ee 
 
 ie 
 
 ia 
 
 555 
 
 Pope eras 
 
 OR 
 cae esas 
 
 Pad 
 ix - \ : é y va ei 
 
 os 
 
 eee 
 
 4 
 SALES 
 
 EERE aS 
 af A) 
 ses 
 
 2 
 sae 
 Sete! 
 <8 
 peat pt, 
 
 A 4 
 ee ey 
 
 oie 
 sodoe eed 
 Pore rot 
 > aa ge 
 pratee: 
 é es lates 
 apres tehi 
 -) Preys 
 
 i Laie 
 
 Aaa 
 
 PERE 
 Sess 
 C9) 
 
 ie 
 2 
 
 cf 
 ist 
 
 7) 
 
 9%, 
 
 tad gh, 5 
 , oe ‘ 2 Sate, Mey ser 
 . Meeiaataresey 
 
 ¢, 
 
 PELE, 
 
 % 
 ~ 
 é % 
 MY = em, 
 pd 
 
 i 
 ae 
 
 Se 
 = 
 
 eee: 
 Sa 
 oy ses 
 
 pane 
 
 * 
 ¥ 
 
 re a 
 
 aiid ol Nee nd Se Be 
 
Poon ta 
 of {lve Geologic, 1 Srips 
 ing itty 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 og 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
one 
 
 deine Loe 
 
 mt 
 
 as 
 
 . haa 
 
 VE 
 
 Pega,’ 
 
 ‘oP 
 
 ff : 
 ae ole 
 = 4 Sheets. 
 
 £ * 
 
 eve 
 We ka aeeee ¥ 
 
 i> <> et 
 
 ra 
 
 ee 
 
 3 
 ed 
 
LETTERS TO A FRIEND 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DOGIRENES OF DOE TRINETY 
 
 AND 
 
 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
yi ait 
 to 
 
 . o a a h 
 ¥ es 
 thi 
 
 iy’ 
 ee 
 
LETTERS TO A FRIEND, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 DOCTRINES OF THE TRINITY 
 
 AND 
 
 THE ATONEMENT: 
 
 EXPLANATORY OF THE AUTHOR'S REASONS FOR DECLINING TO JOIN 
 IN THE SERVICE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: 
 
 WHEREIN AN ATTEMPT IS MADE, BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE EPISTLES OF ST, PAUE, 
 TO THROW LIGHT ON THE SACERDOTAL CHARACTER OF OUR LORD, 
 AS TYPIFIED IN THE RITES AND CEREMONIES OF 
 THE ANCIENT COVENANT. 
 
 BY GEORGE “WALKER. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 J. GREEN, NEWGATE STREET; 
 MANCHESTER: T. FORREST, MARKET STREET. 
 
 ee 
 
 1843. 
 
T. Forrest, Printer, Manchester. 
 
RINCE TC 
 REC, NOV 18&0 
 
 Fr 
 
 THROLOGICS. 
 
 AG » 
 & ea 
 SEMINAR Lig 
 Verne Ne 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Durine the Author’s residence in a retired village in France, it was 
 his good fortune to make the acquaintance of three English ladies, 
 of highly liberal and cultivated minds, but strictly orthodox in all 
 their religious opinions. In reply to an invitation to join them in the 
 morning service of the Church of England, he urged his objections 
 to its doctrines, particularly those of the Trinity and the Incarnation. 
 He was then referred to the various texts on which these dogmas 
 mainly depend, requesting his own explanation of them, as well as 
 the grounds in general of his dissent. It was with no little distrust 
 of his competency to the task, that he entered upon an examination 
 of these passages; for he confesses, that his opinions upon these 
 subjects were more the result of early association, and, he may say, 
 of a kind of hereditary prejudice, than of any serious and candid 
 inquiry. Under the circumstances, also, in which he was placed, 
 deprived of every resource, he had no other means of information 
 than what could be derived from a diligent study of the Scriptures, as 
 the only book to which he could have access. The result of this, he 
 hopes, impartial investigation, is contained in the following Letters. 
 Whether there be any novelty in his observations, his little knowledge 
 of controversial divinity will not enable him to say; but he can assure 
 the reader, that at least they have the merit of originality, for he is 
 not aware that he has borrowed even the shadow of an argument 
 
 from either men or books. With a free and unbiassed mind, he took 
 
iv 
 up the sacred volume in search of truth ; and, discarding all sectarian 
 prejudices, all prepossessions of whatever nature, he has drawn his 
 conclusions, founded, as he conscientiously believes, on its genuine 
 and unsophisticated doctrines. In this point of view, they may per- 
 haps claim a degree of attention, to which, on other grounds, they may 
 not be entitled. 
 
 He has not entered upon this discussion as a scholar or a critic ; 
 he makes no pretension to philological learning, to comment upon 
 the authenticity or true reading of doubtful and disputed passages. 
 As an ordinary reader, he has taken up the common version, having 
 assumed to himself, what he thinks he was fully authorized to do, 
 the right of interpreting its language with the same freedom as that 
 of any other book. In the exercise of this right, with, he trusts, a 
 candid and truth-seeking spirit, he confesses, though as the version 
 of Orthodoxy it may fairly be presumed to be not unfavorable to its 
 own doctrines, that he has in vain sought therein for any confirma- 
 tion of them; on the contrary, it does appear to him that their 
 refutation is written in every page, even in those very passages which 
 are specially adduced in their support, where he meets with no diffi- 
 culties of which they themselves do not otherwise furnish an easy 
 and satisfactory solution. In his opinion, the moral precepts on which 
 all agree are not announced in clearer and more positive terms, than 
 those doctrinal points on which so many differ; particularly that 
 orreat fundamental one, on which all turns, the unity of the Deity. 
 No one, with an unprejudiced mind, can continue to read, without 
 every where finding the confirmation of this important truth; and 
 there is nothing that ought to excite more just surprise, than the 
 learning and ingenuity which have been employed to pervert the 
 
 meaning of the plainest language, and to controvert a truth of all 
 
Vv 
 
 others the most repeatedly and distinctly affirmed. The efforts of 
 biblical scholars to restore the text to its original purity; to correct 
 the errors, wilful or accidental, the consequence of frequent tran- 
 scripts; to explain incidental allusions, and references to dates and 
 facts, and whatever tends to place on a firmer basis the truth of our 
 religion, have been most usefully and laudably employed. But these 
 are points which contribute but in a remote degree to the contrariety 
 of men’s opinions. It is founded upon the text, such as we have it, 
 and such as it is on all hands admitted; and as this can only be con- 
 strued according to the recognized meaning of words, and the 
 ordinary rules of Janguage and criticism, it is competent to any one 
 of fair understanding, to compare and judge, and form his own opinions: 
 nay, it is probable that such a one, with a mind free from prepos- 
 sessions, may have a clearer discernment and a more lively sense of 
 the truth and simplicity of its doctrines, than they who, under the 
 influence of scholastic prejudices and vanities, are more like men 
 who strain their eyes at distant objects, to discover that which lies 
 immediately in their path before them. 
 
 It cannot be that the truths of Christianity, which were meant 
 for all, are of a nature recondite, and hard if not impossible to under- 
 stand. If, instead of enlightening the world by a plain and intelligible 
 doctrine, Christ came to preach unintelligible mysteries; if, instead 
 of shewing to man the direct and straight road to salvation, he has 
 left him as before to grope in the dark, or involved him in a labyrinth 
 from which there is no escape, then it might indeed be asked, for 
 what end did he come into the world? But so far from preaching 
 a mysterious doctrine, nothing can be more simple than the whole 
 scheme of Christianity, or developed in simpler language. From 
 
 God’s love of the world He sent Christ into it, to recal it to the 
 
Vi 
 
 knowledge of Himself, and to the practice of virtue as a preparation 
 for eternal happiness. This is the sum and substance of the whole. 
 All beyond is mere human speculation, with which we have little or 
 nothing to do, but which the pride of man would engraft upon it as 
 its genuine doctrine. Within these boundaries all are agreed. Here 
 is no difference of opinion; but when, with a spirit at variance with 
 its character and simplicity, the Scriptures are searched to find therein 
 dark and hidden mysteries, and to this end the words are forced into 
 a sense the very reverse of what they bear, it is then that men’s 
 opinions become divergent; that a multitude of conflicting doctrines 
 are broached, inconsistent the one with the other, and each with 
 itself; so much so, that on the very nature of the dogmas on which 
 they profess to agree, scarcely two opinions coincide; a proof that 
 all this is not essential, that all this is not Christianity. 
 
 If the most rational and intelligible doctrines, announced in the 
 clearest and most indisputable terms, are net only to be set aside, 
 but to be understood in a sense opposed to the words, then language 
 is no longer adequate to the conveyance of truth. If the most posi- 
 tive and solemn injunctions of Scripture are to be superseded by 
 obscure inferences from an obscure phraseology,—if, indeed, that 
 phraseology can be called obscure, which is only made so by miscon- 
 Struction,—then there is nothing of which we can be assured. But 
 were it true that they were passages of a dubious and ambiguous 
 character, and apparently difficult to reconcile with other parts of 
 Scripture, are we at liberty to give them a sense inconsistent with 
 its declared doctrines elsewhere? Are they to give the tone and 
 character to the whole? Are all its truths and laws and doctrines 
 and precepts, to be qualified by mere arbitrary inferences from a few 
 
 insulated passages ? As well might the philosopher, from the few 
 
Vii 
 specks which he discovers in the sun’s surface, characterize the whole 
 as dark and obscure, insensible all the while to its splendour, its 
 warmth, and its vivifying influence; for this is what they do who 
 search the Scriptures, that great moral source of light and life, 
 intent only to discover therein dark and hidden meanings, whilst 
 they shut their eyes to the great primary truths which shine forth 
 with such resplendent lustre in every page. And what is the result, 
 vain man, of all your mysterious discoveries ? Why, that you have 
 done that which the ignorant and unenlightened of every age have 
 done; you have exchanged an heavenly for an earthly, a spiritual 
 for a carnal, a merciful for a vengeful God. You have fashioned 
 Him after your own likeness, an anthropomorphitic Deity, to whom 
 you have attributed your own passions and frailties. Unable to feel 
 or to comprehend the pure, holy and sublime truths of revelation, 
 you have abased them to the level of your own gross conceptions. 
 And these vulgar imaginings you would force upon the consciences 
 of others, as if you spoke with the voice of inspiration. Of the 
 incomprehensible God, you declare the nature and generation with as 
 much dogmatic assurance, as if you had been admitted into the third 
 heaven, and had opened the volume of its hidden mysteries. And 
 thus it ever will be, when you approach the Scriptures with a worldly 
 spirit. As easy for the light of heaven to visit the eyes of the blind, 
 or the harmony of sounds the sealed ears of the deaf, as that its pure 
 and divine truths should shine in upon a mind darkened by prejudice, 
 and passion, and pride, and self interest, and the vanities of human 
 learning. If you love the truth, prepare yourselves for its reception ; 
 seek instruction with a humble mind; look into the Scriptures, not 
 for what you wish to find, but for what you do find. Above all, open 
 
 your hearts to the influence of its heavenly spirit; receive it as an 
 
Vill 
 emanation altogether of love and mercy, and you will then perceive 
 that what is the character of the whole, is and must be that of every 
 part, and that no construction which is at variance with this character 
 can be the true one; for truth cannot be opposed to itself, nor one 
 part of the Scriptures to another. If they were thus searched with a 
 spirit in unison with them, they would always be found the best 
 interpreters of themselves, the clearest and most satisfactory ex- 
 pounders of all those difficulties which have been thrown upon them 
 by that load of creeds and commentaries, of dogmas and doctrines, 
 under which all their original truth and simplicity have been well 
 
 nigh lost sight of. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER, PAGE, 
 I. An unprejudiced, fearless mind, necessary for the inquiry. 
 MUL DOMAM OG OL Perth a ee cute. nautcud As deeat Oe das ky 1 
 II. Doctrine of the Two Natures. Reason and Faith............ 6 
 III. Doctrines of the Trinity and the Two Natures, inconsistent 
 with the acknowledged attributes of God.......... cesses. 16 
 IV. The same doctrines, and that of Satisfaction, inconsistent 
 with the character of the Deity...........c..ccccscssssseese ve Pq) 
 V. The figurative language of St. Paul, explained by the cir- 
 cumstances of the early Christians..................ss.eecees 33 
 VI. Justification by Faith. The ceremonies of the Mosaic 
 TWa ty PICS: Obe CUTts here. cn e965, sods ance cd tee 37 
 VII. These analogies fail, according to the Satisfaction scheme. 44 
 VIII. The Love of God the only source of Salvation..........e.s0.6.. 50 
 IX. (Part I.) Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with 
 regard to the death of, Clirtstyicsctivea-ccet asvauvevib tee! acs 55 
 TXeme bars 11.) Object: of this Epistle.sic:.). ce, wivadesss ccs cabs ts 58 
 X. Paraphrase of Hebrews i.—x...............ceccsssssccsssenccae ones 64 
 XI. The Death of Christ qualified him to act as Mediator...... 78 
 XII. The doctrine of Satisfaction inconsistent with this Epistle. 
 Real nature of the Salvation through Christ............... 86 
 
 XIII. The same doctrine finconsistent with the Justice of God... 94 
 XIV. Explanation of Rom. v. 8—10. Man reconciled to God 
 
 PHUOU SNS CUT ist etae sive lerrce: sitatekcek sos ank cidceae ot lis Scseet teak 99 
 XV. Examination of Eph. ii. 11—18. The Satisfaction scheme 
 inconsistent with the Scripture doctrine of Justifica- 
 
 WOM ADV aU aU tree tet ar atop inn apss02eaubysces sya dctageet ei rica 105 
 XVI. Inconsistencies involved in the doctrine of Satisfaction. 
 Baneful influence of Creeds and Establishments. Origin 
 
 of the Satisfaction scheme............... Reawer ena enti ay te 114 
 
 XVII. This scheme inconsistent with Revelation as with Nature 121 
 XVIII. The doctrine of the Trinity opposed both to Reason and 
 to Revelation. The Unity of God thefundamental article 
 
 of the Jewish Faith, and confirmed by Christianity...... 130 
 XIX. The divine power of Jesus that of God the Father, not God 
 the Son. The doctrine of the Two Natures contrary to 
 the whole tenor and the express declarations of the New 
 Testament. Truth and prejudice. Gradual develop- 
 
 ment of the doctrine of the Trinity. Faith and Love... 144 
 
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 
 
 Adams, Mrs., London. 
 Adamson, Samuel, Manchester. 
 Ainsworth, Thomas, Hyremont, Cumbert. 
 
 Ainsworth, Miss, Underfield,nr. Ulwerstone. 
 
 Alcock, Samuel, Manchester. 
 Anderson, John, London. 
 
 Anthony, Mr., Manchester. 
 
 Ashton, Thomas, Hyde. (2 copies ) 
 Ashworth, Rey. John, Rossendale. 
 Astley, Miss, Shrewsbury. 
 
 Barton, A. J., Manchester. 
 
 Beaumont, Mrs. H.,Brompton. (4 copies ) 
 Bentley, John, Manchester 
 Bischoff, J., London. 
 
 Bishop, Rev. F., Warrington. 
 Blackbird, R., Newcastle-on-Tyne. 
 Boddington, S., London. (2 copies) 
 Booth, J., Manchester. 
 
 Buddle, J., Newcastle-on-Tyne. (2 copies ) 
 Burbery, Mrs., Kenilworth Chase, 
 
 (2 copies ) 
 
 Carpenter, Rev. B., Nottingham. 
 
 Cayley, Edw.S.,M. P., Wydale.(A copies ) 
 Cayley, Mrs. Edw. 8., do. (4 do.) 
 Cayley, Sir G. Bart., Brompton. (4 do.) 
 Cayley, Lady, do. (4 do.) 
 Chapman, John, Manchester. 
 Chorley, James, do. 
 Clarke, Francis, do. 
 Colston, Rev. J., Styal. 
 Cooper, L., Maidstone. 
 Crompton, Charles, London. 
 
 (2 copies ) 
 (4 copies ) 
 
 | Crompton, H., Eton House, Liverpool. 
 
 (2 copies ) 
 Crompton, Mrs., do. (2 do.) 
 Crompton, Miss, do. (2 do.) 
 Crompton, Edw., do. (2 do.) 
 
 Darbishire, S. D., Manchester. 
 
 Davies, Rev. H., LL.D., Gloucester. 
 Duckworth, 8., London. (A copies ) 
 Duckworth, Wm., Beechwood. (4 do.) 
 
 Estlin, J. B., F.L.S., Bristol. 
 
 Farrar, Simeon, Stand. 
 
 Fellowes, A. T., Wottingham. 
 Field, Rev. Wm., Warwick. 
 Fordham, E. K., Royston. 
 Fordham, John E., Melbourn Bury. 
 Forrest, Thomas, Manchester. 
 Freme, James, Liverpool. 
 
 Gardner, Frederick J., Barton, near 
 Manchester. 
 
 Garfitt, Wm., Boston. 
 
 Gaskell, Rev. W., M.A., Manchester. 
 
 Godden, Stephen, Tenterden. 
 
 Greaves, J., Radford, near Leamington. 
 
 Greg, Mrs. R. H., Norcliffe. 
 
 Greg, R. H. do. (4 copies ) 
 
 Grisbrook, W., Tenterden, Kent. 
 
 Grundy, Miss, Seedjield, Bury. 
 
 Grundy, E., Bridge Hall, Bury. 
 
 Hampson, B., Manchester. 
 
Xll 
 
 Harland, W.C.,Sutton Hall, York.(4copies)| Nichols, R., Manchester. 
 
 Hayes, Mrs. C., Eveter. (Ado. ) 
 
 Heywood, James, Manchester. (4 copies) 
 
 Heywood, J. P., Liverpool. (2 copies ) 
 
 Herford, Edward, Manchester. 
 
 Holmes, Robert, Dublin. 
 
 Holt, G., Liverpool. 
 
 Houghton, H. J., Manchester. 
 
 Howard, Charles, York. 
 
 Howard, Mrs., do. 
 
 Howorth, Rev. F., Bury. 
 
 Hunter, Rev. J., F.S.A., London. 
 
 Hutton, Robert, M. P., Putney Park, 
 Surrey. (2 copies ) 
 
 Hutton, Joseph, LL.D., London, (2 do.) 
 
 Jackson, John, Wrowhall. 
 Jackson, Mrs., Manchester. 
 Jessop, W., Alfreton. 
 Johns, Rev. W., Broughton. 
 
 (2 copies ) 
 
 Kentish, Rev. John, Birmingham. 
 
 Lawrence, Misses, Leamington.( 4 copies ) 
 
 Lawrence, Misses, Balsall Heath, near ) 
 Birmingham. (2 copies ) § 
 
 Lawrence, J. T. do. 
 
 Layhe, Rev. John, Manchester. 
 
 Lea, Mrs., Kidderminster. 
 
 Lloyd, Mrs., York. (A copies) 
 
 Lloyd, Rees L., Manchester New College. 
 
 Lupton, Arthur, B.A., Leeds. 
 
 Macdonald, Rev. A., Royston. 
 Macnicol, Miss, Manchester. 
 Mackintosh, J., Hxeter. 
 Madge, Rev. T., London. 
 Martineau, Rev. J., Liverpool. 
 M’Connel, T. H., Ardwick. 
 Mills, James, Vorthampton. 
 Mylne, Mrs. J. W., London. 
 
 (2 copies ) 
 (2 do.) 
 
 Nash, Miss, Royston. 
 Needham, Miss, Nottingham, (4 copies ) 
 
 Nottingham High Pavement eae 
 Vestry Library 
 
 Oates, J. H., Leeds. 
 Oates, Edward, do. 
 
 (2 copies ) 
 
 Palmer, Arthur, Bristol. 
 
 Philips, R., The Park, near Manchester, 
 (2 copies ) ; 
 
 Philips, Misses, do. (2 do.) 
 
 Philips, R., Heybridge, Staff. (4 copies ) 
 
 Philips, Nathl., Leamington. (4 do.) 
 
 Pinkerton, Miss, Tottingham. 
 
 Porter, Rev. C., Larne, Ireland. 
 
 Rathbone, Wm., Liverpool. (2 copies) 
 Rawdon, Miss, York. (2 do.) 
 Robberds, Rev. J., B. A., Toateth Park. 
 Robberds, Rev. J. G., Manchester. 
 Robson, W. Warrington. 
 
 Ross, W., Manchester. 
 
 Russell, Miss, Kenilworth. 
 
 Sabine, Mrs., Hanley 
 
 Saxton, Mrs., Bath. 
 
 Shakespeare, Thomas, Stoke. 
 Shepherd, Rev. Wm., LL.D., Gateacre. 
 Shuttleworth, John, Manchester. 
 Silver, Thos. T., Woodbridge. (2 copies ) 
 Smethurst, Rev. R., Stand. (2 do.) 
 Stannus, Rev. B. T., Sheffield. (2 do.) 
 Strutt, Miss A., Derby. 
 
 Style, Lady, Chester. (4 copies ) 
 Swanwick, Edward, Chesterfield. 
 Swanwick, Frederick, do. 
 
 Tagart, Rev. E., F.S. A., London. 
 Talbot, G., [idderminster. 
 
 Talbot, H., do. 
 
 Talbot, W., do. 
 
 Tayler, Rev. J. J., B.A., Manchester. 
 Taylor, J. E., Manchester. 
 
 Thomas, Rey. Thos. F., Ipswich. 
 Thomson, Miss, Kendal. 
 
Xill 
 
 Tottie, T. W., Leeds. 
 Turner, J. A., Manchester. 
 Turner, Rev. W., do. 
 Turner, Rev. W., J unr., M.A., Halifax. 
 
 Wakefield, Robert, Clapton. (4 copies ) 
 Walker, Mrs., Leeds, (4 do.) 
 Wallace, Rev. R., Manchester. 
 Watson, Thomas, Whitby. 
 Wellbeloved, Rev. C., York. 
 Whittenbury, F. Manchester, 
 Wicksteed, Rev. C., B.A., Leeds. 
 Wilkins, Thomas, Derby. 
 
 Wilson, John, Hagle Mill, Manchester. 
 
 (2 copies) | Winstanley, T. W., Manchester. 
 
 Winstanley, Wm., M.D., Liverpool. 
 Wood, G. W., M. P., Singleton, near 
 Manchester. (4 copies ) 
 Wood, John, London, - (4 copies ) 
 Wood, Wm. Rayner, Platt, near Man- 
 chester. 
 Wood, Ottiwell, Liverpool. (2 copies ) 
 Woolley, Thomas, Manchester. 
 Woolley, Mrs. Thomas, do. 
 
 Yates,J.,M.A. F.R.S., London.(2 copies ) 
 Yates, J. A., London, (3 copies ) 
 Young James, do. (4 copies ) 
 
1.5 
 Ae 1 
 Ax. ® | 
 
REC, NOV i8b0 
 THEOLOGICKL 4“ 
 
 2 
 fo% 
 
 4 
 ~<y y 
 « ' . ee | 
 x RAT 
 
 LETTERS TO A FRIEND. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 My dear Friends, 
 
 When I declined your kind invitation to accompany 
 you in the Morning Service of the Church of England, on 
 the ground of my dissent from its doctrines, I promised, at 
 your request, to give you my reasons for this dissent. Iam 
 afraid that Ihave undertaken a task which I am but ill 
 qualified to execute. It is long since my attention has been 
 turned to this subject, and never perhaps so much as its 
 importance deserved. I am but very imperfectly acquainted 
 with the tenets of different sects, or the grounds on which 
 they are defended; for I have scarcely ever read a page of 
 controversial divinity, and have rarely made it a subject of 
 conversation: and in this retired situation, where I find myself 
 cut off from every source of information, where the Bible 
 is the only book to which I can have recourse, I can only 
 pretend to furnish you with those reasons which formerly 
 determined my judgment, with such additional ones as may 
 present themselves during this enquiry. Whether there be 
 any novelty in them, I know not; they are entirely the result 
 of my own reflections; and however satisfactory they have 
 been tomy mind, I doubt that they may be equally so to 
 yours: for I know through what a different medium we regard 
 this subject, and in what a different light the same arguments 
 
 A 
 
2 
 
 will present themselves to your view and to mine. It is 
 nevertheless indispensable to the due understanding of this 
 question, that we come to the consideration of it with unbiassed 
 minds ; whatever previous opinions we may have formed, we 
 must suspend; all prejudices, of whatever nature, we must 
 subdue: if we are not able to do this, (and it is no easy thing 
 to do,) we can never arrive at any conclusion that will be 
 either profitable or satisfactory. Of all prejudices, those of 
 religion are the most inveterate; for independently of the 
 usual tenacity of the mind to its opinions, there is superadded 
 a fearful apprehension of error, which prevents the usual 
 operation of the understanding. Nevertheless, there is but 
 one conduct, on all occasions, that is worthy of a rational 
 being: to be ever actuated by a pure unmixed love of truth; 
 at all times, and under all circumstances, to let this have the 
 ascendency in our minds. If we allow any motive of fear, 
 pride, interest or conveniency to stifle this sentiment in our 
 heart, never let us expect that the light of truth will break 
 in upon us; from that moment we become devoted to error, 
 the voluntary children of darkness. The struggle I am aware 
 is always severe, between the renunciation of opinions long 
 entertained, and our better judgment; and to act a decided 
 part under such circumstances, requires a force of mind that 
 is not given to every one. The whole history of the world 
 proves how difficult it is to destroy the influence of pre-con- 
 ceived opinions. Even in the present enlightened day, we 
 see the most important truths obliged to yield to the force of 
 established errors; and in the ordinary occupations of life, 
 that administer to man’s daily utility and profit, such is the 
 force of attachment to ancient habits, that they survive in 
 spite of reason and constant experience. What then must be 
 the strength of those opinions which have the earliest taken 
 root in our minds; which have been nurtured and matured by 
 those to whom we are bound by the ties of duty, gratitude 
 
3) 
 
 and affection ; avowed by almost all with whom we come in 
 contact ; countenanced by the government under which we 
 live, and encouraged by all the allurements of worldly 
 grandeur and emolument. When we consider this, the wonder 
 is, not that such opinions are retained from generation to 
 generation, but that their influence should ever be shaken, 
 that the mind should ever emancipate itself from the shackles 
 in which it is held. But happily for human nature, God has 
 implanted in the heart that which is more powerful than all ; 
 there is that still small voice of reason, which is always 
 whispering to the mind of man; that little ray of divinity, 
 which may for awhile become obscured, but can never be 
 wholly extinct, which ever and anon pierces through the 
 clouds and darkness in which human passions and human 
 interests envelope it, and conducts man slowly, but progres- 
 sively, on the road to truth. 
 
 Let truth then be on this, as on every occasion, the sole 
 object of our pursuit; let us follow it with an undivided 
 attachment, with an entire affection; let there be no secret 
 partialities, no lurking prepossessions, no fear of the result to 
 which it may conduct us. We must consider that this is a 
 subject of no ordinary curiosity, but one of the highest in- 
 terest, inasmuch as it involves our duty towards God; that 
 if we allow, therefore, any earthly consideration to influence 
 us in our endeavour to ascertain what that duty is, we are 
 guilty of an offence towards Him. To seek the truth in 
 sincerity of heart, and to the best of our abilities, will be 
 required of us; beyond this we are not answerable. All 
 involuntary error will be pardoned. But let us not deceive 
 ourselves ; it will not be sufficient to plead in justification of 
 the faith that we profess, that we have received it from others; 
 whatever may be the merits of those whose opinions we adopt, 
 whatever deference we owe to their talents and their virtues, 
 yet nothing can release us from the indispensable obligation 
 
4 
 
 of enquiring for ourselves. The most pernicious doctrines 
 have at times been countenanced by the wisest and the best 
 of men; an implicit submission therefore to the opinions of 
 others, would be at once to consecrate error, and to lay an 
 eternal bar against the future progress of truth and reason. 
 Let us not urge, from a diffidence of our own powers, that we 
 are unequal to the task of deciding for ourselves; for to 
 whom then are we to refer, since we see men of equal 
 capacity and research forming opposite conclusions on the 
 same subject? ‘To adopt therefore implicitly the sentiments 
 of either, is to be right or wrong as hazard shall decide; 
 and indeed if we do not make use of our own understandings, 
 to what but chance are we indebted for our opinions? We 
 profess them because they were the earliest inculcated upon 
 our minds; and thus it happens that nine-tenths of the world 
 continue without having any settled notions upon that which 
 so nearly concerns them. Under whatever system of faith 
 they may happen to be born, in that they live and die, 
 without ever thinking it worth their while to examine the 
 rectitude of their opinions. Such blind belief can never be 
 dignified by the name of faith: it is a culpable indifference, 
 an indolent acquiescence in the sentiments of others, which is 
 unworthy of a rational being, and in a Christian, criminal. 
 It is by the exercise of our/own understanding that we shall 
 be able to render to every one a reason for the faith that is 
 inus. If the bulk of mankind, from the circumstances in 
 which they are placed, are under the necessity of receiving 
 their religious instruction from others, it is then still more 
 incumbent on us, who have the leisure to search and the 
 capacity to understand, to do all that lies in our power that 
 we may not by our example tend to sanction error; that we 
 may not contribute by our personal influence to lead astray 
 those who may look up to us as their guide. For let us not 
 imagine that the truths of Christianity are beyond our attain- 
 
oad 
 
 9) 
 
 ment. No. It is the bad passions of man that have wrapped 
 them up in obscurity ; the pride and vanity of his heart, his 
 contentious spirit, his false zeal, his lust of worldly power and 
 dominion, that have involved in doubts and mysteries the 
 plain and simple doctrines of our religion. Can it be imagined 
 that God has given to man, for the regulation of his faith, 
 instructions which he cannot understand? That He has 
 rendered obscure and doubtful that, to the belief of which, 
 as you say, he has attached salvation? Then indeed would 
 Christ have died in vain, and our faith be foolishness. But 
 God has more wisely fitted the means to the end; He has 
 adapted His revelation to man’s understanding, and we only 
 involve ourselves in doubt and perplexities in proportion as 
 we depart from it. When we have recourse to it, with an 
 humble and contrite spirit, to seek for instruction, to subdue 
 our understandings and all the vain imaginations of our hearts 
 to the force of its divine truth, we shall find no difficulties 
 which will not disappear before the simplicity of its doctrines, 
 and the plain, evident and rational interpretation of the text. 
 But if, wise in our own conceits, we search the Scriptures not 
 for instruction, but to pervert the meaning to the support of 
 favorite doctrines, of preconceived opinions, it is then that we 
 make revelation mysterious and unintelligible, by mixing it 
 up with our own speculations, by engrafting thereon our own 
 follies and absurdities. Let us therefore, in the prosecution 
 of this subject, keep our eyes on the sacred text, as our only 
 guide. If the language present occasional difficulties, which 
 is sometimes the case in the Epistles, especially of St. Paul, 
 you will find that they will disappear by taking into consider- 
 ation the direct object of the writer, the circumstances under 
 which, and the persons to whom they were addressed. If 
 the sense still be doubtful to you, you may be sure that 
 your interpretation of it is wrong when it clashes with other 
 
6 
 
 passages, where there is no ambiguity of language, and the 
 meaning is clear and explicit. 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 IN the 26th ch. of St. Matthew are these words: “ And he 
 said unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto 
 death ; and he fell on his face and prayed, saying, O my 
 Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless 
 not as I will, but as thou wilt.” These words, by whomsoever 
 they were delivered, are an avowal of human passions and 
 frailties, grief, fear, apprehension of approaching pain and 
 death. Now, what was the nature of that being by whom 
 this prayer was uttered? You are instructed by the doctrine 
 of your church, that it was God incarnate in the body of 
 Christ, and that these words are applicable only to His human 
 nature. In adopting this belief it must necessarily have been 
 more or less the subject of your thoughts. Tell me then, 
 what is the precise idea that you have attached to it? For 
 no matter what it be to which your faith is required, whether 
 a mystery that is beyond, or a truth that lies within, the com- 
 pass of your understanding, it is alike necessary that you have 
 some knowledge of what the nature of it is, before you can 
 believe it. It is impossible to assent to any proposition of 
 the meaning of which you are ignorant. To believe without 
 knowing what it is that you believe, is in fact to have no 
 belief at all. Let us therefore examine a little this doctrine 
 of the incarnation, and see how far we can reconcile to our 
 understanding the union of a divine and human, of a perfect 
 and imperfect nature in the same substance. Let us there- 
 fore, in the first place, before we proceed to enquire into 
 
Hs 
 
 its scripture foundation, treat it simply as a subject of reason, 
 and let us bring to it the exercise of our understanding as 
 freely as we should do on any other subject on which we 
 were called upon to form an opinion. 
 
 Such a proposition may perhaps a little startle you, and I 
 am afraid that you may not accede to it without some mis- 
 givings of conscience. You have been taught to regard this 
 as a subject on which our reason cannot and ought not to be 
 employed; that it is an incomprehensible mystery which we 
 cannot fathom; and therefore a fit exercise of our faith, but 
 not of our understanding ; that however incompatible it may 
 be with all our previous notions of the Deity; however im- 
 probable, nay impossible, such an union may appear, it is 
 nevertheless implicitly to be received by you as an article 
 of faith. 
 
 Before we proceed any farther it is essential that we come 
 to an understanding upon this most important point; for if 
 you consider it to be your duty to adhere to this belief in 
 despite of all argument and proof, if in the very outset we 
 are to abandon reason as useless, it is to no purpose that we 
 continue this enquiry. You wish to submit your opinions on 
 this subject to the test of examination, but how you are to 
 do this without the exercise of your understanding, I know 
 not ; nay, more than this is required from you, that you allow 
 your judgment and your belief to be influenced by your 
 understanding. Reason and faith are the two great and dis- 
 tinctive ornaments of a man and a Christian, but they have 
 their proper boundaries which it is highly important to 
 ascertain; for if either be allowed to usurp upon the other, 
 it never fails to produce those evils which each in its proper 
 sphere is calculated to avert. If error and infidelity be the 
 consequence of a too great confidence in our own powers, it 
 is no less true that faith, to the exclusion of reason, invariably 
 leads to superstition and fanaticism, and has ever been, in 
 
8 
 
 every age and part of the world, the great cause of the 
 corruption of religion. When once we consent to abandon 
 reason, there is no degree of degradation to which the human 
 mind will not submit; there is no absurdity to which the 
 understanding will not reconcile itself. 
 
 I have no wish to weaken the influence of faith upon your 
 minds, nor do I call upon you, in the pride of human reason, 
 to reject what you cannot comprehend. In this imperfect 
 state, and with our limited knowledge, we are invited in almost 
 all our relations with God and nature to the exercise of this 
 virtue; and culpable and wretched indeed should we be, were 
 we to abandon this the most ennobling and consolatory of all 
 sentiments, the foundation of all our hopes, and the only 
 basis on which virtue and religion rest. ‘This faith, arising 
 from a feeling of our dependence upon, and our confidence 
 in, the divine goodness, is a sublime and intelligible faith, 
 worthy of aman and a christian, founded on truth, reason, 
 nature and providence, which teaches us resignation and 
 humility under all the dispensations of life, stimulates all the 
 virtuous propensities of the heart, and in the midst of all our 
 ignorance, weaknesses and imperfections, inspires a noble assu- 
 rance that raises us above ourselves, and associates us, as it 
 were, with the divine nature. But a faith which consists in 
 a mere blind and ignorant belief, that is alike ready, without 
 examination and without authority, to adopt the most im- 
 portant truths, or the grossest absurdities ; which makes no 
 distinction between what is above, and what is repugnant to 
 our understanding ; which condemns reason as criminal, and 
 extols its own merit in proportion to the impossibility of the 
 thing to be believed; this is a faith that can work to no good, but 
 rather to evil, for it tends to degrade religion, and to weaken 
 the springs of virtue in the heart, by substituting in lieu of 
 
 good works, the superior merit of a barren and unprofitable 
 belief. 
 
9 
 
 Can such a system, which places reason below the very 
 instinct of the brutes, be suitable to intelligent natures? Is 
 the exercise of our understanding, which alone constitutes our 
 superiority, our exclusive distinction as intelligent, moral and 
 social beings, to be suspended in the presence of Him 
 who is the noblest object of its employment? Is it before 
 Him alone that we are to appear as irrational creatures, to 
 divest ourselves of the choicest gift which He has bestowed 
 upon us ;—by which alone we are enabled to know Him, to 
 form just and proper notions of His being and attributes, and 
 thereby to refine and spiritualize all our conceptions of him, to 
 correct all low and earthly ideas of His pure and holy nature? 
 
 All experience proves that the subjection of reason to 
 established dogmas, has ever been the corruption of religion 
 and the degradation of the character of the Deity. Man, 
 under such circumstances, has ever formed the lowest and 
 most grovelling ideas of him; has assimilated him to his own 
 nature ; has attributed to him his own passions and frailties ; 
 and, as far as moral qualities are concerned, has sunk him 
 even below the common level of humanity. And in our own 
 religion, all founded as it is on the express revelation of 
 God Himself, which we should have thought must have been 
 a sure preservative of its purity, do we not trace the operation 
 of the same principle, the same disposition in man to humanize 
 the nature of the Deity, to force assent to doctrines that 
 tend to associate Him with his own passions and feelings? 
 
 When you say that it is your duty to believe in certain 
 dogmas, though they may be opposed to your reason, you 
 profess to do that which is impossible. It is a mere self- 
 delusion. You cannot assent to what your understanding 
 repugns. Belief is an act of the judgment, and cannot 
 therefore be accorded to what is opposed to reason. Were 
 
 it possible to believe what is irrational, it would be necessary 
 B 
 
10 
 
 to disbelieve the converse, which is rational; a deduction that 
 would lead to the most tremendous consequences, which 
 would induce an universal scepticism, would destroy all con- 
 fidence in the most self-evident proposition, and would at 
 once plunge us in an ocean of doubt and uncertainty. 
 
 There are fundamental truths, necessarily self-existing, 
 which nothing can alter or destroy, and on which the immu- 
 tability of God’s essence may be said to depend. Infinity ; 
 eternity; the same thing cannot be, and not be, at the same 
 time; all the primary truths of mathematics: these are inde- 
 pendent of all accident, all circumstance, all power. This is 
 not limiting the divine perfections, it is the foundation on 
 which they repose; for were there no primary axioms, no 
 original basis of truth, they would rest on nothing fixed and 
 stable. What is possible God can do; to say that he can do 
 what is impossible, is absurd; it would be a defect in his 
 character, an argument of weakness, not of power, for it 
 would prove that there was no such thing as truth in the 
 abstract ; it would therefore annihilate the very essence of 
 the divine nature; it would create something external and 
 more powerful, chance ; it would be to say, that what is true 
 to-day may be false to-morrow, and consequently His divine 
 perfections would depend on accident. 
 
 Whatever is in itself essentially true, must be eternally so, 
 and partakes of the divine nature, and cannot be subject to 
 change. When you profess, therefore, to believe that what 
 is impossible may be effected, that what is absurd may be 
 made rational, or that what is true may be made false, you 
 shake all the foundations of faith, and upset all our notions 
 of the immutability of God. 
 
 What then is this boasted faith of yours, which you regard 
 as so meritorious, and on which you plume yourselves as a 
 proof of your piety and humility? You deprive it of its only 
 
11 
 
 basis, that on which all truth and religion repose—the never- 
 changing attributes of the Deity. 
 
 Whatever, therefore, may be the result of an enquiry into 
 this subject, whether it may change or confirm your present 
 belief, have no fear of calling reason to your aid. It is the 
 only means by which you can ever distinguish truth from 
 error. Your faith must be founded on reason; you must 
 know what it is that you believe, and the grounds on which 
 you believe, or there would be nothing monstrous in nature 
 that you might not adopt. Christ himself, in the midst of all 
 his stupendous works, still appeals to the reason of the Jews 
 for the confirmation of their faith: he required them to 
 examine the nature and character of his miracles, as a proof 
 that the power by which he wrought them could proceed 
 from Godalone. Ifthe Jews, then, would have been authorized 
 to disbelieve the divine origin of Christ’s miracles, had the 
 tendency of them been otherwise than of a benevolent kind ; 
 so be assured that no doctrines which in like manner are at 
 variance with the character of the Divinity, can ever be 
 founded on any revelation of Himself. Are we then, you 
 will ask, to reject what is enjoined because it is opposed to 
 our reason, or inconsistent with our notions of the divine 
 attributes? I reply, that whatever is clearly enjoined on us, it 
 is our duty to receive; but fortunately our faith is never put 
 to these trials; the Scriptures no where command what is 
 opposed to reason; and it is little less than impiety to believe 
 that any thing false or evil can proceed from the Author of all 
 truth and goodness. Whenever we find ourselves involved 
 in such difficulties, it is not the sacred writings that are 
 chargeable therewith; it is the folly, and | may add the wicked- 
 ness of man, that would found upon them his own vain conceits 
 and inventions, whereby he has done more to retard the 
 propagation of Christianity, and has been the cause of more 
 
12 
 
 incredulity, than all the writings of professed infidels ; and in 
 those countries where such opinions have been forcibly upheld 
 by violence and persecution, they have so changed the 
 character of our religion, as to destroy nearly all its influence 
 and utility, and to leave of it little else than the name. 
 
 The exercise of our reason, therefore, so far from being 
 criminal, isa paramount duty, as the only means of preserving 
 our religion free from corruption. It is not for the purpose of 
 opposing it to its doctrines, but the better to enable us to 
 ascertain what those doctrines are, that we may not fall into 
 the great error of substituting human authority for the injunc- 
 tions of Scripture, and thus form opinions which are neither 
 in unison with it, nor with the character of the Deity. 
 
 It is by this allowable exercise of reason, that Christianity 
 has already been purified from many gross errors with which 
 it had been incorporated. The doctrine of Transubstantiation 
 was for centuries the universal belief of the Church. And 
 here let me ask you, why do you reject this dogma? Is it 
 not founded on the plain and literal language of Scripture? 
 ‘Eat, drink, this is my body, this is my blood.” Does it 
 contain anything in itself impossible? What is it but effecting, 
 in another and extraordinary manner, what is constantly 
 taking place in the ordinary course of nature? Are you 
 warranted in your rejection of it by other texts of Seripture ? 
 No; you reject it because upon examination you have 
 decided, that the figurative and not the literal sense of the 
 text is the more rational interpretation. If you therefore 
 venture, upon your own authority, to reject an established 
 dogma founded on the direct language of Scripture, which 
 contains in itself nothing impossible, nothing that shocks 
 reason and common sense; are you bound to receive with 
 implicit confidence, and is it culpable in you to submit to the 
 same test of examination, another doctrine, which is not 
 
13 
 
 founded on the direct language of Scripture, and which does 
 shock reason and common sense? If I prove to you, that 
 there is no proposition which can be submitted to your under- 
 standing, which contains more palpable contradictions, more 
 gross absurdities, more utter impossibilities, than your 
 doctrines of the incarnation and the Trinity, surely it must 
 induce you to hesitate before you will venture, on the ground 
 of a few disputable passages, to adopt a belief so at variance 
 with truth and reason. The professed supporters of these 
 dogmas, who know how little they will bear examination, do 
 well in recommending you to believe, and not to reason ; 
 following herein the example of their great prototype the 
 Church of Rome. And what blessed work did it not make 
 of our religion, under this proscription of reason! For myself I 
 declare that I scarcely recognize one feature of genuine 
 Christianity in the whole external of Popery. In the consti- 
 tution of its hierarchy, in the forms of its worship, its images, 
 its pictures, its burning tapers, its incense, in all its rites and 
 ceremonies, in its processions, its tutelar saints and local 
 divinities, and I may add its dit penates, in its particular 
 customs, and popular superstitions, and in all its influence on 
 individual belief, I see nothing but the revival of Paganism 
 under another name. And it is impossible to say, under this 
 system of implicit faith, to what point of degradation both 
 religion and human nature might not have fallen, but for the 
 intervention of fortunate circumstances, that aroused the 
 energies of the human mind, and emancipated reason from 
 the bondage in which it was held. And so it ever will be, 
 when man can consent to abandon his understanding, and to 
 believe without enquiry. Religion will ever be perverted to the 
 worst purposes; however pure its source, it must necessarily 
 become contaminated by passing through the foul and corrupted 
 medium of human passions, and prejudices, and interests. 
 
14 
 
 [have dwelt the longer on this important point, as I wished 
 to convince you, that the same freedom of discussion is as 
 necessary upon this, as on any other subject ; that in all cases 
 it is essential to the discovery and the maintenance of truth, 
 for that without this even truth itself becomes perverted, and 
 degenerates into error. Exercise, therefore, freely your own 
 understandings ; assert the right of individual judgment ; 
 bow down implicitly before no human authority ; emancipate 
 yourselves from the fetters which have been imposed upon 
 you, by the crafty policy of the world; for never can you 
 enter into the temple of truth, if you consent to leave reason 
 at the threshold. You might as well attempt to read this 
 letter with your eyes shut, as to pursue this enquiry to any 
 effect, if you will not consent to open the eyes of your under- 
 standing. I require your assent to no unintelligible or 
 impossible propositions, but to plain, palpable, self-evident 
 truths: in the following reasoning, admit only those inferences 
 from which you cannot dissent; and be not diverted from this 
 by any fear of the consequences to which it may lead you, 
 for be assured that truth, reason, and the Scriptures will 
 never be found at variance. 
 
 Before we proceed, therefore, to consider how far your 
 opinions on these subjects rest on scriptural authority, we will 
 previously examine them independently of revelation, which 
 which will enable us to arrive at a more satisfactory conclusion 
 in the end; for you must admit, that the language of Scripture 
 upon these points, cannot be of that positive and determinate 
 nature as to preclude all doubt with respect to the truth of 
 the opinions you espouse, inasmuch as many wise and candid 
 enquirers have drawn from it totally opposite conclusions. 
 Whatever is clearly announced, must be implicitly received, 
 and can admit of no discussion. But when dogmas are 
 presented which rest upon no sufficient evidence, and which 
 
15 
 
 therefore can plead only human authority for their support, 
 it behoves us to enquire into them, and see how far they are 
 agreeable to reason, and to our best notions of the divine 
 character; and our interpretation of those passages which 
 have a reference to them, should be most materially influenced 
 thereby. 
 
 I propose therefore, in the first place, to enquire into the 
 reasonableness of these doctrines, apart from their connection 
 with revelation. You ought to have no objection to go along 
 with me in this examination, for you cannot fear any result 
 to which it may lead, for the more irrational they may appear 
 in themselves, the more meritorious will be your faith. Not 
 that I think you will go the length of asserting, with the 
 venerable saint of old, that their very impossibility is the 
 cause of your belief; on the contrary, I expect that you will 
 candidly admit that the more difficulty there is in reconciling 
 anything to our understanding, the more does it require that 
 the evidence on which it rests should be clear and strong. If, 
 in subsequently proceeding to enquire how far these doctrines 
 are or are not supported by the authority of revelation, I find 
 therein passages that are seemingly in direct opposition to 
 them, then the evidence in their favour ought to be still more 
 clear and strong ; and when again I examine the very passages 
 themselves, which you adduce as evidence, and | find that 
 they are capable of another interpretation, which reconciles 
 them at once both to my reason and to the language of 
 Scripture elsewhere, I feel myself obliged, as a candid enquirer, 
 to admit this interpretation, and not to sacrifice my love of 
 truth to any preconceived opinion. If then, in the first place, 
 I can succeed in convincing your reason ; if, in consequence of 
 what has been said, you will allow your reason to be convinced 
 of the utter impossibility and absurdity of these doctrines, 
 I will still not demand your rejection of them on this account, 
 for I know the subordination in which your reason is held by 
 
16 
 
 your faith. For myself I frankly avow that no evidence could 
 force me to admit that which my reason repugned, for no 
 external evidence can ever prove that to be true which is 
 innately false. If a miracle were to be wrought, though it 
 would be impossible that such a discrepancy could exist, to 
 prove to me that the same figure was both round and square, 
 that the same liquid was at once pure wine and pure water, 
 I confess that, with my previous conception of figure and the 
 nature of the two liquids, I should rather suppose that the 
 miracle was an imposition upon my senses, than give credit 
 to such palpable untruths ; and yet, short of absurdity, there 
 is nothing that I am not willing to believe on sufficient 
 evidence, nor is there any one who has a more humble 
 feeling of the fallibility of human reason. 
 
 We will therefore, without any farther hesitation, examine 
 into the reasonableness of these doctrines; and we will resume 
 the question of the incarnation where we left it, by an enquiry 
 into the possibility of the union of a perfect and imperfect, 
 of a divine and human nature in the same substance. 
 
 LETTER IIL. 
 
 I cannot more effectually prove to you the impossibility of 
 this union of a finite and infinite nature in one substance, 
 than by exposing to you the enormous inconsistencies which 
 your own explanation of it involves. 
 
 You say that the Godhead is composed of three Persons, 
 forming one substance, without body or parts; that the second 
 Person of this substance became incarnate, and that in this 
 state, formed of body and bones, he sitteth at the right hand 
 of God the Father, God and man, one substance Christ, 
 never to be divided. Now, on this your own statement, how 
 
- 
 
 17 
 
 can this person form a part of the Godhead? How ean this 
 
 _ inseparable substance, having parts and body, belong to a 
 
 substance which has zo parts or body? According to your 
 own account, this indivisibility of the two natures must 
 be his complete exclusion ; for if Christ do form a part of a 
 Godhead without body, it can only be in his divine, separate 
 from his human nature. But as you say that they are not, 
 and never to be divided, it must follow that the whole sub- 
 stance Christ must be in the Godhead; which, in this case, 
 must have both body and parts, or, which is absurd, a material 
 must form part of an wmmaterial substance: the undivided 
 substance Christ united with the body, is yet in the Godhead 
 without body. 
 
 You cannot, by any ingenuity, explain away the palpable 
 contradictions of this your own statement. According to 
 you, the second Person must exist at the same time in the 
 immaterial Godhead, and in the material substance, Christ. 
 But how can he exist in the latter, but as an abstraction from 
 that which you declare to be without parts, the Godhead ? 
 And how, in the former, but as a separation from that which 
 you declare to be inseparable, the two natures ?* 
 
 * The way in which the two natures were united in the person of Christ 
 was a much agitated question at the commencement of the 5th century. 
 According to the Orthodox opinion, they were so intimately blended, as to 
 form but one sole indissoluble identity, insomuch that the Virgin Mary 
 could, with equal truth, be said to be the mother of God, as of Christ ; that 
 the Verb, by its hypostatic union with the flesh, was born, suffered and was 
 resuscitated with the body ; and yet, at the same time, its eternity, its 
 insolubility, and its impassibiblty, were maintained by all the different 
 Councils. Into such gross contradictions were they led, by their love of 
 dispute and scholastic subtlety. It was seriously discussed whether one 
 or all of the terms Theotocos, Christotocos, Anthropotocos, should be applied 
 to the Virgin; anathema was pronounced accordingly, and eternal salvation 
 was made to depend upon the choice of a word. Now, there are only twe 
 possible ways in which the two natures could be joined in the person of Christ. 
 
 Cc 
 
18 
 
 Again, you say that the second Person of the indivisible God- 
 head became incarnate in Christ. Can any language be more 
 contradictory of itself? For, observe, it is the Son alone who 
 becomes incarnate, for he is on this very account, as you say, 
 inferior to the Father. He is individually and separately 
 affected. Now, this is plainly impossible, if there be any 
 meaning in the terms you employ; if your definitions are to 
 be adhered to. As one connected, inseparable unity, if the 
 Son became incarnate, the whole Godhead must alike have 
 become so. As one essence, no change could happen to the 
 one, that did not alike affect the whole. ‘To designate the 
 second Person as specially affected, is as manifest a division 
 of the Godhead, as palpable a separation of a part, as words 
 can express. 
 
 They were either blended or separate; they partook of each other’s 
 qualities, or they retained their proper characters ; they formed essentially 
 one substance, one being, Christ, (which is the doctrine of your Church,) or 
 they were essentially two beings: there can be no medium. 
 
 In the first case, the one substance being composed of human and divine 
 qualities, must have been imperfect. 
 
 In the second case, the human part partaking not of the divine part, 
 Christ could no more be God, than Peter was the Holy Ghost : they were 
 still separate substances, as before. If blended, they partook of each 
 other’s nature; for if not, then they were not blended, but each remained 
 distinct ; God very God, and man mere man. 
 
 It cannot be objected to this reasoning, that God, being an immortal 
 and immutable essence, might intermix with humanity without suffering 
 change ; for this only proves the impossibility of God blending himself 
 with any imperfect nature; the very term blending necessarily implying 
 change. It is an absolute solecism to say, that a perfect nature can be 
 subject to change. When an alteration takes place in the state of any 
 being, it loses what was before its distinctive character. If perfection 
 undergo change, it becomes imperfection. A liability to this can never 
 be incident to a perfect nature. The immutability of God, is that on 
 which all his other divine perfections rest ; and to deny this quality, is but 
 one remove from pure Atheism. 
 
19 
 
 It is the monstrous absurdity of your fundamental proposi- 
 tion of a Trinity in Unity, which involves you in all these gross 
 inconsistencies. Three existences, each of them separately 
 perfect, yet together making but one perfect! Three persons, 
 each of them very God, yet forming together but one God ! 
 Not one, observe, by uniformity of character, of purpose, 
 and of action, but numerically one, one unity, one sole God, 
 without parts. Isay that this surpasses all my conception. 
 To me, nothing appears more clear, than that three perfect 
 bemgs must for ever remain three perfect beings, distinct, 
 separate, independent, for ever incapable of any modification 
 or change. But setting aside this objection, arising from the 
 perfection of their natures, your position cannot be true in 
 any case. 
 
 That a part is less than the whole; that that which is 
 composed of parts must contain parts, are propositions that 
 are intuitively true, that require no proof, which are so 
 palpable and self-evident, that the mind cannot reject them. 
 If such axioms can be disputed or denied, what is truth? If 
 we can be persuaded out of our confidence in such funda- 
 mental principles, doubt and error must ever be our lot; 
 truth can never be with us; for that which we reject must 
 ever be more certain than that which we admit. But this 
 statement of three Gods, forming together but one God, is 
 only a part of the absurdity which your hypothesis includes. 
 Iam further under the necessity of admitting, that this simple 
 uncompounded unity, without parts, must nevertheless contain 
 the three distinct parts of the Trinity; for there must always 
 be a person of the Father, another of the Son, and another 
 of the Holy Ghost. For if not, why do you use the word 
 Trinity, which necessarily implies the existence of three, and 
 of three apart; and if it be not meant that they do in reality 
 so exist, the word is an abuse of terms; but if they do so 
 exist, how can I believe in the simple unity ? 
 
20 
 
 I do not think that it is possible, in the whole compass of 
 language, to unite in three words such confusion of sense, 
 such glaring inconsistencies, as in this’‘phrase, Trinity in Unity. 
 Both cannot be at once. God cannot be with and without 
 parts at the same time; he cannot be two different things. If 
 he have parts, his unity is impossible ; and if he have not parts, 
 to assert the simultaneous existence of the Trinity is a mockery 
 of common sense. What! is my credulity to be practised 
 upon to such an extent, that I am to believe, and not to 
 believe, at the same time? Toassert, that the same thing is, and 
 is not? But it goes beyond credulity. I may believe that the 
 decapitated martyr took up his head and walked, for though 
 improbable, it is not impossible. But what you require is 
 impossible. Here is a round substance, which you tell me I 
 must believe to be square ; and not content with this exercise 
 of my faith, you add that, believing it to be square, I must 
 nevertheless not deny it to be round. When doctrines such 
 as these are submitted to my belief, with all the additional 
 dogmas and definitions of your creeds and articles, making 
 confusion worse confounded, I am under the necessity of 
 rejecting them; for neither I, nor any one, can admit that of 
 the meaning of which we are ignorant. Your statements are 
 as unintelligible as if you spoke in an unknown tongue; and 
 I will venture to say, that, from the first invention of this hypo- 
 thesis to the present hour, in the ¢rwe sense of the word, it never 
 has, nor can have had, one single believer. ‘There are many, 
 who, without reflection or examination, give to it an idle 
 assent, and fancy that they believe; but they deceive them- 
 selves. There may be others, who, from different motives, 
 profess to believe; but the truth is not in them. 
 
 You yourselves, perhaps, have never yet submitted this 
 question to so close an examination, nor been fully aware of 
 the extent to which your faith exacts the prostration of your 
 understanding. If you admit the above reasoning to be true, 
 
21 
 
 if you cannot disprove the justness of my arguments, there 
 is nothing left but to abide by the result. You must not 
 turn away from the truth, or seek to hide it from you under 
 a veil of mystery and sophistry ; like the bird of night, that 
 draws a film across its eyes, when the light of day becomes 
 too powerful. If we are to abandon the most self-evident 
 truths, the most warranted conclusions, from certain secret 
 misgivings, from vague fears that after all we may be in error, 
 we had better at once renounce reason as worse than useless, 
 as a faithless guide, leading us, under the appearance of truth, 
 to inevitable error. But it is certain that if the premises be 
 true, and the conclusion just, reason is not fallible, and cannot 
 deceive ; for what is based on truth, cannot be false. When 
 we say that the same being cannot at once be two different 
 
 beings; that the same body cannot be both square and round} — 
 
 we cannot err in these judgments, and we must abide by 
 conclusions drawn from such undoubted data, or we must 
 doubt for ever, and of every thing. 
 
 These and many other insurmountable difficulties arise 
 from the very nature of the dogma itself, without viewing it 
 in connection with our Saviour’s history. It is not my inten- 
 tion to break in upon the plan which I have proposed, by an 
 anticipation of the arguments from Scripture; the few follow- 
 ing references thereto, are not so much to disprove by its 
 authority this union of the two natures, as to shew that, even 
 by your own admission, it forms, with the life and doctrine of 
 our Saviour, one series of anomalies and contradictions. His 
 language is everywhere that of inferiority and dependence, 
 so frequently and so emphatically asserted, that you cannot 
 reconcile it, but by an appeal to his human, apart from his 
 divine nature ; a miserable evasion, and the more inexcusable 
 in you, as it is the direct contradiction of your fundamental 
 doctrine, their inseparability. | 
 
22 
 
 You say that the one substance Christ was in every thing 
 the same as the Father, except in its relation to body. How 
 comes it, then, that we see this same substance avowing his 
 subordination, not as touching his material nature, but in his 
 spiritual essence; in all divine qualities, power, wisdom, 
 goodness. ‘This avowal can only be reconciled, but by sup- 
 posing that the divine kept itself distinct and aloof from the 
 human part, so that neither the body nor the reasonable soul 
 within it were empowered or enlightened by it. If then he 
 was thus unconscious of this indwelling, there could have 
 been no sympathy between them; he must have spoken, and 
 acted, and suffered in his human nature; he must in every 
 thing have appertained to humanity, except as to that portion 
 of the divine spirit with which, like Peter or Paul, he was 
 endowed. In what then consisted the validity of the incarna- 
 tion, or the atonement? For any imaginable purpose, the 
 second Person might as well have been in the bodies of the 
 two Apostles, or any where else. On the other hand, if he 
 was conscious of the indwelling of this Divinity ; if, as you say, 
 it was united to him as perfectly, and in the same way, as 
 his reasonable soul and body, then he could not, under its 
 influence, avow his ignorance and his weakness.* Yet we see 
 him applying to the Father for support, when he must, as 
 the effect of this union, have been of himself equally capable 
 of sustaining his human infirmities. So far from this, he 
 avows expressly that it was the Father which worked within 
 
 *The junction of body with mind is not as that of two material 
 substances, which can be effected without any intermixture of their 
 separate parts; a spiritual incorporation must pervade and animate 
 the mass to which it is attached, or there can be no union, no connection, 
 no mutual operation of the one on the other. 
 
 “ Spiritus intus alit 
 * Mens agitat molem toto se corpore miscet.” 
 
23 
 
 him; nay, far more, that the support he derived, that the 
 wisdom and power he displayed, came not only from the 
 Father, but that it could come from no other source; an 
 acknowledgment not only of his ignorance of the indwelling 
 of the second Person, but of its existence altogether. Such a 
 declaration was impossible in the mouth of Him, with whom it 
 was as essentially united as the human soul and body ; (see 
 Athanasian Creed). Admitting that, for wise reasons, this 
 power lay quiescent during his ministry, still it existed, though 
 inactive ; but this is alike rendered impossible by this same 
 assertion, that the Father was the sole and only source of all 
 power. It avails you nothing to say, that this union was not 
 perfected till after his ascension; for, even then, there is the 
 same acknowledgment of inferiority: witness his answers to 
 the two questions respecting Zebedee’s children, and the 
 time of the last day ; and St. Paul declares also, that he must, 
 in the end, surrender the authority which had been entrusted 
 to him. Now all these apply to his heavenly state, so that 
 under no circumstances can the divinity and inseparability 
 of this substance be maintained; for the want of power and 
 knowledge here avowed, cannot consist either with the one 
 or the other, and must therefore be referred to his human 
 nature; and this, with the most glaring inconsistency, you are 
 the first to do, for you hesitate not, as it may suit your con- 
 venience, to appeal to the two natures separately or conjointly. 
 Thus, when justice required an infinite satisfaction, it was 
 necessary that a Divinity should atone ; but when is urged the 
 extreme folly, the stupidity of supposing that a perfect nature 
 can be exposed to the imperfections of humanity; that an 
 immortal spirit can become subject to death, oh! then it was 
 only in his human nature that he suffered. Why, if so, I 
 ask you again, where was the infinite satisfaction? The 
 great merit of the sacrifice was the suffering, not of the 
 
24 
 
 human, but of the divine nature; and to render this efficacious, 
 we must suppose that the Son did substantially, not figura- 
 tively, enter into the flesh ; that He remained there, suffered 
 therein, descended into hell, and after three days ascended. 
 Your alternate appeals to the two natures, when this and 
 similar inconsistencies are presented to you, is a mere evasion 
 of difficulties, which you know not how otherwise to answer. 
 When insurmountable difficulties are opposed to his divinity, 
 you refer them to his humanity; when his humanity is 
 objected to, you assert his divinity ; at one time inseparably 
 united, at another distinct and apart. 
 
 But by what authority do you appeal to these two natures? 
 Does Christ himself acknowledge this distinction? Does he 
 ever speak in any other than one capacity? Does he at one 
 time proclaim his exclusive divinity, and appropriate to him- 
 self the authority of a God, and at another acknowledge the 
 weakness and fallibility of a man? No; he speaks through- 
 out as an individuality, as one being always dependent upon 
 the Father. ‘I who am the Christ, the Son, the Prophet, 
 the Law-giver, the Worker of miracles, declare that I am all 
 this, not of my own power, but by that of my Father, who 
 is greater than I. I exercise extraordinary powers, but they 
 were lent to me: in me does certainly operate a divine spirit, 
 but it is communicated to me by the Father who sent me.” 
 Of whatever nature or essence he was, these powers, he says, 
 ‘¢T cannot have of myself. I derive them, and can derive 
 them from no other source than the Father.” This solemn 
 attestation to His superiority over all other natures or sub- 
 stances whatever, this reference to Him as the sole source of 
 all authority, is the unanswerable refutation of your doctrine ; 
 for after this how is it possible to assert that the divine spirit 
 in Christ was the second Person of the Trinity, independent 
 of, equal to, and of the same substance as, that of the Father, 
 
25 
 
 when He himself asserts that this very spirit was an emanation 
 from the Father, to enable him to execute his commission. 
 To a declaration so explicit, what can you oppose? You 
 cannot here avail yourselves of one of those subterfuges, 
 which is your only resource when the argument presses 
 irresistibly upon you. The Father and the Son are not to 
 be confounded ; the one is not comprehended in the other. 
 In the acknowledgment of His paramount authority, the 
 Father is alone and separate ; you yourselves have made the 
 distinction; you have declared, that in Christ was no other 
 Divinity than that of the second Person, solely and exclusively ; 
 for on account of this very indwelling He was, as you say, in 
 this respect inferior to the Father. Here then are two 
 doctrines in diametrical opposition to each other; yours, that 
 the Divinity in Christ was the second Person of the Trinity, 
 altogether apart from that of the Father; and that of Christ, 
 that in him resided no other Divinity but that of the Father. 
 Such contrary statements it is impossible to reconcile. One 
 must be rejected. The former is of human, the latter of 
 divine origin. ‘To me it is a dangerous thing to oppose 
 myself to the words of Christ, so clearly and so repeatedly 
 expressed. I have no faith but in these words: and I cannot 
 consent to forego this faith in favour of an unintelligible 
 jargon of metaphysical subtleties, that serve only to perplex 
 my understanding; to confound all my notions of what is just 
 and true; to involve me in endless difficulties; forcing me at 
 every step into the grossest contradictions; affirming what I 
 have denied, and denying what I have affirmed. Such a 
 system I could, under no circumstances, receive; but to receive 
 it in opposition to the language of Christ, is to prefer human 
 to divine authority; the mere conceits of man, to the truths 
 of inspiration. 
 
 At first view it may justly excite our surprise, that such a 
 
 D 
 
26 
 
 doctrine has been for 1600 years, and is at this moment, the 
 belief of nearly all Christendom. But this surprise will cease 
 when we reflect, that the great bulk of mankind have no 
 opinion of their own, and that the remainder are immediately 
 interested in the perpetuating of whatever is established ; 
 that numbers have never been any test of truth, for rarely has 
 it resided with the many. All sound principles, not only in 
 religion, but in morals, in politics, in philosophy, have worked 
 their way through impediments and obstacles of every kind. 
 History sufficiently confirms this remark ; nor is it difficult to 
 assign the cause. The few who voluntarily expose themselves 
 to obloquy and persecution, by an opposition to established 
 prejudices and abuses, can rarely be actuated but by a love 
 of truth ; whilst there is no folly or absurdity which the mass 
 of mankind have not at all times been ready to adopt, and 
 to defend with a zeal proportioned to their ignorance. ‘Thus 
 it is that all abuses in government, all false doctrines and 
 corruptions in religion, are perpetuated from one generation 
 to another, and that truth of every kind makes such slow pro- 
 gress in the world; but, happily, though slow, it is sure; for 
 there is in it an innate force, an intrinsic energy, which 
 sustains it against all the attacks of ignorance and fanaticism. 
 It is owing to this, that Christianity has been enabled to erect 
 itself on the ruins of Paganism; that the Reformation has 
 prevailed against the enormous power and abuses of the 
 Romish Church; and that the errors, of which, as a scion of 
 Popery, the Reformation itself partook, are in their turn 
 yielding to the simple, genuine, and unsophisticated doctrine 
 of the New Testament. 
 
LETTER IV. 
 
 Havine endeavoured to convince you, as far as reason is 
 concerned, of the utter impossibility of the union or blending 
 of a divine and human nature in the same substance, and its 
 irreconcileableness with our Saviour’s history; we will now see 
 how far it is so, in a moral point of view, with the character of 
 the Deity, and with that homogeneity of the different Persons 
 of the Godhead, which is so forcibly inculcated by the 
 language of your creed, where it is said, that each is the 
 express image of the other, each of the whole, and the 
 whole of each. The terms in which this perfect similarity 
 is asserted, are precise, fixed, and definite, such as they ought 
 to be, on a subject on which eternal salvation depended. 
 Now, if I prove to you, that according to your own history 
 of the incarnation, this similarity neither did, nor could exist ; 
 that the parties were evidently actuated by different motives, 
 and pursued a different conduct; it must follow, that if your 
 definition of the Trinity be true, the history of the incarna- 
 tion is false; or if the history be true, the definition is not so ; 
 for two things which oppose one another cannot both be true. 
 
 When it is said of the different parts of the Trinity, that 
 the one is the express image of the other, it is meant that 
 they are identical in character, so that they can in no way be 
 distinguished one from the other; that they are all alike 
 perfect in their moral attributes; wise, good and just in the 
 same degree, and in the same manner. ‘* The Father and the 
 Son,” says Origen, ‘‘are both separately worshipped as truth, 
 and therefore, have but one and the same will;” a will, you 
 must observe, not merely the result of agreement, but, 
 according to the doctrine of your Church, of a physical and 
 essential union, so that what is done by the one, must neces- 
 
28 
 
 sarily be done by the other. ‘There can, therefore, be no 
 difference of feeling or determination, no opposition of opinion, 
 no diversity of action, as this would necessarily imply imper- 
 fection, for where there are two conducts, and the one is 
 perfect, the other must be imperfect. Whatever, therefore, 
 perfect love or justice enjoined, must be alike enjoined by 
 both. Now the perfect justice of the Father required the 
 punishment of an offending world; but the Son’s love for it 
 prevented the execution of this justice. It is evident, there- 
 fore, that in this transaction, justice predominated over love 
 in the one case, and love over justice in the other. Here. 
 then we see, on the same occasion, and under the same cir- 
 cumstances, two different conducts. If justice demanded 
 punishment, why did the Son oppose it? If justice did not 
 demand it, why did the Father require it? If the Father’s 
 justice was perfect, the Son’s must have been imperfect. 
 If the love of the latter was perfect, that of the former 
 could not have been so. To deny the truth of this reasoning, 
 is to deny the whole history of the transaction; for nothing 
 can be more conclusive, than that the actors on this occasion 
 were not identical, nor an express image the one of the 
 other, nor alike in their moral attributes. ‘To say the contrary 
 is preposterous, since justice and love have their distinctive 
 characters as strongly defined, as justice and injustice.* 
 
 In speaking of this transaction, you have always the words 
 ‘¢justice of God” in your mouths, as on other occasions you talk 
 of the union of the divine and human nature, of the Trinity 
 in Unity, &c., which are certain forms of speech to which 
 you have been so long accustomed, that they slide off from 
 your tongues as glibly as the most ordmary phrases, and 
 
 *Whether you explain the Godhead as three times the same thing, 
 or as one substance, it is evident that the Persons contained therein can 
 in no sense be regarded as one and the same. 
 
29 
 
 without more exciting your attention to their real import. 
 Let us then stop for a moment, and enquire a little into the 
 meaning of this phrase, ‘‘ justice of God,” in reference to this 
 transaction. 
 
 What is justice? To do right, to abstain from wrong ; 
 to recompense or punish, according to merit or demerit. If 
 punishment be proportioned to the offence, it is just; if it 
 exceed, it is unjust ; if it be inflicted where there is no offence, 
 it is the highest injustice. ‘The justification of punishment is 
 not the pleasure of inflicting it, but reformation and example. 
 If innocence suffer, and guilt escape, the great object of justice 
 is frustrated ; it tends more to encourage than restrain offence. 
 Such are the principles by which human justice is, or ought 
 to be, regulated. When man had thrown off his allegiance to 
 the Divinity, had violated all His laws, and become so despe- 
 rately wicked, that there were no hopes of his redemption by 
 ordinary means, he had forfeited all claims to the Divine 
 favour, and God had abandoned him to that punishment 
 which His offended justice required. So far there is nothing 
 which militates against our notions of justice. But was he 
 so visited? Were the wicked punished? No; they escaped; 
 but another victim was chosen, pure, holy, unspotted, and 
 whom God distinguished, from the love he bore him, as his 
 only Son. And why was He punished? If atonement was 
 necessary, let the guilty atone; but the guilty escape, and 
 the innocent suffer. Let us bring this home directly to our 
 own feelings and principles; and let us exemplify it, by imagin- 
 ing a parfallel case in the course of human affairs. Suppose 
 the subjects of some Potentate to have risen in rebellion 
 against his lawful authority, and by their crimes to have justly 
 incurred his indignation; that at the moment of inflicting 
 upon them a merited punishment, his only son intercedes 
 for the guilty, offering himself as a victim to his father’s 
 
30 
 
 anger. By what name should we designate the conduct of 
 that parent, who, under such circumstances, would find satis- 
 faction in the sacrifice of his unoffending offspring? Should - 
 we not call it by any other name than justice? Cruelty, 
 injustice of the highest form. Yet we scruple not to accuse 
 of such conduct, the great Parent of the universe, who is 
 slow to anger, who punisheth in mercy, who, so far from 
 seeking vengeance, commands us to pardon offences, to return 
 good for evil, to love our enemies. Can He, who could 
 satiate His vengeance on the innocent, preach this great lesson 
 of charity, and peace, and good-will to others? And dare we 
 thus ascribe to God, what we should turn from with abhor- 
 rence in man? Is His justice of a different kind from that 
 by which He has taught us to regulate our own conduct ? 
 No; there is no difference. God hath made man in His own 
 image; He hath given to every one, to distinguish right from 
 wrong; He hath instructed him by revelation, by the mouth 
 of His prophets, by the word of Christ himself; He hath 
 instructed him in his duties; He hath given him a code of 
 moral laws, which the more he follows, the more he is told 
 he assumes the likeness of God, the nearer approach he 
 makes to His divine perfections. When we assert, therefore, 
 that there is but one standard of justice, we err not; we are 
 not fallible here; the voice of nature, and the voice of revela- 
 tion, confirm that there are no two kinds of justice; it is one, 
 eternal and immutable, fixed as the throne of God; a part of 
 the Divinity itself, from everlasting to everlasting the same. 
 Let us not fear then to bring this subject to the test of those 
 principles of justice, which God has implanted in the hearts 
 of every man, which our reason confirms, and which is 
 sanctioned by His own revealed word. 
 
 Thus in whatever point of view this dogma be regarded, 
 rationally, morally, physically, religiously, or scripturally, 
 
ol 
 
 there is not a single spot of tenable ground on which it can rest: 
 you are driven from one difficulty to seek refuge in another ; 
 on every side you are affronted by a mass of absurdities and 
 incongtruities, such as, I verily believe, no other subject could 
 possibly exhibit. If you were in like manner to submit! your 
 belief to the test of reason, and to the precepts and spirit of 
 our religion, you would tremble at the nature of many of 
 your opinions. But what has once been received as an 
 article of faith, you are afraid of afterwards too closely ex- 
 amining; and though repugnant both to your understanding 
 and your feelings, you are yet ready to receive it as a mystery ; 
 not considering, that no mystery can be repugnant to, though 
 it may be beyond our reason; and that we ought not to credit 
 any thing, whose existence is not as evident to the under- 
 standing or the senses, as the nature of it is unintelligible. 
 Infinity, eternity, the existence of evil, the union of mind 
 and body, miracles, are mysteries; we are surrounded by 
 mysteries, of the existence of which we are certain, and in 
 which there is nothing contradictory, nothing impossible, 
 nothing derogatory to the Divine perfections. But when we 
 are required to believe mysteries, which are replete with 
 absurdities, and which have no existence but in our own 
 conceits, we are bound, as rational beings, to regard them as 
 impositions upon our understandings, which we neither can, 
 nor ought to believe. But, alas! it is our misfortune, that on 
 all these subjects we abandon our understandings, to devote 
 ourselves to a blind credulity. Whenever the character 
 and conduct of the Deity are concerned, there is a kind of 
 superstitious feeling, a dread, an awe, that hangs over the 
 mind, and paralyzes its faculties. It is this principle in human 
 nature, that has been the cause, at every period of time, of 
 the greatest abuses in religion, and has led the way to the 
 most horrid excesses. To this it is owing, that all the religions 
 
32 
 
 of the world have united in representing the character of the 
 Deity under the most formidable and terrific appearances : 
 and let not us Christians deceive ourselves; for we are far 
 more culpable than they, who had only the light of nature; 
 but we have wilfully perverted and misconstrued that revela- 
 tion which He has made of Himself; we have transformed a 
 God of peace and love, into a Spirit of evil; cruel, vengeful 
 and implacable. The most benighted of the children of 
 darkness have never presented Him to our view under so 
 tremendous a form, as the creed of almost every sect of 
 Christians, not excepting that Establishment of which you 
 profess yourselves members. ‘The God of Christianity is a 
 God, whose justice delighteth in the punishment of the 
 innocent; who hath adjudged to perish everlastingly, all those 
 who will not receive, as the guide of their faith, that which 
 they cannot understand; who hath condemned to inevitable 
 perdition, nine-tenths of the world, for erring in that darkness 
 in which no fault of their own hath involved them ; who hath 
 predestinated to everlasting punishment those whom no merit 
 can save; and to the enjoyment of His divine presence those, 
 whom no enormity of crime can exclude; who hath con- 
 demned to eternal torments, the babe of a span long; who 
 hath exposed for the fault of one, the whole race of man, 
 not to the pains and miseries of this transitory being, but of 
 that where the worm never dieth, and the fire is never 
 quenched ; who will visit the offences of this finite and pecca- 
 ble state, with infinite and never-ending torments! Such, 
 Christians, is the God whom you have formed. Better, oh! 
 better had it been for man, that he had never been; or being, 
 that he return to that nothing, from which creative power 
 hath called him ! 
 
 It is into such errors, I may say into such impieties, that 
 we fall when we take upon ourselves to prescribe rules of 
 
Do 
 
 conduct to the Deity ; when we attempt to penetrate into 
 His inscrutable counsels, to draw aside that veil which for 
 ever conceals His secrets from mortal eyes. It is the pre- 
 sumption and vain curiosity of man, which are for ever seducing 
 him from profitable knowledge, to pursue that which availeth 
 not, and which he can never find. Let us confine ourselves, 
 then, within our own proper boundaries; and in all our doubts 
 and difficulties, let us repose ourselves with confidence on 
 this great rock of faith, the knowledge of this first truth, that 
 God is good; that all is therefore good; that evil itself is 
 good, as a cause of greater good; that the death of Christ 
 was necessary to the production of a good, which could not 
 otherwise have been attained; that it was, in the eternal 
 order of things, the means the best adapted to the end; and 
 that God consented to it for the love of this good, and not 
 to satisfy feelings which were anything else than good. “In 
 this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that 
 God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we 
 might live through him.” 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 In the texts to which you refer me, the terms Reconciliation, 
 Redemption, Propitiation, &c., occur in connection with the 
 death, and the blood, and the sacrifice of Christ; which 
 latter, you make to be the direct and immediate cause of the 
 former. Your great error here is, in separating these texts 
 from their context, and also in not taking into consideration 
 the persons to whom the writer addressed himself, and the 
 special object which he had in view; for these circumstances 
 tend essentially to qualify the meaning of particular expres- 
 sions. It is in this way that we shall be much more likely 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 to attain to the true interpretation of these passages, than by 
 taking the precise and definite sense of the words themselves : 
 if we were upon this principle to interpret the sacred writings, 
 which abound with figurative expressions, we should be 
 perpetually involving ourselves in inextricable difficulties. 
 There are numberless passages to which we are authorized, 
 nay forced, to attach a figurative meaning. It frequently 
 happens, that many of them on which much stress has been 
 laid, are nothing more than the ordinary forms of language, 
 common to all writers, and on all subjects. We are bought 
 with a price ; purchased with his own blood; healed by his 
 stripes. So we say, a dearly-bought victory; our emanci- 
 pation from Rome has been purchased with the blood of 
 thousands of martyrs. We are constantly adding to the 
 copiousness and richness of language, to the force and vivacity 
 of its expressions, by a figurative application of terms derived 
 from every branch of science and knowledge. Strange, 
 therefore, would it have been if ‘the sacred writers, and more 
 particularly St. Paul, whose whole attention had been devoted 
 to one object, the study of the sacred writings, and the 
 ceremonial parts of his religion; strange indeed would it 
 have been, if his style had not partaken of the character of his 
 learning ; had not been replete with expressions derived from 
 those rites and forms of the Jewish worship, of which he had 
 been in the habitual, minute and zealous observance. Had 
 not such allusions abounded in his writings, their authenticity 
 might justly have been called in question. This is of itself 
 sufficient to explain the frequent recurrence of these expres- 
 sions. But that which rendered this constant application of 
 the terms of the sacrificial law indispensable, was the argument 
 which St. Paul had to maintain against the obstinate attach- 
 ment of the Jewish converts to the practice of their ancient 
 ceremonies. One main design of his correspondence with 
 
30 
 
 the different churches, was to counteract the effect of this 
 upon the minds of the Gentile converts: it is this object 
 which more or less runs through every one of his Epistles, 
 and appears in some to have been almost exclusively so; as in 
 his addresses to the Romans, the Galatians, and the Ephesians. 
 It is essential to a right understanding of these expressions, 
 to take into consideration the circumstances under which St. 
 Paul wrote, the nature of the prejudices which he had to 
 combat, and their influence upon the conduct of those against 
 whom his remonstrances were directed. By this it will appear, 
 that all these controverted passages are not so much meant 
 to be of general application, as specially adapted to the 
 occasion, and to the peculiar notions of those persons alone to 
 whom they are addressed. In proof of this, we will take 
 the two first passages which occur in the writings of St. Paul, 
 where blood is connected with the remission of sins. In 
 arguing with the Judaizing Christians upon the inutility of 
 the ceremonial law, that faith was now all that was necessary, 
 he says, (Rom. iii. 25.), ‘* Whom God set forth to be a propiti- 
 ation through faith in his blood.” Why not simply faith in 
 Christ? Why in his blood? The reason is obvious. Under 
 the writer’s circumstances, the word ‘‘ blood” was a far more 
 appropriate and emphatic expression, alluding at once to the 
 blood of animals, by which propitiation was formerly sought ; 
 and the blood of Christ, through faith in which it was now 
 effectually accomplished. It was saying to them, in one word, 
 it is faith in His blood which is efficacious to propitiation, 
 and not in the blood of animals, in which you vainly seek it. 
 The second instance where remission of sin is connected with 
 blood, is in the 5th chap. of this Epistle, v. 9.; ‘* Bemg now 
 justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through 
 him.” Here justification is referred directly to blood, without 
 any mention of that faith, the necessity of which is, in the 
 
30 
 
 first instance, insisted upon, and which, throughout the whole 
 four preceding chapters, he had been labouring by a variety 
 of arguments to prove; always asserting, in the clearest and 
 most unequivocal terms, not only here, but every where, the 
 sole efficacy of faith as to justification; but, at times, figura- 
 tively ascribing it to his Death, his Sacrifice, his Blood, his 
 Cross ; a striking and forcible manner of shewing, not only 
 that it came through him, but, at the same time, that it did 
 not come through the ceremonial law. These two quotations 
 exemplify the kind of argument, by which St. Paul, in opposi- 
 tion to the prejudices of the Jews, maintains the exclusive 
 obligation of the new law. In spite of the influence of the 
 new faith, the Jewish Christians could not reconcile to their 
 deep-rooted prejudices, this abandonment of their ancient 
 ceremonies, which they continued not only to practise them- 
 selves, but to enforce as essential upon the Gentile converts.* 
 This conduct on their part was a great hindrance to the 
 spread of the Gospel wherever their influence was felt, which 
 
 * The universality of the new Church was incompatible with the system 
 of Judaism, which was too circumscribed in its operation, and too limited 
 in its nature, to be adapted to such an extended scheme. The necessity 
 of local worship, and the direct personal service of the High Priest, were 
 inapplicable to a religion that was to be embraced by all mankind. If 
 the more perfect principles of Christianity had not of themselves abro- 
 gated the ancient rites, they must necessarily have fallen into desuetude, 
 from the impossibility of a compliance with them. It became, therefore 
 no longer necessary to continue an order, whose services were become 
 useless, and whose powers were inadequate to the presidence of an 
 universal church. But as it had been instituted by Divine appointment, 
 it could not be set aside but by the same authority. Christ, therefore, 
 by an universal remission of sins by faith, removed what would otherwise 
 have been an insurmountable impediment to the progress of his religion. 
 This alone ought to have taught the Jewish Christians, that, however 
 necessary, as Jews, they might have considered the observance of the cere- 
 monial law, it was impossible to extend it to the Gentile converts. 
 
37 
 
 it appears to have been, wherever the establishment of a church 
 had been effected. An insight, therefore, into the nature 
 and origin of these prejudices, will better enable you to 
 comprehend the true force and meaning of all those terms 
 and phrases, levelled against them by St. Paul. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 THE great object of the Ceremonial Law was the pre- 
 servation of the Jews, as a distinct and separate race, specially 
 set apart for the service of God. It was they who, alone, 
 were supposed to be admitted into His presence, and whose 
 worship was accepted. All the rest of the world, from its 
 idolatrous practices, were said to be under a state of sin, and 
 aliens from God. There existed, however, the means of 
 becoming reconciled to Him by the law, and the law alone. 
 By conforming to its injunction of circumcision, by the aid 
 of sacrifices and purification, the sin under which they 
 previously lay was expiated; a remission of it was granted; 
 and they thereby became sanctified and reconciled, so as to 
 be admitted to the worship of God in the Temple. There 
 were no other possible means of reconciliation. It was an 
 interdict passed upon all nations, from which there was no 
 escape but through the law. However in his heart any one 
 might have worshipped the God of the Jews, he was still un- 
 clean, and his presence would have defiled the Holy Place. 
 This was the great point on which all turned. It was the 
 line of demarcation, the chorda sanitatts, which cut off them 
 and their religion from the rest of the world; the barrier 
 between the old and the new law; between Judaism and 
 Christianity. But when the universal remission of sins 
 through faith was announced, which opened the door of the 
 
28 
 
 covenant to all alike, and declared all equally qualified to 
 be called to the knowledge and worship of God, it at once 
 broke down this wall of partition, and destroyed all that was 
 exclusive in the Jewish institution. It was the grandest, and, 
 in all its consequences, the most important event which the 
 world had ever witnessed. It was a new charter of liberty 
 to mankind; his emancipation from the bondage of ignorance 
 and sin: it was the rescinding of an act of excommunication, 
 which for ages had interdicted the worship of the true God. 
 The veil which had hitherto concealed the Holiest from 
 mortal eyes was rent asunder, and a flood of light had issued 
 forth, which was to penetrate into the remotest corners of 
 the earth, and every where to dispel the darkness im which 
 it was enveloped. 
 
 In this phrase, ‘remission of sin through faith,” is compre- 
 hended the whole scheme of Christianity. No exclusion, no 
 privilege. ‘To every one according to his merit. ‘The object 
 of Christ’s coming mto the world was the remission of sin 
 through faith; or, in other words, the universal dispensation 
 of the Gospel. But the more the end and object of the 
 remission of sin was of an enlarged and benevolent nature, 
 the more was it opposed to the pride and prejudice of the 
 Jewish nation. Were they to be no longer a favoured people, 
 the chosen of the Lord? Was this high distinction to be 
 taken from them? Were the privileges which they had 
 enjoyed for ages to be rescinded? Were they to be placed 
 ona level with other nations, sunk in all the pollutions of 
 idolatry, whose very contact was defilement? Were such 
 to be admitted into the presence of their God, and to render 
 acceptable service through other means than those of the 
 law? Were the unclean to approach the altar, with all their 
 offences unexpiated, unpurified; and all the divine ordinances 
 delivered by God to Moses to be set at naught ? 
 
39 
 
 To unite, therefore, with the uncircumcised in the practice 
 of the same religion, and the worship of the same God, was 
 so opposed to all their old habits and feelings, that they 
 sought to impose upon the new converts all the burdens of 
 the old law. ‘There is no doubt that these Jewish Christians, 
 who were settled in various parts of the Roman Empire, 
 would exercise a great influence over the early converts. 
 Christ was a Jew. ‘The new religion emanated from Judea, 
 and was a branch of Judaism. In the absence of higher 
 authorities, they would, in some measure, be regarded as such 
 themselves. ‘To expose to them the inconsistency of this 
 attachment to the practice of their ancient ceremonies with 
 their adoption of the new religion, and to counteract their 
 influence over the minds of the new converts, was a main 
 object of St. Paul, in all his Epistles. In order the more 
 clearly to convince them of the sole obligation of their new 
 faith, and the consequent inutility of their ancient ceremonies, 
 he applies them all directly to Christ, to shew that in him 
 they were all completed ; that he was in reality, that of which 
 they were but the promise. He tells them, that they no 
 longer require a High Priest or mediator, since Christ was 
 now constituted the High Priest and intercessor for all men; 
 (Heb. vii. 24, 27. viii. 1, 6.): that it was no longer necessary 
 to seek by circumcision the privileges of a member of the 
 covenant, since now the only truly circumcised were those 
 who rejoiced in Christ, (Phil. i. 3). It was no longer 
 necessary to seek reconciliation by sacrifices and offerings, 
 since Christ by his cross had reconciled both Jew and Gentile 
 by the bonds of a common faith, (Eph. i. 14, 18). It was 
 no longer necessary to seek outward purification by the blood 
 of animals, since the more precious blood of Christ sanctifieth, 
 to the purging of the conscience, and cleansing of the heart, 
 (Heb. ix. 9—14.) It is evident, that all these allusions to the 
 
40 
 
 old law were to shew, that faith in Christ had rendered all 
 further observance of it unnecessary; for that he was “the end 
 of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,” 
 (Rom. x. 4). And where these allusions are applied directly 
 to his death, ‘‘justified by his blood,” (Rom. v. 9, 10,) if we 
 did but approach the Scriptures with the same fair spirit of 
 criticism with which we go to the consideration of any pro- 
 fane author, we should see that they also are nothing more 
 than the same figurative application of the efficacy of their 
 ancient sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ, to shew that they 
 were all superseded by him; that his all-sufficiency supplied 
 the whole and every part of the ceremonial law; that he 
 was at once the atonement, and the purification, and the 
 sacrifice, and the blood; and it was therefore useless to seek 
 any longer, in the practice of these ceremonies, that which 
 they could now only effectually obtain through him. If 
 there were no other means of shewing that all this is to be 
 understood figuratively, the common usage of language on 
 all occasions would sufficiently justify such a view of it, 
 without any necessity of recurring to a literal sense. There 
 is not a more common figure of speech, than that which gives 
 to the substitute, the name of that of which it supplies the 
 place, or performs the office. This figure is frequent with 
 St. Paul; ‘for we are the circumcised, who worship God in 
 the spirit, and rejoice in Christ,” (Phil. iii. 3.) The meaning 
 of this is, that faith in Christ has superseded the circumcision 
 of the flesh; Christ is now the circumcision. 
 
 Literally, justification no more came by his blood, than 
 circumcision by faith in him. They are both alike figura- 
 tively applied to him as their substitute. But when we 
 consider, that Christ did really fall a sacrifice, that his blood 
 was actually shed, this phraseology would unavoidably 
 obtrude itself upon the writer. The Jews were told to 
 
4] 
 
 sacrifice no more, since redemption could now only be 
 obtained through Christ. Now it happened, that he who 
 was commissioned by God to assure them of this, himself 
 fell a sacrifice in the execution of his orders. Under such 
 circumstances, could any thing be more natural than to apply 
 to him the sacrificial language of the law, of which he was 
 now the substitute, and to exclaim, ‘Yes; this is the sacrifice 
 by which we are now effectually redeemed.” They were told 
 no longer to seek purification by blood, in order to render 
 acceptable service to God, since the only purification now 
 was by faith in Christ. Now he who told them this, shed 
 his own blood in attestation of the truth of his word. ‘Truly, 
 then, might his followers exclaim, ‘‘ Yes; this is the blood 
 through which we shall be truly cleansed from our sins.” So 
 they were told, that on the great day of expiation it was no 
 longer necessary, by means of a curse, to discharge all the 
 iniquities of the people upon the head of the scape-goat, 
 since Christ has promised to take away the sins of all who 
 believed in him. Now he who promised them this, subjected 
 himself to suffering, humiliation and death, in order to con- 
 firm them in this belief. Well, therefore, might they say, 
 that it was he who had become a curse fer them; that he 
 had truly borne their iniquities ; that he had paid the penalty 
 of their offences ; that by his stripes they were healed; by 
 his sufferings they were made whole. Now I see nothing 
 in all this language which is not perfectly natural and appro- 
 priate, and that would not necessarily suggest itself under 
 similar circumstances. Who was the writer? A Jew. To 
 whom was he writing? ‘To Jews, or to converts under their 
 influence. On what subject? To expose the sole necessity 
 of the new, and the inutility of the old, law. And could 
 such a correspondence be free from Jewish phrases? Could 
 he tell them, that all their expiations, and atonements, and 
 F 
 
42 
 
 their sacrifices, and their sprinklings of blood, were now 
 superseded by faith; and under such circumstances, and 
 with that inseparable connection in his mind between purifi- 
 cation and blood, could he refer to this new purification, this 
 new remission of sins, without figuratively connecting it, in 
 the language of the old ceremonies, with the blood and the 
 sacrifice of Christ? To suppose this, is to have but little 
 knowledge of human nature, and the powerful influence of 
 association in the mind. 
 
 But the most important of all the causes of this frequent 
 connection of redemption with blood is, that all these 
 ceremonies of the law were so many types* of Christ; the 
 direct application of them to him was therefore imperative ; 
 no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity ; it was requisite 
 
 * Different opinions may prevail with respect to the typical character 
 of the Ceremonial Law ; but the close analogy which St. Paul has drawn 
 between the two Covenants, the way in which he specially refers to the 
 ceremonies as figures, signs, patterns, shadows, &c., can leave little doubt, 
 that he regarded them as typical and prophetic. A similitude may 
 exist between things where there is no direct relation; but in such case 
 the words patterns, promises, &c., could not with propriety be applied to 
 them, inasmuch as these terms signify, not an accidental, but a pre- 
 ordained similitude, an intended representation of things to come; a 
 likeness specially referable. Why does St. Paul say, that because the 
 High Priest offered up sacrifices, so it was necessary that Christ also 
 should offer up, if the sacrifice of the one had not a direct relation to 
 that of the other? Again, it was necessary that men and places should be 
 purified by blood, as the pattern of Christ’s better sacrifice, (Heb. ix. 23.) 3 
 that the gifts and sacrifices of the Priests were the example and shadow of 
 heavenly things, as the tabernacle was of the pattern shewn to Moses 
 in the Mount, (viii. 4, 5.) ; and this tabernacle, or holy place, he elsewhere 
 calls the figure of the true. But in whatever light these ceremonies be 
 regarded, it is certain that St. Paul alludes to them as illustrative of 
 the character of the new religion, and the history of its Founder $ 
 whether, therefore, they be types or not, my argument drawn from them, 
 as such, is equally conclusive and warranted. 
 
43 
 
 to shew that m ‘him the law was completed, and all these 
 ceremonies received their final accomplishment: they are, 
 therefore, referred to him, each separately, but more emphati- 
 cally ; as what they were in appearance, he was in reality, 
 and supereminently so. He was not the mortal High Priest 
 of the Jews, but an zmmortal one in the heavens; the intercessor 
 for all men: he did not enter, purified by the blood of 
 animals, into an earthly, but into an heavenly tabernacle, by 
 the merits of his own blood. ‘The Priests, by all their daily 
 offerings, could never take away sin; but He by one offering of 
 himself, was enabled to put it away for ever. By an annual 
 sacrifice, the High Priest effected a temporary redemption 
 of Israel; He, by one sacrifice, effected the eternal redemption 
 of all men; by the sprinklings of blood, all things were 
 purified, and the people cleansed from their outward sins ; 
 but his blood purgeth the conscience, and cleanseth from ail 
 sin. No language could be better adapted than this, to shew 
 the folly of continuing ceremonies, the great object of which 
 had now been attained by the fulfilment in Christ of that 
 figurative representation, which they gave of his doctrine, his 
 life, and his death. It was following the shadow, when they 
 possessed the substance. As, in the original, the efficacy is 
 directly ascribed to blood; so, as the antitype, it is in the same 
 figurative way immediately ascribed to Christ’s; but as in 
 the former it was not the blood, but the purity which it was 
 supposed to effect, that was the cause of reconciliation; so here, 
 also, reconciliation was not the direct consequence of it, but 
 of that faith to which it provoked; that moral regeneration of 
 the heart, by all those sympathies, and emotions, and convic- 
 tions, which it was calculated to excite. 
 
 Having endeavoured to explain to you the cause of this 
 frequent application to Christ of the language of the old law, 
 not only as that phraseology which any writer would naturally 
 
44. 
 
 adopt; but indispensable to St. Paul, in pointing out the 
 relation of the type to its antitype, where the same language 
 would necessarily be applied to both; it is incumbent upon 
 me now to shew you, that these ceremonies, neither in their 
 origin nor design, were inconsistent with this figurative sense 
 for which I contend; and that, as types, no inference can be 
 drawn from them that Christ’s sacrifice was instrumental to 
 the salvation of the world as a sacrifice, but only through its 
 moral influence. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 WueEN yousay that the Jewish atonement was a_ type 
 of Christ’s, you must necessarily perceive a similitude between 
 them ; and as the expressions which refer to the latter are 
 taken from the ceremonies of the law, they must necessarily 
 apply to Christ in their original sense, or else they would 
 not be atype. Now, if you will carefully examine the forms of 
 the Jewish sacrifice, and the end it was to subserve, you will see, 
 that there is not only no analogy between it and your atone- 
 ment, but that no two things can be more essentially different, 
 than the real character of the former, and that which you 
 attribute to the latter. If so, your doctrine is deprived at 
 once of its main support, inasmuch as there is no type of it 
 in the old law, and as you must, therefore, have necessarily 
 affixed a wrong interpretation to all these phrases respecting 
 Christ’s death. 
 
 One of the great objects of the Christian dispensation, 
 was the abolition of the law of sacrifice. (Heb. x. 5, 6.) 
 ‘* Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice 
 for sin thou wouldest not, neither hast thou pleasure therein.” 
 Does it not appear extraordinary, that a declaration which 
 
45 
 
 was the condemnation for ever of the whole system of worship 
 by sacrifice, was to be confirmed and ratified by the most 
 important of all sacrifices? ‘J will have no more offerings, 
 saith the Lord.” What consistency between this, and the 
 offermg up of Jesus as an expiatory sacrifice? I come to 
 abolish the first, and to establish the second. I come to insti- 
 tute a new worship in spirit, altogether the reverse of that 
 which it is to supersede. And yet, the great act confirmatory 
 of it was in direct opposition to what he came to establish, 
 and in direct accordance with what he came to abolish. 
 ‘* Henceforth, saith the Lord, Iwill write my laws in their heart, 
 and in their minds.” (Heb. viii. 10.) The time, therefore, was 
 now come, when all outward forms and external symbols were 
 to be for ever abolished. It was no longer the purification of 
 outward defilements, but that of the heart; it was not the 
 sacrifice of the altar, but a spiritual sacrifice ; it was not sin- 
 offerings and burnt-offerings, but the offerings of a contrite 
 spirit. ‘¢ Z will have no more offerings of flesh and blood; I 
 will henceforth be worshipped in spirit and in truth.’ And 
 yet, contrary to the clear demonstration of the will of Him 
 who sent him, Christ was to set the example of the greatest 
 sacrifice that had ever been, or could be made, from the 
 beginning to the end of the world; and this sacrifice, instead 
 of partaking of the spirit of his new and glorious communica- 
 tion, was to be identified with the nature of those expiations 
 and atonements, which God declared had for ever passed 
 away. So that this proof of God’s love, which was to effect 
 a reformation in the whole moral and religious state of the 
 world, was to have no efficacy until it had been ratified by an 
 explatory sacrifice, of the nature of those which it had for 
 ever forbidden. Thus, you would erect the heavenly upon 
 the foundations of the earthly tabernacle ; the New Jerusalem 
 you would build up from the ruins of the old; the Church of 
 
46 
 
 the Lord you would reconstruct from the worn-out and 
 rejected materials of this world; a spiritual worship, you 
 would introduce by a carnal sacrifice; the only offering that 
 could now be accepted, that of the heart, was to be prefaced 
 by an offering up of the body of Jesus; the abolition of all 
 outward forms of worship, by a sacrifice on which the atten- 
 tion of the world was to be fixed to the end of time; and 
 finally, an act which was the consummation of love, and 
 charity, and mercy, was to be conceived in the spirit of 
 that law, which exacted ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for 
 a tooth.” 
 
 When I say that you make the sacrifice of Christ to par- 
 take of the nature of the expiatory sacrifices of the Temple, 
 I am only making use of your own language, for you acknow- 
 ledge the one to be a type of the other, and as such, it 
 must necessarily partake of the character of its antitype; 
 but in reality, as you understand the atonement, there is 
 nothing in the Jewish law, that offers any analogy between 
 the character of such an event, and any of its ceremonies. 
 The atonement, ordained by the law, was merely an act of 
 purification. An atonement was made, not only for accidental 
 and involuntary, but also for inevitable defilements, where 
 no sin or disobedience could exist. An atonement was also 
 made by fine flour, as in’ the case of the trespass-offering, 
 which shews that it was by no means necessarily of a bloody 
 character. The ceremony was precisely the same, whether 
 it was for objects and places of worship, or for voluntary 
 inevitable defilements ; and therefore it is deprived altogether 
 of the character of an atonement in the common sense of the 
 word, and cannot be regarded in any other light than as a 
 ceremony of purification, a species of lustration, for the 
 purpose of impressing upon the minds of the Jews, the purity 
 with which everything ought to be presented before the 
 
47 
 
 Deity. Levit. xvi, 30; ‘‘and made an atonement for you, 
 to cleanse you.” On this principle it was that the leper and the 
 woman after child-birth, were for a certain period restrained 
 from entering into the Temple; that no one could officiate, 
 who laboured under any personal defect, that the sanctuary 
 might not be profaned. In this sense, St. Paul says, that the 
 tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were purged 
 with blood ; that the blood of goats, sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh. On the great day 
 of expiation, the atonement by the High Priest was first for 
 himself, before his entrance into the Holiest, that he might 
 not pollute it; then for the holy places in general, by hallow- 
 ing them from the uncleanness of the people ; and having thus 
 reconciled them, he was finally to come forth, and offer sacri- 
 fices for a general purification of all Israel, so that all the 
 people might be cleansed from their sins before the Lord. 
 
 The blood by which this purification was supposed to be 
 effected was a mere form; a sign of their being freed from 
 all idolatrous and sinful defilements; a sign, divinely instituted 
 as a figure of that blood, by which all the world was alike to 
 be freed from the same idolatrous and sinful defilements, 
 and to be united in the worship of the same God, and, being 
 thus rendered pure and holy, to be reconciled to Him. Not 
 only do the words themselves, but the whole history of the 
 ceremony prove, that it must be considered, not in the light 
 of a pardon, but a cleansing, and that the sense of the word 
 atonement, in the old law, cannot be that which you give it; 
 an expiation of guilt, seeing that the same ceremonies and 
 terms are used for persons where no guilt was incurred, and 
 for objects and places where it was impossible. 
 
 The Jewish atonement, therefore, both in its origin and in 
 its application, must have a figurative sense. In the former, 
 it was simply a supposed purification, and could not be an 
 
48 
 
 expiation of guilt where none existed, and therefore cannot 
 be indicative of any such quality in Christ’s blood. The 
 type must be a faithful representation of the nature of that 
 efficacy, which we are to attribute to this. As a copy of the 
 original, it cannot differ either in its degree or character ; for 
 if so, it would not apply, indeed it would be no longer a type; 
 it can therefore only denote the purifying influence of Christ’s 
 blood through its moral effects ; the only way in which it can 
 have any efficacy in taking away sin. ‘ And put no difference 
 between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith;” (Acts 
 xv. 9.) ‘¢ And every man that hath this hope in him, purifieth 
 himself, even as he is pure ;” (1 John i. 3.) In these verses 
 the question is plainly and literally stated. Purifying ourselves, 
 not by the bood of the altar, nor by that of Christ, but by 
 faith in it. 
 
 When you say, therefore, that the reconciliation of the 
 world was the immediate consequence of Christ’s blood, and 
 refer to that effected by the blood of the altar as its type, 
 you misinterpret equally the nature and declared object of 
 the ceremony, and the language in which it is described. 
 The Jewish reconciliation was not the immediate consequence 
 of the sprinkling of blood, but of the effect which it was sup- 
 posed to have produced. It is said that the holy places were 
 reconciled to God by the ‘sprinkling, but only on the ground 
 of that purity which it was presumed they had thereby 
 acquired. ‘ And he shall go out unto the altar that is before 
 the Lord, and make an atonement for it 3......se0.. and he 
 shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, 
 and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the 
 children of Israel: and when he hath made an end of recon- 
 ciling the holy place,” &c. &c.; (Levit. xvi. 18, 19, 20.) The 
 ground of reconciliation was the purity which was effected by. 
 the blood, and not the blood itself. This cleansing from 
 
49 
 
 defilement was the great object of the ceremonial law 
 throughout ; of all their sprinklings, and sacrifices, and atone- 
 ments, to render persons, and places, and things pure and 
 holy, to be presented before God. All these, therefore, 
 must be referable to Christ, strictly, in their original sense ; 
 for St. Paul says, that they were shadows, patterns, Jigures, 
 copies, promises: to apply them to Christ in any other way 
 than their real character, would be to make the copies untrue, 
 and the promises false. The purity effected by the blood of 
 the sacrifice, was a type of that by Christ’s blood: you can- 
 not, therefore, make reconciliation the effect of purity in the 
 type, and of blood in the antitype; there would no longer 
 be the slightest analogy between them. 
 
 It is said, that the sacrifices of the Temple were a sweet- 
 smelling odour before the Lord. St. Paul speaks in the 
 same terms of the sacrifice of Christ; we must, therefore, 
 understand that this was so in the sense of the former. Now 
 we cannot suppose that, as sacrifices merely, they were thus 
 acceptable to God, from any honour or glory that He could 
 receive therefrom, or from any motives or feelings that did 
 not refer to the worshippers themselves. It was the spirit of 
 obedience and devotion with which they were offered; the 
 beneficial influence upon the minds of the people, in preserv- 
 ing them from idolatrous and sinful practices, and in reminding 
 them of their duty to God. So it was, on the part of Christ, 
 the same obedience to the Divine will, the voluntary sacrifice 
 of himself to promote the reconciliation of the world to God, 
 by alike turning it from the same idolatrous and sinful courses. 
 It was this that made the sacrifice a sweet-smelling odour. 
 And on what other grounds could it be acceptable to a Being 
 of infinite purity and holiness? What need hath He of 
 offerings and sacrifices? No honour can be done to His 
 exalted nature by praises, and supplications, and worship, 
 
 G 
 
50 
 
 under whatever forms presented; nor can He take any 
 pleasure therein, but inasmuch as it is the voluntary tribute 
 of the heart, and as it tendeth to the profit of him who 
 payeth it. 
 
 In this view of the sacrifice of Christ, the analogy between 
 it and the sacrifices of the Temple is complete. But I see 
 no similitude between them and your atonement, either in 
 the motive with which the offering was required, or the end 
 it was to subserve. ‘The efficacy of this lay in the mere act 
 itself. The atonement was simply the sacrifice. The expi- 
 ation of offence was the immolation of the victim. It was 
 not the spirit of repentance and reformation, which is the 
 only sanctification of prayer and offering. Such a sacrifice 
 has no affinity, either with the nature of Judaism, or Christi- 
 anity ; it stands alone, an insulated fact, having nothing in its 
 character that is allied to any dispensation of God to man; 
 it harmonizes neither with the earthly, nor the heavenly 
 tabernacle, but partakes only of the spirit of those offerings 
 which were made to propitiate the anger, or conciliate the 
 
 favour of a Deity, by the sacrifice of whatever was most 
 precious. 
 
 ee 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Ir Christ had not, by his own sufferings, expiated our 
 offences, you say that the Gate of eternal Life would have 
 been for ever closed against all. It isimpossible that, with 
 such a belief, you can have felt in all its force the grandeur, 
 and the simplicity, and the purity, of the Christian scheme, 
 In all its demonstration, in its origin, its execution, and in its 
 final accomplishment; the whole spirit which pervades it 
 from beginning to end, is the love of God to Man. To 
 
ol 
 
 redeem a sinful and benighted world; to turn it from its 
 vicious and idolatrous courses to the practice of virtue and of 
 true religion, by placing before it the prospect of an immortal 
 recompense, was the object of Christianity. The communi- 
 cation of it was accompanied by a series of declarations and 
 actions, all indicative of the highest regard and benevolence 
 towards man; and the last act, by which the whole was con- 
 summated, was the strongest proof that could be exhibited 
 of the love of God to the world. In this, says the Apostle, 
 ‘was manifested the love of God towards us, because that 
 God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we 
 might live through him.” That in this spirit Christianity 
 was communicated, and that in this spirit Christ died for us, 
 is also asserted in the most positive manner, in many other 
 passages of the sacred writers. Now, you can have no sup- 
 port for your doctrine, but what ‘is also derived from the 
 authority of these same writers. Shew me, then, where God’s 
 abandonment of the world is announced, and His refusal to 
 be reconciled but at the price of Christ’s blood? Before 
 such a tremendous doctrine as this can be erected into a 
 dogma, it must be authorized by the clearest and most 
 explicit language. Where is this language? From Genesis 
 to Revelations, point out to me a single passage where this is 
 avowed. Ido not admit your own interpretation of insulated 
 phrases, which we shall see have a far different, and more 
 simple and rational meaning; but I require from you what 
 is positive and decisive ; shew me a whole, entire, and con- 
 nected sentence, where it is stated, in plain and simple language, 
 that God’s justice was so offended by man’s wickedness, that 
 He required, as a satisfaction, the innocent blood of Christ ? 
 It is not a phrase in this place, and a phrase in that place; a 
 word here, and a word there, brought together in order to 
 eke out a system. I will have no ambiguous phraseology, no 
 
D2 
 
 passages on which two opinions have been formed. I am 
 not going to abandon the certain for theuncertain ; nor will 
 Ireadily believe that love, the prime attribute of the Deity, 
 the source of all our hopes and all our consolations, is sub- 
 ordinate to qualities that are calculated only to excite awe 
 and fear. For myself, I find no such language; and yet 
 you must shew it me, and in as clear terms also, before the 
 effect of texts like the above can be negatived in my mind. 
 Isee also, in the general spirit and character of the whole 
 Book, what is at total variance with such an hypothesis. The 
 language is every where replete with declarations of the for- 
 bearance and long-suffering of God; of His readiness to 
 pardon those who approached Him with a repentant spirit. 
 “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, 
 saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from 
 his ways and live;” (Ezek. xviii. 23.) ‘He will not always 
 chide, neither will he keep his anger for ever;” (Psalms ciii. 92) 
 ‘¢ He retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth 
 in mercy ;” (Mic. vii. 18.) In the New Testament, the 
 character of God is represented under a still more endearing 
 point of view, as a kind Father, ever ready to receive his dis- 
 obedient children on their returning to Him. <“ And if so 
 be that he findeth it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more 
 over that sheep, than over the ninety and nine that went 
 not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father 
 which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish ;” 
 (Matth. xviii. 13, 14.) “ The Lord is long suffering to us ward, 
 not willing that any should perish, but that all should come 
 to repentance ;” (2 Pet. ili. 9.) Is it possible for any language 
 to be more condemnatory of your doctrine? And every where 
 it is the same. God is always spoken of in the same terms, 
 ever more willing to reclaim than to punish; never, as having 
 alienated Himself from man. In His severest displeasure 
 
od 
 
 against the iniquities of his people, He declares that He will 
 not wholly reject them, for He was still the Lord their God. 
 In the most tremendous visitation of His anger, a remnant 
 was still saved in the-Ark. The very institutions of Judaism 
 and Christianity are a proof of His constant solicitude, and 
 regard for the world. Was it not the great object of the 
 former, to keep alive in the minds.of men the knowledge 
 and worship of Himself? And for this purpose, did He not 
 raise up, from time to time, a succession of Prophets and 
 wise men; and the more effectually to accomplish this, did 
 He not, in the end, send Christ into the world, that he might 
 be the means of reconciling all to Himself? Yet, in opposi- 
 tion to all this demonstration of love and kindness, you 
 would, on the ground of a few ambiguous words and phrases, 
 represent the Deity as under the influence of motives the 
 very reverse. He, who declares that He cannot retain His 
 anger, because He delighteth in mercy, yet passes a sentence 
 of universal condemnation, irrevocable but at the price of 
 innocent blood! He, who represents Himself as a kind 
 Father of all, ever anxious to reclaim His disobedient children, 
 “not willing that one of them should perish,” yet rejects 
 from His presence even those who had never offended! The 
 Shepherd who feeds His flock, and carries the lambs in His 
 bosom, and seeks to recover the sheep that had strayed, yet 
 abandons those who remained in the fold, to perish with 
 the rest in the wilderness. 
 
 Had we not God’s revealed word to appeal to, to correct 
 such erroneous conceptions of Him, we might still with 
 equal confidence affirm, that such feelings and such a conduct 
 can never be those of a perfect Being. For He can receive 
 no wrong or offence from us. He can harbour no resentment. 
 He can have no pride to gratify; no injuries to redress. It 
 is the good of the offender only that He seeks; and if He 
 
o4 
 
 chastises, it is in mercy, and for correction. All the atone- 
 ment that He requires, is a penitent spirit. But you represent 
 a Being acting from personal motives, requiring satisfaction as 
 the terms of pardon; a principle that leads to the most 
 tremendous consequences: for however you may endeavour, 
 by ingenious sophisms, to explain away its real character, it 
 will be found, when put tothe test of reason and common 
 sense, to participate, in all its features, of the spirit of those 
 expiatory sacrifices, which form one of the foulest blots in 
 the history of human nature. The belief that atonement 
 consists in the sacrifice, and not in the spirit of repentance 
 with which it is presented, is subversive of every principle 
 of religion and morality, and leads, as experince has woefully 
 proved, to the most horrid excesses. Under the influence 
 of this persuasion, that the efficacy was in proportion to the 
 value of the sacrifice, man has been led on, step by step, to 
 the very height of impiety; from the innocence of a primeval 
 offering, to the immolation of human victims. The first 
 tributes of man, were the vegetable productions of the earth. 
 Next, animals, as holding a high rank in the scale of creation, 
 were regarded as offerings of more value. As a consequence 
 of this principle, and to procure more effectually the favour 
 of their Deities, still nobler victims must be furnished, and 
 the altar was stained with human blood. But in times of 
 great disaster, the sacrifice of captives and of slaves was too 
 mean an offering to propitiate the anger of heaven; a purer 
 blood must flow; and hecatombs of children of noble and 
 princely families were sacrificed to avert the impending 
 danger. It was left for you to complete the system. You 
 have advanced a step higher in the scale. You have sacri- 
 ficed a Divinity. 
 
LETTER IX. 
 
 HEBREws, ix. 12. 
 
 You have sent me the Epistle to the Hebrews, with 
 marginal references to certain chapters and verses, which I 
 have no doubt you consider as your strong-hold, your citadel 
 of defence, from which you may bid defiance to all attack. 
 I, on the contrary, regard this as one of your weakest 
 positions, for no where is the language so demonstrative of 
 that figurative sense for which I contend. These chapters 
 are little else than a continued allegory, or figurative com- 
 parison between the two Covenants, for the purpose of more 
 strikingly exhibiting, by a juxta-position of their analogous 
 points, the typical and prophetic character of the one, and 
 thereby demonstrating to the Jews, the truth, the superiority, 
 and the sole obligation of the other. In this point of view, 
 (and no other can well be taken of the Apostle’s argument 
 throughout,) all the texts to which you refer me, where 
 redemption, &c. are united with blood, admit of a very easy 
 and consistent solution; but in the sense of an atonement, are 
 quite inexplicable. Let us take one of them on which you 
 lay great stress, as, ‘‘ neither by the blood of goats and calves, 
 but by his own blood, he entered into the Holy Place, having 
 obtained eternal redemption for us.” These words are a 
 plain allusion to the High Priest qualifying himself by blood, 
 before his entrance into God’s presence in the sanctuary, as 
 the Redeemer of Israel. It is therefore evident, that the 
 phrase, by his blood he entered in, relates in the first place to 
 Christ himself, and therefore cannot possibly accord with 
 your atonement; for if you make this the effect of his blood, 
 you are necessarily constrained by the words to admit, that it 
 was, as in the case of the High Priest, in the first place for 
 
o6 
 
 himself: no other interpretation can be given to them, for 
 both they and the allegory have a direct primary reference 
 to Christ. By his own blood he, not we, entered in, having 
 obtained for us eternal redemption; that is, his blood was 
 essential to the perfecting of himself before he could enter in 
 as the Redeemer of others; if then it was an atonement for 
 the latter, it was equally so for himself. The words, his own 
 blood, cannot have an exclusive connection with the phrase, 
 having obtained eternal redemption. If you could separate 
 the term blood, and read, ‘he entered, having by his blood 
 obtained eternal redemption for us,” you would then with 
 more propriety appeal to this text, though it would then be 
 far from justifying your inference; and it is clear that if St. 
 Paul had meant to convey this sense, he would in some such 
 way have joined the terms blood and redemption ; but in this 
 case the allegory would not have been just, for the blood of 
 the sacrifice before the High Priest’s entrance into the 
 sanctuary, was solely to qualify himself as a mediator. 
 
 If then this blood can neither be taken in the sense of an 
 atonement, nor, in that of its prototype, the blood of the altar 
 as a purifying from sin, in what sense is it to be taken? 
 Why, certainly in that which St. Paul himself has given to 
 it: ‘* For it became him ,to make the captain of their salva- 
 tion perfect ;” (Heb. ii. 10.) By his faith and obedience 
 unto death, that he might become worthy of the high exalta- 
 tion to which he was raised. ‘* Who for the sufferings of death 
 was crowned with glory and honour ;” (Heb. i. 9.) An 
 eternal redemption, that is, for these sufferings, he was 
 empowerd to grant, not as a mortal High Priest, a temporary, 
 but an eternal remission of sins, (Col. 1, 14. Eph. i. 7.) 
 ‘¢ And being made perfect, he became the Author of eternal 
 salvation to all them that obey him,” (Heb. v. 9.) ‘‘ Wherefore, 
 he is enabled to save them to the uttermost that come unto 
 
57 
 
 God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession 
 for them ;” (Heb. vii. 25.) ‘For by one offering he hath per- 
 fected for ever them that are sanctified ;” (Heb. x. 14.) This 
 is the way in which, by his own blood, he hath effected our 
 eternal redemption. In this view of the text, (which you see 
 is perfectly conformable with the language of the same 
 writer in the same Epistle,) see how the whole harmonizes; 
 how complete the allegory, how perfect the type! The 
 High Priest having cleansed himself from his sins by blood, 
 so as to present himself pure and undefiled before the Lord, 
 was authorized to enter into the sanctuary, and afterwards to 
 make propitiation for the sins of Israel: Christ having, by 
 the shedding of his own blood, perfected himself, sat down 
 at the right hand of God in the heavenly sanctuary, as a 
 High Priest without spot or blemish, to make propitiation 
 for the sins of all mankind. The High Priest was the 
 mediator for the people, who, having brought their offerings 
 such as the law required, presented them to the Lord 
 upon the altar, as an atonement for them; by which, and his 
 intercessions in their behalf, they became cleansed from their 
 sins, and admitted to all the privileges of a member of the 
 congregation. Christ is the mediator for all mankind; that 
 is, for all who bring unto him the offering which the new 
 Jaw requires, a faithful spirit; and which he will alike present 
 in our behalf, as effectual to the pardon of past sins, and toa 
 participation in the benefits of a member of his congregation. 
 
 With any other interpretation than this, how can you 
 reconcile the following words of the same writer; ‘* Who 
 needeth not daily, as those High Priests, to offer up sacrifices; 
 first for his own sins, and then for the people; for this he did 
 once, when he offered up himself; (Heb.vii. 27.) Will yousay that 
 the phrase, “‘ for this he did once,” refers only to the sins of the 
 people? But neither the construction of the sentence, nor the 
 
 H 
 
D8 
 
 type, nor the comparison he was maintaining, admits of it. 
 You cannot read it, and not be convinced that St. Paul 
 meant to shew, that what the blood of the altar did for the 
 High Priest, Christ’s blood did for himself, by qualifying 
 each of them to appear in God’s presence as mediators. The 
 efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice has as direct a reference to him- 
 self, as that of the altar to the High Priest. Now this would 
 be impossible, if it was an atonement, as in this case its 
 efficacy could have no relation but to others; but as the text 
 refers to Christ, it follows, that if it was an atonement, it was 
 for his own, as well as for the sins of the people. ‘The plain 
 sense of it is, that in order to qualify himself to appear in 
 God’s presence as our intercessor, it was not necessary, 
 as an imperfect High Priest, to repeat the sacrifice, for that 
 by the one shedding of his own blood, he had for ever 
 perfected himself as the eternal Redeemer of all. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 In reading with attention the Epistles of St. Paul, you 
 must frequently have remarked a leading idea running 
 through a long course of his argument; a dominant sentiment 
 governing and characterising it, with which the whole is 
 associated, and with which every part must therefore accord. 
 The context in these cases must decide the meaning of the 
 text; for if this be at variance with it, we must necessarily 
 have taken it ina wrong sense. ‘The chapters we are now 
 examining exhibit a remarkable proof of this. His great 
 object was to shew the Jews, that the purification of the 
 High Priest by blood, to enable him to act as a mediator, 
 was figurative of the power with which Christ was invested, 
 
D9 
 through the merits of his own blood, as the mediator of the 
 world. In explaining, therefore, the different passages in 
 this Epistle, where the terms of the old ceremonial law are 
 applied to Christ, weare not authorized to interpret them in 
 any other sense, than that which he himself has affixed to 
 them, as the completion of the corresponding type to which 
 he particularly refers. ‘The allegory necessarily confines the 
 meaning within this limit. When, therefore, you interpret 
 such passages as these; ‘“‘ He entered by his own blood, 
 having obtained eternal redemption for us :” ** He put away sin 
 by the sacrifice of himself;” when, I say, without considering 
 the meaning which they must necessarily bear, as a part of 
 the general argument, or as the illustration of a type, you 
 interpret them in the sense of an atonement, that his blood 
 and sacrifice were a satisfaction to Divine justice, you give to 
 them a very opposite meaning to that which the Apostle 
 meant to convey; viz., that it was for Christ himself that 
 his blood and sacrifice were efficacious; that it was to qualify 
 himself, before he could present others to be the object of God’s 
 favour; that he might prove, before the stewardship was 
 committed to him, that he was worthy in all things of the 
 trust. The sense, therefore, which you give to these passages, 
 is not only not that of the Apostle, but is quite inconsistent 
 with it; inasmuch as this offering up, as typified by that of 
 the High Priest, was for the perfecting of himself, as well as 
 to enable him to put away the sins of others; and in no 
 other sense than this can any of these phrases be taken. 
 There is such a chain of connected argument throughout ; 
 all these passages are so indissolubly united, so dependent 
 one on the other; they are all so interwoven with similar 
 remarks and illustrations, that they cannot admit of any 
 difference of interpretation: the sense of any one of them, 
 clearly established, is that of them all. ‘Take the book into 
 
60 
 
 your own hands; study the first ten chapters of this Epistle, 
 and compare them with the following paraphrase, and see 
 whether the version of those parts which relate to these dis- 
 puted texts, is not justified by the authority of those passages 
 to which it refers. As you particularly invited me to the 
 consideration of this Epistle, you will see that I have perused 
 it with attention; and I hope with that freedom from pre- 
 judice, which becomes a lover of truth. The result of my 
 examination is, that the whole language and reasoning 
 throughout, are directly opposed to the inferences that you 
 draw from them. There is no doubt, that if you have a 
 predilection for dark and hidden meanings, you may find 
 wherewith to satisfy it in the writings of St. Paul. Indeed, 
 where is the language which ingenuity cannot pervert? A 
 celebrated French legalist asserted, that there was no sentence 
 of five words in which he could not discover treason. But it 
 is not our business to make out a case, but to try ingenuously 
 to find out the author’s meaning. Where a passage is 
 susceptible of more than one sense, we are not to give to it 
 an arbitrary interpretation; but to compare it with correspond- 
 ing passages, and see whether the author himself does not, 
 in the course of his argument, explain his own meaning. This 
 appears to me to be the easiest and surest way of arriving at 
 the truth; and therefore I have, as you will see by the 
 references, founded the paraphrase of these chapters on the 
 authority of other texts of a similar import, where the sense 
 is fully stated ; and which, therefore, I regard as a datum; an 
 established truth; a key to unlock the meaning of other parts 
 where it is not so fully developed, and which deficiency I 
 cannot therefore supply in any way, that does not perfectly 
 accord with this previously admitted truth. It would be as 
 tedious as it is unnecessary, to repeat on every occasion what 
 has once been fully explained: a simple allusion suffices. If I 
 
OL 
 
 were to give a sum of money for services performed, and in 
 afterwards alluding to this fact, I were simply to observe that 
 I had distributed such a sum, this, as an unconnected remark, 
 might be taken in two ways; asa gift, or a payment of a debt; 
 but in consequence of the previous fact to which it refers, it 
 can only be taken ‘in the latter sense. So when the fact of 
 Christ’s having, by the once shedding of his blood, been for 
 ever invested with the power of putting away the sins of all 
 on repentance, is fully established, if I afterwards find this 
 fact more concisely alluded to; as, ‘he hath put away sin by 
 the one sacrifice of himself; through his blood we have 
 redemption, that is, the forgiveness of sins;” I am not 
 authorized to give to them an independent interpretation, 
 but to receive them in the sense of that to which they refer. 
 And I am in this case still more obliged to this, as I find 
 that this peculiar phraseology is derived from those very 
 ceremonies of the old law, which were typical of this redeem- 
 ing power. For instance; ‘ By one offering he hath perfected 
 for ever them that aresanctified.* He hath appeared to putaway 
 sin by thesacrifice of himself;” (Heb. x. 14, ix. 26.) These cursory 
 allusions to the office of the High Priest are elsewhere more 
 fully explained in their application to Christ; “and being made 
 perfect”, (that is, by suffering, the suffering of death,) “ he 
 became the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. 
 for the sufferings of death, crowned with glory and honour, able 
 to save them to the uttermost,” (Heb.ii. 10. v.9.) and elsewhere. 
 
 After an attentive perusal of these ten chapters, and the 
 accompanying versions, you will see still more clearly the 
 connection which necessarily exists between all these texts ; 
 that they all have one common meaning, from which you 
 cannot depart without involving them in the greatest incon- 
 
 * That is, by faith. 
 
62 
 
 sistency; they are all parts of the main argument of this 
 Epistle, to which he is continually recurring, viz., this per- 
 fecting of Christ’s character by his death, and his being in 
 consequence appointed our everlasting Redeemer: and he 
 proves this to the Jews by a constant reference to the offices 
 of the High Priest, as typical of this great truth. ‘There is 
 not a single passage in this Epistle, where the words blood, 
 sacrifice, redemption, &c. occur, that is not more or less an 
 illustration of this argument. The very words themselves 
 indicate this allusion; he entered once; by one sacrifice; 
 perfected for ever ; an eternal redemption; by his own blood. 
 All these are terms of comparison between the two High 
 Priests of the old and the new Covenant; they are parts of 
 the allegory which he sustains, and must be construed in an 
 analogous sense. 
 
 The great object of St. Paul in this Epistle, was to exhort 
 the Jews to remain firm in their Christian faith; to afford 
 them support and encouragement under their persecutions, by 
 exposing to them the truth of the religion which they had 
 embraced, and the certain realization of all those blessings 
 which it promised them as the reward of their constancy ; and 
 as, to them, the most persuasive and convincing of all proofs, 
 he establishes this upon the evidence of their own prophecies, 
 and that of the ordinances of their ceremonial law. ‘This 
 was an argument of far more weight with them than an 
 appeal to the miracles of Christ, for they considered them- 
 selves so bound to their religion by the promises of God, 
 and by threats of His vengeance if they forsook it; by 
 its Injunction to put to death évery prophet who should 
 preach any other, though confirmed even by signs and 
 wonders, that they were more disposed to attribute them to 
 the instrumentality of inferior and evil spirits, than to admit 
 them as indubitable proofs of Divine co-operation. This was, 
 
63 
 
 therefore, the most effectual, and with many perhaps the only, 
 means of over-coming their exclusive attachment to their 
 religion: it was turning against them their own weapons ; it 
 was making their very prejudices subservient to their con- 
 viction; for the more they venerated the authority of their 
 sacred writings, the more were they bound to admit the truth 
 of that which rested upon this authority. Accordingly, we 
 find this particular mode of argument so exclusively adhered 
 to, that throughout the whole of this Epistle there is but 
 one cursory allusion to the evidence of miracles; chap. ii. 4. 
 
 All these texts, therefore, are of an agumentative character, 
 not doctrinal and dogmatic; in conformity with the special 
 object of this Epistle, which was to shew the prophetic spirit 
 of the ceremonial law; to prove to the Jews, as Jews, the 
 truth of the new religion; to encourage them under their 
 persecution. 
 
 The reasoning throughout is therefore of that character, 
 called, argumentum ad hominem; drawn exclusively from their 
 own books, from their inspired writers, from their history, 
 from their written law, for the purpose of shewing how, in 
 every respect, the new religion responded to all the prophecies 
 and the types which these afforded; and especially that com- 
 plete analogy between the blood of the altar, and that of 
 Christ. But if St. Paul’s object here was merely to expound 
 to them that his blood was shed as a satisfaction to Divine 
 justice ; as an atonement for others, instead of a qualifying of 
 himself; then, in this case, I do not see of what type it was the 
 fulfilment, nor how it forms any part of the analogy. If all 
 these allusions to his blood, and his putting away sin, were for 
 the purpose of instructing them in this abstract dogma of 
 faith, what proof was this to them of the truth of their 
 religion? What argument for their continued confidence in 
 it? Such an initiation into its mysteries might have been 
 
64 
 
 very suitable and consistent in his address to the elders of 
 the Church of Ephesus, where he declared that he had 
 revealed to them the whole counsel of God; but to mix up 
 an abstract doctrine of this kind in an exhortatory address to 
 the faint-hearted, who were daily falling away from the truth, 
 would have been altogether ill-timed and incongruous ; 
 foreign to the very object he had in view, which was not to 
 instruct them in any particular article, but to shew them the 
 grounds in general of their faith. These texts, therefore, are 
 quite consistent, as referring to the accomplishment of a type; 
 but quite irrelevant, as to the doctrine of a mystery. 
 
 Deen aoe Gee 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 In the first chapter is described the great excellence of the 
 person of Christ, above Moses and all other Prophets, and by 
 inheritance, even above the angels themselves; for having 
 established by his precepts and his death the new law of faith, 
 by which alone we are now purged from our sins, (3) he is 
 seated at the right hand of God, with full power to execute 
 it in our, and in the behalf of all men.* In the subsequent 
 verses (6, 7, 14,) his superiority over the angels is again 
 asserted, who were merely the temporary agents or messen- 
 gers of God; but that to Christ (8 to 13), from the excellence 
 and holiness of his character, He had committed an eternal 
 dominion, having placed him at His own right hand, until sin, 
 and death, and all his enemies should be subdued 3 (chap. ii. 
 1, 2,5.) If, therefore, disobedience to the former, as those 
 
 “His having purged us from our sins, is our liberation from the 
 bondage of the old law; our purification from all defilement 3 our pardon 
 of all past offences through faith. 
 
6D 
 
 whom God had appointed in heaven as the executors of His 
 will was justly punished, how much more was obedience due 
 to him, whom God had not only announced (3, 4) by his 
 prophets, but of whom he now bore witness by signs, and 
 miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost; for of him it was 
 (6, 7, 8,) that the Psalmist testified, saying ‘Thou hast 
 made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned 
 him with glory and honour, and put all things under his feet;” 
 which we see cannot, in its full extent, be applied to man, but 
 is now fully accomplished in Jesus, who being as one of us, a 
 little lower than the angels, we see truly crowned with glory 
 and honour, and all things put in subjection to him, (9), as 
 the reward of his meritorious sufferings and death; for (10) 
 it was agreeable to the wisdom and goodness of God, that 
 he, by whose example many were to be turned to righteous- 
 ness, should himself be made perfect by suffering, and to this 
 end (11 to 17) he partook of the nature of man, that by his 
 resurrection from the dead, he might free us from the 
 bondage of sin and death, by giving us the certain assurance 
 of a life beyond the grave. On every account, therefore, it 
 was necessary that he should be like one of us (17), that he 
 might not only shew himself faithful and obedient in every 
 thing relating to God, but might become merciful in his 
 intercessions for man; for (18) having himself suffered from 
 temptation, he would be more willing and able to pity, and 
 to succour others. Let us, therefore, (chap. iii and iv.) look 
 to our present High Priest appointed by God himself, for he 
 was, like Moses, faithful in all things; but he was greater than 
 Moses, who was but the servant of God in the Jewish 
 church, which was itself but a figure of that more perfect 
 church, of which, under God, Christ is the founder and 
 governor, and of which we are members if we continue firm 
 in our faith, and do not fall off therefrom as our forefathers 
 I 
 
66 
 
 in the wilderness, who entered not therefore into God’s 
 rest, the promised land; but if we endure in our confidence 
 unto the end, we shall be made partakers with Christ of the 
 heavenly rest, of which your own Scriptures testify. For we 
 have in him a High Priest, who, being tempted as we are, 
 knoweth our infirmities, and will therefore be more mercifully 
 disposed to us. We may now, therefore, with confidence 
 appear in God’s presence, and through his intercession find 
 mercy, and support under all our afflictions. Now of this, 
 (chap. v. 1, 2, 3,) our High Priest was but a shadow, for 
 though it was his duty to offer up sacrifices for the sins of his 
 brethren, and to have compassion on their ignorance and 
 error; yet, seeing that he was but himself frail and imperfect, 
 he was obliged to offer up for his own, as well as for the sins 
 of the people.* Nor did any (4, 5, 6,) take upon himself 
 this high office, but such as were appointed by God of the 
 line of Aaron; but Christ did not glorify himself as a High 
 Priest on this ground, but was solemnly ordained as such by 
 God, according to the words of Scripture; ‘‘’Thou art a 
 Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec ;” and again, 
 ‘<< Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee ;” for God 
 (7, 8, 9, 10,) heard his prayers and supplications, when, at 
 the approach of a painful death, he expressed the same resig- 
 nation, and entire devotion to his will in this, as in every 
 other instance; and having by this last and greatest trial shewn 
 himself perfect in all things, he was appointed the eternal 
 mediator for all men; with power to pardon and to save 
 all who obeyed his laws. Hold fast, therefore, (11th of this 
 chapter, to the 22nd of chap. vi,) to the faith wherein you 
 
 “See ch.ix.9. and v. 7; with which this is connected, and also ix.12, where 
 the analogy is completed by his own blood ; shed not for his sins, but to 
 make him perfect, which the High Priest was supposed to become by his 
 purification, holy and undefiled ; vid. also chap. vii. 27. 
 
607 
 are, and be assured that all those promises which God con- 
 firmed even by an oath to Abram, shall be fulfilled to you, 
 by your being made partakers of all those blessings reserved 
 for you, and for all men in that heavenly sanctuary into which 
 Christ has already entered, to receive all his faithful followers, 
 being a Priest after the order of Melchisedec. Now this 
 Melchisedec was, (according to his name, and the name of 
 Salem his country, which is king of righteousness, and king 
 of peace,) a Priest as well as a Ruler, of whose birth and 
 death, of whose beginning and ending, we have no account ; 
 which is a figure of the eternal Priesthood of Christ: he was 
 a devout worshipper of God, whom Abram himself acknow- 
 ledges his superior, paying him tithes, and receiving from 
 him his blessing. Now the law ordained that tithes were to 
 be paid to the Priesthood of the tribe of Levi; but Abram 
 here paid tithes to a stranger ; and therefore the tribe of Levi, 
 who were of his loins, may, as his descendants, in a manner 
 be said to have paid tithes also to one acknowledged to be 
 greater than any of their own Priesthood; all of which is 
 figurative of Christ, who also not being of the tribe of Levi, 
 could not by the law appointed by God be made a Priest. 
 The constant order of succession in the line of Aaron was 
 therefore in Christ broken in upon, which sufficiently denotes 
 also a change in the law; for as Christ was more perfect than 
 all other High Priests, so also was his new law better than 
 the old; and in him we have also a certainty of its con- 
 tinuance, for (chap. vii. 22, 23, 24,) he will not, like our 
 mortal Priests, be succeeded by any other; God having given 
 to him an unchangeable Priesthood, and therefore through 
 him, as an eternal intercessor, we are assured of complete 
 salvation ; (25 to the end). It was, therefore, necessary that 
 he to whom all power was thus committed of remitting our 
 sin, should truly be holy, and undefiled, and perfect; and 
 
68 
 
 not as our High Priests, who are obliged to make repeated 
 sacrifices for their own purification, and then for that of the 
 people; but by one sacrifice of himself, he hath become for 
 ever qualified to act as our mediator, and, as such, hath been 
 consecrated for evermore by God himself. 
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 1. Now of these things which 1. 
 
 we have spoken, thisis the sum: 
 We have such an High Priest, 
 who is set on the right hand of 
 the throne of the Majesty in 
 the heavens; 
 
 2. A minister of the sanctuary, 2. 
 
 and of the true tabernacle, which 
 the Lord pitched, and not man, 
 
 3. For every High Priest is 3. 
 
 ordained to offer gifts and 
 sacrifices: wherefore it is of 
 necessity that this man have 
 somewhat also to offer. 
 
 4. For if he were on earth, he 4. 
 should not be a Priest, seeing 
 that there are Priests, that offer 
 gifts according to the law: 
 
 The sum of what we have 
 observed is this, that we have 
 now such a High Priest in 
 Christ. 
 
 A Minister of the heavenly 
 sanctuary, of whom 
 
 Our High Priests are the 
 example and shadow; and as 
 these were ordained to make 
 
 offerings and sacrifices, so it 
 
 was therefore necessary that 
 Christ also should offer up 
 sacrifices. 
 
 But his sacrifice, when on 
 earth, was not, and could not 
 have been according to the law, 
 of the blood of goats and calves, 
 but of his own blood ; not of a 
 carnal, but a spiritual nature ; 
 purifying not the outward flesh, 
 but the heart and the con- 
 science.* 
 
 “See chap. ix, 9—16, where this argument is more fully detailed ; 
 
 also 22—24, chap. x, 11, 12. 
 
 es 
 
69 
 
 5. Who serve unto the example 
 and shadow of heavenly things, 
 as Moses was admonished of 
 God, when he was about to 
 make the tabernacle: for, See, 
 saith he, that thou make all 
 things according to the pattern 
 shewed to thee in the mount. 
 
 6. But now hath he obtained a 
 more excellent ministry, by 
 how much also he is the medi- 
 ator of a better covenant, which 
 was established on better pro- 
 mises. | 
 
 7. For if that first covenant had 
 been faultless, then should no 
 place have been sought for the 
 second. 
 
 8. For finding fault with them, he 
 saith, Behold, the days come, 
 saith the Lord, when I will 
 make a new covenant with the 
 house of Israel, and with the 
 house of Judah : 
 
 9. -Not according to the cove- 
 nant that I made with their 
 fathers in the day when I took 
 them by the hand to lead them 
 out of the land of Egypt, be- 
 cause they continued not in my 
 covenant, and I regarded them 
 not, saith the Lord. 
 
 10, For this is the covenant that 
 1 will make with the house of 
 
 5. Of this sacrifice those of our 
 Priests were but the types, as 
 the tabernacle itself was but a 
 copy, according to God’s direc- 
 tion of that pattern which was 
 shewn to Moses in the mount. 
 
 6. By this sacrifice he hath 
 obtained also a far more ex- 
 cellent Priesthood, having been 
 appointed the mediator of the 
 new covenant, which promises 
 far better things,* 
 
 7. For if not, there would have 
 been no necessity for supersed- 
 ing the old. 
 
 8. But condemning the old, the 
 Lord saith, I will make a new 
 covenant with this people; I 
 will give them a new religion, 
 very different from that which 
 I appointed them through my 
 servant Moses. 
 
 9 Not of external forms and 
 
 to ceremonies; but I will write 
 
 13. it in their minds, and in their 
 hearts, and all shall understand 
 it alike, both the unlearned 
 and the wise, so that they shall 
 no longer require a mediating 
 Priesthood to instruct, to ad- 
 minister, and to intercede ; but 
 every one shall come before me 
 
 “ Chap. ix. 15. 
 
70 
 
 Israel, after those days, saith himself, and worship me in 
 the Lord; I will put my laws in- spirit and in truth; for I will 
 to their mind, and write them in no longer remember their past 
 their hearts, and I will be to sins and transgressions, but 
 them a God, and they shall be will shew my mercy to them in 
 to me a people. this new dispensation, which 
 
 shall free them from the bur- 
 den of the old, which will soon 
 disappear for ever. 
 
 11, And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every 
 man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for all shall know me, 
 from the least to the greatest. 
 
 12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins 
 and their iniquities will I remember no more. 
 
 I3. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. 
 Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 
 
 CHAP. IX. 
 
 1. Then verily the firstcovenant 1 For this covenant was only 
 had also ordinances of divine ¢o an introduction to the new, as 
 service, and a worldly sanc- 6. you see, not only from its ordi- 
 
 tuary. nances, and the nature of the 
 2. For there was a tabernacle service it enjoined, but also 
 made; the first, wherein was the from the construction of the 
 candlestick, and the table, and building wherein they were 
 the shew bread ; which is called performed, and _ particularly 
 the sanctuary. from the holy sanctuary, sepa- 
 
 rated by a veil, into which 
 none could enter, but the High 
 Priest once a year, to make an 
 atonement, first for his own, 
 and then for the sins of the 
 people. 
 
 38. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the 
 
 Holiest of all: 
 4. Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant over- 
 
wl 
 
 laid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had 
 manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 
 
 5. And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; 
 of which we cannot now speak particularly. 
 
 6. Now when these things were thus ordained, the Priests went 
 always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 
 
 7. But into the second went the High Priest alone once every year, 
 not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors 
 of the people : 
 
 8. The Holy Ghost this signi- 8. 
 fying, that the way into the 
 holiest of all, was not yet made 
 manifest, while as the first 
 tabernacle was yet standing : 
 
 Now this veil concealing the 
 sanctuary was a sign that the 
 holiest of all, the heavenly 
 sanctuary, was not yet known; 
 but at the death and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, this veil was rent 
 asunder, which was to shew 
 that the holiest was then made 
 manifest ; now this declared the 
 ; inferiority of the old covenant. 
 9. Which wasa figure for the 9, All the services also which 
 
 time then present, in which 10. were enjoined by it were of a 
 
 were offered both gifts and 
 sacrifices, that could not make 
 him that did the service per- 
 fect, as pertaining to the con- 
 science ; 
 
 like imperfect nature, for they 
 could do nothing towards mak- 
 ing the conscience perfect. 
 
 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, 
 and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of 
 
 reformation. 
 
 11. But Christ being come an 
 High Priest of good things to 
 come, by a greater and more 
 perfect tabernacle, not made 
 with hands, that is to say, not 
 of this building ; 
 
 1. So that when Christ came 
 to shew us the way into the 
 heavenly sanctuary. 
 
12. Neither by the blood of goats 
 and calves, but by his own blood 
 he entered in once into the Holy 
 Place, having obtained eternal 
 
 redemption for us. 
 
 72 
 
 12. It was not by the blood of 
 animals, but by his own that 
 he entered in, which shewed 
 that the admission into this new 
 sanctuary was not to be obtained 
 by mere external purification, 
 but by a thorough devotion of 
 
 the heart to the divine will, which was shewn by this sacrifice of 
 himself, and through the merits of which he has been placed at 
 the right hand of God, as the everlasting mediator of all men, 
 not like our High Priests, who are obliged to enter frequently into 
 the sanctuary to effect temporary redemption; he hath by one 
 entrance alone, for ever obtained the power of effecting the 
 
 redemption, that is, the remission of the sins, of all us his faith- 
 
 ul followers.* 
 
 13. For if the blood of bullsand 13, 
 
 Now all the sacrifices in the 
 
 of goats, and the ashes of an 14. world could never procure this 
 
 heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of 
 the flesh : 
 
 14. How much more shall the 
 blood of Christ, who through 
 the eternal Spirit offered him- 
 self without spot to God, purge 
 your conscience from dead 
 
 works to serve the living God ? 
 
 15. And for this cause he is the 
 
 for you, or your entrance into 
 this sanctuary. It is only by 
 imitating this example of com- 
 plete excellence to which Christ 
 attained by his obedience to 
 God ; for this is now the ser- 
 vice which he requires from us, 
 by which our internal purifica- 
 tion is effected, and not the 
 observance of useless and un- 
 profitable ceremonies, which can 
 only purify the outward man, 
 and which can never procure 
 for us the pardon of our 
 offences. 
 
 15. Itis to the blood of Christ 
 
 *2, 23, 24, 15. Chap.ii.9. Chap.v. 7,9, 10. Chap. vii. 25,27. Phil. 
 
 ii. 8,9. Coli. 14. Eph. i. 7. 
 
73 
 
 mediator of the new testa- 
 ment, that by means of death, 
 for the redemption of the trans- 
 gressions that were under the 
 first testament, they which 
 are called might receive the 
 promise of eternal inheritance. 
 
 16. For where a testament is, 16, 
 there must also of necessity be 17. 
 the death of the testator. 
 
 17. Fora testament is of force 
 after men are dead, otherwise 
 it is of no strength at all while 
 the testator liveth. 
 
 to which we are indebted for 
 this, through the merits of 
 which he hath been appointed 
 the mediator of this new cove- 
 nant for all men; which hath 
 been given us to supply the 
 defects of the old, which could 
 neither grant us the pardon of 
 our offences,* nor any promise 
 of that eternal reward, of which 
 his resurrection from the dead 
 has given us the positive 
 assurance. 
 
 For as we cannot call any 
 bequest our own, nor can be 
 said to be in possession of it, 
 until the death of the testator, 
 so in like manner we had no 
 surety of this inheritance be- 
 fore his death, and his resurrec- 
 tion to life. 
 
 18. Whereupon neither the first 18. As his blood, therefore, was 
 
 testament was dedicated with- 
 out blood. 
 
 necessary to give force and 
 validity to this new testament, 
 so the former one was ratified 
 by blood also. 
 
 19. For when Moses hadspoken 19, For Moses sprinkled with 
 
 every precept to all the people 
 according to the law, he took 
 the blood of calves and of 
 goats, with water and scarlet 
 wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled 
 both the book, and all the 
 
 people ; 
 
 it, both the book of the law, 
 and all the people ; 
 
 * Gal. iv. 5. 
 
74 
 
 20. Saying, This is the blood of 
 the testament, which God hath 
 enjoined unto you. 
 
 21. Moreover he sprinkled with 
 blood, both the tabernacle, and 
 all the vessels of the ministry. 
 
 22. And almost all things are 
 
 - by the law purged with blood, 
 and without shedding of blood 
 
 is no remission. 
 
 23. 
 
 that the patterns of things in 
 
 It was therefore necessary 
 
 the heavens should be purified 
 with these; but the heavenly 
 things themselves with better 
 sacrifices than these. 
 
 24. For Christ is not entered 
 into the holy places made with 
 hands, which are the figures of 
 the true; but into heaven itself, 
 now to appear in the presence 
 of Ged for us : 
 
 25. Nor yet that he should offer 
 himself often, as the High 
 Priest entereth into the holy 
 place every year with the blood 
 of others; 
 
 26. For then must he often have 
 
 * 12,14, 15. 
 
 21, 
 
 22. the tabernacle, 
 
 Chap. ii. 9. Chap. v. 7, 9, 11. 
 
 20. Saying, This is the blood of 
 
 the covenant, which God hath 
 
 enjoined unto you. 
 And he purified with it also 
 
 and all the 
 vessels, and every thing which 
 belonged to the law is purified 
 with blood ; nor can the people 
 be cleansed from their defile- 
 ments without it. 
 
 23. 
 as figurative of what was to 
 
 Now all this was necessary 
 
 come: this purification by the 
 blood of animals from outward 
 defilements, by which the peo- 
 ple were admitted into the 
 tabernacle, and the High Priest 
 into the holiest, was typical of 
 that more precious blood. 
 
 24. 
 Priest hath prepared his en- 
 
 By which our new High 
 
 trance into the heavenly sanc- 
 tuary; there to appear in the 
 presence of God, as our ever- 
 lasting intercessor. 
 
 25. And here there is a differ- 
 ence between the type and its 
 accomplishment; for the High 
 Priest made an annual sacrifice 
 and purification by blood, to 
 qualify himself to appear in 
 God’s presence in the holiest, 
 to put away the sins of the 
 
 people. 
 26. And as I told you before,” 
 
 Chap. vii. 25, 27. 
 
27. 
 
 28, 
 
 I. 
 
 suffered since the foundation 
 of the world: but now once in 
 the end of the world hath he 
 appeared to put away sin by 
 the sacrifice of himself. 
 
 And as it is appointed unto 
 men once to die, but after this 
 the judgment: 
 
 So Christ was once offered 
 to bear the sins of many ; and 
 unto them that look for him, 
 shall he appear the second time 
 without sin unto salvation. 
 
 75 
 
 27. 
 
 9 
 
 ~ 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 For the law having a shadow 
 of good things to come, and not 
 the very image of the things, 
 can never with those sacrifices 
 which they offered year by year 
 continually make the comers 
 thereunto perfect. 
 
 2. For then would they not 
 
 have ceased to be offered ? be- 
 cause that the 
 once purged 
 
 worshippers 
 should have 
 
 i; 
 
 Christ has by one sacrifice of 
 himself, entered once for all 
 into the holiest, and is em- 
 powered for ever as our inter- 
 cessor, to put away all the sins 
 of those who come to God 
 through him,* to grant eternal 
 salvation unto all them that 
 obey him. 
 
 And as all men are judged 
 hereafter according to the merit 
 of their actions in this life ; 
 
 8. So Christ, as the reward of 
 all his patient sufferings for 
 others, has been for ever ap- 
 pointed the supreme Lord and 
 Governor over all his Church : 
 so that when he appears a 
 second time, it shall be no more 
 to suffer for sin, but to exercise 
 this power in behalf of all his 
 faithful disciples, 
 
 X. 
 
 Now the old law being but 
 the promise of these blessings 
 to come, was quite inadequate 
 of itself to procure them for us, 
 for it could do nothing towards 
 removing our moral offences. 
 
 For if so, if a final remission 
 
 . of them had _ been effected, 
 
 there would have been no 
 necessity to have made annual 
 
 “ Chap. vii. 25. v. 9. 
 
76 
 
 had no more conscience of sins. 
 3. Butin those sacrifices there 
 is a remembrance again made 
 of sins every year. 
 4. For it is not possible that 
 the blood of bulls and goats 
 should take away sins. 
 
 5. Wherefore when he cometh 
 into the world, he saith, Sacri- 
 fice and offering thou wouldest 
 not, but a body+ hast thou 
 prepared me: 
 
 6. In burnt-offerings and sacri- 
 fices for sin thou hast had no 
 pleasure. 
 
 7. Then said I, Lo, I come (in 
 the volume of the book it is 
 written of me,) to do thy will, 
 O God. 
 
 . Above when he said, Sacrifice, 
 
 CO 
 
 and offering, and burnt-offer- 
 ings, and offering for sin, thou 
 neither hadst 
 pleasure therein ; 
 offered by the law ; 
 9, Then said he, Lo, I come to 
 do thy will, O God. He 
 taketh away the first, that he 
 may establish the second. 
 10. By the which will we are 
 
 wouldest not, 
 which are 
 
 Wiis 
 
 + Psal. xl, 
 
 expiations for them; nor need 
 the old to have been superseded 
 by the new law.* 
 
 4. But it was not possible that 
 the blood of animals could take 
 away sins pertaining to the 
 conscience. 
 
 5, So that when Christ came 
 6. into the world to establish this 
 
 new law, he is represented by 
 the Psalmist as condemning 
 the insufficiency of the old, say- 
 ing, ‘‘ In sacrifice and offering 
 thou hadst no longer delight ; 
 but a new religion hast thou 
 established, of which thou hast 
 appointed me the head and 
 governor : 
 
 7 I come, therefore, as_ thy 
 
 to minister to do thy will, O God.” 
 
 9. By which words we are to 
 understand, that he hath for 
 ever abolished the old law of 
 sacrifice, and established that 
 of faith in its stead. 
 
 10. By which we are now notonly 
 
 Eph, i. 23. v. 30. Col. 1, 24. ii. 17. 
 
 ————— 
 
77 
 
 sanctified* through the offering 
 of the body of Jesus Christ 
 
 once for all. 
 
 11. And every Priest standeth 
 daily ministering, and offering 
 oftentimes the same sacrifices, 
 which can never take away sins, 
 
 12. But this man, after he had 
 offered one sacrifice for sins, 
 for ever sat down at the right 
 hand of God; 
 
 13. From henceforth expecting 
 till his enemies be made his 
 footstool. 
 
 14. For by one offering, he hath 
 perfected for ever them that 
 are sanctified. 
 
 15. Whereof the Holy Ghost 
 also is a witness to us, for 
 
 after that he had said before, 
 
 *1 Cor. vi. 11. Eph. v. 26. 
 
 free from all those defilements 
 to which we were before sub- 
 ject under the old covenant; 
 but 
 which this was unable to effect 
 
 we have moreover that 
 
 for us; a remission of all past 
 offences by Christ the High 
 Priest of this second covenant, 
 to whom through the merits of 
 this last great sacrifice all 
 power has been committed. 
 
 11. And this shews you his 
 great superiority over all other 
 High Priests, who, with all their 
 continual offerings and sacri- 
 
 “ 
 
 fices, were not enabled to put 
 away sin. 
 
 I2._ Whereas Christ by one 
 sacrifice of himself, hath been 
 exalted to the highest point of 
 heavenly glory and power; 
 
 13. Awaiting until his enemies, 
 all idolatry, and false religion, 
 and sin, and death, shall be 
 put under his feet. 
 
 14, Thus through the merits of 
 this one sacrifice, he will be 
 enabled to put away the sins 
 for ever of all those that are 
 sanctified by faith, so as to ren- 
 der useless all farther offerings, 
 
 15. And of this, as I shewed 
 you before, the Divine Spirit 
 has testified, 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 14. Heb. ix. 13. 
 
78 
 
 16. This is the covenant thatI 16. In saying that the law of 
 will make with them, after this new covenant should be 
 those days, saith the Lord; I written on the hearts of men; 
 will put my laws into their 
 hearts, and in their minds will 
 I write them ; 
 
 17, And their sins and iniquities 17. And that to those who 
 will I remember no more. obeyed it, a full remission of 
 
 all past sins should be granted. 
 
 18. And where remission of these 18. Which must necessarily, 
 is, there is no more offering for therefore, render all farther 
 sin. sacrifice superfluous. 
 
 19, Having therefore, brethren, 19 Having therefore a High 
 boldness to enter into the to Priest who, by his own blood, 
 holiest, by the blood of Jesus, 22. hath consecrated the way in 
 
 20. By anew and living way, to the heavenly sanctuary, not 
 which he hath consecrated for for himself alone, but for all 
 us, through the veil, that is to mankind, and where, instead 
 say, his flesh. of death, they will meet with 
 
 eternal life, let us boldly enterin. 
 21. And having a High Priest 
 over the house of God, let us 
 draw near in faith; &c. 
 
 LETTER XI. 
 
 You may have remarked, in reading this Epistle, (1,) that the 
 great object of St. Paul therein was not, as in other of his 
 writings, to expound and enforce the moral of the new religion, 
 but to strengthen the confidence of his countrymen in their 
 faith, by a series of arguments the best calculated to produce 
 an influence upon their minds. ‘* Wherefore, leaving the 
 principles of the doctrines of Christ, let us go on to perfec- 
 tion,” (chap. vi. 1,) by which he means, instruction in other 
 
79 
 
 doctrines, which were not so apparent as the principles, but 
 which were necessary to be understood, to arrive at a perfect 
 knowledge of the new dispensation ; such as the nature of its 
 connection with the old; the analogy between the two Priest- 
 hoods; the typical character of the ceremonial law, and its 
 accomplishment in Christ. These he calls strong meat, in 
 Opposition to the milk, or first principles; such as faith, 
 repentance, the judgment to come, the moral principles of 
 the law. These, he says, he leaves. From this, and from 
 all his argument, it is clear, (2,) that St. Paul’s great object 
 was to confirm the wavering faith of his countrymen, by 
 shewing them, that under the new covenant they would find 
 the realization of all those blessings, which were figuratively 
 announced to them under the old. In the long comparison 
 which he has instituted between them, the part on which he 
 lays the greatest stress, and to which he is constantly recurring, 
 is this purification of the High Priest by blood, as a type of 
 the perfecting of Christ by his own blood, by which they 
 were severally qualified to act as mediators. 
 
 It is now my present object to shew you, the connection 
 of all these passages to which you draw my attention, with 
 this great point of his argument; and if I can prove to you, 
 that they have more or less a relation thereto, and must con- 
 sequently be taken in a corresponding sense, you can no 
 longer refer to them in support of your hypothesis, inasmuch 
 as it is evident from the argument of St. Paul, that the 
 redeeming power with which, in all these texts, his blood, his 
 sacrifice, his sufferings are associated, was, as I say, the 
 reward of this sacrifice, &c.; and not, as you say, the price 
 at which it was purchased. With respect, therefore, to their 
 taking away of sin, neither the blood of the sacrifice, nor that of 
 Christ, served to any other end than the qualifying them to 
 act as mediators ; for as far as it had a personal reference to 
 
80 
 
 the High Priest, it was strictly a purification, or rendering 
 perfect ; and the apostle speaks of Christ’s blood in the same 
 terms; (chap. vil. 26, 27.) ‘* For we have need of such a 
 High Priest, holy and undefiled, who has no necessity to make 
 himself so by repeated sacrifices, having for ever become so by 
 his one sacrifice.” He says again, that the pure and undefiled 
 state of the High Priest through blood, was the pattern of 
 that better sacrifice, by which Christ was perfected to appear 
 in heaven in God’s presence for us. Can language be more 
 clear and explicit; any comparison more strict and literal? 
 Can there, after this, be a doubt that St. Paul meant to shew 
 that the shedding of Christ’s blood had fulfilled this type of 
 the law, by rendering him perfect, and thereby qualifying him 
 to be the mediator of the new covenant, with power to put 
 away sin? To attribute to it a further efficacy, would not 
 only be going beyond that to which he has strictly limited it 
 by his frequent and precise definitions, but would be quite 
 inconsistent with that perfect analogy, which he has established 
 between the type and its accomplishment. In fact, the cause 
 of the connection of Christ’s blood with his redeeming power, 
 is so clearly stated by St. Paul, that it is surprising how there 
 can be two opinions about it. I regard it as an indisputable 
 dogma, and cannot conceive on what ground you can reject 
 what is so clearly established. And if you do not reject it, 
 how can you interpret other passages in a sense contrary to 
 that which you here admit to be true. You cannot be 
 justified in opposing the uncertain to the certain, much less 
 in admitting the former, and rejecting the latter. 
 
 Let us again, according to this principle, examine the 
 important text, which you have marked ; (chap. ix. 12.) 
 ‘¢ Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood 
 he entered in, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” 
 
 If you had no prepossessions, you could not but perceive 
 
SI 
 
 that the above is but a repetition, in other words, of what he 
 had more fully and literally explained in the passages to 
 which I have directed your attention. « By his own blood 
 he entered into the Holy Place ;” that is, “for the suffering 
 of death, crowned with glory and honour;” (chap. ii. 9.) “* And 
 being made perfect,” (that is, by death; see preceding verse, ) 
 ‘he was called of God an High Priest after the order of 
 Melchisedee ;” (see also chap. ii. 7., chap. i. 9.) Having 
 obtained eternal redemption, (i. e. forgiveness of sins,) (Col. 
 i. 14.3 Eph. i. 7. 3) for us; that is, (chap. v. 9.) **he became 
 the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” 
 (Chap. vii. 25.) He is able also to save them to the 
 uttermost that come unto God through him, seeing he 
 ever liveth to make intercession for them,” 
 
 But without insisting upon the connection which must neces- 
 sarily subsist between all these and similar passages of the same 
 Epistle, the verses which immediately precede and follow this 
 so qualify its sense, that it can admit of no other possible con- 
 struction ; for he says, from (v. 7 to v. 10,) that all washings, 
 and sacrifices, and offerings of blood, might do very well to 
 qualify the High Priest to enter into the earthly sanctuary, 
 but could do nothing towards perfecting him as to the con- 
 science. So that, when Christ came (v. 11.) as the High 
 Priest of an heavenly sanctuary, it was not by the blood of 
 animals, but by his own blood, that he perfected himself before 
 he entered in; and by which he was also empowered to grant, 
 not a temporary, but an eternal remission of all the past sins 
 of his faithful followers. The verses following are in the 
 same sense; (13) that if the blood of animals can cleanse 
 from outward defilements, (14) how much more effective 
 should be the blood of Christ towards your internal purifica- 
 tion. (15) For it was for having shed his blood that he has 
 since been appointed the High Priest of this new covenant, 
 
 L 
 
82 
 
 with power to grant to his faithful followers, preparatory to 
 their reception into his new sanctuary, a full remission of all 
 those past sins, which the High Priest under the old law 
 could not do. It is not by isolating a passage, and interpret- 
 ing it according to the strictness of the letter, that we can 
 have its true sense; we must take the context with the text; 
 we must trace the association in the mind of the author; we 
 must follow the chain of his argument; and if we find it linked 
 together in one indissoluble sense, that is the sense which we 
 must give to the whole and to every part of it, or we shall 
 never attain unto his true meaning.* 
 
 Now let us examine this text in another point of view; let 
 us analyze it into its component parts, and let us give to 
 each term the sense in which the author has himself defined 
 it: for to affix to any sentence, or any word, a meaning 
 other than that in which he himself has explained it, would 
 be opposed to all fair and honest enquiry. I cannot therefore, 
 as you, receive the word redemption in its ordinary accepta- 
 tion, as a ransom, or a payment of a penalty, when I find 
 that St, Paul has more than once expressly defined the sense 
 
 "In support of this dogma of the Atonement, as well as of that of the 
 Trinity, you reconcile with equal facility the most evident inconsistencies. 
 You cannot but say, with St. Paul, that the power of putting away sin was 
 the reward of his sufferings ; and yet, you construe other verses in a 
 sense quite opposed to this admission, that it was bought at the price of 
 his sufferings ; as if that which is bought at a price, and that which is 
 bestowed as a recompense, were the same thing ; as if a reward, and the 
 payment of debt, were synonymous. That for which I have paid the full 
 price, I claim as aright, and cannot receive as a reward. <A reward isa 
 voluntary acknowledgment of services voluntarily performed ; but a con- 
 tract is a mutual obligation. A reward isa gift ; and therefore I cannot 
 be rewarded with what is my own; and that is my own which I have 
 purchased. It is, therefore, the greatest inconsistency to say, that that 
 was bestowed as a reward for which a stipulated price was paid, and 
 which never would have been bestowed but for this price. 
 
88 
 
 in which he uses it. ‘‘ In whom we have redemption through 
 his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ;” (Col. i. 14.) In 
 whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness 
 of sins ;” (Eph. i. 7.; see also Rom. iii. 24.) Iam obliged, 
 therefore, to understand by our eternal redemption, a final 
 remission of sins, or, as he says elsewhere, “Our being sancti- 
 fied for ever; our being perfected;”’ (chap. x. 14); in 
 contrasting it with the repeated purifications of the ceremonial 
 law, (v. 10 to 14.) Again, I enquire the meaning of the word 
 us; to whom, and on what terms, is this remission granted? I 
 find it, by the same writer, limited to the obedient to his laws ; 
 **to all who come unto God by him; to all them that obey 
 him ;” (also, Heb. vii. 25., chap. x. 14.) Again, I refer to 
 the same authority to know, in what way his blood was 
 efficacious to his power of saving; and I find: the answer in 
 the same plain terms, as the reward of the perfection to which 
 he had attained by this last proof of his obedience ; (chap. i. 
 DIO oy Vel y S5.9s5) 1X4 15,275 \28., vil. 27.3 Phils i. 85.92; 
 Col. i. 14.) The word once, has also a very significative 
 meaning, and perfectly explains the degree and the nature 
 of the efficacy which is here attributed to Christ’s blood ; 
 for St. Paul says, by one shedding of it he was perfected for 
 ever as an eternal mediator; but that the High Priest was 
 obliged to qualify himself by blood, for every exercise of his 
 mediatorial power on his entrance into the Holiest. Iam 
 now, therefore, enabled by the writer himself, to affix to 
 this text the precise sense which he meant to convey ; that 
 through the merits of his voluntary shedding of his blood 
 once for all, he is for ever placed at the right hand of God, 
 with power to grant to his faithful disciples a final remission 
 of their past sins. 
 
 When you ask me, therefore, for my authority for the 
 interpretation of these passages, I refer you to corresponding 
 
84. 
 
 passages explanatory not only of their general sense, but of 
 each particular term. It is not mine, but the author’s own 
 explanation, from which I cannot depart without a wilful 
 perversion of his meaning, and a flagrant violation of all the 
 rules of sound criticism. If I ask you, in return, your 
 authority for your doctrine of the atonement, you refer me 
 in reply to this very verse, and to others of a similar import, 
 all of which are in fact nothing more than a repetition of 
 the same thing, in somewhat different language; for instance, 
 “ And without shedding of blood is no remission 3 (chap. ix. 
 v. 22, 23.) It was, therefore, necessary that the patterns of 
 things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the 
 heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 
 
 In the preceding verses (22, 23) he observes that the blood 
 of animals served to purify what belonged to the ceremonial 
 law, to remove external defilements; but that heavenly things 
 were to be purified by better sacrifices than these. This better 
 sacrifice was that of his own blood; and for what was this 
 efficacious? He tells you in the next verse 3 to qualify him 
 to enter as our Intercessor, not as the High Priest into the 
 earthly, but into the heavenly sanctuary, of which he says the 
 former was but the figure. How perfectly does this accord 
 with the explanation which has been given of the 12th verse 
 of this chapter, on which you lay so much stress. And here 
 he points out a difference in the analogy, for he says the 
 High Priest (25) was obliged to make an annual purification, 
 to enable him to put away the sins of Israel ; but that Christ 
 by his blood was perfected for ever as a mediator; or, as he 
 expresses it in the next verse (26), to put away sin by this 
 one sacrifice of himself. The analogy is closely pursued in 
 these verses, in order to shew what he here asserts, that the 
 temple, and the services therein, were but the figure of what 
 was to come (24), the pattern of heavenly things (23). So 
 
85 
 
 in yerse 24, he remarks, that Christ entered into the heaven 
 itself in the presence of God for us; it was in the Holiest, 
 between the wings of the cherubim, that God was supposed 
 especially to dwell; so that the High Priest was said to be 
 in His immediate presence, when he interceded for Israel. 
 In like manner, Christ is said to be in the presence of God in 
 the heavenly sanctuary for us ; that is, as an intercessor, to put 
 away the past sins of all who obey him. It is surprising that 
 language so clear, a meaning so palpable, should be liable to 
 misconstruction, If farther confirmation of it were wanting, 
 it is furnished by the two next verses, where it is said, that the 
 judgment passed upon him for the part he had acted here, 
 was to invest him with the power to reward all his faithfal 
 followers. 
 
 The concluding verses of the chapter are of the same 
 import with this which we have examined (12), as this is also 
 but a repetition of prior statements, all linked together in one 
 continuous argument, shewing throughout the nature of the 
 connection between Christ’s blood and our salvation. 
 
 The tenth chapter is a continuation of the same reasoning, 
 that all the ceremonies of the law were ineffectual towards 
 purging the conscience, (1—4); that God therefore sent Christ 
 into the world to establish a new covenant, whose laws were 
 to be written in the hearts of men, by an obedience to which 
 we should become sanctified,* (v. 10); that through the offering 
 of Jesus Christ once for all, we might be perfected for ever, by a 
 final remission of our sins, (14—17.) Where remission of these 
 is, there is no more offering for sin, (18.) We, therefore, under 
 
 * By the which will we are sanctified ; that is, by the second covenant ; 
 for the description which he here gives of that which God wills, can only 
 refer toit. If the word will here meant what you say, the sacrifice of 
 Christ, the whole tenth verse would be a senseless and unmeaning 
 tautology: By the which offering we are sanctified through the offering, &c. 
 
86 
 the protection of our new High Priest, may boldly enter into 
 
 this new sanctuary, into which, through the merits of his 
 blood, he is enabled to admit all his faithful followers. 
 
 LETTER XIL. 
 
 Now throughout the whole of these first ten chapters, there 
 is such an unbroken continuity of argument, elucidated by 
 passages so clear and precise, that it is impossible for language 
 to be more conclusive with respect to the way in which 
 Christ’s blood is described as efficacious towards our salvation. 
 But what is there in all this about God’s wounded justice ? 
 Where, that salvation depended upon this sacrifice? It is 
 said that through the merits of it he is appointed the Judge 
 and Saviour of the world; but not that without this sacrifice 
 it would have been utterly excluded from grace. Such an 
 inference is a notorious misrepresentation of the language, 
 which merely states that his blood is the cause of his saving 
 power; a truth that I am equally ready with yourselves to 
 acknowledge ; for the way in which by his death he is become 
 the author of salvation, is so clearly and so frequently ex- 
 plained by St. Paul, that to infer from it that all, even the 
 just, without his death would have perished, amounts almost to 
 a wilful perversion of his language; which affirms nothing more 
 than that through the merits of his death he is appointed 
 their Judge, and to whom, as the reward of their faith, he will 
 shew mercy; but to conclude that had not Christ been the 
 appointed medium, this mercy would have been withheld, is a 
 most unwarrantable deduction, and directly opposed to the 
 express declaration of our Saviour himself, that he came not 
 to save the whole, for that they had no need of a physician. 
 
87 
 
 How can you reconcile these words with God’s abandonment 
 of all alike? Would he have asserted, and his inspired 
 followers after him, (Heb. x. 26., ix. 26.; Mark ii. 17.; 
 Luke y. 31, 32.; 1 Tim. i. 15,) that it was sinners only that 
 he came to save, when it was alike his object to save the just. 
 After this declaration, can you continue to assert that all these 
 redemptions, accorded to faith, were the effect of an atone- 
 ment? Can anything be a more signal refutation of a doctrine, 
 which declares that it was efficacious for those who, Christ 
 asserts, required it not; which declares that they were the 
 objects of God’s condemnation, who, he says, were safe in 
 His mercy? Do you think to foist such unscriptural and 
 irrational notions upon the New Testament, without creating 
 difficulties at every point? If I were to follow up the con- 
 sequences of this doctrine, there is not a page of the volume 
 with which it would not come into collision; but a single 
 instance, like the present, which is so notoriously at variance 
 with it, ought to be sufficient to induce you, as conscientious 
 enquirers, to abandon it for ever. What! you unreservedly 
 assert that Christ’s mission was for the salvation of all, just 
 and unjust alike, when he himself says that he came only for 
 the latter, for that the former had no need of him. When he 
 declares that it had only a special reference, you assert that 
 it was of universal application, and you maintain that you 
 have Scripture authority in direct contradiction to the 
 words of the Divine Founder of your religion. How 
 can you reconcile this palpable contradiction upon a funda- 
 mental point of your faith? If you cannot, you have no 
 alternative but to renounce it, with all those other mysterious 
 and enigmatical dogmas with which you have interwoven it ; 
 for they must all stand or fall together: and in lieu thereof, to 
 adopt the consistent and rational doctrine which the words of 
 our Saviour imply, and which is confirmed by his Apostles, 
 
88 
 
 that he came to turn sinners unto righteousness ; an ignorant 
 and sinful world, to the knowledge and practice of virtue and 
 true religion, as the only means of its salvation; that having 
 faithfully executed the task even unto death, he was rewarded 
 by being appointed its arbiter to judge it in mercy, and that 
 this is the way in which we are to be justified by his blood, 
 to be saved by his life; that it is on account of the merits of this 
 sacrifice, that salvation is to come through him :—not that 
 without it the just would have been deprived of their 
 due meed of reward, but simply that he was to be the 
 dispensator of it. 
 
 We have salvation in Christ by obedience to his laws, 
 which are those of eternal truth, by which alone all can be 
 saved and will be saved, of every faith, of every age, and of 
 every nation. God is no respecter of persons, but in every 
 ‘nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is 
 accepted with Him;’* (Acts x. 34, 35.) He is now the 
 propitiation of our sins, because he has assured us of the 
 terms on which, under the new covenant, he is empowered to 
 grant a remission of them, not of sacrifice, but of faith; not 
 of outward, but of internal purity. Of all this, I find the 
 repeated assurances in plain and intelligible language, but no 
 
 * This is a great and glorious truth, announced by St. Peter, and con- 
 firmed by St. Paul; (Rom. ii. 26, 29,) that the just of all ages, and all 
 nations, shall be accepted with God. Setting aside for a moment all other 
 considerations, do not your hearts respond to this declaration? Is it not 
 in unison with all its best and kindest feelings? If you are forced, by 
 the language of Revelation, to believe the contrary, is there not an un- 
 willingness, a certain secret feeling of regret, a sacrifice of all your 
 natural sympathies to that obedience, which you acknowledge as your 
 first duty, to the authority of holy writ, and would you not with more 
 pleasure, if it had been so enjoined, have coincided with the doctrine of 
 the universal recompense of the just under every circumstance? Is not 
 this more agreeable to all your preconceived notions of the Divine justice 
 and goodness? And why is it so? Why this jarring of all your 
 
89 
 where what imposes upon me the belief, that salvation was 
 the consequence of his sacrifice, as a sacrifice to appease an 
 irritated Deity. 
 
 I cannot, therefore, from inuendoes and far-fetched in- 
 ferences, admit a doctrine, between which and the language 
 of this Epistle there is no possible reconciliation. For jf 
 you have read it with any degree of candour and attention, 
 you must concede, that St. Paul speaks of his death as the 
 perfecting of his character, and as his title to his mediatorial 
 power. But the admission of this is the entire condemnation 
 of your doctrine; for how is it possible, according to you, that 
 either his entrance. into heaven, or his mediatorship, could be 
 dependant upon His blood who was perfect; to whose merit 
 nothing could add; whose blood, you say, was necessary to 
 prepare the way for others, but not for himself? Yet you see, 
 on the contrary, St. Paul expressly states, that it was necessary 
 first for his own entrance, before he could act as the Redeemer 
 of others. And yet you continue to refer to passages of this 
 description in proof of your atonement, which are palpably 
 inconsistent with, and offer a flat contradiction to, the very 
 foundation of your dogma, the sacrifice of a perfect Being. 
 For if it was necessary by his blood to prove him to be faith- 
 ful in all things, before he was received into God’s immediate 
 presence as His vice-gerent, where was the perfect sacrifice ? 
 For how could that offering be perfect, which was only made 
 
 benevolent feelings, and your reason with your faith ? Why this irrecon- 
 cilableness of all your best notions of the Divine attributes with the 
 doctrine of holy writ? Why, it is yourselves alone who are the 
 cause of this. It is your perversion of the sacred text ; the false doctrines 
 you have engrafted upon it; your misrepresentations of its true spirit 
 and character; your departure from the simplicity, the purity, and 
 rationality of its doctrines: it is your tremendous dogma of the atone- 
 ment, and all its consequences ; your narrow and exclusive application of 
 the efficacy of faith. 
 M 
 
90 
 
 so by sacrifice? Where, then, was that infinite merit which 
 enabled him to take upon himself the sins of others, when he 
 required to be tried himself? The High Priest was pre- 
 viously made perfect, pure, and holy, before he remitted the 
 sins of others; but Christ, by one and the same sacrifice, 
 according to the Apostle, perfected himself, and according to 
 you, took away the sins of the world. ‘This destroys all the 
 analogy, so frequently insisted upon in this Epistle. No two 
 statements can be more opposite than your’s and the Apostle’s. 
 In the one, the cause is put for the effect; in the other, the 
 effect for the cause. St. Paul says, that it was necessary he 
 should be made perfect through suffering; you, that he suffered 
 because he was perfect: being perfect, his death was the 
 salvation of the world; whereas the Scriptures say, he became 
 the author of salvation, because he was made perfect by his 
 death. It was not his death, but his willingness to submit to 
 it. For how could his death be an atonement, when this 
 power of taking away sin was expressly conferred upon him, 
 not as a right and a just claim which he had acquired thereby, 
 but im testimony of his obedience, ‘‘ because he loved 
 righteousness and hated iniquity.” His mediatorship was 
 the reward, not the price, of his blood. It was a gift, 
 and not the fulfilment of .a contract; a trust confided to him, 
 from his having proved himself worthy of it, not the payment 
 of adebt. -All this necessarily follows from what St. Paul 
 has written; and as impossible as it is to reconcile your 
 interpretation of these texts with the general language and 
 argument of this Epistle, as simple, natural, and consistent 
 is St. Paul’s own explanation of them. But if they stood 
 alone, if there were no accompanying explanation, if there 
 was no type to refer to, still it would be impossible for me to 
 admit them in the sense that you do. My confidence in the 
 moral attributes of the Deity; in all His more amiable 
 
9] 
 
 qualities ; all the best feelings of my own nature; my inward 
 conscience,—that instinctive sense of what is just and unjust ; 
 the innate propensities of the heart to whatever is amiable, 
 and kind, and good; all unite in rejecting such a belief. That 
 God could, in the ordinary sense of the term, accept the 
 death of Christ as a sacrifice; that it could be to Him, as 
 St. Paul says, a sweet-smelling fragrance, otherwise than as 
 a means to good, as an act of obedience for the purpose of 
 accomplishing the great end of his mission; that for the 
 vindication of His attributes, the reparation of the wrong 
 they had received, He could view with complacence the 
 sufferings of innocence; nay, the more of innocence and good- 
 ness, the more acceptable the sacrifice; why, God forgive 
 me if Terr! but in all the records of cruelty and crime, in 
 all the frightful exhibitions of Pagan rites, in all the ferocious 
 excesses of superstition and fanaticism, I know nothing that 
 can be placed beside it. The sacrifice of prisoners of war, 
 was in part the consequence of those vindictive feelings 
 which a state of hostility creates, and diminishes somewhat 
 from the disgust which its religious character inspires. The 
 offering up by the Carthaginians of their own children, all 
 horrid as it was, was dictated by a persuasion that they were 
 shewing respect and honour to their Gods, by a sacrifice of 
 that which was the most dear to them ;—the bloody persecu- 
 tions of heresy, were in part from the feeling that they were 
 rendermg God service in promoting the interest of true 
 religion: but, in your case, there are no qualifying motives, 
 there are no extenuating circumstances. It was simply a 
 sacrifice required by God asa reparation of the offence He 
 had received; and the more pure, holy, and innocent the 
 victim, the more complete and acceptable the offering. Talk 
 not then of this, with the sacred writers, as an act of the 
 grace of God, asa free-gift, as a manifestation of His great 
 
92 
 
 fove for the world. You have no pretensions to this language. 
 If God could not except even the just from the condemnation 
 which He had passed on all, but at the price of Christ’s 
 blood, then to pay this debt Christ died. Collateral benefits 
 might result from it, but the great and primary object was 
 to satisfy an offended Deity; and the greater and more 
 important these benefits, the more was it a proof that they 
 were not the cause of the sacrifice, inasmuch as they were 
 all set aside, and would have been for ever disregarded, if 
 justice had not. been previously satisfied. If not, if these 
 benefits were the cause of his death, then it partook no 
 longer of the nature of a sacrifice; it changed altogether its 
 character; it referred to man, and not to God, and was a 
 demonstration of His regard for the world, and not for the 
 vindication of His attributes; it was the means to a good, no 
 doubt the best, perhaps the only one. If this can be called a 
 sacrifice, then every thing in life is a sacrifice; for the 
 apparent constitution of the world, the economy of the whole 
 system around us, is the eduction of good from evil; all 
 suffering of mind and body, all subdued desires, privations 
 of every kind, persecution, death in every righteous cause, 
 all partake of the nature of Christ’s sacrifice ; for all this evil 
 is not for the gratification of the Being that inflicts it, but as 
 the means of eventual good; and in this sense St. Paul applies 
 it to Christ, ‘* whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth.” In 
 speaking also of the characteristics of the new religion, 
 brotherly love, charity, kindness, he calls them, in the 
 language of the old law, ‘‘ the odour of a sweet smell, a 
 sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God;” (Phil. iv. 18.); 
 and again, *“‘to do good and to communicate, for with such 
 sacrifices God is well pleased ;’ (Heb. xiii. 16.) Here you 
 cannot misinterpret the words; you are under the necessity 
 of admitting their figurative sense, and yet, they are not 
 
93 
 
 more so than when he speaks in the same terms of the death 
 of Christ; for if he could apply them to the moral and 
 spiritual character of the new law, between which and the 
 old sacrifices no analogy existed, how much more would he 
 be led to make use of them in reference to the death of 
 Christ, where an evident analogy existed, and which it was his 
 special object to point out. From God’s love of the world, 
 He sent Christ into it to afford it the means of becoming 
 reconciled to Him; and as obedience to the laws which he 
 taught us, is here said by the apostle to be a sacrifice well 
 pleasing to God, so on the part of Christ also, this same 
 obedience rendered both his life and his death alike an 
 acceptable sacrifice; and in this sense it is in which St. Paul 
 applies these quotations. We view with pride and exultation 
 the death of every illustrious martyr ; not that we revert to it 
 with any gratification, otherwise than in connection with its 
 moral character and effects: so the death of Christ of itself 
 could be no satisfaction to God, independently of his willingness 
 to submit to it in furtherance of the great cause to which it was 
 subservient. And it is impossible that this, or any other 
 partial evil, can ever be acceptable in any other sense than 
 this. Nor can I see how his death simply could otherwise 
 put away sin, but through its moral effects. If the anger of 
 God had before been justly excited against man, this addi- 
 tional crime of putting to death His messenger, the Saviour 
 of the world, would have added to the sum of his offences; 
 and, consistently with that spirit which had already condemned 
 him, would have justified an aggravation of his punishment. 
 But no; this transcendent crime, which completed his iniqui- 
 ties, which filled up the measure of his offences, was his 
 pardon and absolution. Strange way of expiating offences, 
 by adding to their amount; of deprecating punishment, by 
 plunging still farther into guilt ! 
 
94: 
 
 LETTER XUT. 
 
 St. Paut, in this Epistle, speaks of three great objects as 
 attained by the death of Christ. ‘The perfecting of himself; 
 the influence of his example, (xii. 2—4); and the confirmation 
 of the truth of his mission. Of all these, specially mentioned, 
 not one partakes in the slightest degree of that which you 
 assign as the object. So far from being of a personal, they 
 are all of an external and benevolent nature; and as such, 
 were they not sufficient to justify the death of Christ? Were 
 not these ends worthy of the means? No; according to you, 
 this signal proof of God’s love for the world, this bright 
 example of patient suffering and devotion to the Divine will, 
 of inflexible adherence to duty, of the sacrifice of all power, 
 and of greatness, and of life itself, which was to serve as a 
 pattern to all men, in all future ages; this glorious proof 
 of the truth of our religion, and of the realization of all its 
 blessings ; the encouragement which it affords to a steadfast 
 continuance in faith, under all difficulties and dangers; all 
 these great motives and objects are not enough; other causes 
 for his death must be found, quite foreign to these here stated 
 by the Apostle, and which have no support but your own 
 arbitrary interpretations of Scripture; and after all, the very 
 language which you quote, and the inferences which you 
 draw from it, are quite at variance with the true nature of 
 your doctrine; for when properly explained, there exists 
 between them the most palpable inconsistency. ‘The language 
 is everywhere, the pardon of sin. ‘His blood cleanseth 
 from all sin; he is the propitiation for the sins of all men ;” 
 and in conformity with this you say, that his death was an 
 atonement for sin; but in reality, according to your own 
 history of the transaction, it had nothing to do with sin. If 
 
95 
 
 I may use an incongruous phrase, but which is characteristic 
 of your statement, he died not for the pardon of sin, but of 
 merit; that it might be exempted from the punishment of 
 guilt; that salvation might be extended to the Just of all ages; 
 for sin, you allow, was and ever will be the object of God’s 
 aversion and punishment. He, therefore, died not to pur- 
 chase the pardon of sin, but the reward of merit; not to 
 satisfy justice, but to prevent injustice, the condemnation of 
 the innocent with the guilty, far greater than to have left sin 
 unpunished. Iam punished because the sin of others abounds. 
 Why, my virtue is only the more conspicuous ; like a bright 
 spot upon a dark ground, it shines with the greater lustre; 
 the more universal the depravity around me, the more my 
 individual merit ; I am the more worthy for my resistance to 
 the seduction of example, for bearing up against the torrent 
 that has swept all before it; my reward should be propor- 
 tioned to the difficulties of my situation, to the rudeness of 
 my trial, to the energies of my virtue. But no; that which 
 gives me a superior claim to reward, is the very cause of my 
 condemnation! And this is what you call Justice, for which 
 Christ died. Certainly, the nature of the satisfaction cor- 
 responded with the quality of the justice. The one condemned 
 the innocent to suffer with, the other for, the guilty. And 
 can you really reconcile to yourselves such principles? Can 
 you, with the volume of Nature before you, and the New 
 Testament in your hands, bring yourselves to believe that 
 such is the spirit of religion; that such is the doctrine of 
 Christianity? Can any one, endowed with intelligence, 
 seriously and soberly admit such a system? And must we 
 descend to argue, in order to expose its deformity ? Should 
 not its very hideousness carry with it its own refutation? It 
 is not only God’s attribute of justice which is outraged, but 
 His wisdom, His goodness, His mercy. It destroys all 
 
96 
 
 confidence in the moral laws of His government; for if 
 justice can acquit to-day, what yesterday it condemned; if 
 it now rewards, what it formerly deemed worthy of punish- 
 ment; if the eternal principles of right and wrong can thus 
 vary with times and seasons; if God’s everlasting purposes 
 can thus change with circumstances, to what can we trust ? 
 And yet to this doctrine you cling as your hope and consola- 
 tion, destructive as it is of all hope and faith; for if we cannot 
 confide in the immutability of His laws, then the blood of the 
 everlasting covenant is no longer our surety. But no, do 
 not deceive yourselves; every rational, moral, and religious 
 principle compels us to the belief that this blood was shed 
 for far other ends, and from far other motives, than that 
 which you assign; and the language of revelation is too 
 explicit, too frequently repeated, too emphatically declaratory 
 of the benevolent character of Christ’s mission and death, 
 to leave us in doubt; for it is not announced in equivocal or 
 figurative phraseology, but in clear and intelligible terms that 
 cannot be mistaken. When I see it thus stated in passages 
 such as 1 John iv. 9—11, and elsewhere, is it upon the 
 authority of doubtful texts, to say the most, that you presume 
 to substitute other motives for his death, than the one so 
 positively assigned by the Apostle? And is it not every 
 where the same; is not a similar testimony to the Divine 
 motive borne by the other sacred writers; the good of man, 
 from the love He bore him? According to you, the greater 
 was man’s wickedness, the more did justice demand Christ’s 
 death ; but on the contrary, the Apostle says, the more sin 
 abounded, the more did God’s grace abound, the more was 
 His love manifested in the death of Christ. ‘* Not that we 
 loved Him, but that He loved us.” The world was totally 
 estranged from Him, but His mercy and goodness were still 
 extended to it; and this was ‘* made manifest in the death of 
 
97 
 
 Christ. Not a word is there here about justice ; the motive 
 was pity for lost and erring man, and the object to reclaim 
 him. And so it is wherever the Divine motives are directly 
 announced. I do not know any truth, unless it be that of 
 salvation by faith, which is more strongly asserted, than that 
 the motive of the Deity in the mission of Christ was a pure 
 and unmixed feeling of love. There is a concord of 
 sentiment and language in this annunciation which impels us 
 to receive it as the truth; for if there were other feelings 
 than these which entered the Divine mind, how could all 
 the writers with one accord refer to love alone? Was not 
 this in part a concealment of the truth ; and if the motive con- 
 cealed was of an opposite nature to the one avowed, was it 
 not a perversion of the truth? And again, if this important 
 communication was to have been made to us, would it not 
 have been so, where it was the very subject in question ; 
 where the occasion especially called for it; where the truth 
 required it; instead of being obliged to seek it in obscure 
 allusions and inuendoes, and in mysterious interpretations of 
 texts, admitting a far more simple and consistent explanation? 
 In the following verses ; «In this was manifested the love of 
 God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten 
 Son into the world, that we might live through Him ;” 
 (1 John iv. 9, 10). “Herein is love ; not that we loved God, 
 but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation 
 for our sins;” or, as in y. 14, ‘that the Father sent the Son 
 to be the Saviour of the world.” Here the motive is plainly 
 and distinctly avowed: if other than this was in the Divine 
 mind, why is it not here stated ? Why this want of explicit- 
 ness on a point which, as touching our salvation, required 
 the fullest illustration? Why is not the whole truth stated 
 here, by an explanation of the way in which, according to 
 
 you, he was the propitiation, or Saviour of the world? For 
 N 
 
98 
 
 myself, taking the term propitiation in the sense in which St. 
 Paul, (Rom. iii. 25,) and St. John, (1 John i. 9., 11. 2,) have 
 explained it, I have no difficulty in reconciling it with the 
 principle here so exclusively avowed; but in your sense the 
 Apostle would be quite inconsistent, in speaking of this 
 transaction as a manifestation of G‘od’s love ;—of Christ’s, if 
 you will. If justice exacts the uttermost farthing before I 
 release my debtor, can I say that his liberty is owing to my 
 love for him? Would not such a statement be false, and 
 should not I attribute to myself a motive which belonged to 
 him alone who paid the debt? The prisoner shall not be 
 released, the world shall not be saved, until the debt be paid: 
 and this liberty and this salvation you call an act of grace 
 and of love. You have before confounded all principles 
 of justice, and you would now alike confound our notions of 
 love and mercy. If words have any meaning, the love was 
 in him who paid the debt, and in him who exacted it the 
 justice. This inference is indisputable from your own state- 
 ment. Justice had condemned the world, and until its claims 
 were satisfied, no pardon could be extended to it. Love 
 neither averted the sentence, nor mitigated its severity. The 
 whole debt, the sacrifice of Christ, was demanded by, and 
 paid to, justice. The reason assigned, therefore, by the 
 Apostle is, neither in whole, nor in part, the truth. It is 
 impossible in itself. I may be compelled to an act by two 
 concurring, but never by two opposing motives. Love and 
 justice may both invite me to discharge a debt; but if the 
 debt be owing to me, it is not possible that these two motives 
 ean concur; for if I exact it, it is justice, not love; if I 
 renounce it, it is love, not justice. Your doctrine, therefore, 
 can never harmonize with the language of Scripture. But 
 if, on the contrary, what it asserts be true, that love, and love 
 alone, dictated the mission of Christ, then ‘where sin 
 
99 
 
 abounded, grace did much more abound;” and why not? If 
 it pleased God to redeem the world from its lost state, by an 
 especial interposition of His love, what was to prevent it? 
 What is this strange language that you hold; what are these 
 demands of justice which His love could not supersede ; 
 what is this new and mysterious power of which you speak ? 
 This external independent force, irresistibly compelling the 
 Deity? This imaginary creation of some abstract essence, 
 by which Omnipotence is controlled? Is He not also a God 
 of infinite goodness and mercy? Or are these qualities 
 subordinate, and limited in their operation; while stern 
 justice reigns paramount over all, subjecting His other Divine 
 perfections to its inexorable dictates? Well then, if, un- 
 happily, rigid justice is to be executed, let it be executed 
 on sinful man; but to call that justice which visits the 
 innocent with the punishment of guilt, is a monstrous per- 
 version of terms; a profanation of the name; an insult to 
 reason and common sense; repugnant to all the doctrines 
 
 and spirit of revelation, and an outrage on all the Divine 
 attributes. 
 
 eS ee 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 Romans, v. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 “But God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet 
 sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his 
 blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were 
 enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, 
 being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” 
 
 St. Paut is here remonstrating with the Jewish Christians 
 on their unreasonableness, in imposing upon the new converts 
 the burden of the old law. With this view, no language could 
 be so forcible or appropriate, as the application to Christ of 
 
100 
 
 the terms of its ceremonies, to shew that they were but the 
 promise of better things, which had been accomplished in 
 him. In him the law was completed. As its representative, 
 its language is transferred to him. When St. Paul says, we 
 are the truly circumcised who rejoice in Christ, you admit 
 the figurative sense, and yet you refuse it to this phrase, 
 justified by his blood, although a far more easy and natural 
 figure, on account of the direct antithesis to the blood of 
 the altar; and in despite also of the argument which he is 
 maintaining, and with which this phrase is connected, that justi- 
 fication is wholly and solely by faith. ‘To shew this was the 
 great object of this Epistle, and yet here in direct opposition 
 
 to all his argument, he attributes it to blood; thus by one 
 
 word negativing all that he had been labouring to establish 
 throughout these first five chapters, and which he continues 
 to enforce unto the end. It is impossible to suppose that 
 any such contradiction can exist. The justification which he 
 says was by blood, is precisely the same as that which he had 
 just asserted to be the consequence of faith: but, literally, this 
 could not be; that of which I am already in possession 
 through blood, I cannot receive a second time through faith. 
 To obviate this, you say that the justification by the former was 
 only the means of obtaining it through the latter. But on the 
 contrary, St. Paul expressly ascribes, equally to it as to faith, 
 the end itself, viz., pardon of sin, and salvation as the result. 
 Now he could not maintain that which was in itself absurd 
 and impossible; and it is equally clear, that that which was, 
 and which could not be other than the effect of faith, would 
 not by him be ascribed to blood. It follows, therefore, of 
 necessity, that this term must be used in a figurative sense, 
 either for faith in his blood, which he had a little before 
 asserted to be the cause of justification, (iii. 25), or to shew 
 the superior efficacy of Christ’s justifymg power through his 
 
 ee 
 
101 
 
 own blood, over that of the High Priests through the blood 
 of animals.* In this sense it becomes almost literal ; and it 
 is probable that this is its true meaning, for the words “saved 
 from wrath through him,” and in the next verse, ‘‘much more 
 shall we be saved by his life,” refer to his mediatorial power, and 
 this is confirmed by the last verse of the preceding chapter, 
 ‘‘and was raised again for our justification.” 
 
 Were it true that we had through his blood the justification 
 of which you speak, still it cannot be this which the Apostle 
 here describes: for the argument with which it is connected, 
 and the consequences attributed to it, make it impossible to be 
 that which you say was the expiation of the world’s offences ; 
 for this must necessarily have been of universal application, 
 whereas this is expressly limited to the faithful: it is also the 
 reward of our own merit, but the other was the revocation of 
 a punishment through the merit of another. Such a justifi- 
 cation as this could not, as these verses assert, give us a claim 
 upon Christ’s favour. Jfhe died for us when we were sinners, 
 now being justified by his blood, that is, now we are no longer 
 sinners, much more may we expect to be saved by his medi- 
 atorial power. ‘This is the evident sense of the words; nor 
 can they consistently be explained in any other. For if 
 justification by blood gives us merely the means of salvation, 
 this would be so far from entitling us, as the text says, to 
 become still more the objects of his love, that we should, from 
 our neglect of these means which he had purchased for us, pro- 
 voke punishment rather than farther benefits. So far from being 
 saved from wrath, we should become doubly the subject of it. 
 
 * By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. The High Priest, 
 through the blood of the altar, could take away no sin; it was the type 
 of that through which alone we can be justified ; for God set him forth to 
 be a propitiation through faith in his blood, for the remission of sins that 
 are past ; (Rom. iii. 20, 25.) 
 
102 
 
 These arguments apply equally to the next verse; ‘‘ For if 
 we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more 
 shall we be saved by his life.’ It is impossible that these 
 words can refer to any other reconciliation than through 
 faith; for what but this can give us, as this text says, an 
 increased claim upon his favour? On what other grounds 
 can we expect to be saved ?* But if death be the reconcilia- 
 tion of the world, then zts salvation by his life must necessarily 
 follow. We, who are reconciled, are saved. ‘To avoid this 
 inference, you say that the we, in the first place, means all men 
 to whom God was reconciled; and in the next place, the 
 same we, applies only to the few faithful that are saved by 
 his life. And it is by such a forced construction, that you 
 can alone make the passage subservient to your hypothesis. 
 
 The more you examine these verses, the more clearly will 
 you see that the above is the only construction of which the 
 words will admit, and which can be reconciled with the 
 language and argument of the Apostle throughout this Epistle. 
 Remark the terms which he uniformly applies to the dispen- 
 sation of Jesus Christ, (v. 15.) ‘* So also is the free gift the 
 grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by Jesus Christ. 
 (18) “By the righteousnes of one the free gift came unto justifi- 
 cation.” (20) * Sin abounded, grace did much more abound,” 
 &e. Does all this accord with reconciliation by death? If 
 I have a truth to communicate, I am bound to do so in 
 appropriate language, and not in terms that convey a meaning 
 
 *St. Paul, in a somewhat similar passage, has clearly answered these 
 questions. “ Wherefore he is able to save them to the uttermost that 
 come unto God by him, seeing that he ever liveth to make intercession for 
 them ;’’ (Heb. vii.25.) “You that were sometime alienated, yet now hath he 
 reconciled, if ye continue in the faith ;” (Col.i.21, 23.) But if, as he says here, we 
 are reconciled by his death, then it is not they alone who come unto God 
 by him, or who continued in the faith, but all alike must be saved by his life. 
 
 —_— re OU 
 
105 
 
 the very reverse of what I have to impart. Is that a 
 gift, a free gift, which is purchased? Is an act of grace, a 
 claim of justice? <A free gift is gratuitous, voluntary, un- 
 conditional ; but that which is bought with a price, is not a 
 free gift, nor gift at all. And where is the grace in conceding 
 that for which the full value has been paid? If I sell my 
 estate, is it a gift? And in exacting the payment, does my 
 grace abound? St. Paul says, that salvation by faith was a 
 free gift from the abundant grace of God; you, that it was 
 purchased from His justice by the blood of Christ. Can two 
 things be more opposed? LEngraft your doctrine upon the 
 Apostles’ words, and what does it produce? ‘The free gift 
 of God was purchased by Christ’s blood. Is it possible to 
 conceive a greater abuse of terms, or confusion of sense ? 
 If we can thus consent to set aside the settled and recognized 
 meaning of words, what may we not prove ? 
 
 When I find such inconsistencies included in the literal 
 acceptation of these phrases, I am compelled to adopt the 
 figurative sense: and here I meet with no difficulty; for not 
 only are they easily susceptible of this, but I find the language 
 of the same writer, wherever he speaks of reconciliation, 
 uniformly confirmatory of this sense. He declares that 
 reconciliation depends upon the individual himself. (2 Cor. 
 v. 20), ** We pray you, in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to 
 God ;” and in this sense also, when properly considered, are 
 the very words of the text im question. He says, ‘“* We are 
 reconciled to God by the death of His Son.” Observe, we 
 to Him, not He tous. This is no light or captious remark. 
 It is placing the whole question in its true position ; it is 
 bringing you back to the strict meaning of the words, of which 
 yours is a direct perversion. He says, (2 Cor. v. 18, 19); 
 ‘¢ Who has reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ. God was 
 in him reconciling the world unto Himself.” Is it possible for 
 
104 
 
 words to be more diametrically opposed to your doctrine? 
 God, you say, was reconciled to the world by Jesus Christ. 
 God, St. Paul says, sought to reconcile the world to Himself 
 through Jesus Christ. These verses declare that it was not 
 He that was alienated from the world, but the world from 
 Him. He was not the enemy of it. He required not to be 
 reconciled to it. The word of reconciliation is committed unto 
 us; and what was this word? To bring sinners to repentance; 
 to the knowledge and worship of God: this therefore is the 
 reconciliation which God sought for by Christ; for the 
 Apostle says, that God was in Christ reconciling; that they 
 were Christ’s ambassadors; and that therefore it was as if 
 God was in them reconciling them to Himself. Again, he 
 says, God hath reconciled me to Himself by Christ; i. e. Christ 
 is the medium through which God invited me to become 
 reconciled to Him; and I am now Christ’s ambassador, 
 appointed also by God, as the medium through which, in like 
 manner, He invites you and all men to be reconciled to Him. 
 Every where it is the same expression of the same sentiment. 
 (Col i. 22); “and by him to reconcile all things to Himself,” 
 (21.) And you that were aliens, yet now hath He reconciled.” 
 If it were literally true that Christ’s mission was to reconcile 
 God to the world, and the knowledge of it was to be com- 
 municated to us through the sacred writings, is it not very 
 extraordinary that all these texts should not only not affirm | 
 it, but should assert the contrary? Of all the numerous 
 passages where mention is made of reconciliation, shew me 
 one where it refers to God, and not to man. 
 
105 
 
 LETTER XV. 
 
 BEYOND these two texts, to which you direct me, it will be 
 needless to push our enquiry, for it would be but a repetition 
 of the same arguments, applied to other passages of a similar 
 import. As these verses are intimately connected with what 
 precedes and follows, we shall quote from Eph. ii. 11—18: 
 ** Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles 
 in the flesh, who are called Uncirecumcision by that which 
 is called the Cireumcision in the flesh made by hands: 
 that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from 
 the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants 
 of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. 
 But now in Christ Jesus ye, who sometimes were afar off, are 
 made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, 
 who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle 
 wall of partition between us: having abolished in his flesh 
 the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordi- 
 nances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making 
 peace. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one 
 body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. And 
 came and preached peace to you that were afar off, and to 
 them that were nigh. For through him we both have access 
 by one Spirit unto the Father.” 
 
 Without a predisposition to find therein other matter than 
 what the words imply, could any one have imagined that 
 they could have been tortured into a proof of the Atonement ? 
 In your zeal to support your hypothesis, you convert the 
 shadow into the substance, the appearance into the reality. 
 The very words, blood and sacrifice, no matter how associated, 
 are proofs sufficient. ‘There is not one entire sentence that 
 
 is not hostile to your doctrine. The cross of Christ has 
 ) 
 
106 
 
 broken down the wall of partition. It had destroyed the 
 enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, by uniting them 
 ina common faith, by which they had both alike access to 
 the Father. But all this is not the effect of your cross, 
 which was not to reconcile man to man, or man to God, but 
 God to man. He says to the Gentiles, that they, not being 
 of the circumcision, were afar off, without knowledge of God, 
 without hope. ‘ Being alienated from the life of God through 
 the ignorance that is in them,” (Eph. iv. 18); but that now they 
 were made nigh by the blood of Christ. But how could the 
 Gentiles, who were afar off on account of their ignorance of 
 God, be brought nigh otherwise than by their being turned 
 away from this ignorance? And how could Christ’s blood 
 effect this, or how could it make peace between the two, but 
 as it was the cause of their common faith ? 
 
 St. Paul, in here speaking of the union of the Gentile with 
 the Jew through the blood of Christ, figuratively alludes to 
 that of the altar, by which this union was formerly effected. 
 It is no longer by the blood of animals, but by that of Christ, 
 that the Gentile is now united with the Jew; that of twain 
 they are made one, being thereby both alike become recon- 
 ciled to God, (16) have an equal access to him, (18) being 
 formed into one body, one, spirit and temple, of which Christ 
 was the corner-stone; who are no more strangers, but of cne 
 household. It is clear that all these effects can only be the 
 result of faith, for without this the world would have been 
 just where it was; the Jew and the Gentile as much at 
 variance, and as far off as before. 
 
 Throughout all these verses there is not a single sentiment 
 which quadrates with your doctrine; the entire language 
 throughout is hostile to it. Why does he say to the Gentiles, 
 that they were afar off; that they specially were drawn nigh 
 by Christ’s blood? Were not all men, according to you, in 
 
 i ee 
 
107 
 
 their lost state, equally without hope in the world; equally 
 removed from God, until all, without exception, were 
 brought equally nigh by Christ’s blood. Between whom was 
 the enmity slain, and peace made? Between God and the 
 world? No, between Jew and Gentile. Who was it that 
 was drawn nigh and reconciled ? Man; man unto God. It 
 was upon man alone that Christ’s blood operated. It 
 changed not the purposes of God, or his disposition towards 
 man; it was man’s disposition towards Him. The blood of 
 Christ had purged his conscience from dead works to serve the living 
 God; (Heb.ix.14.) The language of these texts is the very re- 
 verse of what it ought to be to justify your inferences. He tells 
 the Gentiles, that they were farther off than the Jews, because 
 they had no knowledge whatever of God, which the latter 
 had; but that now they were equally nigh unto Him, because 
 through Christ they had attained to an equal knowledge of 
 Him. It is clear, therefore, that the world was more or less 
 removed from Him, in proportion to the knowledge it had 
 of Him, and not as the consequence of its condemnation ; 
 and that Christ’s blood brought it nigh unto Him, not as the 
 revocation of this condemnation, but as it was the means of 
 instructing it in the knowledge of Him. And elsewhere, this 
 making nigh, this peace, this access to God, are in direct 
 terms stated to be the consequences of faith. ‘ And put no 
 difference between them and us, purifying their hearts by faith ;” 
 (Acts xv. 9.) Being justified by faith, we have peace with 
 God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have access 
 through faith into this grace wherein we stand ;” (Rom. v. 1,2; 
 see also Col. i. 20 to 23), where it is said, that it pleased God 
 that Christ having made peace, i. e. between Jew and Gentile, 
 should be the means of reconciling all to himself, of which 
 you yourselves are a proof; for what were ye formerly but 
 enemies to Him by your wicked works, but are now brought 
 
108 
 
 nigh unto Him by the blood of Christ’s cross, so that he may 
 present you before Him as holy members of his Church. 
 And this conversion from a state of sin unto holiness, and 
 this consequent reconciliation to God, is the effect of Christ's 
 blood as an atonement! If you continue to ascribe to blood 
 such effects as these, it becomes little else than a wilful mis- 
 construction of the language. 
 
 A farther examination of these passages is needless, for 
 they are all more or less of asimilar kind; they are merely the 
 application of the sacrificial language of the old law to 
 Christ, as its antitype, to shew that in him it was fulfilled, 
 that in him was realized that of which it was but the promise. 
 
 Ihave endeavoured to shew you that the literal construc- 
 tion of these verses would make the efficacy of Christ’s death 
 sufficient of itself, and that therefore to reconcile it with the 
 doctrine of faith, they must necessarily be taken figuratively. 
 Now if I find that such a use of the terms blood, sacrifice, 
 was essential to the writer to énforce his reasoning, to eluci- 
 date his argument, and to demonstrate the truth of what he 
 had to establish; if I find that in repeated instances they 
 are notoriously made use of for faith, that in any other sense 
 the whole context would become absurd and contradictory ; 
 (Rom. v. 9, 10., Eph. ii, 1O—16., Col. i. 14—23., Heb. ix. 
 13, 14); if I frequently find that what is assigned to them is 
 in correlative passages attributed to faith alone; if I find in 
 this sense they are explained by the author himself, (Rom. 
 ili. 25, 26); and lastly, if I find that this reconciles all 
 difficulties, clears up all obscurities, makes the language 
 every where consistent, is in unison with its general spirit, 
 with all its laws and doctrines, and moreover with all our 
 best notions of the moral qualities of the Deity ;—I cannot 
 hesitate in deciding that to the term blood, as efficacious to 
 salvation, no other than a figurative sense can be given: 
 
109 
 
 whilst you on the contary, in rejecting this, have no other 
 alternative than the literal, to which you are bound to adhere, 
 whatever be the result; for observe, I deny the right you 
 assume of qualifying it, by forcing upon the words a meaning 
 which they cannot bear. If their literal sense be taken, you 
 have no right to give them any other than their simple 
 import, viz., that the redemption which we have, we have 
 through his blood; that being justified by his blood, can only 
 mean, that his blood is our justification; that being the 
 propitiation of the sins of all men, he in reality effected a 
 remission of them. But this literal acceptation you cannot 
 maintain, and with the abandonment of it you ought in 
 candour to abandon the hypothesis which you have built 
 upon it; but as this is the only sense of these passages which 
 enables you to appeal to them, you cannot renounce it with- 
 out renouncing at the same time your main support; for, 
 setting aside all these phrases, what could you quote in your 
 favour? In spite, therefore, of the inconsistency which it 
 involves, you still cling to this sense, and say, that his blood 
 did effect the redemption, or the forgiveness of the sins, of 
 the world. But when you come to explain this redemption, 
 it is quite a different thing from that of which the Apostle 
 speaks. Your efforts to maintain, either in whole or in part, 
 the literal sense are vain. For if redemption by blood be 
 strictly asserted, it is inconsistent with that by faith; and if 
 you modify it so as to make it consistemt, it becomes no 
 longer the redemption of the Apostle literally taken. You 
 are constantly quoting the words ‘our redemption through his 
 blood,” and as blood is here exclusively asserted to be of itself 
 the cause, and as you appeal to its literal import, you ought 
 to regard it as the sole cause of forgiveness; but to this length 
 you dare not go; you therefore qualify it by saying, that 
 it procured us only the means of forgiveness; in direct 
 
110 
 
 contradiction of the words which declare that it was the 
 forgiveness itself, as also our translation into the kingdom of 
 Christ. And such I maintain must necessarily be your con- 
 clusion, that you have no right to disown it, for that no other 
 inference can be drawn from the literal acceptation of the 
 words. And in all similar phrases, it is asserted to be wholly 
 sufficient of itself, the very word faith never occurring in 
 connection with it. It is blood which justifies; his death 
 which reconciles; his cross which makes nigh. Christ himself 
 says, ‘** My blood is shed for the remission of sins.” On the 
 other hand, the independent efficacy of faith is asserted in the 
 same positive terms. ‘The just shall live by faith. Faith is 
 the salvation of our souls. Faith and good works are perfect 
 unto salvation. In all this language there is no co-operation 
 or dependence specified, there is no union of infinite and finite, 
 of Divine and human means. They both alike redeem, alike 
 reconcile, alike justify ; they both cleanse from sin, purify the 
 heart, purge the conscience; they are identified, mutually 
 substituted the one for the other; if blood therefore be our 
 redemption, it must be so independently of faith, and in like 
 manner faith of blood. Now were it possible to receive from the 
 one, that of which I am already in possession through the other, 
 it would be superfluous. , If Iam cured by one physician, 
 the skill of a second can avail me nothing. I cannot admit 
 of your attempt to reconcile these two causes of justification, 
 by urging their joint necessity, for it rests on no positive 
 language of Scripture ; on the contrary, nothing can be more 
 unequivocal than its declaration with respect to the separate 
 efficacy of each. Shew me, then, your authority for this 
 mutual dependence. It is not by dogmatizing, and assuming 
 the very question in dispute, that I am to be answered. I 
 will not argue upon what you palm upon Scripture, but from 
 what it really is. It is simply said, we are saved both by 
 
 — 
 
lil 
 
 blood and by faith. Iam only answerable for the words, such 
 asIfindthem. You may interpolate, you may add andsubtract, 
 but my argument must be founded on the texts such as they 
 are, and not upon your supplementary explanations, in order 
 to enable you to reconcile difficulties, and to supply 
 deficiencies, which your interpretation of them occasions. 
 Shew me then one passage where their mutual dependence is 
 acknowledged, where the infinite merits of the one over the 
 insufficiency of the other is distinctly stated. If you cannot, 
 I must regard it as a mere assumption on your part, a gratuitous 
 interpolation of a second redemption, in order to reconcile 
 salvation both by blood and faith; two things that are utterly 
 incompatible ; between which there can exist no connection, 
 no moral relation, but a repugnance as great as between anger 
 and love, as vengeance and mercy. I cannot amalgamate 
 together such repulsive qualities, and attribute them to the 
 same God, to the same Redeemer, and the same dispensation. 
 I am therefore necessarily driven to the figurative sense, as 
 the only means of avoiding these difficulties, and of making 
 these two causes of salvation accord both with themselves 
 and with Scripture; whilst on the contrary, your appeal to 
 the literal sense leads you into the most palpable contradic- 
 tions, and the most unbounded licence of interpretation ; for 
 the very words you quote in your favour, it compels you to 
 gainsay, and in direct contradiction to them, to declare that 
 we have not redemption through his blood, that faith is not 
 the salvation of our souls; for we must now read, that we are 
 not saved by his blood except through faith: that faith is not 
 the salvation of our souls, except through Christ’s blood. Now 
 of all this supplementary language, there is not a word in the 
 original. It is wholly your own. If we are at liberty to 
 supply whole parenthesis of explanation, there is nothing that 
 we may not prove. ‘These additions, in order to correct the 
 
112 
 
 literal import of the words, and the obligation of forcing upon 
 them a meaning the very reverse of that which they imply, 
 ought to have shewn you the necessity of their figurative 
 sense. But rather than concede this, there is not a page of 
 the New Testament which you are not ready to correct. 
 To all the numerous passages which contain only one simple 
 independent sense, you add asecond. ‘Thus you settle the 
 affair between these two disputants for salvation, by accord- 
 ing half to the one and half to the other, though the whole is 
 positively asserted to be effected by each separately. Like 
 two claimants in favour of one of whom alone you can justly 
 decide, you compromise between them by an equal partition. 
 
 You must admit it to be very extraordinary, that in all 
 these passages there should be no mention whatever of this 
 dependence of the one on the other. Such an omission on 
 the part of the writers was impossible. They must have been 
 too deeply impressed with the awful importance of the truth 
 on which salvation depended; it must have been too strongly 
 associated in their minds, not to have forced itself upon their 
 attention, when it was the very subject of their discourse. 
 Their silence therefore, equally with their language, is adverse 
 to your doctrine. It has no foundation, but your construc- 
 tion of certain phrases, Imay say words ; all of which are by 
 the writers themselves explained in a very different way; as, 
 ‘‘redemption through his blood” is defined to be forgiveness 
 of sins, not of all, but of those only who continue in the faith ; 
 (Col. i. 14—23.) Propitiation, not through his blood, but 
 through faith in it, for God set him forth, that he might be the 
 Justifier, not of all, but of those who believed in Jesus ; (Rom. 
 iii. 25, 26.) His blood cleanseth from all sin; noé all, but 
 those only who walk in the light, those who confess their sins 
 he will cleanse from all unrighteousness ; (1 John i. 7—9.) 
 Justified by his blood, reconciled by his death, not all, but 
 
 , = 
 
113 
 
 they only, who, being no longer in a state of sin, shall be saved 
 by his life ; (Rom. v. 8, 9, 10.) And, in the same way, all 
 those other less direct phrases, but on which you equally lay 
 a great stress; such as, with his stripes we are healed, we are 
 bought with a price, &c.; are general references to Christ’s 
 sufferings in the accomplishment of his mission, and have no 
 ulterior meaning : as I have before observed, they are nothing 
 more than the common idiom of all languages; as, “our liberties 
 have been purchased with the blood of our ancestors.” And 
 from a general phraseology like this, you would infer the 
 condemnation of the world, and its restoration to God’s 
 providence through Christ’s sacrifice. You would cover over 
 the cheerful and exhilarating pages of the sacred volume, with 
 a dark and sombre cloud of mystery, on the ground of a few 
 such incidental phrases. And these phrases themselves are 
 often explained in a sense the reverse of that which you give 
 to them. We are healed by his stripes, by being turned, as 
 the text says, unto righteousness, not as an atonement, but as 
 the means of conversion. So, you are bought with a price. 
 St. Paul is here telling the Corinthians, that their new 
 religion introduced no change in the relative duties of man 
 to man. ‘* Whether ye be masters or slaves, ye are alike the 
 servants of Christ, for he has bought you with a price; you all 
 therefore belong to him as your common Master. To redeem 
 you from ignorance and sin, he laid down his life, and you 
 therefore owe to him obedience above all ;” (1 Cor. vi., vii. 
 21—23.) To insist upon language so evidently metaphorical 
 is no great proof of the goodness of your cause, or the 
 Strength of your arguments. And why so many efforts to 
 constrain into a mysterious sense, what is otherwise rational 
 and consistent ? For what can be more easy of solution than 
 all these passages, according to St. Paul’s explanation of 
 them? He has told you that the blood of the altar could 
 P 
 
114 
 
 not take away sin, that it was but the shadow of the reality, 
 the type of that blood which could effectually take away the 
 sins of all who repented; (Acts 11. 38.) And how take them 
 away? Why, as he has so often and so fully explained. 
 Has he not again and again asserted, that Christ, through the 
 merits of his blood, has been appointed our Redeemer, 
 empowered to forgive us our sins? And what are all these 
 texts but a repetition, an almost literal repetition, of the 
 same declarations? In him we have redemption, or forgive- 
 ness of sins, through his blood; in other words, he is our 
 Redeemer for having shed his blood. Who could have 
 imagined, a priori, that words capable of so plain and simple a 
 sense, in perfect harmony with all his declarations elsewhere, 
 and with the argument of which they form a part, inculcating 
 the sound Christian doctrine, that man is saved by faith and 
 good works, could have been turned into a sense that his 
 salvation was bought by Christ’s blood. Had the words 
 conveyed this meaning, there would have been some excuse 
 in endeavouring to give them a sense more conformable to 
 our belief in a God of justice and mercy, and that Christ’s 
 mission was, as the Apostle says, an act of pure love and 
 kindness; but to pervert them into a contrary sense, shews 
 but little accordance with the spirit of that volume which 
 you profess to take as your guide, and is no great proof of 
 that subjection of your faith to its doctrines, of which you 
 so much boast. 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 In acknowledging two redemptions, an universal one 
 through blood, and an individual one through faith, you 
 introduce into the moral attributes of God, the same 
 
115 
 
 confusion and contradiction as you have done into the 
 language of Scripture. I do not wish to misstate your doctrine, 
 nor impute to it other consequences than what legitimately 
 flow from it; but if you examine it thoroughly, and trace it 
 to its final results, you will see that it imputes to the Divinity 
 the same capriciousness and changeableness of purpose, which 
 belong to human imperfection, by subjecting his absolute 
 and eternal decrees to times and circumstances. Thus we 
 see the same Being on the one hand condemning the righ- 
 teous to everlasting destruction, and on the other sending 
 Christ into the world, not only to turn others unto righ- 
 teousness, but to reward them with everlasting happiness; we 
 see Him discarding the just from His presence, yet consenting 
 to the death of His only Son, in order that the wicked may 
 be admitted ; we see Him in His judgments shewing no mercy 
 to the faithful, yet touched with compassion for the obdurate 
 and unbelieving; the consenting to Christ’s mission, from the 
 purest motives of benevolence, yet requiring it as the means 
 of avenging His outraged attributes. All this your hypothesis 
 necessarily involves. Can that which tends to such con- 
 clusions, which ascribes to the Deity all the variableness, all 
 the feelings and passions of humanity, have its origin in truth? 
 Is it not calculated to excite your doubts as to the soundness 
 of your faith? To induce you to suspend it for awhile, until, 
 by a thorough examination of the arguments adduced, you 
 satisfy yourselves whether these things really be so; whether 
 I have pushed my conclusions too far, and charged your 
 system with more than it has to answer for. If you find that 
 this subject has been presented before you in a new light, that 
 many passages have been explained in a sense in which you 
 have never yet viewed them, and that to some of the arguments 
 you have at times assented; it ought to produce a correspond- 
 ing influence upon your opinions, and you cannot justify a 
 
 * 
 
116 
 
 continuance in them on the mere ground that they are those 
 which you have always held, and that from a distrust of your 
 own judgment you fear to change them. Rely upon it that 
 this is a cheating of your understanding; a voluntary self- 
 imposition; a deliberate persisting in error; a sacrifice of 
 truth to prejudice, perhaps of duty to convenience, for which 
 assuredly you must be held responsible. You are bound 
 to decide by the decision of your judgment; under the 
 authority of Scripture, it is your only guide; and if you follow 
 it in the search of truth, it is all that is required; but if you 
 can reconcile a belief in such doctrines as the Trinity and 
 the Incarnation, because they have been prescribed to you 
 by others, though by those whom you have the most loved 
 and respected, or because they are the ordinances of your 
 church, it is a renunciation of your judgment and the 
 Scriptures for a fallible guide, and you can afterwards claim 
 no right of rejecting any belief which the same authority may 
 impose upon you, however opposed both to reason and to the 
 Divine precepts, since you have already preferred the word 
 of man to that of God. 
 
 I am far from saying that we are to have such a confidence 
 in our own judgment, as to neglect that of others; but I do 
 say, that we cannot be justified in adopting implicitly that of 
 any one man, or of any one set of men, when we can have 
 recourse ourselves to the same original source of instruction. 
 We know that the opinion of the wisest and best is but falli- 
 ble, when formed under the most favourable circumstances ; 
 much greater reason therefore have we to distrust their 
 decisions, when placed in situations which have a necessary 
 tendency to bias their judgments. Where our interests are 
 strongly engaged, they exert an influence unknown to our- 
 selves, and disturb the free exercise of our understanding. 
 The most upright judge, with the purest intentions, could 
 
 : 
 
BRE 
 
 scarcely decide in his own case with a perfect freedom from 
 prejudice. The opinions, therefore, of all whose interests 
 coincide with any particular profession of faith, we have just 
 reason to distrust, whether collectively or individually. All 
 those great doctrinal points which we have received as the 
 decrees of Councils, and Synods, and Convocations, which 
 at first view come upon us with such an imposing aspect, as 
 the concentrated wisdom of numerous and learned bodies, 
 are those which of all others we should the most distrust. 
 They have ever shewn themselves subject to all the prejudices, 
 and passions, and excitements of humanity; so that their 
 counsels have ever savoured more of the spirit of this world, 
 than of the love of truth and of pure religion. They have 
 met either to impose new dogmas upon the consciences of 
 men, or to maintain, with a fiery zeal, what was already 
 established. And though the spirit of the present day 
 restrains the monstrous exhibition of folly and of crime, which 
 have marked their proceedings in former periods, yet there is 
 still that worldly pride and interest, that arrogant assumption 
 of superiority and infallibility, which is of the nature of every 
 Establishment; and even under what you are pleased to call 
 your own tolerant Church, the same spirit of evil is still lurk- 
 ing, repressed but not extinguished, ready to break out if 
 circumstances favoured its developement. — Witness its struggle 
 for the retention of penal statutes, for the exclusion of all 
 dissentients from the common rights and privileges of 
 citizens ; witness its pertinacious adherence to damnatory 
 creeds and articles, which ever contain within themselves the 
 latent seeds of persecution; and to those monstrous dogmas of 
 faith, which are as repugnant to common sense as they are 
 to the doctrines and spirit of our religion. Yet it is from 
 such sources as these that you, in common with all Christen- 
 dom, have derived all the capital points of your faith. I do 
 
118 
 
 not mean to say that they are on this account necessarily 
 false; but I do say that it is nothing in favour of their truth, or 
 of the influence which they ought to have upon your judgment; 
 and that it should be a powerful motive to subject your 
 opinions to a calm, independent, and dispassionate enquiry. 
 The result of this, I have no doubt, would be, if you could 
 divest yourselves of the influence of former prepossessions, 
 that you would regard this history of the incarnation, this 
 doétrine of pardon through an infinite satisfaction to infinite 
 justice, as altogether a pure metaphysical abstraction, a con- 
 ceit of mere human invention. But if you have, as is too 
 often the case on this subject, a predisposition to what is 
 obscure and mysterious, you may always, under the influence 
 of this sentiment, find abundance of subtle arguments and 
 ingenious sophisms wherewith to bewilder your understand- 
 ings; and with the same inclination to construe the language 
 of Holy Writ, you will readily find therein the confirmation of 
 your opinions. But if you would allow reason and the un- 
 doubted language of Scripture to be your guides, you would 
 see that those which you now hold upon this subject are as 
 unscriptural as irrational; involving a series of absurdities 
 and contradictions, which the understanding repugns ;—the 
 union of perfection and imperfection ; a spiritual reconcilia- 
 tion by a carnal sacrifice; justice awarding the same 
 condemnation to the good as to the bad; the punishment of 
 innocence, for the pardon of the guilty ; the abandonment by 
 a perfect Being of the work of His own hands; and the 
 necessity of a material visitation of it, to correct its errors and 
 imperfections. When all these glaring absurdities, and others, 
 are presented as the necessary consequence of this hypothesis, 
 you seek to reconcile them by a series of sophisms and verbal 
 subtleties, which are the shame of reason and common sense ; 
 and when you are driven even beyond the verge of these 
 
119 
 
 out-works, you retreat from farther attack into the citadel 
 of mystery, and seek refuge in impenetrable darkness. 
 But it is not more unscriptural and irrational, than it is 
 ureligious and immoral. That ‘the faithful and the just 
 should not find favour with God, confounds all our notions 
 of His Divine qualities; it is as repugnant to natural, as it is 
 to revealed religion; to the character of goodness displayed 
 in all His works, and to the light in which He is pourtrayed 
 in the sacred volume. But the history of your incarnation, 
 from beginning to end, is, in all its circumstances, as revolting 
 to the more amiable attributes of His nature, as it is irrecon- 
 cileable with that very quality of justice, the necessity of 
 observing which is its only apology, and the ground on which 
 alone you seek to defend it. Was this conspicuous in 
 subjecting all alike to one common visitation? Was it not 
 more wounded by the condemnation of the righteous, than 
 satisfied by the punishment of the wicked? Is to punish its 
 sole office? Is it not also to reward ? Nay, is it not more 
 imperious to recompense than to punish? Better that the 
 guilty escape, than that the good should suffer? If justice 
 was thus pre-eminent above all other qualities, if its laws 
 were inviolably to be adhered to, why was an atonement 
 required for the just? Why was the righteousness imputed 
 to Abram by God himself, subjected to the same redemption 
 as the unrighteousness of others? And why the same penalty 
 exacted for every gradation of merit and demerit? And 
 lastly, why was sin to be taken away by the death of Christ, 
 and not by repentance and amendment? Was the blood of 
 Innocence a more sweet-smelling savour before God, than 
 faith and obedience ? Can you reconcile to yourselves such 
 inconsistencies? Can any one, who can understand or feel 
 the spirit of His religion, engraft such a doctrine as this upon 
 the New Testament, which every where breathes the purest 
 
120 
 
 and sublimest moral; which pourtrays to us the character 
 of a God who hath no delight in punishment, who is slow to 
 anger and ready to pardon? Alas! the folly and wicked- 
 ness of man, that would thus seek to pollute the pure fountain 
 of truth, with all the filthy out-pouring of his own vain con- 
 ceits; that would turn its clear stream into a foul and feculent 
 flood, corrupting and contaminating, where all else would be 
 life, and health, and beauty. 
 
 The origin of this, and other errors of a similar kind, which 
 have so long corrupted the doctrine and defiled the simplicity 
 of our religion, may in a great measure be traced to that 
 false system of philosophy which had so long ruled with un- 
 controlled sway, and had every where enchained, in fetters as 
 it were, the faculties of the human mind. All learning, 
 through its fatal influence, was reduced to mere scholastic 
 disputes. Words were substituted for ideas. Abandoning 
 the only true ground of truth and knowledge, fact and 
 experience, the minds of men were engaged in endless dis- 
 cussions of metaphysical abstractions and logical distinctions. 
 This same love of subtle dispute and paradox, they carried 
 with them into their theological disquisitions. What nature 
 and experiment are to philosophy, so is revelation to faith; and 
 as, in the first case, instead of following these as their guide, 
 they made them subservient to preconceived hypothesis; so 
 instead of founding their faith and doctrine on the clear 
 indisputable language of Scripture, they invented a heap of 
 conceits and sophisms, altogether foreign to the purpose of 
 Christianity; but which they endeavoured, even to the length 
 of perverting and corrupting the text, to palm upon it as its 
 genuine doctrine. But the adoption of a just and rational 
 philosophy, founded on demonstration and induction, has for 
 ever put an end to all the false reasonings and jargon of the 
 schools. A new light has broken in upon mankind. A new 
 
 a 
 
121 
 
 road has been pointed out for the pursuit of learning. Since 
 its discovery, within the last two centuries, a greater progress 
 has been made in every department of useful knowledge, than 
 during the two thousand years that preceded it. A corres- 
 ponding effect must take place in men’s religious opinions. 
 Creeds and articles of faith, and all human dogmatizing, must 
 yield to the force of reason, and the authority of the sacred 
 writers. Already a much greater advance towards the pure 
 and genuine principles of Christianity would have taken 
 place, but for that unnatural alliance between Church and 
 State, which, at least in the present day, can serve no other 
 purpose than that of perpetuating error, and rendering religion 
 a pander to worldly interests. 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 I BELIEVE it frequently happens, that too great efforts to 
 convince produce a contrary effect: where so much argument 
 is required, there must needs be much difficulty to encounter. 
 It gives the appearance of it, where little or none exists. 
 The great number of treatises in defence of our religion, may 
 of itself have contributed to many a doubt, as we naturally 
 infer that that which requires so much proof, cannot be very 
 clear and convincing of itself. ‘The many details into which 
 we have entered, and occasional repetitions of argument, 
 would scarcely have been necessary to shew, to an unpreju- 
 diced enquirer, the fallacy of doctrines which almost every 
 page of the New Testament demonstrates; but it is a far 
 harder task to destroy the influence of preconceived opinions. 
 If any one, of competent understanding, and free from every 
 prepossession, were to enter upon an examination of the sacred 
 writings, I am firmly convinced that these dogmas of the 
 
 Q 
 
122 
 
 Incarnation and the Trinity would never suggest themselves 
 to him. To all these passages to which you refer, he would 
 at once affix a figurative sense. He would naturally reason 
 thus :— Here are two assertions, immediately following one the 
 other ; justification by blood, and by faith: now as it cannot 
 be the consequence of both, and as I am under the necessity 
 of acknowledging the Scripture doctrine of justification by 
 faith, I cannot regard the term blood but as figuratively 
 used ; and I can have the less hesitation in this construction, 
 since I find it not only in frequent instances to be that of the 
 writer himself, but that, for various essential reasons, this use 
 of the term was indispensable to his argument. By this 
 simple and obvious inference, he would avoid all difficulties, 
 since to all these passages he would have no hesitation in 
 giving a similar interpretation : for instance, we have redemp- 
 tion through his blood. Why should he here create any difficulty 
 where none exists? The phrase would be to him perfectly 
 clear and intelligible: if we owe redemption to the faith which 
 his blood inspires, and to the power which, through it, Christ 
 has acquired of redeeming, why then, in shorter terms, we 
 owe our redemption to his blood; or, as it is here expressed, 
 we have redemption through his blood. Here is no forcing of 
 the words to arrive at this simple conclusion; on the contrary, 
 they can admit of no other; for he would say, if I here take 
 the term Jlood literally, it would supersede faith, for it 
 would then comprehend all, instead of being, as here, confined 
 to the faithful. When I find, therefore, that in these passages 
 to which you refer, as well as every where else, justification is 
 the result of faith, I cannot admit of two causes, and two so 
 opposite in their nature; I cannot reconcile so great a moral 
 contradiction, as that He who could promise justification as 
 the reward of faith, as an encouragement to repentance and 
 well-doing, could have required Christ’s blood as an induce- 
 
123 
 
 ment to this benevolent conduct. Principles and feelings 
 SO opposite could never emanate from the same source. 
 It is also evident, that with the full intention of ascribing 
 redemption to faith alone, the writer, as a mere affair of com- 
 position, would prefer the term blood, from its contrast with 
 that of the altar. To have said, under these circumstances, 
 You through the blood of the altar can obtain but a temporary 
 redemption, but through faith in Christ an eternal one ;—the 
 expression would have been enfeebled, and the force of the 
 comparison would have been lost; it would have been 
 rendered tame and inapt by a too literal construction, and 
 moreover there would have been wanting the illustration of 
 the type. With this view of the question, he would go on 
 in his perusal of the sacred volume, without the slightest 
 embarrassment from all these formidable passages. He would 
 find all throughout clear, rational and consistent. The view 
 which such an unprejudiced enquirer would form of the 
 doctrines of our religion, would certainly be any thing else 
 than yours. Now suppose, for the first time, you were to 
 place before him your Incarnation and your T rinity. It is 
 not with surprise, but with affright, that he would recoil from 
 such monstrous doctrines. On what, would he immediately 
 exclaim, do you found them? Whence do you derive them? 
 From inspiration ; from some supernatural communication ? 
 For, as for the sacred volume: before me, I see therein no 
 traces of such a doctrine. What! that God, like an unskil- 
 ful artist, should abandon His creation, the work of His own 
 hands; that He should throw it aside as an imperfect machine, 
 inapt to its original purpose; that man, rational man, created 
 for immortality, should have been cast away, as unfitted for 
 his destiny, nay, even the very just? And for the truth of 
 all this, you appeal to the sacred writings, where to me every 
 thing breathes an opposite spirit. What are all these 
 
124 
 
 numerous precepts of His Messenger, enjoining forgiveness of 
 injuries, of mercy to offenders, of returning good for evil; 
 what is his declaration of the abundant joy in heaven over a 
 repentant sinner; that he who worketh righteousness is 
 accepted? Is it from all this, that you infer this visitation 
 upon the righteous of the offences of the wicked? Do you 
 found God’s abandonment of the world on all those numerous 
 passages, where His uniform love for it is asserted? Is it 
 from His communications, for a series of years, with His chosen 
 people, expressly that the world might not become an alien and 
 a stranger to Him? In His assurance to them, that notwith- 
 standing their waywardness and disobedience, He would still 
 be their God, and that through them should all the nations 
 of the earth be blessed? And when, in the fulness of time, 
 the great mystery was revealed by the mission of Christ ; 
 when the veil was torn aside, and He displayed himself to all 
 as the common Parent of all, by the establishment of a benign 
 and merciful religon ; encouraging to virtue by the promise 
 of a remission of all past sins and of an eternal recompense ; 
 which was destined to become the bond of universal peace 
 and union, and to cover with its sacred mantle all the families 
 of the earth; is all this in accordance with the spirit, which 
 condemned the whole race of man to perdition? Oh! but 
 you reply, all this was a subsequent boon, purchased by 
 Christ’s sacrifice. What! after the condemnation of the 
 righteous, does the Almighty require for the revocation of 
 His edict the blood of innocence? This is but covering with 
 a still deeper dye the enormity of your doctrine. Do you 
 give to Christ’s mission this character of blood and vengeance, 
 because, in the volume to which you refer, it is every where 
 stated to be one of peace and good-will to all, and the most 
 signal proof of God’s love for the world? Do you thus 
 pourtray the Deity as unjust, cruel and wrathful, because He 
 
125 
 
 is therein represented as slow to anger, long suffering, punish- 
 ing in mercy, having no pleasure in sacrifice, desiring not the 
 death of a sinner; and yet, according to you, the blood of 
 His Son was a sweet-smelling odour before Him. Not so, 
 you again exclaim; this sacrifice was necessary as a. satis- 
 faction to justice. The Deity had been outraged by the 
 wickedness of man; the reparation must be equal to the 
 offence; a God was offended, a God must atone ; an infinite 
 satisfaction was required, and the second person of the Trinity 
 afforded it. Now all this would plunge the mind of this 
 unsophisticated enquirer into a perfect amazement and stupe- 
 faction; all this must appear to him as the very consummation 
 of absurdity and impiety. It is evident, he would say, that the 
 whole of this is, from beginning to end, an imposition upon 
 the sacred writings, for I can find nothing therein that favours, 
 but every thing that opposes it. I can recognize in this 
 doctrine, neither the motive nor the object of Christ’s com- 
 ing, nor the character of the God who sent him. It is not 
 the God of the New Testament. His motive was pity for 
 lost and fallen man. It was His love for the world; for He 
 had not ceased to love it, though the world had ceased to 
 love Him. It was on His part an act of grace; and the more 
 sin abounded the more was this grace manifested ; (Rom. v. 
 15, to the end.) It was a free gift; a pure, unfettered, 
 spontaneous gift. ‘The object was to turn sinners to repent- 
 ance; not to save the righteous, for they had no need of a 
 physician. God sent Christ into the world to beseech it to 
 become reconciled to Him; and He consented to his death 
 only as the means of accomplishing this, by establishing that 
 faith, through which all were to be saved; for his resurrection 
 from the dead, as the eternal Mediator of the world, was that 
 great event to which all future ages would appeal for the 
 truth of their religion, as the solemn sanction of God of all 
 
126 
 
 that His messenger had said and done. This, he would say, 
 is the result of my study of the Scriptures. I cannot enter 
 so profoundly into the meaning of the writers, as to discover, 
 in their seemingly plain and simple language, an ulterior 
 sense beyond that which is apparent; J cannot see that rigid 
 and unsparing justice (to allow you the term,) is synonymous 
 with love and mercy ; that an act of grace is the vindication 
 of personal injury; that a free gift can be sold for a price; 
 that a sentence of eternal enmity is a seeking after reconcilia- 
 tion: such hidden mysteries do not reveal themselves to men 
 of ordinary capacity and of common sense; our powers of 
 criticism do not extend beyond the fair and legitimate mean- 
 ing of words. It is our misfortune that such secrets should 
 be concealed behind a veil so thick as to be impenetrable to 
 our view ; a fatal defect in our vision, accompanied, as you 
 say, with our everlasting condemnation. And the more you 
 attempt to remove this obscurity from us, the darker does it 
 become, the more difficult is it to reconcile the language 
 with your exposition of it: there is no resemblance between 
 them; every feature of the original is lost; it is a new God, 
 a new Saviour, a new doctrine, a new redemption. All the 
 history of Christ, as detailed by the sacred historians, is in 
 every thing worthy of a benevolent Being, of a kind and 
 merciful Providence ; but in the light in which you hold Him 
 up to us, we can no longer recognize the God of the New 
 Testament, the benign Author of our religion, the Parent of 
 the universe, It is a new being, a creation of your own. 
 You have already added two co-equal existences to the 
 Father, and here is a third, sovereign justice, a new and in- 
 dependent principle, more powerful than all, coercing the 
 Deity, restraining by its inexorable decrees the exercise of all 
 Fis most precious attributes ; His goodness, His mercy, His 
 love. It is like the controlling destiny or fate of Paganism; 
 
£27 
 
 or, which it more resembles, the Manichsean Spirit of Evil, 
 thwarting the influence of the Spirit of Good; for, colour it as 
 you will, the whole is a history of evil, totally inconsistent 
 with a benevolent Being. You may say, that however it 
 may appear to us, yet, in the inscrutable counsels of God, all 
 this may be consistent with the best and purest motives; that 
 it is not more difficult to reconcile with a kind Providence, 
 than the evil with which we are every where surrounded. It 
 is true that the union of so much evil with good, is a problem 
 which we shall never be able to solve ; but we are not alto- 
 gether without a glimpse of light into this mystery, which 
 shews that so far from being inconsistent with the Divine 
 qualities, it is demonstrative of them. Imperfection must 
 exist. The creature must be inferior to the Creator. But, 
 in numberless instances, we see the evil so ordained as to be 
 the means of a greater good; so that, properly speaking, there 
 is here no such thing as evil. It is not for us to penetrate 
 into the operation of this principle in all its details; it is 
 sufficient, from what we do see, to infer that all works to good 
 in the end. But, in the case before us, there is no mystery, 
 there is no concealment ; the whole transaction is developed ; 
 its motives and its objects are fully made known ; and if they 
 can be reconciled with a good Being, then it is certain that 
 we know not yet what goodness is: it is not that of the New 
 Testament; it is not that sense of right and wrong, which nature 
 and reason point out to all; it is not that moral law, by the 
 observance of which we are assured that we may become 
 worthy of being admitted as pure and holy into the presence 
 of God. 
 
 If, therefore, I can find no traces of this abandonment of 
 the world in that book of Revelation to which you refer me, 
 where else am I to find it? Am I to discover it in the book 
 of Nature? In that confusion into which all must have fallen 
 
128 
 
 when deprived of God’s sustaining care? Did order on this 
 occasion give place to disorder? Was the mighty wheel of 
 Nature reversed? Did the Divine Spirit which pervades it 
 cease to operate, to bind, to control, to regulate? Were its 
 movements suspended? Did the rain cease to descend? 
 the sun to enlighten, to warm, to fructify? Did the earth 
 refuse its abundant stores for the convenience, the pleasure, 
 and the sustenance of man? Were the laws of his moral 
 system confounded? No farther distinction between virtue 
 and vice? Was man become thoroughly corrupted by this 
 destitution of him? Was his original impress of Divinity 
 altogether effaced? Had he no more knowledge of right 
 and wrong? No more capacity for good? No; there was 
 no such change in the moral, or in the material world. The 
 nature of man remained the same, possessed of the same 
 reason, instinct, appetites and affections: witness the many 
 wise and good of every period, of whom special mention is 
 made; and you accuse the Almighty of thus continuing a 
 race of rational and intelligent beings, furnished with capa- 
 cities of high moral, intellectual and religious advancement, 
 and all to no purpose! Of rendering unattainable the object 
 for which the means were evidently given! ‘The absurdity 
 of all this doctrine is no less revolting to the understanding, 
 than its impiety is to the moral feeling. Can you conceive it 
 possible that a Being, whose prescience extends through all 
 ages; to whom the past, the present, and the future are but 
 one eternal now ; whose decrees can be subject to no casualties, 
 to no remote contingencies, can receive offence and demand 
 reparation for that which He himself had both foreseen and 
 foreordained? Every thing is under His direction, and 
 consequently whatever is, is good. When God created man, 
 it was for a wise and benevolent end; and this end could not 
 fail of being accomplished, for He hath not left it to finite 
 
129 
 
 creatures to thwart His eternal purposes. He who has 
 numbered the hairs of our heads, who hath meted out the 
 sea, and weighed the mountains in a balance, hath not 
 exposed to hazard His most perfect creation. If the destiny 
 of man was utter perdition, as a good Being, God would not 
 have created him; and as a wise Being, He would not have 
 passed a condemnation upon him, and then required Christ’s 
 blood in order to revoke it. His plans stand in no need of 
 subsequent correction, nor would He thus have employed 
 means to no end; for this blood, as an atonement, took away 
 nothing from the original cause of the condemnation ; the 
 world was just as wicked as before. Nothing can shew more 
 clearly the needlessness both of the condemnation and the 
 atonement. It was doing and undoing from mere caprice ; 
 for no purpose ; subservient to no moral end. If the death of 
 Christ could really have taken away the sins of the world, 
 then, by lessening the cause, the offence itself might have 
 ceased. But instead of removing, it did but add to it. It is 
 a strange conclusion, therefore, to which you arrive, that the 
 augmentation of the offence should be its reparation ; that 
 the effect should cease with an increase of the cause. 
 
 Such would be the reply of a candid enquirer to your 
 doctrine of the Incarnation; the simple and natural view he 
 would take of it. It is not according to the definition in my 
 Dictionary of the terms Atonement, Propitiation, Redemption, 
 &c., that I must strictly interpret the passages where they 
 occur; I rust seek their meaning in their origin, in the type 
 to which they refer, in the sense which they constantly bear 
 with the argument and the context; in fine, that in which the 
 writers themselves explain them. When I have thus, from 
 these real sources, ascertained the true construction of these 
 phrases, (which, indeed, by this means becomes no longer mine, 
 but that of the authors themselves,) I cannot, as a lover of 
 
 R 
 
130 
 
 truth, suffer myself to be led into your erroneous construction 
 of them, by taking the literal instead of the scriptural sense, 
 and allowing the term, thus literally taken, every where to 
 qualify the argument, instead of the argument the term. 
 
 ee 
 
 LETTER XVIII. 
 
 Ir is a far harder task for me to reply to your dogma of 
 the Trinity: not that in itself it presents any difficulty, for it 
 is if possible more palpably unscriptural and irrational than 
 that of the Atonement. The difficulty lies in arguing with 
 those who have manifestly on this subject renounced both 
 Reason and Scripture. To what arguments are they accessi- 
 ble? Whence am I to draw them? If at bright noon-day you 
 were to deny that the sun shone, and to my reference to its 
 warmth, its brilliance, and its shadow, you were to deny 
 these as proofs, I should not know to what other arguments 
 I could have recourse to convince you. ‘To what purpose is, 
 it to refer you to the whole volume of the Old Testament, 
 throughout announcing, in the clearest and most emphatic 
 manner, and under every variety of form, the sole uncom- 
 pounded individuality of the Deity ? I am one, and besides me 
 there is no other. Iam the First and ‘the Last. To what 
 purpose the confirmation of this truth by our Saviour and all 
 his Apostles, avowing, in the most decided terms, the sole 
 supremacy of the Father, and his own inferiority, before, 
 during, and after the completion of his mission ? To what 
 purpose thus to quote you Scripture from Genesis to Revela- 
 tions, every where proclaiming aloud the great fundamental 
 truth of the unity of the Deity, when, by the aid of your 
 metaphysical sophistries, you can turn all this plain language 
 into a sense the very reverse of what it bears ? _.When God 
 
131 
 
 says, ‘‘I am one alone ;” No, you reply; you are a Trinity. 
 When Christ says, ‘* The Father is greater than I;” No, say 
 you; you are His equal. When St. Paul says, ‘that in the 
 end he must deliver up all power to the Father who gave it 
 him;” No, you again repeat; he cannot do this, for it is inse- 
 parable from his substance. After this, to what purpose to 
 quote arguments from Scripture to disprove your Trinity. 
 Is not this voluntarily shutting your eyes to the light, and 
 denying at clear mid-day that the sun shines? Nor can I 
 appeal to Reason any more than to Scripture: having once 
 brought yourselves to admit that a being can be composed of 
 
 three distinct parts, and yet be without parts; that three 
 _ Gods separately perfect, do form numerically but one perfect, 
 you have no longer any claim to be treated as rational beings. 
 You assert what is impossible. You cannot believe that 
 which involves a palpable contradiction. If I were to main- 
 tain that the addition of three units was not more than one 
 unit, you would deem me unworthy of a reply. Yet I have 
 only to cover this over with an air of religious mystery, and 
 your imagination becomes at once violently affected; your 
 reason abandons you, your judgment becomes disordered, 
 and that-which your understanding rejected, you are now 
 ready to receive as a mystery. The simple statement that 
 three times one is equal to one, you would at once reject as 
 false ; nevertheless when this is submitted to your judgment 
 in the unintelligible language of your Articles, that by some 
 mysterious and incomprehensible union three perfect beings 
 were so joined as to form but one sole uncompounded being, 
 you believe, or rather you think that you believe it; as if a 
 Jargon of metaphysical terms could change the absolute 
 nature of the fact. ‘To the naked proposition you cannot 
 assent ; by no effort of your own can you force yourselves to 
 believe it; yet when it is presented to you in obscure and 
 
132 
 
 sophistical language, under the garb of a mystery, you can 
 give your assent to it; asif the quality of truth depended 
 upon mere verbiage; or as if that which was false could by 
 any mystery be made true, in which case no such thing as 
 truth could exist ; but as this is in its own nature immutable, 
 you ought, when you are called upon to believe that a being 
 may be compounded of other beings, and yet remain uncom- 
 pounded; that it may be composed of parts, and yet be 
 without parts; that three essences, separately existing, yet 
 make but one essence; you ought at once to reject all such 
 absurdities as incredible, for no one ever did or can believe 
 them ; it is as morally as itis physically impossible, that the 
 same thing can be, and not be, at the same time.* Your 
 
 * Your assent to them is a self-delusion. You conscientiously profess 
 your belief, for there is no reason to question your sincerity: I am not 
 however prepared, from a mawkish affectation of candour, to put the 
 same favourable construction upon the motives of many of your spiritual 
 instructors. When Isee them entering upon the sacred functions of 
 their profession, with few requisite qualifications; looking towards it as a 
 means of private gain, as a concern of this world more than of the 
 other ; though he, whose followers they pretend to be, declared that his 
 kingdom was not of this world ; when I see them calling themselves the 
 disciples of the meek and lowly Jesus, grasping after profit and power, 
 revelling in all the luxuries, in all the pride and vanities of the flesh ; 
 am I uncharitable in assigning to a conduct so inconsistent with their 
 professions, other motives and feelings than a pure love of truth, a sincere 
 desire of promoting the glory of God, and the welfare of His creatures ? 
 All this is but the consequence of your Establishment, which, like every 
 other that has existed, necessarily leads more or less to a prostitution of 
 religion to secular interest. What is that prospect of progressive 
 advancement, that gradation of dignities and emoluments as the reward 
 of conformity, but so many bribes to the conscience? Little does he 
 know of human nature, little hath he learnt from the past history of 
 man, who is not aware, that the inevitable tendency of all this is to 
 corrupt the heart and pervert the judgment. “What absurdity is there | 
 which I could not establish; what monstrous dogma of faith to which I 
 could not find adherents, with a long list, at my disposal, of vicarages, 
 
135 
 
 assent to such propositions makes it impossible to appeal to 
 you as reasonable enquirers: thus I am precluded from the 
 only two sources of argument open to me; in the first place, 
 by your admission of absurdities, which are altogether a 
 renunciation of reason; and in the next place, by your pre- 
 determination to pervert what is so simple in its construction, 
 so definite in its meaning, that if such language can be subject 
 to misconstruction, words are inadequate to convey any truth. 
 Let me put this question to you; suppose, for a moment, 
 without any reference to the Trinity, you had to announce 
 the simple unity of God, could you have used any other 
 language than that of the prophets of old? And if, on the 
 contrary, it was the doctrine of the Trinity which you had to 
 
 rectories, prebends, canonries, deaneries, bishoprics, and archbishoprics ? } 
 Need I other proofs than these of the truth of my principles, of the 
 orthodoxy of my tenets? Hath it not ever been so? Great is Diana of 
 the Ephesians, will ever be the cry of every craft by which its votaries 
 thrive, whether Pagan, or Mahometan, Roman, or Protestant. All in 
 their turn are in the right, all have alike a monopoly of the truth. Such 
 pretensions to exclusive orthodoxy are as absurd as they are arrogant. 
 When the professors of any faith vaunt, to the disparagement of every 
 other, the sole excellence of that by which much profit cometh to them, do 
 they think that all this will now pass current with the world; that the 
 motives to this superabundant zeal will not be appreciated?) When I 
 see the Right Reverend Lords of your Church chanting forth the exclusive 
 excellence of that Establishment by which they have been raised to both 
 temporal and spiritual power and dignity, it reminds me of Cato’s 
 remark upon the augurs of his day; that he marvelled how they could, 
 in the exercise of their functions, look each other in the face with a 
 grave countenance. If all that they professed were the truth itself, yet 
 their sincerity under such circumstances would be questioned. The 
 
 _ purest and the soundest doctrine must receive contamination from its 
 union with this spirit of Mammon. 
 
 I do not mean to apply these observations to the very many wise and 
 pious Divines, who do honour to your Church. They are meant more to: 
 point out, in the abstract, this necessary tendency of all such Establish- 
 ments to create a spirit of intolerance, hypocrisy and worldly-mindedness. 
 
134 
 
 inculcate, would you have used their language? Answer me 
 in the sincerity of your hearts. To my second question, 
 your reply is already given in your creeds and articles. 
 Compare their unintelligible Trinitarian jargon, with the 
 sublime and simple Unitarian language of the Bible. What 
 a contrast! And you would identify their doctrines! Why, 
 they are as far asunder as the poles, and as diametrically 
 opposed. Until this Trinitarian scheme was first broached, 
 who ever could, who ever did infer it from this book? Did 
 they who ought the best to understand it, to whom it was 
 specially addressed, who lived in communication with its 
 inspired writers, did they thus interpret its language? And, 
 notwithstanding your illumination upon this subject, have 
 their descendants to this day swerved one iota from this 
 creed of their forefathers ? 
 
 To you, who can so easily satisfy yourselves that all these 
 declarations of the unity of God are to be understood in 
 a sense the very reverse of that which the language conveys, 
 it would be in vain to oppose them directly; but it is possible 
 that, by implication, they may afford an argument that may 
 be of more force with you than the words themselves. ‘I 
 am the Lord, the holy one of Israel;” (Is. xlii. 3.) ‘* Lam 
 the first and the last, and besides me there is no God;” 
 (xliv. 6.) ‘* Before the day was, Iam He;” (xii. 13.) ‘I am 
 the Lord, and there is none else; there is no God beside 
 me;” (xlv.5.) ‘I am God, and there is none like me,” 
 (xlvi. 9.) &c. When Isaiah wrote these words, what was 
 his idea of the unity which he thus proclaims? What was 
 the idea which he meant to convey, and which he did convey, 
 to those to whom they were addressed? Was it your 
 Trinitarian unity ? The question would be too absurd to 
 put, but that the answer which you are obliged to make 
 ought to silence you for ever, at least as far as this book is 
 
135 
 
 concerned. The simple unity here taught was the corner- 
 stone of their religion, the grand article of their faith, the 
 object of all their laws and institutions; and it was to preserve 
 it entire, that God raised up Isaiah, and others like him, to 
 admonish and to prophesy; and as he thus wrote under the 
 influence of inspiration, surely he must better know than 
 you the nature of that unity which he proclaimed, and they 
 to whom he addressed himself, and who, no doubt, were 
 orally instructed by him. Were they taught other doctrines 
 than this; and in all their writings, and traditions, and 
 commentaries, is there the slightest deviation from this 
 fundamental dogma? Suppose that there had been no other 
 dispensation than the Jewish, that Christianity had never 
 been promulgated ; read the Old Testament from beginning 
 to end, mark the clear, precise, and emphatic language in 
 which the unity of the Deity is asserted; the simple, unmixed, 
 unallied unity. Now, had you lived under that dispensation; 
 had you searched the Scriptures from morn to night, from 
 youth to age, would you have discovered therein the doctrine 
 of the Trinity, of the equality of Christ and of the Holy 
 Ghost? Must you not necessarily have formed, from the 
 uniform tenor of the language, the same idea of the individu- 
 ality of the Deity, which was the constant and universal 
 belief of the Jews, when they elapsed not into apostacy ? 
 God had instructed them Himself in this truth by His own 
 voice. Had any one presumed to have taught any other 
 belief than this; had he preached the doctrine of a Trinity, 
 of two other Beings to whom their worship was equally to be 
 addressed, no matter how connected or related, he would 
 have suffered death by the law. Now, were they ever 
 reproved for this belief? On the contrary, were they not 
 upheld in it by all their inspired writers, for the space of 
 more than a thousand years, by the threats of punishment, 
 
136 
 
 and the promises of reward? If God, then, was at that time 
 this single essence, He must still be the same, alike unchange- 
 able for ever. If God be not this single essence, which He 
 asserted Himself to be, which He knew that the Jews always 
 believed Him to be, and in which belief He invariably con- 
 firmed them by the concurrent voice of all His prophets, 
 what are we to infer? Can God deceive? Will you urge 
 here, as the only reply you can make to this reasoning, that 
 God only partially revealed Himself under the Jewish, and 
 more fully under the Christian dispensation? But this would 
 be a contradiction of Himself, not an explanation. The God 
 of the Christians would belie the God of the Jews. He 
 would be no longer the same God. If He taught man to 
 believe at one time that He was an individual, and at another 
 a triune essence; if at one time He was all and every thing, 
 the first and the last, and nothing beside Him; and that at 
 another time there were two others who equally shared with 
 Him His Divine perfections; then what reason have we to 
 be assured that at some future dispensation there may not be, 
 instead of three, three hundred Gods revealed, and the reign 
 of Polytheism once more obtain on earth? ‘Throughout the 
 whole, God declares His unchangeableness. ‘‘ Before the 
 day was, I am He;” (Is. xliii. 13): and in reference to the 
 time of His second dispensation, He says, They shall know 
 in that day that Iam He; that Iam He who doth speak: behold 
 itis I. Thus what He declared Himself to be under the 
 first covenant, does He proclaim Himself to be under the 
 second ; the same identical belief of His individuality does 
 He continue to enjoin, and in the same terms. Under both 
 dispensations does He alike assert His sole undivided 
 supremacy in this emphatic language. How could He do 
 this if He shared it with others? How attribute to Himself 
 all Divine perfections, when others equally partook of them, 
 
 - 
 
137 
 
 In this case it is clear that the Jews, who worshipped God as 
 an individual Being, were in ignorance all the time; they 
 had an imperfect knowledge of Him, though God declared 
 that He had manifested Himself to them; they rendered an 
 imperfect and false worship, though God and all His prophets 
 instructed them in this worship as the only acceptable one. 
 The force of this argument is not to be set aside by quibbling 
 upon the word unity, by replying that this is also your belief, and 
 that the acknowledgment of this principle on the part of the 
 Jews was all that was necessary. This is not the question. 
 It is whether there be three Gods or one; it is between your 
 Trinitarian and the Jewish unity. They are not to be 
 confounded. Of the former they had not the remotest 
 conception. All the language of God and His prophets 
 was to inspire the latter, and nothing more; and God, knowing 
 that this necessarily must have been the effect of this language, 
 still continues it unto the end; an incontestable proof of His 
 sanction of this belief, and therefore of its truth.* And it 
 
 *If I wished to define, in the strongest manner, the simple unity of 
 ~ the Deity, I could not find, in the whole compass of language, terms 
 more energetic than those in which this truth is inculeated in the sacred 
 writings, in every conceivable manner, and under every varied form of 
 expression, from mere allusion, to the most solemn and emphatic declara- 
 tions ; reiterated, I should Say on any other occasion, even to satiety : 
 nor is there a single passage, and I speak it without fear of error, whence 
 the Trinity can be fairly deduced. Of all the doctrines, therefore, which 
 have ever appeared, it is the least founded. The religion of the most 
 barbarous and ignorant nations; the whole system of polytheism; the 
 adoration of the heavenly bodies ; the worship of fire; the Manichzean 
 principles of good and evil ; the grossest errors of the Church of Rome ‘ 
 infallibility, absolution, transubstantiation itself ; all have had some found- 
 ation either in Nature or Revelation ; nor was faith required in what was 
 inconsistent and impossible. But this doctrine of the Trinity has nothing 
 to support it, either in nature, reason, or revelation 3; and it may there- 
 fore with justice be brought forwards as the strongest instance of human 
 prejudice which the annals of the world can exhibit. 
 
138 
 
 was not only under the first dispensation, that this was 
 enjoined by Divine authority; by this same authority, this 
 same doctrine, and in the same words, was also reconfirmed 
 under the second dispensation. ‘The Jews were told by an 
 inspired Apostle, that the notion which they had always 
 entertained of the individuality of God was a true one. 
 (St. James i. 19., Rom. xvi. 27.) “ Thou believest that 
 there is one God; thou doest well.” You have always asserted 
 His unity, you are right; what you have always believed 
 Him to be, that He is; what was the God of the Jews, so is 
 the God of the Christians. Now can you bring yourselves 
 to admit, that if God was not what He had always repre- 
 sented Himself to be to the Jews, and what they .believed 
 Him to be, would an inspired Apostle of Christ have 
 confirmed them in their error, by making use of the very 
 language which had all along deceived them; and knowing 
 that they believed in the simple unity, would he have told 
 them that this was a true belief? Must he not necessarily 
 have held a different language? It is true, he would have 
 said, God is one; but do not deceive yourselves ; not in the 
 sense in which you have hitherto understood it: the time is 
 now arrived in which the whole truth is to be communicated 
 to you, in which the nature of the Godhead is to be clearly 
 made known, for it has pleased Him in these latter days to 
 reveal this great mystery, by a full manifestation of Himself. 
 St. James was perfectly aware that he to whom he was 
 addressing himself, had no other idea of God’s individuality 
 than that which had always been held by their forefathers ; 
 if then this was an erroneous idea, and, as you'say, incom- 
 patible with their salvation, could he possibly have left them 
 ignorant of this? At the very moment when he was instructing 
 them in the means of salvation, could he have told them that 
 all that was necessary thereto was to add to their faith good 
 
139 
 
 works, when this very faith, according to you, was their 
 condemnation, in spite of all their good works? This must 
 therefore have been the true faith, or else the Apostle was 
 knowingly deceiving them to their perdition. As a preacher of 
 truth, and anxious for their eternal welfare, he could not have 
 failed to have corrected, as one of these means of salvation, 
 the erroneous notions which both he and they had formerly 
 entertained of the nature of the Deity. Does he do so? 
 No; he leaves them in their ignorance; nay, he does more, 
 he upholds them in it; he tells them that their faith is whole, 
 and requires nothing but the support of good works. They, 
 therefore, did well in their belief of God’s unity, or else it is 
 clear that the inspired Apostle himself was ignorant of the 
 truth. 
 
 Consider this text apart from all others; banish from your 
 mind all previous opinions; place yourselves for a moment in 
 the situation of those to whom these words were addressed, 
 having no other notion of God’s unity than that in which 
 you had been strictly educated, as the great cardinal point of 
 your faith; suppose, under these circumstances, that you were 
 told by your inspired instructor, himself a Jew, and well 
 knowing the nature of your belief, that as to His unity, such as 
 was the God of the Jews, so was the God of the Christians; 
 tell me then, in all the sincerity of your hearts and as honest 
 enquirers after truth, whether you could have regarded this 
 in any other light than as a solemn confirmation of that 
 belief, which as a Jew you had always entertained of His indi- 
 viduality. You cannot give any other than one reply, and 
 that ought to be decisive with you; for if this belief were not 
 the truth, the Apostle would have deceived you; and if it 
 were the truth, where is your Trinity? For there is as great 
 a difference between the Apostle’s doctrine and your present 
 belief, as between your’s and mine. ‘The consequence of this 
 
140 
 
 inevitable inference is, that you have either misinterpreted 
 the passages whence you infer the Trinity, or you would 
 make the Scriptures, speaking always in the name of the God 
 of truth, assert one thing in one place, and the opposite in 
 another. I should not fear, on the authority of this text 
 alone, to assert the unity of God against all the orthodox 
 decisions of Christendom; for no man or body of men can 
 be bold enough to affirm that the Jewish notion of this unity 
 is not essentially different from that which your Trinitarian 
 doctrine inculcates. Both cannot be true; if therefore, as the 
 Apostle says, the Jews were in the right, you must be wrong. 
 
 This constant acknowledgment of one God on the part of 
 the Jews, from their first origin to the present day, divinely 
 confirmed to them under both the covenants, does appear to 
 me to carry with it irresistible weight. I regard it as an 
 attestation by the Almighty Himself, to His own sole supre- 
 macy; a rejection of all divided or participated authority. I 
 neither can nor dare oppose myself to it. And what are the 
 grounds on which you object? A few passages, chiefly in 
 the New Testament ; in the one place, a notorious interpola- 
 tion; in another, a designed mistranslation and perversion of 
 the original text; one or two obscure passages, capable of 
 different senses, and a forced construction of some others: 
 and for these you consent to set aside the whole doctrine of 
 the Old Testament, corroborated in every page of the New 
 by the concurrent testimony of Christ and his Apostles; by 
 the former, not only in his incarnate, but in his pre-existent 
 and glorified state. ‘<I came,” he says, “not of myself, but my 
 Father sent me.” Who was this me? Not me in my present, but 
 in my former state. The sending must have been previous 
 to his coming. ‘The order must have been given before he 
 could execute it. And in like manner, after his ascension, in 
 his own kingdom, it was not in his power, but in the Father’s 
 
141 
 
 alone, to grant what was asked for the children of Zebedee. 
 In these and other instances of avowed inferiority, the 
 objection of his humanity cannot be urged; but no doubt, in 
 leu of this, you will not lack other arguments, wherewith to 
 refine away the plain sense of the passages, and to convert 
 an acknowledgment of subordination into one of equality. 
 As te his incarnate state, his whole ministry is one continued 
 confession of his inferiority to the Father. He alone was 
 wise and good: from Him alone he derived all the power 
 with which he was invested. All these acknowledgments, 
 you say, belong only to his humanity. Ihave before en- 
 deavoured to expose to you the fallacy of such an argument, 
 from the uniformity of character he displayed throughout his 
 mission, acknowledging in no instance the existence of his 
 two natures, but acting and speaking consistently as the 
 Christ, with a power and authority more than human, and 
 even on those very occasions where you refer to his humanity. 
 When his disciples enquired of him the time of the last day, 
 he replied that he knew not; an ignorance which you cannot 
 do otherwise than attribute to his human state.* But did 
 they refer to him as a mere man, or as to one whom they 
 knew to be possessed of more than human power and know- 
 ledge. And it is in this character in which he replied to them, 
 for he tells them, with a tone of authority and a consciousness 
 of knowledge which belong not to man, that no one knew 
 this but the Father, not the angels in heaven, nor even J, the 
 Son of man. ‘This reply is not in his character of simple 
 humanity ; it can only be therefore as that Christ’s uniting, 
 as you say, the two natures: but in this case, how could he 
 be ignorant of this event? That he did know it, his reply 
 renders impossible; that he did not know it, his Divinity 
 
 * See also that decisive passage, Acts i. 7. 
 
142 
 
 alike makes impossible. But no matter in what capacity he 
 replied, as man, as a superior spirit, as God-man, or a God, it is 
 clear that in every character he expressly acknowledges his 
 ignorance, by exclusively restraining this knowledge to the 
 Father alone. What can you answer to this unanswerable 
 objection? The fact is, that every step you advance in the 
 Scriptures presents to you some new difficulty. Christ’s 
 acknowledgment, that all his power was a communication to 
 him, is quite irreconcileable with his Divinity; for if this was 
 communicated to him as a mere man, in what does he differ 
 from Peter or Paul, except in the degree in which he was 
 visited by the Holy Spirit? If it was a communication 
 made to a superior Being, it is then certain that this superi- 
 ority was not that Divine nature which you attribute to him ; 
 for, in this case, this power would of itself have been inherent 
 in him, and he would have stood in no need of receiving it 
 from others; indeed, how could it have been possible to have 
 communicated to him that of which he was already in posses- 
 sion; and if it had been possible, he never could have said 
 that to this communication alone he was indebted for all his 
 power. ‘This is all so plain and self-evident, that the bare 
 statement suffices; argument is here superfluous; it is forging 
 arms to combat shadows. 
 
 When you refer to his humanity in these instances, where 
 he avows his imperfection, his incapability of himself of doing 
 that which at the same time raises him above humanity, you 
 furnish a most powerful argument against yourselves; for you 
 hereby deprive him of his Divinity, not only as man, but as 
 the Christ, for the power by which he acts is not his in either 
 capacity. The resuscitation of Lazarus, (an act far beyond 
 all human power,) he attributes to the Father, through whom 
 alone he was enabled to effect it; and it is not in his charac- 
 ter as man, but as the worker of this miracle, that he 
 
143 
 
 disclaims all other means as inadequate to the accomplish- 
 ment of it. With what consistency could he say this, when 
 he knew that there dwelt in him a power independent of, 
 and equal to, that of the Father; a power with which he was 
 immediately connected, and to which he would more naturally 
 look for support? If on every occasion which required a 
 superhuman power, it was communicated to him; if he 
 acknowledged that in him it lay not, that it proceeded and 
 could only proceed from the Father, in what does he differ 
 from any other being, in whom the Holy Spirit operates; 
 and where then was his Divinity, where the second Person, 
 where the Incarnation, where the Atonement, and where was 
 your Christ? Your doctrine incorporates this person in the 
 body of Christ; if so, why was this continued sustenance of 
 the first Person required? There was no more reason why 
 the humanity of Christ should be dependant on this, than on 
 the second or third; for except its connection with the flesh, 
 you assert its perfect equality with the first: why then this 
 constant invariable reference to the Father; and above all, 
 which is decisive of the whole question, why this avowal on 
 the part of Christ, that the Father is the only source of all 
 power, and knowledge, and goodness? Christ prays to Him 
 as the sole object of his addresses ; an unquestionable acknow- 
 ledgment of His supremacy.* It is clear from all this, that 
 the Divine part of Christ either could not, or would not, 
 support the mortal. He acknowledges no assistance from it 
 in any instance; it aided him not in any of his stupendous 
 
 * Observe that this relates to God the Father separately. Attempt 
 not to evade this objection by that which your creed forbids ; a confusion 
 of the Persons. It is the Father who is alone the special object of 
 Christ’s acknowledgment. The second person was incarnate, and you 
 cannot identify them, without making them both so; which your creed 
 expressly denies. 
 
144 
 
 works; it dictated not the wisdom of his speech, (John xiv. 
 10—24) ; it comforted him not under all his sufferings, nor 
 sustained him in his last mortal agony. On all these occa- 
 sions it was the Father alone that was his aid and succour. 
 If then the Divine part was without influence ; if it operated 
 not within him; if during all his ministry it was quiescent 
 and inactive; if it sympathized not with his humanity, to 
 what purpose did it inhabit the body of Jesus? So far from 
 forming that intimate, essential and inseparable union of which 
 you speak, it was an entire disunion, to such an extent that 
 the human part appears throughout to have been unconscious 
 of the indwelling of the Divine. 
 
 LETTER XIX. 
 
 Ir is very extraordinary that any one like yourselves, of 
 competent understandings and desirous of truth, who profess 
 to make the word of Scripture, the guide of their faith even 
 to the renunciation of their reason, can yet adhere so strongly 
 to opinions to which this very word is so manifestly opposed. 
 The whole history of Christ is but one continued avowal on 
 his part of subordinate authority; of the exercise of power 
 confided to him for a special purpose. St. Paul says, that 
 God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself; and 
 that he now stood in the place of Christ under the influence 
 of the same Divine Spirit, God the Father, whom he avows 
 to be the only one God, from whom all things proceed; and 
 one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom he created all things; 
 (1 Cor. vii. 6.) Thus the language of St. Paul is that of 
 Christ; it was the Spirit of the Father alone who operated in 
 both alike; His supremacy and the subordination of the 
 
145 
 
 Son is alike acknowledged by both. St. Paul, in a manner, 
 puts himself upon an equality with the latter: they were, he 
 says, sufferers and labourers together, and joint heirs of God 
 as His common children. Now who is this being with whom 
 St. Paul claims an inheritance of glory? ‘The Christ, in 
 whom for ever dwelleth the second person of the Trinity ; 
 God, perfect in every thing but as touching the flesh? How 
 could St. Paul put himself upon an equality with Him as a 
 common child of God? With what propriety, apply the 
 term heir to Him, to whom are all things? This degrada- 
 tion of Christ can admit but of two inferences ;—either St. 
 Paul acknowledges not his Divinity, or he thus speaks of 
 him apart from his Divine nature ; that is, he separates what 
 you pronounce inseparable; he divides into two what you 
 declare to be for ever one sole substance. Which of these 
 conclusions will you adopt? The first you cannot; it would 
 be a direct abandonment of your belief. And how can you 
 reconcile with it the second, to which it is so flatly opposed ? 
 But it is not merely here that this indivisible substance is 
 necessarily divided, but it must be so in every instance where 
 his inferiority is alluded to; that is, every where that mention 
 is made of him. So that instead of the two natures being 
 for ever inseparable, they are never united. Shew me, in one 
 instance, where this union can be maintained; where you are 
 not obliged to exclaim, Here it is only his humanity that is 
 spoken of: Here it relates to him only as to the flesh. Here! 
 why it is every where the same. Shew me a passage where 
 he is placed, either by himself or by others, upon an equality 
 with the Father. I admit not those figurative expressions, 
 where he says, “I and the Father are one.” ‘‘He who seeth me, 
 seeth the Father :” which he clearly explains by saying, that 
 it was not he, but the Father within him, who spoke and acted. 
 ‘¢The Father is in me, and I in the Father, even as I am in 
 x 
 
146 
 
 you, and you in me.” And as St. Paul says, that God was in 
 Christ and in him. The meaning of all these sayings is so 
 notorious, that any one who would adduce them as proofs of 
 equality would be undeserving of a reply. What I require 
 is a recognition of this equality in precise and literal terms, 
 such as those wherein the contrary is so uniformly asserted ; 
 for it is here alone that you would be enabled to speak of 
 Christ as one substance, that you would not be under the 
 necessity of appealing to his humanity apart; but this case 
 never occurs, so that this eternal union of the two natures 
 is an eternal disunion. If in his life, his death, his mediator- 
 ship, (for in all states, his inferiority is declared,) he is to be 
 for ever separated from his Divinity, where is your authority 
 for having irrevocably joined them? If he is ever to be 
 considered apart, to what end, nay where, is the incarnation 
 of the second Person? Through all his Epistles, St. Paul, 
 whom you regard as your great tower of strength, has never- 
 theless, of all the sacred writers, spoken in the clearest terms 
 of the inferiority of Christ. He never alludes to him asa 
 substance to which was essentially united a Person of the 
 Godhead; he speaks of him as Christ speaks of himself, as 
 commissioned by God, with power adequate to the accom- 
 plishment of his object, which was afterwards confirmed and 
 enlarged by his appointment as Judge of the world. This 
 is the being whom St. Paul calls a labourer, and a child of 
 God, and a joint-heir with himself of glory, though in a less 
 degree, for he places him in a rank above himself between 
 man and God; (1 Cor. xi. 3.) The head of every man is 
 Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of 
 Christ is God. Here is a regular scale of gradation. Now 
 if St. Paul had known that this Christ comprehended the 
 second Person, very God, would he thus have placed him in 
 a rank below God? But on no occasion, from any one 
 
147 
 
 single expression of his can you infer his Divinity; his 
 language throughout can apply only to what you call his 
 inferior state. If this be uniformly the case, not only with 
 St. Paul, but with the other sacred writers, and with Christ 
 himself, the only inference is, that he must really be that in 
 which all concur in describing him to be. ‘This very Christ, 
 no matter of what rank or nature he may be, such as he is, 
 he is by all asserted to be inferior to the Father. This 
 acknowledged inferiority you are compelled, in spite of your 
 infallible creed, to refer to his inferior state apart; and in 
 this state why was he, and why does he claim to be, glorified 
 by the Father; why inherit of the first Person; why not more 
 especially of the second, with which he was united, and with 
 which by his labours and sufferings in the flesh he had earned 
 this heritage of glory? Indeed by the incarnation of this 
 Person in his body, all the glory which he received must 
 necessarily have proceeded from it, by that eternal and 
 irrevocable union by which they became one substance. 
 Why then should the second Person be so studiously con- 
 cealed; and why on these occasions, where, especially of 
 all the three, he ought to be the most prominently con- 
 spicuous, why no mention of him? Mention! why there 
 is not the most distant allusion to his existence. On the 
 contrary, by this constant recurrence to the Father by Christ 
 and St. Paul, his existence is set aside and specially denied, 
 by their mutual declaration, that there is no God but God 
 the Father; (1 Cor. vill. 6., xv. 24; Eph. iv. 6.) If you 
 would but candidly admit that God the Father must be here 
 what you represent him elsewhere, the first Person of the 
 Trinity, the question could admit of no farther discussion ; 
 but as you cannot make this admission without a complete 
 renunciation of your doctrine, you have no other resource 
 than to deny your own definition, and boldly to assert that 
 
148 
 
 God the Father, in such passages, comprehends the whole 
 Trinity. But by this confusion of Persons, which you your- 
 selves expressly declare against, you would but avoid one 
 difficulty by falling into others equally great. In the first 
 place, in all these verses the phrase is not God, but God 
 the Father, which, without referring to any particular doctrine, 
 necessarily denotes a single person, a special designation, a 
 definite individuality. Admitting, therefore, that the sacred 
 writers acknowledged the union of the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost as one sole God, it was impossible for them 
 to have identified this one God with the first Person alone 
 of the Godhead, for he could not be one of the three, and at 
 the same time the union of all the three; he could not be at 
 once the first Person of the Trinity, and the whole Trinity 
 together. Your own definition, therefore, renders it impossible 
 that the phrase, God the Father, can mean the Trinity. If 
 the persons, as you say, are not to be confounded; if they 
 have an existence of themselves, then God the Father cannot 
 be the Son, nor the Holy Ghost; for, if so, he would be the 
 entire God; he would be all in all; and the Son and the Spirit 
 only different modes of his existence: and this is precisely 
 the doctrine of Christ and his Apostle; for the former says, 
 that it was the Father who was in him that spoke and acted. 
 What you, therefore, call the second Person, was an emanation 
 from the Father to the Son for an especial purpose. The 
 Son and the Father are therefore the same. He that seeth 
 me, seeth the Father. St. Paul says the same thing of himself; 
 that he was now in Christ’s stead; that the same word was 
 continued to him; that God was in him as in Christ: in other 
 places he says, that it was the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit ; 
 (1 Cor. xii. 3., 2 Cor. vy. 20.) Thus making the Father and 
 the Spirit one; that the Holy Ghost was the Spirit of the 
 Father operating in him. This identity of the Son and the 
 
149 
 
 Spirit with the Father; this acknowledgment that they were 
 both but demonstrations of His power, is therefore the 
 language of Christ and his Apostles. But they never would 
 have held this language, if they had been conscious all the 
 time that there resided in Christ this second Person, a very 
 God, equal to the Father. Christ never could have spoken 
 of his supremacy, or have said that the Father was alone in 
 him, nor could his disciples have asserted that God the 
 Father was alone. He might, according to you, have said 
 that God was alone; but to nominate specially the Father, 
 and to say that beside Him there is no other, would alone be 
 decisive with me that there is no other. 
 
 If your doctrine be orthodox, it must necessarily have 
 been that of Christ and St. Paul. ‘*God the Father, God the 
 Son, and God the Holy Ghost.” If after reading this in 
 your words, I was to reply; there is but one God, God 
 the Father; could you reconcile this declaration with my 
 belief in the Trinity? It would be as complete a denial as 
 words could convey. It is therefore quite impossible that 
 Christ or St. Paul, infallible guides of our faith, could have 
 used this language, (see verses above quoted), which, to say 
 the least, must be called inaccurate; but inaccuracy, under 
 the influence of inspiration, is as impossible as that which is 
 untrue. But with this belief it would have been untrue, for 
 it would have been an exclusive acknowledgment of the one, 
 and a direct rejection of the two others. Ona matter of 
 such moment, would they have used such ambiguous, nay, con- 
 tradictory language? You see that I regard it myself as an 
 incontestable proof, that they really meant, what the words con- 
 vey, the sole Divinity of the Father. But to us there is but one 
 God, THE FATHER.....08- and one Lord Jesus Christ. Again; 
 One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, 
 who is above all. I oppose this to you as an unanswerable 
 
150 
 
 argument in favour of this truth; and can you suppose that 
 language so calculated to inspire this belief, if false, could 
 have been dictated by inspiration? You have thought it 
 necessary on this occasion to employ the strictest logical 
 definitions, the most minute exactness, the most studied 
 precision of language, and yet you attribute to Christ and 
 St. Paul a loose and indefinite phraseology, more calculated 
 to lead to error than to truth; to deceive than to instruct. 
 If the Scriptures taught me, as they have taught you, that 
 God the Father was the first Person only of a Trinity, 
 and afterwards, by the same Scriptures, that besides Him 
 there is no other God or Person, what am I to believe between 
 two such contradictory statements? If the first Person and 
 the entire Trinity are described in the same terms, what con- 
 fusion must such indistinctness of language create in all our 
 notions upon this subject, hard and intricate enough of itself. 
 It is therefore impossible that the Scriptures could apply to 
 the whole Trinity, that which is the appropriate and specific 
 designation of one of the Persons only. I cannot attribute 
 this to the Author of our religion, all whose doctrines were 
 ratified by the Divine sanction. With the knowledge of the 
 three Persons, he never could have declared that from the 
 Father alone proceeded all power, and goodness, and wisdom. 
 Such a declaration cannot consist with such a belief; and as 
 I am bound to believe in his declarations, I must take them 
 alone as the ground of my faith; and especially so, as the 
 opposite doctrine which you impute to him is confirmed by 
 no one word or deed during the whole of his ministry; his 
 total silence throughout as to his own and the Divinity of 
 the Spirit, is a corroboration of his direct acknowledgment, 
 that in the Father alone was all authority centered, to which 
 both he himself and all things were subordinate.* 
 
 * This objection may be stated in two lines. You say that your 
 religion enjoins you to believe in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 
151 
 
 It is true, that at times St. Paul speaks of Christ in the 
 highest terms of exaltation. He describes his power as 
 mighty and exceeding great; in whom was all the fulness of 
 the Godhead; who was raised above all might and dominion 
 in this world and that which is to come, having all things 
 under his feet; (Eph. i. 19, to the end.) But after all he is 
 but God’s vicegerent, who must render up the power com- 
 mitted to him when all shall have been accomplished; (1 Cor. 
 xv. 2428.) It is scarcely possible for any one to read with 
 attention from the 24th to the 29th verses of the above chapter, 
 and continue to assert the equality of Christ with the Father: it 
 is no longer an error of the judgment, it is a prejudice which 
 has closed his mind against truth and conviction. Here it ts 
 distinctly stated, not figuratively, but in language so clear, so 
 strong, so comprehensive, that it may almost be looked upon 
 as a prophetic declaration on the part of St. Paul, to guard 
 mankind against the fatal error into which he foresaw they 
 were about to fall; here it is stated that Christ, not in his 
 human but in his vicegerent state, and even afterwards when 
 he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, shall remain 
 for ever subject to Him. To assert after this the equality of 
 Christ with the Father, is to set at naught the authority of 
 the Apostle. It is needless to multiply quotations; you 
 have the book before you; you will find therein numberless 
 other passages and terms of the same nature as those to 
 which I have called your attention. If these have served, in 
 conjunction with the arguments with which they have been 
 accompanied, in any degree to weaken your confidence in 
 your former opinions, a farther perusal may produce a 
 still farther effect; but if they have had no influence upon 
 
 Ghost. The Founder of your religion distinctly asserts, that there is 
 no God but the Father; which is also confirmed by the sacred writers. 
 It is for you to reconcile this palpable contradiction. 
 
152 
 
 them, it would be quite useless to refer you to others of 
 a similar kind.* 
 
 "Of these the following are very decisive :—John xvii. 5. Christ here 
 prays to the Father as the only true God, (v. 3.) to restore to him that 
 glory which he had with Him before the world was, and which the Father gave 
 him ; (v.22.) No other inference can be drawn from this, than that this 
 glory was communicated to him by the Father, and that it depended 
 upon His will, whether it should be restored to him ; which certainly 
 could not be if it existed as essentially in one, as in the other. 
 
 (John iii. 17); God sent His Son into the world, that through him it might be 
 saved.’? Now you maintain that this salvation could only come through 
 the suffering of the second Person. He was therefore the messenger, 
 for he “came not of himself, but the Father sent him ;” (John viii. 42.) It was 
 not on his part a spontaneous act, but obedience to a command ; and 
 this command and obedience must necessarily refer to his heavenly state. 
 
 In the following passages, which have already been noticed, from Eph. 
 iv. 5—10 : “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, 
 who is above all, and through all, and in you all.’’ From 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; 
 “For to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him, 
 and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” © By whom” 
 he also says, “ He made the worlds ;”’ (Heb.i.2.) Here the Father and the 
 Son are separately and distinctly characterized, the former as the only 
 one God, and the latter as subordinate, as the instrument by which He 
 made the worlds; His appointed agent; the chosen to execute His 
 sovereign will. Opposed to all the above clear and decisive texts, what 
 are all your far-fetched interpretations, your forced inferences? Am I 
 to prefer constructive, to direct evidence? When I have clear and 
 positive proof, am I to decide from the obscure and doubtful? Are the 
 clearest annunciations to be superseded by mere inferences from am- 
 biguous language? All thenumberless avowals of inferiority on the part 
 of Christ during his sojourn on earth, you refer to his humanity apart ; 
 but when, in the above passages, I shew you the same declarations of 
 subordination in his heavenly state, both before and after his incarnation, 
 what do you, what can you, reply? Nothing. You evade the question, 
 because you cannot answer it. You seek by every subterfuge, and 
 equivocation, and sophism, to explain away the evident meaning of the 
 words, and to set in opposition to them other passages which are supposed 
 to imply Christ’s Divinity. But could you make out these suppositions 
 to be certainties, instead of furthering the cause of Christianity, 
 you would doit more harm than it ever has been, or will be, in the 
 
158 
 
 Of the various arguments which I have urged against your 
 doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, if there be any 
 of which you admit the validity, by them alone you are bound 
 to decide the whole question, for in the word of truth there 
 can be no contradiction. All must harmonize. If to some 
 of my objections to your interpretation of certain parts of 
 this word, you are unable to reply, you ought candidly to 
 abandon it; and the more so, when another interpretation is 
 offered you, to which no objection applies, which reconciles 
 all the parts of the New Testament, which is consonant with 
 the spirit that pervades the whole, and which at the same 
 time our reason does not repugn. But I know that all argu- 
 ment drawn from this latter source will have little or no 
 weight with you; the absurdities and incongruities it may 
 present, will only augment the merit of your faith; but if the 
 
 power of infidelity to inflict. If you could prove the Son’s equality to 
 be elsewhere as clearly asserted, as is his inferiority here ;—if in one 
 page I was to read, that there is but one God the Father, (1 Cor. viii. 6.,) 
 and in asecond, that there was another equal to the Father, what am I 
 to believe? How am I to reconcile such palpable contradictions? How 
 discover the truth between such opposite statements? I should have 
 no resource, but to lay down the book in despair. 
 
 The very word Mediator, is alone a confutation of your Trinity, for in 
 the sense in which both you and I take it, it isconsistent neither with 
 the equality, nor the homogeneity of the three Persons. To mediate, is 
 either to obtain through another that which I have not the power to 
 grant of myself; or to persuade to an union of sentiment and a concord 
 of action: the former is irreconcileable with equality, and the latter 
 with identity of character. 
 
 When such objections as the above are urged, I wish you would either 
 condescend in plain and simple language, without circumlocution or 
 metaphysical aid, to reply to them; or candidly acknowledge their validity : 
 that you would meet all these difficulties with a fair and argumentative 
 spirit, instead of flying off on all such occasions to your never-failing 
 resource, mystery ; to which you are but too apt to sacrifice both truth, 
 and reason, and common sense. 
 
 U 
 
154 
 
 justness of my reasoning be confirmed by appealing to the 
 Scriptures, to the very source whence you draw opposite 
 conclusions ; if the foundation on which you build your system 
 be withdrawn from under you; if the very evidence to which 
 you refer for your decision be against you, it becomes you, 
 as honest enquirers, to reverse this decision; to persist therein 
 after conviction, would be a voluntary sacrifice of truth to 
 pride or to prejudice. Now some of these arguments do 
 appear to me so clearly established, so irresistibly confirmed 
 both by reason and Scripture, as to offer all that certainty of 
 truth, of which a moral proof is susceptible ; whilst the argu- 
 ment which you advocate does appear, with the same clearness 
 of evidence, to be directly opposed to both. When I see 
 such notions adopted, and I am sure conscientiously so, by 
 you; when I see others, far more competent than myself 
 from their talents and acquirements to form an opinion, 
 religiously practising and believing not only these, but all 
 the mummeries and false doctrines of Popery, my first 
 impression is, a painful sensation of doubt and uncertainty 
 with respect to my own opinions. What, I exclaim, is 
 truth? Where is it to be found? When are we sure that 
 we possess it? Farther reflection continues to dissipate 
 these apprehensions. When I consider the circumstances 
 under which nearly all they are placed who profess these 
 opinions, I feel persuaded that it is not supereminence of 
 talent, nor variety of knowledge, but above all, a freedom 
 from prejudice, which conducts to truth; of all enemies to its 
 discovery, this is the most formidable; wherever it has once 
 thoroughly established its hold, especially religious prejudice, 
 it is only a miraculous interposition that can make the scales 
 to fall from the eyes. There is not a more striking proof of 
 the truth of this remark, than that of St. Paul himself. Not 
 all the vigour of his intellect, not all his profound knowledge 
 
[55 
 
 of the sacred writings, the evidence of miraculous power, 
 nothing could enable him to see the light; his understanding 
 had been subjected by strong and early prejudices; he had 
 been nurtured in all the pride and bigotry of the Jew; under 
 the influence of these prepossessions, his mind had become 
 inaccessible to all the ordinary means of instruction; in the 
 midst of the clearest evidence, he was blind to the truth; and 
 though sincere and concientious, he persecuted it with all 
 the violence of an ignorant and intolerant zealot. With such 
 an example before us of the influence of prejudice, we need 
 no longer be surprised at any effect it may produce on 
 inferior minds, nor at the absurd nature of the opinions 
 which prevail. ‘The world is governed by prejudice, not 
 only in religion, but in morals, in politics, in arts, in science, 
 in literature; prejudice arising from pride, ignorance, interest, 
 education, established habits; from jealousies, aversions, 
 partialities. Under such circumstances, can we expect to 
 witness the prevalence of truth? Look at the dominant 
 opinion of nations, of detached societies, of individuals, and 
 see if they are not imposed upon them more by the force of 
 circumstances, than they are the result of unbiassed reflec- 
 tion and conscientious conviction. All judgments, and 
 attachments, and principles which are not the result of this 
 are prejudices. How difficult then to divest ourselves of 
 them, to throw off the influence of all these feelings and mo- 
 tives, to banish them from our minds previous to examination ; 
 an effort almost too great for human nature, for they are so 
 associated with all the manner of our existence, as to operate 
 upon us even unknown to ourselves. Self-knowledge is, of all 
 others, the most difficult of attainment; it has been well 
 called, the gift from above. On all doubtful questions, 
 therefore, which involve our duty to God or man, let us 
 turn our thoughts towards Him who is the Author of all 
 
156 
 
 truth and knowledge, that He may direct our understandings, 
 and incline our hearts. Independently of the aid which He 
 may vouchsafe to sincere enquiry, the habit of addressing 
 our thoughts to Him elevates the mind, and frees it from the 
 influence of many a lurking prejudice, many a secret attach- 
 ment, many a selfish prepossession, which prevents the free 
 exercise of its powers. But to this end it is necessary that 
 your addresses to Him, though expressed in terms which 
 you believe to be the language of truth, should ever be in 
 that spirit of humility and distrust of yourselves, which 
 belong to you as fallible creatures, and not with that self- 
 sufficiency, with that presumptuous confidence, which is im- 
 posed upon you by your creeds and articles, and which tends 
 more to the confirmation of error, than to the discovery of 
 truth, and to rivet as a prejudice what should only be the result 
 of modest enquiry. Whatever is plainly agreeable to reason 
 and Scripture, you may receive with the full confidence of 
 truth; and what is as plainly opposed to them, you may with 
 the same confidence reject. Whatever relates to our moral 
 duties; the doctrine of the immortality of the soul; the 
 rewarding of faith and good-works; in all that relates to 
 these truths, which are the most essential and the most 
 nearly concerning us, we cannot be deceived, there is no differ- 
 ence of opinion; but as to other doctrines of minor impor- 
 tance, on which differences of opinion do exist, it becomes 
 you to speak with modesty, and not with the confidence of 
 that infallibility which belongs to God alone, but for which 
 you can plead only the authority of man. When such dog- 
 mas as these of the Trinity, and Incarnation, and Election, 
 and Free-will, &c., are aftirmed with all the dogmatic assu- 
 rance of inspiration, it behoves you to pause, and before you 
 consent to receive them as Gospel, to see on what such high 
 pretensions rest. When I see the belief in such doctrines 
 
157 
 
 enforced by damnatory clauses, consigning to perdition all 
 who do not receive them, whose fault can at the most be but 
 an error in judgment, it is quite sufficient for me to regard 
 all such enunciations of faith, as an emanation from the 
 father of all lies, rather than an inspiration from the God of 
 truth. And yet it is to such sources as these that you turn 
 to seek knowledge. Would you gather grapes from thorns, 
 or figs from thistles? Do you look as the guide of your 
 faith to your creeds and articles, a monstrous compilation 
 of absurdities and contradictions, an unintelligible jargon of 
 metaphysical subtleties and distinctions, which no man ever 
 did or ever can understand? A creed hatched in the very 
 hot-bed of polemical disputes, when every Christian feeling 
 and doctrine was lost sight of, partaking of all the angry 
 passions of man; a creed unknown to primitive faith, and 
 to the establishment of which one half of Christendom was 
 opposed ; which owes its ascendancy to accident, and which 
 has hitherto been maintained by the terrors of persecution 
 on the one hand, and the allurements of temporal reward on 
 the other. And it is on such a monstrous production of 
 human weakness and wickedness that you found your faith. 
 With the word of God in your hands, will you appeal to 
 human authority? Will you take your creed from fallible 
 men, when you can have recourse to the fountain itself of 
 all truth ? 
 
 My memory is not sufficiently retentive to enable me, with- 
 out a reference to documents, of which I am here altogether 
 deprived, to trace out to you the origin and progress of this 
 dogma of the Trinity; how by little and little it continued 
 to gain ground, until its final ascendancy in the fourth 
 century. Christianity had no sooner obtained a footing in 
 the world, than it began to be corrupted by the vain com- 
 ments and frivolous disputes of the different sects that had 
 
158 
 
 embraced it. Its simplicity but ill accorded with the pride of 
 human philosophy. The vanity of its professors was hurt 
 in espousing a doctrine that was equally accessible to the 
 learned and unlearned. The converts to this belief appear 
 not to have abandoned their ancient prepossessions. Hach 
 sect endeavoured to find therein, or to engraft upon it, their 
 own particular tenets. But there were none who contrived 
 so effectually to incorporate their reveries with the Christian 
 doctrine as the Platonists. The character of their philosophy 
 was the best suited to the visionary and mystical speculations 
 respecting the nature of God, of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, 
 which occupied the attention of Christendom. ‘They who 
 have studied the system discovered therein the rudiments of 
 the Trinity, and trace not only the origin, but the final incor- 
 poration of this dogma into the Christian scheme, from the 
 influence of this sect. Its triumph over the unity of the 
 Deity, which was the universal faith of the primitive 
 Christians, was effected by degrees. ‘The character of 
 Christ went on constantly increasing in dignity and power; 
 new attributes were successively given him, until at length 
 his perfect equality with the Father was, I think, for the first 
 time openly avowed at the Council of Nice. But the decision 
 was far from being acquiesced in by Christians in general. 
 A large, if not the larger proportion still maintained the 
 superiority of the Father ; and Athanasism and Arianism 
 became successively the orthodox doctrine, accordingly as it 
 happened to coincide with the faith of the reigning Emperor. 
 Each persecuted and anathematized in their turn, as each 
 gained the ascendancy; and perhaps no where does human 
 nature appear in so degraded, so contemptible a point of 
 view, as in the history of these contentions. When the 
 spiritual power of the Church of Rome had thoroughly 
 established itself, and the infallibility of its councils was 
 
159 
 
 universally admitted, this doctrine was received as an article 
 of faith, and enforced by the same violence with which all 
 its errors have been supported. At the period of the Re- 
 formation, the efforts of Luther and Calvin and the other 
 Reformers, were mainly directed against the enormous abuses 
 of power on the part of the Church of Rome. The con- 
 sequences were, that the Protestants, in their famous Con- 
 fession, retained almost all the tenets of Popery, except those 
 on which its power and influence mainly depended; and 
 these tenets were afterwards adopted as fundamental 
 articles by all the Protestant Establishments of Europe, and 
 the belief in them alike enforced by penal statutes. The 
 sour and ferocious Calvin had given an example by the burn- 
 ing of Servetus; and this instance of Protestant bigotry has 
 been but too frequently imitated, even in our own country. 
 In the present enlightened day of toleration and freedom 
 of conscience, when man is no longer obliged to bow down 
 to the authority of councils and worldly establishments, but 
 can have recourse to the only source of truth, can boldly 
 appeal to the word of God for the faith that is in him, we 
 shall see all the errors and false doctrines which have been 
 incorporated into our religion gradually disappear. The 
 trash and lumber of more than a thousand years of ignorance 
 and superstition will be swept away, and Christianity will 
 re-appear in all its native simplicity. Of these false doc- 
 trines, the very head and front of offence, the worship of 
 three Gods, will be the first to give way, as having the least 
 foundation in reason or revelation. ‘The axe is already laid 
 to the root, and this last form under which Idolatry and 
 Polytheism have appeared, is being finally banished from the 
 earth. It is then, and not till then, that we shall witness the 
 rapid dissemination of Christianity, by the removing of 
 this great stumbling block to the conversion of nations. It 
 
160 
 
 is then, and not till then, that its genuine influence will be 
 felt, in its practical effect upon the character and conduct; 
 for till now little else than the name of it has existed, Man’s 
 attention will be turned from vain speculations and useless 
 discussions, to the weightier matters of the law. His faith 
 and his practice will be at once plain, rational and intelli- 
 gible ;—his faith, a belief in the mission, the miracles, and the 
 resurrection of Christ; his practice, that simple, sublime, 
 and all comprehensive maxim—* Do unto others what you 
 would that they should do unto you.’ ‘This is all in all; it is 
 the sum and substance of the whole. It is as Christ hath 
 said, ‘‘ the law and the prophets.” 
 
 T. Forrest, Printer, Manchester. 
 
 4 
 1 
 ! 
 
rh : y 2 ee ; : SORES ee %; ag | eee + ae ae ae 
 
 ae es arn NOTRE eG Sta pee Petar 
 
 eee 
 ii 
 
 F fo rae 
 
 ‘hey = ; 4