,1 \\u lfeeo%fa^ ^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 / / BX 9841 .E4 1877 
 
 Eliot, William Greenleaf, 
 
 1811-1887. 
 
 ^/5i^^. Discourses on the doctrine 
 
 of Christian-i.tv, . —- - 
 
DISCO^tf'l^'^'ES 
 
 '•^^u^ '^; 
 
 
 V-G. 
 
 DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAIM G. ELIOT 
 
 PASTOB OF THE CHURCH OF THK MESSIAH, ST. LOUIS. 
 
 TWENTIETH THOUSAND, 
 
 . :^ O STON: 
 AMERICAN UNITARIAN ASSOCIATION 
 
 1877. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 >5<«c 
 
 rSTRODUCTORy ADDRESS B 
 
 UNITY OF GOD 9 
 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT 27 
 
 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 39 
 
 OUR LORD JESUS OHKltif ....... 58 
 
 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 83 
 
 THE ATONEMENT s . . 101 
 
 THE ATONEMENT 113 
 
 REGENERATION . , 127 
 
 EETRIBUTION . • 141 
 
NOTE. 
 
 Short, simple, clear expositions of Christian doctrine, 
 breathing a spirit of enlarged charity and devout reverence 
 for the Sacred Scriptures, are always needed and always 
 useful. The following Tract is the first of a series of dis- 
 courses of this character recently prepared by the Rev. 
 William G. Eliot of St. Louis, and preached to his own 
 society in that city. The Executive Committee of the 
 American Unitarian Association propose to republish the 
 whole series m separate tracts, for distribution among their 
 subscribers, and in such form that, when complete, the 
 series will make a small, but interesting and useful, volume 
 for general circulation. 
 
INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 There are two popular errors concerning Unitanans, aa 
 a body of believers, which I am desirous of removing from 
 the minds of all who read this book. First, it is supposed 
 that we deny the existence of Mystery in religion, and that 
 we refuse to receive any doctrine which we cannot perfect- 
 ly understand. I should doubt if human presumption ever 
 went so far, if I had not read somewhere the words of a 
 philosophical believer, who said, " Where Mystery begins, 
 Religion ends." In all departments of human inquiry we 
 find mystery, that is, something hidden from us and beyond 
 our present reach, and it would be strange if religion were 
 an exception to the general rulf,. All the subjects of which 
 it treats are, by their nature, beyond our perfect compre- 
 hension. We may learn something of them, we may ob- 
 tain glimmerings of the infinite truth, enough for present 
 guidance and comfort and encouragement, and that is all. 
 God, Eternity, Immortality, Redemption, Accountability, 
 Judgment, — what infinite verities do these words convey, 
 yet how completely are we overwhelmed in their contem- 
 plation ! There is not one of them that we can perfectly 
 explain. Our own souls are an unfathomable mystery to 
 us, and how can we expect to comprehend the nature of 
 1* 
 
b INTRODUCTORY ADDRESS. 
 
 God aiid of Christ, and all the secrets of the spiritual world 
 of which we form a part ? We have no such expectation 
 and make no such promise. We come to the study of re- 
 ligious subjects with reverential feelings, hoping to learn 
 enough for our salvation, not expecting to know all. But 
 what is distinctly revealed we do expect to know, and as 
 far as we receive distinct ideas we expect them to be con- 
 sistent with each other. Mystery and contradiction are very 
 different things. The former is something beyond our sight, 
 or seen imperfectly. The latter is plainly seen to be un- 
 true. It may concern subjects of which we know very little, 
 but of every subject we know enough to see that two con- 
 tradictory statements cannot both be true. We know very 
 little, for example, about electricity ; but if any one were 
 to say that it is a self-moving and independent power, and 
 also an agent which never moves except by our will, w« 
 should answer, that, although the subject is one enveloped 
 in mystery, the statement concerning it is manifestly false. 
 Applying this to religious things : The union between God 
 and Christ is a subject beyond our perfect comprehension 
 — it is therefore a mystery ; but as Christ has declared thai 
 he could " do nothing of himself," — that he " spake not of 
 himself," but only " as the Father gave him command- 
 ment," — we are prepared to see that those who assert that 
 he was equal with the Father, and independent in his au 
 thority, are in error. The subject is mysterious, but the 
 contradiction is plain. So when Christ asserts that he did 
 not know of a certain future event (see Mark xiii. 32), the 
 assertion that he was nevertheless Omniscient, is evidently 
 a denial of what he said. The limits of his knowledge we 
 cannot define, but he plainly asserts that some limits do 
 exist, which is a distinct denial of Omniscience. 
 
 The second error concerning us is of a like kind. Tt is 
 
liSTRODUC'TORY ADDRESS. 7 
 
 of\en said that we set Reason in opposition to Revelation, 
 or above it, and that therefore we do not come to Scripture 
 with a teachable spirit. This is not true, nor is any thing 
 like it true. We do indeed think that the Unitarian system 
 of Christianity is more rational than what is commonly 
 called Orthodoxy at the present day, and this is one argu- 
 ment for its truth ; for, as Reason and Revelation are both 
 of them God's work, there cannot be any real opposition 
 between them. If we are sure of any doctrine that it is ir- 
 rational or self-contradictory, we may be equally sure that 
 it is not a revealed truth. Revelation may tell us a great 
 many things which are beyond our discovery, and which 
 we can but imperfectly understand ; as when it tells us that 
 God answers prayer, or that " he works within us both to 
 will and to do of his good pleasure." It makes us feel that 
 the Truth is above us^ and that, however earnestly we may 
 reach upwards, we cannot perfectly attain it. But at the 
 same time it develops, enlarges, and strengthens our ra- 
 tional nature, while commanding us to believe. Christian- 
 ity never tells us to stop thinking, but to " prove all things 
 and hold fast what is good." We are not commanded to 
 receive any doctrine without inquiry, but to " search the 
 Scriptures daily to see " what is true, and of ourselves " to 
 judge what is right." We ask no charter of freedom greater 
 than this ; but this charter we do claim, not only as rational 
 beings, but as Christians. 
 
 The outcry against reason, made by many religionists, is 
 not only unwise, but inconsistent with their own practice ; 
 nor are there any Christians who adhere more closely to 
 the plain and direct meaning of the Bible than Unitarians. 
 The doctrine of the Trinity is nowhere plainly taught in 
 Scripture, nor can it be stated in Scripture words ; it is a 
 doctrine of inference^ built up by arguments, and depend- 
 
H INTRODUCTORY ADrRESS. 
 
 mg upon distinctions so nice and difficult that it requiires a 
 good deal of metaphysical acuteness to perceive them. A 
 crusade against reason comes with ill grace from those who 
 use it so freely. There is no such doctrine in the Unitarian 
 system, but it would be puerile to deny that reason is used 
 m our religious researches. We become Christians only 
 by its use. There is no other means by which we can 
 guard ourselves from gross superstition. We cannot use it 
 too freely or too much, so long as we use it reverently and 
 with prayer. 
 
 It only remains to say, that the following Sermons were 
 delivered in the Church of the Messiah soon after its dedi- 
 cation. They were not prepared as controversial discourses, 
 and do not pretend to be a complete discussion of the sub- 
 jects introduced. In their preparation I must acknowledge 
 my great indebtedness to two works, " Concessions of Trin- 
 itarians," and " Illustrations of Unitarianism," by that inge- 
 nious and learned man, John Wilson, of Boston, formerly 
 of England. To his industry I am indebted for a great 
 part of my quotations from Triritarian writers. 
 
 W. G. E. 
 
 St. Louis, April 10, 1852, 
 
UNITY 01 GOD. 
 
 AND JEHOVAH SHALL BE KING OVER ALL THE EARTH t IN THAT 
 DAY THERE SHALL BE ONE JEHOVAH, AND HIS NAME ONE. — Zcch. 
 xiv. 9. 
 
 THIS IS LIFE ETERNAL, THAT THEY MIGHT KNOW THEE, THB 
 ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM THOU HAST SENT. — 
 
 John xvii. 3. 
 
 1 HAVE selected the first of these two passages, because 
 it not only contains the belief of the prophet in the Unity 
 of God, but it is also a prophecy that, in the Messiah's time, 
 the same doctrine should be more fully established : for he 
 says, " In that day there shall be One Jehovah, and his 
 name One," — words which convey the idea of absolute 
 Unity as strongly as any words can. 
 
 The second passage contains the words of Christ himself, 
 and declares with equal plainness the same doctrine. They 
 are words spoken in prayer. " These words spake Jesus, 
 and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour 
 is come ; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify 
 thee ; as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he 
 should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 
 And this is life eternal, that they may know thee, the only 
 true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." 
 
10 UNITY OF SOD. 
 
 When we consider that these are words of a prayer of- 
 fered by Christ himself, — when we look at their great ex- 
 plicitness, at the distinction which they make between the 
 Father and the Son, at the emphasis with which they de- 
 clare the Father's supremacy, — we see how important 
 they are in the controversy between the Unitarian and Trin- 
 itarian believer. For the act of prayer is in itself an ad- 
 mission of supremacy ; and when, in that prayer, we find 
 the distinct assertion that the Father is the only true God, 
 by whom Jesus Christ was sent, there seems to be nothing 
 else needed for the final and conclusive argument. If we 
 try to imagine some method in which Christ could have put 
 the controversy at rest, I think we could find none less open 
 to objection than this. If such words, under such circum- 
 stances, can be explained away, it would be in vain to seek 
 for others which will stand. 
 
 Having such authority to rest upon, we begm our inquiry 
 this evening. My subject is the Unity of God, and I shall 
 attempt to prove that it is the doctrine both of the Old Tes 
 tament and the New. But as all Christians receive this 
 doctrine in some form, it is necessary to state more expli- 
 citly the position we desire to establish. When we speak 
 of the Unity of God, we take the word in its common mean- 
 ing ; we mean simple, absolute, undivided unity. We mean 
 that God is one being, one person, one Infinite and almighty 
 Jehovah, the Creator and Upholder of all things. We do 
 not pretend to understand the nature of God perfectly 
 Both in his being and in his attributes he is far above our 
 comprehension. But we find no sufiicient authority in the 
 Scripture for increasing the difficulty, by dividing the unity 
 of his being into a trinity of persons ; a distinction which is 
 beyond our clear conception, und which seems to us to \ei.d 
 to hopeless contradiction : for by each person we must un- 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 11 
 
 derstand one who has existence, consciousness, will, and 
 attributes of his own, and this is also the definition of a sep- 
 arate being. The more earnestly we seek to explain this 
 apparent contradiction, that there are three and yet only 
 one, three persons but one being, the greater the difficulty 
 becomes ; until we must end, as most persons do end, with 
 saying that it is an unfathomable mystery, in which we 
 must believe without questioning. Now we distinctly say, 
 that, if the Scripture is so, we will try to believe it. We do 
 not set up our reason against Scripture, which is the ac- 
 knowledged revelation of God ; but we must use our reason 
 to search the Scripture before we can admit a doctrine so 
 obscure and so difficult. We have a right to expect plain 
 proof before we can be required to believe it. Upon this 
 basis we proceed to consider the subject. 
 
 The Unitarian belief is, that there is one God, the Father 
 Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. The Trinitaritwi 
 believes that there is one God, Father, Son, and Spirit ; 
 that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the 
 Holy Spirit is God, yet that there are not three Gods, but 
 one God. Which of these is the true doctrine ? You see 
 the exact point of difference, and I cannot help here saymg 
 that we have this advantage : we can express our whole 
 belief in unaltered Bible language. We believe in one God 
 the Father ; and the Apostle Paul speaks with us when he 
 says, " 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." (1 Cor. viii. 6.) 
 And again, when he says, " There is one God and Father 
 of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." 
 (Eph. iv. 6.) We say that the Father alone is the supreme 
 God ; and herein we have the testimony of Christ himself 
 in the words of our text, " that we moy know thee, the only 
 
V^ UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." It is vt-ry 
 important, in the defence of what we believe, to say that 
 no similar statement of the Trinitarian belief, concerning 
 God, can be made in unaltered Scripture language. It 
 seems to me almost fatal to that belief, because, being con- 
 fessedly obscure and difficult, its plain statement is by so 
 much the more desirable, and, if it were true, might be con 
 fidently expected from those who " declared the whole 
 counsel of God." It is a very strong argument againsi 
 such a doctrine, that it cannot be expressed or explainea 
 without a departure from Scripture language. Let us turn 
 however, more carefully to the law and the testimony. 
 
 We look first to the Old Testament, from which our 
 argument is brief and conclusive. The great object of that 
 dispensation, under Moses and the Prophets, was to estab- 
 lish the doctrine of God's Unity. 
 
 When Moses was appointed the leader of Israel, he found 
 his people buried in gross superstition and idolatry. He 
 led them forth from Egypt in the name of the great I am 
 the Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He 
 instructed them in the history of past times, and for this 
 purpose the book of Genesis was written : to show that the • 
 God in whose name he spoke was the same God by whom 
 the heavens and the earth were created, by whom the 
 wickedness of men had in times past been punished, by 
 whom a part of the human race had been saved from the 
 general destruction, by whom their ancestors, Abraham and 
 his children, had been greatly blessed, in that land of prom- 
 ise to which he was nov/ about to lead them, and establish 
 ^hem there as a great people. When he brought them to 
 the foot of Mount Sinai in the wilderness, after they had 
 been rescued by the strong hand and outstretched arm of 
 the Almighty, in the midst of the fire and the smoke this 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 13 
 
 eternal truth was spoken: "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah thy 
 God is one Jehovah." I use the word Jehovah, instead of 
 Lord, because, as you know, wherever the latter is printed 
 in capitals in the Old Testament the original Hebrew is 
 Jehovah. Now this word is derived from hayah, to be, and 
 means self-existence ; so that the meaning is, " Hear, O 
 Israel, the self-existent one, thy God, is the only self-ex 
 istent." 
 
 That was the great central doctrine of the Jewish religion 
 They received it slowly and unwillingly ; it was too grant 
 for their degraded minds, and they returned again and 
 again to the idolatries of the heathen. For a thousand 
 years, their history is a succession of defeats and victories 
 So long as they held fast to their national belief in Jehovah 
 as the only God, they were superior to all their enemies • 
 but whenever they were corrupted by idolatrous practices 
 they were shorn of their strength and brought low. Thus 
 
 continued through the time of the Judges and of the Kings 
 during which prophets were sent to them from time to time 
 to reiterate the one great truth, on the preservation of which 
 their existence as a nation depended. They declared it in 
 the most emphatic language ; they enforced it by threats oi 
 the most terrible punishment if it was forsaken, and by the 
 most glorious promises if it was faithfully adhered to. 
 
 There would be no end to the task if I were to attempl 
 to give quotations in proof of this. Let me offer, however 
 a few as a sample : Deut. xxxii. 39, " See now that I, even 
 I, am He, and there is no God with me ! I kill and I make 
 alive " Isaiah xliv. 8, " Thus saith Jehovah : Beside me 
 there is no God : is there a God beside me .'' yea, there is 
 no God ; I know not any." Isaiah xlv. 5, and elsewhere, 
 *' I am Jehovah, and there is none else. To whom then 
 will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto 
 2 
 
14 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 him ; to whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal i 
 Kaith the Holy One ; for I am God, and there is none else 
 I am God, and there is none like me." If it were needful, 
 we might bring several hundred instances as strong and 
 conclusive as these ; but those who are familiar with the 
 Old Testament will not require it ; they will admit that the 
 great labor of all the prophets, from Moses till the time of 
 captivity, was to teach the Unity of God and the purity of 
 his worship. It is all a commentary upon the words spoken 
 upon Mount Sinai, " Jehovah, thy God, is one Jehovah." 
 
 But their instructions were almost in vain. The people 
 were still corrupted, again and again, by the nations around, 
 until the judgments of God came upon them with more 
 dreadful calamities. They were completely subdued and 
 carried into captivity by the Assyrians and Chaldeans. 
 There, in the land of strangers, when their harps were hung 
 upon the willow, and they remembered with sadness the 
 desolation of the temple of God, the eternal truth of God's 
 Unity was indelibly impressed upon the heart of the Jewish 
 people ; it was burnt in by sorrow, never again to be erased. 
 When a small remnant returned to Palestine, it was as the 
 worshippers of one God, and to them the prophet Zechariah 
 spoke, when prophesying of the Messiah's time, in the 
 ivords of our text, " Jehovah shall be king over all the 
 «arth ; in that day there shall be One Jehovah, and his 
 name One." The nation had yet many calamities to en- 
 dure, many vicissitudes of fortune ; but among them all 
 they never departed again from the lesson which had been 
 so severely learned. 
 
 Such is a general view of the Old Testament, which is, I 
 think, decisive of the question before us. If it had been 
 intended by those who spoke under the inspiration of God, 
 to convey some peculiar idea of unity, different from that 
 
U.^IITY OF GOD. 15 
 
 which the word ordinarily conveys, as, for example, a 
 Trinity in Unity instead of absolute unity, would it not have 
 been somewhere distinctly expressed ? Would the chosen 
 people of God, whose special mission was to teach the truth 
 concerning God's nature, have been left in ignorance of so 
 important a doctrine as this ? Would it not rather have 
 modified all the instructions of the prophets, and appeared 
 in all their teaching ? But what hint do we find of such a 
 thing ? From Genesis to Malachi, where do we find a 
 single expression which would convey to an unprejudiced 
 mind such an idea ? 
 
 To show how diligently the record has been searched for 
 such passages, and with what small success, the words, " a. 
 threefold cord cannot be broken," and the passages in which 
 the word holy is repeated three times, as, " holy, holy, holy 
 Lord God Almighty," have been quoted and greatly relied 
 upon by learned theologians, as a proof of the Trinity in 
 Unity. When such trifles are relied upon, it is a tolerably 
 good proof that sound argument is wanting. We scarcely 
 need to be informed that the repetition of the word " holy " 
 is only an evidence of intense feeling, as when David said 
 in his affliction, " my son Absalom, my son, my son 
 A.bsalom ! " or as in the exclamation of Jeremiah, " O 
 earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Jehovah ! " or as in 
 Rev. viii. 13, " Woe, woe, woe to the inhabiters of the 
 earth ! " It is just as we would say thrice he ly or thrice 
 cursed ; conveying intense feeling and nothing more. 
 
 We must also refer to two arguments, which, although they 
 are abandoned by the most learned Orthodox critics, are still 
 insisted upon by many persons. The first is, that the He- 
 brew word " Eloheem," translated God, is in the plural num- 
 ber, indicating, as is supposed, a plurality of persons in the 
 <^odhead Our answer to this is the same which is giver 
 
16 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 bv John Calvin and Professor Stuart, whose orthodoxy will 
 not be questioned, and is in these words : " For the sake of 
 emphasis, the Hebrews commonly employed most of the 
 words which signify Lord, God, &c., in the plural form, bu^ 
 with the sense of the singular." In proof of which, I refei 
 to Exodus vii. 1, where the word god is applied to Moses, 
 " And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a 
 god to Pharaoh." The Hebrew is here in the plural, and, 
 literally translated, would be gods. A similar passage oc- 
 curs 1 Sam. xxviii. 13, where the word gods, in the plural 
 umber, is applied to Samuel. In fact, this plural form to 
 nouns of a singular number is a common idiom in the He- 
 brew language where intensity of meaning is expressed. 
 The names of many of the heathen idols, as of Baal, of 
 Dagon, of Ashtoreth, Beelzebub, and even of the golden calf 
 made by Aaron, Ex. xxxii. 4, are all in the plural number 
 So in Gen. xxiv. 9, where it is said the servant put his 
 hand on the thigh of Abraham his master, the word master 
 Is in the Hebrew plural, that is, masters. The same mode 
 of expression occurs in other places, of Potiphar, of Pharaoh, 
 and of Joseph, all of whom are spoken of in the plural num- 
 ber, as a token of unusual respect. I have before me no 
 less than fifty instances, in which words having a singular 
 meaning are in the plural form, according to the Hebrew 
 usage. As in Prov. i. 20, " Wisdom crieth without ; she 
 uttereth her voice in the street " ; the Hebrew word for 
 wisdom is in the plural. In the same manner, I can give 
 you instances in which the words salvation, love, truth, 
 desolation, death, pride, and many others, are in the plural 
 form in the Hebrew, though translated in the singular. 
 These considerations are enough to show that the use of the 
 word Eloheem is, according to Professor Stuart's explana- 
 tion, nothing but a Hebrew idiom, upon which no doctrine 
 of a plurality of persons can be built. 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 17 
 
 The other argument to which I refer is of a similar sort 
 It is founded upon the words, Gen. 1. 26, " Let us make 
 man in our image, after our likeness," which we also regard 
 as an idiomatic mode of expression, commonly called the 
 plural of excellence or of dignity. We can give instances 
 in Sacred Scripture of its use by earthly kings, by Jesus 
 Christ, by the Apostle Paul, and by many others. In 1 
 Thess. ii. 18 are these words : " Wherefore we would have 
 come unto you, even I Paul, once and again, but Satan hin 
 dered us " ; where the Apostle applies the pronouns, we and 
 M5, to himself. We might quote other passages showing the 
 same use of the plural, but it is not needful, as the argu- 
 ment is abandoned by a large part of Trinitarian writers. 
 Martin Luther, Grotius, Bishop Patrick, Dr. South, Dr. Sam- 
 uel Johnson, Archbishop Whately, are all good Orthodox 
 authorities, and all of them agree with us upon this point. 
 
 I do not know of any other arguments now used, to 
 prove that a plurality of persons in the Godhead is hinted 
 at in the Old Testament. One thing, very important, is 
 certain, that, if any such hints were conveyed, the Jews 
 never understood them. The presumption is, that they 
 knew their own language, and it is certain they understood 
 that the Unity of God was taught by their Scriptures in the 
 most absolute and unqualified manner. Such was their in- 
 terpretation of Moses and the Prophets at the time when 
 Christ came. In all Palestine there probably could not 
 have been found a single man or woman, who supposed that 
 there was any distinction of persons, such as is now taught, 
 in the Unity of God. 
 
 If, therefore, such a doctrine is contained in the New 
 
 Testament, it must have been completely a new revelation 
 
 to the Jews ; and not only new, but also strange. At first 
 
 eight U must have appeared to them then, as it does now, 
 
 2* 
 
18 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 subversive of their ancient doctrine. It would have beer 
 necessary, therefore, for the Saviour and his Apostles to 
 state it very plainly, and to prove its consistency with the 
 law of Moses. If we find no such statement, we may con- 
 clude that there was no such doctrine. Silence, under 
 such circumstances, would be a full consent to the old Jew- 
 ish belief in the Unity of God. 
 
 What shall we say, then, when we find that this doctrine 
 is reaffirmed, over and over again, by Christ and his Apos- 
 tles, in the strongest possible language, which is used with- 
 out any explanation, or any hint that a peculiar sense is to 
 be attached to the word One, when applied to God > No 
 / less than thirteen hundred and twenty-six times is the word 
 God used in the books of the New Testament, without any 
 explanation to guard us from what our Trinitarian friends 
 would call a fatal error upon this which is the fundamental 
 doctrine of religion. 
 
 This is a tolerably strong case ; but a more careful ex- 
 amination will make it still stronger. Let us look at the 
 teaching of Christ himself first, and then of his Apostles. 
 Christ uniformly spoke of God as his Father, and of the 
 Father as the only God. Almost his first recorded words 
 are these : " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him 
 only shalt thou serve." He prayed to God as his Father, 
 and taught his disciples to pray in the same words : " Our 
 Father, who art in heaven." Upon one occasion, when 
 some one called him " good master," he answered, " Why 
 callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is 
 God." Upon another occasion, when asked what was the 
 first commandment of all, he commenced in the very words 
 of the law spoken from Mt. Sinai : " Hear, O Israel : The 
 Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord 
 thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and all 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 19 
 
 thy mind, and all thy strength. This is the first and great 
 commandment." Observe how solemn is this affirmation 
 of the old doctrine ; it is a reenactment of the great cen- 
 tral law of the Jewish religion, without one word of amend- 
 ment or qualification. Can we ask any thing more ? 
 
 But we have more, if possible. If this were all, it migh 
 perhaps be argued that the word " God " includes the idea 
 of tri-personality in the Father, Son, and Spirit ; but the 
 Saviour has forbidden such a construction by teaching us. 
 that the God of whom he spoke is the Father only. We 
 once more refer to the words of our text, words of prayer 
 to the Father : " This is life eternal, that they may know 
 thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
 sent." He speaks of himself, the Son, as a separate be- 1/ 
 ing, dependent on the Father. " Glorify thy Son, that thy 
 Son also may glorify thee." Again, in his prediction of 
 his heavenly exaltation he says, " Hereafter shall the Son of 
 man sit on the right hand of the power of God." So when 
 in the garden of Gethsemane he prayed to the Father, 
 " Not my will, but thine be done." And on the cross, in 
 the time of his last agony, " My God, my God, why hast 
 tliou forsaken me ? " and yet once more, after his resur- 
 rection, he said to his disciples, " 1 ascend unto my Father 
 and to your Father, to my God and to your God." Thus, 
 through his whole ministry, he used the same uniform and 
 familiar language. I ask you again to remember that this 
 language was addressed to those who had no conception of 
 any other doctrine than the absolute Unity of God. How 
 must they have understood it ? I think, just as we under- 
 stand it now, when we say, " To us there is but one God, 
 even the Father." 
 
 The Saviour's testimony is therefore the same with that 
 of Moses. But although this is admitted by many Trinita- 
 
20 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 rians, it is said that the revelation of tie new doctrine was 
 reserved until after the descent of the Holy Spirit at the day 
 of Pentecost. Let us look then at the preaching of the 
 Apostles at that time, and subsequently. We find it to be 
 exactly the same ; the same language is used concerning 
 God, without any hint that it is to be taken in a peculiar 
 sense. These are their words : " The God of Abraham, 
 and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath 
 glorified his son Jesus, whom God hath raised from the 
 dead." And again : " This Jesus hath God raised up. 
 Therefore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and 
 having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
 Spirit, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear." 
 This language is repeated in the first six or seven chapters 
 of the Book of Acts, over and over again ; and God is al- 
 ways spoken of without any qualifying word, as the only 
 Supreme Being, by whom Christ was sent, raised up, and 
 glorified. Does this look like the revelation of a new doc- 
 trine concerning God ? 
 
 In the seventeenth chapter of Acts, Paul makes a distinct 
 iJ declaration concerning God. He found an altar in Athens, 
 
 erected to the unknown God, and said, " Whom therefore ye 
 ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Now, what 
 is this declaration ? " That God who made the world, and 
 all things therein,' is Lord of heaven and earth ; that in him 
 we live, and move, and have our being ; that we are his 
 offspring, and that he hath appointed a day in which he will 
 judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he 
 hath ordained ; whereof he hath given assurance, in that 
 he hath raised him from the dead." 
 
 The time would fail me, to speak of all the instances of 
 this kind. The Epistles are full of them. The comTnon 
 mode in w'lich God is there spoken of is, as " the God and 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 21 
 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " ; as, for example, 2 Cor. 
 i. 3, " Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort." 
 Again, Eph. iii. 14, " I bow my knees unto the Father ot 
 our Lord Jesus Christ." And, Phil. ii. 11, "That every 
 knee should bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Observe, 
 that these passages not only imply the supremacy of one 
 God, but they also declare that this one God is the Father 
 only. The same God whom the Apostle elsewhere calls 
 " the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, 
 who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, 
 the Lord of lords, who only hath immortality, dwelling in 
 the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man 
 hath seen nor can see, to whom be honor and power ever- 
 lasting." (1 Tim. vi. 15.) All these are words of the New 
 Testament. I ask you again. Could they be made more ex- 
 plicit ? If I, as a Unitarian minister, were to task myself 
 in finding words to express the perfect unity and absolute 
 supremacy of God the Father, could any words be found 
 more conclusive than these ? 
 
 It appears, therefore, that the language of the Bible is 
 uniform, from first to last, on this subject. Moses and the 
 Prophets, Jesus Christ, both before and after his resurrec- 
 tion, and the Apostles, both before and after the day of 
 Pentecost, assert, in the same unqualified words, that the 
 Father is the only living and true God. 
 
 Upon what ground, then, are we authorized to divide that 
 absolute Unity ? Suppose that we were to find two or three 
 passages which seem to imply such a division. Ought wo 
 not to explain them, if possible, in accoriance with the great 
 prevailing doctrine .'* Ought we, for the sake of them, to 
 introduce inextricable confusion into our ideas of God ? I 
 
22 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 think not. When we have so strong a general case made 
 out, we ought not to feel troubled by a few difficulties in 
 detail. The language which we have quoted is so plain, 
 that we cannot be mistaken in its meaning. We hold to 
 that plain meaning, and by doing so we are Unitarians. 1 
 say this, not because the difficulties in our way are many 
 or great, but because it is important for the young inquirer 
 to take this position. He ought not to expect to explain 
 every text of Scripture to his perfect satisfaction ; some 
 difficulties will still remain, but they ought not to trouble 
 him, where the general conclusion is so well established. 
 In the present case, however, the remaining difficulties are 
 few. 
 
 There are but two texts of any importance which are 
 supposed to imply the doctrine of a Trinity. The first is 
 the form of baptism : " Go ye and baptize all nations in the 
 name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
 tJut this teaches no Trinity of persons, much less of equal 
 persons in the Godhead. On the contrary, the use of the 
 ivord Son implies inferiority. The words mean that we 
 should be baptized into faith in God as our Father, in the 
 Son of God as our Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit as the 
 guiding influence which proceeds from God. This com- 
 prises the whole Christian faith. It is sometimes said, that 
 to be baptized in the Son is a proof of his deity ; but it is 
 not so ; for Paul speaks of the Jews as having been bap- 
 jzed into Moses. Nor does it follow, because the three 
 ire spoken of together, that they are equal to each other ; 
 for in Numb. xxi. 5, 7, we read, " The people came to 
 Moses and said, We have sinned ; we have spoken against 
 Jehovah and against thee." And again, 1 Chron. xxix. 20, 
 ** All the congregation blessed Jehovah, God of their fathers, 
 and bowed down their heads, and worshipped Jehovah and 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 23 
 
 the king." And 1 Sam. xxv. 32, " David said to Abigail, 
 blessed be Jehovah, God of Israel, who sent thee this day 
 to meet me ; and blessed be thy advice, and blessed be 
 thou, who hast kept me this day from shedding blood." 
 You will observe the strength of this language. It is an 
 ascription of praise, — first to Jehovah, God of Israel, then 
 to her advice, and then to herself. But the ascription is to 
 be understood differently in each case. So, when we read 
 that they worshipped Jehovah and the king, we understand 
 the first as supreme worship, and the second as the homage 
 of respect. In all such cases, which are frequent in the 
 Bible, common sense saves us from error. Although two 
 or three subjects are spoken of in the same connection, it 
 does not follow that they are spoken of in the same sense, 
 much less that they are the same thing, or equal to each 
 other. 
 
 Nor does it follow that the Holy Spirit is a person be- 
 cause we are baptized into its name. For, according to a 
 common mode of expression among the Jews, the name of 
 a thing often meant the thing itself ; so the Rabbins speak 
 of being baptized into the name of liberty, and the Samari- 
 tans circumcised their converts into the name of Mt. Geri- 
 zim. 
 
 If you feel any remaining doubt as to this passage, which 
 is regarded as the great bulwark of the Trinitarian belief, I 
 can refer you to a great many Orthodox authorities which 
 admit the interpretation now given. Among them are the 
 celebrated Erasmus, Dr. Wardlaw, Schleusner, Michaelis, 
 and Professor Stuart of Andover. They all of them de- 
 clare, that, although the baptismal form will bear a Trinita- 
 rian meaning, it may also be interpreted different.y without 
 violence to the language 
 
 The other text to which I referred is 1 John v. 7 . 
 
24 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 *' There are three which bear record in heaven, the Fa 
 iher. the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these three are 
 one." Of which we say, first, if we admit its genuine- 
 ness, it affords no argument against the doctrine of the 
 unity. The Greek word translated one is in the neuter 
 gender, and means, not one being, but one thing ; which is, 
 according to the use of Scripture, not identity, but agree- 
 ment ; as when it is said, " He that soweth and he that 
 watereth are one " ; or as the Saviour prays for his disci^ 
 pies, " that they all may be one, as thou. Father, art in 
 me, and I in thee." It is so that the passage is interpreted 
 by Calvin. He says : " The expression ' these three are 
 one,' refers not to essence, but to consent ; as if the Apostle 
 had said, the Father and his eternal word and spirit harmo- 
 niously bear testimony to Christ. There is no doubt that 
 the Father, Word, and Spirit are called one in the same 
 sense as blood, water, and spirit, in the following verse." 
 The same explanation is given by the celebrated Beza, one 
 of the great Orthodox authorities ; and McKnight, the au- 
 thor of an Orthodox commentary, has these words : " It was 
 not to John's purpose to speak here of the unity of the heav- 
 enly witnesses, in respect either of their nature or of their 
 number. I am therefore of opinion, that, when he wrote 
 ' these three are one," he meant only that they are one m 
 respect of the agreement of their testimony, conformably to 
 the use of the same phrase in other parts of the New Tes- 
 tament." With such authority, therefore, as that of Calvm, 
 Beza, and McKnight on our side, to which I might add tnat 
 of twenty-two others, equally distinguished as Trinitarians, 
 whose names I have now before me, we need not hesitate 
 to give a Unitarian explanation to this famous text. 
 
 Truth compels me, however, to add, that the text, such 
 tis it is, is spurious. It has no proper place in the Bible, o! 
 
UNITY OF GOD. 2ft 
 
 which we have the following proof: — " 1. It is not con 
 tained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlie/ 
 than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin manuscripi 
 earlier than the ninth century. 3. It is not found in any oi 
 the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any of the Greek 
 ecclesiastical writers, though, to prove the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, they have cited the words both before and after it. 
 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin Fathers, even 
 when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally 
 have led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited 
 by Vigilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the 
 latter end of the fifth century, and by him it is supposed to 
 have been forged. 7. It has been omitted, as spurious, in 
 many editions of the New Testament, since the Reforma- 
 tion ; in the first two of Erasmus ; in those of Aldus, Coli- 
 naeus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omit- 
 ted by Luther, in his German version. In the old English 
 Bibles of Henry the Eighth, Edward the Sixth, and Eliza- 
 beth, it was printed in small types, or included in brackets ; 
 but between the years 1566 and 1680 it began to be printed 
 as it now stands, by whose authority is not known." With 
 such evidence before him. Bishop Lowth says : " We have 
 some wranglers in theology, sworn to follow their master, 
 who are prepared to defend any thing, however absurd, 
 should there be occasion. But I believe there is no one 
 among us, in the least degree conversant with sacred criti- 
 cism, and having the use of his understanding, who would 
 be willing to contend for the genuineness of the verse, 1 
 John v. 7." 
 
 You will see upon how slender a basis the doctrine of a 
 
 Trinity rests. There is not a single passage of the Bible iu 
 
 which it is distinctly stated, not one in which it is clearly 
 
 implied. The doctrine of the Divine Unity, therefore, re- 
 
 3 
 
26 UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 mains unimpeached. It is written all over the Old and Ne\» 
 Testaments, just as it is written all over the works of God 
 everywhere in the universe : " Hear, O Israel, Jehovah 
 thy God is one Jehovah." This is life eternal, that we may 
 know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom 
 thou hast sent. 
 
THE HOLT SPIRIT. 
 
 OOD 18 A SPIRIT. — John iv. 24. 
 
 My subject this evening is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit 
 Last Sunday I attempted to show that the doctrine of the 
 Divine Unity, unquahfied and undivided, is taught by the 
 Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures ; that God 
 is our Father, and that the Father is the only true God, — 
 the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the founda- 
 tion on which we rest our faith. 
 
 Those who impugn this doctrine, or who modify it by a 
 Trinity of persons in the Godhead, attempt to prove that 
 Christ, the Son of God, is equal with the Father, and, in 
 some sense, the same with the Father ; also, that the Spirit 
 of God has a personality and attributes, separate from God 
 the Father and God the Son. Having thus asserted these 
 points separately, they join them together, under a modified 
 doctrine of the Divine Unity, as a Trinity of persons in one 
 God. The most important step in their argument is to 
 prove the Deity of Christ, that is, his equality or identity 
 with the Father, and it might naturally be expected that this 
 would form the next subject of. our inquiry. Such is the 
 
28 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 usual course ; but I have two reasons for departing From It 
 by taking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit first. In the first 
 place, I think that sufficient prominence is not given to this 
 doctrine in the Trinitarian controversy. It is too often 
 taken for granted, or accepted with almost no proof. Trin- 
 itarians, if they can satisfy themselves of rjie Deity of 
 Christ, consider that their whole work is done. Very few 
 are aware upon what slender proof the separate personality 
 of the Holy Spirit rests. Very few are aware of what is 
 the fact, that this doctrine was not even asserted in the 
 Christian Church, nor made a part of the creed, until the 
 end of the fourth century, by the Council of Constantinople. 
 -J wish this to appear ; both that the importance of the 
 doctrine, and the difficulty of receiving it in any other way 
 than that in which we receive it, may be known. I wish it 
 to appear that the Scripture language concerning the Holy 
 Spirit confirms our view of the Unity ; that no doctrine of 
 the Holy Spirit can be found such as is necessary to estab- 
 lish the Trinity. If I can succeed in this, we shall then 
 come to the consideration of Christ's nature, with a strong 
 presumption that our view of him is correct ; for I think 
 that, if it plainly appears that a third person in the Trinity 
 cannot be proved, very few persons will undertake to prove 
 the second, and the doctrine of the Divine Unity will there- 
 fore become more impregnable. 
 
 I take this course also for another reason. There is no 
 subject upon which Unitarians are more misrepresented than 
 this of the Holy Spirit. Because we deny a separate per 
 sonality, we are thought to deny the Holy Spirit itself, that 
 is, to reject all belief in divine influences for the regenera- 
 tion of the heart and guidance of the life. Many persons 
 hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because they suppose 
 tliat its denial would involve an error like this. They 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 29 
 
 shrink from the Unitarian belief for the same reason. They 
 feel the necessity of those heavenly influences which are 
 the workings of the divine spirit, and from their faith in 
 such influences their chief enjoyment in religion proceeds. 
 Shall they give it up ? Even if overthrown in argument, 
 shall they yield all the blessedness of their religion ? We 
 say no. If such were the alternative, let the doctrine of the 
 Trinity be adhered to, with or without proof. The neces- 
 sity of the heavenly influence which the heart acknowledges 
 would be proof enough. 
 
 But there is no such alternative. To deny the person- 
 ality of the Holy Spirit, separate from that of the Father, is 
 not to deny the Holy Spirit itself So far as the doctrine is 
 a practical one, or of any practical importance in the for- 
 mation of the religious character, all Christians are agreed 
 upon it. In God we live and move and have our being. 
 He works within us both to will and to do of his good 
 pleasure. He is more ready to give his Holy Spirit to 
 those that ask him, than an earthly parent is to bestow good 
 things upon his children. But all this is as true to the Uni- 
 tarian as to the Trinitarian. Indeed, it seems to me more 
 true ; for we believe that the gift comes directly from a 
 Father's love. There is no intermediate doctrine of a third 
 person to confuse the thoughts. When we pray to the 
 Heavenly Father, we feel that we are in living communion 
 with him and he with us. 
 
 The Greek word translated Spirit in the New Testament 
 is Pneuma, the literal meaning of which is wind or breath. 
 The corresponding word in the Old Testament has the 
 same meaning. Both words occur very frequently in this 
 sense. When applied to God, or to any intelligent being 
 [hey are commonly translated Spirit, sometimes by the word 
 '^bost, which, as you know, had exactly the same meaning 
 3* 
 
30 THE HOLY SPIRIT 
 
 at the time when the translation of the Bible was made 
 To give up the ghost is the parting of the spirit from the 
 body, and the Holy Ghost is only another name for Holy 
 Spirit. The Greek or Hebrew word is exactly the same in 
 both cases. Now the question in controversy is, What does 
 this term Holy Spirit mean according to Scripture usage ? 
 Is it a person in the Godhead separate from the Father, or 
 is it intended to express as its general meaning the influ- 
 ences which proceed from the Father ? This question must 
 be decided by a careful examination of the Scripture. 
 
 There are three principal uses of the term Holy Spirit 
 when applied to God in the Scripture which we must ex- 
 amine. 1. Sometimes it means God himself; 2. Some- 
 times the power, or some other attribute, of God ; and 3. 
 Sometimes (which is the most common use) the varioua 
 influences which proceed from God. 
 
 First : It is sometimes used as another expression foi 
 God himself, just as the spirit of man is sometimes used for 
 the man himself. Of this we have an instance in 1 Cor. ii. 
 11, " For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
 spirit of man which is in him ? even so the things of God 
 knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." As we should not 
 think of saying that the spirit of man is here any thing but 
 the man himself, so the Spirit of God is God himself. So it 
 is said, Ps. cxxxix. 7, " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, 
 or whither shall I flee from thy presence .'' If I ascend up 
 into heaven, thou art there " ; where the phrase " thy Spir 
 it " evidently means the same as thy presence, or thyself. 
 Again, Isa. xl. 13, " Who hath directed the Spirit of the 
 Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him ? " where the 
 Spirit of the Lord evidently means the Lord himself. Thia 
 IS in accordance with the words of our text, " God is a 
 Spirit." 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 31 
 
 The only intelligent idea that we can form of God the 
 Father is of a spiritual being, or of an infinite mind, partly- 
 made manifest to us through his wonderful works. Just as 
 our idea of a man is chiefly that of a spirit or soul, which 
 for the present is joined to the body as the means of its de- 
 velopment. In both cases the idea is indistinct and imper* 
 feet. We cannot perfectly apprehend the nature of spirit- 
 ual existence, and in our efforts to do so we may easily be- 
 come puzzled. But so far as we have any distinct concep- 
 tion of the being of God the Father, we think of him as an 
 infinite, omnipresent Spirit. How much, then, is our diflli- 
 culty increased, and how hopeless does the confusion of oui 
 minds become, when we try to think of a Spirit of God, 
 having a personal existence separate from God the Father I 
 For if the Father is himself a Spirit, it is to speak of the 
 Spirit of a Spirit, and in fact conveys no idea to the mind. 
 But if in such cases we take the Spirit of God as another 
 expression for God himself, there is no difficulty. 
 
 The second use of the term " Spirit of God " is to ex- j 
 press God's power, or some other attribute. When the 
 Saviour said. Matt. xii. 28, " If I by the Spirit of God cast 
 out devils," he meant by the power of God ; as we find in 
 the corresponding passage by another Evangelist, Luke xi. 
 20, " If I by the finger of God cast out devils " ; in both 
 cajes meaning exactly the same. So in Luke i. 35, " Tho 
 Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee," the exercise of the Divine 
 power is intended. 
 
 Such modes of expression are quite common in the Bi* 
 ble. They are intended simply to express the exertion of 
 God's power. Whatever God himself does, he is said to 
 do by his spirit, or by his word, or by his hand, or by the 
 breath of his mouth ; all of which means substantially the 
 
 N 
 
32 
 
 THE HOLt S1»IRIT- 
 
 same thing. See, for example, Job xxvi. 12, ** He divid- 
 eth the sea with his power ^ and by his understanding he 
 smiteth through the proud. By his Spirit he hath gar- 
 nished the heavens ; his hand hath formed the crooked ser 
 pent." Or in Ps. xxxiii. 6, " By the word of Jehovah Mrere 
 the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath 
 or Spirit of his mouth ; he spake and it was done, he com- 
 manded and it stood fast." All such language is perfectly 
 intelligible if we receive it as different modes of expressing 
 the exercise of God's power and wisdom ; but if in such 
 language we try to find evidence that the Spirit of God is 
 a person separate from God the Father, it all becomes ob- 
 scure. We might as well attribute personality to the Fin- 
 ger or the Hand of God. Here also, as before, the natural 
 use of language leads us to the more intelligible doctrine. 
 
 There is one other principal use of the term Holy Spirit, 
 to which I have referred. It is that which means the Holv 
 Influence of the Deity on the minds of his servants, with 
 the accompanying gifts and powers. This is by far the 
 most common use of the term in the Bible, — perhaps in 
 nine cases out of ten where it occurs. It is a use which 
 fonfirms our view of the doctrine in dispute, and I think is 
 inconsistent with any other. While I read a few of the 
 passages, I would ask your close attention, that you may 
 decide for yourselves upon this point, to which doctrine 
 the language is most favorable. The Scripture says, that 
 the Holy Spirit was " put within " Moses ; that the spirit of 
 the Jjord was " put upon " the proj^ hets, and other inspired 
 persons ; that the spirit of the Lord ^* fell upon " Ezekiel ; 
 that to the Apostles the Holy Spirit was " partially given," 
 but that to Christ it was " given without measure " ; that 
 Jiey " received " the Holy Spirit ; they were " baptized ' 
 with the H0I3' Spirit and with fire ; they were " supplied " 
 
THE HOLT SPIRIT. 
 
 33 
 
 with the spirit of Christ, and were made " partakers " of it 
 The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, was " poured out " or 
 " shed forth " both on Jews and Gentiles. Believers were 
 " sealed " 'with the Holy Spirit of promise. Jesus " breathed 
 on them," and said, " Receive ye the Holy Spirit." In 
 Luke xi. 13 it is said, " How much more shall the Heav- 
 enly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him " ; 
 and in the parallel passage, Matt. vii. 11, the words are, 
 " How much more shall your Heavenly Father give good 
 things to them that ask him " ; so that the Holy Spirit in 
 this case is the same with the " good things," or the spirit- 
 ual blessings, promised. We are taught to " walk in " the 
 spirit, and that the " fruit of the spirit" is love, joy, peace, 
 long-suffering, and the like. 
 
 There are two instances in which the descent of the Holy 
 Spirit was accompanied by a visible demonstration. Both 
 of them are referred to as a proof of the personality of the 
 Spirit of God, separate from the Father. They are un- 
 doubtedly the strongest instances to that effect which can 
 be alleged. The first of them is at the baptism of Jesus, 
 and the second at the day of Pentecost. In the former, it 
 is said that " the Spirit of God descended like a dove, light- 
 ing upon Jesus, and a voice came from heaven saying, 
 * This is my beloved Son, in whom lam well pleased.' " It 
 was an outward token of God's approbation ; the visible ap- 
 pointment of Christ as the Messiah. It was to this that the 
 Apostle referred when he said, speaking of this very inci- 
 dent, " That God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy 
 Ghost and with power." Acts x. 38. Observe that ex- 
 pression, which is used as descriptive of Christ's baptism : 
 " That God anointed him with the Holy Spirit." Is it not 
 perfectly inapplicable to the idea of separate personality } 
 
 The other instance is at the day of Pentecost, of which 
 
34 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 we find similar language used. The event is described by 
 Peter as the pouring out of God's Spirit, and he declares 
 that "Jesus, being by the right hand of God exalted, and 
 having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spir- 
 it, had shed forth that which was seen and heard." And 
 he exhorts his hearers to " receive the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit, the promise of which had been made to them." 
 i^ou will observe how strongly all this language confirms 
 the view which we take of the doctrine, and how difficult to 
 be reconciled with any other. 
 
 These, therefore, are the three meanings which belong 
 to the " Holy Spirit," according to Scripture usage : 1. It 
 is sometimes only another expression for God himself, as 
 the spirit of man is another expression, in some instances, 
 for the man himself. 2. Sometimes it expresses the power 
 of God, or some other attribute ; as when we read, " By 
 his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens." 3. Sometimes, 
 which is the most common use, it means the spiritual bless- 
 ings, or influences, or good things, which the Heavenly Fa- 
 ther bestows upon those who ask him. We have no hesita- 
 tion in asserting most positively, that there is no passage in 
 the Bible in which the words may not be explained under 
 one of these meanings. There is no passage in the Bible 
 where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Self-existent, Al- 
 mighty, or Omnipresent Person, distinct from the God and 
 Father of Jesus Christ. But, on the contrary, the language 
 is generally such that it cannot be spoken of a person at all 
 but must mean the influences which proceed from God th€ 
 Father. 
 
 Upon what ground, then, are we required to renounce 
 our belief in the Unity of God, or, at least, to modify it by 
 the admission of a third person in the Godhead .'' The argu* 
 ments are so few, that it will not take long to answer them 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 35 
 
 I have already given the meaning of the words used in 
 Daptisni, Matt. XAviii. 19, as expressing our belief in God as 
 our Father, in Christ as our Redeemer, and in the Holy 
 Spirit as the sanctifying influence which comes from God. 
 
 The only other text to which I need refer is found Rom. 
 viii. 26 : " Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities j 
 for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but 
 the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings 
 which cannot be uttered ; and he that searcheth the hearts 
 knoweth the mind of the Spirit, because it maketh interces- 
 sion for the saints, according to the will of God." " It is 
 surprising," says Mr. Peabody, " that this text should ever 
 have been quoted as favoring the idea of the supreme inde- 
 pendent divinity of a Spirit, which intercedes^ that is, offers 
 prayer, of course to some superior being." It is one of 
 those texts which are difficult to explain, word for word, 
 but of which the whole meaning is perfectly evident. The 
 idea of the passage is, that " the devout soul, in all its in- 
 firmity and ignorance, will still be sustained, for it will still 
 press to the mercy-seat ; and that if it knows not what to 
 ask for, and cannot shape its own supplications, God, know- 
 ing the earnestness and rectitude of its desires, will satisfy 
 all its real wants." 
 
 The principal argument for the separate personality of 
 the Spirit is found in the four passages which I have read 
 to you this evening from John xiv., xv., and xvi., in which 
 the divine influences promised by Christ to his disciples are 
 personified under the name of the Comforter. I think that 
 if it can be shown that this personification does not, accord- 
 ing to common Scripture usage, imply literal personality, 
 very little argument will be left. 
 
 What is the Scripture usage in this respect } A brief 
 examination will show us that no mode of expression is 
 
56 
 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 more common than that in which inanimate objects and 
 qualities are spoken of as if they were living beings, having 
 personal properties and performing personal actions. Thus, 
 " the sea and the mountains are represented as having 
 eyes ; the earth as having ears ; a song, a stone, an altar, 
 water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of 
 as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed 
 as individuals, capable of being roused from sleep. The 
 ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the 
 blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speakers ; and destruc- 
 tion and death, as saying that they had heard with their 
 ears. In the language of Holy Writ, the sun rejoiceth and 
 knoweth his going down ; the deep lifts up his hands, and 
 utters his voice ; the mountains skip like rams, the little 
 hills like lambs ; wisdom and understanding cry aloud, and 
 put forth their voice ; the heart and the flesh of the prophet 
 cry out for the living God. The Scripture is a seer and 
 preacher ; the word of Jesus is a judge ; nature, the heav- 
 ens, the earth, are teachers. God's testimonies are coun- 
 sellors, his rod and staff are comforters ; the light and the 
 truth, and the commandments of God, are leaders or guides. 
 Sin is described as a master, and death as a king and an 
 enemy. Flesh and the mind are treated of as having a 
 will ; fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word 
 and commandments of God, are exhibited as messengers. 
 Charity is represented as in possession of all the graces and 
 virtues of the Christian character." * 
 
 Such is the usage of Scripture. It is so common that I 
 may almost call it universal. Some of the instances to 
 which I have now referred are also much stronger as per- 
 sonifications than that in which the Holy Spirit is personified 
 
 * Wilson's Illufctrations. 
 
THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 37 
 
 as tlie Cjmforter. For instance, if you will read the thir- 
 teenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, you 
 will find that charity is spoken of as a living person, who 
 ** suffereth long and is kind, who envieth not, who seeketh 
 not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, re- 
 joiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all 
 things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all 
 things." I refer you also particularly to the ninth chapter 
 of the book of Proverbs. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that personification is a very com- 
 mon figure of speech in the Scripture, and we are perfectly 
 justified in this mode of interpreting those passages in which 
 the influences of the Holy Spirit are called a Comforter. 
 We can fully account for the language, without the neces- 
 sity of supposing literal personality ; and we are confirmed 
 m this view, because we find that the Apostles regarded the 
 " shedding abroad " of the divine influences at the day of 
 Pentecost as a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. (Acta 
 ii. 33.) These influences were to them " the Comforter,'* 
 which brought all things to their remembrance, and quali' 
 fied them to be the ministers of Christ. 
 
 It may perhaps still further confirm us in this view of 
 the language, that, even if we should admit that the Com- 
 forter is a literal person, he is evidently not upon an equal- 
 ity with the Father or the Son ; for he is given by the Fa- 
 ther, he is sent by the Son, he is to speak only what he shall 
 hear, he shall receive of Christ whatever he teaches ; all of 
 which expressions imply inferiority. And accordingly it is 
 a fact in the history of the Church, that, for two hundred 
 years after the personality of the Spirit was taught, his in- 
 feriority to the Father and to the Son was universally ad- 
 mitted. 
 
 We feel justified, therefore, in rejecting the doctrine of 
 4 
 
38 
 
 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 the personality of the Holy Spirit as a third Person in the 
 Godhead. The Scriptures do not teach it, but just the con- 
 trary. We reject it as a human device, by which great 
 confusion is introduced into our ideas concerning God, and 
 which is of no practical utility. Let me again say, how- 
 ever, that we do not reject the true and Scriptural idea of 
 the Holy Spirit. We believe in the reality and necessity of 
 a Divine Influence in the soul, and upon it we place our 
 chief dependence. Our prayer is, that the Spirit of God 
 may guide us aright, so that our present seeking after the 
 truth as it is in Jesus may be blessed to our eternal salva- 
 tion. 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 HE SAITH UNTO THBM, BUT WHOM SAT TE THAT I AM ? AND SI- 
 MON PETER ANSWERED AND SAID, THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE gOM 
 
 OF THE LIVING GOD." — Matthew xvi. 16. 
 
 These words distinctly explain the subject before us this 
 evening. The question asked is exactly that which we 
 now ask, — Whom do the Scriptures say that Jesus Christ 
 is ? And the answer given is exactly the same which we, 
 as Unitarian believers, would give. We take the words 
 in their fullest meaning, and adopt them as the confession 
 of our faith. " He is the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
 In these words, not only the statement of our belief is 
 contained, but also the argument on which it rests. The 
 word " Christ " means anointed. It is in Greek, the same 
 with " Messiah " in Hebrew, and implies that Jesus was 
 anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power, to 
 become a prince and a saviour, a prophet and a judge. It 
 implies, therefore, very high distinction, but at the same 
 time a distinction conferred by one higher than himself. 
 
 He is also " the Son of God " ; a phrase elsewhere oe- 
 Btowed upon prophets and righteous men, but here used with 
 peculiar solemnity, — "the Son of the living God," — and 
 with peculiar meaning ; the same as when he is called 
 
40 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 " the beloved Son," or " the only begotten Son of his Fa- 
 ther." Such words, I think, announce peculiar exaltation, 
 — peculiar nearness to God. I doubt if we can at present 
 understand their full meaning. To me, when taken in 
 connection with other expressions used by our Saviour con- 
 cerning himself, they convey an idea of mystery, of union 
 with God inexplicably close ; a mystery into which we can 
 but imperfectly penetrate, because it is but imperfectly re- 
 vealed. But at the same time, while the expression con- 
 veys the idea of an unknown exaltation, it distinctly im- 
 plies derivation and dependence. If words mean any 
 thing, — if we are to use them according to their intelligi- 
 ble meaning, — the Son owes his existence to the Father, 
 and cannot therefore be self-existent. The very idea of 
 sonship is of derivation, and is therefore inconsistent with 
 the doctrine both of identity and of equality. If words 
 mean any thing, he who is the Son of the living or su- 
 preme God cannot be himself the supreme God, but must 
 be derived from him, and dependent on him. 
 
 In the statement now given, I have expressed my whole 
 belief concerning Christ. In the words of Peter, I say, 
 " He is the Christ, the Son of the living God." With that 
 confession of faith Jesus was satisfied ; for he said, " Bless- 
 ed art thou, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood hath 
 not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heav- 
 en." It is, then, not only the opinion of the Apostles, con- 
 firmed by Christ, but it is also the direct inspiration of the 
 Father in heaven. We have reason, therefore, to be satis- 
 fied with it. We adopt it, word for word, as the confes- 
 sion of faith in this church, and are willing to receive no 
 other. It constitutes us Unitarians. My task this evening 
 is to show its meaning more fully, and to prove that it is 
 taught, not only in the words cf the text, hut everywhere 
 else in the Bible. 
 
OUR LOUD JESUS CHRIST. 41 
 
 First of all, you will observe, and I call your attention 
 particularly to it, that those who accuse us of believing 
 that Christ is a mere man, are in error. They are preju- 
 diced or misinformed. If by a mere man they mean one 
 like ourselves, or like the prophets of the olden time, Mo- 
 ses, or Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or John the Baptist, the charge 
 is entirely untrue. I know of no Unitarians who hold such 
 a belief. There may be individuals who receive it, as 
 there are individuals in the Presbyterian Church who be- 
 lieve in infant damnation ; but I hope they are few in both 
 cases. You will also find, among nominal Unitarians, 
 some who have almost no faith at all ; who hold to Jesus 
 only as they might hold to'Socrates. I pass no sentence 
 upon them, for it is not our part to sit in judgment or to 
 pronounce anathemas ; but I do say, that they are not to be 
 taken as the exponents of the Unitarian faith. I feel satis- 
 fied, from observation which has been very extended, that 
 there is no denomination in which Christ is more heartily 
 received than in our own. A vulgar prejudice has been 
 sometimes excited against us, by calling Unitarianism the 
 half-way house to infidelity ; but I believe that it has been 
 the means of saving more persons from infidelity than any 
 other form of belief. It addresses itself to thinking men 
 and encourages them to think independently, but it does 
 not make shipwreck of faith. It receives Christ as the di- 
 vine master and guide, but at the same time proves his 
 doctrines to be consistent with enlightened reason. 
 
 Unitarians, as a body of believers, everywhere, agree in 
 the belief that Christ is the special messenger of God ; 
 that his mission was divine ; that his character was sinless ; 
 that his authority was so directly from God, that whatever 
 he taught is the teaching of the Father. " For he spake 
 not of himself, but as the Father gave him commandment, 
 4* 
 
42 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 po he taught." He was divine, therefore, in his mission, in 
 his character, and in his authority. This is not the descrip- 
 tion of a mere man. Consider only the distinction of ab- 
 solute freedom from sin, to say nothing of his superhuman 
 wisdom and power ; how completely does that distinction 
 alone place him by himself! What nearness to God does 
 it give him ! We can but imperfectly conceive it. Our 
 own sinfulness is so great, it is so inherent in our nature 
 so inseparable from the development of our thoughts and 
 affections, that we but imperfectly understand its debasing 
 influence. I believe that, if we could this day be absolute* 
 ly freed from sin, we should be lost in amazement at the 
 height to which we would rise, and the comparative degra- 
 dation in which we now stand. To be absolutely freed 
 from sin, is to be indeed the Son of God ; it is the highest 
 moral exaltation ; and when we add thereto such authority 
 and power as belonged to Jesus, we see how very far he is 
 from all our ideas of a mere man. 
 
 Upon one point of considerable importance, Unitarian 
 believers are divided in opinion. Some of them, among 
 whom are included a majority of English Unitarians, be- 
 lieve that the existence of Christ began when he was born 
 at Bethlehem of Judea. They defend this belief by the 
 records of his life, from his infancy to his crucifixion. — 
 That he calls himself a man, and is so called and so treat- 
 ed by his disciples ; and that he was subject to the wants, 
 to the infirmities, the sufferings, and death, which belong to 
 humanity. This class of believers is sometimes calle 1 
 Humanitarian. Although there are many arguments diffi- 
 cult to* answer, by which their belief is sustained, I have 
 never been satisfied with it. I do not now belong, and I 
 never have belonged, to their number. We acknowledge 
 them as brethren, and among them we see many of the 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 43 
 
 most excellent names which adorn the Unitarian calendar ; 
 but I cannot agree with them in opinion. I admit, how- 
 ever, that the most essential point in the Christian faith is, 
 not the time when Christ's existence began, nor the meta- 
 physical elements of his nature, but the degree of his au- 
 thority to speak in the name of God. If the Scriptures 
 say truly, that to him the Spirit was given without meas- 
 ure, and that he has power to give eternal life to whom he 
 will, this alone is enough to make his religion divine, and 
 to enable us to receive him as our Saviour. 
 
 The other part of Unitarians believe that Christ came 
 down from heaven to accomplish his work on earth ; that 
 from his dwelling in the bosom of the Father, he was sent, 
 a willing messenger, to bring glad tidings of great joy, 
 and to accomplish, for our salvation, a work which we 
 could not do for ourselves. To this faith I give my adher- 
 ence, and more strongly, from year to year, as I become 
 more thoroughly acquainted with the Bible. As I have al- 
 ready said, I do not pretend to define it exactly. The na- 
 ture of his being, before he came upon earth, is entirely 
 unknown to us. The degree of his nearness to God, either 
 then or now, we can but imperfectly understand. But 1 
 am unable to interpret his language concerning himself, or 
 the language of his Apostles concerning him, consistently 
 with any other belief. 
 
 When the Jews were objecting to him his youth and the 
 obscurity of his birth, he answered, John viii. 56, '* Your 
 father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw and 
 was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, thou art not fifty 
 years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ? And Jesus said 
 unto them, before Abraham was, I am." In his prayer to 
 the Father, he says, John xvii. 5, " Glorify thou me with 
 thy own self, with the glory which I had with thee before 
 
44 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 the world was." And again, verse 24, " For thou lovedat 
 me before the foundation of the world." At another time, 
 when the Jews objected to his saying that he was the bread 
 which came down from heaven, he said to his disciples, 
 John vi. 61, *' Doth this offend you ? What and if ye shall 
 see the Son of man ascend up where he was before ? " 
 John the Baptist, in speaking of him, said, John i. 30, " Af- 
 ter me Cometh a man which is preferred before me, for he 
 was before me." 
 
 " In this connection let me quote the Saviour's words. 
 * No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down 
 from heaven.' Is it said that coming down from heaven 
 simply implies a divine commission ? Why, then, did not 
 John the Baptist, who certainly had a commission, no less 
 from God than that of Jesus, speak of himself as com- 
 ing down from heaven.? But he in this same chapter 
 (John iii.) expressly speaks of Christ as coming down from 
 heaven in a sense in which he himself did not come from 
 heaven, and of himself as being of the earth in a sense in 
 which Christ was . not of the earth. ' He must increase,' 
 says the Baptist, ' but I must decrease. He that cometh 
 from above is above all. He that cometh from the earth 
 is earthly, and speaketh of the earth. He that cometh 
 from heaven is above all.' " * 
 
 In accordance with this view, it is said of Christ, " He 
 made himself of no reputation " ; which means, literally, 
 he divested himself, as if of what he had previously pos- 
 sessed or enjoyed, "and took upon him the form of a ser 
 vant, and was made in the likeness of men, and being 
 found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself." (Phil. 
 ii. 7.) In another place it is said, " Ye know the grace of 
 
 * Peabody's Lectures. 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 45 
 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for 
 your sakes he became poor, that ye, through his poverty, 
 might become rich " ; by which we understand that Jesus, 
 for man's salvation, passed from a richer to a poorer, from 
 a more lofty to a more humble condition. 
 
 It is true that Christ is called a man ; but properly con- 
 sidered, this is no objection to the view now offered. The 
 essential idea of humanity is not derived from weakness 
 and sin, but from that mysterious connection of the soul 
 and body, — the immortal spirit with the corruptible flesh, 
 — by which the soul is made subject to earthly influence. 
 Our spiritual nature is probably the same, in its elements, 
 with that of the most exalted archangel. The highest cre- 
 ated spirit, therefore, if clothed in human form and subject- 
 ed to human sympathies and temptations, would become, 
 properly speaking, a man. Consider the distance between 
 different members of the human family, as at present con- 
 stituted. Take Newton, with his mind reaching up to the 
 heights of heaven, and place him by the side of one of 
 those thousands of his own countrymen, whose thoughts 
 have scarcely a larger range than that of a brute ; see how 
 wide a field is covered by that word, man ! For these two 
 are brothers, of the same family, of the same descent. 
 And so, as Jesus is called " the Son of God," and we also 
 are honored by the same name, — as he is called the " first- 
 bom of every creature," with reference to that spiritual 
 family of which we are the younger children, — I believe 
 that we may claim kindred with him. Coming from the 
 bosom of the Father, to make known the Father's love, he 
 took our nature upon him. He became a man. The 
 attributes of humanity belonged to him. Suffering as we 
 Buffer, tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, " he 
 gave us a perfect example in the performance of those 
 
46 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 duties which are incumbent on all createcJ spirits, and 
 which are the sane to all, namely, love and obedience to 
 the great father-spirit, love and charity to all fellow-spirits." 
 He was a man, more perfectly than any other. In him hu 
 manity was glorified ; the ideal, which is proposed to us all 
 was perfected in him. The weakness of the flesh was net 
 only brought into subjection to the spirit, but the spirit was 
 made stronger through the victory, as it is written, Christ 
 " was made perfect through suffering." All human pas- 
 sions, all desires, all purposes, were thus made pure and 
 heavenly ; and thus it is that through his humiliation " God 
 has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every 
 name." 
 
 It will be seen, therefore, that those passages of the Bible 
 which speak of the great exaltation of Jesus cannot be 
 brought against us, as Unitarians, unless they distinctly im- 
 ply his equality with the Father. This needs to be care- 
 fully remarked. Trinitarians are apt to think that every 
 text which speaks of Christ's great power, and wisdom, 
 and authority, or of his exaltation at the right hand of God, 
 militates against our doctrine ; but it is not so. He is to us, 
 also, the Son of the living God, the image of the Father, 
 through whom, both in his person and in his life and in his 
 words, as much is made known of the Infinite God as it is 
 possible for us to know in our present state. There is but 
 one way to overthrow the Unitarian doctrine. It is to prove, 
 not that Christ is " a Prince and a Saviour by the right hand 
 of God highly exalted," but that he is the Infinite God him- 
 self, by whom that exaltation was given. It is not to prove 
 that the Father made himself manifest through the Son, as 
 it is written, " the word was made flesh," that is, " the 
 divine wisdom and power were manifested in a human 
 form," but it is to prove that the Father, who is the being 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 47 
 
 manifested, is the same with the Son, wlio was the medium 
 of the manifestation. The question between us and Trin- 
 itarians is simply this : Did the Saviour, when he said, 
 " My Father is greater than I," mean what he seemed to 
 say, and what he was understood by those who heard him 
 to say, or did he mean that, while there was an apparent 
 inferiority, he was in fact equal with the Father, possessed 
 of the same attributes, being himself the absolute and Su- 
 preme God.? 
 
 Here is the true point of the controversy. I think that 
 it settles itself. I scarcely know how to bring any argu- 
 ments to make it plainer. I am almost afraid that in mul- 
 tiplying words, in so plain a case, I may darken counsel, 
 but must try. I shall show you, first, that Christ himself 
 distinctly denies the possession of divine attributes ; sec- 
 ondly, that the Apostles, when they speak of him in the 
 highest terms of exaltation, and therefore of his highest 
 nature, uniformly declare his entire dependence on God, 
 the Father. 
 
 The leading attributes of Deity are Self-existence, Om 
 nipotence. Omniscience, and Infinite Goodness. If we can 
 prove by the words of Christ himself that he denies the 
 possession of one and all of these, I think our case is made 
 out. His distinct denial of any one of these attributes 
 would be enough ; but, in fact, he denies them all. 
 
 1. Of Self-existence. This attribute implies absolute 
 independence ; an existence to which no other being is 
 necessary ; self-derived and self-sustained. But Christ de- 
 clares a hundred times that he came not of himself, but 
 that the Father sent him ; see John viii. 42, " Neither came 
 I of myself, but he sent me." He declared that he was 
 indebted to the Father for the support of his existence ; 
 John vi. 57, " As the living Father hath sent me, and 1 
 
 / 
 
48 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 live hy the Father " ; and again, John v. 26, "As the Fa 
 ther hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to 
 have life in himself. I can of mine own self do nothing* 
 as I hear I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek 
 not mine own will, but the will of the Father who sent me." 
 He says also, John x. 18, " No man taketh my life from 
 me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power [the literal 
 meaning is author ityl to lay it down, and I have authority 
 to take it again ; this commandment have I received of my 
 Father." Which also agrees with 2 Cor. xiii. 4, " Though 
 he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the 
 power of God." Here is a distinct and full denial of 
 underived and indep«s.^dent existence Upon the authority 
 of Christ himself, therefore, we say that he was not the 
 Self-existent God. 
 
 2. Omnipotence. Jesus distinctly and repeatedly de- 
 clares that he is not in possession of this attribute. He 
 uniformly speaks of his power as being given by the 
 Father and exercised under his direction. But the idea of 
 omnipotence is inconsistent with that of derived power 
 and delegated authority. Omnipotence cannot be given by 
 one to another. In such a case he who gives must be 
 greater than he who receives. Therefore, when the Sav- 
 iour says, Matt, xxviii. 18, " All power is given to me by 
 the Father," the word given necessarily limits the word 
 all. The text is sometimes quoted to prove Christ's om- 
 nipotence, but we think it proves just the contrary. Agam 
 he says, John v. 19, " The Son can do nothing of him- 
 self" ; and again, verse 30, "I can of mine own self do 
 nothing." And still more pointedly, when he was asked 
 for a certain distinction by James and John, he answered 
 Matt. XX. 23, " To sit on my right hand and on my left is 
 not mine to give ; but it shall be given to them for whom it 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 49 
 
 is prepared of my Father." In his last conversation with 
 his disciples he says, " If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, 
 because I said, I go unto the Father ; for my Father is 
 greater than I." (John xiv. 28.) These declarations are 
 distinct and unqualified. We are therefore ready to re- 
 ceive Christ in the highest exaltation which the Scripture 
 accords to him. But we feel at the same time compelled 
 to believe his own words. These are the best authority. 
 They do not teach us that he is Almighty, but that he is 
 dependent in all things upon the Father. 
 
 3. Omniscience. This is the attribute by which he who 
 possesses it knows all things. An omniscient being needs 
 not to be instructed. Thus it is written of the Almighty, 
 Isaiah xl. 13, " Who hath directed the spirit of the Lord, 
 or, being his counsellor, hath taught him .'' With whom 
 took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him 
 in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge ? " 
 Compare those words with the words of the Saviour, John 
 vii. 16, " My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me " ; 
 and xiv. 24, " The word which ye hear is not mine, but the 
 Father's who sent me." And again, viii. 28, " As my 
 Father hath taught me, I speak these things." And even 
 more strongly, xii. 49, " I have not spoken of myself, but 
 the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, 
 what I should say and what I should speak. Whatsoever I 
 speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so 1 
 speak " All this is an expression of imparted knowledge, 
 which, however great it may be, must always be less than 
 omniscience. And accordingly we find, Matthew xxiv. 36, 
 and Mark xiii. 32, when asked concerning a future event, 
 Jesus answered, " Of that day and that hour knoweth no 
 man ; no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but 
 the Father." In Matthew it says, " but my Father onJy. ' 
 5 
 
50 OITR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 We cannot escape from these words if we would. V e 
 place implicit reliance upon whatever Christ taught. We 
 believe that God spake through him ; and upon his own 
 authority we say, that omniscience is the attribute of the 
 Father only. 
 
 4. Infinite Goodness. We believe that Christ was per- 
 fectly free from sin, that he went about doing good, and 
 finished the work which God gave him to do. In this sense 
 therefore, he was perfect ; but there is a sense in which 
 none but an Infinite being is good, and in this sense Christ 
 denied it of himself, Mark x. 18. When some one called 
 him " Good Master," he answered, " Why callest thou me 
 good ? there is none good but one, that is God." The 
 same words are found in the parallel passages in Matthew 
 and Luke. 
 
 What are we to say of these plain denials by the Saviour 
 himself, not of one only, but of all these attributes ? We 
 have his own words to prove that he is neither Self-exist- 
 ent, Omniscient, All-wise, nor Infinitely Good. On what 
 ground can we set aside his testimony ? We shall be told, 
 perhaps, that all this is spoken only of his human nature ; 
 that he denied these attributes as a man, although he was 
 conscious of possessing them as God. 
 
 We find no fault with those who are satisfied with this 
 answer, but it does not satisfy us. It does not seem to us 
 the fair interpretation of plain language. For, first, we 
 find no passage in the Bible, and there is none, in whrch it 
 is taught that our Saviour had two natures, one human and 
 one divine ; but he is always spoken of as a single being, 
 " the Christ, the Son of the living God." And secondly 
 we think that when he spoke of himself without qualifica- 
 tion, using *he personal pronouns, /, and myself, and me, 
 he must have used them in their common meaning, and ha 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. ' 51 
 
 was certainly, at the time, so understood. If he had in- 
 tended to have been understood differently, he would have 
 given some indication of it. As he gave none, we take 
 his words in their plain and obvious meaning. Just as you 
 would understand me, if I were to say, " I do not know 
 such a thing," or " I cannot do such a thing," witnout 
 qualifying the words, so do we understand him. We dare 
 not understand him otherwise. For would it be right for 
 me to say, " I do not know such a thing," if I really know 
 it .? and defend myself by saying, that my body does not 
 know it, but my mind does ? or that I know it as a clergy- 
 man, but not as a citizen ? Such would not be a fair use 
 of language ; and if the Scripture were to be interpreted 
 in such a manner, there is absolutely no doctrine which 
 could not be proved from it. We understand Jesus simply 
 as he spoke, and therefore, while we pray for the time 
 when " at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and 
 every tongue confess him to be the Lord," we remember 
 that this must always be done " to the glory of God the 
 Father." 
 
 The quotation of this verse brings us to the last topic 
 of my present discourse. I am still to prove that the Apos- 
 tles, in those passages where they speak of Christ's highest 
 exaltation, uniformly declare that he is dependent for all 
 upon the Father. For this purpose I shall use only those 
 texts which are commonly considered proofs of his Supreme 
 Divinity. They are therefore undoubtedly applicable to 
 his highest nature, whatever they may be ; and if, when so 
 spoken of, his dependence on God is alleged, our argument 
 will be conclusive. For, as I have already said, we do not 
 pretend to define the degree of exaltation which belongs to 
 Christ. We remain Unitarians so long as we believe that 
 the Father alone is the Supreme God. 
 
62 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 1. There is probably no text oftener quoted against \is, 
 than the first part of tht^ Epistle to the Hebrews, particu- 
 larly the eighth verse : " But unto the Son he saith, Thy 
 thron*?, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of right- 
 eousness is. the sceptre of thy kingdom; thou hast loved 
 righteousness and hated iniquity." The word God is here 
 applied to Christ, and is understood as a proof of his deity. 
 This, however, would be an uncertain proof, for the same 
 word is applied quite frequently in a subordinate sense. It 
 was applied to Moses, who was said to be " a god to Pha- 
 raoh." Exod. vii. 1. Those also were called Gods to 
 whom the word of God came. See John x. 35. We 
 must look, therefore, to the connection to see what its mean- 
 ing is, in this case ; and we read directly after the words 
 quoted, " Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed 
 thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Observe, 
 therefore, which is the point of our argument in this case, 
 that, even when spoken of as God, there is the Supreme 
 God over him, from whom he receives his anointing, and 
 by whom he is raised above his equals. Let me read to 
 you, also, the beginning of that same chapter, that you. may 
 see how plainly the dependence of Christ upon the Father 
 is expressed. 
 
 " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake 
 in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
 last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath ap- 
 pointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the 
 worlds ; who being the brightness of his glory, and the 
 express image of his person, and upholding all things by 
 the word of his power, when he had by himself purged oui 
 sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high 
 being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by 
 inheritance obtained a more exce'lent name than thev 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 53 
 
 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art 
 my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? And again, I will 
 be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son." We 
 admit that words cannot easily express higher exaltation 
 than this. It was the Apostle's intention to speak in the 
 strongest terms which were consistent with truth, and he 
 has done so. In reading them we perceive that the exalta- 
 tion of Christ is greater than we can fully comprehend. 
 But at the same time we perceive, with equal plainness, 
 delegated authority and absolute dependence on the Father. 
 On the one hand, we can have no doubt that his highest 
 nature is here spoken of, for there is no passage in which 
 stronger words are used. On the other hand, we read that 
 he did not speak of himself, but that God spoke by him ; 
 that in all his highest offices he was the agent of God, 
 working only by God's power ; that he obtained a more 
 excellent name than the angels by inheritance, according 
 to the appointment of God ; that there was a time when 
 his existence began, as plainly expressed in these words, 
 " This day have I begotten thee." In the tenth, eleventh, 
 and twelfth verses, which are a quotation from Psalm 
 cii., the Almighty himself is addressed as the source of 
 all power and might ; after which the Apostle returns to 
 his former subject, the dignity of Christ, which he again 
 ascribes to God as the Author and Giver. 
 
 We refer next to the Epistle to the Colossians, the first 
 and second chapters. I cannot quote them at large, but 
 request you to read them carefully for yourselves. You 
 will find the same remarks hold good which have been made 
 on the passage already quoted. You will find language 
 which you cannot reconcile with the doctrine of mere hu- 
 manity ; you will feel amazed, as in the presence of a 
 being highly exalted above every one of us ; but evejyi 
 5* 
 
54 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 where you will find proof of derived authority and depend 
 ent existence. He is " the image of the invisible God,'' 
 and therefore not the invisible God himself. He is " the 
 first-born of every creature," and therefore himself a cre- 
 ated being. The reason and the source of his great exal- 
 tation are distinctly given : " For it pleased the Father that 
 in him all fulness should dwell." 
 
 In both of these passages language is used which seems 
 to imply that Christ is the agent by whom all things were 
 created and upheld. I think that this properly refers to the 
 spiritual world in heaven and on earth, of which he is ap- 
 pointed the head and director ; but time will not allow 
 me to consider this question now. It is altogether unim- 
 portant to our present argument, for it does not afiect the 
 real exaltation of Christ, nor does it alter the fact of his 
 complete dependence on the Father. 
 
 We next refer to Phil, ii, 5, 11 ; in the sixth verse it is 
 said of Jesus Christ, " Who, being in the form of God, 
 thought it not robbery to be equal with God " ; of which 
 Calvin says, " The form of God here signifies majesty ; 
 I acknowledge, indeed, that Paul does not make mention of 
 Christ's divine essence." To be in the form of God means, 
 to be the image or manifestation of God ; which is also 
 the interpretation adopted by Le Clerc and Macknight. The 
 proper meaning of the words, " Thought it not robbery to 
 be equal with God," is that given by Bishop Sherlock, 
 namely, " He was not tenacious of appearing as God ; did 
 not eagerly insist to be equal with God." This is the 
 meaning adopted by Coleridge, Professor Stuart, Luther, 
 Melancthon, Archbishop Tillotson, Paley, and many others 
 of the most eminent Trinitarian writers. But the exact 
 meaning of the words is not important to our present argu- 
 menl. Whatever they mean, their limitatior is found in 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 55 
 
 the ninth and following verses. " Wherefore God hath 
 highly exalted hint, and given him a name which is above 
 every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee shall 
 bow, of those in heaven, and those in earth and those under 
 the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
 
 One of the most important books in the New Testament, 
 in a doctrinal point of view, is the Acts of the Apostles. 
 It contains their first preaching after they had been fully 
 instructed in their work. Whatever they knew of Jesus or 
 believed concerning him will undoubtedly be found there. 
 They were impelled at the same time by strong affection 
 for their master, by a deep sense of their former unfaith- 
 fulness to him, and by the direct command of God, to de- 
 clare the whole truth. Now what is the substance of their 
 preaching ? Read the first ten chapters of that book and 
 determine. I think that you will agree with me that it is a 
 series of Unitarian discourses. There is not an expression, 
 not a single word .hat I cannot use, or that I am not accus- 
 tomed to use as a Unitarian believer. They indeed declare 
 that Christ is a Prince and a Saviour, that he is both Lord 
 and Christ ; but how is it that he obtained this authority ? 
 Let them answer in their own words : " Therefore let all 
 the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made 
 that same Jesus whom ye have crucified both Lord and 
 Christ." Acts ii. 36. " Then Peter and the other Apos- 
 tles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than 
 men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye 
 slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with 
 his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give 
 repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Acts v. 29. 
 This: is the utmost of their preaching ; further than this 
 Uiey never go ; and thus far we as Unitarians go with them 
 
5B OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 These Scriptures all of them speak of Christ in his high 
 est nature. You hear them quoted every day to prove hia 
 absolute deity. Yet you perceive that all of them, by 
 showing his dependence on God the Father, prove the exac* 
 contrary, and teach that though so highly exalted, even 
 above our perfect comprehension, he is not the Supreme 
 God nor equal to God the Father. In further explanation 
 of this view I will quote the following passage from the 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians, xv. 24-28; which is a 
 distinct and full declaration of the Unitarian doctrine : — 
 *' Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up 
 the kingdom to God, even the Father, when he shall have 
 put down all rule and all authority and power. For he 
 must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The 
 last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath 
 put all things under his feet. But when he saith. All things 
 are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted who 
 did put all things under him. And when all things shall 
 be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be 
 subject unto him that put all things under him, that God 
 may be all in all." 
 
 I cannot express my faith as a Unitarian in plainer words 
 ihan these. They are a brief statement, in the most un- 
 equivocal terms, of the general, pervading doctrine of the 
 Bible. Such is the testimony of Christ concerning himself, 
 and such the testimony of the Apostles concerning him as 
 their Lord and Master. It is all consistent with the Sav- 
 iour's own prayer to the Father, " That they might know 
 Thee, the Only True God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast 
 sent " ; and with the words of Paul, " To us there is but 
 one God, even the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ." 
 
 There are, however, a few texts which, taken by them 
 selves, are thought to teach a different doctrire. Among 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 57 
 
 thesvi the introduction to the Gospel of John is the most 
 impoitant. I wish to examine them fairly and carefully, 
 and must therefore defer them to another evening. In the 
 mean time, and in conclusion, let me again say that, with 
 the plain words of Christ and his Apostles to guide us, we 
 ought not to be troubled or shaken in our faith by a few 
 comparatively obscure and difficult passages. In so large 
 a subject we ought to expect some remaining difficulties, 
 and we have reason to thank God that the general doctrine 
 of the Bible is so plainly taught, that he who runs may 
 read. 
 
OUR LOED JESUS CHKIST. 
 
 TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY. — Isaiah viii. 20. 
 
 1 HAVE promised this evening to explain the principa. 
 texts in the Bible, which are supposed to militate against 
 the Unitarian doctrine. The task is by no means easy ; 
 not because there is inherent difficulty in any of such texts, 
 or in all of them put together, but because the work, to be 
 thoroughly done, would be very tedious. A single passage, 
 if at all obscure, may require a great many words in its 
 critical exposition. Nor is the hearer always able to decide 
 whether the explanation is satisfactory or not ; he must 
 take a great part of the critical statements upon authority, 
 and he is very apt to be suspicious of unfair dealing, when 
 an interpretation is given to familiar words different from 
 that to which he is accustomed. He is apt to think that the 
 language, instead of being explained, is explained away. 
 For this reason, I am accustomed, in explaining a disputed 
 passage, to give " Orthodox " Trinitarian authority for the 
 explanation which I adopt. It is not because I think that 
 8uch testimony is more respectable than that of our own 
 writers, but because I would put the explanations given 
 beyond the suspicion of unfairness. For if, with reference 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 69 
 
 o any particular text, we can show that eminent scholars 
 in the Trinitarian ranks have given the same explanation, 
 although they have thereby weakened their own argument, 
 it will follow that the words are fairly susceptible of such 
 a meaning. In adopting a Unitarian explanation, upon 
 Trinitarian authority, we need have no fear tiuit the words 
 are distorted, or the meaning perverted, merely to suit our 
 end. 
 
 Now it is a very singular fact, and it is one which greatly 
 confirms me in my Unitarian belief, that there is not a sin- 
 gle text in the Bible with regard to which we cannot bring 
 good Trinitarian authority for its Unitarian meaning ; or in 
 other words, there is not a single text which is not aban- 
 doned by one or more of the most celebrated Trinitarian 
 theologians. I repeat that this gives me great confidence 
 in our interpretations of the Bible. We might otherwise 
 fear that our interpretations were made to suit ourselves, — 
 we might suspect ourselves of unfairness. 
 
 After all, however, the explanation which we adopt of 
 particular disputed passages should be to a great extent 
 determined by the general view which we take of the Scrip- 
 ture doctrine. * When a text is ambiguous, that is, when it 
 may be explained in accordance either with the Trinitarian 
 or Unitarian belief, we should be guided in our choice of 
 the two explanations by the general meaning of the whole 
 Bible, it would not be right to set aside a doctrine which 
 js acknowledged to be that of a whole book, because there 
 ire a few sentences which will bear a different construction. 
 sSefore proceedmg, therefore, to the examination of the texts 
 31 question, let me again remind you of the great strength 
 •f argument by which the Unitarian doctrine concerning 
 \3od and our Lord Jesus Christ has been proved to be the 
 general \ri(i prevailing doctrine of the Bible. Let me re- 
 
60 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 / mind you that the Old Testament not only declares the Unity 
 / , ■ of God, but that the express object of the dispensation undei 
 
 ^ Moses and the Prophets was to establish that doctrine in the 
 world ; that it was taught without any qualification, and re- 
 ceived by the Jews just as we receive it ; that v^hen Christ 
 came, he reaffirmed the doctrine, using the same words 
 which had been spoken from Mount Sinai, without the leas 
 hint that they were to be understood in a different manner 
 but, on the contrary, declaring in so many words, that the 
 Father is the only true God ; that the Apostles took up the 
 same instruction, teaching that the God of Abraham, and of 
 Isaac, and of Jacob, " the God of their fathers," was also 
 the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 I think that it will not be disputed that this is the genera] 
 instruction of the Bible. If we are to modify this instruc- 
 tion, it must be because the texts which we are this evening 
 to examine require it ; but if it can be shown that every 
 one of them can be explained, and has been explained, even 
 by Trinitarians themselves, in accordance with the gener- 
 al doctrine as above stated, we shall be justified, I think, in 
 adopting such explanation, and thereby putting our mmds 
 at rest. 
 
 1. First, we will examine several of those texts in which 
 peculiar names are given to Jesus Christ, of w^hich tho 
 principal are Isa. ix. 6, Jer. xxiii. 5, 6, and Matt. i. 23. 
 
 r In these passages the names " Wonderful, Counsellor, the 
 mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace," 
 " Jehovah our righteousness," and " Immanuel, or God 
 with us," are applied to Christ, and there are no passages 
 more relied upon to prove his supreme divinity. To mi- 
 derstand them, we must have some knowledge of the 
 Scripture usage, in the application of such names to re- 
 markable persons or places. By which we shall learn. 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 61 
 
 that the use of such names proves nothing of the nature of 
 the person to whom they are given, but that they are only 
 descriptive of some circumstances attending his birth, or 
 the offices he is expected to fill. 
 
 Nothing is more common in the Bible than such descrip- 
 tive names as the following. An altar was called by Ja- 
 cob " El-Elohe-Israel," — God, the God of Israel ; another 
 by Moses, " Jehovah-Nissi," — Jehovah, my banner. The 
 place where God provided the ram instead ot Isaac is 
 called '' Jehovah-Jireh," — God will see or provide. In the 
 same manner, the names of many distinguished persons in 
 the Old Testament, if translated into English, have similar 
 meanings, and, without a knowledge of this Hebrew cus- 
 tom, would convey very false ideas. Elias means " my 
 God," and you will remember that when our Saviour, on 
 the cross, cried out, '* Eloi, Eloi," &c., those who stood near 
 thought that he was calling upon Elias. Elijah means, 
 literally, " my God Jehovah," and Zedekiah, " the right- 
 eousness of Jehovah." Gabriel means, literally, " the 
 strength of God," or " the strong God," and it is worthy of 
 remark that the Hebrew words comprising the name are 
 identically the same as those which, in the text before us, 
 are translated " the mighty God," — Gibor Ael. We are 
 accustomed to these names, and, as they are not translated 
 in their ordinary use, we do not think of their literal 
 meaning; but when just such names are applied to Christ, 
 they are translated into English, and insisted upon as a lit- 
 eral proof of his divine nature. Whereas, properly consid- 
 ered, they prove nothing upon the subject either one way or 
 the other. 
 
 We proceed now to a particular examination of the texts 
 in question. Isa. ix. 6 : Of which we remark, first, that 
 the words were originally spoken, not of Christ, but of 
 6 
 
&i OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 King Hezeklah. The distinguished Hugo Grotius, and 
 Samuel White, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, both 
 of them Trinitarians, take this view of it. The words of 
 the latter are as follows: "The government shall be upon 
 his shoulders ; that is, that he, King Hezekiah, shall reign 
 in the throne of David, as the metaphor signifies, and as 
 the prophet more fully explains himself in the following 
 verse ; which cannot be literally true of our Saviour, whose 
 kingdom was not of this world, as David's was ; but in a 
 second and suhlimer sense the expression denotes that power 
 which God devolved on his Son, of governing his spiritual 
 kingdom, the Church." Now we argue, that, whatever the 
 names may indicate, if in their primary application they 
 were given to King Hezekiah, they cannot in their second- 
 ary application to Christ prove his Supreme Divinity. In 
 the phrase " the mighty God," the word translated " God " 
 means, literally, strong. And we may therefore read 
 
 / " Mighty Potentate," if we prefer. The definite article al- 
 so is wanting in the Hebrew, so that it would be, A mighty 
 God or Potentate. This is the interpretation which Martin 
 Luther gave, and he declares that the epithet " belongs not 
 to the person of Christ, but to his work and office." Ro- 
 sen muller, one of the most learned Orthodox commentators, 
 says : " It is evident that ael denotes strong, powerful, 
 and is used in Ezekiel xxxi. 11 of King Nebuchadnezzar, 
 who is called ael Goyim, ' the mighty one of the heathen,' 
 or, if AEL means God, ' the God of the heathen.' " 
 
 The phrase " the everlasting Father " can scarcely be 
 
 ^ applied to Christ in a literal sense, according to the Trini- 
 tarian system ; for this would confound the distinction be- 
 tween the Father and the Son. Accordingly we find that 
 Calvin and Grotius translate the words " the Father of the 
 age," or dispensation. Bishop Lowth, Carlile (m his work 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 03 
 
 " Jesus Chrisi the Great God our Saviour"), and Dr. Adam 
 Clarke translate it, " Father of the everlasting age," and in 
 the same manner a great many other Orthodox writers. 
 Such a rendering we are willing to accept, together with the 
 meaning which Calvin gave to the words, namely, " He 
 who i:i always producing new offspring in the Church." 
 But we prefer the explanation of Dr. Wells, of the Church 
 of Englajid, who says that, when Christ is called the ev- 
 erlasting Father, it means that he is the " author of our 
 eternal salvation, and the Father or head of the world to 
 o*ome, that is, of the Gospel state." I will also add the tes- 
 timony of Luther, who says that the title Everlasting Father 
 denotes not a person, but his work, and that the Hebrew 
 particle translated " everlasting " does not properly signify 
 eternal, but of indefinite continuance. 
 
 We next refer to Jer. xxiii. 6, in which Christ is called 
 " Jehovah our righteousness " ; but it so happens that in 
 chapter xxxiii. 16 of the same prophet, exactly the same 
 name is applied to the city of Jerusalem. " In those days 
 shall Judah be saved and Jerusalem dwell safely, and this 
 is the name wherewith she shall be called, — Jehovah our 
 righteousness." So that we have no difficulty in either 
 case. Le Clerc explains the passage for us as follows : 
 " The Messiah is said to be called Jehovah our righteous- 
 ness to denote that in his days, and by his means, God 
 would, in a remarkable manner, exhibit proofs of his own 
 justice by punishing the wicked and defending the right- 
 eous ; so in chapter xxxiii. 16, Jerusalem is designated by 
 the same title, meaning that God would cause righteousness 
 to flourish in that city, namely, in the Christian Church." 
 
 In Matt. i. 23 it is written, " They shall call his name 
 Immanuel, which, being interpreted, is God wit i us." The 
 words are a quotation of a prophecy from Isa. vii 14, of 
 
 y 
 
64 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 which Professor Stuart, of Andover, says : " Originally and 
 literally it is applicable only to the birth of a child within a 
 period of three years from the time when the prophecy 
 was spoken ; for how could the birth of Jesus, which hap- 
 pened seven hundred and forty-two years afterwards, be a 
 sign to Ahaz that within three years his kingdom was to be 
 freed from his enemies ? Such a child, it would seem, was 
 born at that time ; for in chapter viii. he is twice referred \o, 
 as if then present, or at least then living." That the appi'i- 
 cation of the prophecy to Christ proves nothing concerning 
 his nature, I could bring abundant Trinitarian testimony, 
 but content myself with that of the eminent man just now 
 quoted. In his reply to Dr. Channing, he says : " What 
 you say respecting the argument concerning Christ's divine 
 nature, from the name given him in Matt. i. 23, accords 
 in the main with my views. To maintain that the name 
 Immanuel proves the doctrine in question is a fallacious 
 argument, although many Trinitarians have urged it. Je- 
 rusalem is called Jehovah our righteousness. Is Jerusalem 
 i therefore divine ? " I have been more careful in explain- 
 ing these passages, because the same explanation will ap- 
 ply to other texts, in which similar names are given to Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 2. An argument is drawn for the Supreme Divinity of 
 / Christ, from the fact that similar language is sometimes 
 applied to him and to God. The answer in all such cases 
 is, that in its application to God we understand it in its high- 
 est sense ; but to Christ only in that sense which belongs to 
 him as the Son of God. Thus it it is said, " I am Jehovah, 
 and beside me there is no Saviour." Yet Christ is called 
 / our Saviour. Jehovah is called the Redeemer of Israel, 
 and Christ is also called a Redeemer. Such language gives 
 as no trouble. In the highest sense, all salvation, all help 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 65 
 
 all guidance, and all support come from God. He alone 
 is the author and giver of every good gift, and thus, in the 
 ascription of praise, we say, " To the only wise God, our 
 Saviour." But Jesus Christ is also in a true and real sense 
 our Saviour, our guide, our supporter, our Redeemer. Not 
 by his independent power, indeed, but because. Acts v. 31, 
 " God hath exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince 
 and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness 
 of sins." In the same manner, many things are said to be 
 done by God which are also said to be done by Christ ; as, 
 that God will judge the world, and also that Christ is the 
 judge of all. But this is explained when we are ta+<ght» 
 Acts xxii. 31, " That God will judge the world in righteous- 
 ness by that man whom he hath ordained " ; and so in all 
 other instances of the same sort. Christ acts as the agent, 
 the representative, the messenger of God, but we ascribe 
 the work to him, always remembering, however, that he does 
 not speak of himself. John vii. 16, 18. To the same effect 
 I will quote the following very clear language of Professor 
 Stuart : " Nothing can be more erroneous in most cases, than 
 to draw the conclusion that, because the Scripture asserts 
 some particular thing to have been done by God, therefore 
 he did it immediately, and no instruments were employed 
 by him. In interpreting the principles of human laws, we 
 say, ' He who does any thing by another does it himself.' ^ 
 Does not common- sense approve of this, as applied to the 
 language of the Scripture .'* Nothing can be more evident 
 than that the sacred writers have expressed themselves in a 
 manner which recognizes this principle." 
 
 On the same principle we explain those passages which 
 teach us to " honor the Son as we honor the Father," and 
 that " he who denieth the Son denieth the Father also." '•'' 
 For in all such cases the ambassador and the king, the 
 6* 
 
66 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 principai and the agent, God and his Christ, are one ; and 
 accordingly Christ himself said, " He that receiveth you re- 
 ceiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that 
 sent me." 
 
 In further application of the same principle, it is said in 
 Isaiah and Malachi, " The voice of him that crieth in the 
 wilderness. Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths 
 straight " ; and again, " Behold I send my messenger be- 
 fore my face " ; which words in Matt. iii. 3 are applied to 
 the coming of John the Baptist to prepare the way for Jesus 
 Christ ; for the coming of Christ as the messenger of God 
 was the coming of God himself to bestow the blessings of 
 a new revelation. If you will keep this rule of interpreta- 
 tion in your mind, namely, that the same language will 
 
 / often be applied directly to the principal and also to the 
 agent, because whatever the agent does the principal may 
 be said to do, it will remove much of the obscurity of the 
 sacred writings. 
 
 3. There are a number of instances in the New Testa- 
 A ment in which Christ is said to have been worshipped, either 
 
 f by his disciples or other persons. For instance. Matt. 
 xxviii. 9, when, after his resurrection, his disciples " came 
 and held him by the feet and worshipped him " ; and verse 
 17, " When they saw him they worshipped him." Upon this 
 passage Dr. Adam Clarke, the great Methodist commenta* 
 tor, remarks as follows : " This kind of reverence is in dailj 
 use among the Hindoos , when a disciple meets a public 
 guide in the streets, he prostrates himself before him, and, 
 taking the dust from his teacher's feet, rubs it on his fore- 
 head, breast," &c. And Dr. J. P. Smith, an equally good 
 authority, says : " The prostrate position, which denoted the 
 ^ highest reverence and respect, is manifestly described, but 
 the expression does not necessarily import more than the 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 67 
 
 most exalted kind of civil homage." In fad, the word 
 * worshipped " is very frequently used to signify respect 
 and homage, and so it is used in application to temporal 
 rulers ; see Matt, xviii. 26, in the parable of the creditor 
 who took his servant by the throat, saying. Pay me thai 
 thou owest. " The servant therefore fell down and wor- 
 siiipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me and I will 
 pay thee all." Also see Luke xiv. 10 : " Then shalt thou 
 have worship in the presence of those who sit at meat with 
 thee." We must, therefore, in all cases determine by the 
 circumstances the nature of the worship given ; but with 
 regard to the highest or religious worship, we have the com- 
 mand of Jesus himself, '* Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
 God and him only shalt thou serve." ]\Iatt. iv. 10. I will 
 remark that the word here translated serve^ whenever it 
 occurs, means religious worship such as we give to God 
 only, and there is no case of its application to Jesus Christ. 
 There are two texts in which it is supposed that direct 
 prayer is offered to Christ. The first is Acts vii. 59, at 
 the martyrdom of Stephen : " And they stoned Stephen, 
 calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my 
 spirit ! " By turning to your Bibles, you will see that the 
 word God is printed in italics, from which we know that it 
 is not in the original, but supplied by the translators. We 
 may read, therefore, calling upon Christy or simply " calling 
 out." Now we are to remember that Stephen is repre- 
 sented as seeing Jesus at the right hand of God, and his 
 exclamation was like an appeal made to one who was 
 present. But apart from this, there is nothing in the words 
 of Stephen which every believer in Christ may not adopt 
 in his dying hour. Our brightest hope of heaven is to be 
 with him, and the natural aspiration of our hearts will be, 
 when the time of our departure comes, that he may receive 
 
 i^ 
 
i 
 
 Ci8 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 US into his fold and acknowledge us as his brethren. No one 
 is more heartily Unitarian than I am, but I think that such 
 words would come to my lips as the natural prompting of 
 my heart. So have I often heard the dying Christian, with 
 heaven already opening to his eyes, whisper the name of 
 parent or child, or some dear friend long since departed, 
 as if communion with the dead were already begun. 
 How much more may we thus speak the name of Jesus, 
 with whom the spiritual bond is closest of all, whose inter- 
 cession with the Father is for us, and who hath gone before 
 to the blessed mansions, to prepare a place for us, that 
 where he is we may be also ! It was only yesterday that I 
 stood by the bedside of a dying friend, who, wearied with 
 her long-continued suffering, exclaimed, " O, how I long to 
 go home ! O that Jesus would take me to himself! " Yet 
 her belief is £is decidedly Unitarian as my own. 
 
 Another instance of what is thought to be direct prayer 
 ^ to Jesus Christ is found 2 Cor. xii. 8 : " For this thing I be- 
 sought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me ; and 
 he said unto me. My grace is sufficient for thee, for my 
 strength is made perfect in weakness ; most gladly there- 
 fore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of 
 Christ may r.. st upon me." Dr. Hammond of the English 
 Church interprets this as a prayer to God. But I think that 
 the connection shows it to have been Christ whom Paul 
 1/ addressed. It is not, however, what we commonly call 
 prayer, but a personal request to his master. For he has 
 been giving us an account of Christ's appearing to him in 
 a vision, by a special revelation, and in that vision, witb 
 Christ present before him, he makes the petition here 
 recorded. It cannot therefore be considered as an author* 
 ity for prayer to Christ, under ordinary circumstances. Our 
 proper and only sufficient authority upon this subject is in 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 69 
 
 the words of Jesus Christ himself, who says, speaking ot 
 the time when he should no longer be on earth, John xvi. 
 23, *' In that day ye shall ask me nothing ; verily, verily, I 
 say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my 
 name, he will give it you ; hitherto have ye asked nothing 
 in my name ; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may 
 be full." 
 
 This is the Christian doctrine of prayer. We pray to 
 God the Father only, but we pray through Jesus Christ, or 
 in his name ; that is, as his followers and disciples, who be- 
 lieve in his words, who trust in his promises, who receive 
 the benefit of his life, his suffering, and death, who look to 
 him as our advocate with the Father, and who receive 
 through him, as the mediator between God and us and as 
 the living head of his Church, the spiritual blessings which 
 are needed to sustain our- souls : further than this the Scrip- 
 tures do not authorize us to go. 
 
 The frequent ascriptions of praise and honor to Christ 
 give us no trouble. To him, in fact, under God, we owe all / 
 our spiritual blessings ; and so long as we keep it distinctly 
 in mind, that all should be done to the glory of God the 
 Father, the ultimate source of all blessing, we may proper- 
 ly ascribe " blessing and honor and glory and power," not 
 only ' to Him who sitteth upon the throne, but to the Lamb 
 for ever." Rev. v. 13. You will observe in the words just 
 quoted, and almost everywhere else in the book of Reve- 
 lation, how clearly the distinction is kept up between God ' 
 and Christ ; between him who sits upon the throne, and the 
 Lamb. Read the whole of the fifth chapter and it will ap- 
 pear still more plainly. There is no book of the New Tes- " 
 tament which offers so great difficulties in its interpretation 
 as that to which I now refer. It is written in the highest 
 strain of poetry and prophetic imagery, and no two writerd 
 
70 OTJR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 can be found who agree as to its exact meaning. I think, 
 therefore, that it ought not to be used as a principal author- 
 ity upon disputed points of doctrine. 
 
 If it is true (which we consider by no means certain) 
 that it is Jesus who says, Rev. i. 11, "I am Alpha and 
 Omega," its explanation is difficult ; for we can scarcely 
 I understand how such words are applicable to any one but 
 the Almighty. But the difficulty is at once increased and 
 removed, when we find the words used by one who com- 
 manded John not to worship him : " See thou do it not ; 
 for I am thy fellow-servant ; worship God " ; for it was the 
 same person who used these words who said directly after, 
 " I am Alpha and Omega ; the beginning and the end ; the 
 first and the last." Rev. xxii. 8, 13. I can understand 
 such language only by supposing that Jesus and also the 
 angel were speaking in the name of God. In the same 
 manner Moses says, Deut. xxix. 2, 6, '' I have led you 
 
 ) forty years in the wilderness ; that ye may know 
 
 that I am the Lord your God." See also Deut. xi. 13- 15. 
 In both of these passages Moses used language, which, if 
 it had been used by Christ, would be stronger in proving his 
 Deity than any now quoted for that purpose. We should 
 not, therefore, attach so great importance to isolated and 
 obscure texts. I am persuaded that it is better to look to 
 the plainer books of Scripture for our chief instruction. 
 
 4. The strongest support of the Trinitarian doctrine con- 
 cerning Christ, and, as it appears to most readers, the great- 
 est difficulty in the way of Unitarians, is found in the intro- 
 duction to the Gospel of John ; to which I now ask your 
 attention for a few minutes. It is an obscure and difficult 
 passage of Scripture. But its obscurity arises, chiefly, from 
 our failing to consider the object which the Apostle had in 
 view, and the circumstances under which he wrote. Upoo 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 71 
 
 these it chiefly depends what meaning shall be given to the 
 word Logos, and therefore to the whole passage in ques- 
 tion. It is commonly supposed that his object was to de- 
 clare that Jesus Christ was God, the second person of the 
 Trinity. The Logos is taken as another term for Christ, as 
 if the Apostle had said, *' In the beginning was Jesus Christ, 
 and Jesus Christ was with God, and Jesus Christ was God." 
 
 This explanation is thought by those who receive it to 
 remove all difficulty, and to make the whole passage plain. 
 But it is only because they are accustomed to it, and do 
 not perceive the force of the words used. In fact it ex- 
 presses a direct contradiction, which cannot itself be ex- 
 plained, except by saying that the terms used have no dis- 
 tinct or intelligible meaning. When we say that James is 
 with John, we cannot take a plainer way of saying that 
 James and John are two separate beings. To say that 
 James is with John and that James is John, is a contradic- 
 tion in terms. Why does not the same hold true of God 
 and of Christ ? If by the Logos we understand a personal ^ 
 existence distinct from God, we may say that the Logos 
 was with God, but not at the same time that the Logos was - 
 God. To say one is to deny the other. We shall not, 
 therefore, escape the difficulty of the passage by adopting 
 the Trinitarian theory. We may not be quite satisfied with 
 our own explanation, and some parts of it may continue to 
 perplex us, but we cannot receive an explanation which so 
 evidently contradicts itself. 
 
 Secondly, we cannot adopt it, because it also contradicts i 
 the Apostle's repeated assertions concerning Christ, and | 
 his plain statement of the object with which his Gospel was 
 written. There is none of the Gospels which is so full in 
 its declarations that Christ is the son of God, not God him- 
 self, and it is in this Gospel that we fine ecord of Christ's 
 
*J2 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 most distinct denial of the Divine attributes. At its close, 
 the Apostle informs us what his general purpose had been, 
 as follows (John xx. 31): "These are written that ye 
 might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and 
 that, believing, ye might have life through his name." 
 Would he have so stated his. purpose, if his real object had 
 been to prove that Christ was himself the Infinite God, 
 whose Son he declares him to be, and by whom he was 
 anointed ? Let me also remind you of his words, in this 
 same first chapter which is supposed to teach that Christ is 
 God : " No man hath seen God at any time ; the only-be- 
 gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de- 
 clared him." This is the true doctrine, in accordance with 
 which we should explain the introductory sentences now 
 under consideration. 
 
 Let us look, next, at the literal meaning of the Greek word 
 / Logos. There is no word in English which exactly an- 
 swers to it. In Latin, it was sometimes translated ratio, or 
 reason, sometimes verbum, a word, or sermo, a discourse. 
 The connection alone must determine, in each case, which 
 of these meanings should be used. In the present case, if 
 we translate it by ratio, reason, it would mean the Divine 
 Mind or the Wisdom of God. Tertullian, one of the Chris- 
 tian Fathers, whose authority as a learned man is very high, 
 understood it in this way.* The same meaning was adopt- 
 ed by Le Clerc and by Dr. Wall, both of them Trinitarians, 
 and no Greek scholar will deny that such a translation of 
 the word Logos is strictly correct. If we prefer it, there- 
 fore, or if we think that this meaning suits the connection, 
 we are at liberty to adopt it. We have no objection, how- 
 ever, to the translation which is given in the English Bible, 
 
 • Tertullian. advers Praxeam, Cap. 5. 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 73 
 
 if it is rightly considered ; for by the Word of God we can 
 
 understand nothing else but God's power and wisdom, and 
 it is but another expression for the Divine Mind, the Spirit 
 of God, or God himself. So when we read in the book of 
 Psalms, that " by the Word of Jehovah the heavens were 
 made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth," 
 it is only another mode of saying that these things were 
 done by the power and wisdom of God, or by God himself. 
 It is precisely this which the Apostle John asserts in the first 
 verses of his Gospel ; namely, the Word of God, considered 
 as creating and upholding, is only another expression for 
 God himself. 
 
 But why did the Apostle think it necessary to make a for- 
 mal statement of a truth, so plain that it is almost self-evi- 
 dent .'* and how do we account for the peculiar phraseology 
 which he used ? In these questions consists the whole difli- 
 culty of the case, and we can answer them only by refer- 
 ring to the times when the Apostle wrote and the particular 
 doctrines which he intended to combat. 
 
 There is a natural tendency in the human mind to draw 
 a veil between itself and God. Our faculties are so lim- 
 ited, and the idea of an Infinite and Omnipresent Being, 
 who does all things by his own direct power, is so far 
 above our comprehension, that we often use words that 
 imply an intermediate agency, even when we know that 
 they are only a different way of saying the same thing. 
 Thus we speak of Nature, of Providence, of the Laws 
 of God, the Spirit and the Word of God, almost as if 
 they were agents through whom God acts, instead of differ- 
 ent names or expressions for the ever-present God himself. 
 We are not deceived by such terms, and although tl^ey 
 sometimes have the effect of removing God farther from us, 
 7 
 
*74 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 they are undoubtedly an aid to our feebleness. But in 
 ancient times, when the education of the relig ous world 
 was more imperfect, and especially among the Oriental na- 
 tions, where imagination gives so strong a bias to all intel 
 lectual development, such words very often come to be re 
 alities. The Wisdom, Reason, and Understanding of God, 
 his Spirit, his Word, came to be considered as real agencies, 
 and in the progress of time as personal existences, indis- 
 tinctly defined, but real and living. Hence arose serious 
 and fatal errors. Such ideas, incorporated into the Chris- 
 tian system, made it little better than a modified form of 
 polytheism. The God in whom we live and move and 
 have our being, of whom and by whom and through whom 
 are all things, was no longer preached, and an incompre- 
 hensible jargon, of Emanations and ^Eons and the like, was 
 substituted ; a perversion of Gospel truth little better tha;i 
 its rejection. 
 
 What I am now stating is an historical fact. By refer- 
 ring to any good Ecclesiastical History of the first and 
 second centuries, you will learn that a system of phi- 
 losophy, such as I have described, originated with Philo, 
 an Alexandrian Jew, a man of great learning, whose influ- 
 ence spread itself through all the learned world of his age. 
 Many of his disciples became converts to Christianity, 
 and from them arose the sect of the Gnostics, one of the 
 most influential but pestilent heresies of the early Christian 
 Church. They had their origin in Apostolical times, al- 
 though their system was not completely matured until later. 
 Their head-quarters were in the city of Ephesus, where, 
 according to the uniform testimony of antiquity, the Gospel 
 of John was written. It is very difficult to learn exactly 
 what they taught, but it was something like the following : — • 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 75 
 
 ''ITiey maintained that the Supreme God dwelt in the re- 
 mote heavens, surrounded by chosen spirits, ^ons as they 
 tailed them, and gave himself very little concern with 
 what took place upon earth ; that the world was created by 
 K.n inferior and an imperfect being, who was also the au- 
 thor of the Jewish dispensation ; that Christ was sent by the 
 Supreme God to deliver men from the tyranny of this Cre- 
 Ntor, and from the yoke of his law ; that there were also 
 various created spirits, or iEons, sustaining different offices, 
 independently, for the most part, of the Supreme Deity ; the 
 names of some of which iEons were Life, Light, and par- 
 ticularly the Logos, which represented the Divine Reason 
 or Wisdom ; and that the iEon Light became incarnate in 
 John the Baptist. All these spiritual existences were repre- 
 sented as distinct from each other and from the Supreme 
 God." * 
 
 The existence of such a system at the time when John 
 wrote, and among the very people whom he was seeking to 
 convert, or who had been already converted to Christ, 
 would justify us in supposing that the introduction to his 
 Gospel, which is so exactly suited to the purpose, was in 
 fact intended for its overthrow. But the evidence is made 
 complete by the testimony of Irenaeus, a competent and un- 
 impeachable witness. He lived in the early part of the 
 second century, and was a friend and pupil of Polycarp, 
 who was a personal friend of John himself. In his work 
 against heresy, he says that the beloved disciple wrote his 
 Gospel for the express purpose of refuting the false and ab- 
 surd notions which the Gnostics were beginning to spread 
 in Asia Minor. 
 
 * Peabody's Lectures. 
 
76 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 With these historical facts to guide us, we can without 
 difficulty learn the meaning of this famous passage. It 
 teaches that the Logos, the Word or Wisdom of God, which 
 the philosophical Christians thought to be an emanatior 
 from God and a personal existence separate from him, was 
 only another name for God himself. It never had a per- 
 sonal existence separate from God, but from the beginning 
 was with God and was God. (For we may properly say 
 that wisdom is with God and that God is wisdom.) By 
 him, that is, by the Logos of God, or by God himself, — for 
 the grammatical construction admits of either meaning, and 
 both are in fact the same, — by him all things were made. 
 From him Life and Light proceed to enlighten every 
 one who comes into the world. He sent John, not as an 
 ^on called Light, but as a witness of Him who was the 
 true Light. And the Logos, the Wisdom or the Word of 
 God, which is God himself, became flesh; God was made 
 manifest in man, namely, in Jesus Christ, who dwelt among 
 us, and we beheld his glory, as of the only-begotten Son 
 of God, full of grace and truth. 
 
 This is the substance of the Apostle's meaning. It is 
 suited to the purpose he had in view, and it agrees with the 
 doctrine of his whole Gospel. I do not pretend to remove 
 all obscurity from the passage, but I have no doubt that 
 this is, substantially, its correct interpretation. We under- 
 stand it as an assertion of the absolute unity of God, of 
 h.3 direct agency in all things, and of the divine mission 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ. It therefore confirms our belief 
 in Him " who is the only true God, and in Jesus Christ 
 whom he hath sent." 
 
 5. The words contained in John x. 30 are much relied 
 upon to prove the Deity of Christ: "I and my Fathei^ 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 77 
 
 are one." We interpret the words as meaning Lnity in 
 counsel, design, and power, not unity of substance. I 
 have before me not less than twenty Trinitarian au- 
 thorities to confirm this view, from which I select the 
 words of Calvin and of Professor Stuart, because their 
 names are most familiar to you. No one will suspect 
 either of them of leaning to the Unitarian side of the 
 question. 
 
 " In the present case it seems to me that the meaning 
 of ' I and my Father are one' is simply, I and my Father 
 are united in counsel, design, and power. So in John xvii. 
 20, Christ prays that all who shall believe on him ' may be 
 one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee ; so they also 
 may be one in us.' See also Gal. iii. 28, and 1 Cor. iii, 
 8." — Professor Stuart, Answer to Channing. 
 
 6. 1 John V. 20 : " And we know that the Son of God is 
 come, and hath given us an understanding that we may 
 know Him that is true ; and we are in Him that is true, 
 even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and 
 eternal life." The word even you will find in italics, and 
 may therefore omit it and read, " We are in Him that is 
 true, in his Son Jesus Christ." Of which expression Cal- 
 vin says, that " the Apostle intends to express the means 
 of our union with God, as if he had said, that we are in 
 God by Christ." Erasmus, Archbishop Tillotson, Adam 
 Clarke, and others, interpret it in the same way. Dr. 
 Bloomfield even more plainly : " We are in union with the 
 true God by means of his Son Jesus Christ." The words, 
 " this is the true God," may grammatically refer either 
 to Christ, or to " Him that is true." We rbf'er it, of course 
 to God the Father, who is the chief subject of discourse. 
 In which construction we have the authority of Erasmus 
 7* 
 
78 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 Grotius, Rosenmiiller, and others. The language of Grotiiis 
 is as follows : — 
 
 " This is the true God ; namely, he and none else whom 
 Jesus hath declared to be the object of worship. The 
 pronoun oulos^ this, not unfrequently relates to a remote 
 antecedent ; as in Acts vii. 19 ; x. 6. ' And eternal life ' ; 
 this is said by metonymy. The Apostle means that God is 
 the primary and chief author of eternal life. So also 
 Christ is called Life, John xi. 25 ; xiv. 6, because, next to 
 God the Father, he is the cause of eternal life." 
 
 7. Zech. xiii. 7, "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd 
 and against the man that is my fellow, saith Jehovah of 
 hosts." Here it is argued, that Christ is spoken of as the 
 fellow or equal of God. But in fact, the literal meaning 
 of the word translated fellow is " one with me," or near 
 me, and implies no equality at all. As to the meaning of 
 the word, there is no dispute among critics. But as the 
 passage is quoted with a great deal of confidence in many 
 Trinitarian pulpits, it may be worth while to read the re- 
 marks of Calvin upon it. " The word translated fellow 
 means an associate, a neighbor, or a friend, and whoever 
 is joined to us in authority. I have no doubt that by this 
 title God distinguishes his shepherds, because he represent- 
 ed himself by them to his people. The prophet speaks of 
 shepherds as God's associates, on account of their union 
 with him, and because, as St. Paul says, they are fellow 
 workers and laborers together with God." 
 
 8. Much reliance is placed on the exclamation of Thomas 
 John XX. 28, " And Thomas answered and said unto him 
 My Lord and my God." 1 am not sure what explanation 
 of these words is the true one. They were not spoken as 
 a confession of faith, as the words of Peter were, when 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST 7^ 
 
 asked by Christ, " Whom do ye say that I am ? " but they 
 were spoken by the most sceptical of all the Apostles, un- 
 der the influence of the most profound astonishment. But 
 I am quite sure that they are not a declaration that Christ 
 is the Supreme God, for this simple reason : that, even if 
 such a doctrine be true, neither Thomas nor any other of 
 the twelve had any knowledge of it at the time. " It may 
 be justly doubted," says Dr. Bloomfield, Bishop of London, 
 " whether the so lately incredulous, because prejudiced and 
 unenlightened disciple, had then, or at any time before the 
 illumination of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, any complete 
 notion of the divine nature of Jesus as forming part of the 
 Godhead." Indeed, it can be clearly proved, and is ad- 
 mitted by a great many Trinitarian writers, that the Apos- 
 ties had no conception of Christ's deity when Thomas 
 spoke. I therefore adopt the opinion of the celebrated 
 Kuinoel, whose commentary on the Scriptures is a standard 
 work in Orthodox universities, and who says, that, if the 
 words are addressed to Jesus, " Thomas used the word 
 (iod in the sense in which it is applied to kings and judges 
 (who are considered as representatives of Deity) and pre- 
 eminently to the Messiah." 
 
 9. We next refer to Romans ix. 5, " Whose aie thfe 
 fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, 
 who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." The whole 
 argument against us in this passage depends on the punc- 
 tuation. You know that the original manuscripts of the 
 New Testament are without any punctuation. The sen- 
 tences are not divided from each other by any marks, 
 and translators are obliged to punctuate as they think the 
 sense 'equires. Now in this case, if we adopt the punc« 
 tuatior proposed by Griesbach, or that by Rosenmuller 
 
80 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 both of them Trinitarians and eminent in learning, the 
 sense is materially changed. Let the period be placed 
 after the word all^ and it then reads, " Of whom, as con- 
 cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. God be 
 blessed for ever. " Which words are added as a dox- 
 ology by the Apostle, in the way in which, in several 
 instances, he has inserted a doxology in the midst of a 
 paragraph. 
 
 10. In Acts XX. 28, we read, " Feed the Church of God, 
 which he hath purchased with his own blood." The true 
 reading of this passage is the " blood of the Lord " ; but 
 I do not care to insist upon this. The expression is of 
 course to be understood figuratively. No one will contend 
 that it was literally the blood of God. It can mean nothing 
 else than that God purchased the Church with the blood of 
 his own Son Jesus Christ, which, on account of his intimate 
 union with the Father, may be figuratively called God's 
 own blood. This is the meaning which is adopted by the 
 celebrated Baxter, author of the Saints' Rest. 
 
 IL John xiv. 9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the 
 Father, and how sayest thou then. Show us the Father." 
 The meaning of these words is sufficiently explained by 
 the connection in which they stand. If you will read the 
 fourteenth chapter through, they will give you no trouble. 
 Christ made a clear revelation of God, and therefore made 
 known of the Father as much as it is possible for us at 
 present to know. So the words are explained by Dr. 
 William Sherlock : " He that hath seen me hath seen the 
 Father, that is, in plain words, the will of God was fully 
 declared to the world by Christ. Thus God was seen in 
 Christ." It is but another mode of saying that God was 
 vnade manifest in Christ, — which leads me to speak of 
 
OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 81 
 
 another text, 1 Tim. iii. 16, which expresses the same doc- 
 trine : " And without controversy great is the mystery or 
 godliness ; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the 
 spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, received 
 up into glory." It needs no explanation to the Unitarian 
 believer, for that God was manifest in Christ, and that thus 
 the Wisdom of God, or his Word, was made flesh, we 
 strongly maintain. For although " no man hath at any 
 time seen God himself, yet the only-begotten Son hath 
 declared him." The essential difference still remains be- 
 tween God, who is manifested, and Christ, by whom th« 
 manifestation is made. 
 
 We have now examined the most important texts which 
 are supposed to be at variance with the Unitarian belief. 
 If I have omitted any, they are such, I think, as are 
 sufficiently explained by the connection in which they 
 stand. For we again say, the highest terms of exaltation 
 applied to Christ give us no trouble, so long as the con- 
 nection shows that he received his exaltation, " because it 
 pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell." 
 We may be at a loss to define the degree of his au- 
 thority, but one such expression as that proves, beyond 
 all doubt, that his authority was not independent or su- 
 preme. 
 
 As to the greater part of these texts, I feel sure that our 
 explanation is good and sufficient. In a few cases only 
 it remains doubtful whether the Unitarian or Trinitarian 
 explanation is the most natural. But even if there were 
 a great many such cases, the weight of evidence which 
 has been adduced from the general testimony of the Bible 
 is enough to decide us. For my own part, my mind rests 
 
52 OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 npon this subject without any doubt or wavering, for to me 
 the meaning of the Bible seems so plain, that if there 
 were fifty texts which I could not perfectly understand, 
 although 1 should feel the difficulty, they would not shako 
 my faith. 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 
 
 WHOSE ARE THE PATHEB8. — Romans ix. 5. 
 
 My object this evening is to show the argument for the 
 Unitarian doctrine derived from Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 It is a subject to which more importance is attached 
 than it really deserves. For, as we have the Bible in our 
 own hands, we can read the words of Jesus and of his 
 Apostles for ourselves, and these alone are enough to form 
 our faith. They are indeed the only conclusive authority. 
 To Jesus the Holy Spirit was given without measure. 
 Whatever he declared himself to be, therefore, we are 
 bound to believe ; neither more nor less. Show us that 
 he laid claim to be the Infinite and Supreme God, and we 
 will so receive him ; but as we can find no such words 
 from his lips, but, on the contrary, repeated and distinct 
 declarations of his entire dependence on God the Father, 
 we receive this doctrine, and shall hold to it, let those who 
 are called the Christian Fathers teach what they may. We 
 do not, therefore, regard the subject of this evening as 
 essential to our general argument. It becomes important 
 chiefly bo."ause of the stress kid upon it by others. 
 
84 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 By the Roman Catholics, the early traditions of the Chris 
 tian Church and the writings of the Christian Fathers are 
 regarded as the strong bulwarks of their faith. They do 
 not hesitate to admit that the leading doctrines of Christian- 
 ity cannot be proved by the Bible alone. Let me quote 
 some of their language to this effect. "We believe the 
 doctrine of a triune God," says Cardinal Hosius, " be 
 cause we have received it by tradition, though not men- 
 tioned at all in Scripture." — Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap 
 XXVII. 
 
 " Those who bind themselves to Scripture alone, and 
 who do not set up any other rule of law or belief, labor to 
 no purpose, and are conquered by their own weapons, as 
 often as they join battle with such pests [the Unitarians], 
 that conceal and defend themselves likewise with the lan- 
 guage of Scripture alone. And we know from history, 
 that this frequently happened to them in the conferences 
 and disputes into which they entered with the Photinians 
 and the Arians." — Petavius, De Trin. Lib. III. Cap. xi. 9 ; 
 Theol. Dog., Vol. II. p. 301. 
 
 " That the Son is of the same essence as the Father, or 
 consubstantial with him, is not manifest in any part of sa- 
 cred Scripture, either in express words, or by certain and 
 immutable deduction. These and other opinions of the 
 Protestants no one can prove from the sacred writings, 
 the traditionary word of God being laid aside. This re- 
 quest has often been made, but no one has made it good. 
 Scripture itself would, in many places, have seemed to ex- 
 hibit the opposite doctrine, unless the Church had taught us 
 otherwise." — Masenius, Apud Sandium, pp. 9-11. 
 
 To the same purport I might quote many other Roman 
 Catholic authorities. " It is also a remarkable fact, that tho 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 85 
 
 Roman Catholic has often triumphed over his Protestant an- 
 tagonist by demonstrating that the great principle of Prctes- 
 tantism, the right of individuals to interpret Scripture without 
 resting on tradition and the authority of the Church, in- 
 evitably leads to Unitarianism.*' 
 
 Protestant believers in the Trinity will not of course go 
 so far as this, but even among them concessions have 
 been made of almost equal importance. Many of their 
 best writers, as Hooker, Bishop Beveridge, Bishop Small- 
 ridge, and even Carlile (author of the work " Jesus Christ, 
 the great God our Saviour "), and many others, admit that 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is not " directly and explicitly 
 declared, but a doctrine of inference, which ought not to 
 be placed on a footing of equality with a doctrine of direct 
 and explicit revelation." — Carlile, pp. 81, 369. 
 
 I do not know whether to quote the Oxford tracts, which 
 were written by Newman, Pusey, and others before they 
 became Roman Catholics, as Catholic or Protestant author- 
 ities. Newman was certainly a nominal Protestant when 
 he wrote the following words : " The most accurate con- 
 sideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the 
 statement, as a general truth, that the doctrines in question 
 have never been learned merely from Scripture ; surely the 
 sacred volume was never intended, and was not adapted, to 
 teach our creed." (Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century 
 p. 55, quoted in Wiseman's Lectures, p. 93.) You may 
 say, that, although a Protestant, he was on the high-road to 
 Catholicism and should not be quoted as a Protestant au- 
 thority ; but I think that this was one thing that made him 
 a Roman Catholic, namely, that he was not able to prove 
 the doctrines of his Church by the Bible alone ; and there- 
 fore, appealing to the authority of the Church in their de- 
 8 
 
86 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 fento, he came upon Catholic ground, and step by s.ep 
 travelled from Oxford to Rome, almost before he was 
 aware of the inevitable result. For 1 believe it is strictly 
 true, that the doctrines of the Church of England, and ol 
 the " Orthodox " Church generally, upon the subject we 
 are now discussing, cannot be consistently held by those 
 who admit the exclusive authority of the Scriptures, and 
 the right of private judgment. 
 
 In some shape or other the authority of the Church or 
 of tradition, or of the catechism or creed or prayer-book, 
 must be brought in, or the doctrines themselves will soon 
 be abandoned. 
 
 From considerations such as these, great importance is 
 attached to the Christian Fathers. Many persons, who are 
 really in doubt whether the doctrine of the Trinity is taught 
 in the Bible, are held in its belief because they suppose that 
 It has been the doctrine of the Church from the very be- 
 ginning, and therefore must have been taught by the Apos- 
 tles ; and probably the same opinion is a source of diffi- 
 culty to many Unitarians. For if it were true, that that 
 doctrine was taught in the first two or three centuries, as 
 it is taught now, we might have some trouble in account* 
 ing for it. It would have been very strange for such a 
 doctrine to have grown up all at once, if not derived from 
 the Apostles themselves. 
 
 1 shall therefore attempt to show, and think that ) 
 shall succeed in showing, that the departure from the 
 Unitarian or Evangelical faith was very gradual, and 
 that the doctrine of the Trinity as now taught was not 
 established in the Christian Church until the last part ot 
 the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries. This I 
 ehall do, first, by two arguments of a general nature; 
 
ARGUMENT FRCM HISTORY. 87 
 
 and secondly by quotations from the Christian Fathers 
 themseives. 
 
 1. In the early ages of the Church we find mention of 
 two sects, the Ebionites and Nazarenes. They are some- 
 times called '• Judaizing Christians,'' because they adhered, 
 the former strictly, and the latter more loosely, to the 
 Mosaic law. Tlie Ebionites believed that Christ was a 
 mere man, and were always reckoned among the heretics 
 by orthodox believers. The Nazarenes " believed in the 
 miraculous birth of Christ, and that he was in some way 
 united with the Divine nature ; they refused to discard the 
 ceremonies prescribed by Moses, but did not obtrude 
 them upon the Gentile Christians. They, moreover, rejected 
 the additions to the Mosaic ritual made by the doctors of 
 the law and by the Pharisees." This sect was never 
 COUNTED AMONG THE HERETICS in the first three centuries. 
 Mosheim informs us that " Epiphanius, a writer of the 
 fourth century, of no great fidelity or accuracy of judg- 
 ment, was the first who branded them as heretics." * But 
 these Nazarenes were Unitarians, beyond all doubt, — and 
 would they have escaped the brand of heresy, if the ma- 
 jority of believers had been Trinitarians ? 
 
 What I have now said is upon the authority of Mosheim 
 and Neander, both of them Trinitarian writers of high re- 
 pute. My own belief is, that the Nazarenes were the prim- 
 itive Christians, converts from Judaism, who retained a little 
 too much of their Jewish predilections, just as the Apostle 
 Peter did in his early ministry. But in other respects they 
 were primitive Gospel Christians. I think so, partly be« 
 cause they were in such good repute in the Christian world 
 
 • Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., Book I. Cent. 2, Pait 2, Chap 5, ^ 2, note 3 
 
88 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 that even their Judaizing tendencies did not separate them 
 from the orthodox communion, and partly because their 
 name Is that which was given (at first by way of reproach) 
 to all the disciples of Christ, because he was a citizen of 
 Nazareth. Acts xxiv. 5. 
 
 Secondly. We derive a second general proof from 
 Ecclesiastical History in the creeds or confessions of faith 
 used in the first four centuries. By their examination, we 
 shall find there was a gradual departure from the simplicity 
 that is in Christ, and an equal departure from the Unitarian 
 belief. The confession of faith used by the Apostles 
 themselves, as recorded in the book of Acts, was very- 
 brief and simple. " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
 of God." Acts viii. 37. This creed was the rock on 
 which our Saviour assured Peter that he would build his 
 Church. Matt. xvi. 16. It was this which the Apostle 
 Peter taught to the assembled Jews on the day of Pente- 
 cost. Acts ii. 36. The Apostle John wrote his Gospel for 
 the special purpose of inculcating it. John xx, 31. And 
 when Paul was miraculously converted to a knowledge 
 of the truth, the great burden of his preaching was, to 
 convince his hearers of the same. Acts ix. 22. 
 
 When converts were made from among the heathens, 
 another article was necessarily added, expressive of the 
 belief in One God, even the Father. Hence was formed, 
 with some further additions, what is called the Apostles' 
 Creed. It was not written by the Apostles themselves, 
 but it was in general use in the first three centuries, and 
 was regarded as containing the whole apostolical faith. 
 Mow we contend that it is nothing more or less than a 
 Jnitarian creed. We can adopt it, word for word, with 
 mt any explanation : — 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 89 
 
 **I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus 
 Christ, his only Son, our Lord ; who was, by the Holy 
 Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary ; under Pontius Pilate he 
 was crucified and buried ; the third day he rose from the 
 dead ; he ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right 
 hand of the Father ; from thence he shall come to judge 
 the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit ; the 
 holy Church ; the forgiveness of sins ; the resurrection 
 of the body, and life everlasting." 
 
 This is the exact form in which the creed was used in the 
 second, third, and fourth centuries, and it was considered 
 the sufficient rule of faith in the Church until the year 325. 
 I think that it would not have been regarded as sufficient 
 if the Trinitarian belief had generally prevailed. It would 
 not be regarded alone as sufficient in the present day. It 
 would not be considered safe in the Episcopal and Roman 
 Catholic Churches to discard the Nicene and Athanasian 
 Creeds and to retain this as the only confession of faith ; 
 nor in the Presbyterian Church would it be considered safe 
 to adopt it, instead of the Assembly's Catechism. But it 
 satisfies us, as Unitarians, and if we thought it right to use 
 any confession of faiih, other than the New Testament 
 itself, I know of none which we could adopt more heartily 
 than this which is called the Apostles' Creed. 
 
 As corruptions of doctrine prevailed more and more, the 
 Apostles' Creed was found to be insufficient. At the Coun- 
 cil of Nice, A. D. 325, another creed was established. It 
 was adopted against great opposition, although the whole 
 authority of the Emperor Constantino was exerted, and it 
 was more than fifty years before it was firmly established 
 ji the Church ; so reluctantly did the Christian world depart 
 from its first formulas of faith. It is also to be especially 
 8* 
 
90 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 remarked, that the Nicene Creed, as at first adopted, does 
 not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, for it says nothing of 
 the personality of the Holy Spirit. Nor does it teach the 
 absolute equality of Christ with the Father, although it 
 uses unscriptural language, such as a Unitarian cannot 
 adopt. The idea of derivation of the Son from the Father 
 is still retained. He is the Son of God, the begotten of 
 the Father, God of God, — that is, derived from God, not 
 absolutely God in the same sense with the Father. If you 
 will examine the history of the Council of Nice, you will 
 find that this is the meaning then attached to the words.* 
 
 The first creed in which the Trinitarian faith is stated, 
 as now received, is the Athanasian Creed. It was not com- 
 posed by Athanasius, but by some unknown author in the 
 fifth century. It is such a creed as was needed in the 
 Church, after it had completely abandoned the Unitarian 
 faith ; and it is a strong argument in our favor, that no such 
 creed is to be found until the fifth century, a time when 
 corruptions of every sort abounded. You will thus per- 
 ceive how gradually the transition was made, step by step, 
 and " as the first creed is avowedly the one held by Unita- 
 rians, and the last one held by the Trinitarians, the infer- 
 ence is irresistible, that the Church, which was Unitarian in 
 the beginning, gradually became Trinitarian." 
 
 2. Having given these two general arguments, from un- 
 disputed facts in the history of the Church, I now proceed 
 to give several quotations from the early Fathers. Among 
 those of the highest authority, and whose names will be 
 familiar to you, are .Tustin the Martyr, Irenceus, Clemen* 
 of Rome, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius 
 
 See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 91 
 
 These are the most higlily esteemed of the Christian Fa- 
 thers before the Council of Nice, and they all concur in 
 giving Unitarian testimony. 
 
 Clement of Rome, a personal friend of Paul, mentioned 
 in the Epistle to the Philippians, (Phil. iv. 3,) calls Jesus 
 " the sceptre of the majesty of God " ; and we find near 
 the close of his Letter to the Corinthians the following dox- 
 ology, which is such as a Unitarian would have written : — 
 *' Now God, the inspector of all things, the Father of all 
 spirits, and the Lord of all flesh, who has chosen our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, and us by him to be his peculiar people, grant 
 to every soul of man that calleth upon His great and holy 
 name, faith, fear, peace, long- suffering, patience, temper- 
 ance, holiness, and sobriety, unto all well pleasing in his 
 sight, through our high priest and protector Christ Jesus, by 
 whom be glory and majesty and power and honor unto 
 Him now and for ever." Again he says, " Have we not 
 all one God, and one Christ, and one spirit of grace poured 
 upon us all ? " which is exactly the language of the Apos- 
 tle Paul himself, with whom he was contemporary. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who addressed a defence of Christian- 
 ity to Antoninus Pius, about the year 140, was among the 
 first to use that language concerning Christ which after- 
 wards grew into the doctrine of hi? supreme divinity and 
 holds a high rank among the Orthodox Fathers ; he has this 
 language concerning Christ : — " The Father is the author 
 to him, both of his existence and of his being powerful 
 and of his being Lord and God." You will observe that 
 Christ is here called God, but the connection shows that it 
 is in a subordinate sense. In another place he says, 
 " He was subi ordinate to the Father, and a minister to hw 
 will." 
 
92 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 Iren^us, who wrote a large work upon the subject of 
 Heresies, A. D. 172, says : " All the Evangelists have de 
 livered to us the doctrine of one God and one Christ, the 
 Son of God"; invoking .he Father, he calls him "the only 
 (rod," and according to several of the most considerable of 
 the early Christian writers, a common epithet b\ vhich the 
 Father is distinguished from the Son is, that he alone is 
 Autotheos, or God of himself. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus calls the Father alone "with- 
 out beginning," and immediately after characterizes the 
 Son as "the beginning and the first-fruits of things, from 
 whom we must learn the Father of all." He also says, 
 "The Mediator performs the will of the Father; the word 
 is the Mediator, being common to both, the seal of God, 
 and the Saviour of men, God's servant, and our instruc- 
 ror." 
 
 Tertullian expressly says, " That God was not always 
 a Father or a Judge ; since he could not be a Father 
 oefore he had a son, nor a Judge before there was sin, and 
 there was a time, when both sin, and the Son, which made 
 God to be a Judge and a Father, were not.'''' 
 
 Origen, the most learned of the Fathers, wrote about 
 the year 225 ; he says, " The Father only is ' the Good,' 
 and the Saviour, as he is the image of the invisible God, so 
 is he the image of his goodness." Again he says, " If we 
 know what prayer is, we must not pray to any created 
 being, not to Christ himself, but only to God the Father of 
 all, to whom our Saviour himself prayed." " We are not 
 to pray to a brother, who has the same father with our- 
 selves ; Jesus himself saying, that we must pray to the 
 Father, through the Son." Yet this same Origen frequent- 
 ly calls Christ God, although in a subordinate sense, Foi 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORl. 93 
 
 when accused of believing in two Gods, he explained him- 
 self as follows : — " He who is God of himself is The God ; 
 for which reason he says in his prayer to the Father, that 
 they may know Thee the only true God ; but whatever is 
 God besides him, (who is so of himself,) being God only 
 by a communication of his divinity, cannot so properly be 
 called The God, but rather A God," or Divine. 
 
 Such language is very common until the beginning of 
 the fifth century ; and whenever Christ is called God before 
 that time, the word is to be understood in the sense in 
 which Origen used it. Thus Arnobius says, " Christ, a 
 God under the form of a man, speaking by the order of 
 the principal God." Again, " Then at length did God Al 
 mighty, the only God, send Christ." And Lactantius 
 says, " Christ taught that there is one God, and that he 
 alone ought to be worshipped ; neither did he ever call him- 
 self God ; because he would not have been true to his trust, 
 if, being sent to take away Gods and assert One, he had 
 introduced another besides that one. Because he assumed 
 nothing at all to himself, he received the dignity of perpet- 
 ual Priest, the honor of Sovereign King, the power of a 
 Judge, and the name of God." 
 
 I shall quote but one other authority, Eusebius, the 
 father of ecclesiastical histot- who wrote about the year 
 320. He says, " There is <iie God and the only-begotten 
 comes from him." " Christ being neither the Supreme 
 God, nor an angel, is of a middle nature between them ; 
 and being ne'ther the Supreme God nor a man, but a Me- 
 diator, is in the middle between them, the only-begotten 
 Son of God." " Christ the only-begotten Son of God, and 
 the first-born of every creature, teaches us to call his Fa« 
 her the true God, and commands us to worship him only " 
 
 ▼OT.. XXVI — NO. 291. 2 
 
94 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 These quotations are, I think, plain and cone. Ui*«<»- I 
 might multiply them to a great extent, if needful. But 
 these are enough for our present purpose, which is to show 
 that the changes in Christianity were very gradual, from 
 the plain and intelligible doctrine taught by Christ and hia 
 Apostles, to the difficult and unscriptural doctrines of the 
 Athanasian Creed. 
 
 The chief source of these changes or corruptions was 
 the Platonic philosophy. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and 
 nearly all of the early Christian Fathers, were Platnnista 
 before they were Christians. They brought into their new 
 religion as much of their old philosophy as they could. 
 They thus ingrafted many ideas borrowed from Plotinus, 
 Porphyry, Proclus, and other Platonists of that age ; and 
 what was equally bad, they applied Platonic language to 
 the expression of their Christian faith, by which great con- 
 fusion of ideas was introduced. Among the terms thus 
 borrowed was the Greek word Trias, used by the Platonic 
 philosophers to express some subtile distinction in the divine 
 nature usually called the Platonic trinity. It was not a dis- 
 tinction of persons properly so called, nor is it easy to say 
 exactly what it did mean. The word was first introduced 
 into the discussion of the Godhead among Christians by 
 Theophilus of Antioch, in the second century, and was 
 afterwards used by Origen in the third century. It was 
 translated into the Latin by Tertullian, about the year 200, 
 by the word Trinitas, of which the English word Trinity 
 is the exact translation. Many other words in the newly 
 invented phraseology came from the same source, and 
 many peculiar ideas concerning the Logos, or Word of 
 God. I shall not trace them now ; but to show the extent 
 to which " Orthodox " Christians of later times, when the 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 95 
 
 Trinity was becoming established, considered themselves 
 indebted to the Platonic philosophy, I will quote one sen- 
 te ice from the celebrated Augustine. He says, that he 
 *' was in the dark with regard to the Trinity until he found 
 the true doctrine concerning the divine word, in a Latin 
 translation of some Platonic writings, which the Providence 
 of God had thrown in his way." 
 
 I do not suppose that any one will accuse me of inten- 
 tional unfairness, in the representation now made of the 
 Christian Fathers. I have not claimed any one of them as 
 being what we would call a sound Unitarian. The best of 
 them used language and inculcated ideas which came from 
 the Platonic school quite as much as from Christ. All that 
 I contend for is this : that the farther we go back, the near- 
 er we come to the true doctrine which is life eternal, name- 
 ly, " to know the Father, the only true God, and Jesus 
 Christ whom he has sent." There is no proof whatever, 
 that what is now called the doctrine of the Trinity was in 
 existence before the Council of Nice. To this effect I will 
 quote the authority of George Christian Knapp an eminent 
 Trinitarian writer, whose " Lectures on Christian Theolo- 
 gy," as translated by Leonard Woods, Jr., are a standard 
 work with Trinitarian believers. After a full and learnea 
 discussion of the whole subject, he distinctly admits that 
 it is " impossible to prove the agreement of the earliest 
 Christian writers with the common Orthodox doctrine 
 as established in the fourth century." Vol. I. pp. 294, 
 299, &c. 
 
 Again he says, " It is obvious, that the Unity ^ of which 
 these philosophical Fathers speak, is nothing more than 
 unanimity^ agreement, correspondence in feelings, consent 
 in will, in power, and in the application of power to par^ic- 
 
96 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 ilar objects. They do not mean by the use of the word 
 to signify that the Son and Holy Spirit were God, in the 
 full meaning of the word, and in the same sense in which 
 the Father is God. In short, these philosophical Christians 
 asserted rather the divineness of the Son and the Spirit, 
 and their divine origin, than their equal deity with the 
 Father. Thus it is obvious, that they entertained far differ- 
 ent views of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, of whicli 
 they often speak, than we do at the present time." " In- 
 deed, the belief in the subordination of the Son to the 
 Father, for which Arianism was the later name, was com- 
 monly adopted by most of those Fathers of the second and 
 third centuries, who assented in general to the philosophy 
 of Plato. And had not Divine Providence interposed in a 
 special manner, there is reason to think it would have been 
 the established doctrine of the Church." And again, " With 
 regard to the Holy Spirit more particularly, we may remark 
 that, during the three first centuries of the Christian era 
 there was nothing decided by ecclesiastical authority re- 
 specting his nature, the characteristics of his person, or his 
 relation to the Father and the Son. Nor was any thing 
 more definite established at the Council of Nice. To 
 believe in the Holy Spirit was all that was required." — lb, 
 p. 313. 
 
 Such is the fact concerning the Fathers of the first three 
 centuries. The writer just quoted accounts for it, being 
 himself a Trinitarian, by saying that the true doctrine was 
 corrupted by the infusion of the Platonic ideas. But it 
 that true doctrine had been the Trinity, we should find it 
 more distinctly stated the farther we go back in the record ; 
 of which the exact contrary is true. The earliest writera 
 ire the most distinctly Unitarian, a''*d in proportion as the 
 
ARGUMl.NT FROM HISTORY. 97 
 
 Platonic philosophy came in, there was a gradual, but rapid 
 departure from the truth, until, after long and violent strug- 
 gles, the Christian world settled down into the Athanasian 
 Creed. It was undoubtedly by the permission of Divine 
 Providence, but it was through the direct influence of the 
 ci\ il power, and the result of the most terrible persecutions. 
 
 From that time until the sixteenth century, comparative 
 darkness was over the face of the Christian world. But no 
 sooner was the light_ of the Reformation kindled, than the 
 Unitarian doctrine again appeared. Resisted alike by 
 Catholic and Protestant, it was held at the peril of a man's 
 life ; yet many were found to profess it. In Geneva, 
 Michael Servetus was burned to death, at the instigation 
 and by the authority of Calvin, who thereby gave another 
 proof that '' the blood of the martyr is the seed of the 
 Church," for Geneva is now one of the strongholds of th«J 
 Unitarian faith. 
 
 We might name many others, in Germany, in France, 
 and in England, who bore a like testimony ; for from that 
 time to this our faith has never been without its martyrs 
 and faithful confessors. Nor have we any reason to be 
 ashamed of those who have borne our name. They have 
 been comparatively few, for the doctrine has been unpopu- 
 lar and opposed by all the strength of the Christian world. 
 But although until modern times they were few in number, 
 they have been great in intellect, profound in learning, and 
 eminent in piety. John Milton, England's great poet ; Sir 
 Isaac Newton, her greatest philosopher ; John Locke, her 
 profoundest metaphysician; Nathaniel Lardner, author of 
 the most learned work on Christian evidences ever written, — 
 were all of theni close students of the Scripture, and all of 
 them believers in the Divine Unity as we receive it. Even 
 9 
 
98 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 Dr. Isaac Watts, whose hymns are the music of every 
 church, became in the last years of his life a Unitarian. If 
 great names could support a cause, these would do it. We 
 might add to them many others of the living and the dead, 
 equally good. But we do not rely on such arguments. 
 We appeal to the Sacred Scriptures alone, to the glorious 
 company of the Aposdes and to Christ their living head. 
 Yet surely we may be pardoned, when we hear our Church 
 vilified and ourselves excluded from the Christian com- 
 munion, if we remind our opponents that so many of the 
 names of which Christendom is most proud are found in the 
 Unitarian ranks. 
 
 In the present day, we have every reason to be satisfied 
 with the progress of our faith. It is extending itself far 
 more rapidly than most persons are aware ; not only by the 
 growth of Unitarian societies, so called, but by the diffusion 
 of Unitarian ideas everywhere. So far as they are true, 
 we hope that they will continue to prevail more and more. 
 If they are untrue, if they are a perversion of God's word, 
 we hope that they may soon pass away. If we hold error, 
 we do so ignorantly, for we honestly believe that we hold 
 the truth as it is in Jesus. 
 
 I will therefore close this sermon in the words, almost 
 the dying words, of Dr. Watts, in his solemn address to the 
 Deity. As sincere inquirers after Scriptural truth, we may 
 adopt them as our own. 
 • " Dear and blessed God ! hadst thou been pleased, in any 
 ore plain Scripture, to have informed me which of the dif- 
 ferent opinions about the Holy Trinity, among the contend- 
 ing parties of Christians, had been true, thou knowest with 
 how much zeal, satisfaction, and joy, my unbiassed heart 
 would have opened itself to receive and embrace the di- 
 
ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 99 
 
 vine discovery. Hadst thou told me plainly, in any single 
 text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three real 
 distinct persons in thy Divine nature, I had never suffered 
 myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embar- 
 rassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere 
 inventions of men, instead of Divine doctrine ; but I should 
 have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far 
 as It was possible for me to understand them, as the only 
 rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased so to ex- 
 press and include this proposition in the several scattered 
 parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience 
 might with ease find out and with certainty infer this doc- 
 trine, I should have joyfully employed all my reasoning 
 powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found 
 out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul." 
 
 " Thou hast taught me. Holy Father, by thy prophets, 
 that the way of holiness in the times of the Gospel, or un- 
 der the kingdom of the Messiah, shall be a highway, a plain 
 and easy path ; so that the wayfaring man, or the stranger, 
 * though a fool, shall not err therein.' And thou hast called 
 the poor and the ignorant, the mean and the foolish things 
 of this world, to the knowledge of thyself and thy Son, 
 and taught them to receive and partake of the salvation 
 which thou hast provided. But how can such weak crea- 
 tures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a 
 doctrine as this, in the explication and defence whereof 
 multitudes of men, even men of learning and piety, have 
 lost themselves in infinite subtilties of dispute, and endless 
 mazes of darkness .' And can this strange and perplexing 
 notion of three real persons going to make up one true God 
 be so necessary and so important a part of that Christian 
 docti'ine, which, in.the Old Testament and the New, is rep- 
 
100 ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 
 
 resented as so plain and so easy, even to the meanest un- 
 derstandings ? " 
 
 Such were the last thoughts of a pious and learned man, 
 after more than twenty years of examination of the Scrip- 
 tures. They are full of instruction to us, and well calculat- 
 ed to confirm us in our present belief. If such a man as 
 Dr. Watts was forced out of Trinitarianism by prayerful 
 and conscientious study of the Bible, we, as Unitarians, 
 have reason to thank God and take courage. 
 
 i 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 FOS IP, WHEN WE WERE ENEMIES, WB WERE RECOKCILED TO 
 GOD BY THE DEATH OF HIS SON, MUCH MORE, BEING RECONCILED, 
 WE SHALL BE SAVED BT HIS LIFE J AND NOT ONLY SO, BUT WB 
 ALSO JOY IN GOD THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, BY WHOM 
 WB HAVE NOW RECEIVED THE ATONEMENT. — RomanS V. 10, 11. 
 
 The word which is translated reconcile in the tenth 
 verse, is translated atone in the eleventh. Of course, 
 therefore, the meaning is the same. The two words were 
 used by the translators as exactly synonymous, and the 
 word Atonement was printed in the first editions of the 
 English Bible, At-one-ment. It is used in the same man- 
 ner by other writers in the time of James I., so that its 
 meaning is well established, and as this is the only passage 
 in the New Testament where it occurs, we are authorized 
 to say that the doctrine of Atonement and the doctrine of 
 Reconciliation are the same thing. U we so regard it, 
 this is the great doctrine of religion. It is the substance 
 of religion itself. Other truths may be important, but they 
 are so only as they are subsidiary to this. In a practical 
 point of view, they concern us only as they teach us how 
 to be reconciled to God, and help us in becoming so. Or, 
 
 in other words, all religious truth is important in proper* 
 9* 
 
102 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 tion as it shov/s to sinners the way of salvation, and helps 
 them ta walk therein until salvation is attained. 
 
 The necessity of reconciliation rests upon the fact that 
 we are sinners. " God made man upright, and he has 
 sought out many inventions." " For there is not a just 
 man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not." How 
 this came to pass is not here the material question. The 
 fact is undeniable, and from it comes the necessity of the 
 Gospel redemption. If there is any man who has com- 
 mitted no sin, for him the mission of Christ has no personal 
 interest. " God was in Christ reconciling the world to 
 himself," but where there has been no rebellion, there 
 can be no reconciliation. **They that are whole need not 
 a physician, but they that are sick" ; and therefore Chris: 
 said, that " he came not to call the righteous, but sinners, 
 to repentance." It is because we feel ourselves to be 
 sinners, that we come to Christ. We have lost our way 
 and desire to find it. We have rebelled against God and 
 desire to make peace with him. We are alienated from 
 him and desire to be again brought near. Our sins rise 
 up in judgment against us, and we desire that the record 
 of them should be blotted out. Through sin we are at 
 enmity with God, and as his creatures, dependent on his 
 power, as his children, whose only hope of happiness 
 comes from the Father's love, our chief concern, I may say 
 our only concern, is to find the means of reconciliation with 
 him ; to obtain assurance of pardon and acceptance with 
 God, of whose love we have made ourselves so unworthy. 
 
 This is our inquiry to-night. Not an abstract subject 
 of metaphysical research, but the great practical question 
 of religion. How shall the burdened conscience throw ofl 
 its load ? Where shall the despairing heart, self-accused 
 find hope ? Where shall the weary and heavy laden find 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 103 
 
 rest ? Is *t not a question which concerns us all ? May 
 Go'J in his mercy guide us to a right answer ! And that 
 we may be so guided, lei us consiuer it, noi as a disputed 
 subject in theology, but as a practical subject in vital 
 religion. 
 
 How shall the cinner be reconciled with God ? How 
 shall he be justified^ or restored to God's favor ? How 
 shall he obtain forgiveness and remission of sins? We 
 look for an answer, — First, to the laws of God's govern- 
 ment; to that which we call Nature, interpreted by our 
 unenlightened reason. An answer comes, but it is not an 
 answer of peace. It is not forgiveness, but " Pay me 
 that thou owest." " If thou doest well, shalt thou not be 
 accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the 
 door.'''' It is the voice of stern, unpitying exaction. " Ev- 
 erywhere in Nature we read Law, inexorable, unrelenting 
 Law. She governs by laws, which indeed are always 
 adapted to the good of the whole, to the advancement and 
 perfection of the race, but beneath them the individual 
 CDntinually is crushed. Nature never pardons. Her wheels 
 thunder along their iron track, nor turn out to spare any 
 helpless mortal who has fallen beneath them. Ignorance 
 of the law is no excuse. Helplessness is no exemption. 
 There is no appeal to any court of error, but prompt ex- 
 ecution follows judgment. The innocent child, who igno- 
 rantly touches fire, is not the less burned. The man who, 
 in the night, ignorantly walks over a precipice, is not the 
 less destroy 3d. In nature, therefore, we find no word of 
 pardon for those who have broken the law, whatever may 
 be their excuse or sorrow." * If the laws of God's moral 
 government are equally stern and unbending, there is no 
 
 * Doctrine of Forgiveness, by James F. Clarke. 
 
104 THE ATONEMEWT. 
 
 hope for man ; his sins will surely find him out, and 
 sooner or later will work his destruction. 
 
 If we look to our own mpral nature, the same answer 
 comes, equally stern, equally unpitying. Perhaps I may 
 say even more so. The wound upon the physical frame 
 will be healed by the curative power of nature herself, 
 and although a scar is left, the injury may be forgotten. 
 But the wounds of conscience are not healed ; sin once 
 committed can never be forgotten. Or if for a time it be 
 put out of mind by the hurried pursuits of life, it will still 
 rise up again, like the ghost of a murdered friend, to spoil 
 our best enjoyment aad to rebuke us in our proudest im* 
 aginings. Conscience speaks no word of pardon ; it give^ 
 no assurance that God's favor will be restored to those by 
 whom it has been once forfeited. Its rebuke is equally 
 stern for a sin committed years ago as for those of yester- 
 day. The intervening years may have been spent in the 
 sorrow of repentance, or in works of obedience, but con- 
 science remains unappeased. Perhaps the more nearly 
 we come to a righteous life, the more deeply we feel the 
 stings of remorse, for the iniquity of bygone days. 
 
 Such is the natural working of a tender conscience. It 
 cannot find comfort for itself; it cannot blot out the record 
 of its own sins. It looks upward, but it clothes the Almighty 
 in attributes of vengeance ; its own fears read anger in his 
 face ; its own sense of ill-deserving anticipates the sen- 
 tence of condemnation. It drives the sinner to cruel pen- 
 ances, to self-torture and scourging, vainly striving tq 
 expiate the sins of the soul by the sufferings of the body ; 
 and yet, after years of such penance, the poor sutferer, 
 at each renewed remembrance of his sin, will strike the 
 bleeding scourge more deeply into the flesh and cast himself 
 to the ground in renewed and hopeless agony. Histoi'y 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 105 
 
 w\\\ tell of a thousand such, and this is the Voice of Pardon 
 which the awakened conscience speaks. 
 
 Or sometimes it will deceive the sinner with the hope, 
 that by offering payment to the Most High his debts may 
 be discharged ; and thus, by sacrifices upon the altar, or 
 by the buildmg of costly churches, or by the splendor of 
 external worship, or, in more enlightened times, by institu- 
 tions of charity and other works of philanthropy, men 
 have sought to make their peace with Him against whose 
 majesty they have rebelled. But still, however costly the 
 sacrifice, the conscience cannot be thus satisfied. Still 
 there has been a whispering, that it is not possible for the 
 blood of bulls and goats to take away sin ; or that God 
 should be appeased by the imperfect offerings of those 
 who, when they have done all, are but unprofitable servants. 
 
 There needed something more than this, some higher 
 and better teaching. It is a necessity which every one of 
 us, who acknowledges himself to be a sinner, must feel, 
 and we shall feel it more and more deeply, in proportion 
 as we rise higher in purity and goodness. We need to be 
 assured that God is merciful. Reason itself may teach us 
 that he is good towards those who do not violate his laws ; 
 for the provisions of nature are always bountiful and kind, 
 both for man and beast, so long as they are not perverted 
 by the selfishness or folly of those for whose good they 
 were intended. But from the retributions of a violated 
 law, reason alone finds no way of escape. From the 
 anger of an offended God, reason alone points out no ref- 
 uge. There is a debt which cannot be paid, and reason 
 alone gives no assurance that God will remit it. This is 
 wha we need to learn, that God is merciful. This is the 
 balm in Gilead, by which the wounded conscience can be 
 made whole ; this is the voice from heaven which we need 
 
106 THE ATONEMENl. 
 
 to hear, speaking peace to the broken and contrite heart 
 We need some assurance, that, " if we confess our sins»< 
 God is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanee 
 us from all unrighteousness." 
 
 The religion which can give as that assurance is tlie 
 religion for which the sinful hear' yeirns. Let us but learn 
 that there is forgiveness with God, that npon certain condi- 
 tions, with which we are able to ccrrplv. he will not impute 
 to men their past offences, but w'lW f^e^lji just if y them and 
 graciously accept them, in the exercise of his iminite mer- 
 cy, and it is all we need to know. The wall of s'^paration 
 between us and our God is then thrown down, The way 
 for reconciliation, and for the redemption which follows it, 
 is open. He who brings that assurance, who instructs us 
 in these conditions, is indeed our Saviour. But if he not 
 only does this, but gives us encouragement and help in 
 complying with the conditions, and goes before in the way 
 wherein we must walk, and disarms death of its terror, and 
 reveals God to us as a Father clothed in the attributes of 
 tenderness and love, and opens to our eyes the heavenly 
 abode where God and his angels dwell, and to which he, 
 the messenger of love, has gone before to prepare a place 
 for us, that where he is we may be also; — in what words 
 can we express our gratitude, except to say, " Thanks bo 
 to God, for his unspeakable gift," in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Such are the glad tidings of great joy, " Glory to God 
 in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will toward men." 
 Whisperings of the same message had been spoken in the 
 world before. To Abraham and to his children, to the 
 righteous men and prophets of olden time, some intimations 
 had been given of God's abounding love towards the sinner : 
 *' For 1 have no pleasure, saith the Loid God, in the death 
 of the sinner, but rather that he should turn and live." 
 
THE ATONEMENT. lOT 
 
 By such words many hearts had been comforted. The 
 penitent sinner had been made to hear joy and glaJness, 
 and the bones which had been broken were made to rejoice. 
 Nay, I believe that in all religions, even in those most ob- 
 scured by superstition, there have always been some rays 
 of divine truth, received through the first revelation which 
 God made of himself to his human family, by which a 
 stronger hope of God's mercy has been given than reason 
 alone could suggest. The spirit of God has always striven 
 with man ; the light has always been in the world every- 
 where, and men have preferred darkness rather than light 
 because their deeds were evil. But when, through the 
 manifold corruptions of sin and human error, the whole 
 head had become sick and the whole heart faint, it became 
 necessary that a clearer revelation of God's mercy should 
 be made. And it was then, when the full time had come, 
 that " God sent his Son into the world, not to condemn the 
 world, but that the world through him might be saved." 
 
 The Christian religion is throughout a revelation of mer- 
 cy ; even as we read, " Of his fulness have we all re- 
 ceived, and grace for grace." I do not mean that it annuls 
 God's law ; on the coi^trary, Christ came to fulfil, or to 
 make perfect and complete, the moral law under which we 
 live and by which we must be judged. The Christian law 
 of morals is the strictest that has ever been given to man. 
 It is the strictest that we can conceive. It takes hold, not 
 onl)'^ of the actions, but the motives from which action 
 springs ; of all our secret desires and thoughts and purposes. 
 It holds before us the standard of absolute perfection, of 
 which it gives an example in Jesus Christ, and commands 
 us never to be weary of wel' -doing, until we have attained 
 to the fui.ness of his stature. But for the past offences of 
 the penitent sinner, and for his continued short-comings in 
 the Christian race, it has words of blessed healing, of 
 
108 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 neavenly comfort, of eternal encouragement. " If any 
 man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, even fesua 
 Christ the righteous." 
 
 When we have learned with humility of heart to confess 
 our sins, to acknowledge ourselves guilty before God, and 
 that by the deeds of the law — by our own imperfect right- 
 eousness — no man can be justified in his sight, then do we 
 also learn, that God is ready to justify us, to restore us 
 igain to his favor, if we come before him with believing, 
 trustful hearts, seeking to do his will as followers of Christ. 
 That he will justify us ; not because we deserve it, for 
 from such a claim every mouth is stopped, by the acknowl- 
 edgment of sin. But that he will justify us freely, by his 
 grace, his infinite mercy, through the redemption that is in 
 Christ Jesus, whom he hath foreordained to be a mercy- 
 seat for those who approach through faith in him, to declare 
 that the sinner shall be justified — treated as though he were 
 righteous, received to the arms of God's love, even as the 
 returning prodigal was received by his father — by the 
 remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of 
 God. This was Christ's mission; to declare God's justifi- 
 cation of the repenting sinner. That he might show God 
 to be at the same time just and the justifier of him who 
 believeth in Jesus. 
 
 We can therefore rely upon the mercy of God ; we can 
 feel sure that, if we go to him as children to a father, he 
 will receive us ; " he will in no wise cast us out." But 
 we cannot claim the merit of this reception ; it is not 
 because of what we have done, and all the boasting of the 
 self-righteous is excluded. It is to God's mercy alone, in 
 Jesus Christ, that we owe our acceptance. The prime and 
 perhaps only condition on which we receive forgiveness of 
 our past sins is an act which, by its nature, excludes merit. 
 It is an act of self-renunciation ; the j)rostration before God 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 109 
 
 of the self-convicted sinner; the act of sincere cc.ifession 
 and repentance ; in a word, the act of self-surrender to 
 God, which by the Scripture .s called Faith. Not belief 
 only, that belief which the devils also may have even while 
 they tremble ; not that belief which is often an exercise of 
 the barren intellect, and is no more than the willing or 
 unwilling acceptance of certain opinions ; but Faith, which 
 is the deepest experience of the soul, — an act by which 
 oui whole relation towards God is changed ; by which we 
 are brought from the attitude of distrust and rebellion to 
 that of children who, although with tears in their eyes, 
 exclaim, Abba, my Father ! — this is Christian faith. 
 
 This is the condition on which God has promised, through 
 Christ, to forgive our sins. If it be fulfilled, he has prom- 
 ised that the record of the past shall be blotted out. At 
 the foot of the cross, where we learn to believe, the burden 
 falls from our back, and we start forward upon a new race 
 with heaven in our view. A long and arduous race, — but 
 we begin it with light hearts, full of hope, sure of obtaining 
 the prize, if we run with patience, looking unto Jesus who 
 is the author and finisher of our faith. 
 
 The law of God is therefore not made void. We ac- 
 knowledge its full force by that act of faith, which is the 
 condition of pardon. We place ourselves under the con- 
 demnation of God's law ; we wait for sentence to be 
 passed upon us ; and instead thereof, hear the words of 
 the Divine Saviour, " Depart in peace, thy faith hath saved 
 thee " ; " Go and sin no more." 
 
 The law of (jod is not made void; it is established as 
 completely as if its utmost penalty had been exacted. 
 The continuance of God's favor is also made to depend 
 upon a renewed life, a life of filial obedience, without 
 which we again fall into condemnation. 
 10 
 
no THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 Nay, something more than this is true. The forgiveness 
 of sin does not remove all evil consequences. It removes 
 the worst, which is our estrangement from God, but there 
 are others which remain. Although we may be restored 
 to his favor and may feel in our hearts the earnest of heav- 
 enly bliss, it requires long years of striving to rid our souls 
 of the stains which sin ha., left there. 
 
 The intemperate man may be reformed, he may feel 
 that his reconciliation with God is made, but will the evil 
 effects of past transgression quickly disappear ? Will not 
 even the appetite for that which was his ruin remain and 
 return upon him, a morbid craving for that which he strives 
 to hate } And so it is with all our sins. We may repen 
 of them, we may forsake them, we may feel that through 
 God's mercy in Jesus Christ they are forgiven, and yet 
 their evil consequences may remain, — increasing the diffi 
 culty of our onward progress, returning upon us in perverted 
 tastes, in sinful imaginings, in weakness of resolution, so 
 that we are often compelled to exclaim, " That which we 
 do, we allow not, but that which we would not, we do." 
 Such is the true experience of the sinner, even of him whc 
 has found hope in Christ, it is a further vindication o! 
 God's law ; it is a further evidence that those who triflo 
 with their souls incur a dreadful risk, and must, to a certain 
 extent, reap that which they sow. 
 
 God may forgive them, but he still leaves a token in their 
 souls, by which they may see how narrow has been their 
 escape. They may be saved, but it is so as by fire. There- 
 fore it is that the redeemed in Christ, while they labor to 
 work out their own salvation, must do it with fear and trem- 
 bling. Thus, again, do we see that the law of God is not 
 made void by the terms of reconciliation which he offers , 
 yea, it i3 rather established. 
 
THE ATONEMENT. Ill 
 
 One part, therefore, of the doctrine of reconciliation we 
 can understand perfectly. I mean, so far as it requires a 
 change in us. The change from worldliness to devotion ; 
 from rebellion to childlike self-surrender; from distrust to 
 faith ; from self-seeking and pride to self-denial and hu- 
 mility. It is a change which begins in a renewed heart 
 and is completed in a renewed life. This is our reconciU 
 iation to God. We also understand how it is effected in us. 
 By the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus ; by the 
 messages of love which he brings to us from the Father ; 
 by his holy example ; by his instructions in righteousness; 
 by his sufferings and death ; by his promises of eternal 
 life ; by his resurrection from the dead ; by his ascension 
 into heaven ; by his intercession for us with the Father ; 
 and by the influences of the Holy Spirit, which are given 
 through him; — by the whole Gospel dispensation. 
 
 It is not only that Christ has taught us of the Father, but 
 much more, because the Father is manifest in the Son. 
 The Divine attributes, however explained to us, we could 
 but imperfectly understand. We might still have a linger- 
 ing fear, that the justice of an Infinite Being could not be 
 satisfied, without *he full punishment of the offender. But 
 when we read the history of Christ himself, the image of 
 the invisible God, and see how perfectly justice and mercy 
 are joined together in him, not as conflicting attributes, but 
 as only different exhibitions of the same parental love, stern 
 or gentle, according to the necessity of each case, we can 
 understand how God is just and the justifier of those who 
 believe in Jesus ; how he can condemn sin ai^J yet pardon 
 the sinner; "not desiring the death of any, but that all 
 should turn to him and live." It is thus .that Christ showed 
 himself to us, and it is in this attribute of justice, tempered 
 by mercy, that we receive him as the manifestation of tlie 
 
112 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 Father, — the Word made flesh. We contend that there is 
 no view of God's justice, which can be correct, that does 
 not find its manifestation and development in Christ. 
 
 Such is the effect on us, and such are the means by 
 which it is produced. This is therefore the practical part 
 of our subject. So far as vite are concerned in the work of 
 reconciliation with God, this is all that we need to know. 
 We know that God is willing to receive us ; we know the 
 conditions on which we shall be received ; every motive 
 for coming to him, and every encouragement, is given; we 
 see from what source help will come to our infirmities ; we 
 know enough of God's counsels to be sure that our seeking 
 will not be in vain. 
 
 Upon all this there is scarcely any controversy among 
 Christians. Here, as in almost all other doctrines, the 
 controversy is not concerning that which is practical, for 
 the practical is almost always plain. It concerns questions 
 to which we can give no positive answer. It is upon sub- 
 jects which are for the great part beyond our reach. There 
 are some points of difficulty of this sort in the doctrine of 
 atonement ; questions of theology, rather than of religion. 
 Such for example as these : In the work of reconciliation, 
 is not a change in God also needed, as well as in us ? How 
 did the death of Christ make it safe for God to forgive sin 
 in a sense in which it was not before safe ? What effect 
 upon the counsels of God does the mediation of Christ 
 produce ? In what sense did Christ die for us and suffer in 
 our stead ? The questions are of great interest, but while 
 I state them you see that they are chiefiy above our com- 
 prehension. We may speculate ccncerning them, but can- 
 not arrive at certain conclusions. We shall attempt tc 
 answer them, however, so far as the Scripture guides us 
 next Sunday evenmg. 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 GOD WAS IN CHRIST, RECONCILING THE WORLD ?NTO HIMSELF, 
 NOT IMPUTING THBIB TRESPASSES UNTO THEM. — 2 Cor. V. 19. 
 
 In our inquiries last Sunday, we examined the more 
 practical part of the doctrine of atonement or reconcilia- 
 tion. We saw that, to effect reconciliation with God, a radi- 
 cal change is needed in us. The question now arises, Is a 
 corresponding change needed in God himself.'* Let me 
 igain say, that until we can penetrate more deeply into the 
 Divine nature than we now can, it is a question to which 
 vve can give no clear answer. 
 
 Of all the attributes of God there is none more complete- 
 ly beyond our comprehension than his unchangeableness or 
 immutability. We are taught, on the one hand, that in 
 him there is no change, neither shadow of turning ; but on 
 the other, that he is a Father who pities his children, who 
 does not afflict willingly, who answers our prayers, who 
 forgives our sins. All of which implies that his counte- 
 nance towards us changes, that his dealings with us change, 
 that he regards us with different feelings at different times, 
 according to the relation in which we stand towards him. 
 I think that this is the general representation of God in ths 
 10* 
 
114 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 Scriptures. He is shown to us, not as an abstract order oi 
 the universe, stern and unvarying, uninfluenced by prayer, 
 unchanged by repentance, but as a Heavenly Father, with 
 all the attributes of tenderness and compassion which be 
 long to that name. 
 
 If that is the true representation, it seems impossible that 
 his feelings should be the same towards the hardened rebel, 
 and the repentant sinner, and the glorified saint. Our own 
 hearts tell us that it cannot be. Yet if God is immutable, 
 how can it be otherwise ? Some will answer, that he is like 
 the sun in the heavens, always shining with clear and benig- 
 nant rays ; and that the clouds which veil him from our 
 eyes, namely our sins, work no change in him, although 
 they change his relation toward us. Perhaps it is a right 
 answer, but I confess it seems to me to make our wh3le 
 relations with God too mechanical. The heart yearns for 
 personal affection. We long for the smile of approbation, 
 not a seeming smile, but the real smile of tenderness and 
 parental love. Whether it is weakness or not, 1 do not 
 know, but I am sure that our hearts are more moved by 
 the representation of God in the parable of the Prodigal 
 Son, where the Father cannot wait to be sought for, but 
 goes out to meet his returning child and falls upon his neck 
 and kisses him, than by all the abstract arguments of God's 
 unchanging goodness that have ever been written. It may 
 be unphilosophical, but perhaps, when we know more, we 
 shall find that the philosophy which requires us to be untrue 
 to our nature is " falsely so called." 
 
 I cannoi but look with suspicion upon any system of 
 religion which philosophizes away our natural aflTections. 
 When we lie under the burden of sin, our hearT« tell us 
 ■^hat we are at enmity with God, and that he is thereby 
 estranged from us. Not that he regards us with any thing 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 115 
 
 like human anger, fcr he loves us even then ; but there is 
 the estrangement which holiness must feel towards sin. 
 There is a desire for our return and the feeling of appro- 
 bation, the renewal of that kind of love which had been 
 withdrawn, when we come to him and say, " Father, we 
 have sinned against Heaven and before thee." In our the- 
 ory, we may say that there is no change ; but it is a theory 
 which our feelings do not recognize. It is an intuition of 
 our nature that God loves us in a different sense, when we 
 return to him, from that in which he loved us before. 
 
 You will see, however, from my whole manner of speak- 
 ing, that I do not believe in such a change in God as is 
 sometimes taught. Many persons teach the doctrine of 
 atonement as though .the chief difficulty were on the side 
 of God, and not on that of the sinner. They speak of 
 God's being reconciled to man, much more than of man's 
 being reconciled to God. They represent God as having 
 been full of anger, of vindictive wrath, ready to hurl pun- 
 ishment upon sinners, unwilling and unable to forgive 
 ihem, urtil his anger was appeased by the sufferings and 
 death of Christ, who endured the punishment of the guilty. 
 
 We rf'pci this view, first, because the Scripture uniform- 
 ly repres^nte that the cause of Christ's coming into the 
 woi'ld was' not the wrath of God, but his love. " God 
 so io\ed &f* world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should have everlasting life." 
 " Herein i? love, not that we loved God, but that God loved 
 us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 
 And still more strongly, " In this was manifested the love erf 
 God towards us, because that God sent his only-begotten 
 Son into the world, that we might live through him." I 
 repeat, that this is not the occasional, but the uniform, state- 
 ment of the Scripture. There is no passage which says or 
 
116 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 implies that God's anger with the sinner was the cause o( 
 Christ comii'g, or that Christ came to make him merciful. 
 His coming was a proof of mercy ; it was the effect of 
 God's love. God's anger is not of a kind that needs to be 
 appeased. 
 
 Another reason why we reject such a theory of God's 
 anger is this : The Scriptures represent that Christ is the 
 manifestation of God. In his character, therefore, we learn 
 the attributes of God. This is our best instruction concern- 
 ing the meaning of God's justice and mercy, of his anger 
 and love. But according to the view of the Divine wrath 
 just now considered, God and Christ are placed in the strong- 
 est contrast ; one all anger, the other all love ; one all jus- 
 tice, the other all mercy ; one seeking to punish, the other 
 seeking to save. Such a view cannot be correct. God is 
 love, and Christ is the image of his love. In no respect is 
 the Son more perfectly the manifestation of the Father, 
 than in this. 
 
 Thirdly : We are confirmed in this view, because there 
 is not a single passage in the Bible in which God is said to 
 be reconciled to man, but always that man is to be recon- 
 ciled to God. " 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." Rom. v. 10. 
 " All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself 
 by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of recon- 
 ciliation; namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the 
 world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 
 and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 
 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God 
 did beseech you by us. Be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor. 
 V. 18-20. Here is a full statement of the subject before 
 »ig. It is God pleading with us through Christ, as a Fathei 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 117 
 
 pleuis with his erring children. He is ready to be recon- 
 ciled to them, whenever they will come to him. He en- 
 courages them to come, he waits for them, he goes out to 
 meet them. In the work of reconciliation which must be 
 effected before they can be received, the difficulty is noi 
 on his part, but on theirs alone. 
 
 If, therefore, we admit that a change takes place m the 
 feelings of God towards the returning sinner, it is not a 
 change from vindictive wrath to overflowing love, from a 
 God who is all justice to a God of all mercy, but it is a 
 change from one kind of love to another. As the earthly 
 parent loves his children, both when they are rebellious 
 and when they are repentant, so does God love us all 
 and always. If it is a different kind of love, it arises from 
 the necessity of the case, in the dealings of a being infi- 
 nitely holy towards those who are frail and sinful. 
 
 We think that no other view of God is either Scriptural 
 or reasonable. It presents him to us, not only as a God, but 
 as a Father, wise in his compassion ; in whom the attri- 
 butes of justice and mercy are only the different exercise of 
 the same love. 
 
 The next question which arises is this : What effect upon 
 the counsels of God does the mediation of Christ produce } 
 By the mediation of Christ we mean, not only his sufferings 
 and death, but the whole Gospel dispensation. His coming 
 down from heaven, his instructions, his life and holy exam- 
 ple, his precepts, his sufferings and death, his resurrection, 
 his ascension into heaven at the right hand of the Father, 
 to make intercession for us. This is the whole Gospel dis- 
 pensation. We understand it all to be included in Christ's 
 work as the mediator between God and man. 
 
 Wha* effect did it produce upon the counsels of God 
 towards *le sinner.? Here again our limited faculties pre- 
 
118 THE ATONE lENT. 
 
 sent a difficulty. It is a question which we cannot answei 
 perfectly, until by our searching we can find out God, and 
 enter into the secret places of his wisdom. We believe 
 the Gospel dispensation was needful. It does not express 
 the whole truth to say that the coming of Christ was desira- 
 ble, as a means of salvation, for it was indispensable. 
 From the beginning, it was a part of God's counsel towards 
 man. It is an essential link in the chain, by which God 
 draws the sinner to himself. In the plan of salvation we 
 cannot dispense with Christ : " No man," he says, " can 
 come to the Father but by me." " I am the vine, ye are 
 the branches. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, 
 except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye 
 abide in me." Words cannot express more strongly than 
 these, the personal necessity of Christ to us. I could give 
 you a hundred instances of the same sort, teaching in the 
 strongest terms our dependence upon the Gospel dispensa- 
 tion, for the hope, and in the work, of salvation. 
 
 But if you ask me why God has so appointed, or if he 
 could not have devised some other means by which the 
 same gracious work would have been accomplished, you 
 ask me unwisely, and it would be unwise in me to attempt 
 an answer. It is enough for us that there is one way; 
 that if we come to God in penitence and faith, as Christ 
 has taught us to come, we shall find forgiveness and accept- 
 ance with him ; that under the Gospel dispensation there is 
 no stumbling-block in our path to heaven, except deliberate 
 and continued sin. If we are delivered from the body of 
 this death, we should thank God, through our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, without being too curious to know whether God 
 could not have found some other means, equally effectual, 
 for our deliverance. 
 
 There is no difiiculty in the belief that man's salvation 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 119 
 
 depends upon the mediation of Christ. Consider it either 
 as a work done for us, or as a prayer offered for our sake. 
 In either case, the Scripture doctrine of the absolute neces- 
 sity of Christ's coming, and of his sufferings and death, is 
 according to the analogy of God's general dealing with us 
 and to our belief as Christians in the efficacy of prayer. 
 Nearly all the blessings which come to the wo^ld, come 
 through the faithful exertions of the good. It is to the 
 holy throng of apostles and martyrs, God's saints on earth, 
 that all progress in wisdom and goodness, and all triumphs 
 ovei evil, are due. If they had not lived, or if they had 
 been unfaithful, a thousand blessings for which we are now 
 thanKful would never have reached us. It is in accordance 
 with the same law, although in a higher exemplification of 
 \t, that the work of Christ was performed. We may not 
 understand its full efficacy, but we can understand its neces- 
 sity, and that from its faithful performance our salvation 
 proceeds. 
 
 And so, if we consider Christ's mediation as a prayer, 
 or continued intercession with God for our sake, the Scrip- 
 tural doctrine of its efficacy presents no greater difficulty 
 than the doctrine of prayer in general. We believe that 
 our prayers are answered ; that God is more ready to give 
 his Holy Spirit to those that ask him, than an earthly parent 
 is to bestow good gifts upon his children. But who shall 
 explain this .'* Who shall tell us how prayer is answered .'' 
 How can human asking change the mind of God towards 
 us ? We do not know, yet our affections, our inward expe- 
 rience, not less than the Scriptures, assure us that prayer 
 is answered ; that by prayer, and in answer to prayer, we 
 obtain blessings which otherwise would never come to us. 
 Nor can I perceive any greater unreason.? bleness in the 
 belief that our prayers, one for another, are answered 
 
120 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 It is an instinct to pray for those we love. We canno^ 
 explain how the prayer can bring the blessing, but yet we 
 cannot help praying. Such spiritual instincts should not be 
 slighted because they are beyond the reach of intellect. 
 To me they carry their own evidence. I believe in God, 
 not so much because it can be proved by argument, as 
 because it is a necessity of my nature. For the same rea- 
 son I believe in prayer, and the Scripture strongly confirms 
 the belief. It teaches that the effectual, fervent prayer of a 
 righteous man availeth much. If we knew more of God, 
 and of the spiritual world, and of the laws by which all 
 spiritual beings are bound together in one mysterious chain, 
 from the lowest to the highest, we might be able to under- 
 stand how the prayers of the good may be answered in 
 behalf of the wicked, and that the nearer to God we come 
 m purity and love, the more effectual our prayers will be. 
 We then might understand how the intercession of one 
 like Jesus, the beloved Son of God, can be an indispensa- 
 ble influence and a real agency in the redemption of the 
 world. Such, at least, is the Scriptural doctrine, and as 
 such we are content to receive it. Christ then becomes to 
 us the living head of the Church. He is not only our bene- 
 factor through his life and sufferings on earth, but he also 
 liveth to make intercession for us with the Father. In our 
 stragglings against sin and our efforts to rise, it is an un- 
 speakable comfort to know, that we have the sympathy and 
 prayers and spiritual aid of one so pure and good, who was 
 tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, who was 
 made perfect through suffering, and is now exalted at the 
 right hand of God. 
 
 We now proceed to a point which has involved much 
 discussion and given rise to a multitude of theories. How 
 did the sufferings and death of Christ make it safe for God 
 
THE ATONEMENT. ISl 
 
 to forgive sin, in a sense in which it was not before safe ? 
 There are some who say, that it was by Christ's suffering 
 the full penalty of sin, and thereby making full satisfaction 
 to the law, that he enabled the sinner to go free. A theory 
 which we cannot receive, chiefly for two reasons. 
 
 First, it leaves no room for God's mercy. If a debt is 
 fully paid, we owe thanks to him who paid it, but not to 
 him who exacts the payment. Such is not the doctrine of 
 the Bible, which teaches us that God freely forgives ; that 
 our trespasses are not imputed to us, " through his forbear- 
 ance," not through his exaction of the penalty from another. 
 Christ teaches us to pray, " Forgive us our trespasses, as we 
 forgive those who trespass against us," which is not con- 
 sistent with the idea of the debts being paid, either by the 
 offender himself, or by any one else for him. If a debt is 
 paid, there can be a release, but, properly speaking, there is 
 no room for remission. 
 
 Secondly, the chief penalty of sin, the only real penalty, 
 is remorse of conscience and estrangement from God, 
 and by the nature of the soul no one can endure this pen- 
 alty for another. As a matter of fact, also, Christ did 
 not endure it. No remorse of conscience ever visited him. 
 However mysterious and inexplicable his sufferings may 
 have been, this never made any part of them. Never for 
 a moment did he feel estrangement from God ; never for a 
 moment was the love of God withdrawn from him. In the 
 agony of human suffering, he exclaimed, " My God, my 
 God, why hast thou forsaken me ? " But perhaps even 
 these words were spoken, as calling to his mind the whole 
 of the triumphant psalm of David from which they are 
 taken; and even in that dreadful hour we perceive his 
 nearness to God, in the comforting words spoken to the 
 repentant criminal, and in his prayer for his enemies, and 
 11 
 
182 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 in his dying words, " Into thy hands I commend my spirit.' 
 No ; Christ truly suffered, the just for the unjust, but he did 
 not suffer as a sinner, and therefore he did not suffer the 
 Dunishment of sin. By the blindness of human judgment, 
 he was numbered among the transgressors, and suffered an 
 ignominious and cruel death, but he was always the beloved 
 Son, in whom God was well pleased. He was never nearer 
 to God, he was never further removed from the punishment 
 of sin, than when his sufferings for our sake were the most 
 terrible. 
 
 We cannot believe, therefore, in the theory of Christ's 
 sufferings just stated. But we can perceive that in another 
 way the Gospel dispensation, in which we include the suf- 
 ferings and death of Christ, has made it safe that sin should 
 be forgiven, under God's moral government, in a sense in 
 which it might not otherwise have been safe. The two 
 essential requisites to make pardon safe are these : first, to 
 secure in the offender such a disposition as will lead him to 
 a true and permanent reformation ; and secondly, to main- 
 tam the sanctity of the law so that it shall not be brought 
 jnto contempt, but that, while the sinner is forgiven, his 
 abhorrence of sin may be increased, and the heinousness 
 of s5n, in God's sight, be made more plainly to appear. 
 When these two requisites are attained, forgiveness of sin 
 beconies safe. It is safe to the sinner himself, because his 
 reformat'op is secure ; it is safe to the moral government 
 of God, because his law is not brought into contempt, but 
 is honored ev*^.n more highly. This is prccieely the result 
 which the Gcsp^^l dispensation accomplishes. It arouses the 
 sinner to those en^otions, by which alone hi& reconciliation 
 with God can be effected, and his reformation secured,— 
 the emotions of repeptrnce, of self-renunciation, of love 
 —which are in themselves a complete renewa' of the in- 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 123 
 
 ward life, and thus brings him to such a relation towards 
 God, that the word of pardon can be safely spoken. 
 
 Such has been the experience of hundreds of thousands. 
 The ministry of Christ, and especially his sufferings and 
 death, have been the influence by which more souls have 
 been aroused from the sleep of sin, than by all others 
 beside. But at the same time the hatred of sin has been 
 increased. The manner in which pardon is brought to the 
 sinner is the most dreadful condemnation of sin. It is 
 offered to us at the expense of so much suffering, that when 
 we read the account of it, we lament our sins, by which it 
 was made necessary, more bitterly than at any other time. 
 If it had been proclaimed from heaven, that God is ready 
 to forgive the repenting sinner, the message would have 
 been the same that we have now received, but how different 
 would have been the effect ! We might then indeed have 
 supposed that sin is a light evil, and its record easily blotted 
 out. But when we read the narrative of Christ's sufferings, 
 we perceive how heinous sin must be in the sight of God ; 
 our consciences are awakened to discern how terrible its 
 consequences must be, here and hereafter. If it were a 
 small evil, if escape from it were easy, if its consequences 
 were temporary and trivial, would the Heavenly Father 
 have appointed his holy child Jesus to a life of such suf- 
 fering, and to a death of such agony, for its removal .? We 
 think not; nay, we are sure that it could not be. The 
 whole Gospel dispensation, as God has directed it, impresses 
 us deeply with the avvfulness of sin ; it brings before us the 
 vision of its terrible consequences more distinctly, by its 
 accents of love mingled with the records of suffering, than 
 could have been done by the most fearful threats of pun- 
 ishment, or the most vindictive execution of the law. 
 
 Something of the same benignant purpose we see in 
 
124 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 God's general providence. It is through the sufTering and 
 sacrifices of the good, through their pains, self-denials and 
 martyrdoms, that the sins of the wicked receive their 
 sternest rebuke, and the sinner himself is reformed. Nor 
 are there any circumstances, under which we hate our sins 
 so much, as when suffering is endured by those whom we 
 love, for the sake of their removal. How much more do 
 we feel this, when brought home to us by the sufferings of 
 one at the same time so puretind so exalted as Jesus Christ! 
 In proportion as we believe in them, the effect is deepened ; 
 it grows with our spiritual growth, it strengthens with our 
 spiritual strength. It is not a mysterious influence, but 
 natural and unavoidable ; the working of the human heart, 
 when softened by the dews of God's grace. It leads to the 
 perfect vindication of the sacredness of God's law, at the 
 same time that pardon is offered to the sinner and his 
 return to righteousness secured. 
 
 There is one other question under the doctrine of Atone- 
 ment, which we must consider, although in but veiy few 
 words. In what sense did Christ die for us ? The lan- 
 guage of Scripture with reference to it is various and strong, 
 — sometimes figurative, sometimes literal, sometimes ob- 
 scure. He is our ransom, our sacrifice, our sin-offering ; 
 he is made sin for us, he bore our punishment, the chastise- 
 nnent of our peace is laid upon him, by his stripes we are 
 fiCaled ; he has borne our griefs, he was bruised for our 
 iniquities, and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of 
 us all. All of this is Scriptural language. What does it 
 mean .? A part of it is manifestly figurative, as when it is 
 eaid " he hath made him to be sin for us," and " upon him 
 is laid the iniquity of us all." Some persons have under- 
 stood even this literally, and thus Martin Luther taught that 
 Christ was the greatest sinner, mu:'derer, robber, and the 
 
THE ATONEMENT. 125 
 
 like, that the world ever saw, because all the sins of all the 
 world were accumulated in him, to receive their condem- 
 nation and their punishment. I do not know what men 
 mean, when they use such language, and it is charitable to 
 suppose that they do not know themselves. There is no 
 danger of any one using it at the present. day, and no need 
 of proving its absurdity. 
 
 In the same manner the word ransom has been interpret- 
 ed literally, and some of the Christian Fathers taught that 
 the sufferings of Christ were the ransom, or purchase-mon- 
 ey, paid by God and received by the enemy of souls, the 
 Devil, as the price of the sinner's release. We shall not 
 follow such interpretations further; they belong to days 
 gone by, and are a monument of human weakness. 
 
 The whole language which we have quoted we think 
 means no more nor less than this : that Christ suffered for 
 us, the just for the unjust, to bring us to God. Whatever 
 is expressed. more than these words imply is figurative, and 
 not literal. The sufferings and death of Christ were neces- 
 sary as a means of our redemption from sin ; they were 
 therefore endured in consequence or on account of our 
 sins ; they were our ransom, the price paid for us, the cost 
 of our deliverance. " The chastisement of our peace was 
 laid upon him," because this was the means through wniL,h 
 our peace was obtained. " By his stripes we are healed," 
 because the healing of our souls, in the forgiveness of our 
 sins, is the result of that dispensation of which his suffer- 
 ings were a needful part. " We are washed in his blood," 
 because the shedding of his blood leads to our cleansing. 
 He suffered and died in our stead, (although this is not a 
 Scriptural expression,) because his sufferings and death save 
 us from condemnation. As to all this language, there has 
 been much disputing about words. I find in orthodox 
 11* 
 
126 THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 creeds and books a great deal to which I cannot assent 
 But whenever I converse with individuals who receive such 
 creeds, and learn what they mean by the words used, the 
 differences gradually fade away. I believe that the majority 
 of them hold in fact nearly the same doctrine which I have 
 now explained. Even when they speak of a vicarious 
 atonement, they very often mean no more than we can 
 accept. There is a plain and real sense in which I can use 
 that word, for it is true that Christ suffered for us, and by 
 this means, through the grace of God, we escape the suf- 
 fering which our sins would otherwise have brought upon 
 us. If he had not come upon earth and fulfilled his minis- 
 try, we must have died in our sins, for we are not able to 
 guide ourselves nor save ourselves, and it is through him 
 alone that we come near to God. There may be others 
 who believe more than these words convey, and who teach 
 that the wrath of God was literally laid on Jesus Christ ; 
 but I seldom meet them, and think that their number is 
 daily becoming less. For ourselves, we are satisfied to 
 know that " God commendeth his love towards us, in that, 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The way 
 for our return to God is open, and he is waiting to be 
 gracious. 
 
KEGENEEAIION 
 
 JSSUS ANSWERED AND SAID UNTO HIM, VERILY, VERILT, I SAT 
 UNTO THEE, EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, HE CANNOT SEE THB 
 KINGDOM OP GOD. THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE FLESH IS FLESH, 
 AND THAT WHICH IS BORN OF THE SPIRIT IS SPIRIT. — John iu. 3, 6. 
 
 Our subject this evening is the Christian doctrine of Re- 
 generation, or the new birth ; the nature of the change 
 implied in those words, the means and agency by which it 
 is produced, and the evidences by which we may judge of 
 its reality. It is a subject whose importance all Christians 
 acknowledge, for whatever views we take of it, as theolo- 
 gians, we must admit that in practical religion every thing 
 depends upon its application. To ask who is regenerate is 
 to ask who is a Christian. To become regenerate is to 
 become a Christian. We may dispute as to what the new 
 birth is, but we cannot dispute the Saviour's words, that 
 " unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom 
 of God." There are some persons who suppose that 
 Unitarians deny this doctrine. But there could not be a 
 greater mistake. It would be the same as denying that a 
 man can become a Christian, or that there is any real dif- 
 ference between good men and bad, between those who 
 stsrve God and those who serve him not. There are some 
 
128 KEGENERATION 
 
 explanations of the doctrine which we reject, because they 
 are unsound and unscriptural, but we do not reject the doc- 
 trine itself. 
 
 For example, we do not believe in an instantaneous and 
 miraculous change, by virtue of which he who is at one 
 moment totally depraved can become in the next one of 
 God's saints. But we do believe, that by the blessing of 
 God a radical change may begin at any time, by which the 
 direction of a man's life may be changed from that which 
 'eads downward to that which leads upward. 
 
 We do not believe that this change will always be ac- 
 :,ompanied, either with the panic of an agonized conscience, 
 or the ecstasies of rejoicing, but that its inward experience 
 will be different in different individuals, according to their 
 various temperament and education, to the degrees of their 
 guilt, and to the influences under which they have been 
 placed. The outward evidences of the change will also 
 differ in an equal degree. I have seen men at a camp- 
 meeting under such strong excitement^ that they have been 
 tied, hand and foot, to prevent them from some bodily injury ; 
 others pass through an equally strong experience, to whom 
 the kingdom of God comes without observation. We do 
 not deny the reality of the change effected in either case. 
 We must judge of them both, as we judge of the tree, by 
 its fruit. We give our preference indeed to the latter, be- 
 cause observation leads us to distrust all violent excitements. 
 There is danger that they will not last, and that the spiritual 
 fever will be followed by a corresponding and perhaps fatal 
 prostration. This is particularly true, where the excitemen' 
 is produced by artificial means, by the sympathy of crowds 
 and the appliances of fear. At such times men are car- 
 ried beyond their own convictions, and are very liable to be 
 deceived as to their real feelings. The resu\ very often is, 
 
REGENERATION. 129 
 
 jiat after a few days they see every thing m a different 
 light, and sometimes the Scripture is fulfilled in them, that 
 the last stage of such men is worse than the first. We 
 have greater confidence in the change which comes through 
 the quietness of thought. It may promise less at first, but 
 will accomplish more in the end. It may be accompanied 
 with less of the rapture of religious triumph, but it is more 
 likely to bring us to that peace which passeth all under- 
 standing. For such reasons, we do not enter into what are 
 called " revivals of religion," and the protracted meetings 
 by which they are generally excited. Our observation of 
 them has not been favorable to their permanent usefulness. 
 It is not that we deny the change of heart which is needed 
 m becoming a Christian, nor that we would limit the action 
 of God's spirit in producing it. We may rightly pray to 
 him, " Revive thy work in the midst of the years"; and in 
 the progress of every religious society, as in the experience 
 of every individual, there will be times of awakening, in 
 which the lukewarm become zealous, and the cold-hearted 
 and sinful are rebuked. Such seasons of refreshing, when 
 they come from the use of the ordinary Gospel means, are 
 always to be welcomed, and their result is always good. 
 But when they are brought on almost forcibly, by the use 
 of what we may call religious machinery, it is quite a dif- 
 ferent thing. They are artificial in their origin and unnatu- 
 ral in their result. Their good effect, which seems at first 
 very great, is seldom permanent. 1 have known instances 
 m which, out of a hundred converts, less than one tenth 
 held fast to their profession for six months. In such cases 
 the evil is greater than the good, and it is from the fear of 
 such results that we prefer more quiet modes of pro- 
 ceeding. 
 
 Once more : we believe that every real change in the 
 
130 RE JENERATION. 
 
 character and in the heart must be begun, contitiued, anu 
 ended in God. It is he -' who worketh in us both to will 
 and to do, of his good pleasure." In the Christian course 
 from the very first to the last, we are dependent upon him. 
 As in the natural world, the seed is formed by his creative 
 power, and germinates and grows up and is developed into 
 a plant or tree, through the benign influences of nature, 
 which are only another name for the Divine working, so it 
 is in the human soul that the seed of righteousness is at 
 first planted, and is developed by the sweet influences of 
 God's grace. With this difference, however, which should 
 be carefully remarked, that in the latter case the soui 
 must acknowledge the working of God and feel itself sus- 
 tained by his presence. In proportion as we feel our de- 
 pendence on God, we become strong. If we rely upon 
 ourselves alone, we become weak. We are never so much 
 m danger of falling, as when we boast in our hearts that 
 we stand firmly. It is thus that God teaches us, by the 
 practical experience of life, that we depend on him, that 
 we are not sufficient to ourselves. 
 
 But while we receive this as the Scriptural doctrine of 
 God's grace, we do not the less insist upon the necessity 
 of our own working. In one sense, we depend for the 
 whole work of our salvation, from the first dawning thought 
 of goodness to the last complete triumph of Christian faith, 
 upon the awakening and saving influences of God's spirit* 
 and we can therefore join in the prayer of the poet, — 
 
 " Direct, suggest, control, this day, 
 All we design or do or say." 
 
 And in that of the Psalmist David, "Create in me a clean 
 heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me ;" for it 
 is the prayer not only of weakness, but of faith, and to 
 
REGENERATION. 131 
 
 every sincere Christian it will surely be answerecf. But on 
 the other hand we too must work ; we have no right to 
 expect miracles to be done for us. We have no right to 
 expect that the spirit of God will come to us unsought. 
 God helps those who try to help themselves. He will not 
 save us in spite of ourselves. It is of those who are striv- 
 ing to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, 
 that the Scripture says, '* God worketh in them both to will 
 and to do." To those only who use what they already 
 have, is it promised that more will be given. 
 
 Nor can we separate the Divine working from that which 
 we call the natural operation of our own minds, and the 
 natural influences of our daily life. A thought of righteous- 
 ness comes to the hardened sinner, he scarcely knows how, 
 nor is it important that he should know. It is of God's 
 sending, whether you call it the direct suggestion of his 
 Spirit or not. It is an angel visitant, and if cordially re- 
 ceived others will follow in its train, until the heart becomes 
 the temple of the living God, full of his ministering spirits. 
 From that first impulse towards goodness, as he advances, 
 step by step, contending against sin, reaching towards 
 heaven, the Christian can never tell exactly how much de- 
 pends upon his own exertion, and how much upon a higher 
 power. He knows that when his heart is full of prayer, 
 he progresses most rapidly ; but he also knows that a bless- 
 ing never comes upon his indolence. He finds no en- 
 couragement to wait until God does his work, but no sooner 
 does he take hold of it than he feels sure that God is help- 
 ing him. He thus feels the equal necessity of his own 
 exertions and of the Divine blessing, and is kept in that 
 healthy progress of mind and character, which belongs to 
 the true Christian life. Such we think is the wise ordering 
 of God. In the influences of his Spirit upon the soul we 
 
132 REGENERATION. 
 
 cannot say, " Lo here ! or Lo there ! " " he cometh down 
 like rain upon the mown grass, as showers that water the 
 earth," and the proof of his coming is found in the fruits 
 of 'righteousness, in pure and holy thoughts, in heavenly 
 aspirings, and in every Christian grace. 
 
 It is supposed by many persons, that the doctrine of Re- 
 generation depends upon what are called the doctrines of 
 Original Sin and Total Depravity. This is a mistake which 
 it is important to remove. We must therefore consider 
 these doctrines for a few moments before going further. 
 In fact, there are few persons who explain them at the 
 present day in the same manner in which they were 
 taught fifty years ago. The Calvinistic doctrine of origi- 
 nal sin is, that in the fall of Adam the whole human race 
 were made sinners ; that in consequence thereof, sin is 
 imputed to every human being at his birth, in such a sense 
 that he is under the wrath of God and is subject to eternal 
 damnation ; that his nature, being essentially corrupt, is 
 capable of no good thing, not even to wish or pray for 
 good. Its best actions therefore are hateful in the sight of 
 God, and absolute, total depravity is the necessary result of^ 
 its development. For a nature such as this, there is but 
 one hope of salvation, which is in the miraculous and irre- 
 sistible grace of God. The change of heart is therefore, 
 according to this view, an absolute change of nature , it 
 comes not because of a man's own seeking, but irrespect 
 ively thereof. Those to whom it comes are thereby God's 
 elect. Those to whom it does not come remain under the 
 sentence of condemnation, from which they cannot by any 
 means escape. 
 
 Such is the theory which Calvin taught. But I think very 
 few of his adherents now receive it. It is so muzh modi- 
 fied, that, even when the same words are used, different 
 
REGENERATION. 133 
 
 ideas are conveyed By original sin, the majority under- 
 stand no more than original imperfection ; and by the impu- 
 tation of Adam's sin, no moie than the evil consequences 
 which the child inherits from his parents, in an impaired 
 physical and mental constitution. In this sense, we believe 
 in original sin. We are certainly born imperfect, with 
 many tendencies to evil. These tendencies are also, to 
 some extent, inherited. In this sense, the sins of the fa- 
 ther may be said to be visited on the children, as I have 
 known whole families to bo born wiih depraved appetites, 
 which have followed them to their graves. But if, on the 
 one side, there are evil tendencies, there are, on the other, 
 equally strong tendencies to good ; amiable dispositions and 
 a natural love of truth and purity. These also come to us 
 in part as our birthright. We do not call them virtue or 
 religion, nor do we say that these alone make us acceptable 
 to God. Nor, on the other hand, do we say that the evil 
 tendencies with which we are born make us hateful to God. 
 In both cases, the natural constitution of our minds, together 
 with all the circumstances of our birth and education, will 
 be taken into account by a just and merciful God, in his 
 final judgment of us. To whom much is given, of him 
 much will be required. To whom little is given, of him 
 little will be required. No one will be condemned because 
 of the sins which his father committed, although he may 
 suffer in consequence of them. " The soul that sinneth, it 
 shall die." Such is the theory of original imperfection, 
 which is sometimes improperly called original sin. 
 
 With regard also to total depravity, most persons who pro- 
 fess to believe it mean nothing more than this, that the best 
 actions of a selfish and worldly man partake of his selfish- 
 ness and worldliness ; that until we have learned to deny 
 ourselves and to take the law of God as our supreme law, 
 12 
 
134 REGENERATION. 
 
 our most amiable qualities partake of the character of sin 
 In such a sense, therefore, you may say that the unregen- 
 erate man is totally depraved, because there is no part of 
 his conduct or his character which is fully conformed to the 
 Divine law. The pervading principle of his life is wrong, 
 and, in this sense, all is wrong. Change that pervading 
 principle, and you change every thing. It is like infusing 
 healthy blood into the physical frame. It will gradually, 
 but certainly, change every part of the physical and men- 
 tal constitution. 
 
 We shall not follow this train of thought further. What 
 1 have said will serve my purpose to show, that, while the 
 doctrines in question continue the same in words, they may 
 be very different in idea. 
 
 The truth concerning our nature by birth, and the spirit- 
 ual condition to which we are brought by regeneration, or 
 the new birth, seems to be this. We are born with a mixed 
 constitution, physical, intellectual, and moral. These, as 
 they originally came from the creative hand of God, were 
 pronounced to be good. The moral nature is the highest, 
 that is the soul, and to this' the physical and intellectual, the 
 body and the mind, should minister. But, by the necessity 
 of the case, the physical is developed first, " the first man 
 is of the earth, earthy." Our first wants, our first enjoy- 
 ments and sufferings, are purely physical. The first exer- 
 cise of the faculty of thought takes that direction. Self- 
 love, which is needful for self-p/eservation, is thus early 
 developed. Self-indulgence in what is pleasant, and angry 
 resistance to what is unpleasant, are the natural conse- 
 quences. All this is not sinful, it is simply of the earth, 
 earthy. It is our physical nature. Gradually the higher 
 nature begins to appear. The sweet affections of the 
 child, pure and truthful, begin to expand. A sense of 
 
REGENERATION. 135 
 
 right, of justice, and of truth, gradually shows itself. At 
 first very weak, but also very correct, for the instincts of 
 childhood upon all moral subjects are sure to be right. In 
 the progress of development, the intellect adds strength 
 either to the physical or moral constitution, according to 
 the natural temperament and the circumstances of educa- 
 tion and example. 
 
 The period when moral responsibility begins is hard to 
 determine. It certainly does not begin until there is a 
 clear perception of right and wrong, and a choice of one or 
 the other ; but whenever h begins, the child is conscious 
 of difficulties. His first exercise, as a moral being, is a 
 struggle, a conflict. There is an enemy to be conquered. 
 a victory to be won. Conscience claims the supremacy ; 
 it says, Thou must, or Thou must not ; but the body, with 
 its wants and its enjoyments, resists its commands. Reason 
 pleads for the right, passion and appetite for the wrong. 
 It is the struggle of life commenced, the spirit against the 
 flesh, and the flesh against the spirit. The result, if human 
 weakness ^receives no heavenly aid, is but too evident. The 
 physical, that is to say the powers of the flesh, being first 
 developed, is strong and vigorous, while the moral has but 
 an infant's strength and soon gives way. The passions 
 gain strength by what they feed on ; the intellect is brutal- 
 ized and brought into their service ; the conscience is 
 buried under the accumulated rubbish of sin. 
 
 Even in Christian lands, and under the influences of 
 Christian education and Christian example, which is a 
 strong divine helping to the principle of right, the great 
 majority of men and women, when they come to the age 
 Df mature life, find that the work of moral discipline is still 
 to be accomplished. There is a difference in their degrees 
 of sinfulness ; but with nine oat of ten, the pervading prin- 
 
136 REGENERATION. 
 
 ciple of conduct is self-love, or self-indulgence, or worldly 
 ambition. In nine cases out of ten, therefore, a radical 
 change is needed, before they can properly be called 
 Christians. I call it a radical change, for if you change 
 the principle of life, as I have already said, you change 
 every thing. It is not only an outward change, for the pro- 
 prieties of life may already be observed. It is chiefly an 
 inward change, which concerns the motives and the affec- 
 tions. In many instances where the outward conduct contin* 
 ues the same, the real change of character is equally great. 
 
 I have said, in nine cases out of ten, that such will be 
 the result ; perhaps I might have used even stronger lan- 
 guage, for there are very few persons who are not under 
 the necessity, sooner or later, of that strong moral exercise, 
 through which, by the blessing of God, the worldly and 
 selfish heart becomes religious. Sometimes it is a violent 
 and short struggle, sometimes a slow and laborious self- 
 discipline ; sometimes we can tell the day and the hour 
 when it begins, and sometimes we almost doubt whether it 
 has commenced or not, until it is accomplished. But with 
 nearly all, in some way or other, the change must be 
 accomplished from the earthly to the spiritual, from the 
 worldly to the religious, from the selfish to the self-deny- 
 ing character, after we have come to the years of con- 
 scious self-direction. 
 
 In a few instances, equally rare and beautiful, the devel- 
 opment of our nature is so healthy, that the soul, almost 
 from the first, asserts its rightful supremacy. This is 
 sometimes the result of pure Christian influences, the wise 
 training of parents, the example of good and pious teachers, 
 which may be called the hunmi agency by which the Di- 
 vine Spirit is working. Sometimes, even when surrounded 
 by the worst influences of sin, in the dens of iniquity, or in 
 
REGENERATION. 137 
 
 the high places of worldliness, the child is seen to grow uf 
 with almost stainless purity, through some mysterious guid- 
 ing of which it is not conscious, but which leads heaven- 
 ward, as by an angePs hand. In such cases there seems 
 never to be a struggle between the flesh and the spirit. 
 The soul grows up to the heavenly life, almost as the seed 
 grows up to its appointed beauty. Yet I believe that, even in 
 such cases, if we could understand the full working of the 
 soul, we should find here, as elsewhere, what is called the 
 new birth, which is the passing from the earthly or natural 
 state to the spiritual or heavenly. It may take place very 
 early and very gradually, but 1 think that it is not the less 
 real. The life of the spirit is not that to which we are first 
 born, but the life of the flesh. The second man, and not 
 the first, is the Lord from heaven. When Christ is formed 
 m the soul, it is the redemption of the soul from the natural 
 earthly influence. If it is eflected before that influence has 
 brought degradation, the thanksgiving to God may be 
 greater, but it is not less a redemption. 
 
 Upon this subject, however, I would not dispute. Such 
 instances are as rare as they are blessed. With by far the 
 greater part of the human family, the experience is very 
 different and far more painful. We find ourselves laden 
 with sins, we scarcely know how. We are walking in a 
 wrong direction, almost before we have thought whither the 
 path leads. Our first serious thoughts of heaven are awa- 
 kened, by our seeing that our faces are not turned heaven- 
 ward. It is the restlessness of the soul under the bondage 
 of sin, that arouses us to assert its true dignity. Through 
 some human agency, or through the working of our own 
 mmd, God speaks to us, and if we hearken, the conflict 
 begins, the result of which is properly called a deliverance 
 and a victory. 
 
 12* 
 
138 REGENERATION. 
 
 Fiom what has been now said, although in a desultory 
 manner, you will understand my views upon this important 
 topic, the doctrine of Regeneration. By this new birth, we 
 mean a change from the carnal to the spiritual ; that is, not 
 an absolute change of nature, which would be the creation 
 of a new soul, but the subjection of the lower principles of 
 our nature, which are of the flesh, to the higher principles, 
 which are of the spirit. It is a change, therefore, in the 
 motives and the affections, that is a change of heart. It is 
 a new direction given both to the inward and outward life, 
 and the whole meaning of life is thereby changed. I do 
 not mean any thing mystical or mysterious by this ; in pro- 
 portion as we become religious persons, we shall under- 
 stand it. 
 
 Secondly : It is a change needed by all. Sooner or 
 later it must be experienced by all, before they can be 
 called the followers of Christ. For we are not born 
 Christians. Innocence, or freedom from actual transgres- 
 sion, is the utmost we can claim, which is a very different 
 thing from moral excellence or righteousness. This must 
 come from the discipline of life, and to accomplish it is 
 precisely the purpose of our being placed in the present 
 state of probation. 
 
 Thirdly : The manner and process of this change, of 
 this spiritual development and growth, are very different in 
 different individuals; — as different as men's natural con- 
 stitutions and the circumstances under which they are 
 placed. To prescribe an invariable rule by which the 
 spiritual experience of all shall be governed, is nothing but 
 religio is empiricism, and is the mark of a narrow-minded 
 teacher. It is not necessary that all should walk in the 
 same company and wear the same badge, to be followers 
 of the same Master. 
 
REGENERATION. 139 
 
 Fourthly : In the formation of our reh'gious character, 
 which is our Regeneration, we are chiefly indebted, as we 
 are in every thing, to the Divine guidance and help. With- 
 out God, we are nothing and can do nothing. But we too 
 must work. His working is through our working, nor can 
 we, generally speaking, separate the one from the other. 
 The operation of the Divine Spirit is real and effectual : 
 but as " the wind bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the 
 sound thereof, but cannot tell whence it cometh or whither 
 it goeth, so is every one born of the Spirit." 
 
 Finally: The proof of Regeneration is in the life. **Let 
 no man deceive you ; he that doeth righteousness is 
 righteous, even as he is righteous." (1 John iii. 7.) It is 
 not in professions, nor in ecstasies, nor in flaming zeal, 
 much less in the self-righteous condemnation of others ; 
 but in a life of genuine goodness, purity, and truth. The 
 evidence of the Christian spirit is in the Christian character. 
 By their fruits shall ye know them. " Pure religion and 
 undefiled before God the Father is this, To visit the father- 
 .ess and widows in their affliction, and to keep ourselves 
 jnspotted from the world." 
 
RETRIBUTION. 
 
 THE SriNO OF DF.ATH IS SIN ; AND THE STRENGTH OP SIN 18 
 THE LAW. BUT THANKS BE TO GOD, WHICH GIVETH US THB 
 yiCTORT THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THEREFORE, MY 
 BELOVED BRETHREN, BE TE STEADFAST, UNMOVABLE, ALWAYS 
 ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD, FORASMUCH AS YB 
 KNOW THAT YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LORD. — 
 
 1 Cor. XV. 56-58. 
 
 The subject of my present discourse is the doctrine of 
 Future Retribution. If nothing had been said in the Bible 
 directly concerning it, I think that it might be inferred from 
 the manner in which the sacred writers speak of sin as the 
 great evil, and of salvation from it as the great redemption. 
 The whole Gospel dispensation implies that there is a terri- 
 ble danger to which we are exposed through sin, and a glo- 
 rious deliverance which is offered through Jesus Christ. 
 " Who shall deliver me," said the Apostle, " from the body 
 of this death ? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them who are 
 in Christ Jesus. For the law of the spirit of life in him, 
 hath made me free from the law of sin and death." This 
 is the uniform tone in which the Scriptures speak of sin 
 and redemption. I cannot understand it, unless the conse- 
 quences of sin extend to the future life. 
 
142 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 If they were confined to this world, sin would be com* 
 paratively a small evil. If they were found only in the oc- 
 casional loss of friends and of health, or even if they ex- 
 tended so far as to make the whole of the present life miser- 
 able, yet if death were sure to bring the end of all, nay, it 
 it were in our power to seek death ourselves, and thereby 
 to open for the weary soul the never-ending bliss of heaven, 
 we might look upon sin itself with feelings comparatively 
 calm and quiet. It would be sad to see the degradation of 
 those who barter their present happiness for debasing pleas- 
 ures. It would be sad to think of the years which they 
 waste, of the shame which they bring upon themselves and 
 their kindred. But if we could say to them, "The degra- 
 dation shall soon be changed to infinite glory, the shame 
 shall soon pass into rejoicing, the fire which conscience has 
 kindled shall soon be quenched in the stream which sepa- 
 rates time from eternity," the remaining evil might be easily 
 borne. If we could say to him who is now striving to make 
 himself a brute, and who succeeds in making himself a 
 fiend, " Do your very worst ; drink of the cup of iniquity 
 to its dregs ; bury your soul in earthly lusts, until none but 
 the eye of God can discern that a soul is there ; yet, when 
 a few short years are past, thou shalt lie down in the sleep 
 of death, from which thou shalt awake an angel of God 
 pure and spotless," — our feelings with regard to sin and the 
 sinner would be entirely changed. Sin would still be an 
 evil, but how much less than it now appears. It would 
 stand among other evils, like ignorance, or poverty ; a 
 serious evil, greater perhaps than the rest, and carefully lO 
 be avoided, but at the worst only temporary, and soon to be 
 followed by infinite good. How different are our feelings 
 when we think of it as the beginning here of what must 
 contiiiue hereafter; when we think that a sinful life works 
 
RETRIBUTION. 143 
 
 !n the soul a character which remains after the body dies • 
 when we think of that poor, degraded spirit, passing from 
 a life of shame and guilt into a life where it is incapable of 
 receiving any reward except " the things done in the body " ; 
 when we think that he who has already forfeited all the 
 best happiness of this life, has nothing to look forward to, 
 except to reap that which he has sown, the fearful looking 
 for of judgment ! 
 
 I would not underrate the evil of sin in its present de» 
 velopment. The wasted features of the drunkard, the cold 
 and malignant look of the gambler, the mean and tricky 
 glance of the thief, the sensual expression of the licentious, 
 the bloodthirsty eye of the murderer, — these are terrible to 
 look upon. We shrink from them with loathing and dis- 
 gust. The way of the transgressor is hard ; his sins pun- 
 ish themselves, and the baseness to which they bring him 
 is fearful. But our horror is increased, while at the same 
 time we are filled with unutterable pity, when we are 
 taught that this is but the beginning of sorrow. O my 
 God, what must be the awaking from such a sleep as this ! 
 with every faculty of thought degraded ; with every desire 
 made corrupt ; with the tastes perverted from good and 
 fixed upon evil ; with selfishness as the only rule of action 
 and sin the only object of pursuit ; with not even enough of 
 goodness left to make him repent of the wrong done, and 
 throw himself, with cries for pardon, upon the mercies ot 
 his God ! 
 
 Being such a one, when he passes from this life to the 
 future, where shall the sinner appear ? What has he to do 
 with the pure and good ? What enjoyment can he find in 
 Holiness and truth ? How can he enter upon the service 
 of God, that heavenly service, which begins in self-renun- 
 ciation, and is perfected in love ? Place him among the 
 
144 RETRIBUTION 
 
 just made perfect, who hunger and thirst after righteous- 
 ness, among the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and what 
 companionship would he find ? Alas ! it is not the suffering 
 which sin brings with it now, although its present retribu- 
 tion is severe, — it is not this, but the ruin which it works 
 in the soul itself, that makes it so terrible. The present 
 evil soon must cease, but the ruin remains. 
 
 It will be seen from my manner of speaking, that the ret- 
 ribution in which I believe is both present and future. It 
 is the execution, now and hereafter, of the laws under which 
 we live : laws which were made in wisdom, and which are 
 executed with apparent sternness, but in real love. Many 
 persons take for granted that by proving a law of retiibu- 
 tion in this life, under which we suffer for wrong-doing, 
 they disprove the existence of such a law in the world to 
 come. I think they are in error. The existence of such a 
 law here is a proof that it will continue there. It is the 
 same soul that passes from time to eternity, the same God 
 reigns there and here, the same great purposes are to be 
 accomplished, and we have reason to believe that the same 
 principles of moral government will continue. I would be. 
 at pains, therefore, in proving the doctrine of future retribu- 
 tion, to make the fact of present retribution prominent and 
 clear. By doing this, we shall at the same time prove the 
 existence of a general law, under which we now live, and 
 which we have no right to suppose will be abrogated by 
 death ; and we shall also see that the operation of this law 
 is here so imperfect, so often interrupted by causes which 
 must evidently cease with the present life, that there is still 
 stronger reason to believe that, in a higher sphere of action, 
 the essential laws of our being will find their more per- 
 fect development. 
 
 Retribution here is of several kinds. First is that which 
 
RETRIBUTION. 145 
 
 we suffer, not as human beings, but in common with all 
 the animal creation. We may call it natural retribu- 
 tion. There are certain laws, the observance of which is 
 essential to continued life and health. Food of a proper 
 kind and in sufficient quantity must be provided ; that 
 which is unwholesome must be avoided ; the strength must 
 be matured by exercise, and not over-exerted ; and other 
 laws of our physical nature must be observed, or evil con« 
 sequences result. There are similar conditions on which 
 the healthful development of the mind depends. If it is 
 brought too early or too strongly into action, if it is devel 
 oped too rapidly and without regard to the equal claims of 
 the body, not only is the bodily health lost, but the mind also 
 too often becomes unsound, the powers of thought weak- 
 ened, and the balance of judgment destroyed. Or if the 
 mind is left indolent, if it is suffered to remain torpid or un- 
 educated, the physical nature is brutalized and its real vigor 
 ultimately lost. There are laws, therefore, which belong to 
 the body, and there are laws upon which the healthful con- 
 nection between the body and the mind depends. Their 
 violation must always bring loss and suffering, to a greater 
 or less degree, for wherever law exists, penalty for its 
 violation must be annexed. 
 
 But of these laws we must observe two things, impor- 
 tant to our present subject ; first, the penalty annexed is 
 just the same, whether their violation is attended with guilt 
 or not. It may be voluntary or involuntary, yet the suffer- 
 ing will be the same. It may come in the performance of 
 unavoidable duty, yet its severity is not relaxed. You may 
 rush into a burning house, to rescue a child from death, 
 yet you will come out with a scarred and tortured body, as 
 much as if you had exposed yourself to the same danger 
 in wantonness, or in the commission of crime. If you are 
 13 
 
146 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 SO ignorant of the laws of physical health as ti spend all 
 your days in the closet, and rob the nights of sleep, cheat- 
 ing the body of needful exercise and wholesome food, stim- 
 ulating the brain with hurtful drugs which destroy the 
 nerves, the consequence will be equally certain and severe, 
 whether the folly has been committed in the pursuit of 
 knowledge, of pleasure, or of gain. If you over-exert 
 yDur strength, though it may be in support of a widowed 
 mother, in the care of the sick, in works of philanthropy, 
 or in the service of religion, yet the consequence will be 
 an invalid frame and premature death, just as certainly aa 
 f the same over-exertion had been induced by avarice or 
 ambition. Unnatural and long-continued excitement will 
 produce insanity, whether it is in the church, in the ball- 
 room, or at the gambling-table. 
 
 These are facts which, however startling, cannot be de- 
 nied. The retribution, therefore, of which we now speak, is 
 not moral retribution. It comes not in punishment of gi>ilt 
 nor in reward of virtue. It may indeed be mingled with 
 moral retribution, and may often seem to come as the pun- 
 ishment of guilt. But in itself considered it has no regard 
 to merit or demerit. Ignorance will not exempt us from 
 it; the best intention will not enable us to avoid it. 
 
 We observe, secondly, that, so far as human judgment 
 3an discern, this retribution is not impartial. Some men 
 are endowed with a physical constitution so strong and 
 elastic, that the utmost irregularities seem to do them no 
 harm ; others are so weak, that the slightest departure from 
 prudence brings suffering or death. The same degree ol 
 indulgence which, in one family, will make children vic- 
 tims of disease, will, in another, be consistent with their 
 vigorous and healthy growth. And so in all the depart- 
 ments of life, the bad results, under the law we now con 
 
RETRIBUTION. 1-1*7 
 
 siJer, not only cone without regard to the intention of the 
 offender, but, so far as we can see, bear no equa\ pro- 
 portion to the offence itself. I have no doubt, that, if we 
 were able to take a view of the whole, it would seem other- 
 wise ; for the circumstances which produce these apparent 
 inequalities are, perhaps, themselves the result of previ- 
 ous action of the same laws. The frail constitution may be 
 the result of some violation of physical law by our parents, 
 or by our ancestry a hundred years ago. The causes, 
 which in one family produce disease and in another do no 
 harm, seem to us the same, but, through some influence 
 unknown to us, may be entirely different. Still, so far 
 as moral government is concerned, the effect upon indi- 
 viduals is the same. The retribution is not impartial. It 
 comes upon us like blows struck in the dark. The com- 
 paratively guilty escape, the comparatively innocent suffer. 
 It may serve under our present subject as an illustration of 
 a general law, but it is not the kind of retribution needed 
 for moral discipline. 
 
 There is a second kind of retribution which we may call 
 social. It consists in the loss of reputation, of friends, of so- 
 cial position, and of every thing outward which makes life 
 pleasant or desirable. The drunkard becomes an object 
 of disgust, and the finger of scorn is pointed at him. The 
 licentious man is marked as one to be avoided. The thief 
 is branded with a harsh epithet and immured in the walls 
 of a prison. Public opinion, the usages of society, the 
 criminal code, the laws of friendship and kindred, all 
 minister to this social retribution of wrong-doing. If the 
 usages of society were always correct, if human laws were 
 perfect and perfectly administered, if public opinion were 
 sound and in accordance with Christian principles, this ret- 
 ribution would go far to answer all the purposes of moral 
 
148 RETRIBITTIO>. 
 
 discipline. But unfortunately, nothing can be more nn- 
 eqaal, more arbitrary, or unjust. Taking the world as it 
 is, looking at the facts as they really are, the social ret- 
 ribution visited upon crime, so far from answering the 
 purpose of moral discipline, is one of the greatest obstacles 
 in its way. Society does not punish sin according to its 
 real enormity, but to the circumstances under which it is 
 committed. This is done, not by any rule of justice, but in 
 the most partial and tyrannical manner. Those who have 
 the least excuse for crime are most likely to escape punish- 
 ment, while those whose temptations were so great that re- 
 sistance was almost impossible, are punished to the utmost 
 extent of the law, and exposed to the worst censure of pub- 
 lic opinion. Children, who grow up in some den of iniqui- 
 ty, whose parents praise them when they steal and punish 
 them when they are honest, who are educated by all the 
 influences around them to become the pests of society, 
 when they are a little older commit some felony or some 
 act of violence, and for a theft of a few dollars are sent to 
 the penitentiary for two or three years, from which they 
 come out, with almost no possibility before them but a life 
 of wickedness and shame. How different is the sentence 
 which society passes upon the man who, in his childhood, 
 had every advantage of Christian education and good ex- 
 ample, and who has grown up among influences which 
 make virtue easy and remove the worst temptations of vice ! 
 Such a man, when guilty, we do not now say of theft, but 
 of peculation to a hundred times the amount, under cir- 
 cumstances, perhaps, where there is the most inexcusable 
 breach of trust, and the most heartless wrong committed 
 afijainst his best friends, will escape comparatively unpun- 
 'shcd. There may be a temporary loss of credit, but if he 
 has been successful in his villany, it all comes right with 
 
RETRIBUTION. 149 
 
 mm v^ory soon ; he is again numbered among the respecta- 
 ble men of the community, and his children grow up in the 
 best society. 
 
 We might give a thousand illustrations of the same sort. 
 The gambler, who stakes a few dollars on a throw and 
 whose sphere of action is low and vulgar, is called by his 
 right name and regarded with the contempt which he de- 
 serves. But he who is able to stake thousands, and whose 
 gambling-table stands in the carpeted room of a gentle- 
 man's residence, may be guilty of the same crime without 
 losing caste and almost without censure. Intemperance 
 in the rich is a veiy different thing from intemperance 
 in the poor. And so it happens that the advantages of so- 
 cial position, which make the sin itself greater, shield the 
 sinner from the punishment he deserves. Society is full of 
 such injustice. The tribunal of public opinion is- one where 
 a bribe is never refused. 
 
 It is evident, therefore, that neither natural nor social 
 retribution is sufficient for the purposes of moral discipline. 
 We need a retribution which is certain, impartial, and in 
 exact proportion to the guilt committed. And this leads us 
 to consider a third kind of retribution, which, beginning in 
 this world, will be perfected in the world to come, — the 
 retribution of conscience. It certainly begins here. We 
 never commit sin intentionally without feeling rebuked for it, 
 and sometimes the punishment which a sensitive conscience 
 inflicts is so severe, that it seems beyond the offence com- 
 mitted. 
 
 There are some who believe that this retribution of con- 
 science is perfect and complete in the present life ; that 
 every sin is certainly punished, and in exact proportion to 
 the degree of guilt ; but I cannot agree with them. Nei- 
 ther my experience nor my observation confirms it. I ana 
 13* 
 
150 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 willing to admit that the tendency of this retribution is to 
 become more and more just. If all adventitious circum- 
 stances were removed, if conscience had a fair and open 
 field of action, its decisions would be just and in all cases 
 governed by the offence. But this I believe rarely takes 
 place in this world. Practically speakmg, its decisions are 
 continually warped and its sentence is continually avoided ; 
 so that, although it gives plain indication of what it may 
 become in the future life, it is at present an uncertain and 
 insufficient tribunal. For in the first place, it is more or 
 less quick and severe in its action, according to the physi- 
 cal constitution. The man of sensitive nerves and deli- 
 cate frame has a conscience so tender, that every slight 
 departure from duty gives him pain, and often it becomes 
 so morbid, that he is kept in constant misery, where no 
 wrong has been intended. Others, naturally of a coarser 
 temperament, have no desire to be better than their neigh- 
 bors, and live in the daily commission of faults, without the 
 least self-reproach. 
 
 Again, the circumstance of failure or success has a strange 
 effect upon the decisions of conscience, although it can have 
 none upon the act itself. A course of iniquity which hap- 
 pens to end in good results, fails to excite those severe com- 
 punctions which would have arisen from the same crime if 
 unsuccessful. A fraud which makes me rich, does not 
 trouble me so much as the same fraud, when it makes me 
 poor. Only in the latter case does conscience see and de- 
 clare the truth. 
 
 In the same manner, the concealment of sin often keeps 
 the conscience comparatively quiet, through long years, even 
 to the end of life ; when, if it had been revealed to the world, 
 and the scorn of good men and the estrangement of friends 
 had been thereby visited upon us, conscionce would at the 
 
RETRIBUTION. 151 
 
 Hjime time nave awaked, like a wild beast from his laii, to 
 rend our hearts in pieces. It seems as if the veil of secrecy 
 hides the fault, not only from the eyes of others, but from 
 our own. Discovery is needed to show us what we are. 
 Yet it is evident that continued concealment sometimes m- 
 creases the sin by the added guilt of hypocrisy. 
 
 Add to these things the complication which comes from 
 the unequal working of the natural and social retribution 
 to which we have already referred. The decisions of con- 
 science are contmually overborne by influences beyond its 
 control. We easily reconcile ourselves to sins which are 
 countenanced in society. The whisperings of conscience 
 are hushed, and we forget to condemn ourselves for doing 
 what others do. The individual conscience rarely speaks, 
 but instead of it a conventional or average conscience, 
 which is far less sensitive and correct. The external re- 
 wards of life come with so unequal regard to our real deserv- 
 ing, we are so often sufferers in ourselves and in our families, 
 for actions well intended and in themselves right, that it re- 
 quires a degree of faithfulness which few men exercise, to 
 keep the conscience itself from being hardened or perverted. 
 
 It is easy to say that the consciousness of right rewards 
 us sufficiently, let the loss and suffering be what they may ; 
 but to make it so requires a degree of moral elevation sel- 
 dom attained. If we analyze our feelings in times of such 
 experience, we shall find that it is not the present award of 
 conscience which upholds us, so much as the belief that its 
 sentence will be confirmed hereafter. We rest patiently 
 under the loss, we cheerfully endure the pain, because we 
 are assured that the victory now accomplished is an eternal 
 victory, and that the light affliction, which is but for the 
 moment, is working for us a far more exceeding, even an 
 eterna weight of glory. This demands our carelul consid 
 
152 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 eration. The healthy action of conscience in the present 
 life depends upon our belief that the consequences of sin 
 extend to the future. It is this belief which shows the enor- 
 mity of sin and the real injury it does to the soul. I do not 
 advocate a slavish fear of punishment, but I believe that 
 the retribution which conscience now imposes is derived, in 
 a great part, from the knowledge that it will go on to its 
 perfect fulfilment beyond the grave. It is, therefore, although 
 a present retribution, chiefly the anticipation of the future. 
 
 There is another kind of moral retribution, which comes 
 from the application of the general law to our moral nature. 
 It consists in the formation of character. By our manner 
 of life, the soul is moulded into certain shapes of beauty 
 or deformity ; its capacities enlarged or contracted ; its 
 perceptions quickened or made dull ; its tastes purified or 
 debased ; its inward life made heavenly or vile. We there- 
 fore suffer retribution by what we are. The present char- 
 acter for good or evil is retributive of the past. Each day 
 lays up for the morrow a retribution which is absolutely sure 
 to come. It is also progressive and cumulative, for the 
 present character is the result of all that has gone before. 
 In this manner, as we enter upon each successive stage of 
 life, from childhood to youth, from youth to manhood, from 
 manhood to mature and advancing age, we carry with us 
 the results of the past, — an actual retribution, in the mora? 
 habits, in the greater or less development of the mind, in 
 the actual, although acquired, nature of the soul. 
 
 This also, like the direct retribution of conscience, would 
 be in exact accordance with justice, were there no disturb- 
 injT influences. But in fact, we are not the absolute framers 
 of our own character. The moral position in which we 
 stand is not altogether the result of our own merit or de 
 merit. We are moulded as much by the inf lences of 
 
RETRIBUTION. 153 
 
 education ind early ftxample, of country and cUmatt and 
 other external forces, as by our own exertions. Our present 
 character, therefore, being the consequence of all that has 
 gone before, may be considered under the natural law as 
 an exact retribution of the past. But under the moral law, 
 which has regard only to moral desert, it is very far from 
 being a just or impartial award. 
 
 I am well aware that considerations such as I have now 
 brought forward lead us into a labyrinth of thought, from 
 which we cannot alone find a return. If we imagine our- 
 selves to be placed upon the seat of judgment, to pass sen- 
 tence upon each individual according to his real desert, we 
 must acknowledge that to our finite faculties the task would 
 be impossible. It is a work which belongs only to an infi- 
 nite mind. God alone can discern the real truth in every 
 leart. He alone can untangle the perplexed thread of life, 
 so that each one shall feel that he is fairly dealt with, ac- 
 cording to the deeds done in the body, whether they be good 
 or evil. For this reason, there are no circumstances under 
 which we should dare to anticipate the judgment of God. 
 As the poor widow, who cast in one mite, was said to have 
 given more than all the rest, because it was more in propor- 
 tion to her ability, so may it often be in God's judgment, 
 when our full account is rendered. The seeming saint and 
 the despised sinner may then change places ; '•'- the last 
 shall be the first, and the first last." It is for God alone to 
 administer and execute the laws which God alone has made. 
 But although it would be arrogant in us to assume his place, 
 as many do, in pronouncing sentence upon the offender, we 
 may yet believe that in the infinite wisdom of God a just 
 sentence shall be pronoimced. We may perceive that 
 there are principles of justice, applicable to every case, 
 although we are not competent to app.) them. We may 
 
154 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 rest satisfied in believing that God is greater than the heart 
 and knoweth all things. He who is the Judge of all the 
 earth will do only that which is right. 
 
 From the course of thought which we have now followed, 
 as the result of experience and observation, we arrive at 
 these conclusions. First, that the great law of our lives 
 is the law of retribution. The present is answering for 
 the past, the future must answer for the present. God's 
 laws cannot be violated with impunity. That which we 
 sow, we also reap. This, in its various developments, is the 
 primal, essential law of our being. Secondly, considered 
 as a moral retribution, the action of this great law is, in 
 this world, imperfect and unequal. The disturbing influen- 
 ces are so many, that, although we may discern a tendency 
 towards justice, impartial justice is not here attained. The 
 punishment of sin is not according to the degree of sin, 
 but is made greater or less by a thousand circumstances, 
 which do not affect the degree of guilt. Thirdly, both of 
 these conclusions lead us to a third, namely, that the same 
 general law of retribution, which seems to be the condition 
 of life itself, shall continue in the soul as long as the soul 
 lives. There is nothing to indicate that it belongs to this 
 world only. Let the fact of a future life be admitted, and 
 it seems to follow, as a matter of necessity, that this law 
 shall continue. If so, it will become, as a moral retribution, 
 just and equal. The disturbing influences will cease. They 
 belong only to a state of probation, the infancy of the soul's 
 life, and will have no place there. Here we see through 
 a glass darkly, there face to face. The principles of God's 
 moral government, which are here but imperfectly devel- 
 oped, will there obtain a full and perfect administration. 
 Such is the logical conclusion with regard to the future 
 from the premises gi /en here. 
 
HETRIBUTION. 155 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, that when we come to the Gos- 
 pfil, as the revelation of God, we do not so much need that 
 the law of retribution should be announced or confirmed, as 
 that it should be restrained. It is a law so absolute, so rad- 
 ical, so unsparing, so fearful, that we can find no escape 
 from it. Under the light of reason alone, scarcely any 
 hope is given ; we find no shelter from the impending wrath. 
 He who believes in a future life, and who sees the stern, 
 relentless law under which the soul now lives, — a law 
 whose present execution is stayed, but still threatens to 
 come when the soul is exposed defenceless to its power, — 
 does not need to be told of the terrors of the Lord, so 
 much as of his forbearance and loving-kindness and tender 
 mercy. We need to be taught, not so much that destruction 
 is impending, as that a way of escape is provided. I con- 
 fess that, as a believer in eternity, if reason were my only 
 guide, I should shudder whenever I think of death. Then 
 indeed it would be a " fearful thing to fall into the hands 
 of the living God." A dim and uncertain hope of his mer- 
 cy might come, to save us from absolute despair, but the 
 sins that rise up in judgment against us are so many, that 
 we need an assurance of pardon, almost before we dare to 
 hope. It is this assurance that the Gospel gives. It teaches 
 that through the redemption in Jesus Christ, a limit to that 
 fearful law of retribution is found. There is forgiveness 
 whh God. He will not exact the payment of the uttermost 
 farthing, but will freely forgive us " all that debt." To make 
 this known was the great object of Christ's coming. As it 
 is written, " the law came by Moses, but grace and truth 
 by our Lord Jesus Christ." It is the Gospel of redemption, 
 not of condemnation. It came to inspire hope, not to increase 
 despair. It changes the law of retribution, under whicl" we 
 reap only that which we sow, to a law of reconciliation, 
 
156 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 ander which all estrangement from God, the wt. rst penalty 
 of sin, is removed, and the returning prodigal is restored to 
 the arms of a father's love. 
 
 But to whom is this promise given ? Tcf whom is this 
 pardon offered ? Even in his mercy God is just, and while 
 a way of escape for the sinner is provided, his condemna- 
 tion upon sin remains. 
 
 There is no passage in the Bible, so far as I know, which 
 offers pardon, except on condition of repentance and a re- 
 newed life. If there is any exception to this, it is where 
 faith in Christ is declared the sole condition of eternal 
 life. But those who understand the meaning of faith, in the 
 New Testament, know that it is a state of mind and charac- 
 ter, which includes repentance and self-consecration to God. 
 The third chapter of the Gospel of John insists equally upon 
 the necessity of the new birth and upon the supreme impor- 
 tance of faith in Christ. They both impl^ the same spirit- 
 ual experience which is the condition on which forgiveness 
 is promised. 
 
 I state this, therefore, as the First Scriptural argument for 
 the continuance of the law of retribution in the future life ; 
 namely, that although the great object of the Gospel is to 
 reveal the mercy of God and his willingness to forgive, y»- 
 we are encouraged to hope for pardon only upon the cond* 
 tion which I have named. The inference is most plain, tha 
 to those who continue in sin forgiveness is not offered 
 They abide under the law of condemnation from which 
 they refuse to escape. 
 
 Another Scriptural argument to the same effect is found 
 in the manner in which the doctrine of future retribution is 
 often taken for granted, as the basis on which instruction is 
 given. When the Saviour says, " He that loses his life for 
 my sake shall fini it," we can give no full meaning to his 
 
RETRIBUTION. 151 
 
 words, except on the supposition that, although we lose 
 every thing in this life, we gain more in the future. If that 
 future were the same to us, whether we are faithful or un- 
 faithful here, his words would scarcely have been true. 
 When the Scripture says, " Be thou faithful unto death, and 
 I will give thee a crown of life," we are plainly taught that 
 to those who are unfaithful that crown is not offered. In 
 the chapter from which my text is taken, the object of 
 the Apostle is simply to prove the doctrine of a future life. 
 He says nothing directly of retribution, but declares that all 
 of us shall be raised again by the power of God in such a 
 body as may please him. Yet he concludes his discourse 
 with the words, " Therefore be ye steadfast, unmovable, al- 
 ways abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye 
 know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord." There- 
 fore .'' why ? Why is the fact of a future life an argument 
 for our being steadfast and unmovable ? Because the future 
 must answer for the present. Because the pure in heart 
 alone can see God. Because we have no right to hope for 
 acceptance, unless we can comply with the conditions on 
 which it is offered. Believing this, we know that our labor 
 is not in vain in the Lord. But if good and bad shall ap- 
 pear before him, in equal glory and in equal favor, the 
 Apostle's words seem to me without force, and the motive 
 which he urges for our faithfulness is taken away. 
 
 We might give many other instances like this. Even 
 the prodigal son is required to return, with the words of 
 confession on his lips and with a heart full of penitence, be- 
 fore his father comes out to meet him. A broad distinc- 
 tion is made between the good and bad, the penitent and 
 impenitent, whenever a future life is mentioned, and it is 
 taken for granted that it will continue there. I attach more 
 importance to this form of argument than I do to the literal 
 14 
 
158 retr:bution. 
 
 interpretation of words, and think that it is much less likely 
 to mislead us. The plainest language may be explained 
 away, and we may be deceived as to its meaning. But this 
 argument does not depend on verbal criticism. When the 
 doctrine of a future life is used as a motive for faithfulness 
 and obedience, it is an evident declaration, that that un- 
 known world is not the same to the good and bad, but that 
 the future must answer for the present. 
 
 Thirdly, there are, however, many direct assertions of the 
 same truth. The ingenuity of criticism may throw a doubt 
 over soma of them, but they are so many, and their obvious 
 interpretation seems to me so evidently their true meaning, 
 that, although J would not impute intentional unfairness to 
 those who explain them away, I cannot help feeling sur 
 prised at the boldness of their undertaking. " Except ycu^ 
 righteousness shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisee? 
 ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." " T 
 ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Fa 
 ther in heaven forgive your trespasses." " Not every 
 one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven, but he who doeth the will of my Father 
 which is in heaven." " Fear not them which kill the body, 
 but are not able to kill the soul, but rather fear him who is 
 able to destroy both soul and body in hell." " For we 
 must all appear," said the Apostle Paul, "before the judg- 
 ment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things 
 done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether 
 it be good or bad." " Know this, that no unclean person 
 hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." 
 Again, after enumerating the works of the flesh, he says 
 "Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in 
 times past, that they who do such things shall not inherit the 
 kingdom of God." For "God will render to every man 
 
RETRIBUTION. 159 
 
 according to his deeds ; to them who, by patient continu- 
 ance in well-doing, seek for glory and honor and immortal- 
 ity, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious and 
 do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation 
 and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man 
 that doelh evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile ; but 
 glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good, to 
 the Jew first, and also to the Gentile ; for there is no respect 
 of persons with God " " For the wages of sin is death, but 
 the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our 
 Lord." 
 
 I do not see how this language can be fairly explained, 
 except as teaching the doctrine of future retribution for sin. 
 So far as I can understand their words, this is what the 
 Saviour and his Apostles meant to teach, and therefore I 
 believe it. 
 
 It is important for me here to refer more particularly to 
 the Scripture use of the word Hell, because it not only af- 
 fords an argument for the doctrine to be proved, but also 
 removes some of the most popular objections brought 
 against it. In the Old Testament the word, properly speak- 
 ing, never occurs, for although we find it in our translation, 
 the original word in Hebrew is Sheol, which corresponds 
 with the Greek word Hades, and means the place of de- 
 parted spirits, or the grave. See Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; xlii. 
 38; where h is so translated, and we have the authority 
 of the Septuagint for the same translation in all cases. 
 
 In the common version of the New Testament, it occurs 
 twenty times. In ten of which the Greek word is Hades, 
 and should have been accordingly translated. See Luke 
 xvi. 23 ; Acts ii. 31 ; and elsewhere. In the other ten 
 passages where the word occurs, the original is not Hades, 
 but Gehenna, by looking at which we shall understand 
 
160 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 most of the language applied by Scriptun to the punish 
 ment of the wicked. It is a Hebrew word properly signi- 
 fying the valley of Hinnom, a beautiful val ey near Jerusa 
 lem, by the brook Kidron, where Solomon at the time oi 
 his apostasy from God set up a brazen image of Moloch, 
 before which the idolatrous Jews offered, not only the usual 
 sacrifices, but even their own children. 1 Kings xi. 7 ; 
 2 Chron. xxviii. 3. This valley was called by the prophet 
 Jeremiah, Tophet, Jer. vii. 31, 32, from a word signify- 
 ing Tympanum, because in those sacrifices the priests beat 
 violently the Tympana, lest the shrieks of the burning chil- 
 dren should be heard by the worshippers. When these 
 horrible rites were abolished by Josias, 2 Kings xxiii. 10, 
 and the Jews were reclaimed to the worship of God, they 
 detested this valley, the scene of their guilt, so much, that 
 they made it the receptacle, not only of all the filth of the 
 city, but of dead animals and of the bodies of executed 
 criminals ; and to prevent the pollution of the air from 
 this mass of decayed matter, fires were kept incessantly 
 burning, night and day, from the beginning to the end of 
 the year. Hence, the valley of Hinnom or Gehenna soon 
 passed into a proverb or common expression for any severe 
 punishment, and especially for any disgraceful kind of 
 death, and ultimately was applied to the miserable condition 
 of those who, in the future life, suffer the agonies of guilt; 
 so that, in the time of Christ, one of the common meanings 
 of Gehenna was what we understand by the word Hell.* 
 This, however, was not its only use, and therefore, in 
 
 * " The word Gehenna is used in this way (viz. for the place of 
 pimishmont beyond the grave) very frequently in Oriental writers, as 
 far as India. Compare Wetstein's New Testament, at Matt, v 22^ 
 -Jahn's Archaology, § 411. 
 
RETRIBUTION. 161 
 
 reading the New Testament, we must b(5 guided by the 
 context to determine the meaning in each case. But in 
 several of the passages it undoubtedly refers to the doom ot 
 the wicked ; as in the text already quoted, " Fea* him who 
 is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," Matt. x. 28, 
 any other construction of which seems to me very forced 
 and unnatural. 
 
 This word Gehenna, derived as I have shown it to be, 
 but transferred from its original meaning and applied to 
 express figuratively the condition of the wicked, contains 
 in itself the germ and explanation of all the various terms 
 ^'hich the Scriptures use to describe future punishment. 
 To call the abode of the condemned Gehenna, to a Jewish 
 (;ar included the fire which is never quenched, and the un- 
 dying worm, and the lake of fire burning with brimstone 
 These particulars were only the completion of the first idea. 
 To us they seem to add a great deal to the simple term 
 Gehenna, but to a Jew that word embraced within itself all 
 that is horrible and loathsome, all that is disgraceful and 
 revolting, all that is agonizing, in ignominious punishment 
 and death. To the application of this term to the place 
 of punishment, we may therefore with certainty attribute 
 those figurative expressions, in which it is spoken of as a 
 place of darkness and fierce burning and torture. All these 
 expressions are figures derived from that awful valley, 
 whose name was borrowed to describe the state of being 
 we call Hell. 
 
 I call them figures, in which probably few persons will 
 disagree with me. The believers in a hell of literal fire 
 and brimstone are fast passing away. It is an idea too 
 gross, too shocking, to be long retained by a civilized and 
 educated people. There is some.hing so like savage cru- 
 elt) in the thought of casting a living being into eternal 
 14* 
 
162 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 flames, to live for ever the prey of devouring but never 
 destroying fire, that we instinctively shrink from it, as un- 
 worthy of a good and wise God. It is astonishing to me 
 that for so long a time men clung to this literal language 
 and insisted upon the existence of the lake of fire and 
 brimstone, in which the body is tormented ; and that even 
 now, the favorite mode of bringing men to God is by hold- 
 ing up a picture of exquisitely contrived torture, to scare 
 their imaginations and frighten them out of sin. It is called 
 preaching the terrors of the Lord. But I do not believe 
 that God means to arm those who preach his word with a 
 whip of scorpions by which to drive men to heaven. He 
 has given us no authority to represent him as a cruel, un- 
 feeling, relentless being, who looks with complacency upon 
 the miserable victims of ceaseless burning. The effect of 
 such representations is to create distrust of all letribution. 
 It becomes associated with so much that is horrible and 
 disgusting, it is made to appear so unlike that treatment 
 which we have a right to expect from a just and merciful 
 God, that we turn our minds away from it and refuse belief 
 in the truth itself. 
 
 But let me not be misunderstood. I would not lessen the 
 fear which sin brings to the guilty man. It cannot be too 
 great, so long as it is calm and rational, arising from our 
 knowledge of the ruin which sin brings upon the soul now, 
 and the dread of what it may do hereafter. The terms 
 used by the Scripture, though strongly figurative, are not 
 unmeaning words. We may divest ourselves of the horror 
 which their literal interpretation would convey, but we can- 
 not set them aside. The Saviour, in adopting as the ex- 
 pression for the punishment of the wicked a word so full 
 of terror as the valley of Hinnom, took the surest way ol 
 declaring that the sorrow of the sinful soul hereafter is be 
 vend the power of tame words to describe. 
 
RETRIBUTION. . 163 
 
 Figurative language is used to convey greater strength 
 and intensity of meaning. Are we yet so ignorant as not 
 to know, so brutish as not to understand, that there is no 
 torture of these frail sinews, no agony which can be 
 brought on this crumbling body, so dreadful as the rising 
 of an abused conscience to assert its stern dominion over 
 the guilty soul. There are hundreds of instances in this 
 world, where the perpetrators of heinous crimes have fled 
 to the punishment of the dungeon and the gallows, as if to 
 a mother's arms, because they could no longer bear the 
 secret lashing of their conscience. And, on the other hand, 
 there are those who so value the peace of mind which a 
 conscience void of offence brings, that they would not bar- 
 ter it for all earthly good, nor lose it to avoid the worst and 
 longest torture which the body is able to endure. There is 
 a story of an English martyr, who, when bound to the 
 stake, held his right hand in the fire until it was burned off, 
 declaring that the hand which had signed his recantation 
 should suffer first. The pain of his body was nothing com- 
 pared with the anguish of his mind. 
 
 Such things go far to explain the figurative language of 
 the Scripture. The stings of guilt are not easily to be 
 borne. Who has not felt enough in his own heart to know 
 this ? If we wished to picture to ourselves the real climax 
 of suffering, it would be to place the soul, not in outward 
 fire, but in the midst of beauty aid external delight, with 
 this curse upon it, that neither Jay nor night should the 
 serpent teeth of remorse cease to gnaw and devour. 
 That curse would convert all things into instruments o. 
 torture, and outward flames would not be wanting to in- 
 crease the woe. 
 
 The principal argument against the doctrine of future 
 punishment is founded upon mistaken ideas of God's be- 
 
164 , RETRIBUTION. 
 
 nevolen».e. If he is a good being, — it is urged, — if he is 
 our Heavenly Father, how is it possible that such dreadful 
 suffering jan be in store for any of his creatures ? 
 
 There are some theories of future punishment, as we 
 have already seen, against which this objection may be- 
 fairly brought. When God is represented as a vindictive 
 being, who for his own glory appoints a large part of his 
 human family to the endurance of eternal and hopeless 
 suffering, in punishment for sins committed in these few 
 years of mortal life, we cannot reconcile it with his good- 
 ness and his love. I cannot believe that any part of his 
 creatures are subject to a destiny so terrible as this. But 
 on the other hand, we should remember that our knowledge 
 of the Divine attributes, and of the real claims of justice 
 and mercy, is very limited. God seeth not as man seeth, 
 for he sees the whole and man only a part. It may here- 
 after appear that many things which seem to us inconsist- 
 ent with God's love, are in fact its most perfect exercise. 
 
 The goodness of God, according to the teaching of 
 Scripture and of enlightened reason, is not the goodness 
 of indulgence and weakness. It is that of a wise Father, 
 who seeks the real good of his children. Which one of 
 us, who is a parent, would not consent to the infliction of 
 the severest pain for months and years upon his child, if it 
 were needful to save him from drunkenness or dishonesty ? 
 What degree of suffering would not be considered a bless 
 ing, in the accomplishment of a work like this ? And so, 
 in the dealings of our Heavenly Father towards us. Even 
 in this world, we see many instances in which the Divine 
 love does not shrink from the infliction of long-continued 
 and terrible suffering, as the punishment of sin, or for the 
 purification of the soul. Sometimes we can see the reason 
 of such inflictions ; sometimes they are so veiled in mys- 
 
RETRIBUTION. 165 
 
 tery that we can explain them only by saying, that in the 
 future world what is now dark will be made clear. In 
 such cases, however, we do not thmk of disputing the 
 Divine benevolence, but say that there are undoubtedly 
 sufficient reasons for whatever suffering may come, and 
 that it is intended for the good of those who bear it. Why 
 should not the same faith in Divine goodness extend to the 
 future world ? The real life of the soul can be found only 
 in purity and truth, and whatever degree of suffering may 
 be needful, either in this world or in the world to come, for 
 our education therein, should be considered as a proof of 
 the highest love. If the way to goodness lies through suf- 
 fering and pain, it is the part of kindness to lead us there. 
 If it is true that the soul shall live for ever, and is capable 
 of the highest exaltation through holiness and the lowest 
 degradation through sin ; if its dignity and true happiness 
 can be found only in voluntary obedience to the will of 
 God, — then we can understand how the paternal love of 
 God may subject us to a law of retribution, which seems 
 stern and terrible, but which is the chastening of a Father's 
 hand. 
 
 But it will be asked. How is such a theory as this consist- 
 ent with the doctrine of eternal punishment ? If the suf- 
 fering is inflicted for the sake of him who suffers, must it 
 not have an end } Must not a day come for the final res- 
 toration of all .? And if so, what does the Scripture mean 
 when it speaks of " endless punishment," and " the fire 
 that never dies " } I would answer these questions with 
 diffidence, and do not seek to be wise above what is 
 written. 
 
 There are certainly some passages of Scripture which 
 seem to imply that the time will come, when all resistance 
 JO the power of God shall cease, and all souls be brought 
 
166 EETKIBUTIOIS'. 
 
 under subjection to the word of Christ ; a subjection which 
 cannot be perfect, except through willing obedience. Noi 
 is the use of the word "eternal," with reference to future 
 suffering, an absolute contradiction of this view ; for it can 
 be plainly shown that that word, and others like it, are fre- 
 quently used in the Bible with reference to limited duration 
 It is almost certain, indeed, that there was no word in the 
 Hebrew or Greek language, which conveyed to those who 
 used it the idea which we now conceive of absolute eternity. 
 But on the other hand, it is also true that the stronges. 
 words which those languages afford were applied to future 
 punishment, and are the same which are applied to the 
 promises of future happiness. 
 
 Again, although there are some hints given of a final 
 restoration of all things, and although our belief in the 
 paternal goodness of God seems to lead to the same result, 
 yet there are obvious difficulties in the way. By the nature 
 of the soul, its return to goodness must be voluntary. It 
 cannot be compelled, even for its own benefit, without a 
 destruction of its best capacities. The same voluntary 
 resistance to God which is begun here, may therefore con- 
 tmue through unknown ages, and we have no right to ex- 
 pect that God will ever impose upon us a necessity of being 
 good. It is therefore a fearful risk which we run, in suffer- 
 ing ourselves to become more and more hardened in sin. 
 We do not know how far the capacity of goodness may 
 die. We do not know but that we may separate ourselves 
 so far from God, as to make our return impossible. Such 
 thoughts are well calculated to awaken fear and trembling. 
 The immortal soul is not to be trifled with, and those who 
 bury it under sin are inc ,rring a risk, greater perhaps than 
 we can understand. 
 
 Yet my own disposition inclines to hope. I cannot help 
 
RETRIBUTION. 16*« 
 
 believing that God in his infinite wisdom and goodness will 
 find a way of return for all, without violation of the laws 
 by which the soul lives. At all events, we may be sure 
 that the punishment which he inflicts will never be vindic- 
 tive. He will never forget a Father's love in the severity 
 of his judgment. No one of his creatures will ever be be- 
 yond *he reach of his infinite pity. 
 
 In entertaining this hope, however, we do not assert that 
 the consequences of long-continued sin, to those who slight 
 the offers of mercy made to us here, will ever completely 
 cease. A wasted life may leave, and it is reasonable to 
 suppose will leave, an ineradicable stain upon the soul. Our 
 capacity of happiness may be thereby for ever lessened. 
 Even if restored to the favor of God, and to a measure o' 
 happiness which fills our heart with gratitude to him, we 
 may for ever feel that an irreparable loss has been sus- 
 tained. For there is no reason to suppose that all who are 
 happy m the world to come enjoy an equal degree of bliss. 
 We may therefore see that there is a sense in which the 
 consequences of a sinful life may be an eternal retribution, 
 without violence to God's goodness and mercy. 
 
 But I never engage in speculations such as these, without 
 feeling how completely they are beyond my reach. They 
 give me little satisfaction or concern, and I have now en- 
 tered upon them more for the sake of frankness than any 
 thing else. The Scriptures teach that forgiveness of sin 
 is freely offered to all who comply with the conditions of 
 the Gospel of Christ ; that to those who will not comply 
 with such conditions, but continue in a sinful and impenitent 
 life, a just and severe retribution is appointed in the future 
 world ; that the Saviour to whom all judgment is com- 
 mitted, is the same who died for us ; and that the God from 
 whom all judgment comes, is our Heavenly Father Thus 
 
168 RETRIBUTION. 
 
 far the instruction is plain, and to my mind unquestionablt* 
 I do not seek to go beyond it. 
 
 There are many questions which we naturally ask, but 
 to which the Scripture gives no complete answer. When 
 the disciples inquired, " Are there few that be saved ? " 
 Jesus said, " Strive ye to enter in at the strait gate " ; 
 and this is to all of us the only practical and needful reply. 
 The secrets of the unknown world are but imperfectly re- 
 veah^d. but we know enough for our present guidance, 
 enough to inspire hope and to awaken fear. The hope 
 rests upon God's mercy, the fear looks to his justice ; but 
 ihey unite to lead us in the paths of righteousness, for the 
 .nercy and the justice of God are alike inseparable from a 
 Father's love. "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye 
 steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the 
 Lord, forasmuch as ye know that yogir labor is not in 
 vam m the Lord." 
 
Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01094 1252 
 
 
 Date Due 
 
 
 x-> -- 
 
 
 
 
 ^HpQI^iMIK 
 
 ipP' 
 
 
 
 .t^mm^wmm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 f) 
 
 
 
 

 /