LECTURES
ON
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.








LECTURES
ON
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
BY
ANDREW P. PEABODY,
PASTOR OF THE SOUTH CHURCH, PORTSMOUTH, N. H.
NEW EDITION,
WITH AN INTRODUCTORY LECTURE ON THE SCRIPTURES.
BOSTON AND CAMBRIDGE:
JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY.
M DCCC LVII.,




Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1844, by
ANDREW P. PEABODY,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
CAMBRIDGE: THURSTON AND TORRY, PRINTERS.




PREFACE.
THESE Lectures were prepared for the pulpit, without
the slightest reference to their publication. They have
been sent to the press as first written, at the urgent solicitation of many of the author's parishioners. They are
not offered to the public, as a full compend of Christian
doctrine, or as a fair exhibition of the positive side of the
author's own faith; but simply as a discussion of the
prominent points at issue between the Unitarian and the
Calvinistic portion of the Christian Church. As such,
they were deemed valuable and satisfactory by those who
heard them; and it is hoped that they will prove so to
those who may read them. To the Parish, whose uniformly kind and indulgent appreciation of his services and
labors he is happy thus to acknowledge, they are respectfully and affectionately inscribed by
THE AUTHOR.
PORTSMOUTH, N. HI., Jan., 1844.








CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY LECTURE. THE SCRIPTURES,             9
LECTURE I. THE DIVINE NATURE,..   39
II. JESUS CHRIST,....    69
"   III. JESUS CHRIST,.. 104
"    IV. THE HOLY SPIRIT,...   130
V. HUMAN NATURE,.... 153
"    VI. REGENERATION,....  176
VII. THE ATONEMENT,.... 203
"  VIII. THE ATONEMENT,....  233








INTRODUCTORY LECTURE.
THE SCRIPTURES.*
2 TIMOTHY III. 16.
ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE, FO- REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION, FOR
INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.
IN the present Lecture, designed to be preliminary to a series of discourses on Christian
doctrine, I shall present and defend my view of
the authority of the Sacred Scriptures, and
especially of the New Testament.
The Old Testament consists of thirty-nine
separate books, all of them originally written in
Hebrew, by nearly as many different authors,
and at intervals during a period, as is commonly
supposed, of more than a thousand years. The
New Testament consists of twenty-seven books,
written  originally in  Greek, by  ten  different
authors, in the interval between the reputed
date of our Saviour's ascension, and the close
of the first century. These last books I shall
* The substance of this Lecture, originally delivered from the
pulpit, was published in the Christian Examiner for May, 1842.
1




10            THE SCRIPTURES.
quote in the following Lectures as of plenary
authority on all rnatters of Christian doctrine,
while I shall also make occasional reference to
the Old Testament, as indicating the divine
mind with reference to the fundamental principles of religion.
We have a superabundant weight of external
and internal evidence to convince us, that the
books of the Old and New Testament (with
unimportant exceptions) were written by the
men whose names they bear, or at the times
when, and the places where, they purport to
have been written; that they were written honestly and in good faith; that they have in all
times been regarded with reverence and confidence by those, who have enjoyed the best
means of knowing their true character; and that
the books of the New Testament were, most or
all of them, written by the personal companions
and followers of Jesus of Nazareth, or by their
immediate disciples and friends. Now, were the
Bible merely a series of historical works, or did
it relate to matters of secondary interest and moment, we should be fully satisfied with this ample proof of the genuineness and authenticity of
the several books which it contains. But the
most honest men are liable to error, especially in
quoting the sayings of others on abstract and
spiritual subjects; and on subjects of this kind
a very slight misrecollection might materially




THE SCRIPTURES.            11
pervert the sense of what was uttered. How
know we, then, but that the evangelists, though
honest men, may, by the frailty of their own
understandings and memories, have grossly misrepresented the language and spirit of Jesus?
Some of these books, too, are not in a narrative
form, but didactic and doctrinal; and, if they
were written by fallible, yet honest men, without
any peculiar illumination from  heaven, how
know we, that they are always sound in their
counsels and right in their judgments?  How
can we assure ourselves, that they have not erred
widely on matters both of doctrine and duty, as
have many wise and honest men before and
since?
These questions throw open the whole subject of inspiration; and it may be well for us to
enter upon our inquiry with just notions of its
magnitude. How much then does it involve?
Does it cover the whole ground between Christian faith and infidelity? By no means. Whoever receives the history of Jesus as authentic,
has within his reach enough of unquestionable
truth to serve as the basis of Christian character.
No one can believe the evangelists to have been
honest men, without believinrg the principal facts
in the life of Jesus and the essential doctrines
of his religion.  But the difference lies here.
He, who regards the sacred writers as divinely
inspired, deems himself possessed of an unerring




12            THE SCRIPTURES.
guide as to all the minutie of doctrine, of an
infallible compass for his whole path in life.
His only question is,' What say the law and
the testimony?' That settled, he need seek no
farther. He, on the other hand, who denies
inspiration, while he would feel satisfied with
regard to great truths, might be uncertain as
to many lesser, yet important points; might
often doubt whether the apostles spoke after the
mind of Christ, or uttered their owvn fallible
judgments; and thus, where the voice of Scripture was entirely clear, might be painfully perplexed as to the way of truth and duty.
But what is inspiration?  We mean by this
word, in its application to the Scriptures, a divine
influence exerted upon the minds of the sacred
writers, to aid them in the exhibition of truth, and
to save them from hurtful error. No one, we
presume, at the present day, would maintain that
the very words of Scripture were dictated by the
divine spirit; that the genealogies in the first
book of Chronicles were breathed from heaven
into the author's- mind; or that there was anything supernatural in Paul's sending for his cloak
and parchment. We observe in each of the
sacred writers peculiarities, and sometimes imperfections of style, such as would naturally
grow out of his education, mode of life, and
temperament. Amos, the herdsman of Tekoah,
writes in a much simpler style, and with a much




THE SCRIPTURES.           13
greater affluence of rural imagery, than Isaiah
and Ezekiel, whose condition in life seems to
have differed widely from his. How easy is it
to trace the impetuous Peter, the modest and
affectionate John, the glowing and devoted
Paul, in their respective writings! But, if the
words of the Bible were dictated by God, instead
of this great diversity of style, we should expect
to see the whole Bible written in one unvarying
style of unique grandeur.  This strict verbal
inspiration would detract greatly from the value
of some portions of Scripture, particularly of
the devotional parts; for their worth consists
in their being expressions of devout feeling on
the part of their authors, - upbreathings of
hearts touched with a living coal from God's
altar, and enabled to light a kindred flame in
other souls,'and thus to furnish examples and
forms for the devotion of all coming times. We
doubt not that the Jewish minstrels drank deeply
from the same fountain of inspiration, from
which the. prophets drew their marvellous foreknowledge; but, if God dictated the very words
of the Psalms, they cease to be specimens of
human devotion, and appropriate models for
man, and present to us the solecism of the Almighty praying to himself, and chanting his own
praises. As to the merely historical parts of the
Bible, if the authors knew, either by revelation,
by their own observation and experience, or by
1*




14           THE SCRIPTURES.
means of authentic documents already extant,
the facts which they related, they had no need
of verbal inspiration to enable them to tell their
stories faithfully. Moreover, on him, who should
maintain the necessity of verbal inspiration for
the original writers of the Old and New Testament, would rest the burden of showing, why
like inspiration is not equally necessary for all
translators of the Bible. In fact, the question of
verbal inspiration, did it admit of being agitated,
would be barely one of vain curiosity. It has
ceased to be of any practical moment, since the
Hebrew and the Greek became dead languages.
But while we believe that the sacred writers
wrote each in his own style, and with a large
degree of freedom, we maintain, that they were
inspired, that their minds were preternaturally
enlightened and guided, that holy men wrote as
they were moved by the Holy Spirit. For, in
the first place, the idea of inspiration is in strict
accordance with reason and intrinsic probability.
We cannot deny to the Father of man's spirit
that power of direct and recognized communication with it, which he has granted to fellow men.
We cannot suppose that God has opened the
soul to the inbreathings of other souls, and left
no avenue for the entrance of his own voice.
No. If man has a soul, God must have the
key to its every apartment, and must needs
have at his command even those modes of ac



THE SCRIPTURES.              15
cess and forms of speech, which, for good reasons,
he rarely sees fit to use.
Again, we believe that miracles were wrought
for the establishment of Judaism and Christianity. Why is it less probable, that miracles should
have been wrought for the faithful transmission
of their records? If to plant the reign of truth
and righteousness upon the earth was an object
of sufficient moment to disturb the laws, which
nature had for ages kept, surely to perpetuate
that same reign on the solid basis of infallible
testimony, was an object amply worthy of the
equally magnificent, though less conspicuous
miracle of inspiration.
We are also predisposed to believe in the
inspiration of the sacred writers by the conscious
wants of our own natures. We feel the need,
not only of a generally faithful guide, but of one
that we can trust as to all the details of truth
and duty, —of records, which shall be to us, in
things pertaining to godliness and a life to come,
what a parent's words are to the confiding ear of
infancy. We cannot bear to be left in doubt on
subjects so momentous, even in their least imposing aspects. The infallibility of Jesus himself affords no sufficient basis for implicit,
childlike faith, if those who recorded his sayings
and pencilled the first developments of his
truth, were liable to the common mistakes of
unlettered and inexperienced biographers and




16             THE SCRIPTURES.
interpreters. Our Jesus is the Jesus of their
gospels and epistles; and it matters little, that
the living person bore the express image and
uttered the express words of God, if they were
liable to gross error in painting that image and
recording those words.
But it may be asked:' Is there no basis for
the plenary authority and virtual infallibility of
the sacred writers, short of their inspiration in a
peculiar and exclusive sense? To say nothing
in this connection of the Old Testament, if the
apostles were honest men, may we not rely upon
them as amply competent, without supernatural
aid, to have been both the biographers and the
expositors of Jesus? They were long with him;
must not every principle of his religion have so
stamped itself upon their hearts; must not his
spirit have so permeated their whole mental and
moral being, as to take away the very power of
mistake or failure? Must not their familiarity
with him have done for them all that express
inspiration could have done?' I reply, that, in
the connection of the apostles with our Saviour,
there were many circumstances, which seemed to
render some subsequent illumination necessary,
in order to their being faithful historians and
expositors. From our Saviour's baptism to his
ascension, there was the space of only sixteen
months; and, though his principal disciples were
with him at intervals during the whole of this




THE SCRIPTURES.           17
time, there intervened but seven months between
the call of the twelve and the ascension; and,
even for a part of that period, they were absent
from him on their mission among the villages,
whither he was to follow them. Much of their
intercourse with him wat in the distracting presence of multitudes, n:ah of it at times of
fatigue, persecution, want, and fear.  And,
what is more to the point, according to their
own account, they were ignorant of his true
character till after his ascension.  On  the
very ascension morning, they asked him,'Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the
kingdom  to  Israel?'  They must therefore
have listened to him all along with erroneous
impressions. They understood not a large part
of what he said, at the time when he uttered it.
His true glory was veiled from them, while they
were with him. They saw and heard through a
false medium, and could not, therefore, in all
cases have derived true and just ideas from what
they saw and heard. But what men misunderstand they are prone to misremember, and, however honestly and unconsciously, to misrepresent; nor, when they get the right key to conversations and events, which they have once
misunderstood, is it easy to apply it to them
retrospectively, so as to restore them in their
original fulness and significancy, and to make
them in their own minds and in the narration of




18            THE SCRIPTURES.
them to others, just what they would have been
had they possessed the key at the outset. According to the common laws of mind, the New
Testament must have been tinged throughout by
the early misapprehensions of its authors, and
must have presented in biography and in doctrine a double, a Janus-faced image, made up of
the temporal Messiah, whom the apostles at first
expected, and of that spiritual Redeemer, with
whom, after the ascension, they ascertained that
they had lived and walked. We thus should
have had insufficient and unsatisfying Scriptures. But this is not the case. The only
vestiges of these misapprehensions are in the
repeated record of the fact, that they existed.
Both biography and doctrine are of one shape
and hue, — present a fabric entire and seamless
as the Saviour's own tunic, and are, throughout,
adapted to the higher views of their Master's
mission and character, which ensued upon his
departure from earth. Now this fact constitutes
to my mind, in behalf of the inspiration of the
writers of the New Testament, a presumptive
argument too strong to be passed by without
notice, though, in introducing the subject, I intended to speak only of the necessity for
inspiration growing out of the misapprehensions,
which existed during our Saviour's lifetimeFor the reasons which I have stated, religious
books written by inspired men are within the range




THE SCRIPTURES.             19
of antecedent probability, and of reasonable
expectation and desire. But how far should we
antecedently expect the inspiration of the sacred
writers to extend? So far, I reply, as is needful'for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction
in righteousness,' - so far as is necessary to
afford an infallible guide in matters of religious
faith and duty. Up to this point we should
expect, at least for the sacred writers of the latter and more perfect dispensation, plenary inspiration.  But here inspiration must cease.  WTe
should not expect to see miracles wrought
(and inspiration is a miracle) for other than
religious ends; for no lower ends seem of
sufficient moment to outweigh the advantages
resulting from an undisturbed course of nature.
We may, therefore, consistently with the highest views of religious inspiration, suppose that
the sacred writers were left to their own wisdom and research, with regard to such merely
secular details as were within their reach; that
they copied from  ancient chronicles, compiled
their genealogies from previously existing tables,
and trusted to their own unaided memories
for those minute and incidental circumstances,
which had no religious bearing. This theory of
inspiration may also be reconciled with any
alleged imperfection of style in the sacred writings, with the slight discrepancies between the
gospel narratives, with scientific inaccuracies in




20            THE SCRIPTURES.
the Old and New Testament, in fine, with whatever objections have any other than a strictly
religious aspect. While we would contend that,
in a religious point of view, plenary inspiration
pervades these records, we would regard and
criticize them in every other aspect, as the writings of men of like passions, infirmities, and errors with other men of their own times and
nation.
I now proceed to consider the positive grounds,
on which this idea of inspiration rests. Let us
first look at the New Testament.
The following are some of our Lord's promises
to his apostles before his death:'I will pray the
Father, and he will give you another helper,
even the spirit of truth.''I He will guide you
into all truth.''He will take of mine and shew
it unto you.' t'He shall teach you all things,
and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.'$  Here is an express promise of two things, first, of a supernatural enlightening of the minds of the apostles
with regard to religious truth; and, secondly, of
a supernatural quickening of their recollections,
with regard to what Jesus had said while he
was with them. If the above quoted words of
Jesus do not mean as much as this, they mean
nothing. But the scene, at which they were
uttered, was too solemn and too sad for unmean* John xiv. 16, 17. t John xvi. 13, 14. $ John xiv. 26.




THE SCRIPTURES.           21
ing hyperbole. The Master was just leaving his
frail and trembling company of apostles, and
professed to be giving them precepts and promises for their guidance and comfort when he
should have gone from them; and it is a gross
insult upon his spirit to maintain, that, at such a
season, he should have fed them upon the wind,
should have made a parade of oriental metaphor,
and employed words, which literally denote a
divine inspiration, to express no more than must
happen to them according to the common laws
of mind. But were the recollections of Matthew
and John thus miraculously quickened? Then
may we cherish the undoubting assurance, that
Jesus was, said, and did all that they represent
him to have been, said, and done. Was the
whole system of Christian doctrine and duty
thus preternaturally laid open to John and
James, Peter and Jude? Did the spirit of truth
guide them into all truth, as Jesus had promised
them?  Then may we rest assured, that their
epistles contain neither doctrines nor precepts of
man's device, but the truth and the will of God.
We may trace also in these epistles a consciousness of inspiration. For instance, Peter thus
classes himself and his fellow apostles with the
prophets, to whom we well know that they
ascribed divine inspiration.'That ye may be
mindful of the words, which were spoken before
2




22            THE SCRIPTURES.
by the holy prophets, and of the commandments
of us, the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.' 
Paul was not one of the twelve; but, if he
was a sane and an honest man, he was equally
inspired with them. He repeatedly, and in a
great variety of forms, professes inspiration.
Such is undeniably the import of passages like
the following:' The gospel, which was preached
of me. is not after man; for I neither received it
of man, nor was I taught it but by the revelation
of Jesus Christ.'t' Which things we teach, not
in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but
in the words which the holy spirit teacheth.'::'If any man think himself to be a prophet or
spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things,
which I write unto you, are the commandments
of the Lord.' ~ Again, speaking of his system of
doctrine, Paul says:' Ye received it not as the
word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of
God..' II And again, in a similar connection:'He that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God,
who hath also given unto us his holy spirit.' ~
Now let him, who thinks that St. Paul intended
to express, by words like these, only the fact,
that he had the same kind of inspiration which
every good man has, try the case, by supposing
any good man of his acquaintance to use similar
language. Would not any man, of however
* 2 Peter iii. 2.  t Gal. i. 11, 12.: 1 Cor. ii. 13.
~ 1 Cor. xiv. 37.   11 1 Thess. ii. 13.    ~T 1 Thess. iv. 8.




THE SCRIPTURES.           23
high spiritual attainments, who in our day
should talk thus about himself, be regarded by
every sober mind, as either an impostor or a
madman? These passages either mean nothing,
or they denote divine inspiration in the special
and exclusive sense of the words; and, if St.
Paul was an honest man, and in full possession
of his mental faculties, he was an inspired man.
There remain two of the evangelists, Mark
and Luke, who were not apostles, who were not
included in the Saviour's promise of divine illumination, and who make no professions of inspiration; who therefore may have been honest
and faithful writers, without having been inspired. What shall we say of them? The
question of their inspiration is of secondary importance; for,
1. Mark's gospel contains hardly anything not
to be found in Matthew's or John's; and Luke's
additional matter, though considerable in amount,
and of in,tense interest, could lay the foundation
for no new doctrine or principle, but harmonizes
entirely, in tone and spirit, with the narrative of
the apostolic evangelists.
2. Though these two gospels do not bear the
names of apostles, they were virtually apostolic
productions. Mark was the intimate companion of Peter, and a tradition almost as old as
his gospel, and handed down without dispute,
informs us that he wrote by Peter's dictation.




24            THE SCRIPTURES.
Luke distinctly avows himself, in the proem of
his gospel, to be only the penman of what he
had received directly from the apostles:- -' Even
as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word.' * As for the Acts of the Apostles, a
large part of the book is mere history, and the
record of scenes and events of which Luke was
an eye-witness. There is good reason to suppose, that he was present at the miracle of the
cloven tongues, on the day of Pentecost; and in
the latter part of the book, he expressly speaks of
himself as St. Paul's travelling companion, and
in this part is evidently copying from a diary.
There can exist no doubt, as to his competency
to write a history of affairs, in which he had so
deep a personal interest, especially as, unlike the
apostles during our Saviour's lifetime, he understood the religion, of which he was writing the
history, and therefore saw things from the true
point of view. Equally little doubt can there be,
as to the decisive internal marks of accuracy and
faithfulness, which this book presents.
Yet it seems to me highly probable, that Mark
and Luke were inspired men; for,
1. WVe have reason to believe, that miraculous
gifts and endowments were not confined to the
apostles; and on whom else can we so readily
* Luke i. 2.




THE SCRIPTURES.           25
suppose that they would have been bestowed, as
on the intimate and confidential friends of such
men as Paul and Peter?
2. We find that, from the earliest times, Mark's
and Luke's writings were regarded by the Church
as of equal worth and authority with those of
Matthew and John.
The internal character of the New Testament
strongly confirms the view, which we have taken,
of the inspiration of its writers. Its style and
tone befit men, whom a divine spirit had lifted
above the passions and prejudices of the multitude. The completeness of their works, viewed
collectively, may be regarded as a presumptive
argument of great weight in favor of their inspiration. We know not how sufficiently to admire
the divine skill displayed by the evangelists.
They are relating the godlike pilgrimage, works,
and words of one, who came from God and went
to God, —of one, who stood out alone, of all
beings that ever trod the earth, in the loftiness
of his character, in the sanctity and vastness of
his mission.  Their narrative is brief, —it is
crowded full with marvel and miracle,- it tells us
throughout of heavenly things. Yet, without
ever forgetting the heaven-descended, the son of
God, they present to us, on almost every page, a
section of our Saviour's domestic life and walk
among men, show him to us as a son and a
brother, as a neighbor and a friend, as a master
2*




26            THE SCRIPTURES.
and a citizen, among kindred, among strangers,
among enemies, in the temple, at the marriage
feast, in the house of mourning. In this wide
diversity of detail, we see always the same majestic and godlike image, in no circumstances,
however narrow or humble, shorn of a ray of its
glory. And when the authors confess that,
while the divine original was upon the earth,
they knew him not, we cannot help believing,
that the image was reproduced, and sustained
before their inward vision, by the spirit of God.
We cannot help drawing a similar inference
from the general character of the epistles. They
relate, for the most part, to local and temporary
questions, and disputes, and to a great diversity
of these, many of them difficult, mixed, complex
cases. Yet who will venture to maintain, that
these writers have, in a single instance, failed to
apply to the solution of these cases the true
spirit of Christ, and the strict law of righteousness? On the other hand, all their decisions are
in entire accordance with each other, and with
the spirit that breathes through the gospels; and
with the discussion'of questions, that have
passed away forever, they have connected so
many maxims of eternal truth, and so many
clear and expanded illustrations of great and
everlasting principles, that these epistles must
needs go down to the end of time, in the connection in which they now stand with the gos



THE SCRIPTURES.          27
pels, as the best commentary upon them, and as
an exhaustless repertory of Christian wisdom.
These considerations are greatly strengthened
by one of a negative character. There is in the
New Testament nothing which militates against
our faith in the inspiration of its authors, -no
brand of falsehood or folly to suggest an opposite theory, — nothing superficial or shallow; but
a profoundness and fulness which no created
mind has exhausted or outgrown. No man,
whom men have consented to call wise, has
professed himself to have advanced, in ethical or
religious culture, beyond the New Testament;
but the wisest men have found in it enough to
stretch and task their highest powers through
the whole of life. But what unaided man had
written, we might expect man to exhaust or outgrow. Taking our view of inspiration for a
stand-point, we could not expect to find the
New Testament more perfect, or, in any essential respect, other than it is; — it is just such a
collection of books as this theory would presuppose.
Add to this consideration, the wide, the almost
inconceivable contrast between the books of the
New Testament and the residue of the early
Christian writings extant, some of which bear
the names of personal friends and followers of
the apostles, and, whether genuine or not, must
belong to the age next succeeding the apostolic.




28           THE SCRIPTURES.
The most edifying of these contain much that is
puerile and absurd, - much that would settle in
the negative, without dispute or division, the
question whether their authors were inspired.
The highest degree of veneration, which has ever
been paid to the New Testament, cannot separate it from the best other writings of the primitive days of the Church, by broader marks of
distinction, than show themselves on the very
face of the respective works. And yet, had the
writers of the New Testament been left without
any greater degree of divine illumination, than
these other writers had, we can hardly believe,
that so very decisive marks of difference would
have been presented.
You will perceive, that I make the souls of
the apostles and evangelists, and not the parchment on which they wrote, the seat of inspiration. I by no means assert, that the books of
the New Testament received their outward
shape, or even their existence, from a divine
monition, urging one to write a gospel, and
another an epistle. I suppose that they wrote
as they saw the churches to need, and were
guided by their own judgment as to what and
when they should write. But they were men
taught of the spirit, — guarded against error,
and furnished with adequate views of truth and
duty, by inspiration from on high; and out of
the abundance within, they both spake and




THE SCRIPTURES.           29
wrote. There was the same inspiration in their
oral instructions. There was -the same inspiration in whatever else they may have written,
which has not come down to us. There would
have been the same inspiration in the writings
(had they left us any) of Philip or Bartholomew, of Lebbeus or Simon the Canaanite. The
exigencies of the case, and the testimony of the
apostles themselves, convince us that they all
(and those immediately associated with them
also) were inspired men; and the New Testament has come down to us, as the only surviving
records of what was written under the influence
of that inspiration.
We come now to consider the inspiration of
the writers of the Old Testament. In vindicating their inspiration, we are called upon to
defend only the religious character of the Old
Testament. Is its general history defective and
untrustworthy? We think not; but, if it be so,
this fact touches not the question of inspiration.
Are its genealogies imperfect, and inconsistent
with each other? We are rather amazed that
they should be so full and coherent; but, were
they drawn out with the minute accuracy of
modern heraldry, we should not claim supernatural aid for their compilation. Is Solomon's
Song a mere epithalamium? If so, we do not
believe that Solomon had any divine assistance
in writing it. Are there many portions of the




30. THE SCRIPTURES.
Old Testament, where the writers show themselves independent of peculiar divine guidance,
and subject to the prejudices and errors of their
times?  Be it so.  We should antecedently
expect the penman of the earlier, and less perfect dispensation, to have been endowed with a
less intense and pervading inspiration; to have
lived less constantly in the perception of spiritual
truth; to have had only transient glimpses,
where the apostles enjoyed open vision. We
should antecedently expect to find more of the
merely human element in the earlier Scriptures,
which were designed to be but as' a light shining
in a dark place, until the day should dawn and
the day-star arise.' The question of inspiration
should be discussed solely with reference to the
religious contents of the Old Testament. The
question is, whether those things in the Jewish
Scriptures, which were beyond man's knowledge
or foresight, or far above the light of those times,
were discoveries, speculations, happy guesses,
or whether they were actually derived from the
inspiration of God.
Among the internal marks of the inspiration
of the writers of the Old Testament, we would
first name the religious unity and harmony,
which pervade it. The writers all have the
same conception of God, of devotion, of duty.
This has not generally been the case among the
less cultivated nations. The Jupiter of Homer




THE SCRIPTURES.           31
differs from the Jupiter of the later Greek
tragedians. The popular conceptions of every
personage in the Pantheon of Greek mythology
were gradually developed, and essentially modified by time. On the other hand, the Jehovah
of Moses, Isaiah, and Malachi, at intervals of
many centuries, during which vast revolutions
had been wrought in the national condition and
culture, is one and the same Jehovah. The
conception reached the highest form, which
language could give it, in the writings of Moses,
nay, in the very name Jehovah; and in that
form it remained fixed, until Jesus softened it
with warmer beams of fatherly love. Nor yet
can we trace any diversity among these writers,
as to the way in which God is to be worshipped,
or the duties which he requires.
The frequent loftiness of thought and style
in the Old Testament, beyond all other ancient
writings, lifting the soul, as it were, into the
very presence-chamber of the Deity, sustains
the idea, that these.majestic passages were
written by men, whose spirits had been elevated
and expanded by special nearness of converse
with the Divine Being. There are portions of
Isaiah and Ezekiel, there are some of the Psalms
of David, which are, to the devout ear, more
like a voice from heaven, than like the words of
man.
In fine, the Old Testament stands out in such




32           THE SCRIPTURES.
a prominent contrast to all other equally ancient
writings extant, even to the writings of the
wisest and best men in the most cultivated
ages, that we know not how to account for its
sublime theology, its clear and high views of
duty, its pervading tone of confidence and
authority, except by ascribing to its authors
special illumination from the spirit of God.
We cast our eyes over the brightest pages of
profane literature, and find nowhere a view of
the divine nature, on which we can repose; but
see the mind distracted among a multitude of
clashing deities, bowed down by the spirit of
fear and trembling, dreading the thunderbolt
without ever trusting the love of the divinity,
cringing before gods, possessed of all human,
and worse than human, passions and infirmities.
We then turn to the Bible, and we read:' The
Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want. He
maketh me to lie down in green pastures; he
leadeth me beside the' still waters. Though I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod
and thy staff, they comfort me.' Now all the
logic in the world can never convince me, that'we are indebted solely to that old barbarous
king, of a nation unlettered and unrefined, for
these sentiments, which anticipate the very
spirit of Jesus; which express all, and more
than all, that the most pious heart can feel;




THE SCRIPTURES.           33
which will still be the burden of our song,
when, beyond the reach of earthly infirmity,' the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne
shall feed us, and shall lead us unto living
fountains of waters.' We might make similar
remarks with regard to very many passages,
which present glimpses of God, of truth, and of
duty, which, our hearts tell us, are the very
highest of eternal verities, and which stand
entirely alone in the literature of the world
before Christ, both as to their depth and fulness
of meaning, and as to the tone of majestic
and simple confidence, in which they are announced.
The numerous fulfilled prophecies, contained
in the Old Testament, offer a more tangible,
though hardly a stronger proof of the inspiration
of its writers, than the traits to which we have
already referred. I have not time to discuss
these prophecies. They cover a large portion of
human history. The fulfilment of some of
them can be distinctly traced in the past; that
of others is now in progress, and known and
read of all men. The present condition of the
Hebrew nation could hardly be described, in
many of its distinctive and unprecedented
features, with more accuracy, by a modern
geographer, than we find it foretold in the Old
Testament. Could blind chance have conjured
into being phantoms of poetic fancy, that
3




34            THE SCRIPTURES.
should thus correspond to actual events across
the gulf of ages?  Could she have brought
together, and worked into the brains of those
old seers just the same elements, which after
many centuries Providence would embody in
the counsels and destinies of nations? This is
harder to believe, than that she could paint a
flower, or blunder a world into being. The
recurrence of the same harmonies at distant
intervals, in the sphere-music of time, can be
accounted for, only by supposing the harmony
to have been first struck by the same omnipotent hand that repeats it.
We have also, in favor of the inspiration of
the writers of the Old Testament, the testimony
of the infallible Jesus and of his inspired apostles. Jesus says,' Search the Scriptures; for in
them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are
they which testify of me,'" that is, which foretell me, which have a prophetic character, - a
character which could result only from divine
inspiration.   And  again,'IHad  ye believed
Moses, ye would have believed me; for he
wrote concerning me,'t prophetically, of course.
In like manner Jesus, epitomizing the whole
Old Testament, speaks of what was. written
concerning him'in the law of Moses, and in
the prophets, and in the Psalms.'t  He often
+ John v. 39.    t John v. 4.    f Luke xxiv. 44.




THE -SCRIPTURES.             35
also quotes these writings as of divine authority
and final appeal.
The apostles, also, continually quote the Old
Testament as authoritative.  St. Peter says:'The prophecy came not in old timte by the
will of man; but holy men of God spake as
they were moved by the holy spirit.'" Paul,
too, writes to Timothy:' All Scripture is given
by inspiration of God, (or, more properly, pervaded by a divine afflatus,) and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.'t
I have now shown, I trust, that the inspiration
of the sacred writers rests on a firmer basis,
than that of anile superstition.  I am  aware,
that on this subject low and lax views often find
favor. But to me faith on this point appears
the part of sound philosophy. If God stands
to us in the paternal relation, in which Jesus
presents him, an intrinsic a priori probability
attaches itself to any theory,, in proportion as
it brings him near to his children, and appeals
to their implicit confidence. In a world not
fatherless, for the short-sighted and frail children
of an infinite Father, it is more philosophical to
believe than to disbelieve in miracle and-inspiration. The philosophy of the filial heart is
higher and of vastly more worth than that of the
doubting head.
* 2 Peter i 21       t 2 Tim. iii. 16.




36            THE SCRIPTURES.
Such are the views of inspiration, which lead
me, on all subjects of religious doctrine and
duty, to bow submissively to the authority of
the written word; and, in this deference to the
voiceof Scripture, I have the entire and cordial
sympathy of the great body of Unitarian Christians. Many of them were educated in a different
creed; but have been made Unitarians solely by
the diligent, prayerful study of the Bible. The
Bible is our only confession of faith, —it is to
us at once the pillar and the ground of the truth.
But we contend for the right of appealing for
authority on all controverted points to the Scriptures as originally written. Our common translation we regard as in the main accurate, —as
generally representing the sEense of the sacred
writers. But our translators were uninspired
and fallible men. They were many men, and
endowed with different degrees of learning and
acumen. They were the partisans of peculiar
views of Christian truth and of ecclesiastical
government.  They were appointed to their
work by a shallow-minded and pedantic monarch, who gave them in some respects express
and peremptory rules of procedure, which they
dared not violate. They lived also in the infancy of biblical criticism. Since their day, many
ancient manuscripts of the New Testament
have been brought to light, and collated with




THE SCRIPTURES.           37
each other, and with the earliest versions, so
that the Greek text, now received among critics
of all denominations, presents not a few deviations from the'received text,' so called, which
was the basis of their translation. For these
reasons, we must, in matters of controversy,
sometimes appeal from the translation to the
original. All Christian scholars do this. I shall
make such appeals occasionally, though very
seldom, in the following Lectures; but, when I
refer to the original, it will not be to my own
peculiar views, or to the views of any one
denomination, as to what the text of the original ought to be. I shall always refer to the
text of the original, as settled by the researches
of learned men of various'denominations, and
as received by enlightened Christians of every
portion of the Church.
With the views of Scripture now unfolded
and explained, the question to be answered in
the following Lectures is simply this: What
testimony do the sacred writings, in their original form, and fairly interpreted, bear with reference to God, to Christ, and to the nature, duty,
and destiny of man?   My sole design and
purpose is to reason from the Scriptures; my
only object is to receive and to communicate.the light of God's revealed word upon those
departments of religious truth, on which Chris* A




38           THE SCRIPTURES
tians are the most widely at variance. And my
sincere prayer for you and for myself is, that
the Infinite Spirit of truth may guide us into all
truth, and through the truth may redeem and
sanctify us.




LECTURE I.
THE DIVINE NATURE.
EPHESIANS IV. 6.
ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, WHO IS ABOVE ALL, AND
THItOUGH ALL, AND IN YOU ALL.
MY object, in the course of lectures which I
now commence, is to exhibit, so far as I am
able, a fair and candid view of the points, on
which most of us differ from other classes of
Christians, and of the grounds, on which our
peculiar views rest. In doing this, it will of
course be necessary for me to make reference to
the creeds of others; but such reference will be
made as seldom as possible, in a spirit of unfeigned kindness, and, I trust, in a kindly tone
and manner. My aim is, not controversy, but
truth. I wish to aid you in the establishment
of your own faith, not to furnish you with the
means of attacking your neighbors. I wish to
have you capable of maintaining and defending
your views of Christian truth when they are
assailed, and of instructing in them the young
and inquiring; but should be exceedingly sorry
to see among you that proselyting spirit, which




40          THE DIVINE NATURE.
would make incursions into other folds, or hurl
the missiles of theological warfare at those who
have adopted other modes of faith.  Equally
sorry should I be, that you should take any
views of truth on my authority. Let me act
only as your pioneer.
Our text implies the unity of God. This doctrine there is no need of our defending against
Polytheism.: But there has grown up in the
Christian Church a doctrine, which, to those who
reject it, seems as much opposed to the divine
unity, as any form of Polytheism is. I mean
the doctrine of the TRINITY. This will be my
subject this evening.  We will first inquire
whether the Bible teaches, or implies, the view
of the divine nature designated by this word;
and, if it shall appear that the Bible teaches no
such doctrine, we will then endeavor to ascertain
whence it comes. I shall reserve for future lectures the arguments for and against the supreme
divinity of our Saviour, and for and against the
personality of the Holy Spirit, and shall confine
myself this evening to the single point of a threefold distinction in the divine nature.
We ought at the outset to define the Trinity
But here we are thrown into confusion; for
hardly any two writers will agree upon the same
definition. We may, however, classify the definitions given, and may thus show the different
senses in which this doctrine has been professed
and held.




THE DIVINE NATURE.          41
1. There are many professed Trinitarians, particularly of the English Church, who maintain
the supremacy of the first person of the Trinity,
and the subordinate rank of the other two. This
was the belief of Bishop Bull, who wrote much
upon the subject, was called in England a Trinitarian, and was deemed an able defender of the
creed of his own church, but whose writings
would pass (and justly) as Unitarian, on this
side of the Atlantic. Indeed, his is nearly the
same doctrine, on account of which, Rev. Noah
and Thomas Worcester, of our own State, were,
thirty or forty years ago, cast out as heretics by
their clerical brethren; and a singular fact it is,
that, for similar views similarly expressed, Christian ministers should, on one side of the Atlantic,
be crowned with fame and honor, in a Trinitarian church, as defenders of the faith, and on the
other side should be compelled to take up the
cross of persecution, and bear the reproach of
heresy. But our American clergy were right.
The second and third persons of the Trinity
either are self-existent, or were created. If selfexistent, they must needs be independent. Having within themselves the cause of their own
existence, they must be complete and self-sufficient, so that they cannot have come into subjection to any other being. But, according to
Bishop Bull, they are subordinate; and, if sub.
ordinate, they are not self-existent, but must have




42          THE DIVINE NATURE.
been created, cannot then have existed from
eternity, and therefore are not God. Bishop Bull,
indeed, admits that they were derived from the
divine essence, which is merely an obscure and
involved way of saying, that they were created
out of nothing.
2. There are others, (and they are very numerous in our own country,) who understand by the
Trinity a threefold classification of the divine
attributes. According to this view, God, being
still one and the same being, in nature and providence, is called the Father, — in the work of
redemption, the Son, —in his converting and
sanctifying influences, the Holy Spirit. Thus
we have God the Creator and Preserver, God
manifest in the flesh, and God dwelling and
working in the human soul; and these three, not
separate beings, but the same being regarded in
three different aspects. This is the view presented in that very popular doctrinal work,
Abbott's Corner Stone; and, from the general
acceptance which this book has found, I infer
that this view of the Trinity is not deemed
heretical. But it differs from Unitarianism only
in name and in form of statement.
3. Another form, in which the Trinity has
been held, supposes three distinct and equal
divine minds united by a mutual consciousness
of each other's volitions and acts. Sherlock, an
eminent divine of the Church of England, says:




TIlE DIVINE NATURE.          43'To say that there are three divine persons,
and not three distinct infinite minds, is both
heresy and nonsense. The distinction of persons
cannot be more truly and aptly represented, than
by the distinction between three men; for Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, are as really distinct persons, as Peter, James, and John. We must
allow the divine persons to be real, substantial
beings.' Howe, the celebrated Calvinistic divine,
speaks of the three divine persons as' distinct,
individual, necessarily existing, spiritual beings,'
forming together'the most delicious society.'
This comes nearer an intelligible doctrine than
most statements of the Trinity. But it sounds
strangely like Tritheism; and I hardly know
how those, who maintain it, can be said to believe in the unity of God.
4. There is another class of Trinitarians, probably the largest of all, who profess -to believe
the doctrine, without attempting to understand
or explain it; that is, they hold the phraseology
of the doctrine sacred, but attach no meaning to
it. The nearest approach that they can make to
a definition of the Trinity, is, to say that it is
three somewhats somehow united.
Such are the various forms, in which the doctrine of the Trinity is held in the Christian
Church, -forms so diverse from each other, that,
were we to define the Trinity, so as to include
the views of all who profess to believe in it, we




44          THE DIVINE NATURE.
could only say that it denotes God to be both
three and one.
Let us now see whether the Bible teaches a
Trinity. This doctrine, if it be true, is of the
utmost interest and moment, and ought to mould
and shape all our religious notions, and to be
recognized in all our praises and our prayers.
We should, therefore, expect to see it very clearly
set forth in a revelation, purporting to come from
God. But so far is this from being the case,
that Trinitarians do not quote a single text as
declarative of this prime article of their creed.
They admit that it is nowhere distinctly stated
in the Bible. Formerly, the three stories of
Noah's ark, and the proverb,' A threefold cord
is not easily broken,' occupied a prominent place
among Trinitarian proof-texts; but no one would
think of using them now, and there remains not a
single text from the Old Testament, which Trinitarians now cite as designating a threefold distinction in the divine nature.
There are, however, numerous instances, in
which, when the Almighty is spoken of in the
Hebrew  Scriptures, a plural form  is used, —
sometimes a plural noun connected with a singular verb, —sometimes a plural pronoun with
a plural verb, when God is represented as speaking in the first person. The Hebrew word in
the Old Testament most frequently translated
God, is Elohim, a plural noun, literally meaning




THE DIVINE NATURE.          45
gods; but it is usually connected with verbs in
the singular, so as- to indicate that but one person is denoted by the plural noun. There are
also several instances in which we find such
forms of speech as these:' Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness,' -'Let us go
down, and there confound their language.' Now
though this form of speech has often been quoted
to prove a plurality of persons in the divine nature, I can hardly conceive of its being quoted,
with such a purpose, by any person moderately
well acquainted with the Hebrew tongue. This
plural form is a common Hebrew idiom, employed whenever anything of peculiar dignity or
magnitude is spoken of. Grammarians call it
the plural of excellence or majesty; and truly
learned and candid Trinitarians admit that it is
nothing more. Calvin, whose orthodoxy none
will doubt, sets aside this argument for the Trinity. Professor Stuart, in his Hebrew Grammar,
speaks of this form as simply denoting dignity
or majesty, and as having no connection with
the idea of plurality. Permit me to give you
one or two examples of the way, in which this
plural of excellence is employed.  You all remember, in the book of Job, the description of
the behemoth, by which is probably meant the
hippopotamus. Behemoth is the plural of beklemah, which means a beast. As used in Job, it is
a plural noun joined with singular verbs and pro4




46          THE DIVINE NATURE.
nouns, and evidently means a great beast; and
the hippopotamus was denoted by this indefinite
word, expressing his vast size and strength, because there was no name for him in the Hebrew.
The same plural form is used when false gods
are spoken of. Baalim and Ashtaroth are plural
nouns.' The lords of the Philistines gathered
them together, to offer a great sacrifice unto
Dagon, their god,' literally gods.* The same
plural word is used, when the Almighty says to
Moses,' See, I have made thee a god, literally
gods, (elohim,) to Pharaoh.'t Where it is said
that the butler and the baker' had offended their
lord the king of Egypt,'f the Hebrew word is
lords, (one of the plural titles of the Almighty;)
and so it is where Joseph's brethren say of him:'The man who is the lord, literally, lords, of the
land, spake roughly unto us.'~ Many of you
well know what the Septuagint is, — a Greek
translation of the Old Testament, made by
learned Jews long prior to the Christian era.
These Jews must of course have understood
their own language, and must have known
whether there was any mysterious signification
couched in Elohim, and other kindred forms;
but they invariably render these Hebrew plurals
by Greek nouns in the singular, without any
additional qualifying words.
* Judges xvi. 23.   t Exodus vii. 1.: Genesis xl. 1.    ~ Genesis xlii. 30.




THE DIVINE NATURE.           47
There is another consideration of great weight,
with reference, not to this point alone, but to the
Old Testament generally, and one which demonstrates beyond dispute, that the Trinity was not
taught in the Jewish scriptures. It is this: the
Jews, in general, both in ancient and modern
times, have been opposed to this doctrine, have
left no trace of it in their standard commentaries
and religious works, and have resisted the use of
their sacred writings in proof of it. There was
indeed a, seeming exception to this remark, in a
numerous sect of Platonistic Jews, whose headquarters were at Alexandria.. They, in common
with the later Platonists generally, maintained a
Trinity, yet less as a theological than as a philosophical dogma, drawing their authority for it
less from  Moses and the prophets, than from
Plato and his disciples, from whom, as I believe,
it crept into the Christian Church. These Trinitarian Jews have had a few successors in more
recent times. But to the Jews in general, the
Trinity has been for ages, and still is, the greatest stumbling-block in the way of their conversion to Christianity. It is universally admitted,
that a very large part of the early Jewish converts rejected the Trinity.; and it is a striking
and significant fact, that great numbers of the
Jews continued to become Christians up to the
date, when, as we believe, the Trinity was foisted into the Christian system, while, since that




48          THE DIVINE NATURE.
date, the conversion of a single Jew has been
one of the rarest events.
These facts indicate that the Trinity could
have formed no part of the Jewish revelation.
But, if this were the case, we should expect to
find this doctrine formally and explicitly announced in the New Testament, and occupying
there the prominent place, which of right belongs to a radically new view of the divine nature. But how is this? It is not pretended that
there is in the New Testament any express declaration of this doctrine; and there are quoted
but two texts, in which the names of the three
persons are said to be placed together in such a
way, as strongly to imply a trinity in unity.
The text most relied on is the form of baptism'in or into the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost or Spirit.' *  One would
think, at first sight, that this form implied anything rather than three equal persons; for what
mean the terms, Father and Son? If they mean
anything, must they not denote the derived and
subordinate existence of him, who is termed the
Son? It is of no avail to call this an unsearchable mystery. The words Father and Son, as
used in this connection, either mean something
or nothing. If nothing, then does the Bible
mock man's ignorance by the wanton use of
words without meaning. But if they mean any* Matthew xxviii. 19




THE DIVINE NATURE.          49
thing, they must at least denote that the Son
owes his existence to a Father, therefore is not
self-existent, and consequently is not God. Yet
more, the words employed in this text to denote
the Holy Spirit are, in the original, a neuter
noun and adjective; and, though words in the
neuter gender might naturally be used to signify
a divine influence, we can hardly suppose that
they would be selected to designate a divine
person. It is said, that the sacred writers could
not have thus connected unequal names? What
shall we say then of this passage, —' All the congregation...       worshipped the Lord
and the king?'"  Or of this, —'I charge thee
before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
elect angels?' It Is it said, that, baptism being
a form of dedication, the sacred writers could not
have connected with it any but divine names?
I reply that the Israelites are said by St. Paul to
have been'baptized unto Moses,' $ and that he
also speaks of the disciples of Christ as having
been'baptized into his death.' ~ In the former
instance, men are said to be baptized unto one,
who confessedly is not God; and in the latter,
into what it must be admitted, is not a person.
The form of baptism depends not for its appropriateness on the doctrine of the Trinity.
The infant or the convert, on being initiated
* 1 Chron. xxix. 20.    1 Tim. v. 21
1 Cor. x. 2.        ~ Rom. vi. 3.
4~




50          THE DIVINE NATURE.
into the Church of Christ, is most naturally and
fittingly consecrated to the Father God, whom
Jesus revealed and manifested, to the great
Teacher himself, and to the regenerating and
sanctifying influence from heaven, without which
one cannot truly be a Christian.
The other Trinitarian proof-text is the apostolic benediction:' The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.'* This
proves nothing. Had a formal statement of the
Trinity been here intended, the second person
would not have been placed first. The obvious
sense of the benediction is:' May the favor of
the great Head of the Church, the love of his
God and our God, and the free and constant
participation of his sanctifying influences, be
yours forever.'
These are the only texts which Trinitarians
in general cite as declarative of a threefold distinction in the divine nature. There still stands
in our English Bible, a text, which more than
implies the Trinity. It is this:' There are three
that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.'t
It is now admitted, on all sides, that this verse
formed no part of the original text of the New
Testament. The highest authority for the text
* Cor. xiii. 14.  f 1 John v. 7.




THE D1VINE NATURE.          51
of the New Testament is that of ancient Greek
manuscripts, of which several hundreds of either
a whole or a part of the New Testament, bearing date from the fourth century down to the
invention of the art of printing, have been examined and collated. No less than a hundred
and fifty of these manuscripts contain the first
epistle of John; but the text in question is not
found in one of them. The next highest authority is that of manuscripts of ancient versions
of the New Testament. This text is wanting
in all of this class of manuscripts, except in those
of the Vulgate Latin, and is wanting in all the
earliest manuscripts, even of that. The next
highest authority is that of the numerous Scriptural quotations of the earlier Christian writers.
Now, none of the Greek fathers, who used the
New Testament in its original, have quoted this
text, or recognized its existence, no, not even in
the height of the Arian controversy, when every
text that could be made available was pressed
into the service. This text was not printed in
the earliest printed editions of the Greek Testament; and, when it was first printed, it was
translated into the Greek from the Latin of the
Vulgate, - the accredited version of the Romish
Church. Erasmus, the greatest biblical scholar
at the era of the Reformation, had published two
editions of the New Testament without inserting
this text. He was earnestly remonstrated with




52          THE DIVINE NATURE.
for omitting it; and his reply was, that he would
insert it, if a single Greek manuscript containing
it could be found. A manuscript was found and
sent him,- a manuscript undoubtedly prepared
for that express purpose, as there are no traces of
its previous existence. He, to make his promise
good, inserted the disputed text in his third
edition; and it so happened that this third edition became the basis of the generally received
Greek text, which was used by King James's
translators. Such is the history of the only text
in the Bible, which indisputably stands where it
has no rightful place. But it occupies this place
chiefly in editions and translations of the Vulgate, and in our common English Bibles. It is
omitted in critical editions of the Greek Testarment. Luther omitted it in his German Bible;
Calvin spoke doubtingly of it; nor do I find a
single critic or commentator, however orthodox,
who leaves it unquestioned. Wardlaw, the most
able champion of the Trinity within the range
of my reading, says of this text:'This text
should have been entitled to hold the first place,
if its genuineness had been undisputed, or disputed on slender grounds. I freely acknowledge, however, that the evidence of the spuriousness of this celebrated passage, if it were
even much less conclusive than in my own mind
it appears to be, would be quite sufficient to prevent me from resting upon it any part of the
weight of my argument.'




THE DIVINE NATURE.          53
So much for this text. But let me in connection with it, though rambling from my main
object, say a word upon the certainty, which we
enjoy, that the New Testament has come down
to us substantially as it was at first written.
These hundreds of manuscripts, these ancient
versions, these numerous and copious quotations
by the fathers of the church, constitute a vast
array of witnesses, who all agree in testifying
to the genuineness, sentence for sentence, and
almost word for word, of the Christian Scriptures
as we have them. To be sure; slips of the pen
in transcribing have produced many slight differences, corresponding to the misprints in a printed
book. But, in the whole of the New Testament, there is not a single sentence, not a single
phrase of importance, and there are but two
words of essential significance, with regard to
which the vast majority of the witnesses do not
agree.
You must, I think, see with me on how frail
a foundation the Scriptural argument for the
Trinity rests. There is one other consideration,
to which I would allude with all possible brevity.
The first person of the Trinity is termed the
Father; but did it never occur to you, that the
doctrine of the Trinity deprives him of all his
fatherly attributes, and transfers them to the Son
and the Holy Spirit?  Thleir offices are all fatherly; his are those of the relentless potenate and




54          THE DIVINE NATURE.
judge. For which is the true Father,-he, who
gives his life a ransom for the children; or he,
who demands and receives the full price for their
blood?  Which is the true Father, -he, who
sits cold and stern at the helmn of the universe;
or he, who draws nigh to the children's hearts in
breathings of counsel, comfort, and hope? If
this distinction between the three persons have
any reality, is not he that redeems, or he that
sanctifies, the Father? To which of these three
persons does the Trinitarian come with the
fullest assurance, in the most confiding manner,
with the most trustful spirit?  Not to the
Father, (so called,) but to the Son. To the
Father go up the cold and formal vows, the set
praises; to the Son, the warm outpourings of
the full heart, and those inward groanings, too
deep, too fervent for utterance. Nor can it be
rejoined, in answer to this reasoning, that the
first person of the Trinity is called Father with
reference to the other two persons, and not with
reference to man. For the being, whom Jesus
calls Father, he continually sets forth as man's
Father. In talking to his disciples, he calls him
your Father, as often as my Father; and even
calls him by both titles in the same sentence, as,
for instance, when he says:' I ascend unto my
Father, and your Father.' " Thus are the details
John xx.\ 17.




THE DIVINE NATURE.          55
of the doctrine of the Trinity at war with its
phraseology. Does not this discrepancy indicate
the error of ilman, rather than the wisdom of
God? Would it not seem a mockery of human
ignorance, for the Almighty to set forth his mere
abstract essence, dread power, and infinite wisdom, and bid men call that cold abstraction
Father, and to refuse this dearest of all names
for those of his attributes, to which his children
cling with filial confidence and love, - to make
them cry, Abba, Father, where they feel not the
spirit of the adoption, and to suppress that cry,
where the heart is bursting to give it utterance?
This must verily be the commandment of men,
and not the doctrine of God.
But whence crept the Trinity into the Christian fold? This question I shall now answer by
giving as brief a sketch as possible of the history
of the Trinity. But the first part of my history
must be that of simple Unitarianism; for vestiges of no other form of doctrine can be traced
back farther than the third century, nor can we
find any evidence that the doctrine of three equal
persons in the Godhead was maintained till late
in the fourth centuiy. I am prepared to state,
without fear of contradiction, that the doctrine
of the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, cannot be found in any work of the three
first centuries, and that there cannot be found,
with reference to the divine nature, in any gen



56          THE DIVINE NATURE.
uine Christian work of the first two centuries,
any statement of doctrine, equivalent, or approaching to, or consistent with, the modern
doctrine of the Trinity. It is said, that, because
there was no controversy about this doctrine, it
was passed over in silence? I reply, that, as
the Christian fathers wrote chiefly about the
divine nature, attributes, and will, if they had
this idea, they could not have failed to use corresponding phraseology; for Trinitarian phraseology is now used by Trinitarians, not only in
controversial writings, but in prayers and in
practical sermons, and has been freely used
during ages when the doctrine was received
without opposition or dissent.
Yet farther, it is as certain as any fact in history, that the Trinity was not in primitive times
the doctrine of the whole Church, even if we
were to admit that it was held by a part of the
Church. No ecclesiastical historian denies or
doubts that the Judaizing Christians of Palestine, who formed distinct sects early in the
second century, were Unitarians. There were
two sects of these Christians, — the Ebionites
and the Nazarenes.  The Ebionites believed
Jesus to have been a mere man, the son of
Joseph and  Mary; and they are uniformly
spoken of by the Orthodox fathers as heretics.
The Nazarenes believed in the miraculous birth
and superhuman dignity of Jesus, but regarded




THE DIVINE NATURE.          57
him as a created and finite being; and they
seem to have been regarded as Orthodox in the
earliest times, and are not spoken of as heretics
till the fourth century. For these facts, it may
be sufficient to refer you to the ecclesiastical history of Mosheim, himself a Trinitarian. Now
could the Trinity have been believed by the
great body of the Church during the first three
centuries, and these Nazarenes have been left
without anathema and obloquy?
There is yet another remark of importance to
be made with regard to the early Christian writings. They consisted not only of works for the
edification of those within the Church, but many
of them were written for the defence and propagation of the new faith, and were addressed to
Jews and Pagans, -to the opposers and persecutors of the Church. In writings of this class,
the most important doctrine of the whole Christian system could not have been passed over in
silence. It must needs have been clearly stated
and expounded for the benefit of the uninitiated,
and elaborately defended against doubts and
objections. Let us see then what kind of language the early advocates of Christianity used
in propagating and defending their religion.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter addressed a
confused, skeptical, and mocking multitude,
many of whom had come from afar, and were
utter strangers to the new religion. Hear his




58          THE DIVINE NATURE.
simple statement, which made, we are told, three
thousand converts:'Jesus of Nazareth, a man
approved of God among you, by miracles, and
wonders, and signs, which God did by him in
the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know;
him, being delivered by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and
by wicked hands have crucified and slain, whom
God hath raised up.' * Hear also in what terms
Paul preached Jesus for the first time before the
superstitious and idolatrous Athenians:' He
hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge
the world in righteousness, by that man whom
he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him
from the dead.'t Hear also St. Paul's synopsis
of his own preaching, in that bold, manly defence
before Agrippa, in which you will all feel that it
was infinitely beneath the apostle's character to
have used concealment or equivocation:' I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small
and great, saying none other things than those
which the prophets and Moses did say should
come: that Christ should suffer, and that he
should be the first that should rise from the
dead, and should shew light unto the people, and
to the Gentiles.' *  Saying none other things,'could St. Paul have honestly made such a denial
* Acts ii. 22-24. f Acts xvii. 31.  t Acts xxvi. 22, 23,




THE DIVINE NATURE.          59
as this, if he had preached so novel and momentous a view of the divine nature as the
Trinity unfolds, especially when it is considered
that this must have been an entirely unknown
doctrine to Agrippa?
The only other Christian apologist whom I
have time to quote, is Justin Martyr, who
addressed a defence. of Christianity to Antoninus
Pius about the year 140, and about the same
time wrote a defence of Christianity against
Jewish objections, in the form of a dialogue
with Trypho the Jew.  Justin, I remark in
passing, has always held an unquestioned rank
among the Orthodox fathers.  Speaking of
Jesus, (in the dialogue with Trypho,) he says:'The Father is the author to him, both of his
existence, and of his being powerful, and of his
being Lord and divine.'' He was subordinate
to the Father, and a minister to his will.'
I will now offer you a few extracts from the
fathers of the first three or four centuries, premising that I shall quote from no reputed heretic, but only from those, whom the Trinitarians
regard as representatives of the Orthodoxy of
their times. I shall have no difficulty, I think,
in showing.you that these fathers were what we
now call Unitarians.
Clement of Rome, a personal friend of St.
Paul, (believed on the concurring testimony of
antiquity to be the Clement mentioned by St.




(60         THE DIVINE NATURE.
Paul in the epistle to the Philippians,) * styles
Jesus' the sceptre of the majesty of God.' We
find, towards the close of his epistle to the
Corinthians, the following doxology, - could a
Trinitarian have written it?'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 glorious and holy name, faith,
fear, peace, long-suffering, patience, temperance,
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 forever.'
Clement of Alexandria, who wrote near the
beginning of the third century, 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 Instructor.'
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.''If we know what prayer is, we
must not pray to any created being, not to
* Philippians iv. 3.




THE DIVINE NATURE.         61
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 ourselves, Jesus himself saying, that
we must pray to the Father through the Son.'
If this be not Unitarianism, what is it?
Eusebius, the father of ecclesiastical history,
who wrote about the year 320, says:'There is
one God, and the only-begotten comes out of
him.''Christ, being neither the Supreme God,
nor an angel, is of a middle nature between
them; and, being neither the Supreme God, nor
a man, but the Mediator, 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
Father the true God, and commrands us to worship him only.'
I had marked for quotation many more extracts from the same and other fathers of the
Church; but I omit them for the sake of brevity.
And now let me ask, could these fathers have
been Trinitarians, in the modern sense of that
word?  Could a modern Trinitarian have written the passages which I have now quoted?
Had I quoted them, without naming their authors, would you not have taken them for extracts from the writings of Unitarian divines?
I trust that there is no need of my saying, that I
have endeavored to represent the opinions of
5*




6(2         THE DIVINE NATURE.
those times impartially. During the second and
third centuries, from  a source whidh I shall
shortly indicate, there was a gradual introduction of Trinitarian phraseology into the Church.
But I no more believe that I myself am a Unitarian, than I do that the Christian fathers of the
first three centuries, whose works have come
down to us, were all of them virtually Unitarians. Though, from the time of Justin downward, there was a gradual departure from the
simplicity of the gospel, and a tendency towards
mystical views of the divine nature, and towards
the recognition of a threefold distinction therein,
yet I believe, that, down to the end of the second
century at least, if not of the third, the doctrine
of three equal persons in the Godhead would
have been deemed as grossly heretical, as that of
the undivided unity of God is anywhere regarded
at the present time.
We have now reached the period of the Arian
controversy, and the celebrated Council of Nice.
The Arian controversy was on this wise. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in an assembly of
his presbyters, maintained that the Son was of
the same essence with the Father. This assertion was opposed by Arius, one of his presbyters,
who maintained that the Son was totally and
essentially distinct from the Father, being the
first and noblest of his creatures. The dispute
waxed warm, each side finding strong and deter



TIlE DIVINE NATURE.         63
mined -champions, until at length Alexander
sumrmoned a numerous council, and deposed
Arius and his adherents from their offices in the
Church. Upon this, the controversy spread like
wildfire, inflamed the whole church, and finally
led to the summoning of the Council of Nice,
which met in the year 325, condemned by vote
of the majority the doctrine of Arius, procured
his banishment into Illyria, and established what
is called the Nicene Creed, - a creed not strictly
Trinitarian, though strongly tending that way.
This creed applied the title God to our Saviour;
but calls him God out of or derived from God,
and thus does not make him a self-existent and
independent being, so that this last step towards
the full development of the Trinity still remained
to be taken. There was a large minority of the
Council that dissented from this creed, though it
was backed by the authority of the Emperor
Constantine, who took an active part in the session. Only five years afterwards, the emperor,
having become an Arian, repealed the laws
against Arius, and instituted a series of oppressive measures against the partisans of the Nicene
Creed. Ten years after the session of the Council of Nice, the Council of Tyre deposed Athanasius, Alexander's successor, and reinstated
Arius and his adherents in their former offices
and honors in the Alexandrian church. From
this time, for a period of more than forty years,




64          THE DIVINE NATURE.
the Arian party generally had the supremacy;
and the Nicene Creed could not, therefore, have
been called the creed of the Church until near the
close of the fourth century.
The Athanasian Creed is the oldest monument
extant of the doctrine of three literally equal persons in the Godhead. This was probably written by Hilary, who died in the latter part of the
fourth century. It has been recognized in the
Romish Church as an authentic compend of
faith, since the ninth or tenth century. It is retained in the English Book of Common Prayer;
and its exclusion from the service of the American Episcopal Church was assented to with great
reluctance by their transatlantic brethren. It is
a very long and prolix document, and I -cannot
burden you with the whole of it; yet I am going
to give you a pretty long extract from it, for two
reasons, first, that you may see in its own canonical language what absurdities and contradictions the doctrine of the Trinity involves; and,
secondly, that you may contrast it, as I read it,
with the' simplicity that is in Christ.'
We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity
in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor
dividing the substance. For there is one person
of the Father, another of the Son, and another of
the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the
glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the




THE DIVINE NATURE.         65
Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy
Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate,
and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and
the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father
eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit
eternal. And yet there are not three eternals,
but one eternal. As also there are not three
incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one
uncreate and one incomprehensible. So likewise, the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty,
and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet there
are not three Almighties; but one Almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the
Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three
Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is
Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For
like as we are compelled by the Christian verity
to acknowledge every person by himself to be
God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say, There be three Gods or three
Lords..         And in this Trinity, none is
fore or after other; none is greater or less than
another; but the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.' Of all which and
much more like it, the creed in its sequel charitably asserts, and the good people of the English
Church are compelled by the rubric to hear on no
less than thirteen Sundays and festivals in the




66          THE DIVINE NATURE.
year:' Which faith except every one do keep
whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall
perish everlastingly.' The only appropriate response to this would be in the words of the apostles,' Who then can be saved?'
We have now seen that the doctrine of the
Trinity is not taught in the Bible, and that it
formed no part of the Christian system as maintained by the primitive Church. Whence then
came it?  I have no hesitation in referring it
to the Platonic philosophy. Plato had written
much about three divine principles, which he
had styled the One or the Good, Mind or Word,
and Soul or Spirit. His followers had talked
and written mystically about these same three
principles, until the number three had become
with them a sacred number, and a divine Trinity
had assumed a prominent place among the doctrines of the later Platonists, insomuch that it
may be traced in all their works. In process of
time, many eminent Platonists became Christians. Justin Martyr was a devoted disciple of
Plato. Alexandria, which, as we have seen, was
the birth-place of the Christian Trinity, was the
head-quarters of Platonism; and the early Trinitarian fathers were all Platonists, and were
therefore Trinitarians before they became Christians. These fathers, having been much and
long in the schools of philosophy, could not
come to Jesus with the simplicity of little chil



THE DIVINE NATURE.           67
dren. They were unwilling to be disciples of
Christ alone. They quoted Plato and Jesus
Christ in the same breath, believed in both
with equally unhesitating assurance, incorporated the Platonic Trinity into their religious
creed, remodelled the Christian system in the
Platonic mould, and then complimented the
memory of Plato on his having anticipated the
essential doctrines of the gospel. That this
statement is not exaggerated will appear from
the fact, that, in their extant writings, the early
Trinitarian fathers always quote Plato and his
followers, as freely as they do the New Testament, on the subject of the Trinity. St. Augustine expressly 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 might, had I time, adduce numerous
quotations from the Christian fathers to the
same effect.
I have now accomplished, as far as possible
within the limits of a single lecture, the work
proposed. I have shown you, as I think, that
the Trinity is not a doctrine of the Bible, that
it was not believed or taught by the early Christian fathers, and that it derived a technical phraseology, its ideas and its ultimate form, from the
Platonic philosophy.




68          THE DIVINE NATURE.
One word in conclusion. If the- view which I
have now presented be just, ours is no new doctrine, but the faith first delivered to the saints.
What we believe, was the creed of the Church in
those days, when there were tongues of fire and
hearts all zeal, when the word was quick and
powerful, when the disciples offered their all
upon the altar of their faith, and multitudes of
such as shbuld be saved were daily added to the
company of the believers. Why may not the
same creed bear like fruits now, and among us?
May it not, God helping, if we are faithful to
our light? Let us not, if we think that we have
the truth, idly boast of our superior discernment;
for it only makes our negligence and sluggishness the more blameworthy. Were we blind,
we should have less sin. But now that we say,
We see, our sin remains. If we have the light,
let us walk as children of the light. If we deem
ourselves, in our views of religious doctrine,
more faithful than our fellow Christians to the
sublime declaration of Moses,'The Lord our
God is one Lord,' let us be no less faithful to
the commandment, which he annexes to that
declaration, —' Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy might.'




LECTURE  II.
JESUS  CHRIST.
JOHN XIV. 28.
MY FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.
THE question of THE SUPREME DIVINITY OF
JESUS CHRIST will be my subject this evening. I
shall reserve for the next lecture, an explicit
statement of my own views with reference to
our Saviour's personal rank and character, and
I shall now confine myself to the simple question: Was Jesus of Nazareth identical with the
Almighty Creator?
Before entering upon my subject, suffer me to
make one preliminary remark. There are two
modes employed in proving doctrines from the
Bible. One is the quotation of single texts,
without reference to the context, or to the analogy of other portions of Scripture. The other is
based upon the comparison of a text with its
context, and of Scripture with Scripture; and
has reference rather to the general tone and spirit
of the sacred writings, or of particular books and
6




70             JESUS CHRIST.
passages, than to insulated words and phrases.
The latter, I hardly need say, is the only true
mode. By the former, any and every doctrine
might be established; and its use has, in fact,
led to most of the broad differences among
Christians, and of the exceedingly wide departures from'the simplicity that is in Christ.' No
book in the world could bear such rules and
modes of interpretation, as have been applied to
the Bible. In all books, except scientific treatises, free use is made of metaphor and hyperbole,
which are always defined and limited by what
goes before and what follows, but which, taken
by themselves and explained literally, would
imply the most puerile and absurd notions. Now
the fashion among theologians has been, to set
up the seeming signification of some three or
four isolated clauses in the Bible, as overweighing the clear and acknowledged tenor of the entire Scriptures, as if the inspired writers could
have failed to recognize constantly, and to state
explicitly, any fundamental doctrine of the religion, which they taught.
I can best illustrate the prevalent mode of
Scriptural interpretation, by supposing a case.
Suppose that, fifteen or twenty centuries hence,
there should be remaining some two or three
authentic biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Suppose that in one of these, written by an admiring Frenchman, it should be said of him:




JESUS CHRIST.            71'He was a very God among his soldiers, - adoring millions prostrated themselves before him,he took in the nations of the earth at a glance,
-his will was omnipotent.' Suppose that in
another of these biographies, written by a bigoted
English tory, it should be said of him:' He was
a very fiend incarnate,- the prince of darkness
never let loose upon earth a more fearful angel
of destruction.' Suppose that, though, elsewhere throughout these books, Napoleon was
perpetually talked of as a man, and the books,
taken as a whole, made utter nonsense upon the
supposition that he was not a man, there yet
should arise a set of critics, who maintained that
Napoleon was a divine being, and another set,
who maintained that he was a demon, - these
two classes of critics would aptly represent the
generality of modern theologians and biblical
interpreters.
The true mode of interpretation obviously is,
first, to get at the general tone and spirit of the
book, or books, which we wish to interpret, and
then, when we find a passage of difficult, doubtful, or ambiguous signification, to seek for it the
interpretation, or to give it that one of several
possible interpretations, which best accords with
the tone and spirit of the whole. Thus, if the
entire New Testament from beginning to end, if
every discourse of our Saviour, if every exposition of Christian doctrine made by the apostles,




72             JESUS CHRIST.
if the whole tone of spiritual phraseology, declares, or necessarily implies, the inferiority of
the Son to the Father, and yet there are some
half-dozen or more, single texts, which seem to
teach his supreme divinity, but admit of a different interpretation, I contend, that we are bound
to interpret these texts in accordance with the
voice of Scripture taken collectively; and I also
maintain that, where there is any reasonable
doubt with regard to the reading, or the punctuation of a passage, we are bound to prefer that
reading, or that mode of punctuation, which best
accords with the rest of the New Testament.
But let me not be misunderstood. I by no
means say that half a dozen texts, or even a
single text of Scripture, may not be sufficient to
establish a religious doctrine.  On the other
hand, there are subjects spoken of but once or
twice, on which I derive as definite and firm an
opinion, from one or two texts, as I should from
a volume. And if our Saviour were named but
six times, or but once, in a series of books proffering the claims to plenary and conclusive authority, which, in my view, the New Testament
proffers, and if, each of those six times, or that
once, he were spoken of as the supreme God, I
should then believe him to be the supreme God.
But the case is very different. HIe speaks of
himself, and is spoken of, many hundred times,
in the New Testament. Take away some half



JESUS CHRIST.            73
dozen, or, at most, a very few of these texts, and
no one will contend that there remains a single
case, in which the phraseology does not necessarily imply inferiority to the eternal Father. These
few texts, as I interpret them, imply no other
doctrine. But yet my Trinitarian brethren contend that they teach our Saviour's supreme
divinity. Admitting, for the moment, that such
were their most obvious meaning, the question
is, whether they ought to outweigh the hundreds
of texts that teach.a different doctrine. Christ
cannot be both a self-existent and a created
being, both God and the Son of God, both equal
and inferior to the Father. And if he, many
hundreds of times, calls himself, and is called by
his authorized interpreters, a created being, the
Son of God, and inferior to the Father, then it
seems to me that the few texts, which might
bear a different meaning, ought to be interpreted
in accordance with these hundreds of texts.
With this general statement of facts in the case,
I presume that no Trinitarian would find fault.
But the Trinitarian would maintain that the
hundreds of texts ought to be interpreted by the
fevw..
These things premised, I now proceed to exhibit the chief reasons, why I find myself constrained to regard our Saviour as a created and
subordinate being.
In the first place, our Saviour never declares
6*




74             JESUS CHRIST.
himself the supreme God, in any of the discourses
or conversations recorded in the gospels. This
is not a doctrine, for which it is common to appeal to our Saviour's own words; and yet, often
as he spake of himself, and plain and confidential
as was his intercourse with his disciples during
the last scenes of his life, it hardly seems possible that he should have left them without a hint
of his true nature and glory. I know of but
two of his own sayings, which are ever quoted
as referring to his supreme divinity; and I doubt
whether these would be quoted in a serious argument. One of these is,'I and my Father are
one,'* which he sufficiently explains, when he
afterwards prays for his disciples,' that they may
be one, even as we are one.'t The other is,'He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,;'
which, in the next verse, he explains by saying:' Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and
the Father in me?' I am astonished that this
should ever have been regarded as a Trinitarian
proof-text. I know not a more decidedly antiTrinitarian text in the Bible. For, if there be
three distinct persons in the God-head, seeing
one of them, is surely not seeing the other, -
seeing the Father, is not seeing the Son. But
if, as Unitarians believe, Christ dwelt in God,
and God in him, if Christ was the image,
the representative of the Father, then he, who
* John x. 30.   t John xvii. 22.: John xiv. 9.




JESUS (CHR1ST.          75
had seen him, had seen the Father, - he, who
had been conversant with the image, had become
acquainted with the attributes of the original.
If our Saviour were indeed the supreme God,
a fact, no less striking and unaccountable than
his own silence on the subject, is, that the apostles did not proclaim him as God in their preaching to the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. The
cross, the ignominy, the lowly and suffering
estate of Jesus, was Ahe great stumbling-block
to those, among whom they preached; and it
was, therefore, a prime object with them to extol
and exalt him, to set forth his claims upon the
reverence of man, and to exhibit his intrinsic
greatness and excellence. Was he, who was
despised and rejected of men, indeed the Lord
God Almighty? Of this fact, then, before all
things else, would Peter have assured the unbelieving Jews, and Paul the inquisitive and credulous Athenians. This doctrine, so momentous,
could not have been suppressed in preaching, to
such a degree, as not once to find its way into
the numerous discourses contained in the Acts
of the Apostles. If Peter and Paul did not
preach it, they cannot have believed it. If they
did preach it, the eminently careful, faithful historian, St. Luke, could not have omitted this
most prominent and striking point in their
preaching.
I now offer you a consideration of very great,




76            JESUS CHRIST.
and, it seems to me, decisive weight. If our
Saviour were the almighty Creator, there was a
time when his disciples first became aware of the
fact; for they could not have believed it from
the beginning. When Peter rebuked him, when
they all forsook him, when they went weeping
to his sepulchre, they could not have regarded
him as God. Now, whenever they learned the
fact of his supreme divinity, it must have
wrought a marvellous and entire change in their
feelings and conduct, - it must have created the
most strongly marked epoch in the experience of
their lives. It must have been with the utmost
awe, with emotions of overpowering fulness that
they ascertained that the Creator of all worlds
had been dwelling with them, calling them his
brethren, and submitting to their petulant and
inconstant humors, - had broken bread for
them, and even washed their feet. Must not
such a stupendous discovery have left some
trace of itself in the sacred record? Could it
have taken place, without at least some notice
of the time when, and the circumstances under
which it was made? Did they first become
aware of this fact after his resurrection? How
then can we account for their preserving their
former familiar, fraternal style of intercourse with
him till the morning of the ascension? And
yet their conversation with him that very morning, differs not in the least, as to its general tone




JESUS CHRIST.            7 
and character, from those which they had held
with him before his death. Or was it on the
day of Pentecost that this amazing fact first
became known to them? If so, would not
Peter's discourse have been full of this new
revelation? Could- he have so entirely veiled
the light that had just burst upon him, as coolly
to commence his discourse:'Jesus of Nazareth,
a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by
him,' and to utter not a single word, which the
most astute critic can torture into a recognition
of the deity of Christ? But it is impossible
for the Trinitarian to say when the apostles were
first apprised of this truth; nor is there, in the
gospels or the Acts of the Apostles, the faintest
trace of such a discovery having been made at
any time. Now I could more easily account for
the omission of all notice of our Saviour's birth,
or death, or resurrection, or ascension, than for
the omission or the announcement of this, —- the
most amazing and momentous fact of all, —
indeed, the most interesting and important fact
in the world's whole history.
I next remark that the whole phraseology of
the New Testament, with regard to our Saviour,
implies his created existence, and subordinate
rank. In the first place, he is constantly called
the Son of God. The word Son, as applied to
him, either has, or has not, a meaning. If it has




78             JESUS CHRIST.
no meaning, then must it have been employed
by our Saviour and his apostles in idle mockery
of man's understanding, —a supposition unworthy to be entertained for a moment, and yet
one, which our Trinitarian brethren cannot, it
seems to me, entirely disavow. But if the word
Son does mean anything, the least that it can
imply is, that the Son owes his existence to the
Father, therefore is not self-existent, did not then
exist from all eternity, and consequently is not
God.
I would next advert to the mode in which our
Saviour uniformly speaks of himself. Here are
some of his declarations, which I might multiply
indefinitely:' My Father is greater than 1.' *'I
can of mine own self do nothing.' t' The words
that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself;
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the
works.'.'I proceeded forth and came from
God; neither came I of myself, but he sent
me.'~'My meat is to do the will of him that
sent me.'ll' Of that day and that hour knoweth
no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father.'' God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son.'**' Why callest thou me good? there is
none good but one, that is God.' tt'I ascend
* John xiv. 28.   t John v. 30.: John xiv. 10.
~ John viii. 42.  11 John iv. 34.  ~f Mark xiii. 32.
** John iii. 16.   tt Matt. xix. 17.




JESUS CHRIST.            79
unto my Father and your Father, and to my
God and your God.'* But I might go on in
this, way, and quote from every chapter in the
gospels, and from every verse in which our
Saviour speaks, and show you every attribute
of supreme divinity disclaimed, over and over
again, from his own lips, without your being able
to point to a single instance, in which he claims
for himself any exclusively divine attribute. I
might, also, show him to you praying to his
Father, spending whole nights in supplication
to Him, beseeching Him, if possible, to take
from him the cup of death, and commending his
departing spirit into the Father's hands.
It is said that Christ spoke and did thus in
his human nature? To this I reply, in the first
place, that the doctrine of the two natures of
Christ is not claimed even by its advocates, as a
doctrine of revelation. They quote no declaration, or passage of Scripture, in which they profess to find this doctrine expressed or implied.
It is confessedly a hypothesis, which they have
assumed, as the only mode in which they can
reconcile Christ's supreme divinity with his own
reiterated assertions to the contrary.
But this hypothesis of the two natures is far
from obviating the difficulty, which it was designed to remove.  If Christ be the supreme
God, and if it be of any importance for man* John xx. 17.




80.JESUS CHRIST.
kind to know the fact, it was of equal importance for him to have made the fact known, nor
can there have been any adequate reason for his
concealing it. Moreover, those, who maintain
the doctrine of two natures, virtually charge our
Saviour with equivocation. For does not the
word I include the whole of the person speaking?
I myself am composed of body and mind. I
know that five and five are ten. My body does
not know it; but my mind knows it. Now suppose that I should say,'I do not know how
much five and five are,' and should afterwards
explain myself by saying,' My body does not
know it, and, when I spoke, I had reference to
my body,' what would you think of my honesty,
or good sense? You would certainly infer that
I had made utter shipwreck of one or the other.
Or suppose that I should say,'I am unable to
lift this manuscript,' and when you looked to see
if I were smitten with a sudden paralysis, I
should add,' I only mean that my mind cannot
lift it, - my body can,' you would surely regard
my speech as anything but wise, and my intellect as anything but sane. Yet such is the imputation, which the doctrine of the two natures
casts upon our Saviour; and his exalted mission, and the momentous subjects on which he
spoke, only render the imputation the more gross
and unworthy. If our Saviour was the supreme
God, he knew the day and hour, which he said




JESUS CHRIST.            81
that he did not know, — he had himself the
power to perform those works, which he said
that he could not perform of himself,- he was
the equal of the Father, whom he called greater
than himself; and there remains no way, in
which you can interpret these essentially false
declarations from his lips, without casting reproach upon him, in whose pure and transparent
spirit I believe that there was no guile. I press
this point the more urgently, because to my eye.
the doctrine of our Saviour's supreme divinity
renders all his recorded discourses a tissue of
prevarication, fitted only to bewilder and mislead
his hearers.
The hypothesis of the two natures also fails,
inasmuch as Christ expressly disclaims the peculiar attributes of deity in some of those relations
and offices, which it is contended that he fills by
virtue of his divine nature. I know not how
often I have seen and heard the number, variety,
and magnitude of his miracles, and his sovereign
sway over diseases and the elements, cited as
demonstrative proof of his supreme divinity.
But it is of these very miracles that he says:' The works that I do, bear witness of me, that
the Father hath sent me."' It is often said also,
that none but God can be the final judge of
man; and Christ's designated office as judge of
the living and the dead is referred to in every de* John v. 36.
7




82             JESUS CHRIST-.
fence of the Trinity, as proof positive of his
supreme divinity. But of this office he says:
The Father hath committed all judgment unto
the Son;' and, a few sentences: afterwards, assigns not his deity, nor even his close connection
with the Father, but, on the other hand, his relationship to man, as the reason why he is
appointed man's judge:'He hath given him
authority to execute judgment also, because he is
the Son of man.' "
We have then our Saviourt's uniform and
often repeated testimony to his own created existence and subordinate rank, in maintaining
which we cannot surely be guilty of denying the
Lord Jesus, inasmuch as we fasten our faith
upon his own words.
Do we look to the rest of the New Testament? We still find. our Saviour spoken of as
a created and subordinate being.' Him hath
God ordained,'' Him hath God raised up,'-' Him  hath God set forth,'- is the burden of
the apostolic preaching. How many times do
the apostles designate the Almighty as the God,
or the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! Says
St. Paul:' There is one God, and one mediator
between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' t
And again:' Ye are Christ's, and Christ is
God's.'f   Says St. John:'God loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins;'
* John v. 22, 27.    t 1 Tim. ii. 5.: 1 Cor. iii. 23.




JESUS CHRIST.             83
and again, in the same chapter:'The Father
sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.'*
The apostles speak also of Christ, in his glorified
state, as making intercession for his Church.' Who also maketh intercession for us.' t'If
any man sin, we have an advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.' j  If Christ
be God, to whom does he pray?
The apostles speak of Christ as subordinate to
the Father, even in those passages, in which
they ascribe to him the highest exaltation and
glory; nay, in the very passages, which are currently quoted in proof of his supreme divinity on
the alleged ground, that such honor can be rendered to no created being. Take this passage
for instance:.' Wherefore God also hath highly
exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name, that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and
things in earth, and that every tongue should
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory
of God the Father.' ~ God hath exalted him, -
God hath given him a name, - to the glory of
God the Father.  How  could his derived and
subordinate nature have been more strongly expressed?
There is a passage in one of St. Paul's epistles
* 1 John iv. 10, 14.  t Rom. viii. 34.
$ l John ii. 1.      ~ Phil. ii. 9, 11.




84             JESUS CHRIST.
to the Corinthians, where the extent and universality of Christ's reign are spoken of in more
ample and lofty terms than anywhere else in
the New Testament; but, as if to preclude the
inference of his independent and supreme divinity, the apostle adds:' 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!might also quote that passage in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, where God is represented as saying to Christ, in language borrowed from the Old
Testament, (in which a more free use is made
of the word God, than in the New,)'Thy
throne, O God, is forever and ever;' but it is
added,' God, even thy God, hath anointed thee
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows,' j -
a passage, which suggests the inquiry, — If
Christ was the-suprenle God, who was his God,
who were his fellows, and who anointed him?
And throughout the introduction of this epistle,
in which it seems the writer's sole. object to heap
the praises of a pious and grateful heart upon
the glorified Redeemer, we have multiplied
recognitions of his subordinate rank with reference to the Father.' Whom he hath appointed
heir of all things, by whom also he made the
worlds.'t'It became him, for whom  are all
* 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.    t Heb. i. 8, 9..: Heb. i. 2.




JESUS CHRIST.             85
things, and by whom are all things, in bringing
many sons unto glory, to make the captain of
their salvation perfect through sufferings; for both
he that sanctifieth, and they that are sanctified,
are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed
to call them brethren; saying, I will declare thy
name unto my brethren: in the midst of the
church will I sing praise unto thee. And again,
I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold
I and the children which God hath given me.
In all things it behoved him to be
made like unto his brethren.         In that
he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is
able to succor them that are tempted.'* Now
all these things may be said of the most highly
exalted of God's children; but surely not of God
himself. Men are not God's brethren.  God
cannot sing praise to himself. God cannot be
tempted; nor can he have been made perfect
through suffering.
In the Epistle to the Colossians, where it is
said of Christ, that'by him were all things
created that are in heaven, and that are in earth,'
and that'he is before all things,' he is in the
same sentence styled, not the Uncreated, but'the first-born of every creature,' therefore not
self-existent, and consequently not God.t
In the Apocalypse, where the highest titles
* Heb. ii. 10-18.   t Col. i. 15-17.
7*




86             JESUS CHRIST.
and honors are given to our Saviour, and where
the rapt apostle sees the ransomed hosts casting
down their crowns before him, he is still represented as a created being. Though he styles
himself'Alpha and Omega, the first and the
last,' * he still indicates that these expressions
denote not the uncreated source of being, but
the first-born Son; for he afterwards calls himself'the beginning of the creation of God.'t
And again, while the redeemed are represented
as assigning for the reason of their praise to the
Father:' Thou hast created all things, and for
thy pleasure they are and were created;' to the
Son their words are:' Thou wast:slain, and hast
redeemed us unto Goal by thy blood, out of
every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, and hast made us unto our God, kings and
priests,'~ - an ascription, of which every candid
mind must see at once that the supreme God
cannot be the subject.
I next remark, that Christ did not present
himself as an object of adoration,; and that he
commanded his disciples to offer prayer, not to
himself, but to his Father. I know not what
could be more explicit than the following passage, where, speaking of the time when he
should no longer be with his disciples, he says to
them:'In that day ye shall ask me nothing.
* Rev. i11..      t Rev. iii. 14.: Rev. iv. 11.     ~ Rev. v. 9, 10.




JESUS CHRIST.            87
Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye
shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it
you.'
In accordance with these words of their Master, all the recorded prayers of the apostles are
directed to God, generally through Christ, or in
his name; nor dco they, in a single instance,
exhort their convert to pray or to give thanks to
Jesus, but to God the Father, in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ. The only case, I believe, in
which authority for prayer to Christ is drawn
from the New Testament, is that of the dying
Stephen, when he said,' Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit.'t But this was not prayer. This was
not an address to an invisible being. It was
speaking to one whom he saw. The heavens
were opened, and he saw' Jesus standing on the
right hand of God.' He had a vision of the
risen Saviour, with a countenance and gesture of
welcome for his dying servant. He thus commended his spirit to one, who had personally
appeared, to lead him through the dark valley to
the mansion of eternal rest.
One word more concerning this text. In our
common Bible, it reads:' They stoned Stephen,
calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' But you will see that the word
God is printed in italics. In this type are printed
* John xvi. 23.     t Acts vii. 59.




88              JESUS CLIRIST.
those words in the translation, which have no
corresponding words in the original, but which
the translators saw fit to supply. There are
many, I suppose, who do not know what the
italics in the Bible mean; and the explanation
of them ought to be printed in every copy. This
text, omitting the word inserted by the translators, would read:' They stoned Stephen, calling
upon, or invoking, (of course the person last
named, and that is Jesus,) and saying, Lord
Jesus, receive my spirit.' There is another instance, in which our translators have inserted the
same word God. It is this:'Hereby perceive
we the love of God, because he laid down his
life for us.' * The words of God, are in italics,
and have nothing corresponding to them in the
original, which, literally rendered, reads:' Hereby perceive we love, because he laid down his
life for us.'
But, to return from this digression, there is not,
in the New Testament a single instance of prayer
to Jesus, nor is there a single case, in which
homage is paid to him in the way in which
it is paid to God. There are indeed many ascriptions of praise to him; but they are always
accompanied with the specific designation of his
work and office as Mediator, and generally with
an express reference to the eternal Father as
$ John iii. 16.




JESUS CHRIST.             89
alone supreme. But there are several instances,
in which persons are said to have worshipped
Jesus. The word translated worship, however,
does not necessarily denote the rendering of
divine honors, but simply prostration, or other
external marks of homage or reverence, such as
are paid by inferiors to superiors, by subjects
to princes, and by servants to masters. For
instance, the servant in the parable, who owed a
thousand talents, fell down at his master's feet,' and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.' * Indeed,
most of these cases of worship or prostration
before our Saviour, were cases of suppliants
asking favors of him, at a time when, it is generally contended by Trinitarians, our Saviour's
supreme divinity had not yet been made known.
Such is the state of facts with reference to the
recognition of our Saviour's supreme divinity by
the apostles, in appropriate acts of devotion.
Now, that neither prayer nor divine honors
should have been rendered to our Saviour by his
apostles seems to me entirely unaccountable, if
he were properly the subject of them.'It is
equally unaccountable, that, if they had been
rendered, no instance of the kind should have remained on record in the New Testament. And
still more strange is it, that, if Jesus be the
*- Matthew xviii. 26.




90            JESUS CHRIST.
supreme God, he himself should not only have
omitted to enjoin, but should have expressly
forbidden prayer to himself, and should have
prescribed a mode of prayer, in which he was
indeed to be recognized as the Mediator, but not
as the object of prayer.
I will now ask your attention to some of the
single texts urged by those who maintain the
supreme deity of Christ. I do not intend (for I
have not time) to bring forward all the prooftexts that have been urged or relied upon. But
I shall choose those, which seem to me the
strongest, and those on which eminent Trinitarians have laid the most stress. I shall purposely omit only those, on which no independent
reliance is placed, but which are brought forward
as subsidiary to the argument based upon the
others. And let me add, that, should I omit in
this lecture the consideration of texts, which any
of you desire to hear discussed, if you will name
such texts to me, they shall be taken up in the
next lecture.
Those, who maintain the supreme divinity of
our Saviour, rest for this doctrine, if I am not
mistaken, solely on single texts. They draw no
argument from the general tone and spirit of the
New Testament. They admit that the argument from this source, so far as it has any
bearing, goes against them. But they deem it
overborne by the clearness and weight of the




JESUS CHRIST.            9 
single texts, which they quote in behalf of their
dogma.
Of these texts, I set aside, as having no bearing on the doctrine in question, those, which
simply teach our Saviour's continued presence
with his Church, and his power over the spiritual
creation of God; for these are truths of which I
entertain not the slightest doubt; they imply no
more than a headship over the Church, conferred
by the Father, and are but tile fulfilment of those
words of our Saviour:' All power is given unto
me in heaven and in earth.' " Is given, - given
then by the Being, to whom it of right belonged,
and who is as competent to constitute the ascended Redeemer head of the whole spiritual
family above and below, as to make you and me
fathers and heads of our own little households.
Nor need we here consider those texts-which
imply, or seem to imply, our Saviour's preixistence; for the question, whether he existed before
his birth in Bethlehem, is entirely independent of
that of his supreme divinity.
The only text from the Old Testament, much
relied on by the advocates of the doctrine in
question, is this from Isaiah:' Unto us a child
is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name
shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty
* Matthew xxvii. 18.




92             JESUS CHRIST.
God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of
Peace.'   In this text, the Hebrew word rendered God,'is not Elohin,, the word commonly
so rendered; but El, of which God is only a
secondary meaning. The Hebrew Lexicons
give for its meaning, first, (as an adjective,)
strong~, mighty; secondly, (as an abstract noun,)
strength, power; and thirdly and often, (by a
natural transfer from an abstract to a concrete
sense,) God. Our translators chose the last of
the three meanings. I am disposed to think the
first.the true signification here, and should render the passage:'He shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Strong, Mighty, Father of eternity, that is, Author of eternal life, (or, perhaps,
Father or Author of an age,- a new age or
dispensation,) Prince of Peace.'
Another text much relied on is from the Epistle
to the Philippians:'Let this mind be in you,
which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in
the'form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant.' t
The true sense of this passage, according to
many Trinitarian commentators,, is this:'Let
the same mind be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus, who, though in the form, the image
of God, yet did not covet to appear as God, that
* Isaiah ix. 6.     t Philippians ii. 5-7.




JESUS CHRIST.            93
is, did not exalt or magnify himself; but, on the
other hand, humbled himself; and took upon
him the form of a servant.' But, however this
passage may be interpreted, any possible inference from it in favor of the supreme divinity of
Christ is negatived by the sequel of the sentence,
in which the apostle says that, on account of his
thus humbling himself,'God has highly exalted
him, and has given him a name above every
name, that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow,....  to the glory of God the
Father.'
Another important text is this from the Epistle
to the Romans:' Whose are the fathers, and of
whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who
is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.'  The
Newt Testament, like all books of that age, was
originally written without stops, and without
division of sentences. The stops have been
inserted, and the sentences divided in comparatively recent times. I suppose, in common with
many very eminent biblical critics, that, in this
passage, there should be a full stop after the
words, over all; and that the words,'God
blessed forever, - Amen,' were added as a doxology by the apostle, in the way, in which, in
several instances, he has inserted a doxology in
the midst of a paragraph.
* Romans ix. 5.
8




94            JESUS CHRIST.
The exclamation of Thomas, when he recognized his risen Master,' lMy Lord and my God,'"
is quoted as a proof-text for the doctrine under
discussion, though I am surprised that it should
be. It was a mere exclamation of glad astonishment on the part of Thomas. It was not
addressed to Christ; for it is not in the vocative
case, which is used in the Greek when a person
is spoken to. The words Lord and God are
both in the nominative case. The sentence is
elliptical; and, were we to supply the ellipsis, it
would, as I suppose, read thus:' It is my Lord
and my God, that has brought this glorious
event to pass.' But it was an abrupt, fragmentary exclamation, such as would naturally spring
from overwhelming surprise, —not profane, because uttered in deep solemnity and awe, and in
clear recognition of the divine hand, which had
raised his Master from the dead. It was the
most natural of all exclamations under the circumstances in which it was uttered. Suppose
that some one, whom we knew to have been
long dead, should stand forth here in the presence
of us all, would not the exclamation, Mlly God,
be the solemn, fervent, heart-stricken utterance of
every one present? That any argument should
ever have been based upon this exclamation
seems to me excessively strange, when I con* John xx. 28.




JESUS CHRIST.            95
sider the whole connection in which it stands.
Thomas had, a moment before, expressed his
entire unbelief as to the identity of his Master.
Jesus then showed him his wounds, to convince
him  of his identity.  This was all that he
undertook to prove to Thomas, and all that the
wounds could prove. Now, if Thomas had ever
believed Christ to be God, he would never have
doubted his power to rise from the dead. His
skepticism with regard to the resurrection, proves
that he had not previously believed that Christ
was God. But Christ's resurrection no more
proved him to be God, than the rising of Lazarus
proved him to be God. Thomas had therefore
had no proof of his Master's supreme divinity
presented to his mind; and one, so slow to believe as he was, could hardly have leaped to so
momentous a conclusion, without something on
which to base it.
The next passage, to which I shall refer, is
this from the first Epistle to Timothy: " Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in
the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received into
glory.' * There is much discrepancy with regard
to the reading of this passage among the early
manuscripts and versions; but, to my mind, the
1 Timothy iii. 16.




96             JESUS CHRIST.
balance of argument is in favor of the common
reading, and the text conveys to my apprehension, nothing, which I do not gladly believe and
embrace. Nay, I would adopt the passage as
embodying my confession of faith with regard
to Jesus Christ. I joyfully and thankfully acknowledge, that, in the person, in the moral
attributes, in the unquenchable love of Jesus,
God was manifest in the flesh, - that he was justified, that is, had false notions and sentiments
concerning himself uprooted, and true ideas and
feelings implanted among men, tlirdugh the
workings of his spirit, -that angels beheld with
adoration this display of divine wisdom and
love, —that God thus manifested was proclaimed
to the Gentiles, - believed on in the world, - ereceived in glory, (for such is the literal rendering
of the words,) that is, gloriously received and
welcomed in the hearts of Christ's true disciples.
In the Acts of the Apostles, St. Paul bids the
Ephesian elders to'feed the church of God,
which he hath purchased with his own blood.' "
Lord occurs here instead of God in many of the
earlier manuscripts and versions, and is deemed
the true reading by the best critics. But I will
take the text as it stands, and will seek no
advantage from the difference of reading. Now,
were it the general voice of the New Testament
* Acts xx. 28.




JESUS CHRIST.            97
that the supreme God suffered, and died, and
shed his blood upon the cross, I should certainly
interpret this text as referring to his death. But,
the contrary being the voice of the New Testament, if I admit the common reading of this
passage, I must interpret it in accordance with
what I know St. Paul to have believed and
taught. Now  St. Paul uniformly taught that'God spared not his own Son, but delivered him
up for us all;' and I must, therefore, suppose
blood, in the passage under discussion, to denote,Son, as it does, in common with the word flesh,
in all languages, both ancient and modern.' He
hath purchased with his own blood,' that is, with
his own Son.
I now ask your attention, for a few moments,
to the introduction of St. John's gospel. In
order to understand this, we must look at the
purpose for which St. John wrote his gospel.
On this subject, we are fortunate in having,
among others, a competent and unimpeachable
witness in Irenaeus,- a friend and pupil of Polycarl, who was a personal friend of St. John. It
is the uniform testimony of antiquity, that St.
John wrote his gospel after the other three, and
at Ephesus,- the head-quarters of the Gnostic
heresy, which was the first wide departure from
the simplicity of the Christian faith; and Irenaeus
says, that the beloved disciple wrote his gospel
for the express purpose of refuting the false and
8




98            JESUS CIRIST.
absurd notions, which the Gnostics were beginning to spread in Asia Minor. It concerns us
then to know what the Gnostics believed. They
engrafted upon the Christian faith a hybrid
philosophy, or to speak more correctly, they
engrafted some few Christian phrases and ideas
upon a hybrid philosophy, in which Platonism
was blended with the oriental mysticism. They
maintained that the supreme God dwelt in the
remote heavens, surrounded by chosen spirits,
AEons, (as they called them,) and gave himself
very little concern with what took place upon
earth; that the world was created by an inferior
and imperfect being, who was also the author of
the Jewish dispensation; that Christ was sent
by the supreme God to deliver men from the
tyranny of this creator, and from the yoke of his
law; that there.were also various created spirits,
or -Eons, sustaining different offices, independently for the most part of the supreme Deity,
the names of some of which -Eons were Life,
Light, and particularly, the Logos or Word,
yghich represented the divine Reason or Wisdom; and that the -Eon Light became incarnate
in John the -Baptist. All these spiritual existences were represented as distinct from each
other, and from the supreme God, so that the
system was a sublimated form of polytheism.
To fuse these disjointed fragments of deity into
one, - to rebuke these babblings of philosophy,




JESUS CHRIST.           99
falsely so called, about a divided sceptre and a
scattered divinity,- this was the purpose of St.
John's introduction. And not only so; but we
find that the same pervading purpose gives
shape, and character, and, as it were, the keynote, to his whole gospel. With this object in
view, it was incumbent on him to show that
Life, and Light, and the Logos or Word, were
not distinct from the supreme God; that the
supreme God created the world, and gave the
Jewish law; that the same God sent John, the
forerunner; and that the same God sent Jesus
Christ, not to destroy, but to complete the law,
- not to deliver men from its tyranny, but to
finish for them the work, which the law had
begun. And this is shown in the first eighteen
verses of the gospel, -how comprehensively and
beautifully you will see, if you keep in mind
what I have told you of the Gnostic notion,
while I read the passage to you, with such
explanations that may be requisite.
In the beginning was the Word, the Logos, the
diviWe Reason or Wisdom, -not a created being,
nor yet an emanation from the Supreme; but it
always existed,- the Word was with God, and
never had a separate existence; and the Word
was God, was and is inseparable from his
essence and his attributes.  The same Word, the
same divine Wisdom, repeats the evangelist, was
in the beginning with God. And now St. John




100            JESUS CHRIST.
directs his attention to another of the Gnostic
errors, namely, that of the world's having been
created by an inferior divinity. All things, says
St. John, were made by him, that is, by God, (not
by the Word, —him refers to God, which is the
nearest preceding noun to which it can refer.)
All things were made by the supreme God, and
without him was not anything made that was
made. In him also was Life; and the Life was
the Light of men. Life and Light are not distinct essences; but God is the source of life, and,
where it flows from  him, light flows with it.
And the Light shines in darkness; but the darkness comprehended it not. God has shed light
upon men in the darkest times, though men have
chosen darkness rather than light.
There was a man sent from God whose name
was John. He came for a witness, to bear testimony of the light, concerning the divine light,
that all men through him might believe. He was
not that light, not himself an LEon, a spiritual
emanation,-he was a man, like other men; but
was sent to bear witness of the Light. He, from
whom he came, God, was the true Light that
enlightens every man that comes into the world.
God had not removed himself from his creation,
had not dwelt apart in the remote heavens. le
was already, he was always in the world, and the
world had been made by him; yet the world knew
him not. He had come to his own, to the Jewish




JESUS CHRIST.           101
nation, his favored and covenant people; but his
own received him not; that is, as a nation, they
had in general disowned and rejected him in
heart and deed, though not in name. But to as
many as received him, to the patriarchs and to
the faithful among their posterity, to them who
believed on his name, he gave power to become
the sons of God, his own spiritual children, born,
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, (children not in any human or
earthly sense,) but of God.
And, in these latter days, the Word, the divine
Wisdom, became flesh, and dwelt among men;
and we, I and my fellow apostles, beheld its
glory,-the glory of the only begotten, of the
chosen Son, of the Father, full of mercy and of
truth.
John bore testimony concerning him, and cried,
saying, This is he, of whom I said, He that cometh after me, has taken precedence of me; for he
was before me, - was my superior. And of his
fulness, of the rich truth and mercy of the Word
made flesh, have we all received; yet not, as
false teachers now say, mercy instead of wrath,
a silken instead of an iron yoke, but gracefor
grace, —one gracious dispensation to supersede
another. For the law was given through Moses,
and that was a law of mercy, adapted to its own
times; but now mercy and truth for all times have
come through Jesus Christ. No man has seen




102           JESUS CHRIST.
God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is
in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him,
has made him known.
Thus we see that the introduction of John's
gospel, so far from authorizing the breaking up
of the divine nature into a plurality of persons,
is a noble-assertion and vindication of the divine
unity, well worthy the pen of inspiration, —a
passage, in which, as with a prophet's wand,
he waves back to their native nothingness the
chimeras of an arrogant and impious philosophy.
But I have spoken long enough, perhaps too
long. I have shown you, as I trust, that the
general tenor of the New Testament, and numberless express declarations of our Saviour and his
apostles, oblige us to regard him, though second
only to the Father, as holding with reference to
the Father a derived existence, and a subordinate rank. I have heaped up an amount of
testimony, which much more than convinces me,
- which leaves my own mind, I can truly say,
without the shadow of a doubt, -with a conviction, which has no room to grow stronger.
f have also, I think, selected all the really strong
and difficult texts alleged in proof of the opposite
doctrine. Some of them, I confess, would have
weight, were they not overborne by such an
overwhelming amount of testimony on the other
side. But not one of them requires, and some
of them do not in my view admit, the interpre



JESUS CHRIST.          103
tation, which favors the supreme divinity of
Christ.
I now commend the subject to your own
serious reflection and study. But, while you
seek and prize just ideas of your Saviour's rank
and character, remember that your truest knowledge of him, is heart-knowledge,- that knowledge, which you can have only by being like
him, — by following him, — by having' Christ
in you, the hope of glory.'




LECTURE III.
JESUS  CHRIST.
MATTHEW XXII. 42.
WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
My two previous lectures have been devoted
to the defence of the divine unity, in opposition
to the unscriptural doctrines of the Trinity, and
the supreme deity of Christ. The present lecture will be devoted to the explanation of my
own views of THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF
CHRIST, with this reservation, that I shall omit
all considerations bearing directly upon the
atonement, which I shall make the subject of two
distinct lectures at the close of the course.
In the first place, I pretend not that the difference between our Trinitarian brethren and
ourselves, as to the person of our Saviour, is a
slight one. I regard it indeed as not fundamental; for we all alike look to God as the author
of our pardon and our eternal life, - they supposing that God brought these blessings into the
world in his own person, - we, that he bestowed




JESUS CHRIST.           105
them through the hand of a Mediator. But,
however high the personal rank which we assign to our Saviour, there is an infinite distance
between God and the loftiest of created and
finite beings; and our Saviour, if created and
finite, was a son of God, and a brother of man,
- titles, which he assumes, and uses freely with
regard to himself, but which he could not have
employed, had he been the supreme God.
But while I deny the personal deity of Christ,
I most firmly believe in' his divinity, —in a
divinity, created by a constant and full indwelling and inworking of the Father in the Son.
He was, in the highest possible degree, the sanctified, the empowered, the sent, the vicegerent,
the representative of God.
The Scriptures place him before us under two
leading aspects, (which resolve themselves into
one,) as the perfect image of God, and the perfect
pattern of human virtue.
First, as the perfect image of God. This is
indicated in many passages of Scripture, as, for
instanct, in the following:' Being the brightness
of God's glory, and the express image of his
person.'+'In him dwelleth 411 the fulness of
the Godhead bodily.' t'He that hath seen me,
hath seen the Father.' $' The Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us.'~ In the introduc* Hebrews i. 3.    t Colossians ii. 9.
t John xiv. 9.     ~ John i. 14.




106           JESUS CHRIST.
tion of St. John's gospel, from which this last
text is quoted, we have, it seems to me, the
whole theory of our Saviour's relation to God.
There we are told, that the Word, the divine
Reason or Wisdom, — the same divine attributes, which had been manifested in creation
and in the whole course of providence, - assumed a human form, and dwelt among men in the
person of Jesus of Nazareth. We are also told
in the same connection, why this manifestation
of the Deity took place.' God was in the world,
and the world was made by him, and the world
knew him not.' His power and his love were
enshrined in all the forms, and uttered themselves in all the voices of outward nature, - the
heavens and the earth were full of them; but
they were diffused over too wide a surface, for
man anywhere to take in a clear and satisfying
view of them. Man saw the rays of divinity;
but could not trace them to their source. The
attributes of God were in the universe, as we
may suppose light to have been before the sun
was made, spread everywhere, but concentrated
nowhere. But, as God placed in the centre of
our system a vast urn, to which men should
look as the prime source of light, and brought
together there, and caused to stream from thence,
the rays, which before had mingled, and crossed
each other from every point of the horizon, - so,
in the moral firmament, did he kindle Jesus as




JESUS CHRIST.          107
the sun of righteousness, and combined and
concentrated in his person rays of divinity,
which, though shed all over creation, had never
been brought together on earth before.  We
see in Jesus as much of God as can be made
manifest in a created being, - the fulness of the
Godhead in the flesh, — the outermost limit of
the finite, — the nearest approach to the infinite.
But here there is an obvious distinction to be
made between God's physical and his moral attributes. By the physical, we denote power and
wisdom, to which alone the word infinite can be
applied with precision. These, of course, cannot belong in their entire fulness to any subordinate being; for, if any being possessed them,
the possession of them would make him God.
Our Saviour expressly disclaims them, when he
says,' I can of mine own self do nothing,' and
when he speaks of himself as ignorant of the
day and hour, which the Father knew. The
highest possible power and wisdom of a created
being must needs be finite, and must therefore
fall infinitely short of those attributes as they
exist in God. Yet of these attributes, of the
divine omnipotence and omniscience, our Saviour bore the express image. He wrought the
works, and uttered the words of God. He took
the things of God, and showed them to men.
His miracles manifested divine power in every




108           JESUS CHRIST.
department of nature. The sea obeyed him;
and the winds were still at his voice. Water
blushed to wine; and bread in the desert grew
beneath his touch. He poured light upon the
sightless balls, and the tide of health through
the palsied limbs. The lame leaped in gladness
before him; and the dumb broke forth in hosannas to the Son of David. He raised the dying
from the death-bed, - the dead from their bier
and the tomb. He thus laid bare the arm of
omnipotence, revealed the hidings of divine
power, — wrought, without any intermediate
agency, such works as, through second causes,
through the common processes of nature, are
wrought at all times by the Almighty. By these
marvellous works, Christ represents to our hearts,
and brings home to our faith, the divine omnipotence. His miracles gave us a consciousness of
repose on an Almighty arm. When we contemplate what he wrought, we feel more than ever
that the universe is not its own, but our Father's,
- that its giant forces are balanced and governed
by him, who numbers the very hairs of our heads.
These mighty works rebuke our despondency,
and give us a calm trust in that Providence,
which does all things well.
Christ also comes to us as the image of the
divine omniscience. He brings to us, from the
infinite treasury of wisdom and knowledge, all
that we need to know. He gives us assurance




JESUS CHRIST.           109
under the seal of God, wherever we might
remain in doubt. He speaks with authority,declares to us what he has seen with God,brings us revelations from the bosom of the
Father. His teachings are not inferences from
trains of argument; but portions of absolute,
eternal truth, —transcripts from the infinite.
mind.
With regard to the moral attributes of God,
his justice, holiness, and love, — perfection, not
infinity, is the word which characterizes them;
and, in these attributes, a finite being may be
perfect, even as God is perfect; that is, may, in
his sphere of knowledge, power, and duty, manifest, without deviating from them, the same
attributes which God manifests throughout the
universe, — may be, in his limited range and
capacity, no less good, just, and holy, than God
is. But we are acquainted with no perfect
child of God, except our Saviour. Of him
alone is the testimony borne:' He did no sin.'
He' is holy, harmless, undefiled.' He' was in
all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin.' He alone, of all that have dwelt upon
earth, could say with literal and unexaggerated truth,' Father, I have finished the work
which thou gavest me to do.' We feel, as we
read the gospel, that we are communing with
spotless and divine perfection. We see there a
virtue, beyond which no dreams of perfection
9*




110           JESUS CHRIST.
can reach, -a transparent purity, in which the
carping infidel can detect no shadow of dimness, - a love unlimited and inexhaustible.
And, when we hear him say,' He that hath
seen me, hath seen the Father,' we rejoice to
know that the amiable and inviting traits, which
temper the majesty of the Saviour's character,
belong to the Father that sent him. When we
view the Father through the Son, we ascribe to
him with confidence all the most tender and attractive forms of love, with which we are conversant, such as meekness and forbearance, pity and
compassion, tender watchfulness and care over
the minutest objects and concerns. The life of
Jesus, considered as the image of God, gives a
new and heart-reaching emphasis to the declarations of holy writ:'As a father pitieth his
children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him;
for he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that
we are dust;' —' a father of the fatherless, and
a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation;'-' He provideth for the raven his food,
- his young cry unto God.'
There is nothing mystical in the aspect of our
Saviour's character, which I have now presented.
It only supposes that, which takes place partially
in every good man, to have taken place in Jesus
to an unlimited and perfect degree. God manifests himself in every wise and holy man.
Whenever we do God's will, he dwells and




JESUS CHRIST.           111
works in us. But that spirit, which in us is
shed abroad so imperfectly, and is so often
quenched by doubt, folly, and sin, was on Jesus
shed without measure, pervaded every faculty
of his soul, prompted his every word and deed;
in fine-, constituted his only principle of life and
of energy. Indeed, all moral goodness is the
same in kind, - it differs only in degree.
This leads me next to speak of Jesus as the
perfect pattern for man in all the duties of a
creature and a fellow-creature, -of a child and
a brother. He bears the divine image, that we
may bear it also, — that we, beholding with
open countenance the glory of God in the face
of Jesus, may be changed into the same image,
- that, in St. Peter's language, we may' be partakers of the divine nature,' and, in St. Paul's,
may'be followers of God as dear children.'
Through the imitation of Jesus, is one and the
same moral image to be reflected by all true
children of God. They are to purify themselves
as he is pure. WVhen he shall appear, they are
to be like him; and thus, in every disciple, are
the words of his prayer to be fulfilled:'The
glory which thou gavest me, I have given them,
that they may be one, even as we are one, I in
them, and thou in me.'
I have thus presented our Saviour under the
two prominent aspects, in which, it seems to me,
the Scriptures present him, as God's image and




112            JESUS CHRIST.
man's exemplar. In these aspects, I am accustomed to think of him as abiding still and
forever, to his disciples. As on earth, so now
in heaven, do the ransomed hosts behold him as'the brightness of the Father's glory;' and
there, as here, is it their privilege to' follow the
Lamb whithersoever he goeth.' The New Testament always speaks of the life of the redeemeed
in heaven, as in close personal connection with
Jesus. He appears to the dying Stephen, and
receives his ascending spirit. St. Paul speaks
of his desire to depart, and to be with Christ.'
St. John says of those,'which came out of great
tribulation,' that'the Lamb which is in the
midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall
lead them unto living fountains of waters.'
Finite spirits, even through a boundless eternity,
can never,'by searching find out the Almighty
unto perfection;' and the idea seems to me
consonant with both reason and Scripture, and
meets with a grateful response from the heart
that truly loves Jesus, that he will through eternity be our guide to the more perfect knowledge
of God, and our forerunner in every path of duty.
Meanwhile, our Saviour is represented as
standing in the most intimate relation to his
disciples yet on earth. His promise is:' Where
two or three are gatherered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them; -- Lo, I am
* Matt. xviii. 20.




JESUS CHRIST.             113
with you always, even unto the end of the
world.' * God' gave him,' says St. Paul,' to be
the head over all things to the church.' t These
and similar passages of Scripture seem to indicate that he is invisibly present with his church,
and wields a delegated sovereignty over God's
spiritual kingdom upon earth; in fine, that he
stands in the same relation to the household of
faith, in which the father of a family stands to
his children, watching for their good, dispensing
God's gifts to their necessities, their helper in
every good work, the inspirer of holy thoughts,
and of inward peace and joy.
Jesus is also spoken of as our intercessor with
the Father. Says the writer to the Hebrews:' He is able to save them  to the uttermost
that come unto God by him, seeing he ever
liveth to make intercession for them.' If any
man sin,' says St. John,'we shave an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the- righteous.'~
This intercession of Christ we regard with
unfeigned and devout gratitude, not that we
suppose it needed to render God propitious, but
because it presents so vivid and touching an
image of the Saviour's love for man.
Jesus is also spoken of as man's final judge;
and the tribunal before which we must all appear, is designated as'the judgment-seat of
* Matt. xxviii. 20  t Ephesians i. 22.: Hebrews vii. 25.  ~ 1 John ii. 1.




114             JESUS CHRIST.
Christ.' *'The Father hath committed all
judgment unto the Son..... The hour is
coming, in the which all that are in the graves
shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they
that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.' - This idea naturally connects itself with that of the intimate
relation of Jesus to his church on earth, and to
the assembly of the redeemed in heaven. The
soul passes from the agony of death into his
presence; and that very interview is in itself a
judgment and a sentence. The soul, that is of
his own lineage and kindred, sees its own cherished traits of character reflected from his countenance, and reads in his eye the invitation,' Come,
thou blessed of my Father.' On the other hand,
the impenitent, the willingly guilty, from a countenance with which they have no sympathy, from
a glance which reflects not theirs, receive the
sad mandate,'Depart ye cursed.' Like orunlike
him, is the great question of the final judgment.
This question, the ranks of spirits, as they go
from earth to the Saviour's immediate presence,
answer; and, as they answer it, join his heavenly flock, or go away into the company of
outcasts and rebel spirits.
I would next refer to the idea entertained by
many that our Saviour was God's agent in the
* 2 Corinthians v. 10.  t John v. 22, 28, 29.




JESUS CHRIST.          115
creation of the visible universe. Of this I find
no scriptural proof. Indeed, the passages commonly quoted in support of this opinion, appear
to me to have reference to something more
precious and more enduring than the material
universe, - to God's spiritual creation and kingd6m. The idea under discussion rests mainly
on two passages. One is in the Epistle to the
Hebrews:'By whom also he made the worlds.'"
The word here rendered worlds, has for its primary meaning ages or dispensations. It is the
word rendered ages in the following passage:'The mystery which hath been hid from ages
and from generations.' t  I suppose that, in the
passage under consideration, it means ages,
namely, the successive ages of the church, or
the different religious dispensations, patriarchal,
Levitical and prophetical, which had preceded
the advent of Christ. This exposition gives a
peculiar force and beauty to the opening verses
of the Epistle to the Hebrews:' God, who at
sundry times and in'divers manners, spake unto
the fathers by the prophets, hath in these latter
days spoken unto us through his Son, whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, on whose
account he indeed made or arranged the earlier
dispensations just referred to, making them all
pQint onward to him, in all of them foreshadowing his coming and preparing the way.'
* Hebrews i. 2.      t Colossians i. 26.




116             JESUS CHRIST.
The other passage, in which it has been held
Christ is distinctly set forth as the Creator of the
universe, is this:' For by, or through him were
all things created, that are in heaven, and that
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be
thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were created by him, and for him;
and he is before them all, and they are all bound
together through him.' * This passage I understand as assigning to our Saviour much loftier
functions, than the creation of a perishing universe.  The all things referred to are the thrones,
principalities, and powers, the ranks and distinctions in the spiritual universe, whether seen or
unseen, whether apostles, pastors, and teachers,
among dying men, or those, who occupy high
places, nearest the throne, first in song, among
the  hosts of heaven.  Their dignities, their
thrones, and powers, are his creation, his gift.
He ordains shepherds after his own heart on
earth. He assigns to each his place, his sphere,
in heaven.  He is before them all, their prince,
their head; and through him are they all bound
together as one, — through him are they all, in
heaven and on earth, made one family. With
this exposition the verse next following fitly harmonizes.' And he is the head of the body, the
church.' This place, as prince and head of God's
spiritual kingdom, the Scriptures with one voice
* Colossians i. 16, 17.




JESUS CHRIST.          117
concede to him; and we gratefully reecho the
ascription of those in heaven, who cry,' Worthy
is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and
riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor,
and glory, and blessing.'
We arrive now at the important inquiry,who, as to his person, was this wonderful being, in
whom God thus enshrined and manifested himself, and who is now raised to the head of the
spiritual universe? With regard to the person
of Jesus, Unitarians are divided in sentiment.
They are often accused of representing him as
a mere man; but falsely. Those, who bear the
name of Humanitarians, do not believe him to
have been a man like other men; for, if he had
no separate existence before his birth in Bethlehem, still the miraculous circumstances attending
his birth, his intimate connection with the Deity,
his vast endowments, his exalted mission, raised
him far above all others, who have ever borne the
human form. His apostles cannot at any time
have regarded him as a mere man. They knew
of his miraculous birth, of the vision of angels
to the shepherds, of his preternatural wisdom in
childhood, and of the voice from heaven at his
baptism. They evidently never supposed him
the supreme God. They always looked upon
him as a fellow creature; bhut yet they manifestly
regarded him as a superior being, and as one, of
whom they could not have been surprised to
10




118            JESUS CHRIST.
learn, that he had existed before he came into
this. world.
Believing as I do, in our Saviour's preexistence,
I now ask your attention to some of the leading
scriptural proofs, upon which this doctrine rests.
I will first quote these words of our Saviour:' 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 coming down from heaven? But he, in
this same chapter, expressly speaks of Christ as
coming 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 is
of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth:
he that cometh from heaven is above all.'
Again Jesus says of himself,' What and if ye
shall see the Son of man ascend up where he
was before?' t  When he uttered these words,
he had just before called himself'the bread
which came down from heaven,' by which his
Jewish heatrers had understood him as asserting his preexistence; for they immediately said
*John iii. 13.          t John vi. 62.




JESUS CHRIST.            119
among themselves:'Is not this Jesus, the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
How is it then that he saith, I came down from
heaven?' It is in the conversation induced by
these cavils, that Jesus asks,' What and if ye
shall see the Son of man ascend up where he
was before?'
I next cite the words of Jesus,'Before Abrahaim was, I am.'' Those, who deny our Saviour's
preexistence, regard these words as elliptical, and
supply a second nominative after the verb am,'Before Abraham  was, I am' he, — I am the
Christ, the Messiah, that is, I was marked out
by a divine decree for the office of the Messiah,
long before Abraham's birth. That in several
instances in the New Testament, he must necessarily be supplied after I am, in order to complete
the sentence, I freely admit. But in every one
of these cases, (unless this constitute an exception,) the Son of man, or the Christ, or some
synonymous word, or phrase, can be supplied
from what immediately precedes. There is such
an instance in this same chapter.'When ye
have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye
know that I am,' the he being necessarily supplied to complete the sentence, and referring to
the Son of man (a title of the Messiah doubtless well known among the Jews,) immediately
preceding. But in the text under discussion, if
* John viii. 58.




1:20           JESUS CHRIST.
we supply the pronoun he, there is nothing which
precedes, to which the pronoun can refer, no
name or title of Jesus having been employed for
more than twenty of the next preceding verses.
I feel fully.convinced, therefore, that there is no
competent critical ground for translating this
sentence,'Before Abraham was, I am he.' But,
even were we to deem this translation admissible
on critical grounds, it makes our Saviour's words
utterly unmeaning; and they might have been
used by any other person, as well as by him.
Peter, having existed from all eternity in the
foreknowledge and determination of God, might
have said,'Before Abraham was, I am Peter,'
with just as much truth and significance, as
Jesus could have said,'Before Abraham was,
I am the Christ.' Moreover, these words of
Jesus are in answer to the question:' Thou art
not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?' The answer ought, according to every
reasonable principle of interpretation, to be
understood as having some bearing upon the
question.
I next quote the following, from our Saviour's
prayer with his disciples:' And now, O Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was.'
And again,' Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.' * It requires bold and rash
* John xvii. 5, 24.




JESUS CHRIST.           121
criticism-to make this glory before the world was,
a glory in the depths of divine counsels; and are
we not borrowing from the scholastic absurdities of the middle ages, when we speak of God's
love in anticipation for a non-existent being,- of
his love before the foundation of the world for a
being, who was not to see the light of life, till
the world was four thousand years old? I know
not how to evade the conclusion, that these passages denote our Saviour's preexistence.
I will now adduce one or two passages from
St. Paul. In his discourse on the resurrection,
speaking of Christ, he says,' The second man is
the Lord firom heaven.'  - Here the whole argument is based on the heavenly origin and the
superhuman character of Jesus.
St. Paul again says:' Ye know the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich,
yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through
his poverty might be rich.' The most obvious,
and, to my mind, the only satisfying sense of
these words is, that Jesus, for man's salvation,
passed from a richer to a poorer, from a more
lofty into a more humble condition.
These are some of the leading texts, which
support the doctrine of our Saviour's preixistence. There is something also in the general
turn of the New Testament phraseology, with
reference to him, for which I cannot account on
* 1 Corinthians xv. 47.
10*




122            JESUS CHRIST.
any other ground. I refer to the numerous passages, in which his advent is spoken of. Most
of them, literally interpreted, would imply either
his own antecedent personal agency, in connection with his advent, or, at least, his changing one
state of being for another, rather than his beginning to exist. Such a passage is the following:'He made himself of no reputation, (literally
emptied himself, as if of what he had previously
possessed or enjoyed,) and took upon him the
likeness of men; and being found in fashion as
a man, he humbled himself.'* To this class
of texts, belongs also the following, from the
Epistle to the Galatians:' When the fulness of
the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman. t
Some of the titles most usually given to our
Saviour, seem to designate a personal rank superior to that of man, and according well with the
idea of his preexistence. The title, Son of God,.
implies, indeed, a created and subordinate being:
and all men are, and are called, sons of God.
But yet, it seems to be applied to our Saviour in
a peculiar and exclusive sense, often with the
distinguishing epithets only and only-begotten.
I might quote many other passages and considerations in confirmation of our Saviour's preexistence. I find many indubitable traces of it,
* Philippians ii. 7, 8.   t Gal. iv. 4.




JESUS CHRIST.           123
(particularly in the gospel of John,) which gain
distinctness, the more closely I view them, and
the more searchingly I apply to them the canons
of sound criticism.
Were there but two or three passages, which
seemed to teach this doctrine, and were it
opposed to the general tenor of the New Testament, I should feel bound to interpret these few
passages in accordance with the analogy of other
Scriptures. But the passages are too various
and too numerous to be regarded as merely
figurative; and the doctrine, which they imply,
in no wise militates against the language or the
spirit of the New Testament in general. Indeed,
there are considerations; which seem to render
our Saviour's preexistence intrinsically probable.
The mission which he filled, was the loftiest that
a created being could discharge; and it would
seem reasonable, and natural, that, for so high a
function, God should have ordained one of the
elder, and more exalted members of his spiritual
family, rather than one from the human race,
the youngest and humblest branch of that
family.
Let me now notice briefly the principal objections urged against this doctrine.
In the first place, it is urged that Christ is not
unfrequently styled a man in the New Testament. We answer, that he was' found in fashion as a man,' passed through the vicissitudes of




124            JESUS CHRIST.
man's life, bore many of man's trials and infirmities, in fine, was, (whatever theory we adopt,) a
man in very many of his circumstances and
relations. Moreover, the analogy of Scripture
gives us abundant reason to believe, that, with
his preexistence distinctly in view, the sacred
writers would have frequently called him a man,
when they contemplated him in his human
aspects, relations, and fortunes. There are numerous instances, both in the Old and New Testament, in which superhuman beings are called
men. Thus, in Genesis, we read of Abraham:'The Lord appeared unto him in the plains of
Mlamre: and he sat in the tent-door in the heat
of the day; and he lifted up his eyes and looked,
and lo three men stood by him.' " In the next
chapter, we are told of two of these men:' There
came two angels to Sodorn,' and shortly after, of
the same two,' The men put forth their hand.'
When the birth of Samson is announced, we
first read that' the angel of the Lord appeared
unto the woman,'-then, that'the woman came
and told her husband, saying, A man of God
came unto me,' - and lastly, that' the angel of
the Lord, (that is, the man of God just spoken
of,) ascended in the flame of the altar.' t Luke,
in describing our Lord's resurrection, says that
two men stood by the women in shining gar* Genesis xviii. 1, 2.  t Judges xiii. 3, 6, 20.




JESUS CHRIST.            125
ments,' * which men John calls'two angels in
white.' These examples will suffice to show,
that, in reasoning upon the nature of Christ, no
stress can be laid on the mere use of the word
man.
It is also objected to the doctrine of our Saviour's preexistence, that it deprives his example
of its appropriateness and value. By no means,
I reply. All God's spiritual children are of the
same family. Man is distinguished from other
branches of the same family, less by nature, than
by circumstances merely local and temporary.
The duties incumbent on all created spirits, are
the same, namely, love and obedience to the
great Father spirit, love and charity to all fellowspirits. The particular mode, in which these
duties are to be discharged, depends upon the
circumstances in which each individual spirit is
placed; and, were the greatest of created spirits
to be clothed with a human body, and to pass
through an earthly life, his duties would be
strictly human duties, — his conduct in any given
situation, would be precisely what that of a common man, in the same situation, ought to be.
Whatever, then, we may believe with regard to
the nature of Christ, if he was' found in fashion
as a man,' his conduct, in all human relations,
must have been precisely what man's ought to
* Luke xxiv. 4.




126            JESUS CHRIST.
be, and must, therefore, be a fit example for our
literal imitation.  Nor let it be said, that, as
superhuman, he was necessarily sinless; that he
could not have felt the power of temptation; and
that his victory over sin, therefore, affords us no
encouragement. If he was a finite spirit, and a
free agent, he must have been a subject of temptation, and capable of sin; and, though the miserable baits of earthly pleasure and ambition
might have offered but little allurement to a
heaven-born spirit, yet, in his superhuman endowments, and in his vastly expanded relations,
and sphere of -action, he might have found as
strong temptations, as we do in the mere objects
of sense, and might have won as arduous
moral victories, as we should win, were we to
lead an entirely stainless life from the cradle to
the grave.
There is one thought, which, to my own mind,
attaches a peculiar worth to our Saviour's example, on the ground of his preexistence. I have
said that all spirits are of one family.. Outward
circumstances alone, form the dividing line between good men and angels.' In the resurrection, they are as the angels of God in heaven.'
We are made for endless growth. In this life,'it does not yet appear what we shall be;' but,
unknown ages hence, we may look down upon
the present spiritual attainments of an archangel,
as we should look up to them now. We here




JESUS CHRIST.           127
are training ourselves in the school of Christ for
familiar communion with the thrones, principalities, and powers of heaven. Does it not then
commend itself to us as worthy of the infinite
wisdom of our Father, that he should fit us for
this blessed society, through the agency of one of
these elder and purer spirits, whose exalted perfections may inspire us with an enthusiastic zeal
as we seek to be his followers, while, looking to
him as a brother, as one bound by the same ties,
called to the same duties with ourselves, we
may imitate him without despondency or discouragement?
Such are the views of our Saviour's person
and character, which seem to me most consonant with the word of God. They commend
themselves to my mind as equally removed
from objectionable extremes. On the one hand,
they bring the Saviour within the range of our
sympathy, and save us from the inextricable confusion of ideas inseparable from the doctrine of
the Trinity; and, on the other hand, they preserve unimpaired the matchless wisdom, the
spotless purity, the divine authority of Jesus,
and present him as a being, on whom we can
look with mingled reverence and love, — whom
we can welcome to our hearts as a brother,
while we must bow before him as from a higher
sphere, - who, at once, guides us in the duties
of our mortal pilgrimage, and makes us, as par



128            JESUS CHRIST.
takers of his glory, peers of angels, and citizens
of heaven.
While my reason and my heart are satisfied
with these views, they constitute the only
ground, on which I can make the voice of
Scripture harmonize. The Trinitarian theory
does great violence to the laws of interpretation,
and brings the various testimonies of the divine
word into harsh'and irreconcilable conflict with
each other. The Humanitarian expositions of
Scripture, I dare not trust. They are lax. They
seem to me to wrest the Scriptures. Though
they have the advantage of being urged in behalf
of a doctrine, not absurd, but in itself altogether
tenable, in a critical point of view they seem to
me hardly less objectionable, than the Trinitarian expositions do. The views, which I have
now presented, do no violence, as I think, to the
principles of sound criticism. I can go with
them through the whole of the New Testament,
and find not a text which gives me any serious
difficulty.  They suffer me to  interpret the
Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense,
which neither of the other theories will. On this
account, as one, who feels inadequate to settle
these points without the authority of express
revelation, and who receives the Scriptures
as given by inspiration of God, I prize and
cherish these views; and should be glad to
know, that my statements and arguments have




JESUS CHRIST.           129
produced in your minds the same conviction
that exists in my own.
I close with a single reflection. If this exalted being entered our world, assumed its burdens and its sorrows, and passed through its
gates of death, of what momentous interest and
importance must be the service which he came
to render,- of what unspeakable worth, the salvation which he brings and offers! If, under a
darker and less perfect dispensation,'every
transgression and disobedience received a just
recompense of reward, how shall we escape, if
we neglect so great salvation?'




LECTURE IV.
THE HOLY SPIRIT.
LUKE XI. 13.
IF YE THEN, BEING EVIL, KNOW HOW TO GIVE GOOD GIFTS UNTO
YOUR CHILDREN, HOW MUCH MORE SHALL YOUR HEAVENLY
FATHER GIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT TO THEM THAT ASK HIM?
THE HOLY SPIRIT is my subject this evening.
I will commence my lecture by a word of explanation, which will be necessary for but few,
yet which some may need. We somnetimes read
in the New Testament of the Holy Spirit, and full
as often of the Holy Ghost. The original word is
the same in one case, as in the other; but, at the
time when the Bible was translated, ghost and
spirit meant the same thing, and were used indifferently to express the same idea. Since that
time the word ghost has become so restricted in
its signification, as to denote only a spectral appoarition; while spirit means the same now that'it
did then.
The controversy with regard to the Holy Spirit
is, not as to its reality, or its divinity, but as to




THE HOLY SPIRIT.         131
its personality. No Christian denies that there
is a Holy Spirit, or maintains the Holy Spirit to
be an inferior and subordinate person. But the
Trinitarian maintains, that the Holy Spirit is a
distinct and equal person of the Godhead. We,
on the other hand, believe that the Holy Spirit is
but a name, and a most appropriate name, for
divine influences and operations, and, especially,
for the influence of God upon the soul of man.
In the present lecture, I shall first give you my
reasons for not embracing the Trinitarian view
of the Holy Spirit, and then shall expound and
illustrate my own view of the nature and influences of the Holy Spirit.
I could name with great sincerity, as my first
and sufficient reason for not embracing the Trinitarian doctrine on this subject, that I see not the
shadow of an argument in support of it. I confess, that, while I cherish no disrespect for minds
so constituted as to perceive the force of the arguments employed in defence of this doctrine, I
myself am unable to appreciate them, and should
hardly know how to refute them better than by a
simple statement of them.
But, in pursuance of the plan marked out for
these lectures, I shall go over the whole ground
of the argument on both sides, as thoroughly as
I can in a single discourse.
At the outset, in the way of regarding the
Holy Spirit as a separate and independent per



132          THE HOLY SPIRIT.
son of the Godhead, there stand several scores of
passages in the New Testament, in which the
Holy Spirit is spoken of as subject to, or conferred by God and Christ. Such passages are
the following:' I will put my spirit upon him.' "'How much more shall your heavenly Father
give the Holy Spirit?' -t  God giveth not the
spirit by measure unto him.':' God, who hath
also given unto us his Holy Spirit.'~'The
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.' II'The
Comforter, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the spirit of truth.'] Who can
send or give the supreme and eternal God? The
very idea is unspeakably absurd.
I am aware of the usual mode of accounting
for phraseology of the kind just quoted. It is
maintained that the three equal persons of the
Trinity entered into a covenant, by which the
Son agreed to be subject to the Father, and the
Holy Spirit tow move at the bidding of the Father
and the Son. But this covenant is not mentioned in the Bible. Moreover, it is a covenant
of falsehood, —a covenant, by which the Son
and the Holy Spirit agree to act a lie, -to represent a state of things which has no actual existence,-to play an assumed part. But, were we
to admit this incongruous idea, (which I know
not how to entertain for a moment,) of a cove* Matthew xii. 18.   t Luke xi. 13.  t John iii. 34.
~ 1 Thess. iv. 8.  11 1 Peter i. 12.    Ir John xv. 26.




THE HOLY SPIRIT.         133
nant between the three persons of the Godhead,
I still should maintain, that, whatever reason
existed for the assumed inferiority of the second
and third persons, the same reason must needs
exist for our receiving and regarding them in the
characters which they have assumed. It is far
more reverent and pious, to receive them as they
are offered to us in the gospel, than to insist on
rending off the disguise which they have chosen
to wear, rescinding the covenant which they
have sealed, and regarding them in a light in
which they have agreed not to be regarded.
Again, were the Holy Spirit a person, especially a person of the Godhead, we should at least
expect to find him designated by the use of a
masculine noun, and masculine pronouns. We
should hardly expect to find a divine person generally designated by a noun in the neuter gender,
with articles, pronouns, adjectives, and participles in the neuter, (for, in the Greek, all these
parts of speech are distinguished by gender.)
Yet the Greek word rendered spirit or ghost is
neuter, and is invariably connected with neuter
articles, pronouns, adjectives, and participles.
There is not an instance in which, in the Greek
of the New Testament, a pronoun corresponding
to our word he, his, or him, is used in connection
with the Holy Spirit; but always a pronoun
corresponding to it or its. Now, in the Greek
language, the only cases, in which living beings
11*




134          THE HOLY SPIRIT.
are denoted by neuter nouns and pronouns, are
those of certain diminutives, the smallness of
which is expressed by the use of this gender, -
an idiom like that, by which we, though in bad
taste, call a very little child it instead of he or
she. Is there then the slightest probability that
the sacred writers should have employed the
neuter gender to denote a person of the most
exalted dignity, - a person of the Godhead?
But the Holy Spirit is, four times in the gospel of John, called the comforter or advocate,
and in connection with this term, are employed
words in the masculine gender; and, it is asked,
must not that, which is called by a word so manifestly the name of a person, be a real person,
and not a mere influence? I reply, that either
the word spirit, and the neuter words used with
it, are employed figuratively, or the word comforter is so employed. Now which is the most
probable, - that this divine person should be
spoken ~of literally in the New Testament but
four times, and figuratively several hundreds of
times, and that too in a figure, which diminishes,
instead of amplifying his dignity; or, that a
divine influence, which is spoken of literally several hundreds of times, should four times be personified? We must, in' answering this question,
bear it in mind, that the personifying of things
without life, whether outward objects, or conceptions of the intellect;, is an exceedingly common




THE HOLY SPIRIT.         135
figure of speech, and one which always gives
dignity to the things personified; while the
opposite figure, namely, the use with regard to a
person of language applicable to an inanimate
object, is exceedingly rare, and is seldom employed, except in derision or irony, or to indicate
the exceeding littleness of the person spoken of.
To show the true value of the argument for
the personality of the Holy Spirit, based on the
use of the word comforter, let us suppose a parallel case. Suppose that a volume of American
sermons were put into the hands of a heathen,
who understood our language, yet did not know
the import of the word Bible. He would, it is to
be hoped, often meet with that word, perhaps several times in each sermon. He would find it
always treated as a neuter noun, and would see
its place supplied by it and which, not by he and
who. For the most part, there would be nothing
said about the Bible, which was not literally
applicable to a book. But in an exhortation towards the close of one of the sermons, something
would perhaps be said about the duty of taking
the Bible for a guide; and we will suppose the
word guide used with regard to the Bible four
times in this one passage. Now, were the
heathen reader to insist that the Bible was a
person, because in this volume of sermons it was
four times called a guide, he would reason precisely like those, who infer the personality of the




136           THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Holy Spirit from the use of the word comforter
concerning it, four times in a single discourse of
our Saviour.
Again, any possible inference, which might be
drawn in behalf of this doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, from the use of the
word comforter, is entirely precluded by the fact,
that in each of the four instances,* in which
this word is used, it is defined by the neuter noun
spirit, with a variety of words in the neuter gender
connected with it. The first instance reads thus:' I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Corforter, that he may abide with you forever, - even the Spirit of truth, which the world
cannot receive, because it seeth it not, neither
knoweth it; but ye know it; for it dwelleth with
you, and shall be in you.' Every one of these pronouns in the original is in the neuter gender. The
next instance reads thus:' The Comforter, that
is, the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in
my name,' the relative in the Greek being neuter. The next is this:' When the Comforter
is come, whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth
from the Father.' In the fourth instance also,
the Comforter is defined to be the Spirit of truth.
I would next remind you of other forms of
speech in the New Testament, entirely incompatible with the personality of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is repeatedly said to be poured
*John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7.




-THE HOLY SPIRIT..37
out, shed, quenched, and the like, and Christians
are said to be anointed with the Holy Spirit, -
expressions never used with regard to persons,
but entirely applicable when used with regard to
influences.
Another most decisive argument against the
distinct and personal divinity of the Holy Spirit,
is to be found in the offices ascribed in the
Scriptures to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
respectively.  The Trinitarian theory is, that
there is a partition of divine attributes and offices
between the three persons, whose respective
functions are intirely distinct and separate from
each other. The Father is the Creator, the Son
the Redeemer, the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier.
Now it might with much reason be objected to
this partition, that the two last-named offices are
one; that sanctification is man's only redemption; that sin is precisely what Jesus came to
save men from; and that he can do this only by
making them holy. But we will not insist on
this. We will suppose these three offices of
Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, in themselves
entirely distinct from each other. Now if it
appears that the three persons of the Godhead
(so called) discharge each other's alleged functions, the distinction of persons can be no longer
maintained. This, I think, will appear: and,
in particular, we shall see that sanctification,
deemed the special function of the Holy Spirit,
is ascribed both to the Father and to the Son;




138            THE HOLY SPIRIT.
and  on  the  other hand, that creation  and
redemption, regarded  as the  prerogatives  of
the Father and the Son, are ascribed to the
Holy Spirit.
Sanctification is ascribed to the Father. In
a prayer addressed expressly to the Father, Jesus
says:'Sanctify them through thy truth.' " St. Paul
prays:'The very God of peace sanctify you
wholly.' f St. Jude addresses his epistle'to
them that are sanctified by God the Father.' $
Sanctification is also attributed to Jesus. Says
St. Paul:' Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of
God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification.'~  And, again:'Christ
also loved the church and gave himself for it,
that he might sanctify and cleanse it.' I! Says
the writer to the Hebrews:' We are sanctified
through the offering of the body of Christ once
for all.'T   And, again:'Jesus also, that he
might sanctify the people with his own blood,
suffered without the gate.' $
To the Holy Spirit also, creation, the Father's
alleged prerogative, is ascribed, as in these passages:'By his Spirit he hath garnished the
heavens.' tt  I The Spirit of God hath made me,
and the breath of the Almighty hath given me
life.' -4 
Every stage also in Christ's work of redemp* John xvii. 16.   t 1 Thess. v. 23.    $ Jude i. 1.
~ 1 Cor. i. 80.  II Ephesians v. 25, 26. ~T Heb. x. 10. 11.
** Heb. xiii. 12.  tt Job xxvi. 13.    ~ft Job xxxiii. 4.




THE HOLY SPIRIT.           139
tion is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. He ascribes
his own miracles to'the Spirit of God;' * and he
is said to have offered himself through the eternal Spirit.' t
The Scriptures then leave no ground for the
distinction of attributes and offices between the
three persons of the Trinity, claimed by our
Trinitarian friends; and, in ascribing to the Holy
Spirit.the same, and only the same attributes and
offices ascribed to the Father and the Son, they
make the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit
a theory utterly without foundation.
The texts, usually quoted in support of the
personality of the Holy Spirit, are those in
which the Holy Spirit is spoken of as being sent,
blasphemed, tempted, grieved or resisted, all which
are not unusual instances of personification, and
represent a style of language constantly employed with regard to objects without life. Thus
we  say that a shower is sent, that divine
mercy is blasphemed, that one's integrity  is
tempted, that good counsels are resisted.
The only text that demands distinct notice is
the following:  Likewise the Spirit also helpeth
our infirmities; 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
* Matt. xii. 28.        t Heb. ix. 14.




140           THE HOLY SPIRIT.
maketh intercession for the saints according to
the will of God.'  It is surprising that this text
should ever have been quoted as favoring the
idea of the supreme, independent divinity of a
spirit, which intercedes, that is, offers prayer, of
course to some superior being; nor does the idea
of groaning accord with the serene and perfect
happiness of an almighty being. I do not think,
that the Spirit of God is referred to in this passage. It is the spirit or soul of man, of the
Christian, that is here spoken of. The apostle
has alluded, in the preceding verses, to the infirmities of an earthly condition, which are to be
borne with patience and hope. He adds:' The
Spirit, the soul, also, fixed on God and on eternal
things, helps our infirmities, - sustains our frail
bodies. We indeed often know not what is best
for us,- what we ought to pray for; but the
soul still prays,- pours itself out to God in
aspirations and longings, deep and fervent,
though often vague and indefinite. And he
that searches the hearts of men, knows the
mind of the Spirit, - knows the meaning of its
groans and supplications,  knows the wants,
which it does not know itself; for the souls of
the righteous intercede for them according to the
divine will, - long and yearn, in these groanings
that cannot be uttered, for such spiritual favors,
as God is always ready to bestow.' The idea of
* Rom. viii. 26, 27.




THE HOLY SPIRIT.          141
the passage is, that the devout soul, in all its
infirmity and its ignorance, will still be sustained, for it will still press to the mercy-seat;
and that if it knows not even what to ask for,
and cannot shape its own supplications, God,
knowing the rectitude and earnestness of its
desires, will satisfy all its real wants,
The Holy Spirit is not then a distinct person.
What is it? What does the phrase mean?
How are we to account for its use?  We shall
not, it seems to me, need to look far for our
answer. Our common use of the word spirit
will sufficiently explain its use in the sacred
writings. What do we mean by the spirit of a
man? A man performs two kinds of works, —
exerts two kinds of agency. Some things he
does expressly, —visibly, or audibly, -by word,
or hand, or writing. Other, and often much
greater things, he brings to pass by his influence,
- by silent outgoings from his character, - by
the power of his example, —by an agency, which
far transcends his sphere of immediate action,
and often outlasts the period of his mortal life.
This influence, this agency, we usually denominate
the spirit of the man; and its effects, its fruits,
whether in the character of individuals or in the
state of society, we also designate as his spirit.
For instance, we call the influence, which the
efforts and example of Howard the philanthropist had, and still have, the spirit of Howard;
12




142,LHE HOLY SPIRIT.
and, whenever we see works like his wrought,
or persons engaged in works like his, we say
that the spirit of Howard is in those works, or
in those men. We then habitually use the word
spirit to designate, first, a man's in.fluence, and
secondly, the effects of that influence.
Now I conceive that we have no need of
going beyond these common, well known uses
of the word spirit, to explain its use in the
Scriptures with reference to the Almighty. We
find the phrases, Spirit of God, Spirit of truth,
Holy Spirit, and the like, constantly used in
these senses; and there is not a passage, as
seems to me, in which it is necessary to look
farther for a signification both obvious and
satisfying.
The Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, and like
phrases, most frequently denote simply the divine
influence, sometimes in creation, and in outward
events, but, in the great majority of instances,
on the soul of man. They denote indeed a
great diversity of divine influences, just as, by
the spirit of a man, we denote every variety of
influence which a human being can exercise.
We trace the spirit of a man in the building of
a city, in the planning of a voyage, in the diffusion of literary taste, in the establishment of any
public institution, in the tone of moral feeling
cherished by his influence, in ideas or sentiments,
to which he gave the first development; in fine,




THE HOLY SPIRIT.          143
in any way, in which, without his direct bodily
action, his character has impressed itself on
objects, events, or the minds and hearts of others.
An equally wide ground does the phrase Spirit
of God, with its cognate phrases, cover. It is
used with reference to the plenary inspiration
and the power from on high, which rested upon
Jesus. To him, we are told, God'gives not his
Spirit by measure;' but on him bestows every
form of divine influeuce and endowment, of
which a created being is capable. Then it is used
concerning the peculiar communications of light
and power vouchsafed to the apostles and their
converts. Those, who were thus endowed, were
always said to have received the Holy Spirit. It
is used of particular divine intimations,and
impressions, as when the Spirit bade Philip join
the Ethiopian, and sent Peter to the house of
Cornelius. Then, too, it is often used, as is our
text, to denote those aids in the religious life,
which'whosever asks, receives, and he that
seeks, finds.' And it is used, in all these cases,
with regard both to the influence and its effects;
that is, it is employed to designate the spiritual
gifts of God, both as they come from him, and as
they rest upon the minds and hearts of men.
Now it is self-evident that there is the same
room for the use of this phraseology with reference to God, that there is with reference to man.
There is the same distinction between the modes




144         THE HOLY SPIRIT.
and forms of divine action, that there is with
reference to the deeds and agency of man.
There are some things, which God confers, utters, or brings to pass, visibly or audibly. There
are other things, which he gives or brings to pass
silently, without any interposing cause that can
be seen or traced; and all the various influences
of this kind, with their results or effects, are what
are termed in the Scriptures the Holy Spirit.
But, while we find no ground in reason or
Scripture for believing in the personality of the
Holy Spirit, we regard the influence of God
upon the soul of man as an indisputable, essential,,fundamental doctrine of religion. What
distinguishes us from our Trinitarian brethren
on this point, is, that we regard this influence as
flowing, not from a fragment of the divine nature, but from the whole undivided Deity. And
least of all, can we sympathize with believers in
the Trinity, in separating God the Father from
the divine influence upon the soul. We feel
that it is peculiarly in his fatherly relation and
attributes, that God is present with the soul of
man. We find the full promise of the Holy
Spirit in these words of Jesus:' If a man love
me, he will keep my words; and my Father will
love him, and we will come unto him, and make
our abode with him.' It is the Spirit of the
Father, and the Son, and this alone, that we desire and seek, not a Spirit in any respect or degree
distinct from either the Father or the Son.




TIHE HOLY SPIRIT.             145
Let me employ the few moments, for which I
yet can claim your attention, in developing what
I conceive to be the scriptural doctrine of spiritual
influences.
In the first place, the Spirit of God is in his
works.  We accord in full with the declaration
of the Wisdom of Solomon:' Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things.'  Well has it been
said:' This'fair universe, were it in the meanest
province thereof, is in very deed the star-domed
city of God. Through every star, through every
grass-blade, the glory of a present God still
beams.  Nature is the time-vesture of God.'
With equal truth and beauty, does Goethe put
into the mouth of the earth-spirit the words: —''Tis thus at the roaring loom of life I ply,
And weave for God the garment thou see'st Him by.'
Our first parents heard the voice of the Lord
God in the garden; and they, no doubt miraculously, but not one whit more distinctly than we
may hear it this very night. There is no poetical
fancy, but literal truth in the beautiful words of
the hymn just sung: —' Hark! on the evening breeze,
As once of old, the Lord God's voice
Is heard among the trees.'
Such is the constant testimony of Scripture.
God is spoken of as actively present in all the
forms and agencies of the outward universe.
12*




146          THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Does a tempest rise?'He maketh the winds
his angels.' Do the thunders roll?'The voice
of the Lord is upon the waters; the God of
glory thundereth.' Do showers bless the harvest
field?'He watereth the hills from'his chambers.' Does verdure clothe the plain?' He
causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb
for the service of man.' And in all these forms,
in myriads of ways, is he speaking to the hearts
of his human family, claiming their worship,
casting deep reproach upon their coldness and
indifference, and awakening in every thoughtful
soul the resolution of the Psalmist:' I will sing
unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing
praise unto my God while I have my being.
My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be
glad in the Lord.' There is, I believe, a perpetual communion on God's part with man, in
the order, harmony, beauty and majesty of creation. I believe, that I no more truly address
loving words day by day to the children dearer
to me than my own soul, than God has this day
directly spoken to each and all of us, his children, in the sunshine and the flowers, in the mellow twilight and the gentle breeze. I sincerely
believe, that the express design of this fair and
wonderful creation is to bring the Creator near,
and to make his presence felt by the living souls
of men, -to supply a medium of communication between the Infinite and the finite,-to




THE HOLY SPIRIT.          147
render visible and audible those thoughts of
love, fathomless as the ocean, numberless as its
sands.
In the same light do I regard the whole course
of Providence. The events of life, ordered by
the close and constant care of the Almighty,
have each a voice from him for the spirit's ear, a
lesson of truth, a message of duty, a word of
warning or rebuke, comfort or encouragement.
How near, how incessant the watchful presence
indicated by our Saviour's Words:' The hairs of
your head are all numbered.' In the mercies so
thickly strewn along our daily path, are fulfilled,
in every one of our thoughtless moments, the
words of Holy Writ:'God hath spoken once,
yea, twice, but man perceiveth it not.' In every
sorrow comes the voice:' Hear ye the rod, and
who hath appointed it.'
But, yet more, apart from outward forms and
events, I believe in the intimate presence and
communion of God with the soul of man. His
hand-writing is on our innermost shrines of
thought; his voice thrills through the deepest
recesses of our being. As the builder of a house
may construct for himself a secret passage, opening by springs which no one else can find, so has
the Almighty architect of the soul of man reserved his own hidden avenues of access, by
which he visits the soul in its days of gladness
and its night seasons of sorrow, in its health and




148          THE HOLY SPIRIT.
its sickness, giving it meat to eat, of which the
world knows not, letting in the day-spring from
on high upon its darkened chambers, filling with
the oil of joy its empty and shrunken vessels.
None can shut out the thoughts that God sends;
but, unsought, unsuggested by the ordinary laws
of association; nay, often unwelcome, they remain, return, haunt the soul, knock at the heart's
door, and often forsake it not, till they are cherished and obeyed. How true to human experience are the Psalmist's words:' Whither shall
I go from thy Spirit?' Not we ourselves can
hold so close communion with our own souls, as
God can; for how often does his Spirit reverse
our own inward thoughts, and say the opposite
of what we were saying within ourselves! We
are whispering peace to our souls; but the Spirit
cries, in a voice which self-delusion cannot
drown,' No peace without repentance and the
fruits of love.' We flatter ourselves that we are
rich and full; but the Spirit cries,' Nay, -ye are
poor and naked, hungry and thirsty, — come,
drink of my cup, and eat of my bread, and put
on my beautiful garments.' Or, on the other
hand, though in the way of duty, we doubt and
fear; and, in the hour of sad self-communion,
the Spirit enters, and says,'Peace be with you,'
and the cloud rises from our souls and melts
away, our hearts grow warm, and burn within
us, and we perceive that it is the Lord.




THE HOLY SPIRIT.         149
Whence too, when we have trodden the path
of transgressors, those unsought warnings, presentiments of evil, forebodings of penalties that
we have defied?  Whence that uneasy, restless
feeling, that will ever intrude itself,'When we
linger too long on the roadside of our heavenward pilgrimage, when we forsake duty for pleasure, when we serve Mammon instead of God?
Whence those preparation seasons for the trial
of faith or virtue which every Christian has experienced, —seasons, when, without any outward
cause, impressions have been borne in upon our
minds, spiritual exercises have been induced, and
views and purposes cherished, precisely adapted
to exigencies just at hand, yet unforeseen, as if
our Father, when he saw the storm gathering,
had hastened to wrap us beforehand in the mantle of his love, and to set our feet in a straight
and safe path? Whence that serene satisfaction,
that joy in the Lord, that inward repose and harmony, which flow from trials well sustained and
duties nobly done, and which give us the surest
foretaste of heaven that we can have below?
Has there ever been a day, whether of duty or of
sin, of joy or of sorrow, of levity or of seriousiiess, when, if we had strictly reviewed our
heart's history for the day, we should not have
been constrained to confess that God had been
there, and that his Spirit had borne witness, either
with, or against our spirits?  No. The divine




150          THE HOLY SPIRIT.
Spirit has always sought to draw us. God has
been unceasingly near.' Behold I stand at the
door and knock,' is his voice to each of us.
There lives not the man, who has ever succeeded
in shutting God from his heart. Though we
take the wings of the morning, he is before us.
Though the darkness cover us, it hides us not
from him.
It is of these influences of the divine Spirit
upon the soul of man, that it is written,' Quench
not the Spirit,'-' Grieve not the Holy Spirit of
God.' For these influences, the Scriptures teach
us, are not irresistible; but, like the counsels or
the influence of a faithful human parent or friend,
may be disobeyed and disregarded.
To these same scriptural influences, welcomed
and obeyed, the Scriptures ascribe all that is
good and holy'in man,- all the graces and virtues of the regenerate heart. It is by the help of
God, that we discharge our duty, that we grow
in grace, that we become followers of Jesus, —
all which is sufficiently indicated in such Scriptures as these:'By the grace of God I am what
I am.' -' It is God that worketh in you to will
and to do of his good pleasure.'-' As many as
are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of
God.'-' The Spirit of God dwelleth in you.' In
accordance with this idea of the helping Spirit of
God, as essential to the Christian life, those, who
yield themselves to the divine influence, are styled




THE HOLY SPIRIT.           151'born of the Spirit,'-'baptized with the Holy
Spirit;' and are said to'walk after the Spirit,'
to'live in the Spirit,' and to'have the Spirit of
God resting upon them.'
Such is the Christian doctrine of the Holy
Spirit, —the influence of God in nature, in providence, and, more than all, his direct, immediate
influence upon the heart of man, -not a constraining, irresistible influence, but an influence,
which may, on the one hand, be grievedand
quenched; or, on the other, welcomed  and
obeyed; and which, if yielded to, becomes the
source of everything worthy and holy in the
character,-the fountain of renewed and sanctified affections, and of' a Christ-like walk and
conversation.
For this spirit, for these influences, prayer prepares the soul, so as to render them availing and
enduring. By prayer man opens the door of his
heart to the Spirit, that always seeks an entrance
and a home there; nor can any earthly parent so
promptly meet the wants of an only child, as
God, by his ever present Spirit, fulfils the desires
of the praying soul.
I am happy to believe, that, with regard to
these fundamental, practical views of spiritual
influences, there is no essential difference among
Christians. On this subject, the religious phraseology of Christians of different modes of faith,
for the most part, coincides; and all true religious




152          THE HOLY SPIRIT.
experience must, of necessity, be coincident.
This experience of the welcomed influences and
the blessed fruits of the Spirit, may God grant us
all, through Jesus Christ our Saviour.




LECTURE V.
HUMIAN NATURE.
ECCLESIASTES VII. 29.
LO, THIS ONLY HAVE I FOUND, THAT GOD HATH MADE MAN UPRIGHT;
BUT THEY HAVE SOUGIHT OUT MANY INVENTIONS.
HUMAN NATURE, as it now is, will be our subject of inquiry this evening.  And, as it is my
chief purpose, in these lectures, to discuss topics,
on which we differ more or less widely from our
fellow Christians, I will define at the outset the
view of human nature, commonly termed total
depravity. The fairest mode of doing this is
by quotations from the Assembly's Catechism,
which is still accepted as the standard of doctrine in the Calvinistic Churches of Great Britain
and America. The words of this catechism,
which I will not undertake to interpret, are as
follows:' God created man in his own image,
in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with
dominion over his creatures. When God created man, he entered into a covenant with him
upon condition of perfect obedience, forbidding
13




154           HUMAN NATURE.
him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil, upon pain of death. Our first parents,
being left to the freedom of their own will, fell
from the estate wherein they were created, by
sinning against God. The covenant being made
with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by
ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with
him in the first transgression. The sinfulness of
that state, whereinto man fell, consists in the
guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original
righteousness, the corruption of his whole nature,
which is commonly called original sin, together
with all the actual transgressions which proceed
from it. All mankind by the Fall lost communion with God, are under his wrath and curse,
and so made liable to all the miseries in this life,
to death itself, and to the pains of hell forever.
This constitutes the misery of that estate, whereinito man fell.' Though this jargon is still acknowledged as the standard of faith, probably
very few in our own community would pretend
to interpret it, or would own themselves believers
in the appalling consequences, which might be
derived from it. There are perhaps few, who
would assert, in so many words, that the unconscious infant lies under God's wrath and curse,
and is, by virtue of his birth into the world,
without any sinful act of his own, liable to the
pains of hell forever. But it is now generally




HUMAN NATURE.            155
maintained by those called Calvinists, first, that
human nature sustained a radical change after
Adam's first transgression; secondly, that Adam,
as the representative, (the federal head, as their
phrase is,) of the whole human family, involved
all his posterity in his own guilt; and, thirdly,
that in soime sense or degree men are now born
sinners.  These propositions demand, each a
separate examination.
1. It is maintained, that human nature sus.
tained a radical change after Adam's first transgression. This, if true, is a historical fact, of
which we might with reason expect to find some
record in the Bible. We, however, look in vain
for it. The Mosaic narrative says nothing of
such a change. Man's place of residence was
indeed changed. He was driven from Eden,
and a life of labor was appointed him. But
would he have been left in indolence, had he
been innocent? Labor is the fundamental law
of all spiritual worth and progress; and we cannot suppose, that if a man had not transgressed,
he would have been exempt from it. God could
never have designed an earthly paradise for
man's permanent abode. The law,'subdue the
earth,' which was a law of arduous labor, was
given before the fall; and the garden of Eden
was but the cradle of man's intellectual infancy,
in which he was fostered, till he became
sufficiently conversant with outward objects, to




156           HUMAN NATURE.
manage his own affairs with discretion. Had
he not sinned, he would still, for his own sake,
have been removed from the garden, though he
would have sought the wilderness in a more
cheerful and hopeful spirit, than that, in which,
after his transgression, he entered upon the stern,
yet salutary discipline of a laborious life. But
when he went forth, no curse was uttered upon
him, or upon the partner of his guilt. The condition of mortal life was unfolded to them; but
it was not so much as hinted, that its condition
would have been essentially otherwise, had they
remained innocent. Indeed, the very appointments of toil and physical suffering are those, on
which the blessing of God most manifestly rests,
- those, from which proceeds the surest growth
of virtue and piety, -those, on which the divine
example of the innocent Saviour sheds its brightest rays. But, could it be maintained that man's
condition on earth was essentially modified by
Adam's sin, still this would prove nothing with
regard to his nature: nor can it be pretended,
that there is the slightest allusion in the Bible to
the change of his nature, as a historical fact.
But the change of man's nature is inferred
from the earliness and frequency of human guilt
ever since Adam,- from the fact that sins are
among the first acts of every man's moral agency.
But the eating of the forbidden fruit is the only
recorded act of Adam's and Eve's moral agency.




HUMAN  NATURE.            157
They yielded to the first temptation, when surrounded by what seemed to be constraining motives to obedience. Certainly there never was a
first sin so wanton, or so difficult to be accounted
for as theirs. Of every other tree in the garden
they might eat. The express voice of God had
charged them not to eat of this. Gratitude,
hope, fear, all conspired to insure their obedience.
But they fell as soon as they were tempted.
What more have their children done? Their sin
was of the same kind with most of the sins of
their posterity, that is, the yielding of principle
to impulse, -the seizing of a momentary gratification, without thought, at the time, of duty or
of consequences. If the sins of their posterity,
then, prove their nature to be depraved, equally
does the first transgression of Adam and Eve
prove, that they were created with a depraved
nature. There is, in the case of our first parents,
and in that of their posterity, an identity, which
militates strongly against the idea of any change
of nature after the fall.
2. It is maintained by our Calvinistic brethren,
that Adam, as the representative or federal head
of his posterity, involved them all in the guilt of his
first transgression.  This doctrine assumes for its
basis the following alleged facts. God made at
the outset a covenant with Adam in behalf of all
mankind, the conditions of which covenant were,
that, if Adam remained innocent, he and all his
13"




158           HUMAN NATURE.
posterity should enjoy eternal life, but that, if he
sinned, he and all his posterity should go into
everlasting punishment. Adam consented thus to
stand for the whole race. They all, therefore,
sinned in and through him as their head or representative. This is expressly the doctrine of the
Assembly's Catechism. It is almost too absurd
to demand an answer; and might, at first
thought, seem too revolting to our instinctive
notions of right and justice, to deserve a respectful treatment.  But it has been, and still is
believed by many worthy and good men; and
therefore ought not to be passed over in silence,
or with sneers.
It seems a fatal objection to the doctrine just
stated, that no mention is made in the Bible of
a covenant between God and Adam. nor is the
slightest hint anywhere given of Adam's acting
in behalf of his posterity. Then again, Adam
ad no right to act in their behalf. A representative must be authorized, -he was not authorized. You and I never gave him a power of
attorney to obey or sin in our stead; nor is it in
the nature of things possible, that we should be
morally responsible for his acts. We may indeed feel their consequences; but we cannot be
involved in their guilt, unless we authorized him
to act for us.
Yet again, supposing that Adam had had the
power of making such a covenant, his making it




HUMAN NATURE.            159
would have been his first transgression, and a sin
infinitely more heinous than his eating the forbidden fruit, nay, a sin, for which his name
ought to be forever accursed among men. Suppose that I had the power of covenanting, that,
whatever sins I might commit, they should impart a guilty taint to my remotest posterity,
would you not think me less a man, than a fiend,
to consent to such a covenant?
The only passage of Scripture commonly
quoted in support of this idea of Adam's federal
headship, is that, where St. Paul says, that,' as
by one man sin entered into the world, and death
by sin, even so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned;' and also, that'by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners.'*
But the whole of the sentence last quoted, is,'For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many be made righteous.' Now, how are many
made righteous by Christ's obedience?  Manifestly, by copying it, and in no other possible
way,  by feeling its influence, and obeying its
example. In like manner, (if there is any force
in the apostle's comparison,) are many made sinners by Adam's disobedience, by following it, by
imitating it, by yielding to like temptations.
But, in this same connection, the apostle says,
Romans v. 12-19.




160           HUMAN NATURE.
that'death reigned from Adam to Moses, even
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,' by whom, Doddridge, (whose orthodoxy as a critic none will
question,) says, and rightly, as I think, that infants were intended. Now, if Adam sinned in
behalf of his posterity, infants, having sinned in
and through him, could not have been excluded
by the apostle from a share in his guilt. Moreover, this phrase, the similitude of Adam's transgression, is of prime importance, as defining the
sense of the whole passage. The human race in
general is here spoken of by St. Paul, as somehow connected with the sin of their first parent.
The apostle speaks of some, who are not thus
connected, and describes them as not having' sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression.' The inference is irresistible, that the rest
of mankind were spoken of as connected with
Adam's sin, because they had' sinned after the
similitude of his transgression,' and that their
connection with him was that of similarity or
imitation. Let it be also borne in mind, that
this'similitude of Adam's transgression' could
not have existed in any of his posterity, if the
race had undergone a change of nature; but the
similitude did, and does exist, if his posterity,
with a nature as pure as his, have in general
fallen into sin as wantonly and as promptly as
he did.




HUMAN NATURE.            161
Once miore, the idea of Adam's having bound
the whole race in the guilt of his first trangression is opposed to very many express declarations.
of holy writ, of which it may be sufficient to
quote the following, than which I can conceive
of nothing more decisive.'The son shall not
bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the
father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and
the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him.' *
3. It is maintained, (and perhaps the idea in
the minds of many professed believers in man's
native depravity, may amount to little more than
this,) that men are in some sense or degree born
sinners,- that every man comes into the world
depraved, that is, averse from all that is good,
and inclined to all that is evil. With regard to
this notion, the first question is, —is God the
creator of every individual human being that is
now born, so that men and women of the present
day may, in any proper sense, be termed his
workmanship and his offspring? If so, and if
man be born depraved, then does God create
that, which is positively bad and evil,-that,
which is utterly opposed to his will and law, —
that, in which he can take' no pleasure, - that,
which he must needs view from the first with
* Ezekiel xviii. 20.




162           HUMAN NATURE.
positive displeasure and abhorrence. Now it is
the height of absurdity to maintain, that an,Almighty being can create what he hates and
abhors, or that an infinitely good and holy being
can create what is essentially evil and vile. It
is intrinsically necessary, that whatever God
creates should be good, very good, perfect in its
kind and for its purpose. What he creates must
necessarily be the transcript of his own ideas, and
therefore. pure as he is pure; nor can I conceive
of a fouler blasphemy, than to ascribe to the
eternal Father the authorship of what is intrinsically vile and hateful.
But I apprehend that the advocates of the
popular doctrine of depravity are not, in general,
chargeable with this blasphemy. Their phraseology would seem to imply, that God was the
Creator of Adam and Eve only, - that he is not
in any proper sense the Creator of the men and
women that now are,-that the Greek poet was
mistaken, when he said,' For we are also His
offspring.' They attribute to Adam, rather than
to God, the authorship of human nature as it
now is. But I am content to rest the truth, that
God is the Creator and Father of all men, on the
simple doctrine of a paternal Providence as revealed in the Bible. I cannot believe, that they,
the hairs of whose heads are all numbered, that
they, who are bidden to dismiss all doubt and
care because God careth for them, are thus de



HUMAN NATURE.           163
pendent on any other being than their Maker,are thus kept and blest by any other than their
Father. And, if God be their Maker and their
Father, I know that their nature must be good,
however frail, and however much they may have
perverted it.
I have thns attempted to analyze, and to refute in detail, the popular doctrine of depravity.
There are, however, several general observations
to be made upon it.
The idea of native depravity is opposed to our
own consciousness. We do not feel as if sin
were natural to us. There are portions of our
nature, that always rise up against it. We always feel, that we were made for something better. We are stung with self-reproach when we
sin, which could not be the case, were sin natural; for whatever is in accordance with nature
must needs be satisfying and agreeable to the
nature, with which it accords. We never sin
without a motive, whereas, were we natively
depraved, we should sin spontaneously and from
the mere love of sin. Bad men, the worst men,
never sin for the sake of sinning; but act kindly
and do right, when they are not expressly urged
to sin by appetite or passion. You may ask
your way to a particular place, of the vilest sinner living; and, unless he has some immediate
motive for misleading you, he will point out the
right way with a minuteness and assiduity pro



164           HUMAN NATURE.
portioned to the intricacy of the road, and to the
inconvenience which might result from your not
finding it. Do you not suppose, that it is one of
the rarest of events for a man to be in any such
matter misdirected or deceived, from the mere
caprice of wickedness, without some special
motive of cupidity or revenge? Yet, were men
natively depraved, they would be perpetually
misguiding and circumventing each other, for.the mere love of evil; and it would require a
selfish motive, in order for an unregenerate' man
to tell the truth, or to perform the most common
act of neighborly courtesy or kindness.
Those who have been most familiar with
crime, your Howards, your Fryes; and your
Tuckermans, those who dive down into the
lowest depth of depravity to seek and save its
victims, will tell you, that they find none utterly
depraved; and that, even among those, who
have been strangers to every humanizing influence, who have been. born and brought up in the
most pestilential atmosphere, and within the
very gates of death, there are to be traced the
filaments of noble powers and lofty sentiments.
They will bring forth for you, from among the
offscourings of all things, as we are too prone to
deem them, striking traits and instances of sympathy, pity, persevering kindness, fidelity, selfsacrifice. They will tell you of a quick moral
sensibility and a tender conscience among these




HUMAN NATURE.            165
outcasts, with regard to the few things, in which
their duty has been made known to them. They
will tell you of yearnings and aspirations for
goodness and for purity, even in the dens of the
grossest pollution. And do not all these things
betoken a nature made in the image of God, and
noble still in its debasement and defilement?
Such developments of character cannot be traced
to any kind or degree of moral culture; for they
are often witnessed where there has been no culture, but, on the other hand, every possible form
and mode of vicious example and influence from
the cradle. The elements of good, that are
found in persons thus trained, God must have
lodged in their natures, as they came from his
hands,- else they are an effect without any
assignable cause.
The phenomena of infancy and childhood also,
rebut the idea of native depravity. There is, in
the young spirit, a simplicity, and ingenuousness, which can bear no kindred with a sinful
nature. In the fountain of being, as it first rises,
there is a transparent purity, which indicates
that it can gush from no polluted source. The
moral sensibilities of young children are always
in the right direction; their moral intuitions
marvellously clear and true. They are, indeed,
easily and often led astray, - their impulses are
strong, their power of resistance weak; yet the
prompt tear of penitence when they sin, and the
14




166             IHUMAN NATURE.
panting earnestness, with which they hasten to
seek forgiveness of their human parents, and,
when rightly directed, of their Father in heaven,
sufficiently show' the work of the law written in
their hearts.' And how quick do their eyes
glisten at the recital of a good deed,-how strong
their loathing for all that is ungenerous, base,
and vile! How free their love, - how slow their
hatred, even under unkind or harsh treatment!
The closer my acquaintance with little children,
with the more utter horror and loathing do I
turn from the remotest approach to the doctrine
of native depravity. I feel, when with little children, that I am very near the pure fountain of
life. They seem to me fresh from the baptism
of a Father's blessing. I see his signature on
their innocent brows, on their guileless spirits. I
can sympathize in full with the beautiful words
of a favorite poet: —'A boundless wealth of love and power
In the young spirit lies, -
Love, to enfold-all natures
In one benign embrace,
Power, to diffuse a blessing wide
O'er all the human race!'
But to think that there is depravity in those
young spirits, as God sends them  forth, —to
think that there is more of evil than of good in
what we, parents, are accustomed to hail as
God's best gift,-to believe that there is a frown




HUMAN NATURE.           167
of divine displeasure, a sentence of damnation,
hanging over the sweet babe, -to believe that
the child, as yet incapable of discerning between
good and evil, can even need pardon or redemption, - oh, it would separate me from my little
ones. I would sooner go into the wilderness,
and live a hermit, than look upon them with the
eye, with which I must view them, did I believe
that either God or Adam had made them sinners. Not mine should be the hopeless, despairing task, of attempting to repair the work, which
God had sent into the world defiled and ruined.
The idea of man's being born a sinner will
also appear unreasonable, when we consider the
nature of sin.' Sin is the transgression of the
law.' The very idea of sin implies wrong volition on the part of the sinner. A thing or being
may be, by nature, defective, ill-constructed; but
sin must be a matter of personal choice.
But, could we admit as possible the doctrine
of native depravity, it would render sin in its
active forms impossible, or rather, it would make
that, which we now call goodness, sin. The utmost that can be expected or demanded of any
person, is, that he should be and do what, in his
very nature, God has fitted him to be and do.
The nature of a person includes all his perceptions, instincts, impulses, powers, and faculties.
In a sinful nature, these must all be evil, so that
to do evil would be the right and appropriate




168           HUMAN NATURE.
work of such a nature; while, in order to be or
to do good, it must violate the fitness of things,
depart from the analogy of other beings, and
thwart the purposes of its creation. A sinful
nature and accountability for moral evil cannot
coexist. If God has given me a sinful nature,
he gave it to me with the design and expectation that I should do evil, and evil only. I may
then say with perfect fitness,' Evil, be thou my good;'
and, if I can claim any praise or benefit at God's
hands, it will be for cultivating and exercising
my evil propensities, for making myself as bad
as I can, and doing as much evil as I can. If he
has given me an evil nature, I should offend him
and incur his just displeasure, by trying to be
good or to do good. If I am blameworthy, and
penally accountable to God, for my sins, (and
my own conscience and the word of God both
tell me that I am,) it must be because he has
given me a nature fitted for duty and for goodness.
The Scriptural argument for man's native depravity is almost too slender to claim attention.
The leading proof-text for this doctrine has
already been made the subject of discussion. I
know of but two others, which it is necessary to
notice. One is the expression of David: 4 I was
shape in' iniquity; and in sin did my mother




HUMAN NATURE.            169
conceive me.'*  One must strangely misapprehend the design and spirit of this Psalm, in
looking to it for an explicit, formal statement of
theological dogmas. This Psalm was the expression of David's intense anguish and remorse
for one of the most flagitious crimes, with which
a human being was ever stained. His agony of
contrite sorrow  was commensurate with the
enormity of his guilt; and the language of passionate grief and self-reproach is always hyperbolical. At such a moment, how naturally
would his earliest sins, the sins of very infancy,
like the ghosts of the long buried, have flashed
upon his mental vision, and called forth vehement expressions of the deepest self-condemnation! And how natural an expression of those
early sins are the words now under consideration, especially when we consider the highly
impassioned style, in which the whole Psalm is
written! There is no greater hyperbole in these
words, viewed as referring to the sins of childhood and youth, than there is in the following
words in the same connection:' Purge me with
hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I
shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear
joy and gladness, that the bones which thou hast
broken may rejoice.' We do not suppose that
David's bones had actually been broken, or that
* Psalm ii. 5.
14*




170            HUMAN NATURE.
he expected to be whiter than snow; why not
then apply to the words under discussion the
same rules of interpretation, which must confessedly be applied to these expressions? But,
whatever is meant by these words, it is evident,
beyond a shadow of doubt, that David did not
write this Psalm as a careful, logical statement
of doctrine, but merely as a humble, heartstricken confession of sin before God. As such,
it is to be read, interpreted, felt, and made
profitable for reproof, and instruction in righteousness.
The other proof-text, to which I would make
particular reference, is this:' We all had our
conversation in times past in the lust of our
flesh, fulfilling the desire of the flesh and of the
mind; and were by nature children of wrath,
even as others.'*  St. Paul is here addressing
those recently converted from idolatry, and has
spoken of their former sinful habits, which had
subjected them to the divine displeasure. He
adds:' We Jews also led a similarly sinful life
before our conversion, and were by nature, that
is, in ourformer. condition, as much the subjects
of the divine displeasure, as much the children of
wrath, as you were.' And the moral, which St.
Paul deduces from this statement is,' By grace
are ye saved,' that is, Christian privileges came,
* Ephesians ii. 3.




HUMAN NATURE.            171
not because you or we deserved them, but
through the free, unpurchased mercy of God.
The phrase, by nature, St. Paul elsewhere employs to denote condition, as, for instance, where
he says:' We who are Jews by nature, and not
sinners of the Gentiles.'
But the Scriptural argument against the doctrine of native depravity, and in behalf of the
rectitude of human nature, as it comes from the
Creator's hand,-is full, far beyond our need, and
to the utmost limit of our desire.
In the first place, the almost numberless recognitions in the Bible, of man's moral accountability and- of a future retribution, imply the
native rectitude of human nature; for, in the
precise proportion, in which human nature is
depraved, man's accountability ceases, and he
ceases to merit punishment for his sins.
Again, man is constantly addressed and treated in the Bible, as if he had within himself the
means of forming a correct moral decision in
many cases, though not the capacity to frame a
perfect rule of conduct. Our Saviour asked the
people:' Why even of yourselves judge ye not
what is right?' t He was in the constant habit
of appealing to men's consciences, as if conscience had a real existence, and were always
on the side of virtue. St. Paul speaks of the
* Galatians ii. 15.     t Luke xii. 57.




172           HUMAN NATURE.
Gentiles, who have not God's revealed law, as'doing by nature the things contained in the
law,' as,'being a law unto themselves,' and as'shewing the work of the law written in their
hearts,'  - all which is utterly inconsistent with
the idea of native depravity.
Again, our Saviour speaks of little children, in
a way, which shows that he saw no marks of
depravity in them. When he wished to rebuke
the unholy strife of his apostles, he'called a
little child unto him, and set him in the midst of
them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, except
ye be converted, and become as little children,
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' t
When little children were brought, that he might
bless them, instead of designating them as the
children of perdition, and as lying under God's
wrath and curse, he said,-' Of such is the kingdom of heaven.' $  These texts are with me
decisive, as to our Saviour's opinion of human
nature, and I desire to look no farther. I am
sure that the nature, whose most recent and
genuine representatives Christ pronounced nearest the kindom of heaven, must be a good nature,
and worthy of its Maker and Father.
I might accumulate Scriptural proof indefinitely; but I have given you as much as you
can need.
* Rom. ii. 14, 15.    t MAatt. xviii. 2, 3 t $  latt. xix. 14.




HUMAN NATURE.            173
I have, in this lecture, occupied myself chiefly
in exposing and combating a radically false view
of human nature. But, while I would not abase,
I would not inordinately glorify human nature.
I believe it good and pure, yet frail. All man's
appetites, impulses, powers, and innate sentiments, are good in themselves; and, fitly balanced, and employed in right directions and on
worthy objects, must conduce to his own true
good, and to the glory of his Maker. But let
their balance be deranged, or let any of them be
misdirected, they become ministers of sin and
sources of evil. The bodily appetites are good
in themselves, and, if confined to their lawful
gratification, never interfere With man's virtue.
The native emotions of the soul are all equally
innocent; it is only excess or misdirection, that
can make them sinful. The affections are the
crown and joy of life; and, while fixed on worthy
objects, are the unfailing means of pure happiness and vigorous spiritual growth. But human
nature is composed of cravings, desires, and
capacities, which must, at first, be nourished and
directed through the agency of others, often
through indiscreet, sometimes through wicked
agency, and almost always through the blended
agency of many, in which some faulty ingredients can hardly fail to mingle. Hence the sins
of infancy and childhood; and the doctrine of
native depravity ascribes to the Almighty's




174           HUMAN NATURE.
workmanship what is due to our rude, or weak,
or foolish handling of it, —ascribes to nature
what flows from education.
But the hour forbids my pursuing this train of
remark; and I close by-barely pointing out two
important practical uses of the doctrine, which it
has been the aim of this lecture to establish,
namely, that God sends every human spirit into
the world pure, free from all stain of sin, and endowed with no powers or affections, which are
not good in themselves, and capable of a worthy
and virtuous direction and development.
1. This view magnifies the evil of sin, and
makes trangression against God a fit ground for
the deepest self-reproach and the most hearty
penitence. Did I believe that God had given me
a sinful nature, I could not reproach myself for
sin; for God would be the sinner; - I could not
repent; for I should be conscious of no blame.
But if God has made me upright, and I have
sinned against the good and pure nature which
he has given me, —if I have violated the laws of
my own being, and made that, which he ordained
for life, death, — then have I abundant reason for
contrite sorrow. The sin is mine. I am not
tempted of God. I can cast no reproach on the
Author of my being. I must lay my hand upon
my mouth, and my mouth in the dust, and cry,
unclean, unclean.
2. The view, which regards human nature as




H UMAN NATURE.           175
natively sinless and pure, cherishes humility.
Did I believe myself utterly depraved by nature,
I can hardly set limits to what my pride would
be, on account of whatever slight and imperfe6t
degree of virtue I might possess; for it would
be so much raised from a barren and blighted
soil. It would be a worthy ground for boasting.
But if God has given me a nature perfectly
adapted to his service, and capable of all things
high and holy, and if I have, in ways and times
without number, departed from the dictates of
that nature, violated its laws, cramped or distorted its energies, neglected its culture, and suffered wild grapes to grow on the vine of God's
careful planting and watchful husbandry, then
nlust I feel humbled in view of what God has
done and I have not done, of what he has given
and I have not rendered back.




LECTURE VI.
REGENERATION.
JOHN III. 3.
EXCEPT A MAN BE BORN AGAIN, IE CANNOT SEE TIHE KINGDOM
OF GOD.
THE connection, in which the conversation
with Nicodemus occurs, casts so essential light
upon the meaning of our text, that I will commence my discourse by calling your attention to
it. TJnfortunately, the arbitrary division of chapters breaks the thread of the narrative, which
includes the last three verses of the second chapter, —' When Jesus was in Jerusalem  in the
feast day, many believed in his name, when they
saw the miracles which he did,' that is, believed
in him theoretically, - acknowledged him as a
divine teacher, but without submitting their
hearts and lives to his teachings.'But Jesus
did not commit himself unto them,' - did not
repose entire trust in them,- did not admit them
to a confidential footing; for he placed no value
upon mere profession, or a mere barren belief.




REGENERATION..177'He knew all men,' read their characters,'knew
what was in man;' and bestowed or withheld
his confidence accordingly. Under this general
statement, to illustrate the mode in which Jesus
dealt with those, to whom'he did not commit
himself,' the evangelist now brings forward the
case of Nicodemus as an individual example.
There was one of these intellectual, yet not
spiritual converts,'Nicodemus, a ruler of the
Jews,' who for fear of losing caste among the
Pharisees,'came to Jesus by night,' no doubt
with the purpose of securing his favor, whenever
his star should be on the ascendant. He came
with a profession of the belief, at which he had
arrived on the feast-day:' We know that thou
art a teacher sent from God; for no man can do
these miracles that thou doest, except God be
with him.' Jesus, knowing what was in the
man, and perceiving that his heart had not been
touched by' the word of the kingdom,' makes to
him the declaration, which I have taken for my
text:' Except a man be born again, he cannot
see the kingdom of God.' By this we must
obviously understand our Saviour as saying to
him:'Nicodemus, it is not enough for thee to
believe me a divine teacher, miraculously empowered and endowed. It is not enough for
thee to be willing to follow me outwardly, when
wealth and honor shall be in my train. Wouldst
thou truly be my disciple, thou must be mine in15




178           REGENERATION.
wardly, in principle and character, -thou must
be a different man, a new man, —thou must be
born again.'
With regard to this passage, several erroneous
views have been maintained. Some have supposed these words addressed to Nicodemus as a
Jew, and have understood them as referring
merely to the change of opinion, necessary in order for him to become a Christian. But, as we
have seen, this change had already taken place,
at least so far as it took place in the apostles
during their Master's lifetime; for they ceased
not to be devout Jews on account of their allegiance to Jesus. Nicodemus already believed
Jesus to be a divine teacher. The change, which
remained to be wrought in him, was that of
principle and character.
It has been maintained by the Romish Church,
and by many members of the English and American Episcopal Church, in whose service-book
the idea is distinctly recognized, that baptism,
even infant baptism, is the regeneration here
spoken of; for, in amplifying his meaning, our
Saviour says:' Except a man be born of water
and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.' But, in my opinion, water in this
verse does not even refer to Chlristian baptism;
but to a form of baptism, with which Nicodemus
was well acquainted. When the Jews received
a proselyte into their fold, it was their custom to




REGENERATION.           179
baptize, or wash with water, him and his whole
family; and after this process, they were accustomed to call the proselyte new-born, or one born
again. Now our Saviour introduces the water
in this discourse, to signify to Nicodemus, that it
was no such superficial process that he intended
by the new birth, that a washing with water was
not enough, and that something inward, not outward, must be wrought, in order to constitute
true regeneration.'Except a man be born, not
merely of the water, which you deem enough to
admit a man to the privileges of Judaism, but
also of the divine spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God.'
We have arrived, then, at the conclusion, that
it is no mere change of opinions, nor yet a mere
outward rite or profession, that is implied in
being born again; but that the phrase denotes
something inward and spiritual.  Nicodemus
stood, with reference to Christianity, precisely as
the great mass of those born in Christian countries, and baptized in infancy, now stand,- in
the attitude of intellectual belief, but not in that
off moral obedience; nor is there any ground, on
which the requisition of the new birth could have
been made of Nicodemus, on which it should not
also be made of every person of mature understanding, who is not already, in heart and life, a
sincere and devoted follower of Christ. We are
now prepared to answer the following questions,




180           REGENERATION.
with reference to REGENERATION. What is regeneration?  Is it essential to every human
being? Is it instantaneous, or gradual? Is it
an indelible process; or may the regenerate fall
from their high estate? By what agency is it
affected? What evidence of it in ourselves may
we deem  sufficient?  What evidence of it
should we seek in others, as a prerequisite to
Christian fellowship?
I. What is regeneration?  I hardly need tell
you, that regeneration and being born again are
synonymous,- the former being a word of Latin
derivation, equivalent to the latter in Saxon
English. The idea is that of a second birth.
There are various orders of beings that are born
twice.  The butterfly is born at first a caterpillar, a mere earthworm, an unsightly, grovelling
creature, without any apparent means of rising
higher or becoming more beautiful. He is born
again, a light, airy, beautiful being, with wings
of gold and scarlet, the playmate of the zephyrs.
Yet, when you examine his body, it is still the
caterpillar, the earthworm, though etherealized,
-the same shape, though endowed with an
elasticity and beauty, to which before it was an
utter stranger. And so likewise, in the caterpillar, there were the unseen rudiments of those
beautiful wings,-the power, in its hidden germ,
of that graceful flight. Thus his new birth is
not a change, but a development, of his nature,




REGENERATION.           181
-not a new creation, but the putting forth of
portions of his being, previously dormant. Man,
too, in order to be what God means that he
should be, must be born twice. For he is at
first born merely an animal being, and a child of
earth,- with powers, that fit him for a residence
here, and the enjoyment of outward and earthly
good,,-with propensities, that dispose him to
a grovelling life, without any aim beyond the
present sphere of being. He is born indeed with
spiritual capacities, but they are like the caterpillar's wings, at first unseen, folded, dormant;
and, before they manifest themselves at all, the
animal nature has acquired a decided, fearful
preponderance and supremacy. Thus, when the
spiritual nature at length begins to put forth, it
generally finds itself overshadowed and dwarfed
by the animal, so that it remains altogether subordinate, verifying, in him who has been born
but once, the words of the wisdom of Solomon:'The corruptible body presseth down the soul,
and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the
mind that museth upon many things.' Therefore is it that a man must be born again, —born
into the spiritual world,- born again, not by a
change, but by a development of his nature, by
the expanding of those wings of praise and
prayer, that have remained folded and unused,
by his entering upon a new sphere of being, and
15*




182             REGENERATION.
becoming a citizen of the unseen and spiritual
world.
At the butterfly's first birth, his ethereal powers and tendencies are bound up, and crippled by
the terrestrial. By his second birth, the ethereal
element is put forth with sufficient vigor to buoy
up and etherealize the terrestrial. In like manner, by virtue of man's first birth, the body
weighs down and cramps the spiritual nature;
but, by the second birth, the spiritual nature is'
drawn forth with an energy sufficient to subdue
and spiritualize every bodily appetite and passion, and to make the body a willing servant of
the soul.' That which is born of the flesh is
flesh,' earthly, sensual;'that only which is born
of the spirit, is spirit.' A spiritual state of the
heart, of the affections, of the conduct, must be
the result of a new and spiritual birth, just as an
animal and earthly life is the result of the first
birth of a human being into the outward world.
As, by being born of the flesh, we bear the image
of the earthly, so, by being born of the spirit,
must we acquire the image of the heavenly. By
our first birth, the animal nature has and keeps
the supremacy; regeneration is the process, by
which the spiritual nature acquires and retains
the supremacy. By virtue of our first birth, we
dwell upon the earth, and are adapted to it; by
regeneration, we enter the kingdom of God, the
spiritual world, and are fitted for its society, its




REGENERATION.           183
duties, and its joys. By our first birth, we become heirs of the infirmities and ills of a mortal
life; by regeneration, we acquire the powers and
properties of an immortal being.
II. We next ask: Is regeneration essential to
every human being?  Can none but the regenerate enter the kingdom of God? Our very
definition of regeneration answers this question
sufficiently.'Flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God.' For what is the kingdom
of God?  It is a society of all good and faithful
spirits, bound together by the love and service of
the Almighty. It is a kingdom, whose law is
piety and duty, whose life is prayer and praise.
It is a kingdom, where spiritual relations alone
are recognized, where all dwell as children of
God and brethren in Christ. Now it is absurd
to maintain that man, any man, is born into this
outward world, with powers, tastes, and habits,
that fit him for such a society. It is absurd to
maintain that any man can be fitted for this
society, without a new development of powers
and affections, on'the full exercise of which he
does not enter by virtue of his birth into the
outward world.
The innocent child needs to be born again;
for he brings into the world, not indeed a sinful
nature, but a nature, whose better part unfolds
not at once. And, in order fgr him to become
fit for the kingdom of heaven, his spiritual nature




1.84            REGENERATION.
must be developed and made supreme, which it
is not in infancy, though it may be in early
childhood.  Perhaps in  some instances, but
seldom, regeneration is the result of education
alone, so that the child's first choice is that of
God, and duty, and spiritual pursuits and pleasures, and his character, from the earliest period
of his moral agency, is a religious character.  I
say that this is probably the case but seldom, not
because I think it intrinsically unnatural.  On
the other hand, I regard it as the natural result
of such an education, as a child ought to have.
But a thoroughly religious education has no
doubt been exceedingly rare; for of religious parents, there are too many who give their children
a worldly education; and, when parents do all
that they ought and can, still they divide the
education of their children with many persons
and influences adverse to the spiritual life. For
these reasons, most persons, if not all, live, for a
longer or shorter period, a merely animal or
worldly life, with little thought of spiritual
things, with little taste for religious pursuits or
enjoyments. And this life, however harmless, is
a life of sin, because passed in the neglect of
known duty. In this case, regeneration is a
double process. It includes a pulling down, as
well as a building up, - a death to sin, as well
as a spiritual birth,-the putting off of the old
man, as well as the putting on of the new man,




REGENERATION.           185
— the dethroning of flesh and sense, as well as
the enthroning of God in the heart, —in fine,
conversion, an entire change of character, a new
heart, a new life. The infant needs to be regenerated, —you cannot say that he needs to be
converted; for, if not probable, it is at least theoretically possible, that his regeneration may be
effected by education alone. But in him, who
has once willingly lived, for however short a season, a merely animal or worldly life, regeneration
can take place only by means of conversion.
But how is it with those, who die too young.to have formed religious characters? They, I
reply, need regeneration, as much as if they had
lived; for they have been for the most part obedient.to mere bodily instincts, and they die with
their spiritual natures undeveloped. They have,
indeed, wrapped within their souls, the power of
an angelic and immortal destiny; but it is
folded and dormant, and needs, in order that
they may be fit for heaven, to be expanded, and
made quick, powerful, and supreme. But the
infant dies sinless. He has no unholy desires,
no evil habits, no unworthy loves, to make him
wretched in the world whither he goes; and he
goes where no fault, or error, or negligence in his
education can render his regeneration doubtful,
or make sin possible. He goes into the immediate presence of a Father, whose love must at
once pervade and fill his unoccupied heart; for




186            REGENERATION.
the innocent n~eed only to know God, in order to
love him. And the work of regeneration, which,
in the world's imperfect school, it might have
taken years to accomplish, may be the work of
hours or moments in that higher school, where
Jesus is the teacher.
But how is it with virtuous heathen, who have
been faithful to the light that they have enjoyed,
but have attained so inadequate views of duty
and of divine truth, that. their characters must
needs fall very far short of that of the regenerate
Christian? I answer, that, if they have governed
their hearts and lives by the best rules of duty
known to them, their regeneration has commenced,-they have acquired a love of duty, the
habit of self-denial, a spiritual frame of mind, all
which are traits of the regenerate character.
They have the rectitude and singleness of purpose, the hunger and thirst after righteousness,
requisite for their entrance.into the Redeemer's
fold. All that they need, to bring them to the
stature of the perfect in Christ Jesus, is religious
knowledge; and the body is the veil, which
hides that knowledge from them. As soon as
the veil is rent away, they behold their God and
their Redeemer,- light bursts at once upon their
disembodied spirits, completes their regeneration,
and thus fits them for heaven.
But, not only those of preeminent lustre
amidst surrounding darkness, not only those,




REGENERATION.           187
whom we are accustomed to call the great and
good men of heathenism,- many, very many
others, I believe, will come from the east and the
west, from the north and the south, and take
their places among the children of the kingdom,
— yes, literally among the children of the kingdom, in the place, on the footing of little children. While my own conscience tells me, that
if I, and such as I, fail to clothe ourselves with
all the graces of the regenerate heart, we shall be
most righteously cast into the outer darkness,
and, whatever we suffer, shall know and feel that
God is just, I cannot believe that those, who,
whether in heathen or in Christian lands, have
not had the opportunity of religious culture, are
all to forfeit heaven. No. I believe that God
reveals some portion of his law to every rational
being, however ignorant or degraded. I believe
that there is some one thing, in which those altogether born in sin know their duty, that there is
one talent committed even to the least privileged
of the race, and that, if that one talent be improved, or that one duty discharged, the opportunity for complete regeneration, not vouchsafed to
them on earth, may be afforded them in heaven.
The keeping of the law in one point, if that one
be the only point, on which the law is known,
must make the soul willing and glad to keep the
whole law, when the whole is revealed. Whereever, among the outcast and down-trodden on




188           REGE:NERATION.
Pagan or Christian soil, among those, who have
had around them only depraved examples and
corrupt influences, with not a ray of gospel light
or a word of Christian teaching, - wherever, I
say, among such, and in the midst of heart-sickening vice, there is a single beautiful trait of
character, be it truth, or fidelity, or sympathy, or
compassion, or benevolence, or a mere consciousness of degradation and misery, a vague, yet
earnest longing for something purer and better,
and a preparation of Isoul to hail the light if it
should come,- such spirits, I believe, are among
those to whom the Judge will say, not,' Depart,
ye cursed,' but,' Come unto me, ye weary ones
and heavy laden, and I will give you rest.' I
believe that such spirits need only the light of
heaven to regenerate them, while, for those who
have buried or wasted either the one talent or the
ten, there can be reserved only the doom of the
wicked and slothful servant. Certainly there is,
there must be in the judgment, a world-wide
difference between those, to whom the Judge can
say,' Ye have both seen and hated both me and
my Father,' and those, who had not the offer of
salvation distinctly made to them, but who
would have leaped with joy, had it reached
them.
I should be sorry to think that I have a single
hearer, so much a stranger to the love of  God
and the spirit of Christ, as to deem me a setter



REGENERATION.           189
forth of lax and dangerous doctrines, because I
can, in deep and thankful sincerity, lay up a
hope in heaven for those, to whom on earth no
door of hope is opened. It is no lax doctrine
for us. The law, that, where much is given,
much will be required, but that, where little is
bestowed, little will be demanded, is a law of
uncompromising strictness and severity for you
and me, who have known only the clear sunlight
of gospel privilege. No one can place higher
than I would, the responsibilities of those, who
have the means of knowing Christ. But I
earnestly protest against making the harsh and
gloomy views, that one may take with regard to
the unprivileged and benighted, a standard of
piety. To the shame of Christians, this is often
done; and I have known the piety of ministers
of the gospel called in question, for no other reason, than that they maintained that the heathen
would not be cast in a body into everlasting torments. I should be half disposed to hurl back
the accusation, were it not written,'Judge not,
that ye be not judged;' for I cannot but feel
that the man, who cherishes such sentiments,
and myself, believe and worship two entirely
different Gods.
III. We next inquire: Is regeneration instantaneous, or gradual?  To man's eye, it must
generally appear gradual; for the influences,
which God commonly employs to convert the
16




190           REGENERATION.
soul, are gradual. Our Saviour also compares
the growth of religion in the heart of man to the
growth of grain,'first the blade, then the ear,
after that the full corn in the ear.' No doubt,
many of what are called sudden conversions are
gradual, (indeed, most of the cases of that kind,
with which I have been conversant, have been
so,) the particular event, or season of excitement, to which they are ascribed, being the occasion, rather than the cause of their development.
In such cases, there has been a long series of
unseen struggles, suppressed groanings, secret
penitential regrets, heartfelt aspirations for holiness; and the religious character, which shoots
up before man's sight with apparent suddenness,
to the divine eye is the growth of months or
years. The phenomena of such a conversion, (if
we may compare joyful things with fearful,)
might be likened to the eruption of a volcano,
which, to the ignorant beholder, seems sudden,
but to effect which, subterranean fires may have
been burning for a century. But there are undoubtedly other cases, in which regeneration is
really a very rapid process, — in which an immense amount of inward emotion and effort is
crowded into an exceedingly brief period. God's
convicting and converting spirit sometimes seems
to fall like lightning from the heavens. We
have seen those, who have professed, and seemed
to come at once out of midnight darkness into




REGENERATION.            191
God's marvellous light. Yet, in most instances,
and, as I cannot but think, in the most hopeful
cases, the dawn first reddens, and the day-star
rises, and the sky becomes bright and beautiful
so gradually, that one can hardly say when night
gives place to day.
In all cases, however, there is, doubtless, to the
divine eye, a moment when the new birth takes
place, when the scale turns, when the natural
man loses, and the spiritual man gains the supremacy, when duty, piety, and heaven, assume
the mastery over meaner passions and affections.
The character always has for its index the ruling
love, - the predominant aim, desire, or purpose,
- the one master principle, which gives, as, it
were, the key-note to the whole life. Now a
literal equipoise of the character, for more than a
single moment, is hardly possible. The character
must, at every moment of a man's existence,
(even if the preponderance be slight,) be either
worldly or spiritual; and, though a man may not
be able to mark for himself the moment when
the scale turns,-though, when he undertakes to
determine it, he may antedate or postdate it,yet it can hardly be otherwise than a moment
distinctly marked by the divine eye.
IV. Our next question is: Is regeneration an
indelible process; or can those, who have been
born again, so far fall back into sinful habits, as
to forfeit the blessings of the Christian covenant?




192           REGENERATION.
To this question I would reply, that the regenerate state is in itself a most hopeful one,
and that it includes within itself great prospect
and promise of perseverance, and even abundant
reason to expect restoration from the first stages
of declension and backsliding. The change of
character, which it implies, is a truly momentous
one. The heart is new; the life is new. The
regenerate person has entered upon a new and
attractive sphere of being, - has joined himself
to a society, which can hardly fail to draw him
constantly heavenward, — has commenced the
discharge of duties, which are sanctifying in
their very nature, - has begun to enjoy pleasures, which never cloy, but which sustain the
constant desire to seek them yet again. The
regenerate person has of course begun to lead a
life of prayer; and there is abundant ground for
the hope, that he, who has felt the comfort and
joy of prayer, will not abandon it, and, while he
still maintains the habit of prayer, he cannot fall
back into a life of sin. The regenerate person
has learned to look at objects, events, and his
fellow beings, in their spiritual relations and
aspects; and points of view once acquired we
do not readily lose, so that there is strong hope
that he, the eyes of whose understanding have
once been opened, will not close them again.
Above all, the regenerate person is the subject of
peculiar aid and guidance from above, which




REGENERATION.                 193
will not be lightly or capriciously withdrawn,
but can be forfeited only by long continued negligence. And, even when the regenerate person
has once departed widely from the Christian
covenant, or begun to wax cold and careless, he
has, in his past experience of the blessedness
of God's service, remembrances to smite him'
through with godly sorrow, and to call him back
to the fold, from which he is wandering. There
will be, in the recollection of times of perfect
religious peace and reconciliation, a voice breathing the sentiment of our beautiful hymn: —' What peaceful hours I once enjoyed!
How sweet their memory still!
But they have left an aching void
The world can never fill.'
And, stung with the memory of a peace once
his, now shut out from his soul, there is hope
that he will lift the cry: —'Return, 0 holy Dove, return,
-Sweet messenger of rest;
I hate the sins that made thee mourn,
And drove thee from my breast.' The dearest idol I have known,
Whate'er that idol be,
Help me to tear it from thy throne,
And worship only thee.'
Thus true is the doctrine of the perseverance of
the saints to our reasonable hope, with regard to
16'




194            REGENERATION.
those who have once been inwardly renewed. But
this doctrine, as a positive, arbitrary, unbending
dogma, without abatement or exception, is false,
ensnaring, and dangerous.  It is opposed to
reason, experience, and Scripture; and, by creating a fatal consciousness of security, it does
more than anything else can, to make itself false
in individual cases. Very many fall, because
they feel so sure that they can never fall. Very
many continue in sin, because they know that
they have once been regenerated, and they feel
assured that, whatever they do, they cannot fail
of heavenly blessedness. But there is nothing
in the religious character to make it intrinsically
ineffaceable. As it can be kept strong and
growing only by exercise unto godliness, so it
may be frittered away by lack of exercise.
Moreover, the Scriptures refer so often to the
possibility of apostacy on the part of the regenerate, that it fills me with unfeigned surprise,
that it should ever have been regarded as impossible, by any, who profess to take the Bible for
their standard of doctrine. How constantly are
the saints exhorted to steadfastness and perseverance, all which exhortations are foolish and
absurd, if the saints cannot fall away. St. Paul
could surely have no doubt of his own regeneration; and yet he speaks of his diligent self-discipline and mortification of the flesh, -' lest that
by any means, when I have preached to others,




REGENERATION.            195
I myself should be a cast-away.' St. Paul is
addressing regenerate persons, when he says,' Grieve not the holy spirit of God, whereby ye
are sealed unto the day of redemption.'t The
writer to the Hebrews, so far from saying that
the regenerate cannot fall away, expressly speaks
of the impossibility (by which we are to understand, I suppose, the extremest difficulty) of renewing again unto repentance those who fall away,
after they have been' once enlightened, and have
tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made
partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted of
the good word of God, and the powers of the
world to come.'t
V. We now arrive at the question: By what
agency is regeneration effected? By God's, or
man's? I reply, by both. The true doctrine is
implied in that text of St. Paul:'Work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling; for
it is God that worketh in you both to will and
to do of his good pleasure.'~ It used to be a
mooted question in theology, whether God or
man must take the first'step in man's regeneration. But it is almost too foolish a question to
discuss, and one, which a child ought to be able
to answer from his first catechism. For has not
God himself, by his own infinite mercy, forever
* 1 Corinthians ix. 27.    t Ephesians iv. 30.
t Hebrews vi. 4-6.  ~ Philippians ii. 12, 13.




196            REGENERATION.
barred out such an inquiry as this? Has he not
drawn nigh to us, from the very dawn of our
moral being, in the countless blessings and healing sorrows of his providence, -in the religious
aspects and voices of nature,- in the teachings,
warnings, promises of the gospel,- in the example, the love, the reconciling blood of Christ,
- in secret visitings of his spirit, which we all
have felt, which we cannot escape or shut out,
and in which, in what countless instances, has
he verified to each of our hearts the words,' Behold, I stand at the door and knock!' Yes.
And in every step that we take on the path to
eternal life, is the Father with us, keeping our
feet from falling, and our souls from death. We
enter the outward world, and gain bodily strength
and vigor, only because in him we live, and
move, and have our being, -because he sustains
this marvellous machine in tension and activity,
keeps in tune the harp of thousand strings, supplies nature's waste from his own fountain of
life, propels the warm  current through every
limb and every vein. -Equally, it seems to me,
does the soul's true life'flow unceasingly from
him. From him proceed all holy desires, good
counsels, and just works. His working in us is
the essential condition of our spiritual health
and activity.
Yet, in regeneration,- our will must consent
with his. There must be a determined choice




REGENERATION.            197
and effort on our part. The vows of penitence,
the meditations on our Father's and our Saviour's love, the holy resolutions, the heavenward
strivings, by which we are to be born again,
must flow from our own free will and purpose;
nor can we be inwardly renewed, without our
own earnest and diligent effort, our own voluntary prayers, our own free-will offering, and
cheerful, whole-hearted consecration of body,
soul, and life to our Master's service. Aid from
God we shall indeed have, and must have, at
every step. It will be in the strength that he
gives us, that we shall endure and conquer. But
God's aid, essential and powerful as it is in the
spiritual life, is not irresistible. God help us, as
a judicious father helps a child, when he is unwilling to control, while he earnestly desires that
he should decide and act rightly. Such a father
gives his son kind advice, surrounds him with
good examples and influences, furnishes him
with the best materials of judgment; but still
the son may, from waywardness or passion,
decide and act contrary to the father's wishes.
Of this nature are the influences of the Divine
Spirit for man's regeneration,-influences, which
may be grieved and quenched, or which may be
made to bring forth fruit unto everlasting life.
VI. We next ask: What evidences of regeneration in ourselves ought we to deem sufficient?
This question it is the object of so much of my




198             REGENERATION.
preaching to answer, that I the less regret the
narrow space, in which it must be answered
now. In general terms, spirituality of character
is the sign that we have been born again.' That
which is born of the spirit, is spirit. If we are
regenerated, we shall look at things in their
spiritual aspects; and shall regard our spiritual
relations and duties as of paramount importance.
We shall delight in prayer. We shall habitually
feel the presence of God, and shall refer our
thoughts, words, and deeds, to his will and law,
as to their only standard. Religious subjects,
duties, and services, will always be welcome,
and never a weariness or a burden. But the
supreme law of the spiritual life is love, — love
to God, —love to every child of God, - love to
God with the heart and soul, the mind and
strength, —love to man, tender, constant, forbearing, forgiving, ready to impart, glad to bless,
rejoicing with the happy, sympathizing with the
afflicted, showing mercy to all.
In the regenerate life, also, we are united to
Christ, as the branch to the vine. Our virtues
grow from his. Our spiritual graces twine themselves about him  as their tree of life.  There is
a conscious reception of light and aid from his
example and his spirit. We shall be able to say
of this sin,'I have striven against it, because
my Master forbade it;' and of that virtue,' I
have labored to acquire it, because I found it in




REGENERATION.            199
the Lord Jesus;' and of our general tone of
character and habits of life,'I am what I am,
because I have been with Jesus, and learned
of him, and humbly striven to follow him in
all things.'
These hints may supply heads of self-examination, which I have not time to draw out as I
could wish; and they must needs recall to my
stated hearers the tests of Christian character,
which they are wont to hear set forth from this
pulpit.
VII. I hasten to our closing inquiry: What
evidence of regeneration should we seek in others,
as a prerequisite to Christian fellowship?  None
but the all-seeing God can tell with certainty,
who are the regenerate, and who the unsanctifled. In the Christian Church, the wheat and
the tares must grow together till the harvest.
Therefore, while, in judging of our own spiritual
state, we should make our standard of Christian
character as high as possible, in determining
with whom we will hold Christian fellowship,
we should so shape it, as to include even'the
least in the kingdom of heaven.' By making
our terms of fellowship thus broad, we may indeed embrace some, whose names are not written in the book of life; but we had better treat
as Christian brethren ten false pretenders to
the name, than reject one, whom Christ has
received.




200           REGENERATION.
Let us beware how we make our own creed,
or ritual, or views of duty on any points that
admit of question, a standard for our brethren.
On these points we are as liable to err as they
are; and they have the same right to condemn
us, that we have to condemn them. But there
are two things, which we may expect to find in
the subjects of Christian regeneration, and the
lack of either of which would compel us, however reluctantly, to doubt the Christian character
of one, who- on any ground sought to be recognized as a Christian. One of these relates to
profession;'the other to practice.
1. The first is a willingness to own Christ as
an authoritative teacher, and as the one appointed Mediator between God and man, and,
as a consequence of this, habitual reverence for
his name, his gospel, and everything that he has
made sacred. Christian fellowship is a fellowship in Christ, and not out of him. If, therefore,
he be disowned, his name blasphemed, and his
gospel set at nought, by any men of virtuous life
and conversation, we may and should give them
full credit for whatever virtues they manifest,
and whatever good they do; but it is absurd to
think of them as subjects for Christian fellowship. Were we, on account of their good lives,
to call them Christians, we should be conferring
a name, which is not ours to give, but can be
given only to those, for whom it is appointed




REGENERATION.           201
by the Father; and he surely cannot have appointed it for any, by whom it is despised or
undervalued.
2. The other essential prerequisite to Christian recognition, is a general outward conformity
to the unquestioned rules of duty; - a generally
virtuous life and conversation. We are not to
look for perfection in others, while we are conscious of falling far short of it ourselves. But
we may expect in those, who are renewed
through the grace of Christ, some good degree
of conformity to his image and spirit.
But, after all, the best rule is, for us to be as
close and thorough as we can be, in the judgment of our own hearts; but always to bring to
the judgment of another's character that charity,
which' thinketh no evil, believeth all things, and
hopeth all things.'
I trust that this discussion, though in the form
of a doctrinal exposition, may not pass, without;
leading my hearers to diligent self-examination
as to the momentous question of their own
regeneration.  Of this question, my friends,
nothing can take precedence. The time is hastening on for each of us, and for some is doubtless near, when it will be echoed in the thunder
tones of approaching death. Let it be put and
answered by each of us before he sleeps; and,
whatever our amiable traits of character, whatever our endowments of mind and heart, if not
17




202            REGENERATION.
sanctified by Christian faith and the spirit of
self-consecration, let us hear, as from the lips of
him, whose words are God's eternal truth,'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God.'




LECTURE VII.
THE  ATONEMIE NT.
2 CORINTHIANS V. 18, 19.
THE MINISTRY OF RIECONCILIATION, TO WIT, THAT GOD WAS IN
CHRIST RECONCILING THE WORLD UNTO HIMSELF.
THE ATONEMENT will be the subject of the two
remaining lectures of this course. I commence
with a few remarks on the word atonement, and
its use in the Scriptures. Atonement is at-onement, reconciliation, the bringing together, or at
one, of those who have been at variance. It is a
word employed but once in our translation of the
New Testament; and that is in the following
passage:'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. And not only so, but we also joy in God,
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we
have now received the atonement,' that is, the
reconciliation just spoken of.*  The same Greek' Romans v. 10, 11.




204          THE ATONEMENT.
word occurs elsewhere, but is rendered reconciliation. It is the word so rendered in our text.
The word atonement is often used in our translation of the Old Testament; but there it simply
means ritualpurification, and can have no reference to reconciliation between God and man,
since atonement is said to have been made for
inanimate objects, as for the altar, and for a
house infected with leprosy. The Hebrew word
rendered to atone, denotes to cover, or smear
over; and it no doubt came to imply purification, from the ceremonial smearing of the persons
or things purified, with oil or with blood.
Atonement, reconciliation between God and
man, through Christ, through his death, is the
doctrine of all Christian believers. The.question
at issue is, Which party did Christ reconcile to
the other,- God to man, or man to God? Some
suppose that Christ died to reconcile God to
man, to appease the divine wrath, to make God
willing or able to forgive man's guilt. Others
maintain that God never was, and never can be
alienated from his human family, so as to need
atonement; but that it is man, alienated from
God by sin, that needs and receives the atonement, and that Christ lived and died to reconcile
guilty man to a Father of unchangeable love.
The latter is the view, which you have always
heard from this pulpit. The former is the theory
of that branch of the Church called Calvinistic.




THE A'TO'QNEMENT.         205
The Calvinistic doctrine, stated more in detail, is
this. God has affixed to every sin, nay, to original sin derived from Adam, the penalty of
eternal torments. God's justice forbids him to
forgive man's iniquity, unless this penalty be in
some way satisfied. Christ interposed, and took
upon himself the weight of agony and torment,
which those who are forgiven would otherwise
have borne, and because he thus suffered in their
stead, they go clear. This doctrine, with slight
modifications, is held by the majority of our
Christian public. One of these modifications
introduces the idea of imputed righteousness,
maintaining that, as men, though personally
guiltless, are made sinners by the imputation of
Adam's. guilt, so those, who are saved, though
personally destitute of holiness, are made holy
by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.
This is a notion so opposed to common sense,
so self-contradictory in its terms, and so generally
laid aside by its former advocates, as to claim
only the most cursory notice. Another modification of the popular doctrine is, that, though
Christ may not have suffered the full amount of
what was due to man's guilt, yet what he suffered was accepted by the Father as a full equivalent for what man ought to have suffered. But
the main idea of this doctrine, in all its modifications, is substitution, vicariousness,, one's stand17*




206           THE ATONEMENT.
ing in another's stead, and bearing what he
ought to have borne.
The first remark to be made upon this doctrine
is, that it is nowhere distinctly stated in the
Scriptures. This its advocates admit.  They
maintain that it is strongly implied in several
scattered texts in the apostolic epistles, and in
one or two in the prophet Isaiah. But is it conceivable that a doctrine of such infinite moment
should not have been explicitly stated in the
Bible? It is, I think, admitted on all sides, that
a vicarious atonement was not distinctly taught
by our Saviour in any of his recorded discourses,
and that, when he died, his immediate followers
were as ignorant of the purpose of his death, as
they were at his nativity. But why was this?
He often spoke of his approaching dissolution;
why did he make no disclosure of its purpose?
By the statements, which he did make, he manifestly failed to reconcile his disciples to his departure from them; but, had he once told them
that God could not pardon the penitent without
his dying, they would have understood that it
was expedient for them that he should go away.
Nor yet does our Saviour make any additional
disclosure on this point after his resurrection.
The vicarious atonement, one would suppose,
must have formed, if true, an essential part of
the preaching of the apostles. But, in the discourses preached by Peter and Paul to congre



THE ATONEMENT.            207
gations, that were listening to Christian instruction for the first time, we find not a word of this
doctrine, now regarded by so many as the cardinal point of the gospel scheme. Yet, through
these discourses, converts were made by thousands; and these, not converts of an hour, but
such as'continued steadfastly in the apostles'
doctrine and fellowship.'
Equally little do we find of this doctrine in the
writings of the Christian fathers of the first three
centuries. The idea of substitution, or of a price
paid to appease the divine justice, cannot be
traced in any of their works now extant, though
among these works are creeds, defences, apologies, and avowed statements of the whole Christian system. This fact is admitted, and referred
to with surprise, by Orthodox commentators
upon the writings of the fathers. Flacius, a
learned pupil of Luther, says that the Christian
writers of the primitive age'discoursed, like
philosophers, of the law, and its moral precepts,
and of the nature of virtue and vice; but they
were totally ignorant of man's natural corruption, the mysteries of the gospel, and Christ's
merits.' The same writer, speaking of Eusebius,
the ecclesiastical historian, (who flourished early
in the fourth century, and than whom none stood
higher in the Church on the score of learning or
authority,) says:' It is a very low and imperfect
description, which he gives of a Christian, mak



208           THE ATONEMENT.
ing him only a man, who, by the knowledge of
Christ and his doctrine, is brought to the worship
of the one true God, and the practice of sobriety,
righteousness, patience, and other virtues. But
he has not a word about imputed righteousness.'
I cannot forbear quoting the well-merited and
delicate irony, with which Lardner dismisses
these passages from Flacius.'Poor, ignorant,
primitive Christians, I wonder how they could
find the way to heaven. They lived near the
time of Christ and his apostles. They highly
valued, and diligently read the Holy Scriptures,
and some of them wrote commentaries upon
them; but yet, it seems they knew little or nothing of their religion, though they embraced and
professed it with the manifest hazard of all
earthly good things; and many of them laid
down their lives, rather than renounce it.'
These considerations certainly furnish a strong
presumption against the doctrine under discussion, yet cannot be regarded as conclusive; for
they have been admitted by its most intelligent
advocates and defenders. Let us then analyze
the doctrine, and see on what foundation it
rests.
It assumes for its basis the position, that
God's law annexes eternal punishment to every
sin, without reference to the repentance or reformation of the sinner. This is an idea wholly
unsustained by Scripture, and supported mainly




THE ATONEMENT.            209
by fragments of texts, which, quoted entire,
would imply the opposite doctrine. It is stated
as the stern, unbending law of God's revealed
word,' The soul that sinneth, it shall die.' This
is indeed a part of the law as revealed through
Ezekiel. But the prophet adds:'But if the
wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath
committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that
which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he
shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath
committed, they shall not be mentioned unto
him: in his righteousness that he hath done he
shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the
wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and
not that he should return from his ways, and
live?'"  Now I am utterly unable to discern the
propriety, or the honesty of quoting the first portion of this passage, as the eternal moral law of
God, and omitting the latter part. All through
the Old Testament, the promise of pardon to
the penitent is connected with the denunciation
of punishment against the sinner.' If they shall
confess their iniquity, then will I remember my
covenant,' was God's uniform declaration to the
nation of Israel. The whole spirit of the Old
Testament towards sinners is expressed in these
words of God through Ezekiel:' When I say
unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he
* Ezekiel xviii. 20-23.




210            THE ATONEMENT.
turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful
and right; if the wicked restore the pledge, give
again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of
life, without committing iniquity: he shall surely
live, he shall not die.'" It is said that this law
of pardon had reference to the intended sacrifice
of Christ, —to'the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?'  This is an entirely gratuitous assumption, not only unsustained by
Scripture, but opposed to certain very plain declarations of the New Testament, which represent Christ's mission as tie consequence, not the
cause, of God's forgiving mercy. Such are these
texts, which might be multiplied indefinitely.'God so loved the world that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him,
should not perish, but have everlasting life.' t' Herein is love, not that we loved God, but That
he loved uts, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.' j' God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.' ~
But it is maintained that divine justice forbids
the pardon of the penitent. Now, by justice as
applied to God, we either mean some attribute,
of which we have no knowledge, or else we
mean the same attribute, which we denominate
justice between man and man.  If the former,
then whatever we affirm or deny with regard to
* Ezekiel xxxiii. 14, 15.  t John iii. 16.
t 1 John iv. 10.       ~ 2 Corinthians v. 19.




THE ATONEMENT.            211
the divine justice is mere hap-hazard assertion,
and one assertion is as good as another. But to
my mind nothing is more certain than this, —
that, when God reveals himself to mankind as
merciful, and holy, and just, he means, that he is
possessed of' those attributes, which all men designate, and which good men cherish and practice, as mercy, holiness, and justice. Now let me
put the question to your hearts and consciences,
is it unjust to forgive the wrong-doer, when he
repents? If my neighbor has done me a very
great injury, and novw repents of it, is it unjust
for me to forgive him? You would think me beside myself, were I to ask the question seriously,
and with regard to a case actually in hand. In
forgiving my penitent neighbor, I wrong no one.
I give him what I take from no one else; for
mercy grows by exercise. I give him what I
owe him as a fellow-being, and a legitimate object of sympathy and charity. If your little child
has been disobedient, and is now sorry for it, do
you regard it as unjust for you to forgive him?
Are you unrighteous, because, on account of his
regret for his fault and his promise of amendment, you forbear the chastisement, which the
fault persisted in might seem to merit? No;
for you only give to the child from that fountain
of paternal love, which God caused to well up
within you for the child's benefit. You give the
child what is rightfully his own. No more is




212           THE ATONEMENT.
God unjust in extending free, unpurchased mercy
to his penitent child.
Still farther, I contend that divine justice not
only admits, but necessarily includes and implies,
the forgiveness of the penitent sinner. It would
be unjust for God not to forgive the contrite.
That stern, flinty, inexorable vice, not virtue,
which technical theologians have been wont to
call justice, is not what they term it. Such a
counterfeit of justice, if it exist anywhere, is to
be found with the devil and his angels. True
justice is the perfection of goodness. It is a
goodness, which does no wrong, which is impartial, and not a respecter of persons, which renders
to all their due, and which, in every place and
relation, discharges the appropriate offices of that
place or relation. Now God is our Father; and
the justice of a father is firm, discreet, impartial,
yet munificent affection. What title to the character of a just man could be claimed, think you,
by that human father, who turned a deaf ear to
the sincere penitence of his erring son? To be
sure, the son could base no claim upon his past
merits. IDut the father would owe it to his own
nature, to the spontaneous impulses of a paternal heart, to forgive him. He would do himself
the most outrageous injustice by persevering in
ahger and in vindictive measures. Thus it is
also with our Father in heaven. Though his
erring children can build no claim on the ground




THE ATONEMENT.             213
of past merit or obedience, he yet owes to himself to forgive them.  He would be unjust, false
to his own nature, were he to despise the sighing
of the contrite, and the desire of the penitent.
He would, in that case, withhold from men that,
which, though they could not claim it on the
score of merit, is their rightful due as his creatures, as his children. I maintain, then, that the
forgiveness of the sincere penitent is an essential part of the divine justice. As such it is
represented by the sacred writers. What could
be more explicit on this point, than St. John's
declaration:'If we confess our sins, God is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins?'
I next remark, that, if it is inconsistent with
the divine justice not to forgive the penitent, it is
still more so, to punish the innocent instead of
the guilty. If justice has any signification whatever, it certainly includes and implies the rendering to each individual, and to no other in his
stead or for his sake, the good or the evil that is
his due.  Apply the principle of the vicarious
atonement to human affairs, and see how much
wrong it would produce, of how much iniquity
it would be the parent. We will suppose a case.
A man has been sentenced to the penitentiary
for forgery, for a term  of twenty years.  At the
expiration of ten years, it is represented to the
chief magistrate, that, at an early period of his
* 1 John i. 9.
18




214          THE ATONEMENT.
confinement, he showed decided marks of deep
contrition, that his conduct has been without
exception exemplary, and that he will, undoubtedly, if pardoned, be a worthy and valuable
member of society, in fine, that he is among the
fittest subjects for executive clemency.  The
governor says:' Yes, he surely ought to be pardoned. But the sentence must be executed. Go
then, take him from his cell, and immure in his
stead, for the next ten years, that good man over
the way. He has never broken the law in any
one point. He is the best citizen we have; and
there is no other man, by whose imprisonment
the majesty of the law can be so well sustained.' Would you not infer, that this magistrate's conscience and moral sentiment had been
paralyzed? Would you not deem such a procedure the very climax of unrighteousness? Or
suppose that one of my children had incurred
some threatened punishment, but was now penitent for the fault;, and that the other, an innocent,
loving little creature, begged to be punished in
her sister's stead, — you would never afterwards
trust my judgment in matters of right and wrong,
if, even at the instance of the child's own compassion, I punished the faultless one, and let the
guilty go. The native instinct of the human
heart relucts at the very idea of a vicarious
penalty, and demands that punishment be either
remitted, or visited upon the offender in his own




THE ATONEMENT.           215
person. Now it is in the highest degree unbecoming and irreverent to ascribe to God a course
of conduct, which we should reprehend and despise in man.
But it is said, that to forgive the sin of the
penitent, without laying its punishment on some
other person, encourages sin. I have never been
able to see the force of this objection to the doctrine of the free, unpurchased mercy of God.
And, if it has any force, it belongs no less to the
doctrine of vicarious atonement, than to that of
free pardon; for, in either case, repentance is the
only condition required of the sinner. Nor can
he be restrained from sin by an unwillingness to
add to the sufferings of his substitute; for, according to the popular doctrine, the punishment,
and that an infinite one, has been already borne,
and consequently cannot be increased by any
additional amount of guilt. To my mind, forgiveness on the sole condition of repentance
holds out a premium to goodness, not to sin. It
keeps the prize of holiness within sight and
reach of the sinner at every pause of his guilty
career, whenever conscience wakes and passion
sleeps. It opens, from every corner in his path
of sin, cross paths to the road, from which he
has wandered. It cries at every step,' Turn ye,
turn ye; for why will ye die?' It seems to me
to imply the strangest confusion of ideas, to
maintain that sin is encouraged by promises,




216           THE ATONEMENT.
which can be of no effect, till sin is repented of
and forsaken.
But we are told, that the burdened conscience
needs a vicarious atonement, and can feel secure
of forgiveness, only when it can behold its punishment laid upon another's shoulders.  That
this feeling is a very frequent element in religious experience, I have no doubt. I believe that
very many burdened consciences can find relief
only through a vicarious atonement. But this
state of feeling is created by the very doctrine,
which it craves. Men feel thus, when under
conviction of sin, because they have been taught
to regard the Almighty as unwilling or unable
to forgive sin, without the substituted suffering
of another, —because they have never had the
infinite mercy of God presented to them as a
ground of trust and hope, — because they have
always had associations of wrath and vengeance
connected with him, and thus have been constrained to look to the Son for that forgiveness,
for which they have been forbidden to go to the
Father. But, where the Father's forgiving love
is set forth as full, large, and free, the sin-burdened conscience can cast its burden upon him,
though in utter self-reproach and self-abasement,
yet without a shadow of doubt or fear.
I have thus far reasoned, as if the popular
dogma of the atonement were consistent with
the confessedly Scriptural doctrine of the remis



THE ATONEMENT.           217
sion or forgiveness of sins. But it is not so. If
the one be true, the other cannot be. If you
owe me a sum of money, and your neighbor
pays it to me in your stead, there is no remission
of the debt on my part. If you injure me, and
I punish your son or brother in your stead, I
exercise no forgiveness. Vicarious punishment
is not pardon; but the two are at opposite poles
of the moral universe. If God has taken full
punishment upon Christ, if he has exacted from
him the full price, he has put it for ever out of
his own power to forgive sin, - he has blotted
the very idea of pardon out of his book, -he
has made the remission of sin, impossible. If
Christ has paid my debt, I owe nothing. If
Christ has borne my punishment, I am no longer liable to punishment. I therefore can no
longer be the subject of pardon, or of the remission of sins. But if there is any one doctrine,
that gives the key-note to the whole New Testament, it is that of the forgiveness of sins; and
the dogma, which renders this impossible, can
have no place in the counsel of God.
We might, were it necessary, show the absurdity of the popular notion of the vicariousness
of Christ's sufferings, by a still farther analysis
of the ideas, which it includes or implies. It is
a doctrine held only by Trinitarians; and to
them the question may be fairly put, How can
God punish God, or be punished by God? How
18*




218          THE ATONEMENT.
can God pay a penalty to God, or cancel a debt
due to God? This difficulty was felt by some
of the early advocates of the doctrine under consideration; and, to obviate it, they decided, (and
such was the general belief of the church for
several centuries,) that the price or penalty, paid
by Christ, was paid to the devil, in lieu of the
souls which Christ ransomed from his power.
We might also ask, how is it in the nature of
things possible, that Christ, an innocent, holy
being, could have borne the punishment due to
human guilt? For in what does that punishment consist? It consists in the forfeiture of
the divine favor, and of the sympathy and comrn
panionship of the good, in the stings of an evil
conscience, in the undying goadings of depraved
desire and unholy passion, in a state of protracted opposition to the divine government and
disobedience of the divine law. It is a burden,
which, from its very nature, could have, been
borne by no innocent being, least of all, by a
being perfect, divine, and infinite.
It is said, that, in intense physical suffering,
Christ bore the full equtivalent of these inward
torments due to the sins of the whole world?
We ask, when; where? We read, indeed, of
the agony of Gethsemane. But that, though
intense and awful, was but for a brief season,
and was sustained with a spirit so full of submission and of filial piety, as to make such woe,




THE ATONEMENT.           219
even if protracted through eternity, a heaven,
compared with the torment of an unreconciled
and rebellious soul. Then, at the crucifixion,
there was the one exclamation,'My God, my
God, why-hast thou forsaken me?' This, there
is indeed some reason to suppose, was designed
simply as a citation of the psalm commencing
with these words, which contains many things
applicable to Jesus.- But if, (as seems to me
more probable,) this exclamation was an expression of the feeling of the moment, it cannot have
implied, that he deemed himself deserted by him,
to whom, a moment afterwards, he said in the
calm  confidence of a child,'Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit;' but it must have
had reference to those outward circumstances of
tribulation, which we are accustomed to call the
hidings of God's countenance, so that it must be
understood to mean,' My God, why hast thou,
in thine inscrutable wisdom, seen fit to leave me
under such a weight of torture and of contumely?' But, with the exception of the agony
in Gethsemane, and the inference that might be
drawn, (wrongly, as I think,) from that momentary exclamation on the cross, the whole scene
of the betrayal and crucifixion is so far from
presenting the picture of one, who was enduring
the eternal suffering of myriads compressed into
a few hours, that it gives us rather,the idea of a
victory over suffering and death, so entirely won




220           THE ATONEMENT.
before the hour came, as to leave our Saviour's
spirit, with but a passing cloud, calm, free, unburdened, elastic, full of heavenly communings,
and consciously in the bosom of the Father.
But, supposing the popular doctrine of Christ's
vicarious suffering true, could such an inconceivable weight of anguish have been laid upon
him, without having left, in the record of those
hours, traces of an agony so unearthly, so infinitely surpassing the previous imagination of
beholders, that the cry of the suffering God-man
would have thrilled through the universe, and
the horror and despair of the appalling scene
would have seemed like the opening of the bottomless pit, beneath the feet of those that stood
by? What! A thousand times ten thousand,
nay, uncounted millions of eternal, and therefore
infinite, burdens of the most intense and hopeless torment of body and soul, and all these laid
upon Christ's human nature, which is represented
as finite, — is there any trace, or shadowing
forth of this, anywhere in the sacred history?
Calvin, perceiving this difficulty, maintained
that Christ spent the interval between his death
and'his resurrection in hell, suffering there the
utmost possible measure of torment and agony;
and, if the doctrine of a vicarious atonement be
true, this supposition is indispensably necessary,
to reconcile it with the narrative of the evan.
gelists.




THE ATONEMENT.           221
We might also argue against the idea of a
vicarious atonement from its manifest inconsistency with every statement of doctrine or duty,
with every discourse or parable in the New Testament, which.is capable of being considered in
connection with it.  Take, for instance, the
parable of the master, whose servant owed him
a thousand talents, -a parable, which was expressly designed to illustrate the divine forgiveness, and which we cannot suppose the great
Teacher to have so framed, as to exclude the
essential conditions of forgiveness.  Insert in
this parable the vicarious atonement, - suppose
the master to exact full payment of some other
servant, - what a heartless'mockery do you
make of the words,'He freely forgave him the
debt!'
To take another instance, the parable of the
prodigal son was undoubtedly designed to exhibit God's mercy to the penitent. Insert in this
the idea of vicarious punishment. Suppose the
parable to read as follows, (and such must be its
actual import, if the doctrine under discussion be
true.)' And when the Father saw the wanderer
returning with every mark of contrite sorrow, he
called the elder son, who had always served him,
nor transgressed at any time his commandments,
and said, My son, my first-born and best beloved,
here is thy lost brother coming back again, and
begging for the bread of my house; but the




222           TIlE ATONEMENT.
word has gone forth from my lips, that the child,
who once leaves my house, shall never return;
and I know not how to remit this sentence, unless thou wilt take upon thyself the shame, and
woe, and suffering due to his waywardness.'
Who does not perceive, that, with this gloss, the
parable loses all its worth and beauty? Nay,
had it been thus written, instead of being oftener
read, and more attractive, than any other portion
of the Bible, it would have been almost repulsive
enough, to have sunk into neglect and oblivion
the gospel that contained it.
I might refer you, in this connection, to the
petition in our Lord's prayer,'Forgive our
debts, as we forgive our debtors.' One, who
believes in the vicarious sufferings of Christ,
cannot use this petition with sincerity; for he
hopes to be forgiven in a very different way from
that, in which he knows it to be his duty to forgive. God's forgiveness is often held forth in
the New Testament, as a measure and an
example for man's forgiveness. Upon what an
appalling career of wrong and crime should we
enter, were we to make God's forgiveness on
account of the substituted sufferings of the innocent, the measure and example for our own!
I next remark, that the doctrine of Christ's
vicarious suffering represents God as a changeable being, — as indisposed at first to show mercy,
but made placable by the death of Christ. Take,




THE ATONEMENT.               223
for instance, the sentiment of one of Dr. Watts's
hymns, much used in our Calvinistic churches,
in which, speaking of God's throne, he emnploys
the following terrific language:-'Once'twas a seat of dreadful wrath,
And shot devouring flame;
Our God appear'd consuming fire,
And vengeance was his name.'Rich were the drops of Jesus' blood,
That calm'd his frowning face,
That sprinkled o'er the burning throne,
And turned the wrath to grace.'
Oh, when I have heard these words read or
sung, the image, that they have brought to my
mind, has been the farthest possible from that of
the Father God, of whom  Jesus said,'He so
loved the world that he sent his Son.'  They
have, on the other hand, placed before me the
semblance of a blood-thirsty fiend, at first ravening for his prey, and to be approached with
safety, only when satiated with carnage. But
has he, whose words are,'I am Jehovah, I
change not,' indeed sustained such an entire
revolution of disposition and character? So says
the theology of the schools. So says not the
New Testament, which never represents Christ's
mission and death as the cause of the Father's
love, but always as its fruit and pledge. Indeed,
it is to my mind a conclusive argument against
a vicarious atonement, that, wherever, in the




224           TIHE ATONEMENT.
New Testament, God is named in connection
with the mediation and death of Christ, he is
spoken of, not as the object of Christ's mission
and atonement, but as its author, and as having
originated it in love to men, that he might draw
them to himself.
But it is urged by the advocates of the popular doctrine, that Christ's death is often spoken
of in the Scriptures as a sacrifice. This is indeed the case; and I know of no term, which
could have been more naturally and properly
applied to the death of Christ, than this. His
death was a sacrifice offered for the redemption
of man. This, no Christian doubts. The question is, was it a vicarious sacrifice? That it was
not, would appear from the striking, yet neglected
fact, that, in the Scriptures, Christ is oftener compared to a sacrifice, which was not even a sinoffering, namely, to the paschal lamb, than to any
other part of the Jewish ritual. He is frequently
called the Lamb, also our passover. The figure
is drawn out in full by St. Paul in the following
text:' Christ our passover is sacrificed for us;
therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old
leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and
wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of
sincerity and truth.' ~ The passover was a commemorative festival, by which the Hebrews cele* 1 Corinthians v. 7, 8.




THE ATONEMENT.            225
brated their deliverance from Egyptian bondage;
and the paschal lamb was the chief food for this
anniversary supper. Christ in his death was
likened to this lamb, because there clustered
about his death associations of deliverance from
a worse than Egyptian bondage, from the slavery of doubt, and fear, and sin; and also, because,
in the Christian festival, designed to supersede
the passover, bread, emblematic of the Saviour's
body broken on the cross, took the place of the
paschal lamb.
The vicarious atonement has been professedly
sustained by analogies drawn from the Old Testament; but, in point of fact, there was no such
thing as vicarious suffering under the Jewish
law. Most of the Jewish offerings and sacrifices
were not sin-offerings; but either thank-offerings,
offerings of firstlings and first-fruits, designed
chiefly for the subsistence of the priests and Levites; or offerings in acknowledgment; as those
unintended omissions or transgressions of the
ritual law, to which no moral guilt was attached.
Moreover, very many of the sacrifices were bloodless ones, offerings of fine flour, oil, wine, fruit,
and grain. And in this connection, it is an important and instructive fact, that the animal,
made typically to bear the sins of the whole
people, on the great annual day of atonement,
was not slain.'The priest shall lay both his
hands upon the head of the goat, and confess
19




226           THE ATONEMENT.
over him all the iniquities of the children of
Israel, and all their transgressions in all their
sins, putting them upon the head of the goat;
and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man
into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon
him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited:
and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.'"
This is the only instance in the Old Testament,
in which sin is said to be laid upon any animal,
or in which language seeming to imply vicariousness or substitution is used in connection with
any part of the Mosaic ritual; and, in this service, the animal was not made to suffer in any
form or way. But this was a part of the great
annual confession-service or remission-service, in
which, if anywhere, the idea of vicarious suffering must needs have been introduced. This idea,
however, cannot be traced in any portion or
feature of the Mosaic dispensation.
Sacrifice was, in fact, a symbolical form of
worship, which all nations have practised in their
infancy, and which, under the Mosaic law, was
regulated and sanctioned, as still adapted to the
imperfect culture and rude habits of the covenant people. Under a low state of civilization,
sacrifice was an obvious means of attesting the
sincerity of the religious sentiment. It was symbolical prayer or praise. He, who was penitent,
* Leviticus xvi. 21, 22.




THE ATONEMENT.            227
fined himself in a sin-offering. He, who was
thankful, showed the fervor of his gratitude by
setting aside from his own use, and consecrating
in some form, accordant with the notions of his
times, a part of that wherein God had prospered
him.  Christ's death bore, therefore, a closer
analogy to the slaying of the paschal lamb, with
its glad associations of deliverance and divine
guidance, than to any other part of the ancient
ritual; and we can thus account for the frequency with which the passover furnishes the
sacred writers with the phraseology -employed
with reference to the crucifixion.
Inasmuch as Christ's death was a sacrifice,
whatevier view we may take of its object or its
efficacy, it would have been very strange if the
sacred writers, who were all Jews, had not often
employed with reference to it the word sacrifice,
and the phrases usually connected with that
word. But it would have been still more
strange, and certainly would have authorized the
suspicion of some peculiar and mysterious signification attached to this phraseology, if, employing it with reference to the death of Christ, they
had used it on no other subject. But such is
not the case. They have used the word sacrifice
(and connected with it offer up and similar
phrases) with reference to a large variety of subjects. The following are a few of the instances.'I beseech you, therefore, brethren, that ye pre



228            THE ATONEMENT.
seht your bodies a living sacrifice.'*'If I be
offered upon the sacrifice and service of your
faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.']t'I am
full, having received of Epaphroditus the things
which were sent from you, an odor of a sweet
smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to
God.':'Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to
God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips,
giving thanks to his name. But to do good,
and to communicate, forget not; for with such
sacrifices God is well pleased.' ~' Ye also, as
lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an
holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.' 1 From
these examples, we see that nothing like vicarious
suffering is implied in the frequent comparison
of our Saviour's death to the sacrifices under the
Jewish ritual.
Indeed, would we only interpret the sacred
writings by the common laws and customs of
speech, we should be at no loss for the origin of
phraseology of the kind now under consideration. In figurative language, we constantly style
beings, whether human or divine, whom  we
revere or love, by the names of objects which we
peculiarly admire or prize. How frequently are
such words as gem, jewel, diamond, applied to'
valued human friends. In like manner, Christ is
* Rom. xii. 1.  t Phil. ii. 17.    $ Phil. iv. 18.
~ Heb. xiii. 15, 16.  11 1 Peter ii. 5.




THE ATONEMENT.              229
called in the Scriptures the morning star, the
temple, and the light of heaven, and the like.
Now a devout Jew would have been more likely
to have borrowed such titles for the Saviour from
the revered ri.tual, under which he had been born
and educated, than from any other source. But
the multitude and diversity of such titles, borrowed from the Jewish ritual, preclude any doctrinal inference, which might be drawn from the
use of any one of them. He is called not only
a sacrifice, in the sense of a slain victim; but
also,'a sacrifice, for a sweet-smelling savour,' 
that is, an incense-offering, — then again, the
mercy-seat,j- (for this, all sound commentators
and critics admit, is the meaning of the word
rendered propitiation in the third chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans,)- then, the high priest,
(frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews,) —
then also the veil between the holy place and
the holy of holies.:  Now all these analogies
are true, beautiful, instructive, and edifying.
They all open rich veins of devotional thought
and feeling, and reflect back upon the Old Testament rays of gospel light, which cover it with
the glory of the New, and shed around it the
celestial halo, that encircled our Saviour's own
brows. But you will see at once, that, if these
analogies had been designed to represent doe* Eph. v. 2.    t Rom. iii. 25.  t Heb. x. 20.
19*




230          THE ATONEMENT.
trinal facts, they could not all have been used.
If, in a dogmatic point of view, Christ was a
slain victim, he could not have been also an
incense-offering, - if an offering, he could not
have been also the mercy-seat, on which no
offering was laid, -if a sacrifice, he could not
have been also the high priest, who offered
sacrifice. These comparisons, which, if anything
more than figures, clash so harshly with each
other, must then be regarded as mere images,
designed to shadow forth, under various aspects,
the power, the love, and the sufferings of Christ.
These figures occur chiefly in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which was written mainly to impress upon Jewish minds the spiritual majesty
and beauty of Christianity. The Jewish converts missed, in Christianity, the outward beauty
of holiness, to which they had been accustomed, the solemn tread of the priestly train,
the pompous ceremonial of the great day of
expiation, the smoke of the daily sacrifice. The
writer of this epistle aimed to reconcile those,
to whom he wrote, to the simplicity of the
Christian system and ritual, by showing them,
that, for everything beautiful and glorious in
Judaism, Christianity offered something greater
and more perfect of the same kind. The burden
of the epistle is:' God spake to the fathers by
the prophets; to us by his Son. Judaism has its
succession of dying high priests, who must per



THE ATONEMENT.           231
form the same service over again every year; we
have an unchang eable high priest, who remains
forever, and whose one service and oblation is
forever sufficient. Under the old dispensation,
there was a tabernacle, glorious and beautiful,
made with hands; ours is a greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands.' Thus
also, with numerous other particulars. If you
will take this idea with you in reading the Epistle to the Hebrews, it will give that epistle a harmony and consistency, which you may not now,
perhaps, be able to trace in it; and you will
regard it as the very best form, in which Jewish
prejudices could have been overcome, and the
Christian faith of one born a Jew could have
been conciliated or confirmed. This view of the
epistle will account for much of the phraseology
commonly quoted in the discussion, of the atonement, and may prepare us for the consideration
of particular texts upon this subject, to which I
shall invite you in the next lecture.
My hour is fully spent; and I have spent it in
negations, which I dislike to do, when it can be
avoided. But on account of the tenacity with
which many cling to the view, against which I
have been contending, I have deemed it necessary to give it as thorough a discussion as
possible, before presenting that view of the
atonement, which seems to me both rational,
Scriptural, and full of instruction and edification.




32          THIE ATONEMENT.
None can attach a higher efficacy than I would,
to the cross and death of Christ; but I believe,
(as I shall attempt to show you in the next lecture,) that it is, in the language of our text,' God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,' and not Christ reconciling God to man.
As a sacrifice of love, in which God and Christ
consent, may the Saviour's atoning blood be
applied to our hearts and consciences, so that'we, having received the atonement, may joy in
God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.'




LECTURE VIII.
THE ATONEMENT.
1 PETER III. 18.
CHRIST ALSO HATE ONCE SUFFERED FOR SINS, THE JUST FOR THE
UNJUST, THAT HE MIGHT BRING US TO GOD.
IN my former lecture on THE ATONEMENT, I
confined myself chiefly to the obvious considerations opposed to the doctrine of our Saviour's
vicarious or substituted suffering. I showed you
that this doctrine has no place in the recorded
teachings of our Saviour, of his apostles, or of
the early Christian fathers; that the forgiveness
of the penitent was always a part of God's law;
that the forgiveness of the penitent is not only
consistent with perfect justice, but an essential
part of justice; that Christ's vicarious sufferings
destroy the doctrine of pardon, inasmuch as
there can be no pardon, where the full penalty is
paid; and that, so far from being an encouragement to sin, the free forgiveness of the penitent,
and of those only, is the surest inducement to




234           THE ATONEMENT.
goodness.  I then spoke of the absurdity of
maintaining, as our Trinitarian brethren do, that
God can punish God, or can be punished by
God. I then showed you, that there are no
traces, in the gospel history, of the infinite weight
of agony said to have been laid upon our Saviour. I next exhibited the inconsistency of the
vicarious atonement with some of our Saviour's
principal statements of religious doctrine, - then
too, with the immutability of the divine attributes. I then took up the frequent comparison
of our Saviour to the Jewish sacrifices, on which
rests perhaps the most frequently urged argument in favor of the vicariousness of his death.
I showed you that the Jewish sacrifices were not
vicarious; that Christ is more frequently compared to the paschal lamb, which was not even
a sin-offering, than to any other part of the
Jewish ritual; that comparisons with reference
to his death are drawn indifferently from every
portion of the Jewish ritual, which comparisons,
if they designate doctrinal truths, are inconsistent with each other, and can be harmonized
only by supposing them mere figures; and that
the word sacrifice, with its corresponding phraseology, is employed with reference to a large
variety of subjects and persons, other than Christ
and his'death. I now resume the subject; and
may tax your patience for an unusual length of
time, as I am solicitous to complete my discussion of the atonement this evening.




TIE'ATONEMENT.           235
The advocates of the doctrine of vicarious suffering allege in its favor certain proof-texts, the
principal of which we will now pass in cursory
review. Many of these texts are, to my mind,
entirely opposed to the doctrine, in behalf of
which they are quoted; for they refer to Christ
and his death, not as removing the punishment
of sin, but as taking away sin itself, - an efficacy, which no Christian denies. Such are these
texts:'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world.' "' The blood of Jesus
Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.' t' How
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to
God, purge your conscience from dead works to
serve the living God?':: These passages cannot
imply vicarious punishment; for that does not
take away sin, or have any effect upon the sinner, - it simply takes away the wrath of God
and the penalty of his law. The taking away of
sin is a work, which can be wrought only upon
the individual's own soul and character, and with
which a vicarious atonement has no possible
connection. In point of fact, there is not a
single text in the Bible, in which Christ is said
to have taken away the punishment of men's
sins, or to have appeased God's wrath, or to have
made him propitious.
* John i. 29.   t I John i. 7.   i Hebrews ix. 14.




236            THE ATONEMENT.
I omit now the consideration of those texts,
where Christ is merely spoken of as a sacrifice;
for they were sufficiently discussed in the last
lecture. I pass to the class of texts, in which
Christ is said to bear men's sins.' Who his own
self bear our sins in his own body on the tree.' 
In like manner, Isaiah says,'Surely he hath
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows;' and,'The Lord hath laid on him, (to be thus borne,)
the iniquity of us all.' t  We fortunately have in
St. Matthew's gospel an authoritative interpretation of this phraseology. It is in the following
passage:' He cast out the spirits with his word,
and healed all that were sick;.that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the
prophet, saying, flimself took our infirmities, and
bare our sicknesses.' t  He bore them by bearing
them off, by taking them  away; for no one of
course supposes that he assumed the sicknesses,
which he cured. In fact, in each of the original
languages of the Scriptures, the word, which
means to lift or bear, means also, and perhaps
full as frequently, to take off, or to carry away.
Another class of texts-is of those, in which the
word ransom is employed. Our Saviour, as reported by Matthew and Mark, says:' Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your
minister: even as the Son of man'came, not to
* 1 Peter ii. 24.  t Isaiah liii 4, 6. i Matt. viii. 16, 17.




THE ATONEMENT.            237
be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give
his life a ransom for many.'  St. Paul also says
of Christ, that he'gave himself a ransom for
all.'t  These are the only instances, in which
the word occurs with reference to Christ. Now
the word rendered ransom undoubtedly means,
in its literal sense, money paid to the captor for
the redemption of a captive. Is it contended that
the word is used literally in the passage just
quoted? Let those, who think so, tell us then,
who was the captor of men's souls, and when
and how any sum of money was paid to that
captor. Do they say that there was no captor,
and that no money was paid? Then they must
acknowledge, that the word is figuratively employed with reference to our Saviour. But, if it
be figuratively employed, we must look for its
interpretation to its figurative use in the Bible
on other subjects. Now the corresponding word,
(both the noun and the verb,) is often used in
the Old Testament with reference to the Israelites, in such a way that it can only denote the
means or the act of deliverance. Thus, in Isaiah,
God says to his covenant people,' I gave Egypt
for thy ransom,'$  by which we cannot understand
the price paid to those, who held the Israelites in
captivity; for Egypt was the very power that
kept Israel captive, and Egypt could not have
* Matthew xx. 27, 28; Mark x. 44, 45.
t 1 Timothy ii. 6.      $ Isaiah xliii. 3.
20




238           THE ATONEMENT.
been given to Egypt, but, on the other hand,
was utterly subdued and spoiled. The sense
obviously is:'I gave up Egypt to defeat and
humiliation for thy deliverance.' In like manner
says Jeremiah:' The Lord hath redeemed Jacob,
and ransomed him from the hand of him that
was stronger than he,' * that is, not paid a price
for him, but manifestly delivered him. With
reference to the Babylonish captivity, the Israelites are called the ransomed, and the ransomed of
the Lord, by which is evidently meant, not redeemed by the payment of aprice, but simply
delivered. Deliverance, then, is the idea attached
to the word ransom, when figuratively employed
in the Bible; and, as it cannot be literally used
with regard to our Saviour, I have not the
slightest doubt, that the word means, as used
with reference to his mediation, deliverance from
darkness, error, and sin.
I would next refer to the texts, in which Christians are said to be bought with a price. There
are two of these texts. The death of Christ is
not spoken of in connection with either of them;
and they both stand in such a connection, as to
show that it is not the impunity, but the allegiance, the service of Christians, that is purchased. In one of them, the language is:' He
that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye
* remiah xxxi. 11.




THE ATONEMENT.             239
are bought with a price; be not ye the servants
of men,' * that is, by what Christ has done and
suffered in your behalf, he has purchased your
service, - has laid upon you an imperative obligation to be the servants of no other master.
The other text, in whieh this phrase occurs,
relates to the duty of self-consecration to God's
service. Know ye not that your body is the
temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which
ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For
ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God
in your body, and in your spirit, which are
God's.'t  The obvious sense of this passage is,' God, by the spiritual aid and grace, which he
has bestowed upon you, has bought your allegiance, - has established an indefeasible claim
to your service,- has made it your obvious and
imperative duty to live, not as your own, but as
his, as his in body, soul, and conduct.'
I next ask your attention to the texts, in which
Christ is spoken of as a propitiation.  They are
three. One is in the Epistle to the Romans.' Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation,
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God: to declare, I
say, at this time his righteousness, that he might
be just, and the justifier of him which believeth
* 1 Corinthians vii. 22, 23.    t 1 Corinthians vi. 19, 20.




240           THE ATONEMENT.
in Jesus.'* This text, as a whole, is certainly
opposed to the idea of vicarious suffering as the
ground of pardon; for'the remission of sins
that are past' is expressly said to be, not through
the sufferings of Christ, but'through the forbearance of God,' and Jesus is said to be'set
forth' or manifested, not to make God merciful,
but'to declare' or exhibit'his righteousness.'
The word rendered propitiation, means mercyseat. So say nearly all critics and commentators
of any authority or value. This is one of the
instances, in which our Saviour, by one who was
born and educated a Hebrew of the Hebrews, is
compared to a prominent portion of the religious
apparatus of the Jews. The mercy-seat was the
lid of the ark of the covenant. It was within the
holy of holies. Above it were the cherubim.
Upon it, and between their wings, rested, in the
day of miracles, the luminous cloud, betokening
the divine presence. On it was laid neither
sacrifice nor offering. But, once a year, the high
priest alone.entered the holy-of holies, sprinkled
the blood of victims upon the mercy-seat, offered
supplication for the divine forgiveness of the sins
of the whole people, and came forth to declare to
the assembled nation God's pardon to the penitent. How appropriately then is Jesus termed
the mercy-seat, both as the fullest possible mani* Romans iii. 25, 26.




THE ATONEMENT.            241
festation of the divine attributes, and as the messenger and pledge of the divine forgiveness!
But the appropriateness of the comparison
ceases, if you connect with it the idea of vicarious punishment. The true meaning of the rich
and beautiful passage now under consideration
may, perhaps, be discerned from the following
paraphrase.'Whom  God has set forth as a
mercy-seat through faith, [that is, a spiritual
mercy-seat,] sprinkled, not with the blood of victimns, but with his own blood, to exhibit or manifest in his own example the righteousness which
he [God] requires, (for such was the forbearance
of God, that, instead of visiting men's sins with
desolating judgments, he sent his Son to take
away sin,) to manifest in our own times the
righteousness that God requires, that God might
be just, might still adhere to that law, by which
only the penitent are pardoned, and yet, that,
through the beauty of Christ's example and the
reconciling power of his cross, many might be
led to repentance and a holy life, and might thus
be accounted as righteous in his sight.'
The other two passages, in which the word
propitiation is used, are these:' If any man sin,
we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation
for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the
sins of the whole world.' i'Herein is love, not
* 1 John ii. 1, 2.
20'




242           THE ATONEMENT.
that we loved God, but that he loved us, and
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.'*
In these texts the Greek word is not the same as
that used in the text last under discussion; but
it is a very similar word, derived from the same
verb. It is the word employed in the Septuagint
to designate the sin-offerings under the Jewish
ritual; and this I suppose to be its meaning as
used by St. John. These texts then are instances
of yet another of the comparisons, so numerous
in the New Testament, of Jesus and his death to
features and portions of the religious ceremonial
of the Jews. In my last lecture, I showed you
that the Jewish sacrifices were not vicarious;
and this being the case, the comparison of our
Saviour to one of those sacrifices can be of no
weight as an argument for the vicariousness of
his atonement.
There are two or three single texts, which now
demand our notice. One, which claims a passing comment on account of the frequency with
which it is quoted, though it has no connection
with the subject, is this:' Without shedding of
blood is no remission,' t —not, of sins, as it is
usually quoted; for the sentence relates to the
furniture of the tabernacle, which was of course
incapable of sin. The word rendered remission,
means letting go. The whole passage is: He,
* 1 John iv. 10.  f Hebrews ix. 22.




THE ATONEMENT.           243
[Moses,] sprinkled likewise with blood both the
tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
And almost all things are by the law purged
with blood; and without shedding of blood is no,
remission,' that is, nothing is let go, is left, without being sprinkled with blood, - the simple
statement of a well known fact in the Jewish
economy, which an ignorant or careless person
may indeed cite as referring to the death of
Christ, but which I see not how a biblical
scholar or a theologian could honestly quote as
teaching one thing or another with regard to it.
Another passage is:'He hath made him to be
sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be
made the righteousness of God in him.'  I
know of no commentator, who does not make
sin here to denote a sin-offering. Among those,
who give this exposition, I would mention Doddridge, McKnight, and Scott, all names of approved orthodoxy.  Says McKnight on this
verse, and with perfect truth,' There are many
passages in the Old Testament where sin signifies a sin-offering. Thus, Hosea iv. 8. They
(the priests) eat up the sin (that is, the sin-offerings) of my people. In the New Testament,
likewise, the word sin hath the same signification, Hebrews ix. 26, 28; xiii. 11.' The apostle's
assertion then is,' God has made him, who was
* 2 Corinthians v. 27.




244           THE ATONEMENT.
sinless, to be a sin-offering for us, that we through
him might be made righteous or holy.' Now,
unless it can be proved that the sin-offerings under the -Jewish dispensation were vicarious, the
comparison of Christ to these sacrifices cannot
indicate the vicariousness of his sufferings.
Another text, on which some reliance is placed,
is this:' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse
of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a
tree.'@  The phrase, being made a curse for us,
many regard as denoting, becoming accursed of
Godfor our sakes, that is, bearing his wrath and
indignation due to the guilt of man. But, on
this point, I will quote a part of McKnight's note
on the passage, simply saying, that I accord entirely with his view.' Christ's dying on the cross
is called his becoming a curse, that is, an accursed
person, a person ignominiously punished as a
malefactor; not because he was really a malefactor, and the object of God's displeasure, but
because he was punished in the manner in
which accursed persons, or malefactors, are punished. He was not a transgressor, but he was
numbered with the transgressors..
That this is the true import of the phrase having
become a curse, is evident from the passage in
the law, by which the apostle proves his asser* Galatians iii. 13.




THE ATONEMENT.             245
tion: It is written, accursed is every one who is
hanged on a tree.'
In addition to these passages, there are several
in the New Testament, in which Christ is said
to have suffered or diedfor us, or for our sins, -
reiterations in fact of the prophet's words:' He
was wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of
our peace, (that is, the chastisement, through
which our peace came,) was upon him; and
with his stripes we are healed.'* These texts
express, without ambiguity to my own mind, the
great fundamental truth with regard to Christ's
death, in which all Christians are agreed, namely,
that he died for us, died in our behalf, and that
his death is the means of our peace and happiness, both here and hereafter. They present no
difficulty, they demand no forced interpretation,
to make them consistent with the simplicity of
our faith. Nay, it is only by a forced interpretation, that they are made to denote Christ's
vicarious punishment. When you say that a
patriot died for his country, that a self-devoted
citizen suffered for the liberty or peace of his
fellow-citizens, or that a missionary offered himself to privation, suffering, or death, for the ignorance or guilt of benighted pagans, you do not
mean that one individual suffered or died in the
* Isaiah liii. 5.




246          THE ATONEMENT.
stead of others; but simply, that he suffered in
their behalf, and incurred death in his disinterested exertions for their good. Now why should
we interpret the language of the Bible on different principles from those, on which we interpret
other language? But all these complicated doctrines are founded on a broad departure from the
common laws of interpretation, and on a stubborn determination to make words and phrases
between the covers of the Bible mean something
widely different from what theywould mean in
any other book. The phrases, which denote
one's dying for another; when they occur elsewhere and on other subjects, are never deemed
mystical. Why should any mystery hang over
them, as we read them in the Bible?
I believe that I have now referred to the principal texts, or classes of texts, usually quoted by
those, who believe that Christ was punished in
our stead. I have not knowingly omitted any,
which seemed to demand notice. In closing my
remarks upon the doctrine of vicarious atonement, I would observe that the doctrine, if true,
is not one, which there is any need of our knowing, or which can exert any practical influence
upon our hearts or lives. If it be true, it is impossible, (as I showed you in the last lecture,)
for us, in the present state of our faculties, to
reconcile it with the justice of God; and the belief of it would therefore stand in the way of




THE ATONEMENT.           247
right feelings with reference to his character.
And, if it be true, it simply indicates an effect,
that was produced, two thousand years ago, on
the divine mind,- a change, that was then
wrought in the divine character.  It teaches
nothing with regard to our hearts or characters.
It indicates no change to be wrought in us. A
blood, shed to make God propitious, cannot be
sprinked upon our hearts and consciences. We
cannot be conscious of a penalty paid, or a punishment inflicted, in our behalf, ages before we
were born. It can then make no essential difference, whether we believe this doctrine or not.
The work, if wrought, may have been wrought
for the benefit of us, who can trace no authentic
records of it, no less than for that of the patriarchs and prophets of the infant world, who
died before it was wrought. We may safely
remain ignorant of what cannot possibly affect
our hearts or lives. It can be of no vital consequence for us to know those things only, by
knowing which we may be led to do what we
should otherwise leave undone, or to omit what
we should otherwise do. Tried by this test,
Christ's punishment in our stead, whether true
or false, cannot claim the place usually assigned
to it, among essential, fundamental: doctrines.
The denial of it, if it do not, (as I believe that it
does,) enhance the obligation to gratitude, penitence, and holiness, at least leaves the obligation
to those duties unimpaired.




248           THE ATONEMENT.
I now proceed to give a brief exposition of my
own views of the atonement. The three great
points, which seem to me to characterize the
Scriptural doctrine of the atonement, are, first,
that God is the author; secondly, that man is the
object; and, thirdly, that holiness is the end of
the atonement.  These three ideas are found
combined in very many of the instances, in
which the mission, mediation, and. death of
Christ are spoken of in the New Testament. I
will read two or three passages of this nature, as
specimens of scores that I might quote.
God was in Christ, reconciling the world
unto himself.'   God, the author; the world, the
object; reconciliation to himself, that is, holiness,
the end.
God hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'t  God, the author; for us,
the object; that we might be made the righteousness of God, the end.
Where God is not mentioned in the very sentence, in which our Saviour's mission, mediation,
or death, is spoken of, still the end, the production of holiness in man, is in hardly a single
instance omitted. How clearly is this end, in
contradistinction to any purpose with reference
to the disposition or character of God, expressed
in the following passages:'Christ hath also
* 2 Corinthians v. 19.  t 2 Corinthians v. 21.




THE ATONEMENT.            249
once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that
he might bring us to God.''Our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.' f' Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.'t' Who his own self bare our sins in his
own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin,
should live unto righteousness.'~
The leading idea of the Scriptural doctrine of
the atonement then is, that Christ died to make
men holy, to reconcile them to God, to lead
them to his love and service, to make them' followers of God as dear children;' in fine, that
Christ died, to work, not upon God, but upon
man, and for him to perform, not an outward,
but an inward service, - a service, the efficacy
of which is upon the human heart and character.
I am well aware that many represent this as
an inferior work, — as a work, which needed not
for its discharge a personage so eminent and
heavenly, and which can hardly have authorized
the strong language used in the Bible in regard
to Christ's death, or the exalted titles and homage ascribed to Jesus on earth and in heaven.
Had I not often heard this objection, I should
think it no compliment to your spiritual discern* 1 Peter iii. 18.   t Titus ii. 10, 11.
t 1 Timothy i. 15.   ~ 1 Peter ii. 24.
21




250           THE ATONEMENT.
ment to take notice of it; for I feel sure that I
have your entire sympathy, when I say that the
greatest service, which God himself can render
to man, is to make him holy, perfect, godlike, to
redeem him from the power of sin, and to shed
the consecration of a devout and dutiful spirit
over his whole soul and his whole life. And if
Christ has performed this service for man, then
has he performed for him the most momentous
and godlike service, possible,- a service, for
which he cannot but have a name above every
other name, and for which the eternal ascription
of gratitude and praise must echo through the
ranks of the redeemed. Leave this service unperformed, leave me in unrepented sin, with my
grovelling aims and unconsecrated life, and it is
a small service, that a price is paid, or a penalty
borne in my stead, - I carry my hell about with
me, a hell, which would shed its blackness over
my spirit, were I in paradise. But save me from
my sins, purge my conscience, sanctify my soul,
reform and consecrate my life, in hell itself I
should be proof against its torments, - I cannot
but be happy, - my heaven is within, and cannot be taken from me. The idea, that to elevate
and sanctify the inner man is a subordinate
work, proceeds from the unspiritual, grovelling
ways of thinking, that have been but too characteristic of our race taken collectively.  Men
most admire what comes with observation,



THE ATONEMENT.           251
what is external and formal. They appreciate
not what is wrought in the hidden man of the
heart, and ripens for eternity. On this ground,
the conqueror has always seemed a greater man
than the philanthropist, and the founder of a
hospital, than he, who heals the diseases of the
soul. On precisely the same principle is it, that
men have assigned a higher dignity and worth to
an atonement, which should wipe away all punishment at a single stroke, than to an atonement,
which must be wrought over afresh in each individual heart, creating it anew in the beauty of
holiness and in the fulness of the divine image.
To my own mind, the latter office with regard
to the individual soul is the highest office, which
I can imagine as belonging to the Saviour; and
to say that the blood of Christ has cleansed a
single soul from sin, and has wholly sanctified
that soul, is to ascribe more to it, than were we
to say that it has removed the mere penalty of
violated law from a whole universe of sinners.
But some one may say:'If Christ does no
more than to cleanse the soul from sin, and to
renew it in the divine image, my hope of pardon
for my past sins is gone.' It is gone, I reply, if
you will persist in looking upon God as essentially vindictive and unforgiving; but not, if you
will only take God's testimony concerning his
own character, uttered many ages before Christ
died, when he revealed himself to Moses,' The




252          THE ATONEMENT.
Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity,
and transgression, and sin.' I believe that God
was never otherwise than he then declared himself. I build no more than those, who hold an
opposite doctrine, on my own merits. I depend
for forgiveness on the eternal mercy of God,
made known to the fathers, made manifest and
incarnate in Christ. Let none call this a sandy
foundation. If God's mercy be not a sufficient
basis for our trust, I know not what can suffice.
It is a foundation broader than the universe, -
immovable, though heaven and earth pass away.
It belts creation with a zone of love. It upholds
all worlds and beings. It is boundless and infinite. The need, so often expressed of Christ's
vicarious punishment, is a need, which the doctrine itself creates. I should feel it, if I believed
that God was ever unwilling or unable to forgive. I should feel it, if I believed, in Doctor
Watts's language, that God's throne' once was
a seat of dreadful wrath,' and that'Vengeance
was his name.'
But let it not be supposed that I do not connect Christ, his sufferings, and his death, most
intimately with the forgiveness of sins. My
hope of pardon is in God through Christ. The
doctrine of pardon, even if revealed before
Christ, was not so brought to light and made




THE ATONEMENT.             253
manifest, that it could be the object of a sustaining and satisfying faith. On the question,
whether God will forgive sin, the analogies of
nature shed no light; for her subtle powers and
majestic agencies have never sinned, but are all
obedient. Those, therefore, who have been left
to the light of nature, have never found peace
under the burden of, transgression; but have
gone the whole round of fasts, penances, pilgrimages, and self-tortures, without obtaining through
any or all of these means the assurance of forgiveness. Nor did the fainter and often mysterious light of God's earlier revelations communicate this assurance in its fulness. To the
heart that knows itself, and feels its unworthiness and sinfulness, the most vital of all questions is, Can I be forgiven? And to this question,
no sufficient and satisfying answer has been
afforded, except in the loving and paternal attributes of the Almighty, as made manifest in the
person, the ministry, the cross of Christ. But,
when we look to Jesus as the image of God, we
behold in him a love full and free, ready to forgive, waiting to be gracious. We feel that there
is no limit to the mercy, which, amidst the
agonies of death, could make intercession for
the transgressors; and we can thus look for
pardon with implicit confidence to that mercy
on the throne of the universe, which he, who on
the cross prayed for his murderers, came to de21*




254          THE ATONEMENT.
clare and manifest. It is then to God, as
revealed and beheld in Christ, that we look for
pardon. But we regard the promise and pledge
of pardon, as but the means and motive to personal holiness. Jesus says to us,' Your sins be
forgiven,' only that he may add, with an emphasis, which pardoning mercy alone could send
home to the soul of the penitent,' Go, and sin
no more.' God permits us to behold his forgiving love in Christ, that, through the energy of
this love, our souls may be transformed, renewed,
and sanctified.
But in behalf of a vicarious atonement, I have
sometimes heard an appeal made to personal
experience. Let us then analyze experience, and
see how far it can go. There are many here, I
trust, who have personally'received the atonement,' who cherish the faith and hope, and lead
the life of the Christian, who feel the peace of
God in their hearts, and breathe his spirit in
their daily conversation. Were I addressing
myself to an individual of this class, I should
appeal to his own consciousness, and say, What,
my friend, are you conscious that Christ has
done for you? That he has paid any price for
you? That he has incurred any penalty due to
you? No. Of this, even if it be the case, you
cannot be conscious. Of what, then, are you
conscious? That Christ has made the name of
God a dear and cherished name to your heart;




THE ATONEMENT.           255
that he has brought you near to him, as a child
to a Father; that he has taught you to pray;
that he has made you love virtue; that he has
led you, drawn you on, in the path of duty;
that his cross and death have appealed to your
best affections, have rebuked your selfishness
and worldliness, have made you feel the beauty
of holiness, have been to your soul a touching
manifestation of divine love, have laid you
under a pleasing constraint to live, not for yourself, but for him that died for you. You have
looked upon the cross, and said,'Herein is
love;' and that love has made the yoke of
obedience easy, and the burden of duty light,
has called out your own love, has made you
heartily penitent for sin, and earnestly desirous
to live as the cross bids you live, and to be a
follower of the Lamb whithersoever he goeth.
This is the sum  of the Christian's religious
experience, - this, the atonement wrought in the
true disciple's heart, — this, the work which
takes precedence of all others, in its dignity, its
worth, and its fruits.
Let us now pause for a moment, and consider
how much is implied in that one word, atonement,- reconciliation. Here is a human being,
either sunk in gross depravity, or immersed in
the heartless pursuit of gain or pleasure. He is
alienated from God, renders him no thanks,
offers him no prayers, and lives as he might live,




256           THE ATONEMENT.
were he self-created and in a world of his own.
His sympathies are either shut up within his
own bosom, or flow within the narrow channel
of home and kindred; and, even for those whom
he loves, he seeks not the best gifts, loves not
their souls, — his love may be false, fatal to
their highest interests, - he may wreathe around
them his own chains of worldliness or guilt, —
his example and influence may be pestilential to
all within his reach. For that man atonement
is to be made. He is to be brought to God.
Those stains upon his spirit and his life are to
fade away before the light of God's countenance.
That soul must look on Jesus, till his divine
features stamp themselves upon it. That heart,
so cold, or so filled with lower loves, must be
wholly filled with the love of God. That life,
so selfish, must breathe a diffusive, all-embracing charity. That example, that influence, now
neutral, if not baneful, must bless all on whom
it shines, and lead neighbors, friends, strangers,
to give glory to God for its beautiful light. The
whole character must reflect the divine image.
There must be a reconciliation of will and purpose, a blending of the man's will with his
God's, a oneness of aim and effort, a frame of
soul and of life, of which the man may say with
truth,' God dwells in me, and I in him.' Not
until all this is the case, not until the Father's
love throbs in every pulsation of the child's heart,




THE ATONEMENT.            257
and the Father's will rules in every action of the
child's life, is the atonement, the at-one-ment,
fully made.
It is this high and glorious work, which Jesus
performs, when he brings us to the Father, when
he reconciles us unto God. This is the atonement, of which God is the author, Christ the
agent, man the object. To effect this was the
whole work of Christ's ministry, miracles, teachings, life, death, resurrection, and intercession.
But, in this work, the New Testamept assigns
the most prominent place to the death of Christ;
and every Christian heart assigns to it the same
place. He is no Christian, to whom the cross is
not dear, and who has not felt the need and
worth of a suffering Redeemer. The blood of
Calvary has been the life-blood of the Church.
For, in the first place, it is by love, that man,
when alienated from God, is softened, humbled,
and made penitent. He could resist threats.
He could steel his heart against the denunciations of vengeance. In the fearful might of a
rebellious spirit, he could dare a frowning heaven
and a vindictive Deity. But love has a voice, to
which none can listen unmoved, especially when
it makes itself heard from amidst torture and
mortal agony, incurred in behalf of those with
whom it pleads. How does the thought of one,
who suffered and died for every man, rouse the
last faint spark of virtuous feeling and of moral




258           THE ATONEMENT.
strength, and fan it into a generous flame! How
does it bring near, those who were afar off, make
them ashamed of their wanderings, and excite
the earnest longing, that for themselves such love
may not have been in vain!' Greater love hath
no man than this, that a man lay down his life
for his friends.' Jesus might have dwelt on earth
in glorious majesty, and passed to heaven from
an unsuffering ministry, and yet have loved man
no less; but man would not have discerned the
depth, or felt the power of his love, had he not
gone as a lamb to the slaughter, and freely given
himself up for us all.
But was it his own love only, that Jesus manifested on the cross? No; but also the love of
One greater than he. For he came from the
bosom of the Father; and he represented his
own mission and death as the fruit, the expression, the pledge of the Father's love.' God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son.' In him was manifested the fulness of the
Godhead bodily: and, in the depth of his compassion and the perfectness of his love, he was
exhibiting the intensity of God's pity, and the
fervor of his affection for his human family. By
carrying his love to the last point of endurance
and of sacrifice, he exhibited the boundlessness
of that mercy, which is the siiner's hope, - he
made the promise of pardon full, free, all-embracing,-he bore the image of a Father always




THE ATONEMENT.           259
ready to forgive, always waiting to be gracious.' Scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet
peradventure for a good man some would even
dare to die. But God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.' When we look at the cross,
we are constrained to ask, with St. Paul:'He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him
up for us all, how shall he not with him also
freely give us all things?' When we view God
in Christ, as Christ seals his mission with his
blood, we can exclaim, with the same apostle:'I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature, shall be able to separate
us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus
our Lord.' It is in the love and the cross of
Christ, that the Father goes forth to meet the
wandering child. It is in Christ crucified, that
he reveals the fulness of paternal love; and thus,
from the first moment, gives the penitent broad,
firm ground for encouragement and hope, without which he would have neither confidence nor
strength to retrace his evil ways, and to return
to the path of God's commandments.
Then, too, it behoved Christ, as our guide and
example in duty, as the way and the life, to be
made perfect through suffering.  His godlike
purity and virtue might have been no less perfect




260           THE ATONEMENT.
and entire in a manifestation, without suffering,
and full of outward glory. But the beauty of
the picture would have been marred by the gold
and tinsel of its setting. It shows itself most
perfect and divine, when encompassed by no outward form or comeliness, wrapped in the weeds
of sorrow, and shining forth from the shadow of
death. His submission, his tenderness, his forgiveness, his philanthropy, his piety, could have
had, in no other form, their full manifestation.
His example could have been, under no other
circumstances, so radiant with spiritual beauty,
so attractive, so inviting. It is at the cross, that
we learn the full preciousness and loveliness of
Christ's character, and feel ourselves the most
loudly called, the most tenderly entreated, to
become his followers.
Then also Christ's sufferings and death bring
his example home to those scenes of trial, conflict, sorrow, and agony, in which we are the
most strongly tempted to forsake the service of
God, and in which, therefore, we stand in the
most urgent need of divine help and strength.
We behold in him a full and perfect victory over
every enemy to our peace and progress. We
see the sting of sorrow destroyed, the power of
death subdued. We behold him triumphant
over grief, and agony, and the bitterness of the
grave; and trace, through the shadow of his
tomb, a path of living light that leads to heaven.




THE ATONEMENT.           261
We hear from his cross the voice,'Be thou
faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown
of life;' —' To him that overcometh will I grant
to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his
throne.'
In all these points of view, was Christ's death
an essential part of that plan of redemption, by
which man is saved from sin, and made one
with God. Without his death; his own love
would not have been fully shown, and might
have pleaded in vain. Without his death,
God's love in him would not have had its utmost manifestation; God's promise of pardon
through him would have lacked its seal; God's
invitation, his offered mercy to the returning
sinner, would not have had full emphasis of
utterance. Without his death, his example
would have wanted its most godlike aspects.
Without his death, his example would not have
applied itself to those scenes and seasons of life,
in which we are the most liable to faint or to
wander, and the most in need of divine light and
guidance. His death, then, was essential to the
full power of the gospel, and thus to the restoration and sanctification of the human soul.
Yet, because I deem  Christ's death thus
essential, I do not undervalue his life, his teachings, his resurrection, or his intercession. They
all combine to constitute the vast and beautiful
22




262.          THE ATONEMENT.
system of means, by which God reconciles man
to himself, and through which man receives the
atonement.
If these things be so, brethren, the atonement
is a work wrought, not for us, but within us. It
is Christ's work of grace in our souls. When
we feel in our inmost hearts, and show forth in
our daily walk and conversation, the power of
his death, the power of his spirit; when the cross
is reirected in our souls, and our sins are nailed
to it; wheni his last prayer,'Father, into thy
hands I commend my spirit,' is the prayer of our
whole lives; then, and not till then, have we
received the atonement.  Let our discussion
awaken us all to self-examination as to our part
in this work of grace, in this inward salvation.
And let us account' Christ formed within' as
our only hope of glory; and deem ourselves his,
only so far as we bear the image of his purity,
submission, obedience, love, and piety.
I have now, my friends, in a series of eight lectures, reviewed with you some of the heads of
Christian doctrine, on which I dissent from the
established creeds of those portions of the church,
with which, next to our own, we are the most
conversant.  In my first lecture, I labored to
establish the divine unity. In my second, I discussed the question of our Saviour's supreme
divinity. In my third, I endeavored to exhibit a
comprehensive view of the teaching of Scripture




THE ATONEMENT.           263
with regard to Christ's true rank and dignity.
My fourth was upon the nature and agency of
the Holy Spirit. My fifth was on human nature;
my sixth, on regeneration; my seventh and eighth
have been on the atonement. There are other
points of Christian doctrine, which I wish to
present in. similar systematic and argumentative
discourses; and, particularly, I hope, at some
future time, should my life be spared, to present
to you, in a course of sermons, the positive side
of our views of Christian truth, without reference
to points in controversy. But other engagements dispose me now to close the present
course, especially as I have embraced in it a
group of subjects, which naturally belong together, and so connect themselves with each
other, as to give to the course a certain unity
and wholeness.
In conclusion, let me urge you, on all these
subjects, to search the Scriptures for yourselves,
diligently and prayerfully, and not to accept my
results, without making them your own, by the
careful use of the reason with which God has
endowed you, and the light which he has given
you. And may he, the spirit of truth, guide you
into all truth, and make you faithful in the way
of his commandments, even in that path, which
grows brighter and brighter unto the perfect
day.