I /
II
/
OBJECTIONS.
TO                   A N
UNITARIA'"(::l?ION,
CHRISTIA'NI —
CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.
T1 L
IN SEVEN DISCOURSES. 
~~~~~~ ~.-3'
By GEORGE W. BURNAP,
PASTOR OF THE FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF BALTIMORE.
"In meeitness instructing those that oppose themselves."
P+um
FIFTH EDITION.
BOSTON:
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY,
111 WASHINGTON STREET.
1855.
POPULAR
UNITARIAN
.1 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1848, by
WM. CROSBY AND H. P. NICHOLS,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of MIassachtusetts.
CAIMBRIDGE:
METCALF  AND  COMPANY,
PRINTERS TO TIIE UNIVERSITY. 
PRE F ACE.
THE following Discourses were delivered in
the First Independent Church of Baltimore, immediately after its re-opening, having undergone
extensive repairs. The author took the opportunity presented by the concourse of strangers
which resorted to the church during some of the
succeeding Sundays, to answer some of the leading objections which are everywhere current
against the faith which is there inculcated. He
conceives that there is much need of such publications.
Since the first promulgation of Christianity,
nothing has been more misapprehended and misrepresented than Unitarianism at the present day.
It is not allowed to make its defence. It cannot
0 
PREFACE.
obtain a hearing. It is classified with every
thing that is bad, and then people are warned
against looking into it, or even hearing an exposition of its doctrines.
Unitarians are accused on all occasions of being unbelievers, -of setting reason above Scripture, -of expecting to be saved by their own
merits, -of denying the Atonement, -  of mutilating and explaining away the Scriptures, -
of being merely moral men, and preaching mere
morality, - of not being Evangelical Christians,
-of advocating a system which tends to infidelity, &c.
It was the object-of these Discourses, to meet
and answer these objections.  After their delivery, it was suggested to the author that they
would be useful when published in the form of
a book. It is with the hope that they may do
good, in removing prejudice and in enlightening
the minds of the inquiring, that they are now
given to the public.
In the concluding Discourse, on the Unitarianism of Doctor Watts, there will be found some
interesting facts relating to the religious opinions
iv
.1 
PREFACE.
and theological inquiries of that eminent Christian and devout Psalmist. It will be objected
by some, perhaps, that the extracts are ex parte,
and taken out of their connection. It may be
answered, that the space of a single discourse
did not permit the subject to be. treated in any
other way. I merely ask the reader to consider
with himself whether such paragraphs could
have been written by a Trinitarian in any connection. The extracts are made from the Lon
don edition of the year 1810.
V 
4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
CONTENTS.
DISCOURSE I.
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINE
History of the First Independent Church 
Reasons of its Establishment....
Consequences of it......
Literature of Unitarianism.....
Congregationalism......
PAGE
. i. 1-6
~    *      9
*.       17
.   22
*.       24
DISCOURSE II.
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
l
Unitarians charged with Infidelity..
What is Belief in Christ?    ~     o,    ~
The Charge of relying too much on Reason
The Use of Reason in Religion...
The Merits of Christ.....
The Atonement......
DISCOURSE III
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
Unitarians desire to have a Pure Text 
Objectionable Texts.......
Unitarians do not explain away the Scriptures.
Introduction of the Gospel of John.
The Form of Baptism.....
Trinitarians obliged to explain away the Bible..
0
.30
32
.34
37
.39
43
51
53
56
57
61
66 
CONTENTS.
DISCOURSE IV.
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY
WVhat is mere Morality?.....
Unitarian Worship......
The Lord's Supper......
Religious Experienco......
Human Nature.....
Morality and Religion.....
DISCOURSE V.
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
The Pretensions of Evangelical Christians 
World's Convention....
Meaning of the Term Evangelical..
Evangelical Doctrines not found in the Gospels 
The Bible is the Creed of Unitarians.
All Sects are exclusive......
DISCOURSE VI.
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
Who are to be considered as real Believers
Unitarianism not the Half-way House to Infidelity.'
Objections to Revelation......
Unitarianism intrinsically probable
Trinitarianism essentiall incredible
Deism not the natural Result of Unitarian Preaching
Cases of Deism incident to a State of Transition
DISCOURSE VII.
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
Watts educated a Trinitarian
Considered the Holy Ghost a Personification
How he justified Doxologies to the Holy Ghost
His Opinion of Derivation....
His Explanation of the Phrase "Son of God"
The Covenant of Redemption...
Solemn Address to the Deity....
viii
*.   75
76
.   79
80
.    85
*.        88
93
94
100
103
105
109
113
11.5
118
120
124
126
129
136
. 139
141
. 146
152
. 155
163 
DISCOURSE I.
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
JESUS SAITH UNTO HER, WOMAN, BELIEVE ME, THE HOUR COM ETH WHEN YE SHALL NEITHER IN THIS MOUNTAIN, NOR YET
AT JERUSALEM, WORSHIP THE FATHER. YE WORSHIP YE
KNOW NOT WHAT.  WE KNOW WHAT WE WORSHIP; FOR SAL VATION IS OF THE JEWS. BUT THE HOUR COMETH, AND NOW
19, WHEN THE TRUE WORSHIPPERS SHALL WORSHIP THE FA THER IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH; FOR THE FATHER SEEKETH
SUCH TO WORSHIP HIM. GOD IS A SPIRIT; AND THEY THAT
WORSHIP HIM MUST WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH.
- John iv. 21 - 24.
THESE are some of the sublimest words which
were ever uttered on earth.  It is in partial fulfilment of them that we, at the distance of more than
eighteen centuries, " with half the convex globe between," are assembled to worship God in the name
of Christ in this beautiful temple built upon this distant shore, when the temple of Jerusalem, which
then glittered afar in Oriental splendor, has long ago
been razed to its foundations.   I shall not attempt to
describe the joy with which we again assemble in
this sacred place. To many of you it has become
endeared by the most tender and holy associations;
1
0 
2     THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
with the Sabbath's rest and the Sabbath's musings,
with the soul's most consecrated hours of comnmunion with G-d, with the divine teachings of Christ's
blessed Gospel, with the moving symbols of his sorrows and his death, with the anthems of God's praise,
with the hopes and anticipations of heaven, with the
memory of kindred and companions, who, you trust,
are now worshipping in that temple not made'with
hands eternal in the heavens.
I have thought to add interest to this first day of
our restoration to our renovated house of prayer, by
rehearsing the history of this church and religious
society, by re-stating the principles upon which it was
founded, the objects to which its energies are directed,'the changes which have passed over the religious world since its establishment, and the prospects
which the future presents of the dissemination of
those great truths which it maintains as vital to Christianity and to man.
On the 12th of October, 1816, there appeared in
one or more of the Baltimore newspapers the following advertisement: -"  Divine service will be performed by the Rev. Doctor Freeman of Boston tomorrow at the Hall belonging to Mr.  Gibney in
South Charles Street, to commence at 11 o'clock
A. MI. and at half past 3 P. M."
Accordingly, at the appointed hours, an audience
assembled and services were held.   On the next
Sunday, public worship was again celebrated at the
.1 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
same hours and in the samne place. Those who listened to the exercises of those two days had been
accustomed to worship in the various churches in the
city; but they now heard an exposition of the doctrines of Christianity, as it seemed to them, more
reasonable, consistent, and edifying, than any to whichl
they had ever given their attention.
To many, perhaps most, of the hearers, the denomination to which the speaker belonged was wholly
unknown. Their judgment of what he uttered was
formed, therefore, either without prejudice, or in opposition to the bias there always exists against any
thing that is new. A simultaneous desire sprang up
in the minds of many who were there, to procure fol
themselves and their children a stated ministry by
which such views of Christianity might be inculcated
and maintained.
But who was Doctor Freeman, and why does he
preach in a hall? Among all the various denominations of Christians, is there no pulpit in the city to
which he may be invited? Not one. He had been
almost isolated for more than thirty years for. conscience' sake. For more than thirty years, in the
way called heresy he and the people of his charge
had worshipped the God of their fathers.  His personal history is, that he was a graduate of Harvard
University of the class of 1777.
He pursued his preparatory theological studies
principally at Cambridge, and in October, 1782, be
3 
4     THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
came Reader at " King's Chapel," an Episcopal
church in Boston, and in the April following was
chosen Pastor of the church. He continued to read
the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer till 1785,
when a committee of the proprietors was appointed
to revise that manual of devotion, and present it in a
form more agreeable, as they thought, to the word of
God.   The result of their labor was the production,
in substance, of the " Chapel Liturgy," a beautiful
and almost faultless form of public devotions, now
used by that ancient society.  This change, and as
they thought reform, was brought about mainly by
the studies and ministrations of their pastor, who
gave a course of lectures, explanatory of the Scriptures in relation to those doctrines which were left
out of their new book of prayer.  Thus the most
ancient Episcopal church in New England became
the first Unitarian church in America.
Nothing, then, could have been more appropriate,
than that the patriarch of Unitarianism in America
should have been the founder of Unitarianism in
Maryland.
The desire to have a church in Baltimore, modelled upon the simple principles.of the Gospel, excited by the preaching of Doctor Freeman, found
expression in a meeting held by several of the citizens on the 10th day of February, 1817, for the purpose of organizing a religious society, and taking into
consideration the best means of erecting a building
for public worship.
.0 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
At this meeting they adopted a constitution, and
gave to the society the legal title of " The First Independent Church of Baltimore." They also appointed nine trustees to superintend the concerns of
the society and the erection of the building.   The
corner-stone was laid on the 5th day of June, 1817,
in the presence of all the trustees, most of the subscribers, and many others.
In the centre of the stone, a plate was deposited,
bearing the following inscription:  In Greek,-" To the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God."
In English, - " This corner-stone of the First Independent Chui, h of Baltimore was laid on the 5th
day of June, 1817, under the direction of the following Trustees and Building Committee, viz. Henry Payson, Ezekiel Freeman, Cumberland D. Williams, James W. McCulloh, Tobias  Watkins, Nathaniel Williams, William Child, Charles H. Appleton, John H. Poor, and Isaac Phillips. Maximilian
Godfroy, Architect, and John Ready, Builder."
The church was completed in October,.1818,
and dedicated on the 29th of the same month by Dr.
Freeman, and the Rev. MAr. Colman, of Hingham,
Mass., Dr. Freeman preaching the sermon.
The pulpit was supplied by different preachers
from Boston and the neiglbourhood, till May, 1819,
when the Rev. Jared Sparks was ordained as the
first pastor of this church; his ordination took place
5 
6     THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
on the 5th of the month, and Mr., afterwards I)r.
Channing, of Boston, delivered the customary dis course.
The 5th of May, 1819, was a memorable day in
the theological history of this country.  It might be
called the Pentecost of American TUnitarianism. In
setting apart a minister to teach a faith, which, although the most ancient, appeared to the community
in which it was to be preached comparatively a new
doctrine, Mr. Channing thought it incumbent on him
to make an open, plain, and candid statement of the
principles which this new edifice was raised to maintain and disseminate.  Into better hands that task
could not have fallen. Circumstances made that discourse a confession of faith, a manifesto of principles,
a declaration of independence, to a new association
of the followers of Christ.   For its purpose it was
perfect.  So clear are its statements, so simple its
language, so grand and comprehensive the truths it
unfolds, such earnestness, conviction, and candor pervade it all, that it leaves very little to be desired, and
very little to be added.  It made a profound impression. None who heard it will ever forget that day.
Its publication, which took place immediately after,
was followed by still more important results. On
the printed page it appeared no less striking, original,
powerfill, and convincing, than it had done in delivery.  It spread over the country with wonderful rapidity. It was reprinted and circulated by thousands,
.1 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
and no pamphlet, with one exception, and that a political publication, ever attracted in this country so
wide and universal attention.
Its author, before not widely, though favorably,
known, soon rose to the highest literary eminence,
and has been since acknowledged as one of the greatest masters of the English tongue, even in the jealous judgment of our mother land. His works are
more read in England than those of any other theologian. Almost every year produces a new edition
of them in this country, and this sermon, incorporated into his works, has, on the whole, been more read
than any other, perhaps, that has been delivered in
modern times.
This visit of Mr. Channing to Baltimore was the
cause of a religious movement in another city, quite
as important as this. On his way home, he stopped
a short time at New York.   His friends attempted to
procure him a place to preach in, on Sunday.   To
obtain a church for hiti was hopeless, and he held
services in a private house.   Those services gave
being to a religious society, which has since Qxpanded into two of the most beautiful and well-attended
churches in the city.
But to return to Baltimore.   The plain avowal of
principles and candid declaration of purposes made
by Mr. Channing, while they gave clearness of view,
definiteness of doctrine, and concentration of action
to the new church, drew more sharply the line of de
7 
8     THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
marcation by which it was separated from the rest of
the Christian world, and perhaps made it more difficult to obtain even a hearing for a theology so divergent from the doctrines inculcated in most of the pulpits in the city.  The whole population was moved.
Clergy and people vied with each other in heaping
opprobrium upon the new sect.   The churches rang
from Sabbath to Sabbath with warning and denunciation.  The whole vocabulary of abuse was ransacked
and exhausted for terms of reprobation and contempt
sufficiently strong to express the general feelings of
abhorrence and detestation towards this association
of the disciples of Christ. Not only was their faith
assailed as dangerous and damnable, but their personal characters were aspersed as immoral and unworthy of the esteem of their fellow-citizens.
And what had they done to deserve all this?
They had withdrawn from other churches to establish a worship, as they honestly believed, more consonant with the truth of God's word. They were
doing what they conscientiously thought to be their
duty.   They were exercising a right guaranteed to
every citizen in this country, of worshipping God
according to the dictates of his own conscience.
Their very position was a sufficient pledge of their
sincerity.   It was no pleasure, and certainly ino
profit, to them to dissent from their fellow-Christians.
They would have better consulted their own peace
by remaining where they were, and silently acquies
.1 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
cing in modes of worship which their judgments could
not approve.   They did not establish this church in
the wantonness of self-will, or that they might from
it hurl anathema and defiance upon the whole Christian world. They denied no man's Christianity on
account of the errors of faith which they apprehended him to entertain. They condemned no man for
his creed; they simply stated what seemed to them
true, and what false, in it, according to the light of
the sacred Scriptures.   They saw and acknowledged
what appeared to them to be good and true in every
system of faith and discipline which prevailed around
them.
In the Catholics, they recognized the most ancient
embodiment of the Christian faith and ritual.  Some,
of the brightest ornaments of the Christian name~
have been of its communion.   In its spirit and its
worship, they recognized the manifestation of the
profoundest reverence that has ever been exhibited
in the world, but, in their judgment, a reverence
unreasoning and indiscriminate, which has gathered
around the accidents of Christianity with iquite as
much devotion as around its real substance; a reverence which embraces, with equal intensity, the accretions which a thousand years of intellectual darkness
through which it passed have associated with its es*
sential rites and doctrines, as the great truths which
its ritual is intended to represent and perpetuate.
On entering a Catholic church, they saw an image
9
I. 
10    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
of the crucified Saviour, before which the multitude
bowed down. Their hearts, too, were moved by the
sculptured agonies of the man of sorrows, and it was
no want of affectionate reverence which led them to
question the propriety of such an exhibition.  But
they could not avoid recollecting the prohibition, dating fifteen centuries earlier than Christianity itself, -
" Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,
or the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above
or the earth beneath.   Thou  shalt not bow down
thyself to them nor serve them."   This prohibition
is peremptory, positive, and absolute, and made by
Him who created the human heart, and who knows
infinitely better than we the perversions to which the
religious principle is liable.
And even if images were permitted in Christian
churches, they felt that, by the selection of the saddest scene of Christ's history as the only one presented to the senses, the Catholic Church had given
an undue shade of gloom to his whole religion. The
cross of Christ was thus made to cast its dark shadow,
not only over the whole life cf Christ, but over the
whole life of the Christian world, and caused it, in the
apprehension of multitudes, to be constituted of penances  and  mortifications, rather than cheerful and
grateful obedience.   The darkness that settled on the
hills of Judea at the hour of the crucifixion did not
last long.   The bright sun shone before and after.
There was an hour when Christ rejoiced, and the 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISMI DEFINED.    11 l
mount of transfiguration must be a better representation of the glory and joy to which he ascended, than
the cross of Calvary which he left behind.   The altar
service seemed to them rather Judaic than Christian,
inasmuch as the main  employment  and office of
Christ was that of Teacher.   He proclaimed himself
" the Light of the world," and his parting charge to
his Apostles was, " Go, teach all nations."
Altars were  done  away.   Sacrifices  for ever
ceased with the abolition of the Jewish religion, of
which they made a part.
The celebration of public worship in a dead language - a language which has ceased to be spoken
for a thousand years - seemed to them to savour of al
unquestioning attachment to arbitrary and obsolete
forms, rather than of a wise and allowable conformity
to the altered condition of the world; and the invocation of the Virgin, a mortal like ourselves, made
it impossible for them to acquiesce in the ritual of the
Catholic Church.
In the Methodists, the next most numerous denomination by which they were surrounded, they
recognized a living and vital member of Christ's
body.   In their genial, social, and earnest spirit,
they saw a resemblance to primitive Christianity,
when " the disciples were of one accord in one
place," " and did eat their meat with gladness and
singleness of heart."'
They looked on Wesley as an instrument in the 
12    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
hands of Providence of breaking the paralyzing spell
of a ritual religion, and adapting the administration
of the Gospel to the poor, the ignorant, and the isolated.   They saw, in some parts of their church organization, and in their freedom from written creeds,
an approach to that liberty wherewith Christ has
made his disciples free.
Yet there was one feature of their worship which
rendered it impossible for the founders of this church
to join habitually in it.  No small part of their devotions was directed to Christ.   God is the only proper
object of religious worship.   He has strictly forbidden divine homage to be addressed to any other being
besides himself. And Christ, before he left the
world, was equally explicit in enjoiining it on his
disciples, not to pray to  him, when he should  be
exalted to heaven, but to pray to God in his name.
" And in thfat day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily,
verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the
Father in my name, he will give it you."
To those who built this house as the place of their
worship, the Presbyterian door to the fold of Christ
was closed, for over it was written a creed which it
was impossible for them to subscribe, and which said,
in effect, -"  Let no one enter here who does not admit the tri-personality of God, the total, constitutional
corruption of human nature, and the exclusive agency
of God in every act of man that is acceptable in his
sight." It was impossible for them to approach the 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    13
table of communion in that church, for it was fenced
about with execrations on those who should Fartake
of the elements, not believing that their humble Master, who died on the cross to save them, was at the
same time the ever-living Jehovah, to whom he commended his departing spirit, and to whom he prayed;,
" My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? "
Many had found refuge in the Episcopal Church.
Its more rational teaching and milder discipline they
thought more calculated to embrace and edify the
various shades of belief which will ever be found
among imperfect and fallible mortals. To them there
was an intrinsic respectability in its dignified forms,
and a conservatism in its stability, which contrasted
well with the more informal modes of organization
and worship. In the religion of the Prayer Book
they could acquiesce, for to it had been contributed
the piety of many ages.   Some of its devotions, for
tenderness and sublimity, are nowhere exceeded out
of the Psalms of the ancient people of God.  But its
theology they conceived to be unfounded in the Scriptures, and irreconcilable to right reason when calmly
examined by an enlightened and reflecting mind.
Its articles of faith were adopted in England in the
twilight of the Reformation, as a matter of state policy, and were a compromise between the advancing
Protestantism of the school of Geneva and the receding dogmas of the Papal ages.  Their only pretence to authority at the present day, and in this 
14    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
country, is their being contained in the same binding
with some of the most exquisite devotions in the English tongue. Not more than half of those, perhaps,
who use the devotions ever read the articles of faith.
Had the creed and the devotions been kept separate, the Prayer Book would have been nearly unexceptionable.   But the most unscriptural, and, in their
judgment, objectionable, part of the creed was woven
into the liturgy, so as to implicate those who joined
in it in a breach of the first commandment. The
God who gave the first commandment must be supposed to be the same who gave the fourth.  In the
fourth hlie is identified as " Jehovah, who made heaven and earth and sea, and all that in them is." That
Being, in the first commandment, enjoins,-" Thou
shalt have no other gods before me."   But he who
joins in the Episcopal service first prays, as he ought,
to " God, the Father of heaven."   Then he prays
to another God, -" O God, the Son."   Not only is
he another God, but he has another name and another
function,-"O 0 God, the Son, Redeemer of the
world." God is a spirit, but this second God has a
body, and is addressed as having human attributes,
parts, and passions, and having been subjected to
human sufferings': -" By thy holy nativity and circumcision, by thine agony and bloody sweat."
A God who has been born and circumcised must
be another God, essentially as well as numerically
different fromn the Almighty Creator of heaven and 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    15
earth, who inhabiteth immensity and eternity, whom
no eye hath seen or can see, the blessed and only
Potentate.
Now there is no such God as God the Son, there
is no such name, there are no such words as "God
the Son" in the Scriptures.
Then a third God is introduced, with still another
name and function,-  " 0  God, the Holy Ghost,
proceeding from the Father and the Son."   There
is no such God as "God the Holy Ghost" revealed
to us in the Scriptures.   There is not a single instance of worship addressed to the Holy Ghost, from
the beginning of the Bible to the end.   There is no
such name or phrase as "God the Holy Ghost" in
the sacred writings.
The believers in "one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," could
not but feel aggrieved that such unscriptural expressions should have been incorporated into the forms
of public worship.   Their devotions were disturbed,
their edification obstructed, and they therefore sought
a place where they could worship God in the-name
of Christ, instead of worshipping Christ as "God
the Son."
Another reason for dissent from the Episcopal ser
vice was the repetition of a creed of human device
This appeared to them especially objectionable in r
Protestant sect, as the only authority upon which the
creeds are received is that of the Church of Rome 
16    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
whose general authority that sect had rejected, and
whose infallibility it had denied. From that Church
it had consented to take a creed, or rather two
creeds, in England three creeds, all inconsistent with
each other, and by constant public repetition to hand
them down unexamined and unchanged from age to
age.
For these causes, the founders of this church
withdrew from the various communions with which
they had been associated, and sought for themselves a
new place of worship.   And they were true to their
principles.   They deposited in this desk a copy of
the sacred Scriptures, as the only foundation of their
faith, the only infallible depository of truth, the only
sure guide of life.  They opened the font of baptism
to all who felt it their duty to consecrate their children to God, to Christ, and the Holy Spirit. They
spread the table of communion to all who acknowledged their allegiance to Christ as "-the Way, the
Truth, and thie Life." They repelled no humble
disciple from it by unintelligible mysteries or inconmprehensible  articles of faith.  They  published  no
creed. They left every man to form his own. They
did better than to publish a creed.   They made a
selection from the sacred Scriptures of the most
striking texts which embodied their faith, inculcated
their obligations, and expressed their hopes and aspirations, and wrote them down on those beautiful
tablets to be seen and read of all men, as a public 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    17
declaration of their standing as believers in God, and
in the divine mediation of Christ, and as a perpetual
and emphatic, though silent, refutation of the slanders
everywhere propagated against them as atheists and
infidels.
In their first clergyman they had selected a man
abundantly able to make good their position, and to
vindicate to the world the faith which they professed.
The next year after his ordination, he published a
volume of " Letters on the Ministry, Ritual, and
Doctrines  of the Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"
which placed him at once in the first rank of theological scholars in this country. This was followed up,
in 1821, by the establishment of a religious periodical, " The Unitarian Miscellany," a work published monthly, and filled with thorough and able discussions of the theological topics of the. day, but
chiefly devoted to the statement and defence of the
doctrines of Christianity as understood by Unitarians.
The matter for this periodical was mainly furnished
by Mr. Sparks, in addition to the labor of writing
for his weekly ministrations.   This was kept up for
nearly three years.  In this double office of preacher
and editor, an amount of intellectual toil was sustained by him truly astonishing, and credible only to
those who have measured the capacities of human
endurance, and learned the grand secret of the economy of time.
It would be difficult to find, in the whole range of
2 
18    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
theological literature, three volumes of equal compass, which contain so much and such accurate information on the most interesting subjects of religious
inquiry.  It is rare to find in theological controversy
so much candor of statement, and such fairness of
reasoning, such firmness of persuasion, united with so
much charity for the opinions of others.   They are
a monument of theological attainment and literary industry, which sets a high mark for the clergy of our
country.
But their author had undertaken labors too great
for the time as well as the strength of one man, and
his health at length sunk under them, and he retired
from the ministry to win a wider fame and a still
higher reputation among the historians of his country.
His place as pastor of the church and editor of the
Miscellany was temporarily supplied by the Rev. Mr.,
afterwards Dr. Greenwood, who had lately retired in
ill health from Church Green in Boston, and had
sought restoration in a milder climate. Under his
management the Miscellany lost nothing of its literary
power, though perhaps something of the depth of its
theological discussions. As a preacher, Mr. Greenwood had few superiors. He was made for a clergyman.   His taste in composition was perfect, his
voice deep and sonorous, his manner serious, affectionate, and impressive. And he was long a bright
and shining light in the churches.   On the restoration of his health, he returned to Boston, and be
.1 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    19
camie the colleague of Dr. Freeman, whose history
has already been narrated.  With his departure, the
Miscellany was discontinued, having reached its sixth
volume, and done much good. Its circulation was
extensive, and it had enlightened many dark minds,
removed many prejudices, and convinced many inquirers that religion was consistent with reason, and
Christianity unencumbered with irreconcilable contradictions.
From 1824 to 1827, the pulpit was supplied by
different clergymen, generally from Boston and the
neighbourhood, many of them highly distinguished by
position, talents, and acquirements. In September
of 1827, the present pastor preached for the first time
from this pulpit. In the following April he was ordained, and from that time to this the pulpit has never been supplied by the society for a single Sabbath.
In the space of fifteen years, the church has been
closed but three half-days on account of the pastor's
failure to officiate.
Since the very beginning, no religious society ever struggled with more difficulties, or surmbunted
them with more indomitable courage and perseverance. It has been twice nearly prostrated by commercial revulsions, and has often suffered severe losses by emigration. However, " having obtained help
of God, we continue unto this day." The smiles of
a gracious Providence have been granted to thie members of this society in their temporal affairs in more 
20    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
than ordinary measure, and this beautiful and renovated temple is witness that they are willing to set
apart a portion of God's blessings to beautify his
sanctuary and to honor his worship. " Pray for the
peace of Jerusalem.   They shall prosper that love
thee."
But the building of this church was not an isolated
nor an inconsequential event. It was an epoch in
the theological history of the country.  Its effects
were immediate and decisive, and their operation has
gone on deepening and widening from that day to this.
The sentiments which were here openly professed
had been silently spreading in various parts of the
country for more than a quarter of a century.  In
New England especially, many independent inquirers
had, without consultation or concert, arrived at nearly the same conclusions from a careful examination
of the sacred Scriptures. But their opinions, when
known, did not exclude them from ministerial intercourse with their brethren in the same communion.
The publication of the discourse of Mr. Channing at
the ordination of Mr. Sparks revealed to each party
the ground on which they stood. It was attacked by
the theological professors at Andover, and defended
by those at Cambridge; the whole community became interested, and took part with one side or the
other of the disputants. The Orthodox withdrew
from ministerial intercourse with those who approved
the theological doctrines of that discourse, and thus
.1 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    21
the Unitarians, as they were called, were forced to
assume the position of a distinct religious denomination. From that day to this, they have acted as
such. They have had their own theological schools,
their own periodicals, their own conventions.   They
have been continually growing in numbers, strength,
zeal, and enterprise.
This separation, by the Unitarians unsought and
unpremeditated, has led to some most important results; one of which has been the development of
an original, independent, theological literature, drawn
from individual study of the sacred Scriptures and
all the phenomena of humanity and religious experience, wholly unbiased by previously existing creeds
and  systems of divinity.   The  list of  Unitarian
books produced within thirty years would furnish a
large theological library, - as large as a person of ordinary leisure would read in a lifetime. These works
are not doctrinal alone. Many of them are practical and devotional, and minister not only light to the
understanding, but warmth to the heart.   Inculcating
a faith which is consistent with reason, instead of
contradictory to it, they make religion a subject of
interest to all. Starting from the point, that the object of Christianity is to change, modify, or develop
the human character, not to alter the human constitution, they propose an object which is within the
scope of human endeavours, and not placed without
the compass of human capacities. 
22    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
If Unitarianism as a denomination had done nothing else than produce this powerful and diversified
theological literature, it would have abundantly justified its existence to the world.  It is books which
form the opinions and the churches of coming ages.
The dogmas of this age are the fruits of the thinking,
the writing, the books, of the ages that are gone, and
the only possible way in which the future ages can
be niade to differ from the past is by substituting
other books to be the manuals of their education and
the guides of their inquiries.
During the thirty years of our denominational existence, great changes have been passing over the
whole religious world. Even Catholicism, which is
the type and representative of conservatism, has been
moved to its centre.  Every denomination throughout Christendom has been divided into two parties, one advocating progress, the other rest.  Most
especially is this the case in this country, where the
press is free and prolific beyond all former example.
Not only have parties been formed, but communions
have been divided, immense ecclesiastical organizations have been sundered, and the points of difference
have often been the same which have made us a distinct denomination.
It would be arrogance in us to attribute to our theological labors any considerable part of this great
change.  It is enough for us to have tile confidence
that we have contributed somniething towards it. 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    23
That those great and extensive movements are in the
same direction with our own is at least demonstration that our movement is in coincidence with the
tendencies of the age. -
There are hundreds and thousands in all communions who sympathize with us, who conscientiously believe that we have arrived nearer than any other sect
at the truth of the Gospel.
I have been often led to doubt whether there are,
at the present day, any real Trinitarians.   The test
of this is their own private devotions.   Christians in
public will fall in without question with esiablished
forms, and apparently acquiesce in phraseology with
which they are by no means satisfied. But in private
their real belief comes out.  I question whether one
person in a thousand of nominal Trinitarians ever
prays in private to the Holy Ghost.  And he who
does not pray to the Holy Ghost is practically not a
Trinitarian.   The  Lord's prayer, the model of all
devotion, passes over the doctrine of the Trinity in
the profoundest silence.
There are clergymen not a few, who have investigated for themselves till they have found that their
own views, when defined to their own minds, are
nearer to the personal unity of God than to the old
Trinitarian system.   But in their present position,.
the less inquiry the more peace, because their own
minds are not free.   The conclusions of their inqutiries are forestalled by their previous ecclesiastical 
24    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISIL DEFINED.
connections  and  engagements.    They  have subscribed a creed, or they belong to an organization
which requires and enforces one, and therefore their
lips are sealed.
And here I should fail to do justice to the wisdom,
courage, and fidelity of the founders of this church,
if I omitted to mention a vital principle which they
incorporated into the constitution of their religious
association, and made prominent in its very name,
that of congregational  independence.    They  had
clearly seen that this principle is an indispensable
condition to the enjoyment of that religious liberty
wherewith Christ has made us free.  Subscription
to a creed, the association of churches together on
the basis of a creed, enforced upon all their members
on pain of excommunication or disparagement of any
kind, involves a surrender of all those principles on
which the Protestants separated from the Catholics,
and upon which they have maintained a theological
controversy for three hundred years.   If, with the
Bible in my hands, and all the means of an independent examination now extant at my commapd, I allow another man to write my creed, and swear to
teach his interpretation, however different it may be
from that which my own investigation convinces me
is the true one, I am false' to my allegiance to the
truth, an allegiance which I never can abjure.  It is
the same to me, as far as principle is concerned,
whether I adopt the Westminster Confession, or the
creed of the Council of Nice. 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    25
Had the creed-making power been permitted to
rule unbroken, Protestantism never could have had
an existence. Luther would have perished in his
first protest. So, in this country, if the creed-making
power had had its own way, Unitarianism could never have come into being.   Had church  and state
been united, or had the Episcopal Church possessed
a stringent organization, the founder of this church
would not have been permitted to revise the Prayer
Book according to the word of God.
And now and here, among most Protestant sects,
there are nearly the same impediments to the investigation of truth, that there were in the Papal Church
at the Reformrnation.   The candid inquirer, the honest preacher, who happens to travel out of the circumference of a human formulary of faith, is immediately assailed, and compelled to pass through
the'same fiery ordeal which was endured by the first
martyrs, with the exception that ecclesiastical laws
do not now touch the life.
This beautiful temple, then, stands dedicated, not
alone to the inculcation of religious truth, butto the
establishment and maintenance of religious liberty,
by which alone religious truth can be discovered and
secured. That freedom is found alone in Congregational Independency, in which every man, clergyman,
and layman has guaranteed to him, as his natural
and indefeasible right, the liberty to interpret the
Scriptures by the light which God has given him. 
26    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
Its vast expense, its exquisite symmetry, were
originally an emphatic testimony to the world of the
priceless estimate which its founders placed upon
what seemed to them a sound and a true theology.
In the sanme spirit it is, that their successors have
restored the waste of years, and set it in order afresh
for the worship of God. By it they declare the
deep conviction of their hearts, that a sound theology
is the first of human wants.   They see and feel, that
men must and will have a religion. The Sabbath is
set apart mainly to religious instruction.   The mass
of the people will be taught something. What shall
it be? Shall it be a system of doctrines at war with
reason, Scripture, and moral feeling? Or shall it be
a system of doctrines consistent with them all?
To them it seems a sore evil, that the precious
time devoted to sacred instruction should be worse
than wasted in discussions of metaphysical divinity,
wholly aside from the word of God, and the common and practical duties of every-day life.  It seems
to them a great public injury, that the mass of the
people should be taught that the corruption which
prevails among them is constitutional and inevitable,
instead of being their own work in the abuse of the
nature and faculties that God has given them. They
see no hope for the moral regeneration of the world,
so long as men are taught, that, in the condition in
which God creates them, sin is their appropriate,
their necessary, their only possible work; that not
I 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.    27
more than one person in a hundred has within him
the elements which are necessary to moral probation.
It seems to them, that by these dogmas all motive
to the religious education of children is paralyzed.
There is nothing religious in children to educate.
They can do nothing, in consequence of their education, until Omnipotence sees fit to create them anew.
Probation, in any equitable sense of the term, does
not commence with rational existence, but in those
who are elected, at that point of time when the constitutional deficiency of their nature is supplied by
grace, and in the non-elect it never commences at
all. Then the doctrine of atonement, a cardinal
doctrine of the New Testament, as long as it is represented as an agency to reconcile God to man, instead of man to God, must, as far as it has any influence, nullify the moral efficiency of the practical
doctrines of Christ. A theology which misrepresents God and man, and the relations which subsist
between them, must be essentially wrong.
Yet, with these convictions, we are no sectarians.
We do not compass sea and land to make a proselyte.
We have no ambition to propagate a name, or to
marshal hosts of mere partisans. Our only desire,
before God, is to propagate the simple truth. We
aspire to no other name than that of Christian. We
consider it the hardest part of our lot, and the saddest fact in the condition of the- world, that in the
Christian Church we should derive a sectarian name
A 
of
28    THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.
from maintaining the fundamental truth both of Judaism and Christianity, the numerical and personal
unity of God, - "Jehovah our God, Jehovah is
one. " 
So thoroughly convinced are we of the truth of
our principles, so deeply persuaded are we that they
are the simple teachings of God's word, and that the
time must come when they will be acknowledged by
all candid inquirers, that it does not move us that
the world goeth not out after us, that our census is no
greater among  Christian  denominations.   Nothing
true and good has ever met from the world a tumultuous reception.  Christianity itself began in an upper chamber, and the first church numbered but
twelve.   Our first object is theological reform; the
world, we  believe, is ripe for it.  We  are striving
for the reunion of reason and faith,- two principles which God hath joined together, but which man
hath long ago divorced. Our purpose is to remove
the obstacles which now shut out the Bible from the
understanding, the conscience, and the heart of mankind.   To effect these objects, numbers are not necessary.   Truth is not propagated by armies, though
error often is.  Truth conquers by her own  might.
Our mission, at the present moment, requires, not
numbers, but wisdom, learning, piety, patience, industry.   These things we  covet, these things we
cultivate and strive to attain.  We  see no reason
for discouragement.  Everywhere we see progress,
I 
THE POSITION OF UNITARIANISM DEFINED.   29
everywhere fresh acknowledgment of the principles
we hold dear, and a century of advancement such as
the last thirty years have witnessed will bring most
religious sects in this country to the ground we
occupy. 
DISCOURSE II.
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
BUT WE DESIRE TO HEAR OF THEE WHAT THOU TH1INKESI
FOR AS CONCERNING THIS SECT, WE KNOW THAT EVERYWHERE
IT IS SPOKEN AGAINST.- Acts xxviii. 22.
THE most common accusation made against Uni
tarians is, that they are unbvers.   This is no new
charge, as brought by one   ~tian  denomination
against another.  It is often, and very easily, said, by
one controversialist against another, that he is an infidel, or an unbeliever. And the charge generally
amounts to this, that one denies what the other
believes.  Each  insists on the particular doctrine
which he makes prominent, as the great, central truth
of the Gospel, and says, and perhaps thinls, that his
opponent, if he denies that, might as well deny the
whole Gospel.
This is precisely the case in the present instance.
It is said of us, that we do not believe in Christ.
This is an equivocal expression.   It may mean, that
we do not believe that any such person ever lived.
It may mean, that we put no confidence in what he
0
.1 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
said, - that he was not what he pretended to be, or
what his disciples afterwards pretended he had been.
It may mean, and does probably mean, in the case
we are considering, that we do not believe that he
was God.
The phraseology is sometimes varied, and it is
said that we do not believe in the Divinity of Christ.
This, again, is an equivocal expression. It may
mean, that his person was divine, or that his words
and actions were divine.  It may mean that he was
Jehovah, the only living and true God.   In that case
the proper expression would be, that we do not believe in the Deity of Christ.
If Christ was not God, then we may believe in
him, and believe in him to the saving of the soul, and
still not believe that he was God. The whole question as to what is a true faith in Christ turns upon
the question whether he were God or not.
In order to settle this question, we must go to the
Scriptures, and inquire what the Apostles believed
concerning him. The first convert to belief in Christ
was Peter.   And what was his confession of faith?
According to Matthew, it was, -r Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God." And-what
did Peter mean by this? Did hermean to make any
assertion concerning the nature of Christ, or merely
his office?  The very phrase does not assert, but
denies, Deity. A Son of God cannot be God, for
three reasons, - because he is derived, because he
31 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
cannot be eternal, and because he must be separate
from God. But so far is the second clause, " the
Son of the living God," fromn making an important
part of Peter's confession of faith, that the other two
Evangelists who have related this confession, Mark
and Luke, have left it out altogether.  Mark records
that he merely said, " Thou art the Christ "; and
Luke, " Thou art the Christ of God."   The meaning of the word  "Christ'" is "anointed."   The
anointed of God cannot be God. If the second
clause, "the Son of the living God," had contained
the essence or the most important part of Peter's
confession, as relating to the nature of Christ, Mark
and Luke certainly would not have left it out. We
may safely say, then, that the confession of Peter
had no relation to the nature of Christ whatever, but
only to his office.
But Peter must be allowed to be the best interpreter of his own language.   Peter, after the resurrection of Christ, was sent, by especial commission,
to convert Cornelius, and teach him the first principles of the Christian religion; and the fair which he
propounds to Cornelius concerning Christ is this:" How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing
good, and healing all that were oppressed of the
devil: for God wvas with him.  And we are witnesses
of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews
and in Jerusalem; whom they slew, and hanged on a
32
I 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
tree: him God raised up the third day, and showed
him openly." The anointing of Jesus of Nazareth
with the Holy Ghost and with power did not prove
him to be God.   It rather proved him not to be
God.   Had he been God, he would not have needed;
nor could he have received, such an anointing. Nei ther do crucifixion and being raised from the dead
agree with the supposition that Christ was God.
Now this is precisely the Unitarian belief concerning Jesus of Nazareth,- that God anointed him with
the Holy Ghost and with power, endowed him with
that transcendent and unapproachable wisdom which
he exhibited, gave him the supernatural knowledge that
he possessed, communicated to him the sublime and
perfect doctrine that he taught, sealed his mission by
the miracles which he performed, and, when the Jews
and Romans had murdered him upon the cross, raised
him froIn the dead and showed him to his disciples,
that they might be the witnesses of these stupendous
events, on which our religion is founded, to that- and
all succeeding ages.
With what propriety, then, can Unitarians be denounced as unbelievers in Christ, when they believe
concerning him the very thing which Peter did, who
was blessed by his Master, and called the foundationstone of the Christian Church? Belief in Christ has
nothing to do with his nature, but only with his mission, - whether God did or did not anoint him with
3
33 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
the Holy Ghost and with power, did or did not raise
him from the dead.
Paul takes the same view of this subject in the
fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians: -" If Christ
be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God
that he raised up Christ; whom he raised not up, if
so be that the dead rise not."  Hiere, then, the main
point of Christian faith is, not that Christ was God,
but that God  bad raised himn from the dead.   To
believe that Christ was God, and that God raised him
from the dead, is to believe totally different propositions.
And why was a belief in the resurrection of Christ
so important?  Paul tells us, in the first chapter of
his Epistle to the Romans: —"  Declared to be the
Son of God," or the Messiah, "with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from
the dead."   The resurrection proved nothing as to
the nature of Christ.  It did demonstrate him to be
the Messiah.
It is objected to Unitarians, that they rely too
mtuch on human reason; that they set up reason in
opposition to Scripture, and in opposition to faith.
Let us examine this matter, and see if this charge be
just. What is the relation of reason to Scripture
and to faith?
We affirm that the use of reason is necessary to
34 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
determine whether the Scriptures are to be received
as a divine revelation; and, when they are so received,
the use of reason is necessary to find out what they
teach; and, in the third place, faith, instead of being
opposed to reason, is built upon it.
In the first place, reason is the only means which
God has given us of distinguishing what is true fromn
what is false, what is probable from what is improbable, what is to be believed from what is not to be believed. The New Testament is given us, and we
read it.  There is no way for us to determine whether it is true or false, except by the use of our reason.
If we must receive the New Testament merely because it is placed before us, then the Mahometan is
just as much compelled to receive the Koran because
it is placed before him.
A man says that he receives the New Testament
as a Divine revelation.  Another asks him, Why?
He then goes on to give his reasons. He says that
the narrative is natural, and bears the marks of truth.
That is, it resembles other narratives which he knows
to be true.  The comparison of that narrative with
other narratives is the work of reason, and the inference he draws from it is the work of reason.   He
says that Paul and Peter and John and the other
Apostles would not have consumed their lives, and
finally sacrificed them, in testifying to a falsehood.
This inference is an act of reason.  Faith  in the
New Testament, then, is built on reason.   And if it
were not, it would be mere credulity.
35 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
In the second place, we must use reason in finding out what the Bible teaches.  All sects do this,
even those who  disclaim reason most vehemently.
All sects use it, till it begins to press upon their peculiar doctrines, and  then they discard it.  The
Catholic uses it. He reads in the New Testament
the passage in which Christ calls himself a " vine."
Is he to receive this literally or figuratively?  If he
Is not allowed to use reason, he must believe that
Christ was literally a vine, that he was planted in the
earth, and had roots and branches; and the only
reason he can give why he does not so receive it is,
that it is not reasonable to believe that this was
Christ's meaning. Upon the strength of reason, he
rejects the literal meaning of the words.  But when
he comes to the passage, " This is my body," he
refuses to use his reason, and says that this assertion
must be interpreted literally, and he must believe that
it was the real flesh. of Christ.   The  Trinitarian
Protestant insists on using his reason in the same
way, in this case, that the Catholic did in regard to
the assertion of Christ that he was a vine.   He
judges that it is more reasonable to believe that
Christ meant to say that the bread represented his
body, as his body was present, unbroken and unchanged.
But there is a limit to his application of reason to
the interpretation of Scripture, as well as to that of
the Catholic.   Christ said, on a certain occasion, -
36 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
"1 and the Father are one."  He insists that this
passage  must  be interpreted  literally, that  God
and Christ are one being. You ask him how two
beings can be one being, and he answers, that he
does not pretend to explain it.  It is a mystery, and
must be received, notwithstanding its repugnance to
reason.   Best he would not allow the Catholic to
make the same  plea in favor of the doctrine of
transubstantiation.
The Unitarian goes on to apply reason to the
interpretation of this passage also.  He inquires if
the same writer do not employ the same word in
cases in which no identity of being is intended. IHe
reads on a few chapters, and he finds the Saviour
praying for his disciples in these words,-  " that
they all mnay be one."  And  in the next verse he
specifies the sense in which they were to be one to
be the same with that in which he had applied the
same expression to himself and God, -   that they
may be one, even as toe are." If the expression be
allowed to prove that God and Christ were numer-ically one, then the same expression must be allowed
to prove that God and Christ and the disciples were
all one being.
The only difference, then, that there is between
the Unitarian and other Christians is, that he applies
reason to the interpretation of all the Scriptures,
whereas they apply it only to a part.  Without the
use of reason, revelation would be useless; for we
37
/ 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
coula never know what was revealed and what was
not revealed, what was figurative and what literal,'
If it be meant by placing reason above Scripture,
that, when reason and Scripture comne in conflict, we
believe reason in preference to Scripture, we deny
that any such case ever happened, or ever can happen; for we affirm that the Scriptures teach nothing
that is not perfectly reasonable, when they are properly interpreted.
Revelation teaches more, and on higher evidence,
than reason. If it did not, it would be wholly useless and superfluous.  If it added nothing to what we
knew before, it could do us no good. Reason teaches
the probability of a future life; but the assurance of
Christ, and his own resurrection, make it certain.
But it is only by the use of reason that we can arrive
at the well-grounded conviction, that Christ ever uttere d such an assurance, or ever rose from the dead.
It is only by the use of reason that the accounts of
the supernatural events recorded in the New Testament can be separated and distinguished from the
thousand other accounts of supernatural events which
have been handed down to us from the past. Accordingly, every book that has ever been written
on the evidences of Christianity is a recital of the
reasons we have for believing the supernatural accounts of the Old and New Testaments, and rejecting all others. These books are addressed to the
reasoning faculty of man.   If the reasoning is not
satisfactory, the revelation has no authority.
38
.1 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
I'go further, and say that it is reason only which
can give us confidence in a revelation, even when we
are convinced that one has been made.   The truth
of revelation, even when it is made, depends upon
the veracity of God, upon the question whether it is
probable that he would or would not deceive us.
The probability that he would not deceive us depends
entirely upon the fact, whether he be a good being.
And the only evidence we have that he is a good
being is the predominance of good over evil in his
works, or of happiness over misery in the creatures he
has made.   The representation is not true, then, that
Unitarians set up reason in opposition to Scripture.,
and in opposition to faith. They make use of reason for the establishment of Scripture, and for the
establishment of faith.  They make use of reason
for the interpretation of Scripture, that they may ascertain what it teaches and what it does not teach.
It is objected to Unitarians, that they expect to
be saved by their own merits, whereas the only
ground of salvation is the merits of Christ.  Both
parts of this objection are founded on misapprehension.   There is no such thing mentioned in the
Scriptures as being saved by the merits of Christ.
There is no such phrase in the Scriptures as " the
merits of Christ."  There is no intimation that the
merits of Christ, whatever they might have been,
can by any possibility become the merits of any other person. Merit is a thing which can no more be
39
,,O 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
transferred than personal identity.  If merit could be
transferred from one person to another, then this
world, as a scene of probation, might be dispensed
with. Salvation must either be arbitrary or universal.
All that would be necessary to be done for the worst
of men, when he leaves the world, would be for the
merits of Christ to be set to his account, and then his
condition would be as good as that of the best. Christ
never made mention of any such Ilan of salvation as
this. He made no promise of the transfer of his
personal merits to his followers. There is no way
in which a bad man can become a good man, except
by his personal acts.  A bad man cannot become a
good man without repentance, which is a personal
act. A bad man cannot become a good man without reformation, that is, without obedience.   Accordingly, the first word which Christ uttered was,
" Repent."   In the first sermon lie delivered, hie
pronounced blessings on the humble, the meek, the
pure in heart, the merciful, the peacemakers, the
persecuted  for righteousness' sake,  and  assured
them that the kingdom of heaven was theirs,'- that
they would be for ever happy.   These things were
not the merits of Christ.  They were all personal
qualities, which fitted them for the happiness of
heaven.  He did not come to substitute reliance ot
his merits, in the place of obedience to God's law,
for final acceptance.   " Think not," said hlie, in the
same discourse, " that I am come to destroy the law
40 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach mien so, he shall be called the least
in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do
and teach themn, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven."   Does  this look like being
saved by the merits of Christ?
The next verse informs us of the nature and degree of that righteousness which was to fit Christ's
disciples for the kingdom of heaven. First he tells
them of the kind and degree of righteousness.which
the Scribes and Pharisees thought necessary, and
then informs them what he requires:- " I say unto
you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the
righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall
in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." What
was their righteousness? "' Ye have heard that it
was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the
judgment.   But I say unto you, that whosoever is
angry with his brother without a cause shall be in
danger of the judgment."   " Ye have heard that it
lath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy.   But I say unto you, Love your
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully
41 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
use you and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." Luke reports that he added, -" And your reward shall be
great." Your reward for what? Certainly not for
the merits of Christ, but the cultivation and practice
of the Christian virtues just enumerated, kindness,
forbearance, justice.  He winds up this enumeration
of Christian virtues by saying,-  " Be ye  therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven
is perfect." Now it cannot be said that God is perfect by any other righteousness except his own, and
if man is perfect by Christ's merits, then his perfection is not of the same kind with that of God.   The
perfection of God had just been specified: - " For
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the
good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."
After proposing as the laws of his kingdom the
whole circle of the most exalted virtues, Christ closes with the following declarations:-" Not every
one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will
of my Father which is in heaven."  "Therefore,
whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth
them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built
his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and
the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon
that house, and it fell not: for it was founded on a
rock.  And  every one that heareth these sayings
of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a
42 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
foolish man, which built his house upon the sand;
and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell:
and great was the fall of it." Nothing is here said of
the merits of Christ as a ground of salvation.   The
reason of acceptance is, not the appropriating of his
merits, but doing his commandments. In another
place he describes the general judgment, but says
nothing of his merits as the ground of discrimination
between those on his right hand and on his left. In
another place he says, -" They that have done
good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life,
and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of
condemnation."
Yet, notwithstanding these representations, no
Unitarian believes nor preaches that any man can
demand salvation on account of his good works, because his best works are imperfect, and he often sins.
For acceptance of his best deeds, he must rely on
the benignity of God, for he has done no more than
he was bound to do.   For the forgiveness of his
sins, he must be dependent on God's mercy: But
such is God's goodness, that he has no doubt of either.
This brings me to the only remaining charge
against Unitarians which I shall have space to notice
this evening.  It is said of us, that we deny the
Atonement. This charge is a difficult one to meet,
because of its vagueness.  It is difficult to find out
what the doctrine of atonement is, that we are ac
43 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
cused of denying. There have been almost as many
different schemes of atonement as there have been
different writers upon the subject.   Princeton says
one thing, and Andover another. Oberlin proposes
another explanation, differing from both.
The first and most common scheme of atonement
is, that the sufferings of Christ were designed to appease the wrath of God. God was angry with men
on account of the sin of Adam, as well as their own
sins. God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, interposed to turn away his wrath, to receive in
his ownI person the inflictions of God's vindictive
displeasure, and thus rescue man from it.  We  do
reject this scheme of atonement most distinctly and
emphatically. We say that it has no foundation in
Scripture, and that it is inconsistent with the nature
and character of God.   It is, moreover, inconsistent
with itself. On the supposition that the doctrine of
the Trinity were true, sin is committed against God,
the whole Trinity, - against one person as much
as another.    The  second person cannot abandon
his place in the Trinity, and come on Earth and
make atonement to the whole Trinity, because he
must be at the same time one of the persons of the
Trinity to which the atonement is made. The very
supposition upon which this scheme is raised is an
impossibility, and therefore requires no further discussion.
The next scheme of atonement which I shall men
44
.1 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
tion may be called " the satisfaction scheme."   It is
said, that mankind had broken God's law, and thus
impaired its authority. If men were pardoned merely on repentance, without the legal penalty being exacted from some one, the law would become a nullity, and no longer have power to control God's
creatures.  It was necessary that some one should
be punished, lest the Deity should lose his dignity
and respect.  Every sin is an infinite evil, because
committed  against an  infinite God.    An  infinite
atonement is necessary to do away an infinite evil.
It was necessary that Christ should be both God and
man, in order to make an infinite sacrifice. But, unfortunately for this theory, those who adopt it are
compelled to confess that God is incapable of suffering, so that the human part alone suffered, and the
infinite atonement is at last explained away.   Besides, Christ upon the cross exclaimed,'" MIy God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken  me?" and with
his last breath said, " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." If God made a part of his person, he could not have forsaken him. And. if he
remained to make the infinite atonement, that prayer
did not correspond to facts.  But this idea of satisfying the law is wholly gratuitous. Nothing is said
of it in Scripture.
What, then, is the atonement, and in what sense
do Unitarians believe in it? In the first place, I
observe that the word is found but once in the New
45 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
Testament, and then it is the translation of a Greek
word, which everywhere else is rendered reconciliation. Hadsit been here so translated, we should
never have heard either of the word or the doctrine
of atonement.
The simple facts of the case are these.  A disobedient child is always at variance with his father.
There can be no reconciliation, or at-one-ment, between them, until the son repents, reforms, and returns humbled and obedient to his father.   Such is
the condition of those whom Christ endeavoured to
reconcile to God. Reconciliation is a voluntary act,
and can be brought about only by persuasion.  Christ
was a teacher. His mission was that of a teacher.
His death was the consequence of his teaching, and
of his assumption of the office of the Messiah.   The
faith which he claimed from his disciples had nothing to do with his nature.  It was, that he had been
sent by God, and instructed and empowered to do
what he did, and teach what he taught.   That teaching was his principal office, he more than once asserts.  " I am  come  a light into the world, that
whosoever believeth on me should not walk in darkness."  Belief on him as a teacher was the belief
which secured salvation.   " Verily, verily, I say
unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on
him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not
come into condemnation, but is passed from death
unto life." To his disciples he said, before his cru
46 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
cifixion, - " Now ye are clean, through the word
that I have spoken unto you."   It was his doctrine,
then, not his death, which cleansed his disciples from
sin. Indeed, Christ's death without his doctrines
could have no influence upon the world, for men
cannot be forgiven unless they repent.  It is only by
bringing men to repentance and obedience, that he
can be of any service to them.   To reject him as a
teacher is to reject him altogether.  " He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one
that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, that
shall judge him at the last day.   For I have not
spoken of myself, but the Father, which hath sent
me, he gave me a commandment what I should say
and what I should speak, and I know that his commandment is life everlasting."
One part of Christ's doctrine was the readiness of
God to forgive the penitent.   Such  is the meaning
of the parable of the prodigal son.   The doctrine of
the forgiveness of sins made a part, and a substantial
part, of Christ's teaching; it became a part of the
new covenant or dispensation of religion, a part of
God's revealed and stipulated way of dealing with
men.
In the course of his teaching, Jesus was arraigned
by the Jews as guilty of blasphemy, in pretending
to be their promised Messiah, and for teaching the
people in the name of God. They brought him before their highest court, and the chief priest solemnly
47 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
interrogated him, -" Art thou the Christ? "   Here
were his whole mission and ministry brought to the
test.   If he had shrunk from that avowal,  there
would have been an end to his mission and his
religion.   The world  at large would never  have
known that such a person had lived. But lihe
said, " I am," and was ordered to execution. He
shed his blood, then, in bearing testimony to his Divine mission; his blood was the seal of the new covenant, a part of which covenant was the promise of
God to forgive the penitent. This is what he meant,
then, in instituting the Supper, when he took the cup
and said, " This is the new covenant in my blood,
which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
My blood is the seal of that covenant, which promises the forgiveness of sins.   This is the sense in
which Jesus was "a the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world." The mere pardon of
sin is of little consequence, unless at the same time
there is a change of character.  It would have been
of no use for the father to forgive the prodigal son,
unless he had repented. If he had come back impenitent, the state of things would not have been
improved at all, though the father had forgiven the
impenitent son.
Christ is the ambassador of God's mercy to men.
He promised them pardon on repentance, and acceptance on the ground of obedience, -reward, even,
for every good act.  But that embassage is made in
48
-1 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
I
finitely more impressive by the crucifixion.   That
Christ foresaw and foretold: -" And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."
So we find that it is the moral effect of Christ's
death upon us on which the writers of the New Testament principally dwell, when speaking of the subject.   " He  suffered, the just for the unjust," -
that he might appease the Divine wrath, or vindicate
the honor of the law? - no; but " that he might
bring us unto God."   " Who gave himself for us,"
-  that he might expiate our sins? -  no; but " that
he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
himself a peculiar people,,'alous of good works."
" Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed
by corruptible things, as silver and gold," - from
what? - the wrath of God, the penalties of the law?
-no; but " from your vain conversation, received by
tradition from your fathers," from your vicious habits and practices, which were handed down from preceding generations, " by the precious blood of
Christ, as of a lamb without (blemish and without
spot." Now there is no possible way in which the
blood of Christ can reform nmen from their evil habits, except by giving moral power and efficacy to the
Gospel, in persuading men to abandon sin and practise holiness.
Such, then, are the views of Unitarians with respect to the atonement.   They do not believe that
Christ died to appease God's wrath; they do not
4
49 
UNITARIANS NOT INFIDELS.
believe that he died to satisfy the claims of the
broken law. They do believe that he died to give
power and efficacy to his Gospel, to fix on him the
faith and affections of mankind, that they might be
delivered from sin, and be induced to become holy,
just, and good; to break off their sins by righteousness, and their iniquities by turning to God, and thus
become reconciled to that Father firom whom they
were alienated by wicked works.
The Unitarian hopes to be saved, not by his own
merits, nor by the merits of Christ, but by the free,
unbought, spontaneous mercy of God, of which
boundless and unchangeable love  the mission and
death of Christ are an expression and a manifestation. " For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
The atonement, or reconciliation, is not so much
a speculative as a practical subject, in which every
one is interested who hears me this night. Each one
of you knows whether he is reconciled to God or
not, or whether he is estranged from him. Christ
has told you how you can find peace: -  " Come
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I
will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and
learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and
ye shall find rest to your souls."
50
I 
DISCOURSE III.
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE AND EXPLAINING IT
AWAY
SANCTIFY THEM THIIROUGH THY TRUTH: THY WORD IS TRUTH.
-John xvii. 17.
THE charges against Unitarians which I am this
evening to meet and answer are, that they mutilate
the Scriptures in some instances, and explain them
away in others, in order to sustain their peculiar doctrines.  Sometimes it is said, that we do not use the
same Bible which is used by the rest of the Christian
world.   The impression intended to be conveyed by
all these representations is, that the Scriptures are so
plainly against us that they must be disposed of in
some unfair way before our doctrines can be established, and where a text makes against us, we either
deny its genuineness, or put some forced and unnatural construction upon it, to make it square with our
faith. It is the object of this discourse to examine
and confute these charges, to show that we are more
zealous than any other sect for the purity of God's
word, that where the accusation can be made against
+ 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
us of straining the words of Scripture from their obvious meaning, the same charge may be made a hundred times as often against those who accuse us; that
we are never compelled by our system to explain
away the Scriptures, but only to explain them; whereas there is hardly a page in the Bible which Trinitarians are not compelled to explain away.
We begin with the integrity of the text.  It is not
pretended by the advocates of the Trinity that there
is one single text in the Bible in which it is plainly
taught.   There is no such word as Trinity in the
Bible, from beginning to end.'Such a word was
never coined till many ages after the Bible was written. Both the great Reformers, Luther and Calvin,
were dissatisfied with it and disapproved of its use.
Luther says, -"  The word Trinity sounds oddly,
and is a human invention; it were better to call the
Almighty, God, than Trinity." Calvin says he has
no objection to its being disused, or " buried," and,
in another place, -  " I like not this prayer, O  holy,
blessed, and glorious Trinity! it savors of barbarism.
The word Trinity is barbarous, insipid,,profane, a
human invention, grounded on no testimony of the
word of God."
The Catholics, the most numerous branch of the
Christian Church, do not pretend that the doctrine of
the Triniity can be proved from the Scriptures. They
confess that it is received by their church on the
ground of tradition alone.   The  Protestants, with
52
I
I 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.,
singular inconsistency, deny tradition, but hold the
doctrine of the Trinity, when the foundation upon
which the Catholics rested it is taken away.   There
is only one text in the Bible which expresses any
thing like a Trinity, and that is the seventh verse of
the fifth chapter of the First Epistle of John:" For there are three that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these
three are one." But this text is spurious, and made
no part of the original Epistle of John.   All scholars, of all parties and sects, who have examined
the evidence, have abandoned this text as making
no part of the word of God.   Still, it is cited and
preached from, as being genuine, by clergymen who
ought to be acquainted with this fact.  Certainly,
under these circumstances, we have a right to retort
the charge of irreverence to the sacred Scriptures.
It is quite as disrespectful to the Scriptures to attempt to interpolate a passage into them of mere human device, as to expunge a passage that is genuine,
which the Unitarians have never done.
The New Testament, as you well know, was written in the Greek language, and we have manuscripts of
it written more than a thousand years ago.  We havf
translations made from it still earlier into various lan
guages.  This verse is not found in any one of them
It is needless to add, that its reception cannot be sus
tained for a moment. And it seems to be a fact
ominous to the cause of Trinitarianism, that the only
53 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
text to which it can appeal as direct testimony turns
out to be a manifest interpolation. How can it be
justified for a moment, that a minister of God's truth
should stand up and quote this text in proof of the
Trinity, without giving any intimation of its being an
interpolation?
There is another passage which is often quoted in
the Trinitarian controversy, to which no weight ought
to be attached.  It is found in First Timothy, third
chapter, sixteenth verse: - " 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 up in
glory."   There are no less than three variations of
the ancient manuscripts, on which most reliance is
placed in settling the text of the New Testament.
One reading is,    " He who was manifested in the
flesh was justified in the spirit. "  Another,-  " Great
is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in
the flesh."   The  other is the common  reading.
"God  was manifested in the flesh."  The whole
Catholic Church, throughout the world, Snows no
other reading than " Great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh," as any of
you may easily ascertain by examining a Catholic
Bible at the place referred to.  Sir Isaac Newton,
one of the best as well as most learned of men,
wrote a distinct treatise to show that the common
reading-  " God was manifested in the flesh "-  is
54
a
I 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
a corruption of the text, and was unknown in the
churches for the first three hundred years.   By the
best eritics, this reading is rejected, and no honest
man, who knows the whole ground, will ever quote
this text as having any bearing on the Trinitarian
controversy, or quote it at all without noticing the
fact, that the reading is so doubtful, that no argument
ought to be drawn from it.
There is another passage which is situated in the
same way. It is found in the twentieth chapter,
twenty-eighth verse, of Acts: -" Feed the church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
This reading is of modern origin.   The true reading,
according to the most ancient manuscripts, is," Feed the church of the Lord, which he hath purchased with his own blood," -referring, of course,
to Christ.
These three passages of the New Testament are
admitted, by the best critical scholars, to be corruptions of the text.   All honest mnen ought to unite in
giving themn their true character.   No honest scholar
can allow them to be quoted as of any authority in the
Trinitarian controversy.   If the doctrine of the Trinity were anywhere plainly taught, then an argument
might be allowed some force which was itself doubtful.  But to sustain a doubtful doctrine by a text
which is itself' of doubtful authority, is by no means
to be allowed.
We do not mutilate the Scripture, then, when we
55 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
insist that these texts shall be set aside.   We  are
doing all that in us lies to restore it to its primitive
integrity.
We now come to the second charge, that we explain away those passages which we do not deny
and expunge. That is to say, we put a forced construction on them, and depart from their natural
meaning to a degree wholly unjustifiable. Let us examnine this matter carefully, and see how it stands.
In the first place, I would observe that the Unitarian has very little to explain away.   It is not pretended that there is a single text in the Bible in which
the doctrine of the Trinity is plainly taught.   The
Unitarian, then, can have but very little that is really
difficult to explain away.   It is not pretended that
the Trinity is any thing other than a doctrine of inference. An inference may be a mistaken inference,
and it is a very different thing to explain away an inference from explaining away a plain, direct, and positive declaration.
Let us try two or three of the strongest Trinitarian texts.   The benediction at the close of,the Second Epistle to the Corinthians has always been considered as containing one of the strongest arguments
for the Trinity: -" The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Ghost be with you all."  Here, it is said, there
are the three persons of the Trinity brought together,
and a blessing implored from each of them.
56
I 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
In the first place, we observe, that the order is
wrong. The Lord Jesus Christ is put first. He is
thought to be the second person of the Trinity.
And the second person of this Trinity is God, the
whole Deity.   " The  love of GOD."   God,  the
whole Deity, cannot be a person of the Trinity. If
the second person of this Trinity is God, the whole
Deity, and is connected with Christ and the Holy
Ghost by thle particle "and," Christ and the Holy
Ghost cannot be God at all, by the very terms of
the proposition.   Instead, then, of being one of the
strongest arguments for the Trinity, this passage,
when analyzed, is found to be one of the strongest arguments ag,ainst it.  Had the language been,
" the love of the Father," then the second clause
might have designated a person of the Trinity, according to that hypothesis; but being God, the whole
Deity, the second person excludes the other persons,
or whatever you may call them, from the Deity altogether.
In giving this analysis, you perceive, we do not
explain away the Scripture,- we simply explain it,
and show its true meaning; and, in doing so, we
explain away the argument which it is thought to contain in favor of the Trinity.
Let us now take up the introduction to the Gospel
of John.   " In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God. The
same was in the beginning with God." This is con
57 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
sidered as one of the principal proof-texts of the Trinity, which the Unitarian must use much ingenuity to
explain away. But it teaches no Trinity. The word
"' God" occurs three times in it, but with no intimation of any plurality in the Divine nature. The word
" God" comprehtends here, as it does in other cases,
the whole Deity. What, then, is affirmed? That
the Word was with God and was God. The first
question to settle is, Is the Word represented as a
person?  " The Word " is not a proper name, not
the name of a person, but of a thing.  But let us
understand it as a person, the second person of the
Trinity.   " In the beginning was the second person
of the Trinity, and the second person of the Trinity
was with God, and' the second person of the Trinity
was God."   This becomes a contradiction in terms.
The second person of the Trinity could not be with
GOD, for he must then have been a person of the very
God with whom he was. The very words of this passage, then, instead of sustaining the doctrine of the
Trinity, contradict it.  There is no Trinitarian argument, therefore, in the passage to explain away.
In order to understand it, we must find out what is
meant by the term "Word."  How is God represented as making the world?  Byhis word.  He said," Let there be light, and there was light." But a
little reflection will convince us that this is a figurative expression. Literally interpreted, it would teach
that God spoke through human organs, which would
58
.1 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
involve the supposition that God is material.  Commands are addressed to human or intelligent beings,
and not to inanimate matter. The Scripture does not
mean to say that God created the universe by speaking, when it says,   " By the word of the Lord were
the heavens made, and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth "; but merely to represent the
exertion of God's creative power under a human similitude.   The term "Word," therefore, represents
those attributes of God which were exerted in the
creation, his wisdom and power. Through them God
created the world. By the " Word," then, in this
sense of God's wisdom and power, which after all
are nothing else or different from God himself, all
things were made.
The same attributes of wisdom and power gave
being to the human soul, and when it was created
gave it intelligence and will.  "In it was life, and
the life was the light of men."   The same sense
is expressed in other words: -"  The inspiration of
the Almighty hath given him understanding." It was
the same which gave inspiration to the prophets of the
Old Testament. But it was especially manifest in
Jesus Christ, inasmuch that in him it became incarnate. Divine power and wisdom came and dwelt
among us in human form. Such full communications of Divine power and wisdom did Jesus enjoy,
that he seemed to the beholders to be the peculiar favorite of Heaven, to be in such favor as an only son
t
59 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
is with his father. And he made as much more perfect a revelation to men, as his communion with God
seemed more near and intimate,    " For the law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ."   That there was no personal manifestation
of God appears by what comes after.   "No  man
hath seen God at any time.   The only begotten Son,
who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him."
" God " and " Father " are here used as synonymnious expressions. To be in the bosom of another
is not to share his nature, but his confidence.   The
Son, as the second person of the Trinity, could not
derive his superior knowledge of God from the fact
that he was in the bosom of God, for he must have
been that very God in whose bosom he was.  There
is no Trinitarianism, then, in this passage.  It is not
said that God  is three in any sense.  The  term
Father" is used as applied to God, and it means,
not a person of a trinity, but the whole Deity, and
is synonymous with the word " God." The term
'" Son " is applied to Christ, but not as a,person of
the Trinity, but as a person deriving superior knowledge of God from the fulness of the communications
which he had received from the whole Deity. All
that is asserted in it, when analyzed, amounts to this,
- that, through Christ, God made the most perfect
revelation of himself that had ever been given to
man, more perfect than in physical nature, more per
60
-1 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
feet than in the human soul, and more perfect than in
the Mosaic dispensation.
This is the natural exposition of the whole passage, when considered part by part. This is explaining Scripture, not explaining it away.   Any other
explanation introduces confusion into theology and
into humanity, besides being forced upon the language of the Scriptures.
Another passage, which is thought most explicitly
to teach the Trinity, is the formi of baptism.   Baptizing them " in the name," or rather into the name,
"c of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." Here at least, it is said, are the three persons of the Trinity made all equal, and the disciples
are commanded to be baptized into the name of them
all. Here is a trinity asserted, and no amount of
ingenuity can explain it away.   But you note that it
is not asserted that each one of these is God, or that
they all three are one God. There is, then, no
trinity of persons asserted, and of course there is
none to explain away. The doctrine of the Trinity
is an inference, then, as far as this passage is concerned, and it is a human, fallible inference, and may
not be a true inference.
Baptism, in the time of Christ and his Apostles,
was a form of public profession. John's baptism
was a baptism into repentance, or a profession of repentance, in anticipation of the advent of Christ. To
be baptized into Christ, or into Christianity, was to
61 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
be baptized into a profession of belief in Jesus as the
true Messiah.   Such was the case with the Jews
In theiri baptism, it is not probable that any more
than the name of Jesus was used, as Peter says to
them, on the day of Pentecost,   " Repent and be
baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they which
gladly received the word were baptized."
Now, if we consider the form of baptism to relate
entirely to the Divine nature, to what will it amount?
That God exists in three persons, that one of these
persons is son to the other, and the other person is
called the Holy Ghost. The form of baptism, under
this view of it, is a mere abstract proposition, as to
the mode of the Divine existence. It has no relation
to the Christian religion, nor to our salvation.   It
is a mere metaphysical theory, and a theory itself
embarrassed with insuperable difficulties.
But interpreting the sonship of Christ of his office, his being sent of God, and the Holy Ghost as
the seal of his mission, then the form of baptism becomes significant. It becomes a declaration of belief
in God as the true God, in Jesus-as having been sent
and commissioned by him to promulgate and e'stablish Christianity, and in those miraculous events
ascribed to the Holy Ghost, by which Christianity
was established in the earth.
To this exposition there are no metaphysical oh
62
IO 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
jections, no mysterious and incomprehensible Trinity
in Unity, and Unitv in Trinity. It explains the
Bible, and does not explain it away; for it is not
pretended that the doctrine of the Trinity is positively asserted, or that it is any thing more than an inference from the form of baptism.  If the doctrine of
the Trinity were anywhere plainly asserted, then an
objection might lie against Unitarianism as explaining
away the Bible. All it has to do is to explain away
an inference which fallible men have drawn from certain parts of the Scriptures, and which inference in
itself involves inconsistencies and contradictions.
Perhaps the nearest approach which the Unitarian
makes to being obnoxious to the charge of explaining
away the Scriptures is in his exposition of Thomas's
exclamation, recorded in the twentieth chapter of
John. " And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My  Lord  and  my  God."   Here  the appellation
" God" is applied to Christ.  The question between
the Unitarian and the Trinitarian is, What did Thomas mean by it? Did he mean to recognize Jesus as
the Jehovah of the Jews, the Creator and Sovereign
of the universe? or did he mean to apply the appellation " God' to him as the Jews did the same appellation to kings and magistrates, as a title of the
highest respect? or was it merely an exclamation of
surprise which escaped his lips in a moment of sudden transport, and not intended as a logical affirmation of any proposition in regard to Christ's nature?
63 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
Most Unitarians adopt the second explanation. The
word " God " in the Bible is not exclusively appropriated to Jehovah. It is likewise applied to kings
and magistrates.   " God standeth in the congregation
of the mighty, he judgeth among the Gods. How
long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of
the wicked?"   " I have said, Ye are Gods, and all
of you are children of thie Most High. But ye shall
die like men, and perish like one of the people."
In a psalm composed in honor of one of the reigning monarchs of Israel, the writer speaks thus:CC My heart is indicting a good matter: I speak of the
things which I have made touching the king: my
tongue is the pen of a ready writer.   Thou art fairer
than the children of men: graceis poured into thy
lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever."
' Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the seeptre of thy kingdom is a right seeptre.  Thou lovest
righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God,
even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows." This passage is quoted
in the Epistle to the Hebrews and applied to Christ.
It must be applied to Christ, then, not in his divine
nature, but his Messianic dignity, for in it is contained
this expression: -" Therefore God, even thy God,
hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy
fellows." Christ, in his divine nature, cannot have
a God, cannot be exalted, cannot have fellows.
Thomas, then, may have applied the epithet
64 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
" God" to Christ in the same sense, not meaning to
address him as Jehovah, but as one whom Jehovah
had exalted to the highest dignity.
The circumstances which determine my mind to
this interpretation are these.   The point at issue be-;
tween Thomas and his fellow-disciples was not the
Deity of Jesus, but whether he were risen from the
dead. " But Thomas, one of the twelve, was not
with them when Jesus came. The other disciples,
therefore, said unto him, We have seen the Lord."
That the disciples had seen Jesus was no evidence
that he was Jehovah, "whom  no man hath seen, or
can see," but only that he had risen from the dead.
"But  he said unto them, Except I shall see in
his hands the print of the nails, and thrust my
hand into his side, I will not believe." This evidence was given him. He saw and felt, he had the
concurrent testimony of two of his senses, -to
what? that Jesus was Jehovah? - Jehovah can neither be touched nor seen; -no; but that Jesus was
risen from the dead, and of consequence must be the
true Messiah.   His words, then,-are to be interpreted as an exclamation of satisfaction as to the point
upon which he had doubted, that his Master was risen
from the dead. And putting any meaning upon this
passage, it does not assert that God is three in any
sense, and leaves the Unitarian nothing to explain
away.
What John, who was a witness to this transaction,
5
65 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
considered to be proved by it, is evident from the
next verse but one:-" And many other signs truly
did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are
not written in this book.   But these are written, that
ye might believe," -what?- that Jesus'is God?no; but " that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God,
and that believing ye might have life through his
name."   To  believe in Jesus as the Christ is to
believe, not that he is God, but the anointed of God.
The phrase " Son of God," is merely a synonyme
for " Messiah."
But the Trinitarian has an infinitely harder task before him.  He has something to explain away.  The
doctrine of the unity of God is not a doctrine of inference.  It is directly asserted over and over, and
there is scarcely a page of the Bible on which it is
not either expressed or taken for granted. The Trinitarian, in order to sustain his creed, has all these
texts, not only to explain, but to explain away.
The word " God " occurs more than two thousand times in the Old Testament, and nowhere with
any intimations of a trinity of persons in his nature.
All these texts are arguments for the unity of God,
and must by the Trinitarian be explained away. One
of the chief precepts written down in the book of
the law was,   " Jehlvah, our God, Jehovah is
one." Here is a positive affirmation of the unity of
God, in the most absolute sense. This is not only
to be explained, but explained away. And the ex
66 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
planation that is usually given of it is, that it is not
intended to contradict the idea that there may be three
persons in God, but only that there is one God, in
opposition to the many gods of the heathen.
But there is another text, indeed, many other
texts, in which a trinity of persons is equally contradicted. In the bush, God gives his name as " 1
AM," and tells Moses to say to the children of Israel, " I Am  hath sent me."   If there were three
persons in God, is there any possible way in which
the God of truth could have so effectually misled
Moses and the Israelites as to the unity or plurality
of the Divine nature, if he really were a trinity of
persons, as in the use of such language as this, designating his very essence by the name, " I AM "?
Accordingly, neither Moses nor the Jews ever had
the least conception of a trinity of persons in God,
from that day to this.
We now come down to the New Testament.
Did Jesus teach any new doctrine with respect to
the Divine nature? He made the unity of God the
foundation-stone of his religion, as Moses had done
of his. He quotes the very words of Moses:
" The first of all the commandments is, Jehovah,
your God, Jehovah is one." This passage must
not only be explained, but explained away, before
there can be any room to prove the Trinity. Here
is a positive assertion, by Christ himself, of the
unity of God.   To  explain away a positive  asser
67 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
tion is a very different thing from explaining away
a mere inference.
Christ prayed, and often. But then, to explain
that recorded fact, it is said that he prayed in his human nature. We answer, that it is mere assumption
to imagine that he had two natures.   Such a fact is
nowhere stated in. the Bible, and cannot be assumed
till it is proved.   But if'he taught a trinity, and
knew that a trinity existed, if he prayed in his human nature, he ought to have prayed to a trinity.
But he never prayed to a trinity.
In order to make the Bible-bear a Trinitarian explanation, another hypothesis is invented, that the
word " Father," when applied to God, sometimes
means the first person of a trinity, and sometimes
the whole Deity.   But that hypothesis, too, ought
first to be proved before it is used.   At least, one
passage ought to be shown in which the word " Father " means the first person of a trinity, for the
moment it is allowed that the words "God " and
" Father " are coextensive in the New Testament,
the doctrine of the Trinity is abandoned., Let us
try a few passages.   To  the woman  of Samaria
Christ said,'" the hour comrneth, and now is, when
the true worshippers shall worship THE FATIHER in
spirit and in truth.   GOD is a spirit, and they that
worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
Here  " God " and " Father " are used as equal
and coextensive terms.   If the term " Father"  be
68 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
taken to mean the first person of a trinity, then it
would follow that the first person only is an object
of worship.  "No man hath seen GOD at any time.
The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of THE
FATHER, he hath declared him." Here the word
"him" refers to God, whom no one hath seen, and
"Father " is coextensive with " God." The second person of a trinity cannot be in the bosom of
the first, and thus derive his knowledge from him, for
they are equal and the same.   Such phraseology as
this, so far from being an argument in favor of the
Trinity, and requiring of the Unitarian to be explained away, contains a strong argument for the
unity of God, and therefore must be explained away
by the Trinitarian before his hypothesis can be re
ceived.
Thie Lord's prayer contains a strong argument for
the Unitarian faith: -" Our Father which art in
heaven."   "Father"  here either stands for the
whole Deity, or it authorizes us to worship only the
first person of the Trinity.   If it is conceded that it
comprehends the whole Deity, then it must be admitted, that in order to sustain the doctrine of the
Trinity, the meaning of the term " Father" must be
shifted to meet circumstances, -sometimes be taken
to mean the first person of a trinity, and sometimes
the whole Deity. Such a mode of interpretation
does not suit the dignity of the word of God. With
these considerations in our minds, let us go to
69 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
Christ's last prayer with his disciples: - " Father,
the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son alsG
may glorify thee. As thou hast given him power
over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as
many as thou hast given hin. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here there can
be no doubt that the term " Father " embraces the
whole Deity, for he calls him "the only true God."
If the Father is the only true God, then the term
" Father" either includes the Son and Holy Ghost,
or shuts them  out of  Deity altogether.   Christ
prayed either in his human or his divine nature.   If
he prayed in his divine nature, then his divine nature
was not God; for hlie prays to the only true God to
glorify him tvith the glory that he had waith him before the world was. One equal person of a trinity
could not have received glory from the only true
God before the world was. If lie did not pray in
his divine nature, he prayed in his human nature, and
applied the term " Son " to his human nature: -
"Glorify thy Son," -  afterwards, " Glorify me."
If the title " Son" is applied to his human nature
here, it may be in every case, and thus be no argument for the Trinity anywhere. If the term " Father," when applied to God, here embraces the
whole Deity, it may in every case, and the doctrine
of the Trinity falls in pieces by the simple analysis of
the terms in which it is expressed.
70 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
So in this case, as in every other, the Unitarian is
not obliged to explain away the Bible, but only to
explain it, and that very explanation explains away
the Trinity.
There are hosts of passages equally strong.
"There is one God, and one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus."  It is impossible
to explain this away.   "Blessed  be  the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." A person of
the Trinity cannot have a God.   But this passage
affirms that the Lord Jesus Christ not only has a
Father, but a God.
Another is found in the first chapter of the Apocalypse: -" The revelation of Jesus Christ, which
God gave unto him." The advocates of the Trinity have never been able to give a satisfactory exposition of this passage.   There are two difficulties,
either of which is insurmountable.  One is, that this
revelation is represented as having been given to
Christ years after his ascension and exaltation to
heaven. If Christ were God, or an equal person
of the Trinity, no such revelation could possibly
have been made to him, for he must have been essentially omniscient.
The other difficulty is, that the revelation is made
to Jesus Christ by God; not by the Father, but by
GOD, the whole Trinity.   Jesus Christ, then, is
shut out of Deity, both by the facts related and by
the language used; by his receiving a revelation at
71 
EXPLAINING THE BIBLE
all, and his receiving it from GOD, the undivided Deity. Here the usual resort to the distinction between
the human and divine nature of Christ will not avail.
Professor Stuart of Andover tells us that Christ,
though exalted to heaven, will be a dependent being
in his mediatorial capacity till the consummation of
all things. But this, to my mind, is no explanation
how omniscience can be assumed and laid aside at
pleasure, or can be conferred and recalled, since it
must be an essential and inherent attribute, or not be
possessed at all.
There is another passage, which has given the defenders of the Trinity greater trouble, and has never
yet found a satisfactory solution.  It is found in the
thirteenth chapter of Mark:   "  But of that day
and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
only."  Here omniscience is expressly denied of
the " Son." Without some explanation, this passage is fatal to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to the
Deity of Christ.   In order to evade the force of it,
Trinitarians give two  explanations.   One is, that
Christ says this of his human nature, and does not
mean to deny omniscience to his divine nature.
This, however, would bear hard on his veracity and
plain-dealing.  It would admnit that the title " Son,"
when used of Christ in connection with the title
" Father" when applied to God, means nothing
more than his human nature. And this would greatly
V
72 
AND EXPLAINING IT AWAY.
weaken the force of the argument derived from the
form of baptism,    " Baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son," &c. That it is
applied to him in his highest capacity, would seem
to he intimated by the climax, in which Christ is
put between the angels in heaven and God. 
The other exposition is, that Christ did not know
when the day of judgment or the destruction of Jerusalem was to be, in the sense of not being commissioned to make it known. But philologists have
sought in vain, in all Greek literature, for a single instance of the use of the word here rendered " knoweth" with any such meaning.   This text, therefore,
must remain as it is, wholly incapable of any explanation consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.
It cannot be explained away.
I trust that I have now sufficiently answered the
charge made against Unitarians, of mutilating and explaining away the Scriptures. I have shown that the
Unitarian has very little to explain away.    The
Trinitarian, on the other hand, has the current language of the Bible against him, and many passages
of which no satisfactory explanation has ever been
given.
73
o  
DISCOURSE IV.
- UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
THEREFORE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER YE WOULD THAT MEN
SHOULD DO TO YOU, DO YE EVEN SO TO THEM; FOR THIS IS
THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. - Matthew vii. 12.
IT is often said of Unitarian ministers, that they
preach mere morality.   After hearing a sermon,
modelled as near as the best intentions can make it
upon the Sermon on the Mount, the Orthodox hear    er goes away and says, -- " That was a very good
moral discourse, but there was no religion in it."
So it is said of Unitarians as a class, that they are
*   very good moral people, but they have no religion.
To my mind, there is no slight praise in such cen    sure as this.   In order to censure us, pur critics
are compelled to reverse the rule of the Saviour.
He has given us the rule of judgment in these terms:
- " By their- fruits ye shall know them. A corrupt
tree cannot bring forth good fruit." But here the
fruit is acknowledged to be good, yet the tree is con    demned as corrupt.
But let us take up and examine the charge of
0 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
preaching mere morality. What is mere morality?
Perhaps the principle of mere morality may be summed up in a single sentence, -" Honesty is the
best policy."   An enlightened regard to self-interest
prescribes a course of strict morality.  In short,
that which is right is to be practised, not because it
is right, but because it is expedient. A man must not
steal, because the probability is that his theft will be
discovered.   A man must not lie, because he is sure
to be detected, and fall into disgrace.  He must not
plunge into sensuality, for fear of injuring his health,
or wasting his substance.  He must not oppress the
poor and the dependent, for fear of getting their illwill, and becoming  unpopular.   A  preacher  who
should appeal to such motives, and advocate such
principles, would preach mere morality.
But this charge is intended to go further.  It is
intended to deny, as well as affirm.  It is intended to
assert that we do not preach the necessity of a religious faith as the basis of moral principle and as the
basis of moral conduct.   It is intended to deny that
we lay any stress on religious emotion, and to insinuate that we pass it over as enthusiasm and fanaticism.
It is intended to deny that we recognize as important religious experience, that we regard all spiritual
renovation as a delusion, and the growing peace and
happiness of a righteous man as a superstitious fancy.
I pronounce all these charges to be wholly and
utterly false.  In the first place, we assemble in a
75 
'/6     UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
church.  It would not be requisite for us to have
churches in order to preach mere morality.  A  lecture-room would be more appropriate for that purpose.
To preach mere morality is to teach philosophy, and
the professor's chair is the proper place for that species of instruction.   We  assemble  in a church.
And what is a church? It is a place of worship,
devoutly consecrated and set apart for the services
of religion, by solemn prayer and dedicatory rites.
It is called, and felt by us to be, c" none other than
the house of God, and the gate of heaven." Ded'cated to God, and consecrated to religious purposes, our religious regard and veneration for the
place are expressed, not in words, but in actions,
which speak louder, and are more to be believed,
- by the decorum, the silence, the reverential respect, which is manifested here. Is this mere morality? Is this negation of all religious sentiment
and emotion? This deportment, which is spontaneous and unstudied, is the best possible demonstration that we do not come here for the purpose of
hearing a mere moral lecture, based upor selfish calculation and a heartless, worldly expediency; that
we do not fall behind our fellow-Christians of other
names in hearty reverence for sacred things.
Here we worship God. Not only are we awed by
an especial sense of his presence, but we take his
great name upon our lips, we lift up our thoughts to the
contemplation of his Divine perfections. We adore
I 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
him as the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth, as
the High and Mighty Ruler of the universe, as the
Holy One who inhabiteth eternity, in whose sight
the heavens are not clean, and the angels chargeable
with folly. We worship him as the Former of our
bodies and the Father of our spirits; as the Supreme
Lawgiver, whose own finger hath written his statutes
in the tablet of our hearts; as the ever-present Witness, to whomn all hearts are open and all secrets
are known, who cannot be deceived, and will not be
mocked; as the Omnipotent and Eternal Rewarder,
whose presence is universal and his administration
without end, and who will, therefore, bring every
work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether
it be good or whether it be evil.
Is this the administration of mere morality, which
has no regard to God or his moral government of the
universe?
.Here we sing God's praise, in hymns, for the most
part, composed by those who entertain theological
opinions similar to our own, or by those who differ
from us in some particulars of faith, but whose sentiments on subjects in which their opinions and ours
coincide we do not hesitate to adopt. Can any human being, without invading the prerogative of Omnriiscience, take it upon himself to decide, that this
part of our worship is a mere formality, that no emotion of our hearts accompanies the song of thanksgiving, the confession of penitence, the avowal of
confidence and trust?
77 
78      UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
Here the Scriptures are read, and carefully separated from all other books, and placed infinitely
above them in authority and respect.   They are acknowledged as containing the record of a revelation
from God.  Infinite pains are taken to find out their
mneaning, to illustrate them by ancient monuments
and by contemporaneous history.  To themn the ultimate appeal is made, when we would ascertain what
is the mind and will of God. Especially do we acknowledge the New Testament as the foundation of
our religion. All our religious usages are founded
on the facts which it relates.   The reason why we
suspend our worldly avocations and assemble in our
churches on the first day of the week is, that the
New Testament records the fact, that on that day
Jesus Christ, "the author and finisher of our faith,"
rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.  If we
did not believe this fact, we should pursue our customary employments.   That fact to us puts the seal
of God's truth on all that he has taught us.' That
fact makes the Gospel to us to be, in a manner, the
voice of Christ, now speaking to us from the invisible world, from the exaltation to which he is raised,
and which in Oriental figure is expressed by his being seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
We baptize our children in his name, together
with the name of God and the Holy Ghost, and by
that rite we express our obligation to baptize their
souls with his truth, early to imbue their minds with
.1 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
the principles of his religion, by precept and by example to train them up to be his true disciples here,
that they and we may be partakers of his glory hereafter.
Would not all this be absurd, if we believed and
practised nothing but a worldly morality, and are
kept within the bounds of decency only by the maxim
of earthly wisdom, that honesty is the best policy?
We celebrate the communion of the Lord's Supper. How can we do this without religious faith,
when all that gives the rite any interest or significance to us is the relation which Christ sustains to
us as the Ambassador of God's mercy, the Revealer
of his will, the faithful and true Witness, and our
Forerunner into heaven? Did we not believe in
him in these official capacities, the Lord's Supper
would be a mockery, unmeaning and superfluous, and
it would be soon abandoned. It is because his doctrine to us is the bread that came down from heaven,
of which if a man eat he shall live for ever, which
he died on the cross to give us, that the Eucharist
has the power to move our religious affections.  It
is because his blood is the seal of the New Covenant, in which God stipulates to pardon the penitent,
and restore them to his favor, that the cup of thanksgiving has to us any interest or signification. It is
because the Lord's Supper is a communion with the
living and the dead, the Church Universal on earth
and in heaven, that it draws us towards it as a sacred
79 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
ceremony, and gives it a spritual power to sanctify,
strengthen, and console us. Could such a rite be
perpetuated among us if we had neither religious
faith nor feeling, and all our real religion amounted
to nothing more than the calculating prudence, that
honesty is the best policy? Such conduct would be
wholly inexplicable.
But this charge is intended to reach farther, and
to throw upon us the odium of denying the reality,
the value, and validity of religious experience. Let
us examine this charge, and see if it be just.
In the first place, the very fact of preaching to
make men better recognizes a difference between a
bad man and a good man, and the fact that both the
bad man and the good man are sensible of this difference. This consciousness is religious experience.
No  man from a bad man can become a good man
without religious experience.   The means we recommend him to use, in order to become a good man,
are religious means. We tell him that the shortest
way to morality is through religion, and the only sure
foundation for morality is religion. If a men becomes
truly religious, his morality will take care of itself.
But we tell him, too, that, unless his morality keep
pace with his religion, he is liable to the grossest selfdeception. John the Baptist must first come with his
baptism of repentance and reformation, before Jesus
can come with his Gospel of holiness and sanctification. Sin we believe to be a disease, to the cure of
so
w 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
which abstinence and regimen are as necessary as
medicine. Any relapse into old habits nullifies all
the effects of medicine, and renders recovery impossible.
We  believe in the efficacy of prayer.   We  believe that it is the most powerful agency that is
brought to bear upon the soul of man. We believe
that in true prayer the soul opens itself to the influx
of Divine influence, just as  the upturned  flower
drinks in the vivifying rays of light and heat from the
sun. We believe that God always gives his holy
spirit to them that ask it.  But we believe, too, that
right moral dispositions are necessary to the truth,
the  reality, and,  of  consequence,  the  efficacy of
prayer. We believe that the prayers of the wicked
are an abomination in the sight of God. We believe that, if we regard iniquity in our hearts, the
Lord will not hear our prayer.   This is as true of
those who reckon themselves among the saints, as
of those who acknowledge themselves among the sinners.   True repentance is necessary to forgiveness.
Reformation is the only sure proof of repentance.
" If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and  there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee,
leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way;
first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and
offer thy gift." We believe in such sort of religious
experience as this.
We believe in the efficacy of prayer, but not only
6
81 
82      UNITAIRIANISMI NOT MERE IMORALITY.
must prayer be offered with right moral dispositions,
but directed to proper and legitimate objects. There
is no power in prayer to compel God to do what is
not in the order of his providence, or to induce him
to do that for us which he has made it our duty to
do for ourselves.   We  cannot cause a harvest to
spring out of the earth, merely by praying for it.
We mnust till the soil and cast in the seed, and then
we  may  legitimately ask the blessing of God  on
our labors. So we pray, " Give us day by day our
daily bread"; but we do not expect that God will
give it to us without labor.   If we are reasonable
beings, we ask his blessing to prosper our labors.
So the Christian prays that he may know the truth,
but, if he understands the nature of prayer, he does
not expect that God will communicate to him that
knowledge by immediate revelation, without study or
examination. So he-prays to God that he may subdue his evil propensities, but not without his own
efforts to do so. We believe that God grants the
prayers of his children, just as far as he sees it to be
for their good. Is this preaching mere,morality?
Is this denying religious experience?
We admit that our estimate of morality may be
different fromn that of our fellow-Christians, and may
be higher. When we look around us, and perceive
that the want of common honesty is one of the sorest,'
if not the very worst, of the evils by which our
country is at this moment afflicted, and find that it
w 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
extends not alone to those who profess to be governed by nothing higher than a mere worldly morality, but to the so-called religious, and that this sad
defieis   sometimes found in the management of
religious affairs, and that some of the most fatal and
ruinous disgusts to all religion are taken from the detection of the want of moral principle in those who
mnake the loudest religious pretensions, we are sometimes tempted to subscribe to the common sentiment,
- "' An honest man's the noblest work of God."
We may at least be permitted to place integrity at
the foundation of all human excellence.
We do differ somewhat from some Christians in
our estimate of the relation which morality bears to
God.   We believe that the law of morality is God's
law, -  those conceptions of right and wrong which
God has written on the human heart. If conscience
is God's law, then obedience to conscience is obedience to God, and in so far is a religious act, even
if no especial thought of God comes into the mind.
Disobedience to conscience is sin, and sin, from its
very nature, is an irreligious act, a violation of religious obligation.  If disobedience to conscience be
sin, then obedience to conscience must be virtue,
and acceptable in the sight of God, or the ways of
God are not equal, and his government is a tyranny.
If, when the choice is presented to me to do wrong
or right, and it is counted sin to me if I do wrong,
and not counted a merit if I do right, then I affirm
83 
84      UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
that I am not placed in a condition of fair moral probation.
It may be affirmed, that the highest and purest
condition of the soul, the sublimest virtue, is that
action in which the soul chooses that which is right
merely because it is right, without hope of reward
or fear of punishment.   The very best persons in
the world, perhaps, are those who are least conscious of their excellence.   Most significantly is it
mentioned by Christ, that it is a matter of surprise to
the righteous, at the judgment-day, to find themselves
cornnmended and welcomed to eternal joy. " Then
shall the righteous answer him, saying, When saw
we thee hungiy and fed thee, or thirsty and gave thee
drink?"
Goodness is like health, the highest and most robust states of it are attended with a blessed tinconscioutsness.   It is not a good sign to be always feeling the pulse of one's own moral health.  It is not a
sign of spiritual soundness.   All religious men have
religious experience, but the best and the wisest talk
the least about it.  It is dangerous to talk about it,
as it is for us to be over-anxious in inquiring into the
condition of the physical system.   There is but one
Being to whom we are capable of revealing our
whole hearts, and he knows them already, and needs
not that we unveil them before him. There are some
persons whom religious experience, as it is called,
seems to injure, instead of benefiting. They were 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
excellent before, in spontaneously obeying the law
written upon the heart.   But under the influence of
religious experience, as it is technically denominated,
they become conceited, self-righteous, overbearing,
censorious, pharisaical, and lose the virtues of simplicity, candor, kindness, and charity, and gain nothing in their place but sanctimony and spiritual pride.
If Unitarians have erred in laying too little stress
upon religious experience, and looking with too
much distrust on the results of religious excitements,
they have been driven into it by the disgusting cant
and pretension they have witnessed in those whose
only claim to respect is the vileness of the moral
condition from which they profess to have emerged.
Finally, this distinction between morality and religion is not found in the Bible. It is the creation
of modern, technical, sectarian theology. It came in
with the doctrine of the inherent, constitutional corruption of human nature, which supposes the soul to
be alienated from God from the very first, and to require to be created anew by a fiat of his omnipotence
before it can possess the faculties which are necessary to moral probation, the freedom to choose between good and evil, and an equal disposition towards both.
The Bible recognizes no such ruin and corruption
of the human constitution. It regards every human
soul as an emanation from the Divinity. As it was at
first his workmanship, so it is never forsaken by him.
85
0 
86      UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
It is by his continual inspiration that it has understanding. Conscience is nothing other than his voice
speaking in the soul of man. The moral nature of
man is itself a revelation of God and his will.  By
it, God holds continual intercourse with all mankind,
and puts them in a state of probation, whether they
will or will not obey his voice thus speaking within
them.   This moral discipline extends to the lone
savage of the desert, as well as to the enlightened
disciple of the revelation he has made through Jesus
Christ.
By this universal law, every human being is put on
probation every day and hour of his life. His character for good or evil is forming by every act of
obedience or of disobedience to God's law, and the
future condition of every human being depends on his
real character.   There is every grade of character,
from the lowest to the highest, and so there will be
every grade of future condition.   For the Scriptures
assure us, that " every man shall receive according
to his works, whether they have been good or whether they have been evil."  "Whatsoever a nan soweth, that also shall he reap."  There is no intimation that a good act of a bad man will any more fail
of its reward, than a bad act of a good man will miss
of its punishment.
There is no such hair-splitting about motives in
the Bible as has been introduced by modern theologians. There is no such definition of goodness as 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
that it consists of actions done for the glory of God.
The glory of God is too distant and abstruse a motive for the common mass of people to act from.
God has given them a much plainer-rule of conduct,
whether an action be wrong or right.  Christ has
concentrated the whole of social, religious duty in
one formula, which appeals solely to man's natural
sense of justice: -   Whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is
the law and the prophets."   This is the suIm and essence of religious duty.  There is no proviso, that it
all must be done for the glory of God.
Man is created to act from a variety of motives.
It is very seldom that he acts from one alone. They
rise in moral worth, from abject fear up to doing
right because it is right, which is the highest motive
of all. The moral desert of an action depends on
the predominance of one class of motives over another. But it is better for a man to do right from the
lowest motive, than to do wrong. Every motive is
appealed to in the Bible.   " Honor thy father and
thy mother," -  why? -  " that thy days may be
long." " Thefear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom." And it is said of our Saviour, that it was
for " the joy set before him" that he endured the
cross, despising the shame.   " Blessed are the pure
in heart," -  why? -"  for they shall see God."
" Whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same
shall he receive of the Lord."
4
87
40 
88
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
Probation for eternity is confined to no class.
Every human being, whether he be called saint or
sinner, is fixing his future condition by what he is
doing every day of his life. Heathen and Christian
are all on trial, and preparing for reward or punish ment.  "God will render to every man according to
his deeds; to them who, by patient continuance in
well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life; but unto them that are contentious,
and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and
also of the Gentile: but glory, honor, and peace to
every man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and
also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God."
There is no distinction here made between morality and religion.   " Glory,  honor, and  peace to
every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and
also to the Gentile," must include all mankind, in all
their actions, and " good "  is that which is pronounced to be good by the law written on the heart.
"'They that have done good shall come forth to the
resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to
the resurrection of condemnation."
An outward compliance with a mere ritual religion
may become the most dangerous snare to which a
man can be exposed.   The observances of a ceremnonial religion may have the effect to lull conscience
.1 
UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
to sleep, as well as to arouse it to action and vigilance; and the most gigantic vices of heart and life
may grow up under the very altars of God. Christ
quite as often denounced the religionists of his day as
he did the careless and profane. " WVoe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour
widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte,
and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the
child of hell than yourselves." " Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like
whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of
all uncleanness." They persecuted Christ for breaking the Sabbath by healing on that day, and so great
was their self-deception that they did it with murder
in their hearts.  He who knew men's hearts carried
it home to their consciences: - " Is it lawful to do
good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil; to save life,
or to destroy it? "
The most awful crimes that have ever been committed have been perpetrated under cover of religion. Thus it was that Naboth was robbed of his
vineyard and his life by Jezebel, the wife of Ahab.
" I," said she to her husband, " will give thee the
vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.   So she wrote
letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his
89 
90      UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and the no bles that were in his city, dwelling with Naboth.
And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast,
and set Naboth on high among the people; and set
two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness
against him, saying, thou didst blaspheme God and
the king. And then carry him out and stone him,
that he may die "!  This was to be done at a public fast, that no suspicion might be fixed on those
who were the instigators of it!
Religion has in all ages been liable to be separated
from morality, and thus made to degenerate into a
dead form, petrifying instead of softening the heart.
It was so in the days of Isaiah.   He was sent to
the Israelites with such a message as this: - " To
what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto
me? saith the Lord.   I am full of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of
he-goats.   When  ye come  to appear before me,
who hath required this at your hand to tread my
courts?   Bring no  more vain oblations   incense
is an abomination unto me; the new moons and
Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away
with; it is  iniquity, even  the solemn  meeting.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul
hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to
bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands,
I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make 
UNITARIANISM NOT MIERE MORALITY.
many prayers I will not hear: your hands are full of
blood.   Wash ye, make you clean; put away the
evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to
do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the
oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow."
The Scriptures are full of such representations.
"He that hath my- commandments,"  saith the Saviour, " and keepeth them, he it is that loveth
me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my
Father."
These are the doctrines we preach, and if we are
condemned for preaching mere morality, the Scriptures themselves must come under the same censure.
No man ever heard, in this pulpit, at least, morality
separated from religion. No man ever heard morality
commended upon the worldly maxim, that honesty is
the best policy. We preach religious faith, religious
emotion, religious experience,  and morality, when
based upon these principles, is itself religion.
We admit that we place integrity at the foundation
of character, moral and religious. Without it, all
pretensions to religion become as sounding brass and
a tinkling cymbal. We admit that we are especially
careful to examine the moral character of those who
make the greatest religious professions, and are most
given to turning the world upside down to make converts to godliness.
And may the worst reproach ever brought against
us be, that we are distinguished among mankind for
91 
92      UNITARIANISM NOT MERE MORALITY.
the strictest moral integrity. We profess to cultivate the most spiritual religion, but the only announcement that we care to make of it to the world
is by the fruit of a Christian life.
4
I 
DISCOURSE V.
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
FOR WHILE ONE SAITH, I AM OF PAUL, AND ANOTHER, I AM
OF APOLLOS, ARE YE NOT CARNAL? - 1 Corinthians iii. 4.
I AM this evening to speak to you of the epithet
Evangelical, as arrogated by certain classes of Christians, and denied to others.  I wish to ascertain its
import, and the propriety of its application to some,
and its denial to Others, who claim the Christian
name.   It is intended to intimate the idea of a special purity of doctrine and sanctity of life as belonging
to those who claim it.  Its denial is intended to cast
a reproach on those from whom it is withheld, of laxity of doctrine, and a life less scrupulously exact.
It will be the purpose of this discourse to inquire,
first, What are the pretensions of the Evangelical
Christians? In the second place, Have these pretensions any good foundation? And, thirdly, Who
are justly entitled to the name of Evangelical Christians?
As it happens, we have the means at hand of ascertaining what are the pretensions of those who ar
4 
94    UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
rogate to themselves the title of Evangelical Christians.  Nearly two years ago, a " World's Convention " was held in London, by those who supposed
themselves to be especially entitled to this appellation, in order to form what they denominated an
" Evangelical Alliance."
After a session of a fortnight, they published the
result of their deliberations in the following resolutions and articles of faith: -
"Resolved, That this conference, composed of
professing Christians of many differing denominations, all exercising the right of private judgment,
and, through common infirmity, differing among
themselves in the views they entertain on some
points, both of Christian doctrine and ecclesiastical
polity, and gathered together from many and remote
parts of the earth, for the purpose of promoting
Christian union, rejoice in making the avowal of the
glorious truth, that the Church of the living God,
while it admits of growth, is one church,;never having lost, and being incapable of losing, its essential
unity.  Not, therefore, to create that unity, but to
confess it, is their design in assembling together.
One in reality, they desire, also, as far as they may
be able to attain it, to be visibly one, and thus both
to realize in themselves, and to exhibit to others, that
a living and everlasting union binds all true believers
together in the fellowship of the Church of Christ,
'which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all
in all.'
I 
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.    95
"That this conference, while recognizing the essential unity of the Christian Church, feel constrained
to deplore its existing divisions, and to express their
deep sense of the sinfulness involved in the alienation
of affection by which they have been attended, and
of the manifold evils which have resulted therefrom,
and to avow their solemn conviction of the necessity
and duty of taking measures, in humble dependence
on the Divine blessing, towards attaining a state of
mind and feeling more in accordance with the word
and spirit of Christ Jesus.
" That-therefore the members of this conference
are deeply convinced of the desirableness of forming
a confederation on the basis of great Evangelical principles held in common by thenm, which may afford
opportunity to members of the Church of Christ of
cultivating brotherly love, enjoying Christian intercourse, and promoting such other objCcts as they
mnay hereafter agree to prosecute together; and they
hereby proceed to form such a confederation, under
the name of' the Evangelical Alliance.'
" That with a view, however:  of furnishing the
most satisfactory explanation, and guarding against
misconception in regard to their design and the
means of its attainment, they deem it expedient explicitly to state as follows.
" That the parties composing the Alliance shall be
such persons only as hold and maintain what are usually understood to be Evangelical views in regard to
the matters of doctrine understated, viz.: 
96    UNITARIANISIMI EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
" 1. The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures.
" 2. The unity of the Godhead, and the trinity
of persons therein.
" 3. The- utter depravity of human nature, in consequence of the fall.
" 4. The incarnation of the Son of God, his
work of atonement for the sins of mankind, and his
mediatorial intercession and reign.
" 5. The justification of the sinner by faith alone.
" 6. The work of the Holy Spirit, in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner.
" 7. The right and duty of private judgment in
the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
" 8. The Divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the authority and perpetuity of the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper.
" 9. The immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by the
Lord Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of
the righteous, and the eternal punishment of the
wicked."
Such are the principles and such are the claims of
those who  denominate  themselves  Evangelical, or
Gospel Christians, for Evangelical is the Greek word
for Gospel.
Let us now analyze these claims and principles,
and see to what they amount.
In the first place, it appears that the term " Evan
I 
UNITARIANISM EVANGE.ICAL CHRISTiANITY.    97
gelical" is sectarian and exclusive, for the parties
composing the Alliance declare that it shall be of such
persons only as hold and maintain what are usually
understood to be Evangelical views in regard to certain doctrines.   Yet  they profess  to be  the true
church, and the only true church.   " They rejoice
in making their unanimous  avowal of the glorious
truth, that the Church of the living God is one church.
" One in reality, they desire, also, as far as they may
be able to attain it, to be visibly one, and thus both to
realize in themselves, and to exhibit to others, that a
living and everlasting union binds all true believers
together in the fellowship of the Church of Christ."
The meaning of this cannot be mistaken. They
wish to realize in themselves, and to exhibit to others,
that a living and everlasting union binds all true believers together in the fellowship of the Church of
Christ.
Yet they acknowledge that they differ among themselves, and belong to different denominations, for the
first resolution runs  in this way: -" Resolved,
that this conference, composed of professing.Christians, of different denominations, all exercising the
right of private judgment, and, through common infirmity, differing among themselves in the views they
severally entertain on some points of doctrine and
polity," &c.
What, then, was the sum and substance of what
was done by the World's Convention? The repre
7 
98    UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CIRISTIANITY.
sentatives of several small fragments of the Church
Universal, amounting in all to perhaps one sixteenth
of the whole, meet together and resolve that the
Church of the living God is one, and that they are
that one true church; that the differences of opinion
among themselves are unimportant, and may be overlooked, while the differences between themselves
and the rest of the so-called Christian world are fundamental, and shut out all else from the fold of the
true believers.
They profess to be Protestants, and  lay down as
the fundamental principles of their association the
two points on which their ancestors separated from
the Church of Rome, -"  The sufficiency of the
Scriptures, and the righi of private judgment." But
they draw up nine articles of alliance, which are intended to shut out from their body for ever all those,
who, in the exercise of their private judgment, arrive
at different conclusions from themselves, and which
are intended to bind themselves and their successors
just as much as the creed of Nice or Constantinople,
or the canons of the Council of Trent.   i
They came together to promote the union of the
Christian Church, but pass nine articles of faith which
unchurch and excommunicate fifteen sixteenths, or
perhaps nineteen twentieths, of the Christian world.
All the Roman Catholic Church is amputated at a
blow. All the Greek Church is put at once without
the pale.   The article on the utter depravity of hu 
UNTA RI AN EV''A L'- -'-EIC;' c.
' L,"t. —' ~    8"
,;.  6o
UNITARIANISM EVANGEL.ICAL CHRi ST~'9
man nature closes the door on the Arminian portion
of the Episcopal Church in England, and the liberal
portion of the Dissenters.   It disowns a large division of every Orthodox church throughout the world.
The article on the Trinity cuts off all the Unitarians
of the continent of Europe, a large and increasing
body, all the Unitarians in the kingdom of Great
Britain, and in the United States.   The article upon
the eternity of the punishmnent of the wicked excludes all the Universalists of Germany, (for even
the most orthodox there, on other points, are heretical on this,) and all embracing the same tenets in the
United States.
Narrowed down by such huge subtractions, the
Evangelical Alliance becomes one of the most insignificant, as well as most arrogant, bodies that ever
assembled on earth.  They do nothing but declare
themselves the only true church, and then adjourn,
and return home just as much separated and divided
as ever, and resume their old attitude of mutual repulsion and antagonism, and call themselves after the
names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, just ask much
as ever.
When we analyze the articles of confederation, we
find that Evangelical is nothing more nor less than
Orthodox undera new name, meaning by Orthodoxy
that which has been such since the Reformation, which
is Calvinism and Trinitarianism, the doctrines of the
tri-personality of God, the total corruption of hu 
100  UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
man nature, and regeneration by exclusive Divine
agency.
We now come to the second part of our inquiry,
the propriety of the assumption of the title of Evan gelical by those who framed the nine articles of con federation.   Evangelical,  we  have  already said,
means Gospel. Gospel is taken for the Christian
religion, or it may mean the teachings of Christ re corded by the Evangelists in the four Gospels, con trasted with the Epistles and the rest of the New
Testament. 
If we take Evangelical in the first sense, as mean ing the whole New Testament, the New Testament
is not the basis of the alliance, it is the nine articles,
which are a sectarian interpretation of the New Tes tament. Not one half of the Christian Church, since
the beginning, have believed that the Son was equal
to the Father; and original sin and justification by
faith alone have met with a very partial reception,
even in those churches which have incorporated them
into their creeds.   The  " Evangelical Alliance,"
then, is not the proper title of an association which
does not found their union upon the simple New
Testament without note or comment.    It is not
Evangelical, it is sectarian.
Had the Alliance confined itself to the'first and
seventh articles of their confederation, they would
have  been  truly Evangelical  in their principles.
T.hey are,  "the Divine inspiration, authority, and
......
I 
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL ClIRISTIANITY.  101
sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures," and " the right
and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of
the Scriptures."   They would, in that case, have
stood upon the broad basis of the whole New Testament, the whole and entire Gospel, as it addresses
itself to every human mind.
There is another and an important sense of the
word Evangelical, or Gospel, as signifying the teachiings of Christ as recorded in the four Evangelists, in
distinction from the rest of the New  Testament.
This distinction is broad and essential.  The teachings of Christ stand apart and far above the rest of
the New Testament. To him the spirit was given
not by measure. In his word, the whole system of
the Gospel was complete and perfect from the first
hour of his teaching.  His last discourse to his disciples was followed by a prayer, in which he says,
"-    I have finished the work which thou gavest me
to do. I have given thenm the words which thou gavest me."   Speaking of himself as the Messiah, he
says, -"c Thou hast given him power over all flesh,
that he should give eternal life to as many a4 thou
hast given him.   And  this is life eternal, that they
might know thee the only true God, and  Jesus
Christ whom thou hast sent." That knowledge he
speaks of himself as having imparted to his disciples. They were qualified to be his apostles by the
fact of having been the eye and ear witnesses of what
he had done and what he had taught. The Holy 
102  UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
Spirit was promised them that they might " bring to
remembrance " whlat he had taught them. Future
revelations were not to make known any new doctrines, but merely to explain what Christ himself had
taught.   " He  shall take of mine and show it unto
you." The Apostles were likewise to receive, by
Divine communication, knowledge of future events.
" He shall show you things to come." After his
resurrection, he commissioned his disciples, -"  Go
and teach all nations," " teaching them to observe
whatsoever I have commanded you."   The disciples,
during his ministry, hlad a very imperfect comnprehension of his religion, and light dawned~very gradually upon their minds.   It was nearly ten years before they understood the extent of their cormmnission,
that they were commanded to preach the Gospel literally to all nations.
The Gospels contain Christianity just as Christ
preached it, expressed in general principles and propositions,  addressed  to universal  humanity.   The
Epistles are the same truths adapted to particular
persons  and  circtiumstances, and  are  enforced  by
illustrations and modes of argument which were
adapted to individuals and classes, to meet their
prejudices and conform to their modes of speech.
It is difficult to distinguish, often, which is the truth
and which is the illustration.   So much is this the
case, that Peter, in one of his Epistles, speaks of
the writings of Paul as obscure and difficult to be un 
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.  103
derstood, and liable to be wrested from their true
meaning. Such writings, surely, ought not to be
put on a level with the Gospels.
Paul confessed that he and his fellow-Apostles
" knew but in part, and prophesied but in part."
The knowledge of Christ was perfect. " I am the
Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no man cometh
unto the Father but by me." " The law was given
by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.'
In him, the word or revelation of God became incar —
nate.  "The word was made flesh and dwelt among
us."  "No  man  hath seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Paul sometimes gave
his own personal advice, without pretending to any
Divine illumination.
For these reasons the Gospels ought to be distin —
guished from the Epistles, and placed far above
them. One is the text, and the other the commentary. One is the constitution, and the other the history of its administration. One is the fountain-head,
the other the streams which flow from it, with vari —
ous admixtures.
Now how do the Evangelical doctrines, as they
are called, stand related to the Gospels and Epistles?Calvin, the great expositor of the Evangelical system
in modern times, while he was a minister in Geneva,
preached over a thousand public discourses. How
many, think you, were preached from a text in, the 
104  UNITARIANISMII EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
Gospels? Not one in a hundred, and the greater part
from the Epistles.  Take up the Westminster Con  fession, and examine the proof-texts of the article on
justification by faith, and you will find that forty  two out of forty-three are from other parts of the Bi  ble, and only one from the Gospels. Can this be
considered an Evangelical or Gospel doctrine, when
there is nothing, with the exception of a single text,
to found it on in the Gospels?
Turn to the article on original sin, and you will
find eighty-five quotations from the Scriptures to stis tain it. Out of the eighty-five, only two are from
the Gospels.   Is this to be considered an Evangel ical or Gospel doctrine, when only two out of eighty five texts, which are imagined to sustain it, are found
in the Gospels, and most of them are from the writ ings of Paul?  Is not this putting the disciple above
his master?  Is not this saying "I am of Paul,"
rather than "I am of Christ "? Can that be said to
be Evangelical doctrine, which finds little or no sup port from the Evangelists? Can that be said to be
Christian doctrine, concerning which Christ taught
nothing?
It is difficult to conceive of a name more inappro priate than Evangelical, as applied, first, to a class
of Christians who make, not the New Testament,
but their sectarian deductions from the New Testa* ment, the basis of their association; and, in the sec onid place, who take their leading doctrines, not from
I 
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CRISTIANITY.  105
the Gospels, the writings of the four Evangelists,
the teachings of Jesus, but from the writings of Paul.
Let us now consider whom they exclude as unworthy of the name Evangelical.
In the first place, they exclude, particularly and
pointedly, all Unitarians. Let us examine the justice of this.
Unitarians take the Bible, particularly the New
Testament, as their only creed.   They  take the
whole Gospel as the basis of their association.
They do not extract from it any peculiar sectarian
interpretation, and lay it down as a condition of
communion with them, and of the extension to others of the Christian name and privileges. They religiously abstain from any such act as the formation of
a written creed. Christ and his Apostles never did
any such thing. Had it been necessary to the welfare
of the Christian Church to have a creed, they would
have instituted one.   The effect of creeds from the
beginning has been, not to unite, but to divide, the
Christian Church; not to produce harmony, but dissension. It is always an attempt of the mnajority to
coerce the minority, and is felt by that minorityto be
an enormous oppression, and thus occasions, not only
dispute, but alienation of feeling, which is more antichristian than any mere diversity of opinion. Christ
has commanded us to " call no man master, for one
is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren."
It is an act of disrespect to Christ to interpose be 
106  UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
tween him and those whom he came to instruct,
by attempting to dictate to them the sense in which
they shall receive his instructions.   There will always be great diversities of opinion among men on
the plainest subjects. You can never find two persons who give the same account of a discourse to
which they have just listened. You cannot find two
Christians, of the most eminent piety and intelligence, who will agree in their opinions on the most
common points of Christian doctrine.  Subscription
to the same articles does not create a uniformity of
belief. If it does not,bit expresses what does not
exist, it is insincere, it operates to disparage and exclude the honest, and to give power to the unscrupulous and ambitious.
Another reason why we abstain from making a
creed is the fact, that religious knowledge is progressive. The Gospel continues the same, but our understanding of it may be inmproved. There is no
propriety in declaring beforehand, at the very commencement of our studies, to what conclusions we
shall come.   It is equally absurd for one age to attempt to dictate the religious opinions of the next.
For these reasons, the Unitarians as a body have
religiously abstained from forming a creed. We associate upon the basis of the Gospel alone, without
note or comment.   We insist upon, and carry out to
the letter, "' the sufficiency of the Scriptures and the
right of private judgment." We claim, therefore,
I 
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.  107
that the distinction Evangelical, or Gospel, Christians belongs preeminently to us.
We contend, that, in forbearing to write a creed,
we are the true and consistent advocates of union.
All creeds are, in their own nature, sectarian and disorganizing.   They are, in the first place, the fruit
of sectarianism, and then they reproduce sectarianism without limit and without end.
Finally, we  claim to be  Gospel or Evangelical
Christians, because we go to the Gospels, and to the
Gospels alone, for our religion. Christ is our only
Master, our only infallible Teacher. No doctrine is
received by us, which is not clearly taught in the four
Evangelists. Christ taught the whole of his own religion, in its true form and relative proportions. The
Acts and the Epistles contain the history of its
administration by the Apostles, for the first thirty
years.   It received  a coloring  from the  personal
peculiarities of each, and was shaped to suit the
circumstances, to meet the prejudices, of different
communities.    Much of the Epistles is taken up
in discussing questions which were of a local and
temporary  character, and which lost their intere'st
and, their application in after ages, when the circumstances of the churches changed. Not so the Gos pels. They are addressed to man as man, to man
in the nineteenth century as well as in the first. The
Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to the Jews, or
rather to the converts to Christianity from among the 
108 UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
ancient people of God, and is filled with arguments
and modes of illustration, which might be striking
and conclusive to them, but not so to a person who
had not had a Jewish education. The Epistle to
the Romans is an attempt to reconcile the discordant
elements of the Christian Church, made up as it was
of converts from Paganism and Judaism, and to
show them that they came into the fold of Christ upon a perfect equality.   The Epistles to the Corinthians are intended to correct the abuses which had
crept into that church in the absence of Paul, and to
answer inquiries which the church wished to make of
him on some points of doctrine or duty.
The Gospels, on the other hand, which are the
teaching of Christ, contain the abstract essence of
Christianity, and are addressed to universal humanity; not to Jew or Gentile, but to man,  to his moral
and religious nature. To them, therefore, we defer,
on themn we rest our faith, by them we would regulate our conduct, on them we repose our hopes, and
therefore we claim to be regarded as preeminently
Evangelical Christians.                     4
'There is another pretension put forth by those
who style themselves Evangelical Christians, which
it is proper that I should here examine.   It is, that
they are the only depositaries of divine truth.  Belonging to the Evangelical body is equivalent to belonging to an infallible church. The chain of reasoning by which this pretension is sustained is something
e~ 
UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY. 109
like this.   Human  nature is essentially depraved,
and in its natural state has no discernment of spiritual things, and, of course, has no right to an opinion
upon religious subjects.   Part of mankind are regenerated, and created anew by the renovating influences of the Holy Spirit. Those who are so regenerated uniformly embrace Evangelical opinions. One
of the fruits of the work of the Spirit on the heart
is the conviction of our lost and undone condition by
nature, of the necessity of an infinite atonement for
sin, and, of course, of a trinity of infinite persons
to enact the parts required in the scheme of the
atonemnent.   This is, perhaps, the shortest and most
effectual way to the establishment of an exclusive
and infallible church, that has ever been devised.
The Romanists have a similar argument for the
exclusive jurisdiction of their church in religious matters.  They make a distinction between faith and belief. Belief is the assent which any human mind
gives to any proposition, upon the preponderance of
evidence in its favor. It is not accompanied by certainty. Faith, on the other hand, is the gift of God,
and confers upon him to whom it is given, not only
persuasion, but certainty.   This faith is an exclusive
gift to all true Catholics, and by it they are made to
know that they are right. What the Catholic Church
gains by an exclusive faith, the Evangelical Church
secures by an exclusive regeneration. Both arrogate
to themselves a monopoly of authority in religious 
110  UINITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
affairs. Where either of them bears sway, they are
equally disposed to make the same use of their prerogative, to elevate themselves and put every thing
else down. The divine right of having been born
again is found just as available for the purpose of
spiritual domination, as the divine right of belonging
to the only true Apostolic and indivisible church.
You  may hear the supreme  Deity of Christ established by such an argument as this, drawn  from
Christian experience. Every converted soul, when
-brought under the conviction of sin, has felt such a
weight of guilt burdening the conscience, that nothing short of an infinite sacrifice could take it away;
such a sense of weakness and helplessness, that nothing short of an Almighty Saviour could deliver the
sinner.  Thus feeling is made the test of truth, and
whatever a converted manfeels to be true, that must
be assumed to be fact.
It is made a test of Christian experience, to feel
the truth of the Calvinistic dogmas of total depravity
and entire inability.   He who has never felt these
has no pretensions to Christian experienIce, and, of
consequence, his suffrage is not to be taken in matters of faith.
I, for one, protest against all such assumptions, as
the worst species of spiritual oppression.   There is
not a sect in Christendom which may not in the same
way establish, its claim to be the only true church,
and thus excommunicate the rest of the Christian
world.
I 
UNITARIANISIM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.   111
No man was ever more sure than Wesley of his
Christian experience, and yet no man was ever more
firmly, I might say violently, opposed to Calvinism.
He, however, had the good sense and the charity
not to make any exclusive claim to piety. The
Baptist makes immersion the badge of the true
church, and denies that any one not baptized in that
way has even *e promise of salvation. The Episcopalian founds his claim upon the only true Apostolical succession, and so on through the whole list of
Christian sects.  It is enough to say, that these conflicting claims mutually destroy each other, and that
of the Evangelical Church falls with the rest.
I appeal from all these pretensions to the Bible.
I deny that there is any such intellectual test of discipleship to Christ in the Gospel,'as assent to the
dogmas of Athanasius or Calvin.    The  test there
proposed is a plain one, that of Christian character.
" By their fruits ye shall know them."   "He  that
hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth me, and he that loveth me shall be loved
of my Father, and I will love him and manifest
myself unto him." To love Christ and keep his
commandments has no necessary connection with
any system of metaphysics or spiritual philosophy.
" The fruit of the spirit is "- what? belief in certain theological speculations? - no; but " love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
meekness, temperance." These characteristics of 
112  UNITARIANISM EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY.
a true discipleship to Christ are not confined to any
Christian denomination. They are exhibited in connection with the greatest variety of speculative belief, and, in fact, have very little to do with modes
of faith.
The exclusive pretensions of the Evangelical
Church cannot be maintained. There is a growing
desire throughout Christendom for bme better basis
of union than has ever yet been proposed. The
World's Convention was an abortion, because it was
not in accordance with the spirit of the age.  That
spirit is catholic. The Convention was sectarian.
The Church is to be made one, if it ever can be, not
upon the basis of the creed of any one sect, but by
adhering only to those great and cardinal doctrines
which are common to all.
.1 
DISCOURSE VI.
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
AND IF CHRIST BE NOT RISEN, THEN IS OUR PREACHING VAIN,
AND YOUR FAITH IS ALSO VAIN. -1 Corinthians xv. 14.
THE subject upon which I am to address you this
evening is the alleged tendency of Unitarianism to
unbelief. Those who make this allegation mean by
it, that a Unitarian is more liable to abandon all belief
in a miraculous revelation than a Trinitarian, and
that a community in which Unitarianism is the prevailing faith is more likely to become infidel than a
cotniunity in which the doctrine of the Trinity is
received.   This question, which is really an interesting one, I mean to meet with fairness and to discuss
with candor.
In the first place I remark, that there are two
classes of people who must be thrown out of consideration in discussing this subject,- those who never
examine, whose faith is merely traditionary, and those
who have abandoned religious faith from moral obliquity. A person who is a Unitarian or a Trinitarian merely because his father and mother were so
8
4  
114  UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
before him, or because it was taught him in his catechism, is a Unitarian or a Trinitarian merely by accident. His suffrage is not to be taken on any side,
as proving the truth or the untruth of any thing.
His own mind has not been exercised upon the evidence. His belief, not being founded on evidence,
neither strengthens nor weakens any cause, or makes
any dogma more or less likely to be true.
So the unbelief of a man, who has been made so by
moral causes, is not to be taken into account.   Belief is often given up to reconcile the convictions of
the mind to the tenor of the life.  In Christianity
there are the most tremendous moral sanctions.  It
denounces " the wrath of God against all ungodliness
and unrighteousness of men."   It predicts the most
appalling consequences as the inevitable result of every deviation from the law of rectitude written upon
every heart. If Christianity be true, then a wicked
life is the worst kind of suicide.  It is nothing more
nor less than  plunging, coolly and deliberately, soul
and body into hell. No rational being can feel comfortably under such a state of things, ani the only
way in which a wicked man can free himself for a
moment from a perpetual and haunting consciousness
of inevitable perdition is to call in question the truth
of Christianity. His objection is not to any particular form of Christianity, but he wants to get rid of
it altogether. He catches at any argument, however
flimsy, which seems to undermine the solidity of its 
UN1TARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF. 115
foundations, and to loosen in any degree the obligations and responsibilities which its truth imposes.
This class of persons I place wholly out of view in
the present discussion.   I speak only of those who
are honestly seeking for truth, and whose daily life is
such as to make it as much for their interest that
Christianity should be true as false.
The question, then, which we are to discuss is,
whether Christianity, to an inquiring mind, is as credible when it is considered as teaching the peculiar
doctrines of Calvinism and Trinitarianismni, as it is
without themrn, and considered as teaching merely
those doctrines which Unitarians find in it.
It is usual for the opponents of Unitarianism to
appeal to experience.  And, appealing to experience,
they say, and it has passed into a proverb, that
" Unitarianism is the half-way house to infidelity."
Once begin to doubt the Trinity and the doctrines
of grace, as they are called, and there is no knowing
when you will stop. Unitarianism will not long afford a resting-place. You will doubt on, and give
up one thing after another, till you land in total unbelief. The history of individuals is pointed out as
exemplifying this. Germany is spoken of as a demonstration of this fact.   So convinced are some portions of the Christian Church of the saving power of
Trinitarianism and Calvinism over a belief in the Bible, that they advocate the maintenance and enforcement of a written creed, in which these doctrines 
116  uNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
are incorporated, in order to sustain and preserve a
belief in the Bible itself. Without written creeds,
it is declared to be impossible to keep churches,
first, out of Unitarianism, and, finally, out of total
unbelief.
I deny that there is any such power in a Trinitarian and Calvinistic creed to keep unbelief out of the
world. The Athanasian creed certainly did not keep
unbelief out of France during the last century and the
present. Nor does it out of Italy. The three creeds
of the Episcopal Church have not kept unbelief out
of England, nor do the most orthodox creeds in this
country succeed in preventing hundreds and thousands
from feeling a total distrust towards the whole of
Christianity, under the very pulpits whence Trinitarianism and Calvinismn are fulmninated every Sunday.
But there is iore expressed than is intended in
the saying, that Unitarianism is the half-way house to
infidelity. The very phraseology shows, that, from
the circumstances of the case, Unitarianism has not
a fair chance to afford rest to him who entertains
it under  such conditions.    He  is in a transition
state from believing too much to believing too little.
He has acquired too much momentum, in his descent from the bleak and barren regions of dogmnatismn towards the dark and misty fens of unbelief, to
stop in the temperate, vital, and genial region of
truth, which is equally removed from both extremes.
Those whose moral natures revolt from the awful in 
UNITARIANISMI DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.  117
justice of the Calvinistic system, and refuse to clothe
the Deity in the gloomy horrors of that faith, -those
whose intellects cannot receive the dogma of the
Trinity, which confounds at once arithmetic and
mental individuality, - have generally contracted a
prejudice against the Bible itself, with which, in theii
minds, these doctrines have been identified.   It re
quires time and labor to disentangle these associatea
ideas, and to free the Scriptures from the suspicion
of extravagance and contradiction, which the detection of great mistakes first casts over them.   There
are multitudes who have reason to thank God that
there is such a blessed half-way house as Unitarianism between dogmatism and unbelief; for in it they
have found rest to their souls, light to their understandings, a firm foundation to their faith, comfort in
life, and hope in death.
But this very saying, that Unitarianism is the halfway house to infidelity, though intended as a reproach against Unitarianism, to my mind contains an
admission  in its favor.  Its very structure shows
that doubt is not supposed to commence when the
subject of it is in Unitarianism, but in a state of Orthodoxy. It is no half-way house to one who has
never  been Orthodox.    It does not assert, what
would not be true, that doubt originates in the state
of Unitarianism.  It is supposed to originate when
Christianity is identified with Calvinism and Trinitarianism.   And this I beeve to be the case.   The
f
v 
118  UNITARIANISM' DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
most cultivated minds in all Orthodox churches listen with incredulity, or a very qualified assent, to the
dogmas of the Trinity, incarnation, the fall, vicarious
punishment, &c., &c. The famous John Foster,
of England, long ago wrote a treatise to account for
the aversion of men of taste to Evangelical religion.
He might have cut the matter short by saying, that
the peculiar dogmas of Evangelical religion are inconsistent, unreasonable, and contradictory to the
first principles of morality and justice, and therefore
in themselves improbable; and, as such, are most
likely to be seen to be so by the most enlightened
and cultivated minds.   They  are confessed to be
unreasonable, and their credit is saved by saying
that they are above reason, or mysteries, and, therefore, that reason has no right to decide against them.
But let us analyze this matter, and see if there be
no greater objections against Christianity, when considered as teaching Orthodoxy, than when teaching
simple Unitarianism.
What are the objections which are usually brought
against the credibility of a miraculous Revelation?
In the first place, it is objected to revelation that it
is not universal. If it is necessary to man's spiritual
welfare, a good and impartial God would have imparted it to all mankind, and not have withheld it
from any. If it is not necessary, then he would not
have given it to any.   This is the strongest objection to the antecedent prdability of a revelation.   I
.1
0
0 
UNITARIANISI% DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.  119
do not say that it is unanswerable, for I believe that
it admits of an answer.   But it lies with equal force
against Trinitarianism and Unitarianism.
The second grand objection to the credibility of a
revelation is to the credibility of miracles, by which
alone revelation can be given and authenticated.
Hume tells us, that miracles are in themselves incredible, and incapable of being authenticated, and therefore, instead of authenticating a revelation to which
they are appended, they make it less credible than it
would be without them. This argument has given the
defenders of revelation much trouble.   That it may
be satisfactorily answered I have no doubt, or I should
not continue to preach a religion which I did not believe. Paul, in our text, stakes the truth of Christianity on a miracle, on the resurrection of Christ. "If
Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and
your faith is also vain."   If miracles under all circumstances are incredible, then is Christianity incredible, for it is founded on miracle. But the objection is equally strong against the credibility of a revelation, when it is thought to teach Trinitarianism or
Unitarianism.
But what purports to be a revelation may be more
or less credible, on account of what it contains.  It
may be consistent in its parts, and it may be inconsistent.   It may  contain  representations  of God
which are agreeable to what we know of him by the
light of nature, or it may contain representations 
120 UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
which are repugnant to them. The unity of God,
for instance, is a probable doctrine, considered as a
doctrine of revelation, because it agrees with all the
phenomena of the universe; for the whole universe
bears the marks of being the work of one mind, of one
only designing and superintending cause. There is an
internal probability in the first verse of the Old Testament,  - " In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The human mind assents to it, as
not only sublime, but true.  It corresponds with the
intuitions of reason.   Such an expression is worthy
of a Divine revelation, especially when we consider it
as addressed to a world of idolaters, who worshipped
the various parts of the viible universe as God.
So, when we turn to the New Testament, and read
the first verse of John's Gospel, -"  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God,"-  if we interpret the phrase
" Word"  to mean an attribute of God, that God
made the world by his power and wisdom, figuratively represented as his word, we  have a mere repetition, in other language, of the assertion Qf the first
chapter of Genesis.
But if we interpret the " Word" to mean a person, the second person of a trinity, then we introduce confusion and improbability into the very subject-matter of revelation itself.  There is no antecedent probability, that God should exist in a trinity.
There is no intimation of such a mode of existence
.1 
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.  21
in reason or nature.  And if there were persons in
God, there is no reason, or intimation in nature or
reason, that those persons should be three, rather
than four or five.  It is antecedently improbable that
one equal person of a trinity should use the agency
of another equal person of the trinity in creating the
world.  But those who maintain the doctrine of the
Trinity assert that it was through the Son that the
Father created the world.   Such a doctrine is essentially improbable, and would make the theology of
the New Testamnent, not an improvement upon that
of the Old, but a corruption of it.
Then the relations of the persons of the Trinity
to each other, that of Father and Son, and the Holy
Ghost as proceeding from them both, makes the
Trinity of the New Testament-mueh more like the
mythology of the heathen than the pure spirituality
and sublime simplicity of the Jehovah of the Old:
Testament.
It is true, that, to my mind, and those of all; Unitarians, the New Testament teaches no such doctrine,
but teaches the same unity and spirituality of the Deity which pervade the Old Testament.   But did it'
contain such a doctrine as the Trinity, it would require a much larger amount and stronger degree of
external evidence to authenticate such a revelation as
coming from God, than if it conformed to the simple
doctrine of Moses and the prophets.
Let us next contrast the doctrines of inspiration 
122 UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
and incarnation as to their essential probability.
The doctrine of tile Trinity involves the doctrine
of incarnation.   And what is the doctrine of incar
nation? It is, that the second person of the Trin
ity, the Son, very and eternal God, a being inhabiting immensity and eternity, descended to the earth
and became incarnate in the body of an unborn
infant, and together with the human soul of that
infant made  one person, never to be again divided, and that that union for ever subsists.  Omnipotence and human weakness coalesced. Omniscience
was united to the mind of a child, who grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man.
And some have carried the idea of incarnation so far
as to say, that the second person of the Trinity died
upon the cross, and all affirm that the connection of
the Deity with the soul of Christ rendered his sufferings in the hour of crucifixion of infinite merit to
atone for the sins of the world.   I venture to affirm,
that there is not an invention in all heathen mythology which carries with it stronger internal marks of
improbability than this. It will not bear examination
for a moment.   It contradicts all the most essential
Divine attributes. The immutable God changed his
mode of existence, and lived thirty-three years upon
earth, and then reascended to heaven.   God, who is
incapable of suffering, permitted himself to be taken,
condemned, and crucified, by his own creatures.
Reverence is as much shocked as reason by these
propositions.
w
.1 
UNITARIANIS'I DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF. 123
Would  not a revelation which contained such
propositions requirea much greater amount of external evidence to make it credible, than one which
maintained unimpaired the integrity of the Divine
perfections, not to say the dignityof the Divine character?
The Unitarian believes, as much as the Trinitarian, all that is related concerning Jesus of Nazareth
in the New Testament, and as much believes in him as
the Saviour of the world.   But he believes that every
thing that he was and accomplished may be as well
accounted for on the supposition of his inspiration,
that God clothed him with his power and filled him
with his wisdom, as that the second person of a trinity
became  incarnate in himtn.  He  believes that that
Scripture was literally fulfilled in him which he quoted
in the synagogue of Nazareth, and applied to himself,
-" The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he
hath anointed me to preach the Gospel to the poor; he
hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted...... This
day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." And
what Peter said of him in his speech to Cornelius,
-" How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the
Holy Ghost and with power, who went about doing
good, and healing all that were oppressed of the Devil,
for God was wtoith him." Or, as he said of himself,
-"  The words that I speak unto you, I speak not
of myself; the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth
the works." Inspiration, the communication of su 
124 UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
pernatural power and knowledge to Christ, carries
with it no internal marks of extravagance and improbability.   It is analogous to the power and knowledge which God gives to every man-by thle natural
exercise of his faculties.   The enlightenment and
spiritual salvation of mankind through Jesus of Nazareth is analogous to the way in which God has advanced the human race in science, learning, and civilization, through intellects of great wisdom and
power, which he has raised up, apparently, for this
especial purpose.
But the incarnation of God, the amalgamation of
an Infinite Spirit with a finite soul into one person,
the birth, the human life, the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of God, are ideas which are selfcontradictory, and give the impress of extravagance
to any system of theology of which they make a part.
They require, therefore, a greater amount of external evidence to prove them to come from God, than
the doctrine of the inspiration of Jesus.
The same thing holds true of the doctrine of the
fall.   That the essential constitution of human nature
was changed by one transgression of our first parents,
so that their offspring come into the world incapable
of any good, and capable only of evil, is essentially
incredible. It would give that sin a nature wholly
different from any other sin that ever was committed.
No other sin that ever was committed had the same
power to change human nature.   It is essentially im
I.  
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.  125
probable that this sin had any such power.  It could
only be by an arbitrary anid extraordinary appointment of God.   No  reason can be'given why he
should hlave made such an arbitrary and extraordinary
appointment.   Not only is it improbable on that account, but it is wholly subversive of God's moral attributes.  It would have been an act of injustice, in
comparison to which all the injustice that has ever
been perpetrated by men in this world would be as a
drop of water to the ocean, as the small dust of the
balance to the mighty bulk of the globe itself.   That
myriads on myriads of the human race should be cast
into eternal torment for a sin of which they were not
only innocent, but absolutely ignorant, is a doctrine
more improbable, I had almost said, than atheism itself, and strips the Deity of'all the attributes which
make him the object of religious regard and affection.
If we interpret the Oriental apologue of the enticing serpent and the forbidden fruit, of the manner
in which moral evil first came into the world, and
always comes into the world, - as the result of human freedom and frailty surrounded with temptation,
then it conveys a great moral truth,' which is consistent with the equity of the Divine government, and
holds a proper place in the introduction to the moral
and religious history of our race.
Just so it is with the doctrine of vicarious punishment.   The dogma, that Christ, during the agony of
his crucifixion, suffered the punishment that was mer 
126  UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
ited by thle sins of the whole human race, or even
the elect, carries with it the essential features of extravagance and improbability.   That, without such
suffering endured by him, God never could have forgiven the penitent, limits the power of the Omnipotent, and gives the idea of helpless imbecility and
unskilfulness to the Perfect Ruler of the universe.
But that he should have suffered death in consequence of his preaching a Gospel of humility, holiness, and self-denial, to a proud, worldly, and sensual
generation, is perfectly credible, and that God should
have overruled his death to the establishment of his
religion and the demonstration of the immortality of
the soul.  It is perfectly analogous to other arrangements by which he brings good out of evil.
How can it possibly be said, then, with any pretension to fairness, that the adoption of Unitarian principles tends to unbelief, when every article of faith
which Unitarianism discards is in itself unreasonable,
incredible, and therefore improbable? How can it
be said, that Unitarianism tends to unbelief, when its
articles of faith are in themselves more seasonable
and more analogous to the course of nature and the
acknowledged principles of the Divine government,
than the system to which they are opposed?  I
know of no principle upon which this can be affirmed, unless it be this, -  that the shortest way to
belief is to adopt some article of faith into the creed
by which reason is wholly prostrated, confounded, 
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF. 127
and silenced, and then any thing may be admitted into the mind without question or examination.
I deny that there are more skeptics under Unitarian than Orthodox preaching. On the contrary, I affirm that the most frequent cause of unbelief, the great
reason why the lofty teaching of the Saviour is rejected, or listened to with apathy and indifference in
Christian congregations, is the unreasonable, unjust,
and contradictory doctrines which are interpolated
into Christianity, and are made to supersede and
hide from view the sublime and rational teaching of
Christ's Sermon on the Mount.
The human mind does not revolt at the fact as incredible, that God has made a revelation to man, but
it does listen with incredulity to doctrines, as coming
from revelation, which are inconsistent-with themselves, and wholly irreconcilable with what God has
already taught us through nature and reason, consciousness and experience.   It is not the simple
fact, that God has sent Jesus to be the Light of the
world, the Ambassador of his mercy, the Pattern
of a perfect life, the Vanquisher of death, and the
Pledge of immortality to man, that fills the mind with
perplexity and the heart with distrust.  It is the doctrine of the Trinity, confounding at once arithmetic
and reason,; the doctrine of incarnation, by which
the wildest fancies of heathen mythology are surpassed; the doctrine of the fall, which covers the
Divine administration with the ignominy of defeat at 
128  UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
its very inception; the doctrine of human inability,
by which the sense of accountability, the very keystone of the arch of retgion, is taken out; the doctrine of arbitrary and unconditional election, and
eternal torments for the sin of Adam,- these are
the doctrines that spread the paralysis of unbelief
over the world, and neutralize the benign influence
of the blessed Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It may be objected to all this, I am aware, by the
opponent of Unitarianism, that it is mere speculation.
Facts are altogether on the other side.   Germany is
often quoted as an instance of a whole people declining, first into Unitarianism, and then into total unbelief. Unitarian clergymen have given up belief in
Christianity, and finally abandoned their profession,
in this country.   I answer, that not a greater number
of Unitarian clergymen have forsaken their calling
than of those of other modes of faith.  It is greatly
to be feared, that unbelief is not confined to the clergy of any denomination, as nothing but unbelief can
explain the awful depravity and the appalling crimes
which have been revealed to the world ip the conduct of those who minister in holy things, within a
few years past, in all the different communions.   In
charity we must suppose that those who have exlhibited such hardened guilt had no serious belief in the
truth of the religion which it was their profession to
teach.
But it may be said, and is often said, as a dispar 
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF. 129
agement to Unitarianism, that in the places where it
originated, and where it most prevails, there are
weekly assemblies of persons who listen to men
who were once Unitarian clergymen, but who now
preach pure deism, who regard Jesus of Nazareth
as a Jewish philosopher who was greatly in advance
of his age, but whose doctrines have no other authority than that of being his opinions on matters of morals and religion.
This is triumphantly pointed out as conclusively
showing the- tendency of Unitarianism.   This is just
what the Orthodox have always predicted as the result of any departure from the old landmarks of the
Trinitarian faith. How can you explain this fact, it
is said, without admitting the deistic tendencies of
Unitarianism?
I answer, that we cannot have the benefits of consistent Protestantism, which is entire freedom of religious opinion and profession, without taking along
with it its incidental evils.  Where there is freedom
of opinion, there will be occasional extravagance.
And there is no other way of determining whether
an opinion is extravagant or ntot, except by submitting it to the general judgment of mankind.   That is
the last resort, that is the final appeal.   The  ex
parte judgment of existing Orthodoxy is not to be
taken for the exponent of the decision of universal
reason.   We  must have that decision, sooner or
later, and the sooner we get it the sooner we shall
9 
130  UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
have peace and rest.  There is no way to get this
verdict, except by entire freedom of opinion and profession.
I answer, in the second place, that religious opinions are now in a transition state all over the world.
In times of revolution, there are always some who
are disposed to carry things to extremes. Religious
opinions, even in Protestant countries, have been
matters of tradition and authority.  Religious opinion is now passing over from passive tradition to individual conviction. In such a process, much, — of
course, must be discarded.   It is not to be expected
that every man will know precisely where to stop.
Some, in repudiating what is false, will be in danger
of rejecting what is true.  In weeding out the tares,
some of the wheat may chance to be rooted up.
But every position must be tried, in order to find
out what is tenable.   The investigation of truth is
often like an algebraic process.   A  false quantity
must be assumed, in order to discover the true one.
Even if it could be shown that Unitarianism leads
the mind, in some cases, to infidelity, there is no danger that it will stay there, unless infidelity be true.
If infidelity be false, and Unitarianism be true, the
mind will come back to Unitarianism. If Unitarianism is not infidelity, it will be shown that it is not.
And the transition of a few bold speculators into infidelity will not destroy Unitarianism or Christianity,
but only define Unitarianism on the side next to un 
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.  131
belief. The discussions of the last thirty years have
defined Unitarianism on the side next to Orthodoxy.
The shading off of a few cloudy thinkers into unbelief will lead to the discovery of the line where
Christianity ends and infidelity begins. Books will
be written, which will clearly show what is essential
to Christianity and what is not. New treatises on
the evidences will be composed, bringing out arguments on points which are now assailed for the first
time, and adapted to the present phases of unbelief.
When this is done, Christianity will stand stronger
than ever.  In conclusion, I say that we have nothing to do
with tendencies, but only with truth.  It is presumptuous in us to stop to inquire whether truth will have
a bad or good tendency.   dll truth must  have a
good tendency, or the world is based on falsehood.
The only evil effect which truth can occasion in the
world is temporary, and will be caused by the jar
and disturbance that are produced in displacing error.
In that sense Christianity itself came, not to introduce peace, but a sword.
The administration of Christianity itself has always
been  partly polemical.   It has always consisted in
the maintenance of truth, as well as the inculcation
of goodness.   The writings of the Apostles are, in
no small degree, controversial. As long as man is
fallible, he will always be liable to wander away from
the truth, even after it has been discovered. Every 
132 UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF.
age has its errors, which those who are set for the
defence of the Gospel are obliged to combat. There
is no discharge in that war, and it will never cease, to
the end of time. If Unitarianism is Christianity, it
will be shown to be so, and the Christian Church will
:ecome Unitarian. If it is not, it will be proved not
to be, and Unitarianism will be abandoned. But the
Christian Church will survive, for " it is founded
on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."
An organized opposition, it is said, is no disadvan.age to any cause.  It keeps it healthy and strong.
It arms it with the best arguments, and compels it to
lop off all doctrines which are indefensible. Christianity itself is, perhaps, not exempted from this law.
It is not improbable that it was the power which the
Church early acquired, of putting down and silencing
all opposition and dissent, which caused its doctrines
to become so corrupted, and its usages so imnmoral.
An organized deism may perhaps do Christianity
good. If it have the power to set up an opposition
to Christianity on its own ground, it may be no argument that Christianity is not true, but only that it is
not properly administered. It is encumbered, perhaps, with errors which the age will not bear, and
which it is necessary to prune away. It may be too
limited in the range of its topics, or too technical and
formal in the mode of their treatment.  Its intellectual and literary culture may be behind the age. De 
UNITARIANISM DOES NOT TEND TO UNBELIEF. 133
ism can obtain a partial and a temporary success,
only by cultivating those excellences which Christianity has neglected. Deism, then, may be made
the instrument of driving the Christian Church into
purity of doctrine and wisdom of administration.
That it is weak in itself cannot be better shown than
by its professing to be Christianity, adopting its
forms, and imitating its great institutions, by which
the world has been enlightened, refined, and sanctified. 
DISCOURSE VII.
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
YE DO ERR, NOT KNOWING THE SCRIPTURES. - Matthew xxii. 29.
IT is the object of this discourse, according to the
announcement bf last Sunday evening, to lay before
you the evidence which has convinced my own mind
that Doctor Watts, the author of a poetical version
of the Psalms of David and a great number of
hymns for public worship, which have been so
widely used, and done so much to uphold and perpetuate the doctrine of the Trinity, was led by the
study of the Scriptures to renounce that doctrine,
and died a Unitarian. I do not pretend to form your
conclusions on this subject, but only candidly state to
you the reasons of my own.
I do not, therefore, say that Unitarianism is true,
and Trinitarianism false. Truth cannot be decided
by counting suffrages, or appealing to distinguished
names. I bring it forward as a curious and impressive fact, that one who had done so much to propagate the Trinitarian faith should have died a Unita
,.
I 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
nan at last.  I advert to his conversion as the natural process of an inquiring, honest mind, when it
comes to examine the Scriptural evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity, and those intrinsic and essential
difficulties which it encounters when investigated in its
own pure and abstract elements.   I wish to call your
attention to the evident reluctance with which he gave
up his old ideas, and embraced the very views, or
others still more Unitarian, which he so pathetically
laments as having been embraced and promulgated by
the great John Locke, who was his contemporary for
a part of his life.
Doctor Watts was born in Southampton, England, 17 July, 1674. His father was a respectable
citizen of that place, belonging to a congregation of
Dissenters.   He had a religious education, and early
discovered a literary turn, which was gratified by opportunities for classical culture, and finally by a theological education at a divinity school in London,
maintained by the Dissenters. His progress here
was rapid, and at the age of twenty-four he became
the clergyman of a congregation in Mark Lane,
which afterwards built a chapel in Berry Street.
The chapel, which, it is said, no one would take to
be a church, is now exhibited as one of the curiosities of London.
He had early exhibited poetic genius, and it soon
found exercise in the composition of hymns for publie worship. For this species of composition, his
135 
136        DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
talents were especially adapted. His warm piety and
lively imagination gave him ready access to all who
cherished devotional sentiments, and this number is
always greater than that of those who lead a consistent Christian life.
Watts was educated a Calvinist of the strongest
stamp, and a Trinitarian.    These  sentiments are
woven into all his psalms and hymns. David is
made a Trinitarian, though this doctrine was not
broached till thirteen hundred years after his death,
and he is made to discourse Calvinism in almost
every page. But Doctor Watts felt hlimself justified
in putting Trinitarianismn into the Psalms on his own
account. He did what was still more objectionable,
though perfectly conscientiously at the timne.   The
last three Psalms are mere doxologies, forms of
praise to God which were long used for that purpose
by the Jews. But it is to one God, and there is in
them no hint of any plurality of persons in the Deity.  He versified them, but added what he calls the
Christian doxology, with this note: I"  Since the
Christian doxology is more used in Christian churches, I have added that also."
"To God the Father, God the Son,
And God the Spirit, three in one," &c.
This he varied in all the different metres, that
it might be fitted on to all the Psalms of David,
who lived and died as profoundly ignorant of the
doctrine of the Trinity as he was of the continent
I 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
of America. And what was the Christian doxology? Any thing found in the New Testament?
By no means.   It was this, -" Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,'"-and
was a sectarian doxology framed by the Athanasians
to drive the Arians out of the churches.   And from
Watts's day to this, the Psalms of David have been
sung in the churches with this unauthorized and unscriptural appendage. His versification of this sectarian doxology, repeated from Sabbath to Sabbath, as
if of Divine authority, has done more to perpetuate
the belief in the doctrine of the Trinity than all
the books of controversial divinity that were ever
written. There is no sentiment whatever that might
not thus be inculcated and perpetuated. What Doctor Watts afterwards thought of the Scriptural authority for these things, we shall see in the course of
this examination.
He published his Hymns in the year 1707, at the
age of thirty-three. His Version of the Psalmns was
published twelve years later, in 1719.   His first
publication on the subject of the Trinity bears the
date 1722, three years after the publication of his
version of the Psalms.
In his Hymns, the doctrine of the Trinity is stated
in the most obnoxious form:
" This infant is the mighty God,
Come to be suckled and adored,
The Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,
The Son of David, and his Lord."
137
0 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
" Here at the cross, my dying God,
I lay my soul beneath thy love."
"Now by the bowels of my God,
His sharp distress, his sore complaints,
By his last groans, his dying blood,
I charge my soul to love the saints."
Here the birth, the suckling, and death of God are
spoken of as fixed, familiar, and common ideas.
I have said that Doctor Watts began to publish
his investigations into the doctrine of the Trinity in
the year 1722.   This date is important, as it fixes
the period of his studies upon this subject, in which
his opinions were formed and developed, to have
been between the fortieth and fiftieth years of his age,
in the very meridian of life. I am careful to make
this statement, because it is said by those who wish
to take from the authority of Watts's suffrage to Unitarian opinions, that he adopted them at a late period
of life, after his mind had become enfeebled by age
and sickness. I here read the testimony of his personal friend, Dr. Gibbons, that no such obscuration
of his faculties ever took place. 
"How it came to pass I know not, but that it has
so happened is certain, that reports have been raised,
propagated, and currently believed concerning the
Doctor, that he has imagined such things concerning
himself as would prove, if they were true, that he
lost possession of himself, or suffered a momentary
eclipse of his intellectual faculties; and I could refer
138
. 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
my reader to a biographer who gives the world a
grave narrative of the particulars of these wild reveries. But I take upon me, and feel myself happy
to aver, that these reports were utterly and absolutely false and groundless; and I do this froti my own
knowledge and observation of him for several years,
and some of them the years of his decay, when he
was at the weakest; from the express declaration of
Mr. Joseph Parker, his amanuensis for above twenty years, and who was in a manner ever with him;
and, above all, from that of Mrs. Elizabeth Abney,
the surviving daughter of Sir Thomnas and Lady Abney, who lived in the same family with him all the
time of the Doctor's residence there, a period of no
less than thirty-six years. Can any evidence be
more convincing and decisive?"
His investigations into the Scriptures and the ancient Hebrew writings led him gradually to abandon
the personality of the Holy Ghost, and to conclude
that the places in the New Testament in which it is
mentioned as a person are personifications, and not
descriptions of a real person. To the same conclusion he came as to the personality of the Word,
which he thought to be a power of God. Thus, in his
mind, God became one, by the gradual evanescence
of what in his education he had learned to consider
as the second and third persons of the Trinity.
Hence it was that the Trinitarians complained that he
reduced the Trinity to a trinity of names.
139 
140        DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
" Thus  it appears," says Doctor Watts, in one
of his treatises, "that as outward speech and breath
are powers of the human body, as reason and vital
activity or efficience are powers of the human soul, so
the great God, in Scripture, has revealed himself to us
as a glorious being, who has two eternal, essential, divine powers, which, in condescension to our weakness,
he is pleased to describe by way of analogy to our souls
and bodies; and this he doth by the terms deber and
ruach in Hebrew, logos and pneumna in Greek, and
in English, word and spirit, or speech and breath, or
reason and vital activity or efficience."
" Thus  I have represented the clearest and  best
ideas I have yet attained concerning the Spirit of
God, who is generally called the third person in the
sacred Trinity.   As Christ, in his divine nature, is
represented as the eternal word or wisdom of the
Father, which perhaps may include in it the power
of knowledge, or knowledge and volition; so the
Spirit seems to be another divine power, which may
be called the power of efficience.  And  though it is
sometimes described in Scripture as a personal agent,
after the manner of Jewish and Eastern writers, yet
if we put all the Scriptures relating to this subject
together, and view them in a correspondent light, the
Spirit of God does not seem to be described as a
distinct spirit from the Father, or as another conscious mind, but as an eternal, essential power, belonging to the Father, whereby all things are effect
I 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
ed; and thus the supreme godhead of the blessed
Spirit is maintained in its glory."
This, you perceive, is pure Sabellianism, or Unitarianism in its simplest form.   The Unitarian believes
in the godhead of the Spirit in this sense,- that it is
God himself, just as the spirit of man is man himnself.
This accords precisely,with the comparison of Paul.:
" For what man knoweth the things of a man, save
the spirit of mnan which is in hin? Even so the things
of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God."
But having arrived at the conclusion, that the
Holy Ghost is " an eternal, essential power belonging to the Father," it was natural that so conscientious a man as Doctor Watts, who had composed so
many doxologies to the Holy Ghost, should feel
some anxiety as to the propriety of making the Holy
Ghost a distinct object of worship.   In the course of
his inquiry, he states his conclusion in the formn of an
objection to the practice of ascribing divine honors to
the Holy Ghost. He then answers the objection.
" Objection.   If the Spirit of God be properly a
power of the Divine nature, or a distinct principle of
action, and not a real and proper person, or distinct
intelligent being, how can we offer a doxology to the
Spirit, and ascribe honor and glory to him, together
with the Father and the Son?
",Answer I. Though I think it may be very
proper, upon some occasions, to join the Holy Spirit
in a doxology, and to offer glory and praise to himn
141 
142        DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
together with the Father and the Son, yet I think it
may be affirmed, that there is not any one plain and
express instance in all the Scripture of a doxology
directly and distinctly addressed to the Holy Spirit
Perhaps one reason, among others, may be, because
both the Father and the Son, considered as Godman, are proper distinct persons, while the proper,
distinct, and real character of the Spirit is that of a
divine power or principle of action, and it is only
personalized by idioms of speech.
"c Now, though there may be two or three examples of such a doxology in the writers of the first
three centuries, and though it may be properly practised in many cases, yet if there be neither precept
nor pattern for it in Scripture, it ought not to be esteemed so constant and so necessary a part of worship as modern ages have made it, and as I once
thought it to be."
" Answer II. Since I believe the Spirit of God
to be coeternal with God, and essential and necessary to his very being, and in that sense true God,
and since he is represented in Scripture ink a personal
manner, or under the character of a distinct person,
therefore forms of praise may be lawfully addressed
to him, as well as peculiar blessings may be said to
descend from him. Though the Scripture has not
taught us distinctly to offer praise and honor to the
Holy Spirit, yet it has taught us to hearken to the
voice of the Spirit, to obey the Spirit, to hope and 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
wait for the enlightening, the sanctifying, and the
comforting influences of the Spirit, and not to resist
him; and since the Holy Spirit is true God, I think
it follows, by evident consequence, that we may offer
himn the sacrifice of praise for the blessings which he
bestows.   There is no more necessity that he should
be a real, proper, distinct person, or another conscious mind, in order to receive such addresses, than
in order to bestow such blessings. A figurative personality is sufficient for both.
" Answer III.  I add yet further, that if the Holy Spirit had never been represented in a personal
manner in Scripture, yet a distinct power of the Divine nature may surely be as proper an object of
doxology as a divine attribute or perfection, which
does not seem to carry in the idea of it so great a
distinction as a divine power.   I think there is no
impropriety in ascribing praise and glory to the wisdom or the grace of God. May we not properly
use such language as this:-' We  give thanks to
the grace of God;' Let us give praise to the almighty power of God';'Glory be given to.God
and his mercy';'Let God  the Father, and his
eternal wisdom, and his love, be glorified for ever'?
Now, if these expressions may be sometimes used
on particular occasions with propriety and devotion,
though we are not necessarily bound to use them, I
see no reason why we may not, upon particular occasions, ascribe glory to God the Father, to his eter.....-.......
143 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
nal Word,  and his almighty Spirit, even  though the
Word, together with the Spirit, considered purely in
their divine nature, may be really distinct principles
of action in the godhead, and not real, proper, dis
tinct beings.
"It may be still further argued:  Suppose the
powers, or even the attributes or agencies of God,
were expressed in yet more metaphorical language,
yet they might lawfully be doxologized. Alay we
not say,' Glory be to God and his victorious arm';
or' to his watchfil eye'?  Or, may we not ascribe
' glory to the Father and the Son, and their counsels of mercy,' and such like?  Surely, then, the
blessed Spirit, whatsoever be his philosophical character or idea in the godhead, may receive ascriptions
of glory with as much propriety.
"But if all these considerations were not sufficient
to make us allow of doxologies to the Holy Spirit,
I say, in the last place,
" Answer IV. As in some Scriptures the Spirit
of God seems to include in it the whole idea of godhead, acting by the blessed Spirit, why may we not
ascribe glory to the blessed Splirit under this idea?
May we not say,' Glory be given to God, who
sanctifies and comforts us by his blessed Spirit,' as
well as' Glory to him who sustains the supreme dignity of godhead under the idea of a father'? Perhaps, if this sense be put upon the words, it may
please some persons better, who are sincere and zeal.......
144
.1 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
ous believers of the doctrine of the Trinity, accordmig to the common orthodox explication; for this
idea of the Spirit approaches nearer to the orthodox
scheme, wherein the whole divine essence is include&
in each person, together with a distinct modality of
that essence which is called the personality.   Upon
any of these principles which I have mentioned, thereis sufficient ground for a doxology to be given to the
blessed Spirit, without supposing him to be a distinctintelligent being, or another mind."
One of the greatest - difficulties in the way of the
doctrine of the Trinity, to a person who conceives
of God  as one pure Spirit, has been the idea of
derivation contained in it.  The Athanasian creed,
which is a scholastic statement Of the Trinity, asserts
that the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son.   Doctor Watts perceived the difficulty of reconciling his
theory of the Word and Spirit being " two eternal,
essential powers belonging to the Father," with the
common  hypothesis of derivation.  He notices the
incongruity, not to retract his own conclusion, but to
call in question the hypothesis of derivation itself, as
something, if not unintelligible, at least too incomprehensible for his understanding.   The turning point of
the proof that Doctor Watts was a Unitarian is his
admission that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but a
personification of an " eternal, essential power belonging to the Father."   It is no wonder, then, that
10
145 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
his understanding rebelled against the derivation of a
mere personification.
"Objection. If the Spirit of God be properly a
power, or principle of agency in the Divine nature,
how can it be said, according to the common doctrine of divines, that he proceeds from the Father
and the Son?
" Answer I.  It was proper, in the objection, to
name the common doctrine of divines, and not the
doctrine of Scripture, for the text from which this is
derived, John fifteenth, twenty-sixth, only saith that
the Spirit cometh forth, or proceedeth from the Father, and  that he is sent by  the Son.   But  the
Scripture never says that the Spirit, as to his nature,
proceeds from the Son; no, nor properly fromn the
Father, as to his nature, though his mission is originally from the Father; and perhaps it is in this
sense that he is described in Scripture-as proceeding
from the Father, because he is the divine, efficient
power of the Father, which is employed in all divine
operations.
" The notion of the Spirit's procession,or (erivation, as to his essence and personality, both fromn the
Father and the Son, how current so ever it has been,
is not a plain and express Scriptural doctrine, but a
human inference drawn from this doubtful argument,
viz.:  -'That if the Spirit be sent by the Son'as
to his commission in the economy, he mnust proceed
from the Son as to his nature, existence, or person
146
v 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
ality.' But this argument, if thoroughly examined,
has no great force in it.  The Greek churches were
not influenced by it; for in elder and later days they
have supposed the Spirit to proceed from the Father
only, though they confess he is sent by the Son, as
well as by the Father; and this seems to come nearer
to the plain and express language of Scripture.
" The common explication of the eternal generation-of the Son, and eternal procession of the Spirit
from the Father and Son, which was authorized in
the Latin churches, was derived down to us from the
Popish schoolmen; though it is now become a part
of the established, or orthodox faith, in most of the
Protestant nations, because at the Reformation they
knew no better way to explain the doctrine of the sacred Trinity.   They contented themselves to say it
was incomprehensible, and thus forbid all further inquiries. But this scholastic, Popish explication of
the manner of the derivation of the Son and Spirit
from the Father is, perhaps, the most inconceivable
and indefensible part of all the common scheme of
the Trinity which is called orthodox.   I heartily
agree to several other parts of it, viz.' - That
God is one infinite and eternal spirit, or conscious
being.   That the Divine essence is but one and the
same, th6ugh distinguished into three sacred persons.' But their account of the generation and the
procession, that is, of the manner of the derivation
of the Word and Spirit from  the Father, seems  to
147 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
me, at present, to be a set of words, of which I can
attain no ideas, invented by subtle and metaphysical
schoolmen, to guard and fence, as far as possible,
against the charge of inconsistency, and was never
designed to convey a clear conception to the mind
of Christians.   Let us take a short survey of what
this scholastic notion is.
" The most approved writers represent it thus:That the generation of the- Son  is the  Father's
communication of his own  selfsame, individual, selfexistent essence to the Son, together with the personal property of being begotten, in and by which
property he differs from the Father.'   And,' That
the procession of the Spirit is a communication of
the selfsame individual, self-existent essence, both
from the Father and the Son, unto the Spirit, together with the personal property of spiration, or
proceeding, by which property he  differs from the
Father and the Son.'
" How strange so ever this language appears to
persons who seek for ideas together with words, I
seriously profess  this is the justest, truest, and, I
think, the plainest description that I can give of this
opinion.   If it be possible to make it plainer, I will
repeat the same in another form of words.
" The scholastic scheme supposes the eternal generation of the Son to be a sort of repetition of the
selfsame numerical Divine essence of the Father, together with some new personal property, called Olia
148 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
tion, which joined to the Divine essence makes up the
person of the Son.   And that this repetition or reproduction of the same Divine essence with its new
personality is owing to the Father only.
It also supposes the procession of the  Holy
Spirit to be another sort of repetition of the selfsame numerical Divine essence of the Father, together with some new personal property, called procession, which, joined to the Divine essence, makes tiup
the person of the Holy Spirit.   And  that this repetition or reproduction of the same Divine essence
with its new personality is owing to the Father and
the Son conjointly; or, as some  rather say, it is
from the Father as the original principle, by the Son
as a medium.
" There have been some witers, indeed, who thought
it was not proper to say of the Divine essence itself
that it did generate, or could be generated or derived; and therefore they supposed only the personality of the Son to be generated, or derived from the
Father, and the personality of the Spirit to proceed
or be derived from the Father and the Son, But
when you inquire what these personalities are, they
can only tell you that it is filiation, or sonship, and
spiration, or procession.   Upon  the whole, therefore, according to this opinion, it is sonship is generated, and procession proceeds.   But the generality
of the scholastic or orthodox Trinitarians go into
the former sentiments, of the generation and proces
149
ak 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
sion of the Divine essence itself, together with the
distinct personalities.
" With a solemn and unfeigned veneration I reverence the names and memories of those excellent
men, those learned and pious authors of the last age,
who asserted and defended these opinions. Nor do
I think the devotion, and zeal, and piety, of our present times equal to theirs.   But when  I inquire of
my own heart, whether ever I could form any ideas
of all this sort of language, while I was taught it in
my younger days, and firmly assented to these
sounds, I must honestly confess I could not. Sometimes I was ready to inquire further; but then I satisfied all my inquisitive thoughts with this general notion, that it was incomprehensible. I found it sufficiently evident in Scripture, that the Father was
God, that the Son was God, and the Holy Spirit
was God; and that they were usually represented in
Scripture as three persons.   And  though I had  no
distinct idea of the mnodus of it, yet I thought myself sufficiently defended and intrenched in the forms
of scholastic language, and armed with that set of
phrases which make up this part of the common or
orthodox explication, without being too solicitous
about conceiving that which was asserted to be utterly inconceivable."
I am persuaded that no fair-minded person, after
reading this, can ever again believe that the writer of
it was a Trinitarian, as that word is generally under
4
150
4* 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
stood.   And yet, while he himself had substantially
renounced the Trinity, still his Psalms and Hymns,
the copy-right of which he had sold, were not converting, but educating, by the mere force of authority and repetition, thousands and thousands into the
very belief which he had given up as not countenanced  by  Scripture  or reason.   The  Christian
world went on worshipping the Holy Ghost as a
person, in the use of the Hymnns of Doctor Watts,
when he himself had become convinced that it was a
mere personificatiorr.
The contemporaries of a man are the best judges
of the significance and tendency of his writings.
His biographer subjoins the following note to his
writings on the Trinity:-" Those, who wish to
see what some of Doctor Watts's pious and learned
contemporaries thought of his Trinitarian writings,
may peruse Dr. Abraham Taylor's' Scripture
Doctrine of the Trinity vindicated, in Opposition to
Mr. Watts's Scheme of One Divine Person and Two
Divine Powers.' Mr. Hurrion, also, a very able
writer, published a set of discourses, entitled,' The
Scripture Doctrine of the Proper Divinity*, Real
Personality, &c., of the Holy Spirit, stated and
defended.'"
With regard to the second person of the Trinity,
Doctor Watts's inquiries led him to abandon the
common hypothesis as to the distinct subsistence
and personality of what is usually termed the divine
151 
152        DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
nature of Christ. The only divine nature which he
considered the Scriptures to teach as existing in
Christ was the in-dwelling of the whole Deity.
His sentiments on this subject are brought out in
a distinct treatise, which he published under the following title: - " Useful and Important Questions
concerning Jesus the Son of God."   In that treatise he first institutes the inquiry, whether the expression " Son," and " Son of God," applied to
Christ, were intended to assert any participation in
the essence of God.   This he -conclusively proves
in the negative.  He enumerates five different senses
in which the title " Son of God " has been alleged
to be applied to Christ. The first of them, which
is that of participation in Deity, he emphatically rejects.
" The first of these senses is patronized by many
writers, viz.:' IThat  an eternal, inconceivable
generation of the person of the Son, by the person
of the Father, in the sameness of the Divine essence, consubstantial, coequal, and coeternal with
the Father, is included in the name Son of God.'
" But I am persuaded that this can nevbr be the
sense of this name in those several texts before cited;
they can never signify that it is necessary to salvation to believe Christ to be the' eternal Son of
God,' as a distinct person in the same Divine essence, proceeding from the Father by such an eternal and incomprehensible generation. For, 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
" I. If this be ever so true, yet it is confessed to
be inconceivable.  Now, if it be so very inconceivable, so mysterious and sublime a doctrine, then I
do not think the gracious God would put such a difficult test upon the faith of young disciples, poor,
illiterate men and women, in the very beginning of
the Gospel, and exclude them from heaven for not
believing it.
" II. Nor, indeed, is this eternal generation and
consubstantial sonship clearly enough revealed in
Scripture for us to make it a fundamental article in
any age, and to damn all who do not receive it. I
cannot see evidence enough in the word of God to
make the salvationitf all mankind, the poor and the
ignorant, the laboring men and the children, even in
such a day of knowledge as this is, to depend on
such a doctrine, which the most learned andf pious
Christians in all ages have confessed to be attended
with so many difficulties, -which, after the labor and
study of near fourteen hundred years, is so inconceivable in itself, and was at first so obscurely revealed; much less can I suppose this notion of the
Son of God could be made a necessary and fundamental article in those dawnings of the Gospel-day."
As a counterpart to the common doctrine of the
Trinity, three persons in the Deity, it has been generally maintained that the distinction between them
was of such a nature as to admit of personal intercourse.   They could converse together and make
153 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
mutual stipulations. In the theology which was current in the age of Doctor Watts, there were long
conversations imagined to have taken place between
God the Father and God the Son, in relation to the
redemption of mankind.
With the views which he had adopted, all such
representations could not seem less than absurd.   In
the course of his inquiry, he takes up the question
whether there is any foundation for such representations. He comes to the conclusion, that there is none
whatever.
" The common or scholastic explication of the
Trinity, which has been long universally received by
our Protestant writers, and has Hen called orthodox
for these several hundred years, is this, viz.:-That
God is but one simple, infinite, and eternal Spirit.
Hence it follows, that the Divine essence, powers,
and essential properties of the Faiher, the Son, and
the Spirit, in the godhead, are numerically the very
same  essence,  powers,  and  essential  properties;
that it is the same numerical consciousness, understanding, will, and power, which belongs to the Father, that belongs also to the Son and to the Holy
Spirit; and that the sacred Three are distinguished
only by the superadded, relative properties of paternity, filiation, and procession; but their thoughts,
ideas, volitions, and agencies, according to this hypothesis, must be the very same numerical thoughts,
ideas, actions, and volitions, in all the sacred Three."
154 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
He then goes on to quote from a sermon by
Flavel, a popular sermonizer of those times, in
which he details the stipulations of a covenant made
between the Father and the Son, before the foundation of the world. "Consider," says Flavel, " the
persons transacting and dealing with each other in
this covenant. These are God the Father, and God
the Son, the former as a creditor, the latter as a
surety.   The  Father stands upon satisfaction, the
Son engages to give it," &c.
" Now,  in reading over such  accounts,"  says
Doctor Watts, " of stipulation and contract between
the Father and the Son, before the foundation of the
world, what proper conceptions can we frame, or
what clear ideas can we possibly have, while we suppose nothing but Christ's divine nature transacting
this affair with the Father; and while, at the same
time, we believe the Divine essence, perfections, and
powers, the understanding, will, thought, and consciousness, of the Father and of the Son to be numerically one and the same, since in the godhead,
or Divine nature, they are but one and the same infinite Spirit? The mere personalities, viz.'paternity and filiation, cannot consult and transact these
affairs in a way of contract, proposal, and consent.
It is nothing but two distinct consciousnesses and
two distinct wills can enter into such a covenant
but in the common  explication of the Trinity, the
distinct personalities of the Father and the Son do
155 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
not make any real distinct consciousnesses or distinct
wills in the one infinite Spirit.
" And let it be further noted, also, that, according
to several of the articles of this covenant, one of
these beings or persons covenanting seems to be in ferior to the other, and to be capable of receiving or ders, commission, support, and recompense from the
other.   But if only the deity of Christ exis'ted at
that time, and the deity of Christ and of the Father
have but one and the same numerical consciousness
and volition, one and the same numerical power and
glory, what need of orders and commissions, what
need of promises of support and recompense? How
can the pure godhead of Christ be supported or be
recompensed by the Father, who has eternally the
same numerical glory and power?
" In short, all these sacred and pathetic representations of stipulation and- articles, in the common
scheme, can amount to no more, in our clear ideas,
and in a proper conception of things, than the simple
decree or volition of the one eternal, infinite Spirit.
" I grant we may suppose the great God, in a figurative manner of speech, consulting thus with his
own wisdom, with the divine powers or principles of
agency in his own nature, as a man may be figuratively said to consult with his own understanding, or
reason, or conscience.   But, in literal and proper
language, it seems to be nothing else but an absolute
decree of the great God, that the man Christ Jesus,
156 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
when formed and united to godhead, should undertake and fulfil this work, four thousand years after this
world was made. And thus, according to the common
hypothesis, that very intelligent being which was to
come into flesh, and to sustain all the real sufferings,
gave no such early antecedent consent to this covenant. It was only the godhead of Christ, which
is impassible and could really suffer nothing, did decree that the human nature should exist hereafter,
that it should be united to the godhead, and should
sustain agonies and death for the sins of men.
" I would inquire further, also, according to this
explication of things, what possible difference can we
conceive between the love of the Father in sending
his Son, and the love of the Son in consenting to be
sent on this compassionate errand, if there were not
two distinct consciousnesses and two distinct wills,
if it was only one simple, numerical volition of the
great God? And how doth this abate our grand
ideas of the distinct and condescending love of our,
blessed Saviour, in his consent to this covenant,
since that part of him which really suffered, that is,
his inferior nature, had then no existence, and there
fore could give no consent to this early covenant of
redemption?"
At the time when Doctor Watts lived, Biblical
criticism had scarcely begun to be cultivated, and,
according to the principles of interpretation then received, he considered himself obliged to understand
157 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
in their literal sense those passages in which Christ
speaks of himself as " having come down from
heaven," as "having been in heaven," &c. To account for these passages, he considered the human
soul of Christ to have preexisted, and to have come
into the world. The common supposition, that the
divine nature of Christ left heaven and came on earth,
he treats as an utter impossibility, wholly inconsistent
with the very nature of Deity.
" For the divine nature of Christ, how distinct
so ever it is supposed to be from God the Father,
yet can never leave the Father's bosom, can never
divest itself of any one joy or felicity that it was ever
possessed of, nor lose even the least degree of it;
nor could God the Father ever dismiss the divine
nature of his Son from his own bosom. Godhead
must have eternal and complete beatitude, joy, and
glory, and can never be dispossessed of it.  Godhead can sustain no real sorrow, suffering, or pain.
The utmost that can be said concerning the deity of
Christ is, that there is a relative imputation of the
sorrows, sufferings, and pains of the human nature
to the divine, because of the union between them;
so that the sufferings acquire a sort of divine dignity
and merit hereby.   It is granted~ indeed, that this
relative and imputative suffering may be sufficient in
a legal sense to advance the dignity of the sacrifice
of Christ to a complete and equivalent satisfaction
for sin; yet the exceeding greatness of the love of
158 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
the Father and the Son does not seem to be so sensibly manifested to us hereby, for all this abasement
of the godhead of Christ is merely relative, and not
real.
" And as it is plain that the divine nature of
Christ could not be separated from the bosom of the
Father when he came into this world and took flesh
upon him, so neither could the human nature leave
the bosom of the Father, if it had no prior existence
and was never there. Therefore, in the common
scheme, all this glorious and pathetic representation
of the love of Christ, in leaving the joys and glories
of heaven, when he came to dwell upon earth, has
no ideas belonging to it, and it can be true in no
sense, since it can neither be attributed to the human
nor to the divine nature of Christ, nor to his whole
person. I grant, that, by the figure of communication
of properties, what is true of one nature may be attributed to the whole person, or sometimes to the
other nature; yet that which is not true concerning
either nature of Christ separated, nor concerning the
two natures united, cannot be attributed to him at all.
So that' parting with the  bosom of his Father,'
and' forsaking the joys and glories he possessed
there,' are, according to the common scheme, words
of which we have no ideas."
The only remaining part of the discussion, from
which I have space to quote, is that in which he clearly proves that Christ had no such divine nature as is
159 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
usually conceived of as the second person of the
Trinity. The only divine nature which he had was
the indwelling of the whole Deity in him. He enters upon the inquiry by the formal statement of the
question, -" Is the godhead of Christ and the godhead of the Father one and the same godhead? "
" If the divine nature of Christ be another distinct
principle of self-consciousness and volition, another
distinct spiritual being, or another spirit, this approaches so near to the doctrine of another God,
that it is very hard to distinguish it.  For, so far as
our ideas of arithmetic and reason can reach, this
seems to be a plain truth:-' If one infinite spirit be
one God, two or three infinite spirits must be two or
three gods.' And though the patrons of this opinion suppose these three spirits to be so nearly united
as to be called one God, merely to avoid the charge
of polytheism, yet it must be granted that this one
God must, then, be one complex infinite being, or
spirit, made up of three single infinite beings or spirits; which is such a notion of the one true God as I
think reason nor revelation will admit. And yet, if
this were the true notion of the one God, it is very
strange that Scripture should not clearly and expressly reveal it.
" When Christ expresses his own godhead in the
New Testament, it is by declaring his oneness with
the Father, that is, the union of the man Christ Jesus with the same godhead that is in the Father.   I I
160
1
l 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
and the Father are one.' - John tenth, thirtieth.
' He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; I
am in the Father, and the Father in me; the Father
that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.' -John
fourteenth, ninth, tenth.  And it must be observed,
that there is not any place in the New Testament
where the miraculous works of Christ are ascribed to
any distinct godhead of his own, different from the
godhead of the Father, or the godhead of the Spirit
of God that dwelt in him. And it is not reasonable
to suppose that Christ would have always used these
modes of speaking, and attributed his own works to
the Father and his Spirit, if he himself had another
godhead or divine nature different from that of the
Father and the Spirit. For why should his miraculous works be attributed to the aid of another infinite spirit, which was not united to the man Jesus,
and never be ascribed at all to that distinct spirit
which is supposed to be united to him?  I am sure
this sort of representation leads our thoughts away
from supposing Christ to have any godhead at all, if
it be not the same as the Father's.
" If the godhead of Christ be another distinct
spiritual being, different from the godhead of the Flather, I do not see any fair and reasonable manner
how the Trinitarian can solve the difficulties which
arise from those Scriptures where God the Father is
represented as the only true God, and under that idea
distinguished from Jesus Christ; as John seven                11
161 
162        DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
teenth, third, -' To know thee, the only true God,
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' First Corinthians eighth, sixth, -' To us there is but one God,
the Father, of whom are all things,..... and one
Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.' Ephesians fourth, fifth, sixth,-' There is one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.'
Now, we can scarce suppose the highest nature of
Jesus Christ to be another infinite spirit, distinct from
God the Father, without excluding it from godhead
by these express Scriptures; but they may easily be
explained to admit Christ's godhead, if we suppose
Christ to be spoken of in these places chiefly in his
inferior characters as man and mediator; and  yet
he may be united to, and inhabited by, the one true
and eternal God, who is at other times called the
Father, as being vested with different relative properties, and first in the great economy, as I have sufficiently shown in other papers."
If any one, after reading these extracts, can continue to count Doctor Watts a Trinitarian, let him
read his solemn " Address to the Deity," which
was prefixed to one of the last pamphlets he ever
published. In it you will perceive the breathings of
the same devotion which pervades his Psalms and
Hymns, together with a reluctance to abandon his
old theological opinions, with which his devotional
feelings had become early associated.  In one part
of it, there is a striking acknowledgment that the doc
i 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
trine of the-Trinity had nearly driven him into infidelity.
There seems to be something almost providential
in the manner in which this prayer has been preserved, as evidence of the last thoughts of Doctor
Watts.   It was prefixed to a treatise on the Trinity,
containing a summary of all he had ever written upon
the subject. Fifty copies of it only were published.
His Orthodox friends, taking the alarm lest it should
destroy his popularity and injure his influence, persuaded him to recall the edition and commit it to the
flames. One copy only remained, and was afterwards found in a bookseller's shop at Southampton,
in the year 1796, just half a century from its publication. The tract was entitled, " A Faithful Inquiry
after the Ancient and Original Doctrine of the Trinity taught by Christ and his Apostles."
Doctor Lardner, one of the most honest of men,
who had the best means of knowing his sentiments,
as his nephew was one of his executors, saw him
often during the last years of his life, and had the
examination of his papers after his death, testifies, -
" The last thoughts of Doctor Watts were completely Unitarian."
"Dear and blessed God! hadst thou been pleased,
in any one plain Scripture, to have informed me
which of the different opinions about the Holy Trinity, among the contending parties of Christians, had
been true, thou knowest with how much zeal, satis
163
I 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
faction, and joy my unbiased heart would have
opened itself to receive and embrace the divine discovery.   Hadst thal told me plainly, in any single
text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
three real distinct persons in thy Divine nature, I had
never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many
doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears
of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of
Divine doctrine; but I should have humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible
for me to understand them, as the only rule of my
faith. Or hadst thou been pleased so to express and
iinclude this proposition in the several scattered parts
of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience
might with ease find out and with certainty infer this
doctrine, I should have joyfully employed  all my
reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it
into my soul."
" Thou hast taught me, Holy Father, by thy
prophets, that the way of holiness in the times of the
Gospel, or under the kingdom of the Messiah, shall
be a highway, a plain and easy path; so that the
wayfaring man, or the stranger,' though a fool, shall
not err therein.' And thou hast called the poor and
the ignorant, the mean and the foolish things of this
world, to the knowledge of thyself and thy Son, and
taught them to receive and partake of the salvation
which thou hast provided. But how can such weak
164
I
I 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, and so
abstruse a doctrine as this, in the explication and
defence whereof, multitudes of men, even men of
learning and piet, have lost themselves in infinite
subtilties of dispute, and endless mazes of darkness?
And can this strange and perplexing notion of three
real persons going to make  up one true God be so
necessary and so important a part of that Christian
doctrine, which; in thile Old Testament and the New,
is represented as so plain and so easy, even to the
meanest understandings? "
" Great God, who seest all things! thou hast beheld what busy temptations have been often fluttering
about my heart, to call it off from these laborious
and difficult inquiries, and to give up thy word and thy
Gospel as an unintelligible book, and betake myselt
to the light of nature and reason; but thou hast been
pleased by thy Divine power to scatter these temptations, and fix my heart and hope again upon that
Saviour and that eternal life which thou hast revealed
in thy word, and proposed therein to our knowledge
and our acceptance. Blessed be the name-of my
God, that has not suffered me to abandon the Gospel
of his Son Jesus!  And blessed be that Holy Spirit
that has kept me attentive to the truth delivered in
thy Gospel, and inclined me to wait longer in my
search of these Divine truths, under the hope of thy
gracious illumination! " I
Such were the last thoughts of a pious and learned
165
f 
DOCTOR WATTS A UNITARIAN.
man, after more than twenty years of examination of
the sacred Scriptures.   His Psalms and Hymns
were comparatively a juvenile work, written wholly,
as he acknowledges, while he was under the influence of opinions which were entirely traditionary,
and adopted by him without even comprehending the
terms in which they were expressed.
While he was acknowledging that the Trinity
amounted to nothing more than one God in one person and two divine powers, thousands and thousands
were appending a Trinitarian doxology to the Psalms
of David on his authority, -" To God the Father,
God the Son, and God the Spirit, three in one,"when at the same time he himself had given up the
personality of the Holy Ghost, and acknowledged
that there was no Scriptural authority for addressing
a doxology to it at all, any more than there is for addressing a doxology to God's arm or eye!
THE END.
166
tI
i
I
I
-1