！§..· -
- …ſae， &%
¿
¿§§§§§§
§-§§vae
¿
$（v））;
š … ;-）
* * · * *
ſae;s. & ... ***
§§§
§§}
e ſae
+
ș （， ;
×

º
º
º
|||||||Nº||||||||
of THE
OFMIGH
S-
.J. J., 2 J. Jº Jº Gº O O".J. is ſº ſº, sº
º
zºº º ºs e º ºr e º ºsº gº º º ºsº º ºsº º ºs e sº e sº e º ºs º ºs e º e s = e s = e º e = e º e s as º
• i t .
1 | Hilº
#
É
5
É
#
E

| 7 LETTERS
TO THE
REv. W.M. E. CHANNING,
CONTAINING
REMARKS ON HIS SERMON,
RECENTLY
PREACHED AND PUBLISHED AT BALTIMORE.
By Moses STUART,
(Associate PROFESSOR of SACRED LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY, ANDove'Rs
ANDOWER :
PUBLISHED BY FLAGG AND GOULB,
1819,
#47
, $23
LETTER I.
-º-º-º-
Reverend and Dear Sir,
I HAVE recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at
the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks, in Baltimore, with
no small degree of interest. The subjects of which it
treats must be regarded as highly important, by every
intelligent man, who is a serious inquirer after revealed
truth. And if the views which you have developed will
stand the test of examination, and prove to be those
which the word of God maintains, or which it will
justify; it certainly will be the duty of every friend to
Christianity, to embrace and promote them.
I have endeavoured to read and reflect upon your
Sermon, without prejudice or party feeling; and to weigh
the arguments, and examine the views which it presents,
with a wish to know and believe the truth. I dare not
flatter myself, indeed, that I have entirely succeeded in
doing this; for every man who is acquainted with his
own heart, will find reason to believe, that he often has
been, and may be deceived by it. Will you permit me,
however, to lay before you my thoughts in regard to
three topics of your discourse, which stand in close con-
nexion with each other, and which are among the prin-
cipal points, wherein I feel myself compelled to dissent
from your opinions? * }
#
\
+
4.
The points to which I refer are ; The principles of
interpreting Scripture; The unity of God; and the
divinity and humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to
these three, because it would make a book and not a
pamphlet, to examine all the statements of doctrines
which you have made, (and to write a book would re-
quire time and health which I have not to spare ;) and
because, if the principles of reasoning and the results
which you deduce from them, in regard to some of the
points on which I am about to remark, are incorrect, or
untenable, the influence of this must extend itself essen-
tially, to most of the remaining topics, which you have
presented. *. *
The general principles of interpreting Scripture, you
designate in the following manner.
“We regard the Scriptures as the records of God's successive rev-
elations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect rev.
elation of his will by Jesus Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us
to be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we receive without reserve or
exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the
books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the
New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of
Jesus, we consider as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the
childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and
chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian
Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and what-
ever he taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired
apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make the
rule of our lives.
“This authority which we give to the Scriptures, is a reason, we
conceive, for studying them with peculiar care, and for inquiring
anxiously into the principles of interpretation, by which their true
meaning may be ascertained. The principles adopted by the class
of Christians, in whose name I speak, need to be explained, because
they are often misunderstood. We are particularly accused of mak-
ing an unwarrantable use of reason in the interpretation of Scripture.
e are said to exalt reason above revelation, to prefer our own wis-
dom to God's. Loose and undefined charges of this kind are circu-
lated so freely, and with such injurious intentions, that we think if
due to ourselves, and to the cause of truth, to express our views with
gome particularity. f -
§
“Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the
Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that
its meaning is to be sought in the same manner, as that of other
books. We believe that God, when he condescends to speak and
write, submits, if we may so say, to the established rules of speaking
and writing. How else would the Scriptures avail us more than if
communicated in an unknown tongue"
“Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader or
hearer the constant exercise of reason; or their true import is only
to be obtained by continual comparison and inference. Human lan-
guage, you well know, admits various interpretations, and every word
and every sentence must be modified and explained according to the
subject which is discussed, according to the purposes, feelings, cir-
cumstances and principles of the writer, and according to the genius
and idioms of the language which he uses.—These are acknowledged
principles in the interpretation of human writings; and a man, whose
words we should explain without reference to these principles, would
reproach us justly with a criminal want of candour, and an intention
of obscuring or distorting his meaning.
“Were the Bible written in a language and style of its own, did it
consist of words, which admit but a single sense, and of sentences
wholly detached from each other, there would be no place for the
principles now laid down. We could not reason about it, as about
other writings. But such a book would be of little worth ; and per-
haps, of all books, the Scriptures correspond least to this description.
The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand, which we see in
his works. It has infinite connexions and dependencies. Every
proposition is linked with others, and is to be compared with others,
that its full and precise import may be understood. Nothing stands
alone. The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian
dispensation is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast
scheme of providence, requiring great extent of view in the reader.
Still more, the Bible treats of subjects on which we receive ideas
from other sources besides itself; such subjects as the nature, pas-
sions, relations, and duties of man; and it expects us to restrain and
modify its language by the known truths, which observation and ex-
perience furnish on these topicks.
“We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent
exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now
made on its infinite connexions, we may observe, that its style no
where affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition.
Its language is singularly glowing, bold and figurative, demanding
more frequent departures from the literal sense, than that of our own
age and country, and consequently demands more continual exercise
of judgment. We find too, that the different portions of this book,
instead of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the
times when they were written, to states of society, to modes of think-
ing, to controversies in the church, to feelings and usages which
have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are con-
#
6
stantly in danger of extending to all times, and places, what was of
temporary and local application. We find, too, that some of these
books are strongly marked by the genius and character of their re-
spective writers, that the Holy Spirit did not so guide the apostles as
to suspend the peculiarities of their minds, and that a knowledge of
their feelings, and of the influences under which they were placed,
is one of the preparations for understanding their writings. With
these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our
reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the
letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim
of the writer, his true meaning ; and, in general, to make use of
what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering
new truths. -
“Need I descend to particulars to prove that the Scriptures de-
mand the exercise of reason 7 Take, for example, the style in which
they generally speak of God, and observe how habitually they apply
to him human passions and organs. Recollect the declarations of
Christ, that he came not to send peace, but a sword; that unless we
eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have no life in us; that we
must hate father and mother: pluck out the right eye; and a vast
number of passages equally bold and unlimited. Recollect the un-
qualified manner in which it is said of Christians that they possess all
things, know all things, and can do all things. Recollect the verbal
contradiction between Paul and James, and the apparent clashing of
some parts of Paul’s writings, with the general doctrines and end of
Christianity. I might extend the enumeration indefinitely, and who
does not see, that we must limit all these passages by the known at-
tributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature, and by the cir-
cumstances under which they were written, so as to give the language
a quite different import from what it would require, had it been ap-
plied to different beings, or used in different connexions.
“Enough has been said to show in what sense we make use of rea-
son in interpreting Scripture. From a variety of possible interpreta-
tions, we select that which accords with the nature of the subject, and
the state of the writer, with the connexion of the passage, with the
general strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God,
and with the obvious and acknowledged laws of nature. In other
words, we believe that God never contradicts, in one part of Scripture,
what he teaches in another; and never contradicts, in revelation, what
he teaches in his works and providence. And we, therefore, distrust
every interpretation, which, after deliberate attention, seems repug-
nant to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely as
civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who, you
know, are accustomed to limit one provision of that venerable instru-
ment by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts by inquiring
into its general spirit, into the intentions of its authors, and into the
prevalent feelings, impressions, and circumstances of the time when it
was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly
acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority of the Scrip-
#
7
tures. Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its
enemies.” pp. 3–6.
To a great part of these principles, I give my cheer-
ful and most cordial assent. They are the principles
which I apply to the explanation of the Scriptures, from
day to day, in my private studies and in my public la-
bours. They are the principles, by which I am con-
ducted to the opinions that I have espoused; and by
which, so far as I am able, I expect to defend these
opinions, whenever called in duty to do it.
While I thus give my general and cordial approba-
tion to most that has been presented, in the extract
above; will you indulge me in expressing a wish, that
the rank and value of the Old Testament, in the Chris-
tian's library, had been described in somewhat different
terms ” I do most fully accord with the idea, that the
gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than the
Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament, in a compara-
tive sense. On what other ground, can the assertions of
Paul, in 2 Cor. III, in Heb. VIII, and in other places, be
believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view,
than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and our destiny;'
of the objects of our hopes and fears; of the character
of God and the way of salvation. I agree fully, that what-
ever in the Old Testament respects the Jews, simply as
Jews; such as their ritual, their food, their dress, their
civil polity, their government; in one word, whatever
from its nature was national and local, is not binding upon
us under the Christian dispensation. I am well satisfied
too, that the character of God, and the duty of men,
were, in many respects, less clearly revealed under the
ancient dispensation, “The law came by Moses;”—
yet “no man hath seen God at any time; the only be.
8
gotten, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, He
hath revealed him :” i. e., it was reserved for Christ to
make a full display of the divine character; no man
ever had such knowledge of God as enabled him to do
it. I am aware that many Christians do not seem to un-
derstand this passage; and with well meaning but mis-
taken views, deduce the character and designs of God,
as fully and as clearly from the Old Testament, as from
the New. -
I must believe too, that the duties of Christians are,
in most things, more fully and definitely taught in the
gospel, than in the Old Testament; and I cannot ap-
prove of that method of reasoning, which deduces our
duties principally from texts in the Old Testament, that
sometimes are less clear, when the New Testament pre-
sents the subject in such characters of light, that he who
runneth may read. y -
But when you say, “Jesus Christ is the only master
of Christians, and whatever he taught, either during his
personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard
as of divine authority, and profess to make the rule of
our lives;” does not this naturally imply, that we are
absolved from any obligation, to receive the Old Testa-
ment, in any sense, as our guide; and that what it teach-
es, we are not bound “ to make the rule of our lives P’’
I do not feel certain that it was your design to affirm
this ; but the words in their connexion seem naturally to
bear this import. To this view, I should object; that
such parts of the Old Testament as express the will of
God, in reference to those great points of duty that must,
from the nature of moral beings, be forever the same
under every dispensation, may and ought to be regarded
as unrepealed; for it is a very sound maxim in the in-
9
terpretation of divine as well as human laws, that mal
mente ratione, manet, ipsa lea: ; A law is unrepealed, whiſ
the reason of that law continues. The case of an expre:
repeal only, can exempt from the application of thi,
maxim. And when our Saviour says, that “Heaven add
earth shall sooner pass away, than one jot or tittle}of
the law shall pass, until all be fulfilled;” he seemſ to
me plainly to have declared the immutability of tºg aIl-
cient moral law, in the sense already explained.
What shall we say, moreover, to the devotional parts
of the Old Testament, (the book of Psalms for ‘instance;)
or those numerous prophetical parts, which age sermons
on the duties and obligations of men, or preſſictions of a
future Messiah and of the nature and prºsperity of Ess
church? Are these any more Jewish (except as to the
garb in which they are clothed,) than Christian? º
mit that they are all less perfect, thagi what the Ne/w
Testament presents us with, on the Sºme topics; but".
believe them to be sanctioned by the same authority, an
to require a similar respect and deference.
As to what follows, in the Passage above quote
nothing is clearer to my apprehension, than that Gºd,
when he speaks to men, speaks in language which is useum
by those whom he addresses. 9ſ course, the language
of the Bible is to be interpreted by the same laws, so far
l
as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. ; I
ask with you; How else is the Bible a Revelation? ſow
else can men ever come to agree in what manner the
Scriptures should be interpreted, or feel any assurange
that they have attained to the meaning of its language?
I find little from which I should dissent, in the re-
mainder-6f your observations upon the principles of
-interpretation. I might, perhaps, make some objection








2
H0
Ab the manner in which the office of reason, in the inter-
"retation of Scripture, is occasionally described. But I
8. confident, that I admit as fully as you do or can do,
the proper office of reason, in the whole matter of reli-
gi n, both in doctrine and practice. It is our reason, to
...hich the arguments that prove the divine origin of
Christianity are addressed; and by reason, that we
prove or admit this, as to its general historical grounds.
Reaso prescribes, (or at any rate developes and sanc-
tions,) tº laws of interpreting Scripture. The CàSCŞ
which you have presented are, in general, striking ex-
emplifica sons of this. But when reason is satisfied that
the Bible is, the book of God, by proof which she can-
wbt reject, a d yet preserve her character; and when
she has decided what laws of exegesis the nature of hu-
han language requires; the office that remains for her
regard to the Scripture, is the application of those
łºws to the actual interpretation of the Bible. When by
their application, she becomes satisfied what the sacred
triters really meant in any case, she receives it without
esitation whether, doctrine or precept. It is the
hiºghest office of reason to believe facts or doctrines,
ich God has asserted to be true, although the man-
ther in which these things exist, or can be explained, is
bëyond her reach. In one word; the Scriptures being
onke admitted to be the word of God, or as of divine
authority; the sole office of reason in respect to them
is to act as the interpreter of Revelation, and not in
any case as legislator. It is limited to judging of the
laws of exegesis, and the application of them, in order
to discover simply what the sacred writers meant to as-
sert. This being discovered, it is either to be received,
in that simple state in which they have left it; or their


| 1
divine authority is to be rejected, and we are to cast off
our obligation to believe all which they assert. There
is no alternative; no middle way, in this case. Philoso-
phy has no right to interfere here. If she ever inter-
feres, it must be when the question is pending, whether
the Bible is divine, Nor has system, prejudice, secta-
rian feeling, or any thing whatever of a similar nature—
neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy, so called, any right
to interfere. The claims of the Bible to be authorita-
tive once being admitted, the simple question is, What
does it mean?—And of any particular passage; What
idea did the original writer mean to convey P. When
this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpreta-
tion, this is authoritative; this is orthodoxy in the high-
est and best sense of the word; and every thing which
differs from it, which modifies it, which fritters its mean-
ing away, is heterodowy, is heresy; to whatever name or
party it is attached. - -
I presume you will agree, without hesitation, to these
principles. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible 1
is our only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, amounts #
most clearly to the very same thing which I have stat- |
ed; and which every man must admit, that acknowledg-
es the paramount claims of the Bible to be believed, and
has any tolerable acquaintance with the subject of its
interpretation. * 1. , -
If there be any thing to which I should object, in
your statement generally considered of the laws of In-
terpretation, it is rather in the coloring which has been
given to some of the language in which it is expressed.
You commence with saying, that your party are charg-
ed with “exalting reason above revelation;” with “pre-
ferring their own wisdom to God's;” and that these
3.
{:
*
; :
§
12
charges are “circulated freely and with injurious inten-
tions.” You will readily acknowledge, as a general fact,
that there is difficulty in giving an impartial statement of
opinions, which we thus strongly feel to have been misre-
presented P. We certainly, in such cases, are under temp-
tation to set off our own views to the best advantage,
and to place those of our opponents in the most disad-
vantageous light. º -
With the two last paragraphs of your sermon, that
are quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signi-
fying that I entirely agree. It is, however, rather the
application of some exegetical principles that is intro-
duced into them, than the principles themselves, from
which I dissent. I shall have occasion to remark here-
after on this subject, and have mentioned it here,
merely to prevent any mistake with regard to my mean-
ing, in what I say upon the laws of interpretation, as ex-
hibited by you.
I am happy to find you frank enough to admit, that
the principles of interpretation which you defend, are
not original, or peculiar to your party; although you
seem to qualify this, by saying that “all Christians occA-
SIONALLY adopt them.” If I understand you rightly, then,
you would admit, that only Unitarians receive and prac-
tise upon the whole system of exegesis, which you have
described. In this, however, if this be your meaning,
you are mistaken; at least, it appears plainly so to me,
as far as I am acquainted with the men called orthodox,
in New England, at the present time. I doubt whether
any man can study the science of interpretation, for a
considerable time together, without adopting, for sub-
stance, those principles of it, which you seem to claim
appropriately, (as a whole.) for Unitarians,
13.
How ean it be explained, then, that supposing you
and I are both sincerely seeking after truth, and that
both adopt, for substance, the same maxims of interpre-
tation, we should differ so widely in the results that flow
from the application of these principles P Perhaps this
question may have some light thrown upon it, in the se-
quel of these letters,
s—sº cº-
LETTER II.
Reverend and Dear Sir,
I could wish to find as much in your sermon respect-
ing the doctrine of the Trinity, with which I might ac-
cord, as in your principles of interpretation. My appre-
hensions respecting this doctrine, however, differ from
yours. I have not hastily, nor without examination and
reflection, embraced my present views of this subject.
Nor can I say that I am convinced, by perusing your
statement of the doctrine and the arguments against it,
that I am erroneous in my views respecting it.
You will not expect me, however, in these letters,
which are intended to be brief, to go into a general dis-
cussion of this great subject, which shall embrace all the
important topics which it presents. I intend to touch
only on those points, on which the hinge of the contro-
versy seems to me to turn; and these, in a manner as
summary as the nature and difficulty of the case will
permit.
The statement which you make of your own faith
in regard to the unity of God, and your account of the
doctrine of the Trinity, are as follows:– - -
14 }
“First. We believe in the doctrine of God's UNITY, or that there
is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance,
and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it
by vain philosophy. The proposition, that there is one God seems to
us exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is one being,
one mind, one person, one intelligent agent, and one only, to whom
underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong. We conceive,
that these words could have conveyed no other meaning to the sim-
ple and uncultivatéd people, who were set apart to be the deposita-
ries of this great truth, and who were utterly incapable of understand-
ing those hair breadth distinctions between being and person, which the
sagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intimation, that
this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or that God’s unity
was a quite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent beings.
“We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the uni-
ty of God. According to this doctrine, there are three infinite and
equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has
his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love
each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other’s so-
ciety. They perform different parts in man’s redemption, each hav-
ing his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other.
The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son,
and is not himself sent ; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking
flesh. Here then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of dif-
ferent consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, per-
forming different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these
things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly
at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is dif-
ference of properties, and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the
belief of different intelligent beings, and if this mark fail us, our whole
knowledge falls; we have no proof, that all the agents and persons in
the universe are not one and the same mind. When we attempt to
conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more, than represent
to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar
marks and peculiarities to those, which separate the persons of the
Trinity ; and when common Christians hear these persons spoken of as
conversing with each other, loving each other and performing differ-
ent acts, how can they help regarding them as different beings, differ-
ent minds º' pp. 8, 9.
My object in this letter is not to controvert your
creed; but to remark on your exposition of the doctrine
of the Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended, by those
with whom I am accustomed to think and act. -
Admitting that you have given a fair account of our
15
belief; I cannot see, indeed, why we are not virtually
guilty of Tritheism; or at least of something which ap-
proximates so near to it, that I acknowledge myself una-
ble to make the distinction. But I cannot help feeling,
that you have made neither an impartial, nor a correct
statement of what we believe, or what we are accustom-
ed to teach and defend.
It needs but a moderate acquaintance with the his-
tory of the doctrine in question, to satisfy any one, that
a great variety of explanations have been attempted by
inquisitive, or by adventurous minds. All acknowledge
the difficulty of the subject; I regret to say, that all
have not refrained from treating it, as though it were
more within their comprehension than it is.
But among all the different explanations, which I
have found, I have not met with any one which denied,
or at least was designed to deny, the UNITY of God. All
admit this to be a fundamental principle. All acknowl-
edge that it is designated in characters of light, both in
the Jewish and Christian revelations; and that to deny
it would be the grossest absurdity, as well as impiety.
It may, indeed, be questioned, whether the explana-
tions given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some, who
have speculated on this subject, are consistent with the
divine unity, when the language which they use is fairly
interpreted, agreeably to the common laws of exegesis.
But that their representations were not designed to
to call in question the divine Unity, is what I think every
candid reader of their works will be disposed to admit.
Now when I consider this fact, so plain and so easily
established; and then look through your statement of the
doctrine of the Unity of God, and the Trinity, as given
above ; I confessit gives me pain, to think that you have
T6
not conceded or even intimated, that Trinitarians do, or
can, admit the Unity of God. You have a right to say,
if you so think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as they
explain and defend it, is at variance with the divine Unity;
and that they are inconsistent with each other. But to
appropriate solely to those, who call themselves Unitari-
ans, the belief that there is but one God; or to construct
an account of the Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me
you have done, in the paragraph on which I am remark-
ing,) so as not even to intimate to your hearers or rea-
ders, that your opponents admit, or advocate the divine
Unity; is doing that which you would censure in an ap-
tagonist, and which cannot well subserve the interests
of inquiry, after truth. . . . . . .
But let us examine your statement of our creed —
“ we object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts the unity
of God, ºpcording to this doctrine, there are three infinite and equal
persons, póssessing supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Ho-
ly Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians, has
his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love
each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's
society. They perform different parts in man’s redemption, each
having his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the oth-
er. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends
the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son,
of taking flesh. Here then we have three intelligent agents, pos-
sessed of different consciousnesses, different wills, and different per-
ceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining different relations;
and if these things do not imply and constitute three minds or beings,
we are utterly at a loss to know how three minds or beings are to be
formed.” p. 9.
Is not this account a very different one, from that
which many of your brethren are accustomed to give of
us?—By them it is said, that there is a great variety of
discordant and contradictory statements and explanations
of the doctrine of the Trinity, among those who embrace
it. Do not you amalgamate us all together; make us

17
harmonious Tritheists, and then dismiss us to the re-
proach of Tritheism, or at least of glaring inconsistency *
After all; the statement, which you exhibit of our
views, is very far from that which we, (or at least all
Trinitarians with whom I am acquainted,) should make
of our belief. I do not deny, that some writers on this
subject have given reason, to make a statement not very
diverse from yours, as it regards the explication of the
Trinity. Some great and good men, in their zeal to defend
this doctrine, have sought to reduce the whole subject to
human comprehension. How vain the attempt experi-
ence has demonstrated. Efforts of this nature, however
well designed, or ably conducted, never yet have led to
any thing but greater darkness. “Who can by searching
find out God? Who can find out the Almighty to perfec-
tion P’’
But though I readily admit, that efforts to explain
what in the nature of the case is inexplicable, may have
misled some in their efforts to acquire religious knowl-
edge, or given occasion to others of stumbling; yet I am
not prepared to admit, that the great body of Trinitari-
ans have given just occasion to charge them with a de-
nial of the Unity of God, or with an opinion subversive
of this. You certainly ought not to deny them the same
liberty, in the use of terms to express their ideas, which
all men take on every subject that is difficult, and for the
accurate expression of which language is not framed, per-
haps is not even adequate. They must approach such
subjects by the use of figurative language; by the use of
terms, which, if I may be indulged the liberty of thus ex-
pressing myself, approximate as nearly to it, as any that
they can select. If there is any obscurity in these gen-
3
18
\,
|
t
*
eral observations, I hope it will be cleared up in the re-
marks that are to follow.
Since I refuse assent to your statement of our belief,
you will feel a right to inquire what we do believe, that
you may compare this with the doctrine of divine Unity,
and judge for yourself, whether it is subversive of it, or
not. I cannot refuse my assent to so reasonable a pro-
posal; nor do I feel any inclination to shrink from the
task, with the excuse that every thing respecting the
subject is too mysterious and recondite, to be the object
of distinct contemplation. What we do believe can be
stated; what we do not profess to explain or define can
be stated, and the reasons why we do not ; and this is
what I shall now attempt.
I must not, however, be understood as pledging in
general those with whom I am accustomed to think and
act, as adopting my statement, and maintaining that it
pursues the best method of explaining or defending the
great doctrine in question. Notwithstanding we are so
often charged with adherence to forms and modes of ex-
pression contained in creeds, there is as much liberty ta-
ken among us, as to variety of method in giving instruc-
tion with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, as the
other doctrines of religion. I can only say, in respect to
the statement which I shall make, that it is not the re-
sult of concert in any degree with clerical brethren who
accord in my general views of religious doctrines, for the
purpose of making a statement to which they will ad-
here. It is the result of investigation and reflection on
the subject, as it appears to be developed in the Scrip-
tures, and in the writings of the leading divines, whom I
have been able to consult.
I believe, then,
19
I. That God is one; numerically one, in essence and
attributes. In other words, the infinitely perfect Spirit,
the creator and preserver of all things, the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, has numerically the same essence, and
the same perfections, so far as we know any thing of
them, which can be the subject of affirmation. To par-
ticularize; the Son possesses not simply a similar or
equal essence and perfections, but numerically the same
as the Father, without division, and without multiplica-
tion. - . .
II. The Son, (and so the Holy Spirit,) does in some
respect truly and really, not merely nominally or logically,
differ from the Father. - --
I am aware, as I have hinted above, that you may
find writers upon the doctrine of the Trinity, who have
stated the subject of my first proposition, in a manner
somewhat different. But after making due allowances, for
inattention to precision of language, the difficulty of the
subject, and the various ways which men naturally take
to illustrate a difficult subject, I am not aware that many
of them would dissent, substantially, from the statement
now made. Certain it is, that the Lutheran Confession
exhibits the same view. The words are ; “The divine
essence is one, which is called and is God, eternal, incor-
poreal, indivisible; of infinite power, wisdom, and good-
ness; the Creator and Preserver of all things, visible and
invisible.* - #
The Confession of Helvetia (written A. D. 1566)
declares, that “God is one in essence or nature, subsist-
ing by himself, all sufficient in himself, invisible, without
a body, infinite, eternal, the Creator of all things visible
* Una est essentia divina, quae appellatur et est Deus, asternus, in-
corporeus, impartibilis; immensa potentia, sapientia, bonitate; Creator
et Conservator omnium rerum visibilium, et invisibilium. (ART. I.)
20
and invisible, &c.” It adds, “we detest the multitude of
gods, because it is expressly written, The Lord thy God
is one God, &c.”
The Confession of Basil (A. D. 1532) declares, that
there is “ONE eternal, almighty God, in essence and sub-
stance, and not three gods.”
The Confession of the Waldenses states, that the
Holy Trinity, “is in essence one only true, alone, eternal,
almighty, and incomprehensible God, of ONE equal indi-
visible essence.”
The French Confession (A. D. 1566) says, “We be-
lieve and acknowledge oNE only God, who is one only and
simple essence, spiritual, eternal, invisible, immutable,
infinite, &c.” - - -
The English Confession (A. D. 1562) states, that the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, “be of one power, of one
majesty, of one etermity, of one Godhead, and one sub-
stance. And although these three persons be so divided,
that neither the Father is the Son, nor the Son is the
Holy Ghost, nor the Father; yet nevertheless, we be-
lieve that there is but one very God.”
The Confession of Belgia (A. D. 1566) declares, that
“There is one only simple and spiritual essence, which
we call God, eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immu-
table, infinite, &c.” - -
The articles of the English, episcopal church de-
clare, that “there is but one living and true God, ever-
lasting, without body, parts, or passions, &c.” A
The Confession of the Reformed churches in the
Netherlands, revised at the Synod of Dort, (A. D. 1618
—1619) declares, “We believe that there is one only
and simple, spiritual Being, which we call God; and that
he is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, in-
finite, &c.” (Wide Harmony of Confessions.) -
21
With these agrees the Westminster Confession, ap-
proved by the general Assembly of Divines in A.D. 1647,
adopted by all the Presbyterian churches in Great
Britain and America, and assented to by a great part of
the Congregational churches in New England. Its words
are; “There is but one only living and true God, who is
infinite in being and perfection, a pure spirit, invisible,
without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense,
eternal, incomprehensible, &c.” [West. Con. p. 32.]
Now is this the denial of the divine unity, with which
we are implicitly charged 2 Can Unitarians present a
different, or more complete description of the divine
unity, than these Symbols, of the different denomina-
tions of those who admit the doctrine of the Trinity,
present? * s
But admitting our statement of the divine Unity to
be correct; you will aver, probably, that my second
proposition is subversive of the first, And this is what
I shall now endeavour to investigate.
The common language of the Trinitarian Symbols is,
“That there are three PERSONs in the Godhead.” In your
comments upon this, you have all along explained the
word person, just as though it were a given point, that
we use the term here in its ordinary acceptation as ap-
plied to men. But can you satisfy yourself that this is
doing us justice P What is plainer in Church History,
than that the word person was introduced into the creeds
of ancient times, merely as a term which would express
the disagreement of Christians in general, with the re-
puted errors of the Sabellians, and others of similar sen-
timents, who denied the existence of any real distinction
in the Godhead, and asserted that Father, Son, and Ho-
ly Ghost were merely attributes of God, or the names of
22
different ways in which he revealed himself to mankind,
or of different relations which he bore to them, and in
which he acted P. The Nicene Fathers meant to deny
the correctness of this statement, when they used the
word person, by implying that there was some real, not
merely nominal distinction in the Godhead; and that
something more than a diversity of relation or action in
respect to us, was intended. They used the word per-
son, because they supposed it approximated nearer to
designating the existence of a real distinction, than any
other which they could choose. Most certainly, neither
they, nor any intelligent Trinitarian could use this term,
in such a latitude as you represent us as doing, and as
you attach to it. We profess to use it, merely from the
poverty of language; merely to designate our belief of a
real distinction in the Godhead; and NOT to describe in-
dependent, conscious beings, possessing separate and equal
essences, and perfections. Why should we be obliged so
often to explain ourselves on this point? Is there any
more difficulty here, or any thing more obnoxious, than
when you say, “God is angry with the wicked every
day ?” You defend yourself in the use of such an ex-
pression, by saying, that it is only the language of ap-
provination; that it is intended to describe that in the
mind of the Deity, or in his actions, which corresponds
in some measure, or in some respect, to anger in men;
not that he really feels the passion of anger—You will
permit me, then, to add, that we speak of persons in the
Godhead, to designate that which in some respect or
other corresponds to person as applied to men, i.e. some
distinction ; not that we attach to it the meaning of three
beings, with a separate consciousness, will, omnipotence,
omniscience, &c. Where is then, our inconsistency in
23
this, or the absurdity of our language; provided there
is a real foundation in the Scriptures, on which we may
rest the fact of a distinction, that we believe to exist?
I could heartily wish, indeed, that the word person
never had come into the Symbols of the Churches, be-
cause it has been the occasion of so much unnecessary
dispute and difficulty. But since it is in common use, it
is difficult, perhaps impossible, altogether to reject it.
If it must be retained, I readily concede that the use of
it ought to be so guarded, as not to lead Christians in
general into erroneous ideas of God. Nor can I suppose
that Christians generally have such ideas, or understand
it to mean what you attribute to our belief. Then sure-
ly it is not the best mode of convincing your opponents,
to take the word in a sense so different from that in
which they understand it, and charge them with the ab-
surdities consequent upon the language of their creed.
It has always been a conceded point, that in the discus-
sion of difficult subjects, or the statement of them, terms
might be used aside from their ordinary import. And
what can teach us in a plainer manner, that Trinitarians
do use the word person in this way, than that they
agree that God is one, in essence and in attributes ?
It might have been justly expected, likewise, that
before they were charged with subverting the divine
Unity, the meaning of the word person, should have been
carefully investigated, in the ancient records which des-
cribe its first introduction into the Symbols of the
Church. One of your rules of exegesis, to which I have
with all my heart assented, demands that “every word
& C & © e should be modified and explained, according to the
subject which is discussed, according to the PURPOSEs, feel-
ings, circumstances and principles of the writer.” Do us
24
the justice to apply this law of interpretation to our lan-
guage, and the dispute between us about the meaning of
person is forever at an end. -
What is then, you doubtless will ask, that distinction in
the Godhead, which the word person is meant to desig-
nate P I answer without hesitation, that I do not know.
The fact that a distinction exists, is what we aver; the
definition of that distinction is what I shall by no means
attempt. By what shall I, or can I define it? What simile
drawn from created objects, which are necessarily derived
and dependent, can illustrate the mode of existence in
that Being, who is underived, independent, unchangeable,
infinite, eternal P I confess myself unable to advance a
single step here, in the explanation of what the distinc-
tion is. I receive the FACT that it exists, simply because I
believe that the Scriptures reveal the FACT. And if the Scrip-
tures do reveal the fact, that there are three persons, (in
the sense explained.) in the Godhead; that there is a
distinction on which are founded the appellations of Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost; which lays the foundation
for saying, with propriety, I, Thou, He : for to speak of
sending and being sent; of being with God, of being in
his bosom, and other things of the like nature; and yet
that the divine nature is equally predicable of each; then
it is, like every other fact revealed, to be received sim-
ply on the credit of divine revelation. -
Is there any more difficulty in understanding the fact,
that there is a distinction in the Godhead, (the existence
of which we are required to believe, and on which are
founded some of the most interesting and delightful ex-
hibitions of the divine character, although we cannot
tell in what the distinction consists, or in other words,
cannot define it,) than there is in believing that God
25
possesses an underived existence P With what shall we
compare such an existence P All other beings are deriv-
ed; and, of course, there is no object in the universe
with which it can be compared. To define it then, is
beyond our reach. We can approximate towards a
conception of it, merely by negatives. We deny that
the divine existence has any author, or cause ; and when
we have done this, we have not defined it, but simply
said that a certain thing does not belong to it. Here we
must rest ; and archangels, probably, cannot proceed
beyond this. • •
Now in regard to the distinction in the Godhead,
which we believe to exist; we say, It is not a mere dis-
tinction of attributes which are known to us, of relation to
ws, of modes of action, or of relation between any known
attributes and substance or essence. We believe the
Scriptures justify us in these negations. But here we
leave the subject. We undertake (at least the Trinita-
rians of our country with whom I am acquainted under-
take,) not at all to describe affirmatively, the distinction
in the Godhead. When you will give me an affirmative
description of underived existence, I will engage to fur-
nish you with one of person in the Trinity. You do not
reject the belief of self existence, merely because you
cannot affirmatively define it; neither do we of a distinc-
tion in the Godhead, because we cannot affirmatively de-
fine it. .- *
What is the eternity of God? You answer by tell-
ing me, that there never was a time, and never will be
one, in which he did not exist. True; but then, what was
time, before the planetary system, which measures it,
had an existence? And what will time be, when these
heavens and this earth shall be blotted out? Besides,
4.
26
passing over this difficulty about time, you have only
given a negative description of God's eternity; you deny
certain things of him, and then aver that he is eternal,
Yet because you cannot affirmatively describe eternity,
you would not reject the belief of the fact that God is
eternal. Why should I reject the belief of a distinction
in the Godhead, because I cannot affirmatively define it?
I do not feel therefore, that we are exposed justly to
be taxed with mysticism, and absurdity, when we admit
that there is a distinction in the Godhead, which we feel
utterly unable to define. I am aware, indeed, that a writ-
er some time since composed, and published in the period-
ical work then edited at Cambridge, a piece in which he
Iaboured with no small degree of ability and acuteness,
to show that no man can believe a proposition, the terms
of which are unintelligible, or which he does not under-
stand; and then applied the subject to convince those
who believe in the doctrine of the Trinity of absurdity.
But it seems to me, the whole argument of that piece is
founded on a confusion of two things, which are in them-
selves very diverse; viz., terms which are unintelligible,
and things which are undefinable. You believe in the
fact that the divine existence is without cause; you un-
derstand the fact, that God exists uncaused; but you
cannot define underived existence. I believe, on the au-
thority of the Scriptures, that there is a real distinction
in the Godhead; but I cannot define it. Still the pro-
position that there is a real distinction is just as intelligi-
ble, as the one that God is self existent. A multitude
of propositions respecting many diverse subjects, resem-
ble these. We affirm that gravitation brings a body
thrown into the air, down to the earth. The fact is
perfectly intelligible. The terms are perfectly under-
\
27
stood, so far as they are the means of designating this
fact. But then, what is gravitation ? An affirmative
definition cannot be given, which is not a mere exchange
of synonymes. Nor can any comparison define it; for to
what shall we liken it P
The mind of every man, who is accustomed to think,
will supply him with a multitude of propositions of this
nature; in all of which the fact designed to be describ-
ed is clear; the terms so far as they designate this fact
are clear; but the subject of the proposition, that is the
thing itself, or agent, concerning which the fact is assert-
ed, is undefinable, and, excepting in regard to the fact in
question, perhaps wholly unknown to us.
How easy now to perplex common minds, by calling
a proposition unintelligible, the subject of which is unde-
finable. In confounding things so very different, consists
as I apprehend, the whole ingenuity of the piece in ques-
tion; an ingenuity, which may excite the admiration of
those who love disceptatious subtilties, but cannot con-
tribute much to illuminate the path of theological sci-
© [109,
I have been thus particular, in my statement of this
very difficult part of the subject, in order to prevent
misapprehension. I certainly do not hold myself bound
to vindicate any of the definitions of person, or distinction
in the Godhead, which I have seen, because I do not
adopt them. I do not, and cannot understand them;
and to a definition, I cannot with propriety assent, until
I do understand what it signifies. I regret most sincere-
ly to see, that some great and good men, have carried
their speculations on this subject to such a length, that
they have bewildered themselves and their readers.
To present only a few of the ablest attempts to define
28
the persons of the Trinity, will illustrate and establish
what I have just said, - . -
Contrary to the very common and confident affirma-
tions of many writers, that the terms Trinity and person,
as applied to the Godhead, were the refinements of
later ages, and scholastic divinity; I find them used at
a period of the Church,..not far distant from the Apos-
tolic age. Tertullian, who flourished about A. D. 200,
in Libro adversus Praxeam, c. 2, says, “ This perver-
sity, (viz. of Praxeas,) thinks itself to be in possession of
mere truth, while it supposes that we are to believe in
one God, not otherwise than if we make the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost the self same; as if all were not
one, while all are of one, viz. by a unity of substance; and
still, the mysterious economy which distributes unity into
a TRINITY is observed, marking out [distinguishing] Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost. There are three, not in
condition, but rank; not in essence, but form; not in
power, but in kind; but of one substance, one condition,
and power; for there is one God, from whom all those
ranks, and forms, and kinds by the name of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost are reckoned.” "… - *-
. A little farther on he says, -“Whatever, therefore,
the substance of the Word (Logos) is, I call him a PER:
son, and pay him reverence; and acknowledging the Son,
I maintain that he is second from the Father, -
“The third is the Spirit from God and the Son, as the
fruit from the stalk, is the third from the root; a rivu.
let from the river [the third] from the fountain; the
sharp point from a ray [the third] from the sun. So the
Tanity proceeds, by interlinked and connected grades,
from the Father.”
In Cap. 9, he says, “They (the Trinity) are not sepe
929
arate from each other, although the Father is said to be
diverse from the Son, and the Spirit.” -
' And again ; * Each one of us is baptized into the
PERsoNs (of the Trinity) by particular [or distinct]
names,* - -
So Origen, who flourished before Tertullian's death,
(Com. in Johan. p. 24.) reprehends those * who do not
attribute ίττοστασιν λoy®, person to the Word, or Lo-
gos ;" and shortly after adds, * vpeig ίποσπασεις we ac-
knowledge, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.“
I believe Tertulliam is the earliest writer, who affords a
decisive specimen of the technical use of the word Trin-
ity, and Person. His object cannot be mistaken. His
antagonist, Praxeas, denied that there existed any dis-
tinction in the Godhead ; or at most, any except a ver-
bal one, Tertullian means to assert the existence of a
threefold distinction, for which he uses the word Trini-
* “ Perversitas hæc, (sc. Praxeae,) se existimat meram veritatem
possidere, dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ip-
sum eundemque et Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum dicat,
quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per substan-
tiae scilicet unitatem et nihilominus custodiatur olxoyoμιας sacramentum,
quæ unitatem in TRINITATEM disponit ; tres dirigens, Patrem, Filium,
et Spiritum Sanctum. Tres autem non statu sed gradu ; nec sub-
stantia sed forma ; nec potestate sed specie : unius autem substantiæ,
et status, et potestatis, quia unus Deus ex quo et gradus: isti, et for-
` mæ, et species, in nomine Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum de-
putantur.” .At
—** quæcunque ergo, substantia Sermonis (τον λογον) sit, illum dico
PERSONAM et illi momen vindico; et dum Filium agnosco, secúndum a Pa-
tre defendo.—Tertius est Spiritus à Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a ra-
dice fructus ex frutice ; a fonte rivus ex flumine'; a sole apex éx'ra-
dio. Ita TRINITAS per consertos et connexos gradus a Patre decurrit.
.**—Inseparati tamen ab alterutro, etsi dicatur alium esse Patrem, .
alium Filium et Spiritum.
—“ Ad singula Nomina, in personas singulas tingimur.”
30
ty; and to signify that this distinction is real, not nominal, w
he uses the word person. -
But to explainTertullian's similitudes, (so frequently
copied in after ages) is more than I shall undertake.
Who does not see, that all similitudes drawn from creat-
ed, limited, dependent beings or things, must be utterly
inadequate to illustrate the mode in which an uncreated,
infinite, and omnipresent Being exists —What is the at-
tempt, but to “darken counsel by words without knowl-
edge?” I believe with Tertullian in a threefold distinc-
tion in the Godhead; but I believe simply the fact of a
Trinity, and do not venture to make any attempt at ex-
planation. -
Very little if any better than Tertullian, have suc-
ceeded the venerable Council of Nice, who designed-in
their Creed, to express their disagreement with the opin-
ions of Arius. Their words are ; “We believe in one
God, the Father, Almighty, the maker of all things visible
and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, the only begotten of the Father, that is of the sub-
stance of the Father; God of God, light of light, very God
of very God, begotten not made, of the same substance
with the Father, by whom all things were made.”
This Council (held A. D. 325,) believed in the eter-
mal generation of the Son; and meant to say, by the very
peculiar phraseology which they have here exhibited,
*IIlorsvousy gig vo. Osov, worspoº, 7tavroxparopa, 7tot-
army parov we tavrov xoa aopatov’ xa, eig vo. Kvptov
Ingovv Xplorov, vov inov vov Osov, row yeyvnéevra ex
tov wrpos uovoyevn, wovr’ cott ex ºng ovotag vov wrpos,
Seow ex Sãov, pog 8x porog, Seow ownfluvov ex Seow own-
6ivov, Yevvnffevra ov wountevro, duoovolov tº worpi, Št’
ôv to 7tavro, eyevsto. ‘.
31.
that the essential distinction between the Father and
the Son, consisted in the fact of his eternal generation.
Arius affirmed that the Son was begotten in time; the
Nicene Fathers, that his generation was eternal.
I am unable to conceive of a definite meaning in the
terms, eternal generation ; and I cannot regard them in
any other light than as a solecism, a palpable contra-
diction of language. Nor can I understand the Nicene
Creed, when it says that Christ was “God of God, light of
light, very God of very God.” If there is any thing meant
by all this, (and no doubt there is) can it be more,
than that there is and has from eternity been, a myste-
rious and indescribable connexion and discrimination be-
tween the Father and Son? I presume the Nicene
Fathers meant to make out an affirmative or positive defi-
nition. That they have failed is sufficiently evident; but
that they are guilty of designed intrusion into the myste-
ries of the Godhead, or of intending to introduce useless
and unmeaning words into their Symbol, no person of
candour, who examines thoroughly the history of their
creed, will, I think, be led to believe.
- The council of Constantinople, reckoned as the sec-
ond ecumenical Council, (A. D. 381) in their Synodic ad-
dress to the churches, say, that “it is the most ancient
faith, and agreeable to baptism, to believe in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so namely, that there
is one divinity, power, and substance of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost; who possess equal dignity, and coeternal
dominion; who exist in three most perfect hypostases, or
three perfect persons; so that the pest of Sabellius shall
have no place, which confounds the persons, and takes
away their appropriate qualities; nor the blasphemy of
the Eunomians, Arians, and opposers of the Holy Spirit
32
prevail, which destroys the substance, and nature, and
divinity of the uncreated, consubstantial, and coeternal
Trinity, by introducing a posterior nature, of a different
substance, and created.” (Theodoreti. Ecc. Hist. Liv, c.9)
I cannot see how this explanation gives us any more
light than the others. - *
Let us leave antiquity, and glance, for a moment, at
some of the similar attempts in modern times. The cel-
ebrated Leibnitz, was requested by Loefler, (who had
undertaken to refute, the writings of a certain English
Antitrinitarian,) to give him an affirmative definition of
the persons in the Godhead. He sent for answer the
following; “Several persons in an absolute substance,
numerically the same, signify several, particular, intelli-
gent substances essentially related.”f On further con-
sideration he abandoned this, and sent a second; which
was, “Several persons in an absolute substance numeri-
cally the same, mean relative, incommunicable modes of
subsisting.”f -
*—worevelveig to ovoua rov tatpog, vov inov, xoa row
7tvévuovog âylov, ônāačn Sãorntos re zai ôvvaufog %OLl, Ol)-
otos utog vov tatpog, vov inov, xat vov zwevuatog áytov
7tlovevousvnº, öuovuov vs was aélag rat ovvatiºwv was
80.01%élog evaptol tºwetovavaig intooro.ow, myovy "plot re-
2.Étoig apogowog, 05 unté tºv 20.68%tov vodov Zopov
20.68tv, ovyčeouévov vov intootageov, Wyovy w8torntov
avatpovuevov; unts wºu Evvoulavov, Apslavov, xoa IIvév-
uavouazov way 330.0%mutov toxvely, was ovgtag, n th;
ºpposºg, n ºng $807mºog reuvottévrig, Kat 7:1 axvtotº, zoºl
duoovoº, zal ovvatiºtº Tplaði ustayevsovipos twog, a
xvtovng, n &rspoovolov pugéog 87tayouëwns.
f Plures personae in eadem numero substantia absoluta, significant
plures substantias singulares, intelligentes, essentialiter relativas.
† Plures personae in eadem numero substantia absoluta, intelli-
guntur per modos subsistendi relativos, incommunicabiles.
33
If Leibnitz actually understood this, he must have
been a better master of metaphysics, than any person
who has ever read his definition. In fact he does not
himself appear to have been satisfied with his own defi-
nition; for not long after, he wrote as follows; “We
must say, that there are relations in the Divine Sub-
stance, which distinguish the persons, since these persons
cannot be absolute substances. But we must aver, too,
that these relations are substantial. At least, we must
say, that the Divine Persons are not the same Concrete,
under different denominations or relations; as a man
may be, at the same time, both a poet and an orator.
We must say, moreover, that the three persons are not
as absolute substances as the whole.”
This is somewhat better than either of his former
attempts, in as mułh as it is confined principally to des-
cription of a negative kind. Yet after all, I see no light
cast upon the subject, which is of any real importance.
With quite as little success, did that original genius and
masterly reasoner, the celebrated Toellner of Frankfort,
labour to define the subject in question. “It is certain,”
says he, “that we must conceive, as coexisting in God,
three eternal and really different actions, the action of
activity, of idea, and of the desire of all possible good
within and without him. Three really different actions,
coexisting from eternity, necessarily presuppose three
really different and operative substrata. It is thus,
through the aid of reason illuminated by the Scriptures,
we come to know, that the Power, the Understanding,
and the Will of God are not merely three faculties, but
three distinct energies, that is, three substances.”t
* Remarques sur le livre d’un Antitrinitaire Anglois, p. 26.
i Esist gewiss, dass wir uns in Gott drey ewige wahrhaftig von
J.
: A
34
Tertullian's explication, or the Nicene Creed is, at
least, as intelligible to me as this.
I will produce but one instance more; which is that
of the celebrated Lessing. “ Must not God," says he,
“ have the most perfect idea of himself? That is, an
idea in which everything is comprised, that is compris-
ed in himself Could this however be the case, if in
the same manner as of his other attributes, there should
be merely an idea, merely a possibility of his necessary
activity? This possibility comprises the being of his
other attributes; but can it exhaust his necessary activ-
ity ? Consequently, God can either have no perfect idea
of himself; or this perfect idea is necessarily active, as
he himselfis.”
If there be any proof here of more than one person
einander unterschiedene Handlungen neben einander, gedenken mu-
essen; die Handlung des Wirkens, der Vorstellung, und des Begeh-
rens alles moeglichen Guten in und ausser ihm. h
Drey wahrhaftig verschiedene Handlungen, zugleich von Ewig-
keit her neben einander, erfordern auch von Ewigkeit her drey von
einander wahrhaftig verschiedene handelnde Gruende. Und so ver-
kennen wir mit der durch die Schrift erwekten Vernunft, dass die
Kraft, der Verstand, und der Wille in Gott nicht drey blosse Vermoe-
gen, sondern drey von einander verschiedene Kraefte, das ist drey
Substanzen sind. [Vermischte Aufsätze. B. i. p. 81. edit. 1769.]
* Muss Gott nicht die vollstaendigste Vorstellung von sich selbst
haben ? d. i. eine Vorstellung in der sich alles befindet, was in ihm
selbst ist. Wuerde sich aber alles in ihr finden was in ihm selbst ist,
wenn auch von seiner nothwendigen Wuerklichkeit, so wie von sei-
nen uebrigen Eigenschaften, sich blos eine Vorstellung, sich blos eine .
Moeglichkeit faende ? Diese Moeglichkeit erschoepft das Wesen
seiner uebrigen Eigenschaften : aber auch seiner nothwendigen
Wuerklichkeit ? Folglich, kann entweder Gott gar keine vollstaen-
dige Vorstellung von sich selbst haben; oder diese Vorstellung ist
eben so nothwendig wuerklich, als er selbst ist. (Die Erziehung des
Menschengeschlechts. 1785. p. 68.)
35
*3
in God, it is one which may prove there is ten, or twen-
ty. And if Lessing himself understood his own descrip-
tion, I shall not hazard much in declaring my belief, that
he was the only man who has been able to do it.
I have not produced these instances, in order to sat-
isfy you that all attempts of this nature are and must
be fruitless. You doubtless need no such proof. I have
produced them for two reasons; the first, to justify my-
self, in some good, measure, for not attempting a defini- |
tion, in which no one has yet succeeded: the second, to
show that notwithstanding all the fruitless attempts at
definition, which have been made, and notwithstanding
the variety of method in which men have chosen to make
these attempts; yet, for substance, there is a far greater
unanimity of opinion among Trinitarians, than you and
your friends are willing to concede. I grant freely, that
there is a great variety, in the mode by which an at-
tempt at definition or illustration is made. I do most
sincerely regret, that any such attempts ever were made.
But I cannot, for the most part, accuse them of any ill
design; much less spurn at them with contempt.
Patient investigation and candor will lead one to be-
lieve, as it seems to me, that the thing aimed at was, in
substance, to assert the idea of a distinction in the Godhead.
To do this with the more success, (as they imagined,)
they endeavoured to describe affirmatively the nature of
that distinction. Here they have all failed. But does
this prove, that there is actually a great variety of opin-
ion among Trinitarians, in regard to the principal thing
concerned, merely because there is a great variety of
attempts at illustration? I cannot help feeling that
this matter is sometimes misrepresented, and very gene-
rally but little understood.
36
f
#
|
And now, can you by arguments a priori, prove to me
that the doctrine of the Trinity must be untrue, because
it is inconsistent with itself, or “subversive of the doc-
trine of divine Unity?”—We say the divine essence and
attributes are numerically one ; but that there is a real
distinction in the Godhead between the Father and the
Son. (I omit the consideration of the Holy Spirit here,
because your Sermon merely hints at this subject, and
all difficulties in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity,
are essentially connected with proving or disproving the
Divinity of Christ.) We abjure all attempts to define that
distinction ; we admit it simply as a fact, on the authority
of divine Revelation. Now how can you prove that a
distinction does not exist, unless you can tell us what it is?
The want of evidence in the Scriptures to establish the
fact, would be a sufficient reason for rejecting it, I ac-
knowledge. But we are now making out a statement
of the subject, and answering objections that are urged,
independently of the Scriptures. The proof which the
New Testament, exhibits, we are hereafter to examine.
How then, I repeat it, are you to show that we believe
in a self-contradiction, or in an impossibility? If the
distinction in question cannot be proved, independently
of the Scriptures, (and most freely I acknowledge it
cannot;) it is equally certain that it cannot be disproved.
In order to know that this distinction contradicts the
Divine Unity, you must be able to tell what it is, and
what the divine Unity is 2 Can you do either ?
Allow me, for a moment, to dwell on the subject
now casually introduced. It is a clear point, I think, that
the unity of God cannot be proved, without revelation.
It may perhaps be rendered faintly probable. Then
you depend on Scripture proof, for the establishment
37
of this doctrine. But have the Scriptures anywhere
told us what the divine Unity is 2 Will you produce
me the passage 2 The oneness of God they assert.
But this assertion is always in opposition to the idols
of the heathen—the polytheism of the Gentiles—the
gods superior and inferior, which they worshipped. In
no other sense, have the Scriptures defined the oNE-
NESs of the Deity. What then is Oneness, in the uncre-
ated, infinite, eternal Being? In created and finite ob-
jects, we have a distinct perception of what we mean by
it; but can created objects be just and adequate repre-
sentatives of the uncreated ONE P Familiar as the asser-
tion is in your conversation, and in your Sermons, that
God is one, can you give me any other definition of this
oneness, except a negative one 2 That is, you deny plu-
rality of it; and say God is but one, and not two, or
more. Still, in what, I ask, does the divine Unity con-
sist? Has not God different and various faculties, and
powers? Is he not almighty, omniscient, omnipresent,
holy, just, and good? Does he not act differently, i. e.
variously, in the natural, and in the moral world? Does
his unity consist, then, appropriately in his essence P But
what is the essence of God? And how can you assert
that his unity consists appropriately in this, unless you
know what his essence is, and whether, oneness can
be any better predicated of this, than of his attributes ?
Your answer to all this is ; The nature of God is be-
yond my reach; I cannot define it. I approach to a de-
finition of the divine unity, only by negatives. Our an-
swer to Unitarians is, We do not profess to understand
what the distinction in the Godhead is; we approach
the definition of it only by negatives. How does our
case differ in principle from yours?
38
And in respect to the evidences of the Divine Unity
in the New Testament; I allow they are sufficient. But
I will merely suggest, here, that I am fully persuaded,
the passages asserting it are fewer in number, than the pas-
sages which assert or imply that Christ is truly divine. I
cannot but think the frequent and common assertions of
of your Sermon and of Unitarians in general, with re-
gard to this subject, are very erroneous; that they are
made at hazard, and without a diligent and faithful com-
parison of the number of texts that respect the divine
Unity in the New Testament, and those which concern
the divinity of the Saviour. After all; to what purpose
is it, that so great a multitude of texts should be requir-
ed, by those who believe, as you do, that the decisions
of the Scriptures are of divine authority? The decision
of one text, fairly made out by the laws of exegesis, is
as authoritative as that of a thousand. Would a law a
thousand times repeated, have any more authority at-
tached to it for the repetition ? It might be better ex-
plained by the repetition in different connexions; but its
authority is simply one and uniform.
But, to return from this digression; Suppose I should
affirm that the subjects A and B are numerically identi-
cal in regard to X, but diverse or distinct with regard to
Y P. I hope I shall not be subjected to the imputation,
of endeavoring to prove the doctrine of the Trinity by
the science of Algebra; for my only object in making
this statement is, to illustrate my answer to a very com-
mon question, which Unitarians put us; “How can three
be one, and one three ?” In no way, I answer, necessa-
rily and cheerfully. “How then is the doctrine of the
Trinity in Unity to be vindicated?” Just as well as
though these questions had never been devised. We do
39
not maintain that the Godhead is three in the same respects
that it is one, but the reverse. In regard to X, we main-
tain its numerical unity; in regard to Y we maintain a
threefold distinction; we maintain simply the fact that
there is such a distinction, on Scripture authority. We
do not profess to understand in what it consists.
Now, Sir, will you not allow that we have some rea-
son to complain, that from the time in which Tertullian
maintained the doctrine of the Trinity against Praxeas,
down to the present hour, the views and statements of
Trinitarians, in regard to this subject, should have been
so frequently misunderstood, or misrepresented P
I will dwell no longer on my statement of the doc-
trine of the Trinity, and of the difficulties that lie in
the way of proving this statement to be erroneous or
contradictory; except to mention, in a brief way, two of
the most formidable objections to it that I have seen,
which were adduced by two men, who must be reckon-
ed among the most intelligent, that have embraced the
cause of Unitarianism. The first is from Faustus Soci-
nus, and runs thus:
“No one is so stupid, as not to see that these things
are contradictory, that our God, the creator of heaven
and earth should be one only in number, and yet be three,
each of which is our God. For as to what they affirm,
that our God is one in number, in respect to his essence,
but threefold in regard to persons; here again they af.
firm things which are self-contradictory, since two, or
three persons cannot exist, where there is an individual
essence numerically one ; for to constitute more than one
person, more than one individual essence is required.
For what is person, but a certain individual, intelligent
essence 2 Or in what way, I pray, does one person diſ.
\
40
fer from another, unless by a diversity of individual es-
sence, or of that which is numerically one?—This im-
plies, that the divine essence, is numerically one only, yet
that there is more than one person; although the Di-
vine essence which is numerically one, and divine person
are altogether identical.” (Opp. tom. i. p. 697.)
Here, however, it is obvious that the whole weight
of the objection lies in an erroneous use of the words
person and essence. Socinus attaches to them a sense
which Trinitarians do not admit. How then can Trin-
itarians be charged with inconsistencies in propositions,
which propositions they never made P r
Of the same tenor with this, is the objection mention-
ed by the famous Toellner, (Theolog. Untersuchungen,
B. I. p. 29) which, to save the room, I shall merely
translate, without subjoining the original. “The most
considerable objection,” says he, “(against the doctrine
of the Trinity,) is this; that the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost are each a particular substance endowed with un-
derstanding; and at the same time, neither of them is
said to have his separate being, his separate understand-
* Nemo est tam stolidus, quinon videat, pugnare hac inter se,
illum Deum nostrum coeli terraeque creatorem esse unum tantum
in numero, et tamen tres esse, quorum unusquisque sit ille Deus nos-
ter. Nam quod aiunt, unum quidem esse numero Deum, sed ratione
essentiae, trinum vero ratione personarum; rursus hic Sibi invicem
repugnantia loquuntur, cum tres vel etiam duae personae esse neque-
ant, ubi est una tantum numero sive individua essentia, et ad plures
una persona constituendas plures etiam una individua essentia requi-
rantur. Nam quid aliud persona est, quam quaedam individua intelli-
gens essentia 7 Aut qua potissimum ratione diversa est persona alia
plicat Divinam essentiam unam tantum numero esse, non tamen unam
tantum esse divinam personam, sed plures, cum divina essentia nume-
ro una, et divina persona idem omnino reapse sint.
41
ing, his separate will, his separate power of action; but
all three together have but one being, one understand-
ing, one will, one power of action. As it appears then,
it is affirmed that there are three real beings truly sepa-
rate, each consequently having his own individual power
of action and not having it; three separate persons, and
three persons not separate.” !
All the difficulty, which this masterly writer, in his
usual way, has so strikingly represented, lies merely in
the representations of those Trinitarians, who have so
incautiously expressed themselves on this subject, as to
be understood as affirming, that there are three separate
beings, (persons in the common sense of the word,) in
the Godhead, with distinct powers, volitions, &c. Such,
(if there be any now, for I profess I do not know any,)
I leave to compose the difficulty with Toellner as they
can. I have only a single remark to make ; which is,
that the view of the doctrine of the Trinity given by
Toellner is not that which I have presented, or which I
should ever undertake to defend. Of course it cannot
be adduced as an objection, against the view which I
have given, and have undertaken to advocate.
The second objection appears, at first view, more
formidable and perplexing. It comes from Taylor, and
was inserted in the English Theological Magazine, Vol.
I. No. 4. p. III. (1770.) I have not opportunity of ac-
cess to the original, and take the ideas from a Latin trans-
lation of the piece, which was published in Germany.
“There can,” says Taylor, “be no real distinction
between the Father and the Son, unless they so differ
from each other, that what is peculiar to the Father, is
wanting in the Son; and what is peculiar to the Son, is
wanting in the Father. Now that property which be-
6
42
longs exclusively to the Father, or the Son, must be
numbered among the perfections of God; for in the di-
vine nature no imperfections can exist. It follows then,
that some perfection is lacking, both in the Father and
in the Son, so that neither is endowed with infinite per-
fection, which is essential to the divine nature. It must
be conceded then, that the essence of the Father and
the Son are not one and the same.”
Ingenious and specious as this is, still I am unable to
see that it settles the point in debate. The moral attri-
butes and perfections of God are numerically one, as we
have already admitted. If by perfection in the case
above, Taylor means all which belongs to the Godhead;
then l answer merely by saying, It is essential to the
perfection of the Godhead, that the distinction of Fa-
ther and Son should exist, and that destitute of this,
there would be imperfection. My right to make such
a statement is just the same as that of his in making the
assertion, that the distinction between Father and Son,
involved an imperfection in each. The very fact of Pa-
ternity, and Sonship, (not literal,) make up the perfec-
tion of the Father as Father; and of the Son as Son;
and did not these exist, something would be wanting to
complete the perfection of the Godhead. I acknowledge
this is assumption; but so is Taylor's statement: and an
argument which is built on one assumption may surely
be opposed by another.
My object thus far, in this letter, has been to com-
pare our views of the Trinity with those which you have
ascribed to us; and to show that we are not justly ex-
posed to be charged with gross and palpable absurdity,
or of “subverting the Unity of the Godhead;” and that
the question, after all, whether there is a distinction in
43
the Godhead, must be referred solely to the decision of
the Scriptures.
To them I shall appeal, as soon as I have made a few
remarks on the subject of the twofold nature, which we
ascribe to Christ. You say (p. 11.) “We (Unitarians)
believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We believe that
Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we
are, and equally distinct from the one God. We com-
plain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that not satisfied
with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ
two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our
conceptions of his character. This corruption of Chris-
tianity, alike repugnant to common sense, and to the gen-
eral strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the
power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple
truth of Jesus.”
You will admit that this is expressed in terms of
strong confidence, and with no small degree of severity.
Whether you have so clear a right to the first, and whe-
ther we are really deserving of the last, every lover of
the truth will permit to be brought to the test of exam-
ination.
I am not certain, that I have rightly apprehended
your meaning, when you say that the twofold nature of
Christ is “repugnant to common sense.” Do you mean,
that common sense may determine first, independently
of Revelation, that the doctrine cannot be true; and then
maintain the impossibility that Revelation should contain
it? If so, then surely we do not need a Revelation to
teach us truths, which we are altogether capable of de-
veloping and asserting without one; for you will easily
see, that in respect to any doctrine of Revelation what-
ever, every man might take the same liberty to decide,
44
that it could not be true, because he might aver, that it
was contradictory to common sense.
. The proper sphere of action for common sense, is
limited to judging of the evidences that the Bible is of
divine origin and authority; of the rules of exegesis
common to all languages and books; and finally in di.
recting a fair and impartial application of those rules to
determine what the original writer of any portion of the
Scriptures designed to inculcate. Having once admit-
ted, as you have, the divine authority of the Scriptures,
in deciding all questions, when you can fairly come at the
meaning of them, by using the common rules of interpre-
tation; how is it to be decided by common sense whether
Christ has two natures or one P Common sense may in-
vestigate the language of the inspired writers, and in-
quire what they have said ; and if by the sound rules of
interpretation, it should appear that they have affirmed
of Christ that he has two natures; or asserted that which
unavoidably leads to this conclusion; then it is either to
be believed, or the authority of the writers is to be cast
off Common sense must act on this latter ground, in re-
jecting any doctrine which, the language of Scripture
plainly teaches. To receive the Bible as a revelation
from God; and then to decide, a priori, what the Scrip-
tures can, and what they cannot contain; and to make
their language bend, until it conform with these deci-
sions; cannot surely be a proper part for any sincere
lover of truth and sober investigation.
In saying then, that the doctrine which teaches that
Christ has two natures is “repugnant to common sense,”
I presume you must mean, that the rules of exegesis, ap-
plied by common sense, lead unavoidably to the conclu-
sion that Christ has but one nature. If this be your
#
45
meaning, what I have to say in reply will be developed
in the course of my next letter.
In regard to the impossibility that Christ should
possess two natures, and the absurdity of such a suppo-
sition, I have not much to say. If the Scriptures are the
word of God, and do contain the doctrine in question, it
is neither impossible, nor absurd. Most certainly, if
it be a fact that Christ possesses two natures, it is a
fact with which natural religion has no concern; at least,
of which it has no knowledge. It can therefore decide
neither for, nor against it. It is purely a doctrine of
Revelation; and to Scripture only can we look for evi-
dences of it. If the doctrine be palpably absurd, and
contradictory to reason, and yet it is found in the Bible,
then reject the claims of the Bible to inspiration and
truth. But if the laws of interpretation do not permit
us to avoid the conclusion that it is found there; we can-
not, with any consistency, admit that the Scriptures are
of divine authority, and yet reject the doctrine.
How shall any man decide, a priori, that the doctrine
cannot he true P Can we limit the omniscient and om-
nipotent God, by saying that the Son cannot be so united
with the human nature, so “become flesh and dwell.
among us,” that we recognize and distinguish in this com-
plex being but one person, and therefore speak of but
one P If you ask me how such a union can be effected
between natures so infinitely diverse as the divine and
human; I answer, (as in the case of the distinction in
the Godhead,) I do not know how this is done; I do not
undertake to define wherein that union consists, nor how
it is effected. God cannot divest himself of his essential
perfections, i.e. he is immutably perfect; nor could the
human nature of Christ have been any more human
nature, if it had ceased to be subject to the infirmi-
46
ties, and sorrows, and affections of human nature, while
he dwelt among men. Whatever the union was then, it
neither destroyed, nor essentially changed either the di-
wine or human nature. *
Hence, at one time, Christ is represented as the Crea-
tor of the Universe; and at another, as a man of sorrows,
and of imperfect knowledge. (John i. 1–18.-Heb. i.
10—12–Luke ii. 52.) If both of these accounts are
true, he must, as it seems to me, be God omniscient and
omnipotent; and still a feeble man and of imperfect
knowledge. It is indeed impossible to reconcile these
two things, without the supposition of two natures. The
simple question then is ; Can they be joined, or united,
so that in speaking of them, we may say the person is
God or man; or we may call him by one title, (which
will leave us at liberty to understand as designated ei-
ther or both of these natures,) i. e. Christ P. On this sub-
ject, the religion of nature says nothing. Reason has
nothing to say: for how can we decide, a priori, as to the
possibility of that which is not self-contradictory?
One person, in the sense in which each of us is one,
Christ could not be. If you make God the soul, and Je-
sus of Nazareth the body of Christ, then you take away
his human nature, and you deny the imperfection of his
knowledge. But may not God have been, in a manner
altogether peculiar and mysterious, united to Jesus, with-
out developing his whole power in him, or necessarily
rendering him supremely perfect P In the act of crea-
tion, God does not put forth all his power; nor in preser-
vation, nor in sanctification; nor all his knowledge when
he inspires prophets and Apostles. Was it necessary
that he should exert it all, when in conjunction with the
human nature of Christ P In governing the world, from
day to day, God does not surely exhaust his omnipotence
47
or his wisdom. He employs only so much, as is necessa-
ry to accomplish the design which he has in view. In
his union with Jesus of Nazareth, the divine Logos could
not, of course, be necessitated to put forth all his energy,
or exhibit all his knowledge and wisdom, at once. Just
so much of it, and no more, was manifested, as was re-
quisite to constitute the character of an incarnate Medi-
ator and Redeemer. When necessary, power and au-
thority infinitely above human were displayed; when
otherwise, the human nature sympathized and suffered,
like that of other men.
Is this impossible for God? Is there anything here,
which if it should be found in the Bible, would be an ad-
equate reason for rejecting its claims to inspiration P For
my own part I cannot see the impossibility, or the ab-
surdity of such a thing. How shall we limit the Deity,
as to the ways in which he is to reveal himself to his
creatures 2
Why are we not as great a mystery to ourselves, as
we can find in the doctrine before us? We do not ap-
propriate the affections of our minds to our bodies; nor
those of our bodies to our minds. Each is separate and
distinct. Yet we refer either class to the whole man.
Abraham is dead; Abraham is living; are both equally
true. Abraham had a mortal and an immortal part;
both made one person. How is it a greater mystery, if
I say, Christ was God; and Christ was man. He had
a nature human and divine. One person indeed, in the
sense in which Abraham was, he is not. Nor is there
any created object, to which the union of Godhead with
humanity can be compared. But shall we deny the pos-
sibility of it on this account P Or shall we tax with ab-
surdity, that which is utterly beyond our reach to scan *
|
48
I shrink from such an undertaking, and place myself in
the attitude of listening to what the voice of revelation
may dictate, in regard to this. It becomes us here to do
this; to prostrate ourselves before the Father of Lights,
and say, Speak, Lord, for thy servants hear. Lord,
what wilt thou have us to believe!
You may indeed find fault with us, that we speak of
three persons in the Godhead, where there is but one na-
ture; and yet of but one person in Christ, where there
are two natures. I admit that it is an apparent incon-
sistency in the use of language; and sincerely regret that
it ever was adopted. Still, it is capable of some expla-
l nation. In the first case, person simply designates the
\ idea, that there is some real distinction in the Godhead,
! in opposition to the opinion that it is merely nominal.
. In the second, it designates Christ, as he appears to us
in the New Testament, clothed with a human body, and
yet acting (as we suppose,) not only as man, but as also
possessing divine power. We see the attributes of hu-
man nature, in such intimate conjunction with those of
the divine, that we cannot separate the agents; at least,
we know not where to draw the line of separation, be-
cause we do not know the manner in which the union is
effected, or continued. We speak therefore of one per-
son—i.e. one agent. And when we say that the two
natures of Christ are united in one person, we mean to
say that Divinity and humanity are brought into such a
connexion in this case, that we cannot separate them, so
as to make two distinct and separate agents. |
The present generation of Trinitarians, however, do
not feel responsible for the introduction of such technical
terms, in senses so variant from the common ideas at-
tached to them. They merely take them as they find
49
them. For my own part, I have no attachment to them;
I think them injudiciously chosen, and heartily wish they
Were by general consent entirely exploded. They cer-
tainly"serve, in most cases, merely to keep up the form
of words without definite ideas; and I fear, have been
the occasion of many disputes in the Church. The things
which are aimed at, by these terms, I would strenuously
retain; because I believe in the divine origin and authori-
ty of the Bible, and that its language, fairly interpreted,
does inculcate these things. And candor, on your part,
will certainly admit, that things only are worth any dis-
pute. Logomachy is too trifling for a lover of truth.
~<><><>-
LETTER. II.
Reverend and Dear Sir,
THUS far I have endeavoured to show, that the real
question at issue between us, in regard to a distinction in
the Godhead, and the divinity of the Saviour, cannot be
decided, independently of the Scriptures. There is no
such absurdity or inconsistency in either of these doc-
trines, as will justify us in rejecting them without inves-
tigation. The question whether they are true or not,
belongs entirely and purely to Revelation. If you admit
this; then the simple question between us is, what does
Revelation say?—We are agreed that the Bible is the
word of God; that whatever “Christ taught, either dur-
ing his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, is
of divine authority.” We are agreed in most things of
any importance, as to our principles of interpretation.
The principles by which all books are to be interpreted,
7
50
are those which apply to the interpretation of the Bible;
for the very plain reason which you have given, that
when God condescends to speak and write, it is accord-
ing to the established rules of human language. *What
better than an enigma would the Scriptures be, if such
were not the case ? An inspired interpreter would be as
necessary, as an inspired prophet or apostle was, first to
compose the books of Scripture.
From this great and fundamental principle of all in-
terpretation, it is easy to see, that the grammatical anal-
ysis of the words of any passage, i. e. an investigation of
their meaning in general, of their syntactical connexion,
of their idiom, of their relation to the context, and (of
course,) of their local meaning, must be the essential pro-
cess in determining the sense of any text or part of Scrip-
ture. These are the primary laws of interpretation in
all the Classics, and in all other books; laws which are
uniform, and which cannot be violated without at once
plunging into the dark and boundless field of conjectural
exegesis. Whatever aid I may get from other sources,
to throw light upon my text, it must be that which is
superadded to the explanation that these rules will aſ-
ford. These rules are founded simply in the fact, that
every writer wishes and expects to be understood by his
cotemporaries, and therefore uses language as they do.
We presume this of the sacred writers; and apply to
them, as to the Classics, (excepting we allow for He-
brew-Greek idiom in the New Testament,) the common
and universal rules of grammatical interpretation.
Admitting then the fundamental principles of gram-
matical interpretation, as the best and surest guide to
the sense of any writer; I can never supersede these by
the introduction of any principles, which I may suppose
51
or conjecture to have influenced this writer. I am not to
violate the obvious principles of grammatical interpreta-
tion, for the sake of saving any inconsistency, absurdity,
or contradiction, in any author; not even in any scriptu-
ral writer. * -
I must here explain myself, however, in order to
prevent mistake in regard to my meaning. The Scrip-
tures certainly stand on different ground, from that on
which any other book rests, in regard to their claims up-
on our belief, that they are a Revelation from God.
What other book can claim well authenticated miracles
for its support; or can exhibit prophetic declarations
that have been fulfilled ; or can glory in such a devel-
opment of the principles of piety and virtue—of love to
God, and benevolence and beneficence to men P Just in
proportion then, as these evidences influence my mind
to believe that the Bible is of divine origin, in the same
proportion it becomes improbable to me that this Bible
contains absurdities, errors, or contradictions. When
any apparent error or contradiction attracts my attention,
I hesitate to pronounce it such as it appears to be, be-
cause the evidences are so strong that the book is of di-
vine original, I must do violence to my convictions to ad-
mit that the same book contains either what is errone-
ous or contradictory. I am slow then, to admit in any
case such a sense to words in the Scriptures, as would
make passages speak either absurdity or contradiction,
But if there be any such; and after all the light which
I could gain, it should appear still to be a plain case, that
there is an error in the sacred text; then I must find a
different reading; or give up the passage; or renounce the
whole book. I may suspend an opinion while I live, as
to doubtful cases. My convictions respecting the nature
$2
and design of the Holy Scriptures; the imperfection of
my knowledge; diffidence in myself—demand that I
should act in this manner. But in any clear case; where
the meaning of a sacred writer, what he did originally
design to say, can be definitely and plainly made out by
the common laws of interpretation; and this meaning be
erroneous, or contradict some other passage; I have no
right to put a constructive sense upon the words, and do
violence to the passage to avoid any consequences, that
may follow. I cannot honestly do it. The same com-
mon sense and reason, which prescribe the laws of exe-
gesis, decide that the meaning of a writer must be that
which those laws determine it to be. Of course, if I put
a gloss upon any passage, which represents it as convey-
ing a different meaning from that which the laws of in-
terpretation would assign to it, I may deceive others; or
I may subserve the interests of party: but I violate the
reason which God has given me by such conduct, and act
a part dishonest, and unworthy of an inquirer after truth.
If the fundamental maxims of exegesis lead to the be-
lief, that a writer of the New Testament has contradict-
ed himself, or another sacred writer; then I must revert
at once to the question, Is the book divine P Can it be
so, if there is contradiction ? This question I may settle
(on my responsibility to God,) as I please. But I have
no right to violate the fundamental rules of language, by
forcing a meaning upon the writer to make him consist-
ent, which it is obvious, on the universal principles of
explaining language, he never had. In determining the
question whether the writers of the New Testament
were inspired, I must always, (in attending to the inter-
mal evidence of the books,) consider whether they have
contradicted each other. In determining this, the simple
53
rules of grammatical exegesis can never be violated. I
must read this book, as I do all other books. Then, if
there be contradiction, I reject its claims. If not, and I
think the whole evidence is sufficient, I admit them.
But at any subsequent period to this, when I have ad-
mitted them, I am at no liberty to aver, that the writers
never could have taught some particular principle, which
I dislike; and therefore do violence to the rules of gram-
matical interpretation, in order to explain away any prin-
ciple of this nature, which they seem to inculcate. My
simple inquiry must be, what sentiment does the language
of this or that passage, without violence or perversion of
rule, convey P. When this question is settled, (philologi-
cally not philosophically,) then I believe what is taught;
or else I reject the claim of divine authority. What
can my own theories and reasonings, as to absurdity or
the contrary in any particular doctrine, avail, in deter-
mining whether a writer of the New Testament has
taught this doctrine or not? My investigation must be
conducted independently of my philosophy, by my philol-
ogy. Then, (when I have obtained his meaning by the
simple and universal rules of expounding language,) f
choose the course that I must take ; I believe his asser-
tion, or reject his authority. 2.
If these be not sound and universal maxims of inter-
pretation, I confess myself a stranger to the whole sub-
ject; nor can I help thinking that you will accord with
me, at once, in the views that have been expressed.
Guided then by these principles, let us now come to
the investigation of a few passages in the New Testa-
ment, which concern the point of the divine nature of
Christ. I take this point, because you have dwelt most
upon it; and because, very obviously, when this is admit-
54
ted or rejected, no possible objection can be felt to ad-
mitting or rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity.
You will not require of me, however, to examine at
length every text of the New Testament, which I sup-
pose to have any connexion with the subject in question.
I must be permitted, in order to save time and patience,
to select only such texts, whose language appears to be
genuine, and above the condemnation of textual criti-
cism; such as appear to me to contain the best and most
decisive proof of the point in question. Believing the
New Testament to be of divine origin and authority,
you will permit me to add, that I cannot think the deci-
sion of any question depends on the number of times, in
which the terms of that decision are repeated.
I observe then,
I. The New Testament gives to Christ the appella-
tion of God, in such a manner, as that according to the
fair rules of interpretation only the Supreme God can
be meant.
A conspicuous passage in proof of this, I should find
in John i. 1–3. Ev apºſ nu 6 Aoyog, zal 6 Aoyog ºv
zºpog row Geov, xa, Osog nu 6 Aoyog. Oirog ny evapzn
"pog tow Geov. IIavva èt' avrov eyevero za zopig av-
vov sysveto ovºs év, 6 yeyowev. “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not
any thing made, that was made.” Verse 10, .... x0a 6
zoguo; 3i' autou eyevºto, “ and the world was made by
him.”
All known Manuscripts agree in the text here,
Griesbach has indeed recorded, that for 66eog there is
a conjectural reading, Geov; and that for zal Qeog, ºv
6 Aoyog, there is a conjectural reading of 680; av zai
55
ô Aoyog. The first of these conjectures was made by
Crellius; (Initium Evang. Johan, restauratum per L. M.
Artemonium, P. i. c. 1.) The reason of making such a
conjecture Crellius has given. “The greater Christ is,
compared with other gods, (the Father excepted,) the
less can he be expressly called God, lest he should be tak-
en for the supreme God the Father.” And again; “If he
(Christ,) had been expressly called God by the sacred
writers, and had not always been distinguished from God,
the sacred writers would have given an occasion for unskil-
ful men, to regard him as the Supreme God.” (Init. Evang.
Johan. p. 295.) To liberate John from being taxed with
this imprudence, Crellius proposed to substitute Geov for
6sog, in John i. 1. ; so as to say, the Logos was of God,
instead of saying, as John has done, that He was God.
The second conjectural reading is supported by equal
authority. Bahrdt, (in Neuesten Offenbarungen,) pro-
posed it as a happy expedient, to relieve the text from
the difficulty and embarrassment, under which it now
appeared to labour.
I have a great regard for the labours and learning of
Griesbach; but I am constrained to ask here, why should
he have condescended to notice conjectures so gratui-
tous, and unfounded (not to say improbable,) as these ?
I proceed to the explanation of the text. Ev apwº,
corresponds exactly with the Hebrew nºvkº, Gen. i. 1.
I cannot embrace the opinion of those critics who think
that the phrase evap2% of itself simply, signifies from
eternity. Although I believe that the Logos did exist
from eternity, I do not think it is proved directly by this
expression. (Compare Gen. i. 1.) That existence from
eternity is implied, however, may be properly admitted.
By apx" is equivalent to evapº 200gov, in the begin-
ning of the world, i.e. before the world was made; and
56
$3'
|
so agreeing in sense with the phrase John xvii. 5, “the
glory that I had with thee before the world was ;” and
Eph. i. 4., “before the foundation of the world.” To
say with Crellius, that by apx" is meant the commence-
ment of preaching the gospel, or the beginning of Christian
instruction, would be making John gravely tell us, that
before the Logos preached the gospel, he had an exist-
€I]C6.
Before the world was created then, the Logos exist-
ed. Who or what was this Logos ? A person; or an
attribute of God? A real agent; or only the wisdom,
or reason, or power of God?
It is of no importance in settling this question, that
we should know with certainty, whence John derived
the appellation, Logos. The most probable reason, in
my mind, is, that this appellation is bestowed on Christ
in reference to his becoming the Instructer, or Teacher
of mankind; the medium of communication between
God and them. Be-this however, as it may; the Lo-
gos appears to be a person, and not merely an attribute,
For first, the attributes of God are no where else per-
sonified, by the New Testament writers; i. e. the usage
of the New Testament writers is against this. Secondly,
As Logos can properly mean here only wisdom and word,
(if considered as an abstract term, or designating an at-
tribute merely.) I cannot perceive how the wisdom of
God, or the word (in the abstract sense) of God, “be-
came flesh and dwelt among us,” v. 14. ; or why John
should select either the wisdom or word of God, as any
more concerned with the incarnation, v. 14, than the be-
nevolence of God, or the mercy of God, which one might
suppose would be the attributes of God more specially
displayed in the incarnation. Thirdly, If Logos mean
\
57
here the power of God, as many assert, the exposition
is attended with the same difficulties. Fourthly, If it
mean, as others aver, the power of God putting itself
forth, i. e. in creation, it is liable to the same objections.
In short, make it any attribute of God thus personified,
and you introduce a mode of writing which the N. Tes-
tament no where else displays; and which even the Old
Testament exhibits but once, Prov. viii.; and this in po-
etry of the most animated and exalted nature.
Yet this is not the chief difficulty. To what class
of men could John address the affirmation, that the Lo-
gos, (wisdom, word, or power of God) was “with God?”
Where did these singular heretics suppose the power of
God was, except with him 2 or where, his wisdom or
his word? And a singular pertinacity too, in their strange
opinion they must have had, to induce the Apostle to
repeat with emphasis in the second verse, that this Lo-
gos was with God. What would be said of a man, who
should gravely assert, that “the power of Peter is with
Peter; or his wisdom; or his word?” Suppose he should
add, “ The power or wisdom of Peter, is Peter;” with
what class of mystics should we rank him 2 Yet John ;
adds; The Logos was God.
Until then some heretics can be discovered of the
apostolic age, who maintained that the attributes of God
were not with him, I cannot explain how the apostle could
assert twice, successively and emphatically, that they were
with him. Equally difficult is it for me to divine, how he
could say that any attribute, (power, or wisdom,) was
God; understanding the word God in any sense you
please. If it mean Supreme God; then it reduces itself
to this, either that one attribute is the supreme God; or
that there are as many Gods as attributes. If it mean.
Y.
i
ºr
i
f
8 *
58
an inferior God, then the wisdom of God being an infe-
rior God, supposes that his other attributes are superior
ones; or else that his wisdom is exalted to the place of
quasi God, while his other attributes occupy a lower
place.
If it should however be said, that the supposition of
there having been a sect of heretics, who held that the
attributes of God were not with him, is not necessary to
justify the apostle for having penned the first verse of
his gospel; but that we may regard this verse as writ-
ten simply for general instruction: then I would ask,
whether a revelation from heaven is necessary to in-
struct us, that the attributes of being are with that being ;
or what can be thought of the power of God being God
himself?
Proceed we to the second clause ; Kat à Woyos ºv
zºpog row Geov; and the Logos was with God; i. e. as all
agree, with God the Father. Compare verses 14 and
18; also chap. xvii., 5, and I John, i. 1, 2, which make
the point clear. Is this expression capable of any tole-
rable interpretation, without supposing that the Logos,
who was with God, was in some respect or other, differ-
ent, or diverse from that God with whom he was 2 This
Logos was the same that became incarnate, ver. 14.,
that made the most perfect revelation of the will and
character of God to men, ver, 18., and was called Christ.
He was therefore, in some respect diverse from the
Father, and by no means to be confounded with him.
Kat Geog nu 6 Åoyog; And the Logos was God. It
has been proposed, (in Impr. Vers, of N. Test.) to ren-
der the word 650g, a god. Does then the Christian Re-
velation admit of Gods superior and inferior P Or to
what class of inferior gods does the Logos belong P And
*.
59
how much would such a theory of divine natures differ
from that which admits a J upiter Optimus, Maximus, and
Dii majores et minores 2
But it is said, that “Geog is destitute of the article, and
therefore cannot designate the divine Being, who is Su-
preme.” This observation, however, is very far from be-
ing justified, either by the usage of the sacred writers,
or the principles of Greek syntax. Among instances
where the Supreme God is certainly designated and yet
the article is omitted, the inquirer may consult the very
chapter in question, ver, 6, 13, 18; also, Matt. xix. 26.—
Luke xvi. 13.—John ix. 33.——xvi. 30.-Rom. viii. 8.--
I Cor. i. 3.−Gal. i. 1–Ephes. ii. 8.-Heb. ix. 14. Be-
sides; every reader of Greek knows, that where the
subject of a proposition, (in this case 6 Woyogi) has the
article, the predicate (Osog,) omits it. Such is Greek
usage; and from this dissent only propositions of a re-
ciprocating or convertible nature; as in ver, 4, of the
chapter in question. It may be added too, that if the
writer had said, Kal & Żoyog ny à Geog; it would have
conveyed a very different sense from the proposition as
it now stands. He would then have said, The Logos is
the God, with whom he is ; whereas I understand 680g
here to mean the divine nature, simply considered, for
which it so often stands in other places.
I readily acknowledge, that affirmative evidence of
the somewhat diverse meaning of 680g here cannot be
drawn from the word itself; but must be deduced from
the circumstances of the affirmation, united with the Sup-
position that John did assert, and did mean to assert,
something that is intelligible. There is indeed no diffi-
culty, in taking Geog (God) in the same sense in both
clauses. To interpret the verse thus, would represent
|
60' /
John as saying, that while Christ was God, or truly di-
vine; there was, at the same time, a sense in which he
was with God. Now, how can this be understood as
making any possible sense, unless a distinction in the God-
head be admitted; viz. that the Father is not in all re-
spects the Son P ". • ‘. &
But, separately from objections which an opponent
might feel to understanding the word God here, in a sense
somewhat diverse in the two clauses; I should have no
hesitation in so doing. Every word takes a sense adapt-
ed to its connexion. Such is the rule which must be a-
dopted, after we have once conceded that a writer uses
words with propriety, and designs to be understood. So,
when our Saviour says, “Let the dead bury their dead;”
the connexion requires us to explain it thus; ‘Let those
who are morally or spiritually dead bury those who are
corporeally so.” It were easy to accumulate examples,
where the very same word, in the very same verse, has
two different shades of sense. The exigency of the pas-
sage, (ewigentia loci,) is the rule of interpretation which
guides us here. *
I understand John then, as affirming that the Logos
was God, and yet was with God; viz. that he was tru-
fly divine, but still divine in such a manner, that there
idid exist a distinction between him and the Father.
H take God in one case to mean, (as in a great number
of cases it does mean.) God as Father; in the other case
(which is equally common,) as a description of divine na-
ture, of the divinity, without reference to the distinc-
tion of Father, ^. -
Least of all, have those a right to object to this, who
here make the meaning of God, in the second instance,
to be infinitely different from its meaning in the first in-
6].
stance; understanding by one, a created, or derived and
finite being; by the other the self existent, independent,
and infinite God. e
If you ask now, What could be the object of John in
asserting that the Logos was with God? I answer, that
the phrase to be with one, (sival ºpog tuva,) indicates
conjunction, communion, familiarity, society. See Mark ix.
19. Compare too John i. 18, where the only begotten
Son is said to be “in the bosom, (eig vov ×ownov,) of the
Father;” which is a phrase of similar import.
To illustrate the meaning of the phrase to be with
God, it is useful also to compare those cases, where
Christians are promised as the summit of their felicity,
that they shall be with God, and Christ, and be where
they are. See among other passages, John xiv. 2, 3–
xii. 26.-xvii. 24.—1 Thess. iv. 17. Compare Rom. viii.
17–2 Tim. ii. 11, 12–Colos. iii. 1–4.
In John xvii. 5, Christ speaks of that “glory, which
he had with the Father, before the world was.” From
all these passages taken together, it would seem that the
phrase of the Logos being with God, amounts to asserting
that he was conjunctissimus Deo, most intimately connected
with him. If you ask me, how? I answer freely that I
cannot tell. The Evangelist has asserted the fact, but
has not added one word to explain the modus. If I could
;
explain it; then I could define the distinction that I be-
lieve to exist in the Godhead. f
But why should John assert such a connexion? . In
opposition, I answer to those in early times, who assert-
ed that Christ was a being not only distinct from God,
but an emanation from him 2 And why should he assert
at the same time that the Logos was God 2—In opposi-
sition, as I must think, to the same persons, who strenu-
ously denied his Divinity.
62
But does the Evangelist mean here, to assert of the
Logos that he is God in the true and supreme sense, or
not ? This is the fundamental question between us. The
probability drawn from the New Testament usage of the
ſword Osog, (which no were else employs 680; simply and
singly, except to designate the Supreme God,) must be
admitted strongly to favour the idea, that Christ is as-
serted to be divine. I readily allow that the word God
has various applications, in the Old Testament; that it
is applied, (though only in the plural number) to magis-
trates; that it is used to designate those who stand, as it
were, in the place of God for a time, as Moses was to
be for a god to Pharoah, (Exod. vii. 1;) and instead of
God to Aaron, (Exod. iv. 16.) But it is not possible to
mistake any instances of this nature. The adjuncts, or
context, always guard effectually against mistake. Men,
or inferior beings are never called God, or gods simply.
We read of a “god to Pharaoh,”—and “I have said ye
are gods, but ye shall die like men ; the god of Ekron;
the god of the Ammonites, the gods of the heathen, &c.”
Is a mistake possible here 2–But the Logos is called
God simply. Nor is this all. Even admitting that the
name determined nothing, (and for sake of argument H
am willing to admit it;) yet the writer has added expla-
nations of his meaning, which seem to place it beyond
the reach of fair debate, what he intended to assert by
the expression in question.
IIavra. 8t’ avrov eyevero za zºopls avrov eyevsto ovºs
§v, 6 yeyovev. . . . . . 6 xoquo; 8t’ avrov eyevero. “All
things were [made, by him; and without him was noth-
ing [made, which was [made]. The world was [made]
by him.”
I have excluded the word made, by placing it in
63.
brackets, merely to show that the sense is in no wise chan-
ged, if we listen to those critics, who tell us that eyevero
never means made, and render the passage accordingly,
But nothing can be farther from correctness, than such
an assertion, respecting sysveto. Accordingly noted and
yivouat are used as synonymes; as in James iii. 9. Com-
pare Gen. i. 26 in the Septuagint.—Gen. ii.4—Is. xlviii.7;
and the cases where yuvouai means to make, or produce,
are so numerous and obvious, that a moment's delay
in respect to this part of the subject would be useless.
Schleusner's Lexicon, under the word yivoual, will fur-
nish adequate proof. If not; read the commentary of
Theodoret on the two first chapters of Genesis; which
places the question beyond debate. * .
But what are the to 7tavro. (the universe) which the
Logos made, or caused ? “The moral world—the Chris-
tian church;” answers Faustus Socinus. But in the way
of this, lie two difficulties: the first, that a part of these
to 7tavra are (verse 10) represented as xoduog, the world;
a term never applied to the Christian church, in the New
Testament, nor to men as morally emended by the gos-,
pel: the second, that this very world (xoduos) which he
created, avrov ovz eyvo, Did not know, or acknowledge \
him ; whereas the distinguishing trait of Christians is,
that they know Christ ; that they know the only true God, ;
and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. . .
The to 7tavva then, which the Logos created, means,
(as common usage, and the exigency of the passage re-
quire,) the universe; the worlds material and immaterial;
(ver. 10). Here consequently is a passage, in which be-
yond all reasonable doubt, Christ is called God; and
where the context, instead of furnishing us with reasons
(as is usual, when the term is applied to inferior beings,)
for understanding this word in the inferior sense, has di-
64
§
;
;
rectly and unequivocally taught us that this Geog, (God),
who was Logos, did create the universe. The question
then is reduced simply to this state; viz. Whether he,
who created the Universe, is truly and properly divine 2
On this question I shall make a few remarks, when I
have considered some other passages, which ascribe cre-
ation to Christ. -
Heb. i. 10–12. Kow Xu xat' apwag, zupts, rnvynv
effeueºlógag, zoº spya row zepov gov elow oi oupovot. Av-
to anowovvval, ov 8s 3iousveig zal wavre; & inartov
wawaloºngovr&l, zal jost 7tspiffožatov ŠWičeig avrovg, zoº
aWWayngowra ov 3s 6 avros et, xa, ro, Ern cov ovz ex-
Welkovot. “And Thou, Lord, in the beginning has laid
the foundation of the earth ; and the heavens are the
works of thine hands: they shall perish, but thou re-
mainest; and they shall wax old as doth a garment; and
as a vesture shalf thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not
fail.” - - * *
These words are spoken of the Son of God, being
intimately connected by the conjunction (xxi) with ver.
8, where it is written, “But unto the Son he saith,” &c.
According to the laws of grammar, and most clearly a C-
cording to the nature and design of the Apostle's argu-
ment, the ellipsis to be supplied after xot (and,) in the
beginning of the tenth verse, is, “And [to the Son he
saith, Thou, Lord,” &c. No other connexion or exposi-
tion can be pointed out, which does not make a violent
divulsion of the passage, from the chain and connexion of
the writer's argument. - - -
The question still remains; What is meant by found-
ing the earth, and the heavens being the work of Christ's
hands?" Compare now the passages, in which Jehovah
is said to have founded the earth, and in which the cre-
65
ation of it is indubitably meant. They may be found, in
Ps. xxiv. 2—lxxxix. 11—civ. 5—cxix. 90—Job xxxviii. 4.
Prov. iii. 19–Is. xlviii. 13—li. 13.—Zech. 12. 1; where if
you inspect the Septuagint, you will see the very verb
Seus%to employed, which the apostle uses in our text.
In regard to the “heavens being the work of Christ's
hands;” it is an expression plainly equivalent to the
other, and signifies the work of creation. Thus, Ps. viii.
4, 6; “When I consider the heavens, the work of thy
hands ;” which is a parallel with, “The moon and stars
which thou hast ordained,” (Septuagint, 80sw8%tooag.)
So in verse 6th; “And hast placed him over the work of
thy hands; All things hast thou put under his feet;” i.e.
placed him over the creation.
To settle the meaning of the phrase creating the hea-
vens and the earth, (i.e. to show that it means creating all
things,) compare Gen. i. 1–Ex. xx. 11—xxxi. 17—Neh.
ix.6—Ps. cxxi. 2—cxxiv. 8—cxxxiv. 3, and many other
places that a Concordance will supply.
It will be remembered, that the passage in question,
(Heb. i.10–12,) is a quotation from the Old Testament;
and that to quote the language of the Old Testament,
therefore, in order to explain it, is peculiarly appropri-
ate and necessary. -
Could any one, unembarrassed by peculiarity of sys-
tem, ever suspect that founding the carth, and the heavens
being the work of his hands, could mean any thing less
than the creation of the universe 2 Yet we have been \
told by some distinguished Unitarians, that the heavens
mean the Christian state or dispensation, and the earth
the Jewish one. But first, this is against the usage of
the language, either in the Old or New Testament;
there being nothing to support such a sense of it. Isaiah
9
66
indeed speaks of creating a NEw heaven, and a NEw earth,
(lxv. 17) and of planting the heavens and the earth, (li. 16.)
in a moral sense; i. e. making a moral change or creation.
But then the language itself in the first case indicates,
of course, that the old creation is Not meant; and in the
second case, the context makes it as clear, what kind of
heaven and earth is to be planted or established; name-
ly, the Jewish church and state is to be renewed and es-
tablished. The meaning assigned then by the Unitarians
in question to the passage in Heb. i., is against the plain
and perpetual usage of the Scriptures, wherever such
expressions occur in an unlimited form, as they do in the
passage under examination. -- -
But secondly; if the Jewish and Christian states are
meant here, in what sense are they to wax old as a gar-
ment, and to be changed 2 Of the Jewish state, this
might without much difficulty be affirmed. But how the
Christian dispensation is to be changed; how that “king-
dom, which shall have No end,” (Luke i. 33,) is to “per-
ish;” is what I am unable to explain. Cº. -
“It is a moral creation,” says Artemonius (i. e. Crel-
lius, Init. Evang. Johan.,) “ of which Christ is the au-
thor.” This however does not explain the matter; for
how is it that the moral creation of Christ is to perish—
and be changed, i.e. annihilated 2 Most obviously, his
moral creation is to be eternal. *
Another method of explaining this subject has been,
to aver that the passage quoted here by the apostle, in
the original (Ps. cii. 25–27) is plainly applicable to Je-
hovah only; and that none would conjecture, from the
perusal of this Psalm, that Christ could be meant.
Conceding this, (and it would be difficult not to concede
it.) what is the consequence P. Either that the apostle
67
has applied directly and without qualification to Christ,
language used by an inspired writer of the Old Testa-
ment to designate the Creator of the world, with his
eternal and immutable nature; or that he has, (in a most
singular way indeed for a man of piety and honesty,) ac-
commodated language descriptive of the infinite Jehovah,
to a created and dependent being. The word xupts ,
(Lord) in the Greek, corresponds to the word Jeho-
vah in the original Hebrew ; the Septuagint having \ .
commonly rendered it in this manner. And though nin'
(Jehovah) is not in the Hebrew text, (Ps. cii. 26,) yet it
is undoubtedly understood there, as the Nom. to “thou
hast founded;” which is evident from the preceding con- |
text. Christ then is called by the Apostle here, Jehovah ; } {
and eternity, immutability, and the creation of the universe *
are ascribed to him.* * > -
I cannot think that the paraphrase of Grotius, on
the passage in question, deserves a serious refutation.
“Thou wast the cause,” says he, “that the earth was
founded, and on thy account the heavens were made.”
If this be not a different thing from what the language
of the apostle naturally means, or can mean, I confess, I
:
}
à'
* I readily admit, that zveto; is not always synonymous with Jeho-
vah. But in passages selected from the Old Testament, in which pas-
sages the word Jehovah is there used, zvpies stands in the Septuagint
and in the New Testament as the translation of it. Therefore zvetag
in the New Testament must of course, in such cases, have the same
meaning as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The reason why zveto; is
used by the New Testament writers, as the translation of Jehovah in the
Hebrew Scriptures, is, that the Jews in reading their sacred writings,
were not accustomed to pronounce the word Jehovah (nin') but read,
for the most part, ºns, Lord, zupies, in the room of it. This custom
is at least as old as the Septuagint Version, which translates Tin" by
zvetos, and thus exhibits proof, that the modern custom of reading its
for nin' was then religiously observed. -
68
know not any bounds which may be set to paraphrastic
and mystical exegesis. Suppose now the Gnostics, who
maintained that evil demons and not Jehovah created
the world, should have paraphrased the first verse in
Genesis, in exactly the same manner; “Thou Jehovah
wast the cause, why the heavens and the earth were
created:” and when asked how this could be, they should
have replied, “out of enmity to thee the evil demons
brought this matter into existence;” then they would
have had an argument to take away the creatorship of
Jehovah, exactly like that by which Grotius intends to
remove the evidence of Christ's divinity.
Col. i. 15–17. Og gotiv Eixov vov Stov row aopatov,
zipovorozog taong xvideos ºr ev avrò exploſin ra 7tavra,
ro, ev rols ovpavog zai to eru tºgyng, to Öpara zoºl to ao-
para, elve Spovot, elve zvptown reg, give apxat, stre ešovo-
at va wavra. Öt’ avrov xa, eig avrov extoral zal av-
zog sort "po wavrov, xa, to wavva ev ovrº ovvedºnze"
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the head of all
creation; for by him were all things created, both ce-
lestial and terrestrial, visible and invisible, of whatever
order or grade they are ; all things were created by
him and for him. Therefore he was before all things,
and by him are all things sustained.”
The places in which I have departed from our.com-
mon version, are not differently rendered in order to
make them favor the cause which I have espoused; for
they determine nothing respecting the point now at is-
sue. They are rendered as above, merely to make the
meaning of the passage, in general, as plain as the nature .
of the case will permit.
Because Christ is said, verse 20, “ to reconcile
(xatawāoša) all things unto himself,” which is explain-
ed to be “things in heaven, and things on earth;” and
69
afterwards is represented as breaking down the wall of
partition between Jews and Gentiles; some ingenious
commentators have supposed that “things in heaven,
and things on earth” mean Jews and Gentiles. How
very unnatural this explanation is, every one who reads
the passage unbiassed, it seems to me, cannot help feel-
ing. And in what tolerable sense, can the Jews and
Gentiles be called “things visible and invisible P’ And
what are the various orders and ranks in these two class-
es? By “reconciling things in heaven and things on
earth,” seems to be meant, bringing into union, (by a new
and special bond of intercommunication,) under one great
head, i. e. Christ, both angels and men. In like manner
on earth, the two great parties, Jews and Gentiles, are
united together. But why Christ should be called “the
image of the invisible God,” and the “head ("pototoxos)
of all creation,” because he is the instrument of bringing
Jews and Gentiles together merely, is not apparent to
me. But when you understand the words of the apostle,
as describing the creation of the world celestial, and ter-
restrial, (6 ovgovol xxt #yn, comp. Heb. i. 10–12.) and
ascribing it to Christ; then you find sufficient reason, for
designating him by the exalted appellations in question.
A moral creation has also been affirmed to be the
creation, here ascribed to Christ. But the words in
such a connexion and with such adjuncts, are no where
else used in this sense. Moreover, in what sense has
the móral creation by Christ affected the angels? The
good ones needed no repentance or pardon; the bad
ones have never sought or obtained either.
I must therefore, until I see different light shed
over the passage in question, regard it as very clearly
ascribing creation to Christ.
70
But you will say, perhaps, that in John i. 3, “All
things are said to be made 3a Xplorov, by Christ, as
the instrumental, not the principal cause; the preposi-
tion Aſo denoting such cause. In Col. i. 16, all things in
like manner are said to have been created by Christ,
(8” avrov;) and in Heb. i. 2, God is said to have cre-
ated the worlds by his Son; Aſo. 6v (sc. ilov) waſ rous al-
Ovoºg 87.01708. ...”
The allegation however, that Ala does not designate
the principal cause as well as the instrumental, can by Il O
means be supported. In Romans xi. 36, “All things are
said to be of God, (s; avrov ;) and by God, (6' avtov ;)
the very form of Expression applied to Christ, in Colos.
i. 16—20. So Heb. ii. 10; “For it became him, (God,
the Father,) &’ Öv, for whom are all things, and by
whom (8t' ov) are all things,” &c. 1 Cor. i. 9; “God
is faithful, by whom (3i'oï) ye were called into the fel-
lowship of his Son,” &c. Moreover, ex and bia are
sometimes interchanged as equivalents or synonymes.
See Romans i. 30. So also ev and 8ta, Col. i. 16; ra
wavva ev ovvy exploſin and 3’ avrov Exviorat; i. e. e.v and
8ta are used as of the same import. See Schleusner's
Lex, in voc. 81a.
The difficulty remaining is, to explain the phrase,
“ by whom (3i'oi) he, the Father, made the worlds;”
Heb. i. 2. The apostle has added sufficient in verses
10–12, as it would seem, to prevent mistake here. If
however, the difficulty seem to press still, it may be
compared to Hosea i. 7; “I (Jehovah) will have mercy
upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehova,
ninº.” Is the second Jehovah, the instrumental cause
in this case; or belongs the whole merely to form of
expression ? Still, may not the apostle design to as-
71
sert, that the Godhead in respect to the distinction of
Son, was in a special manner concerned with the creation of
the worlds? What is there impossible, or improbable
in this 2 ... "
From the passages of Scripture thus far considered,
it appears plain, that the apostles have ascribed the
creation of the universe to Christ. And now we come,
in order, to the consideration of the simple question, !)
whether he who created the world is really and truly
divine P -
First then, let me ask; If the act of creation does not
designate the being, who effects it, to be omniscient, om-
nipotent, and independent; then is it possible for me
to conceive of any thing, which does or can designate a
Divine Being 2 To bring this world into existence from
nothing; to establish such perfect harmony and design
through all the operations of nature; to set in motion
unnumbered worlds and systems of worlds, and all in the
most perfect harmony and order, requires more intelli-
gence, more power, and more wisdom, than ever belong-
ed to any finite being. And if these things do not char-
acterise the infinite Being, then no proof can be adduced
that such a Being exists. -
It is in vain to tell me here, that the creation of the
universe can be performed by delegation ; by an inferior
and subordinate Being. What can be meant by omnip-
otence, omniscience, and infinite wisdom, (all of which
are visibly necessary in a Creator,) being delegated 2 Can
God delegate his perfections? If so, then the Gnostics,
in arguing with you, might every where assert, that the
God of the Jews created the world only by delegation;
that he was not therefore the Supreme God. Your re-
ply would be—Is then the act of creating the Universe
72
%
$
}l;
|
one which any finite or secondary being can perform *
If this do not designate the absolute, supreme, omnipo-
tent, and omniscient Being; then no proof that such a
Being exists can possibly be adduced. . . . .
Our reply to you then, shall be in the very words
that you would use, in disputing with a Gnostic. , Christ
is the CREATOR; and Christ must therefore be God.
Accordingly, the Bible every where appeals to crea-
tive power, as the peculiar and pre-eminent attribute of
the Supreme God; and attributes it solely to Jehovah.
Read, for instance, Gen. ii. 2, 3—Ex. xx. 11—Is. xliv. 24
—Jer. x. 12—Ps. viii. 3, 4—cii. 25, and innumerable other
places. Read Isaiah xl., and onward, where God by his
prophet makes a most solemn challenge to all polythe-
ists, to bring the objects of their worship into competition
with him; and designates himself as distinguished from
them all, by his being “ the Creator of the ends of the
earth,” (v. 28;) and by his having formed and arranged
the heavens, (y. 26.) So in Psalm xix., the heavens are
appealed to as exhibiting his glory, and the firmament as
displaying the work of his hands; i.e. as affording evi-
dence that he only could have formed them. Need I
say, that the Old Testament is filled with passages which
ascribe the work of creation to Jehovah alone P. Who
does not find them every where intermixed, in the most
delightful and affecting manner, with all the instructions
of the sacred Hebrew writers ? t - t
.Now if a subordinate agent, a finite spirit, did create
the universe; why should all the instructions of the Old
Testament be so framed, as inevitably to lead the Jew-
ish nation to disbelieve and reject this fact P Specially
so, as the Jews were so very strongly inclined to poly-
theism; and such a doctrine would have been very
73
agreeable to their notion of things? And why, after a
lapse of so many centuries, should the writers of the New l
Testament overturn all that the Hebrew Scriptures had \
taught on this subject, and lead men to admit, that aft-
nite being could and did create the world P. Most of all;
how could Paul say, (Rom. i. 20,) that the heathen were
without excuse, for not acknowledging the eternal power
and godhead of the Divinity from the bare evidence,
which his CREATING power afforded; from considering
the THINGS THAT webE MADE 2 -*
And is this truth, that the Deity possesses eternal
power and godhead, so plain then, and so easily deduced
from CRFATING ENERGY, that the very heathen are desti-
tute of all excuse, who do not see and admit it; and yet
is it an object of Christianity to bring us back towards the
very polytheism, on account of which the apostle condem-
ned them 2 To bring us to worship the creature, as the
CREATOR P Does Christianity contradict a fundamental
truth of natural religion ? And after reading such a pas-
sage in Paul; can it be possible to suppose, that he ascrib-
ed the creation of the world to any but the true God only?
Read Acts xvii. 23–26, and compare John i. 1–3, & 10;
—Heb. i. 10—12; Colos. i. 15–17; then say, Is it possi-
ble to admit the rules of interpretation, which you have
laid down, and not admit that the apostles meant to as-
sert, that Christ is the Creator of the Universe?—And
if so; is it possible to deny that he is truly divine P
It were easy to produce more passages, which ascribe
the same works to Christ as to God; (as John v. 17—23.
—xiv. 9, 10.) But as the vindication of these would
swell these letters beyond their proper length, I shall
not enter into the discussion of them at present. I am
not anxious to increase the number of witnesses; for
10
'74
acknowledging the New Testament to be of divine au-
thority, I consider whatever it plainly declares once, to
be the truth. The relevancy and plainness of the tes-
timony therefore, is more the object of my solicitude
than the number of witnesses: a point, I may add, in
which many, who have defended our sentiments, have
greatly erred. - . . .
I proceed therefore, to other texts of Scripture in
which Christ is declared to be God.
Rom. ix. 5. Qv oi worsps;, xa, et év 6 Xplorog, ro
zaro, gapza, 6 overti tavrov Osog evåoynrog eig roug al-
ſovo.g. 'Aunv. “Whose are the Fathers; and from whom
in respect to the flesh (his human nature) Christ [des-
cended] who is the supreme God, blessed forever,Amen.”
In regard to this text, it may be remarked, first, that
although Griesbach has filled his margin with conjectu-
ral and other readings, he attributes no considerable
weight to any of them; for all the Manuscripts of the
Epistle to the Romans, which have been collated, con-
tain the text as it stands ; as do all the ancient Versions,
and nearly all the Fathers. -
In rendering to xara Gapra, in respect to his human
nature, I feel supported by corresponding passages, in
Rom. i. 3—Acts i. 30. And that 6 overw wavrov Geog
evãoynto; sts roug alſovog, is literally translated, who is
supreme God, blessed forever, may be shown in various
ways. O ov is here put as is common (see John i.18—iii.
13–2 Cor. ii. 31) for Ög sort, who is. The ground of this
lies simply in the nature of Greek usage. Whenever 6
is used for Ös, the participle ov is used with 6, instead of
the Werb which ës takes. Thus 6 ov; but ág sort, in-
variably. + r . ' - .
Bºw wavrov Geog is literally, “over-all God,” i. e. su-
75
preme God. Compare now with the phrase here, the
word wavra (all) as used in Col. i. 17—Eph. i. 19–23–
John iii. 31—1 Cor. xy. 27, and in respect to Christ.
Most clearly it points him out as the head, or ruler of
the universe. What then can ent 7tavrov Geog mean,
but supreme God 2
But on no text has greater pains been bestowed, to
devise an unusual construction and meaning for it. Sch-
lichting proposed to transpose 6 ov, and read Öv 6; i. e.
of whom (the Jewish Fathers) is God, blessed forever.
But as in this very Epistle, the apostle has laboured to
prove that God belongs as well to the Gentiles as the
Jews, (ch. iii. 29,) this expidient would seem to impeach
the apostle's consistency as well as violate the text. Nor
would the Greek itself, as emended by Schlichting's
conjecture, be in any measure accordant with the idiom
of that language. If Osog has the article, (and his trans-
position makes it 6 630s,) then svāoynrog must of neces-
sity have it too; inasmuch as an adjective following a
noun with an article, and agreeing with it, of necessity
takes the article. - *- * .
Wetstein's conjecture, that it should be read 6 ov, 6
era wavrov Osog, is not any more fortunate. Such in-
stances as 6 ov č, all relating to the same subject are
contrary to the usage of the Greek language. Besides;
this conjecture, like that of Schlichting, not only violates
the integrity of the text, but gives to Osog the article,
and omits it before evåoyºtog: which cannot at all be
admitted. $. .
Enough of amending the Apostle's words, without
the authority of a single Manuscript or Version. Criti-
cal acumen has also employed itself in dividing and trans-
lating the verse in question, in a manner different from
76
that in the common Version. The late Professor Justi,
at Marpurg, a man of great acuteness and fine taste, un-
dertook the defense of the ingenious supposition, that the
latter part of the verse is a doxology. He renders it,
“Whose ancestors were those [renowned] Fathers, from
whom the Messiah, as to his mortal body was derived,
who is exalted over all [the Fathers.] God be blessed
forever!” Thus with the help of supplying an idea,
which the text cannot well be said to have implied ; and
by doing violence to the custom of language, in the doxo-
i logical part; he has devised a method in which we may
avoid the assertion, that Christ is God over all, or su-
preme God. But who does not perceive the violence
and inappositeness of the divulsion which he makes, of
the former from the latter part of the verse? Besides;
how would a doxology fit the passage in question? Crel-
lius, (Init. Evang. Johan. p. 230,237) long ago was can-
did enough to own, that when the apostle was affected
with the greatest sadness, on account of the unbelief of
his Jewish brethren and the loss of their privileges, a
doxology was not very congruous. A prayer, (as in ch.
x. 1.) would seem, as he thinks, to be much more appro-
priate. ... * - - & -
Omitting however, all this; it may be added, that
Greek usage by no possibility admits of the doxological
version 6f Justi. 880; evåoynto; means, God who is bles-
sed; i.e. the proposition in such a case is assumed, not as-
serted. But Evžoyntos & ©sog means, God be blessed;
let God be blessed, or praised. In accordance with this
Greek usage, we find five instances of doxology in the
New Testament, and about forty in the Old, in which
Evžoyºrog is uniformly placed FIRST. The same is the
case with xavopavog, (cursed,) when an imprecation is
uttered, •, y
77
Add to all this; that the text must be changed to
make out a doxology; and we must read 6080s, instead
of Geog; for universally usage prescribes Evžoynrog á
Geog. (The instance Ps. lxvii. 19. Sept. brought by
Stoltz in his Erleuterungen, &c., to support Justi's ren-
dering, depends merely on wrong punctuation, and the
repetition of a word which does not correspond to the
Hebrew text.) If a doxology to the Father were in-
tended here, it is scarcely possible to suppose, moreo-
ver, that a particle of transition, (8s for instance,) should
not have been inserted, in order to give notice of so
great a change. In any other case we should expect to
find it thus, 6 38 ov; or if the doxology begin at 680s,
then evãoynrog 6 Geog. No text; no. Manuscript; no
ancient Version gives us a trace of either of these
readings. To make them therefore, and force them up-
on the text; or to substitute a conjecture, which origin-
ated from theological speculation against the plain and in-
controvertible evidence of the integrity of the text; what
is it, but to introduce a principle fundamentally subver-
sive of all interpretation and criticism, and give up the
Scriptures to be moulded to every man’s own wishes?
All conjectures and theories, then, appear to be quite
incompetent to explain away the common rendering of
the verse, and the meaning connected with it. On the
other hand, we may ask; How comes it that Christ,
according to his human nature, (to zava copra,) is said to
have descended from the Fathers? What if I should
affirm that David, as to his human nature, was descended
from Jesse P Would you not of course ask, what other
nature had he, except human P And this question, forced
upon us by the expression in question, the apostle has
immediately answered; as to his nature not human, he
78
was “supreme God, blessed forever, Amen.” To have
produced the human nature, connected with such an ex-
alted being, the apostle reckons as one of the special
privileges which the Jews had enjoyed, verses 1–5.
I do not argue that Christ is divine, merely from
having the appellation Geog. But if 8 ent wavrov Geog
be not supreme God; and if the antithesis in this verse
do not require us to understand a divine nature here;
then I must despair of ever finding what is the sentiment
of any portion of Scripture, by any or all the rules of ex-
egesis. f * w -
Heb. i. 8, 9, '0 Spovo; Gov & Seo; eig row atova row
atovog: pañóog ev6vrnrog #paś80g rns 3agºstag cov. Hy-
annoag öuxaloovvav, xa, eulonoag avoulav' &a rovro ex-
pigs as 6 Seog, 6 Seos dov, swatov ayawālace0; tapo roug
Herozovs cov. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne,
O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness
is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved right-
eousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy
God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above
thy fellows.” !
This passage is quoted from Ps. xlv. 6,7. It has been
objected, that 5 Osog here should not be translated as
the Wocative, but Nominative; e.g. “God is thy throne,
forever and ever; or thine everlasting throne, or sup-
port.”
To this it may be replied; 6 Osog is a common Voca-
tive, (of an Attic form,) of the JNew Testament and the
Septuagint. No objection to the common rendering of
this verse, can be made from the form of the word,
which is altogether a common one in Hellenistic Greek.
The Attics write o Osog. (Wide Sept. passim in Psalmis.)
To the translation, “God is thy throne,” there are
several objections.
79
1. Greek usage does not permit such a version. The
subject and predicate cannot both have the article,
(as here,) unless in the case of a convertible, or recipro-
cal sentence; which surely will not be urged, in this
case. “God is thy throne,” would stand in Greek, 5080;
Spovog gov.” For such a change in the text there is no
respectable authority.
2. Such a translation would render insipid the argu-
ment of the apostle, in this chapter, to prove the pre-
eminently exalted nature of Christ. To say of this il-
lustrious personage, “God is thy throne,” might excite
the persons to whom the epistle was addressed to ask,
“And who is not supported by God?” How is Christ
entitled on this account, to claim any preeminence in
our regard P -
3. Such a translation contradicts the meaning of the
word throne, understood either literally or figuratively.
Literally, it is the seat on which kings sit. This sense is
out of the question here. Figuratively, it stands for do-
minion, empire, regal authority; (because it is one of the
ensigns of such authority.) But there is no such figura-
tive sense to it, as that of support. And what sense
would it make, to say, God is thy dominion, thy regal au-
thority? If you reply; this may mean, “God is the
cause of thy dominion, or regal authority, (as it often has
been said;) then I ask again, of what king's dominion
and authority is not God the cause ? Is it not the uni-
versal doctrine of the Bible, that “by him kings reign,
and princes decree justice P’ And how then is Christ
entitled to any preeminence, because God is the cause
of his dominion ? Or how much advance does the apos-
tle make in his argument, by such an assertion ? -
* See the latter clause of the verse; where ºn º, is the sub-
ject, but gaºes the predicate, according to the laws of the language,
80
. .4. There is another objection still, to the translation .
in question. This is drawn from the nature of Hebrew
parallelism in poetry. The verse in question is plainly
one, in which the subject is the same in both parts; i. e.
it is a synonymous parallelism. Now the second mem-
ber of this is, “The sceptre of thy kingdom is a sceptre
of righteousness;” in other words, thy dominion is right-
£ous. The first member of the parallelism; consequent-
ly, is to be explained in the same way, and plainly means,
Thy dominion (throne) is everlasting. What could be a
more tasteless, not to say unmeaning proposition here,
than this; “God is thy throne,” i.e. support, or cause of
dominion? - . . . . . . . . . . .
The proposed mode of rendering then, violates
Greek usage; frustrates the argument of the apostle ;
does violence to the meaning of Spovog, and the nature
# of parallelism in the Hebrew original, from which the
i passage was taken.
. ... I am fully aware of the objections which have been
made to understanding the word God, in the passage
now under consideration, in its highest sense. For 1st.
It is said, that the person called God (Elohim,) here,
calls another being his God, and therefore cannot be
Supreme. - - - - - -
To the fact, I readily assent; but the conclusion drawn
from it, I must be permitted to doubt. If Christ be des-
cribed in the xlv. Psalm, (and the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews asserts this to be the fact;) he is described as
mediator; as incarnate ; as triumphing in this character
and capacity over his enemies. Considered as Mediator,
with the greatest propriety he might call Jehovah his
God: for in the capacity of mediator simply, he is to be
considered as incarnate; and of course subordinate. Is
81
it a matter of wonder still, that the same person could
be called God, and everlasting dominion ascribed to him,
who the next moment calls Jehovah his God? It is a
wonder of the same nature as that which so much per-
plexed the Jews, when Christ asked them how David
could call the Messiah Lord, while at the same time he,
was his Son. It is a wonder, which no ground but that,
which Trinitarians take can ever explain—viz., that the |
divine and human natures coexisted in Christ; and that
in the same sentence, he could with propriety speak of !
himself as human and divine. The sacred writers ap-
pear not to take the least pains to separate the two na-.
tures, in anything which they say of either. They every
where speak of Christ, (so it appears evident to me,) as
either human or divine, or both. They do not appear to
apprehend or fear any danger of mistake in régard to
the subject; no more than we, when we say Abraham
is dead, or Abraham is living, think it necessary to add,
as to his body, in one case; or, as to his soul, in the other.
This very negligence, (if I may be allowed the expres-
sion, saving everything that would imply improper want
of care,) is a powerful argument with me, I must con-
ſess, to induce me to believe; that they regarded the
human and divine natures as so intimately connected in
Christ, that it was unnecessary and inexpedient to attempt
a distinctive separation of them, on every occasion which
brought to view the person or actions of Christ. 1.
It has been objected, 2dly; that the xlv. Psalm,
from which our text was taken, does not belong to the
Messiah, but to David or Solomon. But how is this
proved? “The language.” it is said, “is such as to
show, that it is a mere epithalamium, on the marriage of
one of these kings with a foreign princess.” I have no
T 1.
82
time to enter into a discussion of this topic here; but I
am satisfied that the difficulties which press upon such a
view of the xlv. Psalm, are overwhelming. Whatever
may be said moreover to prove this, unless it be palpa-
ble demonstration, cannot weigh very much in the minds
of those who regard the authority of the writer, who
composed the Epistle to the Hebrews. He has told us
that the passage in question is addressed to the Son.
Here then, if our view be correct, is one instance
more, in which Christ is called God, with adjuncts that
cannot well permit us to doubt, that the supreme God
is meant. * x . . . . . .
I rank the texts which I have already produced, as
the leading ones, to establish the divine nature of Christ.
, But there are others which must not be neglected. Will
you permit me then, to advert briefly to a few other
texts, which though not so entirely above exception as
those that have been examined, still ought not to be
omitted, in such an examination of Scripture evidence
as the present. - - - . . . -
1 John, v. 20. Kat otbauev, Ört à vio; row Seou fixel,
zav Šešoxév Žuv 8tavotov, ivo yivooxousy row ownfluvov-
xaſ Equev ev tº awnſhvø, Sv tº viq avrov Ingov Xplorø.
Oiros eotiv 6 awnſwog Seo; zal # on atovios. “And we
know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an
understanding, that we may know him that is true; and
we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.
This is the true God and eternal life.” -
There are two reasons here why & ažnówo; Seog,
the true God, may be referred to Christ. 1. The gram-
matical construction favours it. Christ is the most im-
mediate antecedent. I grant that pronouns sometimes
relate to a more remote antecedent; but cases of this
83
mature stand on the ground of necessity, not of common
grammatical usage. What doubt can there be, that
John could without scruple call the Logos, whom he had
before asserted to be God, and to have created all things,
by the appellation of 6 awnfluvog 080; ? s
But 2dly. My principal reason for referring 6 wºnfli-
vog Osog, (the true God) to Christ is, the other adjunct
which stands with it; This is the true God—and the
ETERNAL LIFE. How familiar this language is with John
as applied to Christ may easily be seen. “In him, (i. e.
Christ) was LIFE, this LIFE was the light of men—giving
LIFE to the world—the bread of LIFE—my words are
spirit and LIFE—I am the way, the truth, and the LIFE—
the Logos of life. This life (Christ) was manifested
and we have seen it, and do testify to you, and declare,
the ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father, and was
manifested to us.” I John, i. 1, 2. Now as I cannot find
any instance in John's writings, in which the appellation
of LIFE, and eternal LIFE is bestowed upon the Father, to
designate him as the author of spiritual and eternal life ;
and this occurs so frequently in John as applied to
Christ; the laws of exegesis compel me here, to accord
in my exposition with the common laws of grammar, and
to construe, (as they cannot be separated.) both 5 own
Swog Geog, and * ºn alovios, (or as some Manuscripts
consonantly with Greek idiom read, Žišon figuovog,) both
of Christ. If the true God then be not really divine, can
any God be found who is P * ,
John xx. 28. Aztexplón Gouagzai finev avrò o zv-
plog wou xoa 6 Geog uov. “And Thomas answered and
said unto him, my Lord, and my God.”
My reasons for adducing this text are; 1. There
is no satisfactory proof, that it is an exclamation of sur.
84;
prise or astonishment. No formula of this nature, by
which the Jews were accustomed to express surprise or
astonishment, has yet been produced ; and there is no
evidence that such a formula belongs to their language.
Besides; the evangelist tells us, that Thomas addressed
himself to Jesus; sizev avrò ; not merely exclaimed,
Chiefly however, the commendation which the Saviour
immediately bestows upon Thomas, serves to defend the
meaning which I attach to the verse. Christ commends
him for having seen and believed. The evidence that he
believed was contained in the expression under examin-
ation; for before this expression, he is represented as
doubtful. On the supposition then, that the expression
was a mere exclamation, what evidence was it to the
mind of Jesus, or of any others, that he admitted his claim
to be the Saviour of men, and to the character which
was connected with this office P What more proof of
real belief can be found in such an exclamation, (if it be
one,) than we can find, every day, that men are Chris-
tians, who repeat the name of Jesus by way of exclama-
tion, when surprized or delighted? But if we admit
that the words of Thomas were the proper evidence and
expression of his belief, for which the Saviour commend-
ed him; then we must admit that he will commend us
for believing that he is both Kuplog zou Gºgog, Lord and
God : unless we adopt the notable expedient of Schlich-
ting, who avers that Lord is to be referred to Christ, and
God to the Father; which latter he thinks Thomas
spoke, after some interval of time had elapsed!
... I pass over several passages, where our common text
applies the name of God to Christ; e. g. Acts xx. 28,
and 1 Tim. iii. 16. In regard to this latter text howev-
er, I would simply remark, that it appears to me a plain
85’
case, that the authorities which Griesbach himself has
adduced would fairly lead to a decision different from
his own, respecting the genuineness of the reading Geog.
I will not attempt to weigh them here; as I feel no de-
sire to press witnesses of a character at all dubious into
my service. I admit the great desert of Griesbach in
his critical edition of the New Testament. I believe he
was a man who would not willingly, or consciously mis-
represent either facts or arguments, for or against any
reading. But the work which he undertook was too
great for the accomplishment of one person, or even of
one whole generation of critics. Dr. Lawrence, in his
Essay upon the classification of Manuscripts by Gries-
bach, has more than rendered it probable, that Gries-
bach’s account of facts is not unfrequently very erroneous,
(not through design, but human infirmity;) and that the
principles, by which he estimated the value of Manu-
scripts and of course the genuineness of particular read-
ings, are fundamentally erroneous. And since I am on
this subject, I may take the liberty to state, (what seems
to be so little known among us,) that Griesbach is not
the only recent editor of a critical Testament, to which
the great body of critics attach importance. The cele-
brated Matthäi, whom Middleton calls the best Greek
scholar that ever edited a Greek Testament, published
at Riga, (between A. D. 1782–1788,) a critical Testa-
ment, of I2 vols., which approaches much nearer to the
Textus Receptus, than the Edition of Griesbach, with
whom he is often at variance. Eichhorn, after giving a
high character of this Edition of Matthäi, and noticing
that the editor differs very much, in his maxims that re-
spect the formation of the New Testament text, from
Griesbach and others, says, that “ for a long time he
3.
86
had followed the middle path between the two par-
ties.” (Bibliothek. Band ii. St. 2, s. 311.) -
The whole system of classifying Manuscripts, which
lies at the very foundation of all Griesbach's decisions in
regard to the text, is rejected by Matthäi as worthless;
and Dr. Lawrence has, in the Essay above mentioned,
made an attack upon the same classification, which ren-
ders questionable the principles of it; at leat the appli-
cation of those principles as made by Griesbach.
Professor Knapp of Halle, has also published a
Greek Testament, the text of which is independent of
Griesbach's, although it approximates to his. This edi-
tion is esteemed, for its punctuation, the order of words,
its accentuation, and spirituation; and has great cur-
rency. - - - * . . . . "
I acknowledge this is digression. But it may be use-
ful to those, who are in the habit of attributing so much
weight to Griesbach's decisions, to know that they are
far from being uncontroverted by many of the best crit-
ics among his own countrymen. I know of no Commen-
tator of note, who has made Griesbach's text his basis,
except Paulus, who reexamines all his decisions, -
To return however to our subject; we do not want,
and feel no disposition to use either of the texts referred
to above as proof texts, in the great question before us.
There is another class of texts, which I have not hi.
therto mentioned, because the certainty of their meaning
is commonly thought to be less capable of demonstration,
than that of some others which I have produced. I re-
fer to such texts, as Ephes. v. 5. Ev tº 30.01%ig row Xpto-
row xa, 6sov, “the kingdom of Christ and God.” Titus
ii. 13. IIpoočexouevo tºv uoxoplav e^zttºo war exiqavelav
wns 80%mg vov učya?ovº Seow zai gotnpog huov Ingov
37
Xplorov “Looking for the blessed hope and appearance
of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.” 2 Tim. iv.1.
Alouaprupouat evozzlov vov Sãov, xa, Ingov Xplorov wou
us%20vros xplvstv Čovrag za vexpovg, waſ vºw swºovetov
airov zoº ºnv 3aot?slav airov’ “I adjure you before
the God, and Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the
quick and the dead at his appearance and kingdom.” 2
Pet. i. 1...... wou Seou juſov xoa cornpos Ingov Xplorov'
“by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus
Christ.” - º
The mode of translating these texts here proposed, is
altogether in conformity to the Greek idiom. Middleton
(on the Article) thinks it absolutely essential to it. For
although proper names and abstract nouns, in such a con-
nexion as 680g and Xplorog here, may take the article
before the first noun, and omit it before the second, and
yet designate different things and persons; yet words,
which are attributives, if they omit the article in such a
case, exhibit evidence that they are to be connected with
a preceding noun, and are predicates of it, and not sig-
nificant of separate beings. E.g. in the first case, Eph.
v. 5; “the kingdom of Christ and God,” according to
this rule would mean, “ of Christ who is God.” In the
second instance, Tit. ii. 13, the meaning is, “of the great
God, who is our Saviour, &c.” -
Mr. Wordsworth, a few years since, instituted a most
laborious investigation of the Greek Fathers, to see whe-
ther the idiom in regard to the article here was admit-
ted in their writings; and whether they ever understood
more than one person to be designated by such expres-
sions. The result I will give in his own words. (P.132.)
“I have observed more, I am persuaded, than a thou-
sand instances of the form, à Xploros xoa €50s, (Eph. v.
‘88
5;) some hundreds of instances of 6 uryag Seo; za dotrip,
(Tit. ii.13); and not fewer than several thousands, of the
form 6 Seos was cornp, (2 Pet. i. 1); while in no single
case, have I seen, where the sense could be determined,
any one of them used, but only of one person.”
After all; if there were no other evidence of the Di-
vinity of Christ in the New Testament, than what depend-
ed solely on these texts, one might be led probably to
hesitate concerning the subject. But when the method
of translating here proposed, is perfectly conformable to
the Greek idiom, (not to say demanded by it.) and con-
formable to other texts of the New Testament, in re-
gard to sentiment; I confess the evidence which they
afford, if not decisive, at least tends, in no small degree,
to confirm the decision of those other texts. Specially
is this the case in regard to the text in Titus: for where
is the appearing of God the Father ever spoken of by
the New Testament writers? It is Christ who appears;
who will appear at the judgment; who appeared to ex-
ecute vengeance upon the Jewish nation. Yet here, the
appearance of the great God is mentioned; of the great
God and Saviour; for so I cannot but believe, the text is
fairly to be construed. Can this great God be any other
than Christ himself? #
Thus much for the texts, which bestow upon Christ
the appellation of God, with adjuncts that show in what
sense the word God must be understood, according to
the common rules of interpreting language. I must now
II. Examine another class, which attribute to Christ
equality with God, or that power, and dignity or honor,
which belong to God. .
| Phil. ii. 5–8. Tovro Yap ºpovetoto evium 6 xoa ev
*Xplorg Ingov, is ev uopºpº Seow inapzov, ovz &pnayuoy
89
#yngaro to eval too. Seo, awā'āavrov exevode, gopºny
ôovňov Waffov, ev duolouatt avópotov Yevousvos, zoº oxy-
uart sipsteig Óg avóportog' startelvogev Šavrov, yevouevo;
invaxoog uszpt Savarov, Savarov če oravpov. “Let the
same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus; who
being in the condition of God, did not regard his equality
with God as an object of solicitous desire, but humbled
himself, (took upon himself an inferior or humble station)
assuming the condition of a servant, being made after the
similitude of men, and found in fashion as a man, he ex-
hibited his humility by obedience even to the death of
the cross.” . . . . * - t ... .
Such is the rendering, which after laborious examina-
tion, I am persuaded the Greek of this passage not only
admits, but demands. I will state my reasons, for dis-
senting from the common method, in which either Trin-
itarians or Unitarians have translated it. -
Our common Version says, “ Who being in the form
of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
but humbled himself, &c.” This Version seems to ren-
der nugatory, or at least irrelevant, a part of the Apos-
tle's reasoning in the passage. He is enforcing the prin-
ciple of Christian humility upon the Philippians. In order
to urge this in the most effectual manner, he proposes to
them the example of Christ; “Let the same mind be in
you which was in Christ.” What was this? It was
manifested by the fact, that though essentially divine,
(ev uoppa Seov,) he did not eagerly retain that condition,
i.e. his equality with God, but assumed the station or
condition of a servant, (uopºny SovXov). Here the rele-
vancy of his reasoning is sufficiently plain. But how was
it any proof or example of humility, that he did not think
it robbery to be equal with God? • *
&
12
90
Besides; the Greek will not fairly bear this construc-
tion. Apnayuos, translated robbery, does not seem here
to signify an act of robbery, but res rapta, or rather, figu-
ratively res avida diripienda et vindicanda; i.e. some-
thing which is eagerly to be seized and appropriated.
(See Schleusner and Storr, in locum.) Moreover &pnay-
wog, which our translators have placed next to the verb
myngaro, does not by the rules of Syntax belong there.
The Greek Syntax would place the words thus, as to
their sense; ovz myngaro to gival too. Seq [xavajëpway-
gov; literally, “he regarded not the being equal to God
[as] &pnayuov, as a thing to be greedily sought or appro-
priated. e.
For these reasons, I cannot believe that our common
Version gives the sense of the passage. And for similar
reasons, I feel compelled to reject the Version, so com-
mon among some Unitarians; “He did not think of the
robbery of being equal with God.” A conclusive objec-
tion to it is, that it translates àpwayuov here as desig-
nating the action of robbery; and that our nymoaro to
stval too. Seq àptayuov can never be proved to mean,
“He thought not of the robbery of being equal with
God.” The verb nynooto is not susceptible of such a
meaning, as is expressed by the Version thought not of:
e. did not aspire to, imagine, form expectations of, &c.
in its primary sense it signifies to lead; to be pre-eminent,
&c.; in its secondary sense to esteem, judge, regard, re-
pute, &c. To render ovk Myngaro àprwayuov, he did not
think of the robbery, would therefore be a violation of
the first principles of Greek idiom, and of the meaning
of words. To justify such a version, the passage must
run thus, our nyngaro TON &pnayuov TOT cival too. 689.”
And as no ancient Manuscript or Version has given a hint
* Even then wºrst, could not be rendered, thought not of.
91
of such a reading, it seems to be placed beyond fair debate,
that the translation now in question cannot be admitted.
Both our translators and Unitarians appear, general-
ly, to have mistaken the import of the word uopºn in
this passage. On the one hand, uopºn does not seem to
me at all parallel with the atavyagua and zapax'rnp,
which are applied to the Son, in Heb. i. 3. These rep-
resent the glory of the incarnate Messiah, who had ap-
peared “in these last days,” and spoken to men. They
express the same view of Christ which John gives, (i.14.)
when he says, “We beheld his (Christ's) glory, verily
the glory of the only begotten of the Father;” and this
glory was seen after the “Word became flesh and dwelt
among us.” Comparison then of uopºn Geov with these
passages does not at all ascertain its meaning; for to
Christ belonged the uoppn Gsov before he humbled him-
self and took upon him the form of a servant. In thus
occupying indeed the condition of a servant, (if I may so
express the Greek exevoge deavrov,) consisted his humil-
iation. , , ! -
A fair examination of uopºn, either generally or in
special relation to the passage before us, will end, as I
must believe, in the conviction that the word is not un-
frequently synonymous with pugig (nature) and ovgto:
(being.) The proofs which Schleusner has offered of
this are sufficient; (Lex. in voc. uopºpM.) But the proof
of what it means in the passage before us, is too plain to
be easily mistaken. If you say, uopºp'n Gsov means a
similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities,
(as we speak of Christians resembling God;) then I ask,
Did he lay aside this moral resemblance, when he be-
came incarnate P For being in uopºpſ, Osov—exevoo's de-
avrov ; being in the uopºſ of God, he depressed himself,
92
i.e. he submitted to assume a low condition. . But in
what sense were his moral qualities depressed ?
... Does uopºn Ösov mean resemblance to God, in re-
spect to office; as magistrates are called gods? Then
what office did he lay aside, in order to become incar-
nate?. If Christ be only a created being; who were his
subjects, and what was his dominion, before his media-
torial kingdom commenced by the event of his incarna-
tion ? -
... But this is not all. If (topºn mean only similitude;
then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ
is said to have taken upon him the uopºpºv êovžov 2 That
he bore merely a resemblance to a servant, (i. e. to one who
obeys, or is in a humble station;) or that he did actually
take the condition of one who was in a humble and de-
pressed state, and persevere in it to the very death of
the cross P The latter must be admitted, unless we re-
hearken to the doctrine of the Docetae, who taught, that
Christ was a man in appearance only, and not in reality.
If uopºn Öovžov then, means the condition or state of
one who is humbled or depressed, and subjected to the
command of others; uoppn Geov must mean the condi-
tion or state of one who is truly divine. -
After all; it should be sacredly remembered, that on
such a subject as this, human language, (all made up of
terms to express the ideas of finite and mutable beings
about finite and mutable objects,) is of course incompe-
tent fully to designate the mode of union between the
divine and human nature. I must regard the language
here and in all other passages, on this awful subject, as
only approximation toward describing what exists in the
Divinity, or is done by him. He who was in the condi.
> ion of God, and equal with God, exévode oeavrov ; i.e.
93
as we translate it, erinamivit seipsum, “made himself of no
reputation.” Yet how incompetent must these translations
be P So far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot
change; i.e. he cannot divest himself of his essential per-
fections. He cannot cease to be omnipotent, omnipres-
ent, omniscient, &c. But he may veil the brightness of
his glories for a time, by assuming to himself a union
with the human nature, and making this the organ
through which he displays his perfections, for the time
of the incarnation. Does the sun cease to shine—are his
beams extinguished, when an intervening cloud obscures,
for a while, his lustre P Or is the sun in any measure
changed P - . . . . . .
We may ask then, (in reply to a multitude of ques-
tions, with which you and others press Trinitarians on ,
this subject;) Because God is omnipotent does it follow,
that the whole of that omnipotence must be every mo-3
ment exerted? If not, (and who will refuse assent to
this,) then why may he not have veiled his glories for a
time in the incarnate Saviour, and still retain all his es-
sential perfections, unchanged P. He may ; I believe the
text in question decides that he did. -
I approach such a subject however, with solemn awe;
and never feel my own weakness and ignorance more in-
tensely, than while endeavoring to think upon it. The
familiar, I had almost said irreverential manner, in which
some speak and write respecting this mystery, is calculat-
ed, I freely acknowledge, to excite painful emotions. On
the one hand, it would seem, if we are to credit one mode
of representation, that the greatest portion of Christ's
humiliation consisted in his having renounced and abso-
lutely laid aside his divinity, for the time of the incarna-
tion; and that as God, in this diminished condition, he
did actually expire upon the cross. All the powers of
94
language are exhausted, in order to show how great must
be the sufferings and condescension of Christ, in under-
going such a degradation as this—On the other hand;
some who revolt from these mistaken representations,
verge to the other extreme. Lest they should degrade the
divine nature of Christ, they are so careful to separate
the human nature from it, that one is compelled to sup-
pose, that the man Jesus had simply a higher degree of
inspiration and communion with God than other proph-
ets. The New Testament justifies neither of these ex-
tremes. - -
A thousand questions may be raised here; a thou-
sand difficulties suggested, which no sober man will un-
dertake to answer. The history of past ages exhibits
an appalling picture of disputes about the person of
Christ; all springing from the denial of facts revealed in
the New Testament, or the unhallowed curiosity of
men, who desired to know what God has not revealed.
The very last age witnessed a dispute in Germany be-
tween the theologians of Giessen and Tubingen, whether
the xevodig, (humiliation) of Christ consisted “in absti-
nence from both the direct and reflex use of divine ma-
jesty:” or in the “occultation of divine majesty;” a dis-
pute which agitated the Lutheran Church to the very
centre. - - * -
The humble inquirer after truth, who once is brought
clearly to see the boundaries of human knowledge, will
shrink from disputations of such a nature; and pour forth
his earnest supplications to God, that the simple verities
which the Scriptures reveal, may be believed on the au-
thority of God; while the manner in which the facts ex-
ist, that are revealed for our credence, is left with him
“whose ways are unsearchable and whose judgments
are past finding out.”
95
I have used the freedom of letter-writing, in this dis-
cussion; I can hardly call it digression, as it is so nearly
connected with the explanation of the text which I am
examining. Will you now permit me to repeat, that the
version, which would correspond best with my appre-
hension of the real meaning of the passage in question, f a
is, “Who being of divine nature, or condition, did not i.
eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on |
himself a humble condition,” &c. In this way, and in this *
only, is the passage consistent with, at least appropriate
to, the apostle's argument and design; and in this way
only can the Greek be fairly and grammatically render-
ed. -
With the passage that has now been considered,
seem to me to agree, as to general import, such texts as
these : John v. 19. “Whatsoever things he (the Father)
doeth, the same doeth the Son likewise;” i.e. he has
the same power as the Father. And when it is said in
the context, “The Son doeth nothing by (or of arto, ap')
himself, except he see the Father do it;” I understand
the meaning to be, that the Jews had no reason to be-
lieve that Christ had any disposition to blaspheme God,
(of which they had so frequently accused him,) for that
he acted in entire concert with the divine purposes and
commands, and had no separate interests of his own.
John v. 21–23. “For as the Father raiseth the dead
and restores them to life, so also the Son restores to life
whom he pleases. For the Father judgeth no man, but
hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men
might honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.”
Here I find an equality of power and honour ascribed
to the Father and Son. The Son is indeed introduced as
Mediator; as head overall things to the church; but could
9:6
he be such a head; could all “judgment be committed
to him,” if at the same time he was not also divine, and
consequently omniscient? It is perfectly plain, that in
so far as, the “committing of judgment to the Son” is
concerned, it must be to the mediatorial person; to one
who in respect to office is subordinate to God. But in
so far as the qualifications requisite to perform the duties,
which that commitment requires, are concerned, the Sa-
viour is divine; and the honor to be claimed by him is
the same with that which the Divinity himself claims.
it matters not whether you interpret this of the obe-
dience to be rendered to the Son, or the homage to be
paid him. Multitudes of prophets have acted as the
messengers of God, and have borne his messages of mer-
cy and of judgment to his people; but to whom among
them all did he grant the privilege of being honored as
himself? Or to what created being shall the glory of
the blessed God be rendered, without infringing upon
the fundamental principles of either the Jewish or Chris-
tian religion ? #
In fact, I cannot well conceive how our Saviour could
have used these words, without having exposed himself
to renewed accusations of the Jews for blaspheming, un-
less he were really divine. The Jews had just accused
him of violating the Sabbath, because he had healed on
that day, the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda.
The reply of Christ to them was; “My Father worketh
hitherto, and I work:” which, if I understand the argu-
ment, must mean, “ My Father has never ceased to work
on the Sabbath,” in carrying on all the operations of the
natural and moral world; he supersedes the law of the
Sabbath. I have the same right. “The Son of man is
Lord of the Sabbath.” The Jews then sought to slay
97
him, not only because, as they affirmed, “he had violat-
ed the Sabbath, but said that God was his Father; mak-
ing himself equal with God.” In reply to their bitter ac-
eusations, Jesus made use of the language above cited;
telling them that he did whatever the Father did, and
was entitled to the same honour. Was this relinquishing
his claim to the equality with God, which the Jews had
charged him with assuming P Or was it speaking out
plainly, that he wrought on the Sabbath by the same
right that the Father did, and was entitled to the same
deference P Can his words, interpreted without regard
to any preconceived theory, be made to signify less than
this P
You will expect me, perhaps, to adduce John X. 30,
“I and my Father are one.”—It is a clear case, that the
Jews understood Christ here, as claiming equality with
God, or rather claiming to be God. (See verse 33.) But
I am not satisfied, that the manner in which they often
expounded his words, is a sure guide for our interpreta-
tion at the present time. The malignant disposition
which they frequently displayed, may well lead us to
suspect, that they would, if possible, put such a construc-
tion on his words, as would subject him to the imputation
of blasphemy, or rebellion against the Roman govern-
ment. . I would expound the words of Christ therefore,
independently of any construction which his embittered
enemies put upon them. And in the present case, it
seems to me, that the meaning of “I and my Father are
one,” is simply, “I and my Father are united in counsel,
design, and power.”
So in John xvii. 20, 21; Christ prays that “all who
shall believe on him may be one. As thou, Father,” con-
tinues he, “art in me, and I in thee; so they also maybe
13
98
one inus;” i. e. that the disciples may have the “same
mind which was in Christ Jesus;” may copy after his ex-
ample, and be united in the temper of their souls to him,
as he is to God; may be one with the Father and with him.
So also, in Gal. iii. 28 ; Christians of different ranks
and nations are said to be one in Christ; and 1 Cor. iii. 8,
he that planteth and he that watereth are one ; i. e. they
have the same affections, and designs; they are united
to accomplish the same object. In the same manner
Cicero says, “Unus fiat e pluribus,” when persons are
united in temper and pursuits. (De Offic, l. i. c. 17.)
From the consideration of those texts, which ascribe
equality with God; or divine power and honours to
Christ, in a general sense; let us now turn,
III. To the examination of those which assert or im-
ply particular divine attributes, or works, to him.
1. Omniscience is ascribed to Christ.
Matt. xi. 27. “All things are delivered unto me of
my Father; and no man knoweth the Son but the Fa-
ther; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”
If the same knowledge of the most recondite and
difficult subjects; in a word, the same omniscience, be not
ascribed in this passage to the Son as to the Father; I
am unable, to make out what the meaning of it is. . And
in the latter clause of the verse, men are declared to be
dependent entirely on the Son, for that knowledge of the
Father which is revealed; i.e. he only is capable of
making this revelation. “No man hath seen God at any
time; the only begotten who dwelleth in the bosom of
the Father, he hath revealed him.” John i. 18.
John vi. 46. Ov. Ört row to repo rig opaxev, si un ö
ov7tapo row Seow oivogéopaxstow wavepa. “Because that
99
no man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,
he hath seen the Father.” The word āopaxe here, does
not mean to see with bodily eyes, but with the mental eye,
i. e. to know. What but omniscience could be adequate
to the knowledge, which is here predicated by Christ of
himself?
In the same manner, the knowledge of the most inti-
mate secrets of the human heart is ascribed to Christ.
John ii. 24, 25. “But Jesus did not commit himself unto
them because he knew all men; and needed not that
any should testify of man: for he knew what was in
man.” John vi. 64. “But there are some of you that be-
lieve not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they
were that believed not, and who should betray him.”
Acts i. 24. “And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord,
which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of
these two thou hast chosen.” That Lord (Kvptog) here
means Christ, seems to me very plain from verses 21
and 22, (compare verse 6) of the context. Besides, this
is the common appellation of the Saviour in the Acts of
the Apostles. The appeal too, in this case, is made re-
specting the choice of an apostle. “Shew, Lord,” say the
apostles, “which of these two THou hast chosen, that he
may take part of this ministry and apostleship.” Is there,
(separately from party feelings,) any room to doubt
here, that the Apostles did appeal to the same Lord
who had chosen them, to designate who should fill the
vacancy occasioned by the death of Judas P
I Cor. iv. 4, 5. “For I know nothing by myself; yet
am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the
Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until
the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels
#00
of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of
God.” That Lord (Kvplog) here means Christ, is plain
both from the office of Judging ascribed to him, and from
his coming to judgment. Without citing the numerous
other passages, which confessedly represent Christ as
the final Judge of all the human race; permit me here
to ask, Is it possible for any being who is not omnis-
cient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures P Can
he, for thousands of years, (possibly of ages,) be present
every where, and know what is transacted; can he pen-
etrate the recesses of the human heart; can he remem-
ber the whole character and actions of countless myriads
so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances and situation;
and yet be finite P be neither omnipresent nor omniscient?
God claims it as his distinguishing and peculiar preroga-
tive, that he knows the secrets of the human heart, (Jer.
xvii. 10;), what then must he be, who knows the secrets
of all hearts, at all times, and in all worlds? If he be
not God, the proof that the Father is God, is defective
too; and we have the question again to dispute with
the Manicheans, whether Jehovah be not a limited and
imperfect being. si -
“But,” you will say, “ Christ acts as Judge by dele-
gated authority; why not then by knowledge imparted
to him P' He does indeed act as judge, by delegated
authority; because it is in his mediatorial capacity that
he acts as Judge: but to act as Judge is one thing, to be
qualified for such an office is another. Exaltation aS
Mediator constitutes him judge in that capacity; omnis-
cience, and omniscience only can qualify him for the duties
of that station. And can omniscience be imparted 2. We
may as well say omnipotence, or self-existence can be im-
parted, as omniscience. There is, and there can be but
iOl
one God; and, a second omniscient being—omniscient
simply by knowledge imparted, would force us into all
the absurdities of polytheism. 4 *- *
-Rev. ii. 23. “And all the churches shall know that
I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I
will give unto every one of you according to your works.”
The same person speaks here, who “ was dead and is
alive;” (Chap. i. 18;) i. e. Christ. The sense of the
passage is too plain to need any comment.
To conclude this head: when I compare such pas-
sages as those above cited, with the description of om-
miscience as belonging to God; how can I doubt that the l
New Testament writers mean to ascribe the knowledge
of all things to Christ? To say that whatsoever per-
tains to God or man, is known by any being, is to affirm'
of that being, that he is omniscient. Compare now with
this, the appropriate knowledge which God ascribes to
himself only, in Jer. xvii. 9, 10; “The heart is de-
ceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who
can know it 2 I the Lord search the heart, I try the
reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and
according to the fruit of his doings.”
2. Divine power is ascribed to Christ.
Phil. iii. 21. “Who shall change our vile body, that
it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, accord-
ing to the working whereby he is able even to subdue
all things unto himself.”
Compare now with this passage, I Cor. xv. 26–28,
where the same language is applied to God the Father.
And if to be able “to subdue all things to himself.”
(intovača, to wavva eavrºs) be not characteristic of om-
nipotence in Phil. iii. 21, when applied to Christ, why
should it be when applied to the Father in Corinthians?
102
Heb. i. 3. '03 (ov anavyagua ºng 80&ng zoº zºpartnp -
ºng intoGrageog avrov, pºpov we to 7tavva tº finuatl ºng
8vvaufog airtov,) 8t’ avrov xx0aptopov woungouevos row
êuaptuov ſuav, exafloev ev Šešig rns unya:Woovyng ev
iºnºots' “Who, being the brightness of his glory, and
the express image of his person, and upholding all things
by the word of his power, when he had by himself purg-
ed our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty
on high.” The word pºpov, which is translated upholding,
means preserving, directing, governing. Thus Chrysos-
tom; pipov, says he, zväspvov, Šianitrovva ovyxparov,
So the corresponding Hebrew word Rºº, Is..xlvi. 3. lxiii.9.
In John x. 16, Christ says, “he has power to lay
down his life, and to resume it again.” In other places,
the resurrection of Jesus is ascribed to God; Acts i. 24,
32–iii. 15.-v. 30.-1 Cor. vi. 14-xy. 15.
In 2 Pet. i. 3, (Seto. 8vvauls,) divine power is ascrib-
ed to Christ; compare verse 16.
Most decisive however, of divine Power belonging
to Christ, are those passages above, which ascribe to
him the creation of the universe. This is the distin-
guishing characteristic of Jehovah. Jer. x. 10—16.
“But the Lord is the true God, he is the living God,
and an everlasting King: at his wrath the earth shall
tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his
indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods
that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they
shall perish from the earth, and from under these heav-
ens. He hath made the earth by his power, he hath
established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched
out the heavens by his discretion. When he uttereth
his voice there is a multitude of waters in the heavens,
and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of
103
the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth
forth the wind out of his treasures. Every man is brut-
ish in his knowledge; every founder is confounded by
the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood,
and there is no breath in them. They are vanity, and
the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they
shall perish. The portion of Jacob is not like them :
for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod
of his inheritance : The Lord of hosts, is his name.”
Acts xiv. 15. “Sirs, why do ye these things P we al-
so are men of like passions with you, and preach unto
you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the liv-
ing God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea,
and all things that are therein.” *
Whatever views any one may entertain, who reads,
and compares such passages with the creative power
ascribed to Christ; I cannot but admit, with the apostle,
“that he who built all things is God.” - -
... , 3. ETERNITY is ascribed to Ghrist. . . . . . ;
That those passages of Scripture, which speak of
Christ's existence before the creation of the world, do
not explicitly assert his eternity, I have already suggest-
ed. But then, it is difficult to conceive that they do not
imply eternity. “For,” says Doederlein, (Inst. Theol. i.
p. 390,) “to exist before the beginning of the world,
what can it mean but to exist from eternity ?” Passages
of this nature are the following; viz., John i. 1. “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.” 1 John i. 2. “ For the Life
was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness,
and show unto you that eternal Life which was with the
Father, and was manifested unto us.” John xvii. 5. “And
now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with
104
the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
John xvii. 24. “Father, I will that they also whom thou
hast given me be with me where I am ; that they may
behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou
lovedst me before the foundation of the world.”
But most specially do I feel, that Rev. xxii. 13 is de-
cisive on this subject. Eyo to A zoº to Q, 6 "potogza,
5 soxarog, à opxn xxt to rewog. That it is Christ who
speaks here, is clear ; for 1. In the preceding verse he
says, “Behold I come quickly.” 2. In the sixteenth
verse, the same person says, “I Jesus, have sent mine
angel,” &c. Now the same description is given of the
eternity of God, in Chap. xxi. 5, 6; compare verses 7th
and 3d. To know still more fully, what this formula of
expression means, we must recur to the old Testament,
where we have it, divested of its technical shape. In Is.
xliv. 6, Jehovah says, “I am the first, and I am the last;
and besides me there is no god;” i. e. eternity distin-
guishes me from all that are falsely called gods. So in
Isaiah xlviii. 12, after declaring that he will not suffer
his name to be polluted, nor give his glory to another,
he adds, “I am he, (i. e. the true God,) I am the first;
and I also am the last.” g
Now if the same assertion be made of Christ, (as it
plainly is,) how can we avoid the conclusion that the
holy apostle meant to assert his eternal existence P
4. Divine honours and worship are paid to Christ.
John v. 23. “That all men might honour the Son
even as they honour the Father.” On this text I have
before remarked, (page 95,) in another connexion.
Heb. i. 6. “Let all the angels of God worship him.”
The word worship, it is said, has two significations;
viz. obeisance and spiritual homage. This is no doubt
105
true; and the first of these meanings often presents it-
self in the Old Testament, and (as I am willing to con-
cede,) in the Gospels. Many who worshipped Christ,
(that is, prostrated themselves before him, while he so-
journed among men,) probably knew or acknowledged
nothing of his divine nature. But what shall we say of
the angels? Are they ignorant of his true nature ? And
at all events, is not the worship, which they who are
pure spirits can pay, of course of a spiritual nature, and
not simple obeisance 2
Phil. ii. 10, 11. “That at the name of Jesus every
knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth,
and things under the earth; and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.”
Things in heaven, carth, and under the earth, is a
common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament
writers for the universe; (to wav, or ra navra.) What
can be meant, by things in heaven bowing the knee to
Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant P What other
worship can heaven render? And if their worship of
Christ be spiritual, is not that of others, who are united
with them, to be spiritual also P And when it is added,
“to the glory of God the Father;” I understand the
sentiment to be, that Jesus in his mediatorial character
is the object of universal adoration; but as this charac-
ter has a peculiar connexion with and relation to God
the Father, so the worship paid to Christ the Mediator,
should redound to the Father as well as himself, and the
Father should be glorified by it. --
Rom. x.9–14. “That if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
* 14.
T06
saved. For with the heart man believeth unto right-
eousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto
salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth
on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference
between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord
over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whoso-
eVer shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be sav-
ed. How then shall they call on him in whom they have
not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom
they have not heard? and how shall they hear without
a preacher?”
The name of the Lord, on whom they are to call, is
plainly Christ; for it is the same in whom they are to be-
Tieve, (verses 11 and 14.) And this Lord, (Christ) on
whom they are to call, and in whom they are to believe,
is Kvpwog wavrov, universal Lord, and therefore able to
bestow the blessings which they need.
‘Bev.v.8–14. “And when he (i.e. Christ, see v. 6, 7)
took the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders
fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them
harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the pray-
ers of Saints. And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art
worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof:
for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy
blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and
nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests:
and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I
heard the voice of many angels round about the throne,
and the beasts, and the elders: and the number of them
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of
thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the
Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and
wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and bless-
107
ing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea,
and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and
honour, aad glory, and power; be unto him that sitteth
upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever,
And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twen-
ty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for
ever and ever.” -
If this be not spiritual worship—and if Christ be not
the object of it here as God; I must confess myself una-
ble to produce any case, where worship can be called
spiritual and divine.
The apostles and primitive martyrs worshipped
Christ; and they recognize the practice of worshipping
him among other Christians.
Acts vii. 59, 60. “And they stoned Stephen, making
invocation (87tuxažovuévov) and saying, Lord Jesus, re-
ceive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with
a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And
when he had said this he fell asleep." . *
Now here is a dying martyr, who is expressly said to
“be filled with the Holy Ghost,” and to enjoy the vision
of the heavenly world, and of the Saviour who was there;
in his last decisive moments, too, on the very verge of
eternity; here is such a martyr, committing his depart-
ing spirit into the hands of the Lord Jesus, in the very
same language, and with the same confidence that Jesus
committed his spirit into the hands of the Father, when
expiring upon the cross. This expiring disciple also, im-
plores forgiveness for his murderers. Of whom does he
implore it? Of the same Lord Jesus, Can the trust of
a departing spirit, and the forgiveness of sin be commit-
ted to any being who has not omnipotence, and supreme
108
authority ? And can a dying martyr, with his eyes fixed
on the very visions of God, and his soul filled with the
Holy Ghost, ask and pray amiss 2
2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. Twsp #ovrov ºpt; row zuptov topexa-
Žega, ivo anoot'ſ aw’ Euou" waſ eſpnxs uor Apret Gol Ā
zoºpls uovº # yap 8vvous uov ev actsveig reasiovva. H-
ôlora ovy uwww.ov zavyngoua, ev raig actsvetag uov, iva
entioxnvoo'ſ eſt' gue à èvvous row Xplorov. “For this
thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart
from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for
thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in mine infir-
mities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”
The Lord whom Paul besought here is plainly Christ;
for this same Lord, in answer to the apostle's supplica-
tion, says, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my
strength (hēovaug uov) is perfected in weakness.” Then
the apostle immediately subjoins; “Most gladly then
would I rejoice in my infirmities, that the strength of
CHRIST (i. ôovaul; Xplorov,) may rest upon me.” A
clearer case that Christ was the object of the apostle's
repeated prayer, cannot well be presented.
1 Thess. iii. 11, 12. “Now, God himself, and our Fa-
ther, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto
you. And the Lord make you to increase and abound
in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as
we do toward you.”
Can any distinction be here made, between the sup-
plication addressed to God and to Christ P
2 Thess. ii. 16, 17. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ
himself, and God even our Father, which hath loved us,
and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope
through grace, Comfort your hearts and stablish you in
every good word and work.”
109
Here the order of the persons to whom supplication
is made, is the reverse of that in the last instance quot-
ed; which shows that nothing depends on the order, but
that it was a matter of indifference with the apostle,
which was placed first, the supplication being equally
addressed to the Father and to Christ. e
“ Rom. i. 7. “To all that be in Rome, beloved of
God; called to be saints; Grace to you, and peace, from
God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Here the same blessings are solicited and expected
from Christ and the Father. See the same formula re-
peated 1 Cor. i. 3.−2 Cor. i. 2.
Acts i. 24. “And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord,
which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of
these two thou hast chosen.”
That Lord here means the Lord Jesus, seems evi-
dent from verses 21 and 22. It is the usual appellation,
moreover, which the book of Acts gives to the Saviour.
(See above p. 99).
2 Tim. iv. 14. “The Lord reward him according to
his works!” Again verses 17 and 18; “Notwithstanding
the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by
me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the
Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the
mouth of the lion. And the Lord shall deliver me from
every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly
kingdom: to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”
(Compare iii. 11.) Usage hardly admits a doubt here,
that Lord means Christ.
Nor can I separate from religious invocation, trust,
and confidence, such expressions as these; (Acts i. 1.)
“Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but
such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ
| 10
of Nazareth, rise up and walk.” Nor can I see how the
solemn adjuration, ev Xplorø, (by Christ) which the apos-
tle uses, Rom. ix. 1–1 Tim. ii. 7, can be separated from
religious invocation, or appeal. .
We must add to all these instances of worship, the
fact that Christians were so habituated to address their
supplications to Christ, that “They who invoke Christ,”
became, it would seem, a kind of proper name, by which
they were in primitive times designated.
Thus Paul (1 Cor. i. 2.) addresses himself to all
extrañovuevoig to ovoua row xvptov nuov Ingov Xplorov,
ev wavel rowº, who invoke the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, IN EVERY PLACE. That the verb Ezuzahso is an
appropriate one to designate the act of prayer, will not
be questioned. The literal translation of it is to invoke.
The simple meaning of the passage is “I address myself
to all Christians;” but instead of using this name directly,
the apostle uses a periphrasis, and says, to all the invokers
of Christ, i. e. those who pray to him, meaning the same
as a yots, x^nvols, &c. in the context. He has signified
too, that the practice of invoking. Christ, was not confin-
ed to Corinth, but was extended to every place ; Ev 7tavrº
707tg).
Exactly in the same manner does Ananias describe
Christians, when the Lord Jesus bade him go to instruct
and comfort Saul. “Lord,” said he, “I have heard of
many concerning this man, what things he has done,
(vois àylog cov) to thy saints at Jerusalem; and even
now, he has a commission from the high priest, to bind
all (roug Bruxo Movuevov; to ovoua Gov.) those who invoke
thy name,” i. e. Christians. See the same thing repeat-
ed, verse 21st.
The very heathen, in the primitive age of Christian-
III
ity, little as they knew about Christians, discovered that
they made Christ an object of worship. Says Pliny in
writing to Trajan, “Carmen Christo, quasi Deo, soliti-
essent, (i. e. Christiani,) dicere secum invicem. (Lib. 10.
Epis. 97.) “They, (Christians) sing in social worship a
hymn to Christ as a God.”
Eusebius too, (Ecc. Hist. v. 28,) appeals against the
Artemonites to the ancient songs of Christians, thus;
“Whatever psalms and hymns were composed by faith-
ful brethren, from the beginning, praise Christ the Word
of God.” Can any example of a church in the apostolic
age, who did not practise thus, be, found 2
Did not the Saviour give his disciples a general pre-
cept and encouragement, to make him the object of pray-
er? “If ye shall ask any thing in my name,” said he to
the apostles, “I will accomplish it,” (syo 7toingo.) John
xiv. 13, 14. They appear to me to have understood
this, as directing that he should be regarded as the spe-
cial object of prayer. Hence, instead of finding few or
no examples of prayer to Christ, in the history of the
primitive Christians in the New Testament, I find more
of this kind, than of any other.
When I have contemplated the precepts which en-
courage prayer to Christ, and the worship of him, both
by the inhabitants of the heavenly world, and by the
Churches on earth; I then compare these things with
the exclusive worship and trust, which Jehovah claims to
himself.” Is. xlv. 22, 23. “Look unto me, and be ye
saved, all the ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there
is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone
out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return,
That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall
swear.” Is. xlii. 8. “I am the Lord; that is my name;
II2 {
and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise
to graven images.” Jer. xvii. 5–7. “Thus saith the
Lord, cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and mak-
eth flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the
Lord: For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and
shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit parch-
ed places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhab-
ited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and
whose hope the Lord is.” Matth. iv. 10. “Then saith
Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and HIM only
shalt thou serve.”
I am ready now to ask, whether I can avoid coming
to the conclusion, either that Christ is truly divine,
in as much as he is so often represented as the object
of worship; or that the sacred writers have mistaken
this great point, and led us to that which must be con-
sidered as idolatry. And yet the worship of Christ is
placed, as it would seem, in contradistinction to that of
idols, I Cor. viii.4–6. That Christianity renounces ut-
terly and forever all idolatry—all polytheism—in a word,
every thing inconsistent with the worship of one only
living and true God, is a point so plain and so universally
conceded, that I shall not dwell for a moment upon it.
Thus have I endeavoured to show, that the New
Testament bestows upon Christ the appellation of God,
accompanied by such adjuncts as naturally, (not to say
necessarily,) lead us to understand this word, in its high-
est sense; that it attributes to him equality with God;
that it represents him as the Creator, Preserver, and
Governor of the universe; declares his omniscience, his
omnipotence, and his eternity; and both by precepts and
examples exhibits Christ as the object of prayer and di-
113
vine worship, by the Church in heaven and on earth.
To these conclusions do the plain rules of exegesis nec-
essarily conduct me. I am sensible of the allegations,
which are frequently made, that we receive our systems
of belief from the Creeds and Confessions of faith, which
have descended from former unenlightened and super-
stitious, or philosophizing ages. That some of our phra-
seology has been derived from men, who sometimes spec-
ulated too boldly, and substituted names for ideas; I am
ready to concede. I feel the embarrassments, that on
account of this are occasionally thrown in the way of
inculcating truth, at the present time. Men are very
apt to suppose, that if you throw away the old terms, or
names, you reject the old ideas also. Yet it can be only
superficial thinkers, that will soberly believe this. It is
in general therefore, a sufficient reason with me for dis-
missing phraseology, when it must, almost of necessity,
be misunderstood by the great body of men. Yet, a sud-
den and entire revolution, in this respect, would be very
undesirable; because such a revolution must again lead,
of necessity, at first, to other misapprehensions. I am
willing therefore, to retain many terms, which have be-
come venerable for their antiquity, that I should reject
without hesitation, if they were now presented de novo.
Excepting the influence which Creeds and Confes-
sions exercise over my phraseology, (and that in a modi-
fied manner as stated above,) I am not conscious of being
led to the adoption of Trinitarian views, or to the as-
cription of true and proper Divinity to Christ, by any
Creed, or any human authority on earth. My sole busi-
ness for these ten years past, has been the study of the
Bible; and the study of it, in the daily use of those prin-
ciples of exegesis, which you have for the most part, so
{
I 5
f • i 14
briefly and so happily described. I began this study
with a desire to know what the Bible has taught. I
have pursued it with the same desire, or rather with such
a desire greatly increased; with unabated ardour. I have
limited my studies to no class of writers; but have soli-
} citously endeavoured to seek for truth, and to receive it
ithankfully, from whatever quarter it might come. In
particular; at least three quarters of my time have been
spent among writers of the Unitarian class, from whom I
have received with gratitude much instruction relative to
the philology, the exegesis, and the literary history of the
Scriptures. I have long been in the habit of rejecting
any explanation of the Scriptures, that is not founded
upon the principles of exegesis which you have develop-
, ed. Whether an orthodox or heterodow use could be made
; of this or that interpretation, is what I endeavour habit-
ually to lay out of view, when I interpret the Scriptures.
The simple question which I desire to place before me
is ; “What has God said? What has Christ taught P”
Guided by the fundamental principles of explanation in
all languages, I inquire for this; and when I am satisfied
as to what the Bible has declared, I regard it as the de-
i cision of heaven and true orthodoxy.
I do not, indeed, regard the opinions of great and
good men, in past ages, as unworthy of attention, or even
reverence. If I read them with a proper temper of
mind, there are few of them but can be read with pro-
fit. The reasonings of Athanasius and Augustine I can
read with great pleasure; so I can those of Calvin and
Edwards. But I adopt no opinion because they adopted
it. The reasons of their opinion are the object of my in-
vestigation; it is of but little interest to me, to know
simply that they believed this or that doctrine. And
I 15
with the very same object, I read the opponents of these
great men. I can say with truth, that much more of my
reading life has been spent among the opponents of my
sentiments, than among the friends of them. Can you
make the same affirmation ?
After all; it is a principle by which, if I have any
knowledge of my own heart, I desire forever to be guid-
ed, to “call no man master, on earth.” I would place
{.
the decisions of Scripture, fairly made out, IMMEASURABLY
ABOVE all human opinions. The difference seems to me .
to be that which exists between the decisions of an un-
erring God, and those of fallible men.
It is with such views and principles of reasoning, that
I have come to the conclusions which have been devel-
oped in these letters. And were it not that I fear to be-
come tedious, by detailing my reasons for believing in
the divine nature of Christ, I should add a great num-
ber of texts, which require us with all the heart to love
him ; to obey him; to confide in him; and to commit our-
selves to him; in such manner as I can never persuade
myself to do, with respect to any being who is not God.
The New Testament represents my consolation, my priv-
ilege, and my happiness to be derived from trusting in
Christ. But can I confide in a finite being, when I have
an infinite, almighty, all-sufficient GOD, to whom I may
go? Will you make me contented with a mite, when I
can have the mines of Peru at my disposal 2
I should also add those texts, and some very striking,
(not to say in my view unanswerable) ones, where, in the
#
i
New Testament, the very same things are applied to .
Christ, which in the Old Testament are affirmed of Je-
hovah. I will merely put down a few references of this
nature, which it will be easy to compare.
116
;
\
A
Is, vi. 5–10, compared with John xii. 37–41.
Mal. iii. 1, •s Mark i. 2.
Ps. lxxviii. 56, 1 Cor. x.9.
And now, in concluding this letter, permit me to say;
That as reason does not and cannot decide against the
doctrine of the Trinity as explained in my second Letter;
nor against the union of the divine and human natures in
Christ; the question whether these are truths or not,
rests solely on the decision of revelation. What then is
that decision P. This question I have already endeavour-
ed to answer.
I will now acknowledge, that I was induced to under-
take the above examination, in consequence of the chal-
lenge which you make, (p. 9,) in the following words;
* “ ©
\ “We challenge our opponents, to adduce one passage in
the New Testament, where the word God ..... unless
turned from its usual sense by the connexion, does not
mean the Father.” I have accepted this challenge, not
I hope in the spirit of contest, but with the desire of
contributing, so far as lies in my power, to develope what
the New Testament does teach. I have laboured to
show, that the very reason above all other reasons, why
I believe Christ to be truly divine, is because the connecion,
when he is called God, ascribes to him such attributes and
works, as leaves me no room to doubt that the JNew Testa-
ment writers meant to assert his proper divinity.
In p. 14, (after stating your apprehensions in regard
to the doctrine that Christ has two natures, the belief of
which, you affirm, is “an enormous tax on human credu-
lity,”) you say, “I am aware, that these remarks will be
met by two or three texts, in which Christ is called God,
and by a class of passages, not very numerous, in which
divine properties are said to be ascribed to him.” Whe-
117
ther the number of texts, in which Christ is called God,
amounts to no more than two or three, it would be super-
fluous now to inquire, when they lie before us, and can
easily be counted. Whether also, the “class of passag-
es” is “not very numerous, in which divine properties
are said to be ascribed to him,” can be judged of in the
same way. But, my dear Sir, what is it to the purpose,
(I ask again,) whether the passages are more or less
numerous, which relate to the doctrine in question 2 It is
too late for you and me to rest our faith upon the number
of passages that inculcate a doctrine, after we have con-
ceded the Bible to be of divine authority. The simple
question is, what do those passages mean, according to
the rules of interpretation in all other cases? This be-
ing ascertained, only two courses are before us; the one,
to receive their meaning as the guide of our faith; the
other to reject their authority, and deny our obligation to
believe the decisions of the Scripture. If the N. Test.
does teach that Christ is not really divine, but a finite
creature, and this can be made out by an unbiassed inter-
pretation of it; I will either receive this doctrine, receive
it implicitly, (for, if I am not deceived in respect to my-
self, I only desire to know what God has taught, in or-
der to believe it;) or else I will reject all claims to in-
spiration in the sacred writers, and follow their instruc-
tions only so far as they coincide with my own specula-
tions. I am fully satisfied there is no middle path here,
and that a man who investigates for himself, extensively
and independently, must eventually follow one or the
other of the courses pointed out.
Convince me then, that you apply the rules of inter-
pretation which you have laid down, in an unbiassed
manner; that you have looked on all sides of these great
H3
questions with an impartial eye, reading the advocates of
different sentiments; that you have never admitted a
sense of injury or the feeling of party to sway you in
your representations of our sentiments; and that the
§
j
3
|
|
:
New Testament does clearly teach, that Jesus is not, and
cannot be divine, when explained by the plain and indis-
putable laws of exegesis; and you will make me a con-
vert to the doctrines, (at least some of them,) which you
embrace. Where the apostles lead me, I will go; or
else renounce all deference to them. I will cherish too,
a grateful remembrance, while I have a being, of any
man or men, who shall convince me by sound reasoning,
that I am in an error and am wandering from the paths
of life. - f
But you will allow me to say, what you will doubtless
affirm of yourself; “I cannot be convinced, until I am
satisfied that my principles of interpretation are wrong,
and my application of them erroneous.” You have de-
scribed, (p. 14,) in what manner you avoid the conclu-
sions drawn from those texts which call Christ God, and
which apparently ascribe divine attributes to him. On
the principles of exegesis there disclosed, I shall remark
in another letter. I will at present say only, that they
appear to me far from being as certain as those which
I have quoted in my first letter.
Your candor will easily concede, that the positions
which I have just laid down are correct, and such as be-
come every sincere lover of truth. I am very ready to
grant, that we ought not to expect to produce convic-
tion in the minds of you and your friends, by using re-
proachful epithets, or severe appellations. We cannot
convince you, by appealing to our Fathers, or their
Creeds; to the ancient Fathers of the Church, or any
119
body of men whatever. You may always reply to us,
“Are not men fallible P And have not the best of unin-
spired men cherished some errors? Give us the reasons
why our Fathers received the doctrines in question, and
then we will hear you; the fact that they did receive
them is a part of Church history, but certainly no theo-
logical argument. The papal hierarchy is supported by
the Fathers; and there never has been a sect in Chris-
tendom, who could not, sooner or later, make an appeal
to the Fathers whom they respected.”
Nor can we convince you by a tenacious and unrea-
sonable opposition to all critical examination of the texts
of the N. Testament, or critical investigation and study;
or by a forced and mystical explanation of various pas-
sages, and converting them to the support of sentiments
which they never were designed to support. The sound
rules of interpretation will soon sweep away every ves-
tige of such defective views of the word of God; and
orthodoxy must stand or fall, by the simple decision of
the Scriptures, interpreted according to the general laws
of language. *
On the other hand;—you will as cheerfully concede
too, that we ought not to be convinced by calling us hard
names; by misrepresenting our sentiments; by proving
that Calvin helped to burn Servetus; by affirming that
our sentiments come from Creeds and Confessions of hu-
man authority, fabricated by superstition and philosophy;
by representing us as gloomy, superstitious, malignant,
and unsocial; by appropriating to Unitarians all that is
kind and noble and generous and exalted, and leaving to
us the opposites of these virtues; by affirming that we
are desirous of infringing Christian liberty and establish-
ing an Inquisition to defend our sentiments, and exhorting
120
others to resist such tyranny; or by representing us as
admitting in words, that God is kind and paternal, while
we think meanly of him, and treat him as the heathen
did their Jupiter. Such things may add fuel to the fire
of controversy; but can the lover of truth, and of the
word of God be convinced by them 2 They are the arts
indeed of controversialists—and arts like them, I am sor-
ry to say, are not confined to any one party. Passion has
more control over disputants than they are aware of
Zeal for what they believe to be truth is what they
think inspires them; while perhaps their words, or the
spirit of their representations “breath out threatenings”
º not “ slaughter” to their opponents. I hardly dare
trust myself to write this paragraph, lest I should catch
, the spirit while I am describing it. I know in some mea-
\sure how frail I am; but I think I do sincerely disap-
prove of such a spirit, in whatever party it may be found.
!" In consulting writers of different views and senti-
ments, one is grieved to find that this spirit is limited to
no party. I have seen it even in many great and good
men. I feel that there is reason to tremble for myself,
possessed of feelings naturally ardent, that I may in some
respect or other transgress in these letters, and hinder
something of the conviction which they otherwise might
possibly produce, in the minds of some.
In one thing, we shall certainly be agreed. The so-
ber inquirer after truth, must be convinced by reason
and argument. All else is nothing to him. And where
these lead him, he will go. The path of truth is the
path of duty. The approbation of God, for a sincere,
candid, simple, honest, believing heart, is worth infinitely
more than all the honor which party zeal can bestow, or
the world is able to give.
12á
POSTSCRIPT.
AFTER finishing the above letter, your “ Note for the second Edi-
tion” came to hand. But as most which it contains had already, as it
seemed to me, been anticipated ; I did not think it of importance to
change the shape of the letter, and adapt it to your Note as well as
Sermon. I was still less inclined to this, because I had endeavoured,
as far as possible to avoid giving any personal shape to the controver-
sy; knowing how bitter and irrelevant to the original subject, all per-
sonal controversies soon become. I may truly say here, “I seek not
you, but yours;” i. e. I have not the most distant design of saying any
thing which shall wound your personal sensibility; but I do feel, and
I ought to feel a deep interest in addressing the understanding and rea-
son of a man, who by his weight of character, sobriety of mind, and
eminent talents, has acquired so much influence in Society as you have.
And in order to do this with propriety, I have endeavoured, as far as
possible, to throw the whole subject into the shape of a discussion re-
specting principles, and to avoid that form of writing which involves
personal reflection.
Will you now permit me, in this informal way, to add a few
things which the perusal of your Note has suggested to me? ... ,
I am unable to reconcile the first passage of your Note, with anoth-
er in the body of your Sermon. In the former you say: “We are
told, by Trinitarians, that Jesus Christ is the supreme God, the same
Being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity is to reveal
him in this character.” In the latter you say: “According to this
doctrine, (i. e. the doctrine of the Trinity,) there are three infinite
and equal persons, possessing Supreme divinity, called the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians,
has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They
love each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's
society. They perform different parts in man's redemption, each hav-
ing his appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the other.
The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The Father sends the Son,
and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like the Son, of taking
flesh. Here then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed of dif-
ferent consciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions, per-
|
16
3.
* * *
t
*;

... "...a ". # * . • **
forming different acºnſistaining º ; and if º
things do not imply and constitute three minds OI’ º: ºn ed.”
erly at a foss to know how three minds or beings are o e &
1 cannot see how Trinitarians maintain that J esus Christ IS the S01/706.
eing as the Father, when a prominent trait of their doctrine is, that
there is a distinction between him and the Father ; which you yourself
epresent as amounting to as high a distinction as exists between two
different men. -
Nor can I see the propriety of the remark in your Note, that if
Christ were “the same being as the Father, . . . . . we should expect
to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God.” For first 5 are
we to take the book of God as it is ; or are we to insist that it must
be conformed to our expectations And secondly ; if Christ was truly
man, (a point as certain, as that Christ ever existed,) and was conver-
sant in the human nature with men; how, in a book which gives us
the history of what he said and did during his incarnation, should we
expect to hear him continually spoken of as the Supreme God? The
reasonableness of such an expectation seems to be at least, very ques-
tionable.
• In truth, the Sacred writers do not appear to me to write as contro-
versialists, on the subject of Christ's divinity. It is the way with men,
who have extravagant views of the importance of any particular sub-
ject, to be ever dwelling upon it and taking occasion to introduce it as
often as possible. Thus I have heardsome preachers, who will not ut-
ter a single public discourse, or offer a single prayer without letting it
be seen of all men, that they are champions for the doctrine of the
Trinity. I have heard others, who never fail to let their hearers
lºnow that they are emancipated from the thraldom of the dark ages;
have thrown off the shackles of Creeds and Confessions, and forms im-
posed by ignorant and bigoted men; that they are rational, enlightened
and reasonable Christians; and who exhort their audience to become
their imitators. The holy apostles however possessed as Imust believe,
none of the spirit which prompts to either of these courses. They did
not view subjects in a distorted and sectarian light., The edifice of
truth—the temple of the living God, rose under their hands not only
into a lofty and magnificent structure, but into one which was as con-
spicuous for symmetry as for grandeur.
All parts of Christian doctrine held their proper place in the system
which they taught. Why should they then be continually speaking of
Christ as the supreme God, when (as I verily believe,) they expected
123
no professed follower of Christ to call this doctrine in question. John
seems to have had opponents to it in his eye, when he penned the first
verse of his gospel: but excepting this, I do not remember another pas-
sage of the New Testament which has the aspect of opposition to gain-
sayers, in respect to the divinity of Christ. The Apostles doubtless
expected to be believed, when they had once plainly asserted any thing.
That they are not, is indeed to be lamented: but it cannot be charged
to their fault. They felt, (what we feel now,) that very frequent
and strong asseverations of any thing is apt to produce a suspicion.
in the minds of a hearer or reader, either that the person making
them has not arguments to rely upon, and so substitutes confident affir-
mations ; or that he is himself but imperfectly satisfied with the cause
which he defends; or that he has sinister motives in view. For myself,
I confess I am inclined to suspect a man of all these, who makes very
frequent and confident asseverations.
I am the more satisfied then, that the New Testament treats the
subject in question, as one which was not controverted; and as one
which was not expected to be called in question. My conclusion
from the apostles' mode of treating it, is, I acknowledge, quite differ-
ent from that which you draw, as stated in your Sermon and Notes.
But with my present views, I must think it to be more probable than
yours.
In regard to what follows in your Note, most of it has been antici-
pated. I will touch upon only a few points.
With respect to the passages which we adduce in proof of Christ's
divine nature, you observe that the “strength of the Trinitarian argu-
ment lies in those, in which Jesus is called God.” This may be true;
but it lies in them, as I have from the first endervoured to show, not
simply because the name God is given to him; but because those
things are ascribed to him as God, which no being but the Supreme
God can perform. JMy whole argument is constructed on this ground.
Your whole Note, on the ground that we draw our conclusion simply
from the fact, that the appellation God is given to Christ.
What you say of Matt. i. 23, so far as it respects the argument in
favour of Christ's divine nature from the name given him, perfectly ac-
cords with my views. It is a very fallacious argument on which many
Trinitarians have imprudently rested, when they maintain that the
name Immanuel proves the doctrine in question. Jerusalem is called
“Jehovah our righteousness;” is Jerusalem therefore divine 2
Why should you say, in the third paragraph of your note, that in
124
looking through “Matthew, Mark, & Luke, you meet with no instance
in which Christ is called God"—Are there no proofs here of his om-
miscience, of his omnipotence, of his authority to forgive sin, of his su-
preme, legislative right! And are not these things better proof of his
divine mature than a mere name can be * Why moreover, should such
an invidious distinction be implied to the prejudice of John, and of
the Epistles? Do you not admit all the New Testament to be of di-
vine origin and authority ? Of what importance then is it whether the
doctrine of Christ's divinity is found in one part or another ? Besides,
if any disciple could know who the Lord in reality was, has any one a
better claim to be considered as knowing it than John, the disciple
“who leaned on Jesus’ bosom 7” *
You have passed the whole of John i. 1, with simply commenting
on the name. My dear Sir, can you expect to satisfy candid inquirers
with this? Are you not bound to tell us how this Logos (Word) did cre-
ate the worlds, (ra rayza, the universe,) before this text is disposed of?
You must tell us how creative power, (the highest, the distinguishing
act of Deity, which makes the characteristic and prominent feature of
the true God in distinction from all other gods, Is. xl. 40, and onward,)
can be delegated? When you can explain this, then you will bring us
upon ground, where we shall be unable to controvert the Gnostics,
who denied that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Supreme
God. Inferior power, they maintained, was competent to create the
world. What else do they, who ascribe creation to Christ and yet
reject his Divinity?
Why should you pass over all that, on which we rely for proof,
and touch only on that which we do not profess to place confident
and certain reliance 2 I mean, why should you descant on the name
God, and say nothing of the attributes ascribed to him who bears this
name 2 If we should argue in the same manner with you, ought we
to expect to convince you? Much less, could we acquit our conscien-
ces, of our obligation to represent fairly the gospel of Christ to the
world, should we publish to them a solemn appeal, in which we
should endeavour to lead them to believe, that all the argument in
favour of a particular doctrine held by many Christians, consisted in
that very thing on which they did not rely ; or at most, which consti-
tuted but a part merely of their argument.
The simile from Plato and Socrates, I must think, is less happily
chosen, than your fine taste and cultivated mind commonly lead you
to choose. In the same breath that you say “Plato was in the begin-
125
ning with Socrates, and was Socrates;” you add, “that whoever
saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not Plato, but Socrates, and that
as long as Plato lived, Socrates lived and taught.” That is, your first
sentence would be understood, of course, in a sense totally different
from that which you meant to convey, unless you added the commen-
tary along with the sentence. John has indeed added a commentary;
but this is, that he means to call Christ THE GoD who created the Universe.
Of this commentary you have taken no notice. Of this however you
are bound to take notice, if you mean to convince those who differ
from you; or to deal uprightly with those whom you design to in-
Struct. * . . - -
On the texts John xx. 28; Acts xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 1 Tim. iii.
16; Heb. i. 6; and John v. 20, I have already said what I wish to
say, at present, The remarks in your Notes, do not seem to call for
any new investigation. - a
You say, (near the close of your Note,) that you have “collected
all the passages in the New Testament in which Jesus is supposed to
be called God.” The foregoing letter however, does represent us
as supposing that there are still more in which he is called God; al-
though I have omitted many, in which a multitude of Trinitarians
have supposed that Christ is called God. Why you should affirm this,
when nearly every book on the doctrine of the Trinity that ever has
been published by Trinitarians will contradict it, I am unable to ex-
plain. * * * - - 1. r
You repeat also the assertion here, “that in two or three passa-
ges, the title (of God) may be given him, (Christ); but in every case,
it is given in connexions and under circumstances, which imply that
it is not to be received in its highest and most literal sense.”
But in no single instance, have you noticed the “connexions,
and circumstances,” in which the appellation God is bestowed on
Christ. Can you reasonably expect your thinking readers, will take
this assertion upon credit' Are you not sacredly obligated to prove
to these same readers, by the Scriptures interpreted according to the uni-
versal laws of eaplaining human language, that the New Testament
writers have not ascribed to Christ CREATIVE power, onniscience, om-
nipotence, omnipresence, divine worship, divine honours, and eternal ex-
istence 2 What are names in this dispute 2 Show that these attributes
are NoT ascribed to Christ, and you make us Unitarians at once. Do
not take advantage of representing our arguments as consisting in that
on which we do not place our reliance; and then tell your readers,
126
‘This is all which Trinitarians have to say for themselves.” Dispute
can never be terminated in this way. Meet fairly and openly the
points in debate. Many of your readers are too intelligent to be sat-
isfied with any other course. Any other does not become your high
character and exalted talents.
~<>4 ºn
LETTER IV.
Reverend and Dear Sir,
In my last Letter, I endeavored to offer reasons why
I believe that Christ is truly divine. You will very nat-
urally expect me to take some notice of those texts, on
which you would specially rely, to prove his inferiority
to the Father. This I must do; but in as summary a
manner as possible. Not because it would not be easy
to say much; even more easy than to write briefly, and
yet with perspicuity; but because there would be dan-
ger of protracting the subject, and tiring the patience of
both writer and reader.
Let me begin then, by stating certain things which
are intimately connected with the subject in question.
While I believe that Christ is truly divine, I believe
that he is as truly human; that he was a real man, and
lived, acted, suffered and died as a man. He resem-
º bled, however man in his primitive state, i. e. Adam, as
he came out of the hands of his Maker. He was pure
and sinless. But he possessed all the feelings and all
' ' the innocent infirmities of human nature. I know no
proposition that can possibly be proved from the New
Testament, if this cannot; nor do I know of a more ab-
surd heresy than that of the Docetae, who averred that
Christ was a man in appearance merely, and not in re-
ality.
I27
... I had actually added to this last sentence the
following one, “In this, I know, you are perfectly ac-
cordant with me;” but hesitating for a moment wheth-
er it was correct, I instituted a reexamination of your
Sermon to see if this were the case. I can scarcely ex-
press my surprise, when after a diligent search, I was .
not able to find an intimation that Christ was truly and º
properly a man. All that you maintain is, that he was | “.
a being distinct from the Father and inferior to him. I
must retract therefore my sentence against the Docetae,
lest I should seem to have treated your opinion with se-
verity. But the state of my mind in regard to the
weight of evidence, I cannot retract. If the evidence
be not overwhelming, that Christ was perfectly man; I
cannot conceive it possible, that any point in theology or
morals is capable of being established. -
The Gnostics maintained that from the supreme Di-
vinity proceeded certain Eons, who were a kind of dii
minores; and one of which (Christ) created the world.
This Eon descended upon Jesus at his baptism, and for-
sook him at his crucifixion. In what important respect
he differs from this, who holds to a superangelic soul, and
a human body, (as it must be presumed you do,) I con-
fess I cannot see. The Socinian seems to me incompar-
ably more rational, and more tenable, than any shade of
the Arian hypothesis. If the evidence be not complete,
that Christ was really a man, from his birth, actions, suf-
ferings, death, and affirmations respecting himself; then
I cannot see how it is to be proved that Christ ever ex-
isted at all. And will you refuse your assent to the pro-
position, that Christ participated in the divine nature,
because you cannot see how such a union of different na-
tures could take place ; and yet believe in a human body
T28
united to a soul not human 2 To what order or class of
beings, then, does this new compound, and strangely mix-
ed person belong P He is not divine ; he is not human,
(for a human soul is surely essential to human nature:)
he is not angelic; for angels have no corporeal forms.
Are we to be freed from mystery by such a theory? I
cannot adopt it, until I find it in the Scripture. But
there I find that the Logos, who existed before the
world was made, was God; and was the Creator of the
universe. I cannot admit him to be a superangelic be-
ing simply, until I am convinced that my views of such
passages as ascribe divinity to him, are incorrect.
As to the theory which maintains that Christ was
God's own proper Son, before the creation of the world,
(of course before his incarnation;) and God’s own Son in
the same sense in which Solomon was the son of David:
It is natural to ask first, Who then was his JMother?
And secondly; How much do the Divinities of the Chris-
tian system, differ from Jupiter and his progeny among
the Greeks and Romans ? -
After all, I cannot but hope that I have not under-
stood you correctly, and have not sufficient grounds to
believe that you embrace any species of Arianism; least
of all that you deny the proper humanity of Christ. For
if this be not a fact ; I must forever abandon the hope
of acquiring the meaning, which the writers of the New
Testament design to convey, in any case whatever,
To return to my purpose. The proper humanity of
Christ being considered as an established fact ; I have
one general observation to make on the principles of ex-
i egesis, which are connected with it.
*** It is this; that in so far as Christ is human, every
*\ thing said of him in this capacity, must necessarily be
129 - º,
spoken of him as inferior to the Father. In a word; as
his human nature is inferior to the divine, so whatever
has relation to it, or is predicated of it, must of course be
that which implies inferiority to the divine.
We do then, (if you will allow me to use your own
expressive words, though applied by you in a connexion
somewhat different,) “we do maintain, that the human
properties and circumstances of Christ, his birth suffer-
ings and death, his praying to God, his ascribing to God
all his power and offices; the acknowledged properties
of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret” them of human
nature; and to draw the conclusion, that whatever could
be predicated of a real man, pious and sinless, might be
predicated of him. How would he—how could he—have
assumed our nature, (except as the Docetae affirmed he
did, viz. in appearance only,) unless every thing could be
predicated of him, which could be predicated of a man?
Accordingly, we know that he increased in wisdom, stat-
ure, and favour with God and man; that he ate, drank,
slept, laboured; was fatigued, hungry, thirsty; rejoiced
and sympathized with his brethren, wept, was in an ag-
ony—prayed, bled, died, was buried, and rose again. If
these things do not forever exclude all hope of making
any shade of the Arian theory probable, I must confess
that I am yet entirely in the dark, as to the nature of
evidence, and what the New Testament does contain.
Do you ask me, how you shall distinguish, when a
text speaks of Christ as human or as divine P I answer;
just as when you speak of a man, you discern whether
what is said relates to his body or his soul. When I say,
Abraham is dead; I mean, obviously, his mortal part.
When I say, Abraham is alive ; I mean, obviously, his
immortal part. When the Evangelist says, that Jesus
17
130
:.
increased in stature, and wisdom, and in favour with
God and man; that he ate, drank, slept, prayed, suffer-
red, died and rose again; he obviously means, his human
nature did this. When he affirms, that the Logos is God
and made the Universe; and the apostle says, that he is
“supreme God, blessed forever,” I cannot help thinking
it to be equally obvious that they mean his divine nature.
The simple answer to your question then, is, that we must
distinguish which nature is described, by what is affirm-
ed concerning it. Ex praedicatis subjectum discernitur.
I must make one remark more, in this place. It is,
that the appellation Father is not always applied to de-
signate that distinction in the Godhead, which we com-
monly describe by calling it the first person; but that
it is sometimes a general title of the Divine Nature. (See
Matt. i. 6.-Deut. xxxii. 6.-Isaiah lxiii. 16.-lxiv. 8.-
Matt. v. 16, 48.—vi. 4.—vii. 11.--John viii. 41.-)
In the same manner Kuplog, (Lord) is applied often to
Christ in particular ; and to God as a general appel-
lation. The Divinity is called Father, on account of his
peculiar and provident care, which he extends to all the
creatures of his power. He is called Lord, (Kvptog,) be-
cause of his universal dominion.
Christ then in his mediatorial capacity, or as to his hu-
man nature, by his obedience merited and obtained
high reward. This reward I take to be the exaltation
which God bestows upon him (Phil. ii. 9–11.) In this
capacity, all power is given him in heaven, and in earth;
i.e. he is constituted “head over all things to his Church.”
(Matt. xxviiii. 18.) In this capacity; “All enemies are
put under his feet ;” ( 1. Cor. xv. 25–27.) And this me-
diatorial dominon, when the work of a mediator. is com-
pleted, will be resigned, at the final judgment. ( 1. Cor.
: xv. 28.)
131
Of the same tenor are many passages. When God
is said to be the head of Christ, (1 Cor. xi. 3;) I un-
derstand it of that nature, of which this can be predi-
cated. When Christ is called the image of the invisible
God, the brightness of the Father's glory and the express
image (zapaxcºp) of his person, (i.e. of him ;) or the
only begotten of the Father, the Son of God; God's own
Son; God’s beloved Son; his dear Son, &c.; I understand
all these as descriptions of his mediatorial nature, and
station. I know indeed, that many of these texts have
been appropriated, by some Trinitarians, to prove the
divine nature of Christ; in my apprehension however,
injudiciously, and without any solid reason. Texts of this
class may found, Mat. xvii. 5–John i. 14.—x. 36-xiv.
10-iii. 35.—Col. i. 13.—Heb. i. 5–Rom. viii. 29, 32.
In Heb. v. 7–10, is a passage which has occasioned W
much speculation, but which seems to me evidently spok-
en of the human nature, in the mediatorial capacity. …
It is certainly more difficult to satisfy the mind in re-
gard to John xiv. 28; “my Father is greater (uetºov)
than I.” On examination however, it appears not to be the
object of Jesus to compare his own nature with that of
the Father; but his condition. “If ye loved me,” said he
to his weeping disciples, “Ye would rejoice that I said, ;
\
I go unto the Father; for the Father is greater than I;”.
i.e. ye would rejoice that I am to leave this state of suf-
fering and humiliation, and resume that “glory which I
had with the Father, before the world was.” You ought
to rejoice at my exaltation to the bliss and glory of the
Father. So ºil (great) in Hebrew, is used for a state
of prosperity, a happy state. Gen. xxvi, 13,
Mark. xiii. 32 offers serious difficulties. “Of that day.
and that hour knoweth no man; no, not the angels, which
132
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The
day and hour are, according to some, the day of judgment;
but, as I apprehend, (from comparing the context,) the
day of vengeance upon the Jews is meant. To solve
the difficulty presented, some have objected to the read-
ing, oves 6 iſog, (neither the Son;) but for this objec-
tion there are no adequate authorities. Others, with
Hilary (de Trinitate ix.) say, that not to know, is not to
publish or declare. “Eanescit, quae aut in tempore non
sunt confitenda aut non agnoscuntur ad meritum.” There
is no doubt that the verb yuvøgzo sometimes has the
sense of making known; but a derivative of the verb
stºo is used here, which does not bear such a sense; nor
will the tenor of the verse admit it. Does the Father
make known the day and hour? For if neither the Son
hor the angels make it known, the implication would be
that the Father did make it known. After all, what
more real difficulty presents itself in this case, than in
that where Jesus is said to have increased in wisdom P
Duke ii. 52. If he did possess a nature really human,
that nature was capable, of course, of progressive im-
provement and knowledge.
Johnxvii. 3. “And this is life eternal, that they might
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom
thou hast sent.” The true God here seems to me
plainly not to be opposed to, or contrasted with Christ;
but as every where else, in case this expression is used,
opposed to idols. In the verse preceding, Christ says,
“Thou hast given me power over ALL flesh, that thou
mightest bestow eternal life upon ALL whom thou hast
given me,” i.e. both Gentiles and Jews. He proceeds;
“This is eternal life, that they might know thee the on-
ly true God, (the only God and true God, the Greek is
133
capable of being rendered, as to sense,) and Jesus Christ
whom thou hast sent.” Now what is there here, differ-
ent from that which we preach and inculcate every Sab-
bath? Do we not teach that there is one only, living and
true God? And that he sent his Son to die for sinners?
And do we not insist, that eternal life is connected with
the reception of these truths 2 I really see no more diffi-
culty here, than in the text, “God so loved the world,
that he sent his only begotten Son, that whosoever be-
lieveth in him should not perish but have everlasting
life.” . 3. *
I Cor. viii.4–6. “As concerning, therefore, the eat-
ing of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols,
we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that
there is none other god but one. For though there be
that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as
there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is
but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we
in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things and we by him.” I have cited several verses for
the sake of introducing the context. From this it is
plain, that the one God, the Father, here, is not placed
in opposition to Christ, but to the lords many and gods
nany of the heathen. If you insist that the one God is
in opposition to Christ, or excludes him ; then, for the
same reason, as Christ is the one Lord (ág ruptog) you.
must insist that it is in opposition to the Lordship (xupto-
wns) of the Father; and of course denies the Lordship of
Creation to him. It is plain however, according to my
apprehension, that God and Lord here are mere syno-
nymes. (See verse 5th, where Weyouévol 6sol is explain-
ed by esot woWºol and xvpu, nowºot.) Nothing is plain-
er than that xuplog is a common title of God, in the Old
Testament and the New. s -
134
Moreover, what is predicated of the one God and one
Lord, here is the same; viz. they are the author and
preserver of all things. The use of the preposition 3ia,
in cases of this nature has already been the subject of
remark.
The nature of the whole case shews, that the apostle
places the object of the Christian's worship in opposition
to the heathen or idol gods. What then is that object?
The one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ ;
who are the authors of all things, and all things are for
them. The passage evidently holds out Christ to be in
the same manner the object of the Christian's worship, as
the Father is. And as the apostle seems to me simply to
assert the unity of God, in opposition to idols, I am not
able to perceive how the divinity of the Saviour is im-
peached by it, any more than the Lordship of the Father
is impeached, by making Christ the one Lord. To em-
brace my view of the whole passage in a brief para-
phrase; ‘Idols are nothing; there is but one God. There
are indeed among the heathen such as are called gods
(Weyoutvol 680,) who comprise gods and lords many; yet
Christians have only one object of worship—one God
and Lord.”
John x. 35, 36. “If he called them gods, unto whom
the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be bro-
ken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified,
and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I
said, I am the Son of God?” Christ had previously said,
“I and my Father are one.” At this the Jews took up
stones to stone him, “because being a man, he made
himself God.” It is perfectly clear, that the Jews fre-
quently understood, or pretended to understand, his affir-
mations respecting himself, to amount to assertions that
he was truly divine. In this case however, it is said that
135
Jesus repelled such an interpretation of his words, by an
explanation which shows that he would apply to himself
the word God only in an inferior sense.
I am not satisfied, that the passage requires this
exegesis. The reply of Jesus is evidently argumen-
tum ad hominem. “If the Old Testament, (the divine
authority of which you admit,) calls them gods, to whom
the word of God was addressed, (Ps. lxxxii. 6) i. e. the
magistrates of the Jews; how much more proper is it,
that I, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into
the world, should call myself the Son of God.” If you
are not offended, when your Scriptures bestow the title
of Elohim upon civil magistrates merely; much less is
there reason to be angry, when I, whom God hath dis-
tinguished from all others, made preeminent above them,
and sent into the world on the designs of mercy, should
call myself the Son of God. Verse 37; If I prove not
the truth of these assertions by miracles; then disbelieve
them. Verse 38; But if I do, believe the proof that
may be drawn from my miracles, that the Father is in me
and I in him. Now wherein did Jesus abate at all from
any thing which he had before said? This latter ex-
pression, I do not indeed understand, (though some have
done it,) as asserting his divine nature in a direct manner.
It is a formula which is used to express the idea, that
any one is conjunctissimus Deo; most nearly and affec-
tionately connected with God. (See 1 John iv. 16, where
it is applied to Christians; also verses 12 and 13.)
In the whole passage, it appears plain to me, that
Jesus has not asserted any thing, which could not be
predicated of his incarnate or human nature as sustaining
the office of Messiah. He had called God his Father';
and, as the Jews supposed, in a peculiar and appropri-
136
ate sense. But it did not follow, that by this term he
meant to assert his divine nature. Rather the contrary
appears. “Sayye of him whom the Father hath sanc-
tified and sent into the world,” i. e. the Son of God, &c.
Jesus then does not undertake to answer the question,
whether he is truly divine; but simply to vindicate the
language which he had used, against the accusations of
the Jews. “If your magistrates are called Elohim, is it
presumption in me to call myself the Son of God?” This
leaves the question unagitated as to his divine nature ;
but vindicates the language which he had used, against
the malignant aspersions of the Jews, by an argument
from their own Scriptures.
It shows indeed, that the term “Son of God,” does
not appropriately designate Christ as divine, but as the
incarnate Mediator;-as him whom the Father hath sanc-
tified and sent into the world. Did the Father sanctify
and send into the world his Son as GOD, who is infinitely
perfect and immutable? As Mediator, as Messiah, Christ
was sent into the world; as Son he filled, and acted in,
a subordinate capacity; how then can his being Son
prove him to be divine P Son of God indeed, by usage,
has become a kind of proper name; and in this view, de-
signates occasionally a distinction in the Godhead, which
I believe to be eternal. But this is only an occasional
and secondary use of it. Commonly and appropriately,
it designates the incarnate Messiah, as born in a manner
supernatural, (Luke i. 35, comp. iii. 38;) as the special
object of divine love, (Mat. xvii. 5.—Col. i. 13.−John iii.
35;) and as exhibiting the best and highest resemblance
of the Father, (Col. i. 15.—Heb. i. 3.-John i. 14.—x.
38-xiv. 10.) Would theologians keep these ideas in
view, I cannot help thinking they might be able to un-
137
}
derstand each other better, and to reason more conclu-
sively. * n
1 have thus summarily touched upon the principal
texts, which are employed by Unitarians, to oppose the
doctrines which I have been endeavoring to defend.
Whether I have violated the laws of exegesis in doing
this; and whether you or I depart most from them, in
explaining the texts which seem to be at variance with
the opinions that we defend, must be the subject of an.
other letter.
I must observe however, before I close this letter,
which contains all that I have at present to advance, in re-
gard to the particular doctrines that your Sermon exhib-
its, that I do not omit making observations on the rest of
the Sermon, because I accede either to many things which
you profess to believe, or to the mode in which you have
represented the sentiments of Trinitarians. The manner
in which you accuse us of treating the moral attributes
of God; your appropriating to yourself and your party
the exclusive belief in all that is amiable and excellent
in the Deity, (pp. 15–18;) your assertion that the re-
proaches which you are obliged to encounter are occa-
sioned chiefly by your zeal to vindicate the dishonored
goodness and rectitude of God, (p. 18;) the manner in
which you state our views of the atonement, and appro-
priate to your party only many important things in which
we all agree, (pp. 18–21;) the appropriation also to
Unitarians only, of many views respecting the love of
God, rational zeal in religion, and the benevolent virtues;
and the intimations that we are in opposition to all that
is excellent, and rational, and worthy of belief; I must be
permitted to say, do not seem to me well adapted to Con-
ciliate, nor very consistent with your declaration, (p. 24.)
18
138
when you say, “Charity, forbearance, a delight in the
virtues of different sects; a backwardness to censure and
condemn .... are virtues. ... which we admire and re-
commend.” But, my dear Sir, I will not trust myself one
moment on this ground. I am sure, that a sober review
of your discourse, in prospect of your accountability to
God, for the manner in which you have represented and
treated so large a portion of the Christian community in
this country, (some of whom, at least, are accustomed to
think and reason for themselves, though they cannot
agree with you;) a review after the heat of the occa-
sion is past, that prompted such representations, and in-
duced you to place us in attitude so debasing and repul-
sive ; will give you more acute sensations than any thing
which I can say would inspire, or that I could even wish,
I do not know but I may betray similar excitement in
my remarks. But if I have attempted to hold you, or
Unitarians up to ridicule; if I have misrepresented your
sentiments; if I have charged you with treating Jehovah
as the heathens did Jupiter, or endeavoured to frame my
arguments so as to captivate and lead away the unwary
and unthinking ; or made one single effort to use the ar-
gumentum ad invidiam ; or appealed to human authori-
ties to decide the question between us; appealed to any
thing but the sober rules of exegesis; then I desire to
know it, and be humbled for it. I will not say that I
have not transgressed in any of these particulars; for
who that knows the human heart does not know that it
is deceitful ? But I can say sincerely, I did not mean to
transgress; and that I will, with all my heart, thank the
man, who in the spirit of Christian love will point out
my error, and show me wherein I have written in such
a way as to endanger or render repulsive the cause
139
which I am advocating. That cause I believe to be just;
and I should regret to employ any devices, management,
or stratagem, or any unfairness to defend it. What other
real interest have we but to know the truth? And what
but simple argument can lead us to it?
I retire then, for the present, from all the field of re-
view which the remainder of your Sermon presents;
hoping that this remainder may fall into abler and better
hands than mine; that it may be thoroughly sifted by
some one, who has more health, and more leisure than
I enjoy; and who will rest his whole defence on the
simple basis of the word of God, interpreted by the
laws which reason prescribes. Should not this be the
case; I may hereafter resume and continue these re-
marks, so as to comprise all the topics which your Ser-
mon presents.
-->4)-Gº-
LETTER. W.
Reverend and Dear Sir, r
IN p. 14 of your Sermon, you inform us of the meth-
od in which you explain those passages which seem to
speak of the divine nature of Christ. The paragraph
is as follows:
“I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or three
texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class of passages, not
very numerous, in which divine properties are said to be ascribed to
him. To these we offer one plain answer. We say, that it is one of
the most established and obvious principles of criticism, that language
is to be explained according to the known properties of the subject to
which it is applied. Every man knows, that the same words convey
very different ideas, when used in relation to different beings. Thus,
Solomon built the temple in a different manner from the architect
whom he employed : and God repents differently from man. Now,
we maintain, that the known properties and circumstances of Christ
his birth, sufferings, and death, his constant habit of speaking of God
146)
as a distinct being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to
God all his power and offices, these acknowledged properties of Christ,
we say, oblige us to interpret the comparatively few passages, which
are thought to make him the Supreme God, in a manner consistent
with his distinct and inferior nature. It is our duty to explain, such
texts, by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human
beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine na-
ture, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God's
fuhness. These latter passages we do not hesitate to modify, and re-
strain, and turn from the most obvious sense, because this sense is op-
posed to the known properties of the beings to whom they relate ;
and we maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, and use no
greater latitude, in explaining, as we do, the passages which are
thought to support the Godhead of Christ.”
f
I must hesitate however to adopt this principle, with-
out examining its nature and tendency. On the suppo-
sition that you admit the Bible to be a revelation from
God, as you aver, permit me to ask whether it is the
object of a revelation to disclose truths which are Nor
known, or are insufficiently established; or whether it is
the object of a revelation to disclose truths already
known and established 2 If you answer, The latter;
then your answer denies, of course, that it is a Revela-
tion, What the book of nature exhibits, the Scriptures
do not reveal. Is there then, any thing in the Scriptures,
which the book of nature does not exhibit? If you con-
eede this ; then I ask, in regard to that unknown thing
which is revealed, How are we to obtain any notion res-
pecting it? E. g. the resurrection of the body is reveal-
ed. Now it is a known property of the human body to
corrupt and perish, Shall I construe a passage of Scrip-
ture then in such a manner as to contradict this known
property 2 If not, then I can never suppose the resur-
rection of the body to be revealed. I however do con-
strue it differently—following the obvious assertion of
the sacred writers, and not allowing myself to force a
constructive meaning upon their language. Yet, if I un-
141
derstand you, I am at liberty, “to restrain, and modify,
and turn the words from their most obvious sense,” be-
cause this sense is opposed to the known properties of
the matter of which our bodies are composed. '
The case is just the same, in regard to any other fact
or doctrine. What I know already of a thing is, if you
are correct, to “modify, restrain, and turn from their
obvious sense,” the words which are employed in reveal-
ing them, because what is revealed I suppose to be at
variance with some known doctrines or properties. Is
there not room here, for great caution, and great doubt,
as to the correctness of your principle * , - . .
According to this principle, moreover, the Scriptures
are to be construed very differently, by persons of differ-
ent degrees of knowledge. One man knows the proper-
ties of things far more extensively than his neighbor.
He sees that what is revealed may consist with these
known properties; but his neighbor, who lacks this know-
ledge, is unable to perceive the consistency of revelation
with what he knows; either because his knowledge does
not qualify him to judge, or because what he thinks he
knows, he is really ignorant of The same text in the
Bible therefore, may be received by one, and rejected
by the other, as a part of Revelation. The measure of
a man's knowledge consequently, cannot be a proper
rule, by which we may test the meaning of Scripture.
But you will say, “I can never believe in the reality
of a revelation, which contradicts my reason.” I accede;
on the supposition that reason is understood in a proper
sense. And here is the very place where I find the
greatest difficulty with your theory of interpretation.
You do not carry your objections back to the proper
place. If God manifest in the flesh be an absurdity, a
.142
palpable contradiction—“an enormous tax upon human
credulity,” as you aver; then the claims of the book
which asserts this, are, no doubt, to be disregarded.
What is palpable contradiction, we certainly can never
believe. |
But in determining what the Scriptures have taught,
we have no right to say, that because this or that doc-
trine is repugnant to our views, therefore we will “mod-
ify and restrain, and turn from the obvious sense,” the
words in which it is conveyed. The rules of exegesis
are not a mass of wax, which can be moulded, at plea-
sure, into any shape which we may fancy. We do as
great violence to reason—to the first principles of all
reasoning, when we violate them, as when we admit ab-
surdities to be true.
In case an obscure term is used, I acknowledge that
clear passages relating to the same subject, are to be
adduced to ascertain its meaning. If Christ had been
simply called God; I should allow, that this term might
be explained by its use as applied to inferior beings. But
when the sacred writers themselves have explained the
meaning which they attach to it, by telling us that he is
the God who created and governs the world; who is om-
miscient and eternal; the object of religious worship and
prayer; God over all, or supreme God; (not to mention
“the true God,” and the “great God;”) there is no law
of exegesis, no method of interpretation which can fritter
away the meaning, that is not absolute violence—an in-
fringement of the fundamental principles of all interpreta-
tion, an abandonment of the first principles of our reason.
It does appear to me therefore, that my only resort in
such a case is, to reject their authority,if I disbelieve the
doctrine. To say that they did not mean to teach, what
143
they most obviously have taught, I cannot ; must not.
No book can be understood; no writer can be interpret-
ed at all, by such a rule of exegesis, without forcing upon
him the opinions of his readers. My system of philoso-
phy, we will say, differs from yours. What you view to
be a palpable contradiction and absurdity, I view as ra-
tional and consistent. This, we know, is not an uncom-
mon fact. In reading a writer then, that respects the
subject of our differing opinions, you hold yourself bound
to construe him so as to save all that appears to you con-
tradictory, and absurd; and I interpret him, just as his
language obviously means, by the common laws of exege-
sis, which do not depend on philosophy. This writer then,
has two different meanings, according to us, in the same
passage. Is this so 2 Can it be 2 Or rather are not the
laws of interpretation independent of you or me? If not,
how can the meaning of any writer be ever obtained 2
You and I differ, as to what John has taught in the
first chapter of his gospel. I commence reading him,
with the full conviction that I cannot determine a priori,
in all respects, what the nature of God and Christ is; and
with the belief that John wrote what is a revelation from
heaven. I read John, and interpret him just as I do any
other author, ancient or modern, by the general rules of
interpretation modified by the special circumstances and
dialect in which he wrote. I am as well satisfied, that
he meant to assert the truly divine nature of the Logos,
as I am that he has made any assertion at all. I receive
this assertion therefore, as declaring a fact, which I
ought to believe ; and which, if I admit his inspiration,
I must believe. In the same manner, I treat all other
passages which respect this subject. I come in this way
to the conclusion that Christ is truly divine; that he has
144
a human and divine nature so united, (I undertake not
to tell in what manner,) that he speaks of either nature
as himself. The passages which seem to imply his in-
feriority, I find to be capable of explanation without
contradiction, or doing violence to the language, by the
obvious fact that he has two natures united, which the
sacred writers seem to me so plainly to inculcate. In
this way, I find one consistent whole. I save the laws
of exegesis. I admit, indeed, on the authority of revela-
tion, doctrines which natural religion never taught; but
why should not a revelation teach something which natural
religion did not? - -
Here then I take my stand. I abide by the simple
declarations of the New Testament writers, interpreted
by the common laws of language. My views reconcile
all the seeming variations of description, in regard to
Christ, without doing violence to any. I can believe and
do believe, that the sacred writers are consistent, with-
out any explanation but such as the laws of interpreta-
tion admit and require. - -
On the other hand; when you read the first of John,
you say, The known properties of Christ must modify
the description. How then are those properties known?
By the same writer; the same authority; the same re-
velation. But what can give to one part of John's book
any more credit than to the other part P You will say,
you can understand better how Christ can be inferior to
God, than how he can be divine. Granting this might be
the case—is a revelation merely to teach us things which
are obvious; or may it not disclose those which are
more difficult, and cannot be discovered by unassisted
reason 2 If the latter; how can you aver, that Christ
may not be revealed as a divine person 2 To show a
145
priori that this is impossible, or absurd, is really out of
the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing
for or against this fact. The simple question then is,
What has John said P not what your philosophy may
lead you to regard as probable or improbable. And I
must be allowed to say again, If John has not asserted
Christ to be truly divine, I am utterly unable by the
laws of exegesis, to make out that he has asserted any
thing in his whole gospel. - ... •
If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a
human and divine nature, is “an enormous tax, on human
credulity,” I should certainly reject the authority of John.
To violate the laws of exegesis in order to save his cred-
it, I could regard as nothing more than striving to keep
up a fictitious belief in divine revelation. It is what I
cannot do; and what no man ought to do. It would be
impossible for me, with your views, to hesitate at all
about giving up entirely the old idea of the divine inspi-
ration and authority of the sacred books. How can they
be divine, if they teach palpable absurdities 2 And that
they do teach what you'call palpable absurdities, I feel
quite satisfied can be amply proved from the simple ap-
plication of the laws of interpretation, that are establish-
ed on an immoveable basis. 4 -
You have however, undertaken to vindicate your
method of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the
necessity of interpreting several unlimited assertions in
respect to Christians, in the same way as you do many in
respect to Christ. “Recollect,” you say, “the unquali-
fied manner in which it is said of Christians, that they
possess all things, know all things, and do all things” And
again, in order to show how we may “modify and restrain
and turn from the obvious sense,” the passages that res-
19
146 f
º
pect the divinity of Christ; you say, “It is our duty to ex-
plain such texts, by the rule which we apply to other
texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are
said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and
possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fulness.”
I have already examined sufficiently the manner in
which the Bible calls men gods. There is and can be
no mistake here ; for instead of attributing to them
divine attributes, it always accompanies the appel-
lations with such adjuncts as guard against mistake. It
does not call them God; and then add, that the God is
meant, who is the Creator of the Universe.
Nor does the New Testament, (your sole Statute
book,) any where call men God. Will you produce the in-
stance; unless it be in the case of Christ, which is the case
in question ? But that the appellation here is bestowed
under circumstances totally diverse from those, in which
it is applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too
obvious to need further explanation. The Hebrew word
Enºs (Elohim) had plainly a latitude more extensive,
i. e. it was capable of a greater variety of use, than the
Greek word Geog. Can you produce from the Greek
Scriptures, i. e. the New Testament, an instance where
©Bog is applied to any man whatever ?
In regard to the assertion, “that Christians are made
partakers of the divine nature;” (2 Pet. i. 4) a mistake
about the meaning is scarcely possible. “Whereby (i. e.
by the gospel) are given unto us,” says the apostle, “ex-
ceeding great and precious promises, that BY THESE ye
might be partakers of the divine nature.” But how P He
answers this question. “Having escaped the corruption
that is in the world through lust.” That is, by moral
purification you will become assimilated to God, or par-
147
...ſº
takers of that holy nature, which he possess
context here afford any ground for mistake
In 1 John ii. 20, Christians are said to have “an unc-
tion from the Holy one, and to know all thigs’ In the
preceding verse, the apostle had been describing apos-
tates, who forsook the Christian cause, because they
Does the
were not sincerely attached to it. The case of real
Christians, who have an unction from the Holy One is
different. They “know all things.” And what means
this? The sequel explains it. “I have not written upto
you,” says he, “because ye know notſhe truth ; but be-
cause ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” To
“know all things” then, plainly means here, to know all
that pertains to Christian doctrine and duty, so as to
persevere, and not to apostatise from the truth as others
had done. | . . . . . .
Is this however asserting, a; you affirm in your Ser-
mon, that Christians are said injº an unqualified manner to
know all things P’ . } - . . *
In John xiv. 26, the HolyGhost is promised to the
apostles “to teach them all things, and to bring all things
to their remembrance, whºſtsoever Christ had said unto
them.” Again, John xvi. Ž3, the “Spirit of truth is pro-
mised to guide the disciples into all truth ;” and in 1 John
ii. 27, the anointing whićh Christians have received, is
said to “teach them all; things.” In all these cases, the
context leaves no roojſa to doubt, that “all things essen-
tial to Christian dogtrine and practice” is meant. No
person, I prºnºever understood these passages as
meaning that the apostles or Christians should be en-
doyº, with omniscience. § . -
Yet in the other case, where Christ is asserted to be
__” God, the context is such, that the great body of Chris-


148
tians in eyºry age have understood the sacred writers as
asserting that he was truly divine. Is there no differ-
ence between the two cases P You make them indeed
the same, in respect to the principle of interpretation.
To my find the difference lies in this; that in the one
case the adjuncts prevent you from ascribing omniscience
to Christians; in the other they lead you necessarily to do
50, unless you º turn their meaning from the obvious
sense” so far, as to transgress the fundamental maxims
ºf interpreting language. • º ... * .
In 1 Cor. iii. 23, the apostle says to the Corinthian
churches, “All this are yours;” and the same apostle
speaks of himself, ( *Cor. vi. 10) as “having nothing and
yet possessing all things.” In the first case, the context
adds, “Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the
world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to
come—all are yours; and ye are Christ's;” i.e. simply,
- (when the phraseology is construed as elsewhere,) let
no man glory in this o, that particular teacher ; all
teachers belong to the Church, and all things in the pre-
sent and future world will minister to the good of the
church; why should you cowet exclusive, individual pos-
sessions, when you have an interest in the whole P. Re-
frein therefore, from the spirit of jealousy and conten-
tion. . . \ - - - -
The second case is merely antithesis. r: The apostle
evidently asserts, (compare the Montext,) that although
he has little indeed of this world’sº ood, yet he possess-
es a far more excellent and satisfactºy good, in com-
parison of which all else is nothing, . In the same sense,
we every day speak of a man's all; meaning that which •,
he most desires and loves best. 'N
I can no more see here, than in the other instances ‘‘‘,


I49
already discussed, why you should affirm, that Christians
are said “in an unqualified manner to possess all things.”
One expression still remains. In Eph. iii. 19, the
apostle exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians at
Ephesus might “be filled with all the fulness of God.”
By comparing this expression, as applied to Christ in
Col. i. 19.-ii. 9, with John i. 14, 16, and Eph. i. 23, it
appears evident, that by the fulness of God is meant the
abundant gifts and graces which were bestowed on
Christ, and through him upon his disciples; John i. 16—
Eph. i. 23. When Paul prays therefore, that the Church
at Ephesus might be “filled with the fulness of God;”
he prays simply, that they might be abundantly replen-
ished with the gifts and graces, peculiar to the Christian
religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the
principle of exegesis in question ?
I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in
which you have embarked, and the principles by which
you explain away the divinity of the Saviour must lead
most men who approve them, eventually to the conclu-
sion that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not
oblige us to belief or obedience. I do not aver, that they
will certainly lead you there. The remains of your former
education and belief, may still serve to guard you against
the bolder conclusions of some of your brethren, who
have not been placed under instruction such as you en-
joyed, in early life. You have more serious views of the
importance of religion, than many, perhaps most of those
who speculate with you. Consistency too, will afford
strong inducement not to give up the divine authority of
the Scriptures. Yet many of your younger brethren
have no inconsistency to fear, by adopting such views.
Deeming what you have publicly taught them to be true,
150
viz., that it is “no crime to believe with Mr. Belsham,”
who boldly and plainly declares, that the Scriptures are not
the word of God; feeling the inconsistency, (as I am cer-
tain some of them will and do feel it,) of violating the
fundamental rules of interpretation, in order to make the
apostles speak as in their apprehension they ought to
speak; and unable to reconcile what the apostles say,
with their own views; they will throw off the restraints
which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility of
the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them sim-
ply on the ground, on which they place any other writ-
ings of a moral and religious nature.
I make no pretensions to uncommon foresight, in re-
gard to this subject. I certainly do not say these things
with invidious designs, and for the sake of kindling the
fire of contention. Very far from it. On the contrary;
I believe that the parties now contending here will have
no quiet, until this ground be openly taken, on your part.
For myself, I view it as incomparably more desirable in
every point of view, that the authority of the Scriptures
should at once be cast off; and its claims to divine inspi-
ration rejected; than that such rules of exegesis should
be introduced, as make the Scripture speak, molens vo-
lens, whatever any party may desire. Avowed unbelief
in the divine authority of the Scriptures can never con-
tinue long, in the present day of light and examination.
Such a state of things, may pass away with the genera-
tion who act in it. But it is a more difficult matter to
purge away the stain, which Christianity may contract
by violated laws of interpretation: because those who
indulge in such a violation profess to respect the Chris-
tian religion, and to acknowledge its divine original.
In making these observations, on the nature and prob-
151
able consequences of your system of exegesis, which ex-
plains away the Deity of Christ; I cannot think that I
am building castles in the air, to amuse my own imagin-
ation. For ten years past, I have been called, every
week, to duties which necessitated me to be conversant
with the history of exegesis, as it has appeared in Ger-
many; a country which in half a century has produced
more works on criticism and sacred literature, than the
world contains besides. About fifty years since, Semler,
Professor of Divinity at Halle, began to lecture and pub-
lish on the subject of interpretation, in a manner that
excited the attention of the whole German Empire. The
grand principle, by which he explained away whatever
he did not think proper to believe, was that which has
been called accommodation. He maintained, that the
apostles and the Saviour often admitted representations
and doctrines into their instructions, which were calcu-
lated merely for the purpose of persuading the Jews, be-
ing accommodated to their prejudices; but were not in-
tended to be a general directory of sentiment. In this
way, whatever was inconsistent with his own views, he
called accommodation; and thus at once expunged it
from the list of Christian doctrines.
Semler's original genius and great learning soon gave
currency to his views in Germany, where a system of
theology and exegesis had prevailed, which in not a few
respects needed reformation. Since his time, a host of
writers, (many of them with exalted talents and most
extensive erudition,) have arisen, who have examined,
explained, modified and defended the doctrine of accom-
modation. The more recent shape of it is, to solve all
the miraculous facts related in the Bible, by considera-
tions which are affirmed to be drawn from the idiom and
I52
ignorance of antiquity in general, and in particular of the
sacred writers themselves. Thus, with Eichhorn, the ac-
count of the creation and fall of man, is merely a poeti-
cal, philosophical speculation of some ingenious person,
on the origin of the world and of evil. (Urgeschichte,
passim.) So, in regard to the offering up of Isaac by
Abraham ; he says, “the Godhead could not have re-
quired of Abraham so horrible a crime; and there can
be no justification, palliation, or excuse for this pretend-
ed command of the Divinity.” He then explains it. A-
braham dreamed that he must offer up Isaac, and accor-
ding to the superstition of the times regarded it as a di-
vine admonition. He prepared to execute the mandate,
which his dream had conveyed to him. A lucky acci-
dent, (probably the rustling of a ram who was entangled
in the bushes,) hindered it: and this according to an-
cient idiom, was also the voice of the divinity. (Biblio-
thek. Band i. s. 45, &c.)
The same writer represents the history of the Mo-
saic legislation at mount Sinai, in a curious manner. Mo-
ses ascended the top of Sinai, and built a fire there, (how
he found wood on this barren rock, or raised it to the
top, Eichhorn does not tell us,) a fire consecrated to the
worship of God, before which he prayed. Here an un-
expected and tremendous thunder storm occurred. He
seized the occasion, to proclaim the laws which he had
composed in his retirement, as the statutes of Jehovah;
leading the people to believe that Jehovah had con-
versed with him. Not that he was a deceiver; but
he really believed that the occurrence of such a thunder
storm was a sufficient proof of the fact, that Jehovah had
spoken to him, or sanctioned the work in which he had
been engaged. (Bibliothek. Band. i. Theil 1. s. 76, &c.)
153
The prophecies of the Old Testament are, according to
him, patriotic wishes, expressed with all the fire and el-
egance of poetry, for the future prosperity, and a future
deliverer of the Jewish nation. (Propheten. Bibliothek.
Einleit, passim.) *
In like manner, C. F. Ammon, professor of theology
at Erlangen, tells us, in respect to the miracle of Christ's
walking on the water, that “to walk on the sea, is not
to stand on the waves, as on the solid ground, as Jerom
dreams, but to walk through the waves so far as the
shoals reached, and then to swim.” (Pref. to edit. of Er-
nesti Inst. Interpret. p. 12.) So in regard to the mira-
cle of the loaves and fishes, (Mat. xiv. 15,) he says, that
Jesus probably distributed some loaves and fishes which
he had, to those who were around him, and thus excited
by his example others among the multitude, who had
provisions, to distribute them in like manner: (p. 16.)
Thiess, in his commentary on Acts, explains the mi-
raculous effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
(Acts il.,) in the following manner: “It is not uncom-
mon,” says he, “in those countries, for a violent gust of
wind to strike only a particular spot or house. Such a
gust is commonly accompanied by the electric fluid ; and
the sparks of this are scattered all around. These float
about the chamber, become apparent, and light upon the
disciples. They kindle into enthusiasm at this; and be-
lieve the promise of their master is now to be perform-
ed. This enthusiasm spectators assemble to witness;
and instead of preaching as before in Hebrew, each one
uses his own native tongue to proclaim his feelings.”
I have not followed the words through the whole,
but have given the substance in the two last sentences.
\ 20
i54. I
Such was the outpouring of the Spirit; and such the
gift of tongues.
The same Thiess, (Com. on Chap. iii) represents the
miraculous cure of the man who was lame from his birth,
by Peter, in a very singular way. “This man,” says he,
“ was lame, only according to report. He never walk-
ed any ; so, the people believed that he could not walk.
tº e º 'º e Peter and John, being more sagacious however,
threatened him. “In the name of the Messiah,” said they,
‘Stand up.’ The word Messiah had a magical power.
He stood up. Now one saw that he could walk. To
event the compassion of men from being turned into
rage, (at his deceit,) he chose the most sagacious party,
and connected himself with the apostles.”
The case of Ananias falling down dead is thus repre-
sented by the same writer: “Ananias fell down terrifi-
ed; but probably he was carried out and buried, while
still alive.
Heinrichs however, who produces this Comment of
Thiess, relates another mode of explaining the occur-
rence in question; which is, that Peter stabbed Ananias;
“which,” says Heinrichs, “does not at all disagree with
the vehement and easily exasperated temper of Peter.”
(Nov. Test. Koppianum, Vol. iii. Partic. ii. pp. 355–
357, &c.
You may smile, my dear Sir, or shudder at these ex-
planations; but I am entirely unable to see how they
imply a greater liberty, than you take with John i. i.,
and Rom. ix. 5; with Heb. i. 8, 9, and jazny other pas-
sages. |
Numerous systems of Hermeneutica, i. e. the Art of
Interpretation, have been written and published in Ger-
many, on this plan. Meyer, in a very laboured system of
}
155
Hermeneutica of the Old Testament, in two large octavos,
has a body of rules, by which every thing miraculous is
to be explained away. He concedes that there is the
same objection to admitting'any one miracle, as to admit-
ting all. He therefore rejects the whole. So Bauer,
in his Hermeneutica; and a multitude of others. -
In the course of the discussions which these princi-
ples have excited in Germany, the question about Christ's
divinity has been entirely forgotten. When the contest
first began, this point was warmly contested. But the
fundamental questions, whether the Scriptures are di-
vinely inspired; and whether the doctrine of accommoda-
tion can be used, in all its latitude, in interpreting them,
soon took the place of this. Accommodation has been
sifted, attacked, defended, explained, moderated, modifi-
ed, itself accommodated; so that at last it is nearly driven
from the ground, and the plain and simple rules of exe-
gesis are triumphant among the best part of the Ger-
man Critics. -
In the mean time, they have not returned to the prin-
ciples of their Lutheran Symbol. Very far from it.
While they allow that John, and Peter, and Paul, did
believe and teach the doctrine of Christ's divinity and
of the atonement, they hold themselves under no obli-
gation to receive them. De Wette, who has recently
published a System of Theology and is Professor of the
same at Jena, maintains, that the Pentateuch was com-
posed about the time of the captivity; that the Jewish
ritual was of gradual formation, accessions being made to
it by superstition; that the book of Chronicles, (which is
filled with scraps and inconsistencies,) was foisted into
the canon by some of the priesthood, who wished to ex-
alt their own order. His Beitrage, which contained these
156
sentiments, was published before the death of Gries:
bach, and came out recommended by him; who says,
“If you object to the young literary adventurer, (De
Wette,) that he has endeavored to bring Judaism into
disrepute, my answer is, This is no more than Paul him-
self has laboured to do.’ (Pref. to Beitrage.)
In his book de morte expiatoria Christi, (the atone-
ment of Christ,) he represents Christ as disappointed
that the Jews would not hearken to him as a moral teach-
er simply ; which was the first character he assumed.
Christ then assumed the character of a prophet, and
asserted his divine mission, in order that the Jews
might be induced to listen to him. Finding that they
would not do this, and that they were determined to
destroy him, in order not to lose the whole object of his
mission, and to convert nesessity into an occasion of giv-
ing himself credit, he gave out, that his death itself
would be expiatory.
Yet De Wette holds a most exalted rank in Ger-
many. I doubt whether Germany can boast of an ori-
ental scholar, or a literary man, who has more admirers
than De Wette. Gesenius of Halle, has spoken of him,
in a letter recently recived, in the highest terms; and
selects and, recommends him, among all the literati, crit-
ics and orientalists of Germany, as most deserving of
special acquaintance and confidence.
Both of these gentlemen are professors of Divinity in
German Universities; both men of great genius, and
most profound erudition; men too who stand at the head
of oriental literature in the German Empire; not to add
in the whole world. sº -
What shall we say now of De Wette P. That he is
not a Christian P. Surely he would look with disdain on.
157
any man, who should think of such an accusation; and
tax that man with the highest degree of illiberality and
superstition. *
Will you say: “What is all this to us P. We do not
avow, or defend such opinions.” True, I answer ; at
present, you do not avow them. A short time since they
did not. But as soon as their numbers increased, so that
they began to be fearless of consequences; and their an-
tagonists urged the laws of exegesis upon them, they
abandoned the ground of defending the divine authenti-
city of the Bible, at once. A few years since, the state
of the question in Germany was very nearly what it now
is here. At present, the most of the German critics,
(rejecting accommodation, and casting off all ideas of the
divine origin of the Scriptures) are disputing with great
zeal the questions, Whether a miracle be possible P
Whether God and nature are one and the same thing?
(Schelling, a divine too, being at the head of a great par-
ty which maintain that they are the same;) and Whe-
ther the Jews ever expected any Messiah? Some time
ago, their critics maintained that no Messiah was pre-
dicted in the Old Testament; but now they question
even whether the Jews had any such expectation. The
fact whether Christ rose from the dead, long ago was
disputed; and now it would seem, that they have come
nearly to the end of questions on theology. At least I
cannot well devise, what is to come next.
It needs now, only an acquaintance with German rea-
soners and critics, (a thing which is fast coming in,) to in-
duce young men to go with them, who set out with your
maxim, that “to believe with Mr. Belsham is no crime.”
No man can read these writers, without findig a great
deal of excellent matter in them, well arranged, and of
*
158
real utility. I venture to add, no man can read them,
and ever after take up Priestley, Belsham, Carpenter,
Yates, Lindsey, or any other of the recent, English Uni-
tarian writers, as critics, but with disgust. Cappe is the
only one whom I have seen, that appears to have studi-
ed his Bible. He was evidently a man of thought, and
a lover of Biblical study. But the incomparably greater
acquisitions of the German critics in every department
of study, spread a charm over their writings, for the low-
er of discussion and literature, that is not often found in
productions of this nature. I must add, that much as
I differ in sentiment from them, and fundamentally sub-
versive of Christianity as I believe their views to be, I
am under great obligations to them for the instructions
they have given me; and specially for convincing me
that we need nothing more than the simple rules of ex-
egesis, and a candid, believing heart, to see in the Scrip-
tures, with overpowering evidence, all the substantial
and important doctrines, which have commonly been de-
nominated orthodox.
Such has been the impression on me, from reading
German writers. And with such impressions I can nev-
er regret the time that I have spent in studying them.
Abler advocates than they for the fashionable philoso-
phy, which is endeavouring to explain away the book of
God, I do not expect to find. k
Si Pergama dextrá
Defendi possent, etiam hác defensa fuissent.
Able however as they are, my mind returns from the
study of them with an impression more deep, radical and
satisfactory than ever before, that the great doctrines of
the gospe; commonly denominated evangelical or orthodox,
are the doctrines of the Scriptures, and are the truth of
159
God. My views as to the interpretation of particular
texts, in some cases, have been changed by the study of
philology and interpretation. I should not rely for the
proofof doctrines now on some texts which I once thought
contained such proof. But my impressions of the real
truth and importance of evangelical doctrines, I can tru-
ly say, are greatly strengthened.
Before you pronounce sentence upon the German
Expositors, whom I have quoted above, I trust you will
give them a hearing. I cannot think it possible that with
the maxims in regard to reasoning about the Scriptures
which you defend, you should not at last go full length
with the most liberal of them all. The difference be-
tween their sentiments and yours is immeasurably less,
than the difference between your sentiments now, and
those which you avowed, when you first became a preach-
er of the gospel. A mind that is capable of reasoning
and thinking in such a manner as yours, must necessari-
ly, as it seems to me, come to the same conclusions with
Eichhorn, and Paulus, and Henke, and other distinguish-
ed men of the new German School, when it begins with
maxims of reasoning like those which you adopt.
You may be ready, perhaps, to express your surprise,
that I should commend the study of such writers, as
those whom I have quoted. I am well aware, indeed,
that the serious mind revolts at the glaring impiety of
such comments as those which I have produced. But
after all, if a man were to judge and condemn these very
writers, by a few selections of this nature, it would be
hasty. On points which are not concerned with the spe-
cial doctrines of Christianity; in illustrating the critical
and literary history, the philology, natural history, and
grammatical exegesis, every thing literary or scien-
ió0
/
tifical that pertains to the Bible; who can bear com.
petition with recent German writers, both orthodox and
heterodox? For it is a point that ought to be understood,
though it seems as yet but little known among us, that
Germany has recently produced some men of most ex-
tensive erudition and excellent talents, who have defend-
ed the common döctrines of the Reformation. I know
indeed, that you are an advocate for unlimited research.
For myself, I have long practised upon these principles.
And I cannot but think the cautious fears of many of
those, with whom I agree in sentiment, in respect to the
limits of study, though honourable to the spirit of piety
which they chorish, and indicative of real interest and
concern for the prosperity of the church, are not well
founded. The fundamental principle of Protestantism
is, that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice.
To know what the Bible teaches then, is the great ob-
ject of all religious knowledge. To understand this, (as
to acquire every thing else,) study, and diligence are ne-
cessary. Men are not inspired now, as the apostles and
primitive Christians were, to understand all truth. Men
are imperfect, and have imperfect knowledge. No one
sect, party, or body of men can claim absolute perfection
of knowledge or virtue. And as a great many points of
inquiry, (interesting and important ones too.) may be
managed by men of sobriety, in the use of only their na-
tural intellect, and their resources of learning; the man
who loves the book of God, and desires the most extensive
acquaintance with it which he can possibly make, will not
neglect them, or any source of knowledge within his pow-
er. It was a noble maxim of a heathen, “Fas estab hoste
doceri ;” we may receive instruction from an enemy. Chris-
tians too often forget this; and permit antipathy to par-
161
ticular sentiments to exclude them from all the profit,
which might be derived from a more enlarged acquaint-
ance with the writings of opponents. Believing as I do,
that many, who are arrayed against the sentiments that
I espouse, are not destitute of sense, or of learning, and
are not to be despised; I am inclined always to see how
they vindicate their cause. If I am not convinced by
their arguments, I am rendered better satisfied with my
own, and more able to defend them by such an investiga-
tion. But if I could not practise upon the noble maxim,
Fas estab hoste doceri ; I would at least apply another
one to vindicate the study of the German writers, and
even (in proper cases) to recommend it. I would say,
(as was said in a different connection and for a different
object;) Egyptii sunt, spoliemus ; They are Egyptians,
let us take their spoils. Shall I not accept the good which
they proffer me; and proffer me in a more scientific
manner, and well digested, lucid, established form, than
I can elsewhere find? Without hesitation, I answer Yes,
I do not fail to view the subject in another light, Ev-
ery student in theology ; every Christian minister ought
to be established in the truth, and able to “convince gain-
sayers.” How can he do this, if he does not know what
these gainsayers allege ? Is he to engage in war against
the foes of truth, without knowing the weapons by which
his enemies are to assail him P. It is a mistaken system
of education indeed, which teaches him thus; which
thrusts out a young man upon the church, unacquainted
with the nature of its enemies' assaults, and liable of
course to become the victim of the first powerful at-
tack that is made upon him. Without any doubt, pri-
vate Christians should have little or nothing to do with
all this ground of dispute; but it is a shame for a min.
t 2I
H62
ister of the gospel who has the opportunity, not to seize
every advantage in his power, to render himself as able
as possible to defend the cause which he has espoused.
You perceive then my reasons for studying German
writers, and commending the study of them. Truth has
nothing to fear from examination. If the sentiments that
I espouse will not stand the test of investigation, then I
will abandon them. I never shall willingly embrace any
sentiments, except on such a condition. But in respect
to the study of the more liberal, (as they are called,)
German writers, in the end, I fear no injury to the senti-
ments denominated evangelical. Exegesis has come, by
discussion among them, to a solid and permanent science.
That the Scriptural writers taught what we believe to
be orthodoxy, is now conceded by their most able expos-
itors. The person who reads their works, will see what
the spirit of doubt and unbelief can do with the book of
God—and where it will carry the men who entertain it.
It is a most affecting and awful lesson. But it is an ex-
hibition which has begun among us. The progress of
your own sentiments fully illustrates the nature of its ad-
vancements. A short time since, almost all the Unita-
rians of New England were simply Arians. Now there
are scarcely any of the younger preachers, who have not
outstripped you, and become simple Humanitarians.
Such was the case in Germany. The divinity of Christ
was assailed; inspiration was next doubted and impugn-
ed; and this is already begun here. Natural religion next
comes in order; and the simple question between the
parties here is soon to be, whether natural or revealed
religion is our guide and our hope.
For myself, it is my real conviction that the sooner
matters come to this issue, the better. The parties will
**
163
then understand each other; and the public will under-
stand the subject.
Believing however as I now do, while my convictions
remain, I must act agreeably to them. I hope I shall
never be guilty of exercising an exclusive or persecuting
spirit. But while my present views last, I cannot look
with indifference on the great contest, which is pending
in this part of our country. I must regard the opinions,
which you have avowed in your sermon, to be funda-
mentally subversive of what appears to me the peculiar-
ities of the Christian system. If the doctrine of Christ's
divinity and humanity be not true, nor that of the vica-
rious sacrifice of Christ, and pardon by it; if human na-
ture be not of itself entirely destitute of principles of
holiness that may fit men for heaven, and does not need
special regenerating and sanctifying grace : then I know
not what there is in the Christian system, that very much
concerns our duty or our interest, that is not taught by
the principles of natural religion; nor what there is for
which it is our duty to contend. The great question, at
present, between you and me is, What does the Bible
teach, on the subjects proposed. For our answer to this
question, you and I stand accountable to the Judge of
quick and dead; and as ministers of his gospel and in-
terpreters of his word, we are placed under an awful
responsibility. If either of us violate the reason which
God has given us, in our inquiries; or are led by partial
views, by passion, by prejudice, by thirst for popularity
with our friends, or a fear of reproach from those whom
we are obliged to consider as opponents ; Christ will re-
quire from us an account of our conduct. When I think
on this; and look back and ask myself whether I have
conducted this whole dispute, with a view to my account,
164
and in the fear of God; I cannot but feel solicitude, lest
through the deceitfulness of the human heart, something
may have escaped me which may prove prejudicial, in
some way or other to the promotion of real truth. If
you see this, my dear Sir, tell me where and what it is.
We have no real interest, but to know, believe and obey
the truth. And supposing truth to be, what it now ap-
pears to me to be, I cannot suppose otherwise, than that
you are endeavouring to inculcate principles radically
subversive of the gospel of Christ. Will you do me, the
justice to believe, that I may have honestly formed such
an opinion, without taking my faith from Creeds, or
grounding it on tradition, and without the spirit that
would establish an Inquisition, or lord it over the con-
sciences of men, or treat you with disrespect.
In a word; with those who have the convictions that
I possess of the nature and importance of the gospel
system, it can never admit of a question, whether they
are to make all the opposition in their power, (provided
it be done in the spirit of Christian candor and benevo-
lence,) to the prevalence of sentiments like yours. I
cannot but view the question between us as amounting to
this; whether we shall retain Christianity, or reject all
but the name P If I am wrong; May the Lord forgive
me, and grant me better views. If you are wrong,
my heart's desire and prayer to God is, that the same
blessing may be bestowed on you.
Allowing that I and those with whom I act are sin-
cere in our belief, you yourself would say, that we should
be justly chargeable with the greatest inconsistency, did
we not feel strong desires to resist the innovations that
are attempted to be made, in many important points of
our theology. Permit me to add, that real charity may
I65
sometimes attribute strong feelings and a deep interest
on this subject, to ardent benevolence towards those
whom we think to be in a dangerous condition, rather
than to party zeal, blind credulity and ignorance, or an
extirminating and injurious spirit.
And now to bring these already protracted letters to
a close, will you permit me respectfully and seriously to
solicit, that you would look back and review the Sermon,
which has occasioned these remarks. Have you repre-
sented the sentiments of the great body of Christians in this
country correctly? Have you produced the arguments on
which they rely P. Have you treated them with respect,
with gentleness, with tenderness? Has your simple aim
been to reason with them, to convince them, and not to
hold them up in such an attitude as to excite disgust, or
scorn and derision ? Whatever your aim may have been,
the fact is, that you have awakened in all those who dif-
fer from you a deep sensation of an intentional injury on
your part to their feelings, of contumely, and of misrep-
resentation of their views. Look then with a Christian
eye on the unhappy and distracted state of the churches
in this land, the glory of all lands! When will our conten-
tions cease; when shall we bring a united offering to our
common Lord ; if men, like you, who stand in eminent
and responsible stations, treat those whom they profess
to own as Christian brethren, in such a manner, and strive
to degrade and render them contemptible?
My dear Sir, I do think these are things, which when
you enter your closet to lift up your soul to God, you are
bound by sacred obligations to consider. I do not bring
these as charges against you; but I speak of the impres-
sions which your discourse, (universally, so far as I know,)
has excited in the bosoms of those who espouse the sen-
timents which you condemn. If their impressions are
without reason, the wrong may indeed fall upon them.
But in reviewing the subjects that have already come
*inder my notice, there appears more reason for those
impressions than alover of Christian meekness and beney-
olence can approve. When the hours of excitement and
the stimulus of party feeling are gone by, you and I shall
stand at the bar of that divine Saviour, who searches the
hearts and tries the reins of men. There we shall know,
whether it will be our condemnation that we have loved
him and honored him more than he can claim. There
we shall know, whether we need his atoning blood; whe-
ther we are permitted to treat with contumely those who
place their hopes of salvation in it; and to teach them
that the God whom the great body of the faithful in ev-
ery age have worshipped, is a malignant and detestable
being, O my dear Sir, this is no trifling matter. We
are immortal beings. We must live forever; and our
eternal destiny is in the hands of that Redeemer, about
whose dignity and glory we are contending.
When I think on this, I cannot but feel, that the
question between us is of deep and radical interest, as it
respects our eternal salvation. If the God whom I am
bound to adore, has not only revealed himself in the
book of nature, but has clearly disclosed his glory in the
gospel of Christ, and I mistake after all a revelation so
clear; or induced by pārty feeling, or erroneous philoso-
phy, reject the testimony which he has given; the mis-
take must be tremendous in its consequences; the rejec-
tion will justly incur the divine displeasure. With all
this subject however, fully before me, I do not hesitate;
I cannot doubt respecting it. When I behold the glory
of the Saviour, as revealed in the gospel, I am constrain-
167
ed to cry out with the believing apostle; “My Lord
and my God!” And when my departing spirit shall quit
these mortal scenes, and wing its way to the world un-
known; with my latest breath I desire to pray, as the
expiring martyr did, “LoRD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT.”
a-
ERR.A.T.A.
THE urgency of professional duties, the very limited space of
time which could be spared from them to be devoted to these Let-
ters; and the consequent rapidity with which they were carried
through the press, while at the same time nearly one half of the la-
bor of composition was performed, from day to day; constitute, as
the writer believes, some apology for several errors of the press
which escaped detection until it was too late, and for less care in re-
gard to the style in some cases, than might reasonably be expected
from one in different circumstances.
The Errata, which a mere cursory reading has detected, and
which may be corrected, with the pen; are the following:
Page 29 for ‘vºroazarets read “vºroa roasts.
63 emended — amended.
'75 emended — amended.
83 &Aw8twog — «»ºffivos.
98 instead of “attributes, or works, to him,” read “attri-
butes, or works, as belonging to him.”
108 for ºvaul; (twice) read ºvyozºic.
117 for “you and I,” read “you and me;” (in a part of the
edition only.)
122 (line 11th from the bottom) omit “rational.”
124 (line 14th from the bottom,) for “touch only on that
which,” read “touch only that on which.”
131 “class may found,” read “class may be found.”
136 (top line) omit “term.”
138 “or that I could even wish,” read “ or than I could even
wish.”
||| MICHIGAN
3 9015 02317 9073
*** *






•- 3 4 ā 8 •
« 4 s â s » i 3
. .. s * s s * º *
• s * 4 « « , «
4 «
t , à º * , t «
t s 4 , e »
# Â - t # 1 :
* º * s , ， •
4 t s ^ .
* A t » s º a
* & * # #
º 3 1 t 1 4
4 4 • s
* * * * *¿ † 2. - - - ------- （ ）----- --
--· · · -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ----|- ce--· · · * * * * · · · • ק 4º nº
::::：::…**
¿.*;
*ae
****
5, ºii .
% t !
-，
£§§
ſae
&#º :
、
º ºſ：
Ķī£！
ſae* + *
*,* * * §§