iSocial Iiibrai*y,
IN BROOKLYN.
/Meetings of the Company are to be holden on the last
Saturdays in August, November, February, and May, at
S o'clock, P. M. by which hour, on said days, air tho
books niust be returned to the Librarian, under a penal
ty of TWENTY FIVE CENTS for each neglect.

ji^ 4^4-

LETTERS

MINISTRY, RITUAL, AND DOCTRINES

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH,
ADDRESSED TO THE
REV. WM. E. WYATT, D. D.,
Associate Minister of St. Paul's Parish, Baltimore, and Professor of Theology in
the University of Maryland,
Kn rtjils to a Stctnciit
EKHIBITIKG SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES OF THE PR0TB8TAKT EPISCOPAL
CHUIICH IN THE UNITED STATES.

BY JARED SPARKS,
Formerly Minister of the First Independent Church of Baltimore.

Second Kditioni.

BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY JAMES MUNROE & CO., ,
FOR THE CHARLESTON UNITARIAN BOOK AND TRACT SOCIETY.
1844.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by
Jamis Munkoe and Com?akt,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court ofthe District of Massachusetts.

M

CONTENTS. LETTER I.
ON THE MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHUKCH.
Reasons for discussing the subject — Our Saviour gave no instruc.
tions respectins; any particular mode of church government —
Said nothing of three orders of ministry — The first church at Je-
rusalenv was governed by the apostles,' elders, and brethren —
Deacons — Th^ceremony of ordination was performed by any of
ficers of regular standing in the cliurch — Paul and Barnabas
were ordained by " prophets and teachers " — Opinions of Kui-
noel, RosenmuUer, Hammond, and Le Clere — Episcopalians
fond of quoting the Fathers — Authority of the Fathers — Opin
ions of Milton and Jeremy Taylor^lgnatius' epistles — Testi
mony of the Fathers against episcopacy — ©pinions of Paley,
Locke, the bishop of Lincoln — Ecclesiastical government essen
tially a government of the people. p. 9
LETTER II.
ON THE RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
Baptism — Church form not scriptural — Sign of the cross — Con
firmation — These forms nearly the same as in the Catholic church
— Ordination service — Expediency and utility of forms of prayer
— Their disadvantages — Origin of Saints' days — Bossuet. p. 51
LETTER III.
ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IN CONTROVERSIES OF FAITH.
Our Saviour gave no authority to any man, or body of men, to
judge others for their religious opinions — Christians have no
" other rule of faith than the Bible — Chillingworth — Athanasian
creed — ^Historical sketch of the first conventions of the Ameri
can episcopal church after the revolution — Injurious tendency
cf creeds and articles, both on the clergy and the people — Many
christians cannot conscientiously worship according to the litur
gy of the church — Inconsistency of holding to the authority of
tradition, and rejecting infallibility — How creeds keep schism
oiit of the church — Milton's opinion. p. 74

LETTER IV.
ON THE DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES.
Tlie fundamental doctrines of Calvinism fully set forth in the ar
ticles and homilies— Ninth article— Homilies— Seventeenth ar
ticle—Bishop Burnet's exposition— Opinions of the first re
formers calvinistic — Nowel's catechism— Latimer's sermons —
Bishop's Bible— Oxford theses— Ridley's letter on election and
predestination — Lambeth articles — Heylin — University of Cam
bridge — Synod of Dort-^English delegates were all calvinists —
Strange doctrine of the eighteenth article — Arminian mode
of interpreting the articles indefensible— Prop3feed summary of
faith, P- 100
LETTER V.
DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL, CHURCH.
Litany — The worship it inculcates — Doctrine of the trinity con
tained in the articles — Opinions of learned episcopalians — There
is one true God — The Lord Jesus Christ is not this one true
God, but a subordinate being — Doctrine of two natures — The
Holy Spirit is not the true God — Jews had no conceptions of any
threefold distinction in the Deity — Nor had the disciples of Je
sus — Nor did the apostles preach any such doctrine after the as
cension of Christ — The christians of the first century were prin
cipally, if not entirely, unitarians — Origin of the doctrine ofthe
trinity. ,. p. 129
LETTER VI.
EXPOSITION OF CERTAIN TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE SUPPOSED TO FAVOR
THE DOCTRINE OF TBE TRINITY.
Objections answered — Use of reason — Mysteries — Burgh's Reply
to Lindsey — Jones on the Trinity — His singular mode of inter-.
preting the scriptures — All the texts considered in which Christ
is called, or supposed to be called God — None of these proves
him to be the Supreme Being — Texts, which are thought to as
cribe such properties or powers to Christ, as could belong only
to God — How Christ and the Father are one — Christ possessed
the attributes of God in a limited degree — God the only object
of religious homage — Form of baptism — Communion of the
Holy Spirit — Concluding remarks. p. 175^

LETTER I.
ON THE MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

Reverend and dear sir,
When your late discourse on the ministry and doctrines
of the Protestant Episcopal Church first appeared, I en
gaged with much interest in its perusal. The design, vyhich
you proposed, of explaining at large the principal doctrines,
and distinguishing characteristics of this church, led me to
anticipate much pleasure and improvement from the execu
tion. If I have been disappointed in some of my expecta
tions, I could not fail to be gratified vrith the spirit of candor
and good intentions ¦which pervades your discourse ; and, if
it has failed to produce conviction, I hope I have not read
it ¦without profit.
In the remarks I am about to make, I have no design to
state any charge of intentional misrepresentations, or ttf
question your motives. .Nor is it so much your o^wn private
opinions with which I am concerned, as the doctrines and
principles you have attempted to explain and defend, and
which you represent as forming the most striking features
of the church to which you belong. Among these I cannot
but think there are many errors ; and not a few, which can
have no other than an injurious tendency on the cause of
truth and pure religion. As you have thought it your
duty to undertake a public explanation and defence of these
doctrines, you cannot be surprised, that I should think it
2

10« ministry or the
mine, to adopt a similar mode of expressing my opinions,
and of stating my objections.
I propose first to consider what you have said on the min
istry of the Episcopal Church ; and afterwards to examine
its RITUAL and doctrines.
I confess I was not entirely prepared to find, at this ad
vanced period of moral and intellectual improvement, any
member ofa protestant religious society, and especially in
this country, who would seriously engage in the attempt to
establish the divine origin of any particular form of church
government, and claim its lineal descent from the apostles. I
had thought the long agitated controversy, about the divine
right of episcopacy, was generally allowed to be at rest, even
in those countries where the civil, as well as ecclesiastical
interests are intimately concerned in the result. In more
scholastic times, when the world was busied in visions and
dreams as unprofitable as they were imaginary, this was a
theme sufficiently obscure to interest the lovers of specula
tion, and sufficiently pretending to engage the ambitious.
Few at this day, I supposed, could be found, who would
not at least consider it a doubtful cause ; and still fewer ,who
would think it of sufficient moment publicly to engage in its
defence. The termination of the controversy which ¦was
carried on a few years ago in New- York on this subject,
tvas not such, one would think, as to warrant in the friends
of episcopacy a desire for its renewal.
In my estimation the subject in itself is of very little
importance, because I am convinced, that the grounds which
you and some others take, are unscriptural, and consequently
untenable. Yet in its consequences it is by no means unim
portant. If any order of men can prove to the satisfaction of
the people,that, as an order, there are lineal descendants from
the apostles, and inherit a right to their office by virtue of this

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 11
descent, they will almost necessarily possess an influence
over the minds and opinions of. the weak and credulous,
which, unless their pretensions are well founded, they ought
not to possess. In religion, if in anything', the mind should
be left unshackled. The right of pfivate judgment should
be held sacred, and no improper means should be used to
restrain inquiry, or enlist credulity. >«
As we are all accountable beings, and accountable only for
ourselves, it is our duty to judge for ourselves. But when
we are made to believe, that any man is endowed with, a
portion of the inspired intelligence of the apostles, and is,
from the nature of the office he sustains, more holy than
other men, shall we not be in danger of forgetting our obliga
tions to ourselves, and be likely in our religious concerns to
yield up the highest prerogatives of our own nature — those
of thinking, and reasoning, and judging ? What merit can
we claim for thinking and acting right, if we, do not think
and act from our own understanding and freedom } To be
lieve articles, because others have believed them, can
scarcely be called a religious faith- That faith can be worth
very little, and have little'efficacy on the life, which is not
built on personal knowledge and conviction.
Another evil consequence of believing in a divinely prO'
tected 'Succession of officers in the church, is the perpetuity
of error. Among protestants I believe there are no advo»
oates for infallibility, In the christian church, as in every
thing else, error has always been mingled with truth, and it
does not appqar, that the edicts of emperors, the decrees of
councils, or the mandates of popes have been able to pre
serve a pure, a uniform, or consistept system of faith. If
such a system had been transmitted without change from
the primitive ages, and it were certain, that it is the one
now adopted by your church ; I should, then say, that
your scheme of episcopacy is a good one, and the notion

12 ministry of the
of its divine origin would add to its value. It would be
the best means, that could be devised, for perpetuating
such a form of faith, and fixing it in the minds of the
people. *
But is it not obvious, that such a system would have a
tendency equally strong to perpetuate any form of belief,
whether false or true ? And are not all articles of faith,
which are not expressed in the language of scripture, Ob
ject to be more or less clouded with error ? If episcopacy be
of divine origin, why has it not preserved a pure and con^
sistant faith. The Greek church is episcopal, and so is the
Roman, and still they differ in many essential points from
each other, as well as from the English church. And does
not the, episcopal church ofthe United States reject some
parts ofthe old Book of Common Prayer, which are thoiSght
so important in the English church, as to be commanded by
the laws to be publicly read at stated times } Why are the
Athanasian Creed, and some other parts of the Liturgy left
out, unless it be, that they are thought unscriptural ? The
creeds of episcopal churches have changed essentially from
titoe to time, and at present they differ essentially among
themselves. It is evident, then, tJiat these churches have
many errors in their articles of belief, and my position is,
that the scheme of episcopacy is peculiarly calculated to
perpetuate these errors.
There is another consideration of some importance to me,
and to all, who do not agree with episcopalians on the sub
ject of church government. If you are right, we are all
wrong. If, as you say, " to the order of bishop alone belongs
the power of ordaining ministers," then no ministers out of
the pale of episcopacy have ever been ordained. They have
usurped an office, which did not belong to them ; they have
undertaken the discharge of duties, for which they were not
qualified ; they have been guilty of a rashness, which nothing

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 13
ut thsir obstinacy could account for, or their ignorance ex
cuse. The positive ordinances ofthe church, administered by
them, have been invalid, and unaccompanied by any of those
good effects for which they were designed. Baptism per
formed by them has had no efficacy ; and the celebration of
the Lord's supper, although done in compliance with
the express commands of our Saviour,, has been rather a
dishonor to his name, than a means of procuring, spiritual
comfort, and the rewards of obedience for his followers.
These, you will allow, are serious considerations, not only
to ministers, but to the people of their charge, who, if
your statement be correct, are ignorantly entrusting^ theiif
spiritual concerns to an unauthorized and unprofitable min
istry. It certainly cannot be thought strange, that any clergy-
imn, who is implicated in this charge, should feel it his
duty to assert an#p maintain what he conceives to be his
just claims, and show the- fallacy of such pretensions, as ar
rogate to any class of men the exclusive character of being
descendants from the apostles.
The first part of your discourse is taken up in proving, that
the episcopal church is the onlj' true church,that its ministry
originated whh the apostles, and has descended down to the
present time, " through.an unbroken a'g.d divinely protected
SMCcession," and that ordinations', performed by any other
persons than bishops, are " devoid of every degree of validity
and efficacy in conferring spiritual office and power. ^^ This
shall be the subject of my first letter.
I agree with you, that " when the gospel enjoins us ' to
be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh
us a reason of the hope that is in us,' and ' to contend earn-
est]y,for tke faith once delivered to the saints ;' it equally
¦ obljiges us to ascertain and thoroughly understand what the
characteristics ofthat faith may be." It is true, if we do not

14 MIINISTRY OF THE
ascertain, we believe without knowledge ; and if we do not
understand, we believe without evidence. Faith without
knowledge, or evidence, can scarcely be called a rational
faith ; and to believe what we do not understand, if it be
possible, is useless. A religious faith is meant to be the
guide to a religious life, and if its objects are unintelligible,
it must indeed be a blind guide. The same may be said of
the faith of prejudice, or of ignorance. I unite with you
cordially in the opinion, therefore, that its characteristics
should be thoroughly understood.
In the sciriptures are contained the only grounds of this
faith. No mode of Church government can be considered
of divine origin, which is not enjoined in the most absolute
terms in the scriptures, and no articles of faith can be con
sidered of divine authority, which are not there explicitly
stated. Possible designs, and probable inferences, are not
here to be taken. We must have plain ajj-guments, positive
proofs, direct conclusions, before • we can venture to pro
nounce any scheme of government, or any summary of arti
cles, to be built on divine authority. The decrees of coun-
. cils, and the traditions of the church can be of no weight,
and ought not to be quoted on these points, while we have
the scriptures in our hands. In discussing -this subject,
therefore, I shall not think it important to resort to any
other authorities, than such as are contained in the word of
God. The plain truths of scripture will always remain the
same, whatever may have been, or may still be, the opin
ions of men.
Your first proposition, in regard to the ministry of the
episcopal church, is as follows. " This mini;5try consists of
three distinct orders, bishops, priests, and deacons. From the
promulgation of the gospel by Jesus Christ, these three or
ders were apparent, designated by different names, and pos
sessing and exercising'different powers."

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 15
These orders you represent to have consisted of our Sa
viour, the apostles, ahd the seventy, who were sent forth to
preach. Now, is it not a little remarkable, if Jesus intend
ed the ministry of his church to consist of three orders, and
to be transmitted in this form through all succeeding a,ges,
that he should not have given s6me directions on so impor
tant a subject ? Is it credible, that, if he intended a pafftic-
ular class of persons only -should be qualified for administer
ing the ordinances of his religion, he would ngt have given
some positive instructions in regarcj^ to the nature of their
qualifications ? But what is the truth .'' Not a hint is found
in the whole four gospels, that he designed either to estab^,
lish or perpetuate any such form of church government, as
the one you have mentioned. ''His last commission to his
disciples is given in the following words ; " Go ye and teach
alt nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the^Holy^'Spirit ; teaching, them to ob
serve al^ things' whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt.
xxviii. 19, 20. He never mentioned three orders, or any
number of orders of priesthood. He never spoke of bish
ops or deacons. He pointed out no particular mc^es of or
dination, nor designated any description of persons by whom
this ceremony should be performed. , ^
What is the natural conclusion, except that he did not
think iMmport^nt what mode his followers should adopt to
preserve the 'outward forms of his religion, provided they
ware careful to embrace its doctrines, imbibe its spirit, and
live by its precepts .' Whatever conclusion we may draw,
we mus|rest in this certainty, that our Saviour left no irir
structions respecting any particular form of church govern
ment. We have no other scripture authority on this sub
ject, .than what we derive from the writings and example of
the apostles after the resurrection of Christ. I will next
examine your statements as drawn from t^iat source.

16 MINISTRY OF THE
You go on to observe, " when our Lord had ascended up
on high, the apostles ordained the seven deacons to discharge
the inferior offices of the ministry, and to preserve the sys
tem inviolate." What System > Our Lord had not men
tioned any system. And even if he had commanded his
disciples to preserve the three orders, which you suppose
he established, would they not have chosen some one to
supply the place, which had become vacant ? Would it
not be the most rational to believe, if it were intended they
should keep the " system inviolate," that they whould have
appointed jgome person to constitute the order, which had
ceased, when Christ ascended to Heaven ; and to take
charge of the general concerns of the church, as he had
done while on earth .' How else could the orders have been
regularly preserved .' But what is the fact respecting tjbe
seven officers, whom you call deacons ? For what pur
pose were they chosen ! Instead df being appointed to su
perintend the concerns of the church, or indeed to supply
any oriler of the ministry, their office does not seem to have
been designed even for an ecclesiastical purpose.
The reason for this appointment is seen in the following
text. " And in those days, when the number of the disci
ples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Gre
cians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neg
lected in the daily ministration." Acts vi, 1. Here the
Gentile, or more properly the Hellenistic converts complain
that they were neglected by the Hebrew officers, whose du
ty it was to provide for the poor.* The apostles immedi-
* The " Grecians," or Hellenists, mentioned in the text, were
probably proselytes to the Jewish religion from among the Greeks
or the descendants of such persons, who had embraced Christianity.
See Kenriek's Exposition, vol, iii. p, 109. and Newcome, in loc. It
s wel! known, that these proselytes did not engoy the same civil*
privileges in Judea, .as the native Israelites., This caused preju-

EPISCOPAL 'CHURCH. 17
ately advisecTthem to choose a certain number of persons,
to whom this duty might be entrusted, intimating that it
was not an offic^e, with which, in the exercise of their more
important calling, they ought to be troubled. The people
accordingly chose seven from among themselves, who were
approved and appointed to the office bythe apostles.
But this office did not constitute a new order. They were
chosen to aid others, who had neglected to do their duty.
Their appointment was merely a matter of expediency, or
convenience, to afford more extensive relief to, the poor, and
to prevent the jealousy and complaints, which l^ad begun to
spring up among the Hellenistic and Hebrew converts. It
was in no respect an office for spiritual purposes, and cer-
.tainly cannot be_ considered as forming a part of the chris
tian ministry, flue of them, Stephen, is represented as " a
man full of faith, and of the Holy Spirit ;" and- Philip, in
another place, is called an evangelist, but in no connexion
with^his office. Why you call them deacons, I cannot tell,
as no such name is given them. Neither is the word used
in the whole book of Acts.
Let us proceed to your next statement of the orders of
the ministry. After the appointment of the seven officers
just mentioned; you say, " there were then the apostles and
those associated with them, as , Titus, Timothy, &c. being
the flrst order ; the seventy, bishops, elders, or presbyters,
as they were promiscuously called, being the second order ;
and the deacons, the third order." Do you mean to consid
er Timothy and Titus on an equality with the apostles .' If
dipes to be kindled among them, which were not entireiy removed
after their conversion to cbristianlty. We may hence see the rea
son of t^ie complaint in the texi;. The Hebrews attended to their
own poor, and neglected those of the proselyte converts. This is
the, more probable, as Nicolas of Antioch, one of the seven officers,
was' a proselyte. »

18 MINISTRY OF THE
a line of distinction existed any where, between the differ
ent officers of the ministry, could any be more strongly
marked, than that which separated those persons, who had
been the companions of our Lord, and had been the special
messengers of his gospel, from all who were afterwards
chosen or appointed by them ? Were Timothy and Titus
ever called apostles ? Why then should you assign to them
the same rank ? If being " associated " with the apostles
entitled them to a place in the first order, why were not all
bishops, or elders, equally entitled to this place .' They
were all associated with the apostles in the great work of
preaching, and teaching, and extending the kingdom of
Christ. In this respect they all composed but one orctir.
As you allow the words' bishop, elder, and presbyter to.
be used promiscuously for the same thing, 1^, should not stop
to prove so obvious a fact, were it not denied in the book of
" Festivals and Fasts," which is a manual in the church,
and which you recommend very highly to your readers. In
remarking on the testimony of Ignatius, the author, or edi
tor, observes, " from this unequivocal testimony it fully ap
pears, that in the apostolic age, there were three orders in
the ministry, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, distinct and
subordinate, deriving their commission from God, and claim
ing the reverence and obedience of the people." And the
American editor also states, in a note, that 'this testimony is
express and decided in support of the superiority of the bfsh-
ops to the presbyters. If you adopt this statement in con
nexion with your own, you must allow at least your orders
instead of three, namely, apostles, bishops, presbyters,. and
deacons. That elders, presbyters, and bishops were the same, is ev
ident from the twentieth chapter of Acts In this chapter,
Paul is said to have " sent from Miletus to Ephesus, and
called the elders of the church ;" and among his directions

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 19
after they were collected, he told them, " to take heed unto
themselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit
had made them overseers," or, as the word is everywhere
else rendered, bishops. Iri the first chapter of Titus the
words bishop, and elder, are used in different places for the
same person. According to Macknight, the name elder
(¦n:Qea^vrcQoi) was applied in the primitive age, as a general
term, to all who exercised any sacred office in the church.*
They seem to hSve been called elders, because they were
chosen from among the first converts, or perhaps from
among those, who were more advanced in age, and whose
experience and gravitiy of manners gave weight to their
character. We do not read in the scriptures of any distinction of
rank among these officers ; but we are often told of their
acting in concert with the brethren, with each other, and
with the apostles. In the discussion about circumcision,
" the jostles and elders came together to consider of this
matter." And when " chosen men " were sent with Paul
and Barnabus to Antioch, they received their commission
from the " apostles, and elders, with the whole church."
The letter, which they took, commenced as follows ; " The
apostles, and elders, and brethren, send greeting to the breth
ren, which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and
Cilicia." Acts xv. 6, 22, 23. Nothing is more clear, than
that the government of the church at this time rested in a
mutual council, composed not only of the apostles and el
ders, but also of the brethren at large. We hear nothing of
any particular ranks among the officers. The apostles them
selves assumed no authority above the elders, or even the
brethren. They acted only with their advice, and in
concert with them." Letters \fere written, and ministers
sent out, in the name of the whole body of the church.
» Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iV. p. 245,

20 MINISTRY OF THE
This was the mode of government in the first church at Je
rusalem, and it appears to have been the same, as far as cir
cumstances would permit, in all the primitive churches.
Where you find any grounds, in the transactions of this first
church at Jerusalem, for the " three distinct orders of bish
ops, priests, and deacons," it is not easy to discover.
The deacons, who compose your third order, are not men
tioned in the proceedings of this church. But is it proba-
ble,'if such an order of the ministry tKen existed, that it
would have been overlooked in proceedings so important as
these, in which even the brethren at large were allowed to
take an active part } I confess I can discover nothing in
the account of the church at Jerusalem, or in any part of
the New Testament, which would lead me to suppose the
deacons, in the time of the apostles, sustained any office,
which should entitle them to be considered a distinct order
of the ministry. The word, in its English dress, is used
only three times, and in no instance with reference to any
definite office, or duties. In the original use of this word
in the New Testament, it has a variety of meanings. Its
radical signification is servant, and it is thus used for the
most part in the gospels. In the epistles it generally means
what we understand by minister and sometimes magistrate.
Rom. xiii. 4. Paul speaks of himself and brethren being
made " able ministers (deacons) of the new covenant."
" Wherefore I was made a minister (deacon) according to
the gifts of the grace of God." " Who then is Paul, and
who is Apollos, but able ministers (deacons) by whom ye
believed }"* Quotations of a similar kind might be multi-
** Tlie word Siaxovof is used in thirty places in. the New Testa
ment. In eight of these places, it is rendered, in our common ver
sion, servant, and seems to have precisely the same meaning as
iaXoi. In -nineteen places it is lenierei minister ; and in three only
it is translated deacon.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 21
plied ; but these are sufficient to show, that the term dear
con, instead of designating a particular order of men, was
frequently applied to the apostles themselves. The apos
tles wefS servants, deacons, or ministers of Jesus Christ.
St. Paul writes to the " bishops and deacons " at Phillip-
pi,' as ilj is expressed in our common version. But the
Syriac translaitor renders it " elders and ministers,^'* and this
translation is iH accordance with the general use of these
words, as is seen by the above quotations. In his first let
ter to Timothy, the apostle describes the qualifications of
deacons, but nothing is said in regard to the nature of their
office.. These qualifications are almost precisely the same,
a'S those of a bishop, which are mentioned in the same place'
In the letter to Titus, instead of deacons, he calls them
" aged men ;" and I can find no passage in scripture, from
which it would appear, that these men were distinguished,
in respect to their office, from the elders, or presbyters.
And whatever the office of a deacon may have been, it is
evident, that it was not appropriated to a particular order of
men ; for Paul, Apollos, Epaphras, and the magistrates are
called deacons.
The opinion, which was adopted in some of the earlier
churches, and which is still retained in yours, respecting the
office of deacons, seems to have originated in a fancied re
semblance between the deacons mentioned in the first epis- •
tie to Timothy, and the seveii officers appointed by the apos
tles, soon after the ascension of our Lord. But we have al
ready seen what were the duties of those men. We have
seen, that they were never called deacons, and that their
office was wholly of a temporal nature.
Among the duties, which you enumerate as belonging to
the office of a deacon, are the following. " In addition to
* Senioribus et ministris.
3

22 MINISTRY OF THE
their care of the poor, the deacons officiated in distributing
the sacramental emblems ; they were employed to preach
and baptize ; they were set apart to their office by prayer
and imposition of hands ; and they were forbidden to follow
any secular employments," In what part of the scriptures
you find any of these characteristics of the office of a dea
con, I cannot conceive. After a careful examination, I do
not find a single text, which would imply either directly or
remotely, that the deacons mentioned in the epistles to the
Phillippians and to Timothy, were especially designed for
any of these duties. The truth is, nothing is said in scrip
ture about the nature of the office, or" about the dutiesifif a.ny
class of men designated by the title of deacons. As this
name was often applied to the apostles, bishops, and pres
byters, it is not unlikely, that it was at first used as a gen
eral title to denote a teacher of the gospel.
In writing to the Ephesians, St. Paul says of Jesus, that
he " gave some, apostles ; and some, prophets ; and some,
evangelists ; and some, pastors and teachers." Eph. iv. 11.
What reason can be given, why each of these should not be
considered a distinct order, as well as either of the three
you propose ? Schleusner, in conformity with Eusebius,
represents the evangelists as sustaining an office wholly of
a spiritual nature.* Their name implies a teacher of the
¦ gospel. They were employed to aid the apostles in estab
lishing churches. It w^s their custom to travel from place
to place. In this respect they differed essentially from pres
byters, who were usually confined to the same church.
There is just as much reason for considering them a distinct
order, and also the prophets, pastors, and teacherSj'as either
of the three in your catalogue. Instead of three orders,
you would then have six, besides deacons, namely, apostles,
* Schleus. Lex, in verb. Eva-yytii.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 23
prophets, bishops, or presbyters, evangelists, pastors, teach
ers. And I am convinced, that as strong arguments may be
advanced for adopting this number, as the one you have cho
sen. .
Another point, which yori state with great confidence, is,
that " ii has been the faith of the ¦universal church, without
exception, until the period of the reformation, that to the order
of bishops alone belongs the power of ordaining ministers."
In the " universal church," I suppose you will embrace the
first church of the apostolic age. Not only so, I suppose
you will allow this to be the only authentic source, to, ¦which
you can go for information on this subject. "What our Sa
viour taught, and the apostles are said to have practised,
will be good authority. This is the only authority on which
we can with safety rely, notwithstanding* what may have
been the " faith of the universal church, without excep
tion," since that time.
As Christ left no instructions about any particular kind of
ministry in the church, so there are no words of his record
ed on the subject of ordination. This alone is enough to
prove, that the manner, in which it is performed, cannot be
a thing of so much importance as you would imply, when
you say, that ordinations performed by any other, than a
bishop, " would be devoid of every degree of validity and ef
ficacy, in conferring spiritual office and power." What was
the practice in the time of the aoostles .'' Barnabas and
Saul were ordained by <' certain prophets .and teachers at
Ajitioch." Acts xiii. 1. Here, it seems, even the apostle.*
to the^Gentileis was ordained by officers of the church, who
ar^not embraced in either of y©ur orders of the ministry,
Timothy .was ordained by " the laying on of the hands of
the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv, 14. What can this mean, ex
cept, that the ceremony was performed by the elders, or
presbyters; in a body }

24 MINISTRY OF THE
On this subject, the examples of Timothy and Titus are
usually quoted by the abettors of episcopacy with much ap
parent triumph. It is said, that they were commissioned by
St. Paul, the one to be bishop of Ephesus, and the other to
be bishop of Crete, and that to them was entrusted the sole
power of ordination. It may first be remarked, that neith
er Timothy, nor Titus, is called a bishop in the scriptures.
The postscripts, in which this title is giveS to them, were
added to the epistles nearly four hundred years after they
were written. No instructions were given to Timothy
about ordinations, and he seems to have remained but a lit
tle more than*a year at Ephesus. So far from being a bish
op, St. Paul expressly charges him " to do the work of an
evangelist," Paul writes to Titus, " For this cause left I thee in Crete,
that thou shouledst set in order the things, that are wanting,
and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee."
Tit. i. 5. In remarking on this text, j'ou speak of the " ac
knowledged fact, that there were already many elders in those
churches." Where is this fact acknowledged ? Certainly
not in the scriptures. On the contrary, before Titus went
to Crete, as far as we know, there were neither elders, nor
churches in the island. We learn no particulars of this
country from the New Testament, till the voyage of St. Paul
to Rome, when the vessel, in which he sailed, is said to have
put into a port in Crete. Inhabitants of Crete are mentioned
among those, who, on the day of pentecost, received the gift of
the Holy Spirit. These were Jews, who, after they returned,
probably instructed the people in what they had been liaught,
but, as was customary with the Jewish converts, mingled
many errors, in regard to the Mosaic institutions, with the
christian doctrines When St. Paul was there, finding what
errors and evil practices they had fallen into, and that they
had no authorized or well informed teachers among them.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 2§
and being a prisoner, could not himself travel and preach,
he left Titus, as he says, " to set in order the things that
were wanting, and to ordain elders."^ I am aware that it is
not particularly mentioned, that Titus accompanied St. Paul
on this voyage; but neither have we any account, that the
apostle^ ever again visited Crete. Dr. Paley thinks Titus
was left in Crete by St. Paul, t^wo years afterwards, on his
return from Rome ; but ass there is no account of any such
voyage, he acknowledges his opinion to be hypothetical.*
Even if this were correct, it would not affect the argument.
The object for wich Titus was left would be the same.
From all that is known, therefore, there is no evidence
Df their being either elders or churches in Crete, before
Titus visited the island ; and a very strong probability that
th^e were none. The office of Titus seems to have been,
in every respect, that of an evangelist. He was commis
sioned to travel from city to city, to form churches, and ap
point .suitable officers. Nor does it follow from any thing
in his commission, that, after he had organized churches,
and ordained elders, these. elders could not ordain others,
in the same way as Paul and Barnabas had been ordained
by " prophets and teachers," and Timothy by the presby
tery. In short, it appears to me, that, if any thing can be
proved by direct scriptural testimony, it is, that the cere
mony of ordination was performed indiscriminately by
apostles, prophets, presbyters, evangelists, teachers, — and
for any thing that is known to the contrary, by all officers
regularly appointed in the churches.
In examining the. subject of the first part of your dis
course, I have thus far confined myself to the sacred wri
tings, because I think tRese constitute the only authority,
on which*we ought to rely, for the proof of the divine right
* Horse Paulinae, chcp. viii.
3*

26 MINISTRY OF THE
of any institution. Fijom this examination, I am convinced
that the scriptures teach a doctrine on this subject, com
pletely at variance with the one you have attempted to de
fend. By way of recapitulation, I will endeavor to ex
press the grounds of this conviction, in as few words as pos
sible. First, our Saviour left no instructions in regard to the na
ture or form of the ministry ; he never spoke of three or
ders, or any number of orders ; he gave no directions about
the ceremony of ordination, nor did he assign the duty of
performing it to any particular class of men. Secondly, the
apostles said nothing of any number of orders in the ministry,
nor have they left any rules or instructions on the subject of
ordination. Thirdly, the first church at Jerusalem was
governed by the apostles, elders, and brethren in concert.
The apostles assumed no authority above the elders, nor the
elders above the people. Fourthly, it is no where said in
the whole New Testament, that the duty of conferring or
dination was confined to any particular order of the ministry;
but on the contrary, several examples are on record, which
go to prove, that this ceremony was performed by any offi
cer or officers of regular standing in the church. Fifthly,
Timothy and Titus are never called bishops. Timothy is
expressly called an evangelist ; and the duties of Titus were
such, as are usually assigned to an evangelist. Sixthly, the
persons who were appointed by the apostles to assist in
providing for the poor, and whom you call the " seven
deacons," are never designated by this name in the scrip
tures. Their office was wholly of a temporal nature, and
therefore could make no part of the ministry. Seventhly,
the word deacon seems to have ieen applied at first as a
general term, for a servant in the cause of the gospel, a
minister, or teacher ; and if it was afterwards appropriated
to any particular office, no mention is made in the writings

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 27
ofthe apost-l^s respecting the nature or design of such an
office. No instance is recorded, in which deacons, as offi
cers of an exclusive character, are said to have taken a
part in the government or concerns of any church. Lastly,
the same reasons, by which you establish three orders in
the ministry, would prove the existence of at least six or
seven, as apostles, bishops, prophets, evangelists, elders,
teachers, deacons.*
* The celebrated commentator and critic, Kuinoel, in his com
mentary on tl(B Acts, of -the Apostles, published about two years
ago at Leipsic, has entered at some length into the discussion of
this subject, After proving, that "Iidem, qui in libris N. T. vo-
cantur i-rcioxo'noi et Ttoiit^ng, appellantur etiam 7ir§£ffj9uT«§ot,"
which he says some have rashly denied, (quod teiriere nonnulli
negarunt, atque de discrimine episcoporum et presbyterorum in
primitiva ecclesia hallucinati sunt,) he goes on to observe, that the
christians, in the time of the apostles, established in the cliurch
a form of government and discipline similar to what prevailed in
the Jewish synagogues. It was the duty ofthe rulers ofthe syna
gogue to preserve discipline, superintend the external concerns of
the respective societies over which they were placed,, and also to
teach arid explain the law. In the same manner, it was the duty of
the bishops, or presbyters, to superintend the government *of the
church, and teach tlie doctrines of the christian religion. They
were both governors and teachers. ^The rulers of the synagogues
were confined to particular societies ; and so were the first bishops,
or presbyters, No one had any control, except in the single society
over which he had been appointed. " Episcopi singulis christiano-
rum cgetibus praefecti erant."
To show this resemblance still more strongly, Kuinoel further
remarks, that the rulers of the synagogues were called bijjpt
TQia^vTBQoi, and quotes Philo and Vitringato prove, that their office
must have been the same as that of the first christian bishops. Vid.
Kuinoel. Comment, in Act'. Apos. Leip. 1818, p. 681.
Rosenniuller advances a similar opinion ; and adds^ that presby
ters and bishops, in the time of the apostles, were the same ; but
afterwards it became customary to call any person, who was em-
? inent among them, bishop, by way of distinction, " Qui in ordine

28 MINISTRY OP THE
I should not deem it necesssry to dwell on this topic any
longer, had you not mentioned other testimony, besides that
of the scriptures, in support of your views of episcopacy.
I do not consider this testimony .of any value in deciding
the main question of divine right ; but, as you have intro
duced it at some length, I will not pass it, over. The testi
mony of all succeeding ages can never prove that 'to be a
divine, positive institution in religion, which is not sanc
tioned, nay, commanded in the records of divine truth.
It is remarked of almost all the writers in favor of episco
pacy, that they show a singular fondness for the ancient
Fathers. They appeal to them with scarcely less confi
dence, than to the sacred writers themselves, and seem to
think that whtever is doubtful in scripture, is fully settled
presbyterorum primas tenebat xar' igox'l" dicebafur 6 Bniay.onag,"
Vid. Rosenmul. Scholia in Act. Apos. o, xx. 28; et in Epist. ad
Philipp. c. i. 1. '¦ ' '
Hammond supports the episcopal hypothesis' in its fullest ex
tent. He puts all the Fathers in requisition, and quotes profusely
from the beginning of Ignatius to the end of Theophylact. He
maintains, that Timothy and Titus were metropolitans, and proves
it by the testimony of Theodoret and Theophylact. He also
proves from Euseljius, that the hundred cities of Crete were con
verted to the christian faith by.jPaul himself, although Eusebius de
clares, that, for his history of those times, he depends solely on the
scriptures. Le Glerc, in his reply to Hammond, says that Grotius, a.nd
others, who found no authority in scripture for these distinctions
between metropolitans, bishops, and presbyters, have muclT more
correct notions. " Nor," he adds, " can we receive as proof the
authority of ancient Fathers, who wrote more after the manner o'f
their age, than from any certain knowledge ; nor would I say, that
bishops, or presbyters, are always to be trusted, when they give
evidence in their own cause." Nee potest probari auctoriate
suriptorum sequentium saeculbrum, &c. Vid, Nov. Test. Ham
mond, et Cleri. Adnotationes in Act. c. xx. 28, et Philip-
Di i. 1.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 29
by a quotation from some writer, who lived as long ago as
the third or fourth century. But let it be asked, since we
have the original book in our possession, to which they all
referred, what occasion have we to consult any other au
thority ? These Fathers lived in a rude age, and wrote on
subjects quite difFerrent from any, which are introduced into
modern controversy; their writings have been corrupted,
and many forgeries have been sent out under their names ;
they have often "vs'ritten with reference to opinions unknown
to us, and freaeutly contradicted one another. Can we be
lieve the testimony of such writers to be of the least value,
when the divine origin, and divinely jirotected succession oi a.
religious' institution is in question .' Daille, in his celebrated
work on the right use of the Fathers, has stated siveiiteen
reaispn why these writers are not to be implicitly relied on,
each of which is enough to invalidate their aiithority, in a
question of so much importance. «
We find a similar opinion in authors of much more celeb
rity than Daillfe. The following is from Milton. " What
ever tim'e, or the heedless hai^l of blind chance, hath
drawn from old to this present, in her huge drag-net,
whether fish or seaweed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, un-
ehosen — ^those are the Fathers."* Jeremy Taylor, in his
admiretble treatise on the Liberty of Prophesying, says,
" there are some, that think they can determine all ques
tions in the world, by two or |,hree sayings of the Fathers,
or by ftre consent of so many as they will please to call a
concurrent testimony ; but this consideration will soon be
at an end ; for if the Fathers, when they are witnesses of
tradition, do not always speak truth, as it happened in the
case of Papias, and his numerous followers, for almost three
ages together, then is their testimony more improbable,
,»$ * Prose Works, vol, i. p, 87.'

30 MINISTRY OF THE
when they dispute or write cotjimentaries."* Such were
the opinions of men, who knew as much on this subject,
perhaps, as any others ; and of such men as Milton and
Jeremy Taylor.
Your testimony from this source, you take from the
book of Festivals and Fasts, and begin by remarking, that
" those denominations, which controvert the divine institu
tion of episcopacy, and consider it the invention of an age
subsequent to that of the apostles, have never beeja able to
agree upon any one period, in which it could, even in their
opinion, have probably originated." Admitting this to be
true, what weight has it in the argument ? It is not of the
least consequence, when, or how, or where, episcopacy
commenced, since it is proved not to have-been 'instituted
by our Saviour, nor adopted by the apostles. ^
Your firs.i^xtracts to prove the divine right of episcopa
cy, by the evidence of the Fathers, are quoted from Igna
tius, who lived at the close of the first century. Was it not
very well known to you, that the epistles attributed to him,
and from which this testimony is taken, have been' consid
ered by very learned men as spurious ? No one has attempt
ed lately to defend the genuineness of all the epistles, which
were formerly ascribed totlgnalius. Five, at least, have
been given up ; and the seven, which remain, are univers
ally allowed, even by those who are most zealous in proving
them genuine, to be disfigured by interpolations. Le Clere,
who is fully persuaded, that some of the epistles attributed
to Ignatius were actually written by him, acknowledges,
that some are entirely spurious, and others interpolated,!
Of those, which are considered as having some claims to
authenticity, we have two copies. One is called the larger
and the other the smaller. Each of these copies has its
* Chap, viii. on the Inconsistencies of the Fathers.
t Ars Crit. vol. ii, p. 331. Ed. Lugd. Bat. 177d. "

EPISCOPAL CHURCa. 31
?
advocates ; but whether the larger copy was njade by add
ing to the smaller, or the smaller by abridging the larger,
has not been ascertained. Each party in the controversy
adopts the one, which is mqst agreeable to his favorite
tenets.* It is no place here to go into the controversy ; nor
do I wish to do any thing more, than simply to state the
fact of such a controversy having existed, and of these epis
tles being, at best, of too doubtful a character to be quoted
as authority on any poifit of doctrine. As your discourse
was intended for persons, who could not be supposed to be
very familiarly acquainted with disputed points of criticism,
if you thought proper to bring testimony from this source, it
would certainly not have' been amiss to let them know its
doubtful character, and the degree of credit, which it ought
to*receive. The American editor of the work, which yd!" quote, has
given a very partjial view of this subject. After mentioning,
" that some persons have attempted to disprove the genu
ineness of these epistles," he adds, " it has been fully vin
dicated by archbishop Wake, and bishop Pearsoii.'' What
is the fact ? These writers both reject some of the epistles,
which have been attributed to Ignatius, and allow the
others to have been mutilated. ' They maintain the genu
ineness of the less copy, but they do not pretend that it
has not been interpolated. Archbishop Wake supposes the
text, from which he translated, to be the purest that had
been published, but he does not attempt to defend it as im
maculate. He receives none but the seven epistles ; and
the evidence of the genuineness of these, he draws princi-
paly from the reputed epi^le of Polycarp, which is scarcely
better authenticated, than the epistles of Ignatius- He also
relies implicitly on the authority of Eusebitis, who lived in
* See General Repos. and Review, vol. i. p. 50.

32 MINISTRY OF THE
the fourth century, and who speaks on this subject more
from tradition, than actual knowledge.*
Many instances of interlopation in the received epistles
were long ago discovered by archbishop Usher. These had
reference principally to disputed points of doctrine and
church government, and were no doubt inserted by design
ing transcribers into early copies. I shall have occasion to
speak of some of these in another place. If interpolations
have been found, even in v/hat are called the genuine epis
tles of Ignatius,- we want no stronger proof, that others
might still be found, if we had access to earlier and more
correct manuscripts. This consideration, together with the
doubts hanging over the whole subject, is sufficient to de
stroy the authority of these ei?istles, especially in every
thing relating to the controversies of the church.
Herbert Marsh, now bishop of LandafF, in his notes to
Michaelis, after stating that there is good rg^gon for suspect
ing the authenticity of all the writings ascribed to the apos
tolic Fathers, among which are the epistles of Ignatius, ob
serves, " This at least is certain, that passages are found in
these writings, which from the nature of the subjects could
not have existed in the first century, and if they prove not
the whole to be spurious, they prove at least, that these
writings have been so interpolated, as to make it difficult to
distinguish what is genuine from what is false. "-f The cele
brated scholar, Semler, who, according to Dr. Marsh, " has
made a more particular study of ecclesiastical history ,perhaps,
than any man that ever lived," rejects these writings entire
ly as fabrications of a later age, than that in which they are
pretended to have been, written. J
* See archbishop Wake's Preface and Introduction to his trans-
lation ofthe Apostdic Fathers,
1 Michaelis, Note to vol. i. c. ii, § 6.
t See Gen. Rep. vol. i. p. 55; where the opinion of Semler on
this subject may be found translated from his Novae Observationes

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 33
In regard to the testimony of the later Fathers, it should
be remembered, when they speak of bishops, they do not
mean the same kind of officers, as in modern times consti
tute the first order of episcopacy. There is no doubt, that
soon after the age of the apostles, when churches became
very large, it was found convenient to have presiding offir
cers. When public business was transacted, such as the or
dination of presbyters, or the choosing of officers, it was
natural that some person should be appointed to preside. In
cities, where several churches had sprung up, it was conve
nient to have a standing president to preserve the harmony,
and superintend the concerns of the whole. This president
would be likely to be selected from among the more distin
guished bishops, or presbyters. In length of time, the name
bishop wds confined exclusively to this officer. But it is to
be observed, that a bishop had no more than a parochial au
thority. The president of a single church was called a bishop,
as wqll as the president ofa larger number. These presidents,
or bishops, were first chosen by the congregations at large,
andordained, or inducted into their offices, by the presbyters.
Irenceus, whose testimony you bring in favor of episco
pacy, was ordained, according to Basnage, by presbyters
only, even after the distinctions between bishops and pres
byters ^legan to exist ; and this is allowed to have been the
custom of the church of Alexandria, during the three first
centuries. At length it jsecame customary to invite neigh
boring bishops to aid in this ceremony ; and thus, by de
grees, arose the three orders in the ministry, which was af
terwards called an episcopacy.
To make any use of the testimony of the Fathers, we
must know to what stage this government had advanced, at
the time when any one of them lived. We must know the
cotintry in which they lived, and the extent of the church
of which they speak. The bishop of a single church was
4

34 MINISTRY OF THE
much the same, as the minister of a single parish at the
present day. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, had charge of
only one congregation, and in his epistles he speaks of the
people joining with him in the discipline of his church, and
intimates, that the choice of pastors rested with the people.*
Jerome, who wrote at the beginning of the fifth century,
says, in his remarks on the epistle to Titus, " among the an
cients, priests and bishops were the same, but by degrees ^the
care of a church was given to one^person, in order to pre
vent dissension. And again, " let the bishops know, that
they are above the priests, more by custom than by the ap
pointment of Christ;" and further, " at the beginning, church
es were governed by the common council of presbyters,
like an aristocracy ; but afterwards, the superintendency was
given to one of the presbyters, who was then called the
bishop, and who governed the church, but still with the
council of the presbyters. "•!" ^ ,,
Sir Peter King, Chancellor of England, who examined
this subject thoroughly, in his Inqliiry into the Constitution
of the Primitive Church, says, " a bishop preached, bap
tized, and confirmed, so did a presbyter ; a bishop excom
municated, absolved, and ordained, so did a presbyter ; what
ever a bishop did, the same did a presbyter ; the particular
acts of their office were the same. "J Origen mentions
bishops, but does not allow, that their authority extended
beyond the congregation over which they were placed ; and
all that TertuUian says on this subject, is as applicable to
parochial, as to diocesan, bishops. §
From this view of the testimony of the Fathers, it is ev-
* Doddridge's Lectures, Part IX. prop. 150.
\ Opera, vol. vi. p. 198. Anecdotes, p. 24, 54. See Corruptions
of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 240.
X Chap. vi.
§ Doddridge, ubi supra.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 35
ident, that it affords no proof of the institution of episcopa
cy in the primitive ages. If we are to judge from the above
quotations, it has decidedly a contrary bearing. If you can
prove from the same Fathers, or from otjiers, that the pres
ent form of episcopacy actually ^^existed in the first ages of
Christianity, it will be, to say the most,- a very weak argu
ment in favor of the cause. It will show thetti to contra
dict one another, and themselves, and what can more entire
ly invalidate their testimony ? ^
In many places where there was but one church, bishops
were parochial ministers, and nothing more ; in other pla
ces, where several churches were united, bishops had a sort
of presiding charge over the whole, with presbyters to aid
them ; but they discharged no duties, in the immediate ser
vice of the church, 'which did not equally belong to the
presbyters. In their ecclesiastical functions, they were the
same as presbyters. Deacons, for along time, seem to have
takpn no part in the ministry, but to have been appointed to
manage the temporal concerns of religious societies. The
churches were not all uniform in their mode of government.
Some churches gave more authority to their bishops than
others ; and some retained their primitive usages longer than
others. Doddridge observes, that " the power of the bish
ops seems to have prevailed early in Rome ; that of the
presbyterma.t Alexandria ; and at Carthage, such a discipline
as comes nearest to what is now caWeA congregationaliats."*
The churches at Alexandria and Carthage gradually declined,
and the Roman increased. The church of England, and the
episcopal church of this country, it seems, are a branch of
this Roman church.
Since this is the state of the evidence afforded by the
Fathers, how do you proves your position, " that when the
* Lectures, voF. ii, p. 354,

36 MINISTRY OF THE
church of England undertook to throw off particular doc
trines and ceremonies of the church of Rome, which she
considered as neither taught in scripture, nor consistent with
purity, she retained, unaltered, the- three orders of the min
istry, as manifestly belonging io the days of the aposlles; and
the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, re
ceived since the independence of this country, the order of
bishops, through an unbroken and divinely protected succes
sion .'"
How will you prove, in the -first place, that the Roman
church itself was established on a regular succession ? You
will hardly rely on the unauthenticated account, that the
apostle Peter lived some time at Rome, and at length was
crucified there, which even by Origen is considered only a
tradition. How do you know, that the bishop in whom the
Roman church originated, was not ordained by presbyters,
as it is certain such ordinations were common .? To me
this appears quite as probable as any other supposition.
How is it ascertained, that even the first bishop of Rome
was ordained by a bishop, and not by presbyters ? Eusebi
us himself, who is considered the highest authority on this
subject, acknowledges, that it is no easy thing to give any
further account of the successors to the apostles in the gov
ernment of the churches, than what is found in the writ
ings of St. Paul.* And is it not still an unsettled question
in history, who were the first sevenbishops of Rome ? Such
then is the dark and uncertain evidence of the divine suc
cession of the stock from which the English church sprang.
In the next place, is it certain, that the English bishops
can be traced up to the church of Rome ? In the opinion
of Dr. Doddridge, it has been very satisfactorily proved by
Mr- Jones, that, in the year 668, the regular succession of
* Euseb, Eccles. Hist, 1, ii, u. xxxv. 1, iii. c. iv. as quoted by
Doddridge, Lee, vol. ii. p. 345, 355.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 37
bishops had become nearly extinct.. Many persons about
this time were ordained by Aidai? and Finan, who were
' monks of the Scottish monastery of 'Columbanus, and only
presbyters. They were afterwards made bishops by the
northern princes, whom they converted, but not by a regu
lar episcopal ordination. Many others were made bishops
from among their converts, but with nothing more than
presbyterian ordination. Is it not more than possible, that
the English succession is derived from this source ?
Again, the validity of archbishop Parker's consecration,
in the time of queen Elizabeth, is well known to be, at least,
very questionable ; yet this is the origin of the present English
succession. Edward the Sixth abolished the Romish form
of ordination, and substituted a new one in its place, which
is still retained in the church- The old form was restored
by queen Mary, but rejected again by Elizabeth, and that
of Ed'ward adopted. When Parker was nominated to be
archbishop of Canterbury, in 1559, she issued a commission
to certain bishops to perform the ceremony of consecration
according to the prescribed form. Some of them refused to
comply, alleging that such a consecration would not be
valid. She issued another commission to such persons, as
she knew would not refuse, but whose episcopal authority
was much to be doubted. The catholics immediately dis
puted this consecration, and have almost universally denied
its validity. They profess to have proved, that Barlow, the
consecrating bishop, was never himself consecrated. They
say, that no record of this transaction was found or cited,
till more than fifty years afterwards, when the Lambeth
RegisJ;er was first quoted. And even this register entirely
destroys the validity of the consecration, by showing, it to
have been performed according to king Ed'vvard's ordinal,
which was not consistent with any former usage of the
church. «
¦'4^

38 MINISTRY OF THE
I shall not pretend to decide on these objections of the
catholics ; but if well founded, they must prove the inva
lidity of Parker's consecration, and the weakness of all pre
tensions in the church of England to a divine succession.
To my mind, these objections, and others, briefly and
clearly stated in the memoir of the Abbe Renaudot, are con
vincing. ¦ Some of them are partially removed in Couray-
er's elaborate answer, but he has by no means cleared the
subject of difficulties ; and when it is known that he was
an "apostate monk," as the catholics call him, who wrote
to gain the favor of an English prince, we can have little
respect for his candor, or regard for his authority.
Episcopacy was abolished by an act of parliament, in
Cromwell's time. All ordinations were then presbyterian,
and how it is ascertained, that the succesion of episcopal or
dinations was not then broken, or at least, that some persons
were not afterwards consecrated bishops, who, during this
period, had received only presbyterian ordination ?
Moreover, it has been the opinion of many of the most
eminent divines and learned men of the church of England,
that the superiority of bishops to presbyters was nothing
more than a human institution, and consequently, that ordi
nations by either was valid.
To the middle of the seventeenth century, it was the pre-
vailing.sentiment of many distinguished divines, that bish
ops had no power of ordination or jurisdiction, except in
conjunction with the presbyters. Tn an article of the treaty
of Uxbridge, (1644) it was declared, " that the bishops shall
exercise no act of jurisdiction or ordination, wilhout thh con^
sent and counsel of the presbyters.''^*' Bishop Leighton dis
claimed all pretences to the sole power of bishops. One t)f
the articles, which he proposed to the dissenting brethren,
*
* Bibliotheca Regia, London, 1659, part i. §-.^4 ' ,

EPISCOPAL church". 39
in the conference at Paisly, runs thus ; " all church afliiirs
shall be manage,d in presbyteries and synods, by the free vote
of the presbyters, or ihe major part of than,"* Dr. Burnet,
in speaking of the power of a bishop, says, " ordinations
ought not to be so performed by him, as to exclude the
assistance and concurrence of presbytei%, both in the previous
trial, and in the ordination itself"']" And eyen Hooker ad
mits, that bishops, in the church of Christ, have such au-
thoritj'-, as both to direct other ministers, and to see that
every one of them should observe that, which their common
ctnisent hath agreed on."j TJjiese quotations may be seen at
large, with their references, in the fourth chapter of Sage's
Vindication. In the same place may be seen references to
a great many other authors, of the highest authority, who
express the same sentiments. Among others are Andrews,
Whitgift, Chillingworth, Usher, Hall, Barrow, Stillinfleet,
Sherlock, Parker, Taylor, Hammond.
Archbishop Bancroft believed in the validity of ordina
tions by Presbyters. The following is fromjEyickman.
" Some that had been ordained by mere presbyters, offer
ed the'mselves in King James's time, to be consecrated bish
ops in the church of Scotland. Dr. Andrews, bishop of
Ely, moved this qutestion ; whether they should not first
be episcopally ordained presbyters, that they might be ca
pable of being admitted to the order of bishops ? But arch
bishop Bancroft, a most rigid assertar of episcopacy, ans
wered ; there was no need of it since ordination by presby
ters was valid." §
f
"?Case of Accommodation, 1671, p. 2.
. t Gilbert Buriiet's Conferences, Glasgow,^1673, p. 103.
t Ecclesiastical Polity, b. vii. § 6.
. § Pierce's Vindication, p. 167. Hov/ does the whole mass of tes
timony, whiclijias here been given, agree with the singular asser
tion in the })dok»of Festivals and Fasts, that, " throughout the uni.

40

MINISTRY OF THE

From these facts, «it must certainly be admitted, that in
some periods of the English church, ordination by presbyters
has been considered valid ; and how is it known, that the suc
cession of office may not be traced back from the bishops of
the present day, to those •who had been thus ordained .' And
how can you possibly" reconcile the citations, which have
been made from some of the principal Fathers, with your
declaration, " that it has been the faith of the universal
church, vnthout exception, until the period of the Reforma
tion, that to the order of bishops alone belongs the power of
ordaining ministers } %.
To many it is thought not a little strange, that the Eng
lish church should set up so high claims to a divinely pro
tected succession, and at the same time exhibit such une
quivocal manifestations of abhorrence and contempt of the
venerable mother church, from which it is descended.
Nothing can exceed the abuse, which it has poured out on
the church of Rome, ever since the separation. Scarcely
a theological work appeared in the English language, for the
two first centuries after this period, which did not contain
more or less about the horrois and pollutions of popery.
The Homilies themselves, which were appointed, and are
still required by the articles, to be read at stated times in
the churches, are very full and direct on this subject.* The
whole three sermons against the peril of idolatry are aimed
at the depravity of the Romish church. How can they
who have such an opinion of the church of Rome, suppose
it to be the true church of the Lord Jesus .> What do they
find in the ministry of this church, which, according to their
own account, can convince them, that it has been from its
origin under a divine influence ? Most persons would think
versal church for fifteen hundred years, no instance qccurs of ordi
nation by presOijters, that teas considered valid !" p . 45.
' See Homilies, Fol. 1713. p. 162. -.

EPISCOPAL church. 41
it a mark of wisdom to say as little as possible about a suc
cession which they acknowledge has come through such a
channel, as the church of Rome is thus described to be.
Another thing is somewhat puzzling. How can the Eng
lish clergy claim their authority from the apostles, when it
is one of the fundamental doctrines of the church, that it is
derived from the king .' By an act of parliament at the
very commencement of the English reformation, it was de
creed, that "the king's majesty justly and rightfullly is,
and ought to be, the supreme head of the church of Eng
land,"* and according to the*thirty-sixth canon, every per
son, before he enters the ministry, must acknowledge the
" king's majesty, under God, to be the only supreme gover
nor of the realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical
things or causes, as temporal." Has not the king power to
suspend bishops, and prohibit them from exercising the func
tions of their office .'
Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and one of the most learned
of the catholics, has written largely on the English reforma
tion, and made it appear, in the most conclusive manner,
that this church can make no claims to any ecclesiastical
aulhorilAj, derived from the catholic church. He has taken
his historical facts entirely from Burnet, whom no one can
accuse of partiality for the catholic religion, and ¦whom no
one will deny to have been an able advocate of the refor-
ination, '^a distinct narrative of which," he says, " makes
'its apology, as well as its history." Yet from the faithful
history of vBurnet, nothing is more clear, than that the Eng
lish church, instead of being a stately pillar in the Romish
episcopacy, was raised out of its ruins.
In'the very outset of the reformation, in the time, of
^, See Records and Instruments, No. 2. attached to Courayer's
Defence,

42 MINISTRY OF THE
Henry the Eighth it was laid down asamaxim,"that the king
was pope in England." Edward the Sixth retained the same
authority, and the bishops took out neio commissions from
him, which were to be " revoked at the king's pleasure."
The bishops held only a precarious power, which was to be
resigned at' the will of the king. They had power to or
dain and dismiss ministers, but they were required to do it
" in his name and under his authority." In short, it was
decreed in parliament, that " no one could have any juris
diction, either temporal, or spiritual, which was not derived
from the king, as its source.'"* *
Had the English reformers believed in the divine right of
episcopal jurisdiction, is it possible, that they would thus
have taken every vestige of power from the bishops, and
given it into the hands of kings ? But whatever may have
been their opinions on this subject, it is certain that they
did not derive, nor profess io derive, their authority from any
ecclesiastical source. If the bishops were descended from
the apostles, then it must have been by virtue of this de
scent, and ihis alone, that they possessed spiritual authority.
It was not an authority of which kings or parliaments could
deprive them, and it showed a deplorable defection of
principle, or a pitiable weakness, to bow at the sjirine of
of human greatness, if they were conscious of bei'ng bound
* Oeuvres de Bossuet, Tom. xix. et xx. Historic des Variations
des Eglises Protestantes, liv. vii. Burnet's History of the reforma
tion. Part ii.
In his concluding remarks on the control ofthe king, and of the
civil autliority, over the power of tlje bishops, Bossuet observes,
" Nul acte eecl^siastique, pas mfime ceux qui regardent la predica
tion, les censures, la liturgie, les sacremens, et la foi mcme, n'a de
force en Angleterre qu'autant qu'il est approuve et validfe par les
rois ; ce qui au fond donne aux rois plus que la parole, et plus que
I'administration des sacremens, puisqu'il jrs rend souverains arbi-
tres de I'un et de I'autre." Hist, des Var. Liv. 10,

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 43
by the laws of a divine authority. These men either did
not believe in the divine succession, or their conduct is in
excusable. If their authority was divine, it was permanent;
and yet they suffered their commissions to be revoked at
the pleasure of the king, were ordained by rules prescribed
by him,, and ventured to publish no articles of religion,
which had not received his sanction. All spiritual author
ity was effectually subordinate to the temporal ; and how it
can be argued, that these bishop^ were acting as the de
scendants of the apostles, while the existence*of their
authority, and the extent of their power, depended solely on
the will of the king, is a question, which I must leave un
answered. Let us go back still farther. Has not the pope power to
excommunicate whom he pleases, and annul their ordina
tions ? If so, what security is there under his authority
for episcopal succession, or what is its value .' If the power,
which it communicates, may be destroyed by human au
thority, why may it not be granted by the same authority ?
A power, which the pope cah destroy, is in the fullest
sense derived from him. There is a memorable example of
this in the catholic see at Utrecht. All the bishops of this
see have been regularly consecrated ; but because Dominick
Varlet, ¦who a hundred years ago consecrated the first bish
op, was at that time under the censure of the pope, the
whole see has ever since been declared schismatical, and
eaeh successive prelate has regularly'received a renewed
condemnation from the sovereign Pontiffi* A similar ex
ample is recorded » by Calvin, in the case of Eugenius and
Amadeus. When by the decree of the council of Basil, Eu
genius was deposed, degraded, and pronounced guilty*of
**See the Pastoral Letter of archbishop Marechal, to the con
gregation of Norfolk, Virginia, 1819, second edition. Appendix,
p. 84.

44 MINISTRY OF THE
schism, together with all the bishops and cardinals, who
had united with him in opposing the' council, Calvin says,
the succession of the ministry was at this time virtually
broken, for, " from the bosom of^hese heretics and rebels
have proceeded all the popes, cardinals, bishops, abbots,
and priests ever since."* Be this as it may, how can that
ministry be said to have a divine origin, and be kept up ma
divine succession, which can be suspended or annulled at
the pleasure of a king, pope, or council .'
I have thus gone through with a patient examination of
the evidence, on which the episcopal church advances its
singular pretensions to a divine origin and succession. In
the scriptures I have found nothing, either in the commands
of our Saviour, or of the apostles,which can justify any class
of men in assuming to themselvs the claim of being the only
true church.
A similar result has followed from the testimony of the
Fathers, and the history ot the English feformation. First,
it can be indisputably proved from the Fathers, that the
churches in the primitive ages were not uniformly governed
by three orders of ministry,,; but frequently by two, an*
sometimes by one. jSecond/y, bishops were parochial clergy
men, in many places at least, and nothing more. Thirdly,
ordinations were performed by presbyters, especially in the
case of Irenjeus, and for a long time in the church at Alexan
dria. Fourthly, no particular account can be given of the
origin ofthe church of Rome, or of its first seven bishops.
Fifthly, the power of the English clergy'is confessedly de
rived from the king, and not from any church. Sixthly, the
informality of ordination in the English church was such,
in, the opinion of the Catholics, who are. supposed to consti
tute the true church, as to destroy all power, that might be
*
* Institutes; Dedication to the King, p, 25.
i-

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 45
transmitted by the episcopal succession. Seventhly, English
bishops were at an early period consecrated by presbyters,
and at a much later period, ordination by presbyters was
considered valid. Finally, the consecration of archbishop
Parker, who was the beginning of the succession since his
time, both to English and American bishops, was declared,
and ig,still considered by the Catholics, invalid, and was at
best of a very suspicious and doubtful character.
These are difficulties in the way of your positions, which
it can be no easy matter for the most sanguine friends of
episcopacy to remove. Taking the whole train of evidence
into consideration, the arguments in favor of ihe jure divino
pretensions to episcopacy, when arrayed in all their strength,
cannot place it on a firmer basis, than conjecture and possi
bility. Many contradictions must be reconciled, much
positive testimony destroyed, and much light brought out of
darkness, even before this can be done. Is anv one willinff
to accede to the exwaordinary pretensions, which the epis
copal church makes, to a divine origin and succession, on
grounds so slender and feeble as these .'
To support such claims, nothing should be considered
sufficient, but clear, positive, continued, unanswerable evi
dence. This evidence is not found in the Bible, or the
practice of the primitive ages ; it is not found in history, or
the common sense of mankind ; nor do I believe it can be
found any where.
It has not been my object to show that the episcopal
mode of church government is not a good one, when allowed
to stand on its proper foundation: Whether it is well cal
culated to promote the great objects of the christian reli
gion, and to make effectual the means of salvation in the
hearts and lives of men, is not a question with which I am
at present concerned. If it is a government with which the
people, over whom it is exercised,are pleased, that is enough.
5 f-

46 Ministry ot THfi
They are the only proper judges. It may perhaps be
doubted, whether it is so well adapted to the genius and
spirit of our civil government and institutions, as some
other form ; yet while it does not interfere with these, and
while it is allowed to be derived from the christian worship
pers, who submit to it, I can discover no reason why any
one should complain. .,f.
Itis not the form to which I object, but ihe pretensions,
and the improper influence, which the heads of a church,
professing to be vested by their official character with apos
tolical sanctity, will be likely to have on the weaker and
more credulous part of society. It has been my aim to
make it appear, that no such pretensions are authoized in
the scriptures, or sanctioned by the practice of the apostolic
age, Archdeacoti Paley, one of the brightest ornaments of the
episcopal church, long ago placed this subject in its true
light, in his sermon on the distinction of orders in the church.
He proves very clearly, that the apostolic usages and direct
tions do not warrant any exclusive form of ecclesiastical
government. He observes, " whilst the precepts of christ
ian morality, and the fundamental articles of its faith, are
for the most part precise and absolute, of perpetual, univer
sal, and unalterable obligation ; the laws which respect the
discipline, instruction and government of the community,
are delivered in terms so general and indefinite, as to admit
of an application adapted to the mutable condition, and va
rying exigencies ofthe christian church."
The reason for this is obvious. The christian relisrion
was intended for all countries, and all times ; and it was
necessary that its external institutions should be of so gene
ral a nature, as to be adapted to the local circumstances,
peculiar situation, and established laws of different commu
nities. It was the end, and not the means, which our Sa-

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 47
viour and his apostles had in view. Principles of faith, rules
of action, the spirit ofthe gospel, the temper of love, piety
and holiness, were to be established in the minds and hearts
of men. How this object could best be effected under dif
ferent circumstances, was left to the judgment and prudence
of good men.* The bishop of Lincoln advances similar
sentiments. ¦(" Although he labors to prove episcopacy to
be an apostolic institution, he does not consider it of divine
origin. As God has prescribed no particular mode of civil
government, so he ackno-wledges, that the commands and
precepts ofthe New Testament do not enjoin any particular
form of ecclesiastical polity,
Locke, who was also an epis'copalian, uses still stronger
language. " A church," says he, " I take to be a society,
joining themselves together of their own accord, in order to
the public' worship of God, in such a manner as they shall
judge acceptable to him, and effectual to the salvation of
their souls." After having stated the objection offered by
some, that no society can be regarded as a true church, un
less it have,in it a presbyter or bishop, deriving his author-
* It is not a little amusing to see with what raptures the editor
of Nelson's work on Festivals and Fasts speaks of Law's three .let
ters to bishop Hoadjy. He says they form a conclusive answer
to archdeacon Paley, " expose his dangerous errors, detect the
fallacy of his arguments, and drive him humbled from the strong
holds in which he fancied himself secure !" And in what way is
this wonderful achievement attained .' By taking for granted the
very thing to be proved, namely, that the " christian ministry is a
divine, positive institution," and thatthe form of this institution
was originally episcopal. Starting with these premises, it requires
not much skill in logic to draw the inference, that episcopacy, is of
divine origin, and therefore unchangeable. And this is the amount
of Law's argument.
t Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 376, et seqq. as
quoted by Dr. Rees, Cycl. Art. Bishop.

48 MINISTRY OF THE
ity from the apostles, he goes on to remark ; " to those who
make this objection, T answer, let them show me the edict
by which Christ has imposed that law on his church, and
let not any man think me impertinent, if in a thing of this
consequence, I require that the terms of the edict be Very
express and positive."* It will be well for all persons,
Avho believe in the divine institution of any particular order
of ministry, and that this order still remains, to search
carefully and find sueh an edict before they are very posi
tive, or begin to seek for arguments from foreign and unau
thenticated sources.
As no rules are prescribed in the scriptures on this sub
ject, we have reason to think, that all denominations of
christians are fully authorised to form such regulations for
the government of their churches, as they may think best
calculated to promote the great interests of religion. While
every thing is done " decently and in order," while they
endeavor to imbibe the spirit ofthe gospel, and acquire the
temper, as well as copy the example of the apostles, they
will be conforming to the will of God, and the , precepts of
our Saviour.
All the duties requisite for personal holiness, and accep
tance with God, are clearly enjoined in the scriptures ; but
nothing is said about the manner in which ministers of the
gospel shall be chosen, or the form in which they shall be
initiated into their office. We know the apostles, and their
immediate successors, were not guided by any uniform rules
in this respect, and we have no reasons for supposing, that
any such rules were intended to be applied to christians of
later times. There is not a single positive direction in the
whole word of God on the subject. Every well ordered
christian community has a right to establish such religious
* Letters on Toleration.

EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 49
institutions, as may be best suited to its condition. The
people of such a community have a right to institute such a
form of ecclesiastical government, and appoint such officers,
as they shall deem expedient.
The government of the primitive church at Jerusalem,
was easentially x govemment of the people. If we are to fol
low example, we certainly can have none of higher authority
than this. It was a church to which the apostles them
selves belonged. If such was the example of the apostles,
we cannot be in an error, if we make such our practice.
Since the church was governed by the people at that time,
why should it not be governed in the same way now ? Let
the people adopt such a form of government as they choose ;
but still, let it be understood as resting with them, and not
be considered as imposed by any pretensions to divine au
thority. If they are pleased with the episcopal form, let
them quietly enjoy it. If they prefer to be governed by as
sociations, assemblies, synods, councils, or consociations,
let them have the liberty of making this choice. If they think
it more consonant to the usages of the first christians and
more consistent with the principles of religious freedom, to
unite in seperate societies, and form such regulations as are
suited to their circumstances, let them not be disturbed, or
called schismatics, because they think this a preferable
mode.* Civil governments, and the conditions of society, will no
doubt, in some degree, affect ecclesiastical institutipns. The
form of church government, which is best in one country,
may not always be the best in another ; yet in no country,
and under no circumstances, can any number of christians
j ustly be prohibited from uniting to worship God after such
a form as they think best, provided they do not disturb the
peace of society, or encroach on the civil power.
All ministers appointed by the consent and approbation of

50 MINISTRY OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
he people,' whom they are to teach, are regularly appoint
ed ; all ministers ordained according to such forms, as the
people shall think consistent with the general instructions
and tenor of the scriptures, and best calculated to give in
terest and solemnity to fhe occasion, are regularly ordained.
And such persons have as high a commission to administer
the ordinances of the christian religion, and to discharge all
the ¦ duties of the ministerial office, as they could receive
from any authority residing in the archbishop of Canterbury,
or the incumbent of the Holy See at Rome.

-LETTER IL
ON THE Ritual of the episcopal church.

Reverend and dear sir,
The present letter I shall ^devote to a consideration of
some of the ceremonies and forms contained in the ritual
of the Episcopal Church. You profess it to be the princi
pal object of your Discourse, to let your hearers know,
" why they are Protestant Episcopalians," in distinction
from other denominations of christians. In discharging this
duty, however well you may have succeeded in convincing
your hearers of the true grounds of their faith, and of the
propriety of the forms which they adopt in religious ser
vices, you have passed over many things, which, I am in
clined to think, the public in geaeral, to whom you have
submitted your discourse, wi^ not readily understand, or
receive, without a further explanation.
You have omitted entirely the Ritual ofthe church,which,
by many, is thought to contain things not altogether con
formable to scripture, or calculated to ensure a truly christ
ian practice. Good men, and pious christians, have seen in
some of the ceremonies of the church a strange leaning to
the practices of darker times, when infallibility, jiapal su
premacy, and the decrees of councils, were among the first
articles of the believer's creed. They have seen an unac-

52 ritual OF THE CHURCH,
countable departure from the simplicity of the gospel, and
the usages of the first christians, >._
Two positive ordinances only are enjoined in the scrip
tures, namely Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. It is to be
observed, that in neither of these, are any particular forms
prescribed, in which it is required they shall be adminis
tered. We are to baptize with water ; to eat bread and
drink wine in remembrance of Christ. We have no other
directions. Nothing is said about time, place, or manner.
As these ordinances were to be perpetual, and were intended
for all the followers of Christ, it was necessary that they
§hould be such, as could be complied with in every age and
country, and in every condition of civil society. But had
any specific forms been poin^d out, there might be circum
stances under which they could not be followed. When
ever baptism is administered with water, in the name ofthe
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and whenever the com
munion of the Lord's Supper is partaken with sincerity, in
remembrance of Christ, the command of our Saviojir will
be obeyed, and these ordinances will be valid, whatever ex
ternal forms it maybe found expedient to adopt in their ad-
ministation. One of the mysteries in the ritual ofthe episcopal church,
which needs explaining to my understanding, and probably
to that of most of your readers, is the form of baptism. In
this ceremony, by what authority, except the superstition
of the dark ages, is the minister required to make, on the
forehead of the person baptized-, " the sign of the cross."'
This relic of ancient superstition is not sanctioned by a single
text of scripture, and why should it still be preserved .?
Bishop Burnet says, in speaking of the origin of this prac
tice, " with the use of it, the devil was adjured to go out of
the person baptized ;" and Lactantius, '" nor can the devils
approach to them, on whom they see this heavenly mark ;

'* RITUAL OF THE CHURCH, 53
nor can they hurt those, whom this iieavenly sign, as an
impregnable fortress, defends."* Whe'ther such is the pre
sent belief of the church, I cannot say, but it is certain, there
IS nothing in the Bible, which can warrant this singular ap
pendage to the ceremony of baptism, and the only effect,
which so unscriptural a practice can produce, is to perpetuate
error and superstition.
Another singular part of this ceremony in the baptism of
infants, is, that persons, who are not the parents of the
child, are allowed, and indeed, by a canon of the English
church, such are required to become sureties oifsponsors for
the child. ¦]¦ ¦ The American Convention improved upon this
canon, and agreed that " parents shall be admitted as spon
sors, if it be desired." But ¦«^en there are parents, let it
be seriously asked^^why should any other persons be allowed
to take upon themselves this important charge .'
The minister says to the sponsors, " this infant must faith
fully for his part promise by you that are his sureties, (until
he come of age to take it upon himself) that he will re
nounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe
God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments."
This is a very serioifts and solemn engagement on the part of
the sponsors ; and when circumstances prevent their having
any influence over the child, as must often happen, how are
they to keep it .' They are required, also, " to provide that
the child may learn the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the
ten commandments." As there is no authority in scripture
* Lact. r.istit. lib. iv. c. xxvii. and Peirce's Vindication, p. 157.
It was formerly the custom for the prie.st to exorcise the persons to
be baptized, " by laying his hands on their heads, and breathing in
their faces, to expel the devil, and inspire them with the Holy
Spirit." See Edinb. Encyc. Art. Baptism.
t Canon xxix. " No parent shall be admitted to answej as god
father for his own child."

54 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
*
for this practice, why should the church expose any to the
danger of violating engagements so- solemn as these, or of
promising what they cannot perform ?*
But the part of the ceremony which is the most excep
tionable, and which, indeed, cannot but be productive of
dangerous consequences, is that in which are declared the
nature and objects of the institution. The minister prays,
that the child, " being delivered from the wrath of God, may
be received into the ark of Christ's church," and that he
" may receive remission of sin by spiritual regeneration," From
these expressions it seems, that before baptism, the church
considers all infants under the ¦wrath of God, and guilty of
sin, although they have never done a single action with the
consciousness of an evil intention. It is furthermoie im
plied, that the mere ceremony of baptism takes away the
guilt of sin, and appeases the wrath of God.
After the ceremony is performed with water and the sign
of the cross, the minister says, " this child is regenerate, and
grafted into the body of Christ's church." The same ex
pressions are used in baptizing persons advanced to maturer
age. The above quotations are fronti the -Book of Common
Prayer, authorized by the American Convention. The fol
lowing is contained in the English Prayer Book, but was
* In the time of the apostles, all persons were baptized as soon
as they were converted to the christian religion. In the second
century, some particular qualifications began to be thouglit necessa
ry, as a preparation for this ceremony. Persons were then first ap
pointed to give such preparatory instructions as were required ; and
these persons were called sjronsors. This practice does not appear
to have extended to infants till Ihe fourth century. About the same
time, as nearly as can be ascertained, the sign of the crass began
first to be employed. See New Edinb. Encyclcpaed. vol. iii. p. 236.
It appears, therefore, that for a long time, it was the duty of
sponsors to prepaie persons for baptism, and not for confirmation.

./RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. S3
Til
Omitted by the convention. In the service of private bap
tism, after the baptismal words are prsnounced, the nainis-
ter is made to say, " this child being bmnin original sin, and
in the wrath of God, is now by the laver- of regeneration in
baptism received into the number of the children of God,
and heirs of eternal life." Why this was left out of the
American prayer book we are notj- told. The language is a
little stronger than is used in other; parts of the baptismal
service, but the sentiments are presisely the same.
It is the doctrine of the-episcppal chijrch, therefore, that
theiigimple act oflbaptism washes away all former sins, re
stores the persons baptized to the favor of God, and makes
them heirs of salvation. This is clearly stated in the twenty
seventh article, which says,.^^ Baptism is not only a sign
of professsion, and mark of difference, whereby christian
men are discerned from others that be not christened ; but
it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by
an instrument they that receive baptism rightly are grafted
into the churdh ; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and
of our adoption to be the sons of God, are visibly signed and
sealed." In the catechism, which is to be repeated by ev
ery, child before confirmation, baptism is said to be " a death
unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness ; for being by na
ture born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby
made the children of grace." The bishop of Lincoln has
written a chapter to prove, that " the words regeneration,
andbornagain, are in scripture applied to the one immediute
effect of baptism once administered, and are never used as sy
nonymous to repentance or reformution of a christian."* He
says further, thatssuch is the doctrine of the " Liturgy, Ar
ticles, and Homilies."
It is scarcely necessary to remark on this doctrine. Eve-
*"Refutation of Calvinism, seventh edition, p. 87.

56 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
ry one must see its dangerous tendency. Nothing is said
about the sincerity, the moral character, or religious inten
tions of the person baptized. He may be a hypocrite, he
may be wicked and abandoned, without any actual change
of heart, or any desire to change, and yet the ceremony will
be equally effectual in taking away the guilt of sin, and ma
king him heir to the promises of eternal life. Hence a man
who has lived to an old, age, in every excess of wickedness,
and has never been baptized, may obtain a pardon of all his
past sins, and secure the reward of salvation, by having the
ceremony of baptism performed in his dying moments.
What other tendency can such a doctrine have, than to en
courage men in wickedness, and to deceive them with false
hopes ?* ^-
It was no doubt this doctrine of the church, which led
Mr. Dodwell to the very strange positions, which he has
advanced in his Epistolary Discourses, He maintained that
** The case of Constantine the Great is a memorable one. Al
though he made pretensions to much warmth of zeal in the cause
of Christianity, he delayed baptism till a short time before his death.
After a life stained with wickedness and murder, and during the
time of an alarming sickness, he resorted to the ceremony of bap
tism, as an expiation of all his sins, and a full preparation for heav
en. This example was often followed. Many persons thought it
prudent not to hasten a ceremony, which had the power of washing
out the stains of former guilt, but which could not be repeated.
It was the opinion of Chrysostom, that baptism took away the
guilt of all passed trangressions, but did not secure the person
against future sin.
" Car bien que ce sacrement emporte les crimes passfes, la source
de ces crimes n'est point tarie."
" Le bapteme lave le peche ; mais etouff'ez, s'il se pent, dans v6-
tre ame I'inclination au mal." Les Horael. des Chrysost. Trad, par
Maucroix, Paris, 1671, p. 333, 334.
This agrees very nearly with the opinion of the. church, as ex
pressed in the Book of Common Prayer.

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 57
the soul is naturayy mortal, but is immortalized by its union
wit^ the divine baptismal spirit ; and that " none, since the
apostles, have the power of conferring this immortalizing
spirit, excepting only the bisho|)s."
It must be acknowledged, that the entire form of bap
tism, as practised in the episcopal church, is a wide depart
ure fr'om the simplicity of the gospel. No particular form
is there prescribed. Nothing is said about sponsors, or the
sign of the cross ; " renouncing the devil and all his works,"
or learning a creed. Why then should we darken and en
cumber this ceremony with these unscriptural additions .'
And above all, nothing is said, from which it is safe for us
to infer, that the mere ceremony of baptism will wash away
our sins, and purify our natures*. W'e are »tliere told, that
the coji^itions of salvation are faith, repentance, and a good
life. ¦••¦¦" f^'
Some persons, aware of the consequence of this doctrine
as received by the church, have endeavored to modify it,
and have reminded us that the contemplated effects will fol
low only on condition of the baptism being " rightly re
ceived." But no such conditions are mentioned in the bap
tismal service. The persons to whom baptism is adminis
tered are never told, that it will be ineffectual if they do not
receive it rightly. They are made to understand by posi
tive declarations, that they are " regenerate, and grafted into
the body of Christ's church." Infants, in particular, have
no volition in this ceremony. Whenever they receive bap
tism, they cannot but receive it'rightly ; and if the effects
above mentioned are not always supposed, to follow, the
words in which they are expressed are unmeaning, and
should not be used.
But the, truth is, it is evident from the article in which
this condition is found, that it does not refer to the disposi
tion, or spiritual state of the person baptized, but to the

58 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
manner in which the^ceremony is performed. To receive
baptism rightly, is to receive it at the hands of a proper .per
son, and'according to the established forms of the church.
The consequences of this ordinance, as it is required to be
practised in the baptismal service, will not, therefore, in any
sense be done away by this clause in the twenty-seventh
article.* ,i
Another ceremony in the episcopal church, and one which
has no direct scriptural authority, is confirmation. All per
sons, who have been baptized when infants, are required,
after they have learnt the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the
ten commandments, to be brought before the bishop, and to
be confirmed, before they can partake of the communion of
the Lord's Supper. Did our Saviour make any such condi
tions, when he instituted this rite } Where does he say, it
is necessary for any to be confirmed by a bishop before they
can become his disciples, and be made partakers of this
privilege ?
Moreover, this ceremony of confirmation is exceedingly
exceptionable in itself. In a prayer on this occasion, the
* The doctrine and form of baptism are taken almost literally
from the Romish church. The idea, that this ceremony washed
away original sin, was early conceived, and has long been an es
tablished doctrine in the church of Rome.
In a catechism published by the bishop of Means for his diocess,
the following are said to be the effects of baptism. " It frees the
person baptized from original sin, and from the other sins, which
he may have committed after his birth ; — it takes away the sin
-which we brought with us into the world, and gives Us a new life."
The person to be baptized is made to " renounce the devil, and all
his pomps, and all hia works.'' ("Ne renoncea-vous pas au diable,
et i toutes ses pompes, et k toutes ses ouvres ? On rfepond ; j'y re-
nonce.J Oeuvres de Bossuet) Versailles, 3815, Tom. vi. p, 39.
From these quotations it will be seen, that there is no essential
difference, in regard to the nature and form of this ceremony,
between the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the Church of Rome.

RITUAL OP THE CHURCH. 59
bishop says, " we make our humble supplications untp thee
for these thy Servants, upon whom, after the example ofthe
holy apostles, we have now laidour hands, to certify them by
this sign, of thy favor and gracious goodness towards them."
From this it would appear, that bishops are to be consider
ed as communicating the same powers, and conferring the
same blessings, as did the apostles. In fact, it is making
them in this respect equal to the apostles. We have al
ready seen, that by the ceremony of baptism, they are sup
posed to have the power of procuring a remission of sins ;
and here we are told, that by laying their hands on the
heads of certain persons, they give a sure sign pf these same
persons receiving the special grace of God.
Do bishops, indeed, imagine themselves to be not only
spiritual descendants of the apostleis, but endowed with the
same powers ? Let them gi-ve^ some of the evidences,
which the apostles gave, of these wonderful endowments.
Let them heal the sick, perform miracles, speak in various
tongues, and confer these gifts on others. When they have
done this, I have no doubt, that all will acknowledge the
reality of their higR and extraordinary pretensions, and yield
to their authority. Until they give some such evidence,
they cannot be surprised, that many should reject the validi-
^ ty of their claims, and choose to consult and obey the scrip
tures, rather than be guided by human forms, which have
no other sanction, than the authority of men.
Whenever laying on t^ir-hands is mentioned in the New
Testament, it implies either a communication of extraordi
nary gifts, or an initiation into some office. When Peter
and John " laid their hands on the Samaritan converts, they
received the Holy Spirit." Acts viii 17. When, the apos
tles laid their hands on the seven persons, who were ap
pointed to aid in taking care of the poor, (Acts vi 6.)
there is no reason to suppose it was anything more than a

60 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
- form of induction into office, 'Nothing is said of their re
ceiving spiritual gifts ; nor did the duties of their office re
quire any,
Paul writes to Timothy thus, " neglect not the gift, that
is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the lay
ing on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14. In
this case, the laying on of hands seems to have been a form,
by which Timothy was introduced into the ministry, as
well as a means of conferring some spiritual gift. As those,
who are intended for confirmation, are not designed to be-
introduced into any office, if this ceremony means anything,
it must imply a communication of extraordinary gifts from
the bishop. But no bishop has ever yet made it appear,
that he possessed any such gifts himself. How then can
he communicate them tb others .?*
* The ceremony of confirmation is taken, without much altera
tion from thechurch of Rome. It is there required to be perform
ed by a bishop, and is said to confer the gift of the holy spirit, and
strengthen the grace, which was received at baptism. The bishop
" places his hands on the persons, 'whom he is about to confirm,
and invokes the holy spirit to descend upon" them with its gifts."
The Protestant Episcopal Church has omitted the " holy chrism,"
which the catholics think a very important part ofthe ceremony.
This is a mixture of oil and balm, with which the bishop makes
a cross on the forehead of the person confirmed, and is intended ,
" to show, that no one ought to be ashamed of Christ." Calfechis-
me de Bossuet, Oeuv. Tom. vi. p,40 ; et Exposition dela Doctrine
de L'Eglise Catholique, Oeuv. Tom. Sviii. p. 104.
The sign of the cross was at first adopted by the English church,
according to Burnet, in the " ceremony of confirmation, and in the
consecration of the sacramental elements,'' but it was afterwards
suppressed; " Nor can 1 devise," says Bossuet, " why it was re
tained only in baptism.'' Hist, des Var. liv. vii. § 90.
In speaking of this ceremony. Cave observes, it was " usually
performed with unction, the person confirmed being anointed by

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 61
Similar remarks may be made on the ordination service of
the episcopal church. It implies a power in the bishop of
conferring the Holy Spirit. In one part of the service the
bishop says; " come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire," and
when he -has laid his hands on the head of the person
to be ordained a priest, he says, " receive The Holy Ghost
for the office and work of a priest in the church of God,
now committed junto thee by the imposition of our hands ; —
whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose
sins thou dost retain, they are retained."
This is going many steps farther, than in the ceremony
of confirmation The bishop not only pretends to communi
cate the holy spirit, but also the power of forgiving sins.
" Whose sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven," Can
there be a higher stretch of human presumption .'' It is
assuming .the character and authority of our Saviour. He
empowered his apostles to forgive sins. Do bishops, indeed,
think themselves, in their official capacity, not only equal
to the apostles, but to the Saviour of the world ? Where
will this end } Every minister of the episcopal church,
¦who believes there is any meaning in the forms of ordina
tion must think he possesses the power of forgiving sins.
No matter what his character may be, he possesses this pow
er by virtue of his office. This is expressly acknowledged
by Nelson, in his chapter on the Festival of Whitsunday.
" Though all men," says he, " that are in holy offices ought
to lead holy lives, yet a failure in duty is not a forfeiture of
the bishop, orin his absence hy ah inferior minister," Cave's Primit.
Christianity, chap, a, p. 208, seventh-edition, London, 1714.
From this account it appears, that confirmation was sometimes
performed in ancient times by the inferior clergy, and with unc
tion, neither of which is at present allowed in the Protestant Epis
copal Church, 6*

62 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
authority."* What doctrine could more effectually promote
a spirit of pride and presumption in the minister, and im
morality in the people .'' The wicked man has only to re
sort to his minister to soothe the achings of a guilty con
science, and receive -the assurance of divine forgiveness.
It is well, that 'people of the present day have too much
good sense, and too little credulity, to be deceived into so
dangerous an error ; but it would be better ^f such forms as
are calculated to deceive, and have an immoral tendency,
were abolished.
In the English Book of Common Prayer, the minister is
required, when he visits sick persons, to absolve them from
their sins, "if they humbly and heartily desire it." After
imploring the Lord Jesus to forgive the oflTences of the sick
person, the minister is directed to say, " by his authority
committed to me, I absolve thee from all tj^y sins, in the
name of the^ Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." This form of absolution was omitted by the
American convention. But it is not easy to tell the reason ;
for if a bishop can empovver a minister to forgive sins, the
same minister can certai-nly exercise this power for t]^
benefit of sick persons, as well as others. *
All that part of the Book of Common Prayer, which re
lates to baptism, confirmation, ordination, consecration, and
visiting the sick, carries with it the supposition, that bish
ops have the power of communicating the holy spirit, and
ministers of forgiving sins, which few persons of the- present
day, who read the scriptures, consult their understandings,
or respect the principles of common sense, will be ready to
allow. I have dwelt the longer on these topics, asjjthey have an
intimate connexion with the subject of the preceeding letter.
* Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, New, York, 1817,
p . 213.

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 63
The unscriptural parts of these ceremonies have evidently
grown 01^ of the notion of the apostolic . character of the
ministry. They afford a comment on that doctrine, which
is well worthy of notice. As the ministers descended from
the apostles, it is taken for granted, that they possess the
same qualifications ; and the rules of their office seem to
have been formed on this supposition. When it is recol
lected by what a precarious tenure the episcopal clergy
hold their claims to the apostolic dignity, it will be seen
how singularly inappropriate and presuming are many parts
of the ceremonies, which have just been considered. That
such errors should have crept into the church in the days
ignorance and darkness is not so wonderful ; but that men
should still be found in an enlightened and free community,
who defend and cling to them, is not less unaccountable than
surprising. ^ • ^
Your remarks on the expediency and utility of forms of
prayer are not without weight. If we ever give utterance
to our feelings in chaste, appropriate, and solegm language,
it should be in our addresses to the Deity. If we ever sup-
mess the vain ambition of using lofty phrases, high sound
ing epithets, a.nd an unnecessary abundance of words, it
should be then We cannot study too much to make our
language simple, plain, forcible, and direct. In those reli
gious exercises, in which large numbers unite, and where
the prayers are intended to express the wants and the peti
tions ofthe whole, there can certainly be no impropriety in
using a preconceived form, composed in such general terms,
as to be adapted to a promiscuous assembly. No prayer in
a public assembly is appropriate, unless every individual
present can unite in every part. It may sometimes happen,
that the feelings ofthe speaker, and his want of aptness in
arranging and combining his thoughts, may lead him into
irrelevant expressions, and such as are not adapted to

64 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
the occasion. This is the only inconvenience, that can
arise from externporaneous prayers ; tfnd, to prejent this,
it may be expedient sometimes to have studied forms.
It should be remembered, however, that forms in religion
are useful, as far as they promote a virtuous conduct, and
vital godliness ; but beyond this they are injurious. It is
rightful and good to have order and system in our religious
institutions and services. But we must take care not to
neglect the reality for the form, the substance for the shad
ow. There is danger, that by treading in the same steps
from day to day, we shall at length persuade ourselves, that
we walk in the only true path. We must be careful not
to let the feeling grow upon us, that when we perform a
ceremony, we necessarily do a religious act.
Reading a prayer is not always praying, any more than
the simple act of spending two hours in a church is reli
gious worship. If the soul be not drawn out to God, and
impressed with a consciousness of his presence ; if the heart
and affections be not warm with a lively sense of his good
ness ; if all the faculties be not humbled with a feeling of
reverence and submission, there is no devotion, however
much ceremony there may be in standing and sitting, re
peating forms,reading,or chanting. And the sincere, humble,
penitent soul, can offer up praise and thanksgiving to God
acknowledge his domimon, implore his mercy, and render
him an acceptable service at all times, and in all places in
such terms as the overflowings of a devotional spirit may
dictate. The scriptures have not informed us what precise
acts shall be considered worship. They have assured us
that sincere worship must spring from the heart, but they
have prescribed no particular mode in which we shall ex
press our emotions of gratitude, thanksgiving, praise de
pendence, and submission. This is left to the discretion

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 65
of every christian. Is it only demanded of us, that we be
sincere. It is not a principal object of prayer to express devotional
feelings? And what is devotion without fervor, earnestness,
and an impressive sense of the presence and inspection of
God ? Is it not much better, that we should have the life,
the spirit of prayer, than the form > God looks into the
heart, and regards the sentiments we cherish there, and not
the modes we use in disclosing them. These modes should
be such, as to enable us to retain the most lively emotions
of a pious and holy temper, at the same time that we use
our best endeavors to offer up our devotions in appropriate
and expressive language. To speak words without feeling
their full force, or being warmed by the sentiments they
coiivey, is not devotion. Prayers repeated every sabbath
from year to year in the same church, must in the nature of
things- lose much of their effect. Habit will diminish the
irksomeness of repetition, but it is to be feared, that the
words will too often pass through the miind, while the
thoughts are wandering. '
There is another objection, which lies heavily against
most forms of prayer, and from which the Liturgy of the
church, with all its acknowledged excellencies in many re
spects, is byjio means free. No address should ever be
publicly made to the Deity, in which every christian, of
every denomination, cannot cordially and devoutly join. It
is not an occasion which should be employed to introduce
dogmatical theology, or abstruse metaphysical distinctions.
All the worshippers of God should assemble tefore him,
" in the unity of the spirit and the bond of peace.'' Names
should be done away, and the distinguishing tenets of sects
should be forgotten. Is this true of all the prayers ofthe
episcopal church, and especially of the Litany } Are there
not many conscientious and devout christans, whose minds

66 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
revolt at the kind of worship there rendered, when they re
collect the command of our Saviour, " thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve ."' This
objection, which arises from the habit of conforming prayers
to the views of a sect, bears equally strong against extem
poraneous prayers, which partake of this character. An
important difference is, that when forms become established,
and are often repeated in churches, they are likely to pro
duce more extensive injury to the cause of truth and piety.
When you say, that " with respect to social worship of
every description, the doctrine and practice ofthe church
universal are decidedly in favor of preconceived forii/s," and
speak of the " lawfulness of forms being established by
divine appointment," I hardly know how to understand
you. If, by the " church universal," you mean all the
churches of Christ, your statement is of course incorrect,
because a great portion of them do not use set forms. If
you mean those churches only, which hold to three orders
in the ministry, I know not why you call them the "church
universal." Or is it to be«understood, that you consider all
those denominations of christians, who do not adopt this
mode of government, as being without the pale of the
church .'
To prove forms of prayer to have been " established by
divine appointment," you quote the general practice of
singing psalms and hymns in churches,- and say, " the
Book of Psalms was inspired by the Holy Ghost for the
use of the congregation." This may be true, but it affords
no proof in regard to forms of prayer. Did our Saviour
use a form in the garden of Gethsemane, or the apostles in
their public or private devotions .' There is no evidence
of such a fact ; and if forms of prayer are to be defended on
any ground, it must be that of utility and expediency, and not
of divine authority.- While we pray from the heart, and

RITUAL OF THE CHURGH. 67
lift up our souls to God in spirit and truth, our prayers
"will be heard^ in whatever words they may be expressed, or
in whatever forms they may be offered,
I cannot forbear saying a word on another topic, which
you connect with the part of your discourse,which I am now
considering. I mean the privilege of women to associate
for religious exercises. In speaking of this subject, you
were certainly betrayed into a warmth, which is not
qoaite in accordance with the mild and equable spirit?
discoverable in almost every other part of your sermon.
These are your words. " My brethren, when I consider
that our God and Saviour has appointed a ministry espe
cially to serve in religious assemblies ; that this ministry
exists in every church in this city ; — when I mark the re
tiring, the humble, the docile traits of character, which the
sacred writings attribute to christian women ; when I read
the words of St. Paul to a church he had himself planted,
' let your women keep silence in cjiurches, for it is not
permitted unto them to speak, for it is a shame for women
to speak in the church ;' — when I consider these, and other
express declarations to the same effect, I cannot hesitate
about the inexpediency of tho^ meetings, in which females
meet together, not to use the atithorized-prayers ofthe church,
but publicly to utter their own extempore effusions. The
spirit of the church institutions, prescribing and providing a
preconceived form, /rotCTis upon them. The language of St.
Paul seems explicitly to discountenance them."
This language you must allow is very warm. Suppose
there were reasons why the apostle should write as he
did, respecting the Corinthian women ; does it follow that
the same reasons exist at the present day, and in a totally
diflferent state of society } Besides, if women were never to
speak in religious assemblies, even in those times, why did
St, Paul, in the same epistle from which you have quoted

68 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
the above text, intimate that " they should not pray or
prophecy with their heads uncovered." This text is a
proof, that women were not excluded from speaking.
Mr. Locke explains this subject much more favorably and'
consistently, than the learned authors whom you have
quoted.* He considers the directions ofthe apostles to have
reference to order in public assemblies. To prevent dis
turbance and confusion, the women were required to yield
precedence to the men, and not to speak while they were
speaking. Some disorders, it would seem, had arisen by not
having this point settled. This construction is rendered in
the highest degree probable,by the manner in which the apos
tle speaks in the context. He first says, "God is not the au
thor of confusion, but of peace," and after giving the direc
tions about women's speaking,he concludes, "let all things be
done decently and in order." 1 Cor. xiv. 40. It is evident,
therefore, that the apostle did not intend to prohibit women
from taking an active .part in religious exercises on proper
occasions. And even if the contrary were proved,it would not
follow from any just principles of reasoning, that the same
prohibition was to be extended to the women of all ages of
the world. ^^.
Where there are stated periods of public worship, and a
regular ministry, I allow it would be more likely to pro
mote the good order of society, and the happiness of in
dividuals, if all christians could think they have done theur
duty, when they have punctually and conscientiously con
formed to established usages, than it would to neglect the
necessary and important avocations of life to assemble at ir
regular times for religious worship. Yet our religion is a
religion of freedom. All persons have a -right to worship
God in such a way, and at such limes, as their feelings and
* See Locke's Notes on 1 Cor. c. xi, v. 5.

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 69
consciences dictate. If we have a natural right, this is
one'. It does not depend on any compactj civil obligations,
or the sanction of laws. Women have their peculiar
sphere, as well as men, in which custom and the rules of
society have placed them ; but these do not interfere with
their religious privileges. These have no power, and ought
to have none, to control the con^ience, or restrain devo
tion. I would not have women ofeciate publicly in church
es, because it would be violating custom and introducing
confusion, and not because it would be. contrary to any laws
of nature or religion. In this respec| the sexes are on an
equality. Whatever is a natural or religious right to one,
is so to the other. It is hard indeed, if women cannot be
allowed the privilege of exercising this right, and assem
bling together whea they choose in a becoming, orderly, and
peaceable manner, to offer up their devotions, and encour-
'Uge one another in their christiaif course, by a rational inter
change of pious Sentiments, and sincere endeavors to serve
God. Why should they be deprived of the advantages and
delights of social worship ? No one will- deny, that they
are capable of feeling and estimating these advantages, and
even in a much highet degree^^an the other sex.
You censure them for not using '' the authorized prayers
of the church " on such occasions.'^But is this reasonable ?
How many are there who think it their duty not to use
forms of prayer ? How many, to whose spiritual condition
none of the chuich prayers are applicable ? Would you
have such persons violate what they consider their duty^
because the " spirit qf the church institutions frowns upon
them^" and forego fhe propriety, as well as comfort, of ad
dressing their Maker in the genuine language of the heart.?
And is not a woman as capable of expressing this language,
as a man .'
In making these remarks, I am very far from wishing to
7

70 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
defend any irregularities or improprieties in the modes of
religious worship. I only wish to state, that " where the
spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ;" that it is the sin
cere, and not the formal worshipper, with whom God is
pleased ; and that no individual of either sex can justly be
restrained from a free and rational exercise of every privi
lege, which is derived from the laws of nature and of relig
ion. I hope you will pardon me for introducing here a short
extract from a sermon of one of the most eloquent preach
ers, enlightened men, and pious christians, whom this or
any other age has known. The subject of the discourse is,
" The influence of the gospel on the character and condi
tion of the female sex." The passage, which I am about
to select, has reference to the tendency of the female mind
to religious sensibility, and its proneness to receive religious
impressions. After speaking of the. tenderness with which-*"
our Saviour always treated women, and of their devoted-
ness tg him, even after he had been forsaken by his dis
ciples and all his friends — of their following him to the
cross and watching at his sepulchre — the preacher address
es the female part of his audience in the following words.
" It is infinitely honorable to your character, that you
ever feel a secret sympathy with a religion, which unlocks
all the sources of benevolent affection, which smiles on ev
ery exercise of compassion, and every act of kindness. We
may say too, perhaps, that your hearts, not hardened by the
possession of power, the pains of afarice, or the emulations
o'f public life, are more alive to the accents of pardon by
Jesus Christ, more awake to the gloiries of the invisible
world. The gospel came to throw a charm over domestic
life ; and, in retirement, the first objects which it found,
were mothers and their children. It came to bind up the
broken hearted ; and for that office woman was always best

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH. 71
prepared. It came to heal the sick ; and woman was al
ready waiting at their couches. It came to open the gates
of life on the languid eye of the dying penitent, and woman
was every where to be seen, softly tending at the pillow,
and dosing the eyes of the departing. , *
" With this superior susceptibility of religious impres
sion, and aptitude to the practical duties of the gospel, I
know, there are evils associated, against which it is some
times difficult to guard. Sensibility degenerates into weak
ness ; and religious awe into superstition, in your sex, of
tener, perhaps, than in ours ; yet, with all these dangers
and inconveniences, I believe, that if Christianity should be
compelled to flee from the mansions of the great, the acad
emies of the philosophers, the halls of the legislators, or
the thr6ng of busy men, we should find her last and purest
retreat with woman at the fireside ; her last altar would be
,the female heart ; her last audience would be the children
gathered round the knees of a mother ; her last sacrifice,
the secret prayer escaping in silence from her lips, and
heard, perhaps, only at the throne of God."*
I will conclude this letter with one or two observations
on the Festivals and Fasts of the episcopal church. In
Nelson's book on this subject, it is said, " these are of ec-
clesiastical institution, and cbnsonafit to the practice of the
primitiv® church. ""f In the same book are enumerated, be
sides the sabbath, forty-seven days of public worship, to
which are attached the names of saints, angels, and other
titles of no very obvious import.
Let me ask what authority there is in the Bible for com
memorating saints and angels, and especially for incorpora
ting forms of such a commemoration into a church service,

* Buckminster's Sermons, first edition, p. 388.
t Festi-^als and Fasts, p. 63.

72 RITUAL OF THE CHURCH.
and connecting them with the worship of God .' You^an
find neither precept nof example in the word of God, in
which the vestige of such a practice appears. What is
meant by its being an " ecclesiastical institution .'" It orig
inated in the strong inclinittion of the Gentile converts to
adapt the forms of christian worship to the rites and cere-'
monies, to which they had been accustomed when heathens.
Saints and martyrs were substituted for heathen gods. This
has been fully shown by Causobon, Whiston, and especially
Mr. Mede, in his " Apostacy of the Latter Times." He
cites a striking passage from Theodoret. " Our Lord God
hath brought his dead (martyrs) into the room and place of
your gods, whom he hath sent off, and given their honor to
his martyrs. For instead of the feasts of Jupiter and Bac
chus, are now celebrated the festivals Qf Peter and Paul,
and Thomas, and Sergius, and other holy martyrs."*
Since this is the origin of these festivals, it would seem
the duty of the church rather to abolish, than perpetuate'
them. ^ There is no evidence in history of any saints' days
being observed, till after the second century ; and yet we
are told " this institution is consonant to the practice ofthe
primitive church.'" Such broad assertions without proof will
satisfy those and those only, who think credulity a christian
virtue ; free inquiry a crime ; arid submission to the author
ity of the church, a compliance with a divine cbmm'?nd.-|-
I have thus pointed out some of the particulars in the
* See Peirce's Vindication, Part Third, u. xi.
t The celebration of saints' days is taken entirely from the church
of Rome. In Speaking of Burnet's account of the' views of the
church of England on this subject, Bossuet observes, " he every
where, and in all things, justifies us; and they, who object to us
that we follow the commandments of men, may bring the same ob
jection against the English church. This church will vindicate
us." Hist, des Var, liv. vii. § 91.

RITUAL OF THE CHURCH- 73
*forms of the episcopal church, which distinguish it from
most other Protestant churches, and some of which I do
not find warranted in scripiure. It would hasve been grati
fying to see' these explained and vindicated in your discourse.
It will be a difficult thing for any of youf readers to tell
why they are " Protestant Episcopal Churchmen," till they
can see removed the formidable objections, which rest
against these parts of the church service, and be convinced
from clear evidence, that the whole is built on the simple
truths of the gosp&L

LJITTER IIL

ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH IN CON
TROVERSIES OF FAITH.

Reverend and dear sir,
I PROPOSE next to consider that part of the twentieth ar
ticle, which asserts, that " the church hath authority in con
troversies of faith." This you pass over entirely j yet, if I
am not mistaken, there is no one thing in which the episco
pal church differs more essentially from Protestant churches
in general. Few churches, I believe, assume, as a funda
mental doctrine, the right and authority of deciding in mat
ters of faith.
Some of your readers, I am sure, would have thanked
you, if you had told them, whence the church derives this
authority. To the present episcopal church it must have
been communicated by the " archbishops and bishops of
both provinces, and the whole clergy," assembled in con
vocation in the reign of king Edward the Sixth. But from
whom di4 they receive this extraordinary power .' From
the king and parliament on the one hand, and the.phurch of
Rome on the other. What authority had the king and par
liament over the faith, and conscience, and spiritual con
cerns of men ? None at all- What authoristy had the
church of Rome } One of the artifl|ps framed by this same
" convocation " declares, " the church of Rome hath erred,
not only in her living and mannef ,of ceremonies, but also

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 75
in matters of faith." You wouldTnot be willing to allow,
that any authority to decide in controversies of faith could
be derived from a churtfh, which had already departed from
the faith, and which you say, in your discourse, had adopt
ed " ceremonies and doctrines neither taught in scripture,
nor consistent with its purity." Although yoii'have at
tempted to prove, that the true qrder of the ministry de
scended through this church, which has so far receded from
the scriptures, you will scarcely speak with equal confi
dence concerning rjjj^es of faith. The episcopal church has
derived no authority, then, either from kings, parliaments,
or any civiUinstitutions, or from any other church.
Let us go to the scriptures. Where has our Saviour, or
his apostles, given authority to any man, or any number of
men, to prescribe articles of belief, and judge men for their
opinions .'' Why should it have been a command of our
Lord to " search the scriptures," to " hear and understand,"
if others are to search and understand for us ? If he in
tended the task of examining, thinking, deciding, and judg
ing, should be confined to a few favored persons, who
should fix on themselves the name of iAe church, why has
he given no intimations of such an intention ? . This would'
have secured much peace and comfort to many anxious in
quirers, who have thought it their duty to search with a de
vout earnestness for the true meaning of the scriptures, and
to adopt from knowledge and conviction the principles of
their faith. ,»r
All doubts and anxieties on this subject might thus be.
easily removed ; for as soon as it were believed, that the
church has authority to fix the true meaning of scripture,"
nothing would remain but to " believe as the church be
lieves." Instead of searching the scriptures, it would only
be necessary to search the articles and creeds. The Bible
might be laid aside; for why should it be read, if all its
important truths can be foond in a much smaller compass ?

76 AUTHORITY OF THE»CHURCH.
But our Saviour has given no authority to any man, or to
any church,, to, decide on the meaning of scripture, and im
pose their decisions on the conscierfbe and understanding of
others. Wherever such an authority is set up, it is assu
med ; and wherever it attempts to enforce its decrees, or
influence, *Sither directly or indirectly, the opinions of others,
it makes an unwarrantable encroachment on the' freedom of
christians. For what reason did our Saviour,, with great
earnestness, ask the question, " why even of yourselves
judge ye not what is right,"if we are to resign the exercise ot
our judgment, and rely on the authority of the church- ?
I know it has been maintained by many episcopalians,
who are unwilling to admit the construction, which this
article naturally bears, that it is not to be understood as it
is written. They would not have it mean any thing, ex
cept when compared with another part of the same article,
which says, " it is not lawful for the church to ordain any
thing, that it is contrary to Gqd's word written."
From this it is argued, that, although the church has au
thority in controversies of faith, yet it cannot impose any
thing, which is not contained in the scriptures. But it is
important to inquire, who is to be the judge in this case ?
The church has been careful to settle this point. What is
it to " have authority in controversies of faith," but to have
authority to determine what is the true faith > The amount
ofthe whole, then, is this ; — the church is not to impose
any aitieles of faith, which are contrary to the word of
God ; but the church is to determine what is, and what is
not, contrary to the word of God. On any occasion of con
troversy, there can be only two parties, of which the church
is one. They both appeal to the scriptures, and the church
assumes the authority of deciding what the scriptures mean-
and thus becomes a judge in its own cause.

¦#¦

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 77
If this were not obvious from the nature of the thing, it
is abundantly proved by direct evidence contained in the
articles and canons ofthe church. In the.ejghth article the
church affirms, that " the Nicgie creed, and that which is
commonly called the Apostles'' creed, ought thoroughly to
be received and believed ; for they may be proved by most
certain warrants of holy scripture." Now there., are some
things in one of these creeds especially, which, so far from
being proved by " certain warrants of scripture," many
chri«tians'think are directly contrary to scripture, and sub-
yersive of its simplest and purest doctrines. Yet thechurch
has passed its judgment, and by this all its members must
abide. If you will examine the decisions of the church in all
controversies of faith, both with the Catholics and Puritans,
I believe you will §nd it has always enforced the doctrines
i of its articles and creeds, notwithstanding the saving clause
in the twentieth article, that4' it is not lawful to ordain any
thing contfiary to God's -word written. 'I
The spirit of this doctrine, respecting authority in mat
ters of faith,' is clearly illusiS^ted in thecanons ofthe En-
gfish church. The cajididate for ordination,. among other
things, is required to..-- subscribe to the following words,
namely, " that the Book of Common Prayer, and of order
ing of bishops, priests, and deacons, contalneth in it nothing
contrary to the word of God ; and that he acknowledgeth
al-l and ev^y the articles therein contained, to be tagreeable
to the word of God," ^fAiter this acknowledgment, it is
hardly necessary to inquire what will be his decisions re-
specti'ng the Import ofthe word of God in any controversies
of faith.
The' American form differs a little frgm.- this in words,
but not iUi substance. By the tenth articlfe of the Ecclesias
tical Constitution, the candidate makes the followiing engage-
( * .

78 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
ment ; " I do solemnly engage to conform, to the doctrines and
ivorship ofthe Protestant Episcopal Church in these United
States." lAi l»
From these "terms of subs.pription, it appears, that minis
ters at the time of ordination, not only profess a present
belief in the doctrines ofthe church, but " solemnly engage
to conform" to these doctrines. In case of an.y controversy
on these subjects, therefore, they must either violate their
solemn engagement, or decide in favor of the standing doc
trines of the church, whatever may be the actual sense of
scripture. It is in effect making the articles the criterionj
by which the scriptures are to be explained.
If a doubt can longer remain, as to what is meant by the
church, when it professes to have authority in controversies
of faith, it will be removed by recurring to those canons of
the English church, which relate to» excommunication.
According to the fifth canon, " Whosoever shall hereafter
affirm, that any of the nine arid thirty articles agreed upon,
for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of
consent, touching true religion, are in any sort superstitious
or erroneous, or such as he may iiot with a good conscience
subscribe unto ; let him be excommunicated ipso facto." .
I do not say that the American church is so severe in its
denunciations of those, who, after they have joined the
church, may be so unfortunate as to change their opinions
in regard to some of the articles ; yet so far as relates to
the point in question there is no difference. This is evident
from the eighth article, and the form of subscription above
quoted ; and also from what is stated in another place,
namely, that in the judgment of the church, " there be not
any thing in the Liturgy contrary to the word of God, or
to sound doctrine, or which a godly man may not unth a
good conscience subscribe unto." It is not necessary to seek

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 79
any further to' know, in what sense the church considers it
self to have authority in controversies of faitl;.*
If we must have some creed, or fixed formulary of belief,
distinct from the plain letter of scripture, before we can
have a regular church, it is worth while to inquire from
* The folio-wing extracts from Daubney's Guide to the Chnrch,
will serve further to illustrate this subject. Daubney's Work is
written with much good temper and apparent candor, and I be
lieve is of high authority in the church. It is among those books,
which were recommended by the "house of bishops in the couven-
fi'on of 1804," to students in theology.
The author says, "Ever since the era ofthe reformation, the
church of England has been considered to he the firmest bulwark
of Protestantism. So far, as the dissenter agrees with her in pro
testing against the errors of the Romish church, so far he may be
said to be at unity with her; but when that right, which justifies
the dissension in common with the church of England, in separating
from a corrupt branch ofthe christian church, is extended to jus
tify his separation from a branch ofthe church confessedly not iri
the same state of corruption, and of whose members, no unlawful
terms of communion are required ; and to authorize his setting up
a church of his own, independent of episcopal government, — the
dissenter quits the ground of Protestantism, and places himself
upon that of sc/it^m ; and in such case he hecom^s & schismatic,
grafted upon a Protestant." p. 134.
We see from this account, in what estimation the Protestant
Episcopal Church holds itself, and what judgment it passes on
those who dif sent. What are those unfortunate christans to do,
who find many corruptions even in this "branch of the church,"
and many "unlawful terms of communion," with which they cannot
conscientiously comply ? Are they to put conscience, the sense of
duty, and religious principle, out of the question.' Or shall they
retain these, aftd run the fearful hazard of being branded by the
church with tlie charitable name of schismatics.
But this advocate for the church has not the most profound re
spect for the freedom of conscience, or the light of private judg
ment. He tells us, that " the idea, which has for some time pre
vailed, that christian liberty gives every man a rights to worship

80 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
what source is it to be obtained. If we are to rely on au
thority, how ?!,je we to determine what shall be that author
ity .? Shall it be some particular person in whose intelli
gence, honesty, and judgment we place unlimited confidence.'
But this person depended on a third, and this third on a
fourth. Where shall we stop ? Shall we go back to ecclesi
astical assemblies, syhods, and councils ? But these differed
one from the other. One revoked, altered, or annulled
what another had decreed. What articles of faith, among
the multitude of contradictory ones, which have been sent
out under the authority of great names, shall we adopt.*
Shall we take a creed of the third, tenth, or eighteenth
century ?
Until this point shall be settled by some fair course of
reasoning, had we not best be contented to receive our faith
from the Bible ? Why should we have a greater! fondness
for wandering away after the doctrines and speculations of
men, than for consulting and confiding in the words of Je
sus Christ and his apostles .' What' more do we -want ? Can
we go to a purer source.? If the systems of faith, which men
God in his own way, appears to have been admitted without suf
ficient ezamination." p. 116. And again; we do not scruple to
affirm, that every man is not qualified to form a judgment for him
self in religious matters." p. 138.
From these extracts it is perceived, that the ground, which this
writer takes, is in perfect accordance wilh the views given above
ofthe doctrine ofthe church, in regrad to its authority in matters
of faith. If he is to be considered a faithful interpreter, all men
who separate are accounted schismatics in the estimation of the
church; they are incapable of judging for themselves; and have
no right to worship God " in their own way," whatever maybe the
dictates of their understanding, or conscience.
* In the second part of King's Constitutions of the Primitive
Church, may be seen no less than twelve different creeds, which
were in use before the end ofthe third century.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 81
have drawn up, contain any thing more or less than the
scriptures, they will deceive and mislead us ; if they contain
precisely what the Scriptures contain, we do not need them.
On this subject, Chillingworth has some excellent re
marks in his controversy with the Catholics. " The
Bible, the Bible only, is the religion of ProtestMits. I see
plainly and with my own eyes, that ther^ are popes against
popes, councils against councils, some Fathers against oth
ers, the. same Fathers against themselves, a consent of Fath
ers of one age aga,inst a conserit of Fathers of another age,
the church of one age against the church of another age. In
a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but only of scripture,
for any considering man to build upon."'* Such were
the sentiments of one of the ablest men of the age
'"in which he lived, who, although he did not believe in the
divine right of episcopacy, was a powerful defender of the
Protestant cause, and a firm supporter of the English
church. Why we should chosse to- go to the ancient Fathers for
our religious opinions ; why we should adopt the decrees
of factious councils, or the dogmas of the dark ages, while
we have the treasures of divine truth in our possession, are
questions not easy to be answered.
The episcopal church in the United States thought it
necessary to have only two creeds, the. Apostles' and the
Nicene. Why the convention left out the Athanasian creed
we are not told. In regard to doctrine it differs in nothing
from the Nicene, It has, also, generally been thought to
contain a more explicit statement of the doctrine of the
trinity, as held by the church, than is any where else to
be found. The three uricharitable, or as they have been
called, "damnatory" clauses, might have been omitted, with-
* Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, &c. cfeap. vi. § 56.
' - 8 t

82 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
out injuring it as a summary of faith. And if the doctrines
set forth in these two last mentioned creeds, be actually
the vital truths of scripture, the more clearly they are stated
and the more strongly they are enforced, the better,*
* As the Ajthanasian creed is a curiosity not often to be met
with, since it has been left out ofthe Book of Common Prayer, 1
doubt not that some persons,into whose hands these letters may fall,
will be gratified to see it at full length. I insert it the more readily,
because it has been considered a masterly exposition ofthe views
of the church, in regard to one of its most important doctrines.
Archbishop Seeker observes, in speaking of this creed, (Works,
vol. iii. p. 434) " the doctrines are undeniably the same with those
that are contained in the articles ofthe church, only here they are
somewhat more distinctly set forth to prevent equivocation,"
ATHANASIAN CREED.
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary th^t he
hold the Catholic faith.
Which faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled,
w'rthout doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
And the Catholic faith is this. That we worship one God in tri
nity, and trinity in unity.
Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another ofthe Son, and
another of the Holy Ghost.
But the Godhead'of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is all one ; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost
uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and
the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eter
nal ;
And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 83
If we may judge from the journals ofthe different Ameri
can conventions, no little difficulty was experienced in set
tling this affair of the creeds, as well as in altering , some
other parts ofthe Book of Common Prayer. It was laid
down as a fundamental principle, that the apostolic succes
sion could be kept up only through frh^. English bishops;
and, therefore, whatever alterations might be'^iade in the
church service, they must ,be sueh'as would be sanctioned
s
As also there are not three incomprehensibles,nor three uncreated;
but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the
Holy Ghost Almighty;
And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is
God; And yet they are not three Gods, but <^e God.
So likewise, the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy
Ghost Lord ;
And yet not three Lor<ls, but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the christian verity, to acknow
ledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord ;
So we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, there be
three Gods, or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten.
The Son is ofthe Father alone, not made, nor created, but be
gotten. The Holy Ghost is ofthe Father and ofthe Son; neither made,
nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three
Sons ; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
* And iit.this trinity none is afore or after other, none is greater
or less than another ;
But, the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co
equal.
^ So that in all things, afe is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and
the Trinity' in Unity is to be worshipped.
He therefore that vvill^be saved, must thus think ofthe Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he
also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

84 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
¦^
in England. In this way, the members of the conventions
were tfammelled and constrained, and actually deterred from
making such alterations as their good sense induced them
to think necessary.
The first convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church
was held at JPhiladelphia in September, 1785. It consisted
of clerical and lay delegates from the states of New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylyafiia, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia
and South Carolina. By this convention, the thirty-mne

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess. That our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man ;
God ofthe substance of the'Father, begotten before the worlds ; .
and Man of the substance of his mother, born in the world;
Perfect God, and perfect man, ofa reasonable soul, and human
fiesh subsisting;
Equal to 'the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to
the Father, as touching his manhood.
Who although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one
Christ; One ; not by conversion ofthe Godhead into flesh, but by taking
of the manhood into God ;
One altogether ; not by confusion of substance, but by unity of
person. .^
For as the reasonable soul and fiesh is one man, so God and man
is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again
the third day from the dead ; ,, ,
He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand ofthe
Father, God Almighty ; from whence be shall come to judge the
quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and
shall give account for their own works, &
And they that have done good, shall go into life everlasting
and they that have done evil, into eveHasting fire.
This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe, faitli
ullv he cannot be saved.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 85
articles were reduced to twenty; the Athanasian and Nicene
creeds were rejected ; the clause in the apostles' creed, " he
descended into hell," was omitted ; and' various other omis
sions and changes were made in diflferent parts of the Litur
gy. A committe was appointed to publish the Prayer Book
with these alterations.*
The convention also agreed to an Ecclesiastical Constitu
tion for the Government of the chufch, "The following was
the eighth article. " Every clergyman, whether bishop, or
presbyter, or deacon, shall be amenable to the authority of
the convention in the state to which he belongs, so fay as
relates to suspension or removal, fro'm office ; and the con
vention in each state shall institute rules for their conduct,
and an equitable mode of trial." It was also resolved by
the convention " to address the archbishops and bishops of
the church of England, requesting them to confe)- the epis
copal character on such persons as shall be chosen and re-
* This boqk was printed, and has usually been called the " Pray
er Book of 1785." As it was left discretional with the churches to
use it or not, it seems not to have been generally adopted. The
English Prayer Book was for the most part used, with such altera
tions only, in the*public forms, as the revolution had rendered ne
cessary. No unifQrmity existed till the year 1790, when the pres
ent Book of Common Prayer was received into all the churches,
by order of the convention.
The twenty articles of the book of 1785 differ very little from the
thirty-nine, in'points of doctrine and faith. The doctrine of the
trinity is expressed in somewhat such language, as it is in the Ni
cene creed; two ofthe old articles are sometimes incorporated
into one ; and some of Ae references to the ancient heresies are
omitted. In regard to the judgment ofthe church in controversies of faith
they are not so positive as the old articles. The following is from
the thirteenth article. " General councils and charches ai% liable
to err, and have erred, both in matters of faith and doctrine, as
well as in their ceremonies.".

86 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
commended to them for that purpose, from the conventions
of their church in their respective states."
At a second convention held at Philadelphia, in June of
the next year, a letter from the archbishop and bishops of
the church of England was read. In this letter they ap
prove of the application made to them lo confer ihe episco
pal character, but express some hesitation on account of the
changes, which hM been made in the Liturgy. " While
we are anxious," say they, " to give every proof,»not only
of our brotherly affections, but of our facility in forwarding
your wishes, we cannot but be extremely cautious, lest
we should be the ins-Eruments of establishinsr an ecclesi-
o
astical system, which will be called a branch of the
church of England, but afterwards may appear to have de
parted from it essentially, either -in doctrine or discipline."
By this convention it was " resolved unanimously, that
it be recommended to this church in the states here repre
sented, not to receive to the pastoral charge within their
respective limits, clergymen professing canonical subjection
to any bishop, in any state or country, other than those bish
ops who may be duly settled in the states represented in
in this convention." An addition was also made to the
eighth article of the constitution, above quoted, relative to
the trial of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. It -was found,
that in its original co'nstruction, too much authority was
given to the conventions. The episcopal dignity was not
sufficiently respected. To remove this difficulty, the fol
lowing clause was added, " And at every trial of a bishop,
there shall be one or more of the episcopal order present ;
and none but a bishop shall pronounce sentence of deposi
tion or degradation from the ministry on any clergyman,
whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon."* It was not enough,
* The article still remains in this form, and makes the sixth ar
ticle of the constitution of the church.
See Constitution, Canons, &c. Philadelphia, 1813, p. 45.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 87
that the conventions should " institute rules for an equitable
mode of trial;" the application of thes^ rules must be sanc
tioned by the voice of a bishop. >--
The convention was dissolved, after having agreed on an
answer to the archbishojis and bishops of the English church,
in which they repeat their request to receive from them the
episcopal character, and, to " remove the present hesitation,
send the proposed Ecclesiastical Constitution, and Book of
Common Prayer."
A third convention was held at Wilmington in Delaware,
October, 1786. The principal object of^this convention
was to take into consideration letters, which had lately been
received from the archbishops of England, in reply to the
answer above mentioned. In one of these letters the arch
bishops state, " that it was impossible not to observe with
concern, that if the essential doctrines of our common faith
were retained, less respect however was paid to our Litur
gy than its own excellence, and your declared attachment
to it, had led us to expect ; not to mention a variety of ver
bal alterations, of the necessity or propriety of which we
are by no means satisfied ; we saw with grief, that two of
the confessions of our christian faith, respectable for their
antiquity, have been entirely laid aside ; and that even in that
which is called the Apostles' creed, an article is omitted,
which was thought necessary to be inserted, with a view
to a particular heresy, in a very early age of the church,
and has ever since had the sanction of universal reception."'
After expressing a wish to continue in spiritual commu
nion with the American church, -and a " sincere desire to
complete the orders of their ministry," they add, "we
therefore most earnestly exhort you, that you restore to its
integrity the Apostles' creed, in which you have omit
ted an article merely, as it seems, from misapprehension
of the sense in which it is understood by our church ;

88 AUTHORITY OP THE CHURCH.
nor can we help adding, that we hope you will think it
but a decent proof of the attachment you profess to the
services of our Liturgy, to give to the other two creeds a
place in your Book of Common Prayer, even though the
the use of them should be left discretional."
The archbishops also complain of the eighth article of
the Ejclesiastical Constitution, " and strongly represent,
that it appears to them to be a degradation of the clerical,
and still more of the episcopal character ;" and this, not
withstanding all trials were to be conducted by the rules of
equity. But happily this article had already been altered,
before their letter arrived.
In a letter from the archbishop of Canterbury, received
at the same time, it is said, " but whether we can conse
crate any (bishop) or not, must yet depend on the answers
we may receive to what we have written."
These letters produced the effect, which the English bish
ops desired. The convention reconsidered their former do
ings. They admitted unanimously the Nicene creed ; they
received the clause into the Apostles' creed, which they
had for the best of reasons rejected ; and even there were
some advocates for the restoration of the Athanasian creed,
with all its uncharitable denunciations.*
I have been thus particular in this historical sketch of the
proceedings of the first conventions, that it may be seen by
what motives they were influenced in making the altera-
' tions, which they finally adopted. Their first decisions
were no doubt such as their understanding, their unbiassed
reflections, and their knowledge of the scriptures prompted
them to make. What could induce them to abandon opin-
* See " Proceedings of the general conventions ofthe Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of America;" and Lind-
sey's Vindicia3 Priestleianse, § 2, p. 20, et seqq.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 89
iona, which they had deliberately formed on a subject of
the most important and solemn nature,.? The only reason,
which can be discovered, was the good will and pleasure of,
the archbishops of the English church. The members of
the conventions left every thing else behind, in pursuit of
the phantom of episcopacy. Instead of appealing to the
gospel of Christ, and acting solely upon the principles of
reason and scripture, thfey squared their proceedings by a
letter from the archbishop of Canterbury. In their view,
episcopacy seems to have been the great bulwark of relig
ion, without which, the whole fabric must fall. To secure
this bulwark, no sacrifices were to be thought too great.
As to the Apostles' creed, so called, it has very little in
it objectionable, except the name, and the clause mentioned
above. Calling it by the name of the apostles may lead
some into the mistaken notion, that it was made by them.
This notion was advanced and defended by some ofthe later
Fathers, who even went so far as to say, that each apostle
contributed a part. Although the substance of this creed,
expressed in different forms, is confessedly very ancient, yet
nothing was said of its apostolical origin, till nearly four
hundred years after the time of the apostles, when it was
first mentioned by Ambrose. It might, therefore, with
much more propriety, be called the creed of the Fathers,
than of the apostles. Bishop Burnet, bishop Pearson, and
others agree, that the clause of Christ's descent into hell,
was not added till the fifth century.*
As the scriptures ¦, are a sufficient rule of faith, and all
creeds are formed by human invention, and enforced by hu
man authority, have we not good reason to suspect their
utility ? Any other formulary of belief, than such as may
be found in the word of God must have on the clergy an ex-
* Pearson on tlte Creed, vol. i. p. 341. ii, p#287.

90 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
tremely injurious, and sometimes an immoral tendency. At
the best, it must keep up an exclusive spirit, and a bigoted
attachment to the faith and ordinances of the particular
church to which they happen to belong.
Archdeacon Paley says of creeds, " they check inquiry ;
they violate liberty ; they ensnare the consciences of the
clergy by holding out temptations to prevarication." Noth
ing can be more obvious, than these consequences. A cler
gyman, who has been ordained only on condition of express
ing a belief, that the articles of his church are agreeable to
the word of God, and of " solemnly engaging to conform to
the doctrines " contained in these articles, cannot afterwards
change his mind, and retain his situation, without being
guilty of prevarication, dish(?nesty, or fraud.
The only way for him tO keep a quiet conscience, is to
shut up his Bible, and fix his eyes on the articles of the
church. If he be ignorant, he must remain ignorant ; if
in the dark, he must take care to avoid the light. If he
read the Bible, it must never be with a view to inquire
for truth, but only to strengthen his former opinions.
The amiable and excellent Dr. Lindsey retained his place
for some time in the church, after he was convinced, that
the doctrine of the trinity was unscriptural. He still ad
hered to the articles, and satisfied his conscience by explain
ing the trinity according to the Sabellian theory, or the mo
dal scheme of Dr. Wallis. Upon more serious reflection,
however, he rejected this mode of explanation as a subter
fuge, to which he could not persuade himself that he ought
to resort, and retired from the church. It is well known,
that many clergymen in the English church, from the time
of Dr. Wallis to the present day, have entertained similar
sentiments in regard to the trinity, and satisfied themselves
with the same kind of explanations. By concealment, pre
varication, atfd a forced construction of the articles, they

AUJHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 9|
have contrived to keep up a show of compliance with the
creeds and articles of the church.
These consequences are not so much chargeable on indi
viduals, as on the church, which imposes such restrictions
on its ministers. Why should these temptations be thrown
in their way ? If you deprive men of their liberty, you
cannot suppose they will be very choice in the means they
use to throw off, their shackles, and escape from thraldom ;
and of all the various kinds of servitude, the slavery of
conscience and of opinion is the most degrading, and to a
mind which has a single spark of its native energy left, the
most difficult to be endured.
Many persons of the highest eminence for talents, attain
ments, and excellence, both among the clergy and laity,
who have been much attached to the forms of the English
church, but who could not reconcile themselves to its
creeds, and especially to the doctrine of the trinity, have
thought it their duty to secede, and unite themselves to such
societies, as allow a freedom of opinion, and require no oth
er form of faith, than that which is contained in the sacred
writings. Memorable examples are presented in Mr. Em-
lyn, Dr. Lindsey, Dr. Jebb, the late duke of Grafton, sir
George Savile, and others.
Some others, not less conscientious or enlightened, al
though of decided Unitarian principles, have considered it
their duty, for various reasons, to remain in the church,
Newton and Locke, although Unitarians, adhered to the es
tablished worship. Dr. Samuel Clarke, one of the most
distinguished scholars and divines, whom the church has
ever possessed, did not forsake the established forms, al
though he publicly avowed himself to be a Unitarian, and
proposed such alterations in the Liturgy, as would enable
christians '4|f all denominations- to join conscientiously in the

92 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
church service.* Archdeacon Blackburn, Shipley, bishop
of St. Aspah, and Law, bishop of Carlisle, who are known
not to have been of the orthodox faith in regard to the trin
ity, always remained in the established church. "f
There was nothing unjustifiable, perhaps, in the course
which these men pursued, when their sentiments were
publicly known. Their sense of duty, their wish to be
extensively useful, their early attachments, and desire for
peace in the church, were probably such motives as ena
bled them to forego the additional comfort and satisfaction,
which they might derive from a more congenial mode of wor
ship, and to use their best diligence in employing the means
of doing good, which providence had put in their power.
But all the examples here introduced afford a practical com
ment on the inexpediency, and injurious tendency, of human
forms of belief, to which humble, pious, and enlightened
christians of every denomination cannot subscribe.
The evils of creeds are not felt with less* force by the
people, than the clergy. The injury is greater, as it applies
\o them, because more extensive. If the people can be per
suaded, that all the important doctrines of religion are com
prised in the formularies of the church, and that these
formularies have been drawn up, and are still taught and
explained by men, who have descended in a regular succes
sion from the apostles, they will not only think it unneces
sary, but even dangerous to inquire further. To look into
the opinions of other christians, to examine their arguments,
* When Dr. Clarke took the degree of doctor in divinity at
Cambridge, be delivered and defended a thesis on the following
proposition. "No article ofthe christian faith, delivered in the sa
cred scriptures, is contrary to right reason.'' Nullum Fidei Chris-
tiansE Dogma in S. Scripturis traditum est rectse ration! dissenta-
neum. . ,
X See Belsham's Letters to the bishop of London, second edi
tion, p. 23.

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH 93
and study the scriptures to know on what grounds they
build their opinions, would be an implied acknowledger
ment, that the church may not have the whole truth on its
side. The consequence must be, that the Bible will be little
read. It will become a book of secondary importance. I be-
lievis, indeed,. the instances are not rare, in -which the Prayer
Book is quoted by zealous churchmen, in cornmon conversa^
tion, on points of controversy, with scarcely less reverence,
than the Bible itself.
The times have gone by, when an archbishop of Canter
bury said, " a christian must not inquire about the truth of
any thing, which the church believes, but is simply to be
lieve whatever the Romish church professeth to believe,"
yet it is the same thing in reality, if not in words, for a
bishop or minister of the present day to tell his people, that
the articles of the church Kave been established by men, pos
sessing apostolical authority, and contain every thing essen
tial to salvation. When he advises his people not to become
apquainted with, the sentiments of christians of other denomi- »
nations, and represents to them the danger of reading th^
books ; when he-i takes pains to confine their religious
knoweledge to the Book of Common Prayer, and to such
interpretations of the scripture only, as are consistent with
this book ; when he tells^.them, that no persons can be
considered as christian ministers, who have not been or-
dained according to the canons ofthe church, and that the
ordinances of our holy religion, performed by such persons,
are unscriptural and invalid, — when he assumes the right
gravely to impress these things on the minds of the people,
what else does he, but urge the implicit authority of the
church, and virtually take away from every one belonging
to it the right of private judgment ?
I would not'be understood to intimate, that such is the
practice of all bishops- and ministers ; but I think it will not
9

94 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
be denied, that it is the practice of some. *Perhaps they
are not to be censured on this account. It is persumed that
they act conscientiously ; and what more can be required of
a man, than to do what he sincerely believes to be his duty.'
He may think such means necessary to preserve the dignity
and purity ofthe church. But does it not argue some de
fect in the principles of a church, which requires, or even
allows its ministers to resort to ^ch means of supporting its
cause ?
The people are the sufferers. They are made to rest sat
isfied with slender religious attainments, and to contract
unworthy prejudices against their fellow christians of other
denominations. It is also to be feared, that they too often
lose much of the .spirit of religion, in their zeal for the pe
culiar tenets ofthe church ; since they are taught, by what
they are made to believe the higliest authority, to receive
these tenets as the necessary truths of scripture. Ministers
ofthe gospel should not be accessary to such consequences
as these ; and it is much to be lamented, that the principles
of any church should have a tendency to diminish the value
of religious knowledge in the estimation of its members, to
weaken the ties of brotherly kindness, or to narrow the
bounds of christian charity.
That is a false argument, which would prove it to be a
recommendation of the episcopal church, that it possesses
" a standard, which can neither be removed nor shaken — an
unalterable test of the soundness of its doctrines,"* This is
one of the strongest arguments, which can possibly be used
against the system of the church. That it forces on its mem
bers an " unshaken standard" of faith, is the very thing
which all christians, who value the scriptures, and the free-
* Sermon on " Reasons for preferring the Church of England,"
Matuiin's Sermons, London, 1819, p. 405,

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 95
dom of conscience, must deprecate. It^implies, thai fjie,
persons who formed this standard in the reign of Edward
the Sixth were empowered by a- divine commission for this
purpose, and received an illumination from HeaveB| to en
able them to discover the true interpretation of the scrip
tures. No one can rely on this standard, till he believes
these facts.
The church of Roipe is much more consistent in its views
of ecclesiastical authority, than the English church. The
Catholics lay it down as a necessary principle, that the
church is infallible. This at once gives authority to tradi
tion, and affords a plausible reason for all ceremonies.
They believe, that "as Jesus Christ established his church
by preaching,— the unumlten word was the rule of Christi
anity, and retained the same authority after the writings
of the New Testament were joined with it. For this rea
son they- received with equal veneration all that was taught
by the apostles, either in writing or by word of mouth."*
The church was the sacred depository of this unwritten
•word, and through this channel it has been transmitted un
impaired to the present day.
They suppose the "church to have been established by
the Almighty, to be the guardian of t^ scriptures, and
of tradition ; wherefore the church professes to say nothing
of herself, to invent no new doctrine, and only to follow
and declare the divine revelation by the interior direction
of the holy spirit, which is given to her as a teacher. It is
for this cause, that the children of God acquiesce in the
judgment of the church, believing they have received from
her mouth the oracles of the holy spirit; and it is on ac
count of this belief, that after paving said in the creed,
* Exposition de la Doctrine de I'Eglise Catholique, par Bossuet.
Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 140.

96 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
I believe in the holy spirit,ihey immediately add, theholy catho
lic church ; by which they bind themselves to acknowledge
the infalible and perpetual truth of the universal church,
because this church herself, which they have always pro
fessed to believe, would cease to be a church, if it should
cease to teach the revealed truth of God. To apprehend,
therefore, that she has abused her power to establish a
falsehood, is to have no faith in him, by whom she is gov
erned"* Here is consistency. If the church have authority in one
case, it has in another. If any particular doctrine, rite, or
ceremony, is to be received from tradition, every doctrine,rite,
or ceremony, which cannot be traced back to a certain origin,
is to be received on the same authority. Tradition is worth
nothing, unless it have been transmitted by an infallible
guide. Such a guide the church of Rome professes to fol
low, and is, therefore, entirely consistent in believingin the
divine origin of its institutions.
But the English church has destroy-ed this consistency,
by rejecting infaUibility, and still retaining the authority of
tradition. One argument, which you bring in favor of the
divine origin of episcopacy, as we have already seen, is,
that the opponen);^ of this doctrine, " have never been able
to agree upon any one period, in which it could, even in
their opinion, have probably originated." The same argu
ment is used by Bossuet to prove the divine origin of all
the peculiarities of the Catholic church ;¦(¦ audit will cer-
•Ib. p. 141,142, 143, See also on this subject, "The Unerring Au
thority ofthe Catholic Church in matters of Faith,'' Philadelphia,
1789, Preliminary Propositions, and p. 75. Bossuet's Exposition.
translated by Coppinger, New York, 1808, third edition, p. 122 —
129, 1 " La marque certaine qu'une doctrine vient des apotres, est
lorsqu' elle est embrassee par toutes les Eglises chrfetiennes, sans
qu'on en puisse raarquer le commencement." Expos, de la Doct.
de L'Eglise Cath, § 18.

AtTTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 97
tainly apply as well in one case as tbe other. As far as
this argument goes, it is certain tlie church of England
had no more reason for retaining episcopacy, the ceremony
of confirmation, the sign of the cross in baptism, and saints'
days, as divine institutions, than it had for retaining the
doctrine of the real presence, use of the chrism in confir
mation, extreme unction, sacramental confession, and many
other ceremonies ofthe Catholic church,which it rejected as
corruptions. The former are as much founded on tradition,
as the latter ; and neither of them can be of any validity,
-except on the Catholic principle of infallibility. Every
dissenting church, at the present day, may with as much
justice give the name of " corruptions" to these traditional
ceremonies of the English church, as this church did to
many of the Romish ceremonies which it rejected.
With equal propriety might the bounds of philosohpical,
physical, and political science have been fixed in the time of
king Edward, as a standard of religious knowledge. The
king and parliament assembled had the same authority to
establish certain sciences, and to decree, that no innova
tions or improvements should be made, as they had to set
tle the rules of faith in religion. They might have decreed,
that the earth was immoveable, and the sun, moon, and all
the stars were whirled around it once in twenty-four hours,
that the new system of Copernicus was a dangerous heresy,
which all 'the king's well meaning subjects should carefully
avoid. They might have enjoined it as a part of the phi
losophy of the realm, that alchymy and astrology were
founded on the true principles of nature, as mi^ht pe proved
" by most certain warrants" of physical phenomena ; and
we should now be edified with treatises on the philosopher's
stone, transmutations, and a universal medicine. We
should have books to tell us what planets ruled at our birth,
interspersed with appropriate figures of horoscopes, schemes
9*

98 AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
of nativity, and positions of the stars. They might have
decreed, that the schoolmen were the only rational meta
physicians, and that every college in the kingdom should
make the categories, analytics, topics, and sophistics of
Aristotle an essential branch of education.
There would have been just as much propriety in fix'ng
rules of belief on these subjects, as there was in drawing up
the thirty-nine articles, and the formularies of the cuurch,
and setting them forth as a standard of religious faith. New
ton, and Bacon, and Locke, would have been considered
meddling dissenters from the established philosophy ; but
still, the force of truth would have been resistless, and
would finally have prevailed So it must be in religion.
Error may be concealed and protected for a long time
under fhe guise of forms, and in the mists of ignorance ;
but the light of truth will at length penetrate so flimsy a
covering, and dissolve the cloud.
It is said, that creeds have a tendency fo keep schism out
of the church, by causing all its members to think alike.
This would be a good reasoning, if the church were infalli
ble ; but on no other supposition. Unless it were infalli
ble, there could be no certainty of its having the only true
faith ; and no church should claim authority to keep its
members in ignorance and error to prevent schism, Milton,
speaking on this subject with particular reference to the
doctrines of the church, and the scheme of prelacy, ob
serves, " If to bring a numb and chill stupidity of Soul, an
unactive blindness of mind upon the people by their leaden
doctrine, or no doctrine at all ; if to persecute all knowing
and zealous christians by the violence of their courts, be to
keep away schism, they keep schism away indeed ; and by
this kind of discipline, all Italy and Spain is as purely and
politically kept from schism, as England hath been by them.
With as good plea might the dead palsy boast to a man,

AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 99
' it is I^ that free you from stitches and pains, -and the
troublesome feeling of cold and heat, of wounds and strokes ;
if I were gone, all these would molest you,' The winter
might as well vaunt itself against the spring, ' I destroy
all noisesome and rank weeds, I keep down all pestilent va
pors ;' yes, and all wholesome herbs, and all fresh dews,
by your violent and hidebound frost ; but when the gentle
west winds shall open the fruitful bosom of the earth, thus
overgirded by your imprisonment, then the flowers put forth
and spring, and then the sun shall scatter the mistsj and thg
manuring hand of the tiller shall root up all that burdens
the soil, without thanks to your bondage."*
These remarks are but too applicable to fixed formula
ries of faith of every description. They are made and im
posed without authority ; and any attempt to force them on
the minds -of men is an encroachment on the liberty, and an
insult to the understanding of christians. The apostles took
upon them no such power. St Paul enjoins the Galatians
to " stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made
them fiee, and not to. be entangled again with the yoke of
bondage." And to the Corinthians he writes, '.f We have
not dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy ;
for by faith ye stand." 2 Cor. i. 24. — Not by faith in
creeds, for this, would be giving up our liberty, taking up
on us a yoke of bondage, and submitting to the dominion'of
others ; but by faith in the word ofsGod, which all persons
are free to consult ; and this ^feedora all must be allowed
to enjoy, before they can be required to believe or obey.
¦ft
* The lleason of Church Government urged against Prelaty ;
Prose Works,. vol. i, p. 63,

LETTER IV.

ON THE DOCTRINAL CHARACTER OF THE
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES,

Reverend and dear sir.
The second part of your discourse is taken up in show
ing, that you are not a Calvinist, and in attempting to show,
that the articles of tbe church are not calvinistic. I have
no wish to go into a contiroversy, which has been so long
agitated by different parties in the episcopal church itself,
and which has been already more than exhausted ; yet I
cannot but think, that your conclusions on this subject are
but feebly supported by facts, and at the same time so broad
and positive, as to lead some of your readers into mistake.
I propose to do little more, than to quote certain passages
from the Liturgy, Articles, and Homilies, and see whether
they are not strikingly inconsistent with the sentiments you
advance. After making various selections from the Confession of
Faith, to exhibit what you consider the most offensive doc
trines of Calvinism, and assuring your readers, that such
are not the doctrines of the church, you make the following
remarks. " Explicit as is the language of the articles and services

THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. lOl
of our church on this .Iiead ; and strong as is the. claim,
which, they make to consistency, nothing is more frequent,
notwithstanding, on the part of the advocates of doctrines pe
culiarly styled ' calvinistic, 'jthan^the assertion, that such
doctrines are maintained in our ninth and seventeenth arti
cles. Never was there a more groundless charge. ' Those
articles do not in the remotest degree allude to the funda
mental and essential tenets of Calvinism."
Let us inquire, in the first place, what are the " funda
mental and essential doctrines of Calvinism." I believe
Calvinism is usually summed up in what are called the five
poinis, namely, total depravity, election, particular redemp-
tioiT, effectual calling, and perseverance of the saints. What
ever language may be .used in the Confession of Faith, the
Institutes of Calvin, or any where else,^to express and il
lustrate these doctrines, and however unscriptural such lan
guage may be, I supposajjie sub&tance^of lh& wimledsioit
tained in these five points. »The minor doctrines of Calvin
ism, such as salvation by grace, justification by faith, special
influence of the spirit, are to be referred to these as their
original stock. •¦•
If we examine these points of Calvinism, we shall find
the two first only to be fundamental doctrines, of ¦which the
three last are necessary consequences. If all men have
originally a corrupt nature, which renders them -worthy of
divine wrath and condemnation, and if God in his mercy
have decreed, according to " his everlasting purpose," that
a certain number of his creatures shall be rescued from this
deplorable condition and finally be saved ; it is a natural and
necessary consequence, that all such persons are redeemed
by a particular redemption, are effectually called, and will
persevere to the end.s The decree of election extends only
to particular persons, and thejfetore the redemption it pro
cures is a particular redemption ; it is an absolute decree,

102 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
and therefore all whom it c%lls, are effectuallly called ; it is
an immutiable decree, and therefore all whom it restores to
the condition of saints, must retain this condition.
The fundamental doctrines of Calvinism, then, are total
depravity, and election ; and if these are found to be con--
tained in the articles and homilies, I suppose it may be right
ly inferred, that such are the doctrines of the church.
When an established church is built on a code of law,s, ar
ticles, and formularies, which have been fixed by convoca
tions and conventions, where shall we look for the tenets
of this church but in this code itself ? Interpretations and
commentaries, to make articles understood, are very suspi
cious. Erudite researches, to find out what the framers of
the articles meant, are useless It is to be presumed they
meant what they Jiave expressed. If the church fancy it
has grown wiser and improved since the days of Cranmer,
and fiadjdocttines contained in. some of the articles, which
it cannot receive, let it reject such articles, and not resort to
conceits and paraphrases to explain away the meaning,
which they irresistably force upon every unbiassed mind.
Let us see what the church teaches in regard to these
two principal points of Calvinism. A single reading of the
articles, I am p^ersuaded, would convince most persons, that
these doctrines are in substance taught there with as much
emphasis as in any calvinistic formulary. I will bring for
ward a few passages, which, if they do not imply the total
depravity of our nature, and the imputation of Adam's sin
to his posterity, it will be no easy task to tell what they do
imply. The ninth article has generally been thought to be
of itself decisive on this point, 'although you are resolved
it shall countenance no such doctrine. The following are
the .words of the article, as it stands in the Book of Com
mon Prayer.
" Original siii standeth not in the following of Adam (as

,!l0r THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 10^
¦li
the Pelagians do vainly talk,) but it is the fault md corrup
tion of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered
of theoffispring of Adam, whereby manis very far gone from
original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil,
so that,. ihe flesh lusteth always contrary to the spirit; and
therefore in every person born into this world it deserveth
God's loraih and damnation. And this infection of nature
doth remain, yea, in them tliat are regenerated."
Where will you find the calvinistic tenet of original sin,
and the total depravity of human nature, expressed in strong
er terms than these. The "vain talk" of Pelagius con
sisted in maintaining, that the sin of Adam was noflmputed
to his posterity, and that we are born as fiee from guilt, as
if Adam had never transgressed. This was called a heresy,
and to guard against it, the article takes care to'tell us in
terrris, which it is presumed no one can mistake, what^the
chnrch understands by original sin. And as it respects de
pravity, what is " that corruption of the nature of every
man, which deserveth God's wrath and damnation," if it
be not -what the Calvinists call total depravity ? It will be
difficult to form a definition of such a quality, if it be not
contained in these words.*
* The bishop of Lincoln has reminded us, that thearticle does
not say we are totally depraved, but only " very far gone from orig.
inal righteousness." This isa quibble, which few, probably, would
have discovered without aid. Whoever resorts to it, needs give no
other indication of the impressions he receives from the general
import of the article. That, a bishop, and a scholar, should de
scend to this kind of trilling, we cannot but wonder ; especially
when it is cohsidered that the articles were first drawn up in Latin.
and that this is a very faulty translation. In the Latin it stands,
I' Ab originali justitia quam longiesime distet," Gone as far as possi
ble from original righteousness Bishop of Lincoln's Refutatl;on of
Calvinism, chap. i. p. 50. Scott's reply to Tomline, vol i. p. 80.
The Fathers, Reformers, &c. in Harmony with Calvin, p. 43,

104 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
Compare this article with the following extracts. " The
condition of man after the*fall of Adam is such, ihat he can-
nut turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and
good works to faith' and calling upon God." Art. x.
" Works done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration
of his spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they
spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make
men meet to receive grace ; — yea rather, for that they are
not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be
done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin." Art.
xiii. " All men are conceived and born in sin, and they who
are in the flesh cannot please God."*
It is scarcely necessary to remark on these passages.
Their confirmation of what has been above shown to be the
sense of the ninth article must be obvious. What else but
a corrupt and depraved state of our nature, in as strong a
sense as Calvin himself could have expressed it, can render
us incapable of having faith, and calling upon God .'' He
must be a depraved being, indeed, who is not fit to call on
his Maker. Can the good works of any being, who is not
totally depraved, be " of the nature of sin, and not pleasant
to God .'" Thus we see this doctrine is most unequivocally
taught in several articles of the church.
Let us turn to the Homilies. In the thirty-fifth article,
these books are enjoined " to be read in churches by the
ministers diligently and distinctly," as containing " a godly
and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times."
The Homilies, therefore, I suppose to be of equal authority
with the articles, or any part of the church service. t In
' " Baptism of such as are of riper years."
t By an order of the convention in 1801, the reading of the Ho
milies in churches was suspended, till a revision of them could be
"conveniently made for the clearing of them, as well from obso
lete words and phrases, as from local references." Nothing more

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 105
the second Homily concerning the death and passion of our
Saviour, it is stated, " When our g^at grand father Adam
had broken God's commandment, in eating the apple for
bidden him in Paradise, at the motion and suggestion of his
wife, he purchased thereby not only to himself, but also to his
posterity forever, the just wrath and indignation of God,who,
according to his former sentence pronounced at the giving
of the commandment, condemned both him and all his to
everlasting death, both of fcody and soul ; — he was cast out
of Paradise, he was no longer a citizen of heaven, but a
firebrand of hell, and a bond slave of the devil " " Man of
his own nature is fleshly and carnal, corrupt and naught,
sinful and disobedient to God, unthout any spark of goodness
in him, without any virtuous or godly motion, only given to
evil thoughts and wicked deeds."*
Again, in the second part of the Homily of the Misery of
Man, we read ; " Of ourselves we be crab-trees, that can
bring forth no apples. We be of ourselves of such earth as
can bring forth but weeds, nettles, briers, cockle, and dar
nel. — Hitherto have we heard what we are of ourselves ;
very sinful, wretched, and damnable; toe are not able to
think a good thought or work a good deed, so that we can find
in ourselves no hope of salvation, but rather whatsoever
maketh unto our destruction."
And again, after describing the deplorable condition into
seems to have been done till 1814, when the convention " proposed
to the house of clerical and lay deputies, to make a standing order
to every bishop, and to tlie ecclesiastical authority in every state
destitute of a bishop, to be furnished, as soon as may be, with a
copy or copies of said work, and to require it to be studied by all
candidates for the ministry within their respective bounds."
In consequence of this resolve of the convention, an edition of
the Homilies was speedily published in New-York, but without alter
ation. It was printed literally from the last Oxford Edition.
* Homily for Whitsunday, Part. 1.
10

106 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
which Adam was brought by the fall, the Homily contin
ues ; " This so great and miserable a plague, if it had only
rested on Adam, who first offended, it had been so much
the easier, and might the better have been borne. But it
fell not only on him, but also on his posteriiy and children^for-
ever, so that the whole brood of Adam's flesh should sus
tain the self same fall and punishment, which their forefath
er by his offence most justly had deserved. — As in Adam
all men universally sinned, so in Adam all men universally
received the reward of sin ; that is to say, became mortal,
and subject unto death, having in themselves nothing but
eveilasting damnation both of body and soul ;— they were
nothing else but children of perdition, partakers of hell
fire."* Quotations to the same effect from the Homilies might be
multiplied. These are enough. Where is this fundamen
tal doctrine of Calvinism expressed in stronger language ^
You will search the Institutes in vain to find a parallel.
What is the total depravity of man, if it be not to be " of*'
his own nature unthout any spark of goodness in him, without
any virtuous or godly motion V Are we not totally de
praved in the most absolute sense, if " we are of ourselves
very sinful, wretched and damnable, not able either to think
a good thought, or work a good deed .'" How will you ex
press the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, if it
be not contained in the following words ; namely, " he pur
chased not only to himself, but also to his posterity forever,
the just wrath and indignation of God .?" And again ; " this
great and miserable plague fell not only on him, but also on
his posterity and children for ever."
When you consider these express declarations of the Ar
ticles and Homilies, how can you imply, as you have done
* Homily ofthe Nativity.

OF THE THIRTY-NINS ARTICLES, 107
that " the imputation of the guilt of Adam?s sin to his pos
terity, as the cause of their condemnation to eternal pun
ishment," is not a doctrine of the church } On ¦vifhat
grounds could Dr, How, who has attempted so elaboratelj,
to vindicate the church against the charge of Calvinism,
make the very broad assertion, that " there is not a trace
of this doctrine in our Articles, qur Homilies, or our Pray
ers',?"* Such assertions will be received by those only,
who never read the Articles, or look into the Homilies. It
is a little remarkable, that any writer should venture to haz
ard them ; for if the Homilies should ever be read,constant-
ly in churches, as the Articles enjoin, the people must soon
discover them to be groundless. In a word, if the total de
pravity of man, and the imputation of Adam's sin to his
posterity, be not doctrines of the church, it will be impos
sible to ascertain from its Articles, Service, and Homilies,
any one doctrine, which^can be called such. y,.
On the other fundamental doctrine of Calvinism, the sev
enteenth article of the church is full and decisive. It is
comprised in the folio-wing words.
" Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God,
whereby, (before the foundations of the world were laid)
he hath constantly decreed, by his counsel, secret to us, to
deliver from curse and damnation, those whom he hath
chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by
Christ to everlasting: salvation, as vessels made to honor.
Wherefore they, which be endued with so excellent a bene
fit of God, be called according to God's purpose, by his
spirit working in due season ; they through grace obey the
calling ; they be justified freely ; they be made sons of God
by adoption ; they be made like the image of his only be
gotten son Jesus Christ ; they walk religiously in good
" How's Vindication, p. 259.

108 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
works ; and at length By God's mercy they attain to ever-
Jasting felicity.
" '\As the godly consideration of predestination, and our
-eledtion in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeaka
ble comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves
the working of the spirit of Christ, mortifying the works
of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up
their mind to high and heavenly things, as well, because it
doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal sal
vation, to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fer
vently kindle their love towards God ; so for curious and
carnal persons, lacking the spirit of Christ, to have continu
ally before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination,
is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust
them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of
most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation.
" Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such
wise, as they be generally set forth in holy scripture ; and
in our doings, that will of God is to be followed, which we
have expressly declared unto us in the word of God."
He must look with very partial eyes, who will discover
this article to be less explicit, less unequivocal, or less posi
tive, on the doctrine oi election, than the language, which
is usually found in calvinistic books. Let this article be
read by any one, who has no knowledge of the explanations,
which it has received from anti-calvinistic interpreters, and
do you believe he will suspect for a moment, that it is not
intended to teach the doctrine of absolute decrees .'
Compare the first part of the article with the follo-w^ng
words, taken from the^ calvinistic Confession of Faith.
" Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, Gud,
before the foundation of the world was laid, according to
his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel
and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 109
everlasting glory."'* Do you not perceive a striking simi
larity here, not only in ideas, but in words .' The Calvin
ists have enlarged^ and manfully carried out and defended
this doctrine, but the root, the substance of tbe whole, is
as clearly contained in the seventeenth article, as it is in the
Institutes, the Calvinistic Confession, or the decisions of the
Synod at Dort.
You have remarked, with others of the Arminian schqpl,
that nothing is said in the article about reprobation. Why
should anything be said ? This makes no part of the doc
trine itself ; but is only a consequence. If it ha^ been de
creed by," the everlasting purpose of God," that a certain
number shall be delivered " from cuf-se and damnation,"
nothing is more evident, than that the remainder must be
reprobate. ,
You have said, also, -that .the article " has reference to
the general electio^ of the church, as tbe recipient of- the
covenant of grace, and not an allusion to the future statesof
individuals." From what part of the article can such an
inference be drawn .'' This may be the doctrine of scripture,
but what do you find- in the article, which will give any
sanction to such a construction ? All, who are elected,
are to be " del-^erSd from curse and^damnation ;" and is it
your opinion,.that every individual of the church is to be of
this description .' And what is this " curse and damnation,"
but the future pilhishment of individuals .? Would these
terms be used in reference to a whole church receiving the
covenant of ^race .''' Can they be used in reference to any
thin^, but the future state of individuals .'' The article goes
upon the supposition, that all by nature are under a curs-e,
and declares, that a certain numberT^by the decrees of God,
arQ delivered from this curse^ and it is difficult to tell what
"* Confession of J'aith, chap. iii. § 5.
• - 10*

IW DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
calvinistic election is, more or less than this. It is an ab-
. solute and arbitrary election ; for it is expressly stated to be
acGording to ^^ ihe everlasting purpose of God." Nor is any
thing said of its being made in consequence of a foreknowl
edge of conduct.
No one can deny that Bishop Burnet has examined this
article with the greatest fairness and candor. He has
pointed out with precision and acuteness the different
sentiments, which have been held on the doctrine of
election, and although his own opinions were not calvin
istic, he says of this article, " It is not to be denied but
that the doctrine seems to be framed according to St. Aus
tin's doctrine. It supposes men to be under a curse and
damnation, antecedently to predestination." After exhibit
ing some of the difficulties witii which they had to contend,
who Would explain the article in a different way, he goes
on to remark ; " on the other hand, the Calvinists have less
occasion to scruple, since the article does' seem more plainly to
favor them."* This is the testimony of a man, who has
written more judiciously, and with more talent probably on
the articles, than any other, and whose opinion, in regard to
the doctrine of election, was actually contrary to the decis
ion of his candor and_judgment on the doctrine of the ar
ticle. In the Collect for All-Saints' Day it is said ; " who has
knit together thine 'elect in one communion and fellowship,
in the mystical body of thy son." The following passages"
are contained in the English Prayer Book, but left out of
the American, for reasons best known to the members of
the convention, since they contain nothing more on the
doctrine of election, than what is clearly expressed in the
seventeenth article. Thus, in the Catechism, the child. is
* Burnet's Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art^xvii.

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES,. Ill
made to say, " I believe in God the Holy Ghost, who sanc-
tifieth me, and all the elect people of God." In the burial
service is the following petition, — ".beseeching thee, shortly
to accomplish the number of thine elect, and to hasten thy
kingdom." If I mistake not these phrases are very similar
to those often used by Calvinists, and why should we not
take them in the same sense .''
. In the Homily on Alms Deeds we are told of those,
" whom God hath appointed io everlasting sahation ;" who
are " the undoubted children of God, appointed to everlasting
life ;" and who " are sons of God, and elect of him unto sal-
vatiof^"* Such are the evidences drawn from the Articles, Homi
lies and Service of the Church. If any one can read these
extracts and not be convinced, that the fundamental doctrines
of Calvinism, namely, tq^al deprctvity, with the imputation of
Adam's sin, and election, are clearly taught in them, it may^
be doubted, whether it were possible for language to be so
constructed as to produce conviction. Every man does
not examine with so much freedom from prejudice, perhaps,
as bishop Burnet, nor with so determined a resolution to
make his own opinions consistent with the scriptures, and
to let tlie.,arti(Eles-speak in their natural language, without
endeavoring to press them into his service by force. If a
man has settled it in. his mind that ana!jj|icle, partly ambigu
ous and partly metaphysical, shall have a particular mean
ing, it is no difficult task to give it a plausible turn into any
direction he pleases. When -he deser,ts the plain construc
tion, and goes into explanations merely possible,* he at once
excites a suspicion, that he is not so much concerned'tQ
ascertain the meaning of the article', as to determine in'what
* Homiles, New- York, 1815, p. 389.

112 DO&TKINAL CHARACTER
way it can be best explained to support the opinions, which
he has already formed from other sources.
You suppose, that the closing part of the article does
away the possibility of proving from the first part the cal
vinistic doctrine of election. It is there said, "that will
of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared
to us in the word of God." This you think is not consist
ent with Calvinism ; and thetefore, no part of the article.
can be considered calvinistic. -But let me ask, if every
sincere Calvinist does not believe his sentiments to be ac
cording to what is "expressly declared in the word of God.'"
The Calvinist, as well as the Aniiinian, will acknowledge
the truth and force of this clause of the article, whatever
construction he may give to any other part. The person
who receives the article in its literal sense, and sees in it
the doctrine of election in its most^ decided form, will re-
receive the last clause as one of the first rules, which is to
guide him in the search of religious truth.
You also intimate, that the doctrine of election cannot
belong to the church, because it is taught in the articles,
that " the offering of Christ was made for all the sins of
the whole world." Would you infer from this, that
Calvinists do not hold to the same belief.''} Do not all
christians of every denomination believe, that. " the free
gift came upon all men unlo justification of life.'' Rom. v. 1.
— that Christ " is the propitiation for our sins, and not for
ours only but for the sins of the whole world " 1 John, ii, 2.
— and that God "woujd have all men to be saved .'" 1 Tim.
il. 4. -Calvinists will not reject these texts of scripture,
T,hey will not deny, that the death of Christ was sufficient
to take away the sins of Ihe whole world. It is not the
sufficiency ofthe sacrifice for the salvation of all, which
they "deny, but the fact, that all will receive the benefit of
this sacrifice. All you have said, therefore respecting the

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, 113
doctrines of the Articles and Church Service, is perfectly
consistent with Calvinism. The church believes, as you
say, that Christ by his death " made a satisfaction for the
sins of the whole world ;" Calvinists believe the same.
I do nbt pretend to reconcile inconsistencies in thearcicles.
Upon the calvinistic scheme they are sufficiently consist
ent. If you make some of them directly opposed to
Calvinism, while others maintain the great doctrines of this
faith, you put them at an irreconcileable variance. This
perplexity will h'e avoided by taking them' in their natural
sense. There needs no stronger argument, in favor of the articles
and formularies of the church being entirely calvinistic,
than the fact that every Calvinist will receive all of them,
which have any bearing on doctrines, without limitation
or paraphrase.
Bishop White and Dr.' How have been at much pains to
show, that the original reformers were not Calvinists. But
are not their labors somewhat gratuitous ? It is not the opin
ions of Cranmer, or Ridley, or Hoopei;, or Latimer, which
the humble christian now searches after, when he consults
his Prayer Book, but the sentiments conveyed in the articles
themselv^. He is not called on by the church to believe
what Cranmer believed, but what the articles con,tain. It
will only perplefx and confound him to accumulate a mass
of evidence to prove, that such were the opinions of one re-
forifter, and such of another. If the Prayer Book will not
explain itself, it were better to lay it aside,and adopt one that
will, than to go back three hundred years to the troublous
times of tlie -"refdrmation, to know what religious tenets
were then agitating the world.
But after the elaborate efforts of these writers to prove,
that the sentiments of the reformers were not calvinistic,
few, probably, who are not influenced bj' some previous
bias, will be conducted from their premises to the same

114 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
conclusions. The subject is examined by bishop White in
particular, with no common degree of ability, and with that
temper of christian moderatibn and candor, which is consist
ent with his character. To my mind, however, his success
has not been equal to the talents and learning he. has dis
played. The following passage, which he quotes from
Mosheim, and endeavors to answer, is strongly against him.
"When it was proposed under the reign of Edward the
Sixth to give a flxed and stable, form to the doctrine and
discipline of the church, Geneva was acknowledged as a
sister church ; and the theological system there established
by Calvin was adopted, and rendered the public rule of faith
in England "* The bishop replies to this, by questioning
the authority of Moshiem, and says he probably quoted
from Neal, who is not always to be trusted. But it is hardly
fair to elude, in this way, the testimony of one ofthe most
impartial and candid writers, who has ever written on ec
clesiastical history. Whether he took it from Neal or not,
we can scarcely be allowed to suppose, that a writer so re
markable for accuracy should speak in so unqualified a man
ner of the theological tenets of a national church, withouf
being fully convinced, that he was speaking from the best
authority ; especially when it'is considered, that it was a
case in which no prejudice pr feelings of his own could in
terfere. Bishop Burnet, in his exposition of the seventeenth arti
cle, seems to countenance the representation of Mosheim.
" In England,'' says he, " the lirst reformers were generally
in the Sublapsarian hypothesis." This hypothesis embraced
all the essential doctrines of Calvinism ; and although the
name of Sublapsarians was not given to any sect of christ-
• Bishop White's Comparitive Views ofthe Controversy between
Calvinists and Arminians, Vol. ii. p. 4.

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 115
ians till after the reformation, yet if the bishop means any
thing, he must be supposed to mean, that the leading tenets
of the reformers, were similar to those of the Sublapsarians;
that is, they were calvinistic.
Furthermore, it is well known that archbishop Cranmer,
the chief of the English reformers, who drew up the
articles ofthe Church of England, wrote to Calvin request
ing his aid, and that a correspondence was kept up between
them. It is well known, also, that Calvin wrote to king
Edwaird the Sixth while Cranmer was engaged in forming
the articles. Is it probable, that such an intimacy would
have existed at this time, and that a familiar correspondence
on these subjects would have-been carried on, unless the reli
gious sentiments of the parties were similar .'
Another argument to prove tke sentiments of the leadin'g
reformers to have been calvinistic, is drawn from their own
writings and from writings which they approved. King
Edward's Catechism, or, as it was afterwards called, Dr.
Nowel's Catechjsm, was approved by Cranmer and Ridley,
if not in part made by them.* This catechism contains the
following words, " As many as were in this faith steadfast,
were forechosen, predestinated,and appointed to everlasting life
before the world was made."'\
In Latimer's Sermons it is said, " We must needs grant
ourselves to be in like dtspleasure unto God, as our father
A(km was. By reasoij hereof we be of ourselves the very
chiimen of ihe indignation and vengeance of God."'^ These
* This Catechism " was subscribed by those martyrs for the pro
testant faith, archbishop Cranmer and bishop Ridley, and ordered
to be taught in schools throughout the kingdom." — Sir Richard
Hill's Apology, p. 25.
-t See a work entitled, " Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers
and Reformers ; by a Layman," p. 136.
X Calvin in Harmony with the Fathers, &c.p. 139.

116 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
sentiments are expressed still more decidedly in the margin
al notes ofthe " Great Bible," published under the direction
gf Cranmer, in 1549. " Our election is by grace, and not by
works. Few are elect or chosen.^ We are elect of God the
Father, through his good will before the construction ofthe
world, that by the grace and merit of Christ, we should
have health, serving all men by charity. The elect cannot
be accused, forasmuch as God justifieth them. The predes
tinate are saints or holy people, made like to the image of
the Son of God, and called, justified and glorified by him."*
In the " Bishop's Bible," published in 156S, the same doc
trine is found. In a note on Rom. xi. 35, it is said, " By
this the apostle declareth, that God by his free will and
election doth give salvation unto men, without any deserts
of their own."'\ In the "Quarto Bible," printed 1576, is
contained the following note on Matth. xxv. 34. " Hereby
God declareth the certainty of our predestination ; whereby
we are saved, because we were chosen in Christ before the
foundation of the woild ;" and on Mark xiii. 22. " The
elect may waiver and be troubled, but they cannot utterly
be deceived or overcome "J
In the work here referred to, many other extracts of a
similar nature may be seen. The Bibles above-mentioned
were published under the express direction of the first re
formers, and,the clergy of those times. . After reading these
extracts, it is no l-onger possible to doubt of the tenets of
the reformers who framed and adopted, the AsBeles
of the Church. We can have no better authority,
than their own writings, or books which came out un
der their sanction. Dr. Heylin, who was an anti-calvinist,
and whom the bishop of Lincoln quotes with approbation,
gives his testimony, in his Life of Laud, to the prevalence
of the calvinistic tenets in the time of Queen Elizabeth.
* lb. 145. i p. 146. X p. 146.

or THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 117
" Predestination," says he, "and the points depending there
upon, were received as the established doctrines of the Church
of England." And speaking of the seventeenth article, he
says, that the predestination there defined, " doth presup
pose a curse and state of damnation, in which all mankind
was presented to the sight of God ;— that it was of some
special ones alone, elect, called forth, and reserved in Christ,
and not generally extended to all mankind."*
The same sentiments prevailed at th'e universiti'fes in the
reigns of Elizabeth and 'James the First, which appears by
the Theses, that were maintained at them by candidates for
the degree of doctor in divinity. The following are select
ed from those, which were maintained at Oxford.
" The salvation of the elect is perfect, so that they can
not perish." *
" The whole salvation of the elect is purely gratui
tous." " Whether -election be from works foreseen .' De
nied."! In the time of queen Mary, certain persons, who were
imprisoned on account of their religious sentiments, were
accused of denying the doctrines of predSstination and origi
nal sin. Bradford, prebendary of St. Paul's, visited them
in prison, and endeavored to convince them of their er
rors, but without avail. Being " apprehensive that they
would do a great deal of mischief in the church, he, in con-
cert^Pth bishop Ferrar, Taylor, and Philpot, wrote to Cra i-
mer, Ridley, and Latimer, at Oxford, to take some cogni
zance of the matter, and consult together about remedying
it. Upon this Sccasion Ridley wrote back a letter Of G-ji's
' See Cilvin in Harmony with the Fathers, &c. p. 113, 164.
t Electorum certa est salus, perire non possint,
Tota. salus electorum est mere gratuita.
An electio sit ex prcevisii opei ibus ? JVeg. — Ib. p. 166, 16 >,
Jl ''

118 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
Election and Predestination, and Bradford wrote another up
on the same subject."* Is it probable that Bradford would
have written such a letter to Cranmer, Ridley, and Latim
er, had it not been well known, that they believed in pre
destination }
The Lambeth Articles are usually, quoted as another proof
of the Calvinism of the English church, and not' without
reason. Some difficulties, it seems, had arisen among the
officers and professors of the University at Cambridge on
cprtain points of doctrine, -which were referred to the arch
bishop of Canterbury. He, in conjunction with the arch
bishop of York, the bishop of London, the dean of -Ely,
and other dignitaries of the church, assembled at the ar
chiepiscopal palace in Lambeth, November 10th, 1595,
drew up a number of articles, which were sent to the Uni
versity, as " the avowed sense of the church of England."
Among these articles were the following.
" God from eternity hath predestinated certain men unto
life ; cef-tain men he hath reprobated."
" There is predetermined a certain number of the predes»
tinate, which can neither be augmented, nor diminished."
"Those who are' not predestinated unto salvation shall
necessarily be damned for their sins."
Heylin says, the queen was much offended at these arti
cles, and caused the archbishop to recall them. But from
his own account it is obvious, that her offence arose not so
much from her disapprobation of the articles, as fron[j"the
presumption of the archbishop in framing them without con
sulting her, and in promulgating them without her authori-
ty.^ Nor was her being offended any evidence, that they
• Neal's History of the Puritans, Lond. 1732, Vol. I. p. 103.
t This offence of queen Elizabeth, was consistent with her im
perious temper in regard to .all theological concerns. The ecclesi
astical court, whioh she established under the charge of this same
archbisfiop of Canterbury, was Uttle inferior, 'in its severities and

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 119
did not express the prevailing sentiments of the church*
Where shall we look for the sense of the church, if not to
the opinions of its highest dignitaries .'f
Neal says, in alluding to the controversy, which com
menced in the University of Cambridge, " All the Protest
ant divines in the church, whether puritans, or others,
seemed of one mind hitherto about the doctrines of faith,
but now there arose a party, which were first for softening,
and then for overthrowing the received opinions about pre
destination, perseverance, free will, effectual grace, and the
extent of our Saviour's redemption. The articles of the
church of England, were thought by all men hitherto, to fa
vor the explication of Calvin ; but these divines would
make them'stand neuter, and leave a latitude for the sub
scriber to take either side of the question." And again;
" Thetdisvines of Oxford, and indeed all the first reformers,
injustice, to the . Inquisition itself. And after the Commons, in a
petition to the prelates, had made some complaints of tjj£ir griev
ances, the queeTi ' reproved themr-severely for their presumption.
In a speech from the' throng,,*' she .'told them, that whoever found
Xault with the chjircli threvi^a- slander upon her, since she was ap
pointed by God supreme ruler over it ; and no heresies or schisms
could prevail in the kingdom but by her permission and negligence."
— Hume's History of England, vol, v. p, 269. See also Camden's
History of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, Lond. 1675, p 454.
t See the Lambeth Articles at laige in the bishop of Lincoln's
Refutation of Calvinism, p. 560, quoted from Heylin's Quinquar-
ticulftt History. Also Hill's Apology for the Doctrines, of the
church of England, in Letters to the Rev. Charles Daubney, p. 88.
In the letter written on this occasion by the vice-chancellor, and
head's of the U"niversity, to the chancellor, they say, " we are right
sorry to have such occasion|to trouble your lordship, as the peace
of this University being brought into peril by the late reviving of
new opinions "- &c. — Strype's Annals, vol. iv. fol. p. 229. These
new opinions were the anti-calvinistio tenets, which were then be
ginning to spring up in the University.

120 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
were in the same sentiments with those of Cambridge about
the disputed points ; Calvin's Institutions being read pub
licly in the schools by appointment of the convocation."*
Another evidence of the Calvinism ofthe English church
at an early period, is the part it took in the famous Synod
of Dort. The express purpose of this Synod was to es
tablish, by the greatest weight of authority, the peculiar te
nets of Calvinism, and to adopt effectual measures for sup
pressing the rising heresy of Arminius, which was found to
be increasing to an alarming degree .%¦ The Synod was com
posed of numerous delegates from different parts of Hol
land, Germany, from Geneva, and Great Britian. The five
points of Calvinism were each separately considered, and
judged without a dissenting voice " to be agreeable to God's
word."-j- They next proceeded religiously to excommuni
cate all remonstrants, or followets of Arminius, as persons,
who " ipust of necessity be punished with a very severe
censure, such as hath in all ages beerr inflicted by the church
in such cases "j ThalagLapt of iliai'r gynr.^;f.a1 .-loliVioY-qtiQnS,
was to excommunicate Cqnr|id VorstiuSj-a processor of Ley
den, and teacher of Arminianism ; and to ^procure a decree
of banishment agaifist him from -the States-General of Hol
land. S ^..
* History of the Puritans, vol. i. p. 579, 584.
f In the Title to these articles, they are said to contain a doc
trine, " quam synodus Dordreehtana Verbo Dei, conscntaneam, at
que in Ecclesiis Reformatis hietenus receptam esse, judicat." Vide
Sylloge Confessionum sub tempus Reformand83 Ecclesite editarum,
etcaet, Oxon, 1804, p, 369.
} See " The Judgment of the Synod holden at Dort, concerning
the Five Articles ; as also their sentence touching Conradus Vors
tius," Lond. 1019, p. 90.
§ Among other heinous offences charged against Vorstius, he was
accused of " making bold " with such doctrines " as concerne the

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 121
Is it not absurd to suppose, that this delegation would
have been sent from tbe English church, if the church it
self were not calvinistic ? The object of the synod was
well known beforehand ; and none of the English delegates
dissented frorra a single resolution that was passed on points
of doctrine. Nor were they ever afterwards charged with not
having properly represented their church in this respect.
As they were the only delegates present from gn episcopal
ehurch, some complaint was made after their return, because
they did not protest against certain proceedings relating to
church government ; but they vindicated themselves on^he
plea, that they took no share in these proceedings, and felt
it their duty to act only on subjects of doctrine. They
published what they^icalled a "Joint Attestation," in which
they explained their motives, and vindicated themselves in
a very, honorable and dignified manner. Their closing
wards are worthy of notice- in connexion with the present
subject. " As in that synod our special care and perpetual endeav
or was to guide our judgments hy that sound doctrine, ivhich
¦tbe had received from ihe _ Church of England, so we were
far, and ever shall be from usijrping our mother's authority,
or attempting to obtrude uponj^r children any of our sy
nodical conclusions, as obligatory to them ; yet remaining
ourselves nevertheless resolved, that whatsoever was assent
ed unto, or subscribed by us concerning the five articles,
is not only warrantable by the holy scriptures, but also con
formable to the received doctrine of our said venerable mother,"*
trinitie of rpersons in the godhead — the hypostaticall union — and
partly avouching expressly mdjiy things contrary to the trueth~of
God — either wholly consorting* or very neere bordering upon the
blasphemies of the balefulFheretique Socinus." ib. p. 102, 103.
* " A Joint Attestation, avowing thatthe Discipline of the Church
of England was not impeached at the Synod of Dort." Lond. 1626
p. 25, 26.
% ,11'*

122 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
This was signed hy the bishop of Landaff, and the four
delegates^ who were sent with him to the Synod of Dort.
We thus have not only the presumptive evidence, that the
church was calvinistic, from the circumstance of its send
ing delegates to this synod, but thepositive testimony of the
other delegates themselves, that the doctrines of Calvinism,
which they had given their voice to establish in the synod,
were such as they had received from the Church of England.
It is a question, which may with propriety be asked, why
predestination was introduced in any shape into the Arti
cles of the Church, if the framers of these-articles did not
believe in this doctrine ? It is found neither in the Augs
burg nor the Saxon confession, both of which are said to
have been principally from the pen of Melancthon.* It is
evident from these confessions, that the doctrine''of election
formed no part of Melancthon's creed. Now the Armini
an interpreters would have us understand, that Cranmer
and his associates were much more intimate with Melanc-^
thon than with Calvin, and.^that the Augsburg Confession
was their principal model. This Confession is silent on the
subject of predestination, although it is full on all the oth^
important points of Calvinism.- It maintains the doctrines
of original sin, the depravity of human nature, the entire
inability of man, justification by faith, salvation by grace,
and the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. -]• If this confession
were the model of the English reformers, why should they
* Luther could not appear at the Diet of Augsburg, because he
had been proscribed by the edict of Worms ; yet he remained, dur
ing the session of the Diet, in the neighboring town of Coburg
where " his advice was constan tlyLgoii'ght." Hence the Augs
burg Confession contained the sentifiients of Luther, as ^ell as Me-
lancthon, and the German princes by whom, it was subscribed.
Cox's Life of Melancthon, p, 304. •
t Sylloge Confessionum, p. 127.

OF TH'E THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 123
insert an article expressly on election, unless they thought
this doctrine an essential addition ? The kind of predesti
nation which you describe, as_ being intended by the seven
teenth article of the church, was probably never thought of
as an article of faith. You say " it has reference to the gen
eral election of the church, as the recipient of the covenant
of grace, and not an allusion to the future state of individu
als." Something like this, perhaps, was the opinion of
Melancthon respecting the scripture account of election,
and for this reason he passed it over, as having no place in
a confesion of faith. But do you believe :a single instance
can be found, in any formularies of faith, in%hich the docr
trine of election is introduced without alluding to the " fu
ture state of individuals .'" That the seventeenth article
should have been added at all, is only to be explained on
the supposition, that it was to be understood in the usual
acceptation of this doctrine, as it was already expressed in
the well known confessions of Basil, Bohemia, and others.
I have been led into this historical detail with a view to
trace the analogy between -the sentiments of the English
reformers, and the plain sense of the articles of the church.
The Arminian interpreters, aware that the articles as they
stand are cordially received by the Calvinists, and consider
ed as strong supports of their doctrines, are fond of going back
to the reformers, and modifying the articles by what they
conceive to have been the opinions of their original framers.
They have never informed us, however, what reasons they
have for supposing that these persons took pains to write
ambiguous articles, or to clothe them in a language express
ing opinions, which they . did not entertain,* The view,
* Gilpin thinks it probafflej that Cranmer in constructing the arti
cles was"intenti9inally ambiguous," and that "he thought it prudent
on this occasion to use^uch well timed ambiguity, as might give as
little offence as possible." Life Of Cranmer, p. 155, 156. This

124 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
which has just been taken, must certainly free them from
any such charge, and leave them at least the merit of con
sistency, fairness, and honesty, of which they would be en
titled to a very small share, if they did not write as they be
lieved, and if their opinions were not calvinistic. We have
not only their own declarations, but the ample testimony of
contemporary, and numerous succeeding writers.
I cannot close these remarks on the articles without no
ticing one, which is so uncharitable and unscriptural, that
it is truly astonishing it should ever have been admitted into
a system of christian faith. I refer to the eighteej^h arti
cle, in which it is said, " They also are to be had accursed,
that presume to say, that every man shall be saved by the
law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to
frame his life according to that law, and the light of na
ture."- Is it, then, the doctrine of the church, that all per
sons who lived before Christ, and all who shall live after him,
without receiving a revelation, and hearing the glad tidings
of his religion, are to have no part in the promise of salva
tion ? Is this just .' If they act according to the law and
light they possess, what more will a righteous and merciful
God require .'' Had the framers of this article forgotten the
parable of the talents, and the express language of the
apostle .' To the Romans, St. Paul writes, " When the
Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nattire the things
contained in the law, th^se, having not the law, are a,]aw
unto themselves," ii. 14. This is the law of conscience
was a singular motive, indeed, to guide a man in forming ar
ticles of religion, which were to be the rule of a nation's faith, and
to which the whole body of the clergy were required by law to sub
scribe. Would it not have redounded" quite as much to the edifica
tion of the church, to let the people follow the perspicuous rules of
scripture, as to confound them in the dark mazes and ambiguous
phraseology of mystical divinity .'

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, 125
and reason, and when the man, who has no other law, acts
in strict conformity to this, what authority have we to say
that he will not secure the favor of God ,' The christian
will be judged by the law of the gospel ; the heathen, who
never heard of the gospel, by the law of conscience. " God
is no respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that fear-
eth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him."
Acts X. 35- The article not only implies, that no individu
als of any nation, which has not been visited with the light
of gospel truth, can be saved ; but declares that they are to
be had 'accursed, who even presume to say that they can he
saved. After the examination, which has been made, how can
the conclusion be resisted, that the sentiments advanced in
your discourse, respecting the doctrinal character of the
articles of the English church, are strikingly inconsistent
with the Church Service, the Homilies, and the plain, nat
ural sense ofthe articles themselves ? If the tenets of the
roformcrn were nolT calvinlstlC, It will l>a-^i£Beult to prOVe
any thing from written testimony ; and it is not manifesting
much respect for their memory, to charge them with
writing articles, and teaching doctrines, which did not ac
cord with their sentiments.
It has not been my aim, to attempt a confutfition of your
religious opinions. In many of these I agree -with you. It
is yoftir manner of adapting the articles ofthe church to your
opinions with which I am at variance. The system, which
you pursue, I am persuaded is calculated to deceive the un^ .
derstanding, to obscure the truth, and to divert the mind
from the only proper channel of religious know ledge. If
report is to be credited, avery large portion ofthe Aiherican
episcopal, church is Armenian. All the members of the
church, who range themselves in this class, pursue the same
course of interpretation as yourself. I have had occasiqn

126 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
to examine the construction, which several writers on this
side ofthe question have put on the articles. The convic
tion has been perpetually forced on my mind, that the
writer was not so much inquiring into the actual meaning
and force of the articles, as devising ingenious ways of turn
ing ambiguous phrases to his own account, and in making
all general expressions have a particular beating on the
doctrine he is engaged to support. One cannot but feel,
that the writer, instead of making the articles his'guide,
takes his own course and compels them to follow. Even
in the learned and popular work of the bishop of Lincoln,
this feeling too often obtrudes itself, and in a great measure
destroys the force of his arguments. If Scott's answer dis
covers less learning and good sense, it is nevertheless, as far
as the doctrines of the church are concerned, full and satis
factory. Whoever examines this controversy, particularly as it
has been carried on by the Arminian party, must perceive
how foreiWy- rtnllnstrates -what has already^ UeeH "salU in re
gard to the inexpediency of all fixed formularies of faith-.
Why should articles expressed in language not found in
scripture be retained, when their inevitable tendency is to
cause dissentions and controversies in the church .' Not
one Calvinist, we are told, was present at the general con
vention of the American Episcopal church, when the arti
cles were adopted.* Why then did not this convention
reject the articles, which are so clearly calvinistic as to re
quire volumes of explanations and pa,raphrases, even to
show that they are not contradictory to the Arminian
scheme. This point is the mostjthat is pretended to be
gained.' To prove them favorable to this scheme, would
require many more volumes. The American church, at
* How's 'Vindication, p. 278. Festivals and Fasts, p. 142, Note.

OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. 127
p.
least, could have no motives for resorting to " a well timed
ambiguity" in teaching the doctrines df scripture, however
such motives might jhave comported with the " p.rtidence"
of Cranmer.
But instead of thinking it possible, that any new light
could have been attained in two hundred years, at^^d instead
of acting on the broad principles of gospel libesty, the
American episcopal convention, in a free country, whereTWj
man, or ; body of men, dares encroach on the civil rights
and privileges of a single individual, determined authorita
tively, that no person, who does not believe in the suprem
acy of bishops, and who is not ordained by a,bishop, can be
an authorized religious teacher. And, as if to prevent the
po.ssibility of inquiry, the exercise of private judgment, or a .
free examination of the scriptures among its members, it
fixed a criterion of, christian faith, and a code of spiritual
laws, to which all persons must conform, who would have
any part in this true church. These things were done, let
it be remembered, in a country, which had lately triumphed
in the cause of political liberty, and thrown off the yoke of
civilbpndage, which it had* too much spirit, and too much
virtuous independence to bear.
If the members of the convention had actually settled it
in their minds, that there could be no true church without
some established formulary in addition to the Bible, they
might have greatly improved upon the old articles, and
spared themselves much trouble, by passing a resolution
somewhat like the following ; — That whereas, we believe
the Bible to be the Word of God, and to contain a revelation
of his will in every thing essensial to salvation ; and where
as we believe all men to have a natural right to worship God
according to the dictates of their own consciences, — we
agree to make this book the only rule of ''our faith and
practice, and to allovr every one individually the* privilege

128 DOCTRINAL CHARACTER
of studying, and receiving it in that sense, which he sin
cerely thinks it conveys. Had the convention substituted
such a resolution in the place ofthe articles, it would be no
longer necessary for a large number of this church to be
wasting their time in proving their opinions not to be contrary
to the articles ; but it might be much more profitably em
ployed in searching the scriptures to know what opinions
they ought to receive.
If there happened to be any individuals in the convention
who had been so long attached to old customs, as to think
forms of faith an essential part of religion, something like
the following, for the sake of accommodation, might have
been adopted. " I believe there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things " " I believe that Jesus Christ is
the son of God." I believe " that Christ died for our sins
according to the scriptures." I believe, 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 saved ; for with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto
salvation."* If it were thought* important, there could be
no serious objection to adding something more to this creed,
taking care always to use the precise language of scripture.
But if it be absolutely necessary to have a formulary of
faith, which is not expressed in scripture language, perhaps
none can be more comprehensive and unexceptionable than
this, — I beUeve in all that the scriptures leach.
* 1 Cor. viii. 6.— Acts viii. 37.— 1 Cor. xv. 3.— Rom. x. 9.

LETTER V. /

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AS HELD BY THE
EnsCOPAL CHURCH, '

ReVERAND and DEAR SIR,
The doctrine contained in the two first articles of the
church, or what is commonly called the doctrine of the trinity,
you pass over very slightly ; and yet it may be doubted,
whether any doctrine of the church stands in more need of
explanation to make it intelligible or edifying to its members.
So far as it relates to the divinity of Christ, you acknowl
edge it to*be of " vital importance," and at the same time,
declining to consider "the number or force of the objections
against it, "^ you content yourself with selecting in its sup
port a. few pgissages of scripture, as they are contained in
Jones's work on the Trinity. Should your readers not be
satisfied with these, you refer them for further information
to the same source. ^.
Thp remainder of what I have to say shall be devoted to
this subject. I propose first to inquire into the scriptural
grounds ofthe doctrine ofthe Trinity, as it is stated in the
articles of the church, and in other parts of the Book of
Common Prayer"; and afterwards to examine the import of
ISf •

130 DOCTRINE Or THE TRINITY
V
the texts you have quoted, as well as of some others, which
are usually adduced in proof of this doctrine.
Before I take into consideration the articles above men
tioned, I have some remarks to make on those parts of the
Litany, which are intimately connected with this subject.
The Litany commences with the following petitions,
which make a part of every morning service, and are ren
dered with an audible voice, both hy the minister and
people, " O God, the father of Heaven ; haf e mercy upon us mis
erable sinners."
" O God, the Son, Redeemer of the world ; have mercy
upon us miserable sinners,"
" Oh God, the Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father
and the Son ; have mercy upon us miserable sinners."
" Oh holy glorious and blessed Trinity, three persons and
one God ; have mercy upon us miserable sinners."
In .these petitions, prayer is made separately and distinctly
to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, and
to the holy Trinity. Here are four distinct objects of wor
ship, addressed as different beings, and designated by differ
ent characters. How contrary is this to the commands and
example of our Saviour. His command was, " thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.".
He prayed to the Father, and taught his disciples to pray"
to the Father. " At that time Jesus answered and said, I
thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth." To
his disciples he said, " After this manner pray ye ; " Our
Father, -which art in heaven." " In that day ye shall ask
ME nothing ; whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my
name, he will give it you." " The hour cometh and now
is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth."* We thus perceive, that our blessed
• Matth. iv. 10.— xi, 25 — vi. 9.— John xvi 23.— John iv. 23.

f. -f AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. IS'l
Lord considered the Father the only object of worship. We
never heaf of his worshipping himself, the Holy Ghost, or a
Trinity. He never informed his disciples of any such ob
jects of worhip.
But what is still more surprising in the worship of the
church, is, that it is not only addressed to four distinct ob
jects, but these objects are respectively .called God. A
petition is first addressed separately and distinctly to
God the» Father ; *xt, to God the Son ; then, to God the
Holy Ghost ; and last of all, to the Trinity. Let it be
observed, that these are not taken collectively, but sepa
rately and exclusively. The Trinity diflfers only from
the three first in being called a God consisting of three per
sons, whereas the others are spoken of as uncompounded
beings. I do not say that Episcopalians profess to worship
four Gods, or that in reading the Litany they have in their
minds four distinct objects of worship ; but if they do not,
it is certain that their sentiments do not accord with the
language they use. At the best, this kind of language must
destroy all just conceptions of the one true God, introduce
corifusion into the mind, and call it off from, that pure and
spiritual worship, which the scriptures enjoin.
"When the minister solemnly makes the following petition,
" Oh God, the Holy Ghost, have mercy upon us miserable
sinners," ahd the people respond to it, what ideas can they
have of this beijig, whom they address as God, but that he
is a being, who possesses power of himself, independently
of any other being, to grant their petition. The prayer
would be unmeaning, if it were not accompanied with such
ideas. The same may be said of each of the petitions,
which are presented to the other three beings. Hence they,
who worship according to the Litany, actually worship /o«r
beings, each of whom is there called Gods*
* Mr. Jones of Nay land, to whose work you refer your readers
for instruction on the trinity, says, " That in the three former peti-

132 DOCTTINE^OF THE TRINITY
But this is not all. Petition is also made to another be
ing, who, although he is not, as each of the fbur above
mentioned, distinguished by the title of God, is nevertheless
addressed as a distinct being. The petition runs as follows,
" By the mystery of thy holy incarnation ; by thy > holy na
tivity and circumcision ; by thy baptism, fasting-, and temp
tation ; by thine agony, and bloody sweat ; by thy cross
and passion; by thy precious death^nd burial, by thy
glorious resurrection and ascension ; gmi Lord deliver us."
Now, to whatever being this prayer may be addressed, it
cannot be to either of those mentioned above, for they are
each addressed as God. But God is essentially a spirit, and
no such properties can be applied to him, as incarnation,
nativity, circumcision, baptism, fasting, sweat, death and
burial. The being here addressed^therefore, must be dis
tinct from either of the others, ^and cannot be God. I sup
pose you will say it is Christ in his human nature^ But
what is he in his human nature more or less than a man.
It follows, that if you pray to him in his human nature,
you pray to him as man. The conclusion of the w^ole is,
that, in the Litany, worship is offered to five beings, four of
whom are respectively called God ; and fhe fifth is address
ed under such properties as belong only to a man.
Such is the result to which it appears to me every one
wjll come, who examines the Litany without partiality,
and who suffers himself to be governed, ii^ judging of its
meaning, by the principles which usually guide him in as
certaining the sense of language. If the words are to be taken
in their ordinary acceptation, they certainly cann&t be receiv
ed under any other construction. If you have secret ideas,
tions the unity in trinity ; in the fourth the tt\n\\,y .in unity is wor
shipped."— Cath. Doc. of the Trin. New-York, 1813, p. 17S.
Whether this be a clear and Satisfactory explanation of the subject,
I will leave for others to decide.

it, AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 133
and hidden correspondences attached tothem, it will be easy
enough to make them mean anything. But that interpreta
tion is ofa very suspicious character, to say the least, which
requires such aids to make it consistent or intelligible ; and
ifw3 ar3"any whereto look for perspicuity, and a plain,
natural use of words, one would suppose it ought to be in
a settled form of prayer, which makes a part of the divine
service of every safcjM,th. If it be said, that my conclusions
are not just, becausF no episcopalian imagines himself to
worship four Gods ; I would reply, that I have not drawn
these conclusions from any one's opinions, but from the
language nf the Litany itself. It is but reasonable to sup
pose, however, that they, who worship in the language of
this Litany, h-ave corre.?ponding opinions. To intimate the
contrary would be an implied charge of insincerity, which
I should be very unwilling to make against any exemplary
christian. I will next proceed to a general consideration of the doc
trine of the Trinity, as it is unfolded in the first, second,
and fifth articles of the church. *'"
Article i. " There is but one living and true God, ever
lasting^ without body, parts, or passions ; of infinite power,
wisdom, and "goodness ; the maker and preserver of all
things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this god
head, there be three persons, of one substance, pov^r and eter
nity ; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,
Art, II, " The Son, which is the Word of the Father,
begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal
God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in
tlre womb of the blessed virgin, of her substanc^ ; so that
two whole and perfect natures, that is io say, the godhead and
the manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be
divided, whereof is one Christ, very fiod, and very man; who
truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile
12.* *'

134 doctrine of THE TRINITY V
his Father to us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original
guilt, but also for actual sins of men.
Art. v. " The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father
and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and.glory, with the
Father and the Son, very and eternal God."
To these articles it may be proper to add what is said on
the same subject in the Nicene creed, as this is a received
form in the church service. ^
" I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten
son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds ; God
of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not
made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all
things were made.
" I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life,
who proceedeth from the Father and Son ; who, with the
Father and Son together, is worshipped and glorified."
The first thing which strikes tine, on reading these pas
sages, is the strangeness of the phraseology. In articles
purporting to set forth some of the highest and most essen
tial doctrines of christian faith, most persons would expect
to* recognize, something, which they had seen in the scrip
tures. It is a remarkable feature in all the explanations,
which the church has given of this doctrine, that in scarcely
a single instance can you find three words together used in
the same connexion as in the Bible. Take the following
example. " And in unity of this godhead, there be three
persons of one substance, power and eternity.'" This pas
sage is not in the scriptures. Separate it into parts, and
you will be equally unsuccessful in finding them in the word
of God. Nothing is said there of the unity of the godhead "
or of any substance, which is composed of three persons.
Nor can you any where find it expressed in the Bible, that
Christ " is the very and eternal God, of one substance with
the Father ;" or that " he took upon him man's nature ;"

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 135
or that in him " were two whole and perfect natures joined
together in one person." And above all, you cannot find
in the holy scriptures any language, which bears the remo
test resemblance ¦ to the unintelligible phraseology, "very
God and very man," " God of God, light of light, very God
of very God." There are no such phrases in the Bible, as
" God the Son," and " God the Holy Ghost ;" and instead
of any such language as, " holy, blessed, and glorious Trini
ty, three persons and one God," the word trinity is not
found in the scriptures. It is a name for which the apos
tles had no occasion.* In short, so far as language is con
cerned, it would hardly be possible to conceive a wider de
parture from the records of revealed truth, than is found in
the phraseology, which the church has thought proper to
employ in defining this doctrine ofthe trinity.
Before we proceed any further, it may be well to take a
short view of the different modes in which English writers,
and principally "those of the church, have explained this
doctrine. First, the Athanasians, among whom were Dr-
Waterland, Dr. Taylor, and probably archbishop Seeker,
from the encomium he passes on the Athanasian deed, main
tain, that the trinity consists of three distinct, independent,
and equal persons, constituting one and the same God ; or
in other words, that " the Father is Almighty, the Son is
Almighty, the Holy Ghost is Almighty, and yet there are
not three Almighties, but oneAlmighty."|
*The word trinity was not used till near the close of the second
century, when it first occurs in the works of Theophilus, bishop of
Antioch. The teims person and substance were not introduced till
the third cohtury, when they were first used in the Sabellian and
Noetian controversies.
t In his thirteenth Lecture on the church Catechism, archbish
op Seeker speaks as follows. " Since, then, there is not a plurality
of Gods; and yet the Son and Spirit are each of them God, no less

136 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
Secondly, according to Mr. How's theory, there are three
distinct, intelligent hypostases, each having a dislinct, intel
ligent nature, united in some inexplicable manner so as to
make one God, in somewhat the same way as the corporeal,
sensitive, and intellectnal faculties are united to form one man.
Thirdly, Dr. Wallis was an advocate for the Sabellian hypoth
esis, and held, that the three persons in the trinity were only
three modes or relations, which the Deity bears to his crea
tures. This, also, was probably the opinion of archbishop
Tillotson. Fourthly, bishop Pearson supposes the Father to
be an umJerived essence, and the Son to have received ev
ery thing by communication from God the Father. " There
can be but one person," sa}^ he, " originallyof himself sub
sisting in that infinite Being, because a plural-ity of ^ore
person.s so subsisting would necessarily infer a multiplicity
of Gods." The Son possessed the whole divine nature by
communication, not hy participation, and in such a way, that
hewas as really God as the Father. Bishop Bull and Dr.
Owen adopted a similar theory.* F'frhly, in the system of
than "he Father ; it plainly follows, that they are, in a manner by
us inconceivable, so united to hini, that these three are one; but
still, in a manner equally inconceivable ; so distinguished from him,
that no one of them is the other." Works, vol. vi. p. 126. This is
indeed inconceivable, that these three beings should be " each of
them God," and at the same time so united as to be " one," and yet
'¦ no one of them to be the other." »,, .
* Bishop Pearson's E-Kposilion of the Creed, Oxford, 1702 vol. i.
p. 175, 217. The bishop speaks in further illustration of this doc
trine somewhat in the language of the Nicene creed and of Angus*
tin. " The Father is God, but not of God; light, but not of light;
Christ is God, but of God ; light, but of light. There is no differ
ence or i'nequality in the nature or essence, because the same in
both ; but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ hath that essence of
himself, from none; Christ hath the sanie'not of himself, but from

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 137
Dr. Thomas Burnet, the Father is a self-existent Being, the
Son and Spirit are dependent; but so united, that divine
perfections and worship may be ascribed to each. Sixthly,
Mr, Baxter defines the three divine persons to be wisdom,
power, and love ; and illustrates his meaning by the vital
power, intellect, and will in the soul of man, and by motion,
light, and heat in the sun. For this explanation he was in
debted to the sharpened wits of the schoolmen. Seventhly,
bishop Burgess supposes the three persons of the Deity to
make one God, but does not allow', that these persons are
thiee^eings. He makes out his position by the following
syllogism. " The scriptures declare there is only one God.
The same scriptores declare, that there are three omnipres
ent PERsoij^J'' but there cannot be two omnipresent beings ;
therefore the three omnipresent persons can be only one
God." According to this hypothesis the trinity is made up
of three nonentities. Eighthly, bishop Gastrell says, " the
three names of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, must
denote a threefold difference or distinction belonging to God,
but such as is consistent with the unity and simplicity ofthe
divine nature ; for each of these includes the whole idea of
God, and something more. So far as they express the na
ture of God, they all adequately and exactly signify the
same. It is the additional signification, which makes all the
distinction between them." According to bishop Gastrell,
then, " the Father includes the whole- idea of God, and
something more ; the Son includes the whole idea of God
and something more ; the Holy Ghost includes the whole,
idea of God and something more ; while altogether, the
*
him." p. 218. Augustin has it, " Filius est de Patre, et quicquid
est filius, de illo est cujus est filius ; ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus
Deum de Dep; Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum
Deum ; et dicimus Dominum Jesum lumen de lumine ; Patrem non
dicimus lumen dc lumine, sed tantum lumen."

138 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost make one entire God,
and no more."* Ninthly, a scheme, which certainly will vie
with any other for novelty, is that lately advanced by Mr.
Heber, in his Bampton Lectures. He has made the marvel
lous discovery, that the second and third persons in the
trinity are no other than the angels Michael and Gabrie^.-f
It was the second person, who conversed with Moses from
Mount Sinai ; and the third person, who constituted the
Jewish Schekinah. Lastly, I will mention only one scheme
more, which is that of Dr. Sherlock. I have reserved it till
the last, because it seems to be in more exact accordance
with the articles of the church, than either of the others,
unless it be the Athanasian. He says, " The Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, are as really distinct persons, as Peter,
James, and John ; each of which is God. We must allow
each person to be a God. These three infinite minds are
distinguished, just as three created minds are, by self con
sciousness. And by mutual consciousness each person has
the whole wisdom, power, and goodness of the other two. "J
&uch have been the various and contradictory opinions
* Belsham's Reply to Dr, Moysey, Lond, 1819. p. 32. **
t Heber's Bampton Lectures, preached before the university of
O.'cford, 1815, Lee. iv. p. 211, 228. To clear up this point the lec
turer levies most heavily upon the Jewish Rabbis, the Targums,
the Mahometan doctors, and the ancient Fathers. Appendix to
Lee. iv. p. 240-250.-
X This was the ground, which Dr. Sherlock took in the celebra
ted controversy between him and Dr. South. The latter main
tained, that there was only one infinite eternal mind, and three
somethings, which were not distinct minds, but called by different
names, as modes, faculties, subsistences. Lind, Apol p, 63. For
it more full account of the above statements, see Doddridge's Lec
tures, p. vii. prop, 132. Adam's Dictionary of Religions, fourths
ed. Best, p. 291. Worcester's Trinitarian Review, No. 1. Reply^
to Dr, Moysey, p, 32, 123. Rees' Cycl. Art. Trin,

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 139
of men, y^o have subscribed to the articles of the church.
May it not be thought a little remarkable, that articles,
which were made for the express purpose of " avoiding di
versities of opinion," should have been so unsuccessful in
this particular ? If it were thought necessary to deviate so
videly from scripture language, in expressing what was con
sidered a most essential doctrine of christian faith, should it
not have been deemed an object of the very first importance
to use terms so perspicuous and direct, as to prevent the
possibility of misapprehending their meaning } What bene
fit can the church derive from articles, which are so vague
and unintelligible, as to lead its most distinguished members
into endless controversies, and which may be appealed to,
with eqii^ confidence, by those who support opinions as
of^osit© as'^light to darkness ! s
But when we examine the account of the trinity, which
the church has placed at the head of its articles, we can
hardly be surprised, that its most learned doctors should'not
be able to agree in any particular mode of interpretation.
How can learning or genius reconcile essential and necessa
ry contradictions .? How can they draw rational or intelli
gible conclusions from premises, which are at variance with
the immutable truths of nature ? Had trinitarians always
been required, at the very outset of their theories, to lay
down axioms from which they never should depart, and to
givCjClear definitions pf all the technical terms they were to
employ, the whole scheme would long ago have disappear
ed with the primalities, the essences, and occult qualities
of the schoolmenj,^ Had they all agreed in attaching some »
clear and distinct ideas to the terms, person, substance, es
sence, properties, nature, mode, relation, hypostasis, and
manysothers, which have been transplanted from the tech
nical theology and aibsurd metaphysics of the dark ages,, this
controversy about the trinity would have been reduced to an

140 DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY
exceedingly narrow compass. When men use wof ds with
out any settled meaning, or when different defenders of the
same theory use the same words in contrary meanings, it
would be marvellous indeed if they should come to any
terms of agreement, elicit light in their researches, or
do much towards advancing the cause of truth. Is it not
a strong objection against a doctrine, that it cannot be ex
pressed in scripture language, nor defined in any language so
as to be understood ; and that its ablest defenders give con
trary explanations of its most important points ,?*
One of the most remarkable particulars in the doctrine of
the trinity as received by the church, is the glaring. and in
evitable contradiction which it contains. In the first place,
it is said, " there is but one living and true God." This is
an intelligible proposition. But immediately after, it is ad-
* The following example will show how unintelligibly, not to
say contradictorily, a very learned, and a very great man could talk
on the trinity. " That there is one divine nature, or essence com
mon unto three persons incomprehensibly united and ineffably dis
tinguished ; united inessential attributes, distinguished by particu
lar idioms and relations; all equally infinite in every divine perfec
tion, each different from the other in order and manner of subsist
ence, that there is a mutual inexistence in all, and all in one • a
communication without any deprivation or diminution in the com
municant; an eternal generation, and an eternal procession, with
out precedence or succession, without proper causality or depend
ence ; a Father imparting his own, and the Son receiving his Fath-
er's Life, and a spirit issuing from both, without any division or
multiplication of essence, — these are notions, which may well puz
zle our reason in conceiving how they agree, but should not stag
ger our faith in asserting that they be true." Barrow's Sermons
vol. ii. p. 423. '
When it is possible for us to believe propositions to which we
can affix no ideas, and which contain as many contradictions\s dis
tinct parts, then perhaps we may assent to " these notions " with-^
out " staggering our faith," but not before.

As HBLD BY THfi EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 141
ded, "there be three persons " in this God, This, in con
nexion with the other, is an unintelligible proposition, un
less it can be proved by some new kind of logic, that one is
three. Lest any doubt should remain about the meaning of
this word person, it is immediately after added, that the
second person is " very God," and the third, " very and
eternal God." Here then is a being composed of three
persons, one of whom is called " the living and true God,"
the other " very God," and the last " very and eternal God,"
aiid yet these three beings make but one Go^,' Of such a
doctrine as this, it is no wonder that Dr, South should say,
" Were it not to be adored as a mystery^ it would be explo
ded as a contradiction,.'''* By the same course of reasoning
it migh^be made out, that a mile is a league, because a
league consists of three miles ; or you might prove, with
certain of the ancient fathers, that three men are one feian,
having only a " numerical difference," and agreeing in
" specific essence, "¦}"
, '* " That any one should be both father and son to the same per
son, produce himself, be caUse and effect too, and so the copy give
being to its original, seems at first sight so very strange and unac
countable, that were it not to be adored as a mystery, it would be
exploded as a contradiction." South's Sermons, vol, iii. p. 140.
Lond. 1718. And yet this " strange and unaccountable mystery,"
is what Dr. South labors through a whole sermon to explain,
f In speaking of the ancient doctrine of Gregory Nyssen, Cyril,
Maximus the martyr, ahd others, Cudworth observes, " These the-
ologers supposed the three persons of their trinity to have really no
other, than a specific unity or identity ; and because it seems plain
ly to follow from hence, that therefore they must needs be asmuch
three Gods, as three men are three men ; these learned fathers en
deavored with their logic to prove, that three men are but abusive
ly and^improperly so called three, they being really and truly but
one, because there is but one and the same specific essence or sub
stance of human nature in them all." Cudworth's Intellectual Sys
tem, p, 604, Lond. 1678. ^
13

142 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY '•
There is also a very strange contradiction between the
apostles' creed, and the fifth article of the church. In the
creed it is said, the " Son was conceived of the Holy Ghost,"
but in the article we are told, that the -Holy Ghost proceed
eth from the Father and the Son." How these propositions
are to be reconciled may well occupy the attention of church
men, or of any persons, who believe them both to be true.
The Greek church has been more circumspect, for although
it admits the Athanasian and Nicene creeds, it affirms that
the Holy Spirit " is from the Father only, and not from the
Father and Son," and it has altered the creeds accord
ingly,* In pursuing this examination, I shall endeavor to keep
as nearly as possible to that kind of trinity, which is to be
understood from the plain language of the articles, and which
is defined in fewer words by bishop Sherlock. According
to this theory, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are. as es
sentially three distinct beings, as three men are distinct
beings ; each is as essentially God, as the others ; each has
the same " substance, power and eternity," as the others-;
and, consequently, each has independently all the attributes
of the others. The attributes of the Father are infinite,
therefore the attributes of the Son and Holy Spirit are infi
nite. All the properties and perfections, which belong to
one, belong in an equal degree to each of the others. What
you can say of one, you can say of either of the others.
The kind of trinity, therefore, which the church adopts,*
and to which I shall direct my remarks, may be summed up
in the following words.
I. There is one God.
II. This God consists of three persons, or beings, each
of whom, separately considered, is as essentially God, as all
three are when united.
• New Edinbr Ency. vol. v, p, 742.

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 143
III. J'esus Christ is one of these beings, and " perfect
God," at the same time he is " perfect man."
I. The first proposition is one to which all christians, at
least in words, assent. All sects profess to make the unity
of God a fundamental doctrine. The testimony of nature
and of scripture is too strong. to be resisted. But this doc
trine, which is so simple and obvious in itself, has been so
much disfigured and obscured as scarcely to be recognized
amidst the rubbish, which has been collected around it by
the fancy and prejudices of men. While the Maker of
heaven and earth continued to be adored, as the one Su
preme God, men had a definite and glorious object of wor
ship, in whom all their pious affections centered, and to
whom alone they attributed honor, glory,, and dominion.
But now we are made acquainted with a threefold being.
The Supreme God is one, yet he is three. He is now a
" triune God," and is to be worshipped as " God in trinity,
and trinity in unity." Let us see what grounds there are,
either in the nature of the Supreme Being, or in his reveal
ed word, for applying to him such unscriptural names, and
attributing to him such strange and inconsistent properties.
1. The unity of God is a simple, indivisible, and perfect
unity. His essence, substance, or nature, is essentially one.
It cannot be divided into parts. The essence or substance
of God, is God himself His absolute perfection consists in
his being one, independently of all -things else. The mo
ment you conceive him to be divided into parts, you destroy
his character as God. But unless he be supposed to be sep
arated into parts, how can he be said to exist in three per
sons ? Or how can the word three be applied to him in any
sense ? What idea could be formed of such a being .' Not
that he is one, but three.' His unity would be destroyed.'*
* Deus cum summum magnum sit recte Veritas nostra pronun-
ciavit, Deus si non unus est, noa est. Non quasi dubitemus esse

144 DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY
2. Again, the attributes of the Deity are infinite. He has
infinite power, knowledge, and wisdom. If there were
more than one such being, neither of them could be the Su
preme Being. God could not be the only omniscient being,
if any other knew as much as he ; nor could he be the only
omnipotent being, if any other had as much power. If the
Son and Holy Spirit be each " very God,'' they must have
the perfect attributes of God, and be in all respects equal.
In such case, there would indeed be three Gods, but not one
Supreme God,
3. The great doctrine of the unity of God is, also, one
of the most prominent in the scriptures. The first truth,
which Moses delivered to the Israelites, on giving them the
law, was, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."
This was repeated by our Saviour to the scribe, who re
plied, " there is one God, and there is none other but he."
Mark xii. 29, 32. " The Lord he is God, and there is
none else besides him." Deut. iv. 35, " I am God, and
there is none else ; I am God, and there is none like me."
Isai. xlvi. 9. " Unto us there is but one God, the Father,
of whom are all things." 1 Cor. viii. 6. It is unnecessary
to select other passages. No truth is more constantly urged,
than the unity and supremacy of God.
II. My next inquiry shall be, whether Christ was this
Supreme God, If so wonderful a fact as this be contained
in the scriptures, we must expect to find it expressed in the
most unequivocal and positive terms. To render it possi-
Deum, dicendo, si non unus, non est Deus ; sed quia, quem confi-
dimus esse, idem definiamus esse, quod si non est, Deus non est
summum scilicet magnum, P,orro, summum magnum unicum sit
necesse est, ergo et Deus unicus erit, non aliter Deus, nisi sum
mum magnum, neo aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non ha-
bens, nee aliter parem non habens, nisi unicus fuerit. Tertul. adv.
Marcion. lib. i, o. 3. Vid. Pearson on the Creed, vol, ii, p. 21.

„ AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 145
ble, that a being who was born, who had tbe feelings, affec
tions, and passions of a man, who felt the pains of hunger
and thirst, who was affected with joy and grief, was subject
to bodily and mental sufferings, and at^length died, — to ren
der it possible, that such a being could be the eternal God,
requires a weight of evidence, in comparison with which,
the united testimony of every human being since the -world
began would be nothing, without a full, express, and posi
tive revelation from God himself. It is not a doctrine,
which any one should venture to collecj; from hints and al
lusions, or to build up from a few doubtful 'passages of scrip
ture. If it be a truth, it must be written in characters
which cannot be mistaken, and shine forth as the most con
spicuous object in every part of the word of God.
In discussing this question we can appeal to no.higher
authority, than that of our Saviour himself. Let us- see if
we can infer from his own language, that he was the Su
preme God.
1. To those who were disposed to kill him for healing the
sick man on the sabbath day, he said, " As the Father hath
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have*
life in himself ; and hath given him authority to ex
ecute judgment, also, because he is the Son of Man." John
v.'"26, 27. Do you understand from this, that the same
being, who gave life and authority, was the being himself,
who received them ? Were the giver and receiver the
same .''
2. Again, " My meat is to do the will of him, that sent
me, and to finish his work." John iv. 34. " I seek not
mine own will, but the will of the Father, which hath
sent me." v. 30. " My doctriae is not mine, but his that
sent me.''' vii. 16. " I have not spoken of myself, but the
Father which sent me, he gl^e me a commandment what I
should say, and what I should speak." xii. 49. " I pro-
' 13*

146 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
ceeded forth and came from God ; neither came I of myself,
but he sent me." viii. 42. Here Christ explicitly declares
in several places, that he was sent by the Father. Would
this language be intelligible if Christ were God .'' He came
not to do his own unll, but the will of the Father. In what
terms can you more clearly define two distinct beings, than
by attributing to them two wills ? When he says, " my
doctrine is not mine," are we to understand directly the
contrary, that it was his ? When he says " he came from
God," does he mean that he came from himself .'' If the
notion had prevailed in the days of our Saviour, that he was
God, and it had been his special purpose to confute such an
error, it were difficult to conceive how he could use strong
er language than what is contained in these passages. He
says, again, " my Father is greater than I," John xiv. 28,
from which it certainly does not follow, that he and the
Father are the same. When our Lord told his disciples, '
that " he came forth from the Father," and they replied,
" we believe, that thou camest forth from God,"* did they
mean, that they believed him to be God, and that he came
¦ forth from himself .' And what would be the meaning of
the passage, " he shall know my doctrine, whether it be of
God, or whether I speak of myself,"! if God and himself
were the same being ? ^
3. As the Lord Jesus was not God, so he did not in him
self possess the attributes of God. He uniformly ascribed
all power, knowledge, goodness, and wisdom to the Father,
and repeatedly affirmed, that he derived every thing from
the Father.
God is omnipotent, and needs no aid from any other being.
But Jesus declares, " I can of mine own self do nothing."
John V. 30. " The Father, that dwelleth in me, he doth
rr
* John xvi. 30. f John vii. 17,

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 147
the works." xiv. 10. " The Son can do nothing of himself,
but what he seeth. the Father do." v. 19. In the discour
ses from which these texts are taken, it seems to be his
whole design to convince the people, -.that the miracles and
wonderful works, which they had seen him perform, were
not dong,by any power of his own, but entirely by the
power, which he had received from God. There is no rea
son why he should wish the people to be deceived on this
point. If he had done these works by his own power,
why should he refer them to another .' «This would be de
tracting from the weight of his own character, and would
tend rather to defeat, than strengthen his purpose of estab
lishing his divine authority. If, as he says, he could not
do these things without aid from God, it is evident he did
not possess the .same power as God.
4. Again, God is omniscient. Every thing is known to
him from the beginning to the end. - But the Lord Jesus
expressly declares, that he has not a knowledge of all^fu-
ture events. " As my Father hath taught me, 1 speak these
things." John viii. 28. If he had known all things from
tjie beginning, he could not be taught. Whatever is learnt
from a teacher is something, which was not before known.
After having described many of the signs and wonders,
which should precede the destruction of Jerusalem, or as it
is thought by many, the day of judgment, he concludes,
" But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no, not
the angels, which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the
Father only." Mark xiii. 32, Here is a positive declara
tion on the. part of our Saviour, that he did not know what
the Father knew. His knowledge was limited ; finite and
not infinite ; not the knowledge of God, but of a subordi
nate being, ^
5." At another time, when one called him " Good Mas
ter," he replied, " Why callest?" thou ijie good.? There is

148 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
none good but one, that is God." Matt, xix. 17. Two
things are evident in this reply ; first, that he represented
himself as a distinct being from God ; and secondly, that he
did not possess the same degree of goodness. It is not im
portant to inquire in how high a degree this attribute exist
ed in him. It is enough, that he acknowledges it to be im
perfect, and inferior to the goodness of God. The one is
infinite, the other limited.
6. St. Luke bears testimony, that " Jesus increased in
wisdom and statUrft, and in favor with God and man," ii,
52. How could he increase in wisdom, if he were God,
and had originally all wisdom .' How could he increase in
favor with God, if he had from the beginning all the divine
perfections .-¦ The wisdom of God is perfect. According
to the scriptures, the wisdom of Christ was imperfect.'*
We have thus seen from the scriptures, and mostly from
our Saviour's own words, that he was not the one true God,
and that the attributes, which constitute the perfection of
the divine nature, were possessed by him in a limited and
inferior degree.
He was a derived being, because he came forth from the
Father, and received all knowledge and power from him.
He was a subcrrdinate being, because he did nothing of
himself, but obeyed the will of the Father.
* Theodore of Mopsuetia maintained, that Christ had two souls,
one distinct from the Word. This he said was necessary to, ac
count for many of his actions. According to him, it was not the
divine Word, which increased in wisdom and suffered ; but the
other soul of Christ. Butler's Hora3 Biblicse, p. 210.
Theodore, bishop of Pharan, and Sergius held, that although
Christ had two natures, he had but onewill. This opinion was call
ed a heresy, and condenined in the council at Rome, A. D, 849.
Ibid. p. 211. ^

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 149
It is, nevertheless, the doctrine of the church, that he is
" God of God, very God of very God." i|i)
III. I am aware that the church has a way of getting
over all these difficulties, and still maintaining that the Lord
Jesus is God. They, who-believe in the doctrine of the
trinity, have a never failing expedient, to which they resort
with equal success in every emergency, — a sort of magical
key, which unlocks with equal ease all the entrances to the
difficult parts of scripture. It has been decreed by cou n-
cils, and settled by convocations of bishops, and other di-^
vines, " that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say,
the godhead and manhood, were joined together in one per
son, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God
and very man." As this scheme of two natures is the
chain which holds the trinity together, I hope it will not
be thought amiss, if I^stop to examine it with some care.
1. It cannot be deemed an impertinent question for me
first to ask, what proof is found in the scripture of such a
doctrine ? This is the only test by which we ought to
abide. I have never been able to find a single passage in
which our Saviour, or his apostles, or any other persons
speak of these two natures. In all the discourses of Jesus
to his disciples and to the people, he" never once intirnated
that he was two beings, and spoke sometimes in the charac
ter of one, and sometimes in the character of the other. If
he actually possessed two natures, why should he not make
it known ? How could the people tell when he spoke as
God, and when as man ; and what could prevent their be
ing perpetually deceived > To have made his instructions
intelligible, or productive of any profit to,*his heafers, it
would have been necessary on every occasion to tell them
in what character he was speaking. But so far from this,
he always spake of himself as one person, and never once
intimate^, that he had more tha^one character or nature.*

150 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
2. By this scheme of two natures, trinitarians explain
without difiiculty all the words of Christ. They take upon
themselves to judge, when he speaks as God, and when he
speaks as man. For instance, when he says, "not my will,
but thine be done," they say he speaks as man. That is,
the part of him which is man, addresses the part of him,
which is God. Th6y do not recollect, that this is making
two wills in him, and one opposed to the other. What idea
can you form of a "being, who has two opposite wills .'
What more clearly designates a distinct being, than a dis
tinct will ? If Christ had not such a will, how can he in
any sense be called one being, or " one Christ .'" If he had
such a will, how can he be called two .?
3. Let those, who believe in this double character of
Christ, answer the questions, " to which of these beings St.
Paul alludes in the phrase, ' Our Lord Jesus Christ .?' Are
we to understand here the ' very God,' or ' very man .''
Does it require two distinct beings for the ' one Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom are all things ?' Have we two distinct
beings for the ' one mediator between God and men .'" Have
we two distinct beings for the one ' head over all things to
the church .'' Do these two distinct beings constitute the
one person, -who is seated at the right hand of God ?"*
Every one should be able to give rational answers to these
questions, and find some direct testimony in the scripture
for this singular doctrine, before he allows it his assent.
4. As this scheme ofa double nature is not supported by
any positive scriptural evidence, and is extremely repugnant
to every dictate of the understanding, it may be well to
trace out some of the consequences of admitting such an
expedient, as a guide in the interpretation of the revealed
word of God. In the first place, it makes the language of
ifl^ " See Worcester's Trinitarian Review, No. 3. p. 95,

AS HELD BY THE EPSICOPAL CHURCH. lOl
Christ, in many instances inconsistent with veracity. It
causes him to say, that he could not do, what he could do.
If he were the supreme God, and had infinite power, he
could do all things. To say that he " could do nothing of
himself," would not be true, in whatever nature he might
say it. For if he were God, he could of himself do every
thing ; otherwise the human nature might control the di
vine, which I suppose no one will allow. He could never
have a deficiency of power in any one nature, if he were
God in any other. „*
5. Smiliar remarks may made be in regard to the passage in
which he tells his disciples, that he did no* know the
time when those dreadful calamities, which he had been
describing, would happen. They must have been eager to
know at what period these direful predictions . were to be
accomplished. Yet he told them he did not know. But if
he were the supreme God, he knew all things, and must
have known " the day and the hour" perfectly well. Nor
could he know a thing as God, and not know it as man.
He could not know a thing, and be ignorant of it at the same
time. How then if he were God, could it be true for him
to tell his disciples, that he did not know the time when
his predictions would come to pass }
6i* These two beings, or natures, although they make
one person, have properties totally inconsistent with each
other. This compound person has all the perfections of
God and all the imperfections of man. It is infinite and
finite ; possessing all power, and yet dependant ; knowing
all things, yet limited in knowledge ; immutable, yet sub
ject to perpetual change ; incapable of suffering, and yet
feeling the pains and calamities incident to human life ;
mortal, and yet .ynmortal. All this, to be sure, is absurd

152 DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY.
and impossible ; but it is a necessary inference from this
doctrine of two natures in one personi
7. To interpret the scriptures by this scheme, would
also introduce the greatest confusion and uncertainty. You
may assign any meaning you choose to almost every word,
which Jesus spoke concerning himself, or which the apqs-
tles wrote about him, and another may give, with equal
authority, a directly contrary meaning. One may say he
speaks as God, and • another he speaks as man in the same
place. Each may quote the same words to prove opposite
positions, and they will apply equally as well to a false as
a true argument. No combination of words, which Jesus
could have used, would prove him not to be God. Sup
pose he had said in plain terms in every discourse he ut
tered, I am not God ; and suppose the same had been often
repeated by his apostles, it would prove nothing. We
should be told, that he spoke it as man. Is it not obvious,
that such a system of interpretation as this would make the
most important parts of scripture, not only unintelligible,
but contradictory .? In what respect does it differ from the
cabalism ofthe Jews, or the esoteric doctrines of the mystical
philosophy > The Jews pretended, that they had a written
and an oral law, a visible and an invisible. The words of
Moses were mere symbols of a recondite m'eaning. The
hidden sense was always considered the true one, although
it often happened, that this was contrary to the visible sense.
So it is with this mystical doctrine of two natures. The
common use of words is laid aside. The visible is made to
give way to the invisible ; the plain sense of language is
sacrificed to a hidden sense. Such aprinciple must destroy
all certainty in the scriptures, and involve the inquirer in
endless perplexites and confusion. Yet such is the princi
ple, by which the fabric of the trinity is held together.
*S. Moreover, this doctrine of two natures, when 'carried

AS HELD BY THi EPISCOPAL CHURCH. . 153
to its full extent, will tend just as strongly to prove the Son
inferitir, as equal to the Father. You can prove, that he is
not God, and does not possess the divine attributesr, by the
same course of reasoning, which you employ to prove, that
he is God. Since his two natures are .essentially united in
one, to make the " one Lord Jesus Christ," you may deny
of him absolutely what does not belong to him in both na
tures. When he says, indefinitely, that he does not possess
all power, all knowledge, all goodness, without intimating
that he speaks of himself in any other charactgs than the
" one person," or " one Christ ;" what else can he mean,
except that in this character he is limited in these attributes.^
Now in this character he is essentially one, and " never to
be divided ;" and in this character, if in any, he is God, or
as bishop Sherlock expresses it, " a God." But God is
perfect. The " one Christ," in his most absolute character,
is imperfect, |ind therefore cannot be God.
' 9. In every attempt to prove this doctrine, Christ must
be considered as always having spoken with a mental reser
vation, — saying one thing and meaning another. You are
not to interpret his words from what he said, but from what
he retained behind, and did not .think proper to express.
Suppose this were to bejnade a principle in writing and con
versation ; where would be truth, knowledge, or any thing
else, which could promote the virtue, order, and happiness
of society .' There could be no language, which might not
be perverted. Suppose a believer in the two natures were
to repeat the Apostles' creed in the manner of speaking,
which is attributed to our Saviour. He might deny every
article, which relates to Christ, and still insist that he re
cites it correctly. He might say, " Jesus Christ was not.
born of the Virgin Mary ; did not suffer under Pontius Pi
late ; was not crucified, dead, and buried ; did not rise from
the' dead on the third day; did not ascend up into heaven."
14

' 154 DOCTRINE OP THE TRINITY
If he were to repeat the creed with these negatives, his
language would be strictly correct, although he might firmly
believe every word of the creed, as it stands in the Book of
Common Prayer, He has only taken the liberty of mental
reservation. If you were to tell him, that he had denied
some of the positive declarations, and most important doc
trines of scripture, he would reply, this is a mistake ; I had
in mind the diinne nature of Christ, which could neither be
born, suffer, nor die.*
10. I will not pursue the consequences any farther. Ev
ery one must see to what contradictions and confusion they
lead. That a principle of interpretation, which will admiff
of such consequences, should ever have been resorted to,
can only be accounted for by its being a necessary support
of the trinity, A doctrine, which does so much violence
to the understanding, as this scheme of two natures, and
which is not even countenanced by a single direct allusion
in the scriptures, — such a doctrine could not have been in
vented, except as a necessary expedient. When the no
tion began to prevail, that there were three beings, each
possessing equal perfections, or in other words, each equally
God, so many passages started forth, in every page of the
New Testament, to prove the subordinate and dependant
character of Christ, that this scheme '; readily suggested it
self as the only possible one, which could give the least
semblance of consistency to a doctrine apparently so irra
tional and so unscriptural as the trinity. To preserve con
sistency in this doctrine, another was devised no less incon
sistent, irrational, and unscriptural.
W. We have thus seen that Jesus Christ was not the
one true God, but a subordinate being. We are next to in
quire whether the Holy Spirit be the one true God. Ae-
* For some forcible remarks on this subject of two natures, see
Emlyn's Works, v. i. p. 98 — 105.

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.^ 155
cording to the fifth article of the church, " The Holy Ghqst
proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance,
majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son, very and
eternal God." In most cases, one being proceeding from
another would denote a difference in those two beings.
Here the Holy Spirit is said not only to be of one substance
with the Father and the Son, but to be itself the " very
God^" from whom it proceeds. Such a mystery as this, it
must be allowed, is not to be understood. I shall neither
attempt to conceive, nor explain the doctrine of procession,
but shall confine myself to the inquiry, whether the Holy
Spirit be a distinct being, and be at the same time sepa^
rately considered the " eternal God," and the " one Lord
Jesusr Christ,"
1. If the Holy Spirit be God, it must be self-existent
and independent. The fifth article, and the Nicene creed
say, it procmds from the Father and Son." It cannot,
therefore, have had existence originally in itself; and if it
be a distinct being, it must, according to the article and
creed, be derived and dependant, and consequently not
God. 2. There can, be little doubt, that the phrase Holy Ghost,
or Holy Spirit, is oftenused in the sacred writings synony
mously with God. In such cases it is simply a. name of the
Supreme Being. This use of the phrase' is very rational.
What is the Holy Spirit, but the spirit of God, and what is
the Spirit of God, but God himself .' It is not a "substance,"
v/hich has proceeded from the Father. It is in reality
*God.. When Elihu, one of Job's friends, said, " The Spirif
of God made me,"* what could he mean, but that God
made him .' When the Psalmist exclaims, *.' Whither shall-
I -go from thy Spirit,"\ what else is it but to say, " whither
* Jw) xxxiii. 4. ' t Psalm cxxxi*. 7.

156 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
shall I go from thee .'" When Peter reprimanded Ananias
and Sapphira for concealing a part of their goods, he asked
them, " How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the
Spirit of the Lordl" Acts v. 9. On another occasion the
same apostle said to those, who wished to make the Mosaic
institutions binding on the christian converts, " Now, there
fore, why tempt ye God ?" Acts xv. 10. In both these pas
sages it is evident the object tempted was the same. It is
a common phraseology with the prophets, " Thus saith the
Lord," " Thus saith the God of Israel," " Jehovah saith."
The same phraseology is used i|i different parts of the scrip
tures in relation to the Holy Spirit. When Agabus predicted
the disasters, which would happen to St. Paul at Jerusalem,
he commenced as follows ; " Thus saith the Holy Spirit,"
Acts xxi, 2. In writing to the Hebrews the apostle uses
nearly the same expression, " Wherefore, as the Holy Spirit
saith, to day, if ye will hear my voice." iii. 10. From
these examples it appears, that the names Holy Spirit, God,
Lord, Jehovah, were used promiscuously to denote the Su
preme Being. When actions, or words, or thoughts, are
attributed to the Holy Spirit, it is the same thing as attri
buting them to God. Any arguments drawn from these to
prove, that the Holy Spirit is a distinct being from God,
would be equally strong to prove, that Jehovah and God are
two distinct beings.
3. Another use of the term. Holy Spirit, and this much the
most extensive one, is when it denotes certain powers, gifts,
er influences communicated to any person in a supernatural
degree. These are derived wholly from God. The Beingf
who could originally form the mind, and endow it with such
high and varied powers as it naturally possesses, can modify
these powers, add to their strength, or influence their action.
When this has been done in such a way as to produce visi
ble effects, it has been called the operation of his Ifiirit, or

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 157
of the Holy Spirit. These, powers were abundatly granted
to the prophets of old, and in them they were called the
gift of prophecy. By these supernatural powers, which
were given to him without measure, our Saviour -was ena
bled to perform miracles, to foretell future events, and to do
all the wonderful works which marked the acts of his life,
and which confirmed the truth of his doctrines. Jesus is
often represented as being influenced, or guided by this
spirit. The spirit of God " descended upon him at his bap
tism." "Jesus being full ofthe Holy Spirit returned from
Jordan." Luke iv. 1. " And Jesus returned in the power
of the spirit into Galilee." v. 14. He spoke of performing
miracles " by the spirit of God." Matth. xii. 28. What
else ^e we to understand by these passages, but that God
bestowed on him extraordinary powers, by which he was
enabled to exhibit proofs of his divine commission ? This
^fa-ct is also an argument against the notion of two natures ;
for if he were himself God, why should it be constantly re
peated,' that he received aid from any other source } By the
same miraculous powers, enjoyed in a less degre?,the apos
tles were qualified for promulgating the true religion, by con-
vinicing the world that Jesus was Christ, and that his religion
was from God,
4. In no instance, where the phrase Holy Spirit is used to
signify these powers, can it be made to be a title ofthe Su
preme Being. It can never be called " very and eternal
God," I have room for'\-ery few examples, but will endea
vor to select some of the more prominent. The apostle
writes thus to the Corinthians ; " Know ye not that ye are
the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you ?" 1 Cor. iii. 16, " That good thing, which was com
mitted rrato thee, keep by the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in
us." 2 Tim. 14, In neither of these passages can we sup
pose ttte word spirit to stand' foi? a person, or being. The
« 14'*

1-58 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
most it can imply, is an afiection of the mind. St. Paul
speaks " of the Holy Spirit, which God shed on us abun
dantly." Tit, iii. 6. Again, " on the Gentiles, also, was
poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts x. 45. Now
these are characteristics of the Holy Spirit, which it could
never have, if it were a person or a distinct being. How
can God pour out, or shed on us this Spirit in any other
way, than by influencing our minds and leading us to good
purposes .''
5. John the baptist, in speaking of the Lord Jesus, said,
" God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." John
iii. 34. " Hereby know vve, that we dwell in him, and he
in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." 1 John iv. 13.
" Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts ii. 38,
" Then laid they their hands on them, and they received
the Holy Spirit." viii. 17. Instances are frequent in which
the Holy Spirit is said to have heen given and received- But
what sense will these passages make, if you use them with
reference to a, person ot being, or to the "eternal God .'"' Men
may receive divine powers, they may have the powers,
which they already possess, enlarged to an indefinite degree,
they may receive such qualities as will strengthen the vir
tuous principles, and improve the disposition and temper ;
and this is the only way in which they can be said to re
ceive the Holy Spirit. Barnabas is described as a " good
man, and full ofthe Holy Spirit and faith." Acts xi. 24. It
is often said of different persons, that they were filled with
the Holy Spirit. This use of the phrase surely denotes
qualities of the mind, and not a " person of the godhead."
How can you say that any one is filled with a person ?
6. There is a remarkable passage in Isaiah, which corres
ponds with the above significations of the Holy S^rit in the
New Testament. " And there shall come forth a rod out of
the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots ;

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 159
and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of
unsdom and vmderstanding, the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge, andof the fear ofthe Lord." xi. 1, 2.
This was spoken with a direct allusion to the Messiah, and
represents the spirit of the Lord in him to be wisdom, pow
er and knowledge ; — the same kind of spirit, which was
miraculously communicated in different measures to the apos
tles, and many of the primitive christians.
7. Another use of the phrase Holy Spirit is when it is
personified, or denotes personal qualities. There are many
instances in the sacred writings, in which the qualities of a
person are attributed to abstract terms. The law is repre
sented as speaking, and the scriptures as foreseeing and
preaching ; sin is spoken of as deceiving and Mlling ; and of
charity it is said that it " sufiereth long, and is Ijiind ; it en-
vieth not, vaunteth not itself," &c,* In these several pas
sages the law, sin, scripture, and charity are personified. In
the same way the Holy Spirit, or the supernatural influence
which it designates, is sometime personified. The following
are examples. " For it is not ye that speak, but the spirit
of your Father which speaketh in you." Matt. x. 20. " It
is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit." Mark xiii. 11.
" The Holy Spirit shall teach you in the same hour what ye
ought to say." Luke xii. 12. Here the Spirit, or the di
vine influence, is said to speak, and teach, in the same man
ner as the law and the scripture, in the places above men
tioned, are said to speak and preach.
8. The Holy Spirit is sometimes personified under the
name of the comforter. " I will . pray the Father, and he
shall give you another -comforter, that he ma^abide with
you for ever, even the spirit of truth." John^xiV. 16.- " But
the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
. » «j ''
* Rom. iii. 19.--Gal, iii. 8. — Rom. vii. 11. — 1 Cor. xiii. 4.

160 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things." v. 25.
It is to be observed in the first of these passages, that this
comforter was to be given by the Father ; and in the other,
that it was to be sent by him. It is hence evident, that if
it were actually a person, it could not be the same God,
being, or person, by whom it was given or sent. It must
be a derived, and inferior person, and therefore not the
" eternal God," mentioned in the fifth article of the church.
The Lord Jesus, in speakirig to his disciples of his separa
tion from them, says, " It is expedient for you, that I go
away, for if I go not-away, the comforter will not come unto
you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. — Howbeit
when he, the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you
into all truth ; for he shall not speak (^himself; but whatso
ever he shall hear, that shall he speak." John xvi. 7, 13.
From these texts it appears, that this comforter was inferi*
or to Christ, for it was to be sent by him ; and that it was
not to speak of itself, but only as it was instructed. No w
this could not be true of God, nor a person, which was
equal with God. All those passages, in which personal
qualities are attributed to the Holy Spirit, will be perfectly
unintelligible, if you consider the Spirit to be the " eternal
God," or to have a substance, person, or being, the same as
God. But if you explain them as you do other passages,
which contain personifications of diflferent attributes or quali
ties, the sense will be clear, and consistent with all the va
rious uses of the phrase Holy Spirit in other parts of the
scriptures. 9. In the eighth chapter of Proverbs is a remarkable per-
sonificatiory, of ^sdom. It may be doubted whether the
whole scripture affords so strong evidence of the personality
of the Holy Spirit, as this chapter gives of the personality of
wisdom. " I, Wisdom, dwell with Prudence — I love them
that love me — I was set up from everlasting, from the be-

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHVRCH. 161
ginning, or ever the earth was. When tljere were no depths,
before the mountains were settled, before the hills, was I
brought forth." viii. 12, 17, 23, 24, 25. The whole chap
ter is spoken in the person of Wisdom, who is represented
to have been with God from eternity, and to have aided
him in the work of creation. Yet no one, I suppose, will
argue that wisdom has a distinct prersonality, and has ex
isted in this character from eternity. Why then should any
one draw this conclusion, from a weaker evidence, in regard
to the Holy Spirit ?
10. The reasons why the Holy Spirit cannot be considered
as God, or a distinct being, person, or substance, may be
expressed in a few words, as follows. It is no where in the
scriptures called God, nor isijit ever made an object of wor
ship. Many things are attributed to it, which cannot be
applied to a divine person, or to any person. It was given
by measure, or in degrees ; it was shed forth, poured out,
and given in double portions ; persojis were said td^drink
into it ; it was quenched, and taken away ;l it could not speak
of itself, except what it should hear ; it did not know the
Son or the Father, for Christ says " no one knoweth the
Son but the Father, neither knoweth any one the Father,
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal
him.". Matt. xi. 27. But if the Holy Spirit had been of "one
substance with the Father and Son," it would of itself have
known them both.
11. It may further be added, if Christ and the Holy Spirit
be each of them " very and eternal God," then each must
have the same properties, and be capable of exercising them
in the same way. What you can affirm of^e, you can
affirm of the other, as also of the Father^j^ou might
with as much propriety Say, "the Holy Spirit shall send the
Father or Son," as that the Father or Son "shall send the

162 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
Holy Spirit." As they are equal " in power and majesty,"
so their authority one over the other must be equal.
12. It is the doctrine of the articles, also, that these
three persons are actually one being, though I know not how
such a thing can be conceived. Let it be taken for granted,
that such is the fact, and what will be the consequence .'' Ij,
will be, that all the actions, which are attributed to any one
of them, may be attributed to either of the others. If the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be synonymous terms
for the same being, these terms may in anyjplace be substi
tuted one for the other, in the same way as Lord, God, and
Jehovah may be used promiscuously to signify the Supreme
Being ; and Jesus, Saviour, Redeemer, fo siguify the Son.
By applying this rule in a few instances, we shall see to
what resul|s .the doctrine of the trinity, as embraced by the
church, will bring us.
Rom. V. 10. "If when we were enemies, we were reconci
led to God by the death of his SiM." Now if God and the
Holy Spirit be each the same being as the Son, it will be
strictly correct to substitute either of these names in the
above passage. It will then read, " we were reconciled to
God by the deaih of God;" or, " we were reconciled to
God by the death of the Holy Sgirit."
1 John iv. 13. " Herein is love, not that we loved Godj
but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation
for our sins." By substituting the synonymous terms, this
will read, "he sent the Holy Spirit, or he sent himself, or he
sent God, to be a propitiation for our sins.
Rom. viii. 34. " It is Christ that died." " It is God that
died." " It js, the Holy Spirit that died."
These exainales are sufficient. If we uiay believe the
church, when it says, that Christ -sfas "one person, never
to be divided," the same application may be made to all the
events of his life. When he says, /, myself, me, you may

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. J63
substitute either of the names God, or Holy Spirit. But if we
believe what the church asserts in the same place, that this
person!, instead of never being divided, is actually separated
into two parts, or " natures," then we must ascertain which
nature it is that speaks, or acts, before we can make the
substitution. *
13. It is proper here to observe, that the Holy Spirit was
not called God till more than threec hundred years after the
time of the apostles. " It was first decreed in the council
of Constantinople, A. D, 381, that the Holy Spirit was
Lord,— -neither did the ancients address prayers to the
Holy Spirit ; and they assigned this as their rSason ; viz.
That a gift was not to be asked of a gift, but of the giver
of the gift,"* The following am the words of Eras
mus, in his Annotations on the first epistle to the Cor
inthians. " No one of the ancients ventured plainly
to assert, that the Holy Spirit was of the same substance
with the Father and the Son, not even when the ques
tion concerning the Son was every Where discussed with
so much Varmth. But now we scruple* not to declare,
that the Holy Spirit is of one substance with the Father and
the Son, very God, of the Father very God, and of the Son
Very God." In his Preface to Hilary he states the same
' thing, and in the whole twelve books, which this latte'r
author wrote on the trinity, he never mentions the Holy
Spirit as God.| He wrote about the middle of the fourth
century. Ought we not to be a little surprised at finding a
doctrine now insisted upon, as a fundamental article of re
ligion, which was not known in any church till nearly four
hundred years after the time of our Saviour .'^-
* Racovian Catechismftranslated by Thomas Rees, p. 293, note
by B. Wissowatius. - ,,
t Hilary always speaks of the Holy Spirit as the gift of God,
(donum Dei.) In one place he writes thus ; " He commands us to

«ir-

164 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
V. Before I dismiss this part of the subject, I will add,
in as few words as possible, two or three general arguments,
which go to prove, that the prevailing sentiments during the
time of our Saviour, and also the opinions of the early chris
tians, were in accordance with what we have seen to be the
plain sense of Scripture.
1. The Jews had no conceptions of any three-fold distinc
tion in the Deity. They had for many centuries been under
the peculiar guidance of God, and received an express reve
lation from him in regard to the coming of the Messiah, but
they seem never to have had the remotest suspicion, that
this Messiah was to be God himself. All the predictions
relating to the Messiah, both in the writings of Moses and
«*
baptize in th,e name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit; thatis, in the confession of the author, ofthe only begotten,
and ofthe gift," &c. Baptizare jussit in nomine Patris, et Filii, et
Spiritus Sancti; id est, in confessione et auctoris, et unigeniti, e
doni, &c. Ibid. p. 292.
According to Gregory Nazianzen, when this subject first began
to be agitated, three distinct opinions were prevalent. First, that
the Holy Spirit was an operation ; secondly, that it was a created
substance; thirdly, thaj^it was God. Twy St xa6' ifius aoipaiv, o[
fiev EveQyeiav rovTo (to Uvtvucc) V7ZE?.a§ov^ ol Se xriOfia. oi Se 6eov.
Orat. 37. Vid, Pearson's Notes, p. 387.
The Jews held to the first of these opinions. They believed the '
Holy Spirit to be the energy or influence of God, and they sup
posed it was by this divine energy that the prophets were inspired.
Maimonides, in giving the various significations of the Hebrew
word spirit, says it sometimes means a " divine intellectual influ
ence," and at others, "a purpose^ or volition ;" and when it is ap
plied to the Deity, it partakes of both these significations. He thus
describes its fifth and sixth significations. Quinto significat (nil)
influentiam Illam intellectualem divinam a Deo prophetis instil-
latam, cujus viritute prophetant. Sexto significat propositum, et
voluntatem. — Vox haec ^TTluando Deo attribuitur, ubique sumitur
partim in quinta, partim in sexta significatione, quatenus volunta
tem significat. Mor. Nevoch c 40, Ibid p. 391.

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 165
the prophets, -were su|h as could never lead them to sup
pose that they referred to the God of Israel. Ta^e for
examp),,e the words of God, which were spoken by
Moses. " I will' raise them up a prophet from among their
bretheren like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth,
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
Deut. xviii. 18. Is there any thing here said, from which
it can be inferred that this prophet was the second person
in the trinity ; or that he was God, or equal to God i On
the contrary, is not the declaration express, that he was to
be a prophet like Moses ; that he was to be raised up, not by
his own power, but by.the power of God, and was to speak
what God commanded him .'
The prophets allude to his sufierings and death in sugh a
way as to render it impossible, that they should.,at the same
time be speaking of God. The divine unity was a funda-
nrcntal doctrine of the religion of the Jews, and n^iing
probably has contributed so much to keep them from em
bracing the christian faith, as the idea, that the doctrine of
the trinity makes an essential part of it. They cannot be
persuaded to believe in any account of the Messiah, which
involves a doctrine so inconsistent with their views of the
whole tenor of the Old Testament. Their aversion to this
doctrine is so great, that, according to Buxtorf, they make
the following article of belief a part of their daily devotions,
"I believe with an entire faith, that God, the Creator, is one
person, and that the unity, or oneness, which is in him, is
not in any other." It is certainly remarkable, if such a doc
trine as the trinity were Contained in the Old Testa
ment, that the Jews', for whom the whole book was espe
cially designed-; shouldtaevet have found it out. '•< %
3. It does not appeaF, that the companions of Jesus while
he was upoii earth or the persons who saw, and conversed
with him, believed him to be God. On one occasion, after
15

166 doctrine OF THE TRINITY
he had healed a sick man in a miraculous manner, " The
multitude marvelled, and glorified God, which had given
SUCH POWER UNTO MEN." Matt. ix. 8, _It would seem
from this passage, that the people consiclered Christ as a
man, and that he performed his miracles by a power, which
he derived from God-; as indeed he had already told them.
The way in which Philip described Jesus,.to Nathanael
was as follow^s ; " We have found him of whom Moses in
the law, and the prophets did write, JeSus of Nazareth, the
son of Joseph." John i. 45. From this language would it
ever be suspected, that Philip thought him to be God.'
When Mary saw him, after the death of her brother Laza
rus, she said to him, " if thou hadst been here my brother
hai not died." Would she have spoken thus, if she had
believed him to be fhe omnipresent God .' The people are
said-dn many places to have considered hiui a prophet. After
he had miraculously fed the five thousand, those present ex
claimed, " This is of a truth that prophet that should come
into the world." The woman of Samaria said to him, after
his conversation with her, " I perceive thou art a prophet."
When he asked his disciples, " Whom do men say, that I,
the, son of man, am," they replied, " Some say that thou
art John the Baptist ; some, Elias ; , and others, Jeremias,
or one of the prophets." Matt. xvi. 14. Here we have the
prevailing opinions of the people respecting Jesus, and there
is not the remotest hint, that any one considered 'him to be
the most high God. So far from it, that they speak of him
in no higher character, than that of one of the old prophets.
3. It is further remarkable, if our Saviour had preached
such a doctrine as that of the trinity, that the evangelists
should not have stated it explicitly, and taken some pains to
explain and enforce it. No doctrine could be more novel ,
none more important, and none more opposed to the rooted
prejudices of the Jews. But when Vi'e come to examine, -we

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 167
find nothing said, in the*lhree first gospels,- which can have
any direct bearing on the subject, and the introduction to
the gospel of John admits quite as clear an interpretation
according to the unitarian, as any trinijarian hypothesis.
The strong evidence, which the four gospels contain, that
no one in the time of our Saviour thought him to be God,
and the entire silence of the evang^ists on the subject ofa
trinity in any form, are objections to this scheme not easily
to be answered.
4. Another argument to the same effect is contained "in
th^ preaching of the apostles, after the ascension of Christ.
We have a minute account of their preaching in the Acts
of the Apostles. It is to be supposed, that in promulga
ting the christian religion among the heathen nation^ the
apostles preached all its important doctrines. Yet he will
read in vain, who shall expect to find anything relating to
a trinity in a single discourse of theirs, , which has bifen re
corded. They preached, that Jesus was the Christ, the son
of God, and that God had raised him from the dead ; but
they never spoke of his being the " very and eternal God."
They never intimated, that God exists in a threefold nature,
or in any other nature than that of the one true God. -' '
I will give two or three examples, which will show their
manner of preaching in respect to the character of Christ.
In Peter's sermon immedi&tely after the descent of the Ho
ly Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, he thus addresses the au
dience ; " Ye men of Israel, hear these words ; Jesus of
Nazareth, a man, approved of God among'you by miracles,
and wonders, and signs, which "God .didt by him in the midst
of you, as ye yourselves also know." Acts ii. 22. Would
any one infer from these words, that the apostle meant the
people to consider Jesus the same as God, or equal to him .'
He not only makes him a distinct being, but declares that
he performed miracles by the agency of God.,* The whole

168 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
discourse of Peter is of the same^i^port. He concludes
by saying, " Let all the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have cruci
fied, both- Lord and Christ." v. 36. According to the trini-
tarian scheme, Jesus, who was made Lord and Christ, was
himself the same being by whom he was made I^ord and
Christ. If Christ wer^ actually the Supreme Being, it is
very strange, that in this discourse, the whole object of
which was to explain his character, P^ter should constantly
r^resent him not only as distinct from the Father, but as
sitbordinaie to him. All he says of the Holy Spirit in this
discourse is, that it had been shed forth, and those who
should be baptized " in the name of Christ," should " re-
ceiv^the gift of the Holy Spirit," 1 presume no language
could be more unlike the articles of the Church, than that
which is used in this "place by the apostle. He does not
call the Holy Spirit God, but a gift ; and Jesus he calls a
" man approved of God."
Another striking example is found in Paul's discourse to
the Athenians.- " As I passed by and beheld your devo
tions, I found an altar with this inscription, to ihe unknown
God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him de
clare I unto you." Acts xvii. 23, The first thing to be
observed here, is, that the apostle was about to teach the
Athenians the character of the true God. If he had sup
posed God to exist in three ^persons, he could not but make
so remarkable a trait a very prominent part of his explana
tion. But how ¦ does he proceed .' " God, that made the
world, and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heav
en and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands."
V. 24. He goes on in the same kind of language through
the whole discourse, uniformly speaking of God as one
being, and never intimating that he exists in more than one
person. After thus explaining to the Athenians the nature

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 169
of the true God, he speaks of Christ at the conclusion, as
follows. " And the times of this ignorance God winked
at ; but now commandeth all men every where to repent ;
because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge
the world in righteousness by that man, whom he hath or
dained ; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in
thatjie hath raised him from? the dead," v, 31. Could it
enter the minds of the Athenians, that the God, whom the
apostle had just'mentioned as having made the world, was
actuaUy the " man " by whom he would judge the world,
and whom he had raised from the dead ? They must have
believed this, if they supposed from the apostle's account,
that Jesus was one of three persons, which constituted the
Deity, We may observe in addition, that in <giving this
character of the true God, the apostle says nothing of the
Holy Spirit, But if the Deity consists of three distinct
persons, of which the Spirit is one, ^s it credible, that he
would have passed over this remarkable fact in silence .? "
I need not insist on this argument, drawn from the preach-"
ing of the apostles. Any one has only to read the book of
Acts, with a particular view to the 'topics on which they
dwelt, to be convinced, that they adhered most strictly to
the precept of St. Paul in his first epistle to Timothy,
" There is one God, and one mediator betiveen God and men,
the man Christ Jesus." They never speak of a Gpd in " three
periSons," nor use any langilage, which conveys ideas ap- '
preaching to such a character of the Deity ; and yet St.
Paul does not hesitate to say to the Ephesians, " fhave
not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.'''
Acts x^.i427. If the apostles could declare the whole coun
sel of God without once alluding to a trinity, why should
we think it important at this time to ingraft this doctrine
into our faith, and make it a part of the christian religion i
5. It is well ascertained from' the best testimony, which
15*

170 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
can be derived from history, that the great mass of chris
tians for the two first centuries were unitarian. This fact
is generally admitted by all parties, so far as it regards the
Nazarenes, or Jewish christians, and a portion also of the
Gentile christians. Although there is no direct authority
in the written word of God for the doctrine of the trinity,
especially in the form in which it is received by the episco
pal church, yet if this doctrine could not be distinctly traced
to some later source, your argument of tradition might per
haps be thought to apply here, and we should be required
to believe in the trinity, for the same reason that we are re
quired to believe in the divine origin of episcopacy, and the
traditional ceremonies of the Protestant Episcopal and Cath
olic churches, because we cannot go back to " any one pe
riod in which it could probably have originated." But for
tunately we have not this difficulty to encounter in the pres
ent instance. Few things in history are better settled, than
the origin of the trinity. The close analogy between this
• doctrine and the philosophical speculations of Plato, leaves
no room for mistake. Many of the first converts to chris-
. tianity were Platonistsf, and they spared no pains in tracing
out resemblances between the new religion, which they had
embraced, and the philosophy to which they had become so
strongly wedded while heathens.
Plato had some obscure notions of three distinct princi
ples in nature. These principles were, first, a Supreme
Being, or chief Cause ; secondly, a divine mind ; thirdly,
fhe soul of the universe. When the Platonists became Chris
tians, finding some general analogy between this part of their
philosophy, and the accounts given in the New Testament
of the Father, Son, afid Holy Spirit, they gradually ' inter
wove with these many of the peculiar properties of the
three Platonic principles, and by this unnatural combina
tion, the' doctrine of the trinity assumed by degrees the

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 171
shape in which it has appeared in later times. It does not
come within.,, my purpose to enter into ' the particulars qf
this history. It has often been done by able hands ; and
the result has been such as to convince any one, who will
examine their inquiries with patience and impartiality, that
the origin of the trinity can be traced to fhe Platonic phi
losophy, with as much precision,, as any fact of those times,
either political, pivil, or ecclesiastica], can be established by
the authority of history.'*
The principal points of controversy at?!first, had regard
to the nature of Christ, It has already been seen, that the
Holy Spirit was not elevated to the rank of a person in the
trinity, till near the close of the fourth century. Several
sects early sprang up in the first ages, who entertained va
rious sentiments respecting the nature and character of
Clirist ; but during the three first centuries, there is no
trace of any doctrine, like that adopted by the episcopal
church, in, which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are con
sidered to be three distinct persons of equal poiver and dig
nity. The Apostles' Creed is a remarkable proof of this fact,
Al^ough it cannot be ascertained when this creed was first
made, yet it is undoubtedly very ancient. At whatevgr pe
riod it was formed, it must be supposed to have been in-

* The account which Le^lerc gives of the three Platonic prin
ciples is as follows:
Plato autem dixit primum esse to ov. oltlov aTvavrttiv, Ens, Cau
sam omnium rerum; secundum vero i.oyov, Rationem et Rectorem
prcescntium etfuturorum ; tertium denique ¦kpv^iiv y.oouor, Animam,
ive Spiritum mundi. Secundum quidem Principium a primo
genitum, seu factum ; tertium vero a secundo adfirinat. Ars Crit-
ica,, P. ii. § 1. c. IS.
He observes further, that Parmenides was the first, who advanced
the idea of three principles. Primus omnium tria principia con-
stituit Pa,rmenides Ibid. -.^-^

172 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
tended to contain what were then considered all the impor
tant doctrines of the christian religion. It, nevertheless,
gives no countenance to a trinity, and contains very little,
if any thing, on this subject, to which every unitarian will
not assent.*
I have reserved this opportunity to make some further
remarks on your quotations from the epistles of Ignatius.
Enough has already been said on the suspicious character
of these epistles to make it appear, that they are not enti
tled to the least degree of credit as authority in points of
controversy. Many epistles, which have gone out under
the name of Ignatius, are universally acknowledged to be
spurious ; and those, -which are admitted by some to be gen
uine, are as universally allowed fo be mangled and interpo
lated. And it is a well known fact, that many of the inter
polations, which have been detected, relate particularly to
the trinity.
I will quote two or three of those, which were detected
by archbishop Usher. ¦-
" Our Lord and God Je.sus Christ, the Son of the living
God." " One only begotten Son, the Word, glod and Man.'^
* Those, who wish to see the doctrine of the trinity traced by
historical deductions to its true source, may find it done in a very
concise and perspicuous manner in'professor Norton's " Statement
of Reasons for not believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians respect
ing the nature of God, and the Person of Christ," written in reply
to professor Stuart's Letters to Mr. Channing, p. 31.
A more full account is also contained in the General Repos.
and Rev. vol. iii. p, 13. Cudworth's Intellectual System, Boo^ i.
chap. 4. Priestley's Hist, of Early Opinions. And some remarks
may be found to the purpose in Le Clerc's Ars Critica, Pars Se
cunda, § 15.

AS HELD BY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 173
" God the Word dwelt in a human body."*
Now whatever Ignatius may have written, it is certain
hg^did not write these passages ; although, if they had not
been discovered to be spurious, they would now be defend
ed with as much zeal as any other parts of his reputed
writings. Whatever he wrote, these passages were added
by some later hand. From these insertions two things are
evident ; first, that when they were made, these writings
were not thought sufficiently strong in favor of the trinity ;
and secondly, that no confidence can be placed in any other
passages of a similar character. If the original writings
taught explicitly the doctrine ofthe trinity, why should
these additions have been deemed necessary .'-j"
* Usher's edition of Ignatius' Epistles, Oxford, 1644, p, 42, 96,
202; as quoted in Lind. Seauel, p. 446.
t Speaking of the seven epistles. Less, who believes them to be
genuine, observes, " These are tolerably well purified from modern
ini^rpolations. I say tolerably xcell, for even the smaller edition ap
pears in certain places to be suspicious." Less on the Ne-/v Testa
ment, p. 71. 1
N,|J,withstanding the suspicious character of these epistles, and
thejVery great probability that they were written by some design
ing person to impose on the world, they are thought to be of so
much account to the episcopal church, that they have lately been
published in England as a tra,etfor general circulation, by a " So-
cieS^ for the Distribution of'Tracts," &c, and in this form they
help to make up the book called " The Churchman armed." See
' vol. i. p. 145.
In this same book is inserted the learned treatise of bishop Bur
gess to prove, that " St. Paul was the founder of the church in
Britian." Vol. ii. p. 316. "The church of Britian was establish
ed before the church of Rome." p. 389.
But the church has hitherto been contending, that it has descend
ed through the church of Rome. How is this point to be settled .'
Or how is it to be explained, that the church has been so long in
an error.'

174 DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, ETC.
Among the extracts, which you make from Ignatius, are
the following, '^'¦
" Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God."
" Follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ the Father."
It will be se_en, by a single glance of the eye, how striking
a resemblance there is between these quotations, and those
above, which were proved by archbishop Usher to have
been inserted by design ; and there is the strongest presump
tive evidence, that they all have a similar origin. You
must allow me again to express my surprise, that you should
quote passages of this character, which are so very impor
tant in their consequences, without at*least intimating to
your readers, that they are of doubtful authority, and should
be received with very ^reat caution.
I have thus finished the general view, which I proposed
to take of the doctrine of the trinity, as contained in the ar
ticles of the church, I have attempted to compare it with
reason, with scripture, and with itself; and in my inittd
the conviction is irresistible, that, as it is .there stajefl, it is
irrational, unscriptural, and contradictory in its parts. Not
only so, its origin may be traced to a period much laterjftian
that of our Saviour, or his apostles. These things consid
ered, I cannot persuade myself, that such a doctrine is to
be received as in any manner connected with the pure, the
consistent, and holy religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. •

LETTER YI.

EXPOSITION OF CETS-TAIN TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE
SUPPOSED TO FAVOR THE DOCTRINE- OF THE
TRINITY.

ReVERAND and DEAR SIR,
It dnly remains in this letter to explain the texts of
scripture, which you have adduced in proof of the " divinity
of the Saviour," anJ some others usually brought forward
in mipport of the doctrine of the trinity.
After reading the extracts from scripture, which are con
tain^ in the preceding letter, no one probably will deny,
that the unitarian doctrine of the superiority of the Father,
and the inferiority of the Son and Holy Spirit is in some
sense true. Trinitarians argue, that these. texts are to be mod
ified and explained in accordance wi^th others, which they
think teach the deity of the Saviqur and of the Holy Spirit,
¦ and their equality with the Father. On the contrary, uni
tarians hold, that the-plain and obviou|,.„sense of the whole
scriptures, both of the Old Testament and New, forcibly in
culcates the unity and supremacy of God, and the inferiority
of Christ ; and also, that every text, which is thought^to be
favorably to the trinitarian hypothesis, may, by fair and ra
tional principles of interpretation, be explained in conformity
with this clear and prevailing sense of scripture. They do

176 EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPT
not deny, that many passages- are consistent with trinij^arian
views, but they maintain, that these' are equally consistent,
when properly understood, with the sentiments of*- unitari
ans ; and they complain, that these passages have been
forced into a meaning, in support of the trinity, contrary to
the general tenor of scripture, the strongest dictates > of the
understanding, the express and repeated declarations of our
Saviour, the preaching of the apostles, the sentiments of the
whole Jewish nation, and ofthe primitive christians. They
think there ought to be consistency in these things, and
that no persons should attempt to support doctrines by
scripture authority, which, from a full ^examination of the
subject, it is well ascertained, were not known till more
than two hundred years after the last book of the Bible was
written. After humble, patient, and persevering inquiries into the
scriptures,unitarians find nothing taught there, which is con
trary to the numerous positive declaratibns of our Saviour ;
that he was inferior to the Father, sent by him, and derivted
all things from him ; nothing inconsistent with the liiiiversal
sentiments ofthe Jews and primitive christians respecting the
unity and supremacy of God ; nothing in one part contra- .
dictory to the necessary sense of another ; nothing, which
violates reason, or opposes the decision of the understand
ing. To them the whole appears, as they think evsvy
revelation from God must appear, rational, consistent, in- .
telligible. They find many texts, which they believe it -
impossible to explain on the trinitarian hypothesis, without
violating every just principle of language ; but none, which
will not admit a fair interpretation in favor of the doctrine
of the absolute unity. They do not profess to meet with*
no difficulties. In a book like the Bible, which has been
transmitted through so many ages, it is impossible, that
these should not abound. But they find none, which, ac-

EJ^OSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTUIifi. 177
cording to the unitarian hypothesis, may not be solved on
rational and scriptural principles ; but many, which, accord
ing to the trinitarian scheme, are inexplicable.
It is a charge often brought against unitarians, that they
think it their duty to consult their understanding inform
ing their religious opinions. They think no one can be ex
cused from exercising his reason, on a subject of the utmost
moment and interest. They believe God did not make a reve
lation, which was not to be understood by his creatures, be
cause no purpose could be answered by sucji a revelation.
Reason is the ruling principle of decision and action in the
common affairs of life ; it gives laws to the will ; the other
faculties of the mind are all subordinate to this, and designed
only as secondaries and aids ; and shall^ we forsake this guid
ing principle, when we come to study the scriptures, and
search out the treasures of divine truth .? If we abandon this
guide, we shall be left to the mercy of prejudice, and the
unlicensed contfol of the ima^nation, and shall act, in the
momentous cause of religion, as we could never be induced
to act in the most trivial concerns of life.
When unitarians are charged with putting the decisions
of reason in^ competition with the truths of revelation, it is
a false charge. Whatever they find revealed in the word of
God, they receive most cordially and implicitly ; but they
regard it an imperious duty to use their best faculties in as
certaining what is, and what is not revealed. They place
no reliance on the interpretations of fallible men, any farther
than from their own * inquiry they find them sanctioned in
the scriptures. By what faculty of the mind are we to
judge, if not by the understanding ; or by what proofs are
¦we to be convinced, if not by the results of our own delibe-
rate investigations.
Chillingworth speaks with great force and truth in re
pelling the same charge, as it was formerly made by the
16

178 EXPO^TION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
Catholics against the protestant churches. " Propose me
any thing out of the Bible, and require whether I believe it
or no, and seem it never so incomprehensible to human
reason, I will subseribe it with hand and heart, as knowing
no demonstration can be stronger than this ; God|hath said
so, therefore it is true. In other things I will take no man's
liberty of judgment from him ; neither shall any man take
mine from me. I will think no man the .worse man, nor
the worse Christian, I will love no man the less for differing
in opinion from me. And what measure I mete to others,
I expect from them again, I am fully assured, that God
does not, and therefore that men ought not to require any
more of man, than this ; to believe the scripture to be
God's word, to endeavor to find the true sense of it, and to
live according to it,"* Every unitarian, it is believed,
would subscribe to these sentiments "with hand and heart,"
Every one believes what the Bible contains, and for the same
reason as Chillingworth, " because God hath said it." But
since christians differ so widely respecting what is actually
contained in the Bible, how can we give peace to our con
science, or be satisfied that we have the whole truth, unless
we use our best faculties in conducting our inquiries, and
forming our judgment ? There has probably never been a
unitarian, who rejected any doctrine or opinion, which oth
ers have thought to be in the scriptures, solely because this
doctrine or opinion was not consonant to reason.
If you tell me you believe a doctrine, which you ac
knowledge to be unintelligible and irrational, you must sup-
pose^uch an acknowledgment will at least excite a suspi
cion, that you may be in a mistake. If you go on to tell
me, that this doctrine is contained in scripture, I still shall
ft
* Chillingworth's Religion of Protestants, u safe way to Salva
tion, chap. vi. Protestants not Heretics, sec. 56.

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 179
not be able to believe it, till I have examined seriously and
patiently for myself ; because I cannot believe a propo
sition till I am convinced by some course of reasoning
that it is true. If the scriptures are to be believed at all,
it must be on the authority of reason ; and, indeed, by
what other authority can you determine the truth of any
doctrine or opinion ? And admitting you could believe a
thing for which you could give no reason, what would be
the value of such a faith .'
" When faith is virtue, reason make's it so."
The truth is, all our religious opinions, which can be
called such, are founded on reason, and to deny its use
would be to reject our religion altogether. Why do we
believe in the life, sufferings, and death of our Saviour, or
why do we believe, that the apostles have given uS a faith
ful account of his instructions, except from the conviction,
which is produced by a rational investigation of the subject ?
1 have heard preachers, in the commencement o&a discourse,
declaim vehemently against the use of reason in deciding
on the articles of religious faith, and yet make the chief
burden of what followed a series of arguments, to prove some
ofthe principal tenets of their belief.
Some effect is produced on the minds ofthe uninformed by
telling them, that unitarians "exalt reason above revelation."
To any one, who is in the least degree acquainted with
their writings, such a charge needs no refutation. If to
search with patient and unwearied labor, with a pious and
humble desire of knowing the truth, as it was reveated by
Jesus Christ, and preached, by the apostles ; if to '^alue the
commands of God more than the commands of men, and to
think it neccessary to be convinced of a fact before it is be
lieved ; if to acknowledge the divine will as the only proper
rule of conduct, to rest the hope of futflre safety wholly on

ISO EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
the mercy of God, and to expect salvation on no other
terms, than repentance, obedience, and a holy life ; — if these
be to exalt reason above revelation, few unitarians probably
will care to free themselves from the imputation ; if they
be not, the charge is unfounded.
We are told, that they have a habit of rejecting such doc
trines, as they do not comprehend. This also is a mistake.
They reject no doctrine for this reason only, because they
do not comprehend it. No man, it is presumed, pretends to
comprehend the attributes of God, or any of his works in
their full extent. I cannot comprehend his existence, nor
my own, nor the existence of any thing, I cannot compre
hend the structure of my own frame, nor of any organized
substance in nature. Yet I believe these things, because
they harmonize perfectly with my understanding, my con
science,, and every principle of my mind. I discover noth
ing in them contradictory or impossible. I should believe
in a miracle upon the same principle ; not because I can
comprehend it, but because my reason convinces me that
God is a Being of infinite power, and may, if he choose,
manifest his power in the working of a miracle. If I did
not first use my reason, 1 could never be convinced, that it
was not a deception.
But it is one thing for a proposition or doctrine to be in
comprehensible, and quite a different thing for it to be con
tradictory, or inconsistent with the plainest principles ofthe
understanding, or with any known, positive truth. I do
not believe, that one man will be punished for the sins
whieh another has committed, nor that God ~has elected a
certain number to everlasting life, and left the remainder of
mankind to perish without remedy, — not becuuse these doc
trines are incomprehensible, but because they are inconsis
tent with the goodness and justice of God, which I consider
esta,blished truths, « I do not believe, that the earth is a

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE. 181
plane surface, and stands still, and that the sun" revolves
around it every day, — not because these things are incom
prehensible, but because my reason has convinced me, that
they are inconsistent with the experience of wise men, and
the laws of nature. That a proposition is incompPghensible,
therefore, is no ground for rejecting it, and he must be very
muqh in the dark, and have no common share of credulity,
who fancies, that any unitarian has on this ground disbe
lieved a single article of faith, which has been received by
other christians.
The doctrine of the trinity, .perhaps, is as incomprehensi
ble as any tMng ; and yet I do not disbelieve this doctrine
because I ,cannot comprehend it, I disbelieve it, first, be
cause I can find no authority for it in scripture ;_ secondly
because it is contradictory in itself; thirdly, because it is
inconsistent with the moral attributes of God ; and fourthly,
because it violates all the rules of light reasoning by which in
other cases I am enabled to come at a knowledge of truth.
Furthermore, unitarians are charged with not believitig
in mysteries. From this charge very few among them it is
presumed would desire to escape. Is not the christian re
ligion a revelation from God, designed to enlighten, improve,
and encourage his creatures, and is it credible, that such a
revelation should contain mysteries, or dark unintelljigible
doctrines .' Did God commission his only Son to publish
his will to men by miracles and wonders, and at the same
time make his communications in such terms as they could
not possibly understand, or even conceive .' The very idea
implies an impeachment against the goodness of God, at
which the mind revolts. The design of a revelation was to
draw aside the veil of obscurity, and bring down a knowl
edge of the divine nature, the principles of duty, and the
prospects of futurity to the capacities ofanen. But how is
this design affected, if we are still involved in mystery ? And
16*

182 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
what conception, let me ask, can you form of a reveq,led
mystery 1 What is a revelation, but something made known,
which was before unknown. Whatever continues to be
unknown, and cannot possibly be understood, has certainly
never beqn revealed. If we hold, that our religion is mys
terious and unintelligible, we make a very wrong use of
language, when we call it a revelation ; and if we believe it
to be a revelation, we speak very inconsistently, when we
say it is not to be understood.
If we look into the sacred writings we shall not find,
that our Saviour, or his apostles, ever spoke of any myste
ries in their instructions, which their follower^were not to
understand. The word mystery is often used in the Bible,
but never to signify a thing, which is unintelligible or con
tradictory to reason. Some doctrines are said to have been
mysterious before they were f^vealed ; but there is no in
stance in which a revealed truth is called a mystery.*
* The writers on the trinitarian side of the controversy, have
dwelt with much apparent fondness on the propensity of Unitarians
to use their Understanding in judging»of religious subjects; and
none, perhaps, has employed more words in discussing this topic,
than Mr. William Burgh. A large portion of his long Reply to
Mr. Lindsey's Apology, is occupied in proving, that there are many
things incomprehensible. After having fully established 4his point,
he lays it down as an axiom, that " About matters which we do
not comprehend, it is obvious, that we cannot with certainty say any
thing." p, 23. Does he mean, that we ca.Tmot say with certainty
that grass grows, the sun shines, or that a. man moves when he
walks, because we cannot comproliend these operations .-' Such are
the premises from which he draws the conclusion, that we cannot
reason about the attributes and dispensations of the Deity.
His words are, " The infinite and incomprehensible majesty of
God is an object beyond the limits of reason; we are incapable of
forming any idea of him." p. 23. Can we form no idea, then, of
the power, the wisdom, and goodness of God .' How can we wor
ship a being of whom we can form no idea ? Or how can we talk

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURES, 183
These introductory remarks have extended to a rather
greater length, than I have been aware. We will now at
tend to the principal object of this letter, which is a consid
eration of certain texts of scripture, and especially those,
which you have selected in proof of the divinity of Christ.
As you profess to take these texts from Jones's work on the
trinity, and as you call this " an inestimable work," and
recommend it very highly to your readers, it wilj not be '
thought foreign to the purpose to say a few words on its
character. It could not but excite a little astonishment to see a book
quoted, as of the highest authority on this most important
point of controversy, which scarcely a scholar or critic has
befote quoted with approbation, since the day it was writ
ten. That it should be a popular book among the uninform
ed, who take the author's results as truths, without being
able to follow him through his show of criticism, is not
wonderful ; but that a scholar and biblical critic, who can
detect his fallacies in evary page, and perceive the cloujl of
prejudice darkening and confounding every just»principle of
criticism and interpretation, should publicly sanction and
recommend a work of this character, is hardly to be ac-
of the benevolence, the mercy, the love of God, or indeed of any
of his attributes, if they are totally beyond our conception ? Do
we not reason perpetually about the attributes of God ? Do we
not say, that one event indicates h\s *iDisdom, another Ms power,
another his goodness ; and do we not say, that the justice of God
will award an adequate punishment to the guilt of a sinner,'' We
do not comprehend these attributes fully ; yet still, as far as we do
comprehend them, we can reason about them, as w*ell as about
the innumerable operations of nature, which we do not compre
hend. The character of this book may be very easily imagined,
when it is known, that the specimens here quoted are some of the
anthor's first principles.

184 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
counted for by the usual mode of judging of motives from
actions. , ,
It is the way of this writer to bring together short pas
sages selected at random from differen,t parts of the scrip
tures, each of which contains some of the same, or similar
words to the other, and to infer immediately that they mean
the same thing. No regard is had to the context, nor does
he seem ever to have dreamed, that the same word may
mean very different things, when used in different connex
ions. In this way you may prove the trinity from the Ko
ran, and show the Vedas of the Hindoos, the Talmuds and
Targums of the Jews, to be treatises written in support of
orthodoxy. In short, you may prove any thing from any
book. A few examples from the work in question will exhibit
the grounds of these remarks,
John iii, 29. " He that hath the bride is the bride
groom." Isaiah liv. 5. " Thy maker is thy husband, the Lord of
Hosts is his name."
From these two texts thus brought together, the author
infers, that Christ is the Supreme God.
John iii. 6. " That*which is born of the Spirit"
1 John V. 4. " Whatsoever is born of God."
This is his first proof of the " divinity of the Holy
Ghost."' To prove "the trinity in unity " he quotes the
following text.
Psalm xxxiii. 6. " By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his
mouth." On this text he remarks, "the whole trinity,
therefore, created the world." Another argument for the
trinity in unity is drawn from the following collocation of
texts. Rom. vii. 25. " I myself serve the law of God."

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 185
Gal. vi. 2. " Fulfil the law of Christ."
Rom. viii, 2, " The law ofthe spirit of life."
By the same kind of reasoning might St. 'Paul be proved
to be a person in the trinity, because he says,
Rom. vii. 23, " The law of my mind,"
I will add only one example more.
John vi. 45. " They shall be all taught of God,"
Gal. i. 12. " Neither was I taught it, but by the revela
tion of Jesus Christ."
John xiv. 26.. " The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will
teach you all things."
Because teaching is here predicated of God, of Jesus
Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, it is supposed to follow, that
these three are one and the same God. Upon this princi
ple, why should not every person, who is said in the scrip
tures to teach, be considered as sustaining the same charac
ter .'' Paul and Barnabas " taught much people." Acts xi.
26. Therefore, Paul and Barnabas constitute a part of the
" trinity in unity."'*'
* This paralogistic mode of reasoning appears to have been a
very favorite one, with a certain class of writers. Mr. Burgh has
adopted it throughout his book in very close imitaffion of Jones.
In one part of the scriptures, mention is made of " the grace of
GofZ," and in another, of '¦'¦ ihe grace of the Lord Jesus Christ,"
from which Mr,. Burgh thinks it a logical inference, that " the god
head of the Father and the Son is the same." chap. iii. § 23.
Again, Paul at one time calls himself " a 5er»a«i of God," and
at another, " the servant of Jesus Christ;" therefore, Christ is the
most high God. Sec. 35. ^
The apostle speaks on a certain occasion of " minffitering the
gospel of God," and soon after adds, that he had " pteached the
gospel of Christ," It.follows, according to this new species of bib
lical logic, that " Jesus Christ is one with the Father, God."
S^c, 51,
J After these examples, and 'the extracts before made from thjs

186 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,
These extracts give a fair specimen of the general char
acter of Jones's work, so far as it regards his manner of
reasoning. To say nothing of his unaccountable perver
sion, and numerous errors of criticism, what respect can we
have for the candor or fairness of a writer, who descends
on serious subjects to such a childish play upon words, as
these specimens exhibit ? Is it possible, that the cause of
the trinity requires such a support .? And above all, is this
to be adopted as a true mode of interpreting the scriptures ?
But the doctrinal part of this book is not its worst part.
The spirit and temper with which it is written, are as dis
tant from the spirit and temper of Christ, as the doctrines
it defends are contrary to the truths he taught. Let any
one read the introduction, and the letter at the end of the
book, and see hdwmuch he will find of the mild and gentle
spirit inculcated in the gospel. Let him especially observe
in what manner the writer constantly speaks of Dr. Samuel
Clarke, the friend of Newton, and one of the most able,
writer, it is scarcely necessary to add, that he acknowledged him
self to be " altogether unread in theological disputations," p, 221,
It was most unfortunate, that his evil star should lead him to write
a book of two hundred and fifty pages, in defence of the trinity,
if he was conscious of being thus ignorant of the subject.
In reading such books as these of Jones and Burgh, one cannot
but be forcibly reminded of bishop Newton's remarks in his Dis
sertation on the Difficulties of Scripture. He speaks of men,
" who interpret scripture according to their opinions, an-d frame
not their opinions according to scripture. They quote the scripture,
and one would think they understood at least what they quote ;
but alas, ^^heir quotations they manifestly regard the bare words
more than the meaning,, and so there is but something apposite in
the sound, no m3.ttei how remote it is in the signification." See
Nisbett's Messiah, p. II.
• Another writer, who is fond of interpreting the scriptures after
the manner of Jones, is Dr. Nares of Biddenden. See his Re
marks on the Improved Version of the New Testament, p.' 221.

EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 187
learned, and pious men of the age in which he lived. In
one place he charges him with professing to " believe in
two different Gods ;" and in another, after censuring him,
with a sneer, for changing some of his religious opinions,
he says, " and to put the best .face he could upon his unbe
lief, he spent much of the remainder of his life in writing
ambiguous comments, and finding various readings, that is,
in picking holes in the Bible.'"* Such is the work, which
you seriously recommend to your readers, and to which you
refer them for religious knowledge. -f
The passages of scripture usually adduced in support of
the trinity I shall consider in the following order.
I. Those in which Christ is called, or supposed to be
called, God.
II. Those in which such properties are ascribed to him,
as it is thought could be ascribed only to God, or to a being
equal to God ; and some of those, which are believed to c'bn-
tain general progfs of the doctrine of the trinity.
I. As Jesus is sometimes called God in the scriptures, it
has been inferred, that he must be the Supreme Being.'
This might be an argument of some force, if it were not
tfue, that the sacred writers often apply the same title to
other persons. On examining the scriptures we shall dis
cover, that it was not uncommon for those, who were emi
nent for their virtues, or dignity of station, to be called
Gods. " And the Lord said unto Moses, see, I have made
thee a God unto Pharaoh." Exod. vii. 1. " Thou shalt
not revile the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."
xxii, 28, " For the Lord your God, is God of Gods,"
* Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity, New York, 1813, p. 169.
t This is the' work, which the editor of the American edition of
Festivals and Fasts says, in his usual summary way, " has put the
question, whether the djMitrinejjif the trinity be revealed in scrip
ture, beyond all further controversy." p. 224.

188 exposition of texts of scripture.
Deut. X. 17. " God standeth in the congregation of the
mighty; he judgeth among the Gods." Ps. lxxxii. 1. "I
have said ye are Gods, v. 6. " Among the Gods, there is
noSe like unto thee, O Lord." Ps. Ixxxvi. 8. " Worship
him, all ye Gods." xcvii. 7.- The word God in all these
passages means the prophets, the judges, or magistrates of
Israel, The same word is sometimes rendered judges ; as
in Exodus xxi. 6. " Then his master shall bring him
unto the judges," literally, " unto the Gods." In another
place the same word is translated angels- Psal. viii. 5.
" For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,"
or " Gods-"'* From these texts, and from many others,
which might be added, it appears, that the title which is
supposed to prove Jesus to have been the Supreme Being,
was given to Moses, the judges and magistrates of Israel,
and to angels, as well as to Christ.
¦This use of the term exactly coincides with the words of
our Saviour himself, when he says, " Is it not written in
your law, I said, ye are Gods .? If he called them Gods, unto
whom ihe word of God came, and the scripture cannot be
broken," &c. John x. 34, 35. This is a key to all the pas
sages above cited, and to all others in which the word
God is applied to any other person, than the Supreme Being.
The word of God came to Moses, the prophets, the rulers
of Israel, and in a greater or less degree to every good man.
For being thus eminently favored, they were sometimes
called Gods. With what remarkable propriety may this
application be made to the Lord Jesus .? What being has
ever appeared among men, who was so highly endowed
with every divine gift .' To no one has the word of God
' The original word is tS'init^- The passage is rendered by
ierom,paulo minus a Deo; by Aquilla and Symmachus, p^a^v ri
TTCiQa 0Eav ; and by the Seventy. /9j«^u tito^' ayyEXovg. Vid. Le
Clere, et Sept. Edit. Breit. in Loc. ^

exposition of texts of scripture. 189
come with so much power. Surely, if the prophets and
wise men of old were called Gods by way of distinction,
this title may be applied with vastly greater force and pro
priety to Christ, who -was so highly exalted above them all.
And yet, this is very far from proving him to be the Su
preme Being, any more than the other persons, who were
called gods for similar reasons.
It is also to be observed, that none of the names of the
Deity, except this one of God, is ever applied to Christ,
or to any other person. He is never called the Supreme
Being, the Most High, Jehovah, the Eternal God, the only
True God, the living God, the God of Gods, Holy God. If
he were actually the Supreme God, is it not strange, that
h& should never have been called by any of these titles .'
But the truth is, -whenever he is spoken of as God, it is in
a sense, which he himself defined, when he said, " those
are called Gods unto whom the word of God came."
A prominent text, which you bring forward in proof of
the supreme divinity of Christ, is the noted one in Isaiah
ix. 6, " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is giveif,
and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty
God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Such
are the words as you have quoted them, and as they stand
in the common version of the Bi^ile. But it was hardly to
be expected, that this text would be quoted at the present
day, without a word of comment or explanation, to let it
be knWwn, that its most important parts are at least a very
doubtful, and probably a false rendering of the original.
The prophecy in this passage undoubtedly alludes to the
Messiah, and consequently, the titles which it contains are
to be applied to him. The only question is, whether the
titles, or names, whidi were adopted by king James's trans
lators, have the same meaning, as those, which were origin-
17

190 exposition of texts op scriptore.
ally written by the prophet ? This can be ascertained only
by a critical examination into the meaning of the original
words, aided by a profound knowledge of the language in
which they were written, and of the ancient translations.
Such an examination has been repeatedly made by the most
learned men of different religious sentiments, who have al
most unanimously concurred in a result, which proves the
rendering of our common version to be more or less defec
tive. Is it dealing fairly, therefore, with those, who have
not the means of information, to represent this text, as of
undoubted authority in its present literal reading ? Should
they not, at least, be told what they are to receive with im
plicit confidence, and what with caution ? Is it justifiable
thus to confound truth with error, and to give countenance
to popular prejudice, by making the scriptures speak what
their writers never intended .'
It is not denied, that commentators have found much dif
ficulty in this text, on account of the ambiguity of some of
the Hebrew words ; yet they almost universally agree in
giving it a meaning different from the one retained in our
English version.
The application of the two first titles is sufficiently obvi
ous ; and there seems to have been very little difference of
opinion about them, except that in the judgment of some
critics they ought so to bs united, and of others, to be ta
ken separately. But whether they should be read Wonder
ful and Counsellor, or Wonderful Counsellor, is of little con
sequence in regard to the general meaning and application
of the terms. Our Saviour might justly be called wonder
ful, in the astonishing works he performed ; and a counsel
lor, or a wonderful counsellor, in the admirable system of re
ligion he has published to the world ; in its doctrines, pre
cepts, admonitions, directions, and .gromises ; giving evi-

exposition of texts of scripture. 191
dence, that he was aided, instructed, and empowered from
above. The ne.xt title, the Mighty God, is allowed to be a
false translation, although there have been various opinions
in regard to the exact import of the original. Le Clere,
who was a trinitarian, and as profound a scholar in biblical
learning, perhaps, as any other person, renders the passage
thus ; " Wonderful, Divine Counsellor, Mighty." Christ was
a divine counsellor in having derived all his counsels and
precepts from God ; he was mighty in the miracles he per
formed, and the divine powers he possessed.'*
* The principal difficulty in this passage seems to have arisen
from the doubtful meaning of the word ^jj, which is sometimes
rendered God, sometimes ruler or magistrate, and is sometimes
used in the sense of an adjective to denote excellence or distinc
tion. Adhibetur de rebus magnis in suo genere eximiis, quse He-
braeis divinse dici solent, quasi eairum vel prsestantia et magnitude
vel natura ad Deum solum auctorem referri posset, velut ^j^ "ifllS
cedri divince, ^55 ^'I'ln 'montes divini. Vid. Simon, in verb.
This latter sense is preferred by Le Clere. He unites the word
^5^ with vr^ih, consiliarius, vel consultor, and renders them con-
snltor divinus, and gives as his reason, ut intelligatur Messias futu-
rus consultor divinus, vel cujus divina essent consilia ; hoc est prae
cepta, ut revera sunt. This also agrees with'what is said of him
in Isaiah xi. 2. " The spirit of counsel and might shall rest upon
him." *
There is much suspicion that the word ^j^ was not written in
the original Hebrew, as there are no corresponding words in either
of the ancient Greek versions of the Seventy, Acquila, Symma
chus, or Theodotian. Acquila renders the clause davuasog, avfi-
|9ovP.os, its^vqag which Le Clere approves, although he seems to
think la^vqos was put for |;j5. It is perhaps more probable, that
it was intended to be the rendering of Tiaj. Vid. Clerici Cofnment.
in Loc.
Grotius takes the words in a different combination, and translates
them Consulter ofthe Mighty God, CConsultator Dei Fortis,) or, aa
he explains itj one who in all things asked counsel of God, Al-

192 FXFOSITION OF texts OF SCRIPTURE.
The fourth title. Everlasting Father, is translated by
bishop Lowth, " the Father of the everlasting age," and by
Grotius, " Father of the future age," or "ofthe age to come."
This was strictly appropriate to Christ. He was the foun
der of a new dispensation, and of a pure and holy religion.
He was the head of the church, and came to bestow the
means of salvation on mankind, and to confer inestimable
benefits, which should continue through all ages.*
The application of the last title no one can mistake. He
was eminently the Prince of Peace in giving a religion to the
world, whose direct tendency is to promote peace among
men. Such are the renderings, -which the most able critics have
given of thjs text. They are such as the original easily re
ceives, and such as are peculiarly applicable to the character
of Christ, as it was exhibited in his life and religion. The
text, thus explained, gives no support to the doctrine of the
supreme divinity of Christ, and contains nothing more than
several titles and epithets prophetically applied to him, and
expressive of the character, which he actually sustained.
The translation may be expressed in the following terms.
though the words may bear this construction, it does not seem to
be so natural as the other.
*The original words -jj> 155^ literally translated mean, Father of
the Age. They are rendered by Le Clere, Pattr perpetuus, because,
as he says, Christ is the perpetual or everlasting father of all, who
shall believe in his religion.
Grotius translates them, Pater futuri seculi, and adds, Pater se-
cuU est qui multos post se relicturus sit posteros, et in longum tem
pus. This/atare ffi^e is the christian dispensation. Christ was the
father of this dispensation, in as much as it was established through
his instrumentality, by the exercise of such powers as vvere com
municated to him by Jehovah, and also to his apostles in such a de
gree as to convince men of its truth and authority. Vid. Grot.
Annotat. in Vet. Test. Tom. ii p. 18.
-I

exposition of texts of SCRIPTURE. 193
"- And his name shall be called Wonderful, Divine Counsel
lor, Mighty, Father of the age to come, Prince of Peace."
These results are drawn, it must be remembered, from the
critical expositions of trinitarians.
Even admitting the received translation to be correct, it
does not prove Christ to be the Supreme God. We have
abeady seen, that the title God was often applied to other
persons by way of distinction besides Christ, even to all to
" whom the word of God came." It may certainly be giv
en, therefore, with great propriety to him, who was appoint
ed a special messenger of the counsels and will of Jehovah,
and who is " exalted above all principality, and power, and
might, and .dominion." Hence, if the name be ^anslated
God, it cannot be accounted a proof of the supreme divinity
of Christ. But I do not wish to vindicate this rendering, as
the voicei of criticism is decidedly against it.*
Another text, which you cite, is John i. 1. " In the be
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God."
Before we can have any just conceptions ofthe meaning
of this text, or of the introduction to St. John's gospel, we
must know in what sense he used the term Logos, or Word.
This term has more than thirty distinct significations in the
New Testam,ent, and it is obvious, that we cannot interpret
'"¦>#
*In this text the learned Dr, Owen found an argument for the
HTPOSTATICAL UNios. " That the Same person," says he, " should
be the mighty God, and a child horn, is neither conceivable nor pos
sible^, nor can be true, but by the union ofthe divine and human na
tures in the same person," Declaration of the Glorious Mystery
of th^ Person of Christ, GoeL^nd Man, p. 290, 298.
This is the way men reason and build up doctrines, when, as
bishop Newton says, "they. regard the bare loords more than the
meaning." They attach meanings to w'brds, which are inconceiv
able and impossible, and then invent a scheme to make them con
ceivable, possible, and true.

194 exposition of texts of scripture.
any passage in which it is contained; without first fixing its
meaning as it is used in that place. We cannot understand
language, if we do not know the meaning of the words of
which it is composed.
The best mode, perhaps, of ascertaining in what sense the
evangelists used fhe word, is to inquire for what purpose he
wrote his gospel. He tells us, that one of his principle de
signs in writing was to prove, that " Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of the living God." From this declaration, the opin
ion would seem to have prevailed in those times, that Jesus
was not the Christ ; and from many passages in St. John's
gospel we are led to believe, that it was a special purpose
with him to correct this ani^other errors, respecting the na
ture and person of Christ. If we can ascertain what these
errors were, and also what connexion they had with the
prevalent doctrine of the Logos, we shall have some clue to
the true interpretation of this passage.
The Platonic philosophy was at this time very prevalent
in those countries, where the christian religion was preach
ed. It was the doctrine of this philosophy, that the Su
preme Being did not create the world, but assigned this
work to a subordinate being, whom fhe Platonists called
Logos. Philo, and the Alexandrian Jews, who embraced
this philosophy, perceiving some analogy between this use
of the term, and those passages of the Old'Testament, in
which the Word, or Logos, is personified, fell easily into the-
belief, that the term there used denoted some being. Per
sonal properties are bften attributed in the Old Testament
to the word of God. " By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made." The Word of the Lord is said to come,
to speak, to go, "His Word rwwne^ft very swiftly." It
¦svas hence inferred, that the Word of God, so often men- *

exposition op texts op scripture. 195
tioned in the Old Testament, was a being distinct from God,
and the same as the Kogos of Plato.*
Another opinion somewhat analogous to this, in many
respects, had its origin in the Oriental philosophy. Those
who embraced this system were called Gnostics, They
maintained, that there was but one Supreme Mind, but from
this was derived, by a sort of emanation, a vast number of
•» Before St. John wrote his gospel, Philo had written largely on
the Platonic philosophy. As he was a Jew, and well versed in
the philosophy of the east, he seems to have combined some ofthe
peculiarities of these two systems. He has a great deal to say about
the Logos, and what is particularly worthy of observation, he per
sonifies it under different characiters, and applies it sometimes to
men, sometimes to angels, and at others to God himself.
Eum Q.oyov) aqx^YY^^-^'^ Philo nominat. Vid. Kuinoel. Prolego-
mera ad, Evang. lohan, §7; De J.oym lohannis. Philo omnes Dei
oratores, ettegatos vocare solet^.oyous. RosenmuU. Schol. in Johan.
chap. i. V. 1.
As it was common in the time of St. John to personify the Logos,
and apply it as a name to persons or beings sustaining different char
acters, he did not depart from the customary use of language in
employing the word after a similar manner.
There are many instances of this personification in the gospels
and epistles. " He that rejecteth me, and receivith not my words,
hath one that judgeth him ; the word (Logos) which I have spoken,
the same s\^^udge him in the last day." John xii. 48. Here the
Logos'is made a judge. " The Logos of God is quick and powerful,"
or more properly, "alive and active." Heb. iv. 12. " The word
(Logos) which God sentunto the children of\sxa.e\,preachin ; peace
by Jesus Christ; he (this Logos) is lord over all." Acts x. 36.
Here the Logos is said <to preach, and to be lord over all. In all
these places Logos evidently means the gospel, or the christian doc
trine; but still, it is repre^Sited as a person. For other examples,
and a comparison between fhe use of the word by Philo, and the
writers ofthe New Testame»t,see Jones's Ecclesiastical Researches,
chap, vi.

196 exposition of texts of scripture.
subordinate intelligences, or .3ilons, of various orders. To
one of these beings they gave the name of Logos.*
.Out of these notions sprang up many errors in regard to
the nature and character of Christ. The Gentile converts,
who were generally Platonists, delighted in discovering re
semblances between their philosophy and the christian reli
gion, and among others they fancied Christ to be an inter
mediate being, and the same as their Logos.
For a similar reason the Gnostics believed Christ to be
one of the highest orders of ^Eons ; and, as it was a doc
trine of this sect, that matter was the source of evil, they
rejected the humanity of Christ, alleging that no pure intel
ligence, like him, could possibly be confined in so unworthy
and contaminating a habitation as a corporeal body. They
maintained, that his visible body was a phantom, and that
he died and arose from the dead only in appearance.
The errors ofthe Cerinthians, a sect of considerable note in
the first century, seem to have taken their rise in these false
notions of the Logos, and of intermediate beings. They
taught, that Christ, and Jesus, were two distinct beings, or
persons. They supposed Christ to be an Mon, or emanation
from the Supreme Being, who descended upon Jesus in the
form of a dove at the time of his baptism. Before this
union, they supposed Jesus to have been nothing more than
* There are also strong evidences, in many parts of St. John's
gospel, drawn from other circumstances besides what he says of
the Logos, that he often had in view the Gnostics. He uses many
of the terms, whioh had become technical in their philosophy, and
probably to correct the errors, to which they had given currency
by an improper use of them. Among .these terms are fiaroyEytif,
^aQtg, ^0)71, (ptag, a?.j]Q£ia, n^.y^ow^id. Kuinoel. Prolegom. § 5. De
Consilio J ohanni in scribendis Comment, proposito. There can be
little doubt, that in some places at least, he used the words Liaht
and Life with this applicatton. Jones's Ecclesiastical Researchesf
chap, xviii.

exposition of texts of scripture. 197
a common man. When he was taken to be crucified, the
divine being, called Christ, left him, and the man Jesus only
died and rose from the dead.*
Such were the opinions concerning the Logos, and such
the errors which were srowins out of them at the time when
St. Jo^n wrote. To one or other of these philosophical
sects, it must be remembered, almost all the early christian
converts belo'nged before their conversion. The apostle must,
therefore, have considered it a matter of the utmost impoi-
tance to purify a fountain, which threatened to contaminate
and poison the whole scheme of christian doctrine. If this
system were pursued, Christianity was likely to become in
grafted into the wildest systems of heathanism. The root
of the difficulty lay in the ideal and false 'notions, which
prevailed respecting the personal existence of the Logos,
acting in the character of an intermediate beino;,distinct from
God and from men. There can be little doubt, that the
principal purpose of St. John, in what he has said of the
Logos, 'was to remove this difficulty, and to clear up a sub
ject, which the unnatural mixture of heathen philosophy
with Christianity had tended to perplex and obscure.
If we keep these things in mind, it will not be difficult to
perceive what he designed to teach in his doctrine of the
Logos. We may not be ahle to give an exact definition of
the term, as it was understood by him, because it may have
been used to express ideas of the Deity, some of which
have since passed away with the controversies of those
times ; yet we can hardly mistake its general application,
or the object of the writer. He would show, that the
Logos is not a person,M bemg, and yet it is something,
which is with God, and which may be called God. It fol
lows, that it must designate some quality, or qualitifes of
the Deity, which have always resided in him, by which he
* Vid. Irena3i. adv. Haeres, lib. iii c. 12. ut cit. in Kuinoel. Pro
legom. § 5.

198 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
has created all things, by which he still manifets himself in
his works, — such qualities, in short, as make him the Su
preme God. It is not of so much importance what name
we give to these qualities, if we only retain a correct idea
of their nature. Perhaps we shall not deviate far from tlie
true signification of the word Logos, as used by the evan
gelist, if we suppose it to denote the power of the Deity
acting under the guidance of his wisdom^
• With this signification of the term, the interpretation of
the first part of John's gospel is natural and easy. In the
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was wiih God ; that
is, the power of God, aided in its operations by divine
wisdom, has been with God from the beginning, or always.
It is not a being] which emanated from the Deity, and which
exists in a state separate from him. And the Logos was God;
the qualities of the Deity denoted by the Logos are essential
to his character as God, and not to be considered as consti
tuting any other being. The same was in the beginning unth
God. All things were made by him ; and without him was
not any thing made that was made. By the power and wis
dom of God was every thing created, and without the ex
ercise of this power, and the guidance of this wisdom, was
not any thing originally made. This was probably said in
allusion to the doctrine ofthe Platonists, who believed the
creation to have been the work of a subordinate agent.
It thus appears, that this passage, instead of proving
Christ to be the same as God, ora person equal to God, was
actually intended to show, that there was no such interme
diate being, as was designated by the different sects of that
period under the name Logos .^ The work of creation, which
they assigned to this imaginary being, had no other origin
than the power and wisdom of God. When this position
was established, the errors ofthe Platonists and Gnostics, in
regard to the character of Christ, would fall of course, be
cause they were built on the supposition of the personal ex-

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 199
istence of the Logos. When the evangelist says, near the
close of his gospel, that he has written to prove, " that
Jesus is the Christ," he obviously alludes to the sect of
Cerinthians, by whom this was denied.
^t is to be observed, also, that if in this passage he in
tended to declare Christ to be God, it is very strange that
he should say one object of his writing was to prove him to
' be the Son 'of God. Moreover, if by the Logos here we
are to understand the person of Chi;ist, how could it be said
to be from the beginning with God, and to be God, unless
there wer-e from the beginning two distinct Deities, and that
these two were one .' No mode of explanation, which
makes the Logos a person existing from eternity, can be free
from this inconsistency and contradiction.*
Luke i. 16, 17. " And many of the children of Israel
shall he turn to the Lord their God ; and he shall go before
him in the spirit and power of Elias,"
It is said, that by " the Lord their God" in this place is
meant Christ ; but there is nothing in the passage itself, nor
in any part of the message ofthe angel to Zacharias, from
which such an inference can with any propriety be made.
To go before God means to walk in his presence, or Ms sight,
and is a common phraseology in the New Testament, |
* For a lucid and comprehensive view of this subject, see pro
fessor Nortons's Statement of Reasons, &c. p, 55. Kuinoel, in his
Prolegomena to the gospel of St. John, brings together the various
opinions, which have been entertained concerning the Logos, and
the design ofthe evangelist in writing his gospel. Priestly 's Hist.
of Early opinions, vol. i. and ii. Book 2, chap.i. Lindsey's Sequel,
p. 129. Clerici Adnotationes in Johan. cap. i.
t The phrase Evm^iev 0e(^ii often occurs, and it almost universally
means in the presence of Go£, or in the sight of God. " For he shall
be great (trmrciov ©sou) in the sight of the Lord." Luke i. 15.
The most prominent significatioh of'7c^oE'Q;(ouat is to advance, to
proceed, (vid. Heder. in voc.) and it is used in this sense, Matth.
xxvi. 39. Mark xiv. 35. Acts xii. 10. Wakefield renders the pas
sage, " And he will lead the way in the sight of God."

200

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.

John XX. 28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him,
my Lord, and my God." There have been different opin
ions on this text. Some have supposed that Thomas meant
to address Christ as the Supreme God ; others, that his
language was only an exclamation expressing his surprise
on finding that Christ had in reality risen from the dead,
which, a short time before, he had declared he could not
believe. It is thought by others, that the address was
made directly to Christ, but not in the character of the Su
preme Being. In the midst of his surprise at the wonder
ful event, which had happened, and ofthe reality of which
he was convinced by the sudden appearance of Christ,
Thomas addressed him in the exclamation contained in the
text. He was his Lord and his God, in the same sense
as the Jewish magistrates were Lords and Gods over those,
whom they instructed and governed ; and in the same sense
which Peter would convey, when he said to the Jews,
" God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,
both Lord and Chirst.* '
It was not the office of John the Baptist to turn men lo Christ,
but to God, whose counsels and laws they had forsaken ; and to
prepare them for receiving the religion, which he was about to
communicate through his Son. " They greatly err," says Wolzo-
gen, " who suppose John was to turn the people to Christ, and
hence infer, that he is the Supreme God. They could not be turned
to Christ, because they had not forsaken or receded from him; but
it was important that they should be turned to God, that they might
be the better prepared to have failh in Christ." Vid. Wolzog. Com
ment, in Loc. Opera, Tom. i. p. 525
* This last mode of interpretation is adopted by Slichtingius,
Crellius, Kuinoel, and RosenmuUer. See their Commentaries (n
this text. Dr. Carpenter gives a similar explanation, and con
siders Thomas as expressing his conviction of the divine authority
of Jesus, which he had before doubted. Carpenter's View, &c.
p. 149.
Dr. Kenrick thinks the words of Thomas were only an excla
mation, " the effect of sudden surprise and astonishment, to find

EXPOSITION OP 'TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 201
Slichtingius has well observed, that the r-greaf surprise
manifested by Thomas on this occasion, instead of affording
any proof of the general belief of the apostles in the proper
deity of Christ, is a strong argument to the contrary. Had
Thomas believed Christ to be God, it could give him no
surprise to know, that he had risen from the dead. He must
have supposed that all things were possible with him, and
when he was convinced of the remarkable fact of his resur
rection, he could feel no astonishmeint.
It has been remarked by Grotius, bishop Pearce, and
others, that this is the only instance in which Christ is ad
dressed by any of his disciples under the title of God. In
this fact, every one should see a strong presumptive argu
ment, that Thomas in this place did not intend to address
him as the eternal God ; especially, since th'e words will re
ceive, without force to the language, an interpretation, per
fectly consistent with every other part ofthe scriptures. If
the disciples believed Christ to be God, why had they
never called him so before, when they saw his miracles and
astonishing works, which could only be done.: by a divine
agency ,'
Acts XX. 28. " Take heed, therefore, unto youfselves,
and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit hath made
you overseers, to feed .the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood."
This text was formerly considered very strong in favor
of the deity of Christ, but it seems now to be very general-
the person, whom he felt and handled, to be raised from the dead."
Exposition, vol. ii. p. 610. This was the opinion of Wolzogen,
Dr. Lardner, Dr. Whitby, Mr. Lindsey, and also of archbishop
Neweome, if we may judge from his note on the passage in his
Translation ofthe New Testament.
Bishop Pearce paraphrases it, " I own thee now to be Jesus the
Christ, and os such my Lord and my God." Comment, in loc.
18

202 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
ly given up by all learned trinitarians. No question re
mains, that the present rendering, church of God, is incor
rect. Kuinoel says, " the true reacfing, beyond all doubt,
is church of the Lord, and this has been adopted by Grotius,
Wetstein, Le Clere, Griesbach, and all the most skilful crit
ics of the present age."* Some manuscripts read Christ,
but there is much the highest authority for Lord. The
idea of the blood of God is so shocking, that it must be
grateful to every breast^ that the received translation of this
text, the only one in scripture in which such an idea is ad
vanced, should be found to be so entirely without founda
tion.! Rom. ix. 5. " Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as
* Comment, in Act. Apostol. p. 679.
t After the most laborious researches, Griesbach says, the read
ing of d-Eoy (God) is not supported by a single ancient or valuable
manuscript; and concludes, Quas omnia cum ita sint, non possu
mus ceteris lectionibus non prasferre xvqiov. See the note to this
text in his second edition. — Also Le Clerc's Ars Crit. vol. ii. p.
93, et Adnot. in loc. — Vero lectio videtur esse rov y.v^tov. Rosen
mul. inloc. — Morus, after a comparison of various authorities, comes
to the same conclusion, although he loses no opportunity in other
places to support the deity of Christ. Vid. Mori Versionem et
Explicatiouem Act. Apost. p. 515. Even Dr. Nares admits the same,
although with no apparent good will. Remarks on tne Improved
Version of the New Testament, second edit. p. 220.
Bishop Pearce adopts the same reading in his commentary on
this passage, and archbishop Newcome has received it into his
text. It is remarkable enough, that modern trinitarians have defended,
as part of scripture, a form of language, which Athanasius him
self condemned as an invention of the Arians. " Our scriptures,"
says he, " no where mention the blood of God. Such daring ex
pressions belong only to Arians." Ovda^uov 6e al^a 6eov xa&' iiitag
TitxQadEdoiy.aaLv at yQatpat, ^QEiavuv ra roiavra ToA,H)yuaTa, Atha
nas. cent. Apollin. apud Wetsten. in loc.

EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 203
concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God
blessed for ever."
These words-wdmit of different interpretations by varying
the punctuation. They may be pointed ss follows ; " of
whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all. God be blessed for ever." Christ is over all things
by the appointment of the Father, as it is expressed in 1
Cor. XV. 27. " He hath put all things under his feet. But
when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest
that HE is excepted, Avhich did put all things under him."
Thia text is a decisive proof, that whatever»dignity Christ
possessed by the appointment of the Father, it is very far
from making him equal with God.
Others prefer a different punctuation, and translate the
passage as follows ; " He, who is over all, God, be blessed
for ever," or " God, who is over all, be blessed for ever,"
This is the translation of Mr, Iiocke.* Either of these
renderings is admissible, and when it is understood, that
the original was written without any punctuatioii, it will
be seen, that no improper liberty is taken in making this
conform to what is conceived to be the general sense of the
passage. This is the only rule, in fact, which can be fol
lowed. If Christ were intended to be called God in this place,
there is one reason in the passage itself, why the title can
not denote the Supreme God. He is spoken of as having
descended from the Jews according to the flesh, and in this
character, even according to the trinitarian hypothesis, he
certainly could not be considered God the Father.
The apostle is here enumerating the privileges of the
Jews, one of which was, that they were descended from
the patriarchs, and another, that the Messiah had arisen in
¦,*
«* See Locke's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul,
p. 373, Wetstein inclines to the same interpretation. Vid. in loc.

204 EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
their nation. For these privileges, by which, through di
vine favor, they had been so remarkably distinguished, God,
the author of all, was to be blessed for ever.*
1 Tim. iii. 16. " And without controversy great is the
mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh, justi
fied in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gen
tiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Instead of God in this text, a great number of manu
scripts of the highest authority read he who, and several
others of less value read ivhich. According to this last
reading the sense will be, great is the mystery of godliness,
WHICH was manifest in the flesh. This is preferred by many
trinitarian writers, as well as others.
But since the learned and laborious researches of Gries
bach, the second reading has been the most generally adopt
ed by critics. After patiently examining and comparing
all the manuscripts and authorities, which are considered of
any value, he says, that those laws of criticism, which have
been established by the common consent of the most learn
ed critics, require the reading in this place to be who, or he
who.'\ In conformity with this result he has inserted it
into his text ; and although archbishop Newcome does not
-* Dr. Taylor supposes the whole to relate to the privileges ofthe
Jews, and as it was one of their greatest privileges, that God was
peculiarly their God, he prefers the following translation ; " Whose
are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh is Chiist,
whose is the God over all blessed for ever.'' Note in loc. The con
nexion and sense here are extremely natural, and although this
translation is founded on the conjectural emendation of Slichtin
gius, {iiv 6 for 0 wi) it is by no means improbable, that it may be the
true one. Vid. Slicht. Comment, in loc. Mr. Jones agrees with
Dr. Taylor. See Analysis of the Epistles to the Romans, p. 114,
t Postulabant enim hoc leges criticEE — quasdoctissimi critici suo
assensu comprobarunt. Vid. Not. in loc, edit, secund, ,

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 205
introduce it into his translation, he has placed it in the
margin.* ^ . .
Thus corrected, the passage may be explained as follo-vvs ;
Great is the mystery of godliness. He who was manifest in
the flesh ; that is, who dwelt among men, humbled himself,
and submitted to the sufferings incident to human life ; — .
was justified by the spirit ;'f was vindicated in declaring him
self to be the Messiah sent from God, by the gifts of the
Holy Spirit, which he possessed in'so high a degree, and
which were conferred so abundantly on many of his fol
lowers ; — teas seen of angels, or messengers i'l of those per-
" "All the old versions, "*says Doct. Clarke, (Doct. of Trin. No.
88, 89,) " have who or which. And all the ancient fathers, though
the copies of many of them have itnow in the text itself ©so;, God;
yet from the tenor of their comments upon it, and from their never
citing it in the Arian controversy ,.it appeara that they always read
it OS, who, or o, which." See Improv, Vers, fourth edition, note.
t RosenmuUer has remarkesi, that spirit here may signify the
christian doctrine, as in other places. In this case it would mean,
that the nature of this doctrine, and its success among men, justify
Christ in professing himself to be the Son of God. Rosenmul. in
loc. et Schleusn. in verb. nvEvu. 17.
The proper rendering is by, and not in the spirit, as the context
plainly indicates. By a Hebraism, tr is put for Sia per. Vorstius
de Hebrais. cap, xiv.§ 4.
X The same word, which is here rendered angels, is often trans
lated messengers, which is evidently its meaning in this place. John
the Baptist is called an angel or messenger. Luke vii, 27. " Be
hold, I send my messenger l^ayyEXov fiov, rHy angel,) before thy
face." ix. 52. Jesus "sent messengers (a>.l3?.mje angels) before
his face ; and they went and entered into a city of Samaria to make
ready for him." On this part of the text, Macknight remarks as
follows, — " Was seen of angels, that is, of the apostles, and of the
other witnesses, who were appointed to publish and testify his res-
surrection to the world " Aliis a!.XEyoi hoc loco sunt apostoU; illis
enim Christus in vitam redux ssepius apparuit, ut essent testes res-
urrectionis. Rosenmul. 18*

206 .EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
sons, who were to be the messengers of his gospel, and to
bear witness to the truth of his resurrection j — was preach
ed to the Gentiles; his religion was promulgated among
all nations. Gentiles -as well as Jews. ; — was believed on in
,|^e world; his doctrine was embraced, and he was believed
to be the Messiah ; — was received up in glory ; his ascen
sion was marked with manifestations of glory,*
The sense of the text will be the same, if the present
reading be retained, provided the word God he consid
ered a; title of Christ in a sense, in which we have already
seen it is frequently used. But if you suppose this title to
denote the Supreme Being, it wilj^be impossible to give any
consistent or rational explanation of the passage. How can
the eternal God, who is every where present, i>e said to re
side in a human body ? The being, who is here mentioned,
bad been raised from the dead ; but how can such language
be applied to the living God,, " who only hath immortality .'"
How could the Almighty Father, " Who dwelleth in light
inaccessible," be " received up in glory }" Such are the
inconsistences of this text, if you attempt to interpret it
on the supposition, that the being of whom it speaks is the
Supreme God, j„ And since those principles of interpreta
tion, by which we determine the true reading of any part
of scripture, do not warrant such a supposition, and the
sense of the text is decidedly against it, why should it be
admitted ?
Heb. i. 8. " Bi*t unto the Son he saith. Thy throne, 0
•God, is forever and ever."
This is a quotation from the Psalms, (Ps. xlv. 6.) in
which place it is supposed by many to have been applied
bythe Psalmist to Solomon. Such was the opinion of arch-
* The original is ei Sogrj., in or with glory. Receptus est in gloria,
id est cum gloria, seu gloriose, per Hebraismum in ^ro cum posito,
Crellii Comment, Tom, ii. p. 19.

EXPIOSTION OF TE:!W^S OF SCRIPTURE. > 207
bishop Newcome. But of whatever person it may ' have
been spoken in the Psalms, it is evidently quoted here in
reference to Christ, and we are told by Wetstein, that it was
generally understood by the Jews to relate to the Messiah.
Yet the Jews never expected • their Messiah to be the Su- ,
preme God, and it is evident, that the apostle. does not in- 1
tend to signify, by this quotation, the nature of Christ, but
the dignity of his office. For in the very next verse he
speaks of God, as a .distinct being frdhi Christ. " Thou hast
loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even
THY God, hath anointed thee yith the oil of gladness above
thy fellows." If we apply the first part of the quotation to
Chrjst, we must apply this likewise. But here he is said
to have beep annointed by his god ; and he could not him
self be the 'same God by whom he was anointed. If he is
intended, therefore, in. this text to be called God, it must be
in an inferior sense ; unless there are two Gods, and these
two are one.
It has been further observed by Grotius, Erasmus, Clarke,
" and others, that both the Hebrew and Greek of this pass4|e
admit a different translation. The grammatical construction
of both these languages wquld seem to require it to be ren
dered as follows ; " But concerning the S^ he saith, God
is thy throne for ever and ever;" that is, God is the support
of thy kingdom. Tliis explanation, perhaps, is preferable
to the other, but it cannot with any consistency Be argued
from either of them, that Christ is the eternal God.*
2 Peter, i. 1. " Through the righteousness of God, and
our Saviour Jesus Christ.".
f You do not quote this text from the Bible, but from Jones
».
* " But concerning the Son," (n^og rov vtov.) Lindsey's 'Seq.pv
207. "But of the Son." Waljefield. See also Vigler De Gra;c.
Diet. Idiotismis, c. ix. § 8. De Prsep regos. *
'0 d^ovogaov 6 Qtog gig tov aitava TOf aiitn'og, Septuag.

208 'EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,
on* the trinity, and according to the following arrangement,
namely, " Through the righteousness of our God and Sa
viour Jesus Christ." You have not told your readers, why
you choose to deviate thus from the English* translation.
Although in the original there is an ambiguity in a few texts
similar to this, and some room for doubt respecting the po
sition and force of the Greek article ; yet in the present in
stance there seems to be no possibility of being misled.
The words which follow are so explicit, as not to admit of
any uncertainty in the interpretation. " Grace and peace
be multiplied unto you, through the knowledge of God, and
of Jesus our Lord." v. 2. Are not God and the Saviour
spoken of here as two distinct beings .' And why should -we
desire to force the words of the first verse into a meaning,
which is in direct contradiction to the plain sense of the se
cond .' ¦ - *
It is no part of my design to enter into the tangled con
troversy about the Greek article. If the doctrine of the
trinity, or of the unity, be suspended by so slender a thread
as this, we may as well let it break at once, as attempt to
strengthen it. To write books about the construction of
one or two Greek letters, in half a dozen texts of the New
Testament, andfo marshal out arguments from this construc
tion in support ofthe proper deity of Christ, must show a la
mentable want of evidence from more certain and more valu
able source?. Such a course could never have been taken,
except as a last resort. When we recollect, especially, how
innumerable have been the blunders and emissions of trans
cribers, both accidental and designed, and how likely these
would be to occur in the use of the article, we cannot but
wonder, that men should waste their time, and torture their
invention, in building up arguments with materials so shad
owy .and fragile. The inquiry, as a branch of criticism, is
not without value. Its results may serve to illustrate points

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 209
of minor consideration, and aid in settling correct principles
of criticism ; but when an important doctrine of christian
faith is propped up by them, it may indeed be said to have
a feeble support.
It is furtheimore undeniable, that every passage, in which ,
the construction of the article is supposed to be an argument '
in favor of the trinity, is in the original ambiguous. With
out deviating from grammatical strictness, it will admit ofa
different interpretation. Take for example Tit, ii. 13,
" The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour
Jesus Christ." It stands thus in our common version, but
it is not denied, that the grammatical construction will allow
it to be rendered in the following manner ; " the glorious ap
pearing of our great God, and Saviour Jesus Christ," In
several texts there is a similar ambiguity. But after all,
there -is no danger of mistaking the sense. It may justly be
doubted, whether in a single passage of this description,
grammatically rendered, any person, who had not been bias
ed by previous impressions, could be led for a moment to
suspect from them, that Jesus and God are one and the same
being. It wqjild never occur to him, that the two names
were not intended to represent two beings. Ev,fry just
rule of interpretation would require us to explain such am
biguous passages, according to the plain sense of other parts
of scripture ; and since we a^e told in terms, which do not
admit of but one meaning, that there is one Lord, and one
God and Father of all, and that this God is the God of our
Lord Jesus Christ, we do great violence to the scriptures
when we make ambiguous phrases speak a contrary lan
guage, and attempt to show, that our Lord Jesus Christ is
himself the same being, whom he expressly cdls Ms God.*
*For an able reply .to Mr. Granville Sharp's Remarks on the
<Greek Article, see the Rev. Calvin 'Wiiffitanley's Vindication of •

210 EXPOSITION OF TBtSTS OF SCRIPTURE.
1 John V. 20. " 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 his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eter
nal life." .
It has been said, that the last clause of this text refers to
Jesus Christ, and that he is here called the true God, But
such a conclusion must be drawn from an extremely super
ficial view of the text itself. Christ is here characterized
as the son of the true God, and until it can be made out,
that the Father and the Son are the same individual being,
no words can more clearly express a distinction between
them than these. Compare this text with another, in which
is contained a similar construction. " For many deceivers
are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus is
come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
2. John, ver, 7, The same rule of interpretation, which, in
the former text, will make Jesus to be the true God, will
here make him to be " a deceiver and an antichrist." But
if you allow the last clause in each to refer to the remote,
and not the immediate antecedent, the meaning will be ob
vious. , The true Godis he " that is true," that is, God the
Father, and not " his Son Jesus Christ ;" in the same way
as the deceiver is he, who does " not confess, that Jesus
Christ is come in the fles^." Instead of containing any
thing favorable to the opinion, that Christ is the Supreme
God, this text is actualy an argument to the contrary, as it
speaks of them as two distinct beings, calling one " the true
God," and the other " the Son of God."*
certain Passages in the common English Version of the New Tes
tament; first American edition, printed at Cambridge, 1819, with
an Appendix containing Jlemarks on Dr. Middleton's Treatise. .,
*.In the criticism of Slichtingius on this text, he says, " It is worf-
derful, that christians should acknowledge the true God, mentioned

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, 211
I have thus considered all the texts in which it is gene
rally supposed Christ is' called God, I have said nothing of
Matt, i, 23, because the name Emanuel in this text is now
usually allowed to be a prophetic title, expressive of the
character, and not of the nature of Christ, This ,name was
given by the prophet in conformity with the Hebrew custom
of giving names, Adonijah means, my Lord is Jehovah ;
JJ/i/w, my God himself ; Elijah, God the Lord, There is
no more reason for inferring, that Christ was the eternal
God, because Emanuel, the name by which the prophet said
he should be called, means God with Us, than there is for
believing Elijah to have been the eternal God, because his
name means God the Lord, This title was expressive of
in this place, to be God the Father, and at the same time be so in
consistent as to insist, that the pronoun this refers to Jesus Christ,
the Son of the true God. More especially, since we know, that
John has again and again distinguished Jesus Christ from the true
God, as emphatically as he could distinguish a son from his father.
These christians say, that this true God is at the same time both
Father and Son. But since God can be only one, it follows, if he
is both Father and Son, that he is Father of himself, and Son of
himself. They deny this consequence, and say, that although the
true God can be only one, yet he consists ofa plurality of persons,
one of which is the Father, and the otheir the Son. They, who say
these things, manifestly contradict themselves, ana it would be in
vain to dispute with persons, who have so little regard for the first
principles of the understanding. I would sooner pray God to give
them a sound mind, than attempt to disp^ite with them." Slicht-
ing. Comment. Tom. ii. p. 417.
A part of the text might be more correctly rendered in the fol
lowing words, " We are in him, that is true, through his Son Jesus
Christ.'' Particula iw ponitur pro per. Slicht. — Ev -pro dia. Vi
gor. De Idiotismis, p. 610. For a similar use of this preposition,
see Rom. x, 8, 9. Eph. iii. 21. Coll. i. 16.
For other examples in which the relaitive is not referred to the
nearest antecedent, see Act. vii. 19. x. 6. 2 Thess. ii. 8, 9. ^

212 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
the character of Christ, as in him God was manifest on
earth in a remarkable manner by his wisdom and power.
I have not mentioned 1 John iii. 16, because the words,
of God, are added by the translators. I would only remark
on this text, that it shows with what prepossessions king
James's translators engaged in their important undertaking,
and the necessity of receiving their translation with great
caution in any case of doubt or difficulty. They have here
added a word, which gives a totally different meaning to
the text, and have acknowledged, by putting it in italics,
that it is not authorized by the original. If they were so
much warped by system and previous opinions, as to de
viate so glaringly from the original in one instance, we
cannot be surprised to find a similar tendency in many
others.'* In examining these texts we find there is not one, in
which it is absolutely certain, that the title God is applied
to Christ. And it may be said, without fear of contradiction,
that in whatever sense this title is used, it is never so
connected with Christ, as to warrant the inference, by
any just principles of interpretation, that he is the Su
preme God. And it is worthy of remark, that several of
the most learned and eminent trinitaiians have given such
explanations to the texts' here considered, as are conforma-
' ble to the unitarian interpretation.
Is it not a little singular, t;hat almost every text, in which
it is supposed Christ is directly called God, should be of so
doubtful a character .? Does it not give room for suspicion,
that these texts, in their present form, are by no means the
purest in the scriptures } How should it happen, that those
* The word Ssow of God, is not admitted into the text either by
Mill, Wetstein, Bengel, or Griesbach. It is found in one manu
script only, in the Complut. edit, and Vulgate. Vid. Wetstein and
Griesbach.

EXPOSITION OP" TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 213
passages, which are thought to be strongest in favor of the
trinity, have actually the least certainty in regard to their
original construction, and are the least definite in their
meaning of any others in the whole Bible .? There is one
mode, and only one, of explaining this fact. The texFs
themselves have been mutilated and deformed by being
pressedi, from time to time, into a service for which they
were not originally qualified. But there is enough of their
primitive simplicity still left, to enable us to detect their fac
titious and unnatural parts, and to discover a meaning in
them honorable to God, and to the Saviour, and conforma
ble to the plain sense of scripture,
II, I am next to consider some of the principal passages,
in which such properties or powers are ascribed to Christ,
as it is though could be ascribed onlji to God, or to a being
equal to God ; and also some otherfe, -which are believed to
contain general proofs of the doctrine of the trinity,
John X. 30. " I and my Father are one."
In another place our Lord explains in' what sense he is to
be understood, as being one with the Father, i- In a prayer
for his discfples, he says, " Holy Father, keep, through
thine own name, those -n^hom thou hast given me, that they
may be one, as wehare. ISreither pray 1 for these alone, but
for them also, which shall believe on me through their
word ; that they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in
me and I in thee, that thej' Eilso may be one in us ; that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory,
which thou gavest me, I have given them, that they may be
ONE, even as we are oine," John xvii. 11, 20. After read
ing these texts, if is not possible to mistake his meaning
when he said, "I and my .Father are one.""- They were
one, as he and his disciples, were one, and as all christians
are one. They were united in counsel, and purposa, and
acted in concert. Christ did " what h^saw the Father do."
19

214 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
If this text prove Christ to be God, the others prove the
same of his disciples.'*
Philip, ii. 6. " Who, being in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with God."
' Before we seek for an explanation of this text, it is neces
sary to know the object of the apostle, in writing the pas
sage from which it is taken. If we examine the prgceding
and following verses, we shall learn, that he is enjoining on
the Philippians the virtue of humility, and to make his in
junctions the more effectual, he reminds them of the Sam
ple of Christ. It is obvious, therefore, that the text must
have a sense, which is in conformity with this object, and
which is indicative of the humility and not ofthe exaltation
of Christ.
This text most trinitarians think a decided proof of the
deity of Christ. But if this opinion were correct, what
force or meaning would there be in the apostle's language }
Christ is mentioned here as an example of humility, and
apparently for no other purpose. But was it any evidence
of humility ij;! him to " think it not robbery to be equal with
God .'" The entire inconsistency of these words with the
context should point out at once the necessity of some bet
ter translation. As they stand, they destroy the propriety
of the apostle's reference to the example of Christ, and
render the whole passage inapplicable to the purpose for
which it was evidently intended.
What are we to understand, in the first place, by the
* It has-been tibserved, that the original is not iig, one person,
hut EV, one thing. Hence Calvin says, " The ancients abused this
text in attempting to prove from it, that Christ is of the same es
sence (o^ioouffiov) with the Father, for Christ is not speaking ofa
unity of substance, but ofa union, by virture of which, whatsoever
he did* would be confirmed by the Father." Ab usi sunt hoc loco
veteres, &o, Vid, Wolzogen. Oper. Tom. i. p. 992.

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OP SCRIPTURE. 215
form of God 1 Most trinitarians suppose it to be the divine
nature, and as it is applied to Christ, they consider it a dec
laration, that he is poss'essed of this nature, and is essentially
God, But it is well known, that the word, which is transla
ted /on«, very seldom means, in the original, the nature or
essence of a thing, but only its external appearance, figure,
or properties. Besides, if being in the form of God is a proof
that Christ was actually God, then his being in the form of a
servant, or slave, is a proof, that he was actually a servant,
or slave, which we know is not true. Any evidence con
tained in the phrase, form of God, is as strong in favor of
one of these positions, as the other,*
Hence this must apply not to the nature, but to the con
dition and qualifications of Christ, The form of God in
which he appeared was the manifestation of divine power
and wisdom in the miracles he wrought, the instructions he
communicated, and in all the evidences he gave of the di
vinity of his mission.
Thought it not robbery to be equal wiih God, It is agreed
by almost all critics, trinitarian as well as unitarian, that the
words, equal wilh God, may be translated with the strictest
conformity to, grammatical construction, as or like God.
The phrase is thus tisinslated by archbishop Neweome, and
Dr. Macknight. Allowing the common version to be ad
missible, this is thought preferable ; because, if Christ be
* Hammond says fioQtpii is used by good authors ^ro interna ipsa
rerum essentia vel forma ; but Le Clere prefers the interpretation
of Grotius, and quotes Hesychius, Suidas, Phavorinus and others
to prove, that it relates'to the eternal figure or appearance, and is
synonymous with sizcur, Eidog, rcQoao-^ng. Hammond. Adnot. —
ilii)g(/i»; denotat aliquid quod in occulos incurrit, adeoque de Deo
proprie dici non potest, Wetstein.

216 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
equal with God, there must be two Gods equal in power
and majesty, which is contrary to scripture and reason *
Thought it not robbery ; that is, he did not consider this
resemblance to God as plunder, or a thing which he had
t'dken by force. He looked upon it as a free gift, conferred
by the good pleasure of God. In this consisted his humili
ty. He did not exalt himself, or boast of those possessions
and high endowments, which raised him lo a likeness with
God, as if he had obtained them by his own exertions, but
he was humble in his station, unassuming in his deport
ment, and submitted patiently to many indignities, without
any ostentatious display of those powers, by which he might
have secured the admiration, the respect, and obedience of
the world. I
* Wetstein renders iff« @Eco,ut Deus, like God; and in this he is
allowed by Macknight, who observes, that Whitby " has proved in
the clearest manner, that ioa is used adverbially by the Lxx, to ex
press likeness, hut not equality. '¦ See Macknight on this place.
Instar. Dei. Rosenmul. et Slicht.
t There is some diSiculty in ascertaining the precise meaning of
uQTtuyuog, because it is not used in any other place in the New Tes
tament, and probably is njot to be found in more than one or two
instances any where else. It may megn the act tif seizing upon
anything 'for plunder or booty ; or it may mean the thing seized,
the plunder, or booty itself. That is, it may be used in an active or
passive sense. The latter is generally thought preferable. It may
signify, vel rem raptam, vel rem avide diripiendam, et vindicandam.
Schleusn. in voo. — Wetstein takes it in this sense, and gives as one
reason, Christus nunquam harpagare curavit, nunquam aliquid ab
aliquo violenter rapuit. See also Wakefield's Silva Critica, Sect.
cxlii. For a more full explanation of this te.xt, see Belsham's Calm
Inquiry, secon4 edit. p. 83. Cappe's Critical Remarks, vol. i. p.
228. Professor Stuart translates this text as follows; " Who being in
the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an
object of solicitous desir^." He gives as a reason why he renders
fio^ipi), condition, that this word is sometimes used by metonymy

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 217
With this meaning, which is strictly conformable to the
original, fhe text fills up the place in which it stands, and
preserves harmony in the whole passage.
Collos. ii. 9. " For in him dwelleth all the fullness of
the Godhead bodily." «,
The word Godhead means the same as Deity, or God.
according to Schleusner, for ipvaig, or ovaia, nature or essence. But
to be in the nature of Go4, is the same thing as to be God himself.
That this cannot be the meaning ofthe word in the text, is evident,
because it is immediately after said, "he made himself of no rep
utation," literally, " emptied himself," iavrov eztrwOE, or divested
himself of whatever it was, that made him in the farm of God,
which he could not do, if he were God, or in the nature of God.
The idea advanced by Professor Stuart, that God might so " veil
the brightness of his glories," or so yield up a part of his perfec
tions, as to be said to "empty himself " of them, and still retain his
Cmnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience unimpaired, is one,
which few perstms, probably, will find suflSciently intelligible to be
understood. Nor does he inform us why he choses, contrary to the
opinion of the ablest critics, to render loa Sew, by the phrase, equali
ty with Ggd ; nor has he attempted to explain how one being could
be said to have equality with another, if one were in the same con
dition or nature as the other; or, which is the same thing, if both
beings constituted the same being.
But there is something further, connected with Professor Stu
art's explanation of this text, which will probably appear not a lit
tle strange to most unitarians. He speaks of a version as being
common among them, which he cites in the following words, name
ly, " He did not think of the robbery of being equal with God."
Letters, p, 95. Where he found this translation is not easy to say,
but it is certain if he had taken pains to consult many unitarian ex
positors, he would never have faUen into so great a mistake, as to
think it common among them. After a tolerable acquaintance with
most of the unitarian critical expositors, 1 have never seen this
translation in any other place, than Professor Stuart's Letters.
There are very few unitarians, it is presumed, who will not agree
in^the results of his labored criticism to show, that it does not ac
cord with the original. _
19*

218 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
What is meant by the fullness of God we can ascertain, by
comparing this passage with others. In the preceding chap
ter the apostle says, " For it pleased the Father, that in him
should all fullness dwell." This fulness, then, was some
thing, which he had received from the Father, and conse
quently was not anything, which he possessed as an inde
pendent and self-existent being. In writing to the Ephesi
ans the apostle expressed a desire, " that they might be fill
ed with all the fullness of God," Eph. iii. 19. If we con
sider it an evidence, that Christ was God, because the full
ness of, God dwelt in him, why should not the same infer
ence be drawn in regard to the Ephesians.
The fullness of God means t\e abundance of the divine
wisdom, gifts, and blessings, conferred by him- The apos
tle prayed, that these might be multiplied to the Ephesians.
In Christ they dwelt bodily, that is, really, truly, substantially,
inasmuch as he was endowed with them in a most eminent
degree.* Trinitarians argue, that certain texts of scripture assign
to Christ the attributes of the Deity, and hence they infer,
that he is God. It has been seen in the preceding letter,
that he asserted, in as positive language as could be used,
that he possessed these attributes in a limited degree. Did
he speak contradictions ? Shall we not rather say, that
* Macknight thinks this text has some allusion to the philoso
phical notions of the time in which it was written. The phrase
TtP.i/jwim 0EOV, fullness of God, was common among the different
sects of philosophers. The Gnostics supposed this fullness to be
made up of jEons ; the Jews, of angels ; and the heathens, of infe
rior deities. By saying that this fullness dwells in Christ bodily,
the apostle would imply, "that the 'philosophy, which represents
angels as greater in power_ and knowledge than Christ, is false."
Macknight on the Epistles, vol. iii. p. 517.
Euifiarmmg, bodily, really, truly, Schleus. in voo. Potest hac
voce signari non corpus, sed essentia. Hammond. Adnot.

EXPOSITION OF ^XTS OF SCRIPTURE. 219
texts of less obvious import are to be interpreted by. those,
whose meaning it is impossible not to perceive .? Shall we
say his knowledge was infinite, when he expressly asserts,
that he did " not know the day," in which his prophecy
would come to pass ? Shall we say his power was infinite,
when he declares repeatedly, that " he could do nothing of
himself," and that he received all power from the Father .'
Yet, notwithstanding these assertions, trinitarians insist that
he was omniscient, omnipotent, 9,nd omnipresent.
To prove his omniscience they quote Matt. xi. 27, " All
things are delivered unto me of my Father ; and no man
knoweth the Son, but the Father ; neither knoweth any
man the Father, save tbe Son, and he to whomsoever the
Son will reveal him," It is unaccountable, that this text
should be cited to prove that Christ has infinite knowledge
in himself, when it is said in so many words, that " all thing's
are delivered unto him of the ^Father." Whoever attends
to the context will find all things here to relate to the gos
pel dispensation ; but to whatever this phrase may relate,
it is used in reference fo a knowledge, which Christ did not
posgess of himself, but which he had received from the
Father. .
John ii, 24, " He knew all men ; and needed not that
any should testify of man ; for he knew what was in
man." The same divine wisdom, by which he was aided in teach
ing so perfect a religion to mankind, enabled him also, as a
necessary prerequisite, to have a most intimate knowledge
of human nature. Whence he derived this knowledge, he
tells.us in another place ; for he says, " My Father hath
taught me," and also, " My doctrine is not mine, but his
that sent me." He consequently received this knowledge
of men from the Father. Let such, as do not believe this
knowledge to have heen'derived, answer the question, how a

220 EXPOSITION OF TEX^S OF SCRIPTURE.
being, who already possessed infinite knowledge, could be
taught ?
John xxi. 17. " Lord, thou knowest all things." — So
also it is said in another place of christians in general.
1 John ii. 20. " Ye have an unction from the Holy One,
and ye know all things," It is evident, therefore, if from
this text we infer the omniscience of the Lord Jesus, we
must from others infer the same of all christians.
The omnipotence of Christ is supposed to be proved from
Phil. iii. 21. "Who shall change our vile body, that it
shall be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to
the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things
unto himself." Does this text imply any power which
could not be derived } We are told in another part of
scripture, 2 Cor. iv. 14, " that he, which raised up the Lord
Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus,"
Hence, whatever change shall be produced in us by the
Lord Jesus, he can only act by the same power by which he
was raised. And in regard to his " subduing all things -unto
himself," " it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put
all things under him." 1 Cor. xv. 27.
One short declaration of Christ, it should seem,> ought to
be enough to stop any further inquiry into the origin of his
power. He has said, " / can of mine own self do nothing."
Why then should we go about to prove a directly contra
ry position, that he can of himself do many things ? Sup
pose he had power to create worlds ; how small a portion of
omnipotence would be such a power, " He hath axithority
to execute judgment;" but does he po'Ssess this authority
in himself,' No ; " the father hath given it to him." John
V. 27. He is " to be the judge of the quick and the dead,"
By his own authority .' No ; he has been ordained of God
to this ofiice. Acts x, 42, In almost every instance,
where uncommon power is ascribed to Christ, it is mention-

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, 221
ed as coming from the Father, And it may be stated with
confidence, that in all the texts of scripture, in which
Christ is represented as possessing a high degree of power
or knowledge, these possessions are either referred imme
diately to God, as a distinct being- from Christ, or may be
considered as proceeding from him, without any violation
of the natural construction, and obvious meaning of the
language. '*
Jesus is supposed to be omnipresent, because he told his
disciples, " where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there and I in the midst of them." Matt, xviii. 20.
" And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world." xxviii. 20. The presence of Christ mentioned
here, cannot be 'his personal presence, because we know he
ascended up into heaven. He promises that wherever his
followers shall be gathered together in his name, or for re
ligious purposes, their prayers and services shall be accom
panied with all the good effects, which could flow from them,
if he were present, or which his religion is calculated to
produce. He was with his disciples in the miraculous
powers which they possessed, " till the end of the world,"
that is, till the end of the age, or of the Jewish polity.
During this period he aided them by the Comforter, which
he had promised. This was the apostolic age, after which,
miracles and supernatural powers ceased. But if you take
these texts in their most extended literal sense, a sense in
which they are received by very few critics, the"most ^u
can infer from them is, that Christ has the power of know
ing, of aiding by his influences, and of conferring blessings
on his followers. This is very far from proving him to be
present throughout the universe.*
* The end of the world means, for the most part, in the gospels,
the end of the Jewish^ dispensation. Bishop Pearce explains tha
present passage thus; " I am with you always, thatis, to assist you
«

222 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
Eternal existence is also said to belong to Christ. John
viii. 58. " Before Abraham was I am." This text is
quoted by trinitarians, but for what reason it is not easy to
perceive, for Christ might have existed before Abraham,
and still not have existed from eternity. So far as eternal
existence is concerned, therefore, or equality of the Son
with the Father, it proves nothing.
Col. i. 17. " He is before all things." This undoubtedly
means, that he is exalted above all other beings ; he is
superior in dignity and excellence to all things. If you
suppose the text to have reference to time, it will afford no
proof that he existed from eternity ; but only that he was
the first created being. He is called the ^^ first-born of
every creature," which is an evidence, that he was a cre
ated being, and must have derived his existence from God.
Heb. xiii. 8. " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever." That is, the doctrine of Jesus Christ will
always remain unchanged. This is the interpretation of
Dr. Clarke, and Whitby, as well as of Le Clere, Calvin,
archbishop Newcome, and other trinitarians.'* It is not
uncommon in the scriptures for the name Christ to be put
for the doctrine, or religion, of Christ. Acts v. 42. " They
ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ," that is, the
in leaching all nations all things, and by enabling you to work mir
acles in confirmation of your doctrine ; — even unto the end of the
wofld, that is, to the end of the age, or the end ofthe Jewish age."
He further says, in his commentaries on Matt. xxiv. 3, " The end
of the age, that is, of the age in which the Jewish church and state
were to last." This is also the rendering of archbishop Newcome.
The vulgate has it, usque ad consummationem seculi. See also
Kenriek's Exposition.
* " The evangelical doctrine, as delivered by Chirst and his apos
tles.'' See Newcome's note in the Improved Vers. Eadem ilia dso-
trina, &o. Hammond Adnot. edit. Clerici.

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 223
doctrine of Christ. Eph. iv. 20. " Ye have not so learned
Christ," that is, his doctrine.
Rev. i. 17. " lam the first and the last." Whoever it
was, that spoke these words, it certainly could not be the
ever living God, for in the very next verse he continues to
say, " I am he that liveth, and was dead." For any being
to be called the first and last, therefore, does not necessarily
imply, that he is God. Rev. xxii. 13. " I am Alpha and
Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."
It is inferred from this text, that the person speaking could
be no other than God. But look back in the same chapter
to the ninth verse, and you will find the messenger, who
spoke these word^ rebuking John for " falling down to
worship before his feet," and saying to him, " that thou do
it not ; for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the
prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book ;
worship God." Could this be the eternal God, who told
John, that he was his fellow servant, and who refused to
receive worship from him "> We hence see, that these epi
thets, or titles, if they are to be applied to Christ, so far
from proving him to be God, were actually given to a per
son, or being, who had died, who declared himself to be a
fellow servant with John, and who would not suffer himself
to be worshipped. What precise meaning is to be taken
from the pJirases Alpha and 'Omega, the first and the last, it
is not necessary for our present purpose to inquire, since
the context proves, that they cannot afford even a shadow
of evidence in favor of the supreme divinity of Christ. As
it is impossible they should denote the one true God, since
God cannot die, it seems most rational to consider them as
relating to the christian dispensation. Of this dispensation,
Christ was the first and the last ; it was begun and finished
by him ; it was entirely his work.
Another argument for the supreme divinity of Christ,

224 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. •
trinitarians find in certain texts of scripture, in which they
say he is made the object of worship. Thp strength of this
argument rests on the scriptural meaning of the word wor
ship, and of those terms and phrases in which worship is
supposed to be implied. If this same word, and these same
terms are applied to other persons besides Christ, then the ap
plication of them to him can be no proof of his being God, A
little examination will show this to be the fact. And it is
believed, that in every text in which it is thought worship
or honor is rendered to Christ, a proper understanding of
the context will convince any fair mind, that the person
writing, or speaking, did not consider himself addressing
Christ as God,
When we remember, also, how explicit our Lord was in
his directions about worshipping the Father, and him only,
we ought to be very cautious how we allow ourselves to
violate his express command, and ascribe to any other being
that reverence, and those honors, which belonged to the
Father alone. He was positive in his commands to his fol
lowers, that they should worship the Father ; he always
worshipped the Father, nor has he in a single instance in
timated, that divine worship is to be rendered to himself,
or to the Holy Spirit. And if we allow' him to be the angel,
mentioned in Revelations, conversing with John, he there
not only renews his command to " worship God," but im
plies in strong language, that he himself is not io be wor
shipped. Now since every text of scripture will admit of a
natural and fair explanation, on the principle of rendering
divine worship to the Father only, is it not much more con
sistent with just rules of interpretation, thus to explain them,
than to press them into the support of a d'octrine totally at
variance with one of the plainest and most positive injunc
tions of our Saviour ? If yv& worship Christ, we do not
worship the Father only ; and if we do not worship the
Father only, we violate a command of the gospel.

exposition of texts of SCRIPTURE. 225
The word worship does not always signify religious reve
rence, but sometimes civil homage or respect. " The king
Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel."
Dan, ii, 46. " And all the congregation bowed their heads,
and worshipped the Lord and the king." 1 Chron. xxix. 20.
" And'so it was, when he came to David, that he fell on the
earth, and did obeisance," (woshipped him.) 2 Samuel i. 2.
" And all the king's servants that were in the king's gate,
bowed and reverenced (worshipped) Haman ; but Mordecai
bowed not, nor did him reverence," (nor worshipped him.)
Esther iii. 2, The servant, in the parable of the talents, is
represented as having worshipped his master. Matt, xviii-
26. " As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell
down at his feet, and worsAijB^ed him." Acts x. 25, Ex
amples of a similar kind are exceedingly numerous in the
Old Testament. From these it appears, that kings, and
other men in eminent stations, were worshipped. Jt fol
lows, that the same kind of reverence shown to Christ, is
not a proof of his having been God.'*
It is said of Christ, Matt. viii. 2. " There came a leper
and worshipped him," literally, bowed down before him, or ac
cording to the custom ofthe country, showed him a peculiar
* The word rendered worship*is Trqaanvvia. It occurs nearly
two hundred times in the septuagint version ofthe Old Testament,
and is sometimes translated worship, at others reverence, and
obeisance, but most commonly to bow down. When the sons of
the prophets came out to meet Elisha, " they bowed themselves
to the ground before him," literally, they worshipped him on the
ground. 2 Kings ii. 16. The word derives its signification froni»
the eastern custom of prostration in token of submission to a sove
reign or prince". It came atlength to denote a mode of salutation,
or of showing respect to a superior, and in this sense is very com
monly used in the New TeBtamgjit. We can determine when it
mean religious adoration, only from the connexion in which it is
used. 20

226 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
mark of reverence and respect, as Cornelius afterwards
showed to Peter. The same may be said " of a certain
ruler who came and worshipped him." ix. 18. After he had
walked on the sea and stilled the winds, " they that were in
the ship came and worshipped him," but not as God, for
they immediately after say, " Of a truth thou art the Son of
God," xiv. 33. They manifested towards him that reve
rence and submission, which, as the messenger of God, he
ought to receive.
Certain passages of scripture are supposed by some to af
ford an evidence, that prayers were offered to Christ, because
mention is made in them of calling on his name. "But this is
an erroneous interpretation of the phrase. Calling on the
name ofthe Lord Jesus does not signify the act of address^
ing him with prayers or supplications. Acts ii. 21. " Who
soever shall call on the name ofthe Lord shall be saved."
Now^hether this text refers to God, or to the Lord Jesus, it
is evident that it cannpt allude to the simple exercise of
prayer or worship, because no one can suppose, that by this
alone salvation can be procured. Calling on the name ofthe
Lord must mean, in this place, a sincere discharge of every
religious duty, for such only is the condition of salvation.
Any person who embraces and obeys the religion of Christ, is
one, who, in the scrinture sense of the phrase, calls on his
name. Acts ix, 14, " And here he hath authority from the
chief priests to bind all ^hat call on thy name ;" that is,
all that have embraced thy religion, and become thy follow
ers, xxii, 16. " And now, why tarriest thou .' arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name ofthe
Lord ;" that is, receiving the truths, and obeying the com
mands of the christian religion. Paul writf s to the Corin
thians, and to " all that in every place call upon the name

EXPIOSTION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 227
of Jesus Christ our Lord." 1 Cor. i. 2. This address was
made to all, who had become christian converts.*
Phil. ii. 9, 10, 11. " Wherefore, God also hath highly
exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every
name; that at (in) 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."
The meaning of this passage is very clear. • It is express
ive of the exaltation of Jesus, and ofthe extent and authority
of his religion. Every knee is to bow, or God is to be wor
shipped, in his name ; that is, in conformity with the spirit
and rules of his religion. All intelligent beings are finally
to become the true worshippers of God through the religion
of Jesus Christ. This religion, also, is to have a universal
prevalence, and all nations will ultimately confess, that Je
sus was a divine messenger, and glorify God for his good
ness in sending him into the world empowered with so high
a commisson. No te.xt is more explicit than this, in ex
pressing the superiority of God the Father to Christ. How
ever highly Christ is exalted, we are told it is God, who
has exalted him.
John v^ 22, 23. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should
honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that
honoreth not tte Son, honoreth not the Father, who hath
sent him."
That thi^ text should be brought forward to prove, that
we are to worship Christ as God, or to honor one in an
* Wakefield observes, that " this is in very many instances a
Hebrew phrase for a religious man — one, who acknowledges the
being and providence of God — one dedicated to'^his service." See
Wakefield on Acts ii. 21. Hinc factum est, ut farmula tyrixaJtEia-
6ut oyofia rivog significaret in universum, profiteri religionem
alicujus. Schleus. in voc. mixaX.

228 EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
equal degree with the other, is certainly somewhat surpris
ing. In the first place it is said, the " Father hath cotw-
mitted all judgment to the Son ;" and next, that " he hath
sent him," both of which declarations show, as clearly as
can be shown, that they are distinct beings, and that one
derives his power and authority from the other. The text
itself, therefore, points out the impropriety of honoring one
in an equal degree with the other. We should honor God,
as the Supreme Being, and the author of our religious pri
vileges ; and we should honor Christ, as the messenger,
whom he has dignified with the high commission of reveal
ing the divine will to man, and of becoming, by his doc
trines and example, the Saviour of the world. Any disre
spect to the authority of Christ, is a disrespect -to God, from
whom he received his commission and power. Instead of
affording any argument for the supreme worship of Christ,
this text contains an implied injunction to the contrary.''^
There are some passages in which glory, thanks, and grat
itude are rendered to Christ. 2 Peter iii. 18. " To him be
glory both now and for ever." 1 Tim. i. 12. " I thank
Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he
counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry." All
christians, unitarians as well as trinitarians , will undoubted
ly unite in the sentiments contained in these and other sim
ilar texts- All will be ready to render glory, and honor,
and thanksgiving, and gratitude to him, who has been so
highly exalted of God, who was empowered from heaven
to work miracles, and to publish anew and divine religion to
* The meaning ofthe text is much impaired by a wrong trans-
ation of a, single word. Instead of rendering zaflius, even as, it
shonMhe since, 01 seeing. Vid. Schleus. ^Iso Maoknight's Pre
lim. Essays. Es. 4. No. 203. There is a similar example in Eph.
i. 3. "Who hath blessed us jvith all spiritual blessings in heavenly
places in Christ, (zaflu;) since, seeing, he hath chosen us," &c.

EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 229
the world, who lived a life of privation and suffering, and
at length submitted to an ignominious death, for the pres
ent happiness and, eternal salvation of men, — all christians
will revere the dignity of his character, acknowledge the
perfection of his doctrines and example, yield a willing and
cheerful obedience to his authority, and feel the warmest
gratitude for his benevolent exertions, and affectionate so
licitude in behalf of the whole human race. But every
one should hg cautious, how he renders to Christ those hon
ors, and those ascriptions of praise and thanksgiving, which
belong to the Father only. There can be but one supreme
object of spiritual worship, or of religious homage, and that
is God. He is the Being, whom our Saviour worshipped,
and commanded his followers to worship. To him all hon
or, and glory, and praise are due, and when we ascribe
these to any other being, except in a limited degree, how
can it be said, that we are the true worshippers, who wor
ship the Father .? Or how can it be said, that we " wor
ship tha Lord our God, and him only .'"*
John V. 7. " For there are three that bear record inheav-
en, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these
three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, the water, and the blood ; and these three agree
in one."
This text has been so often, and so thoroughly examined,
and the words in italics so universally rejected, that I should
not think it a proper use of time to say a word on the sub
ject, did I not know it still to be quoted, as a portion of the
true scriptures, both by preachers of the episcopal and other
churches. I can give only a short sketch of the reasons,
which prove it not to have been written by the apostle.
* For a comprehensive view of the nature and object of religious
worship, see a sermon by the Rev. Robert Aspland, entitled, A
Vindication of Unitarian Worship, London, 1810
20*

230 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
In the first place, it merits our attention, that the sense of
the passage is not injured by leaving this verse out. On the
contrary, it is rather improved. The connexion is closer
without it. The witnesses mentioned in this verse had not
been introduced before, but the water, blood, and spirit,
mentioned in the sixth verse, -are brought forward in such
a manner in the eighth, as plainly to indicate that the sev
enth has been inserted between them.
The text in question has never been found in any Greek
manuscript, which was written earlier than fourteen hun
dred years after Christ. It is contained in no Latin manu
script, which was written before the ninth century. It is
not contained in any of the ancient manuscripts of the east
ern languages, *'-j
It was never quoted by the Greek Fathers in their con
troversies on the trinity, A stronger proof than this can
not possibly be advanced, that they had no knowledge of
such a text. They often cited the verse preceding, and
the verse following, to prove the divinity of the Son ; but
this verse, which is much more to the point, they never ad
duced. Neither was it quoted by the early Latin Fathers.
In many editions of the Bible, after the reformation, it was
either omitted, or inclosed in brackets, to show that it was
doubtful. It was omitted in Luther's German version, and
marked as doubtful in the early editions of the English
Bible.* Many of the ablest trinitarian critics of the last and pres-
* In the old English Bibles of Henry the Eighth and Edward the
Sixth,' the words of this text were either printed in smaller letters,
or enclosed in a parenthesis. The same was observed in Queen
Elizabeth's Bible of 1566; but shortly after, the woids began to be
printed without any mark to distinguish them from other parts of
thejBible. See Commentaries and Essays, published by the Socie
ty for promoting the Knowledge of the Scriptures, vol. i. p. 144.

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE, 231
ent age have rejected this text as spurious. Bishop Lowth,
in a letter to Michaelis, says, " We have some wranglers in
theology, sworn to follow their master, who are prepared to
defend anything, however absurd, should there be occasion.
But I believe there is no one among us, in the least degree ,
conversant with sacred criticism, and having the use p,f his
understanding, who would be willing to contend for tke
genuineness of this verse."*
Archbishop Newcome has left it out of his translation.
The bishop of Lincoln says, " that after an attentive con
sideration of the controversy relative to this passage, I am
convinced that it is spurious. "I
Dr. Jortin expresses himself as follows ; " This text of
t the three heavenly witnesses keeps its place in our Bibles,
in bold defiance to the fullest and clearest evidence against
it." Dr. Doddridge enclosed the passage in brackets ; and ex
pressed his doubts as to its being genuine.
A tj^nitarian writer in the Eclectic Review, in an article
written professedly against unitarians, says after some re
marks on this text, " under these circumstances, we are un
speakably ashamed, that any modern divine should have
fought, pedibus et unguibus, for the retention of a passage so
indisputably spurious. We could adduce half a dozen, or
half a score passages of ample length, supported by better
authority than this, but which are rejected in every printed
edition and translation. "J
* See a part of the original letter in the Christian Disciple, vol.
j. p. 109. quoted from Michaelis's Literary Correspondence, part
2. p. 428.
t Elements of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 90. Note.
X See Christian Discipline, vol. i. p. 109. Eclectic Review for
March, 1809.

232 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE,
After a most critical examination of the whole subject,
Griesbach rejected the text as totally indefensible,*
Bishop Middleton and Mr. Wardlaw consider it spurious.
Such are the opinions of a number of the most learned
trinitarians. Many more might be quoted. Travis wrote
largely in defence of the text, but was answered in such a
manner by Person, and bishop Marsh, that no one, claiming
to possess a critical knowledge of the scriptures, especially
since the investigations of Griesbach, will probably be in
clined to revive the controversv,|
Sir Isaac Newton, also, wrote a treatise against the gen
uineness of this verse, in two letters to Le Clere, which are
said, by a competent critic, to be " written with force, can-
-* Ego quidem, si tanti esset, sexcentas lectiones ab omnibus
rejectas atque futilissimas defendere possem, testimoniis et rationi-
bus seque multis atque validis, imo pluribus plerumque atque vali-
dioribus, quam sunt ea quibus utunturhujus dicti patroni. Diatrib.
in loc. 1 lohan. v, 7. p. 25.
t It is not to be denied, that bishop Seabury, in his charge de
livered in Derby, Connecticut, September 1786, declared the genu
ineness of this text to be " incontestibly establishhd by the Rev.
Mr. Travis.'' p. 10. But it would seem, by the proceedings ofthe
first American convention, that the bishop's authority, in the af
fairs of church government at least, was not treated with the most
profound respect.
In the critical notes to the Greek and English Testament, pub
lished by Roberts, 1729, after examining the evidence in relation to
this text, the editor observes, " If this evidence is not sufficient to
prove, that the controverted text in St. John is spurious; by what
evidence can it be proved, that any text in St. John is genuine ,'"
Dr. Wall in his Critical Notes on the Greek Testament, publish
ed 1730, has the following remark on John v. 7. " This verse is in
no Greek manuscript, nor was in the Bibles of ancient christians,
nor ever made use of by them in their disputes with the Arians.
Mill has so defended it, that he, who thought it genuine before, will
now c6ii,clude it to have been interpolated by some Latin scribe
first." Comment, and Essays, p. 145.

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURg, 233
dor and pespicuity," They were published after his death
in Horsley's edition of his,works,*
Even Beza and Calvin did not allow, that this text affords
any argument for the trinity. According to these writers,
it. is not a unity of number, which is here spoken of, but a
unity of testimony, Calvin says, it is a unity of agreement,
and not of essence ; that is, these three witnesses are one,
in the same sense, as the water, blood, and spirit are one.
They all agree in one testimony,!
All the writers, whom I have mentioned as rejecting this
text, except Sir Isaac Newton, were trinitarians ; and since
such is the overwhelming evidence of its being spurious,
it seems truly incredible, that any preacher should be found
at the present day, so regardless of his reputation for schol
arship, for candor, and for honesty, as publicly to quote and
urge this text to an uninformed audience, as of equal au
thority with the rest of' the scriptures. The only plea,
which such a person can make, that ought to have any
claims on our charity, is ignorance. But this is a plea to
which few, who make any pretensions to theological attain
ments, can resort. It must, indeed, be a cause of serious
regret to every friend of pure religion, that any one can
make it with sincerity. But it is still mo5,e to be lamented
by all such, as wish for the success of religious truth, that
any teachers of the gospel should knowingly and wilfully
be the means of disseminating error, and of imposing on the
ignorance and credulity of the multitude, by repeating to
them as the record of divine truth, what has been most un-
* Butler's Horaa Biblicie, p. 378. Newton's Works, vol. v. —
These Letters were printed separately in London, 1754. A copy
of this edition is in the library of Harvard University. It is also
reprinted in the second volume of Sparks's Theological Tracts.
t'lta prorsus consentiunt ac si unus testis essent. Beza. — Quod
dicit, tres esse'unum, ad essentiam non refertuj?, sed ad consensum
potius. Calvin. See Macknight, vol. vi. p. 109.

234 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
deniably proved to be an unwarrantable fabrication of men.
Matt xxviii. 19. " Go ye, therefore, and teach all na
tions, baptizing them in (into) the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
The word name, by a Hebrew idiom, is often redundant.
The phrases na-me of God, name of the Lord, frequently ex
press nothing more thari God, and Lord. The Psalmist
says, " I will praise thfi name of God with a song." that
is, " I wUl praise God with a song." Ps. Ixix. 30. The
name of the Lord is a strong tower." Prov. xviii. 10.
" Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever." Dan.
ii. 20. " I will cut off" the name of the Chemarims."
Zeph. i. 4. In all these examples, the word name is redun
dant, and might be omitted without aff'ecting the sense.
In other cases the name of any person signifies the au
thority, or doctrine of that person. " I am come in my fath
er's name," John v. 43 ; that is, by the authority of my
Father. " In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk,"
Acts iii. 6 ; that is, by the authority of Jesus Christ. " By
what power or name have ye done this .?" iv. 7, or, by what
power or authority have ye done this .'" St. Paul says,
" I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth," xxvi,
9 ; that is, contrary to the authority or doctrine of Jesus of
Nazareth. " In his name (authority, or doctrine) shall the
Gentiles trust." Matt. xii. 21.
It hence follows, that being " baptized into the name "
of any person, is the same as being baptized into the doc
trine ofthat person, or into the person himself; and to be
baptized into the name of a thing, is the same as being bap
tized into the thing itself This is consistent with what is
stated in other places. " For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." <Gal. iii. 27.
" Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Je-

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 235
sns Christ, loere baptized into his death ?" Rom. vi. 3.
" They were all baptized unto, (into) Moses in the cloud."
1 Cor. X. 2.
From these passages we must be convinced, that no ar
gument can be derived from the text under consideration,
in support of the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the
godhead. To be baptized into the name of the Holy Spirit,
does not imply, that this spirit is a' person, any more than
that death is a person, for the same reason. And if to be
baptized into Christ be a proof, that he is equal with God,
you may infer the same of Moses,
" To be baptized into the name of any person," says
Schleusner, " signifies to profess, by the rite of babtism,
a determination to be devoted to his doctrines, his authori
ty and his institutions." They, who " were baptized into
Moses in the cloud, and in the sea," were such as professed
to be his followers and yield to his authority. To be bap
tized into Christ, is to express an acknowledgement of his
authority, and a resolution to obey his commands, and fol
low his example. When Paul expressed his fears, " lest
any should say, that he Jiad baptized in his own name," his
meaning was, that they whom he baptized should not con
sider themselves his disciples, but practical believers of
the religion of Christ.
In other words, to be baptized into any person, or thing,
is to make a public profession of faith in that person, or
thing. Faith is the first requisite of a religious life. We
cannot obey, till we believe ; and if our faith be rational
and sincere, we shall scarcely be wanting in obedience.
One implies the other ; so that to acknowledge a sincere
faith in the christian religion, by the cferemony of baptism,
is ihe same, as resolving to give heed to its injunctions, and
confide in its»promises. ^
Baptism was designed as a rite of initiation into the chris-

236 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
tian church. To be baptized into the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, was to express a belief that God was
the original author of the christian religion ; that Christ
was empowered by divine aid to publish it to the world ;
and that the influence of the Holy Spirit, or a divine agen
cy, was manifest in the miraculous powers and gifts, which
were exercised, both by our Saviour and his disciples.* It
is easy to perceive for what reason this form of baptism
was instituted. It comprises the three principal subjects of
christian faith. Whoever professes a sincere and rational
belief in these, can give no firmer indication, as far as faith
goes, that he is a christian. There was a special, as well
as general reason, why the Holy Spirit should be connect
ed with the other two. The enemies of Jesus, and of his
religion, imputed the miracles, which he wrought, to a dia
bolical agency, and said, " he casteth out demons by the
prince of demons." It was important, that such impres
sions should be done away as speedily and effectually as pos-
sible, and that his works should be referred to their true
source, the power and influence of God. This end could
easily be accomplished, by making it a part of the baptis
mal ceremony to acknowledge the operation of the Holy
Spirit, or the immediate agency of God, in confirming the
truths of the gospel. f This is rendered the more probable
from the circumstance of there being no instance on record
in which the whole form was used. Those persons, who
had seen such wonderful effects of the Spirit, as to render it
impossible for them to doubt of their true cause, were for
this reason, perhaps, not baptized in the name of the Spirit,
Whether this conjecture be correct or not, it is certain the
* Baptisnius datur in nomen tou aTzogEiXavrog JIaTqog. tou e^.Soi'TOS
JCQiarov, rov /ii.uQrvQyiOarrog TtaQaxXtjrov, Clement. Vid. Resoifoiu,
Vol. I. p. 575. ' •
t Marsom's Sermon on the Impersonality of the Holy Ghost,
third edition, London, 1812, p. 38. ^

EXPOSITION OF -TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 237
apostles did not consider this form as absolutely essential,
since it was not always, if ever, employed by them.
There is nothing, therefore, in the form itself, nor in the
practice of the apostles, which can induce us to think, that
because the Son and Spirit are mentioned in. the same con
nexion, we are to take them to be equal to the Father, If
so inaportant a doctrine were to be inculcated in this form of
baptism, it certainly would not have been so uniformly omit
ted by the apostles. It is, also, to be noticed, that in the
verse immediately preceding, Christ says, " All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven, and in earth." If he were God,
it could never be saidf that all his power was given to Mm ;
and this acknowledgment of his dependence, in immediate
connexion with the form of baptism,,is another and an un
answerable proof, that no such doctrine can be deduced
from it, as his equality with tbe Father. t
2 Cor. xiii. 14. '".The giace of our Lord^ Jesus Christ,
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit,
be with you all." ,,
Many of the epistles, of St. Paul are begun .and ended
with devout wishes, similar to those here expressed. Some
Kave, in these, discovered traces of religious worship offered
to three beings, and have hence inferred the doctrine of the
trinity. But such inferences will hardly stand the test of
examination. ^
The grace, or, which is the same thing, the /a«or of Christ,
means the gospel of Christ, or all the blessings, privileges,
consolp,tions, and hopes, which are enjoyed through this
gospel. We are especially indebted for these to the grace,
or favor of Christ, because it was from the purest motives
of benevolence, and good will, that he su^red so much for
the benefit and happiness of men. The apostle expresses a
desire that these blessings, of which, we have been made
partajkers through Christ, may abound to the Corinthians to
21

238 EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
whom he is writing ; and, also, that they may be favored
with the love, or approbation of God.
By " the communion of the Holy Spirit," is meant a par
ticipation of the gifts, powers, or influences, which go under
its name. In writing to the Philippians, St. Paul speaks of
" their fellowship (communion, or participation) in the gos
pel," and of their " fellowship of the Spirit."* What can be
meant here, but a joint participation of the blessings of the
gospel, and of spiritual gifts ? If you make the Holy Spirit
a person, what idea can you attach to the apostles language ?
How could the Corinthians join in the participation of a
person .' We may commune or participate iviih, but not of a
person, and it is to be kept in mind, that there is no such ex
pression in scripture, as communion with the Holy Spirit.
The language of the text itself, therefore, renders it certain,
that by the Holy Spirit in this place, cannot be understoo<>a
person, or being, much less the supreme God. The words
ofthe apostle imply nothing more, than a benevolent wish,
that to the Corinthians might abound the blessings conferred
by the gospel of Christ, the love or favor of God, and the
enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit. — All other texts
of this description will be found to require a similar expla
nation. I have thus examined some of the principal passages of
scripture, which are usually quoted in support of the trinity.
Others may have been omitted, which are thought impor
tant but my limits have allowed me to select only the most
prominent. I cannot refrain from repeating a fact, at .which
I have before hinted, that every text, which I have exam
ined, has been interpreted, by some one or more ofthe ablest
trinitarian critics, in a manner perfectly consistent with the
• The word xoivuiyia is translated prom'iscaously fellowship, com
munion, participation; but the last seems to be preferable. —
Schleusner in voc. Yates's Vindication, p. 171. ¦or-

EXPOSITION OF TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 239
unitarian exposition. This fact should teach some persons
to urge with more gentleness the charge, which is often
brought against unitarians, of attempting to put a forced con.
struction on such texts of scripture, as do not seem at first
to harmonize with their sentiments. The meaning of some
of the most difficult passages is to be settled by fair and pa-
tient*criticism, in which learning, judgment, and candor,
are the only guides that can be trusted. These may be ex
ercised by persons of one religious denomination, as well as of
another ; and we show but little regard for the cause of truth,
when we suflfer our prejudices, and zeal for a party, to blind
our eyes to the light, which the judicious inquiries of learned
men, whatever may have been their private opinions, have
thrown upon the scriptures. By neglecting to be informed,
and refusing to inquire, we not only manifest a 'love of ig
norance, but a fear, that our faith is of too flimsy a texture
to bear a close examination.
If we place any value in religious attainments, in a knowl
edge of God and of our duty, we shall eagerly seize upon
every means in our power to come at the revealed truths of
scripture. Truth in religion, as in every thing else, is
known by its simplicity ; error involves us in perplexities,
fills us with doubt, and leaves us in despair. Truth is lu
minous ; it sends forth a steady light. Error is dark, and
spreads darkness around it. Truth is the guide to virtue ;
it is attended with harmony and peace. Error opens k broad
way to vice, and draws the heedless and unsuspecting into
its snares. We*should remember, nevertheless, that opin
ions are important, so far as they influence the conduct, and
no farther. A correct faith will make no amends for a bad
life. F|ith is not religion, any more than opinions are ac
tions. To he religious, we must have faith ; to act rightly,
we must think rightly ; and yet, we may have faith and no
religion, as we may think and never act.

240 EXPOSITION OP TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE.
This truth is of great practical importance. It will cause
us to exercise forbearance and a good temper towards those
with whom we do not agree in religious opinions. While
there is such a variety of characteristic features in the
minds, constitutional temperaments, dispositions, associated
impressions, and early habits of men ; while there are such
various degrees of knowledge, mental light, and strength of
understanding, it is not possible, that all men should think
alike. Nor is it necessary they should, Itis not required
of us, that we never be in error, but that we use our best
endeavors to avoid it. Our duty is discharged when we
have done this, and it is our misfortune, and not our fault, if
we still remain in'the'dark. All this may be granted, without
affording any possible excuse for not keeping up the temper,
the dispositions, the feelings, and practice of christians.
There is no other occasion for difference here, than our own
perverseness, cherished ill nature, and evil passions. If we
have any regard for the example of our Saviour, and the
noble virtue of charity, which he enjoined, we shall soon
learn to subdue these, to lay aside our narrow prejudices,
to disdain the invidious distinctions of names and sects, to
brush away the films through which we can see the errors
and faults, but not the virtues of our fellowmen ; we shall
learn, that all men are in the hands of God, that, in the con
cerns of religion, all have equal privileges and freedom, and
are entitled to equal claims. on our candor, affection, tender
ness, and christian love.

THE END.

VALUABLE WORKS
PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE
BY
JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY,
Booksellers, Importers, and Publishers,
NO. 134 "WASHINGTON, OPPOSITE SCHOOL ST. BOSTON.
PUBLISHED ANNUALLY. No. I.

Livermore's Commentary. The Four Gospels ; with
a Commentary, intended for Sabbath School Teachers
and Bible Classes, and as an Aid to Family Instiatction.
By A. A. Livermore. St. Ed. 2 Vols, containing Mat
thew, Mark, Luke, and John. 12mo. 350 pp. each.
' In a iield of criticism, where sectarianism has spoiled nearly every
tree and ilower, this new product of a generous soil deserves our notice '
as the nearest approach to an unsectarian work. We feel certain it
will meet the wants of all who call themselves liberal Christians, as
a family expositor, a reference book in the study of the Gospel, a
companion in' the Sunday School, and an aid to daily devotion. It is
learned, yet not dry (rational, yet not cold; fervent, yet not fanatical ;
tasteful, yet not one line for mere taste. Mr. Livermore is concise,
practical, reasonable, fuU,.of generous and holy feeling. His first
volume having met in a few months with so extensive a sale as to
authorize a stereotype edition, we commen4 its simplicity, earnest
ness, puffity of morals, and practical piety, to a popularity like that
which has already rewarded the like labors, of Mr. Barnes.' — Hunt's
Merchants^ Magazine and Commercial Review.
Livermore's Commentary on the Book of the
Acts of the Apostles. In press,
1

2 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS,
Norton on the Trinity. A Statement of Reasons
for Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, con
cerning the Nature of God, and the Person of Christ
By Andi-ews Norton. 12nio. pp. 372.
' As a critic and theologian, Mr. Norton has long ranked in the very
first class. But the present treatise will not need the aid of his high
reputation to give it weight and influence. Those who know any
thing of him or his writing will readily credit us when we say, that
it exhibits a rare union of good sense, choice learning, discrimination,
and sound logic, which will place it among our standard works in
theology. ' Mr. Norton writes for intelligent men, for those who do not shrink
from examination and patient thought, who are not disgusted at being
required to exercise a manly independence, who seek truth for truth's
sake, and are willing to pay the price of its attainment. Such will
find in the work before us ample materials for study and reflection.
We are much mistaken, if to many of them it do not open new
views.' — Christian Examiner.
Norton's Genuineness. The Evidences of the Gen
uineness of the Gospels. By Andrews Norton. S
vols. 8vo.
Noyes's Hebrew Prophets. A New Translation of
the Hebrew Prophets, arranged in Chronological Or
der. 3 vols. 12mo. Each volume comprising about
pp. 300. New Edition with additions.
' We conceive that Mr. Noyes has made the Christian public much
his debtor by the portion now before us of a version Of that difficult
and strongly interesting part of Scripture, the Hebrew prophecies.
Three things are especially to be spoken of to his praise ; his learning,
his cautious and sound judgment, and his beautiful taste. * * *
' We conclude with expressing our firm persuasion, that the great
importance of these works will not fail to be permanently and in
creasingly estimated. It is not to the credit of our countrymen, if
their author is not already reaping some benefit from them, additional
to his own consciousness, and their acknowledgment, of his having
devoted high powers to a high object.' — Christian Examiner.
' This new edition is' of increased value on account of the additions
and corrections which it contains. The whole series of volumes,
from the pen of this accomplished Hebrew scholar, may now be ob
tained in a uniform shape, and is of great value, and of high import
ance to all students of the Bible. Common readers will be surprised
to observe how many passages, which are unintelligible to them in
the common version, are here made plain and significant hy a slight
change of expression, of the meaning of a single word, or the turn of
a sentence. We should advise all who wish to procure a set of these
translations to make haste to obtain one ; it is a purchase which they
will never regret.' — Christian Register.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.

Noyes's Psalms. A New Translation of the Book of
Psalms, with an Introduction. By Geroge R. Noyes.
12mo, In press,
Noyes's Job. An Amended Version of the Book of
Job, with an Introduction and Notes, chiefly Explana
tory. By George R. Noyes. Second Edition, revised
and corrected. 12mo.
' No translation has appeared in England, since that of Isaiah by
Lowth, which can sustain a comparison with that of the Book of Job,
by Mr. Noyes. With some slight exceptions, this latter is very much
what we could wish it to be.' — Spirit of tlie Pilgrims,
' We have not seen any translation of the Book of Job with which
the public ought to be satisfied, unless it be that which is the subject
of the present review. Mr. Noyes's version is, in our opinion, by far
the best translation of Job we have seen in the English language.
Almost eveiy page hears testimony to his acuteness and patient in
dustry, to his habitual caution and accuracy, to his fine powers of
discrimination, and to his excellent sldll and good taste. He has con
centrated upon the sacred page the most approved lights of ancient
and modern learning; yet he has done it, not, as has been the case
with many, to add new brightness to the original, but to illustrate
what had been made obscure, and to present to view, in its true pro
portions, what had become distorted through the fault of imperfect
versions. ' The notes at the end of the volume have been examined by us
with care, and we cannot withhold the tribute of our high commen
dation, not only for the evi4ence they give of extensive research, and
great discrimination, but for their invariable pertinency, and the per
fectly unostentatious manner in which they are composed. Indeed,
we know not where we could find collected, in so narrow compass,
with so much judgment, and with so little parade, the results of the
inquiries of so many distinguished biblical scholars.'— Christian Ex-
Qminer.Friendly Letters to a Universalist, on Divine
Rewards and" Punishments. By Bernard Whitman.
]6mo, pp. 368.
' Though this work was hastily written, the materials for it were
collected with good care and fidelity. It is a thorough work. It
covers the whole ground of Universalist argument ; and gives a faith
ful expos6 of the opposing testimony of reason and Scripture. The
work can hardly exasperate those against whose creed it is aimed ;
for a spirit of courtesy and kindness pervades it. Nor can one, who
already believes in a righteous retribution, fail to have his faith
strengthened by so able a defence of that doctrine.' — Amoicam, Movthl^y.
jReview.

4 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.
Palfrey's Academical Lectures. Academical Lec
tures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities, By
John Gorham Palfrey, D. D., LL. D. Vol. I. The
Last Four Books of the Pentateuch. Vol. II, Genesis
and Prophets. Bvo.
' The first volume of this valuable, learned, and elaborate work has
just publicly appeared in a truly beautiful form. It is not a book to
be lightly read or lightly spoken of
' We can only say that, from the time of its announcement as being
in preparation, general expectation has been highly raised in regard
to it, and that, as far as we have examined the present volume, or
heard the opinions of those who are more competent to pass judg
ment upon its merits, we are happy to believe that it constitutes a
noble addition to the many high claims of its distinguished author to
public esteem and honor, as a scholar, a divine, and a devoted sup
porter of American Literature.' — N, A, Review.
Palfrey's Lowell Lectures. Lowell Lectures on
the Evidences of Christianity. By John Gorham Pal
frey. With a discourse on the Life and Character of
John Lowell, Jr. By Edward Everett. 2 vols, 8vo.
Palfrey's Sermons. Sermons on Duties belonging to
some of the Conditions and Relations of Private Life.
By John G. Palfrey, D. D., Professor of Biblical Litera
ture in the University of Cambridge. 12mo.
' These discourses of Professor Palfrey are entitled to an honorable
place with those of Barrow, Tillotson, Seeker, and Cappe. And they
have the superior advantage of presenting within the limits ofa single
volume — • of no ordinary typographical beauty — a natural and syste
matic arrangement of most of the private social duties. For our
selves, we have perused them with satisfaction and thankfulness to
the author.' — Christian Examiner.
Worcester's Last Thoughts, on Important Subjects,.-
In three parts. I. Man's Liability to Sin. II. Supple
mentary lUustrations. III. Man's Capacity to Obey.
By Noah Worcester, D. D. 16mo. pp. 328.
' It is the rare merit of the writer's mind, that, although always
moving onward in his investigations, he moves so cautiously, and with
such reverence for the truth, and such distrust of himself, that his
' Last Thoughts ' on every subject are invariably his best.'
FoUen's Works. The Works of Charles FoUen ; with
a Memoir of his Life. 5 vols. 12mo.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. O
Greenwood's Chapel Liturgy. A Liturgy for the
use of the Church at King's Chapel in Boston; col
lected principally from the Book of Common Prayer.
Fifth Edition ; with Family Prayers and Services, and
other additions. By F. W. P. Greenwood, 12mo.
Greenwood's Lives of the Apostles. Lives of the
twelves Apostles, to which is prefixed a Life of John
the Baptist. By F. W. P. Greenwood. Second Edition.
16 mo. With plates.
Greenwood's Sermons. Sermons to Children. By
F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D., Mnister of King's Chapel,
Boston. 1 vol. 16mo.
' A work of this sort doubtless requires some peculiar gifts of the
heart, as well as of intellect ; and we wish, that when it is under
taken from the pulpit, it might be with any good measure of the
felicity and sldll with which Dr. Greenwood has in these beautiful
sermons accomplished it. We have read them with great pleasure,
and what is more to the purpose, — since for such they were written,
' — we have found little children who have read them with pleasure
too. In the judicious selection of the topics, in the crystal clearness
of the style, in the simplicity and beauty of the thoughts, and the
tQue of seriousness and unfeigned love pervading the whole, they
furnish a model' for such addresses to the pulpit. We can commend
the volume to parents, that they may obtain it for their children, and
to children, that they may read it for themselves, — engaging at the
same time that they shall not find it ' hard reading.' ' — Monthly

' We are delighted to ipeet with a volume for children in some other
form than a story. We believe these Sermons will be read with as
much interest as any of the little novels with which the press teems,
and with more profit,'.=^ CAmHaji Examiner,
s s» — — "
Sermons on Consolation. By F, W. P. Greenwood,
D. D., Minister of King's Chapel, Boston. Second
Edition. 1 vol. 16mo.
The Last Days of the Savior, or History of the
Lord's Passion. From the German of Olshausen.
Translated by Rev. S. Osgood. i2mo,
Sketch of the Reformation. By Rev. T. B. Fox.
' This volume contains a short but clear narrative of the lives and
labors of Luther, Tetzel, Melancthon, Zwingle, and others,
1*

b JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS.
Channing's Works. The Works of William E. Chan
ning, D. D. First complete American edition, with an
Introduction. 6 vols. 12mo. Five Dollars.
03^ This edition ' of the works was pubUshed under the author's
own supervision.
Channing's Self-Culture. Self- Culture. By W. E.
Channing. With a Biographical Sketch of the author.
16mo. cloth, gilt. Price 37 1-2 cents.
' It should be the pocket companion of every young man in the
country, and to be found on every lady's centre table.' — Cultivator.
' It is indeed a gem of EngUsh composition, of sound, vigorous
thought and pure wisdom.' — Mobile Register.
' Few tracts have exerted a raore wide and salutary influence than
Dr. Channing's lecture on Self- Culture. It is a powerful'statement
of encouraging truths set forth in that clear, harmonious and impress
ive style for which its lamented author was distinguished. We are
happy to see it republished in so neat a manner, now that death has
consecrated the eloquent lessons it conveys. The humblest votary of
improvement will derive consolation and guidance from its pages.' — -
Boston Miscellany.
Practical Ethics. Human Life, or Practical Ethics.
From the German of De Wette. Ti'anslated by Samuel
Osgood. 2 vols. 12mo.
' These lectures have long enjoyed a high reputation in Germany,
and other parts of Europe, and we hail with unfeigned pleasure their
pablication in this country. They are eminently original, profound
and suggestive.' — New World.
' Those interested in the study of ethics, will find in the present
volumes, a beautiful richness of illustration, and an extended con
sideration of the .practical duties of Ufe ; and although many readers
will doubtless dissent from some of the author's principles, as from
his application of them, the book merits a reading, as exhibiting the
views of a philosophical and independent mind, and, at the same time,
those which prevail to a great extent on the continent of Europe.' —
American Eclectic.
Buckminster's Works. The Works of Joseph Ste
vens Buckminster ; with Memoirs of liis Life. In two
vols. 12mo.
' One of the first religious books we remember to have read wa3
the first volume of Buckminster's Sermons ; and the beautifully
written life and two or three of the discourses fixed themselves in the
mind, as nothing is fixed tliere save in our early years.
' His sermons, as sermons, are certainly surpassed by none in the
language.' — Monthly Miscellany.

"JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. 7
De Wette on the Old Testament. A Critical and
Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of
the Old Testament. From the German of De Wette.
Translated and' enlarged by Theodore Parker. 2 vols.
Bvo.
Parker's Miscellaneous Writings. The Critical
and Miscellaneous Writings of Theodore Parker, Min
ister of the Second Church in Roxbury.
Contents. A Lesson for the Day ; German Literature ; The Life
of St, Bernard of Clairvaux ; Truth against the World ; Thoughts on
Labor ; A Discourse of the Transient and Permanent in Christianity ;
The Pharisees ; On the Education of the Laboring Class ; How to
move the World ; Primitive Christianity ; Strauss's Life of Jesus ;
Thoughts on Theology. —
' We are glad to see these miscellanies republished, and think all
who read them will enjoy their spirit even when they disagree with
their doctrines. The tone of earnest conviction, the glow of feeUng,
the occasional beauty of expression in these pages, is very refreshing.'
— Merchants^ Magazine.
' The essays are written in a style which combines the plainness of
Cobbett with just the slightest sprinkling of modern literary Euphu
ism ; a combination less unattractive than might at the first blush be
inferred from such a coalition.' — Knickerbocker.
Parker's Discourses. A Discourse on Matters per
taining to Religion. By Theodore Parker, Minister of
the Second Church in Roxbury.
Farr's Counsels and Consolations : Containing
Meditations and Reflections on sixty-two passages of
Scripture, with particular reference to those in trouble
and affliction ; to which are added four seiTOons, suited
to persons in distressing and mournful circumstances.
By Jonathan Farr. Second Edition. Enlarged by
several Prayers, and an Address to those who have
been afflicted. 1 vol. ISmo.
' This volume is eminently a work of compassion, it is medicine,
food, and air for the afflicted lonely ones. That medicine is com
pounded of ingredients gathered in the garden of the Lord ; that food
is the bread which came down from heaven : that air is the zephyry
odor, which comes from the paradise of God. Let the mentally
debilitated take, eat, breathe, and revive.' — London Christian Pioneer.

8 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS.
An Offering of S3Tnpathy to the Afflicted: Es
pecially to Parents bereaved of their Children. Being
a collection from Manuscripts never before published.
With an Appendix of Extracts. By Francis Parkman.
Tliird Edition. 18mo.
' Though small, it is rich in comfort and instruction. Prepared by
the editor in a season of pecuUar personal affliction, it contains many
of his own thoughts, with the judicious selections which he made
from books from which he drew consolation, besides the original
articles which at his request were furnished by his brethren in the
ministry. In the present edition not only is the Appendix — of Ex
tracts — enlarged, but an original article is given not found in the
former editions.' — Monthly Miscellany.
' We are not surprised that Dr. Parkman's excellent Uttle volume
has reached a third edition. It has carried comfort to many a heart; "
We wish it well on its errand of peace.' — Christian Examiner.
' A volume deserving a cordial welcome to every house and heart
The variety of thought and expression, and yet the perfect harmony
of tone of feeUng which marks this spiritual wreath for a christian
cemeteiy, will make it Uve and bloom as long as sorrow is known.'.^
Hunt's Magazine.
The Holy Land and its Inhabitants. By S. G.
Bulfinch. Being a description of this interesting coun
try, and also a History of it, Ancient and Modern, its
Antiquities, &c. &c.
Lives of Eminent Unitarians ; with a Notice of
Dissenting Academies, containing Lives of Robertson,
Palmer, Priestley, Price, and others. By the Rev. W.
Turner, Jun., M. A. 2 vols. 12mo.
Henry Ware, Jr. Views of Christian Truth, Piety,
and Morality, Selected from the Writings of Dr, Priest
ley. With a Memoir of his Life. By Henry Ware,
Jr. 12mo. pp. 288.
' Mr. Ware has here erected a noble and enduring monument of the
pure and truly Christian character of one of the most gifted and single-
hearted of Christian confessors. The Memoir, compiled for the most
part from Dr. Priestley's own letters, and other writings, and drawn
up with care, is interesting throughout, and full of instruction. The
same may also be said of the selection of sermons, and other pieces
which make up the body of the work ; for they are almost exclusively
practical, and present 'views of Christian truth, piety, and morality,'
remarkable for their good sense, strictness, and discrimination.'—
Christian Examiner.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS, iJ
Ware on Christian Character. On the Formation
of Christian Character, addressed to those who are
seeking to lead a Religious Life. By Henry Ware,
Jr., D. D. Twelfth Edition. 18mo.
Henry Ware, Jr.'s Hints on Extemporaneous
Preaching, with rules for its government. Tliird
Edition.
' It is the object of this little work to draw the attention of those
who are preparing for the Christian ministry, or who have just
entered it, to a mode of preaching, which the writer thinks has been
too much discountenanced and despised ; but which , under proper
restrictions, he is persuaded may add greatly to the opportunities of
ministerial usefulness.' — The Preface.
Ware's Life of the Savior. The Life of the Savior.
By Henry Ware,, Jr., Professor of Pulpit Eloquence
and the Pastoral Care in Harvard University, pp. 284.
Fourth Edition, ISmo.
' If we can suppose any person to be a stranger to the Gospel his
torians, in a Christian land, we think Professor Ware's narrative with
its illustrations would be to such >• person a work of unequalled in
terest in biography, provided he possessed a common share of moral
sensibiUty. To one somewhat acquainted with those histories, perused,
as they usually are, under great disadvantages in our common^ ver
sion, in small, detached portions, and without any helps, this ' Life of
the Savior ' affords assistance, in various ways, at once in a more
popular and a more intelligible form than can elsewhere be found, so
far as we know. This volume is intended particularly for the young ;
but it is a valuable aid to every reader of the Gospels ; an aid to the
understanding of them, and an aid to reflections upon their truths. It
unites, in some good measure, the advantages of a paraphrase and a
commentary, without the feebleness of the former, or the dryness of
the latter.' — American Monthly Review.
Henry Ware, Jr's. Scenes and Characters, IUus
trating Chiistian Trath. In a series of Tales, each
number complete in itself. To be had separately.
Edited by the Rev. H. Ware, Jr.
' If we may judge of this series of little works from the two numbers
which have appeared, we should say that it bids fair to be eminently
useful, and to reaUze whatever we might expect from the high
character of the writers engaged. They should be read. AVluiever
contributes at aU to circulate them does good to the pubUc,'— £os^»j
Daily Advertiser.

10 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.
1. TRIAL AND SEIF-DISCIPIIIE. By fflss Sayage, Author of ' James
Talbot.' ' If the remaining numbers shall be executed with the same skill,
and the same deep reUgious feelings which pervade the first, these
Uttle volumes will be an important addition to the works which make
reUgion attractive and lovely.' — Christian Register.
2. TIIE SCEPTIC. By Irs. FoUen, Author of ' The ¥eU-spent Hour.'
' This is an admirable little hook, which no one will dip into without
reading through, and no one will read through without being improved
and delighted. The argumentative portions are clear and forcible, and
are naturally and skilfully interwoven with the web of the story.
The characters are conceived and sustained wonderfully well, and
never were the Christian graces more beautifully and consistently
displayed than in the Ufe and conversation of AUce Grey. We owe a
debt of gratitude to the writer who gives us so natural and true a pic
ture of the influence of Christianity upon our daily and hourly duties,
and of the mighty power which it bestows upon the character and
aflfections.' — Boston Observer,
I HOME. By Miss Sedgwick, Author of ' Redwood,' &c.
' The influence of an enUghtened mind and pure heart is shed, Uke
sunshine, over all that Miss Sedgwick writes.' — Mrs, ChUd,
' One of the sweetest homely pictures of domestic life among the
middle classes of New England, which it is possible to imagine, and
one fall of the instruction which makes a way to the heart.' — Tait'a
Magazine,
4. GLEAMS OF TRUTH. By the Rev. Joseph Tuckerman, D. D,
' This little work diff'ers from its predecessors in being not a ficti
tious and connected narrative, but a collection of detached facts,
anecdotes, and conversations, which actually occurred within the
writer's own experience. This diflference, while it adds to its value,
will not make it less interesting, but the contrary  Truth
is strange, and stranger than fiction, and the most creative imagina
tion could not have conceived more striking and consistent illustra
tions of Christian character than are here presented to us to admire
and imitate  Nothing can be more elevating, inspiring, and
encouraging, than the instances which he has here given us.' — Boston
Observer,
5. THE BACKSLIDER. By the Author of the ' Hugenots,' &c.
' The Blackslider is intended to illustrate the influence of Chris
tianity on minds diff'erently constituted, particularly on the two prin
cipal characters of the story. In Anna Hope, we see its efl"ects on a
mind naturally well balanced. In Walter we see the good seed scat
tered on the thin soil ; and it is the aim of the writer to show where
the lack of root is.' ' Such fictions as the one before us. by their
faithful and graphic representations of human nature, affect us fox
the time like reality,' — Christian Examiner.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 11
6. ALFRED ; or, the Effects of True Repentance. And the BETTER
PART. By the Author of ' Sophia Morton.'
Mrs. Farrar's Life of John Howard, the Philan*
thropist, with a Preface by Rev. Henry Ware, Jr.
This volume gives an interesting narrative of the Life and also oT
the various undertakings of this eminent philanthropist ; it is written
with aU the vigor of the other works of its author.
Memoir of Rev. Joseph Tuckerman, (Minister to
the Poor.) By Rev. W. E. Channing. 18mo.
Jouffroy's Ethics. Inti-oduction to Etliics: including
a Critical Survey of Moral Systems. Translated from
the French of JoufTroy. By William H. Channing.
This work consists of a critical review of various ethical systems^
aiming to give a fair view of the merits and demerits of each, with
especial regard to the particular points wherein lay the taultiness oJ
each. To every student of moral philosophy, and of the history of
the human mind, such a sketch must be of very great interest and
value.Bumap's Lectures to Young Men; on the culii-
vation of the Mind, the formation of Character, and
the Conduct of Life. Second Edition. By George W.
Bumap. 1 vol 12mo.
' Remarkable for the intelligent spirit which they display, and thfe
Bound moral instructions conveyed.' — Phila. Ledger.
Lectures on the Sphere and Duties of Woman,
and other subjects. By George W. Bumap. 1 voL
12mo.
' The duties of Women, and especially of American females, arfe
ably defined, and correctly animadverted on. We take pleasure in
recommending it as a'-work that aU parents should place in the hands
of their daughters, and the husband in that of his wife.'— iV. Y. Lady's
Companion, ' We commend the book to the attention of every female, whether
young or old, and whatever station she may fill. They will find a
true friend in the author, and cannot fail to draw improvement irom
his admonitions.' — Boston Courier,
Lectures on the History of Christianity. By
George W. Burnap. 1 vol. 12mo.

12 JAMES MUNROE ANU COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.
Memoir of James Jackson, Jr. M. D. wiitten by
liis Father, with extracts from his Letters, and remin
iscences of him by a Fellow Student. 18mo.
Memoir of Nathaniel Bo'wditch, (the Mathemati
cian,) ISmo.
Dewey's Sermons. Discourses on various subjects.
By Rev. OrviUe Dewey. 3 vols. 12mo.
W. H. Fumess. Jesus and his Biographers ; or the
remarks on the Four Gospels, revised with copious
additions. By W. H. Furness. 1 vol. 8vo.
Ripley's Specimens of Foreign Standard Literature.
Edited by George Ripley. 14 vols 12mo.
"Volumes 12 and 13, containing De WETTE' S HUMAN
LIFE. See page 6.
Volume 14. SONGS AND BALLADS. With notes.
Translated by Charles T. Brooks.
The Unitarian. Conducted by Bernard Wlritman.
8vo. pp. 590.
Meditations for the Sick. By Jonathan Cole. 18ma
Tracts of the American Unitarian Association.
In 15 vols. 12mo.
Christian Disciple. 6 volumes, Bvo.
Christian Examiner, complete to 1844. 35 vols.
The pages of this work have been enriched by contributions from
the pens of Worcester, Channing, Norton, Greenwood, Ware, and
others.
Henry Ware, D, D. An Inquii-y into the Foundation,
Evidences, and Truths of Religion. By Henry Ware,
D. D., late HoUis Professor of Divinity in Hai-vard
College. 2 vols. 12mo.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 13
Theodore; or the Skeptic's Conversion. Translated
from the German of De Wette. By James F.- Clarke.
2 vols. 12mo.
Sparks's Essays and Tracts. A Collection of Es
says and Tracts in Theology, From various Authors,
with BiograpMcal and Critical Notices. By Jared
Sparks. 6 vols. 12mo.
Unitarian Miscellany, and Christian Monitor. Edited
by Rev. Jared Sparks, and Rev. F. W. P. Greenwood.
6 vols. 12mo.
The Young Maiden. By Rev. A. B. Mussey. Fourth
Edition.
'It wiU be perused with advantage by the class for whom it is
especially designed, and will secure the favorable judgment of their
most judicious friends.' — London Inqidrer.
The Young Man's Friend. By A. B. Mussey. 18mo.
Second Edition.
Week Day Religion. By Rev. Bernard Whitman.
18mo.
Gieseler's Text Book of Ecclesiastical History. By J.
C. I. Gieseler, Doctor of Philosophy and Theology,
and Professor of Theology in Gottingen. Translated
from the Third German Edition by Francis Cunning
ham. 3 vols. 8vo.
Observations on the Bible, for the use of Young Per
sons: 12mo. t:
 *
Locke on the Epistles. A Paraphrase and Notes
on the Epistles of St Paul to the Galatians, First and
Second Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians. To
which is prefixed an Essay for the Understanding of
St. Paul's Epistles, by consulting St. Paul himself. By
John Locke. 8vo. pp. 456.
The Dial. Published' quarterly, 16 numbers now out
Edited by R. W. Em^-son.
n^ A few complete sets only remaining on hand.
2

14 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.
JUST PUBI.ISZIED.
LECTURES ON
CHEISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By Andrew P. Peabody, Pastor of the South Church,
Portsmouth. 1 vol. 12mo.
ENDEAVORS
AFTEE THE
CHEISTIAN LIFE.
A Volume of Discourses by James Martineau. 12mo.
Contents. The Spirit of Life in JeSus Christ; The Besetting
God; Great Principles and Small Duties; Eden and Gethsemane;
Sorrow no Sin ; Christian Peace ; Religion on False Pretences ;
Mammon Worship ; The Kingdom of God within uS) Part I ; The
Kingdom, of God within us. Part II; The Contentment of Sorrow;
Immortality; The Communion of Saints ;" Christ's Treatment of
Guilt ; The Strength of the Lonely ; Hand and Heart ; Silence and
Meditation ; Winter Worship ; The Great Year of Providence ; Christ
and the Littie Child ; The Christianity of Old Age ; Nothing Human
ever Dies. —
' These discourses form part of an extensive plan ; and may be con
sidered not so much a separate work, as an introduction to a complete
treatise on the Christian character and Ufe. Their object is to awaken
the Christian spirit, rather than to'describe the perfect Christian life 5
and while they inculcate specific duties and warn against specific
sins, their leading design is to excite and strengthen the devout spirit
that will lead us always to perform all duties.
' We recommend the volume to our readers as the production of an
enlightened Christian mind, full of earnestness and power anddove of
souls. It was composed because the author had something to say on
the highest subjects of human thought, because his heart overflows
with sympathy for the ills of man, and because he has felt for himself
the blessedness of laboring for their removal. He is an enthusiast ;
but an intelligent one, who does not expect to remove social evils by
the application of any fine-spun poUtical system, but by awakening
in each individual heart some mighty emotion, that shall lead to the
reformation of that individual life.
' The discourses on the Kingdom of God within us, on Great Prin
ciples and Small Duties, on Immortality and the Great Year of Provi
dence, are particularly interesting and instructive.' — Monthly Miscellany
LETTERS ON EPISCOPACY, By Jared Sparks.
Second Edition, with large additions. 1 vol. 12mo.'

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 15
NEW HYMN BOOK.
The Social Hymn Book, consisting of Psalms and
Hymns, for Social Worship and Private Devotion.
With 28 pages music.
' It is designed to supply the want which is beUeved to be increasing,
of a small and cheap Hymn Book for vestiy meetings, and for parishes
that are unable to procure more expensive collections.' — The Preface.
' The collection contains 360 Hymns, 14 Doxologies, 21 Sacred
tunes. There are somewhat more than 130 of the Hymns which are
not found in Dr. Greenwood's, of these a portion are found in some of
the other collections ; a part of them are truly exquisite and beautiful,
and ought to appear in every collection.
' The hymns which Mr. Robbins has introduced, in general do
•credit to his taste and reading. Some of those from Bishop Mant's
Collection of Ancient Hymns seem harsh to most readers on a first
perusal, but famiUarity renders them highly attractive and stores the
heart with rich and beautiful sentiments.' — Christian Register.
' In looking over this work, we are happy to recognize a number
of our favorite hymns, the omission of which in other collections
we have always regretted. The Book breathes the spirit of the con
ference room, and is at the same time well adapted, as it is in part
intended, ' for parishes that are unable to procure more expensive col
lections,' ' — Salem Observer.
' This is an admirable selection of devotional hymns, and will,
doubtless, become a favorite one for the purposes for which it was
designed. The collection was made by Rev. Chandler Robbins, of
this city, whose name, alone, is a sufficient guaranty for its excel
lence. We hail this Uttle work, as one among the signs we daily see,
of interest in the work of enlivening the whole Church, and bringing
^s all into an active, visible cooperation,
' We ought to say in addition, that at the close of the book are
placed some twenty, or njore, of the most beautiful and popular tunes
used at social religious meetings.' — Christian World.
' We welcome, with the rest, the graceful Uttle volume before us, as
supplying a want, which has been sensibly felt in a department of our
social worship, and as well adapted to private and domestic devotion.
The excellence of its typographical execution invites attention, wliich
will be amply rewarded by its skilfully selected and arranged con
tents. ' For infant and feeble parishes, ' unable to procure more expen-
eive collections ; ' for the meetings of the vestry and all other social
services among Christians ; for the private and domestic altar we
cordially recommend the Selection before us. It unites the indispen
sable grace of a Christian spirit, by which it is pervaded, with poetic
beauty ; and so entire is its freedom from doubtful or sectarian phrase
ology, that it may easily become the manual, and a favorite one too, of
CBristians of various denominations.' — Monthly Miscellany.
B^ Already used in several parishes. Copies furnished to clergy
and others, for examination.

16 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANy's PUBLICATIONS.
MANUALS FOR
SABBATH SCHOOLS.
Livermore's Commentary. 2 vols. See page 1.
A Catechism of Natural Theology. By I, Nichols,
D, D,, Pastor of the First Church in Portland. Third
Edition, with additions and improvements. 12mo.
Plates.
' Dr. Nichols has prefixed to his work the appropriate motto, ' Every
house is builded hy some man ; but he that built all things is God ; '
and the work is a very happy- illustration of its motto. It is devoted
principally to an examination of the human frame, and it is shown
that the conformation of its various parts, and their adaptation to the
purposes which they are known to serve, could not have happened
without the design of an intelligent Creator. It is better adapted to
the comprehension of youth and common readers, than the more
elaborate and extended treatises of Paley and others ; and next to the
Holy Scriptures, is one of the most interesting and useful fields of
contemplation which could be spread out before them. If any person
can peruse this little book without feeling a kindred emotion, and
forming a similar puipose, the fact would be an affecting proof of the
alienation of the heart from its Maker. When it is remembered that
Atheism is among the spreading errors of our land, we see an addi
tional reason for directing our youth to such intellectual pursuits, as
will furnish the best defences against this arch heresy ; and such we
regard the contents of the work under review. We are glad that a
new edition of the work has been demanded, and that it makes its
appearance in a style of execution so worthy of its matter.' — Chris
tian Mirror, Portland, Me.
Hints to Sunday School Teachers, in a series of
Famihar Lectures. By Rev. T. B, Fox. ISmo. price
25 cents.
Allen's Questions. Parts 1, 2, and 3. 18mo.
Walker's Service Book. l8mo.
Fox's Sunday School Prayer Book. 18mo.
Child's Duties and Devotions. 18mo.
The Ministry of Christ, with Questions. By Rev,
T. B, Fox. IBmo,

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 17
Peabody's Sunday School Hymn Book. l8mo.
Channing's, Worcester Association, Rhode Island, and
Carpenter's Catechisms.
Life of the Savior. By Rev. H. Ware, Jr. ISmo.
see page 9.
Scripture Truths in Questions and Answers, for thq»
use of Sunday Schools and Families. 18mo. pp. 75.
' The writer of this little manual has not attempted to do better
where others have done well. Nor is this simply another Sunday
School book — though that would be no objection. It is in facta
new Sunday School book. It enters a province which has heretofore
been kept shut, at least in the schools of Liberal Christians ; viz. the
province of doctrine. * * * With these views we welcome this book.
Every question that is apt to arise, concerning God, Christ, Faith,
Ordinances, Prayer, Repentance, &c. &c., is answered by a passage of
Scripture ; and there are very few passages that do not contain fair
answers and sufficient exposition for the young. The controverted
and most difficult texts are more fully explained, yet with great sim
plicity, in notes, and also an Appendix. In the hands of well in
structed and judicious teachers, no one, we think, would doubt the
utility of such a manual. In families, to be used by parents, it is
excellent. Indeed for general use we feel free to commend it. The
plan and execution as a whole we Uke, and hope a fair trial will be
given it.' — Monthly Miscellany.
' We are ignoraiit of the name of the Author of this little book, but
we think he has done good service to the cause of religious instruc
tion. We are not in favor of the multiplication of manuals for the
use of Sunday Schools, but the arrangement and plan of this work,
are such as to make it a valuable assistant to any parent and Sunday
School Teacher.' — Christian Register.
The Sunday School Teacher's Guide. By A. B.
Muzzey. 18mo.
J. M. & Co. being engaged in the publication of
Juvenile Works, can offer to individuals and others,
selecting for '" Sabbath, School, and District Libraries,
superior advantages. And they keep constantly on
hand the largest assortment of Juveniles to be found,
embracing all the works by Mary Howitt, Mrs. Ellis,
Aunt Kitty, Charlotte Elizabeth, The Abbotts, and others,
All of which will be sold at a LARGE DISCOUNT,
from the trade prices.
D:j=- 3000 volumes now on hand.
2*

18 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.

MANUALS FOR
DAILY DEVOTION.
^ours for Heaven : a small but choice Selection of
Prayers, from Eminent Divines of the Church of Eng
land. Intended as a Devotional Companion for Young
Persons. 32mo. gUt edges.
' This is a little manual of devotion, consisting of prayers and
meditations for each day in the week, with additions of prayers for
particular occasions.
' To the prayers are added many miscellaneous pieces in prose and
verse, suited for aids to devotion ; and, lastly, several weighty reUgious
aphorisms. ' There are here and there forms of invocation, and single expres
sions, from which we dissent ; but the spirit, and, with few exceptions,
the language, is such that we do not fear to recommend the book to
serious Christians of all denominations.' — Christian Register.
' A choice selection of prayers from eminent Divines which is
designed as a devotional companion. It is an elegant Uttle volume,
nicely printed and bound, and its contents will be very acceptable to
any that may read them occasionally, as designed.' — Ploughman.
Fair's Prayers. Forms of Morning and Evening
Prayer, composed for the use of Families. By Jona
than Farr. 16mo. pp. 174.
¦ The ' Forms of Morning and Evening Prayer' are among the best
that have come under our notice, — at once calm and fervent, scriptu
ral and rational ; for which reason we doubt not tha/t they will find
general favor among those who are accustomed to avail themselves of
such helps to private or domestic devotion. The volume is veiy
neatly printed and done up, and contains prayers for every day in a
fortnight, and eight morning and evening prayers for any day in the
Week, and a great variety of occasional prayers for families, and for
individuals.' — Christian Examiner, '^.
Sewell's Daily Devotions, for a Family, with occa
sional Prayers. Second Edition. 12mo.
Greenwood's Chapel Liturgy ; collected principally
from the Book of Common Prayer. Fifth Edition;
with Family Prayers and Sei-vices, and other Addi
tions. ByF. W. P. Greenwood. 12mo.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANy's PUBLICATIONS. 19
Brooks's Prayers. A Family Prayer Book, and Pri
vate Manual ; to which are added, Forms for Religious
Societies and Schools, ^vitll a Collection of Hymns.
By Charles Brooks, Minister of the Tliird Church in
Hingham, Massachusetts. 12mo.
' Both as to its substance and form, it is a work of an excellent
design, and well calculated to answer its design ;^nd considering how
much it is wanted amongst us, and how much'good it may do, we are'
happy in having this opportunity to recommend it most cordially.' —
Christian Disciple.
Bowring's Matins au.d Vespers ; with Hymns and
Occasional Devotional Pieces. By John Bowring.
London. 18mo. Price 50 cents.
' There is in them a frequent display, or rather the presence without
the display, of a tenderness and pSthos, an elegant simplicity and
devotional feeling, which win upon the heart, and sometimes touch it
as with strains from unearthly worlds. There is no drama, no tale,
no controversy in these poems ; they are truly ' Matins and Vespers.'
They charm by their modesty and sensibiUty, and by a deep venera
tion of, and an ardent expression of gratitude towards, our Almighty
Creator, Preserver, and Benefactor. Many of the pictures in them of
the love and compassion of "God towards his creatures are truly beau
tiful and affecting.' — Christian Observer, London,
Furness's Domestic Worship. By W. H. Furness,
Pastor of the Fii'st Congregational Unitarian Church
in Philadelphia. Second Edition. 12mo.
' The prayers are divided into sections and are not specially appro
priated to the several days of the week; that opportunity may be
given for selection, omission, and variety.' — The Preface,
The Social H3^mn Book ; consisting of Psalms and
Hymns for Social Worship and Private Devotion.
Compiled by Rev. Chandler Robbins. 18mo.
Devotional 'Exercises. Compiled by J. T Bucking
ham. 18mo. Third Edition.
' We lilce this littie volume extremely. The plan is happy and it ia
executed with exceedingly good judgment and taste,'— iV. A. Review,
'This unpretending- little volume is compiled from the Book of
Proveibs, the Book of Psalms, and the Gospels, The compiler has
executed his task with excellent judgment, and we most heartily
recommend iV— Salem Observer,

22 JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS.

MISCELLANEOUS BOOKS.
CARLYLE'S MISCELLANIES. 4 vols.
SARTOR RESARTUS. Fourth American Edition.
HEROES OF HISTORY. 1 vol.
FRENCH REVOLUTION. 2 vols.
WILHELM MEISTER. 3 vols.
PAST AND PRESENT. 1 vol.
CHARTISM. 1 vol.
GERMAN ROMANCE: Specimens of its chief
authors ; with Biographical and Critical Notices. By Thomas
Carlyle. 2 vols. r2mo.
ESSAYS BY R. W. EMERSON. 1 vol.
Contents. History; Self Reliance; Compensation; Spiritual
Laws ; Love ; Friendship ; Prudence ; Heroism ; The Over Soul ;
Circles ; Intellect ; Art, ¦"
NATURE. By R. W, Emerson.
LIFE OF CRABBE THE POET. By his Son. 12mo.
THE HAMLETS,. A TALE. By Miss Martineau. 2d. Ed. ISmo.
PIERPONT'S POEMS, now first collected. 16mo.
POLITE LITERATURE IN GERMANY. Translated, by Geo.
W. Haven. 16mo.
COLERIDGE'S CONFESSIONS OF AN INQUIRING SPIRIT.
AIDS TO REFLECTION. By S. T. Coleridge. 8vo. ¦
TUCKER'S LIGHT OF NATURE PURSUED, witlj a Memoir.
4 vols, 8vo.
GUIZOT'S ESSAY ON THE INFLUENCE AND CHARAC-
¦^" r-lY, WA^'^NGTON, 16mo.
vols, 12mo. ^loin. . , . ,, . „ ,
' ^"omoir, 2 vols. 12mo.
' A whole volume of collected Miscellanies of greSre merii, r.. ._
us. We mean Mr. Hawthorne's ' Twice Told Tales,' which will one
day or other be naturalized into our Library of Romance, if truth,
fancy, pathos, and originality, have any longer power to diffuse a
reputation. He has caught the true fantastic spirit, which somewhere
or other exists in every society, be it ever so utiUtarian and practical.
Unking the seen to the unseen, the matter of fact to the imaginative.
As a recounter of mere legends, Mr. Hawthorne claims high praise.
We cannot too heartily commend this book as the best addition that
has been made to what may be called the Faiiy Library, which has
been made for many years.' — London Foreign and Colonial Quarterly
Review, . 'To this Utile work we would say, ' Live ever, sweet, sweet book.'
It comes from the hand ofa man of genius. Every thing about it has
the freshness of morning and of May. A calm, thoughtful face seems
to be looking at you from every page. — N. A. Review.

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S CATALOGUE.

23

STANDARD WORKS.

Baiicroa's XJ. S. 3 vols.
Sparks's Life of Washinglon. 1 vol.
" American Biography. 10 vols.
Franklin's Works. 10 vols.
Prescotl's Ferdinand arid Isabella. 3 v.
" Mexico. 3 vols.
Burke's Works. 9 vols.
Stephens's Central America. 3 vols.
" Yucatan. 2 vols.
" Arabia Petrae. 2 vols.
" Greece, &c. 2 vols.
Story's Wriiings. 1 vol.
Shakspeare. Various Editions,
Milton's Poetical Works. 2 vols.
" Prose Works. 2 vols.
Cowper's Poems. 2 vols.
Longfellow's Poems. 3 vols.
Encyclopedia Americana. 13 vols.
Miss Bremer's Works. 1 vol.

Edgeworlh's

tt

10 vols.

Hannah More's

"

2 vols.

Sherwood's

((

8 vols.

Butler's Works.

2 vols

Spenser's "

5 vols

Channing's "
Henry Ware's V

6 vols

t^'orks.

«v

Charlotte Elizabeth's Works,

Greenwood's Works.
FoUen's " 5 vols.
Heman's " 5 vols.
Whitlier, Tennyson, Leigh Hunt, Scott,
Barry Cornwall, and Lowell's Poems.
Burns's Works. 1 vol.
Aiken's British Poets. 8vo.
Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
Lamb's Complete Works. 8vo.
Herbert's Poems and Remains. 2 vols.
Latrobe's Scripiure Illu.slrations. 4to.
D'Aubigne's Reformation. 3 vols.
Neander's Church History.
Bible in Spain.
Milman's History of Christianity.
Buckminster's Works. 2 vols, 12rao,
Life of Jean Paul Richter. 2 vols.
Peabody's Doctrinal Discourses. 12mo.
Allison's History of Europe. 4 vols.
8vo.
Carlyle's Works. 14 vols. 12mo,
Poets and Poetry of America.
Buckminster's Works. 2 vols.
Walter Scott's Novels, Poems, and Life,
uniform. 39 vols.
Paley's Works. 6 vols.
Young's Old English Prose Writers. 9 v.

¦ "^ .MRS. SIGOURNEY'S
PIEASMT MEMORIES OF PLEASANT LANDS. M. Ed. with additions.
16mo. Illustrated with two beautiful Engravings. Cloth.
' It has all the charms which characterize the works of William
Howitt, besides its poetical illustrations of some of the most romantic
spots known over the wide earth.' — Christian Register,
' It contains a variety of articles, suggested by a recent visit to Great
Britain, in poetry and prose, but all of a superior order, and all calcu
lated to enchain the attention of the reader, — and while the beautiful
description of scenes abroad tends to enUghten, the elegant language
and the elevated sentiments must purify the heart.'
NEAT MIMATDRE TOlMEsTlN CLOTH, GILT EDGES.
Channing's Self Culture; Hours for Heaven ; Pure Gold; Sentiment
of Flowers ; Hemans, Wordsworth, CampbeU, and Bowring's Poetical
Works • Casket of Four Jewels ; Bible and the Closet ; Marriage Ring;
Daily Manna ; Elizabeth, or the Exiles of Siberia ; Vicar of Wakefield ;
Goldsmith's Essays ; Gems from American Poets; Hannah More's
Private Devotion ; Token of the Heart ; Paul and Virginia ; Flower
Vase; Gems from- Female Poets; Scott's Poetical Works 3 vols.;
Coleridge's Poetical Works; Barton's Poems; Remember Me; Queeo
of Flowersv-

JAMES MUNEOE AND COMPANY,
Publishers, Booksellers, and Stationers,
134 WASHINGTON STREET,
BOSTON,
KEEP CONSTANTLY ON HAND A LAEGE ASSOETMEKT OF
MISCELLANEOUS EOOICS, SUITABLE FOB CITY,
TOWN, AND VILLAGE LIBEAKIES.
IXy=*PEasONAL ATTENTlOif PAID TO ALL OKDEE.S ENTRUSTED TO THEIR CARE.
SCHOOL BOOKS, ALL THE VARIETIES IN USE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
Books imported to order, in large or small quantities,
by every steamer ; and answers to orders received in
thirty to sixty days. Orders from incorporated institu
tions, executed free of duty.
Particular attention paid to the furnishing of Juvenile
Libraries, either Sabbath or Day School, and as "low as
can be procured any\vhere in the city.
Merchants, School Committees, and Teachers, supphed
with Books and Stationery at a large discount from Trade
Prices. J. M. & Co. are also publishers of
THE
AMERICAN ALMANAC,
AND
REPOSITORY OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE.
Edited by Francis Bowen. 14 volumes now ready. Back
volumes supphed.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08837 7701

,-t;j^>'i^S»f '-¦¦'¦ ,;'';^i^>- ./-inC'y^'''"'"j-'r-~

"'^' "<»¦**

iiiaji^'' " - ¦¦ 'fesK'v.