{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_49930/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_49930","id":"gutenberg_49930","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/49930","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Unitarianism"],"text":"UNITARIANISM DEFENDED:\n\n\n A SERIES OF LECTURES\n\n\n BY\n\n\n THREE PROTESTANT DISSENTING MINISTERS\n OF LIVERPOOL:\n\n\n IN REPLY TO\n\n\n A COURSE OF LECTURES, ENTITLED \u201cUNITARIANISM\n CONFUTED,\u201d BY THIRTEEN CLERGYMEN OF\n THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.\n\n\n --------------------------------------------------\n\nWould to Heaven that Christians had their own \u2018vail\u2019 of orthodox words\ntaken away from their minds; that, limiting Orthodoxy to the acceptance\nof the Christ as the SPIRIT (\u2018the Lord is that Spirit,\u2019 says St. Paul),\n_i.e._, the meaning, the end of all revelation, they would not allow a\nnew _letter_, consisting of abstract doctrines, to involve their minds\nin a \u2018vail\u2019 which obstructs the view of the Gospel, even more than the\nold letter, which kept the Jews in \u201cbondage.\u201d\u2014_Heresy and Orthodoxy by\nRev. J. Blanco White_, p. 53, 2nd edition.\n\n --------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LIVERPOOL:\n WILLMER AND SMITH, 32, CHURCH STREET.\n\n LONDON:\n JOHN GREEN, 121, NEWGATE STREET.\n\n -----\n\n 1839.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LONDON:\n PRINTED BY RICHARD KINDER,\n GREEN ARBOUR COURT, OLD BAILEY.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n GENERAL PREFACE.\n\n\nIn this Preface, and in all the other contents of this volume, we have\noccupied the position of an assailed party, lending our best\nconsideration to whatever a leagued body of resolute and unsparing\nadversaries could say against us. We have stood upon the defensive, not\nlamenting that such an occasion had occurred of exposing our views of\nChristianity to so severe a scrutiny, and of displaying to the world\nwhether our position was tenable. We did not provoke this Controversy.\nIt was of our opponents\u2019 choosing. They entered into combination, and\narranged their method of attack, and invited the public attentively to\nlook on while they performed upon us the work of destruction. With\nrespectful attention, as men whose system of Christianity was about to\nbe subjected to a powerful analysis by those who believed the main\ningredients to be poisonous,\u2014but with quiet hearts, as men who had no\ninterest in this world but to discover Truth,\u2014we have interfered no\nfurther than was necessary to make this examination, by carefulness,\nimpartiality, and accuracy, productive of a true result. We have struck\nout whatever was untrue, and we have supplied whatever was wanting, to\nexhibit a full statement of the respective Evidences of Unitarianism and\nof Trinitarianism. Lecture qualifies lecture; and Preface corrects\nPreface. We are satisfied to have thus placed, side by side, the\ncontrasted views of Man and God, and to await the issues.\n\nTo return upon the \u201cthirteen Clergymen of the Church of England\u201d the\nwords of their General Preface, (p. xi.) \u201c_it is no uncommon practice in\nmodern criticism to neglect the statements_\u201d of an opponent\u2019s case, as\nif they never had been made, and the corrections passed upon one\u2019s own\nas if they never had been experienced. It is the policy of the \u201cthirteen\nClergymen\u201d to _reiterate_, nothing daunted, arguments, our careful\nreplies to which are not even noticed, and misrepresentations whose\ninjustice had solemnly been protested against. By these resolute\nrepetitions some are seduced to believe, and attention is withdrawn from\nthe overthrow of an error or a calumny by the hardihood with which it\nrises from its fall, and reasserts itself. Strike them down;\u2014they get\nup, and coolly offer themselves to be struck down again. Great ought to\nbe the power of Truth; for great is the vitality and the power of\neffrontery in a popular error. It is only in the long combat of years\nand generations that the _Real_ manifests at last its imperishable\nquality. The \u201cGeneral Preface\u201d quietly gathers up all the \u201c_disjecta\nmembra_\u201d of error and misstatement, and without a word of answer to our\nanalysis of their character, presents them again to have sentence and\nexecution passed upon them. It is a careful redintegration of the broken\nparticles, which in our simplicity we had hoped would not so readily\nreunite. We are obliged, therefore, by way at once of Preface and of\nProtest, to repeat our solemn contradiction of some most strenuous\nmisrepresentations, and to attempt again the exposure of some fallacies\nmost tenacious of life.\n\nI. It was distinctly stated by us in the course of this Controversy,\nthat not upon any grounds of _literary evidence_ did we discredit those\nprefaces which relate to the miraculous (or as, in insult to the purest\nand holiest human feelings, our opponents are not ashamed to call it,\nthe _immaculate_) conception; and that our estimate of them was formed\nsolely upon grounds of inherent incredibility, and of proved\ninconsistencies both with themselves and with the general statements of\nthe New Testament. Yet in total disregard of this our denial, the\nPreface (p. xiii.) reasserts the charge, as if it never had been\ncontradicted. We also distinctly stated that the miraculous conception\n_in no way interfered with Unitarianism_,\u2014that many Humanitarians\nbelieved in it; yet it is _the policy_ of Trinitarianism to _repeat_,\nthat we pervert these portions of Scripture, for the sake of evading a\nfact fatal to our system. Unitarianism is so little concerned to evade\nthe fact of a miraculous conception, that many Unitarians themselves\nadopt it. It is the \u201ctactics\u201d of the \u201cthirteen Clergymen,\u201d their system\n\u201cof holy war,\u201d (_see Preface to Mr. Ould\u2019s Lecture_) to ignore whatever\nwe may say on our own behalf, either in way of correction or of defence,\nand to reassert the false statement.\n\nII. The \u201cUnitarian Creed\u201d is described by our reverend opponents as \u201c_a\nmere code of unbelief_\u201d (p. xiv.) it being the policy of the \u201cthirteen\nClergymen,\u201d not only to pay no regard to our most solemn assertion of\nour faith in Christianity, as God\u2019s full and perfect revelation to man,\nbut also to assume to themselves the functions of infallible judges of\nwhat is Christianity, and what is not; and so, again to return upon them\ntheir own language, to \u201cdeify their own fallible\u201d (p. xii.)\ninterpretations and inferences. Yet they can impose upon the simplicity\nof the world, by charging others with the \u201cpride of reason.\u201d Infallible\nthemselves, to differ from their infallibility can of course be nothing\nelse than the _pride_ of reason.\n\nIII. It is stated (p. xv.), that we \u201cutterly deny\u201d \u201cthe eternity of\npunishments,\u201d without adding _what we have added_, that the moral\nconsequences of actions _are eternal_, and that in its influence on\ncharacter and progress, the retribution of every evil thought or deed\n_is everlasting_. What we _do_ deny, as the blackest misrepresentation\nthat can be conceived of the God of Providence, whose glory it is to\nlead his children to Himself, is the horribly distinct statement of\ntheir own \u201cGeneral Preface\u201d\u2014\u201c_that the sufferings of the lost are not\nintended for their amendment, but as a satisfaction to divine justice,\nwhen the hour of pardon shall have passed away_.\u201d (p. xv.) Is this the\nReligion, and this the God, of Love? These are the men who make the\nUnbelief of which they afterwards so blindly and bitterly complain. If\nsuch was Christianity, unbelief would be a virtue, a prompting of\ndevotion, a protest on behalf of God.\n\nIV. Our doubt as to the existence of, or necessity for, an external\nDevil, permitted by God to ruin the souls of men, has been converted to\ntwo uses in this Preface;\u2014first, as manifesting that we are ourselves\nunder the power of the subtlest device of Satan, who has concealed from\nus his existence, that he might lead us captive at his will; and,\nsecondly, that though denying the existence of Satan, we are yet\nourselves the emissaries of Satan; for that as the Devil tempted Eve,\nand our Lord himself, by perversions of the Word of God, so\nUnitarianism, by its interpretations, is his present instrument,\u2014in\nfact, Satan himself tempting the world by the word of God, as of old he\ntempted Eve and Christ. (pp. xv. xvi.) We leave this matter to the\njudgment of men whose sense of propriety and decency has not been\nborrowed exclusively from the influences of a dogmatic Theology.\n\nV. It is said of us (p. xvi.), contrary to our own most distinct\naverment in this very Controversy, that \u201caccording to the theologians of\nthis unhappy school, it seems to be almost a fundamental rule, that no\ndoctrine ought to be acknowledged as true in its nature, or divine in\nits origin, of which all the parts are not level to human understanding:\nand that whatever the Scriptures teach concerning the counsels of\nJehovah, and the plan of his salvation, must be modified, curtailed, and\nattenuated, in such a manner, by the transforming power of art and\nargument, as to correspond with the poor and narrow capacities of our\nintelligence.\u201d\n\nWhere are the simplicity, the sincerity, the love of Truth, which alone\ncan make Controversy fruitful of good results, when such a\nrepresentation of the spirit of our Theology _can_ be given by \u201cthirteen\nClergymen\u201d _after_ we had published the following words in our fifth\nLecture (p. 9), for their special instruction:\u2014\u201cLet me guard myself from\nthe imputation of rejecting this doctrine _because it is mysterious_; or\nof supporting a system which insists on banishing all mysteries from\nreligion. On any such system I should look with unqualified aversion, as\nexcluding from faith one of its primary elements; as obliterating the\ndistinction between logic and devotion, and tending only to produce an\nirreverent and narrow-minded dogmatism. \u2018Religion without mystery\u2019 is a\ncombination of terms, than which the Athanasian Creed contains nothing\nmore contradictory; and the sentiment of which it is the motto, I take\nto be a fatal caricature of rationalism, tending to bring all piety into\ncontempt. Until we touch upon the mysterious, we are not in contact with\nreligion; nor are any objects reverently regarded by us, except such as,\nfrom their nature or their vastness, are felt to transcend our\ncomprehension.\u201d Nay, it is not a little remarkable, that the very\nillustration employed by the \u201cthirteen Clergymen\u201d to exhibit our\nabsurdity in rejecting the incomprehensible, had been previously\nemployed by ourselves to exhibit the necessity of admitting the\nincomprehensible:\u2014\n\n _Trinitarian Preface_, p. xviii. _Unitarian Lecture_, No. V. p. 9.\n\n \u201cMuch of the great mystery of \u201cThe sense of what we do not know\n godliness, God manifest in the is as essential to our religion,\n flesh, with all the firmament of as the impression of what we do\n saving truth and love, whereof know; the thought of the\n it is the radiant centre, must boundless, the incomprehensible,\n remain inexplicable to our must blend in our mind with the\n present capacities. But to argue perception of the clear and true;\n from thence, that this mystery the little knowledge we have must\n is a cunningly-devised fable, is be clung to, as the margin of an\n as illogical as it would be to invisible immensity; _and all our\n maintain _that there is no positive ideas be regarded as the\n bottom to the sea, because we mere float to show the surface of\n have no plumb-line with which it the infinite deep_.\u201d\n may be fathomed_.\u201d\n\nThis is bold misrepresentation; a consistent hardihood in the \u201ctactics\nof holy war.\u201d To persevere, against all remonstrance, in the repetition\nof a misstatement injurious to an opponent, and to do this so coolly as\nto use almost his own words in imputing to him the very opposite of what\nhe has said, is at least a convenient, if not an honourable nor yet a\nformidable policy.\n\nIn the same spirit of neither honourable nor yet formidable policy, is\nthe attempt (p. xvii.) to identify Mahometanism and Unitarianism, by the\nhelp of a literary forgery, which even if it was authentic, would prove\nnothing except that the early Unitarians of England, in the reign of\nCharles the Second, amid the corruptions of Christianity, rejoiced in\nthe testimony borne by Mahometanism to the great doctrine of revealed\nreligion, the Unity of God. It is said that there is, among the MSS. in\nthe Lambeth Library, a \u201cSocinian Epistle (to this effect) to Ameth Ben\nAmeth, Ambassador from the Emperor of Morocco to Charles II.\u201d Leslie, in\nthe Preface to his \u201cSocinian Controversy Discussed,\u201d was the first who\nmade use of this supposed letter, and not without the suspicion, that he\nhad first forged it himself.[1] \u201cI will here,\u201d says Leslie, \u201cpresent the\nreader with a rarity, which I take to be so, because of the difficulty I\nhad to obtain it.\u201d \u201cIt is in my mind,\u201d says Mr. Aspland, \u201cdecisive of\nthe question, that immediately after Leslie had published the Epistle,\nEmlyn, who answered the tract to which it was prefixed, stated it as his\nbelief, upon inquiry, that no such epistle had ever been presented by\nany one \u2018deputed\u2019 from the Unitarians, and insinuated that no credit was\nto be given to a document published by Leslie, unless vouched by some\nother authority than his own; and that Leslie, in replying to this\nanswer, though he dwells, for pages, upon the passages before and after\nthis, relating to the epistle, says not a syllable about his \u2018rarity\u2019 or\nin defence of his veracity.\u201d \u201cLeslie,\u201d continues Mr. Aspland, \u201cis\nconvicted (by Emlyn) of quoting passages from Archbishop Tillotson\u2019s\nSermons, which had been published in the name of their eminent author,\nas if they were the work of an avowed \u2018Socinian.\u2019 And if you will\nconsult his reply, you will find this theological braggart completely\nhumbled, and reduced to the necessity of using the wretched plea, that\nhe had omitted the name of the \u2018great Prelate,\u2019 out of _tenderness_.\u2014Is\nit uncharitable to suspect, under all these circumstances, that he who\nwas proved to have resorted to one trick, might have had recourse to\nanother?\u201d\n\n\u201cAs to your \u2018rarity,\u2019\u201d says Emlyn in his reply to Leslie, \u201cof the\naddress to the _Morocco_ ambassador, I see not what it amounts to, more\nthan a complaint of the corruption of the Christian faith, in the\narticle of one God, which the _Mahometans_ have kept, by consent of all\nsides. Yet, forasmuch as I can learn nothing from any _Unitarians_ of\nany such address from them, nor do you produce any subscribers\u2019\nnames,[2] I conclude no such address was ever made, by any _deputed_\nfrom them, whatever any single person might do. I suppose you conclude\nfrom the matter of it, that it must be from some _Unitarian_, and\nperhaps so; yet you may remember that so you concluded from the matter\nof Dr. _Tillotson\u2019s_ Sermons, that they were a _Socinian\u2019s_.\u201d[3]\n\nFor our own part, when we read this amusing attempt to identify us with\nMahometans, by the help of an unknown letter, bearing no subscription,\nand addressed, by nobody knows whom, to the _Ambassador of Morocco_, in\nthe reign of Charles II., we were forcibly reminded of two passages in\nEcclesiastical History, in whose pages all tricks and absurdities can be\nparalleled, and whose exhibition of gratuitous follies and distortions\nhas left the possibility of \u201cnothing new under the sun,\u201d of this\ndescription, for our modern days. Hildebrand himself, yes, GREGORY THE\nSEVENTH, like our poor selves, was suspected of a leaning to\n\u201c_Islamism_,\u201d (_General Preface_, p. xvii.) because he wrote a letter,\nnot to the Ambassador, as in our case but, as became his greater\ndignity, to the _Emperor_ of Morocco, thanking him for the liberation of\nsome Christian captives, and expressing his conviction, so much was\nthere of the spirit of God and goodness in this act, \u201cthat they both\nworshipped the same spirit, though the modes of their adoration and\nfaith were different.\u201d It also appears that the Emperor Manuel Comnenus\nexposed himself to the same imputation of \u201c_Islamism_,\u201d because he\nwished to correct an error in the ritual of the Greek Church, which by a\nlaughable misunderstanding of an Arabic word, signifying _eternal_,\n\u201ccontained a standing anathema against the God of Mahomet,\u201d as being\n\u201c_solid_ and _spherical_.\u201d\n\n \u201cSolventur risu tabul\u00e6; tu missus abibis.\u201d\n\nWe confess our unmixed astonishment at finding the \u201cthirteen Clergymen\u201d\navowing the most undisguised Tritheism. We do not recollect in modern\ntimes so bold and unwary an admission of Polytheism as the following:\n\u201cOur inability, therefore, to explain the Triunity of his Essence, can\nbe no reason for rejecting the revelation of it contained in his Word;\neven if we were deprived of those shadows and resemblances of this\ndivine truth, which may be seen in the one nature of man, communicating\nitself to many individuals of the species. _There is one human nature,\nbut many human persons._\u201d (p. xix.) Is this then the _Unity_ of God\nwhich the \u201cthirteen\u201d maintain, viz., such a unity as subsists between\nthree individual men? Is it their meaning that the Divine Nature is a\nSpecies containing under it three Individuals, as human nature is a\nspecies containing under it as many individuals as there are men? Do\nthey mean to contend, with some of the Fathers, that three men are only\n\u201c_abusively_\u201d called _three_, being in reality only _one_? What mercy\nwould Dr. Whately have for such unskilful controversialists? Is this\nhowever the deliberate view of the whole thirteen, or is it only the\nrashness of one of them?\u2014for it is very important to have so definite a\nstatement of what is meant by the Trinity in Unity.\n\nVI. It is most incorrectly stated (_Preface_, p. xx.) that \u201cDr.\nPriestley, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Belsham, not to mention earlier writers,\nhave laboured hard to show that the Fathers of the first three centuries\nwere Unitarians, _and believers in the simple humanity of Jesus\nChrist_.\u201d Such a labour was never undertaken by these writers, nor by\nany one else. It is capable of proof that the Fathers of the three first\ncenturies were _not_ Trinitarian in the Athanasian sense; but that they\nwere believers in the simple _humanity_ of the Christ, no one maintains,\nfrom the time that Platonism first began to transform Christianity into\nharmony with its own peculiar ideas. That Unitarians have supported this\nview by \u201chardy misquotations,\u201d is, to say the least of it, an unwise\nprovocation from men who have in the course of this Controversy been\nconvicted of the most careless misquotations both in their own case\n(_see especially preface to the Seventh Unitarian Lecture_), and in that\nof their favourite Champion (_see the Appendix to the Sixth Unitarian\nLecture_). That the substantial statements of Unitarians as to the\nUnitarianism of the primitive Church have been overturned by Bull, &c.,\n(_Trinitarian preface_, p. xxi.) is a hardy assertion in the face of the\nfollowing quotations from Bull himself: \u201cIn the FIRST and BEST ages, the\nChurches of Christ directed all their prayers ACCORDING TO THE\nSCRIPTURES, TO GOD ONLY, _through_ the alone mediation of Jesus\nChrist.\u201d\u2014_Answer to a Query of the Bishop of Meaux_, p. 295.\n\n\u201cThe Father is rightly styled THE WHOLE, as he is the fountain of\ndivinity: For the divinity which is in the _Son_ and in the _Holy\nGhost_, is the _Father\u2019s_, because it is DERIVED FROM THE\nFATHER.\u201d\u2014_Defence_, sect. ii. 8.\n\nFor another quotation from Bishop Bull, see also preface, p. vi., to the\nSeventh Unitarian Lecture.\n\nVII. The \u201cthirteen Clergymen,\u201d finding that Mr. Belsham\u2019s \u201cImproved\nVersion\u201d was not a STANDARD with us, and knowing perhaps that in our\nrejection of it as such we have been borne out by the Unitarian\nAssociation at its recent general meeting in London, yet determined to\nfind a standard for us somewhere, have (p. xxvi.) put into our mouths,\nwith marvellous na\u00efvet\u00e9, an appeal to Mr. Belsham\u2019s Translation of St.\nPaul\u2019s Epistles. We have already given up the Mr. Belsham of the\nImproved Version, and they, for their own easy purposes, represent us as\nmaking an appeal to the Mr. Belsham of \u201cthe Epistles.\u201d We will yield to\nour reverend opponents whatever consolation they may be able to derive\nfrom their _imaginary_ triumph, in case we made this _imaginary_ appeal.\nThe Trinitarians cannot divest their minds of the idea that we must have\nan Authority _somewhere_. They cannot understand what is meant by\ndeferring to principles alone; by having no external judge of\nControversies, no shorter road to conclusions, than to submit every\nquestion to the fullest light that Knowledge and Inquiry have provided,\nor may yet provide. The C\u00e6sar to whom we appeal from Mr. Belsham is not\nsome other Mr. Belsham, or the same man in a different book, but the\ngreat principles of Criticism and of Interpretation, as recognized by\ncompetent judges of all parties.\n\nVIII. For the faith of the Church of England, the \u201cthirteen Clergymen\u201d\ndeclare, that \u201cit is alike their privilege and obligation to contend in\nthat spirit of charity which becomes a believer in Jesus.\u201d (_Preface_,\np. xxviii.) We shall not open former wounds, but look simply to some of\ntheir last manifestations of \u201cCharity\u201d in their General Preface.\n\n1. They say of us (p. xxiii.), that \u201cUnitarians have borne some such\nproportion to the Christian Church, as monsters bear to the species of\nwhich they are unhappy distortions.\u201d\n\n2. They \u201c_decline to receive us as brethren, and to give us the right\nhand of fellowship_\u201d partly because our doctrinal views of Christianity\nare different from their own, and partly because, as they aver, we\nmaintain our views in _dishonesty_, using language _hypocritically_. We\n\u201ccannot be Christian brethren,\u201d say they, \u201cfor we cannot tread the same\nroad, even for an instant. They use the _language_ of Christianity,\nwithout believing its _mysteries_. How, then, can we bid them God speed,\nwhile they are influenced by this spirit of unfairness? \u2018The words of\ntheir mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in their heart: their\nwords are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords.\u2019\u201d (pp. xxiv. xxv.)\n\n3. We are charged with deliberately opposing our own minds to the mind\nof God. \u201cThat such unwearied hostility,\u201d say they, \u201cis waged by\nUnitarians _against the mind of God_, as expressed in his word, all\ntheir publications unequivocally and mournfully attest.\u201d (p. xxv.)\n\n4. They describe us as \u201cblasphemers against the Son of Man,\u201d and they\nclose this peculiar exhibition of \u201cCharity\u201d by offering up for us the\nfollowing prayer:\u2014\n\n\u201c_O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou\nhast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should\nbe converted, and live, have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and\nHeretics, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and\ncontempt of thy word_,\u201d &c. (p. xxix.)\n\nIf such is their \u201cCharity,\u201d may we be permitted to ask, what form would\ntheir _uncharitableness_ take?\n\nSuch is the \u201cGeneral Preface,\u201d which the \u201cthirteen Clergymen\u201d are\ndeliberately of opinion that the issues of this Controversy, and our\nmutual relations to each other, justified them in writing. We confess\nthat we had prepared ourselves for a careful attempt, on their part, at\nrepairing whatever further inquiry, and, we may say without presumption,\nthe close scrutiny of an opponent, had shown to be weak or imperfect in\ntheir previous labours,\u2014a last effort to present again the edifice of\ntheir faith in what they deemed its most favourable lights, accompanied\nby a corresponding attempt to shake the foundations of Unitarian\nChristianity. They have thought themselves, however, sufficiently strong\nalready to be able to throw away this last opportunity. They deem the\nwork already done, and that they have earned the right, without further\naddition or defence, to entitle their Lectures \u201c_Unitarianism\nConfuted_.\u201d\n\nBy their own act they entered with us into this Controversy; they\nrepeatedly recognized us during its continuance as the persons whom they\nwere opposing, and whose Theology they had undertaken to refute;\u2014yet our\ncareful and respectful examination of _their_ views, and statement of\nour own, have not been able to win from them one word either of notice\nor reply. However low their opinion may be of us, as of antagonists\nbeneath their consideration, yet surely in an attack on Unitarianism in\nLiverpool, we are the persons whose views and influence they had most\noccasion to correct; and if no more respectful feeling, mere expediency,\na regard for their own designs against Unitarianism, would seem to\nrequire some examination of the arguments and doctrines of those who are\nits Ministers and interpreters in the place where this attempt at its\noverthrow has been made.\n\nIn abandoning this last occasion of a careful and elaborately\nstrengthened restatement of their case, we confess they have\ndisappointed us. Nor do we believe that even that part of the public\nwhich has most sympathies with them, and would most rejoice in their\nsuccess, will contemplate the omission without surprise.\n\nThe origin and history of this Controversy is sufficiently detailed in\nthe annexed Correspondence. It will there be seen how our desire for a\nreally close and decisive examination of the several points at issue\nbetween us has been evaded: our reverend opponents would not admit of\nany controversy of which declamation was not to be the instrument.\n\nWe have already stated at the opening of this Controversy, that we did\nnot enter into this discussion for the sake of a Sectarian triumph, but\nin the more Christian hope of exposing and checking the Sectarian\nSpirit. To exalt the _spiritual_ character of Faith above the verbal and\nmetaphysical,\u2014to unite mankind through their common love and acceptance\nof Christ\u2019s goodness and of Christ\u2019s God,\u2014to make his Church one by\ntheir participation of one spirit, even the spirit of the life of\nJesus,\u2014has been our highest aim, not only on this particular occasion,\nbut throughout all our Ministry. We acknowledge it to be an aim that,\nindirectly at least, is destructive of \u201cOrthodoxy,\u201d that is, of \u201cthe\nsupposed attainableness of Salvation only by one particular set of\nOpinions,\u201d for if the love of Christ\u2019s God, and the prayerful seeking\nafter Christ\u2019s goodness are sufficient to place us on the way of\neverlasting Safety, then the question is virtually decided, for no man\nwill follow Orthodoxy _gratuitously_. It is necessary to set it forth as\nthe _only_ escape from Hell,\u2014else no man would burden himself with it.\nAnd thus Orthodoxy is condemned to be damnatory. Intolerance is the very\ncondition of its existence. Cursing is its breath of life. Let it\nacknowledge that the pure heart, and the pure life, and the spirit of\nfaith in God, may save a soul from death, _and Orthodoxy will have\ndissolved itself_, for nothing but the last necessity, the\nattainableness of safety by no other means, could justify its existence.\nA damnatory creed must be an _essential_ of Salvation;\u2014else it is the\ngreatest impiety possible to conceive. Was it, then, the intention of\nJesus to establish a certain _Creed_ breathing curses against all who do\nnot _think_[4] alike,\u2014however they may love and live? Alas! why, then,\nwas not that merciful being as distinct as the Athanasian Creed? If\nJesus had been charged with the delivery of an exclusive Creed, as the\n_only_ instrument of Salvation, would he have veiled it from the eyes of\nthose he came to save? Need we pursue the argument further? Orthodoxy is\n_not Christianity_;\u2014yet that in Orthodox bosoms the Spirit of Christ may\ndwell, we are not the persons to deny.\n\nWhat interest or value can these disputations have for beings whose main\nbusiness in this world is, in the prospect of a coming world, to conform\ntheir souls to the image of the heavenly model, to Jesus the pattern of\ncitizenship in the new Heavens and the new Earth wherein dwelleth\nrighteousness! \u201cWhilst we are wrangling here in the dark,\u201d says Baxter,\n\u201c_we are dying_, and passing to the world that will decide all our\nControversies, and the safest passage thither is by peaceable holiness.\u201d\nWhilst we are struggling for points, of which we know little or nothing,\nhearts are dead or perishing. Whilst we are battling for our conceits,\nwe are all of us unsound within, not right with God, and falling away\nfrom the true service of our great master. Whilst proclaiming in\nSectarian eagerness, \u201cLo, Christ is here,\u201d and \u201cLo, Christ is _not_\nthere,\u201d\u2014none of us are sitting at his feet, and submitting our souls and\npassions to his yoke. Whilst we are falling out by the way, in vain his\nheavenly invitation is addressed to our unquiet hearts\u2014\u201cCome unto me all\nye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my\nyoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye\nshall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is\nlight.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n See \u201cA Plea for Unitarian Dissenters,\u201d pp. 88-9, published in 1813, by\n the Rev. Robert Aspland, from whom we take the exposure of this\n forgery now brought forth again; for in Trinitarian Controversy\n falsehood seems immortal, and there is no work for us modern\n advocates, except to \u201cslay the slain.\u201d\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n \u201cThere is internal evidence of its being written in the way of banter.\n No subscription appears to it, and no person is named as concerned in\n it, but a Monsieur Verze, a Frenchman, who might be employed as an\n _agent_, and yet not be a \u2018Socinian\u2019 agent.\u201d\u2014ASPLAND.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n Plea for Unitarian Dissenters, p. 137.\n\n \u201cMy Lords, if your Lordships attended to the manner in which that\n quotation is introduced into Leslie, you might see that it bore\n internal evidence of being something of the nature of a _jeu\n d\u2019esprit_.... My Lords, this Leslie was a general maligner.... I\n really think that this is raking into a dunghill to produce this\n address to the Ambassador of the Emperor of Morocco.\u201d\u2014_The\n Attorney-General before_ THE HOUSE OF LORDS _in the Lady Hewley\n Appeal_, June 28th, 1839.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n \u201cHe therefore that will be saved, must thus _think_ of the\n Trinity.\u201d\u2014_Athanasian Creed._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS.\n\n\n GENERAL PREFACE.\n\n PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE.\n\n _LECTURE I._\n\n THE PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.\n\n _BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._\n\n\u201cChrist in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach, warning every man,\n and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man\n perfect in Christ Jesus.\u201d\u2014_Colossians_ i. 27, 28.\n\n\u201cAnd that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in\n privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that\n they might bring us into bondage; to whom we gave place by\n subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might\n continue with you.\u201d\u2014_Galatians_ ii. 4, 5.\n\n _LECTURE II._\n\n THE BIBLE: WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT.\n\n _BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._\n\n\u201cAnd the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his\n glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father,) full of\n grace and truth.\u201d\u2014_John_ i. 14.\n\n _LECTURE III._\n\n CHRISTIANITY NOT THE PROPERTY OF CRITICS AND SCHOLARS; BUT THE GIFT OF\n GOD TO ALL MEN.\n\n _BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._\n\n\u201cFor God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined\n in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God\n in the face of Jesus Christ.\u201d\u20142 _Cor._ iv. 6.\n\n _LECTURE IV._\n\n \u201cTHERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST\n JESUS.\u201d\n\n _BY REV. HENRY GILES._\n\n\u201cThere is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ\n Jesus.\u201d\u20141 _Tim._ ii. 5.\n\n _LECTURE V._\n\n THE PROPOSITION \u201cTHAT CHRIST IS GOD,\u201d PROVED TO BE FALSE FROM THE JEWISH\n AND THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.\n\n _BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._\n\n\u201cFor though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth\n (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one\n God, _the Father_, of whom all are things, and we in him; and one\n Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.\u201d\u20141 _Cor._\n viii. 5, 6.\n\n _LECTURE VI._\n\n THE SCHEME OF VICARIOUS REDEMPTION INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF, AND THE\n CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SALVATION.\n\n _BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._\n\n\u201cNeither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name\n under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.\u201d\u2014_Acts_ iv.\n 12.\n\n _LECTURE VII._\n\n THE UNSCRIPTURAL ORIGIN AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF\n THE TRINITY.\n\n _BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._\n\n\u201cThe Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.\u201d\u2014_John_ xiv. 10.\n\n _LECTURE VIII._\n\n MAN, THE IMAGE OF GOD.\n\n _BY REV. HENRY GILES._\n\n\u201cFor a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the\n image and glory of God.\u201d\u20141 _Cor._ xi. 7.\n\n\u201cAnd when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my\n father\u2019s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I\n will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him,\u2014Father, I have\n sinned against heaven and before thee, and am no more worthy to be\n called thy son; make me as one of thy hired servants.\u201d\u2014_Luke_ xv.\n 17-19.\n\n _LECTURE IX._\n\n THE COMFORTER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, WHO DWELLETH IN US, AND\n TEACHETH ALL THINGS.\n\n _BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM._\n\n\u201cIf ye love me, keep my commandments: and I will pray the Father, and he\n shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for\n ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,\n because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for\n he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you\n comfortless; I will come to you.\u201d\u2014_John_ xiv. 15-18.\n\n _LECTURE X._\n\n CREEDS THE FOES OF HEAVENLY FAITH; THE ALLIES OF WORLDLY POLICY.\n\n _BY REV. HENRY GILES._\n\n\u201cLet every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.\u201d\u2014_Rom._ xiv. 5.\n\n _LECTURE XI._\n\n THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MORAL EVIL.\n\n _BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._\n\n\u201cWoe unto them that say, ... let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel\n draw nigh and come, that we may know it; woe unto them that call evil\n good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for\n darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.\u201d\u2014_Isaiah_\n v. 18-20.\n\n _LECTURE XII._\n\n THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF RETRIBUTION HEREAFTER.\n\n _BY REV. HENRY GILES._\n\n\u201cAnd God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And\n he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death. Then said the Lord,\n Thou hast pity on the gourd for which thou hast not laboured, neither\n madest it grow; which came up in a night and perished in a night. And\n should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than\n six score thousand persons that cannot discern between their right\n hand and their left hand?\u201d\u2014_Jonah_ iv. 9, 10, 11.\n\n _LECTURE XIII._\n\n CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT PRIEST, AND WITHOUT RITUAL.\n\n _BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU._\n\n\u201cTo whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but\n chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up\n a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual\n sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.\u201d\u20141 _Pet._ ii. 4, 5.\n\n _INDEX OF TEXTS._\n\n EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO IN LECTURES II. V. VI. XI. XIII.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n CORRESPONDENCE\n\n ON THE\n\n TRINITARIAN AND UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY\n\n AT\n\n LIVERPOOL.\n\n ---------------------\n\n _To all who call themselves Unitarians in the town\n and neighbourhood of Liverpool._\n\n \u201cAnd when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into\n his lodging to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God,\n PERSUADING THEM CONCERNING JESUS, both out of the law of Moses and\n out of the prophets, from morning till evening.\u201d\u2014Acts xxviii. 23.\n\nMen and Brethren,\u2014I am aware that the term \u201cReligious Controversy,\u201d is a\nphrase peculiarly revolting to many minds; that it presents to them\nnothing in its aspect but that which has been sarcastically called the\n\u201c_Acetum Theologicum_,\u201d a something bitter and distasteful, of more than\ncommon offensiveness and asperity. It is for this reason that, in\nproposing a course of lectures on the subjects in controversy between\nthe Church of England and those who call themselves UNITARIANS, and who,\nby that very term, seem to impute to the great majority of professing\nChristians, of almost all denominations, a polytheistic creed, and in\nrequesting your attendance on these lectures, and inviting your most\nsolemn attention to those subjects, I wish, antecedently, to remove from\nmyself every suspicion of unkindness towards you, and to take away any\nsupposition of unchristian asperity in my feelings, or of a desire to\ninflict upon the humblest individual amongst you unnecessary pain. That\nno mere political difference of opinion, much less that any apprehension\nof danger to the Established Church, have originated this movement, will\nbe sufficiently evident from the fact, that while we are surrounded by\nmany other classes of dissenters, equally opposed to the principle of\nour establishment, and much more likely to draw away the members of our\nflocks to their communion, I and my reverend brethren, who were\nassociated with me, on the present occasion, have limited ourselves\nexclusively to an inquiry into, and an endeavour to expose, the false\nphilosophy and dangerous unsoundness of the UNITARIAN SYSTEM.\n\nNow, what is the cause of this distinction? It is simply this, that\nwhile we believe the other dissenting bodies to have arranged an\necclesiastical system, in our judgment not clearly Scriptural, and\ndeficient in those particulars which constitute the _perfection_, though\nthey may not affect the _essence_ of a church, we do at the same time\nacknowledge that they generally hold, as articles of faith, those _great\nfundamental Gospel truths_ which are the substance of the safety of\nsouls; truths which, while so held, give them a part in that gracious\ncovenant in Christ, _within which_ God has revealed a way of salvation\nfor all and _out of which_ he has not revealed a way of mercy to any.\nThese fundamental truths are the very doctrines which are controverted\nbetween _us_ and _those_ whom we call in courtesy, but not as of right,\nUNITARIANS: viz., the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atoning\nsacrifice, the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, the fall of our\nnature, and the gracious renovation of the human soul, through his\nsupernatural operation. Assured as I am that these truths (which,\nwithout a desperate mutilation, or an awful tampering with the plain\nlanguage of the Word of God, it seems impossible to exclude from that\ndivine record) are of the essence of our souls\u2019 safety, I ask you, men\nand brethren, I put it to your consciences, is it not of the nature of\nthe tenderest charity, of the purest love, of the most affectionate\nsympathy with those in the extreme of peril, and that an _eternal\nperil_, to supplicate to these doctrines the attention of such as have\nnot yet received them, to pray them to come and \u201csearch with us the\nScriptures, whether these things be so?\u201d\u2014Acts xvii. 11. Shall he who,\nunwittingly, totters blindfold on the edge of a precipice, deem it a\nrude or an uncharitable violence which would snatch him with a strong\nand a venturous hand, or even it may be with a painful grasp, from the\nfearful ruin over which he impends? Is it not to your own judgment a\nstrong antecedent ground of presumption, that you are alarmingly and\nperilously mistaken in this matter, when you see such numbers of\nhighly-gifted and intellectual men, men of study\u2014of general information\nand of prayer,\u2014holy men, men who \u201ccount not their lives dear unto them,\u201d\nso that they may honour God and preach this gospel, and that not in one\nparticular place, but over the whole surface of the church; who yet\naccount these truths, which you reject, as the essential truths of\nsalvation; truths built, you will remember, in their minds, not on the\ntraditions or authority of men, but on the lively oracles of God?\n\nSeeing, then, men and brethren,\n\n1. That the points of difference between us are of the _very highest\npossible importance_, and not matters of mere theoretical speculation,\nas some of your writers have striven vainly to make appear; that, in\nshort, if Unitarians be sound interpreters of Holy Scripture, we\nTrinitarians are guilty of the most heinous of all sins\u2014_idolatry_; and\nif, on the other hand, ours be the creed of the apostles, saints, and\nmartyrs, Unitarians are sunk in _the most blasphemous and deadly error_,\nand are wholly unworthy of being considered _Christians_, in any proper\nsense of the word. And seeing,\n\n2. That considerable numbers, it is apprehended, especially among the\nmiddling and lower classes, who outwardly profess Unitarian principles,\nare in total ignorance of the unscriptural nature and dangerous\ncharacter of those principles. And seeing,\n\n3. That the controversial discussion of disputed points was\nunquestionably the practice of the apostolic and primitive, as well as\nof all other ages of religious revival, and is calculated as a means,\nunder the good blessing of Almighty God, to \u201copen men\u2019s eyes, and to\nturn them from darkness to light;\u201d\u2014We invite and beseech you, by the\nmercies of God in Christ, to come and give us at least a patient\nhearing, while we endeavour to \u201cpersuade you concerning Jesus,\u201d and \u201cby\nall means to win some of you.\u201d It is impossible that we can have any\nbase or worldly motive in thus addressing you\u2014any other motive, indeed,\nbesides that which is here avouched, viz., _our solemn impression of the\nvalue of souls, and of the peril to which the false philosophy of\nUnitarianism exposes them_.\n\nSurely it is a sweet and a pleasant thing,\u2014a thing not to divide and\nsever, but to unite and to gather into the bonds of dearest\naffection\u2014thus to tell and to hear together of the great things which\nour God has done for our souls; of His love to us, when He, \u201cWho thought\nit not robbery to be equal with God, did take upon him the form of a\nservant, and, being found in fashion as a man, did humble himself, and\nbecome obedient unto death, even the death of a cross.\u201d\u2014Phil. ii. 6-8.\n\nIt is the intention of my reverend brethren and myself to meet together\non the morning of Tuesday, the 5th of February, (the day immediately\npreceding the commencement of the course,) for the purpose of solemn\nhumiliation before God, and earnest prayer for the blessing of our\nHeavenly Father, upon the work in which we are about to engage, that we\nmay be enabled to exhibit and preserve \u201cthe mind of Christ,\u201d while\nemployed in \u201ccontending for the faith,\u201d and that we may have great\nsuccess in our endeavours to be instrumental in enlightening the eyes\nwhich we believe to have been blinded by \u201cthe god of this world,\u201d and\ncausing \u201cthe light of the glorious gospel of Christ, WHO IS THE IMAGE OF\nGOD, to shine unto them.\u201d\u20142 Cor. iv. 4.\n\nAnd now, men and brethren, humbly and affectionately praying your\nserious attention to these things, I commend you to the protection and\nblessing of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I remain your\nfriend and servant in the gospel, for the Lord\u2019s sake,\n\n FIELDING OULD,\n\n Christ Church, Jan. 21, 1839. Minister of Christ Church.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Rev. Fielding Ould, and the other Clergymen about to lecture\n on the Unitarian Controversy in Christ Church._\n\nReverend Sirs,\u2014A paper has been put into our hands, and an advertisement\nhas appeared in the public journals, containing a \u201cSyllabus of a Course\nof Lectures on the Controversy between the Protestant Churches and the\n(so called) Unitarians,\u201d &c. As individual inquirers after truth, and\ndisciples of Jesus, we deliberately hold the characteristic doctrines of\nUnitarian Christianity; and, as ministers among a class of Protestants,\nwho, binding themselves and their pastors by no human creed or\ninterpretation, encourage us to seek for ourselves and expound for them\nthe uncorrupted Gospel, we publicly preach the faith which we privately\nhold. We feel, therefore, a natural interest in the determination of\nyourself and brother clergymen to call attention to the Unitarian\nControversy, and a desire that the occasion may be made conducive to the\npromotion of candid research, the diminution of sectarian prejudice, and\nthe diffusion of the true faith, and the spirit of our great Master.\n\nWe are not of opinion that a miscellaneous audience, assembled in a\nplace of worship, constitutes the best tribunal to which to submit\nabstruse theological questions, respecting the canon, the text, the\ntranslation of Scripture\u2014questions which cannot be answered by any\n\u201cdefective scholarship.\u201d You however, who hold that mistakes upon these\npoints may forfeit salvation, have consistently appealed to such\ntribunal; and nothing is left to us but to hope that its decision may be\nformed after just attention to the evidence. This end can be attained\nonly by popular advocacy on neither side, or popular advocacy on both;\nand, as you have preferred the latter, we shall esteem it a duty to\nco-operate with you, and contribute our portion of truth and argument\ntowards the correction of public sentiment on the great questions at\nissue between us. Deeply aware of our human liability to form and to\nconvey false impressions of views and systems from which we dissent, we\nshall be anxious to pay a calm and respectful attention to your defence\nof the doctrines of your church. We will give notice of your lectures,\nas they succeed each other, to our congregations, and exhort them to\nhear you in the spirit of Christian justice and affection; presuming\nthat, in a like spirit, you will recommend your hearers to listen to\nsuch reply as we may think it right to offer. We are not conscious of\nany fear, any interest, any attachment to system, which should interfere\nwith the sincere fulfilment of _our_ part in such an understanding; and,\nfor the performance of _yours_, we rely on your avowed zeal for that\nProtestantism which boldly confides the interpretation of Scripture to\nindividual judgment, and to that sense of justice which, in Christian\nminds, is the fruit of cultivation and sound knowledge. As you think it\nthe duty of Unitarians to judge of your doctrines, not from our\nobjections, but from your vindication, you cannot question the duty of\nTrinitarians to take their impressions of our faith from us, rather than\nfrom you.\n\nWe rejoice to hear that the Christ Church lectures will be published.\nShould they issue from the press within a week after delivery, we should\ndesire to postpone our reply till we had enjoyed the opportunity of\nreading them, persuaded that thus we shall best preserve that calmness\nand precision of statement, without which, controversial discussions\ntend rather to the increase of prejudice than the ascertainment of\ntruth. Should the publication be deferred for a longer time, the\nnecessity of treating each subject, while its interest is fresh, will\noblige us to forego this advantage; and we shall, in such case, deliver,\neach week, an evening lecture in answer to that preached in Christ\nChurch on the preceding Wednesday. Permit us to ask, how early an\nappearance of your printed lectures may be expected; and whether you\nwill recommend your congregations to attend with candour to our replies.\n\nWe fear, however, that neither from the pulpit nor the press will your\nstatements and ours obtain access extensively to the same persons; your\ndiscourses will, perhaps, obtain readers, too exclusively, among\nTrinitarians; ours, certainly, among Unitarians. In order to place your\nviews and ours fairly side by side, allow us to propose the following\narrangements; that an epitome of each lecture, and another of the reply,\nfurnished by the respective authors, shall appear weekly in the columns\nof one and the same newspaper; the newspaper being selected, and the\nlength of the communications prescribed, by previous agreement. Or\nshould you be willing, we should prefer making some public journal the\nvehicle of a discussion altogether independent of the lectures,\nconducted in the form of a weekly correspondence, and having for its\n_matter_ such topics as the first letter of the series may open for\nconsideration. In this case you will perceive the propriety of conceding\nto us the commencement of the correspondence, as you have pre-occupied\nthe pulpit controversy; have selected the points of comparison between\nyour idea of Christianity and ours; and introduced among them some\nsubjects to which we do not attach the greatest interest and importance.\nOn this priority, however, we do not insist. You will oblige us by\nstating whether you assent to this proposal.\n\nWhile we are willing to hope for a prevailing spirit of equity in this\ncontroversy, we are grieved to have to complain of injustice, and of a\ndisregard to the true meaning of words, at its very opening. We must\nprotest against the exclusive usurpation of the title \u201cProtestant\nChurches,\u201d by a class of religionists who practically disown the\nprinciple of Protestantism: who only make the Church (or themselves),\ninstead of the Pope, the arbiter of truth; who hold error (that is, an\nopinion different from their own,) to be fatal to salvation: and who\nallow the right of individual judgment only with the penalty of\neverlasting condemnation upon all whose individual judgment is not the\njudgment of their Church. We take objection also to the spirit that\ncreeps out in the expression, \u201c_(so called) Unitarians_,\u201d maintaining\nthat the word does not \u201cimpute to others \u2018a polytheistic creed;\u2019\u201d but\nthat as \u201cTrinitarian\u201d denotes one who worships the Godhead in _three_\n\u201cpersons,\u201d _Unitarian_ fitly describes one who worships the Godhead in\n_one_ person. And, above all, we protest against the resolution of our\ncase into \u201cdishonest or uncandid criticism;\u201d that is the wilful\nmaintenance of error, knowing it to be such, the Charybdis which one of\nyour lecturers proposes for us, if we should be fortunate enough to\nescape the Scylla of \u201cdefective scholarship.\u201d We are deeply concerned\nthat so much of the \u201c_acetum theologicum_\u201d has mixed thus early in an\ninvitation, characterized by the chief inviter as \u201ca sweet and pleasant\nthing;\u201d and this, too, after a public announcement of having purged the\nmind of every feeling but the pure love of the pure truth.\n\nAnd to you, reverend sir, in whose letter to the Unitarians of this town\nand neighbourhood the announcement in question occurs, it is incumbent\non us to address a few remarks, with a special view to acquaint you with\nthe feelings awakened by your earnest invitation.\n\nThe anxiety which that letter manifests to convince us that, in seeking\nour conversion, you are actuated by no \u201cbase and worldly motive,\u201d is, we\ncan assure you, altogether superfluous. Of the purity and\ndisinterestedness of your intention we entertain no doubt; and we regard\nit with such unaffected respect, as may be due to every suggestion of\nconscience, however unwise and fanatical. If, with the ecclesiastics and\nphilosophers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, you esteemed\nthe denial of witchcraft as perilous a heresy as Atheism itself, we\nshould feel neither wonder nor anger at the zeal with which you might\nbecome apostles of the doctrine of sorcery. Any one who can convince\nhimself that _his_ faith, _his_ hope, _his_ idea of the meaning of\nScripture, afford the only cure for the sins and sorrows and dangers of\nthe world, is certainly right in spending his resources and himself in\ndiffusing his own private views. But we are astonished that he can feel\nhimself so lifted up in superiority above other men, as to imagine that\nHeaven depends on their assimilation to himself,\u2014that, in\nself-multiplication, in the universal reproduction of his own state of\nmind, lies the solitary hope of human salvation. We think that, if we\nwere possessed by such a belief, our affections towards men would lose\nall Christian meekness, our sympathies cease to be those of equal with\nequal, the respectful mercy of a kindred sufferer; and that, however\nmuch we might indulge a Pharisaic compassion for the heretic, we should\nfeel no more the Christian \u201chonour\u201d unto \u201call men.\u201d\n\nYou ask us, reverend sir, whether it is not \u201ca sweet and pleasant\nthing,\u201d \u201cto tell and hear together of the great things which God has\ndone for our souls.\u201d Doubtless, there are conditions under which such\ncommunion may be most \u201csweet and pleasant.\u201d When they who hold it _agree\nin mind_ on the high subjects of their conference, it is \u201csweet and\npleasant\u201d to speak mutually of \u201cjoys with which no stranger\nintermeddleth,\u201d and to knit together the human affections, with the\nbands of that heavenly \u201ccharity,\u201d which, springing from one faith and\none hope, is yet greater than them both. Nay, when good men _differ from\neach other_, it is still \u201csweet and pleasant\u201d to reason together, and\nprove all things, and whatsoever things are pure, and true and lovely,\nto think on these things, provided that both parties are conscious of\ntheir liability to error, and are anxious to learn as well as to teach:\nthat each confides in the integrity, ingenuousness, and ability of the\nother; that each applies himself with reasons to the understanding, not\nwith terrors to the will. But such conference is not \u201csweet and\npleasant\u201d where, fallibility being confessed on one side, infallibility\nis assumed on the other; where one has nothing to learn and everything\nto teach; where the arguments of an equal are propounded as a message of\ninspiration; where presumed error is treated as unpardonable guilt, and\non the fruits of laborious and truth-loving inquiry, terms of\nreprobation and menaces of everlasting perdition are unscrupulously\npoured.\n\nYou announce your intention to set apart, on our behalf, a day of\nhumiliation and prayer. To supplicate the Eternal Father, as you\npropose, to turn the heart and faith of others into the likeness of your\nown may appear to you fitting as an act of prayer; it seems to us\nextraordinary as an act of humiliation. Permit us to say, that we could\njoin you in that day\u2019s prayer, if, instead of assuming before God what\ndoctrines his Spirit should enforce, you would, with us, implore him to\nhave pity on the ignorance of us all: to take us all by the hand and\nlead us into the truth and love, though it should be by ways most\nheretical and strange; to wrest us from the dearest reliances and most\nassured convictions of our hearts, if they hinder our approach to his\ngreat realities. A blessed day would that be for the peace, brotherhood,\nand piety of this Christian community, if the \u201chumiliation\u201d would lead\nto a recognition of Christian equality, and the \u201cprayer,\u201d to a\nrecognition of that spiritual God whose love is moral in its character,\nspiritual, not doctrinal in its conditions, and who accepts from all his\nchildren the spirit and the truth of worship.\n\nWe fear that you will consider it as a mark of great obduracy, that we\nare not more affected by that \u201cpurest love\u201d for \u201cthose in the extreme of\nperil,\u201d which your letter expresses. Let us again assure you that we by\nno means doubt the sincerity of that affection. However pure in its\nsource, it is ineffectual in its result, simply because no one can feel\nhis heart softened by a commiseration which he is wholly unconscious of\nrequiring. The pity that feels _with_ me is, of all things, the most\ndelicious to the heart; the pity that only feels _for_ me, is, perhaps,\nof all things, the most insulting.\n\nAnd, if the tenderness of your message does not subdue us, we trust its\nterrors will prevail still less. We are not ignorant, indeed, that, in\ndealing with weak minds whose solicitude for their personal security is\ngreater than their generous faith in truth and God, you enjoy an\nadvantage over us. We avow that we have no alarms whereby to urge men\ninto our Church; that we know of no \u201cterrors of the Lord\u201d by which to\n\u201cpersuade men,\u201d except against sin; nor do we esteem ourselves exclusive\nadministrators of any salvation, except that best salvation, which\nconsists in a free mind and emancipated heart; reverencing Christ as the\nperfect image of the Father, listening to the accents of reason and\nconscience, as to the breathings of God\u2019s spirit, loving all men as his\nchildren, and having hope in death, of a transference from this outer\ncourt into the interior mansions of His house. For this reason, imbecile\nsouls, without Christian trust and courage, may think it _safer_, at all\nevents, to seek a place within your Church; but we wonder that you can\nfeel satisfied, retaining your Protestantism, to appeal thus to fear and\ndevout policy, rather than to conviction, and that you cannot discern\nthe mockery of first placing us on the brink of hell and lifting up the\nveil, and then bidding us stand there, with cool and unembarrassed\njudgment to inquire. Over converts, won by such means, you would surely\nhave as little reason to rejoice as had the priests of Rome to exult on\nthe recantation of Galileo. Our fellow worshippers have learned, we\ntrust, a nobler faith; and will listen to your arguments with more open\nand tranquil mind than your invitation, had it attained its end of fear,\nwould have allowed. They will hold fast, till they see reason to abandon\nit, their filial faith in a Divine Father, of whom Jesus, the merciful\nand just, is _indeed_ the image; and who, _therefore_, can have neither\ncurse nor condemnation for \u201cunwitting\u201d error, no delight in\nself-confident pretensions, no wrath and scorn for any \u201chonest and good\nheart,\u201d which \u201cbrings forth its fruit with patience.\u201d\n\nTo this God of truth and love, commending our high controversy, and all\nwhose welfare it concerns, we remain your fellow-labourers in the\nGospel,\n\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0JAMES MARTINEAU,\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Minister of Paradise-street Chapel.\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0JOHN HAMILTON THOM,\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Minister of Renshaw-street Chapel.\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0HENRY GILES,\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Minister of the Ancient Chapel, Toxteth Park.\n Liverpool, Jan. 26, 1839.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Reverend James Martineau, J. H. Thom, and Henry Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014As Christian courtesy seems to require a reply to your\naddress, published in the _Albion_ of this day, I hasten to furnish it,\nthough unwilling, for many reasons, to enter into a newspaper discussion\nwith you on the important subjects which just now engage our attention.\nI shall, therefore, (without intending any disrespect,) pass by\nunnoticed your critical remarks on certain portions of my recently\npublished invitation to the members of your body to attend and give a\npatient hearing to the lectures about to be delivered at Christ Church,\nand confine myself altogether to those points of inquiry to which it is\nbut reasonable that you should receive an answer. And,\n\n1. You ask, whether I will recommend my congregation to attend (I\npresume, in your respective chapels) to hear the replies which you\nintend making to our proposed lectures. To this I am compelled to reply\nin the _negative_. Were I to consent to this proposal, I should thereby\nadmit that we stood on the terms of a _religious equality_, which is,\n_in limine_, denied. As men, citizens, and subjects, we are doubtless\nequal, and will also stand on a footing of equality before the bar of\nfinal judgment; I therefore use the term \u201c_religious equality_\u201d in order\nto convey to you the distinction between our relative position as\nmembers of the community and as religionists. Being unable (you will\nexcuse my necessary plainness of speech) to recognize you as\n_Christians_, I cannot consent to meet you in a way which would imply\nthat we occupy the same _religious_ level. To _you_ there will be no\nsacrifice of principle or compromise of feeling, in entering our\nchurches; to _us_, there would be such a surrender of _both_ in entering\nyours, as would peremptorily prohibit any such engagement.\n\n2. You next inquire how early an appearance of our printed lectures may\nbe expected. In answer to this I have only to say, that arrangements\nhave been made for publishing each lecture as soon after its delivery as\nmay be practicable. Within what time this practicability may be found to\ncoincide, it is of course impossible precisely to determine. It will be\nobvious, that I cannot answer for my brethren upon this point; but shall\nonly observe for myself, that I should hope a week or ten days will be\nsufficient for the necessary revisal of proofs, arrangement of\nauthorities, and other business connected with a careful and correct\npublication.\n\n3. Your third inquiry respects a proposal to have an epitome of each\nlecture, and its reply, published weekly in the columns of some\npreviously selected newspaper. Not having as yet had the opportunity of\ncollecting the sentiments of my reverend brethren, I can only, as\nbefore, give the view which suggests itself to my own mind. I am\ninclined to think it would be unfair to the respectable bookseller, who\nhas undertaken to publish the course _at his own risk_, to expect him to\nconcur in a proposal which could not but materially injure his sale. As\nit is our intention to publish each lecture separately, as well as the\nwhole collectively, at the close of their delivery, and that in the\ncheapest possible form, with a view to the most extensive circulation, I\ncannot but hope and believe that our united object will be equally, if\nnot better, answered, than by resorting to a process which should\nnecessarily so condense and curtail the matter as to present a very\nmeagre and insufficient exhibition of the arguments, reasonings,\nreferences, and authorities, on which so much of the value of the\nlectures will depend.\n\n4. And, finally, as to your proposal of making some public journal the\nvehicle of a discussion independent of the lectures, I regret that I\nfeel again obliged to decline pledging myself to concur in it. While I\nreserve to myself the right of noticing and replying to any\ncommunication which may appear, in a duly authenticated form, in any of\nthe public journals, I must at the same time express my conviction, that\na newspaper is not the most desirable medium for disquisition on the\ndeep and awful subjects which must pass under review in a controversy\nlike that in which we are about to engage. The ordinary class of\nnewspaper readers, including too frequently the ignorant scoffer, the\nsceptical, and the profane, is not precisely that whose attention we\ndesire to solicit to our high inquiry into the laws of Scriptural\nExegesis, and our application of these laws to the elucidation of the\nprofound mysteries of the Book of Revelation. I feel no doubt that all\nwho feel interested on the subject, will contrive to hear or read what\nwe shall preach and publish; and will thus be furnished with more solid\nand suitable materials for forming a correct judgment, than could be\nafforded by the casual study of the ephemeral pages of the public press.\n\nHaving thus distinctly replied to the several points of your letter, on\nwhich you may have reasonably expected to hear from me; and trusting\nthat you will not attribute to any want of respect to you the omission\nof all notice of the remainder; and congratulating you with all\nsincerity on your avowed intention of coming, with your respective\ncongregations, to hear the exposition which we are about to give of what\nwe believe to be _fatally false_ in your system, as contrasted with what\nwe think _savingly true_ in our own; and praying with all fervency, to\nthe great Head of the Church, to bless and prosper the effort about to\nbe made for the promotion of his glory, through the instruction of those\nwho are \u201cignorant and out of the way,\u201d\n\n I remain, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours for the Lord\u2019s sake,\n\n January 28, 1839. FIELDING OULD.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Rev. James Martineau, J. H. Thom, and Henry Giles._\n\nGentlemen,--I owe it to you and to myself to state, that no offence was\nintended, either by me, or, as I conscientiously believe, by my clerical\nbrethren, in the title of the subject to which my name stands affixed in\nthe Syllabus of the Lectures on the Unitarian Controversy. I am also\nbound to acknowledge, that your letter, on the subject of the lecture,\nis written in a style of calmness and courtesy, of which, I trust, you\nwill have no reason to complain of the absence in the statements which I\nshall have to submit to your attention. Of course, this is not the time\nfor the vindication of the view which I adopt on the great question: I\ncontent myself, therefore, with this public disclaimer of any desire to\nsubstitute irritating language for sound argument.\n\n I remain, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours, with all due respect,\n\n THOS. BYRTH.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Reverend Fielding Ould._\n\nRev. Sir,\u2014We beg to offer you our thanks for your prompt and distinct\nreply, in the _Liverpool Courier_ of yesterday, to the proposals\nsubmitted to you in our letter of Monday. We are as little anxious as\nyourself for the prolongation of this preliminary newspaper\ncorrespondence; and however much we may regret the negative character of\nyour answers to our questions, we should have reserved all comment upon\nthem for notice elsewhere, if you did not appear to us to have left\nstill open to consideration the proposed discussion (independent of the\nlectures) through the press. That the pulpit controversy should be on\n_unequal terms_, is, we perceive, a matter of conscience with you; but\nyour objections to a newspaper controversy seem to arise, not from any\ndesire to withhold your readers from our writings, as you would your\nhearers from our preaching, but from the unfitness of a political\njournal to be the vehicle of religious argument. Permit us, then, to\nsay, that we have no preference for this particular _medium_ of\ndiscussion; that we are wholly indifferent as to its _form_, provided\nthe substantial end be gained of _bringing your arguments and ours\nbefore the attention of the same parties_, and that _any_ plan which you\nmay suggest, affording promise of the attainment of this end, whether it\nbe the _joint_ publication of the lectures in your church and those in\nour chapels, or the appearance in the pages of a religious journal\n(either already established, or called into existence for the occasion,\nand limited to this single object), will receive our welcome acceptance.\n\nHad we any desire to see a theological opponent in the wrong, we should\nleave the case between us in its present position, and should not\npersevere thus in opening the way towards a fair adjudication of it; but\nour reverence for the religion of which you are a representative and\nsymbol before the world, transcends all paltry controversial feelings,\nand we should see, with grave sorrow, the honour of Christianity\ncompromised by the rejection, on the part of its authorized ministers,\nof the acknowledged principles of argumentative justice. You will not,\nwe trust, incur the reproach of inviting a discussion _with_ us, and\nthen changing it into an indictment _against_ us. _You_ have originated\nthe appeal to the great tribunal of public opinion in this Christian\ncommunity; _you_ are plaintiff in this controversy; you will not, we\nfeel assured, so trifle, in things most sacred, with the rules of\nevidence, as to insist that your case shall be heard in one court, and\nbefore one jury, while your defendant\u2019s case is banished to another, and\nthe verdict pronounced without balancing the attestation and comparing\nthe pleadings. Should you, moreover, succeed in convincing your readers,\nthat this is a discussion not (as we submit) between church and church,\nbut (as you contend) between Christianity and No-Christianity, the\neffect will be yet more to be deplored, for, in such case, Christianity\nwill appear to claim from its votaries the advantage of an exclusive\nhearing for itself, and, while challenging, by the very act of\ncontroversy, the appeal to argument, to leave, for those who are\nstigmatized as unbelievers, the honour of demanding that open field\nwhich, usually, truth is found to seek, and falsehood to avoid. We trust\nthat you will not thus inflict a wound on a religion which, in all its\nforms, we deeply venerate.\n\nYou deny our _religious equality_ with _you_. Is it as a matter of\n_opinion_, or as a matter of _certainty_, that such equality is denied?\nIf it is only as an opinion, then this will not absolve you from fair\nand equal discussion on the grounds of such opinion. If it is with you\nnot an _opinion_, but a _certainty_, then, Sir, this is Popery. Popery\nwe can understand,\u2014we know, at least, what it is,\u2014but Protestantism\nerecting itself into Romish infallibility, yet still claiming to be\nProtestantism, is to us a sad and humiliating spectacle, showing what\ndeep roots Roman Catholicism has in the weaker parts of our common\nnature.\n\nWe confess ourselves at a loss to comprehend your distinction between\n_civil_ equality and _religious_ equality. We claim equally as\nfellow-_men_, as partakers of a common _nature_; of that nature the\nreligious elements are to us incomparably dearer and more elevating than\nthe elements that make us merely citizens; and the equality that is\nconceded in regard to all our lower attributes, but denied in regard to\nthose that are spiritual and immortal, is such an equality as you might\nconcede to the brutes, on the ground of their animal nature, without\ninjury to the maintenance of your religious superiority. What is meant\nby our equality at the bar of final judgment, as citizens, but not as\nreligionists, we do not know; or, if we can detect a meaning in it, it\nis one which we should have supposed belonged to our faith rather than\nto yours.\n\nIn reference to your repugnance to enter our chapels we say no more,\nreserving our right of future appeal in this matter to those members of\nyour church who may be unable to see the force of your distinction\nbetween religious and social equality. But we are surprised that you\nshould conceive it so easy a thing for us to enter your churches: and\nshould suppose it \u201cno sacrifice of principle and compromise of feeling\u201d\nin us to unite in a worship which you assure us, must constitute in our\neyes \u201cthe most heinous of all sins\u2014Idolatry.\u201d _Either_ you must have\nknown that we did _not_ consider your worship to be idolatry, _or_ have\nregarded our resort to it as a most guilty \u201ccompromise of feeling;\u201d to\nwhich, nevertheless, you gave us a solemn invitation; adding now, on our\ncompliance, a congratulation no less singular.\n\nWe thought you had been aware, that, while our services must be, in a\nreligious view, _painfully deficient_ to you, those of your church are\n_positively revolting_ to us. Still as our presence, on such passing\noccasions as the present, does not, in our opinion, involve any\n\u201csacrifice of principle,\u201d we shall set the example to our friends of\nattending; not making our desire that they should be just dependent on\nthe willingness of others to be so too. And we shall have this\nsatisfaction, that, whether you \u201cwin\u201d them, or whether we retain them,\nthe result will be a faith held, not on the precarious tenure of\nignorance or submission, but in the security of intelligent conviction,\nand the peace of a just and enlightened conscience.\n\n We remain, reverend Sir,\n\n Yours, with Christian regard,\n\n JAMES MARTINEAU.\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n Liverpool, January 31st, 1839. HENRY GILES.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Trinitarians of this Town and Neighbourhood who may feel\n interested in the approaching Unitarian Controversy._\n\nChristian Brethren,\u2014A letter of public invitation has been addressed to\nthe Unitarians of this town and neighbourhood, by the Rev. Fielding\nOuld, on behalf of himself and twelve other gentlemen associated with\nhim, urging us, with the earnestness of Christian anxiety, to bend our\nminds to their expositions of our errors and our dangers. We naturally\ninterpreted this to be an invitation to discuss the most momentous\nquestions as equal with equal. We thought, indeed, that we saw an\nassumption of superiority, if not of infallibility, perhaps inseparable\nfrom minds so trained: still we supposed, that this superiority was to\nbe maintained by argument and fair discussion: and this was all that we\ndesired. It never occurred to us, that the reverend gentleman might\npossibly expect us to accept him as a divinely appointed judge of truth,\nwhose teachings were to be received in submission and silence; or that\nhe could suppose that convictions like ours, convictions that have\nresisted all the persuasions of worldly ease and interest, that have\nremoved from us the charities and sympathies of men like him, and held\nin simple fidelity to truth and God, could be so lightly shaken that\nnothing more was required to blow them away than a course of _ex parte_\nlectures without answer or discussion. If the object had been to confirm\nTrinitarians in their views, this kind of proceeding we should have\nunderstood; but surely something more was required when Unitarians were\npublicly invited to the controversy. Much less could we anticipate that\nthe reverend gentleman, holding himself to be upon a \u201creligious level\u201d\nfar above us, to belong to a different order of spirits, could yet be so\nfar removed from the Christian and Apostolical spirit as to refuse to\nbring his \u201clight\u201d into direct conflict with our \u201cdarkness.\u201d With these\nexpectations of controversy, and having no bonds with anything but\ntruth, we unfeignedly rejoiced, that, for the first time in this\ncommunity, both sides of the great question were about to appear\ntogether before the solemn tribunal of public attention.\n\nIn all these things we have been quickly undeceived. In our simplicity,\nwe believed that discussion was really invited and desired. We now find\nthat we were invited to hear, but not to argue; that to lecture us is of\nthe nature of \u201cdearest affection;\u201d but that to hear what we may have to\nurge in reply would be to \u201crecognize us\u201d as \u201c_Christians_,\u201d to admit\nthat we stood on the terms of a _religious equality_, which is, _in\nlimine_, denied. We now find that all reciprocity is refused to us; that\nit never was intended to treat us as equals; that the method of\ndiscussing the Unitarian controversy, about to be adopted, is to hear\nonly the Trinitarian advocates\u2014to call us around the Christ Church\npulpit to be taught to listen and believe. Clergymen may be so blinded\nby ecclesiastical feelings as not to perceive the extreme offensiveness\nof all that is assumed in this mode of treating their fellow-men; but we\nturn to you, the freer laity of the Church, in generous confidence, that\nsuch conduct will not be found to accord with your spirit of\njustice\u2014with the nobler ideas which _you_ have gathered, from the\nintercourse of life, of equitable dealing between man and man.\n\nWe proposed to the clergymen about to lecture at Christ Church, that\nsince they had appealed to public opinion, through a popular advocacy,\nthe pleadings should be on both sides, and, as far as possible, before\nthe same parties. This is refused to us, because we are not Christians.\nIs this in the spirit of the Saviour? It is also refused to us, because\nit is asserted, that Trinitarians cannot enter our places of worship\nwithout a sacrifice of principle, whilst we may enter theirs without\npain or compromise. Now the very opposite of this, though not the truth,\nwould have been nearer to it. In our worship there would be the\ninoffensive absence of some views dear to you: in your worship there\nwould be the actual presence of some views most painful to us. In our\nworship, you would hear addressed that Great Spirit whom you, too, adore\nand seek: in your worship, we should hear addressed, as God, him whom we\nrevere and follow, as the image of God, the man Christ Jesus. In our\nworship, you would find deficiencies only; in yours, we should find\nwhat, to us, is positively objectionable, religion materialized and the\nDeity distributed into persons. The Rev. Fielding Ould, in one of his\nletters, represents us as looking upon you to be Polytheists, which we\ndo not; and, in another of his letters, tells us, that we may enter your\ntemples without pain or compromise of feeling. It will be evident to\nyou, Trinitarian laymen, that the Lecturers at Christ Church cannot\nretire, upon such reasoning as this, from the full, public, and\nimpartial discussion which we propose to them, without making it\nmanifest to the public, that they are _determined_ upon doing so.\n\nWe proposed to them discussion through the press, as well as from the\npulpit: and this also is denied to us, on the ground, that newspapers\nare read by the sceptical, the scoffing, and the profane. Now, not in\nnewspapers alone, _but in any journal whatever_, was the controversy\noffered by us; yet we could not have anticipated the objection, when we\nrecollect the use made of the newspapers by the religious party to which\nthe reverend gentlemen belong. Again have we tendered discussion,\nthrough the press, in any form whatever, with the single condition, that\nthe views of both parties shall be presented to the same readers\u2014in the\nhope, not as yet gratified, of an answer in a juster spirit.\n\nNothing now remains for us but to appeal from ecclesiastics to minds\nmore generally influenced, to minds that, taught in the great schools of\nhumanity, have learned mutual respect, and that have dropt, in the free\nand noble intercourses of man with man, the monkish and cloistered\nsentiment of spiritual as of civil superiority. To you, then, the\nTrinitarian laity, we make our appeal; from the exclusiveness and\nassumed infallibility of clergymen, to men who, from familiarity with\nwider influences, have formed different conceptions of Christian\nbrotherhood and of Christian justice. We should not have held ourselves\nauthorized in thus addressing you had we supposed, that your cause or\nyourselves, your ideas of justice, had been worthily supported by your\necclesiastical representatives, who, we firmly believe you will agree\nwith us in feeling, have openly betrayed both you and it.\n\nWe appeal to you, not without confidence, to give us that equal audience\nwhich your clergymen have refused; that those of you who, through\ninterest in the great question, are led to hear the Trinitarian\nstatements, will, in the love of the truth, and in the spirit of\nequitable inquiry, hear also the Unitarian replies. We seek not to make\nyou Unitarians: that, at least, is not our chief desire and aim. But\nwould to God that we could do something to spread that true Christianity\nwhich holds the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, and deems\ncharity dearer and more heavenly than doctrinal faith! Would to God that\nthis controversy might have some effect, not in building up any one\ncreed, or swelling any one sect, but in destroying the delusive and\nseparating ideas that lie at the roots of creeds, and are the nourishers\nof bigotry, uncharitableness, and heresies! We should deserve well of\nthis great community, if we could remove from it this cause of strife\nand bitterness,\u2014if we could exhibit the God of Jesus requiring from us,\nnot speculative opinions, but the heart, the temper, and the life of\nChrist!\u2014if we could expose the unchristian idea of men preparing\nthemselves for a moral heaven by a metaphysical creed, and unite those\nwho now consume their energies, their temper, and their time, in\ncontending for abstruse and uncertain dogmas in the deeds of mercy and\nof brotherhood which flow out of our common Christianity, and which, in\nthe wide wastes of sin, of ignorance, and of misery, that surround us,\nare the moral debts of man to man, and constitute the religion which,\nbefore God, even our Father, is pure and undefiled.\n\nRespectfully directing your attention to our advertisement of a syllabus\nof Lectures on the Unitarian Controversy, presenting both sides of the\nquestion\u2014our portion of which will be delivered in Paradise Street\nChapel, on successive Tuesdays,\n\n We are, Christian brethren,\n\n Yours, in the spirit of Christian brotherhood,\n\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n Liverpool, Feb. 2, 1839. HENRY GILES.\n JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n ---------------------\n\n TRINITARIAN LECTURE,\n\n ON WEDNESDAY EVENINGS IN CHRIST CHURCH.\n\n 1839.\u2014February 6.\n\n 1. Introductory. The practical importance of the\n Controversy with Unitarians.\n\n _Rev. F. Ould._\n\n February 13.\n\n 2. The Integrity of the Canon of Holy Scripture\n maintained against Unitarian Objections.\n\n _Rev. Dr. Tattershall._\n\n February 20.\n\n 3. The Unitarian Interpretation of the New Testament\n based upon defective Scholarship, or on\n dishonest or uncandid Criticism.\n\n _Rev. T. Byrth._\n\n February 27.\n\n 4. The proper Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\n _Rev. J. Jones._\n\n March 6.\n\n 5. The proper Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ proved\n from Prophecies, Types, and Jewish Ordinances.\n\n _Rev. J. H. Stewart._\n\n March 13.\n\n 6. The proper Deity of our Lord the only ground of\n Consistency in the Work of Redemption.\n\n _Rev. H. M\u2018Neile._\n\n March 20.\n\n 7. The Doctrine of the Trinity proved as a\n consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus\n Christ.\n\n _Rev. D. James._\n\n March 27.\n\n 8. The Atonement indispensable to the Necessities of\n Fallen Man, and shown to stand or fall with the\n Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\n _Rev. R. P. Buddicom._\n\n April 3.\n\n 9. The Deity, Personality, and Operations of the Holy\n Ghost.\n\n _Rev. J. E. Bates._\n\n April 10.\n\n 10. The Sacraments practically rejected by\n Unitarians.\n\n _Rev. H. W. M\u2018Grath._\n\n April 17.\n\n 11. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds explained and\n defended.\n\n _Rev. R. Davies._\n\n April 24.\n\n 12. The Personality and Agency of Satan.\n\n _Rev. H. Stowell._\n\n May 1.\n\n 13. The Eternity of future Rewards and Punishments.\n\n _Rev. W. Dalton._\n\n --------------\n\n UNITARIAN LECTURE,\n\n ON TUESDAY EVENINGS IN PARADISE STREET CHAPEL.\n\n 1839.\u2014February 12.\n\n 1. The practical importance of the Unitarian\n Controversy.\n\n _Rev. J. H. Thom._\n\n February 19.\n\n 2. The Bible; what it is, and what it is not.\n\n _Rev. J. Martineau._\n\n February 26.\n\n 3. Christianity not the property of Critics and\n Scholars, but the gift of God to all men.\n\n _Rev. J. H. Thom._\n\n March 5.\n\n 4. \u201cThere is one God, and one Mediator between God\n and men, the Man Christ Jesus.\u201d\n\n _Rev. H. Giles._\n\n March 12.\n\n 5. The proposition \u2018That Christ is God,\u2019 proved to be\n false from the Jewish and the Christian\n Scriptures.\n\n _Rev. J. Martineau._\n\n March 19.\n\n 6. The scheme of Vicarious Redemption inconsistent\n with itself, and with the Christian idea of\n Salvation.\n\n _Rev. J. Martineau. _\n\n March 26.\n\n 7. The unscriptural Origin and Ecclesiastical History\n of the Doctrine of the Trinity.\n\n _Rev. J. H. Thom._\n\n April 2.\n\n 8. Man, the Image of God.\n\n _Rev. H. Giles._\n\n April 9.\n\n 9. The Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, who\n dwelleth in us, and teacheth all things.\n\n _Rev. J. H. Thom._\n\n April 16.\n\n 10. Christianity without Priest, and without Ritual.\n\n _Rev. J. Martineau._\n\n April 23.\n\n 11. Creeds the foes of Heavenly Faith; the allies of\n worldly Policy.\n\n _Rev. H. Giles._\n\n April 30.\n\n 12. The Christian view of Moral Evil here.\n\n _Rev. J. Martineau._\n\n May 7.\n\n 13. The Christian view of Retribution hereafter.\n\n _Rev. H. Giles._\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the (so-called) Unitarians of Liverpool._\n\nMen and Brethren,\u2014Before the commencement of the lectures, on which I\nhave taken the liberty of inviting your attendance, I am anxious\nrespectfully to address to you a few observations in reference to the\nletters which have appeared in the public journals under the signature\nof your ministers.\n\nIt would appear that these gentlemen have been desirous to produce upon\nthe public mind an unfavourable impression, _\u00e0 priori_, of my reverend\nbrethren, and of myself in particular, because of our having declined,\non their proposal, to enter upon a course different from that which we\nhad originally contemplated. \u201cYou will not, we trust,\u201d say Messrs.\nMartineau, Thom, and Giles, \u201cincur the reproach of inviting a discussion\n_with us_, and then changing it into an indictment _against us_.\u201d Now,\nwe never invited any discussion with these gentlemen; if we had, we\nshould have addressed ourselves to them personally. But, while we would\nnot, and do not, shrink from any discussion with them into which we can\nconsistently enter, we cannot allow ourselves to be diverted from the\npursuit of our original purpose, _viz._, to deliver a course of lectures\nupon the various points of Unitarian doctrine, which we believe, and\nthink we can prove, to be not only _unscriptural_, but _fatal to the\nsouls_ of those who embrace them, and which cannot be maintained (as\nappears from the published works of the most learned Unitarians) without\na virtual surrender of the inspiration of the Bible. Believing, as I do,\nthat your best interests for time and for eternity are involved in the\nmomentous questions at issue\u2014questions affecting the very vitality of\ntrue religion\u2014I inserted a letter in the daily prints, expressed, as I\nhad hoped, in terms of courtesy and affection, inviting your presence\nand soliciting your attention. I also caused a notice to be published of\nour intention to print the lectures, separately and in a collective\nform, for extensive and immediate circulation, so that the amplest\nopportunity might be afforded for replying to our arguments on the part\nof any who might feel disposed to the task. That is, we proposed to\nemploy the instrumentality of the _pulpit_ and the _press_, (an\ninstrumentality, be it observed, _equally at the service of those who\ndiffered from us_,) in order to promote the best interests of a portion\nof our countrymen, whom we believe to be \u201cperishing for the lack of\nknowledge.\u201d\n\nWhere is there to be found here aught of _arrogance_, or\n_uncharitableness_, or \u201c_assumed infallibility_\u201d? Where is there aught\nof unfairness, or \u201cany rejection on our parts of the acknowledged\nprinciples of argumentative justice?\u201d It is true we refuse to advise our\nrespective congregations to attend at Unitarian chapels, to hear such\nanswers as your ministers may think it right to offer in refutation of\nour reasonings. Our principles and our consciences alike forbid our\nconcurrence in such a proposal. We cannot go ourselves, nor recommend\nour people to go and have their ears wounded, their hearts pained, and\ntheir Christian sensibilities shocked, by the iteration of such, in our\nview, blasphemous statements, as we find spread in painful profusion\nover the pages of Unitarian theology. And why, then, it is asked, do we\ninvite or expect your attendance upon what are called \u201cthe painfully\nrevolting\u201d services of our church? For this reason, that, as appears\nfrom the works of all their principal writers, Unitarians do not attach\nthe same importance to religious doctrines and opinion that we do. It\nseems to be with them a matter of comparative indifference what dogmas a\nman holds, provided he be _sincere_ in his profession; while with us\nsincerity is no criterion of truth, being persuaded that as a man\u2019s\n_religious opinions_ are, so will his _conduct_ be in time, and his\n_destiny_ through eternity. Being of opinion, then, that our people\nwould suffer by being brought into contact with error, in the same way\nthat the human body would be endangered by accepting an invitation to\nfeed at a table where poison was mingled with bread, we feel obliged to\ndecline recommending the proposed arrangement to their adoption. But,\nfeeling that there would be neither danger nor risk to those who are\nrepresented as having a moral appetite for poison as well as bread, and\nas looking upon all theological opinions if not as equally harmless in\ntheir bearing on their eternal interests, we ventured to invite you to\ncome, that we might \u201cpersuade you concerning Jesus.\u201d If there be any of\nyou whose conscience revolts against a participation in Trinitarian\nworship, we invite not his attendance: we would be not intentionally\naccessory to the wounding of the weakest conscience among you.\n\nYou will thus, men and brethren, perceive what was intended by the\nassertion that our \u201c_religious level_\u201d was different. We meant not to\narrogate to ourselves any undue superiority, but simply to state a fact.\nAnd while we think it both _unreasonable and unjust_ that we should be\nexpected to become the auditors of what we deem blasphemous error, or\npledge ourselves to the joint circulation of what we call truth and\nfalsehood, and thus be \u201cpartakers of other men\u2019s sins,\u201d\u2014we cannot but be\nof opinion that there is some ground for these charges in reference to\nthe conduct of those who, on this ground, attempt to prejudice the\npublic mind against us, as if we were declining a battle which we had\ninvited and provoked.\n\nWe are convinced that the attempt will not succeed. The public will have\neyes to see with sufficient clearness the real merits of the case, and\nwill condemn the efforts made to blind its vision, or at least incline\nit to take a distorted view of our relative position.\n\nAgain repeating my invitation to all who can conscientiously accept it,\nto attend our lectures, and leaving cheerfully to others the free use of\nthe only weapons we employ\u2014the BIBLE\u2014the PULPIT\u2014and the Press\u2014and\npraying the Lord to guide all his inquiring people, by the teaching of\nhis Holy Spirit, into all truth, even the \u201ctruth as it is in Jesus,\u201d I\nremain, men and brethren, yours in the bonds of love,\n\n Christ Church, Feb. 5, 1839. FIELDING OULD.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Rev. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and Henry Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014Having hitherto corresponded with you on my own individual\nresponsibility, I have to request that you will consider me as _alone_\nanswerable for what has hitherto appeared under my signature. I had this\nmorning, for the first time, the opportunity of personal conference with\nmy reverend brethren collectively at the expected meeting which took\nplace at my house. I have now to address you upon the result.\n\nAll that we had originally contemplated was, the delivery of a course of\nlectures upon the principal doctrines in controversy between Unitarians\nand ourselves. It now appears that my invitation to the Unitarian laity\nto come and hear us, while we brought their avowed principles to the\ntest of the Word of God, has been taken advantage of by you, and led to\na series of proposals on your part, which I took upon myself to decline.\nI have this day addressed a letter to the members of your body\ngenerally, which I trust will have the effect of setting that part of\nthe subject in its proper point of view.\n\nIt is, however, indispensable to distinguish carefully between this\n_particular invitation_ of yours, and _discussion_ generally. Your\nletter to the Trinitarian laity invites discussion in any shape which\nshall effectually bring the statements of both parties before the same\nindividuals. We are now prepared to gratify your desire, and WE ACCEPT\nYOUR INVITATION. Our lectures, however, shall be first delivered; on\nthis we are determined. Then, in the name of all, and in dependence upon\nour blessed Lord and Master, three of our body will be ready to meet you\nthree before a public audience in this town; all preliminaries to be, of\ncourse, arranged by mutual conference. We propose, if you please, to\ntake the three great subjects into which the controversy obviously\ndivides itself, _viz._,\n\n1. EVIDENCE of the genuineness, authenticity, and inspiration of those\nparts of our authorized version of the Holy Scriptures which you deny.\n\n2. TRANSLATION of those parts which you alter, and in our judgment\nmisrepresent.\n\n3. THEOLOGY, involving those principles of vicarious sacrifice which we\ndeem vital, and which you discard.\n\nOur proposal, then, is to meet you either _one day_ on each subject, as\nyou please; or _one week_ on each subject, as you please: the discussion\nto be conducted in speeches of _one hour_ or _half an hour_ each, as you\nplease.\n\nAnd now, trusting that this proposed arrangement may prove satisfactory\nto _you_, and to all who take an interest in this controversy, and\nfervently praying the great Head of the Church to overrule our purposes\nto the advancement of His kingdom and the promotion of His glory,\n\n I remain, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours for the Lord\u2019s sake,\n\n February 5, 1839. FIELDING OULD.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Reverend Fielding Ould._\n\nReverend Sir,\u2014It would have been gratifying to us to receive from you an\nanswer to our offer of a discussion, through the press, before being\ncalled upon to consider a proposal, altogether new, for a platform\ncontroversy.\n\nYou give us an invitation to _talk_, and call this an acceptance of our\noffer to _write_. The two proposals are so distinct, that it is not easy\nto see how the one could be transformed into the other; nor is the\nmistake explained on turning to the words of our invitation, appealed to\nby you, and contained in our letter to the Trinitarian laity. They are\nthese:\u2014\u201cWe have tendered discussion _through the press_, in any form\nwhatever, with the single condition that the statements of both parties\nshall be presented to the same _readers_.\u201d You leave the impression,\nthat an oral debate is comprised within the terms of this offer; but, in\ndoing so, you widen its scope, by striking out the phrases which\nrestrict it to _printing and publication_, and describe it thus; \u201cYour\nletter to the Trinitarian laity invites discussion _in any shape_ which\nshall effectually bring the statements of both parties before the same\n_individuals_.\u201d You will at once perceive the misrepresentation; will\nacknowledge that the idea of settling historical and philological\ncontroversies, by popular debate, has neither origin nor sanction from\nus;\u2014and will permit us to recal you to our first proposal of discussion\nthrough the press,\u2014a proposal to which, though now made for the third\ntime, we have yet received no answer.\n\nMeanwhile, we will not delay the reply which is due to this new\nsuggestion of a platform controversy. We decline it altogether; and for\nthis answer you must have been prepared, by the sentiment we expressed\nin an early stage of this correspondence: \u201cWe are not of opinion that a\nmiscellaneous audience, assembled in a place of worship, constitutes the\nbest tribunal to which to submit abstruse theological questions\nrespecting the canon, the text, the translation of Scripture,\u2014questions\nwhich cannot be answered by any defective scholarship.\u201d To assemble a\nsimilar audience in an amphitheatre, where the sanctities of worship are\nnot present to calm and solemnize the mind, is evidently not to improve\nthe tribunal. The scholar knows that such exhibitions are a mockery of\ncritical theology: the devout, that they are an injury to personal\nreligion. We are surprised that any serious and cultivated man can think\nso lightly of the vast contents of the questions on which we differ, as\nto be able to dispense with calm reflection on the evidence adduced, and\nto answer off-hand all possible arguments against him, within the range\nof biblical and ecclesiastical literature. We are not accustomed to\ntreat your system with such contempt, however trivial an achievement it\nmay seem to you to subvert ours. In reverence for truth, in a spirit of\ncaution inseparable from our desire to discharge our trust with\ncircumspect fidelity, and from a belief that, to think deeply, is the\nneedful pre-requisite to speaking boldly, we offered you the most\nresponsible method of discussion, in which we might present to each\nother, and fix ineffaceably before the world, the fruits of thought and\nstudy. To this offer we adhere; but cannot join you, on an occasion thus\nsolemn, in an appeal to the least temperate of all tribunals. We\nrecollect that one of the clergymen associated with you refused an oral\ndiscussion of the Roman Catholic controversy. We approved of his\ndecision; and, in like circumstances, adopt it.\n\nWill you allow us to correct a mistake which appears in your enumeration\nof the three topics most fit for discussion? We do not, as Unitarians,\ndeny the genuineness, or alter the translation, of any part of the\nauthorized version of the holy Scriptures. The Unitarians have neither\ncanon nor version of their own, different from those recognized by other\nchurches. As biblical critics, we do indeed, neither more nor less than\nothers, exercise the best judgment we can on texts of doubtful\nauthority, (as did Bishop Marsh, in rejecting the \u201cheavenly witnesses,\u201d\n1 John v. 7,) and on the accuracy of translations (as did Archbishop\nNewcome, when he published his version of the New Testament); but no\nopinions on these matters belong to us _as a class_, or are needful to\nthe defence of our theology. If you allude to the Improved Version, we\nwould state, that it contains the private criticism of one or two\nindividuals; that it has never been used in our churches, nor even much\nreferred to in our studies, and is utterly devoid of all authority with\nus; and that, for ourselves, we greatly prefer, for general fidelity as\nwell as beauty, the authorized translation, which we always employ.\n\nIn your letter to the Unitarians, published in the _Courier_ of\nWednesday, you state that you never invited discussion with us (the\nministers) personally. We never imagined or affirmed that you did. But\nsurely you invited discussion with the class of persons called\nUnitarians; and as a class has no voice except through its\nrepresentatives, and no discussion can take place without two parties,\nyou cannot think that we are departing from our proper sphere in\nanswering to your call. Did you not invite us (the Unitarians) to you,\n\u201cto tell and hear together the great things which God has done for our\nsouls?\u201d And did this mean that all the \u201c_telling_\u201d was to be on one\nside, and all the \u201c_hearing_\u201d on the other? Did you not press upon our\nadmiration the primitive practice of \u201ccontroversial discussion of\ndisputed points?\u201d And did this mean that there was to be neither\n\u201c_controversy_,\u201d \u201c_discussion_,\u201d nor \u201c_dispute_,\u201d but _authoritative\nteaching_ on one side, and _obedient listening_ on the other? In one of\ntwo relations you must conceive yourself to stand to us;\u2014that of a\nsuperior, who _instructs_ with superhuman authority, or that of an\nequal, who \u201c_discusses_\u201d with human and fallible reasonings. Between\nthese two conditions, there is _no third_; nor can you, with justice,\ntake sometimes the one and sometimes the other, according as the\noccasion may require the language of dignity or that of meekness. We\ncertainly addressed you as an equal, and did not pay you the disrespect\nof imagining that your invitation to \u201cdiscussion\u201d meant nothing at all.\n\nWe are sorry that you ascribe to us any intention to divert you from\nyour contemplated course of lectures. Be assured nothing could be\nfurther from our design. We simply desired that, having _invited us_,\nyou should have _recognized us when we presented ourselves_, as parties\nin the \u201cdiscussion.\u201d\n\n We remain, reverend Sir,\n\n Yours, with Christian regard,\n\n HENRY GILES.\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n Liverpool, February 7th. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014I think it due to the cause of truth, as well as to the\ninterest awakened in the public mind by this controversy, to address to\nyou a few observations on your last letter, as published in the\n_Mercury_ of Friday. Though still strongly of opinion that the columns\nof a newspaper present a most undesirable medium of communication upon\nsubjects such as those we are now engaged in discussing, I am unwilling\nin the absence of any other accessible instrumentality, to lose the\nopportunity it affords of impressing upon the attention of all\nreflecting men the actual position which we relatively occupy.\n\n1.\u2014Being aware of the sincere anxiety which you have already manifested\nfor \u201cdiscussion in any shape which should bring the statements on both\nsides before the same parties,\u201d it is not without considerable surprise\nthat I perceive that you \u201cdecline altogether\u201d my proposal of a \u201cplatform\ncontroversy.\u201d Now, while you say I invited you to \u201c_talk_,\u201d and I answer\nI invited you to _argue_, I cannot but think it will appear evident to\nmost, that by the subsequent publication, in an authentic form, of our\noral debate, you would have gained all that you could have desired in\nthe assistance of the press, while a select auditory, equally composed\nof the respective friends of both parties, would have been able to judge\nof your ability, not intellectually, but morally, to meet the case we\ncould have made out against your system. I cannot but hope that a secret\nconsciousness of the weakness of your cause has prompted your\ndetermination, and am of opinion that while a discerning public will\napprove the discretion of your resolve, they will not be slow to\nappreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a candid\nimpartial hearing.\n\nBut the \u201csettling of historical and philological controversies by\npopular debate has neither origin nor sanction from you.\u201d Perhaps not:\nbut you cannot say that such a course is altogether without precedent.\nYou have doubtless heard of the protracted debate upon these same\ncontroversies which were held in the north of Ireland a few years ago\nbetween Mr. Bagot and Mr. Porter. May I ask whether it was the _result_\nof that discussion that induced you to withhold your sanction from all\nfuture controversies so conducted? Mr. Porter did not consider it\ninconsistent with the principles of Unitarianism to debate his creed\nbefore \u201ca miscellaneous audience.\u201d Are you wiser than he in your\ngeneration? Again:\u2014the proposed tribunal is not the best \u201cto which to\nsubmit abstruse theological questions respecting the _canon_, the\n_text_, the translation of scripture.\u201d But do you not apprise us a\nlittle lower down, that you, as Unitarians, do _not deny the\ngenuineness, or alter the translation of any_ part of the authorized\nversion of the holy scriptures? Why, then, there is no ground for the\nabove apprehension. As these are not points which the tribunal will have\nto try, why question its competence on their account? You are surprised\nthat I would \u201cdispense with calm reflection on the evidence adduced.\u201d I\nam, in my turn, surprised that you should suppose I have any such\nintention. When the \u201cevidence adduced\u201d has been taken down and\npublished, what is there to prevent its being \u201ccalmly\u201d weighed and\nestimated at its proper value? And then it is hard \u201cto answer off-hand\nall possible arguments\u201d advanced. So it is; but not harder for _you_\nthan for _us_. Here at least we should stand on a footing of _perfect\nequality_. It was hardly to be expected that _you_ should object to\nthis.\n\n2.\u2014I now come to the _mistake_ into which you say I have fallen, and\nwhich you offer, obligingly, to correct. \u201cWe do not, as Unitarians, deny\nthe _genuineness_ or _alter the translation_ of any part of the\nauthorized version of the holy scriptures. The Unitarians have neither\ncanon nor version of their own different from those recognized by other\nchurches.\u201d If this be true I certainly have been mistaken; but have the\nsatisfaction of knowing that this mistake has been shared by a host of\nabler critics and more learned scholars than I can pretend to be. I had\nalways thought that I read of the liberties taken with the received text\nby the Priestleys and Belshams\u2014the Wakefields and Channings, when they\nwere of opinion that they spoke too strongly the language of\nTrinitarians. I had also understood that the Bruces, the Drummonds, and\nthe Armstrongs of Ireland had performed achievements in the same line,\nat which many not a little wondered. I had further imagined that the\nunanswered\u2014because unanswerable\u2014volumes of Archbishop Magee presented\nevidence on this behalf, with which few were unacquainted. Now, if you\nmean to say that you, the ministers and representatives of Liverpool\nUnitarianism have never \u201cquestioned the genuineness, nor altered the\ntranslation of any part of the authorized version,\u201d I can understand the\nassertion, and willingly take your own word for its truth. But if you\nmean to affirm that this has not been done, and to a very prodigious\nextent, by Unitarians, both domestic and foreign, you will excuse me if\nI positively deny the allegation, as being totally without foundation,\nand I refer in proof to the notorious lucubrations of the above-named\ndoctors of Unitarian divinity, as well as to the severe exposures of\ntheir semi-infidel tampering with the Bible which they have called\nforth.\n\nBut while you do not \u201cdeny the genuineness or alter the translation of\nany part,\u201d perhaps you question the _inspiration_ of certain portions of\nthe sacred volume. You will remember that this was _one_ of the branches\nof _evidence_ that we proposed to discuss with you, and that not the\nleast in importance. Why are you silent on this head? Is it not of any\nmoment, think ye, to admit the _genuineness_ and confess the\n_authenticity_ of a book or a chapter or a verse of scripture, if you\nwithhold your conviction of its _inspiration_? Is it not a fact that you\nmight hold the _genuineness_ of the two first chapters of St. Matthew\nand St. Luke, and feel no disposition to alter the _translation_ of a\nword, and, at the same time, boldly deny that they were \u201cgiven by\ninspiration of God?\u201d If I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right.\nIf not, then the public will decide upon the candour and fairness of\nyour profession to remove the necessity of any controversy with you on\nthe score of EVIDENCE, because of your admission of the _genuineness_\nand your satisfaction with the _accuracy_ of the authorized version,\nwhile by an expressive but momentous silence, you acknowledge that the\n_greatest of testimonial questions_ is by you disputed, and you at the\nsame time refuse to come forward boldly, and debate it fairly before the\nchurch.\n\nAgain\u2014\u201cUnitarians have neither canon nor version of their own different\nfrom those recognised by,\u201d &c. You anticipate here a reference to \u201cthe\nimproved version,\u201d and tell us that \u201cit contains only the private\ncriticism of one or two individuals\u2014that it has never been used in your\nchurches, and is utterly devoid of all authority with you.\u201d Will you\nexcuse me for expressing my doubts of the accuracy of this statement,\nfor these reasons: \u20141. That work was the joint production of some of the\nablest men and best scholars that the Unitarian sect has ever been able\nto boast of; and that the shades of Belsham, Lindsey, Jebb, Priestley,\nWakefield, &c.,[5] might well be astonished to hear their learned\nlabours so contemptuously spoken of by three modern disciples of their\nschool. 2. That, in the year 1819, (the date of the edition which I\npossess,) the improved version had gone through no fewer than _five\neditions_\u2014a tolerable criterion of the extent of its circulation in\nlittle more than twenty years. How many it may have passed through\nsince, I have been as yet unable to ascertain. 3. That so far from its\nbeing \u201cdevoid of all authority,\u201d it professes, in the title page, to\nhave been \u201cpublished by the Unitarian Society for promoting Christian\nKnowledge and the practice of virtue by the distribution of Books.\u201d That\nit may \u201cnever have been used in your churches\u201d I can well believe, as it\nis probable that the feelings of your people would have revolted too\nstrongly against its introduction, to make the experiment advisable: the\nfood which it furnishes may have proved too coarse even for the\ndigestive organs of popular Unitarianism itself. It is also possible\nthat the modern professors of your theology may be somewhat ashamed of\nthis awful specimen of \u201crational and liberal criticism,\u201d and may\nsecretly wish that it had never seen the light. But the _existence_ of\nit, at least, cannot be denied; and there it stands, a painful memorial\nand a living witness, of what is \u201cin the heart\u201d of a system that exalts\n_reason_ into a dominion over _revelation_, and that, unwarned by the\nsolemn admonitions contained in the book itself against the presumptuous\nadditions or detractions of human pride or folly, has dared\nsacrilegiously to lay its unhallowed hands on the sacred ark, and to\nattempt the mutilation and misrepresentation of the great magna charta\nof the spiritual liberties of man.\n\n3.\u2014At the close of your letter, you say, \u201cSurely you invited discussion,\nwith the class of persons called Unitarians.\u201d I again repeat I did not.\nI determined to have a course of lectures delivered in my church on the\npoints at issue between us and the professors of what we call your\n\u201cheresy.\u201d And I invited the persons whom I was and am sincerely anxious\nto benefit, to come and hear our well considered convictions of their\nerrors and their consequent danger, as well as our faithful exhibitions\nof what we think \u201ca more excellent way.\u201d It will not be denied that a\nclergyman of any denomination, in a free country, and more especially a\nclergyman of the national church, has a right to preach, or authorize\nothers to preach, in his pulpit, according to his own discretion, and\ninvite whom he pleases to come and hear, without its being understood\nthat he challenges either the parties so invited, or their\nrepresentatives, to enter with him the lists of controversial\ndiscussion. I absolutely protest against any such understanding. I did\nnot seek to _compel_ the attendance of any of your body, nor yet to deny\nto you or them, in reply, the use of the same weapons that I had\nemployed in the attack. I _did_ mean that those who pleased should come\nand hear us \u201c_tell_\u201d them a gospel which they were not _told_ by those\nupon whom we looked as \u201cblind leaders of the blind;\u201d and that they\nshould be prepared to \u201clearn\u201d whatever should commend itself to their\nconsciences, under our teaching, as the truth of God. We did not, and do\nnot, expect to be able to bring demonstration home to the hearts of any\nby the strength of our arguments, or by the force of our appeals; but we\nanticipated that, in answer to our earnest prayers, the power of the\nHoly Ghost would accompany our teaching of His truth, and make it\neffectual to the conversion of souls \u201cfrom darkness to light.\u201d We\npropose to stand before the congregations that might assemble, neither\nas \u201csuperiors to instruct with superhuman authority,\u201d nor as \u201cequals to\ndiscuss (if you mean by that _dispute_) with human and fallible\nreasonings;\u201d but simply as \u201cambassadors for Christ, as though God did\nbeseech them by us, that we might pray them in Christ\u2019s stead\u2014be ye\nreconciled to God.\u201d[6] This is the middle position in which we stand,\nthe _mean_ between your _two extremes_; and by God\u2019s blessing, we will\ncontinue to occupy it, until we shall have delivered our consciences,\nand discharged our duty to a numerous, respectable, but, in our\njudgment, blinded and deluded class of our fellow-countrymen.\n\nAnd now, gentlemen, having taken such notice of certain allegations in\nyour letter as it seemed impossible to pass by, and with the full\npurpose of continuing in the course on which I have entered, until,\nthrough the blessing of God, the grand object which I have proposed to\nmyself shall have been accomplished,\n\n I remain, yours, for the truth\u2019s sake,\n\n FIELDING OULD.\n\n February 11, 1839.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n See \u201cImproved Version,\u201d note on 1 John, i. 1.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n 2 Cor. v. 20.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014You state, in your letter of the 7th ult., that \u201cyour\nproposal of discussion through the press, though made for the third\ntime, has as yet received no answer.\u201d It was thought by ourselves and\nour clerical brethren, that as our lectures were to be printed and\npublished, every facility was afforded you of replying to them through\nthe same channel, and that thus the whole subject would be fairly\nbrought before the public.\n\nIn addition to this, we have offered to meet you in oral discussion; you\ndecline the proposal.\n\nAnxiously desirous to bring the whole matter before this great\ncommunity, so as to prove that we not only entertain no apprehensions as\nto the result, but are convinced that, by such an exposition, great good\nwill be effected, we, the undersigned, on our own responsibility, ACCEPT\nYOUR TERMS of discussing the momentous question between us, in the form\nof a correspondence in some public journal or periodical, altogether\nindependent of the lectures.\n\n We remain, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,\n\n THOMAS BYRTH.\n FIELDING OULD.\n Liverpool, February 11. HUGH M\u2018NEILE.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Rev. Fielding Ould._\n\nRev. Sir,\u2014The tone of your last letter makes us rejoice that, by the\nacceptance on your parts of discussion through the press, this\ncorrespondence may now be brought to a close.\n\nLet us, Rev. Sir, place before you your own language, and ask, in solemn\nsadness, are the feelings it betrays worthy of the occasion, or deserved\nby us, or edifying to the public mind? These are your words:\u2014\u201cI cannot\nbut hope that a secret consciousness of the weakness of your cause has\nprompted your determination, and am of opinion, that while a discerning\npublic will approve the discretion of your resolve, they will not be\nslow to appreciate its motive, or the precise measure of your zeal for a\ncandid and impartial hearing.\u201d Sir, it is not a little mournful to find\na Christian Minister expressing his hope that other men are\nhypocrites,\u2014that they are secretly conscious of the weakness of the\ncause which they publicly defend. To _hope_ that we secretly know our\nerrors, whilst publicly preaching them as truth, is, indeed, strange\npreference of faith before works. Let us assure you, Sir, that if we\ncould think of you as this language shows you think of us, we should\ndecline all discussion with you,\u2014we should regard you as an opponent too\ndiscreditable to be identified with a great question, or to be\nconsidered as an honourable representative of your own party.\n\nWe apprehend, Rev. Sir, that nobody but yourself would think of\nattributing to conscious weakness our preference of the most perfect and\nsearching method of discussion, to the most flimsy, insufficient, and\nunscholarlike that could by possibility be selected. Had we wished to\ncatch the ear of a popular assembly, or to turn away attention from weak\npoints by oratorical artifices, we should have proposed this platform\ncontroversy, instead of, as we did, carefully and purposely wording our\ninvitation and our enumeration of the modes in which the controversy\nmight be conducted, so as to exclude the idea of oral discussion.\n\nWe observe with sorrow, and with diminished hope of benefit from\ncontroversy, that you can so sink the interests of truth in personal\nchampionship, as to meet our solemn unwillingness to entrust the gravest\nquestions to extempore dexterity and accidental recollection, with the\nreply that in this respect we should be at least _equally_ situated.\nDoubtless, Sir, if a display of personal prowess was our object, this\nwould be conclusive; but TRUTH is our object, and we dare not offer it\nsuch worthless advocacy.\n\nWith respect to the instance alluded to by us, of a decision similar to\nour own, our impression had been that reasons also similar to our own\nwere given at the time; and we can only regret, since this impression\nseems to be false, that we quoted the case.\n\nWith regard to the \u201cImproved Version,\u201d we shall only say here, that it\nhas been raised to an importance in this discussion which is entirely\nfactitious. The differences between us must be settled upon principles\nof interpretation and criticism recognized by all scholars; and if these\nprinciples can be shown, in any respects, to condemn the \u201cImproved\nVersion,\u201d in those respects we shall be the first to abandon it, feeling\nourselves to be in nothing bound by it. When we said that, as\n_Unitarians_, we had no canon or version of our own, we meant that we\nare quite willing to accept the text as fixed by scholars, most of them\nTrinitarians, on critical principles. We most cheerfully recognize the\nfundamental principles of Scriptural inquiry, so clearly and soundly\nstated yesterday evening by Dr. Tattershall; and although agreeing with\nmany of your ablest scholars, in thinking the received translation to\nrequire corrections, and not approving of the morality of taking up a\nposition in defence of truth unnecessarily unfavourable; yet, were our\nonly object to display the ampler and superior Scriptural evidence for\nUnitarianism than for Trinitarianism, the received translation would be\nquite sufficient for our purpose.\n\nAgain reminding you that the word \u201cdiscussion\u201d was introduced into your\noriginal invitation, which contained also reference to the controversial\npractice of primitive times, and set forth the advantages of \u201chearing\u201d\nand \u201ctelling\u201d together,\n\n We remain,\n\n Your fellow-labourers and fellow-Christians,\n\n JAMES MARTINEAU.\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n Feb. 14, 1839. HENRY GILES.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. Thomas Byrth, Fielding Ould, and Hugh M\u2018Neile._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014Your willingness to discuss the Unitarian and Trinitarian\ncontroversy in the most satisfactory mode, has given us sincere\npleasure; and if we have seemed to press this matter upon your\nacceptance, we assure you it was with the single desire that the\nstatements of both views, in their most accurate and perfect forms,\nmight be presented to the same minds through an unbiassing medium; an\nobject which could be obtained neither by the unequal distribution of\nseparate lectures, nor by means so necessarily imperfect as oral\ndiscussion.\n\nWe shall be happy to arrange with you, at the earliest possible period,\nthe manner and conditions of our proposed discussion.\n\nWe shall be ready to conform ourselves to your wishes upon the subject;\nbut we would suggest the desirableness of the discussion being entered\non at once\u2014partly because attention to it might now be secured, and\npartly because in the seriousness and number of our mutual engagements,\nthis controversy should not be allowed to interfere with our other\nduties and responsibilities longer than is necessary.\n\n We are, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours, with respect,\n\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n JAMES MARTINEAU.\n Feb. 14, 1839. HENRY GILES.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014I cannot permit our correspondence to terminate without a few\nremarks on your letter, as published in the _Mercury_ of Friday last.\n\n1. I regret that the \u201ctone\u201d of my last address should have given you any\noffence, while I am wholly unconscious of any intention unnecessarily to\nwound the feelings of those who, I am free to admit, have hitherto\nwritten at least courteously, if not very candidly, upon the subjects\nwhich have been recently submitted to the attention of the public. Allow\nme distinctly to disclaim any attempt to charge you with _hypocrisy_, or\nmake it appear that you \u201csecretly know as errors what you publicly\npreach as truths.\u201d I took occasion merely to express my surprise that\npersons who seemed so anxious for an impartial hearing of their defence,\nshould \u201caltogether decline\u201d a proposal by which, as it appeared, and\nstill appears to me, that object might have been so satisfactorily\nattained; and in the exercise of a charity that \u201chopeth all things,\u201d I\nsought to attribute your refusal to a latent and half-formed conviction\nwithin you, that your principles, in whatsoever sincerity entertained\nand professed, might not bear the light of such an investigation as that\nto which they would have been subjected in a public _viv\u00e1 voce_\ndiscussion. Where is there any charge of hypocrisy here? May not a man\nbe perfectly sincere in the maintenance of an opinion, which he would\nnevertheless be very unwilling to defend in oral debate, from a proper\napprehension of the force of argument with which it might be\nencountered, and a secret consciousness of his own slender materials for\nits support? Be assured it is not necessary for us to brand you with\n_hypocrisy_, in order to convict you of _heresy_. We are willing to give\nyou every credit for honesty of intention and integrity of purpose,\nwhile we cannot but suspect that you are fully aware of the difficulty\nof maintaining the principles of Unitarianism on the ground of an\nunmutilated and \u201cunimproved\u201d Bible.\n\nWere I equally disposed with you to take offence, I too might inquire,\n\u201cin solemn sadness, whether it be deserved by us, or edifying to the\npublic mind,\u201d that you should more than insinuate, though of course in\nvery polished phrases, that \u201cwe have proposed a platform controversy, in\norder to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to turn away attention\nfrom weak points by oratorical artifices.\u201d Is this your opinion of us?\nIf we thought so, \u201cwe should decline all discussion with you as\nopponents too discreditable to be identified with a great question, or\nto be considered as honourable representatives of your own party.\u201d But\n_we_ are not offended. We look upon your language as simply intended to\nconvey an admission that your system is unpopular; one that, from its\ncold, and cheerless, and unimpassioned character, would seek in vain to\nenlist on its behalf any measure of popular sympathy, or conciliate any\nfavour unless from those whom it had imbued with its own proud spirit,\nand accustomed to the low temperature of its own frigid zone.\n\n2. But, gentlemen, while I cheerfully receive the admonition on the\n\u201ctone\u201d of my address which your letter _does_ contain, I have to\ncomplain respecting the answer to a very simple question I had proposed,\nwhich your letter _does not_ contain. As I am unwilling to incur the\nhazard of again offending, I will forbear from more than hinting at the\nsemblance of rhetorical dexterity that appears in your perhaps\nundesigned turning away of attention from the PRINCIPAL POINT which I\nhad submitted for your consideration, in order to fasten upon me a\ngroundless charge, and so challenge public sympathy in your favour, as\nmen branded with the character of hypocrites, and secretly cognizant of\nerrors which were openly preached as truths. We proposed to discuss with\nyou \u201cthe evidence of the genuineness, authenticity, and _inspiration_ of\nthe holy scriptures.\u201d You replied that you do not \u201cdeny the\n_genuineness_\u201d and seek not \u201cto alter the _translation_ of any part of\nthe authorized version,\u201d which you prefer to the abandoned version of\nMr. Belsham and his associates. You were silent, however, about the\nINSPIRATION. I ventured to inquire whether I was mistaken in supposing\nyou denied _the plenary inspiration_ of the authorized version? My words\nwere, \u201cIf I am mistaken here too, I pray to be set right.\u201d In your\nletter now before me there is not a word upon the subject; no answer to\nmy all-important inquiry. There is a little further disparagement of the\n\u201cimproved version,\u201d which, we are told, has been raised into a\n\u201cfactitious importance in this controversy;\u201d you will be the first to\n\u201cabandon it,\u201d if it should be condemned by the ordinary principles of\ncritical interpretation\u2014so far so good. But what of the INSPIRATION? Are\nyou either afraid or ashamed to speak out what you think on this\nsubject? I would not that you should be offended at the \u201ctone\u201d of my\ninterrogations; but again I must ask, what are your opinions upon the\n_quality_ and _extent_ of scripture inspiration? The public are\nanxiously expecting an answer to this solemn query, and our present\ncorrespondence cannot close until it is answered. The way will then be\nclear for our approaching discussion through the press; we shall then\nunderstand each other, and shall have reconnoitred and appreciated the\ncharacter of the field upon which we are to take up our respective\npositions. You say that \u201c_truth_ is your object,\u201d and not \u201cpersonal\nchampionship.\u201d Well, then, let us have _the truth_ upon Unitarian views\nof SCRIPTURAL INSPIRATION. All other argument can be only an unmeaning\nplay of words until this point is settled.\n\nWe are rejoiced to learn that you are satisfied with \u201cthe authorized\nversion,\u201d and \u201cthe received translation,\u201d for the purposes of our\npresent inquiry; and when you shall satisfy us that you admit the full\ninspiration of _all and every part_ of that volume, we shall be in a\ncondition to inquire whether it presents \u201campler and superior Scriptural\nevidence for Unitarianism than for Trinitarianism.\u201d We remember that Mr.\nBelsham, in his Review of Mr. Wilberforce\u2019s Treatise, has said, speaking\nof the texts usually quoted by Trinitarians in proof of the proper deity\nof Christ, that \u201cUnitarians pledge themselves to show that they are\n_all_ either _interpolated_, _corrupted_, or _misunderstood_.\u201d\u2014Review,\npp. 270, 272. They engage to get clearly rid of them altogether. _You_,\nit would appear, have given up the _interpolations_ and _corruptions_;\nthe _misunderstandings_, we presume, still remain chargeable against us;\nbut whether on the ground of _ignorance_, or of mistaken confidence in\nthe _inspiration_ of the texts in question, we have yet to be informed.\n\nYou will pardon my anxiety for an answer upon this head, bearing in mind\nthat we regard it as opening wide a door for the introduction of\n_infidelity_, so to give up _any portion_ of the sacred volume as being\nnot of inspired authority, as to render it doubtful whether _any\nportion_ does possess that authority, and thus entirely neutralize the\neffect of God\u2019s message of mercy to the minds and hearts of men.\n\n I remain, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours, for the sake of the Gospel,\n\n February 18, 1839. FIELDING OULD.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Rev. Fielding Ould._\n\nReverend Sir,\u2014You proposed (in your letter of the 5th February) a\ncertain series of subjects as proper topics for the discussion between\nus, and submitted the list to our notice for acceptance or rejection.\nFrom this enumeration we struck out two particulars, _viz._, the\n_authenticity_ of certain parts of the New Testament writings, on the\nground that we did not deny your postulates under that head; and the\n_translation_ of certain other parts of the Scriptures, on the grounds\nthat, with yourself, we prefer, on the whole, the authorized version to\nall others; that we would not be responsible for any new rendering\nproposed in the Improved Version; and that, as we have nothing so absurd\nas a _system of translation_ capable of _systematic_ treatment, any\nspecial instances, in which we may think the common translation\ninaccurate, had better be discussed in connection with the theological\ndoctrines affected by the texts in question.\n\nThese subjects being excluded from the list, the rest, comprising the\nquestion of _inspiration_, and the _doctrines of your theology_, of\ncourse stand over for discussion. We said nothing of these, because we\nhad no exception to take against them. As our _notice_ of the others was\nto effect their removal, our \u201csilence\u201d about these was to _secure their\nadmission_.\n\nThe plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, or, if you really prefer it,\n(as your phraseology seems to imply,) \u201cthe plenary inspiration of the\n_authorized version_\u201d remains then as an essential part of our\napproaching controversy. Why you should complain that we do not step\naside with you individually, to render you an account of our belief in\nthis matter, we cannot divine, unless you think that, by tempting us\ninto your confessional by appeals to our conscience, you could impose\nupon the \u201cheretics\u201d your penance at discretion. If it should be, that\nthis subject is likely to be committed to your hands in this\ncontroversy, and you are merely anxious to know betimes what precisely\nare the positions which you may be called upon to meet, a private\ncommunication of your wish would be sufficient. The second lecture of\nour series will be speedily published, and will furnish the information\nwhich you desire.\n\nWe are sorry that you discover any want of \u201ccandour\u201d in our last letter;\nand surprised that, this being the case, you can esteem it \u201ccourteous.\u201d\nWe regard a violation of \u201ccandour\u201d as the greatest outrage upon\n\u201ccourtesy;\u201d and despise, above all things, the hollow and superficial\nmanners, which are empty of all guileless affections and Christian\nsentiments. In saying that you charged us with hypocrisy, we committed\nno breach of candour, but only the mistake, which we are now happy to\ncorrect, of supposing that your language faithfully represented your\nmeaning. That you did not think of the _word_ \u201chypocrite\u201d when you wrote\nto us, we cheerfully believe; but that you thought of us as doing that\nwhich makes a hypocrite, your own explanation renders more evident than\nit was before. You attribute to us \u201ca latent and half-formed\nconviction,\u201d that \u201cour principles might not bear the light of\ninvestigation,\u201d and \u201ca consciousness\u201d of \u201cthe difficulty of maintaining\nthem.\u201d Now there can be no \u201cdifficulty,\u201d where the tribunal is wisely\nchosen, in maintaining any set of opinions, except from the superior\nforce of the antagonist considerations; there can be no \u201cconsciousness\u201d\nof such \u201cdifficulty,\u201d except from consciousness of this opposing\nsuperiority;\u2014to be conscious of a preponderant evidence in favour of any\nsystem, is at heart to believe it; and he who believes one system, and\npublicly upholds another, is, as we interpret the word, _a hypocrite_.\nWe perceive, however, that you made this charge without precisely\nmeaning it; and we think no more of it.\n\nWe disclaim any intention of hinting that you \u201cproposed a platform\ncontroversy, in order to catch the ear of a popular assembly, and to\nturn away attention from weak points by oratorical artifices.\u201d We simply\naffirmed, that oral discussion would have afforded a better refuge for\nour imputed \u201cweakness\u201d than the press. But surely it does not follow\nthat, because the consciously weak might prefer such a method, therefore\nall who prefer it must be consciously weak. It would, indeed, be a\nstrange mistake of all the symptoms by which the characters of men can\nbe known, if we attributed to you any suspicion that you could be\nmistaken. You are quite aware that your earnestness appears to us\nperfectly sincere, and even to transgress the bounds of a modest\nconfidence.\n\n We remain, Reverend Sir,\n\n Yours, with Christian regard,\n\n HENRY GILES.\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n February 21, 1839. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014Before we proceed with our proposed discussion, it is\nnecessary to determine, with a little more of accuracy than has been\nhitherto stated, what our controversy is to be about.\n\nWe thought that you, in common with Unitarians generally, acknowledged\nthe Scriptures of the New Testament, as contained in what is commonly\ncalled \u201cThe Unitarian or Improved Version,\u201d to be inspired of God, and\nconsequently of infallible truth.\n\nThis however you, as individuals, have disclaimed; and, therefore, we\nare compelled to ask _what you do_ acknowledge INSPIRED REVELATION?\n\nIs our discussion to be,\n\n1. Upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of truth? Or,\n\n2. Upon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is it?\n\nWe affirm the inspiration by God of the Holy Scriptures, as contained in\nour authorized canon, and are willing to refer every question for\ndecision to their ascertained meaning.\n\nDo you agree in this?\n\nOur standard being known, it is a matter of obvious fairness that we\nshould ask to have yours stated.\n\nEither you admit the divine inspiration, and consequent infallible\ntruth, of the Bible, or you do not.\n\nOr, you so admit a part, and reject a part. You will be so good as to\nstate clearly how this matter stands.\n\nAre you believers in a WRITTEN and INFALLIBLY-ACCURATE REVELATION from\nGod to man?\n\nIf so, _what is_ that Revelation?\n\nIf you admit only _parts_ of our Bible as inspired, you will oblige us\nby stating _what parts_.\n\nThe character of the discussion must obviously depend upon this: is it\nto be a discussion upon EVIDENCE or upon INTERPRETATION? It would be\nmanifestly a waste of time in us to enter upon the interpretation of\nwhat you might afterwards get rid of, (so far, at least, as you are\nconcerned,) by declaring it only the opinion of a _fallible man_.\n\n We remain, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours, for the sake of truth,\n\n HUGH M\u2018NEILE,\n FIELDING OULD,\n March 4th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. H. M\u2018Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014You ask us, Is our discussion to be,\n\n1. \u201cUpon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of TRUTH?\u201d Or,\n\n2. \u201cUpon the question, Is there any such standard? And if so, what is\nit?\u201d\n\nWe answer, distinctly, that our controversy is upon the meaning,\nascertained by INTERPRETATION, of the _Hebrew_ and _Greek_ Scriptures.\nShould any questions of criticism arise respecting what is the text to\nbe interpreted, these must, of course, be argued separately, upon purely\n_critical_ grounds.\n\nWe conceive that the real controversy between us respects the nature of\nChristianity itself;\u2014you holding the Revelation to consist in doctrines\ndeducible from the written words; we holding the Revelation to be\nexpressed in the character and person of Jesus Christ, and to be\nconveyed to us through a faithful and authentic record. Which of these\ntwo ideas is Scriptural?\u2014that is our controversy.\n\nOf course, \u201cthe standard\u201d by which we must test \u201cthe truth\u201d of these\nideas is the New Testament, and the Hebrew Scriptures, so far as they\nthrow light on its contents. Whichever view of Christianity is supported\nby the _meaning_ of this standard, is the true one. The method of\nascertaining the meaning of any writings is the same, whether those\nwritings are of natural or supernatural origin; so that the process of\ninterpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the theory of\nverbal inspiration. The admission of an \u201cinfallible truth\u201d in the Bible\n(which, however, is known with _certainty_ only to God; for you, after\nadmitting it, are disputing with heretics of your own communion what it\nis), cannot alter, in any respect, the true grounds of our controversy.\nIt is a controversy of interpretation, and no theory of verbal\ninspiration can make it anything else.\n\nThis theory, however, we conceive to be altogether fallacious, both in\nits principles and its results; and if you wish to make it the subject\nof our controversy, we have no objection. We leave it to your choice,\nwhether we are to discuss the theory of verbal inspiration, or whether\nwe are to discuss the meaning of the original Scriptures, as ascertained\nby the acknowledged principles of interpretation.\n\nWe confess to not a little surprise that three clergymen, coming forward\nto discuss Unitarianism, should be found to express themselves so\ninaccurately, or from such defective information, as to speak of \u201cthe\nUnitarian or Improved Version,\u201d and to represent the work, thus falsely\ndescribed, as acknowledged by Unitarians generally to contain the New\nTestament as inspired by God. The theory of verbal inspiration, which we\ndeny altogether, we are not likely to claim in favour of a Unitarian\ntranslator. We have repeatedly stated, that the \u201cImproved Version,\u201d is\nnot the \u201cUnitarian Version;\u201d nor is it \u201ccommonly\u201d so \u201ccalled.\u201d And now\nwe say, once more, that our controversy is not about the Improved\nVersion, but about the Greek Testament.\n\nWhen you accepted our invitation, with its terms, it was understood that\nall the preliminaries of our controversy were to be arranged by mutual\nagreement. You were aware, and we have in our letters distinctly stated,\nthat the theory of verbal inspiration stood as a part of that\ncontroversy; you knew, also, that in a few days a distinct statement of\nour opinions upon the nature of the Bible, in the form of a printed\nlecture, would be before the public. We therefore look upon your letter,\nin the _Courier_ of Wednesday last, as altogether unnecessary; and we\nanswer, thus publicly, what ought to have been matter of private\ncommunication, only because we are resolved not to allow any\ninformalities, on your parts, to prevent our coming to a public\ndiscussion of our respective views of Christianity.\n\n We are, Gentlemen,\n\n Yours respectfully,\n\n JAMES MARTINEAU.\n JOHN H. THOM.\n March 11, 1839. HENRY GILES.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. J. Martineau, J. H. Thom, and H. Giles._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014In our last letter we gave up the \u201cImproved Version,\u201d so far\nas you, _as individuals_, are concerned, because, _as individuals_, you\ndisclaimed it. We are surprised, therefore, that you should revert to\nit, and the more so, because you have now ventured to say, not only that\n_you_ disclaim it, but also, in the face of known facts, that it is not\n\u201cthe Unitarian version,\u201d nor is it \u201ccommonly so called.\u201d When you\ndisclaimed it _for yourselves_, we did not demur. But when you go on to\ndisclaim it _for the Unitarian body_, (for which, by the way, you have\nno authority,) we strenuously deny your assertion, and call in evidence\nthe language of all the best writers upon the controversy.\n\nYou have misstated our question. We did _not_ ask, \u201cIs our discussion to\nbe upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged standard of _Scripture_?\u201d\nWe did ask, \u201cIs it to be upon the meaning of a mutually-acknowledged\nstandard of _truth_?\u201d We receive the Scripture as a _standard of truth_.\nThe substitution of the one word for the other, in this question, has\nmystified your whole letter.\n\nWe collect, however, from your letter, and from Mr. Martineau\u2019s sermon,\nto which you refer us, (and which we consequently conclude contains the\nsentiments of you all,)\n\n1. That you do not believe in a _written and infallibly-accurate\nRevelation_ from God to man.\n\n2. That Paul the apostle may have \u201c_reasoned inaccurately_,\u201d and\n\u201c_speculated falsely_.\u201d[7]\n\n3. And that, consequently, you feel yourselves at liberty to judge his\nstatements (and all the statements of Scripture) as you do those of any\nother books.\n\nYou seem to think that this is of little consequence, and say that \u201cthe\nprocess of interpretation may go on, undisturbed by any reference to the\ntheory of verbal inspiration.\u201d\n\nWe reply that such a process can lead to nothing but waste of time. For\nwhen we shall have proved some great truth, or condemned some fatal\nerror, upon the authority of Paul, or some other inspired writer, you\nhave kept an open door for yourselves to escape from the whole force of\nour demonstration, by saying that, in the words on which we rely, the\nsacred writers \u201c_reasoned inaccurately_,\u201d or \u201c_speculated\nfalsely_,\u201d\u2014while, if any passages in those writers _seem_ to favour your\nviews, you have adroitly retained the privilege of ascribing to them a\nsort of inspiration.[8]\n\nNo, gentlemen, we are not to be deceived so, into an attempt to fix the\nchameleon\u2019s colour. If the apostles may \u201creason inaccurately,\u201d and\n\u201cspeculate falsely;\u201d if the inspiration under which they wrote did not\ninfallibly preserve them from error, then there is no standard of truth\nupon earth. Of what avail is it, then, to refer to the _Greek_\nTestament, or the _Hebrew_ Scriptures? The Scripture, instead of being\n(what David called it, speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost) \u201ca\nlamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path,\u201d degenerates into a\nmixture of light and darkness, which we dare not implicitly follow, but\nof which we must judge by some superior light in ourselves.\n\nWe observe, further, that, according to the light that is in you,\nhistorical proof of miracles having been wrought in attestation of what\nthe writers of Scripture say, would NOT be proof against inaccuracy in\ntheir reasonings, or falsehood in their speculations.\n\nThis notable conclusion you come to, by elevating nature into the\nmiraculous, and thus depressing the miraculous into the natural; since\nyou say that the whole force of the impression made by proofs from\nmiracles arises from a \u201cSUPPOSED _contrast_\u201d between miracle and\nnature.[9]\n\nYou have thus advanced a step beyond common Deism, and rendered\nyourselves inaccessible even by miracles. This is conclusive, and\ndemands the serious attention of all who have hitherto been disposed to\nreceive instruction from you. We confess that we can go no further! for,\nif there be only a _supposed contrast_ between miracles and nature, we\ncannot prove the attesting interposition of God on behalf of the\nstatements of Scripture, and must give up as worthless the appeal which\nJesus makes to his miracles, in answer to the inquiry of John\u2019s\ndisciples: \u201c_Go_,\u201d said he, \u201c_and show John again those things which ye\ndo see and hear; the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the\nlepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the\npoor have the Gospel preached to them_.\u201d\u2014Luke vii, 22. Upon your\nprinciples, gentlemen, this appeal is worthless; for even if the\nwonderful things here stated be established as historical facts, still\nthey contain no proof, because between these wonders and the course of\nnature there is only \u201ca _supposed_ contrast.\u201d\n\nThus then, by your avowal, that even miracles cannot prove inspiration,\nyou are left in undisputed possession of the field of infidelity. We\nhave no common property of reason with you, and without determining\nwhether men who reject the evidence of miracles are of an order of\nbeings above or below ourselves, we feel that discussion with them is\nimpracticable.\n\nWhile, therefore, we shall continue to use all lawful methods of\nargument and persuasion, in the hope of being useful to those who,\nthough called Unitarians, are not so entirely separated from our common\nhumanity as you seem to be, we have no hesitation in saying that, with\nregard to _yourselves_ as individuals, there appears to be a more\ninsurmountable obstacle in the way of discussion than would be offered\nby ignorance of one another\u2019s language; because the want of a common\nmedium of language could be supplied by an interpreter, but the want of\na common medium of reason cannot be supplied at all.\n\n We remain, Gentlemen, yours respectfully,\n\n HUGH M\u2018NEILE.\n FIELDING OULD.\n March 18th, 1839. THOMAS BYRTH.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n _To grant that Paul reasons, and be startled at the idea that he may\n reason incorrectly\u2014to admit that he speculates, and yet be shocked at\n the surmise that he may speculate falsely_,\u2014to praise his skill in\n illustration, yet shrink in horror when something less apposite is\n pointed out,\u2014_is an obvious inconsistency_. The human understanding\n cannot perform its functions without taking its share of the chances\n of error; nor can a critic of its productions have any perception of\n their truth and excellence, without conceding the possibility of\n fallacies and faults. We must give up our admiration of the apostles\n as men, if we are to listen to them always as oracles of\n God.\u2014_Martineau\u2019s Sermon_, pp. 34, 35.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n I believe St. Matthew to have been _inspired_; but I do not believe\n him to have been _infallible_.\u2014_Sermon_, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n All peculiar _consecration_ of miracle is obtained by a precisely\n proportioned _desecration_ of nature; it is out of a supposed contrast\n between the two, that the whole force of the impression\n arises.\u2014_Sermon_, p. 24.\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _To the Revs. H. M\u2018Neile, F. Ould, and T. Byrth._\n\nGentlemen,\u2014We regret the misstatement of your question, which appeared\nat the commencement of our letter of the 13th instant. We regret still\nmore that it did not occur to you to attribute it to its real cause,\u2014the\ncarelessness of a printer or transcriber. In the autograph manuscript\nwhich remains in our hands, your question is correctly stated thus\u2014\u201cIs\nour discussion to be upon a mutually-acknowledged standard _of truth_?\u201d\nHow the word \u201ctruth\u201d became changed into \u201cscripture,\u201d we cannot tell;\nand not having read our letter after it was in print, we were unaware of\nthe mistake until you pointed it out. Whatever \u201cmystification\u201d it\nintroduced, you will consider as now removed.\n\nYour letter announces your retirement from the promised controversy.\nKnowing that in taking this step you could not put yourselves in the\nright, it is only natural perhaps that you should resolve to set your\nopponents in the wrong, and to cover your own retreat by throwing scorn\non their religious character. Theology appears in this instance to have\nborrowed a hint from the \u201claws of honour;\u201d and as in the world a\n\u201cpassage of arms\u201d is sometimes evaded, under the pretence that the\nantagonist is too little _of a gentleman_, so in the church a polemical\ncollision may be declined, because the opponent is _too little of a\nbeliever_.\n\nYou refuse to fulfil your pledge to the public and ourselves on two\ngrounds:\u2014\n\nI. Because we do not acknowledge the plenary inspiration of the\nScriptures.\n\nII. Because we think it impossible to infer from miracles the mental\ninfallibility of the performer. It is of no use, you say, to argue about\ndivine truth with those who do not believe in \u201ca written and infallibly\naccurate revelation from God to man.\u201d\n\nWe will concede, for the moment, and under protest, your narrow meaning\nof the words \u201cinspiration\u201d and \u201crevelation;\u201d and without disturbing your\nusage of them, we submit that the reasons advanced by you afford not\neven a plausible pretext for having violated your pledge. First, as to\nthe plea that we are put out of the controversy by our unexpected denial\nof the intellectual infallibility of the sacred writers; and that to\nargue about the meaning of the Bible is a waste of time, till its verbal\ninspiration is established. We reply,\u2014\n\nI. That it was you yourselves who started this very question of\ninspiration for argument between us. In his letter of February 18th, Mr.\nOuld gives this account of our projected controversy: \u201cWe proposed to\ndiscuss with you the EVIDENCE of the genuineness, authenticity, and\nINSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES;\u201d he taunts us with _reluctance_ to\ntake up this \u201cgreatest of testimonial questions,\u201d with \u201crefusing to come\nforward boldly, and _debate it fairly before the church_.\u201d[10] We _have_\ncome forward boldly, and this is now the alleged reason why there is to\nbe _no debate at all before the church_. Moreover, at the time when you\nsaid \u201cwe accept your terms,\u201d you regarded us as holding the very\nopinions which are now made the excuse for a retreat; in your first\nlecture they are made a chief ground of indictment against us, and pages\nare crowded with citations from Unitarian writers, expressing those same\nsentiments, which, when avowed by your own opponents, are to make them\nunfit to be addressed, and to exempt you from the duty of reply. Of the\nspirit of this proceeding, observers of honourable mind must judge;\nthey, as well as you, are well aware, that to pronounce men unworthy of\nattack, is itself an attack of the last degree of bitterness.\n\nII. Your refusal to settle with us the meaning of Scripture till the\nplenary inspiration is acknowledged, is in plain contradiction to your\nown principles. You fix the imputation of _deception_ on our statement,\nthat \u201cthe process of interpretation may go on undisturbed by any\nreference to the theory of verbal inspiration.\u201d Yet is this only a\nrepetition of what Mr. Byrth himself says, \u201cIn whatever light the\nChristian Scriptures are regarded, whether as the result of plenary\ninspiration, as we Trinitarians believe, or as the uninspired\nproductions of the first teachers of Christianity, or even as the\nforgeries of imposture, _the meaning_ of their contents is a _question\napart from all others_.\u201d[11]\n\nDr. Tattershall, in common with all sound divines, makes it the _first\nstep_ of scriptural inquiry to \u201cexamine the contents\u201d of the books under\nthe guidance of the following principle: that \u201cany message coming from\nGod must be consistent with the character of the same holy being, as\nexhibited in his works,\u201d and must have \u201cconsistency with itself:\u201d[12]\nand he justly states, that whether we ought to take the _last step_, of\nadmitting the divine authority of the doctrines, must still be\ncontingent on those doctrines, \u201cbeing themselves wise and\nholy,\u201d\u2014\u201clessons worthy of God.\u201d[13] These principles are violated,\nunless our investigation into your doctrines is taken in the following\norder:\u2014\n\nI. Are your doctrines _true to the sense of Scripture_? If _not_, the\ncontroversy ends here; if they _are_, then,\n\nII. Are they _self-consistent; reconcilable with the teachings of God\u2019s\nworks, pure and holy_? If _not_, the controversy ends _here_; if they\n_are_, then,\n\nIII. Do they come to us clothed with divine authority, and conveyed in\nthe language of plenary inspiration?\n\nYour system, then, must establish its _existence in the Bible_ (which is\na matter of interpretation), and its _credibility in itself_ (which we\npresume there must be _some criterion_ to determine), _before_ the\nquestion of inspiration is capable of being discussed. We deny both\nthese preliminaries; protesting that we cannot find your system in the\nScriptures; and that if we could, it appears to us so far from\n\u201cself-consistent,\u201d \u201cwise and holy,\u201d and \u201cworthy of God,\u201d as exceedingly\nto embarrass the claims to divine authority, of any writings which\ncontain it. It was then in implicit obedience to your own rules that we\nproposed to let the question of interpretation take the lead; and no\nless so, that we presume to form a judgment respecting the internal\ncharacter of doctrines professing to be scriptural. Permit us to ask\nhow, but by some \u201clight in ourselves,\u201d we are to determine whether\ndoctrines are \u201cwise and holy,\u201d \u201cself-consistent,\u201d and \u201cworthy of God?\u201d\n\nSecondly. You plead that we have forfeited our claim on the fulfilment\nof your engagement, by a statement of opinion in our second lecture, to\nthis effect: that miracles do not enable us to infer the intellectual\ninfallibility of the performer. This, it seems, is an unexpected heresy,\nand cancels all promises. You appear to be affected by the Popish\ntendencies of the age; and to have adopted the notion, that no faith is\nto be kept with heretics. On this point we remark as follows:\u2014\n\n1st. We are astonished at your assertion, that this idea about miracles\ndeprives us of any \u201ccommon medium of reason\u201d with you. Did you not\n\u201cpropose to discuss with us\u201d the \u201cevidence of the plenary inspiration of\nthe holy Scriptures,\u201d under the persuasion that we should take the\nnegative side? In such discussion, would you not have argued from the\nmiracles to the inspiration? And how did you suppose that we should\nreply? You were well aware that we should _admit_ the miracles; and\nequally well aware that we should _deny_ the plenary inspiration of\nthose that wrought them. It cannot be supposed that, at this point, you\nwould have had no more to say; but you would have proceeded, as many\nable writers have already done, to seek some \u201ccommon medium of\nreason,\u201d\u2014some considerations, that is, having force with both parties;\nby which you might hope to fasten the disputed connection between your\npremises and your conclusion.\n\n2nd. We are still more astonished to hear that this sentiment puts us \u201ca\nstep beyond common Deism,\u201d \u201cin undisputed possession of the field of\ninfidelity,\u201d and even in \u201cseparation from our common humanity;\u201d seeing\nthat the opinion has been held by\n\nBISHOP SHERLOCK:\u2014Who says, \u201cMiracles cannot prove _the truth_ of any\ndoctrine; and men do not speak accurately when they say the doctrines\nare proved by the miracles; for, in truth, there is _no connection_\nbetween miracles and doctrines.\u201d[14]\n\nJOHN LOCKE:\u2014\u201cEven in those books which have the greatest proof of\nRevelation from God, and the attestation of miracles to confirm their\nbeing so, _the miracles are to be judged by the doctrine, not the\ndoctrine by the miracles_.\u201d[15]\n\nDR. SAMUEL CLARKE:\u2014\u201cWe can hardly affirm, with any certainty, that any\nparticular effect, how great or miraculous soever it may seem to us, is\nbeyond the power of all created beings (whom he explains further to be,\n\u2018subordinate intelligences, _good_ or _evil_ angels,\u2019) in the universe\nto produce.\u201d He believes the Devil to \u201cbe able, by reason of his\ninvisibility, to work _true and real miracles_;\u201d and \u201cwhether such\n(_i.e._ miraculous) interposition be the immediate work of God, or of\nsome good or evil angel, can hardly be discovered merely by the work\nitself.\u201d\n\nHe accordingly lays down _the conditions under which_ the miracles will\nprove the doctrine.[16]\n\nBISHOP FLEETWOOD:\u2014\u201cSpirits may perform most strange and astonishing\nthings,\u2014may convey men through the air, or throw a mountain two miles at\na cast.\u201d[17]\n\nThe notions expressed by the last two writers, respecting the superhuman\nagency of good and evil spirits, evidently destroy, no less than the\nmore philosophical principle of Sherlock and Locke, all power of\nreasoning from miracles, as such, to the divine authority and\ninspiration of the performers. You cannot be ignorant of the fact, that\nthese notions prevailed among all the Fathers of both the Greek and\nLatin churches; that they were almost universal among Christians till\nvery recent times; and that your own church lodges with the Bishop of\nthe Diocese a discretionary power to license clergymen to cast out\ndevils.[18]\n\nNor need we remind you that, by yet another process of thought, the\nSociety of Friends assigns to miracles the rank which you think so\nprofane. \u201cWe know,\u201d says Barclay on this subject, \u201cthat the devil can\nform a sound of words, and convey it to the outward ear; that he can\neasily deceive the outward senses, by making things appear which are\nnot. Yea, do we not see that the Jugglers and Mountebanks can do as much\nas all that, by their legerdemain? God forbid then that the saint\u2019s\nfaith should be founded on so fallacious a foundation as man\u2019s outward\nand fallible senses.\u201d[19] And he urges, \u201cthat there must be other ways\nof ascertaining divine truth; for as to miracles, John the Baptist and\ndivers of the Prophets wrought none that we hear of, and yet were both\nimmediately and extraordinarily sent.\u201d[20] By different modes of\nthinking, all these (Christians?) have arrived at the sentiment in\nquestion, so that we occupy \u201cthe field of infidelity,\u201d without being\n\u201cseparated from\u201d at least a goodly portion of \u201cour humanity.\u201d That this\nsentiment should be of so deep a dye of Deism is the more remarkable,\nbecause it is advanced and vindicated as a _scriptural sentiment_,\u2014a\nplea which, however foolish, can be shown to be so, only by discussing\n_the interpretation_ of the New Testament. You have proposed no\nexplanation of the state of the Apostles\u2019 minds before the day of\nPentecost. On that day they either did, or they did not, become more\nenlightened than before. If they did not, the gift of the Holy Spirit\nconferred no illumination; if they did, they were deficient in light\nbefore; and the miraculous powers they had possessed and exercised did\nnot imply infallibility. We thought, indeed, that the comparative\nnarrowness of their views before this period had been universally\nadmitted. With respect to the appeal which in the presence of the\nBaptist\u2019s disciples our Lord makes to his miraculous acts, you are quite\naware that we do _not_ regard it as \u201cworthless,\u201d though you say we\n\u201c_must_\u201d do so. These acts (the _climax_ of which, however, was no\nmiracle at all,\u2014\u201cthe poor have the Gospel preached to them,\u201d) fully\nanswered _the purpose for which they were appealed to_, viz., to\ndetermine whether Jesus was \u201cHe that should come,\u201d or whether John was\n\u201cto look for another;\u201d for as Bishop Sherlock remarks though miracles\nmay not (he says \u201c_cannot_) prove the _truth_ of any doctrine,\u201d they\n\u201cprove _the commission_ of the person who does them to proceed from\nGod.\u201d[21] We repeat, then, that we have started no topic which you did\nnot invite; we have taken up no method of discussion which your own\nrules did not prescribe; we have advanced no idea for which your own\nChurch should be unprepared. You have quitted this controversy without\nany justification from the unexpected nature of _our sentiments_, and we\nare persuaded that you can plead no discourtesy in our proposals\nrespecting the _mechanical arrangements_. On this point we think it\nright to state thus publicly the overtures which we made to you, through\nthe excellent clergyman who communicated with us as your representative.\nAn objection having been urged by Mr. Ould to discussion through the\nnewspapers, on the ground that they are read by \u201cthe ignorant scoffer,\nthe sceptical, the profane,\u201d we proposed the following plan:\u2014That for\ntwelve or any limited number of weeks, a joint weekly pamphlet of\nthirty-two pages should be published, each party furnishing sixteen\npages; that the first number of the series should contain a positive\nstatement, _from each party_, of its fundamental principles in religion,\nof that which it undertook to assail, and that which it undertook to\ndefend; and that within the limits of this programme, the replies in the\nsubsequent numbers should confine themselves. Thus each party would have\nchosen its own ground, at first; and both would have disappeared from\nthe public view together, at last. This proposal was rejected without\nany reason being assigned, except that there were \u201ctoo many difficulties\nin the way;\u201d and though all preliminaries were to be settled \u201cby\nprevious agreement,\u201d we were told that in the following _Courier_ we\nshould find a letter addressed to us, which we might answer in whatever\nway we thought proper. The public who have watched the proceedings in\nthis matter will bear witness, with our consciences, that we were _not\nthe first_ to enter this controversy; that we have _not been the first_\nto leave it; and that, in its progress, we have departed from no pledge,\nand been guilty of no evasion.\n\nAnd now, Gentlemen, accept from us in conclusion, our solemn protest\nagainst the language of unmeasured insult, in which, under the cover of\nsanctity, the associated clergymen whom you represent, have thought\nproper to speak of our religion; against the accusations personally\naddressed to us, in the presence of 3,000 people, by the Lecturers in\nChrist Church, of \u201cmean subterfuges,\u201d \u201cof sneering,\u201d of \u201csavage grins,\u201d\nof \u201cdamnable blasphemy,\u201d of \u201cthe greatest imaginable guilt,\u201d of \u201cdoing\ndespite to the Spirit of Grace,\u201d of \u201cthe most odious of crimes against\nthe Majesty of Heaven,\u201d and in common with all Unitarians of forming our\nbelief, from \u201cthe blindness of graceless hearts,\u201d too bad \u201cto have been\ntouched by any spirit of God,\u201d and against the visible glee, fierce as\nTertullian\u2019s, with which \u201cthe faithful\u201d are reminded that ere long, _we\nmust and shall_ bow our proud knees, whether we like it or not, to the\nobject of their peculiar worship;\u2014so that they are sure of their triumph\nin heaven, however questionable it may be on earth. You began the\ncontroversy by ascribing to us one shade of \u201cinfidelity;\u201d you end it by\nascribing to us a blacker. Beneath \u201cthe lowest deep,\u201d there is it seems\n\u201ca lower still.\u201d We have sat quietly under all this, bearing the rude\nfriction upon everything that is most dear to us, assured that if\nanything in heaven or earth be certain, it is this;\u2014that no spirit of\nGod ever spake thus, or thus administered the poison of human passions,\nfalsely labelled as the medicine of a divine love. What is the\ndifference between your religion and ours, that this high tone (than\nwhich, to a pure moral taste, nothing surely can be _lower_) should be\nassumed against us? We believe, no less than you, in an infallible\nRevelation (though had we the misfortune to doubt it, we might be, in\nthe sight of God, neither worse nor better than yourselves); you in a\nRevelation of an unintelligible Creed to the understanding; we in a\nRevelation of moral perfection, and the spirit of duty to the heart; you\nin a Revelation of the metaphysics of Deity; we in a Revelation of the\ncharacter and providence of the Infinite Father; you in a Redemption\nwhich saves the few, and leaves with Hell the triumph after all; we in a\nRedemption which shall restore to all at length the image and the\nimmortality of God: we _do_ reserve, as you suggest, \u201c_a sort of\ninspiration_\u201d for the founders of Christianity, \u201ca sort\u201d as much higher\nthan your cold, dogmatical, scientific inspiration, as the intuitions of\nconscience are higher than the predications of logic, and the free\nspirit of God, than the petty precision of men. We believe in a\nspiritual and moral Revelation, most awakening, most sanctifying, most\nholy; which _words_, being the signs of hard and definite ideas, could\nnever express, and which is therefore pourtrayed in a mind divinely\nfinished for the purpose, acting awhile on Earth and publicly\ntransferred to Heaven. All men may see that such a Revelation\ncorresponds well with the medium which conveys it; but a set of\nscholastic propositions, like Articles and Creeds, might as well have\nbeen written on the sky; and many a bitter doubt and bitterer\ncontroversy might have been spared.\n\nWe believe, Gentlemen, that the minds of serious and considerate persons\nare weary of the aggressions of Churches upon the private and secret\nfaith of the individual heart; that they will not long be forced to live\non the dry husks of Creeds which have lost the kernel of true life; nor\naccept mere puzzles as divine mysteries. It is at the peril of all\nreligion that its illimitable truths are embalmed in definite formulas,\nand the abyss of God confidently measured by thrusting out the foot-rule\nof ecclesiastical wisdom. The things most holy cannot without injury be\nthus turned from the contemplation of the affections, to the small\ncriticism of the intellect; and the acute and polished dividing-knife of\ndialectics, when applied to cut theology into propositions, is apt to\nleave scarce a shred of faith.\n\nThat all professing ministers of the Gospel may speedily turn from their\ndivisions of belief to a hearty union of spirit, is the desire and\nprayer of\n\n Us, who in this temper, and in better times, might have been\n owned as\n\n Your fellow-labourers,\n\n JAMES MARTINEAU.\n JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n March 25th, 1839. HENRY GILES.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n Rev. F. Ould\u2019s Letter of February 11.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n Rev. T. Byrth\u2019s Lecture, Part I. p. 114.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n Rev. Dr. Tattershall\u2019s Lecture on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 69.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n \u201cWhatever lessons of instruction or doctrines they teach us, _these\n doctrines being themselves wise and holy_, must have been delivered\n under a divine sanction, and therefore possess divine authority.\n\n \u201cIf he (that is, the person who performs miracles) also teaches\n lessons,\u2014_lessons worthy of God_,\u2014these lessons undoubtedly come to us\n clothed with divine authority.\u201d\u2014_Dr. Tattershall\u2019s Lecture_, pp. 70,\n 71.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n Sherlock\u2019s Discourses, No. 10, Hughes\u2019s edition, Vol. I. p. 197, and\n No. 15, Vol. I. p. 278.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n Lord King\u2019s Life of Locke, p. 125.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n Sermons at the Boyle Lecture, Prop. xiv.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n Essay on Miracles, p. 99, _seq._, as quoted by Farmer in his\n Dissertation on Miracles, chap. i. \u00a7 3.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n \u201cNo minister or ministers shall, _without the licence and direction of\n the Bishop of the Diocese_, first obtained and had under his hand and\n seal, ... attempt, upon any pretence whatsoever, either of possession\n or obsession, by fasting and prayer, to cast out any devil or devils,\n under pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage, and deposition\n from the ministry.\u201d\u2014_Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical_, lxxii.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n Apology for the True Christian Divinity, Prop. ii, pp. 35, 36.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n Ibid. Prop. x. p. 296.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n Discourses, No. 10, Hughes\u2019s edition, vol. i. p. 197.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE\n\n OF THE\n\n UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.\n\n\nAn attempt has been made, in a preface to the Lecture to which the\nfollowing pages are a reply, to break the force, by anticipation, of the\nstatements they contain. The Answerer, however, evidently did not hear\nthe statements; and the preface proceeds upon some rumour of what was\nsaid. If Clergymen are conscientiously prevented from going to hear\nUnitarians, they ought also to be conscientiously prevented from\nanswering what they did not hear. I am represented as saying that\nTrinitarians do not gather, but _lecture_: I said Trinitarianism does\nnot gather, but _scatters_. I am represented as arguing the tendency of\nTrinitarianism to Popery from the recent movement of the Oxford Tract\ndivines in that direction: I argued the tendency of Trinitarianism to\nPopery _from its fundamental principles_, and I referred to the Oxford\nmovement as one of the visible manifestations of the demonstrated\ntendency.\n\nI shall notice the instances in which the Preface proceeds upon anything\nlike a true apprehension of what was said\u2014\n\n1. Page vii. viii.\u2014\u201cWhen men tell us that Jesus did not weep over\n_errors of opinion_, we maintain that it was the \u2018error of opinion\u2019\nwhich led them to reject him as the Messiah over which he lamented.\u201d\nNow, 1. Is the unbelief of the Jews in the Christ, when he was\nexhibiting his divine credentials in his Character and in his Miracles\nbefore their eyes and to their hearts, in any respect similar to our\nunbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity, which we, accepting both the\nScriptures and Christ, declare we cannot find to be authorized by\neither? And 2. Is it not evident that Jesus attributed the unbelief of\nthe Jews to _Moral_ Causes, and that therefore, and _only_ therefore, he\ncondemned it? \u201cThis is the Condemnation, that light is come into the\nworld, and men loved darkness rather than light, _because their deeds\nwere evil_.\u201d John iii. 19.\n\n2. Page viii.\u2014\u201cBut these principles involve a violation of unity.\u201d And\nwhat if they do? Did not our Saviour emphatically declare, \u201cThink not\nthat I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a\nsword.\u201d 1. Christ is here not describing the final purpose of his\nMission nor the natural operation of his Spirit, but the immediate\nopposition and contention which his religion would excite both in Jew\nand Gentile before it rooted out the old Faiths: And 2. The Christ is\nnot here alluding to differences between _Christians themselves_,\nbetween those who did accept him; but to the necessary conflict of the\nSpirit of Jesus with the Antagonist spirits of Judaism and Heathenism.\nThis also is the great subject of the Book of Revelations.\n\n3. Page xi.\u2014\u201cBut it is a priestly spirit which says, \u2018you must\nbelieve.\u2019\u201d This ought to be reckoned with the instances in which the\nanswer proceeds upon an incorrect rumour of what was said; which was to\nthis effect,\u2014\u201cthat it is the priestly spirit, whose constant cry is,\nunless you believe _this doctrine_, and unless you believe _that\ndoctrine_, you cannot be saved.\u201d Belief in Jesus, entire spiritual Trust\nin him, as, for all providential purposes, one with God, we have\nexplicitly stated as our view of the essentials of Christianity.\n\nPage xxi.\u2014We do not know how far the Author extends his approval of \u201cthe\ntactics of holy war.\u201d For ourselves we disapprove of all such tactics,\nespecially the tactics of substituting a mere illustration or practical\nverification of an argument, for the argument itself, and then dealing\nwith the illustration as if there was no general principle behind it, as\nif the illustration was represented as _the grounds_ of the principle,\nwhen it is only represented as one of its outward operations. And yet\nthis \u201cargumentum a particulari ad universale,\u201d is one which the author\nemploys in his description of Unitarianism in almost every page of his\nLecture.\n\n J. H. T.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE\n\n OF THE\n\n UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\nCOLOSSIANS I. 27, 28.\u2014_Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we preach,\n warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we\n may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus._\n\nGALATIANS II. 4, 5.\u2014_And that because of false brethren unawares brought\n in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in\n Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we\n gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of\n the gospel might continue with you._\n\n\nWere some stranger to our religion inquiring what it is to be a\nChristian, there are two quarters from which he might derive his ideas\nof that character. He might draw near to him who is the only perfect\nexpression of Christianity, and when he had sat at the feet of Jesus,\nlistening with hushed heart, and then arisen and joined himself to the\nmeek Prophet of Mercy on his way of Love, he might receive from Christ\nhis impressions of Christianity and catch from the living Master the\ntype of a disciple: or he might turn for information to the Christians\nof the day, selecting for examination the largest and most prominent\nclasses, and so gather from the common specimen his impressions of their\ntemper, their spirit, and their faith. Each of these modes of inquiry\nwould produce a result of Truth; but the one would be a Truth of\nreality, and the other only a Truth of description; the one would\npresent to us what we were seeking, the true idea of a Christian; the\nother would show with what degree of faithfulness Christians had\npreserved the spirit of the original, or whether in the copy, in the\ndistant reflection, the features had been faded, marred, distorted; the\none would furnish us with the great Master\u2019s idea of a Disciple, the\nother would exhibit the Disciple as a representative of the Master, and\nassuming to be his Image to the world; in a word, the one would be\nChrist\u2019s idea of a Christian; the other would be only a Christian\u2019s idea\nof Christ. Oh, thanks be to God for the _written_ Gospel, for the\nEpistles written on men\u2019s hearts, the living transcripts, give us no\nworthy ideas of Christ; and were it not for those silent witnesses which\nspeak from a passionless page, and cannot be made to wear the garb of\nparty, which reflect Christ\u2019s realities, and not man\u2019s ideas, the Image\nof Jesus had long since been irrecoverably lost!\n\nLet us then for a moment place ourselves beside Jesus, and learn from\nthe Christ what it is to be a Christian. I hear him inviting the weary\nand the heavy laden to come and find rest unto their souls. I listen for\nthat doctrine of rest, the faith that gives the sin-bound peace. I hear\nhim speak of God, and they are indeed healing words of peace, intended\nto quell a superstition and a controversy: \u201cGod is a spirit: the hour\ncometh and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in\nspirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him.\u201d[22] I\nhear him speak of Duty: \u201cThe Lord our God is one Lord, and thou shalt\nlove the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and\nwith all thy mind, and with all thy strength: This is the first\nCommandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy\nneighbour as thyself. This do and thou shalt live.\u201d I hear him speak of\nHeaven: \u201cBlessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of\nHeaven. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed\nare the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.\nBlessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness\u2019 sake, for\ntheirs is the kingdom of Heaven.\u201d \u201cThe kingdom of God cometh not with\nobservation, neither shall they say lo here, or lo there, for behold the\nkingdom of God is within you.\u201d[23] I hear him speak of Sin, melted, and\ntransformed into penitence: \u201cTo whom little is forgiven, the same loveth\nlittle. Thy faith hath saved thee. Go in peace. Sin no more, lest a\nworse thing come upon thee.\u201d I hear him speak of DISCIPLESHIP: \u201cHe that\nhath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he\nthat loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and\nwill manifest myself to him.\u201d[24] \u201cHerein is my Father glorified, that\nye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. If ye keep my\ncommandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father\u2019s\ncommandments, and abide in His love. Ye are my friends if ye do\nwhatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants, for the\nservant knoweth not what his Lord doeth: but I have called you friends:\nfor all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto\nyou.\u201d \u201cBy this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have\nlove one to another.\u201d[25]\n\nWe turn now from the words to the life of the great Teacher, in the\nendeavour to get a more definite idea of Duty, Discipleship, and Faith.\nThe character of Jesus is the best, fullest, and truest interpretation\nof the words of Jesus. His life is his own translation of his own\nprecepts into the language of action. We surely cannot be far from the\ntrue sources of Christianity when we first drink his words into our\nhearts, and then follow him with reverent steps and with gazing eyes, to\nwatch his own illustrations of those words, to behold the spirit\nbreathing in the life, and from the fulness of his character to learn\nthe fulness of his precepts. Surely Christ embodied and impersonated his\nown teachings. Surely the life of Christ is undoubted Christianity.\nSurely his character is Christian Duty; and his destiny Christian Faith.\nSurely he knew and exhibited the practical tendencies of his own\ndoctrines; and surely to set him up at the fountain-head of our moral\nbeing, as God\u2019s image to the conscience, and to strive in all things to\nbe like unto him, \u201cwhom we preach, warning every man and teaching every\nman in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ\nJesus,\u201d\u2014cannot be to preach \u201canother gospel,\u201d or to mistake fatally the\nessentials of Discipleship. \u201cIf a man love me, he will keep my words,\nand my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our\nabode with him.\u201d[26] The definition of a Christian, when deduced from\nthe words and the life of the Christ himself, thus comes out to be\u2014one\nwho TRUSTS himself in all things to that God of whom Jesus was the\nimage; and who CONFORMS himself in all things to that will of God of\nwhich Jesus was the perfect expression. \u201cThis is life eternal that they\nmight know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast\nsent.\u201d[27]\n\nTurn we now to a different quarter for an answer to our inquiry what it\nis to be a Christian; from the one Master to the multitude of\nprofessors; from the original image, distinct and bright, to the\ntransmitted reflections, all claiming to be genuine copies; from the\nsingle voice, sweet and clear, to the confusion of jarring tongues; from\nthe pure fountain to the impure streams; from Christ to Christians. I am\nentirely guiltless of the intention of satire, but it is quite\nimpossible to avoid the appearance of it in any attempt to give the\nfeatures of Christianity as they appear in the Christians of the day, in\nthose, that is, who claim to be Christians exclusively; for the tamest\ntruth of description excites ideas of the true Christ, so contrasted,\nthat it has without intention all the effect of sarcasm. Surely a\nstranger to the only true source of our religion, examining its actual\nforms as they exist in the world, and selecting its characteristics from\nthat which is largest and most prominent, would not be guilty of\nmisrepresentation, if he described a Christian as one who was shut up\nwithin the narrowest circle of religious ideas; who identified himself\nand his opinions with absolute Truth; who idolized himself and his sect\nas the only friends of God; who was so unconscious of a liability to\nerr, that he breathed, unknowingly, an atmosphere of infallibility, and\ninsulted the Rights of other men, not more fallible than himself,\nwithout perceiving the invasion;\u2014one so used to arrogate to himself and\nto his own party, all excellence and all truth, that he starts in\nsurprise, innocent of what can be meant, when he is told that he is\npressing on the liberties of other minds, who, with as deep an interest\nas he can have in their own salvation, have searched into these things\nand read differently the mind of God;\u2014as one who regards a few\nmetaphysical propositions, confessedly unintelligible, as the only hope\nof human salvation, and who, in the confidence of this faith, speaks to\nhis fellow men as if he had secret council with God; assumes to be on \u201ca\nreligious level\u201d nearer to the spirit of the Most High, who, on that\nmore elevated standing, drops more readily into his heart communications\nfrom Heaven;\u2014and who, when he pays any regard to other men at all, looks\ndown upon them from an eminence; assumes as proved their ignorance,\ntheir errors, and their sins; insults their opinions; treats with no\nbrotherly respect the convictions of Truth and the dictates of\nConscience which to them are Voices from the living God; denies that\nthey have equal zeal for truth, or equal ability to discover it; scoffs\nat the idea of religious equality, and looks amazed when others tell\nhim, though it be in apostolic words, that they will not \u201cgive place by\nsubjection, no, not for an hour;\u201d and finally adds mockery to insult and\nwrong, by telling the men whom he so treats, that all this is Christian\naffection, and an interest in their souls.\n\nIt is painful to put last in order, not the true, but the untrue idea of\na Christian, and therefore to set us right, I will present the original\npicture again in apostolic words. \u201cHereby we do know that we know him if\nwe keep his commandments.\u201d \u201cWhoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the\nlove of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.\u201d \u201cIf ye know\nthat he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is\n_born_ of him.\u201d \u201cLet no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is\nrighteous, even as he is righteous.\u201d[28]\n\nThere is still another way of bringing into comparison the spirit of\nChrist and the character of that Christianity which assumes to itself to\nbe the only fruit of his spirit. We can compare the existing state of\nthe Christian world with the expectations of Jesus, with that state of\nthings to which he looked forward as the Reign of his spirit, the\nKingdom of the true Gospel upon earth. If the Christianity that prevails\nhas not realized the expectations of Christ, then its practical tendency\nis evidently not in the direction of the true Gospel; it is, to the\nextent of the failure, a departure from the power and character of the\noriginal spirit. Christ could not be mistaken about the proper\noperations of his own spirit; and the system whose operations do not\nfulfil his promises cannot contain a full and perfect ministration of\nhis spirit. And this argument will amount to something like a\ndemonstration, if we can show, first, that this system which has failed\nto realize the expectations of Jesus as to the condition of his Church,\nhas, for large tracts both of time and space, been the prevailing\ninfluence of the Christian world, with nothing to obstruct it, so that\nit has had full and free scope to work its own works, and to manifest\nits own spirit; and secondly, if we can point to _the something_ in that\nsystem, which manifestly has caused it to be destructive of those hopes,\nand to work counter to this expectation of Christ.\n\nThere is no sublimer idea of Christianity than its delightful vision of\na UNIVERSAL CHURCH; the kingdom of the Gospel becoming a kingdom of\nHeaven on earth; uniting the nations by a spiritual bond; in every heart\namong the families of men kindling the same solemn ideas, and opening\nthe same living springs; subduing the differences of class and country\nby the affinities of worship, by kindred images of Hope, of Duty, and of\nGod, becoming a meeting place for the thoughts of men; including every\nform and variety of mind within that spiritual faith which leads onwards\nto the infinite, yet presents distinct ideas to the heart of childhood,\nand feeds the sources of an infant\u2019s prayer; assembling in their\ncountless homes the Brotherhood of man around the spiritual altar of one\nFather and one God, whose presence is a Temple wherein all are gathered,\nand whose Spirit, dwelling in each heart, meets and returns the seekings\nof all his children.\n\nSuch was the Christian vision of the CHURCH UNIVERSAL, of the union of\nall good men in the worship of one God under the leadership of his\nImage, growing up into him in all things, which is the head, even\nChrist.\n\nSuch was the sublime idea that filled the mind of Jesus when he looked\nforward in heavenly faith to the reign of his spirit, the kingdom of his\nGospel in the world. \u201cOther sheep I have which are not of this fold;\nthem also I must bring and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be\none fold and one shepherd.\u201d[29] \u201cNeither pray I for these alone, but for\nthem also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all\nmay be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also\nmay be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.\u201d\nSuch also was the magnificent and healing view that filled the hearts of\nthe Apostles when they protested against burdens being laid upon\nChrist\u2019s freemen; rebuked the first manifestations of a sectarian\nChristianity; and would acknowledge no distinctions between those who\nwere walking in the steps of the same master, and moulding their souls\ninto the same similitude of Christ. \u201cThere is one body, and one spirit,\neven as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith,\none baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through\nall, and in you all. But unto every one is given grace, according to the\nmeasure of the gift of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the\nfaith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto\nthe measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: from whom the whole\nbody fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint\nsupplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every\npart, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying of itself in\nlove.\u201d[30] \u201cNow there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit. And\nthere are differences of administration, but the same Lord. And there\nare diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all\nin all.\u201d \u201cFor as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the\nmembers of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.\nFor by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews\nor Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink\ninto one spirit.\u201d \u201cThat there should be no schism in the body; but that\nthe members should have the same care one for another. And whether one\nmember suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be\nhonoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ\nand members in particular.\u201d[31]\n\nSuch is the Christian and Apostolic view of the Church of Christ on\nearth. Turn we now to the actual Church. Is it a realization of this\ndivine image of the mind of Jesus? Is there in it a unity of spirit in\nthe bond of peace? Do the branches abide in the Vine? Do the scattered\nand warring members make one spirit in one body? Alas! could there be a\nsadder mockery, than to pretend to seek in our prevalent Christianity\nany features corresponding to this divine conception?\n\nTrinitarian Christianity is founded upon a principle directly opposed to\nthe realization of this prospect and vision of Jesus. It declares that\nthere shall be no unity but a doctrinal unity. It rejects that moral and\nspiritual union which is the bond of peace, and which, as subsisting\namong his followers, Christ looked forward to as the great proof to the\nworld that God had sent him;\u2014and it declares that there shall be no\nbonds but the bonds of Creeds. It breaks up the Christian world into\ndistinct and mutually repulsive parties; each claiming\u2014not to be\ndisciples of the life of Christ\u2014not to be one with him as he was one\nwith God, in will, aspiration, and purpose of soul, but\u2014to be in\npossession of the exact doctrinal ideas which constitute a saving faith,\nof a certain intellectual process of belief, through which alone God\nconducts the sinner into Heaven, and without which no soul, whatever may\nbe its spiritual oneness with Jesus and his Father, can be saved. Now it\nis clear that a system such as this, requiring not a unity of spirit,\nbut a unity of opinion, cannot be that primitive Gospel, which,\naccording to the expectation of the Saviour, was to gather all the\nbelievers under Heaven into a universal Church. Trinitarianism, as a\nsystem, does not, and cannot, work out these fruits of the spirit of\nChrist. It does not gather, but scatters; it does not collect into one;\nbut disunites, severs, and casts out. It disowns all harmony but the\nharmony of metaphysical conceptions. It has no wider way of salvation,\nno broader bond of peace, no more open road to Heaven, than a\ncoincidence of ideas, on the essence of the Deity, the mysterious modes\nof the divine existence; a person in whom there are two natures; and\nthen, again, a nature in which there are three persons; and this as\npreparatory to a moral process, in which a penalty is paid by\nsubstitution for a guilt incurred by substitution. I ask not now whether\nthese ideas are true; whether they are realities of God\u2019s mind; but I\nask, Have they ever been, or can they ever be, bonds of union for a\nChurch Universal? Are these the grand affinities towards which all\nhearts shall be drawn; and which, breaking down our minor distinctions\ninto less than nothing, shall bind together the families of man in the\nfellowship of one spirit? You all know, every man knows, that a\nuniformity of opinion is an impossibility; that God has nowhere provided\nthe means for producing it; that nowhere does it exist; no\u2014not in that\nclosely-fenced and strictly-articled Church, whose bosom at this very\nhour is rent by heresies, even as, throughout all her history, they\nshattered the unity and split the bosom even of infallible Rome; and\nseeing, therefore, that there is no such doctrinal unity on earth, if\nJesus understood his own gospel, this cannot be the oneness with his\nFather and himself, to which he looked forward as the Reign of his\nSpirit in the world. And yet the Trinitarian Church of England, one of\nwhose Ministers when, on a late occasion, denouncing Unitarian heresies,\ntook the opportunity to give the relief of expression to his horror of\nother heresies in the bosom of his own communion, and openly denounced\nas heretics ordained clergymen and dignitaries of his own Church,\u2014this\nChurch of England, notwithstanding all this, still claims to be the\ngreat bulwark, among Protestants, of the unity of the Faith, the\ndignified rebuker of schisms and sects; and still offers to the harassed\nand distracted, to the rent and divided body of Christ, a creed\u2014and what\na creed!\u2014as the only bond of agreement and of peace.\n\nEither, then, Christ miscalculated the workings of his own spirit, when\nhe contemplated a Universal Church as its natural fruit; or\nTrinitarianism, when it destroys the spiritual union of the Church, a\nmoral oneness with Jesus and with his Father, by its demand for a\ndoctrinal conformity, is, to the extent of this operation, an\nAntichrist, a departure from the healing and uniting spirit of the true\nGospel. Let me, for the sake of distinctness, put you in possession of\nthe exact difference between the fundamental principles of Unitarian and\nTrinitarian Christianity. To a Unitarian the essentials of Christianity\nare; that a man takes into his heart the moral image of Jesus, and loves\nit supremely, and trusts it absolutely as his example of perfection, and\nhis leader up to God. If I was asked to define a Christian, I would say\nthat he was one who took Jesus Christ as he is presented in the gospels,\nas his best idea of Duty, and his best programme of Heaven; the very\nideal of the religious spirit and life; the perfect image of God; and\nthe perfect model for man. These are a Unitarian\u2019s essentials of\nChristianity. To a Trinitarian the essentials of a Christian are these:\nnot that he receive Jesus as his image of God, his model of Duty, and\nhis type of Heaven,\u2014but that he receive a certain metaphysical Creed,\ncertain doctrinal ideas, which \u201cexcept he keep whole and undefiled,\nwithout doubt he shall perish everlastingly.\u201d Now, a union of all\n_hearts_, under the leadership of one Christ, and in the love and\nreverence of one moral Spirit, is a possible thing; but a union of all\n_minds_ in the reception of certain metaphysical ideas which the minds\nof Milton, of Newton, and of Locke, could not find, either in Reason or\nin Scripture, is not a possible thing: and therefore my first assertion\nof the \u201cpractical importance\u201d of the Unitarian Controversy is to this\neffect:\u2014that Trinitarianism, by its fundamental principle of a doctrinal\nconformity, a principle not known to the true gospel, is the originating\ncause of all religious disunion and strife; the creator of all schisms,\nsects, and heresies; the great and effectual antagonist of any\nrealization of that sublimest and most heavenly conception of the\nSaviour\u2014a Universal Church, cherishing the same Hopes, studying the same\nModels, trusting to the same Image of God to guide us to His presence,\u2014a\nunion of all hearts, seeking to be one, even as God and Christ were one,\nin the fellowship of the same spirit. This is my heaviest indictment\nagainst the practice of Trinitarianism, that it destroys Christ\u2019s\ndelightful image of his Spirit\u2019s Reign on earth, and creates in its\nplace\u2014what shall I say?\u2014the strife and disunion, the fears of the weak\nand the arrogance of the coarse; the wranglings of creeds and the\nabsence of love; the heat of controversy and the chill of religion,\nthrough the midst of which we are now passing.[32]\n\nTrinitarianism has long been the prevailing influence of the Christian\nworld; it holds all the religious power of these countries in its own\nhands; there is nothing external to prevent its carrying into existence\nits own ideas; and if in the day of its power it has not wrought the\nworks and realized the hopes of Christ, it must be because it has worked\nin another spirit, and preached another gospel; adding to the primitive\n\u201cglad tidings\u201d of \u201crepentance and remission of sins,\u201d other conditions\nwhich are not glad tidings, and which are not Christ\u2019s. Now not only can\nwe point to the actual failure in proof of the absence of the true\nspirit, _but we can lay our finger upon the element of mischief_, and\ndemonstrate it to be the parent of the evils we deplore, the frustrator\nof the hope of Christ. Trinitarianism, by demanding a doctrinal\nassimilation, an intellectual instead of a spiritual union, and\nwielding, as it does, the prevailing influences of religion, has, in the\nday of its power, forcibly prevented the formation of that universal\nChurch which Christ contemplated. And until it drops from its essentials\nthe doctrinal oneness, and substitutes in its place a spiritual oneness\nderived from obedience to God as he is manifested in Jesus, it cannot\ngather into one fold, and constitute the kingdom of Heaven on Earth.\n\nNow let us suppose, for a moment, that this doctrinal conformity is\nrequired by Christianity, and that not TRUST in Christ, but belief of\nCreeds, constitutes acceptance of the gospel. Then comes the question,\nand a most perplexing one it would be, how can any one be sure that the\ncreed he trusts to contains exactly the ideas to which God has annexed\nsafety? Supposing creeds to be the essentials of Christianity, then how\ncan any Christian be sure that he has got the true creed? I can easily\nconceive with what fear, with what apprehensions of mind, with what a\nparalyzed intellect, and unconfiding heart, sinking the love of truth in\nselfish terrors, a man trembling under the conviction that his\neverlasting safety depended upon his reception of a doctrine, would come\nto the examination of the Scriptures; I can well conceive how his\njudgment would be gradually bereft of all calm and trustful\nindependence; how his fears and passions would slavishly draw him over\nto whatever party predominated in intolerance, and in the confidence of\ntheir assumptions, frightening him into the belief that safety was with\n_them_, for that if creeds were the essentials of salvation, the more of\ncreed the more of certainty;\u2014but after all this sacrifice has been\nsubmitted to, after terror has wrought its work, and the intellect has\nsurrendered to the passions\u2014after the man in the pursuit of selfish\nsafety has given up his Reason and his free mind, and stooped his neck\nto the yoke,\u2014I cannot see how in any way he has altered or bettered his\nposition; I cannot see how he has attained the end for which he has paid\nsuch degrading wages; how he can be certain that he has got the creed\nwhich ensures salvation;\u2014and after having sold his birthright, parted\nwith his free soul for the sake of a safety built upon doctrines, he\ndiscovers at last, _unless he is a Roman Catholic_, that he has no\nabsolute certainty of these doctrines being the true ones; he is still\nleft in doubt whether after all he is in possession of the particular\ncreed that works salvation\u2014whether, after all, he has not bowed down his\nsoul for nothing. If God requires from men certain doctrinal convictions\nas necessary to salvation, then how can any man be sure that he has got\nthe true convictions? Even the verbal and plenary inspiration of the\nBible, if we believed in it, which we do not, would not relieve a\nProtestant Trinitarian of this difficulty: for those who agree in\nbelieving the Bible in every word inspired, can draw from it very\ndifferent meanings, as none have reason to know better than the divines\nof the English Church.\n\nI am tempted to give a few specimens of the differences between existing\ndivines of the Church of England on the very points of accusation\nagainst Unitarianism. You are aware of the place that the Atonement\nholds in Evangelical preaching. Listen then to the new party in the\nChurch, the leaders of which are, one of them, the Oxford Professor of\nHebrew and a Canon of Christ Church, and the others distinguished both\nin the Church and in the University. These are their words:\u2014\u201cWe now\nproceed to the consideration of a subject most important in this point\nof view,\u2014the prevailing notion of bringing forward the Atonement\nexplicitly and prominently on all occasions. It is evidently quite\nopposed to what we consider the teaching of Scripture, nor do we find\nany sanction for it in the gospels. _If_ the Epistles of St. Paul\n_appear_ to favour it, it is only at first sight.\u201d[33] Again, you are\naware of the importance attached to the doctrine of Justification by\nFaith, that test, as it is described, of a rising or a falling church.\nListen then once more to one of the heads of the Oxford party:\u2014\u201cThe\ninstrument of our righteousness, I would maintain, is _holy baptism_.\n_Our Church_ considers it to be the _Sacrament of Baptism_; _they_ (the\nReformers) consider it to be _Faith_. ***Christians are justified by the\ncommunication of an inward, most sacred, and most mysterious gift. From\nthe very time of baptism they are temples of the Holy Ghost.*** Faith,\nthen, being the appointed representative of baptism, derives its\nauthority and virtue from that which it represents. It is justifying\n_because of baptism_; it is the faith of the baptized, of the\nregenerate, of the justified. Faith does not precede justification; but\njustification precedes faith, and makes it justifying.\u201d[34] I must quote\none other sentiment of this Oxford section of the English Protestant\nChurch, respecting the MASS:\u2014\u201cAt the time of the Reformation, we, in\ncommon with all the West, possessed the rite of the Roman Church, or St.\nPeter\u2019s Liturgy. This _sacred_, and _most precious_ monument, then of\nthe Apostles, our reformers received whole and entire from their\npredecessors, and _they mutilated the tradition_ of 1500 years.\u201d[35] Now\nit only bears out my argument that this movement of Trinitarianism is in\nthe direction of Popery.\n\nSuch being the doctrinal uniformity of the Church of England, where then\nis the infallible authority that is to put me in possession of those\ndoctrinal ideas, that absolute truth, without which I cannot be saved?\nHaving got an inspired Bible, I still want an inspired Interpreter, who,\nout of all the possible meanings that the words will bear, will set\naside all the wrong ones, and select that one interpretation which, in\nthe shape of doctrine, God has made the source of safety. Where is this\nInterpreter to be found? Where am I to look for this infallible\nauthority, which is to explain to me the exact sense of the Bible,\nwithout which I cannot be saved, and to acquaint me with the very ideas\nof God? Is it the Church of England that is to do me this important\nservice; to be my infallible guide through the possible meanings of\nwords; and to present me with the one creed that will operate as a charm\nfor my salvation? Oh no! for the Church is Protestant, and recognizes\nthe sufficiency of Scripture, and the right of free inquiry, and rails\nat the Pope because he denies these things. But still I ask, if I cannot\nbe saved without this doctrinal truth, where am I to find it, and how\ncan I feel certain that I have it? A Roman Catholic would relieve me of\nmy difficulties. He would treat me more kindly, and with an ampler\nprovision for my security, than do the divines of the English Church.\nThey tell me that my salvation depends upon my having the true creed,\nand then they leave me in the dark, without any means of ascertaining\nwhat the true creed is, and whether I have it or not. The Roman\nCatholics, on the other hand, seeing that exact truth is necessary, take\ncare to provide for me an infallible Judge of truth. They are merciful\nin the accuracy of their provisions for relieving my fears, when\ncompared with the worse than Egyptian inconsistency, the contradictory\ntyranny of my Protestant taskmasters. The Egyptians asked for bricks,\nand provided no straw. The Church of England asks for absolute Truth,\nand provides no judge of Truth. And this it does in the face of the fact\nthat, not even to its own clergymen is the inspired Bible a source of\ncertainty: that three distinctly marked divisions now constitute the\nUnity of the Church, and dwell, not peaceably, together.\n\nTo any man, then, who believes that doctrinal convictions are the\nessentials of Christianity, there is no escape from Popery. Out of\nPopery, there is no Church that professes to have interpreted Scripture\nwith infallible certainty. If I am to be saved by a true creed, show me\nthe divinely appointed tribunal, and let me bow down before it. But do\nnot tell me, unless you are a Roman Catholic, that I must be saved by\nTruth, and that your Truth is the one to which I must bow down my soul,\nor perish everlastingly. One man\u2019s Truth is as good as another man\u2019s\nTruth, unless there is a divinely appointed tribunal to judge between\nthem.[36] Where is this tribunal? I know it is supposed to be in the\nRoman Catholic Church; and I know that the English Church, if it\npossessed such a tribunal, could not speak with a whit more confidence\nthan it does. I enter it then as my second indictment against the\npractice of Trinitarianism, that by building the Church of Christ upon\nthe foundation of a doctrinal uniformity, it is an ally of Popery; that\nif it was consistent with itself, it would be Popish altogether; and\nthat this is not a mere tendency but actually taking effect, is\nmanifested in that Church which is most open to the temptations of\nspiritual ambition, by its gradual and lately accelerating movements in\nthe direction of Roman Catholicism. I know that the Evangelicals\ndenounce the Oxford modification of Popery, but they are both of one\nspirit, and neither will find their natural issues until they fall into\nthe arms of the infallible Church, and leave whatever Protestantism\nstill remains in the land, unencumbered by their presence.\n\nListen to some of the Clergymen of the Church of England, and tell me,\ncan you distinguish their tones from the tones of Popery? I have lately\ndone so. I heard this language, I mean language to this effect:\n\u201cUnitarians think our pity insulting, because they are not conscious of\nrequiring of it: but when Jesus wept over Jerusalem, was his pity an\ninsult to those who had no sympathy with the sources of his tears?\u201d So\nthat we are left to infer, first, that he who uses this language knows\nour need as fully as Jesus did, when amid the brief acclaim of his\nfollowers, he forgot the momentary triumph, and his sympathy gushed out\nin tears wept over the doomed city\u2014and, secondly, that the speculative\nerrors of Unitarians, supposing them to be such, require tears of the\nsame description as did the crimes of Jerusalem. Did Jesus ever weep for\nerrors of opinion; over Samaritan heresies for instance? \u201cYe know not\nwhat manner of spirit ye are of. The Son of Man is not come to destroy\nmen\u2019s lives; but to save them.\u201d\n\nAgain I heard, in substance, this language, and could not distinguish it\nfrom Popery. \u201cChristianity must have its essentials; these to us are the\nDeity of Christ; the corruption of human nature; and the remedy of a\nvicarious sacrifice. The Unitarians who deny these points we therefore\ndo not hold to be Christians, and not believing them to be so, we\nplainly tell them so.\u201d And accordingly they treat us as if we were not.\nNow I acknowledge that this is entirely consistent upon their part. They\nmake the essentials of Christianity to consist in doctrinal ideas, and\nconsequently, whether they choose it or not, and almost without knowing\nit, they are forced to assume the tones of Popish Infallibility, and to\ndecide authoritatively, by their metaphysical standard, who are\nChristians and who are not. I am quite aware that this is not\nintentional arrogance on their part, but a necessity in which their\nfirst principles involve them. They cannot begin with a Salvation\nthrough creeds, without ending in Popery; and of all the forms of\nPopery, that which professes Protestantism, is the most offensive.\n\nIt was a fresh proof to me of the authoritative character which\nTrinitarianism by necessity assumes, when I heard naturally and\nunconsciously the same kind of doctrinal compactness ascribed to\nourselves, as if a church could not exist without a fixed creed; and\nquotations from all sorts of minds brought forward, without a suspicion,\nbut they were all received among us as recognized standards of opinion.\nThere were Arians and Humanitarians, Necessarians and Libertarians, and\none foreign writer, who, as I am informed, was no Christian at all\u2014and\nall these were appealed to as standards of Unitarianism. Now we\ncertainly glory in it that our religion does not destroy our\nindividuality; that in consistency with the great principle of Christ\nbeing our Leader, we tolerate freely intellectual differences, and\nencourage the virtues of free thought and speech; but it is a little\nunfortunate, and a little unfair, if the fundamental principles of\nUnitarian Theology and Religion are to be answerable, with their life,\nfor all the sayings of all the Unitarians from Marcion and the Ebionites\ndown to the present day. Take one form of Unitarianism as it is\nrepresented by Priestley; or take another and better form of it as it is\nrepresented by Channing; but do not confuse in one two minds so\nradically different, and call a combination which never had existence,\nthe Unitarian Faith. It was owing to this Popish idea that all Religions\nmust have a doctrinal compactness, that I heard a sentiment of\nPriestley\u2019s, which I entirely disown, imputing idolatry to Trinitarians,\nascribed to all Unitarians. If Unitarians worshipped Christ not\nbelieving him to be God _they_ would be idolaters: but Trinitarians\nworshipping one God in three persons, and still believing him to be one,\nare as certainly not Polytheists. Again I heard the Improved Version\nstated to be the Unitarian Bible: and that the Unitarians not finding\ntheir favourite doctrines in the actual Bible made a Bible for\nthemselves. Now let it be known that this new Bible is simply an English\nVersion of the New Testament having for its basis or model a translation\nmade by an Archbishop of the United Church of England and Ireland, a\ncircumstance which we were not told; that it is founded upon the\ntranslation of Archbishop Newcome; that it is not used in Unitarian\nworship and possesses no authority amongst us except such as it may\nderive from its just merits, which are not generally rated by us as very\nhigh: and lastly, that no one is answerable for it except its\neditors,[37] and not even they any longer than they choose. And yet, one\nwould suppose, that the Church of England divines might be sufficiently\nconversant with varieties of opinion, even in a church more strictly\nbound than ours, and ought not to fall into the error of taking any book\nwhatever, or any man whatever, as the standards of a faith. With all our\ndifferences I am not aware that our bond of union covers wider varieties\nof opinion on the great questions of Theology and Criticism, than those\nwhich separate Bishop Marsh, Bishop Butler of Durham, Archdeacon Paley,\nto say nothing of the older and nobler school of Sherlock and\nBarrow,[38] Tillotson and Taylor, from the modern Evangelical Divines;\nand both from the Oxford approach to Popery, a late movement in the\ndirection which we have now endeavoured to show is the destined path of\nCreeds.\n\nBut I shall be asked, has Christianity no essentials, and may a man\nbelieve anything he likes, and yet be a Christian? I answer that the\nessential belief of a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ is the\nmoral image of God; that to be one with him is to be one with his Father\nand become fitted for that Heaven in harmony with which his mind was\nmade; and that any doctrinal ideas which a man can hold in consistency\nwith this act of spiritual allegiance, he may hold, and yet be a\nChristian.\n\nAnd yet we do not hold that all doctrines are indifferent, for we think\nthat some are nearer than others to the great realities of God; that\nsome, more than others, are in harmony with the mind of Christ; that\nsome more than others give us solemn and inspiring views of the infinite\nSpirit; worthy conceptions of the mission and offices of Jesus, and\nelevating sympathies with his character; sublime and true ideas of Duty;\npeaceful yet awful convictions of the retributions of God; and therefore\nare more effectual to build us up in the oneness with his Father and\nwith himself, which is the sublimest aim of Christ. Other views may\noperate powerfully on those who hold them; but as long as they do not\naccord with our best ideas of perfection, with our noblest views of the\ncharacter of Jesus and of God, they cannot confer upon _us_ that\nsalvation which we take to be the essence of the Gospel, assimilation to\nthe infinite Spirit as we know him through his Image, perfect Trust in\nour heavenly Father, as he is manifested in Christ.\n\nI warn you against an imposture that is practised upon you, not\nknowingly but ignorantly, in the use that is made of such expressions\nas, \u201csalvation by faith and not by works,\u201d and St. Paul\u2019s anathema on\nthose who preached another gospel, which he declared was not another\n_gospel_, that is, that it did not contain \u201c_glad tidings_,\u201d and was\ntherefore no gospel at all. Now salvation by \u201cfaith\u201d does not mean\nsalvation by doctrines, but by TRUST in Jesus Christ as our spiritual\nMaster, God\u2019s representative to man; and exemption from \u201cworks\u201d does not\nmean exemption from moral excellence, but exemption from all the works\nand conditions of the Jewish Law, from which, with all the bondage of\nits sacrifices, services and exactions, the Gospel, as offered by\nChrist, was the glad tidings of deliverance. It is on this account that\nSt. Paul denounces any man who preaches another gospel, that is, who\nadds to it unspiritual conditions which would bring men again under the\nyoke of the Law, and change the glad tidings of Liberty into the burdens\nof a woeful superstition. \u201cBehold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be\ncircumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.\u201d To go back to the bondage\nof the law, is to make the spiritual liberty of Christ\u2019s freemen of no\navail. Now the scriptural knowledge that is necessary for these\nexplanations is of the scantiest measure; that Faith means moral Trust,\nspiritual acceptance and confidence; that works frequently mean, when\nused by Paul, not Christian holiness but Jewish Ceremonies; and that the\nGospel means not a scheme of doctrines but the glad Message of\ndeliverance from every yoke of bondage: and yet the false meanings that\nlurk under these words, are again and again thrust forward as Scripture\nevidence for doctrines entirely alien to their spirit. Elsewhere, would\nthe anathema of the noble-minded Apostle be ready to descend upon all\nother additions as well as Jewish ones, to Christ\u2019s gospel of spiritual\nliberty?[39]\n\nI have contrasted the fundamental principles of Trinitarian and\nUnitarian Christianity, and, without entering into their peculiar\ntenets, I have shown that the practical tendency of Trinitarianism is to\ndisunite the Church of Christ; to lead to Popery as the only known\nprovision for doctrinal certainty; and to preach \u201canother gospel,\u201d\nwhich, to us at least, is no gospel at all, and has defaced the grace\nand glory of the original message. I have now to proceed to the\nparticular views in which these principles respectively issue when\napplied to the examination of the Scriptures, and to contrast the\npractical tendencies of the distinguishing doctrines of Unitarian and\nTrinitarian Christianity. The Unitarians think that Trinitarianism, with\nall its dependent ideas, is not a system which the Scriptures would of\ntheir own accord naturally suggest to a free mind, examining them\nwithout prejudice or fear, in a spirit of confidingness in God and in\ntruth; and that its peculiar set of notions are chiefly arrived at by\ninferences drawn from the Scriptures in the spirit of preconceived\ntheories, and under the intimidation of priest-taught fears. We\nrecognize nothing but the priestly spirit in all those systems whose cry\nis, \u201cunless you believe this and unless you believe that, you cannot be\nsaved;\u201d and acknowledging no salvation but that of a spirit morally one\nwith God and with his Christ, salvation from superstition, and salvation\nfrom sin, and salvation from unconfiding fears; and believing that all\ntruth is one and from God, we confidently appeal, in confirmation of our\nscriptural soundness, to that great and independent test of Truth which\nis furnished by the moral tendencies of doctrines. I shall aim to show\nthat Unitarianism has more power both with the understanding and the\nheart; that the Intellect which Trinitarianism has no resource but to\ndisparage, and the Reason at which I lately heard, doubtless not without\ngood reasons, such melancholy scoffs (for what can be more melancholy\nthan to hear a man scoffing at Reason, and attempting to _reason_ men\ninto a contempt for Reason?), that this Reason, our ray of the divine\nmind, _we_ enlist on the side of our religion and of our souls;\u2014that the\nspiritual nature which Trinitarianism insults and scorns we contemplate\nwith trembling reverence as made for holiness and for God;\u2014and that the\npersonal holiness and love, the Christ-like spirit and the Christ-like\nlife to which Trinitarianism assigns a secondary place, and in\ndisparagement of which it can stumble, as happened on a late occasion,\non a condemnation of the Scripture law, that every man shall be judged\naccording to his works[40]\u2014this holy living and dying _we_ set forth as\nthe very salvation of the sons of God, the very way of spiritual safety\ntrodden by the Forerunner and the Saviour, even Christ the righteous.\n\nI desire to be understood to affirm nothing about the actual characters\nof those who hold views which I think unfriendly to the soul. The\ntendencies of opinions may be counteracted: but still wherever there is\nerror, that is, wherever there is anything not conformed to the mind of\nGod, _there_ there is, to the extent of its agency, a principle of evil,\nor at least of misdirection, at the fountain of our life, though there\nmay also be sweetening influences which are strong enough to neutralize\nits power. Trinitarianism does not produce all its natural fruits,\nthough it produces some that are sufficiently deplorable, because it is\nkept in check by the better principles of our nature, with which it is\nnot in alliance. It is vain to pretend that a man\u2019s belief has no\ninfluence upon his life and upon his soul. The belief of a man is that\nwhich animates his sentiments, and peoples his imagination, and provides\nobjects for his heart;\u2014and if he bears no impress of it upon his\ncharacter, it is only because it forms no real part of his spiritual\nexistence, it is not written upon the living tablets of the mind.\nBelieving then that our views of Truth, when they become a part of our\nliving thoughts, woven into the spiritual frame and the daily food of\nthe mind, _do_ exercise a controlling influence over the whole being, it\nis our ardent desire to discover those views of the Gospel which put\nforth most mightily this power over the heart, and we openly confess,\nthat it is because we believe it possesses an unrivalled efficacy to\nsave the soul, by bringing it into a holy and trustful union with God\nand Christ, that we value unspeakably, and adhere to through all\ntemptation and scorn, the faith that is in us. To us it is the light, as\nit is the gift of God, and we will not abandon it, so long as it points\nConscience to the things that are before; leads us up to God through the\nlove and imitation of his Christ; speaks with heavenly serenity of grand\nand tranquillizing truths in moments of trial: and true to our spiritual\nconnections with Heaven, suffers our sins to have no peace, and our\nvirtues no fears.\n\nI shall endeavour, briefly but distinctly, to bring out the prominent\npoints of difference between Unitarian and Trinitarian Christianity, in\ntheir moral aspects.\n\nAnd, first, Unitarianism alone puts forth the great view that the moral\nand spiritual character of the mind itself is its own recompense, its\nown glory, its own heaven; and that this harmony with God and with his\nChrist is not the means of salvation only, but salvation itself.\nUnitarianism alone receives the spiritual view of Christ that the\nkingdom of Heaven is within us; and works not for outward wages, but to\nmake the inward soul a holy temple for the Spirit of God; that through\nits purified affections Jesus, our best type of Heaven, may shed his own\npeace, and that he and his Father may be able to love us, and come unto\nus, and make their abode with us. Now you are aware that this qualifying\nof ourselves for Heaven through heavenly frames of mind, is so prominent\na part of our faith, that it is actually converted into a charge against\nus. I heard the Unitarians charged with a want of gospel humility for\nregarding holy affections and a Christ-like life as the substance of the\nhope of Heaven; and I thought on the words of the Apostle\u2014\u201cThe kingdom\nof God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.\u201d[41]\nThis is not the salvation so loudly vaunted by Trinitarianism. It\nassigns another office to Christ than that of leading men to God through\na resemblance to himself. Jesus stands to Trinitarians not principally\nas the Inspirer of virtue, the quickener of holiest affections, the\nguide of the heaven-bound spirit; but as bearing on his own person the\npunishment due to their sins, and as performing in his own person the\nrighteousness that is imputed to them, and being transferred, by an act\nof faith, makes good their claim to Heaven. Now these notions of Heaven\nregard it as so much property, which one person may purchase and\ntransfer to another. Christ, by an act of self-sacrifice, becomes the\npurchaser of Heaven, and gives a right of settlement in the blessed land\nto every one who consents to regard his death as a substitution for his\nown punishment, and his righteousness as a substitution for his own\nvirtues. There is no flattering unction that could be laid to the soul,\nno drug to stupefy its life, that could more thoroughly turn it away\nfrom the spiritual purposes of Jesus.[42] He lived that men might know\ntheir own nature, and work out its glory for themselves. He lived that\nhe might rescue that nature from low views of its duties and its powers,\nby showing humanity in the image of God. He bore his cross that men\nmight look to Calvary and behold the moral heroism of the meekest heart\nwhen it trusts in God; with what serenity a filial faith can pass\nthrough the vicissitudes of severest trial, and take the cup from the\nhand of a Father, though he presents it from out the darkest cloud of\nhis providence. He died, because Death crossed his path of Duty, and not\nto turn aside was part of his loyalty to the Spirit of Truth, \u201cfor this\ncause was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I\nshould bear witness unto the truth;\u201d\u2014he died that earth and heaven might\nunite their influences on the human soul treading an uninterrupted path\nto God, that its light might come from beyond the grave, and its hope\nfrom the peace of a world that is never troubled; and yet, alas! for the\nperversion\u2014men are found to stand beneath the cross, and so far to\nmistake the spirit of the celestial sufferer, as to appropriate, to\ntransfer to themselves, by an act of faith, its moral character, and to\ncall themselves the redeemed of Christ. Surely there is a \u201cpractical\nimportance\u201d in the Unitarian controversy, if it warns men against these\nnotions of substitution, these unspiritual views of Heaven and Christ.\nThe worst of all delusions is that which turns us away from inward\nholiness, inward qualifications for Heaven, and holds out to our too\nready grasp some foreign, some adventitious, and extrinsic hope. It is\nright that we should rely on God, for his strength is our strength, and\nhis mercy _our_ supporting hope; it is right that we should love and\nlook unto Jesus, for his influences are our spiritual wealth, and his\npath our bright and beaming way;\u2014but where in Heaven or earth are we to\nrest at last, but in what God and Christ do for us, in the formed\ncharacter of our own souls?\n\nAnd now shall I be told, that this is claiming Heaven on the ground of\nour own merits? And how often shall we have to repel that false\naccusation? If by this is meant, that we deem our virtues to be\n_deserving_ of Heaven, the charge of insanity might as well be laid\nagainst us, as that infinite presumption; but if it is meant that, to a\nholy spirit, and to a holy life, to a supreme love for the Right, the\nTrue, the Good, _and to these alone_, God, with a love that is infinite,\nhas attached something of the blessedness of his own nature;\u2014then we do\nhold this as the first and brightest of Truths, the very substance of\nthe Gospel, the sublimest lesson of the Saviour\u2019s life, shadowed by his\ndeath, only to be authenticated and glorified by his resurrection and\nascension. I know of nothing so deeply sad as to witness the ministers\nof Christ appealing for support to the lowest parts of human nature\u2014the\nfishers of men casting out their nets, that they may take into the drag\nthe most selfish passions and fears\u2014bribing over to their side the\nterrors and the weaknesses, to which, except through penitence and\nrestoration, Unitarian Christianity dare not offer peace. Trinitarianism\nwill not deal so justly and so strictly with sin. We are speaking of its\ntendencies; not of the forms it sometimes, nay we will say often,\nassumes in the higher and purer order of minds. It is true to the\nweaknesses of men; but false to their strength. It seems to many to save\nthem _in_ their low condition, not _from_ it. It will not meet the soul,\nand tell it that there is no substitute for holiness, and that to move\nguilt from its punishment would be to move God from his throne. It takes\nthat guilty soul, and instead of dealing with it truly, cleansing from\nsin, and pouring in the spirit of the life of Christ, leans it against\nthe Atoning Sacrifice, and the Righteousness that cometh by imputation,\nan unhallowed and unnatural alliance, to make that glorious virtue an\neasy retreat for guilt, and the holy Jesus a \u201cMinister of Sin.\u201d[43]\n\u201cThey have healed the hurt of my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace,\nwhere there is no peace.\u201d[44]\n\nAnd if we value Unitarianism for what we feel to be the efficacy of its\nviews in regard to the offices of Christ, we value it even more, for its\nviews of God, and for the connections it gives us with his spirit. Piety\nis the noblest distinction, the richest happiness, the purest fountain\nof the soul; and we love, without measure, the faith that nurtures it\nmost strongly. We feel our affections to be drawn towards one God and\nFather with a singleness and intensity, that we believe would be\nimpossible, if the heart was to be distributed among three objects, or\ndistracted by a confused conception of a tripersonal God. We boast an\nundivided worship, and an undivided Temple, where all the soul\u2019s\ndevotion centres upon one Father. His spirit was with us when we knew\nnot the power that was exciting our irrepressible joy; and though He has\nled us through his ways of discipline, we knew it was the same hand that\nhad guided our early steps; He has met our souls when they were abroad\nthrough Nature, and touched them with his breathing Spirit; He has\npursued us into our solitudes, and, in our more solemn moments of\npenitence and suffering, He has made us to see light in darkness, mercy\nin trial, and to drink of the deepest fountains of life; His compassion\nhas mercifully cooled the burning shame of our guiltiest confessions,\nand saved us through fear and weakness by heavenly hope; His peace has\ndescended upon all our aspirations, and shielded their feebleness from\nblight and death;\u2014and, throughout this varied experience, there was but\none voice speaking to the heart; the pressure of one hand on the pulses\nof life; one God revealing himself to the spirits of his children.\nWhatever is delightful in the Universe, whatever is pure in earthly joy,\nwhatever is touching in Jesus, whatever is profoundly peaceful in a holy\nspirit, are to us the splendours of one God, the gifts of one Father;\nbonds upon the heart, uniting it to one spiritual and everlasting\nFriend. We do not profess that our Piety has glowed with the intensity\nof these mingling fires, but we feel that there is a power of motive\ndrawing us to the love of one God, which no other Theology may lay claim\nto.\n\nBut the \u201cpractical importance\u201d of our views of God consists not merely\nin that Unity of being, through which all the devotion of the soul is\npoured into one central affection; it affects also the unity of his\nCharacter, the moral perfections of the source of Piety. We reject that\nfaith which represents the moral government of God as a system of\nfavouritism. We meet with nothing in nature to impeach the Impartiality\nof our Heavenly Father. We believe that the same God who sends his sun\nand his rain upon the evil and upon the just, is willing to shed the dew\nof his blessing upon the hearts of all his children. We rejoice to\noverlook the vain and perishable distinctions of time; to believe that\nall the human family, partakers of one spirit, meet in the love of the\nuniversal Father; that God in heaven is no respecter of persons; and\nthat the humblest and most neglected of his children may rise into\nhallowed intercourse with the infinite spirit. We protest with a strong\nabhorrence against the dreadful views which are given of God\u2019s inability\nto forgive, of the Justice of the Father horribly satisfied by the\nsubstitution of the innocent for the sins of the guilty. We profess to\nhave no hope either in time or in eternity, but in the unclouded\ngoodness of Him who sitteth on Heaven\u2019s throne and reigneth overall\u2014and\nif these things may be, and yet God be good, it is a goodness we do not\nunderstand and cannot calculate upon, and the pillars of our faith are\nshaken in all the reliances of futurity. We do not enter now into the\nscriptural evidence for or against these doctrines\u2014that will be done in\nother parts of this course; our present concern is with the question,\nwhich of these views is the most calculated to nourish piety, to kindle\nwithin us a warm, unselfish, and intelligible love of God. We meet in\nthe world the children of one Parent, with the same souls, the same\nhopes, the same capacities for joy; with the same God to comfort their\nsorrows and to guard their happiness; breathing on them the same holy\nand inspiring influences; leading them to the same Saviour, and\nbeckoning them to the same Heaven; and our love for God and our\nfellowship with man thus mingle intimately in the same heart and shed\nthrough it the serene and blissful light of a full, radiant, and\nunclouded Piety. The spiritual influences of Unitarianism thus lead to a\nsupreme love and veneration for God by exhibiting the Holiness, the\nForgivingness, and the all-embracing Impartiality of the Divine\nCharacter, without a stain upon their brightness and their purity.\n\nWe believe that there is in the spirit of these views a peculiar power\nto excite an interest in the souls of our brethren; to give an expansive\nspirit of humanity; to make us feel that we are bound by the holiest of\nties; united in the purposes of one Father; children of the same God,\nand educating for the same destinies. Wherever we cast our eyes they\nfall upon God\u2019s everlasting ones. In the humblest we see the future\nimmortal; and in the proudest we can see no more. We believe that God\nmade every living soul that it might become pure, virtuous and blessed;\nwe believe that his eye of watchful care is never removed from it; we\nbelieve that He never abandons it, that He accompanies it in all its\nwanderings, and that he will ultimately lead it by his own awful yet\nmerciful discipline, in this world or in the next, in safety to\nHimself\u2014and we dare not to scorn the spirit which God is tending and\nwhich He purposes ultimately to save.\n\nAnd with this belief at our hearts, we wonder that there is not more\nheroism in the cause of the human soul; we wonder that the noblest of\nall philanthropy, that which seeks the realization of Christian states\nof character, is so rare among men; that there is so little of a strong\nand yearning love drawing us towards sinning and suffering man; that\nsouls are permitted to slumber and die without an awakening voice; that\nour hearts are not stirred within us when we look to the awful and\nneglected wastes of human ignorance and sin, and reflect that through\neach guilty bosom, and each polluted home there might breathe the purity\nand the peace of Christ. We despair of none. We believe that the\nguiltiest may be turned from their iniquities and saved. We believe that\nGod works by human means and expects our aid. We believe that the fire\nof heaven is still smouldering, and that a spark might light it into\nundying flame; and we are sure that the end of this faith is love\nunwearied, which ought to assume more earnest forms of interest for our\nnature, and to vent itself in purer efforts for its highest good. Others\nmay defend themselves by casting the whole burden upon God; may point in\ndespair to the hopeless condition of man\u2019s heart; wait for fire from\nheaven to come down and stir the sinner\u2019s soul; and having thus \u201clooked\nupon\u201d the moral sufferer may pass by upon the other side; but _with us_\nthere is but one duty; to go to him, to pour the spirit of Jesus into\nhis wounded heart, to lay upon ourselves his burdens, and to toil for\nhis restitution as a brother immortal. The \u201cpractical importance,\u201d then,\nof Unitarianism as contrasted with Trinitarianism is in this\u2014that it\ntends to penetrate our hearts with a deeper spirit of Christian love; to\ngive us hope and interest in our nature; to call out the highest efforts\nof the spirit of humanity; and to supply us with lofty motive for\nemulating the self-sacrifice of Jesus.\n\nWe think, further, that in our views of God, of Christ, and of human\nnature, we have a peculiar encouragement for the personal virtues, a\npeculiar demand for individual holiness. We have already alluded to the\nforce and distinctness with which we teach that the greatest work of\nChrist is in giving inward power, strength of purpose to the soul; and\nthat there is no salvation except where the purity, the freedom, and the\nlove of Heaven are growing in the heaven-bound heart; but we also\nrecognize peculiar claims _upon us_ in the conviction which we hold so\nsacred that our righteous Father has created us with a nature capable of\nknowing and of doing His Will. Others may cast the odium of human sins\nupon human inability, and thus at last throw down their burdens at the\ndoor of their God; but as for _us_, we can only bow our heads in sorrow\nand ask the forgiveness of Heaven. We believe that God has united us by\nno necessity with sin; we deny altogether the incapacity of man to do\nthe will of God; we feel that there are energies within us which, if but\ncalled out into the living strife, would overcome all the resistance of\ntemptation; we hear a deep voice issuing from the soul and witnessed to\nby Christ, calling us to holiness and promising us peace;\u2014and with God\u2019s\nseal thus set upon our nature, and God\u2019s voice thus calling to the\nkindred spirit within, why are we not found farther upon the path of\nChrist, and brightening unto the perfect man?\n\nFor, alas! there is not only energy and holy motive in this lofty\nconviction, there are also the elements of a true and deep humility. If\nthe glory of our souls is marred it is our own work. If the spirit of\nGod is quenched within us, we have ourselves extinguished it. If we have\ngained but little advancement upon Heaven\u2019s way, we have wasted and\nmisdirected immortal powers. Elevation of purpose, and true humility of\nmind, the humility that looks upwards to Christ and God, and bows in\nshame, are thus brought together in the Unitarian\u2019s faith, as they are\nby no other form of Christianity. I know it is said, with a strange\nblindness, that this doctrine of the incapacity of man to know and to do\nthe will of God is rejected by Unitarianism because it rebukes our\npride; but no\u2014it suffers man to be a sinner without hurting his pride;\nit transfers the disgrace from the individual to the race; and that, on\nthe other hand, is the humbling picture which represents our sins not of\nour inheritance but of our choice, the voluntary agent of evil degrading\na spirit made in the image of God, pouring the burning waters of\ncorruption into a frail though noble nature, until the crystal vessel is\nstained and shattered. \u201cPreach unto me smooth things, and prophesy\ndeceits,\u201d is the demand of the less spiritual parts of man, and\nTrinitarianism is certainly the Preacher whose views of sin fall softly\non enervated souls.\n\nWe cannot conclude without alluding, however generally, to the practical\nimportance of our views of the future life. We believe that the fitness\nof the soul for Heaven, its oneness with God and Christ, will form the\nmeasure of its joy; and that the thousand varieties of goodness will\neach be consigned to its appropriate place in the allotments of\nhappiness. We believe that the glory of Heaven will brighten for ever as\nthe character is perfected under the influences of Heaven, and that to\nthis growing excellence there is no limit or end. We believe that even\nin the future there is discipline for the soul; that even for the\nguiltiest there may be processes of redemption; and that the stained\nspirit may be cleansed as by fire. We believe that this view of a strict\nand graduated retribution exerts a more quickening, personal, realizing\npower than that of Eternal torments which no _heart_ believes, which no\nman trembles to conceive; where the iniquity which is to be visited with\nsuch an awful punishment becomes a _shifting line_ which every sinner\nmoves beyond himself; until Heaven itself is profaned, and all its\nsacredness violated and encroached upon by those who feel that it would\nbe infinite injustice to plunge _them_ into an Eternity so unutterably\ndreadful, but who have been taught to believe that to escape this Hell\nis to be sure of Heaven.\n\nNow our present objection to this doctrine of eternal punishment is the\npractical one that it has no moral power. It does not come close enough\nto truth and justice to take a hold upon the conscience, and so instead\nof binding and constraining, it is inoperative and lax. The fact is, it\nis not practically believed. It is too monstrous to be realized. Where,\nwe ask, are the fruits of this appalling doctrine, which is everywhere\npreached? One would suppose that its dreadfulness would keep the tempted\nspirit in constant alarm. I know that it occasions misery to the timid,\nto the sensitive, to the feeble of nerve, that is just to those who\nrequire the purer and gentler influences of religion to give them trust\nin God: but what sinner has it alarmed? what guilty heart has it made\ncurdle with terror? what seared conscience has been scared from evil by\nthe shriek of woe coming up from the depths of the everlasting torture?\nNo; these are not the influences that convert sin. They are not believed\nor realized, and yet they displace from the thoughts those definite\nviews of the future which would have power to move and save the soul.\nThe righteous allotments with which God will award the joys and sorrows\nof the future; the character of the individual mind when it first\nappears for judgment; the value of every moment of present time in\nassigning us our first station in immortality; the exact righteousness\nin which every variety of character shall have its graduated place on\nthe scale of recompense; the appalling thought of every separate spirit\nstanding before God just as the last effort of convulsed nature\ndismissed it from the body;\u2014the trifler in his levity, the drunkard with\nhis idiot look, the murderer with the blood-stains on his soul\u2014and the\nsainted spirit passing on the breath of prayer from the outer to the\ninner Court of God\u2019s presence;\u2014these, the solemn distinctions of that\nawful world, are all lost, because of that common Hell into whose abyss\nunawed Conscience hurls her fears, and then forgets the infinite\ngradations of punishment that still remain to pour dread recompense on\nevil at the award of a retributive God.\n\nThere are some objections urged against these views of the practical\nimportance of Unitarianism to which I must now give brief and emphatic\nanswer.\n\n1. It is said that Unitarianism generates no love to Christ: and the\nreason assigned is, that as we reject the primal curse of original sin,\nwe have not so much to be forgiven, and consequently not equal\nobligation to love; for to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth\nlittle. Now in our view forgiveness is of God, in whom Trinitarians find\nno forgiveness, and Christ is the image of our Father in Heaven, and we\nlove _him_ who leads us into that pure and blissful presence, and in\nwhose face we have the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, full\nof grace and truth. We love Jesus for what he is to our souls, and not\nfor the theological fiction, that he took off a disqualification which\nour God laid on. We love all holy and good beings for the same reasons,\nthat they strengthen in our own nature the springs of goodness and\nunselfish love, and lift us into fellowship with themselves; and\ntherefore we love God supremely, _and next to God_, _him_ who through\nself-devotion and perfect filial trust preserved the moral lineaments of\nHeaven, of a mind harmonized with providence, against the weaknesses and\nthrough the temptations of this humanity, whose tremblings we know so\nwell, and whose fallings away in ourselves from the higher impulses of\nGod have taught us the love of veneration for him who made it bear the\nlikeness of Heaven, and, through its trials and its shrinkings, realized\nperfection. The moral estimate that would proportion our love to Christ,\nnot to his own fitness to inspire love, to the heavenly benevolence that\nbreathed through his own life and death, but to the selfish measure of\nthe outward benefits received, can be equalled in the confusion and\nimpurity of its moral ideas only by another moral judgment pronounced\nupon the same occasion\u2014that the guilt of the Jews, when they crucified\nJesus, must be estimated and measured in proportion as Jesus was man or\nGod. This certainly is quite consistent with the Trinitarian scheme,\nthat guilt can be contracted unknowingly; but who will set right this\nutter ignorance of the primitive ideas of morality? What spectres of the\nthirteenth century rise before us when we listen to these conceptions\u2014of\nGod dying under the hands of his creatures; and of their guilt, by some\nprocess, (not moral, but metaphysical,) becoming infinite because the\nsufferer was infinite, though they knew it not, and believed themselves\nto be crucifying the man Jesus! It is only further proof that the\nAtonement and its allied ideas tends to confuse in the minds that\nreceive it the fundamental perceptions of Right and Wrong.[45]\n\n2. It is said that Unitarianism leads to infidelity: and the proof\nassigned is that those whom Trinitarianism makes sceptics, find with us\nideas of Christ and Christianity with which they have sympathies. We\nintercept the minds whom they have driven from Belief; we present our\nserene and perfect image of Duty and of God to minds wearied and\nperplexed with views of Religion which are felt to be too coarse for\ntheir own nature and therefore infinitely unworthy of the spirit of God;\nbut because they leave the Church, that Christian Jerusalem, and come to\nsit at the feet of Jesus in our humble Bethany, where at least he is\nloved purely and for himself;\u2014then this is Infidelity, and we who stay\nthe wanderer, and retain him within the fold, are called producers of\nunbelief. The spirit of Jesus said, \u201che that is not against us is for\nus.\u201d The spirit of Trinitarianism says, \u201che that is not for us is\nagainst us.\u201d It was said that the spirit of infidelity is the spirit of\nthis age. I only ask, if this is so, could there be a more practical\ncondemnation of that system, and of that Church, which sways all the\nreligious influences of the country; and whose representations of Christ\nand of Christianity, the universally prevailing ones, have produced the\nreligious character of these times? If there is Infidelity in the land,\nit is mainly the recoil from Orthodoxy.[46]\n\n3. It is said that Unitarianism encourages the pride of human Reason.\nNow I shall answer this very briefly, because any lengthened exposure\nwould necessarily take the form of sarcasm. Whose Reason is it that we\noppose when we reject Trinitarianism? Trinitarians say that it is the\nReason of God. But how do they know this? Because they are sure that\n_they_ know the Mind of God as it is revealed in the Scriptures; and\nthey are sure that _we_ are in error. Infallibility again! So that to\noppose _their_ interpretation of the Scriptures, is to set up our own\nReason against the Reason of God. Now I ask, in all simplicity, Can they\nwho say these things have taken the trouble to clear their own ideas? If\nthere is any pride of Reason, on which side does it lie? They first\nidentify their own sense of the Scriptures with God\u2019s sense, and then\nthey charge other men with the pride of Reason, for not bowing down\ntheir minds to God, having first taken it for granted that _their_\nReason and God\u2019s Reason are one and the same. Look again to the\nuncertain doctrines which they deduce from the Scriptures by processes\nof inference, sometimes technical and sometimes mystical, and say, does\nthe world afford a more marked exemplification of the pride of human\nReason, than the absolute confidence with which these doubtful\nconclusions are received, and not only that, but pressed upon men, as\nthe exact meaning of God, at the peril of their eternal Salvation? What\ndo these divines rest upon when they deduce from the Scriptures their\nessentials of Christianity? Their own reasonings. And yet they will tell\nyou, that to differ from _them_, is to oppose your own Reason to the\nmind of God. I ask, hereafter in this controversy, Should not this\nmatter of the pride of human reason be a weapon of attack in our hands,\nan accusation against Trinitarians, instead of a charge which Unitarians\nare to answer? We have too long, in this and many other matters, stood\nupon the defensive.[47]\n\nAnd now, in conclusion, let me say once more, that though we think\nTrinitarian views of man\u2019s connections with God injurious to Christian\nperfection, inasmuch as they throw the minds which receive them out of\nharmony with the realities of God, and must therefore undergo future\ncorrection and re-adjustment, still our strongest objection to the\nTrinitarian scheme is the fundamental one that it is based upon\nprinciples of exclusiveness, upon the indispensable conditions of a\nnarrow and technical creed, and that thus it is the parent and fomenter\nof all those dissensions and practical evils in religion which these\ntimes witness and deplore. How many has orthodoxy persecuted into a\nhatred for the very name of religion? In how many minds has it darkened,\nor mixed up with the most incongruous associations, the beautiful image\nof Christ, destroying its healing and persuasive power? O! why should it\nbe, except for this Trinitarian scheme of an Exclusive Salvation, that\nReligion should be directing her whole energies to the support of\ncreeds, instead of going about doing good, and with her heavenly spirit\nentering into conflict with the moral evils that afflict society, and\ndegrade man, and rebel against God? Why is it, that instead of this, we\nhave a distinct class of sufferings, that go under the name of religious\nevils? Why is it that we are here holding controversy with our\nfellow-Christians, instead of uniting our spirit and our strength to\nwork the works of Christ? We wage not this controversy for the purpose\nof aiding a sect; but we wage it, to do what we can to expose and put\ndown universally the sectarian spirit. The great evils of society, the\ncrying wrongs of Man, are mainly owing to this diversion of Religion\nfrom spiritual and practical objects to the strife of tongues and\nSalvation by creeds. What is the Religion of this country doing?\nContending for creeds. What ought it to be doing? Spreading the spirit\nof the life of Christ through the hearts of men and the institutions of\nsociety. How long are these things to be? How long are the spiritual\ninfluences of this country to be all consumed in striving with heresies\ninstead of striving with sins; leaving untouched the bad heart of\nsociety, whilst wrangling for a metaphysical faith? Look to the\nreligious apparatus of this country. Look to the number of pulpits that\nshould send forth the spiritual influences of righteousness and peace;\nand the number of men that should move through society apostles of the\nbeneficence of Christ.\n\nSuppose all this strength directed to practical and spiritual objects,\nand could the things that are, remain as they are, if the religious\nforces of the country, instead of being exclusive, doctrinal,\ncontroversial, were full of the love of Jesus, and sought simply to\nestablish the kingdom of Heaven upon Earth! Could Religion excite the\nangry passions that she does, if her aims were spiritual and not\ndoctrinal? Could Religion be divorced as she is from practical life, and\nconfined to a class kept under powerful stimulants, and called the\n\u201creligious public,\u201d if her aims were spiritual and not doctrinal? Could\nReligion leave the people neglected and without education, practical\nHeathens, while she is settling her creeds, if her aims were spiritual\nand not doctrinal? Could Religion have left unpurified the streams and\nsources of public morality, if her aims were spiritual and not\ndoctrinal? Could she have suffered War still to disgrace the world, and\nnot long since have extinguished the Earthborn passion by the Heavenly\nspirit and the moral instrument, if the direction of her energies had\nbeen spiritual and not controversial? Could she have shown so little\ninterest in the great mass of the people? Could she have abandoned them\nto ignorance and grinding oppressions and not raised her omnipotent\nvoice on their behalf? Could she have so separated herself from the real\nbusiness of life and left the moralities of intercourse unsanctified\nwhilst she remained unsympathizing and cloistered? Every friend to\npractical religion has an interest in destroying this exclusive\nTheology, which turns away from the works of love to the war of creeds.\n\nIf then we preach Unitarianism, it is that we may win men\u2019s hearts to\nthe one Spirit who pervades all things, and harmonizes all things, and\nsends all blessings, and sanctifies all thoughts, all duties, and all\ntimes. If we preach the man Christ Jesus, the word made flesh, it is\nthat we too may sanctify our nature, and make it a temple for the living\nGod, and grow up into him in all things who is our head, even Christ. If\nwe preach Salvation, not by creeds, but by the spirit of Christ in us,\nthe hope of glory, it is that our fitness for Heaven may commence on\nEarth; that we may live now as those who when they have slept the brief\nsleep of death shall awake in the presence of Christ and God, and find\nthemselves in that Heaven wherein dwelleth righteousness. And if we\npreach not indiscriminate happiness and indiscriminate tortures in\nfuturity, but the just retributions of God, it is that we may redeem the\ntime, remembering that each moment lost throws us back on the heavenly\nway, that there is an infinite perfection before us, providing work for\nour infinite capacities through an immortal life; that God is faithful\nand inflexible in his retributions; that no virtue shall be without its\nreward, no sin without its woe; that we shall be judged according to our\nworks, and reap what we have sown.\n\nTo sum up, the two great principles of Unitarianism are these:\u2014\n\nI. Spiritual allegiance to Christ as the image of God. \u201cWhom we preach,\nwarning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may\npresent every man perfect in Christ Jesus.\u201d\n\nII. Spiritual liberty from ought besides; Creeds, Traditions, Rituals,\nor Priests. \u201cFalse brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privily to\nspy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring\nus into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an\nhour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.\u201d\n\n\n APPENDIX.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n NOTE 1, page 14.\n\n\u201cThe free and unprejudiced mind dwells with delight on the image of the\nuniversal church or convocation of Christ, as it would naturally have\ngrown \u2018into the fulness of the body\u2019 of its glorious founder *\u00a0*\u00a0* *\n\n\u201cAnd what (let me earnestly and solemnly ask) has hitherto turned this\nview into a mocking dream,\u2014a dream that deludes by images which are the\nvery reverse of the sad realities which surround us? ORTHODOXY;\u2014the\nnotion that the eternal happiness or misery of individuals is intimately\nconnected with the acceptance or rejection of a most obscure system of\nmetaphysics; a system perplexing in the extreme to those who are best\nacquainted with its former technical, now obsolete language, and\nperfectly unintelligible to the rest of the Christian world: a system\nwhich, to say the least, _seems_ to contradict the simplest and most\nprimitive notions of the human mind concerning the unity, the justice,\nand the goodness of the Supreme Being; a system which, if it be\ncontained in the Scriptures, has been laid under so thick and\nimpenetrable a veil, that thousands who have sought to discover it, with\nthe most eager desire of finding it, whose happiness in this world would\nhave been greatly increased by that discovery, and who, at all events,\nwould have escaped much misery had they been able to attest it, even on\nthe grounds of probability sufficient to acquit themselves before their\nown conscience, have been compelled, by truth, to confess their want of\nsuccess. Yet Orthodoxy declares this very system identical with\nChristianity\u2014with that Gospel which was \u2018preached to the poor,\u2019 and\n\u2018revealed unto babes;\u2019 such a system, we are told, is that faith which,\n\u2018_except every one keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall\nperish everlastingly_.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Heresy and Orthodoxy, by Rev. J. Blanco\nWhite._\n\n\n NOTE 2, page 18.\n\n\u201cWhat do divines understand by _Christian Truth_? The answer, at first,\nappears obvious. \u2018Christian truth (it will be said) is what Christ and\nhis apostles knew and taught concerning Salvation under the Gospel.\u2019\nThus far we find no difficulty; but (let me ask, again) where does this\nexist as an object _external_ to our minds? The answer appears no less\nobvious than the former: \u2018In the Bible.\u2019 Still I must ask, Is the\nMATERIAL Bible the Christian truth about which Christians dispute? No:\nit will be readily said not the MATERIAL Bible, but the SENSE of the\nBible. Now (I beg to know) is the SENSE of the Bible an object\n_external_ to our minds? Does any _Sense_ of the Bible, accessible to\nman, exist anywhere but in the mind of each man who receives it from the\nwords he reads? The Divine mind certainly knows in what sense those\nwords were used; but as we cannot compare our mental impressions with\nthat model and original of all truth, it is clear that by the SENSE of\nthe Bible we must mean our own sense of its meaning. When therefore any\nman declares his intention to defend _Christian truth_, he only\nexpresses his determination to defend his _own notions_, as produced by\nthe words of the Bible. No other _Christian truth_ exists for us in our\npresent state.\u201d\u2014_Heresy and Orthodoxy._\n\n\n NOTE 3, page 22.\n\n\u201cIf different men in carefully and conscientiously examining the\nScriptures, should arrive at different conclusions, even on points of\nthe last importance, we trust that God, who alone knows what every man\nis capable of, will be merciful to him that is in error. We trust that\nHe will pardon the Unitarian, if he be in error, because he has fallen\ninto it from the dread of becoming an idolater\u2014of giving that glory to\nanother which he conceives to be due to God alone. If the worshipper of\nJesus Christ be in error, we trust that God will pardon his mistake,\nbecause he has fallen into it from the dread of disobeying what he\nconceives to be revealed concerning the nature of the Son, or commanded\nconcerning the honor to be given him. Both are actuated by the same\nprinciple\u2014the fear of God; and though that principle impels them into\ndifferent roads, it is our hope and belief, that if they add to their\nfaith _charity_, they will meet in Heaven.\u201d\u2014_Watson._\n\n\u201cWe should learn to be cautious, lest we _charge God foolishly_, by\nascribing that to him, or the Nature he has given us, which is owing\nwholly to our own abuse of it. Men may speak of the degeneracy and\ncorruption of the world, according to the experience they have had of\nit; but human nature, considered as the divine workmanship, should,\nmethinks, be treated as sacred: for _in the image of God made he\nman_.\u201d\u2014_Bishop Butler._\n\n\n NOTE 4, page 24.\n\n\u201cBut, if ORTHODOXY cannot be the principle of union among _Christians_,\nupon what are men to agree in order to belong to the CONVOCATION, or\npeople of Christ? I believe that the Apostle Paul has said enough to\nanswer this question. When by using the word _anathema_, he rejects from\nhis spiritual society even an angel from Heaven, were it possible that\nsuch a being should \u201cpreach another gospel,\u201d he lays down the only\nprinciple, without which there can be no communion among Christians.\nUnhappily the word GOSPEL, like the word FAITH, is constantly understood\nas expressing a certain number of dogmatical articles. Owing to this\nperversion of the original meaning, these very passages of Paul are\nconceived to support the long-established notion that Orthodoxy is the\nonly condition of Christian communion; and want of it, a sufficient\ncause for _anathema_. I have, however, already proved, that Orthodoxy,\nwithout a supreme judge of religious opinions, is a phantom; and since\nit is demonstrable that no such judge has been appointed, it clearly\nfollows that the Apostle Paul, by the name of _Gospel_, could not mean a\nstring of dogmatic assertions. It is necessary, therefore, to ascend to\nthe original signification of the word Gospel, if we are not to\nmisunderstand the reason of the anathema pronounced by Paul. Let such as\nwish to rise above the clouds of theological prejudice, remember that\nthe whole mystery of godliness is described by the expression \u2018glad\ntidings.\u2019 _Sad_, not glad tidings, indeed, would have been the Apostles\u2019\npreaching, if they had announced a salvation depending on _Orthodoxy_,\nfor (as I have said before) it would have been a salvation depending on\nchance. But salvation promised on condition of a change of mind from the\nlove of sin to the love of God (which is _repentance_); on a surrender\nof the individual will to the will of God, according to the view of that\ndivine will which is obtained by trust in Christ\u2019s example and teaching,\nwhich is _faith_; a pardon of sins independent of harassing religious\npractices, sacrifices, and ascetic privations\u2014these were \u2018glad tidings\nof great joy,\u2019 indeed, to all who, caring for their souls, felt\nbewildered between atheism and superstition.\u201d\u2014_Heresy and Orthodoxy._\n\n\n NOTE 5, page 27.\n\n\u201cMen want an object of worship like themselves, and the great secret of\nidolatry lies in this propensity. A God, clothed in our form, and\nfeeling our wants and sorrows, speaks to our weak nature more strongly,\nthan a Father in Heaven, a pure spirit, invisible and unapproachable,\nsave by the reflecting and purified mind. We think, too, that the\npeculiar offices ascribed to Jesus by the popular theology, make him the\nmost attractive person in the Godhead. The Father is the depositary of\nthe justice, the vindicator of the rights, the avenger of the laws of\nthe Divinity. On the other hand, the Son, the brightness of the divine\nmercy, stands between the incensed Deity and guilty humanity, exposes\nhis meek head to the storms, and his compassionate breast to the sword\nof the divine justice, bears our whole load of punishment, and purchases\nwith his blood every blessing which descends from Heaven. Need we state\nthe effect of these representations, especially on common minds, for\nwhom Christianity was chiefly designed, and whom it seeks to bring to\nthe Father as the loveliest being? We do believe, that the worship of a\nbleeding, suffering God, tends strongly to absorb the mind, and to draw\nit from other objects, just as the human tenderness of the Virgin Mary\nhas given her so conspicuous a place in the devotions of the Church of\nRome. We believe, too, that this worship, though attractive, is not most\nfitted to spiritualize the mind, that it awakens human transports,\nrather than that deep veneration of the moral perfections of God, which\nis the essence of piety.\n\n\u201cWe are told, also, that Christ is a more interesting object, that his\nlove and mercy are more felt, when he is viewed as the Supreme God, who\nleft his glory to take humanity and to suffer for men. That Trinitarians\nare strongly moved by this representation, we do not mean to deny; but\nwe think their emotions altogether founded on a misapprehension of their\nown doctrines. They talk of the second person of the Trinity\u2019s leaving\nhis glory and his Father\u2019s bosom to visit and save the world. But this\nsecond person being the unchangeable and infinite God, was evidently\nincapable of parting with the least degree of his perfection and\nfelicity. At the moment of his taking flesh, he was as intimately\npresent with his Father as before, and equally with his Father filled\nheaven, and earth, and immensity. This Trinitarians acknowledge; and\nstill they profess to be touched and overwhelmed by the amazing\nhumiliation of this immutable being! But not only does their doctrine,\nwhen fully explained, reduce Christ\u2019s humiliation to a fiction, it\nalmost wholly destroys the impressions with which his cross ought to be\nviewed. According to their doctrine, Christ was, comparatively, no\nsufferer at all. It is true his human mind suffered; but this, they tell\nus, was an infinitely small part of Jesus, bearing no more proportion to\nhis whole nature, than a single hair of our heads to the whole body, or\nthan a drop to the ocean. The divine mind of Christ, that which was more\nproperly himself, was infinitely happy, at the very moment of the\nsuffering of his humanity; whilst hanging on the cross, he was the\nhappiest being in the universe, as happy as the infinite Father; so that\nhis pains, compared with his felicity, were nothing. This Trinitarians\ndo, and must acknowledge. It follows necessarily from the immutableness\nof the divine nature, which they ascribe to Christ; so that their system\njustly viewed, robs his death of interest, weakens our sympathy with his\nsufferings, and is, of all others, most unfavourable to a love of\nChrist, founded on a sense of his sacrifices for mankind. We esteem our\nown views to be vastly more affecting. It is our belief, that Christ\u2019s\nhumiliation was real and entire, that the whole Saviour and not a part\nof him suffered, that his crucifixion was a scene of deep and unmixed\nagony. As we stand round his cross, our minds are not distracted, nor\nour sensibility weakened by contemplating him as composed of incongruous\nand infinitely differing minds, and as having a balance of infinite\nfelicity. We recognize in the dying Jesus but one mind. This, we think,\nrenders his sufferings, and his patience, and love, in bearing them;\nincomparably more impressive and affecting, than the system we\noppose.\u201d\u2014_Channing._\n\n\n NOTE 6, Page 29.\n\n\u201cWe believe, too, that this system is unfavourable to the character. It\nnaturally leads men to think that Christ came to change God\u2019s mind,\nrather than their own; that the highest object of his mission was to\navert punishment rather than to communicate holiness; and that a large\npart of religion consists in disparaging good works and human virtue,\nfor the purpose of magnifying the value of Christ\u2019s vicarious\nsufferings. In this way, a sense of the infinite importance and\nindispensable necessity of personal improvement is weakened, and high\nsounding praises of Christ\u2019s cross seem often to be substituted for\nobedience to his precepts. For ourselves, we have not so learned Jesus.\nWhilst we gratefully acknowledge that he came to rescue us from\npunishment, we believe that he was sent on a still nobler errand,\nnamely, to deliver us from sin itself, and to form us to a sublime and\nheavenly virtue. We regard him as a Saviour, chiefly as he is the light,\nphysician, and guide of the dark, diseased, and wandering mind. No\ninfluence in the universe seems to us so glorious as that over the\ncharacter; and no redemption so worthy of thankfulness as the\nrestoration of the soul to purity. Without this, pardon, if it were\npossible, would be of little value. Why pluck the sinner from hell, if a\nhell be left to burn in his own breast? Why raise him to heaven, if he\nremain a stranger to its sanctity and love? With these impressions, we\nare accustomed to value the gospel chiefly as it abounds in effectual\naids, motives, excitements to a generous and divine virtue. In this\nvirtue, as in a common centre, we see all its doctrines, precepts,\npromises meet; and we believe that faith in this religion is of no\nworth, and contributes nothing to salvation, any further than as it uses\nthese doctrines, precepts, promises, and the whole life, character,\nsufferings and triumphs of Jesus, as the means of purifying the mind, of\nchanging it into the likeness of his celestial excellence.\u201d\u2014_Channing._\n\n\n NOTE 7, page 37.\n\n\u201cI can direct you to nothing in Christ more important than his tried,\nand victorious, and perfect goodness. Others may love Christ for his\nmysterious attributes; I love him for the rectitude of his soul and\nlife. I love him for that benevolence which went through Judea,\ninstructing the ignorant, healing the sick, giving sight to the blind. I\nlove him for that universal charity which comprehended the despised\npublican, the hated Samaritan, the benighted heathen, and sought to\nbring a world to God and to happiness. I love him for that gentle, mild,\nforbearing spirit, which no insult, outrage, injury, could overpower;\nand which desired as earnestly the repentance and happiness of its foes\nas the happiness of its friends. I love him for the spirit of\nmagnanimity, constancy, and fearless rectitude with which, amid peril\nand opposition, he devoted himself to the work which God gave him to do.\nI love him for the wise and enlightened zeal with which he espoused the\ntrue, the spiritual interests of mankind, and through which he lived and\ndied to redeem them from every sin, to frame them after his own God-like\nvirtue. I love him, I have said, for his moral excellence; I know\nnothing else to love. I know nothing so glorious in the Creator or his\ncreatures. This is the greatest gift which God bestows, the greatest to\nbe derived from his Son. You see why I call you to cherish the love of\nChrist. This love I do not recommend as a luxury of feeling, as an\nexstasy bringing immediate and overflowing joy. I view it in a nobler\nlight; I call you to love Jesus, that you may bring yourselves into\ncontact and communion with perfect virtue, and may become what you love.\nI know no sincere, enduring good, but the moral excellence that shines\nforth in Jesus Christ. Your health, your outward comforts and\ndistinctions, are poor, mean, contemptible, compared with this; and to\nprefer them to this is self-debasement, self-destruction. May this great\ntruth penetrate our souls; and may we bear witness in our common lives,\nand especially in trial, in sore temptation, that nothing is so dear to\nus as the virtue of Christ! *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cThus Jesus lived with men; with the consciousness of unutterable\nmajesty he joined a lowliness, gentleness, humanity, and sympathy, which\nhave no example in human history. I ask you to contemplate this\nwonderful union. In proportion to the superiority of Jesus to all around\nhim was the intimacy, the brotherly love, with which he bound himself to\nthem. I maintain, that this is a character wholly remote from human\nconception. To imagine it to be the production of imposture or\nenthusiasm, shows a strange unsoundness of mind. I contemplate it with a\nveneration second only to the profound awe with which I look up to God.\nIt bears no mark of human invention. It was real. It belonged to, and it\nmanifested, the beloved Son of God.\n\n\u201cBut I have not done. May I ask your attention a few moments more? We\nhave not yet reached the depth of Christ\u2019s character. We have not\ntouched the great principle on which his wonderful sympathy was founded,\nand which endeared him to his office of universal Saviour. Do you ask\nwhat this deep principle was? I answer, it was his conviction of the\ngreatness of the human soul. He saw in man the impress and image of the\nDivinity, and therefore thirsted for his redemption; and took the\ntenderest interest in him, whatever might be the rank, character, or\ncondition in which he was found. This spiritual view of man pervades and\ndistinguishes the teaching of Christ. Jesus looked on men with an eye\nwhich pierced beneath the material frame. The body vanished before him.\nThe trappings of the rich, the rags of the poor, were nothing to him. He\nlooked through them, as though they did not exist, to the soul; and\nthere, amidst clouds of ignorance and plague-spots of sin, he recognized\na spiritual and immortal nature, and the germs of power and perfection\nwhich might be unfolded for ever. In the most fallen and depraved man,\nhe saw a being who might become an angel of light. Still more, he felt\nthat there was nothing in himself to which men might not ascend. His own\nlofty consciousness did not sever him from the multitude; for he saw, in\nhis own greatness, the model of what men might become. So deeply was he\nthus impressed, that again and again, in speaking of his future glories,\nhe announced that in these his true followers were to share. They were\nto sit on his throne, and partake of his beneficent power. Here I pause;\nand I know not, indeed, what can be added to heighten the wonder,\nreverence, and love which are due to Jesus. When I consider him not only\nas possessed with the consciousness of an unexampled and unbounded\nmajesty, but as recognizing a kindred nature in all human beings, and\nliving and dying to raise them to an anticipation of his divine glories;\nand when I see him, under these views, allying himself to men by the\ntenderest ties, embracing them with a spirit of humanity, which no\ninsult, injury, or pain could for a moment repel or overpower, I am\nfilled with wonder, as well as reverence and love. I feel that this\ncharacter is not of human invention, that it was not assumed through\nfraud, or struck out by enthusiasm; for it is infinitely above their\nreach. When I add this character of Jesus to the other evidences of his\nreligion, it gives to what before seemed so strong a new and vast\naccession of strength; I feel as if I could not be deceived. The Gospels\nmust be true; they were drawn from a living original; they were founded\non reality. The character of Christ is not fiction; he was what he\nclaimed to be, and what his followers attested. Nor is this all. Jesus\nnot only _was_, he is still, the Son of God,\u2014the Saviour of the world.\nHe exists now; he has entered that Heaven to which he always looked\nforward on earth. There he lives and reigns. With a clear, calm faith, I\nsee him in that state of glory; and I confidently expect, at no distant\nperiod, to see him face to face. We have, indeed, no absent friend whom\nwe shall so surely meet. Let us then, by imitations of his virtues, and\nobedience to his word, prepare ourselves to join him in those pure\nmansions where he is surrounding himself with the good and pure of our\nrace, and will communicate to them for ever his own spirit, power, and\njoy.\u201d\u2014_Channing._\n\n\n NOTE 8, Page 38.\n\n\u201cAt the present moment I would ask, whether it is a vice to doubt the\ntruth of Christianity as it is manifested in Spain and Portugal. When a\npatriot in those benighted countries, who knows Christianity only as a\nbulwark of despotism, as a rearer of inquisitions, as a stern jailer\nimmuring wretched women in the convent, as an executioner stained and\nreeking with the blood of the friends of freedom,\u2014I say when the\npatriot, who sees in our religion the instruments of these crimes and\nwoes, believes and affirms that it is not from God, are we authorized to\ncharge his unbelief on dishonesty and corruption of mind, and to brand\nhim as a culprit? May it not be that the spirit of Christianity in his\nheart emboldens him to protest with his lips against what bears the\nname? And if he thus protest, through a deep sympathy with the\noppression and sufferings of his race, is he not nearer the kingdom of\nGod than the priest and the inquisitor who boastingly and exclusively\nassume the Christian name? Jesus Christ has told us that \u2018this is the\ncondemnation\u2019 of the unbelieving, \u2018that they love darkness rather than\nlight;\u2019 and who does not see that this ground of condemnation is\nremoved, just in proportion as the light is quenched, or Christian truth\nis buried in darkness and debasing error?\u201d\u2014_Channing._\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cI am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is True. It is true;\nand its truth is to break forth more and more gloriously. Of this I have\nnot a doubt. I know that our religion has been questioned even by\nintelligent and good men; but this does not shake my faith in its divine\noriginal or in its ultimate triumphs. Such men have questioned it,\nbecause they have known it chiefly by its corruptions. In proportion as\nits original simplicity shall be restored, the doubts of the\nwell-disposed will yield. I have no fears from infidelity; especially\nfrom that form of it which some are at this moment labouring to spread\nthrough our country (America). I mean, that insane, desperate unbelief,\nwhich strives to quench the light of nature as well as of revelation,\nand to leave us, not only without Christ, but without God. This I dread\nno more than I should fear the efforts of men to pluck the sun from his\nsphere; or to storm the skies with the artillery of the earth. We were\nmade for religion; and unless the enemies of our faith can change our\nnature, they will leave the foundation of religion unshaken. The human\nsoul was created to look above material nature. It wants a Deity for its\nlove and trust, an Immortality for its hope. It wants consolations not\nfound in philosophy, wants strength in temptation, sorrow, and death,\nwhich human wisdom cannot minister; and knowing, as I do, that\nChristianity meets these deep wants of men, I have no fear or doubts as\nto its triumphs. Men cannot long live without religion. In France there\nis a spreading dissatisfaction with the sceptical spirit of the past\ngeneration. A philosopher in that country would now blush to quote\nVoltaire as an authority in religion. Already atheism is dumb where once\nit seemed to bear sway. The greatest minds in France are working back\ntheir way to the light of truth. Many of them cannot indeed yet be\ncalled Christians; but their path, like that of the wise men of old, who\ncame star-guided from the East, is towards Christ. I am not ashamed of\nthe Gospel of Christ. It has an immortal life, and will gather strength\nfrom the violence of its foes. It is equal to all the wants of men. The\ngreatest minds have found in it the light which they most anxiously\ndesired. The most sorrowful and broken spirits have found in it a\nhealing balm for their woes. It has inspired the sublimest virtues and\nthe loftiest hopes. For the corruptions of such a religion I weep, and I\nshould blush to be their advocate; but of the Gospel itself I can never\nbe ashamed.\u201d\u2014_Channing._\n\n\n NOTE 9, page 39.\n\n\u201cHaving found that _pride of reason is an aggression upon other men\u2019s\nreason_, arising from an over-estimate of the worth of the aggressor\u2019s\nown, we may now proceed in our inquiry, who are justly chargeable with\npride of _reason_? Is it those who, having examined the Scriptures,\npropose their own collective sense of those books to the acceptance of\nothers, but blame them not for rejecting it? or those who positively\nassert, that their own sense of the Scriptures is the only one which an\nhonest man, not under diabolical delusion, can find there? The answer is\nso plain, that a child, who could understand the terms of the question,\nmight give it. And yet experience has taught me that there is no chance\nof unravelling the confused ideas which prevent many a well-meaning\nChristian from perceiving that the charge of the pride of reason falls\nupon the Orthodox. Their own _sense_ of the Scripture (such is the dizzy\nwhirl which their excited feelings produce) must be the _word of God_,\nbecause THEY cannot find another. _My sense_ of the Scripture must, (for\ninstance,) on the contrary, be a damnable error, because it is the work\nof my _reason_, which opposes the word of God, _i.e._, THEIR sense of\nthe Scriptures: hence the conclusion that I am guilty of _pride of\nreason_. \u2018Renounce that _pride_, (they say,) and you will see in the\nScriptures what we propose to you:\u2019 which is to say, _surrender your\nreason to ours, and you will agree with us_. *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cIt is remarkable that Christians are accused of _Pride of reason_ in\nproportion as their view of Christianity contains fewer _doctrines of\ninference_ than that of the accusers. Compare the creed of the\nTrinitarian with that of the Unitarian. The former may be true, and the\nlatter erroneous, though I adhere to the latter; but unquestionably the\n_Trinitarian Creed_ is nearly made up of _inferences_, it is almost\nentirely a work of _reason_, though, in my eyes, sadly misapplied. Why,\nthen, is the _Unitarian_ accused of _pride of reason_, when he only\nemploys it to show that the Trinitarian has not any _sound reason_ to\ndraw those inferences? which of the two is guilty of encroaching upon\nanother man\u2019s _rights of reason_? Is it not he who claims for his\ninferences\u2014the work of his own _reason_\u2014an authority above human\n_reason_?\n\n\u201cIt is not, however, to _inferences_ alone (the work of logical reason)\nthat the Trinitarian creed owes its existence, and, more than its\nexistence, its popularity. My observation has shown me, and that of\nevery competent judge will find, that the strongest hold which that\ncreed has on the minds of its supporters, consists in _preconceived\ntheories_ concerning the nature of God and of sin, and of some\n_necessity_ which places the Divine Nature in a state of difficulty in\nregard to the pardon of sin. The work of saving the race of man from a\nmost horrible fate depends (according to this theory) not only on a very\nmysterious method of overcoming the difficulty which prevents pardon by\nan act of mercy, on repentance, but also on the acknowledgment of the\n_mystery_ by the sinner. The remedy prepared by the wisdom of God is\n(according to this theory) totally powerless, unless we believe a\ncertain explanation of the _manner_ in which it acts.\n\n\u201cNow people who cordially embrace this view very naturally work\nthemselves into a state of the most agonizing excitement: for if the\nwhole world is to perish because it does not know how the saving remedy\nacts, or because its activity is explained in a wrong way, benevolent\nmen, who think themselves in possession of that important secret, must\nburn with zeal to spread it, and with indignation against those who\npropagate an explanation which deprives the remedy of all its power.\n\u2018Believing,\u2019 says an orthodox writer, though a dissenter from the\northodoxy of the Church of England, \u2018the doctrine (of the divinity of\nChrist) to comprehend within itself the hopes of a guilty and perishing\nworld, while I would contend _meekly_, I must be pardoned if, at the\nsame time, I contend earnestly.\u2019 It is this preconceived theory (one of\nthe strangest that was ever founded on reasonings _\u00e0 priori_) that\nguides most Christians in the exposition of the New Testament, and even\nin that of many passages of the Hebrew Scriptures. The notion that sin\n_could not_ be pardoned unless a person _equal to God_ suffered for it,\nis the deeply-coloured glass through which the orthodox read the\nScriptures. I do not _blame_ them for this extraordinary conception.\nWhat I earnestly wish is, that their religious fears may allow them to\nperceive that this theory of redemption is made up of _preconceived\nnotions and inferences_. Even if that theory were true, it would\nunquestionably be a work of _reason_ working by inference. Can, then,\nthe attempt to make it the very soul of the Gospel be acquitted of the\ncharge which is constantly in the mouth of the orthodox? Are they not\nguilty of the _pride of reason_?\u201d\u2014_Heresy and Orthodoxy._\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n _Comments on Rev. F. Ould\u2019s Lecture on the practical\n importance of the Controversy with Unitarians._\n\nPage 5.\u2014It is here argued that the error, if an error, of denying\nUnitarians to be Christians is as _innocent_, as the error, if one, of\ndenying Jesus to be God. Certainly, if equally involuntary and the pure\nconclusion of a truthful mind. But, if an error, it involves two\nerrors,\u2014first, the mistake as to the nature and offices of Jesus, and\nsecond, the mistake of making essentials which Jesus did not make, and\nof passing judgments which Jesus did not pass. It is also essentially\nAnti-Protestant.\n\n\nPage 6.\u2014\u201cBut if it be a characteristic of true Christianity so to trust\nin Christ, as to commit the salvation of our souls into his hands, how\ncan we conceive of those as true Christians who consider him only a\nfellow-creature, and consequently repose in him no such trust?\u201d Trust is\na _moral_ act of the mind. We trust Jesus spiritually. Our souls feel\nhim to be the Image of God: and we confide ourselves with a perfect\ntrust to the God of Love whom Jesus imaged. \u201cLet not your hearts be\ntroubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.\u201d Our hearts are not\ntroubled because our faith rests upon the God whom Jesus has made known\nto us. This is the only intelligible meaning of TRUST as a spiritual\nact. We trust _him_ whom we believe God to have trusted and sent.\n\n\nPage 8.\u2014\u201cWe maintain that the Bible is alone safely interpreted by its\nAuthor and Inspirer, the Holy Ghost.\u201d Do the Trinitarians mean that\n_their_ interpretations of the Bible are the interpretations of the Holy\nSpirit? If so, we can have no controversy with them. If they are\ninspired to interpret, what the Apostles were inspired to write, nothing\nis required but _that this should be proved_.\n\n\nPages 11, 12.\u2014\u201cThe New Testament writers also assert their own\ninspiration in language equally strong. \u2018All Scripture is given by\ninspiration of God, and is profitable,\u2019 &c. St. Paul does _not_ here\nassert _his own_ inspiration, but the inspiration of the Jewish\nProphets, the study of whom had made Timothy wise unto salvation through\nfaith in Christ. The Christian Scriptures were not in existence when the\nwords were written. It is also very doubtful whether the word\ntranslated, \u2018given by inspiration of God,\u2019 signifies \u2018breathing _of_\nGod,\u2019 or \u2018breathed _from_ God.\u2019\n\n\u201c\u2018No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation,\u2019 &c.\nThe inspiration of Prophecy is not denied. But can anything be more idle\nthan to prove the inspiration of all the books of the Old Testament by\nsuch a quotation as this: \u2018Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of\nJerusalem, believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established;\nbelieve his prophets, so shall ye prosper\u2019?\u201d\n\n\nPage 16.\u2014\u201cSo then, it appears, that if these \u2018rational and liberal\u2019\ncritics are not allowed to Unitarianize the Bible, they are prepared to\ndeny its divine authority, and to give it up to its enemies!\u201d Dr.\nChanning _does not say so_. What he says is, that he cannot defend the\nScriptures unless he is allowed to interpret them by the same principles\nwhich are applied to all other works. And this principle of\ninterpretation we understood Dr. Tattershall freely to admit. The use\nthat is made of the extract from Dr. Channing, exhibits the temptations\nof controversy. There is nothing in the extract that Trinitarians\nthemselves would not say upon occasion. Why is it thought worthy of\nbeing marked in italics that the dispensation of Moses is imperfect when\ncompared with that of Jesus? Is this denied? Why is the word _seems_\nitalicized, when the connected word is not rejects, but only\n_distrusts_? Yet the author praises the candour of Dr. Channing.\n\n\nPages 20, 21.\u2014\u201cThe improved Version.\u201d It is a curious fact that most of\nthe Trinitarian objections to the Improved Version have been provided\nfor them by an Unitarian Critic and Reviewer. Dr. Carpenter in his reply\nto Archbishop Magee states, \u201cI furnished to the opponents of the\nImproved Version some of the most powerful weapons against it.\u201d Again,\n\u201cAt my request a young friend undertook to draw up the table I wished.\nThis led him to collate the two Versions, which he did with great\npatience and fidelity. He discovered some variations from the basis\nwhich were not noticed; and I thought it right to point them out. It is\nnot too much to say that, but for this, neither Bishop Magee, nor any\nothers who have censured the Improved Version, would have been aware of\ntheir existence.\u201d\u2014pp. 308, 309. Whatever becomes of the Improved\nVersion, the Controversy between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism remains\njust where it was, to be settled upon independent principles, critical\nand exegetical. So far, the whole indictment against the Improved\nVersion relates to the introductory chapters of Matthew and Luke.\nSuppose those chapters authentic and genuine, and what follows from\nthem? The doctrine of the Miraculous Conception, which most Unitarians\nbelieve. Professor Norton, the ablest, perhaps, of American Unitarian\nCritics, defends this doctrine. The introductory chapters of Matthew he\nrejects, chiefly on account of their inconsistencies with those of Luke,\nthe authenticity of which he does not doubt. Dr. Carpenter also\ncritically dissents from the Notes in the Improved Version on the\nintroductions of Matthew and Luke. Reply to Dr. Magee, p. 299. It is not\nthen such a _new_ thing among Unitarians, to question the authority of\nthe Improved Version. Will the Author inform us where he got his\nknowledge respecting Ebion, his existence and opinions?\n\n\nPage 25.\u2014In an introductory Lecture on the \u201c_practical\u201d tendencies_ of\nviews, we labour under the disadvantage of being obliged to allow\nscriptural language to be quoted in a sense which we do not admit. It\nwould be evidently quite out of place to enter here into the _textual_\ncontroversy. This will be done abundantly in the course of these\nLectures.\n\n\nPage 37.\u2014Does the Author deny that Free Inquiry generates a degree of\nscepticism\u2014that is, not of unbelief, but of the examining and\nquestioning spirit? Or does he mean to object to all free inquiry on\naccount of this tendency? It is extraordinary reasoning to take Dr.\nChanning\u2019s _caution against a sceptical spirit_, proceeding from the\nvery constitution of mind, as a proof of the tendency of Unitarianism to\ninfidelity. If Unitarianism leads to unbelief, it is strange that so\nmany Unitarians should defend the Evidences of Christianity, and that\none of them, Dr. Lardner, is the great authority from which Trinitarians\nthemselves draw their knowledge of the external testimonies.\n\n\nPage 39.\u2014\u201cAnother leading principle, common to both systems,\n(Unitarianism and Infidelity,) is _the non-importance of principle\nitself to the enjoyment of the Divine favour_.\u201d Let it be known, that by\n_principle_ here, the Author means _opinions_.\n\n\nPage 41.\u2014\u201cDoes the Deist reject the Bible because God is represented as\na being who takes vengeance? So does the Unitarian for the very same\nreason reject the Gospel. Does the Deist reject the Bible because it\ncontains the doctrine of atonement and of divine sovereignty? For the\nvery same reason the Unitarian rejects the Gospel.\u201d It is melancholy to\nhave to remark upon this passage. The Unitarian _does not reject the\nGospel_, unless the Gospel means Trinitarianism, a use of words which,\nin controversy, cannot be justified. The Unitarian does not deny that\nGod takes vengeance, if by vengeance is meant the infliction of\nretribution. The Unitarian accepts the Gospel, but _does not find in it_\nthe doctrine of Atonement.\n\n\nPage 46.\u2014\u201cHow, on Unitarian principles, this reasoning can be answered,\nis more than I can tell.\u201d Jesus _did_ refer to God both his words and\nhis works. But Unitarians do not regard the mission of Jesus as similar\nto that of any of the Prophets. It was essentially different. He was\nhimself the Revelation: a man in the image of God. By the Prophets, God\ntaught the Jews certain lessons, and inspired certain expectations. By\nJesus, in whom was the spirit without measure, God exhibited a perfect\nrevelation both of human perfection and of human destinies. God\u2019s word\nwas made flesh, and dwelt amongst us. The purposes of the Deity were\nimpersonated. He was consequently the life, and the way, as well as the\ntruth.\n\n\nPage 59.\u2014Does the Author mean to contend that Thomas was an INSPIRED MAN\nwhen he refused to believe in the risen Jesus? We had thought the\nTrinitarian view was, that the day of Pentecost dated the inspiration of\nthe apostles. But it appears the Author believes Thomas to be inspired\nwhen refusing to believe in the resurrection of Christ.\n\n\nPage 60.\u2014Is not the Author aware of the doubtful authenticity of the\nsecond epistle of Peter, from which he quotes twice, contrary to the\njudgment of Lardner, who decides that the doubtful Epistles, so stated\nby Eusebius, should not be used as authority for doctrines?\n\nThere are other passages in this Lecture on which we might comment. But\nwe refrain. We wished to remark upon those passages which affect the\ncause, and not more than was unavoidable upon those which affect only\nthe advocate.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture I.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n John iv. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n Luke xvii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n John xiv. 21; xv. 8, 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n John xiii. 35.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n John xiv. 28.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n John xvii. 3.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n 1 John ii. 3, 5, 29; iii. 7.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n John x. 16; xvii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n Ephes. iv.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n 1 Cor. xii.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n Note 1.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n The Oxford Tracts, No. 80, as quoted in \u201cDr. Hook\u2019s \u2018Call to Union,\u2019\n answered.\u201d\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n Newman on Justification.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n Newman.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n Note 2.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n It is absurd to say that a work becomes a standard authority, because\n a Book Society admits it into its Catalogue, or thinks its objects of\n sufficient importance to aid in its publication. Doubtless the\n Unitarian Society thought the \u201cImproved Version\u201d valuable as a\n Scriptural aid.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n Note 3.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n Note 4.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n See Rev. F. Ould\u2019s Lecture, page 35.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n Rom. xiv. 17.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n Note 5.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n Gal. ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n Note 6.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n Note 7.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n Note 8.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n Note 9.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n THE BIBLE:\n\n WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT.\n\n\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE II.\n\n THE BIBLE: WHAT IT IS, AND WHAT IT IS NOT.\n\n BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n \u201cAND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH, AND DWELT AMONG US, (AND WE BEHELD HIS\n GLORY, THE GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER,) FULL OF\n GRACE AND TRUTH.\u201d\u2014_John_ i. 14.\n\n\nThe Bible is the great autobiography of human nature, from its infancy\nto its perfection. Whatever man has seen and felt and done on the\ntheatre of this earth, is expressed therein with the simplicity and\nvividness of personal consciousness. The first wondering impressions of\nthe new-created being, just dropt upon a scene quite strange;\u2014the\nhardened heart and daring crimes of the long-resident here, forgetting\nthat he dwells in a hospice of the Lord, and not a property of his\nown;\u2014the recalled and penitent spirit, awakened by the voice of Christ,\nwhen, to a world grown old and dead in custom, he brought back the\nliving presence of God, and to the first reverence added the maturest\nlove;\u2014all this is recorded there, written down in the happiest moments\nof inspiration which have fallen upon our race during the lapse of\nsixteen centuries. The volume stations us on a spot, well selected as a\nwatch-tower, from which we may overlook the history of the world;\u2014an\nangle of coast between the ancient continents of Africa and Asia,\nsubtended by the newer line of European civilization. Thence have we a\nneighbouring view of every form of human life, and every variety of\nhuman character. The solitary shepherd on the slopes of Chald\u00e6a,\nwatching the changing heavens till he worships them; the patriarch\npitching his tent in the nearer plain of Mamre; the Arab, half merchant,\nhalf marauder, hurrying his fleet dromedaries across the sunny desert;\nthe Ph\u0153nician commerce gladdening the Levant with its sails, or, on its\nway from India, spreading its wares in the streets of Jerusalem; the\nurban magnificence of Babylonia, and the sacerdotal grandeur of Egypt;\nall are spread beneath our eye, in colours vivid, but with passage\nswift. Even the echo of Grecian revolutions, and the tramp of Roman\narmies, and the incipient rush of Eastern nations, that will overwhelm\nthem both, may be distinctly heard; brief agents, every one, on this\nstage of Providence, beckoned forward by the finger of Omnipotence, and\nwaved off again by the signals of mercy ever new.\n\nThe interest of this wide and various scriptural scene, gradually\ngathers itself in towards a single point. There is One who stands at the\nplace where its converging lines all meet; and we are led over the\nexpanse of world-history, that we may rest at length beneath the eye of\nthe Prophet of Nazareth. He is the central object, around whom all the\nages and events of the Bible are but an outlying circumference; and when\nthey have brought us to this place of repose, to return upon them again\nwould be an idle wandering. They are all preliminaries, that accomplish\ntheir end in leading us hither.\u2014\u201cThe law,\u201d aye, and the prophets too, we\nesteem \u201cour schoolmasters to bring us to Christ:\u201d[48] and though, like\ngrateful pupils, we may look back on them with true-hearted respect, and\neven think their labours not thrown away on such as may still be\nchildren in the Lord, we have no idea of acknowledging any more the\nauthority of the task, the threat, the rod. To sit at the feet of Jesus\nwe take to be the only proper position for the true disciple; to listen\nto his voice \u201cthe one thing needful;\u201d and however much others,\nnotwithstanding that he is come, may make themselves \u201canxious and\ntroubled about many things\u201d besides, and fret themselves still about the\npreparations for his entertainment, we choose to quit all else, and keep\nclose to him, as that better \u201cpart, which shall not be taken from\u201d us.\nWhatever holy influences of the Divine Word may be found in the old\nScriptures, are all collected into one at length; \u201cthe Word hath been\nmade Flesh,\u201d and in a living form hath \u201cdwelt among us;\u201d and from its\nfulness of \u201cgrace and truth\u201d we will not be torn away.\n\nIf the ultimate ends of Scripture are attained in Christ, that portion\nof the Bible which makes us most intimate with him, must be of paramount\ninterest. Compelled then as I am, by my limits, to narrow our inquiry\ninto the proper treatment of Scripture, I take up the New Testament\nexclusively, and especially the Gospels, for examination and comment\nto-night.\n\nSuppose then that these books are put into our hands for the first\ntime;\u2014disinterred, if you please, from a chamber in Pompeii;\u2014without\ntitle, name, date, or other external description; and that with\nunembarrassed mind and fresh heart, we go apart with these treasures to\nexamine them.\n\nIt is not long before their extraordinary character becomes evident. All\nminds are known by their works,\u2014the human quite as distinctly as the\nDivine: and if \u201cthe invisible things of God\u201d \u201care clearly seen\u201d \u201cby the\nthings that are made,\u201d and on the material structures of the universe\nthe moral attributes of his nature may be discerned,\u2014with much greater\ncertainty do the secret qualities of a man\u2019s soul,\u2014his honesty or\ncunning, his truthfulness or fraud,\u2014impress themselves on his speech and\nwritings. To a clear eye his moral nature will unerringly betray itself,\neven in a disquisition; more, in a fiction; more still, in a history;\nand most of all, in a biography of a personal companion and teacher,\ndrawing forth in turns his friendship and grief, his pity and terror,\nhis love and doubt and trust, his feelings to country, to duty, to God,\nto heaven. Accordingly in these Gospels, and in the Journal of travels\nand Collection of letters, which carry out and illustrate the\ndevelopment of a new religion, I find myself in the presence of honest\nand earnest men, who are plainly strangers to fiction and philosophy,\nand lead me through realities fairer and diviner than either. They take\nme to actual places, and tell the events of a known and definite time.\nThey conduct me through villages, and streets, and markets; to\nfrequented resorts of worship, and hostile halls of justice, and the\ntribunals of Roman rulers, and the theatres of Asiatic cities, and the\nconcourse of Mars\u2019 hill at Athens: so that there is no denying their\nappeal, these things were \u201cnot done in a corner.\u201d[49] Yet their frank\ndelineation of public life is less impressive, than their true and\ntender touches of private history. Following in the steps of the world\u2019s\ndomestic prophet, they entered, evening and morning, the homes of\nmen,\u2014especially of men in watching and in grief, the wasted in body or\nthe sick in soul: and the unconsciousness with which the most genuine\ntraits of nature gleam through the narrative, the infantile simplicity\nwith which every one\u2019s emotions, of sorrow, of repentance, of affection,\ngive themselves to utterance, indicate that, with One who bare the key\nof hearts, the writers had been into the deep places of our humanity.\nThe infants in his arms look up in the face of Jesus as we read; the\nPharisee mutters in our ear his sceptic discontent at that loving \u201cwoman\nwho was a sinner\u201d kneeling at the Teacher\u2019s feet; and the voice of the\nbereaved sisters of Lazarus trembles upon the page.\n\nBut, above all, these writings introduce me to a Being so unimaginable,\nexcept by the great Inventor of beauty and Architect of nature himself,\nthat I embrace him at once, as having all the reality of man and the\ndivinest inspiration of God. Gentle and unconstrained as he is, ever\nstanding, even on the brink of the most stupendous miracles, in the\neasiest attitudes of our humanity, so that we are drawn to him as to one\nof like nature, we yet cannot enter his presence without feeling our\nsouls transformed. Their greatness, first recognized by him, becomes\nmanifest to ourselves: the death of conscience is broken by his tones;\nthe sense of accountability takes life within the deep; new thoughts of\nduty, shed from his lips, shame us for the past, and kindle us for the\nfuture with hope and faith unknown before. His promise[50] fulfils\nitself, whilst he utters it; and whenever we truly love him, God comes,\nand \u201cmakes his abode with\u201d us. He has this peculiarity: that he plunges\nus into the feeling, that God acts not _there_, but _here_; not _was\nonce_, but _is now_; dwells, not _without us_, like a dreadful sentinel,\nbut _within us_ as a heavenly spirit, befriending us in weakness, and\nbracing us for conflict. The inspiration of Christ is not any solitary,\nbarren, incommunicable prodigy; but diffusive, creative, vivifying as\nthe energy of God:\u2014not gathered up and concentrated in himself, as an\nobject of distant wonder; but reproducing itself, though in fainter\nforms, in the faithful hearts to which it spreads. While in him it had\nno human origin, but was spontaneous and primitive, flowing directly\nfrom the perception and affinity of God, it enters our souls as a gift\nfrom his nearer spirit, making us one with him, as he is one with the\nEternal Father. Children of God indeed we all are: nor is there any mind\nwithout his image: but in this Man of Sorrows the divine lineaments are\nso distinct, the filial resemblance to the Parent-spirit is so full of\ngrace and truth, that in its presence all other similitude fades away,\nand we behold his \u201cglory as of the _only_ begotten of the Father.\u201d It is\nthe very spirit of Deity visible on the scale of humanity. The colours\nof his mind, projected on the surface of Infinitude, form there the\nall-perfect God. The mere fact of his consciousness of the alliance with\nthe Creator, and his tranquil announcement of it, without the slightest\ninflation, and amid the exercise of the meekest sympathies, appears to\nme all-persuasive. From whom else could we hear such claims without\ndisgust? In a moment they would turn respect into aversion, and we\nshould pity them as insanity, or resent them as impiety. But to him they\nseem only level and natural; we hear them with assent and awe, prepared\nby such a transcendent veneration as only a being truly God-like could\nexcite. This is one of those statements which refutes or proves itself.\nWhoever, calmly affirming himself the Son and express similitude of God,\ncan thereby draw to him, instead of driving from him, the affections of\nthe wise and good, proclaims a thing self-evident; requiring, however,\nto be stated, in order to be tested.\n\nOf such _self-evidence_ as this, the gospels appear to me to be full.\nWhenever men shall learn to prefer a religious to a theological\nappreciation of Christ, and esteem his mind greater than his rank, much\nmore of this kind of internal proof will present itself. It has the\nadvantage of requiring no impracticable learning, and being open, on\ninternal study of the books, to all men of pure mind and genuine heart;\nit is moral, not literary; addressing itself to the intuitions of\nconscience, not to the critical faculties. It makes us disciples, on the\nsame principles with the first followers of Christ, who troubled\nthemselves about no books, and forged no chains of scholastic logic to\ntie them to the faith; but watched the Prophet, beheld his deeds of\npower, felt his heavenly spirit, heard his word, found it glad tidings,\nand believed. In short, it is identical with the evidence to which our\nLord was so fond of appealing when he said, \u201cNo man can come to me,\nexcept the Father, which hath sent me, draw him;\u201d[51] \u201cevery one that is\nof the truth heareth my voice;\u201d[52] \u201cif I do not the works of my Father,\nbelieve me not;\u201d[53] \u201cmy sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they\nfollow me;\u201d[54] \u201cif any man will do His will, he shall know of the\ndoctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.\u201d[55] This\nspiritual attraction to Christ, arising out of mere contemplation and\nstudy of the interior of his life, is enough to bring us reverently to\nhis feet,\u2014to accept him as the divinely-sent image of Deity, and the\nappointed representative of God. If this be not discipleship, allow me\nto ask, \u201c_What is it?_\u201d\n\nI consider, then, _this internal or self-evidence_ of the New Testament,\nas incomparably the most powerful that can be adduced; as securing for\nChristianity an eternal seat in human nature, so as to throw ridicule on\nthe idea of its subversion; and as the only evidence suitable, from its\nuniversality, to a religion intended for the majority of men, rather\nthan for an oligarchy of literati.\n\nBut though the divine perfection and authority of Christ may thus be\nmade manifest to our moral and spiritual nature, what is called the\nplenary inspiration of the whole Bible is by no means a thing equally\nself-evident. By the term _plenary inspiration_ is denoted the\ndoctrine,\u2014That every idea which a just interpretation may discover in\nthe Scriptures, is infallibly true, and that even every word employed in\nits expression is dictated by the unerring spirit of God; so that every\nstatement, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelations, must\nbe implicitly received, \u201cas though from the lips of the Almighty\nhimself.\u201d We are first assured that whoever denies this, shall have his\nname cancelled from the Book of life; and then we are called upon to\ncome forward, and say plainly whether we believe it. The invitation\nsounds terrible enough. Nevertheless, having a faith in God, which takes\nthe awe out of Church thunders, I say distinctly, this doctrine we do\nnot believe; and ere I have done, I hope to show that no man who can\nweigh evidence, ought to believe it.\n\nIt is clear that, by no interior marks, can a book prove this sort of\ninspiration to belong to itself. Accordingly, the advocates for it are\nobliged to quit the intrinsic evidence, of which I have hitherto spoken,\nand to seek external and foreign testimony on behalf of the Biblical\nwritings, and of the New Testament in the first instance. The course of\nthe reasoning is thus adverted to by Bishop Marsh: \u201cThe arguments which\nare used,\u201d he says, \u201cfor divine inspiration, are all founded on the\nprevious supposition that the Bible is _true_; for we appeal to the\ncontents of the Bible in proof of inspiration. Consequently, these\narguments can have no force till the authenticity and credibility of the\nBible have been already established,\u201d[56] \u201cSuppose,\u201d observes the same\nauthor, \u201cthat a professor of Divinity begins his course of lectures with\nthe doctrine of divine inspiration; this doctrine, however true in\nitself, or however certain the arguments by which it may be established,\ncannot possibly, in that stage of his enquiry, be proved to the\nsatisfaction of his audience; because he has not yet established other\ntruths, from which this must be deduced. For whether he appeals to the\npromises of Christ to his Apostles, or to the declarations of the\nApostles themselves, he must take for granted that these promises and\ndeclarations were really made; _i.e._, he must take for granted the\nauthenticity of the writings in which these promises and declarations\nare recorded. But how is it possible that conviction should be the\nconsequence of postulating, instead of proving, a fact of such\nimportance?\u201d \u201cIf (as is too often the case in theological works) we\nundertake to prove a proposition by the aid of another which is\nhereafter to be proved, the inevitable consequence is, that the\nproposition in question becomes a link in the chain by which we\nestablish that very proposition, which at first was taken for granted.\nThus we prove premises from inferences, as well as inferences from\npremises; or, in other words, we prove\u2014nothing.\u201d[57]\n\nIn perfect consistency with these remarks, was the lucid exposition of\nthe true method of theological enquiry, which I had the privilege of\nhearing in Christ Church, on Wednesday last: to every word of which\n(limiting it, however, to the external evidences of Christianity) I\nentirely assent. It was then stated that we must\n\n(1st.) Ascertain that the books under examination are self-consistent,\nand that they contain nothing at variance with the character of God\nimpressed upon his works.\n\n(2ndly.) Enquire whether the writings are really the productions of the\nauthors whose names they bear; or, in other words, determine their\n_authenticity_.\n\n(3dly.) Whether the writers were in circumstances to know what they\nrelate, and were persons of character and veracity.\n\n(4thly.) Whether we have the works in an unmutilated state, and as they\ncame from the pens of the authors.\n\nIf all these researches should have an issue favourable to the writings,\nthe Lecturer conceives, for reasons which I think very inconclusive,\nthat the following inferences may be drawn:\u2014\n\n(1.) That the whole contents of the Bible have divine authority, because\nthey truly report the fulfilment of prophecy, and the performance of\nmiracles; and all the doctrines and lessons of a person who works\nmiracles must have divine authority.\n\n(2.) That the writers were so inspired, that their writings are, in all\nrespects, infallibly correct; for, among the facts narrated (and which\nwe admit to be true), is this one; that the Holy Ghost was promised to\nthe Apostles, and actually descended on the disciples assembled on the\nday of Pentecost, and was so extensively communicated through them to\nthe early church, that no New Testament writer could be without it. So\nthat these books are as strictly _the Word of God, as if all their\nstatements proceeded at once and immediately from the lips of the\nAlmighty himself_.\n\nAs \u201cthe Word of God\u201d is a beautiful Scriptural phrase, which I must\nrefuse to give up to this most unscriptural idea, I shall replace it,\nwhen I wish to speak of verbal inspiration, by the more appropriate\nexpression, the _Words_ of God. I discern in the Bible _the Word of\nGod_, but by no means the _Words of God_.\n\nFor the sake of brevity, I may be allowed to compress this elaborate\nsystem of external evidence into two successive divisions; and, taking\nup the first Gospel as an example, I should say, we have to enquire\nrespecting it,\n\n(1.) Whether we have the words of St. Matthew. And if this be determined\nin the affirmative,\n\n(2.) Whether we have the words of God.\n\n(1.) Our first attempt then must be, to establish the origin of these\nbooks from Apostles or Apostolic men,\u2014which is the sole ground for\naffirming their infallibility. The method by which their origin must be\nascertained is admitted to be similar to that which would be employed in\nthe case of any work not sacred. It is an enquiry altogether historical\nor antiquarian;\u2014a process of literary identification. We must collect,\nand dispose along an ascending chronological line, the various writers\nwho have quoted and mentioned the New Testament writings; call each, in\nturn, into the court of criticism, to speak to the identity of the work\nhe cites with that which we possess; and if the series of witnesses be\ncomplete,\u2014if, in following into antiquity the steps of their\nattestation, we find ourselves in contact with the Apostolic age, and\nnear the seats of Apostolic labours, we justly conclude that we have the\ngenuine and original productions. By the help of this foreign testimony,\nalmost all the books of the New Testament may be traced perhaps to the\nmiddle of the second century; the remaining fifty or sixty years to the\ndeath of St. John, and eighty or ninety to that of the Apostle of the\nGentiles, must be filled up by arguments showing, that this chasm is too\nsmall for the possibilities of forgery and mistake to take effect. The\nresults of this process are not fit matter for detailed criticism here;\nI will simply state, in general, that they yield a preponderating\nprobability in favour of the general reception, in the second age of the\nchurch, of all the New Testament writings, under the names of their\nreputed authors; and that it would be unreasonable to expect more\nprecise external evidence of authenticity than this. It is indeed much\neasier to prove in this way the origin, from the founders of our\nreligion, of the books which we receive, than to disprove a like\nauthority with respect to others which we disown, or whose memory (for\nmany of them are lost) we dishonour. The equal antiquity of some of\nthese repudiated works, it is scarcely possible to deny; their inferior\nauthority we are obliged either to conclude from their intrinsic\ncharacter, (a reason, often abundantly satisfactory,) or to assume on\nthe word of a set of ecclesiastical writers, not generally distinguished\nfor sound judgment or tranquil passions, nor always trustworthy, even in\nmatters of fact; and who notoriously formed their estimate of Christian\nbooks, less from enquiry into their genuineness, than from the supposed\northodoxy of their contents. The Christian Fathers, on whose statement\nthe whole case rests, were undoubtedly guilty of that which, at all\nevents, with far less justice, is charged on Unitarian authors: they\nthrew away many a writing as spurious, because they did not like its\ndoctrines; testing the work by their own belief, instead of their own\nbelief by the work. The zone of proof which encircles the books within\nthe canon, and separates them from the apocryphal tribe without, appears\nto me less sacred, and more faint, than it is common for theologians to\nallow. And even when the selection has been made, and we have agreed to\naccept the canon as it is, it is impossible, until it is shown that one\nuniform inspiration produced the whole, to acknowledge the equal value\nof every part. It is usual to urge the \u201cauthenticity\u201d upon us as a kind\nof technical quantity which we must take or reject, an indivisible\ntheological unit admitting of no variation, but that of positive or\nnegative. But it would surely be extraordinary, if all the twenty-seven\nbooks of the New Testament should have precisely the same amount of\nhistorical attestation in their favour; and it is undeniable that they\nhave not. The probabilities are much stronger in behalf of some books\nthan in that of others, though preponderant in all. There is a gradation\nof evidence, arranging the writings along at least five separate steps\nin the descent of proof; in effecting this division, however, let it be\nclearly understood, that I refer solely to the literary question of\npersonal authorship, not to that of religious worth and authority; and\nthat, for the moment, I take into account the internal as well as\nexternal considerations bearing upon this single point.\n\n1. The letters of St. Paul (excepting Hebrews) occupy the highest\nstation of evidence.\n\n2. The remaining letters, excepting 2nd Peter and Hebrews again, I\nshould place next.\n\n3. The Gospel of St. John is more certainly authentic than the other\nthree; which, however, would follow in the\n\n4th place with the book of Acts. And the list will be closed by\n\n5. The Apocalypse, 2 Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews.\n\nThis arrangement might be justified, if it were necessary, in detail.\nBut my sole purpose in stating it now, is to convey a distinct idea of\nthe kind of graduated scale of proof which, from the very nature of the\nenquiry, must be applied to the authenticity of the Christian records;\nand to give force to the protest, which truth compels me to enter\nagainst the indiscriminate coercion of assent attempted by theologians\nin this argument. With this qualification then, we approve the general\ndecision of the Protestant Churches, and adopt as authentic the canon as\nit stands. \u201cUnitarians,\u201d we repeat, \u201chave neither canon nor version of\ntheir own.\u201d\n\n\u201cWhat! not the Improved Version?\u201d I shall be asked:\u2014that favourite\nachievement of your most renowned Unitarian champions;\u2014published by a\nUnitarian society;\u2014circulated among your laity in three simultaneous\neditions; when assailed successively by Dr. Nares and Archbishop Magee,\nrepeatedly defended by your ablest critics in your own Journals;\ncontaining moreover all the standard heresies of your sect; using all\nyour received methods of getting rid of troublesome texts; and\nespecially relieving you of the doctrine of the miraculous conception by\nthe liberal application of Jehoiakim\u2019s pen-knife to the initial chapters\nof Matthew and Luke?[58] \u201cThe shades of Belsham, Lindsey, Jebb,\nPriestley, Wakefield, &c., might well be astonished to hear their\nlearned labours so contemptuously spoken of by\u201d the \u201cmodern disciples of\ntheir school.\u201d[59]\n\nNow it so happens, that, excepting two, all these good men were dead\nbefore the commencement of that work. Of the two survivors, Mr. Lindsey\nwas disabled, by the infirmities of age, from any participation in it,\nand scarcely lived to see it published.[60] The remaining divine, Mr.\nBelsham, was the real editor of this translation; and alone, among\nUnitarians, must have the whole honour or dishonour of the work. The\nfunds for the publication were doubtless furnished by a society, whose\nmembers hoped thus to present the theologian with a valuable\ncontribution to Biblical literature; but had neither power nor wish to\nbind themselves or others to an approval of its criticisms, or a\nmaintenance of its interpretations. That \u201call the ministers belonging to\nthis Society\u201d were enrolled in the Committee for preparing the Work, is\nitself a proof of the small proportion which the Association bore to the\nwhole body of Unitarians; and is well known to have been an inoperative\nform, which had no practical effect in dividing the chief Editor\u2019s\nresponsibility. The Version adopts, as a basis, the \u201cAttempt towards\nrevising our English Translation of the Greek Scriptures,\u201d by Archbishop\nNewcome, Primate of Ireland; from which, including the smallest verbal\nvariations, there are not, on an average, more than two deviations in a\npage; and it is a principle with the Editors, that these departures\nshall be noticed in the margin; so that any one, having the Improved\nVersion in his hand, has the Archbishop\u2019s Revision also before him. How\nfar this translation has authority with Unitarians, may perhaps be\njudged of from one fact. The clergymen who are holding up this work to\nthe pious horror of their hearers are repeating charges against it, long\nago preferred by Archbishop Magee; who, in his time, reproduced them\nfrom Dr. Nares, the Regius Professor of modern history in the University\nof Oxford; who, again, borrowed no small part of his materials from a\nReview of the Version, in the Monthly Repository for 1809, by Dr.\nCarpenter, a distinguished Unitarian Divine. I do not mean that there\nwas nothing but reproduction of the original Reviewer\u2019s materials\nthroughout all these steps; if it were so, I should be ashamed to call\nthat venerable man my friend: fresh objections were added at every\nstage; and, by Archbishop Magee, a mass of abuse the most coarse, and\nmisrepresentation the most black; repeated still by unsuspecting and\nunlearned admirers, who find it easier to acquire from him his aptitudes\nfor calumny than his acuteness in criticism. But the principal\nobjections to the Improved Version were certainly anticipated by Dr.\nCarpenter, who furnished a list of unacknowledged deviations from\nNewcome\u2019s revision, and from Griesbach\u2019s and the Received Texts;\u2014who\ncensured the whole system of departure from that text, which seemed to\nbe adopted as a standard; the license allowed to conjectural emendation;\nthe preference of Newcome\u2019s to the authorized version as a basis; the\nintroduction of any doctrinal notes; and, what is especially to our\npresent purpose, who vindicated, from the suspicion of spuriousness, the\ninitial chapters of St. Luke\u2019s Gospel, and consented to part with those\nof St. Matthew\u2019s, only because at variance with the authority of the\nthird Evangelist. From the armoury, therefore, of our own church, are\nstolen the very weapons, wherewith now, amid taunts of sacerdotal\nderision, we are to be driven as intruders from the fair fields of\nlearning. For myself, when the learned labours of Dissenters are\nridiculed, and the \u201cdefective scholarship\u201d of heretics affirmed, by the\nprivileged clergy of the established church, I always think of the\nUniversities,\u2014those venerable seats of instruction, from which\nNonconformists must be excluded. The precious food of knowledge is first\nlocked up; the key is hung beyond our reach; and then the starvelings\nmust be laughed at, when they sink and fall. But so is it always with\nunjust power; the habit of injury begets the propensity to scorn.[61]\n\nBut we are called upon to say, whether we really mean to repudiate the\nImproved Version. If by \u201crepudiate\u201d be meant, confess the truth of all\nthe accusations brought against it, or reject it from our libraries as\nunworthy of consultation, we do not repudiate it. But we do refuse to be\nheld responsible, directly or indirectly, for any portion of its\ncriticisms; with which we have no more concern, than have our Reverend\nassailants with the Translation of Luther or the Institutes of Calvin.\nIf we are pressed with the personal inquiry, \u201cbut, what portion of its\npeculiarities, especially in relation to the narrative of the miraculous\nconception, do you as a matter of fact, approve?\u201d I can answer for no\none but myself, for we have no theological standards, nor any\nrestriction on the exercise of private judgment, on such subjects. But,\nindividually, I have no objection to state, that I consider Mr. Belsham\nas having brought over the threshold of his conversion so much of his\noriginal orthodoxy, that, like all who insist upon finding a uniform\ndoctrinal system prevading the various records of Christianity, he is\njustly open to the charge of having accommodated both his criticism and\nhis interpretations to his belief; that his objections to the\nauthenticity of both accounts of the miraculous conception, appear to me\naltogether inconclusive; that I therefore leave these histories as\nintegral parts of the gospels they introduce.[62] Whether I receive all\ntheir statements as unerringly true, is a question altogether different;\nnor can the Lecturer who calls on us to satisfy him on this point, link\ntogether in one query our reception of these chapters as _authentic_ and\nas _true_, without falling into Mr. Belsham\u2019s own error of mixing these\ntwo things so obviously distinct. It no more follows, because these\nchapters are Matthew\u2019s, that they must be reconcilable with Luke, and\nso, free from objection to their truth; than, because they are\ninconsistent with Luke, therefore they cannot be Matthew\u2019s. This part of\nthe enquiry belongs to the second portion of our discussion respecting\nthe New Testament; whether, granting that we have the veritable words of\nthe reputed authors, we have, in consequence, the _ipsissima verba_ of\nGod. To this topic let us now proceed.\n\n(2.) The advocate of plenary inspiration, having obtained our assent to\nthe authenticity of the Christian Scriptures, proceeds to show their\ntruth. He reminds us that the depositions are no longer anonymous; and\nthat, the testimony having been duly signed, we may examine the\ncharacter of the witnesses. We call them therefore before us. They are\nplain, plebeian, hard-handed men of toil, who have laboured in the\nfields and olive-grounds of Jud\u00e6a, or held an oar on the Galilean Lake;\nwho nevertheless have been not without the cottage and the home, the\nparent, wife and child; belonging, moreover, to a country having\nsomething to remember, and more to expect. Addressed by a solitary and\nhouseless wanderer from Nazareth, won by some undefinable attraction\nthat makes them think him a man of God, they follow him awhile, hoping\nfor promotion, if he should prove, as they suspect, to be some great\none. Daily this hope declines, but hourly the love increases. They hang\nupon his words; their passions sink abashed before his look; they\nblindly follow his steps, knowing nothing but that they will be the\nsteps of mercy; they rebuke the blind beggar who cries; but he calls him\ngroping to him, and sends him dazzled away; they go to help the cripple,\nand ere they reach him, at a word he leaps up in strength; they fly at\nthe shriek of the maniac from the tombs, when lo! he lapses into\nsilence, and sits at the feet of the Nazarene in the tears of a right\nand grateful mind. How can they leave him? yet why precisely do they\nstay? If they depart, it is but to return with joy; and so they linger\nstill, for they learn to trust him better than themselves. They go with\nhim sorrowing; with occasional flashes of brilliant ambition, but with\nlonger darkness between; with lowering hopes, but deepening love; to the\nfarewell meal; to the moonlit garden, its anguished solitude, its\ntranquil surrender to the multitude, making the seeming captive the real\nconqueror; a few of them to the trial; one, to the cross; the women,\neven to the sepulchre; and all, agitated and unbelieving, were recalled\nin breathless haste from their despair by the third day\u2019s tidings, the\nLord has risen indeed! Thenceforth, they too are risen from the dead;\nthe bandages, as of the grave, drop from their souls; the spirit of God,\nwhich is the spirit of truth, comes to loose them and let go. Not higher\ndid the Lord ascend to the heaven which holds him now, than did they\nrise above the level of their former life. They understand it all, and\ncan proclaim it; the things that were to come,\u2014that dreadful cross, that\nthird day, so darkly hidden from their eyes,\u2014are shown them now; a\nthousand things which he had said unto them, rush, by the help of this\nnew spirit, to their remembrance. And forth they go, to tell the things\nwhich they have seen and heard. They most of them perished, not without\njoy, in the attempt; but they _did_ tell them, with a voice that could\nsummon nations and ages to the audience; which things are this day\nsounded in our ears.\n\nBut I suppose we must endeavour to speak coolly of these venerable men,\nif we are to save them from being deprived of their manhood, and turned\ninto the petrified images and empty vessels of a physical or\nintellectual inspiration. Why will the extravagance of Churches compel\nus to freeze down our religion into logic, to prevent it blazing into an\nunsocial fanaticism? If, however, we must weigh the Apostles\u2019 claims\nwith nice precision, we must say (at this stage of our enquiry we can\nsay only) that they were honest personal witnesses of visible and\naudible facts; deserving therefore of all the reliance to which\nveracity, severely tested, is entitled. To everything then which comes\nunder the description of _personal testimony_, their demand on our\nconfidence extends; their own impressions we believe to have been as\nthey record. But their inferences, their arguments, their\ninterpretations of ancient writings, their speculations on future\nevents, however just and perfect in themselves, are no part of the\n_report which they give in evidence_, and cannot be established by\nappeal to their integrity.\n\nNor, in this limitation of testimony to its proper province, is there\nanything in the slightest degree dishonourable to these \u201cchosen\nwitnesses.\u201d \u201cIs the judgment of the writers of the New Testament,\u201d says\nArchdeacon Paley, \u201cin interpreting passages of the Old, or, sometimes\nperhaps in receiving established interpretations, so connected either\nwith their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what\nwas passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it\nclearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit? Does it\ndiminish it? Has it any thing to do with it?\u201d \u201cWe do not usually\nquestion the credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have\ndelivered upon subjects unconnected with his evidence; and even upon\nsubjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the same\ndiscourse or writing, we naturally separate facts from opinions,\ntestimony from observation, narrative from argument.\u201d[63] Moreover, our\ndependence upon a faithful witness, besides being restricted to matters\nof fact, is measured by his _opportunities_ of observation; and it would\nbe absurd to insist on his being heard with precisely equal belief,\nwhether he relates, to the best of his knowledge, that which happened\nbefore he was born, or tells an occurrence that passed under his eyes.\nIf this distinction be not well founded, then has personal contact with\nevents no advantage; the stranger is on a footing with the observer; and\nall the defensive reasonings which theologians have thrown round\nChristianity, from the station which the Apostles occupied as\neye-witnesses, are destitute of meaning; supported though they are by\nthe sanction of the Apostles themselves, whose constant claim to belief,\nwhen they preached, was this only, \u201cand we are witnesses of these\nthings.\u201d And if this distinction be well founded, there is just ground\nfor discriminating between the different parts of an historian\u2019s\nnarrative, and giving the highest place of credit to that which he had\nthe best means of knowing; nor is it possible to admit the rule which I\nheard laid down on Wednesday evening, that if we discover in an\nEvangelist a single incorrect statement, the whole book must be\nrepudiated,\u2014selection being wholly out of the question. Of the birth of\nChrist, for example, St. Matthew was not a witness; of his ministry he\nwas; and has the report of the latter no higher claim upon belief than\nthe history of the former,\u2014seen as it was only in retrospect, at the\ndistance of from thirty to sixty years, and through the colours of a\nsubsequent life so great, so marvellous, so solemn? Hence, with relation\nto the initial chapters of the first and third Evangelists, while I\nleave them on an equality with the rest of the Gospels, in respect of\nauthenticity, I place them in an inferior rank of credibility;\nespecially since I find it impossible to reconcile them with each other.\nTo justify this opinion, I will point out two inconsistencies between\nthem, one chronological, the other geographical. I heard it affirmed on\nWednesday evening, that the former of these difficulties was only\napparent, and arose from the mistaken calculation of our Christian era,\nthe commencement of whose year, 1, does not really strike, as it ought,\nthe hour of the nativity. Well, then, we will throw this era aside for\nthe moment, and employ another mode of reckoning, prevalent among the\nhistorians of those times, dating from the building of Rome. St. Luke\ntells us that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, our Lord was about\nthirty years of age; this would assign the birth of Christ, at the\nearliest, to Jan. 1 of the year of Rome 751. According to St. Matthew,\nhe was born full one year before the death of King Herod, whose massacre\nof the innocents included all under two years; the latest date that can\nbe fixed for the death of Herod is Feb. or March 751, so that the\nnativity falls, according to one Evangelist not later than 750,\naccording to the other not earlier than 751.[64] The geographical\ndiscrepancy between the two Evangelists has reference to the habitual\nresidence of the Virgin Mary; St. Matthew supposes Bethlehem to have\nbeen Joseph\u2019s usual dwelling place; and \u201cnothing can be more evident\nthan that, according to the account of St. Luke, Joseph was a total\nstranger at Bethlehem.\u201d I quote the opinion of the Rev. Connop\nThirlwall, a divine whose distinguished philological attainments have\ngiven him a European reputation, without at present raising him to that\nstation in his own church, which would best suit his merits and her\ndignity.[65]\n\nThe variance between two narratives is no sufficient reason for\nrejecting both, though it compels the disbelief of one. In the present\ninstance, the probabilities appear to preponderate in favour of St.\nLuke\u2019s. And, returning from the particular case to the general rule, I\nconclude this topic by repeating, respecting the \u201c_credibility_\u201d of any\nset of historical works, the remark formerly made respecting their\n\u201c_authenticity_.\u201d I protest against its being urged upon us as an\nindissoluble magnitude, without fractional parts, incapable of increment\nor decrement, analysis or composition, which must be taken whole, or\nrejected whole; and I claim the right, till it can be shown not to\nbelong to me, of reducing the recorded events of Scripture into classes,\naccording to their decree of probability and their force of testimony.\nWith this qualification, we maintain, with all other Christians, the\nample credibility and the actual truth of the Gospel records, making no\ndivorce between the natural and the miraculous, but taking both as\ninseparably woven together into the texture of the same faithful\nnarrative.\n\nBut this step in the argument, I am reminded, cannot be taken without\nanother, which brings us directly to the intellectual infallibility of\nthe Apostles. Among the primary and undisputed facts which they record\nfrom personal experience, are the miracles which they wrought; and\nmiracles, being an interposition of God, establish the divine authority\nof the performer; so that all the lessons and sentiments propounded by a\nperson so endowed, must be received as immediate communications from the\nUnerring Spirit.\n\nTo this argument, if somewhat limited in the extent of its conclusion, I\nbelieve that most Unitarians would yield their assent. Certain it is\nthat their best writers constantly reason from the miraculous acts, to\nthe doctrinal inspiration of the first preachers of Christianity; and\nDr. Priestley calls it \u201cegregious trifling\u201d[66] to question the\nsoundness of the proof. Yet it is surely difficult to reconcile it with\nfact and Scripture; and not less so to state it logically in words. In\nwhatever form it is expressed, it rests upon a postulate which I hold to\nbe false and irreligious; viz., that the supernatural is Divine, the\nnatural not Divine; that God did the miracles, and since the creation\nhas done nothing else; that Heaven gave a mission to those whom it thus\nendowed, and has given no mission to those who are otherwise endowed.\nAll peculiar _consecration_ of miracle is obtained by a precisely\nproportioned _desecration_ of nature; it is out of a supposed contrast\nbetween the two, that the whole force of the impression arises. The\nimagination which overlooks and forgets all that is sacred in the common\nearth and sky, that gives itself over to the dream, that all is dead\nmechanism,\u2014downright clock-work, wound up, perhaps at creation, but\nrunning down of itself till doom; the heart that feels nothing divine in\nlife, and nothing holy in man; that has lost, from Epicurean sloth and\nsickness of soul, the healthy faculty of spontaneous wonder, and worship\never fresh,\u2014are the pupils most ripe for this tutelage. The Deity must\nbe thrust from the universe, or else benumbed there, in order to\nconcentrate his energies in the preternatural. The speculative convert\nto miracles, is the practical Atheist of nature.\n\nI need not remind any reader of the Gospels, of the accordance of this\nview with the general temper of our Lord\u2019s mind. His miracles, surely,\nsprung from compassionate, not proselytizing impulses; had a practical,\nnot a didactic air; were not formally wrought as preliminaries to a\ndiscourse, but spontaneously issued from the quietude of pity; they were\nnot syllogisms, but mercies. Nay, where conviction was most needed, what\nis said of him? \u201cHe did not many mighty works there, _because of their\nunbelief_;\u201d[67] unless he wished them to continue in unbelief, he must\nhave regarded miracles as an improper instrument of overcoming it. And\ncan we forget his language of rebuke, \u201cexcept ye see signs and wonders,\nye will not believe,\u201d[68] When he appeals to his \u201c_works_,\u201d it is to his\n\u201c_many good works_;\u201d[69] to the benevolence of his acts, not their\nmarvellousness chiefly, to their being \u201cthe works of his Father,\u201d[70]\nconceived in the spirit of God, and bearing the impress of his\ncharacter.\n\nThis estimate of the logical force of miracles (the moral power of those\nwhich belong to Christianity is incalculable) appears to be consonant\nwith experience. I conceive that, _in fact_, unbelievers are very seldom\nconvinced by the appeal to the supernatural; that the avenues of\nadmission to Christianity lie usually in quite a different direction;\nand that the reason and affections surrender to Christ\u2019s spirit, and\nthus comprehend the thing signified, before they can receive and\ninterpret \u201c_the sign_.\u201d Nay, let me put the case home to your own\nexperience. Would you, by this instrumentality, become convinced of that\nwhich you before held false? If, before your eyes, a person were to\nmultiply five loaves into five hundred, and then say, \u201cthis is to prove\nthe doctrines which I teach, that God is malignant, and that there is no\nheaven after death,\u201d\u2014should you be converted, and follow him as his\ndisciple? Certainly not; the statement being incredible, the miracle\nwould be powerless. And the inference I would draw is this: that the\nprimitive force of persuasion lies in the moral doctrine as estimated by\nour reason and conscience, not in the preternatural act displayed before\nour senses; for, the moment you test their forces, by bringing them into\ncollision, the original convictions of the reason obtain the mastery. It\nis no answer to say, that such a case is of impossible occurrence. For\nthe purpose to which I apply it, viz., to try an experiment with our own\nminds, respecting the real argumentative capabilities of miracles, an\nimaginary case is not only as good as an actual one, but a great deal\nbetter: for so long as a good truth and a good miracle are linked\ntogether, and move in the same direction, we rest confusedly in the\njoint support of physical and moral evidence, and are unable to\ndetermine which is the ascendant power.\n\nThe statements and examples of Scripture tend to the same conclusion.\nThe personal disciples of our Lord returned from a mission on which he\nhad sent them; exclaiming, \u201cLord, even the devils are subject unto us\nthrough thy name,\u201d[71] Yet, though they were possessed of these\nmiraculous powers, their views of the very kingdom which they had gone\nforth to preach were at this time exceedingly narrow and\nerroneous,\u2014leading them into acts and desires ambitious, passionate, and\nfalse.\n\nMiracles, then, are simply awakening facts: demanding and securing\nreverential and watchful regard to something, or to everything, in the\npersons performing them; but not specifically singling out any portion\nof their doctrinal ideas, and affording them infallible proof. Is it not\ncompetent to God thus to draw human attention to a _person_, as well as\na truth;\u2014to a _character_, as well as a doctrine? At all events, it is\nan unwarrantable presumption in us to select for the All-wise the\nparticular motive with which exclusively he ought to create a miracle;\ninstead of humbly noting the actual results, and judging thence of his\ndivine purposes.\n\nBut, it will now be urged, whatever sentiments may be entertained\nrespecting the proper inference from miracles in general, there is one\nin particular which directly establishes the plenary inspiration of the\napostles and first disciples. It is recorded in the book of Acts, that\non the day of Pentecost, when they were with one accord in one place,\nthe Holy Ghost descended upon all.[72] The two Evangelists, St. Matthew\nand St. John, were present; so were St. Peter and St. James; for all\nthese were Apostles. And we know that, by the laying on of the hands of\nthe Apostles, the same power passed into all disciples on whom they\nmight choose to confer the privilege. We cannot suppose any of the New\nTestament authors to have been excluded from this class; and must\ntherefore believe, that every word of the Christian canon was composed\nunder the influence of the Unerring Spirit. This argument is proposed in\nthe following words, by Dr. Tattershall, in his published sermon on the\n\u201cNature and Extent of the Right of Private Judgment.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe Scriptures have been already proved\u201d ... \u201cto be a true and\nauthentic history; one of the principal facts of which history is, the\noutpouring of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples of Christ.\nI take, therefore, as an example, the Gospel of St. Matthew, and reason\nas follows:\u2014I learn, from the history, that Christ\u2019s disciples were\ninspired by the Holy Ghost; among this number was St. Matthew; therefore\nSt. Matthew was inspired; and, consequently, that which he wrote, under\nthis influence of inspiration, is to be regarded as the Word of God.\nWhereas, on the other hand, if St. Matthew was not inspired, the history\nrelates that which is not true, and the credibility of the whole sacred\nhistory is at once destroyed: and, with it, both the Church, and also\nChristianity itself, must fall to the ground.\u201d[73]\n\nNow to convey, at the outset, a distinct idea of the reason why this\nargument does not convince me, let me say, that I believe St. Matthew to\nhave been inspired; but I do not believe him to have been infallible. I\nam sure that he nowhere puts forth any such claim: and if he does not\naffirm it himself, I know not who can affirm it for him. Indeed, to the\nadvocates of this doctrine it must seem strange, that even St. John the\nDivine, instead of bearing down all doubt by this overwhelming claim,\nshould so modestly and carefully conciliate the belief of his readers,\nby appealing to his own human opportunities of information: \u201cand _he\nthat saw it_ bare record, and his record is true:\u201d[74] \u201cthis is the\ndisciple _that testifieth_ of these things, and wrote these things:\u201d[75]\nand that St. Luke should content himself with saying, at the\ncommencement of his Gospel, that its materials were furnished by those\nwho \u201cfrom the beginning were eye-witnesses.\u201d[76]\n\nEverything in this argument clearly depends on the meaning which we are\nto attach to the phrases \u201cHoly Ghost,\u201d\u2014\u201cInspiration,\u201d\u2014\u201cSpirit of\nGod,\u201d\u2014and other forms of expression employed to denote this peculiar\ninfluence. What, according to the Scriptures, were the _appropriate\nfunctions_ of this Divine Agent? and are we to include among them an\nexemption of those on whom its power fell from all possibilities of\nerror, in narration, in reasoning, in expectation, in speculative and\npractical doctrine? In short, do the sacred writers represent this Holy\nSpirit as conferring intellectual infallibility?\n\nNow the original account of the descent of the Holy Spirit certainly\nimplies nothing of the kind.[77] The _gift of tongues_, which St. Paul,\nthough possessed of it in the highest degree,[78] places in the lowest\nrank of spiritual gifts,[79] and which he expressly discriminates from\n\u201cthe word of wisdom,\u201d and \u201cthe word of knowledge,\u201d[80] is the only\npreternatural effect there ascribed to this new influence. Other\npassages descriptive of this agency equally fall short of this claim of\ninfallibility. We read, for example,[81] that by the direction of the\nApostles, seven persons were to be selected from the general body of\nbelievers, who were to be men \u201cfull of the Holy Ghost, _and\nwisdom_,\u201d\u2014the two attributes being distinguished. It must be supposed,\ntoo, that the qualifications demanded of these officers had some\nproportionate reference to the duties assigned. These duties were simply\nthe management of the society\u2019s financial accounts, and the distribution\nof its eleemosynary funds. When it is said that John the Baptist should\n\u201cbe filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother\u2019s womb,\u201d[82] are we\nto understand, that from earliest infancy he was infallible?\u2014he who, in\nthe very midst of his ministry, sent to Jesus for information on this\nquestion, \u201cArt thou he that should come, or do we look for\nanother?\u201d[83]\u2014a question, be it observed, which implies doubt on the\ngreat subject-matter of the Baptist\u2019s whole mission. Perhaps, however,\nit will be admitted that there are inferior degrees of this inspiration;\nso that passages like this may be found, in which the phrases denoting\nit are used in a lower sense. But, it will be said, in its highest\nintensity it cannot be so restricted, and is even distinctly affirmed to\ninvolve infallibility. The operations of the spirit of God are\ndistributed by theologians into two classes,\u2014the extraordinary,\nexperienced by the apostles, and exempting them from liability to\nerror,\u2014the ordinary, which are assured to all true disciples, and whose\noffice implies no further illumination of the understanding, than is\nneedful for the sanctification of the heart. Now if this statement and\ndivision be really true and scriptural, we shall doubtless find Christ\nand his Apostles separating their promises of divine influence into two\ncorresponding sets; keeping things so different, clear of all confusion;\nand fully as exact in this \u201cdiscerning of spirits,\u201d as their modern\ndisciples. But so far is this from being the case, that between the\n_greater spirit_ of the twelve apostles, and the _less spirit_ of the\ngeneral church, no distinction whatever is drawn; nor any between the\n_intellectual infallibility_ which was to await the apostles, and the\n_spiritual sanctification_ promised to the faithful multitude of all\nages. Nay, it so happens, that the most unlimited expressions relating\nto the subject occur in such connections, that they cannot be confined\nto the apostles, but obviously apply to all private Christians. For\ninstance, shall we say that our Lord\u2019s promise of the \u201cComforter, which\nis the Holy Ghost,\u201d explained by the remarkable synonym which he\nappended, \u201c_the spirit of truth_\u201d which should \u201c_teach them all\nthings_,\u201d and \u201c_lead them into all truth_\u201d\u2014implies universal\nillumination of the understanding? Close at hand is a clause forbidding\nthe interpretation, by spreading the promise over all ages of the\nchurch; \u201cI will pray the Father, and he will give you another Comforter,\n_that he may abide with you for ever, even the spirit of truth_;\u201d[84]\nand the expression is accordingly quoted by Dr. Wardlaw, as descriptive\nof the common operations of the spirit.[85] Again, St. John in his first\n_General Epistle_ (addressed of course to the whole church) says, \u201cYe\nhave an unction from the Holy One, and _ye know all things_.\u201d[86] Take\nthen the strongest and most unqualified expressions on this subject, and\nif they prove the infallibility of the apostles, they prove the same of\nall private Christians. Or, take those which show sanctification to be\nthe characteristic office of the Holy Spirit with respect to the general\nchurch, and you show that this also was its agency on the Apostles.\n\nOne or two texts are occasionally adduced in defence of this doctrine;\ntheir paucity and inapplicability show how slight is the scripture\nfoundation on which it rests. By far the most remarkable of these is\nfound in 2 Tim. iii. 16. \u201cAll scripture is given by inspiration of God,\nand is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for\ninstruction in righteousness.\u201d Now observe,\n\n1. That the verb _is_, which constitutes the whole affirmation here, has\nnothing corresponding to it in the Greek, and is put in by the English\ntranslators. Of course the sentence requires a verb _somewhere_, but the\nplace of its insertion depends on the discretion of the translator.\nBaxter, Grotius, and other critics, accordingly render the passage thus:\n\u201cAll scripture, given by inspiration of God, is also profitable,\u201d &c.\nThe Apostle has already been reminding Timothy of the importance of\nthose scriptures with which he had been acquainted from his youth, to\nhis _personal faith_: and he now adds, that they are _also_ useful for\nhis _public teaching_. He therefore simply says that whatever scriptures\nare given by inspiration of God, are thus profitable.\n\n2. Since Paul first speaks generally of those scriptures with which\nTimothy had been familiar from his youth, and then proceeds to select\nfrom these a certain class, as given by inspiration of God, his\ndescription extends to no portion of the New Testament, and only to some\nwritings of the Old. The purpose for which he recommends them, indicates\nwhat books were in his thoughts. As they were to aid Timothy in his\npublic duty of convincing his countrymen that Jesus was the Messiah, he\nrefers to those books which had sustained the expectation of a\nMessiah,\u2014the Jewish Prophets. \u201cThe whole extent of his doctrine, I\nconceive to have been expressed by the Apostle Peter thus: \u2018prophecy\ncame not in old time by the will of men; but holy men of God spake,\nmoved by the Holy Spirit;\u2019[87]\u2014that those also who recorded these\n_speeches_, _wrote_ by the Holy Spirit; that, in addition to the\nsuperhuman message, there was a superhuman report of it, is a notion\nwhich no trace can be found in the apostolic writings. The whole amount,\ntherefore, of the Apostle\u2019s doctrine is this; that the prophets had a\npreternatural knowledge of future events; and that their communications\nwere recorded in the prophetic books. By the admission of these points,\nthe theory of _inspired composition_ obviously gains nothing.\u201d[88]\n\nNo appeal can be more unfortunate for the advocate of plenary\ninspiration, than to the writings of the great apostle of the Gentiles.\nNot a trace can be found in them of the cold, oracular dignity,\u2014the\nbold, authoritative enunciation,\u2014the transcendental exposition, equally\nabove argument and passion, in which conscious and confessed\ninfallibility would deliver its decisions. All the natural faculties of\nthe man are shed forth, with most vehement precipitation, on every page.\nHe pleads with his disciples, as if kneeling at their feet. He\nwithstands Peter to the face,\u2014though no less inspired than\nhimself,\u2014because he was to be blamed for unsound sentiments and\ninconsistent conduct. He hurries so eagerly, and sinks so deep into an\nillustration, that scarcely can he make a timely retreat. He too quickly\nseizes an analogy to apply it with exactitude and precision. And above\nall, he is incessantly engaged in _reasoning_: and by that very act, he\nselects as his own the common human level of address,\u2014generously submits\nhis statements to the verdict of our judgment, and leaves that judgment\nfree to accept or to reject them. Nor is it on mere subordinate points\nthat he contents himself with this method, which, by challenging search,\nabandons infallibility. The great controversies of the infant church,\nwhich involved the whole future character of Christianity, which decided\nhow far it should conciliate Polytheism, and how much preserve of\nJudaism, the apostle of the Gentiles boldly confides to reasoning: and\nhis writings are composed chiefly of _arguments_, protective of the\nGospel from compromise with Idolatry on the one hand, and slavery to the\nLaw on the other.\n\nNor is this denied by any instructed divine of any church. In insisting\n\u201cupon the duty of professed Christians to abstain from all compliance\nwith the idolatrous practices of the heathens around them,\u201d says Dr.\nTattershall, \u201cSt. Paul, even though an inspired Apostle, does not\nproceed upon the mere dictum of authority, but appeals to the _reason_\nof those to whom he writes; and calls upon them to reflect upon the\ninconsistency of such conduct, with the nature of their Christian\nprofession. In fact, he produces _arguments_, and desires them to weigh\nthe reasons which he assigns, and see whether they do not fully sustain\nthe conclusion which he draws from them. \u2018I speak,\u2019 says he, \u2018as to\n_wise_ men, JUDGE YE what I say.\u2019\u201d[89]\n\nIf then the Apostle wrote his letters under inspiration, have we not\nhere direct authority to sit in judgment on the productions of\ninspiration, or _the contents of the word of God_; not merely to learn\nwhat is said, but to consider its inherent reasonableness and truth? No\none, indeed, can state more forcibly than Dr. Tattershall himself the\nprinciple, of which this conclusion is only a particular case. \u201cWhen I\nreason with an opponent,\u201d says he, \u201cI do _not_ invade his acknowledged\nright of private judgment, nor do I require of him to surrender that\njudgment to me. I am, in fact, doing the precise _contrary_ of this. I\nam, _by the very act of reasoning_, both _acknowledging_ his right of\njudgment, and making an _appeal_ to it.\u201d[90]\n\nTo acknowledge the right of judgment, is to forego the claim of\ninfallibility, and to concede the privilege of dissent; and thus frankly\ndoes St. Paul deal with me. Vainly do his modern expounders attempt to\nmake him the instrument of their own assumptions. To appeal to my\nreason, and then, if I cannot see the force of the proof, to hold me up\nas a blasphemer and a rebel against the word of God, is an\ninconsistency, of which only the degenerate followers of the great\nApostle could be guilty. His writings disown, in every page, the\ninjurious claims which would confer on them an artificial authority, to\nthe ruin of their true power and beauty. In order to show the absolute\ndivine truth of all that may be written by an inspired man, it is not\nenough to establish the _presence_ of inspiration, you must prove also\nthe _absence_ of everything else. And this can never be done with any\nwritings made up, like the Apostle\u2019s, of a scarce-broken tissue of\nargument and illustration. It is clear that he was not forbidden to\nreason and expound, to speculate and refute, to seek access, by every\nmethod of persuasion, to the minds he was sent to evangelize; to appeal,\nat one time to his interpretation of prophecy, at another to the visible\nglories of creation, and again to the analogies of history. Where could\nhave been his zeal, his freshness, his versatility of address, his\nself-abandonment, his various success, if his natural faculties had not\nbeen left to unembarassed action? And the moment you allow free action\nto his intelligence and conscience, you inevitably admit the\npossibilities of error, which are inseparable from the operations of the\nhuman mind. To grant that Paul reasons, and be startled at the idea that\nhe may reason incorrectly,\u2014to admit that he speculates, and yet be\nshocked at the surmise that he may speculate falsely,\u2014to praise his\nskill in illustration, yet shrink in horror when something less apposite\nis pointed out, is an obvious inconsistency. The human understanding\ncannot perform its functions without taking its share of the chances of\nerror; nor can a critic of its productions have any perception of their\ntruth and excellence, without conceding the possibility of fallacies and\nfaults. We must give up our admiration of the Apostles as men, if we are\nto listen to them always as oracles of God.\n\nBut I must proceed to my last argument, which is a plain one, founded\nupon facts, open to every one who can read his Bible. I state it in the\nwords of Mr. Thirlwall: \u201cthe discrepancies found in the Gospels compel\nus to admit that the superintending control of the Spirit was not\nexerted to exempt the sacred writings altogether from errors and\ninadvertencies;\u201d[91] nay, he speaks of \u201cthe more rigid theory of\ninspiration\u201d having been so long \u201cabandoned by the learned on account of\nthe insuperable difficulties opposed to it by the discrepancies found in\nthe Gospels, that it would now be a waste of time to attack it.\u201d[92]\n\nI heard it affirmed on Wednesday evening, that, in the sacred writings,\nno case can possibly occur of self-contradiction or erroneous statement;\nthat the very idea of inspiration is utterly opposed to all supposition\nof the presence of error; that the occurrence of such a blemish would\nprove, that the writer was not so under the immediate teaching and\nsuperintendence of Almighty God as to be preserved from error; or, in\nother words, that he was not inspired; that the erroneous passage must\nindeed be rejected, but, with it, the whole work in which it is found,\nas destitute of divine authority. I have brought Mr. Thirlwall to\nconfront the question of fact; let me quote Dr. Paley in relation to\nthis statement of principle. \u201cI know not,\u201d he says, \u201ca more rash or\nunphilosophical conduct of the understanding, than to reject the\nsubstance of a story, by reason of some diversities in the circumstances\nwith which it is related. The usual character of _human testimony_ (Dr.\nPaley is discussing the discrepancies between the several Gospels), is,\nsubstantial truth under circumstantial variety.\u201d \u201cOn the contrary, a\nclose and minute agreement induces the suspicion of confederacy and\nfraud.\u201d[93] If both these statements be true, the phenomena of\ninspiration would be identical with those of confederacy and fraud. I\nestimate the Scriptures far too highly to hesitate, for a moment, about\npointing out to your notice certain small variations and\ninconsistencies, utterly destructive of the doctrine of plenary\ninspiration; but absolutely confirmatory, in some instances, of the\nveracity of the historians, and, in all, compatible with it. Our faith\nscorns the insinuation, that these sacred writings require \u201cany\nforbearance from the boasted understanding of man.\u201d\n\n1. The different Evangelists are at variance with each other, with\nrespect to the calling of the first Apostles. They differ with respect\nto the _time_, the _place_, the _order_; e.g.:\n\nFirst, as to _time_; Matthew[94] represents the imprisonment of John the\nBaptist as the occasion of our Lord\u2019s beginning to preach, and as\npreceding the call of any Apostles.\n\nJohn[95] represents Andrew and Simon, Philip and Nathanael, as\ncalled,\u2014the miracle at Cana as wrought, a Passover as attended at\nJerusalem,\u2014a residence of Jesus and his disciples in the rural district\nof Jud\u00e6a, as going on; and then adds, \u201cfor John was not yet cast into\nprison.\u201d\n\nNext, as to _place_; according to Matthew and Mark,[96] Andrew and Peter\nare called by the Lake of Galilee; according to John, in Jud\u00e6a.\n\nAnd as to _order_; Matthew and Mark represent the two pairs of brothers,\nas _successively_ called: first, Andrew and Peter; then, after a short\ninterval, James and John.\n\nLuke,[97] making no mention of Andrew, represents the others as\nsimultaneously called.\n\nJohn represents Andrew as called with himself; and Peter, as\nsubsequently called, through the instrumentality of his brother Andrew.\nOf James (though affirmed by the other Evangelists to have been his own\ncompanion in the call), he is silent.\n\nThe three first writers not being present, it is nothing wonderful that\nthey are less accurate than the fourth, who was.\n\n2. The three denials of Peter, as recorded by the first, third, and\nfourth Evangelists, will be found inconsistent in their minute\ncircumstances. The denials are uttered,\n\n { 1. to a maid.\n according to Matthew,[98] { 2. to another maid.\n { 3. to those who stood by.\n\n { 1. to a maid.\n according to Luke,[99] { 2. to a man.\n { 3. to another man.\n\n { 1. to the maid who admitted him.\n according to John,[100] { 2. to the officers of the palace.\n { 3. to a man (a relation of Malchus).\n\n3. Matthew[101] and Luke[102] state, that one Simon bore our Lord\u2019s\ncross to Calvary; John,[103] that Jesus bore it himself.\n\n4. The inscription annexed by Pilate to the cross is given differently\nby every one of the Evangelists.\n\n Matthew:[104] \u201cThis is Jesus the king of the Jews.\u201d\n Mark:[105]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThe king of the Jews.\u201d\n Luke:[106] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u201cThis is the king of the Jews.\u201d\n John:[107] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cJesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews.\u201d\n\n5. Matthew[108] and Mark[109]; state that our Lord on the cross was\nreviled by both the malefactors; but Luke[110] affirms that when one of\nthem was guilty of this shocking mockery, he was rebuked by the other;\nand that the latter received the well-known assurance, \u201cthis day shalt\nthou be with me in Paradise.\u201d\n\n6. The last discrepancy which I shall mention, has reference to the\nfinal Passover, and its relation to the day of crucifixion. But in order\nto understand the case, and indeed to read with intelligence the whole\nseries of events connected with the crucifixion and resurrection, it is\nnecessary to bear in mind the following facts:\u2014\n\n(a.) That the Jewish day commenced in the evening, and was reckoned from\nsunset to sunset.\n\n(b.) That the Jewish Sabbath was the seventh day of the week, and\nextended from six o\u2019clock on Friday evening, to the same time on\nSaturday.\n\n(c.) That at the Passover, the paschal lamb was slain at the end of one\nJewish day, and eaten immediately, _i.e._, at the commencement of the\nnext, or about six or seven in the evening. The three hours before\nsunset, during which it was prepared, were called _preparation of the\nPassover_, and belonged to the fourteenth of the month; while the hours\nafter sunset, during which it was eaten, belonged to the fifteenth. The\nphrase, _preparation of the Sabbath_, was used in like manner, to denote\nthe three hours before sunset every Friday.\n\n(d.) The Passover being fixed to the fifteenth of the _month_, and\n_that_ a lunar month, necessarily moved over all the days of the week;\nand might fall, of course, into coincidence with the weekly Sabbath.\n\n(e.) The feast of unleavened bread was a festival of seven days\u2019\nduration, the first day of which coincided with that on which the\nPassover was eaten, following of course that on which it was killed.\n\nThese things being premised, we are prepared to notice the points on\nwhich the Evangelists agree, and those in which they disagree, in their\naccounts of the crucifixion, and its connected events. They all agree in\nassigning the same distinguishing incidents of our Lord\u2019s personal\nhistory to the _four great days of the week_ most interesting to\nChristians, viz., to the Thursday the last supper; to the Friday, the\ncrucifixion; to the Saturday, the sleep in the sepulchre; to the Sunday,\nthe resurrection. But about the position of the Jewish Passover upon\nthese days, they singularly differ; St. John fixing it on the Friday\nevening, and making it therefore coincide with the weekly Sabbath; the\nother three fixing it on the Thursday evening, and so following it up by\nthe Sabbath. The variance is the more interesting from its influence on\nour views of the last supper; which, according to the three first\nEvangelists _was the Passover_, according to the fourth, was _not the\nPassover_. The institution of the Communion, as a Christian\ntransformation of the Jewish Festival rests entirely on the former of\nthese narratives; St. John is altogether silent respecting it. Yet it\nwas he who leaned on Jesus\u2019 bosom, and stood beneath his cross.\n\nNow what is the just inference from such discrepancies? Is it that the\nwriters were incompetent reporters of the main facts? Not so; for there\nare few biographers, however well-informed, whose testimony, produced in\ncircumstances at all parallel, would not yield, on the application of as\nsevere a test, inconsistencies more considerable. Is it that they are\nnot veracious? Not so; for not a trace of self-interest is discernible\nin these cases. Is it that they were not inspired? Not so; for the\ntransition they underwent from peasants to apostles, from dragging the\nlake to regenerating the world, is the sublimest case of inspiration\n(except one) with which God has refreshed the nations. But it is this;\nthat they were not intellectually infallible.\n\nI have now endeavoured to give some idea of two different ways of\nregarding the Christian records.\n\nI. They possess an _internal and self-evidence_, in their own moral\nbeauty and consistency, and the unimaginable perfection of the great Son\nof God, whom they bring to life before us. With this evidence, which is\nopen to every pure mind and true heart,\u2014which speaks to the conscience\nlike a voice of God without, conversing with the spirit of God within,\nall those may be content, who think that, _to accept Christ as the image\nof Deity, and the authoritative model of Duty_, is to be _a Christian_.\n\nII. Those, however, who think that, in order to be Christians, we must\nhold one only doctrinal creed, containing many things hard to\nunderstand, and harder to believe, are aware that nothing short of a\ndivine infallibility can prevail with us to receive a system so\nrepugnant to our nature. And as this is incapable of self-proof, they\nappeal chiefly to the _external evidence and foreign attestation_ which\nbelong to the Christian records; beginning with the historical method,\nthey endeavour to show,\n\n(1.) That we have the original words of the Gospel witnesses\n(_authenticity_):\n\n(2.) That, this being the case, we have the very Words of God (_plenary\ninspiration_).\n\nNow let me detain you by one reflection on these two methods. Suppose\neach, in turn, to prove insufficient, as a basis of Christianity, the\nother remaining firm; and consider what consequences will result.\n\nIf the internal or self-evidence be inadequate, (which our objectors\nmust suppose, for it cannot, they admit, prove their creeds,) then every\none must seek a foundation for his faith in the other. He must satisfy\nhimself, _in limine_, of the personal authorship of the books in the\nCanon; a purely literary inquiry, and one of extraordinary labour, even\nto those who enjoy every advantage for its prosecution. In order to be\nsaved, doctrines must be embraced, requiring for their proof an\ninspiration, which does not exist in the New Testament writings, except\non the supposition of their _apostolic origin_. The ascertainment, then,\nof _this_ point, is the necessary prelude to all saving faith; this duty\nlies on the outermost threshold of our acceptance with the Giver of\nsalvation. So that God hangs the eternal welfare of every man on an\ninvestigation so critical and elaborate, that a whole life of research\nis not too much to understand it, and the most familiar with its details\nare, by no means, the most uniformly confident of its results; an\ninvestigation which assigns a certain date to each book, as the lowest\nlimit of security; and says, if you dare to fix this letter or that\nGospel upon a time later by half a century, you are lost for ever.\n\nBut may not the young and the ignorant trust in the guidance of a\nteacher? In his sermon on private judgment, Dr. Tattershall treats of\nthis question, and lays down the following rule:\u2014\u201cIn the case of adults,\nsuch reliance is justifiable _so far_, and _no farther_, than it is\nunavoidable. So far as God has not given the ability, or the opportunity\nof investigation, so far he will not require it; but in whatever degree\nany person has the power and opportunity of examining the will of God\nfor himself,\u2014in that degree,\u2014whether he exercise his privilege _or\nnot,\u2014God will hold him responsible_. As to the liability to fall into\nerror;\u2014beyond all doubt, such liability exists, whether we submit to the\nguidance of any teacher, or exercise our own private judgment.\u201d[111]\nHow, let me ask, can we avoid drawing the following inferences?\n\n(1.) That the greater part of mankind must be held to be in a condition\nrendering this reliance on a teacher \u201c_unavoidable_.\u201d\n\n(2.) For this reliance, then, such portion of mankind must be held\n_justified in the sight of God_.\n\n(3.) But such dependence makes them liable to err; and must, in fact,\nhave led countless multitudes into error.\n\n(4.) If these errors are fatal to salvation, then _God_ _inflicts\neternal torments for the inevitable results of a justifiable act_.\n\n(5.) If these errors are not fatal to salvation, then _there is\nsalvation out of the faith_.\n\nThe result, then, of this external system is, that you may be saved on\neither of two conditions; that you belong to the orthodox literary sect,\nand hold the antiquarian opinions of the priests; or, that you belong to\nthe ignorant, and can find out the right persons to whom to say, \u201cI will\nbelieve, as you believe.\u201d\n\nReverse the supposition. Conceive that in the process, becoming ever\nmore searching, of historical inquiry, the other and external method\nshould be found to be inadequate to the maintenance of its\nsuperstructure; what would be the fate of Christianity, trusted solely\nto its self-evidence? I will imagine even the worst: and suppose that\nthe first three Gospels are shown to be not personally authentic, not\nthe independent productions of three apostolic men; but a compilation of\nvery composite structure, consisting of (we will say) some thirty\nfragments, obviously from different hands, and all of anonymous origin.\nIn such case, the individual testimony of eye-witnesses being gone, the\nwhole edifice of external proof which supports a dogmatic Christianity,\nmust fall. But the self-evidence of a moral and spiritual Christianity,\nof a Christianity that clings to the person and spirit of Christ, is not\nonly unharmed, but even incalculably increased. For how often, and how\ntruly, has it been argued, that the mere inspection of the four Gospels\nis enough to prove the reality of Christ; that the invention, and\nconsistent maintenance of a character so unapproachable, so destitute of\nall archetype beneath the skies, so transcending the fictions of the\nnoblest genius, and so unlike them, are things utterly incredible, were\nthey supposed even of one writer: and that, for the same divine image to\ngleam forth with coincident perfection from four, belongs to the highest\norder of impossibilities. What then should we say, if these four were\nresolved into thirty? The coalescence of so many fragmentary records,\ncould no more make a Christ, than the upsetting of an artist\u2019s colours\ncould paint a Raffaelle. Whatever then becomes of Church Christianity,\nthat which lives in Christ, and has the power of love in man, is\neverlasting as the soul.\n\nWe are warned that \u201cthe Bible is _not_ a shifting, mutable, uncertain\nthing.\u201d We echo the warning, with this addition, that Christianity _is_\na progressive thing; not a doctrine dead, and embalmed in creeds, but a\nspirit living and impersonated in Christ. Two things are necessary to a\nrevelation: its record, which is permanent; its readers, who perpetually\nchange. From the collision of the lesson and the mind on which it drops,\nstarts up the living religion that saves the soul within, and acts on\nthe theatre of the world without. Each eye sees what it can, and what it\nneeds; each age develops a new and nobler idea from the immortal page.\nWe are like children, who, in reading a book above their years, pass\ninnocently and unconsciously over that which is not suited to their\nstate. In this divine tale of Christ, every class and every period\nseizes, in succession, the views and emotions which most meet its wants.\nIt is with Scripture as with nature. The everlasting heavens spread\nabove the gaze of Herschel, as they did over that of Abraham; yet the\nlatter saw but a spangled dome, the former a forest of innumerable\nworlds. To the mind of this profound observer, there was as much a _new\ncreation_, as if those heavens had been, at the time, called up and\nspread before his sight. And thus it is with the Word of God. As its\npower and beauty develop themselves continually, it is as if Heaven were\nwriting it now, and leaf after leaf dropped directly from the skies. Nor\nis there any heresy like that, which denies this progressive unfolding\nof divine wisdom, shuts up the spirit of heaven in the verbal\nmetaphysics and scholastic creeds of a half-barbarous period,\u2014treats the\ninspiration of God as a dry piece of antiquity, and cannot see that it\ncommunes afresh with the soul of every age; and sheds, from the living\nFount of truth, a guidance ever new.\n\n\n NOTES.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n A.\n\n _On the Improved Version._\n\nGreat allowance must perhaps be made for the clergymen who persist,\nafter repeated expostulation, in their assumption that the Improved\nVersion is an authoritative exposition of Unitarian theology. The\nconvenience of limiting their studies, for the most part, to a single\nwork, and the inconvenience of dispensing with the previous labours of\nDr. Nares, and Archbishop Magee, whose hostile criticisms furnish the\northodox divine with invaluable prolegomena to the book, ought to\ndiminish our surprise at the tenacious adherence to this ground of\nattack. The advantage too of giving fresh currency to the popular\nnotion, that some dreadful production exists, containing unmentionable\nimpieties, and constituting the \u201cUnitarian Bible,\u201d is undeniable. It is\nevident that the utility of fostering this impression is by no means\noverlooked: for after strong assertion and contemptuous comments have\ngiven to a very few passages of the Improved Version the appearance, to\nan unlearned audience, of falsification of the word of God, I have heard\nit said, that these cases are but a _small sample of a system_, which\nmight be illustrated to an indefinite extent from every page. As there\nare not, on an average, more than two variations in a page from\nArchbishop Newcome, the charge must, in an incalculable majority of\ninstances, fall on him.\n\nI am at a loss, however, to perceive even any controversial advantage to\nbe gained by the rash statement of Mr. Byrth; that every Unitarian\nminister is as much bound to uphold the criticism and interpretation of\nthe Improved Version, as the Established Clergy to maintain the\nThirty-nine Articles. A clergyman, it is known, signs the articles, and\nsolemnly contracts to preach in conformity with them; a minister among\nUnitarians may never see the Improved Version, or hear its name. During\na five years\u2019 course of study at the college where I received my\neducation for the ministry, I do not remember any mention of it in the\ntheological classes, and only two in the Greek classes: both of which\nwere condemnatory; one, of the introduction of the English indefinite\narticle to indicate, in certain cases, the absence of the definite\narticle in the original; the other, of the rendering of the preposition\n\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac, with the genitive, by the word \u201cfor.\u201d The fact that most ministers\nof our persuasion subscribe to the British and Foreign Unitarian\nAssociation, which has succeeded to the property in the Improved\nVersion, and continues to circulate it, no more makes them responsible\nfor its criticisms than a contribution to the Bible Society makes a\nclergyman accountable for the forgery of the \u201cheavenly witnesses.\u201d The\none aids in distributing a possibly defective, the other a certainly\ninterpolated, copy of the Christian records. Let us apply another test\nto this imprudent parallel between the established clergy, and the\nUnitarian ministers. In the United States of America, no one, I presume,\ncould take holy orders in the Episcopal church, without pledging his\nassent to the Thirty-nine Articles; and should he cease to approve of\nthem, his ordination vow would require him to resign his preferment. But\nin that country are hundreds of Unitarian ministers, who know nothing of\nthe Improved Version; and would be as much astonished to be told that\nthey were bound by it, as would Dr. Tattershall to hear that he must\nanswer for the Oxford Tracts.\n\nBut the mere fact, that within a year after the publication of this\nwork, a Unitarian divine, a subscriber to the Unitarian society, in a\nUnitarian periodical, submitted it to a criticism far more searching and\nelaborate than that which an acumen sharpened by theological hostility\nis now able to produce, is sufficient to set in its true light the\nstatement which I have quoted. I beg to call the attention of our\nReverend opponents to the following enumeration of the points, to which\nthe censures of the Reviewer (Dr. Carpenter) are directed.\n\n(1.) The selection of Newcome\u2019s Revision, instead of the authorized\nversion, as the basis.\n\n(2.) The departure, and without any intelligible rule, from Griesbach\u2019s\ntext, which, in the introduction, had been mentioned in a way to excite\nthe expectation of its invariable adoption. Of these departures, a\ncomplete table is given.\n\n(3.) The neglect of proper acknowledgment and defence of these\ndepartures.\n\n(4.) The professed employment of brackets for one purpose, (to indicate\nwords which, according to Griesbach, were probably, though not\ncertainly, to be expunged,) and the actual use of them for another; as,\nfor example, in the introduction of St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel, which is thus\nenclosed.\n\n(5.) The use of italics (intended to indicate doubtful authority)\nwithout adequate evidence of doubtful authority, and in violation of the\napparent intention to repudiate critical conjecture. And in particular,\nthe use of this type in the introduction to St. Luke\u2019s gospel; which\n\u201cthe evidence is far too little to justify;\u201d and in the introduction to\nSt. Matthew\u2019s gospel. Both these examples are considered by the reviewer\nas instances of _conjectural criticism_.\n\n(6.) The unwarrantable license allowed in general to conjectural\nemendation of the text; of which particular cases are adduced; as the\ntransposition of verses, John i. 15, 18; and, in a lower sense of the\nword _conjecture_, the omission of \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, Rom. iii. 25; and\nthe \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 in 2 Tim. iii. 16.\n\n(7.) The departures from the received text without notice. Of these\ndepartures, a complete table is given.\n\n(8.) The departures from Newcome\u2019s Revision, without sufficient notice;\nof these, a list was given, and a synoptical table has since been\npublished in the appendix to Dr. Carpenter\u2019s reply to the \u201cunanswered\u201d\nArchbishop Magee.\n\n(9.) The use of the English indefinite article, in certain cases, where\nthere is no Greek definite article. For example, the Centurion\u2019s\nexclamation at the crucifixion, Matt. xxvii. 54; in his remarks on\nwhich, Mr. Byrth will perceive that he has been anticipated by the\nreviewer.\n\n(10.) The introduction of doctrinal notes, which the reviewer thinks\nought to have been entirely excluded.[112]\n\nThe culpable omission of the epithet, \u201cUnitarian,\u201d from the description\nof the \u201cSociety for promoting Christian Knowledge,\u201d in the title-page of\nthe first edition, has since received the censure of the same friendly\nbut just critic.[113]\n\nIf then, all that is original and \u201corthodox,\u201d in the recent assaults on\nthe Improved Version, be the sarcasm and extravagance; and all that is\n\u201ccandid\u201d and \u201cscholar-like\u201d was long ago anticipated by a Unitarian\ndivine, (to whom Dr. Nares awards the praise of being \u201cthe very learned\nand dispassionate reviewer,\u201d) with what propriety can we be held\nresponsible, as Unitarian ministers, for the peculiarities of the work,\nand called upon to defend it from strictures, produced at second-hand in\nChrist Church, and originally published among ourselves. If Dr.\nCarpenter had been minister in Liverpool, instead of Bristol, would he\nhave been bound to come forward and answer _himself_?\n\nI by no means intend to charge the clergymen engaged in this controversy\nwith plagiarism. Their great authority, Archbishop Magee, so completely\nwithheld in his postscript, all notice of his obligations to the\nUnitarian Reviewer, that a reader may well be excused for not knowing\nthat there was such a person. Nor do I at all doubt the competency of\nour respected opponents to originate whatever they have advanced,\nwithout the aid of any one\u2019s previous researches. I simply affirm that\nthey have been anticipated, in a quarter, and to an extent, which\ndisprove their assertions respecting the acceptance and influence of the\nImproved Version among Unitarians.\n\nFor the very same reason, however, that we are not bound to praise this\nwork when faults are fairly attributed to it, neither are we bound to be\nsilent, when merit is unjustly denied it. With the corrections\nintroduced in the fourth and fifth Editions, it has the exclusive honour\nof accomplishing the following important ends:\n\n(1.) It exhibits the text of the New Testament in the most perfect\nstate, being conformed to Griesbach\u2019s second Edition.\n\n(2.) It enables the English reader to compare this critical with the\nReceived text, all their variations being noticed.\n\n(3.) It places before its possessors Archbishop Newcome\u2019s Revision,\nwhich otherwise would have passed into unmerited oblivion. Wherever it\ndeparts from its basis, and advances any new translation, the Primate\u2019s\nrendering is given also; so that the whole extent of the innovation is\nseen, and free choice afforded to the reader.\n\nWhen the advocates of the common version shall exert themselves to bring\nit into accordance with the true text, they will attack the Improved\nVersion, from a safer position. But so long as they leave with this\nheretical work the sole praise, among British translations, of showing\nwhat the Evangelists and Apostles really wrote, and content themselves\nwith circulating a version containing words and passages, without mark\nor warning, which they know to be spurious, and in more than one case,\nto be ancient theological allies of their creed, they are too much open\nto the charge of availing themselves of detected forgeries, to be\nentitled to read lectures to others, about reverence for the text. Dr.\nTattershall enforces well \u201cthe duty of preserving the Canon of Scripture\nin its _integrity_.\u201d Will he permit me to remind him of the duty of\npreserving it in its _simplicity_: or is there, in the _bare proposal of\ncurtailment of the volume_, a sinfulness which does not exist in _the\npractical and persevering maintenance of known interpolation_?\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n B.\n\n _On the Ebionites and their Gospel._\n\nThe argument of Mr. Belsham against the authenticity of Matthew\u2019s\naccount of the miraculous conception appears to me very unsound: but Dr.\nTattershall\u2019s criticism upon it, I must think to be altogether\nunsuccessful; if at least, amid its intricate construction, I have\nreally apprehended the points to which its force is applied. In\nrejecting this portion of Scripture, Mr. Belsham relies on the authority\nof the Nazarenes and Ebionites, or early Hebrew Christians: who are\naffirmed by Epiphanius and Jerome, to have used copies of Matthew\u2019s\nGospel, without the introductory passages in question.\n\nAs the value of this argument depends altogether on the character of the\nattesting parties and documents, Dr. Tattershall calls in question the\nrespectability of them all; and disparages, first, the ancient Nazarenes\nand Ebionites themselves; secondly, the testimony, in this matter, of\nEpiphanius and Jerome; thirdly, the Hebrew gospel or record, which they\ndescribe. The positions advanced under every one of these heads, appear\nto me to be erroneous.\n\nI. Nothing, it is said, can be more incorrect than to admit the claim of\nthe Nazarenes and Ebionites to be regarded as the _original_, or main\nbody of Hebrew Christians. They were a _sect_, at first united, then\ndivided into two; successors of the Judaizing Christians; and after\nAdrian\u2019s destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 132), they _separated_ from the\ngeneral community of the Christian Church.\n\nI certainly had conceived that this _qu\u00e6stio vexata_ of ecclesiastical\nhistory, might be considered as set at rest, since the controversy\nrespecting it between Bishop Horsley and Dr. Priestley; and still more,\nsince the production of many additional _loca probantia_ from the\nFathers, by Eichhorn, Olshausen, Bertholdt and others, who have engaged\nin the inquiry respecting the origin of the three first gospels. If,\nhowever, the subject is still open to agitation, the principle on which\nit must be discussed is evident. If, as Dr. Tattershall states, the\nNazarenes and Ebionites did not embrace _in extent_, the main body, and\n_in time_, the original societies, of Jewish believers, it is incumbent\non him to find some clear traces of _other_ or _earlier_ Hebrew\nChristians, denominated by some different term, or at all events\n_excluded from these_. Until such persons are discovered, in the\nprimitive history of the church, the Nazarenes and Ebionites must remain\nin undisturbed possession of their title as \u201c_The_ early Hebrew\nChristians.\u201d Meanwhile, in direct proof of their claim to be so\nregarded, I submit the following considerations:\n\n(1.) Their name is applied, in a direct definition, to the _whole_ of\nthe Jewish Christians. Origen says, \u201c_Those from among the Jews who\nreceived Jesus as the Christ_,\u201d were called Ebionites.[114]\n\n(2.) The characteristic sentiments of this \u201c_sect_,\u201d are ascribed to\n_the early Hebrew Christians generally_. These were, the persuasion of\nthe continued obligation of the Mosaic law, on persons of Jewish birth,\nand the belief that Christ was a creature, some considering him as\nsimply human, others as pre-existent.[115] Origen says, \u201cThose from\namong the Jews who have faith in Jesus, have not abandoned their ancient\nlaw; for they live in conformity with it, deriving even their name\n(according to the true interpretation of the word,) from the poverty of\nthe law; for _Ebion_, among the Jews, means _poor_.\u201d[116] Origen again\nsays, \u201cAnd when you observe the belief respecting the Saviour, held by\n_those from among the Jews who have faith in Jesus_, some supposing that\nhe was of Mary and Joseph, and others that he was of Mary alone and the\nHoly Spirit, but still without the notion of his Deity, &c.\u201d[117]\n\n(3.) The characteristic _Gospel_ of the sect (under its frequent title\n\u201cGospel according to the Hebrews\u201d) was used _by the Hebrew Christians\ngenerally_. Eusebius says: \u201cIn this number, some have placed the Gospel\naccording to the Hebrews, which is a favourite especially with the\nHebrews who receive Christ.\u201d[118] The gospel here given to \u201cthe Hebrews\nwho received Christ,\u201d is given in the following to the \u201cEbionites,\u201d by\nthe same author. \u201cThey (the Ebionites) made use only of that which is\ncalled \u2018the Gospel according to the Hebrews;\u2019 the rest they made small\naccount of.\u201d[119]\n\nIf these passages be thought sufficient to identify the Ebionites and\nNazarenes with the \u201cmain body of Hebrew Christians,\u201d perhaps the\nfollowing may be held to prove their early existence; as it states that\nthey presented the Apostle John with a motive for composing his Gospel:\nEpiphanius says, \u201cWhen therefore the blessed John comes and finds men\nspeculating about the human nature of Christ,\u2014the Ebionites going astray\nrespecting the genealogy of Christ in the flesh, deduced from Abraham,\nand by Luke from Adam; and when he finds the Cerinthians and Merinthians\naffirming his natural birth as a mere man; the Nazarenes too, and many\nother heresies; coming as he did, fourth, or in the rear of the\nEvangelists, he began, if I may say so, to recall the wanderers, and\nthose who speculated about the human nature of Christ, and to say to\nthem, when from his station in the rear, he beheld some declining into\nrugged paths, and quitting, as it were, the straight and true one,\n\u2018whither are you tending, whither are you going, you who are treading a\npath rugged and obstructed, conducting, moreover, to a precipice?\nReturn, it is not so; the God, Logos, who was begotten of the Father\nfrom the beginning, is not from Mary only.\u2019\u201d[120]\n\nThat the Nazarenes and Ebionites were truly \u201c_the_ early Hebrew\nChristians,\u201d must be considered as a fact established by such evidence\nas the foregoing, till some testimony to the contrary can be produced.\nThat they were the successors of the Judaizing Christians reproved by\nSt. Paul is an assertion destitute of support; for the opponents who\ntroubled the _Apostle of the Gentiles_ were distinguished by their\npertinacious attempts, as Hebrews, to _force the Mosaic Law on Gentile\nconverts_; whereas, respecting the Nazarenes, Lardner observes, \u201cDivers\nlearned moderns are now convinced of this, and readily allow, that the\nJewish believers, who were called Nazarenes, _did not_ impose the\nordinances of the law upon others, though they observed them as the\ndescendants of Israel and Abraham.\u201d[121]\n\nThe application by Epiphanius of the words \u201c_sect_\u201d and \u201c_heretics_\u201d to\nthese believers, does not prove that he was speaking of a _different\nclass_ from the early Hebrew Christians; but only that this same class\nbegan, in his time, to be spoken of in a different and more disparaging\nway. He is the first writer, so far as I can discover, who describes\nthem in such reproachful language. On this point Dr. Wall observes: \u201cHe\nstyles them heretics, for no other reason that I can see, but that they,\ntogether with their Christian faith, continued the use of circumcision\nand of the Jewish rites; which things St. Paul never blamed in a Jewish\nChristian, though, in the Gentile Christian, he did: and Epiphanius with\nthe same propriety, as far as I can perceive, might have blamed St.\nJames, bishop of Jerusalem, and those thousands of Jewish Christians\nwith him, concerning whom James said to Paul, \u2018Thou seest, brother, how\nmany thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous\nfor the law.\u2019\u201d[122]\n\nAnd as to the Nazarenes and Ebionites separating from the general\ncommunity of the Christian church, after the second destruction of\nJerusalem by Adrian, and thus _bringing upon themselves_ the opprobrium\nof heresy, the fact, stated in this form, cannot be proved. From the\nfirst, the Hebrew Christians had formed a separate body from the Gentile\nChristians. But their proportion to the whole body of believers seems to\nhave been for some time too considerable to admit of their being spoken\nof in contemptuous language. When the Gentile portion of the Church\nbecame altogether ascendant, and especially when it furnished all the\n_ecclesiastical writers_, (one of whose chief functions it has been, in\nevery age, _to call names_,) the Jewish brethren, destitute of all\npretensions to philosophy, and free from that ambitious speculative\nspirit out of which orthodox theology arose, were naturally treated with\nless respect, and regarded as exceptions to that general union which had\nconsolidated itself independently of them, and at last completely left\nthem out. It does not appear that any further change was wrought by\nAdrian\u2019s destruction of Jerusalem, than necessarily followed from his\nresolution to exclude, from the new colony which he founded there, all\nwho practised Jewish rites. This imperial determination compelled the\nwithdrawal of the Hebrew Christians to the North of Palestine; and they\nwere replaced by a new church, whose Gentile origin and customs\nqualified its members (under the Emperor\u2019s decree) for settlement on the\nancient site.\n\nII. Dr. Tattershall disparages the testimony of the witnesses cited in\nthis cause,\u2014Epiphanius and Jerome; and not without good reason, if there\nshould be sufficient proof, _when the whole case is before us_, of his\ntwo allegations, viz.:\n\nFirst, That Epiphanius contradicts himself; affirming now the\ncompleteness, and then the mutilation, of the Gospel in question.\n\nSecondly, That Epiphanius contradicts Jerome; in asserting, _what\n\u201cJerome does not admit_,\u201d the identity of the Ebionite Gospel with that\nof St. Matthew.\n\nPremising that one and the same work is to be understood as described,\nby the several titles, \u201cNazarene Gospel,\u201d \u201cEbionite Gospel,\u201d \u201cGospel\naccording to the Hebrews,\u201d \u201cGospel according to the Twelve Apostles,\u201d I\nwould submit that the first of these allegations is more plausible than\ntrue, and that the second is wholly untenable.\n\nThe contradictory statements of Epiphanius are the following:\n\n(a.) \u201cThey (_i.e._ the Nazarenes) have the Gospel of Matthew _most\nentire_ in the Hebrew language among them; for this, truly, is still\npreserved among them, as it was at first, in Hebrew characters. But I\nknow not whether they have taken away the genealogy from Abraham to\nChrist.\u201d[123]\n\n(b.) \u201cIn that Gospel which they (_i.e._ the Ebionites) have called the\nGospel according to St. Matthew, which is _not entire and perfect, but\ncorrupted and curtailed_, and which they call the Hebrew Gospel,\u201d\n&c.[124]\n\nThe verbal contradiction between these two passages, is no doubt\nmanifest enough; and in a writer of more accuracy than Epiphanius, might\nhave justified the proposal of Casaubon (approved by Jones) to effect a\nviolent reconciliation, by the conjectural insertion of the negative\nadverb in the former sentence, which would then describe the document as\n_not_ wholly perfect. But the looseness of this author\u2019s style appears\nto me sufficient to explain the opposition between the statements; which\nseem indeed, to look defiance at each other, when brought by force, face\nto face; but which at the intervals of separate composition, may be, by\nno means, irreconcilable. That in the first, Epiphanius designed the\nphrase \u201cmost entire,\u201d to be understood with considerable latitude, is\nevident from the expression of suspicion which instantly follows, that\nthe genealogy might probably be absent. And if the work in question\ncontained a quantity of matter additional to Matthew\u2019s Gospel, whilst it\nalso _omitted_ some of its integral parts; it seems not unnatural that\nthe same writer, who with his thoughts running on its redundancies, had\nat one time called it a _most full_ copy, should at another, when\ndwelling on its deficiencies, style it an incomplete edition of the\nfirst Evangelist. But it is more important to observe, that _on the\npoints_ for which the _Editors of the Improved Version_ adduce the\ntestimony of Epiphanius, viz., to identify the Gospel of Matthew with\nthat of the Nazarenes and Ebionites, and to attest the absence from this\nbook of the story of the miraculous conception, there is here _no\ncontradiction whatever_. In _both_ passages he states the work to be\nMatthew\u2019s, and in _neither_, according to Dr. Tattershall, does he say\nthat the first two chapters were wanting. The harmony then, on these,\nthe only points in dispute, is complete.\n\n(2.) \u201cJerome,\u201d it is said, \u201cdoes not admit the work in question to be\nthe Gospel of St. Matthew;\u201d which puts him at issue with Epiphanius.\nWill Dr. Tattershall permit me to lay before him a passage of Jerome,\nwhich has been under his eye recently, for he has quoted a sentence from\nJones which occurs on the adjacent page; it runs thus. \u201cMatthew, also\ncalled Levi, who became from a publican an Apostle, was the first who\ncomposed a gospel of Christ; and for the sake of those who believed in\nChrist among the Jews, wrote it in the Hebrew language and letters; but\nit is uncertain who it was that translated it into Greek. Moreover the\nHebrew (copy) itself is to this time preserved in the library of\nC\u00e6sarea, which Pamphilus, the martyr, with much diligence collected. The\nNazarenes, who live in Ber\u00e6a, a city of Syria, and make use of this\nvolume, granted me the favour of writing it out; in which (Gospel) there\nis this observable, that wherever the Evangelist either himself cites,\nor introduces our Saviour as citing, any passage out of the Old\nTestament, he does not follow the translation of the Seventy, but the\nHebrew copies: of which there are these two instances, viz., that \u2018Out\nof Egypt I have called my son;\u2019[125] and that, \u2018He[126] shall be called\na Nazarene.\u2019\u201d[127]\n\nHere Jerome, I presume, _does_ admit the Nazarene Gospel to be that of\nMatthew; and the harmony on this point, between him and Epiphanius, is\ncomplete.\n\nBesides alleging the above contradiction, Dr. Tattershall notices a\nsupposed _variance_ (not amounting to inconsistency) between these two\nFathers on another point. From a statement of Jerome, he \u201cthinks it may\nbe fairly inferred,\u201d that _he knew_ the first two chapters of Matthew\u2019s\nGospel to be wanting in the Nazarene record. But it is denied that\nEpiphanius gives any countenance to the notion of their absence. Now I\nconceive that if this statement be precisely reversed, we shall have the\ntrue state of the case before us. Epiphanius gives us testimony to the\nabsence, Jerome to the presence, of these chapters in the Nazarene\nGospel.\n\nFirst, as to Epiphanius: he makes the following statements bearing on\nthis point:\n\n(1.) He says that \u201cthe beginning of their (the Ebionites\u2019) Gospel was\nthis: \u2018It came to pass in the days of Herod, the king of Jud\u00e6a, that\nJohn came baptizing with the baptism of repentance in the river\nJordan.\u2019\u201d[128] Is it not evident from this, that the initial event of\nthis narrative was the advent of the Baptist, and that the previous\naccount of the birth of Christ was absent? So, at least, it has been\nhitherto supposed.\n\n(2.) He says in positive terms, \u201cThey have taken away the genealogy from\nMatthew, and _accordingly_ begin their Gospel, as I have above said,\nwith these words; \u2018It came to pass,\u2019 &c.\u201d[129] It cannot be imagined\nthat this will bear any but the common interpretation, that the Gospel\nbegan with the substance of our third chapter. The introduction of the\nmiraculous conception, after John\u2019s mission, would be an incredible\ndisturbance of arrangement.[130]\n\n(3.) He says, \u201cThat Cerinthus and Carpocrates, using this same Gospel of\ntheirs, would prove from the beginning of that Gospel according to\nMatthew, viz. by its genealogy, that Christ proceeded from the seed of\nJoseph and Mary.\u201d But to what purpose would these heretics have put this\nconstruction upon the genealogy, and argued from it the mere humanity of\nChrist\u2019s origin, if it was immediately followed by a section, flatly\ncontradicting what they had been labouring to prove? It is impossible\nthen to get rid of Epiphanius\u2019s testimony to the absence of these\nchapters.\n\nSecondly, let us turn to Jerome. Dr. Tattershall conceives that because\nthis author speaks of certain men without the spirit and grace of God,\nas having had some concern in the composition of this gospel, we may\nconclude that the introductory chapters were wanting from the copy which\nhe used. The inference is not very obvious; and is at once destroyed by\nthe fact, that Jerome\u2019s quotations from the Nazarene Gospel, contain\npassages of Matthew\u2019s introductory chapters. In a passage, _e.g._, which\nI have adduced above, occur two instances; \u201cOut of Egypt I have called\nmy son;\u201d and, \u201cHe shall be called a Nazarene.\u201d\n\n_This_ discrepancy between these two fathers would have furnished Dr.\nTattershall with a more powerful argument against the Editor\u2019s note,\nthan any which he has adduced; and have enabled him to show that Jerome,\nbeing cited for one purpose, establishes precisely the reverse.\n\nIII. Dr. Tattershall adduces in evidence against the worth of the\nNazarene Gospel, the absurd chronological mistake in its first sentence,\nwhich assigns the Baptist\u2019s appearance to the days of Herod, king of\nJud\u00e6a.\n\nOn this I have only to observe, that it might have been well to state,\nthat the blunder is commonly attributed to Epiphanius himself, rather\nthan to the Gospel which he cites. Whatever that work may have been, it\nwas produced near the spot where the Herods lived, in times when the\nremembrance of them was fresh, for the people over whom they reigned; so\nthat a mistake of that magnitude, in its first verse, must be regarded\nas of improbable occurrence. On the other hand, Epiphanius, it is\nadmitted, _had never seen this Gospel_, and therefore cited it from\nhearsay; he wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, and is\nremarkable for inaccuracy of every kind, and especially with regard to\ntime. There is then no improbability in the supposition that Epiphanius\nconfounded Herod the king, with Herod the tetrarch, and with the purpose\nof explanation, inserted a mistake, by adding the words, \u201cKing of\nJud\u00e6a.\u201d Eichhorn says, \u201cTwo different Herods are confounded\ntogether,\u2014the King Herod under whom John was born, and Herod Antipas,\nunder whom the Baptist publicly appeared;\u2014an evident mark of a later\nannotating or correcting hand, unguided by a knowledge of the true\nchronology, as contained in Luke, and so substituting one Herod for\nanother.\u201d[131] For the foregoing reasons, it appears to me that Dr.\nTattershall has not, by making his strictures sound, earned the right to\nrender them severe.\n\nThe evidence bearing upon the introduction of Luke\u2019s Gospel, is much\nsimpler and less confused; and to Dr. Tattershall\u2019s estimate of it, no\nvalid objection, I think, can be urged.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n C.\n\n _On the Chronological Inconsistency between the\n introductory chapters of Matthew, and those of Luke._\n\nIn his note on this subject, Dr. Tattershall points out, as an example\nof carelessness in the Editors of the Improved Version, the following\ndiscrepancy between two of their statements. In their note on Matthew i.\n16, they say, \u201cIf it be true, as Luke relates, that \u2018Jesus was entering\nupon his thirtieth year, in the fifteenth year of the reign of\nTiberius;\u2019\u201d and in their note on Luke i. 4, they say, \u201cThe Evangelist\n(Luke) _expressly affirms_ that Jesus _had completed_ his thirtieth\nyear,\u201d &c. It would have been only just to add, that in the more recent\neditions of the Improved Version, this inconsistency does not exist. The\nfourth edition (1817) lies before me; and in it the latter note stands\nthus: \u201cThe Evangelist expressly affirms that Jesus had entered upon, or,\nas Grotius understands it, had completed his thirtieth year,\u201d &c.\n\nTo all the other strictures contained in Dr. Tattershall\u2019s note, \u201cthe\nUnitarian Editors\u201d appear to me to be justly liable.[132] The inaccuracy\nof their chronology was long ago perceived, by more friendly critics\nthan their present assailants; and sounder calculations of the dates of\nour Lord\u2019s birth, and ministry, were instituted and published by Dr.\nCarpenter, in the admirable dissertation prefixed to his \u201cApostolical\nHarmony of the Gospels.\u201d Not being aware of any method, at all\nsatisfactory, by which the notes in the \u201cImproved Version,\u201d referring to\nthis point, can be defended, I do not profess to understand why they\nappear again and again without remark or correction, in the successive\neditions of that work.\n\nDr. Tattershall, I perceive, adopts the usual mode of reconciling the\nchronology of Matthew and Luke; and supposes that the reign of Tiberius\nmust be reckoned, not from his succession to the dignity of Emperor, on\nthe death of Augustus, but from his previous association with Augustus,\nin the tribunitial authority. Widely as this explanation has been\nadopted, it cannot be denied that it has been invented to suit the case;\nthat such a mode of reckoning would never have been thought of, had it\nnot been for this discrepancy between the two Evangelists; and that it\nhas nothing to support it but the evidence which belongs to all\nhypotheses, viz., that if true, it removes the difficulty which it was\ndesigned to explain. Even the industry of Lardner has failed to present\nus with any instance in which a Roman historian has reckoned the reign\nof Tiberius, from this association with his predecessor; or with any\ndistinct trace that such a mode of computation was ever employed. And it\nis notorious that all the Christian Fathers calculated the fifteenth\nyear of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. Should Dr. Tattershall be\nin possession of any evidence in support of this mode of reckoning, more\nsatisfactory than that which has hitherto been adduced, he would render\nan important service to biblical literature by producing it.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n D.\n\nIt is so universally understood that we are indebted to Mr. Thirlwall\nfor the admirable translation of Schleiermacher\u2019s Essay, that I conceive\nthere can be no impropriety in speaking of the work as his; though his\nname does not appear in the title-page;\u2014a circumstance of which I was\nnot aware, till making this extract for the press. The whole note from\nwhich are taken the words in the Lecture, is as follows:\u2014\u201cThe arguments\nby which Hug attempted to reconcile the two Evangelists on the residence\nof Joseph, are extremely slight and unsatisfactory. He admits that St.\nMatthew supposes Bethlehem to have been Joseph\u2019s usual dwelling-place.\nBut, he asks, was St. Matthew wrong? This, however, is not the question,\nbut only whether he is consistent with St. Luke. Now, nothing can be\nmore evident than that, according to the account of the latter, Joseph\nwas a total stranger at Bethlehem. Bethlehem was indeed, as Hug remarks,\n_in one sense_ his own city, but clearly not in the sense that Matthew\u2019s\naccount supposes. Here too, therefore, Schleiermacher\u2019s position seems\nto remain unshaken.\u201d\u2014(See note on p. 44, of Translation of\nSchleiermacher\u2019s Critical Essay on St. Luke\u2019s Gospel.)\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes for Lecture II.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n Galatians iii. 24.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n Acts xxvi. 26.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n John xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n John vi. 44.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n John xviii. 37.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n John x. 37.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n John x. 27.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n John vii. 17.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n Lectures on the Criticism and Interpretation of the Bible. Preliminary\n Lecture II. p. 35.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n Preliminary Lecture I., pp. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n Jer. xxxvi. 23. See Rev. Dr. Tattershall\u2019s Lecture on the Integrity of\n the Canon. Introduction.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n Rev. F. Ould\u2019s Letter of February 11, 1839.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n The Improved Version was published in August, 1808. Rev. T. Lindsey,\n who had been labouring under the effects of paralysis ever since 1801,\n died November 3rd, the same year.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n See Note A.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n See Note B.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n Evidence of Christianity, part III, chapter 2.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n See Note C.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n See Note D.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion, part II. ch. ii. \u00a7 1.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n Matt. xiii. 58.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n John iv. 18.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n John x. 32.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n John x. 37.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n Luke x. 17.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n Acts ii. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n Pp. 236, 237.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n John xix. 35.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n xxi. 24.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n Luke i. 2.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n Acts ii. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n 1 Cor. xiv. 18.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n 1 Cor. xiv. _passim_: especially 4, 5, 13, 19, 23.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n 1 Cor. xii. 8, 10.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n Acts vi. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n Luke i. 15.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n Matt. xii. 3.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n John xiv. 16, 17, 26.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n Discourses on the principal Points of the Socinian Controversy, p.\n 341. Disc. xi.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n 1 John ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n 2 Pet. i. 21.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n Unwilling to repeat what I have already said, in a former publication,\n I have contented myself with a brief and slight notice of this\n celebrated text. It is discussed in a less cursory manner in the notes\n to the first Lecture in the \u201cRationale of Religious Inquiry.\u201d I would\n only add, that Schleusner considers the word \u03b8\u03b5\u1f40\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, as\n belonging, not to the predicate, but to the subject, of the sentence.\n See his Lexicon in Nov. Test. in verb. \u201cIn N. T. semel legitur 2 Tim.\n iii. 16. \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, omnis scriptura divinitus inspirata,\n seu, qu\u00e6 est originis divin\u00e6.\u201d\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n Sermon on the Nature and Extent of the Right of Private Judgment p.\n 238.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n P. 249.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n Schleiermacher\u2019s Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke.\n Introduction by the Translator, p. xv.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n Pp. xv. and xi.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n Evidences of Christianity, part III. ch. i.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n Matt. iv. 12-22.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n John i. 35-51.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n Mark i. 16-20.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n Luke v. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n Matt. xxvi. 69-end.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n Luke xxii. 56-62.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n John xviii. 15-25.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n xxvii. 32.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n xxiii. 26.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n xix. 17.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n xxvii. 37.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n xv. 26.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n xxiii. 38.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n xix. 19.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n xxvii. 44.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n xv. 32.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n xxiii. 39-43.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n Pp. 243, 244.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n See Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, 1809, pp.\n 97, _seqq._; 152, _seqq._; 274, _seqq._; 384, _seqq._\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n Reply to Magee, p. 302.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f18\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f61\u03c2 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\u2014_Contr. Cels._, lib. ii. c. 1. Op. tom. i. pp. 385 C.\n 386 A. Ed. Delarue. Paris. 1733.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n \u039f\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03b4\u03b9\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u1f76 \u1f18\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u1fd6\u03bf\u03b9, \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2\n \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03af\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03bc\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd, \u1f24 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c7 \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u1fc6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u2019 \u1f61\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f76\u03c2\n \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2.\u2014_Contr. Cels._, lib. v. c. 61. Op. tom. i. p. 625 A.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n \u039f\u1f31 \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03af\u03c0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7 \u03b2\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03af \u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9. \u1f18\u03b2\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03b5 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c4\u03c9\u03c7\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u1f70 \u1f38\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\u2014_Contr. Cels._, lib. ii. c. 1. Op. tom. i. p. 385.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f70\u03bd \u1f34\u03b4\u1fc3\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u0399\u03bf\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c5\u03cc\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c3\u03c9\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f38\u03c9\u03c3\u1f74\u03c6 \u03bf\u1f30\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u1f45\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03ba \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50 \u03bc\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u1f70\n \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f44\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c4\u03c5 \u03c6\u03bb\u03cc\u03c2 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b9 &c.\u2014_Comment.\n in Matt._, tom. xvi. c. 12. Op. tom. iii. p. 733 A.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n \u1f2c\u03b4\u03b7 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f72\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03ad\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03bb\u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd, \u1fa7\n \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b5\u03be\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c7\u03b1\u03af\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9.\u2014_Hist. Eccles._, lib.\n iii. c. 25. vol. i. pp. 246, 247. Heinichen Lips. 1827.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n \u0395\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c4\u1ff7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f19\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u1ff3 \u03c7\u03c1\u03ce\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9, \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u1ff6\u03bd\n \u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\u2014Lib. iii. c. 27. vol. i. p. 252. Both\n passages are in Jones, Pt. II. ch. 25.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u03cc \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u0399\u03c9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bc\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2\n \u1f20\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f18\u03b2\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f14\u03bd\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u1f08\u03b2\u03c1\u03b1\u1f70\u03bc\n \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039b\u03bf\u03c5\u03ba\u1fb6 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03bd \u1f04\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f08\u03b4\u1f70\u03bc\u00b7 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u1f7c\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2\n \u039a\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u039c\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bd\u03b8\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c8\u03b9\u03bb\u1f78\u03bd\n \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u039d\u03b1\u03b6\u03c9\u03c1\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f31\u03c1\u03ad\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd\n \u1f10\u03bb\u03b8\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f50\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u1f61\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd, \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b1\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f20\u03c3\u03c7\u03bf\u03bb\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 (\u1f61\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u03b9\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u1f70\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2\n \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f41\u03b4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03b1\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b9\u03bd\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2\n \u03b5\u1f30\u03c0\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd) \u03a0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b5, \u03c0\u03bf\u1fd6 \u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f41\u03b4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ce\u03b4\u03b7\n \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c7\u03ac\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c6\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b2\u03b1\u03b4\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2; \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03ba\u03ac\u03bc\u03c8\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5. \u039f\u1f50\u03ba \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u03bf\u1f55\u03c4\u03c9\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba\n \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u1f10\u03ba \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03c9\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd\n \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014_Epiphan. adv. H\u00e6reses_, H\u00e6r. 49 vel 69. \u00a7 23. Op.\n Petav. Colon. 1682, vol. ii. pp. 746, 747.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n Jewish Testimonies, I., Works: Kippis\u2019s ed. 4to. vol. iii. p. 484.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n Acts xxi. 20. Wall\u2019s Preface to Critical Notes on the N. T. p. 12.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n H\u00e6res. 29, \u00a7 9, as cited by Jones, Part II., ch. 25, and by Dr.\n Tattershall, p. 89.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n H\u00e6res. 30, \u00a7 13, as cited by Jones, Part II. ch. 25, and by Dr.\n Tattershall, p. 89.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n Matt. ii. 15.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n Matt. ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n Catal. vir. illust. in Matth. Giving Jones\u2019s translation, I do not\n think it necessary to quote the original Latin. See Jones on the\n Canon, Part II. ch. 25.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n H\u00e6r. 30, \u00a7 13, quoted by Jones, Part II. ch. 25.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n Ibid.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n See Eichhorn\u2019s Einleitung in das N. T. I., \u00a7 8; Leipzig, 1820.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n Einleitung in das N. T., I., \u00a7 8, 31; Leipzig, 1820. See also\n Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, by Andrews Norton, Note\n A. sec. V. i. Boston, U. S., 1837.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n There is a misprint in Dr. T.\u2019s note, p. 104. The sentence at the end\n of the third paragraph should close thus: \u201cnine months _after_ that\n event, on one calculation, or three months _before_ it, on the other.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE III.\n\n CHRISTIANITY NOT THE PROPERTY OF CRITICS AND SCHOLARS;\n BUT THE GIFT OF GOD TO ALL MEN.\n\n BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n\n \u201cFOR GOD WHO COMMANDED THE LIGHT TO SHINE OUT OF DARKNESS, HATH SHINED\n IN OUR HEARTS, TO GIVE THE LIGHT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GLORY OF GOD\n IN THE FACE OF JESUS CHRIST.\u201d\n\n 2 _Cor._ iv. 6.\n\n\nNo fact can be more extraordinary than that a Revelation from God should\ngive rise to endless disputes among men, that \u201clight\u201d should produce the\neffects of \u201cdarkness,\u201d causing confusion and doubt. A Revelation in\nwhich nothing is revealed! A Revelation that occasions the most bitter\ncontroversies upon every question and interest it embraces! A Revelation\nthat perplexes mankind with the most uncertain speculations, and splits\nthe body of believers into sects and divisions too numerous to be told!\nA Revelation in which nothing is fixed, in which every point is debated\nand disputed from the character of God to the character of sin! A\nRevelation which is so little of a Revelation, that after nearly two\nthousand years the world is wrangling about what it means: this surely\nis a fact that demands an explanation, which should make the Believer\npause and ask whether he may not be guilty, by some dogmatism about what\nhe calls essentials, of casting this discredit upon Revelation, making\nthe very word a mockery to the Unbeliever, who inquires in simplicity\n\u201cwhat is _revealed_? I find you disputing about everything and agreeing\nabout nothing;\u201d and to whom the Believer is certainly bound to render an\naccount of this strange state of things, before he condemns his\ninfidelity. Can any two ideas be more opposed, more directly\ninconsistent, than Christianity considered as a Revelation, a gift of\nLIGHT from God, and Christianity as it exists in the world\u2014the most dark\nand perplexed, the most vexed and agitated of all subjects, no two\nparties agreeing where the light is, or what the light is, or who has\nit? Surely if Christianity is a Revelation, the things it has _revealed_\nmust constitute the essence of the Revelation, and not the things which\nit has left _unrevealed_. Surely the illumination from God must be in\nthe clear Truths communicated, and not in the doubtful controversies\nexcited. Surely it is a mockery of words to call that a Revelation upon\nwhich there is no agreement even among those who accept the Revelation.\nA Revelation is a certainty, and not an uncertainty: and therefore we\nmust strike out of the class of revealed truths every doctrine that is\ndisputed among Christians. Many of these doctrines we may possess other\nand natural means of determining; but it is clear that that which is so\nfar _unrevealed_ as to be constantly debated among believers themselves,\ncannot yet be _revealed_ by God. Now the UNITY of God is not one of\nthese debated points. All Christians regard it as revealed; and\ntherefore _it_ remains as a part of the Revelation. But the doctrine of\nthe Trinity, an addition to the Unity, and as some think a mode of the\ndivine Unity, _is_ a disputed point; it does not manifest itself to all\nbelievers; it does not make a part of the light of the knowledge of the\nglory of God in the face of Jesus Christ; Christ\u2019s life would teach no\nman that there are three persons in the Godhead\u2014neither would Christ\u2019s\nwords; the doctrine is not anywhere stated in Scripture; it is deduced\nby a process of fallible reasonings from a number of unconnected texts,\ndoubtful both in their criticism and in their interpretation; it is not\na declaration made by God, but an inference drawn by man, and, as many\nthink, incorrectly drawn; the doctrine of the Trinity therefore, whether\ntrue or not, cannot be regarded as a _revealed_ Truth; what is still a\nsubject of controversy cannot be a portion of Revelation. If then,\nturning away from our disputes, we could ascertain the universal ideas\nwhich Christianity implants in _all_ minds which receive it; the images\nof God, of Duty, and of Hope, which it deposits in _all_ hearts; the\nimpression of Christ taken off by every spirit of man from the Image and\nSon of God;\u2014these would be the essentials of the Revelation, for since\nthese are the only uniform impressions that Christianity has actually\nmade upon those who believe it, we must suppose that these were the\nchief impressions which God intended it to make. This alone can be \u201cthe\nlight which, coming into the world, lighteth every man.\u201d\n\nBut I may be answered here, that Christianity itself is a matter of\ndebate, and that if doubtful things cannot be revealed, then\nChristianity itself is not a Revelation. To this I reply, that\nChristianity is a matter of debate chiefly because Christ himself is not\noffered to the hearts of men, because controversialists thrust forward\ntheir own doctrinal conceptions as the essentials of Christianity,\npresenting _themselves_, and not Jesus to make his own impression on the\nheart. If not creeds, but Jesus the Christ was offered spiritually to\nthe souls of men, unbelief would be soon no more. No earnest and pure\nmind would reject from its love and faith the serene and perfect image\nof the living Jesus. Men can deny metaphysical doctrines: but they could\nnot deny the spiritual Christ. The spirit of God in every man would bear\nwitness to _him_ who was the fulness of that spirit, and would recognize\nthe heavenly leadership of the Son of God. If the essentials of\nChristianity had not been made by Divines and Theologians to consist in\ndisputed doctrines, if it had been offered to faith on the ground of its\ninherent excellence, its ample attractions for our spiritual nature, how\nreadily, how universally would it have been received by all who felt\nthat it had echoes within the soul, and that Jesus was indeed the\nbrightest image of God, and the very ideal of humanity! Who would not be\na Christian, if to be a Christian required faith only in such truths as\nthese:\u2014that the holy and affectionate Jesus was the human image of the\nmind of God, and that the Universal Father is more perfect and more\ntender than his holy and gentle child, by as much as Deity transcends\nhumanity; that the character of the Christ is God\u2019s aim and purpose for\nus all, the result at which He desires each of us to arrive through the\ndiscipline and sufferings of earth;\u2014that traces of Immortality were upon\nthat heavenly mind; that his profound sympathy with the Spirit of God,\nthe surrender of his own immediate interests for the sake of the\npurposes and drift of providence, the identification of himself with the\nwill of God, the constant manifestation of a style of thought and action\ndrawn on a wider scale than this present life, and that placed him in\nharmony with better worlds,\u2014that these marked him out as a being whose\nnature was adjusted to more glorious scenes, whose soul was out of\nproportion to his merely earthly and external lot, and whose appropriate\nhome must be the pure Heaven of God? Would any one refuse admission to\nthese spiritual views as they are given off to our souls from the pure\nlife of Jesus, if he was permitted to receive them from Christ himself,\nand not obliged on his way to that Heavenly Image of grace, liberty, and\ntruth, to stoop his free neck to the yoke of Churches and of Creeds? But\nmen preach themselves, not Christ. They embody their own conceptions of\nChristianity in formulas, and pronounce these to be essentials, instead\nof suffering Jesus to make his way to the heart, and stamp there his own\nimpression. Hence the origin of unbelief. I quote the words of an\neminent Unitarian, himself converted from orthodoxy chiefly by the force\nof the argument I am about to state: \u201cSettle your disputes (says the\nunbeliever), and then I will listen to your arguments in defence of\nChristianity. Both of you, Romanists and Protestants, offer me salvation\non condition that I embrace the Christian faith. You offer me a\nsovereign remedy, which is to preserve me alive in happiness through all\neternity; but I hear you accusing each other of recommending to the\nworld, not a remedy but a _poison_; a poison, indeed, which, instead of\nsecuring eternal happiness, must add bitterness to eternal punishment.\nYou both agree that it is of the _essence_ of Christianity to accept\ncertain doctrines concerning the manner in which the Divine Nature\nexists; the moral and intellectual condition in which man was created;\nour present degradation through the misconduct of our first parents: the\nnature of sin, and the impossibility of its being pardoned except by\npain inflicted on an innocent person; the existence or non-existence of\nliving representatives of Christ and his apostles; a church which\nenjoys, collectively, some extraordinary privileges in regard to the\nvisible and invisible world; the presence of Christ among us by means of\ntransubstantiation, or the denial of such presence; all this, and much\nmore, some of you declare to be contained in, and others to be opposed\nto, the Scriptures; and even here, there is a fierce contention as to\nwhether those Scriptures embrace the whole of that Christianity which is\nnecessary for salvation, or whether tradition is to fill up a certain\ngap. I am, therefore, at a loss how to account for the invitation you\ngive me. To me (the unbeliever might continue) it is quite evident that\nthe ablest opponents of Christianity never discovered a more convincing\nargument against REVELATION in general, than that which inevitably\narises from your own statements, and from the controversies of your\nchurches. God (you both agree), pitying mankind, has disregarded the\nnatural laws fixed by himself, and for a space of four thousand years,\nand more, has multiplied miracles for the purpose of acquainting men\nwith the means of obtaining salvation, and avoiding eternal death,\n_eternal death_ signifying almost universally, among you, _unending\ntorments_. But when I turn to examine the result of this (as you deem\nit) _miraculous and all-wise plan_, I find it absolutely incomplete; for\nthe whole Christian world has been eighteen centuries in a perpetual\nwarfare (not without great shedding of blood), because Christians cannot\nsettle what is that faith which alone can save us. Have you not thus\ndemonstrated that the revelation of which you boast cannot be from God?\nDo you believe, and do you wish me to believe, that when God had decreed\nto make a _saving truth_ known to the world, he failed of that object,\nor wished to make Revelation a snare?\u201d[133]\n\nNow not believing that Revelation has failed of its object, or that it\nis a snare, and believing that under all the so-called Essentials, which\nwe regard as mere human additions, there is yet a true and universal\nimpression received from the spirit of Jesus, believing, in fact, that\nour Controversies are about accidentals, and that under all our\ndifferences there is, deeper down, the untroubled well of Christ\nspringing up into everlasting life, I would proceed to expose those\nerrors in the Trinitarian conception of Revelation which have laid it\nopen to the charge of _not being a Revelation_, of dividing mankind by\nControversies instead of uniting them by moral Certainty,\u2014and to\ncontrast this Trinitarian Conception of Revelation with what, for the\nfollowing reasons, we hold to be the _true one_; because it represents\nGod as accomplishing what, from the very nature of a Revelation, he must\nhave intended to accomplish, namely, the communication of moral and\nspiritual knowledge: because it removes the materials for doctrinal\nstrife and controversial rancour which never could have been God\u2019s\nobject in sending a Revelation, but which are inseparable from\nTrinitarian ideas of Revelation; and because it would realize that union\nfor which Christ prayed and Apostles intreated, a moral oneness with God\nas revealed in Jesus, a unity _of spirit_ in the bond of peace.\n\nLet us suppose, then, God having the design to send a Revelation to\nMankind. There are two methods, either of which He might adopt in the\nexecution of that intention. He might send them a written Revelation in\nthe form of a Book: or He might send them a living Revelation in the\nform of a Man. He might announce to them His Will through _words_: or He\nmight send to them _one of like nature with themselves_, who would\nactually work the Will of God before their eyes; one who, passing\nthrough their circumstances of life and death, would show them in his\nown person the character which God intended this present discipline to\ncreate; and who, appearing again after death, morally unchanged, and\npassing into the Heavens, would reveal to them, by these his own\ndestinies, the unbroken spiritual connection of the present with the\nfuture, and the immortal home which God has with Himself for the spirits\nof those holy ones who are no more on Earth. In the first case, then, we\nsuppose God to send a verbal Message to men, a communication by words\nteaching doctrines, spoken first, and afterwards committed to writing:\nin the second case we suppose that a pure and heavenly being,\nmanifesting the will and purposes of God through his own nature, which\nis also our nature, is _himself the divine Message_ from our Father; one\nwho walks this earth amidst our sorrows and our sins,\u2014transfiguring the\none and reclaiming the other\u2014and gathering up into his own soul the\nstrength that is to be derived from both; who enters our dwellings,\nsheds through them the divine light of heavenly love, plants the hope of\nimmortality in the midst of trembling, because loving and dying, beings,\nand binds together the perishing children of Earth in the godlike Trust\nof imperishable affections which Death can glorify but cannot kill; who\nplaces himself in our circumstances of severest trial, and shows us the\nenergy of a filial heart, and the unquenchable brightness of a spirit in\nprayerful communion with the God of Providence; who, that he might be a\nrevelation of a heavenly mind amidst every variety of temptation, passed\non his way to death through rudest insults, and showed how awful a thing\nis moral greatness, how calm, how majestic, how inaccessible, how it\nshines out through aggressive coarseness, a mental and ineffaceable\nserenity, a spirit that has its glory in itself, and cannot be\ntouched;\u2014who, having showed man how to live and to suffer, next showed\nhim how to die;\u2014who in the spirit and power of Duty subdued this garment\nof throbbing flesh to the will of God, and in the death agonies was\nself-forgetful enough to look down from the cross in the tenderest\nforesight for those he left behind, and to look up to Heaven, presenting\nfor his murderers the only excuse that heavenly pity could\nsuggest,\u2014\u201cFather forgive them! they know not what they do;\u201d\u2014and who\nhaving thus glorified God upon the earth, and finished the work given\nhim to do, was himself glorified by God; taken to that Heaven which is\nthe home of goodness;\u2014thus showing the issues to which God conducts the\ntried and perfected spirit, that His Faithfulness is bound up with the\ndestinies of those that trust Him, and that His providence is the\nrecompense of the just, who live now by Faith.\n\nNow the first thing that will strike you in comparing these two possible\nmethods of a Revelation is, that the written communication containing\ndoctrines is cold, formal, indistinct and distant, when contrasted with\nthe living presence of a pure and heavenly being, who places himself at\nour side, enters into our joys and sorrows, shows us in action and in\nsuffering the will of God reflected on every form of life, and works out\nbefore our eyes the vast idea of perfection. No message, no written\ndocument, no form of words, could leave such distinct impressions or\nquicken such sympathy and love, as the warm and breathing spirit who\nentered into communication with us, whose influences we felt upon our\ntrembling souls, whose eye penetrated and whose voice melted us, and who\ntook us by the hand and showed us how children of God should prove their\nfilial claim, and through the vicissitudes of a Father\u2019s providence pass\nmeekly to their Home.\n\nSuch a living Revelation could of course be preserved for _posterity_\nonly through the medium of written records, but then these records would\nbe chiefly descriptive; and their grand purpose would be faithfully to\nconvey to the men of other times the true image of that heavenly being;\nto re-create him, from age to age, in the heart of life; to introduce\nthe Son of God with the power of reality into the business and the\nbosoms of men; to impress upon the silent page such graphic characters\nthat they give off to the mind animated scenes, and bring the living\nChrist before the gazing eye; and the written Revelation would perfectly\nfulfil its mission, when by vivid and faithful narrative, without\ncomment or reflection of its own, it had placed us in the presence of\nJesus, and left us, like the disciples of old, to collect our\nimpressions of the Christ as we waited upon his steps, and watched the\nspirit working into life, and caught the tones of living emotion; when\nwe walked with him through the villages of Galilee, and saw him arrest\nthe mourners, and touch the bier, and restore the only son of the\nwidowed mother; when we retired with him to the lone mountain, and\nwitnessed how the spirit ascended to God before it entered into the\nconflicts of temptation; when we stood with him in the Temple Court, and\nbeheld how much more noble than the Temple is the Spirit that sanctifies\nthe Temple, and how the Priest in his strong hold quailed and trembled\nunder the thrilling tones and simple majesty of Truth; when we followed\nhim to his home, not neglecting to observe how his eye, that was never\ncold to goodness, fell upon the widow and her mite as he left the\nTemple; when we leaned with the loved disciple on his bosom, and watched\nhis last offices, and listened, with hushed hearts, for his last words;\nwhen we saw him kneel at the disciples\u2019 feet, that the spirit of\nequality and brotherhood might enter into their hearts; and break the\nbread of remembrance and distribute the parting cup,\u2014that bound up with\nsuch symbols of self-sacrifice, he, the living Christ, might come back\nin moments of severe Duty, and pour his own spirit of self-denial\nthrough deathless memories; when we listened to his last prayers and\nconsolations, and observed that, in that awful pause between life and\ndeath, he was the comforter; when we watched with him in Gethsemane\u2019s\ngarden, and beheld the tears of nature, the holy one and the just,\nbeneath the awe of his mission, trembling and melted before God; when we\nstood by him in Pilate\u2019s hall, and saw the moral greatness of the\nunassailable spirit unobscured by bitterest humiliation; when we drew\nnigh to his cross, and witnessed the crown placed upon a glory that in\nmortal form could rise no higher\u2014\u201cIt is finished.\u201d To place us by its\nvivid descriptions in such communication with Jesus himself, is the\ngreat purpose of the historical record of Christianity; and in\nproportion as it makes this intercourse real and intimate, does the New\nTestament become to us the instrument and vehicle of a Revelation.\nWithout this reproduction in our hearts of Jesus, the same yesterday,\nto-day, and for ever, the Scriptures are but a dead letter, barren\nsymbols, perverted to mere verbal and logical uses, that awake no life,\nand serve no spiritual purpose.\n\nThe next observation that could not fail to strike you in contrasting\nthe two methods of Revelation which I have supposed, a written\ncommunication containing doctrines, and a living character representing\nthe will of God, is the great uncertainty and liability to _various_\ninterpretations of the written method of Revelation when compared with\nthe acted Revelation, the will of God embodied in Christ Jesus. Nothing\nis so unfixed as the meaning of words; nothing is so fixed as the\nmeaning of actions. Nothing is so vague as language; nothing is so\ndefinite as character. You may fail to collect the exact ideas of a\nwritten communication; but you _cannot fail to understand_ a living,\nfeeling, acting, suffering, and dying man, who, on his own person, works\nout the will of God before your eyes; and, instead of communicating with\nyou through writing, communicates with you through a character that can\nhave no two meanings, and that requires no doubtful application of\nscientific rules of interpretation to make it plain. Place me in the\npresence of Christ, and the Revelation is impressing itself on my\nanswering heart, and exhibiting itself before my living eyes. Place me\nbefore some lengthened statement in words, and I may draw from them a\nvariety of senses, and perhaps fix upon, as their true sense, one that\ntheir Author did not intend. Who will protect me from error in all my\napplications of the difficult science of interpreting words? How, for\ninstance, shall I be certain that I do not impress my own limited\nconceptions upon the most solemn and inspired language? How shall I rise\nthrough words, which are mere symbols, to conceptions, which, not being\nin my own soul, mere words do not suggest? If I saw a living being\nembodying these sublime conceptions before me, or read a description of\nhim that brought him vividly before the soul, then the words would be no\nlonger clothed with my poor meanings, but would bring before me the\nliving forms of goodness and of greatness into which they expanded when\nrepresented by that heavenly mind. To illustrate my meaning by a single\ninstance: Jesus said, \u201cLove your enemies.\u201d Now how poor would be my\nconception of that duty, if I had only these words, if I had not his own\nacted interpretations of their fulness, if I could not stand by his\ncross, and witness his own exhibition of this heavenly spirit. The\nprecept would be narrowed to my own littleness if I had not the\nillustration of the living Christ. It is possible to put a limitation\nupon the revelation of mercy as it is written in the dead words: it is\nnot possible to put any limitation on \u201cthe word made flesh,\u201d the\nRevelation of Mercy breathing from the dying Jesus. Such then is the\ngreater clearness, and freedom from uncertainty, of the meaning of God,\nwhen that meaning is revealed on the person of a living being, than when\nit is a statement of Doctrines expressed through a medium so indefinite,\nso susceptible of a variety of interpretations, as written language.\n\nThat there is a distinct branch of study called the Art of\nInterpretation; that its principles are derived from the profoundest\nacquaintance with the Mind; that it is in fact a practical Metaphysics,\nwhich even, when most fully understood, requires, for its correct\napplication to ancient writings, the most varied and extensive\nknowledge, and the utmost natural acuteness, disciplined by long\npractice,\u2014these things, which every one knows, scholar or no scholar,\nare standing and undeniable proofs of the inherent ambiguity of\nlanguage, of the variety of meanings, which no skill in the use of words\ncan possibly prevent, and out of which we have to make a selection of\nsome one, when we apply ourselves to interpret a document. Now were I to\nenter into a full enumeration of the considerations that should\ndetermine an interpreter of the New Testament, and out of all the\npossible meanings direct his selection of that one which he adopts, I\nshould have to present you with a disquisition on perhaps the most\nprofound and difficult department of literary inquiry. I should have to\nspeak of Arch\u00e6ology and original languages, themselves even in their\nmost general character, the study of a life; I should have to speak of\none form of those original languages, peculiar and a study in itself,\nthe Hellenistic Greek, in which the New Testament is written, and in the\ninterpretation of which we are left without the aid that is derived from\nthe usages of language by other authors: I should have to speak of the\nparticular writer whose words we were examining, of the character of his\nmind, of the peculiarities of his style, whether he wrote oratorically\nor scientifically, whether we were to tame down his metaphors, or\nwhether we were to regard them as literally descriptive; I should have\nto speak of the age and country in which he lived, of the state of\nopinion and philosophy in his times, of the colourings which his words\nor thoughts were likely to adopt from the then prevailing theories, of\nthe particular purpose for which he was writing, and of the particular\nminds, their circumstances and states of knowledge to which the writing\nwas addressed; and after all this I could not allow any man, however\nerudite, to be a competent Interpreter who was not richly endowed with\nthat noble but most rare Faculty which can re-create the past and place\nus in the heart of a by-gone world, that Historic Imagination which\nthrows itself into the sympathies of Antiquity and re-produces the\nliving forms of Society that kindled the very thoughts and modified the\nvery language now submitted to our minds; and in addition to all this I\nshould demand, also, as an essential requisite for an Interpreter, a\nmind emptied of all prejudice, a calm and sound judgment.\n\nNow it is most evident that a result depending on so many qualifications\nwill be necessarily uncertain; that in every separate man who comes to\nthe study of the New Testament, according as these instruments of\ninterpretation exist in different degrees of perfection will they derive\nvarious meanings from the written document; and that consequently, since\nnowhere do these requisites for a perfect interpretation exist in\nperfection, there is no one of the contested meanings that can be relied\nupon with an absolute confidence. It is also to be noticed, that this\nuncertainty attending the meaning of words does not attach to the\n_narrative_ or _historical_ portion of a document, but is very much\nconfined to that portion of it which contains doctrinal ideas,\nphilosophical theories, or metaphysical statements. The descriptive\nportion of an ancient writing (and especially when, as in the case of\nChrist, the description is of a moral nature, and is addressed to the\naffections and the soul, which are the same in all ages,) will convey a\nuniform and universal impression, whilst the didactic portion of the\nvery same writing will suggest as many meanings as there are varieties\nof intellectual texture and complexion in the minds that read it. The\ncharacter of Jesus shines out from the Gospels to be seen of all men,\nfull of grace and truth. No one mistakes that. It does not depend upon\nthe skilful application of the science of Interpretation. The symbols of\nlanguage that reveal the living Jesus are of universal significance, and\nfinding their way at once to every heart, stamp upon it a faithful image\nof the Christ. But doctrinal conceptions cannot be conveyed in this way:\nthere is no universal and unchanging language for metaphysical ideas\u2014and\nconsequently it is impossible that any written communication on such\nsubjects should be free from a variety of interpretations. And\nespecially must this be so, when, as is the case with the Trinity, the\ndoctrine is nowhere expressly stated in the document, but is only\ninferred by connecting together into a system a number of ideas which it\nseems to contain. Let me give you an illustration that was lately\nbrought before me of the impossibility of a Revelation of doctrines\nbeing made to man, by means of written language, upon such subjects as\nthe Trinity, the modes in which the essence of the Deity enables him\npersonally to subsist. I heard it stated on a late occasion by Dr.\nTattershall, that the Trinity existed as one nature in three\npersonalities; and that to ask how three could be one and one three, was\nto ask an unmeaning and irrelevant question, because that the Trinity\nwas three and one in different senses, three in Person but one in\nEssence. I turn now to Dr. Sherlock, and I find these words: \u201cTo say,\u201d\nsays Dr. William Sherlock, \u201cthat there are three divine persons, and not\nthree distinct infinite minds, is both heresy and nonsense.\u201d \u201cThe\ndistinction of persons cannot be more truly and aptly represented than\nby the distinction between three men; for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\nare as really distinct persons as Peter, James, and John.\u201d Here then we\nhave Dr. Tattershall charging Sherlock with polytheism; and we have\nSherlock charging Dr. Tattershall with Heresy and nonsense. That is,\nneither of these Trinitarians regards the other as having the true\nfaith. Is it not evident then, that the doctrine of the Trinity, seeing\nhow Trinitarians themselves charge one another with heresy, cannot be a\ndoctrine of _Revelation_, cannot be a part of that universal Gospel\nwhich was preached to the poor, and revealed unto babes?\n\nIt was stated in Christ Church, by the Rev. Mr. Byrth, that the\ncontroversy between us was solely a question of Interpretation. It is\nso, because in the case cited, our dispute is about doctrines. The\nquestion of _Unitarianism_ or _Trinitarianism_ must be decided by\nInterpretation after Criticism has fixed the Text to be interpreted; but\nI deny, altogether, that the question of _Christianity_ or\n_No-Christianity_ is to be decided by any such imperfect and doubtful\ninstrument. Though no one honours Scholarship more, or has a profounder\nveneration for its noble functions, and altogether renouncing the\nvulgarity of depreciating its high offices, and maintaining, wherever I\nhave influence, especially for our own Church and in our own day, the\nnecessity for a learned Ministry, able to refresh their souls at the\noriginal wells and unfrighted by confident dogmatism to give a reason\nfor the faith that is in them, I yet declare, that Christianity is a\nreligion for the people; that the Gospel was originally preached to the\npoor; that Christ is manifested to the heart and soul of every man whom\nhe attracts by heavenly sympathy; that when not many wise, not many\nlearned were called, the lowly but honest in heart, recognized the\ndivine brightness, and sat at the feet of Jesus docile and rejoicing;\nand I protest altogether against any learned Aristocracy, any literary\nHierarchy, any priestly Mediators, having more of the true light that\nlighteth every man than the humblest of their brethren, who has taken to\nhis heart the free gift of God, and loves the Lord Jesus with sincerity.\n\nNow, strange to say this principle was broadly admitted. It was broadly\nadmitted that Christianity is not the property of scholars or critics,\nbut the gift of God to all men; and yet, with a remarkable\ninconsistency, it was added, that \u201cthe all men\u201d to whom Christianity is\nthe gift of God, must find in it the doctrine of the Trinity, else they\nare no Christians at all. That is, Christianity is the gift of God to\nthose who, by the aids of interpretation and criticism, become\nTrinitarians, and to all those who, following their leaders, accept this\ndoctrine; but is not the gift of God to Unitarians, who, though loving\nJesus as their Light on Earth and their Forerunner amid the skies,\ncannot so read either the written Gospel or the light of the knowledge\nof the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, as to collect from them\nthe doctrine of a Trinity. If Trinitarianism is Christianity\nexclusively, then Christianity _is not_ the gift of God to all men; for\nmany, in all ages of the Church and in the first century, perhaps,\nwithout exception, have accepted Christ, but knew no Trinity. If\nTrinitarianism is Christianity exclusively, then Christianity is the\nproperty of critics and scholars, for that doctrine is not a\nself-evidencing Truth, it does not shine out from the Gospels so that no\nhonest mind and pure heart can fail to receive it, and, if capable of\nbeing proved at all, it can only be proved by a most technical and\nsubtle logic, by far-fetched inferences from disconnected texts, every\none of which is open to a hostile criticism, and by a most scholastic\nand indirect system of interpretation, which is a task, and that a most\npainful one, for plain men to comprehend. My audience will be enabled to\njudge of this matter for themselves when I tell them that one of the\nstrongest reliances of modern Trinitarians, until proved to be\ncompletely fallacious, was the power of the Greek article; and that one\nof the texts long used in this controversy, and still used,[134] owes\nits whole importance to an accident so minute as this, whether the\nletter O was written with a central dot, or without the dot; so that the\nchance touch of a transcriber might put in or put out one of the\nprincipal proofs of the doctrine of the Trinity. Now I further declare,\nthat all the strongest evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is\nexactly of the same critical nature\u2014that the only text of the slightest\ndifficulty, cited in Christ Church on Wednesday evening, owes its whole\nforce to a question of punctuation; and that the best critics and\nscholars, and they Trinitarians, for true scholars never degrade their\nhigh calling, nor enter the solemn sanctuary open to them alone, to\nfalsify the oracle, give many authorities against the Trinitarian, and\nin favour of the Unitarian, Interpretation.[135] Now will any man tell\nme that the doctrine of the Trinity, which, if true, is the most awful\nTruth that ever bowed down the heart, that the God of Heaven walked this\nearth, a partaker of our sufferings and our sorrows, and lived our life,\nand died our death, would be left to be proved by evidence of this\nnature, by a controversy nearly two thousand years after the Revelation,\nabout the force of the Greek article and the punctuation of a Greek\nmanuscript? Is this the light that lighteth every man that cometh into\nthe world? There could have been no difficulty in revealing this\ndoctrine, in words at least, if it was intended to be revealed. The\nAthanasian Creed is at least explicit enough, and leaves us in no doubt\nof the purpose of its Author. Now I conclude that if Trinitarianism\nalone is Christianity, and if such are the processes of criticism and\ninterpretation by which alone that doctrine can be proved, then\nTrinitarianism _is the property of Critics and Scholars, and those who\nimplicitly trust them_; and Christianity requiring us either to be\nCritics or to prostrate ourselves before Critics, not agreed among\nthemselves, is not the free \u201cgift of God to all men.\u201d The rightful\nprivileges of critics and scholars are large enough, and let no man\ndisown them; but I do disown this literary Hierarchy arrogating to\nthemselves sole access to the oracles of God, and limiting Christ\u2019s free\napproach to the souls of the people to long processes of inferential\nreasoning and the winding ways of a syllogism. I entreat them to stand\naside, and let the living Jesus come into communication with the living\nheart, and not place themselves, like the multitude who threatened the\nblind beside the way, between the ready mercy of the Heavenly Teacher\nand the humblest follower who seeks his face, that a ray of the light\nthat shineth there may fall upon eager and wistful, though dimmed and\nearth-stained, eyes. \u201cAnd it came to pass, that as he was come nigh unto\nJericho, a certain blind man sat by the way-side begging. And hearing\nthe multitude pass by, he asked what it meant. And they told him, that\nJesus of Nazareth passeth by. And he cried, saying, Jesus thou son of\nDavid, have mercy on me. And they which went before rebuked him, that he\nshould hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou son of David,\nhave mercy on me. And Jesus stood and commanded him to be brought unto\nhim: and when he was come near he asked him, saying, What wilt thou that\nI shall do unto thee? And he said, Lord, that I may receive my sight.\nAnd Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.\u201d\n\nI trust that you will perceive now the essential distinction between a\nRevelation by words, of doctrines, and a Revelation by a living being;\nbetween the uncertain meaning that is arrived at by the interpretation\nof language, and the light of the knowledge of the glory of God shining\non the face of Jesus Christ. In the one case we have a statement of\ndoubtful doctrines in written words; in the other we have a living\nCharacter. In the one case we have the dead letter; in the other we have\nthe \u201cword made flesh.\u201d In the one case we have the Mind of God stated in\npropositions; in the other we have the Image of God set up in our\nhearts, and the purposes of God for man, both while on earth and beyond\nthe grave, realized before us, to be seen of all men. If Christianity is\na scheme of doctrines in a written communication from God, then of\ncourse it is subject to all the necessary ambiguities of language; and\nexpositors will be busy upon it, to draw out of it all the meanings it\ncan possibly contain; and every fresh interpretation will be regarded by\nsome as part of the Revelation from Heaven, and never will men rest lest\nthere should be some lurking sense in it that they have not reached, and\nevery interpreter will thrust in the face of the world, _as the\nessential and saving meaning_, his own reading of the document. And as\nlanguage is a thing that is never fixed, but is always gathering fresh\nimports from the developments of Time, this is a process that must go on\nfor ever, and the document will speak a new Message to the men of every\nage, and the Doctrines that constitute Salvation will be always the\nsubject matter of a controversy. But if Christianity, instead of a form\nof written words, is a character sent to us by God, to manifest his will\nin the flesh, and to reveal living Truth in a living being; if Jesus\nhimself is the record we are to study; if it is not an inspired Book but\nan inspired Life that is the gift of God; if his works of Power and\nLove, his actions and his sufferings, his holy living and dying, are the\nfull and spiritual Scriptures imprinted on humanity by God\u2019s own hand,\nthen the whole work of a Christian is to understand and love that\nCharacter,\u2014then is the Revelation like a light shining in a dark place,\n\u201ca salvation prepared before the face of all people,\u201d \u201ca light to\nlighten the Gentiles, and to be the glory of his people Israel,\u201d a ray\nof God\u2019s light shining into the heart of man, touching the mountain tops\nof humanity and piercing the deep valleys, that all flesh may see it\ntogether.\n\nIt is in remarkable consistency with these views that very little is\nsaid in the popular systems of Christ\u2019s character. The doctrinal ideas\nrespecting Jesus are all in all: the moral and spiritual ideas are\nlooked upon as not peculiarly Christian. A vast deal is said about his\nRank, his Merits, his Mediatorial Distinction: very little is said about\nhis Life, his Example, his Revelations of Duty and of Destiny. The\nTrinitarians taunt us with having no use for Christ in our system.\nCertainly we believe in a God who does not require their Christ. We do\nnot speak of Atonement therefore. But we might retort, that if we\nneglect their metaphysical Christ, they neglect our moral and spiritual\nChrist. They speak little of his character, his life, his example, as a\nmodel for humanity: nor could they in consistency with their system.\nJesus, as God and man, is powerless as an exhibition of what man may be.\nHe is no revelation of Humanity to Humanity. Humanity with Deity\nattached to it, or indwelling, is Humanity no more.\n\nIf Christianity is a system of doctrines to be deduced from words, and\nif our salvation depends upon the certainty of our deductions, then is\nit not clear that God would be requiring an absolute Truth of\nInterpretation which he has not given us the means of attaining, and\nthat the Revelation, even to \u201cCritics and Scholars,\u201d would be an\n_uncertain property_? But if Christianity is an inspired Life, the\nDuties and the Destinies of Man shown forth on the Son of God, the word\nmade flesh, the glory of God shining in the face of Jesus Christ, a\ncharacter perfectly reflecting the purposes of Providence, and preserved\nfor us, in faithful narratives that still enable us to have the image of\nJesus formed within us, then is it not clear that the Revelation is\nperpetuated in our hearts, and that the Christ with us still, the same\nyesterday, and to-day, and for ever, is the gift of God to all men? \u201cLo,\nI am with you always, to the end of the world.\u201d Now this is Christ\u2019s own\naccount of himself as a Revelation. \u201cI am the Light of the world.\u201d \u201cI am\nthe Resurrection and the Life.\u201d \u201cI am the way, and the truth, and the\nlife: no man cometh unto the Father but by me. If ye had known me, ye\nshould have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him and\nhave seen him.\u201d[136] \u201cThe Son can do nothing of himself, but what he\nseeth the Father do: for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth\nthe Son likewise.\u201d[137] \u201cWhoso hath seen me hath seen the Father also.\u201d\nAnd to crown all this scriptural evidence, this is God\u2019s own account of\nhis Christ as a Revelation, authenticating him at the opening of his\nMission, and repeated again as His seal upon its close, \u201cThis is my\nbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\u201d\n\nI have shown that there is no doctrinal certainty in Christianity\nconsidered as a _written_ Revelation: but neither is there _any moral\ncertainty_ as to the Will of God and his practical requirements conveyed\nby mere words. When God tells me in words to love Him and to love my\nneighbour, I do not know what practical forms these feelings are to\nassume, neither do I know how all the influences of my present life are\nto control me in the exercise of these affections. But I understand what\nGod means when I see Jesus interpreting for me this will of God by his\nown character, and combining in his own life, through all circumstances,\nthe perfect love of God and Man. Now I maintain, that no system of\nDoctrine could be a Revelation to me of the purposes and ends of life.\nIt is a practical question, and practically must it be solved. He who\nwill work out for me on this scene of things the great designs of my\nbeing, and show to me, in action and in suffering, in sympathy and in\nstruggle, in the throbbings of life and in the hushed sublimities of\ndeath, the right attitudes of my nature, the fitting dignities of\nenlightened and heaven-bound man,\u2014he who is not the Prophet merely of\ndivine Truth but the Impersonator of his own views, who stands\nsuccessively in each practical position and robes himself in the living\nglories of duty,\u2014he alone can pretend to be a Revelation of character,\nas God wills it, having stamped upon his views illustrations of Reality.\nAnd he alone can pretend to have unravelled the mystery of our\nDiscipline, who himself passes through our trials, and transmutes them\ninto the nurseries of Power, the pregnant schools of Character\u2014who shows\nus the outward circumstance, as a torch to the Spirit, lighting up the\nenergies of Duty\u2019s inviolable will,\u2014who moves amid the evil that is in\nthe world, and is not overcome by it, but overcomes it with good,\u2014who\nencounters sin and sinners, and treats them with the pity of a brother,\nyet with the holiness of one whose Father is the spiritual God,\u2014who\nstands amid baffled purposes of good, the broken projects of benevolence\nin the unquelled trusts of Faith, seeing, though afar off, the Harvest\nof this unpromising Spring,\u2014in whom the worst aspects of Humanity only\ndraw out the unselfishness of Charity; and the clouded countenance of\nGod, veiled to sight though not to Faith, the perfect peace of a filial\nSpirit. He who passes for us through all this variety of mortal\ncircumstance, and exhibits each, even the most dark and unpromising, as\nfull of the materials of our Education, contributing to the formation of\nthat perfect mind which is the end and heaven of our being, is indeed a\nperfect Revelation, \u201cunimproved and unimprovable,\u201d though improving _us_\nto the end of Time, an embodied Scripture, the word made flesh and\ndwelling amongst us.\n\nChristianity will be a matter of controversy so long as men look to it\nfor what they are _to think_, and not for what they are _to trust in and\nbe_. Creeds will divide the world, so long as Christianity is regarded\nas a Revelation of Doctrines, and not as a Revelation of Character, of\nPractical Interests, of Destinies and of Duties. In the one case it will\nbe the \u201cproperty of Critics and Scholars,\u201d held by an uncertain tenure;\nin the other case, it will be \u201cthe gift of God to all men.\u201d Strange that\nall Protestants do not feel the force of this argument! And as for Roman\nCatholics, if we had any controversy with them, the argument has only to\ntake another step to hold them too in its grasp.\n\nAnd now I shall be obliged to speak of Critics and Scholars in a way\nthat Critics and Scholars should never expose themselves to be spoken\nof. I have a most painful duty before me, very different from the one I\nhad been led to expect,\u2014which I had hoped would have been to answer\ncalm, learned, judicious reasonings, instead of simply to resist\npretension, a task, which if much easier, is yet one that neither\nelevates nor instructs. Nothing could justify me in using in this place\nthe language of grave remonstrance, but the consciousness that thereby\ninstead of indulging I am wounding my own feelings, and the conviction\nthat, in this case, Duty to Truth and to the Public requires it from me.\nEvery one must have felt that the declaration before the world, of \u201cthe\nUnitarian Interpretation of the New Testament, based upon defective\nScholarship, or on dishonest or uncandid criticism,\u201d ought to have been\namply supported, or never made. To fail in the proof was to pass not\nonly intellectual but the severest _moral_ condemnation on such a\nstatement. I know of no abuse of Power and Place more immoral, than when\na Scholar uses his Scholarship to libel others before the unlearned,\nthan when a Preacher uses his sacred and elevated standing to make\nassertions that are taken upon his word, but which are not correct, and\nof which nothing but the _certainty_ that they were correct could\njustify the utterance. If I cannot take example from what I witnessed in\nChrist Church on Wednesday evening, let me at least take warning. I will\nnot pray to be preserved meek and truthful, and then regard my prayer as\nan indemnity for unlicensed speech. I will not commit here the\ndisrespectful impropriety of quoting Greek. Neither will I pay this\naudience the false compliment of pretending to make such subjects\nintelligible and interesting to them, but I will make some statements\nthat shall go forth to the world, and there find fitting judgment. There\nare some points, however, to which I shall have to advert, of which\nevery one may judge.\n\n1. It was stated by the Preacher that he could not himself believe the\nmysterious statements of the New Testament unless he first believed in\ntheir inspiration, and that this alone could command his faith. Now\nthere was great candour in this, but no Scholarship. You cannot prove\nthe Inspiration of the Bible except by first proving the truth of the\nBible, for there are no proofs of Inspiration except what the Bible\nitself contains. To believe in the truth of the Bible, because it is\ninspired, and then to prove it inspired because it is true, is an error\nin reasoning inexcusable in the divines of the Church of England, for an\neminent Bishop of their own Church, Bishop Marsh, has abundantly exposed\nit.\n\n2. It was stated that every Unitarian Minister in England was as much\nbound by the Improved Version, as every Clergyman of the Establishment\nwas by the Articles of the Church. The Preacher has written his name\nbeneath those Articles; as long as he remains in the Church he has, to\nuse Milton\u2019s expression, to those Articles subscribed \u201cSlave;\u201d he has\nentered into a vow to preach nothing contrary to them; he belongs to a\nbody of men organized to prevent all dissent from those Articles, and\npledged to oppose and avenge every attempt to break up the dogmatical\nprinciple of their Church Union, and yet he stated solemnly before an\nassembled multitude that no Clergyman of the Church was more bound by\nthe Articles of the Church than was every Unitarian Minister by a Book\nwhich one man edited on his sole literary responsibility, and which\nother men contributed to publish, simply because they expected from it\nsome valuable scriptural aid. Now when a man is capable of making such a\nstatement, when his judgment will allow him to do so, his credibility as\na witness to facts I do not dispute, but _his opinion_ on any question,\nmerely as coming from him, I cannot feel deserving of my confidence. I\nmight quote passages of contemporary Unitarian criticism reflecting on\nthe Improved Version; I might quote Dr. Carpenter in his answer to\nArchbishop Magee, ascribing the whole responsibility to Mr. Belsham; I\nmight quote Mr. Yates in his able answer to Mr. Wardlaw, exposing the\nfalse impression made by Dr. Magee, that the Improved Version was the\nUnitarian Version: but I cannot so misuse your time. The Unitarians,\nmost of whom never saw the work, and whose pride it is that their\nMinisters study the Scriptures freely, and lay before them the results,\nwill smile at the idea of these Ministers being as much bound by the\nImproved Version as the Clergy by the Articles of the Church, though in\na graver spirit they must morally condemn an assertion so recklessly\nmade. It was stated that all Protestant Christians were satisfied with\nthe received Version up to the time of the Improved Version, and, to\nadvance no other proof of the ignorance displayed by such a statement,\nin the next breath it was declared that the Improved Version was on the\nbasis of Archbishop Newcome\u2019s Translation, the title of which is this,\n\u201cAn Attempt towards revising our English Translation of the Greek\nScriptures.\u201d But what means this attempt to fasten us down to the\nImproved Version? Is it not clear that these clergymen wish us to fight\nthe battle upon a disadvantageous ground? Is it not clear that they wish\nus to take up some weak position, and defend that, rather than meet us\nin the strongest positions that criticism and scholarship enable us to\nassume and to maintain? Is not our controversy between Unitarianism and\nTrinitarianism, and what can be more unworthy of critics and scholars\nthan to conduct that controversy on any ground but that of the original\nScriptures? We do not think of fixing _them_ down to any particular\ncritic of their own church, many of whom we could advance who abandon\nalmost every position they maintain; we freely give them advantage of\nthe best criticism and the best scholarship they can anywhere obtain;\nand we do confess that we hold it very uncandid towards us, and very\nunconfiding in their own strength, and very disloyal towards Truth, to\ntell opponents, I wish I could say fellow inquirers, that they are not\nto defend their cause by the best arguments known to them, but by a\ncertain set of arguments published in a certain book more than thirty\nyears ago, and before some of _us_ now engaged in this controversy were\nborn. Our controversy is not about the Improved Version, but about the\nGreek Testament; and I must certainly regard any attempt to intercept us\nin our appeal to the original Scripture, by thrusting any other Version\nin our faces, as a sign either of great weakness or of great unfairness.\nWhere would the Lecturers at Christ Church have got matter of indictment\nagainst us, if it had not been for this Improved Version?\n\n3. It was stated that minute examination of the Scripture Evidence for\nTrinitarianism hardly influenced the result, for so thoroughly were the\nScriptures imbued with its doctrines, that if but a fragment of them\nremained, the mysterious truths that pervade the whole would be found in\nthat fragment. Now I doubt not that men can say these things sincerely,\nand yet methinks they ought to ask themselves before they mislead a\nmultitude, is there Reality in these statements? Now I can not only\nmention fragments, but whole books, in which Trinitarians themselves\nwill confess that there is not a trace of these doctrines; the whole\nGospel of St. Mark; the whole Gospel of St. Luke, for the portions\nrespecting the miraculous generation cannot be proof of the Deity of the\nperson so generated; the whole of the book of Acts; and very many of the\nEpistles. We have the Gospel which the Apostle Peter delivered to the\nGentiles, when he gave them his exposition of Christianity, and we find\nfrom it that Cornelius and the Gentiles might have believed _all_ that\nthe Apostle taught them, and yet, according to the Trinitarians, be lost\neverlastingly from the scantiness of their faith. Here then is the\nGospel which Peter delivered to the Gentiles, containing the whole\naccount he gave them of the doctrine of Christ: \u201cThen Peter opened his\nmouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of\npersons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh\nrighteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the\nchildren of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of\nall:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all\nJud\u00e6a, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;\nhow God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power:\nwho went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the\ndevil; for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he\ndid both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem: whom they slew and\nhanged on a tree: Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him\nopenly: not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God,\neven to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.\nAnd he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is\nhe which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him\ngive all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth\nin him shall receive remission of sins.\u201d[138] Now you will know what\nweight, what measure of calm and considerate truth attach to the\nassertions made at Christ Church, when you compare this account of\nChristianity by the Apostle Peter, with the bold statement that if only\na fragment of the New Testament remained, it would contain and show\nforth the mysterious doctrines of Trinitarianism.\n\n4. It was stated that a slight degree of evidence might affect the\nintroductory chapters of Matthew and Luke, if the statements they\ncontain were not supported by the rest of the Gospels, but that so full\nwere the Gospels of the peculiarities of these chapters, to remove them\nwould be like removing the Portico from a Temple. The only evidence\nbrought to support this large declaration was the last verse of the\nGospel of St. Matthew, \u201cLo, I am with you always, even unto the end of\nthe world.\u201d Now I am not concerned in the correctness or the\nincorrectness of the Improved Version\u2019s translation of this passage, Lo,\nI am with you alway, to the end of the age, or dispensation, that is,\ntill the new dispensation was fully established: for in the first place\nI have no difficulty in believing that the spirit and power of Jesus was\nwith his followers when in the strength of love and trust they lived and\ndied for him and for his truth, and that thus spiritually he still is\nwith all who give him a place in their hearts, even unto the end of the\nworld; and, in the second place, translate this passage in any way you\nwill, and it contains no assertion of the Deity of Jesus, and no\nconfirmation of the miraculous conception. But when I hear it\nconfidently asserted in the presence of a crowd ready to take the\nPreacher\u2019s word for anything he chooses to assert about Greek, that\n_any_ scholarship is utterly contemptible that interprets the \u201cend of\nthe world\u201d to mean \u201cthe end of the era or age,\u201d or that puts any other\ninterpretation on these words than that of the received version, I\nconfess I am amazed at the boldness with which men not habitually under\ncorrection will make rash statements, even at times when they must know\nthat watchful eyes are upon them. I turn to Schleusner\u2019s Lexicon of the\nNew Testament, I look for the word in question, and I find from that\nauthority that the word signifies primarily, an undefined period of\nconsiderable extent, and, secondarily, the state of things existing\nwithin that period; I find him quoting the very passage in question\nwhich we are told _every scholar_ would translate \u201cto the end of the\n_world_,\u201d and explaining it to mean \u201cto the end of the lives\u201d of the\nApostles; I find that in other cases where this word is used, a limit is\nput upon its meaning, restricting it to the signification of \u201cage or\ndispensation,\u201d and rendering it impossible it should mean the \u201cend of\nthe world,\u201d in our sense, by such a clause as this, \u201cVerily I say unto\nyou, _this generation_ shall not pass until all these things be\nfulfilled;\u201d[139] I find in our common version the plural[140] of this\nword translated exactly as the singular, where if \u201cdispensations\u201d was\nsubstituted for \u201cworld,\u201d[141] all difficulty would disappear; I find the\ninterpretation of the Improved Version given by such scholars as Hammond\nand Le Clerc, and adopted consistently and throughout by Bishop Pearce,\nwho argues for it against the common rendering, and whether it is true\nor not, which is really a matter of no importance, I do calmly but\nsolemnly protest against any man so abusing his actual place and his\nreputation for learning, as to proclaim to a multitude that no scholar\nwould countenance such a translation, and that no interpreter would\nadopt it, except for the sake of an _\u00e0 priori_ meaning. No man who\nunderstood the dignity and the privileges of scholars would in this way\nforfeit them.[142]\n\n5. It was stated that _no scholar_ would translate the first verse of\nthe Gospel of St. John thus: \u201cIn the beginning was the word, and the\nword was with God, and the word was a God.\u201d[143] Now for myself I do not\nagree with this translation. I think that the Logos, or Word, is a very\nusual personification of the Power and Wisdom of God. (See Prov. viii.)\nI think that this verse has no reference to Jesus whatsoever; that in\nthe first place God alone is spoken of; his Power and Wisdom are\ndescribed as belonging to and dwelling with him; that He is described as\npurposing to communicate or reveal these to men, for of course it is not\nGod himself, but only a portion of his Knowledge and Will that can be\nrevealed to us; and then for the first time in the fourteenth verse is\nJesus introduced, as the person through whose character these attributes\nare to be communicated, \u201cthe Word was made _flesh_ and dwelt amongst\nus.\u201d I dissent therefore from the translation which Mr. Byrth condemned;\nbut when I am told that NO SCHOLAR would tolerate such a translation, I\nturn to my books, and I find Origen and Eusebius not only tolerating but\nactually adopting and insisting upon this very translation. I recollect\nthat Greek was _the vernacular tongue_ of these eminent men; and when I\nam told by an Englishman, in this nineteenth century, that no Greek\nScholar would do what Origen and Eusebius _have done_, I think it is not\ndisrespectful to decline his authority in all matters that require\ncalmness and accuracy.\n\n6. It was stated that _no scholar_ could translate the fifth verse of\nthe ninth chapter of St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Romans thus: \u201cWhose are\nthe fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came: God who is\nover all be blessed for ever.\u201d Perhaps the more correct rendering would\nbe, \u201cwhose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ\ncame (_i.e._ from among whom the Messiah was to be born); he who was\nover all, was God blessed for ever:\u201d or with more fidelity, because with\nmore rapidity, our language not admitting, like the Greek, the ellipsis\nof the substantive verb\u2014\u201cHe who was over all, being God blessed for\never.\u201d With regard to the ellipsis of the substantive verb, nothing can\nbe more common. It occurs again and again in the verses that lie on each\nside of the text in question. And in ascriptions of praise it is almost\nuniform. And nothing can be more natural than that the Apostle should\nstate as the closing distinction of the Jews, that over all their\ndispensations it was God who presided, the God of their signal\nTheocracy. Now when I am told that no scholar would so translate, let me\nsimply name to you some of the Scholars who _do_ adopt this translation:\nErasmus, Bucer, Le Clerc, Grotius, and Wetstein; the first three most\nlearned Trinitarians, and the last two, if not of unquestioned\northodoxy, only of suspected Heresy. Let me now give you some quotations\nfrom other Scholars of an earlier date, from the Christian Fathers, even\nwhen adopting the received translation of this passage. Tertullian,\nwhose temper rather than his learning has been preserved in controversy,\nsays, \u201cWe never speak of two Gods or two Lords; but following the\nApostle, if the Father and the Son are to be named together, we call the\nFather, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord.\u201d \u201cBut when speaking of Christ\nalone, I may call him God, as does the same Apostle; _of whom is Christ,\nwho is God over all blessed for ever_. For speaking of a ray of the sun\nby itself,\u201d continues Tertullian, \u201cI may call it the sun; but when I\nmention at the same time the sun, from which this ray proceeds, I do not\nthen give that name to the latter.\u201d \u201cSome of the earlier GREEK FATHERS,\u201d\nwho I suppose it will be admitted knew Greek, \u201cexpressly denied that\nChrist is \u2018the God over all.\u2019\u201d \u201cSupposing,\u201d says Origen, \u201cthat some\namong the multitude of believers, _likely as they are to have\ndifferences of opinion_, rashly suppose that the Saviour is God over\nall; _yet we do not_, for we believe him when he said, \u2018The Father who\nsent me is greater than I.\u2019\u201d Even after the Nicene Council, Eusebius, in\nwriting against Marcellus, says: \u201cAs Marcellus thinks, He who was born\nof the holy virgin, and clothed in flesh, who dwelt among men, and\nsuffered what had been foretold, and died for our sins, was the very God\nover all; for daring to say which, the Church of God numbered Sabellius\namong Atheists and Blasphemers.\u201d[144]\n\nI have one other observation to make upon this verse. The translation of\nthe passage depends very much on a question of punctuation, and, so far,\nis a question for Critics and Scholars. Now we have seen already the\nhigh authorities that give the punctuation in favour of the Unitarian\nrendering.[145] I say nothing of the conjectural readings of these two\npassages, because, though brought by the Preacher as instances of\nunlicensed Conjecture, he treated them chiefly as mistranslations, with\nthe view, I suppose, of introducing the same passages over and over\nagain, to multiply the instances of Unitarian alterations. The\nconjecture is not adopted by the improved version; and yet, for allowing\nsome little weight to the authority of Dr. Whitby in the latter case,\nfor it allows none whatever to the conjecture of Crellius in the former,\nit is charged with two sins: first, the sin of adopting the conjecture;\nand secondly, the sin of mistranslation after _rejecting_ the\nconjecture. This is a method of multiplying sins, or rather charges.\nIndeed, if I understood the Preacher, he admitted that Crellius and\nSlichtingius, in the then state of Biblical knowledge, might very\njustifiably have made the conjectures, _for they were Scholars_: but\nthat now, with all our new lights, such a conjecture is inadmissible;\nthat is to say, Biblical Literature was not far enough advanced in their\nday to enable them to discover in these texts, what yet if they did not\ndiscover there, or somewhere else, they must perish everlastingly. And\nyet we were told that Christianity was not the property of critics and\nscholars, but the gift of God to all men.[146]\n\nNow when I examine into these things, my duty to scholarship, my\nreverence for its high functions, my duty to Truth, my duty to the\npublic, who ought not, in matters not of opinion but of knowledge, to be\nmisled by their Teachers, and my duty to the Pulpit, which suffers in\npower and credit by every unwarrantable statement that proceeds from it,\nall oblige me to declare that the impression which I carried away from\nChrist Church, that the supposed ignorance of a vast assembly was\nsported with, and their confidence abused, has been more than confirmed.\n\nSo much for scholarship and candour together. I have now to speak of\n\u201ccandour\u201d alone.\n\n1. A sentiment was quoted from Coleridge, expressing his belief, that if\nJesus was not God, _he was a deceiver_: and then the Preacher asked his\naudience, \u201cCan the advocates of a system that makes Jesus a deceiver be\nChristians?\u201d thus identifying Unitarians with the sentiment of\nColeridge. How long will controversalists condescend to such practices?\nFrom any controversy so conducted no good can come: but great scandal to\nReligionists, and deep pain to all who love Religion and Truth better\nthan their own party.\n\n2. Advantage was taken of some words of my Colleague, the Minister of\nthis Chapel, to produce the impression that Unitarianism, as a religious\nfaith, was merely negative. Now the words themselves not only bear no\nsuch meaning, but guard against it; and the whole speech from which they\nwere extracted is rich in the overflowings of the true, working, onward\nspirit of our faith, as you who have the privilege of worshipping here,\nwell know everything from the same mind must necessarily be. The words\nquoted were these: \u201cI conceive that, _controversially_, our system is\ncorrectly described as purely negative;\u201d and the whole object of the\nspeech was to enforce the peaceful and fruitful view that the power of\nour religion proceeds not from what we disbelieve, but from what we\nbelieve. No man who read the speech could be ignorant of this; and it is\nremarkable, that the very next words, containing a passage quoted by Mr.\nByrth, are these: \u201cLet us place the utmost reliance upon positive\nreligious principles; and especially let us act on our own internal\nconvictions.\u201d My valued friend is abundantly equal to the task of\ndefending himself, and not often should I do him the disservice of\nappearing for him, but as this statement was made in a lecture which it\nwas my duty to answer, and as I am always confirmed in any view of my\nown that I can identify with him, I shall, to show that the present is\nno forced advocacy,[147] extract a few sentences from an Article, which\nnearly at the time he was speaking, it happened to be my duty to be\nwriting. \u201cWe are not devotional, we are not practical, in our\n_combative_ aspects. We are on preliminary, not on Christian ground. We\nare not improving, we have not a Religion, until we have ceased\ncontending and commenced cultivating. Moral progress proceeds from\ncultivation of the faith we rest in, producing its fruits in the warmth\nof love. We must pursue what is our own, and forget our controversial\nattitudes. They never will nourish the inner life of a Congregation, nor\nkeep its interest alive. They give us no character of our own. They feed\nno intense yearnings. They make no devoted disciples. We must _proceed_\nupon our own views, not defending them, but loving them and studying\nthem. We must pursue a more independent course of DEVELOPEMENT. We must\nunderstand our own mission, which is not to battle but to advance; not\nto be dogmatists of any kind, but cherishers of Spirit and of Truth. Our\nUnion must be a moral one, a sympathy of Spirit. We can have no\nintellectual or doctrinal union. We must give up therefore the idea of\naggregate life, as a Body devoted to a uniform Belief, and held together\nby the forms of an uniform Ecclesiastical Government. The whole body can\nflourish only by the members having each life in himself. Our union must\nbe one of sentiment and first principles; our life one of\nindividualities.\u201d And again, speaking of Unitarian Ministers: \u201cThey\nshould present a Christianity qualified by its energy to meet both the\nstrength and the weakness of the spiritual being, to inspire a devoted\nlove, and to lead souls captive. They should take their stand upon no\ncombative ground. They should eschew a religion of negations. FAITH\nshould be their great power; a faith that appeals to the faith of their\nhearers, nourishing it where it is, creating it where it is not. With no\nother bond of union than this power to satisfy the deep spiritual wants\nof those to whom they minister, they above all others should cultivate a\nChristianity that has positive attractions for the spirit of man, a\nChristianity that is fitted to draw upon itself the warmest and purest\naffections; a Christianity that engages to do for us what it did for\nChrist, to elevate the diviner tendencies, whilst it supports the\nweakness of our frail yet noble nature. From the absence of creeds, and\nits want of a mystical or fanatical interest, no sect, so much as\nUnitarianism, requires a sympathetic, generous, deep-hearted faith, an\naffirmative and nutritive Christianity, to lay hold upon the religious\naffections, and feed the religious life of its Churches. There is no\nother sect to which coldness in Religion could be so fatal.\u201d[148]\n\nI have now gone through all the evidence adduced on Wednesday evening,\nin support of the allegation, \u201cThe Unitarian interpretation of the New\nTestament based upon defective Scholarship, or on dishonest or uncandid\nCriticism.\u201d Such a declaration, again I say, should never have been\nmade, or should have been adequately sustained. To fail in the proof is\nto pass upon the statement not intellectual only, but moral\ncondemnation. We were told by the preacher that when the time came to\nsupport the allegation, he would not use irritating language, but sound\nargument. I grieve to say that pledge was not redeemed. And the moral\ncondemnation of advancing such a charge, and leaving it unproved, falls\nupon him. I understand that the lecture was continued yesterday evening;\nwhen the press puts it into my hands I shall have an opportunity of\nseeing what additional comments it may require. But when I was told by\nthe preacher himself, on Wednesday evening, that on the evidence then\nadduced, and which I have now presented to you, he regarded his charge\nmade out not only in one but in both its clauses, that in short he had\nbeen too forbearing, for that instead of the disjunctive he might have\nused the copulative conjunction, and made his accusation to be this,\n\u201cThe Unitarian Interpretation of the New Testament based upon defective\nscholarship, _and_ on dishonest _and_ uncandid Criticism,\u201d\u2014I held myself\ndischarged from all further duty of attention.\n\nAnd now, after the \u201cexpostulations\u201d to which you have been subjected\nelsewhere, your convictions treated as sins, and the exercise of your\nconscientious judgment represented as exposing you to the wrath of a\nholy God, (strange combination of ideas, wrath and holiness!) I may,\nperhaps, not unbecomingly address a few words to you my\nfellow-believers. Trinitarians have the power to deny you the _name_ of\nChristians; but they have not the power to deny you the Reality. They\ncannot prevent you _being_ Christians; and it is a light thing for you\nto be judged by man\u2019s judgment, provided only you can disprove the\njudgment by preserving your Christianity unprovoked, by retaining your\nChristian love towards those who deny you the Christian name. The worst\noperation of persecution and fanaticism is its tendency to produce a\nreaction. The worst working of an Evil Spirit is that it calls up other\nevil spirits to oppose it. The temper we complain of has a tendency to\nprovoke the same temper in ourselves. And yet an evil spirit cannot be\nconquered by an evil spirit. This is one of the divine prerogatives of\nthe spirit of goodness. You must overcome evil with good. You must be\nprepared to expect that men who deem themselves your religious\nsuperiors, will comport themselves accordingly. You must regard it as\nonly natural that men who hold themselves to be the favourites of God,\nand never expect to meet you in heaven, should treat you with little\nrespect on earth. Nay, you must even have some tenderness for the\nfeelings of irritation which this very faith cannot fail to generate in\nthe kindlier nature of those who hold it. Holding you to be lost, and\nhaving human hearts, how can they avoid assailing you with eager,\nanxious, and even persecuting aggression? I blame them not for this: I\nonly wonder there is so little of it: that they leave us to our fate,\nwith so little effort, to use their own favourite figure, to pluck the\nbrands from the burning. Nay, my friends, more than this, their\nconfidence in their own salvation depending on the dogmatical assurance\nwith which they hold certain doctrinal ideas, they are naturally alarmed\nlest this _essential faith_ should in any way be disturbed in their\nbosoms, and they come to look upon every freer mind as a tempter and an\nenemy. And as their Faith is by their own boast not a _rational_ Faith,\nas it has no roots in their intellectual nature, they feel that their\ndanger is all the greater, and that their caution must be all the more.\nThey are not happy in their exclusive faith. How can they if they have\nChristian hearts? It rests upon an evidence out of themselves, so that\nthey cannot, at all times, be confident in it. It presents to them many\nunhappy images, a vindictive God,[149] an exclusive Heaven, a condemned\nworld, fellow-beings against whom their religious feelings are\nembittered, but towards whom their hearts still yearn. All these are\nreasons why you should exercise forbearance. You have an easier part.\nYou have a faith that supports you in meek Hope and Trust for all. Your\nhearts are at peace both with Man and God. You can wait in patience\nuntil Heaven does justice unto all. Having this more blessed and\npeaceful faith, you must also make it more fruitful, and thus be enabled\nto meet the question, \u201cWhat do ye more than others?\u201d\n\nFor ourselves, let us pursue our own way, and love our own Christ in\nmeek faith and trust. Doctrines are uncertain: but the spirit of Jesus\nis not uncertain. You know what that is; and that its fruits are, \u201clove,\njoy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,\ntemperance.\u201d Love, venerate, obey in all things, the Heaven-sent and\nHeaven-marked Christ; cherish the growth of his spirit in your souls;\nplace him before you in moments of trying duty; and in all times of\nnature\u2019s languishing see him at the open gate of Heaven, inviting you to\nbe faithful to the end, that you may join him at the resurrection of the\njust. Do this and your souls shall live. To be this is to be Christians.\nOthers may hold a different language; but you owe no allegiance save to\nGod in Christ. One is your master, and all ye are brethren.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n APPENDIX.\n\n ---------------------\n\n See pp. 30, 31.\n\n \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\u2014the end of the _age_.\n\n\u201cHanc ob causam Jud\u00e6i universum tempus in duas magnas periodos\ndispescere consueverunt, alteram Messi\u00e6 adventum antecedentem (\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\n\u03bf\u1f51\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 vel \u1f41 \u03bd\u03c5\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd), alteram consequentem (\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd vel \u03b5\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\nvel \u03b5\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2). Postremam illius (\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5) partem, \u00e6vo Messiano\nannexam, nominarunt \u1f51\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd,\n\u03b5\u03c3\u03c7\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2, _exitumque ejus_ \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b7 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd vel \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\n\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d\u2014_Bertholdt._ _Christologia Jud\u00e6orum Jesu Apostolorumque \u00e6tate._\npp. 38, 39.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\u201cOn this account the Jews were accustomed to divide TIME into two great\nPeriods, one preceding the advent of the Messiah, and called \u2018this\nworld,\u2019 \u2018this age,\u2019 or, \u2018the world that now is,\u2019 \u2018the age that now is;\u2019\nthe other subsequent to the advent, and called \u2018the world to come,\u2019 \u2018the\nage to come,\u2019 \u2018that world,\u2019 \u2018that age.\u2019 The latter portion of the former\nPeriod, that immediately adjoining the Messianic Age, they called \u2018the\nlatter times,\u2019 \u2018the last time,\u2019 \u2018these last days,\u2019\u2014and its close (_that\nis, the close of the Ante-Messianic Period_), \u2018the ends of the world,\u2019\nor, \u2018the end of the world,\u2019 \u2018the end of the age.\u2019\u201d\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _The Introduction of St. John\u2019s Gospel._\n\n See pp. 31, 32.\n\n\u201cIn the beginning was the LOGOS, and the LOGOS was with God, and the\nLOGOS was God.\u201d\n\n\n\u201cThere is no word in English answering to the Greek word Logos, as here\nused. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the\nDeity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote, and intimately blended\nwith the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign\nfrom our habits of thinking, that it is not easy for us to conform our\nminds to its apprehension. The Greek word _Logos_, in one of its primary\nsenses, answered nearly to our word _Reason_. It denoted that faculty by\nwhich the mind disposes its ideas in their proper relations to each\nother: the Disposing Power, if I may so speak, of the mind. In reference\nto this primary sense, it was applied to the Deity, but in a wider\nsignificance. The Logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense,\nas merely the Reason of God, but under certain aspects, as the Wisdom,\nthe Mind, the Intellect of God. To this the Creation of all things was\n_especially_ ascribed. The conception may seem obvious in itself; but\nthe Cause why the creation was primarily referred to the Logos, or\nIntellect of God, rather than to his goodness or omnipotence, is to be\nfound in the Platonic Philosophy, as it existed about the time of\nChrist, and particularly as taught by the eminent Jewish philosopher,\nPhilo of Alexandria.\n\n\u201cAccording to this philosophy, there existed an archetypal world of\nIDEAS, formed by God, the perfect model of the Sensible Universe;\ncorresponding, so far as what is divine may be compared with what is\nhuman, to the plan of a building or city, which an architect forms in\nhis own mind before commencing its erection. The faculty by which God\ndisposed and arranged the world of IDEAS was his Logos, Reason, or\nIntellect. This world, according to one representation, was supposed to\nhave its seat in the Logos or Mind of God; according to another, it was\nidentified with the Logos. The Platonic philosophy further taught, that\nthe Ideas of God were not merely the archetypes, but, in scholastic\nlanguage, the essential forms of all created things. In this philosophy,\nmatter in _its primary state_, primitive matter, if I may so speak, was\nregarded merely as the substratum of attributes, being in itself devoid\nof all. Attributes, it is conceived, were impressed upon it by the Ideas\nof God, which Philo often speaks of under the figure of _seals_. These\nIdeas, indeed, constituted those attributes, becoming connected with\nprimitive matter in an incomprehensible manner, and thus giving form and\nbeing to all things sensible. But the seat of these ideas, these\nformative principles, being the Logos, or intellect of God; or,\naccording to the other representations mentioned, these Ideas\nconstituting the Logos, the Logos was, in consequence, represented as\nthe great agent in creation. This doctrine being settled, the meaning of\nthe Term gradually extended itself by a natural process, and came at\nlast to comprehend _all the attributes of God manifested in the creation\nand government of the Universe_. These attributes, abstractly from God\nhimself, were made an object of thought under the name of the Logos. The\nLogos thus conceived, was necessarily personified or spoken of\nfiguratively as a person. In our own language, in describing its\nagency,\u2014agency, in its nature personal, and to be ultimately referred to\nGod,\u2014we might indeed avoid attaching a personal character to the Logos\nconsidered abstractly from God, by the use of the neuter pronoun _it_.\nThus we might say, All things were made by _it_. But the Greek language\nafforded no such resource, the relative pronoun, in concord with Logos,\nbeing necessarily masculine. Thus the Logos or Intellect of God came to\nbe, figuratively or literally, conceived of as an intermediate being\nbetween God and his creatures, the great agent in the creation and\ngovernment of the universe.\u201d *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cThe conception and the name of the Logos were familiar at the time when\nSt. John wrote. They occur in the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of\nSolomon. The writer, speaking of the destruction of the first-born of\nthe Egyptians, says (xviii. 15):\n\n\u201c\u2018Thine almighty Logos leapt down from heaven, from his royal throne, a\nfierce warrior, into the midst of a land of destruction.\u2019\u201d\n\nIn another passage, likewise, in the prayer ascribed to Solomon, he is\nrepresented as thus addressing God (ix. 1, 2):\n\n \u201cGod of our fathers, and Lord of mercy,\n \u00a0Who hast made all things by thy Logos,\n \u00a0And fashioned man by thy Wisdom. *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cSt. John, writing in Asia Minor, where many, for whom he intended his\nGospel, were familiar with the conception of the Logos, has probably,\nfor this reason, adopted the term Logos, in the proem of his Gospel, to\nexpress that manifestation of God by Christ, which is elsewhere referred\nto the spirit of God.\u201d\n\n\u201cBut to return: the conception that has been described having been\nformed of the Logos, and the Logos being, as I have said, necessarily\npersonified, or spoken of figuratively as a person, it soon followed, as\na natural consequence, that the Logos was by many _hypostatized_, or\nconceived of as a proper person. When the corrective of experience and\nactual knowledge cannot be applied, what is strongly imagined is very\nlikely to be regarded as having a real existence; and the philosophy of\nthe ancients was composed in great part of such imaginations. The Logos,\nit is to be recollected, was that power by which God disposed in order\nthe Ideas of the archetypal world. But in particular reference to the\ncreation of the material universe, the Logos came in time to be\nconceived of by many as hypostatized, as a proper person going forth, as\nit were, from God in order to execute the plan prepared, to dispose and\narrange all things conformably to it, and to give sensible forms to\n_primitive matter_, by impressing it with the ideas of the archetypal\nworld. In many cases in which the term \u2018Logos\u2019 occurs, if we understand\nby it the Disposing Power of God in a sense conformable to the notions\nexplained, we may have a clearer idea of its meaning than if we render\nit by the term \u2018Reason,\u2019 or \u2018Wisdom,\u2019 or any other which our language\noffers.\u201d *\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cFrom the explanations which have been given of the conceptions\nconcerning the Logos of God, it will appear that this term properly\ndenoted an attribute or attributes of God; and that upon the notion of\nan attribute or attributes, the idea of _personality_ was superinduced.\u201d\n*\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cIt was his (St. John\u2019s) purpose in the introduction of his Gospel, to\ndeclare that Christianity had the same divine origin as the Universe\nitself; that it was to be considered as proceeding from the same power\nof God. Writing in Asia Minor, for readers, by many of whom the term\n\u2018Logos\u2019 was more familiarly used than any other, to express the\nattributes of God viewed in relation to his creatures, he adopted this\nterm to convey his meaning, because from their associations with it, it\nwas fitted particularly to impress and affect their minds; thus\nconnecting the great truths which he taught with their former modes of\nthinking and speaking. But upon the idea primarily expressed by this\nterm, a new Conception, the Conception of the proper personality of\nthose attributes, had been superinduced. This doctrine, then, the\ndoctrine of an hypostatized Logos, it appears to have been his purpose\nto set aside. He would guard himself, I think, against being understood\nto countenance it. The Logos, he teaches, was not the agent of God, but\nGod himself. Using the term merely to denote the attributes of God as\nmanifested in his works, he teaches that the operations of the Logos are\nthe operations of God; that all conceived of under that name is to be\nreferred immediately to God; that in speaking of the Logos we speak of\nGod, \u2018That the Logos is God.\u2019\n\n\u201cThe Platonic Conception of a personal Logos, distinct from God, was the\nEmbryo form of the Christian Trinity. If, therefore, the view just given\nof the purpose of St. John be correct, it is a remarkable fact, that his\nlanguage has been alleged as a main support of that very doctrine the\nrudiments of which it was intended to oppose.\u201d\u2014_Norton on the Trinity._\n\nI shall now give a paraphrase of the Introduction of St. John\u2019s Gospel\nin harmony with the Conception that the Logos is described first as\ndwelling in God\u2014and afterwards as manifested through Christ\u2014the Logos\nmade flesh\u2014\u201cGod manifest in the flesh,\u201d an expression which is so far\nfrom implying Trinitarianism, that it exactly expresses the Unitarian\nidea of Christianity as a revelation of God\u2014of Deity _imaged_ perfectly\non the human scale\u2014of the light of the knowledge of the glory of God on\nthe face of Jesus Christ.\n\n _Proem of St. John\u2019s Gospel._\n\n\u201cIn the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the\nLogos was God. It was in the beginning with God. By it all things were\nmade, and without it was not any thing made, that was made. It was life\n(the source of life)\u2014and the source of life or blessedness was the light\nof men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended\nit not. There was a man sent from God. This man came as a witness to\nbear testimony concerning the light; that all men through him might\nbelieve. He was not the Light, but he was sent to bear testimony\nconcerning the Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man\nthat cometh into the world. It was in the world, and the world was made\nby it, and the world knew it not. It came unto its own, and its own\nreceived it not. But to as many as received it, it gave power to become\nthe Sons of God (LOGOI)\u2014being born, not of favoured races, nor through\nthe will of the flesh, nor through the will of man, but being children\nof God. And the Logos became flesh (was manifested through a man, the\nMind or Spirit[150] of God shown on the human Image), and dwelt amongst\nus, and we beheld his glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full\nof grace and truth.\u201d\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n Romans. ix. 5, page 32.\n\n\u201cWhose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came;\nGod who is over all be blessed for ever.\u201d Amen.\n\n \u1f6f\u03bd \u03bf\u1f31 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b5\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03be \u1f67\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1\u00b7 \u1f41 \u1f62\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\n\u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2. \u1f08\u03bc\u03ae\u03bd.\n\nThe objections made to our rendering of this passage are these:\u2014\n\n1. That \u1f41 \u1f60\u03bd coming first in the sentence must refer to the nominative\n(\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2). But there is no grammatical rule to prevent \u1f41 \u1f60\u03bd _commencing_\na sentence and referring to a _subsequent_ nominative; so that to say it\n_must_ refer to the preceding \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 is only to take the desired\ninterpretation for granted.\n\n2. That another article is required before \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, and the position of the\nwords to be \u1f49 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u1f60\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03ba. \u03c4. \u03bb. If \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 had been placed\nfirst in the sentence the article would have been used, but the\nqualifying expression \u1f41 \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd more than supplies its place. A\npassage from Philo exactly parallel is cited by the Rev. W. Hincks in\nhis very able Review of Dr. J. P. Smith\u2019s Scripture Testimony to the\nMessiah \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c5. Ed. 1610, (apud Middleton,) p.\n860. Also Clem. Rom. ad Cor. cap. xxxii. \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2, where\n\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03c1 is equivalent to \u1f41 \u1f60\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd. Eusebius has this passage,\n\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c6\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f44\u03bc\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. See\nJortin. Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. 235.\n\n3. That \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 ought to come first in the sentence. But the words\n\u201cfor ever,\u201d \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2, whenever used, are placed at the end of the\nsentence, and this naturally draws \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 to the same position, to\navoid awkwardness or ambiguity. In the cases where \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 has dependent\nwords, then \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 comes first, that the words connected by\nconstruction may not be awkwardly separated: in the case of \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\nhaving dependent words, as here, then \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 would naturally come first.\n\nIn the only three cases in which \u03b5\u1f50\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b1\u03c2 occur in the\nNew Testament they follow one another in this fixed order.\n\nIn the Septuagint, contrary to the statement of Whitby, there is one\nclear instance of a similar construction: \u039a\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, Ps.\nlxviii. 19.\n\nFinally, \u03b5\u03c5\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 is nowhere in the New Testament applied to Jesus.\n\n4. That our rendering requires another substantive verb. Of such\nellipsis examples might be given without number. See Rom. x. 12. 2 Cor.\nv. 5. Ephes. iv. 6, a case exactly in point. Rev. xiv. 13.\n\n5. That there is an antithesis intended by St. Paul between \u201cas\nconcerning the flesh,\u201d and \u201cGod over all\u201d. But the sentence is not an\nantithesis but a climax closed by Christ, as the consummation: and at\nthe close of a climax of blessings and privileges, acknowledgment almost\nspontaneously bursts out to God.\n\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n_Comments on the Rev. Mr. Byrth\u2019s Lecture entitled \u201cThe Unitarian\n Interpretation of the New Testament based upon defective Scholarship,\n or on dishonest or uncandid Criticism.\u201d_\n\nPage 108.\u2014\u201cIt does appear to me extraordinary, that my opponents should\nappear to complain of the introduction of critical and scholastic\nconsiderations into this discussion.\u201d We make no such complaint. We\ncomplain that the _essence_ of Christianity should be derived from the\nCriticism and Interpretation of _controverted_ passages. Will my\nreverend opponent state a single argument for Trinitarianism, or adduce\na single scriptural evidence, not _fairly_ open to hostile Criticism or\nInterpretation? To _us_ the Revelation is not derived from any thing\ndoubtful; it is derived from those impressions of Jesus the Christ which\nTrinitarianism itself receives. To us the Revelation is the Person, (in\nwhich we include his Life, Character, Destinies,) of the man Christ\nJesus. We know our God when we know that he who was as full of grace as\nof truth was the Image of our Father\u2019s Mind: we know God\u2019s will for man\nwhen we look upon him who was perfected human nature: we know the\nconnections of Heaven with Duty when we see the crucified made the\nglorified, and taken to the bosom of his Father.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 115.\u2014\u201cIt does not, however, follow that, because the Unitarian\ninterpretation of the New Testament bears this character, all Unitarians\nare defective Scholars, or uncandid or dishonest Critics. Many of them\nmay have received their opinions through the channel of traditional\neducation; and may never have deemed it obligatory upon them to examine\nthe matter for themselves.\u201d So, we have the choice of any one of three\ncharacters, _viz._, BAD SCHOLARS, DISHONEST CRITICS, or _So-called\nChristians, who know nothing and care nothing about the matter_. Does\nMr. Byrth really think that this last refuge removes the insult of his\nTitle, or softens its indictment? Some of _us_, confined to a choice\namong these three descriptions, _preach_ Christianity, and are therefore\ncertainly bound to \u201cexamine the matter\u201d for ourselves; nor is it to us\nthat the suspicion usually attaches of receiving our \u201copinions through\nthe channels of a traditional education.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe dogmata are too few, too general, too unimportant, to elicit\ninquiry, or to excite anxiety as to their truth.\u201d There is some truth in\nthis, though not exactly of the kind the author contemplated. The\ninterest of Trinitarianism depends greatly on the number of its dogmata,\ntheir intricacy, their supposed necessity to salvation, the exactness of\ntheir right mutual positions. There is much in a saving _Theology_,\nhaving an intricate scheme, and whose main principles and evidences are\nexternal to the mind of the believer, and therefore constantly agitating\nhim with apprehension as to whether he has disposed them according to\nthe precise conditions of orthodoxy, to occupy and sometimes oppress\nminds that have little affinities with a saving _Religion_, a simple\nspirit of Worship, Duty, and Trust immortal. _But is it true_ that these\nUnitarian doctrines are \u201cunimportant\u201d\u2014The Fatherhood of God\u2014the\nBrotherhood of Man\u2014the relations of Jesus to God as His Image, and to\nMan as his Model\u2014the retributions of Eternity\u2014the Heaven of Duty?\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 119.\u2014See the Note.\u2014Surely Mr. Byrth will perceive the unfairness of\nconcluding a Book to be _our_ Standard, merely because some _other_\nparties, very unfavourably disposed towards us, choose to represent it\nas such.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 124.\u2014See the Note.\u2014\u201cI have been charged with almost or altogether\nsuppressing, in the delivery of this Discourse, the word\n\u2018controversially.\u2019\u201d I eagerly assure Mr. Byrth that no such charge was\never made, nor could be made with truth, and I am much grieved that any\nrumour has conveyed to him the pain of such an impression. Though using\nhard words to his opponents, and giving them the choice of _any one_ of\nthree _bad_ characters, I believe him perfectly incapable of\n\u201cdishonesty.\u201d Believing me to have made such a charge, whilst I do not\nexcuse him for so believing upon hearsay, I feel obliged by his\nforbearance, and for a courtesy in denying the charge, which if made I\nshould not have deserved. I complained that the \u201ccontroversial\u201d\nattitudes of Unitarianism were confounded with _its own peaceful and\npositive ones_, two things that were most carefully separated in the\nspeeches from which Mr. Byrth took extracts; and that he represented as\na description _of Unitarianism_, what was distinctly stated to be\nUnitarianism, \u201ccontroversially\u201d described. Mr. Byrth, though giving the\n_word_ \u201ccontroversially,\u201d overlooked its _meaning_.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 132.\u2014\u201cEpiphanius asserts that the Ebionites,\u201d &c.: also the note\nmarked \u2020.\n\nAs it is exceedingly inconvenient to repeat subjects and answers, and so\nnever to get rid of a topic, I refer Mr. Byrth and my readers to note B,\non the Ebionites and their Gospel, in the Appendix to the Second Lecture\nof our Course.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 140.\u2014See the Note.\u2014\u201cI cannot but express my satisfaction that in\nthe _very place_ where this book was thus regarded as an authority, and\nthus earnestly recommended, it is now renounced and disclaimed.\u201d\n\nI do not know what Mr. Byrth includes in \u201crenouncing\u201d and \u201cdisclaiming.\u201d\nIf these words mean \u201crejecting as a standard authority,\u201d then in the\nplace alluded to was the Improved Version _always_ renounced and\ndisclaimed.\n\nThe praise quoted in the note certainly requires much qualification.\nNevertheless the Improved Version is neither renounced nor disclaimed.\nWe have no predilection for the rude principle of taking things in the\nmass, or leaving them in the mass, without discrimination. And I fancy\nthat if our opponents were in these matters _as much at liberty_ as\nourselves, there are some of their _standards_ which would soon be\nthoroughly sifted.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 143.\u2014\u201cFor even they would scarcely think highly of the scholarship\nof Bishop Pearce.\u201d\n\nI have quoted Bishop Pearce, not for his learning, though unquestionably\nthat was respectable, but for the sake of stating that the acceptance by\na Bishop of the English Church of a certain interpretation ought to have\nscreened \u201ca reputed heretic\u201d from the charge of accepting the same\ninterpretation solely for the sake of an _a priori_ meaning.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 146.\u2014\u201cEpiphanius has little authority with any one else.\u201d Mr. Byrth\nis quite right in his estimate of Epiphanius. But it is hardly wise for\nthose who, like Mr. Byrth, rest their faith upon external testimonies,\nto look too closely into the characters of the witnesses, or raise\ndoubts respecting them in the public mind. We know how much of the\nweight of these testimonies rests upon Eusebius\u2014and I doubt not Mr.\nByrth knows very well that he is clearly convicted of having\ninterpolated one passage in Josephus, and corrupted another. How can we\ntell how far this process of reconciliation was carried? Why is it that\nwe have not the works of the Heretics, of whose _names_ ecclesiastical\nHistory is so full?\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 147.\u2014See the Note.\u2014Mr. Byrth seems to think it impossible to have\nworded the Title of his Lecture so as not to have insulted _some one_.\nWill he allow me to suggest what the Title might have been without\noffence, though not with exact truth of description\u2014\u201cSome of the\ninterpretations of the Improved Version of the New Testament based upon\ndefective Scholarship.\u201d To attribute \u201cdishonesty\u201d and want of \u201ccandour,\u201d\nMr. Byrth will I am sure feel to be too vulgar to be altogether worthy\nof his character as a Critic and a Scholar. In the text of his Lecture\n(p. 122), he indeed states his belief that Unitarian Interpretation, _of\nevery kind_, wants scholarship, or wants honesty\u2014and it was to the proof\nof this statement that he ought to have applied himself, or else to have\naltered the Title of his Lecture.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 148.\u2014Luke iii. 23.\u2014\u201cAnd Jesus himself began to be about thirty\nyears of age, being (_as was supposed_) the son of Joseph.\u201d\n\nThis passage was not introduced into the first part of Mr. Byrth\u2019s\nLecture as originally delivered. I state this only to excuse myself for\nhaving taken no notice of it in the body of my Lecture. This is the case\nalso with some other passages. There were also expressions and\nsentiments of Mr. Byrth spoken, but not printed. I would not state this\nwere it not necessary to justify some passages in my own Lecture. I\nrefer especially to an oratorical use that was made of a most\nobjectionable and irreverent sentiment of Coleridge\u2019s, full of the very\nspirit of dogmatism and presumption. P. 161.\n\nWith regard to Luke iii. 23. The rendering of the Improved Version is\nthat of Bishop Pearce, who I suppose had no heretical reason for\npreferring it. I confess it does not seem natural. Dr. Carpenter thinks\nthe words \u201cas he was supposed,\u201d put in to guard against some Gnostic or\nPlatonic error, and for the purpose of stating distinctly that he _was_\nthe son of Joseph, as he was supposed to be. The same writer acutely\nremarks that it is most improbable, indeed next to impossible, that any\nwriter should trace our Lord\u2019s descent from David _through Joseph_, and\nthen declare that Joseph was only _supposed_ to be his father, thus\nnullifying his own genealogy. Kuinoel gives a suggestion of Boltenius,\nto which he evidently inclines that \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf applies not to the\nsupposed descent of Jesus from Joseph but to the _whole_ genealogy. I\nannex his note.\n\n\u201c_Boltenius_ ad h. l. suspicatus est, verba \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf, non tantum eo\nreferenda esse, quod Jud\u00e6i falso putaverint, Josephum esse Christi\nparentem, sed spectari quoque his verbis genealogiam ipsam h. l.\nexhibitam, eaque reddenda esse: _hanc putabant esse Jesu genealogiam,\nerat pater ejus Josephus, hujus pater Eli_, etc., ut adeo Lucas\nprofessus sit, se inseruisse genealogiam, prouti ea in manus ipsius\nvenisset, seque authentiam illius acrius defendere nolle. Hac ratione\nadmissa, explicari forte etiam posset, qu\u00ee factum sit, ut Lucas\ngenealogiam ipsi suspectam, in Evangelio infanti\u00e6 Jesu propositam, ad\ncalcem illius fortasse adjectam, h. l. inseruerit, quod nempe aliquamdiu\ndubius h\u00e6sisset, an eam reciperet. Alii opinati sunt, hanc genealogiam,\ncum diversa sit ab ea qu\u00e6 in Matth\u00e6i commentariis reperitur, cum laxiori\nvinculo superioribus annexa sit, non a Luca ipso, sed serius additam\nesse.\u201d\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 149.\u2014See the Note.\u2014\u201cJacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary: of\nwhom (Mary) was born (or was begotten) Jesus who is called the Christ.\u201d\n\u201cNow is it possible to declare, in plainer terms, that, though Jesus was\nborn of Mary, who was married to Joseph, yet that Joseph _did not beget\nhim_.\u201d\u2014_Magee._ Great is the ingenuity here, wonderfully misapplied. Is\nit not clear that St. Matthew was tracing the descent of Jesus from\nDavid, and that he brings down the chain to the very last link, namely\nJoseph, that is, the very Joseph necessary to be included, the husband\nof the mother of Jesus? _That_ Joseph, the very husband of Mary, from\nwhom Christ was born, being thus shown to be a lineal descendant of\nDavid, the Evangelist stops. What could he do more? His object being to\ntrace the descent of Jesus from David, what could be more natural than,\nwhen he arrived at Joseph, to say\u2014here is the unbroken succession, for\nthis is the very man who was the husband of that Mary from whom Jesus\nwas born. Of course the writer could not alter the form of expression\nuntil he arrived at the very man whom he wished to identify as the\nhusband of Mary, the mother of Jesus\u2014and the reason for altering it then\nis very obvious.\n\nIf Joseph was not the father of Jesus, the genealogy is vitiated, for it\nis _through Joseph_ that the descent is traced.\n\n ---------------------\n\nPages 157, 158.\u2014\u201cHe was in the world, and the world was made by him, and\nthe world knew him not.\u201d \u201cHe was in the world, and the world was\nenlightened by him, and yet the world knew him not.\u201d\u2014I. V. This\ninterpretation cannot, I think, be defended. I am sorry it was ever\ngiven. Yet Mr. Byrth\u2019s sarcasm is quite powerless against it, \u201cwhat kind\nof light is that which blinds the eyes which it was intended to\nilluminate?\u201d in the face of the text\u2014\u201cthe light shineth in darkness, and\nthe darkness _comprehendeth_ it not;\u201d unless he adopts the\ninterpretation of some of the Fathers,\u2014\u201cAnd the darkness did not\ninsinuate itself into the light, interpenetrate and quench it.\u201d\n\n ---------------------\n\nPage 161.\u2014The liberality of ROBERT HALL. We desire to speak with respect\nof this great and good man. But perhaps it would be impossible to name a\nman more illiberal as a controversialist, and who allowed himself such\nan unmeasured use of uncharitable language. It was only the other day I\nlearned an anecdote of him from the person to whom the words were\nspoken, descriptive at once of his vigour and his rancour: speaking of\nthe Unitarians he said\u2014\u201cthey are inspired from _beneath_,\u201d\u2014with a look,\nsaid my informant, never to be forgotten. Many passages might be brought\nfrom his writings, especially his Reviews, demonstrative of this\ntemper,\u2014but the passage given by Mr. Byrth himself, in which he is\nsatisfied to rest conclusions so momentous and fearful upon reasonings\nso arbitrary and vague, is quite enough. When any man acquainted with\nthe state of Theological opinion in the world, and with the\nimpossibility of uniformity, can fix upon his own opinions as essential,\nand run a doctrinal line between Heaven and Hell, we require no further\ntests of his \u201cliberality,\u201d unless indeed he is, what Mr. Hall was not,\nonly a traditional believer.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\nI have already remarked that some of my observations apply more to the\nspoken than to the printed lecture. Were it possible to efface the\nimpressions made by the speaker, and which required to be counteracted,\ngladly would I efface every word of personal reference from my pages.\nEven now, with the recollection fresh upon my mind, of the unsparing\ncontempt, both literary and moral, expressed by words and tones, not\nconveyed by the printed page, when the speaker, feeling that the\nsympathies of his audience were with him to the full, and that their\nknowledge of the subject required from him _the broadest statements_, to\nrender it intelligible, gave himself to the excitement of the moment,\u2014I\nhave more than doubted whether it would not have been better to have\navoided every personal allusion. I believe that I have in no case\noverstated or misrepresented what was _said_. I deeply grieve to fix\nupon my pages the suggestions, perhaps, of momentary excitement, which\nMr. Byrth\u2019s better feeling has, in some instances, refused to record\u2014and\nthat the obligation I was under to remove an impression actually made,\ndoes not permit me to give full effect to this working of a kinder\nspirit, the manifestations of which, in other ways, I have respectfully\nto acknowledge.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture III.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n \u201cHeresy and Orthodoxy,\u201d by Rev. J. B. White, pp. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n Scholz retains \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n See Griesbach. Chrysostom omits \u201c_who is God over all_.\u201d Clement, in a\n passage evidently imitated from this, omits the doxology, which he is\n not likely to have done if he understood it as referring to Christ. In\n addition to other authorities for pointing the passage in consistency\n with the Unitarian Interpretation, Griesbach quotes \u201cMany Fathers who\n denied that Christ could be called \u2018the God over all.\u2019 Multi patres,\n qui Christum \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd appellari posse negant.\u201d In an\n edition of Griesbach, printed by Taylor and Walton in 1837, this\n punctuation is given, and is stated also to be the pointing of Scholz.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n John xiv. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n John v. 19.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n Acts x. 34-43.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n Matt. xxiv. 3, 34.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n \u201cThe mistranslation of the word \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2, by the English word \u2018worlds,\u2019\n in the commencement of the Epistle to the Hebrews. For giving this\n sense to the original term, there is not, I think, any authority to be\n found either in Hellenistic or classic Greek.\u201d\u2014_Norton on the\n Trinity._\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n Heb. ix. 26.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n Whitby, from whose armoury I find so many weapons have been taken,\n contends also for \u201cthe end of the world,\u201d on the ground that Christ\u2019s\n miraculous assistance was continued sensibly _till the beginning of\n the fourth century_.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n John x. 34, 35, 36.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n Wetstein, quoted by Norton.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n See note, page 19. I have no access to the text of Scholz, except in\n the edition published by Taylor and Walton. This places a period after\n \u03c3\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b1, _flesh_; which, however, it also gives in the text as the\n pointing of Griesbach, contrary to the only other edition I have at\n present the opportunity of examining.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n See Appendix for a fuller examination of these two passages, viz., the\n Proem of St. John\u2019s Gospel, and Rom. ix. 5.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n And especially since Mr. Byrth has alluded to the disapprobation with\n which the sentiment was received.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n Christian Teacher, New Series, No. I, pp. 31, 32.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n By this I mean a God who cannot forgive except by one\n process\u2014advantage of which must be taken by an act of faith\u2014it being\n always uncertain whether the faith is right or sufficient.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n We find in the first beginnings of the Trinity, the Logos and the Holy\n Spirit identified. This is even angrily contended for by Tertullian.\n \u201cWhat! when John said that the Logos was made flesh, and the angel\u201d\n (respecting the miraculous conception) \u201cthat the Spirit was made\n flesh, did they mean any thing different?\u201d\u2014_Tertullian, Advers.\n Praxeam._ Cap. xxvi.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE IV.\n\n \u201cTHERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN,\n THE MAN CHRIST JESUS.\u201d\n\n BY REV. HENRY GILES.\n\n \u201cTHERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST\n JESUS.\u201d\u20141 _Tim._ ii. 5.\n\n\nThe passage I have read suggests the subject of my lecture, the position\nin which we stand to our opponents will suggest the tendency of the\ncommentary. The text announces the two great truths on which our entire\nsystem of Christianity is based, and ours in all essential points, we\nthink, coincides with simple, with evangelical Christianity. The truths\npropounded in the text are, the Unity of God, and the Unity of Christ.\u2014A\nunity in each case absolute and perfect, without division of nature or\ndistinction of person. We believe that God is one,\u2014that he is one being,\none mind, one person, one agent. And this belief, and no other, we can\ndeduce from the works of creation, and the teachings of the Scriptures.\n\nThat God is one universally and absolutely, we have impressed upon us\nfrom the order of creation; that he is great, we learn from the\nmagnitude of his works; and that he is good, we learn from their\nblessedness and beauty. This sublime truth is illustrated in every\nregion of existence, so far as we know it, and every illustration is an\nargument. It is written on the broad and immortal heavens in characters\nof glory and light; it is manifested in that mighty law which binds atom\nto atom into a world, and world to world in a system, and system to\nsystem, until from that wonderful universe which science can traverse,\nwe arise to him, whom no knowledge can fathom, whom no limits can bound,\nand in contemplating whom science must give place to faith.\n\nThe heavens declare the glory of God, the firmament showeth his\nhandy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth\nknowledge\u2014and that God is one, is proclaimed in this speech, and\nmanifested in this knowledge. It gleams in the light, it breathes in the\nair, it moves in the life of all created nature; it is the harmony of\ncreation, and the spirit of providence, the inspiration of reason, and\nthe consistency of wisdom. The existence of one Supreme Intelligence is\nthe Testimony of Nature, and to the same import are the testimonies of\nScripture. We are told, and told it in every variety of tone, that to\nbelieve one God in three persons is absolutely needful to Salvation, yet\nwe may read from Genesis to Revelations without finding such a doctrine\neither as a statement of truth, or a means of sanctity: but the simple\nand unqualified declaration that God is one, without any of these\ndogmatical distinctions which men of later ages have invented, I need\nnot tell a Bible-reading audience, are interwoven with the whole texture\nof revelation. It was that for which Abraham left his home, and went\nforth a wanderer from his family and his nation; it was that for which\nMoses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh\u2019s daughter, and for which\nhe chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God; it was that\nover which he had long thought in his shepherd-life in an Arabian\nwilderness; it was that with which he was more deeply inspired in the\nsolemn retirements of Mount Horeb; it was that to which all his laws and\ninstitutions pointed. Our Saviour took the doctrine as a known maxim\u2014and\nin this his disciples followed him. We have then the truth brought down\nto us through Scripture, in patriarchal tradition, in Mosaic\nlegislation, in the poetry of prophets, in the words of Christ, in the\npreaching of apostles,\u2014and we have it brought down to us without one of\nthose distinctions with which it has been since surrounded by\ntheological ingenuity. We are zealous in the assertion of it, not for\nits mere metaphysical correctness, but for its moral power and its moral\nconsistency. It does not divide our hearts, and it does not confuse our\nheads. It leads our minds up to one spirit, infinite in power, infinite\nin wisdom, and infinite in goodness. Without confusion or perplexity we\ncan trace God in all and all in God: in the atom that trembles in a\nsunbeam, as in the planet that moves in boundless light, from the blush\nof a flower to the glory of the heavens\u2014from the throb of an insect to\nthe life of an immortal. The Unitarian faith in the universal father is\nclear, simple, and defined; inflicting no violence on our\nunderstandings, and raising no conflicts in our affections. One, and one\nin the strictest sense, is our parent, one is our sovereign, one is our\nhighest benefactor, one is our protector and our guide, one is our\ndeliverer and sanctifier; one has bestowed all we possess, one alone can\ngive all we hope for; one is holy who demands our obedience; one is\nmerciful who pities our repentance; one is eternal in whose presence we\nare to live, and therefore whether we present our adorations in\ndependence, or bow down in submission, or send forth our praises in\ngratitude, there is one, and but one, to whom our aspirations can\nascend, and to whom our hearts can be devoted. Thus impressed, we must\nfeel united to one Father in filial obedience, and to all men in a\ncommon and fraternal relationship; we cannot look upon some as selected,\nand upon others as outcasts; we cannot look upon some as purchased, and\nupon others as reprobate; we cannot look upon some as sealed with the\nspirit of grace for ever unto glory everlasting, and upon others as\nabandoned, unpitied, and unprotected, the victims of an everlasting\nmalediction. We regard men as bound in a community of good, consequently\nas bound in a community of praise; we regard them as struggling in like\ntrials, and therefore indebted to each other for mutual sympathy; we\nregard them as heirs of the same glory, and on the level of their\nheavenly hopes, standing on a basis of sacred and eternal equality. If\nthese sentiments are false, they are at least generous, and it is not\noften that generosity is found in company with falsehood. Alas, how many\nheart-burning enmities, how many deadly persecutions have been caused by\ndifferent apprehension of God\u2019s nature or God\u2019s worship; how often have\nthese differences broken all the fraternal bonds of humanity, made man\nthe greatest enemy to man,\u2014more savage and cruel than the beast, yea,\nand cruel in proportion to the zeal he pretended for his God. But never\ncould this have been, had men believed in God, had men believed in\nChrist\u2014had they believed in God as an impartial and universal Father,\nhad they believed in Christ as an equal and universal brother.\u2014Then we\ncould have all sent our mingled prayers to the skies, and with a\nChristianity as broad as our earth, and as ample as our race, and\ngenerous as the soul of Jesus, we could have taken all mankind to our\nheart. We maintain it not in mere abstract speculation, but because we\nconsider it a positive and a vital truth. Were the point metaphysical\nand not moral, we conceive it would be little worthy of dispute\u2014and in\nthat sense I for one would have small anxiety, whether God existed in\nthree persons or in three thousand. In like manner we hold the simple\nand absolute unity of Christ; a unity of nature, a unity of person, and\na unity of character. But as this topic is to occupy so large a space in\nthe present lecture, I shall here forbear from further comments.\n\nThe statement of our subject in a text, was alluded to by the Christ\nChurch Lecturer, in a tone that at least approached to censure. But we\nconsider it amongst our privileges, that we can express our main\nprinciples in the simple and obvious language of Scripture; and if in\nthis case deep scholarship and acute criticism be needed to give it to\ncommon minds a meaning different from that in which we understand it,\nthe fault certainly is not ours.\u2014Neither, indeed, is ours the blame, if\na similar phraseology pervades the whole Christian Scriptures; that in\nevery page we read of God and Christ, and never of God in three persons,\nor of Christ in two natures. To find out such distinctions, we leave to\nScholastic ingenuity; to give them definition and perpetuity, we consign\nto the framers of creeds and articles\u2014and to receive and reverence them\nwe turn over to the admirers of Athanasian perspicuity. We take the New\nTestament as the best formulary; we are satisfied with a religion direct\nand simple in its principles, and we long not for a religion of\ndeducibles. We have been accused of tortuous criticism; and although we\ndesire not to retort the accusation on our opponents, so far I mean, as\nit implies moral delinquency, we cannot forbear observing that the\nintellectual sinuosities by which some of these deductions have been\ndrawn from the New Testament is to us, certainly, a subject of not a\nlittle admiration. Our motive in selecting this text was the best of all\nwhich governs men in the use of language, simply that with greatest\nbrevity and greatest perspicuity, it enunciates our opinions. Our\nopponents, however, have no right to complain; the advantage of being\nfirst in the field was on their side, and the struggle was not provoked\non our part but on theirs: they of course selected their own subjects,\nand they suggested ours. They could, therefore, have had no uncertainty\neither as to our views or interpretation of the text. I would not allude\nto a matter so small, were it not for the contradictory delinquencies\nwith which Unitarians are accused\u2014one time they are charged with\ndreading an appeal to Scripture, and when by the very title of their\nsubject, they tacitly appeal to Scripture, there is wanting still no\noccasion to blame.\n\nWhat, in Unitarian views, is Christ the Man, and what is Christ the\nMediator, shall make the subject of the present Lecture.\n\nI.\u2014First, I beg your attention to the enquiry as to what we believe of\nChrist as man. To this we answer, that in his nature we think him simply\nand undividedly human; that in his character we regard him morally\nperfect. We cannot recognize in Christ a mixture of natures, and we\nwonder that any who read the gospel\u2019s records can. That he was simply\nand merely human, is a conclusion which meditation on these Records but\nfixes more profoundly on our understandings, and makes more precious to\nour faith. We derive the conclusion from Christ\u2019s own language\u2014\u201cYe seek\nto kill me,\u201d he says, \u201ca _man_\u2014which hath told you the truth, which I\nheard of God.\u201d\u2014Again, when a worldly and ambitious individual, mistaking\nthe true nature of this kingdom, desired to become his disciple: \u201cThe\nfoxes, said Jesus, have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but\nthe Son of man hath not whereon to lay his head.\u201d Instances, too many to\nrepeat, might be enumerated; but the only other I shall adduce is that\nin which Christ\u2019s human nature speaks from its deepest sorrows, and its\nstrongest love: when Jesus, as he hung upon the Cross, saw his mother\nand the disciple whom he loved standing by, he saith unto his mother,\n\u201cWoman, behold thy son.\u201d It is vain to tell us of an infinite God veiled\nbehind this suffering and sweetness, the mind repels it, despite of all\nthe efforts of theology.[151]\n\nThe impression of a simple humanity was that which he left on the mind\nof his countrymen. What other impression could they have of one whom\nthey daily saw amongst them as of themselves? who came weary to rest in\ntheir habitations; who came hungry to sit at their boards; whom they met\nin their streets sinking with fatigue; whom they might see upon their\nwayside asking drink from a well; one whom they saw weep over their\ntroubles and rejoice in their gladness. Nay, the very intenseness of his\nhumanity became a matter of accusation. To many it seemed subversive of\nreligion. That spirit which sympathized with human beings, in their joys\nand woes, which not only loved the best, but would not cast out the\nworst, was what those of strait and narrow hearts could not understand.\nHe came eating and drinking, and they called him a man gluttonous and a\nwine-bibber. Had he said long prayers at the corners of their streets,\nand been zealous for the traditions of the fathers, they would have\nrevered him as a saint. Those who were panoplied in their own spiritual\nsufficiency knew not how he could be the friend of sinners; how he could\nassociate with the deserted and the excommunicated; how he could take to\nhis compassion the weary and the heavy-laden. The pharisee who proudly\nasked him to his house, but gave him no salute, no oil for his stiffened\njoints, and no water for his parched feet, had nothing within him\nwhereby to interpret the feeling of Jesus towards her who anointed his\nhead with ointment, washed his feet with her tears, and wiped them with\nthe hairs of her head. Yes, it was this truth and fulness of humanity\nwhich made Jesus hateful to the pharisees, but loved and blessed by the\npoor; it was this that made the common people hear him gladly, and gave\nhis voice a power which they never felt in the teachings of the scribes;\nwhich drew crowds around him, in wilderness and mountain, that hung\nraptured on the glad tidings which he preached. The flatterers of Herod\non a particular occasion cried out, \u201cIt is the voice of a god and not of\na man;\u201d but no one ever thought of insulting Jesus with such an\nexclamation.\n\nThe guilt of the Jews in crucifying Christ has been alluded to in the\npresent controversy. But this is only an additional proof that Jesus\nleft no other conviction on the minds of his countrymen than that he was\nsimply a man. That our views diminish this guilt has been urged as a\npowerful objection against us; but, with reverence I say it, the\nobjection turns more against Christ himself. Either then he was simply\nman, or being Deity, he suppressed the evidence which would prove it,\nand allowed this people to contract the awful guilt of killing a\nGod-man. If the first be true, the guilt asserted has no existence; if\nthe second, I leave you to judge in what light it places the sincerity\nand veracity of an incarnate Deity. There is neither declaration nor\nevidence afforded by Christ by which the Jews could think him more than\nman. On the contrary he disclaims expressly the far lower honour at\nwhich they thought his presumption aimed, by a quotation from their own\nScriptures: \u201cIt is written in your law\u201d he observes, \u201cI said ye are\nGods. If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the\nScripture cannot be broken), say ye of him whom the Father hath\nsanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest, because I said I\nam the Son of God.\u201d[152] There is then no declaration, nor yet is there\nevidence. Miracles were not such: for the Jewish mind and memory were\nfilled with instances of these, and to the performers of which they\nnever thought of attributing a nature above humanity. If Christ was\nmore, the fact should have been plainly manifested, for the idea of a\nGod in a clothing of flesh was one not only foreign but repugnant to\nevery Jewish imagination. The difference between the Jews and pagans in\nthis particular is not a little striking. Jesus raised the dead before\ntheir eyes, and yet they thought him but a man having great power from\nthe Creator. Paul, in company with Barnabas, healed a cripple at Lystra,\nand the populace cried out, \u201cThe Gods are come down to us in the\nlikeness of men.\u201d When Paul in Melita shook without harm the viper from\nhis hand, the spectators who at first considered him a murderer, changed\ntheir minds, and said that he was a God. In proportion then to the\nnatural and religious repugnance which the Jews had to humanize the\ndivinity, should there have been clearness in the proof of it on the\npart of Jesus. No such proof was given.\n\nThe greatest miracles of Jesus disturbed not the conviction of the Jews\nin his simple human nature. The woman of Samaria, wondering at once at\nhis charity and his knowledge, called her neighbours to see a _man_ who\ntold her all things whatsoever she did. She asked them, then is not this\nthe Christ? The blind man awakened by his touch from thick darkness into\nthe marvellous light of God\u2019s creation describes him but as a _man_ who\nanointed his eyes. The Jewish officers struck dumb before his wisdom,\ndeclare that never _man_ spake like this _man_. The Jews who stood\naround him and saw Lazarus, whose body had been already dissolving, come\nforth quickened from the grave, beheld in him but the powerful and the\nloving friend. The multitudes of Judea, who in desert and city were\namazed at his wonderful works, simply \u201cglorified God who had given such\npower unto men.\u201d\n\nSimilar was the impression which he left upon his intimate friends. What\nwould have been their emotions had they a belief that continually they\nwere in the bodily presence of the incarnate God? How would they not\nhave bowed themselves in the dust, and stopped the familiar word as it\ntrembled on their lips? Instead of approaching with unfearing hearts,\nhow would they not have stood afar off and apart, and gazed with awe\nupon a being who was pacing a fragment of the world he created, instead\nof clinging to him as one of themselves? Whenever they saw his\nmysterious appearance, would they not call on the mountains to fall upon\nthem, and the hills to cover them? But not so was it. The lowly, the\nhumble, and the poor rejoiced to see him, and were glad when he entered\ntheir habitations. They were consoled by the benediction of peace with\nwhich he sanctified his approach and his departure. For him was the\ngratulations of loving friends, and for him were the smiles of little\nchildren. In Bethany, Martha, when he came, was busy in much serving,\nand the meek and gentle Mary sat at his feet to drink in his heavenly\nwisdom. At the last supper John leaned upon his bosom. At the cross,\nwhen the head of Jesus bent heavily in anguish, and solitary torture was\nwearing away his life, there again we meet the same disciple, there also\nwe meet the mother of Jesus and the grateful Magdalene, all three\noppressed with darkest affliction and despair. Some of them we again\nbehold at the sepulchre in utmost alarm. Now this grief at the cross and\nthis perplexity at the tomb is consistent with no other supposition than\nthat they regarded him simply as a man. Why else should they have been\nafflicted? What though his enemies were strong, if knowing him to be\nGod, they must also have known that his power was boundless and his\ntriumph certain. This sorrow and uncertainty, I repeat, can have no\nother foundation than a belief in his simple humanity. And surely if his\nmother had only such impression, it is hard to expect that the Jews at\nthe time, and many Christians since, could have had any other.\n\nI anticipate the objection that the glories of his deity were concealed,\nand that this concealment was necessary to his mediatorial work. I\nanswer then, that when he had departed, and when such a secresy was no\nlonger needful, his apostles on some of the most solemn occasions merely\nasserted his humanity, on occasions, too, when, if he were God as well\nas man, the whole truth were to be expected. Paul,[153] in announcing\nhim as the great and final judge of the world, calls him no more than\nman. Nor does his language assume a higher import when he speaks of him\nas the pattern and pledge of immortality.[154] No other conclusion is to\nbe drawn from the address of Peter to Cornelius; and if a belief of\nChrist\u2019s deity be necessary to salvation, the centurion might, for\nanything Peter asserted, have gone direct to perdition.[155] Still more\nremarkable is it, that in this apostle\u2019s first public address after the\ndeparture of his master to the skies, we have nothing more than the same\ndeclaration. The occasion and the circumstances not only justified, but\ndemanded the highest announcement that could be made respecting Christ.\nThe disciples had just seen him taken up into heaven, and the awe of the\nascension was yet upon their hearts. He who had trod this weary earth in\nmany sorrows was taken from their sight. They who had recently seen his\nblood streaming warmly on Calvary, had come fresh from the glory of\nOlivet. He who had been their suffering companion and instructor was now\ntheir blessed and triumphant master. Alone in the midst of a gainsaying\nand persecuting world, with gladness solemnized by reverence, and\nvictory tempered by grief, they had assembled to await the promised\nComforter. After that event they were to be separated, and each was to\ntake his own path in the moral wilderness that stretched far and\ndesolately before him. The Spirit of Promise came. The cloven tongues of\nfire fell upon them: that beautiful emblem of the eloquent spirit of the\ngospel that was to carry light and heat to the hearts of all\ngenerations, and through every language of earth; that beautiful emblem\nof a Christianity which might exist in many forms, but be at the same\ntime enlightened and enflamed by the soul of a common charity.\nMultitudes from all nations were collected in the Holy City;\u2014under the\ninfluence of recent and solemn events Peter rises to address them. The\ntragedy of Calvary was yet fresh in the general imagination, the stain\nof a slave and malefactor\u2019s death was still dark on the forehead of\nChristianity. This surely was the time to cover the ignominy that lay on\nthe humanity of Jesus by proclaiming the resplendent glory of his\ngodhead. This was especially to be expected from Peter. He had on a\npreceding occasion spurned the idea of such a shameful death, though\ncoming from Christ\u2019s own lips; now was the time to pour the glory of the\nGod over the humiliation of the man; he too, who in an hour of weakness\ndenied his master, was the one who in the time of his strength and\nrepentance would be most ready to vindicate and assert his highest\nhonour. It is said that the apostles were not thoroughly inspired, and\ndid not fully know Christ before the day of Pentecost. But this was the\nday of Pentecost. If, besides, it was the speaker\u2019s object\u2014as indeed it\nmust have been\u2014that Christ should be rightly and widely known, now was\nthe opportunity to send forth his name and nature through every kingdom\nand in every tongue. If, according to the doctrine some time since\npropounded in Christ Church, the sin of the Jews was dark in proportion\nto the grade of being in which we place the Saviour, now was the time,\nwhile the event was recent, to strike their hearts with terror and\ncompunction. Contrast, then, these natural, these fair and unexaggerated\nexpectations, with the actual speech of Peter, and without a word of\ncomment the contrast is itself the strongest argument. \u201cYe men of Israel\nhear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by\nmiracles, and wonders, and signs which God did by him in the midst of\nyou, as ye yourselves know: him being delivered by the determinate\ncounsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands\nhave crucified and slain: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the\npains of death, because it was not possible that he should be holden of\nit.\u201d (Acts ii. 22, 24.) Had you been listeners to this address, I ask\nyour candour, I ask your intellect, could you conceive that the apostle\nwas speaking, not of a glorified man, but of an incarnate Deity? No,\ncertainly.\n\nThe testimony of Peter thus clearly given, is more and more confirmed as\nwe look upon the life of Jesus. In every stage of that life we see him\nhuman, and though in all moral purity and moral grandeur, yet _simply_\nhuman. We are not ashamed of our belief. No, we glory in it, and we\nrejoice in it. We glory in it, for it is the proof that the elements of\nour nature can be moulded into such beauty; and we rejoice in it, for it\nis the proof that he who left a religion for the immortal heart of man\nwas himself purely and simply of the nature he would sanctify. We see\nhim as the infant cradled in Bethlehem, the nurseling hanging on a\nmother\u2019s care, and we escape the moral and intellectual confusion of\njoining the omnipotence of a God with the feebleness of a babe. We see\nhim in maturer years in his social relations and social intercourse\ncasting a holy light around him, and spreading the influence of all that\nis most blessed in human affections. We destroy not the virtue of the\nman by absorbing it in the glory of the God. Human, and _only_ human, we\nsee him in goodness, in duty, and in suffering. Even in his most\nmarvellous works of mercy, so harmonious is his power with our common\nnature, that we feel as if they were merely ordinary acts of kindness.\nWhen he compassionated the widow\u2019s anguish and restored her son; when\npitying the blind, he opened their eyes to the joy and beauty of light;\nwhen to the ears of the deaf he gave an inlet to the music of nature and\nthe voice of friendship; when he cast out the dumb spirit and unclosed\nsealed lips in hymns of gratitude and praise; when he fed multitudes on\nthe mountain\u2019s brow; when lepers went clean from his presence to their\nfellows and their homes; when parents clung to their restored children,\nand friends who had separated in despair met again in hope,\u2014wonderful as\nare all these events, we connect them with the _man_ Christ Jesus, the\nreal, simple, holy, and perfect man.\n\nThe lecturer in Christ Church stated three peculiarities which\ndistinguished the Unitarian from the orthodox belief in Christ\u2019s\nhumanity. The third of these was his pre-existence. The Lecturer defined\nwith admirable accuracy the essentials of humanity, one of which, as\nwould be universally admitted, was _to be born_. I was therefore not\nprepared to hear the proper humanity of Christ before he was born most\nzealously defended. I look upon it, however, as a mere oversight, and no\ndoubt it will be corrected in the printed lecture.\n\nThe main point is, however, that of Christ\u2019s pre-existence, which\nindependently of mistake in arrangement or expression is a fair topic of\nargument and discussion. The Lecturer quoted a number of texts from the\nevangelist John,\u2014from any other of the gospel-writers he could not have\ntaken the shadow of a proof: these he seemed to think invincible\nevidence. Good scholars, however, and candid critics, aye, and honest\nChristians, have found such explanations of these expressions as\nsatisfied both their intellects and their conscience. Orthodox\ncommentators are aware that the idiom of the New Testament frequently\nuses the tense grammatically past to signify events which are actually\nfuture. I ask those critics what they have urged, what they usually\nurge, against Roman Catholic controversialists, who, in proving the\ndoctrine of transubstantiation, quote the text, \u201cThis is my body which\nis broken for you.\u201d What says the Protestant opponent? Oh, it is a mere\nidiomatic expression, by which an event is represented as complete which\nis yet to be accomplished. In like manner and with a like\ninterpretation, we hear the orthodox use the phrase, \u201cThe lamb _slain_\nfrom the foundation of the world.\u201d They have in this case no scruple to\nspeak of that as actually existing which was merely contemplated in\neternal foreknowledge. If it be said that all events are present to the\nmind of God, so we answer are all persons; and so was Christ. This view\nof the subject has satisfied many reflective, and whatever our opponents\nmay think, many able and honest minds. But I avail myself of this\nopportunity to state distinctly and plainly, that though challenged by\nour opponents in the title of their subject to discuss this point, it is\none on which Unitarians have great differences of opinion, but one which\nwould not disturb a moment\u2019s harmony in Unitarian Churches. Personally\nthe Lecturers in the present controversy, on our side, do not believe\nthe pre-existence of Christ; but there are congregations and individuals\namongst us, with whom we hold, and wish to hold, kindly, brotherly, and\nChristian communion, who cling to this doctrine most sacredly and most\nreverently. We all agree in maintaining the absolute unity of God, and\nif I may so speak, the CREATURESHIP of Christ. We desire to bind our\ncharity to no dogmas, and we simply say, with the Apostle, \u201cLet every\nman be persuaded in his own mind.\u201d\n\nOn this point, and indeed in this discussion generally, I have observed\nwith great pain a disposition on the part of our opponents to connect\nthe venerable name of Priestley with odium. It is an unworthy office for\nmen of education in the nineteenth century. We take not the authority of\nPriestley, nor of any other, except Jesus. One is our Master, even\n_Christ_: and all we are brethren. But in venerating Priestley, yea, and\nin loving his memory, we are guilty of no Sectarianism, we but agree\nwith the generous, the excellent, the enlightened of the earth: we but\nagree with Robert Hall, a stern but eloquent Trinitarian, who in\nallusion to the Birmingham riots, deprecated in glowing language the\ninsults offered to philosophy in \u201cthe first of her sons.\u201d Both his\ncritical and his religious opinions are fair subjects for investigation\nand opposition. But great sacrifices and honourable consistency should\nrender his moral character sacred, if any thing could melt the stony\nheart of polemical austerity. When we hear, as lately we did hear, that\nPriestley sought not for truth, but for arguments to sustain a system,\nwe are not only impelled to ask, with Pilate, \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d but also\nto inquire, \u201cWho are those who seek it?\u201d One thing we do know, that if\nhe gave himself to a system, it was a devotion to one which had little\nwherewith to recompense him; and we know also that as far as the good\nthings of this world is concerned, that he might have turned his\ndevotion to a far better purpose. Instead of having his home and his all\nshattered in the storm of popular turbulence, instead of being left\nhouseless in the land of his nativity, he might have been great amongst\nthe heads of colleges, or first upon the bench of Bishops; instead of\nbeing expatriated amidst vulgar execration, he might have spent his life\nfairing sumptuously every day, clothed in purple and fine linen, with a\ndignified hypocrisy; instead of burying his later sorrows in a foreign\nland, and dropping there his last and most bitter tears, and leaving\nthere his venerable dust, and his still more venerable memory, to the\nshame of England, and to the immortal honour of his most generous and\nhospitable entertainers, we might now have had proposals for a national\nmonument to him, long lists of subscribers\u2019 names, and loud clamours of\nexulting praise. One consolation at least was left: his right hand was\nclean, and had he been dragged to the stake he need never have thrust it\nin the flame for having been the instrument to give signature to a lie,\nfrom a beggarly, a dastardly, and a cowardly fear of death. If he could\nlook from where he lives in heaven, he would have a still nobler\nconsolation, in being aware that, despite of bigots, his name is\ntreasured in venerated recollection with the pious and philosophical of\nall sects and parties\u2014that to give him due and most beautiful\npraise[156] was amongst the last earthly acts of a kindred spirit, but\nof another soil, that fanatics may rant and rage, but the good will\nlove.\u2014That when this, with such controversies in general, sink into the\ncommon and oblivious grave to which all polemical divinity is doomed,\nthe good his invention have given to mankind will survive, and the\nwitness he has left of an upright conscience will be an everlasting\nexample.\n\nThe conviction of his reason, it is true, was so strong against the\npre-existence of Christ, that he would suppose the apostle misunderstood\nthe Saviour\u2019s words, or the amanuensis mistranscribed the apostle\u2019s\nlanguage. This was urged as a mighty accusation, as a most blasphemous\ntransgression. There are here an opinion and an alternative. The opinion\nis the belief in Christ\u2019s simple humanity; the alternative is merely to\nsuppose the want of memory in an evangelist, or the want of accuracy in\na copyist. Place in contrast to this Coleridge as quoted by our\nopponents. He has also an opinion and an alternative\u2014his opinion is,\nthat Christ was God, and his alternative is, that if _not God_ he was a\n_deceiver_. If Dr. Priestley was wrong, he left not only Christ but his\napostles morally blameless\u2014if Coleridge mistook, he attributed directly\nand without compromise the want of even common honesty to the Author of\nour religion: I leave you to judge between the two cases. I do not wish\nto disparage erring and departed genius; but when the name of Coleridge\nis called up in my mind in connection with that of Priestley, it is not\nin human nature to avoid comparison. The one steeped the best part of\nhis life in opium, the other spent it in honourable toil; the one\nsquandered his brilliant and most beautiful genius in discursive efforts\nand magical conversations, the other with heroic self denial shut\nhimself up in dry and laborious studies for the physical good, and the\nmoral wants of mankind; the one wrote sweet and wild and polished poesy\nfor their pleasure, the other has left discoveries for their endless\nimprovement. Yet orthodoxy builds for one the shrine of a saint, but\nlike those who in other days dug up the bones of Wickliff to be burned,\ndrags forth the memory of the other from the peaceful and forgiving\npast, to inflict an execution of which we might have supposed his\nlifetime had a sufficient endurance. Tranquil in the far-off and quiet\ngrave be the ashes of the Saint and Sage: his soul is beyond the\nturmoils and battles of this fighting world. When these who are now in\nstrife shall be at last in union, his will not be the spirit to whom\nthat blessed consummation will give least enjoyment.\n\nThe preacher in Christ Church made some lengthened observations on the\ntwo-fold nature of Jesus. This topic will more properly be included in\nanother lecture. I only mention it here for the purpose of making a\npassing remark. The preacher\u2019s language implied that among our reasons\nfor rejecting the doctrine is, that it is a mystery. Now we maintain\nthat a mystery is properly no doctrine, for it can be neither affirmed\nor denied. The lecturer observed that there are mysteries in life and\nnature. If by such he meant facts which we do not fully comprehend, or\nultimate facts beyond which we cannot penetrate, he is right. But of\nthese we assert nothing, of these we deny nothing. Intellectually or\nspiritually they are in no sense subjects of contemplation. The\npreacher, if my memory deceives me not, maintained that philosophy has\nalso mysteries. The principles or phenomena of Philosophy are not\nmysteries\u2014and so far as they are mysteries they are not philosophy. We\nreject not the doctrine proposed to us on any such ground. We reject it,\nnot because we do not understand the terms in which it is expressed, but\nbecause we _do_ understand them, and find them equally repugnant to\nreason and to Scripture. We reject it because it does equal violence to\nfaith and intellect; we reject it, not only from the want of\nconsistency, but the want of evidence.\n\nThe apology for mystery made by the defenders of the incarnation has\nbeen as often, as ably, and as successfully used by the advocates of\nTransubstantiation. Among other questions, we are asked by both\nparties\u2014it is a favourite illustration\u2014if we know how a grain of wheat\ngerminates and fructifies! Without hesitation we reply\u2014no. And not only\ndo we not understand this _how_, but many others which might seem very\nmuch simpler. But where, I ask, is the analogy? A grain of wheat is\nburied in the earth, and the spirit of Universal Life prepares it for\nreproduction, and in the harvest it comes forth abundantly multiplied,\nto make glad the hearts of men. On this point I am equally willing to\nconfess my ignorance and my gratitude. All the facts are not known to\nme, but such as I do know are perfectly consistent with each other. If I\nam told that I know not how a grain of wheat germinates, I admit it\nwithout hesitation; but I should certainly be startled if I were also\ntold, that besides being a grain of wheat it was also, by a mysterious\ncompound of natures, the Planet Herschel, or the archangel Michael. And\nyet this does not amount by infinite degrees of self-contradiction to\nthe assertion, that the same being is God and man; that one part of the\nnature is weary, and hungry, and thirsty, bowed down by every want and\ngrief, while the other is resting in peace and blessedness\u2014that in the\nsame person there is one mind which is ignorant of that which is to come\nin a day, and another in which reside the secrets of the universe, of\ntime, and of eternity.\n\nThe preacher, in speaking to Unitarians specially, commenced his address\nto us in a tone of exhortation, and closed it in that of rebuke. And\nwhat was the ground and subject of rebuke? Why, the smallness of our\nnumbers. He exhorted us on our want of humility, of modesty, in opposing\nthe whole Christian world. I wondered, if I were in a place of\nProtestant worship, or if I heard an advocate for the right of private\njudgment. My mind, as by a spell, was thrown back upon the early and\ninfant history of Christianity; I saw the disciples going forth on that\nopposing world, of which their master had given them no enticing\npicture; I saw Peter at Antioch, and Paul harassed and toil-worn at Rome\nand Athens; I heard the cry of the vulgar, and the sarcasms of the\nphilosophical, going forth in prolonged utterance in condemnation of the\nstrange doctrine; I visioned before me the little knots of Christians,\nbound to each other in love, holding their own faith, despite of\nmultitudes and despite of antiquity, fronting the world\u2019s scorn and the\nworld\u2019s persecution. I thought of Luther, standing, as he confessed,\nagainst the world, an admission which was made one of the strongest\narguments against him,\u2014an argument that there are piles of divinity to\nmaintain on the one side, and to repel on the other. I thought on the\npersecution of the Waldenses and the Albigenses; I saw them, few, and\nscattered, and shivering, and dying, in their Alpine solitudes: for\npersecution, like the sun, enters into every nook. I thought of the\nearly struggle of Protestantism in this country,\u2014of Latimer, of Cranmer,\nand of Ridley; I thought of these honest and right-noble beings given,\nby a barbarous bigotry, to a death of infamy; delivered over to the\nfires of Smithfield; perishing amidst vulgar yells; not only abandoned,\nbut condemned, by episcopal domination. I remembered having read, in the\nLife of Saint Francis Xavier, precisely similar objections made against\nhim by the bonzas of Japan. I also considered how many societies at\npresent send missionaries to the Heathen. I considered that, amidst the\npopulousness of India, the Brahmins might make a similar objection with\nmuch greater force. Our fathers, they might say, never heard these\nthings; our people repudiate them.\n\nBut notwithstanding such general objections, we do not withhold our\nadmiration from Xavier and such self-denying men who were willing to\nspend and be spent so that they might make known the glory of Christ; we\nrejoice in seeing men thus forget their persons in love to their\nprinciples, and in Doctor Carey standing alone, preaching under a tree\nopposite to Juggernaut\u2014we recognize with joy the impersonation of\nChristian sincerity and Christian philanthrophy. If numbers were the\nproof of truth, what changeful shapes might not truth assume to meet the\nhumour of the multitude! And we hear the immortal Chillingworth\u2014the\nfirst of logicians, the most charitable of polemics\u2014thus replying to one\nof his assailants: \u201cYou obtrude upon us,\u201d says he, \u201cthat when Luther\nbegan, he being yet but one, opposed himself to all, as well subjects as\nsuperiors. If he did so in the cause of God it was heroically done of\nhim. This had been without hyperbolizing, _Mundus contra Athanasium et\nAthanasius contra mundum_. Neither is it so impossible that the whole\nworld should so far lie in wickedness (as St. John speaks,) that it may\nbe lawful and noble for one man to oppose the world. But yet were we put\nto our oaths, we should not surely testify any such thing for you; for\nhow can we say properly that he opposed himself to all unless we could\nsay also that all opposed themselves to him?\u201d The same noble writer goes\non to say \u201cthat though no man before him lifted up his voice as Luther\ndid, yet who can assure us but that many before him both thought and\nspake in the lower voice of petitions and remonstrances in many points\nas he did?\u201d\u2014One fact at least must be conceded, and we are entitled to\nany advantage it implies, that it is more painful and self-sacrificing\nto be of the few than of the many, that there is far more to endure in\nbeing a little flock, than of the great multitude; and that in\nmaintaining with all honesty our opinions in the face of the world\u2019s\nodium and the world\u2019s revilings, in despite of popular outcry and\ntheological accusation, if no other virtues, we can surely claim those\nof sincerity and fortitude, of moral courage and moral consistency.\n\nThe preacher alluded to the ransom which Christ paid for sinners, and\ncompared it to that which anciently was given in exchange for slaves.\nThe question is, to whom were mankind slaves? To whom or what was the\npurchase-ransom to be paid? Was this slavery to sin, to Satan, or to\nGod? Whosoever or whatsoever held the captive, must, of course, receive\nthe price of redemption. To which of these was it due, and how holds the\nanalogy? I leave the subject with the lecturer.\n\nI now turn to what is greatly more agreeable in this discussion, the\nstatement that we hold Christ to have been morally perfect. To this we\nassent with all our conscience, with all our hope, and with all our\nhearts. We regard him as pure and perfect in every thought and word. We\nsee him with a holy piety illuminating his whole character and conduct.\nWe see him, in solitude and society, holding communion with his Father\nand our Father, his God and our God. We see him in darkest moments, in\nperiods of deepest anguish, maintaining a hopeful and a trustful spirit;\nin every affliction holding true to his love for God and man. We see him\nwith a patience that toiled for all, and never tired. We see him\nplodding through every thankless labour, which here can find no\nrecompense, except it be that wherein the act itself is a blessing to\nthe Spirit. We see him in vexation and sorrow; and, whilst we gaze upon\nhis tranquil brow, we feel our stormy passions silenced into peace. We\nsee him in his struggles and temptations, and we feel how poor and\npitiful are our deepest griefs or sorest trials compared with his. We\nregard him in the greatness of his benevolence, and we hear from his\nlips such words as never man spake before. We behold him, whose soul was\nnever tainted with sin, turn most mercifully on the repentant sinner,\nstriking the heart with rending anguish, yet filling the eye with\nsweetest and most hopeful tears. We see him with a bosom throbbing with\nall human charities, and an ear open to every cry of woe and\nwretchedness. We see him in all unselfish sacrifices, and all generous\nlabours; and regarding our nature in him as most lovely, most glorious,\nand most triumphant, we rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory.\nWe see him as the most perfect image of his Father; and the first, among\nall his brethren, filled with the inspiration of God, and spreading it\nforth abundantly on the souls of men.\n\nAmongst other wrongs to Christ, we are accused of taking away all\nmotives of love to him. It may be fair, then, to ask, for what do\nTrinitarians love him? And it may be also fair to ask, what is it in him\nthat moves their affections which may not equally move ours? They cannot\nlove Christ the God in the same sense or on the same grounds on which\nthey love Christ the man. For what, then, do they love Christ the man,\nor Christ the mediator, for which, in that aspect, we may not love him\nas deeply and as truly? Is it for his many and great labours? On even\nthe orthodox doctrine, these were the toils of the manhood and not of\nthe godhead. Is it for his sufferings? The God could not suffer, could\nnot be weary, could not be persecuted, could not die, could neither be\nhooted nor crucified; if, therefore, all the strongest motives of love\nto Christ be founded in his humanity, then I assert we have all these\nmotives. On any supposition, it was not the second person of the godhead\nthat bent his bleeding head on Calvary, it was the _man_ Christ Jesus.\nIf it be said that Unitarian views do not move the heart, we have only\nwith sorrow to confess, that no views of Christ\u2019s nature or character\nmove us practically as they ought; and for the small results which his\ndoctrines have produced amongst us, we, with others, have reason to bend\ndown our heads in deepest humiliation: but we solemnly deny that our\nconvictions about Christ have any tendency to produce such an effect. In\nthe case of wrong, the fault is in ourselves, and not in our doctrines.\n\nII. Having thus explained our views on Christ as a man, I shall occupy\nthe remaining part of this discourse by stating, as briefly as I can,\nthe difference between Trinitarians and ourselves on his character as a\nmediator.\n\nWhat are the religious needs of man? says the Trinitarian. Consequently,\nWhat is the office of the Messiah? If we take the Calvinistic scheme,\nand at present that is the most popular, the reply would be, or should\nbe, thus:\u2014There is a decree of eternal election and reprobation by which\nmillions, before the foundation of the world, were destined to be saved\nor lost. The numbers were fixed, and could neither be enlarged or\ndiminished. For the salvation of the elect, and these only, the second\nperson in the godhead became incarnate: them he purchased with his\nblood, and the rest were left to perish. The elect entered into life\nwith the seal of predestination on their birth, redeemed, to be\njustified, to be sanctified, and finally to be glorified. _The\nremainder_ came into the same life burdened with the imputation of a sin\ncommitted centuries previous to their existence. Foredoomed to\nperdition, overpassed by the Father, and disregarded by the Son, and\nunvisited by the Holy Spirit, they die in their sins, enter on their\npredetermined destiny, and, to use the tremendous language of the\nAthanasian Creed, \u201cperish everlastingly.\u201d\n\nIn this statement, I do no wrong to Calvinism, and scarcely justice. It\nmight easily be made more dark, and without a whit of controversial\nexaggeration. But if this be a true idea of Christianity, it is a system\nof terror and not of mercy, an anathema and not a blessing, the fiat of\nuniversal wrath and not the words of universal mercy, the proclamation\nfrom an austere and angry Deity and not a remedy for a weak and erring\nhumanity. Orthodoxy in this scheme, instead of endearing Christ to the\nhuman heart, alienates and removes him from it; instead of making him an\nencouragement, renders him a terror; instead of placing him before us as\nthe impersonation of almighty clemency, through him proclaims an\nalmighty vindictiveness; places Jesus out of the sphere of human\naffections, and wrenches him from the worn and suffering heart of man.\nOn the orthodox principle, he is out from us, and not of us. He is alone\nin his own mysterious nature. Our affections are perplexed, and our\nheads are bewildered. To offer our sympathy, or to look for his, would\nbe the very climax of presumption. He is in no proper sense identified\nwith us, or allied to us. His example is more an accident than an\nessential of his work. The substance of his work, on the orthodox\nscheme, might have taken place in the most secret recesses of the\nuniverse; and God would be satisfied, and the elect would be\nredeemed.[157]\n\nWhat, says Unitarianism, are the moral wants of man? Consequently, what\nis the mediator he requires?\n\nReligion, we maintain, was made for man, and not man for religion. The\nmediator, therefore, which we require, is one who would guide and not\nconfound our nature; who would ennoble but not perplex it. We would look\nfor a mediator by whom we should receive the light and truth of God and\nheaven to our souls. We need to see the capacities, the duties, and the\ndestinies of our kind, in one who is perfectly, but yet simply, of\nourselves. Our sorrows, our sufferings, and our darkness, we regard as\nbut so many reasons why our Redeemer and Saviour should be entirely of\nour own kind. We require one who would manifest to all that God is\nreally interested in us. We require one who would show that we are not\nshut out from communion with the infinite, the invisible, and the\nfuture. We require one who would correct our evils, and yet resolve our\ndoubts. We require one who could sympathize with our weakness. We\nrequire one who would show us of what our nature is capable, and thus\nflash upon us the guilt of our deficiencies, or inspire us with the hope\nof advancement. We are feeble, and need strength; we are tempted, and\nneed support. Jesus proves to us that the strength is in us, if we use\nit; and that the support is at hand, if we choose to apply it. In our\ntransgressions, we are but too much inclined to yield to, or justify\nourselves with, a guilty sophistry; but our views of Jesus leave us no\nroom for such delusion. Whilst Trinitarianism places most of our\nreligious wants afar off and outside us, Unitarianism fixes them within\nus. Whilst Trinitarianism demands a Christ which shall reconcile God to\nus, Unitarianism holds a Christ which shall conform us to God:\u2014to us his\nword and work is a spirit of life, his word and work to them but dogma\nor mystery.\n\nUpon our views, Christ is properly a mediator; on those of orthodoxy, he\ncan bear no such character: compounded of Deity and humanity, he is\ntruly of neither. It is said that we have no need of Christ; that, in\nfact, he has no purpose in our system; that he might be taken from it\nwithout creating any loss. We maintain the contrary. We maintain that\nChrist is our all in all; that he is the impersonation of our religion,\nthat he is bodily our Christianity. Whilst others principally regard him\nin the retrospect, we have him as a present and a living reality. Whilst\nothers trust him for what he has done, we love him for what he was.\nWhilst others make his nature the subject of hard and abstruse dogmas,\nwe hold it forth as the subject of affectionate contemplation. Whilst\nothers propose faith, we propose imitation as the greatest virtue. We\nlook upon him as the Instructor in our moral doubts; the enlightener of\nour ignorance, which, in so many cases, press down our hearts respecting\nthe general course of Providence and our future destiny; of our\nignorance respecting God, and all that belongs to the future, the Past,\nand the Invisible.\n\nThe Past, yea, and the present also, is filled, we confess, with\ndifficulties that alarm our fears, and call forth our sorrows. And it is\nonly when we look to Christ as really and simply human that we have any\ntangible consolation, or any solid support. The trials or temptations or\nsufferings of a God are not only repugnant to our reasons, but foreign\nto our hearts. Such ideas can create no confidence, and therefore can\nafford no ground of sympathy\u2014and no ground of hope, of strength, or of\nconsolation. If one who is a God\u2014were temptation to such a being\npossible\u2014overcomes temptation, on what grounds can any other conclude he\ncan resist it?\u2014If one who is a God resists indignity with quietude and\ncalmness, on what ground can another make such conduct an example?\u2014If\none who is a God meets agony and death with confident and fearless\nmind\u2014knowing that his life is safe in eternal beatitude\u2014on what possible\nprinciples of reason or expectation can this be a consolation or hope to\nfeeble mortals?\u2014If a God by his own inherent power rise from the dead,\nby what logic of faith or intellect are we to conclude _man_ as _man_ is\nto live for ever? It is only then upon our principles that I think he\ncan properly fulfil the offices that pertain to his character as\nMediator, that he can be our Teacher, that he can be our Exemplar, that\nhe can be the Discloser of our duties and our destinies, that he can be\nat the same time a revealer and a revelation, that he can be the\nfoundation of our hope and the source of our strength:\u2014that he can, I\nsay, be our Teacher; for what is necessary to the position of a moral\ninstructor? not merely to be able to announce truth, but to announce it\nwith living effect. The being who suffered no pain would have no power\nin preaching fortitude. Sympathy is necessary to confidence, and\nconfidence is necessary to moral influence. Christ in his simple\nhumanity has a power which we could not give to him, supposing he was of\na compound constitution. Without this belief that he was simply and\nnaturally man, his instructions have small effect, and his actions have\nno reality.\u2014Moreover, I assert it is only in this view he can be our\nexemplar, I mean the ideal, or representative of what we ought to be, or\nof what in a more perfect condition we will be: for it is utterly and\noutrageously absurd to propose as the pattern of human conduct or human\nhopes, one who had in the same person the might and security of a Deity\nwith the dangers and the trials of a man: and in truth it is\noutrageously absurd to say he could have such dangers and trials at\nall,\u2014it would not be a mystery but a mockery:\u2014and, lastly, I contend,\nthat it is our views\u2014weakly I have expressed them\u2014which bring to the\nhuman spirit most of strength and most of comfort. They give consistency\nand sublimity to his communion with God, and to his revealings of\nanother world. They give immeasurable value to his miracles. They put\nthe seal of divine confirmation on his resurrection as the pledge of\nhuman immortality. He is then our Instructor in every doubt; our\nConsolation in every sorrow; our Strength in the griefs of life, and our\nSupport in the fears of death. We see him in his own ennobling and\nsanctifying human nature, and by his impressive and vital energy sending\nout from him the power for its redemption.\n\nThe character of God, as revealed in Christ\u2019s teaching, and manifested\nby Christ\u2019s life, in the Unitarian faith, is not only discerned with a\nclearer light, but commands a more sacred reverence, as well as a more\nwilling love. He that hath seen me, says the Saviour, hath seen the\nFather. Now we believe this expression to be full of profoundest truth,\nif we receive it as a moral revelation; but orthodoxy reduces it to a\nmystical enigma, and robs it of meaning and of value. We discern God\nthrough Christ as a Father, universal, merciful, good, holy, and\nall-powerful. This we collect from the teachings of Christ; we could\nnever deduce it from the teachings of Calvinism. If we turn to the\nteachings of Christ, we hear of a Father impartial and unbounded; if we\nturn to the teachings of Calvinism, we read of a God that, in any\nbenignant sense, is but father to a few, and these few purchased by the\nagonies of innocence; if we turn to the teachings of Christ, we are\ninstructed of a Father who is merciful, and that mercy is proposed to us\nas the most perfect object of imitation; if we turn to the teachings of\nCalvinism, we are told of a Father who properly cannot be merciful at\nall, for the good he gives has been purchased, and is the equivalent of\na price; a Father, I repeat, whose good-will is paid for; the primary\nelement in whose character, as drawn in many popular creeds and\nformularies, is a stern wrath, falsely called justice; the imitation of\nwhich, in the creature, would turn earth into a darker hell than ever\ntheology visioned. If we turn to the teachings of Christ, we find in\nthem a Father supremely good, holding towards all his creatures a\nbenignant aspect; who, when his children ask for bread will not give\nthem a stone,\u2014who casts with equal hand the shower and the sun-shine;\nwho rules in the heavens with glory, and in earth with bounty; who hears\nthe raven\u2019s cry as well as the Seraph\u2019s song. If we turn to Calvinism we\nare informed of a Deity who has seen the ruin and the wreck of his own\nworkmanship, and pronounced a curse over that which he did not choose to\nprevent; we are told that all creatures sicken under that original\ncurse; that earth feels it to her centre; that it spreads a frown over\nheaven, and roars with a voice of destruction in the thunder and the\ntempest; that living creatures throughout all their countless tribes,\nsuffer by it; that it pursues man from the first tears of infancy to the\nlast pang of death. If we turn to the teachings of Jesus, we are taught\nthat God is most holy; we are placed before that invisible Being who\nsearches the heart, and sees it in its last recesses. Thus piercing to\nthe very source of action, Christ makes guilt and holiness inward and\npersonal, inflicts on the criminal the full penalty, and secures to\nrectitude its great reward: covering the one with moral hideousness, and\nthe other with exceeding beauty. If we turn to the teachings of\nCalvinism, sin is contracted by imputation, and righteousness is\nacquired by imputation also. The lost endure the penalty of guilt in\ntheir own persons, the elect endure it by substitution, in the person of\nanother. If we turn to the teachings of Jesus, we have a Father whose\npower is infinite as his goodness, in which we trust for the redemption\nand perfection of the universe. If we turn to the teachings of\nCalvinism, we see God consigning a vast portion of his rational creation\nto eternal sin and misery, and therefore, if we would save his\nbenevolence we are constrained to sacrifice his power. Christ, Saint\nPaul declares, is the image of God; but if the Father be the avenger,\nand Christ the victim, he is not his image, but his contrast, and then\nour souls, instead of ascending to God in love, turn from him, and fix\nall their sympathies on Christ. As Unitarians apprehend him, we conceive\nhim in perfect union with the Father, imaging, with resplendent\nsweetness, the attributes of his Father\u2019s character. In the compassion,\nin the benevolence, in the purity, and in the miracles of Christ, we\nhave revealed to us the goodness, the holiness, and the power of God;\nupon the calm and gracious countenance of Jesus we may read the glory of\nGod, and, as in a stainless mirror, behold the scheme of his providence.\n\nPlace these views side by side with common experience and human feeling,\nand which, I ask, is the most consistent? Who, in a healthy state of\nmind, has any compunction because Adam sinned\u2014but who, with his moral\nemotions awakened, is not anxious to know what is the duty of man here,\nand what his destiny hereafter? By which scheme, I inquire, are these\nmomentous problems best resolved? Testing these views by the common\nexperience to which I have appealed, taking its ordinary convictions as\nthe standard, I may fairly inquire, whether our principles are not\nconsistent in their hopes, and high and pure in their consolations?\nComparing each with the history and life of Christ, I have no doubt of\nwhat would be the result, if system or dogmatism did not interfere with\nour convictions. Regarding Christ as our perfect, immortal, but human\nBrother, we have the living evidence that God is our Father, and Heaven\nis our Home.\u2014Our views of Christ makes his history of most precious\nvalue to us\u2014his life, his death, his crucifixion and his\nresurrection\u2014Christ becomes to us the great interpreter of Providence,\nequally of its fears and hopes. He becomes to us the symbol of humanity,\nequally of its grief and glory\u2014near his cross we weep over death, and at\nhis tomb we rejoice in the certainty of life. In Christ crucified, we\nsee our nature in its earthly humiliation; in Christ glorified, we\nbehold it in its immortal triumph. As Jesus on the cross sets forth our\nsorrow, so Jesus from the tomb sets forth our hope. Identified with\nJesus in the one, we are also identified with him in the other. We\nbehold \u201cthe man,\u201d and in that man we behold the two solemn stages of our\nnature, the struggle of affliction and the glory of success.\u2014We see the\nman of sorrow and the man of joy\u2014the man of earth, and the man of\nheaven\u2014the man of death and the man of immortality. We are made more\nassured of that doctrine to which we fly in every painful turn of\nlife\u2014and in which we seek a deeper and kinder refuge as years and\ntroubles gather over us. Without this persuasion we feel ourselves\ncreatures weak and desolate; when our pleasures here have sunk, when our\nhopes here have long since died, how much would we, in this wilderness,\ndesire to lay our heads, as Jacob did, on a cold stone, if like Jacob we\nbeheld an opened heaven; but how much more sweetly may we look upon the\nrisen and the living face of Jesus. He was of ourselves. He was\nidentified with us. I see then in Jesus, not the illustration of an\nargument or of a theory. I see in him the embodiment of human goodness,\nhuman affections, and human hopes, and human capacities, and human\ndestinies. When, especially, I think of human suffering, some necessary\nand some blameless,\u2014when I behold the ignorant and the vicious, the\nignorant and the wretched pining away in a crowded solitude,\u2014when I see\nthe man of weary years and many adversities, seeking at last but some\nspot in which to die,\u2014when I see a sickened wretch, tired of existence,\npoor, indigent, cold and naked, the victim of almost every want and\ngrief, toiling through life and shivering into death,\u2014when I see\nlaborious age, after few enjoyments of either soul or sense, lying at\nlast on the bed where the weary are at rest, where at last the still\nsmall voice of Christ is more desired than all the logic of\npolemics,\u2014when I see multitudes with dead, or dormant, or perverted\nenergies\u2014benevolent ardour wasted, or most honourable philanthropy\ndefeated,\u2014when I consider the thousands, and the tens of thousands of\nhuman beings chained to a dark fatality in the destiny of moral and\nphysical circumstances\u2014the ignorance, the bondage, the cruelties, the\nunrevealed wretchedness without a name heaped on the heads of myriads,\ngeneration after generation,\u2014when I think of unspeaking and unspeakable\nagonies lurking in every corner of civilized society\u2014hereditary penury,\nunavoidable ruin, unforeseen misfortune, the pangs of noble minds\nstruggling in vain against dependence; the writhings of dying hearts,\nconcealing their last sighs from watching friends, the stifled laments\nof honest virtue cast forth on over-grown cities and populations, where\nsufferer after sufferer sink unheard in the noise of indifferent\nmillions,\u2014when I remember unrewarded toil, fine spirits crushed, and\nfair names blighted,\u2014when I see the enjoyment of the worthless and the\nprosperity of the vicious, the success of the worst passions, and the\nbasest plans, the triumph of wickedness over truth and virtue,\u2014when I\nreflect seriously and solemnly on the strange sights which this world\nhas seen\u2014the persecutor on the throne and the martyr at the stake, the\npatriot on the scaffold and the tyrant on the bench\u2014the honest man\nruined, and the villain the gainer,\u2014I have before me, I admit, a dark\nand startling problem. In the dying Christ I have the difficulties: in\nthe risen Christ I have their solution. In Christ on the cross I see our\ncrucified humanity\u2014in Christ risen and ascending I see the same humanity\nglorified; at the cross of Jesus my heart would sink, but at his empty\ngrave my hope is settled and my soul at ease. I go to that vacant tomb,\nand there I am shown that the bands of death are loosed, and the gates\nof glory are lifted up. Near Jesus on the cross, I have but thick clouds\nand darkness; in Jesus risen the shadows are melted, and the gloom is\nlost in brightness, and the sun which burst it shines forth more\nresplendent\u2014the blackness of the sky breaks forth into light, and the\nwrath of the ocean softens into peace, the curtain of mist is folded up,\nand a lovely world bursts upon my gaze. When I stand at the cross I have\nman imaged in fears, in struggles and in death. I have around me our\nnature in its crimes and passions; but when I see the ascending and\nglorified Christ, I behold humanity in its most triumphant hopes:\u2014When I\nstand over the silent tomb of Jesus, and would weep, as if all beneath\nand beyond the skies were hopeless, a light shines out from the\ndarkness, and throws a halo of peace about the desponding soul. In\nChrist crucified, believing him human, simply human, I feel around me\nthe right of man\u2014in Christ risen, believing him also human, I exult in\nunclouded and unsetting light:\u2014near Christ crucified, I tremble with\nexceeding fear; near Christ glorified, I am comforted with exceeding\njoy\u2014and in each case because I feel he is truly and simply human.\n\nIn both parts of his life and history we have opposing aspects of\nProvidence. But if in his sufferings we have the pillar of cloud, in his\nglory we have the pillar of fire; and in this wilderness pilgrimage we\nare saddened and solemnized by the one,\u2014enlightened and guided by the\nother. Christ crucified and Christ glorified, united in our faith and\nfeelings, identified with our nature, our history, and our race, opens\nviews to the Christian\u2019s soul, not only of consolation but of triumph,\nthat defy expression. It pours light and hope and dignity on universal\ndestiny and on every individual condition. In analogy with God\u2019s\nmaterial creation in its workings, it shows glory arising out of\nhumiliation, and renovated beauty from apparent destruction\u2014it shows in\nman as in nature\u2014the world of grandeur, of purity, and of softness\u2014born\nin the throes of chaotic formation; the streams of spring filled with\nthe year\u2019s rejoicing gushing out of the frozen fountains of winter; the\nfresh, and bright, and peaceful morning generated in the midnight storm.\nIf these views of Christ are seated in our hearts and faith: if we truly\nidentify ourselves with one as with the other: feeling that in each case\nChrist is simply and perfectly our brother,\u2014what can deaden our hope,\nand what can sever us from duty? Though friends be absent and enemies be\nfierce, and pain wreck our frames and poverty lay bare our dwellings,\nand disappointment wait on our struggles, and grief thicken heavily on\nour souls, in Christ suffering there is our worst extremity; in Christ\nglorified there is that worst extremity redeemed into the fulness of\nsalvation; in Christ we see personified our entire humanity, except its\nsins; in him we behold its subjection and its triumph. View its pains in\nhis humiliation, and its future prospects in his victory, and what a\nglory does it not spread upon our race? Is there a single track of the\npast on which it does not rain showers of light\u2014on which it does not\nleave the persuasion of immortal and universal existence? By Christ\u2019s\ndoctrines and his life we are led to the conclusion that no human\nexistence has been ever spent in vain; that of all the vast ocean of\nintelligent beings with which generations have flooded the earth; that\nin that vast universe of life, one heart has never panted without a\npurpose; that no thought ever started into being, not a throb of misery,\nnot a solitary charity, not a silent prayer, not an honest effort, not a\nfervent wish or desire, not a single good intention, not a single\ninstance of sacrifice or worth, ever existed to be destroyed, but that\non the contrary they have been transferred to more genial scenes in\nanother world, and left seeds for better fruits in this. Believing on\nChrist the crucified and the glorified, and still regarding him as the\nimage of God, it is pleasant to dwell equally upon the past and upon the\nfuture; to think of the good and true who suffered here for virtue,\ncollected hereafter in all the unity of peace, having escaped the\nfightings of earth, settled in the joys of heaven. But why confine\nourselves to the excellent and the great? The glory of Christ proclaims\nlife to all; it attracts to itself whosoever lived or suffered on earth,\nall that ever will live or suffer. Into what a glory has Christ then not\nentered: go to the most seclusive church-yard: worlds there moulder in\nthe smallest space; within its range as many sleep as might have peopled\nan empire, and in a few steps we may walk over millions. Beneath those\npacings what parents and children, and companions, have mouldered? What\nfriendships, and hopes, and energies have melted in this simple dust?\n\nBut why say a Church-yard? All earth is a grave. The world is sown with\nbodies: is futurity as filled with souls? Is this spot on which we\nbreathe for a moment a mere speck between two eternities of infinite\nnothingness? Have the generations as they vanished, sunk into eternal\nsleep, so that \u201c_It is finished_,\u201d should be the proper epitaph of all\ndeparted humanity? Christ alone gives the full solution of this awful\nproblem; and this solution is clear and consolatory, as we feel him to\nbe of ourselves. He is thus the great type of our death and of our life,\nthrowing light over the grave, and opening to our faith a growing and\neverlasting future,\u2014where all exist, the great and good to more perfect,\nand the evil to be redeemed,\u2014and where every stream that flows on to\neternity will bear along with it a fresh burden of joy and beauty. Jesus\nthe crucified, and Jesus the glorified, of simple but holy humanity, is\nthe great interpreter of the past and the future, and by him\ninterpreted, how glorious are the words, all our memories on earth and\nour hopes in heaven.\n\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n APPENDIX.\n\nI think it right to state here that one or two passages are printed in\nthe lecture, which, as time was failing, I passed over in the delivery.\nThey affect in nowise the general import or argument. I thought it\npossible that one sentence in reference to Mr. Jones\u2019s lecture would\nrequire to be expunged; but having now read the lecture in print, I see\nthe sentence may stand. Mr. Jones defined with clearness and accuracy\nhis belief in Christ\u2019s humanity\u2014that Christ was really a man, \u201cthat he\nhad a corporeal and mental existence like our own,\u201d \u201cthat he possessed a\nbody of flesh and blood, such as is common to our race,\u201d \u201cthat in that\nbody dwelt a rational soul, to whose volitions it was subject,\u201d \u201cthat he\nwas conceived in the womb, and born a helpless infant, and dependent on\nthe care of his parents through the whole of his childhood and\nyouth.\u201d[158] Here, then, we have a set of qualities in the man Christ\nJesus, which from their very nature must have commenced with his earthly\nlife. Thus defined, the lecturer afterwards goes on to say that \u201cthough\nthere was nothing in his corporeal or mental powers essentially\ndifferent from other men, yet were _there certain peculiarities_\nconnected with his _perfect manhood_, which it is of momentous\nconsequence that we should know and believe.\u201d[159] \u201cFirst, he possessed\n_moral perfection_.\u201d On this all Unitarians are agreed. Secondly, the\nlecturer noticed the _miraculous conception_. On this we have\ndifferences amongst us. Now _a third_ peculiarity was also marked, which\nby the order of the lecturer\u2019s argument we are entitled to rank with the\nothers as belonging to the manhood of Christ. Mr. Jones is still\nspeaking of _the man_ Christ Jesus, and yet the _third peculiarity_ is\nalleged to be _his pre-existence_. But if to have been born of a woman,\nif to have had a corporeal and mental existence like our own, were\nessentials of his humanity, then this is a flat contradiction; if this\nattribute were meant to apply to him as God, we should have been told\nso; and even then, the distinction would be wholly powerless, for no one\nthinks of comparing other men with Jesus as God. Mr. Jones does not\nintroduce that portion of his subject until we have passed over several\npages.[160] The analogy of body and soul in man is incessantly used to\nillustrate a two-fold nature in Christ. Nothing can be more fallacious.\nIt breaks down at every step; for if it be used to signify the possible\nunion of two different elements in one being, then Christ is not\ntwo-fold but three-fold, there are in his person the divine soul and the\nhuman soul, and in addition to all, the human body. If it be used to\nsignify the union of two natures in one person, the soul and body are\nnot two distinct natures, in the sense required, and therefore can\nneither illustrate nor prove the dogmatical complexity ascribed to\nChrist. Every nature that we know is composite, but it is one thing to\nbe compounded of various qualities, and another to be a union of\nirreconcileable ones. If man had _two_ souls in one body, so perfectly\nunited as to make a single person, and yet that one should be ignorant\nof what the other knew, then we should have an illustration that would\nbe correct and intelligible. Mr. Jones uses the following illustration,\nto shew that we distinguish between the body and the soul when we do not\nexpress the distinction in words. \u201cIf we say,\u201d he observes, \u201cthat a\nneighbour is sick, or in pain, or hungry, or thirsty, or in want, we\nmean that his _body_ is sick, or in pain, or hungry, or thirsty, or in\nwant, and no one for a moment supposes that we refer to his soul. And\nif, on the other hand, we say that a man is learned, or ignorant, wise\nor unwise, happy or miserable, humble or proud, it is equally obvious\nthat we refer to the _soul_, and not to the _body_.\u201d[161] No such\ndistinction is known either in grammar or philosophy, and the laws of\nthought as well as those of language equally repudiate it. A man may be\nhealthy or sick by _means_ of the excellence or defect of his body, but\nthe assertion is made of the man as a _person_. He may in like manner be\nwise or ignorant by _means_ of the excellence or defects of the\nfaculties of his soul; but again, the assertion is of _the person_. And,\nindeed, if we were to speak with severe and metaphysical precision,\nevery instance which the preacher has adduced should be predicated of\nthe Soul, for so far as they are sensations, they belong properly to the\nsoul; and the body is but their medium or instrument. By the laws, then,\nboth of thought and language, whatever Christ affirms of himself, he\naffirms of his _person_, be the elements what they may that enter into\nits constitution. But how are we to think of the dogma for which such\nhair-splitting distinctions are adduced; distinctions which, had not the\nsolemnity of the subject forbidden the use of ridicule, might be shown\nby all forms of speech to be as incongruous as they are puerile, and as\nridiculous as they are false.\n\n\n Note on John xii. See page 8.\n\nOn the supposition of our Lord\u2019s simple humanity, this chapter exhibits\na most sublime revelation of his nature. On any other hypothesis it\nloses all its moral beauty, and leaves us nothing but inconsistency. The\nbelief of his simple human nature gives a more sacred awe to the\ncircumstances in which he was placed, explains to us those struggles and\nworkings of his inmost soul, which were deepening the bitterness of his\nhour of travail. We can then appreciate the grandeur with which, in the\nspirit of duty, he arose to meet the approaching storm; and we can also\nappreciate the tenderness and sensibility with which he shrunk for a\nmoment from the anguish that awaited him. To say that the godhead\nwithdrew its support from him is a solution unintelligible in any sense.\nFor through every moment of his existence he must have been conscious of\nhis proper Deity, or he was not; if he was, why tremble? if not, then\nduring that period his godhead was virtually extinguished, and he\nremained simply man. But every utterance of his in this profound chapter\nis truly human,\u2014breathings of that nature from its inmost recesses,\nstrong in duty, but struggling with fear and grief.\n\nThere is no period of our Lord\u2019s mission in which we see so profound a\nsolemnity around him. He had come from the quiet and hospitable home of\nhis friends in Bethany, had made his public and triumphant entry into\nJerusalem, but the awful close and consummation was at hand; he knew\nthat these hosannahs would scarcely have died on the ear, before their\nchange into hootings and revilings; and the hands which spread the palm\nwere ready to drag him to the cross. The next day was big with sorrows\nand tortures. The mysteries of death and the grave were to be resolved;\nand it is no dishonour to our Lord to suppose such a prospect should\nfill his heart with trouble; for the most finely constituted nature is\never the most sensitive, and those who perceive clearly and vividly,\napprehend circumstances which it never enters into coarser minds to\ndiscern. In proportion as our personal sensations are acute, is the\nvictory of duty noble that overcomes them, in the same proportion also\nis the strength of submission, or the beauty of patience. With these\nviews, we can well interpret for our consolation and example the\nanguished exclamation of Christ,\u2014\u201cNow is my soul troubled, and what\nshall I say? Father, save me from this hour; but for this cause came I\nto this hour.\u201d\n\nIf Christ were God as well as man, words like these are absolutely\nunaccountable; and as we cannot be so profane as to think that Christ\nspoke for mere effect, we have only to conclude that it was the fervent\nand simple exclamation of a being who felt he needed help from Heaven.\nThis were impiety of the darkest die, if Jesus in one portion of his own\nperson was infinite and omnipotent.\n\n\n NOTE 1, see page 18.\n\n\u201cPriestley, loaded with glory, was modest enough to be astonished at his\ngood fortune, and at the multitude of beautiful facts which nature\nseemed to reveal to him alone. He forgot that her favours were not\ngratuitous, and that if she had so well explained herself, it was\nbecause he had known how to constrain her by his indefatigable\nperseverance in questioning her, and by a thousand ingenious means of\nwresting from her her answers. Others carefully conceal what they owe to\naccident. Priestley seemed to wish to ascribe to it all his merit. He\nrecords, with unexampled candour, how many times he had profited by it\nwithout knowing it, how many times he was in possession of new\nsubstances without having perceived them; and he never concealed the\nerroneous views which sometimes directed his efforts, and which he\nrenounced only from experience. These confessions did honour to his\nmodesty, without disarming jealousy. Those whose views and methods had\nnever led them to discovery, called him a mere maker of experiments,\nwithout method, and without an object:\u2014\u201cIt is not astonishing,\u201d they\nadded, \u201cthat among so many trials and combinations he should find some\nthat were successful. But real natural Philosophers were not duped by\nthese selfish criticisms.\u201d\u2014After some remarks on Priestley\u2019s changes in\nreligious opinions, and tracing rapidly his progress from fiercest\nCalvinism to simple humanitarianism, he thus beautifully describes the\nclose of his laborious life:\u2014\u201cHis last moments were full of those\nfeelings of piety which animated his whole life, and the improper\ncontroul of which had been the foundation of all his errors. He caused\nthe gospel to be read to him, and thanked God for having allowed him to\nlead an useful life, and granted him a peaceful death. Among the list of\nthe principal blessings, he ranked that of having personally known\nalmost all his contemporaries. \u2018I am going to sleep as you do,\u2019 said he\nto his grand-children, who were brought to him, \u2018but we shall wake again\ntogether, and, I hope, to eternal happiness;\u2019 thus evincing in what\nbelief he died. These were his last words. Such was the end of that man,\nwhom his enemies accused of wishing to overthrow all morality and\nreligion, and yet whose greatest error was to mistake his vocation, and\nto attach too much importance to his individual sentiments in matters\nwhen the most important of all feelings ought to be the love of\npeace.\u201d[162]\n\nThe Edinburgh Review,[163] from which this extract is taken, introduces\nit with the following liberal and generous remarks:\u2014\n\n\u201cWe cannot pass unnoticed the _Eloge_ of Dr. Priestley, which brought\nhis biographer into the field of theological discussion, and which\ndeserves to be studied in a country where the Character of that\nextraordinary man, both as a Philosopher and a Christian, has been so\ngreatly misrepresented.\u201d\n\nThe conclusion of the following extract is earnestly recommended to the\nconsideration of those pious men who have been misled by the intolerant\nspirit of the day; and who, on lending their aid, without being\nconscious of what they are doing, to break the cords of affection which\nought to unite the professors of our common Christianity.\n\n\n NOTE 2, see page 26.\n\nA great mass of the religious world, in the orthodox meaning of that\nphrase, is now called _evangelical_, and although that term, I admit,\ndoes not necessarily imply absolute Calvinism, yet, in point of fact,\nthe greater number of those whom it designates are Calvinists. The\nopponents of Calvinism are often accused of misrepresenting it. For this\nreason I have endeavoured here to make it speak for itself\u2014by some of\nits principal formularies, by one or two of its popular writers, and by\nthe author of it himself, in his own words,\u2014Many will say _they_ hold no\nsuch sentiments: for the sake of human nature I sincerely believe them;\nif I thought such a faith (the terms being understood) could be\nextensively entertained, confidence in my species would be turned into\nfear. But, notwithstanding, many opinions which they do hold, logically\npursued, lead directly to the conclusions contained in the extracts, the\nwriters of which were perfectly consistent with their system. Numbers\nwho are called Calvinists, I am aware, not only do not believe its worst\ndoctrines, but do not understand them. In the statement, however, of\nopinions, we cannot be guided by individual feelings, except in cases\nwhere we have individual protest to the contrary. The members of the\nChurch of England may object to the Westminster confession of Faith, not\nbeing a formulary of their Church: it is, however, the sworn authority\nof a large body of clergy with whom, when purpose needs, they refuse not\nto hold friendly communion. It is, however, an accurate digest of\nCalvinism: in that relation I have used it,\u2014to such of the English\nclergy as are not Calvinists it can have no reference. I wish to quote\nit as a theological, and not as an ecclesical authority. But the\nseventeenth article of the English Church, though softened in\nexpression, is the same in sense. Burnet I know has made the\nunsuccessful effort to suit it to both sides for the sake of tender\nconsciences; but that must be a most convenient and comprehensive\nlatitude of phraseology which can sound all the notes of the theological\nscale, from high Calvinism down to low Arminianism. That the meaning of\nthe article is properly Calvinistic, is plain from the times in which it\nwas composed, from the opinions of the men who drew it up, and from the\nterms in which it is expressed. Yet many thousand ministers with all\nvarieties and shades of opinions, solemnly affirm they believe it,\nalthough the law demands that the articles shall be taken in their plain\nand grammatical sense. This is one proof of the consistency of creeds. I\nquote one author, Boston, who seems actually to feast and luxuriate\namidst the dark monstrocities which he pictures; his spirit appears to\nbound, and his heart to exult within him, at the sound of the dreadful\ntrumpet which calls the wicked to their final doom; and one can almost\nimagine the rapture of his eye, as in fancy he saw the flame kindling,\nand the smoke of torment arising in which they were to burn for ever. In\nhis description of hell he displays no ordinary degree of graphic and\ngeographical talent, and when he comes to paint the sufferings of damned\nbodies, he is so accurate and anatomical, that as Paley at 60 learned\nanatomy, to write on natural theology, you would suppose that Boston\nlearned it to enlarge with correctness on the physical tortures of the\nlost. I wish not to fix his opinions upon any man or body of men;\nsubstantially, however, they are no more than Calvinism, though some\nmight object to his mode of expressing them. This I may fairly say to\nany of those who do not agree with Boston in their Calvinism, and would\nyet fix the Improved Version on us, that _they_ are as bound to receive\nthe one as _we_ the other. Nay, more so, inasmuch as Boston\u2019s work is in\na wider circulation, and with the evidence of most extensive approval.\nIt is published by the London Tract Society, and I have an edition\nbefore me as late as 1838; it is sold by every evangelical bookseller,\nand it is to be found on the shelves of every evangelical circulating\nlibrary. We are accused of rebellion against God and Christ; but let any\none read dispassionately the extracts contained in this, and reflect on\nthe sentiments to be deduced from their collective testimony, and then\nlet him say whether deeper injury was ever done to God, or Christ, or\nman, than is inflicted by these repulsive dogmas. By these descriptions,\nif God is a being of love or justice, then language has no meaning, or\nwe are to interpret the terms by their contradictories. If you were only\nto disguise the words, but preserve the sentiments, and attribute the\ncharacter implied in them to the parent of the most zealous of\nCalvinists, he would spurn the aspersion with honest indignation. And,\nif we mean not by goodness in God, something analogous to goodness in\nman, what is it that we can mean? The abstractions in which these dogmas\nare involved by scholastic mysticism, blinds the mind to their ordinary\nimport. But let us suppose an illustration. Take the case of a human\nfather, who, granting he had the power, should pre-ordain his child to\nmisery; should attribute a guilt to him, he never knew; should require\nfrom him what he had no power to accomplish, and condemn him because he\nhad not fulfilled it; should place him in circumstances in which he was\nsure to grow worse, and yet withhold the help that could make him\nbetter; should, as the son sunk deeper in iniquity, heap heavier\nmalediction on the wretch he abandoned; should see without pity the ruin\nthat continually grew darker, and gaze ruthlessly on the suffering that\nwas finally to be consummated in despair.\u2014Suppose further, and you\nrender the picture complete, that such conduct was defined as the\nvindication of parental dignity, the very glory of justice; and he who\npractised it as a father of exceeding love. But we will go further, and\nsuppose this father has the power to cast his child into misery\neverlasting, and that he does it; must we close the analogy here? No: we\ncan carry it one step higher: swell out this being into infinite\nexistence, make him omnipotent and omniscient, place him on the throne\nof the universe, and put all creatures within his boundless control, he\nis then the God of Calvin\u2019s theology. This view I give not rashly, nor\nwithout foundation; it is more than justified by the quotations that I\nbring forward. _Our_ faith is characterized as a blasphemous heresy: we\nemploy no epithet, but we are not afraid to have it contrasted with\nCalvinistic orthodoxy.\n\n _Character of God._\n\n\u201cPredestination is the everlasting purpose of God; whereby (before the\nfoundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his\ncounsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he\nhath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them to everlasting\nsalvation, as vessels made to honour.\u201d\u2014_From the 17th Article of the\nChurch of England._\n\n\u201cBy the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and\nangels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained\nto everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestined and\nfore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their\nnumber is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or\ndiminished.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable\ncounsel of his own will; whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he\npleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to\npass by and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the\npraise of his glorious justice.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous judge, for\nformer sins doth blind and harden, from them he not only withholdeth his\ngrace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings,\nand wrought upon in their hearts, but sometimes also withdraweth the\ngifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their\nconception makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over to their\nown lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan; whereby\nit cometh to pass, that they harden themselves, even under those means\nwhich God useth for the softening of others.\u201d\u2014_Westminster Confession of\nFaith_, ch. iii, \u00a7 3, 4, 7; ch. v, \u00a7 6.\n\n\u201cGod, in his providence, permitted some angels wilfully and\nirrecoverably to fall into sin and damnation, limiting and ordering that\nand all their sins to his own glory; and established the rest in\nholiness and happiness, employing them all, at his pleasure, in the\nadministrations of his power, wisdom, and justice.\u201d\u2014_Larger Catechism_,\nq. 19.\n\n\u201cI grant, indeed,\u201d says Calvin, \u201cthat all the children of Adam fell, by\nthe _will_ of God, into that misery of state whereby they be now bound;\nand this is it that I said at the beginning, that at length we must\nalway return to the determination of the will of God, the cause whereof\nis hidden in himself. The angels which stood fast in their uprightness,\nPaul calleth the elect. If their steadfastness was grounded on the good\npleasure of God, the falling away of the others proveth that they were\nforsaken; of which thing there can be no other cause alleged than\nreprobation, which is hidden in the secret counsel of God.\u201d\u2014_Inst._\nnote, b. iii, ch. 23, \u00a7 4.\n\n\u201cPredestination, whereby God adopteth some into the hope of life, and\nadjudgeth some to eternal death, no man, that would be accounted godly,\ndare deny.\u201d \u201cPredestination we call the eternal decree of God: he had it\ndetermined with himself what he willed to become of every man. For all\nare not created to like estate; but to some eternal life, and to some\neternal damnation, is fore-appointed. Therefore every man is created to\none or the other end. So we say he is predestinated to life or to\ndeath.\u201d\u2014_Ibid._ b. iii, ch. 21, \u00a7 5.\n\n\u201cThe Scripture crieth out that all men were in the person of one man\nmade bound to eternal death. Since this cannot be imputed to nature, it\nis plain it proceeded from the wondrous counsel of God. But it is too\nmuch absurdity that these, the good patrons of the righteousness of God,\ndo so stumble at a straw and leap over beams. Again I ask, how came it\nthat the fall of Adam did wrap up in eternal death so many nations, with\ntheir children, being infants, without remedy, but because it so pleased\nGod? Here their tongues, which are otherwise so prattling, must be dumb.\nIt is a terrible decree, I grant; yet no man shall be able to deny but\nthat God foreknew what end man should have ere he created him, and\ntherefore foreknew because he had so ordained by his decree.\u201d\u2014_Ibid._ b.\niii, ch. 23, \u00a7 7.\n\nThese quotations, did space permit, or the patience of my readers, might\nbe multiplied to a much greater extent; and might do something, perhaps,\nto illustrate the character of the persecutor of Servetus. His actions,\nas a man, were not inconsistent with his ideas of God as a theologian.\n\n\u201cWho can fully describe,\u201d asks Boston, \u201cthe wrath of an angry God? None\ncan do it.\u201d \u201cWrath,\u201d he says, \u201cis a fire in the affections of man,\ntormenting the man himself; but there is no perturbation in God. His\nwrath does not in the least mar that infinite repose which he hath in\nhimself.\u201d Then, speaking of man generally, he says, \u201cThere is a wrath in\nthe heart of God against him; there is a wrath in the word of God\nagainst him; there is a wrath in the hand of God against him.\u201d We have\nhere his statement of wrath in God as an agent; and, through pages of\ngloomiest description, he makes man its unsheltered object. \u201cThere is a\nwrath on his body. It is a piece of accursed clay, which wrath is\nsinking into, by virtue of the first covenant. There is a wrath on the\nnatural man\u2019s enjoyments. Wrath is on all he has: on the bread he eats,\nthe liquor he drinks, and the clothes he wears.\u201d\u2014_Boston\u2019s Fourfold\nState._\n\n _Character and Condition of Man._\n\n\u201cWith such bondage of sin then as will is detained, it cannot move\nitself to goodness, much less apply itself.\u201d\u2014_Calvin Inst._, b. ii, ch.\n3, \u00a7 5, London Edition, 634.\n\n\u201cWorks done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they\nmay be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and\nothers, yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor\nare done in a right manner, according to the word, nor to a right end,\nthe glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or\nmake a man meet to receive grace from God: and yet their neglect of them\nis more sinful and displeasing unto God.\u201d\u2014_Westminster Confession of\nFaith_, ch. xvi. \u00a7 7.\n\n\u201cMan in his depraved state is under an utter inability to do anything\ntruly good.\u201d\u2014_Boston._\n\nThe same doctrine is taught more leniently in the 13th article of the\nChurch of England, so that amongst the theologians, \u201cthe natural man,\u201d\nas they call him, is in a sad condition, for act as he will he cannot\nbut sin: if he does good works, he commits sin, and if he neglects them\nhe is guilty of still greater sins. Quotations in the spirit of those\nalready adduced might be swelled into volumes from the vast treasures of\nCalvinistic divinity. But I shall close these by an extract from the\nauthor I have before mentioned and quoted from, an author, as I have\nsaid, highly popular and largely circulated; and here is a passage of\nhis on Christ and the last judgment.\u2014\u201cThe judge will pronounce the\nsentence of damnation on the ungodly multitude. Then shall he say also\nto them on the left hand, \u2018Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting\nfire prepared for the devil and his angels:\u2019 ... The Lamb of God shall\nroar as a lion against them; he shall excommunicate and cast them out of\nhis presence for ever, by a sentence from the throne, saying, \u2018Depart\nfrom me, ye cursed.\u2019 He shall adjudge them to everlasting fire, and to\nthe society of devils for evermore. And this sentence also we suppose,\nwill be pronounced with an audible voice by the man Christ. And all the\nsaints shall cry, \u2018Hallelujah! true and righteous are his judgments!\u2019\nNone were so compassionate as the saints when on earth, during the time\nof God\u2019s patience: but now that time is at an end; their compassion for\nthe ungodly is swallowed up in joy in the Mediator\u2019s glory, and his\nexecuting of just judgment, by which his enemies are made his footstool.\nThough when on earth the righteous man wept in secret places for their\npride, and because they would not hear, yet he shall rejoice when he\nseeth the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked\n(Ps. lviii. 10). No pity shall then be shown them from their nearest\nrelations. The godly wife shall applaud the justice of the judge in the\ncondemnation of her ungodly husband: the godly husband shall say _Amen_\nto the condemnation of _her_ who lay in his bosom; the godly parent\nshall say _Hallelujah_ at the passing of the sentence against their\nungodly child; and the godly child shall, from the bottom of his heart,\napprove the condemnation of his wicked parents,\u2014the father who begat\nhim, and the mother who bore him. The sentence is just, they are judged\naccording to their work.\u201d\u2014Rev. xx. 12.\n\nIt were surely preferable to labour under the blindest mistakes\nconcerning the essence of God, or the person of Christ, than be guilty\nof believing such atrocious representations as these of their moral\ncharacter. The zealous may scout us if they choose, as infidels; but if\nCalvinism and Christianity were identical, infidelity would be virtue,\nit would be but the righteous rebellion of human nature against creeds,\nin vindication of the truth of its own affections, and the rectitude of\nits God.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture IV.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n See Note on John xii.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n John x. 34-36.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n Acts xvii. 30, 31.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n 1 Cor. xv. 21, 47.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n Acts. x.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n Cuvier. See Note 1.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n See Note 2.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n Lect. pp. 219, 220.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n Lect. p. 222.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n Lecture, p. 233.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n Lecture, p. 244.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n Cuvier\u2019s Eloge on Priestley.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n No. 126, 1836.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n THE PROPOSITION\n\n \u201cTHAT CHRIST IS GOD,\u201d\n\n PROVED TO BE FALSE FROM THE JEWISH\n AND THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.\n\n\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\nThe length of the following Discourse rendered it necessary to omit\nlarge portions of it in the delivery; the remainder has undergone no\nalteration in preparing the Lecture for the press.\n\nIt is one of the duties of the controversialist to drop each subject of\ndebate so soon as everything materially affecting it has been advanced;\nand to seize the time for silence, as promptly as the time for speech.\nThis consideration would have led me to abstain from any further remarks\nrespecting the Improved Version, did it not appear that it is considered\ndisrespectful to pass without notice any argument adduced by our\nopponents. In briefly adverting to Mr. Byrth\u2019s strictures on my former\nLecture, contained in the preface to his own, I am more anxious to avert\nfrom myself the imputation of discourtesy to him than to disprove his\ncharge of \u201cPITIFUL EVASION;\u201d which even the accuser himself, I imagine,\ncannot permanently esteem just.\n\nNotwithstanding the criticisms of my respected opponent, I still\nmaintain that a Subscriber to the British and Foreign Unitarian\nAssociation is no more responsible for the alleged delinquencies of the\nImproved Version, than is a Subscriber to the British and Foreign Bible\nSociety for the known departures from the true standard of the text\nwhich its funds are employed to circulate. Mr. Byrth appears to\nenumerate three particulars, in which he thinks that the parallelism\nbetween these two cases fails:\n\nFirst; \u201cThe Authorised Version does not profess to be a _systematic\nInterpretation_. It is not, in one word, a _Creed_ and an _Exposition_.\nIt is only a literal _translation_, without note or comment.\u201d So much\nthe worse, must we not say? Whatever deception a false text can produce,\nis thus wholly concealed and undiscoverable; the counterfeit passes into\ncirculation, undistinguished from the pure gold of the Divine Word,\nbearing on its front the very same image and superscription. Did this\nversion \u201c_profess_ to be a _systematic Interpretation_,\u201d readers would\nbe on their guard; but while professing to be \u201cwithout note or comment,\u201d\nit inserts \u201ca note\u201d or gloss (in the case of the Heavenly Witnesses)\ninto the _text itself_. The doctrinal bearing of this and other\nreadings, in which Griesbach\u2019s differs from the Received Text, makes the\nAuthorised Version, _quoad hoc_, a creed, while it disclaims this\ncharacter.\n\nSecondly; To constitute the Parallelism, the Bible Society ought to be,\n\u201cThe Trinitarian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,\u201d avowedly\npublishing an \u201cImproved Version of the Scriptures,\u201d &c. So long, then,\nas Churchmen abstain from proposing \u201can Improved Version,\u201d and designate\ntheir societies by neutral names, they may be acquitted, \u201cin foro\nconscienti\u00e6,\u201d for retaining any corruptions which may happen to exist in\nthe _un-improved_ Translation. It is easy to conjecture that, on this\nprinciple, it will be long before the Church incurs the needless guilt\nof an \u201cImproved Version.\u201d Surely the frank avowal, by the words\n\u201cTrinitarian Society,\u201d of a party purpose, would rather abate than\naugment the culpability of retaining a Trinitarian gloss; since the\nreader would have fair warning that the work was edited under\nTheological bias. And one of the most serious charges against \u201cthe\nImproved Version\u201d was precisely this: that its first edition was without\nparty badge (the word _Unitarian_ not appearing in the title); so that\nit might possibly deceive the unwary.\n\nThirdly; The parallelism is said to fail _in extent_; the peculiarities\nof the Improved Version being much more numerous, and sustained by less\nevidence, than the false readings of the Authorized Translation. I\ncannot concur in this remark, so far as it affects the evidence against\n1 John v. 7. But I pass by this matter of opinion, to protest against\nthe unjust exaggeration of a matter of fact, contained in Mr. Byrth\u2019s\nsupposition of a Trinitarian counterpart to the Improved Version. He\nspeaks of \u201ca text corrected on the principle of\u201d \u201c_Theological_\ncriticism and conjecture:\u201d\u2014he knows that _not one text_ is so corrected;\nthat Griesbach\u2019s second edition is followed without variation; that any\nproposed deviations from it are only typographically indicated, or\nsuggested and defended in the notes. He speaks of the retention of\n\u201cquestionable passages,\u201d without \u201cnotice that their authenticity had\never been doubted;\u201d and the expunging of as many perplexing doctrinal\ntexts as possible:\u2014he knows that _not one word_ of the most approved\ntext is expunged, or of any less perfect text retained; and that notice\nis given of every deviation on the part of the Editors, in questions\neither of authenticity or of translation, from their standards,\nGriesbach and Newcome, and from the Received Text. Mr. Byrth is aware\nthat his opponents in this controversy do not altogether admire the\nImproved Version; but it is not fit that advantage should be taken of\nthis to publish extravagant descriptions of it, in which the accuracy of\nthe scholar, and even the justice of the Christian, are for the moment\nlost in the vehemence of the partisan.\n\nIt is desirable to add, that the Society which originally published the\nImproved Version, has long since been merged in the British and Foreign\nUnitarian Association. In this larger body three other societies (of\nwhich one, at least, surpassed in scale and influence the unfortunate\nobject of our opponent\u2019s hostility) are consolidated; and its\nsubscription list contains the names of those who previously supported\n_any_ of the constituent elements of the Association. Hence it can, with\nno propriety, be called \u201cThe Society instituted for the circulation\u201d of\nthe Improved Version. It cannot be alleged that a subscriber is bound to\nanything more than a general and preponderant approbation of the complex\nobjects of the Association; nor does he, by retaining his name on the\nlist of its supporters, forego his right of dissenting from particular\nmodes of action which its Directors may adopt.\n\nMay I assure Mr. Byrth, that I did not intend to insinuate, that his\nstrictures were produced \u201csecond-hand:\u201d except in the sense that many of\nthem had, in fact, been anticipated. I expressly guarded myself against\nany construction reflecting on the originality and literary honour of\nour opponents.\n\nThe remaining animadversions of Mr Byrth, involving no public interest,\nand having merely personal reference to myself, I willingly pass by;\nknowing that they can have no power but in their truth; and in that case\nI should be sorry to weaken them.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE V.\n\n THE PROPOSITION \u201cTHAT CHRIST IS GOD,\u201d PROVED\n TO BE FALSE FROM THE JEWISH AND THE\n CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES.\n\n BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n \u201cFOR THOUGH THERE BE THAT ARE CALLED GODS, WHETHER IN HEAVEN OR IN\n EARTH (AS THERE BE GODS MANY, AND LORDS MANY), BUT TO US THERE IS BUT\n ONE GOD, _THE FATHER_, OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE IN HIM; AND ONE\n LORD JESUS CHRIST, BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM.\u201d\u20141 _Cor._\n viii. 5, 6.\n\n\nScarcely had Christ retired from our world, before his influence began\nto be felt by mankind in two different ways. He transformed their\n_Worship_, and purified their interpretation of _Duty_. They have ever\nsince adored a holier God, and obeyed a more exalted rule of right.\nLooking upward, they have discerned in heaven a Providence more true and\ntender than they had believed; looking around, they have seen on earth a\nservice allotted to their conscience, nobler and more responsible than\nthey had thought before. Watched from above by an object of infinite\ntrust and veneration, they have found below a work of life most sacred,\nto be performed by obedient wills beneath his sight. Faith has flown to\nits rest _there_, and conscience has toiled in its task _here_, with a\ntranquil energy never seen in a world not yet evangelized.\n\nTo suppose that a set of moral precepts, however wise and authoritative,\ncould ever have produced, in either of these respects, the effects which\nhave flowed from Christianity, seems to me altogether unreasonable. Had\nChrist done no more than leave in the world a sound code of ethics, his\nwork would probably have expired in a few centuries, and have been very\nimperfect while it endured. A few prudential and dispassionate minds\nwould have profited by its excellence; but never would it have trained\nthe affections of childhood, or overawed the energy of guilt, or refined\nthe rugged heart of ignorance, or consecrated the vigils of grief.\n\nThe power of Christ\u2019s religion is not in his precepts, but in his\nperson; not in the memory of his maxims, but in the image of Himself. He\nis his own system; and, apart from him, his teachings do but take their\nplace with the sublimest efforts of speculation, to be admired and\nforgotten with the colloquies of Socrates, and the meditations of Plato.\nHimself first, and his lessons afterwards, have the hearts of the people\never loved: his doctrines, indeed, have been obscured, his sayings\nperverted, his commands neglected, the distinctive features of his\ninstructions obliterated, but he himself has been venerated still; his\nunmistakable spirit has corrected the ill-construed letter of the\nGospel; and preserved some unity of life amid the various, and even\nopposing developments of Christian civilization.\n\nThe person of Christ may be contemplated as an object of religious\nreverence, or as an object of moral imitation. He may appear to our\nminds as the representative of Deity, or as the model of humanity;\nteaching us, in the one case, what we should believe, and trust, and\nadore in heaven; in the other, what we should do on earth:\u2014the rule of\nfaith in the one relation, the rule of life in the other.\n\nDid his office extend only to the latter, were he simply an example to\nus, displaying to us merely what manhood ought to be, he might indeed\nconstitute the centre of our morality; but he would not properly belong\nto our religion: he would be the object of affections equal and social,\nnot devout; he would take a place among things human, not divine; would\nbe the symbol of visible and definite duties, not of unseen and\neverlasting realities. A Christianity which should reduce him to this\nrelation, would indeed be a step removed above the mere cold preceptive\nsystem, which depresses him into a law-giver; but it would no more be\nentitled to the name of a _religion_, than the Ethics of Aristotle, or\nthe Offices of Cicero.\n\nIt is then as the type of God, the human image of the everlasting Mind,\nthat Christ becomes an object of our _Faith_. Once did a dark and\ndoubting world cry, like Philip on the evening of Gethsemane, \u201cShow us\nthe Father, and it sufficeth us:\u201d but now has Christ \u201cbeen so long with\nus\u201d that we, \u201cwho have seen him, have seen the Father.\u201d This I conceive\nto have been the peculiar office of Jesus; to _show us_, not to _tell\nus_, the spirit of that Being who spreads round us in Infinitude, and\nleads us through Eternity. The universe had prepared before us the\n_scale_ of Deity; Christ has filled it with his own _spirit_; and we\nworship now, not the cold intellectual deity of natural religion; not\nthe distant majesty, the bleak immensity, the mechanical omnipotence,\nthe immutable stillness, of the speculative Theist\u2019s God: but One far\nnearer to our worn and wearied hearts; One whose likeness is seen in\nJesus of Nazareth, and whose portraiture, suffused with the tints of\nthat soul, is impressed upon creation; One, therefore, who concerns\nhimself with our humblest humanities, and views our world with a\ndomestic eye, whose sanctity pierces the guilty mind with repentance,\nand then shelters the penitent from rebuke; who hath mercy for the\nvictims of infirmity, and a recall for the sleepers in the grave. Let\nMessiah\u2019s mind pass forth to fill all time and space; and you behold the\nFather, to whom we render a loving worship.\n\nIn order to fulfil this office of revealing, in his own person, the\ncharacter of the Father, Christ possessed and manifested all the _moral_\nattributes of Deity. His absolute holiness; his ineffable perceptions of\nright; his majestic rebuke of sin; his profound insight into the corrupt\ncore of worldly and hypocritical natures, and to the central point of\nlife in the affectionate and genuine soul; his well-proportioned mercies\nand disinterested love, fill the whole meaning of the word Divine: God\ncan have no other, and no more, perfection of character intelligible to\nus.\n\nThese moral attributes of God, we conceive to have been compressed, in\nChrist, within the physical and intellectual limits of humanity; to have\nbeen unfolded and displayed amid the infirmities of a suffering and\ntempted nature; and, during the brevity of a mortal life, swiftly\nhurried to its close. And this immersion of divine perfection in the\ndarkness of weakness and sorrow, so far from forfeiting our appreciation\nof him, incalculably deepens it. The addition of infinite force,\nmechanical or mental, would contribute no new ingredient to our\nveneration, since force is not an object of reverence; and it would take\naway the wonder and grandeur of his soul, by rendering temptation\nimpossible, and conflict a pretence. Since God cannot be pious, or\nsubmissive to his own providence, or cast down in doubt of his own\nfuture, or agonized by the insults of his own creatures, such a\ncombination seems to confuse and destroy all the grounds of veneration,\nand to cause the perfection of Christ to pass in unreality away.\n\nTo this view, however, of the person of Christ, Trinitarians object as\ndefective; and proceed to add one other ingredient to the conception,\nviz., that he possessed the physical and intellectual attributes of\nDeity;\u2014that he is to be esteemed no less eternal, omnipotent and\nomnipresent, than the Infinite Father; the actual creator of the visible\nuniverse, of the very world into which he was born and of the mother who\nbare him, of the disciples who followed and of the enemies who destroyed\nhim. These essential properties of Deity by no means, we are assured,\ninterfered with the completeness of his humanity; so that he had the\nbody, the soul, the consciousness, of a man; and, in union with these,\nthe infinite mind of God. But in a question of mere words, in which the\nguidance of ideas is altogether lost, I dare not trust myself to my own\nlanguage. To disturb the juxtaposition of charmed sounds, is to endanger\northodoxy; and, in describing the true doctrine, I therefore present you\nwith a portion of that unexampled congeries of luminous phrases,\ncommonly called the Athanasian Creed. \u201cThe Catholic faith is this: that\nwe worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding\nthe persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the\nFather, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the\nGodhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one;\nthe glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is\nthe Son, and such is the Holy Ghost: ... the Father eternal, the Son\neternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal; and yet they are not three\neternals, but one eternal.... So the Father is God, the Son is God, and\nthe Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God....\nSo there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one\nHoly Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And, in this Trinity, none is afore\nor after other; none is greater or less than another; but the whole\nthree persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.\u201d\n\nOf the second of these three persons, the second article of the Church\nof England gives the following account:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of\nthe Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the\nFather, took man\u2019s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her\nsubstance; so that two whole and perfect natures,\u2014that is to say, the\nGodhead and the Manhood,\u2014were joined together in one Person, never to be\ndivided; whereof is One Christ, very God and very Man; who truly\nsuffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to\nus.\u201d\n\nIn opposition to this theory, we maintain the Personal Unity of God, and\nthe simplicity of nature in Christ. It is my duty at present to submit\nthese contrasted schemes to the test of Scripture. In order to effect\nthis, I advance these three positions:\n\n(1.) That if the Athanasian doctrine be found in Scripture, then, on our\nopponents\u2019 own principles, Scripture does not contain a revelation from\nGod.\n\n(2.) That if it be really in the Bible, certain definable traces of it\nthere may justly be demanded; and, before opening the record, we should\nsettle what these traces must be.\n\n(3.) That such traces cannot be found in Scripture.\n\nI. \u201cIf,\u201d says Bishop Butler, \u201ca supposed revelation contain clear\nimmoralities or contradictions, either of these would prove it\nfalse.\u201d[164] This principle, generally recognized by competent\nreasoners, has been distinctly admitted in the present discussion; and\nDr. Tattershall, in particular, has employed much ingenuity to prove\nthat the doctrine of the Trinity, containing no absurdity or\ncontradiction, involves in no danger the authority of the writings\nsupposed to teach it. But no subtlety can avail to remove the inherent\nincredibility of this tenet, which even its believers cannot, without\nuneasiness, distinctly and steadily contemplate. Long usage and Church\nauthority alone prevent men from perceiving that the propositions,\nannouncing it, are either simple contradictions, or statements empty of\nall meaning. The same remark is applicable to the notion of the two\nnatures in Christ.\n\nBefore proceeding to justify this assertion, let me guard myself from\nthe imputation of rejecting this doctrine _because it is mysterious_; or\nof supporting a system which insists on banishing all mysteries from\nreligion. On any such system I should look with unqualified aversion, as\nexcluding from faith one of its primary elements; as obliterating the\ndistinction between logic and devotion, and tending only to produce an\nirreverent and narrow-minded dogmatism. \u201cReligion without mystery\u201d is a\ncombination of terms, than which the Athanasian Creed contains nothing\nmore contradictory; and the sentiment of which it is the motto, I take\nto be a fatal caricature of rationalism, tending to bring all piety into\ncontempt. Until we touch upon the mysterious, we are not in contact with\nreligion; nor are any objects reverently regarded by us, except such as,\nfrom their nature or their vastness, are felt to transcend our\ncomprehension. God, of whose inscrutable immensity creation is but the\nsuperficial film; Christ, the love of whom surpasseth knowledge;\nfuturity, veiled in awful shadows, yet illumined by a point or two of\nlight; these, which are slightly known, and greatly unknown, with\nsomething definite, representing a vast indefinite, are the peculiar\nobjects of trust and veneration. And the station which the soul\noccupies, when its devout affections are awakened, is always this: on\nthe twilight, between immeasurable darkness and refreshing light; on the\nconfines, between the seen and the unseen; where a little is discerned,\nand an infinitude concealed; where a few distinct conceptions stand, in\nconfessed inadequacy, as symbols of ineffable realities: and we say,\n\u201cLo! these are part of his ways; but the thunder of his power, who can\nunderstand?\u201d And if this be true, the sense of what we do not know is as\nessential to our religion as the impression of what we do know: the\nthought of the boundless, the incomprehensible, must blend in our mind\nwith the perception of the clear and true; the little knowledge we have\nmust be clung to, as the margin of an invisible immensity; and all our\npositive ideas be regarded as the mere float to show the surface of the\ninfinite deep.\n\nBut mystery, thus represented, offers anything but objects of belief: it\npresents nothing to be appreciated by the understanding; but a realm of\npossibilities to be explored by a reverential imagination; and a\ndarkness that may be felt to the centre of the heart. Being, by its very\nnature, the blank and privative space, offered to our contemplation,\nnothing affirmative can be derived thence; and to shape into definite\nwords the things indefinite that dwell there is to forget its character.\nWe can no more delineate anything within it than an artist, stationed at\nmidnight on an Alpine precipice can paint the rayless scene beneath him.\n\nThere cannot, however, be a greater abuse of words, than to call the\ndoctrine of the Trinity a mystery; and all the analogies by which it is\nattempted to give it this appearance, will instantly vanish on near\ninspection. It does not follow, because a mystery is something which we\ncannot understand, that everything unintelligible is a mystery; and we\nmust discriminate between that which is denied admittance to our reason,\nfrom its fulness of ideas, and that which is excluded by its emptiness;\nbetween a verbal puzzle and a symbolical and finite statement of an\ninfinite truth. If I were to say of a triangle, each of the sides of\nthis figure has an angle opposite to it, yet are there not three angles\nbut one angle, I should be unable to shelter myself, under the plea of\nmystery, from the charge of bald absurdity; and the reply would be\nobviously this: \u2018Never was anything less mysterious put into words; all\nyour terms are precise and sharp, of definable meaning, and suggestive\nof nothing beyond: the difficulty is, not in understanding your\npropositions separately, but in reconciling them together; and this\ndifficulty is so palpable, that either you have affirmed a direct\ncontradiction, or you are playing tricks with words, and using them in a\nway which, being unknown to me, turns them into mere nonsense.\u2019 If to\nthis I should answer, that the contradiction was only apparent, for that\nthe _three_ and the _one_ were affirmed _in different senses_; and that\nit would be very unfair to expect, in so deep a mystery, the word\n_angle_ to be restrained to its usual signification; I should no doubt\nbe called upon to explain _in what novel sense_ this familiar term was\nhere employed, since, in the interval between the expulsion of the old\nmeaning and the introduction of the new, it is mere worthless vacancy.\nAnd if, then, I should confess that the strange meaning was some\ninscrutable and superhuman idea, which it would be impossible to reach,\nand presumption to conjecture, I should not be surprised to hear the\nfollowing rejoinder; \u2018you are talking of human language as if it were\nsomething more than an implement of human thought, and were like the\nworks of nature, full of unfathomable wonders and unsuspected relations;\n_hidden properties of things_ there doubtless are, but _occult meanings\nof words_ there cannot be. Words are simply the signs of ideas, the\nmedia of exchange, invented to carry on the commerce of minds,\u2014the\ncounters, either stamped with thought, or worthless counterfeits. Nay\nmore, in this monetary system of the intellectual world, there are no\ncoins of precious metal that retain an intrinsic value of their own,\nwhen the image and superscription imprinted by the royalty of\nintelligence are gone; but mere paper-currency, whose whole value is\nconventional, and dependent on the mental credit of those who issue it:\nand to urge propositions on my acceptance, with the assurance that they\nhave some invisible and mystic force, is as direct a cheat, as to pay me\na debt with a bill palpably marked as of trivial value, but, in the\nillegible types of your imagination, printed to be worth the wealth of\nCr\u0153sus.\u2019\n\n\u201cVerbal mysteries,\u201d then, cannot exist, and the phrase is but a fine\nname for a contradiction or a riddle. The metaphysics which are invoked\nto palliate their absurdity, are fundamentally fallacious; and equally\nvain is it to attempt to press natural science into the service of\ndefence. In the case of a Theological mystery, we are asked to assent to\ntwo ideas, the one of which _excludes the other_; in the case of a\nnatural mystery, we assent to two ideas, one of which _does not imply\nthe other_. In the one case, conceptions which destroy each other are\nforced into conjunction; in the other, conceptions which had never\nsuggested each other, are found to be related. When, for example, we say\nthat the union, in our own constitution, of body and mind is perfectly\nmysterious, what do we really mean? Simply, that in the properties of\nbody there is nothing which would lead us, antecedently, to expect any\ncombination with the properties of mind; that we might have entertained\nfor ever the notions of solidity, extension, colour, organization,\nwithout the remotest suspicion of such things as sensation, thought,\nvolition, affection, being associated with them. The relation is\nunanticipated and surprising; for thought does not imply solidity: but\nthen neither does it exclude it; the two notions stand altogether apart,\nnor does the one comprise any element inconsistent with the other. It is\nevident that it is far otherwise with the union of the two natures in\nChrist; the properties of the Divine nature, omnipotence, omniscience,\nomnipresence, directly exclude the properties of the human\nnature,\u2014weakness, fallibility, local movement and position; to affirm\nthe one is the _only method we have_ of denying the other; and to say of\nany Being, that besides having the omniscience of God, he had the\npartial knowledge of man, is to say that _in addition_ to having _all_\nideas, he possessed _some_ ideas. All the natural analogies at which\ntheologians hint in self-justification, fail in the same point. They\ntell me truly that it is a mystery to me how the grass grows. But by\nthis is meant only, that from the causes which produce this phenomenon,\nI could not have antecendently predicted it; that if I had been a fresh\ncomer on the globe, the meteorological conditions of the earth in spring\nmight have been perceived by me without my suspecting, as a sequence,\nthe development of a green substance from the soil. We have again an\nexample of an unforeseen relation; but between the members of that\nrelation there is not even a seeming contradiction. Nor do I know of any\nother signification of the word mystery, as applied to our knowledge or\nbelief, except in its usage to express magnitudes too great to be filled\nby our imaginations; as when we speak of the mysterious vastness of\nspace, or duration of time: or, viewing these as the attributes of a\nBeing, stand in awe of the immensity and eternity of God. But neither in\nthis case is there any approach to the admission of ideas which exclude\neach other; on the contrary, our minds think of a small portion,\u2014take\ninto consideration a representative sample, of those immeasurable\nmagnitudes, and necessarily conceive of all that is left behind, as\nperfectly similar, and believe the unknown to be an endless repetition\nof the known.\n\nIt is constantly affirmed that the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the\ntwo natures in Christ, comprise no contradiction; that it is not stated\nin the former that there are three Gods, but that God is three in one\nsense, and one in another; and in the latter, that Christ is two in one\nsense, and one in another.\n\nI repeat and proceed to justify my statement, that if, in the\nenunciation of these tenets, language is used with any appreciable\nmeaning, they are contradictions; and if not, they are senseless. I\nenter upon this miserable logomachy with the utmost repugnance; and am\nashamed that in vindication of the simplicity of Christ, we should be\ndragged back into the barren conflicts of the schools.\n\n\u201cIf,\u201d says Dr. Tattershall, \u201cit had been said that He is ONE GOD and\nalso THREE GODS, then the statement would have been self-contradictory,\nand no evidence could have established the truth of such a\nproposition.\u201d[165] Now I take it as admitted that this being is called\nONE GOD; and that there are THREE GODS, is undoubtedly affirmed\n_distributively_, though not _collectively_; _each_ of the three persons\nbeing separately announced as God. In the successive instances, which we\nare warned to keep distinct, and not confound, of the Father, the Son,\nand the Holy Ghost, _proper Deity_ is affirmed; in three separate cases,\nall that is requisite to constitute the proper notion of God, is said to\nexist; and this is exactly what is meant, and all that can be meant, by\nthe statement, that there are three Gods. I submit then that the same\ncreed teaches that there _are three Gods_, and also that there are _not\nthree Gods_.\n\nFrom this contradiction there is but one escape, and that is, by\ndeclaring that the word God is used in different senses; being applied\nto the triad in one meaning, and to the persons in another. If this be\nalleged, I wait to be informed of the new signification which is to be\nattached to this title, hitherto expressive of all the ideas I can form\nof intellectual and moral perfection. _More_ than this, which exhausts\nall the resources of my thought, it cannot mean; and if it is to mean\n_less_, then it withholds from Him to whom it is applied something which\nI have hitherto esteemed as essential to God. Meanwhile, a word with an\n_occult meaning_ is a word with no meaning; and the proposition\ncontaining it is altogether _senseless_.\n\nBut the favourite way of propounding this doctrine is the following:\nthat God is three in one sense, and one in another; Three in Person, but\nonly One _Individual_, _Subsistence_, or _Being_. The sense, then, if I\nunderstand aright, of the word _Person_, is different from the sense of\nthe words _Individual, Being, or Subsistence_; and if so, I may ask what\nthe respective senses are, and wherein they differ from each other. In\nreply I am assured, that by _person_ is to be understood \u201ca subject in\nwhich resides\u201d \u201can entire set or series of those properties which are\nunderstood to constitute personality; viz. the property of _Life_, that\nof _Intelligence_, that of _Volition_, and that of _Activity_, or _power\nof Action_.\u201d[166] Very well; this is distinct and satisfactory; and now\nfor the _other sense_, viz. of the words _Individual_, _Being_, and\n_Subsistence_. About this an ominous silence is observed; and all\ninformation is withheld respecting the _quite different meaning_ which\nthese terms contain. Now I say, that their signification is the _very\nsame_ with that of the word Person, as above defined; that when you have\nenumerated to me a complete \u201cset of personal attributes,\u201d you have\ncalled up the idea of an _Individual_, _Being_, or _Subsistence_; and\nthat when you have mentioned to me these phrases, you have made me think\nof a complete set of personal attributes; that if you introduce me to\ntwo or three series of personal attributes, you force me to conceive of\ntwo or three beings; that a complete set of properties makes up an\nentire subsistence, and that an entire subsistence contains nothing else\nthan its aggregate of properties. To take, for example, from Dr.\nTattershall\u2019s list of qualities which are essential to personality; tell\nme of two _lives_, and I cannot but think of two individuals; of two\n_intelligences_, and I am necessitated to conceive of two intelligent\nbeings; of two _wills_ or powers of action, and it is impossible to\nrestrain me from the idea of two Agents; and if each of these lives,\nintelligences, and volitions, be divine, of two Gods. The word\nsubstance, in fact, will _hold no more_ than the word person; and to the\n_mind_, though not to the ear, the announcement in question really is,\nthat there are three persons, and yet only one person. Thus men \u201cslide\ninsensibly,\u201d to use the words of Archbishop Whately, \u201cinto the\nunthought-of, but, I fear, not uncommon, error of Tritheism; from which\nthey think themselves the more secure, because they always maintain the\nUnity of the Deity; though they gradually come to understand that Unity\nin a merely _figurative_ sense; viz. as a Unity of substance,\u2014a Unity of\npurpose, concert of action, &c.; just as any one commonly says, \u2018My\nfriend such-an-one and myself are one;\u2019 meaning that they pursue the\nsame designs with entire mutual confidence, and perfect co-operation,\nand have that exact agreement in opinions, views, tastes, &c., which is\noften denoted by the expression _one mind_.\u201d[167]\n\nNo doubt this excellent writer is correct in his impression, that the\nbelief in three Gods is prevalent in this country, and kept alive by the\ncreeds of his own church. And how does he avoid this consequence\nhimself? By understanding the word Persons, not in Dr. Tattershall\u2019s,\nwhich is the ordinary English sense, but in the Latin signification, to\ndenote the _relations_, or _capacities_, or _characters_, which an\nindividual may sustain, the _several parts_ which he may perform; so\nthat the doctrine of the Trinity amounts only to this, that the One\nInfinite Deity bears three relations to us. This is plain Unitarianism,\nveiled behind the thinnest disguise of speech. Between this and\nTritheism, it is vain to seek for any third estate.[168]\n\nThe contradiction involved in the doctrine of the two natures of Christ\nis of precisely the same nature and extent. We are assured that he had a\nperfect human constitution, consisting of the growing body and\nprogressing mind of a man; and also a proper divine personality,\ncomprising all the attributes of God. Now, during this conjunction,\neither the human mind within him was, or it was not, _conscious_ of the\nco-existence and operation of the divine. If it was not, if the earthly\nand celestial intelligence dwelt together in the same body without\nmutual recognition, like two persons enclosed in the same dark chamber,\nin ignorance of each other, then were there two distinct beings, whom it\nis a mockery to call \u201cone Christ;\u201d the humanity of our Lord was\nunaffected by his Deity, and in all respects the same as if disjoined\nfrom it; and his person was but a movable sign, indicating the place and\npresence of a God, who was as much foreign to him as to any other human\nbeing. If the human nature had a joint consciousness with the divine,\nthen nothing can be affirmed of his humanity separately; and from his\nsorrows, his doubts, his prayers, his temptations, his death, every\ntrace of reality vanish away. If he were conscious, _in any sense_, of\nomnipotence, nothing but duplicity could make him say, \u201cof mine own self\nI can do nothing;\u201d if of omniscience, it was mere deception to affirm\nthat he was ignorant of the time of his second advent; if of his\nequality with the Father, it was a quibble to say, \u201cmy Father is greater\nthan I.\u201d I reject this hypothesis with unmitigated abhorrence, as\ninvolving in utter ruin the character of the most perfect of created\nbeings.\n\nThe intrinsic incredibility then of these doctrines, involving, as they\ndo, \u201cclear immoralities and self contradictions,\u201d would throw discredit\non the claims of any work professing to reveal them on the authority of\nGod. And whether we listen to the demands of Scripture on our\nreverential attention, must depend on this:\u2014whether these tenets are\nfound there or not. And to this enquiry let us now proceed.\n\nOne remark I would make in passing, on the supposed value of the theory\nof the two natures, as a _key_ to unlock certain difficult passages of\nthe Bible, and to reconcile their apparent contradictions. Christ, it is\naffirmed, is sometimes spoken of as possessing human qualities,\nsometimes as possessing divine; on the supposition of his being simply\nman, one class of these passages contradicts us; on the assumption of\nhis being simply God, another. Let us then pronounce him both, and\neverything is set right; every part of the document becomes clear and\nintelligible.[169]\n\nNow which, let me ask, is the greater difficulty: the obscure language,\nwhich we wish to make consistent, or the prodigious hypothesis, devised\nfor the reconcilement of its parts? The sole perplexity in these\nportions of Scripture consists in this,\u2014that the divine and the human\nnature are felt to be incompatible, and not to be predicable of the same\nbeing: if we did not feel this, we should be conscious of no opposition;\nand the ingenious device for relieving the bewilderment, is to deny the\nincompatibility, and boldly to affirm the union. If you will but believe\n_both_ sides of the contradiction, you will find the contradiction\ndisappear! What would be thought of such a principle of interpretation\napplied to similar cases of verbal discrepancy? It is stated, for\nexample, in the Book of Genesis, that Abraham and Lot received a divine\ncommunication respecting the destruction of Sodom; and the bearers of\nthe message are spoken of, in one place, as Jehovah himself; in another,\nas angels; in a third, as men.[170] What attention would be given to any\ninterpreter who should say; \u2018it is clear that these persons could not be\nsimply God, for they are called men; nor simply men, for they are called\nangels; nor simply angels, for they are called God: they must have had a\ntriple nature, and been at the same time perfect God, perfect angel, and\nperfect man?\u2019 Would such an explanation be felt to solve anything? Or\ntake one other case, in which Moses is called God with a distinctness\nwhich cannot be equalled in the case of Christ: \u201cMoses called together\nall Israel, and said to them: ... I have led you forty years in the\nwilderness; your clothes have not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is\nnot waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye\ndrunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that _I am the Lord your\nGod_.\u201d[171] What relief, let me ask, should we obtain from the\ndifficulty of this passage, by being told that Moses had two natures in\none person, and must be received as God-man? Who would accept \u201ca key\u201d\nlike this, and not feel that in loosening one difficulty, it locked fast\nanother, and left us in labyrinthine darkness?\n\nII. When a Trinitarian, and a Unitarian, agree to consult Scripture\ntogether, and to bring their respective systems to this written\nstandard, it is essential that they should determine beforehand what it\nis that they must look for: what internal characters of the books are to\nbe admitted in evidence; what kind and degree of proof each is entitled\nto expect. Each should say to the other before the Bible is opened,\n\u201cTell me now, distinctly, what are the marks and indications in these\nrecords, which you admit would disprove your scheme: what must I succeed\nin establishing, in order to convince you that you are mistaken?\u201d The\nmutual exchange of some such tests is indispensable to all useful\ndiscussion. I am not aware that any rules of this kind have ever been\nlaid down, or I would willingly adopt them. Meanwhile I will propose a\nfew; and state the phenomena which I think a Unitarian has a right to\nexpect in the Bible, if the Athanasian doctrine[172] be revealed there,\nand its reception made a condition of salvation. If the criteria be in\nany respect unreasonable, let it be shown _where_ they are erroneous or\nunfair. I am not conscious of making any extravagant or immodest\npetition for evidence.\n\nIf, then, the existence of three Persons, each God, in the One Infinite\nDeity,\u2014and the temporary union of the second of these Persons, with a\nperfect man, so as to constitute One Christ,\u2014be among the prominent\nfacts communicated in the written Revelation of the Bible, we may expect\nto find there the following characters:\n\n(1.) That somewhere or other, among its thousand pages, these doctrines\nso easily and compendiously expressed, will be plainly stated.\n\n(2.) That as it is important not to confound the three persons in the\nGodhead, they will be kept distinct, having some _discriminative and not\ninterchangeable titles_; and, moreover, since each has precisely the\nsame claim to be called GOD, that word will be assigned to them with\nsomething like an impartial distribution.\n\n(3.) That as, in consistency with the UNITY, the term God will always be\nrestricted to _one only being or substance_; so, in consistency with the\nTRINITY, it will _never_ be limited to ONE PERSON to the exclusion of\nthe OTHER TWO.\n\n(4.) That when the PERSONS are named by their _distinctive divine\ntitles_, their equality will be observed, nor any one of them be\nrepresented as subordinate to any other.\n\n(5.) That since the MANHOOD of Christ commenced, and its peculiar\nfunctions ceased, with his _incarnation_, it will never be found\nascribed to him in relation to events, before or after this period.\n\nAll these phenomena, I submit, are essential to make scripture\nconsistent with Athanasianism; and not one of these phenomena does\nscripture contain. This it is now my business to show.\n\nIII. (1.) Is then our expectation realized, of finding somewhere within\nthe limits of the Bible, a plain, unequivocal statement of these\ndoctrines? Confessedly not; and notions which, in one breath, are\npronounced to be indispensable to salvation, are in another admitted to\nbe no matters of revelation at all, but rather left to be gathered by\nhuman deduction from the sacred writings. \u201cThe doctrine of the Trinity,\u201d\nsays a respectable Calvinistic writer, Mr. Carlile of Dublin, \u201cis rather\n_a doctrine of inference and of indirect intimation_, deduced from what\nis revealed respecting the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and\nintimated in the notices of a plurality of persons in the Godhead, than\na doctrine directly and explicitly declared.\u201d And elsewhere the same\nauthor says, \u201c_A doctrine of inference ought never to be placed on a\nfooting of equality with a doctrine of direct and explicit\nrevelation._\u201d[173] If this be so (and the method of successive steps by\nwhich it is attempted, in this very controversy, to establish the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, proves Mr. Carlile to be right), then to deny\nthis mere _inference_ is not to deny a _revelation_. But why, we may be\npermitted to enquire, this shyness and hesitancy in the scriptures in\ncommunicating such cardinal truths? Whence this reserve in the Holy\nSpirit about matters so momentous?[174] What is the source of this\nstrange contrast between the formularies of the Church of England, and\nthose of the primitive Church of Christ? The Prayer-book would seem to\nhave greatly the advantage over the Bible; for it removes all doubts at\nonce, and makes the essentials most satisfactorily plain; compensating,\nshall we say, by \u201cfrequent repetitions,\u201d for the defects and ambiguities\nof Holy Writ? Nay, it is a singular fact, that in the original languages\nof the Old and New Testaments, _no phraseology exists in which it is\npossible to express the creeds of the Church_. We give to the most\nlearned of our opponents the whole vocabulary of the Hebrew and the\nGreek Scriptures, and we say, \u201cwith these materials translate for us\ninto either language, or any mixture of both, your own Athanasian\nCreed,\u201d They well know, that it cannot be done: and ought not then this\nquestion to be well weighed? if the terms _indispensable_ for the\nexpression of certain ideas are absent from the Bible, how can the ideas\nthemselves be present? Scarcely can men _have_ any important notions\nwithout the corresponding words,\u2014which the mind coins as fast as it\nfeels the need; and most assuredly they cannot _reveal_ them. Let us\nhear no more the rash assertion that these tenets may be proved from any\npage of scripture; we frankly offer every page, with unrestricted\nliberty to rewrite the whole; and we say, with all this, they cannot be\nexpressed.\n\n(2.) Let us proceed to apply our second criterion, and ascertain whether\nthe divine persons, whom it is essential to distinguish, _are_ so\ndistinguished by _characteristic titles_ in scripture; and share among\nthem, with any approach to equality, the name of GOD.\n\nIt is self-evident, that a _verbal revelation_ can make known\n_distinctions_ only by _distinctive words_; that if two or more objects\nof thought receive interchangeable names, and the term which had seemed\nto be appropriated to the one is transferred to the other, those objects\nare not discriminated, but confounded. We require, then, separate words\nin scripture to denote the following notions; of the One Divine\nSubstance, or Triune Being; of the First, of the Second, of the Third\nperson, in this infinite existence;\u2014of the Divine Nature and of the\nHuman Nature of Christ. For the Trinity, it is acknowledged, there is no\nscripture name; unless, indeed, the plural form of the word God in the\nHebrew language is to be claimed for this purpose; and thus an attempt\nbe still made to confirm our faith by argument which an orthodox\ncommentator calls \u201cweak and vain, not to say silly and absurd.\u201d[175]\n\u201cFrom the plural sense of the word Elohim,\u201d says the great Calvin, \u201cit\nis usual to infer that there are three persons in the Godhead. But as\nthis proof of so important a point appears to me by no means solid, I\nwill not insist upon the word. Let me then warn my readers against such\nVIOLENT INTERPRETATIONS.\u201d[176] \u201cI must be allowed,\u201d says Dr. Lee, Arabic\nProfessor in the University of Cambridge, \u201cto object to such methods of\nsupporting an article of faith, which stands in need of no such\nsupport.\u201d[177] Of the first person in the Trinity, the word \u201c_Father_,\u201d\nit is to be presumed, may be considered as the distinctive name; of the\nSecond person, the terms _Son_, _Son of God_, and _the Word_ or _Logos_;\nof the Third person, the phrase _Holy Ghost_, _Spirit_, _Paraclete_; and\nof the human nature of Christ, as distinguished from the Second\ndistinction in the Trinity, the names _Jesus of Nazareth_, _Son of Man_,\nthe _Man Christ Jesus_. If these names be _not_ distinctive, there\ncertainly are no others; and if there be none at all, then the\n_distinctions themselves_ are not impressed upon the record; they are\naltogether destitute of signs and expressions, and must be pronounced\npurely imaginary. Meanwhile we will assume the titles, which I have just\nenumerated, to be appropriated to the purposes which have been assigned.\nTo the use of the words _Father_ and _Son_ I shall have particular\noccasion to revert.\n\nThe usage of the word _God_, in the New Testament, presents us with some\nremarkable phenomena. The Athanasian doctrine offers to our belief four\nobjects of thought, to which this word is equally and indifferently\napplicable; the Triune Divine Being; and each of the three Persons; and\nits advocates profess to have learned from Scripture the well-adjusted\nequipoise of these claims upon the great and sacred name. We are hardly\nthen prepared by its instructions, distinct and emphatic as they are,\nfor the following fact; allowing every one of the Trinitarian\ninterpretations to be correct, the word God is used in the New Testament\nTEN times of Christ; and of some other object, upwards of THIRTEEN\nHUNDRED times.[178] Whence this astonishing disproportion? _Some\ncause_,\u2014something corresponding to it in the minds of the writers, it\nmust have had; nor is it easy to understand, how an equal disposition of\nthe Divine Persons in the habitual conceptions of the Authors, could\nlead to so unequal an award of the grand expression of Divinity.\n\nEven the few instances, which for the moment I have allowed, will\ndisappear on a nearer examination. This appears to be the proper place\nto pass under review the most remarkable passages, which, under\nTrinitarian exposition, _appear_ to sanction the doctrine of the proper\nDeity of Christ.\n\n(a.) The evangelist Matthew applies to Christ[179] the following words\nof the prophet Isaiah, which, in order to give the truest impression of\nthe original, I will quote from the translation of Bishop Lowth: \u201cBehold\nthe Virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son; and she shall call his name\nEmmanuel.\u201d[180] As this name is significant, and means \u201cGod with us,\u201d it\nis argued, that it could not be assigned to any one who was not properly\nGod.\n\nNow even if this name were really assigned by the prophet to Christ, the\nmost superficial Hebraist must be aware that it teaches us nothing\nrespecting the nature and person of our Lord. \u201cThe fact is\nunquestionable,\u201d says Dr. Pye Smith, \u201cthat the gratitude or hope of\nindividuals, in the ancient scriptural times, was often expressed by the\nimposition of significant appellations on persons or other objects, in\nthe composition of which Divine names and titles were frequently\nemployed; these are, therefore, nothing but short sentences, declarative\nof some blessing possessed or expected.\u201d[181] Thus the name _Lemuel_\nmeans _God with them_; _Elijah_, _God the Lord_; _Elihu_, _God is he_.\nSo that to use the words of one of the ablest of living Trinitarian\nwriters, \u201cto maintain that the name Immanuel proves the doctrine in\nquestion is a fallacious argument.\u201d[182]\n\nBut, in truth, this name is not given to the Messiah by the prophet; and\nthe citation of it in this connection by the evangelist is an example of\nthose loose accommodations, or even misapplications, of passages in the\nOld Testament by writers in the New, which the most resolute orthodoxy\nis unable to deny; and which (though utterly destructive of the theory\nof verbal inspiration) the real dignity of the Gospel in no way requires\nus to deny. Turning to the original prophecy, and not neglecting the\ncontext and historical facts which illustrate it, we find that Jerusalem\nwas threatened with instant destruction by the confederated kings of\nSyria and Samaria; that, to the terrified Jewish monarch Ahaz, the\nprophet is commissioned to promise the deliverance of his metropolis and\nruin to his enemies; that he even fixes the date of this happy reverse;\nand that he does this, not in a direct way, by telling the number of\nmonths or years that shall elapse, but by stating that ere a certain\nchild, either already born, or about to be born within a year, shall be\nold enough to distinguish between good and evil, the foe shall be\noverthrown; and that this same child, whose infancy is thus\nchronologically used, shall eat the honey of a land peaceful and fertile\nonce more. Nor is this interpretation any piece of mere heretical\ningenuity. Dr. Pye Smith observes: \u201cIt seems to be as clear as words can\nmake it, that the Son promised was born within a year after the giving\nof the prediction; that his being so born at the assigned period, was\nthe sign or pledge that the political deliverance announced to Ahaz\nshould certainly take place.\u201d[183] Without assenting to the latter part\nof this remark, I quote it simply to show that, in the opinion of this\nexcellent and learned Divine, the Emmanuel could not have been born\n_later_ than a year after the delivery of the prophecy. It will\nimmediately appear that there is nothing to preclude the supposition of\nhis being already born, at the very time when it was uttered.\n\nWho this child, and who his mother, really were, are questions wholly\nunconnected with the present argument. As the _date_, and not the\n_person_, was the chief subject of the Prophet\u2019s declaration, any son of\nJerusalem, arriving at years of discretion within the stated time, would\nfulfil the main conditions of the announcement; and as a sign of Divine\ndeliverance, might receive the name Emmanuel. In fact, however, the\nchild, in the view of Isaiah, seems to have been no other than the\nKing\u2019s own son, Hezekiah; and the Virgin Mother to have been, in\nconformity with a phraseology familiar to every careful reader of the\nOld Testament, the royal and holy city of Jerusalem. Amos, speaking of\nthe city, says, \u201cThe virgin of Israel is fallen,\u201d[184] Jeremiah,\nlamenting over its desolation, exclaims, \u201cLet mine eyes run down with\ntears night and day, and let them not cease; for the virgin daughter of\nmy people is broken, with a great breach, with a very grievous\nblow.\u201d[185] Micah, apostrophizing the citadel, bursts out, \u201cO\ntower,\u201d\u2014\u201cstronghold of the daughter of Zion,\u201d\u2014\u201cis there no king in thee?\nIs thy counsellor perished? For pangs have taken thee, as a woman in\ntravail.\u201d[186] The fact that Hezekiah was already born, seems to confirm\nrather than to invalidate this interpretation. A living child to his\nparents, he was yet the city\u2019s embryo king. What sign more fitted to\nreassure the terrified and faithless monarch than this; that, ere his\nown first-born should reach the years of judgment, his twofold enemy\nshould be cast down? What language, indeed, could be more natural\nrespecting an heir to the throne, of whom great expectations were\nexcited in grievous times? The royal city dreamt of his promised life\nwith gladness; he was the child of Jerusalem, in the hour of her anguish\ngiven to her hopes; in after years of peace fulfilling them.[187]\n\n(b.) This prince appears evidently to have been the person described\nalso in another passage, from which, though never cited in the New\nTestament as applicable to Christ at all, modern theologians are\naccustomed to infer his Deity. It is as follows: \u201cUnto us a child is\nborn, unto us a son is given; and his name shall be called wonderful;\ncounsellor; the mighty God; the everlasting Father; the Prince of\nPeace.\u201d[188] We have only to look at the terms in which this great one\u2019s\ndominion is described, and the characters that are to mark his reign, in\norder to assure ourselves that he is some person very different from\nChrist; the Northern district of Palestine is to be delivered by him\nfrom the sufferings of an Assyrian invasion; he is to break the yoke\nwhich Tiglath-Pileser had imposed on the land of Gennesareth; to destroy\nthe rod of the oppressor; to make a conflagration of the spoils of the\nbattle-field, and burn the greaves and blood-stained garments of his\ncountry\u2019s enemies.[189] It seems to me impossible to imagine a more\nviolent distortion of Scripture than the application of this passage to\nChrist. But, be it even otherwise, there are only two of these titles\nwhich can be thought of any avail in this argument. One is, the\n\u201ceverlasting Father;\u201d which if it proves anything, establishes that the\nsecond person in the Trinity is the first person, or else that the word\n_Father_ must be given up as a distinctive name, a concession\ndestructive of the whole doctrine. The other is the phrase, \u201cthe mighty\nGod,\u201d or by inversion, \u201cGod the mighty;\u201d on which I presume no stress\nwould have been laid if, instead of being presented to us in a\ntranslation, it had been given in the original, and called GABRIEL. For\nthe word _God_, Martin Luther substitutes (Held) _hero_, as the juster\nrendering.[190] But, in truth, it is sad trifling thus to crumble Hebrew\nnames to pieces, in order to yield a few scarce visible atoms of\nargument to replenish the precarious pile of church orthodoxy, wasted by\nthe attrition of reason, the healthful dews of nature, and the sunshine\nand the air of God.[191]\n\n(c.) Let us turn to the Proem of St. John\u2019s Gospel; that most venerable\nand beautiful of all the delineations which Scripture furnishes, of the\ntwofold relation of Christ\u2019s spirit, to the Father who gave it its\nillumination, and to the brethren who were blessed by its light. To our\ncold understandings, indeed, this passage must inevitably be obscure;\nfor it deals with some of the characteristic conceptions of that lofty\nspeculative reason, which, blending the refinements of Platonism with\nthe imaginative license of the oriental schools, assumed in early times\nthe intellectual empire of the church, and has kept the world ever since\nin deliberation on its creations. I do not mean that the Apostle was a\nPlatonist, or a disciple of any philosophical system. But he wrote in\nAsia Minor, where he was surrounded by the _influences_, in constant\nfamiliarity with the _terms_, and accustomed to the _modes of thought_,\npeculiar to the sects of speculative religionists most prevalent in his\ntime. At all events, it is _a fact_ that he uses language nowhere\nemployed by the other Evangelists or Apostles; and that this language is\nthe very same which is the common stock, and technical vocabulary of\nPhilo, the Platonizing Jew, and several Christian writers of the same or\na kindred school. Before, however, endeavouring to suggest the idea\nwhich the Apostle did mean to convey, let me call your attention to that\nwhich he did not.\n\nThere cannot be a more misplaced confidence, than that with which the\nintroductory verses of St. John\u2019s Gospel are appealed to by the holders\nof the Athanasian doctrine. Whatever explanation is adopted, which does\nnot throw contempt upon the composition of the Evangelist, is at all\nevents subversive of their system: and I do not hesitate to say, that\n_this_ is the only thing which I can regard as certain respecting this\npassage; that _it never could have been written by an Athanasian_. In\norder to test this assertion, it is not necessary to look beyond the\nfirst verse; and before we read it, let us allow the Trinitarian to\nchoose any sense he pleases of the word God, which is its leading term.\nLet us suppose that he accepts it as meaning here \u201cTHE FATHER,\u201d and that\nthe Word or Logos means GOD THE SON. With these substitutions the verse\nreads thus:\u2014\n\nIn the beginning was the Son; and the Son was with the Father; and the\nSon was the Father. This surely is to \u201cconfound the persons.\u201d\n\nLet us then suppose the meaning different, and the whole Godhead or\nTRINITY to be denoted by the word GOD. The verse would then read thus:\u2014\n\nIn the beginning was the Son; and the Son was with the Trinity, and the\nSon was the Trinity.\n\nWe are no nearer to consistency than before: and it is evident that\nbefore the Trinitarian can find in the passage any distinct enunciation,\nthe term GOD must be conceived to bear two different meanings in this\nshort verse,\u2014a verse so symmetrical in its construction as to put the\nreader altogether off his guard against such a change. He must read it\nthus:\u2014\n\nIn the beginning was the second person in the Trinity; and the second\nperson was with the first; and the second person was possessed of divine\nattributes as such.\n\nWe might surely ask, without unreasonableness, why, when the _society_\nor personal affinity of the Son in the Godhead, is mentioned in the\nmiddle clause, the companionship of the _Father only_ is noticed, and\nsilence observed respecting the _Holy Spirit_; who at that moment could\nnot possibly have been absent from the conceptions of any Athanasian\nwriter. But independently of this, the awkwardness of the construction,\nthe violence of the leading transition of meaning, render the\ninterpretation altogether untenable. If it be true, never surely was\nthere a form of speech worse devised for the conveyance of the intended\nideas.\n\nIn order to give the passage its true force, there is no occasion to\nassign to the word GOD any but its usual signification; as the name of\nthe One infinite Person or Being who created and rules the universe. But\nit is less easy to embrace and exhibit with any distinctness, the notion\nimplied in the phrase WORD or LOGOS. The ancient speculative schools,\nseeing that the Deity had existed from eternity, and therefore in a long\nsolitude before the origin of creation, distinguished between his\nintrinsic nature,\u2014deep, remote, primeval, unfathomable,[192]\u2014and that\nportion of his mind which put itself forth, or expressed itself by\nworks, so as to come into voluntary and intelligible relations to\nmen.[193] This section of the Divine Mind, to which was attributable the\nauthorship of the divine works, they called the LOGOS, or the IMAGE of\nGod; both terms denoting the _expression_ or _power which outwardly\nreveals_ internal qualities; the one taking its metaphor from the _ear_,\nthrough which we make known our sentiments by speech; the other from the\n_eye_, to which is addressed the natural language of feature and\nlineament. If I might venture on an illustration which may sound\nstrangely to modern hearers, I should say that the Logos was conceived\nof in relation to God, much as with us _Genius_ is, in relation to the\nsoul of its possessor; to denote that peculiar combination of\nintellectual and moral attributes, which produces great, original,\ncreative works,\u2014works which let you into the spirit and affections, as\nwell as the understanding, of the Author. Any one who can so possess\nhimself with the speculative temper of Christian antiquity, as to use\nwith reverence the phrase _genius of God_, would find it, I am\npersuaded, a useful English substitute (though I am well aware, not a\nperfect equivalent) for the word Logos. Dwelling within the blank\nimmensity of God, was this illuminated region of Divine ideas; in which,\nas in the fancy and the studio of an artist, the formative conceptions,\nthe original sketches and designs, the inventive projects of beauty and\ngood, shaped and perfected themselves; and from which they issued forth,\nto imprint themselves upon matter and life, and pass into executed and\nvisible realities. From the energy of this creative spirit, or blessed\ngenius of God, two very different orders of results were conceived to\nflow:\u2014the forms and symmetrical arrangements of the material universe,\nby which, as by the engraving of a seal, Deity stamped his perfections\ninto _vision_: and the intuitions of pure reason and conscience in the\nhuman soul, by which, as by a heavenly tone or vibration, Deity thrilled\nhimself into _consciousness_. And when I say _Deity_, I mean the _Logos\nof Deity_; for this alone, it was conceived, stood in any relation to\nus; the rest was an unexpressed and unfathomable Essence.\n\nThis portion of the Divine Infinitude was incessantly and vividly\npersonified; so as to assume, even in the writings of the Jew and\nundoubted Monotheist Philo, the frequent aspect of a second God: though\nscarcely have you taken up this idea from one series of passages, before\nyou are recalled and corrected by others, clearly showing that this is a\nfalse impression, too hastily derived from the intensity of the imagery\nand language. Indeed the distinction between a mere personification and\na positive mythological personage is very faint. When a writer\npersonifies an abstraction, _for the moment_ he conceives of this object\nof thought as a person; and were this state of mind perpetuated, he\nwould _believe_ it to be a person. But his mental attitude changes; and\nin a less excited hour, that which had constructed and painted itself\nalmost into a being, fades away again into an attribute. Hence the\nfluctuation of writers, at once imaginative and speculative, like Philo\nand some of the early Christian Fathers, between the logical and the\nmythical method of speaking of the properties of the Divine nature. And\nit may be remarked, that the Apostle John partook, though in a very\nslight degree, of the same tendency. He was fond of abstract words:\ncalling our Saviour the _way_, rather than the _guide_; the _truth_,\nrather than the _teacher_; the _light_, rather than the _illuminator_;\nand so I conceive, in the commencement of his Gospel, the _inspiration_,\nrather than the _inspired_ of God. And then, as if to remedy the\nindistinctness of this mode of representation, he resorts to\npersonification: thus, at the dictation of his reverence, first reducing\nthe living person to an abstraction; and afterwards, at the bidding of\nhis imagination, recreating the abstraction into a person. The extent to\nwhich this personification may be carried, by an author who certainly\nhad no notion but of One personal God, may be estimated from a few\nsentences, referring to this very conception of the Logos, from the\nJewish Philo. The invisible and intellectual Logos, he says, is the\nimage of God, by whom the world was fashioned; his first-born son, his\nvicegerent in the government of the world; the mediator between God and\nhis creatures; the healer of ills; God\u2019s divine Son, whose mother is\nwisdom. In another place, the Logos is the very same with the wisdom of\nGod; the most ancient angel, the first-born of God; to the resemblance\nof whom every one, who would be a son of God, must fashion himself. He\nis even the \u201csecond God,\u201d \u201cTo the Archangel, and most ancient Logos,\u201d\nsays this writer, \u201cGod granted this distinguished office, that he should\nstand on the confines of creation, and separate between it and its\nCreator. With the incorruptible being he is the suppliant for perishable\nmortality. He is the ambassador of the Supreme to the subject creation.\nHe announces the will of the Ruler to his subjects. And he delights in\nthe office, and boasts of it, saying; I had stood between you and the\nLord as mediator; being neither unbegotten as God, nor begotten as you,\nbut between the two extremes, and acting as hostage to both,\u201d[194] All\nthis sounds very mysterious; the important thing to bear in mind is,\nthat the writer is certainly speaking not of any separate divine person,\nbut of the impersonated attributes of One Sole Supreme.\n\nSt. John then, I conceive, does the very same; only he carefully warns\nus against thinking of his personification as otherwise than identical\nwith the Supreme, by saying outright, that the Logos is God; and\ntherefore that whatever he may say about the former, is really to be\nunderstood as spoken of the latter. The whole proem divides itself into\ntwo ideas: that from the Genius or Logos of God have proceeded two sets\nof divine works; the material world; and the soul and inspiration of\nheaven shed upon the world through Christ. His object, I believe, is to\nlink together these two effects as successive and analogous results,\nphysical in one case, spiritual in the other, of the same divine and\nholy energy. Having warned us, as I have said, in the very first verse,\nthat this energy is not really a person distinct from the Supreme, he\nabandons himself without reserve to the beautiful personification which\nfollows; assuring us that thereby were all things made at first, and\nthereby were all men being enlightened now; that our very world, which\nfelt that forming hand of old, had not discerned the blessed influence\nwhich again descended to regenerate it: ungrateful treatment! as of one\nwho came unto his own, and his own received him not. Yet were there some\nof more perceptive conscience and better hearts; and they, be they Jew\nor Gentile, whose spirits sprung to the divine embrace, were permitted\nto become, by reflected similitude, the Sons of God.\n\nThus far, that is, to the end of the thirteenth verse, there is no\nmention of Jesus Christ as an individual; there is only the unembodied\npersonification of the abstract energy of God in the original design,\nand the newer regeneration of the world. Nor should there be any\ndifficulty in this separation of the Divine Spirit from its positive and\npersonal results. Of the _Creative_ Mind of God we can easily think, as\nnot only prior to the act of creation, but still apart from the forms of\nmatter; and so can we of the _illuminating or regenerative_ Mind of God,\nas not only prior to its manifestation in Christ, but apart from its\nembodiment in his person. In the next verse, however, the heavenly\npersonification is dropped upon the man Jesus; the mystic divine light\nis permitted to sink into the deeps of his humanity; it vanishes from\nseparate sight: and there comes before us, and henceforth lives within\nour view throughout the Gospel, the Man of Sorrows, the Child of God,\nwith the tears and infirmities of our mortal nature, and the moral\nperfection of the Divine. \u201cAnd the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among\nus (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the\nFather), full of grace and truth.\u201d[195]\n\n(d.) The spirit of this exposition is directly applicable to another\npassage, adduced to prove the deity of Christ: \u201cGod was manifest in the\nflesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the\nGentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.\u201d[196] It is\nwell known that in the most approved text, the word _God_ does not\nexist, and the passage reads, \u201cHe who was manifest in the flesh,\u201d &c.\nWere it permitted to indulge personal wishes in such matters, I could\ndesire that the common rendering were the true one. I know of no more\nexact description of Christ, than that he was a living and human\nmanifestation of the character of God.[197]\n\n(e.) Let us now turn to the introductory verses of the Epistle to the\nHebrews; a passage which is claimed as the clearest disclosure of the\nDeity of Christ; for no discoverable reason, except that from its great\nobscurity, it _reveals_ less, perhaps, than any other portion of\nScripture, except the _Revelations_. From the earliest times it has been\njustly regarded as exceedingly doubtful whether the Apostle Paul was the\nauthor of this letter; the difficulties and darkness of which are of a\nvery different character from those which embarrass us in his noble\nwritings, and arise from mental habits far more artificial and less\nhealthy than his. But whatever be the authority of this work, and\nwhatever the doctrine of its introductory portion, it is so far from\ngiving any support to the Trinitarian sentiments, that it affords, even\nin its most exalted language, arguments sufficient to disprove them. The\nfirst verses of the epistle, altered slightly from the common\ntranslation, in order to exhibit more faithfully the meaning of the\noriginal, are as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cGod who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past\nunto the fathers by the prophets, hath, at the close of these days,\nspoken unto us by his Son; whom he hath appointed heir of all things;\nthrough whom also he made the ages of the world; who, being the\nbrightness of his glory, and the image of his nature, and ruling all\nthings by the word of his power, having by himself made purification of\nour sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high; being\nbecome so much greater than the angels, as he hath obtained by\ninheritance a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the\nangels said he at any time, \u2018thou art my son; I have this day begotten\nthee?\u2019 And again, \u2018I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a\nSon.\u2019 And when ever he may again introduce his first-born into the\nworld, it (_i.e._ the Scripture) saith, \u2018let all the angels of God pay\nhomage to him.\u2019 And with reference to the angels, it saith, \u2018who maketh\nhis angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.\u2019 But with\nreference to the son, it saith, \u2018thy throne, O God! is for ever and\never, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom; thou\nhast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore, O God! thy God\nhath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.\u2019\u201d\n\nI terminate the quotation here, because I do not believe that the\nfollowing words have any relation to Christ. The writer\u2019s argument not\nonly admits, but requires, that they should be referred to the supreme\nGod and Father of all.\n\nNow observe with what distinctness the most lofty phrases applied to our\nLord in this passage, affirm his subordination, and deny his equality\nwith the infinite Father. At the very moment when he is addressed as\nGod, he is said to have _fellows_, and to be set above them as a reward\nfor his goodness; in the same breath which declares his throne to be for\never and ever, he is described as having a God who anoints him with the\noil of gladness. He is greater than the angels, not by nature, but by\nthe gift of a better inheritance. He is not the original divine\neffulgence, but an _emanation_ of that glory, an _image_ of that\nperfection; and in constituting the worlds, or rather the great \u00e6ras of\nits appointed history, he is not the designer of its revolutions, but\nthe instrument of God in effecting them.[198] If this teaches the\nsupreme Deity of Christ, in what language is it possible to disclaim and\nto deny supremacy?\n\nWith respect to the peculiar terms of dignity applied in this passage to\nChrist, I would observe as follows:\u2014\n\nThe words \u201cThy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,\u201d were originally\naddressed by a poetical courtier to Solomon or some other Hebrew\nmonarch, on his accession and marriage;[199] nor can the slightest\nreason be assigned for supposing that the ode in which the words occur\nhad any reference more remote than the immediate occasion of its\ncomposition. The first half of the Psalm[200] is addressed to the\nprince; the remainder to his bride,[201] who is exhorted to give her\nundivided affection to the new relation which she has formed; to \u201cforget\nher own people, and the house of her father;\u201d and who is consoled with\nthe hope, that \u201cinstead of her fathers she shall have her sons, whom she\nshall make princes through all the land.\u201d Those who can satisfy\nthemselves with the theological conceit, that this is a prophetic\nallegory, descriptive of the relation between Christ and his Church,\nappear to have placed themselves so far beyond the reach of all the\nrules of interpretation, that argument becomes fruitless; _no possible\nmedia of refutation exist_. They must belong to the class who have\nsucceeded in spiritualizing the Song of Solomon; to whom therefore it\nhas ceased to be a matter of the smallest consequence, _what words_ are\npresented to them in Scripture, as they have attained the faculty of\nseeing one set of ideas, wherever they look, and an incapacity to see\nanything else. Bishop Young, convinced that the prophetic claims of this\nPsalm must be relinquished, and that the term _God_ in it is addressed\nmerely to the Hebrew monarch, and therefore used in an inferior sense,\nrenders the passage thus; \u201cthy throne O mighty prince, is for ever and\never.\u201d[202] And surely, even those who can persuade themselves that\nscripture can have two intended meanings, and who imagine the poem in\nquestion to have referred primarily to Solomon, and remotely to the\nMessiah, must perceive that a word by which the Jewish prince might be\naccosted, cannot imply the supreme deity of Christ. Christ is said, in\nthe common translation, to have made the worlds; but it is generally\nadmitted that the phrase does not denote the construction of the\nmaterial universe, and is even incapable of bearing this meaning. It\ndescribes Jesus as the agent of God in bringing about the successive\nstates of our social world; in introducing the preluding revolutions,\nand the final catastrophe of human affairs. If it be asked, _what ages,\nwhat revolutions_, are thus attributed to the instrumentality of Christ?\nthe answer must be sought in the fact, that the author was a Hebrew,\nwriting to Hebrews. He seized on the grand Jewish division of time and\nProvidence into two portions\u2014the period before, and the period after,\nthe coming of the Messiah; and these were the two AGES, frequently\ncalled \u201cthe present world,\u201d and \u201cthe world to come,\u201d which Christ is\nsaid to have constituted. Does any one inquire, in what way our Lord, if\nhe were not at least pre-existent, could administer the arrangements of\nProvidence in the former of these periods, that is, before his own\nmission to mankind? I submit, in answer, a suggestion which seems to me\nessential to the clear understanding of all the Christian records, and\nespecially of those which relate to the years after the ascension. The\nadvent of the Messiah was represented, _during those years, not as\npast_, but as _still future_;[203] they were regarded as the close of\nthe old and earthly epoch, not the commencement of the new and heavenly;\nso that all that Jesus of Nazareth had already done, the mighty changes\nwhich he had set in operation,\u2014were an action upon the _former_ of the\ntwo great ages; nor _would the latter be introduced till he returned\nfrom heaven_; to rule, for a period vast or even indefinite, as the\npersonal vicegerent of God over his faithful children here. This event,\nwhich in our own days Millenarians are expecting soon, and which the\nearly Christians expected sooner, was regarded as the true coming of the\nMessiah\u2014the point of demarcation between the ages\u2014the introduction of\n\u201cthe new heaven and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.\u201d[204]\nMeanwhile the old world was drawing to a close, of which a warning (like\nthat given to Noah before the flood)[205] had been given by the\npreliminary visit, with unmistakable credentials, of him who was to be\nthe Messiah; he had come in the flesh, and retired in the spirit; and\nwas leaving time for the tidings of his appointment and his approach to\nspread, by the voice of witnesses and preachers who published the\npledges of his power. Of those pledges, which marked him out as the\nfuture prince of life and earth, none were so distinguished as his\nresurrection and ascension, by which God had given assurance that he\nwould one day judge or rule the world in righteousness;[206] by which he\nwas declared to be the son of God with power;[207] and on the very day\nof which he became the first-born or the begotten child of God;[208] and\nsat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.[209] Invested with\nhis office, he yet abstained from immediately coming to claim its\nprerogatives; he continued sequestered in the heavens, allowing to the\nworld a time of preparation, a solemn pause before judgment;[210]\nrepressing the impatient moment of the great revolution, and by his\npowerful word, bearing a while and upholding all things as they\nare.[211] If this were really the conception of the apostles, it\nfollows, no doubt, that they prematurely expected the return of their\nLord; but that they did so, is no new assumption; and in adopting it I\nprotect myself by the authority of Mr. Locke, who says in a note on a\npassage of the Epistle to the Romans, \u201cIt seems, by these two verses, as\nif St. Paul looked upon Christ\u2019s coming as not far off; to which there\nare several other occurrent passages in his epistles.\u201d[212]\n\nIf the foregoing interpretation of the introduction to this epistle be\ntrue, it follows that all the power and dignity there ascribed to Christ\nare described as _acquisition after his ascension_; that not till then\nwas he accosted with the title of divinity previously applied to\nSolomon; not till then did he become greater than the angels, or receive\nan anointment of gladness above his fellows; not till then did he\nreceive his heirship, his filiation, his vicegerency of God. Of his\nsupreme Deity scarcely could any more emphatic denial be conceived.[213]\n\n(f.) The following passage is sometimes quoted as affirmative of the\nDeity of Christ: \u201cWe know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us\nan understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him\nthat is true, in (or by) his Son Jesus Christ. _This_ is _the true God_,\nand eternal life.\u201d[214] But it is surely evident that with Calvin,\nNewcome, Dr. Adam Clarke,[215] we must consider the concluding pair of\nepithets as parallel respectively with the two penultimates. \u201cBy him\nthat is true,\u201d says the Apostle, \u201cI mean the true God,\u201d \u201cand this Jesus\nChrist is eternal life.\u201d[216] As to the pretence of over-nice\ngrammarians, that the pronoun \u201c_this_\u201d must refer to Jesus Christ as the\nnearest antecedent, the Apostle John himself dismisses it with this one\nsentence: \u201cMany deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not\nthat Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. _This_ (not Jesus Christ, it is\nto be presumed) is a deceiver and an antichrist.\u201d[217] The antecedent,\nin this case, is not only _remote_, but _plural_.\n\n(g.) I know of only one other set of passages requiring explanation from\na Unitarian; and of these I take the following as an example; giving,\nyou will observe, a translation slightly differing from the authorized\nversion, but to which no competent judge will probably object:\u2014\u201cLet this\nmind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who, being in the form\nof God, never thought his equality with God a thing to be eagerly\nretained; but divested himself of it, and took on him the form of a\nservant, and assumed the likeness of men; and being in the common\ncondition of man, still humbled himself, and became obedient unto death,\naye, and the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted\nhim &c.\u201d[218] Elsewhere Paul briefly expresses this sentiment thus:\nbeing rich, for your sakes he became poor.[219]\n\nNow, in order to appreciate the striking beauty of this passage, it is\nnecessary to remember that the Apostle is writing to _Gentiles_; and to\nenter into his remarkable conception respecting the relation of the\nMessiah to them. This great object of promise was, according to the\noriginal idea of him, a mere national appropriation of the Jews; made\ntheir own by birth and lineage as well as by office. So long as these\npeculiarities belonged to him, _he could not_, without breaking through\nall the restraints of the sacred Mosaic law, stand in any friendly\nconnection with the Gentiles; nor did our Lord, during his mortal life,\never extend his ministry beyond his native land. Moreover, there was\nnothing, Paul conceived, to prevent his realizing at once, had he willed\nit, all the splendid anticipations of the Hebrews; nothing to obstruct\nhis seizing, from the hills of Galilee, or the heights of Jerusalem, the\npromised royal sceptre, and making himself, without delay, the Lord of\nall below; nothing but his holy resolve to be no mere Jewish Messiah,\nand his desire to embrace the Gentiles, too, within the blessings of his\nsway. And how could this be accomplished? _Never_, so long as the\npersonal characteristics of the Israelite attached to him. He determined\nthen to lay these aside, which could be done by death alone. On the\ncross, or in the ascension, he parted from the coil of mortality, in\nwhich were enveloped all the distinctions that made him national rather\nthan human; the lineage, the blood, the locality, the alliance, passed\naway; the immortal spirit alone remained, and departed to the rest of\nGod; and this his soul was not Hebrew, but was human; and so his\nrelations expanded, and the princely Son of David became, through death,\nthe divine Messiah of humanity. Writing then to Gentiles, the Apostle\nreminds them of this; tells them of what attainable splendours Jesus had\ndeprived himself, what rightful glories he had resigned, what anguish he\nhad endured, to what death he had submitted, in order to drop his mortal\npeculiarities which had excluded the nations from the peace of his\ndominion, and to assume that spiritual state to which they might stand\nrelated. It was not his Godhead, not the application of his miracles to\nhis personal advantage, but the dignities of the Prince of Israel, the\nprerogatives and triumphs of God\u2019s vicegerent, of which he emptied\nhimself, and for the Gentiles\u2019 sakes became poor. He whose office made\nhim as God, became, by his pure will, a servant; he who, without the\nslightest strain of his rights, might have assumed an equivalence to\nProvidence on earth, and administered at once the promised theocracy of\nheaven, was in no eager haste to seize the privilege; but, that he might\ncall in those who else had been the exile and the outcast people,\nentered first the shadow of suffering and shame; he who might have been\nexempt from death, took the humiliation of the cross; showing a divine\nand self-forgetful love, which disregards his own rights to pity others\u2019\nprivations; and which gave a resistless force to the exhortation, \u201cLook\nnot every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of\nothers.\u201d[220]\n\n(h.) In direct contrast with this past humiliation of Christ, is the\npresent glory and future dominion with which, in the verses immediately\nfollowing, the Apostle describes him as invested by the rewarding\ncomplacency of God. And here the passage enters the same class with\nthree others,[221] of which the introduction of the Epistle to the\nHebrews is one, but the most remarkable is the following: \u201cChrist, ...\nwho is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature;\nfor by him were all things created, that are in Heaven and that are in\nearth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or\nprincipalities, or powers, all things, were created through him and for\nhim; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he\nis the head of the body, the church; who is the beginning, the\nfirst-born from the dead; that in all things he might have pre-eminence;\nfor it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.\u201d[222]\n\nCalvin himself warns us that \u201cthe circumstances of this place require us\nto understand it as spoken,\u201d not of the original formation of the\nuniverse, but \u201cof the renovation which is included in the benefit of\nRedemption.\u201d[223] Indeed a very superficial acquaintance with the\nphraseology of the Apostle, is sufficient to convince us that the\nlanguage which we have here is _very unlike_ that in which he speaks of\nthe construction of the material system of things and _very like_ that\nin which he describes the regeneration of the world by the faith of\nChrist. Describing the natural creation, he makes no such strange\nselection of objects as thrones, principalities, dominions, powers, with\nunintelligible avoidance of everything palpable: but says plainly, \u201cThe\nliving God, who made Heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that\nare in them.\u201d[224] And characterizing, on the other hand, the effects of\nthe Gospel, he says, \u201cWe are God\u2019s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus\nunto good works;\u201d[225] and \u201cIf any man be in Christ, he is a new\ncreature; the old things have passed away, behold all things have become\nnew.\u201d[226] Nor does the language of this passage appear so violently\nfigurative as commentators have usually supposed. Apply to it the\nApostle\u2019s conception respecting the return of his Lord from Heaven, to\nreign visibly upon earth, over a community holy and immortal, and the\nobscurity will no longer be felt. That advent, introducing the future\nage or world to come, would be attended by a revolution which could be\ncalled no less than a \u201cnew creation.\u201d No term less emphatic would\nadequately describe the superseding of all existing arrangements, the\nextinction of earthly rule, authority, and power;[227] the recal to\nearth of the spirits of the just;[228] the immortalizing of the saints\nwho had not slept;[229] the gathering together the whole family of the\nholy in Heaven or earth;[230] the everlasting destruction of the\nfaithless from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his\npower;[231] the bowing of every knee before the Prince of Life;[232] the\nopening of the kingdom that cannot be moved;[233] and the award of\nrecompense to those who, having suffered, should reign with him.[234]\n\nAlready were the elements of this blessed society drawing themselves\ntogether, some in Heaven, others upon earth; the investiture with\nimmortality had commenced. Christ was the beginning, the first-born from\nthe dead: and the departed saints sharing his heavenly rest, and ready\nfor the Lord to bring with him;[235] the afflicted Church below, in\nearnest expectation of the manifestation of those Sons of God, and\nthough waiting for the redemption of the body, yet risen together with\nChrist to that spiritual mind which is life and peace;[236] all these\nwere kept by the power of God unto the salvation, which was ready to be\nrevealed in the last time.[237] The multitude of the holy was thronging\nin, showing that no scant dominion was forming; but that it pleased the\nFather that, in his vicegerent, all fulness should dwell, and whatever\nis perfect be united. Lifted above the hostile reach of human might and\ndominion, above all mean comparison with earthly names of dignity, he\nsees all things already beneath his feet in the world as it is, and all\nthings prospectively submissive in the world as it is to be.[238] Nor\nwas Jesus, in his retirement above, unoccupied with the glories of his\ncommission, or indifferent to the recompense of his followers; rather is\nhe preparing and allotting to the glorified there, and the toiling here,\nthe privileges and powers of the everlasting age which shall take place\nof the thrones and principalities of this. Over both portions of the\ncommunity of Saints, the seen and the unseen, the Heavenly and the\nearthly, he is the living head, and his spirit filleth all.[239]\n\nThis vision of the Advent, with all the magnificent ideas which gathered\nround it, seems to me to have given rise to the glorious \u201crapture\u201d of\nthis passage; to have thrown in, at first, its light and darkness, and\nwhen applied now to its interpretation, to disclose the dim outline of\nits plan. And though, in form, the anticipation itself was at least\npremature, in spirit it receives, in the providence of the Gospel, one\nprolonged fulfilment; and many of its accompanying conceptions realize\nthemselves perpetually. Though as yet Christ comes not back to us, yet\ndo the faithful go to him, and there, not here, are for ever with the\nLord. Though with no visible sway he dwells on earth, he more and more\nrules it from afar; wins and blesses the hearts of its people, bends\ntheir wills, sends his image to be their conscience; and long has he had\na might and name among us, far above our principalities and powers, and\nmade the cross superior to the crown. And who can deny that he hath\nunited in one the family in heaven and earth, compelled death to fasten\ninnumerable ties of love between the kindred spheres, and trained our\nrejoicing sympathies to see in creation but one society of the good,\nwhether they toil in service and exile here, or have joined the colony\nabove of the emancipated sons of God.\n\nWhat then is the result of our inquiry into the scriptural use of the\nword God? That it is once applied, by way of transference, to Christ, in\na passage of whose honours Solomon was the first proprietor. The views\nof the writer, and the purpose of his letter, might make this secondary\napplication of the Hebrew poem right and useful. But now, how miserably\nbarren must be that religion, how unspeakably poor that appreciation of\nChrist, which thinks to glorify him, by throwing around him the cast-off\ndignities of a Jewish prince! All these convulsive efforts to lift up\nthe rank of Jesus, do but turn men from that greatness in him which is\ntruly divine. And after all they utterly fail\u2014except in turning into\ncaricature the image of perfect holiness, and into a riddle the\nstatement of the grandest truths: for the scanty evidence will not bear\nthe strain that is put upon it. Nothing short of centuries of\nindoctrination could empower so small a testimony to sustain so enormous\na scheme, and enable ecclesiastics, by sleight of words, to metamorphose\nthe simplicity of the Bible into the contradictions of the Athanasian\ncreed.\n\nOur remaining criteria may be very briefly applied.\n\n(3.) Our next demand from a Trinitarian Bible is this; that as there are\nthree persons equally entitled to the name of God, that word must never\nbe _limited_ to One of these, to the exclusion of the other two.\n\nYet do the Scriptures repeatedly restrict this title to the Father so\npositively, that no more emphatic language remains, by which it would be\npossible to exclude all other persons from the Godhead. If the texts we\nshall adduce of this class _do not_ teach the personal unity of God, let\nit be stated what terms _would_ teach it; or whether we are to consider\nit as a doctrine incapable of being revealed at all, however true in\nitself. Meanwhile, I would ask, whether the most skilful logician could\npropose a form of speech, closing the Godhead against all but the\nFather, more absolutely than these passages; \u201cThere is but One God, the\nFATHER.\u201d[240] \u201cFATHER! ... this is life eternal, to know THEE THE ONLY\nTRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.\u201d[241] \u201cThe _true\nworshippers_ shall worship THE FATHER in spirit and in truth; the Father\nseeketh such to worship him; GOD is a spirit, and they that worship him\nmust worship him in spirit and in truth.\u201d[242] \u201cThere is ONE GOD AND\nFATHER OF ALL.\u201d[243]\n\nIf such passages as these do not deny the Deity of all persons but One,\nit must be because the word \u201cFather\u201d is used in them to denote the whole\nTrinity; and if this be so, then this name ceases to be distinctive of\nthe first person in the Godhead; no discriminative title of that person\nremains; it becomes impossible for language to characterize him; and the\nwhole mechanism of speech, by which alone a verbal revelation could\ndisclose the distinctions in the divine nature, vanishes away. You must\neither confess absence of the distinctions themselves, or show the\npresence of distinctive names.\n\n(4.) Our next demand from a Trinitarian Bible would be this; that when\nthe _persons_ are named, by their distinctive Divine titles, their\nequality will be recognized, nor any one of them be represented as\nsubordinate to another.\n\nIf an Athanasian received a divine commission to prepare a Gospel,\u2014a\nstatement of the essentials of Christianity,\u2014for the use of some\nunevangelized nation, he would not, we may presume, habitually represent\nthe Son, in his very highest offices, as inferior to the Father, as\ndestitute of independent power, as without underived knowledge, and\npossessed only of a secondary and awarded glory. At all events, these\nrepresentations would not be made without instant explanation; and the\nwriter would accuse himself of rashly periling the mysteries of God, if\nhe committed himself to such statements without guard or qualification,\nin broad unlimited propositions. Yet these are precisely the phenomena\nof Scripture. It is perpetually maintained by Trinitarians, that the\nmiracles of Christ were acts of power, inexplicable except by proper\nDeity, united with his humanity; and that his superhuman wisdom was an\nexpression of that Divine Nature which blended itself with his mortal\nconstitution. If so, his miracles were wrought and his teachings\ndictated by that element of his personality which was God,\u2014that is, by\nGOD THE SON;[244] but this, our Lord unequivocally denies; \u201cThe Son can\ndo nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do;\u201d \u201cI can of mine\nown self do nothing.\u201d[245] \u201cThe words which I speak unto you, I speak\nnot of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the\nworks;\u201d[246] \u201cAs the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the\nFather;\u201d[247] \u201cThe works which the Father hath given me to\nperform.\u201d[248] These passages declare, with all the precision of which\nlanguage admits, that the wisdom and the might which dwelt in Christ,\nwere not those of the Son, but those of the Father; the incarnate God\nhad no concern with them, for they are ascribed exclusively to him who\nnever became incarnate. Indeed we ask, and we ask in vain, for any one\ndivine act or inspiration ascribed by our Lord to this humanized Deity\nwith whom his mortal nature was united: his teachings are one prolonged\ndeclaration that the divinity that dwelleth within him was THE FATHER.\nIf he felt within him a co-equal Godhead, how could he make the\nunqualified affirmation, \u201cMy Father is greater than all?\u201d[249] Or can a\nmore specific disclaimer of Omniscience be framed than this; \u201cOf that\nday and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels who are in Heaven,\nNEITHER THE SON, but the Father?\u201d[250] Dr. Adam Clarke, unable to resist\nthis overpowering text, expresses his suspicion that it is not\naltogether genuine, and that the words, \u201cneither the Son,\u201d should be\nexpunged. It would appear that the temptations to \u201cmutilation\u201d are felt\nby other parties than the Editors of the Improved Version. If it be\nsaid, that in the passages which have been cited, the subordination\nalleged of Christ, refers to his human nature, and his mediatorial\noffice, then it follows that his highest title may become the name of\nwhat is called his lowest capacity; and if this be so, no medium of\nverbal proof remains by which to establish any higher nature.[251] But\ncan any supposition be more monstrous than this; that whenever our Lord\nused the familiar language of personality, and discoursed with the\npeasants of Galilee, and the populace of Jerusalem, he was perpetually\nperforming a metaphysical resolution of himself into natures,\ncharacters, and offices, and putting forth, now a phrase from the\ndivine, now another from the human capacity; here a sentence from the\npre-existent, and there another from the mediatorial compartment of his\nindividuality? And the absurdity is crowned, when writings, crowded thus\nwith mental reservations, are handed over to us as a _Revelation_.\n\n(5.) Our last expectation from a Trinitarian Bible is this; that, since\nwith the incarnation began and ended the peculiar office of Christ\u2019s\nhumanity, he will not be spoken of as man, in relation to the events\nbefore or after this period.\n\nThe glory which our Lord is thought to have possessed before his\nentrance into this world, was the essential, underived, inalienable\nglory, which belonged to his Divinity; nor was his highest nature yet\nblended with the suffering elements, or capable of being described by\nthe inferior titles, of his mediatorial office, or his mortal existence.\nYet is it under the designation of SON OF MAN that he is described,\naccording to the prevalent interpretation, as pre-existent; it is the\nSON OF MAN who \u201cwas before,\u201d in that state, whither he was to \u201cascend up\nagain;\u201d[252] it was, \u201cHe that came down from Heaven,\u2014even the SON OF\nMAN, who is in Heaven.\u201d[253] Whatever doubt there may be respecting the\nprecise import of this title, it certainly cannot be thought to denote\nthe separate divine nature of Christ, as it existed before the\nincarnation. In perfect consistency with this language, it appears that\nfor the restoration of this original glory, Jesus declares himself\nwholly dependent on the Father; \u201cAnd now, O Father, glorify me with\nthine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world\nwas.\u201d[254] Here, if there be truth in the Trinitarian hypothesis, it was\nthe man that prayed for a re-bestowal of that which the man never\npossessed, and which the God never lost or could receive from another.\nIt must be admitted that no expression of dependence can be more solemn\nand absolute, than that which pours itself forth in prayer; and if our\nLord was able to resume his former state, by the energy of his own\nOmnipotence, this act of supplication loses all semblance of sincerity.\nYet, if here his dependence on the Father is acknowledged to be implied,\nwith what consistency can another passage, relating also to his\ndeparture from earth to Heaven, be seized upon to prove that he _raised\nhimself_ from the dead, by that _inextinguishable_ and glorious power,\nwhich, nevertheless, he entreats the Father to restore? If his proper\nDeity brought back to life the crucified humanity, it was a mockery for\nhis manhood to concern itself in prayer, for the restoration of the\nproper Deity. That his resurrection is not ascribed to inherent power of\nhis own, is evident, not merely from the habitual language of the\npreachers of this great miracle, who declare without reserve that \u201cthis\nJesus hath _God raised up_;\u201d[255] nor from the words of Paul, who calls\nhimself \u201can Apostle by Jesus Christ and _God the Father, who raised him\nfrom the dead_;\u201d[256] but even from the very text (when read without\ncurtailment) which is adduced to prove the contrary; \u201cNo man taketh it\n(my life) from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it\ndown, and I have power to take it again; _this commandment have I\nreceived of my Father_.\u201d[257] \u201cThe Messiah is privileged to be immortal;\nand my seeming fall by hostile hands will neither disprove my claim to\nthe office, nor deprive it of this peculiar feature; my mission gives me\na right to live, which will not be forfeited, though I exercise the\nright to die. Let no one think that my life is forced from me without\nconsent of my own will; you can no more take it from me, than you can\nrestore it to me. It is by the arrangement of the Father, whose will is\nalso mine, that I take my Messianic immortality, not at once, but\nthrough a process of suffering and death.\u201d\n\nIf we pass forward beyond the mortal life, to the final exaltation of\nChrist, he is still presented to us undivested of his humanity. Listen\nto the modern preachers of Orthodoxy, and they will tell you that the\njudicial capacity of the Saviour could be filled by Deity alone; that to\npass judgment on an assembled world, to read the secrets of all hearts,\nand allot their final doom, are offices demanding nothing less than\nOmniscience, Omnipotence, Independence.[258] But from the Apostle Paul\nwe learn, that \u201cGod will judge the world in righteousness by that MAN\nwhom he hath ordained;\u201d[259] and our Lord himself says, \u201cI can of mine\nown self do nothing; as I hear I judge;\u201d[260] \u201cThe Father hath given him\nauthority to execute judgment also, BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF MAN.\u201d[261]\nNor is it the presumption of heresy alone that esteems it possible for\nGod to confer on a human being the requisites for so august an office;\nfor it is Archbishop Tillotson who says, \u201cWe may promise to ourselves a\nfair and equal trial at the judgment of the Great Day, because we shall\nthen be judged by a man like ourselves. Our Saviour and judge himself\nhath told us, that for this reason _God hath committed all judgment to\nthe Son, because he is the Son of man_. And this in human judgments is\naccounted a great privilege, to be judged by those who are of the same\nrank and condition with ourselves, and who are likely to understand\nbest, and most carefully to examine and consider all our circumstances,\nand to render our case as if it were their own. So equitably doth God\ndeal with us, that we shall be acquitted or condemned by such a judge\nas, according to human measures, we ourselves should have chosen, by one\nin our own nature, who was made in all things like unto us, that only\nexcepted which would have rendered him incapable of being our judge,\nbecause it would have made him a criminal like ourselves. And therefore\nthe Apostle offers this as a firm ground of assurance to us that God\nwill judge the world in righteousness, because this judgment shall be\nadministered by a man like ourselves; He hath, saith he, appointed a day\nwherein he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he\nhath ordained,\u201d &c.[262]\n\nIt is, then, in his humanity, that this high prerogative belongs to\nJesus. Yet are our opponents right in their assertion that, if there be\nany office attributed to him, requiring divine perfection, it is this;\nno higher exaltation remains, no superior glory is referred to him from\nwhich, with any better reason, we can conclude his equality with the\nFather. Human in this, he is human in all things.\n\nNot one then of the proper characteristics of a Trinitarian Bible can be\nfound in the Scriptures; and it is vain for the Athanasian system to\nclaim their support. This conclusion can be subverted only in two ways;\neither by showing, that the criteria which I have laid down, for\nascertaining the theology of the sacred writings, are unreasonable and\nincorrect; or by showing, that the application of them does not yield\nany of the results which I have stated. I say _any_ of the results; for\nif _all the phenomena_ which I have assumed as tests, would be necessary\nto give a Trinitarian complexion to the Scriptures, the absence of even\na portion of them would decide the controversy against our opponents\u2019\nscheme, whatever difficulties might remain to embarrass our own. If the\n_list of criteria_ be thought materially wrong, let it be shown where\nand why; let it be explained how there can be a _verbal revelation_ of\n\u201cdistinctions,\u201d without any distinctive names; how, without such\ndiscriminative words, we are to know, _unless we assume the whole\ndoctrine to be proved_, when the human nature of Christ speaks, or is\nspoken of, when the divine; how the poor, who first had the gospel\npreached to them, ascertained this with the requisite degree of nicety;\nand above all, we would request to be furnished with a better set of\ncriteria; and to be distinctly informed, _what scriptural phenomena\nwould be required, in order to disprove the Trinitarian scheme_. If, on\nthe other hand, I have erred in the _application_ of my tests, let it be\nshown how far into the substance of the argument the error extends. I\ncannot hope that the exposition which I have given will be found free\nfrom mistake and inaccuracy; and let these be exposed with such severity\nas they may deserve. Only let it be remembered, that the real question\nis not about the skill of the advocate, but respecting the truth of the\nscheme; and when all the errors of the one have been cleared away, let\nit be still asked, in what condition stands the evidence of the other. I\nhave purposely taken my principal station on the least favourable ground\nof the Unitarian argument; I have exhausted the strongest passages\nadduced against our theology: and I have done this the more readily,\nbecause these portions of scripture appear to possess an excellence and\nbeauty, which are obscured by their unresisted controversial repetition,\nand marred by the lacerations of Orthodoxy.\n\nAnd may we not, without immodesty, ask any candid Trinitarian, are these\npassages so very plain and easy, are they so numerous, are our\ninterpretations so irrational and ignorant, as to justify the imputation\nof deceit, of blasphemy, of wilful mutilation of the word of God, which\nwe are condemned perpetually to hear? As to that excellent man, who on\nWednesday last, treated in this way our most cherished convictions, and\nour most innocent actions, I have said nothing in reply to his\naccusations; for I well know them to have failed in benevolence, only\nfrom excess of mistaken piety. Had he a little more power of\nimagination, to put himself into the feelings and ideas of others,\ndoubtless he would understand both his Bible and his fellow-disciples\nbetter than he does. Meanwhile, I would not stir, with the breath of\ndisrespect, one of his grey hairs; or by any severity of expostulation\ndisturb the peace of an old age, so affectionate and good as his. He and\nwe must ere long pass to a world, where the film will fall from the eye\nof error, and we shall know, even as we are known.[263]\n\nIn conclusion, then, I revert with freshened persuasion, to the\nstatement with which I commenced. Jesus Christ of Nazareth, God hath\npresented to us simply in his inspired humanity. Him we accept, not\nindeed as very God, but as the true image of God, commissioned to show\nwhat no written doctrinal record could declare, the entire moral\nperfections of Deity. We accept,\u2014not indeed his body, not the struggles\nof his sensitive nature, not the travail of his soul, but his purity,\nhis tenderness, his absolute devotion to the great idea of right, his\npatient and compassionate warfare against misery and guilt, as the most\ndistinct and beautiful expression of the Divine mind. The peculiar\noffice of Christ is to supply a new _moral_ image of Providence; and\neverything therefore except the _moral_ complexion of his mind, we leave\nbehind as human and historical merely, and apply to no religious use. I\nhave already stated in what way nature and the gospel combine to bring\nbefore us the great object of our trust and worship. The universe gives\nus the scale of God, and Christ his Spirit. We climb to the Infinitude\nof his nature by the awful pathway of the stars, where whole forests of\nworlds silently quiver here and there, like a small leaf of light. We\ndive into his Eternity, through the ocean waves of Time, that roll and\nsolemnly break on the imagination, as we trace the wrecks of departed\nthings upon our present globe. The scope of his Intellect, and the\nmajesty of his Rule, are seen in the tranquil order and everlasting\nsilence that reign through the fields of his volition. And the Spirit\nthat animates the whole is like that of the Prophet of Nazareth; the\nthoughts that fly upon the swift light throughout creation, charged with\nfates unnumbered, are like the healing mercies of One that passed no\nsorrow by. The government of this world, its mysterious allotments of\ngood and ill, its successions of birth and death, its hopes of progress\nand of peace, each life of individual or nation, is under the\nadministration of One, of whose rectitude and benevolence, whose\nsympathy with all the holiest aspirations of our virtue and our love,\nChrist is the appointed emblem. A faith that spreads around and within\nthe mind a Deity thus sublime and holy, feeds the light of every pure\naffection, and presses with Omnipotent power on the conscience; and our\nonly prayer is, that we may walk as children of such light.\n\n ---------------------\n\n NOTES.\n\n ---------------------\n\n A.\n\n _On Impossibility, Physical and Logical._\n\nIn order to break the force of all reasonings respecting the inherent\nincredibility of the Trinitarian doctrine, the principle has been\nfrequently advanced, that a statement which would be contradictory, if\nmade respecting an object _within reach_ of our knowledge, cannot be\naffirmed to be so, if applied to an object _beyond_ our knowledge; since\nin the one case _we have_, in the other _we have not_, some experience\nto guide our judgment, and serve as a criterion of truth. Thus, it is\nsaid, to affirm of man, that his nature comprises more than one\npersonality, might, without presumption, be pronounced a contradiction;\nbecause we are familiar with his constitution; but knowing nothing of\nthe mode of God\u2019s existence, except what he is pleased to reveal, we\ncannot prove the same statement to be contradictory, when made\nrespecting _his_ essence.\n\nThis rule, like all the Trinitarian reasonings on this subject, derives\nits plausibility from an ambiguous use of terms. It has _one sense_ in\nwhich it is true, but inapplicable to this subject; and _another_, in\nwhich it is applicable, but false. The rule is sound or unsound,\naccording to the meaning which we assign to the word _contradiction_; a\nword which, in other arguments besides this, has made dupes of men\u2019s\nunderstandings. There are obviously two kinds of contradiction:\u2014one\nrelating to _questions of fact_, as when we say, it is contradictory to\nexperience that ice should continue solid in the fire; the other,\nrelating to questions of mere _thought_, as when we say, it is\ncontradictory to affirm that force is inert, or that the diameters of a\ncircle are unequal. The former of these suggests something _at variance\nwith the established order of causes and effects_, and constitutes _a\nnatural or physical_ impossibility; the latter suggests a _combination\nof irreconcileable ideas_, constituting a _logical or metaphysical\nimpossibility_, or more properly, a _self_-contradiction.\n\nIt is almost self-evident that, in order to pronounce upon a physical\nimpossibility, we must possess _experience,_ and have a knowledge of the\nproperties of objects and successions of events external to us; and that\nto pronounce on a metaphysical impossibility, we require only to have\nthe ideas to which it refers; of the coincidence or incompatibility of\nwhich with each other, our own _consciousness_ is the sole judge. When I\ndeny that ice will remain frozen in the fire, I do so after frequent\nobservation of the effect of heat in reducing bodies, especially water,\nfrom the solid to the liquid form; and in reliance on the intuitive\nexpectation which all men entertain, of like results from like causes.\nExperience is the only justification of this denial; and _\u00e0 priori_, no\nbelief could be held on the subject; a person introduced for the first\ntime to a piece of ice and to fire, could form no conjecture about the\nchanges which would follow on their juxtaposition. And as our judgment\nin such cases has its origin, so does it find its limits, in experience;\nand should it be affirmed that, in a distant planet, ice did not melt on\nthe application of fire, the right of denial would not extend to this\nstatement, because, our knowledge does not extend to the world to which\nthe phenomenon is referred. The natural state of mind, on hearing such\nan announcement, might be expressed as follows; \u201cIf what you affirm be\ntrue, either some _new cause_ must be called into operation,\ncounteracting the result which else would follow; or, some of the causes\nexisting here are withheld: the sequence, I am compelled to believe,\nwould be the same, unless the antecedents were _somehow_ different. Were\nthe fact even a miracle, this would still be true; for the introduction\nof a new or different divine volition would be in itself a change in the\nprevious causes. But I am not authorized to pronounce the alleged fact\nimpossible; its variance from all the analogies of experience, justifies\nme in demanding extraordinary evidence in its favour; but I do not say\nthat, in the infinite receptacle of causes unknown to the human\nunderstanding, there cannot exist any from which such an effect might\narise.\u201d\n\nThere is then, I conceive, _no physical_ impossibility, which might not\nbe rendered credible by adequate evidence; there is nothing, in the\nconstitution of our minds, to forbid its reception under certain\nconditions of proof sufficiently cogent. It simply violates an\nexpectation which, though necessary and intuitive _before_ the fact, is\nnot incapable of correction _by_ the fact; it presents two successive\nphenomena, dissimilar instead of similar; and between two occurrences,\nallocated on different points of time, however much analogy may fail,\nthere can be no proper _contradiction_. The improbability that both\nshould be true, may attain a force _almost_, but never altogether\ninfinite; a force, therefore, surmountable by a greater. The thoughts\ncan at least entertain _the conception_ of them both; nor is it more\ndifficult to form the mental image of a piece of ice _unmelted_ on the\nfire, than of the same substance melting away.\n\nIt is quite otherwise with a metaphysical impossibility or proper\ncontradiction. The variance is, in this case, not between _successive\nphenomena_, but between _synchronous ideas_. We deny that the diameters\nof a circle are unequal, without experience, without measurement, and\njust as confidently respecting a circle in the remotest space, as\nrespecting one before our eyes. As soon as we have the ideas of\n\u201ccircle,\u201d \u201cdiameter,\u201d \u201cequality,\u201d this judgment necessarily follows. Our\nown consciousness makes us aware of the incompatibility between the idea\nexpressed by the word \u201ccircle,\u201d and that expressed by the phrase\n\u201cunequal diameters;\u201d the former word being simply _the name of a curve\nhaving equal diameters_. The variance, in this case, is not between two\nexternal occurrences, but between two notions within our own minds; and\nsimply _to have the notions_ is to _perceive their disagreement_. It\nwould be vain to urge upon us that, possibly, in regions of knowledge\nbeyond our reach, circles with unequal diameters might exist: we should\nreply, that the words employed were merely the symbols of ideas in our\nconsciousness, between which we _felt_ agreement to be out of the\nquestion; that so long as the words meant what they now mean, this must\ncontinue to be the case; and that if there were any one, to whom the\nsame sound of speech suggested a truth instead of a falsehood, this\nwould only show, that the terms _did not stand for the same things_ with\nhim as with us. It will be observed that, in this case, we cannot even\nattain _any conception_ of the thing affirmed; no mental image can be\nformed of a circle with unequal diameters; make the diameters unequal,\nand it is a circle no more.\n\nA further analysis might, I believe, reduce more nearly under the same\nclass a physical and a metaphysical impossibility; and might show that\nsome of the language in which I have endeavoured to contrast them, is\nnot strictly correct. But the main difference, which the present\nargument requires, (_viz._, that no experience can reconcile the terms\nof a logical contradiction,) would only be brought out more clearly than\never. I am aware, for instance, that the distinction which I have drawn\nbetween my two examples,\u2014that the latter deals with _ideas within us_,\nthe former with facts without us,\u2014does not penetrate to the roots of the\nquestion; that _external phenomena_ are nothing to us, till they become\n_internal_; nothing, except through the perceptions and notions we form\nof them; and that the variance therefore, even in the case of a physical\nimpossibility, must lie between our own ideas. I may accordingly be\nreminded, that the notion of \u201cmelting with fire\u201d is as essentially a\npart of our idea of \u201cice,\u201d as the notion of \u201cequal diameters\u201d is of our\nidea of a \u201ccircle;\u201d so that the final appeal might, with as much reason,\nbe made to our own consciousness in the one case as in the other. Might\nit not be said, \u201cso long as the word ice retains its meaning, the\nproposition in question is a _self-contradiction_; for that word\nsignifies a certain substance that _will_ melt on the application of\nheat?\u201d This is true; and resolves the distinction which I have\nendeavoured to explain into this form; the word \u201cice\u201d may be kept open\nto modifications of meaning, the word \u201ccircle\u201d cannot. And the reason is\nobvious. The idea of the material substance is a highly complex idea,\ncomprising the notion of many _independent_ properties, introduced to us\nthrough several of our senses: such as solidity, crystalline form,\ntransparency, coldness, smoothness, whiteness, &c.; the quality of\nfusion by heat is only _one among many_ of the ingredients composing the\nconception; and should this even be found to be accidental, and be\nwithdrawn, the idea would still retain so vast a majority of its\nelements, that its identity would not be lost, nor its name undergo\ndismissal. But the notion of the circle is perfectly simple; being\n_wholly made up_ of the idea of equal diameters, and of other properties\n_dependent_ on this; so that if this be removed, the whole conception\ndisappears, and nothing remains to be denoted by the word. Hence, a\nphysical contradiction proposes to exclude from our notion of an object\nor event one out of many of its constituents,\u2014an alteration perfectly\nakin to that which further experience itself often makes; a metaphysical\ncontradiction denies of a term _all_, or the _essential part_, of the\nideas attached to it. The materials for some sort of conception remain\nin the one case, vanish in the other.\n\nNow the terms employed in the statement of the doctrine of the Trinity\nare _abstract_ words; \u201cperson,\u201d \u201csubstance,\u201d \u201cbeing:\u201d and the numerical\nwords \u201cOne\u201d and \u201cThree,\u201d are all names for very simple ideas; not indeed\n(except the two last) having the precision of quantitative and\nmathematical terms; but having none of that complexity which would allow\nthem to _lose any meaning, and yet keep any_; to _change their sense\nwithout forfeiting their identity_. The ideas which we have of these\nwords are as much within ourselves, and as capable of comparison by our\nown consciousness, as the ideas belonging to the words _angle_ and\n_triangle_; and when, on hearing the assertion that there are three\npersons in one mind or being, I proceed to compare them, I find the word\n\u201cperson\u201d so far synonymous with the word \u201cmind\u201d or \u201cbeing,\u201d that the\nself-contradiction would not be greater, were it affirmed that there are\nthree angles in one \u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u2014the mere form of speech being varied to hide\nthe absurdity from eye and ear. To say that our ideas of the words are\nwrong, is vain; for the words were invented on purpose to denote these\nideas: and if they are used to denote other ideas, which _we have not_,\nthey are vacant sounds. To assert that higher beings perceive this\nproposition to be true, really amounts to this; that higher beings speak\nEnglish, (or at all events not Hebrew, or Hellenistic Greek,) but have\nrecast the meaning of these terms; and to say that we shall hereafter\nfind them to be true, is to say that our vocabulary will undergo a\nrevolution; and words used now to express one set of ideas, will\nhereafter express some other. Meanwhile, to our present minds all these\nfuture notions are nonentities; and using the words in question in the\nonly sense they have, they declare a plain logical contradiction. Hence,\nevery attempt to give consistency to the statement of the Trinity, has\nbroken out into a heresy; and the Indwelling and the Swedenborgian\nschemes, the model Trinity of Wallis and Whately, the tritheistic\ndoctrine of Dr. W. Sherlock, are so many results of the rash propensity\nto seek for clear ideas in a form of unintelligible or contradictory\nspeech. \u03a3\u03b1\u03c6\u1f74\u03c2 \u1f14\u03bb\u03b5\u03b3\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n ---------------------\n\n B.\n\n _On the Hebrew Plural Elohim._\n\nThe perseverance with which this argument from the Hebrew plural is\nrepeated, only proves the extent to which learning may be degraded into\nthe service of a system. The use of a noun, plural in form, but singular\nin sense, and the subject of a singular verb, to denote the dignity of\nthe person named by the noun, is known to be an idiom common to all the\nSemitic languages. Every one who can read a Hebrew Bible is aware that\nthis peculiarity is not confined to the name of God; and that it occurs\nin many passages, which render absurd the inference deduced from it. For\ninstance, from Ezek. xxix. 3, it would follow that there is a plurality\nof natures or \u201cdistinctions\u201d in the crocodile, the name of which is\nthere found in the plural, with a singular adjective and singular\nverb;\u2014\u05d4\u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd \u05d4\u05d2\u05d3\u05d5\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05d1\u05e5 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d5\u05da \u05d9\u05d0\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5, \u201cThe great crocodile that lieth in\nthe midst of his rivers.\u201d So in Gen. xxiv. 51, the plural form \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd,\nLord, so constantly used of a human individual, is applied to Abraham:\n\u05d5\u05ea\u05d7\u05d9 \u05d0\u05e9\u05d4 \u05dc\u05d1\u05d5 \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05da, \u201cAnd she shall be a wife to the son of thy\n_masters_,\u201d _i.e._, thy _master_ Abraham. It is unnecessary to multiply\ninstances, which any Hebrew Concordance will supply in abundance. I\nsubjoin one or two additional authorities from eminent Hebraists, whose\ntheological impartiality is above suspicion.\n\nSchroeder says, \u201cHebr\u00e6i sermonis proprietas, qu\u00e2 Pluralis, tam\nmasculinus, quam femininus, usurpari potest de _un\u00e2 re_, qu\u00e6 in suo\ngenere magna est et quodammodo excellens; ut \u05d9\u05de\u05d9\u05dd, _maria_, pro _mari\nmagno_; \u05ea\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, _dracones_, pro _dracone pr\u00e6grandi_; \u05d0\u05d3\u05d5\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd, _domini_, pro\n_domino magno et potente_; \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd, _numina_, pro _numine admodum\ncolendo_; \u05e7\u05d3\u05e9\u05c1\u05d9\u05dd, _sancti_, pro _deo sanctissimo_; \u05d1\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea, _besti\u00e6_, pro\n_besti\u00e2 grandi_, qualis est _elephas_; \u05de\u05db\u05d5\u05ea _plag\u00e6_, pro _plag\u00e2 gravi_;\n\u05e0\u05d4\u05e8\u05d5\u05ea\u05bc, _flumina_, pro _flumine magno_.\u201d N. G. Schroederi Institutiones\nad fundamm. ling. Hebr. Reg. 100. not. i.\n\nSimonis. \u201cPlur. adhibetur de Deo vero; ad insinuandam, ut multis visum\nest, personarum divinarum pluralitatem; quod etiam alii, maxime Jud\u00e6i\nrect\u00e8 negant: quoniam vel ibi in plurali ponitur, ubi ex mente\nTheologorum de un\u00e2 modo triadis sacr\u00e6 person\u00e2 sermo est, velut Ps. xlv.\n7, adeoque gentium unus aliquis deus pluraliter \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd dicitur, ut\nAstarte 1 Reg. xi. 33; Baal muscarum et quidem is, qui Ekron\u00e6 colebatur\n2, Reg. i. 2, 3. Denique sanctam triadem si \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd significasset, multo\nnotior usuque adeo lingu\u00e6 quotidiano tritior sub prisco f\u0153dere h\u00e6c\ndoctrina fuisset, quam sub novo. Ex nostr\u00e2 sententi\u00e2 hic plur. indicio\nest, linguam Hebr\u00e6am sub Polytheismo adolevisse; eo vero profligato\nplur. hic in sensum abiit majestatis et dignitatis.\u201d Eichhorn\u2019s Joh.\nSimonis\u2019 Lexicon Hebr. in verb. \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4, p. 120.\n\nBuxtorf. \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd, plurale pro singulari: Lex Chaldaicum, Talmudicum et\nRabbinicum; in verb.\n\nGesenius. \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd _pluralis excellenti\u00e6_: Gott, von der Einheit; wie\n\u05d1\u05e2\u05dc\u05d9\u05dd, \u05d0\u05d3\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd. Hebr. und Chald. Handw\u00f6rterbuch: in verb.\n\nEven Lewis Capel, in his defence of this verbal indication of the\nTrinity, admits the absurdity of using the argument with\nAnti-trinitarians: \u201cSiquis ergo vellet adversus Jud\u00e6os, Samosatenianos,\naliosque sanctissim\u00e6 Trinitatis pr\u00e6fractos hostes, urgere hoc\nargumentum, eoque uno et nudo uti, frustra omnino esset: ni prius\ndemonstraret falsam esse quam illi causantur phraseos istius rationem,\nevinceretque eam in voce ist\u00e2 \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd locum habere non posse: _quod forte\nnon usque adeo facile demonstrari posset_. Atque eatenus tant\u00f9m jure\npossunt suggillari Theologi, si argumento illo nudo, et solo, non ali\u00e2\nratione fulto, utantur ad Jud\u00e6os et Samosatenianos coarguendos et\nconvincendos; non vero si eo utantur ad piorum fidem jam ante aliunde\nstabilitam, porro augendam atque fovendam.\u201d Lud. Cappelli Critica Sacra.\nDe nom. \u05d0\u05dc\u05d4\u05d9\u05dd Diatriba. c. vii. Ed. 1650, p. 676.\n\nMay we ask of our learned opponents, _how long_ the mysterious contents\nof this plural have been ascertained? Who was the discoverer, forgotten\nnow by the ingratitude of Learning, but doubtless living still in the\nmore faithful memory of Orthodoxy? And why those of the Christian\nFathers, who devoted themselves to Hebrew literature, were not permitted\nto discern the Trinitarianism of the Israelitish syntax? They had not\nusually so dull an eye for verbal wonders.\n\nThe celebrated Brahmin, Rammohun Roy, whose knowledge of oriental\nlanguages can be as little disputed, I presume, as the singular\ngreatness and simplicity of his mind, says: \u201cIt could scarcely be\nbelieved, if the fact were not too notorious, that such eminent scholars\n... could be liable to such a mistake, as to rely on this verse (Gen. i.\n26. And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness,) as\na ground of argument in support of the Trinity. It shows how easily\nprejudice, in favour of an already acquired opinion, gets the better of\nlearning.\u201d And he proceeds to argue on \u201cthe idiom of the Hebrew, Arabic,\nand of almost all Asiatic languages, in which the plural number is often\nused for the singular to express the respect due to the person denoted\nby the noun.\u201d Rammohun Roy was, I believe, the first to call attention\nto the fact, obvious to any one who will read a few pages of the Koran,\nthat Mohammed, whose belief in the strict personal Unity of the Divine\nNature gave the leading feature to his religion, constantly represents\nGod as speaking in these plural forms. I extract a few instances from\nSale\u2019s Koran. Lond. 1734:\n\n\u201cGod said; when _we_ said unto the angels, worship Adam,\u201d &c.\n\n\u201cGod said; and _we_ said, O Adam, dwell thou,\u201d &c.\u2014Ch. ii. p. 31.\n\n\u201c_We_ formerly created man of a finer sort of clay; ... and _we_ have\ncreated over you seven heavens; and _we_ are not negligent of what _we_\nhave created: and _we_ send down rain from heaven by measure; and _we_\ncause it to remain on the earth,\u201d &c. \u201cAnd _we_ revealed _our_ orders\nunto him, saying; ... speak not unto _me_ in behalf of those who have\nbeen unjust.\u201d \u201cGod will say, did ye think that _we_ had created you in\nsport,\u201d &c.\u2014Ch. xxiv. pp. 281, 282, 287.\n\nIn the very passages in which Mohammed condemns the doctrine of the\nTrinity, the same form abounds: \u201c_We_ have prepared for such of them as\nare unbelievers a painful punishment.\u201d \u201c_We_ have revealed our will unto\nthee.\u201d \u201c_We_ have given thee the Koran, as _we_ gave the psalms to\nDavid.\u201d \u201cO ye who have received the Scriptures, exceed not the just\nbounds in your religion; neither say of God any other than the truth.\nVerily Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the apostle of God, and his\nWord, which he conveyed into Mary, and a spirit proceeding from him.\nBelieve therefore in God and his apostles, and say not, There are three\nGods: forbear this; it will be better for you. God is but one God. Far\nbe it from him that he should have a Son! Unto him belongeth whatsoever\nis in heaven and on earth.\u201d\u2014Ch. iv. pp. 80, 81.\n\n ---------------------\n\n C.\n\n _On the Prophecy of an \u201cImmanuel.\u201d_\n\nFor the Interpretation which identifies \u201cthe Virgin\u201d with the city of\nJerusalem, I am indebted to Rammohun Roy, who has justified it by\nreasons which appear to me satisfactory. See his Second Appeal to the\nChristian Public. Appendix II. Calcutta, 1821, p. 128 seqq. The use of\nthe definite article with the word (\u05d4\u05e2\u05dc\u05de\u05d4) points out _the_ Virgin as\nsome _known object_, who would be recognized by King Ahaz, without\nfurther description. It will hardly be maintained that this prince was\nso familiar with evangelical futurities, as to understand the phrase of\nMary of Nazareth. Nor does it seem at all likely that either the\nprophet\u2019s wife, or any other person not previously the subject of\ndiscourse, should be thus obscurely and abruptly described. But if \u201cthe\nVirgin\u201d was a well-understood mode of speaking of Jerusalem, Ahaz would\nbe at no loss to interpret the allusion. And that this metaphor was one\nof the common-places of Hebrew speech, in the time of the prophets,\nmight be shown from every part of their writings. \u201cThou shalt be built,\n_O virgin of Israel_; thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and\nshalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.\u201d[264] \u201cThen shall\n_the_ _Virgin_ rejoice in the dance.\u201d[265] \u201cThe Lord hath trodden the\nVirgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a wine-press.\u201d[266] And Isaiah\nhimself uses this expression respecting a foreign city: \u201cThou shalt no\nmore rejoice, O thou oppressed Virgin, daughter of Sidon.\u201d[267] And\nexpressing to the invader Sennacherib, the contempt which God authorized\nJerusalem to entertain for his threats, he says, \u201c_The Virgin_, the\ndaughter of Zion, hath despised thee and laughed thee to scorn.\u201d[268]\n\nIt should he remembered, however, that the establishment of this\ninterpretation is by no means necessary to the proof of invalidity in\nthe Trinitarian application of the prophecy. The reasons which I have\nadduced, together with the use in a neighbouring passage, of the phrase\n\u201cover the breadth of _thy land_, O Immanuel,\u201d[269] appear to me to point\nout some _prince_ as the Virgin\u2019s Son. But many eminent interpreters\nconsider him as only one of the Prophet\u2019s own children, \u201cwhom the Lord\nhad given him, for signs and for wonders in Israel.\u201d[270] And the first\nfour verses of the next chapter certainly speak of Isaiah\u2019s son in a\nmanner so strikingly similar, as to give a strong support to this\ninterpretation. But whatever obscurity there may be in the passage, the\none clear certainty in it is this: that it does _not_ refer to any\nperson to be born seven or eight hundred years after the delivery of the\nprediction. And it is surely unworthy of any educated Theologian,\npossessing a full knowledge of the embarrassments attending the\nTrinitarian appeal to such texts, still to reiterate that appeal,\nwithout any specification of the mode in which he proposes to sustain\nit. Is it maintained that Jesus of Nazareth was the primary object of\nthe prophecy? Or will any one be found deliberately to defend the\nhypothesis of a double sense? Or must we fear, that a lax and\nunscrupulous use is often made of allusions which sound well in the\npopular ear, without any distinct estimate of their real argumentative\nvalue?\n\nIt is no doubt convenient to cut the knot of every difficulty by the\nappeal to inspiration; to say, _e.g._, that Matthew applies the word\nEmmanuel to Christ, and with a correctness which his infallibility\nforbids us to impeach. But are our opponents prepared to abide by this\nrule, to prove its truth, to apply it, without qualification, to the New\nTestament citations from the Hebrew Scriptures? Will they, for instance,\nfind and expound, for the benefit of the church, the prophecy stated by\nMatthew to have been fulfilled in Jesus, \u201cHe shall be called a\nNazarene?\u201d[271] The words are declared to have been \u201cspoken by the\nprophets.\u201d But they are not discoverable in any of the canonical\nprophecies: so that _either_ the Evangelist took them from some inspired\nwork now lost,\u2014in which case the canon is imperfect, and Christianity is\ndeprived of the benefit of certain predictions intended for its support;\n_or_, he has cited them so incorrectly from our existing Scriptures,\nthat the quotation cannot be identified. I cannot refrain from\nexpressing my amazement, that those, whose constant duty it is to\nexpound the New Testament writings should be conscious of no danger to\ntheir authority, when it is strained so far as to include an infallible\ninterpretation of the Older Scriptures.\n\n ---------------------\n\n D.\n\n _On Isaiah_ ix. 6.\n\nThe translation of this passage is not unattended with difficulties: and\nmany of the versions which learned men have proposed leave nothing on\nwhich the Trinitarian argument can rest. It is clear that divines ought\nto establish the meaning of the verse, before they reason from its\ntheology. I subjoin a few of the most remarkable translations.\n\nThe Septuagint; \u201cAnd his name shall be called \u2018Messenger of a great\ncounsel;\u2019 for I will bring peace upon the rulers, and health to him.\u201d\n\nThe Targum of Jonathan; \u201cAnd by the Wonderful in counsel, by the Mighty\nGod who endureth for ever, his name shall be called the Messiah (the\nanointed), in whose days peace shall be multiplied upon us.\u201d The\nfollowing allusion to the titles in this passage from Talmud Sanhedrim,\n11 ch., will show to whom they were applied by Jewish commentators: \u201cGod\nsaid, let Hezekiah, who has five names, take vengeance on the king of\nAssyria, who has taken on himself five names also.\u201d\n\nGrotius; \u201cWonderful; Counsellor of the Mighty God; Father of the future\nage; Prince of Peace.\u201d\n\nEditor of Calmet; \u201cAdmirable, Counsellor, Divine Interpreter, Mighty,\nFather of Future time, Prince of Peace.\u201d\n\nBishop Lowth; \u201cWonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Father of the\neverlasting age, the Prince of Peace.\u201d\n\nMany other translations might be added: and even if the prophecy were\nnot obviously spoken of Hezekiah, we might reasonably ask, what\ndoctrinal certainty can be found in so uncertain an announcement? And\nhow is the fact accounted for that, important as it was to the apostles\u2019\nsuccess to make the largest possible use of their ancient scriptures,\nnot one of them ever alludes to this prediction?\n\n ---------------------\n\n E.\n\n _On the Proem of John._\n\nThe objection which is most commonly entertained to the foregoing\ninterpretation of the Proem of St. John\u2019s Gospel, arises from the\n_strength and vividness_ of the personification of the Logos. A _real\npersonality_, it is said, must be assumed, in order to satisfy the terms\nof the description, which could never have been applied by the apostle\nto a mere mental creation.\n\nI am by no means insensible to the force of this objection: though I\nthink it of less weight than the difficulties which beset every other\nexplanation. And it appears to be greatly relieved by two\nconsiderations; first, that a considerable part of the difficulty arises\nfrom a want of correspondence between the Greek and the English usage of\nlanguage; secondly, that this personification did not originate with the\napostle, but had become, by slow and definable gradations, an\nestablished formula of speech.\n\n1. The first of these considerations I will introduce to my readers in\nthe words of Archbishop Whately: \u201cOur language possesses one remarkable\nadvantage, with a view to this kind of Energy, in the constitution of\nits _genders_. All nouns in English, which express objects that are\nreally neuter, are considered as strictly of the neuter gender; the\nGreek and Latin, though possessing the advantage (which is wanting in\nthe languages derived from them) of having a neuter gender, yet lose the\nbenefit of it, by fixing the masculine or feminine genders upon many\nnouns denoting things inanimate; whereas in English, when we speak of\nany such object in the masculine or feminine gender, that form of\nexpression at once confers _personality_ upon it. When \u2018Virtue,\u2019 _e.g._\nor our \u2018Country\u2019 are spoken of as females, or \u2018Ocean\u2019 as a male, &c.,\nthey are, by that very circumstance, _personified_; and a stimulus is\nthus given to the imagination, from the very circumstance that in calm\ndiscussion or description, all of these would be neuter; whereas in\nGreek or Latin, as in French or Italian, no such distinction could be\nmade. The employment of \u2018_Virtus_,\u2019 and \u1f08\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u1f74 in the feminine gender,\ncan contribute, accordingly, no animation to the style, when they could\nnot, without a solecism, be employed otherwise.\u201d[272]\n\nNow let any one read the English Proem of John, and ask himself, _how\nmuch_ of the appearance of personality is due to the occurrence, again\nand again, of the pronouns \u201che,\u201d \u201chim,\u201d \u201chis,\u201d applied to the Logos; let\nhim remember that _this much_ is a mere imposition practised unavoidably\nupon him by the idiom of our language, and \u201c_gives no animation to the\nstyle_\u201d in the original; and I am persuaded that the violence of the\npersonification will be tamed down to the apprehension of a very\nmoderate imagination. It is true that the Logos does not, by this\nallowance, become impersonal; other parts of the personal conception\nremain, in the _acts_ of creation and of illumination, attributed to\nthis Divine Power: and hence the substitution of the neuter pronouns\n\u201cit\u201d and \u201cits;\u201d for the masculines \u201che,\u201d \u201chim,\u201d \u201chis,\u201d though useful,\nprovisionally, for shaking off the English illusion to which I have\nreferred, cannot be allowed to represent the sentiment of the passage\nfaithfully.\n\nThere appears to be another peculiarity of our language and modes of\nthought, as contrasted with the Greek, which exaggerates, in the Common\nTranslation, the force of the personification. The English language\nleaves to an author a free choice of either gender for his\npersonifications: and the practical effect of this has been, that the\n_feminine_ prosopopeia has been selected as most appropriate to abstract\nqualities and attributes of the mind; and although instances are not\nwanting of masculine representations of several of the human passions,\nthe figure is felt, in such cases, to be much more vehement and more\nentirely beyond the limits of prose, than the employment of the other\ngender. What imagination would naturally think of Pity, of Fear, of Joy,\nof Genius, of Hope, as _male beings_? It may be doubted whether our most\nimaginative prose writers present any example of a male personification\nof an _attribute_: I can call to mind instances in the writings of\nMilton and Jeremy Taylor, of this figure so applied to certain _material\nobjects_, as the Sun, the Ocean, but not to _abstract qualities or\nmodes_, unless when a conception is borrowed (as of \u201cOld Time\u201d) from the\nancient mythology. And accordingly, to an English reader, such a style\nof representation must always appear forced and strange. But a writer in\na language like the Greek cannot choose the sex of his personifications;\nit is decided for him, by the gender already assigned to the\nabstraction, about which he is occupied; and both he and his readers\nmust accommodate their conceptions to this idiomatic necessity. In the\nGerman, the _Moon_ is masculine; the _Sun_ feminine; and every reader of\nthat language knows the strange incongruities which, to English\nperceptions, this peculiarity introduces into its poetical imagery. For\nexample, there is a German translation of Mrs. Barbauld\u2019s Hymns in\nprose; a passage of which, rendered literally into English would read\nthus: \u201cI will show you what is glorious. The Sun is glorious. When She\nshineth in the clear sky, when She sitteth on the bright throne in the\nheavens, and looketh abroad over all the earth, She is the most\nexcellent and glorious creature the eye can behold. The Sun is glorious;\nbut He that made the Sun is more glorious than She.\u201d Again; \u201cThere is\nthe Moon, bending His bright horns, like a silver bow, and shedding His\nmild light, like liquid silver, over the blue firmament.\u201d In the Greek\nliterature, accordingly, the masculine personification of abstractions\nis as easy and common as the feminine; and the former occurs in many\ninstances in which an English author, having free choice, would prefer\nthe latter: thus in Homer, Fear is a son of Mars:\n\n \u039f\u1f37\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b2\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03b3\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03bc\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03b9,\n \u03a4\u1ff7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03a6\u03cc\u03b2\u03bf\u03c2, \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2, \u1f05\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c4\u03b1\u03c1\u03b2\u1f74\u03c2,\n \u1f1d\u03c3\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf.[273]\n\nBut in Collins, a nymph:\n\n \u201cO Fear! ...\n Thou who such weary lengths hast past,\n Where wilt thou rest, mad nymph! at last?\u201d[274]\n\nAnd so in Coleridge:\n\n \u201cBlack Horror screamed, and all her goblin rout\n Diminish\u2019d shrunk from the more withering scene.\u201d[275]\n\nPindar must make Envy a masculine power:\n\n \u201c\u039c\u1f74 \u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bc\u03b5 \u03bb\u03af\u03b8\u1ff3 \u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c6\u03b8\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u201d[276]\n\nColeridge thus describes the same feeling, giving itself speech:\n\n \u201c... Shall Slander squatting near,\n Spit her cold venom in a dead man\u2019s ear?\u201d[277]\n\nAnd common as it is for English writers to give a feminine\npersonification to Wisdom and Genius, Philo expressly says they are of\nthe masculine gender (\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f04\u1fe4\u1fe5\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b5\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2);[278] and\nthe husband of the other faculties of the soul.\n\nThe divine attributes are, I think, uniformly represented by the pronoun\n_she_, in imaginative religious writers, like Bishop Taylor; mercy,\njustice, goodness, thus assume, in the works of that great man, the same\nform as Wisdom in the book of Proverbs; and it may be doubted whether,\nif the apostle John had written in the English language and with English\nfeelings, the personification in his proem might not have presented\nitself in the same shape. Any one who will read over the passage, with\nthis idea, will find, I think, that the figure, thus modified, appears\nby no means inconceivable. Have we not, in the peculiarity of our\nlanguage to which I have alluded, one reason why English theologians\nappear to have felt more difficulty than foreign divines in seizing the\ntrue idea of the Logos; and why the disposition to consider it as an\nobjective and absolute Person has been much more prevalent among all\nparties here, than on the Continent?\n\n2. But a more important consideration, for the understanding of this\nProem, is this: that the Apostle is not the originator of the conception\nrespecting the Logos, but simply adopted it in the shape, towards which\nit had been organizing itself for centuries. Three successive states of\nthe idea can be traced; in the Old Testament, it appears (in Prov.\nviii.) as a mere transient personification of Divine Wisdom; in the\nApocryphal Books of Ecclesiasticus and of Wisdom, it presents itself in\na more permanent and mythical character; and, in the writings of Philo,\nit assumes so embodied and hypostatized a form, as to perplex the\nsimplicity of his Monotheism. _From his writings, the whole Proem of his\ncontemporary John (except where the Baptist and Jesus are mentioned by\nname) might be constructed._ This coincidence in phraseology so\nremarkable, cannot be considered as accidental. Is it thought impossible\nthat John should say of an attribute of God, that it was with him from\nthe first? We reply, Philo _does_ say so; calling _Goodness_ the most\nancient of God\u2019s qualities; _Wisdom_ older than the universe; Logos, the\nAssessor (\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 and \u1f40\u03c0\u03b1\u03b4\u1f78\u03c2) of God prior to all creations, a needful\ncompanion of Deity, as the joint originator with him of all things.[279]\nAnd the Son of Sirach says, in his personification of Wisdom: \u201cI am come\nout of the mouth of the most High, first-born before all creatures:\u201d \u201cHe\ncreated me from the beginning, and before the world.\u201d[280] Is it said\nthat such a statement is unworthy of Revelation? We reply, it occurs in\nthe writings of Solomon: \u201cThe Lord possessed me in the beginning of his\nway, before his works of old;\u201d \u201cthen I was by him as one brought up with\nhim:\u201d[281] where the feminine form (vv. 2, 3) totally excludes the idea\nof Wisdom being anything more than a personification. Is it thought\nimpossible that an attribute of God should be called the only-begotten\nSon of God? We turn to Philo, and find this same Logos entitled the most\nAncient Son of God (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6), the First-begotten (\u1f41\n\u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2). Is it inconceivable that, through this transforming energy\nof God, those who received it should be said to become Sons of God?\nPhilo says, \u201cIf you are not yet worthy to be denominated a Son of God,\nbe earnest to put on the graces of his First-begotten Logos,\u2014the most\nancient angel, and, we may say, an archangel of various titles:\u201d \u201cfor if\nwe are not prepared to be esteemed children of God, we may at all events\nbe thus related to the most Holy Logos, his eternal Image; for the most\nAncient Logos is the Image of God.\u201d[282]\n\nAs all Theological considerations, suggested by heretics, are apt to be\ndismissed with mere expressions of surprise and contempt, I am happy to\nrefer, in confirmation of the foregoing views, in the most essential\nparticulars, to an Orthodox Writer, whose accurate and various learning,\nand sound and grave judgment, have given him a merited pre-eminence\namong the Commentators on the Gospel of John. I allude to Professor\nL\u00fccke, whose \u201cCommentar \u00fcber das Evangelium des Johannes\u201d I have had the\nopportunity, since the delivery of this Lecture, of consulting. I wish\nthat I could lay before my readers the whole of his admirable history of\nthe rise and progress of the idea of the Logos; but I must content\nmyself with translating a few brief extracts.[283]\n\n\u201cThe origin and germ,\u201d he says, \u201cof the theological Formula of the\nLogos, are furnished in the Canonical Hebrew Books (alluding to certain\npassages, especially Prov. viii. which he has been showing to be mere\npoetical personifications of Divine Attributes). It obtained its full\ndevelopment in the Jewish Theology, in the writings of the Alexandrine\nPhilo. And, in an intermediate state of formation, we find it in the\nGreek Apocryphal books of the Old Testament.\u201d\n\nL\u00fccke examines the conception in all these stages; and, from his\nanalysis of Philo\u2019s mode of thought, I extract the following:\n\n\u201cAccording to Philo, God, in his interior Essence, is inconceivable,\noccult, solitary (das absolute), self-comprised, and without relations\nto any other existence.... Although the absolute cause of all that is,\nGod cannot, in his own essence, and immediately, operate on the\nuniverse, either in the way of creation, preservation, or government.\nConcealed in his absolute separation, God is manifest and an object of\nknowledge in the world, only through his _Powers_ (\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2): these,\nexternal forces of God in the universe, apart from his absolute essence,\nare the necessary media of his presence in the universe.... These divine\n\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 Philo calls sometimes _Ideas_, sometimes _Angels_, sometimes\n_Logoi_. This identification of notions, powers, ideas, angels, logoi,\nwhich is frequent in the writings of Philo, is of great importance for\nthe right apprehension of his doctrine of the Divine Logos. This Logos\nhe considers in a twofold relation. Sometimes he regards it as\n_inherent_ (immanent), and refers it to him as a capacity (facultativ);\nwhen it is the Divine \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2, analogous to the human. But this attributive\nconception gives way to that of the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, as a living,\nenergetic \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2, which tends to external action. Of this, Philo, in\nthe spirit of Platonism, conceives as \u1f30\u03b4\u03ad\u03b1 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b5\u1ff6\u03bd, the Ideal of things,\nthe archetypal Idea, the pattern World, the \u03bd\u03bf\u03b7\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, which is\nextant in God as a reality, before all outward creations of the actual\nuniverse. In this sense the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is the primary energy of God,\u2014the\n\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2, the \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03bf\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5.\n\nBut, at the same time, the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is also \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2; and, as a forming\nactivity, goes forth out of God. But as this is only another relation of\nthe Divine Logos, _viz._, relation to the world, so is it the _product_\nof the former; yet essentially one with it, like the \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 of the\ninherent Logos,\u2014as human speech is the resident point of the idea, its\n_form of manifestation_. All living, active relations of God to the\nworld, all his objective manifestations, are comprised in this emanated\nLogos. He forms the world or creates it, imprinting himself on matter as\na Divine seal (\u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u1f76\u03c2). And as he has created the world (or otherwise,\n_God through_ him, \u03b4\u03b9\u2019 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6,) so he preserves it; he is the indwelling\nand sustaining power, full of light and life, and filling everything\nwith Divine light and life. So in the _human world_, he is both the\nnatural divine power of every soul, the pure intellect, the conscience;\nand the bestower of wisdom, and the watch of virtue. He is the same with\nthe Wisdom of God, the Holy Spirit of God in his objective manifestation\nin the world; partly because animating and inspiring men, particularly\nin the capacity of Prophetic Spirit.\n\n\u201cHence the Logos is the eldest Creation of God, the Eternal Father\u2019s\neldest Son, God\u2019s Image, Mediator between God and the World, the Highest\nAngel, the Second God, the High-priest, the Reconciler, Intercessor for\nthe World and Men, whose manifestation is especially visible in the\nhistory of the Jewish people.\u201d[284]\n\nIt ought to be added, that some able writers, as Grossman and Gfr\u00f6rer,\nconceive that Philo invested his Logos with a real personality. The\nreasons for this opinion do not appear to me to be satisfactory. Even\nthose who adopt it assign to this hypostasis a rank wholly subordinate,\nin Philo\u2019s estimation, to the Supreme God: and L\u00fccke strenuously\nmaintains that both the Alexandrine philosopher and the apostle John\napply the name _God_ to the Logos only in a figurative sense (\u1f10\u03bd\n\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9). He considers the clause \u201cthe Word was God,\u201d merely\nincidental, and unimportant compared with the preceding clause, \u201cthe\nWord was with God.\u201d \u201cJohn,\u201d he observes, \u201csums up the purpose of the\nfirst verse in the words of the second; \u03bf\u1f57\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u1fc7 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd.\nFrom his not taking up again the idea \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, we must conclude,\nthat he considered this position only an accessory. Thus the \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n\u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd is evidently to be the more prominently marked assertion.\u201d \u201cJohn\nwould say, the primeval Logos is \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03bd; that is, is in such\ncommunion with God, stands in such relation to him, that he may be\ncalled \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. Looking at the historical connection between the mode of\nexpression in Philo and in John, there is no room for doubt, that \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\nis to be taken in the sense in which Philo applies the name \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 to the\n\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03b4\u03cd\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6,\u2014and explicitly calls the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 God\u2014\u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 ; but to prevent misunderstanding, expressly subjoins that this is\nonly \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. Though John, as we have seen, understands by the\nLogos, a real Divine Person, he yet, as a Christian Apostle, held the\nmonotheistic conception of God in a still higher degree, and an\nincomparably purer form (xvii. 3; 1 John v. 20) than Philo: and are we\nthen at liberty to suppose, that by him, less than by Philo, the\nposition \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f26\u03bd \u1f41 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 is meant simply \u1f10\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03c7\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9? It is true that\nthe substitution for \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 of the adjective \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03c2 is at variance with the\nanalogy of New Testament diction: but must we not, with the Alexandrine\nFathers, especially Origen, conclude that \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 without the article, is\nto be taken as marking the difference between the indefinite sense of\n\u2018Divine nature,\u2019 and the definite, absolute, conception of God,\nexpressed by \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2? Thus would John\u2019s \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 correspond with Paul\u2019s \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd\n\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Such an accordance between the manner of Paul and of John is\nan advantage which must appear an equally desirable result of exegesis,\nwhether we consider it in its dogmatical or its historical\nrelations.\u201d[285]\n\nFrom this extract it appears, that if the author does not approve of the\nold Socinian interpretation, which considers the Logos as synonymous\nfrom the first with Jesus Christ; it is not because he knows, that \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2\nin the predicate cannot signify _a_ god; or slights Origen\u2019s opinion on\nthe usage of N. T. and Hellenistic Greek. We have here an authority,\nthan which no higher can be produced from among the living or the dead,\nin favour of a meaning which, to the fastidious scholarship of Liverpool\ntheologians, is absolutely intolerable. L\u00fccke of course admits the\ngeneral rule, respecting the omission of the article with the\npredicative noun; but he conceives (greatly to the horror, no doubt, of\nthose whose soul resides in syntax) that the good old Apostle would even\nhave committed a solecism in respect of a Greek article, for the sake of\nclearing a great truth in respect of God. \u201cIf there had been any\nintention to express the substantial unity of the Logos and God, we\nshould have expected the Apostle to write \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2. On account of the\nequivocal meaning of \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 without the article, the article could not\npossibly have been absent.\u201d[286] It is vain to say that such corrupt\nGreek as this cannot be ascribed to the Apostles. Here are examples from\nJohn; \u1f21 \u1f01\u03bc\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u03af\u03b1 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b1; [287] \u03a4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f00\u03bb\u03ae\u03b8\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1: [288]\nand here are others from Paul; \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u1fe6\u03bc\u03ac \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd: [289] \u03a0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2\n\u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74 \u1f41 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd. [290] Nay, we have an example in the\nfollowing text, of a total inversion of the rule, the article being\nattached to the predicate, and _not_ to the subject; \u03b5\u1f30 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9 \u039a\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2\n(\u05d9\u05d4\u05d5\u05d4) \u1f41 \u0398\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2.[291]\n\nIt will be perceived by the text of this Lecture that I do not adopt the\nrendering of the Alexandrine Fathers; but I am anxious, in rejecting it,\nto pass no slight on the learning of those who maintain it; and to show\nthat, out of England, orthodoxy can afford to be wise and just.\n\nI think it right to add, that to the view which has been given of the\nProem, an objection of some weight occurs in the twelfth verse. The\nclause \u2018to them that believe on his name\u2019 presents the question, \u2018who is\ndenoted by the pronoun _his_,\u2014the Logos or Jesus Christ personally?\u2019\nAccording to the interpretation which I have recommended, it should mean\nthe former; according to the analogy of Scriptural diction, certainly\nthe latter. Feeling the force of the difficulty, I yet think it less\nserious than those which attend every other hypothesis: and incline to\nthink, that the clause is an anticipation of the personal introduction\nof the Incarnate Logos which immediately follows; a point of transition\nfrom the personification to the history.\n\nIn conclusion, may I take occasion to correct an erroneous statement in\nMr. Byrth\u2019s Lecture;\u2014that Samuel Crell was a convert to Trinitarianism\nbefore his death. \u201cHe died,\u201d we are told, \u201ca believer in the Supreme\nDivinity of Christ, and the efficacy of his atoning sacrifice.\u201d[292] I\nhave before me the most authentic collection of Socinian Memoirs which\nhas been published, by Dr. F. S. Bock, Greek Professor, and Royal\nLibrarian at K\u00f6nigsberg. The work is principally from original sources;\nand the testimony of the following passage will probably be received as\nunimpeachable. It appears that a vague statement in the Hamburgh\nLiterary News gave rise to the report of Crell\u2019s conversion: \u201cObiit\nCrellius Amstelodami, a. 1747. d. 12. Maii, anno \u00e6t. 87. In _novis\nlitterariis Hamburg._ 1747, p. 703, narratur, quod circa vit\u00e6 finem\nerrorum suorum ipsum p\u0153nituerit, hujusque p\u0153nitenti\u00e6 non simulat\u00e6 haud\nobscura dederit documenta, quod Paulo Burgero, Archidiacono\nHerspruccensi in iisdem novis publicis Hamb. 1748, p. 345, eam ob\ncaussam veri haud absimile videtur, quia sibi Amstelodami degenti\nCrellius, a. 1731, oretenus testatus fuerit, in colloquiis cum Celeb.\nSchaffio Lugdunensi institutis, qu\u00e6dam placita, jam sibi dubia reddita\nesse, adeo ut jam anceps circa eadem h\u00e6reat. Sed in iisdem novis 1749,\np. 92, et p. 480, certiores reddimur: Crellium ad ultimum vit\u00e6 su\u00e6\nhalitum perstitisse Unitarium, quod etiam frater ipsius, Paulus, mihi\ncoram pluribus vicibus testatus est.\u201d[293]\n\n ---------------------\n\n F.\n\nIn the rendering which I have given to this passage the word \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u1f78\u03c2 is\nconsidered as equivalent to \u1f05\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1. The interpretation, however, in no\nway requires this; and if it should be thought necessary to maintain the\ndistinction between them, to which the analogy of Greek formation, in\nthe case of verbal nouns, undoubtedly points, and to limit the former to\nthe active sense of the \u201coperation of seizing,\u201d the latter to the\npassive sense of \u201cthe object seized;\u201d the general meaning will remain\nwholly unaffected. The only difference will be this; that the _whole_ of\nthe sixth verse must, in that case, be considered as descriptive of the\nrightful glory of Christ; and the transition to his voluntary\nafflictions will not commence till the 7th. The signification of this\ndoubtful word simply determines, whether the clause in which it stands\nshall be the last in the account of our Lord\u2019s dignity, or the first in\nthe notice of his humiliation. The rendering, however, which I have\nadopted, is confirmed by the use made of this passage in the most\nancient citation from this epistle. In the letter of the churches of\nVienne and Lyons, the 6th verse is quoted, without the sequel, and the\nfact that Christ thought it not \u1f01\u03c1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03bc\u1f78\u03bd to be equal with God, is\nadduced as an example of _humility_; \u201cwho showed themselves so far\nemulators and imitators of Christ; who being in the form of God thought\nnot his equality with God, a thing to be eagerly seized.\u201d\u2014Euseb. Eccl.\nHist. Lib. V. \u00a7 2. Heinichen, vol. ii. p. 36.\n\nWith considerable variation of expression, the same idea occurs in the\n(1st) Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. \u201cChrist is theirs\nwho are humble. Our Lord Jesus Christ, the sceptre of the majesty of\nGod, came not in the show of pride and pre-eminence, though he could\nhave done so; but in humility. Ye see, beloved, what is the model which\nhas been given us.\u201d C. xvi. If the Trinitarian view of the mediatorial\noffice of Christ be correct, it is not easy to perceive how he could\nhave come in the show of pride and pre-eminence; had he not laid aside\nthe glories of his Deity, and clothed himself with a suffering humanity,\nhis mission, as commonly conceived, could have had no existence, nor any\none purpose of it have been answered. But he might have been the great\nHebrew Messiah, had he not chosen rather, by a process of suffering and\ndeath, to put himself into universal and spiritual relations to all men.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture V.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n Analogy of Religion, part ii. ch. 3.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n Sermon on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 80.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n Dr. Tattershall\u2019s Sermon on the Integrity of the Canon, p. 81.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n Elements of Logic. Appendix, in verb. Person.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n See Note A.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n See Mr. Jones\u2019s Lecture on the Proper Humanity of our Lord Jesus\n Christ, pp. 241, 242.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n Genesis, xviii. 1, 2, 22; xix. 1, 10, 15.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n Deut. xxix. 2, 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n It is hardly necessary to observe, that I use the word \u201cAthanasian\u201d to\n denote the doctrine of the _Creed_ so called; not of St. Athanasius\n himself, who is known to have had no hand in the composition of that\n formula.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n Jesus Christ, the great God our Saviour, pp. 81, 369.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n It is orthodox, at the present day, to affirm that the mysteries of\n the Godhead and Incarnation of our Lord were explicitly taught by\n himself throughout his ministry, as well as by his apostles\n afterwards; and Mr. Jones (Lecture, p. 237) assures us that he\n \u201creceived _divine homage_, whilst on earth, from inspired men and\n angelic spirits.\u201d This shows how much more clear-sighted is modern\n orthodoxy than was ancient: for the Fathers thought that a great part\n of the \u201cmystery\u201d of these doctrines consisted in the _secrecy_ in\n which they were long wrapped. \u201cIn the silence of God,\u201d Ignatius\n assures us, were the Incarnation and the Lord\u2019s death accomplished;\n and the ecclesiastical writers of the first six centuries seem not\n only to have admitted that our Lord concealed his divinity from his\n disciples, and enjoined on his apostles great caution in this matter,\n but to have discerned in this suppression a profound wisdom, of which\n they frequently express their admiration. They urge that the Jews\n could never have been brought round to the faith, if these doctrines\n had not been kept back for a while,\u2014a strange thing, by the way, if\n the whole ritual and Scriptures of this people were created to\n prefigure these mysteries. But Ignatius threw out a suggestion, which,\n from the eagerness wherewith it was caught up by succeeding writers,\n was evidently thought a happy discovery: it was necessary _to conceal\n these mysteries from the Devil, or he would have been on his guard,\n and defeated everything_. The hint of the venerable saint is brief:\n \u201cThe Virginity of Mary, and the Birth and Death of the Lord were\n hidden from the Prince of this world.\u201d But the idea is variously\n enlarged upon by the later Fathers; for, as Cotelier observes, \u201cRes\n ipsa quam Ignatius exprimit, passim apud sanctos Patres invenitur.\u201d\n Jerome adds, that the vigilance of the Devil, who expected the Messiah\n to be born in some Jewish _family_, was thus eluded; and the Author of\n an anonymous fragment of the same age, cited by Isaac Vos, suggests\n that, if Satan had known, he would never have put it into men\u2019s hearts\n to crucify Jesus. And Jobius, a monk of the sixth century, quoted by\n Photius in his Bibliotheca, and complimented by the learned Patriarch\n as \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bc\u03b5\u03bb\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03ba \u1f04\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2, says, \u201cIt was necessary to\n keep in the shade the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word, both for\n the sake of conciliating the hearers, and in order to escape the\n notice of the Prince of Darkness.\u201d\u2014See S. Ignat. Ep. ad Magnes. ch.\n xix.; Patr. Apost. Le Clerc\u2019s Ed. Notes; and Priestley\u2019s Early\n Opinions, b. iii, ch. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n Lambertus Danaus, cited by Drusius, in his Diss. de nom. Elohim. Crit.\n Sacr. Tractatt. t. 1. See also Drus. de qu\u00e6sitis per Epist. 66.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n Comment. in Gen. i. 1. Calvin adds, \u201cImagining that they have here a\n proof against the Arians, they involve themselves in the Sabellian\n error: because Moses afterwards subjoins that _Elohim spake_, and that\n _the Spirit of Elohim brooded over the waters_. If we are to\n understand that the three Persons are indicated, there will be no\n distinction among them: for it will follow that the Son was\n self-generated, and that the Spirit is not of the Father, but of\n himself.\u201d For further notice of this point see Note B.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n Grammar of the Hebrew Language, art. 228, 6. Note.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n See Scripture Proofs and Scriptural Illustrations of Unitarianism, by\n John Wilson, second edition, 1837, p. 33, where will be found a\n curious table, exhibiting the usage of the word _God_, in every book\n of the New Testament. Mr. Wilson has collected his materials with\n great industry, and arranged them with skill.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n Matt. i. 23.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n Isaiah vii. 14. The whole passage is as follows:\n\n \u201cBehold the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son;\n And she shall call his name Emmanuel.\n Butter and honey shall he eat,\n When he shall know to refuse what is evil,\n and to choose what is good:\n For before this child shall know\n To refuse the evil, and to choose the good;\n The land shall become desolate,\n By whose two kings thou art distressed.\u201d\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n Quoted from Wilson\u2019s Illustrations, p. 117.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n Letters on the Trinity, by Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred\n Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andover, U.S. Belf. ed. p.\n 161.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 382.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n Amos v. 2.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n Jeremiah xiv. 17.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n Micah iv. 8, 9. See the whole context.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n See Note C.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n Isaiah ix. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n Isaiah viii. 23-ix. 4. Compare 2 Kings xv. 29; 1 Chronicles v. 26.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n Martin Luther\u2019s Version, _in loc._\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n See Note D.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n \u039b\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n Phil. Jud. Op. Schrey et H. J. Meyer. Francof. 1691. De Mundi opific.\n p. 5. C. p. 6. C. Leg. Alleg. p. 93. B, C, D. De somniis, pp. 574. E.\n 575. C. E. 576. E. De confus. Ling. p. 341. B. C. Quis rer. div.\n h\u00e6res. p. 509. B. C. Euseb. Prep. Evang. VII. 13.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n See Note E.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n 1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n \u0395\u1f37\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f41 \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c3\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f11\u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u1f38\u03b7\u03c3\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c5\u1f31\u03bf\u1fe6\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6.\u2014S. Ignatii Epist. ad Magnes. c. viii.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n \u0394\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57, not \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n Psalm xlv.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n v. 1-9.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n v. 10-17.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n New Translation of the Psalms, by Dr. M. Young, Bishop of Clonfert;\n _in loc._ Comp. Preface.\u2014When resident in Dublin, I enjoyed the\n advantage of consulting this posthumous work, suppressed before its\n publication, for reasons sufficiently obvious to those who know the\n work, and have noticed the reception which orthodoxy gives to honest\n and impartial biblical criticism and exegesis. See Mr. Wellbeloved\u2019s\n Bible _in loc._ where Bishop Young\u2019s translation is cited. May I\n venture to refer our learned opponents to the last-mentioned work,\n whenever they think proper to examine what kind of Old Testament\n theology a Unitarian may hold? It would be curious to know, probably\n perplexing even to \u201cordained clergymen\u201d to determine, on which horn of\n the dilemma the Rev. Hebraists in Christ Church must fix Mr.\n Wellbeloved;\u2014\u201c_defective scholarship?_\u201d\u2014or \u201c_uncandid and dishonest\n criticism?_\u201d\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n See Acts iii. 19-21; xiii. 33-37; xxvi. 6-8. Hebrews ii. 5. Titus ii.\n 12, 13. 1 Tim. iv. 1. James v. 3, 7, 8. 1 Cor. x. 11. Phil. iv. 5. 2\n Thess. ii. 2.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n 2 Pet. iii. 13.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n 1 Pet. iii. 20.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n Acts xvii. 31.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n Rom. i. 4.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n Acts xiii. 30-34. comp. Heb. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n Heb. i. 3.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n 2 Pet. iii. 9.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n Heb. i. 3.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n Paraphrase on the Epistles; Rom. xiii. 11, 12. Note.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n From the word GOD, supposed to be addressed to Christ, in the clause\n \u201cThy throne, O God, &c.,\u201d the Deity of our Lord, as _a second person\n in the Trinity_, is inferred. Yet this word, in the original, is\n ELOHIM, whose plural form, we are told, is intended to prevent our\n thinking of only One Person, and which cannot mean less than _the\n whole Trinity_.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n 1 John v. 20.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n Notes _in loc._\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n Newcome.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n 2 John 7.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n Phil. ii. 5-8.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n 2 Cor. viii. 9.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n See Note F.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n These texts naturally arrange themselves thus:\n\n Condescension.\n Philippians ii. 5-8.\n 2 Corinthians viii. 9.\n\n Exaltation.\n Phil. ii. 9-11.\n Eph. i. 20-23.\n Col. i. 15-19.\n Heb. i.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n Col. i. 15-19. Comp. Eph. iii. 19; where the apostle desires that _the\n Ephesians_ may \u201c_be filled with all the fulness of God_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n Note _in loc._\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n Acts xiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n Eph. ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n 2 Cor. v. 17.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n 1 Cor. xv. 24.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n 1 Thess. iv. 14.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n 1 Cor. xv. 51. 1 Thess. iv. 17; v. 10.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n Eph. i. 10.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n 2 Thess. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n Heb. i. 6; Phil. ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n Heb. xii. 28.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n 2 Tim. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n 1 Thess. iv. 14.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n Rom. viii. 19, 23, 6.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n 1 Pet. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n Eph. ii. 21, 22.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n Eph. ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n 1 Cor. viii. 6.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n John xvii. 3.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n John iv. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n Eph. iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n This is the source to which our opponents in the present controversy\n have explicitly referred the divine wisdom of Christ. Mr. Jones says,\n \u201cUnaided by the fulness of _the Godhead which dwelt within him\n bodily_,\u201d (did _the Father_, according to the Creeds, dwell in him\n bodily?) \u201chis human soul was, necessarily, finite in its operations.\u201d\n And again, \u201cNor could he, as we have already intimated, know anything\n beyond the ken of a finite intelligence, except it were _revealed to\n him by the_ ETERNAL WORD, with which he was mysteriously united.\u201d\n Christ says, \u201cas MY FATHER _hath taught me_, I speak these things.\u201d\n Was his \u201c_Father_\u201d \u201cthe _eternal Word_?\u201d\u2014See _Lect. on the Proper\n Humanity, &c._ pp. 221, 243.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n John v. 19, 30.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n Ib. xiv. 10.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n Ib. vi. 57.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n Ib. v. 36.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n Ib. x. 29.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n Mark xiii. 32.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n With respect to the meaning of the name, \u201cTHE SON,\u201d our opponents\n appear to vary their statements in a way which serves the ends of\n controversy more than those of truth. Mr. Jones says that in the\n passages which I have adduced, the Trinitarian hypothesis \u201cfinds no\n hindrance whatever,\u201d because the word SON denotes in them our Lord\u2019s\n _human and Mediatorial_ character. Mr. Bates denies that the word can\n have any such meaning. In defending the supreme Divinity of Christ, as\n well as of the Holy Spirit, from what is incorrectly called the\n Baptismal _Form_, (\u201cbaptizing in the name of the Father, and of the\n Son, and of the Holy Ghost,\u201d) he begs us to observe that it is _not\n into the name of Christ the Mediator_ that converts are to be\n baptized. \u201cOur Saviour\u2019s words,\u201d he affirms, \u201cnot only fail to\n sanction, but _expressly exclude_, such a construction; for he does\n not say, \u2018the name of the Father and of _myself_,\u2019 but \u2018of THE SON,\u2019\n that is, of THE ETERNAL WORD.\u201d Mr. Bates\u2019s Lecture is not published;\n but he is aware that this statement is correct. Since this name \u201c_the\n Son_\u201d \u201cexpressly excludes\u201d the Mediatorial character, and _must_ mean\n the Eternal Word, may we ask Mr. Bates, how it is the Eternal Word did\n not know the day and the hour, and could do nothing of himself?\u2014_Mr.\n Jones\u2019s Lect._ p. 242.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n John vi. 62.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n Ib. iii. 13.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n John xvii. 5.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n Acts ii. 32.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n Gal. i. 1.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n John x. 18.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n Wardlaw\u2019s Discourses, iv. p. 117.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n Acts xvii. 31.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n John v. 30.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n John v. 29. It is very difficult to determine whether this class of\n passages is rightly interpreted as referring to a final and collective\n judgment of mankind. The discussion of this point does not properly\n belong to our present subject; and the assumption, for the sake of\n brevity of argument, of the usual interpretation, does not imply\n assent to it.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n Tillotson\u2019s Sermons, xlvi. Lond. 1704. pp. 549, 550.\n\n I am aware that the name of this admirable writer is not likely to\n have much weight with our opponents; for in speaking of Socinian\n writers he has indulged in a spirit of justice, which the modern\n Orthodoxy of his Church appears to consider altogether old-fashioned.\n The Archbishop gives the following character of the school which took\n its name from the Socini; \u201cAnd yet to do right to the writers on that\n side, I must own, that generally they are a pattern of the fair way of\n disputing, and of debating matters of religion without heat and\n unseemly reflections upon their adversaries, in the number of whom I\n did not expect that the Primitive Fathers of the Christian Church\n would have been reckoned by them. They generally argue matters with\n that temper and gravity, and with that freedom from passion and\n transport, which becomes a serious and weighty argument; and for the\n most part they reason closely and clearly, with extraordinary guard\n and caution, with great dexterity and decency, and yet with smartness\n and subtilty enough; with a very gentle heat, and few hard\n words;\u2014virtues to be praised wherever they are found, yea even in an\n enemy, and very worthy our imitation.\u201d Yet the Archbishop, as if aware\n that his candour might, by a very natural process, excite suspicion of\n his Orthodoxy, raises himself above imputation by adding, \u201cIn a word,\n they are the strongest managers of a weak cause, and which is\n ill-founded at the bottom, that perhaps ever yet meddled with\n controversy; insomuch that some of the Protestants and the generality\n of the Popish writers, and even of the Jesuits themselves, who pretend\n to all the reason and subtilty in the world, are in comparison of them\n but mere scolds and bunglers; upon the whole matter, they have but\n this one great defect, that they want a good cause and truth on their\n side; which if they had, they have reason and wit and temper enough to\n defend it.\u201d\u2014_Sermon_ xliv. p. 521.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n Mr. Stewart recommends to our imitation the conduct of a Jewish child\n who became anxious to pray, like his companions, to Jesus Christ, not,\n apparently, from any impulse of the affections, or any convictions of\n duty; but from a prudent desire to run no risk of offending any\n possible power. \u201cWhen I go to heaven and see Jesus Christ, if he is\n God,\u201d calculates the boy, \u201cI shall be ashamed to look him in the\n face.\u201d Is it possible that this principle of making sure of one\u2019s\n self-interest without regard to sincerity and truth, can be published\n without a blush, from a Christian pulpit? And is Christ so little\n known as yet, that such hollow worship is thought to be a passport to\n his favour, instead of winning from him a rebuke that, in truth, must\n make ashamed? Is the Infinite hearer of prayer,\u2014whatever be his name\n or names,\u2014one who will turn away from a contrite and trustful\n supplication of the soul, unless his titles are all set right upon the\n lips? What then would become of the millions of entreaties and of\n cries that daily rise from the grieving earth to the blessed God?\n Impossible! \u2019twould make Heaven a vast Dead-letter Office, for\n returning petitions on account of a wrong address.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n Jer. xxxi. 4.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n Jer. xxxi. 13.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n Lam. i. 15.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n Is. xxiii. 12.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n 2 Kings xix. 21.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n Is. viii. 8.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n Is. viii. 18.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n Matt. ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n Elements of Rhetoric, part iii. ch. ii. \u00a7 3.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n Il. xiii. 298.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n Ode to Fear.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n Sonnet xii.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n Olymp. viii. 73.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n Juvenile Poems, p. 59.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n De vict. p. 838. D.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n Quod Deus sit immut. p. 309. A. De charit. p. 609. A. De Temul. p.\n 244. D. Leg. Alleg. p. 93. B.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 5, 12.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n Prov. viii. 22, 30.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n \u039a\u1f82\u03bd \u03bc\u03b7\u03b4\u03ad\u03c0\u03c9 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03ac\u03bd\u1fc3 \u03c4\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f00\u03be\u03b9\u03cc\u03c7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f62\u03bd \u03c5\u1f31\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03b1\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03cd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9,\n \u03c3\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03b4\u03b1\u03b6\u03b5 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f04\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd\n \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c1\u03c7\u03ac\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1....\u00a0\u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c0\u03c9\n \u1f31\u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03cc\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ca\u03b4\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u00b7 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03b5\u1f30\u03ba\u1f7c\u03bd, \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03cd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2. De\n conf. ling. p. 341. B. C.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n I have an impression of having seen advertised an English translation\n of this work; but I have no means of ascertaining the fact.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n For the sake of brevity I have given rather an abstract than a\n translation. Commentar. \u00fcb. das Evang. des Johan. von Dr. Friedrich\n L\u00fccke. Band. i. p. 232-p. 238. Bonn. 1833. It is possible that\n Professor L\u00fccke\u2019s Orthodoxy, which, in conformity with the prevailing\n estimate of his countrymen, I have ventured to assume, may be called\n in question. It is always difficult to take the \u201cregula fidei,\u201d\n recognized in one Country, and apply it, with any exactitude, to the\n sentiments of another, especially when the one is remarkable for the\n hard and literal character of its theological conceptions; and the\n other, for the excessive refinements by which it has discriminated the\n shades of religious belief. If tried by the only German standard which\n has any near correspondence with English Evangelicism, I mean the\n severe school of Guerike, Tholuck, Hahn, Olshausen, L\u00fccke would, no\n doubt, be pronounced deficient in the faith. But he belongs to the\n class which approaches most nearly to them, both in the interpretation\n of Scripture, and in the estimate of its authority. He does not, with\n them, refuse to compare the doctrines of Scripture with the\n conclusions of Reason, and insist that the authority of the former\n supersedes all recourse to the latter; but having ascertained first\n the _fact_ and the _meaning_ of Revelation, he then permits the\n comparison with philosophy, and declares their entire consistency. He\n thus belongs to the Scriptural section of what is called the\n Philosophical School of German Theology. He is decidedly Trinitarian\n and Anti-rationalist; and his orthodoxy has never been suspected, as\n has that of Schleiermacher, the father of his school. He was Professor\n of Theology in G\u00f6ttingen before the recent political divisions in\n Hanover.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n Pp. 263, 266, 267.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n P. 265.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n 1 John iii. 4.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n 1 John v. 6.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n 2 Cor. iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n 1 Cor. xi. 3.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n 1 Kings xviii. 21. There would be no difficulty in increasing the\n number of instances exemplifying this solecism.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n P. 157.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n Historia Antitrinitariorum, maxim\u00e8 Socinianismi et Socinianorum; Fred.\n Sam. Bock, Tom. I. P. i. pp. 167, 168.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n THE\n\n SCHEME OF VICARIOUS REDEMPTION\n\n INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF,\n\n\n AND WITH\n\n\n _THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SALVATION_.\n\n\n\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\nIt will be apparent, from the unusual length of the following discourse,\nthat its limits have been much extended since its delivery. The\nadditional portions furnish, in detail, the interpretation which appears\nto me to reach the true meaning of the New Testament language,\nrespecting the death of Christ. Few passages, I believe, relating to\nthis subject, will be found unnoticed: and it is probable that, in the\ndesire to avoid omission, I have been guilty of some prolixity and\nrepetition.\n\nThe friendly diversity of opinion, which prevails among Unitarian\nChristians, is perhaps more considerable in reference to the subject of\nthis Lecture, than to any other of the leading topics of theological\nbelief. The reader will do justice to all parties, by bearing this in\nmind, while attending to the following pages; and by regarding every\nstatement which he disapproves, as the mere expression of individual\nopinion.\n\nIt is impossible for me to leave unnoticed the charge of uncharitable\nviolence and \u201cvulgar personality,\u201d which Mr. M\u2018Neile has preferred\nagainst me, on the ground of certain strong expressions, contained in my\nfirst Lecture, respecting the late Archbishop Magee. I readily\nacknowledge that the instances are rare, which can justify the language\nwhich I employed; and I would never employ such, did I not feel that it\nwas not simply justified, but demanded. He must be an unworthy\ncontroversialist, who has no generous delight in admiring and respecting\na doctrinal adversary; no concern and shame at the moral obliquities\nwhich prove an opponent wrong, without proving himself to be right. If\nMr. M\u2018Neile could enable me to look with his eyes of confidence and\nregard on \u201cthe illustrious Prelate,\u201d I should esteem it a privilege to\nrecal every word which I have put on record respecting him. But a\ncareful study of his Treatise on the Atonement, with the habit of\n_testing his citations_, has revealed to me a system of controversy\nwhich, before, I should have esteemed incredible; and which no terms of\ncensure can too severely describe. Polemical discipline, it has been\nobserved with too much truth, is, of all influences, the most dangerous\nto the moral sense.\n\nIt seems to have been thought wrong in me, by my respected opponents, to\nstate my _general impression_ of Archbishop Magee\u2019s controversial\ncharacter, without justifying it by specific arguments. And so it would\nhave been, if this work had really been \u201cunanswered:\u201d but every quality\nwhich I ascribed to it, has been shown to belong to it, by Dr.\nCarpenter; _his_ work has received no reply; and surely a bystander may\nexpress a judgment on the merits of a controversy, and the polemical\ncharacters of its conductors, without the slightest obligation to lay\nopen the contents of the discussion in self-justification. This appears\nto be Mr. Buddicom\u2019s opinion, if we may judge from the pungent sentence\nin which he has characterized, without proof, one of Mr. Harris\u2019s\nDiscourses.[294] In the present publication, however, I have supplied\nthe deficiency which is the subject of complaint; and have shown, not\nonly that the late Archbishop of Dublin dealt in terms of insult, which,\nif spoken instead of written, no cultivated and Christian society would\nendure; but that, with a shocking eagerness to blast the character of\nhis opponents, he corrupted the text of their writings, and drew his\narguments from garbled quotations. If any one can convince me of mistake\nin what I have advanced, I shall most unfeignedly rejoice and retract.\nBut till then I cannot qualify any expressions, however strong, which I\nhave employed; for they are not the utterance of passion, but the\nmeasured language of conviction. Most unwillingly would I ever incur the\nrisk of wounding \u201cthe feelings of the living,\u201d by animadversions on the\ncharacter of the dead. But, surely, personal attachments to the man must\nnot be allowed to silence all public estimate of the author; and against\nthe attempt, on this ground, to hold me up as the assailant of private\naffections, and the insincere professor of charity, I protest, as cruel\nand unjust. It is not true that I attacked \u201cthe name and memory\u201d rather\nthan \u201cthe book,\u201d of the late Archbishop: the words which I used\ndescribed nothing but his work: and that they were words of moral\nreprehension, arose necessarily from the nature of the complaint which\nwe have to prefer against its contents. I do not understand the\ndiplomatic arts by which a man may be analyzed into a plurality of\ncharacters, and permitted to do wrong in one capacity, while his\nreputation takes a quiet shelter among the rest: nor have I the\ningenuity to rebuke falsehood in a book, yet save the veracity of the\nauthor. If the \u201coutrage\u201d consisted in publishing an impression,\nunsustained by evidence, I only fear, that the addition of the proof\nwill be found to bring no mitigation of the pain.\n\nLet me add, that I entirely acquit our Rev. opponents of any approbation\nof the controversial arts employed by the Prelate whom they defend.\nTheir admiration of his book arises, I am aware, from ignorance of its\nreal character; to understand which requires a much greater acquaintance\nwith Unitarian literature than they appear, in any instance, to possess.\n\nLest it should be thought disrespectful in me to pass without notice the\nstrictures on my last published Discourse, contained in the Ninth\nLecture of the Trinitarian series, I will ask the indulgence of my\nreaders for a few moments more.\n\nMr. Bates accuses me of making a mutilated quotation from Deut. xxix.\n1-6. The whole passage stands thus; the part which I did not cite being\nincluded in brackets: [\u201c1. These are the words of the covenant, which\nthe Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land\nof Moab, beside the covenant, which he made with them in Horeb. 2. And]\nMoses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, [ye have seen all that\nthe Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and\nunto all his servants, and unto all his land; 3. The great temptations\nwhich thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: 4. Yet\nthe Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and\nears to hear, unto this day. 5. And] I have led you forty years in the\nwilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not\nwaxen old upon thy foot. 6. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye\ndrunk wine, or strong drink; that ye might know that _I am the Lord your\nGod_.\u201d\n\nMy object was to show, that, if no latitude is to be allowed in the\napplication of mere grammatical principles of interpretation, we must\nadmit \u201cthat Moses is called God with a distinctness which cannot be\nequalled in the case of Christ.\u201d For this purpose, I had no occasion to\nquote more than the 5th and 6th verses, containing the phrase, \u201cI am the\nLord your God;\u201d the only question being, _who is the speaker,\ngrammatically denoted by the first personal pronoun \u201cI.\u201d_ To make this\nevident, I went back to the opening of the sentence, which determined\nthis point: \u201cMOSES called together all Israel, AND SAID to them.\u201d The\nomitted clauses of his speech have no relation whatever to the matter in\ndebate, and have no effect, but to _separate the parts_, without\n_altering the nature_, of the grammatical construction. So far from\nproving that Moses speaks, as if _personally identified_ with the Lord,\nbecause teaching in his name, they prove just the reverse; for Jehovah\nis introduced in them in the _third person_, not the _first_; \u201cye have\nseen all that THE LORD (not \u2018I\u2019) did before your eyes,\u201d &c. The first\nverse I did not quote, because it seems to belong to the preceding\nchapter, and to have no reference to the words cited. The only\ndelinquency in this matter which I have to confess is, that I wrote by\nmistake, \u201cMoses called TOGETHER,\u201d instead of \u201cUNTO, all Israel.\u201d Mr.\nBates draws attention to this by Roman capitals, as if to hint at\nsomething very remarkable in the error. I can only say, that after\nrepeated examination of the word \u201cUNTO,\u201d I can discover no mysterious\nsignificance in it; if it be an orthodox tetragrammaton, my disregard of\nits claims was wholly inadvertent. As to the argument itself which this\npassage was adduced to enforce, I cannot perceive that it is in any way\naffected by the Lecturer\u2019s remarks: nor can any one reasonably doubt\nthat if the New Testament had contained such a passage as this, \u201cThe\nLord Jesus called unto the multitudes and said, ... I have led you into\na desert place, and fed you with the five loaves; that ye might know\nthat I am the Lord your God;\u201d Trinitarians would have appealed to it as\na triumphant proof of the Deity of Christ, whatever number of clauses\nmight have severed the beginning from the end of the sentence, and\nhowever often the name of the Lord, in the third person, might have\noccurred in the interval.\n\nNor have I been successful in discovering in what way I have\nmisapprehended Mr. Bates\u2019s meaning respecting the word \u201cSON,\u201d in the\nfollowing verse; \u201cGo ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them\nin the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d I may\ndoubtless have misstated his words; and if in his eyes the misstatement\nhas any \u201cserious inaccuracy,\u201d I sincerely regret its occurrence. Nothing\nbut the constant habit of short-hand writing, enabling me to take\nverbatim reports of public addresses, would have given me confidence\nenough in my correctness to found an argument on an unpublished verbal\ncriticism. Even short-hand, however, being fallible, I relinquish the\nwords: and the more willingly, because Mr. Bates\u2019s own report appears to\nme absolutely identical in meaning with my own. _He says_, that the\nbaptism enjoined in the verse just cited cannot, so far as our Lord is\nconcerned, be \u201cbaptism in the name of a Mediator;\u201d \u201cour Lord\u2019s words\nprevent such misapprehension: he says not \u2018In the name of the Father and\nin my name\u2019 (my mediatorial name); but \u2018In the name of the Father and of\nTHE SON,\u2019\u2014the only begotten, co-essential, co-eternal, and co-equal,\nwith the Father and the Holy Ghost.\u201d _I represented him as saying_, that\nour Saviour\u2019s words \u201c_expressly exclude such a construction_; for he\ndoes not say, the name of the Father, and _of myself_, but of THE SON,\nthat is the ETERNAL WORD.\u201d The difference between \u201cpreventing such\nmisapprehension\u201d and \u201cexcluding such construction\u201d is not very obvious.\nI understand the argument to be, that there is something _in the form of\nexpression in the second clause_, forbidding us to think of anything\nless exalted than our Lord\u2019s Divine Nature; the only expression\ncontained in the clause is \u201cTHE SON;\u201d this term then, I imagined, was\nlimited by the Lecturer to Christ\u2019s Divine Nature; and must have been\nreplaced by some other phrase, if his mediatorial character had been the\nsubject of discourse. In drawing a _general_ conclusion from this\n_particular_ statement, I only gave the Lecturer credit for\nunderstanding the bearing of his own argument; for of course, all\nreasoning _from the intrinsic force of an expression_ must be\nco-extensive with the occurrence of that expression. If I have not\ncorrectly explained Mr. Bates\u2019s argument, it evades my apprehension\naltogether.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE VI.\n\n THE SCHEME OF VICARIOUS REDEMPTION INCONSISTENT WITH ITSELF,\n\n AND WITH THE CHRISTIAN IDEA OF SALVATION.\n\n BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n \u201cNEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER; FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME\n UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED.\u201d\u2014_Acts_ iv.\n 12.\n\n\nThe scene which we have this evening to visit and explore, is separated\nfrom us by the space of eighteen centuries; yet of nothing on this earth\nhas Providence left, within the shadows of the past, so vivid and divine\nan image. Gently rising above the mighty \u201cfield of the world,\u201d Calvary\u2019s\nmournful hill appears, covered with silence now, but distinctly showing\nthe heavenly light that struggled there through the stormiest elements\nof guilt. Nor need we only gaze, as on a motionless picture that closes\nthe vista of Christian ages. Permitting history to take us by the hand,\nwe may pace back in pilgrimage to the hour, till its groups stand around\nus, and pass by us, and its voices of passion and of grief mock and wail\nupon our ear. As we mingle with the crowd which, amid noise and dust,\nfollows the condemned prisoners to the place of execution, and fix our\neye on the faint and panting figure of one that bears his cross, could\nwe but whisper to the sleek priests close by, how might we startle them,\nby telling them the future fate of this brief tragedy,\u2014brief in act, in\nblessing everlasting; that this Galilean convict shall be the world\u2019s\nconfessed deliverer, while they that have brought him to this, shall be\nthe scorn and by-word of the nations; that that vile instrument of\ntorture, now so abject that it makes the dying slave more servile, shall\nbe made, by this victim and this hour, the symbol of whatever is holy\nand sublime; the emblem of hope and love; pressed to the lips of ages;\nconsecrated by a veneration which makes the sceptre seem trivial as an\ninfant\u2019s toy. Meanwhile the sacerdotal hypocrites, unconscious of the\npart they play, watch to the end the public murder which they have\nprivately suborned; stealing a phrase from Scripture, that they may mock\nwith holy lips; and leaving to the plebeian soldiers the mutual jest and\nbrutal laugh, that serve to beguile the hired but hated work of agony,\nand that draw forth from the sufferer that burst of forgiving prayer,\nwhich sunk at least into their centurion\u2019s heart. One there is, who\nshould have been spared the hearing of these scoffs; and perhaps she\nheard them not; for before his nature was exhausted more, his eye\ndetects and his voice addresses her, and twines round her the filial arm\nof that disciple who had been ever the most loving as well as most\nbeloved. She at least lost the religion of that hour in its humanity,\nand beheld not the prophet but the son:\u2014had not her own hands wrought\nthat seamless robe for which the soldiers\u2019 lot is cast; and her own lips\ntaught him that strain of sacred poetry, \u201cMy God, my God, why hast thou\nforsaken me?\u201d but never had she thought to hear it _thus_. As the cries\nbecame fainter and fainter, scarcely do they reach Peter standing afar\noff. The last notice of him had been the rebuking look that sent him to\nweep bitterly; and now the voice that can alone tell him his\nforgiveness, will soon be gone! Broken hardly less, though without\nremorse, is the youthful John, to see that head, lately resting on his\nbosom, drooping passively in death; and to hear the involuntary shriek\nof Mary, as the spear struck upon the lifeless body, moving now only as\nit is moved;\u2014whence he alone, on whom she leaned, records the fact. Well\nmight the Galilean friends stand at a distance gazing; unable to depart,\nyet not daring to approach; well might the multitudes that had cried\n\u201ccrucify him\u201d in the morning, shudder at the thought of that clamour ere\nnight; \u201cbeholding the things that had come to pass, they smote their\nbreasts and returned.\u201d\n\nThis is the scene of which we have to seek the interpretation. Our first\nnatural impression is, that it requires no interpretation, but speaks\nfor itself; that it has no mystery, except that which belongs to the\ntriumphs of deep guilt, and the sanctities of disinterested love. To\nraise our eye to that serene countenance, to listen to that submissive\nvoice, to note the subjects of its utterance, would give us no idea of\nany mystic horror concealed behind the human features of the scene; of\nany invisible contortions, as from the lash of demons, in the soul of\nthat holy victim; of any sympathetic connection of that cross with the\nbottomless pit on the one hand, and the highest Heaven on the other; of\nany moral revolution throughout our portion of the universe, of which\nthis public execution is but the outward signal. The historians drop no\nhint that its sufferings, its affections, its relations, were more than\nhuman,\u2014raised indeed to distinction by miraculous accompaniments; but\nintrinsically, however signally, human. They mention, as if bearing some\nappreciable proportion to the whole series of incidents, particulars so\nslight, as to vanish before any other than the obvious historical view\nof the transaction; the thirst, the sponge, the rent clothes, the\nmingled drink. They ascribe no sentiment to the crucified, except such\nas might be expressed by one of like nature with ourselves, in the\nconsciousness of a finished work of duty, and a fidelity never broken\nunder the strain of heaviest trial. The narrative is clearly the\nproduction of minds filled, not with theological anticipations, but with\nhistorical recollections.\n\nWith this view of Christ\u2019s death, which is such as might be entertained\nby any of the primitive Churches, having one of the gospels only,\nwithout any of the epistles, we are content. I conceive of it, then, as\nmanifesting the last degree of moral perfection in the Holy One of God;\nand believe that in thus being an expression of character, it has its\nprimary and everlasting value. I conceive of it as the needful\npreliminary to his resurrection and ascension, by which the severest\ndifficulties in the theory of Providence, life, and duty, are alleviated\nor solved. I conceive of it as immediately procuring the universality\nand spirituality of the Gospel; by dissolving those corporeal ties which\ngive nationality to Jesus, and making him, in his heavenly and immortal\nform, the Messiah of humanity; blessing, sanctifying, regenerating, not\na people from the centre of Jerusalem, but a world from his station in\nthe Heavens. And these views, under unimportant modifications, I submit,\nare the only ones of which Scripture contains a trace.\n\nAll this, however, we are assured, is the mere outside aspect of the\ncrucifixion; and wholly insignificant compared with the invisible\ncharacter and relations of the scene; which, localized only on earth,\nhas its chief effect in Hell; and though presenting itself among the\noccurrences of time, is a repeal of the decretals of Eternity. The being\nwho hangs upon that cross is not man alone; but also the everlasting\nGod, who created and upholds all things, even the sun that now darkens\nits face upon him, and the murderers who are waiting for his expiring\ncry. The anguish he endures is not chiefly that which falls so\npoignantly on the eye and ear of the spectator; the injured human\naffections, the dreadful momentary doubt; the pulses of physical\ntorture, doubling on him with full and broken wave, till driven back by\nthe overwhelming power of love disinterested and divine. But he is\njudicially abandoned by the Infinite Father; who expends on him the\nimmeasurable wrath due to an apostate race, gathers up into an hour the\nlightnings of Eternity, and lets them loose upon that bended head. It is\nthe moment of retributive justice; the expiation of all human guilt;\nthat open brow hides beneath it the despair of millions of men; and to\nthe intensity of agony there, no human wail could give expression.\nMeanwhile, the future brightens on the Elect; the tempests that hung\nover their horizon are spent. The vengeance of the lawgiver having had\nits way, the sunshine of a Father\u2019s grace breaks forth, and lights up,\nwith hope and beauty, the earth, which had been a desert of despair and\nsin. According to this theory, Christ, in his death, was a proper\nexpiatory sacrifice; he turned aside, by enduring it for them, the\ninfinite punishment of sin from all past or future believers in this\nefficacy of the cross; and transferred to them the natural rewards of\nhis own righteousness. An acceptance of this doctrine is declared to be\nthe prime condition of the divine forgiveness; for no one who does not\n_see_ the pardon, can _have_ it. And this pardon again, this clear score\nfor the past, is a necessary preliminary to all sanctification; to all\npractical opening of a disinterested heart towards our Creator and man.\nPardon, and the perception of it, are the needful preludes to that\nconforming love to God and men, which is the true Christian salvation.\n\nThe evidence in support of this theory is derived partly from natural\nappearances, partly from scriptural announcements. Involving, as it\ndoes, statements respecting the actual condition of human nature, and\nthe world in which we live, some appeal to experience, and to the\nrational interpretation of life and Providence, is inevitable; and hence\ncertain propositions, affecting to be of a philosophical character, are\nlaid down as fundamental by the advocates of this system. Yet it is\nadmitted, that direct revelation only could have acquainted us, either\nwith our lost condition, or our vicarious recovery; and that all we can\nexpect to accomplish with nature, is to harmonize what we observe there,\nwith what we read in the written records of God\u2019s will; so that the main\nstress of the argument rests on the interpretation of Scripture. The\nprinciples deduced from the nature of things, and laid down as a basis\nfor this doctrine, may be thus represented:\n\nThat man needs a Redeemer; having obviously fallen, by some disaster,\ninto a state of misery and guilt, from which the worst penal\nconsequences must be apprehended; and were it not for the probability of\nsuch lapse from the condition in which it was fashioned, it would be\nimpossible to reconcile the phenomena of the world with the justice and\nbenevolence of its Creator.\n\nThat Deity only can redeem; since, to preserve veracity, the penalty of\nsin must be inflicted; and the diversion only, not the annihilation, of\nit, is possible. To let it fall on angels, would fail of the desired\nend; because human sin, having been directed against an infinite Being,\nhas incurred an infinitude of punishment; which, on no created beings,\ncould be exhausted in any period short of eternity. Only a nature\nstrictly infinite can compress within itself, in the compass of an hour,\nthe woes distributed over the immortality of mankind. Hence, were God\npersonally One, like man, no redemption could be effected; for there\nwould be no Deity to suffer, except the very One who must punish. But\nthe triplicity of the Godhead relieves all difficulty; for, while one\nInfinite inflicts, another Infinite endures; and resources are furnished\nfor the atonement.\n\nAmid a great variety of forms in which the theory of atonement exists, I\nhave selected the foregoing; which, if I understand aright, is that\nwhich is vindicated in the present controversy. I am not aware that I\nhave added anything to the language in which it is stated by its\npowerful advocate, unless it be a few phrases, leaving its essential\nmeaning the same, but needful to render it compact and clear.\n\nThe scriptural evidence is found principally in certain of the\napostolical epistles; and this circumstance will render it necessary to\nconduct a separate search into the historical writings of the New\nTestament, that we may ascertain how they express the corresponding set\nof ideas. Taking up successively these two branches of the subject, the\nnatural and the biblical, I propose to show, first, that this doctrine\nis inconsistent with itself; secondly, that it is inconsistent with the\nChristian idea of Salvation.\n\nI. It is inconsistent with itself.\n\n(1.) In its manner of treating the principles of natural religion.\n\nOur faith in the infinite benevolence of God is represented as destitute\nof adequate support from the testimony of nature.[295] It requires, we\nare assured, the suppression of a mass of appearances, that would scare\nit away in an instant, were it to venture into their presence; and is a\ndream of sickly and effeminate minds, whose belief is the inward growth\nof amiable sentimentality, rather than a genuine production from God\u2019s\nown facts. The appeal to the order and magnificence of creation, to the\nstructures and relations of the inorganic, the vegetable, the animal,\nthe spiritual forms, that fill the ascending ranks of this visible and\nconscious universe;\u2014to the arrangements which make it a blessing to be\nborn, far more than a suffering to die,\u2014which enable us to extract the\nrelish of life from its toils, the affections of our nature from its\nsufferings, the triumphs of goodness from its temptations;\u2014to the\nseeming plan of general progress, which elicits truth by the\nself-destruction of error, and by the extinction of generations gives\nperpetual rejuveniscence to the world; this appeal, which is another\nname for the scheme of natural religion, is dismissed with scorn; and\nsin and sorrow and death are flung in defiance across our path;\u2014barriers\nwhich we must remove, ere we can reach the presence of a benignant God.\nCome with us, it is said, and listen to the wail of the sick infant;\nlook into the dingy haunts where poverty moans its life away; bend down\nyour ear to the accursed hum that strays from the busy hives of guilt;\nspy into the hold of the slave-ship; from the factory follow the wasted\nchild to the gin-shop first, and then to the cellar called its home; or\nlook even at your own tempted and sin-bound souls, and your own\nperishing race, snatched off into the dark by handfuls through the\nactivity of a destroying God; and tell us, did our benevolent Creator\nmake a creature and a world like this? A Calvinist who puts this\nquestion is playing with fire. But I answer the question explicitly: all\nthese things we have met steadily and face to face; in full view of\nthem, we have taken up our faith in the goodness of God; and in full\nview of them we will hold fast that faith. Nor is it just or true to\naffirm, that our system hides these evils, or that our practice refuses\nto grapple with them. And if you confess, that these ills of life would\nbe too much for your natural piety; if you declare, that these rugged\nfoundations and tempestuous elements of Providence would starve and\ncrush your confidence in God, while ours strikes its roots in the rock,\nand throws out its branches to brave the storm, are you entitled to\ntaunt us with a faith of puny growth? Meanwhile, we willingly assent to\nthe principle which this appeal to evil is designed to establish; that,\nwith much apparent order, there is some apparent disorder in the\nphenomena of the world; that from the latter, by itself, we should be\nunable to infer any goodness and benevolence in God; and that were not\nthe former clearly the predominant result of natural laws, the character\nof the Great Cause of all things would be involved in agonizing gloom.\nThe mass of physical and moral evil we do not profess fully to explain;\nwe think that in no system whatever is there any approach to an\nexplanation; and we are accustomed to touch on that dread subject with\nthe humility of filial trust, not with the confidence of dogmatic\nelucidation.\n\nSurely the fall of our first parents, I shall be reminded, gives the\nrequisite solution. The disaster which then befell the human race, has\nchanged the primeval constitution of things; introduced mortality, and\nall the infirmities of which it is the result; introduced sin, and all\nthe seeds of vile affections which it compels us to inherit; introduced\nalso the penalties of sin, visible in part on this scene of life, and\ndeveloping themselves in another in anguish everlasting. Fresh from the\nhand of his Creator, man was innocent, happy and holy; and he it is, not\nGod, who has deformed the world with guilt and grief.\n\nNow, _as a statement of fact_, all this may or may not be true. Of this\nI say nothing. But who does not see that, _as an explanation_, it is\ninconsistent with itself, partial in its application, and leaves matters\nincomparably worse than it found them? It is inconsistent with itself;\nfor Adam, perfectly pure and holy as he is reputed to have been, gave\nthe only proof that could exist of his being neither, by succumbing to\nthe first temptation that came in his way; and though finding no\nenjoyment but in the contemplation of God, gave himself up to the first\nadvances of the devil. Never surely was a reputation for sanctity so\ncheaply won. The canonizations of the Romish Calendar have been\ncuriously bestowed, on beings sufficiently remote from just ideas of\nexcellence; but, usually, there is _something_ to be affirmed of them,\nlegendary or otherwise, which, _if true_, might justify a momentary\nadmiration. But our first parent was not laid even under this necessity,\nto obtain a glory greater than canonization; he had simply to do\nnothing, except to fall, in order to be esteemed the most perfectly holy\nof created minds. Most partial, too, is this theory in its application;\nfor disease and hardship, and death unmerited as the infant\u2019s, afflict\nthe lower animal creation. Is this, too, the result of the fall? If so,\nit is an _unredeemed_ effect; if not, it presses on the benevolence of\nthe Maker; and by the physical analogies which connect man with the\ninferior creatures, force on us the impression, that his corporeal\nsufferings have an original source not dissimilar from theirs. And\nagain, this explanation only serves to make matters worse than before.\nFor how puerile is it to suppose, that men will rest satisfied with\ntracing back their ills to Adam, and refrain from asking, who was Adam\u2019s\ncause! And then comes upon us at once the ancient dilemma about evil;\nwas it mistake, or was it malignity, that created so poor a creature as\nour progenitor, and staked on so precarious a will the blessedness of a\nrace and the well-being of a world? So far, this theory, falsely and\ninjuriously ascribed to Christianity, would leave us where we were: but\nit carries us into deeper and gratuitous difficulties, of which natural\nreligion knows nothing, by appending eternal consequences to Adam\u2019s\ntransgression; a large portion of which, after the most sanguine\nextension of the efficacy of the atonement, must remain unredeemed. So\nthat if, under the eye of naturalism, the world, with its generations\ndropping into the grave, must appear (as we heard it recently\ndescribed)[296] like the populous precincts of some castle, whose\ngovernor called his servants, after a brief indulgence of liberty and\npeace, into a dark and inscrutable dungeon, never to return or be seen\nagain: the only new feature which this theory introduces into the\nprospect is this; that the interior of that cavernous prison-house is\ndisclosed; and while a few of the departed are seen to have emerged into\na fairer light, and to be traversing greener fields, and sharing a more\nblessed liberty than they knew before, the vast multitude are discerned\nin the gripe of everlasting chains, and the twist of unimaginable\ntorture. And all this infliction is a penal consequence of a first\nancestor\u2019s transgression! Singular spectacle to be offered in\nvindication of the character of God!\n\nWe are warned, however, not to start back from this representation, or\nto indulge in any rash expression at the view which it gives of the\njustice of the Most High; for that, beyond all doubt, parallel instances\noccur in the operations of nature; and that if the system deduced from\nScripture accords with that which is in action in the creation, there\narises a strong presumption that both are from the same Author. The\narrangement which is the prime subject of objection in the foregoing\ntheory, _viz._, the vicarious transmission of consequences from acts of\nvice and virtue, is said to be familiar to our observation as a _fact_;\nand ought, therefore, to present no difficulties in the way of the\nadmission of a _doctrine_. Is it not obvious, for example, that the\nguilt of a parent may entail disease and premature death on his child,\nor even remoter descendants? And if it be consistent with the divine\nperfections, that the innocent should suffer for others\u2019 sins at the\ndistance of one generation, why not at the distance of a thousand? The\nguiltless victim is not more completely severed from identity with Adam,\nthan he is from identity with his own father. My reply is brief: I admit\nboth the fact and the analogy; but the fact is of the exceptional kind,\nfrom which, by itself, I could not infer the justice or the benevolence\nof the Creator; and which, were it of large and prevalent amount, I\ncould not even reconcile with these perfections. If then you take it out\nof the list of exceptions and difficulties, and erect it into a cardinal\nrule, if you interpret by it the whole invisible portion of God\u2019s\ngovernment, you turn the scale at once against the character of the\nSupreme, and plant creation under a tyrant\u2019s sway. And this is the fatal\nprinciple pervading all analogical arguments in defence of Trinitarian\nChristianity. No resemblances to the system can be found in the\nuniverse, except in those anomalies and seeming deformities which\nperplex the student of Providence, and which would undermine his faith,\nwere they not lost in the vast spectacle of beauty and of good. These\ndisorders are selected and spread out to view, as specimens of the\ndivine government of nature; the mysteries and horrors which offend us\nin the popular theology are extended by their side; the comparison is\nmade, point by point, till the similitude is undeniably made out; and\nwhen the argument is closed, it amounts to this: do you doubt whether\nGod could break mens\u2019 limbs? You mistake his strength of character; only\nsee how he puts out their eyes! What kind of impression this reasoning\nmay have, seems to me doubtful even to agony. Both Trinitarian theology\nand nature, it is triumphantly urged, must proceed from the same Author;\naye, but what sort of Author is that? You have led me in your quest\nafter analogies, through the great infirmary of God\u2019s creation! and so\nhaunted am I by the sights and sounds of the lazar-house, that scarce\ncan I believe in anything but pestilence; so sick of soul have I become,\nthat the mountain breeze has lost its scent of health; and you say, it\nis all the same in the other world, and wherever the same rule extends:\nthen I know my fate, that in this Universe Justice has no throne. And\nthus, my friends, it comes to pass, that these reasoners often gain\nindeed their victory; but it is known only to the Searcher of Hearts,\nwhether it is a victory against natural religion, or in favour of\nrevealed. For this reason, I consider the \u201cAnalogy\u201d of Bishop Butler\n(one of the profoundest of thinkers, and on purely moral subjects one of\nthe justest too,) as containing, with a design directly contrary, the\nmost terrible persuasives to Atheism that have ever been produced. The\nessential error consists in selecting the difficulties,\u2014which are the\nrare, exceptional phenomena of nature,\u2014as the basis of analogy and\nargument. In the comprehensive and generous study of Providence, the\nmind may, indeed, already have overcome the difficulties, and with the\nlights recently gained from the harmony, design, and order of creation,\nhave made those shadows pass imperceptibly away; but when forced again\ninto their very centre, compelled to adopt them as a fixed station and\npoint of mental vision, they deepen round the heart again, and, instead\nof illustrating anything, become solid darkness themselves.\n\nI cannot quit this topic without observing, however, that there appears\nto be nothing in nature and life, at all analogous to the vicarious\nprinciple attributed to God in the Trinitarian scheme of redemption.\nThere is nowhere to be found any proper transfer or exchange, either of\nthe qualities, or of the consequences, of vice and virtue. The good and\nevil acts of men do indeed affect others _as well_ as themselves; the\ninnocent suffer _with_ the guilty, as in the case before adduced, of a\nchild suffering in health by the excesses of a parent. But there is here\nno endurance _for_ another, similar to Christ\u2019s alleged endurance in the\nplace of men; the infliction on the child is not deducted from the\nparent; it does nothing to lighten his load, or make it less than it\nwould have been, had he been without descendants; nor does any one\nsuppose his guilt alleviated by the existence of this innocent\nfellow-sufferer. There is a nearer approach to analogy in those cases of\ncrime where the perpetrator seems to escape, and to leave the\nconsequences of his act to descend on others; as when the successful\ncheat eludes pursuit, and from the stolen gains of neighbours constructs\na life of luxury for himself; or when a spendthrift government,\nforgetful of its high trust, turning the professions of patriotism into\na lie, is permitted to run a prosperous career for one generation, and\nis personally gone before the popular retribution falls, in the next, on\ninnocent successors. Here no doubt the harmless suffer _by_ the guilty,\nin a certain sense _in the place of_ the guilty; but not in the sense\nwhich the analogy requires. For there is still no substitution; the\ndistress of the unoffending party is not struck out of the offender\u2019s\npunishment; does not lessen, but rather aggravates his guilt; and\ninstead of fitting him for pardon, tempts the natural sentiments of\njustice to follow him with severer condemnation. Nor does the scheme\nreceive any better illustration from the fact, that whoever attempts the\ncure of misery must himself suffer; must have the shadows of ill cast\nupon his spirit from every sadness he alleviates; and interpose himself\nto stay the plague which, in a world diseased, threatens to pass to the\nliving from the dead. The parallel fails, because there is still no\ntransference: the appropriate sufferings of sin are not given to the\nphilanthropist; and the noble pains of goodness in him, the glorious\nstrife of his self-sacrifice, are no part of the penal consequences of\nothers\u2019 guilt; they do not cancel one iota of those consequences, or\nmake the crimes which have demanded them, in any way, more ready for\nforgiveness. Indeed, it is not in the good man\u2019s _sufferings_,\nconsidered as such, that any efficacy resides; but in his _efforts_,\nwhich may be made with great sacrifice or without it, as the case may\nbe. Nor, at best, is there any proper annihilation of consequences at\nall, accruing from his toils; the past acts of wrong which call up his\nresisting energies, are irrevocable, the guilt incurred, the penalty\nindestructible; the series of effects, foreign to the mind of the\nperpetrator, may be abbreviated; prevention may be applied to new ills\nwhich threaten to arise; but, by all this, the personal fitness of the\ndelinquent for forgiveness is wholly unaffected; the volition of sin has\ngone forth; and on it, flies, as surely as sound on a vibration of the\nair, the verdict of judgment.\n\nThose who are affected by slight and failing analogies like these, would\ndo well to consider one, sufficiently obvious, which seems to throw\ndoubt upon their scheme. The atonement is thought to be, in respect to\nall believers, a reversal of the fall: the effects of the fall are\npartly visible and temporal, partly invisible and eternal; linked,\nhowever, together as inseparable portions of the same penal system. Now\nit is evident, that the supposed redemption on the cross has left\nprecisely where they were, all the _visible_ effects of the first\ntransgression: sorrow and toil are the lot of all, as they have been\nfrom of old; the baptized infant utters a cry as sad as the unbaptized;\nand between the holiness of the true believer and the worth of the\ndevout heretic, there is not discernible such a difference as there must\nhave been between Adam pure and perfect, and Adam lapsed and lost. And\nis it presumptuous to reason from the seen to the unseen, from the part\nwhich we experience to that which we can only conceive? If the known\neffects are unredeemed, the suspicion is not unnatural, that so are the\nunknown.\n\nI sum up, then, this part of my subject by observing, that besides many\ninconclusive appeals to nature, the advocates of the vicarious scheme\nare chargeable with this fundamental inconsistency. They appear to deny\nthat the justice and benevolence of God can be reconciled with the\nphenomena of nature; and say that the evidence must be helped out by\nresort to their interpretation of scripture. When, having heard this\nauxiliary system, we protest that it renders the case sadder than\nbefore, they assure us that it is all benevolent and just, because it\nhas its parallel in creation. They renounce and adopt, in the same\nbreath, the religious appeal to the universe of God.\n\n(2.) Another inconsistency appears, in the view which this theory gives\nof the character of God.\n\nIt is assumed that, at the \u00e6ra of creation, the Maker of mankind had\nannounced the infinite penalties which must follow the violation of his\nlaw; and that their amount did not exceed the measure which his\nabhorrence of wrong required. \u201cAnd that which he saith, he would not be\nGod if he did not perform: that which he perceived right, he would be\nunworthy of our trust, did he not fulfil. His veracity and justice,\ntherefore, were pledged to adhere to the word that had gone forth: and\nexcluded the possibility of any free and unconditional forgiveness.\u201d Now\nI would note in passing, that this announcement to Adam of an eternal\npunishment impending over his first sin, is simply a fiction; for the\nwarning to him is stated thus; \u201cIn the day that thou eatest thereof thou\nshalt surely die;\u201d[297] from which our progenitor must have been as\ningenious as a theologian, to extract the idea of endless life in Hell.\nBut to say no more of this, what notions of veracity have we here? When\na sentence is proclaimed against crime, is it indifferent to judicial\ntruth, _upon whom_ it falls? Personally addressed to the guilty, may it\ndescend without a lie upon the guiltless? Provided there is the\nsuffering, is it no matter _where_? Is this the sense in which God is no\nrespecter of persons? Oh! what deplorable reflection of human artifice\nis this, that Heaven is too veracious to abandon its proclamation of\nmenace against transgressors; yet is content to vent it on goodness the\nmost perfect. No darker deed can be imagined, than is thus ascribed to\nthe Source of all perfection, under the insulted names of truth and\nholiness. What reliance could we have on the faithfulness of such a\nBeing? If it be consistent with his nature to _punish_ by substitution,\nwhat security is there that he will not _reward_ vicariously? All must\nbe loose and unsettled, the sentiments of reverence confused, the\nperceptions of conscience indistinct, where the terms expressive of\nthose great moral qualities which render God himself most venerable, are\nthus sported with and profaned.\n\nThe same extraordinary departure from all intelligible meaning of words\nis apparent, when our charge of vindictiveness against the doctrine of\nsacrifice is repelled as a slander. If the rigorous refusal of pardon,\ntill the whole penalty has been inflicted (when, indeed, it is no pardon\nat all) be not vindictive, we may ask to be furnished with some better\ndefinition. And though it is said, that God\u2019s love was manifested to us\nby the gift of his Son, this does but change the object on which this\nquality is exercised, without removing the quality itself; putting _us_\nindeed into the sunshine of his grace, but _the Saviour_ into the\ntempest of his wrath. Did we desire to sketch the most dreadful form of\ncharacter, what more emphatic combination could we invent than this;\nrigour in the exaction of penal suffering; and indifference as to the\nperson on whom it falls?\n\nBut in truth this system, in its delineations of the Great Ruler of\ncreation, bids defiance to all the analogies by which Christ and the\nChristian heart have delighted to illustrate his nature. A God who could\naccept the spontaneously returning sinner, and restore him by corrective\ndiscipline, is pronounced not worth serving, and an object of\ncontempt.[298] If so, Jesus sketched an object of contempt when he drew\nthe father of the prodigal son, opening his arms to the poor penitent,\nand needing only the sight of his misery to fall on his neck with the\nkiss of welcome home. Let the assertions be true, that sacrifice and\nsatisfaction are needful preliminaries to pardon, that to pay any\nattention to repentance without these is mere weakness, and that it is a\nperilous deception to teach the doctrine of mercy apart from the\natonement; and this parable of our Saviour\u2019s becomes the most pernicious\ninstrument of delusion; a statement, absolute and unqualified, of a\nfeeble and sentimental heresy. Who does not see what follows from this\nscornful exclusion of corrective punishment? Suppose the infliction not\nto be corrective, that is, not to be designed for any good, what then\nremains as the cause of the Divine retribution? The sense of insult\noffered to a law. And thus we are virtually told, that God must be\nregarded with a mixture of contempt, unless he be susceptible of\npersonal affront.[299]\n\n(3.) The last inconsistency with itself which I shall point out in this\ndoctrine, will be found in the view which it gives of the work of\nChrist. Sin, we are assured, is necessarily infinite. Its infinitude\narises from its reference to an Infinite Being; and involves as a\nconsequence the necessity of redemption by Deity himself.\n\nThe position, that guilt be estimated not by its amount or its motive,\nbut by the dignity of the being against whom it is directed, is\nillustrated by the case of an insubordinate soldier, whose punishment is\nincreased, according as his rebellion assails an equal, or any of the\nmany grades amongst his superiors. It is evident, however, that it is\nnot the dignity of the person, but the magnitude of the effect, which\ndetermines the severity of the sanction by which, in such an instance,\nlaw enforces order. Insult to a monarch is more sternly treated than\ninjury to a subject, because it incurs the risk of wider and more\ndisastrous consequences, and superadds to the personal injury a peril to\nan official power which, not resting on individual superiority, but on\nconventional arrangement, is always precarious. It is not indeed easy to\nform a distinct notion of an infinite act in a finite agent; and still\nless is it easy to evade the inference, that if an immoral deed against\nGod be an infinite demerit, a moral deed towards him must be an infinite\nmerit.\n\nPassing by an assertion so unmeaning, and conceding it for the sake of\nprogress in our argument, I would inquire what is intended by that other\nstatement, that only Deity can redeem, and that by Deity the sacrifice\nwas made? The union of the divine and human natures in Christ is said to\nhave made his sufferings meritorious in an infinite degree. Yet we are\nrepeatedly assured, that it was in his manhood only that he endured and\ndied. If the divine nature in our Lord had a joint consciousness with\nthe human, then did God suffer and perish; if not, then did the man only\ndie, Deity being no more affected by his anguish, than by that of the\nmalefactors on either side. In the one case the perfections of God, in\nthe other the reality of the atonement, must be relinquished. No doubt,\nthe popular belief is, that the Creator literally expired; the hymns in\ncommon use declare it; the language of pulpits sanctions it; the\nconsistency of creeds requires it; but professed theologians repudiate\nthe idea with indignation. Yet by silence or ambiguous speech, they\nencourage, in those whom they are bound to enlighten, this degrading\nhumanization of Deity; which renders it impossible for common minds to\navoid ascribing to him emotions and infirmities, totally irreconcileable\nwith the serene perfections of the Universal Mind. In his influence on\nthe worshipper, _He_ is no Spirit, who can be invoked by his agony and\nbloody sweat, his cross and passion. And the piety that is thus taught\nto bring its incense, however sincere, before the mental image of a\nbeing with convulsed features and expiring cry, has little left of that\nwhich makes Christian devotion characteristically venerable.\n\nII. I proceed to notice the inconsistency of the doctrine under review\nwith the Christian idea of salvation.\n\nThere is one _significant scriptural fact_, which suggests to us the\nbest mode of treating this part of our subject. It is this; that the\nlanguage supposed to teach the atoning efficacy of the cross, does not\nappear in the New Testament till the Gentile controversy commences, nor\never occurs apart from the treatment of that subject, under some of its\nrelations. The cause of this phenomenon will presently appear; meanwhile\nI state it, in the place of an assertion sometimes incorrectly made,\nviz., that the phraseology in question is confined to the epistles. Even\nthis mechanical limitation of sacrificial passages is indeed nearly\ntrue, as not above three or four have strayed beyond the epistolary\nboundary, into the Gospels and the book of Acts: but the restriction in\nrespect of subject, which I have stated, will be found, I believe, to be\nabsolutely exact, and to furnish the real interpretation to the whole\nsystem of language.\n\n(1.) Let us then first test the vicarious scheme by reference to the\nsentiments of Scripture generally, and of our Lord and his apostles\nespecially, where this controversy is out of the way. Are their ideas\nrespecting human character, the forgiveness of sins, the terms of\neverlasting life, accordant with the cardinal notions of a believer in\nthe atonement? Do they, or do they not, insist on the necessity of a\nsacrifice for human sin, as a preliminary to pardon, to sanctification,\nto the love of God? Do they, or do they not, direct a marked and almost\nexclusive attention to the cross, as the object to which, far more than\nto the life and resurrection of our Lord, all faithful eyes should be\ndirected?\n\n(a.) Now to the fundamental assertion of the vicarious system, that the\nDeity cannot, without inconsistency and imperfection, pardon on simple\nrepentance, the whole tenor of the Bible is one protracted and\nunequivocal contradiction. So copious is its testimony on this head,\nthat if the passages containing it were removed, scarcely a shred of\nScripture relating to the subject would remain. \u201cPardon, I beseech\nthee,\u201d said Moses, pleading for the Israelites, \u201cthe iniquity of this\npeople, according to the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast\nforgiven this people, from Egypt even until now; and the Lord said, _I\nhave pardoned according to thy word_.\u201d[300] Will it be affirmed, that\nthis chosen people had their eyes perpetually fixed in faith on the\ngreat propitiation, which was to close their dispensation, and of which\ntheir own ceremonial was a type?\u2014that whenever penitence and pardon are\nnamed amongst them, this reference is implied, and that as this faith\nwas called to mind and expressed in the shedding of blood at the altar,\nsuch sacrificial offerings take the place, in Judaism, of the atoning\ntrust in Christianity? Well then, let us quit the chosen nation\naltogether, and go to a heathen people, who were aliens to their laws,\ntheir blood, their hopes, and their religion; to whom no sacrifice was\nappointed, and no Messiah promised. If we can discover the dealings of\nGod with such a people, the case, I presume, must be deemed conclusive.\nHear then, what happened on the banks of the Tigris. \u201cJonah began to\nenter into the city,\u201d (Nineveh,) \u201cand he cried and said, yet forty days\nand Nineveh shall be overthrown. So the people of Nineveh believed God,\nand proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them\neven unto the least of them.\u201d \u201cWho can tell,\u201d (said the decree of the\nking ordaining the fast), \u201cif God will turn and repent, and turn away\nfrom his fierce anger, that we perish not? And God saw their works, that\nthey turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil that he\nhad said he would do unto them; and he did it not.\u201d[301] And when the\nprophet was offended, first at this clemency to Nineveh, and afterwards\nthat the canker was sent to destroy his own favourite plant, beneath\nwhose shadow he sat, what did Jehovah say? \u201cThou hast had pity on the\ngourd, for which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which\ncame up in a night and perished in a night; and should not I spare\nNineveh, that great city, wherein are more than six-score thousand\npersons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left\nhand?\u201d[302] \u2014and who are not likely, one would think, to have discerned\nthe future merits of the Redeemer.\n\nIn truth, if even the Israelites had any such prospective views to\nCalvary, if their sacrifices conveyed the idea of the cross erected\nthere, and were established for this purpose, the fact must have been\nprivately revealed to modern theologians; for not a trace of it can be\nfound in the Hebrew writings. It must be thought strange, that a\nprophetic reference so habitual, should be always a secret reference;\nthat a faith so fundamental should be so mysteriously suppressed; that\nthe uppermost idea of a nation\u2019s mind should never have found its way to\nlips or pen. \u201cBut if it were not so,\u201d we are reminded, \u201cif the Jewish\nritual prefigured nothing ulterior, it was revolting, trifling, savage;\nits worship a butchery, and the temple courts no better than a slaughter\nhouse.\u201d And were they not equally so, though the theory of types be\ntrue? If neither priest nor people could _see at the time_ the very\nthing which the ceremonial was constructed to reveal, what advantage is\nit that divines can see it _now_? And even if the notion was conveyed to\nthe Jewish mind, (which the whole history shows not to have been the\nfact,) was it necessary that hecatombs should be slain, age after age,\nto intimate obscurely an idea, which one brief sentence might have\nlucidly expressed? The idea, however, it is evident, slipped through\nafter all; for when Messiah actually came, the one great thing which the\nJews did _not_ know and believe about him was, that he could die at all.\nSo much for the preparatory discipline of fifteen centuries!\n\nThere is no reason then why anything should be supplied in our thoughts,\nto alter the plain meaning of the announcements of prophets and holy\nmen, of God\u2019s unconditional forgiveness on repentance. \u201cThou desirest\nnot sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in burnt\noffering; the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a\ncontrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.\u201d[303] \u201cWash you, make you\nclean,\u201d says the prophet Isaiah in the name of the Lord; \u201cput away the\nevil of your doings from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, learn to do\nwell; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead\nfor the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord;\nthough your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they\nbe red like crimson, they shall be as wool.\u201d[304] Once more, \u201cWhen I say\nunto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do\nthat which is lawful and right; if the wicked restore the pledge, give\nagain that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life without\ncommitting iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.\u201d[305] Nor\nare the teachings of the Gospel at all less explicit. Our Lord treats\nlargely and expressly on the doctrine of forgiveness in several\nparables, and especially that of the prodigal son; and omits all\nallusion to the propitiation for the past. He furnishes an express\ndefinition of the terms of eternal life; \u201cGood master, what good thing\nshall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, why\ncallest thou me good; there is none good save one, that is God; but if\nthou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.\u201d And Jesus adds, \u201cif\nthou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor,\nand thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.\u201d[306] This\nsilence on the prime condition of pardon cannot be explained by the\nfact, that the crucifixion had not yet taken place, and could not safely\nbe alluded to, before the course of events had brought it into prominent\nnotice. For we have the preaching of the Apostles, after the ascension,\nrecorded at great length, and under very various circumstances, in the\nbook of Acts. We have the very \u201cwords whereby,\u201d according to the\ntestimony of an angel, \u201cCornelius and all his house shall be saved;\u201d\nthese, one would think, would be worth hearing in this cause: \u201cGod\nanointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power; who went\nabout doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil, for\nGod was with him. And we are witnesses of all things which he did, both\nin the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a\ntree; him God raised up the third day, and showed openly; not to all the\npeople, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat\nand drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to\npreach unto the people, and to testify, that it is he who was ordained\nof God to be the judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets\nwitness, that, through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall\nreceive remission of sins.\u201d[307] Did an Evangelical missionary dare to\npreach in this style now, he would be immediately disowned by his\nemployers, and dismissed as a disguised Socinian, who kept back all the\n\u201cpeculiar doctrines of the Gospel.\u201d\n\n(b.) The emphatic mention of the resurrection by the apostle Peter in\nthis address, is only a particular instance of a system which pervades\nthe whole preaching of the first missionaries of Christ. _This_, and not\nthe cross, with its supposed effects, is the grand object to which they\ncall the attention and the faith of their hearers. I cannot quote to you\nthe whole book of Acts; but every reader knows, that \u201cJesus and the\nresurrection\u201d constitutes the leading theme, the central combination of\nideas in all its discourses. This truth was shed, from Peter\u2019s tongue of\nfire, on the multitudes that heard amazed the inspiration of the day of\nPentecost.[308] Again, it was his text, when passing beneath the\nbeautiful gate, he made the cripple leap for joy; and then, with the\nflush of this deed still fresh upon him, leaned against a pillar in\nSolomon\u2019s porch, and spake in explanation to the awe-struck people,\nthronging in at the hour of prayer.[309] Before priests and rulers,\nbefore Sanhedrim and populace, the same tale is told again, to the utter\nexclusion, be it observed, of the essential doctrine of the cross.[310]\nThe authorities of the temple, we are told, were galled and terrified at\nthe apostle\u2019s preaching; \u201cnaturally enough,\u201d it will be said, \u201csince,\nthe real sacrifice having been offered, their vocation, which was to\nmake the prefatory and typical oblation, was threatened with\ndestruction.\u201d But no, this is not the reason given: \u201cThey were grieved\nbecause they preached, through Jesus, the resurrection from the\ndead.\u201d[311] Paul, too, while his preaching was spontaneous and free, and\nuntil he had to argue certain controversies which have long ago become\nobselete, manifested a no less remarkable predilection for this topic.\nBefore Felix, he declares what was the grand indictment of his\ncountrymen against him; \u201ctouching the resurrection of the dead, I am\ncalled in question of you this day.\u201d[312] Follow him far away from his\nown land; and, with foreigners, he harps upon the same subject, as if he\nwere a man of one idea; which, indeed, according to our opponents\u2019\nscheme, he ought to have been, only it should have been _another idea_.\nSeldom, however, can we meet with a more exuberant mind than Paul\u2019s; yet\nthe resurrection obviously haunts him wherever he goes: in the synagogue\nof Antioch, you hear him dwelling on it with all the energy of his\ninspiration;[313] and, at Athens, it was this on which the scepticism of\nEpicureans and Stoics fastened for a scoff.[314] In his epistles, too,\nwhere he enlarges so much on justification by faith, when we inquire\nwhat precisely is this faith, and what the object it is to contemplate\nand embrace, this remarkable fact presents itself: that the one only\nimportant thing respecting Christ, which is _never once_ mentioned as\nthe object of justifying faith is _his death, and blood, and cross_.\n\u201cFaith\u201d by itself, the \u201cfaith of Jesus Christ,\u201d \u201cfaith of the Gospel,\u201d\n\u201cfaith of the Son of God,\u201d are expressions of constant occurrence; and\nwherever this general description is replaced by a more specific account\nof this justifying state of mind, it is _faith in the resurrection_ on\nwhich attention is fastened. \u201cIt is Christ that died, _yea rather, that\nis risen again_.\u201d[315] \u201cHe was delivered for our offences, and _raised\nagain for our justification_.\u201d[316] \u201cFaith shall be imputed to us for\nrighteousness, if we believe on _him that raised up Jesus our Lord from\nthe dead_.\u201d[317] Hear too, the Apostle\u2019s definition of saving faith: \u201cIf\nthou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in\nthy heart _that God hath raised him from the dead_, thou shalt be\nsaved.\u201d[318] The only instance, in which the writings of St. Paul appear\nto associate the word faith with the death of Christ, is the following\ntext: \u201cwhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his\nblood;\u201d[319] and in this case the Apostle\u2019s meaning would, I conceive,\nbe more faithfully given by destroying this conjunction, and disposing\nthe words thus: \u201cwhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation by his\nblood, through faith.\u201d The idea of his _blood_, or _death_, belongs to\nthe word \u2018propitiation,\u2019 not to the word \u2018faith.\u2019 To this translation no\nTrinitarian scholar, I am persuaded, can object;[320] and when the true\nmeaning of the writer\u2019s sacrificial language is explained, the\ndistinction will appear to be not unimportant. At present I am concerned\nonly with the defence of my position, that the death of Christ is never\nmentioned as the object of saving faith; but that his resurrection\nunquestionably is. This phenomenon in Scripture phraseology is so\nextraordinary, so utterly repugnant to everything which a hearer of\northodox preaching would expect, that I hardly expect my affirmation of\nit to be believed. The two ideas of _faith_, and of our _Lord\u2019s death_,\nare so naturally and perpetually united in the mind of every believer in\nthe atonement, that it must appear to him incredible, that they should\nnever fall together in the writings of the Apostles. However, I have\nstated my fact; and it is for you to bring it to the test of Scripture.\n\n(c.) Independently of all written testimony, moral reasons, we are\nassured, exist, which render an absolute remission for the past\nessential to a regenerated life for the future. Our human nature is said\nto be so constituted, that the burden of sin, on the conscience once\nawakened, is intolerable: our spirit cries aloud for mercy; yet is so\nstraitened by the bands of sin, so conscious of the sad alliance\nlingering still, so full of hesitancy and shame when seeking the relief\nof prayer, so blinded by its tears when scanning the heavens for an\nopening of light and hope, that there is no freedom, no unrestrained and\nhappy love to God; but a pinched and anxious mind, bereft of power,\nstriving to work with bandaged or paralytic will, instead of trusting\nitself to loosened and self-oblivious affections. Hence it is thought,\nthat the sin of the past must be cancelled, before the holiness of the\nfuture can be commenced; that it is a false order to represent\nrepentance as leading to pardon; because to be forgiven is the\npre-requisite to love. We cannot forget, however, how distinctly and\nemphatically he who, after God, best knew what is in man, has\ncontradicted this sentiment; for when that sinful woman, whose presence\nin the house shocked the sanctimonious Pharisee, stood at his feet as he\nreclined, washing them with her tears, and kissing them with reverential\nlips; Jesus turned to her and said, \u201cher sins, which are many, are\nforgiven; _for_ she loved much.\u201d[321] From him, then, we learn what our\nown hearts would almost teach, that love may be the prelude to\nforgiveness, as well as forgiveness the preparative for love.\n\nAt the same time let me acknowledge, that this statement respecting the\nmoral effects of conscious pardon, to which I have invoked Jesus to\nreply, is by no means an unmixed error. It touches upon a very profound\nand important truth; and I can never bring myself to regard that\nassurance of divine forgiveness, which the doctrine of atonement\nimparts, as a demoralizing state of mind, encouraging laxity of\nconscience and a continuance in sin. The sense of pardon doubtless\nreaches the secret springs of gratitude, presents the soul with an\nobject, strange before, of new and divine affection; and binds the child\nof redemption, by all generous and filial obligations, to serve with\nfree and willing heart the God who hath gone forth to meet him. That the\nmotives of self-interest are diminished in such a case, is a trifle that\nneed occasion small anxiety. For the human heart is no labourer for\nhire; and, where there is opportunity afforded for true and noble love,\nwill thrust away the proffered wages, and toil rather in a free and\nthankful spirit. If we are to compare, as a source of duty, the grateful\nwith the merely prudential temper, rather may we trust the first, as not\nthe worthier only, but the stronger too; and till we obtain emancipation\nfrom the latter,\u2014forget the computations of hope and fear, and\nprecipitate ourselves for better for worse on some object of divine love\nand trust,\u2014our nature will be puny and weak, our wills will turn in\nsickness from their duty, and our affections shrink in aversion from\ntheir heaven. But though personal gratitude is better than prudence,\nthere is a higher service still. A more disinterested love may spring\nfrom the contemplation of what God is in himself, than from the\nrecollection of what he has done for us; and when this mingles most\nlargely as an element among our springs of action; when, humbled indeed\nby a knowledge of dangers that await us, and thankful, too, for the\nblessings spread around us, we yet desire chiefly to be fitting children\nof the everlasting Father and the holy God; when we venerate him for the\ngraciousness and purity and majesty of his spirit, impersonated in\nJesus; and resolve to serve him truly, _before_ he has granted the\ndesire of our heart, and because he is of a nature so sublime and\nmerciful and good; then are we in the condition of her who bent over the\nfeet of Christ; and we are forgiven, because we have loved much.\n\n(2.) Let us now, in conclusion, turn our attention to those portions of\nthe New Testament, which speak of the death of Christ as the means of\nredemption.\n\nI have said, that these are to be found exclusively in passages of the\nsacred writings which treat of the Gentile controversy, or of topics\nimmediately connected with it. This controversy arose naturally out of\nthe design of Providence to make the narrow, exclusive, ceremonial\nsystem of Judaism, give birth to the universal and spiritual religion of\nthe Gospel; from God\u2019s method of expanding the Hebrew Messiah into the\nSaviour of humanity. For this the nation was not prepared; to this even\nthe Hebrew Christians could not easily conform their faith; and in the\nachievement of this, or in persuading the world that it was achieved,\ndid Paul spend his noble life, and write his astonishing epistles. The\nJews knew that the Deliverer was to be of their peculiar stock, and\ntheir royal lineage; they believed that he would gather upon himself all\nthe singularities of their race, and be a Hebrew to intensity; that he\nwould literally restore the kingdom to Israel; aye, and extend it too,\nimmeasurably beyond the bounds of its former greatness; till, in fact,\nit swallowed up all existing principalities and powers, and thrones, and\ndominions, and became co-extensive with the earth. Then in Jerusalem, as\nthe centre of the vanquished nations,\u2014before the temple, as the altar of\na humbled world, did they expect the Messiah to erect his throne; and\nwhen he had taken the seat of judgment, to summon all the tribes before\nhis tribunal, and pass on the Gentiles, excepting the few who might\nsubmit to the law, a sentence of perpetual exclusion from his realm;\nwhile his own people would be invited to the seats of honour, occupy the\nplace of authority and sit down with him (the greatest at his right hand\nand his left) at his table in his kingdom. The holy men of old were to\ncome on earth again to see this day. And many thought that every part of\nthe realm thus constituted, and all its inhabitants, would never die:\nbut like the Messiah himself, and the patriarchs whom he was to call to\nlife, would be invested with immortality. None were to be admitted to\nthese golden days except themselves; all else to be left in outer\ndarkness from this region of light, and there to perish and be seen no\nmore. The grand title to admission was conformity with the Mosaic law;\nthe most ritually scrupulous were the most secure; and the careless\nIsraelite, who forgot or omitted an offering, a tithe, a Sabbath duty,\nmight incur the penalty of exclusion and death: the law prescribed such\nmortal punishment for the smallest offence; and no one, therefore, could\nfeel himself ready with his claim, if he had not yielded a perfect\nobedience. If God were to admit him on any other plea, it would be of\npure grace and goodness, and not in fulfilment of any promise.\n\nThe Jews, being scattered over the civilized world, and having\nsynagogues in every city, came into perpetual contact with other people.\nNor was it possible that the Gentiles, among whom they lived, should\nnotice the singular purity and simplicity of the Israelitish Theism,\nwithout some of them being struck with its spirit, attracted by its\nsublime principles, and disposed to place themselves in religious\nrelations with that singular people. Having been led into admiration and\neven profession of the nation\u2019s theology, they could not but desire to\nshare their hopes; which indeed were an integral part of their religion,\nand, at the Christian era, the one element in it to which they were most\npassionately attached. But this was a stretch of charity too great for\nany Hebrew; or, at all events, if such admission were ever to be thought\nof, it must only be on condition of absolute submission to the\nrequirements of the law. The Gentile would naturally plead, that as God\nhad not made him of the chosen nation, he had given him no law, except\nthat of conscience; that, being without the law, he must be a law unto\nhimself; and that if he had lived according to his light, he could not\nbe justly excluded on the ground of accidental disqualification.\nPossibly, in the provocation of dispute, the Gentile might sometimes\nbecome froward and insolent in his assertion of claim; and, in the pride\nof his heart, demand as a right that which, at most, could only be\nhumbly hoped for as a privilege and a free gift.\n\nThus were the parties mutually placed to whom the Deliverer came. Thus\ndense and complicated was the web of prejudice which clung round the\nearly steps of the Gospel; and which must be burst or disentangled ere\nthe glad tidings could have free course and be glorified. How did\nProvidence develop from such elements the divine and everlasting truth?\nNot by neglecting them, and speaking to mankind as if they had no such\nideas; not by forbidding his messengers and teachers to have any\npatience with them; but, on the contrary, by using these very notions as\ntemporary means to his everlasting ends; by touching this and that with\nlight before the eyes of apostles, as if to say, there are good\ncapabilities in these; the truth may be educed from them so gently and\nso wisely, that the world will find itself in light, without perceiving\nhow it has been quitting the darkness.\n\nSo long as Christ remained on earth, he necessarily confined his\nministry to his nation. He would not have been the Messiah had he done\notherwise. By birth, by lineage, by locality, by habit, he was\naltogether theirs. Whoever then, of his own people, during his mortal\nlife, believed in him and followed him, became a subject of the Messiah;\nready, it was supposed even by the apostles themselves, to enter the\nglory of his kingdom, whenever it should please him to assume it;\nqualified at once, by the combination of pedigree and of belief, to\nenter into life, to become a member of the kingdom of God, to take a\nplace among the elect; for, by all these phrases, was described the\nadmission to the expected realm. If, then, Jesus had never suffered and\ndied, if he had never retired from this world, but stayed to fulfil the\nanticipations of his first followers, his Messianic kingdom might have\nincluded all the converts of the Israelitish stock. From the exclusion\nwhich fell on others, they would have obtained salvation. Hence, it is\nnever in connection with the first Jewish Christians that the _death of\nChrist_ is mentioned.\n\nIt was otherwise, however, with the Gentiles. They could not become his\nfollowers in his mortal lifetime; and had a Messianic reign _then_ been\nset up, they must have been excluded; no missionary would have been\njustified in addressing them with invitation; they could not, as it was\nsaid, have entered into life. The Messiah must cease to be Jewish,\nbefore he could become universal; and this implied his death by which\nalone the personal relations, which made him the property of a nation,\ncould be annihilated. To this he submitted; he disrobed himself of his\ncorporeality, he became an immortal spirit; thereby instantly burst his\nreligion open to the dimensions of the world; and, as he ascended to the\nskies, sent it forth to scatter the seeds of blessing over the field of\nthe world, long ploughed with cares, and moist with griefs, and softened\nnow to nourish in its bosom the tree of Life.\n\nNow, how would the effect of this great revolution be described to the\nproselyte Gentiles, so long vainly praying for admission to the\nIsraelitish hope. At once it destroyed their exclusion; put away as\nvalueless the Jewish claims of circumcision and law; nailed the\nhand-writing of ordinances to the cross; reconciled them that had been\nafar off; redeemed them to God by his blood, out of every tongue, and\nkindred, and people, and nation; washed them in his blood; justified\nthem _by his resurrection and ascension_; an expression, I would remark,\nunmeaning on any other explanation.\n\nEven during our Lord\u2019s personal ministry, his approaching death is\nmentioned, as the means of introducing the Gentiles into his Messianic\nkingdom. He adverts repeatedly to his cross, as designed to widen, by\ntheir admission, the extent of his sway: and according to Scripture\nphrase, to yield to him \u201cmuch fruit.\u201d He was already on his last fatal\nvisit to Jerusalem, when, taking the hint from _the visit of some Greeks\nto him_, he exclaimed: \u201cThe hour is come, that the Son of man should be\nglorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a grain of wheat fall\ninto the ground and die, it abideth alone; but _if it die, it bringeth\nforth much fruit_.\u201d He adds, in allusion to the death he should die;\n\u201cand I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw _all men unto\nme_.\u201d[322] It is for this end that he resigns for awhile his life,\u2014that\nhe may bring in the wanderers who are not of the commonwealth of Israel:\n\u201cOther sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring,\nand they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one\nshepherd: _therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my\nlife_, that I may take it again.\u201d[323] Many a parable did Jesus utter,\nproclaiming his Father\u2019s intended mercy to the uncovenanted nations: but\nfor himself personally he declared, \u201cI am not sent, but to the lost\nsheep of the house of Israel.\u201d[324] His advent was a promise of _their_\neconomy; his office, the traditionary hope of their fathers; his birth,\nhis life, his person, were under the Law, and excluded him from\nrelations to those who were beyond its obligations. On the cross, all\nthe connate peculiarities of the Nazarene ceased to exist: when, the\nseal of the sepulchre gave way, the seal of the law was broken too; the\nnationality of his person passed away; for how can an immortal be a Jew?\nThis then was the time to open wide the scope of his mission, and to\ninvite to God\u2019s acceptance those that fear him in every nation. Though,\nbefore, the disciple might \u201chave known Christ after the flesh,\u201d and\nfollowed his steps as the Hebrew Messiah, \u201cyet now henceforth was he to\nknow him so no more;\u201d these \u201cold things had passed away,\u201d since he had\n\u201cdied for all,\u201d\u2014died to become universal,\u2014to drop all exclusive\nrelations, and \u201creconcile the world,\u201d the Gentile world, to God.[325]\nObserve to whom this \u201cministry of reconciliation\u201d is especially\nconfided. As if to show that it is exclusively _the risen Christ_ who\nbelongs to all men, and that his death was the instrument of the\nGentiles\u2019 admission, their great Apostle was one Paul, who had not known\nthe Saviour in his mortal life; who never listened to his voice, till it\nspake from heaven; who himself was the convert of his ascension; and\nbore to him the relation, not of subject to the person of a Hebrew king,\nbut of spirit to spirit, unembarrassed by anything earthly, legal, or\nhistorical. Well did Paul understand the freedom and the sanctity of\nthis relation; and around the idea of the Heavenly Messiah gathered all\nhis conceptions of the spirituality of the gospel, of its power over the\nunconscious affections, rather than a reluctant will. His believing\ncountrymen were afraid to disregard the observances of the law, lest it\nshould be a disloyalty to God, and disqualify them for the Messiah\u2019s\nwelcome, when he came to take his power and reign. Paul tells them, that\nwhile their Lord remained in this mortal state, they were right; as\nrepresentative of the law, and filling an office created by the religion\nof Judaism, he could not but have held them _then_ to its obligations;\nnor could they, without infidelity, have neglected its claims, any more\nthan a wife can innocently separate herself from a living husband. But\nas the death of the man sets the woman free, and makes null the law of\ntheir union, so the decease of Christ\u2019s body emancipates his followers\nfrom all legal relations to him; and they are at liberty to wed\nthemselves anew to the risen Christ, who dwells where no ordinance is\nneedful, no tie permitted but of the spirit, and all are as the angels\nof God.[326] Surely, then, this mode of conception explains, why the\ndeath of Jesus constitutes a great date in the Christian economy,\nespecially as expounded by the friend and apostle of those who were not\n\u201cJews by nature, but sinners of the Gentiles.\u201d[327] Had he never died,\nthey must have remained aliens from his sway; the enemies against whom\nhis power must be directed; without hope in the day of his might;\nstrangers to God and his vicegerent.\n\nBut, while thus they \u201cwere yet without strength, Christ died for\u201d these\n\u201cungodly;\u201d[328] died to put himself into connection with them, else\nimpossible; and rising from death drew them after him into spiritual\nexistence on earth, analogous to that which he passed in heaven. \u201cYou,\u201d\nsays their Apostle, \u201cbeing dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of\nyour flesh, hath he quickened together with him;\u201d giving you, as \u201crisen\nwith him,\u201d a life above the world and its law of exclusion,\u2014a life not\n\u201csubject to ordinances,\u201d but of secret love and heavenly faith, \u201chid\nwith Christ in God;\u201d \u201cblotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that\nwas against us, which was contrary to us, and taking it out of the way,\nnailing it to his cross.\u201d[329] God had never intended to perpetuate the\ndivision between Israel and the world, receiving the one as the sons,\nand shutting out the other as the slaves of his household. If there had\nbeen an appearance of such partiality, he had always designed to set\nthese bondmen free, and to make them \u201cheirs of God through Christ;\u201d[330]\n\u201cin whom they had redemption through his blood\u201d from their servile\nstate, the forgiveness of disqualifying sins, according to the riches of\nhis grace.[331] Though the Hebrews boasted that \u201ctheirs was the\nadoption,\u201d[332] and till Messiah\u2019s death had boasted truly; yet in that\nevent, God \u201cbefore the foundation of the world,\u201d had \u201cblessed us\u201d\n(Gentiles) \u201cwith all spiritual blessings, in heavenly places;\u201d \u201chaving\npredestinated us unto the adoption of children, by Jesus Christ,\naccording\u201d (not indeed to any right or promise, but) \u201cto the good\npleasure of his will,\u201d[333] \u201cand when we were enemies, having reconciled\nus, by the death of his son;\u201d[334] \u201cthat in the fulness of times he\nmight gather together in one _all things_ in Christ;\u201d[335] \u201cby whom we\u201d\n(Gentiles) \u201chave now received this atonement\u201d (reconciliation);[336]\nthat he might have no partial empire, but that \u201cin him might all fulness\ndwell.\u201d[337] \u201cWherefore,\u201d says their Apostle, \u201cremember that ye,\n_Gentiles in the flesh_, were in time past without Messiah, being aliens\nfrom the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of\npromise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now in Christ\nJesus, ye, who sometime were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of\nChrist. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken\ndown the middle wall of partition between us\u201d (not between God and man,\nbut between Jew and Gentile); \u201chaving abolished in his flesh the enmity,\neven the law of commandments, contained in ordinances; for to make in\nhimself, of twain, one new man, so _making peace_; and that he might\nreconcile both unto God, in one body, by the cross, having slain the\nenmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you who were afar off, as\nwell as to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by\none spirit unto the Father.\u201d[338]\n\nThe way, then, is clear and intelligible, in which the death and\nascension of the Messiah rendered him universal, by giving spirituality\nto his rule; and, on the simple condition of faith, added the\nuncovenanted nations to his dominion, so far as they were willing to\nreceive him. This idea, and this only, will be found in almost every\npassage of the New Testament (excepting the Epistle to the Hebrews)\nusually adduced to prove the doctrine of the Atonement. Some of the\nstrongest of these I have already quoted; and my readers must judge\nwhether they have received a satisfactory meaning. There are others, in\nwhich the Gentiles are not so distinctly stated to be the sole objects\nof the redemption of the cross: but with scarcely an exception, so far\nas I can discover, this limitation is implied; and either creeps out\nthrough some adjacent expression in the context; or betrays itself, when\nwe recur to the general course of the Apostle\u2019s argument, or to the\ncharacter and circumstances of his correspondents. Thus Paul says, that\nChrist \u201cgave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time;\u201d the\nnext verse shows what is in his mind, when he adds, \u201c_whereunto_ I am\nordained a preacher, and an apostle, a teacher of THE GENTILES in faith\nand verity:\u201d and the whole sentiment of the context is the _Universality\nof the Gospel_, and the duty of praying for Gentile kings and people, as\nnot abandoned to a foreign God and another Mediator; for since Messiah\u2019s\ndeath, to _us all_ \u201cthere is but One God, and One Mediator between God\nand men, the man Christ Jesus:\u201d wherefore the Apostle wills, that _for\nall_, \u201cmen pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath, and\ndoubting,\u201d\u2014without wrath at their admission, or doubt of their\nadoption.[339] And wherever emphasis is laid on the _vast number_\nbenefited by the cross, a contrast is implied with the _few_ (only the\nJews) who could have been his subjects, had he not died: and when it is\nsaid, \u201che gave his life a ransom _for many_;\u201d[340] his blood was \u201cshed\n_for many_, for the remission of sins;\u201d[341] \u201cthou wast slain, and hast\nredeemed us by thy blood, _out of every kindred, and tongue, and people,\nand nation_; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests; and we\nshall reign on the earth;\u201d[342] \u201cbehold the Lamb of God that taketh away\nthe sin of _the world_;\u201d[343] \u2014by all these expressions is still denoted\nthe efficacy of Christ\u2019s death in removing the Gentile disqualification,\nand making his dispensation spiritual as his celestial existence, and\nuniversal as the Fatherhood of God. Does Paul exhort certain of his\ndisciples, \u201cto feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased with\nhis own blood?\u201d[344] We find that he is speaking of the _Gentile_ church\nof Ephesus, whose elders he is instructing in the management of their\ncharge, and to which he afterwards wrote the well-known epistle, on\ntheir Gentile freedom and adoption obtained by the Messiah\u2019s death. When\nPeter says, \u201cye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,\nas silver and gold, from your vain conversation, received by tradition\nfrom your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb\nwithout blemish and without spot,\u201d[345] we must inquire _to whom_ he is\naddressing these words. If it be to the Jews, the interpretation which I\nhave hitherto given of such language will not apply, and we must seek an\nexplanation altogether different. But the whole manner of this epistle,\nthe complexion of its phraseology throughout, convinces me that it was\naddressed especially to the _Gentile converts_ of Asia Minor; and that\nthe redemption of which it speaks is no other than that which is the\nfrequent theme of their own apostle.\n\nIn the passage just quoted, the form of expression itself suggests the\nidea, that Peter is addressing a class which did not include himself;\n\u201cYE were not redeemed, &c.:\u201d further on in the same epistle the same\nsentiment occurs, however, without any such visible restriction.\nExhorting to patient suffering for conscience sake, he appeals to the\nexample of Christ; \u201cwho, when he suffered, threatened not, but committed\nhimself to Him that judgeth righteously: who, his own self, bare _our_\nsins in his own body on the tree; that we, being dead to sin, should\nlive unto righteousness:\u201d yet, with instant change in the expression,\nrevealing his correspondents to us, the Apostle adds, \u201cby whose stripes\nYE were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned\nunto the shepherd and bishop of your souls.\u201d[346] With the instinct of a\ngentle and generous heart, the writer, treating in plain terms of the\nformer sins of those whom he addresses, puts himself in with them; and\navoids every appearance of that spiritual pride, by which the Jew\nconstantly rendered himself offensive to the Gentile.\n\nAgain, in this letter, he recommends the duty of patient endurance, by\nappeal to the same consideration of Christ\u2019s disinterested\nself-sacrifice. \u201cIt is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer\nfor well doing than for evil doing: for Christ also hath once suffered\nfor sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.\u201d And\nwho are these \u201cunjust\u201d that are thus brought to God? The Apostle\ninstantly explains, by describing how the \u201cJews by nature\u201d lost\npossession of Messiah by the death of his person, and \u201csinners of the\nGentiles\u201d gained him by the resurrection of his immortal nature; \u201cbeing\nput to death in flesh, but quickened in spirit; and _thereby he went and\npreached unto the spirits in prison, who formerly were without faith_.\u201d\nThis is clearly a description of the Heathen world, ere it was brought\ninto relation to the Messianic promises. Still further confirmation,\nhowever, follows. The Apostle adds: \u201cforasmuch, then, as Christ hath\nsuffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same\nmind; for the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the\nwill _of the Gentiles_; when _we_ walked in lasciviousness, lusts,\nexcess of wine, revellings, banquettings, and _abominable\nidolatries_.\u201d[347] If we cannot admit this to be a just description of\nthe holy Apostle\u2019s former life, we must perceive that, writing to Pagans\nof whom it was all true, he beautifully withholds from his language\nevery trace of invidious distinction, puts himself for the moment into\nthe same class, and seems to take his share of the distressing\nrecollection.\n\nThe habitual delicacy with which Paul, likewise, classed himself with\nevery order of persons in turn, to whom he had any thing painful to say,\nis known to every intelligent reader of his epistles. Hence, in _his_\nwritings too, we have often to consider _with whom_ it is that he is\nholding his dialogue, and to make our interpretation dependent on the\nanswer. When, for example, he says, that Jesus \u201cwas delivered for _our_\noffences, and was raised again for _our_ justification;\u201d I ask, \u201cfor\nwhose?\u2014was it for every body\u2019s?\u2014or for the Jews\u2019, since Paul was a\nHebrew?\u201d On looking closely into the argument, I find it beyond doubt\nthat neither of these answers is correct; and that the Apostle, in\nconformity with his frequent practice, is certainly identifying himself,\nIsraelite though he was, with _the Gentiles_, to whom, at that moment,\nhis reasoning applies itself. The neighbouring verses have expressions\nwhich clearly enough declare this; \u201cwhen we were _yet without\nstrength_,\u201d and \u201c_while we were yet sinners_,\u201d Christ died for us. It is\nto the _Gentile Church_ at Corinth, and while expatiating on their\nprivileges and relations as such, that Paul speaks of the\ndisqualifications and legal unholiness of the Heathen, as vanishing in\nthe death of the Messiah; as the recovered leper\u2019s uncleanness was\nremoved, and his banishment reversed, and his exclusion from the temple\nended, when the lamb without blemish, which the law prescribed as his\nsin-offering, bled beneath the knife, so did God provide, in Jesus, a\nlamb without blemish for the exiled and unsanctified Gentiles, to bring\nthem from their far dwelling in the leprous haunts of this world\u2019s\nwilderness, and admit them to the sanctuary of spiritual health and\nworship: \u201cHe hath made him to be a sin-offering for us (Gentiles), who\nknew no sin; that we might be made the justified of God in him;\u201d[348]\nentering, under the Messiah, the community of saints. That, in this\nsacrificial allusion, the Gentile adoption is still the Apostle\u2019s only\ntheme, is evident hence; that twice in this very passage, he declares\nthat he is speaking of that peculiar \u201creconciliation,\u201d the word and\nministry of which have been committed to himself; he is dwelling on the\ntopic most natural to one who \u201cmagnified his office,\u201d as \u201cApostle of the\nGentiles.\u201d\n\nTo the same parties was Paul writing, when he said, \u201cChrist, our\npassover, is sacrificed for us.\u201d[349] Frequently as this sentence is\ncited in evidence of the doctrine of Atonement, there is hardly a verse\nin Scripture more utterly inapplicable; nor, if the doctrine were true,\ncould anything be more inept than an allusion to it in this place. I do\nnot dwell on the fact that the paschal lamb was neither sin-offering nor\nproper sacrifice at all: for the elucidation of the death of Jesus by\nsacrificial analogies is as easy and welcome, as any other mode of\nrepresenting it. But I turn to the whole context, and seek for the\nleading idea before multiplying inferences from a subordinate\nillustration. I find the author treating, not of the _deliverance_ of\nbelievers from curse or exclusion, but of their duty to keep the\nchurches cleansed, by the expulsion of notoriously profligate members.\nSuch persons they are to cast from them, as the Jews, at the passover,\nswept from their houses all the leaven they contained; and as, for eight\ndays at that season, only pure unleavened bread was allowed for use, so\nthe church must keep the Gospel-festival, free from the ferment of\nmalice and wickedness, and tasting nothing but sincerity and truth. This\ncomparison is the primary sentiment of the whole passage; under cover of\nwhich, the Apostle is urging the Corinthians to expel a certain\nlicentious offender: and only because the feast of unleavened bread, on\nwhich his fancy has alighted, set in with the day of passover, does he\nallude to this in completion of the figure. As his correspondents were\nGentiles, their Christianity first became possible with the death of\nChrist; with him, as an immortal, their spiritual relations commenced;\nwhen he rose, they rose with him, as by a divine attraction, from an\nearthly to a heavenly state; their old and corrupt man had been buried\ntogether with him, and, with the human infirmities of his person left\nbehind for ever in his sepulchre; and it became them, \u201cto seek those\nthings which are above,\u201d and to \u201cyield themselves to God, as those that\nare alive from the dead.\u201d This period of the Lord\u2019s sequestration in the\nheavens, Paul represents as a festival of purity to the disciples on\nearth, ushered in by the self-sacrifice of Christ. The time is come, he\nsays; cast away the leaven, for the passover is slain, blessed bread of\nheaven to them that taste it! let nothing now be seen in all the\nhousehold of the church, but the unleavened cake of simplicity and love.\n\nPaul again appears as the advocate of the Gentiles, when he protests\nthat now between them and the Jews \u201cthere is no difference; since all\nhave sinned and come short of the glory of God:\u201d that the Hebrew has\nlost all claim to the Messianic adoption, and can have no hope but in\nthat free grace of God, which has a sovereign right to embrace the\nHeathen too; and which, in fact, has compassed the Gentiles within its\nredemption, by causing Jesus the Messiah to die; \u201cby whose blood God\nhath set forth a propitiation, through faith; to evince his justice,\nwhile overlooking, with the forbearance of God, transgressions past;\u2014to\nevince his justice in the arrangements of the present crisis; which\npreserve his justice (to the Israelite), yet justify on mere\ndiscipleship to Jesus.\u201d[350] The great question which the Apostle\ndiscusses throughout this epistle, is this: \u201con what terms is a man now\nadmitted as a subject to the Messiah, so as to be acknowledged by him,\nwhen he comes to erect his kingdom?\u201d \u201cHe must be one of the circumcised,\nto whom alone the holy law and promises are given,\u201d says the Jew. \u201cThat\nis well,\u201d replies Paul: \u201conly the promises, you remember, are\nconditional on obedience; and he who claims by the law must stand the\njudgment of the law. Can your nation abide this test, and will you stake\nyour hopes upon the issue? Or is there on record against you a violation\nof every condition of your boasted covenant; wholesale and national\ntransgression, which your favourite code itself menaces with \u2018cutting\noff?\u2019 Have you even rejected and crucified the very Messiah, who was\ntendered to you in due fulfilment of the promises? Take your trial by\nthe principles of your law, and you must be cast off, and perish, as\ncertainly as the Heathen whom you despise; and whose rebellion against\nthe natural law, gross as it is, does not surpass your own offences\nagainst the tables of Moses. You must abandon the claim of right, the\nhigh talk of God\u2019s Justice and plighted faith;\u2014which are alike\nill-suited to you both. The rules of law are out of the question, and\nwould admit nobody; and we must ascend again to the sovereign will and\nfree mercy of him, who is the source of law; and who, to bestow a\nblessing which its resources cannot confer, may devise new methods of\nbeneficence. God has violated no pledge. Messiah came to Israel, and\nnever went beyond its bounds; the uncircumcised had no part in him; and\nevery Hebrew who desired it, was received as his subject. But when the\npeople would not have him, and threw away their ancient title, was God\neither to abandon his vicegerent, or to force him on the unwilling? No:\nrather did it befit him to say; \u2018if they will reject and crucify my\nservant,\u2014why, let him die, and then he is Israelite no more; I will\nraise him, and take him apart in his immortality; where his blood of\nDavid is lost; and the holiness of his humanity is glorified; and all\nshall be his, who will believe, and love him, as he there exists,\nspiritually and truly.\u2019\u201d Thus, according to Paul, does God provide a new\nmethod of adoption or justification, without violating any promises of\nthe old. Thus he makes Faith in Jesus,\u2014a moral act instead of a\ngenealogical accident,\u2014the single condition of reception into the Divine\nkingdom upon earth. Thus, after the passage of Christ from this world to\nanother, Jew and Gentile are on an equality in relation to the Messiah;\nthe one gaining nothing by his past privileges; the other, not visited\nwith exclusion for past idolatry and sins; but assured, in Messiah\u2019s\ndeath, that these are to be overlooked, and treated as if cleansed away.\nHe finds himself invited into the very penetralia of that sanctuary of\npure faith and hope, from which before he had been repelled as an\nunclean thing; as if its ark of mercy had been purified for ever from\nhis unworthy touch, or he himself had been sprinkled by some sudden\nconsecration. And all this was the inevitable and instant effect of that\ndeath on Calvary; which took Messiah from the Jews, and gave him to the\nworld.\n\nWith emphasis, not less earnest than that of Paul, does the apostle John\nrepudiate the notion of any _claim_ on the Divine admission by law or\nrighteousness; and insist on humble and unqualified acceptance of God\u2019s\nfree grace and remission for the past, as the sole avenue of entrance to\nthe kingdom. This avenue was open, however, to all \u201cwho confessed that\nJesus the Messiah had come in the flesh;\u201d[351] in other words, that,\nduring his mortal life, Jesus had been indicated as this future Prince;\nand that his ministry was the Messiah\u2019s preliminary visit to that earth\non which shortly he would re-appear to reign. The great object of that\nvisit was to prepare the world for his real coming; for as yet it was\nvery unfit for so great a crisis; and especially to open, by his death,\na way of admission for the Gentiles, and frame, on their behalf, an act\nof oblivion for the past. \u201cIf,\u201d says the apostle to them, \u201cwe walk in\nthe light, _as he is in the light_\u201d (of love and heaven), \u201cwe have\nfellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son\ncleanseth us from all sin:\u201d[352] the Israelite will embrace the Gentiles\nin fraternal relations, knowing that the cross has removed their past\nunholiness. Nor let the Hebrew rely on anything now but the divine\nforbearance; to appeal to rights will serve no longer: \u201cif we say we\nhave no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.\u201d[353] Nor\nlet any one despair of a reception, or even a restoration, because he\nhas been an idolater and sinner: \u201cJesus Christ the righteous\u201d is \u201can\nadvocate with the Father\u201d for admitting all who are willing to be his;\n\u201cand he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only (not\nmerely for our small portion of Gentiles, already converted); but also\nfor the _whole_ world,\u201d[354] if they will but accept him. He died to\nbecome universal; to make all his own; to spread an oblivion, wide as\nthe earth, over all that had embarrassed the relations to the Messiah,\nand made men aliens, instead of Sons of God. Yet did no spontaneous\nmovement of their good affections solicit this change. It was \u201cnot that\nwe (Gentiles) loved God; but that he loved us, and sent his Son, the\npropitiation for our sins;\u201d \u201che sent his only-begotten Son into the\nworld, that we might live through him.\u201d[355] That this epistle was\naddressed to Gentiles, and is therefore occupied with the same leading\nidea respecting the cross, which pervades the writings of Paul, is\nrendered probable by its concluding words, which could hardly be\nappropriate to Jews: \u201ckeep yourselves from idols.\u201d[356] How little the\napostle associated any vicarious idea even with a form of phrase most\nconstantly employed by modern theology to express it, is evident from\nthe parallel which he draws, in the following words, between the death\nof our Lord and that of the Christian martyrs; \u201chereby perceive we love,\nbecause _Christ_ laid down his life _for us_; and we ought to lay down\nour lives _for the brethren_.\u201d[357]\n\nAre then the _Gentiles alone_ beneficially affected by the death of\nChrist; and is no wider efficacy _ever_ assigned to it in Scripture? The\ngreat number of passages to which I have already applied this single\ninterpretation, will show that I consider it as comprising _the great\nleading idea_ of the apostolic theology on this subject; nor do I think\nthat there is (out of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which I shall soon\nnotice) a single doctrinal allusion to the cross, from which this\nconception is wholly absent. At the same time, I am not prepared to\nmaintain, that this is the _only_ view of the crucifixion and\nresurrection ever present to the mind of the apostles. Jews themselves,\nthey naturally inquired, how _Israel_, in particular, stood affected by\nthe unanticipated death of its Messiah; in what way its relations were\nchanged, when the offered Prince became the executed victim; and how far\nmatters would have been different, if, as had been expected, the\nAnointed had assumed his rights and taken his power at once; and,\ninstead of making his first advent a mere preliminary and warning visit\n\u201cin the flesh,\u201d had set up the kingdom forthwith, and gathered with him\nhis few followers to \u201creign on the earth.\u201d Had this\u2014instead of\nsubmission to death, removal, and delay\u2014been his adopted course, what\nwould have become of his own nation, who had rejected him;\u2014who must have\nbeen tried by that law which was their boast, and under which he came;\nwho had long been notorious offenders against its conditions, and now\nbrought down its final curse by despising the claims of the accredited\nMessiah? They must have been utterly \u201ccut off,\u201d and cast out among the\n\u201caliens from the commonwealth of Israel,\u201d \u201cwithout Messiah,\u201d \u201cwithout\nhope,\u201d \u201cwithout God;\u201d for while \u201ccircumcision profiteth, _if thou keep\nthe law_; yet if thou be a _breaker of the law_, thy circumcision is\nmade uncircumcision.\u201d[358] Had he come _then_ \u201cto be glorified in his\nsaints, and to be admired in all them that believe;\u201d\u2014had he then been\n\u201crevealed with his mighty angels\u201d (whom he might have summoned by\n\u201clegions\u201d);\u2014it must have been \u201cin flaming fire, taking vengeance on them\nthat knew not God, nor obeyed the glad tidings of the Lord Jesus\nChrist;\u201d to \u201cpunish with everlasting destruction from the presence of\nthe Lord and the glory of his power.\u201d[359] The sins and prospects of\nIsrael being thus terrible, and its rejection imminent (for Messiah was\nalready in the midst of them),\u2014he withheld his hand; refused to\nprecipitate their just fate; and said, \u201cLet us give them time and wait;\nI will go apart into the heavens, and peradventure they will repent;\nonly they must receive me then spiritually, and by hearty faith, not by\ncarnal right, admitting thus the willing Gentile with themselves.\u201d And\nso he prepared to die and retire; he did not permit them to be cut off,\nbut was cut off himself instead; he restrained the curse of their own\nlaw from falling on them, and rather perished himself by a foul and\naccursed lot, which that same law pronounces to be the vilest and most\npolluted of deaths. Thus says St. Paul to the Jews: \u201che hath redeemed us\nfrom the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written\n\u2018cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.\u2019\u201d[360] In this way, but for\nthe death of the Messiah, Israel too must have been lost; and by that\nevent they received time for repentance, and a way for remission of\nsins; found a means of reconciliation still; saw their providence, which\nhad been lowering for judgment, opening over them in propitiation once\nmore; the just had died for the unjust, to bring them to God. What was\nthis delay,\u2014this suspension of judgment,\u2014this opportunity of return and\nfaith,\u2014but an instance of \u201cthe long-suffering of God,\u201d with which \u201che\nendures the vessels of wrath (Jews) fitted to destruction; and makes\nknown the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy; which he had\nafore prepared unto glory?\u201d[361] If Christ had not withdrawn awhile,\u2014if\nhis power had been taken up at once, and wielded in stern and legal\njustice, a deluge of judgment must have overwhelmed the earth, and swept\naway both Jew and Gentile, leaving but a remnant safe. But in mercy was\nthe mortal life of Jesus turned into a preluding message of notice and\nwarning, like the tidings which Noah received of the flood; and as the\ngrowing frame of the ark gave signal to the world of the coming\ncalamity, afforded an interval for repentance, and made the patriarch,\nas he built, a constant \u201cpreacher of righteousness;\u201d[362] so the\nincreasing body of the Church, since the warning retreat of Christ to\nheaven, proclaims the approaching \u201cday of the Lord,\u201d admonishes that\n\u201call should come to repentance,\u201d[363] and fly betimes to that faith and\nbaptism which Messiah\u2019s death and resurrection have left as an ark of\nsafety. \u201cOnce in the days of Noah, the long-suffering of God waited\nwhile the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were\nsaved by water: a representation, this, of the way in which baptism\n(not, of course, carnal washing, but the engagement of a good conscience\nwith God,) saves us now, _by the resurrection of Jesus Christ_; who is\ngone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and\nauthorities, and powers, being made subject to him.\u201d[364] Yet, \u201cthe time\nis short,\u201d[365] and must be \u201credeemed;\u201d[366] \u201cit is the last hour;\u201d[367]\n\u201cthe Lord,\u201d \u201cthe coming of the Lord,\u201d \u201cthe end of all things,\u201d are \u201cat\nhand.\u201d[368]\n\nI have described _one_ aspect, which the death of the Messiah presented\nto _the Jews_; and, in this, we have found another primary conception,\nexplanatory of the scriptural language respecting the cross. Of the two\nrelations in which this event appeared (the Gentile and the Israelitish)\nI believe the former to be by far the most familiar to the New Testament\nauthors, and to furnish the true interpretation of almost all their\nphraseology on the subject. But, as my readers may have noticed, many\npassages receive illustration by reference to either notion; and some\nmay have a meaning compounded of both. I must not pause to make any\nminute adjustment of these claims, on the part of the two interpreting\nideas: it is enough that, either separately or in union, they have now\nbeen taken round the whole circle of apostolic language respecting the\ncross, and detected in every difficult passage the presence of sense and\ntruth, and the absence of all hint of vicarious atonement.\n\nIt was on the _unbelieving_ portion of the Jewish people, that the death\nof their Messiah conferred the national blessings and opportunities to\nwhich I have adverted. But to _the converts_ who had been received by\nhim during his mortal life, and who would have been heirs of his glory,\nhad he assumed it at once, it was less easy to point out any personal\nbenefits from the cross. That the Christ had retired from this world was\nbut a disappointing postponement of their hopes: that he had perished as\na felon, was shocking to their pride, and turned their ancient boast\ninto a present scorn: that he had become spiritual and immortal made him\nno longer theirs \u201cas concerning the flesh,\u201d and, by admitting Gentiles\nwith themselves, set aside their favourite law. So offensive to them was\nthis unexpected slight on the institutions of Moses, immemorially\nreverenced as the ordinances of God, that it became important to give\nsome turn to the death of Jesus, by which that event might be harmonized\nwith the national system, and be shown to _effect the abrogation of the\nLaw, on principles strictly legal_. This was the object of the writer of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews; who thus gives us a third idea of the\nrelations of the cross,\u2014bearing, indeed, an essential resemblance to St.\nPaul\u2019s Gentile view, but illustrated in a manner altogether different.\nNo trace is to be observed here of Paul\u2019s noble glorying in the Cross:\nso studiously is every allusion to the crucifixion avoided, till all the\nargumentative part of the epistle has been completed, that a reader\nfinds the conclusion already in sight, without having gained any notion\nof _the mode_ of the Lord\u2019s death, whether even it was natural or\nviolent,\u2014a literal human sacrifice, or a voluntary self-immolation. Its\nignominy and its agonies are wholly unmentioned; and his mortal\ninfirmities and sufferings are explained, not as the spontaneous\nadoptions of previous compassion in him, but as God\u2019s fitting discipline\nfor rendering him \u201ca merciful and faithful high priest.\u201d[369] They are\nreferred to in the tone of apology, not of pride; as needing rather to\nbe reconciled with his office, than to be boldly expounded as its grand\nessential. The object of the author clearly is, to find a place for the\ndeath of Jesus among the Messianic functions; and he persuades the\nHebrew Christians that it is (not a satisfaction for moral guilt, but) a\ncommutation for the Mosaic Law. In order to understand his argument, we\nmust advert for a moment to the prejudices which it was designed to\nconciliate and correct.\n\nIt is not easy for us to realize the feelings with which the Israelite,\nin the yet palmy days of the Levitical worship, would hear of an\nabrogation of the Law;\u2014the anger and contempt with which the mere bigot\nwould repudiate the suggestion;\u2014the terror with which the new convert\nwould make trial of his freedom;\u2014the blank and infidel feeling with\nwhich he would look round, and find himself drifted away from his\nanchorage of ceremony; the sinking heart, with which he would hear the\nreproaches of his countrymen against his apostacy. Every authoritative\nritual draws towards itself an attachment too strong for reason and the\nsense of right; and transfers the feeling of obligation from realities\nto symbols. Among the Hebrews, this effect was the more marked and the\nmore pernicious, because their ceremonies were, in many instances, only\nremotely connected with any important truth or excellent end; they were\nseparated by several removes from any spiritual utility. Rites were\nenacted to sustain other rites; institution lay beneath institution,\nthrough so many successive steps, that the crowning principle at the\nsummit easily passed out of sight. To keep alive the grand truth of the\nDivine Unity, there was a gorgeous temple worship: to perform this\nworship there was a priesthood: to support the priesthood, there were\n(among other sources of income) dues paid in the form of sacrifice: to\nprovide against the non-payment of dues there were penalties: to prevent\nan injurious pressure of these penalties, there were exemptions, as in\ncases of sickness: and to put a check on trivial claims of exemption, it\nmust be purchased by submission to a fee, under name of an atonement.\nWherever such a system is received as divine, and based on the same\nauthority with the great law of duty, it will always, by its\ndefiniteness and precision, attract attention from graver moral\nobligations. Its materiality renders it calculable: its account with the\nconscience can be exactly ascertained: as it has little obvious utility\nto men, it appears the more directly paid to God; it is regarded as the\nspecial means of pleasing him, of placating his anger, and purchasing\nhis promises. Hence it may often happen, that the more the offences\nagainst the spirit of duty, the more are rites multiplied in\npropitiation; and the harvest of ceremonies and that of crimes ripen\ntogether.\n\nAt a state not far from this, had the Jews arrived, when Christianity\nwas preached. Their moral sentiments were so far perverted, that they\nvalued nothing in themselves, in comparison with their legal exactitude,\nand hated all beyond themselves for the want of this. They were eagerly\nexpecting the Deliverer\u2019s kingdom, nursing up their ambition for his\ntriumphs: curling the lip, as the lash of oppression fell upon them, in\nsuppressed anticipation of vengeance; satiating a temper, at once fierce\nand servile, with dreams of Messiah\u2019s coming judgment, when the blood of\nthe Patriarchs should be the title of the world\u2019s nobles, and the\neverlasting reign should begin in Jerusalem. Why was the hour delayed,\nthey impatiently asked themselves? Was it that they had offended\nJehovah, and secretly sinned against some requirement of his law? And\nthen they set themselves to a renewed precision, a more slavish\npunctiliousness than before. Ascribing their continued depression to\ntheir imperfect legal obedience, they strained their ceremonialism\ntighter than ever: and hoped to be soon justified from their past sins,\nand ready for the mighty prince and the latter days.\n\nWhat then must have been the feeling of the Hebrew, when told that all\nhis punctualities had been thrown away; that at the advent, faith in\nJesus, not obedience to the law, was to be the title to admission; and\nthat the redeemed at that day would be, not the scrupulous\nPharisee,\u2014whose dead works would be of no avail; but all who, with the\nheart, have worthily confessed the name of the Lord Jesus? What doctrine\ncould be more unwelcome to the haughty Israelite? it dashed his pride of\nancestry to the ground. It brought to the same level with himself the\npolluted Gentile, whose presence would alone render all unclean in the\nMessiah\u2019s kingdom. It proved his past ritual anxieties to have been all\nwasted. It cast aside for the future the venerated law; left it in\nneglect to die; and made all the apparatus of Providence for its\nmaintenance end in absolutely nothing. Was then the Messiah to\nsupersede, and not to vindicate the law? How different this from the\npicture which prophets had drawn of his golden age, when Jerusalem was\nto be the pride of the earth, and her temple the praise of nations,\nsought by the feet of countless pilgrims, and decked with the splendour\nof their gifts! How could a true Hebrew be justified in a life without\nlaw? How think himself safe in a profession, which was without temple,\nwithout priest, without altar, without victim?\n\nNot unnaturally, then, did the Hebrews regard with reluctance two of the\nleading features of Christianity; the death of the Messiah, and the\nfreedom from the law. The epistle addressed to them was designed to\nsoothe their uneasiness, and to show, that if the Mosaic institutions\nwere superseded, it was in conformity with principles and analogies\ncontained within themselves. With great address, the writer links the\ntwo difficulties together, and makes the one explain the other. He finds\na ready means of effecting this, in the sacrificial ideas familiar to\nevery Hebrew; for by representing the death of Jesus as commutation for\nlegal observances, he is only ascribing to it an operation, acknowledged\nto have place in the death of every lamb slain as a sin-offering at the\naltar. These offerings were a distinct recognition on the part of the\nLevitical code, of a principle of _equivalents_ for its ordinances; a\nproof that, under certain conditions, they might yield: nothing more,\ntherefore, was necessary, than to show that the death of Christ\nestablished those conditions. And such a method of argument was attended\nby this advantage, that while the _practical end_ would be obtained of\nterminating all ceremonial observance, the Law was yet treated as _in\ntheory_ perpetual; not as ignominiously abrogated, but as legitimately\ncommuted. Just as the Israelite, in paying his offering at the altar to\ncompensate for ritual omissions, recognized thereby the claims of the\nlaw, while he obtained impunity for its neglect; so, if Providence could\nbe shown to have provided a legal substitute for the system, its\nauthority was acknowledged, at the moment that its abolition was\nsecured.\n\nLet us advert then to the functions of the Mosaic sin-offerings, to\nwhich the writer has recourse to illustrate his main position. They were\nof the nature of a _mulct or acknowledgment rendered, for unconscious or\ninevitable disregard of ceremonial liabilities, and contraction of\nceremonial uncleanness_. Such uncleanness might be incurred from various\ncauses; and while unremoved by the appointed methods of purification,\ndisqualified from attendance at the sanctuary, and \u201ccut off\u201d \u201cthe\nguilty\u201d \u201cfrom among the congregation.\u201d To touch a dead body, to enter a\ntent where a corpse lay, rendered a person \u201cunclean for seven days;\u201d to\ncome in contact with a forbidden animal, a bone, a grave; to be next to\nany one struck with sudden death; to be afflicted with certain kinds of\nbodily disease and infirmity; unwittingly to lay a finger on a person\nunclean, occasioned defilement, and necessitated a purification or an\natonement.[370] Independently of these offences, enforced upon the\nIsraelite by the accidents of life, it was not easy for even the most\ncautious worshipper to keep pace with the complicated series of petty\ndebts which the law of ordinances was always running up against him. If\nhis offering had an invisible blemish; if he omitted a tithe, because\n\u201che wist it not;\u201d or inadvertently fell into arrear, by a single day,\nwith respect to a known liability; if absent from disease, he was\ncompelled to let his ritual account accumulate; \u201cthough it be hidden\nfrom him,\u201d he must \u201cbe guilty, and bear his iniquity,\u201d and bring his\nvictim.[371] On the birth of a child, the mother, after the lapse of a\nprescribed period, made her pilgrimage to the temple, presented her\nsin-offering, and \u201cthe priest made atonement for her.\u201d[372] The poor\nleper, long banished from the face of men, and unclean by the nature of\nhis disease, became a debtor to the sanctuary, and on return from his\ntedious quarantine, brought his lamb of atonement, and departed thence,\nclear from neglected obligations to his law.[373] It was impossible,\nhowever, to provide by specific enactment for every case of ritual\ntransgression and impurity, arising from inadvertency or necessity.\nScarcely could it be expected that the courts of worship themselves\nwould escape defilement, from imperfections in the offerings, or\nunconscious disqualification in people or in priest. To clear off the\nwhole invisible residue of such sins, an annual \u201cday of atonement\u201d was\nappointed; the people thronged the avenues and approaches of the\ntabernacle; in their presence a kid was slain for their own\ntransgressions, and for the high-priest the more dignified expiation of\na heifer: charged with the blood of each successively, he sprinkled not\nonly the exterior altar open to the sky, but, passing through the first\nand Holy chamber into the Holy of Holies, (never entered else), he\ntouched, with finger dipped in blood, the sacred lid (the Mercy-seat)\nand foreground of the Ark.[374] At that moment, while he yet lingers\nbehind the veil, the purification is complete; on no worshipper of\nIsrael does any legal unholiness rest; and were it possible for the\nhigh-priest to remain in that interior retreat of Jehovah, still\nprotracting the expiatory act, so long would this national purity\ncontinue, and the debt of ordinances be effaced as it arose. But he must\nreturn; the sanctifying rite must end; the people be dismissed; the\npriests resume the daily ministrations; the law open its stern account\nafresh; and in the mixture of national exactitude and neglects,\ndefilements multiply again till the recurring anniversary lifts off the\nburden once more. Every year, then, the necessity comes round of \u201cmaking\natonement for the Holy sanctuary,\u201d \u201cfor the tabernacle,\u201d \u201cfor the\naltar,\u201d \u201cfor the priests, and for all the people of the congregation.\u201d\nYet, though requiring periodical renewal, the rite, so far as it went,\nhad an efficacy which no Hebrew could deny; for ceremonial sins,\nunconscious or inevitable (to which all atonement was limited[375]), it\nwas accepted as an indemnity; and put it beyond doubt that Mosaic\nobedience was commutable.\n\nSuch was the system of ideas, by availing himself of which the author of\nthe Epistle to the Hebrews would persuade his correspondents to forsake\ntheir legal observances. \u201cYou can look without uneasiness,\u201d he suggests,\n\u201con your ritual omissions, when the blood of some victim has been\npresented instead, and the penetralia of your sanctuary have been\nsprinkled with the offering: well, on no other terms would I soothe your\nanxiety; precisely such equivalent sacrifice does Christianity exhibit,\nonly of so peculiar a nature, that for _all_ ceremonial neglects,\nintentional no less than inadvertent, you may rely upon indemnity.\u201d The\nJews entertained a belief respecting their temple, which enabled the\nwriter to give a singular force and precision to his analogy. They\nconceived, that the tabernacle of their worship was but the copy of a\ndivine structure, devised by God himself, made by no created hand, and\npreserved eternally in heaven: this was \u201cthe true tabernacle, which the\nLord pitched, and not man;\u201d which no mortal had beheld, except Moses in\nthe mount that he might \u201cmake all things according to that\npattern;\u201d[376] within whose Holy of Holies dwelt no emblem or emanation\nof God\u2019s presence, but his own immediate Spirit; and the celestial\nfurniture of which required, in proportion to its dignity, the\npurification of a nobler sacrifice, and the ministrations of a diviner\npriest, than befitted the \u201cworldly sanctuary\u201d[377] below. And who then\ncan mistake the meaning of Christ\u2019s departure from this world, or doubt\nwhat office he conducts above? He is called by his ascension to the\nPontificate of heaven; consecrated, \u201cnot after the law of any carnal\ncommandment, but after the power of an endless life;\u201d[378] he drew aside\nthe veil of his mortality, and passed into the inmost court of God: and\nas he must needs \u201chave somewhat to offer,\u201d[379] he takes the only blood\nhe had ever shed,\u2014which was his own,\u2014and like the high-priest before the\nMercy-seat, sanctifies therewith the people that stand without,\n\u201credeeming the transgressions\u201d which \u201cthe first covenant\u201d of rites\nentailed.[380] And he has not returned; still is he hid within that\nholiest place; and still the multitude he serves turn thither a silent\nand expectant gaze; he prolongs the purification still; and while he\nappears not, no other rites can be resumed, nor any legal defilement be\ncontracted. Thus, meanwhile, ordinances cease their obligation, and the\nsin against them has lost its power. How different this from the\nofferings of Jerusalem, whose temple was but the \u201csymbol and shadow\u201d of\nthat sanctuary above.[381] In the Hebrew \u201csacrifices there was a\nremembrance again made of sins every year;\u201d[382] \u201cthe high-priest\nannually entered the holy place;\u201d[383] being but a mortal, he could not\ngo in with his own blood and _remain_ but must take that of other\ncreatures and _return_; and hence it became \u201cnot possible that the blood\nof bulls and of goats should _take away_ sins,\u201d[384] for instantly they\nbegan to accumulate again. But to the very nature of Christ\u2019s offering,\na perpetuity of efficacy belongs; bearing no other than _his own_\nblood,\u201d he was immortal when his ministration began, and \u201cever liveth to\nmake his intercession;[385] he could \u201cnot offer himself often, for then\nmust he often have suffered since the foundation of the world,\u201d\u2014and \u201cit\nis appointed unto men _only once_ to die:\u201d so that \u201c_once for all_ he\nentered into the holy place, and obtained a redemption that is\n_perpetual_;\u201d \u201c_once_ in the end of the world hath he appeared, and by\nsacrificing himself hath absolutely _put away_ sin;\u201d \u201cthis man, after he\nhad offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand\nof God,\u201d \u201cfor by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are\nsanctified,\u201d[386] The ceremonial then, with its periodical\ntransgressions, and atonements, is suspended; the services of the outer\ntabernacle cease, for the holiest of all is made manifest;[387] one who\nis \u201cpriest for ever\u201d dwells therein: one \u201cconsecrated for evermore,\u201d\n\u201choly, harmless, undefiled, in his celestial dwelling quite separate\nfrom sinners;[388] who needeth not _daily_, as those high priests, to\noffer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people\u2019s;\nfor this he did _once for all_ when he offered up himself.\u201d[389]\n\nNor is it in its perpetuity alone, that the efficacy of the Christian\nsacrifice transcends the atonements of the law; it removes a higher\norder of ritual transgressions. It cannot be supposed, indeed, that\nMessiah\u2019s life is no nobler offering than that of a creature from the\nherd or flock, and will confer no more immunity. Accordingly, it goes\nbeyond those \u201c_sins of ignorance_,\u201d those ceremonial inadvertences, for\nwhich alone there was remission in Israel; and reaches to _voluntary_\nneglects of the sacerdotal ordinances; ensuring indemnity for legal\nomissions, when incurred not simply by the accidents of the flesh, but\neven by intention of the conscience. This is no greater boon than the\ndignity of the sacrifice requires; and does but give to his people below\nthat living relation of soul to God, which he himself sustains above.\n\u201cIf the blood of bulls and of goats ... sanctifieth to the purifying of\nthe flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the\neternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purify (even) your\nconscience from dead works (ritual observances) to serve the living\nGod!\u201d[390] Let then the ordinances go, and the Lord \u201cput his laws _into\nthe mind_ and write them _in the heart_;\u201d and let all have \u201cboldness to\nenter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by this new and living way\nwhich he hath consecrated for us;\u201d \u201cprovoking each other to love and to\ngood works.\u201d[391]\n\nSee, then, in brief, the objection of the Hebrews to the gospel; and the\nreply of their instructor. They said; \u201cWhat a blank is this; you have no\ntemple, no priest, no ritual! How is it that, in his ancient covenant,\nGod is so strict about ceremonial service, and permits no neglect,\nhowever incidental, without atonement; yet in this new economy, throws\nthe whole system away; letting us run up an everlasting debt to a law\nconfessedly unrepealed, without redemption of it, or atonement for it?\u201d\n\n\u201cNot without redemption and atonement,\u201d replies their evangelical\nteacher; \u201ctemple, sacrifice, priest, remain to us also, only glorified\ninto proportions worthy of a heavenly dispensation; our temple, in the\nskies; our sacrifice, Messiah\u2019s mortal person; our priest, his\never-living spirit. How poor the efficacy of your former offerings! year\nafter year, your ritual debt began again: for the blood dried and\nvanished from the tabernacle which it purified; the priest returned from\nthe inner shrine; and when there, he stood, with the interceding blood,\nbefore the emblem, not the reality of God. But Christ, not at the end of\na year, but at the end of the great world-era of the Lord, has come to\noffer up himself,\u2014no lamb so unblemished as he; his voluntary and\nimmortal spirit, than which was nothing ever more divinely consecrate,\nbecomes officiating priest, and strikes his own person with immolating\nblow; it falls and bleeds on earth, as on the outer altar, standing on\nthe threshold of the sanctuary of heaven: thither he ascends with the\nmemorials of his death, vanishes into the Holy of Holies of the skies,\npresents himself before the very living God, and sanctifies the temple\nthere and worshippers here: saying to us, \u2018drop now for ever the legal\nburdens that weigh you down; doubt not that you are free, as my\nglorified spirit here, from the defilements you are wont to dread; I\nstay behind this veil of visible things to clear you of all such taint,\nand put away such sin eternally. Trust then in me, and take up the\nfreedom of your souls: burst the dead works, that cling round your\nconscience like cerements of the grave; and rise to me, by the living\npower of duty, and loving allegiance to God.\u2019\u201d\n\nSo far then, as the death of Christ is treated in scripture\ndogmatically, rather than historically, its effects are viewed in\ncontrast with the different order of things which must have been\nexpected, had he, as Messiah, _not_ died. And thus regarded, it\npresented itself to the minds of the Apostles in three relations;\n\nFirst, to the Gentiles, whom it drew in to be subjects of the Messiah,\nby breaking down the barriers of his Hebrew personality, and rendering\nhim spiritual as well as immortal.\n\nSecondly, to the unbelieving Jews; whom his retirement from this world\ndelivered from the judgment due to them, on the principles of their own\nlaw, both for their _general_ violation of the _conditions_ of their\ncovenant, and for their positive rejection of him. His absence re-opened\ntheir opportunities; and to tender them this act of long-suffering, he\ntook on himself the death which had been incurred by them.\n\nThirdly, to the believing Jews; the terms of whose discipleship the\nMessiah\u2019s death had changed, destroying all the benefits of their\nlineage, and substituting an act of the mind, the simpler claim of\nfaith. It was therefore a commutation for the Ritual Law, and gave them\nimpunity and atonement for all its violations.\n\nWith the last two of these relations, beyond their remarkable historical\ninterest, we have no personal concern. The first remains, and ever will\nremain, worthy of the glorious joy, with which Paul regarded and\nexpounded it. God has committed the rule of this world to no exclusive\nPrince, and no sacerdotal power, and no earthly majesty; but to one\nwhose spirit, too divine to be limited to place and time, broke through\nclouds of sorrow into the clearest heaven; and thither has since been\ndrawing our human love, though for ages now he has been unseen and\nimmortal. An impartial God, a holy and spiritual Law, an infinite hope\nfor all men,\u2014are given to us by that generous cross.\n\nIt is evident that all three of the relations which I have described,\nbelonged to the death of Jesus, _in his capacity of Messiah_; and could\nhave had no existence, if he had not borne this character, but had been\nsimply a private martyr to his convictions. The foregoing exposition\ngives a direct answer to the inquiry, pressed without the slightest\npertinence upon the Unitarian, why the phraseology of the cross is never\nfound applied to Paul or Peter, or any other noble confessor, who died\nin attestation of the truth; why \u201cno record is given that we are\njustified by the blood of Stephen; or that he bare our sins in his own\nbody, and made reconciliation for us.\u201d[392] I know not why such a\nquestion should be submitted to us; we have assuredly no concern with\nit; having never dreamt that the Apostles could have written as they did\nrespecting the death on Calvary, if they had thought of it only as a\nscene of martyrdom. We have passed under review the whole language of\nthe New Testament on this subject; and in the interpretation of it have\n_not even once_ had recourse to this, which is said to be our only view\nof the cross. We have seen the apostles justly announcing their Lord\u2019s\ndeath, as a _proper propitiation_; because it placed whole classes of\nmen, without any meritorious change in their character, in saving\nrelations: declaring it a _strict substitute_ for others\u2019 punishment; on\nthe ground that there were those who must have perished, if he had not;\nand that he died and retired, that they might remain and live:\ndescribing it as a _sacrifice which put away sin_; because it did that\nfor ever, which the Levitical atonements achieved for a day: but we have\nnot found them ever appealing to it either as a satisfaction to the\njustice of God, or an example of martyrdom to men. The Trinitarians have\none idea of this event themselves; and their fancy provides their\nopponents with one idea of it; of the former not a trace exists, on any\npage of Scripture; and of the latter, the Unitarian need not avail\nhimself at all, in explaining the language, whereof it is said to be his\nsolitary key.\n\nNowhere, then, in Scripture do we meet with anything corresponding with\nthe prevailing notions of vicarious redemption; everywhere, and most\nemphatically in the personal instructions of our Lord, do we find a\ndoctrine of forgiveness, and an idea of salvation, utterly inconsistent\nwith it. He spake often of the unqualified clemency of God to his\nreturning children; never once of the satisfaction demanded by his\njustice. He spake of the joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth;\nbut was silent on the sacrificial faith, without which penitence is said\nto be unavailing. Nor did he, like his modern disciples, teach that\nthere are _two separate salvations_, which must follow each other in a\nfixed order; first, redemption from the penalty, secondly from the\nspirit, of sin; pardon for the past, before sanctification in the\npresent; a removal of the \u201chindrance in God,\u201d previous to its\nannihilation in ourselves. If indeed there were in Christianity two\ndeliverances, discriminating and successive, it would be more in\naccordance with its spirit to invert this order;\u2014to recal from\nalienation first, and announce forgiveness afterwards; to restore from\nguilt, before cancelling the penalty; and permit the _healing_ to\nanticipate the _pardoning_ love. At least, there would seem, in such\narrangement, to be a greater jealousy for the holiness of the divine\nlaw, a severer reservation of God\u2019s complacency for those who have\nbroken from the service of sin, than in the system, which proclaims\nimpunity to the rebel will, ere yet its estrangement is renounced. If\nthe outward remission precedes the inward sanctification, then does God\nadmit to favour the yet unsanctified; guilt keeps us in no exile from\nhim: and though the holy Spirit is to follow afterwards, it becomes the\npeculiar office of the cross to lift us as we are, with every stain upon\nthe soul and every vile habit unretraced, from the brink of perdition to\nthe assurance of glory: the divine lot is given to us, before the divine\nlove is awakened in us; and the heirs of heaven have yet to become the\nchildren of holiness. With what consistency can the advocates of such an\neconomy accuse its opponents of dealing lightly with sin, of deluding\nmen into a false trust, and administering seductive flatteries to human\nnature?[393] What! shall we, who plant in every soul of sin a Hell,\nwhence no foreign force, no external God, can pluck us, any more than\nthey can tear us from our identity;\u2014we, who hide the fires of torment in\nno viewless gulf, but make them ubiquitous as guilt;\u2014we, who suffer no\noutward agent from Eden, or the Abyss, or Calvary, to encroach upon the\nsolitude of man\u2019s responsibility, and confuse the simplicity of\nconscience;\u2014we, who teach that God will not, and even cannot, spare the\nfroward, till they be froward no more, but must permit the burning lash\nto fall, till they cry aloud for mercy, and throw themselves freely into\nhis embrace;\u2014shall we be rebuked for a lax administration of peace, by\nthose who think that a moment may turn the alien into the elect? It is\nno flattery of our nature, to reverence deeply its moral capacities: we\nonly discern in them the more solemn trust; and see in their abuse the\nfouler shame. And it is not of what men _are_, but of what they _might\nbe_, that we encourage noble and cheerful thoughts. Doubtless, we think\nexaggeration possible (which our opponents apparently do not) even in\nthe portraiture of their actual character: and perhaps we are not the\nless likely to awaken true convictions of sin, that we strive to speak\nof it with the voice of discriminative justice, instead of the\nmonotonous thunders of vengeance; and to draw its image in the natural\ntints provided by the conscience, rather than in the pr\u00e6ternatural\nflame-colour mingled in the crucibles of Hell.\n\nIn making _penal_ redemption and _moral_ redemption separate and\nsuccessive, the vicarious scheme, we submit, is inconsistent with the\nChristian idea of salvation. Not that we take the second, and reject the\nfirst, as our Trinitarian friends imagine; nor that we invert their\norder. We accept them both; putting them however, not in succession, but\nin super-position, so that they coalesce. The power and the punishment\nof sin perish together; and together begin the holiness and the bliss of\nheaven. Whatever extracts the poison, cools the sting: nor can the\ndivine vigour of spiritual health enter, without its freedom and its\njoy. That there can be any separate dealings with our past guilt and\nwith our present character, is not a truth of God, but a fiction of the\nschools. The sanctification of the one is the redemption of the other.\nThe mind given up to passion, or chained to self, or any how alienated\nfrom the love and life divine, dwells, whatever be its faith, in the\ndark and terrible abyss: while he, and he only, that in the freedom and\ntranquillity of great affections, communes with God and toils for men,\nunderstands the meaning, and wins the promises, of heaven. Am I asked,\n\u2018What then is to persuade the sinful heart, thus to draw near to\nGod;\u2014what, but a proclamation of absolute pardon, can break down the\nsecret distrust, which keeps our nature back, wrapped in the reserve of\nconscious guilt?\u2019 I reply; however much these fears and hesitations\nmight cling round us, and restrain us from the mystic Deity of Nature,\nthey can have no place in our intercourse with the Father whom Jesus\nrepresents. It needs only that Christ be truly his image, to know \u201cthat\nthe hindrance is not with him, but entirely in ourselves:\u201d[394] to see\nthat there is no anger in his look; to feel that he invites us to\nunreserved confession, and accepts our self-abandonment to him; that he\nlifts the repentant, prostrate at his feet, and speaks the words of\nsevere, but truest hope. Am I told, \u2018that only the gratitude excited by\npersonal rescue from tremendous danger, by an unconditional and entire\ndeliverance, is capable of winning our reluctant nature, of opening the\nsoul to the access of the Divine Spirit, and bringing it to the service\nof the Everlasting Will?\u2019 I rejoice to acknowledge, that _some_ such\ndisinterested power must be awakened, some mighty forces of the heart be\ncalled out, ere the regeneration can take place that renders us children\nof the Highest; ere we can break, with true new-birth, from the shell of\nself, and try and train our wings in the atmosphere of God. The\npermanent work of duty must be wrought by the affections; not by the\nconstraint, however solemn, of hope and fear; no self-perfectionating\nprocess, elaborated by an anxious will, has warmth enough to ripen the\nsoul\u2019s diviner fruits; the walks of outward morality, and the slopes of\ndeliberate meditation, it may keep smooth and trim; but cannot make the\ntrue life-blossoms set, as in a garden of the Lord, and the foliage wave\nas with the voice of God among the trees. I gladly admit that to a\nbeliever in the vicarious sacrifice, the sense of pardon, the love of\nthe great deliverer, may well fulfil this blessed office, of carrying\nhim out of himself in genuine allegiance to a being most benign and\nholy. And perceiving that, if this doctrine were removed, there is not,\n_in the system of which it forms a part_, and which else would be all\nterror, anything that could perform the same generous part, I can\nunderstand why it seems to its advocates, an _essential_ power in the\nrenovation of the character. But great as it may be, within the limits\nof its own narrow scheme, ideas possessed of higher moral efficacy are\nnot wanting, when we pass into a region of nobler and more Christian\nthought. Shall we say that the view of the infinite Ruler, given in the\nspoken wisdom or the living spirit of Christ, has no sanctifying power?\nYet where is there any trace in it of the satisfactionist\u2019s redemption?\nWhen we sit at Messiah\u2019s feet, that transforming gratitude for an\nextinguished penalty on which the prevailing theology insists, as its\ncentral emotion, becomes replaced by a similar and profounder sentiment\ntowards the eternal Father. If to rescue men from a dreadful fate in the\nfuture be a just title to our reverence, _never to have designed_ that\nfate claims an affection yet more devoted; if there be a divine mercy in\nannihilating an awful curse, in shedding only blessing there is surely a\ndiviner still. Shall the love restored to us after long delay, and in\nconsideration of an equivalent, work mightily on the heart; and shall\nthat which asked no purchase, which has been veiled by no cloud, which\nhas enfolded us always in its tranquillity, nor can ever quit the soul\nopened to receive it, fail to penetrate the conscience, and dissolve the\nfrosts of our self-love by some holier flame? Never shall it be found\ntrue, that God must threaten us with vengeance, ere we can feel the\nshelter of his grace!\n\nIn truth, the Christian idea of salvation cannot be better illustrated,\nthan by the doubt which has been entertained respecting the proper\ntranslation of my text. Some, referring it to spiritual redemption,\nadhere to the common version; others, seeing that the apostle Peter is\nexplaining \u201cby what power, or by what name\u201d he had cured the lame man at\nthe temple gate, refer the words to this miracle of deliverance, and\nrender them thus; \u201cneither is there _healing_ in any other; for there is\nnone other name under heaven given among men, whereby we can be\n_healed_.\u201d It matters little which it is; for whether we speak of body\nor of mind, Jesus \u201c_saves_\u201d us by \u201c_making us whole_;\u201d by putting forth\nupon us a divine and healing power, through which past suffering and\npresent decrepitude disappear together; which supplies the defective\nelements of our nature; cools the burning of inward fever; or calls into\nbeing new senses and perceptions, opening a diviner universe to our\nexperience. The deformed and crooked will, bowed by Satan, lo! these\nmany years, and nowise able to lift up itself, he loosens and makes\nstraight in uprightness. The moral paralytic, collapsed and prostrate\namid the stir of life, and incapably gazing on the moving waters in\nwhich others find their health, has often started up at the summons of\nthat voice, though perchance \u201che wist not who it was;\u201d and going his\nway, has found it to be \u201cthe sabbath,\u201d and owned the \u201cwork\u201d of one who\nis in the spirit of \u201cthe Father.\u201d From the eye long dark and blind to\nduty and to God, he has caused the film to pass away, and shown the\nsolemn look of life beneath a heaven so tranquil and sublime. Even the\ndead of soul, close wrapped in bandages of selfishness,\u2014that greediest\nof graves,\u2014have been quickened by his piercing call, and have come\nforth; to learn, \u201cwhen risen,\u201d that only in the meekness that can obey\nis there the power to command, only in the love that serves is there the\nlife of heart-felt liberty. To call, then, on the name and trust in the\nspirit of Christ, is to invoke the restoring power of God; to give\nsymmetry and speed to our lame affections, and the vigour of an athlete\nto our limping wills. There is not any Christian _salvation_ that is not\nthus identical with Christian _perfection_: \u201cnor any other name under\nheaven given among men, whereby we may be (thus) _made whole_.\u201d Let all\nthat would \u201cbe perfect be thus minded;\u201d[395] seek \u201cthe measure of the\nstature of the fulness of Christ;\u201d[396] and they shall find in him a\n\u201cpower to become the Sons of God.\u201d[397]\n\n NOTES.\n\n ---------------------\n\n A.\n\n _Relation between Natural Religion and Revelation._\n\nIt is not easy to determine, with any precision, what is Mr. M\u2018Neile\u2019s\nestimate of the capabilities and defects of natural religion. It is\nsubjected to a vague and indistinct disparagement throughout his\nlecture; the _impression_ is left, that the character of God cannot be\nvindicated by appeal to his works; but I do not perceive that the\nlecturer commits himself to any logical proposition on the subject. One\nof his coadjutors,[398] however, has supplied this deficiency; and\ntaking, as an antagonist, a sentence from the second Lecture of the\npresent series, has argued at length, that \u201cThe moral Character and\nUnity of God are not discoverable from the works of Creation.\u201d He\naffirms that \u201cto talk of \u2018discerning the moral attributes of God on the\nmaterial structures of the universe,\u2019 is not only idle, but\nunreasonable:\u201d and the justification which he offers of this bold\nstatement seems to comprise the two following arguments:\u2014\n\nThat the universe is analogous to a cathedral or other human edifice;\nwhich discloses something of the Architect\u2019s genius and power, but\nnothing of his moral qualities: and\n\nThat the mixture of good and evil in the world perplexes the mind with\nopposite reports of the Creator\u2019s character.\n\nIf scepticism were a just object of moral rebuke, in what terms might we\nnot speak of this \u201cinfidel\u201d rejection of God\u2019s ancient and everlasting\noracles of nature? For the serious doubts and perplexities of the devout\nstudent of creation, an unqualified respect may be entertained. But it\nis to be regretted that the necessities of a system should tempt the\nexpounder of revelation to assail, with reckless indifference, the\nprimitive sentiments of all religion. The aversion of orthodoxy to the\ntheology of the unsophisticated reason and heart is, however, to be\nclassed among the natural antipathies. Among all the extravagances of\nmodern English divinity, unknown to the sound and healthy era of our\nnational church, it is perhaps the most significant; indicating that\nfinal obscuration of Christianity, in which it cannot be made to shine\nwithout putting out every other light. This destructive mode of\nargumentation, which discredits everything foreign to the favourite\nsystem, is the evident result of fear, not of faith: it is a theological\nadoption of the Chinese policy; and keeps the Celestial Empire safe, by\nregarding every stranger as a possible spy; and excluding all alien\nideas as forerunners of revolution. The citadel of faith is defended, by\nmaking the most dreadful havoc of every power which ought to be its\nstrength and ornament. Put out reason, but save the Trinity; suborn\nexperience, but prove depravity; disparage conscience, but secure the\nAtonement; bewilder the sentiments of justice and benevolence, only\nguard the everlasting Hell;\u2014have long been the instructions of orthodoxy\nto its defenders: and now we are asked to silence the anthem of nature\nto the God of _love_, that priests without disturbance may prove him the\nGod of _vengeance_; and to withdraw our eye from the telescope of\nscience, which reveals the ONENESS of the Creator\u2019s work, that we may\nexamine, through a church microscope, the _plurality_ of a Hebrew noun.\nCan those who taunt the Unitarians with the _negative_ character of\ntheir system, give a satisfactory account of the _positive_ merits of a\nreligion which _dis_believes reason, _dis_trusts the moral sense,\n_dis_likes science, _dis_credits nature, and for all who are without the\nBible and a fit interpreter, _dis_owns the moral character of God?\n\nIn commenting upon Mr. James\u2019s position on this last point, I will\nconfine myself to three observations:\u2014the first, relating to the\nconsequences of his doctrine, if true; the others explaining, by\nseparate reference to his two arguments, why I conceive it to be false.\n\n(1.) If there is no trace in nature of the moral attributes of God,\nthere can be no disclosure of them in Scripture. The character of the\nRevealer is our only guarantee for the truth and excellence of the\nRevelation: and if his character is antecedently unknown, if there is\nnothing to preclude the idea of his being deceitful and malignant, how\ncan we be assured that his communication is not a seduction and a lie?\nIt is not the pr\u00e6ternatural rank, but the just and holy mind, of a\ncelestial Being, that entitles his messages to reception: and surely it\nis this alone which, in our opponents\u2019 own system, makes the whole\ndifference between the suggestions of Satan and the inspiration of God.\nBut let us hear, in this matter, the judgment of one who adorned the\nEnglish church in times when solidity of thought and truth of sentiment\nwere still in esteem among her clergy. Archbishop Tillotson observes;\n\u201cUnless the knowledge of God and his essential perfections be natural, I\ndo not see what sufficient and certain foundation there can be of\nrevealed religion. For unless we naturally know God to be a Being of all\nperfection, and consequently that whatever he says is true, I cannot see\nwhat divine revelation can signify. For God\u2019s revealing or declaring\nsuch a thing to us, is no necessary argument that it is so, unless\nantecedently to this revelation, we be possessed firmly with this\nprinciple, that whatever God says is true. And whatever is known\nantecedently to revelation, must be known by natural light, and by\nreasonings and deductions from natural principles. I might further add\nto this argument, that the _only standard and measure to judge of divine\nrevelations_, and to distinguish between what are true, and what are\ncounterfeit, are the _natural notions which men have of God, and of his\nessential perfections_.\u201d[399] And elsewhere, still more explicitly; \u201cThe\nstrongest and surest reasonings in religion are grounded upon the\nessential perfections of God; so that even divine revelation itself doth\nsuppose these for its foundation, and can signify nothing to us, unless\nthese be first known and believed. Unless we be first persuaded of the\nprovidence of God, and his particular care of mankind, why should we\nbelieve that he would make any revelation of himself to men? Unless it\nbe naturally known to us, that God is true, what foundation is there for\nthe belief of his word? And what signifies the laws and promises of God,\nunless natural light do first assure us of his sovereign authority and\nfaithfulness? So that _the principles of natural religion, are the\nfoundation of that which is revealed_; and therefore in reason nothing\ncan be admitted to be a revelation from God, which plainly contradicts\nhis essential perfection; and consequently if any pretends divine\nrevelation for this doctrine, that God hath from all eternity absolutely\ndecreed the eternal ruin of the greatest part of mankind, without any\nrespect to the sins and demerits of men, I am as certain that this\ndoctrine cannot be of God, as I am sure that God is good and just;\nbecause this grates upon the notion that mankind have of goodness and\njustice. This is that which _no good man would do_, and _therefore_\ncannot be believed of infinite goodness; and therefore if an _Apostle_\nor _Angel from heaven_ teach any doctrine which plainly overthrows the\ngoodness and justice of God, let him be accursed. For every man hath\ngreater assurance that God is good and just, than he can have of any\nsubtle speculations about predestination and the decrees of God.\u201d[400]\n\nIt is somewhat curious, that in the position which they have assumed\nwith respect to natural religion, our reverend opponents are allying\nthemselves with Socinus: and that, in answering them, I should find\nmyself citing the words of an Archbishop of their own church in direct\nreply to this great heresiarch. On the adjoining page to the first from\nwhich I have quoted, Tillotson says, \u201cGod is naturally known to men: the\ncontrary whereof Socinus positively maintains, though therein he be\nforsaken by most of his followers,\u2014an opinion, in my judgment, very\nunworthy of one who, not without reason, was esteemed so great a master\nof reason; and (though I believe he did not see it) undermining the\nstrongest and surest foundation of all religion, which, when the natural\nnotions of God are once taken away, will certainly want its best\nsupport. Besides that, by denying any natural knowledge of God and his\nessential perfections, he freely gives away one of the most plausible\ngrounds of opposing the doctrine of the Trinity.\u201d That which Socinus\ncould afford \u201cfreely to _give_ away,\u201d our reverend opponents, it seems,\nfind it necessary violently to _take_ away.[401]\n\n(2.) The _arguments_ by which Mr. James endeavours to justify his\nrepudiation of the primary sentiments of unrevealed religion, might be\nsufficiently answered by a reference to any work treating of natural\ntheology, from the Memorabilia of Socrates to the last Bridgewater\nTreatise. But as a phrase occurring in my first lecture appears to have\nbeen concerned in their production, it is incumbent on me to show where\ntheir fallacy lies.\n\nThe lecturer\u2019s reasoning stands thus: The universe is a material\nstructure; and so is a cathedral; but a cathedral gives no report of the\nmoral character of its architect: neither, therefore, does the\nuniverse:\u2014an excellent example, when reduced to form, of the violation\nof the first general rule of the syllogism, forbidding an undistributed\nmiddle term.\n\nDid it never occur to our reverend opponent that \u201cthe material\nstructures of the universe\u201d are of various kinds, not all of them\nresembling a cathedral; nay, that he himself (not being able \u201cto sit in\na thimble,\u201d or even \u201cin the smallest compass imaginable,\u201d \u201cwithout\ninconvenience from want of room,\u201d)[402] is a \u201cmaterial structure,\u201d in\none part of his human constitution?\u2014a circumstance which might have\nsuggested the distinction between organized and unorganized nature.\nAdmitting even (what is by no means true) that the arrangements of the\nlatter terminate, like the design of a minster, in the mere production\nof beauty, and indicate only genius and skill, the contrivances of the\nformer fulfil their end in the creation of happiness in the animal\nworld, and the maintenance of a retributive discipline in human life:\nresults which are the appropriate fruit and expression of benevolence\nand equity. Even the beauty of creation, however, cannot be attributed\nto sentiments as little moral in their character, as those which may\nactuate the human artist; for He who has called into being whatever is\nlovely and glorious, has created also percipient minds to behold it, and\ntransmute it from a material adjustment into a mental possession.\n\nIt is not even true that a work of art, like a cathedral, expresses no\nmoral quality. The individual builder\u2019s character, indeed, it may not\nreveal. But no architect ever produced a cathedral; he is but the tool\nwielded by the spirit of his age; and Phidias could no more have\ndesigned York Minster, than the associated masons could have adorned the\nParthenon. Ages must contribute to the origination of such works: and\nwhen they appear, they embody, not indistinctly, some of the great\nsentiments which possess the period of their birth.\n\n(3.) The mixture of good and evil in the world is said to confuse our\nreasonings respecting the Divine Being, by presenting us with opposite\nreports of his character.\n\nThis argument is evidently inconsistent with the former. While _that_\ndeclared the _silence_ of creation on the moral attributes of its\nAuthor, this affirms its _double_ (and therefore doubtful) _speech_.\nAfter all, then, there _are_ phenomena which depose to the character of\nthe Creator, if we can only interpret their attestation aright.\n\nThe rules for the treatment of conflicting evidence are plain and\nintelligible; nor is there any reason why they should not be applied to\nthe great problems of natural religion. The _preponderant_ testimony\nbeing permitted to determine our convictions, the evils and inequalities\nof the world cannot disturb our faith in the benevolence and holiness of\nGod; but must stand over, as a residue of unreduced phenomena, to be\nhereafter brought under the dominion of that law of love, which the\nvisible systematic arrangements of Providence show to be _general_.\n\nHappily, no sceptical reasonings, like those on which I am\nanimadverting, can permanently prevent the natural sentiments of men\nfrom asserting their supremacy. To use the words of Bishop Butler, \u201c_Our\nwhole nature_ leads us to ascribe _all moral perfection_ to God, and to\ndeny all imperfection of him. And this will for ever be a practical\nproof of his moral character, to such as will consider what a practical\nproof is; _because it is the voice of God speaking in us_.\u201d[403]\n\nFrom the opposite appearances of good and evil in the world, Mr. James\nderives an argument against the Unity of God, and affirms that \u201creason\nthinks it _more reasonable_ to admit the existence of two almighty and\nindependent Beings, the one eternally good, the other eternally\nevil.\u201d[404] If the lecturer\u2019s \u201c_reason_\u201d really recommends to him such\nextraordinary conclusions, and insists on patronizing the Manichean\nheresy, the intellectual faculty may well be in bad theological repute\nwith him. The constant origin of pain and enjoyment, good and evil, from\nthe _very same arrangements and structures_, renders the partition of\nthe creative work between two antagonistic principles not very easy of\nconception; and it yet remains to be explained, how the laws which\nproduce the breeze can proceed from one Being, and those which speed the\nhurricane from another; how hunger can have one author, and the\nrefreshment of food another; how the power of _right_ moral choice can\nbe the gift of God, and that of _wrong_ moral choice of a Demon.\n\nThe reverend lecturer attempts to weaken the argument from the unity of\nthe creation to that of the Creator. His eccentric remarks on comets I\nmust leave to the consideration of astronomers. The rest of the argument\nis entitled to such reply as the following words of Robert Hall may give\nto it. \u201cTo prove the unity of this great Being, in opposition to a\nplurality of Gods, it is not necessary to have recourse to metaphysical\nabstractions. It is sufficient to observe, that the notion of more than\none author of nature is inconsistent with that harmony of design which\npervades her works; that it solves no appearances, is supported by no\nevidence, and serves no purpose but to embarrass and perplex our\nconceptions.\u201d[405]\n\n B.\n\n _Trinitarian and Unitarian Ideas of Justice._\n\nIt is only natural that the parable of the Prodigal Son should be no\nfavourite with those, who deny the unconditional mercy of God. The place\nwhich this divine tale occupies in the Unitarian theology appears to be\nfilled, in the orthodox scheme, by the story of Zaleucus, king of the\nLocrians; which has been appealed to in the present controversy by both\nthe Lecturers on the Atonement, and seems to be the only endurable\nillustration presented, even by Pagan history, of the execution of\nvicarious punishment. This monarch had passed a law, condemning\nadulterers to the loss of both eyes. His own son was convicted of the\ncrime: and to satisfy at once the claims of law and of clemency, the\nroyal parent \u201ccommanded one of his own eyes to be pulled out, and one of\nhis son\u2019s.\u201d Is it too bold a heresy to confess, that there seems to me\nsomething heathenish in this example, and that, as an exponent of the\nDivine character, I more willingly revere the Father of the prodigal,\nthan the father of the adulterer?\n\nWithout entering, however, into any comparison between the Locrian and\nthe Galilean parable, I would observe, that the vicarious theory\nreceives no illustration from this fragment of ancient history. There is\nno analogy between the cases, except in the violation of truth and\nwisdom which both exhibit; and whatever we are instructed to admire in\nZaleucus, will be found, on close inspection, to be absent from the\northodox representation of God. We pity the Grecian king, who had made a\nlaw without foresight of its application, and so sympathize with his\ndesire to evade it, that any quibble which legal ingenuity can devise\nfor this purpose, passes with slight condemnation: casuistry refuses to\nbe severe with a man implicated in such a difficulty. But the Creator\nand Legislator of the human race, having perfect knowledge of the\nfuture, can never be surprised into a similar perplexity; or ever pass a\nlaw at one time, which at another he desires to evade. Even were it so,\nthere would seem to be less that is unworthy of his moral perfection, in\nsaying plainly, with the ancient Hebrews, that he \u201crepented of the evil\nhe thought to do,\u201d and said, \u201cit shall not be;\u201d than in ascribing to him\na device for preserving consistency, in which no one capable of\nappreciating veracity can pretend to discern any sincere fulfilment of\nthe law. However barbarous the idea of Divine \u201crepentance,\u201d it is at\nleast ingenuous. Nor does this incident of Zaleucus and his son present\nany parallel to the alleged relation between the Divine Father who\nreceives, and the Divine Son who gives, the satisfaction for human\nguilt. The Locrian king took a part of the penalty himself, and left the\nremainder where it was due; but the Sovereign Law-giver of Calvinism\nputs the whole upon another. To sustain the analogy, Zaleucus should\nhave permitted an innocent son to have both his eyes put out, and the\nconvicted adulterer to escape.\n\nThe doctrine of Atonement has introduced among Trinitarians a mode of\nspeaking respecting God, which grates most painfully against the\nreverential affections due to him. His nature is dismembered into a\nnumber of attributes, foreign to each other, and preferring rival\nclaims; the Divine tranquillity appears as the equilibrium of opposing\npressures,\u2014the Divine administration as a resultant from the collision\nof hostile forces. Goodness pleads for that which holiness forbids; and\nthe Paternal God would do many a mercy, did the Sovereign God allow. The\nidea of a conflict or embarrassment in the Supreme Mind being thus\nintroduced, and the believer being haunted by the feeling of some\ntremendous difficulty affecting the Infinite government, the vicarious\neconomy is brought forward as the relief, the solution of the whole\nperplexity; the union, by a blessed compromise, of attributes that could\nnever combine in any scheme before. The main business of theology is\nmade to consist, in stating the conditions, and expounding the solution,\nof this imaginary problem. The cardinal difficulty is thought to be, the\nreconciliation of Justice and Mercy; and, as the one is represented\nunder the image of a Sovereign, the other under that of a Father, the\nquestion assumes this form: how can the same being at every moment\npossess both these characters, without abandoning any function or\nfeeling appropriate to either? how, especially, can the Judge remit,\u2014it\nis beyond his power; yet, how can the Parent punish to the uttermost?\u2014it\nis contrary to his nature.\n\nAll this difficulty is merely fictitious; arising out of the\ndetermination to make out that God is both wholly Judge, and wholly\nFather; from an anxiety, that is, to adhere to two metaphors, as\napplicable, in every particular, to the Divine Being. It is evident that\nboth must be, to a great extent, inappropriate; and in nothing surely is\nthe impropriety more manifest, than in the assertion that, as Sovereign,\nGod is naturally bound to execute laws which, nevertheless, it would be\ndesirable to remit, or change in their operation. Whatever painful\nnecessities the imperfection of human legislation and judicial procedure\nmay impose, the Omniscient Ruler can make no law which he will not to\nall eternity, and with entire consent of his whole nature, deem it well\nto execute. This is the Unitarian answer to the constant question, \u201cHow\ncan God forgive in defiance of his own law?\u201d It is not in defiance of\nhis laws: every one of which will be fulfilled to the uttermost, in\nconformity with his first intent; but nowhere has he declared that he\nwill not forgive. All justice consists in treating moral agents\naccording to their character; the inexorability of human law arises\nsolely from the imperfection with which it can attain this end, and is\nnot the essence, but the alloy, of equity: but God, who searches and\ncontrols the heart, exercises that perfect justice, which permits the\npenal suffering to depart only with the moral guilt; and pardons, not by\ncancelling any sentence, but by obeying his eternal purpose to meet the\nwanderer returning homeward, and give his blessing to the restored. Only\nby such restoration can any past guilt be effaced. The thoughts,\nemotions, and sufferings of sin, once committed, are woven into the\nfabric of the soul; and are as incapable of being absolutely obliterated\nthence and put back into non-existence, as moments of being struck from\nthe past, or the parts of space from infinitude. Herein we behold alike\n\u201cthe goodness and the severity of God;\u201d and adore in him not the balance\nof contrary tendencies, but the harmony of consentaneous perfections.\nHow plainly does experience show that, if his personal unity be given\nup, his moral unity cannot be preserved!\n\nThe representation of God as a Creditor, to whom his responsible\ncreatures are in debt to the amount of their moral obligations, is no\nless unfit to serve as the foundation of serious reasonings, than the\nidea of him as a Sovereign. As a loose analogy, likely to produce a\nvivid impression on minds filled with ideas borrowed from the\ninstitution of property, it unavoidably and innocently occurs to us; but\nto force any doctrinal sentiments from it, is to strain it beyond its\ncapabilities. Mr. Buddicom describes it as a favourite with the\nUnitarians: \u201cour opponents assert, that sins are to be regarded as\n_debts_ and as _debts only_.\u201d[406] I will venture to affirm that no\nUnitarian who heard this believed his own ears, till he saw it in print;\nso incredibly great must be the ignorance of Unitarian theology which\ncould dictate the statement. The sentiment attributed to us is one,\nagainst which our whole body of moral doctrine is one systematic\nprotest, and which has place in our arguments against the vicarious\nscheme, _only because it is the fundamental idea, on which that scheme\nis usually declared to rest_. In one of the most recent and deservedly\npopular Unitarian publications on this subject, I find a long note\ndevoted to the destruction of this pecuniary analogy, which, the Author\nobserves, \u201cseems very incomplete and unsatisfactory. Punishment is\ncompared to a debt, supposed to be incurred by the commission of the\noffence. To a certain degree there is a resemblance between the two\nthings, which may be the foundation of a _metaphor_; but when we proceed\nto _argue_ upon this metaphor, we fall into a variety of errors.\u201d[407]\nThat orthodoxy does incessantly \u201cargue upon this metaphor,\u201d is\nnotorious; and the present controversy is not deficient in specimens.\n\u201cAll that the creature can accomplish is a debt due to the\nCreator,\u201d[408] says Mr. James, who reasons out the mercantile view of\nredemption with an unshrinking precision, unequalled since the days of\nShylock; who insists on \u201ceye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life,\u201d\nand condemns any alteration (of course, our Lord\u2019s) of this rule, as\n\u201cfalse charity, or mistaken compassion;\u201d[409] who inquires whether, in\nthe payment of redemption, an angel might not go for a number of men,\nand decides in the negative, because \u201cthe highest created angel in\nexistence\u201d (having as much as he can do for himself) \u201ccould not produce\nthe smallest amount of supererogatory obedience or merit to transfer to\na fellow angel, or to man;\u201d[410] and who, in reply to the question,\n\u201cWhat price will God accept for the lives that are justly sentenced to\neternal death?\u201d says, \u201cthe answer to this is very simple: he will accept\nnothing but what will be a real equivalent\u2014a full compensation\u2014an\nadequate price.\u201d[411] In what bible of Moloch or of Mammon all this is\nfound, I know not; sure I am, it was never learned at the feet of\nChrist.\n\nUnitarians object to the cruelty and injustice attributed to the Eternal\nFather, in laying upon the innocent Jesus the punishment of guilty men.\nMr. Buddicom\u2019s reply, though not new, is remarkable. \u201cDo we, however,\nassert anything as to the _fact_ of our Lord\u2019s sufferings, which they\nwho deny his atonement do not also assert? If, then, it be a truth\nhistorical, that he did suffer through life, agonize in the garden, and\ndie on the cross, does it not appear much greater cruelty in God, to\nimpose those sufferings, which Jesus is admitted to have undergone,\nwithout any benefit to the transgressor, or any vindication of his own\nglory?\u201d[412]\n\nI had always thought, and still think, that our Trinitarian friends _do_\nassert a great deal \u201cas to the _fact_\u201d (_i.e._, the _amount_ and\n_intrinsic character_, apart from the _effects_) \u201cof our Lord\u2019s\nsufferings, which we cannot admit. A human being, says the Unitarian,\ndied on the cross, with such suffering as a perfect human being may\nendure.\u201d Will Mr. Buddicom be content with this description of \u201cthe\n_fact_?\u201d and does he merely wish to subjoin, that on the death of \u201cthis\nman,\u201d God _took occasion_ to forgive _all men_ who are to be saved at\nall? If so, I admit that the imputation of cruelty is groundless; and\nhave only to observe, that there is no perceptible relation of cause and\neffect between the occasion and the boon; and that the cross becomes\nsimply the date, the chronological sign, of a Divine volition,\narbitrarily attached to that point of human history. But then, how can\nMr. Buddicom defend (as he does) the phrase \u201c_blood of God_\u201d?[413]\nTheology can perform strange feats, and to its sleight of words nothing\nis impossible. The doctrine of the _communication of properties_ between\nthe two natures of our Lord, comes in to relieve the difficulty; and\nhaving established that whatever is true of _either_ nature may be\naffirmed of _Christ_, and by inference, even of the _other_, it proves\nthe propriety of saying, both that the Divine nature cannot suffer, and\nyet that God bled.[414] Heterodoxy, however, in its perverseness, still\nthinks with Le Clerc of this \u03ba\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b1 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, that it is \u201cas\nintelligible, as if we were to say, there is a circle so united with a\ntriangle, that the circle has the properties of the triangle, and the\ntriangle those of the circle.\u201d[415]\n\n C.\n\n _The reading in Acts_ xx. 28.\n\nNo competent critic, I apprehend, can read without surprise Mr.\nBuddicom\u2019s note (H.) on the reading of this verse. The slight manner in\nwhich Griesbach is set aside, to make way for the authority of critical\neditions of the N. T. since his time; the vague commendation of the\nedition of Dr. Scholtz, \u201cwhich, it may well be hoped, leaves us little\nmore to expect or desire,\u201d\u2014as if there were nothing peculiar or\ncontroverted in the critical principles of that work; the citation of a\npassage from this Roman Catholic editor, in which the critic becomes the\ntheologian, and makes use of his own reading of \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 to prove \u201cthat\nChrist is God;\u201d together with the statement that the reading is of _no\ndoctrinal importance_; combine to render this a remarkable piece of\ncriticism. If the learned Lecturer had _defended_ his dissent from\nGriesbach, or attempted to invalidate the reasoning of that Editor\u2019s\nelaborate note on the passage, some materials for consideration and\nargument would have been afforded. But no reason is assigned for the\npreference of \u0398\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 over \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5, except that Dr. Scholtz adopts it, and\nsays nothing about it; though Griesbach rejects it, and says a great\ndeal about it; and very conclusively too, in the opinion of most\nscholars, not excepting Mr. Byrth. Surely the paradoxical preference\nwhich Scholtz gives to the Byzantine recension is not a reason for\nhoping that he has left us nothing more to expect, in the determination\nof the text of the N. T.; still less is it a reason why his readings,\nsimply because they are his, should supersede Griesbach\u2019s;\u2014from whom, I\nsubmit, no sober critic should venture to depart, without at least\nintimating the _grounds_ of his judgment. I have not seen the critical\nedition of the learned Roman Catholic; but unless its Prolegomena\ncontain some much better reasons than are adduced in his\n\u201cBiblisch-kritische Reise,\u201d for his attachment to the Constantinopolitan\nfamily of manuscripts, it may be safely affirmed, that Griesbach will no\nmore be superseded by Scholtz, than he was anticipated by Matth\u00e6i.\n\nThe text in question is not one, on the reading of which Griesbach\nexpresses his opinion with any hesitation. \u201cEx his omnibus luculenter\napparet, pro lectione \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6 ne unicum quidem militare codicem, qui sive\nvetustate, sive intern\u00e2 bonitate su\u00e2 testis idonei et incorrupti laude\nornari queat. Non reperitur, nisi in libris recentioribus, iisdemque vel\npenitus contemnendis, vel misere, multis saltem in locis,\ninterpolatis.\u201d\u2014\u201cQuomodo igitur, salvis critic\u00e6 artis legibus, lectio\n\u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, utpote omni auctoritate justa destituta, defendi queat, equidem\nhaud intelligo.\u201d In the face of this decision, Mr. Buddicom reads \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6:\nand does any one then believe, that in Unitarians alone theological bias\ninfluences the choice of a reading?\n\nThe attempt to elicit from the word \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 the same argument for the\nDeity of Christ, which might be derived from the reading \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, I confess\nmyself unable to comprehend. Does Mr. Buddicom intend to assert, that\nwhen any person is called \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 (Lord) in the N. T., it means that he\nis Jehovah? Or, when this is denoted, is there some peculiarity of\ngrammatical usage, indicating the fact? If so, it is of moment that this\nshould be pointed out, and illustrated by examples: the idiom not being\nadequately described by saying that \u201cthe word\u201d is \u201c_put in the form of\nan unqualified and unequalled preference_.\u201d\n\n D.\n\n _Archbishop Magee\u2019s controversial Character._\n\nIn the year 1815 a discussion arose out of the general controversy on\nthe doctrine of the Trinity, respecting the proper use of the word\nUNITARIAN. Those who were anxious to be designated by this name were\ndivided in opinion as to the latitude with which it should be employed.\nOne class proposed to limit it to believers in the simple humanity of\nour Lord, and to exclude from it all who held his pre-existence, from\nthe lowest Arian to the highest Athanasian. Another class protested\nagainst this restriction; suggested that, both by its construction and\nits usage, the word primarily referred, not to the _nature of Christ_,\nbut to the _personality of the Godhead_; that as Trinitarians denoted,\nby the prefix (Tri) to their name, the _three persons_ of their Deity,\nso by the prefix (_Un_) should Unitarians express the _one person_ of\n_theirs_; that in no other way could the numerical antithesis, promised\nto the ear, be afforded to the mind; and accordingly that under the\ntitle _Unitarian_ should be included all Christians who directed their\nworship to one personal God, whatever they might think of the nature of\nChrist. It is evident that, in this latter sense, the name must\ncomprehend a much larger class than in the former. The discussion\nbetween the two parties was conducted in the pages of the Monthly\nRepository, at that time the organ of the English Unitarian theology.\n\nMeanwhile the defenders of orthodoxy were not indifferent to the subject\nof debate; nor at all more agreed about it than their theological\nopponents. The majority regarded the word Unitarian as a _creditable_\nname, which was by no means to be abandoned to a set of heretics,\nhitherto held up to opprobrium by the title of _Socinian_. They\naccordingly proposed to consider it as expressing the belief in _One\nGod_ (without reference to the number of persons), in contradistinction\nto the belief in _many Gods_; so that its opposite should be, not as the\nanalogy of language seemed to require, _Trinitarian_, but _Polytheist_.\nThus defined, the appellation belonged to Trinitarians as well as to\nothers; and the assumption of it, by those who dissented from the\ndoctrine of the Trinity, was construed into a charge of Tritheism\nagainst the orthodox. Another party, however, comprising especially\nArchbishop Magee in the church, and the High Arians out of it, treated\nthe name as one, not of honour, but of _disgrace_;\u2014were anxious to fix\nit exclusively on Mr. Belsham\u2019s school of humanitarians, and to rescue\nthe believers in the pre-existence of Christ, of every shade, from its\npollution;\u2014and affected to regard every extension of it to these, as a\ndisingenuous trick, designed to swell the appearance of numbers, and to\nact as \u201ca decoy\u201d for drawing \u201cto Mr. Belsham\u201d all who were \u201cagainst\nAthanasius.\u201d[416] And so the poor Unitarians could please nobody, and\nwere in imminent danger of being altogether anonymous. If they did not\n_extend_ their name so as take in every church, Athanasian and all, they\nwere guilty of false imputation on Trinitarians, and of monopolizing an\nhonour which was no property of theirs. If they did not _narrow_ it to\n\u201cMr. Belsham\u2019s class,\u201d they were accused of \u201cequivocation,\u201d and of\ncunningly dragging the harmless Arians into participation of their\ndisgrace. If they _denied_ that the whole Church of England was\nUnitarian, they committed an act of impudent exclusion; if they\n_affirmed_ that Mr. Locke and Sir Isaac Newton were Unitarian, they were\nchargeable with a no less impudent assumption, and rebuked for\n\u201cposthumous proselytism.\u201d\n\nOf the three possible meanings of the word, the Humanitarian, the\nUni-personal, and the Monotheistic,\u2014Mr. Aspland ably and successfully\nvindicated the second; in opposition to Mr. Norris, a Trinitarian\ncontroversialist, who insisted on the third, and declared he would call\nhis opponents _Socinians_; and amid the reproaches of Archbishop Magee,\nwho clung to the first, and denounced the wider application as a\n\u201cdishonest\u201d \u201cmanagement of the term.\u201d With these things in mind, let the\nreader attend to the following passage from that prelate\u2019s celebrated\nwork:\n\n\u201cHow great are the advantages of a well-chosen name! _Mr. Aspland_, in\nhis warm recommendation of the continuance of the use of the word\n_Unitarian_, in that ambiguous sense in which it had already done so\nmuch good to the cause, very justly observes, from Dr. South, that \u2018the\ngenerality of mankind is _wholly_ and _absolutely_ governed by _words_\nand _names_;\u2019 and that \u2018he who will set up for a skilful manager of the\nrabble, _so long as they have but ears to hear_, needs never enquire\nwhether they have any understanding whereby to judge: but with two or\nthree popular empty words, well tuned and humoured, may whistle them\nbackwards and forwards, upwards and downwards, till he is weary; and get\nupon their backs when he is so.\u2019 _Month. Rep._ vol. x. p. 481.\u2014And what\ndoes _Mr. Aspland_ deduce from all this? Why, neither more nor less than\nthis,\u2014that the name _Unitarian_ must never be given up; but all possible\nchanges rung upon it, let the opinions of those who bear that name be\never so various and contradictory.\u201d[417]\n\nNow what does the reader think of Mr. Aspland? He despises him, as the\ndeliberate proposer of an imposture; as one who sets up for \u201ca skilful\nmanager of the rabble,\u201d and who argues for the name \u201cUnitarian,\u201d\n_because_ it may enable his party to \u201cget upon the backs\u201d of the\nmultitude. The Archbishop, I presume, _means_ to leave this impression.\nLet us look then to the facts.\n\nThe quotation is from Mr. Aspland\u2019s \u201cPlea for Unitarian Dissenters.\u201d The\nauthor is expostulating with Mr. Norris, who had vowed still to fasten\nthe term _Socinian_ on dissentients from the doctrine of the Trinity;\nand is urging the impropriety of irritating a religious body by giving\nthem a disowned and confessedly unsuitable designation. Mr. Aspland\nintroduces his reference to Dr. South by the following passage:\n\n\u201cIt is not without design that you cling to a known error. The name of\nSocinian is refused by us; this is one reason why an ungenerous\nadversary may choose to give it: and again, the term having been used\n(with some degree of propriety) at the first appearance of this class of\nUnitarians, which was at a period when penal laws were not a dead\nletter, and when theological controversies were personal quarrels, it is\nassociated in books with a set of useful phrases such as _pestilent\nheretics_, _wretched blasphemers_, and the like, which suit the\nconvenience of writers who have an abundance of enmity but a lack of\nargument, and who, whilst they are reduced to the necessity of\nborrowing, are not secured by their good taste or sense of decorum from\ntaking, in loan, the excrescences of defunct authors; this is a second\nreason why the name \u2018Socinian\u2019 is made to linger in books, long after\nSocinians have departed from the stage.\u201d\n\nThen follows the note from which Archbishop Magee has quoted: but from\nwhich he has omitted the parts inclosed in brackets.\n\n[\u201cOnce more, I must beg leave to refer you to Dr. South, for an\nappropriate observation or two, _on the fatal imposture and force of\nwords_.]\n\n\u201c\u2018The generality of mankind is wholly and absolutely governed by _words_\nand names; _[without_, nay, for the most part, even _against_ the\nknowledge men have of things. The multitude or common route, like a\ndrove of sheep, or an herd of oxen, may be managed by any noise, or cry,\nwhich their drivers shall accustom them to.\n\n\u201c\u2018And] he who will set up for a skilful manager of the rabble, so long\n_as they have but ears to hear_, needs never enquire whether they have\nany understanding whereby to judge: but with two or three popular, empty\nwords,\u2019 \u2018well-tuned and humoured, may whistle them backwards and\nforwards, upwards and downwards, till he is weary; and get upon their\nbacks when he is so.\u2019\u201d[418]\n\nAnd now, may I not ask, what does the reader think of Archbishop Magee?\nMr. Aspland indignantly CONDEMNS the \u201cimposture\u201d practised by false\nnames; and, by a garbled quotation he is held up as RESORTING to it. He\n_really says_ to _his opponents_, \u201cCall us Socinians no more, for you\nmust know it is unjust;\u201d he is _represented as saying to his friends_,\n\u201cWe will never cease to call ourselves Unitarians, for it is a capital\ntrick.\u201d And thus, by scoring out and interlining, his own expostulation\nagainst a base policy is metamorphosed into an indictment, charging him\nwith the very same. Mr. Byrth and Mr. M\u2018Neile are men, as I believe, of\nhonourable minds: and the latter has rebuked, as they deserve, \u201cgarbled\nquotations.\u201d I ask them to acquit me of \u201coutraging the memory of\ndeparted greatness.\u201d\n\n\u201cMy respected opponents know as well as I do,\u201d \u201cthat dishonest\ncriticism, as well as dishonesty of every kind, consists not in the\nnumber of the acts which are perpetrated, but in the unprincipled\ndisposition which led to the perpetration.\u201d[419] I might therefore be\ncontent with the example of \u201cmisrepresentation the most black\u201d which I\nhave given. But from the list which lies before me, I think it right to\ntake one or two instances more, admitting of brief exposure.\n\nIn the Authorized Version, 1 Cor. xv. 47, stands thus; \u201cThe first man\n_is_ of the earth, earthy: the second man _is_ the Lord from heaven;\u201d\nthe substantive verb in both parts of the verse having nothing, as the\nItalics indicate, to correspond with it in the original; but being\ninserted at the discretion of the translators to complete the sense.\nFrom the second clause Trinitarians usually derive an argument for the\npre-existence of Christ, conceiving that it teaches the _origin of our\nLord from heaven_. Some of their best commentators, however, understand\nthe clause as referring not to Christ\u2019s _past_ entrance into this world,\nbut to his _future_ coming to judgment. Thus Archbishop Newcome renders,\n\u201cThe second man _will be_ [the Lord] from heaven.\u201d And Dr. Whitby\nparaphrases, \u201dThe second man is the Lord [_descending_] from heaven [_to\nraise our bodies, and advance them to that place_];\u201d and he defends this\ninterpretation in a note.[420] Mr. Belsham adopts this rendering, both\nin the \u201cImproved Version\u201d and in his \u201cCalm Enquiry,\u201d giving, with the\nsanction of the authorities I have cited, a _past_ verb to the first\nclause, a _future_ verb to the second. The admirable Newcome and Whitby,\nthen, must share the Archbishop\u2019s rebuke, for \u201cthe total inadmissibility\nof this _arbitrary_ rendering of the Unitarians, and the _grossness_ of\ntheir _endeavour to pervert the sense of Scripture_.\u201d \u201cHere,\u201d he\nobserves, \u201cwe have a change of tense, which not only has no foundation\nin either the Greek or Latin text, but is _in direct opposition to\nboth_; since in both the perfect sameness of the corresponding clauses\nobviously determines the sameness of the tense.\u201d[421] Of the\n\u201cunscholarlike exaggeration\u201d of this criticism I say nothing, merely\nwishing it to be observed in passing, that Mr. Belsham\u2019s version is not\nof Unitarian origin, and proves no doctrinal bias, much less any\n\u201cdishonesty.\u201d\n\nBut a question arises respecting the text, as well as the translation,\nof this verse; the phrase \u201cthe Lord,\u201d in the second clause, being marked\nby Griesbach as probably to be omitted; and the word \u201cheavenly\u201d to be\nappended at the close. The original of the common translation stands\nthus: \u1f49 \u03c0\u03c1\u1ff6\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03ba \u03b3\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03bf\u03ca\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2\u00b7 \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be\n\u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6. With the probable emendations the latter clause would read\nthus: \u1f41 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f04\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f41 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2: and Archbishop\nNewcome\u2019s translation, conformed to this text, becomes that of Mr.\nBelsham; \u201cThe first man _was_ from the ground, earthy: the second man\n_will be_ from heaven, heavenly.\u201d\n\nThere are then two points to be determined respecting this passage\u2014the\n_reading_, and the _rendering_, which, in this case, is equivalent to\nthe _interpretation_ also. Mr. Belsham, in his Calm Inquiry, treats of\n_both_; and is accused by the Archbishop, in the following passage, of\ndiscussing the \u201cunimportant matter\u201d of the _text_ with great pomp; while\nadducing, _in favour of his translation and the future tense_, no\nauthority _except the Vulgate_: \u201cprimus homo de terra, terrenus:\nsecundus homo de c\u0153lo, c\u00e6lestis.\u201d The indictment and argument run\nthus:\u2014\u201cThe grand point to be established for the Unitarians is, as we\nhave seen, the use of the _future_ in the second clause of the\ntext:\u2014\u2018the second man WILL BE from heaven:\u2019\u2014for, if we read \u2018WAS from\nheaven,\u2019 _actum est_! it is all over with the Unitarians; inasmuch as,\nin this passage, the origin of the BEING, without any possible pretence\nas to the _doctrines_, is unequivocally the subject. How does _Mr.\nBelsham_ proceed? Having made a good deal of flourish, as the Improved\nVersion had also done before him, about the words \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ac\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2;\nhaving also lumped together some irrelevant matter about the Polish\nSocinians and _Dr. Price_; and having observed somewhat upon the\ninterpretation of _Newcome_, _Whitby_, and _Alexander;_ having, in\nshort, appeared to say a good deal, whilst he took care to preserve a\nprofound silence throughout (as the Improved Version also has done,)\nrespecting any arguments in favour of the _future tense_ in the second\nclause\u2014the single point on which the entire question rests,\u2014he all of a\nsudden, very calmly and composedly asserts, \u2018The Vulgate renders the\ntext, \u201cThe first man was of the earth, earthy. The second man will be\nfrom heaven, heavenly.\u201d\u2019 (Calm Inq. p. 121.[422]) He then triumphantly\nconcludes, and all is settled. In this manner, one text after another,\nof those that proclaim our Lord\u2019s pre-existence, is extinguished by the\n_Calm Inquirer_ and his coadjutors. And so the cause of Socinian\nexpurgation goes forward.\n\n\u201cPerhaps, in the annals of dishonest controversy, another instance like\nthis is not to be found. A discussion of unimportant matter is _busily_\nkept up: the main point of difference, and in truth the only one\ndeserving of attention, the _change of tense_, is passed over, as if it\nwere a thing not at all in dispute: the Vulgate is then quoted, _in\ndirect opposition to the truth_, as reading the words \u2018WAS\u2019 and \u2018WILL\nBE\u2019 in the two corresponding clauses: and thus, indirectly, the false\nrendering of the text by the Unitarians is sustained by a false\nquotation from the Vulgate; and by a quotation which the author, if his\nmemory had lasted from one page to the other, must have known to be\nfalse; since, in the preceding page, he had himself cited the very words\nof the Vulgate:\u2014\u2018Primus homo de terra, terrenus; secundus homo de c\u0153lo,\nc\u00e6lestis:\u2019\u2014in which, words there is not only no justification of the\nchange from WAS to WILL BE; but there is, on the contrary, as in the\noriginal Greek, a declaration, as strong as the analogies of language\nwill admit, that the tense employed in the first clause must pass\nunchanged into the second. In a word, there is given by the Vulgate\nitself a direct contradiction to the report which is made of it by the\n_Calm Inquirer_. The man of \u2018sound understanding,\u2019 however, whom he\naddressed in _English_ on the one page, being possibly not exactly\nacquainted with what was contained in the _Latin_ on the other, and\nbeing consequently unaware that his author was imposing on him a false\ntranslation, would of course be fully satisfied on the authority of the\nVulgate (more especially as so much had been said to leave the general\nimpression of uncertainty as to the true reading of the _Greek_ text,\nand the consequent opinion, that the Vulgate was the only ancient\nauthority to be relied on,) that in this passage could be found no proof\nof our Lord\u2019s pre-existence! What are we to think of the cause that\nneeds such support; and what of the interests that can attract such\nsupporters?\u201d[423]\n\nWe are to understand, then, that Mr. Belsham\u2019s _only authority for the\ntenses of his version_ is a wilful mistranslation of the Vulgate; and\nthat he cunningly conceals from the mere English reader the circumstance\nthat the Vulgate, having no verb, has no tenses. Now, as to the last\npoint, he _distinctly informs_ his reader that _there is no verb_ in the\nLatin; and as to the former, _he never appeals to the_ RENDERING _of the\nVulgate at all but to the_ READING _only_. \u201cHow can this be?\u201d I shall be\nasked; \u201cfor the Archbishop cites his words, \u2018The Vulgate RENDERS the\ntext,\u2019 &c.\u201d True, _but the Archbishop quotes him falsely_; and the real\nwords are, \u201cThe Vulgate READS the text,\u201d &c. Let the original and the\ncitation appear side by side.\n\n _Mr. Belsham\u2019s words._ _Archbishop Magee\u2019s quotation._\n\n \u201cThe Vulgate READS the text, \u2018The \u201cThe Vulgate RENDERS the text, \u2018The\n first man _was_ of the earth, first man was of the earth, earthy.\n earthly. The second man _will be_ The second man will be from heaven,\n from heaven, heavenly.\u2019 heavenly,\u2019\u201d[424]\n\n \u201cThis is not improbably the TRUE\n READING.\u201d\n\nThe verbs, in both clauses, Mr. Belsham has printed in italics, to\nindicate (in conformity with the usual practice in his work, and the\nImproved Version, as well as in our common translation) the absence of\nany corresponding words in the Latin text. This circumstance, which\ndestroys the whole accusation, his accuser has suppressed.\n\nAnd as to the \u201cpreserving a profound silence throughout respecting any\narguments in favour of the future tense in the second clause,\u201d it so\nhappens that the \u201csomewhat\u201d which is observed \u201cupon the interpretation\nof Newcome, Whitby, and Alexander,\u201d is simply an appeal to these\nauthorities on this very matter of the future tense,\u2014\u201cthe single point\non which the entire question rests.\u201d\n\nOn the whole, can our upright and learned opponents tell, whether \u201cin\nthe annals of dishonest controversy, another instance like\u201d the\nforegoing \u201cis to be found?\u201d I can assure them, that from the same work,\nI could produce many more.\n\nIn our present controversy, our Rev. opponents have been misled by their\nreliance on this unscrupulous adversary of the Unitarians: and by not\nreferring to his pages, have taken his heavy responsibilities on\nthemselves. In the first Lecture of the series, Mr. Ould has represented\nDr. Priestley as saying, that the sacred writers produced \u201clame\naccounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings.\u201d[425] Dr.\nMagee has exhibited this sentence as a citation from Priestley\u2019s 12th\nLetter to Mr. Burn;[426] the fact being, that he wrote only six letters\nto Mr. Burn; and that _neither in these, nor anywhere else, is such a\nsentence to be found_. The first phrase, indeed (\u201clame account\u201d) was\nonce applied by Dr. Priestley to the early chapters in Genesis; but\ndeliberately retracted with an expression of regret that it had been\nused. Let the learned prelate pass sentence on himself: he says, \u201cIt is\nsurely _a gross falsification of his author_, to give, _as one continued\nquotation_ from him (as the established meaning of the form here\nemployed, unequivocally implies), that which is an arbitrary selection\nof words drawn violently together from a lengthened context.\u201d[427] I can\nassure our respected opponents, that their Lectures contain other\ncitations, drawn from the same source, which, after the most careful\nsearch, I believe to be no less false. And is not an ungenerous use made\nof obnoxious writings, when we find enumerated and quoted among\nUnitarian authors, _Evanson_, whose scepticism received its most\neffectual replies from Priestley and his friends; and _Gagneius_, who\nwas an orthodox professor of the Sorbonne, and preacher to Francis the\nFirst?\n\nFor other instances of Archbishop Magee\u2019s flagrant injustice and\nmisrepresentation, I must refer to the \u201cExamination of his charges\nagainst Unitarians and Unitarianism,\u201d by my learned and venerated friend\nDr. Carpenter, who has found it only too easy to fill a volume with the\nexposure of a mere portion of them. I have purposely taken fresh\nexamples, not hitherto noticed, so far as I know, and it may be supposed\nthat the earlier gleaning by Dr. Carpenter would naturally yield the\nmost remarkable results; so that the cases now adduced cannot be thought\nto be _peculiarly_ unfavourable specimens.\n\nIf our reverend opponents, _having read this Prelate\u2019s work_, really\nthink my charge against him, of \u201cabuse the most coarse,\u201d an\n\u201cunwarrantable attack on the reputation of the dead,\u201d I cannot hope to\njustify myself in their estimation: there must be an irremediable\nvariance between their notion of \u201ccoarse abuse\u201d and mine. I regret that\nwe cannot agree in a matter of taste which, to say the least, borders so\nclosely on morals as to be scarcely distinguishable from them, and to be\nconnected with the same strong feelings of approbation or disgust. With\nwhat levity must a writer sport with moral terms, what indistinct\nimpressions must he have of moral qualities, who having pronounced an\nopponent (I quote the language of the Archbishop of Mr. Belsham)\n\u201c_incapable of duplicity_,\u201d[428] can yet proceed to charge him with\n\u201cartifice and dishonesty,\u201d[429] with \u201c_huddling up_ a matter,\u201d[430] with\n\u201c_filching away_ a portion of evidence,\u201d[431] with \u201c_direct violations\nof known truth_,\u201d[432] and with \u201c_bad faith_, unchecked by learning and\nunabashed by shame!\u201d[433] I cannot wonder at the spirit pervading Mr.\nByrth\u2019s letter to my friend and colleague Mr. Thom, when I find that he\nsees nothing coarse or abusive, but only the expression of \u201cdeparted\ngreatness,\u201d in accusing an opponent of \u201cmiserable stupidity,\u201d[434] of\n\u201cdownright and irremediable nonsense,\u201d[435] of \u201cproposing\u201d a suggestion\n\u201c(_as he_ AVERS) with great diffidence,\u201d[436] of furnishing\n\u201ctwenty-eight pages of the most extraordinary quagmire;\u201d[437] in begging\nhim to \u201crest assured, that to know the Greek language it must be\nlearned;\u201d[438] in proclaiming that he \u201cstands in a pillory\u201d[439] erected\nfor him by a Bishop; that he belongs to \u201cthe family of Botherims in\nMorals and Metaphysics,\u201d and is \u201cconnected with that of Malaprops in\nMathematics;\u201d[440] in ridiculing the idea of publishing his\nportrait;[441] in asking him whether he has \u201clost his senses;\u201d[442] and\nhinting that, whereas he knows not \u201chow to choose _between two bundles_\u201d\nof evidence, he is AN ASS.[443] Are we to consider it a condescension in\nthis distinguished Prelate, that he bends from his Episcopal dignity to\nconsole the Dissenting ministers in their \u201ccontemplation of the\nadvantages of the national clergy,\u201d and assures them that they have \u201cnot\nonly more of positive profit,\u201d but, \u201cin addition to this,\u201d \u201cthe\nindulgence of vanity, and the gratification of spleen,\u2014qualities which,\ntime out of mind, have belonged to the family of _Dissent_;\u201d nay,\nfurther, that in preparation for their ministry, they have a much\nlighter \u201coutfit\u201d \u201cin point of expenditure,\u201d since among Nonconformists,\nin some cases at least, \u201cthe individual is his own University; confers\nhis own degrees and orders; and has little more difficulty in the way of\nhis vocation, than to find a new hat, a stout pony, and a pair of\nsaddle-bags.\u201d[444] This is very smart, no doubt; but does the Church\nexclude us from the Universities, that her Bishops may enjoy the\nentertainment of making us their laughing-stock, and inditing lampoons\nagainst us? Does she injure us first, that we may be insulted\nafterwards?\n\nMr. M\u2018Neile speaks of the late Archbishop\u2019s work as \u201ca barrier in the\nway of Unitarianism.\u201d[445] It is so; and if its influence were only that\nof fair argument, we should wish the barrier to stand in all its\nstrength. But the book has become a standard authority for every kind of\nfalse and malignant impression respecting Unitarians, and prevents,\ninstead of advancing, the knowledge of what we are. To be held up as\nentertaining \u201cthe _cool and deliberate purpose_ of falsifying the word\nof God;\u201d[446] as guilty of \u201cmachinations\u201d to \u201csubvert through _fraud_\nwhat had been found impregnable by force;\u201d[447] as \u201cstaking\u201d our \u201cvery\nsalvation on the adoption of a reading which is against evidence;\u201d[448]\nas distinguished for \u201csteady and immovable effrontery,\u201d[449] and\n\u201cshameful disingenuousness;\u201d[450] as discerning in our Lord \u201c_that one_\nHATED _form on which we are terrified to look_;\u201d[451] as so \u201cdetermined\nto resist and subvert _one great truth_,\u201d that we \u201cset but little value\non every other,\u201d and make a \u201c_prevailing practice_\u201d of \u201cDIRECT AND\nDELIBERATE FALSEHOOD:\u201d[452] to be thus slandered by one, for whom his\nstation and accomplishments have procured, from the party spirit of the\nage, a credit denied to any possible learning or excellence of ours;\nthis, being a grievous wrong to the character of Christianity as much as\nto our own, we confess to be a trial hard to bear: and we may well feel\nlike the good man under successful calumny, which wounds himself a\nlittle, but truth and virtue more. Meanwhile, injury may have its\ncompensations; and since, to prove his accusations, even this\ndistinguished Prelate had occasion to tamper with the evidence, we have\na fresh presumption that our cause is one, against which learning and\nacuteness, under the restraints of justice, find themselves of no avail.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture VI.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n Lecture, p. 450. Note.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n See Note A\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n See Rev. H. M\u2018Neile\u2019s Lecture; The Proper Deity of our Lord the only\n Ground of Consistency in the Work of Redemption, pp. 339, 340.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n Gen. ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n \u201cEither he\u201d (\u201cthe Deity of the Unitarians\u201d) \u201cmust show no mercy, in\n order to continue true; or he must show no truth, in order to exercise\n mercy. If he overlook man\u2019s guilt, _admit him to the enjoyment of his\n favour, and proceed_ by corrective discipline to restore his\n character, he unsettles the foundations of all equitable government,\n obliterates the everlasting distinctions between right and wrong,\n spreads consternation in Heaven, and proclaims impunity in Hell. Such\n a God would not be worth serving. _Such_ tenderness, instead of\n inspiring filial affection, would lead only to reckless\n contempt.\u201d\u2014_Mr. M\u2018Neile\u2019s Lecture_, p. 313.\n\n Surely this is a description, not of the Unitarian, but of the\n Lecturer\u2019s own creed. It certainly is no part of his opponents\u2019\n belief, that God first admits the guilty to his favour, and _then\n \u201cproceeds\u201d_ \u201cto restore his character.\u201d This arrangement, by which\n pardon _precedes_ moral restoration, is that feature in the orthodox\n theory of the Divine dealings against which Unitarians protest, and\n which Mr. M\u2018Neile himself insists upon as essential throughout his\n Lecture. \u201cWe think,\u201d he says, \u201cthat _before_ man can be introduced to\n the only true process of improvement, he must _first_ have forgiveness\n of his guilt.\u201d What is this \u201cfirst\u201d step of pardon, but an\n \u201coverlooking of man\u2019s guilt;\u201d and what is the second, of\n \u201csanctification,\u201d but a \u201crestoring of character;\u201d whether we say by\n \u201ccorrective discipline,\u201d or the \u201cinfluence of the Holy Spirit,\u201d\n matters not. Is it said that the guilt is not overlooked, if Christ\n endured its penalty? I ask again, whether justice regards only the\n _infliction_ of suffering, or its _quantity_, without caring about its\n _direction_? Was it impossible for the stern righteousness of God\n freely to forgive the penitent? And how was the injustice of\n liberating the guilty mended by the torments of the innocent? Here is\n the verdict against sin,\u2014\u201cThe soul that sinneth, it shall die.\u201d And\n how is this verdict executed? The soul that had sinned does _not_ die;\n and one \u201cthat knew no sin\u201d dies instead. And this is called a divine\n union of _truth_ and _mercy_; being the most precise negation of both,\n of which any conception can be formed. First, to hang the destinies of\n all mankind upon a solitary volition of their first parents, and then\n let loose a diabolic power on that volition to break it down; to\n vitiate the human constitution in punishment for the fall, and yet\n continue to demand obedience to the original and perfect moral law; to\n assert the absolute inflexibility of that holy law, yet all the while\n have in view for the offenders a method of escape, which violates\n every one of its provisions, and makes it all a solemn pretence; to\n forgive that which is in itself unpardonable, on condition of the\n suicide of a God, is to shock and confound all notions of rectitude,\n without affording even the sublimity of a savage grandeur. This will\n be called \u201cblasphemy;\u201d and it is so; but the blasphemy is not in the\n _words_, but in the _thing_.\n\n Unitarians are falsely accused of representing God as \u201coverlooking\n man\u2019s guilt.\u201d They hold, that _no guilt is overlooked till it is\n eradicated from the soul_; and that pardon proceeds, _pari passu_,\n with sanctification.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n See Note B.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n Numb. xiv. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n Jon. iii. 5-10.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n Jon. iv. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n Ps. li. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n Is. i. 16-18.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n Ezek. xxxiii. 14-16.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n Matt. xix. 16-21.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n Acts x. 34-44.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n Acts ii. 24.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n iv. 10; v. 30.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n iv. 2.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n xxiv. 21.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n Acts xiii. 30.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n xvii. 18, 31.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n Rom. viii. 34.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n iv. 25.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n iv. 24.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n x. 9.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n iii. 25.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n Mr. Buddicom has the following note, intimating his approbation of\n this rendering: \u201cSome of the best commentators have connected \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f35\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9, not with \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, but with \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd and,\n accordingly, Bishop Bull renders the passage, \u2018Quem proposuit Deus\n placamentum in sanguine suo per fidem.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Lecture on Atonement_, p.\n 496.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n Luke vii. 47.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n John xii. 23, 24, 32.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n John x. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n Matt. xv. 24.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n 2 Cor. v. 15-18.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n See Rom. vii. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n Gal. ii. 15.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n Rom. v. 6.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n Col. ii. 13; iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n Gal. iv. 4-7.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n Eph. i. 7.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n Rom. ix. 4.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n Eph. i. 3-5.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n Rom. v. 10.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n Eph. i. 10.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n Rom. v. 11.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n Col. i. 19.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n Eph. ii. 11-18.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n 1 Tim. ii. 1-8.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n Matt. xxvi. 28.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n Rev. v. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n John i. 29. For an example of the use of the word \u201c_world_\u201d to denote\n the Gentiles, see Rom. xi. 12-15; where St. Paul, speaking of the\n rejection of the Messiah by the Jews, declares that it is only\n temporary; and as it has given occasion for the adoption of the\n Gentiles, so will this lead, by ultimate reaction, to the re-admission\n of Israel; a consummation in which the Gentiles should rejoice without\n boasting or highmindedness. \u201cIf,\u201d he says, \u201cthe fall of them (the\n Israelites) be the riches of _the world_ (the Gentiles), and the\n diminishing of them, the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their\n fulness! For I speak to you, Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of\n the Gentiles, I magnify my office; if, by any means, I may provoke to\n emulation them which are my flesh (the Jews,) and save some of them;\n for if the casting away of them be the _reconciling of the world_,\n what shall the receiving of them be but life from the dead?\u201d\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n Acts xx. 28. It is hardly necessary to say, that the reading of our\n common version \u201c_church of God_\u201d wants the support of the best\n authorities; and that with the general consent of the most competent\n critics, Griesbach reads \u201c_church of the Lord_.\u201d See Note C.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n 1 Pet. ii. 23-25.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n 1 Pet. iii. 17; iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n 2 Cor. v. 21.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n 1 Cor. v. 7.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n Rom. iii. 22-26.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n 1 John iv. 2.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n 1 John i. 7.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n 1 John i. 8.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n 1 John ii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n 1 John iv. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n 1 John v. 21.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n 1 John iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n Rom. ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n 2 Thess. i. 7-10.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n Gal. iii. 13: even here the apostle cannot refrain from adverting to\n his _Gentile_ interpretation of the cross; for he adds,\u2014\u201cthat the\n blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ.\u201d\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n Rom. ix. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n 2 Pet. ii. 5.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n 2 Pet. iii. 9.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n 1 Pet. iii. 20-22.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n 1 Cor. vii. 29.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n Eph. v. 16; Col. iv. 5.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n 1 John ii. 18.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n Phil. iv. 5; James v. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n Heb. ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n Num. xix. 11-20; Lev. xx. 25, 26; Num. vi. 9-12.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n Lev. v. 14-19.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n Lev. xii. 1-8.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n Lev. xiv.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n Lev. xvi.; xxiii. 26-32; Ex. xxx. 10; Num. xxix. 7-11.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n In three or four instances, it is true, a sin-offering is demanded\n from the perpetrator of some act of _moral wrong_. But in all these\n cases a suitable punishment was ordained also; a circumstance\n inconsistent with the idea, that the expiation procurred remission of\n guilt. The _sacrifice_ appended to the _penal infliction_, indicates\n the two-fold character of the act;\u2014at once a _ceremonial defilement_\n and a _crime_; and requiring, to remedy the one, an atoning rite,\u2014to\n chastise the other, a judicial penalty. See an excellent tract by Rev.\n Edward Higginson, of Hull, entitled, \u201cThe Sacrifice of Christ\n scripturally and rationally interpreted:\u201d particularly pp. 30-34.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n Heb. viii. 2. 5.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n ix. 1, 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n vii. 16; viii. 1.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n viii. 3.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n Heb. ix. 15.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n viii. 5.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n x. 3.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n ix. 7, 25.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n Heb. x. 4.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n vii. 25.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n ix. 25-27, 12; x. 12, 14.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n ix. 8.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n vii. 17, 24-28.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n vii. 27. Let the reader look carefully again into the verbal and\n logical structure of this verse; and then ask himself, whether it is\n not as plain as words can make it, that Christ \u201conce for all\u201d _offered\n up_ \u201c_a sacrifice first for_ HIS OWN SINS, and _then for the\n peoples_.\u201d The argument surely is this; \u201che need not do the _daily_\n thing, for he has done it _once for all_; the never-finished work of\n other pontiffs, a single act of his achieved.\u201d The sentiment loses its\n meaning, unless that which he did once is _the self-same thing_ which\n they did always; and what was that?\u2014the offering by the High-priest of\n a sacrifice first for his own sins, and then for the people\u2019s. With\n what propriety, then, can Mr. Buddicom ask us this question: \u201cWhy is\n he said to have excelled the Jewish High-priest in _not_ offering a\n sacrifice for himself?\u201d I submit, that no such thing is said: but\n that, on the contrary, it is positively affirmed that Christ _did_\n offer sacrifice for his own sins. So plain indeed is this, that\n Trinitarian commentators are forced to slip in a restraining word and\n an additional sentiment, into the last clause of the verse. Thus\n Peirce; \u201cWho has no need, like the priests under the law, from time to\n time to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins, and after that for\n the people\u2019s. For this _latter_ he did once for all when he offered up\n himself; _and as to the former, he had no occasion to do it at all_.\u201d\n And no doubt the writer of the epistle _ought_ to have said just this,\n if he intended to draw the kind of contrast, which orthodox theology\n requires, between Jesus and the Hebrew priests. He limits the\n opposition between them to _one_ particular;\u2014the Son of Aaron made\n offering _daily_,\u2014the Son of God _once for all_. Divines must add\n _another_ particular; that the Jewish priest atoned for _two_ classes\n of sins, his own and the people\u2019s,\u2014Christ for the people\u2019s only.\n Suppose for a moment that this was the author\u2019s design; that the word\n \u201c_this_,\u201d instead of having its proper grammatical antecedent, may be\n restrained, as in the commentary cited above, to the sacrifice for\n _the people\u2019s_ sins; then the word \u201cdaily\u201d may be left out, without\n disturbance to the other substantive particular of the contrast: the\n verse will then stand thus; \u201cwho needeth not, as those High-priests,\n to offer up sacrifice for his own sins; _for_ he offered up sacrifice\n for the people\u2019s sins, when he offered up himself.\u201d Here, all the\n reasoning is obviously gone, and the sentence becomes a mere inanity:\n to make sense, we want, instead of the latter clause, the sentiment of\n Peirce,\u2014_for_ \u201che had no occasion to do this at all.\u201d This, however,\n is an invention of the expositor, more jealous for his author\u2019s\n orthodoxy, than for his composition. I think it necessary to add that,\n by leaving out the most emphatic word in this verse (the word _once_)\n Mr. Buddicom has suppressed the author\u2019s antithesis, and favoured the\n suggestion of his own. I have no doubt that this was unconsciously\n done; but it shows how system rubs off the angles of Scriptural\n difficulties.\u2014I subjoin a part of the note of John Crell on the\n passage: \u201cde pontifice Christo loquitur. Quid vero fecit semel\n Christus? quid aliud, quam quod Pontifex antiquus stata die\n quotannis[a] faciebat? Principaliter autem hic non de oblatione pro\n peccatis populi; sed de oblatione pro ipsius Pontificis peccatis agi,\n ex superioribus, ipsoque rationum contextu manifestum est.\u201d\n\n The sins which his sacrifice cancelled must have been of the same\n order in the people, and in himself; certainly therefore not moral in\n their character, but ceremonial. His death was, for himself no less\n than for his Hebrew disciples, commutation for the Mosaic ordinances.\n Had he not died, he must have continued under their power; \u201cwere he on\n earth, he would not be a priest,\u201d or have \u201cobtained that more\n excellent ministry,\u201d by which he clears away, in the courts above, all\n possibilities of ritual sin below, and himself emerges from legal to\n spiritual relations.\n\nFootnote a:\n\n _This is_ obviously the meaning of \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u2019 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd in this passage; _from\n time to time, and in the case_ alluded to, _yearly_; not, as in the\n common version, _daily_.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n Heb. ix. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n x. 16, 19, 20, 24.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n Mr. Buddicom\u2019s Lecture on the Atonement, p. 471.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n See Mr. M\u2018Neile\u2019s Lecture, pp. 302, 311, 328, 340, 341.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n Mr. M\u2018Neile\u2019s Lecture, p. 338.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n Phil. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n Eph. iv. 13.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n John i. 12.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n Rev. D. James, in his Lecture entitled \u201cThe doctrine of the Trinity,\n proved as a consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d pp.\n 366-375.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n Tillotson\u2019s Works, London, 1717, vol. i. p. 405.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n Tillotson\u2019s Works, London, 1717, vol. i. p. 579.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n Socinus thus states the opinion which he attempts to confute:\n \u201cReceptior hodie sententia est, homini naturaliter ejusque animo\n insitam esse divinitatis alicujus opinionem, cujus vi cuncta regantur\n ac gubernentur, qu\u00e6que humanarum rerum imprimis curam gerat, hominibus\n consulat atque prospiciat. H\u00e6c sententia, quam nos falsam esse\n arbitramur,\u201d &c.\u2014_Pr\u00e6lectiones Theol. Fausti Socini Senensis_, c. ii.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n Mr. James\u2019s illustration of the nature of a _spirit_.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n Introduction to the Analogy.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n Lecture, p. 371.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n Modern Infidelity considered, p. 18.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n Lecture, p. 451.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n Remarks on the commonly-received Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifice,\n by Rev. W. Turner, jun., A.M. Note A. second edition.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n Lecture, p. 414.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n Ibid. p. 410.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n Ibid. pp. 412, 413.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n Ibid. p. 411.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n Lecture, p. 492.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n Ibid. p. 507.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n Ibid. pp. 511, 512.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n Ars Critica, P. I. sect. i. cap. ix. \u00a7 11.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. p. 335. Note. 5th Edition. This note\n is a broad caricature of the discussion in the Monthly Repository: and\n shows that the Author might have been the Cruikshanks of theology, had\n his _humour_ always been _good-humour_.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. pp. 343, 344. Note.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n Monthly Repository of Theology and General Literature, vol. x. p. 481.\n 1815. I quote from this work, rather than from Mr. Aspland\u2019s \u201cPlea for\n Unitarian Dissenters,\u201d in obedience to the Archbishop\u2019s own reference.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n Preface to Mr. Byrth\u2019s Lecture, part i. p. vii.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n Newcome and Whitby _in loc._\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. p. 222.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n In the 2nd Edition it is p. 78. All my citations are made from this\n edition of Mr. B\u2019s work, published in 1816; and from the 5th Edition\n of Archbishop Magee\u2019s, published in 1832.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, vol. iii. pp. 223, 224.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n There is a possibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a\n difference between the two Editions of Mr. B\u2019s work; as, however, the\n accusation is still found in the newest Edition of the Archbishop\u2019s\n book, I conclude that this is not the case. Indeed, even if the\n Prelate\u2019s quotation had been _verbally_ true, it would _in spirit_\n have been no less false: for, at all events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate,\n to give evidence as to the _text_, not the _translation_; and had he\n used the word _renders_, it would only have been because the term\n naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to determine a READING.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n Page 38.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. p. 170.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n Vol. iii. p. 57.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n Vol. ii. p. 387.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n Vol. iii. p. 248.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n p. 203.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n p. 210.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n p. 296.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n p. 249.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n p. 274.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n p. 239.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n p. 82.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n p. 91.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n p. 132.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n p. 64.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n p. 242.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n p. 275.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n p. 66.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n p. 145.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n pp. 275, 276.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, Preface, p. vi.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n Vol. iii. p. 108.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n Vol. i. xii.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n iii. 204.\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n p. 47.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n p. 100.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n p. 67.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n pp. 57, 58.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\nThe Rev. D. James commences the Preface to his Lecture with these words:\n\u201cModern Unitarianism is a compound of Infidelity and Heresy.\u201d It would\nbe very easy for me to say what modern _Trinitarianism_ is, and to\nattach to it two epithets which Mr. James would relish no more than I do\nInfidelity and Heresy. It is evident, however, that this calling of\nnames proves nothing but the unfitness of the mind which so indulges its\n_temper_ and _feeling_ to be engaged in _intellectual_ and\n_argumentative_ controversy. Does Mr. James expect to _convince_ or\n_persuade_ any Unitarians, by calling them Infidels and Heretics? The\nChrist Church method of Conversion is very well for Infallibles, who\nhave only to denounce, and for \u201cordained Clergymen,\u201d who, with a\nsimplicity of extravagance approaching the sublime, shrink from no\nconsequences of their first principles, and boldly assert that the Holy\nSpirit is _their_ Interpreter of Scripture,\u2014but it displays a strange\nignorance or contempt of the only avenues by which the minds of their\nfellow Christians can be approached, and of the moral and argumentative\nmeans by which alone conviction can be produced.\n\nIn what sense does Mr. James use the word \u2018Heresy,\u2019 in the sentence\nquoted? If in the sense of _error_, then is he of the infallible Church\nthat he decides _authoritatively_ on such points? If in the sense of\n_schism_ and _division_, who does not know that the Creed-making Church\nis the Mother of the Sects, the fomentor of our religious strifes? With\nwhat grace or justice does that man call another an infidel, who is\nhimself an infidel in respect to the primal and universal Revelation,\nand applies himself to blot out the divine signatures from the soul of\nman, and the material works of God? There is no infidelity so bad as\nthis. The Apostle speaks of the law written on the heart, and of the\nGentiles who had not the Jewish Law, being yet a Law unto themselves,\nand the Psalmist speaks of the moral fidelity and constancy of God being\nshadowed forth by the unfailingness of His material Laws,\u2014but Mr. James,\nwho makes strange work with scripture, maintains in opposition to both\nScripture and Philosophy, \u201cthe moral character and unity of God not\ndiscoverable from the works of Creation.\u201d I have been long prepared for\nthis. Those who must maintain Trinitarianism have no other resource than\nto blot out the lights of the ORIGINAL REVELATION.[453] NATURE and the\nSOUL must be discredited if the Trinitarian Theology is to hold its\nplace. This has been long evident to all who have watched the progress\nof knowledge, and the signs of the times. The works of God, and the\noracles of the Soul, must be insulted, that the CHURCH, the CREED, and\nthe PRIEST may remain.\n\nI have referred but slightly to Mr. James\u2019s Lecture in the following\npages, because I wished to build up an independent argument of great\nimportance, and would not be led out of my way to answer reasonings and\nstatements which, being answered, would leave the real controversy\nunaffected, and without a step of advancement. Nor could it be of much\nmoment to discuss the CRITICISM that finds the Trinity in a Hebrew\nplural\u2014the REASONING that, (in violation of one of the maxims of\nPhilosophy, to attribute _no more_ Causes than are adequate to the\neffects,) in the Works of an _Omnipotent_ Creator finds in unity of\nDesign no proof of Unity of Being\u2014the SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTATION that lays\ndown the Mosaic Law of Vengeance, \u201can eye for an eye, and a tooth for a\ntooth,\u201d _expressly condemned by Christ_, as unworthy even of _men_, as\nthe morality of God himself, \u201cthe principle of eternal right, and the\nlaw of his own government\u201d[454]\u2014the transcendental METAPHYSICS that sees\nno difficulty in the infinite and omnipresent Deity becoming incarnate\nin a human frame, on the ground that \u201cspirits occupy no space, and that\nthousands of them might be within a thimble, and the thimble on the\nfinger of the seamstress, and her finger touch none of them.\u201d[455]\n\nThere are, however, some statements in the Preface to Mr. James\u2019s\nLecture, professing to be testimonies from Antiquity to the Trinitarian\nDoctrine, which demand some notice. To establish his inaccuracy I shall\nsimply oppose to his statements the statements of Professor Burton.\n\n1. \u201c[The word Trinity] is found in the writings of Justin Martyr, who\nwas converted to the Christian faith about the year of our Lord 140.\u201d\u2014p.\nv. Mr. James mentions in a note that some divines dispute the\nauthenticity of the work in which the word is found: but Mr. James is\nnot one of those divines, for he proceeds to assert, that the passage in\nJustin Martyr \u201cbrings the use of the word within half a century of the\napostolic age.\u201d\n\nNow let us hear Dr. Burton.\u2014\u201c\u2018_Theophili ad Autolycum_, lib. ii. c. 15.\u2019\nI quote this passage, not on account of the sentiment which it contains,\n(for the allusion is sufficiently puerile,) but because it is the\nearliest passage (A. D. 180) in the works of any of the fathers, where\nwe find the Greek word \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2, _Trinity_: and we can thus prove that the\nterm was applied to the three persons of the Trinity as early as toward\nthe end of the second century.\n\n\u201cTheophilus had been giving an account of the creation, as described by\nMoses in the book of Genesis; and following that allegorical method of\ninterpretation, which the fathers borrowed too freely from the schools\nof Alexandria, he extracts a hidden meaning from the fact of the\nheavenly bodies being created on the fourth day. \u2018In like manner also\nthe three days, which preceded the luminaries, are types of the Trinity,\nof God, and his Word, and his Wisdom.\u2019\u201d Burton adds in a note\u2014\u201cThis\npassage is overlooked by Suicer in his Thesaurus, v. \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2, who very\nproperly observes, that the _Expositio rect\u00e6 confessionis_, in which the\nword occurs, and which has been ascribed to Justin Martyr, _is later\nthan that writer by some centuries_.\u201d\u2014_Theol. Works_, vol. ii. 2nd part,\np. 34.\n\n2. \u201cThe next who makes use of the word in his writings is Theophilus, a\nGentile convert.\u201d\u2014p. vi. Let us hear what Burton says of this\nTheophilus, and of his use of the word Trinity, _the first_ who used it\nin such connection.\n\n\u201cSome doubts have been raised concerning the identity and date of\nTheophilus: but it seems to be generally agreed, that the person whose\nworks have come down to us was the sixth bishop of Antioch, and was\nappointed to that see about the year 168. He tells us himself that he\nhad been bred up in heathenism, and it is plain _that his language and\nthoughts retained a lasting impression from the Platonic\nphilosophy_.\u201d\u2014p. 33.\n\n\u201cWe perhaps ought not to infer from the words of Theophilus that the\nterm \u03a4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 had come in his day to bear the signification of a trinity in\nunity. He may have used it merely to express _three things_; and the\n_three days_, which he compares with the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\nmight have been spoken of by him as \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f21\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, _a triad_, or\n_trinity of days_. In this sense Clement of Alexandria speaks of \u2018the\nholy triad, or trinity, faith, hope, and charity;\u2019 and Origen uses the\nterms \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u1f70\u03c2 and \u03c4\u03b5\u03c4\u03c1\u1f70\u03c2 for periods of three and four years respectively.\nTertullian also, at the end of the second century, used the term\n_trinitas_ in the same ordinary sense, for any three things.\n\n\u201cI would not therefore argue from the mere occurrence of the word in the\nwritings of Theophilus, that \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 contained a signification of _unity_,\nas well as of _trinity_: but this much is at least evident, that\nTheophilus must have considered some resemblance, if not equality, to\nhave existed between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or he would not\nhave included them in the same type\u201d\u2014p. 38.\n\n3. \u201cPolycarp, a disciple of St. John, when at the stake, addressed a\nprayer to God, which he concluded in this manner:\u2014\u2018_For all things I\npraise thee, I bless thee, I glorify thee, together with the eternal and\nheavenly Jesus Christ: with whom, unto thee, and the Holy Spirit, be\nglory, both now and for ever, world without end. Amen._\u2019\u201d\u2014p. vii.\n\nProfessor Burton:\u2014\u201cSuch are the concluding words of the prayer in the\nedition of Archbishop Usher: but Eusebius has quoted them differently,\n\u2018I glorify thee, through the eternal High Priest, Jesus Christ, thy\nbeloved Son, through whom be glory to thee, with him in the Holy Ghost,\nboth now and for evermore. Amen.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThe early orthodox writers,\u201d as Bishop Bull goes on to remark, \u201cwhile\nthey glorified the Father _through the Son_, intended to express the\nsubordination of the Son, in his relation of Son, and the pre-eminence\nof the Father, in his relation of Father: but by adoring the Son\n_together with the Father_, they intended to express his being of one\nsubstance, and his existing in the same divine essence and nature with\nthe Father.\u201d\u2014\u201cTheodoret informs us, that in the middle of the fourth\ncentury the clergy and people of Antioch were divided, some using the\nconjunction _and_, when they glorified the Son, (_i. e._, saying _and to\nthe Son_,) and others applying the preposition _through_ to the Son, and\n_in_ to the Holy Ghost. This was the period when the dispute concerning\nthe form of doxology became general: and Philistorgius, the Arian\nhistorian, is speaking of the same time and place, when he says,\n\u2018Flavianus was the first person who used the words _Glory to the Father\nand to the Son and to the Holy Ghost_, for before his time some had\nsaid, _Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost_, which was\nthe expression in most general use: and others _Glory to the Father in\nthe Son and Holy Ghost_.\u2019\u201d\u2014pp. 7, 8, 9.\n\n\u201cIt is true that Eusebius appears to have found a different reading in\nhis copy of Polycarp\u2019s prayer: _and a critical question like this can\nnever be demonstrably settled_.\u201d\u2014p. 13.\n\n4. \u201c[Justin Martyr] says\u2014\u2018HIM (the Father) and that SON who hath\nproceeded from him, and the PROPHETICAL SPIRIT, _we worship and\nadore_.\u2019\u201d\u2014p. vii.\n\nWhere did Mr. James find this quotation? I shall supply some words which\nhe has omitted, coming in between two clauses, which he has printed as\n_continuous_ parts of the sentence. The omitted words supply a good test\nfor _a fundamental principle_ of Trinitarian interpretation, that of\n_equalizing_ all persons joined together by the conjunctive conjunction.\nI shall give the _omitted words_ in italics.\n\n\u201cJustin is answering the charge of atheism, which was brought against\nthe Christians, and observes, that they were punished for not\nworshipping evil demons, which were not really gods. \u2018Hence it is that\nwe are called atheists: and we confess that we are atheists with respect\nto such reputed Gods as these: but not with respect to the true God, the\nFather of justice, temperance, and every other virtue, with whom is no\nmixture of evil. But Him, and the Son who came from him, and gave us\nthis instruction, _and the host of the other good angels which attend\nupon and resemble them_, and the prophetic spirit, we worship and adore,\npaying them a reasonable and true honour, and not refusing to deliver to\nany one else, who wishes to be taught, what we ourselves have learnt.\u2019\u201d\n\nAfter such careless quotations, to say the best of them, I am not\nsurprised to find Mr. James, with singular self-devotion, placing\nhimself beside Mr. Byrth, to share the condemnation that falls upon\ninjurious representations, not only unproved, but disproved. Mr. James\nspeaks of the _Unitarian crime_ of distorted representations, as proved\nby Mr. Byrth. Mr. James may make common cause with Mr. Byrth, if he is\nunwise enough to do so; but I can assure him that his own burden is\nheavy enough to bear, without encumbering himself with any portion of\nanother\u2019s.\n\nTo the greatest part of his quotations Mr. James has given no reference,\nso that it is impossible to verify them. If he is correct, he has been\nmore fortunate in some cases than Professor Burton. I should be glad to\nhave the means of testing his extracts from Origen. He ought to have\nstated, that both Bishop Bull and Dr. Priestley, when speaking of the\nAnte-Nicene Fathers, never confounded the Trinity of these Fathers with\nthe Post-Nicene Trinity, or with modern Orthodoxy.\n\nNothing can be more unphilosophical than the manner in which testimonies\nto modern opinions have been found in the Fathers. Any words that will\n_bear_ the sense have been pushed forward as authorities. No distinction\nhas been made between the ideas _suggested_ by the words to _modern\nreaders_, and the ideas of the writers originally suggesting the words.\nThe _suggested_ and the _suggesting_ ideas would be found strangely\ndifferent. Whoever wishes to have clear ideas on this question, the\nopinions of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and the origin of the Trinity,\nshould read the portions of Cudworth\u2019s Intellectual System that bear\nupon the subject.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE VII.\n\n THE UNSCRIPTURAL ORIGIN AND ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY\n\n OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.\n\n\n BY REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n\n \u201cTHE FATHER THAT DWELLETH IN ME, HE DOETH THE WORKS.\u201d\u2014_John_ xiv. 10.\n\n\nIt is a profound observation of Professor Dugald Stewart, that you never\ndestroy an error until you have traced it to its sources, until you have\naccounted for its origin. A popular doctrine, full of life in the strong\nfaith of those who hold it, cannot be encountered at the height of its\npower, and struck down at once by an argument; the world is apt to take\nfor granted that whatever is widely believed must have some roots in\ntruth, and you must go up the stream of opinion, if you would gradually\nremove this idea so supporting to error, of its strength and fulness,\nstripping away the impressions of magnitude as you ascend, until at last\nyou have left all the strength behind you, and have come to where you\ncan contemplate, undeceived, the weak and miserable beginnings of the\nturbid flood. Were some Grecian idolater to have followed the gliding\nsteps of his river God, until his majestic movements were shortened into\nthe tricklings of the mountain spring, if the deity did not entirely\ndisappear, it would at least have changed its form, and melted into the\nminor nymph of the Fountain.\n\nWhenever we encounter the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is received at\nthe present day, and attempt to arrest it by the strength of Reason and\nthe strength of Scripture, the flood is too strong for us, the faith of\nthe world flows upon the current, and we are swept aside as things that\nhad vainly interposed to intercept the rushings of some mighty tide. We\nmust travel up to the first droppings if we would demonstrate the\nderived nature of this now full stream of faith. If the ascent\nterminates before it reaches Christ and the Apostles, then its origin is\nnot Scriptural but Ecclesiastical; its fountain is not in the depths of\nthe nature of God, but in the airy speculations of the vain philosophy\nof man.\n\nMy subject is entitled \u201cThe unscriptural Origin and Ecclesiastical\nHistory of the Doctrine of the Trinity.\u201d I shall invert the order of\nthese topics. I shall show first _where it has its origin_, that we may\nbe saved the unnecessary toil of straining and distorting our vision, in\nsearching for it where it is not to be found. If I can exhibit its birth\nin Ecclesiastical history, this will so far be a proof that it had no\nprevious birth in Evangelical History. If I can cut it off from the\nliving fountain of Revelation, and show it proceeding from other\nsprings, this will so far be a proof that it is human and not divine.\nThe positive assertion contained in my title, if established, will\nestablish also the negative portion of it:\u2014for the Ecclesiastical rise\nand progress of the Trinity are the negation of its Scriptural origin.\n\nChristianity was originally delivered to Jews; and the question\nnaturally arises, how could their pure theism ever assume the\nTrinitarian modification of Unity; how, to use the early language of\nthis Controversy, could the MONARCHY ever be diluted into the ECONOMY,\nif it had not been constrained to adopt this form by the overpowering\ndistinctness of a Revelation? Now we are able to prove that the Jewish\nChristians never did accept the doctrine of the deity of Christ; that on\nthis account they are classed with Heretics by the Greek and Latin\nFathers, under the names of Nazarenes and Ebionites; and that not until\nafter the Gospel passed out of the keeping of the Apostles, and, cut off\nfrom its Jewish spring, was cast into the midst of the Gentile world, to\nmodify and to be modified, did it come into contact with Heathen\nPhilosophy, and slowly take the impress of its spirit.\n\nThere were two very marked divisions of the Jewish people, under widely\ndifferent influences of Religion and Philosophy, and not acquainted,\nperhaps, with the same language,\u2014the Jews of Palestine, and the Jews of\nEgypt. The Jews of Palestine, sheltered from commerce with the world,\nmore by their unsocial Faith, than by the deep and quiet vallies of\ntheir sequestered land, partook little of the spirit of the Times, and\nimparted to it nothing; and though after the Babylonish Captivity,\nGentile Philosophy had tinctured and in some sense expanded their\nreligious views, yet when they returned again to their homes that\ninfluence was cut off, the living connection was no longer maintained,\nand its effects were rather traditionary mixtures, than seeds of\nprogress.\n\nIn contrast with the insulated life of the Jews of Palestine, the Jews\nof Alexandria lived in the very centre of the world\u2019s freshest\nideas\u2014their dwelling was the mart of nations\u2014and Grecian and Oriental\nPhilosophy met together in their far-famed Schools, and mingled their\nWisdom. \u201cThe arms of the Macedonians,\u201d says Gibbon, \u201cdiffused over Asia\nand Egypt the language and learning of Greece; and the theological\nsystem of Plato (before Christ, 360) was taught, with less reserve, and\nperhaps with some improvements, in the celebrated School of Alexandria.\nA numerous colony of Jews had been invited, by the favour of the\nPtolemies, to settle in their new capital. While the bulk of the nation\npractised their legal ceremonies, and pursued the lucrative operations\nof Commerce, a few Hebrews, of a more liberal spirit, devoted their\nlives to religious and philosophical contemplation. They cultivated with\ndiligence, and embraced with ardour, the theological system of the\nAthenian Sage. But their national pride would have been mortified by a\nfair confession of their former poverty: and they boldly marked, as the\nsacred inheritance of their ancestors, the gold and jewels which they\nhad so lately stolen from their Egyptian masters. One hundred years\nbefore the birth of Christ, a philosophical treatise, which manifestly\nbetrays the style and sentiments of the School of Plato, was produced by\nthe Alexandrian Jews, and unanimously received as a genuine and valuable\nrelic of the inspired Wisdom of Solomon. A similar union of the Mosaic\nfaith and the Grecian philosophy, distinguishes the works of Philo,\nwhich were composed for the most part under the reign of Augustus. The\nmaterial soul of the Universe might offend the piety of the Hebrews: but\nthey applied the character of the LOGOS to the Jehovah of Moses and the\npatriarchs; and the Son of God was introduced upon earth under a\nvisible, and even human appearance, to perform those familiar offices\nwhich seem incompatible with the nature and attributes of the Universal\ncause.\u201d[456]\n\nIt is not necessary that I should inquire here with great accuracy into\nthe nature of the Trinity as taught by Plato. I think it is most\nprobable that Plato\u2019s Trinity was a Trinity of Attributes rather than a\nTrinity of Persons; that it corresponded rather with Sabellianism than\nwith the Orthodox form of the Doctrine. This is a question, however, on\nwhich it is impossible to speak with certainty, owing, partly, to the\nnature of the ideas which constitute this compound conception of Deity,\nand partly to the gorgeous style of the imaginative metaphysician, whose\nfigures we hardly know whether we are to harden into Realities, or to\nfuse into Ideas. Authorities are divided upon this point\u2014and we have the\nname of Cudworth upon the one side, and the scarcely less illustrious\none of Guizot upon the other. Whatever may have been the view of Plato\nhimself,[457] it is certain that before Christ, his followers, some of\nthe purer of the later Platonists, as they are called, taught a doctrine\nof the Trinity exactly corresponding to the form in which it was\nestablished nearly three hundred years after the death of our Saviour,\nby the first General Council of the Christian Church. The Platonists\ncontemplated one original fountain of being, a simple unity, \u201cwhich\nvirtually containeth all things,\u201d from whence all other things, whether\ntemporal or eternal, whether created or uncreated, were altogether\nderived. This Monad or Unity the Platonists considered as the only\nabsolute or perfect existence, superior to intellect or wisdom, (Logos)\nfor these two reasons\u2014first, because Intellect being concerned with\nideas, implies numbers and multiplicity; whereas the Supreme is UNITY;\nand secondly, that because \u201cKnowledge is not the highest good, there\nmust be some substantial thing in order of Nature superior to\nIntellect.\u201d In the same way that GOODNESS and UNITY, the properties of\nthe self-existent God, were supposed to be superior to Mind or Wisdom,\nthe second principle, so in its turn Intellect was supposed to be\nsuperior to the moving spirit or energy which carried ideas (the ideas\nof the Logos) into Action. The Monad, or Supreme Unity, generated\nIntellect, and Intellect as containing the intelligible ideas or\narchetypes of all sensible things, generated Soul or the spirit of\nAction. Hence the Platonic Trinity: THE ONE GOOD; Intellect (LOGOS OR\nNOUS); PSYCHE, or operating energy.[458] In Platonic language, the FIRST\nin this Trinity is said to be _All things Unitively_; the SECOND, _All\nthings intellectually_; and the THIRD, _All things actively or\nproductively_. I shall give one example of the style of the Platonists\nin expressing these Trinitarian conceptions. It is exactly that which\nthe earlier Fathers would have used when speaking of the Christian\nTrinity. \u201cThat which is always perfect generates what is Eternal, and\nthat which it generates is always less than itself. What shall we say\ntherefore of the most absolutely perfect Being of all? Does that produce\nnothing from itself? Or rather, does it not produce the greatest of all\nthings after it? Now the greatest of all things after the most\nabsolutely perfect Being is Mind or Intellect; and this is Second to it.\nFor Mind beholdeth this as its Father, and standeth in need of nothing\nelse besides it; whereas that First Principle standeth in need of no\n(Logos) Mind or Intellect. What is generated from that which is better\nthan Mind, must needs be Mind or Intellect, because Mind is better than\nall other things, they being all in order of nature after it, and junior\nto it; as PSYCHE itself, or the First Soul; for this is also the Word or\nEnergy of Mind (Logos), as that is the Word or Energy of the First\nGood.[459] Perfect Intellect,\u201d (Logos, the second in the Trinity,)\n\u201cgenerates Soul\u201d (Psyche, or Moving Spirit, the third in the Platonic\nTrinity), \u201cand it being perfect must needs generate, for so great a\nPower could not remain steril. But that which is here begotten also,\ncannot be greater than its Begetter; but must needs be Inferior to it,\nas being the Image thereof.\u201d\u2014(_Plotinus. Cudworth_, p. 580.)\n\nNow to connect such speculations as these with Gentile Christianity we\nhave the intermediate link of the Platonizing or Alexandrian Jews. About\ntwo hundred years before Christ the Hebrew Scriptures were made\naccessible to Grecian curiosity through the medium of the Septuagint\nTranslation: and when comparison came to be instituted between the\nwisdom of their Sacred Books, and the wisdom of the Schools, a strong\ntemptation came into force upon the Jewish Platonists, by a system of\nallegory and fanciful interpretation to make their Scriptures divulge\nrecondite doctrines, and by such imaginative means to metamorphose its\nsimplest statements into the likeness of the deep and mysterious\nteachings of Philosophy. Hence arose the whole system of allegorizing\nwhich prevailed so extensively among the Jews of Alexandria. They were\nunder two sets of influences, an affection for the Platonic or Eclectic\nPhilosophy of their Schools, and a jealousy for their Religion that made\nthem shrink from the idea that any Philosophy should contain secrets not\nthere divulged.[460] They combined these two affections, and made their\nScriptures speak the language of the Schools by means of the\ntransforming process of allegorical interpretation. Examples without end\nmight be given of the most extravagant transfigurations of the events of\nHebrew History.\n\nAs a preparation for the manner of speaking on these subjects afterwards\nadopted by the earlier Christian Trinitarians, I will extract one\npassage, which perhaps most faithfully represents the purer views of\nPhilo of Alexandria, the most eminent of the Jewish Platonizers, and\nwhose influence operating upon Christianity through the minds of the\nGentile philosophical believers, is to this day felt upon the popular\nforms of our faith. I have only to premise that he is speaking of the\nAttributes of God abstractly from God himself; and though it is more\nthan probable that Philo as well as Plato never separated these\nAttributes from the Supreme Deity, still it was the necessary tendency\nof such personifications to harden into distinct persons, and with\ncommon minds personified Attributes very soon came to be considered as\nReal Beings. This then was the original source of the Christian Trinity.\nTo keep the lofty and retired Essence of God apart from all contact with\nmatter which was looked upon as evil, and from number which was looked\nupon as imperfect, the Powers of God were first considered as Emanations\nfrom Him by successive generation\u2014INTELLECT proceeding from the ONE\nGOOD, and operating ENERGY or SPIRIT proceeding from Intellect (Logos)\nto consummate its Ideas, and then gradually came to be separated from\nHim, by a very natural process of philosophic deteriorations, and to be\nfixed down into independent personalities. With these explanations I now\nquote from Philo. He belonged to the age of Christ, but was born some\ntime anterior to the Christian era: Brucker says twenty years. Philo is\nallegorizing the appearance of the three angels to Abraham, into a\nthreefold manifestation of the One God: \u201cThe FATHER is in the middle of\nall, who in Holy Scripture is by a peculiar name styled THE BEING [HE\nWHO IS]: and on each side are [two] most ancient Powers next to THE\nBEING, whereof one is called the Effective (creative Power) and the\nother Royal; and the Effective, GOD, for by this [the Father] made and\nadorned the Universe; and the Royal, LORD, for it is fit he should rule\nand govern what he has made. Being therefore attended on both sides with\nhis Powers, to a discerning understanding he appears one while to be\nONE, and another while to be THREE. ONE when the mind being in the\nhighest degree purified, and passing over not only a multitude of\nnumbers, but also that which is next to an Unit,\u201d (the Monad) \u201cthe\nnumber of two,\u201d (the other two, Logos and Psyche) \u201cendeavours after a\nsimple and uncompounded Idea, perfect of itself: and THREE, when not as\nyet sufficiently exercised in great mysteries, it busies itself about\nlesser, and is not able to conceive THE BEING, [HE WHO IS,] without any\nother, of itself, but by his Works, and either as creating or\ngoverning.\u201d[461]\n\nSuch, then, were the prevalent modes of Conception at the time when the\nGospel passed out of the hands of strictly Jewish interpreters, and came\nto be inspected by the eyes of Gentile Philosophers. With more or less\npurity of conception, all the Platonists personified the divine\nAttributes; and some of them represented these personified Attributes as\ndistinct Existences, not hesitating to speak of a second God, though\nholding him to be derived and dependent. There is no trace among the\npurer Platonists of any belief of three co-equal Gods, each possessing\nwithin himself the fullness of Deity, yet mysteriously united. The\nsecond and third persons in the Platonic Trinity were carefully\nrepresented as derived, dependent, and subordinate, under the\nsimilitudes of the stream and the fountain, the branch and the vine, the\nsun and its outshining effulgence; the relation between them being like\nthat of three apparent Suns,\u2014\u201ctwo of them being but the _parhelii_ of\nthe other, and essentially dependent on it: for as much as the second\nwould be but the reflected Image of the first, and the third but the\nsecond refracted.\u201d[462]\n\nNow it so happened that the Apostle John, living at Ephesus, \u201cthe centre\nof the mingling opinions of the East and West,\u201d made use of this term\n\u201cLogos\u201d as already familiar to those for whom he wrote, and with the\npurpose of impressing upon the word the higher and purer meaning\nattached to it by the Jews of Palestine; wresting it from the\nphilosophical to the strictly Jewish or Christian sense. Nothing could\nbe more natural than that the Apostle should adopt the style of the\nphilosophic schools in the midst of which he wrote, especially since it\nwas not peculiar to them, but already in use among the Jews; and that\nendeavouring to connect truth with familiar modes of speaking, he should\nattempt to infuse into the word the more spiritual ideas with which it\nwas already associated in his own language.\n\n\u201cSt. John,\u201d says Guizot, \u201cwas a Jew, born and educated in Palestine; he\nwould naturally, then, attach to the word _Logos_ the sense attached to\nit by the Jews of Palestine. Closely examined, the ideas which he gives\nof the _Logos_ cannot agree with those of Philo and the school of\nAlexandria; they correspond, on the contrary, with those of the Jews of\nPalestine. Perhaps St. John, employing a well known term to explain a\ndoctrine which was yet unknown, has slightly altered the sense: it is\nthis alteration which we appear to discover on comparing different\npassages of his writings. It is worthy of remark, that the Jews of\nPalestine, who did not perceive this alteration, could find nothing\nextraordinary in what St. John said of the Logos; at least they\ncomprehended it without difficulty; while the Greeks and Grecising Jews,\non their parts, brought to it prejudices and preconceptions easily\nreconciled with those of the Evangelist, who did not expressly\ncontradict them. This circumstance must have much favoured the progress\nof Christianity. Thus the fathers of the Church, in the two first\ncenturies and later, formed almost all in the school of Alexandria, gave\nto the Logos of St. John a sense nearly similar to that which it\nreceived from Philo.[463] Their doctrine approached very near to that\nwhich, in the fourth century, the Council of Nice condemned in the\nperson of Arius.\u201d[464]\n\nIt would not be possible, within my present limits, to trace, with a\nminute accuracy, how the Logos of the schools became connected with the\nLogos of the Gospel; and afterwards, under the necessity of adjusting\nthese conceptions with the nominal Unity of God, changed its form into\nthe present theory of the Trinity. It will readily be imagined that the\nGentile Christians, accustomed to associate ideas of external power with\ntheir Deities, and at the same time to contemplate them in connection\nwith humanity, would shrink from the bare and unclothed conception of\nthe crucified Jesus; would endeavour to throw around their new faith a\nmystic splendour that might protect it from the ridicule of Heathen\nscoffers, and naturally seize upon means so obvious, the language\noffered by St. John, and the ideas offered by their own philosophy, to\nconnect the pre-existent soul of Jesus not with Humanity, but with God.\nIn this way they could remove the shame and odium of the cross, that\nstumbling block to the Jews, and to the Greeks foolishness. We little\nrealize with what distaste and abhorrence a Hebrew looking for the\nMessiah, and a Philosopher speculating on the nature of the divine\nEmanations that were the Mediators between God and men, would\ncontemplate the despised Galilean executed as a malefactor. Neither do\nwe realize, as we ought to do in this connection, the magnanimity of\nPaul: \u201cI determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ\nand him crucified;\u201d so much has the technical jargon of theology\novercast the moral sublimity of the Apostle\u2019s spiritual meaning.\n\nI shall now, with as much distinctness as a subject purely literary will\nadmit, attempt to exhibit to you the gradual transformations, by which\nthese Conceptions slowly assumed the present orthodox form of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity. If this had been a doctrine of Revelation, it\nwould, of course, have been perfect at once; but arising out of\naccidental circumstances and accidental ideas, it naturally required\nmany fresh adjustments to make it consistent with itself, and to protect\nit, by skilfully chosen words, against all the troublesome attacks of\ntheological ingenuity. This was not the work of a moment nor of a\ncentury,\u2014hundreds of years passed over before the doctrine assumed any\nfixed form; nor was it until the thirteenth century that the present\nform of the doctrine of three Gods, numerically one, was authoritatively\ndecreed.[465] Those who tell us of an \u201cunimproved and unimprovable\nRevelation,\u201d must surely be strangely ignorant of the history of\nTrinitarian Theology.\n\nThere are three Creeds of the Church of England, each of them to be\nreferred to distinct Periods of Ecclesiastical History, and becoming\nmore Unitarian in proportion as we approach the Apostolical times, more\nTrinitarian in proportion as we recede from those times. These three\nCreeds I shall make serve as heads under which to introduce my proofs of\nthe rise and progress of the Trinitarian Doctrine.\n\nThe _first_ Creed is UNITARIAN. It was the only Creed known to the\nChurch for three hundred and twenty-five years.\n\nThe _second_ Creed is _partly_ TRINITARIAN, fixing the Deity of Christ,\nbut saying nothing of the Deity of the Holy Spirit.\n\nThe _third_ Creed contains Trinitarianism, though not in its final and\nperfected, yet in its boldest and most extravagant, forms.\n\nThe first Creed is known by the name of the Apostles\u2019 Creed. It is not\nknown by whom it was written, nor when it was written;[466] but though\nwe have no verbatim copy of it until after the Nicene Council, but only\nmore or less of the substance, and some of its clauses are evidently of\na later date, it may substantially be regarded as descriptive of the\nfaith of the Church at an early age.[467] \u201cThe Christian system,\u201d says\nMosheim, \u201cas it was hitherto taught, preserved its native and beautiful\nsimplicity, and was comprehended in a small number of articles. The\npublic teachers inculcated no other doctrines than those that are\ncontained in what is commonly called the Apostles\u2019 Creed; and in the\nmethod of illustrating them, all vain subtleties, all mysterious\nresearches, everything that was beyond the reach of common capacities,\nwas carefully avoided. This will by no means appear surprising to those\nwho consider that, at this time, there was not the least controversy\nabout those capital doctrines of Christianity which were afterwards so\nkeenly debated in the Church; and who reflect that the bishops of those\nprimitive times were, for the most part, plain and illiterate men,\nremarkable rather for their piety and zeal than for their learning and\neloquence.\u201d\u2014(_Eccles. Hist._ cent. ii. p. 11. ch. 3.)\n\nHere, then, is the FIRST CREED of the Church, long reverenced as a\nformula drawn up by the Apostles themselves, and perhaps still by some\nunwittingly honoured as such. It contains some departures from the\nsimplicity of Gospel language, as in creed-making must necessarily\nhappen; for creeds are required only by those for whom the Scriptures\nare not sufficiently definite or sufficiently safe. So far as it is a\nConfession of faith, it demonstrates that the belief of the primitive\nChurch was strictly UNITARIAN.\n\n _The Apostles\u2019 Creed._\n\nI believe in GOD (or, as the earlier notices of this Creed have it, \u201cin\n_one_ God,\u201d also, \u201c_one only_ God the Father Almighty\u201d) the FATHER\nALMIGHTY, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son\nour Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,\nsuffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried: he\ndescended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he\nascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of GOD, the FATHER\nALMIGHTY: from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: I\nbelieve in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholic Church; the communion of\nsaints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the\nlife everlasting. Amen.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom the various transformations of this Creed in the pages of\nEcclesiastical writers, it is evident that it was not a fixed but a\ngrowing formula, and that additions were freely made to it according as\nthe heresies of the time might seem to require the introduction of a new\nclause. One thing, however, is plain, that the Ages which had their\nfaith stated in this creed had not yet confounded Jesus with God; that\nhe who is simply and solely described as the Son of God, crucified and\ndying, rising from the grave, and sitting now on the right hand of the\nFather Almighty, was not yet exalted into the Second Person of the\nTrinity, equal to God in all things.\n\nNow it is not a little remarkable, that many orthodox writers perceived\nand deplored the lamentable deficiency of this faith of the primitive\nChurch; and some of them boldly declare, that the Christian Fathers were\nnot yet initiated in these high mysteries. \u201cM. Jurieu,\u201d quoted by\nJortin, \u201cwhose zeal against heresy is well known, assures us that the\nfundamental articles of Christianity were not understood by the Fathers\nof the three first centuries; that the true system began to be modelled\ninto some shape by the Nicene bishops, and was afterwards immensely\nimproved and beautified by the following synods and councils.\u201d[468]\n\nBishop Bull declares, \u201cthat almost all the Catholic writers before\nArius\u2019 time seem not to have known any thing of the invisibility and\nimmensity of the Son of God; and that they often speak of him in such a\nmanner as if, even in respect of his divine nature, he was _finite_,\n_visible_, and _circumscribed in place_.\u201d Such sentiments are only to be\nparalleled by some passages from these Fathers themselves, who declare\nthat such notions as they had of the divinity of Christ they had derived\nsolely from the Gospel of St. John, and that the other Evangelists had\nbut an obscure knowledge of this subject. \u201cNone of them,\u201d says Origen,\n\u201cdisclosed his divinity so purely as John.\u201d[469] \u201cJohn,\u201d says Eusebius,\n\u201ccommenced with the doctrine of the divinity, that having been reserved\nby the divine Spirit for him as the most worthy.\u201d[470] And, later,\nChrysostom declares that the other Evangelists were like \u201clittle\nchildren, who hear, but do not understand what they hear, being occupied\nwith cakes and childish playthings;\u201d but John taught, \u201cwhat the angels\nthemselves did not know before he declared it.\u201d \u201cThis doctrine was not\npublished at first, for the world was not advanced to it. Matthew, Mark,\nand Luke did not state what was suitable to his dignity, but what was\nfitting for their hearers. John, the Son of Thunder, advanced at last to\nthe doctrine of the divinity.\u201d[471]\n\nI shall now cite some proofs from the Christian writers of the three\nfirst centuries, to show that though, in correspondence with Platonic\ndoctrines, a derived and subordinate divinity was ascribed to Jesus,\nnothing like the present orthodox faith was dreamed of, and that the\nhighest authorities on these subjects, Cudworth for instance, are fully\naware that, for nearly four hundred years, the Creeds of the Church\nembraced nothing more than the Platonic Trinity.\n\nAnd, first, I shall give one distinct testimony from Origen, to which\nothers might be added from Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian, of the _Unitarianism\nof the Jewish Christians_:\n\n\u201cAnd when you consider the faith concerning our Saviour of those of the\nJews who believe in Jesus, some thinking him to be the son of Joseph and\nMary, and others of Mary only, and the divine Spirit, but still without\nany belief in his divinity.\u201d[472] \u201c_And they of the Jews who have\nreceived Jesus as the Christ_, go by the name of Ebionites.\u201d[473]\n\n * * * * *\n\nI am next to cite evidence that, for the first three hundred years, the\nChristian writers acknowledged _the inferiority of Jesus to his_ FATHER,\nthough ascribing to him a derived divinity. It is not until A. D. 140\nthat we find any very distinct mention even of this description of\ndivinity as belonging to Jesus.[474]\n\n _Justin Martyr_, _A.D._ 140.\n\n\u201cI will endeavour to show that he who appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and\nMoses, and who is called God, is different from the God that made all\nthings,\u2014_numerically_ different, though not _in will_; for I say that he\nnever did any thing but what that GOD WHO MADE ALL THINGS, and above\nwhom there is no god, _willed_ that he should do and say.\u201d[475]\n\n _Iren\u00e6us_, _A.D._ 178.\n\n\u201cWe hold the Rule of Truth, that there is ONE GOD ALMIGHTY, who created\nall things by his Logos.\u201d ... \u201cThis is the Father of our Lord Jesus\nChrist; and of Him it is that Paul declared, There is ONE GOD, even the\nFATHER, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.\u201d[476]\n\n _Clemens Alexandrinus_, _A.D._ 194.\n\n\u201cThere is one unbegotten almighty FATHER, and one first begotten, by\nwhom all things were, and without whom nothing was made. For one is\ntruly God, who made the _beginning_ of all things, meaning his\nfirst-begotten son.\u201d[477]\n\n _Tertullian_, _A.D._ 200.\n\n\u201cI do not speak of Gods and Lords; but I follow the Apostle; so that if\nthe Father and the Son are to be named together, I call the Father God,\nand Jesus Christ Lord: though I can call Christ God when speaking of\nhimself alone.\u201d And he goes on to explain this by declaring, that a ray\nof the sun may, with sufficient propriety, be called the sun.[478]\n\n _Origen_, _A.D._ 230.\n\n\u201cWe may by this means solve the doubts which terrify many men, who\npretend to great piety, and who are afraid of making two Gods, and,\nthrough this, fall into vain and impious opinions; denying that the\nnature of the Son is different from that of the Father, and who\nacknowledge that he is God in name only; or denying the divinity of the\nSon, and then maintaining that his nature and essence is different from\nthat of the Father. For we must tell them that he who is _God of\nhimself_, is THE God, as the Saviour states in his prayer to the Father,\n\u2018that they may know thee, THE only true God;\u2019 but that whosoever becomes\ndivine by partaking of his divinity, cannot be styled THE God, but _a_\nGod, among whom _especially is the first born of all creatures_.\u201d[479]\n\n _Novatian_, _A.D._ 251.\n\n\u201cHe, although he was in the form of God, did not think of the robbery of\nbeing equal with God. For though he knew that he was God, from God the\nFather, he never likened or compared himself with God the Father,\nremembering that he was from the Father, and that he had what he had\nbecause the Father had given it to him.\u201d[480]\n\n _Lactantius_, _A.D._ 310.\n\n\u201cHe showed his fidelity to God, in that he taught that there is ONE GOD,\nand that he alone ought to be worshipped. Nor did he ever say that he\nhimself was God. For he would not have preserved his fidelity if, being\nsent to take away a number of gods, and to assert ONE GOD, he had\nintroduced another besides that one. Wherefore, because he was so\nfaithful, because he arrogated nothing to himself, that he might fulfil\nthe commands of Him who sent him, he _received_ the dignity of perpetual\npriest, and the honour of Supreme King, the power of a judge, and the\ntitle of God.\u201d[481]\n\nAnd not inconveniently to multiply evidence, let us come at once to the\nvery orthodox Athanasius himself, and we shall find how little this\nFather knew of the nice adjustments of that Creed which now passes under\nhis name.\n\n _Athanasius_, _A.D._ 325.\n\n\u201cFor there is one God, and there is not another besides Him. When it is\nsaid that the Father is the only God, that he is one God, \u2018I am the\nFIRST,\u2019 and \u2018I am the LAST,\u2019 it is well said. This is not said, however,\nto take away from the Son; for he also is _in_ THE ONE, FIRST, and ONLY\nONE, as being the only _Logos_, Wisdom, and Effulgence of him who is THE\nONE, and THE ALONE, and THE SUPREME.\u201d[482]\n\n\u201cAnd Athanasius himself, who is commonly accounted the very Rule of\nOrthodoxality in this point, when he doth so often resemble the Father\nto the _Sun_, or the _original Light_; and the Son to the _splendour or\nbrightness of it_, (as likewise doth the Nicene Council and the\nScripture itself,) he seems hereby to imply some dependence of the\nSecond upon the First, and subordination to it. Especially when he\ndeclareth, that the _Three Persons_ of the _Trinity_ are not to be\nlooked upon as _Three Principles_, nor to be resembled to _Three Suns_,\nbut to the _Sun_, and its splendour, and _its derivative light_.\u201d[483]\n\nNow I may sum up the impression of these passages in the words of the\nvery learned Cudworth:\u2014\u201cBut particularly as to their gradual\nsubordination of the _Second Hypostasis_ to the _First_, and of the\n_Third_ to the _First and Second_, our Platonick Christian doubtless\nwould therefore plead them the more excusable, because the generality of\n_Christian Doctors_, for the first three hundred years after the\nApostles\u2019 times, plainly asserted the same; as Justin Martyr,\nAthenagoras, Tatianus, Iren\u00e6us, the Author of the Recognitions,\nTertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Gregorius Thaumaturgus,\nDionysius of Alexandria, Lactantius, and many others. All whose\ntestimonies, because it would be too tedious to set down here, we shall\ncontent ourselves with one of the last mentioned;\u2014\u2018Both the Father and\nSon is God: but he as it were an exuberant fountain, this as a stream\nderived from him: He like to the sun, this like to a ray extended from\nthe sun.\u2019 And though it be true, that Athanasius, writing against the\nArians, does appeal to the tradition of the antient Church, and amongst\nothers cites Origen\u2019s testimony too; yet this was only for the Eternity\nand Divinity of the Son of God, but not at all for such an absolute\n_co-equality_ of him with the Father as would exclude all _dependence_,\n_subordination_, and _inferiority_;[484] those antients so unanimously\nagreeing therein, that they are by Petavius therefore taxed for\nPlatonism, and having by that means corrupted the purity of the\nChristian Faith, in this article of the Trinity. Which how it can be\nreconciled with those other opinions, of Ecclesiastic Tradition being a\nRule of Faith, and impossibility of the visible Churches erring in any\nfundamental point, cannot easily be understood. However, this general\nTradition, or Consent of the Christian Church, for three hundred years\ntogether after the Apostles\u2019 times, though it cannot justify the\nPlatonists in anything discrepant from the Scripture, yet may it in some\nmeasure doubtless plead their excuse, who had no Scripture Revelation at\nall to guide them herein; and so at least make their error more\ntolerable or pardonable.\u201d[485]\n\nWe come now to a time when these floating and indefinite conceptions\nwere to assume more fixed forms. It is apparent that so far the\nChristian Fathers fluctuated between their desire to exalt Jesus into\nthe Logos of God, and the restraining fear of adopting ideas or\nexpressions not reconcilable with the strict unity of the Deity. \u201cThe\nsuspense and fluctuation,\u201d says Gibbon, \u201cproduced in the minds of the\nChristians by these opposite tendencies, may be observed in the writings\nof the theologians who flourished after the end of the apostolic age,\nand before the origin of the Arian controversy. Their suffrage is\nclaimed with equal confidence by the orthodox and by the heretical\nparties; and the most inquisitive critics have fairly allowed that if\nthey had the good fortune of possessing the Catholic Verity, they have\ndelivered their conceptions in loose, inaccurate, and sometimes\ncontradictory language.\u201d Ideas so naturally irreconcilable, as Jesus\nwhen contemplated as the Son of God, and Jesus when contemplated as the\nWisdom of God (Logos), with personality attached to it, were certain\nsooner or later to betray their inconsistency, and to stand out from one\nanother in opposing attitudes. They could be held in combination only so\nlong as two very strong but opposite influences, (a desire to meet the\nconceptions of the prevalent Philosophy, and a desire at the same time\nto preserve unviolated the Jewish and Christian doctrine of the Unity of\nGod,) operated together to prevent theologians looking too closely into\ntheir Faith, or attempting too strictly to harmonize its elements.\n\nThe elements of a necessary separation existed in that confused system\nby which the earlier Fathers brought together Jesus the Christ, and the\nLogos of the purer Platonists, into the same conception; some of them\ninclining to the idea of the Son of God being an eternal emanation from\nthe Father, like light from the sun, veiling the difficulty of a Son\nbeing co-eternal with his Father under the unmeaning phrase,\n\u2018everlasting generation\u2019\u2014and some adopting the lower view that he was\nonly the highest emanation from the origin of all Spirits, the first of\ncreated Beings, and the instrument of God in all the other works of\nCreation. \u201cThese speculations,\u201d says Gibbon, \u201cbecame the most serious\nbusiness of the present, and most useful preparation for a future life.\nA theology which it was incumbent to believe, which it was impious to\ndoubt, and which it might be dangerous and even fatal to mistake, became\nthe familiar topic of private meditation and popular discourse.[486] The\ncold indifference of philosophy was inflamed by the fervent spirit of\ndevotion; and even the metaphors of common language suggested the\nfallacious prejudices of sense and experience. The Christians, who\nabhorred the gross and impure generation of the Greek mythology, were\ntempted to argue from the familiar analogy of the filial and paternal\nrelations. The character of _Son_ seemed to imply a perpetual\nsubordination to the voluntary author of his existence; but as the act\nof generation in the most spiritual and abstracted sense, must be\nsupposed to transmit the properties of a common nature, they durst not\npresume to circumscribe the powers or the duration of the Son of an\neternal and omnipotent Father.\u2014Their tender reverence for the memory of\nChrist, and their horror for the profane worship of any created being,\nwould have engaged them to assert the equal and absolute divinity of the\n_Logos_, if their rapid ascent toward the throne of heaven had not been\nimperceptibly checked by the apprehension of violating the unity and\nsole supremacy of the great Father of Christ and of the Universe.\u201d\n\nChrist, when viewed as the Wisdom or Logos of God, was by a natural\ntransition of thought placed within the effulgence of the divine glory;\nbut when viewed not as an Attribute but as a Person, the Son and Messiah\nof the Father, this dim idea would pass away, and the distinction\nbetween God and Christ become too visible to be confused. In this state\nof opinion two parties naturally appeared, separating the two ideas that\nentered into the prevalent conception of Christ, each taking up one of\nthem as representing _the whole_ truth respecting his nature and person.\nThe Arians, alarmed at the idea of two Gods, inclined to that part of\nthe conception which represented Jesus as the Son and Messenger of the\nFather, but at the same time elevating him above all other created\nbeings, and giving him an existence before the worlds were. The\nAthanasians, on the other hand, inclined to that part of the conception\nwhich represented him as the Logos of the Deity, and under the reaction,\nand the necessity for more strictly defining the hidden sense of\ndoctrines, produced by the Arian Creed, attempted to conquer the\ndifficulty of his Sonship by representing him as an eternal emanation\nfrom the very substance of the Deity, and exalted him into an equality\nwith God, though at the same time they described it as a derived and\nsubordinate equality. It is unavoidable in describing these views to\nmake use of contradictory words. The ideas are irreconcilable, and were\nonly saved from plainly appearing so by being involved in a cloud of\nmystical or rather no meaning words; for words must either be\nsignificant of ideas, or no-sense. This then was the subject of the\ngreat Arian and Trinitarian Controversy, which in the fourth Century\nshook the peace of the world. It turned upon this point, whether Christ\nwas of the same essence as the Father, and therefore not created but\nbegotten or emanating; or whether he was as the Arians thought, made out\nof nothing, and therefore a created Being. Neither of them contemplated\nhim as independent of the Supreme Deity, but the Athanasians regarded\nhim as a con-substantial and co-eternal emanation; the Arians, though\nassigning him the highest rank, regarded him as created like other\nbeings. Such are the great questions of a metaphysical and dogmatical\nreligion. Such are the mysteries on which Synods and Councils have\nlegislated. Such are the subjects in which Ecclesiastics have shown more\ninterest than in the spirit of the life of Christ, and the moral hopes\nand preparations of Immortality. Such are the subject matter of Creeds,\nthe dry husks of doctrine, the spiritless formulas on which souls are\nstarved, the bread of Christ converted into a stone, and yet in the eyes\nof many, superior to practical discipleship, to Charity and the Love of\nGod, to the spirit of Brotherhood and the trustful faith of Duty.\n\nIt was to settle this dispute that the first general Council of the\nChurch was assembled at Nice A. D. 325. The Emperor Constantine attended\nin person. He had previously remonstrated with the contending parties,\nand entreated them not to disturb the peace of the Empire and of the\nChurch, for matters the most insignificant and small.[487] But he did\nnot know the temper of Controversialists; nor what things become\nimportant in their eyes.[488] The Athanasians prevailed, and \u201cthe\ncon-substantiality of the Father and the Son was established by the\nCouncil of Nice.\u201d Under this word however lurked future Controversies,\nand by con-substantiality the Council of Nice meant, not the present\ndoctrine of three persons in one God, but merely sameness of nature or\nkind, such a sameness as three men may possess who are generically the\nsame but numerically different; and this is openly admitted by the\nhighest authorities, Petavius, Cudworth, Le Clerc, Jortin. \u201cThe\nmajority,\u201d says Gibbon, \u201cwas divided into two parties, distinguished by\na contrary tendency to the sentiments of the Tritheists, and of the\nSabellians. But as those opposite extremes seemed to overthrow the\nfoundations either of natural or revealed religion, they mutually agreed\nto qualify the rigour of their principles; and to disavow the just, but\ninvidious, consequences which might be urged by their antagonists. The\ninterest of the common cause inclined them to join their numbers, and to\nconceal their differences; their animosities were softened by the\nhealing counsels of toleration, and their disputes were suspended by the\nuse of the mysterious _Homoousion_ (Consubstantial), which either party\nwas free to interpret according to their peculiar tenets. The Sabellian\nsense, which about fifty years before had obliged the Council of Antioch\nto prohibit this celebrated term, had endeared it to those theologians\nwho entertained a secret but partial affection for a nominal Trinity.\nBut the more fashionable saints of the Arian times, the intrepid\nAthanasius, the learned Gregory Nazianzen, and the other pillars of the\nChurch, who supported with ability and success the Nicene doctrine,\nappeared to consider the expression _of substance_ as if it had been\nsynonymous with that _of nature_; and they ventured to illustrate their\nmeaning, by affirming that three men, as they belong to the same common\nspecies, are con-substantial or homoousian to each other. This pure and\ndistinct equality was tempered on the one hand by the internal\nconnection, and spiritual penetration, which indissolubly unites the\ndivine persons, and on the other by the pre-eminence of the Father,\nwhich was acknowledged as far as it is compatible with the independence\nof the son. Within these limits the almost invisible and tremulous ball\nof Orthodoxy was allowed securely to vibrate. On either side beyond this\nconsecrated ground the heretics and the d\u00e6mons lurked in ambush to\nsurprise and devour the unhappy wanderer. But as the degrees of\ntheological hatred depend on the Spirit of the war, rather than on the\nimportance of the Controversy, the heretics who degraded, were treated\nwith more severity than those who annihilated the person of the\nSon.\u201d[489]\n\nWe are now arrived at that great period in the faith of the Church, when\nthe dignity of the Son was authoritatively settled by the Nicene\nCouncil. Here is a brief account of its proceedings. \u201cThe Bishops began\nby much personal dissension, and presented to the Emperor a variety of\nwritten accusations against each other; the Emperor burnt all their\nlibels and exhorted them to peace and unity. They then proceeded to\nexamine the momentous question proposed to them. It was soon discovered\nthat the differences which it was intended to reconcile might in their\nprinciple be reduced to one point, and that point might be expressed by\none _word_, and thus the question appears to have been speedily\nsimplified (as indeed was necessary that so many persons might come to\none conclusion on so mysterious a subject) and reduced to this\u2014whether\nthe Son was or was not _consubstantial_ with the Father. Then arose\nsubtile disceptations respecting the meaning of the word, \u2018about which\nsome conflicted with each other, dwelling on the term and minutely\ndissecting it; it was like a battle fought in the dark; for neither\nparty seemed at all to understand on what ground they vilified each\nother.\u2019 However the result was perfectly conclusive; they finally\ndecided against the Arian opinions, and established respecting the two\nfirst persons in the Trinity, the doctrine which the Church still\nprofesses in the Nicene Creed.\u201d[490]\n\nThis doctrine is as follows:\u2014you will perceive that it is partly\nTrinitarian, _and only partly_, a _derived_ deity being attributed to\nthe Son, _and no deity whatsoever_ attributed to the Holy Spirit.\nChanges were afterwards introduced into this Creed to adapt it to the\ngrowing orthodoxy of the times. I shall mention these in their proper\nplaces; meanwhile I give the Nicene Creed of the Nicene Council:\u2014\n\n _The Nicene Creed_, _A.D._ 325.\n\n\u201cWe believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible\nand invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten\nand only begotten of the Father; that is of the substance of the Father,\nGod of (out of) God, Light of (from) Light, very God of very God,\nbegotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things\nwere made both in heaven and in earth: who for us men, and for our\nsalvation, descended and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and\nrose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to\njudge the living and the dead. (We believe) also in the Holy Ghost.\n\n\u201cThe holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that\nthere was a time when the Son of God was not, and that before he was\nbegotten he was not, and that he was made out of nothing, or out of\nanother substance or essence, and is created, changeable, or alterable.\u201d\n\n\u201cSuch,\u201d says Jortin, \u201cwas the Nicene Creed, as it stood originally and\nbefore it was interpolated by subsequent Councils. Our church hath\ndropped the anathematizing clauses at the end, and one cannot help\nwishing that the Nicene Fathers had done the same. The Christians in\ntimes following were perpetually making anathematisms, even upon the\nslightest and poorest occasions; and it is really a wonder that they did\nnot at last insert in their Litanies, \u2018We beseech Thee to curse and\nconfound the Pelagians, Semi-pelagians, Nestorians, Eutychians,\nMonothelites, Jacobites, Iconoclasts, and all heretics and\nschismatics.\u2019\u201d[491]\n\nThe history of the fourth century is almost entirely taken up with the\npersecutions of Consubstantialists against Arians, Arians against\nConsubstantialists, and the minor strifes of the subdivisions of these\nsects. After the death of Constantine, the Emperor Constantius sided\nwith the Arians, and then the persecuted became the persecutors, for\nwherever a dogmatical Religion is held, wherever Creeds are the\nEssentials of Salvation, of course no Charity can be learned in the\nSchool of Suffering. There is an admirable passage contained in\nArchdeacon Jortin\u2019s most instructive remarks on Ecclesiastical History.\nIt extorts a smile to observe with what unconsciousness dogmatic\nTheologians of all ages insult their fellow-disciples, in the name and\nfor the love of God, and close their acts of persecution with the words\nof affection and blessing:\u2014\n\n\u201cIn the fourth century were held thirteen Councils against Arius,\nfifteen for him, and seventeen for the Semiarians; in all\nforty-five.[492]\n\n\u201cHow could the Arians, in the time of Constantius and Valens, bring\nthemselves to such an un-christian persecuting temper? How could they\noppress their fellow-Christians, the Consubstantialists, who, supposing\nthem to have been in error, fell into it through a religious fear of\nascribing too little to their Redeemer, and of not paying him sufficient\nhonour? Can a man love his saviour, and hate his brother for a mistake\nof this kind?\n\n\u201cAnd how could the Consubstantialists persuade themselves that an Arian,\nwho perhaps had suffered for professing Christianity in times of\ndistress, who believed Christ to be his Maker, his Saviour, his King,\nand his Judge, would choose to detract from his dignity, and to offend\nhim in whom he placed all his hopes of salvation? Human nature is not\ncapable of this folly; and if the man were in an error, yet in such a\nperson the error must have been involuntary, a mere defect of the\nunderstanding, and not a fault of the will.\n\n\u201cA Christian and a lover of peace, who lived in obscurity, and whose\nname I cannot tell, stood up and said:\u2014\u2018My brethren, the things to be\nbelieved are few, the things to be done are many: but you behave\nyourselves as if the reverse of this were true. St. Paul tells you, \u201cThe\ngrace of God that bringeth Salvation hath appeared to all men; teaching\nus that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly,\nrighteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that blessed\nhope, and the glorious appearance of the great God, and (of) our\nSaviour, Jesus Christ.\u201d Concerning the nature of _Jesus_ you can dispute\nincessantly, and concerning the word _Grace_, you will probably dispute\nno less; but the rest of the sentence you disregard as of small\nconsequence or importance. What, I beseech you, must the Jews and the\nPagans conceive of you and of your religion? And what do the holy angels\nthink, who look down upon your contentions? Those blessed and\ncompassionate spirits pity you, and think you mere children. But when\nfrom contending you proceed to beating your fellow-servants, to\npersecuting and destroying, they consider you as most malicious and\nwicked children; their pity is changed into indignation, and they would\nstrike you dead, if the Supreme Governor did not stay their hand, and\nremind them that such disorders must needs arise, and shall one day be\nrectified.\u2019\n\n\u201cSo said this _Unknown_; but behold the consequence! The\nConsubstantialists called him an Arian, and the Arians called him a\nConsubstantialist.\n\n\u201cThe Nicene Fathers having anathematized the Arians, the Emperor\nseconded them, and banished Arius and the bishops who sided with him,\nand ordered the books of Arius to be burnt; and added, \u2018If any man be\nfound to have concealed a copy of those books, and not to have instantly\nproduced it and thrown it into the fire, he shall be put to death. The\nLord be with you all!\u2019\u201d[493]\u2014(_Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 205.)\n\nI shall now summon two authorities, the one Cudworth, the other Jortin,\nto prove that the Nicene Fathers had no knowledge of the present\ndoctrine of the Trinity, and that they believed Christ to be the same\nwith God, not numerically, but as partaking of the same nature,\nbelonging to the same class of beings:\u2014\u201cWherefore it seemeth to be\nunquestionably evident, that when the ancient orthodox Fathers of the\nChristian Church maintained against Arius, the Son to be Co-essential or\nConsubstantial with the Father, though the word be thus interpreted, _of\nthe same essence or substance_, yet they universally understood thereby,\nnot a _sameness of singular and numerical_, but of common or universal\nessence only; that is the generical or specifical Essence of the\nGodhead; that the Son was no _Creature_, but truly and properly\nGod.\u201d\u00a0*\u00a0*\u00a0*\n\n\u201cWe have now given a full account of the true and genuine _Platonic_\nTrinity; from which it may clearly appear, how far it either agreeth or\ndisagreeth with the _Christian_. First, therefore, though some of the\nlater Platonists have partly misunderstood, and partly adulterated that\nancient _Cabala_ of the Trinity, as was before declared, confounding\ntherein the _differences_ between God and the Creature, and thereby\nlaying a foundation for infinite Polytheism; yet did _Plato himself_ and\nsome of his genuine followers, (_though living before Christianity_,)\napproach so near to the doctrine thereof, as in some manner to\ncorrespond therewith.\u201d ... \u201cFrom whence it may be concluded, that as\n_Arianism_ is commonly supposed to approach nearer to the truth of\nChristianity than Photinianism, so is _Platonism_ undoubtedly more\nagreeable thereunto than Arianism, it being a certain middle thing,\nbetwixt that and Sabellianism, _which in general_ was that mark that the\nNicene Council also aimed at.\u201d\n\nThis is more fully explained in the next extract:\u2014\n\n\u201cAthanasius in sundry places still further supposes those _three divine\nhypostases_ to make up one entire divinity, after the same manner as the\n_Fountain_ and the _Stream_ make up one entire _river_; or the _root_,\nand the _stock_, and the _branches_, one entire tree. And in this sense\nalso is the whole Trinity said by him to be one Divinity, and one\nNature, and one Essence, and one God. And accordingly, the word\nHomoousios (Consubstantial) seems here to be taken by Athanasius in a\nfurther sense besides that before mentioned; not only for things\nagreeing in one common and general essence, as _Three individual men_\nare co-essential with one another; but also for such as concurrently\ntogether, make up one entire thing, and are therefore jointly essential\nthereunto.\u2014In all which doctrine of his there is nothing but what a true\nand genuine Platonist would readily subscribe to. From whence it may be\nconcluded, that the right Platonic Trinity differs not so much from the\ndoctrine of the Ancient Church, as some late writers have\nsupposed.\u201d\u2014(_Intellec. Sys._ p. 591, 608, 619-20.)[494]\n\n\u201cBut here it will be asked, perhaps, what was the doctrine of the Nicene\nFathers, and what did they mean by Consubstantiality. It is impossible\nto answer this question without using logical and metaphysical terms.\n\n\u201cBy the word _Consubstantial_, they meant not of the same numerical, or\nindividual substance, but of the same generical substance or\nsubsistence. As, amongst men, a son is _consubstantial_ with his father;\nso, in their opinion, the Son of God is consubstantial with the Father,\nthat is, of the same divine nature.\n\n\u201cBy this word therefore they intended to express _the same kind of\nnature_, and so far, _a natural equality_. But according to them, this\nnatural equality excluded not a relative inequality; a _majority_ and\n_minority_, founded upon the everlasting difference between _giving_ and\n_receiving_, _causing_, and being _caused_.\n\n\u201cThey had no notion of distinguishing between _person_ and _being_,\nbetween an _intelligent agent_, and an intelligent active substance,\nsubsistence, or entity.\n\n\u201cWhen they said that the Father was _God_, they meant that he was God of\n_himself, originally, and underived_.\n\n\u201cWhen they said that the Son was _God_, they meant that he was God by\n_generation_ or _derivation_.\n\n\u201cThe Unity of God they maintained, and they defended it, first, by\nconsidering the Father as the First Cause, the only underived and\nself-existing; secondly, by supposing an intimate, inseparable, and\nincomprehensible union, connection, indwelling, and co-existence, by\nwhich the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and thirdly,\nby saying that in the Father and the Son there was an unity of will,\ndesign, and consent, and one divine power and dominion, originally in\nthe Father, and derivatively in the Son.\n\n\u201cIn process of time, Christians went into a notion that the Son was \u2018of\nthe same individual substance with the Father, and with the Holy\nSpirit,\u2019 and they seem to have done this with a view to secure the\ndoctrine of the _Unity_.\n\n\u201cThe schoolmen took up the subject, and treated it in their way, which\nthey call _explaining_, and which men of sense call _impenetrable\njargon_.\u201d\u2014(_Jortin, Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 202.)\n\nYou will observe, that so far no mention had been made of the separate\ndeity of the Holy Spirit. The original Nicene Creed is silent upon the\nsubject. It was a question that grew out of the deity of Christ. The\nphilosophy of the times, no less than the reluctance to be deemed the\nfollowers of a crucified man, led to the deification of Jesus, and\nafterwards, from the personifications of the Holy Spirit, in such\nexpressions as \u201cI will send unto you the Comforter, even the Spirit of\nTruth,\u201d and from its frequent connection with the name and mission of\nChrist, arose the idea of a separate divinity, a third person in the\nTrinity. The Platonic Trinity would indeed have naturally led the early\nFathers to the conception of a third principle, and in some of the\nAnti-Nicene Writers this conception appears; but the Controversy was\ncarried on with almost exclusive reference to the deity of Christ, which\nindependent of the general burden of their writings, clearly appears\nfrom the fact, that when defending themselves against the charge of\nviolating the Unity of God, they always state the objection, so as to\nshow that the accusation against them was that they were \u201cintroducing a\n_second_ God.\u201d\n\nAccordingly it was after the Council at Nice, when the deity of the Son\nwas established, that orthodoxy took a second and consequent step, and\nproceeded to establish the deity of the third person in the\nTrinity.[495]\n\nThis was effected towards the close of the fourth century, A.D. 381, by\nthe Second General Council, that of Constantinople, when the following\naddition was made to the previously deficient orthodoxy of the Nicene\nCreed. The Nicene Creed had simply stated, \u201cWe believe in the Holy\nGhost.\u201d The Council of Constantinople rectified the error thus: \u201cWe\nbelieve in the Holy Ghost, _the Lord and Giver_ of life; who proceedeth\nfrom the Father; who with the Father and Son together is worshipped and\nglorified; who spake by the prophets.\u201d Still, however, the adjustments\nwere not correct, nor the formula of perfect orthodoxy. It occurred to\nthe Church, centuries after, that the Holy Spirit was described in the\nScriptures as being dependent not upon the Father alone, but as being\n\u201csent\u201d by the Son; and that therefore the Third Person must hold that\nrelation to the Second which the Second did to the Third, and must\ntherefore be derived not from the Father alone, but from the Father and\nSon together.[496] Accordingly this new idea, essential to Salvation,\nwas included in the formula so long in this respect defective, with what\nfatal consequences we are not told; and at last, in the ninth century, a\nperfectly accurate and saving description of the procession of the Holy\nSpirit from the Father and the Son was embodied in the Nicene Creed,\nsome five hundred years after its first construction. So slowly did the\n\u201cunimproved and unimprovable revelation\u201d of dogmatic divines advance to\nits perfection. Yet we are gravely told of the faith of the Church,\u2014a\nfaith human all over; and of the traditions of Christian\nantiquity,\u2014traditions whose origin we can trace at a great distance from\napostolic times, and whose constant increase, in proportion as we recede\nfrom those times, would seem to imply that the further Councils of the\nChurch were removed from the Apostles the more they knew about them\u2014the\naccuracy of inspired Tradition differing, as of course it should, from\ncommon Memory and common History, by being in an inverse ratio to the\ndistance. This is no subject for ridicule; but only the sacred feelings\nand high themes that are necessarily associated with such extravagance,\nhave so long saved it from the most merciless exposure. Those solemn\nthemes, the awe and loveliness of which Ecclesiastical History has done\nits best to lower and degrade, have yet repaid the disservice by\ndropping something of their own solemnity on its unworthy pages, and by\ntaking every thing that is associated with God and Christ within the\nprotection of the sentiment of reverence, have shielded Ecclesiastical\nHistory from that unsparing criticism which perhaps would have been more\nserviceable to Truth, and productive of a reverence higher and more\nprofitable towards both Christ and God.\n\nIn the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, the settlement of one\nControversy always gave birth to another, in the progressive attempt to\nmake mysteries intelligible. The deity of Christ naturally gave rise to\nsome curiosity respecting the humanity of Christ. Hitherto all parties,\nArians, Athanasians, and Unitarians, according to their respective\nviews, had for the most part agreed that the Christ consisted of one\nbody and one spirit; and their controversies related simply to the rank\nand nature of that spirit. The Arians believed the soul of Jesus to be\nthe first of created intelligences, the highest Emanation from God. The\nPlatonic Christians thought that the Logos used instrumentally the body\nof Jesus, and supplied the place of a human soul. When the Council of\nNice, however, established that the spirit of Jesus was _consubstantial_\nwith that of God, the idea naturally presented itself that, since Jesus\nexpired upon the cross, this was to represent the divine nature as\ncapable of suffering and death. Now those who were the most orthodox,\nwhose views and language receded to the extremest distance from those of\nthe heretical Arians, would necessarily fall into modes of conception\nand expression which implied this revolting extravagance. Accordingly\nApollinaris, one of the most zealous Athanasians, and the bitter enemy\nof Arius, freely, and unconscious of heresy, followed out his principles\nwith perverse consistency, and openly spoke of the Logos of God\nsupplying the place of a human soul in the body of Christ; and, of\ncourse, undergoing all that a spirit, so situated, could suffer.[497]\nBut so narrow is the way of orthodoxy, that the zealous Father was made\nquickly to discover that by starting aside from one heresy, only a\nlittle too sharply, he had immediately fallen into another; for the\npitfalls of damnable error lie upon each side of the hair-breadth way of\nSalvation. By pursuing too exclusively the deity of Christ, Apollinaris\noverlooked his humanity, and taught the heresy of \u201cone incarnate\nnature,\u201d and the consequent sufferings and death of God. This impious\nextreme, being condemned by the Asiatic Church, though popular in Egypt,\northodoxy naturally took a rebound; and Apollinaris, having confused the\ntwo natures into one, Nestorius separated them into two, to such an\nextent, as virtually to destroy the mystical union. Here was another and\nan opposite heresy equally fatal to the orthodoxy of the Church and the\nsalvation of mankind; for if such was the loose connection of the two\nnatures, then, God being incapable of suffering, only the human nature\nof Jesus underwent crucifixion and death. But, on the other hand, if\nthis was so, then the sufferings of Christ were only those of a _man_;\nand all the mystery of the Incarnation was dissipated, and became\nineffectual for any theological purpose.\n\nA new controversy consequently arose, respecting the right adjustments\nof these saving connections between the humanity and the deity of the\nChrist. \u201cBefore this time,\u201d says Mosheim, \u201cit had been settled by the\ndecrees of former Councils, that Christ was truly God and truly man; but\nthere had as yet been no controversy, and no decision of any council,\nconcerning the mode and effect of the union of the two natures in\nChrist. In consequence, there was a want of agreement among the\nChristian Teachers in their language concerning this mystery.\u201d This\ncontroversy, which, for some time had been carried on without attracting\ntowards it definitively the public authorities of the Church, drew at\nlast the eager notice of all Christendom; when Nestorius, the Prelate of\nConstantinople, carried the distinction between the two natures to so\ndefinite a point as to deny that the Virgin Mary could, with any\npropriety, be denominated the \u201cMother of God;\u201d and that her titles\nshould be limited to that of \u201cMother of Christ\u201d or \u201cMother of Man.\u201d This\nwas regarded, by the orthodox, as reducing the death of Christ to that\nof a mere man, and the mystery of the Incarnation to little better than\na trick of words. It was no easy matter in those times to avoid, on the\none hand, confounding the two natures; and, on the other, separating\nthem so distinctly as to destroy the whole theological value of the\nmystical combination: nor have modern Theologians been more successful\nin adjusting this puzzle than their perplexed and perplexing\npredecessors.\n\nThe chief alarmist upon this occasion of the heresy of Nestorius was\nCyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, an arrogant and aspiring man, who\ngladly seized upon a tempting opportunity to humble his rival, the\nbishop of Constantinople. \u201cSome jealousy which at that time subsisted\nrespecting the relative dignity of the two sees, probably heightened the\ncontention, and is believed by some to have caused it. Whether that be\nor not, the two Patriarchs anathematized each other with mutual\nviolence; and such troubles were raised that the Emperor (Theodosius the\nyounger) deemed it necessary to convoke a General Council for the\npurpose of appeasing them. It was assembled at Ephesus A.D. 431, and\nstands in the annals of the Church as the THIRD GENERAL COUNCIL. Cyril\nwas appointed to preside, and consequently to judge the cause of his\nadversary: and he carried into this office such little show of\nimpartiality, that he refused even to wait for the arrival of the bishop\nof Antioch and others, who were held friendly to Nestorius, and\nproceeded to pronounce sentence, while the meeting was yet incomplete.\nTo secure or prosecute his advantages, he had brought with him from\nEgypt a number of robust and daring fanatics, who acted as his soldiery;\nand it had been skilfully arranged that Ephesus should be chosen for the\ndecision of a difference respecting the dignity of the Virgin; since\npopular tradition had buried her in that city, and the imperfect\nChristianity of its inhabitants had readily transferred to her the\nworship which their ancestors had offered to Diana.\u201d[498]\n\nSuch are the assemblies from which our Creeds date their birth; by whose\nauthority the Rule of Faith was determined; and whose character is\ndescribed in the words of the Emperor Theodosius when dismissing this\nvery Council of Ephesus\u2014\u201cGod is my witness, that I am not the author of\nthis confusion. His providence will discern and punish the guilty.\nReturn to your provinces; and may your private virtues repair the\nmischief and scandal of your meeting.\u201d At this council it was decreed,\nby bishops who could not write their own names,[499] that the Union of\nthe human and divine nature in Christ was so intimate that Mary might\nproperly be called the Mother of God. The influence of Cyril prevailed\nchiefly by intimidating the bishops and bribing the imperial household.\n\u201cThanks to the purse of St. Cyril,\u201d says Le Clerc, \u201cthe Romish Church\nwhich regards Councils as infallible, is not, at the present day,\nNestorian.\u201d \u201cThe Creeds of _Protestants_ are equally indebted to St.\nCyril for their purity.\u201d[500]\n\nThe triumphant opponents of Nestorius, as is invariably found in the\nhistory of Church Controversies, pushed their triumph to such an excess,\nas to fall into the opposite error, and revived the formerly condemned\nheresy of Apollinaris, of the incarnation of but one nature. Eutyches\nthe friend of St. Cyril and the bitter enemy of Nestorius, openly\npreached \u201cthat in Christ there was but one nature, that of the incarnate\nWord.\u201d The Church was again in a blaze, and again the Emperor summoned a\nCouncil at Ephesus, A.D. 449, over which presided Dioscorus, the\nsuccessor of St. Cyril as Patriarch of Alexandria. Here the sentence of\nthe last Council was reversed, and Orthodoxy was pronounced to be the\ndoctrine of one divine nature in Christ, and only one. This Council,\nhowever, owing principally to the opposition made to it by the Bishop of\nRome, was never authoritatively recognized by the Church, and such was\nits character for tumult and brutality that it is marked in\nEcclesiastical History by the expressive name of the Assembly of\nBanditti.\n\nSpeedily then was this heresy, inconveniently sanctioned by a Council of\nthe Church, of only one nature in Christ, which in effect represented\nGod as subject to suffering and death, replaced by the orthodoxy of two\nnatures in one person, which was attended, however, with the opposite\ndifficulty of so separating the God from the Man as to nullify the\nmystical efficacy of his sufferings.[501] But who will devise a form of\nwords in which irreconcilable ideas shall be reconciled, and no weak\npoint be exposed in the skilful statement of a fiction? THE FOURTH\nGENERAL COUNCIL of the Church was held at Chalcedon, A.D. 451. There are\ntwo things most remarkable respecting this Council; first\u2014that it\ndeclared Jesus to be of the same essence with God as to his divine\nnature, only in the sense in which he was of the same essence with other\nmen as to his human nature, thus denying his _numerical_ oneness with\nGod, and merely referring him to the same class of Beings, making him\ngenerically one, as two men are;[502] and secondly\u2014that though the\nmajority of the Bishops favoured the doctrine of one nature, they were\nobliged by the obstinacy of the Emperor Marcian, in conjunction with the\nBishop of Rome, to reverse at one of their sittings their decision at a\nformer, and finally to decree that orthodoxy consisted in believing\n\u201cJesus Christ to be one person in two distinct natures, without any\nconfusion or mixture.\u201d \u201cIt was in vain,\u201d says Gibbon, \u201cthat a multitude\nof episcopal voices (the advocates for only one nature) repeated in\nchorus \u2018The definition of the Fathers is orthodox and immutable! The\nheretics are now discovered! Anathema to the Nestorians! Let them depart\nfrom the synod! Let them repair to Rome!\u2019 The Legates threatened, the\nEmperor was absolute, and a committee of eighteen bishops prepared a new\ndecree, which was imposed on the reluctant assembly. In the name of the\nfourth general Council, the Christ in one person, but _in_ two natures,\nwas announced to the Catholic world: an invisible line was drawn between\nthe heresy of Apollinaris and the faith of St. Cyril; and the road to\nparadise, a bridge as sharp as a razor, was suspended over the abyss by\nthe master hand of the theological artist. During ten centuries of\nblindness and servitude, Europe received her religious opinions from the\nOracle of the Vatican; and the same doctrine, already varnished with the\nrust of antiquity, was admitted without dispute into the creed of the\nReformers, who disclaimed the supremacy of the Roman pontiff. The synod\nof Chalcedon still triumphs in the Protestant churches; but the ferment\nof controversy has subsided, and the most pious Christians of the\npresent day are ignorant, or careless, of their own belief concerning\nthe mystery of the incarnation.\u201d[503]\n\nStill the great difficulty pressed upon this decision, that the God was\nso separable from the man as to destroy the mystical value of the\nincarnation with respect to the sufferings of Jesus. A resource was\nfound, (for when are Theologians without resources?) in what has been\ncalled the doctrine of the Communication of Properties, which meant that\nthough God was incapable of sufferings or death, yet that through the\nmystical union of the human and divine, there might be a transmission of\nqualities from the one to the other, so as to attach an infinite\nefficacy to the sufferings and death of the human part of the compound\nChrist. \u201cThe doctrine of the Communication of Properties,\u201d says Le\nClerc, \u201cis as intelligible as if one were to say, that there is a circle\nwhich is so united with a triangle, that the circle has the properties\nof the triangle, and the triangle those of the circle.\u201d \u201cWhat sense\nthose who have asserted the sufferings of God have fancied that the\nwords might have, is a question which, after all that has been written\nupon the subject, is left very much to conjecture. I imagine that it is\nat the present day, the gross conception of some who think themselves\northodox on this point, that the divine and human natures being united\nin Christ as the Mediator, a compound nature different from either,\ncapable of suffering, was thus formed.\u201d[504]\n\nI have now detailed the progress of the doctrine of the Trinity, as it\ngained accessions from the various controversies that arose out of the\nNicene Creed. We come now to the THIRD CREED of the English Church, that\nof Athanasius. Orthodoxy in this creed approaches to its perfection of\nprecise, if not intelligible, statements; though, strange to say, we\nshall find that even here something of completeness is wanting, and that\nthe later schemes of the Trinity have corrected the Athanasian formula,\nas dwelling too much upon the derived nature of the Son, and not\nasserting with sufficient force his independent identity.\n\nNo general Council of the Church established the Athanasian creed; nor\ndoes any one know who wrote it, nor when it was first introduced. From\none of its clauses, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father\nand Son, which secret was not made known to the Church until the eighth\ncentury, it becomes evident that this theological paradox proceeded from\nthe ingenuity of some monk of the dark ages. The whole force of this\nCreed depends upon two distinctions, which I presume no one can\nperceive, between \u201ccreated\u201d and \u201cbegotten,\u201d and between \u201cbegotten\u201d and\n\u201cproceeding.\u201d The Son is not _created_ but _begotten_\u2014and the Holy Ghost\nis not _begotten_ but _proceeding_. And this is _saving_ truth! food for\nthe Soul! the heavenly light sent from God to refresh man\u2019s inner\nspirit, and to fill him with the aspirations after perfection, which in\nthis world of temptation are to keep him true to his immortal destinies,\nto connect him with his Example and Fore-runner, once tried upon the\nEarth, now peaceful amid the skies! To one asking, \u201cWhat shall I do to\ninherit eternal life?\u201d the answer of Jesus addressed itself to the\nspiritual life of the disciple, but the answer of the Church of England\naddresses itself to a perception of certain metaphysical distinctions,\nand is contained in that creed which \u201cunless a man keep whole and\nundefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.\u201d\n\n _The Athanasian Creed._ (_A.D._ 500-800.)\n\nWhosoever will be saved: before all things it is necessary that he hold\nthe Catholick Faith.\n\nWhich Faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled: without doubt\nhe shall perish everlastingly.\n\nAnd the Catholick Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and\nTrinity in Unity;\n\nNeither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.\n\nFor there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another\nof the Holy Ghost.\n\nBut the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all\none: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.\n\nSuch as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.\n\nThe Father uncreate, the Son uncreate: and the Holy Ghost uncreate.\n\nThe Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible: and the Holy\nGhost incomprehensible.\n\nThe Father eternal, the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal.\n\nAnd yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal.\n\nAs also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated: but\none uncreated, and one incomprehensible.\n\nSo likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy Ghost\nAlmighty.\n\nAnd yet they are not three Almighties: but one Almighty.\n\nSo the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.\n\nAnd yet they are not three Gods: but one God.\n\nSo likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.\n\nAnd yet not three Lords: but one Lord.\n\nFor like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge\nevery Person by himself to be God and Lord;\n\nSo are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion: to say, There be three\nGods, or three Lords.\n\nThe Father is made of none: neither created, nor begotten.\n\nThe Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.\n\nThe Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor\ncreated, nor begotten, but proceeding.\n\nSo there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one\nHoly Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.\n\nAnd in this Trinity none is afore, or after other: none is greater, or\nless than another;\n\nBut the whole three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal.\n\nSo that in all things, as is aforesaid: the Unity in Trinity, and the\nTrinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.\n\nHe therefore that will be saved: must thus think of the Trinity.\n\nFurthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also\nbelieve rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nFor the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus\nChrist, the Son of God, is God and Man;\n\nGod, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and\nMan, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world;\n\nPerfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh\nsubsisting;\n\nEqual to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the\nFather, as touching his Manhood.\n\nWho although he be God and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ;\n\nOne; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the\nManhood into God;\n\nOne altogether; not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person.\n\nFor as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one\nChrist;\n\nWho suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again the\nthird day from the dead.\n\nHe ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God\nAlmighty: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.\n\nAt whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies: and shall\ngive account for their own works.\n\nAnd they that have done good shall go into life everlasting: and they\nthat have done evil into everlasting fire.\n\nThis is the Catholick Faith: which, except a man believe faithfully, he\ncannot be saved.\n\nI shall now give you the history and character of this Athanasian Creed\nin the words of Waddington, one of the ablest Ecclesiastical Historians,\nI might say the ablest, for Jortin did not pretend to write a History,\nthat the Church of England has produced. You will recollect that one of\nthe Lectures, to be delivered at Christ Church, announces \u201cthe\nAthanasian Creed to be explained and defended.\u201d Without wishing to\nanticipate that Lecture, hear now, and recollect then, the opposing\nvoices of the Church.\n\n\u201cBefore we take leave of this period, (from A.D. 600, to A.D. 800,) it\nis proper to mention, that the first appearance of the Creed, commonly\ncalled Athanasian, is ascribed to it with great probability. There can\nbe no doubt that this exposition of faith was composed in the West, and\nin Latin; but the exact date of its composition has been the subject of\nmuch difference. The very definite terms, in which it expresses the\nChurch doctrine of the Incarnation, are sufficient to prove it posterior\nto the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, or later than the middle of\nthe fifth century.[505] Again, if we are to consider the doctrine of the\n_double_ procession of the Holy Spirit, as being expressly declared in\nit, since that mystery was scarcely made matter of public controversy\nuntil the eighth century, it might seem difficult to refer a creed,\npositively asserting the more recent doctrine, to an earlier age. But\nthe historical monuments of the Church do not quite support this\nsupposition; the Creed, such probably as it now exists, is mentioned by\nthe Council of Autun, in the year 670, and its faithful repetition by\nthe Clergy enjoined; and we find the same injunction repeated in the\nbeginning of the ninth age. Thus it gradually gained ground;\nnevertheless there seems to be great reason for the opinion, that it was\nnot universally received even in the western church until nearly two\ncenturies afterwards.\n\n\u201cConsidered as an exposition of doctrine, the Athanasian Creed contains\na faithful summary of the high mysteries of Christianity as interpreted\nby the Church of Rome. Considered as a rule of necessary faith enforced\nby the penalty of Eternal Condemnation, the same Creed again expresses\none of the most rigid principles of the same Church. The Unity of the\nChurch comprehended Unity of belief: there could be no salvation out of\nit; nor any hope for those who deviated even from the most mysterious\namong its tenets. And thus, by constant familiarity with the\ndeclarations of an exclusive faith, the heart of many a Romish priest\nmay have been closed against the sufferings of the heretic, rescued (as\nhe might think) by the merciful chastisement of the Church from the\nflames which are never quenched!\n\n\u201cIt would be irrelevant in this work, and wholly unprofitable, to\ninquire how far any temporary circumstances may have justified the\nintroduction of the Athanasian Creed into the Liturgy of our own\nChurch\u2014constructed as that Church is on the very opposite principle of\nUniversal Charity. But we cannot forbear to offer one remark naturally\nsuggested by the character and history of this Creed, that if at any\nfuture time, it should be judged expedient to expunge it, there is no\nreason, there is scarcely any prejudice which could be offended by such\nerasure.[506] The sublime truths which it contains are not expressed in\nthe language of Holy Scripture; nor could they possibly have been so\nexpressed, since the inspired writers were not studious minutely to\nexpound inscrutable mysteries, neither can it plead any sanction from\nhigh antiquity, or even traditional authority; since it was composed\nmany centuries after the times of the Apostles, in a very corrupt age of\na corrupt Church, and composed in so much obscurity, that the very pen\nfrom which it proceeded is not certainly known to us. The inventions of\nmen, when they have been associated for ages with the exercises of\nreligion, should indeed be touched with respect and discretion; but it\nis a dangerous error to treat them as inviolable; and it is something\nworse than error to confound them in holiness and reverence with the\nwords and things of God.\u201d[507]\n\nIn reading these words the wish involuntarily arises that the temper, as\nwell as the sound learning and philosophical spirit, of the able writer\nwas shared by all his brethren. Yet it does sound strange to hear a\ndignitary of the Church of England describe a Creed of his own Church,\nas having its only use, during the days of Romish intolerance, in\nshutting up, through familiarity with its persecuting spirit, the\navenues of relenting mercy in the hard hearts of priests; and now in the\nmilder Church of England, constructed, we are told, though we had not\ndiscovered it, on the \u201cprinciple of Universal Charity,\u201d of absolutely no\nuse whatever, so that there hardly exists even a prejudice which its\nerasure would offend. Yet this is the very Creed which, in the course of\nthis controversy is to be explained and defended. If the Church of\nEngland is, indeed, founded in the principle of Universal Charity, some\nof its Ministers are very heretical interpreters of its spirit, and yet\nwe must do them the justice of confessing that the Creeds and Articles\nof the Church are equally unfortunate expounders of the spirit of\nUniversal Charity. Men of Christian and gentle temper interpret Articles\nof Faith through their own gentle spirit; but fanatics read hard\nformulas with different eyes. We can only wish that the religion of this\nexcellent historian was the religion of his Church, and that his Creed\nwas as Christian as his heart.\n\nI have now only to mention the more modern and final form of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity. It arose out of the still unsettled meaning of\nthe long used word _Consubstantial_, which, as I have before stated, was\nused by many of the later Fathers, and those considered pre-eminently\northodox, as Cyril, to signify not a numerical sameness, but merely a\nsameness of species or nature, and so the Trinity virtually taught the\ndoctrine of three Gods. And this conception was prevalent not only after\nthe Council of Nice, A.D. 325, but after the later Councils of\nConstantinople, A.D. 381, and of Ephesus, A.D. 431. I give the history\nof the last transformation of the Trinity in the words, and with the\nauthority of Cudworth:\u2014\n\n\u201cIt is certain that not a few of those Ancient Fathers, who were\ntherefore reputed orthodox, because they zealously opposed Arianism, did\nentertain this opinion, that the three hypostases or Persons of the\nTrinity had not only one _General and Universal Essence of the Godhead_,\nbelonging to them all, they being all God; but were also _Three\nIndividuals_, under one and the same ultimate species, or specific\nessence and substance of the Godhead; just as three individual men,\n(Thomas, Peter, and John,) under that ultimate species of _Man_, or that\nspecific essence of _Humanity_, which have only a numerical difference\nfrom one another.\u201d ... \u201cAnd because it seems plainly to follow from\nhence, that therefore they must needs be as much _three Gods_ as there\nare Three Men, these learned Fathers endeavoured with their logic to\nprove, that _Three Men_ are but abusively and improperly so called\n_Three_; they being really and truly but One, because there is but _one\nand the same Specific Essence or Substance of human nature_ in them all;\nand seriously persuaded men to lay aside all that kind of language. By\nwhich same logic of theirs, they might as well prove also, that all the\nmen in the world are but _One Man_, and that all Epicurus\u2019s Gods were\nbut one God neither. But not to urge here that, according to this\nhypothesis, there cannot possibly be any reason given why there should\nbe as many as _Three_ such individuals in the _species of God_ which\ndiffer only numerically from one another, they being but the very same\nthing thrice repeated; and yet that there should be no more than Three\nsuch neither, and not Three Hundred, or Three Thousand, or as many as\nthere are individuals in the species of Man; we say not to urge this, it\nseems plain that this _Trinity_, is no other than a kind of _Tritheism_,\nand that of _Gods independent_ and _co-ordinate_ too. And, therefore,\nsome would think that the ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken\nwith all its faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity of St.\nCyril, and St. Gregory Nyssen, and several other reputed orthodox\nFathers; and more agreeable to the principles both of _Christianity_ and\nof _Reason_. However, it is evident from hence, that these reputed\northodox Fathers, who were not a few, were far from thinking the three\nhypostases of the Trinity to have _the same singular existent essence_;\nthey supposing them to have no otherwise, one and the same essence of\nthe Godhead in them, nor to be one God, than three individual Men, have\none common _specifical essence of Manhood_ in them, and are all One Man.\nBut as this _Trinity_ came afterwards to be decried for _Tritheistic_,\nso, in the room thereof, started up that other Trinity of Persons\n_numerically the same_, or having all one and the same singular existent\nessence; _a doctrine which seemeth not to have been owned by any public\nauthority in the Christian Church, save that of the Lateran Council\nonly_.\u201d[508]\n\nSuch is the close of the Ecclesiastical History of the doctrine of the\nTrinity. The fourth general Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, which\nestablished the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the growth of the dark\nages, passed also out of the hands of theological artists, in its\nperfected and orthodox form, this singular evidence of the fixed and\nprimitive faith of those who taunt Unitarianism with its want of\nfixedness, and describe their own creeds as the \u201cunimproved and\nunimprovable revelation.\u201d It is this workmanship of Councils which is so\nconfidently referred to the inspiration of Apostles. No wonder that they\nwho preach orthodoxy as saving Faith, revealed from the first by God in\na perfect form, say so little to their hearers of the history of their\ncreeds. There is good reason why Ecclesiastical History should be little\nencouraged by the divines of the English, or of any other dogmatical\nChurch. It is with good reason that the Universities show about the same\ndegree of favour to Ecclesiastical History and to Moral Philosophy. They\nhave an instinct that tells them of their enemies.\n\nLet me now summarily restate the obligations of the doctrine of the\nTrinity to the _human_ and _erring_ sources of OPINION.\n\nI. Oriental philosophy led the Jews of Alexandria, before the time of\nChrist, to _allegorize_ the Old Testament Scriptures.\n\nII. The Jews of Alexandria formed the connecting link between\nChristianity and Grecian Philosophy.\n\nIII. Platonic Theology put its own mythological meanings on the\nexpressions _Logos_, and _Son of God_.[509]\n\nIV. At the beginning of the fourth century this mythological conception\nhad gained such ground that, with a severe struggle, and a controversy\nthat shook the world, a general Council decreed that Christ in his\ndivine nature belonged _to the same class_ of Beings with God.\n\nV. In a _second_ general Council, the third Person in the Platonic\nTrinity found, by public authority, a parallel in the Christian Trinity,\nand became, for the first time, the faith of the Church.\n\nVI. A _third_ general Council, A.D. 431, distinguished, for theological\npurposes, the deity from the humanity of Christ.\n\nVII. A _fourth_ general Council, A.D. 451, found it necessary, for\ntheological purposes, to unite the deity and humanity in _one person_.\n\nVIII. The fourth general Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, consummated the\nTrinity and prepared the way for the Inquisition. Having established\nsuch a faith, it became necessary to take means to enforce it.\nPersecution is the first-born of Dogmatism. In the phrase of Robert\nHall, quoted with approbation in Christ Church as a felicitous\nexpression, orthodoxy is \u201c_necessitated_\u201d to be a Persecutor, to treat\nas a D\u00e6mon and Enemy of Souls every form of Christianity but her own. It\nis a necessity of her nature, she pleads,\u2014a simple consistency with her\nown principles. True,\u2014the reasoning is without a flaw;\u2014but then a\nquestion arises, does a Nature of which these are the \u201c_necessities_\u201d\nbreathe the spirit of Jesus? Who can think of Jesus as being\n_necessitated_ to condemn any thing but _sin_?\n\nHaving shown how much the doctrine of the Trinity has to do with\nEcclesiastical History, I have now to show how little it has to do with\nScripture.\n\nII. It is admitted by all, Trinitarian and Unitarian alike, that a\nbelief in ONE GOD is the first principle of a pure religion. The\nslightest departure from this truth involves polytheism and idolatry.\nOne Creator, one Father, one object for our worship and our love, is the\nplain and broad distinction between an idolatrous religion, and the\nSupreme Veneration of that spiritual God who claims an undivided empire\nthroughout the vastness of creation. A perception of this truth does not\nrequire an advanced state of Society or Mind: nor can it be proved that\neven in the thickness of pagan darkness it was ever doubted. Heathen\nPhilosophy, though it might associate with the One Spirit, too pure and\nimmoveably serene to come in contact with matter, subordinate agents of\ncreation (which does not differ much from the Trinitarian\nconception[510]), yet could read the glory of one Mind upon the outward\nuniverse, and see one Intelligence, one Power, one Will of love diffused\nthrough Nature: Judaism had this idea for its soul: and the Gospel has\nrepublished it in such distinct and resplendent light, that it is the\nuniversal faith of Christendom. So overpowering is the evidence, so\nclear is Nature\u2019s testimony to the existence of one God, so\nconspicuously has Revelation set it forth in the centre of her\nsplendours, that Trinitarianism, with what consistency we shall\npresently inquire, claims to be received as a believer in the Unity of\nDeity. It is a most triumphant acknowledgment of the brightness with\nwhich the great truth, that _God is One_, shines out from his Works[511]\nand from his Word, that even the Trinitarian perceives the necessity of\nreconciling his views with this fundamental principle; and rather than\ndepart from it, he prefers to maintain that three may be one, and one\nmay be three;\u2014though the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, have\neach separately all that constitute an infinite and all-perfect God, and\nhave distinct offices, and appear in distinct, if not directly opposed\ncharacters, yet that there may be a mysterious unity in the essence of a\ntri-personal Deity.\n\nI am relieved then from the necessity of proving that God is One. It is\na truth which no one explicitly denies; which the Trinitarian professes\nto hold as firmly as the Unitarian; and therefore as the undisputed\ndoctrine of the Bible we take it as the admitted groundwork of our\nargument. We might call upon Nature to multiply proofs of the Unity of\nthe designing Mind, which the universe reveals; we might appeal to the\nregularity of her silent movements and to the sublime order that reigns\nthroughout her gliding worlds, to attest the Oneness of that\nIntelligence whose volitions she obeys: we might ask Philosophy whether\nONE INFINITE CAUSE was not _sufficient_ for the finite or infinite\nwonders of creation; whether in all her discoveries she has ever\nperceived a single evidence of a divided government; and whether eternal\nLaws holding immutable dominion throughout all worlds that Science has\nexplored, are not sublimest proofs of the fidelity of the one presiding\nSPIRIT who trifles not with the feeble intellect of man, but reveals\nhimself consistently to the seeking minds of His children: we might go\nto our own _hearts_, and feel the pressure of one divine hand upon its\ntumultuous affections, and ask whether in our sorrows or our joys, our\nwants or our aspirations, we resorted to more than one God, or needed\nother shelter than that of one all-sufficing Father and Friend; and,\nfinally, we might open the volume of Revelation, and read to you the\ntestimony of Prophets from Moses to Christ, that the Lord our God is one\nLord, and there is none other but He:\u2014but it appears it would be a\nneedless task to prove a doctrine which no one doubts, or to treat as a\nquestion of controversy the universal faith of the Christian world.\n\nWe stand at once then upon the undisputed truth of the _Oneness_ of\nDeity, and taking this as our uncontested vantage ground, we proceed to\ninquire how much is involved in the admission. What are we to understand\nby this sublime and unquestioned, and apparently simple truth, that God\nis One? There are two answers to this question, and the statement of\neach of them will introduce us to the Controversy. The _Unitarian_\nanswers, that the words are human words, and of course used in a human\nsense; that the revelation was to man, and that no caution was given to\nhim that he was not to attach human ideas to the language in which it is\nconveyed; that God is too tender and too faithful to sport with the\nunderstandings of His children, to involve their frail intelligence in\ninextricable perplexities; and that, therefore, when He publishes to the\nWorld, _without explanation_, the Unity of his own nature, he intends\nmen to affix to the words the ideas always associated with them; he does\nnot use language to mislead, but asserts the simplest and most\nintelligible of truths, that God is one Mind, one Person, one undivided\nand indivisible Spirit, to whom alone belong underived existence, and\ninfinite perfections, and unshared dominion. These are the only ideas\nour minds ordinarily attach to such language,\u2014this is the only\nexperience we have of Unity; and if the words, when applied to God, bear\na different meaning, and so have a tendency to deceive us, some caution,\nwe think, would have been given by a God who was delivering a\n_Revelation_ to his Children. The Unitarian believes that a revelation\nfrom God is a revelation of _light_; and without any temptation to\npervert the meaning of words, he receives, in the simple and ordinary\nimport of the language, the plain and reiterated announcement that \u201cGod\nis one.\u201d If God used human words, he surely used them for the purpose of\nconveying ideas to human minds; for language is not necessary to Him,\nmuch less would human language be the vehicle of His infinite thought.\nIf, then, He used the words in a sense not human, and therefore unknown\nto us, instead of instructing, it would betray and mislead.\n\nThe _Trinitarian_ answers, that though he believes in the Unity of God,\nyet that Unity is totally different from the unity of all other beings.\nHe believes that in the One God there are _three_ distinct and infinite\npersons, presenting themselves to human contemplation in different\ncharacters, and as the objects of different affections; the first\nreigning in Heaven, the second in intimate and inseparable connection\nwith a dying man upon the Earth; the first immutable in his immensity,\nthe other _coming_ down from his eternal throne to wrap his infinite\nessence in a covering of human flesh; the Father sending the Son, and\nthe Son satisfying the demands of the Father; the Father the cause and\norigin of all things, but holding himself loftily apart, whilst the Holy\nSpirit takes the office of communion with men, and becomes the\nComforter, Teacher, and spiritual Friend of the human souls, whom the\nFather\u2019s creative energies, acting through the Son, have called into\nexistence. This, then, is the doctrine of the Trinity: three equal\nPersons, each Supreme, each a perfect and infinite Deity, and yet so\nunited as to constitute but one undivided God.\n\nWe are tauntingly told of the vague statements of Unitarian Doctrine.\nNow nothing can be more unjust than this, or farther from the facts.\n\u201cControversially described,\u201d Unitarianism is the most definite thing\nimaginable. It simply says, _No_, to every one of the allegations of\nTrinitarianism. There are, at the very least, five different forms in\nwhich the doctrine of the Trinity has been explained and defended; and\nto every one of these five shifting modifications, we repeat our\ndefinite _negative_. There is the widest difference among Trinitarian\nTheologians as to their method of stating and explaining the influence\nof Atonement and of Original Sin; and to every one of these varieties we\nequally repeat our simple negative. Where, then, is the superior\ndefiniteness of Trinitarian statements? We affirm, of all its\ncharacteristic doctrines, that they are untenable in _any form\nwhatever_. This, surely, is definite enough.\n\nI am not aware that I have stated the doctrine of the Trinity in a way\nwhich any Trinitarian could disown; and the first observation I make\nupon it is this, that in this view of the oneness of God, in connecting\nthe deity of the Father, and the deity of the Son, and the deity of the\nHoly Spirit, with a strict _unity_ in the godhead, the Trinitarian has\nat least departed from the ordinary acceptation of language. We will not\nassert the absolute impossibility of his retaining a belief in the Unity\nof God, because we have no right to question his own solemn assertion of\nthe fact, or to set limits to the powers of another\u2019s faith; but he will\nnot deny that he believes God to be one, in a sense totally different\nfrom that in which he believes himself to be one; that it is a unity of\nthree minds, each a perfect God, and capable of acting separately,\u2014in so\nmuch that it is a warning of the Creeds,\u2014not to confound the Persons. It\nis not a unity of Mind, nor a unity of Will, nor a unity of Agency, nor\na unity of Person, which the Trinitarian regards as constituting the\nUnity of God, but _three_ Minds, _three_ Wills, _three_ Agents, _three_\nPersons, mysteriously making one Deity. I ask, were it not for the\noverpowering brightness with which the Bible reveals the doctrine of one\nGod, would the Trinitarian encumber himself with the difficulty of\ncombining it with his other views; would he not rather simply confess\nthat three persons made three beings, and not one being; and represent\nthe world as under the threefold, but harmonious, government of a\nCreator, a Saviour, and a sanctifying Spirit?\n\nWe have thus, then, two admissions on the part of the Trinitarian, which\nI ask you distinctly to bear in mind. He admits the Unity of God; and he\nadmits that when he attempts to combine that Unity with a Trinity, he\nuses the word in an unintelligible sense, and understands, or rather\n_marks_, by it something entirely different from the oneness of any\nother being,\u2014a oneness in short of which he himself is capable of\nforming no conception. That is, he retains the form of _words_ that God\nis one; but these words convey to him no distinct idea,\u2014and yet words\nare the signs of human ideas;\u2014he confesses that God is not one in any\nsense of that word that he can comprehend; and that, therefore, when he\nprofesses his faith in the Unity of God, he is using language which is\nunintelligible even to himself. This he must acknowledge, for he calls\nthe Trinity a mystery; but the mystery he will admit is in the Unity,\nnot in the Trinity: the mystery (that is, the no-meaningness to man, for\nthis is the only meaning the word will here bear, the difficulty being\nnot in the vastness or spirituality of the Conceptions, but in their\nirreconcilableness,) is not that there are three Persons, but that the\nthree are _one_. Now this is the confession of every Trinitarian: he can\nform very distinct notions of the Trinity, but he admits that he cannot\nreconcile these notions with any human idea of unity; it is\nunintelligible, it is inconceivable, it is an apparent contradiction to\nall other men, to him only a paradox; it is an unfathomable mystery (a\nsad desecration of that solemn word); but still he professes to believe\nit,\u2014he maintains that he can hold \u201cthe form of sound words;\u201d and as to\n_thoughts_, it is his duty to have none upon the subject. He _knows_\nthat it is revealed that God is One; and he _thinks_ it is revealed that\nGod is in Three; and without any attempt to harmonize these two\nstatements, he professes to believe them both.\n\nNow taking our stand on the conceded truth that God is _revealed_ to be\none, we ask for equal evidence that He is revealed to be Three Persons.\nWe ask throughout the Bible for one plain assertion of this doctrine. We\nshall be satisfied with even one, and we think it is not asking much. We\nask but for a single text in which it is declared that there are three\ninfinite Minds in the Unity of but one infinite God.\n\nIt is admitted that there is no distinct statement of this doctrine in\nany part of the Scriptures; and here again we rest upon another\nconfession of all instructed Trinitarians,[512] that this mystery is\nnowhere found in express terms; that if taught at all it is taught by\nimplication; that it is no part of the direct revelation, but merely an\ninference which may be collected from certain appearances, certain\nverbal phenomena. Now I ask if this doctrine was intended to be\nrevealed, _could it have been so left_? If the Trinity is as strictly\ntrue as the Unity, could the one have had the witness of Prophets and\nApostles, and shine forth as the clearest light on the revealed page,\nwhilst the other was left to be gathered from some obscure and\nincidental intimations which the most gifted minds have not been able to\nperceive? Is it credible that if the Father, and the Son, and the Holy\nSpirit, were three Persons in one God, there should be _nowhere in the\nBible a single_ _statement of that truth_;[513] and ought not this\nextraordinary fact make us very cautious to try the soundness of the\n_inferences, human and erring modes of reasoning_, upon which, as upon\nits foundation, this stupendous doctrine is laid?\n\nThere are two passages in the Bible, and only two, in which God, and\nJesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together. It is recorded\nin St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel as the last words of the risen Jesus, that he\nascended to his Father, leaving to the world the legacy of his truth\u2014\u201cGo\nye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name (properly\ninto the name) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost\u201d\u2014baptizing them into a belief of God, and of Christ, and of the\npower and comfort of the Holy Spirit accompanying the truth, and\nwitnessing to it in the hearts of all who receive it purely.[514] The\nApostle declares of the Jews that they were baptized into Moses, and the\nEvangelist declares of Christians that they were baptized into Christ,\n(see also Rom. vi. 3; Gal. iii. 27,) and the plain meaning of such\nlanguage is that they were baptized into the Truth which God had\nrevealed through Moses and through Christ. What support then is there\nhere for the doctrine of a Trinity? Is this indeed the strongest\nscriptural evidence that Trinitarianism can boast of\u2014that because three\ndistinctions follow one another\u2014God, and his Prophet, and his Spirit\nwitnessing to his truth in the hearts and before the eyes of His\nchildren\u2014therefore the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God in communication\nwith man, must be a person, distinct from God, because the other two\nwords express persons\u2014and therefore these three are co-equal and are\none. Such is the Interpretation that produces Trinitarianism. Is there a\nsingle hint in this passage of three persons in one God? What can be\nmade out of it more than the Saviour\u2019s last injunction to his followers,\nto carry through the world that glorious and sanctifying truth, which\nthe one God manifested through his well-beloved Son, and accompanied\nwith the energy of his spirit. The Holy Spirit is a Scripture expression\nfor _God in communication with man_, naturally or supernaturally.\n\nThe _only other_ passage in which Jesus Christ, and God, and the Holy\nSpirit, are mentioned in the same sentence, must receive a precisely\nsimilar explanation. St. Paul concludes the Second Epistle to the\nCorinthians in these words\u2014\u201cThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the\nlove of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.\u201d Now\nwhat is this but a beautiful and affectionate prayer that the\nCorinthians might be partakers of the grace of God that was in Jesus\nChrist, of the love of their Heavenly Father, and of the gifts and\ninfluences of his holy spirit? Indeed this passage, like all others\nbrought to prove the Trinity, is of itself quite sufficient to overthrow\nthat doctrine. The name God in it, is not applied to Jesus Christ nor to\nthe holy spirit: and to prove that holy spirit does not mean a person,\nbut the spiritual energies of God in communication with man, the word\n_communion_ is used:\u2014a participation or communion of _a person_ is\nwithout meaning\u2014a communion in holy and heavenly influences is beautiful\nand everlasting truth. Such are the only pretences that Trinitarianism\nputs forth, that it is openly taught in Scripture! We ask for no other\npassages scripturally to disprove the doctrine.\n\nLet us now attend to that _inferential_ reasoning by which it is\nattempted to be proved that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are united\nwith the Father, to form three persons in one God. There are some texts\nin which divine attributes are supposed to be ascribed to Jesus, and the\nsame mode of reasoning being applied to the Holy Spirit, _it is\ninferred_ that Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God\u2014and that\nto preserve the consistency of Scripture, it is necessary to maintain\nboth that God is One, and that God is Three. Now I ask, does not this\nlook like a seeking of evidence for the doctrine _after_ Ecclesiastical\nHistory had introduced it, under the influences and motives already\ndescribed, rather than like the natural way in which such a doctrine\nwould break from Revelation itself upon the notice of the world? Had not\nthe doctrine its true origin in human and worldly influences, and then\nwas not an origin sought for it in the Orientalisms of Scripture\nlanguage? This then is the method of _reasoning_ by which this doctrine,\nso vast, so awful, if it be true, is attempted to be proved; and upon\nthe soundness of this _inferential_ process does Trinitarianism depend.\nSo that Orthodoxy after all its sneers against the pride of Human\nReason, depends for its own life upon the correctness of human\nreasonings,\u2014and then erects the results of this _process of fallible\nreasoning_ into the Essentials of Salvation.\n\nThere are several passages in which Christ is supposed to be called God,\nthough there is not, I think, one clear instance of such an application\nof the word; and even if there was, we have Christ\u2019s own interpretation\nof the only sense in which such language could be applied to him. \u201cJesus\nanswered them, Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? if he\ncalled them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture\ncannot be broken; say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent\ninto the world, \u2018Thou blasphemest;\u2019 because I said I am the Son of\nGod?\u201d[515]\n\nThere are only two passages in the whole gospels, in which the title has\never been supposed to be given to Christ, and these both occurring in\nthe same gospel, so that three of the gospels never were even supposed\nto have a trace of such language. One of these passages in the Proem of\nSt. John\u2019s Gospel has already been explained in the course of the\npresent Controversy, and the other is the expression of Thomas, who, the\nmoment before he made the exclamation, knew so little of Christ and of\nChristianity that he would not believe that Jesus was risen from the\ndead. It is from the lips of the unbeliever of one moment, and the\ninspired of the next, that we are to receive the high mystery of the\nTrinity. But in truth the exclamation of Thomas will not bear to be\nsobered down into a revelation of doctrines\u2014\u201cMy Lord, and my God!\u201d The\nfirst of these clauses was an exclamation of surprise, a sudden and\npassionate recognition of Jesus; the second was the natural and\nimmediate transference (common in cases of supernatural impression, with\nall minds, pious or profane,) of the thoughts of Thomas to that awful\nand wonder-working God, whose power and presence were so visibly\nmanifested in the resurrection of his Christ. There is no evidence, in\nthe remainder of the gospel, or in the book of the Acts, or throughout\nthe New Testament, that Thomas, or the rest of the Apostles, for a\nmoment believed that Jesus was God. Now, since this was a doctrine that\nthey certainly had no conception of, previous to the death of Christ,\nthere must have been an occasion, when, if true, it broke for _the first\ntime_ on the astonished minds of the disciples. Now is it possible to\nbelieve that such an occasion could have passed _unmarked_\u2014that no\namazement, no awe would _be expressed_\u2014and that as we follow them in\ntheir course, we should be unable to distinguish between the moments\nwhen they did not, and the moments when they did understand, that the\nbeing with whom they had been living in familiar intercourse was the\neverlasting God? Could such a discovery burst upon any human mind, and\nthat mind manifest no emotion\u2014not a ripple on the current of sentiment\nand feeling to show when it was that these disciples first began to know\nthat they had been the familiar friends of the living God? I confidently\nstate that the thing is not credible nor possible. The disciples would\nnot have been human, if such things could be. We know that after the\nascension, as before, they always speak of him as \u201cthe _man_ approved by\nGod, by signs and miracles which God did by him, and whom God raised\nfrom the dead?\u201d Do such things admit of explanation from the known\ncourse of human sentiments and emotions, if Trinitarianism is true? We\nthink not.\n\nThere is another passage in the Gospels supposed to teach the deity of\nChrist\u2014and hence so far used as an inferential proof of the doctrine of\nthe Trinity:\u2014\u201cI and my Father are one.\u201d Beautiful expression of the soul\nof Christ, excelled in beauty only by that life which yet more\nspiritually declared that He and his Father were one, for \u201cwhat the Son\nseeth the Father do, these also doeth the Son likewise!\u201d Why are we\ncompelled to examine coldly, or turn an instant from the deep religious\nmeaning of this perfect filial utterance of the Son of God? It expresses\nthat harmony of purpose with God which is the result and peace of the\nspirit of true religion, and which was perfect in the mind of Jesus,\nbecause in him was perfect the spirit of faith in Providence, of\ntrustful submission to his Father\u2019s will. \u201cThe cup that my Father hath\ngiven me, shall I not drink of it?\u201d Well might _he_ say, and yet how\nwondrous it is that any being could say, and yet retain his intense\nhumanity, \u201cI and my Father are one!\u201d Clear proof of the inspiration of\nthe Christ! But how the beauty fades away if this very being was God\nhimself, and all his submission of will is but an artifice of words! How\nhard, artificial, and unlovely, does the ever fresh gospel become when\nsubmitted to the tortures of systems, and system-makers! What a\ndifference in genuine spiritual power on the heart of man between Jesus\nliving and dying in the peace of _faith_, in the trust that a holy God\nwill keep the destinies of a holy mind, that his Providence will\nrecompense the Right\u2014and Jesus not living and dying in the strength of\nthe _moral_ elements of faith, but actually associated with the\nomniscient mind of God, so as to be an inseparable person! Such should\nbe the difference between the genuine spiritual energy of Unitarian and\nTrinitarian representations of Christianity.\n\nJesus, in the context, explains in what sense he uses this beautiful\nexpression, \u201cI and my Father are one,\u201d and he there positively denies\nthat the employment of it implies any claim of equality with God. Let\nour Lord be his own interpreter, and let the solemn and affecting words\nI am about to quote, silence for ever the vain plea, that this exquisite\nexpression of the moral sentiment and spirit of Jesus, was intended to\nbe doctrinal and Trinitarian. If so, there is equal proof for all\nChristians being portions of the Godhead. \u201cNeither pray I for these\nalone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;\nthat they all may be one; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that\nthey also may be one in us:\u2014and the glory which thou gavest me I have\ngiven them; _that they may be one, even as we are one_; I in them, and\nthou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may\nknow that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved\nme.\u201d[516]\n\nThe only other passage of any force in which deity is supposed to be\naccorded to Jesus,[517] I do not notice here, because it has already\nbeen abundantly examined in the present Controversy.\n\nI would now call your attention to the precise state of the argument so\nfar as we have advanced in it. We have taken for granted the Unity of\nGod, which no Christian denies. We have found that the belief of three\npersons in one God is not reconcilable with any _human_ conception of\nthat admitted unity: we have found that there was no _direct_ evidence\nin the Bible for the doctrine of the Trinity: and lastly, we have\nexamined some of the very strongest passages of Scripture, on which that\ndoctrine is attempted to be established, _through an inferential mode of\nreasoning_.\n\nI might stop here then, and without looking at the Scripture evidence\nagainst the doctrine, but only the evidence in its favour, declare that\nsuch a doctrine could not possibly have such an insufficient\npublication. The very passages brought forward to sustain it, disprove\nit. They all speak of derived powers, and of glory communicated. They\nare all in the strain,\u2014\u201cTherefore God, even _his_ God, hath highly\nexalted him, and _given_ him a name that is above every name.\u201d Nay, take\nthat passage, than which there is none in which dominion is more\nemphatically ascribed to Christ, and see how it closes:\u2014\u201cand when all\nthings shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be\nsubject unto him that did put all things under him, that God may be all\nin all.\u201d\u20141 Cor. xv. 28. We shall not, however, treat Trinitarianism so\nlightly as to dismiss it, unproved upon its own showing; we shall not\nrest satisfied with pointing out the insufficiency of its Scriptural\nauthority, but bring against it the overpowering force of opposing\nScripture; and as we have given specimens of the biblical evidence for,\nadvance something of the biblical evidence against, the Trinity.\n\nIn the first place, then, this doctrine cannot be true, because there\nare some passages in which _it is expressly and plainly_ declared that\nthe Father alone is the one God, not the Father, _and_ the Son, _and_\nthe Spirit, but the FATHER. \u201cFather!\u2014this is life eternal, that they\nmight know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast\nsent.\u201d \u201cBut to us there is but ONE GOD, the FATHER, of whom are all\nthings, and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all\nthings, and we by him.\u201d\n\n\u201cThere is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all,\nwho is above all, and through all, and in you all.\u201d\n\n\u201cOf that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are\nin Heaven; _neither the Son_, but the Father.\u201d\n\nThese declarations are surely sufficient to protect Unitarianism from\nhaving no warrant in Scripture. They contain direct, positive, definite\nassertions; they assert that there is one God, and that Jesus Christ is\n_not_ that God. It is not possible for human language to express more\nclearly or more guardedly the simple faith of Unitarian Christianity.\nYet we are told that only the ingenuity of heretics has obliged\nTrinitarians to have recourse to unscriptural language. Strange,\ncertainly, that Holy Writ should have itself expressed the creeds of\nheresy and damnable error, and rendered it impossible to express in its\nsacred words the Creeds of Truth!\n\nI quote, in the second place, some passages out of a multitude, in which\nideas are connected with Christ which are utterly inconsistent with the\nsupposition of his deity. \u201cI came not to do mine own will.\u201d \u201cI can of\nmyself do nothing.\u201d \u201cIf I honour myself, my honour is nothing; it is my\nFather that honoureth me.\u201d\u2014John viii. 54. \u201cFor as the Father hath life\nin himself, so hath he _given_ to the Son to have life in himself.\u201d\u2014John\nv. 26. \u201cAs the living Father hath sent me, and I _live by the\nFather_.\u201d\u2014John vi. 57. \u201cI have not spoken of myself, but the Father who\nsent me, He gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I should\nspeak.\u201d\u2014John xii. 49, 50.\n\n\u201cThe word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father\u2019s which sent\nme.\u201d\u2014John xiv. 24.\n\n\u201cI ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your\nGod.\u201d\u2014John xx. 17.\n\n\u201cWhen ye have lifted up the Son of man on high, then shall ye know that\nI am _he_, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught\nme I speak these things\u201d\u2014John viii. 28.\n\nEcclesiastical History has already acquainted us with the device that\nsets aside the plain meaning of these passages. It is said that Jesus\nChrist had _two natures_, was composed of two minds, that he was both\nman and God; and thus does Trinitarianism openly assert mysteries of an\nopposite character. Three Persons in one Essence is unintelligible\nenough; but no sooner is this propounded to us, than we are called off\nto a directly opposite mystery of two Essences in one Person. And here\nwe cannot be put off with the metaphysical sophistry that we do not know\nthe nature of God, for we do know something of the nature of _man_; and\nwe do say that never was there a greater abuse of the moral meanings of\nthe word Faith, than to set forth, that God\u2019s nature and man\u2019s nature so\nunited together as to form one inseparable person, may be embraced as an\nobject of Faith. The true nature and office of Faith is to carry us from\nthe seen to the unseen,\u2014to give us moral confidence in that world which\nwe do not see, from our moral experience in this world which we do\nsee,\u2014and in that portion of God\u2019s ways which the future conceals, from\nwhat we know of that portion of them which the present unfolds. Faith is\nmoral, not metaphysical; and, above all, finds no merit and no efficacy\nin assenting to unmeaning words.\n\nAs before, of the doctrine of the Trinity, so now of this doctrine of\nthe Hypostatic Union, as it is called, I ask for a single hint\nthroughout the New Testament of the inconceivable fact that, in the body\nof Jesus, resided the mind of God and the mind of man,\u2014two natures, the\none finite, the other infinite, yet making but one person,\u2014a difficulty\nyou will perceive the very opposite of that of the Trinity; for whereas\nit teaches three persons in one nature, this teaches two natures in one\nperson. But we have already traced, in Ecclesiastical History, the\norigin of this view, and the necessity of its appearance, in\nsubservience to the doctrine of the Trinity.\n\nI will only apply one scriptural test to this theory of the two natures\nin Christ. And it is one from which Trinitarians cannot escape by their\nordinary refuge of avoiding one set of statements by referring them to\nthe humanity of Jesus, and another set of statements by referring them\nto his deity. It is God the Son, whom Trinitarians represent as becoming\nincarnate in the body of Jesus; it was God the Son who took humanity\ninto union with deity; therefore whenever Jesus, in his human nature,\nspeaks of the divinity that dwelt within him, inspired him, and wrought\nthrough him, it must be God the Son to whom he refers. But this is never\nthe case: Scripture does not know this doctrine, nor support its\nrequisitions. It is always, \u201c_the Father_ who dwelleth in me, He doeth\nthe works.\u201d\n\nIt was asserted in Christ Church, that if there is not a plurality of\npersons in the godhead, the oriental style, \u201clet us make man in our own\nimage,\u201d and the use of the plural where we use the singular, made the\nword of God an agent of deception, and affected the morality of the\ndivine mind. This is bold language; and, considering the evidence, as\nunscholarlike as bold. We refrain from a retort in the same spirit. We\nlook with unaffected wonder upon the mind that is reckless enough, and\nignorant enough of the sources of error within itself, to dare to say,\n\u201cif I am not right in my interpretation of Scripture, God is a\ndeceiver.\u201d Yet such men can charge others with making themselves judges\nof revelation, and saying what God _must_ mean.\n\nI have not taken up that other thread of supposed scriptural\nintimations, which is thought to connect the Holy Spirit as a third\nPerson in the unity of the godhead. This portion of the argument,\nstrangely neglected by Trinitarians, who generally take for granted the\ndeity and personality of the Holy Ghost as following without debate from\nthe deity of Christ, since three not two is the favourite mythological\nand theological number, is however to form the subject of a separate\nLecture in Christ Church, not yet delivered. Why there should be any\nnecessity, on Trinitarian principles of theology, for a third person in\nthe Godhead to perform \u201c_the work_,\u201d as it is called, of the spirit of\nGod in communication with man, after the sacrifice of Christ had left\nthe Father\u2019s love free to operate, we cannot perceive, except upon the\nPlatonic principle, that the Supreme One in the Trinity is an Essence\nperfectly abstracted, immoveable, and without action. Not wishing,\nhowever, to anticipate the argument, I shall only adduce one remarkable\npassage, in proof that the Holy Spirit could not, in the first age of\nthe Gospel, have a deity and personality ascribed to it distinct from\nthe deity and personality of God the Father. When Paul came to Ephesus,\nhe found there some disciples, of whom he inquired,\u2014\u201cHave you received\nthe Holy Ghost since you believed?\u201d The answer is remarkable: \u201cWe have\nnot so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.\u201d Now is it\npossible that the Holy Ghost should be the third person of the Trinity,\na constituent person in the Christian God, and that these \u201cbelievers,\u201d\nthough only disciples of John, should have been uninstructed in the\ndoctrine? The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, God himself in\ncommunication with man, naturally or supernaturally, the enlightening\ninfluence of the Spiritual Father revealing Himself to the spiritual\nnature of His children.\n\nI do not know what may appear convincing to other minds, but to me the\nEcclesiastical History of the doctrine of the Trinity, with its rise in\n_human_ sources of Philosophy and Motive, and not in Revelation, seems a\nfact capable of being most clearly traced. Rarely indeed does the origin\nof an error so conspicuously disclose itself: rarely is its course so\nopen to observation. On the other hand, if there is not decisive proof\nin Scripture of the strict and personal Unity of God, I must think that\nit is vain to prove any doctrine from the words of the Bible\u2014for sure I\nam that there is no doctrine more distinctly, more guardedly, more\nsimply, more repeatedly stated, than the great doctrine, that there is\nOne God, and that the FATHER is that God.\n\nWe are told that the \u201cinvisible things of God are clearly seen, being\nunderstood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and\ngodhead.\u201d Yet the Universe reveals no Trinity. Reason knows and requires\nno Trinity. Natural Religion is not Trinitarian. Scripture speaks of One\nGod the Father, and of One Lord Jesus Christ. Gentile Philosophy and\nEcclesiastical History _are_ Trinitarian. In _their_ pages we find this\nsubject. Ecclesiastical History has narrated the rise and progress of\nthese doctrines\u2014and to Ecclesiastical History shall they finally be\nreferred,\u2014when another chapter is added, a chapter that unhappily yet\nremains to be written, the history of their decline and fall.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture VII.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n Locke.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n Mr. James\u2019s Lecture, p. 410.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n Spoken, not printed.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n Milman\u2019s Edition, vol. iii. p. 311.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n \u201cThat this Trinity (Monad or Good, Wisdom, Spirit or Energy) was not\n first of all a mere invention of Plato\u2019s, but much ancienter than him,\n is plainly affirmed by Plotinus in these words,\u2014\u2018That these doctrines\n are not new nor of yesterday, but have been very anciently delivered,\n though obscurely (the discourses now extant being but Explications of\n them) appears from PLATO\u2019S own writings; PARMENIDES before having\n insisted on them.\u2019\u201d _Cudworth. Intel. Syst._ p. 546.\u2014See also Bishop\n Berkeley\u2019s Siris, sections 341-365.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n \u201cThe principle of every thing is more simple than the thing itself.\n Wherefore the sensible world was made from Intellect, or the\n intelligible; and before this must there needs be something more\n simple still. For many did not proceed from many, but this multiform\n thing Intellect proceeded from that which is not multiform but simple;\n as Number from Unity. If that which understands be many, or contain\n multitude in it, then that which contains no multitude, does not\n properly understand; and this is the first thing;\u2014to understand is not\n the First; neither in Essence nor in Dignity; but the Second; a thing\n in order of nature, after the First Good, and springing up from\n thence, as that which is moved with desire towards it.\u201d\u2014_Plotinus.\n Cudworth_, p. 584.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n \u201cThe FIRST is above all manner of action: neither is it fit to\n attribute the architecture of the world to the First God, but rather\n to account him the Father of that God, _who is the Artificer_. The\n SECOND, to whom the energy of Intellection is attributed, is therefore\n properly called the Demiurgus, as the contriving Architect, in whom\n the Archetypal World is contained, and the First Pattern, or Paradigm\n of the Whole Universe. The THIRD is that which moveth about Mind or\n Intellect, the Light or Effulgency thereof, and its Print or\n Signature, which always dependeth upon it, and acteth according to it.\n This is that which reduces both the Fecundity of the First Simple\n Good, and the Architectonick Contrivance of the Second into Act and\n Energy. This is the Immediate and as it were _Manuary Opificer_ of the\n whole world, that which actually Governs, Rules, and Presideth over\n all.\u201d\u2014_Plotinus. ap. Cudw._ p. 583.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n \u201cSince the introduction of the Greek or Chaldean Philosophy, the Jews\n were persuaded of the pre-existence, transmigration, and immortality\n of souls; and Providence was justified by a supposition, that they\n were confined in their earthly prisons to expiate the stains which\n they had contracted in a former state. But the degrees of purity and\n corruption are almost immeasurable. It might be fairly presumed that\n the most sublime and virtuous of human spirits was infused into the\n offspring of Mary and the Holy Ghost; that his abasement was the\n result of his voluntary choice; and that the object of his mission was\n to purify, not his own, but the sins of the world. On his return to\n his native skies he received the immense reward of his obedience; the\n everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which had been darkly foretold by\n the prophets, under the carnal images of peace, of conquest, and of\n dominion. Omnipotence could enlarge the human faculties of Christ to\n the extent of his celestial office. In the language of antiquity, the\n title of God has not been severely confined to the first parent; and\n his incomparable minister, his only begotten son, might claim, without\n presumption, the religious, though secondary worship of a subject\n world.\n\n \u201cThe seeds of the faith, which had slowly arisen in the rocky and\n ungrateful soil of Judea, were transplanted, in full maturity, to the\n happier climes of the Gentiles; and the strangers of Rome or Asia, who\n never beheld the manhood, were the more readily disposed to embrace\n the divinity of Christ. The polytheist and the philosopher, the Greek\n and the Barbarian, were alike accustomed to conceive a long\n succession, an infinite chain of angels or d\u00e6mons, or deities, or\n \u00e6ons, or emanations, issuing from the throne of light. Nor could it\n seem strange or incredible, that the first of these \u00e6ons, the _Logos_,\n or word of God, of the same substance with the Father, should descend\n upon earth, to deliver the human race from vice and error, and to\n conduct them in the path of life and immortality.\u201d\u2014_Gibbon_, vol.\n viii. p. 271.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n Philo de Abrahamo. Le Clerc\u2019s Supplement to Hammond, p. 168.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n Cudworth, p. 590.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n \u201cIt was in this mode of apprehending the Divine Being that the\n doctrine of the Trinity had its origin. The Logos of the first four\n centuries was in the view of the Fathers both an attribute or\n attributes of God, and a proper person. Their philosophy was, in\n general, that of the later Platonists, and they transferred from it\n into Christianity this mode of Conception. In treating of this fact,\n so strange, and one which will be so new to many of my readers, I will\n first quote a passage from Origen, the coincidence of which with the\n conceptions of Philo and the later Platonists is apparent. \u2018Nor must\n we omit, that Christ is properly the Wisdom of God; and is therefore\n so denominated. For the wisdom of the God and Father of All has not\n its being in bare conceptions, analogous to the conceptions in human\n minds. But if any one be capable of forming an idea of _an incorporeal\n being of diverse forms of thought, which comprehend the_ LOGOI [the\n archetypal forms] _of all things, a being indued with life, and having\n as it were a soul_, he will know that the Wisdom of God, who is above\n every creature, pronounced rightly concerning herself; The Lord\n created me, the beginning, his way to his works.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Origen, Opp._ iv.\n 39, 40,\u2014quoted by Norton on the Trinity, p. 271-2.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n Milman\u2019s Gibbon, vol. iii. p. 313.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n See Cudworth, p. 603, 4.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n \u201cThe creed which was first adopted, and that perhaps in the very\n earliest age, by the Church of Rome, was that which is now called the\n Apostles\u2019 Creed, and it was the general opinion, from the fourth\n century downwards, that it was actually the production of those\n blessed persons assembled for that purpose. Our evidence is not\n sufficient to establish that fact, and some writers very confidently\n reject it. But there is reasonable ground for our assurance that the\n form of faith which we still repeat and inculcate was in use and\n honour in the very early propagation of our religion.\u201d\u2014_Waddington\u2019s\n History of the Church_, p. 27.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n \u201cIgnatius, Justin, and Iren\u00e6us make no mention of it, but they\n occasionally repeat _some words_ contained in it, which is _held_ as\n _proof_ that they knew it by heart.\u201d\u2014_Waddington._\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n Jortin, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 180.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n Comment. in Johan. vol. ii. p. 5.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n Hist. lib. iii. c. 24.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n Chrys. Op. vol. vi. p. 171; viii. p. 2.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n Comm. in Matt. sec. 161.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n In Celsum. lib. ii. p. 56.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n Professor Burton gives some instances of the use of the word God by\n Ignatius, A. D. 107, in connection with Christ. Nothing can be more\n slender and insufficient than his other evidences of the recognition\n of these doctrines by the Apostolical Fathers.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n Dial. cum Tryph. p. 252.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n Lib. i. cap. 19; ii. cap. 3.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n Strom. lib. vi. p. 644. Priestley\u2019s Hist. Early Opinions.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n Advers. Prax. c. 13.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n Comment. vol. ii. p. 47.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n Cap. ii. p. 84.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n Lib. iv. sec. 14.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n Orat. iii. con. Arian.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n Cudworth. Intel. Sys. p. 599.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n Inattention to this distinction vitiates the whole reasonings of Dr.\n Burton\u2019s learned work on the Anti-Nicene Fathers. There is no doubt\n that the deity of the Son and even of the Holy Ghost is spoken of\n before the Council of Nice, but always in the Platonic or derived\n sense, never in the present orthodox sense of _co-equal_ and\n _independent_. The word con-substantial proves nothing to the\n contrary, for a Platonist would not have objected to the application\n of the word to the second and third persons in his Trinity, as\n partaking of, or derived from the Essence of the one Supreme. See\n Cudworth\u2019s argument to this effect (Intel. Sys. p. 597), who contends\n that by _co-essential and consubstantial_, the Nicene Council meant\n nothing more than that the Son was _generically_ God, of the same\n nature, but _numerically_ different, having his own distinct Essence.\n See also Dr. Burton on a passage similar to one from Tertullian\n already quoted, where he is misled by not attending to this\n distinction.\u2014_Theol. Works_, vol. ii. p. 89.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n Cudworth. Intell. Sys. p. 595.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n \u201cIt had been the vice of the Christians of the third century, to\n involve themselves, \u2018in certain metaphysical questions which if\n considered in one light, are too sublime to become the subject of\n human wit; if in another too trifling to gain the attention of\n reasonable men.\u2019 (Warburton.) The rage for such disputations had been\n communicated to religion by the contagion of philosophy; but the\n manner in which it operated on the one and on the other was\n essentially different. With the philosopher such questions were\n objects of the understanding only, subjects of comparatively\n dispassionate speculation, whereon the versatile ingenuity of a minute\n mind might employ or waste itself. But with the Christian they were\n matters of truth or falsehood, of belief or disbelief. Hence arose an\n intense anxiety respecting the result, and thus the passions were\n awakened, and presently broke loose and proceeded to every excess.\n From the moment that the solution of these questions was attempted by\n any other method than the fair interpretation of the words of\n Scripture; as soon as the copious language of Greece was eagerly\n applied to the definition of spiritual things, and the explanation of\n heavenly mysteries, the field of contention seemed to be removed from\n earth to air\u2014where the foot found nothing stable to rest upon; where\n arguments were easily eluded, and where the space to fly and to rally\n was infinite; so that the contest grew more noisy as it was less\n decisive, and more angry as it became more prolonged and complicated.\n Add to this the nature and genius of the disputants: for the origin of\n these disputes may be traced without any exception to the restless\n imaginations of the East.\u201d * * *\n\n \u201cWe must also mention the loose and unsettled principles of that age,\n which had prevailed before the appearance of Christianity, and had\n been to a certain extent adopted by its professors\u2014_those, for\n instance, which justified the means by the end, and admitted fraud and\n forgery into the service of religion_.\u201d\u2014_Waddington, Church Hist._ p.\n 89.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n \u1f51\u03c0\u1f72\u03c1 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03bb\u03b1\u03c7\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n \u201cLet us imagine, then, a council called by a Christian Emperor, by a\n Constantine, a Constantius, a Theodosius, a Justinian, and three, or\n four, or five hundred prelates, assembled from all quarters, to decide\n a theological debate.\u201d\n\n \u201cLet us consider a little by what various motives these various men\n may be influenced, as by reverence to the emperor, or to his\n councillors and favourites, his slaves and eunuchs; by fear of\n offending some great prelate, as a Bishop of Rome or of Alexandria,\n who had it in his power to insult, vex, and plague all the bishops\n within and without his jurisdiction; by the dread of passing for\n heretics, and of being calumniated, reviled, hated, anathematized,\n excommunicated, imprisoned, banished, fined, beggared, starved, if\n they refused to submit; by compliance with some active, leading, and\n imperious spirits, by a deference to a majority, by a love dictating\n and domineering, of applause and respect, by vanity and ambition, by a\n total ignorance of the question in debate, or a total indifference\n about it, by private friendships, by enmity and resentment, by old\n prejudices, by hopes of gain, by an indolent disposition, by good\n nature, by the fatigue of attending, and a desire to be at home, by\n the love of peace and quiet, and a hatred of contention, &c.\n\n \u201cWhosoever takes these things into due consideration, will not be\n disposed to pay a blind deference to the authority of general\n Councils, and will rather be inclined to judge that \u2018the Council held\n by the Apostles was the first and the last in which the Holy Spirit\n may be affirmed to have presided.\u2019\n\n \u201cThus far we may safely go, and submit to an Apostolical Synod; but if\n once we proceed one step beyond this, we go we know not whither. If we\n admit the infallibility of one General Council, why not of another?\n And where shall we stop? At the first Nicene Council, A. D. 325, or at\n the second Nicene Council, A. D. 787? They who disclaim private\n judgment, and believe the infallibility of the Church, act\n consistently in holding the infallibility of Councils; but they who\n take their faith from the Scriptures, and not from the Church, should\n be careful not to require nor to yield too much regard to such\n assemblies, how numerous soever. Numbers, in this case, go for little,\n and to them the old Proverb may be applied;\u2014\n\n \u2018Est turba _semper_ argumentum pessimi.\u2019\n\n \u201cIf such Councils make righteous decrees, it must have been by strange\n good luck.\u201d\u2014_Jortin, Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 183-4.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n Milman\u2019s Ed. vol. iii. p. 331.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n Waddington, Church Hist. p. 93.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 210.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n \u201cThe Christian Religion, which in itself is plain and simple, _he_\n (Constantius) confounded by the dotage of superstition. Instead of\n reconciling the parties by the weight of his authority, he cherished\n and propagated, by verbal disputes, the differences which his vain\n curiosity had excited. The highways were covered with troops of\n bishops, galloping from every side to the Assemblies, which they call\n synods; and while they laboured to reduce the whole sect to their own\n particular opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost\n ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.\u201d\u2014_Ammianus, as quoted by\n Gibbon_, vol. iii. p. 347.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n \u201cConstantine\u2019s conduct was variable afterwards, _for he certainly\n understood not_ this perplexed and obscure controversy, and he\n acted as he was influenced at different times by the ecclesiastics\n of each party, who accused one another, not only of heterodoxy,\n but of being enemies to the Emperor, and of other faults and\n misdemeanors.\u201d\u2014_Jortin._\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n \u201cNotwithstanding all which it must be granted, that though this\n co-essentiality of the three persons in the Trinity does imply them to\n be all God, yet does it not follow from thence of necessity that they\n are therefore _One God_.\u201d\u2014_Cudworth_, p. 596.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n \u201cThat little is said concerning the separate divinity of the Spirit of\n God in the Scripture is evident to every body; but the reason that\n Epiphanius gives for it, will not be easily imagined. In order to\n account for the Apostles saying so little concerning the divinity of\n the Holy Spirit, and omitting the mention of him after that of the\n Father and the Son, (as when Paul says, \u2018there is one God and Father\n of all, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are\n all things,\u2019) he says that \u2018the Apostles writing by the inspiration of\n the Spirit, He did not choose to introduce much commendation of\n Himself, lest it should give us an example of commending\n ourselves.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Priestley\u2019s History of the Corruptions of Christianity_,\n p. 60.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n \u201cThe Holy Spirit, if he be God, as the objection is stated by Basil,\n must either be begotten or unbegotten. If he be unbegotten, he is the\n Father; if begotten, the Son; and if he is neither begotten nor\n unbegotten, he is a creature.\u201d\u2014_Priestley\u2019s Hist. Early Opinions_,\n vol. ii. 331.\n\n This is the least offensive specimen I could find of the common\n objections made to the separate deity of the Holy Ghost at the time\n the doctrine was first proposed. The plainer and coarser forms of the\n objection, unhesitatingly handled by the Fathers, I withhold from\n reverence. But let the reader consult the Ecclesiastical History of\n the Period. The difficulty stated by Athanasius, Basil, and others,\n was overcome by establishing a certain mysterious or rather no-meaning\n difference between _begotten_ and _proceeding_. Such is always the\n easy refuge of mystics. The line is a faint one between unintelligible\n ideas and no ideas at all. \u201cThe _nativity_ of the Son,\u201d says Austin,\n \u201cdiffers from the _procession_ of the Spirit, otherwise they would be\n brothers.\u201d I doubt whether it is right to disclose to all eyes the\n morbid anatomy of Theology; but I assure my readers that I am\n reverentially forbearing.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n \u201cIn the age of religious freedom, which was determined by the Council\n of Nice, the dignity of Christ was measured by private judgment,\n according to the indefinite rule of Scripture, or reason, or\n tradition. But when his pure and proper divinity had been established\n on the ruins of Arianism, the faith of the Catholics trembled on the\n edge of a precipice, where it was impossible to recede, dangerous to\n stand, dreadful to fall; and the manifold inconveniences of this creed\n were aggravated by the sublime character of their theology. They\n hesitated to pronounce; _that_ God himself, the second person of an\n equal and consubstantial Trinity, was manifested in the flesh; _that_\n a being who pervades the universe, had been confined in the womb of\n Mary; _that_ his eternal duration had been marked by the days, and\n months, and years of human existence; _that_ the Almighty had been\n scourged and crucified; _that_ his impassible essence had felt pain\n and anguish; _that_ his omniscience was not exempt from ignorance; and\n _that_ the source of life and immortality expired on Mount Calvary.\n These alarming consequences were affirmed with unblushing simplicity\n by Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, and one of the luminaries of the\n church. The son of a learned grammarian, he was skilled in all the\n sciences of Greece; eloquence, erudition, and philosophy, conspicuous\n in the volumes of Apollinaris, were humbly devoted to the service of\n religion. The worthy friend of Athanasius, the worthy antagonist of\n Julian, he bravely wrestled with the Arians and Polytheists, and\n though he affected the rigour of geometrical demonstration, his\n Commentaries revealed the literal and allegorical sense of the\n Scriptures. A mystery which had long floated in the looseness of\n popular belief, was defined by his perverse diligence in a technical\n form; and he first proclaimed the memorable words, \u201cOne incarnate\n nature of Christ,\u201d which are still re-echoed with hostile clamours in\n the churches of Asia, Egypt, and \u00c6thiopia. He taught that the Godhead\n was united or mingled with the body of a man; and that the _Logos_,\n the eternal wisdom, supplied in the flesh the place and office of a\n human soul.\u201d\u2014_Gibbon_, vol. viii. p. 279.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n Waddington, Hist. of the Church, p. 182.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n Jortin, vol. iii. p. 116.\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n Norton on the Trinity.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n \u201cHence many questions arose, which gave rise to as many controversies.\n For example, it was debated, Whether the two natures in Christ were so\n united as to become one; or whether they remained distinct? Whether,\n since Christ was born, and died, and rose again, it could be said that\n _God_ was born and died, and rose again?\n\n \u201cWhether the Virgin Mary, who was the Mother of Christ, could be\n called the Mother of _God_?\n\n \u201cWhether Christ were two persons, or only one?\n\n \u201cWhether Christ was everywhere present, in his human, as in his divine\n nature?\n\n \u201cWhether one person of the Trinity could be said to suffer for us?\n\n \u201cWhether the whole Trinity could be said to suffer for us?\n\n \u201cWhether in Christ there were three substances, or only two?\n\n \u201cThese questions produced altercation and strife, and then\n anathematisms, and then fightings and murders.\u201d\u2014_Jortin_, vol. iii. p.\n 117.\n\n To these might be added the question proposed by the Emperor\n Heraclius, A.D. 629, to his Bishops\u2014\u201cWhether Christ, of one person but\n two natures, was actuated by a single or a double will?\u201d This gave\n rise to what was called the _Monothelite_ (one will) Controversy, as\n that respecting the single nature was called the Monophysite (one\n nature) Controversy.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n Jortin, vol. iii. p. 124.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n Milman\u2019s Edit. vol. viii. p. 312.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n Norton on the Trinity, p. 78.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n \u201cVigilius Tapsensis hath been supposed, by many, to have been the\n Maker of the Athanasian Creed about this time (the close of the fifth\n century). Others are of a different opinion. But it matters little by\n whom, or where, or when it was composed.\u201d\u2014_Jortin, Eccles. Hist._ vol.\n iii. p. 131.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n \u201cThe opinions of some of our own Churchmen on this subject are\n collected by Clarke in his book on the Trinity. The expression of\n Bishop Tomline cannot be too generally known. \u2018We know,\u2019 he says,\n \u2018that different persons have deduced different, and even opposite\n doctrines from the words of Scripture, and consequently there must be\n many errors among Christians; but since the Gospel no where informs us\n what degree of error will exclude from eternal happiness, I am ready\n to acknowledge that in my judgment, notwithstanding the authority of\n former times, our church would have acted more wisely and more\n consistently with its general principles of mildness and toleration,\n if it had not adopted the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed.\n Though I firmly believe that the doctrines themselves of this creed\n are all founded in Scripture, I cannot but conceive it both\n unnecessary and presumptuous to say, that except every one do keep\n them whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish\n everlastingly.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Exposition_, part iii. art. viii.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n Church History, p. 220.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n Intel. Sys. p. 602, 4.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n \u201cIt must be acknowledged that the first converts from the Platonic\n school took advantage of the resemblance between Evangelic and\n Platonic doctrine on the subject of the Godhead, to apply the\n principles of their old philosophy to the explication and confirmation\n of the articles of their faith. They defended it by arguments drawn\n from Platonic principles, and even propounded it in Platonic\n language.\u201d\u2014_Bishop Horsley._\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n See the Rev. D. James\u2019s acknowledgment of the Subordination of the Son\n and the Holy Spirit to the Father\u2014of their _official_ inferiority: and\n _the illustrations_ of the King and the Duke of Wellington, which\n Trinitarian Theology thinks apposite.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n We were told, indeed, in Christ Church, by the Rev. D. James, that\n there _might_ exist any number of persons in the divine Essence, three\n thousand as well as three, and that only because Scripture had\n revealed no more had Christians fixed upon that number as making up\n the divine Unity. And this is so clear a consequence of the principles\n of Trinitarian Theology, that the view must be ascribed _to all\n Trinitarians_. Scripture, however, though it has only _revealed_\n three, has not declared that there are _no more_ persons in the\n Godhead\u2014so that it is being wise above what is written to limit the\n divine MONARCHY to the ECONOMY of three Persons.\n\n But farther than this it was declared by the Rev. D. James that nature\n contained _no evidence_ of One God, not even in the Trinitarian sense\n of Oneness, for that many Gods might unite to build the world, as many\n men had united to build the Liverpool Custom House. What would the\n Architect of that building say to this invasion of the unity of his\n designing mind? Mr. James repeatedly informed his audience that he\n always appealed to reason! Such is Trinitarianism when it reasons. But\n I suppose this view must be considered as a peculiarity of the\n individual preacher.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n Who are the competent Critics, of whom Mr. Byrth speaks as retaining\n the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses? The Bishop of Salisbury, I\n suppose. If this had been Unitarian Criticism, Mr. Byrth would have\n called it _defective_ Scholarship or dishonesty. He can discriminate\n in favour of those who err upon his own side. See a curious statement\n of the external evidence affecting this text, 1 John v. 7, in the\n second volume of Burton\u2019s Theological Works, p. 114, 2nd part.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n \u201cIt is reasonable to expect, that those doctrines, which form the\n leading articles of any system, _should be plainly stated in the book_\n which professes to make that system known.\u201d\u2014_Wardlaw._\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n \u201c\u2018Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of\n the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u2019 That is, \u2018Go ye\n therefore into all the world, and teach or disciple all nations,\n baptizing them into the profession of faith in, and an obligation to\n obey the doctrine taught by Christ, with authority from God the\n Father, and confirmed by the Holy Ghost.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Lardner._\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n John x. 34.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n John xvii. 20, 23.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n Rom. ix. 5.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE VIII.\n\n MAN, THE IMAGE OF GOD.\n\n BY REV. HENRY GILES.\n\n \u201cFOR A MAN INDEED OUGHT NOT TO COVER HIS HEAD, FORASMUCH AS HE IS THE\n IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD.\u201d\u20141 _Cor._ xi. 7.\n\n \u201cAND WHEN HE CAME TO HIMSELF, HE SAID\u2014HOW MANY HIRED SERVANTS OF MY\n FATHER\u2019S HAVE BREAD ENOUGH AND TO SPARE, AND I PERISH WITH HUNGER. I\n WILL ARISE, AND GO TO MY FATHER, AND WILL SAY UNTO HIM,\u2014FATHER, I\n HAVE SINNED AGAINST HEAVEN AND BEFORE THEE, AND AM NO MORE WORTHY TO\n BE CALLED THY SON; MAKE ME AS ONE OF THY HIRED SERVANTS.\u201d\u2014_Luke_ xv.\n 17-19.\n\n\nWe are often told that man was originally created in the image of his\nMaker; and, in the same connection, we are told that, in his fall, he\nlost it. If this be true, we might expect that Scripture writers, in\nalluding to fallen man, would never ascribe to him so holy a\nresemblance. Paul, however, does it in one of the texts I have quoted;\nand Paul is not alone in this ascription. In an ordinance to Noah,\nimmediately after the deluge, we find the same truth made the foundation\nof a most solemn injunction. \u201cWhoso sheddeth man\u2019s blood, by man shall\nhis blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.\u201d[518] Had the\nresemblance of God been effaced from the soul of man in the fall of\nAdam, there had been in this ordinance neither meaning nor solemnity.\nSince, therefore, the sacred writer uses the fact of man\u2019s likeness to\nGod to stamp deeper guilt on the crime of murder; since, moreover, that\nfact is alleged after the narration of the fall,\u2014we are justified by\nScripture in claiming this high and glorious distinction for our\nuniversal nature.\n\nI have quoted the second text, because the principle implied in it is\nidentical with that which I stand here to maintain, namely, that sin is\nnot of our nature, but against it; that it is not consistent with it,\nbut contradictory to it; that to be sinful, is not to be natural, but\nunnatural. Sin, properly speaking, is moral delirium; and the progress\ntowards that last paroxysm which, by revulsion, arouses the soul from\nits madness, is eloquently symbolised in the parable from which my\nsecond text is taken. Having tried all that sin could offer him; having\nsunk to the very husks of carnal appetites, and vainly sought thus to\nsatisfy the hunger of an immortal soul, wearied, disappointed, and\ndisgusted; satiated, but not satisfied, the prodigal arises from his\ntorpor; he awakens from his wildering dream; the delirium that so long\nbeset him is dispersed; with a calm and clear brain he finds himself in\nopen day-light, and discerns the empty and unsubstantial vanities for\nwhich, in a false hope, he spent his labour and his strength, to reap at\nlast, in the bitterness of a repentant heart, nothing but grief,\ntribulation, and anguish.\n\nSin is not a following of nature, but a violence on it; not conformity,\nbut contradiction to it. And so, as when returning life beats in the\npalsied heart, or the dawn of reason bursts again on the madman\u2019s brain,\nthe prodigal is said \u201cto come to himself;\u201d when the spirit of moral\nrenovation opens on him with compunctuous visitings of nature, and\nreveals to him a full sense of his condition. In his guilt he was at\nvariance with all the moral instincts of humanity; and, in the sorrow of\nrepentance, he needed as much to be at peace with himself as with his\nfather. It is universally thus. God has established a certain order and\nharmony in our nature, appointed to each faculty a place and a purpose;\nand, in disturbing this arrangement, we become transgressors. We cannot\nsin against God without also sinning against our own souls, for in them\nis the primitive revelation of God; and in thus sinning against our own\nsouls, we may practically resist all the divine attributes of which our\nweak faculties are the dim reflection; God\u2019s wisdom in the abuse of our\nintellect; his greatness in the loss of our moral dignity; his goodness\nin the destruction of our charities; his purity in the corruption of our\nhearts. Unitarians are accused of making sin a light matter. We protest\nagainst the justice of the accusation. We hold sin to be the greatest of\nevils, and the most dire of miseries. We hold it not as a mere social\nimpropriety, but we regard it as a dark disloyalty against conscience\nand against God. Much suffering, we know, it inflicts on society; but\nslight, indeed, is it compared with the ruin and devastation it works in\nour own souls. Here, at first, God impressed his image; here, at last,\nhe fixes his tribunal: it is here his voice was heard in kindness, it is\nhere it shall be also heard in judgment. God\u2019s government is, like\nhimself, spiritual. Man rules by outward power, God by inward\ninspiration; and it is the peculiarity of the divine legislation that,\nin the same individual, it attaches the condemnation to the crime;\nforces transgression, to pronounce its own sentence, and to inflict its\nown punishment. Human society has set up various bulwarks to guard its\nsecurity; human law-givers have accompanied their enactments with\nfiercest penalties; and before Draco, and since, millions upon millions\nof God\u2019s erring creatures have been offered, a sanguinary sacrifice to\njustice: superstition has personified all hideous evil in Satan,\u2014the\nmighty sinner of creation,\u2014the minister of eternal vengeance,\u2014the great\nexecutioner of the universe; superstition has spread the limitless\nprisons of hell, and filled them with tortures, and lit those flames\nwhich it asserts are kept burning by the breath of an angry God, and are\nnever to be quenched during his everlasting existence; but we assert,\nthere is no scorn of society, there is no torture of most cruel laws,\nthere is no hell of superstition, deep, burning, and eternal as it may\nbe, that can equal the agonies which man\u2019s own sense of wrong and\ndegradation heap upon his overwhelmed and sunken spirit. The glory of an\nimmortal soul is beyond all outward glories; the majesty of empires and\ncrowns, the splendour of the sun, the beauty of the firmament, the\nriches of the universe, are nothing in comparison. We say to those to\nwhom it is our privilege to minister, though you were stripped of all\nthat constitute your frail and present happiness; though saddest\nreverses became your lot; though God laid his hand heavily upon you and\nyour family, tore you from that rank and station that now make your\nglory; though your children and friends were one by one snatched from\nyou, until you stood in the world-wilderness like a branchless and a\nblasted tree; though all illness of body and grief of mind were\nyours,\u2014having an upright soul, it is but a light affliction compared\nwith a guilty conscience, which could wield over earth a universal\nsceptre. The wages of sin is death,\u2014death in the most tremendous meaning\nof that tremendous word,\u2014death of purity, death of holy confidence,\ndeath of self-respect, death of inward and outward peace. Sin is misery,\nand the worst of miseries,\u2014one that carries with it its own vengeance,\nis self-punished and self-cursed. True, we recognize no omnipresent and\ninvisible tempter; true, we hold no gross and eternal punishment; we\npreach no original malediction, and no inherent depravity; we proclaim\nno sin which blots out all light and hope around the mercy-seat of God,\nand scathes the heart of man with everlasting despair. True, we show you\nno maniac penitents, bewildered in the madness of remorse, shrieking on\nthe death-bed which conscience peoples with furies. We announce no deity\ncoming from heaven, putting on the frail existence of humanity, and\nexpiating on the cross the sin which had closed all access to peace. We\ncannot, and if we could we would not, freeze your hearts with ideas of\ntorture, nor appal you with threatenings, nor echo on your ears the\ngroans that never cease, the weepings, the wailings, the knashing of\nteeth, the sighs and hopeless complainings that swell for ever and ever\na thickening smoke of torment. Independently of these things, there are\nother considerations more solemn,\u2014more solemn, because more true,\u2014there\nis our conscience; there is our peace; there is the dignity of our whole\nspiritual nature; there is reverence for duty; there is the power to\nenjoy what is pure and beautiful; there is fitness for communion with\nGod, with all the righteous and the excellent,\u2014these may be lost, or\nclouded by sin; and they may be so lost as never fully to be recovered.\nWe count sin no slight evil, either as to its inward spirit or outward\ninfluence: as I have stated, so we preach. And here, once for all, I\nenter my protest against the impeachment which charges us with stripping\nguilt of its danger and its awfulness.\n\nI. Human nature, according to the point from which we regard it, has a\ngood or an evil aspect, each perfectly distinct, and each perfectly\ntrue. The whole truth is then in neither separately, but in both\nconjointly. Fixing too intently on either, and carrying our ideas to\nextremes, we may, on the one side, flatter human nature above its\nmerits; or, on the other, be guilty towards it of injustice: on the one\nside see in it all possible good, and on the other nothing but\nincorrigible evil: on the one side soar into Utopianism, and on the\nother descend into Calvinism. The Calvinistic view we hold to be false,\nthe Utopian impossible. We have no idea of any perfect goodness or\nperfect happiness in this world, either possessed or to be attained.\nWhilst we pace our way in this earthly pilgrimage, sin and suffering\nmust more or less track our steps; the prodigal\u2019s confession, and the\npublican\u2019s prayer, must still be ours; the most favoured of God\u2019s\nchildren have to meet, and bear their allotted griefs,\u2014to see their\nglory grow dim, the desire of their eyes vanish, and to look onward and\nbackward through the mist of tears. Sufficient of stern realities press\nupon us to crush at once the vision of a painless and sinless beatitude.\nPhysical wants and sufferings, the inevitable condition of our mortal\nnature, were there no other, are of themselves equal to the purpose.\nWhile an hospital exists among men, breathing with groans and sickly in\nits very look; while a death-bed is found, steeped in the weepings of\naffliction; whilst a stone marks and commemorates a spot where the dust\nis sacred to affection and to sorrow; the wildest dreamer has enough to\nrebuke his enthusiasm, and to cool it into soberness. And extreme or\nexaggerated expectations of our nature, are in still stronger\ncontradiction to our moral constitution than our physical. In every\nindividual, however humble his grade, and however sluggish his\nfaculties, there is abundance to make him aware that perfection here is\nneither his condition nor his destiny,\u2014numberless desires, passions,\nhopes, fears, expectancies; and no one imagines that all his desires are\nto be gratified, all his passions fulfilled, all his hopes accomplished,\nall his fears removed, all his expectancies realized. Want and wish\npursue their strife to the end. As it is with the individual, so is it\nwith society: for as society is an aggregate of individual persons,\nsocial character is an aggregate of individual characters. Evils, sins,\nand sorrows, must always, we fear, exist, both in the depths and on the\nsurface of the great community: we look for no period in future time,\nwhen those antagonist passions and rivalries shall be extinct\u2014which\nplace man into resisting contact to man, when riches, and fame, and\npower, shall not be sought for with avidity and strife, and create the\nthrong of passions which spring from their desire and their abuse: we\nlook for no period when the strong universally will use their strength\nin righteousness and mercy, when the poor and the weak shall cease to be\nvictims, and have full justice done to them: we dare scarcely hope for a\nperiod when the massive throne of tyranny, whether political or\nsacerdotal, should be swept away upon the flood of emancipated\nprogression; and, with equal fear, we think of the tyrannies of caste\nand creed, not less dark or obstinate; and although not entirely in\ndespair, we look forward with timid anticipation to a time when the war\nof opinion shall be changed for Christian peace, and the fierce cry of\nbigotry give place to the hymn with which the angels sung our Saviour\u2019s\nbirth. We see no prospect that men shall lay aside their selfishness,\nand act in the spirit of universal charity, or that they shall so curb\nit as to harmonize it with the good of others! that they shall become\nuniversally disinterested, forbearing, candid, and generous; that the\nproud man will put off his scorn, and the oppressor break or throw away\nhis sceptre. Moral and social evils will unquestionably be mitigated,\nbut the sources of them lie too deep for extinction,\u2014were extinction\ndesirable, which it is not: for these elements of our nature are wrong\nonly accidentally; while, essentially, they are right. Knowing that an\nargument gains nothing by concealing the objections to it, I have thus\nfar been liberal in admissions: I will make one admission more. I\nacknowledge that an over-estimate of the actual condition and prospects\nof human nature, as well as their undue depreciation, is likely to have\ninjurious consequences. One of the worst is this: that, creating vivid\nand unreal hopes, they rebound with harsh and cruel disappointments; the\nfervour of expectation turns into despair; the glow of generous, but\nblasted enthusiasm, cools down into apathy, if it does not wither into\ncynicism; exstacy that was too intense to last, and too extravagant to\nbe well founded, either renounces altogether its early faith, or,\ncasting away its hope, complains through life in grief and despondency.\nDesires, bright and beautiful, are broken, and their light scattered in\nthe dust. Aspirations, once too big for utterance, turn back to the\nbosom that nourished them,\u2014hitherto their palace, now their prison,\u2014and\nthere waste away in hopeless thinking, or die in the echoes of\nunavailing murmurs. Such mistakes are to be lamented, but not to be\nscorned; for that suffering is not to be despised which has its\nfoundation in profound and extensive sympathy. And it is not in the\npower of minds more obtuse and slow to measure or conceive the pain of\nthose who, with a moral imagination that goes out to the very limits of\nhumanity, and a piercing sensibility that enters into the hidden places\nwhere suffering weeps unnoted, and sin lies down unredeemed, that in the\nspirit of unselfish love feels the woe and guilt of a race, as though\nthey were personal afflictions, it is not easy, I say, to estimate the\npain such men undergo: when some conjuncture of events, which seemed the\ndawn of virtue, of liberty, of peace, of brotherhood, turns out a\nmockery and a contradiction; when they live to see that their noblest\naspirings were but as the babblings of vanity; that the circumstances of\nwhich they augured most hopefully, proved as empty as shapes of vapour\npainted by the rising sun; that changes, of which they prophesied in\nmost exulting strains, reversed all their calculations. This is no vague\nspeculation; there have been many instances in fact, and we can imagine\nmany more. Had Luther been defeated in his attempt for religious\nreformation; had Howard departed to his rest with the sorrowful\nconviction that he left cells as dark, and prisoners as hopeless, as he\nfound them; had Wilberforce closed his life in despair of all redemption\nfor the slave; had Washington fought in vain the fight for independence,\nseeing no prospect for his country, but submissively to bear the yoke\nfor ever; we have no doubt that each would have experienced a more\noppressive anguish than from the keenest of personal afflictions. In\nsuch cases there were, of course, the soundness of conception and wisdom\nof execution which ensure success; but in others, it often happens that\nthe disappointment is not the less bitter because the expectations were\nbaseless.\n\nOpposed to this scheme is that of rigid Calvinism. By the latter system\nthe whole nature is described as hopelessly corrupt, and language\naffords no colouring which can give shades deep enough for the\ntheological picture. Minutest analysis is used to prove man such a\nbeing, that when considered you find him to be a compound of fiend and\nbrute\u2014such a being that you wonder God would allow him to disgrace\nexistence, to pollute creation, and not annihilate, and blot him out\nfrom the universe, such a being that if correctly described the very\ncontinuance of society becomes a miracle and a marvel. His intellect, we\nare told, is utterly and spiritually darkened, his will the slave of\nsin, set to work iniquity greedily, his imagination corrupt, his\npassions rebellious, his affections perverted, incapable of good in\nthought, word, or deed, and completely devoted to evil. Taking this view\nas correct, we might suppose the prime use of man\u2019s understanding was to\ndevise wickedness, of his memory to prolong the thoughts of it, of his\nwill to form only guilty resolves, and of his passions to riot in all\nthat is vile and ungodly. We have thus the whole spiritual and moral man\nsteeped in black and hateful infamy. To sustain these assertions, appeal\nis made to experience; and proof is found of entire and universal\ndepravity in history, laws, and literature. Any conclusion drawn from\nthese goes but to testify what we are ready to concede, that man is an\nimperfect being, and that the evidence of his imperfection is stamped\nupon most of his actions and productions. But the testimony is partially\nand unjustly quoted. Another estimate of the same evidence would argue\nas strongly, and even more so, for the inherent goodness of man. If we\ntake the instance of human laws it will at once illustrate and confirm\nmy assertion. If laws prove the existence and universality of crime,\nthey prove also the existence and universality of the sense of justice,\nfor laws, so far as they embody general principles, are the expression\nof common and collective sentiments. Indirectly, they prove yet more:\nfor, after all, the great mass of truth and rectitude exists\nindependently of laws, is such as no law could reach, is in fact such\nthat without it no laws could have a moment\u2019s force. In the effort to\nmake good an indictment against human nature, an industry and labour are\nexpended, as perverse as they are pertinacious; the lowest purlieus of\ndepravity are raked, the deepest mines of wickedness are worked with a\nzeal as ardent as the veriest miser would seek for hidden treasure, the\nblackest evils of the worst times are adduced, the pages of history that\nare the most darkly stained, are torn out and severed from the context;\nand for what purpose is all this? Why, to make the noblest work of God\nodious; to vilify that nature which was glorified in the person of our\nLord Jesus Christ. If human nature is so thoroughly depraved and vile,\nas so frequently asserted, the scheme of orthodoxy is most improbable,\nand a fallen humanity, as it paints humanity, instead of giving\nChristianity consistency, renders it the most perplexing of paradoxes.\nFor if man be thus naturally vile and depraved\u2014corrupted in every\nfaculty, whence these high counsels in heaven concerning him; whence the\nunion of three infinite and co-eternal persons to save a wretch, the\nextinction of whom would have been mercy to the universe; whence the\ncounsels of the Father, the incarnation of the Son, and that death of a\nGod-man on Calvary, at which we are told the angels trembled and\ncreation stood aghast; along with all, the constant and supernatural\nagency of the Holy Spirit? If man be really as worthless and as wicked\nas we are often told he is, all this, (with reverence I speak it,) seems\na want of wisdom and a waste of strength. Though it may be considered\nover bold I will go a step further. If the one sin of Adam was to work\nsuch complete ruin in all his countless posterity; if it was to be the\nsource of such an irremediable wickedness, and unrelieved misery, if\nnotwithstanding the united work of three infinite agents, there was\nstill to be a bottomless pit and an everlasting smoke of torment, a\nblack and boundless ocean of guilt and pain, swelled by gloomy streams\never and ever flowing in from earth, for which infants were sealed in\ntheir birth, to which the lost are consigned in their death\u2014if this be\nthe lot to which the great mass of our species is destined\u2014of which the\nfirst tear is a symbol, and the last sigh a passport,\u2014if hell still is\nmore peopled than heaven, then the infinite agencies of redemption might\nhave been spared, this hopeless and illimitable anguish might have been\nextinguished, and the annihilation of our first parents would have been\nthe greater mercy and the greater salvation.\n\nAppeal is made to scripture with still greater confidence than to\nexperience. There is one to whom reference is never made for testimony\nto this doctrine, and that is our Lord Jesus Christ; and if such\ndoctrine were true, it is strange that he who needeth not that any\nshould testify of man, because he knew what was in man, did not reveal\nit, and stamp it with all the solemnity of his authority. It may with\nconfidence be asserted that such a dogma as the inherent and universal\ncorruption of human nature is neither asserted nor justified by any\nScripture from Genesis to Revelations. The Bible, I admit to be a moral,\nand also a providential history; and in this relation, I admit also,\nthat it contains many strong statements of human wickedness; but they\nall refer to periods of peculiar degeneracy, and a fair study of the\ncontext will plainly show they have defined limitations. In the appendix\nto this lecture I will subjoin a list of texts usually pleaded for this\ndoctrine, the mere exhibition of which is sufficient to expose its utter\nwant of a Scriptural foundation.[519] On the present occasion I shall\nconfine my remarks to the proofs alleged from Paul to the Romans.\nStripping the subject of all the mysticism with which it has been\nencumbered, and identifying ourselves with the mind and times of the\napostle, let us clearly see what was his object, and then we shall truly\napprehend the nature of his argument. Paul\u2019s object was twofold: first,\nto show that the Gospel was universal. This was opposed to the\ncircumscribed nationality of Judaism. Secondly, that it was inward and\nspiritual. This was again opposed to the ritual and legal exactitude of\nJudaism. The General course, therefore, of the argument is directed\nagainst Jewish thoughts and Jewish prejudices, and to maintain the\nadmissibility of the Gentiles to the Christian church. He has then to\nmake good two propositions:\u2014namely, \u201cthat God is impartially and equally\nthe God of all men; and that fidelity of heart is the essence of all\ntrue religion.\u201d We might sum up the whole system of the Apostle in two\nsimple sentences of his letter: \u201cIs he the God of the Jews only? is he\nnot also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.\u201d The other\nassertion is, that \u201cwith the heart man believeth unto righteousness.\u201d\nProving these two principles, he utterly demolishes all Jewish claims.\nThe Apostle proceeds to open the new aspect which Jesus presented of the\ncharacter of God\u2014that of grace or mercy. Moses proclaimed Jehovah as a\nGod of law, Jesus revealed him as a God of grace. Paul cautiously, but\nwith power, argues most convincingly that in this relation only can men\nconfidently approach him, but in this relation there is free access for\nall. None have a claim from merit, for all are guilty. With remarkable\nprudence, he takes, first, the case of the Gentile, and the state of the\nworld in his own time supplied him examples in melancholy abundance.\nThere was, therefore, no ground for Gentile exultation or Jewish\njealousy, for the gospel was offered to the Heathens, not as a thing of\nmerit but of favour, not as reward for their holiness, but as a remedy\nfor their sin. To the Jews, who looked with bitter contempt on all men\nbut themselves, who imagined every spiritual advantage was for them\nalone, this would be most offensive. The next question which thence\narose was this:\u2014As the Gentiles obviously were accepted before God, only\non the ground of his mercy, whether the Jews could claim acceptance on\nany other ground? The Apostle had most convincingly shown that the\nGentiles had violated the sense of duty inscribed upon their hearts,\nwith equal force of reasoning he proves that the Jews had violated the\nprecepts written in their law; one, therefore, had no right to accuse\nthe other\u2014both were guilty in the sight of God, and both had equal need\nof his mercy.\u2014But, the Jews were not only wrong in their ideas on the\nextent of the Creator\u2019s goodness, but also on the true nature of human\nvirtue. As they considered his special providence confined to\nthemselves, so they imagined the only acceptable obedience was in the\nrigid observance of their own minute precepts and ceremonies. In\nopposition to this Paul contends that justification is by faith, and not\nby the works of the law\u2014not a faith which implies a mere assent to a\nseries of scholastic propositions, but a faith which consists in a\ntrusting and confiding spirit. The Apostle places saving holiness, not\nin outward and measured precepts, but in living and inward principles\u2014in\nallegiance to God and Christ, in the loyalty of a true and pure heart\u2014in\nthe spirit that makes obedience more a life than a law. To say then that\nGod holds man sternly to a code of inevitable condemnation, to say that\nany one transgression, however slight, sets at naught the whole tendency\nof the character and life, not only leaves Paul\u2019s reasoning without\nforce, but subverts the gospel to its very foundations. Our Lord in the\nparable represents a master as thus addressing his unforgiving servant,\n\u201cO thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt because thou\ndesiredst me\u2014shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy\nfellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee?\u201d The character of God as\ndescribed by orthodoxy is the contradictory of this. But we are informed\nthat God is a Judge, and, analogous to human judges, on the tribunal of\nthe universe, lays aside all private considerations. The assimilation is\nat once low and false. God has no evidence to examine, no probabilities\nto balance, no decision to arrive at, no formal sentence to\npronounce\u2014there is no distinction in the case between God and man,\nanalogous to that between an earthly judge, and his accused\nfellow-mortal; there is no such distinction with God as a personal\nrelation and a public one, for God is the same in all relations. His\ndominion is in the spirit; there he rewards, and there he punishes;\nthere is no reward separate from the direct results of righteousness\nitself issuing in blessedness, and no penalty separate from the results\nof sin itself issuing suffering, and each in the proportion in which the\ncharacter is sanctified or depraved. Forgiveness of sin then, is peace\nof conscience, springing from a regenerated heart, and when man with a\nthoughtful and enlightened spirit can forgive himself, God forgives him.\nWe, at least those of us personally engaged in this controversy,\nmaintain no such doctrine as the pardon of sin on condition of\nrepentance\u2014as if repentance were something offered and remission an\nequivalent received instead. On the contrary, we see in repentance but\nthe painful revulsion of a soul from a moral state found by sad\nexperience to be unworthy of it: a struggle upward in many sighs and\nfears to the high estate from which it has fallen, in repentance itself\nwe see but an additional instance of the anguish which sin never fails\nto entail. We regard it not as a merit, but a penalty. We grant the\nuniversality of sin, as fully as any can assert it. We know it is\nwritten, \u201call men have sinned and come short of the glory of God\u201d\u2014and we\nadmit the truth of the assertion. Wherever man is, there will be sin,\nfor we expect in no place\u2014no, not in heaven itself\u2014to find in man the\nperfection of a deity. It has been asserted, that every man has an ideal\nin his soul above his actual conduct. This has been used for\ncondemnation of our nature, we take it as the glory of it\u2014as an evidence\nthat the spirit of God is extinguished in no man. We are ready to\nconcede, not that the open transgressor comes short of the glory of God,\nbut the best men come far short of the glory of their own ideal, and the\nsense of that short coming is acute, in the degree that their\napprehensions of moral loveliness are clear and purified. Every man with\nhis conscience in a right state laments with more heart-felt sorrow the\nsins which are inward than those which are outward, not those which have\nbeen exposed to the world, but those which only God has seen. We desire\nin no sense to mitigate the deep injury of sinfulness; but when we are\ntold, that God, in vindication of his holy law, must subject man to an\nunsparing standard of judgment, orthodoxy to be consistent should have\nthe unmitigated penalty inflicted on every personal transgressor. We are\nunable to conceive how the righteousness of any law can be vindicated by\ncontriving an escape for the guilty by the suffering of the innocent. We\ndo not make void the law\u2014nay, we establish it, for we hold, and we\npreach it also, that transgression vindicates in the person of the\nsinner the claims of holiness, righteously and completely, in anguish\nand tribulation. I here close the polemical division of this lecture,\nand now for the remaining time I shall dwell on views more positive.\n\nII. Having elucidated two extreme and false systems of human nature, I\nshall now adduce some of these essentials which properly entitle it to\nbe considered in the likeness of God. I shall pass over the faculties of\nmere intellect and taste, for these are not denied. I do this for the\nsake of brevity, for it would be easy to prove that without sense of\nmoral beauty in the soul, even these could have no high developement,\nphilosophy would lose its wisdom, science its uses, painting its glow,\narchitecture its majesty, sculpture its grace, poetry and eloquence\ntheir inspiration. It would be easy, I maintain, to show, that without\nconceptions of the divine, the true, the right, and the beautiful, there\nwould be neither power nor materials in human nature from which to\ncreate a single great work of mind, nothing to evince the might of\ngenius or the immortality of thought. I shall, however, in all my\nsubsequent remarks, confine myself to what without dispute is strictly\nmoral. We contend not for an infallibility in man\u2019s reason, neither do\nwe assert impeccability in his will; as we admit error in the one, we\ncan admit sin in the other. But when we speak of the moral nature of\nman, we regard it not partially, but as a whole, not in its accidental\nexceptions, but in its essential constitution. Of this constitution we\nassert that virtue and goodness are the true and native attributes. For\nthe position that sin is not natural but unnatural, not in accordance\nwith humanity but contrary to it, we have the testimony of the great\nbishop Butler.[520]\u2014\u201cEvery work,\u201d he says, \u201cof nature and art is a\nsystem; and as every particular thing, both natural and artificial, is\nfor some use or purpose, out of or beyond itself, one may add to what\nhas already been brought into the true idea of a system, its\nconduciveness to this or more ends. Let us instance in a watch: Suppose\nthe several parts taken to pieces and placed apart from each other; let\na man have ever so exact a notion of these several parts, unless he\nconsiders the respect and relations which they have to each other, he\nwill not have any thing like the idea of a watch. Suppose these several\nparts brought together, and any how united, neither will he yet, be the\nunion ever so close, have an idea which will bear any resemblance to\nthat of a watch. But let him view these several parts put together, or\nconsider them as to be put together in the manner of a watch\u2014let him\nform a notion of the relation which these several parts have to each\nother, all conducive in their several ways to this purpose, showing the\nhour of the day,\u2014and then he has the idea of a watch. Thus it is with\nthe inward nature of man. Appetites, passions, affections, and the\nprinciple of reflection, conscience, considered severally as the inward\nparts of our inward nature, do not at all give us an idea of the system\nof this nature. And this our nature is adapted to virtue, as from the\nidea of a watch it appears, that its nature, that is, constitution or\nsystem, is adapted to measure time. What in fact commonly happens is\nnothing to the question. Every work of art is apt to be out of order:\nbut this is so far from being according to its system, that let the\ndisorder increase, and it will destroy it.\u201d The author then goes on to\nsay, that\u2014\u201cNothing can possibly be more contrary to our nature than\nvice, meaning by nature not only the several parts of our internal\nframe, but also the constitution of it. Poverty and disgrace, tortures\nand death, are not so contrary to it. Misery and injustice are indeed\nequally contrary to some different parts of our nature taken singly, but\ninjustice is moreover contrary to the whole constitution of the nature.\u201d\nAnd here I will repeat a fine remark from the same noble thinker, used\nalready, in a note by one of my fellow-labourers in this discussion.\u2014\u201cWe\nshould learn,\u201d says the philosophical prelate, \u201cto be cautious lest we\ncharge God foolishly, by ascribing that to him, or the nature he has\ngiven us, which is wholly owing to its abuse. Men may speak of the\ndegeneracy and corruption of the world, according to the experience they\nhave had of it, but human nature considered as the divine workmanship\nshould, methinks, be treated as sacred: for in the image of God made he\nman.\u201d[521]\n\nIn human nature, under all its forms, we recognize two eternal moral\nelements; which, though frequently perverted, can never be destroyed. I\nmean sympathy and conscience, the feeling of a common nature, and the\nsense of right and wrong. If we consider the truth, the power, and\nextent of sympathy, though nothing else remained in man, this alone\nwould prove his assimilation to God; would prove, to use the language of\nthe Apostle, that he was still a partaker of the divine nature. In what\nnumberless forms is it manifested!\u2014rising from instinct to godliness. We\nsee it in family affections. Wherever we meet a home, however rude the\nbeings that it shelters, whether it be scooped in the snow, or be a tent\non the desert, wherever the loves of parents and children, of brothers\nand sisters, are interchanged within the sphere of its operation, we\nhave the spirit of a common heart. We see it also in love of country.\nFrom those who surround him in his dwelling, man enlarges the compass of\nhis affections, until they embrace those who, with himself, tread the\nsame soil, and speak the same tongue. The general glory, honour, and\nprosperity of his country, become dear to him; and from habits of loving\nassociation, there, more than any where else, the heavens have a\nbrighter smile, and nature wears a kinder face. Every nation has had its\npatriots; and, whether successful or not, whether victorious in the\nfield or bleeding on the scaffold, they evince the power with which the\nsentiment of common good can overcome the force of selfish interests. We\nsee the strength of sympathy in the love of man generally, and\nespecially in that species of it which assumes the form of compassion.\nWhence else the mass of goodness which proves that humanity, with all\nits evils and its errors, is a most merciful nature. Misery, in any\nform, is an appeal that is rarely disregarded. The stranger, whose face\nwe never saw before, if it be seamed and marred by suffering, in his\nmisfortune becomes a brother; and what is yet harder, our foe, in his\nsorrow, seems once more a friend. Men find it hard to pardon a\nprosperous enemy; but there are few so callous whom a fallen one would\nnot disarm of hatred. Hunger, thirst, cold, nakedness, desertion,\norphanage, imprisonment, sickness\u2014every want that afflict the\nwretched\u2014have their provision in human mercy, not only from individual\nhands, but from collective hearts. When man is maligned as utterly\ncorrupt\u2014as at enmity with God and his kind, we may point to thousands\noccupied in works of beneficence, and to refugees for misery in every\nland, and claim as witnesses against the accusers. And we stop not with\nthe woes that fall directly under the senses;\u2014sufferers who wasted their\nsighs and their tears in darkness, have been thought of with grief by\nthose whom they knew not, and visited with glad tidings when they least\nexpected. The piercing supplication of wretchedness has been sometimes\nwafted across continents and oceans without failing, or being weakened\nby the distance; and the cry of anguish, uttered at one extreme of\nearth, has fallen with power on human hearts at the other. We speak not\nof bodily wants alone, but equally of the soul\u2019s wants. The ignorant\nhave those who feel and work for them, and there are some who do not\nscorn the most guilty; there are many pure souls who never themselves\nknew contamination, who can turn with mercy to the despised, and bleed\nwith sorrow that the work of God should lie so deep in ruin. And,\nwhether with right or wrong principles, whether by right or wrong\nagencies, whether in right or wrong methods, this sentiment can have no\nillustration so sublime as the various exertions here, and throughout\nthe globe, for the religious regeneration of mankind. Is there, then,\nnothing godlike in the spirit which gives unity and love to home;\nnothing godlike in the spirit which, with unselfish devotion, causes a\nman to sacrifice his own interests in his nation\u2019s good; nothing godlike\nin the spirit which makes the sufferer a brother, whether stranger or\nenemy; which can pierce the haunts of loathsome want; which can feel for\nthe body and the soul, and draw near, in generous pity, both to distress\nand crime; which dreams, with tortured imagination, of the unseen\ntribulation of the dungeon, and rests not until the fresh breeze is on\nthe prisoner\u2019s brow, and the bright and cheerful sunshine on his eye;\nwhich stretches forth its ample charity to the utmost regions of earth;\nand, wherever there is a complaint of physical or spiritual need, admits\nit is a brother\u2019s cry, and hears it not in vain?\n\nThe very passions, which might seemingly be urged against this\nreasoning, are but so many confirmations of it. Men have sometimes tried\nto be independent of others; they failed. Men have tried to live apart\nfrom others, and to dispense with the general affections of life; they\nfailed. Men have tried to set opinion at defiance, and to disregard\nesteem; they also failed. And, in the few rare and extreme cases in\nwhich men have been more than usually sordid, selfish, and anti-social,\nthe isolation to which they have been abandoned evinced their conduct to\nbe averse to nature; and, whilst it proved their folly, inflicted their\nchastisement. Emulation, envy, jealousy, vanity, ambition, and various\nother passions, afford evidence to the same purpose: for, what is\nemulation, but the struggle for the greatest share of appreciation; and\nenvy, but the malignity of disappointment; and jealousy, but the\nsuspicion of not possessing it,\u2014perchance, of not deserving it; and\nvanity, but the puny desire to attain, or the timid hope that it already\nhas it; and ambition, but the strong effort of a strong nature to have a\nlasting life in the admiration and memory of men: all, in their several\nways, converging in evidence of one truth, namely, that community of\nfeeling is amongst the greatest distinctions of our nature. In truth, it\nis only by this that man understands man. It is this that opens to man\nthe heart of man; that, from the first human being to the last, forms a\nchain of common emotion, which indissolubly links mankind of all\ngenerations into one brotherhood. Without this, history would be a dead\nletter; laws and customs, but puzzles; arts, confused and shapeless;\npast languages and literature, but empty babble; and by-gone religions\nand philosophy, but unintelligible names. This common sympathy is that\nby which we know the meaning of history; by which we know the force of\nlaws and customs; by which we know the beauty and immortality of art; by\nwhich we are enabled to interpret language, literature, philosophy, and\nreligion; by which we are made one with our race, and identified in\nkindred with all that have ever ennobled or adorned it.\n\nA second characteristic I have mentioned, in man, is the sense of duty,\nthe sense of right and wrong. In this more than in any other quality he\nbears the impress of his divine original. The sense of duty is an\nessential part of human nature. A man might as well endeavour to lay\naside the consciousness of his rational existence as to get rid of the\nidea of an immoveable distinction between good and evil, between virtue\nand vice. I know that, in the operations of the moral sense, there have\nbeen apparent contradictions; but if we were to deny it on this ground,\nwe should deny the existence even of reason itself, for many of its\nconclusions are apparently contradictory. We assert the reality of the\nrational faculty, but not its infallibility; in like manner, we assert\nthe reality of the moral faculty, but not its infallibility. I know that\nit seems various in its operation, not only from national and religious\ndifferences, but also from individual sophistries. Men pronounce just\njudgment on the sins of others; but when they come to pass sentence on\ntheir own, they invent a thousand excuses for justification or leniency:\nbut these excuses do not satisfy themselves. And when they are alone\nwith their own hearts, in silent and sober thought, the deception will\nnot bear to be scrutinized, and truth is justified by conscience. The\nsense of duty is universal. Wherever we meet man, we meet one who, in\nsome way or other, is the creature of moral feeling; and although the\nmoral sentiment may be superstitiously or fanatically directed, there\nare essential ideas in which it never changes. Wild actions and awful\nevils may, I know, be perpetrated under a mistaken sense of duty, and\ndone with the fiercer zeal because they are considered to be duty. Under\nits influence, men can not only sacrifice others but themselves: in one\nage or country, a man can lacerate himself before an image or an idol,\nor look calmly on the rack on which a tortured fellow creature shivers,\nor he can come from his retreat of self-infliction to the place where he\npersecutes; and, if the case compelled, he could go himself from that to\nthe stake of martyrdom. The sentiment is true to itself, and the\nmisdirection of it lies in other sources: yet with all its diversities,\njustice, mercy, and truth, have ever the instinctive approval of\nconscience, whilst wrong, cruelty, and falsehood, under whatever forms\ndisguised, are abhorrent to it. The sense of duty presents man to us in\nthe most glorious aspects of his nature; and that sentiment is not\nalways misdirected. By its power in the soul, we observe appetites\ngoverned, passions subjected, and temptation overcome; by its\ninspiration, when necessity calls, we observe men devoting themselves in\nthe spirit of martyrdom to truth and right, casting pleasure aside,\nforsaking whatever was dear to them, and despising life itself. Whatever\nchange for good has occurred in the history of man, is a witness for the\nforce of duty, for it has been worked out in much travail and\nself-denial; whatever we have most precious in our spiritual or social\nblessings, whether our liberties or our religion, we owe to the spirit\nof duty; it is enshrined in the memory of all our benefactors; it is\nconsecrated in the blood of martyrs. Signal instances of this kind may\nstrike more forcibly from their distinctness and saliency; but the\nmightiest energy of duty is in the economy of general life. Go into the\nopen mart of the world, and, in all the astonishing complexities that\nare spread over that wide scene, consider to what an extent man trusts\nman, and is trusted in return, mutual confidence forming the immutable\nfoundation of the vast social structure. It is base injustice to human\nnature to assert that all this is the effect of interest or fear;\nwithout pervading conscience, mere interest or fear would be as\npowerless to sustain society as the arm of man to move the orbs of\nheaven; without conscience, human laws could either have no existence or\nno power,\u2014mere ropes of sand, that a touch could sever; passion would\nhave no scruple, desire no limit, but power; and selfishness no control,\nbut a superior opposing force: the strong would prostrate the weak by\nviolence, and the weak would in turn overreach the strong by guile,\ndeceit, and fraud.\n\nI am willing to admit, as I have before admitted, that social man is\nencompassed with many injurious influences, and I know that he does not\nalways escape guiltless: I know that many vices are generated in\nsociety, and nourished by its corruptions; that pride, both worldly and\nreligious, walks through life with anti-social heart and clouded brow,\nwrapped up in its own miserable importance, exulting in vanities,\nself-worshipping and self-enslaved; that covetousness, surfeited with\nacquisition, still works on, and still cries \u201cmore;\u201d that licentiousness\ngoes its way in darkness, and leaves destruction in its path; that envy\nbroods over its own solitary and unacknowledged malice, sickens at the\npleasure or the fame it cannot reach; that gospel charity is often slain\nin the collision of creeds and passions, and Christian zeal heated into\nbigotry; but these, I repeat again, are not our nature, and judgment\nagainst it on such grounds is quite as unjust, as if we should seek out\nthe hospitals to test the health of a community, visit but prisons to\ndecide on its morals, and pass only through asylums for lunatics to form\nan opinion of its intelligence. But even in its sins, humanity loses not\nthe evidence of its divine relationship. The image of God may be\ndarkened, but the impress is deep as ever. The capacity of sin equally\nimplies the capacity of holiness; transgression implies the knowledge of\na law, inspired or revealed; the violation, therefore, of moral\ninjunctions includes the high capability of moral perception. Whence but\nfrom the greatness of our nature is the deep misery of sin\u2014whence, I\nmight say, but from its holiness?\u2014whence but from its adaptation to\ngoodness, are the ruin and the dislocation which guilt can work in our\nwhole inward frame and constitution? Thence it is, that it is that the\nconscience, dethroned and humiliated, is torn by remorse, worse\nincomparably than bodily torture: thence it is, that the affections\neither become a total and disorganized wreck, or, wounded by a sense of\nshame and lost dignity, bow down with sorrow or wither in despair.\nThence it is, that the good and pure are shunned, and the evil sought,\nfor the one cause a feeling of contrast too painful to be borne, the\nother afford a refuge by their moral assimilation, and the spirit needs\nsupport wherever it can be found. Thence it is, that when the guilty\nhave utterly lost their own respect, and the approbation of the\nvirtuous, that crime becomes desperation and remorse madness,\u2014that\nconscience is silenced in delirious self-defence, and that plunge after\nplunge sinks them lower and lower in the gulf of spiritual perdition.\nAnd yet human character is rarely ever such a wreck as not to have some\nremnant to justify its origin and parentage; some embers of the sacred\nfire smouldering in the sanctuary,\u2014some gleams of affection,\u2014some\ndawnings of memory, that open to the weary spirit the quiet and\nhappiness of better days,\u2014some touches of mercy that has yet a sigh for\nwretchedness,\u2014some visitings of compunction,\u2014some unconscious desires to\nbe good once more,\u2014some timid hopes of pardon,\u2014some secret prayers to be\nmade better. The human soul is a great mystery, and so indeed is human\nlife; we observe a few palpable and external manifestations, but how\nlittle know we of the secret and unseen workings! That the good in every\nhuman being, even such as strikes us as the worst, preponderates over\nthe evil, is, I am persuaded, not the imagination of a fanciful charity,\nbut a fact and a reality.\n\nBut though more crime existed in actual life than has ever been alleged,\nour doctrine would yet be true. We enter on no defence of man in the\nwhole of his conduct. We contend for his inherent capacities, and in\narguing for these, we are entitled to select our illustrations from the\nhighest specimens of nature, and not from the lowest. We contend for its\ncapacity to subjugate passion to principle\u2014to sacrifice present desires\nto progressive good\u2014to resign selfish interests to human ones\u2014to give\nthe spiritual and eternal a predominance over the sensual and the\ntemporal: and we contend for this, not as a thing possible, but a thing\nproved: we contend for what has its evidence in abundance of examples.\nIf we could point to one patriot, to one philanthropist, to one martyr,\nto one holy man, in each of these the fact would have sufficient\nattestation: but humanity has its armies of patriots, and\nphilanthropists, and martyrs, and saints. With these the lowest of us\nare united in a kindred nature, and dignified by a common brotherhood.\nBut passing from characters of this magnitude, come we to the ordinary\nexistence that is common to us all. Every life, from the palace to the\ncottage, is one more or less of self-denial and labour\u2014one in which we\nmust continually defer to others and work for them. Cast your\nimagination over the vast throng of this busy world: consider the\ncountless modes in which they are all toiling with head and hand, from\nthe man of genius to the labourer of field or factory,\u2014from the proudest\nmerchant to his meanest servant,\u2014scarcely a movement in it all that has\nnot a reference to others beyond the agent,\u2014scarcely a movement that has\nnot some connection with a human love or a human duty. Retire from the\ncrowd to their dwellings, and, except in cases of last degradation, they\nare, on the whole, retreats of mutual kindness. If there be grief, there\nis compassion,\u2014if there be illness, there is unwearied tenderness,\u2014if\nthere be death, there is sorrow. It will perhaps be said, that all this\nmay very well consist with a reprobate state. If so, it only proves that\nno state is so reprobate, as not to be consistent with a great mass of\nexcellence. If to confer happiness and show mercy be not goodness, we\nare at a loss to explain the goodness of God or of Christ. And as we\ndescend in the scale of society, we discover human nature with peculiar\ntrials, and also with peculiar virtues. Amongst the poor and laborious\nclasses we may find some grossness, but we find much goodness; and to a\nconsiderate mind the wonder will be, that their grossness is not more,\nand their goodness less. We behold them often patient under manifold\noppressions, forbearing against many wrongs; uncomplaining in the midst\nof afflictions, toiling on from youth to age in the same routine of\nlaborious monotony; resigned in illness, though it takes that strength\nfrom them which is their only refuge, merciful to each other, giving aid\nto want out of want; all divine evidence that there is in humanity a\ngodlike spirit, which nothing can suppress, not sin, ignorance, poverty,\nnor any ill of life.\n\nI have spoken of our divine affinity chiefly in the goodness that unites\nus to our species, but there is a tendency towards God himself in which\nthat affinity is still more clearly seen. It is made manifest in our\ncapacity to know God. God is a spirit, and must be spiritually\napprehended. We must therefore have some attributes in common. If there\nbe not some qualities in our souls corresponding to the nature of God,\nhe would be to us a nonentity, and we could neither know him nor love\nhim. The knowledge of God is a spiritual revelation, and by that which\nis within us we interpret the revelation and give to it a meaning\u2014his\npower in the movement of our will\u2014his intelligence in the rectitude of\nour reason\u2014his goodness in the sympathies of our affections\u2014his holiness\nin the law of our conscience. It is made manifest in our capacity to\nimitate God. The apostle says, \u201cBe ye followers of God as dear\nchildren;\u201d and our Saviour himself exhorts us to \u201cbe merciful even as he\nis merciful,\u201d and to be \u201cperfect even as he is perfect.\u201d To imitate any\nbeing with whom we had no assimilation of nature, it requires no\nargument to prove an utter impossibility. But this principle has a moral\nvalue far beyond its theological import\u2014in breaking down the distance\nwhich we usually place between our hearts and God; in drawing him within\nthe circle of our nearest affections; in uniting us to him in a more\nfilial trust, in taking fear from our love and inspiring life in our\nobedience\u2014proving to us that God is verily and indeed our Father, as\nChrist is our brother; that God our Father is imitable by his children;\nthat Christ our brother by a perfect conformity to his will has revealed\nand proved its truth. That we have affinity with God is further made\nmanifest by our need of him. Consciously or unconsciously every man is\nseeking after God, or after what God alone can give him. Whether blindly\nor otherwise, we all feel the want of him in our souls, for in whatever\ndirection we turn our desires, we are yearning after the perfect and the\ninfinite: we have the proof of it in our disgust, our dissatisfactions,\nand discontents. Who does not hear of the insufficiency of the world?\nAnd what does that mean? The vanity of pleasure. But why is pleasure\nvain? why does he who tries it in all its enchantments, weary at last\neven to repugnance? The vexations of wealth? But why are riches\nvexatious? Why do they disappoint the hope that longed so deeply for\nthem, and leave complaints still in all the fullness of success? The\nfatigues of power? But, why again is power fatiguing, when no sacrifices\nwere too painful, and no toils too harrassing in the career for its\nattainment? It is simply because pleasure, wealth, or power, can never\nfully occupy the human soul, unlimited in capacity and desire,\nperishable things bring it only chagrin, when in lavish expectation it\nlooks for complete fruition. Nor is it alone that we call the world,\nwhich proves insufficient, but still higher, the pursuits of knowledge,\nand the creations of genius; the greatest sage feels himself at last a\nchild, and the most inspired poet wishes for things more beautiful than\nhe has ever conceived, and scenes brighter than he has ever imagined.\nEven in truest religion this sentiment may be discerned in operation, in\nalternations between fear and faith, between despondency and hope. A\nlonging for the invisible and the boundless may be traced in all the\nhigher forms of superstition\u2014in every effort to overcome the thraldom of\nthe body and to achieve the spiritual emancipation, from the ascetics\nthat in the first centuries peopled the deserts of Asia to the\nflagellants that in the middle centuries overran the continent of\nEurope; from the penitent that scorches himself on an Indian plain, to\nthe monk that lashes himself in a Spanish cloister. Now to what do all\nthese, some true and some mistaken, refer, to what do they point?\nEvidently to something which the soul cannot find on earth, to God,\nperfect and infinite, in whom at last it will attain repose and\nfullness. And thus we have two great truths intimated at the same time;\nfor the conscious want that tells us of our need of God reveals also our\nimmortality, and the one is the glory of the other.\n\nNow, in conclusion, let me ask to what purpose is all this blackening of\nhuman nature? It cannot promote humility; for to be humble is not to be\ndegraded. If a sense of degradation corresponded with humility, we\nshould be more humble as we descended to the level of the brutes. It\ncannot inspire a poignant sense of guilt, nor a true feeling of\nconfession, for as it takes away natural dignity it leaves nothing from\nwhich a man can fall; and as it denies personal capacity, it must in the\nsame degree weaken the feeling of personal accountability. He whose\nmoral sorrow will ever lie most profoundly is one that has the\nconsciousness of having abused high and great capacities; of having, by\nhis own sins, become unworthy of his nature; of having done despite to\nthe spirit of God within him, the light that lighteneth every man that\ncometh into the world; of having apostatised from his godlike destiny.\nBut to tell a man, as orthodoxy does, first that he is morally imbecile,\nand then that he is personally guilty, is an absolute derangement and\nconfusion of all our moral ideas. It is well that essentially the\nsources of our conduct in general, are beyond the reach of theology; or\ndoctrines like these, would stop all motives to exertion, would destroy\nthe hopes of the good, and strike dead the efforts of the penitent. As\nit is they are not without great and serious evils. They take from\nvirtue that which is its most noble distinction. when rightly\nunderstood, a sense of individual and independent action:\u2014they attach a\nslavish spirit to religion, which, to a great extent, stifles the free\nand voluntary service of the heart. Yet worse still, to maintain an\nextreme theory, men are driven to malign their nature, and to seek for\nall manner of blame against it\u2014to deny the excellence and reality of\nvirtues\u2014of which an unsophisticated observer could not entertain a\ndoubt, to invent all motives for goodness but the true ones. It is a sad\nnecessity in which men place themselves when they are compelled to\nviolence to their own hearts, and injustice to those of others, when\ntheir system forces them to repress their rising pleasure in the beauty\nof virtue, and to change their unbidden admiration into qualified\ncondemnation. If the man called heretical, or one called unregenerate,\nvisit the sick, clothe the naked, do in fact every work of mercy, have a\nheart of love and a hand of bounty\u2014revere his God in all sincerity, and\nworship him in truth, the evangelical moralist must assert, that it is\nall worthless, and is, in fact, of the nature of sin. Though one who is\ncalled regenerate should do no more, and to all evidence, not in a\nbetter spirit, he is esteemed a most godly and pious Christian. The man\nwho cannot believe as the creeds or a party require, may do every work\nwhich Christ will judge him by, and be refused his name; but if he has\nthe blessing of his master in heaven, he may care little for the\nanathema of men upon earth. If Unitarianism delivered us from nothing\nelse than this spiritual injustice, it is a great redemption.\n\nIf I am asked, in turn, why I maintain the doctrine of human dignity, I\nanswer, first, because it raises my homage to God. I understand him no\notherwise than as he is emblemed in the human soul, exalted and\npurified: without this creation is a blank to me, and the scripture a\ndead letter. Regarding it also as his work, I revere him through his\nwork, the more profoundly, the more I believe it worthy of him. I cannot\nconceive it an honour to God, that the only being here who has capacity\nto know him, the only being who reflects his attributes, the only being\nwho admires his universe and discerns him in it, should be wholly\ncorrupt: I cannot think that such a doctrine gives him glory. I answer\nsecondly\u2014because it teaches me to hope for man; teaches me to hope for\nhim in this world and the next: while I have faith in the capacity, I\ncan never lose hope in the developement, but if man be powerless as well\nas depressed, I have no proper ground for expectation, and the\ndifficulties of the present are softened by no light from the future.\nBut as it is, believing that man has great inherent capabilities, for\nknowledge, for liberty, for virtue, and for happiness\u2014I lose not my\nconfidence, I observe him as in the struggle of discipline, and in\npreparation for the period of redemption; and wherever I see ignorance,\nor slavery, or vice, or misery, I do not despair of a time, when these\nheavenly faculties shall have achieved their emancipation. I answer,\nlastly, I maintain the doctrine because it teaches me to honour man. I\nfeel how necessary it is for us in this world of outward show, and where\noutward show has so much power, that we should have some strong\nsentiment by which to give our appreciation to those who have no\nexternal dazzle with which to attach us: in this world of grades and\ninequalities, where rank and wealth, and genius, so continually throw\ntheir enchantments about us, we need a sentiment before which rank and\nwealth and genius are nothing, in regarding those who have them not, and\nalso those who have: and no sentiment can be more powerful, more holy,\nor more sublime than this, that they are the immortal children of God,\ndestined for his presence, and made after his likeness. Having this\nfaith, then, ignorance, sin, poverty, may come safely before us, without\nany fear of that infidel contempt with which they are too often treated.\nShow me then a man, and no matter what his condition, if I be true to\nthis faith, you point me to an object of most solemn interest. Show me\nthe red man of the American forests, or the black man of tropical\ndeserts, and untame and ferocious though he be, he has within him an\nindelible title to my reverence. His rude and unclothed form enshrines a\nsoul in the image of God, as well as the most polished of his civilized\nbrethren. Show me the veriest serf or slave who seems chained to the\nsoil\u2014the gospel which is equal to bond and free, tells me to behold in\nhim the heir of a glorious inheritance; his title is his nature; it\nburns in his blood, and it is stamped upon his brow, its appeal is in\nthe fire or moisture of his eye\u2014no power can efface it, for the hand of\nGod has impressed it:\u2014show me even the criminal who seems all but lost\nto every sense of duty, I am not justified in despairing, much less have\nI any title to scorn. We dare not despise in the lowest state the child\nwhom God regards\u2014we dare not cast off whom Christ has not rejected, nor\ndisown the brother for whom he died. If we be right-minded, and have any\nsympathy with the spirit of Jesus, his moral wretchedness should be his\nmost eloquent appeal. We never know the whole power of Christianity\nuntil we have interest in man as the child of God, and revere him as\nGod\u2019s image, until we behold the throng around us in relation to their\nmighty and improvable capacities\u2014until we see in the lowest and the\nworst, objects of hope and moral influence, with undying souls which no\nvice or passion should conceal. In this faith the messenger of God may\ngo with confidence to guilt and suffering, and bring with him no mocking\noffers of blessedness and peace: then may he call on souls to rejoice\nwhich were ready to perish in despair, pour the dews of heaven on many a\nclosing hour, and silence the doubts of many a fearing spirit. Thus,\nbelieving we should have trust unshaken, look forward to the\nconsummation, when that humanity which here has only its trials, shall\nbe hallowed with the infinity and eternity of its maker.\n\n NOTES.\n\n Note 1. See page 13.\n\nHaving in the Appendix of my former lecture stated from sources of\nauthority the doctrines of Calvinism on the nature of man, I here\nenumerate some of the principal texts on which those doctrines are said\nto be founded. The question, it is to be kept in mind, is not whether\nman is or is not capable of great depravity, whether sin of various\ndegrees and extent has not existed in all ages, and does not exist at\npresent in all places. That sin has entered into the world is a fact\nundisputed, no matter when or how; that sin is universal is a point\nalso, upon which we are on both sides agreed. The true subject of\ndispute between us is, simply, this. Is human nature a nature of radical\nand inherent depravity? or is not goodness more properly its\ncharacteristic than evil? Now we maintain that all its essential\ntendencies establish the latter question in the affirmative, and no\nScriptures prove the former. I shall take those quoted in the most\napproved Calvinistic formularies.\n\nGen. iii. is alleged as giving an account of the origin of sin: \u201cAnd the\nLord said to the woman, what is this thou hast done? And the woman said,\nthe serpent beguiled me and I did eat.\u201d There we have the account of\nAdam\u2019s temptation and transgression, with the penalties pronounced upon\nthe beguiler and his dupes. Now in whatever light we regard this\npassage, whether as a mythos, an allegory, or a literal narrative, it\nimplies nothing of the doctrine asserted, or the consequences attributed\nto it; namely, the loss of all original righteousness, and entire\ndefilement in all the faculties and parts of the soul and body: the\nimputation of their sin to mankind, burdened with the penalty of eternal\ndeath. When we find these ideas extracted out of one obscure passage, we\nmay well ask is it Unitarianism or orthodoxy which adds to the\nScriptures? These ideas are not in the passage itself, nor in any other\nsupposed to be co-relative, nor in any number of passages fairly\nconjoined and fairly interpreted.\n\nGen. vi. 5. \u201cGod saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth.\u201d\nThis states merely a general fact, that of an evil condition of society,\nfor which judgment of God is represented as poured out from heaven. But\nit is alleged, that in the same connection we read \u201cthat every\nimagination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil continually.\u201d This\nclause only expresses the original idea with more impressive force. No\none in the worst state of an individual or a nation will attempt to\nmaintain that such words can have a rigid and literal application.\nBesides, in that very time, Noah is made an express exception; for we\nread that \u201cthe Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all thy house into the\nark, for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.\u201d[522]\nBut though the literal meaning were insisted on, it could but literally\nextend to men of that time; and the rule of interpretation by which our\nopponents define the character of man, we are entitled in the next verse\nto apply to the character of God. \u201cIt _repented_ him,\u201d we are told,\n\u201cthat he had made man on the earth, and it _grieved_ him at his\nheart.\u201d[523] If on the literal principle we are to conclude man wicked\nin every thought and imagination, on the same principle we are to\nconclude that God can repent, and that he can be grieved at the heart.\n\nJer. xvii. 9. \u201cThe heart is deceitful above all things and desperately\nwicked,\u201d is an exaggeration of the same kind with that we are\nconsidering. It was uttered when the Jewish nation was in a state of sad\ncorruption, and the prophet\u2019s feelings were passionate against his\ncountrymen in grief and indignation. If we are to take all the prophet\u2019s\nwords as coolly and deliberately uttered, then what shall we say to the\ntremendous language in which he curses his existence and his birth.\n\nEccl. vii. 29. \u201cGod hath made man upright, but they have sought many\ninventions.\u201d This expression contains no matter of controversy; the\nfirst part states our view, and the latter clause of the verse, by no\ntorture of criticism can be made to imply inherent and entire depravity.\n\nPsalm li. 5. \u201cBehold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother\nconceive me.\u201d The import of this expression is to be judged of from the\ngeneral tone of the Psalm, which is most passionate and penetential,\ninspired by the deepest spirit of remorse. David uttered these\ncomplainings in profoundest self-accusation; but there would be little\nfor repentance to deplore, if he could remove the blame from himself to\nhis nature, and bury individual guilt in a corruption to which he was\nsubjected in common with all men. The force and meaning\u2014the piercing and\neloquent deprecation of the whole composition, combine to show it is one\nof individual experience, the idea of original sin leaves it vapid and\npointless, makes it, not the anguish of a convicted sinner, but the\nsophistry of a deluded hypocrite; not a lamentation for vice, but an\nexcuse for it. These passages are the few which can be found in the Old\nTestament that have any direct reference to a tenet said to be\ninculcated throughout the whole of Scripture. If we turn to the New\nTestament we find the evidence quite as scanty, and quite as\ninconclusive. The texts advanced are commonly taken from the epistles,\nprincipally from those of Paul, and of Paul\u2019s, mostly from the Romans.\nFew or none can be advanced from the gospel histories, and the\ndiscourses of Christ have no reference to such a doctrine.\n\nRom. iii. 10. \u201cThere is none righteous, no not one: there is none that\nunderstandeth,\u201d &c., &c. Correspondent to this passage is the 14th\nPsalm. Both David and Paul refer to the peculiar depravity of their\ntimes. But, in the sense of absolute and guiltless perfection,\nunquestionably, the general assertion may be made of all men.\n\nRom. v. 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45, 49. The apostle, I apprehend,\ninstitutes a comparison between the imperfect man, symbolized in Adam,\nand the perfect man revealed in Christ; between the earthly and the\nheavenly, the mortal and the immortal; death shown forth in the one\u2014life\nmanifested in the other.\n\nRom. vii. 18. \u201cFor I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no\ngood thing; for to will is present with me, but how to perform that\nwhich is good, I find not.\u201d Ver. 25. \u201cSo then with my mind, I serve the\nlaw of God, but with my flesh the law of sin.\u201d And the apostle had said\nin the preceding verses, \u201cI delight in the law of God after the inward\nman; but I find a law in my members warring against the law of my mind,\nand bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my\nmembers.\u201d This is an eloquent and fervent out-pouring of individual\nexperience, no more intended as a universal description than any passage\nin the journal of John Wesley or Thomas Scott. Involving as human nature\ndoes, a twofold constitution, a struggle between desire and conscience\nis a necessary condition of its moral existence. This is inevitable,\nunless a being is above or beneath temptation; but the very struggle\nimplies the power of the moral sense; the possession of the moral sense\nis an element of human dignity even in defeat, how much more in triumph.\nWithout the power of transgression or the danger of falling, there is of\ncourse no trial, and in the human sense no virtue. But there are some\nexpressions of Paul\u2019s more general and comprehensive, and to these I\nshall devote one or two remarks.\n\nRom. viii. 7. \u201cThe carnal mind (\u03c4\u1f78 \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2\u2014the mind of the\nflesh) is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God,\nneither indeed can be.\u201d\n\nGal. v. 17. \u201cFor the flesh lusteth against the spirit, (\u1f29 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c3\u1f70\u03c1\u03be\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b8\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2) and the spirit against the flesh; and these\nare contrary the one to the other.\u201d The scriptural use of the word\n\u201cflesh\u201d (\u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03be) implies two meanings; first, the excess of the inferior\ndesires, which is in reality contrary to God, and therefore sin; for\nGod, though he has implanted these subordinate desires, has subjected\nthem to certain laws, beyond which they are at variance with his will\nand with his providence. In this view the carnal mind is properly at\nenmity with God, and is not subject to the law of God. Secondly, the\ninferior desires, parenthetically not actually sin, but in general the\ncauses of sin. When St. Paul says money is the root of all evil, we do\nnot surely understand him to mean that the pursuit of gain is in all\ncases a root of wickedness; for we may conceive innumerable instances in\nwhich the struggle for money is connected with the sublimest of virtues.\nWe merely conclude that it is a very dangerous desire, and liable to\nvery dangerous abuses. Under the designation, therefore, of earthly or\nfleshly, may be classed three orders of desire\u2014that of gain, that of\npleasure, and that of power. These are essentially evil in themselves or\nthey are not. If we conclude they are, we must then charge the fault on\nGod who has given them, or we must become Manachees, and suppose the\nexistence of two principles, one good, and the other evil; if they are\nnot, the sin is in their abuse, and not in their existence, and though\nthe criminal be condemned the nature is absolved. I shall mention but a\nvery few more texts advanced in favour of this doctrine.\n\nEph. ii. 1-3. \u201cAnd you hath he quickened,\u201d &c. A mere description this,\nof the age, answerable both to Jews and Gentiles: and to the same\npurpose is the passage from the same epistle, (c. ix. v. 18.) \u201chaving\nthe understanding darkened\u2014being alienated from the life of God through\nthe ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their\nhearts.\u201d Such is the scriptural evidence for one of the most appalling\nand destructive doctrines that ever clouded humanity; a doctrine which\nimpugns the best and truest affections, and destroys at one fell stroke\nthe idea of spontaneous virtue,\u2014which is compelled to classify the most\nbeautiful and most base, if devoid of certain doctrinal distinctions,\nunder one appellative,\u2014which debases human nature\u2014gives man the vileness\nof a slave, but does not honour God with the glory of a sovereign. To\nexhort man to have the perfection of an angel, and to tell him he has\nthe nature of a fiend, to tell him that he is \u201cutterly indisposed,\ndisabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all\nevil,\u201d amidst absurd pranks of theology, is surely the most absurd. And\nbetween believing this, or rejecting it, the only alternative left us,\nis to be at one side or the other of the gulf which separated Lazarus\nfrom Abraham.\n\nSee Drummond\u2019s excellent Essay on Original Sin, and a very admirable\ntract on the same subject, by the late Dr. Cogan, entitled \u201cA Layman\u2019s\nLetters to Mr. Wilberforce.\u201d\n\n Note 2. See page 19.\n\nThere is no writer in modern times to whom we owe so much for a true and\nelevated Philosophy on Human nature as to Bishop Butler, the most\nprofound and accurate analyst of the moral faculties of man that has\never illustrated the principles of Christian ethics. He was not a man to\ntake wholesale assertions; he subjected our moral nature to the exact\nand rigid test of philosophical anatomy, and one deliberate sentence of\nhis, is worth ten thousand disquisitions from traditional theologians,\nwho, parrot-like, repeat and repeat again the jargon, that has grown as\nstale from mouth to mouth, as the starling\u2019s \u201clet me out, let me\nout\u201d\u2014many of whom have no other reason than that they have heard it so\ncried out before them. Bishop Butler has examined human nature, and he\nhas given testimony in its favour\u2014he has vindicated its dignity, and he\nhas by a deep philosophy, which seemed to be little comprehended by\nthose who would debase humanity demonstrated its essential excellence.\nHe has proved by irrefutable arguments, its natural disinterestedness,\nits goodness, its necessary conformity with truth and virtue. These are\nto be sure but its general tendencies, with many exceptions\u2014yet, why\nsuch a line of argument should be deemed insufficient in moral\nphilosophy, and be admitted as cogent in natural theology, it is\ndifficult to conceive.\u2014Take for instance\u2014in the body the case of the eye\nor the ear: no one questions, that the eye is admirably adapted for\nseeing, and the ear for hearing; and though the one may grow dim or the\nother become deaf, it is never asserted that the constitution or nature\nof each\u2014on the whole\u2014is contradictory to that for which it was intended.\nThere are, it is true, various evil manifestations in human nature; but\nthere are others good\u2014at least, in _seeming_. Cynical Philosophers and\nCalvinistic Theologians concur in making the evil substantial, and the\ngood factitious. The answer which this profound reasoner gives to the\nphilosophical opponents of human nature will be a sufficient reply to\nboth. \u201cSuppose,\u201d he says, \u201ca man of learning to be writing a grave book\nupon human nature\u2014and to show in several parts of it, that he had an\ninsight into the subject he was considering. Amongst other things the\nfollowing one would require to be accounted for; the appearance of\nbenevolence or good-will in men towards each other in the instances of\nnatural relation and in others. Cautious of being deceived with outward\nshow, he retires within himself, to see exactly what that is in the mind\nof man from whence this appearance proceeds; and upon deep reflection\nasserts the principle in the mind to be only the love of power and\ndelight in the exercise of it. Would not everybody think here was a\nmistake of one word for another? That the philosopher was contemplating\nand accounting for some other human actions, some other behaviour of man\nto man? And could any one be thoroughly satisfied, that what is commonly\ncalled benevolence or good-will was really the affection meant, but only\nby being made to understand that this learned person had a general\nhypothesis, to which the appearance of good-will could no otherwise be\nreconciled? That what has this appearance is often nothing but ambition;\nthat delight in superiority\u2014often (suppose always) mixes itself with\nbenevolence, only makes it more specious to call it ambition than hunger\nof the two; but in reality that passion does no more account for the\nwhole appearances of good-will, than this appetite does. Is there not\noften the appearance of one man\u2019s wishing that good to another, which he\nknows himself unable to procure him; and rejoicing in it, though\nprocured by a third person? And, can love of power any way possibly come\ninto account for this desire or delight? Is there not often the\nappearance of men\u2019s distinguishing between two or more persons,\npreferring one before another, to do good to, in cases where the love of\npower cannot in the least account for the distinction or preference? For\nthis principle can no otherwise distinguish between objects, than as it\nis a greater instance and exertion of power to do good to one rather\nthan to another. Again, suppose good-will in the mind of man be nothing\nbut delight in the exercise of power; men might indeed be restrained by\ndistant and accidental considerations, but these restraints being\nremoved, they would have a disposition to, and a delight in mischief as\nan exercise and proof of power; and this disposition and delight would\narise from the same principle in the mind, as a disposition to, and a\ndelight in charity. Thus cruelty as distinct from resentment, would be\nexactly the same in the mind of man as good-will; that one tends to the\nhappiness, the other to the misery of our fellow-creatures, is, it\nseems, merely an accidental circumstance, which the mind has not the\nleast regard to. These are absurdities which even men of capacity run\ninto, when they have occasion to belie their nature; and will perversely\ndisclaim that image of God which was originally stamped upon it: the\ntraces of which, however faint, are plainly discernible upon the mind of\nman.\u201d Many passages might be quoted from this great writer in\nvindication of humanity, but I shall adduce but one other: it is from\nthe same discourse, (The first sermon on Human Nature,) as that I have\nalready extracted\u2014and much to the same purpose. \u201cMankind,\u201d he says,\n\u201chave ungoverned passions, which they will gratify at any rate, as well\nto the injury of others as in contradiction to known private interests,\nbut as there is no such thing as self-hatred, so neither is there any\nsuch thing as ill-will in one man towards another, emulation or\nresentment being away: whereas there is plainly benevolence or\ngood-will: there is no such thing as love of injustice, oppression,\ntreachery, ingratitude; but only eager desire after such and such\nexternal goods, which, according to a very ancient observation, the most\nabandoned would choose to obtain by innocent means, if they were as easy\nand effectual to their end: even emulation and resentment by any who\nwill consider what these passions really are in nature, will be found\nnothing to the purpose of this objection, and the principles and\npassions in the mind of man which are distinct both from self-love and\nbenevolence, primarily and most directly lead to right behaviour with\nregard to others as well as to himself, and only secondarily and\naccidentally to what is evil. Thus though men to avoid the shame of one\nvillany are often guilty of a greater, yet it is easy to see that the\noriginal tendency of shame is to prevent the doing of shameful actions;\nand its leading men to conceal such actions when done, is only the\nconsequence of their being done, that is, of the passions not having\nanswered its first end.\u201d\u2014(See also the acute and original Essay of Mr.\nHazlitt\u2019s, on The Principles of Human Actions, in which the leading idea\nof Butler\u2019s Philosophy is rigidly examined and illustrated.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nPascal vindicates the dignity of Human nature in some of his most\nbeautiful thoughts. Those who are acquainted with the theology of Pascal\n(and who are not?) will scarcely suspect him of leaning too partially to\nthe brighter side of our nature. I quote a few passages from his\nwritings, as much for the pleasure of copying them, as for the support\nthey afford to my general argument.\n\n\u201cL\u2019homme est si grand,\u201d he observes, \u201cque, sa grandeur parait m\u00eame en ce\nqu\u2019il se conna\u00eet mis\u00e9rable. Un arbre ne se conna\u00eet pas mis\u00e9rable: il est\nvrai que c\u2019est \u00eatre mis\u00e9rable que de se conna\u00eetre, qu\u2019on mis\u00e9rable; mais\naussi c\u2019est grand que de conna\u00eetre qu\u2019on est mis\u00e9rable. Ainsi toutes\nmis\u00e8res prouvent sa grandeur:\u2014ce sont miseres de grand seigneur, miseres\nd\u2019un roi d\u00e9poss\u00e9d\u00e9.\n\n\u201cNous avons si grande id\u00e9e de l\u2019ame de l\u2019homme que nous ne pouvons\nsouffrir d\u2019en \u00eatre m\u00e9pris\u00e9, et d\u2019 n\u2019\u00eatre pas dans l\u2019esteme d\u2019une \u00e2me: et\ntoute la f\u00e9licit\u00e9 des hommes consiste dans cette estime.\n\n\u201cSi d\u2019un c\u00f4t\u00e9 cette fausse gloire que les hommes cherchent est une\ngrande marque de leur mis\u00e8re et de leur bassesse, c\u2019en une aussi de leur\nexcellence; car quelque possessions qu\u2019il ait sur la terre, de quelque\nsant\u00e9 et commodit\u00e9 essentielle qu\u2019il jouisse il n\u2019est pas satisfait,\ns\u2019il n\u2019est pas dans l\u2019estime des hommes. Il estime si grande la raison\nde l\u2019homme que quelque avantage, qu\u2019il ait dans le monde, il se croit\nmalheureux s\u2019il n\u2019est plac\u00e9 aussi avantegeusement dans la raison de\nl\u2019homme c\u2019est la plus belle place du monde: rien ne peut le d\u00e9tourner de\nce d\u00e9sir, et c\u2019est la qualit\u00e9 la plus ineffacable du c\u0153ur de l\u2019homme:\njusque-l\u00e0 que ceux que m\u00e9prisent le plus les hommes, et qui les \u00e9galent\naux b\u00eates veulent encore en \u00eatre admir\u00e9s, et contradisent \u00e1 eux-m\u00eames\npar leur propre sentiment: la nature, qui est plus puisante que toute\nleur raison, les convainquant plus fortement de la grandeur de l\u2019homme\nque la raison ne les convainc de sa baissesse.\u201d\u2014\u201cL\u2019homme n\u2019est qu\u2019un\nroseau le plus fa\u00edble de la nature; mais c\u2019est un roseau pensant. Il ne\nfaut pas que l\u2019univers entier s\u2019arme pour l\u2019\u00e9craser. Une vapeur, une\ngoutte d\u2019eau suffit pour le tuer. Mais quand l\u2019univers l\u2019\u00e9craserait,\nl\u2019homme serait encore plus noble que ce qui le tue, parce qu\u2019il sait\nqu\u2019il meurt, et l\u2019avantage que l\u2019univers a sur lui, l\u2019univers n\u2019en sait\nrien. Ainsi toute notre dignit\u00e9 consiste dans la pens\u00e9e c\u2019est de la\nqu\u2019il faut nous relever, non de l\u2019espace et de la dur\u00e9e.\u201d \u201cIl est\ndangereux de trop voir l\u2019homme combien il est \u00e9gal aux b\u00eates sans lui\nmontrer sa grandeur. Il est encore dangereux de lui fair trop voir sa\ngrandeur sans sa bassesse. Il est plus dangereux de lui laisser ignorer\nl\u2019un et l\u2019autre: mais est tres avantegeux de lui representer l\u2019un et\nl\u2019autre.\u201d (Pens\u00e9es de Pascal.)\n\nI have adduced the testimony of Bishop Butler as to the soundness of our\nviews on human nature: I shall here transcribe a few passages from a\nwriter, in whose language a kindred philosophy becomes most eloquent and\ninspiring\u2014I mean Doctor Channing.\u2014\u201cI repeat it,\u201d he says, \u201cshowing the\nmoral power of faith in the divine capacities of man, to resemble our\nMaker we need not quarrel with our nature or our lot. Our present state,\nmade up as it is, of aids and trials, is worthy of God, and may be used\nthroughout to assimilate us to him. For example: our domestic ties, the\nrelations of neighbourhood and country, the daily interchanges of\nthoughts and feelings, the daily occasions of kindness, the daily claims\nof want and suffering, these and other circumstances of our social\nstate, form the best sphere and school for that benevolence which is\nGod\u2019s brightest attribute; and we should make a sad exchange by\nsubstituting for these natural aids any self-invented artificial means\nof sanctity. Christianity, our great guide to God, never leads us away\nfrom the path of nature, and never wars with the unsophisticated\ndictates of conscience. We approach our Creator by every right exercise\nof the powers he gives us. Whenever we invigorate the understanding by\nhonestly and resolutely seeking truth, and by withstanding whatever\nmight warp the judgment; whenever we invigorate the conscience by\nfollowing it in opposition to the passions; whenever we receive a\nblessing gratefully, bear a trial patiently, or encounter peril or scorn\nwith moral courage; whenever we perform a disinterested deed; whenever\nwe lift up the heart in true adoration to God; whenever we war against a\nhabit or desire which is strengthening itself against our higher\nprinciples; whenever we think, speak or act with moral energy, and\ndevotion to duty, be the occasion ever so humble or familiar; then the\ndivinity is growing within us, and we are ascending towards our Author.\nThe religion thus blends with common life. We thus draw nigh to God\nwithout forsaking men. We are thus without parting with our human\nnature, to clothe ourselves with the divine.\u201d (Discourse at the\nordination of the Rev. F. A. Farley.) Honour is due to all men on the\nground of the worth and dignity of their nature, and of this the\neloquent writer shows Christianity a proof and an illustration. \u201cThe\nwhole of this religion is a testimony to the worth of man in the sight\nof God\u2014to the importance of human nature\u2014to the infinite purposes for\nwhich we were framed. God is there set forth as sending, to the succour\nof his human family, his beloved Son, the bright image and\nrepresentative of his own perfections; and sending him, not simply to\nroll away a burden of pain and punishment, (for this, however magnified\nin systems of theology is not his highest work) but to create man after\nthat divine image which he himself bears, to purify the soul from every\nstain, to communicate to it new power over evil, and to open before it\nimmortality as its aim and destination\u2014immortality by which we are to\nunderstand, not merely a perpetual, but an ever-improving and celestial\nbeing. Such are the views of Christianity. And these blessings it\nproffers, not to a few, not to the educated, not to the eminent, but to\nall human beings, to the poorest and the most fallen; and we know that\nthrough the power of its promises, it has, in not a few instances,\nraised the fallen to true greatness, and given them in their present\nvirtue and peace, an earnest of the heaven which it unfolds. Such is\nChristianity. Men viewed in the light of this religion, are beings cared\nfor by God, to whom he has given his Son, on whom he pours forth his\nspirit; and whom he has created for the highest good in the universe,\nthe participation of his own perfections and happiness. Such is\nChristianity. Our scepticism in our own nature cannot quench the bright\nlight which religion sheds on the soul and on the prospects of mankind;\nand just so far as we receive its truth we shall honour all men.\u201d\n(Discourse on \u201cHonour due to All Men.\u201d)\n\n\u201cTheologians,\u201d remarks a powerful writer, \u201csay, that the very infant\ncomes into the world under the wrath and curse of the Deity. They never\nlearned that by observing the glory of God in the face of Christ. No\nsuch withering frown ever sat on his benignant countenance. Think of\nChrist\u2019s wrath with a child! Think of Christ cursing a child! I must\nread in the Gospel that he did so, before I believe that God does so,\nand that the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin is true. In the strong\nhorror of the human heart at the monstrous combination of such a person\nwith such an action, I read the condemnation of that gloomiest article\nof a gloomy creed; and if it be a foul calumny on Christ, it must,\nexalted as he was, be a yet fouler calumny on God. I would sooner\nbelieve the one than the other. I would sooner imagine some Jesus of\nNazareth encountering some fond father and fonder mother, in the first\nfreshness of their parental feelings, as they pass beneath \u2018the gate of\nthe temple which was called the Beautiful;\u2019 less beautiful in the\nsculptured forms of marble on which its gorgeous architecture rested\nthan in the living human group which were there bearing the babe to the\naltar to dedicate it to the God of its fathers; and encountering them\nwith that solemn malediction which would sink into their souls and\ncorrode their lives; than I would imagine Omniscience, which witnesses\neach man\u2019s birth, life, and death, to be in all earth\u2019s scenes of\nparental anxiousness and fondness over helpless infancy, the\nall-pervading presence of an Almighty curse. Yet this is the doctrine\ninto which thousands upon thousands of children are catechised. Why will\nnot parents and teachers lead them, not to Calvin, but to Christ? So\nshould they receive a blessing, even as did those children,\nnotwithstanding that there were not wanting, even then, erring disciples\nto intercept their approach and forbid their coming. As his blessing was\non them, so is that of his and our God. His doctrine, his conduct.\n\u2018Their angels,\u2019 he says, \u2018do always behold the face of my Father which\nis in heaven;\u2019 they are the peculiar objects of the providential care\nwhich, by the number, and swiftness, and power of those supposed winged\nmessengers, was pictorial typified; and again, \u2018Suffer little children,\nand forbid them not, to come to me, for of such is the kingdom of\nheaven!\u2019\u201d\u2014_Christ and Christianity_, a series of Sermons, by the Rev. W.\nJ. Fox: which for energy of thought, richness and beauty of imagery,\ntruth of moral analysis and description, force and eloquence of\nlanguage, may be placed in the very highest class of pulpit oratory, and\neven in that class be ranged with its rarest specimens. The taint of\nheresy has robbed them of their due fame, for in those days, without the\nproper admixture of orthodoxy, logic only beats the air, and eloquence\nspeaks to the deaf adder that will not hear the voice of the charmer,\ncharm he never so sweetly.\n\nI quote with great pleasure one or two passages from Mr. Dewey, as\nillustrative of our common doctrine on human nature:\n\n\u201cThe theologian says that human nature is bad and corrupt. Now taking\nthis language in the practical and popular sense, I find no difficulty\nin agreeing with the theologian. And indeed, if he would confine\nhimself\u2014leaving vague and general declamation and technical\nphraseology\u2014if he would confine himself to facts; if he would confine\nhimself to a description of actual bad qualities and dispositions in\nmen, I think he could not well go too far. Nay more, I am not certain\nthat any theologian\u2019s description, so far as it is of this nature, has\ngone deep enough into the frightful mass of human depravity. For it\nrequires an acute perception that is rarely possessed, and a higher and\nholier conscience, perhaps than belongs to any, to discover and declare\n_how_ bad, and degraded, and unworthy a being _a bad man_ is. I confess\nthat nothing would beget in me a higher respect for man, a real\u2014not a\ntheological and factitious\u2014but a real and deep sense of human sinfulness\nand unworthiness\u2014of the mighty wrong which man does to himself, to his\nreligion, and his God, when he yields to the evil and accursed\ninclinations that find place in him. This moral indignation is not half\nstrong enough in those who profess to talk the most about human\ndepravity. And the objection to them is, not that they feel too much or\nspeak too strongly, the actual wickedness, the actual and distinct sins\nof the wicked; but they speak too vaguely and generally of human\nwickedness; that they speak with too little discrimination to every man\nas if he were a murderer or a monster; that they speak, in fine, too\nargumentatively, and too much (if I may say so) with a sort of\nargumentative satisfaction, as if they were glad that they could make\nthis point so strong.\u201d\n\nThe next extract is in advocacy of human nature, eloquently pleading for\nit in a low and guilty condition.\n\n\u201cThe very pirate that dyes the ocean wave with the blood of his\nfellow-beings; that meets his defenceless victims in some lonely sea\nwhere no cry for help can be heard, and plunges his dagger to the heart\nthat is pleading for life, which is calling upon him by all means of\nkindred, of children, and of home, to spare\u2014yes, the very pirate is such\na man as you or I might have been. Orphanage and childhood; an\nunfriended youth; an evil companion; a resort to sinful pleasure;\nfamiliarity with vice; a scorned and blighted name; seared and crushed\naffections; desperate fortunes\u2014these are the steps that might have led\nany one amongst us to unfurl on the high seas the bloody flag of\nuniversal defiance; to have waged war with our kind; to have put on the\nterrific attributes; to have done the dreadful deeds; and to have died\nthe awful death of the ocean robber. How many affecting relationships of\nhumanity plead with us to pity him! That head that is doomed to pay the\nprice of blood once rested upon a mother\u2019s bosom. The hand that did that\naccursed work, and shall soon be stretched cold and nerveless in the\nfelon\u2019s grave, was once taken and cherished by a father\u2019s hand, and led\nin the ways of sportive childhood and innocent pleasure. The dreaded\nmonster of crime has once been the object of sisterly love and all\ndomestic endearment. Pity him, then. Pity his blighted hope and his\ncrushed heart. It is a wholesome sensibility, it is meet for frail and\nsinning creatures like us to cherish. It forgoes no moral\ndiscrimination. It feels the crime, but feels it as a weak, tempted, and\nrescued creature should. It imitates the great Master; and looks with\nindignation upon the offender, and yet is grieved for him.\u201d\u2014_Dewey._\n\n _Additional Remarks, &c._\n\n\u201cOur Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d says Mr. Buddicom, \u201chath solemnly and\nemphatically said, \u2018He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,\nbut that believeth not shall be damned.\u2019\u201d (Yes, but is this to believe\nwhat our opponents tell us, and to be baptized into the faith of\nAthanasius?) \u201cUnitarians,\u201d he continues, \u201cassert that they fulfil the\nrequirement, and therefore are safe from the penalty. We, on the other\nhand, are assured, that as it would be treason against the sovereign of\nthese realms, to acknowledge her claim only to a part of her dominions,\nwhile her royalty over the remainder was utterly denied; so the\nUnitarian scheme which would give unto the Saviour the honours of a\nprophet and a witness, while it would unsphere him from that full-orbed\nglory wherein He shines through the revelation of his grace, is treason\nagainst him and against the Majesty of God, who willeth \u2018that all men\nshould honour the son, even as they honour the father.\u2019 Thus convinced,\nwe deem the professors of that system to be under sentence of spiritual\noutlawry, which if it be not reversed, will end in the terrors of the\nsecond death.\u201d\u2014Lect. 8. pp. 438, 439.\n\nThe tone in which we have often been spoken of in this controversy\nappears to assume that we in some degree doubt the sincerity or charity\nof our opponents. We deny them neither. We know the history of religion\nwell enough to be aware that as severe things have been done in\nsincerity as to pronounce that men dishonour Christ and God, that they\nare under sentence of spiritual outlawry, and if they repent not (_i.e._\ndo not turn to the opinion of their antagonists) shall surely endure the\nsecond death; we can easily believe that men say these things sincerely;\nfor except from the necessity of conviction, we do not imagine they\nwould reiterate perdition and denunciation as often as they do. We deny\nnot the sincerity in which an opponent may hold an opinion or resist\none: but though the motive may not be impeachable, the quality of the\nopinion itself may be in the last degree anti-social and pernicious. The\nmen who built the Inquisition did it in perfect sincerity: the men who\nsat on its judgment-seats were for the most part sincere, so were those\nwho dragged the heretic from his home to the dungeon, and from the\ndungeon to the stake. And so are those who tell us that our faith is\ndamnable. Men may on account of belief consign antagonists to hell-fire\nfor eternity; but unless the evidence be most clear, to pronounce the\njudgment requires a goodly quantity of courage. As little willing are we\nto refuse our opponents the charity they claim, if by that be meant a\ndesire to promote good in their idea of it: but we may very fairly doubt\nthe justness of that idea. Believing that heretics, such as we, are in\nthe way to eternal destruction, it is neither inconsistent with candour\nor charity to tell us so, in the hope of reclaiming us; and if\ntheologians imagined that inflicting bodily suffering might have a\nsimilar effect, we are compelled to admit them to the same merit. The\nworst effect of harsh and austere doctrines is that they produce harsh\nand austere feelings; and the professors of them, under their indurating\nprocess, can do deeds from principle which even bad men would rarely do\nfrom passion. One perverted motive is worse than a thousand evil\nactions. Charity in her own native sweetness is meek and gentle as the\ndove, and yet theology has often made her ravenous as the vulture;\ncharity as she came from heaven marked her way in tears of mercy, but\ntheology could so pervert her as to cause her wade to the lips in blood.\nThe charity of the heart is very different from the charity of creeds;\nand when we hear English clergymen condemn the Romish Church as\nuncharitable, we naturally ask on what ground? Is it because she\ncondemned heretics? So do you. Is it because she has a wrong test of\nheresy? Her test is substantially the same as your own. You assume that\nwe do not believe in Christ, because we do not believe in your creed:\nshe assumes that you do not believe in Christ because you do not believe\nin her councils: you denounce eternal torments on us for want of your\nfaith; and she delivers you to the same destiny for want of her faith:\nthe tabooed ground of heresy and orthodoxy may be circumscribed or\nextensive\u2014the points may be few or many, the principle is the same, or\nif there be any difference, it is but breaking the big end or the little\nend of the egg. We are accused as traitors against God and Christ, and\nto make the indictment clear against us, it is illustrated by the\ninstance of rebellion against a sovereign. This is a heavy charge, but\none both unjust and false. It is evil intention that constitutes crime:\na traitor opposes his sovereign and _intends_ his dethronement; but\nthough we should even _mistake_ the nature of Christ, can any one who\nthinks for a moment venture to say our intention is for his\ndethronement? Let us suppose the case, no uncommon one, of an Eastern\nmonarch who should disguise himself, and that some of his subjects\nfailed, in their ignorance of his rank, to pay him the customary\nhonours; what should we think of his justice, if he should call this\ntreason, and impale the wretches who were unconscious of having offended\nhim. It is too monstrous even for Eastern despotism. Or take the case in\nour own history; what should we think of Alfred\u2019s rectitude and\nclemency, if when he ascended the throne from his poverty, he should\nhave thrown the shepherd\u2019s wife into a dungeon and chains, because, in\nhis disguise, she uttered against him a surly rebuke. The instance is\nnot entirely parallel, but the analogy goes far enough for my purpose.\nNow, though Christ were in reality the Deity which orthodoxy proclaims\nhim, the circumstances of his earthly life, and the concealment of his\ninfinite nature, were certainly sufficient to excuse some in ignorance\nfor taking him to be that which he appeared; and to punish them for so\nnatural an error, would not be a vindication of majesty, but a\ncapricious exhibition of cruelty.\n\nThe legal and political mode of illustration is a favourite with the\nreverend lecturer. P. 450, we have a quotation from Blackstone, and the\ndistinction very admirably elucidated of private wrongs and public\nwrongs, civil injuries, crimes and misdemeanours, &c. Sir William\nBlackstone never, I imagine, anticipated the honour that his\nCommentaries would be used to illustrate the principles of the divine\ngovernment; and one of the last ideas, I apprehend, that entered his\nbrain in delivering his lectures, was, that he was giving expositions on\nthe ways of Providence. The Preacher in the order of illustration, gave\na passing blow \u201cat those wretched and guilty disturbers of the public\npeace in one of our own colonies who lately crossed the borders of a\nfriendly state to slay and ruin and destroy, under the name of\n_sympathizers_.\u201d An allusion, doubtless, extremely loyal; but in the\npresent case not very logical. (Lect. p. 452.) In this part of the\ndiscourse we have other distinctions, showing that man is a public\noffender, that God is not a person but a sovereign, in relation to\nguilty man, and that a sovereign is different from a person; that God is\nnot a creditor but a judge, and that a judge is different from a\ncreditor. All this may be very acute, very legal, but, theologically, it\nhas one imperfection, that of mistaking entirely the relation between\nGod and man, of turning false analogies into false premises, and, of\ncourse, deducing from them false conclusions: of properly having nothing\nto do with the true matter in hand, and leaving the question precisely\nwhere it was before. \u201cOur opponents,\u201d says the Preacher, \u201cassert that\nsins are to be regarded as _debts_, and as _debts_ only.\u201d We assert no\nsuch thing, have never asserted it, but all the contrary, and to such an\nidea the whole tone of our argument and of our system is in most perfect\ncontradiction. We have no such low view of God as to think that man\ncould owe him anything, nor any such presumptuous view of man as to\nimagine he could make payment to his God. Yet upon this poor assumption\nwhole pages of declamation are wasted, for if it serves any purpose it\nis but to beat down the man of straw which the lecturer himself had\nfashioned. We hold no such view, and therefore we have never defended\nany such. We do our best to maintain what we assert; if others assert\ndoctrines for us, we leave them the pleasure of the refutation; although\nit is only when men invent opinions for opponents that they have the\ndouble enjoyment of first building up and then pulling down. We do not\nregard sins as debts for which payment can be made to God; but we may\nfairly assert that on this principle rests the whole scheme of\northodoxy. What are the atonement and righteousness of Christ but a\npayment or equivalent to God for the salvation of the elect?\u2014the very\nnature of the system implies this idea, and in truth it is the only idea\nthat gives it even the appearance of consistency; for crime as such\ncannot be punished in the person of another, but a debt can be fairly\npaid by the money of another. If I commit high treason against the\nsovereign\u2014to borrow an analogy from the Preacher\u2014it would be sad work to\nlay the head of some one else on the block for it\u2014but if I owe a severe\ncreditor a thousand pounds, a rich and generous friend may pay it in my\nstead, and no social principle is violated by the substitute.\n\nMr. Buddicom makes the following modest apology for the presumed\ninfallibility of himself and brethren, and their right to attack all\nheretical deniers of it. \u201cWhile, however,\u201d he observes, \u201cwe are prepared\nto contend for the lawfulness and duty of an affectionate inroad upon\nthe regions of spiritual error, we remember that our movement is not\npurely and primarily aggressive. A volume of Lectures, preached\nexpressly on the controverted doctrines of Christianity (as the lecturer\ndenominated his subjects), in a chapel now occupied by one of our\nrespected opponents, has been before the world. In these and other\nsimilar measures, the fortress of true Christianity, the only safe\nmunition of rocks for the souls of men, hath been attacked by mine, and\nsap, and open assault. And shall there be no attempt to countermine, no\nsally made, no arm raised, in a forward movement for the truth as it is\nin Jesus? Our regret is rather due to the culpable silence of the past,\nthan to the proceeding of the present time.\u201d (Lect. p. 440.) The\nreverend and respected Preacher refers to a volume of Lectures, by the\nRev. George Harris, delivered in this town some years ago: those\nLectures, unfortunately, I do not possess; but I have read them with\nmuch pleasure, and many passages of them I should wish to quote in\nsupport of my own general arguments. But the Lecturer greatly mistakes\nif he imagines that we complain of orthodox aggression. Controversy,\npolitical and religious, is the fair expression of civilised and\nprogressive opinion. We do not blame those who oppose us,\u2014we have never\ndone it,\u2014we have not complained that war was made on us, but we did most\nrighteously complain that the fair laws of warfare were denied us. Our\npeople were invited to go to Christ Church to listen to wise and learned\nmen, to be converted, by hearing their religion spoken of as blasphemy\nand outlawry\u2014to hear _themselves_ designated as enemies to their God,\nand dethroners of their Saviour, and the spiritual slayers of their\nkind. They were denied any religious equality. They were abused, and\nvituperated, and denounced; but they were not listened to\u2014their\ncondemnation was sternly uttered\u2014but their defence had not even the poor\ntribute of a hearing. Nay, grave clergymen pleaded that they could not\nhave their religious sensibilities disturbed or hurt by Unitarian\nroughness, as if manly controversialists were to shrink from opposition\nwith the fastidious delicacy of timid devotees. We neither complained of\ncontroversy, nor avoided it; on the contrary, we met it promptly,\nsincerely, and willingly\u2014with ability, it is possible, inferior to our\nopponents\u2014but not with less zeal, less alacrity, or less honesty. When\nour respected opponents challenged our attendance, it was not as\nantagonists on the opposite sides of a subject open to discussion, but\nas accused to give in their confession of repentance, or as criminals to\nhear their last sentence of punishment. We, however, blame not the\nLecturer, nor his party\u2014we rather agree with him and them. We have\nreceived a lesson which we needed; Unitarians have stood too long on the\ndefensive, when they should have been on the aggressive: had they been\nfaithful to their trust, it may be that the degrading dogma of original\nsin, and the atrocious doctrines of election and reprobation could not\nnow, in this country, be matters of dispute. \u201cOur regret (to use the\nwords of the Lecturer) is rather due to the culpable silence of the past\nthan to the proceedings of the present time.\u201d It is a remarkable fact in\nthe history of religion, that all the doctrines which have been most\ngenerally condemned as heresy, have been pure or benignant ones; and all\npersecutions and religious hatreds, bodily or social, have been directed\nagainst their professors. Not to mention the Christians, who burned\nJerome and Huss; we might refer even to the heathens who poisoned\nSocrates\u2014to uphold the personality of Satan\u2014the reality of his\nexistence, and the malignity of his nature,\u2014to declaim upon hell\u2019s\ntorments and to announce eternal perdition on the great mass of God\u2019s\nfamily\u2014to create excitement by the grossest pictures of vice and misery\nis the certain way to popularity. The popular taste, as it has yet been\ndeveloped or nurtured, has been coarse and ferocious, and if any thing\ncould prove to me the doctrine of universal depravity, it would be the\ntoleration of the horrors of Calvinistic orthodoxy.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture VIII.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n Gen. ix. 6.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n See Appendix, Note 1.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n Pref. to Sermons.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n See Note 2.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n Gen. vii. 1.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n Gen. vi. 6.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE.\n\n\nIn preparing this Lecture for the press, after an examination in its\nprinted form of that to which it is a Reply, I do not find that the\nTrinitarian argument has been strengthened by additional evidence, or by\na more logical statement, so as to require any modification of my\nimpressions of its weight and character.\n\nMr. Bates has in his Appendix _drawn out_ some of his scriptural\nevidence, and I can only require any one to examine it, in order not\nonly to estimate its cogency in reference to this particular question,\nbut also to obtain a very accurate idea of the peculiar genius of\nTrinitarian interpretation. I shall select two passages as perfectly\ndescriptive of the manner in which the believer in a verbal and logical\nrevelation draws doctrinal conclusions from the mere words of scripture.\n\nHere is one of the Trinitarian _Scriptural proofs_ of Three Persons in\nthe Unity of the Godhead.\n\n\u201c2 Thess. iii. 5. \u2018The LORD direct your hearts into the love of GOD, and\ninto the patient waiting for CHRIST.\u2019\n\n\u201cIn these passages the Three Persons are distinguished. The LORD to whom\nthe prayer is in both instances directed; GOD, _even our Father_; and\nour _Lord Jesus_ CHRIST. That the LORD thus distinguished from _God the\nFather_, and our _Lord Jesus Christ_, and addressed in prayer, is the\nHOLY GHOST, is evident from the analogy of Scripture, which teaches that\n_sanctification_, for which the Apostle prays, is the peculiar work of\nthe Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014_Mr. Bates\u2019 Appendix, p. 590._\n\nNow, using the same description of logic, we have only to quote a\npassage in which _sanctification_ is ascribed _not_ to the Holy Ghost,\nbut to GOD our FATHER, in order to overthrow the whole of this verbal\nand mournful trifling with the sublime and vast purport of revelation.\n\n\u201cHoly FATHER, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me,\nthat _they_ may be one, _as_ we are.... _Sanctify_ them through thy\ntruth: thy word is truth.\u201d\u2014John xvii. 11, 17.\n\nThe second descriptive specimen I select, of the genius of Trinitarian\ninterpretation, is the following alleged _scriptural proof_ of the\nseparate Deity and Personality of the Holy Spirit.\n\n\u201cRev. i. 4. \u2018JOHN to the seven Churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto\nyou, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come;\nand from the seven Spirits which are before his throne.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe _seven_ Spirits, we are told, is a symbolical designation of the One\nSpirit. Nothing however can be more clear, even on the _verbal_\nprinciple, than that the seven Spirits are the seven Messengers, Angels,\nor Ministers, which, partaking themselves of God\u2019s Spirit, were His\ninstruments of communication with the seven Churches of Asia enumerated\nby the Author of the Apocalypse, and which are represented as being\nbefore his throne, deriving their own inspiration from Him.\u2014\u201cThe mystery\nof the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven\ngolden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven\nChurches; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven\nChurches.\u201d\u2014Rev. i. 20.\n\nOn this, the last opportunity, perhaps, which I may have, of saying any\nthing in connexion with these Lectures, I cannot but express my own\nregret, and point it out to public notice, that we have been\nnecessitated by circumstances, not to prepare merely and deliver as\npulpit addresses, but to print and fix in a permanent form,\ndissertations upon most important and agitated questions, within a\nperiod of time altogether insufficient to do any justice, I will not say\nto the subjects, but even to our own ideas of the subjects. The\naccidental advantage, in this respect, obtained by the Lecturers on the\nTrinitarian Theology, with ample time and undivided strength to bring\nout a single Lecture on a single topic, ought to be included as an\nelement of judgment, if the real value of the contrasted views is to be\nestimated by any, by the results of the present controversy. For myself,\nit is with great pain that I think of so much written, in the most\nsacred cause, almost extempore. That this necessity has occasioned any\ndefects except such as have been _an injury to our own views of Truth_,\nby failing to bring out its full strength, I am not aware. I am not\naware that, in any respect, we have, through haste, _overstated_ our\ncase. I am aware, for my own part, that it might have been much\nstrengthened by additional force of evidence, and clearness of\nstatement. I may be allowed to state, that in the course of three months\nI have been obliged to write and print to the extent of an octavo volume\nof nearly four hundred pages. It is impossible that such an exposition\nof our views should not be crowded with imperfections, and indefinitely\nfeebler than it might be. May we ask that this consideration will be\ntaken into the account by all those who are now forming an opinion of\nthe merits of the Trinitarian and Unitarian Theology, from this\ndiscussion of it. May we ask those who, in the love of the Truth, and in\nconfidence in the God of Truth that no Truth can injure them, wish the\nreal evidence to be presented to their minds, to read the original\nsources, the New and the Old Scriptures, afresh, without fear, without\nan unfair and biassing horror of what they have been cradled to dread as\nheresy, without the intellectual infidelity of studying a revelation\nfrom God with the previous interpretations of men, colouring all their\nassociations with the very words of the document, and preventing their\never receiving a pure impression from the original evidence unmixed with\nthe whispers and suggestions of some self-authorized _Interpreter_ who\nis in terror lest they should miss _the essentials_ of the _revealed_\nreligion, and derive from it some ideas that would destroy.\n\n _Liverpool, April 1839._\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE IX.\n\n THE COMFORTER, EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH,\n WHO DWELLETH IN US, AND TEACHETH ALL THINGS.\n\n By REV. JOHN HAMILTON THOM.\n\n \u201cIF YE LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS: AND I WILL PRAY THE FATHER, AND\n HE SHALL GIVE YOU ANOTHER COMFORTER, THAT HE MAY ABIDE WITH YOU FOR\n EVER; EVEN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH; WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE,\n BECAUSE IT SEETH HIM NOT, NEITHER KNOWETH HIM: BUT YE KNOW HIM, FOR\n HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE IN YOU. I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU\n COMFORTLESS; I WILL COME TO YOU.\u201d\u2014_John_ xiv. 15-18\n\n\nIt is very remarkable that whenever the doctrine of the Trinity is\ndiscussed, the debate is almost always exclusively occupied by the\nsingle question of the deity of the Christ, and if that can be\nestablished, the controversy is considered at an end. Controversialists\nglide from the doctrine of the deity of the Son to the separate deity of\nthe Holy Spirit, in a way which plainly shows that one inroad being\neffected on the personal unity of God, and the principle once loosened,\nanother division of it is conceded upon much easier terms, without fear,\nwithout caution, without reverence. Why indeed should men scruple to\nadmit three persons into the unity of the Godhead after having got over\nthe first great difficulty of admitting two? A third person adds nothing\nto the difficulty of a second person, and if we cannot maintain unbroken\nthe principle of one God, in our own sense of oneness, then the extent\nto which the principle is violated, whether by three persons, or any\nother number, is really a matter of a very minor importance. Having\nadmitted that there may be two persons in the godhead, it would be very\nabsurd to take an objection against there being three; for the analogy\nof unity, in the only sense we are acquainted with it, the unity of a\nhuman being, having once failed us, we must never plead it again. The\nprinciple that admits two minds in the being of one God will equally\nadmit any number whatever, provided Scripture accords to them the\ndignity, and our struggle and reluctance will be felt most strongly on\nthe first of these invasions of our own idea of unity, and will yield\nmore and more readily at each successive one.\n\nThis is the only explanation I can conceive, and a very natural one it\nis, of the weak and unguarded state in which Trinitarians have left the\nseparate personality and deity of the Holy Ghost. I do not wonder at\ntheir preference for that word, _Ghost_, in this connection. It\nmaterializes the word Spirit, puts the true idea out of immediate sight,\nand is so far a preparation for introducing the conception of a third\n_person_, which never would naturally have arisen from the use of the\nmore intelligible expression \u201cthe Holy Spirit,\u201d \u201cthe Spirit of God.\u201d I\napprehend that all minds, though long familiarized with the idea of a\nplurality of persons in the godhead, would be greatly shocked, if that\nplurality was conceived to be either more or less than the mystic number\nthree. A multitude of deities, discharging different offices, but\npartaking of the one Essence of the godhead, would be thought a\ncompletely Heathen conception\u2014and a reduction of the present orthodox\nidea, so as to represent only two persons in the one God, would strike a\nChristian mind as scarcely less pagan. Yet upon Trinitarian principles\nthis is evidently a mere prejudice of Custom. There is no more reason,\nso far as our understanding is concerned, for there being three persons\nin the godhead than for there being only two, and whether there be one,\ntwo, three, or a countless number, is a question to which our Reason\nought to be entirely indifferent, having no _a priori_ opinion or\nprinciple of its own upon the subject: and submitting to the letter of\nthe Revelation with equal readiness, whether it distributes the Essence\nof the Deity among a Trinity, or among any other plurality of minds. Now\nI would ask Trinitarians whether they have schooled themselves into\nsubmission to this principle\u2014whether they would receive four persons in\nthe Godhead as readily as they receive three, provided the same mode of\ninferential interpretation which now establishes the Trinity, succeeded\nin showing that a further distribution of the essence of the godhead was\nrequired, in order to make our Theology consistent with the exact\nwording of the Scriptures. I apprehend that most minds amongst us would\nrevolt at the idea of four persons in one God, _contemplated as a mere\npossibility_. Yet surely in a Trinitarian this would be very\nunreasonable. As a _Scripture_ doctrine he might reasonably discard it\nas unfounded\u2014but as a possibility, as a subject on which, previous to\nRevelation, he ought to have no prejudice whatever, he must on his own\nprinciples have no objection to the plurality of divine persons\nextending to any number, and be as prompt, to submit his faith to five\nas to three, provided five can be shown to be the proper inference from\nthe words of Scripture. A consistent Trinitarian must feel no _a priori_\nobjection to any number of divine persons united together. Having\nconceded that on this subject his Reason is no guide, and his Nature no\nanalogy, there is but one question he has a right to ask,\u2014\u201cIs it so\nwritten?\u201d\n\nAnd even if it should be granted that Scripture reveals three divine\npersons and reveals no more, yet upon his own principles, a consistent\nTrinitarian should be cautious in asserting that there _are_ no more.\nScripture nowhere asserts that there are _only_ three persons in the\ngodhead\u2014and surely it is being wise above what is written, for a\nTrinitarian to confine God\u2019s essence within the limits in which He has\nbeen pleased to reveal Himself, and to make the communications He has\nopened upon us the measures of the infinite possibilities of His being.\nA Trinitarian reverently and with becoming modesty stating his own\ndoctrine, and not presuming to know more of God than is revealed, ought\nto content himself with saying\u2014that Scripture discloses three divine\nminds in one Deity, but that whether there are any _more_ than three,\nScripture does not declare, and he would hold it arrogant to assert. If\nthe Unitarian is wise _contrary_ to what is written in confining the\nunity of God to one person; the Trinitarian is wise _above_ what is\nwritten in confining it to three persons, and with less excuse, for that\none is neither more nor less than one is at least a natural\nsupposition\u2014but after having admitted that one may be three, there is\nnothing but precipitancy and dogmatism in determining that it can be\n_only_ three. A consistent and scripturally modest Trinitarian should\nsimply state, that God his Father, God his Redeemer, and God his\nSanctifier, contained all the revelation that was required for the\nsalvation of his soul\u2014but as to whether there might not be other divine\npersons in the plurality of the godhead, he held it to be a high\nmystery, which he did not presume to speak upon\u2014that only these were\nrevealed, and therefore he knew no more, but yet he did not dare to\nassert that his necessities, the requirements of a being so feeble,\ncomprised and exhausted the whole capabilities and personalities of the\ngodhead. But Trinitarians are not so modest. They charge the Unitarian\nwith presumption for limiting the divine essence to one Person\u2014and then\nthey proceed themselves, with no warrant from Scripture, and none _they_\nassert from Reason, to limit it to Three.\n\nIf two not three had been the favourite mythological number, if a\nDuality and not a Trinity had been the Platonic conception, then, I am\nsatisfied, that the Christian world, though it might have witnessed the\ndeification of the Christ, would never have heard of the separate deity\nof the Holy Spirit. And this assertion is amply borne out by the\nhistorical fact, that the deification of the Spirit followed afterwards\nas a consequence from the deification of the Son, and that the earliest\nform of the charge made against the Platonizing Christians by stricter\nbelievers in the unity of the Deity, states the whole extent of their\nheresy to be that of introducing a _second_ God,\u2014nothing as yet being\nsaid about third.\n\nIt is well known to all in whom duty has so far prevailed over distaste,\nas to make them turn in sorrow the heavy pages of Ecclesiastical\nHistory, that there was no discussion respecting the divinity of the\nthird person in the Trinity until nearly the end of the fourth century.\nNothing can surpass the cool and easy confidence which sets aside this\nundeniable fact by boldly asserting that up to this time the doctrine\nwas never disputed\u2014and that the absence of evidence in support of this\ndoctrine only arises from the absence of doubt, that nobody stated what\nnobody denied. What, the separate deity and personality of the Holy\nGhost never doubted, and yet not one prayer addressed to Him in\nScripture, not one ascription of praise, not one doxology in which his\nname is introduced, so that when the Church desired to associate the\nthird person in the honours of Christian worship it could find no\nScripture formula, and had to make one for the occasion;\u2014not one debate\nfor nearly four hundred years upon the deity of the Holy Ghost, although\nthe deity of the Second Person, to whom the Third Person even after his\ndeification was held to be subordinate, was constantly debated, and yet\nthe doctrine never doubted nor denied! Now if the doctrine was never\ndoubted or denied, since the doctrine of the deity of the Son was most\ncertainly both doubted and denied, why is it that the Holy Spirit does\nnot appear as the Second person in the Trinity instead of the Third\u2014why\nis it that the Council of Nice previous to this time, when the doctrine\n_began_ to be doubted and denied, asserts the deity of the Father, and\nthe deity of the Son, but does not assert the deity of the Holy\nGhost\u2014and why is it that the earliest charge against the philosophizing\nChristians was that of introducing a _second_ God, if there was already\na second divine person acknowledged, and therefore the true charge\nshould have been that of introducing a _third_? It is remarkable that\nthe same very learned writer, the late Professor Burton, who is the\ngreat Trinitarian authority upon these subjects, after having resolved\nthe absence of controversy into the possible absence of doubt as to the\ndeity of the holy Ghost, records the very first instance in which the\nHoly Spirit is introduced into a doxology of the Church as taking place\nin the fourth century. He quotes Philostorgius the Arian historian, who\ndeclares, \u201cthat Flavianus of Antioch, having assembled a number of\nmonks, was the first to shout out, Glory to the Father, _and_ to the\nSon, _and_ to the holy Spirit; for before his time some had said, Glory\nto the Father, _through_ the Son _in_ the holy Spirit, which was the\nexpression in most general use; and others, Glory to the Father, in the\nSon and holy Spirit.\u201d[524] Gibbon relates this matter thus. He is\nspeaking of a temporary triumph of the Arians over the Athanasians, and\nof the means employed by the Athanasian laity to manifest their\nunwilling acceptance of the Arian Bishops. \u201cThe Catholics,\u201d says the\nhistorian, \u201cmight prove to the world, that they were not involved in the\nguilt and heresy of their ecclesiastical governor, by publicly\ntestifying their dissent, or by totally separating themselves from his\ncommunion. The first of these methods was invented at Antioch, and\npractised with such success, that it was soon diffused over the\nChristian world. The doxology, or sacred hymn, which celebrates the\nglory of the Trinity, is susceptible of very nice, but material\ninflections; and the substance of an orthodox or heretical creed, may be\nexpressed by the difference of a disjunctive or a copulative particle.\nAlternate responses, and a more regular psalmody were introduced into\nthe public Service by Flavianus and Diodorus, two devout and active\nlaymen, who were attached to the Nicene faith. Under their conduct, a\nswarm of monks issued from the adjacent desert, bands of\nwell-disciplined singers were stationed in the cathedral of Antioch, the\nGlory to the Father, AND the Son, AND the Holy Ghost, was triumphantly\nchaunted by a full chorus of voices: and the Catholics insulted, by the\npurity of their doctrine, the Arian prelate, who had usurped the throne\nof the venerable Eustathius.\u201d Out of such disorders in the Church, from\nthe rebellious device of laymen to insult an heretical Bishop, sprung\nthe doxology of our present creeds.\n\nIt is very instructive to look a little closely into some of the\npassages from the early Fathers which are brought by Trinitarians as\nevidence of the recognition of their doctrines by the primitive Church.\nThere is unquestionably much vague language that will readily coalesce\nwith the conceptions of a modern orthodox believer; but as soon as you\nexamine with any strictness, you find that though they use language very\nloosely, nothing could be further from their modes of thinking than\nmodern orthodoxy. For instance, we find the Son and the Holy Spirit\nmentioned as objects of a Christian\u2019s reverence\u2014but it is very\nremarkable how many of these cases occur when the writers are defending\nthemselves against a charge of Atheism, as if they were desirous when\nrepelling such charge to show how many sources of veneration their\nreligion disclosed. The early Christians who believed in only one God\nwere called Atheists by the Heathens. To believe in only one God was in\ntheir estimation the next thing to believing in none at all. Those who\nbelieved in many gods were likely enough to call the Christians\nAtheists, just as in the present day lecturers in Christ Church call\nUnitarianism a God denying Heresy.[525] In vindicating themselves\nagainst this dangerous calumny the early Christians were naturally led\nto extend rather than to diminish their objects of worship, and\naccordingly in a passage quoted by Professor Burton, from the earliest\nFather on whom dependence can be placed, we find not only the Son and\nthe Spirit, but interposed between the Son and the Spirit, the angels of\nHeaven, associated together in their reverence. Hence the passage is\nquoted by Roman Catholics in support of the worship of Angels. And if it\nis good for the one purpose, it is equally good for the other; nay, if\nit is any proof of the separate deity of the Holy Spirit, it is equally\nproof of the deity of the angels who are mentioned before him. The\npassage is from Justin Martyr whom Professor Burton places A. D. 150.\n\u201cHence it is that we are called Atheists: and we confess that we are\nAtheists with respect to such reputed gods as these: but not with\nrespect to the true God, the Father of justice, temperance, and every\nother virtue, with whom is no mixture of evil. But Him, and the Son who\ncame from Him and gave us this instruction, and the host of the other\ngood angels which attend upon and resemble them, and the prophetic\nSpirit we worship and adore, paying them a reasonable and true honour,\nand not refusing to deliver to any one else, who wishes to be taught,\nwhat we ourselves have learnt.\u201d[526] There is another passage from\nJustin Martyr, also given by Burton as evidence of the early recognition\nof the Trinity, but which is manifestly nothing more than the natural\nanxiety of the writer when meeting a charge that perilled his life, the\ncharge of Atheism, to show the full extent of his sentiments of\nreverence. \u201cThat we are not Atheists,\u201d says Justin Martyr, \u201cwho would\nnot acknowledge, when we worship the Creator of this Universe, and Jesus\nChrist who was our instructor in these things, knowing him to be the Son\nof this true God, and assigning to him the _Second_ place. And I shall\nprove presently, that we honour the prophetic Spirit in the _third_\nrank, and that we are reasonable in so doing.\u201d[527] Now let it be\nrecollected that these two passages, extending as far as possible the\nobjects of a Christian\u2019s reverence, occur in Justin Martyr\u2019s Apology for\nChristianity against its Gentile oppressors, in which he complains that\nthe Christians were treated as Atheists, and unjustly punished for not\nworshipping the gods. I shall only quote one other passage exhibiting\nthe modes of thinking respecting the Holy Spirit among the early\nFathers. It is from Origen, A. D. 240, perhaps the most eminent of them\nall, and shows clearly, notwithstanding the frequent vagueness and\nobscurity of their writings, how far they were removed from modern\nTrinitarianism, and that their forms of thought were derived from\nPlatonism much more than from Christianity, or more strictly from\nPlatonism engrafted on Christianity. He is speaking of the Son, and\ncommenting on those words at the beginning of St. John\u2019s Gospel\u2014\u201call\nthings were made by him.\u201d\n\n\u201cIf it is true,\u201d says Origen, \u201cthat _all things were made by him_, we\nmust inquire whether the Holy Ghost was made by him: for as it seems to\nme, if a person says that the Holy Ghost was made, and if he grants that\nall things were made by the Logos, he must necessarily admit that the\nHoly Ghost was also made by the Logos, the latter preceding him in order\nof time. But if a person does not choose to say that the Holy Ghost was\nmade by Christ, it follows that he must call him unproduced, if he\nthinks that this passage in the gospel is true. But there may be a third\nopinion, beside that of admitting that the Holy Ghost was made by the\nLogos, and that of supposing him to be uncreated, namely, the notion of\nthere being no substantial individual existence of the Holy Ghost\ndistinct from the Father and the Son. We, however, being persuaded that\nthere are three hypostases (persons), the Father, the Son, and the Holy\nGhost, and believing that nothing is unproduced beside the Father, adopt\nthis as the more pious and the true opinion, that all things being made\nby the Logos, the Holy Ghost is more honourable than all of them, and\nmore so in rank than all the things which were made by the Father\nthrough Christ. And perhaps this is the reason why he is not called the\nvery Son of God, there being only one who by nature and origin is Son,\nviz. the only begotten, who seems to have been necessary to the Holy\nGhost, and to have assisted in forming his hypostasis, not only that he\nmight exist, but also that he might have wisdom, and reason, and\nrighteousness, and whatever else we suppose him to have, according to\nhis participation in those qualities which we have before mentioned as\nattributed to Christ.\u201d \u201cSuch,\u201d says Burton, \u201cis this extraordinary, and\nI must add unfortunate passage of Origen, which I have quoted at length,\nand have endeavoured to translate with the utmost fairness. If the\nreader should decide from it that Origen did not believe in the eternity\nof the Holy Ghost, he will think that the enemies of Origen were not\nwithout grounds when they questioned his orthodoxy. It is not my\nintention entirely to exculpate him. He is at least guilty of\nindiscretion in entering upon such perilous grounds and in speculating\nso deeply upon points which after all must elude the grasp of human\nideas and phraseology.\u201d Professor Burton calls this passage\n\u201cunfortunate,\u201d for no reason that we can see, except that it discloses\ntoo plainly Origen\u2019s ignorance of Modern Trinitarianism, and shows too\nclearly in what sense we are to understand the Platonic language of the\nFathers.\n\nThere are two modes of proof by which Trinitarians undertake to\nestablish the separate existence of the Holy Spirit as a third person in\nthe godhead. The first mode is by inferences from such passages of\nscripture as seem to attribute the titles and offices of deity to the\nHoly Spirit. The second method of proof is by independent considerations\nof Theology which profess to demonstrate the necessity of a third person\nin the godhead in order to compleat the work of man\u2019s salvation.\n\nTrinitarians say, that Scripture both calls the Holy Spirit God, and\nassigns to Him a work which none but God could accomplish. Now in both\nthese respects we have not a shadow of difference with the Trinitarians.\nWe believe as firmly and we hope as fervently as they do, that the Holy\nSpirit is God, and that the Holy Spirit has connections with our souls\nwhich none but our God could hold. We have no controversy with the\nTrinitarians, when they assert the Deity, and Personality, and\nOperations of the Holy Spirit. It is a mere piece of controversial\ndexterity to put these points prominently forward as the true grounds of\nour difference\u2014and, whether designedly or not, an unfair impression is\nproduced against us, by such a mode of statement, as if we were deniers\nof the deity and agency of the spirit of God\u2014if indeed any meaning could\nbe found in such a denial, supposing we were extravagant enough to make\nit. To deny the deity of the Spirit of God, would be a proposition as\nabsolutely without meaning as to deny the humanity of the spirit of man.\nWe were told by the Lecturer in Christ Church to whom this subject was\ncommitted, that it was of no avail for Unitarians to advance passages in\nwhich the Holy Spirit signified not God himself, but his power and\ninfluence exerted upon man, for that these occasional meanings of the\nexpression were fully conceded; and that what we have to do, is to\ndisprove the Trinitarian interpretation of _other_ passages which\nattribute to the Holy Spirit, deity, personality, and operation. Now the\nTrinitarians must allow us the privilege of taking our faith from\nourselves, not from them, and in carving out for us this employment, the\nLecturer at Christ Church would set us to the task of disproving our own\nconvictions, of overthrowing our own interpretations, of answering and\nopposing _ourselves_. There is only one point of difference between the\nTrinitarians and ourselves upon this subject, and that is the only point\nto which their arguments never have a reference. They maintain and we\nmaintain that the Holy Spirit is God. They concede and we concede that\nthe expression \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d in scripture frequently signifies that\nportion of God\u2019s spirit which is given to man naturally or\nsupernaturally. They maintain however that the Holy Spirit is, not the\none God, but a third person in the godhead\u2014_and here we separate from\nthem_, maintaining that the Scripture evidence for such a distribution\nof the Godhead among several persons is totally imaginary, and that the\ntheological reasons for such a distribution betray the most arbitrary\nand unworthy limitations assigned by man to the infinite and spiritual\nnature of God. Now will it be believed that when Trinitarian\ncontroversialists treat this subject they uniformly put forward those\nviews of it which we do not deny, as if we denied them, and they as\nuniformly pass over the only point of difference between us, and avoid\nall close grappling with it, laboriously proving that the holy Spirit is\nGod, which of course we believe, and then taking for granted that he _is\na third person_ in a Trinity, leaving the argument at the very point\nwhere argument ought to have commenced? Will it be believed that the\nLecturer at Christ Church exhausted his strength and time in assiduously\nproving that the spirit of God was God, and that it had understanding,\nwill, and power? Will it be believed that of nearly a three hours\u2019\nlecture, certainly not more than five minutes was devoted to the only\npoint of difference between us\u2014that the common parts of our faith were\nlaboriously proved\u2014if indeed such an identical proposition, as that the\nspirit of God is God, can be called faith\u2014and the single controverted\npart left intact? I in my turn take the liberty of declaring that it is\nof no avail that Trinitarians adduce passages of scripture attesting the\nDeity, Personality, and Operations of the Holy Spirit, for that this is\nconceded, if an identical proposition can be conceded,\u2014and that what\nthey have to do is to prove that the spirit of God is not the one God,\nbut a third person in the godhead\u2014and if the Lecturer had devoted his\nthree hours to this, the only point in controversy, he might have\ngreatly aided, or greatly injured his cause, and have afforded an\nopportunity for testing the mutual strength of our views in a way which\nis now not possible. Disappointed of finding the controversy conducted\nwith any closeness by the Lecturer in Christ Church on the only point by\nus denied, namely a deity of the Holy Spirit, personally separate from\nthe deity of our one God, I turn to a published sermon of Dr.\nTattershall\u2019s, in the hope of finding some discussion of our true\ndifference from an associated authority. But here unfortunately again\nprecisely the same principle is pursued of proving what is not denied,\nand of passing most slightly over the only point of difference. In a\nsermon consisting of thirty-four pages just three are devoted to the\nmatter in controversy,[528] and these I grieve to say occupied with\nreasonings so verbal and unsatisfactory, that one is amazed that a manly\nand reverential mind could offer or could accept them as the solid and\nsubstantial proofs of a doctrine that affects to such an extent the\nbeing and nature of God. I think it not unbecoming here to declare, that\nwith respect to the two modes of proof adopted by Trinitarians to\nestablish the separate deity of the Holy Spirit, the Scriptural proof,\nand the Theological proof, I have long and laboriously sought in their\nown writers, for some distinct controversial statement of the scriptural\nand theological adjustments of this subject; I have examined their\nscholars and critics for the verbal part of the argument, and their\ndivines for the theological part of it, and nowhere can I find anything\ndefinite or tangible to grapple with or oppose. It is at least my\nconviction that never was so serious a doctrine as that of a third\nperson in the godhead admitted upon evidence so small, and I cannot\nconceal my strengthened impression, that it has glided into most minds\nas an easy consequence from the deity of Christ. Again we avow our\nbelief that the Holy Spirit is God, but we declare that we cannot find\nany scriptural evidence that he is a separate God (personally) from God\nour Father, or any theological evidence that He performs a work within\nour souls, which work may not be performed by God our Father. If\nTrinitarians wish to establish their own doctrine, it is to these two\npoints that they ought to confine themselves.\n\nAbandoned then to our own methods of discussing this subject by\nopponents who assert a doctrine that we deny, and prove only those\nportions of it that we admit, I shall endeavour to ascertain, first, the\nScriptural meaning of the expression, \u201cthe Holy Spirit\u201d or \u201cSpirit of\nGod.\u201d\n\nI shall examine the more difficult passages which are usually appealed\nto in this controversy.\n\nI shall examine what Trinitarians call \u201cthe work of the Spirit,\u201d in\norder to ascertain whether it requires a third person in the godhead, or\nwhether God our Father is not sufficient for it.\n\nAnd I shall close with some statement of our own views of the\nconnections of the spirit of God with the spirit of man.\n\nThe expression \u201cHoly Spirit\u201d when used in scripture will I think always\nbe found to designate not God as he is in Himself, whom no man knoweth,\nbut God in communication with the spirit of man. Whether the Deity holds\nintercourse with his creatures naturally or supernaturally, the name\napplied to Him in scripture, with respect to those felt or manifested\nconnections, is that of the Holy Spirit. And there is most holy and\nbeautiful reason for this peculiar usage. God is a spirit; and he is\ntherefore only spiritually discerned. Through our spirits He speaks to\nus. In our spirits He abides with us. Eye hath not seen him; ear hath\nnot heard him\u2014but through that portion of his spirit which He has given\nus, we know Him, and are His. It is not God without us, but God _within_\nus that we know and feel. Externally we know Him not; personally we\nconceive him not; as He is, in his own essence and perfections we cannot\nthink of Him\u2014but He has put His own spirit within us, and that, in\nproportion as we have it and cherish it, reveals Him unto us\u2014He has\nlighted up from Himself a candle of the Lord in our spiritual being, and\nif by communion with Him we keep oil in our lamps, and our lamps trimmed\nand burning, His spirit which bloweth where it listeth, listeth to blow\nupon us and to feed our flame. And how shall the spirit of man prepare\nitself for fresh communications from the spirit of God? Only by removing\nfrom his own spirit whatever is at variance with the spirit of God\u2014by\ncleansing the temple, that the holy one may be able to come to us and\nmanifest himself to a nature that has reverently sought to put away all\ndeadening impurity, and to brighten the spiritual image in which it was\nmade\u2014by courting the voices of the soul\u2014by listening amid the tumults of\nthe world to hear God speaking in our conscience\u2014by cherishing through\nobedience, and inviting through prayer the intimations, that by His\nspirit, from which ours are derived, He gives us of His will. The spirit\nof God originally made the spirit of Man: the spirit of God retains its\nconnections with the spirit of Man so long as man does not by unholiness\nand alien sympathies drive out that holy Spirit: and in measures more\nabundantly as we prepare ourselves to receive of His, does He hold\ncommunion with us through affections and affinities fitted to apprehend\nHim; and He transforms the will that obeys Him from glory to glory as by\nthe spirit of the Lord. I apprehend that the preparation which was made\nby God for the reception of the gospel and spirit of Jesus Christ, shows\nthe preparation which all men must make who would qualify themselves for\nfresh communications from the Holy Spirit of our Father. The baptism of\nrepentance prepared the way for the baptism of the holy spirit and of\nfire. The heart had to be cleansed before the spirit of God could\ndescend upon it, and hold communication with it. And ever must there be\na Baptist Ministry breaking the dread repose of sin, awakening the dead\nheart, and creating the consciousness of want, before the Christ of God\ncan breathe in his gentle breath upon our souls, saying unto us,\n\u201creceive ye the holy spirit.\u201d The holy spirit of God reveals itself to\nthe spirit of man in proportion as we remove unholiness from us. What\nuse of language then can be more affectingly elevating and solemn than\nthat which designates God, when in communication with man, as the Holy\nSpirit? A spirit, he is spiritually discerned: and holy, only those that\nare holy have affinities with Him.\n\nSuch then is the primary signification of the expression Holy Spirit\nwhen used in the Scriptures\u2014the Holy Spirit of God naturally or\nsupernaturally in communication with the spirit of man, and in fuller\ncommunication in proportion as man by holiness seeks it and prepares\nhimself for it. From this however there is derived a secondary\nsignification, and so natural and easy is the derivative meaning, that\nit is a strong confirmation of its primary. That portion of his spirit\nwhich God communicates to man, may be regarded as separated from Him. It\nhas entered into man and become his. It is a gift, an inspiration from\nour God. Man has become the possessor of it, but still God is the origin\nof it, and therefore though imparted to us it may still be spoken of as\nGod\u2019s holy spirit. There are therefore in Scripture two significations\nof the Holy Spirit\u2014the primary one\u2014God in communication with man\u2014and the\nsecondary one\u2014that portion of his spirit which God has communicated,\nnaturally or supernaturally, and which has become ours. We have received\nthe Holy Spirit, when we have spiritually received what only God can\ncommunicate. These two comprise, I believe, all the meanings of the\nexpression, Holy Spirit, _first_, God communicating to man, and\n_secondly_ that portion of His spirit, which, by communication, man\u2019s\nspirit has received.\n\nI shall give some instances of each of these applications of the phrase.\n\nThere can be no difficulty in all those cases in which the holy Spirit\nsignifies God himself in spiritual communication with man.\u2014\u201cAnd when\nthey bring you into the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers;\ntake ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall\nsay. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you, in that same hour, what ye\nought to say.\u201d\u2014Luke xii. 11, 12. Now in the parallel passage in St.\nMatthew\u2019s Gospel we have the expression, the Holy Ghost, explained to\nmean the spirit of God our Father. \u201cBut when they deliver you up, take\nno thought how or what ye shall speak. For it shall be given you in that\nsame hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the\nspirit of your Father which speaketh in you.\u201d\u2014Matt. x. 19, 20. \u201cKnowing\nthis first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private\ninterpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of\nman: but holy men spake, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.\u201d \u201cAs\nthey ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate\nme Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them\u2014so they\nbeing sent forth by the Holy Spirit departed unto Seleucia.\u201d\u2014Acts xiii.\n2, 4.\n\nThe expression the \u201cSpirit of God\u201d is sometimes used with the same\nsignification, only with this difference, that \u201cthe Spirit of God\u201d\nfrequently signifies the essence and being of God as He is in Himself,\nwhilst the expression \u201cthe Holy Spirit\u201d is I believe never employed\nexcept to designate our heavenly Father when in living communication\nwith the spirits of his children. \u201cWhat man knoweth the things of a man,\nsave the spirit of a man that is in him? Even so the things of God\nknoweth no man [or no one] but the spirit of God.\u201d\u20141 Cor. ii. 11. Here\nif the spirit of man means man, the spirit of God must mean God, and how\nin opposition to language so precise and definite, a separate\npersonality could be introduced into the godhead, called the spirit of\nGod, it is difficult to imagine. \u201cWhither shall I go from thy spirit? or\nwhither shall I flee from thy presence?\u201d\u2014Ps. cxxxix. \u201cBy his spirit he\nhas garnished the heavens: his hand has formed the crooked serpent (the\ngalaxy).\u201d\u2014Job, xxvi. 13.\n\nI shall now adduce some of the more remarkable cases in which the\nvarious expressions, \u201cspirit,\u201d \u201choly spirit,\u201d and \u201cspirit of God,\u201d are\nused to designate that portion of God\u2019s spirit which naturally or\nsupernaturally has entered into man, and become ours, but which in\nreference to Him from whom it was derived, and with whom it retains\nblessed connections, is called the spirit of God. God being a Spirit,\nand man being a spirit, whatever man knows or feels of God, may, not\nfiguratively, but with the strictest truth, be called the Holy Spirit\nwithin him. \u201cIf ye then being evil, know how to give good gifts unto\nyour children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy\nSpirit to them that ask him.\u201d\u2014Luke, xi. 13. Now that the Holy Spirit\nsignifies here not a third person in the godhead, but our heavenly\nFather\u2019s gifts and inspirations to the soul, is clearly shown by the\nparallel passage in St. Matthew\u2019s gospel\u2014\u201cIf ye then, being evil, know\nhow to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your\nFather which is in Heaven give _good things_ to them that ask\nHim.\u201d\u2014Matt. vii. 11. \u201cBut as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear\nheard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God\nhath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us\nby his spirit: for the spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things\nof God.\u201d\u20141 Cor. ii. 9, 10. Now here the spirit is used first in its\nprimary sense of God in communication with man, and immediately after in\nits secondary sense of that portion of His spirit communicated to man,\nfor it is just in proportion as it partakes of His spirit that the\nspirit of man searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. God\nenlightens and man receives\u2014but the light which has entered into man,\nsince it came from God, may well continue to be called the Spirit of\nGod. \u201cNow we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit\nwhich is of God;\u2014but the natural man receiveth not the things of the\nspirit of God: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually\ndiscerned. But we have the mind of Christ.\u201d\u20141 Cor. ii. 12-16. Here the\nApostle distinctly declares that our portion of the spirit of God is\n\u201cthe mind of Christ.\u201d In proportion as we have that we know Him, the\nonly true God, whom to know is life eternal. \u201cLikewise the spirit also\nhelpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we\nought: but the spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings\nthat cannot be uttered.\u201d\u2014Rom. viii. 26. Now nothing can be more\nmarvellous in all the marvels of scripture interpretation, than that\nthis spirit within us which vents itself in groanings that cannot be\nuttered should ever have been referred to a third personality in the\ngodhead. How beautiful is this passage when truly and _spiritually_\nconsidered! We know not what to pray for as we ought; our spiritual\napprehension is feeble and dim; and our vague yearnings after the\nheavenly and the perfect are not distinct enough to present\nclearly-defined objects to our pursuit and love; yet we have a holy\nimpulse within us, a divine tendency leading us towards God; God has\ngiven us this Spirit, and partaking of His nature it sighs after the\nperfection to which it is akin; it knows not fully its heavenly origin\nand end, but still true to the divine instinct it yearns after Him and\ntends towards Him; it sighs for a glory and a happiness which it cannot\ndistinctly conceive or express, but God who gave it understands the\nprayer, and hears this intercession of His own spirit\u2014that divine\nimpulse planted by Himself which now supplicates Him to make bright its\ndim longings and to help it forwards unto that glory towards which the\ndivinity within it tends\u2014and He who searcheth the heart knoweth what is\nthe mind of that spirit which He himself put there, and that it maketh\nintercession with Him, for all holy ones,[529] that He would fulfil the\npromise of the heavenly impulse that sighs for good.[530] How has\nTrinitarianism destroyed the spiritual power of the Scriptures, by\ntaking all this beautiful and holy meaning out of the individual heart,\nand for the sighings which cannot be uttered after the immortal and the\ngood, which God, who inspired them, comprehends and blesses,\nsubstituting a third Person in the godhead who intercedes for us to\nanother Person, with groanings that cannot be uttered!\n\nI believe that these two significations of the expression, \u201cHoly\nSpirit,\u201d so closely connected as scarcely to be two, will explain all\nthe cases of its scriptural occurrence; first, God Himself in\ncommunication with the Soul, and secondly, that portion of His spirit\nwhich He has communicated to man, and which as being His, derived from\nHim, and a portion of the true knowledge of His Mind, is called His Holy\nSpirit.\n\nI shall now examine the Scriptural evidence which is chiefly relied upon\nin this controversy, as proving, not the personality and deity of the\nHoly Spirit, for here we agree, but a personality and deity distinct\nfrom those of God our Father.\n\n\u201cGo ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of\nthe Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d\u2014Matt. xxviii. 19;\nor, into the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the word, \u201cname,\u201d\nby an idiom of the Hebrew language, being redundant.\n\nTo baptize into a person was a form of expression signifying the\nreception of the religious ideas associated with that person. Thus the\nJews were said to be baptized into Moses, because they received the\nreligious ideas associated with the institutions of that Prophet: and on\nthe other hand, the Samaritans were said to be baptized into Mount\nGerizim, because they received the religious ideas associated with the\nbelief that there, and not at Jerusalem, was the appointed place of the\nTemple. The formula then of baptizing in the name of the Father, and of\nthe Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, signified nothing more than the\nacceptance of the religious ideas associated with God in this new\nmanifestation of Himself, revealed through the Christ, and accompanied\nby the operations of His Spirit, witnessing, both internally and\nexternally, to the new light that had come into the world, the promised\nreign of the spirit of God. These were the words which most readily were\nassociated with, and suggested those religious ideas which were looked\nupon as constituting the characteristic faith of one who was willing to\nenter into the gospel kingdom of Heaven, that is, to adopt the\n_Christian_ idea of God and of Religion. The Father, the Christ, the\nSpirit of God in us giving us some communion with that Father, by\nuniting us through spiritual sympathies with that Christ\u2014is not this of\nthe very soul of Christianity? God manifested in Jesus, and our souls\naccepting the revelation, because the spirit of our Father within us\ndraws us towards him who had the same spirit without measure\u2014is not this\nto express in a few words all the characteristic and peculiar ideas of\nChristianity, and therefore most fit to be used as suggesting summarily\nto matured converts the new faith into which they were baptized? The\nsame set of ideas might have been as fully expressed by the shorter form\nof being baptized \u201cinto Christ,\u201d for this would imply the possession and\nacceptance of all the religious ideas associated with his person and\nministry\u2014and accordingly we find that in every recorded case of baptism\nor allusion to baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistles,\nthe expression simply and briefly is to \u201cbaptize into Christ,\u201d and never\nonce is there an allusion to the form of baptism into the Father, and\nthe Son, and the Holy Ghost. Now this demonstrates two things: first\nthat the Apostles did not look upon these words as _a form prescribed by\nChrist_: and secondly, that they did not regard them as a confession of\nfaith in a tri-personal God, else would they never have neglected all\nmention of the _first_ and _third_ persons, and simply baptized into\nChrist, that is, into the religion of the Christ. There is a remarkable\nconfirmation of this view, if indeed it can be supposed to want\nconfirmation, in the language of Paul to some disciples at Ephesus, who\nhad not received the witnessing power and presence of the Holy Spirit.\nThey declare that they had not so much as heard whether there was any\nHoly Spirit. To _what_, then, says the Apostle were you baptized; not\ninto _whom_, observe, but into _what_ were you baptized,\u2014that is, was\nnot the manifestation and participation of God\u2019s Spirit one of the\nreligious ideas and expectations of your faith as converts. And they\nanswer that they had only been baptized into the baptism of John, who\nhad _promised_ the Holy Spirit, but had no power to _confer_ it. And\nthen Paul baptized them into Jesus, and they received the Holy Spirit.\nNow can any one read this passage and believe that the Holy Ghost\nimplies the third person in a Trinity: was it not simply a portion of\nGod\u2019s spirit received by the first believers as an attestation to the\nreligion of the Christ?\n\nNothing can be more arbitrary than to assert that baptism implies the\npersonality and deity of that into which a person is baptized. The\nApostle Paul says that Christians were baptized into the death of\nChrist. Rom. vi. 3. Is the death of Christ therefore a person and a God?\nIs it not simply one of the religious ideas which their faith embraced?\n\nThe personality and deity of the Holy Spirit we indeed do not deny; but\nthe methods by which Trinitarians attempt the proof of this self-evident\nproposition, are, like all proofs of identical propositions,\nunsatisfactory to an extreme. The Lecturer in Christ Church, when\nmeeting the objection, that baptism into Christ was no proof of his\ndeity, because we have also the expression, \u201cbaptism into Moses,\u201d\ndropped out of sight the true bearing of the objection against the\n_deity_ of Jesus, and argued that the expression, baptism into Moses,\nwas so far a proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit, because Moses\nwas a person. Was the death of Christ, a person? Was Mount Gerizim, a\nperson? We do not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit\u2014though this is\nno way of proving it. We do deny that the deity of Christ is implied in\nbaptism into his name, and the force of the expression, baptism into\nMoses, in this bearing of it, was either not seen or was put aside.\n\nThe argument, that because _three words_ follow one another, without any\nexpressed distinction, they must all refer to subjects of the same\nnature, co-equal and co-extensive, and this, too, as the strongest,\nindeed the only direct evidence of a Trinity in the Godhead, is really\none of those arguments for a doctrine of revelation, which a mind with\nany reverence knows not how properly to discuss. I am glad to be able to\nsay, that Dr. Tattershall pronounces this to be only a _presumptive_\nproof of the separate personality of the Holy Spirit, that is, in fact,\nno proof at all, but merely such a hint as might lead to the presumption\nthat there may be additional evidence, and which, therefore, in the\nabsence of such additional evidence, amounts to nothing. If any one,\nhowever, advances such an argument, we have only to ask first, is any\none really content to rest such a doctrine on such a proof, and call\nthis Revelation? and secondly, to advance in our turn, other passages of\nScripture, where this principle of interpretation cannot be maintained.\nIf the concurrence of the words, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit,\nnecessarily implies that each of these refers to a person who is God,\nand that when taken together they make up the entire nature of God\u2014then,\nI ask, what is the necessary inference from such expressions as\nthese,\u2014\u201cI charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and _the\nelect angels_, that thou observe these things?\u201d\u20141 Tim. v. 21. Now if the\nargument is conclusive that infers in the one case the deity of Jesus,\nit must be equally conclusive, when it infers, in the other, the deity\nof the elect angels. The Trinitarian answer will be,\u2014\u201cWe know that the\nangels are not God, and in accordance with this knowledge, we interpret\nthe passage:\u201d and equally do we answer, that when such a passage is\ngiven us as _proof_ of the deity of the Lord Jesus, we know that he was\na man, and in accordance with this knowledge do we interpret the\npassage. Other instances might be given of similar modes of\nexpression:\u2014\u201cAnd all the people greatly feared the Lord _and Samuel_,\u201d 1\nSam. xii. 18; and more strikingly still, Rev. iii. 12, _where the name\nof a place_ is associated as a religious idea, with the names of God and\nChrist. \u201cHim that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my\nGod, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of\nmy God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem,\nwhich cometh down out of Heaven from my God, and [_I will write upon\nhim_] my new name.\u201d\n\nThere is only one other passage in which these three expressions occur\ntogether; and it must have a precisely similar explanation: \u201cThe grace\nof our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the\nHoly Spirit, be with you all.\u201d Now here the expression \u201c_communion_ of\nthe Holy Spirit,\u201d fixes the meaning of the passage. The word communion\nsignifies \u201cparticipation,\u201d \u201ca having in common.\u201d Thus St. Paul speaks of\n\u201cthe communion of the sufferings of Christ,\u201d Philipp. iii. 10. In this\nsense, then, it can have no reference to a person, and must signify\nsimply a participation of that spiritual presence, comfort, and power of\nGod, which was the promise and the witness of the religion of the\nChrist. In explaining such passages, we have again and again to recal\nourselves to the belief, that we are actually considering the strongest\nScriptural assertions of the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the\nunity of the Godhead. The first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians\ncloses thus: \u201cThe grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. My love be\nwith you all in Christ Jesus.\u201d Who thinks of inferring the equality of\nPaul with Jesus? And yet, if such a mode of reasoning is allowable, from\nthe close of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, it is impossible to\ngive any reason for its not being equally conclusive when applied to the\nclose of the first Epistle of the Corinthians. But such verbal\nreasonings are in every way unworthy of the solemn character of\nrevelation, nor can the mind long dwell upon them without feeling how\npainfully they interfere with the sentiment of Reverence, and what a\nlowering it is of Christ and Christianity to place them in such lights.\n\nThe portion of Scripture, however, which is mainly relied upon to prove\nthe _distinct_ deity and personality of the Holy Spirit, is that most\nsolemn and faithful promise of Christ to his disciples, in which the\nSpirit of Truth is described as a Comforter which the Father would send\nin his name, and who, when he came, would testify of Jesus, and bring to\ntheir remembrance all things that he had said unto them, but which they\nhad not understood. Now let us connect this promise of a Comforter\nprevious to his death, with a similar promise after the resurrection,\nand then endeavour to ascertain the meaning. In the first chapter of the\nBook of Acts, at the eighth verse, it is written, \u201cYe shall receive\npower, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be\nwitnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria,\nand unto the uttermost parts of the earth.\u201d Now we shall find that the\nHoly Spirit which came upon them was the Spirit of Truth, a truer\nknowledge of Christ, a portion of the Spirit of God, a sympathy with and\nan understanding of the Mind of the Father of Jesus, which they did not\npossess before;\u2014in the one case comforting them for the loss of their\nfriend and their master, by giving them a participation of his and of\nhis Father\u2019s Spirit,\u2014in the other case, qualifying them spiritually to\nbe witnesses unto him, to be his Apostles and Preachers, an office for\nwhich their previous misconceptions of the true character of the Christ,\ntheir alienation from the true Spirit of God, as manifested in Jesus,\nhad totally disqualified them. Why it was that Jesus must \u201cgo away,\u201d in\norder that the Spirit of Truth might come unto them, in order that the\nSpirit of the world should be separated from their ideas of the Christ,\nand the Spirit of God take its place, we shall fully see. Previous to\nthe death of Jesus, the views of the Apostles respecting their Messiah\nwere Jewish and worldly\u2014after the Resurrection and Ascension they became\nChristian and Spiritual. How was it that Jesus must personally leave\nthem, in order that the Spirit of Truth might come unto them? \u201cIt is\nexpedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter\nwill not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.\u201d\n\nThe Death, the Resurrection, and the Ascension of the Christ, introduced\na necessary change into the conceptions of the Apostles; these drove out\nof their Messianic idea the spirit of the World, and introduced into it\nthe spirit of God. They could not retain their Jewish ideas of the reign\nof the Messiah, in connexion with the crucified Jesus. If they held by\ntheir Jewish faith on this matter, they must abandon Jesus. If they held\nby Jesus, they must abandon their Jewish ideas, and remodel their faith.\nBut God takes care that they shall hold by Jesus: and this is His mode\nof spiritualizing their conceptions of Christ and of Christianity. God\nlifts him from the dead and places him in Heaven. The Christ returns to\nearth to show that God was with him; and he ascends into Heaven, to\nrepel the imagination which otherwise might possibly arise, nay, which\nactually had arisen, that even yet he might raise his standard on the\nearth, and realize the gigantic illusion of the Jew. By this means, the\nApostles were placed in this position:\u2014they must retain their faith in\nJesus, for how could they battle against God, or hold out against such\nevidence as the Christ rising from the tomb, and the Christ passing into\nthe skies;\u2014and yet if they are to regard Jesus as their Messiah, they\nmust modify all their Jewish views, and conceive of the Christ anew. And\naccordingly this was the plan and process of their conversion, of their\nintroduction to the true Christianity, of their baptism into the Spirit\nof God. Since Jesus was thus evidently the Christ, and yet could not be\nadapted to their Jewish views, of course all their Jewish views must\nyield, and adapt themselves to _him_. His life and destinies were the\n_fixed_ facts, with which their conceptions of the Christ must now be\nharmonized. You now see how when the Spirit of Truth came upon them, it\ntestified of Jesus, it took of his and showed it unto them, it threw\nillumination upon words and deeds of his, which, when contemplated from\nthe Jewish point of view, caught not the sympathies of their souls, and\nlike invisible writing, waited for the heat and light of Truth to fall\nupon them, and bring out the meaning. His Death struck down a principal\npart of their errors: and his Exaltation forced upon them a new idea of\nhis kingdom. Never again could they confound the Messiah with a temporal\nprince. Whatever Christianity might be, henceforth it must be connected\nwith the immortality of Heaven. Christianity could not be separated from\nthe Christ, and the Christ was with God; and they remembered his prayer\nand promise, that they were to be with him where he was.\n\nAll this would necessarily be suggested to them from their identifying\nthe Christ with the risen Jesus. Nothing more would be necessary to\nunfold this train of spiritual thought. It was the first fulfilment of\nthat profound prophecy, \u201cWhen the Comforter is come, even the Spirit of\nTruth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, and\nshall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,\nwhatsoever I have said unto you.\u201d And this Spirit of Truth did lead them\ninto all truth\u2014it gave them no new revelation, but it called to their\nremembrance, and taught them to understand a revelation which Jesus had\nbefore offered to them in vain\u2014and so, in the words of his own promise,\nit glorified him, for it \u201ctook of his, and showed it unto them.\u201d The\nApostles were now in a position to look upon the Christ from a right\npoint of view, and to receive the Spirit of Truth and God. The scales of\nillusion dropped from their eyes, and they began to see Jesus as he was.\nFrom the hour that circumstances constrained them to draw their\nChristianity from the life and destinies of the Christ, their minds\nbegan to open, and the Spirit of Truth to teach them all things, and to\ncall to their remembrance whatsoever Jesus had said unto them, no longer\ndimly understood, but irradiated with moral light, because seen in right\nconnexions, and explained by the interpretation of events. Who can\nretain his fancies in opposition to direct experience? and experience\nwas now enlightening the Apostles. How could they go on dreaming of an\nEarthly Prince, when their Christ was in the skies? From that hour their\nsouls began to be transfigured, and they walked in the light of the\nother world, and the Christ to whom they looked became their leader to\nImmortality. How could they go on in their unspiritual imaginations,\nwhen the Captain of their Salvation stood constantly before their eyes,\na crucified man, and a risen immortal? From that hour they became\nsoldiers of the Cross, and their only victories were over themselves,\nand the powers of evil; and the only battle-cry of the Son of Man, when\nidol after idol fell prostrate before the Truth, and their Master in the\nskies, in the successes of his faith, led on the movements of humanity,\nand, wherever his spirit struck root, banded a new force against the\nenemies of man, and mustered fresh hosts for conquest. How could they go\non in their national arrogance, and in their sectarian intolerance, when\nthey were obliged to draw their moral notions of Christianity from the\nlife of Christ, and that spoke such different lessons? From that hour\ntheir anti-social temper began to soften, their exclusiveness to bend\nand give way, their deep-cut lines of national distinctness to disappear\nin the fully developed features of our common humanity. In the light of\n_his_ Spirit, what _could_ they be but children of God, and brethren of\nmankind? They had to harmonize his Kingdom with his Character, and that\nled them into all truth. They had to read the glory of God in the face\nof Christ; and the light that beamed there was grace and truth. They had\nto take their Christianity from the Master\u2019s life, and that kept them\nright. Its lesson was of the one fold, and the one shepherd\u2014of the one\nGod and Father of all, and of one type of the connexions between\nhumanity and Heaven\u2014one Mediator between man and God, the man Christ\nJesus. And so at last, when fitted for it by the teaching of events, the\nSpirit of Truth, at once their Comforter and their Teacher, descended\nupon them, and then they became \u201cwitnesses unto him.\u201d They read his life\nanew, and reported it to the world, and the world read it too, and has\never since been studying that exhaustless revelation. They saw in it\nmore and more of the Saviour\u2019s spirit and purposes, and after the\nillumination had come upon them, the providence of God so disposed the\nexternal events that affected the infant Church, that they went forth\nbearing the light that lighted them unto all the world. Persecution\nscattered them from land to land, and they went carrying with them their\npriceless treasure. They were hunted from city to city, but all the\nfaster flew the Gospel. The stake received them, and it became as a new\ncross of Christ, and the blood of his martyrs witnessed unto him. Are we\nspeaking of the same men who in Gethsemane\u2019s garden forsook their Lord\nand fled\u2014who in the Temple Court denied him to his face\u2014who, when he was\nled to the Cross, abandoned him in terror, and when he died there, laid\ntheir heads in the dust, because their poor ambition was fallen to the\nearth? Are they the same men, who in the Gospels are narrow-minded,\nambitious, and false\u2014that in the Acts of the Apostles come forth bold,\nresolute, spiritual witnesses for Jesus, and dauntless martyrs to his\ntruth? We can scarcely believe that we are reading of the same men, when\nwe turn from the page of the Evangelists to the record of their deeds,\n_after_ the Death and the Ascension of the Christ annihilated their\nerrors, and the Spirit of Truth and of God had fallen upon them.\nContrast the prayer,\u2014\u201cLord grant us to sit on thy right hand and on thy\nleft in thy kingdom,\u201d or, \u201cLord wilt thou at this time restore the\nkingdom to Israel?\u201d\u2014with this, \u201cLord, thou art God, which hast made\nHeaven and Earth, and the Sea, and all that in them is; who by the mouth\nof thy servant David hast said, why did the heathen rage, and the people\nimagine vain things? The kings of the Earth stood up, and the rulers\nwere gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of\na truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both\nHerod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel,\nwere gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel\ndetermined before to be done: And now, Lord, behold their threatenings,\nand grant unto thy servants that with all boldness they may speak thy\nword; by stretching forth thine hand to heal, and that signs and wonders\nmay be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus!\u201d How came this\ndifference? What passed over them and turned them into new men? The\nSpirit of Truth had come unto them, that great Comforter, the Spirit of\nunderstanding and of God: they saw it all, and they were worldly and\nweak no more, but strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might? And\nthis Comforter never again left them; the truth broke upon them and\nbecame their stay for ever,\u2014it was the Spirit of God dwelling in them,\nand abiding for ever, his imperishable light in the soul, once given\nnever to be withdrawn. It was just the difference between Spiritual\nlight and Spiritual darkness, in their effects upon character. It was\njust the difference between the spirit that is of the world, and the\nspirit that is of God. It was just the difference between our nature\nwhen it is right and when it is wrong with God; when it is stumbling in\ndarkness, the dupe of illusions, and when it is furnished with\neverlasting principles, and walking in the light of life. In the Gospels\nthey are men palsied by the feebleness of error\u2014in the Acts of the\nApostles they are men omnipotent in the power of Truth. Is this change\nin their characters capable of being accounted for? Yes, if you grant\nthe facts of Christ\u2019s history,\u2014but not otherwise. How otherwise you are\nto get across the chasm between the Gospels and the Acts of the\nApostles, I know not. Take those facts as causes, and the bridge is\neasy. What a step is it from the fishermen of Galilee to the Apostles of\nChrist\u2014from the ignorance of Jewish peasants, to the Communicators of\nthe mightiest impulse that Society has ever felt, the agents of the\nmightiest influence that ever Providence has put forth upon the soul of\nman,\u2014the creators of new institutions, new forms of character, new civil\nrelationships;\u2014before whose preaching religions and empires fell,\u2014at\nwhose word Liberty first started into life, not as a spirit of\nopposition, but as the gentle child of brotherhood and love,\u2014and who are\nstill in the monuments they have left behind them, the heralds of human\nprogress and the revolutionizers of the world! Who will deny that the\nspirit of God was here? Not we: we are ready to maintain it against the\nworld. Who denies that the spirit of God still accompanies his Gospel?\nNot we: we believe it in the depths of our hearts. How wonderful the\nimpulse, these men gave, and still give to the heart of the world! What\ndifficulties had they to conquer! their own characters, and violent\nprepossessions\u2014and they conquered these. The curse of the Priest, the\narm of the Ruler, the scoff of the People\u2014and they conquered these. The\nattractions of Heathenism; the licentiousness of its morality; the\ngracefulness of its idolatry; its religion for the senses; its\nphilosophy for the sceptic; its indifference to speculative truth; its\nequal regard for all gods, and all forms of worship that would only be\ncontent to dwell together in peace,\u2014and they conquered these. Think of\nthis wonderful History, and say whether you can explain it except as the\nNew Testament explains it. What would account for the fortunes of the\nApostles, if Christianity was not from God? The world of Causes and\nEffects is but a game of Chance, if such things can be, and their origin\nan accidental imagination, their foundation a falsehood or a dream. Who\nwill account for such men being enlightened against their own wills, and\nforced into the front ranks of humanity contrary to their own desires\u2014if\nthe history is not true? But rob not the History of its true power\u2014take\nnot the spirit of life out of the gospel\u2014by telling us of a third person\nin the Trinity whom Jesus sent to supplant the free minds of the\nApostles. No, it was the free spirit of God acting upon the free spirit\nof men that opened their eyes to see the things that were hidden from\nthem before; and they walked forth in the light of these wondrous\nevents, and looked now upon their Christ as those from whose spiritual\nsight the bandage of the world had been taken away. The Comforter, which\nis the Spirit of TRUTH, came unto them, and taught them all things, and\nrectifying their former misconceptions took of the things of Christ, and\nshowed it unto them. He spoke not of himself. He added nothing to the\nrevelation already made by Jesus:\u2014the divine characters were already\nimpressed on the life and destinies of the Christ\u2014and the Spirit of\nTruth guided them to it, and brought out the full meaning of the already\nfinished revelation. Still does the world want light to read that\nrevelation. Still does many an interpreter come to the reading of it\nwith a Jewish veil upon his heart. But there is new light still to break\nforth out of God\u2019s word. Although it would almost seem as if another day\nof Pentecost would be needed to drive out the spirit of the world, the\nspirit of system and of man, by the mightier Spirit of God\u2014and to guide\nour exclusive tempers, our sectarian and narrow hearts into the religion\nof reality\u2014of the merciful and perfect Christ, full of grace and truth.\n\nIt is impossible to display with any minuteness the confusion that is\nintroduced into the Scriptures by the supposition that the Holy Spirit\nis a third infinite Mind associated with the Father and the Son. In one\npassage it is said, \u201cIf I cast out devils by _the Spirit of God_, then\nthe kingdom of God is come unto you;\u201d in another passage it is said, \u201cIf\nI with _the finger of God_ cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God\nis come unto you.\u201d Are we to understand then different things by \u201cthe\nSpirit of God\u201d and \u201cthe finger of God,\u201d\u2014or do they not both plainly\nsignify the power and presence of the One God who wrought in\nChrist:\u2014\u201cthe Father who dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.\u201d\n\nIn one passage it is said, \u201cWait for the promise of the Father\u2014ye shall\nbe baptized with _the holy spirit_ not many days hence.\u201d In another\npassage of the same writer it is said, \u201cTarry ye in the city, until ye\nbe endued with _power from on high_.\u201d Are we to understand by the Holy\nSpirit anything different from \u2018power from on high:\u2019 or rather are we\nnot to understand by both the fulfilment of the promise of the Father by\nHis own power and presence?\n\nIn one passage it is said, \u201cWe are his witnesses of these things, and so\nis also _the Holy Spirit_, which God hath given to them that obey Him.\u201d\nIn another passage it is said, \u201cThe _works_ that I do in my Father\u2019s\nname, they bear witness of me.\u201d Is it not evident then that _the works_\nwhich the Apostles did, were the works of God, His spirit working by\nthem, witnessing to the truth of their testimony?\n\nIf the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person from God the Father, then the\nthird Person, and not the first person in the Trinity, nor the second\nperson, must on the Trinitarian view be regarded as the Father of Jesus,\nfor it is written, \u201cthe Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power\nof the Highest shall overshadow thee.\u201d And yet the Trinitarian\nhypothesis is, that it was neither the third person, nor the first, but\nthe second person in the godhead, that took humanity into union with his\ndeity. But there is no end of these painful inconsistencies. So again\nJesus is said to be raised from the dead by God, and again to be\n\u201cquickened by the Spirit:\u201d but surely the Trinitarian hypothesis would\nrequire that the divine nature of the Christ, the second person in the\nTrinity, should raise up the human Jesus, with which it had been united.\nWho will harmonize these things for us? Who can without pain, nay,\nwithout asking pardon of God for the irreverence, contemplate His\nspiritual nature in such representations?\n\nIt is said of the Holy Spirit, that He would not speak of himself. Can\nHe then be a distinct God in the unity of the godhead, and not speak of\nHimself? Is this the reason that Scripture contains no proof of his\nseparate existence? Is it not evident that the Spirit of Truth, _added\nnothing_ to the revelation that was in Christ, but brought it out,\n_illuminated_, by an after influence on the minds of the Apostles, what\nhe said and did?\n\nIt is said in Scripture that no one knows the Son but the Father\u2014and\nthat no one knows the Father but the Son:\u2014but if the Holy Spirit is a\nthird person in the godhead, equal in every respect, this must be an\nerroneous statement.\n\nThe last scriptural proof I shall give that the Holy Spirit is not a\nthird infinite Person in the godhead is the very decisive one that\nScripture offers not a single ascription of praise or glory to Him, and\ncontains not a single doxology in which He is included. Could this be so\nif he was really and distinctively God? Scripture contains ascriptions\nof praise to Christ, and even to the Angels; it connects together the\nnames of God and Christ, in innumerable cases where it makes no mention\nof the Holy Spirit.\u2014John v. 17. xiv. 21. \u201cFather!\u2014this is life eternal\nto know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.\u201d\nNow if Trinitarianism is true, the Father, and even with the addition of\nJesus Christ whom He has sent, does not constitute the only true God.\n\n\u201cOur fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.\u201d\u20141\nJohn i. 3.\n\n\u201cGrace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the\nLord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.\u201d\u20142 John i.\n3.\n\n\u201cHe that abideth in the doctrine of the Christ, he hath both the Father\nand the Son.\u201d\u20142 John i. 9.\n\n\u201cFor whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the\nSon of Man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his\nFather\u2019s, and of the holy angels.\u201d\u2014Luke ix. 26. 1 Tim. v. 21.\n\n\u201cHe that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I\nwill not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess\nhis name before my Father and before his angels.\u201d\u2014Rev. iii. 5.\n\n\u201cAnd every creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and under the\nearth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I\nsaying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that\nsitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.\u201d\u2014Rev. v, 13.\n\nNow if it be a fact that there is not one scriptural ascription of glory\nto the Holy Ghost, how is it that the Church of England can so\nconfidently say, \u201cGlory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the\nHoly Ghost: _as it was so in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be_.\u201d\nThe beginning that is here spoken of must have _begun after_ all the\nbooks of the New Testament were written. We have already traced in\necclesiastical history the beginning of that doxology, in the latter\npart of the fourth century\u2014and a beginning in its attendant\ncircumstances not very reputable, nor such as should be countenanced by\nthose who preach submission to _Church Authorities_.\n\nThe learned and profound Lardner, modest as learned, remarks upon the\nassumption contained in this doxology of the prayer book, \u201cas it was in\nthe beginning.\u201d \u201cDoubtless this is said by many very frequently, and\nwith great devotion. But can it be said truly? Does not that deserve\nconsideration? Is there any such doxology in the New Testament? If not,\nhow can it be said, to have been _in the beginning_? Are not the books\nof the New Testament the most ancient, and the most authentic Christian\nwritings in all the world? It matters not much to inquire, when this\ndoxology was first used, or how long it has been in use, if it is not in\nthe New Testament. And whether it is there or not may be known by those\nwho are pleased to read it with care: as all may, in Protestant\ncountries, where the Bible lies open, to be seen and read by all men.\u201d\n(Postscript I. to \u201cA Letter on the Logos.\u201d)\n\nWeak and almost incredibly insufficient as is the _scriptural_ evidence\nfor a third Person in the godhead, the _theological_ evidence is still\nweaker and more arbitrary; and betrays most fully those inadequate\nconceptions of the divine nature which form the supports of all the\npopular creeds and churches. You are aware of the Trinitarian argument\nfor the necessity of a _second_ person in the godhead; for these\northodox theologians presume to reason upon abstract principles about\nthe nature of God to an extent that the Unitarians whom they condemn for\nthis very practice never have approached to and which indeed we hold to\nbe arbitrary and presuming to the last degree. We are gravely told by\ndivines who profess the utmost humility and a horror of all speculation,\nthat if God was one Being in the sense that we are one, He would have no\nresources in his own Nature enabling Him to forgive Sin; and that if\nthere were not at least two persons in the godhead, the one to make\natonement and the other to receive it, our Father in Heaven would be\nplaced in these circumstances,\u2014either He must forgive, and since his Law\nhad been broken without the infliction of an adequate penalty, exhibit\nhis Character without TRUTH; or He must refuse to forgive, and retaining\nhis Truth, exhibit his Character without MERCY. Now when _a human\nreasoner_ lays down these preliminaries as necessary parts of the\nconstitution of the divine mind, I am amazed that he has ever after the\nconscience to charge other men with rash speculations on the subjects of\nTheology, or with reasoning upon abstract principles about the things of\nGod. Atonement _is_ made for every sin: in that the Trinitarian is\nright. The sinner bears upon a burdened soul the weight of the cross,\nand faints in sorrow. Through a crucifixion and an agony does every\nerring heart return to God. The penalty is paid in bitter shame and\ntears, in the consciousness of degradation and of eternal loss, in the\ndeep humiliation of a spirit that has quenched within it the divine\nflame, and treated with no respect the image of God in which it was\nmade. Can such a being sin and escape without atonement\u2014can a spiritual\ncreature darken the angel and cherish the animal, and yet pay no\npenalty, start at last with no horror, and throb with no remorseful\nagony? No\u2014the sinner must die in his sins, if he is to escape the\npiercings of his better nature, the open eye of his conscience fixed in\nawful steadiness of gaze upon the terrors of his state. Who that has\never felt a throb of penitence, who that has ever known the prostration\nof a soul awakened to a sense of sin, the deep misery of the purer\nspirit looking sorrowfully on the debasements of our being, as Christ\nlooked upon Peter, who that has ever felt these things will deny that\nsin, every sin, has its atonement, and instead of questioning the\n_vicarious_ sacrifice as too dreadful, will not rather put it away from\nhim only as too easy, too unreal, too remote from the sense of\nindividual agony and burden, to meet and satisfy the inward and\nuntransferable reality? We blame not the Trinitarians for speaking of\nthe atonement required by sin. We blame them for not treating that\nsubject with sufficient strictness, with sufficient severity, with\nsufficient energy of application to individual consciences. How much\nmore awakening it is to tell a man of the atonement that he pays within,\nof the cross that is laid upon his humiliated heart, than to tell him of\na metaphysical necessity in God\u2019s nature that required the death of an\ninfinite being, the blood of God, for this awful expression is used and\ndefended at Christ Church,[531] to make satisfaction for the offence of\na finite creature. This is the arbitrary assumption of Trinitarianism\nthat requires most to be exposed, that the sin of a finite being is an\ninfinite quantity, and that his penitence cannot atone for it, for his\npenitence is not infinite. Now the men who assert this strange thing,\nshould at least be cautious how they charge Unitarians with arbitrary\nreasonings and speculations. Can Reason exhibit, or does Scripture any\nwhere say, that the sin of finite man is infinite in the sight of God,\nand yet unless this most extravagant of all propositions can be\nestablished the whole Trinitarian Theology falls to the ground, for then\nthe only atonement for sin will be the crucifixion of the erring and\nrepenting spirit, and none more dreadful can be given or conceived. I am\nperfectly aware that cautious and refined controversialists would not\nassert the infinite character of man\u2019s sinfulness, and that they would\nexplain away the doctrine of the Atonement; but the Lecturers at Christ\nChurch are not cautious controversialists, they have no notion of such\nrefinements, and they do assert it without abatement. If God\u2019s unity,\nsays one of them,[532] was like man\u2019s unity, He could not forgive, yet\npreserve His holiness. And therefore I suppose, since man has no\ntri-personal resources in his unity, that _he_ can forgive only because\nhis holiness is of an imperfect kind, and as his holiness becomes more\nstrict he will less readily forgive, so that when he becomes quite\nperfect he will be quite implacable. But perhaps the Trinitarian\n_resource_ in this difficulty, is that _man_ too forgives, yet keeps his\ntruth and holiness, in consideration of the atonement offered for all\nsin. The immoral plea that man is not the _Lawgiver_, cannot be offered\nby those whose difficulty is one respecting holiness. A holy mind is as\nmuch bound by the laws of holiness, as if it was itself the Lawgiver.\n\nI have introduced here this arbitrary, metaphysical, and unscriptural\nspeculation, employed by the Trinitarians to establish, _a priori_, the\nnecessity of a second person in the godhead, only to prepare you for a\nsimilar mode of reasoning which is applied to prove the necessity for a\n_third_ person in the godhead. There are works, they say, carried on in\nthe soul of man, that require a Third Person, another infinite Mind in\nthe godhead. Solemnly we say that this is making too free with the\ninfinite nature of God. What are those works, or what works can be\nconceived, to which God our Father is not adequate? Is it not very like\nirreverence for a human being to say,\u2014_my_ salvation cannot be carried\non by one infinite and perfect Spirit, but requires three infinite and\nperfect Spirits? Ought not such conclusions of Reason as these to be\nvery distinctly supported by Revelation before they are advanced with\nany boldness, and other men called no Christians, and treated\naccordingly, for no other iniquity than that of humbly refusing to speak\nso confidently of God\u2019s nature, and to put these limitations upon Him\nwithout proof? But even supposing that the orthodox reasonings about the\nnature of sin were correct, and the inability of one perfect mind to\nforgive his creatures, and rescue a sinner from his sins, established,\nwhat necessities remain that require the existence of a _third_ infinite\nMind\u2014what operations within the human soul are to be carried on, for\nwhich God the Father and God the Son are not sufficient? I know nothing\nmore wonderful than that the Christian world should at this day admit\nthe existence of a third person in the godhead, without ever raising the\nquestion, or having the doubt suggested to them, is not God our Father\n_sufficient_ for these things? I intreat you to discard from your minds\nthe Trinitarian assertion that we deny the operations attributed by them\nto the Holy Spirit\u2014we do not deny them\u2014the connexions of the Spirit of\nGod with the spirit of man we hold as the most solemn, intimate and\nblessed truth, the very soul of worship, of hope, and of spiritual\nlife\u2014take away this, and religion has neither power nor meaning\u2014but we\ndo deny that the Spirit of our Father is insufficient to maintain every\nspiritual connexion with the souls of his children; we bring the secret\ngriefs, penitence, and aspirations of our being to Him who heard the\nprayers and strengthened the soul of Christ;\u2014and when light descends\nupon us, so that we almost hear the encouragements of His voice, and see\nthe beckonings of His hand, we know that it is the Spirit of our Father\nwho sends the blessing from above, and gives to them that ask.\n\nWe entreat Trinitarians to address themselves to this particular point,\nand to explain to us the moral or metaphysical necessities that require\na third person in the godhead, and render two perfect and infinite Minds\ninadequate to the work of Man\u2019s Salvation. They are very explicit and\nfull in their statement of _reasons_ exhibiting the incompetency of one\ninfinite spirit to save a sinner, and necessitating the introduction of\na second\u2014we ask them to be equally explicit in explaining to us the\ninadequacy of _two_ BEINGS, each of them possessed of the full\nperfections of godhead, to rescue, teach, comfort, and bless, that not\nnaturally unkindred spirit of man, which Scripture tells us is \u2018the\ncandle of the Lord,\u2019 and \u2018the inspiration of the Almighty.\u2019 It will not\nserve the Trinitarian theologians to refuse us this explanation on the\ngrounds that they take the doctrine as it is revealed, and inquire no\nfurther\u2014for they _do_ enter into very copious explanations of the\ntheological necessity for a _second_ person in the godhead, and they\nvery confidently state it as a fact in divine metaphysics, that if the\nresources of God could not have supplied two infinite minds, no sin\ncould ever have found a pardon\u2014and if after this readiness of\nexplanation respecting the second person they refuse us all explanation\nrespecting the third, the conclusion will certainly be suggested, that\nthey offer no explanations only because they have none to offer.\nConceding for a moment the fundamental principles of Trinitarian\ntheology, that the Father of our spirits could not receive the penitence\nof His children and shed His blessing upon their returning hearts, until\nforgiveness was rendered possible by a co-equal and co-eternal God\nmeeting the demands of a Righteousness that, if dwelling in only one\nperfect Mind, could not pardon;\u2014what is there I ask _after_ the\nsacrifice of Christ had removed the difficulty, and opened the\ncommunication between God and his children, and left the divine spirit\nfree to love, and operate upon, the justified,\u2014what is there remaining\nto restrict the workings of the Omnipotent and Omnipresent Spirit of God\nour Father\u2014to render him incompetent for our sanctification, in addition\nto the previous incompetency for our redemption, which Trinitarians are\nso far from scrupling to assign to Him that they make it a first\nprinciple of their theology, and attempt to prove it by Reason.\n\nOur One God they tell us, in the human sense of oneness, would be a\nhelpless Being: on their very first sin, his children would be plucked\nout of His hands, and find him a God unable to save. Or, if He could\nforgive the repentance of His creatures, it would imply a Morality so\nlax, that He would be a God not worth serving.[533] To such dizzy\nheights of Theology do Trinitarians who abjure Reason in religion carry\ntheir reasonings upon the nature of God, and look into the dread\nprofound, and speak confidently, as if they understood it all. Again I\nsay, let us grant them all this, and still the question remains that\nnever has been answered, after the sacrifice of Christ has set at\nliberty the Spirit of our Father to come freely into loving,\nregenerating, and sanctifying contact with the spirits of his children,\nwhat necessity is there for a _third_ person in the godhead to bless and\nsave our souls, or what works are to be carried on _within_ us, which\nGod the Father and God the Son are not competent to perform? Has not the\nspirit of our Father access to His children, who are brought nigh to Him\nthrough Christ; and if so, what is the office and what the need of a\nthird infinite Mind? We acknowledge with all our soul\u2019s devotion that\nevery thing good in man comes, yes, and comes immediately, from the\nSpirit of our God; but is not our Father with us, and is His Spirit\nstraitened that he cannot save? On this matter we abide with the\nApostles who say:\u2014\u201cEvery good and every perfect gift is from above, and\ncometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness,\nneither shadow of turning.\u201d We are told that the Holy Spirit uses \u2018the\nword,\u2019 as its instrument, in the work of spiritual regeneration. If so,\nthe Holy Spirit must be God our Father, for the Apostle goes on to\nsay:\u2014\u201cOf his own will begat He us with the word of truth, that we should\nbe a kind of first fruits of his creatures.\u201d \u201cNow our Lord Jesus Christ\nhimself, and God even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us\neverlasting consolation and good hope through grace, comfort your hearts\nand establish you in every good word and work.\u201d[534] Now here, whilst no\nmention whatever is made of the Holy Spirit as a separate agent, the\npeculiar offices of the Comforter are ascribed to the spirit of our\nFather, and, what to Christians is equivalent, the spirit of Christ, for\nwho hath seen _him_, hath seen all that man can see of the moral\nperfections and spirit of our God. And not with Apostles only, but with\nChrist himself, do we abide in the blessed faith of our Father being our\nComforter. \u201cHoly Father, keep, through thine one name, those whom thou\nhast given me, that they may be one as we are. While I was with them in\nthe world I kept them through thy name:\u2014I pray not that thou shouldest\ntake them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the\nevil. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.\u201d Here Christ\nprays to God the FATHER to sanctify the spirits of the disciples, when\n_he_ should be no more with them to instruct and keep them. Now\nSanctification is assigned by Trinitarians to the Holy Spirit as his\npeculiar office. What then can be more clear than that the Holy Spirit\nis the Spirit of our Father in communication with his children, and that\nthis was the Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, a portion of the true\nspirit of God, which the Christ prayed his Father to communicate to his\ndarkened disciples,\u2014to take away the Jewish veil from their hearts, and\nto guide them into the blessed light of the pure gospel!\n\nThe Apostles pray to the Father to be a GUIDE[535] and COMFORTER[536]:\nJesus Christ prays to the Father to be a Sanctifier and Enlightener;\nthese are the works, and _the only works_, ascribed by Trinitarians to\nthe Holy Spirit. No reason has been offered in the present Controversy\nfor the necessity of a third person in the Godhead to be the agent of\nthese operations; nowhere in orthodox theology have I been able to find\na reason: I respectfully invite the attention of our opponents to this\nneglected point. Let them not mistake our demand. We do not deny that\nthe works of the Holy Spirit can be done by God alone: but we ask for a\nreason why God our Father is not sufficient for these things. Until this\nquestion is satisfactorily answered, it must be evident that the\nTrinitarian Theology is entirely arbitrary.\n\nIt is not a little remarkable that Bishop Sherlock, in attempting to\nprove that the Holy Spirit performs the work of the Gospel _within_ the\nmind, by the very texts that he himself adduces identifies this Holy\nSpirit with the Spirit of God our Father; \u201cNo man can come unto me,\nexcept the Father which hath sent me, draw him.\u201d \u201cNo man can come unto\nme, except it were given unto him of my Father.\u201d \u201cHe that is of God,\nheareth God\u2019s word.\u201d[537]\n\nThere was only one of the operations ascribed to the Holy Spirit by the\nLecturer in Christ Church, to which I could not give my assent. We were\ntold that the Holy Spirit interpreted the Scriptures to all true\nbelievers. I believe that some portion of the Spirit of God is in every\nman who loves the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. I believe that every\none who does His will, knows of the doctrine whether it is of God.\nMorally and spiritually, I do believe that the Spirit of God is still a\nwitness to the truth of Christ. The Spirit of the Father was in Christ,\nand to those who love him and keep his commandments the Father still\ncometh, and maketh His abode with them. And so far we know that we are\nof the truth, because we love and are partakers of the Spirit that dwelt\nin Jesus. But if any man presumes to extend this sympathy with the\nSpirit of the Christ from moral to _controverted_ truth, and to pretend\nthat he is not only spiritually but intellectually instructed, so that\nhe has not only a living faith, but a true creed, we abandon him to his\nconviction, satisfied that however sincere, it is unscriptural and a\ndelusion. How can men persuade themselves that it is humble, that it is\nChristian, that it is in the spirit of a modest self-knowledge, to\npretend to this intellectual infallibility, that God not only inspires\nthe holiness of their wills, but protects their judgment from all error?\nWhen we ask those who tell us that only _their_ creeds can save, what\ninfallible interpreter preserves _them_ from all doctrinal error, they\ndo not scruple to proclaim that the Spirit of God is their instructer in\nthe controverted tenets of theology.[538] Now we only ask how this can\nbe made clear either to other men, or to themselves? Have they alone\nsincere convictions on these subjects? Have they alone sought the truth\nwith the toils and prayers of earnest and humble minds? Have they alone\nemptied themselves of all prejudice, and desired only the pure light\nfrom God? Have they alone put worldly considerations from their hearts,\nand left all things that they might follow Christ? What evidence is\nthere in their position, or in their sacrifices, that only the Spirit of\nGod can be their guide, for that they are manifestly self-devoted to the\ncause of truth? Are _they_ the meek adherents to persecuted principle,\nso that against the outward storm nothing short of the inward witness of\nthe Spirit can be their omnipotent supports? Do they alone give evidence\nby the scorn and insult which they cheerfully bear for Christ\u2019s sake and\nthe gospel\u2019s, that they must be taught of God, for that no men could\nendure this social persecution unless God was with them? Ah, my friends,\ndoes it become the followers of popular opinions to turn to the\npersecuted, and say, _we_ who float upon the world\u2019s favour, we who have\nno sacrifices to bear for conscience\u2019 sake, we to whom godliness is a\npresent income (\u03c0\u03bf\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd) of all that men most love\u2014we give evidence of\nbeing supported through all this peace and popularity by the Holy\nSpirit\u2014but _you_, whom we persecute and scorn, you whom we lecture and\nlibel, you who have to bear upon your inmost hearts the coarse friction\nof intolerance and of rude fanaticism, you, though you have to endure\nall this, give no evidence that your convictions of Christ and your\nfaith in God are dear unto you,\u2014you are voluntary sufferers, and the\ndistresses of your position, which we shall aggravate in every way we\ncan, are no proof that you stand the rude peltings of the pitiless\nstorm, only because you dare not abandon conviction, or turn away from\nwhat you believe to be the light of God within you? I ask can any thing\nsurpass the unmitigated Popery of all this, except its unmitigated\ncruelty and injustice? How is it that the Minister of a state religion,\nthe preacher of popular creeds, whose lightest words raise echoes of\nassent\u2014who gets the support and sympathy of crouds on far easier terms\nthan others get bare toleration and existence, can so remove from him\nall self-knowledge and mercy, as to have the heart to tell the man whom\nhe persecutes, _we_ who have every thing to gain from our religion and\nnothing to lose, give evidence of being supported through all this ease\nand triumph by the Spirit of God, but you, who in this world have every\nthing to lose by your religion, and nothing to gain, give no evidence of\nhaving the Spirit of Truth, and are lovers of your own selves more than\nof Conscience and of God?[539] We suspect them not, God forbid we\nshould, of being immorally tempted and biassed, and with a true\nsincerity we declare that we have no sympathy whatever with the\nungenerous vulgarity of such a charge,\u2014but at the same time, they ought\nto be aware, and if they were truly generous in their turn they would be\naware, that all the _outward_ marks by which men may judge of the\nsincerity of convictions, and the strength of inward reliances, and\nallegiance to God, are upon _us_, not upon them.\n\nThe other offices assigned to the Holy Spirit besides that of being an\ninfallible interpreter to the orthodox, were the following:\u2014to bring our\nsouls into sympathy and union with the Spirit of Jesus\u2014to draw us by\nspiritual affinities unto the Christ; to sanctify our nature through\ncommunion with the holy One, cleansing the temple of the spiritual God;\nto govern our moral being, and supply the diviner impulses that lift us\nto imperishable things, and teach us to love and to pray aright; and to\ngive us through the spiritual witness within ourselves, a pledge and\nearnest of the loving purpose of God, and of the glory that\nremaineth.\u2014Must we indeed renounce these connexions of our spirits with\nthe Spirit of our God, unless mechanically settling the distribution of\noffices, we receive these influences through the departmental\narrangements of the Trinitarian Theology? Will God our Father not come\nto us and make His abode with us, if we are unfortunate enough to find\nno evidence in Scripture for a third infinite Mind associated with him,\nand carry up to Him the unbroken sum of our love, our faith, our\nworship, and our prayers? Will He reject us only because we pour out our\nall before Him, and knowing Him to be all-sufficient, feel our derived\nspirits to be at every moment within the shelter of His parental\npresence?\u2014And yet, if the Trinitarians were right, if only a believer in\na tri-personal God could hold these spiritual connexions with the source\nof all good, the fountain head of all holiness and hope, if these were\nthe only conditions on which our souls could feel life from above\u2014then\nshould we become the most grateful, the most devoted, the most\nsubmissive of their disciples\u2014we would entreat them to show us the way\nof knowledge, that we might ascend unto the hill of the Lord, and stand\nin His holy place,\u2014and to lift up for us, in mercy, the everlasting\ndoors of our darkened hearts, that the King of Glory might come in;\u2014and\nwe would flee from our Unitarianism as we should from Atheism, for it\nwould be Atheism if it closed our access to the Spirit of God.\n\nBut, though not fond of speaking personally of religious experiences, we\ndo declare, and we do know, that the spirit of man may hold communion\nwith the Spirit of our Father. Every impulse after holiness is the\nSpirit of God. Every \u201csighing that cannot be uttered\u201d after the pure,\nthe perfect, and the good, is the Spirit of God. Every devotion of our\nsouls to things unseen and eternal, when solicited by things seen and\ntemporal, is of the Spirit of God. Every dictate of Duty is the spirit\nof God. Every answer to the prayer of a pure heart is the spirit of God.\nEvery movement of disinterested love is the spirit of God. Every\nself-sacrifice for the sake of justice or of mercy is made in the\nstrength of the Spirit of God. Every inward hope in this world\u2019s\ndarkness, and undying trust amid this world\u2019s deaths, is an inspiration\nfrom Him who is a very present help in the time of trouble, a spiritual\nintimation from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness,\nneither shadow of turning. The spirit that conforms itself to the will\nof God, that removes from it whatever is alien to His nature, that puts\naway the defiling breath of the passions, that seeks Him by prayer, by\nefforts of duty, by struggles of penitence, by resistance to all sin, by\nself-purification and constant converse with His image in the Christ,\nthat spirit mirrors more and more of the glory of God, feels more and\nmore His power and peace within the soul, and receives of His fulness,\nand grows in His likeness, throughout eternity.\n\nIf there are any to whom all this appears visionary, and who charge the\nreligious mind with mysticism,\u2014we are ready to bear our share of that\ncharge; for thus far we confess ourselves to be Mystics. Yet, so far are\nwe from holding it to be Mysticism, that we are confident that nothing\nwhich sense perceives, or thought takes in, is so real, so enduring, so\nfull of life, as this spiritual and imperishable connexion of the soul\nof man with the Spirit of God. This connexion, whatever may have been\nthe inspiration of peculiar times, we now regard as part of the\nestablished providence and operations of our Father\u2019s Spirit. He gives\nof His Spirit, to all who observe the conditions on which He has\npromised to pour out His Spirit upon them. No pure mind ever sought Him\nin vain. No erring heart ever turned to Him in penitence, and found no\npeace. Whenever our holier nature awakes to earnest action, God enters\ninto the soul. Whenever prayer purifies our desires, and rectifies our\nestimates, and places great realities in spiritual lights, God is\npresent with us. Every effort to sink our imperfections, and to feel\npurely, places us within the affinities of His Holy Spirit. There is no\nmiracle in this. God reveals himself to the spirit that assimilates\nitself to Him, and seeks Him by growing like to Him. There are no limits\nto those spiritual communications. He that asketh receiveth; he that\nseeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it is opened. This is of God\u2019s\ngrace; not now of miracle, but of nature. We are His children, and in\nproportion as we love Him purely, and follow after Him, He reveals\nHimself to us. Revealing himself through our spirit, He abides with us\nfor ever. Imaged within us in juster proportions, as we reject impurity,\nand impose the harmony of His will upon all our desires, He guides us\ninto all truth, and causes us to feel within, the blessed intimations of\nHis sympathizing Spirit. Correcting our false estimates, and fixing our\ntrusts upon His own great realities, He comforts us amid the shadows of\nTime and Death, whilst we repose upon a world that cannot be moved, and\nrely upon the faithfulness of God.\n\nJesus Christ is our most perfect image of the Spiritual Father. He\ndevelopes within us the ideas that are akin to God. He brings us through\nsympathy with himself within the affinities of the Holy Spirit, for God\nwas with him. By the baptism of ever fresh penitence, and still fresher\npurity, he prepares us for the higher baptism of the Holy Spirit, and of\nfire. We grow in light as we grow in purity. If we keep holy the Temple\nof the Spirit it abides with us, and, doing His will, we know of the\ndoctrine whether it be of God. The soul that quenches not the Spirit,\nthat suffers no intimation from God to pass unheeded, that looks upon\nthe face of Christ, and reads in characters of blended grace and truth\nthe mind of the Father, is continually born again, and again, into new\nand still newer light, for the kingdom of heaven is a reaching forth\nunto things that are before; and he that is in Christ Jesus has within\nhim a spring of life, and is ever a New Creature. And he is ever nearest\nto God who through purity and prayer has disposed his own spirit to\nreceive light from the Holy Spirit of God, and waits and watches for\nfresh communications from His unexhausted Christ.\n\nWere another great Teacher to appear amongst us, were another Christ to\ncome to us, and apart from the narrow technicalities of system, to\nunfold sublime and quickening views of the moral and spiritual world,\nwhere might we expect to find the kindred minds, that would most\ninstantly recognize the voice of the Divinity, and upon whose ready\nsympathies the heavenly words would fall like sparks upon the fuel?\nPerhaps those who best understood what it is \u201cto be born again\u201d might\nnot be of the number of the learned, the instructed, the Masters in\nIsrael. It is certain that they would not be found among the adherents\nof unchanging systems\u2014the Pharisees of the faith, who think that they\n_already_ possess the absolute Truth imprisoned in creeds\u2014and expect no\nnew light to break forth upon their souls. The wind bloweth where it\nlisteth\u2014nevertheless its course is not uncontrolled\u2014it has laws though\nwe know them not\u2014and where would the Spirit of God list to blow, if it\nwas now breathing from the lips of some inspired man,\u2014into what hearts\nwould it find its way, and fan the latent affinities into the flame of\nspiritual life? Might it not again pass by the College of the learned,\nand the Temple of the Priest, and descend in living fire upon the poor\nman\u2019s soul? All that we can do is to look out for light\u2014to expect it\u2014to\nkeep near through prayer and inward communion to Him who is its\nFountain\u2014to have the inward sentiments pure, the place of the Spirit\nunsoiled, that if light should come into the world, it may not reject us\nas unworthy, finding no mirror for itself in our stained souls\u2014and above\nall, never to be possessed with that infatuation of confidence, that\nblindness of sufficiency, that self-idolatry of the creature, which\nlooks for no regeneration to descend upon it\u2014and ignorant of its\npoverty, its error, and its want, asks with the young Ruler, \u201cwhat lack\nI yet,\u201d or with Nicodemus, \u201cHow can a man be born again?\u201d We may be born\nagain, and again, if we will only lay ourselves out for it. The light\nwill come if it is looked for. It will not open the closed eye that\nseeks no more illumination, but it will fall upon every expecting\nspirit. The only essential condition of being born again, is that the\nsincere heart, listening to God within, and reading the mind of His\nSpirit in Christ his image, remove from itself every moral\ndisqualification, and lie in wait for light and truth. Wherever they are\nfound, and whatever be their creed, the Spirit of God \u201c_listeth_\u201d to\nblow upon such minds.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture IX.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n See Forrest on the origin and progress of the Trinitarian Theology, p.\n 40.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n See the Rev. F. Ould\u2019s dedication of his Lecture.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n Burton, Theol. Works, vol. ii. 2nd part, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n Burton, p. 21.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n \u201cThe deity and personality of the Holy Spirit,\u201d pp. 20-23.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n \u201cAnd he that searcheth the heart knoweth what is the mind of the\n Spirit, because it maketh intercession for the Saints, according to\n _the will_ of God.\u201d\u2014Rom. viii. 27.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n \u201cIt is said that God has promised his Spirit to those who ask for it.\n But the gift of the SPIRIT, that _unction_ of which St. John speaks\n (probably in allusion to the anointment of the Hebrew priests, the\n interpreters of the Old Law), was not intended as a check but as a\n GUIDE to the rational mind of man. \u2018He will _guide_ you into all the\n truth,\u2019 namely of the simple Gospel. The Divine Spirit of TRUTH has\n been promised to sincere Christians, to guide them into all that\n concerns their moral safety. The two SPIRITS\u2014the Spirit (i. e. the\n mind, so we may call it without irreverence) of God, and the spirit of\n man, though infinitely apart from each other in their nature, are\n clearly represented by St. Paul as analogous (I might say _akin_) to\n each other. Nor could it be otherwise, since the one is the\n fountain-head of reason, the other a derived stream. \u2018Likewise the\n Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should\n pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us\n (with sighs not expressed in words);\u2019 i. e. the divine impulse after\n holiness which is in us, makes us sigh for what we cannot express: but\n God, who gives us that Spirit, knows what it is we wish\n for.\u201d\u2014_Observations on Heresy and Orthodoxy, by the Rev. J. B. White._\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n See the Rev. Mr. Buddicom\u2019s Lecture.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n The Rev. H. M\u2018Neile.\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n The Rev. H. M\u2018Neile\u2019s Lecture.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n 2 Thess. ii. 16.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n 1 Thes. iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n 2 Thes. ii. 16.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n Sacred Classics. Sermons on the Holy Spirit, p. 161. I have lately\n read this volume carefully, in the hope of finding some definite\n statement of argument for the Trinitarian Theology on this subject,\n but in vain.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n See the Rev. J. E. Bates\u2019 Lecture, and the Preface to the Rev.\n Fielding Ould\u2019s.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n See the Lecture of the Rev. D. James, and indeed the whole tone and\n spirit of the Trinitarian Course. Mr. James declared that we denied\n the personality of the Holy Spirit, only because we had never _felt_\n his operations.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE X.\n\n CREEDS THE FOES OF HEAVENLY FAITH; THE ALLIES OF WORLDLY POLICY.\n\n\n BY REV. HENRY GILES.\n\n \u201cLET EVERY MAN BE FULLY PERSUADED IN HIS OWN MIND.\u201d\u2014\n _Rom._ xiv. 5.\n\n\nThe essential spirit of the religious revolution which in the 16th\ncentury shook Europe and its thrones, was resistance to ecclesiastical\nauthority. When Luther burned the Pope\u2019s bull, in Wirtemberg, in one act\npregnant with meaning and with consequences, he broke the spell which\nhad chained the minds of men for a thousand years, and spread its\nfascination over the whole space of Christendom. That single act was a\nvirtual denial that any church, however high in pretension, however\nvenerable in institutions, however universal in dominion, however mighty\nin power, had a right to enslave his intellect or to silence his\nconscience. The English martyr, when ready to be offered up, boasted to\nhis fellow-sufferer that they would that day kindle such a flame in\nEngland as should never be put out; but the blaze of a piece of\nparchment in the hand of the German reformer, was a light far more\nsignificant and impressive\u2014a light at which thousands started from their\nslumbers, and although it has often since flickered and been clouded, it\ndoes yet, and ever will, point the way to mental and religious freedom.\nLuther and the other reformers, objected to the church of Rome, the\nusurpation of unjust authority, and the establishment of a false\nstandard in faith and practice: they objected to her that she claimed a\ndominion over the souls of men which God alone can hold; and they object\nthat she set aside the supremacy of Christ by encumbering his gospel\nwith her own traditions. Not alone for alleged errors in doctrine, but\nfor this error in the very root and foundation of her constitution, they\nseparated from her communion, and protested against her jurisdiction.\nThey declared the Bible to be the only ground of a Christian\u2019s faith\u2014the\nonly guide of his religious convictions, and they claimed for themselves\nthe right of private judgment and of individual interpretation. We make\nthe same declaration and assert the same claim, and we neither restrict\nnor nullify it by creed, catechism or confession, by tests or articles,\nby pains or penalties. Modern Protestant churches, like the reformers,\nspeak proudly of religious liberty, but like the reformers also, it is a\nliberty they are very unwilling to share\u2014a liberty for themselves and\nnot for others: without claiming infallibility in name, they assume it\nin reality; and without giving, as Rome does, the promise of unerring\nguidance, they aim at an authority as despotic, and would wrest a\nsubmission as slavish.\n\nThe energetic maxim of Chillingworth, \u201cThe Bible and the Bible alone is\nthe religion of Protestants,\u201d is ever and ever repeated even by those\nwho are pledged to find in it the Athanasian creed and the thirty-nine\narticles, and by others who are compelled to extract out of it the\nWestminster confession and the longer catechism. With a zeal that never\ngrows fatigued, it is translated in every tongue and circulated in every\nnation; nay, the lisping child must have it to the very letter, and a\nfierce war-cry is opened should a school, by selections or omissions,\nleave the youthful mind without an opportunity to study the patriarchal\ngenealogies, the prophesies of Daniel, or the apocalypse of Saint John.\nThe wide circulation of the Bible we regard as a great social blessing;\nbut when it is sometimes asked, whether its indiscriminate reading is\nsuited to all ages and classes, the very question is taken as an\nevidence of popery or infidelity in the proposer. To doubt the\nperspicuity of God\u2019s word, it is said, is to doubt the wisdom of God\u2019s\nprovidence. The first object of man in speaking to man, is to be\nunderstood; how much more in God addressing his creatures, and on the\nmost momentous concerns! The Bible, it is asserted, is so plain that the\nchild may understand it, that he who runs may read, and that way-faring\nmen, though fools, shall not err therein. If this be true, it is in\nitself the death-blow of creeds, for then they are both unnecessary and\nabsurd\u2014unnecessary, because the statements can be as clearly, can be as\neasily found in the Bible as in the creed; absurd, because it is\nmonstrous folly to attempt making that more distinct which is manifest\nenough already. The Bible being, on the orthodox theory of plenary\ninspiration, literally the word of God, there is even a degree of\nimpiety in the presumption of pretending to give a summary of its\nmeaning in human fabrications, whether from Trent or Augsburgh, from the\npalace of the Lateran or the hall of Westminster.\n\nThat simplicity is a characteristic of the Bible, at least in its main\ntendency, I cordially admit; it is the especial quality of the gospel. I\ncould desire no better test by which to try the value of creeds. If the\nevangelists John or Matthew were again to appear on earth, bringing with\nthem their first simplicity, ignorant of the wrangling disputes, of the\nvain scholasticism which have disturbed this world and the church since\nthey were taken to their rest\u2014if the Athanasian document were put into\ntheir hands, there is nothing in their gospels which enables me to think\nthey could understand it; if moreover they were told that the whole of\nit could be deduced from their writings, I speak in all earnest\nsolemnity when I say, that at such an assertion I can conceive of them\nas no otherwise than utterly bewildered and surprized. Take our Lord\u2019s\nsayings and discourses as reported by his evangelists, and contrast them\nwith the creed we are discussing. With what undisguised simplicity is\nGod ever spoken of, always presented in some intimate relation to our\nduty or his own providence\u2014as an object of worship, of trust, or of\nlove! Pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in\nsecret shall reward thee openly. If ye being evil know how to give good\ngifts unto your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give\ngood things to them that ask him. Touch me not for I have not yet\nascended to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Such is\nthe clear and touching phraseology in which Christ always speaks of God,\nand thus gives, not a scholastic dissertation, but a revelation to human\naffections. And in the same spirit of simplicity is his own nature also\nmanifested; he who in all things was meek and lowly in heart, who went\nabout doing good, and came to seek and save the lost. Astonishing\nmysteries indeed has Athanasian theology made out of these plain\nstatements, having found in them a trinity in unity, and a unity in\ntrinity; the Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost\nuncreate; the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the\nHoly Ghost incomprehensible; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and\nthe Holy Ghost eternal, and so on; and though each is distinctively\nasserted to be uncreated, incomprehensible, and eternal, we are to\nbelieve on pain of eternal damnation, that they are not three eternals,\nbut one eternal\u2014not three uncreated, but one uncreated\u2014not three\nincomprehensibles, but one incomprehensible. Surely of all\nincomprehensibles this theological jumble is the most incomprehensible.\nIf to defy contradiction by the very sublime of absurdity be a safeguard\nfrom refutation, the Athanasian creed must stand eternally unconfuted.\nPlausible falsehood, however ingenious, may be stripped of its\nsophistries, but there is a certain degree of wild fabrication which may\nchallenge all the efforts of philosophers and logicians, yet remain as\nfirm as before in the bulwarks of its impenetrable nonsense. It may be\ntruly said that these are things on which we cannot reason; most\ncertainly they are, for they subvert at once all possible principles of\nreason and of truth. But the climax of these astounding marvels is, that\nwe are assured that if we do not hold this Catholic faith, \u201cwithout\ndoubt we shall perish everlastingly.\u201d And this precious document, this\ncompilation of monkish mysteries and scholastic jargon, is set forth as\nthe accurate definition of the Christian faith\u2014the test of saving belief\nor of damnable heresy; this production of crazy or crafty churchmen,\nthis concentration of hoary absurdities, of bewildered metaphysics, and\nof savage bigotries, presumes to utter the judgment of God, and to\nlaunch the thunder of the skies. Beginning with the pride of\ninfallibility, it closes consistently with a sentence of perdition; and\nfor this there is pleaded the language of the gospel\u2014language evidently\nmisinterpreted, as any language must be which would identify the spirit\nof Christ with the spirit of Athanasius. So on the ground of two false\nassumptions, those who pride themselves in this Athanasian orthodoxy are\nprivileged to denounce with a safe and quiet conscience perdition on\ntheir heretical brethren. First, it is assumed that when the gospel\nsays, \u201cHe that believeth not,\u201d it must mean, he that believeth not the\nthree creeds; and, secondly, it is assumed that when the gospel says,\n\u201cHe that believeth not shall be condemned,\u201d the condemnation implied is\neverlasting destruction. This is in the genuine spirit of Church and\nCreed Christianity, fencing in a little and a barren paradise with the\nbrambles and the briars of theological definitions, making holiness and\nvirtue dependent on ecclesiastical syllogisms, and shutting out all from\nheaven who may be compelled to disagree with the doctors of Nice, or the\ncompilers of our English liturgy, who hold the faith of Milton and\nLocke, but cannot be convinced by Bull, Waterland, or Sherlocke. Creeds\npronounce perdition, and Churches hold up Creeds; and ministers come\nforth to magnify the glory of these Churches and to maintain the verity\nof these Creeds; but men of meek tempers and tolerant hearts seem half\nashamed of their work, and in the effort to soften dogmatical ferocity,\nmake a vain effort at compromise between their consistency and their\ncharity. It is all fruitless: the dark and damning malediction is\nwritten on these Creeds with a pen of adamant; the preacher\u2019s feelings\nare of no avail, and he is commanded by his system to proclaim them\naloud and afar\u2014to hold them as warrants of eternal death to all who\ngainsay or deny them. At the best, orthodox charity, after all\nadmissions, can only embrace different shades of Trinitarians;\nUnitarians must still remain outside the pale of hope; if therefore\ncondemned we must be, it is of but small importance in what form or on\nwhat theory. To those who are to enter the regions of the lost for ever,\nquestions on essences and persons, with many other most grave\ndisquisitions, can signify but little; nor can much consolation be\nderived from the reflection, that but a hair\u2019s breadth from the\nUnitarian heresy, theology by evasions and distinction might have given\nus a refuge in the doctrine of Sabellianism. We are, however, most\ngravely told that he who receives not the Athanasian Creed, cannot be\nsaved\u2014a Creed at which reason, as it was well said, stands aghast, and\nFaith itself is half confounded; a Creed, of which it was better said,\nthat it is alike contrary to common sense, to common arithmetic, and to\ncommon charity.\n\nWere the exposure of the Athanasian formulary the design of this\nLecture, I should feel that I had undertaken a very needless and a very\npresumptuous task, needless, because in this age there are few that\nattach any importance to it; presumptuous, because, if minds are not\naffected by its self-confutation, I have not the vanity to pretend to\nany arguments which could shake their convictions. But one can scarcely\nsuppress a feeling of sorrow and surprise at seeing this document\ndragged out for defence in the nineteenth century; this mixture of\nmonkish metaphysics and scholastic bigotry, a production which\nmultitudes of the orthodox themselves conspire to repudiate, and of\nwhich many of the best and highest minds in the Church of England have\nbeen most heartily ashamed\u2014of which they desire to be well rid. Were the\ndefence of such a creed to be taken as a true sign of the times, there\nwould be cause indeed for pain to think that we had been rolled back\nagain into the dark ages; but it is not so; such things are rather marks\nthat show us how far the advancing tide has moved beyond them. In the\ncourse of the present Lecture I desire it to be distinctly understood,\nthat I oppose creeds in their very principle: it is not alone such as I\nthink false, but though I believed them true, I would yet oppose their\nuse. My opposition is directed against the spirit of creeds, and if my\nown opinions were attempted to be forced in that form, my opposition\nwould be the same. I am in this place to maintain a principle, the\nprinciple of intellectual, moral, and Christian freedom, and because\ncreeds, as I think, are at variance with this, I denounce them. I intend\nnothing against individual professors. If I should give them offence, I\nhave no wrong motive with which to charge myself, and must attribute it\nto the necessity of plain speaking on a subject by no means agreeable;\nbut whether pleasant or not, I have a duty to perform, and I must as far\nas my power goes, endeavour to do it honestly and faithfully.\n\nThe title of this Lecture is, that creeds are the foes of heavenly\nfaith, and the allies of worldly policy. It is my object to show that\nthis accusation is not lightly or unjustly advanced; and in making good\nthis two-fold charge, the greatest perplexity which attends it, is the\nmultifarious and abundant evidence whereby it can be established.\n\nI. I proceed first to prove them the foes of heavenly faith.\n\nCreeds disqualify the mind for the pursuit of truth. This is my first\nassertion, and I shall establish its correctness in several particulars.\nCreeds generate mental apathy and mental dependence, and this is fatal\nin the very outset. To a spirit of inquiry there is needed an impulsive\nintellectual activity, and to this activity there is needed a desire for\nthe thing to be attained, and a sense of its importance. There is no\nlabour without motive, and if in religious belief, the creed has defined\nbefore-hand all that is necessary for my salvation, I have no necessity\nto take any more trouble in the matter. If I am to rest on authority at\nlast, it is just as well for me to be satisfied with it at first\u2014if\nafter toilsome inquiry, at the peril of my soul\u2019s eternal peace, the\ndogmas of the creed are those to which my conclusions must return, I had\nbetter be at once content\u2014if I must believe as the Church believes, if I\nmust believe as the Creed says I should believe, if I must believe as\nthe priest declares my hope of heaven requires, if after criticism and\nresearch, long and patient, I must arrive at but one exposition of the\nBible, it is but wisdom to spare myself from such a pressure of useless\nlabour. But indolence in this case is not merely allowable, it is, in\nfact, the safest. If to doubt be danger, and if to disbelieve be sin,\nthen the curiosity which stimulates examination may lead me into ruin,\nwhilst implicit submission, that receives all and questions nothing, is\na condition of peaceful security. The incitements to mental labour are\nanalogous to those to any other sort of labour; it is that one shall be\nthe richer and the better for it, and that what he acquires he may\njustly possess. But, if by independent inquiry I may become morally\npoorer and spiritually worse, if I shall have no right to my own\nthoughts, and must be despoiled of my convictions, or punished for them,\nwhen I have worked them out with the struggle of every faculty, it is\nexceeding folly to risk the misery and irritation of being torn between\nmy opinion and my creed, conscience forcing me to acquiesce, and reason\ncompelling me to doubt. This view is no supposition; it is fact.\nSubmission to Creeds and Churches, is the true cause of that wide spread\nmoral torpor in every country where Creeds and Churches have dominion.\nThere is nothing so rare as intelligent, independent religious\nconviction; and how can it be otherwise, when each leans upon his\npriest, and the priest gives him ready-made opinions, as they were\nformed a thousand years ago. There is a general and profound ignorance\nof the sources of opinion, the history of opinion, of the philosophy of\nopinion, and of the Bible, both in its letter and in its spirit. Speak\nto multitudes of religion, in any broad or liberal sense, and it seems\nto them as if it were an unknown tongue. To have any chance of\nattention, you must use terms which Creeds have sanctified, you must\naddress them in traditionary phrases, which have the sectarian or\nsacerdotal currency. This never could have been had religion been\nrecommended as a subject of individual and independent study, leaving\nthe mind free, both in its pursuit and its conclusion. That I have\nstated nothing but what fact justifies, I may appeal to any one who has\nconsidered the religious condition of this country, or of Europe\ngenerally, and considered it in every rank of society. I speak not of\nthe Spaniard, who has not yet rid himself from the palsy of the\nInquisition, who can go from the prostration of the confessional to\nscenes of the wildest crime; I speak not of the Italian, that compound\nof profaneness and credulity, of sin and devotion, who can bow before an\nimage, and with the same hand cross himself, by which a minute before he\nplunged his stiletto in his fellow-creature\u2019s heart. I speak not of our\nown peasantry, who Sunday after Sunday, walk statedly to church or\nchapel, and know little more than that they went there and came back\nagain; I speak not of the fashionable wealthy, who, on this point, are\ncommonly as ignorant as the boor, and choose religion as they choose\nevery thing else, as it happens to be the mode; I pass these by, because\nit may be said, that pleasure and gaiety leave them no time for study;\nbut I will refer to multitudes who are esteemed devout and serious\nChristians, whose minds passively receive the mould of their teachers,\nand to whom religion never presents itself as a system of various\nthought and of independent examination. Now, this ignorant apathy has\nbad effects, which are not merely negative; and at the risk of\nanticipating, I will allude in a few words to one or two of them: it\ngives stability to every error and corruption, and holds to them with an\nobstinacy, against which wisdom has no power; it is the very soil in\nwhich priestcraft grows darkest and foulest; and the hierarchy in any\nage or country has never risen to its full stature of lordliness, until\nthe people have lain lowest in torpid submission. And, in addition to\nthis, there is no uncharitableness so inveterate, there is no bigotry so\nintolerant, as that which this species of character matures, for as it\nis unable to comprehend an opposite opinion, it is equally inadequate\nand unwilling to weigh the arguments in its favour, or to estimate the\nevidence on which it is maintained. Having no conception of independence\nitself, independence in another appears presumption, if not something\nworse, and never having imagined that other opinions could possibly be\ntrue except its own, to hold any different could only be explained by\nsupposing a want of honesty or a want of grace.\n\nI might dwell upon the fear by which Creeds paralyse the faculties of\nweak or sensitive natures, by which they deprive them of all power for\ncalm and deliberate examination, by the fear of being excluded from\ntheir Church, by the fear of being discarded by their friends, by the\nfear of being cast into hell, above all these, by the fear of losing the\nfavour of God, and the friendship of Jesus, and with right and true\nminds, this is the greatest of all fears. In the midst of so many\nterrors, it is too much to expect that our weak humanity could be\ncalm,\u2014that it could look with unmoved heart at the appalling indications\nof so many and dire threatenings, it is like examining a man on the\nterms of his faith, while the officials of persecution are arranging the\nfaggots or putting screws in the rack. From this topic, disagreeable in\nany shape, I pass on, and assert, that Creeds are enemies to truth,\nbecause, by preconception and prejudice, they disqualify the mind to\nseek or apprehend it. This is my second, and in this section, my last\nposition.\n\nThe statement of the Church of England respecting the three Creeds, is\nthis: that they \u201cought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they\nmay be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.\u201d[540] The\nCatholic doctrine, with equal decision, asserts that the Infallibility\nof the Romish Church may also be proved by most certain warrants of Holy\nScripture. Suppose then a Church of England Christian with the Bible\nbefore him; he has been previously indoctrinated in the three Creeds,\nand these ideas pre-occupying his mind will so far influence his\ninterpretation. Suppose a Roman Catholic in a like position; he has ever\npresent to his mind the Infallibility of his Church, and _her_ decisions\nmust be the limits of _his_ conclusions. Intellectually or morally, no\nposition can be conceived worse than this for the pursuit or discovery\nof truth. The mind is biassed from the first; its calmness and its\ncandour are subverted, and it is no longer a judge, but a partizan; it\nis not to decide on evidence, but, (to use a legal term) to act on the\ninstruction of its brief. That Creeds have the tendency to distort and\nfetter the intellectual workings of the mind, we know from the fact, too\npalpable to need proof, that Theologians have always been the most\nobstinate in resisting the discoveries of science, and ever the last to\nyield. Astronomy, in its glimmerings of scientific truth, was once\nChurch heresy. A Father of the Church, as it is well known, had\ndenounced that man as infidel and profane who should dare to assert that\nthe earth moved round the sun, and not the sun round the earth. On the\nother side of this controversy, we have been told that the arts and\nsciences have their compendiums as well as religion. It was a most\nunfortunate analogy; for how would it have been now with art and\nscience, had Astronomy been made a Creed at the Council of Nice, and a\nconfession on Chemistry been compiled by the Westminster divines.\nGalileo was pronounced a heretic; and the early Chemists laboured under\nstrong suspicion of witchcraft. Had we been bound in Astronomy as we are\nin Theology, Joshua should be our authority, decisive and irrevocable,\nand the calculations of Newton and Laplace should be placed in the index\nexpurgatorius of Ecclesiastical dogmatism. Even Luther himself, the\nauthor of the greatest of moral revolutions since Christianity, smiled\nat the idea that the earth should move round the sun, and said, \u201cthat\naccording to Holy Scripture, Joshua commanded the earth to stand still,\nand not the sun.\u201d[541] Had not the progressive energy of human intellect\nbeen stronger, in what a position should we yet have been as to the true\nprinciples of the construction and motion of the universe? Geology as\nyet is a scientific heresy; and, to avoid the stigma, orthodox\nGeologists have been driven into all modes of eccentric explanation,\nsome to disjoin the first verse of Genesis from all that follows, and\nothers to the supposition that a day may mean a thousand years, or if\nthe speculator needs it, ten thousand or a million. The intellectual\nimmorality thus occasioned, it is not possible to estimate; for it is a\ncoarse view of sin to place it altogether in the misdirection of the\npassions: certainly, the sins which ever afflicted mankind most, were\nthe moral perversions of the intellect. And this may be at once\nconceived if we have read the history of the Church, and are able to\ntake a calm and impartial review of its cabals and controversies. I will\nnot mention here the loss of kindly affections, the loss of charity, the\nloss of peace; I merely allude to the immense intellectual waste which\nhas been occasioned by men setting out on their inquiries with a\nforegone conclusion. I shall say nothing on the tomes, enough to make a\nlibrary as great as that the Turkish soldier burned, which have been\nwritten to defend the Trinity\u2014I take an example to Protestants more\ngrateful\u2014I mean, transubstantiation. What was it that for centuries\nperpetuated a false and absurd philosophy in Europe? What was it that\nmade Aristotle the supreme ruler of the Christian Church\u2014not Aristotle,\nas he was, the philosoper, but as Churchmen used him, a verbal\nquibbler\u2014was it not for the purpose of constructing syllogisms with\northodox exactness, and by theories on essences, species, forms, and so\nforth, to make it evident that under the appearance of bread and wine,\nthe very God who created the heavens and the earth, and the very man\nChrist Jesus who died on Calvary, were virtually present? Go into any\ngreat library, and on this subject alone you may find volumes of which\nthe very names are too many for memory. Yet, in these there is abundance\nof talent, of subtlety, and of acuteness\u2014all in the travail to sustain a\ntheory. No one can deny, no one will, who knows how equally the Creator\nscatters his gifts, that minds of the very highest order were amongst\nthe schoolmen; yet all these magnificent powers were expended to sustain\none or two absurd positions, enslaving their own intellect, and by their\nauthority and their influence, enslaving the intellect of Christendom;\nand, from the reformation to this hour, there have been the same waste\nand perversion of thought. Just consider what tortuous logic, what\nwire-drawing ingenuity have been exercised to defend guilt by\nimputation, and righteousness by imputation\u2014absurdities as great\nmorally, as transubstantiation is intellectually. This is the work of\nCreeds.\n\nDissenters are sometimes taunted with want of scholarship. The taunt may\nhave foundation in fact; perhaps it has, but on what are we to place the\nblame? Dissenters, we presume, have a measure of intellect on the\naverage of other men, and are gifted with as many mental faculties as\nthose who subscribe the articles of our National Church. God does not\ndistribute his blessings on the ground of subscription, however\nUniversities may. The gifts of mind are equal and bountiful like the\nbeneficence of creation. The same full hand that showers sunlight over\nhill and valley, that opens fountains in the rocks, and sows the\nwilderness with flowers, without reference to Sect or Church,\nimpregnates all understandings with the elements of thought, and all\nfancies with the germs of beauty. The Dissenter, as the Churchman, hath\neyes, hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections. If then this fair\nportion of our Maker\u2019s mercy be equally given, whence are we to trace\nthe want of its proper cultivation? If the orthodox close the\nUniversities against us by Creeds, draw fast the iron bolt by an iron\ntheology, take away the key of knowledge, and repulse those that with\nall their hearts would enter, place before us tests which, if stupid\nenough, we might subscribe without understanding, and if dishonest\nenough we might subscribe without believing, but, candidly confessing we\nneither understand them nor believe them, therefore refuse to sign\nthem,\u2014where then is the magnanimity or the generosity which throws in\nour teeth, though it were true, that we have not the science of\nCambridge, or the classicality of Oxford. Yet, despite of all\nrestrictions, Dissent has had a goodly number of noble and cultured\nminds\u2014minds able and honest, which, in the hour of need, even the Church\nherself was not ashamed to acknowledge, or ashamed to use.\n\nCreeds act as mighty temptations,\u2014as the very Satans of theology;\u2014and\nthey are not temptations to the covetous and ambitious only, but also to\nthe weak and good. When sects and Creeds are the standards of\npreferment, those with whom preferment is the great object, are made to\nadd the sin of sanctimonious hypocrisy to that of Ecclesiastical\ncovetousness and Ecclesiastical ambition. But there are others good in\ntheir own hearts, yet not mighty enough to be martyrs, whom Creeds keep\nin a whole life of agony. There are those who entered a religious\ncommunity, believing its opinions most enthusiastically, who, by the\nfurther progress of intellect or judgment, may be brought to doubt or\ndeny them. They are then driven to a desperate alternative, either to\nbelie their conscience, or to do violence to their hearts. Take the case\nof many of the curates and incumbents of the Church of England. Suppose,\nthat on receiving orders they assented to all the bishop or the Church\nprescribed, but that after years of thinking they were compelled to\ndisbelieve the Athanasian Creed. They are then periodically reading,\nwith the most serious tones, and from the most solemn place, a statement\nof doctrine which they conceive in their souls to be hideous and false,\nreading it as the conviction of their own judgments, and as that which\nought to be the saving faith of all men. If the conscience is not\nutterly hacknied, if the religious sensibilities are not torn out from\nthe heart, this must be continually as the torture of the rack. Like all\nhuman faculties, conscience has a limit; beyond a certain point it can\nendure no more, and so when bigoted exaction has stretched it to the\nlast, it must revolt or expire. The alternative in the end is, moral\napathy or theological rebellion\u2014a quiescent hypocrisy, or an open\nopposition. But few can brave the contest, and they have no refuge\nexcept a tacit and unwilling submission. Honest men, it may be said,\nwhen they ceased to believe the doctrines they solemnly affirmed, would\nrenounce them with a denial as public as their profession. It is easy to\nsay this, but, even for honest men, it is sometimes hard to do it. In\nthe clerical order especially there are numbers, whose position has been\nattained by long study and weary toil\u2014whose very means of life\u2014not to\nspeak of their station and their friendships\u2014hang upon adherence to the\nCreed of their Church. What are these men to do? To dig they are not\nable, and to beg they are ashamed. Yet I can easily conceive that many\ncould abandon rank and friendship, and count them light, in comparison\nwith their faith, to conscience, that they could take a cell in the\nwilderness for their dwelling, quench their thirst at the running\nstream, and seek their food on the briar and the bramble, sooner than be\nfalse to their convictions, and do dishonour to the integrity of their\nsouls. But it may be, that others with themselves are to suffer,\u2014those\nwhose lives are bound up in their lives,\u2014those to whom they are the only\nearthly support and refuge, the wife, the child, the aged father, or the\nwidowed mother,\u2014whom to cast on the friendless world, were worse than a\nthousand martyrdoms. Think, then, of the poor curate of the Church of\nEngland, or the humble incumbent, who has grown long into life, with\nclaims most pressing multiplying around him\u2014one who once out of his\npulpit knows not where to turn for the bread which his children\ncrave\u2014and we cannot judge harshly or uncharitably, if the power of his\naffections is too strong for the stern demands of duty. I know there\nhave been those who could commit father, and mother, and wife, and\nchildren, to that good Provider who feedeth the raven and sheltereth the\nnest of the sparrow; who could speak the truth and take the\nconsequences;\u2014I trust there are those yet in the world who could do the\nsame; but in this or any other age, martyrs must be few, and the spirit\nof martyrdom rare. We blame not too severely those who have not the\nhighest courage of religious heroism, but we may condemn with honest\nindignation those institutions that by fencing their position with\nCreeds and Articles, compel them to be hypocrites. I do not apply these\nassertions to members or ministers of the Church of England, or other\nChurches, individually, but any one who has studied the history of\nreligion, or watched the tendency of institutions, knows that in the\nEnglish Establishment, in the Romish, in all establishments that have\nbeen narrowly restrictive, the hypocrisy of ambition, or the hypocrisy\nof fear, has been deeply and abundantly nourished.\n\nThe Church does not deny a small amount of liberty\u2014no Church can,\u2014it\nwill therefore allow you to read the Bible, if you desire it, but you\nmust find nothing therein but what the Church proposes. In the study of\nthe Sacred text, you must have always before your eyes the three Creeds\nand the thirty-nine Articles; find what these prescribe, and it is all\nthe better for your peace and comfort; miss them, and you are open to\nsocial and spiritual condemnation. Churches which dictate creeds, use\nwords without meaning, when they say, that you may read the Bible, for\nthey tell you also, at the commencement, what you ought to find in the\nBible. I shall give an illustration here of my meaning, by an extract\nfrom one of the Oxford Tract writers:\u2014I know well that some object to\nthese writers, but so far as I have been able to study the subject\u2014and I\nhave read, attentively or casually, the whole of what are called the\nOxford Tracts,\u2014I think their statements and their doctrines are entirely\nin the spirit of their system, and in most exact consistency with their\nasseverations and their Creed. There is no medium; we require an\ninfallible tribunal, or we must have a free judgment; but the\nauthorities of the English Establishment will give us neither; for with\nthat we must encounter the twofold endurance of an erring Church and an\nenslaved understanding. I think, therefore, the Oxford doctors in most\nperfect consistency with their profession; and thus believing, I quote\nthe following passage, illustrative of these writers, and of the spirit\nof Ecclesiastical authority in general. It is a portion of a dialogue\nbetween a minister and his parishioner. Not to spoil the dramatic effect\nof it, I shall give you a little more than absolutely belongs to my\nsubject. Thus speaks the Parishioner to the Pastor:\u2014\u201cMy good mother,\nsaid he, not long before her death, said to me very earnestly, My dear\nRichard, observe my words: never dare to trifle with God Almighty. By\nthis I understood her to mean, that in all religious actions we ought to\nbe very _awful_, and seek nothing but what is right and true. And I knew\nshe had always disapproved of people\u2019s saying, as they commonly do, that\nit little matters what a man\u2019s religion is, if he is but sincere, and\nthat one opinion, or one place of worship, is as good as another. To\nsay, or think, or act so, she used to call \u2018trifling with God\u2019s truth;\u2019\nand do you not think so, (addressing himself to me,) that she was right?\n\n\u201cIndeed I do, said I.\n\n\u201cAnd, he said, I was very much confirmed in these opinions by constantly\nreading a very wise, and as I may say to you, a precious book, which a\ngentleman gave me some years ago, whom I met by chance as I was going to\nsee my father, in the infirmary. It is called, \u2018A Selection from Bishop\nWilson\u2019s Works,\u2019 and there are many places which show what his opinions\nwere on this subject, and I suppose, Sir, there can be no doubt, that\nBishop Wilson was a man of extraordinary wisdom and piety. Then, after a\nslight remark from his interlocutor, he observes, And what Bishop Wilson\nsays is this, or to this effect, that to reject the government of\nbishops is to reject the ordinance of God. Having mentioned some\ncontroversy he had with a Dissenter, he observes, it seemed to me (and I\ntold the man so,) like going round and round in a wheel, to say, that if\nhe is God\u2019s minister, he preaches what is good, and if he preaches what\nis good, he is God\u2019s minister; for still the question would be, what is\nright or good? And some would say one thing, and some another; and some\nwould say, there is nothing good or right in itself, but only as it\nseems most expedient to every person for the time being. So, for my own\nsatisfaction, and hoping for God\u2019s blessing on my future endeavours, I\nresolved to search the matter out for myself, as well as I could. My\nplan was this: First to see what was said on the subject in the Church\nPrayer Book, and then to compare this with the Scriptures. If, after\nall, I could not satisfy myself, I should have taken the liberty of\nconsulting you, Sir, &c. Yours, replied this Rev. instructor to his\nprudent catechuman, was a good plan.\u201d\n\nThis passage contains the whole spirit of Creeds and Churches. Take the\nPrayer Book with you, keep the fear of the bishop before your eyes, and\nwalk reverently in the way of the Articles. Then read the Scriptures if\nyou will, but read them to show that all this is Holy Writ.\n\nCreeds are, further, at enmity with truth, because they resist its\ndevelopment, and embarrass its progression. The world could never have\nadvanced beyond a fixed point, had it been governed by Churchmen, in the\ntrue Church spirit. For what is it that Creed-makers so insanely\nattempt? They attempt what is alike inconsistent with the glory of truth\nand the nature of man. Truth is infinite, like its author, and they\nwould confine it within the limits of the Nicene and Athanasian\nformularies. Truth is eternal and progressive, but Creeds would swear us\nto the worst barbarisms of the worst ages. Truth is discovered and\ncarried onward by the independent working of free and various minds, but\nCreeds would reduce all to an apathetic uniformity; and had not truth\nbeen greater than Creeds, all that has been done for religion and\nscience, would now be in eternal silence. Creeds not only thus retard\nthe progress of Truth, by the sanction of authority, by the influence of\nprejudice, by the tenacity of habit; but give errors all but\nimmortality. Creeds are foes to whatever is most heavenly in our nature;\nto conscience, in its rectitude, and to charity in its gentleness; to\nconscience by an utter perversion of the moral sense, making that to be\nguilt which is not guilt, and giving merit to that which deserves none,\nmaking it righteous to believe one proposition, and sinful to doubt\nanother, thus creating a factitious vice, and as often denying the\nevidence of real virtue; to charity, also, Creeds, I have said, are\nfoes, and such they are by bitter exclusiveness, by wrong terms of\ncommunion and brotherhood, by dissension, by enmities and contentions,\nand by hatred in all its most odious shapes.\n\nCreeds have failed in all the objects for which it is pretended they\nwere made, and they have infinitely multiplied the evils against which\nit is pretended they are the guards. They are needful, it is said, for\nthe preservation of the Faith, and instead of preserving the Faith, they\nhave provoked the wildest unbelief; they are required, it is argued, as\nbonds of unity, and instead of this they have bred divisions and\nheresies without number; they are means, some will go so far as to say,\nof maintaining Christian peace, and instead of this they have rioted in\nwars and persecutions the most inhuman and the most sanguinary. The\nhistory of religion shows that unbelief is never so prevalent as when\nthe Creed is most rigid. The countries and the times in which\nTheological ingenuity left least scope for the free play of intellect,\nhave always been the country and times, when, under the outward guise of\na uniform faith, there has been the most absolute contempt for the\npopular religion, as well as for Christianity in general. For the proof\nof this need I refer to the French Church, and the withering scepticism\nwhich it nurtured; the Spanish Church; the Italian Church; and to\nsustain the same principle we might likewise accumulate heaps of\nevidence from the Protestant Churches. As to heresies, the case is still\nmore clear. One heresy may have called forth a Creed, but one Creed has\nproduced a thousand heresies; and Creed-makers, when they imagined their\nwork complete, to their sorrow have found it was but merely commenced.\nThe history of heresies would be at once humiliating and instructive. In\nall varieties we have them on every point in religion, and on all that\nhas connection with it; on the nature of God. Men not satisfied with a\nsimple trust, must speculate on the Divine Being\u2014must ascertain whether\nhe was essentially one, or numerically divided; Churchmen must define,\nand after much labour we have such a document as the Athanasian Creed,\nand such a doctrine as the Athanasian Trinity. On the nature of Christ,\nwe have the same subtleizing process; we are tossed between Arius and\nAthanasius, and having got clear of these, we are again to be bandied\nbetween Nestorius and Eutychus, and to determine whether Christ\u2019s\ngodhead and manhood were so united as to make one nature, or so divided\nas to constitute two natures; whether his divinity was not instead of a\nhuman soul, or in what relation his human soul stood to his divinity;\nwhether he had one will or two wills; whether his death was a\nsubstitution or not; whether it was for the elect only, or for the whole\nrace of man universally. On the Church; what its constitution, what its\nextent, what its authority; is it fallible or infallible; and if\ninfallible, where does that infallibility rest; in the Pope, in a\nCouncil, in both together; in a congregation, or in every individual\nChristian? On the Sacraments; are there two or seven; what is their\nnature and efficacy; does baptism cleanse from original sin, or does it\nnot; is it necessary to salvation or not? Roman Catholics affirm both,\nand so do the Oxford Tract writers. Is it to be consequent on personal\nbelief or not; is it to be administered to infants, or to persons of\nmature years, and to be by immersion or by sprinkling? Again, we have a\nwhole crowd of divisions and heresies on the Lord\u2019s Supper; are the\nelements actually changed into the substance of Christ, or is Christ\nmerely present along with them, or is he spiritually, but not\npersonally, present; is it a rite mystically effective, or is it merely\ncommemorative? All these questions have been sources of endless division\nof opinion; even at the present hour, the Oxford divines teach a\ndoctrine concerning the Eucharist, which it requires marvellous\nperspicacity to distinguish from transubstantiation, while the\nCalvinistic evangelicals maintain views which might content the very\nlowest sacramentarian. But why speak of Creeds and Articles as means of\nreligious unity, when the Church of England herself affords us the means\nof giving such assertion a flat denial? Within her pale, she has had men\nof all and opposite opinions\u2014Arminian and Calvinist, Unitarian and\nTritheist\u2014every possible hue that orthodoxy could assume. Paley smiles\nat the idea, as one of most grotesque absurdity, that men should be\nthought to believe the articles they sign; they are, according to his\nmorality, mere articles of peace, intended to exclude no one but Papists\nand Anabaptists. If this be true, a man might, as an able writer on\nnon-conformity says, take a benefice with a good conscience from the\nGrand Turk. Nay, not to speak of believing the Articles, we have heard\nit asserted, in connection with the Universities, that the youthful\nsubscribers are not supposed to understand them, or in some cases even\nto have read them. The Church of England is perhaps wise in not pushing\nmatters too far, for in her former efforts to force uniformity, she lost\nthe best of her sons by thousands; an event that she has cause to regret\nto the latest hour of her existence, and for which America should bless\nher for ever. The distinction between essentials and non-essentials, is\none of the most quibbling of Theological vanities. Every one knows that\neach sect has its essentials and non-essentials, according to the\ncompass of its Creed, some many and some few: with the Roman Catholic,\nTransubstantiation is as essential as the Trinity; he condemns the\northodox Protestant to perdition for not holding one as well as the\nother, whilst both combine to pass sentence on the unfortunate Unitarian\nwho can receive neither. Again, I assert the distinction is petty and\nquibbling, for who is to fix it, where is it to stop; who is to decide\nit, and what are to be grounds of the decision? All things are important\nto us, as they bear relation to our conscience or our convictions; one\nman eateth only herbs, another eateth all things; one man esteemeth one\nday above another, another esteemeth every day alike: let every man be\npersuaded in his own mind; that is the Apostle\u2019s view of the subject,\nand that is the true, the safe, the charitable one. Protestantism has\nnot lessened or softened the number or the inveteracy of religious\ndivisions infinitely more perplexed than Romanism in her views of\nreligious authority, she has given importance to doctrines which the\nChurch under that system scarcely noticed: such as grace,\npredestination, and other similar disputed theories: thus the sting of\ncontroversy has been added to topics that were before sufficiently\nrepulsive in their dry and technical abstruseness. But it is pitiful, it\nis humiliating, not merely to our common Christianity, but to our common\nhuman nature, to see the arrogant assumption with which puny men decree\nwhat their brothers are to believe, now and in all future times, tying\ndown the mind that should be free as heaven, as it is as progressive as\nit is eternal: putting themselves on the throne of God, and dealing\njudgment where he deals mercy. The minuteness of theological definition\nhas surpassed all other efforts of human ingenuity, but it has not alone\ndeadened the freedom of intellect, but also injured its honesty. On the\nTrinity, more especially, heresy has ever been treading closely on\northodoxy, \u201cuntil, after revolving round the theological circle,\u201d as\nGibbon says, \u201cwe are surprised to find that the Sabellian ends where the\nEbionite had began.\u201d Each theological speculator has his own Trinity,\nhis own exposition of the Athanasian mystery, until amidst the whirl of\ndogmatical contradictions, the mind grows giddy, and knows not where to\nrest. The Church of England, as I have observed before, has all systems\nbetween the extremes of Sherlock\u2019s Tritheism and South\u2019s Sabellianism:\nbetween the three infinite minds of the one, and the three _somewhats_\nof the other. The ancient Christians afforded full occasion for the\ncaustic description which Gibbon gives of their disputes, and the modern\nChristians have not grown wiser, or learned better. \u201cThe Greek word\u201d he\nsays, \u201cwhich was chosen to represent this mysterious resemblance, bears\nso close an affinity to the orthodox symbol, that the profane of every\nage derided the furious contests which the difference of a single\ndiphthong excited between the Homoousians and the Homoisians. As it\nfrequently happens that sounds and characters which approach nearest\neach other, accidentally represent the most opposite ideas, the\nobservation would be itself ridiculous, if it were possible to mark any\nsensible difference between the doctrine of the Semiarians, as they were\nimproperly styled, and that of the Catholics themselves. The Bishop of\nPoictiers, who in his Phrygian exile, very wisely aimed at a coalition\nof parties, endeavours to prove, that by a pious and faithful\ninterpretation, the Homoousian may be reduced to a consubstantial sense.\nYet he confesses that the word has a dark and suspicious aspect; and, as\nif darkness were congenial to theological disputes, \u201cthe Semiarians who\nadvanced to the doors of the Church, assailed them with the most\nunrelenting fury.\u201d If it be said, that the Creeds are not the creators\nof divisions, but that divisions are the creators of Creeds, I admit\nthat they act and react on each other. If they create not the\ndifferences which they make, they give them all their bitterness. If it\nbe said, that independently of Creeds, there would still be endless\nvariety of private opinions, I grant it; I go further, and say, it were\nmost desirable there should be such divisions. It is Creeds that\ninfuriate religion, and turns dissent into dissension. A man who felt he\ncould form his opinion in freedom, and hold it in peace, would never\npersecute another; would never hate another; would never pretend\nauthority over another; he would give the liberty he used. It is the\nauthority which Creeds pretend, that constitute one of their greatest\nevils. The ancient Church then had Creeds in plenty, but no unity; the\nReformed Churches are in the same position. If it be asserted they have\nagreement in essentials, I refer to what I have already said on this\npoint; but if it be maintained that their difference is only in name,\nthen, I say, the matter becomes worse, and plainly shows that Creeds,\nout of small disputes, can cause gigantic evils. Nothing could be more\nbitter than the Sacramentarian Controversy amongst the Reformers;\nnothing could be more vile than the language with which they assailed\neach other; nothing more furious than the invectives with which they\npelted one another. Each would fix on his opponent what he did not\nbelieve himself; and yet there occasionally peeps out a glimmer, that\nthey had some sense of their inconsistency. \u201cIt is of great importance,\u201d\nsays Calvin, in writing to Melancthon, \u201dthat the least suspicion of the\ndivisions that are among ourselves pass not to future ages; for it is\nridiculous beyond all things that can be imagined, that after we have\nbroken off from the whole world, we should so little agree among\nourselves since the beginning of the Reformation.\u201d The charity of Calvin\nwas not equal to his discretion, as we may see by this extract.\n\n\u201cHonour, glory, and riches,\u201d says he to the Marquis de Po\u00ebt, \u201cshall be\nthe reward of your pains; but, above all, do not fail to rid the country\nof those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us.\nSuch monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael\nServetus, the Spaniard.\u201d\n\nIn the same spirit is the language of Austin, who was Calvin\u2019s master,\nnot only in his doctrine, but also in his zeal. \u201cO, you Arian heretic,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cthe thief knew him when he hung upon the cross; the Jews\nfeared him when he rose from the dead; and you treat him with contempt,\nnow he is reigning in heaven. Take care, beloved, of the Arian\npestilence!\u201d (Quoted from _Robinson\u2019s Ecclesiastical Researches_, pp.\n348, and 181.)\n\nDivision and heresy are, in truth, innumerable, and the ideas of\nstemming them by Creeds, is to imitate the peasant standing on the\nriver\u2019s bank, and waiting until it should have all flowed by. \u201cOne\ndoctor of the Lutheran Church,\u201d says Robert Robinson, of Cambridge,\n\u201chath given a comment on heresy and schism, and hath inserted no less\nthan six hundred and thirty-two sorts of heretics, heresiarchs, and\nschismatics, diversified as the birds of heaven, and agreeing only in\none single point, the crime of not staying in what is called the\nChurch.\u201d\n\nI have now shown that Creeds did not promote unity in the ancient\nChurch; that they did not promote it in the Roman Church; that they did\nnot promote it in the Reformed Church; that in the present day they do\nnot promote it in any of the Protestant Churches; not to allude again to\nour own Establishment; to many in the Scotch Church, they are a dead\nletter; they are entirely so in the French and German Churches; and in\nthe Genevese Church, the very school where blackest Calvinism was\nfabricated, the arena where the stern persecutor burned Servetus,\nCalvin\u2019s spirit is extinct, and his creed repealed. I have shown, then,\nthat they never produced unity, and I believe the most intrepid\nEcclesiastic will not affirm they have been favourable to Christian\npeace. Turn to the page of history; look abroad over the face of the\nworld, and you have lamentable evidence of the charge. Creeds have\nbroken the peace of Christendom, and given unwonted fury to all its\nstrifes; Controversies have arisen without number, and have been\nmaintained with fanatic zeal, fury, and detestation. What shame should\nthe opposite conduct of Philosophers flash in the face of\ntheologians,\u2014men, who in quietness pursued their own studies, and left\ntheir results for the progressive amelioration of their species\u2014whilst\nthe janglings of Churchmen, wringing through every age, have been empty\nof all things but their enmity. Why is it, that we in this hour are not\nmore profitably engaged,\u2014why is it, that we are not rather seeking out\nthe woes that crush down humanity, and joining forces to remove\nthem,\u2014why is it with so much of what is positive to be done, so much of\nwretchedness to relieve, so much sin to remove, so many solemn claims on\nall sides of us, that when we think of it, we feel as if this were the\nveriest trifling; why are we thus in strife, when we might be in union;\nwhy are we compelled to say hard things, and to repel them? It is all to\nbe charged to Creeds, which with the spirit of Cain, has risen the hand\nof brother against brother, and caused contention and an evil heart,\nwhere there ought to be charity and peace. It is all vain, it is not\nhuman nature, no matter how strongly disclaimed, to think, that\npolemical contention can be perfectly free from the wrong passions, and\nit is better not to pretend to meekness, when the opposite is frequently\nbut too evident. The days of physical strife in religion, it is to be\nhoped, are gone; but upon the head of Creeds there is a blood-stain, a\nblood guiltiness, which the whole ocean could not wash out. Religion was\nmade the watch-word for war; the cross was raised as the symbol of\ndestruction, and the gathering of nations were around it, to carry ruin\nas a flood, ay, into those very scenes, where it once bore the dying\nform of him, who said, \u201cI came not to destroy men\u2019s lives, but to save\nthem.\u201d War, in its simplest utterance, is a word of horror; but\nreligious war leaves nothing darker to be imagined. In worldly enmities,\nwhen the contest is deadliest, there are touches of human compunction;\nin the most sanguinary strife, the voice of mercy is sometimes heard,\nand the hand of help is given; fiercest opponents will occasionally be\ngenerous\u2014the oppressed, in the hour of triumph, can be magnanimous to\nthe tyrant in his fall, but place men against each other with different\nreligious sentiments, unsheath the sword of the orthodox against the\nheretic, the heart becomes steel, the bosom becomes ruthless, and the\nman is lost in the fiend. Demand you evidence of this? It is written in\ngore over the whole face of earth; call up the shades of the thousands\nthat sunk in the valleys and the mountains of Judea, of those in the\nsolitudes of the Alps, that fell under the sword of Romish and merciless\nextermination; of those with whose life-blood the fierce Spaniard dyed\nthe soil of South America; of those who were laid low in the glens of\nScotland by Episcopalian fury,\u2014you would have army of witnesses which no\nman could number, the accusers of those who for different faith became\nthe slayers of their brethren. Creeds are naturally allied to the spirit\nof persecution, for they establish the principle, and act on it, that\nbelief may be a sin, and this is the very life of the persecuting\nspirit; it was this that built the Inquisition, which for so many ages\nspread its ruthless tempest in the Christianity of Europe; it was this\nthat called forth the rack, and kindled every fire in which a heretic\nwas ever sacrificed to the demon-god of bigotry: _it was this created a\nDominic_. Protestants are fond of calling the Roman Catholic Church a\npersecuting Church, but that Church can retort the accusation. Every\nChurch is in truth a persecuting Church which acts in the spirit of a\nCreed. The Reformers maintained the right of the civil magistrate to\npunish heretics. This, if it needed proof, is triumphantly made out by\nBossuet. \u201cThere is no need here,\u201d he says, \u201cof explaining on that\nquestion, whether or no Christian princes have a right to use the sword\nagainst their subjects, enemies to sound doctrine and the Church, the\nProtestants being agreed with us in this point. Luther and Calvin have\nwritten books to make good the right and duty of the magistrate in this\npoint. Calvin reduced it to practice, but against Severus and Valentine\nGentili. Melancthon approved of this procedure by a letter he wrote him\non the subject.\u201d John Knox maintained the same doctrine, and even quoted\nthe extermination of the Canaanites as a case which would justify like\ntreatment of heretics. Nay, in the present day, one of the Oxford\ntheologians asserts, \u201cthat we ought to anticipate the evils of error in\nthe person of the heresiarch,\u201d because he contends that it is better he\nshould endure pain, than that his error should be propagated, and bring\nruin on his infatuated but less guilty followers. This is the true\ninquisitorial religion. A man who holds sentiments like these is a\npersecutor in his heart, and it is only by accident that he is not a\npersecutor with his hand. A man who could send forth that expression, in\nother days might have been grand inquisitor or a familiar of the Holy\nOffice, and would have dragged his victims to the stake, or gloated over\ntheir tortures on the rack. A heresiarch, he maintains, is unworthy of\ncompassion; and in correspondence with this are some passages of\nIren\u00e6us, quoted with approbation in the Tracts for the Times: \u201cWhat\nprospect, then, of peace have we,\u201d says this reverend and truculent\nEcclesiastic, \u201cwho are foes to the brethren? What sacrifice do they\nthink they celebrate, when they become rivals to the Priesthood? When\ngathered together beyond the pale of the Church, do they think that\nChrist is still in the midst of them? Though men like these were killed\nin the profession of their faith, not even by their blood would these\nspots be washed out. The offence of discord is a weighty offence, it\nincludes no expiation, and is absolved by no suffering.\u201d \u201cThey cannot\nremain with God,\u201d he says, \u201cwho will not remain with one heart in God\u2019s\nChurch. Though they be cast to the flame, to the fire to be burnt, or\nlay down their lives by being a prey to wild beasts, they will gain not\nthe crown of faith, but the penalty of perfidy; their end, not the\nglorious consummation of religious excellence, but the death-blow of\ndespair. Such men may attain unto death, but can never attain unto the\ncrown.\u201d Creeds have sharpened the sword of persecution, though the civil\narm was used, and if it now be idle in the sheath, it is more owing to\nthe tolerance of civil governments, than to any change in the spirit of\nChurchmen. If Rome had her Inquisition, England had her Star Chamber; if\nRome had her Dominic, England had her Laud. I wish not, however, to pass\nunmitigated censure: I am willing and glad to acknowledge that the\nChurch of England has had many men who were the lights of their age, but\nthey had minds which were not cast in the Athanasian mould. It is not\nChurches only that persecute, but also sects; not great Churches, but\nlittle ones equally; thus did the Genevese, whilst the spirit of Calvin\nruled in it; thus did the Dutch Churches, while the Dort-decrees had\npower, and even Socinus himself persecuted Francis David: a Creed,\nhowever simple, can be made an instrument of unjust power, as well as\nthe most complex one. The persecuting spirit is not extinct, but\nchanged; it is now a social and a moral persecution. Long experience has\nshown that physical torture is useless, and if the principle remained,\nthe power is gone. But never can we sum up the whole amount of evil\nwhich Creeds inflicted on the world, until we can count the sighs that\nhave died unheard in the dungeon; until we know all the bitterness of\nheart which waits on hopeless captivity; until we count the pangs of\ntorture which gave slow consuming death; until we can follow the course\nof merciless wars, unsoftened by a touch of pity; until we know all the\nfriends that have been made enemies, and the griefs which have in many\ncases made life a martyrdom; until, in fact, we have all laid bare\nbefore us which that day alone will reveal, which reveals all the hidden\nworks of darkness.\n\nII. I have so far shown that Creeds are the enemies of truth, and\ndisqualifying the mind to seek truth aright, by resisting and\nembarrassing its free development, by ensnaring conscience and\ndestroying charity; I have shown their failure in their proposed\nobjects, and their instrumentality in producing all the evils they\npretend to avert, and I proceed in the remaining observations, to\nestablish the second charge. It is one, however, which does not need\nmuch elaborate argumentation. It will be easy to discover their\ntendency, if we consider who are commonly the framers of Creeds, in what\nperiods they are formed, and in what temper they are usually imposed.\nThey are framed by Ecclesiastics, and for the main purpose of supporting\nEcclesiastical supremacy. If we take a few names connected with\nCreed-making, or with furnishing the materials out of which Creeds are\nmade, we can easily see the spirit in which they are conceived, and of\nwhich they are the expression. We have then an Athanasius, an intriguing\nand ambitious Ecclesiastic, not only the fomenter of spiritual strife in\nthe Church, but by political intermedling, the fomenter of civil strife\nin the Empire: a Cyril, the opponent of Nestorius, and the hater of\nOrigen; the composer of mighty tomes of divinity, which with much the\nsame kind since, were equally massive, and equally oblivious; a popular\npreacher at first, and afterwards a most orthodox patriarch; at once the\npersecutor of the philosophic Pagans, and the heretical Christians: a\nTertullian, that exulted in the prospective damnation of heretics, with\na zeal that almost rivals some modern Calvinistic writers: a Dominic,\nthat has left the memory of a sanguinary monk, and the name of a saint;\nwho has been often commemorated in the flames of many an auto-de-fe, and\nhas had a durable monument to his glory in the dark piles of the\ninquisition: a Calvin, the stern Theological tyrant of Geneva, and the\nslayer of Servetus: a Knox, who pleaded for the extermination of the\nheretical after the manner of the Canaanites: a Cranmer, who caused so\nmany, both of Catholics and Protestants, to be led to the stake by laws\nwhich changed with the fickleness of a tyrant\u2019s will, who at last\nhimself blenched before the fate that had been so often prepared for\nothers: a Laud, the pillar of a star-chamber, and the downfall of a\nthrone. Such are some of the men concerned in the formation of\nCreeds\u2014men of stern natures, of haughty minds, and of boundless\nspiritual ambition. And as to the periods in which Creeds are commonly\nmade, we know they are in times of religious strife, when different\nparties are labouring for the ascendancy, when no pains are spared to\ngain it, when no acts however shameful or dishonest are thought too bad\nto use, if they assist to humble an opponent, or secure a victory; when\npassion is heated and malignant, and the judgment totally unfit for\nimpartiality. The history of Councils and Theological cabal is the shame\nof Christianity. Yet, formularies thus fabricated are to be made the\neverlasting standards of truth, and men are to be punished here and\nhereafter because they do not receive as Divine Truth these shapeless\nabortions of Churchmen\u2019s folly. And the temper in which they are imposed\nis quite in conformity with that in which they are conceived\u2014oppressive,\nexclusive, unjust. With what a vindictive and grasping spirit have not\nthe Clergy of the English Church laid hold on all they could monopolize\nof privilege and power; with what resistance to the last they have\nendeavoured to shut out Dissenters from all the rights of Christians and\nof citizens. To this hour, had it been in the power of Ecclesiastics,\nthe Test and Corporation Acts had never been repealed, or the Catholic\ndisabilities removed. That which is their power gives sufficient\nevidence how they would act if they had exclusive possession of more. I\nmean the Universities, which they keep closed against Dissenters with\nsuch an obstinate and gothic bigotry. Nor does the injustice end here:\nthere is a silent, social injustice, which Dissenters suffer; every one\nfeels it, though it is not easily defined. The Churchman, on the\nstrength of signing a Creed which he does not always believe, assumes to\nbe of a higher religious caste than the Dissenter. It is not sufficient\nthat Dissenters contribute from their worldly good to support a system\nwhich has no alliance with their conscience, but they must still further\nundergo the humiliation of being regarded as spiritual and social\ninferiors. Creeds are the allies of worldly policy, and ever have been\nsince Christianity had the misfortune to become a state religion, for\nthey are the main ties of that unnatural union of Christ\u2019s religion to\nhuman governments\u2014a union injurious to both, making the government\nunjust and partial, and religion selfish and secular. They are worldly\nin their objects, and they are worldly in their instruments and means.\nThey are made the stepping stones to wealth, rank, and power; for if the\nEstablishment did not give wealth, rank, and power, numbers of\nexpectants would be moderate enough as to the Articles and Creeds. It\nwould seem anomalous if universal history did not make it evident, that\na body of men in all ages, pledged to denounce covetousness and earthly\npassions, pledged to preach humility after the example of a crucified\nmaster, pledged to curb by heavenly motives the abuse of power, should\nbe of all men themselves the most insatiate in their desires after gain,\nthe most haughty in their elevation to station, the severest and the\nmost grinding in the exercise of prerogative, the least willing to\nmitigate it, and the most determined not to share it. In every period of\nthe Church, the worldliness of Ecclesiastics, their ambition, and their\nlove of lucre, have been proverbial, the scandal of Christians, and the\nscorn of unbelievers. The covetousness of the Priest, has, in all\nperiods, been outstripped by his pride alone; and under every change in\nsociety, the Priesthood have taken care to secure themselves so that\ntheir lines should fall in the most pleasant places. The struggle is a\nworldly one from beginning to end, it is all of the world and the things\nof the world; if the prize were not of earth, we should hear far less\nnoise amongst the combatants. The struggle is a worldly one, the policy\nis a worldly one, the means and ends are worldly. For are there any\nmeans so evil, that Creeds, if there is a purpose to be gained, will not\ntempt to, or assist with force, if there be the power to use it; with\nfraud, if there is a necessity that demands it? Creeds and doctrines\nhave been maintained by frauds the most barefaced, by every artifice and\nby every falsehood. But Creeds are indirectly the cause of dire\nimmorality; of immorality the worst in its kind, and the most evil in\nits effects: they corrupt motive in its very source, they weaken that\nsense of inward sincerity necessary to all that is true and noble in\nhuman character, they punish honesty, and they bribe to hypocrisy. How\nmany minds have been robbed of their truthfulness, how many consciences\nhave been despoiled of their integrity, how many hearts sacrificed their\npurity on the altar of interest and expediency, it would be a long and\ndark catalogue to enumerate. And it is truly painful to think, that this\nresult is prepared for in the brightest and the best period of life.\nWhat must be the effect on a young man who, at the very threshold of his\nCollege studies, must profess to believe dogmas that he has scarcely\nread, that he has never examined; how much worse if he has examined and\ndisbelieves them: if he be honest, he is excluded; the fear of his\nfamily starts before him; if he spares them, he ruins his soul; if he\nspeaks the truth, he wrecks, perhaps, all his worldly fortunes beyond\nredemption. When he sees then the most solemn interests made mere\nmatters of form, religious declarations the tests of honours and of\noffice, the confessions of grave Ecclesiastics but a pompous and solemn\nhypocrisy, the zeal for worldly gain killing the ardour of religion, the\nzeal for religion itself only a means to get wealth and power; when, I\nsay, he beholds all this, he can have no other feeling than that of\nunmitigated contempt for the hollow show of orthodoxy; he must observe\nthat it is only an instrument, a mere make believe, theatrical acting;\nand the chances are many, that, disgusted with the whole affair, he\ntransfers his disgust to religion in general, and makes shipwreck both\nof faith and virtue. Creeds are the support of Priestly intolerance;\nthese are the statutes of the Priest. He does not, it is true, require\nyou to believe them, but he requires you to say you believe them; say\nbut that and your peace is made. These are his statutes on which he\ncondemns, or on which he acquits; by which he tries your allegiance to\nsacerdotal authority, and by which, if he can, he will enforce it.\nCreeds are instruments of worldly and of spiritual despotism. The\nrelation of the Priesthood to the civil power, is changeful and\ncapricious; one time its slave, another time its tyrant. Cunning Kings\nhave always had the sagacity to see that the safest course was to\nflatter and enrich the Priesthood, giving them the shield of the\ntemporal power, and receiving in return the support of the whole\nspiritual armoury either from heaven or hell; and both, thus agreed and\nunited, have been enabled to enslave the people with a most hopeless\nbondage. Let the Prince but heap good things on the Church, hate her\nenemies, curse her opponents, patronise her friends, the Church\ngratefully in return submits to him with most obsequious obedience. But\nreverse the case, and suppose the Prince not only ventures to do without\nthe Priests, but attempts to curtail some of their good things, then no\nepithet is too strong to mark his iniquity; he is then profane,\nheretical, infidel: and if the superstition of the people give them the\npower, they compel him to bend before spiritual prowess, and from being\ntheir master, reduce him to their slave. The spirit of a Creed-enforcing\nClergy is also seen in this fact, that they dislike the civil power more\nand more as that power becomes liberal and enlightened; they oppose it,\nand abuse it in exact proportion as it deserves to be admired and\npraised: if there be but a symptom that their monopoly is likely to be\nbroken, and that others are about to share blessings which they had so\nlong kept to themselves as to think only their own, immediately the\nMonarch must be prepared to meet the fierceness of their enmity. It is a\ncombat to which many a Monarch has been unequal, and to which many a one\nhas fallen a victim. Tyranny on their side, and slavery on that of\nothers, is the congenial element in which most established Priesthoods\nmove, breathe, and have their being; the men themselves are the victims\nof their circumstances, circumstances which the influence of Creeds have\nmade; for Creeds are the parents of Priestcraft, and Priestcraft is\nidentical with religious despotism.\n\nCreeds are the allies of worldly policy; Creeds are the creatures of the\nChurch, and the Church is the creature of the state. A national Church\nwith Creeds for its tests, and legal support and legal penalties, can be\nnothing else. And the English Establishment is peculiarly in this\ncondition; are not her Bishops appointed by the government? Are we not\nall aware that every Prelate is virtually the selected of the minister\nfor the time being? Are we not aware that her canons and constitution,\nher catechisms and articles, her rubrics and her ceremonies, are\nenforced and established by acts of parliament? Are we not especially\naware that her wealthy revenues are derived from compulsory exaction,\nand that payment is wrenched from Dissenters by the strong arm of the\nlaw?\u2014Whence, but from this source, can the Clergy claim their wealth? By\nwhat other power could they enforce it? Every one, who is not a\nsimpleton, knows that the vast possessions in which the Church rejoices,\nare not free will offerings, and that they have stronger security in the\nCourts of Exchequer and Chancery, than in the consciences of those who\npay them. They were at first endowments to the Church of Rome; it is by\nact of parliament that they enrich those who maintain the Thirty-nine\nArticles, instead of praying for souls in Purgatory. The Monarch, in\nthis country, is acknowledged the supreme head of the Church on earth;\nand though that Monarch may be a girl of eighteen, a boy of eleven, an\ninfant, or an idiot, it is exclusion from the established ministry to\ndeny it, and was once high treason. To be persuaded of this fact, we\nhave only to recollect that the law of the land deposed the Romish\nPriesthood, and that the Act of Uniformity excluded from the service of\nthe altar two thousand non-conforming Ministers. \u201cThe second Canon\nexcommunicates every one who shall endeavour to limit or extenuate the\nKing\u2019s authority in Ecclesiastical cases, as it is settled by the laws\nof the kingdom; and declares he shall not be restored until he has\nrecanted such impious errors.\u201d \u201cThe thirty-seventh Canon obliges all\npersons, to their utmost, to keep and observe all and every one of the\nstatutes and laws made for restoring to the crown the ancient\njurisdiction it had over the Ecclesiastical state.\u201d \u201cThe twelfth of King\nJames\u2019s Canons declares, that whoever shall affirm that it is lawful for\nthe order either of Ministers or Laics, to make canons, decrees, or\nconstitutions, in Ecclesiastical matters, without the King\u2019s authority,\nand submits himself to be governed by them, is, _ipso facto_,\nexcommunicated, and is not to be absolved before he has publicly\nrepented and renounced these Anabaptistical errors.\u201d Queen Anne, in an\nangry letter to the Archbishop, made the convocation aware that \u201cshe was\nresolved to maintain her supremacy as a fundamental part of the\nconstitution of the Church of England.\u201d \u201cArchbishop Bancroft, when at\nthe head of all the Clergy of England, delivered articles to King James\nfor increasing the Ecclesiastical courts, and for annexing all\nEcclesiastical as well as Civil power to the Crown. This may be seen at\nlarge in Lord Coke\u2019s third institute.\u201d On such grounds as these, men\nclaim authority to impose Creeds on their fellow-citizens, to proclaim\nthemselves the commissioned messengers of heaven, to assert religious\nsupremacy and to arrogate a divine right; to bind and loose, to condemn\nand to forgive. I heard a person lately well remark, that if you gave\nhim the incomes of the Clergy, he would give you the social status of\nthose from whom they were taken, and _vice versa_. At ordination, they\nsolemnly affirm that they are moved by the Holy Ghost; but if the\nextreme stipend were two or three hundred a year, this inspiration would\nseldom be found to fall on the son of a Duke, or the brother of an Earl.\n\nBut, whatever be the abuses which Creeds occasion, or whatever be the\nevils they inflict, it may still be said the Church has authority to\ndecree them; and what she has authority to decree, she has authority to\nenforce. To one of the strongest arguments on this point lately renewed,\nand more strenuously urged than it had ever been before, I shall here\ndevote a few general observations.\n\nThe claim to dictate and enforce Creeds by the Clergy of our\nEstablishment, is founded on another claim which, by a party of divines,\nis recently asserted with a zeal not inferior to that of the Romish\nPriesthood; I allude to the doctrine of Apostolic succession. It is\npretended that the national Clergy by deriving a mission from the\nimmediate disciples of Christ, have authority, by a mystical\ncommunication of divine energy transmitted to them from age to age, an\nauthority to decide what is, and what is not, the true faith. On this\nground the high Churchmen consistently deny to all other Ministers the\npower to teach or to preach, and with one fell stroke, cut off the whole\nof the Dissenters from the spiritual body of Christ. On this ground we\nmay ask several questions which must receive very unsatisfactory, or\nvery contradictory answers. First\u2014where, in the gospel history, is it\nproposed, as an essential qualification of a religious teacher, that he\nshall have an uninterrupted succession from the Apostles? Paul, in his\nletters to Timothy and Titus, enumerates many qualities which should\ndistinguish the Christian Minister; but Apostolical succession is not\nonce mentioned amongst the number. In the early age of Christianity, we\nhave abundant evidence, both from Evangelical and Ecclesiastical\nhistory, that many preached the gospel who had no such authority as\nChurchmen call Ordination or Holy orders. Secondly\u2014is it possible that\nthe Apostles could have any successors? The Apostles had powers to which\nno Priest in his highest pride, will dare to lay claim; the Apostles\nhealed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead; they proved their\nmission by miracles, and this gave a peculiarity to their office which,\nit will be admitted, was not transferable. Besides, between the office\nof an Apostle and that of a Bishop, there is no identity, and few\nanalogies. An Apostle was a missionary, a Bishop is a temporal and\nspiritual peer: there is no more resemblance of one to the other, than\nof his grace of Canterbury amidst the sumptuous luxury of his palace, to\na Moravian preacher in the snows of Lapland; than of the Bishop of\nExeter declaiming politics in the senate, to Felix Neff proclaiming\nChrist amidst the Alps. An Apostle was a poor man, a Bishop is a rich\none; an Apostle was a pilgrim and wanderer, a Bishop is a mitred prince;\nan Apostle was the object of contumely and scorn to a world which was\nnot worthy of him, a Bishop is the praised and the applauded by a world\nof which he is worthy; an Apostle was the servant of the humble and the\nlowly, a Bishop is the companion of the exalted and the great; an\nApostle was the object of state persecution, a Bishop is the favourite\nof state patronage: by what paradoxical mistake, therefore, one office\ncame to be derived from the other, it is a puzzle to conjecture.\nThirdly\u2014by what sort of evidence is the succession to be proved; what\nare the conditions which render it true and genuine? By what signs am I\nto know that the Ecclesiastical concatenation is one whole unbroken\nchain, without a single heretical flaw? By what signs am I to know that\nthe sacerdotal mystery is rightly given, that there is no spuriousness,\nno falsehood, and no forgery? Is every peasant, who hears a sermon from\nhis Parson, to be in possession of that historic lore, which shall\nenable him to determine, by erudite tracing of age to age, that orthodox\nhands have been laid on orthodox heads, and that he to whom he commits\nthe salvation of his soul has all the conditions of a true priesthood?\nFourthly\u2014Whence does the Church of England derive her succession?\u2014That\nshe derives it from the Church of Rome, all authentic ecclesiastical\nhistory confirms. The establishment of the English Church can be clearly\ntraced no further than the mission of Austin the Romish Monk; and it is\nwell known, indeed, there is no attempt at denial, that all which have\nsince been called papal errors, were then proclaimed and adopted. The\npreacher came with the pope\u2019s sanction, the English received the pope\u2019s\nreligion, and acknowledged the pope\u2019s authority. It is vain beyond all\nvanities to argue for succession in the English Establishment, and\nassert its independence on the Church of Rome. Its origin is from a\nRoman Missionary; it admits the validity of Roman ordination; its\nliturgies and rituals are but garbled or abridged translations from\nRoman formularies. Whence then is the independence? If unbroken\nsuccession be the absolute condition of ecclesiastical authority, then\nthe English establishment must either admit the jurisdiction of the\nChurch of Rome, or acknowledge itself guilty of rebellion, and confess\nthat it is wanting in one of the prime essentials of a Christian Church.\nBut our Establishment accuses the Romish system of all manner of errors\nand of evils, of idolatry, of tyranny, of persecution, of doing\ndishonour to the supremacy of God, and of undermining the merits of\nChrist,\u2014of being an awful and fatal apostacy: surely then the purity of\nthat descent may well be doubted, which comes from so corrupt a source.\nThe Church of Rome is called by all our declamatory divines the \u201cmother\nof harlots,\u201d\u2014if that of England be one of her daughters, it is a hard\ntask for a controversialist to defend the legitimacy of her birth or the\npurity of her character. Moreover, that is a queer kind of unbroken\nsuccession, which could in a few years reflect so many hues of doctrine,\nwhich turned from reign to reign like the weathercock before the wind,\nas royal caprice determined, from the bigoted half popery of the Eighth\nHenry to the whole Protestantism of the Sixth Edward; from the violent\nCatholic Mary, to the equally violent reformed Elizabeth; from a Cranmer\nto a Gardiner, and from a Gardiner to a Laud. It is not, therefore,\ngrateful or graceful in our Establishment to heap odium on her mother,\nher from whom she must date her existence, to whom she traces her\nclergy, and from whom she has received her creed.\n\nIII. In disputing against creeds, and churches which are the creatures\nof creeds, I do not deny that religion most genuine and pure, may exist\nin many forms\u2014and may be as fervent amongst the adherents of\nEstablishments as amongst the most zealous of dissenting churches.\nReligion, I consider, a necessity of the human heart; it may grovel in\nthe dust or aspire to the skies\u2014it may appeal to our fears or to our\nhopes\u2014it may create hideous images or rejoice in beautiful picturings;\nit may decorate the altar with flowers, or bathe it in blood; but still\nit belongs to us, is of us, and that of which we cannot, if we would,\ndivest ourselves. While man has within his soul admiration of greatness\nand power, unsatisfied desires and perishing pleasures; while he has\nmany griefs and many tears; while there are those living whom he loves,\nand those departed whom he mourns; while his existence is thus bound to\nthe past and to the future; while he has speculations that seek but find\nno limit, musings on his own and universal destiny,\u2014he must have\nreligion to destroy these, and you destroy religion, but you also\ndestroy humanity. If the strongest excitements and the deepest contrasts\ncould fill and satisfy the human soul, our age and country supply them;\nwhatever would fix us to the material and the present we have in all\npossible varieties, both in their glory and their grossness. If the\nspirit is to be seen anxious with poverty we have but a few steps to\nwalk from rejoicing splendour to pining misery. Civilization is amongst\nus with all its luxuries and with all its woes. Thousands toil for daily\nbread, and thousands more languish for daily pleasures. Yet nobler\nthings have we than these. Our science, our philosophy, and our\nliterature, are rich beyond expression. Our mechanism is akin to magic,\nand our industry is like the regularity of nature; the stir of many\ninterests is abroad, and the struggle of many principles. The power of\nfresh life is in the social heart, and the courage of free speech upon\nthe lips. The tide of thought and liberty moves onward with majestic\nswell, and no one can say \u201cHitherto shalt thou come and no further, and\nhere shall thy proud waves be staid.\u201d Whatever there be in wealth, in\npower, in glory, in ambition, that desires triumphant sway and secures\nall it desires; whatever there be in speculation of boundless enterprize\nor capacity of gigantic achievement, our times may boast, yet they\nremove not the need of religion, but the religion which the heart\ndemands is not what creeds or churches can give either to a nation or an\nindividual.\n\nCreeds are the allies of establishments, and establishments are the\nfriends of the world. Their whole history and tendency are evidence of\nthis. But, far be it from me to say that this has no qualification. All\nold institutions more or less knit themselves into popular veneration,\nthe religious as well as others. We cannot look back upon the church of\nour country, even in its Romish form, without some of the reverence with\nwhich our nature compels us to gaze on fallen greatness; and now that\nthe mitre is worn by other heads, and the crosier passed into other\nhands, now that its good deeds reveal themselves in the calm of the\npast, we can regard its evil ones more in sorrow than in anger. Zealots,\nwho would eternalize the darkest creeds that superstition ever shaped,\nwho would build up the throne of proudest priesthood, declaim against\nPopery in the most popish spirit: but while national feelings have any\npower, while a single venerable structure stands upon our soil in which\nwe hear the voices of our ancestors, and from which a thousand years\nlook down upon us, the Roman church, with all its errors, is linked by\nsacred memories to our history. It laid the foundation of our civilized\nexistence; it grew with our growth and it strengthened with our\nstrength. When our country was yet divided amongst barbarian kings, the\nmonk of Rome lifted up the cross of Christ, and the heart of the savage\nwas subdued to the Prince of Peace. It accompanied our national\nindependence, it trained our fathers\u2019 spirits when living, and now they\nare dead it shelters their bones. Through all historic changes, and\nthrough most sanguinary struggles, it preserved alive the spirit of our\ncommon Christianity.\n\nWithin it arose many of our greatest men; it nurtured many of our purest\nand holiest characters; it reared the altar at which an Anselm\nministered and before which an Alfred prayed. But wealth commonly brings\nworldliness, and as it is with laymen, so is it with ecclesiastics. The\nchurch was fed and fostered by Saxon piety, and when the conquest gave\nthe island new masters it suffered nothing by the change. The progress\nof aggrandizement went forward with a quicker pace and a more grasping\nhand. Spiritual authority allied itself more firmly to temporal majesty;\ncelestial vocation would have feudal titles; the coil would be\ntransformed to the coronet; the humble robe to the princely purple; the\nvoice of humility swelled into absolute command, monks took their places\nabove barons, and the primate sat only below the throne.\n\nBut under that pomp and ostentation, we say not that all was hollow\u2014that\nthere was not much of genuine piety far beyond the reach of history. In\nthe cells of these gorgeous abbeys there were many who did in reality\nleave the world and its wickedness behind them. There were some who wept\nand prayed in no feigned prostration, who worshipped, it may be with\nsuperstition, but still with sensibility and an upright conscience. In\nthat stream of melody which pealed at solemn midnight through many a\ndome that now lies mouldering, there were some hallelujahs which reached\nthe throne of God and mingled with the hymn of angels. The pavements\nover which we tread in many a secluded ruin may have been worn by\nkneeling martyrs that now sleep in peace beneath them: within these\nmassive buildings so grey and time-wrecked, how often might be found at\nthe evening hour, when the dim religious light melted through the\npainted windows, and the vesper song softened through the lofty vaults,\nscattered worshippers who were feeding their immortal life: how\nfrequently within those temples may the serf in faith and prayer have\nforgotten his bonds, and only remembered that he was the brother of\nJesus, and the son of God. And amongst that priesthood so often\nstigmatized unjustly by indiscriminate bigotry, many were worthy of\ntheir office; they were the poor man\u2019s friends when poverty was\nhopeless; they were his brethren when to the worldly powers poverty was\nslavery; they were his supporters and consolers when he had many to\noppress and few to cheer him; they were with him in joy and sorrow, in\nsickness and death, when his joy and sorrow, his sickness and death,\nwere to the mass of his worldly superiors, a matter of contemptible\nindifference. In the times to which I refer, the Church was a most\nexcellent antagonist against political assumption, a barrier against\ndespotism, a shield for the people against the crown; but now it is an\nally of the crown only when the crown is against the people: in either,\nthe Crown and the Church struggle may have been only for supremacy, but\nwhatever were their respective motives, the people were the gainers; the\nclergy might make them slaves for another world, but they saved them\nfrom being slaves in this. The power of the priest could curb the\nambition of the ruler; and, in the ruler himself, the will of the\nmonarch was held in check by the conscience of the devotee.\nEcclesiastical institutions were then not wholly ineffective, but now\nthe religious and social interests of man are better secured than by any\nstruggle between the superstitious fears of the Prince, and the\nspiritual threatenings of the Priest. From these social changes, Church\nEstablishments outliving the slaveries which they meliorated, become\ninflictors of slavery in return, and hang as millstones and dead weights\non every effort for freedom and advancement. But if we are to have\nauthority on conscience at all in the form of institutions, I would\nrather it should be absolute and unchangeable, uniform, solemn, and\nimposing; and if there is to be submission, I prefer it should be to\nthat which is believed to be stedfast and infallible; for then, if we\nhad not the freedom of thought, we might at least have the peace of\npiety; if we had not the independence of men, we might hope for the\nmeekness of children.\n\nWe cannot say that the English Church in its Protestant state has lost\nall claims to traditional veneration. We may, however, safely assert,\nthat in becoming protestant, it has not become less earthly, and that if\ntransformed in anything, it is not from the Spirit of the world. We see\nvery clearly, that it is not in any way distinguished for free or\nprogressive amendment; and among the Reformed of European churches it is\nmost the creature of the world, most the lover of the world, most\ndependent on the world, both in its origin and its continuance.\n\nOn the continent it commenced with the ecclesiastical powers; in ours it\ncommenced with the civil; and the church in this country adopted the new\ndoctrine rather as a matter of command than as a matter of conscience.\nWhatever have been the theological vibrations of the Establishment, or\nwhatever its theological inconsistencies, we deny not that it has had\nwithin it right noble spirits, and that it has them still, and while we\ncondemn such systems, we do not so much condemn, as lament the fine\nnatures which they have misdirected. Numbers we are aware are now in its\nranks, which are the ornaments of life and to whom the world is in many\nways indebted; and if it were not so, there are those gone by who would\nfully dignify her. Amongst her members we recognise many of the great\nlights both of our nation and our nature; a Jeremy Taylor of rich\neloquence and rare sweetness of spirit; a Barrow with a mind as lofty as\nit was simple and an oratory as prodigal in thought as it was massive in\nlogic; a Chillingworth, the prince of reasoners, who never allowed his\npolemics to ruffle his meekness, to warp his candour, or to deaden his\ncharity; a Berkeley, whose genius was only inferior to his sanctity, and\nwhose subtle philosophy never disturbed the simplicity of his truly\nchild-like nature; a Bedel, who was humble and generous when it was the\nfashion to oppress, who though the bishop of a foreign faith in the\nmidst of a people whom his nation had aggrieved, made his way to their\nhearts, and was the object of their blessings; and in our own day there\nhas been the good and sainted Heber, who combined piety with humanity,\nand who adorned practical virtue with all the beauty of the poet and the\nChristian.\n\nNames like these might throw a lustre over any system; it is only to be\nregretted that any system has not been more fruitful in their\nproduction. In any system, we cannot expect that such men should be\nabundant, but observation compels us to confess that the Church has\ntaken more pride in the reputation of her heroes, than in resembling\nthem. If we are to judge results by her possessions and opportunities\ncompared with her moral or spiritual achievements, her works of\nworldliness far surpass her works of godliness. Her earthly means have\nbeen unbounded, but where are her heavenly trophies? She has nothing in\ncomparison to her opportunities to produce in justification of her moral\nand national stewardship. Wealth she has had even to fulness. Her lines\nhave fallen in pleasant places; hers have been the green pastures and\nhers the still waters; the tenth of the nation\u2019s produce has been\nreserved for her altars. Political power has likewise been hers. Her\nmitred ministers are amongst the state\u2019s chief senators. Whether it be\nseemly or not, that preachers of the crucified should sit in courts of\nproud and worldly legislation, we here forbear to discuss; but once\nthere, the spirit of the crucified, and of the citizen sanctified by\nthat spirit, might have been nobly manifested; even there, Ministers of\nChrist might have done a glorious work. Men whose lives had been\ndisciplined by severe and various study; men of chastened passions and\nsolemn meditation; men who had gone through the humanizing duties of\npastoral gradation from the village pulpit to the episcopal throne,\nmight be thought a happy counterpoise to the hoary worldliness or\nyouthful rashness of mere temporal Peers; they would rebuke, we might\nsuppose, the assumptions of aristocracy, and be as the voice of God for\nthe rights of the poor. Men who proclaimed that gospel which is full of\nmercy and compassion, would resist oppression to the last, and denounce\nsanguinary laws with the whole force of their authority; men who were\nfollowers of peace would arrest the blood-hand of war, and quell with\nall gentle suasion the horrid spirit of destruction; men appointed to be\nteachers of the ignorant, and lights to the blind, would be the friends\nof universal instruction; men who were the Priests of that God before\nwhom all are equal, the Apostles of that Jesus who lived and died for\nall, would be ever the friends of liberty and brotherhood. But, I may\nask, when have the Bishops, as a body, not been against the people, and\nwith the wealthy and the noble? When have they been the first to come\nforward to denounce long existing, tolerated, but oppressive, abuses?\nWhen have they raised their voice, as Ministers of God, against\nMinisters of the Crown, to avert the horrid curse of war? When have they\ngiven their influence for a free and generous education, which should be\nfull and boundless as the heart of charity? When, rather, have they not\nthrown their most inveterate opposition against it? When is it that a\nsingle effort of national liberty or religious has met their cordial\nsupport? To the moment of despair they stood against the Catholic and\nthe Dissenter, to the last hour they will also resist the Jew. The\ndefender of the wronged, the pleader for the weak, the opponent of\nsanctified prejudices, the enthusiast for human reforms, the advocate\nfor peace, the apostle of general education, have never in their most\nhopeless hour raised their eyes towards the bench of Bishops with any\nexpectations of support.\n\nWith wealth, with influence, with law, and with scholarship, the Church\nhas done, and is doing no great spiritual work for her country, or for\nmankind, proportioned to her means. She makes a show of upholding her\nCreeds, but to many, even of her own members, they are but empty sounds\nor convenient mockeries. When we look for any permanent impression on\nthe popular mind, we have yet to ask concerning the Church, what has she\ndone? Has she Christianized any great tracts of Heathenism? The English\nEstablishment, as a Church, has exhibited no missionary zeal, and can\nshow no missionary triumphs. Individuals and bodies that belong to her\ncommunion, have undoubtedly been active in the great movements that\ndistinguish modern times, but the impulse has been from outside the\nChurch, and not from within it\u2014from the zeal of the Sectaries, and not\nfrom the Creeds or Constitution of the Church. On the contrary, of those\nwho never owned the Establishment, you might find proofs of Missionary\nzeal from Indus to the Pole, and from Andes to the Alps. But has she\nprotestantized our own empire? Consult the writings of Doctor Baines, or\nthose of Doctor Wiseman; nay, let the lamentations of Reformation\nSociety itself, ever wailing over the increase of Popery, give the\nanswer; look through the villages and the glens of England, where Roman\nCatholic Chapels are starting up as from the earth, and you will find\nthe answer fully justified. Ask it in the cities and the mountains of\nIreland, the shout of millions will proclaim what Established\nProtestantism has done with all her Creeds and Clergy after centuries of\nexistence, and a countless expenditure. Three hundred years have nearly\nexpired since the reformed standard has been planted on that soil, and\nafter all the spoliation and persecution to which the country has been\nsubjected, after all the blood and sorrow that have been expended in the\nwork of compulsory proselytism, Popery has grown stronger, and\nProtestantism is expiring. The people pay with repugnance a priesthood\nin whom they have not faith, but no power can force them to the worship\nin which they have no heart, and they prefer to be taxed rather than be\ntaught. They are repelled further and further from that system which\ncommenced in a blunder, and has been continued by rapacity, which\nreverses the precepts of Christ, using the sword where he commands it to\nbe sheathed\u2014which reverses the course of the olden Israelites finding a\nland of milk and honey, but leaving it a wilderness, having the pillar\nof fire always before, and the pillar of cloud ever behind; the one kept\nin flame by hatred and strife, and the other continually dark with\nmaledictions and tears. But admitting the difficulties of proselytism,\nexamine the moral state of those over whom the Church has had undivided\ncontrol\u2014those with whom there has been least of foreign interference,\nand I may appeal to her most strenuous defenders, whether she has not\nallowed thousands of human souls to grow up around her for whom she\nprovided no shelter, whose hearts and wants she made no effort to reach:\nthey lived without her teaching, they mourned without her solace, they\nsickened without her prayer, and until she received the fees for their\nburial, she was ignorant of their existence. Yet, after all, by many she\nhas been called \u201c_The poor man\u2019s Church_.\u201d It is true that for some\nyears past, and especially at present, there has been a species of\nexcitement and activity in the church: but so far as these have moral\nlife in them, so far as they concern the spiritual interests of the\npeople, whence did they originate? Where were they before John Wesley\nand Whitfield raised their soul-piercing cries, and awoke the sense of\nimmortality that was dormant in the minds of besotted multitudes? Did\nthe church join with these men, or rather did it not persecute,\ncalumniate, expel them\u2014say and do all manner of evil against them? What\nat the present hour is the activity of the church? Much, it may be, is\nsincere and conscientious, but greatly more an emulation with dissenters\nin which the pregnant elements are jealousy and fear. Much, it may be,\nof disinterested action for the souls of men, but more it is to be\nfeared for the order and the church. Great excitement there is in the\nEstablishment, but little of calm and healthy action\u2014a mighty stir of\npolemics that make few converts, and of societies that beat the air. The\nchurch has neither union within, nor peace without. Her hand is against\nall, and the hands of all are against her. She holds forth creeds as the\nsymbols of unity, and yet within her own courts are all sorts of\ndivisions, a chaos of voices that make her the very Babel of theology;\nhere is one preaching the grace of Palagius, and there another that of\nAugustine; one arguing for the hell of Calvin, and another all but\nteaching the purgatory of the pope: one a Boanerges for the Bible, and\nanother an apostle for tradition; with one, Rome is the mother of\nabominations, and with another she is the mistress of churches. Amidst\nthe din, then, of polemics, politics, and theological contradictions, of\ninward confusion and outward strifes, how are we to catch the voice of\nmoral power and of gospel truth? The truth must be told, there is no\ngrand or concentrative energy of any sort in the church; neither faith\nnor freedom, neither bold speculation nor a mighty spiritual zeal; there\nis no room even for a gigantic fanaticism or a picturesque superstition;\nupon the whole the strife is of this world, and for it; a strife for\nwealth or place, in which the spiritual is swallowed in the earthly.\nWith all her riches and honours; with all her show of dignities and\npride of prelacy, she is yet poor in enlightened esteem, poorer still in\ngeneral affection; without authority to sway the superstitious or\nliberality to attach the thinking, she has neither the submission of\nfaith nor the approbation of reason. She has, considering her position\nand means, fulfilled no great Christian or Protestant mission; is she\nthen in a humbler sphere, the friend of general education? Passing over\nthe Universities, which with a heavy hand she has bolted against\ndissenters, is she favourable to the instruction of the youthful poor?\nNo: except in connection with her ecclesiastical supremacy. Until\nrecently she had no zeal whatever in the matter: but other parties\nbecoming active, under the broad gaze of public observation, both her\nfears and her interest were awakened. Whilst others were toiling, she\nfor very shame could not sit wholly idle, and she therefore adopted\neducation, so far as it was an instrument to counteract her rivals or to\npreserve her authority. But to the last and to the death, she is the\nsworn enemy to any system of popular instruction which is comprehensive,\nliberal, and unsectarian. In this great country, where, thanks to law\nand not to creeds, each man may hold and speak his own opinion, she\nmeets with defiance and resistance every movement towards a large and\nequal distribution of knowledge, for lack of which the people are\nliterally perishing. In a country like this where sects are so many and\nso various, and where each has an equal claim on the blessings of\ncivilized institutions, with a bigotry equalled only by its injustice,\nshe would usurp the monopoly of national instruction. This is in the\ntrue spirit of creeds, and however repugnant to Christian equity is\nfully consistent with worldly policy.\n\nWhen the church of England seceded from that of Rome, if she cut off\nsome theological errors, she showed no such disposition respecting her\nearthly riches. It cannot be doubted that in the Reformed Establishment,\na greed of lucre remained as deep as was ever in the Romish, less ideal\nin its form, and more selfish in its spirit. In our times men absorb the\ninterests of their church in the interests of themselves, in olden times\nmen lost themselves in the glory of their church; in that was centered\nevery thing, even passion itself, as one great and mighty sentiment.\nFrom this it was arose the solemn structure of universal empire; from\nthis sprung forth the vision of a glory that was to fill the universe.\nIt was this called up a power before which monarchs bowed, which armed\nitself with the terrors of hell and crowned itself with the stars of\nheaven. It was this which gave genius the sublimity of religious\ninspiration, and which has left for a colder age the forms of beauty to\nwhich faith gave life; it was this which could speak to the world as to\nsingle audience with an eloquence that must live while language has\nexistence. It may be called fanaticism and ambition, but it is a\nfanaticism and an ambition that had something unworldly to dignify them.\nThe reformed church had preserved the creeds of the ancient one, but not\nits creativeness; it has not given conscience freedom, but it has\nstripped faith of poetry. Even the ceremonies and forms which it has\npreserved are without energy and inspiration\u2014the mere mimicries of\nsuperstition unfraught with a single breath of its enthusiasm. Writings\nof no common eloquence have eulogized the cathedral service; it deserves\nall that can be said of it, and so do the temples themselves; no one can\nhear the one when it receives right expression without solemn emotion,\nand no one can behold the antique majesty of the other, but in silent\nveneration. The poetry of these things is beautiful, but what is the\nreality? A sad contrast\u2014in general, a cold and heartless utterance of\nthe service, unoccupied pews, a few listless hearers, feeble choirs,\nthat seem rather to sing the requiem than the triumph of the church,\nostentation without grandeur, and formality without grace. Here, as in\nevery other department, we find the dominant spirit of worldliness.\nThough this service depends for much of its impression on ritual beauty,\nyet the higher clergy continually encroach on the revenues and means of\nsustaining it. \u201cWhen we see,\u201d says Dr. Wiseman, \u201cthe cathedral service\nshrunk into the choir originally designed for the private daily worship\nof God\u2019s special ministers, or when we find the entire congregation\nscattered over a small portion of the repaired chancel, while the rest\nof the edifice is a majestic ruin, as I but lately witnessed, assuredly\none must be more prone to weep than to exult at the change which has\ntaken place, since these stately fabricks were erected.\u201d I would not\nhave the world hurled back into Popery; but if we are to have Romish\ncreeds, rather than have them in repulsive nakedness, give them to us\ncovered and adorned with the grace of Romish ceremonies; if we are to\nresign our liberty, give us at least grandeur and pageantry to amuse our\nslavery.\n\nBut creeds exist otherwise than in formal expression. A creed is the\nstandard of a church, it may be the spirit of a sect. And from the\nantagonistic aspect which each sect bears to another, and the\ncentralized organization which it has within itself, this spirit may\nhave a fierce and powerful operation. The Church-creed is defined; the\nSect-creed is vague, and may depend for interpretation on narrow and\nbitter prejudice: the Church-creed may possibly lie dormant, but there\nis no escape from the wakeful vigilance of a religious surveillance.\nWhat some sects do by enlarged and rigid co-operation, others effect by\ncompact and separate unions. The smallness of the assemblies, or the\ngradations of dependency, puts one individual within the immediate ken\nof another, and thus, if by chance a free thought should be born, there\nis little hope that it shall live. Take methodism as an illustration; so\ngigantic and yet so minute: with its band-meetings, its class-meetings,\nits district assemblies, and its general conference\u2014leaving not a spot\nwhere a heretic could hide himself. In such a system there is neither\nroom nor a name for liberty, from the preacher who is under the brow of\nhis conference to the member who lives in the eye of his class-leader.\nIt is not that such a system creates a terror of expression, from the\nfirst it initiates a slavish intellect\u2014and tends to all the vices of\nrancour, bigotry, hypocrisy, and subserviency, to which such an\nintellect is allied.\n\nIt may be said that my own community in being also a sect, is open to\nsimilar accusations. I do not say that a dictation of belief is\nessential to a sect, but it may possibly attach to it with all the\ndespotism of the most formal creed. If a creed in spirit or expression\nbe necessary to the constitution of a sect, those then are no sect with\nwhom I would desire to hold communion. If all in my own belief or any\nother, which is great, good, pure, and eternal, inspired by the mind of\nGod and blessed to the heart of man; if all which disseminates virtue;\nwhich justifies Providence, which emancipates and glorifies society,\ngoes onward with undeviating pace, if the Kingdom of Jehovah extends,\nand the throne of Christ is reared, and the temple of righteousness is\nbeautified, then, forgetting ourselves and forgetting our sect, we\nshould rejoice with an honest and generous exultation. We trust the day\nwill come, when the spirit and the life of Christ, and not the\nformularies of men, will be the standards of true religion; when we\nshall have unity instead of divisions, when we shall have charity\ninstead of creeds, when heretic and orthodox shall be lost in the common\nname of Christian.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture X.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n Art. 8.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n Michelet, vol. ii. pp. 124, 125.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE XI.\n\n\n THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MORAL EVIL.\n\n\n BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n \u201cWOE UNTO THEM THAT SAY, ... LET THE COUNSEL OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL\n DRAW NIGH AND COME, THAT WE MAY KNOW IT; WOE UNTO THEM THAT CALL EVIL\n GOOD, AND GOOD EVIL; THAT PUT DARKNESS FOR LIGHT, AND LIGHT FOR\n DARKNESS; THAT PUT BITTER FOR SWEET, AND SWEET FOR BITTER.\u201d\u2014_Isaiah_\n v. 18-20.\n\n\nThe Divine sentiments towards right and wrong every man naturally\nbelieves to be a reflexion of whatever is most pure and solemn in his\nown. We cannot be sincerely persuaded, that God looks with aversion on\ndispositions which we revere as good and noble; or that he regards with\nlax indifference the selfish and criminal passions which awaken our own\ndisgust. We may well suppose, indeed, his scrutiny more searching, his\nestimate more severely true, his rebuking look more awful, than our\nself-examination and remorse can fitly represent; but we cannot doubt\nthat our moral emotions, as far as they go, are in sympathy with his;\nthat we know, by our own consciousness, the general direction of his\napproval and displeasure; and that, in proportion as our perceptions of\nDuty are rendered clear, our judgment more nearly approaches the\nprecision of the Omniscient award. Our own conscience is the window of\nheaven through which we gaze on God: and, as its colours perpetually\nchange, his aspect changes too; if they are bright and fair, he dwells\nas in the warm light of a rejoicing love; if they are dark and turbid,\nhe hides himself in robes of cloud and storm. When you have lost your\nself-respect, you have never thought yourself an object of divine\ncomplacency. In moments fresh from sin, flushed with the shame of an\ninsulted mind, when you have broken another resolve, or turned your back\nupon a noble toil, or succumbed to a mean passion, or lapsed into the\nsickness of self-indulgence, could you ever turn a clear and open face\nto God, nor think it terrible to meet his eye? Could you imagine\nyourself in congeniality with him, when you gave yourself up to the\nvoluble sophistry of self-excuse, and the loose hurry of forgetfulness?\nOr did you not discern him rather in your own accusing heart, and meet\nhim in the silent anguish of full confession, and find in the\nrecognition of your alienation the first hope of return? To all\nunperverted minds, the verdict of conscience sounds with a preternatural\nvoice; it is not the homely talk of their own poor judgment, but an\noracle of the sanctuary. There is something of anticipation in our\nremorse, as well as of retrospect; and we feel that it is not the mere\nsurvey of a gloomy past with the slow lamp of our understanding, but a\nmomentary piercing of the future with the vivid lightning of the skies.\nOur moral nature, left to itself, intuitively believes that guilt is an\nestrangement from God,\u2014an unqualified opposition to his will,\u2014a literal\nservice of the enemy; that he abhors it, and will give it no rest till\nit is driven from his presence, that is, into annihilation: that no part\nof our mind belongs to him but the pure, and just, and disinterested\naffections which he fosters; the faithful will which he strengthens; the\nvirtue, often damped, whose smoaking flax he will not quench, and the\ngood resolves, ever frail, whose bruised reed he will not break: and\nthat he has no relation but of displeasure, no contact but of\nresistance, with our selfishness and sin. In the simple faith of the\nconscience it is no figure of speech to say, that God \u201cis angry with the\nwicked every day\u201d and is \u201cof purer eyes than to behold iniquity.\u201d So\nlong as the natural religion of the heart is undisturbed, to sin is, in\nthe plainest and most positive sense, to set up against Heaven, and\nfrustrate its will.\n\nSoon, however, the understanding disturbs the tranquillity of this\nbelief, and constructs a rival creed. The primitive conception of God is\nacquired, I believe, without reasoning, and emerges from the affections;\nit is a transcript of our own emotions,\u2014an investiture of them with\nexternal personality and infinite magnitude. But a secondary idea of\nDeity arises in the intellect, from its reasonings about causation.\nCuriosity is felt respecting the origin of things; and the order,\nbeauty, and mechanism of external nature, are too conspicuous not to\nforce upon the observation the conviction of a great architect of the\nuniverse, from whose designing reason its forces and its laws\nmysteriously sprung. Hence the _intellectual_ conception of _God the\nCreator_, which comes into inevitable collision with the _moral_ notion\nof _God the holy watch of virtue_. For if the system of creation is the\nproduction of his Omniscience; if he has constituted human nature as it\nis, and placed it in the scene whereon it acts; if the arrangements by\nwhich happiness is allotted, and character is formed, are the\ncontrivance of his thought and the work of his hand, then the sufferings\nand the guilt of every being were objects of his original contemplation,\nand the productions of his own design. The deed of crime must, in this\ncase, be as much an integral part of his Providence as the efforts and\nsacrifices of virtue; and the monsters of licentiousness and tyranny,\nwhose images deform the scenery of history, are no less truly his\nappointed instruments than the martyr and the sage. And though we remain\nconvinced that he does not make choice of evil in his government, for\nits own sake, but only for ultimate ends worthy of his perfections,\nstill we can no longer see how he can truly hate that which he employs\nfor the production of good. That which is his chosen instrument cannot\nbe sincerely regarded as his everlasting enemy; and only figuratively\ncan he be said to repudiate a power which he continually wields. There\nmust be _some sense_ in which it appears, in the eye of Omniscience, to\nbe eligible; some point of view at which its horrors vanish; and where\nthe moral distinctions, which we feel ourselves impelled to venerate,\ndisappear from the regards of God.\n\nHere, then, is a fearful contradiction between the religion of\nconscience and the religion of the understanding: the one pronouncing\nevil to be the antagonist, the other to be the agent, of the divine\nwill. In every age has this difficulty laid a heavy weight upon the\nhuman heart; in every age has it pointed the sarcasm of the blasphemer;\nmingled an occasional sadness with the hopes of benevolence; and tinged\nthe devotion of the thoughtful with a somewhat melancholy trust. The\nwhole history of speculative religion is one prolonged effort of the\nhuman mind to destroy this contrariety; system after system has been\nborn in the struggle to cast the oppression off; with what result, it\nwill be my object at present to explain. The question which we have to\nconsider is this: \u201cHow should a Christian think of the origin and\nexistence of evil?\u201d I propose to advert, first, to the speculative;\nsecondly, to the scriptural; thirdly, to the moral relations of the\nsubject; to inquire what relief we can obtain from philosophical\nschemes, from biblical doctrine, and from practical Christianity.\n\nI. Notwithstanding the ingenuity of philosophers in varying the form and\nlanguage of their systems, there can be but two solutions offered to the\ngreat problem respecting evil. The benevolence of the Creator may be\nvindicated, by denying that he is the author of evil; or, by pronouncing\nit his mere tool, unavoidably introduced for the production of greater\ngood.\n\n(1.) In Greece, the genius of whose people anticipated most of the great\nideas which have since occupied the world, we find the first clear trace\nof the doctrine of two original causes, one good, the other evil, of the\norder and disorder of the universe.[542] Amid the almost universal\npantheism, which gave the sanction of philosophy to a corrupting\nmythology, one or two great thinkers seized on the true conception of an\nintelligent, eternal, infinite Mind; not mixed up in indissoluble\noneness with the universe, like the principle of life with an animal or\nvegetable organism, but wholly external to matter, capable of acting\nobjectively upon it, of moulding it into form, of assigning to it laws,\nof disposing it into uniform arrangements, and subordinating it to the\nproduction of beauty, the reception of life and soul, and the ends of\nbenevolence. With the absolute perfection, intellectual and moral, of\nthe creative spirit, there was nothing to interfere; he called into\nexistence only what is good,\u2014light, life, happiness, wisdom, harmony,\nvirtue. All else was to be ascribed to the imperfect materials from\nwhich the universe was constructed. Of these he was not supposed to be\nthe author; no conception was entertained of creation out of nothing by\nthe volition of the divine and solitary Spirit. Co-eternally with him,\nmatter was thought to have existed, inert, and dark and formless,\u2014the\nboundless and unworked quarry, whence the great Artist of earth and\nskies moulded the orbs of heaven, and furnished his mansions of space\nwith magnificence and beauty. The materials thus provided to his hand,\ndid not afford unlimited facilities for the execution of his good\ndesigns; they had the inherent and obstinate properties of all matter,\nof which skill might variously avail itself, but which Omnipotence could\nnot utterly subdue. They for ever dragged down every being towards the\npassiveness and chaos of the primeval state, and established a universal\ngravitation towards nonentity. Hence a ceaseless tendency in all things\nto descend from the higher to the lower states of existence, and to slip\nfrom the divine into the inert: on the soul of man were forces impelling\nit into the grosser animal life; in the animal life, a propensity\ntowards disease and death; and, in lifeless organisms, a law of\ncorruption and return to atoms. In this unconquerable sluggishness of\nmatter, and not in the intention of the Creator, was to be found the\nsource of all evil, natural and moral. The supreme Spirit had called\ninto being whatever is fair and blessed and pure; and that there is no\nmore good, was due to the resistance which his materials offered to his\nwill, and which had made his execution finite, while his desires were\ninfinite.\n\nIn this system, all faults and imperfections are attributed to the\nopposition of a passive and evil principle, co-existent with the First\nCause, and restraining him within certain limits in working out the\nproblem of creation. The essential idea of the scheme is, that the\nactual frame of the universe is the result of a struggle between two\nconflicting energies, both primitive and eternal, to the one of which is\nto be referred all that is good, to the other whatever is evil. Make\nthen a slight and superficial change in this scheme; throw aside its\nabstract and philosophical dress; _personify_ this impracticable\nmaterial principle which stands in the way of the Creator\u2019s glorious\ndesigns: call it, instead of inert, obstinate; instead of the residence\nof death, the destroyer of life; instead of a weight on the Divinity, a\nforce against him; in short, treat it, not as negative, but as positive;\nnot as impervious to light, but as the power of darkness; not as a\nphysical obstruction, but as in real antipathy to God: and by such\nassumption of personality, this hostile energy becomes an active\nprinciple of evil, a malignant and antagonist God, busy in frustrating\nthe purposes of Providential goodness, and spreading ruin, disorder, and\nguilt over the fair regions of nature and the soul.\n\nThis doctrine of a good and evil spirit, engaged in perpetual conflict\non the theatre of the universe, is then only the popular and mythical\nform of the philosophical speculations on matter and Deity which I have\ndescribed. It is commonly known under the name of the Manichean heresy.\nIt was from very early times the characteristic idea of the Persian\ntheology; and thence, as I shall show, by admixture with Judaism, has\ngiven rise to the prevailing belief in a devil.\n\nTo this scheme, considered as a metaphysical theory of the divine\nperfections, and a solution of the perplexities respecting natural and\nmoral evil, objections of insurmountable force will occur to every one.\nIt preserves the infinite benevolence by sacrificing the omnipotence of\nGod. It sets up a rival to his government, from whose malignity he can\nonly imperfectly protect us; so that his Providence becomes precarious,\nand we feel ourselves the sport of a conflict the most awful, beset by\npure, unmitigated, indestructible evils, which, however beaten off in\nthe end, must win against us many a dreadful success. A believer in this\ndoctrine may indeed presume, that a Being, omniscient and benign as God,\nwould never have called a world into existence unless assured, by his\nforeknowledge, that he could prevailingly protect it from the powers\nwhich obstructed him, and render life to every creature on it a blessing\non the whole. Under any other conditions, his goodness would have\nrestrained him from the act of creation. Still the blessed Ruler sways\nhis works under constant check; and all limitations on his power must be\nproportionate deductions from our peace. This theory, then, fails to\nafford us the desired relief. It does not reconcile the God of our\nconscience with the God of our understanding: it simply adheres to the\nformer, and rejects the latter; assuring us that, as our secret hearts\nhad said, the great Father hates evil as his enemy; not, as our logic\nhad insinuated, wields it as his instrument.\n\n(2.) We turn, then, to the second attempt to extricate our thoughts from\nthis perplexity; which is found, in a consistent form, only in the\nsystem of philosophical necessity. This scheme assumes the absolute,\nunlimited monarchy of God; represents him as originally alone, and\nwithout either universe or materials for its construction; teaches that\nhe willed all things into existence; conceiving the plan, speaking the\nword, beholding the birth, sustaining the order, decreeing the means,\nordaining the end. The compass of his design is all-embracing; all\ncauses and effects, all enjoyment and misery, all excellence and guilt,\nlie within its circuit; nor can \u201cthere be evil in a city,\u201d or in a\nworld, \u201cand the Lord hath not done it.\u201d We are assured, that in fact it\nis impossible to distribute to separate authors the blessing and the\ncurse which appear to mingle in creation; for the same law which brings\nthe one introduces the other; the tempest which blasts the field and\nflock purifies the air of pestilence; the necessities of the body are\nthe incentives of labour and the stimulants of the mind; and industry\nand art, commerce and wealth, the whole structure even of society and\ncivilization, rest on the ultimate basis of hunger. Nor is it possible\nto separate suffering, even in conception, from a scene in which great\nvirtues are to be born, and the diviner forms of character to be\ntrained. Evil is _the resistance_, by its conquest over which moral\nforce can alone be measured and manifested; without which, conscience\nand fidelity would have no field of victory, benevolence no place for\nglorious toil, faith and wisdom no consciousness of power. In the sickly\nseductions of pleasure, are seen the health and simplicity of holiness;\namid the temptations of selfishness, we discern and venerate the spirit\nof self-oblivious love; beneath the arm of tyranny, and amid examples of\nhypocrisy, we learn how calm the front of uprightness, and how noble the\nmagnanimity of truth. Pain is never _the whole_ of suffering; which\nspreads in moral influence beyond itself and its hour, and administers\nsome of our noblest discipline. The anguish of one human being is\nusually the pity of many; even the guilt of one may be the forbearance,\nthe warning, the affectionate and healing grief, of many. Scarcely can\nany ill be found that is not so linked with visible benefits, so\nentangled with arrangements in which we recognize indisputable\nblessings, that one only author can be assigned to all; if he has had\nforesight of any thing, he must have had foresight of all; if he has\ndevised a part, he must have devised the whole. Even such free-will as\nthe human mind possesses is a power of his own deliberate bestowal; and\nthe whole extent of its disastrous mistakes, its deluded estimates, its\ndegrading preferences, its faithless abuse of liberty, must be\nconsidered as ordained and introduced by him for some ultimate and\ntranscendent good. At present, and for a long future yet, the sufferings\nare great which sin must entail upon all who come within its range; but\neven its saddest victim is yet a child of God, and must at last\n(benevolence requires no less) be enabled to pronounce his existence a\nboon. And hence we must believe the penalties of guilt to be remedial;\nsubduing the stubborn soul, and leading it back to seek its peace in\nGod; working out their own remission, because their victim\u2019s\nrestoration; till the wail of despair shall be softened into the sob of\nrepentance, and this into the sigh of self-distrustful hope, falling\ninto the silence of deep resolve; leading to the energy of a new\nfidelity, warmed by the refreshment of a returning love, and bursting at\nlength into grateful chorus with the song of the redeemed.\n\nThe essential idea of this system evidently is, that evil is a result of\nGod\u2019s will, his temporary instrument for everlasting ends. This\ncharacteristic remaining, it is wholly unimportant whether he is\nregarded as producing it immediately or mediately; distributively or\ncollectively; by detailed volitions of his own, or by the agency of a\nbeing commissioned to this department of his government. As the\nblessings, scattered by the activity of good minds of every order in the\nuniverse, are no less his, than if there were no creature but himself to\nshed them forth, so the woes, which any dependent spirits of evil may\ndiffuse, belong as truly to his providence, as if they were the personal\ninflictions of his will. Hence the doctrine of wicked angels, and of a\ncreated Prince of darkness, is the very same with the system which I\nhave just described; simply, its popular and mythological form,\ngathering up the abstract conception of evil into a person; but still\nrepresenting it, in this living dress, as a creature intentionally\nformed by the Omniscient and predetermining God. I regard the belief in\nthe existence of Satan, not as opposed to the prevailing Unitarian views\nof Providence, but, _so far as it is consistently held_, as in all\nessential particulars, identical with them. Its relation to the\ncharacter of God is the same; and the sole difference between the two is\nin the question of personality; a question of great consequence, when\nthe existence of a _divine_ person, as the Holy Spirit, is suspended on\nthe decision; but of small moment when, as in this case, a mere\n_creature_ more or less is to be given to the invisible world. What does\nit matter to us whether there be any, or a myriad, of interposing agents\nbetween the ills that touch us and our God? Surely it is with the\n_effects_,\u2014with the evils themselves,\u2014that our practice and duty are\nconcerned, and about their _original cause_ that our faith is anxious;\nand, on both these points, the Necessarian and the Satanic schemes seem\nto be agreed. Both refer our thoughts back to a time when no evil\nexisted, and say that none could have come into existence, had the\ncreative activity of God never been exercised. Both make the same\nestimate of the actual sins and sorrows and temptations which are in\ncontact with our life; and whichever view be adopted, these are neither\nincreased nor diminished, their complexion is neither brightened nor\ndarkened, their insidiousness and their treatment continue the same.\nThey come out of the dark upon us; and no more concern us till they\nstrike upon our experience, than a line of light affects us, till its\nend impinges on our eye. Hence I cannot feel much interest in the mere\nquestion respecting the existence of a Devil; and must be excused for\ntreating it as only an insignificant part of a subject vast and\nterrible.\n\nDoes, then, this second system resolve our difficulties, and altogether\nharmonize the perfections of God? Alas! the success is no greater than\nbefore. Why this circuitous method of producing a happy universe? Evil\nis called into being, as an instrument of good, in this world; and then\nis annihilated, by the addition of more evil, in another. If it be the\ngreat object of Providence to get rid of suffering and sin, if his\ngovernment be an educative discipline for purifying the guilt,\nilluminating the ignorance, and destroying the misery of souls, must we\nnot ask, why then were these things created? If God\u2019s providence be thus\n_against_ them, why was it ever _for_ them? And how are we to think of\nthose agencies, as the work of his own hands, on which his whole\nadministration is said to be aggressive? No answer can be given, except\nthat the temporary operation of natural and moral evil was\nunavoidable,\u2014the essential and only means of accomplishing results which\nall admit to be beneficent, especially the development and progress of\nmind, and the probationary discipline of character. It may be so; but,\nin this explanation, the benignity of God is again saved at the expense\nof his Omnipotence. If no other means were open to him than those which\nhe has actually employed, his range of possibilities was mysteriously\nlimited, his choice incomprehensibly narrowed; and he solved the problem\nof Creation under some restraining conditions. And no theory, which\nleaves this shadow of necessity lingering behind the throne of God,\njustifies its pretensions as the vindicator of his Power.\n\nScarcely does this system seem to be reconcileable with the Holiness of\nGod. I confess myself unable to understand how a Being, who is held to\nbe the prime cause of all the moral evil which the universe contains,\ncan be regarded as morally perfect; or to imagine, if this be consistent\nwith infinite purity, what phenomena would be inconsistent. It is not\nenough to say, that the evil is produced, by no means for its own sake,\nbut for ultimate good. Often, at least, does a human being do wrong on\nno other pretext; and the very plea admits, that God subordinates moral\ndistinctions to some other good, and esteems some foreign benefit worth\npurchasing by the deed of sin. Is it urged, that the foreknowledge and\ninfallible certainty of the Divine mind justify this, and that it is\nonly because man wants the requisite discernment, that he is forbidden\nin his blindness to do evil, that good may come? Then it would seem that\nmoral distinctions are intended only for the ignorant; and are, to an\nimmeasurable extent, delusions of intellectual infancy, designed to\nvanish, or undergo unimaginable transformations, as our mental vision is\nenlarged. And if this be so, none of our ideas of obligation are\napplicable to God, and he passes beyond the range of our moral\napprehension, reverence, and love. No; the language of piety becomes\nunmeaning, and the sanctity of religion is in danger of utter ruin,\nunless the divine sentiments of right and wrong are perceived to be akin\nto our own, recognising the same immutable differences, and\nspontaneously observing the same laws. Not even can we admit that he has\ncreated, and could change, the relations of right and wrong; that his\nwill is the source of obligation, and by a command could make into a\nbinding duty that which in itself is sin. Moral excellence is no\ncreature of mere power, which he has created; for he is, and ever was,\nexcellent himself, rendered venerable by intrinsic and unoriginated\nperfections; by holy sentiments, whose outward action, indeed, must be\ndated from the beginning of created things, but whose consciousness has\nbeen from everlasting. I dare not think, that the Providence of God\nlargely consists in doing that, which would be guilt in man.\n\nFrom this scheme then, not less than from the former, we fail to obtain\nsatisfaction. It does not reconcile the faith of the conscience with the\nfaith of the understanding; but simply prefers the latter, to the injury\nof the former, compromising God\u2019s abhorrence of evil; and, for the sake\nof maintaining his sovereignty, making it his instrument. In fine,\nphilosophy must make confession of its ignorance, and talk no more so\nexceeding proudly. This question of ages is too much for all its\nsubtlety. Let us pass on to the doctrinal search of Scripture. Does it\neither reveal any new view of our subject, or determine our choice to\neither of the schemes we have reviewed?\n\nII. Trinitarian theologians maintain, that the Bible reveals to us the\nexistence of a created spirit of evil, with a host of subordinate\nassociates in guilt; who seduced our first parents, and so introduced\nboth the spiritual depravity and the mortality of our race; who has\nsince tormented the bodies of men with divers diseases, afflicted their\nminds with some species of insanity, and corrupted their conscience with\nevery variety of horrible and guilty thought; and who especially\nassailed the person, and withstood the kingdom of Christ, knowing that\nthe Messiah\u2019s power would finally overthrow his own. In opposition to\nthis statement, I submit, that in neither the Mosaic nor the Christian\ndispensation have we any revelation of the existence of such a being, or\nany doctrinal solution of the problem respecting the origin of evil. Let\nme not, however, be supposed to say, that no such beings as Satan, the\nfallen Angels, and demons, are named in Scripture. I do not pretend to\nfritter all these away into personifications and figures of speech. I\nhave no doubt that some of the sacred authors believed in the real\nexistence and agency of such beings; I have just as little doubt that\nothers did not; and that the Hebrew conceptions on this subject\nunderwent a regular development in the course of their history, no part\nof them having any origin in supernatural revelation, but the whole\nbeing either the result of natural speculation or a gift from foreign\ntribes. This will be thought very shocking by those who, maintaining the\nplenary inspiration of the Bible, cannot imagine that it contains any\ntraces of the notions and sentiments of its various times; and cannot\nthink of admitting even an incidental allusion that is not an infallible\noracle. But until it can be shown, that a person inspired is unable to\nform an opinion of his own; that he has no ideas from education and\nposition, no prepossessions in common with his age; that, from Moses to\nthe John of Patmos, every scriptural author is an unerring authority,\nnot merely in faith and morals, but in cosmogony and physics, in geology\nand astronomy, in natural history, physiology, metaphysics and medicine;\nwe may venture to maintain, on the ground of historical evidence, that\nthe belief in witchcraft and charms, in angels and devils with Chaldee\nnames, in demoniacal possession and Satanic inflictions, may be no\nresult of revelation, but one of the natural traces of time and locality\nwith which the Scriptures abound. There prevails, however, great\nmisapprehension respecting the ideas of the Scripture writers on these\nsubjects; and especially, the conception of a Devil is thought to\npervade the whole Bible in one unvarying form. With a view to rectify\nthis mistake, I will briefly notice the chief passages of the Hebrew and\nGreek Scriptures relating to this topic; adverting, in succession, to\nthe history of the fall; to the growth of the belief both in Satan and\nexorcism; and to the temptation of Christ.\n\n(1.) It is impossible to conceive of a greater outrage upon an author\u2019s\nmeaning, than is the common representation of the Fall, on the account\nof that event in the Book of Genesis. Not a trace, even of the faintest\nkind, does the original narrative contain of all that theologians tell\nus respecting the tempter, the curse, the recovery. The tempter was not\nan evil spirit, but a serpent, to whose natural and instinctive cunning,\nand not to any diabolical instigation, the seducing thought is\nattributed: for \u201cThe serpent,\u201d it is said, \u201cwas more subtle than all the\nbeasts of the field.\u201d[543] The writer, indeed, had not apparently any\nidea of such a being as Satan; for, throughout his five books, there is\nnot a word in allusion to such a personage; though he records, I\nbelieve, more temptations, more trials of faith and duty, which it is\nthought the office of the evil one to administer, than all the rest of\nthe Scriptures together. It is nothing to the purpose to say that,\nwithout preternatural possession, it is absurd to suppose that the\nserpent could speak, and become an agent in the transaction at all; for,\non any view of the passage, the author ascribes to the creature the\npower both of speech and of walking: and to imagine that the Devil would\nbetray himself by assuming so improbable a vehicle, and making a dumb\nreptile talk, is surely little consonant with the character of so subtle\na diplomatist. The record affirms that, by way of punishment, the\nserpent was reduced to the reptile state, and compelled to crawl instead\nof walk;[544] and an author, whose imagination had reconciled itself to\nthis conception, would feel no additional improbability in supposing the\nsame occasion to have condemned the animal to silence. This has always\nbeen the interpretation of those Hebrew writers, who have received the\naccount as literal history. Josephus, a man of learning and a priest,\nstates, that \u201call animals at that period partook of the gift of speech\nwith man;\u201d that \u201cthe serpent lived on familiar terms with Adam and his\nwife;\u201d and \u201cfrom a malicious intention of his own, persuaded the woman\nto taste of the tree of knowledge;\u201d that, in consequence, \u201cGod deprived\nthe creature of speech and of the use of his feet.\u201d[545] If the account\nbe considered as historical, this is its plain meaning; and the\ninsertion in it of a powerful malignant spirit, is a mere fiction of\nlater times.[546]\n\nNor is the usual description of the results of the Fall, a less\nextravagant perversion of Scripture. The necessities of toil to the man,\nthe pangs of travail to the woman, and to both a consequent abbreviation\nof the term of life, are all the effects of which the original speaks,\nand to which Josephus refers.[547] St. Paul adds to these the\nintroduction of mortality; but neither in his writings, nor in any more\nauthoritative place than the invention of modern divines, do we find the\nleast hint of any moral corruption entailed by the fall on the human\nconstitution, or any penal woes prepared for our lapsed nature after\ndeath. Throughout the whole subsequent Scriptures, there are only three\nplaces in which the effects of the first transgression are\nmentioned:[548] all of these are in the epistles of Paul; two, out of\nthe three, are mere passing allusions, not occupying a line; and in the\nremaining one, as well as in the others, _natural death_ alone is said\nto have passed on the descendants of Adam; \u201cnot\u201d (as Mr. Locke justly\nremarks) \u201ceither actual or imputed sin,\u201d which, he says, \u201cis evidently\ncontrary to St. Paul\u2019s design here.\u201d[549] Between the guilt of men, and\nthe fall of their progenitor, there did not exist the slightest\nconnexion in the Apostle\u2019s mind; they are never once mentioned together.\nWhen he draws his fearful pictures of the depravity of both Jews and\nGentiles, he is wholly silent respecting the fall, describing all this\ncorruption not as constitutional but as actual, not as the growth of a\nfoul and incapable nature, but rather as the abuse and insult of one\ninherently noble.[550] And when again he speaks of the fall and its\nissues, he is silent about moral depravity, and dwells only on physical\ndeath. Never was there a writer more barbarously tortured, more\ningeniously forced to speak in a spirit which he loved to withstand,\nthan this glorious Apostle. Out of his own writings, by incredible\nperversion, his generous conceptions are condemned as heresies, and his\nfavourite sentiments denounced as blasphemies.\n\n\u201cI will put enmity,\u201d says the book of Genesis, \u201cbetween thee and the\nwoman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and\nthou shalt bruise his heel.\u201d[551] Considered as a description of the\nmutual hostility and injuries of the race of venomous reptiles and the\nhuman species,\u2014man naturally attacking the head of the creature, and the\nanimal, especially among the naked feet of oriental climes, finding\nnothing in man so vulnerable as the heel,\u2014a more vivid sentence can\nscarcely be conceived. Considered as a prophecy of Christ, ingenuity\ncould construct nothing more obscure. And, accordingly, it is never once\nappealed to, as a prediction, either by the Messiah himself, or by any\nof the New Testament writers; and before the Advent, it had certainly\nfailed to produce the proper effect of prophecy, and had not aided in\npreparing the minds of the Hebrews for the event. It is indeed\nacknowledged by \u201ca strenuous advocate for this application of the\npassage,\u201d \u201cthat the expressions here used do not necessarily imply the\nsense thus attributed to them; and that there is no appearance of our\nfirst parents\u2019 having understood them in this sense, or that God\nintended they should so understand them.\u201d[552] If, then, this prophetic\nsignification escaped the persons to whom the announcement was made, and\nthe nation before whose eye it lay for ages, and the Christ himself of\nwhom it spake, and the Evangelists and Apostles who proclaimed him to\nthe world, our doubt of its reality can scarcely be deemed\nunwarrantable.\n\nBut it is, I believe, a misconception of the author, to treat this\npassage as a piece of history. Neither Moses, nor any other scriptural\nwriter, professes to have been miraculously instructed in the events of\nthe antediluvian world; and if they make no such pretension themselves,\nit is altogether gratuitous in us to make it for them. The slightest\nconsideration must convince us, that all _natural_ sources of\ninformation respecting so primitive a period must have ceased to exist,\nat least in any reliable form: and the earliest portions of the book of\nGenesis have every characteristic of that beautiful mythical\ncomposition, which is the first fruit of the literary activity of every\nsimple-hearted nation, and which mingles together in one texture,\ntradition, fact, speculation, poetical conception, and moral truth. In\nthis instance, the writer seems to have been oppressed by the feeling,\nthat human peace and tranquillity were disturbed by the restless\naspirings and inquisitive ambition of the mind. If man could but be\ncontent to take the good which God has spread within his easy reach, and\nnot permit himself to pry into the possibilities of having more, his\nlife might be spent as in a garden of the Lord, in the warmth of sunny\ndays, and the light sleep of unhaunted nights. But he cannot repress his\ninsatiable curiosity, his passion for the fruits of knowledge and\ndignity, of which Providence has given him the idea, but which have been\nset beyond his permitted reach; and this thirst of his nature he\nresolves at all hazards to indulge; this godlike aspiration, imprisoned\nin a frame to which it is unsuited, chafes against his quiet, and\nabbreviates his days. Hence proceed the struggle and the toil of life;\nthe thistle and the thorn which he gathers from a soil that might have\nyielded only flowers; hence, children are we all of care and sorrow;\nhence, by the sweat of the hardy brow we must live, and soon fret down\nexistence into dust; not however, without our victory after all; for we\nsubjugate the earth, and reign thereon.\n\nObserve too, that Adam rules the woman; and the woman has a heel upon\nthe serpent:\u2014the last seduced is placed the highest; and the first\ncorrupter sinks into a reptile. Our temptations are _beneath_ us; and\nhaving once detected them, we are to rule them ever after. Once let the\nknowledge of good and evil be tasted, and the primitive equality of\nthings, which put man and beast upon a level, is destroyed; all beings\nfall into the ranks of a moral gradation; and though none that have free\nwill may escape a fall, he that is last to yield shall be the first to\nreign.\n\n(2.) Neither then in the original account, nor in the scanty subsequent\nnotices of the transgression in Eden, is there any disclosure of a\nSatanic existence. Let us rapidly follow down the course of Hebrew\nliterature, and search in it for the first and successive indications of\nthis belief. I have stated that the books of Moses are destitute of all\ntrace of such a conception; nor can any thing at all corresponding to\nthe popular idea of the Devil, be found in any part of the Old\nTestament. The name itself never once occurs; and it would be a great\nmistake to identify the Satan of the Hebrew Scriptures, with the Devil\nof the Greek.[553] The Satan of the former has a very uncertain\npersonality. The name rather denotes an office, which any agent of\nProvidence might be appointed to fill, than a definite individual being.\nAny person, performing the function of an accuser, or who prepares\nmatter for accusation, by seducing men into evil,\u2014any one acting the\npart of an adversary to another,\u2014is called Satan. Thus David is called\nSatan to the Philistines;[554] a certain captain named Rezon was Satan\nto Israel;[555] the angel of Jehovah was Satan to Balaam;[556] nay, even\nPaul uses this singular expression, \u201cHymeneus and Alexander, I have\ndelivered to Satan\u201d (for what purpose, do you suppose), \u201c_that they may\nbe taught not to blaspheme_.\u201d[557] No doubt this idea, at first vague\nand indefinite, gradually became individualized; and that which had been\nan appellative, passed into a proper name, yet without ever wholly\nlosing its generic character.[558] At the commencement of the book of\nJob occurs its most distinct and definite use. It is there applied, not\nto a fallen Spirit, not to a repudiated subject of the celestial state,\nbut to an angel near the throne, to a recognized minister of the Supreme\nPower, who appears in the courts above among \u201cthe Sons of God.\u201d He is\nrepresented as a general inspector and public prosecutor of the Divine\ngovernment over man; going to and fro over the earth, by heavenly\ncommission, to execute the probationary part of the great Ruler\u2019s will,\nand administer to mankind the severities which test their faith. In the\nearlier Hebrew writings, this office is said to be filled by no\nsubordinate instrument: it is Jehovah himself who is represented as\ntrying his servants,\u2014as the personal cause of their afflictions, and\nauthor of their temptations. I recently heard the following passage from\nthe first book of Chronicles adduced in proof of the agency of Satan in\nseducing men from their allegiance to God. \u201cAnd Satan stood up against\nIsrael, and provoked David to number Israel.\u201d[559] Now it so happens,\nthat this same event is recorded also in the much more ancient books of\nSamuel, where it is thus introduced: \u201cAnd again the anger of the Lord\nwas kindled against Israel, and HE moved David against them to say, \u2018Go,\nnumber Israel and Judah.\u2019\u201d[560] What can more clearly mark the natural\nprogress of opinion on this point? As the ideas of God became more\nelevated and refined, it was felt to be scarcely compatible with his\nperfections to seduce his children into violation of the duties he\nhimself required: and the imagination at least, if not the\nunderstanding, was relieved by assigning that office, of hardening the\nheart and tempting the will, (which originally had been left with\nJehovah himself,) to some interposing being, who might separate between\nGod and guilt.\n\nWhen we open the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, we perceive a complete\nchange in this class of ideas. Even the latest written of the canonical\nbooks introduce us to several angelic beings, unknown to the earlier\nScriptures,\u2014as the Michael and Gabriel of Daniel. But in addition to\nthese, we find in the Jewish Apocrypha, for the first time, the matured\nconception of the Prince of evil;[561] who is thenceforth represented in\nthe scarcely consistent relations of creature and enemy of the Most\nHigh: and it is in this form that the notion presents itself to us in\nthe New Testament writings. Now what is the inference from these facts?\nIn the books of the ancient dispensation, this malignant Spirit does not\nyet appear: in the writings of the new dispensation, he is\nmentioned,\u2014not as a novelty of revelation, but as long familiar to the\nmind of every reader. The origin then of the belief in his existence,\nmust be sought between the close of the Hebrew inspiration and the\nopening of the Christian. And what had happened in this interval? The\nJewish people had been in long and intimate relation with Persia:\nconnected with it by political ties, and united by the sympathies of\nmonotheism. The characteristic features of the Persian religion\nwere,\u2014its doctrine of a Spirit of Evil in perpetual enmity to the\nSupremely Good;\u2014and its representation of a heavenly hierarchy, whose\nspirits were ranged in ranks of angels and archangels, and received\ntheir separate names. These ideas then naturally passed into the Jewish\nmind, with little change; except that the Evil Spirit was reduced to a\nsomewhat lower station, in obedience to the stern Mosaic principle, of\nthe absolute Monarchy of God.[562] And as these notions became perfectly\nengrafted on the national faith of Israel, the founders of Christianity\nwere educated in them; and they were permitted to appear by incidental\nallusion, and in conformity with the general sentiments of the country\nand the age, in the pages of history and correspondence, which the\nevangelists and apostles have left. Nor can I perceive, either how it\ncan be proved, or why it should be desired, that God would annihilate\nfrom the understanding of his inspired servants, all the harmless ideas,\nforeign to their mission, which constituted the common stock of thought\nat the time, and gave them points of necessary sympathy and intellectual\ncontact with the spirit of their generation. How slight the sanction\nwhich they give to some, at least, of these mythological imaginations,\nmay be estimated by a single fact. The whole theory respecting fallen\nangels rests upon two verses,[563] each in one of the most doubtful of\nthe New Testament writings: indeed the texts can scarcely be regarded as\nconstituting two independent authorities; for the latter is little else\nthan a repetition of the former; occurring in a portion of the second\nepistle of Peter, which, strangely enough, contains, the sentiments and\neven the language of a large part of the epistle of Jude. When such\nevidence as this is brought forward, as conclusive and infallible, I\nwould respectfully ask our opponents, whether they seriously believe, on\nthe authority of the same epistle, that Michael the archangel disputed\nwith the Devil about the body of Moses? and as this is nowhere else\nmentioned, whether an express and personal revelation of the fact was\nimparted to St. Jude? If so, consistency would require them to maintain,\nthat this is one of the essential doctrines of the Gospel: for how much\nsoever our natural and corrupt reason might be tempted to think the\ncircumstance trivial, if true, it cannot really be otherwise than\nfundamental, if privately and explicitly revealed.[564]\n\nFrom the foregoing remarks, the general principles, in conformity with\nwhich I would treat the question of demoniacal possessions, will be so\nevident, that it will be unnecessary to enter into any details. The\nprecise relation to each other of the various orders of evil spirits in\nwhich the Jews believed, it is not possible to define. It is certain,\nhowever, that they made a distinction, which our common translation of\nthe Scriptures has improperly obliterated, between demons and devils.\nThe former were thought to be of only human rank, the souls of the\nwicked dead: and it was these only that were supposed to possess and\nafflict the bodies of the living. The latter were guilty angels, and had\nno agency assigned to them on earth, being kept in durance within the\nprisons of the unseen world. There was therefore the same difference\nbetween demons and devils, as with us between ghosts and fiends. Of the\nformer, Beelzebub was considered as the chief; of the latter, Satan: and\nwhether these beings were regarded as standing in any definite relation\nto each other, is uncertain; probably the Devil, as the Prince of\ndarkness, was believed to be the ruler of all the powers of evil,\nwhether human or angelic. Unlike his incarcerated compeers, Satan was\npermitted to be at large, and to practise his arts against mankind: all\ngentile kingdoms being absolutely his; and even the chosen people not\nprotected wholly from his malignity, at least until the Messiah\u2019s reign,\nwhich was to commence with his dethronement. It may be observed by any\ncareful reader of the gospels, that the evils of which he was held to be\nthe author, are not the same that are ascribed to Beelzebub and his\ndemons. Satan, and he only, was the moral seducer: and the physical\ncalamities proceeding from him were only natural and intelligible\ndiseases, regular enough to fall under the cognizance of science. The\ndemons had, on the contrary, no concern with the conscience; and\noccasioned only the irregular and apparently preternatural maladies,\nwhich science deserted and left to the tender mercies of\nsuperstition;\u2014of which epilepsy and insanity are the most remarkable\nexamples.\n\nOf this system of notions the evangelists were doubtless possessed. But\nthat they held them on the tenure of unerring inspiration can by no\nmeans be shown. On the contrary, the natural causes which produced them\ncan be so clearly detected in the prevalent sentiments of their age and\ncountry, that not the slightest pretext remains for referring them to\nexpress revelation. So far from requiring a miracle to excite these\nconceptions, we must admit, that nothing less than a miracle could have\nexcluded them, familiar as they had been to the national mind from the\ntime of its intercourse with Persia. Had the founders of Christianity\nnever received any extraordinary mission, they would have entertained\nthe conception of demoniacal possession; and its hold upon their\nthoughts must therefore be regarded as the result of natural\nprepossession, not of supernatural communication. A notion whose human\norigin can be distinctly traced,\u2014which was shared by uninspired persons,\nand existed in the authors of our religion in their uninspired\nyears,\u2014has no claim to be considered as a part of Christianity, and is\nas open to doubt and examination as any other opinion of antiquity. To\naffirm that, were it not true, God must have blotted it from the mind of\nhis messengers, is not only to overbear evidence with assertion, but to\ndecide dogmatically on the obligations of Deity, and, with infinite\npresumption, to dictate the fit measure of his gifts. Till it can be\nshown, that inspiration is co-extensive with omniscience, it must remain\ncompatible with error.\n\nThe language of the Gospels then, respecting demoniacs, is not to be\nregarded as a condescending accommodation to popular prejudice; but as a\ngenuine expression of the writers\u2019 own state of mind. There is no reason\nto doubt that the prevalent ideas were shared by the apostles\nthemselves. By these did they interpret the facts which they witnessed:\nthrough the colouring of these, their minds beheld the miracles of\nChrist, and their own: and at the suggestion of these arose the language\nin which they have recorded the ministry of their Lord. All this has not\nthe smallest effect on the truth and soundness of their testimony. They\nno doubt reported faithfully that which they _saw and heard_; only they\ntell us something more, adding a few phrases, disclosing also what they\n_thought_. Like all witnesses of simple mind, especially when telling\nthat which awakens their wonder and affection, they mix up their\nstatements of phenomena with notions of causation; and present us with a\ncomposite register of sensible impressions and mental interpretations.\nIt should be our business, as we read, to call up before us the scene\ndescribed; to see for ourselves the things visible, and hear the things\naudible, of which the record speaks; and we shall find that this effort\nwill usually make a perfect and easy separation between the real and the\nmerely ideal, between the permanent fact and the temporary explanation.\nWhen, for example, it is said, that the _demons_ in a man possessed\n_spake_ to Christ, of what are we to think? for what voice are we to\nlisten? where are the lips from which the utterance flows?\u2014Certainly it\nwas from the organs of the poor _lunatic himself_ that the sound must\nhave proceeded: and modern language would describe this fact by saying,\nthat _he_ spake; and in thus believing we accept the whole _attestation_\nof the historian.\n\n(3.) The same principle must be applied to the temptation of Christ. No\nhint whatever is given, implying any visible appearance communing with\nJesus; nor need we even suppose any audible voice addressing him.[565]\nThe Evil Spirit, like God himself, was held to be invisible, and\ninappreciable by any human senses: and when _words_ are attributed to\nhim, they represent only the dialogue which he is supposed to hold with\nthe silent and tempted heart. His whole guilty transactions indeed\nbelonged, it was imagined, to the region of the mind; and his was a\nviewless and speechless wrestling with conscience on its throne.\nWhenever therefore the seductive assaults of Satan are recorded, the\nreal fact described is this; that internal moral conflicts have been\ngoing on, and deluding thoughts have been passing, like the shadow of a\ndark Spirit, across the purer soul. And in such case, the first and the\nonly thing of which our consciousness can be aware, is, the occurrence\nof these thoughts. To their antecedent source, our testimony cannot\nreach; and whether they are precipitated on us by some enemy from\nwithout, or are of spontaneous origin within our own minds, is a point\naccessible indeed to speculation, but beyond the contact of experience.\nTill they enter our nature, and so become a part of our personality,\nthey are nothing and nowhere: and when they enter and we feel their\ntorment, they are ours and no other being\u2019s. No one ever sees, hears, or\nfeels, the Devil; he _perceives_ simply the intrusion of sinful ideas,\nand _supposes_ them to be the result of diabolic power. He experiences\nthe temptation in reality; and refers it to the tempter in idea. And\nwere this not true of Christ, as of ourselves, it would be false to say,\nthat he \u201cwas tempted in all points as we are.\u201d The temptation of our\nLord then, stripped of the dress which the historians have thrown around\nthe central facts, was the natural struggle, by which he exchanged the\nimperfect, and local, and ambitious conceptions of the Messiah, which\nhis cottage training in Nazareth had imparted,\u2014for that pure, and\nself-sacrificing, and comprehensive interpretation of the office, which\nbroke upon his solitude so awfully. That he learned, at Mary\u2019s knees, to\ncherish the common hope of his nation, in the form under which it\nprevailed among the peasantry, appears as little doubtful, as that he\ncaught the language of his native fields. Yet it is certain that this\nearly vision passed away; and that when he himself was called to fill\nthe appointed office, he acted out a conception quite opposite to the\ndreams imparted to his childhood. Once he had mused on the widening\nglory of Jud\u00e6a; but he ended with announcing the prospect of its fall.\nOnce he had exulted in the dignity and power of the coming messenger,\nwho should break the oppression of his people, and set forth anew the\ntriumph of their ancient Providence: he declared himself at length the\nmeek prophet of penury, and woe and childhood. Once he had thought of\nwhat Jerusalem would be, when the temple should be the centre of the\nworld\u2019s homage, and multitudes of all nations should throng its\npavement, and its incense should rise in the pride of freedom, and its\nhymn spring upward on the wing of happy melody: but ere his work of life\nwas finished, he taught a lowlier yet sublimer expectation, not of the\ncompression of the world into the Hebrew worship,\u2014but of the diffusion\nof that worship to cover the world; and revealed that secret shrine in\nevery human heart, where emotions, purer than incense, may burn for\never, and tones sweeter than music be for ever breathed. This revolution\nof sentiment, this conflict, by which new thoughts of inspiration\nexpelled the old ones inherited from education and reputed prophecy,\nconstituted the temptation in the wilderness; nor was it possible that\nideas the most divine, should thus burst the shell of custom and\ntradition, without a convulsion truly terrible. It would be easy, were\nit not irrelevant, to show how this hidden colloquy between the national\nprepossessions and the personal intuitions of our Lord\u2019s mind, would\ngive rise to the separate scenes of which the temptation is said to have\nbeen composed. Possibly, however, the history, as it stands, is not the\nrecord of a single event, to which a fixed date can be assigned in his\nministry: more probably, it gathers into one view a series of mental\nconflicts, distributed over his whole public life; the struggles between\nthe accidental and the essential portions of his nature; between the\nnational and the human: between an historical imagination trained amid\nthe gorgeousness of prophecy, and a heavenly conscience dwelling with\nthe simplicity of God; between the conventional and the spiritual;\nbetween, in short, the superinduced faith contracted from time and\nplace, and the inborn faith of a soul divine and free.\n\nIn the preceding notices of Scripture, no sanction is given to the\ninterpretations, if such there be, which resolve Satan into a\npersonification, treat the temptation as a vision or an allegory, and\nidentify the demoniac phraseology with the common language of\npathological description. I believe, indeed, that, wherever the Devil\nand his agency are named, the only _real fact_ denoted is, the\noccurrence to some one of a moral temptation: and that, wherever demons\nare said to have been cast out, the only _historical event_ described\nis, the cure of some physical or mental disease. But it appears to me\nabsurd to deny, that the writers meant more than this; to doubt that\nthey held the popular theory of such facts, and blended it naturally\nwith their record; that they were sincerely under the influence of the\nexisting system of demonology, and referred the seductions of sin to the\npersonal activity of the malignant Spirit. Nowhere, however, do they\npretend to set forth these ideas as gifts of preternatural revelation,\nbut simply take them up as part of the common media of thought belonging\nto the age, and use them as the incidental colouring to their narrative\nof facts. In different parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, as we have seen,\nvery different, and even inconsistent notions respecting the origin of\nevil prevail: the conception of a powerful diabolic agent underwent a\nregular and natural development: and the system of pneumatology apparent\nin the Greek Scriptures is traceable to a foreign origin in an\nuninspired age. Hence we must conclude, that respecting the origin of\nevil, nothing doctrinal is specially revealed; that even in Palestine,\nthe human mind has been left to grapple with this great problem by its\nown natural forces; and that we rise from the page of Scripture, as from\nthe speculations of wisdom and genius, with the difficulty yet unsolved.\n\nBy no means, then, can we attain to any theoretical certainty, or\nlogical consistency of belief, on this great topic. Revelation is\nsilent, and philosophy perplexed; and the controversy between the\nReligion of Conscience and the Religion of the Understanding, is\nundecided still. Let the framers of systems say what they will, the\nthing is deeper than our minds, and what can we know? Nothing remains,\nbut to abandon hopelessly the speculative point of view, and treat the\nmatter as an object, not of knowledge, but of trust; to regard it as a\nquestion to be decided by its bearings on duty, rather than its\nmaterials for debate. Whenever the means of attaining to objective truth\ndo not exist, we can but rest in those views of things which most\nentirely accord with our best nature. If we cannot tell what is true of\nGod, we yet may judge what is fittest for ourselves; what state of mind,\nwhat modes of thought, prepare us best for the work of life; what mental\nrepresentation of existence most nobly sustains those fundamental moral\nconvictions, which it is the end of Christianity to fix in our implicit\nfaith and constant practice. To this arbitration we must submit our\npresent doubts respecting the source of evil; and, while waiting to\nreach the realities of reason denied us now, accept, as our best truth,\nthe conceptions which are most just to our moral nature and relations.\n\nIII. Let us then, for final decision, consult the practical spirit of\nChristianity, and ascertain to what view of the origin of sin it awards\nthe preference. Is it well, for the consciences and characters of men,\nto consider God,\u2014either directly or through his dependant Satan,\u2014either\nby his general laws, or by vitiating the constitution of our first\nparents,\u2014as the primary source of moral evil? _or_, on the contrary, to\nregard it as, in no sense whatever, willed by the Supreme Mind, and\nabsolutely inimical to his Providence? Are we most in harmony with the\ncharacteristic spirit of the gospel, when we call sin his instrument, or\nwhen we call it his enemy? For myself, I can never sit at the feet of\nJesus, and yield up a reverential heart to his great lessons, without\ncasting myself on the persuasion, that God and evil are everlasting\nfoes; that never, and for no end, did he create it; that his will is\nutterly against it, nor ever touches it, but with annihilating force.\nAny other view appears to be injurious to the characteristic sentiments,\nand at variance with the distinguishing genius, of Christian morality.\n\n(1.) Christianity is distinguished by the profound sentiment of\n_individual responsibility_ which pervades it. All the arbitrary forms,\nand sacerdotal interpositions, and hereditary rights, through which\nother systems seek the divine favour, are disowned by it. It is a\nreligion eminently _personal_; establishing the most intimate and\nsolitary dealings between God and every human soul. It is a religion\neminently _natural_; eradicating no indigenous affection of our mind,\ndistorting no primitive moral sentiment; but simply consecrating the\nobligations proper to our nature, and taking up with a divine voice the\nwhispers, scarce articulate before, of the conscience within us. In this\ndeep harmony with our inmost consciousness of duty, resides the true\npower of our religion. It subdues and governs our hearts, as a wise\nconqueror rules the empire he has won; not by imposing a system of\nstrange laws, but by arming with higher authority, and administering\nwith more resolute precision, the laws already recognised and revered.\n\nThis sense of individual accountability,\u2014notwithstanding the ingenuities\nof orthodox divines on the one hand, and necessarian philosophers on the\nother,\u2014is impaired by all reference of the evil that is in us to _any\nsource beyond ourselves_. To look for a remoter cause than our own\nguilty wills,\u2014to contemplate it as a Providential instrument, whether we\ntrace it to Adam, to Satan, or directly to God, bewilders the simple\nperceptions of conscience, and throws doubt on its distinct and solemn\njudgments. The injury may be different in character, according to the\nparticular system we adopt: but _any_ theory which provides the\nindividual moral agent with participating causes of his guilt, offends\nand weakens some one of the feelings essential to the consciousness of\nresponsibility.\n\nThere is no persuasion, for example, more indispensable to this state of\nmind, and, consequently, no impression which Christianity more\nprofoundly leaves upon the heart, than that of the _personal origin and\npersonal identity of sin_,\u2014its individual, incommunicable character. Our\nown secret souls, and that divine gospel which confirms all their\nsincere decisions, alike declare that _my_ sin cannot be _your_ sin;\nthat by no compact, even by no miracle, can any exchange of\nresponsibilities, or transfer of moral qualities, be effected. What\nindeed is guilt in its very nature, but a violation of some venerated\nrule of action,\u2014a contravention of our own sentiments of equity, truth,\npurity, or generosity? and what is the guilty mind, but a system or\nhabit of desire, which successfully resists the control of reason and\nconscience? That mind which is the seat of the delinquent will,\u2014which\nhears the remonstrances of right, and heeds them not,\u2014is the sole\nproprietor of the sin, deriving it from none, imparting it to none: its\ndwelling is in his volition; and unless that can cease to be his, the\ncriminality can admit of no alienation. He may have accomplices indeed:\nbut they are so many additional agents, each with his separate amount of\nguilt, and not partners among whom his one act of free-will is\ndistributed. The trains of thought and emotion, the adjustment of tastes\nand affections, are different in every soul: each has its own moral\ncomplexion; each, its separate moral relations; each, its distinct\nresponsibility in the sight of God. In no sense is the gift or transfer\nof character more possible, than a barter of genius, or an interchange\nof sensation. God may call new life into existence, and determine what\nits consciousness shall be: he may annihilate life, and plunge its\nmemory and experience into nothing: but to shift the feelings and aims\nwhich constitute the identity of one being into the personality of\nanother, is no more possible, than to alter the properties of a circle,\nor to cancel departed time.\n\nTo trifle in any way with this plain and solemn principle, to invent\nforms of speech tending to conceal it, to apply to moral good and ill,\nlanguage which assimilates them to physical objects and exchangeable\nproperty, implies frivolous and irreverent ideas of sin and excellence.\nThe whole weight of this charge evidently falls on the scheme, which\nspeaks of human guilt as an hereditary entail; a scheme which shocks and\nconfounds our primary notion of right and wrong, and, by rendering them\nimpersonal qualities, reduces them to empty names. No construction can\nbe given to the system, which does not pass this insult on the\nconscience. In what sense do we share the guilt of our progenitor? His\nconcession to temptation did not occur within our mind, or belong in any\nway to our history. And if, without participation in the _act_ of wrong,\nwe are to have its _penalties_,\u2014crimes in the planet Saturn may be\nexpected to shower curses on the earth; for why may not justice go\nastray in space, as reasonably as in time? If nothing more be meant,\nthan that from our first parents we inherit a constitution _liable_ to\nintellectual error and moral transgression;\u2014still, it is evident, that,\n_until_ this liability takes actual effect, no sin exists, but only its\npossibility; and _when_ it takes effect, there is just so much guilt and\nno more, than might be committed by the individual\u2019s will: so that where\nthere is _no_ volition, as in infancy, cruelty only could inflict\npunishment; and where there is _pure_ volition, as in many a good\npassage of the foulest life, equity itself could not withhold approval.\n\nIn whatever way, then, you define this hypothesis, it directly denies\nthe personal character and personal identity of sin, and thus enfeebles\nthe most essential element comprehended in the sentiment of\nresponsibility. The practical result will inevitably be, a system of\nfalse views and fictitious feelings, with respect both to our own\ncharacters, and to those of our fellow-men. That which can be\nvicariously incurred, or vicariously removed, cannot be guilt; cannot\ntherefore, be sincerely felt as such; can awaken no true shame and\nself-reproach, and draw forth no burning tears when we meet the eye of\nGod. It is a shocking mockery to call sorrow for an ancestor\u2019s sin by\nthe name of penitence, and to confound the perception (or, as it is\ntermed, \u2018application,\u2019) of Christ\u2019s holiness with the personal peace of\nconscience: the one can be nothing else than moral disapprobation,\nattended by the sense of personal injury; the other, moral approval,\nattended by the sense of personal benefit: and mean and confused must be\nthe sentiments of duty in a mind which can mistake these for the private\ngriefs of contrition, and the serenity of a self-forgetful will. Only\ncounterfeit emotions, and self-judgments half sincere, can consistently\narise from a faith which mystifies the primitive ideas of moral\nexcellence, and destroys all distinct perception of its nature. It is\nalways with danger that we turn away from the _natural_ hand-writing of\nGod upon the conscience: from heedless eyes the divine symbols fade\naway; unless, indeed, in some preternatural awakening of our sight, they\nblaze forth once again, to tell us that the kingdom of true greatness\nhath departed from us. Let each consider his own life as an indivisible\nunit of responsibility, no less complete, no less free, no less invested\nwith solemn and solitary power, than if he dwelt, and always had dwelt,\nin the universe alone with God. There is confided to him, the sole rule\nof a vast and immortal world within; whose order can be preserved or\nviolated, whose peace secured or sacrificed, by no foreign influence. We\ncannot, by ancestral or historical relations, renounce our own\nfree-will, or escape one iota of its awful trusts. No faith which fails\nto keep this truth distinct and prominent, no faith which shuffles with\nthe sinner\u2019s moral identity, contains the requisites of a \u201cdoctrine\naccording to godliness.\u201d It must pervert, moreover, our estimates of\nothers\u2019 characters, no less than of our own. If guilt can be\nhereditary,\u2014guilt meriting infinite and indiscriminate punishment,\u2014it\nmust be universal: and whether we see it or not, we must believe it to\nexist, with no appreciable variation of degree, in every human heart.\nThus it becomes a prime duty to regard every thing in life, except its\nwretchedness, every thing in human nature, except its displays of\nfoulness and of ruin, as a delusion and a cheat. We strongly protest\nagainst this miserable distrust of our best and truest perceptions. We\nmaintain the intelligible and appreciable character of all moral\nqualities, in opposition to all schemes which make distinction between\nnatural and theological excellence, and which propose imaginary\nstandards of right, different from those that recommend themselves to a\ndiscerning conscience. Sin is no mysterious thing, no physical poison,\nno taint in the blood, which may lurk venomously within us, giving no\nsymptom, and exciting no consciousness, of its presence. However\ninsidious in its approaches, and subtle in its manifestations, vigilance\nonly is needed to detect it: its stealthiness affords, indeed, a sound\nreason for circumspection; but not for superstitious horror at its\npossible existence, without discoverable trace, in ourselves or others.\nTo look on the spectacle of vice, and not feel abhorrence, indicates a\ndepraved state of sentiment:\u2014to look on the spectacle of virtue, and\nbelieve it sin, to witness all the outward expressions of goodness and\nsuspect interior corruption, to be invited by natural emotion to moral\nadmiration, and, by theological stimulants, to galvanise the heart into\nloathing (or even \u201cpity\u201d) instead, implies a falsehood of conscience no\nless malignant. Let me not be told that, in thus speaking, we assign too\nhigh a value to mere external moralities, which are but treacherous\nindications of character, and may be the visible fruit of various and\ndubious motives. We never cease to teach, that no Epicurean\nrespectabilities, no conformity with conventional rules of order, can\nsatisfy the claims, or afford any of the peace of duty, unless they be\nthe native growth of a perceptive, devout, and loving heart:\u2014that it is\nnot in the hand which executes, but in the soul which devises and\naspires, in the secret will which makes sacrifice of self, in the\nconscience which grapples with temptations and overmasters fears, that\ntrue and immortal virtue dwells; since acts are evanescent, while the\naffections are eternal. But it is monstrous to infer from this\nsuperficial character of outward morality, that there is probably no\nsubstratum of genuine goodness. Nay, it is a mean and degrading\nscepticism which distrusts, without assignable cause, the reality of any\nof the symptoms of excellence; is tempted by theories of divinity to\ninsinuate that they are an empty semblance; and plies its pious\ningenuity to blacken the great human heart. He that is pledged to make\nout a case against mankind at large, must find of difficult attainment\nthat charity that \u201chopeth all things and believeth all things.\u201d How\nblunted must be the delicacy of moral perception, where the gradations\nof excellence are swept away into the dark abyss of universal depravity!\nand to effect this reduction of all minds to the same level, what\nvehement distortion, what wretched sophistries, what devotional scandal\nand romance, must become habitual! How much less place for delusion and\ninsincerity is there, when we maintain a reverential faith in the\nnatural moral sentiments, repress no generous admiration, disbelieve no\ngenuine expression of disinterestedness and integrity, and instead of\nwhining over guilt, dare to bless God with a manly voice, for all\nvarieties of noble virtue!\n\nThus does the habit of tracing sin beyond the individual will to a\nprogenitor, spread confusion over the moral perceptions, by mystifying\nthe nature of guilt, and destroying that feeling of its personal\ncharacter and identity which belongs to the Christian sentiment of\nresponsibility.\n\nBy a different and directer method the same tendency operates, when we\nrefer our temptations to the agency of the Devil, rather than to our\ndescent from Adam. An invisible power, foreign to ourselves, is held\nchargeable, to an undefined extent, with the evil of our own wills; and\nthe conscience can as ill bear the present distribution, as the past\ntransmission of its guilt. It is said indeed, that man is not \u201cless\nculpable, because Satan seduces him, and blinds his mind\u201d since there is\nno power on earth or hell to _compel_ him to transgress; that he is a\nwilling captive, and no more to be excused than when a human accomplice\nentices him to crime, without (it is admitted) relieving him of any\nportion of his criminality.[566] But the cases are obviously not\nparallel. Man stands up before his fellow man, equal with equal; his\nweapons are fairly measured against his danger, by the great Arbiter\nhimself; and therefore is he summoned to close with his temptations, and\ncondemned as a traitor if he yields or flies. And should it ever be\notherwise,\u2014should the feeble-minded and inexperienced be misled by the\ncunning of the strong-headed and practised seducer, the instinctive\njustice of mankind mitigates its sentence, and commiserates the fall.\nWith how much greater force, then, must this palliation be felt, when\nthe Tempter is admitted to be \u201cpossessed of capacity and power immensely\nsurpassing ours,\u201d[567]\u2014a \u201cmaster-spirit\u201d of majestic intellect, with\nwhom we are as an infant in the giant\u2019s grasp! With such a being, the\nbroken energy, the purblind vigilance, of a fallen man, can hardly be\nexpected to cope; at least they will be induced, in so plausible a case,\nto _esteem themselves_ unfairly matched against so exalted a competitor.\nWhile it were earnestly to be desired that the wretched conscience\nshould be allowed no evasion, and for awhile no alleviation, under the\ncondemning sentence of its memory and its God,\u2014this doctrine calls up,\ninevitably and reasonably, the feeling of a divided criminality, of\nwhich the weaker nature has the smaller share.\n\nThese tendencies, so far as they have been truly stated, must continue\nto act, so long as we trace the evil that is in us to _any_ foreign\nagent. Hence it appears impossible to defend the doctrine of\nPhilosophical Necessity,\u2014which presents God to us as the author of sin\nand suffering,\u2014from the same charge of invading the sense of personal\nresponsibility. Not that we are for a moment to sanction the vulgar\nerror which confounds this scheme, in its theoretical structure and\npractical effects, with the system of fatalism; or to imagine, that an\nabdication of all free-will, and a total indifference to moral\ndistinctions, would be its proper and consistent results. Though,\nhowever, it leaves room for individual pursuit, and motive to individual\nperfection, one of its chief and most vaunted features undoubtedly is,\nthe encouragement which it affords to the _passive virtues_: and it will\nbe found, I greatly fear, that it is their _passiveness_, more than\ntheir _virtuousness_, which puts them under the protection of this\ndoctrine. Doubtless, he who can look on all men as the instruments of\nheaven, and recognize in their mutual injuries and crimes the chosen\nmethods of the Divine government, must learn submission to many a\ntriumph of wrong, and consider anger against the profligate and\noppressor as insubordination against God. He who is haunted by the\nimmutability of things, and feels himself locked in with the universal\nmechanism, will chafe himself with no rash spirit of resistance, nor\nvainly thrust his hand against the fly-wheel of nature. He who believes\nthat all things are right, that absolute evil does not exist, that\nwhatever men may be, and whatever they may do, nothing could possibly be\nbetter, must needs discover that his own wishes are no criterion of\ngood, and look with a contented eye over the whole surface of the past,\nas well as a serene trust on the prospect of the future. Nor can there\nbe any self-exaggeration in a mind conscious of possessing but an\ninfinitesimal fraction of the universal power,\u2014and even that little\nwielded and directed by an uncontrollable sovereignty, that turns the\nhearts of men whithersoever it pleaseth. Complacency with every lot,\nresignation to all events, forbearance under injury, an equal tenderness\nfor all men, and the lowliest attitude before God, are the\nunquestionable results of this religious philosophy. But all this is\nattained by a process which, I would submit, the moralist is bound to\nregard as illegitimate;\u2014by an appeal to external mechanical necessity,\nrendering any thing but these states of mind intellectually improper;\nnot by any considerations of _duty_, or any perception of their\n_intrinsic obligation_. The whole efficacy of the system is negative,\nnot positive. It prostrates and destroys the turbulent elements of our\nnature, and its quietude is the residue left by their exhaustion: it\ncrumbles beneath us the heights of passion, and deposits us upon a\nplacid level beneath the infinite expanse. Its characteristic\ndispositions are reached by the sacrifice of the feelings which are\ndistinctively _moral_:\u2014the feelings, that is, of which right and wrong\nacts and propensities are the appropriate objects;\u2014the feelings of\napprobation and aversion, which recognize merit and demerit, and impel\nto praise and blame. The Necessarian sees, neither in himself nor\nothers, any good or ill desert to justify such feelings: he regards\nnatural and moral qualities in the same light,\u2014contemplating benevolence\nas a species of health, and selfishness as akin to disease: if he utters\ncensure or applause, it is not _from_ an impulse in himself, but _for_\nan effect upon their object. In his love to men moral distinctions have\nno place; for as their sins justify no alienation, their virtues give no\nclaim to admiration: he loves them apart from the perceptions of\nconscience,\u2014without veneration,\u2014without praise,\u2014by the mere force of the\nsympathies which take interest in sentient beings as capable of\nhappiness and misery:\u2014loves them, may we not say, because there is no\ncause for hate; resentment, impatience, disgust, being out of place\ntowards creatures who are what they were meant to be, nothing remains\nbut to include them in his complacency. Nor does the _humility_ which\nthis system inculcates, bear the true and Christian stamp. It is not the\nirrepressible aspiration after moral perfection, the pursuit of an image\nin the conscience infinitely beautiful and great, the devoted worship of\nthe holy, good, and true, which draw forth tears of contrition for the\npast, and dwarf the attainments of the present, though reckoning their\nthousand victories; but it is rather a sense of physical and mental\ninsignificance, which annihilates all worth except such as we may derive\nfrom sharing the regards of God: it is not a perception of want of merit\nin our character, but a consciousness of incapacity for it in our\nnature.\n\nAnd who could fairly realize the fundamental idea of this scheme,\nwithout losing all confidence in his own moral convictions, and\nconstantly distrusting his best feelings as delusions? For does he not\nbelieve, that whatever is brought to pass is absolutely right and best,\nand that any different view of it is an illusion incident to our human\npoint of sight? The optimist casts his eye over the past, and can see no\nblot upon the retrospect: yet does it contain innumerable things,\u2014woes\nand crimes the most deplorable,\u2014which, ere they happened, were repugnant\nto his worthiest desires, and to be encountered by the most strenuous\nresistance of duty. Is he then to look at these objects, up to the last\nmoment of the present, as utterly evil; and from the first moment of the\npast, as indisputably best? Is he to set up a two-faced sentiment,\ngazing with mutable and discriminative expression on things approaching,\nbut with unvaried complacency on things departed? Is it possible, that\nactions and characters can change their complexion by mere migration in\ntime? or was it altogether a mistake to think so ill of the iniquities\nwhich, having been summoned into existence, must always have appeared\neligible in the view of God? These perplexities must perpetually arise\nto a mind which uses _two_ standards of good; the _moral_, which\napproves the _right_; and the _eventual_, which reveres the _past_. The\nlatter incessantly contradicts the former, and insinuates that it is a\nblind guide, aiming at that which the All-wise will refuses to achieve.\nAnd thus our theorist, _in so far as he is true to his principles_,\nwould lapse into scepticism of his moral judgments; into a hesitating\nveneration for the oracles of duty; a suspicion that they may inculcate\nprovisional superstitions, rather than eternal truths. It must be\ndifficult to unite pious acquiescence in the guilt of others, with\nuncompromising resistance to our own.\n\nIn short, the contemplations presented by this doctrine do not appear to\nbe favourable to _active_ excellence: rising too far, and embracing too\nmuch, they quit the contact of this green earth, and lose sight of the\ninterval between the quiet vales where virtue walks, and the giddy\nheights it may not tread. The soul, rendered conscious more of the\nimmensity around it, than of the obligations upon it, lies still,\nwithout a passion, without a fear,\u2014venturing an approach to the\nbenignity more than to the energy of God. Perhaps it is the tendency of\nall systems which most amply spread forth the Divine Infinitude, to be\nless occupied with the conception of the Divine Holiness: perhaps the\nmind intensely occupied with the idea of one solitary Power, absorbing\nall subordinate agencies, and willing every change that renders space or\ntime perceptible, has all its strongest impulses, both moral and\nsympathetic, suppressed in the abyss of mystery; and the distinction\nbetween different beings and different acts appears, in so vast a view,\ntoo trivial to be worthy of deep emotion and resolute volition. Certain\nit is, that the oriental religions which have encouraged this sublimity\nof devotion and self-annihilation in the Deity, have not been remarkable\nfor the formation of a sound and vigorous type of moral character.\nIndeed we have seen that God himself, the supreme centre of reverence,\nno longer remains, under the Necessarian representation, a really _holy_\nobject of thought. If we are to admit no possibility of resisting his\nwill, and proclaiming him the Only Cause, to drown all other powers in\nhis immensity, it becomes impossible to feel that he has any paramount\nregard to moral distinctions: he cannot share our feelings towards human\nguilt, for it is his work: he objects to no amount of vice, provided it\nissues in enjoyment: and not one libertine, or traitor, or murderer,\ncould his purposes have spared. To reconcile us to this dreadful\nthought, we are reminded of his benevolence, which will bring all things\nto a glorious result. But how can we discern any sanctity in a\nbenevolence so indiscriminating in its instruments? Must all our various\napprehensions of God, the supremely good and supremely fair, shrink into\nthis one, of ultimate-happiness Maker, by no means fastidious in his\napplication of means, but secure of producing the end? Must the harmony\nof the Divine perfections lapse into this dull monotone? It can hardly\nbe well for our conscience to worship a Being whom we could not imitate\nwithout guilt: or, if it be said, that we may imitate his ultimate aim,\nthough not his intermediate methods,\u2014what is this but to admit that our\nmoral sympathies with him must be postponed to the end of time?\n\nThis system, then, like others which trace sin to causes beyond the\nindividual will, does not appear to foster that deep reverence for moral\ndistinctions, and sense of personal responsibility, which eminently\ncharacterize practical Christianity. It is favourable indeed to the\npassive virtues, which occupy their due place in the morality of the\nGospel: but in producing them, appeals to considerations discouraging to\nthe active spirit of moral resistance and moral aggression.\n\nTo all this, however, an objector might urge the following reply:\u2014\u201cHuman\nconduct is not influenced by such considerations as you have supposed.\nIt matters little what men may think about the _origin_ of their guilt,\nif they make no mistake about its _consequences_: let them only be sure\nthat it will be punished in the end, and they may please themselves with\nspeculating about its beginning. Every one will fly an inevitable\nsuffering, whether self-incurred or induced by foreign causes: and if he\nclearly sees the penal sentence, he will shun the sin, just as much when\nhe imagines that others have involved him in it, as when he conceives\nthat he alone has brought it on himself. In short, the will neither is\nnor can be determined by anything but the prospect of pleasure or pain;\nand so long as consequences of this kind depend on his decisions, a man\nwill feel himself accountable. The sense of responsibility can never be\nweakened by any system which, like those just noticed, retain the\ndoctrine of future retribution.\u201d\n\nThis statement assumes that self-regarding motives, promises of\nhappiness, and threats of misery, are the sole powers for operating on\nhuman character.\n\n(2.) In reply, I submit as a second distinguishing feature of practical\nChristianity, that it makes no great, certainly no exclusive, appeal to\nthe _prudential feelings_, as instruments of duty; treats them as\nmorally incapable of so sacred a work; and relies, chiefly and\ncharacteristically, on affections of the heart, which no motives of\nreward and punishment can have the smallest tendency to excite.\n\nThe Gospel, indeed, like all things divine, is unsystematic and unbound\nby technical distinctions, and makes no metaphysical separation between\nthe will and the affections. It is too profoundly adapted to our nature,\nnot to address itself copiously to both. The doctrine of retribution\nbeing a solemn truth, appears with all its native force in the teachings\nof Christ, and arms many of his appeals with a persuasion just and\nterrible. But never was there a religion (containing these motives at\nall) so frugal in the use of them; so able, on fit occasions, to\ndispense with them: so rich in those inimitable touches of moral beauty,\nand tones that penetrate the conscience, and generous trust in the\nbetter sympathies, which distinguish a morality of the affections. In\nChrist himself, where is there a trace of the obedience of pious\nself-interest, computing its everlasting gains, and making out a case\nfor compensation, by submitting to infinite wisdom? In his character,\nwhich is the impersonation of his religion, we surely have a perfect\nimage of spontaneous goodness, unhaunted by the idea of personal\nenjoyment, and, like that of God, unbidden but by the intuitions of\nconscience, and the impulses of love. And what teacher less divine ever\nmade such high and bold demands on our disinterestedness? To lend out\nour virtue upon interest,\u2014to \u201clove them only who love us\u201d he pronounced\nto be the sinners\u2019 morality; nor was the feeling of duty ever reached,\nbut by those who could \u201cdo good, hoping for _nothing_ again,\u201d except\nthat greatest of rewards to a true and faithful heart, to be \u201cthe\nchildren of the Highest\u201d who \u201cis kind unto the unthankful and the evil.\u201d\nIn the view of Jesus, all dealings between God and men were not of\nbargain, but of affection. We must surrender ourselves to him without\nterms; must be ashamed to doubt him who feeds the birds of the air, and,\nlike the lily of the field, look up to him with a bright and loving eye;\nand he, for our much love, will pity and forgive us. In his own\nministry, how much less did our Lord rely for disciples on the cogency\nof mere proof, and the inducements of hope and fear, than on the power\nof moral sympathy, by which every one that was of God naturally loved\nhim and heard his words;[568] by which the good shepherd knew his sheep,\nand they listened to his voice, and followed him;[569] and without which\nno man could come unto him, for no spirit of the Father drew him.[570]\nNo condition of discipleship did Christ impose, save that of \u201cfaith in\nhim;\u201d absolute trust in the spirit of his mind; a desire of\nself-abandonment to a love and fidelity like his, without tampering with\nexpediency, or hesitancy in peril, or shrinking from death.\n\nThere is, then, a wide variance between the genius of Christianity, and\nthat philosophy which teaches, that all men must be bought over to the\nside of goodness and of God, by a price suited to their particular form\nof selfishness and appetite for pleasure. Our religion is remarkable for\nthe large confidence it reposes on the disinterested affections, and the\nvast proportion of the work of life it consigns to them. And in thus\nseeking to subordinate and tranquillize the prudential feelings, Christ\nmanifested how well he knew what was in man. He recognized the truth,\nwhich all experience declares, that in these emotions is nothing great,\nnothing loveable, nothing powerful; that their energy is perpetually\nfound incapable of withstanding the impetuosity of passion; and that all\ntranscendant virtues, all that brings us to tremble or to kneel, all the\nenterprises and conflicts which dignify history, and have stamped any\nnew feature on human life, have had their origin in the disinterested\nregion of the mind; in affections, unconsciously entranced by some\nobject sanctifying and divine. He knew, for it was his special mission\nto make all men feel, that it is the office of true religion to cleanse\nthe sanctuary of the secret affections, and effect a regeneration of the\nheart. And this is a task which no direct _nisus_ of the will can\npossibly accomplish, and to which, therefore, all offers of reward and\npunishment, operating only on the will, are quite inapplicable. The\nsingle function of volition is _to act_; over the executive part of our\nnature it is supreme; over the emotional it is powerless; and all the\nwrestlings of desire for self-cure and self-elevation, are like the\nstruggles of a child to lift himself. He who is anxious to be a\nphilanthropist, is admiring benevolence, instead of loving men; and\nwhoever is labouring to warm his devotion, yearns after piety, not after\nGod. The mind can by no spasmodic bound seize on a new height of\nemotion, or change the light in which objects appear before its view.\nPersuade the judgment, bribe the self-interests, terrify the\nexpectations, as you will, you can neither dislodge a favourite, nor\nenthrone a stranger, in the heart. Show me a child that flings an\naffectionate arm around a parent, and lights up his eyes beneath her\nface, and I know that there have been no lectures there upon filial\nlove; but that the mother, being loveable, has _of necessity_ been\nloved; for to genial minds it is as impossible to withhold a pure\naffection, when its object is presented, as for the flower to sulk\nwithin the mould, and clasp itself tight within the bud, when the gentle\nforce of spring invites its petals to curl out into the warm light. As\nyou reverence all good affections of our nature, and desire to awaken\nthem, never call them duties, though they be so; for so doing, you\naddress yourself to the will; and by hard trying no attachment ever\nentered the heart. Never preach on their great desirableness and\npropriety; for so doing, you ask audience of the judgment; and by way of\nthe understanding no glow of noble passion ever came. Never, above all,\nreckon up their balance of good and ill; for so doing, you exhort\nself-interest; and by that soiled way no true love will consent to pass.\nNay, never talk of them, nor even gaze curiously at them; for if they be\nof any worth and delicacy, they will be instantly looked out of\ncountenance and fly. Nothing worthy of human veneration will condescend\nto be embraced, but for its own sake: grasp it for its excellent\nresults,\u2014make but the faintest offer to use it as a tool, and it slips\naway at the very conception of such insult. The functions of a healthy\nbody go on, not by knowledge of physiology, but by the instinctive\nvigour of nature; and you will no more brace the spiritual faculties to\nnoble energy and true life, by study of the uses of every feeling, than\nyou can train an athlete for the race, by lectures on every muscle of\nevery limb. The mind is not voluntarily active in the acquisition of any\ngreat idea, any new inspiration of faith; but passive, fixed on the\nobject which has dawned upon it, and filled it with fresh light.\n\nIf this be true, and if it be the object of practical Christianity, not\nonly to direct our hands aright, but to inspire our hearts; then can its\nends never be achieved by the mere force of reward and punishment; then\nno system can prove its sufficiency, by showing that it retains the\ndoctrine of retribution, and must even be held convicted of moral\nincompetency, if it trusts the conscience mainly to the prudential\nfeelings, without due provision for enlisting the co-operation of many a\ndisinterested affection.\n\nTo this objection must any scheme be liable, which represents the\nCreator as having made choice of the instrumentality of evil. I freely\nadmit, that no one urges the _personal_ motives to duty with more\ncloseness and force than the Necessarian. Maintaining, with the utmost\nstrictness, the connexion of moral cause and effect, teaching the\nalliance of happiness with excellence, and of misery with vice, by a law\ninexorable as fate, he convinces us, that every concession to\ntemptation, every relaxation of conscientious effort, is an addition of\nwretchedness to our future lot; that when the evil volition has once\npassed, no fortuity can provide evasion, nor any mercy give us shelter;\nthat on the decisions of our will is suspended whatever can make our\neverlasting destination blessed. But his doctrine goes on to assure us,\nthat it is only to ourselves that our sins create any clear increase of\nsuffering; they are a part of the best possible system, designed for the\ngeneral good; and shown, by their occurrence, to be clear benefits to\nthe world. No love of our fellow-man, then, can be engaged in behalf of\nduty; let conscience say what it will, we hold no power, and incur no\nrisk, of creating injury to others; and our sympathies with them cannot\nreasonably determine any moral choice. No love of God can tender help to\nour feeble virtue: for he is not \u201cgrieved in our sins;\u201d and whether, in\nour conflicts, we succumb or conquer, the issue is well-pleasing in his\nsight. He appears to sustain a relation, not of concern, but of\nindifference, to our choice; and the idea of him, as spectator of the\nstrife, inspires no courage, and brings no victory. If it be urged, that\nthese considerations are of too high and abstract a kind to influence us\nin practice, and that to us our misconduct must always appear injurious\nto men, and offensive to God; what is this but to allow the unfitness of\nthe doctrine to our minds, and to say, that it is harmless, in\nproportion as it remains unrealized? It is a poor plea for the value of\na system to exclaim, \u201cNever mind its threatened mischiefs, conscience is\ntoo strong for them.\u201d The point at which the present argument rests is\nthis, that _in so far as the doctrine operates_, it dismisses all but\nthe prudential feelings from the service of duty.\n\nOur conclusion is evident. The spirit of practical Christianity gives a\ndouble suffrage against the scheme which makes moral evil the\n_instrument_ of God; and bids us regard it as his _enemy_. Revelation\nallies itself with the primitive religion of the conscience.\n\nTo the theoretic question, still urged by our wonder and solicitude,\n\u201cBut _whence_ this foe?\u201d it has been already said, that no answer can be\ngiven. All the ingenuities of logic and of language, leave it a mystery\nstill: and it is better to stand within the darkness in the quietude of\nfaith, than vainly to search for its margin in the restlessness of\nknowledge. Were we compelled, for relief of mind, to select _some_\ndefinite method of representing the case to our apprehensions, I know\nnot any simpler or better conception than that of the ancient\nPlatonists;\u2014that the process of creation consisted, not in the\norigination of matter itself out of nothing, but in the production of\nform, order, beauty, organization, life, sentiency, out of matter,\u2014in\nmaking it the residence of mind, the receptacle of experience, and the\nservitor of souls: that the Divine hand has manifested illimitable\nskill, and the Divine love infinite versatility, in the use and\napplication of the original material; but that, as it is the negative\nopposite to his positive perfections, its unsusceptibility of life and\nspirit has occasioned the portion of evil which deforms the universe,\nand which, however varied and reduced, and, in the higher gradations of\nbeing, attenuated to the verge of extinction, cannot be utterly\nannihilated. From the large proportion of visible evil, natural and\nmoral, that is traceable to disorganization and its related changes,\nthis view is easily apprehended, and may indeed be detected, in many\ncommon forms of thought and speech. If it be not true, no better\nsubstitute for the truth is within our reach. It limits the power of God\nno more than the rival scheme: for were we to say, that he became the\nauthor of evil, as the _unavoidable_ means of ulterior benefits, we\nshould admit, that _only on these terms_ was the contemplated good\nproducible, even by him whom, in relation to all our measures of force,\nwe justly call Omnipotent. It is impossible to escape, and therefore\nbetter to confront, the idea of a NECESSITY, restricting the conditions\nwithin which the Divine goodness operates;\u2014a necessity, mysterious, but\nnot dreadful; not great enough to be subversive of faith, nor trivial\nenough to be reasoned out of sight. I know not why our thoughts should\nnot find a residence for this necessity, rather in the materials\nawaiting the Creative hand, than in any immaterial laws, under the\nmystic title of \u201cthe Nature of things,\u201d or (in other words,) any dark\nFate behind the throne. But in saying this, I only propose to _state the\nproblem_ in the most salutary form, and by no means to offer a solution:\nmere pretension to ideas, where truly we have none, only excludes us\nfrom the benefits (which are many) of our allotted portion of ignorance.\nI have no sympathy with the confident and dogmatic spirit, which\nexclaims, \u201cLet the counsel of the Holy One draw nigh, that we may know\nit;\u201d and would only protest against systems that \u201ccall evil good, and\ngood evil,\u201d that \u201cput bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.\u201d\n\nSin, then, in the sight of God and all good men, is to be esteemed an\nevil, absolutely and everlastingly. We may rally the _whole_ power of\nour nature against it: for it destroys our personal security; it\nirremediably wounds our brother; and it puts us in dreary alienation\nfrom our Father and our Judge. We may let loose our aversion to all that\noffends the conscience, and without metaphysical hesitancy, visit it\nwith uncompromising hate; for so doing, we are indignant with no\ninstrument of Deity; nor do we fall into any sentiment at variance with\nhis. We may yield, with entire self-precipitation, to the love of\nwhatever things are pure and true and good; never fearing that our\naffections will become too exclusive for the enlightened children of the\nHighest. When we look into the darker chambers of our soul, and discern,\nasleep or awake, the powers of selfishness, malice, jealousy,\u2014we see\ntherein no nursery of discipline, where God presides to train us\nultimately well; but the dreadful dwelling of our familiar fiend who\nwrestles in apostacy with God;\u2014the palace of the penal furies that at\nonce tempt and torture us, a place severed by a whole universe from\nHeaven;\u2014the inner Hell of our immortal nature, so plenteous in solitary\nagonies, that the addition of outward flames populous with tormented\nbeings would only refresh us with pity for their woes. The fever of\ndesire, the fires of revenge, the gnawing of remorse, still busy in our\nimmortality; the shame of resuscitated memories; the passionate yearning\nafter strength with the prostrate consciousness of weakness; the\nstrangeness and desolation of empty minds and heated appetites carried\nto the assemblage of the skies, and gazed on by the pitying eye of a\nDivine but alienated purity,\u2014Oh! what flames can burn into tenderer\nseats of anguish than these? And so far from planning and willing the\nlapse of any into such guilt and suffering, the Great Ruler never ceases\nto resist to the last, all such delay of his benediction and frustration\nof his desire. He dwells absolutely apart from all creative contact with\nthe evil which we are bound to abhor: he comes before us as a being\nunambiguously Holy; not in any ultimate and scarce intelligible way, but\nin our plain human sense. His name must be reserved as the exclusive\nreceptacle of all the excellence and beauty, the majesty and tenderness,\nthe purity and justice, of which our minds can gather together the\nideas. It is no figure of speech, that there is _joy in heaven_ over the\nsinner that repenteth: that part at least of heaven that dwells below\nand hides itself within our hearts, that portion of God that expresses\nitself through the sanctities of our nature, yields to our moral\nrestoration not only a ready welcome, but a mysterious help. When fear\nhas performed its proper and only function on a responsible being,\u2014which\nis, not to create holiness, but to arrest guilt; when it has summoned\nus, like the prodigal, to ourselves again; when it has brought the mad\ncareer to halt, and left us weeping, humbled, prostrate in the dust,\ncrying, \u201cLord, help us, we perish;\u201d\u2014then the Divine Spirit dawns on the\ngloom of our self-abasement, and refreshes us with the delicious light\nof a new and purer love: instead of the vain strivings of an enervated\nwill, the restless beating of mere prudence against the iron bars of\ncorrupt desire, the gates of the soul are burst silently open by some\nangel affection, and we are free! And shall we not, with most devout\nallegiance, follow our Divine Emancipator? The great work, which his\nholy energy is thus ready to carry on within us, he may be discerned\nconducting every where without us. On the theatre of the universe he is\nhimself engaged to grapple eternally with Evil, and hurl it from the\nhigher portion of his abode. And so, he waits, with his inspiring\nsympathy, to hail every victory of our free-will: and by all the filial\nlove we bear him, by the generous fear of estrangement from his spirit,\nby the hope of growth in his similitude, we are summoned to enter the\nfield of moral conflict,\u2014to stir up the noble courage of our hearts, and\nin the Lord\u2019s own might, do battle with the confederate fiends of guilt\nand woe. There is not elsewhere a combat so glorious, or a trophy so\ndivine.\n\n NOTES.\n\n ---------------------\n\n A.\n\n _Origin of the Doctrine of Two Principles._\n\nThe prominent place which the doctrine of two principles occupies in the\nlater theology of the Persians has procured for that people the\nreputation of being the first to apprehend it; and for Zoroaster the\ncredit of assigning to it its due importance in the religious\nreformation which he accomplished. So much doubt, however, exists,\nrespecting the age in which Zoroaster lived, the nature and extent of\nthe change which he introduced, and even on the question whether he\nreally taught the dualistic scheme at all, that he cannot justly deprive\nthe Ionian philosophers of a claim to originality in their resort to it.\nIf either before the Persian conquest of the Medes, or in the time of\nDarius Hystaspes, this doctrine had been entrusted to the Magi, as\nconservators of the national religion, it is difficult to account for\nthe omission of so fundamental a tenet in the account which Herodotus\ngives of the Persian theology. The simple monotheism which the Father of\nHistory describes, as seeking the mountain top in sacrifice, and calling\nthe whole circle of the heavens God,[571] can scarcely be the same with\nthe elaborate system of dualism, attributed by Plutarch to Zoroaster and\nthe Magi;[572] and the difference between the two accounts throws a\ndoubt on the antiquity of the latter doctrine in the East. Yet, on the\nother hand, if we assign to it the most recent date of which the case\nadmits, we must allow that it formed part of the _popular belief_ in the\nfourth century before Christ; in which case, it must have existed, at\nleast in its previous _philosophical_ _form_, in the fifth. A doctrine,\nhowever, which had not yet assumed a mythological character, or drawn to\nitself any external ceremonial, might easily escape the notice of\nHerodotus. The Indian books, which contain the same tenet, are thought\nby Friedrich von Schlegel to have borrowed it from Persia;[573] and\ncannot therefore be adduced in separate proof of its high antiquity. On\nthe whole, there appears to be no evidence of its propagation among any\nnative Oriental people, before the brilliant period of art and\nphilosophy in the Greek cities of Asia Minor.\n\nEven if it should be chronologically incorrect to affirm, that Ionian\nspeculation \u201canticipated\u201d the oriental religions in their theological\nand philosophical ideas, there is no sufficient reason to deny its\nindependence and originality. Though the Greek schools did not arise\ntill an opening intercourse with Egypt and the interior of Asia afforded\nto their founders the _opportunity_ of borrowing from foreign sources,\nit does not appear that they estimated this advantage highly enough to\navail themselves of it. Only a truly indigenous philosophy could have\nleft such distinct traces of a regular and progressive development,\nbeginning with the poetical cosmogonies of a purely mythological \u00e6ra,\nand growing, under the fostering care of successive teachers, into vast\nspeculative systems, bearing a relation, continually more obscure and\nquestionable, to the theology which gave them birth. Adverting to this\nnatural process, Mr. Thirlwall says: \u201cIt can excite no surprise that in\na period such as we are now reviewing, when thought and inquiry were\nstimulated in so many new directions, some active minds should have been\nattracted by the secrets of nature, and should have been led to grapple\nwith some of the great questions which the contemplation of the visible\nuniverse suggests. There can therefore be no need of attempting to trace\nthe impulse by which the Greeks were now carried toward such researches,\nto a foreign origin. But it is an opinion which has found many\nadvocates, that they were indebted to their widening intercourse with\nother nations, particularly with Egypt, Ph\u0153nicia, and the interior of\nAsia, for several of the views and doctrines which were fundamental or\nprominent parts of their earlier philosophical systems. The result,\nhowever, of the maturest investigation, seems to show that there is no\nsufficient ground even for this conjecture.[574] On the other hand, it\nis clear that the first philosophers were not wholly independent of the\nearlier intellectual efforts of their own countrymen, and that, perhaps\nunconsciously, they derived the form, if not, in part at least, the\nsubstance of their speculations, from the old theogonies and\ncosmogonies.[575]\n\nThe successive evolutions of the Pantheistic principle, and its final\nrenunciation by Anaxagoras, are thus succinctly described by Mr.\nThirlwall: \u201cThales evolved his world out of a single simple substance,\n(_water_) to which he attributed the power of passing spontaneously\nthrough the various transformations necessary for the multiplicity of\nnatural productions. But he does not seem to have attempted accurately\nto define the nature of these transformations. And so most of his\nsuccessors, who set out from a similar hypothesis, contented themselves\nwith some vague notions, or phrases, about the successive expansions or\ncontractions of the original substance. But as the contemplation of\nanimal life had led Anaximenes to adopt _air_ as the basis of his\nsystem, a later philosopher, Diogenes of Apollonia, carried this analogy\na step further, and regarded the universe as issuing from an intelligent\nprinciple, by which it was at once vivified and ordered\u2014a rational, as\nwell as sensitive soul\u2014still without recognizing any distinction between\nmatter and mind. Much earlier, however, Anaximander of Miletus, who\nflourished not long after Thales, and is generally considered as his\nimmediate disciple, seems to have been struck by the difficulty of\naccounting for the changes which a simple substance must be supposed to\nundergo, in order to produce an infinite variety of beings. He found it\neasier, in conformity with some of the ancient cosmogonies, to conceive\nthe primitive state of the universe as a vast chaos, for which he had no\nother name than the infinite,\u2014containing all the elements out of which\nthe world was to be constructed, by a process of separation and\ncombination, which, however, he considered as the result of a motion,\nnot impressed on it from without, but inherent in the mass. This\nhypothesis, which tended to give an entirely new direction to the\nspeculations of the school, seems to have been treated with a neglect\nwhich it is difficult to explain, and which has raised a suspicion that\nsome less celebrated names may have dropped out of the list of the\nIonian philosophers. But a century after Anaximander, Anaxagoras of\nClazomen\u00e6 revived his doctrine with some very fanciful additions, and\none very important change. He combined the principle of Anaximander with\nthat of his contemporary Diogenes, and acknowledged a supreme mind,\ndistinct from the chaos to which it imparted motion, form, and order.\nThe Pantheistic systems of the Ionian school were only independent of\nthe popular creed, and did not exclude it. The language of Thales and\nHeraclitus, who declared that the universe was full of gods, left room\nfor all the fictions of the received mythology, and might even add new\nfervour to the superstition of the vulgar. But the system of Anaxagoras\nseems to have been felt to be almost irreconcilable with the prevailing\nopinions, and hence, as we shall find, drew upon him hatred and\npersecution.\u201d[576]\n\nIn confirmation of the opinions expressed towards the close of this\nLecture, I cannot refrain from subjoining the following moral estimate\nof the doctrine of two principles: it is from F. von Schlegel\u2019s\nTreatise, before alluded to, on the Language and Wisdom of the Indians.\n\u201cPantheism inevitably destroys the distinction between good and evil,\nhowever strenuously its advocates may contend in words against this\nreproach; the doctrine of emanation depresses the moral freedom of the\nwill by the idea of an infinite degree of innate guilt, and the belief\nthat every being is predestined to crime and misery; the system of two\nprinciples, and the warfare between good and evil, holds the middle\nplace between these extremes: it becomes, itself, a powerful incentive\nto a similar contest, and a source of the purest morality.\u201d[577]\n\n B.\n\n _Hebrew Names for the Evil Spirit._\n\nThe mere fact, that no proper names for the Evil Spirit exist in the\nHebrew language, except such as are of Apocryphal or Rabbinical\ncreation, is in itself a sufficient proof of the late and unscriptural\norigin of the belief in his existence. A glance at an English\nconcordance will make it evident, that the word \u201cDevil,\u201d in the singular\nnumber, does not occur in our authorized translation of the Hebrew\nScriptures. It is found in the plural in Lev. xvii. 7, 2 Chron. xi. 15,\nDeut. xxxii. 17, Ps. cvi. 37; and in none of these instances can it for\na moment be supposed that the original word, if used in the singular,\nwould represent any idea corresponding to the popular notion of the\nDevil; indeed, when the Rabbinical writers needed a name for the\nexpression of this idea, they had recourse to other terms than those\nwhich are found in the verses just cited. In the two latter passages,\nthe Hebrew word is \u05e9\u05c1\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd, literally, _mighty beings_; it clearly denotes\n_false gods_, and probably designates them by the title applied to them\nby their votaries; for the name is evidently not contemptuous, and is\nindeed radically the same which was applied by the Israelites to\nJehovah, and receives in our version the translation _Almighty_. In the\ntwo former passages, the word is \u05e9\u05c2\u05e2\u05d9\u05e8\u05d9\u05dd, literally, _goats_, and\nevidently denotes the heathen deities, typified under the form of that\nanimal; especially, we may suppose, the Egyptian Pan, worshipped in the\nMendesian nome,[578] with rites the most abominable. In Isaiah xiii. 21,\nthe common translation renders the same word _satyrs_.\n\nSeveral names of evil spirits occur in the Talmudical writings: and\namong them are two which are appropriated to the Satanic chief, viz.,\n\u05e1\u05de\u05d0\u05dc, _Samael_; and \u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d3\u05d9, _Asmod\u00e6us_. The latter is the term by which\nthe evil spirit is designated in Tobit iii. 8: and it would be easy to\nshow, by a multitude of passages, that the being to whom both these\nnames were given corresponded to the \u201cDevil\u201d of modern theology, as far\nas correspondence can be affirmed to exist between any two creations of\nthe imagination. Thus we are told, in words which also show the use of\nthe word _Satan_ as a generic rather than a proper name; \u201cThe wicked\nangel Samael is prince of _all the Satans_,\u201d \u05e1\u05de\u05d0\u05dc \u05d4\u05e8\u05e9\u05e2 \u05e8\u05d0\u05e9 \u05db\u05dc \u05d4\u05e9\u05d8\u05e0\u05d9\u05dd\n\u05d4\u05d5\u05d0\u200e.[579] Again, Jehovah is represented as saying to him, under his\ntitle of Angel of Death (\u05de\u05dc\u05d0\u05da \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05ea) \u201cI have made thee Ruler of the\nworld,\u201d \u05e9\u05e2\u05e9\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9 \u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05da \u05e7\u05d5\u05d6\u05de\u05d5\u05e7\u05e8\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8 (\u03ba\u03bf\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03ba\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1).[580] The same supremacy\nis attributed to this being under his other name. Thus it is said, that\nwhen Solomon became too much elated by his prosperity, there was sent to\nhim \u201cAsmod\u00e6us, the Prince of evil spirits,\u201d \u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05d9 \u05de\u05dc\u05db\u05d0 \u05d3\u05e9\u05d3\u05d9\u05dd\u200e.[581] And\nwith slight variation of phrase he is described as \u201cthe devil Asmod\u00e6us,\nthe Prince of Spirits,\u201d \u05e9\u05d9\u05d3\u05d0 \u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d3\u05d5\u05df \u05e8\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05df \u05d3\u05e8\u05d5\u05d7\u05ea\u05d0\u200e\u200e. [582] Buxtorf\nidentifies Samael and Asmod\u00e6us, on the authority of R. Elias; he says,\n\u201cEundem esse _Asmod\u00e6um_, qui alio nomine Rabbinis dicitur\n_Samael_.\u201d[583] And Bertholdt again identifies this being with the enemy\nof the Gospel described in 2 Cor. iv. 4, as \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u1f78\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5;\nand in John xiv. 30, as \u1f41 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c5 [\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5] \u1f04\u03c1\u03c7\u03c9\u03bd: after quoting these\nphrases, he says \u201cApud Targumistas et Rabbinos occurrit sub nomine \u05e1\u05de\u05d0\u05dc\n_Samael_.\u201d[584]\n\nThe idea then of which we are in search, is unquestionably of frequent\noccurrence among the Talmudists. In expressing it they have recourse to\nnew names not found in the Canonical writings. Surely a strong\npresumption arises, that the Hebrew Scriptures did not furnish them with\nthe means of designating the personage about whom they discoursed.\n\n C.\n\n _The parallel Passages in the Epistles of Jude and 2 Peter._\n\nFor the sake of those readers of the English Scriptures who may not have\nnoticed the remarkable similarity between the Epistle of Jude, and the\nsecond chapter of the second Epistle of Peter, I subjoin a comparison of\nthe two. A reference to the Greek Testament will make it evident, that\nthe parallelism is fairly exhibited in our common translation. My\npresent purpose, at least, will be sufficiently answered by taking the\ncitations thence.\n\n 2 Peter ii. Jude.\n\n 1 ... There shall be false teachers 4. For there are certain men crept\n among you, who privily shall bring in unawares, who were before of old\n in damnable heresies, even denying ordained to this condemnation,\n the Lord that bought them, and ungodly men, turning the grace of\n bring upon themselves swift our God into lasciviousness, and\n destruction. denying the only Lord God, and our\n 3. And through covetousness shall Lord Jesus Christ.\n they with feigned words make\n merchandise of you: whose judgment\n now of a long time lingereth not,\n and their damnation slumbereth not.\n\n 4. For if God spared not the angels 6. And the angels which kept not\n that sinned, but cast them down to their first estate, but left their\n hell, and delivered them into own habitation, he hath reserved in\n chains of darkness, to be reserved everlasting chains under darkness\n unto judgment: unto the judgment of the great day.\n\n 6. And turning the cities of Sodom 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and\n and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned the cities about them in like\n them with an overthrow, making them manner, giving themselves over to\n an ensample unto those that after fornication, and going after\n should live ungodly: strange flesh, are set forth for an\n example, suffering the vengeance of\n eternal fire.\n\n 10. But chiefly them that walk 8. Likewise also these filthy\n after the flesh in the lust of dreamers defile the flesh, despise\n uncleanness, and despise dominion, and speak evil of\n government. Presumptuous are they, dignities.\n self-willed, they are not afraid to\n speak evil of dignities.\n\n 11. Whereas angels, which are 9. Yet Michael the archangel, when\n greater in power and might, bring contending with the Devil he\n not railing accusation against them disputed about the body of Moses,\n before the Lord. durst not bring against him a\n railing accusation, but said, The\n Lord rebuke thee.\n\n 12. But these, as natural brute 10. But these speak evil of those\n beasts, made to be taken and things which they know not: but\n destroyed, speak evil of the things what they know naturally, as brute\n that they understand not; and shall beasts, in those things they\n utterly perish in their own corrupt themselves.\n corruption.\n\n 13 ... Spots they are and 12. These are spots in your feasts\n blemishes, sporting themselves with of charity, when they feast with\n their own deceivings while they you, feeding themselves without\n feast with you. fear.\n\n 17. These are wells without water, 12. Clouds they are without water,\n clouds that are carried with a carried about of winds;...\n tempest; to whom the mist of 13. ... Wandering stars, to whom is\n darkness is reserved for ever. reserved the blackness of darkness\n for ever.\n\n 18. For when they speak great 16. These are murmurers,\n swelling words of vanity, they complainers, walking after their\n allure through the lusts of the own lusts; and their mouth speaketh\n flesh, through much wantonness, great swelling words, having men\u2019s\n those that were clean escaped from persons in admiration because of\n them who live in error. advantage.\n\nVery few readers, it is probable, will rise from the examination of this\nparallelism, without the persuasion, that the writings betraying it\ncannot be independent productions; and without amazement at the opinion\nof Lardner, that \u201cthe similitude of the subject might produce,\u201d to such\nextent, \u201ca resemblance of style. The design,\u201d he continues, \u201cof St.\nPeter and St. Jude was to condemn some loose and erroneous Christians,\nand to caution others against them. When speaking of the same sort of\npersons, their style and figures of speech would have a great\nagreement.\u201d[585] Lardner appears to shrink from attributing to the\ninspired St. Jude (supposing him to be the later writer) either\nplagiarism or a needless repetition of instruction.[586] But why should\nhis inspiration deter him from such an act? It rather affords, as\nMichaelis observes, a conclusive reason for ascribing it to him. \u201cFor\nthe Holy Ghost,\u201d this author suggests, \u201ccertainly knew, while he was\ndictating the Epistle to St. Jude, that an Epistle of St. Peter, of a\nlike import, already existed. And if the Holy Ghost, notwithstanding\nthis knowledge, still thought that an Epistle of St. Jude was not\nunnecessary, why shall we suppose that St. Jude himself would have been\nprevented from writing by the same knowledge?\u201d[587] This argument of the\nlearned German certainly renders it unnecessary to _doubt_, with the\nscrupulous Lardner, whether St. Jude would copy from a fellow-labourer\u2019s\nletter: but then, it also renders it unnecessary to _believe_ this: for\nwith the perfect familiarity which the _Holy Ghost_ possessed (\u201cwhile\ndictating\u201d) with the previous epistle of Peter, there was no occasion\nwhatever for _St. Jude_ to have the knowledge too. Indeed so completely\nmight any degree of parallelism be explained in this way, that no\nconceivable phenomena of agreement would furnish the slightest proof\nthat the one writer had seen the production of the other.\n\nFor some inscrutable reasons, however, all the ablest theologians seem\nto have declined this easy solution, by appeal to the memory of the Holy\nGhost; and to have been convinced that some method, simply human, must\nbe sought, to account for the accordance between these two epistles.\nSome have supposed, with Bishop Sherlock, that both authors drew their\nmaterials from a common source, the imagery and phraseology of which\nthey freely used. But as Eichhorn has well observed, \u201cBare conjecture is\nan insufficient support for this supposition; in the absence of all\ntrace of any document giving plausibility to the suggestion, by\ndisclosing a source in common relation with the corresponding passages\nof the two epistles.\u201d[588] If this explanation be untenable, nothing\nremains but to conclude that one of the writers copied from the other;\nand this, accordingly, has been the general opinion of theologians.\nThis, however, is the only point on which critics are agreed: for when\nthe question is proposed, whether St. Peter or St. Jude were the\noriginal writer, it is curious to observe the confidence with which each\nof the two answers may be returned, and the opposite views which may be\ntaken of the considerations affecting the decision. In the absence of\nall external evidence, the intrinsic character of the two compositions\nmust determine our reply: and the chief impression which results from a\ncomparison of them is, that St. Jude has expressed his ideas with more\nsuccinctness and unity; St. Peter with more vagueness and amplification.\nAppealing to this circumstance, Dr. Hug says, \u201cthe critic cannot fail to\nperceive which was the original;\u201d \u201cit is evident that the passages of\nPeter are periphrases and amplifications;\u201d \u201cthe _originality of Jude is\nclear_ from the comparison of both authors, and especially from the\nlanguage;\u201d \u201cPeter had, therefore, the Epistle of Jude before him, and in\nhis own manner applied it to his purposes.\u201d[589] Michaelis, however,\u2014who\nrejects the Epistle of Jude, and says that, \u201cjudging by its contents,\u201d\nwe \u201chave no inducement to believe it a sacred and divine work,\u201d\u2014ventures\non the following confident statements: \u201cNo doubt can be made, that the\nsecond Epistle of St. Peter was, in respect to the Epistle of St. Jude,\nthe original and not the copy:\u201d \u201cwith respect to the date of this\n(Jude\u2019s) Epistle, _all that I am able to assert_ is, that it was written\n_after_ the second Epistle of St. Peter;\u201d \u201cthis appears from a\ncomparison of the two, which are so similar to each other both in\nsentiments and in expressions, as no two epistles could well be, unless\nthe author of the one had read the epistle of the other. It is evident\ntherefore that St. Jude borrowed from St. Peter both expressions and\narguments, to which he himself has made some few additions.\u201d[590]\n\nAfter reading these positive statements on either side, we are struck\nwith the justice of the following remark of Eichhorn\u2019s: referring to the\ndifferences between the two epistles in respect to their style, he says:\n\u201cThese phenomena admit of a twofold explanation. Peter might be regarded\nas the original and Jude as the copy; inasmuch as, in the process of\nrevision, a writing may become more perfect in the expression and\ndisposition of the ideas: the superfluities will naturally be\nretrenched, the march of the thoughts become quicker, the diction more\nchoice; the copyist having the matter all before him, and being able to\ndirect his attention exclusively to the form which it shall assume. But\nwith just as much truth we might turn round and say,\u2014Jude was the\noriginal, whom Peter illustrated, amplified, and paraphrased. In the\nprocess, the style lost its unity, its compactness, its clear outline:\nthe paraphrast interrupted the succession of thoughts with several\nforeign ideas; and the exposition of the subject thus became more\nobscure, prolix, and disorderly. Who can decide between these two\npossibilities?\u201d\n\nThis acute author does not, however, consider the problem of impossible\nsolution. The suspense in which its difficulty holds us, continues, he\nobserves, \u201conly so long as we confine ourselves merely to a mutual\ncomparison of the parallel passages. If we look at them in their\nrelation to the whole of St. Peter\u2019s second epistle, we find a reason\nfor concluding that Jude is original, Peter the copyist. The author of\nthe _second chapter_ of Peter does not stand, as a writer, on his own\nground: if he did, his mode of writing would be the same as in the\n_first and third chapters_, which, however, is not the case. It is clear\nthat we cannot apply to Jude this test of originality, derived from\nconsistency of style; for we possess no other composition of his, with\nwhich to compare his epistle. Yet there is a compactness and unity in\nhis writing, from which its independent character may be inferred.\nWhoever is content to take up the thoughts of others, yet not without\nintroducing something of his own, is easily drawn aside by accessory\nideas; by which the definite outline of a composition is lost. This is\nby no means the case in the epistle of Jude.\u201d[591]\n\nIt is generally admitted, then, that these two productions, as far as\ntheir topics coincide, constitute but one authority: and we shall\nfollow, I think, the most judicious criticism, if we assign that\nauthority, whatever it may be, to the epistle of Jude. Whence, then, did\nhe derive his knowledge of such circumstances as those which are\nmentioned in the sixth and ninth verses, respecting \u201cthe angels which\nkept not their first estate,\u201d and \u201cMichael the archangel contending with\nthe Devil\u201d \u201cabout the body of Moses?\u201d There are but three supposable\nsources; immediate personal inspiration; the Hebrew Scriptures; or some\nnon-canonical and unauthoritative work.\n\nThe first of these suppositions I do not find to be maintained by any\ncreditable theological writer; and it may be dismissed with the\nfollowing remarks of Michaelis:\u2014\u201cThe dispute between Michael and the\nDevil about the body of Moses, has by no means the appearance of a true\nhistory: and the author of our epistle has not even hinted that he knew\nit to be true by the aid of Divine inspiration, or that he distinguished\nit from other Jewish traditions. On the contrary, he has introduced it\nas part of a story, with which his readers were already acquainted: he\ndoes not appear to have had any other authority for it, than they\nthemselves had: nor does the part which he has quoted at all imply,\neither that he himself doubted, or that he wished his readers should\ndoubt, of the other parts of it.\u201d[592]\n\nThe second supposition, that the writer makes no allusion, on these\npoints of celestial history, to any thing beyond the Old Testament, is\nso universally regarded as untenable, that even Lardner\u2019s great\nauthority will hardly avail to procure it any further attention. In what\npart of the Hebrew Scriptures St. Jude obtained his information\nrespecting the fallen angels, Lardner, while deploring a like omission\non the part of his predecessors, has neglected to explain. And when, in\norder to connect the story of Michael and the Devil with Zach. iii. 1-3,\nhe is obliged to construe \u201c_the body of Moses_,\u201d into _the Israelitish\npeople_, it surely becomes evident that the consideration of this\npassage never fully engaged his incomparable judgment.[593] Happily,\nLardner\u2019s is a reputation of which there is no need to be economical:\nand even theological opponents cannot apply to him the description\nwhich, with some truth and more severity, they have given of Mr.\nWakefield, as a \u201cscholar, who was great among Unitarians, but not among\nscholars:\u201d\u2014\n\n \u201cQuem bis terque bonum cum risu miror; et idem\n Indignor, quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus?\u201d\n\nThere remains, then, but the third supposition, that St. Jude derived\nthese notices of the supernatural world from some apocryphal and\ntraditional work. And we need the less scruple to admit this, as he\nhimself intimates the fact, in the fourteenth verse, where he refers to\nthe _Book of Enoch_. This work professes to be extant in the \u00c6thiopic\nlanguage; and the copies of it contain the passage cited by St. Jude:\nand whatever doubts may attach to Bishop Lawrance\u2019s opinion, that we\nhave it substantially as it was originally written shortly before the\ntime of Christ, the citations from the \u201cBook of Enoch,\u201d by Syncellus,\nand the references to it by both Greek and Latin Fathers, are too\nnumerous and ancient, to leave it questionable that such a work existed,\nand was in use not long after the Christian era, and probably before.\nHug gives this account of it:\u2014\u201cThe Book of Enoch, in fact, was full of\nJewish, Theurgical, and Magical reveries, as indeed the character of the\nperson, to whom this writing was ascribed, required it to be. According\nto Eupolemus, he is said to have been the inventor of Astrology, or\nrather a scholar of the Angels in this science, who initiated him into\nthe mysteries of it; for he had at one time obtained a mission to the\nAngels, on which occasion he probably received their instruction. But it\ndid not suffice, that he was acquainted with the course of the planets,\nthe position of the Heavens, and their signification; but he likewise,\nas the Jews and other Easterns maintained, learned in addition from the\nheavenly natures, the art of prognostication, characters, offerings,\npurifications, lustrations, and other things of this description, which\nhe imparted to mankind. According to these ideas, which were entertained\nof him far and wide among Jews, Arabians, and others, we can easily\ndetermine, to what sort of literature his writings must belong. The\nremains of it, which we find in the Church-Fathers also, do not deceive\nthis expectation.\u201d[594]\n\nThough this is the only Apocryphal production to which St. Jude refers\nby name, Origen informs us, in a passage already cited, that the\nadventure between Michael and the Devil was taken from a work entitled\n\u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 or \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2. \u201cFrom a comparison of the relation in\nthis book with St. Jude\u2019s quotation,\u201d says Michaelis, \u201che was thoroughly\npersuaded, that it was the book from which St. Jude quoted. This he\nasserts without the least hesitation: and in consequence of this\npersuasion, he himself has quoted the Assumption of Moses, as a work of\nauthority, in proof of the temptation of Adam and Eve by the Devil. But\nas he has quoted it merely for this purpose, he has given us only an\nimperfect account of what this book contained, relative to the dispute\nabout the body of Moses. One circumstance, however, he has mentioned,\nwhich is not found in the epistle of St. Jude, namely, that Michael\nreproached the Devil with having possessed the serpent which seduced\nEve. In what manner this circumstance is connected with the dispute\nabout the body of Moses will appear from the following consideration.\nThe Jews imagined the person of Moses was so holy, that God could find\nno reason for permitting him to die: and that nothing but the sin\ncommitted by Adam and Eve in paradise, which brought death into the\nworld, was the cause why Moses did not live for ever. The same notions\nthey entertained of some other very holy persons, for instance of Isai,\nwho, they say, was delivered to the angel of death, merely on account of\nthe sins of our first parents, though he himself did not deserve to die.\nNow in the dispute between Michael and the Devil about Moses, the Devil\nwas the accuser, and demanded the death of Moses. Michael therefore\nreplied to him, that he himself was the cause of that sin, which alone\ncould occasion the death of Moses. How very little such notions as these\nagree, either with the Christian theology, or with Moses\u2019 own writings,\nit is unnecessary for me to declare.\u201d[595]\n\nThe direct testimony of Origen should be taken in connexion with the\nwell-known fact, that this story of Michael and the Devil is one of the\nstanding traditions of the Jewish people; the invention of a remote\nantiquity; and repeated ever since by a multitude of Rabbinical writers.\nA specimen of the legend may be found by the curious in the section of\nMichaelis, from which I have quoted the foregoing passage. With respect\nto the reception which we must give to such an alleged fact, the same\nauthor observes\u2014\u201cIt lies without the circle of human experience; and\ntherefore it cannot be attested by any man, unless he has either divine\ninspiration, or has intercourse with beings of a superior order.\nConsequently, whoever was the author of the apocryphal book, from which\nthe quotation was made, his account cannot possibly command\nassent.\u201d[596] This remark evidently applies, not only to the story of\nMichael, but to the tradition of the Fallen Angels; which, there is\nevery reason to believe, must have been derived from a like apocryphal\nsource; especially as we have the express assurance of Tertullian, that\nthe Book of Enoch treated of the nature, offices, and fate of fallen\nBeings.[597]\n\nThis author, then, has unquestionably \u201cmade use of Jewish materials,\nwhich have no existence but in apocryphal books,\u201d[598] and therefore no\nclaim on our belief. \u201cI know of no other method of vindicating the\nquotation,\u201d says Michaelis, \u201cthan by supposing that St. Jude considered\nthe whole story, not as a real fact, which either he himself believed,\nor which he required his readers to believe, but merely as an\ninstructive fable, which served to illustrate the doctrine which he\nhimself inculcated, that we ought not to speak evil of dignities.\u201d[599]\nHug resorts to an explanation of this kind; and conceives that St. Jude\nemploys apocryphal weapons of persuasion, as best adapted to confound\nthe Heretics whom he assailed.[600] It may be so: but if his\nillustrations and examples from the supernatural world be thus destitute\nof intrinsic authority and truth, and _we must be heretics before we can\nfeel their force_, what becomes of the _orthodox doctrine_ of fallen\nAngels?\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture XI.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n See Note A.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n Genesis iii. 1.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n Genesis iii. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n Jos. Ant. lib. i. c. 1.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n The first trace of this fiction presents itself in the Apocryphal book\n of the Wisdom of Solomon, ii. 24; \u201cNevertheless, through envy of the\n Devil, came death into the world.\u201d How difficult it appeared, even to\n the learned and imaginative Origen, to establish this interpretation\n on any sound scriptural authority, may be seen in the fact, that he\n can quote in its behalf nothing better than an unknown Jewish work in\n the Greek language, entitled \u1f08\u03bd\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u039c\u03c9\u03c3\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2. In Rufinus\u2019s version\n of Origen\u2019s \u201cPrinciples,\u201d occurs the following passage: \u201cIn Genesi\n serpens Evam seduxisse describitur; de quo in Ascensione M\u00f6ysi, cujus\n libelli meminit in epistol\u00e2 su\u00e2 Apostolus Judas, Micha\u00ebl archangelus\n cum Diabolo disputans de corpore M\u00f6ysi, ait, _a Diabolo inspiratum\n serpentem_, causam exstitisse pr\u00e6varicationis Ad\u00e6 et Ev\u00e6.\u201d\u2014De Princip.\n lib. iii. c. 2. Though the learned Father does not hesitate to cite\n this book, for a theological purpose, he does not inform us of the\n grounds on which he was satisfied to invest it with divine authority.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n Genesis iii. 16-19.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n Rom. v. 12-20; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; 1 Tim. ii. 14.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n Paraphrase on Romans. Note on v. 12. See also Whitby in loc., to whom\n Mr. Locke refers.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n See Rom. i. 16; ii. 29; and iii. 9-23.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n Genesis iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n Dr. T. Sherlock\u2019s Six Discourses on Prophecy, p. 80; as quoted in Mr.\n Wellbeloved\u2019s excellent note on the passage.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n See Note B.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n 1 Samuel xxix. 4.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n 1 Kings xi. 25.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n Numb. xxii. 22.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n 1 Tim. i. 20.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n \u200f\u05e9\u05c1\u05d8\u05df \u200e(1.) _adversarius_; in antiquiori Hebraismo homo, ut in 1 Sam.\n xxix. 4; 2 Sam. xix. 23; 1 Reg. v. 4; xi. 14; xxiii. 25: in sequiori,\n post exilium Babylonicum, angelus malus sive _diabolus_, qui \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019\n \u1f10\u03be\u03bf\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd _Satan_ vocatur, Ps. cix. 6; Zach. iii. 1, 2; 1 Chron. xxi. 1.\n (2.) _circuitor_, qui civium motus observat; secundum quosdam, Hiob.\n i. 6, 8; ii. 1.\u201d\u2014_Joh. Simonis Lex. Hebr. in verb._\n\n In Ps. cix. 6, and Zach. iii. 1, 2, there is, however, no reason to\n suppose that the word is used as a proper name. The former of the two\n passages is best rendered, \u201cLet _an accuser_ stand at his right hand:\u201d\n and in explanation of the latter, Archbishop Newcome cites the\n following note from Dr. Blayney; \u201cIt appears to me most probable, that\n by Satan, or the Adversary, is here meant the adversaries of the\n Jewish nation in a body, or perhaps some leading person among them,\n Sanballat for instance, who strenuously opposed the rebuilding of the\n temple, and of course the restoration of the service of the sanctuary,\n and the reestablishment of Joshua in the exercise of his sacerdotal\n ministry.\u201d\u2014_Newcome\u2019s Minor Prophets, in loc._\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n 1 Chron. xxi. 1.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n 2 Sam. xxiv. 1.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n Wisd. ii. 24; Tobit iii. 8.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n On entering the creed of the Jews, this doctrine underwent another\n change, of which many traces are to be found in all their subsequent\n writings, and which throws light on several passages of the New\n Testament. It is thus stated by Dr. D. F. Strauss: \u201cWhen that Satan\n who appears in the Persian religion as a wicked being inimical to\n mankind, passed into the Jewish faith, his character was accommodated\n to the Hebrew peculiarity, which confined to the people of Israel all\n that is good and worthy of humanity; and he was regarded as at once\n the special enemy of their nation, and the Lord of their Gentile foes.\n The interests of the Jewish people becoming concentrated in the person\n of the Messiah, it was natural that the Satan should be conceived of\n as the personal opponent of the Messiah.\u201d \u201cAccordingly,\u201d adds this\n writer, \u201cin the New Testament the idea of Jesus as the Messiah\n everywhere involves that of Satan as the adversary of his person and\n work.\u201d[b] We may well object to the unqualified generalization\n comprised in this last remark, and therefore to many of the author\u2019s\n particular applications of it; and especially we must regard as\n unsuccessful his attempt to destroy the historical character of the\n narrative of our Lord\u2019s temptation; but no judicious interpreter will\n wholly neglect the suggestion which the passage contains.\n\nFootnote b:\n\n Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet, \u00a7 55.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n See Note C.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n Mr. Stowell, in his Lecture on the Personality and Agency of Satan\n (pp. 703, 704), intimates that probably no visible form presented\n itself to Jesus: and though strongly, and as it appears to me\n reasonably, objecting to the interpretation which resolves the whole\n temptation into a _vision_, he supposes, with more latitude than\n consistency of explanation, that the Devil \u201cshowed\u201d to our Lord all\n the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them,\u2014not really and\n objectively,\u2014but by means of \u201ca glowing though _scenical\n representation_.\u201d The Lecturer does not state whether he conceives the\n solicitations of Satan to have been conveyed by the method of real and\n organic _talking_: but if, in the peculiar style of this narrative,\n the Tempter can be described as \u201c_showing_\u201d things without the\n presence of any visible objects, he may be described as \u201c_saying_\u201d\n things without the presence of any audible sounds. English orthodoxy,\n in conformity with the gross and hard materialism which pervades it,\n seems to have encouraged the idea, that all preternatural\n communications, whether diabolic or divine, with the human mind, must\n be made by articulate noises or sensible images; that the action of\n spirit on spirit is inconceivable; and a _revelation in silence and\n darkness a thing impossible_. Adverting to this prejudice, the\n admirable Barclay says, \u201cWe must not think his\u201d (Abraham\u2019s) \u201cfaith was\n built upon his outward senses, but proceeded from the secret\n persuasion of God\u2019s spirit in his heart;\u201d\u2014\u201cby which many times faith\n is begotten and strengthened without any of these outward and visible\n helps; as we may observe in many passages of the Holy Scriptures,\n where it is only mentioned, \u2018_And God said_,\u2019 &c., \u2018_And the word of\n the Lord came_\u2019 unto such and such, \u2018_saying_,\u2019 &c. But if any one\n should pertinaciously affirm, _that this did import an outward audible\n voice to the carnal ear_, I would gladly know, what other argument\n such an one could bring, for this his affirmation, saving his own\n simple conjecture. It is said indeed, \u2018_The Spirit witnesseth with our\n spirit_;\u2019 but not to our outward ears, Rom. viii. 16. And seeing the\n Spirit of God is within us, and not without us only, it speaks to our\n spiritual, and not to our bodily ear. Therefore I see no reason, where\n it\u2019s so often said in Scripture, \u2018_The Spirit said_,\u2019 \u2018_moved_,\u2019\n \u2018_hindered_,\u2019 \u2018_called_,\u2019 such or such a one, to _do_ or _forbear_\n such or such a thing, that any have to conclude, that this was not an\n inward voice to the ear of the soul, rather than an outward voice to\n the bodily ear. If any be otherwise minded, let them, if they can,\n produce their arguments, and we may further consider of\n them.\u201d\u2014_Barclay\u2019s Apology for the true Christian Divinity, Prop. II._\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n Mr. Stowell\u2019s Lecture, p. 713.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n Ibid. p. 695.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n John viii. 42, 47.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n John x. 14, 27.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n John vi. 44.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n \u039f\u1f31 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03af\u03b6\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9 \u0394\u03b9\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f51\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03ad\u03c9\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03b2\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2,\n \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b4\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u03cd\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2. i. 131.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n De Iside et Osiride, \u00a7 46, 47.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n See his Treatise, \u00dcber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: an\n abstract of which, with a translation of the portions relating to the\n dualistic system, will be found in Dr. Prichard\u2019s Analysis of the\n Egyptian Mythology, Book III.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n We allude to Ritter (Geschichte der Philosophie), who (i. p. 159-173)\n has weighed all the arguments which have been alleged in behalf of\n this opinion with an even hand.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n Thirlwall\u2019s History of Greece, Vol. II. pp. 130, 131.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n Vol. II. pp. 134, 135.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n Dr. Prichard\u2019s Translation. Egyp. Myth. pp. 242, 243.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n Bochart\u2019s Hierozoicon. P. I. lib. ii. p. 640. seqq. Herod. II. 46.\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n Elleh Haddebarim rabba, fol. 302. 2. ap. D. L. Bertholdt\u2019s\n Christologia Jud\u00e6orum Jesu Apostolorumque \u00e6tate. \u00a7 36.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n Vajikra rabba, fol. 151. col. 1. ap. Bertholdt. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n Targum in Eccles. i. 12. ap. Joh. Buxtorf. Lex. Chald. Talm. & Rabb.\n in v. \u05d0\u05e9\u05de\u05d3\u05d9.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n Aruch ex Rabboth. ap. Lightfoot\u2019s Hebr. and Talmud. Exercitations on\n Matt. xii. 24. See also on Luke xi. 15.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n Lex. Chald. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n Christologia, _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n Credibility of the Gospel History. Supplement, ch. xxi.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n \u201cIt seems very unlikely that St. Jude should write so similar an\n epistle, if he had seen St. Peter\u2019s. In that case, St. Jude would not\n have thought it needful for him to write at all. If he had formed a\n design of writing, and had met with an epistle of one of the apostles,\n very suitable to his own thoughts and intentions, I think he would\n have forborne to write.\u201d\u2014Cred. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n Michaelis\u2019 Introd. to the N. T. ch. xxix. sec. 2.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n Eichhorn\u2019s Einleitung in das neue Testament, viii. 3.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n Dr. J. L. Hug\u2019s Introduction to the New Testament: translated by Dr.\n Wait. Sec. 169, 170.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n Marsh\u2019s Michaelis, ch. xxviii. sec. 1; ch. xxix. sec. 2, 5.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n Einleitung in d. N. T. viii. 3.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n Marsh\u2019s Michaelis, ch. xxix. sec. 4.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n For a sufficient refutation of Lardner\u2019s interpretation, see the\n last-cited section of Marsh\u2019s Michaelis.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n Hug\u2019s Introduction, sec. 175.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n Marsh\u2019s Michaelis, ch. xxix. sec. 4.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n Marsh\u2019s Mich. _loc. cit._\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n De habitu mulier. c. 3. De Idolat. c. 4. et 15. De cultu f\u0153minar. c.\n 10, as cited by Hug, sec. 175.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n Eichhorn\u2019s Einl. viii. 4. \u00a7 296.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n _loc. cit._ Michaelis adds a hint, which may perhaps be as appropriate\n in England as in Germany: \u201cTo the doctrine, which St. Jude inculcates\n by this quotation, that we ought not to speak evil of dignities, not\n even of the fallen angels, but that we should leave judgment to God, I\n have no objection. And I really think, that they transgress the bounds\n of propriety, who make it their business, either in the pulpit or in\n their writings, to represent the devil as an object of detestation;\n since, notwithstanding his fall, he is still a being of a superior\n order. This reminds me of a certain oriental sect, which Niebuhr met\n with in the neighbourhood of the river Zab, in Assyria, and which, for\n the same reason as that which I have just assigned, will not suffer\n any one to speak evil of the devil.\u201d\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n _loc. cit._\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE XII.\n\n\n THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF RETRIBUTION HEREAFTER.\n\n\n BY REV. HENRY GILES.\n\n \u201cAND GOD SAID TO JONAH, DOEST THOU WELL TO BE ANGRY FOR THE GOURD? AND\n HE SAID, I DO WELL TO BE ANGRY, EVEN UNTO DEATH. THEN SAID THE LORD,\n THOU HAST PITY ON THE GOURD FOR WHICH THOU HAST NOT LABOURED, NEITHER\n MADEST IT GROW; WHICH CAME UP IN A NIGHT AND PERISHED IN A NIGHT. AND\n SHOULD NOT I SPARE NINEVEH, THAT GREAT CITY, WHEREIN ARE MORE THAN\n SIX SCORE THOUSAND PERSONS THAT CANNOT DISCERN BETWEEN THEIR RIGHT\n HAND AND THEIR LEFT?\u201d\u2014_Jonah_ iv. 9, 10, 11.\n\n\nPain affects us, as it comes near to us. The war or famine, or any other\ncalamity that afflicts a nation afar off, is but a vague report or a\ndistant rumour; it may not pass unheard, but comparatively it is unfelt.\nIt requires that grief shall touch and sting us in our selfishness; that\nwe may know fully and truly what it inflicts on others. And it is thus\nthat God at once rebukes and cures our insensibility, by bringing loss\nand sorrow home to our own souls: the withered gourd wrung tears from\nthe surly and unamiable prophet: but the prospect of Nineveh with her\nmighty population in ashes had nothing with which to touch the fountains\nof his sorrows.\n\nAdmitting as I thus do that there is much of selfishness in our nature,\nyet persuaded that there is also much of sympathy and mercy in it,\ntaking either the character of God, or that of man as a criterion, I\nhave long regarded the belief of eternal punishment as one of those\nmoral paradoxes which you cannot deny, and for which you cannot account.\nMost of human creatures, so far as they accord with their humanity,\nshrink from inflicting or beholding pain; and when they can inflict it\nwantonly, or behold it without compassion, we can pronounce on them no\nsentence of deeper reprobation than to call them _inhuman_. We tread not\nknowingly on the crawling worm; we hear not insensibly the inarticulate\nvoice of the sick and dumb animal: and yet many of us who would not look\nunmoved on the last spasms of an expiring dog, can believe that God\nregards with ruthless sternness the eternal tortures of numberless\neternal spirits. We cannot gaze without compassion on the tear in the\ninfant\u2019s speechless eye, and yet some of us can believe that God has\ncreated such beings to look up through all eternity from hopeless\ntorture. We cannot think on the racks by which tyrant-man has tortured\nhis brother-man\u2014on the dungeons in which he has imprisoned him, and shut\nout from him the sun of heaven and the breath of nature, without a\nfeeling of repugnance and a sentiment of indignation, and yet Christians\ncan believe that God, whom they call \u201cthe good, the merciful,\u201d has\nconstructed for his creatures means of undying anguish and dungeons of\nboundless darkness, where the smile of hope never gleams, where the\nlight of mercy never comes. We lament war, and yet, if orthodox, we\nbelieve that God maintains in his dominions regions of everlasting\nwarfare; we lament the madness and abuse of passion, and yet, if\northodox, we must believe that God allows that madness and abuse to be\neternalized in all their extreme malignity. We lament physical and\nmental suffering; except on the visitation of mercy none of us would\ndesire to go through the lazar house, where despair and anguish lie low\ntogether, where the head is heavy and the pulse is fevered; or through\nthose asylums which give refuge to humanity in its last calamity, and\nits worst; and yet, if orthodox, we can believe that God perpetuates\nthroughout everlasting ages the worst evils of the body, the fiercest\npassions, and the most awful madness of the soul. And yet this great,\nthis glorious universe is his\u2014is his workmanship\u2014it came not up in a\nnight, it is not to perish in a night\u2014the earth is long to be green, and\nthe heavens are to be bright. Throughout the space that has no limit,\nthroughout the time that has no end, the stars are to shine, and systems\nare to move onward in their unmeasured and their trackless glory. And\nyet, if orthodox, we must believe there is an endless hell whose smoke\nof torment must ascend for ever against their brightness. These, the\nworks of God\u2019s hands, are marred\u2014the majesty of his power\ndefeated\u2014Paradise is made a wilderness, and hell is made populous. If we\nthink of the world with any degree of realising truth, we shall feel\nthis result to be most tremendous, and we shall wonder that God with\ninfinite power should have created such a lovely universe to be defaced;\nthat he should have peopled it with such capacities for good, to be\nexercised for ever only in the production of evil; that he should have\ngiven them immense and eternal capacities only to be immense and eternal\ncapacities for misery. This, if true, is the greatest miracle and the\ngreatest mystery unquestionably in the divine government.\n\nThis subject committed to my charge I feel to be truly solemn and awful.\nNext to the idea of a God, that of a future state is the most important.\nThe character we ascribe to God operates on our own, or is created by\nit; and so our conceptions of the future life reacts on human conduct,\nand human sentiments. We may see this painfully in the mistakes and\nabuses with which harsh views of the future life have clouded the\nChristian church, and poisoned the heart of Christendom. These gloomy\nsentiments from many robbed religion of solace, and the breast of peace.\nI have seen beings maddened and convulsed by visions of Calvinism. I\nhave heard them long for annihilation as a consummation most\ndesirable\u2014not in the remorse of sin, but in the tortures of\nsuperstition.\u2014I have seen them look forward with pleasure to the\nchurch-yard turf under which they were to rest for ever from their\ntroubles, and sleep in peace their \u201ceternal sleep.\u201d This sombre belief\nhas at once desolated and darkened earth. Faith it has turned to a\nboundless fear; the dread of the future it makes the bitterness of the\npresent, and is equally the parent of stern self-infliction, or of\nremorseless intolerance. It was this that in older days drove the\nascetic to the desert; that made nature and the face of his fellow\nhateful to him; that filled his ferocious solitude with unearthly\nterrors; that trained, instead of a saint, a theological savage: it was\nthis which aroused religious wars; which infused into these wars a\nspirit of fury; that demonised humanity; that made a most merciful\nnature a stranger to mercy: it was this which brought man in nearest\nresemblance to that vile and wicked being whom his worst and blackest\npassions had formed: it was this belief that tore out the heart of flesh\nand put in its place the heart of stone\u2014a heart which no appeal could\nsoften, and which no appeal could move. It was not until there was a\nhell without hope, that there was a heart without mercy. I believe it to\nbe quite capable of proof, that no mere worldly wickedness has ever\ncursed mankind with so many sufferings as the belief of this doctrine;\nthat has ever heaped on them so many cruelties, and made them agents of\ncruelties in return. Why have wars for religion ever been the worst? The\nreason is obvious: the soldiers of religion are not soldiers of flesh;\nthe soldiers of religion enter into no earthly service; they enlist\nunder the god of battles and of vengeance. It is against the hated, and\nthe vile, and the accursed, and the lost, they carry destruction; they\nare but the executioners of the righteous decrees of God, and theirs are\nthe championship of piety, and the chivalry of heaven. When the weak\ncontend with the weak, mutual need begets mutual mercy: but when the\nnatural ferocity of passion assumes the authority of God, and clothes\nitself with the armour of the skies, the gulf in which all charity is\nburied, is broad and unfathomable as that which is commonly placed\nbetween heaven and hell. This belief was one of the main causes of the\nmost horrible religious persecutions. It was not until the generous and\ngentle sensibility of the religious nature was debased by coarse\npicturings of physical tortures and of endless miseries, that the\nsacerdotal arm became terrible as death, and the sacerdotal spirit was\ndrenched in wrath as dire and unrelenting as that which they fashioned\nbeyond the grave. Before priestly and popular imaginations God became an\nawful punisher. They created in heaven a throne of inexorable judgment,\nand from that throne the word of fate went forth which could but once be\nspoken, and cut off hope for ever. They freed themselves from human\ncompunctions, and emulated the stern despotism which they preached or\nbelieved. Fear is the parent of cruelty\u2014and in religion, as in\ncharacter, the slavish spirit is ever the most unfeeling. The truth is,\nthat whether in idea or in act, familiarity with torture stupifies the\nheart and indurates the senses. That frequent contemplation of pain\ndestroys sympathy, and that pain, when once it can be carelessly seen,\ncan be easily inflicted, are facts which observation has placed beyond\nthe need of argument, and experience beyond the reach of contradiction.\n\nIn this Lecture I propose two objects:\u2014First, to state my views on moral\nretribution, which in essentials I apprehend are those of Unitarians in\ngeneral: Secondly, to examine the arguments which are advanced in favour\nof eternal torture, and to state my reasons for not believing them. I\nshall try to the utmost of my power to condense what I have to say, but\nI hope for your indulgence in return, if on a subject of such compass\u2014on\nwhich so many volumes have been written\u2014there should be some omissions.\nThe end of this or any other lecture can never be to expound an\nimportant topic in all its completeness, so much as to suggest and\nexcite inquiry concerning it.\n\nI. I shall, in the first place, enter on the positive section of my\nlecture; and on this point, I am sorry to say that the frequent\nre-assertion of mistakes regarding our doctrines will put me to the\npainful necessity of much repetition.\n\n1.\u2014I commence with a few remarks on the nature of sin. One essential\ncharacteristic on which we have insisted\u2014and we believe what we have\nasserted\u2014is, that sin is a deep spiritual injury. The source of it is in\nthe soul; it is the dark corruption of an evil heart. This I take to be\none of the greatest and profoundest revelations of Christ, one which\nplaces him infinitely above all other moral teachers, and which makes\nChristianity the highest scheme of moral duty. False religions and false\nphilosophies have been all at variance with this inward sense of duty.\nThey have contrived numberless inventions as substitutes for it, or\ndevised most ingenious means to nullify it. Priesthoods, with most\nimposing authority and mystical influence, have offered all sorts of\nspiritual panaceas to ease the wounded conscience. Ceremonies, with all\ngraceful gesture and solemn import, have presented their beauty to the\nsenses, and their spell to the fancies of superstition. Sacrifices\nwithout number\u2014from the turtle-dove to the hecatomb; from the scape-goat\ndriven to the desert, to the human being slaughtered to God; from the\nblood of life swelling round a thousand altars of vengeance, to the\nflowers and the fruits that were heaped upon the altars of mercy\u2014all\nthese have been tried to make religion for the senses, to make religion\na flattery and delusion: but all were not sufficient; conscience is\nstronger than rituals, and to that conscience, to that spirit of God in\nthe soul of man, Christ came; to that he was the Apostle and to that he\npreached. Christ went at once into the soul; he pierced the veil of\nsophistries and deceits by which men are ingenious to discover excuses\nto cover their selfishness and their wrong doings; he went to the seat\nof the evil, and struck at once to the root of bitterness. Others\nbaptized with water, cleansing merely the outside, but he baptized with\nfire and the holy spirit, going to the innermost thoughts of the heart\nand the veins;\u2014others preached on the keeping of feast-days and\nfast-days, but he taught of that God who is not the Lord of times or\nseasons, but the God of life in every hour\u2014the God of the whole universe\nin every motion;\u2014others called men to go to the temple, Christ called\nthem to go into their closets and commune with their hearts;\u2014others told\nthem to wash their hands, Christ exhorted them rather to cleanse their\nspirits;\u2014others told them to fear men who could kill the body, Christ\nwarned them not to fear man who could only kill the body, but to fear\nGod who could kill the soul as well as the body. He was truly the\nprophet of eternity\u2014the preacher for eternity. He was truly the preacher\nof the invisible, and the herald of it\u2014he needed not that any should\ntestify of man, for he knew what was in man\u2014he required no testimony,\nfor he had the knowledge of humanity in his own nature deep and true,\nbut guiltless\u2014and he spake out of the fullness of his own full heart: it\nwas therefore that he spake as never man spake: it was therefore that\nthe common people heard him gladly\u2014for his words had power to those\nthoughts and affections which are native to bosoms of all men; it was\ntherefore that he spake with authority, and not as the scribes: for they\ndiscoursed on the traditions of the fathers, but he appealed to the\ninspirations of God\u2014they spake of what had been written on tables of\nstones, but he spoke of what had been written on the fleshy tables of\nthe heart. Others made sin to consist in resistance to the priest or to\nthe king\u2014but Christ showed it to be an alienation of the soul from God,\nthe apostacy of the conscience from its own sense of duty. It is that\nwhich is within, he taught, that defiles the man; a man may wash his\nhands seven times a-day, but not once cleanse his heart; he may often\nwash his hands, and yet never in innocency. He showed that sepulchres\nmight be beautified outside, and inside be only rottenness and\ncorruption.\u2014His apostles learned of him this most profound, most divine\nphilosophy, and so they preached it to the world. To be carnally minded,\nsays Paul, is death; to be spiritually minded is life and peace.\nWhatsoever, says the same apostle, a man soweth, that shall he also\nreap; he that soweth to the flesh, shall of the flesh reap corruption,\nbut he that soweth to the spirit, shall of the spirit reap everlasting\nlife. Lust, (or evil desire,) saith Saint James, when it hath conceived,\nbringeth forth sin, and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.\nThis is the gospel doctrine on the inwardness and spirituality of sin;\nand we preach no other gospel, and we teach no other doctrine. A solemn\nconsequence attaches to our view which is also powerfully enforced in\nthe New Testament scriptures, but which the vicarious scheme tends\ndirectly to subvert\u2014I mean the personal nature of transgression. Sin we\nhold to be no transferable quality, and this was most lucidly proved\nhere by one of my brother lecturers. With the sinner himself lies the\nguilt; with him who contracts it it must lie; it cannot be acquired by\nimputation, nor can it be punished by imputation. If one doctrine be\nmore clearly taught in scripture than another, it is this, that the\noffender shall be answerable only for his own sins; and for these, as\nsurely as there are a conscience, a future world, and a God, he must be\nanswerable.\u2014Every man, our Saviour declares, shall be judged according\nto his own works. Every one of us, the Apostle Paul asserts, shall give\nan account of himself to God. But no, saith orthodoxy, you must also be\nanswerable for Adam, and upon your head must be a guilt that darkened\nthe very dawn of creation; and so upon this principle guilt should\ndescend from sire to son; the later we are in existence, the more\ntremendous should be this growing mountain of imputation, until the last\nman should sink under the burden of all the crime which had been from\nthe first man to himself.\u2014We are told that Unitarians make light of sin.\nBut, I ask, what does orthodoxy make of justice? And I further ask, what\ndoes it make of scripture? If there were a judge on earth who decided as\northodoxy decides, he would be scouted as a monster: if there were a\ncode of laws which contained such a standard, the common moral sense of\nmankind would reject it; nay, there is not a tribe of savages in the\nhabitable world so blind to the idea of justice as not to repel the\ndogma of imputed and eternal punishment. And yet we are gravely told\nthat God thus acts, and that the Bible thus teaches; we are constantly\nrebuked as wanting in faith and humility, because we can find no such\nprinciples in either providence or the Bible. The plain declaration of\nthe prophet Ezekiel contains the spirit of both. \u201cThe soul that sinneth,\nit shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither\nshall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the\nrighteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be\nupon him.\u201d As certainly as we have a moral sense, as surely as we can\ndiscern between right and wrong, we are compelled to acknowledge the one\nand utterly to repudiate the other. Give but the conscience justice, let\ncommon sense have but the slightest voice in the decision, and you might\nas easily attempt to gain a man\u2019s assent to the broadest of\ncontradictions, even to the admission that a part is equal to the whole,\nor that two and two are five, as to feel guilty for another man\u2019s crime,\nto feel remorse for another man\u2019s wrong-doing, to be penitent or humble\nfor that in which we had no participation, or to confess the justice of\npunishment by a sentence which made him criminal before his existence.\nOn the moral injuries of thus forcing men to contradict the first\ndictates of their nature, of destroying the personality of virtue on the\none side by an imputed righteousness, and the personality of sin on the\nother by an imputed guilt, I intend not here to enlarge: but one evil I\nwill just allude to; I mean the wrong it does to truth of sentiment.\nFeelings in their real existence which are most excellent and most\nbeautiful, it distorts and falsifies. There are no virtues on earth that\nbring men nearer to heaven than humility and repentance. To be humble\nwith a true humility is to be in the likeness of Christ; to be penitent\nwith a true repentance is to be an object of rejoicing even to the\nangels of heaven: but when we hear it said that we are to be of lowly\nmind on account of inherited corruption, and penitent for imputed sin;\nwhen we try to force ourselves into emotions which are not native to the\nsoul, unconsciously we undermine its simplicity and sincerity, and\ninstead of virtues which must be of spontaneous growth, or not exist at\nall, we have sickly abortions of sentiment that are false, because\nunnatural; strained efforts that are at eternal war with experience; and\nhigh-sounding phrases that are as empty as echo and as cold as the\nfrozen blast. Perversions like these are almost worse than vices, for\nvices, though they mar the life, may leave the moral judgment its\nintegrity. Where there is true conviction there may be amendment, but\nwhen the inward sense is itself diseased, the case is all but hopeless.\nWhatever be the evil of sin, whatever be its punishment; whether the\nevil be infinite or limited, whether the punishment be eternal or\ntemporal, let us at least beware of weakening that sentiment on which\nall morality is founded, the deep sense of personal responsibility.\nUnitarian views are often described as being unfavourable to\nspirituality; but if by spirituality I am to understand the inward life\nof man, the activity of his mental and moral energies, then I think\nthese views eminently spiritual. The spirit of man is their great\nsubject, and the spirit of God in the human, their great agency of\nsalvation. Within the soul itself they place moral salvation or moral\ndestruction, and within the soul itself they place the elements which\nconstitute one or the other, the sense of guilt which makes its hell,\nthe conscious holiness which makes its heaven. This inward power of\nconscience is the true distinction of spiritual life; and the righteous\nsubmission to it in our own hearts, we maintain, is the faith which\njustifies: a faith which is an indwelling vitality which consists not in\nforming propositions about God and Christ, and in enforcing them or\nsubmitting to them, but in making God and Christ realities in our secret\nthoughts; in confidence on the worth of goodness, in allegiance to duty,\nand in trust in the power and immortality of truth.\n\n2. Next I affirm that sin is evil, and that sin is punishable; and our\ndoctrines make not light of the evil, or disguise the awfulness of the\npunishment. Sin is evil: we deny not that; how could we? It is an\neternal truth written on the heart and life of man, proved with\nunequivocal and gloomy evidence in the whole history of the world. Sin\nis evil to the individual; evil in the sufferings it prepares for him,\nand a still greater evil when it hardens him beyond suffering. Each one\nof us will judge this question for himself according to his degree of\nmoral sensibility, and according to the circumstances of his moral\nhistory; but whatever be that sensibility, or whatever be that history,\nour moments of most profound anguish have ever been those in which we\nhave felt the shameful consciousness of wrong thoughts or wrong actions.\nNot, it is true, when the evil passions or evil deeds held their\ntyrannical sway over us, but when the spell was gone, when the mind\u2019s\neye grew clear, and the hour of reflection came with sorrow, and the sad\npale light spread over the hand-writing on the wall, from which\nconscience might shrink but could not fail to read. The worst, the most\nhardened, the most degraded of human creatures, those whom the world may\nthink have bidden farewell to conscience, have moments in the dark\nsilence of thought when the sword of remorse with all its poisoned\ntortures sinks into their wounded bosoms. And in such hours, it is not\noutward loss, or outward suffering, but inward agony that afflicts them\nmost; it is not that they have sunk into the dregs of poverty; it is not\nthat they have been reduced to dependence and exposed to insult; it is\nnot that pride passes them with cold and withering scorn; it is not that\npity and hope seem banished from their path; that all appear to frown\nupon them; that externally for them there is no longer peace on earth or\nlight in heaven\u2014it is, that the brightness and the freshness of their\nown hearts are gone; that sacred affections are a waste; that\nconscience, when not silenced into apathy, is enraged into an accuser;\nthat their own respect is lost beyond recovery, and no delusion, however\nself-deceiving, can again restore it. The heart-consuming grief, the\nwrath and tribulation treasured up in a life of sin, the righteous judge\nof the earth alone can know. And these are all the more bitter if that\nlife had ever been blessed with holier associations. There is a courage\nwhich can repel the scowl of others; there is a pride, a madness, if you\nwill, which can despise their opinions, or feel independent of their\nesteem; there is a fortitude which can endure physical suffering to its\nlast infliction; but there is nothing in time, in place, or in\ncircumstance, which can fortify us against our own thoughts, against our\nown feelings, and especially the feelings of the divinity within us,\nthat struggle to the last for empire over evil; that come ever and ever\nto tell us of what we had of good or might have had; that haunt us with\nreproach and sorrow when we have become traitors to our better nature.\nNot to speak of conscience with its stinging sense of violated\nconviction; not to speak of wasted time, ruined power, and a wreck of\nhopes; to say nothing of alienation from God, and the fear of a future\nworld, I can conceive of memory dwelling on spots, which once were spots\nof light, becoming the tormentor of a fallen soul, the vindicator of\nduty and of God; I can conceive of one looking back from the bare\ndesolateness of sin to a youth that once had been pure, full of joy and\nfull of virtue, to homes that had been glad with every affection that\nsweetens life, to sabbaths that had repose for the stainless spirit, and\nprayer for unpolluted lips; gazing with breaking hearts and weeping eyes\nover a part marked with vice and misery, that had been a future glorious\nwith promise; all this I can conceive in connection with even the felon\nin his cell, or with some wretch whose cough, like a knell of despair,\nawakens the midnight silence of the street, whose latest pang is spent\nin some hidden retreat of filth and sorrow, of sin and loathsomeness.\n\nI need not say that sin is a great social evil. The fact is urged upon\nus with too painful a pressure, both from history and observation. Take\nthe history of governments and nations; wars and bloodshed stain the\nrecord over its whole extent. And whence are these, but from the\nstruggle and rivalry of selfish and sinful passions? From whence, says\nthe apostle James, come wars and fightings among you; come they not\nhence, even of your lusts? From these we have had the oppression of\nstrength against right. From these we have had the tyrannies and\ncruelties with which they surrounded their thrones of iron despotism;\nwith which they made the glory of self the affliction of millions; with\nwhich so far as their power extended, they have been the scourges and\nthe curses of mankind. From these we had the hatred one nation against\nanother, men arrayed against each other to hew each other down, doing\nall iniquities, when interest or ambition called for them, enslaving one\nanother, and selling one another, unmindful of all the claims of\nfraternity in the din of faction, and losing the sense of their common\nhumanity in the difference of clime or the colour of the skin. Take the\nhistory of laws. I shall not allege those of the criminal code which\nuntil very recently made even Christian and enlightened countries vast\narenas of legalised assassination: which spread a reign of terror over\nthe face of empires, making the scaffold and the gibbet their principal\nsymbols of civilization, and multiplying to enormous extent the very\ncrimes, which, pretending to punish, they only publicly authorized and\nexemplified. I speak here more particularly of the spirit of partiality,\ninjustice, selfishness, and rapacity in which much of legislation has\nbeen conceived and executed: classes of men turning the laws to their\nown purposes and leaving those unprotected who most required protection;\ncommonly preying most on those who least could bear it. Except where the\ngeneral sentiment of human right has been too strong for narrow\npassions, we may see in the long course of ages, principle sacrificed to\npersonal interests, the good of masses betrayed or despised, the poor\nscorned, the ignorant neglected, the privileged orders hedged about with\nall sorts of protection, the classification of crime and criminals most\nunfairly adjusted, the distribution of penalties most unrighteously\nallotted; this I ascribe to selfish and evil passions. Once more, take\nthe history of religion, and you have all the anger of faction made more\nstern with the rivalry of Creeds; the ambition of earthly dominion more\naspiring by the addition of spiritual rule also; the powers of this\nworld made more fearful by the powers of the world to come; both the\nvisible and in visible existence subjected to priestly empire, and made\ntributary to priestly aggrandizement; the sword of the civil magistrate\nwhich had been sharp enough with one edge to deal the vengeance of man,\nreceiving another edge from ecclesiastical authority, to vindicate the\njudgments of God. Thus we are compelled to read history, and thus in all\nits departments we are compelled to witness the dark traces which sin\nhas left upon its pages. When we turn to the world around us, these\nevils are not the less glaring. Many sufferings, no doubt, are to be\nascribed to our natural wants and weakness, but they scarcely deserve to\nbe called evils, when we compare them with those which spring from moral\nderangements. Poverty is not so great an affliction as an all-devouring\nlove for gain; sickness is not so great a misfortune as an insatiate\ndesire for pleasure; and the ills of poverty and pain together, are not\nas fatal as the irritable wish for distinction which rules so widely in\nthe world, with its fierce blood of turbulent passions. To these there\nare to be ascribed the worst social miseries that grieve the best\nhearts, and to remove or ameliorate which the finest spirits have ever\ndirected their labours. To these we are to ascribe the covetousness\nwhich closes the hand of bounty, and shuts up the bowels of compassion;\nwhich becomes insensible both to justice and mercy; to these we are to\nascribe all forms of sensuality, and all the abuses of passion; to these\nwe are to ascribe all vices, material or malignant: and who, though he\nhad the capacious mind of an archangel, can count the miseries which in\nall shapes spread contagion through society? Independently of those\nevils which no human eye can reach, those which present themselves on\nthe very surface of observation are sufficiently extensive and fearful;\nintemperance, ignorance, grossness, hatred, strifes, with all their\ngloomy appendages; of unhappy homes; of loud and laughing and blushless\ninfamy; of mad licentiousness, and late despair; of lost health, lost\nhonesty, lost reason, which respectively close their career in the\nhospital, the prison, or the lunatic asylum.\n\n3. As to evidence, then, for the existence of guilt, as to its extent\nand its evil, I think I can go as far as any Calvinist. I see the fact,\nand I have no wish to disguise it; it startles, but it does not subvert\nmy faith. I grant sin to be evil\u2014evil in the inward spirit\u2014evil on the\noutward life\u2014evil to the individual\u2014evil to the species\u2014evil in this\nworld\u2014evil in the next. In a certain sense, I am not prepared to deny\nthat it leaves injurious consequences, which may be eternal; that the\nloss of innocence, that subversion of moral tastes, may implant habits\nwhich, for aught I know, shall be an everlasting injury to the soul, not\nutterly to destroy its happiness, or stop its progression, but to\ndeprive it of advantages and advancement which a purer moral state would\nhave given it. The evils of sin I hold to be terrible; the penalty of\nsin I hold to be inevitable\u2014to be removed by no sacrifice, to be washed\nout by no expiation\u2014to be escaped only in the criminals rising out of\nthe corruption by experience and wisdom, to a purer moral state. The\npunishment of sin I believe to be not only inevitable, but also\nenduring, enduring in proportion to indulgence and malignity. Thoughts,\nI admit, which have wrought themselves into the very texture of the\nintellectual nature; feelings which have rooted themselves into the\nheart; habits that have grown into instinct, are not speedily to be\ndestroyed. Moral punishment, in my idea, is identical with moral\ndiscipline, and moral discipline I consider to be such an arrangement of\ncircumstances in the providence of God as shall lead us to\nself-correction; such a process of spiritual training as leave us the\nconsciousness of our own liberty, but yet accomplish God\u2019s wise ends by\nGod\u2019s boundless power. In building, then, the structure of our\ncharacter, our Creator works not by miracle, but by experience, and this\nexperience may be slow and painful. I believe most sincerely and\nprofoundly in a future punishment; not vindictive, but corrective\u2014for\nall wise punishment is, and must be, corrective. That the dispensations\nof God are not completed in this life, I think all the moral aspects of\nthings here below make most manifest, and all analogies intimate, if\nScripture had not expressly declared, that after death there is to be a\nmore distinct exhibition of the divine government. That the results of\ncharacter formed in the present life are to be carried into the future,\nand to influence it, I conceive our whole nature argues. Our existence,\nas spiritual beings, is properly connected and continuous; one state\nprognosticates another; and no two are absolutely distinct and separate.\nOur spiritual life consists of thought united to thought, and feeling to\nfeeling, one operating on the other, or producing it, of a mysterious\nchain of consciousness, bound from link to link by successive memories,\npreserving unbroken the identity of our existence. Manhood is the growth\nof our youth, and immortality is the growth of our manhood; and the\nimpressions of character pass from one stage to another, along the line\nof succession and sequence. There are no extremes, except to our outward\nobservation. Looking at one stage of life, and then, after a long\ninterval, seeing in the same person the apparently opposite\ncharacteristics, we take those things to be antagonists which are bound\ntogether by the inevitable connexion of cause and effect. The dreamer of\nyouth becomes, perhaps, the misanthropist of age; the prodigal of youth,\nit may be, grows into the miser of age; the principle of action may in\neach case be the same\u2014vanity or self-love; the passion is identical in\nprinciple, and changed only in form, from a change in circumstances. If\nwe should meet an honest rustic in his peaceful fields, innocent and\ncontented; if we should afterwards by accident behold him on a scaffold,\nit would be to us a seeming and terrible incongruity. But why? The two\nevents are in our minds in naked contrast: could we, however, pierce the\nSpirit and trace the life of that unfortunate\u2014watch it from the first\nintrusive evil thought successively dwelt on; from actions slightly\nwrong, unceasingly reiterated and darkening with every repetition, until\nthe last deadly volition, and the last awful deed, we should have an\nanalysis of sad consistency and of profound interest. There is something\nsublime in the reflection, that every human creature who treads the\nearth and breathes the air, has an inward history, a history unread by\nevery eye but God\u2019s; a history of solemn import, that has definite\nimpression on the concerns of the universe, and is to live for ever in\nthe annals of eternity.\n\nIn ordinary phraseology, we speak of our existence as if death made a\nchasm in it; but temporal and eternal are but distinctions of\nimagination; our eternal life commences, and our earthly is but the\nfirst stage, the infancy of that awful and endless existence. If I see\nin our nature that which can survive change, I see that also in it which\ncan take materials of joy and sorrow along with it. The faculties that\nmake our life here must be those which shall make that which is to come.\nMemory then will be there, which is but the resurrection of our by-gone\nexperience; and whether for good or evil, it will call up the spirits of\nburied deeds, and as the life has been, will be an angel of heaven or a\nminister of hell;\u2014imagination, which may have been the nurse of piety or\nthe slave of passion,\u2014intellect, which may have had the glow of the\nseraph or the malice of the demon: accordingly, then, as these powers\nhave been properly directed or abused, every instinct of our moral\nnature tells us must be the joy of a righteous soul, or the agony of an\nevil heart. What treasure will the good man find he has laid up for his\nimmortal life, when the past arises to him in the lustre of a new world:\nthe consciousness of good thoughts and good actions, the peace of\nassimilation with God, and of union with the best of men: the immortal\nlove of those with whom he had companioned in his earthly journey, the\ngratitude of many from whose eyes he had banished tears, and from whose\nbosoms he had plucked out despair; who has been true to the claims of\nhis nature, and accomplished the work of a disciple of Christ, and a\nchild of God, and a brother of man. On the other side, what are to be\nhis feelings, who awakens in eternity with emotions of isolation and\nrepulsion, condemned in his own conscience, who now discovers he has all\nto learn which can fit him for the society of noble spirits, whose\nexpanded faculties flash shame and sorrow on his guilty soul, and show\nhim that his whole course was folly: the sensualist, who stultified his\nreason and profaned his affections: the hypocrite, that toiled but for\nthe outward, betrayed his convictions, and was a living and incarnate\nlie; before his fellows, a whited sepulchre; before his God, a corrupted\nmass of falsehood: the profane man, on whose lips prayer rarely dwelt,\nbut to whom cursing and bitterness were familiar: the persecutor, who\nfinds at last that he has hated or tormented others for a falsehood, or\na sound: the man of wild ambition, who, despising the true glory which\ncomes from God, and consists in doing right, spreads terror around him,\nin pursuing a phantom: the worldling, whose spirit was enslaved to those\ntreasures for which he wasted life, and which he has left behind him in\nthe dust. The sense of right and wrong is powerful and eternal; and when\nbad men resist it, it may be safely trusted to effect its own work, both\nof correction and of punishment.\n\nII. I shall here review some of the arguments pleaded for the eternal\nmisery of the wicked, and state briefly the grounds on which I reject\nit.\n\nWhen we consider the mild and merciful spirit of the Gospel,\u2014when we\nreflect on it as a revelation of divine love made manifest in the most\nperfect form of human love,\u2014we are at first sight astonished that so\ntremendous an idea as that of an infinite and eternal hell could ever\nhave been connected with it, or so wretched a one as a seclusive, and\ncomparatively all but an unpeopled heaven. And truly this could have\nnever been, had the doctrine of immortal life been apprehended in the\nfull spirit of Christianity. But the fact of man\u2019s immortality made\nmanifest in the Gospel has not generally been so apprehended, it has had\nfrom the first to contend against darkening and perverting influences.\nConverts to the faith of Christ brought with them many of the prejudices\nand errors of their former training, and what in the early ages of the\nchurch was the result of ignorance, in later ones became sanctified into\nthe testimony of faith. Those who came from heathen superstitions to the\nreligion of Christ, brought with them minds filled with material images;\ntheir worship or their age left no means for any others; and their\nbelief in a future existence of necessity became shaped by these\nassociations. A sacrificial worship symbolized their gods of wrath, and\nwhat they had attributed to many, they were unable to dissociate from\none; physical pains and pleasures comprehended their whole notion of\nretribution and reward, and these their Christianity made eternal. Their\nhell and their heaven were therefore fashioned from the rude conceptions\nof their previous superstitions, and from the symbolic language of the\nGospel crudely understood. The everlasting hell which thence grew out of\nthe mistakes of the vulgar, and the speculations of the learned, it was\ntoo much the interest of priests to maintain, not to receive the\nsanction of the church with an earnest and zealous promulgation.\nConnected with other doctrines, what immense power was thus placed in\nthe hands of ecclesiastics! With what deep and gloomy awe it shrouded\nthe character of the priest! Once in the place of his ministry, he stood\nthere not as the simple teacher of his brethren, and his equals, not as\nthe mere expounder of his master\u2019s gospel, but as the commisioned\ndelegate of heaven, authorized by God to denounce his everlasting wrath\non the guilty, to wield the thunder of an eternal vengeance. We cannot\nestimate the power with which such a doctrine would invest the\nhierarchy, and we are not therefore surprised that it is the last which\nany orthodox priesthood would be willing to resign,\u2014one of those prime\ndoctrines, to deny which has ever been stamped as heresy, from Origen to\nServetus. If even in these times, when protestantism and other causes\nhave done so much to take away the reverence with which the ministry was\nonce surrounded, highly-wrought pictures of endless misery give men not\ndeemed to have any supernatural authority such influence over the minds\nof their hearers, such despotism over their feelings and their\nconsciences, what must it have been when superstition bent down the\nvotaries before the church in prostrate submission, when the servants of\nher altar were regarded as the direct messengers of God,\u2014as those\nordained to stand between hell and heaven, with the key of both; to\nannounce glad tidings, or empty the vials of indignation; to distribute\nGod\u2019s grace, or to proclaim his malediction. Many causes have been\nassigned for the growth of ecclesiastical supremacy, but this doctrine I\nam persuaded was the greatest of all; the priestly throne, which raised\nits ambition to the stars, was girded around by the lightning and\ntempests of eternal terrors. The doctrine of eternal torments derives\nmuch strength from ecclesiastical interest; and it is further sustained\nby all the logic of theological subtlety. Many writers on divinity seem\nto find a strange and morbid pleasure in describing the tortures of the\nwicked, both in nature and duration, exhausting all analogies to\nillustrate the incomprehensible; and all modes of thought and expression\nto explain the infinite. On this doctrine the transition from Romanism\nto Protestantism has impressed no change. If the Reformation broke some\nbonds that enslaved the freedom of religion, it removed no cloud which\nobscured its heaven: the fierce teachings of Augustine were only made\nmore complete and systematic by the still fiercer doctrines of Calvin;\nand the dark sketch of eternal reprobation drawn in its outlines by the\nCarthaginian monk, received its last touches from the Genevan master:\nwhat in the olden church was broached only in the cautious reasonings of\nthe schools, has in Protestantism been made the staple _materiel_ of\ntheological declamation.\n\nThese doctrines have not only done much to obscure men\u2019s minds as to the\ncondition of the wicked in a future state, but also to mislead them in\nan equal degree on that of the righteous. This we observe in many of the\npopular notions of heaven. To millions, heaven seems to be for the soul\nwhat the grave is for the body\u2014a place of mere repose. If something more\nthan this, an elysium for indolence, a kind of region of complacent\nidealism, where the faithful and elect are to enjoy ecstacies and\nprayer, musings and melodies, which the coarse struggles of earth\nforbade, in which the cares of the world left no time to engage;\u2014the\nclear skies and still waters of paradise, the golden harps, the incense,\nand the music of angels, to relieve from weariness, strife, and pain,\ntoil-worn and time-worn spirits. Nor is such view of heaven ungrateful,\ntried as we are here with sin and tired as we are with labour; but this\nmust not exhaust our thoughts of future bliss. Our highest happiness,\neven in heaven, must consist in highest action: no other happiness can\nexist for a moral and intellectual being than that which calls his\nfaculties into energy, and supplies both with materials and objects on\nwhich to engage them. Our ideas in general of heaven are too much those\nof negation or contrast. We are here in sojourn, we think only of home\nthere; we are here in conflict, we think only of peace there; we are\nhere in labour, and there we only picture our rest; we forget that all\nthese are worth nothing but as means to higher purposes, unsuitable as\nfinal conditions to creatures who bear within them the life that is\nhenceforth to go on with that of the All-creative God.\n\nI may just observe here, and it is pleasant to be able to do so, that\nthe opinion against which this Lecture is directed, is an illustration\nof the fact that tenets die out practically before they are renounced\ntheoretically. It is well known to all who hear recent orthodox\npreaching, or who read recent orthodox works on practical piety, how\nlittle compared with former times is the space now occupied in them by\nSatan and damnation. The imagination is not tortured as it once was,\nwith all horrible and hideous representations of human suffering, which\ntaste and devotion alike reject. Why, even in the Lecture of my reverend\nand respected opponent, though directly on the subject, all the\nrepulsive features are lost in a most moderate and temporate exposition.\nSuch errors let alone will gradually of themselves expire.\n\n1. In support of the doctrine of eternal torments, it is in the first\nplace pleaded that Scripture expressly declares it. This conclusion is\nfounded principally on the words and phrases correspondent to our\n\u201cever,\u201d \u201ceverlasting\u201d \u201cfor ever and ever,\u201d &c. That in numerous passages\nthey imply duration without end or limit, we readily admit. It is\nneedless to point them out. We are then told that this must be their\ninvariable meaning, except some evident fragility in the object to which\nthey are applied implies the contrary. To assert that they have the\nhighest force when connected with future punishment, is to assume what\nis to be proved; for the nature of the object is the very question in\ndispute. If we can show that the words have not unvarying literal\napplication, then the subject is at least open to discussion; but if it\nbe asserted they must mean endless duration, because future punishment\nis in its _nature_ endless, the point is dogmatically decided, and there\nis no further possibility of argument. If every phrase of Scripture is\nto be taken as a rigid definition, then we are to believe that Christ\nheld himself in his own hands when he said, \u201cthis is my body.\u201d Now the\ninstances in the Bible, in all parts of it in which phrases disputed\nbetween us and our opponents indicated limited duration, and only that,\nare numerous beyond counting:[601]\u2014sometimes, not longer than a man\u2019s\nlife, as when after certain conditions of compact, the slave is said to\nserve his master for ever. In other cases it is more extended, but still\ntemporary; as when the land of Judea is called an everlasting\npossession; the law an everlasting covenant; the nation a people\nestablished for ever; the hierarchy an everlasting priesthood. As to the\nlast, the writer to the Hebrews tells us, that \u201cthe priesthood being\nchanged there is made a necessity of change also of the law; for there\nis verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the\nweakness and unprofitableness of it.\u201d\n\n\u0391\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd (the principal word in the Greek original), Mr. Simpson in his\nEssay on the duration of future rewards and punishments (p. 17) asserts,\noccurs about a hundred times in the New Testament, in seventy of which\nat least it is clearly used for limited duration. In the Septuagint\ntranslation of the Old Testament it is even repeated, and several times\nit is repeated twice, and in two instances signifies no longer a period\nthan the life of one man only. \u201cIt is,\u201d says the same critic, \u201can\nobservation of the utmost importance, that when \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd, or \u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bd\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2, are\napplied to the future punishment of the wicked, they are never joined to\nlife, immortality, incorruptibility, but are always connected with fire,\nor with that punishment, pain, or second death, which is effected by\nmeans of fire. Now since fire, which consumes or decomposes other\nperishable bodies, is itself of a dissoluble or perishable nature, this\nintimates a limitation of the period of time.\u201d The phrase, \u201ceverlasting\nfire,\u201d is plainly a metaphor, a metaphor which the Jews would be at no\nloss to understand: the associations which they derived from the fire in\nthe valley of Hinnom would render it sufficiently intelligible.\n\nThe phraseology was familiar in the Old Testament. Fire unquenchable,\nfire not to be quenched, is used in many places in which it cannot be\nliteral. Thus Jeremiah (xvii. 27.) threatens the Jews, in the name of\nGod, for their breach of the sabbath, \u201cthen will I kindle a fire in the\ngates (of Jerusalem,) and it shall devour the palaces thereof, and it\nshall not be quenched.\u201d So Isaiah (xxxiv. 9, &c.), speaking of Idumea,\n\u201cand the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust\nthereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.\nIt shall not be quenched night nor day: the smoke thereof shall go up\nfor ever.\u201d\u2014While on this part of the subject, I shall just allude to a\nremark made on Mr. Grundy\u2019s view of the text in which it is said of the\nwicked that their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched. After\nquoting a passage from Mr. Grundy\u2019s Discourse, and making some comment\non it, the lecturer went on to assert, \u201cIn a note moreover, we are\ninformed that the foregoing criticism is founded on the assumption of\nthe passage really referring to future punishment, which, however, the\npreacher affirms it does not. For, he adds, we have before shown, the\nworm has been long since dead, and for ages has the fire been quenched.\u201d\nThe impression which this use of Mr. Grundy\u2019s language had a tendency to\nleave, is one wholly foreign to his meaning; for it would seem to imply\nthat Mr. Grundy asserted the extension already of retributive penalty in\nthe future life. The plain import is, that our Lord used a metaphor\ntaken from perishable things, which have, in fact, perished\u2014and thence\nit cannot be proved that he referred to an eternal state of suffering.\nThe allusion, as is well known, is taken from the close of Isaiah,\nwhere, of the worshippers going to Jerusalem, it is said, they shall\nlook upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed, for their worm\nshall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched. It is plain that\nhere it means not eternity, and though applied by Christ to future\npunishment, it does not follow from the language that he means to imply\nunending punishment. Archbishop Newcome\u2019s language is as strong as Mr.\nGrundy\u2019s; for he also says, \u201cin the valley of Hinnom, the worm died when\nits food failed\u2014and the pile on which human sacrifices were burnt to\nMoloch was often extinguished.\u201d To the writer of the lectures which have\nbeen referred to, we are all deeply indebted for an example set us in\ntimes and under circumstances of which we can but little now estimate\nthe difficulty; we owe him the tribute of our respect for an honest and\nfearless advocacy of truth, of mental and religious freedom, at the\nexpense of painful and personal sacrifices.\n\nThus, while none of these passages that I have referred to prove this\ndoctrine, there are many scriptures at utter variance with it. God is\nagain and again called the father that created us. We are taught that he\nis good, and that his tender mercies are over all his works. God is\nlove. He will not always chide, we are told, neither will he keep his\nanger for ever; that he will not cast off for ever; that he hath not\nshut up his tender mercies in anger. Finally, almost in the close of the\nsacred volume, we are informed that there shall be no more death,\nneither sorrow, neither crying, neither shall they suffer any more pain;\nfor the former things are passed away. Both these cannot be true. It is\na moral contradiction to conceive a gracious and merciful God, creating\nbeings with immortal life, and then rendering them eternally wretched:\nwe have but one alternative, either we must renounce our faith in these\ndeclarations, or we renounce it in the benevolence of God. There are but\ntwo texts, one in Daniel, and the other in Matthew, in which there is\nany remarkable force. In these it is said that the wicked go away into\neverlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal, and on\nthese two phrases the tremendous doctrine is built up. The duration of\nboth are urged to be equal, and we are told, that if we deny eternal\ndamnation, we deny eternal life. No such thing. Reason, feeling, nature,\njustice, moral sentiment, the belief of a perfect God, and the force of\nscriptural evidence, coincide with the one and are repugnant to the\nother. There is not a single proof which can be urged in favour of a\nfuture life, which is not an irrefutable argument against future\nperdition. If you deduce the ideas from the goodness of God, from his\ntruth, from his wisdom, it is essentially subversive of this dark dogma.\nIf you deduce the idea from the nature of man, it comes to the same\npurpose; if you conclude he is to live for ever, because of his infinite\nand progressive faculties of reason and of conscience, you must by the\nsame argument infer that he is to live to a better end than to be cast\neternally into hell. If he was worth creation, he is worth preserving;\nif he is worth preserving, he is worth being made good and happy. If a\ngreat multitude of immortals are to endure infinite pain, so far as they\nare concerned, the existence of a soul and the being of a God are\ninfinite evils.\n\nThe spirit and the letter of Scripture is in favour of this glorious\ndoctrine. Every Scripture which proves that God is good and not\nmalignant is in favour of it; every Scripture which proves that God is a\nrestorer and not a destroyer is in favour of it; every Scripture which\nproves that God has more the desire to pardon than to punish proves it.\nTo this effect I might quote passages to greater extent than the whole\nof this lecture occupies; the selection must therefore be limited, not\nby the want of matter but by the want of space. \u201cGod is love: and he so\nloved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever\nbelieveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life: for God\nsent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world\nthrough him might be saved.\u201d[602] \u201cJehovah is full of compassion, slow\nto anger and of great mercy. Jehovah is good to all: and his tender\nmercies are over all his works. All thy works do praise thee, O Jehovah:\nand thy saints shall bless thee.\u201d We are exhorted to \u201ctaste and see that\nthe Lord is good.\u201d \u201cThe goodness of God,\u201d we are told, \u201cendureth\ncontinually.\u201d \u201cThe Lord God,\u201d we are assured, \u201cis merciful and gracious,\nlong suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for\nthousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.\u201d \u201cThe Lord your\nGod is gracious and merciful, and will not turn away his face from you\nif ye turn to him.\u201d \u201cThe Lord is merciful and gracious; slow to anger\nand plenteous in mercy: he hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor\nrewarded us according to our iniquities: for as the heaven is high above\nthe earth, so great is his mercy towards them that fear him; as far as\nthe east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions\nfrom us: Like as a father pitieth his children, so hath the Lord\ncompassion on them that fear him: for he knoweth our frame; he\nremembereth that we are dust.\u201d And from our earliest prayer to our dying\nhour, we are taught in the simplest and sublimest of all supplications\nto open our address to God thus; \u201cOur Father who art in heaven.\u201d We read\nevermore in Scripture that God\u2019s is not an everlasting anger; as such\npassages as the following testify: \u201cHis anger endureth but for a\nmoment.\u201d \u201cHe will not always chide, neither will he keep his anger for\never.\u201d \u201cHath God forgotten to be gracious; hath he in anger shut up his\ntender mercies?\u201d \u201cI will not contend for ever, neither will I be always\nwrath: for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have\nmade.\u201d Correspondent with the doctrine of these expressions, and with\nthe spirit of the whole Gospel, is a passage that I quote from a book\nwhich Protestants in general declare not to be canonical. \u201cThou hast\nmercy upon all; for thou canst do all things, and winkest at the sins of\nmen, because they should amend. For thou lovest all things that are, and\nabhorrest nothing which thou hast made: for never wouldst thou have made\nany thing if thou hadst hated it. And how could any thing have endured,\nif it had not been thy will; or been preserved, if not called by thee?\nBut thou sparest thine, for they are thine, O Lord, thou lover of souls.\nFor thine incorruptible spirit is in all things; therefore chastenest\nthou them, by little and little, that offend, and warnest them by\nputting them in remembrance wherein they have offended, that leaving\ntheir wickedness, they may believe on thee, O Lord. For thy power is the\nbeginning of righteousness; and because thou art the Lord of all, it\nmaketh Thee to be gracious unto all. But thou, O God, art gracious and\ntrue: long suffering, and in mercy ordering all things: for if we sin,\nwe are thine, knowing thy power; but we will not sin, knowing that we\nare accounted thine.\u201d[603]\n\nOnce more, whatever theoretical view we may happen to hold on the\nredemption of man by Christ, the end and glory of that redemption\nrequires as the only consistent consummation, the ultimate happiness and\nvirtue of mankind. To this purport I shall adduce one passage of\nScripture and quote a commentary. The passage is Rom. v. 12-21, and the\ncommentary is by Dr. S. Smith. \u201cAs by one man sin entered into the\nworld, and death by sin; and thus death hath passed upon all men,\ninasmuch as all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world,\nbut sin is not imputed, where there is no law:) nevertheless death\nreigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after\nthe similitude of Adam\u2019s transgressions, who is a figure (a type) of him\nthat was to come: (yet the free gift likewise is not so, as was the\noffence: for if through the offence of one, many have died, much more\nthe grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus\nChrist, hath abounded unto many. Neither is the gift so, as it was by\none that sinned; for judgment was of one offence to condemnation, but\nthe free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if, by the\noffence of one, death reigned by one, much more those who receive the\nabounding of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life\nby one, even Jesus Christ:) so then as by the offence of one, judgment\ncame upon all men to condemnation; so likewise by the righteousness of\none the free gift hath come upon all men to justification of life. For\nas by the disobedience of one many were made sinners, so likewise, by\nthe obedience of one, many shall be made righteous. Moreover, the law\nentered that sin might abound: but where sin abounded, grace did much\nmore abound. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace\nreign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ, our\nLord.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn this passage all men are said to have been made mortal by the\noffence of Adam, and here the phrase \u2018all men\u2019 must necessarily be\nunderstood to signify every individual of the human race. Though the\nstyle of the apostle in this passage is remarkably intricate and\nperplexed, yet his meaning is clear, and scarcely to be misunderstood.\nHe affirms that death entered into the world by Adam, and that in\nconsequence of his offence, death passed upon all men, or all men became\nmortal. Thus many were made sinful or mortal by one. In this sense Adam\nwas a type of Jesus Christ: for as all mankind became subject to great\nprivation or suffering in consequence of the offence of one, namely\nAdam, so the greatest privileges and blessings are bestowed on all\nmankind in consequence of the obedience of one, namely, Jesus Christ.\nBut it is only in this single circumstance that all suffer and all are\nbenefited by one, that there is any analogy between them: for in every\nother respect there is the greatest possible difference between Adam and\nChrist. The act entailing such important consequences upon the whole\nhuman race, was, on the part of Adam, an act of transgression, on the\npart of Christ an act of obedience. And there is a still further\ndisparity between them; for the calamities resulting from the act of\ntransgression were the legal punishment of the offence; but the\nblessings accruing from the act of obedience were not such as could be\nclaimed by law, but were the free, unpurchased unmerited gift of God.\nAnd the consequences of the act of transgression and the act of\nobedience may be placed in still more striking contrast: for the act of\ntransgression was but one, and yet death, with all the calamities\nconnected with it, passed upon the whole human race; while the act of\nobedience provides justification for many offences: nor is this all; for\nthe blessings procured for all mankind by the obedience of Christ are\nunspeakably greater than the calamities brought upon them by the offence\nof Adam.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis is undoubtedly the argument of the Apostle. Notwithstanding all\nthe obscurity and perplexity of his language, whoever reads the passage\nwith attention, must perceive these were the ideas which were in his\nmind. And in the whole compass of Christian truth, there is no doctrine\nmore important or more glorious than that which is thus disclosed. It is\na direct and positive declaration, that the blessings, provided by the\nobedience of Christ, shall, in number of persons who partake them, be\nco-extensive with the calamities produced by the offence of Adam, and in\ntheir magnitude and value greatly exceed them. This is sufficient; this\nis decisive; these ideas were in the mind of the apostle; this is the\ndoctrine which he plainly and indisputably teaches, and nothing more is\nnecessary. For, even though it should be proved that he illustrates his\ndoctrine by a fanciful allusion to what was itself only an allegory;\nthat his reasoning is not in every respect complete, and even, that he\ndid not himself fully comprehend all the glorious consequences of the\nsublime truth he disclosed, that truth would be neither the less\nimportant nor the less certain. The great fact itself, the fact which it\nwas his object and his office to teach, and in which he could not be\nmistaken, was, that the blessings produced by the obedience of Christ\nshall be as extensive as the evils occasioned by the offence of Adam;\nthat all who suffer from the one shall partake of the benefits of the\nother, while these benefits themselves shall infinitely exceed and\noverbalance the calamities entailed on mankind by the first\ntransgression. The conclusion is inevitable, that the whole human race\nshall ultimately be restored to virtue and happiness. By one passage of\nScripture then, at least, the doctrine which it is the object of this\nwork to establish, is positively and expressly affirmed; and this is\ndecisive.\u201d[604]\n\nTo sustain this doctrine we hear analogy also pleaded. Pain, it is said,\nhas no tendency to correct. This is not true. Pain often does\ncorrect\u2014and many are led back to virtue by means of a sad experience.\nPain physically and morally is the great instrument of warning. But\nthough it were fully granted that pure pain were not a corrective\nagency, it may, in connection with other influences, bring healing to\nthe soul. We never see it unmixed in this world, and we have no just\nground to conclude it will be so in another. How often is it the means\nof drawing forth a mercy and a grace from others that softens the stony\nheart of the transgressor. How often, when the sinner is laid low\u2014yea,\nand by the very effect of crimes, will a kind look or word, an instance\nof forbearance or forgiveness, work a regeneration on his nature. How\noften will the son who plagued his parents\u2019 life, and whitened their\nhair with sorrow, when driven by misery to seek again the shelter of a\nhome, be sweetened into meekness by a mother\u2019s love, and be raised again\nto dignity by a father\u2019s generosity. If pain then, by making us feel the\ngoodness of others, will so frequently incite us to deserve it, are we\nto conceive that an experience, with clearer knowledge of God\u2019s love,\nshall be entirely ineffectual? It is said, that men grow more hardened\nin sin the longer they continue in it. I allow it was a generous truth:\nand yet the thought of a moment\u2014the visit of one pure memory, may\nsuffice to change a life of crime. But our argument is, that men will\nnot continue in sin; and it will not be asserted, that if reformation is\nat all possible, God will refuse the means, and make crime eternal. It\nis further stated that the wicked, by force of numbers and society with\neach other, grow increasingly worse: it is to be proved, which it is not\nand cannot, that in a future existence there is any such distribution\neither local or moral. This doctrine is not only unfounded in analogy,\nbut contradicted by it\u2014there must be either destruction or renovation:\nso it is in the natural world, and so it is in the moral. Nothing can\nsustain continued existence in a state of extreme disorganization; a\ncertain amount of consistency and harmony is an essential condition of\nevery being\u2014without this, there must be dissolution and destruction. Sin\nbeing then confusion in the soul and in society, an eternal state of\nprogressive sin is inconceivable. Pain, being in like manner\ndisorganization in body or mind, an eternity of growing pain is equally\ninconceivable. Continued and extreme pain therefore must either destroy\nits subject or destroy itself; and then on this argument alone we\nperceive that eternal torture is a theological figment; a nonentity and\nimpossibility.\n\nThe belief is further pressed upon us on grounds of moral influence.\nThis is but an additional argument against it, for it either has no\neffect or a bad one. It has no effect, from its vagueness and its\nincomprehensibleness. It does not fasten on the moral feelings\u2014it sinks\ndead by its own ponderousness. It has no effect from its inconsistency\nwith human nature; there is no affinity between a finite being and\nboundless torture; and thence from the want of truth there is also a\nwant of power. It has no effect, because there is an instinctive\nabhorrence in the heart against it; and there is an instinctive justice\nwhich repels it; the imagination reels before it\u2014the mind retreats from\nit, and finds that it is too odious even to be looked at. That it has no\neffect may be seen to a vast extent: millions in all countries profess\nto believe it, and among these have been, and are, many of the most\nabandoned that ever brought shame upon their nature; and yet a faith in\nhell gave them no fear of vice. So far as it has influence it is of a\nbad kind; because it familiarizes the mind with coarse images; because\nit breathes into obedience a spirit of slavish fear; because it makes\nterror an instrument of religion; because it throws darkness on the ways\nof providence; because it undermines filial confidence in God, and puts\na limit either to his power or his love. The doctrine of ultimate and\nuniversal salvation lowers the sanctions of righteousness. But what is\nthe true motive to goodness, what is the spirit of it\u2014that which unites\nus most to God? Love, not fear; not fear of hell; and in the sense of\nterror not even fear of God himself. Fear is mere submission to force,\nnot the willing service of heart-felt appreciation; the crouching of a\nslave in outward show to the despot whom in his soul he thoroughly\ndetests. Now as we cannot love by constraint, what ideas of God are most\nlikely to move our affections, and consequently produce in us the true\nspirit of obedience? Evidently his benevolence, his purity, his\ndisinterested goodness, his fatherly nature\u2014to be drawn to him with the\ncords of our hearts, we see him in the clear light of his moral beauty.\nIt is rather paradoxical that these doctrines on the power of fear, the\nrighteousness of vindictive punishment, and the limits of moral\nreformation, should be propagated in our times, when all the practical\ntendencies of society are in contradiction. The influence of conviction\nand not of force, the influence of mind and not pain, is the growing\nspirit of the time, and a faith, which puts no bound to hope; for the\nlove of man is a motive deepening ever in the great social heart. This\nis the blessing of our day,\u2014it has enlightened education, and softened\nthe rigour of instruction; it is mingling the gentleness of mercy with\nthe austerity of punishment; it is working to restore the criminal and\nnot to destroy, tempering discipline with wisdom, believing that\ncorrective amelioration is most useful and most just; in the same\nbelieving spirit it is sending a vast spiritual agency into every realm\nof vice: while thus philosophy and philanthropy labour in the trust they\nshall leave men better than they found them, exploding the errors which\nhad been the greatest curses to mankind, these are the very errors which\ntheology sanctifies, which it is heresy to deny: whilst a moral and\nmerciful civilization is exerted to exalt man, theology continues to\ndeface the image of God; the one scattering beauty on mortality, and the\nother spreading darkness on eternity; the one removing pain, and the\nother preaching it.\n\nThe doctrine we oppose is further defended on the ground that sin is an\ninfinite offence, that man is therefore an infinite offender; and that\nan infinite offender deserves unending punishment. The assertion, that\nman can be an infinite offender, is wholly inconsistent with the views\nwhich the orthodox themselves present of man. To be a transgressor in\nany degree, implies the possession of a noble nature, much less to be an\ninfinite transgressor; but with the miserable and contemptible creature\nwhich Calvinism describes as man, it is impossible to associate any idea\nthat is either noble or infinite, for good or for evil. We may assume\nanother mode of reasoning. The obedience of the law is righteousness,\nthe transgression of the law is sin. These are correspondent\ndefinitions. By every rule, therefore, of logical deduction, if a single\nact of sin is an infinite evil, a single act of obedience is an infinite\ngood; and on the same grounds of justice by which one man is doomed to\nan everlasting hell, the other merits an eternal heaven.\n\nBut to speak of man at all as an infinite offender, is to set common\nsense at defiance. Whence can be the infinitude of his offence? Not in\nits origin, not in its effects, not in its duration: not in its origin,\nfor it is produced in limited faculties; not in its effects, for the\nerrors of a created nature, counteracted by an uncreated omnipotence,\ncan never be infinite, can never be irremediable; not in its duration,\nfor the life of one man, the lives of all men to the end of human\ngenerations, are but a point in the universe and government of God. Sin\nis either a state of mind or a state of action; but whether as one or\nthe other, it must of necessity be limited. Were the career of man\nextended to that of Methusalem, and his powers as capacious as his years\nwere many; were the whole of that existence a succession of crime,\nuncheered by a solitary virtue; were the energy of the mightiest\nintellect devoted to contrive guilt, and the efforts of the most\ningenious sinfulness given to its execution; were every creation of\nfancy a vision of impurity, every instinct an impulse to cruelty, every\nemotion a movement of malignity, yet even thus horrible, we could not\nwith truth call man an infinite offender. Neither in desire nor in\naction can he be such. Not in desire, for there is no man that wishes,\nthere never has been the man that wished, absolute, unmingled, endless\nevil; not in action, for there is no man, whatever the malignity of his\nintention, has unlimited power of execution. If sin is an infinite\noffence, then all sins are equal, for infinity has no degrees; if\nsinners are infinite transgressors, then criminals have no distinctions;\ntransgression has no gradations, and the whole moral space is\nannihilated between him who stands on the very margin of heaven, and him\nwho is already plunged into hell; the same impassable gulf which exists\nbetween their conditions, exists also between their characters.\n\nMan is not an infinite offender, nor yet is he an incorrigible one.\nThere is nothing in his nature or history which justifies the\nconclusion. There is no point of moral baseness so low that we can mark\nit as a hopeless condition. He is not immutable; and as change is\npossible, changes for the better may be looked for, as well as changes\nfor the worse. Such changes have been; the painful experience of evil\nand wrong-doing, however slow and vacillating, always drives towards\nthem; all observation, therefore, is in favour of our expectation. We\nlook not on the deepest, the deadliest, and the worst instance of human\ndepravity, as beyond correction, beyond improvement, beyond the power of\nAlmighty God; we look upon no ignorance that may not be enlightened;\nupon no vice that may not be removed; upon no human countenance so\nscarred with the traces of depravity, as to leave nothing visible but\nthe hand-writing of reprobation; God forbid that we should behold any\nhuman being with humanity\u2019s capacities, destined, beyond amendment, to\nhopeless corruption and to incorrigible misery. I deny not the existence\nand the delusion of vice. I deny not the abuse of the noblest faculties,\nor the perversion of the best affections, but I do deny that the human\nsoul is ever so wrecked or lost as to become utterly hopeless. The man\nof pleasure may turn from joy to joy, and collect nothing for his home\nbut weariness and disgust; the man of ambition may sacrifice health and\nrepose, honour and probity; the covetous man may, during a long life,\ndrudge away days of labour, and toss through nights of care, to die in\nthe possession of what he never enjoyed; the indolent and the prodigal\nmay live as if there were no _tomorrow_; the vicious and profane may\nreel on, reckless of a future existence and a future judgment. We have\nall seen every human passion making havoc upon virtue; but we have also\nseen the passions, carrying with them their own sting and their own\npunishment, and in that sting and punishment, to a certain extent at\nleast, they have contained their own amelioration and amendment. That\nhuman beings have been raised from their lowest debasement, that they\nhave been emancipated from the worst of moral bondage, that they have\nbeen purified from the deepest of pollutions, we have many consolatory\nevidences. In every nation of earth that now enjoys the blessings of\nreligion, of liberty, of arts, of moral and social refinement, we have\nproofs, that by gradual and progressive improvement, these human beings\nmay be delivered from the very worst estate of ignorance, vice,\ndestitution, and brutality. For what are the nations that we now glory\nto acknowledge, but instances the most undeniable, that man is not only\nan imperishable, but also an improvable creature? I have seen beings in\ntheir thoughtlessness, the victims of their own vanity, sink miserable\nand despairing into the terror which they had prepared for themselves:\nbut must I say, that they shall never throughout eternity discover the\nlittleness of the objects they desired, nor abstain from chasing the\nphantoms that misled them? I have seen men insanely and foolishly toil\nfor all that makes life a trifle, at the loss of all that makes it a\nglory; I have read in history, and I can recal by memory, the experience\nof those who spent all they had of energy or misused all they had of\ngoodness to obtain that which at last they felt their torture; I have\nseen the turbulent nature soften into peace, the thoughtless awakened\ninto wisdom and action, the profane elevated into reverence, the impious\nbending to pray, the angry subdued into meekness, the proud converted to\nthe wisdom of humility, the hard-hearted melted to the goodness of\nmercy.\n\nShould it be said that this argument is too narrow, and appeals only to\nimmediate feeling, let us then take a wider sphere, and try the\nprinciple by a larger test. Call to your attention the varieties of\nmankind, of their present and past condition, of their present and past\ncircumstances. Many millions exist on the wide surface of the globe,\namong whom the elements of moral redemption have never had operation, on\nwhose benighted souls a ray of Christian light has never dawned, hearts\nwhich have never felt the bliss of holy liberty, and bosoms that have\nnever burned with heavenly fire. Take up a map of the world; cast your\neye over its boundaries and divisions, from pole to pole, and from\nmeridian to meridian; conceive the myriads of rational beings who swarm\nalong that surface; reflect on the wonderful diversities in their\nconditions and their training; pass over the dreary frosts of one\ncountry, and the deadening heat of others; wherever you turn, humanity\nmeets you under different forms, and in various circumstances\u2014with\nhabits more or less corrupted, with morals more or less pure, with\nreligion more or less enlightened or absurd; let me then ask any\nenlightened thinker, any one who has studied human nature, whether all\nthese are to be arranged under one general classification. Consider the\ntribes around the arctic, buried in darkness; pierce into the unexplored\nregions of Africa; go over the deserts of Arabia; walk among the tents\nof its predatory and pastoral populations; traverse Persia, India,\nTartary, the islands that dimly gleam through the Southern Ocean, and\nwherever you go, mankind are in various moral positions, and\nconsequently under various terms of moral probation. Shall then that\nall-seeing Creator, to whom every heart is open, place all these motley\ntribes under one system of judgment? It cannot be. Shall beings born in\nregions of darkness be condemned for want of light\u2014beings who had never\nbreathed but of impurity, for not being sanctified\u2014beings bred amidst\nidols, for being idolatrous? Taking thus into view the populations of\nthe earth, we have before us an infinity of moral conditions; and yet\nthe differences are not greater between the extremes of them than those\nwe might select in a single country or a single city; than those, in\nfact, which we know to exist. Respecting the terms of probation, a New\nZealander is not at a greater distance from an Englishman, than some\nEnglishmen are from others. When we think then how many are ignorant and\nsuffering by the very necessity of destiny, and by the same fate vicious\nand depraved, if the passage of a breath end all hope of amendment, our\nfaith must cease in divine justice, as well as divine wisdom, and our\nperplexity be turned to despair.\n\nWe look on man, not as a member of a sect, but as a child of God; and\nonce more, we ask, if he is not an infinite offender, nor yet\nincorrigible, is he not worth the correction? If his purity and\nhappiness be within the bounds of possibility, if his eternal misery by\nany degree of energy can be averted, are we to believe that a God who\nhas infinite benevolence _wills_ him to perish; are we to believe that a\nGod who has infinite power will exert none of it to save the most\nglorious of his works from utter destruction? Can we suppose that God,\nomnipotent and most wise, would reverse eternally such capacities for\ngoodness and happiness, and instead of training them to be instruments\nof boundless utility, would condemn them to be agents of eternal evil?\nWill not God rather choose to sow the field of everlasting life with\nseeds of holiness and bliss, than to scathe it to a ruin and a\nwilderness? I would not strip the future of its awe; no terror can be\nequal to the truth; it is the most solemn anticipation that can ever\ncome upon the mind, and I maintain that nothing the most fearing\nimagination conceived in its wildest apprehensions ever equalled the\nreality: but, for God\u2019s universe and for God\u2019s creatures, there is\nalways hope; in God\u2019s power and wisdom there are limitless means, and at\nlast there will be universal peace and universal emancipation. If\ncreatures are not ultimately and universally happy, it must be either\nfrom the want of ability in God, or the want of inclination; and this\ndifficulty pressing itself on the mind of a powerful and pious orthodox\nwriter, he chose, in accounting for the loss of souls, to suppose that\ntheologians had mistaken in their theories the nature of divine\nomnipotence; that love and power have distinct offices; but if he were\nto circumscribe either attribute in God, it would be power and not love.\nOn the ground of an eternal perdition, such attribute as a _moral_\nomnipotence can truly be ascribed to God. The able writer to whom I have\nalluded has seen to the bottom of the difficulty, and believing as he\ndoes most sincerely in eternal suffering, believing also as he does with\nequal sincerity in the infinite love of God, he is compelled so far as\nthe human will is concerned to circumscribe the sphere and action of\ndivine omnipotence, or rather to deny it altogether. \u201cThe truth is,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cthat the only rational conclusion we can arrive at in the matter,\nis that in the nature of things no such attribute can exist. And until\nthe cloud, which its supposed existence throws on every procedure of\ndivine providence, is dissipated, we must either not think at all, or\nthink amiss on that subject in comparison of which all other subjects\nare unimportant, namely the character of God: I know that many may, at\nfirst sight, be startled at the assertion, that the power of God can in\nany sense be limited. In this, as in various instances, they will object\nto the same truth as a distinct proposition, which they will freely\nassume and take for granted in all their reasonings. These very persons\nwill speak of Providence as devising means and moving by gradual\nadvancement to the accomplishment of an end. If asked, why not decree\nthe end without the means? they answer, because it could not be\nattained, at least so well, without them. If then, the term _could not_,\nbe at all admitted, (and how freely is this term applied to God in\nScripture!) no such thing as unrestricted omnipotence exists. It is not\nthat there is any limit in God. God forbid that I should dare to say so.\nIt is, that power in its own nature is limited. It can act only on\npossibilities.... Even power itself is but a vague and unintelligible\nnotion, unless displayed to us as triumphing over difficulties, and\nrising superior to obstacles. A sweeping omnipotence, which could by one\nsovereign act of will, decree that in the nature of things neither\nimpediment nor resistance should exist, leaves no field even for power\nitself to act on. Omnipotence such as this, at least supplies no\nmaterials for man to comprehend or adore. No: we are constructed\notherwise. Our faculties are so framed as to correspond with the truth\nand reality of things. The power that fills the soul with wonder and\nwith praise is that which the Scripture of truth exhibits: that power in\nwhich God arises that his enemies may be scattered; that omnipotence by\nwhich he produces good out of evil, and subdues the most unyielding\nsubstances and stubborn elements into himself. But still more, as it\nrespects the wisdom of God, is it necessary to dismiss the notion of an\nabsolute omnipotence before the former attribute can shine forth in its\ntrue glory. For surely, according to our conceptions, it would be more\nwise to arrive at once, if that were possible, at all that means, and\ncontrivances, and processes can accomplish, than to prefer elaborate and\ncircuitous courses, merely for the sake of going round about to do what\ncould be done as well in the twinkling of an eye. And yet in what does\nthe divine wisdom as apprehensible by us consist? What are the views and\ndiscoveries which lead us, with the apostle, to exclaim, \u2018Oh, the depths\nof the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God?\u2019 Is it not in\nthose very procedures which if unbounded power existed would be folly\nand not wisdom, that all the treasures of the infinite mind are\nmanifested? in adapting means to ends, in pursuing the path of light\namidst surrounding darkness, in harmonizing discordant principles, and\nbringing order out of confusion?\u201d\n\nAfter a few other remarks, the author proceeds to maintain his position\nby the testimony of Scripture.\u2014\u201cTo quote Scripture,\u201d he observes, \u201cas\nfully as I might upon this subject, would be, in a measure, to\ntranscribe the Bible. I shall content myself with producing three\npassages, which, though not of the directer kind, bear, I think,\nirresistibly on the point. The first is Ezek. xxxiii. 11. \u2018As I live,\nsaith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but\nthat the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, from all\nyour evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?\u2019 The second is\nIsa. v. 3, 4. \u2018And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah,\njudge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. What could have been done\nmore to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? Wherefore, when I\nlooked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes.\u2019\nThe last which I shall quote is Matt. xxiii. 37, 38. \u2018O Jerusalem,\nJerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent\nunto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even\nas a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!\nBehold, your house is left unto you desolate.\u2019\u201d \u201cIs this, then, I would\nask any fair and candid person, who looks as if the All-gracious being\nwho employs it, had any relief or remedy in reserve for those who\nwilfully reject the mercies he has freely offered them? Are these like\nthe expressions of one who could bestow salvation in any other way, or\nany other terms? Do they not resemble rather the tender complaints and\nanxious warnings of a parent who had done all he could do, and proposed\nall that he had to propose, to rescue his child from ruin, and who must\nat last, with agonizing reluctance, give up that child, if he would\nstill pursue those courses whose end is inevitable destruction? And if\nsuch be the characters in which God has been pleased to reveal himself;\nif such be the words which he has actually spoken, are we to be wise\nabove what is written? Is it honouring God to say he uses a language to\nwork upon our feelings, which language is in reality a misrepresentation\nof the truth; a misrepresentation, nevertheless, so ill contrived, that,\nafter all, it does not deceive us? Or is it exalting his great name, to\nmagnify the mere natural attribute of his power, above those moral\nattributes in which consist at once his essence and his glory? No. If it\nbe indeed reverence to God, to dismiss him altogether from our minds,\nthen all such considerations are set at rest for ever. But if it be our\nduty, not only to think of him, but to bear him in all our thoughts,\nthen in all around us we see this truth inscribed, that there is a limit\nin power or a limit in love. In which shall we place it?\u2014In power? Then\nwe place it not in God, but in his lowest attribute.\u2014In love? Then\nindeed we place the limit in God himself\u2014\u2018God is love.\u2019\u201d[605]\n\nThe reasoning of this passage is most cogent, the dilemma is inevitable.\nIf there be eternal sin and eternal perdition; if there be not ultimate\nand universal regeneration, limit there must be in love or in power: but\nholding as we do the doctrine of progressive discipline, we place limit\nin neither, and we glorify both. Strange it is, that while thus\nmagnifying God in the highest of his attributes, in the harmony and\nperfection of his nature, while thus trusting him with the faith of\nchildren, notwithstanding many things in his providence mysterious and\ninexplicable, in despite of the sin and misery that surround us, filling\nthe human mind and human destiny with painful and perplexing problems,\nwe believe him to be all-powerful as he is all-good; yet in thus\nbelieving we are set down by Trinitarians as rebels against heaven, and\nblasphemers of our Creator. If reverence to God demand us to believe\nthat the smoke of eternal torment from the depths of an unfathomable\nhell is an incense well pleasing in his sight, or an evil which he must\nendure but has no power to remove, then that is an honour we do not and\nwe cannot give: that is not the God we worship; that is not the God we\ncan love: and if to believe in God be to think him such as Calvin and\nothers have pictured him, then at once take not only the name of\nChristians from us, but in addition stigmatize us with that of atheists.\n\nIII. To limit the power of God in order to justify his love, is the\nstruggle of a humane and benignant nature against a dark and stern\ntheology; but writers in orthodox divinity, whom it would be too tedious\nto catalogue, have not scrupled to go the whole length along the line of\nfearful consequences to which their system led them. They have not\nhesitated to plead for the eternity of hell\u2019s torments _the glory of\nGod_; strange idea indeed of the glory of God, to contemplate him as the\nauthor of everlasting pain and everlasting sin. We think that every\nattribute of God, in every manifestation, is directly against this\ndoctrine. His omniscience is against it. He must have known from all\neternity the destiny of the lost: and with this knowledge, on the\northodox theory, he made creatures with the direct foresight of their\neverlasting misery and everlasting destruction. His omnipotence is\nagainst it. I have shown by the long extract I have before quoted, that\nthe profound and consistent theological reasoner who believes in eternal\nperdition cannot believe in a moral omnipotence. An all-powerful being\nmust be either infinitely malignant or infinitely benevolent. If God\nwere the one, he could find delight only in the suffering of his\ncreatures; and he wills not to relieve them, because he does not will\nthem to be happy. But this idea is utterly repugnant to the first\nprinciples of religion. If God be, as we believe he is, the other, he\ncan have no motive to make his children, the work of his own hands,\nendlessly wretched; and having the power, he has also the will to redeem\nthem. A progressive universe is, therefore, the only true solution to\nGod\u2019s providence, and God\u2019s prescience. Divine justice, it is said,\ndemands it. What, then, is divine justice? Is this divine justice\nidentical with vengeance? Is it divine justice, to make the everlasting\ntorture of a race\u2014for the saved are but the gleanings\u2014a sacrifice to\nboundless self-glorification? Is it divine justice to array all the\nforce of infinite attributes against a limited, a weak, and erring\ncreature? Is it divine justice to meet the offence of ephemeral\nmortality with the agony of deathless torture and of resistless wrath?\nIf this be _divine_ justice, we have reason to rejoice that it is not\n_human_ justice. Such justice is but naked malignity; and this view of\nit is the more firmly established when we further consider that, by the\northodox theology, all is the result of a foregone conclusion, the last\nterm of a dark progression, the execution of a cause uttered in the\nblack womb of eternity, for which the wretches are prepared by the\ninheritance of a corrupt nature in a corrupt world, and lest all natural\ncauses should be insufficient, by an exposure to the unseen snares of a\nSatan profound in cunning, mighty in malice, and, by himself and his\nagents, all but omnipotent and omnipresent. This argument from divine\njustice is urged so frequently and earnestly, that I shall here\ntranscribe a few remarks from a writer who has treated the subject with\nequal force of logic and fervour of eloquence. \u201cJustice and goodness,\u201d\nhe observes, \u201care the same. Justice requires no more punishment for sin\nthan goodness: goodness requires the same as justice, but the manner in\nwhich benevolence manifests itself under the form of goodness and of\njustice is different, and, therefore, requires a different appellation.\nA person who forgives an offence upon repentance and reformation is\ngood: this is one modification of goodness, which, by way of eminence,\nis often called goodness itself, or more strictly mercy: the person who\nvisits an offence which is neither repented of, nor amended with a\nproper degree of pain, is also good: this is another modification of\ngoodness to which the term justice is applied. Mercy and justice,\ntherefore, do not differ from each other in their nature, since they\nequally arise from benevolence, and they differ in aspect only according\nto the moral condition of the being with regard to whom they are\nexemplified. This account of divine justice explains, in the most\nsatisfactory manner, the principle on which Deity rewards and punishes\nmankind. Did men never violate the laws of rectitude, he would make them\ninvariably and completely happy. But there is no person who is free from\nfault: the moral state of every individual is, in some respect or at\nsome period, such as it ought not to be. Every bad disposition, and\nevery improper habit, must be rectified before happiness can be enjoyed.\nIt is necessary, therefore, that the moral governor of the world should\nvary his conduct according to the character of the person whom he has to\ntreat; that he should visit the good with favour, and manifest his\ndisapprobation of the wicked; for, if he were to make happiness\ncompatible with sin, it could not be corrected. The effect of pain is to\nmake us dislike and avoid that which causes it. It is for this reason\npain is annexed to sin. Sin is an evil which it is necessary to remove;\npain is employed as the instrument of its destruction; and that\nprinciple by which Deity has established this constitution of things, by\nwhich he so regulates events as invariably to secure the ultimate reward\nof goodness, and the punishment of wickedness, is distinguished by the\nterm justice.... Were it necessary to add any thing more to show that\ndivine justice is not inconsistent with the attribute of goodness, but a\npart of it, the consideration of the design of its inflictions would\nafford further evidence of this truth. Every violation of the law of God\ninvolves the transgressor, sooner or later, in suffering; and of this\nconstitution of things, by which pain is inseparably connected with\ndeviation from rectitude, the Supreme Being is the author. Why did he\nappoint it? Why did he so dispose the whole tendency of his moral\ngovernment as to ensure this consequence? Why does he, who is a being of\nunerring wisdom and infinite benevolence, never suffer any offence which\nis unrepented of to escape punishment? Since his very nature is love,\nand since he created all his intelligent offspring in order to make them\nhappy, it can be no gratification to him to involve them in suffering.\nTheir groans can be no music to his ear. If he afflict them, it must be,\nnot for his own gratification, but for their benefit.... Viewing then\nthe attribute of justice, which has been supposed to require the endless\nmisery of the greater part of the human race, as that very principle\nwhich is designed to prevent this terrible consequence, (a man) feels\nhimself capable of relying with implicit confidence on the decisions of\nthe judge, both with regard to himself and all mankind. He is satisfied\nthat he will treat even the most criminal with perfect equity; that he\nwill place them in circumstances the best adapted to their unhappy\ncondition; that his discipline will ultimately accomplish its end, and\nextirpate sin and misery from the creation.\u201d[606] If the doctrine of\neternal torment be contradictory to God\u2019s justice, much more is it to\nhis wisdom: for surely it is not wise to create only to destroy;\u2014to\nperpetuate endless moral conflict\u2014not only to destroy and confuse, but\nto destroy and confuse the best and noblest of his works\u2014to inflict\nundying anguish on capacities suited for undying happiness, to ruin\nevery faculty and to blast every hope. Nor is the doctrine less opposed\nto his holiness than to his wisdom. Improved ideas on the philosophy of\nour spiritual nature, and on the real purport of moral retribution, with\nthe penalties of sin, imply the continuance of sin. A material hell or a\nmaterial heaven by the thinking portion of all sects is in general\nexploded. Sin carries with it and creates its own punishments: if sin\nthen be eternal and progressive in its sufferings, it must also be\neternal and progressive in its existence and its evils. Hell is not\nmerely a region of unutterable horror, where wretches writhe in eternal\ntorture, but also a region of boundless sin, of malignant wickedness, of\nhopeless corruption, of vilest affections, of basest passions. What\nshall we then say of an infinite holiness, enlightened by infinite\nwisdom, armed with infinite power, allowing this condition to exist? If\nthe doctrine of eternal torment be true, no such attribute as divine\nmercy can have being: if this doctrine be true, a God of goodness is a\nfiction of imagination, the creation of a brain-sick enthusiasm, the\ndream of amiable but unfounded hopes. It is of no purpose to qualify in\nthese things: there is no room in the same universe for a good God and\nan eternal hell: if this doctrine be true, the past is a wreck, and the\nfuture a curse. To such a condition of existence annihilation were a\npreferable alternative. It were better the brain should at once moulder\nwith the thoughtless sod, than be tortured with the wilderings of\neverlasting contradictions; it were better the affections should perish\nwith the last earthly sigh than throb through an eternity of agonized or\nselfish existence. On the orthodox supposition, either man must lose his\nidentity and go to heaven without remembering whom he knew and loved in\nlife, or he must lose his sympathy, become apostate to all his better\nfeelings, and see without pain or pity many given over to despair with\nwhom on earth he walked in dearest friendship. Instead of the big tear\nwhich would have burst from his eye in the years of mortality at the\nthought even of a partial separation; instead of the affectionate and\ninstinctive anguish which would have torn his breast, as he saw the last\nvision in the sun, and the last flutter in the breeze of the sail which\nwas wafting his friend to another clime; he must approve the sentence,\nnay, some maintain, he must see its execution with triumph, which may\nconsign his nearest and dearest to endless damnation.\u2014If the belief\ncould be habitually and practically realized, that human souls were\nevery minute over the wide earth dropping into hell, that amongst the\nsighs of death with which the world is filled, the greater number are\nthe knells of infinite perdition, that the graves on which the mourners\nweep, which to us all, at one time or other, make earth a vale of tears,\nare so many monuments of irreparable wreck, the silent witnesses of\nGod\u2019s anger and man\u2019s despair; if any one, I repeat, could constantly,\nand in very truth, believe that souls were thus quitting the present\nscene, souls with enlarged capacities, but enlarged for eternal sorrow,\nand ever smile again, he might wear the form of his species, but he\nshould have the heart of a fiend. Faith in such a doctrine should kill\nat once the life of joy; every sound should be funereal, brightness or\nbeauty there should be none. Each of us, like Job, should curse the day\nof his birth, but with a more terrible earnestness; the exclamation of\nJeremiah would be in every mouth an appropriate utterance, \u201cOh that my\nhead were waters, and my eyes were fountains of tears!\u201d Is there the\nhuman being that could feel joy in the midst of an hospital, could laugh\nin a city of the plague, while death went from couch to couch, while\nmirth was banished from each hearth, and the grass of desolation growing\nin the streets? But how much more should all delight be banished from\nthe soul, if in the Creator\u2019s universe there be a dark and measureless\nregion, filled with hideous abominations and unexpiring torments! If\nthus it be, let there, I repeat, be no look of happiness, let there be\nno voice of sweetness; let garment of praise be changed for the spirit\nof heaviness; let all heads be bent in grief, and all eyes dim with\nweeping, in lamentation for the sorrows of the universe. But be it not\nso\u2014leave us at least a gleam of light from heaven.\n\n \u201cCease every joy to glimmer o\u2019er my mind,\n But leave, oh! leave, the light of hope behind.\u201d\n\nOh no! God has no pleasure in the death of a sinner, no glory in the\npain or punishment of his creatures: it is the progress towards\nuniversal blessedness, and its final consummation, that truly shows\nforth the glory of God, and manifests the grandeur of his name and\nnature\u2014more sweetly than the earth, more majestically than the heavens.\nIt shows forth his justice: he punishes, terribly, it may be, but not\ncruelly or hopelessly; he punishes, but he amends; he chastises, but he\npurifies. It shows forth his wisdom: for universal holiness and\nuniversal happiness are the mightiest objects which infinite wisdom\ncould select, the highest purposes in which infinite wisdom could be\nmanifested: It shows forth his power, not in a blasting malediction, but\nin a creative and all-dispensing love; not in the thunder of\ndestruction, but in the hand of a Father full of gifts and full of\nblessings:\u2014subduing evil, distributing happiness, drawing out of\napparent confusion order and harmony, more fair and beautiful than the\nworlds he has called out of darkness; \u201cmoving upon the face of many a\nstormy wave, and blending into calm what seemed only the chaos of\ncontending elements.\u201d\n\nIt is marvellous that we can think seriously on existence or on\nprovidence, that we can reflect on human nature or survey human life,\nwithout feeling the need as well as the truth of the doctrine of the\nfull mercy of God, and of his universally benignant designs for all his\nchildren. True, creation is fair, and much of existence is happy; but\nstill there are evils and miseries which ever perplex us for solution.\nIf the view of God\u2019s government which we receive, does not solve all the\ndifficulties, at the very least it softens them; if there are\ninscrutable things in the providence of God which it cannot explain,\nthere are atrocities ascribed by other systems to this character which\nit does not involve. We may mourn over the wrongs, sufferings, and sins,\nwhich exist with fatal abundance in our present state; we may wonder and\nthink why they exist at all; but to what an extent of perplexity and\npain are we driven, if we are to believe that all these evils are to be\nfor ever, and to have no remedy. When I see those who bear want and\nsorrow through many and heavy years, I rejoice that there is at last a\nhome and refuge for them in their father\u2019s kingdom where they who were\npoor shall be made rich; where those who mourned shall be comforted:\nwhen I hear the sigh of pain, when I behold the power of death; when I\nknow, as all must, in how many human dwellings grief sits lonely on the\nhearth, I am saved from a fearful and dangerous distrust by the belief,\nthat in times to come, and in regions which we know not of, there is a\nbalm for every grief and a remedy for every sin. None are unaware of the\nphysical and the moral evils that hang over and around this existence;\nand both from the felt experience of our own hearts, and the recorded\nexperience of many others, we can judge the infinite complexity of moral\nstruggle, the subtleties of sin, and the miserable consequences of evil\ndoings; and we cannot think that a good, a holy, a just, and merciful\nGod can ordain such a state to be perpetual and eternal. We know,\nmoreover, how many are in the thick darkness of barbarism, each having\nwithin a universe of infinite and improvable capacities; we know what\nmillions are in the dens of indigence, of crime, and ignorance, for whom\nearth is barren and life a burthen: and in what thought are we to take\ncomfort, in what sentiment are we to find hope, if we believe not there\nis a God who does not forget his orphan children in their worst estate;\nthat as here they have received their evil things, there is a heaven\nwhere they have their good? And when we observe in this life so much of\nantagonist passions; so much war and strife; so much of bitter and\nhopeless alienation, our tired spirits wish for a retreat of peace; and\nwith the Psalmist we long for the wings of a dove that we might flee\naway and be at rest; for a calm sky after a heated atmosphere; for a\nunion of heart and charity which no mistakes could again divide. We have\nno need to fear that our high aspirations for the future shall make us\nproud or presumptuous; for we have all enough in our present lot to keep\nus humble. When we look within, we find a melancholy strife between our\nnobler and our higher existence, which we can never entirely overcome:\nwhen we cast our gaze over the face of the world, and the inequalities\nof life, and there in the strong-holds of sin and selfishness see so\nmany causes of wickedness and pain, which the most believing and the\nmost hoping can never hope entirely to overcome; when we regard our\nfeeble powers and our short existence; our desires ever growing and\nwants ever deepening, and our passions ever craving; when we think of\nthe knowledge we longed for, and could not have, the visions we dreamed\nof that never came, the good we resolved on and never did, the felicity\nwe sought and never found, the wishes that were as empty as the echo in\nthe desert, the ideas, the plans, the aspirations, and the purposes that\nvainly struggled for life, but found in our breasts their prison and\ntheir grave; we shall be in no danger of thinking of ourselves more\nhighly than we ought to think.\n\nBlessed and beautiful doctrine is this, of universal redemption and\nrestoration, which pours such a radiance over our groping obscurity,\nwhich gives our troubled hearts such peace, which softens grief and\nglorifies affection, which corrects the perverse and dignifies the\nlowly, which nourishes whatever in our nature is great or god-like,\nrenders religion transcendent and lovely, and opens before the rejoicing\neye of faith the grandeur of a renovated and an emancipated universe.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture XII.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n See Ex. xxi. 1-6. Eccles. i. 4. 1 Cor. viii. 13. Gen. xvii. 8, 13, 19.\n Numb. xxv. 13.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n 1 John iv. 16; John iii. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n Ps. xcv. 8, 9, 10; Ps. xxxiv. 8; Ps. lii. 1; Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7; 2\n Chron. xxx. 9; Ps. ciii. 8, &c.; Matt. vi. 9; Ps. xxx. 5; Ps. ciii. 9;\n Ps. lxxxvii. 7; Isa. lxvii. 16; Wisdom of Solomon, xi. 23-26.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n Dr. Southwood Smith on the Divine Government.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n Essays, &c., by the Rev. Henry Woodward: Essay xv. On the Nature of\n the Divine Omnipotence.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n Illustrations of the Divine Government, by T. Southwood Smith.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n LECTURE XIII.\n\n\n CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT PRIEST, AND WITHOUT RITUAL.\n\n\n BY REV. JAMES MARTINEAU.\n\n \u201cTO WHOM COMING, AS UNTO A LIVING STONE, DISALLOWED INDEED OF MEN, BUT\n CHOSEN OF GOD, AND PRECIOUS; YE ALSO, AS LIVELY STONES, ARE BUILT UP\n A SPIRITUAL HOUSE, A HOLY PRIESTHOOD, TO OFFER UP SPIRITUAL\n SACRIFICES, ACCEPTABLE TO GOD BY JESUS CHRIST.\u201d\u20141 _Peter_ ii. 4, 5.\n\n\nThe formation of human society, and the institution of priesthood, must\nbe referred to the same causes and the same date. The earliest\ncommunities of the world appear to have had their origin and their\ncement, not in any gregarious instinct, nor in mere social affections,\nmuch less in any prudential regard to the advantages of co-operation,\nbut in a binding religious sentiment, submitting to the same guidance,\nand expressing itself in the same worship. As no tie can be more strong,\nso is none more primitive, than this agreement respecting what is holy\nand divine. In simple and patriarchal ages indeed, when the feelings of\nveneration had not been set aside by analysis into a little corner of\nthe character, but spread themselves over the whole of life, and mixed\nit up with daily wonder, this bond comprised all the forces that can\nsuppress the selfish and disorganizing passions, and compact a multitude\nof men together. It was not, as at present, to have simply the same\n_opinions_ (things of quite modern growth, the brood of scepticism); but\nto have the same Fathers, the same Tradition, the same Speech, the same\nLand, the same Foes, the same Priest, the same God. Nothing did man\nfear, or trust, or love, or desire, that did not belong, by some\naffinity, to his faith. Nor had he any book to keep the precious deposit\nfor him; and if he had, he would never have thought of so frail a\nvehicle for so great a treasure. It was more natural to put it into\nstructures hollowed in the fast mountain, or built of transplanted rocks\nwhich only a giant age could stir; and to tenant these with mighty\nhierarchies, who should guard their sanctity, and, by an undying memory,\nmake their mysteries eternal. Hence, the first humanizer of men was\ntheir worship; the first leaders of nations, the sacerdotal caste; the\nfirst triumph of art, the colossal temple; the first effort to preserve\nan idea, produced a record of something sacred; and the first\ncivilization was, as the last will be, the birth of religion.\n\nThe primitive aim of worship undoubtedly was, to act upon the sentiments\nof God; at first, by such natural and intelligible means, as produce\nfavourable impressions on the mind of a fellow man;\u2014by presents and\npersuasion, and whatever is expressive of grateful and reverential\naffections. Abel, the first shepherd, offered the produce of his flock;\nCain, the first farmer, the fruits of his land; and while devotion was\nso simple in its modes, every one would be his own pontiff, and have his\nown altar. But soon, the parent would inevitably officiate for his\nfamily; the patriarch, for his tribe. With the natural forms dictated by\npresent feelings, traditional methods would mingle their contributions\nfrom the past; postures and times, gestures and localities, once\nindifferent, would become consecrated by venerable habit; and so long as\ntheir origin was unforgotten, they would add to the significance, while\nthey lessened the simplicity of worship. Custom, however, being the\ngrowth of time, tends to a tyrannous and bewildering complexity: forms,\noriginally natural, then symbolical, end in being arbitrary; suggestive\nof nothing, except to the initiated; yet, if connected with religion, so\nsanctified by the association, that it appears sacrilege to desist from\ntheir employment; and when their meaning is lost, they assume their\nplace, not among empty gesticulations, but among the mystical signs by\nwhich earth communes with heaven. The vivid picture-writing of the early\nworship, filled with living attitudes, and sketched in the freshest\ncolours of emotion, explained itself to every eye, and was open to every\nhand. To this succeeded a piety, which expressed itself in symbolical\nfigures, veiling it utterly from strangers, but intelligible and\nimpressive still to the soul of national tradition. This, however,\npassed again into a language of arbitrary characters, in which the herd\nof men saw sacredness without meaning; and the use of which must be\nconsigned to a class separated for its study. Hence the origin of the\npriest and his profession; the conservator of a worship no longer\nnatural, but legendary and mystical; skilful enactor of rites that spake\nwith silent gesticulation to the heavens; interpreter of the wants of\nmen into the divine language of the gods. Not till the powers above had\nceased to hold familiar converse with the earth, and in their distance\nhad become deaf and dumb to the common tongue of men, did the mediating\npriest arise;\u2014needed then to conduct the finger-speech of ceremony,\nwhereby the desire of the creature took shape before the eye of the\nCreator.\n\nObserve then the true idea of PRIEST and RITUAL. The Priest is the\nrepresentative of men before God; commissioned on behalf of human nature\nto intercede with the divine. He bears a message _upwards_, from earth\nto heaven; his people being below, his influence above. He takes the\nfears of the weak, and the cries of the perishing, and sets them with\navailing supplication before him that is able to help. He takes the sins\nand remorse of the guilty, and leaves them with expiating tribute at the\nfeet of the averted Deity. He guards the avenues that lead from the\nmortal to the immortal, and without his interposition the creature is\ncut off from his Creator. Without his mediation, no transaction between\nthem can take place, and the spirit of a man must live as an outlaw from\nthe world invisible and holy. There are means of propitiation which he\nalone has authority to employ; powers of persuasion conceded to no\nother; a mystic access to the springs of divine benignity, by outward\nrites which his manipulation must consecrate, or forms of speech which\nhis lips must recommend. These ceremonies are the implements of his\noffice, and the sources of his power; the magic by which he is thought\nto gain admission to the will above, and really wins rule over human\ncounsels below. As they are supposed to change the relation of God to\nman, not by visible or natural operation, not (for example) by\nsuggestion of new thoughts, and excitement of new dispositions in the\nworshipper, but by secret and mysterious agency, they are simply\n_spells_ of a dignified order. Were we then to speak with severe\nexactitude, we should say, a Ritual is a system of consecrated charms;\nand the Priest, the great magician who dispenses them.\n\nSo long as any idea is retained, of mystically efficacious rites,\nconsigned solely and authoritatively to certain hands, this definition\ncannot be escaped. The ceremonies may have rational instruction and\nnatural worship appended to them; and these additional elements may give\nthem a title to true respect. The order of men appointed to administer\nthem, may have other offices and nobler duties to perform, rendering\nthem, if faithful, worthy of a just and reverential attachment. But _in\nso far_ as, by an exclusive and unnatural efficacy, they bring about a\nchanged relation between God and man, the Ritual is an incantation, and\nthe Priest is an enchanter.\n\nTo this sacerdotal devotion, there necessarily attach certain\ncharacteristic sentiments, both moral and religious, which give it a\ndistinctive influence on human character, and adapt it to particular\nstages of civilization. It clearly severs the worshippers by one remove\nfrom God. He is a Being, external to them, distant from them, personally\nunapproachable by them; their thought must _travel_ to reach the\nAlmighty; they must look afar for the Most Holy; they dwell themselves\nwithin the finite, and must ask a foreign introduction to the Infinite.\nHe is not with them as a private guide, but in the remoter watch-towers\nof creation, as the public inspector of their life; not present for\nperpetual communion, but to be visited in absence by stated messages of\nform and prayer. And that God dwells in this cold and royal separation,\ninduces the feeling that man is too mean to touch him; that a\nconsecrated intervention is required, in order to part Deity from the\ndefiling contact of humanity. Why else am I restricted from unlimited\npersonal access to my Creator, and driven to another in my transactions\nwith him? And so, in this system, our nature appears in contrast, not in\nalliance, with the divine, and those views of it are favoured which make\nthe opposition strong; its puny dimensions, its swift decadence, its\npoor self-flatteries, its degenerate virtues, its giant guilt, become\nfamiliar to the thought and lips; and life, cut off from sympathy with\nthe godlike, falls towards the level of melancholy, or the sink of\nepicurism, or the abjectness of vicarious reliance on the priest.\nWorship, too, must have for its chief aim, to throw off the load of ill;\nto rid the mind of sin and shame, and the lot of hardship and sorrow;\nfor principally to these disburthening offices do priests and rituals\nprofess themselves adapted:\u2014and who, indeed, could pour forth the\nprivacy of love, and peace, and trust, through the cumbrousness of\nceremonies, and the pompousness of a sacred officer? The piety of such a\nreligion is thus a refuge for the weakness, not an outpouring of the\nstrength of the soul: it takes away the incubus of darkness, without\nshedding the light of heaven; lifts off the nightmare horrors of earth\nand hell, without opening the vision of angels and of God. Nay, for the\nspiritual bonds which connect men with the Father above, it substitutes\nmaterial ties, a genealogy of sacred fires, a succession of hallowed\nbuildings, or of priests having consecration by pedigree or by manual\ntransmission; so that qualities belonging to the soul alone, are likened\nto forces mechanical or chemical; sanctity becomes a physical property:\ndivine acceptance comes by bodily catenation; regeneration is degraded\ninto a species of electric shock, which one only method of experiment,\nand the links of but one conductor, can convey. And, in fine, a priestly\nsystem ever abjures all aim at any higher perfection; boasts of being\nimmutable and unimprovable; encourages no ambition, breathes no desire.\nIt holds the appointed methods of influencing heaven, on which none may\npresume to innovate; and its functions are ever the same, to employ and\npreserve the ancient forms and legendary spells committed to its trust.\nHence all its veneration is antiquarian, not sympathetic or prospective;\nit turns its back upon the living, and looks straight into departed\nages, bowing the head and bending the knee; as if all objects of love\nand devotion were _there_, not here; in history, not in life; as if its\nGod were dead, or otherwise imprisoned in the Past, and had bequeathed\nto its keeping such relics as might yield a perpetual benediction. Thus\ndoes the administration of religion, in proportion as it possesses a\nsacerdotal character, involve a distant Deity, a mean humanity, a\nservile worship, a physical sanctity, and a retrospective reverence.\n\nLet no one, however, imagine, that there is no other idea or\nadministration of religion than this; that the priest is the only person\namong men, to whom it is given to stand between heaven and earth. Even\nthe Hebrew Scriptures introduce us to another class of quite different\norder; to whom, indeed, those Scriptures owe their own truth and power,\nand perpetuity of beauty; I mean the PROPHETS; whom we shall very\nimperfectly understand, if we suppose them mere historians, for whom God\nhad turned time round the other way, so that they spoke of things future\nas if past, and grew so dizzy in their use of tenses, as greatly to\nincommode learned grammarians; or if we treat their writings as\nscrap-books of Providence, with miscellaneous contributions from various\nparts of duration, sketches taken indifferently from any point of view\nwithin eternity, and put together at random and without mark, on\nadjacent pages, for theological memories to identify; first, a picture\nof an Assyrian battle, next, a holy family; now of the captives sitting\nby Euphrates, then, of Paul preaching to the Gentiles; here, a flight of\ndevouring locusts, and there, the escape of the Christians from the\ndestruction of Jerusalem; a portrait of Hezekiah, and a view of Calvary;\na march through the desert, and John the Baptist by the Jordan; the day\nof Pentecost, and the French Revolution; Nebuchadnezzar and Mahomet;\nCaligula and the Pope,\u2014following each other with picturesque neglect of\nevery relation of time and place. No, the Prophet and his work always\nindeed belong to the future; but far otherwise than thus. Meanwhile, let\nus notice how, in Israel, as elsewhere, he takes his natural station\nabove the priest. It was Moses the prophet who even _made_ Aaron the\npriest. And who cares now for the sacerdotal books of the Old Testament,\ncompared with the rest? Who, having the strains of David, would pore\nover Leviticus, or would weary himself with Chronicles, when he might\ncatch the inspiration of Isaiah! It was no priest that wrote, \u201cThou\ndesirest not sacrifice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in\nburnt offering: the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and\na contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.\u201d[607] It was no\npontifical spirit that exclaimed, \u201cBring no more vain oblations; incense\nis an abomination to me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of\nassemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting:\nyour new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a\ntrouble unto me: I am weary to bear them.\u201d \u201cWash you, make you\nclean.\u201d[608] Whatever, in these venerable scriptures, awes us by its\ngrandeur, and pierces us by its truth, comes of the prophets, not the\npriests; and from that part of their writings too, in which they are not\nconcerned with historical prediction, but with some utterance deeper and\ngreater. I do not deny them this gift of occasional intellectual\nforesight of events. And doubtless it was an honour, to be permitted to\nspeak thus to a portion of the future, and of local occurrences\nunrevealed to seers less privileged. But it is a glory far higher, to\nspeak that which belongs to all time, and finds its interpretation in\nevery place; to penetrate to the everlasting realities of things; to\ndisclose, not when this or that man will appear, but how and wherefore\nall men appear and quickly disappear; to make it felt, not in what nook\nof duration such an incident will happen, but from what all-embracing\neternity the images of history emerge and are swallowed up. In this\nhighest faculty, the Hebrew seers belong to a class, scattered over\nevery nation and every period; which Providence keeps ever extant for\nhuman good, and especially to furnish an administration of religion\nquite anti-sacerdotal. This class we must proceed to characterize.\n\nThe Prophet is the representative of God before men, commissioned from\nthe Divine nature to sanctify the human. He bears a message _downwards_,\nfrom heaven to earth; his inspirer being above, his influence below. He\ntakes of the holiness of God, enters with it into the souls of men, and\nheals therewith the wounds, and purifies the taint, of sin. He is\ncharged with the peace of God, and gives from it rest to the weariness,\nand solace to the griefs of men. Instead of carrying the foulness of\nlife to be cleansed in Heaven, he brings the purity of Heaven to make\nlife divine. Instead of interposing himself and his mediation between\nhumanity and Deity, he destroys the whole distance between them; and\nonly fulfils his mission, when he brings the finite mind and the\ninfinite into immediate and thrilling contact, and leaves the creature\nconsciously alone with the Creator. He is one to whom the primitive and\neverlasting relations between God and man have revealed themselves,\nstripped of every disguise, and bared of all that is conventional; who\nis possessed by their simplicity, mastered by their solemnity; who has\nfound the secret of meeting the Holy Spirit within, rather than without;\nand knows, but cannot tell, how in the strife of genuine duty, or in\nmoments of true meditation, the divine immensity and love have touched\nand filled his naked soul; and taught him by what fathomless Godhead he\nis folded round, and on what adamantine manhood he must take his stand.\nSo far from separating others from the heavenly communion vouchsafed to\nhimself, he necessarily believes that all may have the same godlike\nconsciousness; burns to impart it to them; and by the vivid light of his\nown faith, speedily creates it in those who feel his influence; drawing\nout and freshening the faded colours of the divine image in their souls,\ntill they too become visibly the seers and the sons of God. His\ninstruments, like the objects of his mission, are human; not mysteries,\nand mummeries, and such arbitrary things, by which others may pretend to\nbe talking with the skies; but the natural language which interprets\nitself at once to every genuine man, and goes direct to the living point\nof every heart. An earnest speech, a brave and holy life, truth of\nsympathy, severity of conscience, freshness and loftiness of\nfaith,\u2014these natural sanctities are his implements of power: and if\nheaven be pleased to add any other gifts, still are they weapons\nall,\u2014not the mere tinsel of tradition and custom,\u2014but forged in the\ninner workshop of our nature, where the fire glows beneath the breath of\nGod, framing things of etherial temper. Thus armed, he lays undoubting\nsiege to the world\u2019s conscience; tears down every outwork of pretence;\nforces its strongholds of delusion; humbles the vanities at its centre,\nand proclaims it the citadel of God. The true prophet of every age is no\nbeliever in the temple, but in the temple\u2019s Deity; trusts, not rites and\ninstitutions, but the heart and soul that fill or ought to fill them; if\nthey speak the truth, no one so reveres them; if a lie, they meet with\nno contempt like his. He sees no indestructible sanctuary but the mind\nitself, wherein the Divine Spirit ever loves to dwell; and whence it\nwill be sure to go forth and build such outward temple as may suit the\nseason of Providence. He is conscious that there is no devotion like\nthat which comes spontaneously from the secret places of our humanity,\nno orisons so true as those which rise from the common platform of our\nlife. He desires only to throw himself in faith on the natural piety of\nthe heart. Give him but that; and he will find for man an everlasting\nworship, and raise for God a cathedral worthy of his infinitude.\n\nIt is evident that one thoroughly possessed with this spirit could never\nbe, and could never make, a priest: nor frame a ritual for priests\nalready made. He is destitute of the ideas, out of which alone these\nthings can be created. His mission is in the opposite direction: he\ninterprets and reveals God to men, instead of interceding for men with\nGod. In this office sacerdotal rites have no function and no place. I do\nnot say that he must necessarily disapprove and abjure them, or deny\nthat he may directly sanction them. If he does however, it is not in his\ncapacity of prophet, but in conformity with feelings which his proper\noffice has left untouched. His tendency will be against ceremonialism:\nand on his age and position will depend the extent to which this\ntendency takes effect. Usually, he will construct nothing ritual, will\ndestroy much, and leave behind great and growing ideas, destructive of\nmuch more. But ere we quit our general conception of a prophet, let us\nnotice some characteristic sentiments, moral and religious, which\nnaturally connect themselves with his faith; comparing them with those\nwhich belong to the sacerdotal influence.\n\nIn this faith, God is separated by nothing from his worshippers. He is\nnot simply in contact with them, but truly in the interior of their\nnature: so that they may not only meet him in the outward providences of\nlife, but bear his spirit with them, when they go to toil and conflict,\nand find it still, when they sit alone to think and pray. He is not the\nfar observer, but the very present help, of the faithful will. No\nstructure made with hands, nay, not even his own architecture of the\nheaven of heavens, contains and confines his presence: were there any\ndark recess whence these were hid, the blessed access would be without\nhindrance still; and the soul would discern him near as its own\nidentity. No mean and ignoble conception can be entertained of a mind,\nwhich is thus the residence of Deity;\u2014the shrine of the Infinite must\nhave somewhat that is infinite itself. Thus, in this system, does our\nnature appear in alliance with the Divine, not in contrast with it;\ninspired with a portion of its holiness, and free to help forward the\nbest issues of its Providence. Human life, blessed by this spirit,\nbecomes a miniature of the work of the great Ruler: its\nresponsibilities, its difficulties, its temptations, become dignified as\nthe glorious theatre whereon we strive, by and with the good Spirit of\nGod, for the mastery over evil. Worship, issuing from a nature and\nexistence thus consecrated, is not the casting off of guilt and terror,\nbut the glad unburthening of love, and trust, and aspiration, the simple\nspeaking forth, as duty is the acting forth, of the divine within us;\nnot the prostration of the slave, but the embrace of the child; not the\nplaint of the abject, but the anthem of the free. Is it not private,\nindividual? And may it not by silence say what it will, and intimate the\nprecise thing, and that only, which is at heart?\u2014whence there grows\ninsensibly that firm root of excellence, truth with one\u2019s own self. The\npriestly fancy of an hereditary or lineal sacredness can have no place\nhere. The soul and God stand directly related, mind with mind, spirit\nwith spirit: from our moral fidelity to this relation, from the jealousy\nwith which we guard it from insult or neglect, does the only sanctity\narise; and herein there is none to help us, or give a vicarious\nconsecration. And finally, the spirit of God\u2019s true prophet is earnestly\nprospective; more filled with the conception of what the Creator _will_\nmake his world, than of what he _has_ already made it: detecting great\ncapacities, it glows with great hopes; knowing that God lives, and will\nlive, it turns from the past, venerable as that may be, and reverences\nrather the promise of the present, and the glories of the future. It\nesteems nothing unimproveable, is replete with vast desires; and amid\nthe shadows and across the wilds of existence chases, not vainly, a\nbright image of perfection. The golden age, which priests with their\ntradition put into the past, the prophet, with his faith and truth,\ntransfers into the future: and while the former pines and muses, the\nlatter toils and prays. Thus does the administration of religion, in\nproportion as it partakes of the prophetic or anti-sacerdotal character,\ninvolve the ideas of an interior Deity, a noble humanity, a loving\nworship, an individual holiness, and a prospective veneration.\n\nWe have found, then, two opposite views of religion; that of the Priest\nwith his Ritual; and that of the Prophet with his Faith. I propose to\nshow that the Church of England, in its doctrine of sacraments,\ncoincides with the former of these, and sanctions all its objectionable\nsentiments: and that Christianity, in every relation, even with respect\nto its reputed rites, coincides with the latter.\n\nThe general conformity of the Church of England with the ritual\nconception of religion, will not be denied by her own members. Their\ndenial will be limited to one point: they will protest that her formulas\nof doctrine do not ascribe a _charmed efficacy_, or any operation upon\nGod, to the two sacraments. To avoid verbal disputes, let us consider\nwhat we are to understand by a spell or charm. The name, I apprehend,\ndenotes any material object or outward act, the possession or use of\nwhich is thought to confer safety or blessing, not by natural operation,\nbut by occult virtues, inherent in it, or mystical effects appended to\nit. A mere commemorative sign, therefore, is not a charm, nor need there\nbe any superstition in its employment: it simply stands for certain\nideas and memories in our minds; re-excites and freshens them, not\notherwise than speech audibly records them, except that it summons them\nbefore us by sight and touch, instead of sound. The effect, whatever it\nmay be, is purely natural, by sequence of thought on thought, till the\ncomplexion of the mind is changed, and haply suffused with a noble glow.\nBut in truth it is not fit to speak of commemorations, as things having\nefficacy at all; as desirable observances, under whose action we should\nput ourselves, in order to get up certain good dispositions in the\nheart. As soon as we see them acquiesced in, with this dutiful\nsubmission to a kind of spiritual operation, we may be sure they are\nalready empty and dead. An _expedient_ commemoration, deliberately\nmaintained on utilitarian principles, for the sake of warming cold\naffections by artificial heat, is one of the foolish conceptions of this\nmechanical and sceptical age. It is quite true, that such influence is\nfound to belong to rites of remembrance; but only so long as it is not\nprivately looked into, or greedily contemplated by the staring eye of\nprudence, but simply and unconsciously received. No; commemorations must\nbe the spontaneous fruit and outburst of a love already kindled in the\nsoul, not the factitious contrivance for forcing it into existence. They\nare not the lighted match applied to the fuel on an altar cold: but the\nshapes in which the living flame aspires, or the fretted lights thrown\nby that central love on the dark temple-walls of this material life.\n\nIt is not pretended that the sacraments are mere commemorative rites.\nAnd nothing, I submit, remains, but that they should be pronounced\ncharms. It is of little purpose to urge, in denial of this, that the\nChurch insists upon the necessity of faith on the part of the recipient,\nwithout which no benefit, but rather peril, will accrue. This only\nlimits the use of the charm to a certain class, and establishes a\npre-requisite to its proper efficacy. It simply conjoins the outward\nform with a certain state of mind, and gives to each of these a\nparticipation in the effect. If the faith be insufficient without the\nceremony, then _some_ efficacy is due to the rite: and this, being\nneither the natural operation of the material elements, nor a simple\nsuggestion of ideas and feelings to the mind, but mystical and\npreternatural, is no other than a charmed efficacy.\n\nNor will the statement, that the effect is not upon God, but upon man,\nbear examination. It is very true, that the _ultimate_ benefit of these\nrites is a result reputed to fall upon the worshipper;\u2014regeneration, in\nthe case of baptism; participation in the atonement, in the case of the\nLord\u2019s Supper. But by what steps do these blessings descend? Not by\nthose of visible or perceived causation; but through an express and\nextraordinary volition of God, induced by the ceremonial form, or taking\noccasion from it. The sacerdotal economy, therefore, is so arranged,\nthat whenever the priest dispenses the water at the font, the Holy\nSpirit follows, as in instantaneous compliance with a suggestion: and\nwhenever he spreads his hands over the elements at the communion, God\nimmediately establishes a preternatural relation, not subsisting the\nmoment before, between the substances on the table and the souls of the\nfaithful communicants: so that every partaker receives, either directly\nor through supernatural increase of faith, some new share in the merits\nof the cross. Whatever subtleties of language then may be employed, it\nis evidently conceived that the first consequence of these forms takes\nplace in heaven; and that on this depends whatever benediction they may\nbring: nor can a plain understanding frame any other idea of them than\nthis; first, they act upwards, and suggest something to the mind of God;\nwho then sends down an influence on the mind of the believer. From this\nconception no figures of speech, no ingenious analogies, can deliver us.\nDo you call the sacraments \u201cpledges of grace?\u201d A pledge means a promise:\nand how a voluntary act of ours, or the priest\u2019s, can be a promise made\nto us by the Divine Being, it is not easy to understand. Do you call\nthem \u201cseals of God\u2019s covenant,\u201d\u2014the instrument by which he engages to\nmake over its blessings to the Christian, like the signature and\ncompletion of a deed conveying an estate? It still perplexes us to think\nof a service of our own as an assurance received by us from Heaven. And\none would imagine that the Divine promise, once given, were enough,\nwithout this incessant binding by periodical legalities. If it be said,\n\u201cthe renewal of the obligation is needful for us, and not for him;\u201d then\ncall the rites at once and simply, our service of self-dedication, the\nsolemn memorial of our vows. And in spite of all metaphors, the question\nrecurs; does the covenant stand without these seals, or are they\nessential _to give possession_ of the privileges conveyed? Are they, by\nmeans preternatural, procurers of salvation? Have they a mystical action\ntowards this end? If so, we return to the same point; they have a\ncharmed efficacy on the human soul.\n\nIn order to establish this, nothing more is requisite than a brief\nreference to the language of the Articles and Liturgical services of the\nChurch respecting Baptism and the Communion.\n\nBaptism is regarded, throughout the Book of Common Prayer, as the\ninstrument of regeneration: not simply as its sign, of which the actual\ndescent of the Holy Spirit is independent; but as itself and essentially\nthe means or indispensable occasion of the washing away of sin. That\nthis is regarded as a mystical and magical, not a natural and spiritual\neffect, is evident from the alleged fact of its occurrence in infants,\nto whom the rite can suggest nothing, and on whom, in the course of\nnature, it can leave no impression. Yet is it declared of the infant,\nafter the use of the water, \u201cSeeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that\n_this child is regenerate_,\u201d &c.: at the commencement of the service its\naim is said to be that God may \u201cgrant to this child that thing which by\nnature he cannot have,\u201d\u2014\u201cwould wash him and sanctify him with the Holy\nGhost,\u201d that he may be \u201cdelivered from God\u2019s wrath.\u201d Nothing, indeed, is\nso striking in this office of the national church, as its audacious\ntrifling with solemn names, denoting qualities of the soul and will; the\nascription of spiritual and moral attributes, not only to the child in\nwhom they can yet have no development, but even to material substances;\nthe frivolity with which engagements with God are made by deputy, and\nwithout the consent or even existence of the engaging will. Water is\nsaid to possess _sanctity_, for \u201cthe mystical washing away of sin.\u201d\nInfants, destitute of any idea of duty or obligation to be resisted or\nobeyed, are said to obtain \u201c_remission of their sins_;\u201d\u2014to \u201crenounce the\ndevil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world:\u201d\n\u201csteadfastly to believe\u201d in the Apostles\u2019 creed, and to be desirous of\n\u201cbaptism into this faith.\u201d Belief, desire, resolve, are acts of some\none\u2019s mind: the language of this service attributes them to the\npersonality of the infant (_I_ renounce, _I_ believe, _I_ desire); yet\nthere they cannot possibly exist. If they are to be understood as\naffirmed by the godfathers and godmothers of themselves, the case is not\nimproved: for how can one person\u2019s state of faith and conscience be made\nthe condition of the regeneration of another? What intelligible meaning\ncan be attached to these phrases of sanctity applied to an age not\nresponsible? In what sense, and by what indication, are these children\n_holier_ than others? And with what reason, if all this be Christianity,\ncan we blame the Pope for sprinkling holy water on the horses? The\nservice appears little better than a profane sacerdotal jugglery, by\nwhich material things are impregnated with divine virtues, moral and\nspiritual qualities of the mind are sported with, the holy spirit of God\nis turned into a physical mystery, and the solemnity of personal\nresponsibility is insulted.\n\nThat a superstitious value is attributed to the details of the baptismal\nform, in the Church of England, appears from certain parts of the\nservice for the private ministration of the rite. If a child has been\nbaptized by any other lawful minister than the minister of the parish,\nstrict inquiries are to be instituted by the latter respecting the\ncorrectness with which the ceremony has been performed: and should the\nprescribed rules have been neglected, the baptism is invalid, and must\nbe repeated. Yet great solicitude is manifested, lest danger should be\nincurred by an unnecessary repetition of the sacrament: to guard against\nwhich, the minister is to give the following conditional invitation to\nthe Holy Spirit; saying, in his address to the child, \u201c_If_ thou art not\nalready baptized, I baptize thee,\u201d &c. It is worthy of remark, that the\nChurch mentions as one of the _essentials_ of the service, the omission\nof which necessitates its repetition, the use of the formula, \u201cIn the\nname of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\u201d By this\nrule, every one of the apostolic baptisms recorded in Scripture must be\npronounced invalid; and the Church of England, were it possible, would\nperform them again: for in no instance does it appear that the apostles\nemployed either this or even any equivalent form of words.\n\nThat this sacrament is regarded as an indispensable channel of grace,\nand positively necessary to salvation, is clear from the provision of a\nshort and private form, to be used in cases of extreme danger. The\nprayers, and faith, and obedience, and patient love, of parents and\nfriends,\u2014the dedication and heartfelt surrender of their child to God,\nthe profound application of their anxieties and grief to their\nconscience and inward life,\u2014all this, we are told, will be of no avail,\nwithout the water and the priest. Archbishop Laud says, \u201cThat Baptism is\nnecessary to the salvation of infants (in the ordinary way of the\nchurch, without binding God to the use and means of that sacrament, to\nwhich he hath bound us) is expressed in St. John iii. \u2018Except a man be\nborn of water,\u2019 &c. So, no baptism, no entrance; nor can infants creep\nin, any other ordinary way.\u201d[609] Bishop Bramhall says, \u201cWilful neglect\nof baptism we acknowledge to be a damnable sin; and, without repentance\nand God\u2019s extraordinary mercy, to exclude a man from all hope of\nsalvation. But yet, if such a person, before his death, shall repent and\ndeplore his neglect of the means of grace, from his heart, and desire\nwith all his soul to be baptized, but is debarred from it invincibly, we\ndo not, we dare not, pass sentence of condemnation upon him; not yet the\nRoman Catholics themselves. The question then is, whether the want of\nbaptism, upon invincible necessity, do evermore infallibly exclude from\nheaven.\u201d[610] Singular struggle here, between the merciless ritual of\nthe priest, and the relenting spirit of the man!\n\nThe office of Communion contains even stronger marks of the same\nsacerdotal superstitions: and notwithstanding the Protestant horror\nentertained of the mass, approaches it so nearly, that no ingenuity can\nexhibit them in contrast. Near doctrines, however, like near neighbours,\nare known to quarrel most.\n\nThe idea of a physical sanctity, residing in solid and liquid\nsubstances, is encouraged by this service. The priest _consecrates_ the\nelements, by laying his hand upon all the bread, and upon every flagon\ncontaining the wine about to be dispensed. If an additional quantity is\nrequired, this too must be consecrated before its distribution. And the\nsacredness thus imparted is represented as surviving the celebration of\nthe Supper, and residing in the substances as a permanent quality: for\nin the disposal of the bread and wine that may remain at the close of\nthe sacramental feast, a distinction is made between the consecrated and\nthe unconsecrated portion of the elements; the former is not permitted\nto quit the altar, but is to be reverently consumed by the priest and\nthe communicants; the latter is given to the curate. What the particular\nchange may be, which the prayer and manipulation of the minister are\nthought to induce, it is by no means easy to determine; nor would the\ndiscovery, perhaps, reward our pains. It is certainly conceived, that\nthey cease to be any longer mere bread and wine, and that with them\nthenceforth co-exist, really and substantially, the body and blood of\nChrist. Respecting this _Real Presence_ with the elements, there is no\ndispute between the Romish and the English church; both unequivocally\nmaintain it: and the only question is, respecting the _Real Absence_ of\nthe original and culinary bread and wine: the Roman Catholic believing\nthat these substantially vanish, and are replaced by the body and blood\nof Christ; the English Protestant conceiving that they remain, but are\nunited with the latter. The Lutheran, no less than the British Reformed\nchurch, has clung tenaciously to the doctrine of the real presence in\nthe Eucharist. Luther himself declares, \u201cI would rather retain with the\nRomanists, _only_ the body and blood, than adopt, with the Swiss, the\nbread and wine, _without_ the real body and blood of Christ.\u201d The\ncatechism of our church affirms, that \u201cthe body and blood of Christ are\n_verily and indeed_ taken and received by the faithful in the Lord\u2019s\nSupper.\u201d And this was not intended to be figuratively understood, of the\nspiritual use and appropriation to which the faith and piety of the\nreceiver would mentally convert the elements: for although here the body\nof Christ is only said to be \u201c_taken_\u201d (making it the _act of the\ncommunicant_), yet one of the Articles speaks of it as \u201c_given_\u201d (making\nit the _act of the officiating priest_), and implying the real presence\n_before participation_. However anxious indeed the clergy of the\n\u201cEvangelical\u201d school may be to disguise the fact, it cannot be doubted\nthat their church has always maintained a supernatural change in the\nelements themselves, as well as in the mind of the receiver. Cosin,\nBishop of Durham, says, \u201cWe own the union between the body and blood of\nChrist, and the elements, whose use and office we hold to be changed\nfrom what it was before:\u201d \u201cwe confess the necessity of a supernatural\nand heavenly change, and that the signs cannot become sacraments but by\nthe infinite power of God.\u201d[611]\n\nIn consistency with this preparatory change, a charmed efficacy is\nattributed to the subsequent participation in the elements. Even the\n_body_ of the communicant is said to be under their influence: \u201cGrant us\nto eat the flesh of thy dear Son, and drink his blood, that our sinful\n_bodies_ may be made clean through his body, and our _souls_ washed\nthrough his most precious blood:\u201d and the unworthy recipients are said\n\u201cto provoke God to plague them with divers diseases and sundry kinds of\ndeath.\u201d Lest the worshipper, by presenting himself in an unqualified\nstate, should \u201cdo nothing else than increase his damnation,\u201d the unquiet\nconscience is directed to resort to the priest, and receive the benefit\nof absolution before communicating. Can we deny to the Oxford divines\nthe merit (whatever it may be) of consistency with the theology of their\nchurch, when they applaud and recommend, as they do, the administration\nof the eucharist to infants, and to persons dying and insensible?\nIndeed, it is difficult to discover, why infant Communion should be\nthought more irrational than infant Baptism. If, as I have endeavoured\nto show, the primary action of these ceremonies is conceived to be on\nGod, not on the mind of their object, why should not the Divine blessing\nbe induced upon the young and the unconscious, as well as on the mature\nand capable soul? And were any further evidence required, than I have\nhitherto adduced, to show _on whom_ the Communion is conceived to\noperate in the first instance, it would surely be afforded by this\nclause in the Service; by not partaking, \u201c_Consider how great an injury\nye do unto God!_\u201d\n\nThe only thing wanted to complete this sacerdotal system, is to obtain\nfor a certain class of men the corporate possession, and exclusive\nadministration, of these essential and holy mysteries. This our Church\naccomplishes by its doctrine of Apostolical Succession; claiming for its\nministers a lineal official descent from the Apostles, which invests\nthem, and them alone within this realm, with divine authority to\npronounce absolution or excommunication, and to administer the\nSacraments. They are thus the sole guardians of the channels of the\nDivine Spirit and its grace, and interpose themselves between a nation\nand its God. \u201cReceive the Holy Ghost,\u201d says the Service for Ordination\nof Priests, \u201cfor the office and work of a priest in the Church of God,\nnow committed unto thee by the imposition of hands. Whose sins thou dost\nforgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are\nretained.\u201d \u201cThey only,\u201d says the present Bishop of Exeter, \u201ccan claim to\nrule over the Lord\u2019s household, whom he has himself placed over it; they\nonly are able to minister the means of grace,\u2014above all, to present the\ngreat commemorative _sacrifice_,\u2014whom Christ has appointed, and whom he\nhas in all generations appointed in unbroken succession from those, and\nthrough those, whom he first ordained. \u2018Ambassadors from Christ\u2019 must,\nby the very force of the term, receive credentials from Christ:\n\u2018stewards of the mysteries of God\u2019 must be entrusted with those\nmysteries by him. Remind your people, that in the Church only is the\npromise of forgiveness of sins; and though, to all who truly repent, and\nsincerely believe, Christ mercifully grants forgiveness; yet he has, in\nan especial manner, empowered his ministers to declare and pronounce to\nhis people the absolution and remission of their sins: \u2018whosesoever sins\nye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain,\nthey are retained.\u2019 This was the awful authority given to his first\nministers, and in them, and through them, to all their successors. This\nis the awful authority we have received, and that we must never be\nashamed nor afraid to tell the people that we have received.\n\n\u201cHaving shown to the people your commission, show to them how our own\nChurch has framed its services in accordance with that commission. Show\nthis to them not only in the Ordinal, but also in the Collects, in the\nCommunion Service, in the Office of the Visitation of the Sick; show it,\nespecially, in that which continually presents itself to their notice,\nbut is commonly little regarded by them; show it in the very\ncommencement of Morning and Evening Prayer, and make them understand the\nfull blessedness of that service, in which the Church thus calls on them\nto join. Let them see that there the minister authoritatively pronounces\nGod\u2019s pardon and absolution to all them that truly repent, and\nunfeignedly believe Christ\u2019s holy gospel; that he does this, even as the\nApostles did, with the authority and by the appointment of our Lord\nhimself, who, in commissioning his Apostles, gave this to be the\nnever-failing assurance of his co-operation in their ministry, \u2018Lo, I am\nwith you always, even unto the end of the world;\u2019 a promise which, of\nits very nature, was not to be fulfilled to the persons of those whom he\naddressed, but to their office, to their successors therefore in that\noffice, \u2018even unto the end of the world.\u2019 Lastly, remind and warn them\nof the awful sanction with which our Lord accompanied his mission, even\nof the second order of the ministers whom he appointed; \u2018He that heareth\nyou, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that\ndespiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.\u2019\u201d That this high dignity may\nbe clearly understood to belong in this country only to the Church of\nEngland, the Bishop proposes the question, \u201cWhat, then, becomes of those\nwho are not, or continue not, members of that (visible) Church?\u201d and\nreplies to it by saying, that though he \u201cjudges not them that are\nwithout,\u201d yet \u201che who wilfully and in despite of due warning, or through\nrecklessness and worldly-mindedness, sets at nought its ordinances, and\ndespises its ministers, has no right to promise to himself any share in\nthe grace which they are appointed to convey.\u201d[612] \u201cWhy,\u201d says one of\nthe Oxford divines, who here undeniably speaks the genuine doctrine of\nhis Church, \u201cWhy should we talk so much of an _Establishment_, and so\nlittle of an APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION? Why should we not seriously endeavour\nto impress our people with this plain truth, that by separating\nthemselves from our communion, they separate themselves not only from a\ndecent, orderly, useful society, but from THE ONLY CHURCH IN THIS REALM\nWHICH HAS A RIGHT TO BE QUITE SURE THAT SHE HAS THE LORD\u2019S BODY TO GIVE\nTO HIS PEOPLE?\u201d[613]\n\nOf course this Divine authority has been received through the Church of\nRome, so abominable in the eyes of all Evangelical clergymen; and\nthrough many an unworthy link in the unbroken chain. The Holy Spirit, it\nis acknowledged, has _passed through_ many, on whom, apparently, it was\nnot pleased to _rest_; and the right to forgive sins been conferred by\nthose who seemed themselves to need forgiveness. A writer in the Oxford\nTracts observes, \u201cNor even though we may admit that many of those who\nformed the connecting links of this holy chain were themselves unworthy\nof the high charge reposed in them, can this furnish us with any solid\nground for doubting or denying their power to exercise that legitimate\nauthority with which they were duly invested, of transmitting the sacred\ngift to worthier followers.\u201d[614]\n\nIn its doctrine of Sacraments, then, and in that of Ecclesiastical\nauthority and succession, the Church of England is thoroughly imbued\nwith the sacerdotal character. It doubtless contains far better elements\nand nobler conceptions than those which it has been my duty to exhibit\nnow; and solemnly insists on faith of heart, and truth of conscience,\nand Christian devotedness of life, as well as on the observance of its\nritual; with the external it unites the internal condition of\nsanctification. But insisting on the theory of a mystic efficacy in the\nChristian rites, it necessarily fails to reconcile these with each\nother: and hence the opposite parties within its pale; the one\nmagnifying faith and personal spirituality, the other exalting the\nsacraments and ecclesiastical communion. They represent respectively the\ntwo constituent and clashing powers, which met at the formation of the\nEnglish Church, and of which it effected the mere compromise, not the\nreconciliation; I mean, the priestliness of Rome, and the prophetic\nspirit of the Reformers. Never, since apostolic days, did heaven bless\nus with truer prophet than Martin Luther. It was his mission (no modern\nman had ever greater,) to substitute the idea of _personal faith_ for\nthat of _sacerdotal reliance_. And gloriously, with bravery and truth of\nsoul amid a thousand hindrances, did he achieve it. But though, ever\nsince, the priests have been down, and faith has been up, yet did the\nhierarchy unavoidably remain, and insisted that _something_ should be\nmade of it, and at least some colourable terms proposed. Hence, every\nreformed Church exhibits a coalition between the new and the old ideas:\nand combined views of religion, which must ultimately prove incompatible\nwith each other; the formal with the spiritual; the idea of worship as a\nmeans of propitiating God, with the conception of it as an expression of\nlove in man; the notion of Church authority with that of individual\nfreedom; the admission of a licence to think, with a prohibition of\nthinking wrong. In our national Church, the old spirit was ascendant\nover the new, though long forced into quiescence by the temper of modern\ntimes. Now it is attempting to re-assert its power, not without\nstrenuous resistance. Indeed, the present age seems destined to end the\ncompromise between the two principles, from the union of which\nProtestantism assumed its established forms. The truce seems everywhere\nbreaking up: a general disintegration of churches is visible; tradition\nis ransacking the past for claims and dignities, and canvassing present\ntimidity for fresh authority, to withstand the wild forces born at the\nReformation, and hurrying us fast into an unknown future.\n\nLet us now turn to the primitive Christianity; which, I submit, is\nthroughout wholly anti-sacerdotal.\n\nSurely it must be admitted that the general spirit of our Lord\u2019s\npersonal life and ministry was that of the Prophet, not of the Priest;\ntending directly to the disparagement of whatever priesthood existed in\nhis country, without visibly preparing the substitution of anything at\nall analogous to it. The sacerdotal order felt it so; and with the\ninfallible instinct of self-preservation, they watched, they hated, they\nseized, they murdered him. The priest in every age has a natural\nantipathy to the prophet, dreads him as kings dread revolution, and is\nthe first to detect his existence. The solemn moment and the gracious\nwords, of Christ\u2019s first preaching in Nazareth, struck with fate the\ntemple in Jerusalem. To the old men of the village, to the neighbours\nwho knew his childhood, and companions who had shared its rambles and\nits sports, he said, with the quiet flush of inspiration; \u201cThe Spirit of\nthe Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to\nthe poor: he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach\ndeliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind; to\nset at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of\nthe Lord.\u201d[615] The Spirit of the Lord in Galilee! speaking with the\npeasantry, dwelling in villages, and wandering loose and where it\nlisteth among the hills! This would never do, thought the white-robed\nLevites of the Holy City; it would be as a train of wild-fire in the\nTemple. And were they not right? When it was revealed that sanctity is\nno thing of place and time, that a way is open from earth to heaven,\nfrom every field or mountain trod by human feet, and through every roof\nthat shelters a human head; that amid the crowd and crush of life, each\nsoul is in personal solitude with God, and by speech or silence (be they\nbut true and loving) may tell its cares and find its peace; that a\ndivine allegiance might _cost nothing_, but the strife of a dutiful will\nand the patience of a filial heart; how could any priesthood hope to\nstand? See how Jesus himself, when the Temple was close at hand, and the\nsunshine dressed it in its splendour, yet withdrew his prayers to the\nmidnight of Mount Olivet, He entered those courts to teach, rather than\nto worship; and when there, he is felt to take no consecration, but to\ngive it; to bring with him the living spirit of God, and spread it\nthroughout all the place. When evening closes his teachings, and he\nreturns late over the Mount to Bethany, did he not feel that there was\nmore of God in the night-breeze on his brow, and the heaven above him,\nand the sad love within him, than in the place called \u201cHoly\u201d which he\nhad left? And when he had knocked at the gate of Lazarus the risen and\nbecome his guest; when, after the labours of the day, he unburthened his\nspirit to the affections of that family, and spake of things divine to\nthe sisters listening at his feet; did they not feel, as they retired at\nlength, that the whole house was full of God, and that there is no\nsanctuary like the shrine, not made with hands, within us all? In\nchildhood, he had once preferred the temple and its teachings to his\nparents\u2019 home: now, to his deeper experience, the temple has lost its\ntruth; while the cottage and the walks of Nazareth, the daily voices and\nconstant duties of this life, seem covered with the purest consecration.\nTrue, he vindicated the sanctity of the temple, when he heard within its\nenclosure the hum of traffic and the chink of gain, and would not have\nthe house of prayer turned into a place of merchandise: because in this\nthere was imposture and a lie, and Mammon and the Lord must ever dwell\napart. In nothing must there be mockery and falsehood; and while the\ntemple stands, it must be a temple true.\n\nOur Lord\u2019s whole ministry then (to which we may add that of his\napostles) was conceived in a spirit quite opposite to that of\npriesthood. A missionary life, without fixed locality, without form,\nwithout rites; with teaching free, occasional and various, with\nsympathies ever with the people, and a strain of speech never marked by\ninvective, except against the ruling sacerdotal influence;\u2014all these\ncharacters proclaim him, purely and emphatically, the Prophet of the\nLord. It deserves notice that, unless as the name of his enemies, the\n_word_ \u201cPRIEST\u201d (\u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2) never occurs in either the historical or\nepistolary writings of the New Testament, except in the Epistle to the\nHebrews. And _there_ its application is not a little remarkable. It is\napplied to Christ alone: it is declared to belong to him, only after his\nascension: it is said that, while on earth, he neither was, nor could\nbe, a priest: and if it is admitted that he holds the office in heaven,\nthis is only to satisfy the demand of the Hebrew Christians for some\nsacerdotal ideas in their religion, and to reconcile them to having no\npriest on earth. The writer acknowledges one great pontiff in the world\nabove, that the whole race may be superseded in the world below; and\nbanishes priesthood into invisibility, that men may never see its shadow\nmore. All the terms of office which are given to the first preachers of\nthe gospel and superintendents of churches\u2014as Deacon, Elder or\nPresbyter, Overseer or Bishop, are _Lay-terms_, belonging previously,\nnot to ecclesiastical, but to civil life; an indication, surely, that no\nanalogy was thought to exist between the Apostolic and the Sacerdotal\nrelations.[616] I shall, no doubt, be reminded of the words, in which\nour Lord is supposed to have given their commission to his first\nrepresentatives; \u201cWhatsoever ye bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;\nand whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;\u201d[617] and\nshall be asked whether this does not convey to them and their successors\nan official authority to forgive sins, and dispense the decrees of the\nunseen world. I reply briefly:\n\n1st, That the power here granted does not relate to the dispensations of\nthe future life, but solely to what would be termed, in modern language,\nthe allotment of _church-membership_. The previous verse proves this,\nfurnishing as it does a particular case of the general authority here\nassigned. It directs the apostles under what circumstances they are to\nremove an offender from a Christian society, and treat him as an\nunconverted man, as a heathen man and a publican. Having given them\ntheir rule, he freely trusts the application of it to them: and being\nabout to retire ere long, from personal intervention in the affairs of\nhis kingdom, he assures them that their decisions shall be his, and that\nhe may be considered as adopting in heaven their determinations upon\nearth. He simply \u201cconsigns to his apostles discretionary power to direct\nthe affairs of his church, and superintend the diffusion of the glad\ntidings: they may bind and loose, that is, open and shut the door of\nadmission to their community, as their judgment may determine; employing\nor rejecting applicants for the missionary office; dissociating from\ntheir assemblies obstinate delinquents; receiving with openness, or\ndismissing with suspicion, each candidate for instruction, according to\ntheir estimate of his qualifications and motives.\u201d\n\n2ndly, It is to be observed, that there is no appearance of any one\nbeing in the contemplation of our Lord, beyond the persons immediately\naddressed. Not a word is said of any official successor or any distant\nage. No indication is afforded, that any idea of futurity was present to\nthe mind of Jesus: and a title of perpetual office, an instrument\ncreating and endowing an endless priesthood, ought, it will be admitted,\nto be somewhat more explicit than this. But where the power has been\nsuccessfully claimed, the title is seldom difficult to prove.\n\nThe alleged RITUAL of Christianity, consisting of the sacraments of\nBaptism and the Communion, will be found no less destitute of sanction\nfrom the Scriptures. The former we shall see reason to regard as simply\nan initiatory form, applicable only to Christian converts, and limited\ntherefore to adults; the latter as purely a commemoration: neither\ntherefore having any sacramental or mystical efficacy.\n\nFor baptism it is impossible to establish any supernatural origin. It is\nadmitted to have existed before the Christian \u00e6ra; and to have been\nemployed by the Jews on the admission of proselytes to their religion.\nIt is certain that it is not an enjoined rite in the Mosaic\ndispensation; and though prevalent before the period of the New\nTestament, is nowhere enforced or recognised in the writings of the Old.\nIt arose therefore in the interval between the only two systems which\nChristians acknowledged to be supernatural: and must be considered as of\nnatural and human origin, invested, thus far, with no higher authority\nthan its own appropriateness may confer. There seem to have been two\nmodes of construing the symbol: the one founded on the cleansing effect\nof the water on the person of the baptized himself; the other, on the\nappearance of his immersion (which was complete) to the eye of a\nspectator. The former was an image of the Heathen convert\u2019s purification\nfrom a foul idolatry; and his transition to a stainless condition under\na divine and justifying law. The latter represented him, when he\nvanished in the stream, as interred to this world, sunk utterly from its\nsight; and when he re-appeared, as emerging or born again to a better\nstate; the \u201cold man\u201d was \u201cburied in baptism,\u201d and when he \u201crose again,\u201d\nhe had altogether \u201cbecome new.\u201d[618] The ceremony then was appropriately\nused in any case of transition from a depressed and corrupt state of\nexistence to a hopeful and blessed one; from a false or imperfect\nreligion to one true and heavenly.\n\nBut it will be said, whatever the origin of Baptism, it was employed and\nsanctioned by our Lord, who commissioned his apostles to go and baptize\nall nations. True; but is there no difference between the adoption of a\npractice already extant,\u2014of a practice which was as much the mere\ninstitutional dress of the apostles\u2019 nation, as the sandals whose dust\nthey were to shake off against the faithless, were the customary\nclothing of the apostles\u2019 feet,\u2014and the authoritative appointment of a\nSacrament? They were going forth to make converts: and why should they\nnot have recourse to the form familiarly associated with the act?\nFamiliar association recommended its adoption in that age and clime; and\nthe absence of such association elsewhere and in other times may be\nthought to justify its disuse. At all events, a ceremony thus taken up\nmust be presumed to retain its acquired sense and its established extent\nof application: and if so, baptism must be strictly limited to the\nadmission of proselytes from other faiths. This accords with the known\npractice of the apostles, who cannot be shown to have baptized any but\nthose whom they had personally, or by their missionaries, persuaded to\nbecome Christians. Not a single case of the use of the rite with\nchildren can be adduced from Scripture: and the only argument by which\nsuch employment of it is ever justified is this; that a _household_ is\nsaid to have been baptized, and _all nations_ were to receive the offer\nof it; and that the household _may_, the nations _must_, have contained\nchildren. It is evident that such reasoning could never have been\npropounded, unless the practice had existed first, and the defence had\nbeen found afterwards.\n\nWith the system of infant baptism, vanish almost all the ideas which the\nprevalent theology has put into the rite; and it becomes as intelligible\nand expressive to one who believes in the good capacities of human\nnature, as to those who esteem it originally depraved. \u2018How unmeaning,\u2019\nsay our orthodox opponents, \u2018is this ceremony in Unitarian hands;\ndenying, as they do, the doctrines which it represents! of what\nregeneration can they possibly suppose it the symbol, if not of the\nwashing away of that _hereditary sin_, which they refuse to acknowledge?\nfor when the infant is brought to the font, he can as yet have no other\nguilt than this.\u2019 I reply; the objection has no force except against the\nuse of _infant_ baptism in our churches,\u2014which I am not anxious to\ndefend: but of course those Unitarians who employ it, conceive it to be\nthe token, not of any sentiments which they reject, but of truths and\nfeelings which they hold dear. For myself, I believe, with our\nopponents, that the _doctrine_ of original sin and the _practice_ of\ninfant baptism _do_ belong to each other, and must stand or fall\ntogether: and therefore deem it a fact very significant of the apostles\u2019\ntheology, that no infant can be shown ever to have been \u201cbrought to the\nfont\u201d by these first true missionaries of Christianity. And as to the\n_new-birth_ which baptism (i.e. recent and genuine discipleship to\nJesus) may give to the _maturely-convinced_ Christian, he must have a\ngreat deal to learn, not only of the Hebrew conceptions and language in\nrelation to the Messiah, but of the spirituality of the gospel, and of\nthe fresh creations of character which it calls up, who can be much\npuzzled about its meaning.\n\nIn Christian baptism, then, we have no sacrament with mystic power; but\nan initiatory form, possibly of consuetudinary obligation only; but if\nenjoined, applicable exclusively to proselytes, and misemployed in the\ncase of infants; a sign of conversion, not a means of salvation;\nconfided to no sacerdotal order, but open to every man fitted to give it\nan appropriate use.\n\nI turn to the Lord\u2019s Supper; with design to show, what it is not, and\nwhat it is. It is not a mystery, or a sacrament, any more than it is an\nexpiatory sacrifice. To persuade us that it has a ritual character, we\nare first assured that it is clearly the successor in the Gospel to the\nPassover under the Law. Well,\u2014even if it were so, it would still be\nsimply commemorative, and without any other efficacy than a festival,\nfilled with great remembrances, and inspired with religious joy. Such\nwas the Paschal Feast in Jerusalem;\u2014the annual gathering of families and\nkindred, a sacred carnival under the spring sky and in sight of unreaped\nfields, when the memory was recalled of national deliverance, and the\ntale was told of traditional glories, and the thoughts brought back of\nbondage reversed, of the desert pilgrimage ended, of the promised land\npossessed. The Jewish festival was no more than this; unless, with\nArchbishop Magee and others, we erroneously conceive it to be a proper\nsacrifice.[619] So that those who would interpret the Lord\u2019s Supper by\nthe Passover have their choice between two views: that it is a simple\ncommemoration; or that it is an expiatory sacrifice: in the former case,\nthey quit the Church of England; in the latter, they fall into the\nChurch of Rome.\n\nBut, in truth, there is no propriety in applying the name \u2018Christian\npassover\u2019 to the Communion. The notion rests entirely on this\ncircumstance; that the first three Evangelists describe the last Supper\nas the Paschal Supper. But the _institutional_ part of that meal was\nover before the cup was distributed, and the repetition of the act\nenjoined. Nor is there the slightest trace, either in the subsequent\nscriptures, or in the earliest history of the Church, that the Communion\nwas thought to bear relation to the passover. The time, the frequency,\nthe mode, of the two were altogether different. Indeed, when we observe\nthat not one of these particulars is prescribed and determined by our\nLord at all, when we notice the slight and transient manner in which he\ndrops his wish that they would \u201cdo this in remembrance of\u201d him, when we\ncompare these features of the account with the elaborate precision of\nMoses respecting hours, and materials, and dates, and places, and modes\nin the establishment of the Hebrew festivals, it is scarcely possible to\navoid the impression, that we are reading narrative, not law; an\nutterance of personal affection, rather than the legislative enactment\nof an everlasting institution.[620] However this may be, no importance\ncan be attached to the reported coincidence in the time of that meal\nwith the day of passover: for the apostle John, who gives by far the\nfullest account of what happened at that table (yet never mentions the\ninstitution of the supper), states that this was not the paschal meal at\nall, which did not occur, he says, till the following day of\ncrucifixion.[621]\n\n\u2018But,\u2019 it will be said, \u2018the gospels are not the only parts of\nScripture, whence the nature of the eucharist may be learned. Language\nis employed by St. Paul in reference to it, which cannot be understood\nof a mere memorial, and implies that awful consequences hung on the\nworthy or unworthy participation in the rite. Does he not even say, that\na man may \u201ceat and drink damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord\u2019s\nbody?\u201d\u2019\n\nThe passage whence these words are cited certainly throws great light on\nthe institution of which we treat: but there must be a total disregard\nto the whole context and the general course of the apostle\u2019s reasoning\nbefore it can be made to yield any argument for the mystical character\nof the rite.[622] It would appear that the Corinthian church was in the\nhabit of celebrating the Lord\u2019s Supper in a way which, even if it had\nnever been disgraced by any indecorum, must have struck a modern\nChristian with wonder at its singularity. The members met together in\none room or church, each bringing his own supper, of such quantity and\nquality as his opulence or poverty might allow. To this the apostle does\nnot object, but apparently considers it a part of the established\narrangement. But these Christians were divided into factions, and had\nnot learned the true uniting spirit of their faith: nor do they seem to\nhave acquired that sobriety of habit and sanctity of mind, which their\nprofession ought to have induced. When they entered the place of\nmeeting, they broke up into groups and parties, class apart from class,\nand rich deserting poor: each set began its separate meal, some\nindulging in luxury and excess, others with scarce the means of keeping\nthe commemoration at all; and, infamous to tell, the blessed supper of\nthe Lord was sunk into a tavern meal. So gross and habitual had the\nabuse become, that the excesses had affected the health and life of\nthese guilty and unworthy partakers. They had made no distinction\nbetween the Communion and an ordinary repast, had lost all perception of\nthe memorial significance of their meeting, had not discriminated or\n\u201cdiscerned the Lord\u2019s body:\u201d and so they had eaten and drunk judgment\n(improperly rendered \u201c_damnation_\u201d in the English Version) to\nthemselves; and many were weak and sickly among them, and many even\nslept. Well would it be, if they would look on this as a chastening of\nthe Lord: in which case they might take warning, and escape being cast\nout of the church, and driven to take their chance with the unbelieving\nand heathen world. \u201cWhen we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord,\nthat we should not be condemned with the world.\u201d\n\nIn order to remedy all this corruption, St. Paul reminds them, that to\neat and drink under the same roof, in the church, does not constitute\nproper Communion: that, to this end, they must not break up into\nsections, and retain their property in the food, but all participate\nseriously together. He directs that an absolute separation shall be made\nbetween the occasions for satisfying hunger and thirst, and those for\nobserving this commemorative rite, discriminating carefully the memorial\nof the Lord\u2019s body from every thing else. He refers them all to the\noriginal model of the institution, the parting meal of Christ, before\nhis betrayal; and by this example, as a criterion, he would have every\nman examine himself, and after that pattern eat of the bread and drink\nof the cup. Hence it appears,\n\nThat the unworthy partaker was the riotous Corinthian, who made no\ndistinction between the sacred Communion and a vulgar meal:\n\nThat the judgment or damnation which such brought on themselves, was\nsickliness, weakness, and premature but natural death:\n\nThat the self-examination which the apostle recommends to the\ncommunicant is, a comparison of his mode of keeping the rite, with the\noriginal model of the Last Supper:\n\nThat in the Corinthian Church there was no Priest, or officiating\ndispenser of the elements: and that St. Paul did not contemplate or\nrecommend the appointment of any such person.\n\nThe Lord\u2019s Supper, then, I conclude, was and is a simple commemoration.\nAm I asked, \u2018_of what?_ Why, according to Unitarian views, the death on\nthe cross merits the memorial, more than the remaining features of our\nLord\u2019s history,\u2014more even than the death of many a noble martyr, who has\nsealed his testimony to truth by like self-sacrifice?\u2019 The answer will\nbe found at length in the Lecture on the Atonement, where the Scriptural\nconceptions of Christ\u2019s death are expounded in detail. Meanwhile, it is\nsufficient to recal an idea, which has more than once been thrown out\nduring this course: that if Jesus had taken up his Messianic power\nwithout death, he would have remained a Hebrew, and been limited to the\npeople amid whom he was born. He quitted his mortal personality, he left\nthis fleshly tabernacle of existence, and became immortal, that his\nnationality might be destroyed, and all men drawn in as subjects of his\nreign. It was the cross that opened to the nations the blessed ways of\nlife, and put us all in relations not of law, but of love, to him and\nGod. Hence the memorial of his death celebrates the universality and\nspirituality of the gospel; declares the brotherhood of men, the\nfatherhood of providence, the personal affinity of every soul with God.\nThat is no empty rite, which overflows with these conceptions.\n\nChristianity, then, I maintain, is without Priest, and without Ritual.\nIt altogether coalesces with the prophetic idea of religion, and\nrepudiates the sacerdotal. Christ himself was transcendently THE\nPROPHET. He brought down God to this our life, and left his spirit amid\nits scenes. The Apostles were prophets; they carried that spirit abroad,\nrevealing everywhere to men the sanctity of their nature, and the\nproximity of their heaven. Nor am I even unwilling to admit an Apostolic\nsuccession, never yet extinct, and never more to be extinguished. But\nthen it is by no means a rectilinear regiment of incessant priests; but\na broken, scattered, yet glorious race of prophets; the genealogy of\ngreat and Christian souls, through whom the primitive conceptions of\nJesus have propagated themselves from age to age; mind producing mind,\ncourage giving birth to courage, truth developing truth, and love ever\nnurturing love, so long as one good and noble spirit shall act upon\nanother. Luther surely was the child of Paul: and what a noble offspring\nhas risen to manhood from Luther\u2019s soul; whom to enumerate, were to tell\nthe best triumphs of the modern world. These are Christ\u2019s true\nambassadors; and never did he mean any follower of his to be called a\npriest. He has his genuine messenger, wherever, in the Church or in the\nworld, there toils any one of the real prophets of our race; any one who\ncan create the good and great in other souls, whether by truth of word\nor deed, by the inspiration of genuine speech, or the better power of a\nlife merciful and holy.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAnd here, my friends, with my subject might my Lecture close; were it\nnot that we are assembled now to terminate this controversy: and that a\nfew remarks in reference to its whole course and spirit seem to be\nrequired.\n\nThat the recent aggression upon the principles of Unitarian\nChristianity, was prompted by no unworthy motive, individual or\npolitical, but by a zeal, Christian so far as its spirit is\ndisinterested, and unchristian only so far as it is exclusive, has never\nbeen doubted or denied by my brother ministers or myself. That much\npersonal consideration and courtesy have been evinced towards us during\nthe controversy, it is so grateful to us to acknowledge, that we must\nonly regret the theological obstructions in the way of that mutual\nknowledge, which softens the prejudices, and corrects the errors of the\ncloset. From such errors, the lot of our fallible nature, we are deeply\naware that we cannot be exempt, and profoundly wish that, by others\u2019 aid\nor by our own, we could discover them. Meanwhile, we do not feel that\nour opponents have been successful in the offer which they have made, of\nhelp towards this end. They are too little acquainted with our history\nand character, and have far too great a horror of us, to succeed in a\ndesign, demanding rather the benevolence of sympathy and trust, than\nthat of antipathy and fear. Hence have arisen certain complaints and\ncharges against our system and its tendencies, which, having been\nreiterated again and again in the Christ Church Lectures, and scarcely\nnoticed in our own, claim a concluding observation or two now.\n\n1. We are said to be infidels in disguise, and our system to be drifting\nfast towards utter unbelief. At all events, it is said we make great\nadvances that way.\n\nIt is by no means unusual to dismiss this charge on a whirlwind of\ndeclamation, designed to send it and the infidel to the greatest\npossible distance. My friend who delivered the first Lecture, noticed it\nin a far different spirit; and in a discussion where truth and wisdom\nhad any chance, his reply would have prevented any recurrence to the\nstatement. Let me try to imitate him in the testimony which I desire to\nadd upon this point.\n\nEvery one, I presume, who disbelieves _any thing_, is, with respect to\nthat thing, _an infidel_. Departure from any prevalent and established\nideas, is inevitably an approach to infidelity; the extent of the\ndeparture, not the reasonableness or propriety of it, is the sole\nmeasure of the nearness of that approach; which, however wise and sober,\nwhen estimated by a true and independent criterion, will appear, to\npersons strongly possessed by the ascendant notions, nothing less than\nalarming, amazing, awful. In short, the average popular creed of the\nday, is the mental standard, from which the stadia are measured off\ntowards that invisible, remote, nay, even imaginary place, lodged\nsomewhere within chaos, called utter unbelief. Christianity at first was\nblank infidelity: and disciples, being of course the atheists of their\nday, were thought a fit prey for the wild beasts of the amphitheatre.\nEvery rejection of tradition, again, is unbelief with respect to it; and\nto those who hold its authority, it is the denial of an essential. It is\ntoo evident to need proof, that the average popular belief cannot be\nassumed, by any considerate person, as a standard of truth. To make it\nan objection against any class of men, that they depart from it, is to\nprove no error against them; and no one, who is not willing to call in\nthe passions of the multitude in suffrage on the controversies of the\nfew, will condescend to enforce the charge.\n\nBut only observe how, in the present instance, the matter stands. In the\npopular religion we discern, mixed up together, two constituent\nportions; certain _peculiar_ doctrines which characterize the common\northodoxy; and certain _universal_ Christian truths remaining, when\nthese are subtracted. The infidel throws away both of these; we throw\naway the former only: and thus far, no doubt, we partially agree with\nhim. But _on what grounds_ do we severally justify this rejection? In\nanswer to this question, compare the views, with respect both to the\n_authority_ and to the _interpretation_ of Scripture, held by the three\nparties, the Trinitarian, the Unbeliever, the Unitarian. The Unbeliever\ndoes not usually find fault with the orthodox _interpretation_ of the\nBible, but allows it to pass, as probably the real meaning of the book,\nonly he altogether denies the divine character and authority of the\nwhole religion; he therefore _agrees_ with the Trinitarian respecting\ninterpretation, disagrees with him respecting _authority_. The\nUnitarian, again, admits the divine character of Christianity, but\nunderstands it differently from the Trinitarian; he therefore reverses\nthe former case, _agrees_ with the orthodox on the authority,\n_disagrees_ respecting interpretation. It follows, that with the\nunbeliever he agrees _in neither_, and is therefore further from him\nthan his Trinitarian accuser.\n\nI have given this explanation, from regard simply to logical truth. I\nhave no desire to join in the outcry against even the deliberate\nunbeliever in the Gospel, as if he must necessarily be a fiend.\nProfoundly loving and trusting Christianity myself, I yet feel indignant\nat the persecution which theology, policy, and law inflict on the many\nwho, with undeniable exercise of conscientiousness and patience of\nresearch, are yet unable to satisfy themselves respecting its evidence.\nThe very word \u2018_infidel_,\u2019 implying not simply an intellectual judgment,\nbut bad moral qualities, conveys an unmerited insult, and ought to be\nrepudiated by every generous disputant. The more deeply we trust\nChristianity, the more should we protest against its being defended by a\nbody-guard of passions, willing to do for it precisely the services\nwhich they might equally render to the vulgarest imposture.\n\n2. We were recently accused, amid acknowledgments of our _honesty_, with\nwant of _anxiety_ about spiritual truth: and the following justification\nof the charge was offered: \u201cThe Word of God has informed us, that they\nwho seek the truth shall find it; that they who ask for holy wisdom\nshall receive it; but it must be a _really anxious inquiry_\u2014a heart-felt\ndesire for the blessing. \u2018If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest\nfor her as for hid treasures; then shalt thou understand the fear of the\nLord, and find the knowledge of God.\u2019[623] Such promises are\nexpress,\u2014they cannot be broken,\u2014God will give the blessing to the\n_sincere_, _anxious_ inquirer. But the two qualities must go together. A\nman may be sincere in his ignorance and spiritual torpor; but let the\nfull desire for God\u2019s favour, his pardoning mercy, and his enlightening\ngrace spring up in the heart, and we may rest assured that the desire\nwill soon be accomplished. Admitting, then, the sincerity of Unitarians,\nwe doubt their anxiety, for we are well persuaded from God\u2019s promises,\nthat if they possessed both, they would be delivered from their\nmiserable system, and be brought to the knowledge of the truth.\u201d[624]\n\nThe praise of our \u201c_sincerity_,\u201d conveyed in these bland sentences, we\nare anxious to decline: not that we undervalue the quality: but because\nwe find, on near inspection, that it has all been emptied out of the\nword before its presentation, and the term comes to us hollow and\nworthless. It affords a specimen of the mode in which alone our\nopponents appear able to give any credit to heretics: many phrases of\napprobation they freely apply to us; but they take care to draw off the\nwhole meaning first. We must reject these \u201cGreek presents:\u201d and we are\nconcerned that any Christian divine can so torture and desecrate the\nnames of virtue, as to make them instruments of disparagement and\ninjury. This play with words, which every conscience should hold sacred,\nand every lip pronounce with reverence,\u2014this careless and unmeaning\napplication of them in discourse,\u2014indicates a loose adhesion to the mind\nof the ideas denoted by them, which we regard with unfeigned\nastonishment and grief. What, let me ask, can be the \u201c_sincerity_\u201d of an\ninquirer, who is not \u201c_anxious_\u201d _about the truth_? How can _he_ be\n\u201c_sincerely_\u201d persuaded that he sees, who voluntarily shuts his eyes?\nUnless this word is to be degraded into a synonyme for indolence and\nself-complacency, no professed seeker of truth must have the praise of\nsincerity, who does not abandon all worship of his own state of mind as\nalready perfect, who is not ready to listen to every calm doubt as to\nthe voice of heaven,\u2014to undertake with gratitude the labour of reaching\nnew knowledge,\u2014to maintain his faith and his profession in scrupulous\naccordance with his perception of evidence; and, at any moment of\nawakening, to spring from his most brilliant dreams into God\u2019s own\nmorning light, with a matin hymn upon his lips for his new-birth from\ndarkness and from sleep. The earnestness implied in this state of mind\nis perhaps not precisely the same, as that with which our Trinitarian\nopponents seem to be familiar. The \u201canxiety\u201d which they appear to feel\nfor themselves is, to keep their existing state of belief: the \u201canxiety\u201d\nwhich they feel for us is, that we should have it. We are to hold\nourselves ready for a change; they are not to be expected to desire it.\nIf a doubt of _our opinions_ should occur _to us_, we are to foster it\ncarefully, and follow it out as a beckoning of the Holy Spirit: if a\ndoubt of _their sentiments_ should occur _to them_, they are to crush it\non the spot, as a reptile-thought sent of Satan to tempt them. \u201cOur\naim,\u201d says the concluding Lecturer again, \u201chas been to beget a deep\nspirit of inquiry:\u201d[625] and so has ours, I would reply: only you and we\nhave severally prosecuted this aim in different ways. We have personally\nlistened, and personally inquired, and earnestly recommended all whom\nour influence could reach, to do the same: and few indeed will be the\nUnitarian libraries containing one of these series of lectures, that\nwill not exhibit the other by its side. You have entered this\ncontroversy, evidently strange to our literature and history; and any\ndeficiency in such reading before, has not been compensated by anxiety\nto listen now. Your people have been warned against us, and are taught\nto regard the study of our publications as blasphemy at second-hand: and\nwere they really so simple as to act upon your avowed wish \u201cto beget a\ndeep spirit of inquiry,\u201d and plunge into the investigation of Unitarian\nauthors, and judge for themselves of Unitarian worship, they would\nspeedily hear the word of recal, and discover that they were practically\ndisappointing the whole object of this controversy.\n\nHaving said thus much respecting the unmeaning use of language in the\nLecturer\u2019s disparaging estimate of Unitarian \u201canxiety,\u201d we may\nprofitably direct a moment\u2019s attention to the _reasoning_ which it\ninvolves. It presents us with the standing fallacy of intolerance, which\nis sufficiently rebuked by being simply exhibited. Our opponents reason\nthus:\n\n God will not permit the really anxious fatally to err:\n The Unitarians _do_ fatally err:\n Therefore, The Unitarians are not really anxious.\n\nNow it is clear that we must conceive our opponents to be no less\nmistaken than they suppose us to be. They are as far from us, as we from\nthem; and from either point, taken as a standard, the measure of error\nmust be the same. Moreover, we cannot but eagerly assent to the\nprinciple of the Lecturer\u2019s first premiss, that God will never let the\ntruly anxious fatally miss their way. So that there is nothing, in the\nnature of the case, to prevent our turning this same syllogism, with a\nchange in the names of the parties, against our opponents. Yet we should\nshrink, with severe self-reproach, from drawing any such unfavourable\nconclusion respecting them, as they deduce of us. Accordingly, we manage\nour reasoning thus:\n\n God will not permit the really anxious fatally to err:\n The Trinitarians show themselves to be really anxious:\n Therefore, The Trinitarians do not fatally err.\n\nOur opponents are more sure that their judgment is in the right, than\nthat their neighbours\u2019 conscience is in earnest. They sacrifice other\nmen\u2019s characters to their own self-confidence: we would rather distrust\nour self-confidence, and rely on the visible signs of a good and careful\nmind. We honour other men\u2019s hearts, rather than our own heads. How can\nit be just, to make the agreement between an opponent\u2019s opinion and our\nown, the criterion of his proper conduct of the inquiry? Every man feels\nthe injury, the moment the rule is turned against himself: and every\ngood man should be ashamed to direct it against his brother.\n\n3. Our reverend opponents affect to have laboured under a great\ndisadvantage, from the absence of any recognized standard of Unitarian\nbelief. \u2018We give you,\u2019 they say, \u2018our Articles and Creeds, which we\nunanimously undertake to defend, and which expose a definite object to\nall heretical attacks. In return, you can furnish us with no authorised\nexposition of your system; but leave us to gather our knowledge of it\nfrom individual writers, for whose opinions you refuse to be\nresponsible, and whose reasonings, when refuted by us, you can\nconveniently disown.\u2019\n\nPlausible as this complaint may appear, I venture to affirm, that it is\nvastly easier to ascertain the common belief of Unitarians, than that of\nthe members of the Established Church: and for this plain reason, that\nwith us there really is such a thing as a common faith, though defined\nin no confession; in the Anglican Church there is not, though articles\nand creeds profess it. The characteristic tenets of Unitarian\nChristianity are so simple and unambiguous, that little scope exists for\nvariety in their interpretation: to the propositions expressing them all\ntheir professors attach _distinct and the same_ ideas;\u2014so far, at least,\nas such accordance is possible in relation to subjects inaccessible both\nto demonstration and to experience. But the Trinitarian hypothesis,\nventuring with presumptuous analysis far into the Divine psychology,\npresents us with ideas confessedly inapprehensible; propounded in\nlanguage which, if used in its ordinary sense, is self-contradictory,\nand if not, is unmeaning, and ready in its emptiness to be filled by any\narbitrary interpretation;\u2014and actually understood so variously by those\nwho subscribe to them, that the Calvinist and the Arminian, the\nTritheist and the Sabellian, unite to praise them. Indeed, in the\nhistory of the English Church, so visible is the sweep of the centre of\northodoxy over the whole space from the confines of Romanism to the\nverge of Unitarianism, that our ecclesiastical chronology is measured by\nits oscillations. Our respected opponents know full well, that it is not\nnecessary to search beyond the clergy of this town, or even beyond the\nmorning and afternoon preaching in one and the same church, in order to\nencounter greater contrasts in theology, than could be found in a whole\nlibrary of Unitarian divinity. What mockery then to refer us to these\narticles as expositions of clerical belief, when the moment we pass\nbeyond the words, and address ourselves to the sense, every shade of\ncontrariety appears: and no one definite conception can be adopted of\nsuch a doctrine as that of the Trinity, without some church expositor or\nother starting up to rebuke it as a misrepresentation! How poor the\npride of uniformity, which contents itself with lip-service to the\nsymbol, in the midst of heart-burnings about the reality!\n\nIn order to test the force of the objection to which I am referring, let\nus advert, in detail, to the topics which exhibit the Unitarian and\nTrinitarian theology in most direct opposition. It will appear that the\nadvantage of unity lies, in this instance, on the side of heresy; and\nthat if multiformity be a prime characteristic of error, there is a wide\ndifference between orthodoxy and truth. There are four great subjects\ncomprised in the controversy between the church and ourselves: the\nnature of God; of Christ; of sin; of punishment. On these several points\n(which, considered as involving on our part denials of previous ideas,\nmay be regarded as containing the _negative_ elements of our belief) all\nour modern writers, without material variation or exception, maintain\nthe following doctrines:\n\n UNITARIAN DOCTRINES, _opposed to_ CHURCH DOCTRINES.\n\n (1.) The Personal Unity of God. (1.) The Trinity in Unity.\n\n (2.) The Simplicity of Nature in (2.) Two distinct Natures in\n Christ. Christ.\n\n (3.) The Personal Origin and (3.) The Transferable Nature and\n Identity of Sin. Vicarious Removal of Sin.\n\n (4.) The Finite Duration of (4.) The Eternity of Hell\n Future Suffering. Torments.\n\nNow no one at all familiar with polemical literature can deny, that the\nmodes and ambiguities of doctrine comprised in this Trinitarian list,\nare more numerous than can be detected in the parallel \u201cheresies.\u201d I am\nwilling indeed to admit an exception in respect to the last of the\ntopics, and to allow that the belief in the finite duration of future\npunishment has opposed itself, in two forms, to the single doctrine of\neverlasting torments. But when the systems are compared at their other\ncorresponding points, the boast of orthodox uniformity instantly\nvanishes. Since the primitive jealousy between the Jewish and Gentile\nChristianity, the rivalry between the \u201cMonarchy\u201d and the \u201cEconomy,\u201d the\nbelievers in the personal Unity of God, though often severed by ages\nfrom each other, have held that majestic truth in one unvaried form.\nNever was there an idea so often lost and recovered, yet so absolutely\nunchanged: a sublime, but occasional visitant of the human mind,\nassuring us of the perpetual oneness of our own nature, as well as the\nDivine. We can point to no unbroken continuity of our great doctrine:\nand if we could, we should appeal with no confidence to the evidence of\nso dubious a phenomenon; for if a system of ideas once gains possession\nof society, and attracts to itself complicated interests and feelings,\nmany causes may suffice to ensure its indefinite preservation. But we\ncan point to a greater phenomenon; to the long and repeated extinction\nof our favourite belief, to its submersion beneath a dark and restless\nfanaticism; and its invariable resurrection, like a necessary intuition\nof the soul, in times of purer light, with its features still the same;\nstamped with imperishable identity of truth, and, like him to whom it\nrefers, without variableness or shadow of a turning. Meanwhile, who will\nundertake to enumerate and define the succession of Trinities by which\nthis doctrine has been bewildered and banished? Passing by the\nAristotelian, the Platonic, the Ciceronian, the Cartesian\nTrinity,\u2014quitting the stormy disputes, and contradictory decisions of\nthe early councils, shall we find among even the modern fathers of our\nnational church, any approach to unanimity? Am I to be content with the\ndoctrine of Bishop Bull, and subordinate the Son to the Father as the\nsole fountain of divinity? Or must I rise to the Tritheism of Waterland\nand Sherlock? or, accepting the famous decision of the University of\nOxford, descend with Archbishop Whately, to the modal Trinity of South\nand Wallis? Are we to understand the phrase, three persons, to mean\nthree beings united by \u201cperichoresis,\u201d three \u201cmutual inexistences,\u201d\nthree \u201cmodes,\u201d three \u201cdifferences,\u201d three \u201ccontemplations,\u201d or three\n\u201csomewhats;\u201d or, being told that this is but a vain prying into a\nmystery, shall we be satisfied to leave the phrase without idea at all?\nIt is to the last degree astonishing to hear from Trinitarian divines,\nthe praises of uniformity of belief; seeing that it is one of the chief\nlabours of ecclesiastical history to record the incessant effort, vain\nto the present day, to give some stability of meaning to the fundamental\ndoctrines of their faith.\n\nThe same remark applies, with little modification, to the opposite views\nrespecting the person of the Saviour. It is true that Unitarians, agreed\nrespecting the singleness of nature in Christ, differ respecting the\nnatural rank of that nature, whether his soul were human or angelic.\nBut, for this solitary variety among these heretics, how many doctrines\nof the Logos and the Incarnation does orthodox literature contain? Can\nany one affirm, that when the council of Ephesus had arbitrated between\nthe Eutychian doctrine of absorption, and the Nestorian doctrine of\nseparation, all doubt and ambiguity was removed by the magic phrase\n\u201cHypostatic union?\u201d Since the monophysite contest was at its height, has\nthe Virgin Mary been left in undisputed possession of her title as\n\u201cMother of God?\u201d Has the Eternal Generation of the Son encountered no\northodox suspicions, and the Indwelling scheme received no orthodox\nsupport? And if we ask these questions: \u201cWhat respectively happened to\nthe two natures on the cross? what has become of Christ\u2019s human soul\nnow? is it separate from the Godhead like any other immortal spirit, or\nis it added to the Deity, so as to introduce into his nature a new and\nfourth element?\u201d shall we receive from the many voices of the church but\none accordant answer? Nay, do the authors of this controversy suppose\nthat, during its short continuance, they have been able to maintain\ntheir unanimity? If they do, I believe that any reader who thinks it\nworth while to register the varieties of error, would be able to\nundeceive them. If the diversities of doctrine cannot easily and often\nbe shown to amount to palpable inconsistencies, this must be ascribed, I\nbelieve, to the mystic and technical phraseology, the substitute rather\nthan the expression for precise ideas,\u2014which has become the vernacular\ndialect of orthodox divinity. The jargon of theology affords a field too\nbarren, to bear so vigorous a weed as an undisputed contradiction.\n\nIt is needless to dwell on the numerous forms under which the doctrine\nof atonement has been held by those who subscribe the articles of our\nnational church: while its Unitarian opponents have taken their fixed\nstation on the personal character and untransferable nature of sin. One\nwriter tells us that only the human nature perished on the cross;\nanother that God himself expired: some say, that Christ suffered no more\nintensely, but only more \u201cmeritoriously,\u201d than many a martyr; others,\nthat he endured the whole quantity of torment due to the wicked whom he\nredeemed: some, that it is the spotlessness of his manhood that is\nimputed to believers; others, that it is the holiness of his Deity. From\nthe high doctrine of satisfaction to the very verge of Unitarian heresy,\nevery variety of interpretation has been given to the language of the\nestablished formularies respecting Christian redemption. Nor is it yet\ndetermined whether, in the lottery of opinion, the name of Owen, Sykes,\nor Magee, shall be drawn for the prize of orthodoxy.\n\nAnd if from those parts of our belief, to which the accidents of their\nhistorical origin have given a _negative_ character, we turn to those\nwhich are _positive_, not the slightest reason will appear for charging\nthem with uncertainty and fluctuation. All Unitarian writers maintain\nthe Moral Perfection and Fatherly Providence of the Infinite Ruler; the\nMessiahship of Jesus Christ, in whose person and spirit there is a\nRevelation of God and a Sanctification for Man; the Responsibility and\nRetributive Immortality of men; and the need of a pure and devout heart\nof Faith, as the source of all outward goodness and inward communion\nwith God. These great and self-luminous points, bound together by\nnatural affinity, constitute the fixed centre of our religion. And on\nsubjects beyond this centre, we have no wider divergences than are found\namong those who attach themselves to an opposite system. For example,\nthe relations between Scripture and Reason, as evidences and guides in\nquestions of doctrine, are not more unsettled among us, than are the\nrelations between Scripture and Tradition in the Church. Nor is the\nperpetual authority of the \u201cChristian rites\u201d so much in debate among our\nministers, as the efficacy of the Sacraments among the clergy. In truth,\nour diversities of sentiment affect far less _what_ we believe, than the\nquestion _why_ we believe it. Different modes of reasoning, and\ndifferent results of interpretation, are no doubt to be found among our\nseveral authors. We all make our appeal to the records of Christianity:\nbut we have voted no particular commentator into the seat of authority.\nAnd is not this equally true of our opponents\u2019 church? Their articles\nand creeds furnish no textual expositions of Scripture, but only results\nand deductions from its study. And so variously have these results been\nelicited from the sacred writings, that scarcely a text can be adduced\nin defence of the Trinitarian scheme, which some witness unexceptionably\northodox may not be summoned to prove inapplicable. In fine, we have no\ngreater variety of critical and exegetical opinion than the divines from\nwhom we dissent: while the system of Christianity in which our\nScriptural labours have issued, has its leading characteristics better\ndetermined and more apprehensible, than the scheme which the articles\nand creeds have vainly laboured to define.\n\nThe refusal to embody our sentiments in any authoritative formula\nappears to strike observers as a whimsical exception to the general\npractice of churches. The peculiarity has had its origin in hereditary\nand historical associations: but it has its defence in the noblest\nprinciples of religious freedom and Christian communion. At present, it\nmust suffice to say, that our Societies are dedicated, not to\ntheological opinions, but to religious worship: that they have\nmaintained the unity of the spirit, without insisting on any unity of\ndoctrine: that Christian liberty, love, and piety are their essentials\nin perpetuity, but their Unitarianism an accident of a few or many\ngenerations;\u2014which has arisen, and might vanish, without the loss of\ntheir identity. We believe in the mutability of religious systems, but\nthe imperishable character of the religious affections;\u2014in the\nprogressiveness of opinion within, as well as without, the limits of\nChristianity. Our forefathers cherished the same conviction: and so, not\nhaving been born intellectual bondsmen, we desire to leave our\nsuccessors free. Convinced that uniformity of doctrine can never\nprevail, we seek to attain its only good,\u2014peace on earth and communion\nwith heaven,\u2014without it. We aim to make a true Christendom,\u2014a\ncommonwealth of the faithful,\u2014by the binding force, not of\necclesiastical creeds, but of spiritual wants, and Christian sympathies:\nand indulge the vision of a Church that \u201cin the latter days shall\narise,\u201d like \u201cthe mountain of the Lord,\u201d bearing on its ascent the\nblossoms of thought proper to every intellectual clime, and withal\nmassively rooted in the deep places of our humanity, and gladly rising\nto meet the sunshine from on high.\n\nAnd now, friends and brethren, let us say a glad farewell to the\nfretfulness of controversy, and retreat again, with thanksgiving, into\nthe interior of our own venerated truth. Having come forth, at the\nseverer call of duty, to do battle for it, with such force as God\nvouchsafes to the sincere, let us go in to live and worship beneath its\nshelter. They tell you, it is not the true faith. Perhaps not: but then,\nyou think it so; and that is enough to make your duty clear, and to draw\nfrom it, as from nothing else, the very peace of God. May be, we are on\nour way to something better, unexistent and unseen as yet; which may\npenetrate our souls with nobler affection, and give a fresh spontaneity\nof love to God and all immortal things. Perhaps there cannot be the\ntruest life of faith, except in scattered individuals, till this age of\nconflicting doubt and dogmatism shall have passed away. Dark and leaden\nclouds of materialism hide the heaven from us: red gleams of fanaticism\npierce through, vainly striving to reveal it; and not till the weight is\nheaved from off the air, and the thunders roll down the horizon, will\nthe serene light of God flow upon us, and the blue infinite embrace us\nagain. Meanwhile, we must reverently love the faith we have: to quit it\nfor one that we have not, were to lose the breath of life, and die.\n\n NOTE.\n\n ---------------------\n\n\n _The Jewish Passover not a proper Sacrifice._\n\nIn an essay on \u201cthe one great end of the life and death of Christ,\u201d Dr.\nPriestley makes the following observations on the words (occurring in 1\nCor. v. 7,) \u201c_Christ, our passover, is sacrificed for us_:\u201d \u201cThis\nallusion to the paschal lamb makes it also probable, that the death of\nChrist is called a sacrifice only by way of figure, because these two\n(viz., sacrifice and the paschal lamb) are quite different and\ninconsistent ideas. The paschal lamb is never so much as termed a\nsacrifice in the Old Testament, except once, Exodus xii. 27, where it is\ncalled \u2018_the sacrifice of the Lord\u2019s passover_.\u2019 However, it could only\nbe called a sacrifice in this place, in some secondary and partial\nsense, and not in the proper and primary sense of the word; for there\nwas no priest employed upon the occasion, no altar made use of, no\nburning, nor any part offered to the Lord; all which circumstances were\nessential to every proper sacrifice. The blood indeed was sprinkled upon\nthe door-posts, but this was originally nothing more than a token to the\ndestroying angel to pass by that house; for there is no propitiation or\natonement said to be made by it: and the paschal lamb is very far from\nhaving been ever called a _sin-offering_, or said to be killed on\naccount of sin.\u201d[626]\n\nEvery reader, I apprehend, understands this description of the manner of\ncelebrating the passover, to refer to the particular \u201coccasion\u201d spoken\nof \u201cin this place\u201d (Exod. xii. 27). \u2018The writer of this verse,\u2019 argues\nDr. Priestley, \u2018could not use the word _sacrifice_ in its strictest\nsense; for his own narrative of the very celebration to which it is\napplied, describes it as destitute of all the essentials of a proper\nsacrifice.\u2019 The allusion to the blood sprinkled upon the door-posts, as\n\u201ca token to the destroying angel to pass by that house,\u201d immediately\nconnects Dr. Priestley\u2019s assertions with the Egyptian passover. By\ncutting out this allusion, and otherwise breaking up the passage in\nquotation, Archbishop Magee has contrived to conceal its character as an\nhistorical description of a single occasion, and to give it the air of a\ngeneral account of the Jewish paschal ceremony in all ages. Having\naccomplished this, and obtained for himself the liberty of travelling\nfor a reply over the whole Hebrew history and traditions, he says; \u201cNow\nin answer to these several assertions, I am obliged to state the direct\ncontradiction of each; for, 1st, the passage in Exodus xii. 27, is _not_\nthe only one, in which the paschal lamb is termed \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7, a _sacrifice_, it\nbeing expressly so called in no less than four passages in Deuteronomy\n(xvi. 2, 4, 5, 6), and also in Exodus xxxv. 25, and its parallel passage\nxxiii. 18.\u20142. A priest _was_ employed.\u20143. An altar _was_ made use of.\u20144.\nThere _was_ a burning, and a part offered to the Lord: the inwards being\nburnt upon the altar, and the blood poured out at the foot\nthereof.\u201d[627] The _last three_ of these \u201cdirect contradictions\u201d\nestablish nothing but this Prelate\u2019s habit (not adopted, we may presume,\nwithout urgent necessity) of misrepresenting his opponents in order to\nconfute them: for it is quite needless to observe that, in the Egyptian\npassover, of which alone Dr. Priestley speaks, there was neither priest,\naltar, nor burning: and though the Archbishop should be able to detect\nall these elements in a festival of King Josiah\u2019s time, he will have\nproved no error against the passage which he criticises. In his _first_\ncontradiction, he would have gained an advantage over his opponent, had\nnot his eagerness induced him to strain his evidence too far. A more\nmodest disputant would have thought it sufficient to reckon _three\nsuccessive verses_ (Deut. xvi. 4, 5, 6) _in which the same phrase is\nsimply repeated_, as a _single_ instead of a _triple_ authority: the\nother citation from the same passage is not to the point, as will\npresently be shown: and in one of the verses quoted from Exodus (xxiii.\n18) the word \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 does not occur at all in relation to the passover. So\nthat Dr. Priestley having discovered two passages _too few_, the Prelate\nmakes compensation by discovering two passages _too many_.\n\nHaving said thus much in reference to Archbishop Magee\u2019s fairness to his\nopponent, I will add a few strictures on the reasonings by which he\nsupports his general position, that the passover was a proper sacrifice.\nHe adduces two arguments from _words_, and three from _facts_. 1. The\nword \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7, _sacrifice_, is applied to the passover.\u20142. The word \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df,\n_Corban_, a _sacred offering_, is applied to it.\u20143. The slaying of the\nlamb took place at the tabernacle or temple.\u20144. The blood was offered at\nthe foot of the altar.\u20145. The fat and entrails were burnt as an offering\non the altar fire.\n\n(1.) It has been already stated, that Archbishop Magee has improperly\nadduced _two_ passages, as applying the word _sacrifice_ to the\npassover. The first of these is Exod. xxiii. 18, where it is said: \u201cThou\nshalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither\nshall the fat of my sacrifice remain till morning.\u201d The second clause\nhere undoubtedly refers to the paschal lamb: but the term \u201c_sacrifice_\u201d\noccurring in it is not the proper translation of the original; nor is\nthe Hebrew word the same that is correctly so rendered in the first\nclause. The phrases being not the same, but discriminated, in the two\nparts of the verse, the less reason exists for supposing that both\nallude to the passover. More probably, the reference in the former is to\nthe sacrifices appropriate to the _feast of unleavened bread_, which\nbeing contiguous to the passover in time, is naturally conjoined with it\nin the precepts of this verse.\n\nThe second irrelevant passage is Deut. xvi. 2: \u201cThou shalt therefore\nsacrifice the passover unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the\nherd.\u201d Since the paschal _lamb_ could not be taken \u201c_from the herd_,\u201d it\nis evident that the word \u201c_passover_,\u201d is used here in a wider\nsense,[628] to denote _the joint eight days\u2019 festival, including that of\nunleavened bread_, when _heifers_ were offered \u201cfrom the herd.\u201d This\nmore comprehensive meaning of the term is frequent, not merely with\nJosephus and the later Jewish writers, but in the Hebrew Scriptures\nthemselves; and renders inconclusive most of the arguments by which the\npassover is made to assume the appearance of a proper sacrifice. An\nexample occurs in the very next verse: \u201c_Seven days thou shalt eat\nunleavened bread therewith_,\u201d that is, with the passover; and in 2\nChron. xxxv. 9: \u201cConaniah also (and other persons) gave unto the priests\nfor the _passover offerings_, 2,600 small cattle, and 300 _oxen_.\u201d\n\nIn the remaining places, however, this feast is undoubtedly called a\nsacrifice. But then it is clear that the Hebrew word \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 is used with a\nlatitude, which renders it impossible to draw from it any inference as\nto the character of the ceremony to which it is applied. It denotes\n_slaying of animals for food_, without any necessary reference to a\nsacred use.[629] Thus, 1 Sam. xxviii. 24. \u201cAnd the woman had a fat calf\nin the house; and she hasted and killed it,\u201d (_sacrificed_ it, \u05ea\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d4\u05d5);\nalso 1 Kings, xix. 21. \u201cAnd he took a yoke of oxen, and slew them\n(\u05d5\u05d9\u05d6\u05d1\u05d7\u05d4\u05d5), and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and\ngave unto the people, and they did eat.\u201d And the substantive occurs thus\nin Prov. xvii. 1. \u201cBetter is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith, than\na house full of sacrifices (evidently _meats_,\u2014the luxury of animal\nfood) with strife.\u201d\n\n(2.) The passover is called \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05df, _Corban_, _a sacred offering_, in\nNumb. ix. 7, 13. Certain men who had been defiled by performing funeral\nrites, present themselves to Moses, and say, \u201cWherefore are we kept\nback, that we may not offer the offering of the Lord in his appointed\nseason among the children of Israel?\u201d And then follows the law which\nMoses takes occasion from this incident to announce; that persons\ndisqualified by absence on a journey, or by uncleanness, from joining in\nthe celebration at the appointed time, may observe it at the\ncorresponding period of the next month. Such disqualifications, if\nexisting at all, would have excluded from _the whole eight days\u2019\nfestival, including the feast of unleavened bread_, and held the parties\naway till the following month; \u201cthe offering of the Lord,\u201d therefore,\nwhich they were kept back from presenting, comprised all the sacrifices\nproper to the \u201cseason;\u201d and the word \u201coffering\u201d is comprehensively\napplied to the whole set, from its particular propriety in reference to\nthe most numerous portion of them, the sacrifices at the feast of\nunleavened bread. The paschal lamb, by itself, is never, I believe,\ndesignated by this term.\n\nIn treating of the actual details of the paschal ceremony, it is\nnecessary to distinguish between those which were of legal obligation,\nand those which were merely consuetudinary or occasional. Nothing can\njustly be pronounced an essential of the celebration, which is not\nenjoined in the statutes appointing it; and should other customs present\nthemselves in the historical instances of the commemoration which we\npossess, they cannot be received as authoritative illustrations of its\nintended character, but as accessaries appended by convenience,\ntradition, or sacerdotal influence.[630] With this remark I proceed to\nthe next argument.\n\n(3.) The slaying of the paschal lamb is said to have been restricted to\nthe tabernacle or temple.\n\nThe only passage from the law, adduced to prove this, is Deut. xvi. 2,\n5, 6, where it is said, \u201cThou mayest not sacrifice the passover within\nany of thy gates, which the Lord thy God giveth thee; but _at the place\nwhich the Lord thy God shall choose_ to place his name in, there shalt\nthou sacrifice the passover at even.\u201d The reader might naturally suppose\nthat _Jerusalem_ was here denoted by the phrase, \u201cthe place which the\nLord thy God shall choose,\u201d in contradistinction from the provincial\ncities described as \u201cany of thy gates;\u201d but Archbishop Magee sets aside\nthis interpretation, by referring us to this very same expression in\nDeut. xii. 5, 6, 11, 14, where it evidently means the _tabernacle or\ntemple_, not the city; for a multitude of rites are there enumerated, to\nbe performed, \u201cin the place that the Lord shall choose,\u201d which could be\ncelebrated only at the sanctuary. It so happens, however, that in this\nenumeration, the _Passover_ is precisely _the one thing which is not\nmentioned_; from which we might fairly infer, that it was not among the\nceremonies limited to the sanctuary; and further, that in addition to\nthe vague description of place common to both passages, there occurs\nexclusively in the latter, the additional one, \u201cthere shall ye eat,\nBEFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD,\u201d which is well known to be the usual mode of\ndesignating the tabernacle. And that in the passover-law, the locality\nintended was the city, and not the sanctuary, is evident from a verse\nwhich Archbishop Magee has not thought it necessary to quote, though it\nis the immediate sequel of his citation; \u201cand thou shalt _roast and eat\nit_ (the paschal lamb) in the place which the Lord thy God shall\nchoose.\u201d Whatever doubt may exist about the _slaying_, the _roasting and\neating_ could not take place at the tabernacle.\n\nThe law, then, nowhere prescribes the slaying of the paschal lamb at the\nsanctuary. But neither does it _forbid_ this; and therefore we are not\nsurprised that the act should take place there, on any particular\noccasion rendering such arrangement obviously convenient; or as a\ngeneral practice, in concession to any strong interests tending to draw\nit thither. When, therefore, a long period of idolatry and political\nconfusion had obliterated from the minds of the Israelites the very\nmemory of their religious rites; when new modes of worship had become\nhabitual, and the annual festival had grown strange; when, to induce\nthem to come up to the passover at all, their monarch was obliged to\nprovide for them the whole number of their victims, and the officiating\nLevites needed to study again the appointed ceremonies of the season; it\nis no wonder that king Josiah thought it expedient to collect \u201cthe whole\ncongregation\u201d at the temple, and there to let them witness the form of\nslaying, by well-trained hands, and receive instruction how to complete\nthe celebration of their feast. Such was the solemn passover described\nin 2 Chron. xxxv. and that in the reign of Hezekiah, mentioned in the\nthirtieth chapter of the same book; the circumstances of both which were\ntoo peculiar to afford evidence of a general practice, much less of a\nlegal essential.\n\nThat in later times it was the custom to slay the paschal lambs in the\nTemple courts, there can be no doubt. The system of ecclesiastical\npolice, and the operation of sacerdotal interests created the practice.\nIt was the business of the priests to see to the execution of the\nfestival-law; to ascertain who incurred the penalty due to neglect of\nthe prescribed rite: to register the numbers of those who observed it;\nand to take care that neither too many nor too few should partake at the\nsame table. All this required that the heads of families should present\nthemselves, and report their intended arrangements to the authorities at\nthe temple. The priests moreover, being the judges of the qualifications\nof the animals for the paschal table, availed themselves of this power,\nto become graziers and provision-dealers. As the lambs must be presented\nfor their inspection, and were liable to be turned back if pronounced\nimperfect, it became more convenient to buy the victim at once at the\nTemple courts: and on the spot where the purchase was made, the slaying\nwould naturally follow. Lightfoot, speaking of the law which originally\nrequired the lamb to be chosen four days before it was killed, says, \u201cIt\nis not to be doubted but every one in after times took up their own\nlambs as they did in Egypt, but it is somewhat doubtful whether they did\nit in the same manner. It is exceedingly probable, that as the priests\ntook up the lambs for the daily sacrifice four days before they were to\nbe offered, as we have observed elsewhere; so also that they provided\nlambs for the people at the passover, taking them up in the market four\ndays before, and picking and culling out those that were fit, and\nagreeable to the command. For whereas the law was so punctual that _they\nshould be without blemish_, and their traditions had summed up so large\na sum of blemishes, as that they reckon seventy-three, it could not be\nbut the law and their traditions which they prized above the law should\nbe endlessly broken, if every one took up his own lamb in the market at\nJerusalem at adventure. The priests had brought a market of sheep and\noxen against such times as these into the temple, (for if it had not\nbeen their doing, they must not have come there,) where they having\nbefore-hand picked out in the market such lambs and bullocks as were fit\nfor sacrifice or passover, they sold them in the temple at a dearer\nrate, and so served the people\u2019s turn and their own profit: for which,\namongst other of their hucksteries, our Saviour saith, _they had made\nthe house of prayer a den of thieves_.\u201d[631]\n\n(4.) The blood is said to have been poured out as an offering at the\nfoot of the altar.\n\nThe only _legal_ evidence adduced to prove this, will be found in the\nparallel passages, Exod. xxiii. 18, and xxxiv. 25. \u201cThou shalt not offer\nthe blood of my sacrifice with leaven.\u201d I have already shown that this\ncommand probably refers, not to the paschal lamb, but to the sacrifices\nat the feast of unleavened bread. There is therefore no evidence,\nthroughout the law, in favour of the alleged regulation. Yet in cases of\nundoubted sacrifice, Moses is usually very explicit in his directions\nrespecting the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar: as may be seen\nfrom Lev. i. 5, 11, 15; iii. 2, 8, 13; iv. 5-7, 16-18; vii. 2.\n\nThe only _historical_ evidence adduced from Scripture on the point\nbefore us, is from the accounts of Hezekiah\u2019s and Josiah\u2019s solemn\npassovers before mentioned; 2 Chron. xxx. 15, 16; xxxv. 11. In both\nthese instances, it is merely said, that the priests \u201csprinkled (or\npoured out) the blood,\u201d receiving it from the hands of the Levites, who\nwere employed, for reasons already assigned, to slay the lambs on these\ntwo occasions, instead of the heads of families, on whom that office\nproperly devolved. The altar is not named: but as the blood must be\ndisposed of _somewhere_, and as there was a drain for that purpose at\nthe foot of the altar, no doubt it was there that the priests sprinkled\nor poured it away. The act was simply an act of cleanliness,\u2014in plain\nspeech, a resort to the sink,\u2014from which theology can extract nothing\nprofitable. The priests were the parties to perform the office because\nno other persons could approach the altar under penalty of death. In\nlater times, when the sacerdotal influence had made the temple the scene\nof the paschal slaughter, each head of a family killed his own lamb in\nthe court: the blood, received in a basin, was handed to the first of a\nrow of priests reaching to the foot of the altar, where it was poured\naway at the usual place.[632] In this there is nothing of the nature of\nan offering or proper sacrifice.\n\n(5.) But it is said that the fat and entrails were placed on the altar\nfire and burned.\n\nArchbishop Magee says, that this \u201cmay be collected from the accounts\ngiven of the ceremony of the passover in the passages already referred\nto.\u201d[633] It requires perhaps that able controversialist\u2019s peculiar mode\nof \u201cmanaging passages\u201d (to use a favourite phrase of his own) to elicit\nthis from the authorities named; at least, I am unable, after careful\nexamination of them, to conjecture what he means. The passages however\nare before my readers, and I must leave the assertion to their judgment.\nMeanwhile, I must conclude, that there is absolutely no trace in\nScripture of such a practice as is here pronounced to be one of the\nessentials of the passover.\n\nI am aware that there is _Talmudical_ authority for considering this\n\u201cburning\u201d as a part of the process connected, in later times, with the\nkilling of the paschal lamb.[634] It was probably one of the\nmodifications of the rite, introduced by the priests on its transference\nfrom the private homes of the people to the temple. The original law\nrequired, that the lamb should be roasted whole, not even the entrails\nbeing removed; it also enjoined, that whatever was left should be\nimmediately burned with fire, and every trace of it destroyed before\nmorning.[635] This private burning was clearly no religious and\nsacrificial act, though, perhaps, a provision against any superstitious\nuse of the remnants: and it is easy to perceive, that the parts thus\ndestroyed would be the same, which subsequently it was the custom of the\npriests to consume on the altar fire. When the killing became a\ncollective act, and the temple the scene of it, doubtless both people\nand priests thought it more cleanly and agreeable to burn the parts\nwhich were sure to be left, _before hand_ on the public fire, than\n_afterwards_ on the hearths of their private dwellings: and it would\nrequire a very illiberal interpreter to pronounce this a violation of\nthe original law, the spirit of which it certainly observed. This view,\nwhich treats the burning on the altar as simply a mode of consumption,\nsubstituted for the destruction of the same worthless parts at home, is\nless insulting to the Jewish religion than the opinion which discerns\nhere an act of worship. The Jews were certainly a very coarse people,\nand offered many disagreeable things to God: but really, such a gift as\nthis is without any parallel. They always,\u2014in obedience to their\nlaw,\u2014presented _something_ valuable (sometimes the whole animal,\nsometimes the breast and right shoulder), either to Jehovah on the\naltar, or to his ministers the priests:[636] and the pious Jew would\nhave indignantly resented the idea of quitting the temple courts with\nthe whole value of his sacrifice on his shoulder, and only the refuse\nremaining in the sanctuary.\n\nBy law, then, there was nothing of the paschal lamb burned on the altar:\nand by custom there was no part offered to Jehovah or given to the\npriests: and without these characteristics, there is no proper\nsacrifice.\n\nArchbishop Magee admits, that the ceremony of laying the hand on the\nhead of the victim, which was observed in the undoubted sacrifices, did\nnot take place in the rite under consideration: and he notices the\nstatement of Philo, that the animal was slain, not by the priest, but by\nthe individual presenting it.[637] He considers Philo to have been\nmistaken, however, in his assertion that this immolation by private hand\nwas peculiar to the passover; and cites the language of Lev. i. 4, 5;\niii. 2; iv. 24, to show that the burnt offering, the peace-offering, the\nsin-offering, might all be slain by the offerer. Certainly these\npassages appear to leave such permission open to the Israelitish\nworshipper: but it seems more likely that the sacrifices here enumerated\nwere intended to be made by the hands of the priest: nor would it be\neasy to reconcile the liberty of private sacrifice with the sacerdotal\nduties and privileges defined in Num. xviii. 1-7. As to the actual\npractice, it cannot be reasonably doubted that Philo was correct: and\nhis expressions seem to imply that, in the paschal rite, the priest\nmight be altogether dispensed with, and his intervention required for no\nreligious act. He says: \u201cOn the fourteenth day of this month, at the\ncoming of the full moon, is celebrated the public festival of the\npassover, called in the Chaldee language the Pascha: when, instead of\nthe private citizen presenting his victim at the altar to be slain by\nthe priest, the whole nation officiates in sacred things, every one in\nturn bringing and immolating his own victim with his own hands. The\nwhole people is festive and joyous, every one being entitled to the\ndignity of priesthood.\u201d[638] He uses similar expressions in his treatise\non the decalogue: The festival, \u201cwhich the Hebrews in their language\ncall the Pascha,\u201d is a time \u201cwhen each and all of them slay their\nvictim, without waiting for the services of their priests: the law, on\nan appointed day of every year, conceding to the whole people the\nsacerdotal functions, to the extent of permitting them to officiate for\nthemselves at a sacrifice.\u201d[639] This language evidently implies, that\n_every essential part_ of the passover rites, every act necessary to\nconstitute and complete its character as a religious celebration, was\nperformed by private hand: so that the auxiliary operations of the\npriests,\u2014the pouring out of the blood and burning the inwards,\u2014must be\nregarded as non-essentials and accessaries; menial contributions to the\nmain act; and in the performance of which, therefore, the usual law,\nforbidding to the non-official Jew all approach to the altar, came into\neffect again. Had the paschal celebration required, as an indispensable\ningredient in it, any transactions at the altar, the private Israelite,\nbeing temporarily invested with whatever sacerdotal privileges were\nneedful for the rite, would have gone himself to make his offering.\nPhilo indeed obviously conceived of the subsequent part of the ceremony,\nin which the temple and the priest had no share,\u2014the domestic meal which\ntook place in the several homes of the people,\u2014as its peculiarly sacred\nelement: \u201cEach house,\u201d he says, \u201cat that time put on the form and\nsanctity of a temple, the victim that has been slain being made ready\nfor a suitable meal.\u201d[640] Fond as this writer is of types, it is\nimpossible to express the retrospective and commemorative character of\nthe passover more emphatically than in his words: \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03bd\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n\u03bc\u03b5\u03b3\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u1f76\u03bd \u1f21 \u1f11\u03bf\u03c1\u03c4\u1f74, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2.[641]\n\nIn one passage of his note on the Passover, Archbishop Magee appears to\nadmit that the paschal lamb was not a \u201c_sacrifice for sin_,\u201d and affirms\nthat he \u201cwould not dispute with Dr. Priestley any conclusion he might\ndraw from so productive a premiss.\u201d[642] Yet, a few pages further on, he\nquotes with apparent approbation the arguments by which Cudworth sought\nto prove the rite to be an _expiatory sacrifice_.[643] I cannot pretend\nto reconcile these two portions of his Essay. But if the passover cannot\nbe shown to be an expiatory sacrifice, I do not see what the advocates\nof the doctrine of atonement gain by proving it a sacrifice at all. If\nthe paschal lamb was not a _sin-offering_, to what class did it belong?\nIt must have been either of the eucharistic kind, or else unique and\nsimply commemorative; and so far as the death of Christ was analogous to\nany _such_ offering, it was destitute of expiatory efficacy: and either\nwas an expression of thanksgiving, (which seems absurd) or, like the\nblood of the lamb sprinkled on the lintel, a mere _sign_ of some\ndeliverance which it was not instrumental in effecting, but which,\nsimultaneously perhaps, yet independently occurred. Those, therefore,\nwho are disposed to strain the resemblance between the passover and the\ncross, must either maintain the _expiatory_ nature of the Jewish right,\nor admit the Lord\u2019s Supper to be, not even the celebration of a real\ndeliverance, but the mere _commemoration of a sign_.\n\nPOSTSCRIPT.\n\nIn the notes to the Sixth Lecture of this series (p. 89-92,) I have\nadduced an example of Archbishop Magee\u2019s misrepresentation of Mr.\nBelsham, and stated that the Prelate had quoted his opponent falsely. In\ncomparing the two authors, I employed the latest editions of both their\nworks; not being able to procure a copy of the first edition of the Calm\nEnquiry, which has been out of print for twenty-two years. At the same\ntime, I thought it only just to insert the following note: \u201cThere is a\npossibility, which I think it right to suggest, of a difference between\nthe two editions of Mr. B.\u2019s work; as, however, the accusation is still\nfound in the newest edition of the Archbishop\u2019s book, I conclude that\nthis is not the case. Indeed, even if the Prelate\u2019s quotation had been\n_verbally_ true, it would _in spirit_ have been no less false; for, at\nall events, Mr. B. cites the Vulgate, to give evidence as to the _text_,\nnot the _translation_; and had he used the word _renders_, it would only\nhave been because the term naturally occurs when a VERSION is adduced to\ndetermine a READING.\u201d\n\nI have since obtained a copy of the first edition of the Calm Enquiry;\nand I hasten to acknowledge that the Archbishop\u2019s quotation _is_\n\u201c_verbally_ true,\u201d as far as it goes. But I regret to say that this\nmakes only a formal difference in his favour; for by stopping short in\nhis citation, he accomplished the very same object, of leaving an\nabsolutely false impression, which I had supposed him to have effected,\nin this as in other instances, by direct falsification of his author. He\nwishes to make it appear, that Mr. Belsham (purposely mistranslating for\nthe occasion,) appeals to a certain verse in the Vulgate in evidence,\nnot of a READING, but of a RENDERING; and so he cites these words from\nthe Calm Enquiry: \u201cThe Vulgate renders the text, the first man was of\nthe earth, earthy; the second man was from heaven, heavenly;\u201d but he\nleaves out the very next words, in which _the point intended to be\nproved_ by this testimony of the Vulgate is cited, \u201cThis is not\nimprobably the TRUE READING.\u201d Doubtless it was one of Mr. Belsham\u2019s\n_incuri\u00e6_ that he did not attend to his italics in his first edition:\nbut the charge of intentional mistranslation is simply injurious; except\nindeed, that it is also absurd, seeing that Mr. Belsham has put the\nLatin of his mistranslated passage at the bottom of the page;\u2014a policy\nwhich this heresiarch could scarcely have thought safe, unless he had\ntaken his Unitarian readers to be either more \u201cdishonest critics,\u201d or\nmore \u201cdefective scholars,\u201d than even our learned opponents are prepared\nto think them.\n\n ------------------------------------\n\n\n Footnotes for Lecture XIII.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n Ps. li. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n Is. i. 13, 14, 16.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n Conference with Fisher, \u00a7 15; quoted in Tracts for the Times, No. 76.\n Catena Patrum, No. II. p. 18.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n Of Persons dying without Baptism, p. 979; quoted in _loc. cit._ pp.\n 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n History of Popish Transubstantiation, ch. 4; printed in the Tracts for\n the Times, No. 27, pp. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n Bishop of Exeter\u2019s charge, delivered at his Triennial Visitation in\n August, September, and October, 1836, p. 44-47.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n Tracts for the Times, No. 4, p. 5.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n Ibid. No. 5, pp. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n Luke iv. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n Archbishop Whately, speaking of the word \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 and its meaning,\n says; \u201cThis is an office assigned to none under the gospel-scheme,\n except the ONE great High Priest, of whom the Jewish Priests were\n types.\u201d[c] Of the \u201c_gospel-scheme_,\u201d this is quite true; of the\n _Church-of-England scheme_, it is not. There lies before me Duport\u2019s\n Greek version of the Prayer-Book and Offices of the Anglican Church:\n and turning to the Communion Service, I find the officiating\n clergyman called \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u1f7a\u03c2 throughout. The _absence_ of this word from\n the records of the primitive Gospel, and its _presence_ in the\n Prayer-Book, is perfectly expressive of the difference in the spirit\n of the two systems;\u2014the difference between the Church _with_, and\n the \u201cChristianity _without_ Priest.\u201d\n\nFootnote c:\n\n Elements of Logic. Appendix: Note on the word \u201cPriest.\u201d\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n Matt. xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n See Rom. vi. 2-4. \u201cHow shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer\n therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus\n Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him\n by baptism into death; that, like as Christ was raised up from the\n dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in\n newness of life.\u201d Mr. Locke observes of \u201cSt. Paul\u2019s argument,\u201d that it\n \u201cis to show into what state of life we ought to be raised out of\n baptism, in similitude and conformity to that state of life Christ was\n raised into from the grave.\u201d See also Col. ii. 12. \u201cYe are ... buried\n with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the\n faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.\u201d The\n force of the image clearly depends on the sinking and rising in the\n water.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n See Note.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n Compare Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19, 20, with\n Exod. xii. 3-11, 14, 24-27, 43-49; Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 10-14;\n xxviii. 16; Deut. xvi. 1, 4-7.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n Compare Matt. xxvi. 17-21; Mark xiv. 12-17; Luke xxii. 7-17, with John\n xiii. 1, seqq.; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31, 42. See also 2nd Lecture, pp.\n 38, 39.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n See 1 Cor. xi. 17-34.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n Prov. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n Mr. Dalton\u2019s Lecture on the Eternity of Future Rewards and\n Punishments, p. 760.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n Mr. Dalton\u2019s Lecture, p. 760.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n Theological Repository, vol. i. p. 215, and Priestley\u2019s Works, by\n Rutt, vol. vii. pp. 243, 244.\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n Magee on the Atonement, vol. i. pp. 291, 292, 5th edit.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n This is admitted by a learned writer, with whose work on sacrifices\n Archbishop Magee was familiar, and who had anticipated most of his\n arguments on the subject of the passover: \u201cCum ad Paschale sacrificium\n etiam pecudes ex armento lectas in sacris literis imperatas legimus,\n non designatur illa victima, qu\u00e6 \u05e4\u05e1\u05d7 proprie appellatur, sed alia\n qu\u00e6dam sacrificia eidem victim\u00e6 adjungenda.\u201d\u2014_Outram de Sacrificiis_,\n lib. i. ch. xiii. \u00a7 10.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n Simonis describes the _verb_ \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 as meaning (1.) in genere _mactavit_;\n (2.) in specie _mactavit ad sacrificandum_; and the _noun_, as proprie\n _mactatio_; metonym. (1.) _caro mactatorum animalium_; (2.)\n _sacrificium_.\u2014_Lex. Hebr. et Chald. Ed. Eichhorn, in_ v.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n The following passages constitute the whole passover-law: Exod. xii.\n 3-11, 14, 24-27, 43-49. Lev. xxiii. 5. Num. ix. 10-14; xxviii. 16.\n Deut. xvi. 1, 4-7. We have here the original statutes provided for the\n perpetual regulation of the rite: and in any discussion respecting its\n character, the appeal should be to these alone. The advocates for its\n sacrificial nature must be aware that this rule would destroy their\n whole case.\n\n I subjoin a list of the passages relating to the feast of unleavened\n bread: Exod. xii. 15-20; xiii. 6-10; xxiii. 18, first clause; xxxiv.\n 25, first clause. Lev. xxiii. 6-14. Num. xxviii. 17-25. Deut. xvi.\n 2-4, 8.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n Lightfoot\u2019s Temple Service, ch. xii. Introd.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n See Lightfoot\u2019s Temple Service, ch. xii. sec. 5. \u201cThe Mishna says:\n Mactat Israelita, excipit sanguinem sacerdos.\u201d\u2014The Treatise\n _Pesachim_, in Surenhus. ii. 153.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n P. 294.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n See Lightfoot\u2019s Temple Service, xii. 5, and the Treatise _Pesachim_,\n Surenh. ii. 135.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n Exod. xii. 9, 10. The phrase \u201c_the purtenance thereof_,\u201d in the common\n version, means \u201c_the entrails thereof_,\u201d \u05e7\u05e8\u05d1\u05d5\u200e.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n See Lev. i. 9, 13, 17; vi. 15-18, 26, 29; vii. 3, 6-10, 14, 15, 30-36.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n Pp. 295, 296.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n De vit\u00e2 Mosis, p. 686. E.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n De decalogo, p. 766. D.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n De sept. et fest. p. 1190. B.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n _loc. cit._ After the remarks which have been made on the word \u05d6\u05d1\u05d7 as\n an epithet of the passover, it is hardly necessary to notice the\n application to the same rite of the word \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 by Philo and Josephus.\n It must be clear to any one who will open Trommius or Biel at the\n word, that it will not bear the stress laid upon it by Archbishop\n Magee. No one denies that the paschal lamb was slain and eaten, in\n observance of a religious celebration, in obedience to a religious\n law, and in expression of religious feeling; and this surely is enough\n to attract to it the word \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03af\u03b1. In itself, however, the term,\n according to Biel, does not necessarily denote even so much as this.\n He defines it _hostia_, _sacrificium_, etiam _epulum_ ac _profana\n manducatio_: and he exemplifies this latter meaning by reference to\n Judg. vi. 18. Biel\u2019s Thesaurus, Ed. Schleusner in v.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n P. 292.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n Pp. 298, 299.\n\n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF TEXTS.\n\n EXPLAINED OR REFERRED TO IN LECTURES II. V. VI. XI. XIII.\n\n Lect. & Page.\n\nGenesis.\n\n ii. 17 VI. 17\n iii. 1 XI. 16\n \u2014 14-19 \u2014 17\n \u2014 15 \u2014 19\n xviii. 1, 2 V. 18\n \u2014 22 \u2014 \u2014\n xix. 10 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 15 \u2014 \u2014\n\n\nExodus.\n\n xii. 3-11 XIII. 35 - 59\n \u2014 14 \u2014 \u2014 - 59\n \u2014 15-20 \u2014 59\n \u2014 21-27 \u2014 35, 59\n \u2014 27 \u2014 55\n \u2014 43-49 \u2014 35, 59\n xiii. 6-10 \u2014 59\n xxiii. 18 \u2014 56, 57, 59, 61\n xxx. 10 VI. 58\n xxxiv. 25 XIII. 56, 59, 61\n\n\nLeviticus.\n\n i. 5 XIII. 61\n \u2014 9 \u2014 63\n \u2014 11 \u2014 61\n \u2014 13 \u2014 63\n \u2014 15 \u2014 61\n \u2014 17 \u2014 63\n iii. 2 \u2014 61\n \u2014 8 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 13 \u2014 \u2014\n iv. 5-7 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 16-18 \u2014 \u2014\n v. 11-19 VI. 57\n vi. 15-18 XIII. 63\n \u2014 26 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 29 \u2014 \u2014\n vii. 2 \u2014 61\n \u2014 3 \u2014 63\n \u2014 6-10 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 14, 15 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 30-36 \u2014 \u2014\n xii. 1-8 VI. 57\n xiv. \u2014 \u2014\n xvi. \u2014 58\n xx. 25, 26 \u2014 57\n xxiii. 5 XIII. 35, 59\n \u2014 6-14 \u2014 59\n \u2014 26-32 \u2014 58\n\n\nNumbers.\n\n vi. 9-12 VI. 57\n ix. 7 XIII. 58\n \u2014 10-14 \u2014 35, 59\n \u2014 13 \u2014 58\n xiv. 19, 20 VI. 23\n xviii. 1-7 XIII. 64\n xix. 11-20 VI. 57\n xxii. 22 XI. 21\n xxviii. 1-6 XIII. 59\n \u2014 17-25 \u2014 \u2014\n xxix. 7-11 VI. 58\n\n\nDeuteronomy.\n\n xii. 5, 6 XIII. 59\n \u2014 11 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 14 \u2014 \u2014\n xvi. 1 \u2014 35, 59\n xvi. 2 XIII. 56, 57, 59\n \u2014 4-7 \u2014 35, 59\n \u2014 5, 6 \u2014 59\n \u2014 8 \u2014 \u2014\n xxix. 1-6 VI. iii\n \u2014 2-6 V. 18\n\n\nJudges.\n\n vi. 18 XIII. 65\n\n\n1 Samuel.\n\n xxviii. 24 XIII. 58\n xxix. 4 XI. 21\n\n\n2 Samuel.\n\n xxiv. 1 XI . 22\n\n\n1 Kings.\n\n xi. 25 XI. 21\n xviii. 21 V. 77\n xix. 21 XIII. 58\n\n\n2 Kings.\n\n xv. 29 V. 28\n xix. 21 \u2014 67\n\n\n1 Chronicles.\n\n v. 26 V. 28\n xxi. 1 XI. 22\n\n\n2 Chronicles.\n\n xxx. XIII. 60\n \u2014 15, 16 \u2014 61\n xxxv. \u2014 60\n \u2014 9 \u2014 57\n \u2014 11 \u2014 61\n\n\nJob.\n\n i. 6-12 XI. 22\n ii. 1-7 \u2014 \u2014\n\n\nPsalms.\n\n xiv. V. 37\n li. 16, 17 VI. 25\n \u2014 \u2014 XIII. 9\n cxix. 6 XI. 22\n\n\nProverbs.\n\n viii. 22 V. 73\n \u2014 30 \u2014 \u2014\n xvii. 1 XIII. 58\n\n\nIsaiah.\n\n i. 13, 14 XIII. 10\n i. 16 XIII. 10\n \u2014 16-18 VI. 25\n v. 18-20 XI. 3\n vii. 14-16 V. 25\n \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 66\n viii. 23 \u2014 68\n \u2014 \u2014 IX. 4\n viii. 8 V. 67\n \u2014 18 \u2014 \u2014\n ix. 5, 6 \u2014 28\n \u2014 6 \u2014 68\n xxiii. 12 \u2014 67\n\n\nJeremiah.\n\n xiv. 17 V. 27\n xxxi. 4 \u2014 66\n \u2014 13 \u2014 67\n\n\nLamentations.\n\n i. 15 V. 67\n\n\nEzekiel.\n\n xxxiii. 14-16 VI. 25\n\n\nAmos.\n\n v. 2 V. 27\n\n\nJonah.\n\n iii. 5-10 VI. 23, 24\n iv. 10, 11 \u2014 24\n\n\nMicah.\n\n iv. 8, 9 V. 27\n\n\nZachariah.\n\n iii. 1, 2 XI. 22\n\n\nMatthew.\n\n i. 23 V. 24\n ii. 15 II. 55\n \u2014 23 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 \u2014 V. 68\n iv. 1-11 XI. 27\n \u2014 12-22 II. 36\n xii. 3 \u2014 29\n xiii. 58 \u2014 25\n xv. 24 VI. 36\n xviii. 18 XIII. 30\n xix. 16-21 VI. 25\n xxvi. 17-21 XIII. 35\n \u2014 26-28 \u2014 \u2014\n xxvi. 28 VI. 40\n \u2014 69 seqq. II. 37\n xxvii. 32 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 37 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 44 \u2014 \u2014\n xxviii. 19 V. 50\n \u2014 \u2014 VI. iv\n\n\nMark.\n\n i. 12, 13 XI. 27\n \u2014 16-20 II. 36\n x. 45 VI. 40\n xiii. 32 V. 50\n xiv. 12-17 XIII. 35\n \u2014 22-24 \u2014 \u2014\n xv. 26 II. 37\n \u2014 32 \u2014 \u2014\n\n\nLuke.\n\n i. 2 II. 28\n \u2014 15 \u2014 \u2014\n iv. 1-13 XI. 27\n \u2014 18, 19 XIII. 28\n v. 10, 11 II. 36\n vii. 47 VI. 30\n x. 17 II. 26\n xxii. 7-17 XIII. 35\n \u2014 19, 20 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 56-62 II. 37\n xxiii. 26 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 38 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 39-43 \u2014 \u2014\n\n\nJohn.\n\n i. 1-14 V. 28, 69\n \u2014 12 VI. 71\n \u2014 29 \u2014 40\n \u2014 35-51 II. 36\n iii. 13 V. 51\n iv. 23, 24 \u2014 48\n \u2014 48 II. 25\n v. 19 V. 49\n \u2014 29, 30 \u2014 53\n \u2014 30 \u2014 49\n \u2014 36 \u2014 \u2014\n vi. 44 II. 8\n \u2014 \u2014 XI. 47\n vi. 57 V. 49\n \u2014 62 \u2014 51\n vii. 17 II. 9\n viii. 42 XI. 46\n \u2014 47 \u2014 \u2014\n x. 14 \u2014 47\n \u2014 16, 17 VI. 36\n \u2014 18 V. 52\n \u2014 27 II. 9\n \u2014 \u2014 XI. 47\n x. 29 V. 49\n \u2014 32 II. 25\n \u2014 37 \u2014 9, 25\n xii. 23, 24 VI. 35\n \u2014 32 \u2014 \u2014\n xiii. 1 seqq. XIII. 35\n xiv. 10 V. 49\n \u2014 16, 17 II. 30\n \u2014 23 \u2014 7\n \u2014 26 \u2014 30\n xvii. 3 V. 47\n \u2014 5 \u2014 51\n xviii. 15-25 II. 37\n \u2014 28 XIII. 35\n \u2014 37 II. 9, 25\n xix. 14 XIII. 35\n \u2014 17 II. 37\n \u2014 19 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 31 XIII. 35\n \u2014 35 II. 28\n \u2014 42 XIII. 35\n xxi. 24 II. 28\n\n\nActs.\n\n ii. 1-4 II. 27, 28\n \u2014 24 VI. 27\n \u2014 32 V. 52\n iii. 15 VI. 27\n \u2014 19-21 V. 39\n iv. 2 VI. 27\n \u2014 10 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 12 \u2014 70\n v. 30 \u2014 27\n vi. 1-4 II. 28\n x. 34-44 VI. 26\n xiii. 30 VI. 28\n \u2014 30-34 V. 40\n \u2014 33-37 \u2014 39\n xiv. 15 \u2014 44\n xvii. 18 VI. 28\n \u2014 31 V. 40, 53\n \u2014 \u2014 VI. 28\n xx. 28 \u2014 40, 84\n xxi. 20 II. 52\n xxiv. 21 VI. 27\n xxvi. 6-8 V. 39\n \u2014 26 II. 6\n\n\nRomans.\n\n i. 4. V. 40\n \u2014 6 XI. 18\n ii. 25 VI. 49\n \u2014 29 XI. 18\n iii. 9-23 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 22-26 VI. 45\n \u2014 25 \u2014 28\n iv. 24, 25 \u2014 \u2014\n v. 6 \u2014 37\n \u2014 10 \u2014 38\n \u2014 11 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 12-20 XI. 18\n vi. 2-4 XIII. 32\n vii. 1-4 VI. 37\n viii. 6 V. 45\n \u2014 19 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 23 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 34 VI. 28\n ix. 4 VI. 38\n \u2014 22, 23 \u2014 51\n x. 9 \u2014 28\n xiii. 11, 12 V. 40\n\n\n1 Corinthians.\n\n v. 7 VI. 44\n \u2014 \u2014 XIII. 55\n vii. 29 \u2014 51\n viii. 5, 6 V. 4\n \u2014 6 \u2014 47\n x. 11 \u2014 39\n xi. 3 \u2014 77\n xi. 17-34 XIII. 36\n xii. 8-10 II. 28\n xiv. 4, 5 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 13 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 19 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 23 \u2014 \u2014\n xv. 21, 22 XI. 18\n \u2014 24 V. 45\n \u2014 47 VI. 89\n \u2014 \u2014 XIII. 66\n \u2014 51 V. 45\n\n\n2 Corinthians.\n\n iii. 17 V. 77\n v. 15-18 VI. 36\n \u2014 17 V. 44\n \u2014 21 VI. 43\n viii. 9 V. 41\n\n\nGalatians.\n\n i. 1 V. 52\n ii. 15 VI. 37\n iii. 13 \u2014 50\n \u2014 24 II. 4\n iv. 47 VI. 38\n\n\nEphesians.\n\n i. 3-5 VI. 38\n \u2014 7 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 10 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 20-23 V. 43\n ii. 11-18 VI. 39\n iii. 19 V. 44\n iv. 13 VI. 71\n v. 16 \u2014 51\n\n\nPhilippians.\n\n ii. 5-8 V. 41\n \u2014 6 \u2014 78\n \u2014 9-11 \u2014 43\n \u2014 10 \u2014 45\n iii. 15 VI. 71\n iv. 5 V. 39\n \u2014 \u2014 VI. 51\n\n\nColossians.\n\n i. 15-19 V. 44\n \u2014 19 VI. 38\n ii. 12 XIII. 32\n \u2014 13 VI. 38\n iii. 3 \u2014 \u2014\n iv. 5 \u2014 51\n\n\n1 Thessalonians.\n\n iv. 14 V. 45\n \u2014 17 \u2014 \u2014\n v. 10 \u2014 \u2014\n\n\n2 Thessalonians.\n\n i. 7-10 VI. 50\n \u2014 9 V. 45\n ii. 2 \u2014 39\n\n\n1 Timothy.\n\n i. 20 XI. 21\n ii. 1-8 VI. 40\n \u2014 14 XI. 18\n iii. 16 V. 35\n iv. 1 \u2014 39\n\n\n2 Timothy.\n\n ii. 12 V. 45\n iii. 16 II. 31\n\n\nTitus.\n\n ii. 12, 13 V. 39\n\n\nHebrews.\n\n i. 1-9 V. 36\n \u2014 3 \u2014 40\n \u2014 5 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 6 \u2014 45\n ii. 5 \u2014 39\n \u2014 17 VI. 53\n vii. 16 \u2014 59\n \u2014 17 \u2014 61\n \u2014 24-28 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 25 \u2014 60\n viii. 1 \u2014 59\n \u2014 2, 3 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 5 \u2014 \u2014\n ix. 1 VI. 59\n \u2014 7 \u2014 60\n \u2014 8 \u2014 61\n \u2014 12 \u2014 60\n \u2014 13, 14 \u2014 62\n ix. 15 VI. 60\n \u2014 23, 24 \u2014 59\n \u2014 25-27 \u2014 60\n x. 3, 4 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 12-14 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 16 \u2014 63\n \u2014 19, 20 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 24 \u2014 \u2014\n xii. 28 V. 45\n\n\nJames.\n\n v. 3 V. 39\n \u2014 7, 8 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 8 \u2014 51\n\n\n1 Peter.\n\n i. 5 V. 45\n \u2014 18, 19 VI. 41\n ii. 4, 5 XIII. 3\n \u2014 23-25 VI. 41\n iii. 17 \u2014 42\n \u2014 20-22 \u2014 51\n \u2014 20 V. 39\n iv. 3 VI. 42\n \u2014 7 \u2014 51\n\n\n2 Peter.\n\n i. 21 II. 31\n ii. 1-18 XI. 63, 64\n \u2014 4 XI. 24\n \u2014 5 VI. 51\n iii. 9 V. 40\n \u2014 \u2014 VI. 51\n \u2014 13 V. 39\n\n\n1 John.\n\n i. 7 VI. 47\n \u2014 8 \u2014 48\n ii. 1, 2 \u2014 \u2014\n \u2014 18 \u2014 51\n iii. 4 V. 77\n \u2014 16 VI. 48\n iv. 2 \u2014 47\n \u2014 9, 10 \u2014 48\n v. 6 V. 77\n \u2014 20 \u2014 41\n v. 21 VI. 48\n\n\n2 John.\n\n 7 V. 41\n\n\nJude.\n\n 4-16 XI. 63, 64\n 6 \u2014 24\n\n\nRevelations.\n\n v. 9, 10 VI. 40\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes.\n\nObvious typographical errors were silently corrected.\n\nUnusual or older spellings were retained. Many of the substitutions\nshown were made after researching other later editions or the cited\nquotations.\n\nEach lecture has its own page numbers which do not show. Links above do\nwork in the html version.\n\nThe following changes were made:\n\n 'allcreated' to 'all created' in page 38 of the Correspondence.\n '\u1f10\u03c0\u1f7c\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03b9' (a typo) to '\u1f10\u03c0\u03ce\u03bd\u03c5\u03bc\u03bf\u03af' in Footnote 116 in Lec. 2 and\n similar corrections in the next few footnotes.\n '\u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03c5\u03b5\u03c2' corrected to \u03b1\u1f30\u1ff6\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2' on p. 30 of Lec. 3.\n 'comformably' to 'conformably' in Appendix, p. 44 of Lec. 3.\n 'even' to 'every' on p. 17 of Lecture 4.\n 'is link' to 'is to link' on p. 34 of Lecture 5.\n '\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd' to '\u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd', footnote on page 35 of lecture 5, to\n agree with other copies of Ignatius's work.\n '\u0394\u1f30 \u03bf\u1f57, not \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57' to '\u0394\u03b9\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57, not \u1f51\u03c6\u2019 \u03bf\u1f57', footnote on page 37 of\n lecture 5.\n 'prinpalities' to 'principalities', p. 44, Lec. 5.\n 'docrine' to 'doctrine', p. 59, in Notes to Lec. 5.\n 'incompatability' to 'incompatibility', p. 60, Notes to Lec. 5.\n '\u1f04\u03bb\u03bb\u03b1' to '\u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac', 3rd footnote on p. 73, Notes to Lec. 5.\n period to colon to agree with both lower-case theta and punct. in\n several editions of Philo in 3rd footnote on p. 73 to Notes to\n Lec. 5.\n '\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2' to '\u1f10\u03bd\u03bd\u03cc\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2', p. 74, Notes to Lec. 5.\n '\u03b4\u1f76' to '\u03b4\u03b9\u2019', p. 75, Notes to Lec. 5.\n '2 Tim. ii. xii' to '2 Tim. ii. 12' Footnote 234 of Lec. 5.\n 'that guilt is be estimated' to 'that guilt be estimated' on p. 20\n of Lec. 6.\n 'justifying faith in' to 'justifying faith is' on p. 28 of Lecture\n 6.\n deletion of duplicate \u2018the\u2019 on p. 54 of Lec. 6.\n 'scructure' to 'structure', p. 59 of Lec. 6.\n 'sacifice' to 'sacrifice', p. 61 of lecture 6.\n 'or' to 'for' and 'aditional' to 'additional' in last footnote on\n page 61 of lecture 6.\n 'Archishop\u2019s' to 'Archbishop\u2019s' on page 89 in Notes to lecture 6.\n 'hear' to 'here' on p. 17 of lecture 8.\n insertion of \u201d after 'theology' on p. 39 of lecture 8.\n 'commuications' to 'communications' on p. 52 of lecture 9.\n ' is is said', to ' it is said,' on p. 5 of Lecture 10.\n 'adamat' to 'adamant' on p. 8 of Lecture 10.\n 'Laies' to 'Laics' on page 39 of Lecture 10.\n 'Apotles' to 'Apostles' on p. 40 of lecture 10.\n 'othodox' to 'orthodox' on p. 41 of lecture 10.\n 'frustate' to 'frustrate' on p. 5 of lecture 11.\n 'origin of of evil' to 'origin of evil' on p. 32 of lecture 11.\n comma between 'feeling' and 'that man' on page 7 of lecture 13 was\n deleted.\n The open and close quotes were rendered as printed on page 61 of\n lecture 6 even though they are not balanced.","title":"Unitarianism Defended: A Series of Lectures by Three Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Liverpool","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":322951}