saviour, would\nhave pervaded their preachings and writings; and, instead of being\nwholly omitted in their addresses to their converts, would have been\nmade, as in modern creeds, a primary and essential article of belief.\nNot till the introduction of oriental superstitions into the church,\nhowever, do we find unquestionable evidence that such a doctrine had\nbeen conceived by any individual mind; and then the information is\nconveyed in the form of decided censure of the doctrine on the part of\nthe promulgators and guardians of the new faith. Even after this heresy\nwas introduced, we find no traces of it in the works of the Apostolical\nFathers, till nearly a century and a half from the birth of\nChrist,--except in a very few writings, so uncertain in their date, so\nwild and allegorical in their composition, and so evidently and\nextensively interpolated, as to be of little or no authority. We refer\nto the works commonly ascribed to Barnabus, Hermas, and Ignatius. The\nonly genuine epistle of Clemens Romanus which has come down to us,\nneither advocates, countenances, nor alludes to any such doctrine.\n\nEven the philosophizing Christians of the first century, against whom\nthe Apostles wrote, went no further than to suppose the Christ to be a\nsuperior intelligence, inhabiting a mortal form, or assuming the\nappearance of one: Cerinthus maintaining that Jesus was a man born of\nJoseph and Mary, and that at his baptism the Christ descended upon him;\nwhile Marcion held that the Son of God took the exterior form of a man,\nand appeared as a man; and without being born, or gradually growing up\nto the full stature of a man, he showed himself at once in Galilee as a\nman grown. It was not till Justin Martyr, himself a philosopher, wrote\nan apology for Christianity to a philosophical Roman emperor (A. D.\n140), that any distinct mention appears to have been made of the\ndoctrine of the Divinity of Christ. It is not surprising that--feeling\nhow great a reproach the death of the cross must be in the eyes of the\npotentate whom he wished to conciliate, and finding his mode of\nexposition prepared by the Gnostic Christians, and by the application\nmade by the learned Philo of the Platonic doctrine of the\nLogos,--Justin Martyr should have been tempted to recommend his new\ntheology by introducing an admixture of that philosophy which has\nproved, according to the warnings of the Apostle, a 'vain deceit.' Such\nwe have no hesitation in calling it. A doctrine of this nature cannot be\nin part true, but liable to mistake: it must be absolutely true or\nabsolutely false. We hold it to be the latter; because it was not made a\nsubject of distinct revelation by Christ, a primary article of belief by\nthe Apostles, or even a matter of distinct mention for a century and a\nhalf from the birth of Christ.\n\nAll that, from the study of the records of Revelation, we hold to be the\nprimary and essential doctrines of Christianity, stand forth\nconspicuously in the teachings, are confirmed by the deeds, and\nillustrated in the lives of the Saviour and his followers. We propose to\nbring them forward, with their evidence, in the following order.\n\nI. The strict Unity of God.\n\nII. The unlimited nature of the Redemption by Christ.\n\nIII. The existence of a Future State.\n\nFrom these, various subordinate principles may be derived, some of the\nmost important of which we shall afterwards specify; and then proceed\nto treat of the temporary sanctions and institutions of Christianity, in\ndistinction from its permanent principles.\n\nIt cannot be necessary for Christians, when addressing Christians, to\nenter upon the evidence for the divine authority under which the Saviour\noffered his Gospel, or for the consequent divine origin of that Gospel.\nThe name adopted by both parties is a sufficient testimony to the unity\nof their faith thus far. Concerning the nature of Christ, we have\nalready declared that, in accordance with what we believe to have been\nthe faith of the primitive ages, we regard the Saviour as human in his\nnature, but superhuman in his powers, and divinely appointed and\nsanctioned in his office. The title 'Son of God' is peculiarly and\nindefeasibly his own; for to no other being, as far as our knowledge\nextends, has so immeasurable a portion of authority, of power, of grace\nand truth, been vouchsafed; in no other has dwelt 'all the fulness of\nthe Godhead bodily.' The homage of reverence cannot be too fully and\nfreely rendered to him who was with God in His manifest presence; who\nwas one with Him in his purposes of eternal salvation to the human\nrace; who was the exponent of those purposes, and the means of that\nsalvation. The homage of love cannot be too fully and freely rendered to\nhim who suffered for our transgressions, and died for our justification;\nwho loved us with more than earthly love; who suffered in his compassion\nfor the sins and sorrows of men, as well as in the inflictions he\nsustained for their sakes; and who, though wounded in spirit and\ntortured in body, made use of the rule, authority, and power with which\nhe was invested, not for his own relief, but for our deliverance. To him\nwho brought us salvation, it is little to offer deep gratitude and\nunbounded love. The homage of obedience cannot be too fully and freely\nrendered to him who was wise with the wisdom of God, pure in heart,\nsinless in his life, and sanctified by grace from the beginning. Even if\nwe did not know that obedience to Christ is the way to life eternal,\nthat obedience would be due to his divine claims: but knowing this, it\nshould be steadfast as our faith, cheerful as our hope, and boundless as\nour love. Such was the obedience, such were the reverence and love of\nthe holy Apostles; and we desire to participate in them as fully as we\njoin, with heart and mind, in all that they have said concerning him.\nThey bow before his celestial authority,--so do we. They venerate his\nperfect holiness,--so do we. They bless his love, testified in his\nsufferings, sealed by his death, and glorified by his resurrection,--so\ndo we. They strove to be obedient in all things,--and we acknowledge the\nobligation incumbent on us to be so likewise; and that we may be so, we\ndiligently inquire what were the doctrines which he confirmed and\nrevealed.\n\nThe great fundamental doctrine of the strict Unity of Jehovah was\nabundantly confirmed by the Gospel. It had been long held in its purity\nby the Jews, and was apprehended by a few, a very few, enlightened\nheathens. It is called an essential doctrine of Christianity,--not\nbecause it was originated by Christianity, but because it was thus first\nintroduced to the world at large, and because no other doctrine could\nstand without it. It has accordingly been acknowledged in words by all\nwho have taken on themselves the name of Christ, while in its substance\nit has been held pure by very few, we apprehend, since the apostolic\nage. By the Unity of God we understand not a unity of substance\nconnected with a variety of persons, or a unity of persons accompanied\nwith a division of attributes; but a concentration of the attributes of\nDeity in one eternal, indivisible substance. This, our fundamental\nreligious belief, is derived both from reason and from Scripture, and is\nconfirmed equally by both.\n\nIf we examine our own minds, we find that our first notions of a God are\nlow and earthly. We conceive of Him as of an earthly parent, watching\nover our sleep with bodily eyes, furnishing our food with a bodily hand,\nand following us from place to place with a material presence. As\ninfancy passes away, our conceptions become less gross. We think of Him\nas omnipresent and invisible; but, deriving our notions from our\nexperience, we conceive of him as subject to emotions and passions. We\nbelieve in the real existence--if not of his smiles and frowns--of his\njoy, sorrow and anger, pleasure and pain. We can then imagine his\nknowing and remembering all that has ever taken place, but can scarcely\nconceive of his unlimited presence. Our childish obedience is then\nyielded as to our parents,--partly through fear, partly through a desire\nof approbation, and partly with the hope of of giving pleasure. All the\nqualities or attributes which we ascribe to God have their origin and\ncounterparts in our parents, or those who supply their place to us: and\nin no other way can the conception of Deity be originated. No mind can\narrive at the recognition of a general principle, but through an\nobservation of its particular applications; nor can a conception be\nformed, otherwise than by the gradual reception of its elements; or\nenlarged, but by adding to their number. From the watchfulness of its\nparent in satisfying its wants and defending it from injury, the child\nforms its first notion of Providence; and from the visitings of parental\napprobation and displeasure, of a moral governor. When the presence of\nDeity is thus recognised, some more abstract qualities are by degrees\nattributed to him. Instances of the strength, foresight, and knowledge\nof the parent are daily witnessed; and these, somewhat magnified, are\ntransferred to Deity;--and the moral attributes have the same origin.\nSteadiness in awarding recompence, tenderness in inflicting punishment,\nor readiness in remitting it on repentance, gradually communicate the\nabstract ideas of justice, compassion, and mercy. Our first low notions\nof holiness are formed by putting together all the best qualities we\nhave observed in the persons around us, and supposing them to be\nunimpaired by the faults we are conscious of in ourselves. All these\nattributes are ascribed to one Being; and the conception, already more\nexalted than any we have formed of any other individual being, is\nfurther improved by the richer elements of a more extended experience.\nThe imagination becoming stronger as the materials supplied to its\nactivity become more abundant, the conception of Deity perpetually grows\nin grandeur and beauty, till it absorbs the intellect of a Newton and\nengrosses the affections of a Fenelon. Still, this notion of a Being\nwhom we know and feel to be infinite, is formed from the results of our\nfinite experience; and the conception, however improved in degree, is\nunchanged in kind. Let it be magnified to the utmost extent, it is still\nonly magnified, not metamorphosed. As there is a strict analogy between\nthe moral attributes of God and of men, there is also a strict analogy\nbetween their natural modes of being. Justice in God is the same quality\nas justice in men, however perfected and enlarged; and Unity in God is\nthe same as individuality in men, though ascribed to an almighty and\nomnipresent Being.\n\nA perpetual and perfect concentration of attributes is essential to our\nnotion of one God. We can conceive of his manifesting one attribute in\nan especial manner on one occasion, and another on another; we can\nimagine him conferring power analogous to his own on an inferior being;\nbut we cannot conceive of his laying aside, of his depriving himself of\nany of the attributes of his nature, or of delegating his power,--if by\nsuch delegation be implied any diminution or inactivity of it in\nHimself. It is conceivable that he might employ some superior\nintelligence in creating the material world (though we have no authority\nto suppose that he did so;) but it is not conceivable that the work was\nnot, at the same time, wholly his own. It is conceivable that he might\nsend--it is certain that he did send--a being divinely furnished for the\nwork, to institute a dispensation of grace, and to offer pardon and\npeace to sinful men. But it is not conceivable that the divine attribute\nof mercy could previously, or subsequently, or ever, be laid aside, or\ntransferred, or suspended; that his unalterable purposes could be\nchanged, his compassion roused, his sympathies moved by any act of any\nbeing, human or angelic. To suppose so, is supposing his purposes\nmutable, and his compassion dormant; that is, divesting him of Deity. We\ncan, in accordance with our conception of Deity, understand how the\ndispensation of grace may be committed, as it was committed, to a finite\nbeing. But to suppose it the indefeasible prerogative of any eternal\nBeing but God, is clearly to suppose two Gods: and if the office of\nsanctification be appropriated in a similar manner, we must suppose\nthree Gods. However long and deeply we may reflect and strive to\nreconcile contradictions, we shall find at length that it is essential\nto our belief in One God, that we ascribe creation, redemption and\nsanctification, ultimately wholly to Him 'of whom, and through whom, and\nto whom are all things.'\n\nThis unalterable decision of the reason is confirmed in every possible\nway by revelation. It is needless to adduce proof from the Scriptures of\nthe Old Testament, as it is universally known that the Jews held, as the\nfundamental doctrine of their religion, the strict Unity of Jehovah, in\nnature, person, and attributes. There is not the slightest intimation,\nin the records of the new dispensation, that any change took place in\nthe opinions of the Apostles, or of any other Jewish converts,\nrespecting the nature or person of God. They speak and write of Him as\nOne, ordaining the salvation of the world through Christ, and Himself\nsanctifying those who were appointed to assist in the work. Jesus ever\nspoke of himself as the servant of the Most High, deriving his purposes\nand his powers from on high, and ascribing his achievements to the grace\nmanifested thence: 'I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught\nme I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath\nnot left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.' (John\nviii. 28, 29.) 'My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any\nman will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine (whether it be of\nGod, or whether I speak of myself.' John vii. 16, 17.) Again, in\nintimating the share which should be apportioned to his disciples in\npublishing the new dispensation, he says, 'Ye are they who have\ncontinued with me in my trials. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my\nFather hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in\nmy kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'\n(Luke xxii. 28, 29, 30.) It is not conceivable that, anxious as he ever\nwas to attract the attention of men to the nature of his mission, and to\nmagnify the importance of the new covenant, he should have concealed the\nmost wonderful and important circumstance belonging to it, and have not\nonly left men in ignorance of his highest claims to their homage and\nobedience, but have led them into it. That even his immediate followers\nand the primitive Church had no suspicion of the Christ being more than\nthe most exalted of God's messengers, we have already declared our\nconviction; a conviction which is confirmed by every page of their\nwritings. Paul was careful to declare 'the whole counsel of God.' Yet in\nthe passage of his writings in which, above all others he exalts the\nSaviour, he tells how, for the meekness with which he bore the honors\nwhich constituted in him a resemblance to God, for the humility with\nwhich he took on him the office of a servant, and the compassion which\ncaused his submission to the death of the cross,--he was yet more\nexalted by God, and favored with that name which is above every name,\nthrough which every man is privileged to worship, and every tongue\npermitted to offer praise, confessing 'that Jesus Christ is Lord to the\nglory of God the Father.' (Phil. ii. 5--11.) Peter, in the discourse by\nwhich three thousand persons were converted to Christianity, spoke of\nJesus of Nazareth as 'a man approved of God by miracles, and wonders,\nand signs, which God did by him;' and as being made Lord and Christ,\nraised from death and exalted to heaven by God. John repeats, in every\nform of expression, that the love of God was especially manifested by\nhis sending his Son to be the Saviour of the world; and that as the Lord\nmanifested his love for us by laying down his life, we also should be\nready to lay down our lives for one another. Jude addresses his Epistle\nto the Christians as to men 'sanctified by God the Father;' and in\nalmost every apostolic benediction and salutation we find the work of\nsanctification as well as of grace ascribed to the Father.\n\nBut it is more satisfactory as well as easy to appeal to the whole body\nof the sacred writings (which we confidently do,) than to separate\npassages for proof that God the Father is the sole originator of every\nwork of nature and of grace; that as winds are his messengers, and\nflaming fires his ministers in the world of matter,--righteous men,\nprophets, apostles, and above all, Christ, the Holy One, are his agents\nin the administration of the spiritual world, and the establishment of\nthe dispensation of grace.\n\nJehovah being thus sole in the possession of the attributes of Deity, is\nthe sole object of religious worship; for to God alone may such\nadoration be innocently paid. This assertion rests not alone on the\ncommands delivered from above to the Israelites; though we hold the\nauthority of the second commandment of the Decalogue, as it stands in\nProtestant Bibles, and is included in the Jewish version of the\ncommandments, to be equal to that of any part of the Mosaic law. 'Thou\nshalt worship Jehovah thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,' is a\nsummary of the entire purposes and details of the first dispensation;\nand the fundamental principle on which the second is based.\n\nThe prohibitions to the Jews to pray to any but Jehovah are too numerous\nto be adduced, and too clear to need any further notice than a passing\nreference. That the Israelites are not forbidden to seek the\nintercession of departed spirits is accounted for by their ignorance at\nfirst of a life beyond the grave, and their uncertainty respecting its\nvalue afterwards: but that there was a total absence of all desire to\nseek the intercession of a mediator in spiritual communion, is evident.\nWhen Elisha stood by Jordan to witness the ascent of Elijah, no prayers\nwere wafted to heaven in the chariot of fire; no grace was sought\nthrough the medium of the glorified prophet. When dangers compassed\nround the prophet and his servant in Dothan, and a vision of heavenly\nhosts was opened to them, no supplication was offered through the\nradiant messengers; but Elisha offered his prayer immediately to\nJehovah. He, with all his nation, would have felt the liberty of direct\ncommunion with God too great a privilege to be forgone, even if the\nnotion had occurred to them. No just fears which they could entertain\ncould be obviated by the employment of an intercessor; no desired\nblessing could be so easily obtained as by a direct appeal to the\ncompassion of the Father of mercies. It would have been well if the\npartakers of a fuller measure of grace had, in this respect, been\nlike-minded with their ancient brethren; had felt like them, that the\nhighest spiritual privilege is a free access to the divine presence,\nthe fairest spiritual promise that which declares 'If thou wilt call,\nJehovah shall answer thee. Come nigh unto me, and I will hear\nthee.'--This privilege it was which Jesus himself used most abundantly;\nand this promise he sanctioned by word and example, and taught his\nfollowers to appropriate. He exhorted them to pray as he himself prayed,\nin full assurance of faith, freely and immediately. On no subject were\nhis teachings more explicit, or his own practice and that of his\nApostles more fully ascertained. He taught them in what spirit, in what\nmanner, and for what objects to pray; viz. believing that what they\nasked should be given, that what they sought should be found;--retiring\ninto recesses where none could intermeddle with the communion of the\nheart; seeking whatever is needful for the body and the soul; supplies\nof the means of life, pardon, grace and peace. After this manner his\nfollowers prayed and taught others to pray. Paul mingled prayers for\nforgiveness of his early misguided zeal with thanksgivings for the grace\nvouchsafed to him, and ascriptions of praise to the supreme ordainer of\nsalvation. Peter prayed for strength to sustain persecution, and for\nguidance in his mission. James directed his hearers to ask of God, if\nthey sought wisdom. In all their exhortations to prayer, however, there\nis no intimation of a possibility that it may be offered otherwise than\nimmediately to Him to whom the Saviour prayed. Believing, as we are\nconvinced they did, that Christ was the son and servant of Him who\nheareth prayer, and not authorised to usurp that holy prerogative, no\npurpose could be answered by addressing supplications to him, but that\nof alienating the heart of the suppliant from the prime Giver of good,\nand no motive could be assigned for the act but a criminal distrust of\nthe divine love, or a groundless hope of evading his justice; motives\nlittle likely to actuate apostolic minds. To prevent, however, the\nsupposition that such motives could have occurred, that the practice of\npraying to Christ could have subsisted, we are in possession of a\ndeclaration from Jesus himself which obviates all doubt. When about to\nbid farewell to his Apostles, and to resign himself to death, he\npromised them comfort from above; and from the fountain of prophetic\nlight within, casts gleams upon the stormy future for the guidance of\nthe trembling pilgrims whom he left behind. He told them that joy\nshould visit the world through their sorrow; and that his name, exalted\nby the results of his mission and sanctified by death, should be the\nseal of the rectitude of their prayers, and the pledge of their success;\nwhile he distinctly disclaimed any part in the reception of their\nprayers, any assumption of the offices of mediation or intercession. 'Ye\nnow have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice,\nand your joy no man taketh from you. And in that day ye shall ask me\nnothing. Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my\nname, he will give it you. Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name:\nask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. These things have\nI spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh when I shall no more\nspeak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father.\nAt that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, that I will\npray the Father for you: for the Father himself loveth you, because ye\nlove me, and believe that I came forth from God.' (John xvi. 22-27.)\n\nAccording to these sayings, the Apostles made their requests for the\nmore abundant effusions of grace in the name of Christ; but, believing\nthat the Father himself loved them, they felt no need of other\nsupplication than their own, for benefits which he was more ready to\ngrant than they could be eager to receive. If we may judge of their\nopinions by the records which remain, we should be convinced that they\nregarded the Holy Spirit as a divine power only, and not a divine\nperson. As a power, as influence exerted by God himself, is the spirit\nspoken of in all the writings of the Apostles; as when Paul expresses\nthe relation which the spirit bears to God to be the same as the spirit\nof a man bears to man; 'What man knoweth the things of a man, save the\nspirit of man which is in him? Even so, the things of God knoweth no\nman, but the spirit of God.' (1 Cor. ii. 11.) The mode in which the\noperations of the spirit are described by them is perfectly inconsistent\nwith the notion of its being a separate person. Converts were said to be\n_baptized_ with the spirit and _filled_ with the spirit, and they were\nexhorted not to _quench_ the spirit. By the direction given to 'baptize\nin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,'\nnothing more was understood by the primitive Christians, as we learn\nfrom themselves, than the duty of spreading that religion which was\ngiven by God through Jesus Christ, and comfirmed by miraculous power,\nthough, in comparatively modern times, it began to be used as a form\nprescribed by Christ. As a form it does not appear to have been adopted\nby his followers, who seem to have baptized in the name of Jesus only.\nLike Christians of the present day, they believed the Holy Spirit to\nhave been the same by which the ancient prophets spoke; but, unlike the\nmodern belief, their conviction evidently was, that this spirit was the\nsame which moved on the face of the waters when the universe was called\nup from chaos; the same which was manifested at Sinai; the same which\nfilled the temple of Solomon and abode in the Holy of Holies; the same\nwhich wrought the works which Christ declared were not of himself; the\nsame which was and ever shall be, 'above all, through all, and in all.'\nThey believed the Spirit to be God himself, working in his creatures 'to\nwill and to do of his good pleasure.'\n\nThe peculiar endowments which were conferred on the disciples in the\napostolic age were called the gifts of the Spirit; and the thanksgivings\nwhich were presented for them were always offered immediately to God,\nfrom whom every good and perfect gift was known to come. When this\nSpirit was spoken of as an impersonal existence, as an influence, a\npower, it could not, of course, be made the object of worship any more\nthan the gifts it brought. When regarded as a personal existence, _i.\ne._ as God, it was, of course, the object of direct worship. But, as\npossessing any power of intercession, we may confidently declare it\nnever was appealed to, till the Christian theology had been mixed up\nwith the principles of the heathen philosophy. Among all the figurative\nillustrations of the offices and powers of the Spirit, among all the\nhighly wrought personifications and bold metaphors which characterize\nthe Hebrew style of the apostolic writings, we find no intimation that\nhomage may be offered, or intercession made, through it or any existence\nwhatever, personal or impersonal. Even the highly figurative passage\nwhich we meet with Romans viii. 25-28, and which is, we believe, the\nchief basis on which rests the practice of false worship in the\nChristian world, admits of no such interpretation as is commonly given\nto it. It needs only a careful reading of the whole chapter to perceive\nthat 'the spirit' there spoken of is not the Holy Spirit; not the\nimmediate divine influence of which we hear so much; but the new life\nsupposed to be introduced by the Gospel, in opposition to 'the flesh' or\nevil principle by which men were liable to condemnation under the old\ndispensation. After declaring that the fulness of salvation must be\nwaited for with Christian hope, the apostle continues, 'Likewise this\nspirit, also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should\npray for as we ought, but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us\nwith groans which cannot be expressed. But He who searcheth the hearts\nknoweth what is the mind of the spirit, that it intercedeth for the\nsaints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work\ntogether for good to them that love God, who are called according to his\npurpose.' In the weakness of our nature, we know not what most to desire\nand pray for, but the spirit of the Gospel informs and aids us;\nobtaining for us benefits which we could not otherwise have enjoyed. And\nthe benefits thus obtained are such as the divine will designed for us;\nall things thus tending to our good; the divine purposes, the aids of\nthe Gospel, and the circumstances amidst which that aid supports us. All\nthis has a very clear reference, not to any mediation of the Holy\nSpirit, to which there is no allusion whatever; but to the agency of the\nnew dispensation in delivering men 'from the bondage of corruption into\nthe glorious liberty of the children of God.'--If the intercession of\nChrist be needless because the Father himself loveth us, much more\nneedless must be the mediation of the Spirit, even were there such a\nseparate personal existence; and yet more needless must be the good\noffices of Saints, supposing them capable of rendering such a service to\ntheir mortal brethren.\n\nThose who, like ourselves, derive their religious belief from the Bible\nalone, can scarcely meet on the ground of argument those who profess\n'most firmly to admit and embrace apostolical and ecclesiastical\ntraditions,' if the subject of discussion be other than the authority of\nsuch traditions. On this discussion we shall enter hereafter. It only\nbelongs to the present division of our subject to observe, that, not\nadmitting the authority of ecclesiastical traditions in matters of\nfaith, and finding in the Scriptures no intimation of homage being due\nto the mother of Christ, or the holy men who glorified the Gospel in\ntheir lives and deaths, we offer no such homage, and that the worship\nand invocation of such are a direct infringement of the command, 'Thou\nshalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shall thou serve.'\n\nIt is not difficult to trace the origin and progress of a custom which,\nthough founded on a natural veneration for holiness sealed by death, is\nin our opinion more fatal to the purity, and inimical to the dignity of\nthe Gospel that any other which its professors have adopted.--It was a\ncustom in the early times of Christianity, to meet for worship at the\ntombs of the Martyrs; not for the sake of paying homage to the departed,\nbut because the survivors found their devotional feelings more sensibly\nexcited there. Their imaginations were at the same time possessed by the\npoetical fictions of the pagan philosophy, which represented the souls\nof the departed as hovering round the place of interment, and conscious\nof what was passing near. From this superstition arose the practice of\nmaking offerings annually in the name of the deceased, as an\nacknowledgement that they were still considered members of their\nrespective churches. This practice appears to have been first adopted at\nthe death of Polycarp, and to have speedily grown into a rite scarcely\ndistinguishable from the superstitions of heathenism. Tertullian\nobserves, 'We make oblations for the dead and for their martyrdom,\nyearly, on certain days.' At this time it was the general belief that\nthe usual abode of the dead was in subterraneous places, or at least\n'below,' somewhere near the earth, and as long as this belief subsisted,\nprayers were offered _for_ the dead,--for their present repose and\njoyful future resurrection. The Virgin Mary was thus prayed for. As the\nMartyrs were more highly thought of, however, than other deceased\nChristians, it began to be imagined, about the middle of the fourth\ncentury, that they were, by peculiar favor, admitted earlier to the\nimmediate presence of God, and permitted to exert influence even over\nhis purposes. Then began the solicitations addressed to men doomed to\ndeath, that they would be mindful of the survivors; and the agreements\nof companions, that whichever should first depart should petition at the\nfoot of the heavenly throne for his mortal friend. In a few more years\narose the custom of invoking the spirits supposed to hover near the\ntombs; some hesitation being implied in the expression 'if they were\nindeed present, and had any influence in things below.' It was yet a\nlong time before prayer was offered to Saints in general, and in the\npublic services of the Church. That the practice, if it had been\noriginated, was not approved by the Fathers of the Church in the third\ncentury, we know on the direct testimony of Origen, who says that men\nare not to pray to any derived being (not even to Christ himself), but\nto God the Father of all. Austin disapproved of praying _for_ the\nSaints, though he believed that the Church might be helped by their\nintercession; at the same time acknowledging, 'It is true the Saints do\nnot themselves hear what passes below, but they hear of it by others who\ndie and go to them.'\n\nThe time when the custom of invoking the Saints was first countenanced\nby the Church may be fixed about the end of the fourth century. In the\nfifth, all opposition to it had ceased, and the images of Martyrs began\nto be regarded with peculiar honor; it being imagined by many that the\nhomage paid to the image drew down into it the propitious presence of\nthe celestial being whom it represented; in the same manner as the\nstatues of Jupiter and other pagan gods were believed by heathen\nworshipers to become instinct with divine life. The temples of the\nMartyrs were now, as Theodoret informs us, ornamented with little\nfigures, of gold and silver, representing eyes, feet, hands, &c.,\ndeposited for the acceptance of the lords of the temples, as memorials\nof cures wrought by them on these several members: these memorials\nproclaiming the power of the dead; whose power, again, demonstrates\ntheir God to be the true God. How changed was this Christianity from\nthat given by him who forbade his followers to ask anything even of him,\nbecause the Father himself loved them!\n\nConcerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, those who have not vowed to admit\necclesiastical traditions as matters of faith, pretend to little\nknowledge from the time of the death of Christ. Her name is mentioned\nbut once in the Book of Acts, when she is enumerated among the disciples\nwho were collected after the ascension of Jesus; and how and where she\nlived and died, we have no means of ascertaining. The first act of\nrespect to her memory which is on record is censured by Epiphanius, as\n'a heresy of the women.' It consisted of an offering of cakes, prepared\nand offered by women only, and generally disapproved of, (though\noblations on tombs were then very common,) because it was not known\nwhere she was interred. It may be inferred, however, from the account\ngiven by Epiphanius, that prayers were by some persons offered to the\nVirgin, though he rebukes the new superstition. The first person of\nauthority who is known to have introduced and countenanced the worship\nof Mary, is Peter Gnapheus, bishop of Antioch, who in the fifth century\nappointed her name to be invoked in the prayers of the Church. If such\nhomage were her due, how came the Apostles and the apostolic Fathers to\nwithhold it from her? Why was her claim disallowed so long?\n\nWe can fully enter into, and are far from disapproving of, the natural\ncuriosity which prompts an inquiry into the fate of one whom all\ngenerations unite in calling blessed. When we ponder, as we cannot but\ndo, her privileges above all womanhood besides; when we imagine the\nintentness of soul with which she must have watched the course of her\nholy Son; perceiving perhaps before all others the manifestations of\ndivine grace in him; becoming more and more elated in her hopes, as the\npresence of God in him became more evident; trembling at the malignity\nof the rulers and the madness of the people; and finally sinking in\ndesolation of heart when every vital hope appeared extinguished; we\ncannot but search for an authentic record of what befell her after the\nday when the beloved disciple took her to his own home. But being\nconvinced, as we are, that no such record exists, we dare not fill up\nthe history with conjectures of our own; much less admit the claims\nfounded on fable and supported by superstition, which are advanced in\nher favor by writers who possessed no more knowledge of her state than\nourselves, and who were much less impressed by experience with the\nimportance of keeping religion pure, simple, and undefiled. We regard\nMary as one of the most interesting persons presented by history, but as\nin no respect connected with the Gospel we receive. Christianity was not\nrevealed till Christ became a man; and as Mary had no act or part in its\ndiffusion, she bears no other relation to us than as a being whose lot\nengages our sympathies, and whose tender nature and pious character\nshould excite our affection and emulation. For the same reasons, however\nlargely we may share the universal curiosity respecting the state of the\ndead, however rationally our philosophy may conceive, or however\nvividly our imaginations may represent them as living, as observing the\ncourse of events, as participating in our emotions, as enjoying the\nmanifest presence of God, we dare not found any religious belief or\npractice on such speculations. If our religious observances had been in\nany way connected with the dead, we should have known something of their\nstate and offices; but as no such knowledge is imparted, as there was no\npretension to it in the earliest ages, and especially as Christianity\nclearly points to God as the sole object of religious worship, we invoke\nthe departed for no other purpose than to satisfy our speculative\ndoubts, we attribute to them no other office than that of endearing the\npast and hallowing the future, and offer no other oblations than those\nof the memory and the affections. Even if we believed them permitted to\nintercede for us with our Father, we should be slow to seek their aid;\nfor if there be one privilege more precious than another, it is that of\ndirect, intimate communion with Him who knoweth our weakness and our\nstrength; if there be one provision more sacred than another in the\ncharter of our 'glorious liberty,' it is that by which they who are far\noff and they who are near have equal access unto the Father; not through\nthe ministrations of inferior spirits, but face to face in the sanctuary\nof his presence. He is not only our sure, but our near refuge; not only\nour unfailing, but our very present help; not only our hope, but our\nperpetual joy. The deepest of our joys and griefs, those which it is\nmost necessary to confide to Him who caused them, are absolutely\nincommunicable to all besides; and what is emphatically true of our\nself-communings, that 'the heart knoweth its own bitterness,' is yet\nmore true of spirit worship, 'no stranger intermeddling with its joy.'\n\nHaving thus stated the grounds of our dissent from that clause of the\nsymbol of Pius IV. which declares that 'the Saints reigning together\nwith Christ are to be honored and invocated, and that they offer prayers\nto God for us,' it is needless to notice what follows; viz. that their\nrelics are to be venerated; 'that the images of Christ and the Mother of\nGod, ever Virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and\nretained; and that due honor and veneration are to be given to them.'\nSuch practices we hold to be utterly inconsistent with the principle\nthat God is the sole object of religious worship; which principle is\nderived from what we have laid down as the first essential doctrine of\nRevelation,--the Unity of Jehovah.\n\nThe next essential doctrine is,\n\nII. The unlimited extent of the Redemption by Christ.\n\nA large proportion of the differences which have arisen in the Christian\nworld respecting the doctrine of redemption, proceed from the variety of\nmeanings which is attached to the term _salvation_. While one party\nunderstands by it an admission to the privileges of the Gospel, and a\nconsequent emancipation from the penalties of the old dispensation;\nanother, the state of virtue and peace which will prevail when\nChristianity has compassed the globe; and a third, a future state of\nperfect bliss in contrast to one of eternal torment; there is little\nhope of a mutual understanding respecting the doctrine of Justification.\nOur part now is to state our own views, and not to enter on any\ndiscussion of those of others.\n\nWe believe that by _salvation_ the Scripture writers commonly signified\nthe state of privilege into which Christian believers were brought by\ntheir adoption of the principles of holiness and peace which the Gospel\naffords. Thus, according to its original meaning, the term was\nappropriated to a state of comparative blessedness in this world; but as\nthe principles of the Gospel exert the most powerful influence over our\nspiritual state, over our capacity for happiness in a future world, the\nterm Salvation has naturally and not improperly been accommodated to\nsignify a state of future safety and bliss. That it did not always mean\nthis, however, is evident to all attentive readers of the Scriptures; as\nthere is not one of Paul's epistles or discourses which would be\nintelligible, if he were supposed to declare his converts saved from the\npains of hell, instead of from the dominion of the evils of heathenism,\nor the condemnation of the Jewish law. By _redemption_, we understand a\nrelease from the same evils and penalties effected by a sacrifice on the\npart of a benevolent mediator. By _remission of sins_, we understand the\nforgiveness and consequent remission of punishment which are promised in\nthe Gospel on condition of repentance and newness of life. By\n_justification_, we believe the sacred writers sometimes to signify the\nprocess by which believers are released from all obligations incurred\ntowards the old law, and brought into a state of spiritual freedom; and\nsometimes that free state itself. We conceive that this interpretation\nof terms--not new and arbitrary, but only divested of the false\nassociations which have been long gathering round them--will clear up\nmost of the mysteries which obscure a very important Christian doctrine,\nand enable us, in comparing scripture with scripture, to discern a\nconsistency of views and a depth of truth which afford an irresistible\nevidence of their divine authority.\n\nThe whole scheme of revelation we conceive to be the method designed by\nthe divine wisdom, and adopted by the divine benevolence, for bringing\nthe human race into a state of purity and peace more rapidly than could\nbe effected by the religion of nature. The welfare of the whole race was\nno less the object of the Jewish than of the Christian dispensation,\nthough its apparent privileges were confined to the peculiar people.\nThese privileges, immediately and positively advantageous to the chosen\npeople, were remotely and relatively so to others, by establishing\nbefore their eyes evidences of a divine moral government; and as a moral\ngovernment implies consistency of authority, it affords a strong\npresumption of the unity of the Governor. The Jews were led on from the\nfundamental principle of the Divine Unity to the apprehension of a\ndivine moral government; while observant heathens, perceiving the moral\nresults of the national vicissitudes of the Hebrew people, deduced\nthence the truth of the Unity of the Deity. Meanwhile, both were\nadvancing to a state of fitness for a fuller revelation; the Jews more\nrapidly than the heathens, as being specially placed under the\nschoolmaster who was to bring them unto Christ; but still, dispensing\nspiritual benefits towards the heathen, for whose sake as well as for\ntheir own they were placed in a state of privilege. The old\ndispensation, though a condition of light and privilege compared with\nthat of nature, was a state of darkness and bondage when contrasted with\nChristianity. Though the Hebrews had more elevated conceptions of God\nand clearer notions of duty than the Gentiles, they yet could not\nappreciate the riches of divine grace, or the extent of divine and human\nrelations, or the full beauty of holiness. They were burdened by a heavy\nyoke of ritual observances; an escape from the penalties of the law was\nimpossible; and especially, they had no certain knowledge of a future\nlife. The blessings therefore which Christianity offered,--the\n_redemption_ from the bondage of the law, the _remission_ of the\npenalties of sin on repentance, the _justification_ by which they were\nplaced in a condition of spiritual power and freedom,--were worthy of\nall the exultation experienced and all the thanksgivings expressed by\nthose who were thus redeemed, forgiven, and justified. These blessings\nwere yet more valuable to the Gentiles, in proportion to the more\nrigorous bondage and deeper moral darkness to which they had been\nsubjected. Instead of the strict but salutary discipline of the law,\nthey had sustained the tyranny of lawless appetites and passions, had\nlived without other restraints than those of nature; and had no hope in\ndeath, but the glimmering and uncertain presages which their own\nfaculties or long-corrupted traditions supplied.\n\nThe mode of preparation for the introduction of the Gospel affords a\nstrong presumption that its benefits were intended for the whole race.\nThe Jews had been led on to the point when their spiritual development\nabsolutely required a more expansive revelation; and the Gentiles were\nprepared, by their observation of the Hebrew people, and by their own\nwants, sins, and sorrows, to receive with joy happier tidings than their\nfondest hopes could anticipate, and richer benefits than their desires\ncould previously have comprehended. The benefits of the Gospel, after\nbeing offered to the Jews and partially accepted by them, were freely\nheld out to the whole human race, and received by all who were conscious\nof the need of them: so that the Gospel was truly what the aged Simeon\ndeclared it, 'the salvation which God had prepared before all people; a\nlight to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.'\n\nYet there were many among the people of Israel who were blind to this\nglory, and many of the Gentiles who rejected this guiding light. This\nrejection was not caused by any restrictive quality in the revelation,\nany provision in the Gospel itself for the limitation of its privileges:\nnor was it caused by any previous arbitrary decree of the ordainer of\nsalvation, that on account of some very ancient event, totally\nunconnected with the present dispensation, a large majority of the human\nrace should be rendered absolutely incapable of participating in the\nblessings of redemption. It was occasioned by the prejudices of narrow\nminds, by the ignorance of darkened minds, by the spiritual pride of\npresumptuous minds, by the petty hopes and fears of selfish\nminds,--prejudices, ignorance and selfishness naturally arising in the\nthen state of the world, and not to be immediately or speedily got rid\nof but by miracle: a mode of agency which the Divine Being has\nfrequently made use of to sanction his revelations, but never to prepare\nthe human mind for their reception. Thus spiritual ignorance and moral\nblindness are, we apprehend, the only obstacles to universal redemption;\nand we firmly believe that these obstacles are only temporary. The\nGospel itself bears such an indisputable character of permanence and\nuniversality (as we shall hereafter show), and so evident a provision is\nmade for the gradual dissipation of darkness and error, that we may\nconfidently anticipate the time when the hope of the Gospel shall be the\nrich possession of every individual of every nation.\n\nThat it will be so we conclude, not from the persuasion of our own\nhopes, or at the bidding of our reason in opposition to the declarations\nof Scripture; but because every principle derived from the Gospel\nsanctions the commands of our reason and affords a warrant of our hope.\nThere is in no Gospel, History, or Epistle, a hint of any restriction or\nlimitation of the blessings of redemption. Christ is ever spoken of as\nhaving died for all; there are thanksgivings in the name of all,\ninvitations embracing all, and anticipations of the ultimate bliss of\nall. Those who are mourned over, reproached, entreated, compassionated,\nbecause they will not accept freedom and peace, are spoken of as\nexcluded by their own unfitness for grace, arising from natural causes,\nand not by any sin of any ancestor, or by any arbitrary decree of God,\nor by any repellant and exclusive character in the dispensation of grace\nitself. Its most distinguishing character, on the contrary, was its\nboundlessness. Its first work was to throw down the wall of partition\nwhich had separated the favored people from others, to abolish arbitrary\ndistinctions, to exchange the multifarious conditions of the old law for\nthe few, simple and universal requisites of salvation declared in the\nnew. If other distinctions have since been instituted, other conditions\nimposed, other requisites insisted on, they are no part of Christianity,\nand shall no more impede its ultimate prevalence than the cloud which\nshrouds the lightning can prevent its shining from one part of the\nheaven unto the other.\n\nIt may be objected, and with justice, that this method of considering\nthe scheme of justification makes out the gift of grace to be only\nultimately and not strictly universal; unlimited in its tendencies, but\nhitherto very limited in the diffusion of its blessings: and hence may\narise an inquiry concerning the fate of those who have died without the\nhope of the Gospel.\n\nAs to the limited spread of the Gospel thus far, it is our business not\nto assign the final cause of the fact, but to admit and reason on the\nfact itself. The fact occasions no horror in our minds, and less regret\nthan is felt perhaps by any denomination of Christians besides\nourselves; and for this reason, that we do not hold perdition to be the\nonly alternative to salvation by Christ. We find no sanction for so\nfearful a collocation of terms in the record of the covenant; no mode of\nreconciling the doctrine thus originated with the attributes of Deity,\nor with our conceptions of justice, much less of benignity. Moreover we\ncan clearly discern through what misconception the monstrous belief in\nthe everlasting destruction of unbelievers, whether by natural or moral\nnecessity, has sprung to birth. We believe it to have arisen from the\nbefore-mentioned misapprehension of the terms Salvation, Remission of\nsins, and Justification.\n\nTo the enjoyment of the blessings of the Gospel no alternative could be\nopposed but their non-possession; to the remission of sins, but their\nretention; to justification, but condemnation under the law. But it does\nnot follow that when these terms are shifted from their original use,\nand accommodated to a subject to which they do not naturally belong,\nthey should be still opposed to each other, no others being allowed to\nintervene. If it be generally agreed to understand by _Salvation_ a\nstate of perfect bliss after death, it is well: but if any man then\nchoose to transfer the term _Perdition_ from meaning the loss of the\nprivileges of Christianity to the loss of the happiness of heaven and a\nconsequent subjection to the pains of hell, he goes further than the\ncustomary use of language allows, further than reason can sanction, and\nmuch further astray from a true theology than he can at present\nestimate, or can hereafter sufficiently deplore. It is mournful enough\nthat myriads have died in ignorance and error, that thousands have\nrejected offered light; but no words can express the horror of the\npopular doctrine of the eternal condemnation of all who have not died\nin the faith of Christ, or our reprobation of the corruption through\nwhich such a doctrine has been originated, received, and retained. While\nwe believe that grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, and that 'all\nthings are but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus\nour Lord,' we cannot believe that wrath from above and misery from\nbelow, sin from within and darkness around, destined to be dissipated\nonly by the flames of hell, are the portion of all but those who are\nequally happy with ourselves. Our belief appears to us more consistent\nwith our apprehensions of the perfections of our Father, with our\ninterpretations of his providence, and with the spirit of his revealed\nlaw. We believe that though Christianity is the focus in which all the\nlights of reason and religion are concentrated, every ray is not there\nabsorbed. We believe that though shadows brood more or less darkly over\nevery heathen land, there is in the most remote a glimmering of the\ndawn; a ray which may direct the eye towards the fountain of glory, and\nengage the attention to watch the rising of that sun which shall set no\nmore.\n\nWe believe that the rewards of righteousness are promised to all; and\nthat the practice of righteousness is not limited to any kindred,\ntongue, or people, or essentially connected with any religious belief.\nWe hold that retribution is the universal sanction of the universal\nmoral law; and if the nature of the sanction be more fully understood by\nChristians, and therefore practically admitted with greater readiness,\nlet them be as grateful as they will for the great privilege, but beware\nof supposing that the sanction is abolished to all besides. Under the\nvarious obscurations of this sanction, savage virtue may be inferior to\ncivilized,--Hottentot to Roman virtue, as both are to Christian\nholiness; but there is every reason to believe that the savage who\nsurrendered his hard-earned meal to the hungry stranger, and the Pagan\nsenators and warriors who toiled and bled for their country, were as\nsure of an appropriate reward as the most benevolent and heroic of\nChristians.\n\nThe unlimited nature of salvation in this sense, leads us on to another\ngreat doctrine of the Gospel; viz.\n\nIII. A Future State.\n\nThis truth, the most important to human improvement, the most\ninteresting to human affections, was so fully brought to light by the\nGospel, that Christians have differed respecting it no further than as\nto the time and mode in which future retribution will take place. That\nJesus died on the cross, was inclosed in the sepulchre, and was led\nforth thence by the manifest power of God, are facts too well\nauthenticated to be questioned to any purpose by the most hardy sceptic;\nand on them securely rests the sublime belief which, from the midst of\nobscurity, had already cheered the bereaved, animated the martyr, and\nexalted the hopes and fears of the great body of the Hebrew nation. They\nhad been led, like many of the Gentiles, by the mournful questionings of\ntheir affections, to inquire concerning a future state, and at length to\nbelieve in it; but their indistinct belief was widely different in\nnature and far inferior in power to the firm and clear faith with which\nthe resurrection of Christ authorized them to look forward. Their former\nbelief was strong enough to reconcile them to death; and perhaps they\nhad sufficiently clear convictions that the future life would be a scene\nof retribution, to govern their own conduct by some regard to it; but\nthe evidence was not such as to authorize their pressing on the minds\nof others the motives which the doctrine now affords. Without the\nevidence of the facts of Christ's resurrection, Paul could not have made\nFelix tremble at the prospect of judgement to come; or have enforced the\nduties of masters to their servants by considerations of their\naccountability to a master in heaven; or have felt how far better it was\nto depart and be with Christ than to pursue his earthly labors. Without\nthis evidence, Stephen could not have met his fate as if he had been\nwelcoming the hour of rest from which the beams of a new day should\nawaken him. Without this evidence, no one of the Apostles could have\npassed through his labors and sufferings with zeal, patience, and\ncheerfulness; for we have their own testimony, that if in this life only\nthey had had hope in Christ, they would have been of all men the most\nmiserable. Without this evidence, not only would the hopes of millions\nwho have since lived have vacillated, the peace of millions have been at\nthe mercy of sickness and death, and their spiritual strength in\nperpetual peril from temptation, but the state of morals through the\nwhole civilized world, imperfect as it yet is, would have been far\ninferior to what we see it, and could never attain the purity which we\nconfidently anticipate in some future age. Without this evidence,\nChristianity would be almost nothing; for the doctrine of future\nretribution is not only its most important revelation, but it is so\nintimately connected with every other, as a sanction, that the Church\nmight as well be supposed complete without its chief corner-stone, as\nChristianity to be efficacious if deprived of this last grand truth.\nThis evidence we have, however; and possessing it, it is of\ncomparatively little importance how widely men differ in their\nspeculations as to the time and mode in which the future life shall\nsucceed to the present, and as to the nature of the rewards and\npunishments which shall follow their probation. The belief in a certain\nand righteous retribution is all that is enforced upon us by\nChristianity, all that is a necessary consequence of our faith in the\nresurrection of Christ. Yet, as a tendency to unauthorized speculation,\nand also a misapprehension of some Scriptural expressions, appear to us\nto have caused a very extensive forgetfulness that retribution is not\nonly certain, but will be righteous, we must enter on some explanation\nof our views respecting the extent of punishment of which the life to\ncome is to be the scene.\n\nWe say respecting the _extent_ only, because the _nature_ of the\npunishment is a subject of far inferior importance, and one on which we\npossess so little light that it may fairly be left to the imagination of\neach individual to conceive for himself. Some persons, perhaps the great\nmajority of every denomination of Christians, believe that the pains of\nactual burning will be inflicted on a corporeal frame, susceptible of\nsuffering in the same way as the body which we at present inhabit, but\nrendered indestructible. Others conceive that the Scripture language\nwhich describes the wicked as tormented by fire is metaphorical, and\nthat it clearly refers, by way of allusion, to the valley of Hinnom,\nwhere corrupt substances were devoured by worms, and where human\nsacrifices were offered by fire to Moloch. Such imagine that the future\nsufferings of the wicked will be purely mental, but not therefore the\nless severe and awful. If it had been necessary to form clear\nconceptions on this subject, a fuller light would have been cast upon\nit; and as that fuller light is not granted, we may fairly suppose that\nwe cannot at present understand the exact nature of the evil of which\nwe are emphatically called on to beware. But of the duration of the\nevil, we believe ourselves so far qualified to judge, as to anticipate\nthat it will not be eternal.\n\nOur reasons for thus determining are various. It is, in the first place,\nutterly inconceivable that God should appoint to any individual of his\ncreatures a lot in which misery predominates over happiness. Our belief\nin the Divine prescience requires that we suppose the fate of every man\nto be ordained from the beginning. Our faith in the Divine mercy\nrequires that we should expect an overbalance of good in the existence\nof every being thus ordained; and that in no case can the punishment be\ndisproportionate to the offence. Our faith in the Divine benevolence\ninspires a conviction that all evil is to be made subsidiary to good,\nand that therefore all punishment must be corrective, all suffering\nremedial. Thus far the light of nature teaches us to anticipate the\nfinal restitution of sinners.\n\nIt is confirmed by revelation,--by every passage of the sacred records\nwhich represents God as a tender Father to all the human race, as just\nand good, as incapable of being 'angry for ever,' or of taking pleasure\nin the punishment of the wicked, and as chastising in mercy, for\ncorrective purposes. It is confirmed by every passage which describes\nthe good brought into the world by Christ as overbalancing the evil\nproduced by the introduction of sin and death. It is confirmed by every\npassage which prophetically announces the triumph of the Gospel over all\nadverse powers,--death, sin, and sorrow. Above all, it is confirmed by\nthe whole tenor of the preachings and writings of the Saviour and his\nfollowers,--by the spirit of boundless benevolence, of joyful faith, of\nexulting hope, which is every where blended with their emphatic warnings\nof the perils of sin, and their mournful regret for the infatuation of\nsinners. It appears to us that against all this array of evidence on the\none side, little or none can be adduced on the other.\n\nThat which is brought forward most frequently and with the most show of\nreason is the expressions commonly translated _everlasting_, and which\nare applied both to the future happiness of the righteous and misery of\nthe wicked. These terms (which are much less frequently applied to a\nfuture state than is commonly supposed) do not invariably signify\n'everlasting' and 'eternal,' as is evident from their being applied to\nvarious institutions and states which have already come to an end and\npassed away: as to the covenant with Abraham, which is declared to have\nbeen long since annulled; to the priesthood of Aaron, of which no\nvestiges remain; and to the flames of Gehenna, which have been quenched\nfor ages. The strictly correct rendering of the terms in these cases is\n_permanent_, _continual_, _lasting_, and not absolutely eternal.\n\nIn order to reconcile the terms as usually rendered with the attribute\nof Divine justice, some Christians have imagined that the limited\npunishment of the wicked will be followed by immediate destruction; but\nthis supposition leaves the difficulty where it was before, and is\nbesides destitute of all support from reason or Scripture; as it is\nincompatible with the character of the Divine dispensations that\npunishment should be appointed for any but corrective purposes, or that\nsin and sorrow should triumph in the annihilation of any individual of\nGod's creatures.\n\nIf we are asked why then we firmly believe in the immortality of the\nrighteous? we reply, that we found our faith on much better evidence\nthan the use of the terms we have now been considering. We believe it,\nbecause the happiness of the creature is the fulfilment of the ends of\ncreation and providence; because happiness is an eternal principle,\nwhile misery is only a temporary influence; and because it would argue\nimperfection in the Deity, if he were either unable or unwilling to\nprolong a holy and blissful existence.\n\nThis doctrine,--of the limited and corrective nature of future\npunishment,--is often likened by those who disbelieve and disapprove it,\nto the Catholic doctrine of purgatory; a likeness which Catholics and\nUnitarians are perhaps equally unwilling to admit, though the latter\nhave little doubt that the belief in purgatory is a corruption of the\ngenuine doctrine as they hold it now.\n\nIt was the opinion of many of the Fathers in very early times, that the\nworld would be destroyed by fire; that the good would be purified by the\nprocess, and the wicked consumed. It is clear that they derived a part\nof this belief from some other source than the Scriptures; but it is\nequally clear that they had no notion of an eternity of torment. Origen,\nClemens Alexandrinus, his master, with Gregory Nazianzen, and others of\nthe Fathers, held that the wicked would survive this punishment, and\ncome out purified and fit for a blissful state. The Catholic doctrine of\npurgatory probably arose out of some of these opinions, though it\nembraces much which does not appear to have entered into the\nimaginations of the Fathers. Its substance, as declared in the councils\nof Florence and Trent, is that every man is liable both to temporal and\neternal punishment for his sins; that the eternal punishment may be\nescaped by faith in the atonement of Christ; but that the temporal must\nbe borne by the individual in this world or at his entrance on the next;\nthat the sufferings of those who undergo purgation may be relieved by\nthe prayers and suffrages of their earthly brethren, though in what\nmanner this relief is wrought, whether by a process of satisfaction, or\nof intercession, or of any other method, it is not essential to true\nfaith to be certified. Neither is it necessary to know where the place\nof purgation is; of what nature its pains are, and how long sufferers\nmay be detained there. The belief in purgatory was, for some ages, held\nby all Christians, except the ancient Waldenses, who left the Church of\nRome before the doctrine was established there, and who never admitted\nit. Soon after the Reformation, it was abandoned by all who left the\nChurch of Rome; so that it has since been peculiar to that church.\n\nOur reasons for rejecting it are, that we find no trace of it in\nScripture, and that, as we declared before, we do not admit\necclesiastical traditions as matters of faith. We also reject the notion\nthat any part of the punishment of sin can be escaped through the\nsacrifices, or mediation, or intercession of any being whomsoever. We\nhave been frequently accused of impairing a divinely appointed sanction\nby asserting the limited extent of future punishment; but we think that\nthe sanction is, in reality, abolished by the admission that the Divine\ndecrees may be set aside by human acts, and that the relations of good\nand evil, virtue and vice, which are declared to be immutable, may be\nchanged at the pleasure of mortal agents. We believe the punishment of\nsin to be of limited duration; but as certain as the existence of the\nmoral agent, and as little capable of remission through the will of any\ncreated being as the law which regulates the rise and fall of the tides,\nthe changes of the moon, and the revolutions of the planets. We hold it\nto be awful, not only from its certainty, but from its concealed\nnature. It will doubtless transcend all that the experience of earth\ncan suggest to the imagination. Can it be said that we impair this\nsanction when we hold that the suffering consequent on guilt is\nabsolutely certain, lasting in its duration, and inconceivably dreadful\nin its nature? What apprehensions could be fitted to excite greater\ndread?\n\nFor the purpose of explaining why we believe that no part of the\nconsequences of guilt can be evaded through the sacrifices, mediation,\nor intercession of any being whatsoever, it is necessary to pass on to\nthe next division of our subject. Having stated the three leading\ndoctrines of Christianity, the Unity of God, the unlimited scope of the\nplan of redemption, and a future state, we now proceed briefly to\nexamine the principles of morals proposed by the Gospel.\n\nThe fundamental truths of Morals are eternal as He to whom they\nprimarily relate, and immutable as the purposes which they subserve. But\nit is necessary that they should be communicated to men under different\nforms and according to various methods, as minds are prepared to receive\nthem: and their application must also be regulated according to the\ncircumstances in which men are placed. The same principle was proposed\nto Adam in Paradise, to Abraham in Beersheba, and to Paul when he set\nhis face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem, knowing that bonds and\nafflictions awaited him there. Obedience to God was the motive proposed\nfor abstaining from the forbidden fruit, for sacrificing an only son,\nand for facing suffering and death. But an intimation which was all\npowerful with Abraham was insufficient to secure a much less painful\nobedience from Adam; and the self-devotion of Paul was ennobled in all\nits manifold instances, by its springing, not from so many express\ndirections, but from a principle, undeviating and perpetual in its\noperation. In the infancy of the race, it would have been utterly\nuseless to reveal the grand principles of morals in any other way than\nthat which was adopted, viz. by exhibiting their application in various\ninstances. The Divine will was therefore made known in express\ndirections, probably very few in number at first, and gradually\nincreasing in number and importance, so as to enable observers, from\nremarking the similar tendency of several, to infer a general principle\nfrom them. All the records which we possess of the history of the race\nto the calling of the Israelites out of Egypt, prove this to have been\nthe method adopted. The commands of God, and the promises and threats by\nwhich they were sanctioned, bore an analogy, in their gradual elevation,\nto those by which we influence an opening mind in its progress from the\nfirst manifestation of intelligence to the age when the power of\nconscience is recognizable. In the Mosaic system, a considerable advance\nwas made, a direct appeal to conscience being instituted, and the\ngradual revelation of a moral government being provided for. Men were\nthen taught, not what we now know, that the relation between virtue and\nhappiness, vice and misery, is immutable (which they could not have\nunderstood,) but that in their particular case, obedience to certain\nlaws would secure prosperity, and disobedience adversity. Such\nobedience, the most virtuous were incited to render, from a fear and\nlove of God; but they could not have rendered it in any but specified\ncases, because, not yet being made acquainted with the principle as a\nprinciple, they could not direct its application for themselves. The\ncase was the same with the other great principle, Benevolence, as with\nPiety; and, accordingly, the body of laws which was prepared for the\nIsraelites was voluminous, and their sanctions were expressed in a\ncopious variety of promises and threatenings, and embodied in a\nburthensome ritual, consisting chiefly of penal acts. When the nation\nhad thus been exercised long enough to prepare it for entering on a new\ncourse of moral agency (as we prepare a child for the spontaneous\nexercise of filial duty and fraternal love by a discipline of express\ncommands and particular acts,) Christianity was dispensed, and men were\nat length furnished with the principles themselves, with whose\napplication they were henceforth to be entrusted.\n\nChristianity was designed to be permanent and universal; and, therefore,\nthough it was first communicated in the form best adapted to those who\nwere first to receive it, it contains within itself that which shall fit\nit to be a revelation to the mind of man in every stage.\n\nIt contains eternal principles of doctrine and morals, embodied in\nfacts, which are the only immutable and universal language. The\ncharacter of Christ affords a never-failing suggestion, and a perfect\nillustration of the principles of morals; a suggestion which only the\nmost careless minds can fail to receive, and an illustration by which\nonly the most hardened can fail to be impressed. From him it was learned\nwhat part of the moral law of Moses was to be retained and what forgone;\nhow much was vital and permanent and how much external and temporary.\nFrom him it was learned, and shall be learned to the end of time, how\nthe sympathy which caused tears at the grave of Lazarus, the compassion\nwhich relieved the widowed mother of Nain, the tenderness which yearned\ntowards the repentant Apostle, the diffusive love which embraced in its\nprayer all of every age and nation who needed the gospel of grace,\ncombined to enforce and adorn the principle of Benevolence. His parables\nare eloquent in their praise of benevolence; his entreaties to mutual\nlove are urgent, and his commands decisive; but the eloquence of his\nexample is by far more urgent and irresistible. From him it was, and\never shall be, learned that the rule of life is to be found in the will\nof God. From his devotion to the work which God had given him to do,\nfrom his perpetual reference of all things to the Divine will, from his\nunhesitating submission to suffering and death, from his supreme delight\nin devotional communion, we learn how Piety is the pre-eminent principle\nof feeling and action which men are required to adopt. The parables\nwhich inculcate ready filial obedience and sorrow for disobedience, the\ndeclarations that it was his meat and drink to do the will of God, and\nthat he was not alone because the Father was with him, are powerful\nenforcements of the principle; but not so powerful as the acts of\nobedience and resignation in which its power shone forth. The whole\nscheme of morals is comprehended in the precepts, 'Thou shalt love the\nLord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and\nthy neighbor as thyself;' but the concentration of truth and beauty is\nless resplendant, less engaging, less universally clear and interesting,\nthan in the character of him who deduced these two principles from all\nthe law and the prophets.\n\nWith these two principles, and all the subordinate ones which are\nderived from them, are connected sanctions from above, which attest\ntheir origin and secure their adoption. By an irreversible decree of Him\nwho founded nature and vouchsafed a revelation, certain states of\nenjoyment and suffering are connected with the practical adoption or\nrejection of the principles of duty, not by way of arbitrary\nappointment, but of natural consequence. The relations of holiness and\nhappiness, of guilt and misery, are unalterable; shown to be so by the\nteachings of nature and experience, by the explicit declarations of\nScripture, and by every species of evidence which the mind of man is\ncapable of receiving.\n\nThough the chief object of the Christian revelation was to make this\nrelation more evident than it had ever been before, many who received\nthe Gospel imagine that it discovers to them a means by which the\nrelation may be suspended or destroyed. This misapprehension we hold to\nbe more fatal in its moral consequences than any other which human\nprejudice has originated. By what appears to us a strange perversion of\nScripture language, and by the gradual increase of some subordinate\nerrors, it began to be imagined, some centuries ago, that, though misery\nis necessarily connected with guilt, yet that the guilt may be\nperpetrated by one person, and the consequent misery endured by another;\nand this belief has subsisted in almost every Christian church till this\nday. It is well that it has been confined to the churches, and that its\napplication has been limited, by all but Catholics, to one very\npeculiar case; for if it had become the common doctrine of our schools,\nand colleges, and homes, if it had been enforced by parents and moral\nphilosophers and professors as a general truth, as it is by divines with\nreference to a particular case, the very foundations of virtue would\nhave been overthrown, and the force of its sanctions not only wasted but\nfatally perverted.\n\nHappily the accents of reason and religion have been too distinct and\nharmonious to be overpowered by the dictates of error, or very\nextensively neglected. Notwithstanding all that religious teachers have\nerroneously inculcated of the possible and actual separation of guilt\nand its punishment on the principle of vicarious suffering, education\nhas still proceeded, and moral discipline been enforced as if no such\nfalse principle had ever been advocated. Children are swayed by hope and\nfear of the consequences of their actions to themselves; and\nself-government is enforced at a riper age by the same motives, though\nenlarged and elevated. In religion alone has an error, as absurd in its\nnature as injurious in its tendencies, been retained thus long by the\nforce of prejudice; and that it has not spread further we hold to be\nowing to its manifest folly and to its evidently noxious influence when\napplied to any case but that to which it is appropriated. There can be\nno surer proof that the principle itself is false.\n\nIt is difficult to know where to begin in disproving a doctrine which is\nrepugnant to every other doctrine, inconsistent with every received\ntruth, and incompatible with every admitted divine and human relation,\nwith every known attribute of mind, divine or human. It will be\nsufficient to state one reason for utterly rejecting as we do the\ndoctrine of vicarious suffering; that reason being suggested and\nconfirmed both by our own understandings and by Scripture.\n\nIt is clear that no man can sin for another. He may sin at the\ninstigation of another, or for the supposed benefit of another; but in\nthe first case, the sin remains with both, and in the last, with the\nperpetrator only. Moral disease thus bears an exact analogy to natural\ndisease. Natural disease may be communicated, or even incurred for the\nbenefit of another, but it cannot be so transferred as to be annihilated\nwith respect to the person who was first subject to it. The case is\nprecisely the same with the pain which is the inseparable consequence of\nsin. If endured by any but the sinner, it is actually and completely\ndisconnected with the sin. It is no longer a punishment, but a\ngratuitous infliction. This is so evident that, if proposed in any court\nof justice but that from which our purest conceptions of justice are\nderived, the reason and conscience of every man would exclaim against\nthe monstrous notion of a substitution of punishment. If a man had\ntransgressed the laws of his country by theft, would he not be the most\nunjust judge upon earth who would sentence his elder brother, known to\nbe innocent and virtuous, to imprisonment or death for the offence?\n\nWould the case be altered, except in the way of aggravation, if the\nsentence were inflicted at the desire of the innocent man? Would any\npurpose of justice be answered by such a process? Would not every\nprinciple of equity--to say nothing of benevolence--be violated? Would\nnot the sufferer be as foolish and blind in his submission as the judge\narbitrary in the infliction? Is it not utterly impossible that a\ntransaction, perfectly analogous in principle, though infinitely more\nmomentous in its influences, should take place between the just Judge,\nthe tender Father of men, a creature made fallible by Him, and His holy\nand beloved Son?\n\nBut we are told it is not for us to argue thus on the right and wrong of\na transaction which has taken place, and is continually taking place, by\nDivine appointment. It is enough that God has appointed this method of\nsalvation.\n\nThe lawfulness of examining the Divine decrees with intent to understand\nthem, will be discussed hereafter. Our business now is to declare why we\ndo not believe this to be the appointed method of salvation, set forth\nin the sacred records. Repentance (including not merely shame and sorrow\nfor sin, but newness of life) appears to us to stand forth on the face\nof the sacred records as the grand, the sole, condition of forgiveness\nof sins. The faith in Christ, which is so strenuously insisted on as a\nrequisite, is valuable as inducing sorrow for sin and purity of life.\nOur obligations to Christ, which are so vividly described, are due to\nhim for the benefits he has bestowed on us through his Gospel, and not\nfor any subsequent arbitrary gift, which we feel it impossible for him\nto have offered, for us to avail ourselves of, and for God to accept.\nOur obligations to him are boundless and eternal;--for having devoted\nand sacrificed his life to furnish us with the conditions of\nsalvation,--to teach us repentance, and incite us to holiness. He was\ntruly a sacrifice for men; he suffered and died because they were\nsinners, and in order to bring them salvation. This the Scripture\nteaches, and this we readily admit; finding, however, no intimation that\nany sin has ever been forgiven on any other condition than that of\nrepentance; that repentance has ever failed to procure forgiveness; that\nany being whatever has at any time exercised or possessed the power of\nseparating sin and suffering by taking either upon himself, or of\ntransferring both from the consciousness of another to his own; that if\nthe endurance of suffering by substitution were possible, it could not\nbe righteous; or that if it were not unrighteous, it could be available\nto any beneficent purpose. Finding none of these suppositions, but all\ntheir opposites in the spirit and detail of the sacred records, we\nabsolutely reject the popular doctrine of the atonement by Christ, while\nwe regard his sacrifices for us with reverential gratitude, and our\nobligations to him with awe and rejoicing.\n\nThe more attentively we ponder his instructions and the more amply we\nestimate the benefits he brought us, the more conscious do we become of\nthe impiety of withholding from the Supreme Author of our salvation the\ngratitude and praise which are due to his free, unpurchased grace. It is\ngiven through Christ, but it originates in God. It comes through a\nmediator; but that mediator was appointed, informed, guided by God. To\nhim Christ ascribed, not only the acceptance of his sacrifice and\nmediation; but the design in which it originated, the means by which it\nwas wrought, and the end which it should ultimately accomplish; and the\nmore we contemplate the design, become acquainted with the means, and\njoyfully anticipate the end, the more eagerly do we join with Christ in\nascribing to Jehovah the glory and the praise.\n\nWe will now explain our meaning in saying that the Catholics alone, of\nall Christians who have admitted the doctrine of satisfaction for sin,\nhave not restricted its application to one very peculiar case. They have\nbeen perfectly consistent in not so restricting it; and they would have\nbeen more extensively consistent if they had gone as much beyond the\npoint they have reached, as they have beyond the Church of England and\nthe disciples of Calvin. If the principle be sound, it will bear a\nboundless application; if it be unsound, it can be no part of\nrevelation, and should be instantly relinquished. If atonement for sin\nby a transferrence of punishment be possible in any case, it cannot be\npronounced impossible in any similar case. If spiritual guilt can be\natoned for by ritual sacrifices, in any instance, no one knows that it\nmay not in any other instance. Therefore if the Church of England holds\nthat the Jewish sacrifices were in strict analogy with that of Christ,\nthey cannot reasonably condemn the offering of the mass, and pious gifts\noffered by the innocent on behalf of the sinner. Neither can the\nCalvinists, who regard the Mosaic offerings as atonements for spiritual\nsin, consistently object to the practice of penance, or the principle of\ngranting indulgences. It appears to us that there is no tenable ground\nbetween the ultimate extension of the principle and its absolute\nrejection,--between dissolving to each individual the connection between\nguilt and punishment, and asserting that connection to be absolutely\nindissoluble: thereby maintaining the genuine Scripture doctrine that\nrepentance alone can obtain remission of sins.\n\nThe lawfulness of the practice of penance and the enjoyment of\nindulgences is, we perceive, defended by Catholics as being established\non the same ground as the Jewish sacrifices. They expressly state that\nthe _eternal_ pain due to guilt cannot be removed by indulgences, or\naverted by penance, but only the temporal pain over which the death of\nChrist has no power of remission. This bears a strong analogy to the\ncase of the Mosaic sacrifices, which were ceremonial atonements for\nbreaches of the ceremonial law, and were not of themselves, as is\nuniversally allowed, intended to avert the penalties of spiritual guilt.\nBut this analogy yields no countenance to the Catholic practices we are\nconsidering, unless it can be proved that two distinct species of\npunishment were divinely ordained, and two distinct methods of atonement\nprescribed. And even if this were proved, the case would not be\ncomplete: for though we should suppose two kinds of punishment, and two\nmethods of reconciliation appointed, it is further necessary that the\noffender should be liable to two distinct species of offence; a position\nin which none but an ancient Jew was ever placed.\n\nThe Divine sanctions were altogether so different under the Jewish from\nwhat they are declared to be under the Christian dispensation, that no\nanalogy which can be instituted between them will hold with any\ncompleteness. A future state of retribution formed no part of the\nrevelation made to the Jews. To them, the ultimate punishment which they\ncould anticipate was national adversity, which was the infallible\nconsequence of moral guilt (unless averted by repentance), as ritual\npenalties were the necessary atonement for breaches of the external law.\nOf Christians, a higher obedience is required,--a more spiritual\ndevotion to the will of God; and this higher obedience is enforced by\nmore elevated sanctions. Christians are free from the Divine imposition\nof external observances, and therefore from all divinely appointed\nexternal penalties. They are to worship in spirit and in truth; to yield\nthe obedience of the heart; and all their outward manifestations of\ndevotion are of human appointment;--salutary, no doubt, and even\nnecessary to the maintenance of piety, but still optional, possessing\nonly a derived value, and in their very nature incapable of being made\natonement for sin. Spiritual atonement, _i. e._ repentance, is the only\natonement which the Gospel prescribes or supposes possible for\nspiritual guilt. Reparation indeed is to be made by the guilty to the\ninjured person, when the case admits of it; but this reparation does not\nconstitute the atonement, nor does it partake of the nature of penance.\nIt is only an external atonement for an external injury, and is an\nevidence that the spiritual atonement,--repentance, has been already\nmade. It bears a relation to that class of offences only which\nimmediately respects our fellow-men, and is impracticable in cases where\nthe offence is against God and ourselves. In such cases, external\npenance bears no other relation to the offence than such as the weak\nwill of man has originated;--a relation arbitrary, unsanctioned by God,\nand therefore perilous to man.\n\nThis relation, being thus arbitrary, fails of the object for which it\nwas established. Their belief in the efficacy of penance is thus stated\nby Catholics. (We copy from the universally accredited work, entitled\n'Roman Catholic Principles in reference to God and the King,' first\npublished in 1680, and ever since acknowledged as a faithful\nexposition.) 'Though no creature whatsoever can make condign\nsatisfaction, either for the guilt of sin, or the pain eternal due to\nit, this satisfaction being proper to Christ our Saviour only, yet\npenitent sinners, redeemed by Christ, may, as members of Christ, in some\nmeasure satisfy by prayer, fasting, alms-deeds, and other works of\npiety, for the temporal pain which, in the order of Divine justice\nsometimes remains due, after the guilt of sin and pains eternal have\nbeen remitted. Such penitential works are, notwithstanding, no otherwise\nsatisfactory than as joined and applied to that satisfaction which Jesus\nmade upon the cross, in virtue of which alone all our good works find a\ngrateful acceptance in the sight of God.'\n\nAs we have already stated our opinion respecting the nature of the\nsacrifice of Christ, we have only to inquire, in our examination of this\npassage, into the meaning of the words _temporal pain_. If they be\nintended to signify the natural evil consequences of sin in this world,\nit is clear that no penance of human institution can avert them; since\nthe very efficacy of this penance would prove these consequences not to\nbe natural but arbitrary. A man who has defrauded his neighbor cannot\npreserve or recover his character for honesty, or secure the confidence\nof those around him 'by prayer, fasting, alms-deeds, or other works of\npiety.' The means are not adapted to the end. The method he must pursue,\nand the only one which can be used with effect, is to restore that which\nhe had unjustly obtained, and to persevere in a course of integrity till\nthe rectitude of his motives becomes unquestionable. If in the meanwhile\nhe employs prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds as means of rousing his\nhighest affections and confirming his virtuous resolutions, he may find\nthem so far efficacious; but the removal of the _temporal pain_, the\nstain upon his reputation, is not ascribable to them, but is the\nconsequence of his well attested repentance.\n\nBut it appears doubtful whether we have rightly interpreted the words\n_temporal pain_; since the being obnoxious to this pain is one of the\nqualifications for the discipline of purgatory. We wish that an exact\naccount could be obtained of its real nature: though, be it what it may,\nit is clear to us that no natural penalty can be averted by so arbitrary\nan institution as that of penance. The clause on indulgences is as\nfollows. We quote the doctrinal part of it, that we may avoid the\ndanger, of which it warns us, of charging on the Church such abuses or\nmistakes as have been sometimes committed in point of granting and\ngaining indulgences, through the remissness or ignorance of individuals.\n\n'The guilt of sin, or pain eternal due to it, is never remitted by what\nCatholics call indulgences; but only such temporal punishments as remain\ndue after the guilt is remitted: these indulgences being nothing else\nthan a mitigation or relaxation, upon just causes, of canonical\npenances, enjoined by the pastors of the Church on penitent sinners,\naccording to their several degrees of demerit.'\n\nOur conviction of the absolute inefficacy of canonical penances to\nobtain the end for which they are practised having been stated, we\nproceed to consider the legitimacy of the power by which such acts are\nimposed, and a remission from them granted. We shall ground our\narguments on some of the subordinate principles, which are clearly\ndeducible from the primary principles of doctrine and morals which we\nhave already stated and arranged.\n\nOne of these principles, whose claim to admission is seldom\nunequivocally denied in theory, though too often practically disallowed,\nis Christian Liberty,--the indefeasible right of every man to freedom\nfrom all human control in spiritual concerns. This comprehends the\nright of entire privacy of conscience, of exemption from all inquiry and\ninterference in spiritual matters, of examining, interpreting, comparing\nand understanding the sacred records under a responsibility to none but\nGod; and of forming, changing, and announcing opinions without\nhinderance or molestation. We are aware that this principle is seldom\ncarried out to its utmost length, even in speculation; and as seldom is\nit absolutely rejected. But, as we have said with respect to another\nprinciple, and as we would say of all, let it be put to the test of\nreason and experience; and if sound, let it be fully admitted with all\nits consequences; if unsound, let it be discarded. The process of\nattestation which we have instituted obliges us to receive it\nunhesitatingly, and to act on it unreservedly.\n\nThe primary spiritual relation of men is to God; their highest\nsubordinate relation is to each other. Their conduct in the subordinate\nrelation is to be regulated by a regard to the primary; but the primary\nrelation is not to be invaded by any influences from below. The\nrelations between man and man are established by God and guided by Him\nto the fulfilment of purposes known only to Him, except in so far as it\nhas pleased Him to reveal them. The relation of the mind of man to its\nMaker is, on the contrary, so intimate as to admit of no intervention;\nand of a nature which cannot be affected by any influence whatever. This\nrelation may be unperceived; (though there is perhaps no instance on\nrecord of its being so) it may be heedlessly forgotten; it may be, as\nalas! it too often is, obscured by the shades of vice or the influences\nof spiritual tyranny; but it can never be usurped or changed; and the\ntime must come when this indissoluble relation shall be recognized and\nclaimed as comprehending all the manifold privileges of existence. The\ncourse of nature seems designed to lead men to its perception, and the\ngrand object of revelation is to blazon it forth; while every intimation\nof its nature describes it as sacred from all invasion. Every\nmanifestation of the Divine will must, therefore, be made to each\nindividual mind as exclusively as if no other mind existed. The religion\nof nature, though adopted in various countries, and amidst its different\naspects among different nations, embraced by myriads under every form,\nis yet a bond between God and every individual man as complete as if\nthat man alone had been created. In like manner the Gospel is a covenant\nbetween God and the human race only as it is a covenant between God and\nevery individual of that race who shall embrace it: and there can be two\nparties only to the transaction,--he who offers the conditions, and he\nwho accepts or rejects them. To no one has the Author of this covenant\ndeputed the power of imposing the conditions, or of judging how far they\nhave been fulfilled, or of passing; sentence accordingly. To none could\nhe depute this power without making him, in fact, the only person with\nwhom the inferior party has to do, _i. e._ the God of the inferior\nparty. It may be objected that we argue upon a metaphor; but, let the\nGospel be regarded under every possible aspect, the same truth will\nstill be demonstrable,--that between the Creator and the created no\ncreated power can, without the Divine concurrence, interfere; and that\nin the spiritual creation, the powers requisite for interference being\nabove those of humanity, such concurrence never can have been, and never\ncan be granted.\n\nIf the nature of Christian obedience had been different,--if it had been\nritual instead of spiritual, it may be conceived possible that God\nmight have committed to man the power of judging and sentencing; but the\nthings of the heart, the desires, the struggles with temptation, the\nsilent conflicts, the unapparent defeats and victories of conscience,\nare known and can be known by none but God. Through the medium of\nconfession alone can one man gain any insight into the spiritual state\nof another; and no medium can be more deceptive. It is perhaps\nimpossible for the most conscientious mind to communicate to the most\ncongenial fellow-mind a faithful detail of the thoughts, wishes, hopes,\nand fears of any single hour; and if it were possible, the fellow-mind\nwould still be incapable of forming an estimate of the spiritual state,\nor of directing the necessary discipline; because the apparent results\nof operations which he does not understand are all the materials that he\nhas to judge from; whereas the object of discipline is to rectify the\noperations themselves. If a man confesses to his bosom friend that his\ndevotional feelings have been for some time past sensibly weakening;\nthat he looks on the beautiful world of nature with apathy, and thinks\non the perpetual presence of God without awe or delight; that his spirit\nis dead in the public offices of devotion, and roving when it ought to\nbe fixed in prayer; his friend may mourn with him over so painful an\nexperience, and suggest, more or less wisely, methods of arousing the\nsleeping faculties, and kindling anew the failing fires of devotion. But\nhe does this as an adviser, and not as a judge; for the power of judging\nis not given to him. He knows not whether the origin of the distemper be\nbodily or mental: he knows nothing of the thousand influences, from\nwithin and from without, which have of late modified the delicate\nprocesses of the intellect and the soul. He cannot therefore know what\nrestorative influences are most needed; whether mute converse with\nnature or busy intercourse with men; whether the terrifying or the\nalluring appeals of the Gospel; whether the awful claims of the Divine\nholiness, or the mild persuasions of the Divine compassion; whether any\nor all of these, or of the manifold influences besides which are\nperpetually dispensed by Him who knoweth our frame, but have never been\nconfided to the empirical disposal of man.\n\nIf, as is evidently the case, all human judgment of sin and holiness is\ncomparative instead of positive, and therefore ever changing as the\nmeans of comparison become more ample and the faculty stronger, it is\nmanifestly impossible for any one mind to form an exact estimate of the\nqualities of another by any but its own imperfect and varying measure:\nand since to God alone are the principles of morals present in their\ncomplete development, to Him alone can their infallible application\nbelong. The agency of men on each other is appointed accordingly. They\nmay confess their sins one to another for their mutual relief and\nguidance; but such confession must be strictly voluntary, and carefully\ndisconnected with all inclination towards spiritual usurpation on the\none hand and subservience on the other.\n\nThere is no subject on which the sacred writers are more explicit than\nthis, and none on which their practice exhibited a more eloquent\ncommentary. Hear what the Apostle of the Gentiles asserts in defence of\nthe spiritual liberty of the least enlightened members of the Church,\nwho were, as he believed, in error respecting some modes of practice\nwhich were very important at that time. 'Him that is weak in the faith,\nreceive ye; but not for doubtful disputings. One believeth that he may\neat all things; but another who is weak eateth herbs only. Let not him\nthat eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not\njudge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that\njudgest the servant of another? To his own master he standeth or\nfalleth. But he shall be established, for God is able to establish him.\nIt is written, 'As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,\nand every tongue shall confess to God.' So then every one of us shall\ngive account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another\nany more.' (Romans xiv.) This was the rule which the Apostle observed in\nall his transactions with the infant churches which referred their\nspiritual concerns to him, as their father and guardian in the faith. He\ndenounced guilt, expounded the faith, guarded against error, and used\nevery method of argument, persuasion, and entreaty, with which his head\nand heart could furnish him to establish them in righteousness; he set\nbefore them every motive of hope and fear, and faithfully declared the\nwhole counsel of God, as bound by his office, and privileged by his\nunequalled qualifications; but he throughout abstained from\nintermeddling with any man's conscience, not only by direct\ninterference, but by indirect influence. Let us see how scrupulous was\nhis regard to liberty of conscience. 'I know and am persuaded by the\nLord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that\nesteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. All things\nindeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It\nis good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything by which\nthy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith?\nHave it to thyself before God.' (Romans xiv.) A yet more eminent example\nis on record, whose conduct bears a reference to a case of still more\nawful responsibility than that instanced by the Apostle. 'If any man\nhear my words and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge\nthe world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth\nnot my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,\nthe same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of\nmyself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment what I\nshould say and what I should speak. (John xii. 47-49.) How, in the face\nof these declarations, can men impeach the faith and pronounce sentence\non the practice of their brethren, assuming their own judgments as the\nstandard of truth, and their own conceptions as the measure of holiness?\nHow, in the face of these declarations, can ministers of the Gospel have\never grasped, as a right, the power which Christ himself disclaimed; not\nleaving judgment till the last day, but delivering over to reproach and\ndeath those who were 'weak in the faith,' or perplexed with 'doubtful\ndisputations'? How, in the face of these declarations, can priests of\nany church have denied that to his own master every man stands or falls,\nand have made close inquisition into the secrets of the soul, pretending\nto understand its errors, and presumptuously undertaking to cleanse its\nsecret faults by methods which no voice from above has sanctioned as\nlawful, and no sign from on high has shown to be efficacious? Could such\ninquisitors and such priests (and they are to be found in every Church)\nhave mingled with the followers of Jesus, they would have cried out for\nfire from heaven on the Samaritans, notwithstanding every prohibition;\nthey would have questioned the sinful Mary, not satisfied with her\nloving much, till they had ascertained how much; they would have\npronounced the young lawyer very far from the kingdom of God unless he\ncould have made a fuller profession of faith; and, meeting the\nadulteress in the outer courts of the temple as she left the mild\npresence of Jesus, would have prescribed her penance with a rigor well\npleasing to the accusers, who were themselves too modest to cast the\nfirst stone. Since Jesus, who knew what was in the hearts of those\naround him, forbore to condemn, much more ought they to forbear who have\nno such knowledge. If he awarded no punishment to those who rejected the\nGospel he understood so well, much less should they who are themselves\nbut learners inflict pain of body or mind on their fellow-disciples who\nunderstand differently, or the unbelievers who cannot understand at all.\nIf he who spake as his Father commanded him left it to the Father to\nenforce these commands, it ill becomes those on whom the Spirit has not\ndescended to assume an authority which inspiration itself could not\nsanction. It becomes them to learn what they themselves are, before they\njudge how little their brethren are what they ought to be. It becomes\nthem to ascertain their own superiority over the Apostles, before they\nclaim an authority with which no Apostle ever believed himself to be\ninvested; and which, if he had so imagined, he would have prayed for\npermission to resign. Far less perilous, far less burdensome would be a\ncommission from on high to guide the seasons, to dispense showers and\nsunshine, and regulate the produce of the fields, than to control the\nspiritual movements, and administer the fertilizing influences under\nwhich the fruits of holiness are to spring up unto everlasting life.\n\nThat any such commission was ever given, is as true in the one case as\nin the other; and the belief of any individual that to himself it was\never confided, is a proof of unsoundness in heart or brain. To any man\nit is honor enough, as it was to Paul and Apollos, to plant and to\nwater. To God alone it belongs to give and to measure the increase.\n\nWe therefore disapprove of the practice of confession as adopted by\nCatholics, for one reason among many, that it infringes liberty of\nconscience, by making man practically accountable to man, and\ncountenancing an assumption of that power to judge and punish which\nbelongs to God alone. The punishments of canonical penances are, it is\ntrue, of human institution; but they are awarded to spiritual guilt, of\nwhich no one has a right to take cognizance but God. We therefore deny\nthe right of any man to impose penances, or, in consequence, to issue\nindulgences; and we hold that wherever such a right is claimed, the\nprerogative of God is invaded and the cause of his Gospel injured.\n\nChristian liberty secures to every man the right, not only of reading\nthe sacred records for himself, but of interpreting them for himself; of\nascertaining by his own unbiased judgment what they teach, and of\nholding the opinions thus formed without being accountable to any man or\nto any body of men. In advocating the free perusal of the Scriptures and\nthe formation of individual opinions from them, we shall be careful to\navoid any bias from the popular and false impression, that the faithful\npastors of the Catholic Church would prohibit their flocks from reading\nthe Bible: and we shall enter on no discussion respecting the\ncomparative fidelity of Catholic and Protestant English translations of\nthe Scriptures. On the latter point, much must be said, if anything; so\nmuch, that no room would be left us for matters of greater importance.\nImportant as it is that the sacred books should be faithfully rendered,\nthat it should be shown how long-prevalent errors, supposed to be\ncountenanced by them, are not so countenanced; important as it is, for\ninstance, to decide whether the sacred teacher said 'Repent,' or 'Do\npenance,' it is yet more important to develop the principles to which\nall modes of expression are subservient: to attend to the spirit rather\nthan the letter, to establish truths and explode errors to the\nperception of which every intellect is adequate, than to debate matters\nto which, though of inferior moment, peculiar qualifications are\nrequisite.\n\nWe willingly accept the following testimony of Fenelon to the fact of\nthe unrestricted use of the sacred writings in the early times of\nChristianity; though we dissent from the concluding remark. The passage\nis translated from a letter from Fenelon to the Bishop of Arras.\n(_Oeuvres Spirituels de Fenelon_, 8vo. tom. 4, p. 241.) 'I think that\nmuch trouble has been taken in our times very unnecessarily, to prove\nwhat is incontestable, than in the first ages of the Church the laity\nread the Holy Scriptures. It is clear as daylight, that all people read\nthe Bible and service in their native languages; that as a part of good\neducation, children were made to read them; that in their sermons, the\nministers of the Church regularly explained to their flocks whole books\nof the sacred volume; that the sacred text of the Scriptures was very\nfamiliar to the people; that the clergy exhorted the people to read\nthem; that the clergy blamed the people for not reading them, and\nconsidered the neglect of the perusal of them as a source of heresy and\nimmorality. But in all this the Church used a wise economy; adapting the\ngeneral practice to the circumstances and wants of individuals. It did\nnot, however, think that a person could not be a Christian, or not be\nwell instructed in his religion, without perusing the sacred writings.\nWhole countries of barbarians, innumerable multitudes of the faithful\nwere rich (to use the words of St. Paul) in words and science, though\nthey had not read the sacred writings. To listen to the pastors of the\nChurch who explain the Scriptures to the faithful and distribute among\nthem such parts as are suited to their wants, is to read the\nScriptures.'\n\nThis last proposition is in perfect accordance with the creed which\ndeclares that 'to the holy Mother Church it belongs to judge of the true\nsense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures,' but inconsistent with\nthe principle held by us, that no man has the power of judging for\nanother or the right to prescribe the opinions of another. 'What then is\nto be done,' it is asked, 'with those who cannot read for themselves?'\nThey must take what they can obtain from their pastors, or from any\nother medium of communication. If the medium be as faithful as human\nfallibility allows, much truth may be learned and the means of holiness\nmay be abundantly afforded: but yet the learner is precluded by his\nignorance from the full enjoyment of his Christian liberty; and to hang\non the lips of his instructor is far, very far from being the same thing\nas reading the Scriptures for himself.\n\nSuch a 'wise economy' as Fenelon speaks of seems to us but a fleshly\nwisdom, a narrow policy originated by men, discountenanced by God, and\navailable to perpetuate, not the Gospel itself, but the corruptions\nwhich were early mixed with it, and which will not stand the test of\nexamination. Who was to decide what 'parts were suited to their wants?'\nWho knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man which is in\nhim? Who gave the power of prohibition to read the Scriptures over such\nas 'were not disposed to read them to their advantage?' Who was to\njudge of the disposition; who could discern the tendency of inquiry; who\ncould estimate the advantage and disadvantage of the results? How dared\nthe Church to 'withhold from the laity the perusal of the Bible without\npermission of their pastors,' from the assumption that it was 'unsafe to\nallow the people at large to read the sacred text?' How unsafe? For the\nGospel itself? The Divine care would have provided a preventive or a\nremedy, if the danger had been real. For the honor of God? He would have\nmade provision for its vindication. For the spiritual welfare of the\npeople? It could not have been injured by the free use of the means\nordained to perfect it: nor was it ever the province of pastors to\npromote that welfare by other means than the Gospel authorizes. And\nwhere is the patent for the monopoly of the Scriptures to be found? But\nit is alleged that there are many passages in the sacred volume which,\nbeing hard to be understood, are wrested by the unstable and the\nignorant to the destruction of the purity of their faith. True. But the\ncase was the same in the days of the Apostles; and did Peter ever desire\nthat Paul's writings should therefore be kept back from the unlearned\nand unstable? Or did he enjoin an explanation of them from the wise, to\nwhich the foolish should be required to assent? No; he recommended\ncaution in giving heed to other men's errors, and growth in the\nknowledge of Christ Jesus; both which must be better promoted by\nindependent thought and judgment than by subservience to any mind,\nhowever pure and enlightened. Christ himself, though he knew what was in\nman, never required this subservience from any one of his followers. He\ngave his instructions in as many different forms as we have them in now:\nin discourses, in parables, in familiar dialogue, and by actions; and\ninvariably he left to the hearers the application of the principles thus\nconveyed, except when pressed by his immediate followers for an\ninterpretation. He took no pains to preserve his Gospel from 'the rash\ncriticisms of the vulgar,' as the piety of Fenelon erroneously advises.\nHe did not act upon the belief that previous instruction was necessary\nto the comprehension of the word of life, or that 'the people should be\nfull of the spirit of the Gospel before they are entrusted with the\nletter.' The letter of the Gospel now is the same as the letter of the\nGospel then; the spirit now, as then, is only to be got at through the\nletter; and the letter now, as then, is only valuable as it communicates\nthe spirit. Christ did not think that 'it should only be permitted to\nthe simple, the docile, and the humble; to those who wish to nourish\nthemselves with its divine truths in silence; and withheld from those\nwho merely seek to satisfy their curiosity, to dispute, to dogmatize, to\ncriticize.' This doctrine of Fenelon is, we are told, and ever has been,\nthe doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Were the disciples to whom\nChrist spoke of the bread of life and who therefore forsook him, 'docile\nand humble?' Yet what saying was more 'hard to be understood?' When he\ndeclared the nature of his Gospel, and the authority under which he\nproposed it, were the Pharisees in the temple 'simple and docile?' Was\nthere no disposition 'to dispute, to dogmatize, to criticize' among the\nelders, the scribes, the Sadducees whom he referred to his works,\nassured of the temporary nature of the Jewish covenant, and besought to\nlisten to the truth which should make them free? The glad tidings of\nsalvation were then preached, as they ought to be now, to the poor and\nignorant without fear that what is truly the Gospel can be dangerously\nmisapprehended, and without intimation that the faith needs the\ninterpretation of fallible understandings, or the guardianship of human\nwisdom.\n\nIf we believed (which we do not) that error in matters of faith could of\nitself endanger salvation,--_i. e._ exclude from the happiness of a\nfuture state,--we should be convinced that those were much more liable\nto error who adopted the faith after it had passed through a fallible\nmind, than those who received it from Christ himself, speaking directly,\nas in fact he does, in the faithful records which the Bible presents.\nAnd the more feeble and ignorant the recipient mind, the more liable\nwill it be to admit the errors of others, as well as to originate some\nof its own. While, if referred to the sacred volume itself for his\nfaith, a man is in danger of entertaining no errors but his own. However\nimperfect his mental vision may be, he is thus more likely to behold the\nobject in its true form and colors, than by the interposition of a\nfaulty medium. If it be objected that the medium, so far from being\nfaulty, corrects the imperfections of the natural faculty, we ask for\nthe test of its possessing this quality, and for the proof that it was\never conferred.\n\nBut, being convinced, for reasons given before, that the possession of\nthe true faith is not an indispensable requisite for future happiness,\nand that the non-possession of it is not to be followed by eternal\nmisery, or by any arbitrary infliction whatever, we cannot admit the\nplea of care for the souls of men as any reason or excuse for trenching\non the natural liberty of the mind, or prescribing opinions which Christ\nhimself only administered the means of forming, and which his Apostles\npresumed not to impose. Purity of faith is the most exalted attainment\nof the most exalted mind,--the richest of the myriads of rich blessings\nwhich the Father of our spirits has placed within our reach. It should\nbe sought as the most precious of all treasures; it should be guarded as\nthe most sacred of all trusts: but though it may be won by any, it can\nbe communicated by none. It is the especial reward of individual search,\nand loses its very nature by being transferred: for that which is truth\nto a man who has discovered it for himself, can be truth to another man\nonly so far as his faculties are exercised upon it, apprehend, and adopt\nit. This, which may be justly said of all truth, may be especially\ndeclared of religious truth, which is of no value unless made a\nvivifying principle, and can never become a vivifying principle unless\nperceived by the understanding and recognized by the heart.\n\nThe true office of the pastors of the Church (and likewise of all\nbelievers) is to lead others to that knowledge of the truth which can\nnever be imposed. Their concern for the spiritual welfare of their\nbrethren can never be too earnest; their diligence in guidance and\nguardianship, too eager; their value for purity of faith, too high; or\ntheir apprehension of spiritual danger, too ready or too ardent. But all\nthis concern and apprehension should be justly directed, and this\nguidance and guardianship exercised with a regard to the rights with\nwhich God has invested every man. The first object to be desired is\nspiritual advancement, to which intellectual rectitude is subsidiary.\nThe first object of dread is moral corruption, and not mental error. The\nguidance to be exercised is that of an experienced over an inexperienced\nperson. The one points out to the other the snares and dangers into\nwhich he is liable to fall, the labyrinth in which he may lose himself,\nand the various tendencies of different paths; but he has no lawful\npower to insist upon a particular path being pursued, or to condemn his\ncompanion to destruction for interpreting differently the invitation on\nwhich they both proceed. The guardianship is faithful as long as it\nconsists in warning off the attacks of temptation, declaring the threats\nand promises of the Gospel, and educating for independent action; but it\nbecomes tyranny when restraints are imposed on the exercise of the\nfaculties, and any impediments are thrown in the way of a free range\nthrough the spiritual world of which God has made every man an\ninhabitant. It is the office of Christian pastors to study the sacred\nrecords with all diligence, striving to ascertain by the help of\nlearning and philosophy, and every other help, what the true faith is,\nand how other minds may be best disposed for its apprehension; to place\nbefore those minds whatever may best tend to enlighten, convince, and\nestablish them; to excite them to activity and stimulate them to further\naction when aroused. But further than this they must not go. The mind\nmust work out the results for itself; and for those results none but\nitself can be answerable. Its safety or peril rests with God, who hath\ngiven into no man's hand the souls of his brethren.\n\nIt is justly observed by Catholics, that many of the very persons who\ncomplain of the discouragement by them thrown in the way of the general\nperusal of the Scriptures, circulate the Book of Common Prayer of the\nChurch of England 'as a safeguard against the misinterpretation of the\nBible,' and by their doubt and dread of the consequences of making the\nBible common, seem to admit the probability and danger of such\nmisinterpretation. It is very true that such inconsistencies obtain\namong Protestants, and such inconsistencies will exist as long as there\nis any dread of carrying out a good principle to its full extent. If all\nProtestants adhered to the grand principle of the Reformation, that the\nBible alone is the religion of Protestants, there would not only be no\ndamnatory clauses in their creeds, but no creeds,--no embodying in an\nunchanging form of words principles which were given in no such form,\nwhich cannot be received under the same aspect by minds differently\nprepared, and which are too expansive in their nature to be long\nconfined within arbitrary limits of human imposition. The Church of\nEngland forsakes its fundamental principle of dissent from the Roman\nCatholic Church when it would secure uniformity of faith by framing\narticles of faith, by keeping back the Bible from the feeblest\nintellect, or appointing 'a safeguard,' or interfering in any way\nbetween the Bible and the minds which are to derive their religion from\nit. If uniformity of faith cannot be thus obtained, it is a necessary\nconsequence of the Protestant principle that uniformity of faith is not\nnecessary to salvation. This consequence, which we fully admit, the\nChurch of England, in the letter and spirit of her articles and creeds,\ninconsistently denies.\n\nIt is manifestly absurd to exhort a man to derive his faith from the\nBible, if it is declared to him beforehand what he is bound at his\neternal peril to believe. Yet this is in fact done, when the Book of\nCommon Prayer is circulated as a safeguard to the Bible, and also when a\nCatholic is made to declare on his admission to the Church, 'I also\nadmit the Sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy Mother\nChurch has held and does hold,' &c. For purposes of faith, all use in\nreading the Bible is over when this declaration is made. The disciple\ncan only, while striving to learn his duty from the sacred pages, wonder\nat what he finds there;--at the appeals to individual judgment; at the\naddresses to the intimate consciousness of every man; at the freedom\nallowed and encouraged among the first Christians; at the absence of all\npretension to authority in matters of opinion, of all wish to prescribe,\nof all tendency to domineer. If he be intelligent, it will occur to him\nas surprising that no creed, if creeds be good things, was given by our\nSaviour to his Apostles before he left them, weak and divided in the\nfaith as they at that time were. And again, when they were strong and\nunited, but when doubt and disagreement were creeping into their\nchurches, it must seem strange that Christ, who manifestly watched over\nthe interests of his Church, should not have authorized and communicated\na profession of faith more ample and particular than that which had\nhitherto accompanied baptism; viz. that Jesus was the Christ, and that\nremission of sins came by repentance.\n\nFinding no trace of the Apostles' Creed among all the sacred books, he\nwill inquire into its origin, and discover that it was not composed by\nthe Apostles,[A] and that when, in an evil hour, it was proposed for\ngeneral adoption, its main purpose was to exclude the Gnostics, who\nwould have mixed up their false philosophy and vain deceits with the\nsimple faith in Christ which then, as now, constituted a man a\nChristian. Having gone thus far, the disciple begins to doubt whether he\nhas hitherto possessed and exercised the spiritual liberty which is his\nbirthright. If he pursue the inquiry he will, undoubtedly cast off the\nrestraints which man's wisdom has imposed on his faculties, and\ninterpret, judge, and believe for himself. If he look back to his\npromise to admit the sense of Scripture only as the Church declares it,\nand renews that promise, he must lay aside every hope of purifying and\nstrengthening his faith by his scriptural studies. Henceforth it will\nindeed be, as Fenelon declares, the same thing to him to read the words\nof Christ, and to hear an explanation of them from his pastor. Not for\nthis were the Beraeans cited as an example by Paul; not by these means\nwas Timothy prepared for his extensive labors; not thus did Apollos\nlearn how to apply his vigorous talents to the service of the infant\nchurches. All these men searched the Scriptures, knew the Scriptures\nfrom their youth up, were learned in the Scriptures, from which they\nascertained for themselves the promise of Christ's coming, and\nthemselves applied the tests which proved that Jesus of Nazareth was\nthis Christ.\n\n[Footnote A: See Lord King's 'Critical History of the Apostles' Creed.']\n\nEvery man has a natural right, not only to form his opinions for\nhimself, but to change them as frequently as he shall believe himself\nled to do so. This natural right is not only sanctioned, but its\nexercise is approved, by the Gospel. As long as the opinions of men are\nnot absolutely right, as long as they fall short of the truth as it will\nbe perceived in heaven, there is room and occasion for a change; and\nsuch a change, wherever recorded in the New Testament, is recorded with\napprobation. Where was there ever a more extensive change of opinion\nthan in Apollos on his conversion? Yet in his youth, Apollos was as\northodox, as undoubtedly correct in his religious opinions before the\nintroduction of Christianity, as any Christian who now subscribes all\nthe creeds of the Catholic Church. But what would have been the\nconsequence if he had engaged never to 'take and interpret the\nScriptures otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the'\nRabbis; or if he had promised, vowed, and sworn most constantly to\nprofess his present faith whole and entire, with God's assistance, to\nthe end of his life? It is true that no revelation is likely to\nsupersede the faith of Christians; but it is, at the same time, as\nlittle probable that no developement of the principles of Christianity\nshould cause gradual changes of opinion in the course of a lifetime, as\nit then was that Judaism should not be expanded into the fuller\nrevelation of the Gospel. If, like Apollos, we believe rightly now, it\nis impossible to answer for no change of opinion being necessary to\nenable us to believe rightly twenty years hence. The view which we have\nalready taken of the expansive tendency of the eternal principles of\nChristianity authorizes our declaring that a gradual enlargement of\nviews, _i. e._ change of opinions, is a necessary consequence of the\ncorrect apprehension of religious truth.\n\nCreeds are intended to be permanent and universal professions of faith;\nand are the instrument by which a uniformity of faith is to be secured,\nif such a thing be yet possible. But creeds never have fulfilled, and\nnever can fulfil, any one of these purposes. No uniformity of faith has\nexisted since the first creed was framed; no one formulary has been\nuniversally received among Christians; and experience already indicates,\nwhat the lapse of time will prove,--that no creed will be permanent. If\nthe most ancient of creeds, commonly called the Apostles', be named in\nanswer to the last remark, let it be remembered that the first version\nof this formulary given by Irenaeus, and the subsequent ones by\nTertullian, Cyril of Alexandria, and others, were as widely different\nfrom those now in use as from each other. Widely different versions of\nthis creed are used in the Catholic Church and the Church of England;\nand those who subscribe to the same form of words understand those words\nvariously. The permanence of this most ancient of creeds is in name\nonly; and the name itself is a false assumption.\n\nCreeds cannot be permanent and universal, unless the language of which\nthey consist is also permanent and universal; which no language has ever\nbeen. There is no test by which it can be proved that any two minds\naffix precisely the same meaning to the commonest terms; while we have\nabundant evidence that very abstract terms (such as abound in creeds)\nconvey very different notions to different minds. Thus, if the terms of\na language were absolutely immutable, and if one language prevailed over\nthe whole earth, there would still be room for a variety of\ninterpretations of anything expressed in that language. But the\nmutations which time occasions in every tongue, and the necessity of\ntranslation and re-translation, increase a thousandfold the chances of\nsuch a variety, and indeed render it absolutely unavoidable.\n\nIt is well, therefore, that the truths of religious doctrine cannot be\nmade one with the language in which any age or nation chooses to clothe\nthem, as that language is necessarily mutable. And it would be well if\nbelievers were henceforth and for ever to desist from the attempt to\nconnect what is mutable with what is immutable, that which is perishable\nwith that which is immortal, by requiring the present age to adopt the\nlanguage of the past, and providing for a similar adoption by the\nfuture. If they wish the spiritual _conceptions_ of former ages to be\nperpetuated, this may best be done by changing the _terms_ as their\nmeanings become modified, and not by retaining them the more\npertinaciously, the more varied are the conceptions they originate. If\nthe Gospel itself had been inseparably connected with any form of\nlanguage, or embodied in anything but facts, it would ere now have\npassed away, or have been so far transformed as to be a different\nreligion. It would have been untranslateable; it would have been\nuntransferrable to any country beyond that in which it originated; it\nwould have been unintelligible to succeeding generations of even native\ninhabitants of that country. It is only in so far as Christianity is\ndisencumbered of formularies of faith, and emancipated from the\nguardianship of Councils, that it becomes the religion of mankind. The\nmetaphysical clauses of the Apostles' Creed, and the canons of the\nCouncil of Trent, may contain the belief of a few, a very few,\nspeculative minds. The declaration that God sent Christ Jesus into the\nworld to save sinners, contains the substantial belief of Christendom,\nwhich will be the faith of the whole world,--because it is Christianity.\n\nIt is as impossible for a man to prescribe to himself the faith of his\nfuture years, as for one age to prescribe the faith of a succeeding age:\nand for the same reasons. He may in his youth state an opinion in\nunambiguous terms, and with perfect sincerity, which, if he still hold,\nhe cannot state in the same terms ten years after. The opinion may be\nsubstantially the same, and yet have such a bearing upon some other\nopinion, or may be so modified by some other opinion that the same form\nof words may not express it fully, or perhaps correctly. It is yet more\nprobable that the conceptions which are now attached to the terms are\nenlarged by his improved experience; so that, if he would declare the\nsame truth, he must change his terms; or if he can conscientiously\nretain the terms, he must have modified his opinion. What enlightened,\nreflecting Christian understands exactly the same by any one parable,\nany one axiom, any one fact of Scripture that he did when he first\nadmitted its truth? He believed it then; he believes it now; but how\ndifferently since science has brought new evidence to light, since\nphilosophy has developed its origin and tendencies, since experience has\ntested its truth, and faith invested it with a hallowed interest and an\nindestructible beauty! How, therefore, is it possible for any one\nfaithfully to engage that his views even of eternal truth shall never be\nmodified! Witnessing, as every reflecting man does, the gradual\nevolution of truth from the vicissitudes of human experience, and from\nthe successive dispensations and the progressive course of Providence,\nhe may with safety declare that Gospel truth is immutable and divine;\nbut he will avoid the presumption of supposing that all her riches are\nalready shed into his bosom, that her brightest light is poured upon his\nfeeble eye. He will rather hope that his apprehension will continually\nbecome clearer, his powers invigorated, and his capacities enlarged,\ntill his views of religious truth become as unlike what they were when\nfirst admitted, as the fair face of nature appears to the new-born\ninfant and to the mighty poet. He will reject, as an infringement of his\ninalienable rights, every attempt to bind him down to engagements which\nit may not be in his power to fulfil. He will refuse to promise that his\nintellect shall remain stationary; and to permit that any individual,\nany council, or any church, shall usurp that spiritual influence which\nhe trusts shall be immediately dispensed from the fountain of grace and\ntruth. Desiring wisdom, he asks of God; not profaning and annulling his\nprayer by engaging to receive it only in certain measure; and if any\nchurch on earth interfere to prescribe the measure, he rejects the\ninterference as unauthorized by the letter of the Gospel and condemned\nby its spirit.\n\nChristian liberty comprehends an entire freedom from restraint in the\npublication of opinions. To his own master every man standeth or\nfalleth, not only in the formation of his opinions, but in the use he\nmakes of them when formed. According to his conscientiousness in seeking\nfor truth, and not according to the accuracy of his judgment, will he be\njudged by God in forming his opinions; and when formed, he will be\nresponsible, not for the rectitude of his influence, but for the\nrectitude of his intentions in exerting it. What a man believes to be\nthe truth, it is his duty to declare in the method and degree which\nbenevolence and prudence may point out to be the best. For what but this\ndo we venerate the heroic Stephen, and every other martyr who bore\nwitness to the truth in the early days of Christianity? Yet for what but\nthis have Christians been led to the stake by Christians, age after age,\nunder the pretended sanction of a religion of liberty and brotherly\nlove? For what but this have Catholics and Protestants vied with each\nother in torturing in body and mind men whose conscience was omnipotent\nover the love of liberty and life, and who thus showed that, whether\ntheir intellects were or were not unfaithful, their souls were true to\nGod? For what but this are the lovers of truth even yet too often\npunished, directly or indirectly, for inviting others to participate in\nthe benefits which they believe they have gained. Stephen was stoned\nbecause he was a heretic; Paul worshiped the God of his fathers\naccording to a way which was then called heresy, and for which he was\npersecuted through life and unto death. Peter and John were brought\nbefore the high priest and rulers for publishing their heresy, and\npunished for refusing to cease to publish it. Yet has this their heresy\nprevailed; and thus shall every new truth prevail, and its promulgators\nbe honored, in despite of the wrath of man; while the more freely errors\nare canvassed, the sooner will they be exposed. What was once said with\ntruth in relation to the Gospel of truth,--'If this counsel or this work\nbe of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot\noverthrow it,'--may be said with equal wisdom of every other kind of\ntruth and the test of investigation is a much surer one than that which\nis furnished by the prejudices and the passions of men. There is no\nnatural, no Divine law which sanctions the infliction of pain for the\nexercise of the intellect, or for communicating the results of that\nexercise; and that any human law or custom should have existed by which\ninjury of mind, body, or estate is made the consequence of the formation\nand publication of opinions, is a proof that the natural rights of man\nhave not been understood, and that the spirit of Christian liberty has\nnot pervaded Christian society. As long as reproach is attached to the\nact of promulgating opinions (independent of the manner,) as long as the\nholder of opinions is treated with the same reprobation as the opinions\nthemselves, as long as he is prospectively consigned over to perdition\nas they are to detestation, as long as ideas of merit and demerit are\nassociated with the convictions of the understanding, or blame is\nattached to the act of making those convictions known, not only will the\nsubordinate principles of the Gospel remain in part unrecognized, but\nits essential principles will be violated; for it is clearly a duty of\npiety to reveal all that is believed to have been discovered of the\nworks and ways of God;--and of benevolence to communicate what, being\nconceived to be truth, is conceived to be intended for the universal\nbenefit of the race.\n\nIt may excite surprise that we have not here examined the claim of the\nHoly Catholic Church to spiritual supremacy: but it will better accord\nwith our plan to take that claim into consideration while treating of\nthe temporary institutions of Christianity.\n\nFrom the essential principles of the Gospel we derive our belief that\nChristianity, is not designed for any union, permanent or temporary,\nwith worldly power and grandeur; that it is incapable of such a\nconnexion; being injured instead of confirmed by the support of temporal\nauthority, and impaired instead of adorned by the adjuncts of worldly\npomp. This principle is asserted in words by every Christian Church in\nexistence; but violated, in fact, by almost as many. Christianity is\nacknowledged to be a religion of poverty of spirit, of self-denial, of\nlooseness from the world and its possessions. If this principle were\ncarried out into each individual case, it is plain that the pomp and\nambition which have despoiled the Gospel of its purity could no longer\nexist. It is remarkable that this poverty and self-denial are most\ninsisted on in those Churches where the temporal power and luxury are\nthe most excessive. We hear of them above all from Catholics, whose\npopes, cardinals, and bishops have, in every age, exceeded all temporal\nprinces in the enjoyment of splendor and luxury. We hear of them from\nthe Church of England, whose superior officers revel in unbounded\nwealth, and especially prize the connexion with the State which their\noffice occasions. While we Unitarians, who hold that Christianity is of\na purely spiritual nature, and therefore dishonored by the pretended\nsupport of powers inferior to its own, insist much less earnestly than\nthe Catholic Church on the duty of self-mortification and voluntary\npoverty. Our Church, were it as extensive as the Catholic, would contain\nno ecclesiastical princes, and no friars; no potentates clothed in\npurple and fine linen and faring sumptuously every day from the revenues\nof the Church, and no believers whose piety is testified by a vow of\npoverty. We believe that our religion ought to be exerted in controling\nthe passions, exalting the desires, and equalizing the affections, not\nso much by regulating the external manifestations of those passions and\ndesires, as by influencing the heart. Self-denial is taught much better\nby inspiring the love of our neighbor, than by the prohibition of\ninnocent comforts and pleasures. Spirituality is much better taught by\nmaking spiritual things the objects of supreme desire, than by\ncommanding an ostentatious avoidance of the enjoyments of life. But\nwhile the Gospel thus leaves men free to follow the bent of innocent\ndesires,--to decide, each for himself, what is lawful and expedient,--it\nlays a powerful restraint on all the passions, and curbs all\npropensities which are inconsistent with its purity and spirituality.\nAll worldly ambition, all selfish luxury are utterly incompatible with\nthe faith of the Gospel, which disallows every claim founded on itself\nto distinctions of rank, to abundance of wealth, to power over the\npossessions of other men, to the indulgence of earthly desires. The\nGospel affords no sanction to the accumulation of wealth, or to the\nassumption of authority. It affords examples, on the contrary, of\nsubmission to temporal authority, of the endurance of voluntary poverty\nin hardship, not because poverty and hardship are in themselves\nspiritually desirable, but because they were necessary to the attainment\nof some benevolent end. From the Gospel we learn that Jesus utterly\ndisclaimed all pretensions to authority, except in those matters where\nhis authority was supreme. 'Who made me a judge or a divider over you?'\nwas his remonstrance with those who referred the disposal of an\ninheritance to him: and his reply respecting the lawfulness of paying\ntribute was such as ought to have obviated all doubt whether temporal\nand spiritual power could ever be properly united; 'Render unto Caesar\nthe things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's.'\nWhat could be meant by the declaration 'My kingdom is not of this\nworld,' but that his authority was of a spiritual nature only? Why did\nhe strenuously oppose every attempt to make him a king? Why did he send\nforth the seventy disciples without gold and silver and changes of\nraiment? Why did he recommend to the rich man to sell his possessions,\nif wealth and power can be made the means of serving the interests of\nthe Gospel? Why was his indignation so perpetually roused by the\nspiritual assumptions of the Pharisees, but because religion was in them\ndisgraced by its connexion with worldly greatness? Yet not a few\nChristians have loved the chief seats in public assemblies, and homage\nin the streets; not a few have made proclamation when they dispensed\ntheir alms, and prayed in the high ways; not a few have taken on\nthemselves to appoint places in the Messiah's kingdom which the Messiah\nhimself refused to promise, because such power belonged to God alone.\nWhile he declined all interference in matters of temporal concern, and\nrejected all support to his Gospel from magisterial authority, and all\nbenefit from the resources of wealth, it is clear that such support must\never be needless and such resources unhallowed.\n\nHow does it happen, it is perpetually asked, that while the right to\ntemporal power is abjured in words by every Church, the State religion\nof every country affords an instance of its assumption? It happens, as\nmany other strange and inconsistent things happen, through the misuse of\nterms. What we call temporal power, the advocates of a State religion\ncall spiritual power; and thus have all ecclesiastical abuses been\njustified from the day that ecclesiastical domination was established.\nBy spiritual authority have kings been enthroned and deposed; by\nspiritual authority have tributes been raised, wars been originated and\nconducted, properties been confiscated, and lives forfeited! By\nspiritual authority were the Crusades begun and carried on; by spiritual\nauthority have popes divided and distributed kingdoms, have cardinals\nnegotiated and priests intrigued! By spiritual authority did Wolsey\namass his treasures, and rule his sovereign at home, and the agents of\nhis sovereign abroad! By spiritual authority does the Church of England\ndemand tithes, and under the same sanction do her bishops legislate.\nWhat then is temporal power? What are worldly pomp and wealth?\n\nThe abuses which have deformed every State religion in turn are evident\nto all,--even to those who still help to support them; but the origin of\nthose abuses is not generally ascertained. We ascribe them to the error\nof mixing up the permanent principles of Christianity with its temporary\ninstitutions.\n\nSpiritual principles can only be recognized by means of external\nmanifestations; but the principles and the manifestation are not the\nsame thing; nor can they have a lasting connexion, as every thing\nexternal is mutable, while the principles of truth are immutable. As\nlong as mind is connected with body, as long as the intellect can only\nbe reached through the senses, and the heart through the intellect,\ntruth must be invested with a form, and realities be accompanied by\nshadows. But that form is changeable, and those shadows are fleeting:\nthe proximate cause of which is the constitution of all material things;\nand the final cause, the ultimate universal recognition of the\nprinciples of truth. We have already described how these principles were\ncommunicated to the Israelites by means of ordinances which the mind of\nman has long since outgrown. The principles of Christianity were, in\nlike manner, embodied in institutions, some of which are obsolete, while\nothers remain; but, since Christianity is destined not to be superseded\nby any other scheme, it appears to follow necessarily from the\nprinciples on which we have been reasoning, that none of its\ninstitutions were, like the Jewish, positive, but avowedly adopted from\nmotives of expediency. It is therefore the belief of a portion of the\nUnitarian body, that Christ himself appointed no ordinance for permanent\nadoption, and that those which were appointed by the Apostles, and\nsanctioned by their practice, were established on the ground of\nexpediency alone. They were not therefore the less obligatory upon their\ndisciples in those times, nor upon us, as far as the original ground of\nthe ordinances remains; but as some apostolic practices have, through\nthe revolutions of human affairs, become obsolete, it is desirable to\nto search into the foundation of all.\n\nBaptism cannot be called a Christian institution, since the rite was\npractised long before the mission of the Baptist; but some of our body\nadopt it as a Christian ordinance, because it was countenanced by Jesus\nand administered by his followers: while other Unitarians, deeming the\npractice of baptism inexpedient in their circumstances of age and\ncountry, decline the rite themselves, but recommend its use in cases\nanalogous to those in which it was first adopted, i. e. in cases of\nconversion from Paganism. There are others who wish to abolish it\naltogether, from a fear of encouraging superstition by an ungrounded\nattachment to external observances.\n\nThe ordinance of the Lord's Supper is considered a positive institution\nof Christianity by almost the whole of the Christian world, the great\nmajority of Unitarians included. The Society of Friends, and the\nFree-thinking Christians, are perhaps the only sects who positively\ndecline, from principle, the practice of the rite; while some Unitarians\ndeem it inconsistent with their principles to believe that Christ\ndesigned the ordinance for permanent and universal adoption. It is\npractised by many as a means, a very important means, of increasing love\nand exciting to obedience, while they yet cannot plead a Divine sanction\nin its favor, or much less suppose that any peculiar quality resides in\nwhat is eaten and drank, or any peculiar virtue in the act of eating and\ndrinking by which any peculiar privilege can be attained. In these last\nsuppositions all our body are agreed, since no intimation can be found\nin the Scriptures that the sacramental bread and wine were at any time\nused otherwise than as merely emblematical of the sacrifice of Christ.\nIt was the practice of the early Christians to assemble for the supper,\neach carrying his portion of the feast, which was eaten like any other\nfeast, and frequently with excess on the part of the rich, while his\npoorer neighbor hungered. 'When ye come together,' says the Apostle (1\nCor. xi. 20-23,), it is not to eat the Lord's Supper; for in eating,\nevery one taketh before another his own supper, and one is hungry and\nanother is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and drink in? Or\ndespise ye the Church of God, and shame them that have not?' (v. 33.)\n'Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, wait one for\nanother. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not\ntogether unto condemnation.'--It is not conceivable that these\nChristians had any notion that what they ate and drank was in itself\nsacred, or that the Apostle was aware of any other purpose of the rite\nbut that of 'showing forth the Lord's death till he came.'\n\nThis rite was usually practised on the first day of the week, when the\ndisciples met to commemorate the resurrection of their Lord, and to\nworship together. The custom of meeting on a stated day for worship has\nbeen continued ever since; and the day has been wisely set apart for\npurposes of rest and refreshment to body and mind. An institution so\nsimple for purposes so salutary will probably, however abused, be of\nvery long standing, even after it is more generally allowed than at\npresent, not to be a Divine appointment. The Jewish Sabbath was a Divine\nordinance for the use of the Jews; and by them alone has the last day of\nthe week been regarded as sacred. The Lord's Day, or, as it sometimes\ncalled, the Christian Sabbath, is a totally different institution, and\none which is professedly arbitrary, though subservient to very important\nobjects. If the Jews were encouraged by their Messiah to look to the\nfinal purposes of their sabbatical institution, much more ought we, the\nsubjects of a more enlarged dispensation, to bear in mind that all\nexternal observances are but means to ends; ordinances of which it is\ncertain that they were made for man, and not man for them.\n\nWhatever may be the diversity of opinion among Unitarians respecting the\nground of the three ordinances just referred to, there is none with\nregard to those institutions whose period appears to have been\ndetermined at the moment of their origin.\n\nThe institution of Apostolic Ordination, which the Roman Catholic Church\nholds to be of a permanent nature, we believe not to have been designed\nto outlive the Apostles. We perceive no intimation in the various\ninstructions given them which can lead us to imagine that their office\nwas intended to be or could be bequeathed. They were chosen to be\nwitnesses of the circumstances of the life and death of Christ, and the\ndepositaries of miraculous powers after his ascension; but as the\nassistance of the Holy Spirit, that is the power conferred from on high,\nwas only a temporary sanction, the peculiar office with which it was\nconnected could also be only temporary. The evidence which we possess\non this very important subject consists of the words of Christ himself,\naddressed to his Apostles respecting their mission, their own incidental\nobservations, and the facts which ecclesiastical history presents. From\nall these sources of evidence we derive our belief that the office of\n_witnessing_, which is absolutely untransferrable, was the peculiar\noffice of the twelve Apostles; that they were especially qualified by it\nfor the task of preaching and establishing the new Gospel, and that to\nenable them to do so with sufficient effect, among the many and great\ndifficulties which the state of the world then presented, the miraculous\ngifts of the Spirit were granted to them, with power to impart them to\nwhomsoever they would, and that this miraculous power was coexistent\nwith the apostolic age,--with what is variously called 'the age,' 'the\nkingdom of God,' 'the kingdom of Christ,' 'the kingdom of heaven;' that\nis, from the descent of the Holy Spirit to the abolition of Judaism on\nthe overthrow of Jerusalem. We find no evidence of miracles after that\ntime which is at all to be compared with that on which we rely\nrespecting the apostolic gifts; none which allows us to hesitate in our\nopinion, that with the apostles expired the power of communicating\nmiraculous privileges; and that on them alone were such privileges\nimmediately conferred. These gifts of the Spirit served as a Divine\nsanction to their testimony, and were therefore coexistent with that\ntestimony; and the same evidence which recorded their testimony after\ntheir death, recorded the Divine sanction likewise; and upon this broad\nand immutable foundation is built the Christian faith, against which,\naccording to the Saviour's promise, no opposition has prevailed or can\nprevail. When some who could not deny the peculiarity of his mission,\nbut would not admit his pre-eminent claims, supposed him to be John the\nBaptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or another of the prophets,\nSimon Peter, who was not blinded by prejudice, and who believed for the\nworks' sake in opposition to the opinions of men, boldly declared him to\nbe 'the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Jesus pronounced him\nblessed, because he believed what the power of God made manifest, and\nnot what men declared; and promised that on such testimony as his should\nthe Gospel be established, so that no opposition should prevail against\nit; and further declared that it should be in the power of Peter to\nadmit men into the privileges of the Gospel, and to have extensive\ninfluence over their spiritual state. 'Blessed art thou, Simon; for\nflesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in\nheaven. And I also say unto thee that thou art Peter (a rock,) and on\nthis rock I will build my church, and the gates of death shall not\nprevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of\nheaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in\nheaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in\nheaven.' This promise was fulfilled. Peter bore testimony far and wide,\nwith all the zeal and energy by which he was characterized, to the life,\nteachings and death of his divine master; and from this testimony, in\nconjunction with that of his brethren, is derived the evidence on which\nChristianity is received to this day. Peter had also pre-eminent power\nin the infant Church, converting three thousand persons on the day of\nPentecost, and afterwards preaching, baptizing, and adding multitudes to\nthose who were pressing into the kingdom of God.\n\nNo record exists of any attempt on his part to delegate any portion of\nhis power; none of which could be transferred but such authority in the\nChurch as he possessed under the mode of church government which then\nsubsisted. That which constituted the chief glory of the Prince of the\nApostles belonged to him as the follower of Jesus and as an eminent\nrecipient of the gifts of the Spirit. It appears exceedingly improbable\nthat Peter ever was Bishop of Rome, though he suffered imprisonment and\nperhaps martyrdom there. The authority of the Apostles was general, and\nseems to have been exercised generally, instead of being fixed in any\none congregation. At all events it is clear that the Bishops of Rome did\nnot lay claim to any preeminence over the patriarchs of Constantinople,\nAlexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, (further than as they all claimed\nprecedence of one another on account of the dignity of their several\ncities, and the superior wealth of their sees,) till the Arian\ncontroversy afforded them various opportunities of extending their\npower. When remonstrances were offered by the sixth Council of Carthage,\nin A. D. 426, and by many other assemblies, against the encroachments of\nthe Bishops of Rome, the pleas which are now brought forward in support\nof their claim to supremacy had never been heard of; and they were in\nfact never adduced till many centuries after the death of Peter. It was\nnot till the beginning of the seventh century that the title of Pope was\nappropriated by the Bishops of Rome; it being applied to all bishops at\nfirst, and afterwards to those who held the larger sees, as when\nCornelius, Bishop of Rome, called Cyprian the Pope of Carthage. The\nassumption of the title of Universal Bishop by John of Constantinople,\ntowards the end of the sixth century, was condemned by Gregory the\nGreat, then Bishop of Rome, as presumption and even blasphemy; and he\nfurther showed his sense of the presumption by investing himself with\nthe humbler title of Servus Servorum Dei. Yet so soon after as A. D.\n606, Boniface III. obtained of the Emperor Phocas that the Bishops of\nRome alone should henceforth call themselves Universal Bishops: the\nclaim being founded on the dignity of the city and the wealth of the\nsee, and not on the transmission of the apostolic office from Peter, of\nwhich not the slightest hint appears to have been given till Leo\ncomplained that the Council of Chalcedon had granted his claim to\npreeminence on no better ground than the importance of the city where\nhe presided. Even he, however, had no thought of advancing pretensions\nto infallibility, as the successor of an infallible Apostle; this\nadditional claim being reserved for Agatho, who, in 680, brought forward\nthe novel doctrine 'that the chair of Rome--never erred, nor can err in\nany point;' and that 'all the constitutions of the Roman Church are to\nbe received as if they had been delivered by the divine voice of St\nPeter.' So that there is an utter absence of proof that 'the Catholic or\nUniversal Church has been visibly continued through all ages in one\nuniform faith, being guided and preserved from error in matters of faith\nby the assistance of the Holy Spirit.' On the contrary, there is every\nkind of evidence to prove that the supernatural influences of the Spirit\nceased with the close of the apostolic age; that divisions of various\nkinds and degrees existed in the Christian Church, over which the\nBishops of Rome for five or six centuries exerted no pre-eminent\ncontrol, and which the decrees of Councils were of no avail to soothe\nand unite. We therefore hold apostolic ordination to have been a\ntemporary institution, and at the time more universally understood to\nbe so than perhaps any other provision for the spread of the Gospel.\n\nOf any such institution as a Church, permanent or temporary, established\nby Christ, and distinct from the simple exhibition of his Gospel, we\nfind not the most remote hint in any records but those of the vain\nimaginations of men. _A Church_ means literally an assemblage; and the\nChurch of Christ signifies, everywhere in the sacred writings, those who\nbelieve in Christ. Where the term is limited, it signifies assemblages\nof Christians in different places, as the Church at Corinth, the Church\nat Ephesus, &c. By the universal Church it is impossible to understand\nany thing but the total number of Christian believers: nor can we\nconceive of any means by which it can be shown that the primitive\nChristians understood otherwise, or that the term can admit of any other\ninterpretation. We hold, therefore, that the propositions we are about\nto quote from the document to which we have before referred ('Roman\nCatholic Principles,' &c.) are founded on an unauthorized and erroneous\nconception of the nature of the Christian Church. 'The way or means by\nwhich man may arrive at the knowledge of the mysteries of the Gospel'\nare declared to be 'not by the reading of Scripture, interpreted\naccording to the private judgment of each disjunctive person or nation\nin particular; but by an attention and submission to the voice of the\nCatholic or Universal Church, established by Christ for the instruction\nof all; spread for that end through all nations, and visibly continued\nin the succession of pastors and people through all ages. From this\nChurch, guided in truth, and secured from error in matters of faith by\nthe promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, every one may learn the right\nsense of the Scriptures, and such Christian mysteries and duties as are\nnecessary to salvation. This Church, thus established, thus spread, thus\ncontinued, thus guided, in one uniform faith and subordination of\ngovernment, is that which is called the Roman Catholic Church: the\nqualities just mentioned, unity, indeficiency, visibility, succession,\nand universality, being evidently applicable to her. From the testimony\nand authority of this Church it is that we receive the Scriptures, and\nbelieve them to be the word of God; and as she can assuredly tell us\nwhat particular book is the word of God, so she can, with the like\nassurance, tell us also the true sense and meaning of it in controverted\npoints of faith; the same Spirit that wrote the Scriptures, directing\nher to understand both them and all matters necessary to salvation.'\n\nAs we believe ourselves included in the universal Church, _i. e._ in the\nnumber of Christian believers, we acknowledge no authority but that\nwhich thus included us,--the authority of Christ himself: to no other\nvoice but his, as delivered in Scripture, do we listen with submission;\nand to none do we commit the office of interpretation; believing that\nGod has given to every man the inalienable right and sufficient power to\nascertain for himself what doctrines and duties are necessary to\nsalvation. What the Romish Church may be which, so far from being\n'universal' expressly assumes the power of guiding and informing\nChristian believers, we profess not to understand, having received no\nevidence of its origin and no attestation of its claims; but we know\nthat in the _Christian Church_ there has never been, since the apostolic\nage, 'one uniform faith and subordination of government;' nor do we\nbelieve that such subordination is designed by Providence, or that such\nuniformity is compatible with the present nature of man, or essential to\nhis safety and peace. Believing that the Scriptures contain the word of\nGod, and that the natural faculties of man are its appropriate\ninterpreters, we dare not commit to others the task of receiving a\nmessage which we know to be addressed immediately to ourselves;\nespecially as we are convinced that, since the apostolic age, no\npeculiar gifts of wisdom or of tongues have been conferred on any man.\nThe same Spirit which dictated the Gospel we believe to pervade the\nwhole spiritual universe, giving wisdom liberally to all who seek it,\nand enlightening those who do the will of God respecting the doctrine\nwhich is of God.\n\nSince the Roman Catholic Church cannot find a basis for its claims in\nthe Scriptures, those claims must be founded on the 'apostolical and\necclesiastical traditions' which she requires her members 'most firmly\nto admit and embrace.' The question between the Catholic and Protestant\nChurches on this subject is,--what traditions are to be received and\nwhat rejected; for the one Church would be as unwilling to receive all\nthat have been current, as the other to reject all that have been\nsubstantiated. It is evident, as the Protestant Church admits, that the\nChristians who were not converted by the Apostles themselves, and who\nlived before the publication of the canonical Scriptures, could have had\nno other foundation for their faith than tradition; and on the same\nground we establish our belief in the genuineness of the Scriptures; _i.\ne._, we declare them canonical.\n\nWhen we reject traditions therefore, it is not as traditions, but in\nproportion to their evidence. If they appear inconsistent with the\nsacred writings, incompatible with the convictions of reason, or\ndisagreeing with the circumstances of the age, we feel that the balance\nof evidence is against them. If they be merely vague and\ninconsequential, and not contradictory to each other or to any known\ntruth, we hold them loosely, without firm conviction and without\npositive disbelief. If they be, not only consistent with, but\ncorroborative of ascertained truth, clear in the origin, and early and\nextensively held, our faith in them is willing and steadfast. Of the\nfirst class are those traditions which were pleaded before the second\nCouncil of Nice, A. D. 787, on behalf of the worship of images, which we\nreject on all the grounds mentioned above; viz. because they are\ninconsistent with the spirit and letter of the sacred books; because\nthey are incompatible with the convictions of our reason, and because\nthey are perfectly irreconcileable with the practice of the Apostles and\nthe discipline of the primitive Church. Of the second class are those\nwhich relate the various fate of the first followers of Christ, and\nwhich we admit in the absence of all other evidence, though on such\nslight grounds as to have no firm conviction of their truth. Of the\nthird class are those by which we receive the sacred books as genuine,\nand which command belief from their universal prevalence, their strong\ninherent probability, and perfect consonance with the contents of the\nbooks themselves. It will be easily anticipated from what we have said,\nthat we reject those traditions which corroborate the claims of the\nRoman Catholic Church to a special divine commission; since such\ntraditions are in opposition to what we recognize as the spirit of the\nGospel, and unsanctioned by the conduct of the Apostles, especially of\nPeter. Rejecting these traditions, we hold the opinion suggested by the\nrecord of the Acts of the Apostles, that their special commission\nexpired with themselves; that apostolical ordination was a temporary\ninstitution; and that the special influence of the Holy Spirit was\ndesigned to be a temporary sanction.\n\nThe church of England appears to us to merit the censure and even the\nridicule cast upon her by the Roman Catholic Church for the\ninconsistency of her institutions with the principle on which she\nprofesses to act,--the principle of the Reformation,--that the Bible\nalone is the religion of Protestants. Catholics and protestants\nDissenter join in challenging her to produce from the Bible the grounds\nof the practice, among others, of episcopal ordination; including, as it\ndoes, the declaration of the regular transmission of the office, with\nits peculiar gifts of the Spirit, from the times of St Peter till the\npresent day. Rejecting, as she does, the ecclesiastical traditions on\nwhich the Catholics depend, and unable as she is to adduce authority\nfrom the Scriptures to which Dissenters appeal, she has no alternative\nbut to own the practice ungrounded, or to adduce some third authority,\nhitherto unheard of.\n\nSome of the most objectionable forms of ordination for Christian\npastorship were, notwithstanding, retained by various denominations of\nDissenters long after their separation from the Church of England, and\nare still partially held; but Unitarians have altogether relinquished\nthe conception that the teachers of the Gospel are peculiarly qualified\nfor their office otherwise than by their voluntary devotion to it, and\nby those natural means of study, reflection and prayer which their duty\nrequires them strenuously to employ.\n\nWe conceive that the Church of England has been led into the\ninconsistency mentioned above by conceiving in common with the\nCatholics, and as we think erroneously, that the institutions of Church\ngovernment established in the apostolic age are a part of Christianity,\nand therefore destined to be permanent. Her Church government is, it is\ntrue, not the same, because it cannot, by possibility, be so, the lapse\nof ages having wrought unavoidable changes; but this mutability, which\nought to prove to her the temporary nature of the institution, only\nmakes her cling the more eagerly to the points of resemblance which she\nconceives to have been preserved between her own constitution and that\nof the primitive Church; forgetting that such supposed resemblance is\nimmediately derived from that very Catholic Church whose superstitions\ninspired her with so much horror at the Reformation. Whatever\nresemblance the two Churches bear to the primitive Church in its\nexternal offices, they bear in common.\n\nThis resemblance, however, is but slight. In the primitive Christian\nChurch, regulated by elders chosen from the people, and in no way\ndistinguished from them in rank or learning, and served by deacons,\nwhose office was to distribute the funds held by all in common, we can\nscarcely recognize the original of the pompous establishments in which\nreligion is now believed to be preserved in its purity, till, on\nexamining the history, we trace the degrees by which spiritual\ndomination was secured. The most distinguished of the elders served the\noffice of moderator in the assemblies which met for the transaction of\nbusiness. In time, the office became permanent, and the 'constant\npresident' was allowed to appropriate the title of 'bishop,' which had\nbefore been common to all the elders. When numbers increased so that\nsmaller congregations were separated from one larger, each colony had an\nelder at its head, and the chief of the parent Church became a diocesan\nbishop. Large country congregations were, however, empowered to choose\na complete set of officers for themselves, consisting of bishops,\nelders, and deacons, and were independent of the city Churches, till the\nCouncil held at Antioch A. D. 341 forbade country bishops to ordain\npriests or deacons, and allowed them the power of choosing only the\ninferior officers of the Church. The next step was to abolish the order\nof country bishops; _country deans_ and _arch priests_ being\nsubstituted. At length, synods were held, at which the bishops met as\ndeputies of the people, to communicate concerning affairs of common\ninterest, forgetting from time to time the character in which they\nappeared, and venturing to make decrees by their own authority, and even\nto claim a power of prescribing in matters of faith and discipline. The\nprincipal bishop in a large district was employed by his brethren to\nconvoke these assemblies; and as the choice usually fell on the chief\nofficer of the metropolitan Church, the title of metropolitan bishop or\narch-bishop was applied to him; which term became common in the Church\nafter the year 430. The patriarchs were of a higher rank still; and\nthere were only five of them, belonging to the sees of Rome,\nConstantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. They were not\ncalled Primates till the time of Leo I. The ambition of the clergy found\nextensive means of gratification in the changes made by Constantine, who\nadapted the government of the Church to that of the State, which he had\nnewly divided and ordered. As the superior clergy grasped at greater\npower, the inferior clergy pressed upon their steps; and we soon hear of\narch-presbyters and arch-deacons, and of the occasional union of the\noffices of priest and deacon in the same individual. Thus did the\nservants gradually become the masters of the Church; and thus, in four\ncenturies, was the constitution of Christian congregations so entirely\nchanged, that scarcely a shadow of their original institutions remained.\n\nThis brief detail (the truth of which is so well known that it is\nneedless to give as our authority every accredited ecclesiastical\nhistory) affords the best argument for the temporary nature of the\ninstitutions of Church government, and sanctions the declaration of\nthose who are charged by either Church with schism, that before they can\nagain be required to join the Establishment, that Establishment must be\nreduced to the simplicity of government and discipline which\ncharacterized the primitive church. The bishops must assume nothing\nover their brethren, and be superior in no respect but in holiness; they\nmust be stewards of God, not given to lucre, but eminent in faith, in\ntemperance, in charity. The deacons must administer the common revenues\nof the church for the benefit of those who have need, appropriating\nnothing themselves nor suffering others to appropriate. The church\nitself must be, in all its views and objects, not of this world; having\nno respect of persons, not awarding to the man in goodly apparel a\nbetter place than to the poor man in vile raiment, rejecting every\ninducement to the usurpation of secular power, and leaving to the\nconscience of every man, as Peter referred to the conscience of Ananias,\nthe obligation of contributing to the common revenue. 'While the land\nremained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was not the price\nin thine own power?' is not the language of ecclesiastical tax-gatherers\nin the present day: and till all contributions to the churches become\nstrictly voluntary, till the churches abjure all temporal authority, and\nfree their discipline and ritual from the encroachments of spiritual\ntyranny and the defilements of superstition, neither the one nor the\nother can advance any claim to spiritual allegiance, and men who dissent\nfrom both may hold themselves innocent of the sin of schism.\n\nThus much we say on the supposition that it might be possible or\ndesirable to restore the ancient constitution of the Church. But we make\nsuch a supposition only for the sake of meeting the views of those who,\nfeeling that the ecclesiastical establishments of the present day are\nunchristian, would fain substitute for them the simple institutions of\nthe primitive Church. Believing as we do, that all such institutions\nmust be classed among the non-essentials of Christianity, we would have\nthem modified according to the circumstances of the age and country in\nwhich they are to be used. It is not possible that some of the original\nChristian ordinances can be advantageously employed in every country and\nthrough every age. The first Christians belonged, for the most part, to\nthe middling and lower classes of society, and consequently had few\npossessions. These possessions, with whatever was voluntarily offered by\nthe few rich men among them, were gathered into a common stock, in order\nthat all might be so far freed from secular cares as to be able to\ndevote their minds and hearts to the furtherance of the cause of the\nGospel. It is obvious that the same reasons for establishing a community\nof goods do not exist in a Christian country, where the faith has no\nlonger to maintain a struggle with the powers which opposed its first\npromulgation. Nor could such a community of goods answer the same\npurposes in a wealthy commercial state and among the cantons of\nSwitzerland, among the nobles and boors of Russia, and the back-woodsmen\nof America; in states where civilization is most advanced, and in\nregions where the rights of property are almost unrecognized.\n\nThe same may be said of the external modes of worship. Granting that the\ncomplex ceremonies of Roman Catholic worship, so nearly resembling the\nrites of Paganism, might, by possibility, admit of a connexion with pure\nChristian faith, it cannot be supposed that the cross, wax lights, and\nincense can ever form a ritual appropriate to the customs of Arabs or\nIndians, or that they will help the devotion of the fiftieth generation\nfrom the present. Primitive modes of worship have, by a singular\nordering of circumstances, been preserved among the Vaudois, and are\nstill consonant with their secular state: but men who dwell amidst\nravines and mountain forests think and feel differently, and therefore\nworship differently from those who inhabit the cities of the plain;\nwhile the faith of all is essentially the same. It is, therefore,\nunreasonable of the Catholic Church to require of all her members, dwell\nwhere they may, in the north or in the south, in the metropolis or the\nwilderness, the vow, 'I also receive and admit the ceremonies of the\nCatholic Church, received and approved in the solemn administration of\nall the seven sacraments.'\n\nFar more reasonable is the Gospel in its requisitions, the sole\ncondition of whose promises is, that men shall 'worship the Father in\nspirit and in truth.' We have said that the essence of Christian faith\nis the same through all varieties of manifestation. It has ever been so,\nand it shall ever be so, for these varieties of manifestation are\nordained for the very purpose of preserving the essence. They are\nordained, lest men, too much regarding things seen and temporal, should\nconfound with them things unseen and eternal; should not only\nincorporate religion in material forms, but identify it with them. They\nare ordained that men may learn what Christianity really is, what the\nLord God requires of them concerning it, what He promises them in it,\nwhat He purposes to effect by it; and furthermore, that men may mutually\nrecognize the new bond of brotherhood which the Gospel discloses, by\nwhich all are made heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ Jesus. This\nrecognition must take place as soon as the nature and design of\nChristianity are understood, be it here or hereafter, in this world or\nin the next; and surely the sooner the better.\n\nThat mode of belief which encourages the closest investigation into the\nprinciples of Christianity; which discovers the most clearly all\nspiritual relations; which affords the most distinct apprehension of the\npermanence and universality of the Gospel; which discerns how its\npromises are ratified, its threatenings confirmed, its truths\ncorroborated by all other spiritual influences, by all the results of\nhuman experience, and all the developments of Providence,--must be the\nbest adapted to the needs and capabilities of an ever-expanding and\nimmortal spirit. That mode of belief which adapts itself to all times\nand circumstances, and which is independent of all influences but those\nwhich are unfailing, must be the truest and best: and such a faith\nactually exists in those views of Christianity under which it appears\nas simple and diffusive as natural religion.\n\nThe Greenlander, who sees how rapidly all natural influences combine to\nenhance the bloom of his transient summer, recognizes the same\nattributes of Providence as the philosopher who marks the expansion of\nmind under the vicissitudes of events: both are natural religionists.\nThe great truths of Christianity may be also common to both. The\nGreenlander loses the wife of his bosom, and wanders on the icy shore to\nwatch if any skiff traverses the horizon, to bring him tidings from the\nworld of spirits; he listens to the sullen roar of the waves and the\nmoaning of the wind, in the intense hope that the voice of a spirit may\nmingle with their murmurs. The philosopher who has suffered bereavement\nfeels a similar want, though his yearnings are differently expressed.\nHis reason is adjured, and not his senses, to yield evidence of a life\nbeyond the grave; and the intellect of the one is as intently fixed as\nthe eye and ear of the other on whatever may bring a solution of his\ndoubts. Is not the main fact of Christianity that which is preeminently\nfitted to afford consolation and hope to both? To each in the proportion\nin which he is able to receive it? The Greenlander, who believes that\nthere has been an actual resurrection in proof that all men shall live\nafter death, is soothed and cheered by hope. He is brave when tossed by\nthe storms of the ocean or half-buried in a snow-drift, because death is\nno longer the fearful thing it was. He is patient when his winter store\nof provisions is exhausted and his children ask him for food, because\nhis faith teaches him that he who can restore the dead from the grave\ncan preserve the living, though the means may not be immediately\napparent. This faith is the same with that on which the philosopher\nreposes his trust, when he sees things that yet are not as though they\nwere,--the revelations of the grave, the spiritual and intellectual\ncommunion of a higher state, and the blessed results of the trials and\nprivations of the present. And a similar congeniality prevails\nrespecting every other essential doctrine and principle of the Gospel;\nand even respecting its minor details. The universal spread of Glad\nTidings is a fit subject for universal rejoicing. The moral beauty of\nthe Saviour's character is recognizable by all; the spirit of his\nteachings is congenial to all; and the very illustrations in which they\nare set forth are of a universal nature. Storms everywhere beat on\nhuman dwellings, and in all regions flowers spring, and the lights of\nheaven shine and are obscured. The filial and fraternal relations\nsubsist everywhere; widowed mothers mourn over the bier of a son, and\nrejoicings are witnessed at marriage feasts. The parables of the Gospel\nare the most appropriate elementary teachings for all minds from pole to\npole; and the principles which Christ proposed command the assent of\nevery intellect, from that of the child whom he set in the midst of his\nfollowers, to that which, exalted by all holy influences, is surrounded\non its release from the grave by a throng of perfected spirits. It is\nfor man to beware how he limits what God has thus made universal; how he\nmonopolizes what God designs to be diffused; how he encumbers by human\ninventions that truth which Divine wisdom has made free to all.\n\nBy the Gospel, a new relation is established between Him who gives and\nhim who receives it; and it is for man to beware how he attempts to\nmodify this relation, or to intrude on the special communion which it\nestablishes. It is not in the power of man to take away any thing from\nthe Gospel, though he may narrow the capacity of its recipients; but he\nmust beware how he adds to it the teachings of his own low and vain\nimaginations. He can do nothing to impair Divine truth, for it is made\ninvulnerable by God: but he may impair and destroy its efficacy for\nhimself and his brethren, by mistaking its nature and perverting its\ninfluences; by transferring to others the task which he may not\ndelegate, of admitting its evidences and interpreting its commands. It\nis not in the power of man to silence the voice of God speaking on earth\nthrough Christ; but he must beware of listening to any other exponent of\nthe Divine will, whether or not he refer his claim to St Peter; whether\nor not he appeal to human wisdom throned in the papal chair or attested\nby the unanimity of Councils; whether or not he entitle himself the\nVicar of Christ on earth.\n\nIt is not in the power of man to restrict the influences of the Gospel.\nWhat they have been, they will be; what they have done, they will\ncontinue to effect. They will bless the spirit in its wanderings and in\nits retirements, making the universe the record of its history, and its\ninmost recesses the dwelling-place of Deity. They will restrain the\nexcesses, chasten the emotions, and ennoble the sympathies of humanity.\nThey will bless life, and hallow the grave. They will develope\nthemselves perpetually as ages roll on, till it shall be their lowest\noffice to still the sighings and subdue the conflicts of the spirit;\nwhile their highest shall still be, so to direct its pursuit of ultimate\nobjects, so to invigorate its natural and moral powers, as to evidence\nto itself its ever-growing resemblance to its Maker. It is for man to\nbeware lest he exclude himself from these influences or impair their\noperation by mistaking superstition for religion, and by supinely\nrelinquishing the intellectual and spiritual liberty with which Christ\nhas made him free.","title":"The Essential Faith of the Universal Church; Deduced from the Sacred Records","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":34518}