/q~~~~~~~~~~~I
~..... i' i ~;j
A
HALF-CENTURY
OF THE
UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY,
WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO ITS ORIGIN, ITS COURSE, AND ITS PROMINENT
- SUBJECTS AMONG THE CONGREGATIONAL          ISTS OF MASSACHUSETTS.
WITH AN APPENDIX.
BY
.'
'   J I5 I,
1  7'-     -.    K,~,   )
\,SI,
GEORGE E.} ELLIS.
B O S T O N:
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY.
1 85 7.
,f:, 
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by
CROSBY, NICHOLS, AND COMPANY,
in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts.
CAMBRIDGE:
METCALF AND COMPANY, PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.
,w 
C O N T E N T S.
PAGE
V
INTRODUCTION.
A HIIALF-CENTURY OF THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY ON THE NATURE AND THE
STATE OF MAN....
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY ON GOD AND CHRIST 
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY ON THE ATONEMENT
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY ON THE SCRIPTURES,
RELATIONS OF REASON AND FAITH....
THE NEW THEOLOGY.....
APPENDIX.
CHUSETTS............. 407
DISAPPOINTMENT OR SUCCESS OF UNITARIANISM.   408
UNITARIANISM AND TRANSCENDENTALISM...     412
THE LEGAL DECISIONS IN CASES OF CHURCH PROP   ERTY.............. 415
UNITARIANS IMPEACHED FOR CONCEALMENT.  432
GENEALOGY AND INFLUENCE OF UNITARIANISM IN
MASSACHUSETTS.....
i 
l
It
11
i
I
i
i
1
51
105
155
221
287
343
N
'i
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
s
i
i
f
1.
II.
Hi.
IV.
V.
Vi.
. 438 
I
C0ONTENTS.
VII. THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HUMAN NATURE. 447
VIII. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY...     463
IX. UNITARIANISM ON THE NATURE, RANKI, AND OF       FICES OF CHRIST...........                472
X. THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.         482
XI. EXCLUSION OF UNITARIANS FROM CHRISTIAN FEL        LOWSHIP.............498
XII. CONTROVERTED VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE...   504
t
~\
I
I~
I
iv
-i
t
?
?
II
I
-r 
INTRODUCTION.
THE seven Essays which occupy the substantial part
of this volume have already appeared in print, in recently published numbers of the Christian Examiner.
They are now issued in this present form in compliance
with the wishes of many readers. An opportunity is
thus afforded to the writer of them of laying aside the
plural pronoun used in his late editorial capacity, and
of writing an Introduction to them in his own proper
name.
For the many and earnest expressions received through
public and private channels, conveying to me grateful
evidence that I have not spent labor on an unprofitable
service, I would here make a most thankful return.  To
have contributed even in the humblest measure to a
peaceful discussion of subjects too often associated with
malignant feelings and offensive language, is a source
of pleasure to me.  If, beyond that, I have in the slightest degree simplified or relieved some themes which all
former discussions have helped to confuse or perplex, I
shall have realized the highest object which I dared to
propose to myself as attainable.
I have been dealing with matters of controversy, and
yet I have had in view no controversial design. If no
better purpose had moved me than that of adding yet
another to the endless and exhaustless reiterations of
dogmatical disputation about the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
I
IL
NY
I
I
.i
rs
41
y,
t
1}
s>
l
a*
0 
INTRODUCTION.
I am certain that I should have found more congenial
employment for my time and my pen. I have endeavored wholly to avoid what is heating and bitter in
writing upon controverted subjects. Too much that has
been dictated in that spirit has necessarily passed under
my notice, to give me any other feeling than that' of
sheer disgust toward it.  I have believed that it is
possible for intelligent persons to treat with rigid candor
and with passionless feelings such matters of variance
between them as those who claim alike to be Christians
find to be grounds of division in faith and sympathy.
If, notwithstanding my sincere purpose and my avowed
resolution on this point, friendly or unfriendly readers
should still detect in these pages any tokens of misrep-resentation, or ill-feelings, or controversial unfairness, I
make here a humble apology for the offence, and beg
that my error may be accounted in part to the contagious influence of much unwholesome matter which I
have been compelled to peruse, and in part to something
sti                  l       l       left incomplete in the process of my own convers      i      o       n. I       would use controversy with another rather a s  a
means for discovering wherein my own views may be
wrong, than as a means of triumphing over his errors.
T      h      e       r      e        is a  wholesome discipline of mind in fair controversy, where both parties are alike interested in the
subjects under discussion. Nor where truth is the only
end in view, and where the search for it is but the first
stage of full loyalty and deference to it, need controversy
have any harmful effect on the heart.
It seemed to me that the best way to redeem what,
in the retrospect, might appear to call for regret in the
origin or conduct of the controversy among the descendants of a Congregational lineage in New England, was
to seek for something among its results which would
either justify it to Christian men, or be available as
showing that a conciliation of old strifes was attended
i
I
!
I
.
4~
f
r
it
4
/
t~t
i
)
!.
f
I
II
I
I
vi
. 
INTRODUOTION.
by an approximation of sentiments between the two
extreme parties. My object, therefore, was to subordi nate the controversial to the historical, and to make a
sketch of the past strife between the parties a point
from which to trace any subsequent modifications of
opinion on either side, as now exhibited in the views
advanced by their successors.  A Christian minister who
continues his professional studies in the quiet hours
rescued from routine duties, enjoys all the means for
testing the Gospel in the substance of its speculative
and its practical elements.  A  critical or antiquarian
student of the Bible and of ecclesiastical history, who is
not brought daily into a religious relation with others,
becomes either a dreamer or a sceptic. He will either
work out some fanciful conceit or worthless theory of
his own, and so add another to the already annoying
tasks through which plain minds must make their way
to truth; or he will yield himself to speculative doubts
about facts which he has studied as barren theories.
But a working student, who is searching for truth on its
practical side, that he may carry it out from his study
as the material for living. appeal from the pulpit, or as
strength, wisdom, guidance, or consolation to those who
need it for such uses, will never be a dreamer or a seeptic. Still he may be a bigot, narrow-minded, prejudiced,
and but half furnished for his high offices.  His security
against these vices and limitations of his profession
must be found in catholic studies and in a well-disciplined heart. Considering the oracular authority which
for ages has been assigned to Christian ministers, the
more oracular, too, according to the narrowness of their
sphere and the mystifications of their utterances, we
may well regard their incessant controversies as, on the
whole, valuable as mutual restraints and correctives of
each other's narrowness.
But our own age affords opportunities for something
i'
t
I
i
.Vii
I
I
11
-t
k
II
i. 
INTRODUCTION.
better than mere controversy. When we consider what
treasures are heaped for our use, the fruits of toiling
brains and of earnest hearts, gathered from the briery
fields of truth, the least that we can do to prove our
gratitude for them is to use them so as to vindicate their
value. There is no drearier view of the application of
the dismal sentence of "Vanity" to all hutnan pursuits,
than that which would persuade us that it has a special
force when assigned to the tasks of mind and soul in
search of speculative and theoretical truth. Most forlorn
and dispiriting would be the conviction, that the way
which we fondly believe is a progress onward, is only a
circular path over the trodden ways of doubt, uncertainty, and error.  Nor does it satisfy us that the yield
of knowledge should only be larger in the sense of increase in the world's grain-harvests, as feeding more
minds. We want-our increase of knowledge to be also
an increase in the relative amount of truth in it.
The influences which now prevail in the religious
literature of the age are such as are highly favorable to
the harmonizing and the conciliating of many old strifes.
The Christian student, while pursuing the largest culture of his mind and the serious training of his heart,
is disposed to seek out affinities, rather than alienations,
from among the leading thinkers in a distracted Christendom. Our old controversies come back to us not
merely to be reviewed, but to be sifted, and that we may
select from them the largest seedsof the truth or error
in them for trial by the new and improved processes
of dialectics and criticism. The conservative theologians, who insist upon  clinging to the old doctrinal
tenets, as a part of their inheritance from ages of faith,
may be allowed to take that stand as a position, if they
will only indulge themselves in a good outlook from it.
They love to quote the counsel of the Lord spoken by
the prophet, "-Stand ye in the way, in the old paths'";;
f
t
I
i
J
i
f-t
t
i
viii
f
II
e
I
0
1)
.11
r 
INTRODUCTION.
but they do not heed the advice which bids them ask
for "the good way," - a question which implies a doubt
whether they are already in it. It may be too much to
expect that the old formulas and symbols to which have
been attached the traditional piety of long centuries,
and through the help of which we interpret the religious
life of the great saints of Christendom, should be allowed to pass into oblivion. But we know that these
are often cherished now-a-days rather for their associations, than as adequate exponents of the faith of men
who hold the foremost places of religious influence.
The attempt to run new truth into the old moulds, involves a great deal of that mystification of language,
and that obscurity of thought, which, together with an
evident and most vigorous independence of mind, characterize most of the writers in the school of progressive
theology.
It is with the persuasion that many of the most earnest ministers and scholars of our own time, encouraged
by the sympathy of practical reformers, are breaking
away from the old stereotyped formulas of Orthodoxy,
that I have sought to trace some of the results of their
noble efforts in these pages.  Such changes as a "Liberal Christian" hopes to see realized must necessarily be
very slow in their progress, and they will be most grudgingly allowed by those who feel bound to resist them.
Taking the space of fifty years, covered by the discussions which are here reviewed, and remembering what
stupendous changes have transpired under the general
name of progress and improvement, in most of the
interests of human life, would an intelligent theologian
of any party be willing to admit that his own professional pursuits had been stationary? The annotations
added to new editions of our old histories often have
the effect of discrediting the text above them, and'of
entirely reversing the judgment founded upon it. When
i
i.x
i
I
I
I
I
\1
i
i
i
k.
s
x 
INTRODUCTION.
the old themes of controversy are reconsidered, may we
not expect that a comparison of the views of the extreme
parties will help us, with the aid of new materials, to
find reconciling processes for harmonizing some of them,
and positive conditions for deciding others of them to
be true or false?
The terms Unitarian and Orthodox occur much  too
frequently in these pages. My pen has written them so
often that I have become wellnigh disgusted with them.
As they have come back to me in the proof-sheets,
strewn all over the paragraphs of each of the following
essays, I have wished that I had agreed with printers
and readers upon some symbol or cipher which, like an
algebraical sign, should express the uinknown element
signified by each of them. Of course I have had to
use the terms under their popular signification. Some
one may ask, Why object to their use in all necessary
discussions, if they have a well understood and definite
meaning? The difficulty is, that they have not such
a distinct and self-interpreting signification. Each of
them, to the majority of those who use them, means
a great deal more or a great deal less than is positively
essential to the two sides of the issue which they represent. The term Orthodoxy covers the whole faith of the
one party; the term Unitarian is at best but a definition
of one of the doctrinal tenets of the other party. The
associations connected with both the terms have also
overborne their simple meaning as originally used. It
may be well to remember that the title Unitarian was
forced upon those who now bear it, and that, after objecting to have it assigned to them, finding that for some
purposes they, like everything else in heaven or earth,
must have a designation in the speech of men, they
tried to make it as intelligible as possible. As I shall
soon have occasion to explain, however, only a small
minority of those who really come under the definition
)
X
-
r
's
I
I
tl 
INTRODUCTION.
have ever consented to be known by the title. The
inequality towards the two respective parties which
was thus introduced into the controversy, by claiming
for one of them a comprehensive and honorable desig nation, and by assigning to the other an epithet which
but vaguely expressed one tenet of their distinctive
faith, has had a bad influence all through the course of
the controversy.   Opportunity was thus given to the
Orthodox, of which they have always availed themselves,
to represent the faith of Unitarians as simply a negative
system. Another wrong has been done to the Unitarians, by the attempt to monopolize the use of the phrase
Evangelical Christians for the designation of Trinitarians. Thus the smart of unjust reproach and of misrepresentation has been added to the unavoidable burden of a conscientious dissent from distinctive orthodox
dogmas. The real merits of the controversy have often
been wholly obscured by side issues.  If, therefore, the
heaped-up materials of the past discussions cannot be
made serviceable for some real progress towards the
harmonizing of differences, it will be better to begin the
task all anew, and to begin it by the largest literary
bonfire whose flames ever rose up to heaven. Much of
this controversial literature would take the fire most
kindly. It has almost the property of spontaneous combustion.
A very remarkable phenomenon presents itself to the
notice of one who is interested in Unitarianism, whether
as a friend or as an opponent of it. It is this, that the
large majority of those who really come under its substantial definition, and actually receive Christian truth
in that interpretation of it, cannot be brought into- a
sectarian acknowledgment of it, still less into any active
association for its defence or extension. The apathy,
the indifference of "Liberal Christians," their lack of
zeal in any measures of proselytism, their willingness
xi
I
I
.I
k 
INTRODUCTION.
to remain quietly in other communions, indulging their
own convictions, and never inviting attention upon their
real dissent from their own nominal associations, are
characteristics peculiar to this class of Christians. All
other sects draw in a far larger proportion, if not the
whole, and sometimes even more than the whole, of those
who accept their distinctive views.   Persecution and
reproach have been found to be among the strongest
forces of attraction for consolidating other sects out of
all those really in sympathy with them. Nearly every
Christian sect bears a name which was first given to it
in contempt. Yet this never hindered any, one who held
its distinctive tenets from yielding himself up to the
name, or taking it voluntarily upon him at the time
when the name was most opprobrious, the date of its
first use. The title Christian was first given to the disciples in scorn; but all to whom it belonged were glad
to accept it, till they made it so honored that it became
an object to bear it, and many then and ever since have
received it without any just title to it. The epithets
Reformers and Protestants, instead of being assumed,
were visited as insults upon the heretics of the first age
in which the Roman Church was assailed; but they
were cheerfully accepted as names to be answered to by
all who were entitled to them, and were thus very soon
lifted into honorary definitions for public documents
and solemn confessions. So, also, the epithet Puritan
was as much a term of contempt from the lips of
enemies as was the title Quakers; but they kept off
no disciples through fear of the scorn that went with
them. Indeed, these reproachful designations may justly
be regarded as the very watchwords, or spells, which
called out the sturdy disciples of each successive sect,
and hardened their convictions, or at least confirmed
their allegiance. But such reproach as is conveyed in a
contemptuous epithet attached to unpopular opinions
t
!
J
I
?
xii
r
i
t
t
I
I
f'
i
-,i,
11
-1
f
i
Ii.-I
-f
I 
INTRODUCTION.
has not availed to call out Liberal Christians into the
ranks of avowed and aggressive Unitarianism. Nor has
the dread of this reproach, working in an opposite direction, had the effect of leading all to whom it might attach to rest quiet under a silent enjoyment of their own
opinions. The fear of persecution or of popular odium
is by no means the most efficient cause which has suppressed their denominational zeal.   The phenomenon
has another explanation.   The following pages bear
witness to the sharpness and pertinacity with which
some of the earlier Unitarians have been censured for
a concealment of their heresies. But it is a matter for
surprise that Unitarianism has not received much sharper
rebukes on the score of the apathy of the great majority
of its real disciples in-not assuming an antagonistic or
sectarian, or at least an avowed, position in Christendom.
The fact must be granted, it must even be proclaimed,
that from the opening of the controversy, both here and
in Great Britain, the majority of the Liberal party refused to come into a sectarian organization bearing the
name Unitarian. Especially in our own country was
this fact observable; and so strange is it to many, both
friends and opponents, as to be worthy of particular
notice here. Some of the scholarly and able men who
wrote most effectively against Calvinism and in defence
of Liberal Christianity in our periodicals and essays,
some of the most devout and earnest ministers, whose
pulpits rang with their denunciations of the exclusive
system and with eloquent expositions of our views, and
whole classes of laymen in the professions and in the
common walks of life, with noble women not a few,
utterly refused to have anything to do with a Unitarian
-Association. Such dissentients were the majority from
the first, and have ever since been the majority. We
should not err if we set the proportion between them
and the sectarian Unitarians at the rate of ten to one.
b
xiii
11t
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
N
h 
INTRODUCTION.
Those who are embraced in this large majority have
never joined the Unitarian Association, nor attended its
meetings. It has been affirmed, on excellent authority,
that far more copies of Orthodox periodicals and newspapers and books are circulated among Unitarians, and
subscribed for by them, than of their own sectarian publications. Unitarians have given millions to colleges,
academies, libraries, philanthropic and charitable institutions, from whom it would have been impossible to
draw a single dollar for the "Association."  Even the
Association itself is one of the least antagonistic of all
sectarian organizations. Its dignity, calmness, caution,
and moderation keep down the fervors of its zeal, and
temper the ardor of its proselytism. It has from the
first been rather a philanthropic than a sectarian agency.
Its "book fund" has proved its most popular measure,
and one of the most acceptable of its publications is a
volume of essays from liberal Orthodox writers.
And now, what is the explanation of the fact, that,
from the first antagonistic manifestation of Unitarianism to the present hour, the majority of those who really
accept the substance of it, including many of its very
foremost disciples, would not and will not come under
any association bearing the name, or engage in any
direct sectarian assault upon views which they reject?
There have been two reasons- reasons, I must add, of
very great force and cogency-assigned by such persons,'by word of mouth, or in their writings, in explanation (they would not have said, in justification) of their
course.   As these reasons operate so strongly in my
own mind as to repress in me any intenseness of sectarian zeal, in spite of my having written this book, I shall
state them in a way to manifest my own accordance
with them.
The first of these reasons was a strong objection,
amounting to an absolute repugnance, to assuming the
I2
xiv
io
.i
i
-t
4 
INTRODUCTIORN.
name Unitarian as defining what was peculiar in the
faith of dissenters from Orthodoxy. The epithet was
objectionable to them alike on positive and on negative
grounds.  There were some who insisted that the Trin itarian theory about the Godhead was to them a matter
of no importance whatever. The theory, under the form
of a modal or historical Trinity, like that which Dr.
Bushnell has within a few years developed, was so far
from being offensive to them, that they might even be
willing to accept it. Trinitarians, too, might insist that
they also were Unitarians. At any rate, the epithet,
whether ill-chosen or significant as far as related to the
one point on which it designated a doctrinal belief, ex pressed dissent from only the least offensive of all the
five points of Calvinism. The doctrine, that God visited
the guilt of Adam's personal sin upon the unborn millions of his posterity, or at any rate subjected them on
his account to an undiminished responsibility though
with an impaired ability, was infinitely more objectionable to some Liberal Christians than the Trinitarian
theory. If they must needs bear any sectarian name,
they should prefer to choose one which would express
their protest against the doctrine of the entailed corruption and condemnation of human nature. Others laid
the stress of their repugnance to Orthodoxy to the account of the old notion of an atonement made to God
by3the vicarious sufferings of an innocent victim. There
was something so hideously heathenish in this dogma,
that they regarded a contention about the mode of the
Divine existence to be relatively of no importance whatever when compared with a notion so revolting to their
moral sense.   The objection, therefore, was, that the
epithet Unitarian was neither significant, comprehensive,
nor distinctive enough to serve as a designation of their
protests against Orthodoxy. It was a name that did
not carry with it a definition. It would as well befit a
xv
i
'tI
I
t
t
A
i 
INTRODUCTION.
Mohammedan or a Jew, as a Christian. It carried with
it so small a part of a liberal Christian's creed, and conveyed so slight a portion of the grounds of his dissent
from prevailing views of religion, that it was rather an
evasion than an announcement of the antagonistic position assumed by him.  It would need to be explained
whenever it was used.  If those who assumed it did
not fill it out by some complementary definitions, they
would need to apologize for making a proclamation
which defined neither their foes nor their friends. The
opponents of Unitarians, it was added, would supplement the epithet by additional definitions of their own,
and it would soon appear that those who had been willing to assume the title would have to take with it a
creed about other doctrines fabricated for them by others, because they had promulgated none of their own.
As a part of this objection, too, many of the liberal
party protested against the introduction into common
usage among Christians of any other sectarian name.
There were too many such names already. They were
simply mischievous and alienating in their effects. The
disciples were called Christians first at Antioch; and it
was a pity that they had ever been called anything else
anywhere else. It should be one of the most desirable
objects of zeal and effort among Christians, to get rid of
the sectarian names now in use.  He was a seditious
and troublesome person, who invented or was willing to
bear any new designation of the kind. We, at least,
was the closing plea, will not consent to have this label
attached to us.   We  may  agree with the generally
understood views of Unitarians, we may sympathize
with their objects, and pray for such reforms in faith and
the methods of true piety as they favor, and we  are in
heart, mind, and soul utter foes of Calvinism. But do
not compel us to bear the epithet Unitarian.  We will
not join an association bearing that epithet. We advise
xvi
I
m
f
i
t
.i
I 
INTRODUCTION.
you not to form such an association, for the moment
you do so, you will raise new enemies, and concentrate
new opposition, and check the progress of the very
views which you are aiming unwisely to advance.
The second reason urged as an objection to the banding together of a new sect under the title of Unitarianism was, and is, that it is impossible to construct a platform, as the word is, which will include all who really
come under the designation, and exclude all undesirable
associates who might claim to attach themselves to the
party. Those who have protested as earnestly as have
Liberal Christians against the setting up of religious
tests, or the imposition of creeds, would find it very
difficult to fashion or to impose a creed of their own.
Yet they must have a creed. They may have a very
stringent and definite one in their own minds, as a statement of their own Christian faith, and as a virtual test
for deciding whether their neighbors are fairly entitled
to be called Christian believers. But this private creed
will not admit of publication. They must have another
for use, for announcement, as the basis of fellowship, as
the first article in the Constitution of an Association.
This must necessarily be very loose and free, in order
not to be inconsistent with their ultra Protestantism.
But if thus loose and free, it will invite in all sorts of
loose belieyers, all unsettled, visionary, sceptical persons
and unbelievers who want to have the name of a home,
if only as a fiction for satisfying them that they are not
living absolutely out of doors.  Unitarianism will thus
become virtually responsible for all the eccentric speculations and absurdities that may be rife in a community.
We have no idea of being mixed up with any such miscellaneous oddities as these, said the objectors, so we
will not join your Association, nor identify ourselves
with your sectarian name or measures.
These objections furnished good reasons to a large
xvii
1
1
I
-t
b * 
INTRODUOTION.
number of intelligent and serious persons for keeping
aloof from a Unitarian sect. They admit of a great
variety in the modes in which they would influence fastidious, timid, or conscientious persons. The most
thoughtful and best informed of those who felt and
yielded to their force, reminded themselves of the conditions under which Liberal Christianity had manifested
itself in different places and fellowships, and of the sort
of minds and hearts with which it had proved its congeniality. They knew very well from these conditions
that it admitted of no forcing process, that, to be healthfully cherished, it must be  spontaneously recognized.
They loved to feel the power of that sympathy which
united them with such men as Grotius, LeClerc, Locke,
Milton, Newton, Whitby, and Lardner. They believed
that all that was excellent and true in what was known
as Unitarianism would be fostered even in Orthodox
communities, by influences which work deeper and
more effectively than any sectarian measures. They
were assured that Liberal Christianity would be checked
in its progress by the formation of a Unitarian sect.
Were they wrong or right in this their honest judgment?
Right or wrong, there are those among the living who
accord with their views, and who hold them with even a
firmer conviction, if possible, because, as they interpret
the facts of past and present experience, they. find such
strong confirmations of these views. While Unitarian ism, as a form of sectarian Christianity, finds a few very
earnest and active friends, it is compelled to acquiesce
in the seeming lukewarmness of the greater portion of
its real disciples, and to be content with claiming hosts
of unavowed friends in all other' communions.  These
have been, and they are still, the conditions under which
the sect exists and manifests itself.  Its zealous, out spoken champions justify their own sectarian earnest ness, by declaring their convictions that Orthodoxy is so
xviii
I
I
t
I
f, 
INTRODUCTION.
harmful a thing, so unfair an exponent of true Christianity,
so chargeable with the blame of promoting a wide-spread
infidelity, as to demand of every one emancipated from
its bonds, not only a rejection of it, and an implied
testimony against it, but an active opposition to it by
assault and  a continuous warfare.   Those who  are
called lukewarm or indifferent in this cause, who, though
virtually Unitarians, will do nothing under the machinery of a sect for its advancement, are perfectly well
qualified to vindicate their position.   They have an
intense dislike to sectarian strife, to party organizations
in religion, to the working of all the agencies requisite
for such enterprises.   Their own views  of Christian
truth do not excite in them any warm sympathies with
a cause which involves an assault upon the views of
others. They shrink from being implicated in votes,
resolutions, and measures, which may be carried by a
majority, in a meeting that may not fairly represent
those who are claimed as its constituents. They have
strong private friendships, and many affectionate relations with members of other Christian communions, and
prefer not to subject these. heart-ties to the rude trials of
controversy.  More than all, these "lukewarm " Unitarians have satisfied themselves that, in our intelligent
communities, so abundantly supplied with the means of
information, and so divided by sects to each of which
there is a right and a left extreme, true views have so
free a field that they ought to be expected to advance
themselves by their own inherent energies.
The fact that Unitarianism was developed in this
community out of Orthodox Congregationalism, has
virtually committed it to the church order and mode
of worship which are distinctive of Congregationalism.
If any one, who, by education, association, or a strong
preference of his own, is attached to the Episcopal ritual
and mode of worship, becomes a Unitarian, he must
xix
-N
I
x 
INTRODUCTION.
renounce religious usages which are very dear to him,
if he would worship where the doctrines preached are
perfectly congenial with his own views. This fact has
suggested to many the belief that Episcopal Churches
throughout the land contain quite a large number of
those who are doctrinally Unitarians, but who cling to
a ritual service.
And one more admission is to be recognized. Unitarianism, in the largest and most comprehensive exposition that can be made of it, as a form of sectarian Christianity, does not make an exhaustive statement of the
doctrinal substance of the Gospel.  The only essential
characteristic which it call claim, by the laws of etymology, as going with its title, is a belief in the undivided
unity of the Supreme Being, and a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarianism commits itself to the
emphatic denial that the whole internal doctrinal system of the Gospel takes its start from a metaphysical
dogma, which parts the Godhead into three Personalities.
Everything else that is understood to go with a profession of Unitarianism, is rather inferential, than of the
positive essence or substance of it. True, usage and the
general understanding of things which establish themselves as a standard for popular judgment have attached
to Unitarianism the responsibility of committing itself
to assertions, or at least to negations, touching three
other doctrines,   the nature and rank of Christ, the
moral state and condition of human beings at birth,
and the doctrine of reconciliation or atonement. But
even as regards these three doctrines, the moment that
Unitarianism is made responsible for a belief or a denial
about either of them, we have to encounter professions
and protests which prove that a supposed sect contains
almost as many creeds as individual members. There
is something in the very name Unitarian which seems
to commit every one who bears it to the obligation of
xx
f
I 
INTRODUCTION.
being himself a unit in some or most of the elements of
his creed. Thus it comes to pass that Unitarians will
not consent to be held responsible for such definitions as
the Orthodox may attach to our speculative faith about
the three doctrines just referred to, nor will Unitarians
allow their own brethren to fix for them any shapings or
forms of dogmatical definition of those doctrines.
As regards a speculative opinion about the nature
and rank of Christ, Unitarians by no means hold themselves bound to define and hold a dogma on that profoundly mysterious subject. They may agree in the
belief that Christ, in every relation and office in which
he is presented to us, is subordinated to God. They
may all admit that the practical ends of Christian piety,
faith, obedience, and full redemption, are not made
dependent, even most remotely, upon a correct speculative view of the nature and rank of Christ. But further
than this Unitarians do not think alike or believe alike,
and they protest against being classified under or conmmitted to any view which one of them or any number
of them may advance.   They insist upon being left
individually free to their speculations, and as free to
attach what value they may judge right to these speculations, while in the spirit of fidelity and docility they
search the Scriptures.
As regards the natural state and condition of men at
birth, Unitarians would refuse to be held accountable
for any theory which would attempt to probe the mystery of sin, to account for its power over all human
beings, or to indicate the dividing line between the
infirmity coming from a guiltless misfortune, and the
blameworthiness which is punishable as iniquity,   these
being the phenomena pointed at in the doctrine of the
Fall of Man.  Unitarians may admit that sin in one
generation will transmit hereditary tendencies to sin
in other generations, just as diseases are transmitted.
xxi 
INTRODUOTION.
They may allow that we are morally placed at disadvantage, and made to suffer on account of the disobedience of our first progenitor. But Unitarians in general
would balance this allowance of theirs by an expression
of their belief that the Divine demand upon us is reduced
in exact proportion to the entailed infirmity, or to the
impaired ability of human nature.   A just scale and
balance are the Lord's, and God requires just so much
less of virtue and filial service of each individual as
each has lost of the original rectitude of humanity. On
the record book of heaven each one of us is charged
with his obligations; but the scale of those obligations
is graduated by ability and opportunity, and allows
abatements for all original disadvantages.   Not one
whit more than this will Unitarianism accept, either as
essential to its positive doctrine, or as logically following
from its antagonism to Orthodoxy. All those cheap
charges visited upon it, as that of making light of sin,
or flattering human. nature, or lowering the demands of
God's law, are but poor stratagems of controversy.
As regards the doctrine of the Atonement, Unitarianism can fairly be made answerable only for a denial of
that constructive and inferential view of the death of
the Redeemer, which represents it as regarded by God
as a substitute for our sufferings, and as an essential
condition for the exercise of Divine mercy towards the
penitent. Those who repudiate the dogma of Orthodoxy on this subject, do not hold themselves bound to
give an exhaustive theory as to the actual relation.between the death of the Redeemer and the exercise of
God's grace towards sinners. They may advance inferences and constructive views of their own. They may
admit a mystery about it without attempting its solution; they may propose various solutions of the rmystery; or they may affirm that there is no mystery about
it, and may proceed to define at every point the mode
xxni 
INTRODUCTION.
in which men are converted and redeemed and saved by
the mediatorial agency of Christ. But it would be
difficult to make Unitarians, as a body, responsible for
any positive dogma on this subject.
Thus we see that, even as regards the three great
themes of controverted divinity, about which Unitarianism is generally regarded, not only as in most direct
antagonism with Orthodoxy, but as most positively committed to theories of its own, there is room for the widest possible range of speculation.   Hence arises the
difficulty of drawing out a Unitarian creed. But these
three themes of Christian divinity constitute but a portion of its whole substance and materials. There is a
whole field of speculation still left filled by doctrines
not appropriated exclusively to Orthodoxy or Unitarianism. There are metaphysical and spiritual themes opened
in the pages of Scripture, about which Unitarians may
speculate' and believe very differently, and about which
their respective views may have such influence upon
their sympathies as to alienate them farther from the
Orthodox, or almost to reconcile their differences with
them.  Such doctrinal themes as these:  the presence
of Christ with his Church, and the relation between him
and the disciple, his office as Intercessor and Advocate;
the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; the method and test of
regeneration; the doctrine of justification, i.e. of being
brought into a right and reconciled state with God,
through the efficacious working of a living internal
energy of faith, rather than by fulfilling the conditions
of an external law; the doctrine of the sacraments; the
retributive sanctions and penalties connected with the
Gospel rule of accountability; — such doctrinal themes
as these, and many more that might be mentioned, offer
themselves as wholly and alike unprejudiced by a belief
or a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. Unitarians
claim a full share with other Christians in the preroga.
xxiii 
INTRODUCTION.
tives of free inquiry and free belief on all these themes.
Their differences of speculative opinion and of devotional sentiment in reference to these themes do virtually divide them into many schools and fellowships, or
rather prevent their consolidation into a sect.
Here, then, is evidence enough  that there may be
views of Christian doctrine, and of the law and method
of Christian life, which may be distinguished from Unitarianism by the title of "Liberal Christianity."  And
yet more and further, there are such views of Christian
truth which are in irreconcilable hostility with Orthodoxy, but which refuse to recognize themselves even
under this latter designation, of "Liberal Christianity."
For though some have preferred this to Unitarianism,
others regard it as vague, assuming, and offensive to
good taste.
In view of all these facts, I can well conceive that one
whose zeal for Orthodoxy prompts him to assail Unitarianism, may raise the reasonable objection, that it is
almost impossible to define and identify his foe. This
is indeed the case.  I do not know that I can relieve his
perplexity, except by suggesting to him the expediency
of giving over his hostile purpose. If he does not know
against what to aim, his blows may fall where he would
not have them strike. He may hit some of his own
friends. There will always, however, be enough to
assume the Unitarian name, and to avow its sectarian
zeal, to serve as a mark for Orthodox championship.
My own personal interest does not go with the contro versy in any of its details or subordinate elements. The
theme of the seventh of the following Essays is the one
which carries with it my heart and hope. The New
Theology has, as I believe,.dealt a mortal blow upon
the old Orthodoxy. It will cause me but little regret if
it can establish the truth for which it is seeking in the
place which sectarian Unitarianism has sought, thus far
in vain, to plant itself.
xxiv 
A HIIALF-CENTURY
OF THE
UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
S 
A HALF-CENTURY
OF
THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY.
THE caption of these remarks will be a summons that
may stir the memories of a few of the eldest of our readers.   The era referred to is longer far than our own remembrances will cover, and therefore we say at the outset, that we are to write upon the theme with the help of
records, and principally for that other class of our readers
who must also trust to records for their knowledge of
what trdhspired a half-century ago.
It is now just fifty years since a controversy still in
progress was opened in this Commonwealth between two
parties who were held by a relation of mutual interest,
because they constituted together the old Congregational
body, and who were brought into a relation of painful
antagonism because they were divided by a serious
issue in matters of Christian doctrine. The suggestion
presses itself upon us with something like the solemnity
of a religious obligation, that we ought to sum up for
present use the best lessons we can gather from a review
of that space of years. A vast amount of time and
thought and zeal has been spent upon the controversy
which then arose. A mass of literature, in newspapers, 
SECTARIAN TITLES.
pamphlets, periodicals, and solid volumes, has accumulated, presenting both sides of the controversy in all its
details, in every possible light. The present relation
between the parties to that strife, though it may still preserve some painful remembrances of mutual wrongs, and
is still in many respects a relation of opposition, is, on
the whole, highly favorable to a fair reconsideration of
the points on which they are intelligently and conscien.
tiously divided.
In reviewing, as in a series of papers it is our purpose
to do, some of the more important elements of that controversy, we wish to avoid every matter of acrimony and
strife. If we know our own intention, it is one that looks
beyond any narrow, sectarian aim. We extend the hand
of reconciliation, and address the word of fraternal friendship, to any member of the other fellowship of our divided household, who is ready to listen to what we may
be able to say, in a spirit becoming a Christian, concerning the present aspect of our ancient strife. We believe
that some approach to harmony may be made in defining the points of difference between us as they now
stand, cleared from former animosities, and tested by
the trial made of them by a generation of departed
champions. For the sake of convenience and brevity,
we shall freely use the terms Unitarian and Orthodox to
designate the two parties. Our own sense of perfect
justice to our predecessors would dispose us to use the
word Calvinist instead of the word Orthodox, for it was
Calvinism, the real concrete system of the Genevan Reformer, and not the vague and undefined abstraction entitled Orthodoxy, which our predecessors assailed. We
might also plead, that a due respect for the strong preferences of many of the early advocates of our views dictated the application to them of the name of Liberal
Christians, rather than that of Unitarians. But we shall
content ourselves with saying just what we have said on
4
i 
A PACIFIED STRIFE.
the matter of names, and with saying no more. The
terms Unitarian and Orthodox, which we have just accepted, may be used without the offence of allowance, of
assumption, or of censure, to designate the parties to the
controversy. That controversy in its early and midway
stages was connected with many irritating and embittering circumstances, which we must recognize only as matters of history, dealing with them as with the ashes that
are cooled, and will not admit of being kindled again.
Much of the mutual misrepresentation, and many of the
extreme measures and statements on both sides, are to
be charged upon the acrimony involved in the controversy. Thus the real issue opened in the controversy as
agitating simply and only the question, What are the
doctrines of the Gospel as taught in the Bible? was to
many minds hopelessly perplexed and obscured. We
are to review the strife of fifty years solely to learn what
that real issue was, and how it stands between us now.
We can put aside all mean partialities, all unchristian
animosities, all heats of temper kindled by collisions
which embittered the relations of neighbors and households, which referred themselves for adjudication to the
highest tribunals of the State, and even assailed the integrity of the decisions there pronounced upon them.
An opinion or sentiment which has found an extensive prevalence, and has been gratefully entertained by
members of both parties, recognizes some present signs
of concilation between them. This welcome recognition
makes account not only of buried animosities and an
oblivion of some old strifes, but discerns a tendency to
modify and harmonize our respective creeds, and to come
together at some point that lies between us. Our own
opinion on that question, if given at all, will be expressed
only through inferences. We are aware that to many
persons an individual opinion in such a case is without
value, because it can have no positive authority; while
1*
5 
EXPECTATIONS OF PARTIES.
those who would allow it any weight would regard it as
cast into the right or the wrong scale, according as it
coincided or clashed with their own opinion. We certainly hope, however, that after we have exhibited in
these papers the present aspect of the controversy, as defined by the principal points now at issue cleared of all
irrelevant matter, we shall have furnished some means
to help an intelligent decision on the opinion just referred
to. At the close of this introductory sketch we shall
state three great doctrinal positions, which, in our view,
constitute the essence and substance of our side of the
controversy, and which it is our intention to treat in subsequent papers.  Under the epithet of Unitarianism have
been classed a great many individual speculations, eccentric notions, extreme views and opinions on various
religious matters, which are not essential to the substance
of Unitarianism as a method of defining the doctrinal
system of the Gospel. There was also left between the
parties a middle ground, embracing much of the doctrinal and evangelical substance of our religion, which
was open to the free enjoyment and use, to the belief or
the denial, the speculations or the dogmatism, of either
side, and concerning which a member of either party
might hold the same opinions, or might be wholly at
issue with a member of his own or of the other party,
without involving the distinctive creed of Unitarianism
or Orthodoxy. We shall have a word to add on this
point before we close.
When the controversy opened, no one knew to what
result it would lead.  But so far as either party had
formed any definite expectations, founded on their own
wishes, as to what it would bring to pass, we may venture to say that both parties have been disappointed.
The Unitarians expected that the change of opinion
which had long been gradually working, and which had
been brought to a crisis on the opening of the contro
6 
THEIR QUALIFIED SUCCE$SS.
versy, would advance more rapidly through discussion
and division, till, before the interval of fifty years had, as
now, elapsed, Orthodoxy would have become a thing
of the past, while Unitarianism would be the prevailing type of religion.   Unitarians did expect this rapid
success, this form of a triumph, and they have been
disappointed. The Orthodox, on their part, expected
that they should succeed in putting down and utterly
extirpating Unitarianism, by identifying it with infidelity,
and by discrediting all its show of argument from Scripture and Christian history, if not from reason. This was
really the purpose and the aim of Orthodoxy; but the
purpose has been thwarted, the aim has not been attained.
It may, however, be affirmed, with a good show of
plausibility, that while neither party has realized its expectation in the length and breadth of the full statement
just made, both parties have in fact approximated to the
substantial results which they had in view; both have
realized their aims in a qualified form. The Unitarian
may say that the old Orthodoxy has been extirpated, as
the modern shape and temper of it are greatly unlike the
old Calvinism that we assailed when it was nominally
believed and theoretically defended. The dissensions
which have divided that once united party into schools,
(a very kindly name for them,) and the ingenious evasions, devices, and speculations which have essayed to
abate the offensive qualities of Orthodoxy, might be
turned to great account in proving that the Unitarian
controversy has accomplished its main intent.  On the
other hand, the Orthodox party may affirm, that Unitarians have received, and been compelled to listen to, a
warning,-  a real warning, not without visible tokens of
its painful penalties; that, if Unitarianism'consistently
and logically followed out what seemed to be some of
its first principles, they would lead it to infidelity, would
7 
BITTERNESS OF THE CONTROVERSY.
manifest the lack of the Gospel element in declining
churches and in a wasting of the life and energies of true
Christian piety. Whether certain results which have
been reached by some who were once Unitarians should
serve as a'satisfactory demonstration of the truth of predictions uttered fifty years ago, will be considered by
some of the Orthodox as a question not admitting debate, but as decided in the affirmative by facts that have
transpired in this community.   Candor, however, will
plead that this decision be arrested, till the appearance
of infidelity in other places, and apart from all the agencies of Unitarianism, and in the closest connection with
Orthodoxy, has been fairly accounted for.  Transcendentalism - that hard word for expressing an unwholesome fog- was not a native emanation from New England or from Unitarianism.
We have read over many wearisome and painful, as
well as many most instructive pages, on both sides of this
half-century of controversy. As we have read the history
backwards, its earlier pages are for the hour most fresh
in our thoughts, and these are unfortunately its most offensive and irritating pages. As we have perused some
of these sharp and bitter documents, we have been
tempted to impugn the truth of a thousand essays and
of ten thousand commonplaces about the value of the
press in diffusing light and in dispelling error, and to
yield to a profound regret that the world contains such
things as types and printing-ink. In this frame of mind,
we ask ourselves if the documentary part of the controversy did not, on the whole, do more harm than good?
Did it not minister to strife? Did it not sharpen pens
with passion and dip them in gall? Did not the taking
of sides as writers addressing a larger circle than embraced the real disputants, tempt to an intense, acrimonious, and exaggerated way of treating the views of opponents? Would not the ordinary methods of dealing
8 
IRRITATIONS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
with religious topics in preaching and in pastoral intercourse have relieved the controversy of much of its bitterness, and have served far better the ends of truth, and have
left the relations of parties now in a more desirable position?  Would not the controversial preaching of the
time of strife, which also was very heating and offensive,
have been much less so had it not been envenomed by
the poisonous matter of a thousand malignant little
pamphlets? It cannot but have been that these documents aggravated the controversy. Even when former
friends, who have fallen out by the way, begin to write
letters to each other concerning their variances, they generally cease from that time forward to hold any intercourse.   Our first "religious newspapers," and some
other journals, were established to aid in this controversy;
and farmers and medhanics in the interior of this State,
instead of being served with an agricultural or scientific
sheet, were solicited to work themselves up into a theological rancor.   Those  who  were  the least informed
about the real issue that was opened, thus became often
the most excited about it. Their acquaintance with the
controversy was confined to the hardest terms and the
most irritating incidents in it, and their inquiries, such as
they were, made as they were, and met as they were, resulted only in misinformation. A sober second-thought,
which transfers all the blame of these hostilities and embitterments from the types to the tempers of those who
used them, draws us away from these irritating pamphlets, with all their personalities, scandals, and misrepresentations. We can but express an emphatic regret that
they will always lie at the threshold of this controversy
for those who may concern themselves with its history.
The very intermeddling with them, even with a kindly
intent, makes one feel, as probably the most pacific visitor to Sebastopol will feel for years to come, as he walks
over that mined and powder-impregnated citadel, that,
9 
DIFFERENCES AMONG BRETHREN.
though the great batteries are silenced, some unexploded
engine or some petty fuse may still be rendered dangerous at his touch, and may go off and hit him.
The question very naturally presents itself to the mind
of one who calmly and candidly reviews this controversy,
Why was there so much of acrimony and passion, so
much of bitterness and animosity, manifested in the conduct of it? Why was there such mutual hostility, mis.
representation, and uncharitableness? Why did any of
these odious and wicked elements mingle in the strife?
Considering the subject-matter of the controversy as
neither financial, social, nor political, but as simply a
matter of religion, where there was no establishment, no
inquisition, no prize of power, connected with it,- considering the end which both parties had in view, the
attainment of truth on matters of Scriptural and spiritual interest,-considering the character and standing of
the chief parties to it, men of education, culture, refinement, and piety, friends, classmates, members of the
same profession, and that a sacred one,- considering all
these things, why was the controversy so bitter and passionate? One might say that the points of difference
could have been discussed in perfect amity. The parties
to it should have patiently aided each other to discover
the truth; they should have corresponded as friends;
they should have differed as brethren. Each might have
taught the other; each might have learned from the
other. Some portion, more or less, of their mutual illfeeling would have been abated by this course, as certainly the most offensive elements were introduced into
the controversy by the opposite course. It ought to have
been thus, but it was not. Whether the questions then
agitated could have been debated in the spirit we have
indicated, is one of those contingencies which we must
decide according to our view of human nature. A
phrase which we have just used as to "differing as breth
10 
SERIOUSNESS OF THE ISSUE.
ren," reminds us that this is generally the worst kind of
difference. Either party in this controversy would have
debated its differences with Mahometans in a much
better spirit than that in which they discussed their differences with each other.
What we have thus written, as if reflecting upon the
value of the press, because it was turned to the service
of misrepresentation and passion, must not silence our
grateful recognition of its noble service to the cause of
truth and charity, when its potent agency was used by
wise and good, by calm and moderate men, on either
side.   There are some noble and precious documents
called out by the controversy, which will have a permanent value as contributions to our Christian literature,
illustrative of the historical, the doctrinal, and the experimental elements and evidences and working forces of
our religion.
It is observable, that when the successors to the parties in an old feud, after the lapse of many years, review the strife, if it has been cleared of the personalities and the acrimony and the rivalries of interest which
originally embittered it, their readiness to reconsider the
issue in a spirit favorable to charity and wisdom will
often be accompanied by marked relentings of feeling.
Sometimes, however, these revulsions which follow
when all exciting passions have been quieted are attended with some weaknesses of concession, and with
a tendency to depreciate what was once exaggerated.
The two opposing parties did contend most hotly. The
Orthodox  measured  their responsibility for zeal and
opposition by the obligation laid on them to defend the
Gospel, in all its essential truths, against an insidious
and specious influence, which was undermining its foundations and destroying all its power to redeem souls and
to save the world. The Unitarians defined the duty iinposed on them to be a purification of the prevailing
11 
TENURE OF CALVINISM.
theology from all those inventions and corruptions of
ages of superstition, which had impaired the power of
the Gospel and were at the time making at least three
sceptics or unbelievers for each single believer in this
community. An additional motive prompted the Unitarians, namely, that of vindicating their own right to
the Christian name, while they exercised a liberty that
lay within the broad terms of Protestantism. The issue
thus raised between the parties was a momentous and
an exciting one. They mutually inflamed each other;
while embarrassments growing out of a sundered fellowship, and hostilities raised by questions of rights in
former joint property, aggravated the strife. These embitterments of the controversy have for the most part
ceased to affect us. We must carefully distinguish between them and the doctrinal questions that were agitated. We must do this in order that we may not
under-estimate the importance of the real issue, or fail of
justice to the original parties to it.
The paramount object recognized by both those parties was to ascertain and defend the essential doctrines
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. A view of those doctrines
conformed to the system of Calvinism had long prevailed here, and according to terms of law, that system
might claim by right of possession, and by established
authority, and by a thousand incidental results of its
ancient tenure, to hold a place of power by well-certified
and almost unquestioned warranties of Scripture and
custom. The natural course of things would have indicated that any dissent from that system should declare
itself by an open dispute, a frank, bold, and spontaneous
challenge of its truth, its consistency with reason, or its
authority in Scripture. We might have expected that
the dissentients from Calvinism would have been the
attacking party.  But it was not so.  The dissentients
were put on the defensive at the opening of the contro
12 
THE ORIGINAL DISSENTIENTS FROM CALVINISM.    13
versy. We should insist upon this view of the case,
even if we admitted all that the Orthodox party alleged
as to the insidious and covert way in which Unitarian ism undermined Calvinism. The plea of the defenders
of the old system is, that by an artful course of measures,
which included silence, concealment, a gradual and
steady modification of the tone and substance of preaching, and a sort of tacit understanding among the leaders
in the manceuvre, Orthodoxy was assailed with a vast
deal more of effect than would have attended an open
declaration of hostilities against it.  But this issue is
one which it does not belong to open and avowed Utnitarians to assume as lying between them and the Orthodox. Fairly understood, the issue lies between two
sections of the Orthodox party, and reaches far back
into the last century. The first men who swerved from
Calvinism, who relaxed their faith in the stern system,
and broke the covenant of rigid conditions into which
they had entered, were men who would have shrunk
with dread from Unitarianism. We do not see, therefore, that we are bound to assume their cause.  Some of
them were precisely where tolerated and honored champions of Orthodoxy stand now. We may claim them, in
one sense, as brethren, so far as they were dissentients
from rigid Orthodoxy, and so far as they fostered the
spirit of true religious freedom.  But if any question of
conscientiousness or candor is raised by the modern
Orthodox as to the first incomings of a latent and unacknowvledged heresy, and as to suspicions of an adroit or
calculating management in connection with it, we submit that they must argue the question within their own
fellowship, in much the same way in which the champions of their various schools are arguing it now. The
first stages of dissent from Calvinism were the most difficult and venturesome to make, the most alarming in
their foreshadowings of consequences; and those who
2 
UNCONSCIOUS DISSENT.
consciously passed through them were most responsible
to their covenants and to their brethren.   The later
stages of that dissent were more easy and less accountable to any insulted or violated pledges, simply because
they were taken under a relaxed state of doctrinal sentiment, and by men who, never having pledged themselves
to Calvinism, had inherited a license in speculation and
opinion. The reason, then, why the first dissent from
Calvinism did not declare itself in open attack, but was
reserved till, in a later generation, it was compelled to
assume the defensive under the charge of being just
hunted out from its disguises, -the reason of the fact
seems to be, that the godfathers of infant Unitarianism
would have insisted upon their own orthodoxy,  while
they were entertaining the first misgivings about Calvinism. When a man begins to doubt his own views, he
does not assail them, but he modifies themn. It would
be hard to hold his son or grandson, who inherits his
modification of opinions, responsible, not only for consistently following them to their ultimate consequences, but
also for the original breach of covenant which the parent
had to make in entertaining a heresy. But the reiterated
charge, designed to convey a great reproach, while it
accounts for a marvellous disclosure, is this:" Unitarianism came in privily." So it did. So did the Reformation come into Europe privily. So did Puritanism come
into Great Britain privily.  "What!" -we hear one of
our modern echoes of the old charge ask, -" What! did
not Luther and Knox and Baxter and their bold brethren make an honest avowal of their dissent from the old
systems, and of their hearty and pledged allegiance to
new heresies??"  Most certainly they did.  But the "Reformers before the Reformation" did not.  And so have
Unitarians in various places and under most exciting
and painful consequences made the avowal of their Unitarianism.   We  contend, and we stand prepared  to
14 
GRADUAL CHANGES OF SENTIMENT.
prove, that as soon as Unitarianism recognized its own
features, it avowed itself; and as soon as Unitarians understood themselves as such, they practised no concealment.  For Unitarianism not only "came privily " into
this community, but it also came privily into the minds
and hearts of its first disciples here. We do not deny
that there were men who, at the crisis of the controversy,
for reasons which weighed with their own consciences or
sentiments, assumed under Unitarianism the same position - an equivocal one to others - which Erasmus assumned to the Reformation. Yet we think that most of
these men remained with the Orthodox, as Erasmus did
with the Romanists. We know also that there were
men of unquestionable integrity and piety whose acknowledged views certainly classed them with Unitarians, who still utterly refused to bear or answer to the
name.  Still we assert, that from the first moment  that
the presence and the discipleship of Unitarianism were
here fully recognized by those most concerned in it, it
was fully avowed, and never showed any unwillingness
to define and defend its positions. That it did not at
once recognize itself by a sectarian name- especially
at a time when that name in England was suggestive
rather of offensive political and philosophical than religious opinions-is no marvel to a candid mind.
Even in the papers emanating from  the Orthodox
party, one may find scattered, at wide distances, sentences that will explain in a kindly way facts upon
which that party sought to put the harshest construction. Thus in the " Spirit of the Pilgrims " (Vol. II. p.
66) a very severe witness to the insidious incomings of
the heresy says: "The change has been, not sudden,
but gradual. It has been long in preparation and in
progress. It has been accomplished, in some of its
stages, by slow and scarcely perceptible degrees.  A variety of causes have contributed to produce it."  Dr.
15 
CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT.
Beecher, in a letter to Dr. Woods, incidentally made a
most frank admission, when he charged "the great defection from Evangelical doctrine in this city and region" to "the carelessness and negligence of former
generations of ministers and churches." (Spirit of the
Pilgrims, Vol. V. p. 393.) These words afford a most
lucid and explanatory, as well as a most exculpatory, recognition of the development of Unitarianism, - a key
to the whole mystery, a release from all insinuations and
censures. The simple truth is, that the change of sentiment which resulted in Unitarianism may be traced distinctly, in three prominent stages of its progress, through
three generations of ministers. When this fact is taken
in connection with another important fact, - namely?
that before the full development many ministers at their
ordination had claimed, and the ordaining councils had
yielded to them, an exemption from such a profession of
doctrinal opinions as would have pledged them to Calvinism, - we have the means of relieving this subject
of a great deal of mystery, and, what is more, of vindicating the moral honesty of a class of men who have often
been severely misjudged.
The charge brought against the early Unitarians here,
of having practised an adroit concealment of a change of
opinions through which they had passed, also assigned
a motive in policy for such concealment. It had been
practised "to deceive an unsuspecting and confiding
people," by secretly undermining the prevailing faith,
and by working under covert towards a result which the
deceivers had strengthened themselves to meet when it
could no longer be hidden from exposure. This charge
was reiterated in every shape and form, according to the
taste in the choice of language and the private moral
standard of those who uttered it. It was wrought in with
all the arguments fromn logic, history, or Scripture which
were brought to bear upon the heresy.  "The poison had
16 
HISTORICAL EXPLANATION OF THE CONTROVERSY.  17
been working in secret."  "Artful disguises had been assumed."  " Guilty silence had been practised."  "Insinuating methods had been used."  "Heretical books from
England had been covertly circulated; and others had
been published here on no apparent responsibility but
that of the bookseller."  "Some men who would now
be called Unitarians, when charged with being such, indignantly denied it, or prevaricated about it." Phrases
and sentences like these are found on nearly every page
of the controversial documents of one of the parties in
this controversy. A seemingly convincing proof of the
truth of such assertions was furnished in the private ]etters, the admissions, or the forced acknowledgments of
the culprits themselves. Belsham, in his Memoirs of
Lindsey, had published some private letters from this
quarter which recognized the unannounced presence and.
prevalence of Unitarian views among us. Dr. Morse, of
Charlestown, selected out and republished here, in 1815,
this explosive matter, and then the war indeed opened as
on the tented field.
It is easy for us to understand that this charge of concealment, with all its severity of censure, might have
been made in entire sincerity, and with a show of evidence to support it, by the one party; while, at the same
time, it does not fix the slightest stain upon the characters of those who were the subjects of it. A champion
of that generation of Unitarians would now undertake a
needless and a futile task, if he should set himself to vindicate them from the charge;  needless, because a simple
knowledge of the facts of the case is a complete relief for
them; and futile, because those who would censure them
in view of these facts would not yield to the cogency of
any other plea. Not for their vindication, then, but merely
as a matter of explanatory history, will we briefly advert
to these facts.
First of all stands the one, self-sufficient fact, that
2* 
INDEPENDENCY OF MINISTERS.
those whom this charge involves were Independents, New
England independents.  We are very well aware of the
admissions and assertions which were made in the old
Platform, and by some of the fathers of New England,
down to the time of Cotton Mather, to rid their churches
of the title of Independency. A deference to the prejudices of their friends in Scotland, and to an old odium
connected with that epithet in England and in Holland,
led to an awkward rejection of it here. We are aware,
too, that a show of relationship, intercommunion, responsibility, and right of advice or expostulation, was
set up as impairing the Independency of our churches.
But none the less were our churches Independent; if
they were not, the ministers, at least, were Independent
ministers. They were not the subjects of a Papacy, a
Prelacy, or a Presbytery. They inherited a right to form
their own faith by the Bible, and in the Bible. They inherited it by their nature and from their lineage, and
from their Master.  They were not amenable to any ecclesiastical tribunal, nor to any covenant, except as in
their own judgment they considered that tribunal or
covenant as conformed to Scripture.  They were not
held to hang their minds out, like thermometers, on their
pulpits or door-posts, to indicate the degree of their daily
rise or fall in spiritual heat. They were free to yield
every day and every hour to the workings of thought,
the processes of study, the experimental tests and trials
of opinion. They were bound to receive truth as it
came to them, and to declare it as it would edify.
Another of these simple historical facts to be had in
view is, that no one generation of ministers or laymen
made the whole way of transition from Calvinism to
Unitarianism.   The responsibility of announcing  the
whole result, therefore, did not lie with those who were
responsible for effecting but one stage in it. There is
no denying, no candid student of our history can pre
18 
SUCCESSIVE HERETICS AND HIERESIES.
sume to deny, that, for a whole century before the full
development of Unitarianism, there had been a large
modification, a softening and toning down of the old
theology, an undefined but recognized tempering of
the creed, a relaxing of the strain upon faith, and a compliant acquiescence in that state of things.  We  must, in deed, go even farther back than the preceding century to
find the real beginnings of that free spirit which, when
reverently, but fearlessly and intelligently, exercised upon
the Scriptures, introduced Unitarianism.   Our fathers
brought with them the Bible, to be interpreted by the
principle of Protestantism. Their great doctrine was
larger than their own minds, and they had to grow to it.
We, their children, are still growing to it, so great is the
doctrine, so full of developments, so sound and yet so
undefined in its methods, so alarming sometimes, and
yet so safe always in its issues. All that troubled and
annoyed those noble men, all that they did wrong, as restrainers and persecutors of free opinion in its successive
developments, is to be traced to their ignorance of the
expansiveness, their dread of the consequences, of their
own principle. They did.not understand, they shrunk
from applying, their own theory.   The truth is, there
never was a perfect accordance in doctrinal opinion even
among the first company of exiled Christians. The colleague pastors of the first church in Boston made rival
catechisms for the babes of their flock, and took opposite
sides in the painful strife of the great Antinomian controversy. Those men and women, too, were all inquirers,
all thinkers, all pupils. They felt that they had the key
to truth, but they were all their lives long seeking to fit
it thoroughly to the wards of that golden lock which
guards its mysteries. An unbroken succession of heretics, a steady succession of heresies, are recorded on the
pages of our history.   The  Browns  of Salem were
shipped back to England almost immediately after land
19 
20        EARLY HERESIES IN MASSACHUSETTS.
ing. The Episcopalian Maverick of East Boston was,
in 1635, forbidden "to entertain strangers," lest they
should be of an heretical turn, and Blackstone moved
off from Boston from dislike of "the Lord's brethren."
Roger Williams, Mrs. Hutchinson, and Samuel Gorton,
Antinomians, Baptists, and Quakers, were successive
trials of temper and of Protestantism.  Independent
thinkers, sectaries, dissentients from "order," in doctrine
and rule, sprang up with each passing year.  There must
also have been much smothered thought, and unuttered
dissent. Did not the good gossips and staid matrons,
when, in the safety of a very small circle, the spinningwheel ceased its humrn, and the last sermon was rehearsed,
occasionally try their honest logic upon the snarled web
of their theology? Did not the husbandmen sometimes
lean upon their hoes, or rest awhile from their labors in
the forest, and seat themselves upon a log, to discuss
something of the whole problem of Calvinism?
But our Orthodox brethren remonstrate, if, in asserting
what we have just intimated, we imply that there were
any germs or foreshadowings of Unitarianism in the latent or acknowledged ventures of free thought during
the first century of our history.  But why should we be
forbidden to look so far back for the seeds of what was
afterwards found to have so vigorous a growth? Unitarianism is really no such monstrous conception, no such
terrible and malignant device of a godless heart and a
perverted mind, as some of its dismayed opponents have
represented it to be. If they only understood it, as it
lies in the serious convictions and the earnest faith of
one who believes with all his heart and soul and mind
that it is the true statement of the doctrine of Christ,
they would not boast of having so keen a discrimination
that they can distinguish it by a mark of its own from
all other heresies. In the year 1650, the General Court
of Massachusetts Bay "convented" before it Mr. Wil 
ECCLESIASTICAL CONDITION OF CITIZENSHIP.
liam Pynchon, the distinguished magistrate of Springfield, on account of some "false, erroneous, and heretical" notions, broached by him in a volume from his pen
that had been published in London. His heresies related to the method of atonement through the death
of Christ, and he showed no disposition to retract all
his "errors," though "the elders" conferred with him,
and the Rev. John Norton was appointed to answer his
book. A little more than a century afterwards, the Rev.
John Rogers of Leominster came under suspicions of
"unsoundness in respect to the doctrine of original sin
and the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ," and was driven
from his office.  That, between the dates of these two
official proceedings against heresy, the distinctive views
of Unitarianlism were presenting themselves with a cogent though an unwelcome earnestness to several ministers and laymen, we have no more doubt than we have
of our own existence.  "Moderate Calvinism," a very
vague term, indeed, but all the more significant because
of its vagueness, was the convenient shelter of the early
stages of our heresy. Strange to say, this term never
seems to have been a bugbear or a fright, though it expresses the agency of all the mischief. A very slight
glance at our ecclesiastical history will show how this
stage of heresy was reached, and how heresy passed on
farther upon a very smooth and easy road.
By a law enacted in this colony in 1631, it was "ordered and agreed that for time to come noe man shalbe
admitted to the freedome of this body polliticke, but such
as are members of some of the churches within the lymitts of the same." No man, therefore, could hold any
civil office, or vote in civil affairs, except he were a communicant. This ecclesiastical condition of citizenship
had, of course, two most injurious and harmful consequences. Undesirable members united themselves to a
church for the sake of securing their civil rights and
e
21 
THE HALF-WAY COVENANT.
reaching office. Worthy men who would not make the
required profession, even for the sake of securing their
civil rights, were rendered hostile to the prevailing type
of religion. Those who were thus disfranchised in Massachusetts and Plymouth Colonies petitioned the respective Courts for relief, in 1646, and afterwards laid their
complaint before Parliament. In deference to an intimation in a letter from the king of England, this odious
statute was repealed in 1664; but even in the substitute
enacted, "a cirtifficat of being orthodox in religion,"
signed by the minister, was necessary to qualify a citizen
who was not a communicant.   The relative number of
church-members had begun to diminish, with the increase of the population, after the year 1650. About the
time of the repeal of the statute just noticed, a measure was adopted from virtual necessity which the prospective emergencies of the case had been long foreboding. As the children of church-members only were considered proper subjects of baptism, there was growing
up from year to year an alarmingly increasing number of
"heathen infants," who, of course, were outside of the
covenant. A remedy- was sought in a half-way measure,
-half demand, half concession, - called in modern
times a compromise. Parents who had themselves been
baptized, "if not scandalous in their lives," though still
unfit for the Lord's Supper, were by this measure permitted, on owning the covenant which their parents had
made for them, to secure baptism for their children. As
a matter of course, again, the relative proportion of communicants continued to diminish all the more.  Then
came  another relaxing  change.   The  Rev.  Solomon
Stoddard of Northampton, who lacked but little of being the pope of his county, as he was of his town, so
great was his influence and so fully did he exercise it,
was the mover in this alarming innovation. tIe advocated, with wonderful success over the country, the the
22 
MODERATE CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM.
ory that the Lord's Supper is among the appointed
means of regeneration; that persons who regard themselves as unconverted are bound to avail themselves of
the aid and benefit of the rite; and that a profession of
piety ought not to be required of those who with that
intent should offer themselves for communion.   His
theory was widely put into practice, and the avidity
with which it was seized upon is one of those significant intimations of latent discontent with the prevailing
usage, which reveals more of the workings of heresy
than some dim eyes are willing to recognize. By that
innovation not only did church-members come into
communion, but ministers also acceded to pulpits, without reaching in spiritual stature the high mark of Calvinism.  These certainly were not guilty of hypocrisy in
gradually yielding to liberal tendencies. They came in
through a door which the spiritual watchmen had left
open.
President Edwards dates in 1734 the beginning "of
the great noise in this part of the country about Arminianism," another of those vague terms of which we
may truly say, that not one person out of each ten who
used it knew the real meaning or the scope. This term
was a real bugbear to the timid; and if they had known
how much of unnamed and unlabelled heresy it signified, they would have dreaded it more than they did. It
covered an indefinite amount of disloyalty to Calvinism.
Whitefield's first visit to New England, in 1740, with his
full record of experiences among friends and opponents,
furnishes abundant proof that all the elements of Unitarianism were then at work here. The imported writings of Samuel Clarke and Thomas Emlyn probably
favored the first direct Anti-Trinitarian speculations in
this neighborhood. President Edwards wrote his work
on the Freedom of the Will, in opposition to the heresies
of Whitby, and his work on Original Sin, in opposition
23 
UNITARIANS LAY AND CLERICAL.
to those of Taylor. President John Adams affirmed that
in 1750 his own minister, Rev. Lemuel Bryant, Dr.
Jonathan Mayhew of Boston, Shute and Gay of Hingham, and Brown of Cohasset, were Unitarians. The
famous Dr. Hopkins published, in 1768, a sermon on
Hebrews iii. 1, upon "The Importance and Necessity of
Christians considering Jesus Christ in the Extent of his
high and glorious Character." The author says that he
wrote the sermon "with a design to preach it in Boston,
under a conviction that the doctrine of the Divinity of
Christ was much neglected, if not disbelieved, by a
number of the ministers of Boston." Nor were ministers
the only heretics. President Adams adds to his statement
just given: "Among the laity how many could I name,
- lawyers, physicians, tradesmen, and farmers. I could fill
a sheet," &c. The "confiding people," among whom
the Unitarians are charged with having secretly fostered
their views, appear in some measure to have anticipated
their teachers. Indeed, it is altogether probable that
some societies, instead of having had their faith slowly
undermined by an heretical minister, had, even under the
teachings of sound Orthodoxy, liberalized their own opinions, and, after waiting patiently for a superannuated
pastor with whom they did not accord to subside, had
intelligently selected a successor with a view to his
growth in an expanded creed. As this successor at his
ordination resolutely refused to be catechized doctrinally,
and as his church and council sustained him in his pre.
rogative, the way was free to him, from the vague terms
of opinion on speculative points under which he had
been educated, to real Unitarianism as the result of his
own mature thought. Still, he might not know his
opinions by that name, or the associations and adjuncts
of that epithet might make him unwilling to assume it,
as many to whom it really applies are unwilling to
assume it now. But to visit upon the ministers at that
24 
DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL PREACHING.
crisis the whole odium of the progressive heresy of three
generations, and then to seek to increase that odium by
aggravating the prejudice connected with an ill-sounding
epithet, was neither just nor kind.
Still another of those simple facts which a candid
mind would find or use to relieve a class of honored
men from the charge of an insidious inculcation and a
wicked concealment of their opinions, now forces itself
upon our notice.  It was from the first, and always has
been, an element of that general view of Christianity,
which goes by the name of Unitarianism, that the sub   stance of the Gospel and the materials for effective
preaching are not found in the speculative points of
theology, - the doctrines that were modified by the
change of creeds. As this is one of the most character   istic and vital of the principles of Liberal Christianity, its
disciples had a right to regard it and to act by it. The
Orthodox party could not fairly hold them bound to
: throw contempt on their own most prominent principle
by direct controversial preaching. The distinction be   tween the two parties, as drawn by the stress laid by one
of them and the disparagement cast by the other upon
the importance of a class of doctrines, is a most fun   damental distinction between them. If one who had
entered the ministry as a Unitarian should become a
decided Calvinist, the peculiar cast of his new views
would more than modify, it would wholly alter, the tone
and style of his preaching. But a minister who had
begun his official course as a "moderate Calvinist" might
gradually become a Unitarian, and the only indication
of the change that would appear in his preaching might
be that it was less doctrinal  and more practicacl, in the
technical sense of those words. Within the knowledge
of most of us, of mature observation, are examples of Or   thodox preachers who indicate their heretical liberality,
not by asserting Unitarian views, but by their silence
3
25 
26        PRACTICAL INFLUENCE OF CALVINISM.
upon the offensive peculiarities of Calvinism. Those
wavering men of whom we are speaking had many
secret struggles in their own privacy. The papers of
several of them, examined after their death, have revealed
how the writers went through the Bible to select and
balance texts bearing upon disputed points. There are
many affecting evidences of the reluctance with which
they yielded to convictions pressing for recognition, as
well as of the reluctance with which they yielded up
tenets stamped with the authority of prescription, and
tenderly associated with their own training in piety.
That such men did not seek to stir a strife in their congregations, or to open another of those terrible feuds of
faith which they knew to be so prejudicial to true religion,
may be a token of their wisdom or a sign of their timidity, as their critics shall judge them. Still, the course
which they pursued is not only consistent with sincerity,
but was in itself one of the most essential elements, one
of the most significant results, of the change through
which they had passed. Attempts were indeed made by
the Orthodox to prove that the doctrines which were
renounced were of an eminently practical power. We
can conceive that, if some of the doctrines of Calvinism
were believed as we apply the word belief to common
facts of life, they would have a tremendous practical influence; as, for instance, they would forbid any thorough
disciple of them to become a parent, and would fill his
heart with dreadful anticipations of the doom of some
who are nearest to him. We can conceive, also, that if
what the creed teaches of the fate of heathens were held
with an intense conviction, the poor annual pittance
raised by all Orthodox Christians for their relief, and
which is not a thousandth part of the sum spent upon
their luxuries and pleasures, would be increased a hundred-fold.  Indeed, if the sincerity of the statement may
relieve its apparent want of kindness, we will venture to
'k 
REVIVAL OF UNITARIANISM.
say that the practical power theoretically attaching to
the peculiarities of the Calvinistic creed does not seem
to produce its practical effects.  Charity, therefore, sug gests, that there is something in the theory itself which
averts or hinders the practical consequences that might
be expected to result from it. Its believers do not appear
and act, as we should feel obliged and impelled to appear
and act, if we believed it. "Is it of no importance," asked
one who was arguing against us on this point, (Spirit of
the Pilgrims, IV. 359,) " whether the God we worship
exists in three persons or in one?" We answer, there is
no possible way in which a man can make a Trinitarian
belief on this subject appear in his character or his life.
He must content himself with such a display of it as he
can make in words,- in words, too, that must necessarily
indicate confused and vague ideas. The truth is, that, in
the most heated stage of the controversy, the Unitarians
were considered by the Orthodox as bound to renounce
Christianity, and to make proclamation that they had
renounced it. This the Unitarians had no intention of
doing. Nor were they swift to proclaim specifically and
in terms, that in accepting a purer Christianity they had
renounced former corruptions. For in doing the latter,
they would be subjected by zealots, as the event proved,
to the imputation of having done the former.  They
preached in favor of what they believed, rather than
against what they rejected.  Their concealment  was
mainly a concealment of strife.
In connection with the charge of artful concealment,
numerous essays were written by the Orthodox in the
early as well as in later stages of the controversy, to
account for the origin and the extensive reception of
Unitarian views.  Some of the reasons given were ingenious,'and more or less pertinent.  But it is a singular
fact, that we have never found a single statement on the
Orthodox side of what was really the reason, the effect
27 
FAILURE OF ORTHODOXY.
ive and sufficient reason, of the new heresy,-the reason
which any intelligent Unitarian would have given if
questioned by an Orthodox friend. The reason for the
adoption and prevalence of Unitarianism was simply
and solely the failure of Orthodoxy to satisfy the hearts
and minds of a large number of serious-minded and
religious persons in this community. This failure was
a marked fact. Our brethren of the other party will
never treat our predecessors justly, to say nothing of
ourselves, till they make a manly and a candid recognition of this fact.  Their controversy properly began
among themselves.  The poison whose alarming introduction they marvelled and mourned over, was an acrid
humor generated by disease and decay in their own
system. Orthodoxy failed to retain the confidence, to
feed the piety, to satisfy the hearts, of many of its own
disciples.  It failed to stand the test of a trial by the
Scriptures, instituted with a bias in its favor, in all
sincerity, earnestness, and ability, by competent men.
Orthodoxy, to the dismay and regret of many of these
anxious inquirers, was discovered to be unscriptural, - -a
human scheme, not a divine system of doctrine. We
must insult all the usual features and evidences of sincerity, if we do not allow for this fact. To have recourse
to other explanations of the revival and re-adoption of
Unitarian views among  Christians, while this fact is
wholly blinked, is disingenuous in the extreme.
Doubtless the new sect embraced its full proportion of
the superficial, the light-minded, the unregenerate, and
the irreligious. The derogatory way in which its lax
and tolerant features were drawn by some of its early
enemies, led many to assume the name who were wholly
destitute of faith and piety. But the new sect had also
its men and women of sterling excellence, of real piety;
cultivated, thoughtful, conscientious, cautious of judgment, slow of decision, but firm and well grounded in
28 
REVIVAL OF UNITARIANISM.
their conclusions. Multitudes of these from out of the
very bosom of Orthodox churches, admitted to have been
saints while within their covenants, have testified to the
inexpressible relief which they found in Unitarian views,
and to the deep and living impulses of devotion which
they derived from them, after having faithfully, but in
vain, tried to live in Orthodoxy. And this failure of
Orthodoxy to retain its own domain, and to keep its
own disciples, is the more remarkable, when we consider
what advantages it had on its side. The whole prestige
of existing institutions, forms, order, and authority was
with it.  Tradition, historical associations, living bonds
of love, sacred ties to the departed, household affections,
and the memories of early religious training, were with it;
but all were insufficient to retain an allegiance which
had been discredited by the failing confidence of its disciples. If no other solution of the fact can be found, we
must conclude that God has so constituted some who
wish to love him, and to understand his Word, and to
comply with its demands, and to share its promises, that
they cannot, while they are sane and honest, accept the
Calvinistic scheme. Calvinists reason as if they were
sure that the Gospel offers no alternative between their
system and actual infidelity, - as if there were no other
possible form of the Christian faith but that of the Genevan. But, thank God, we are sure that they are wrong.
If it be asked why this exposure of the insufficiency
and the unscriptural character of Orthodoxy was deferred to our age in the Christian era, we must content
ourselves with dropping two suggestions in answer,suggestions that might be dwelt upon at some length
and proved satisfactory in meeting the case. First, for
long centuries after the Augustine theology had established its sway, as a corruption of the simple Unitarianism of the primitive Church, attention was not concentrated upon the doctrinal constitution of Christianity,
3 *
29 
30        THE LINE OF UNITARIAN BELIEVERS.
but was withdrawn to other aspects of it. Rome had
exalted the hierarchical element and the extra-Scriptural
element of tradition. The Reformers were chiefly engaged upon strictly ecclesiastical issues; they assailed
the Pope, the Church, with its councils, its inventions, its
tyrannies, and its corruptions. The English Puritans
were brought into hostility with the sacerdotalism and
the ritualism of Episcopacy. Independency both here
and in England first brought the Gospel to a simple but
severe trial by textual criticism of its doctrinal system.
From the close of the fourth century this searching test
had not been applied to it by this method. The second
suggestion, bearing on the question just asked, reminds
us of a fact very familiar to all Christian scholars, that
Unitarianism has lain latent in all the ages of the
Church; there have always been intimations of its presence and of its secret workings; it has cropped out
here and there always. The names of an unbroken line
of men linking together like a chain may be selected
even from our scanty records, whose sympathies might
be claimed for-what is called Liberal Christianity.  They
are the names of mien in Poland, Italy, Switzerland,
Holland, Austria, Germany, France, and England, - men
whose characters and attainments will bear a favorable
comparison with those of any class associated by doctrinal belief or Christian sympathy. Unitarianism had its
martyrs before the discovery and the colonization of these
parts of the world. Its main and strong position in conviction and argument always has been, not that it is simply
a rational faith, but that it is the express, the positive, the
literal exhibition of the doctrines taught in the Scriptures. Indeed, there are, to our minds, no more significant or recommendatory features about Unitarianism,
than are found in the occasions and the manner of its
presence, and in the class of men who have embraced it,
and in the method of its advocacy by them through
4 
UNITARIAN INTOLERANCE.
all the ages of Christian history.  It would require a
subsidiary revelation to convince us that Jesus and his
Apostles ever taught Calvinism. We can easily trace
the incomings and the progress of Orthodoxy, and we
know that it has been dissented from and protested
against, under just such circumstances, and by just such
men, and for just such reasons, and in just such ways, as
accord with all the harmonies of history and reason.
Our sympathy does not go wholly with all of those
who on our side carried on this controversy when it
waxed fiercest. Positions were assumed which could
not be sustained. Measures were adopted which we
will not justify. Pamphlets were written which reflect
shame on their authors, and to some extent on their
cause.  Leaving to candid reviewers on the Orthodox
side to visit such censures upon the proceedings and the
spirit of their own party as they may see reason to utter,
we will not assume their office for them, but will pass
our judgments only on our side. For ourselves we do
not accord with much of the incidental argument used
on our side of the controversy, and we regret the unchristian, the unfraternal spirit of the strife. We would
not undertake to defend all those views of Scripture, nor
all those assertions or negations of doctrine, advanced
even by some leading Unitarians. We do not feel perfectly satisfied with the legal decisions in two cases bearing upon the ownership of church property, though we
admit that the issue raised was quite a perplexing one.
One who candidly reviews this controversy, even with
his prejudices and convictions strongly on the liberal
side of it, can hardly fail to be impressed with the seeming coolness, we might almost say the nonchalance; or
the superciliousness and effrontery even, with which
some Unitarians took for granted that the great change
in religious opinions and methods advocated by them
could perfect and establish itself in this community as a
31 
CONTROVERSIAL ARROGANCE.
matter of course. Some Unitarians wrote and talked as
if in utter amazement that Orthodoxy should presume to
say a word for itself in arrest of judgment, or as a plea
for continued right of possession where it had lived and
ruled so long. The most assured and confident and intolerant of the new party did not scruple to declare that
Orthodoxy was past apologizing for, and ought to retire
as gracefully as possible, with the bats and owls. It was
only after some considerable surprise and mortification,
that such supercilious disputants were induced to entertain a reconsideration of the whole issue, as the adherents
to the old system rallied to its defence, and, in the lack
of sufficient champions here, imported a Philistine giant
from Connecticut. Other Unitarians, who did not fully
yield themselves to the conceit of an easy and unchallenged victory, were more or less alive to the fact that
there must at least be death-struggles on the part of
Orthodoxy, even if more formidable manifestations did
not give proof of its tenacity of life and of its unabated
vigor. These more considerate judges of the strength
and the alliances of long-established views, were secured
from those exhibitions of arrogance and unconcern which
were especially galling to the serious-minded among the
Orthodox. This spirit of contempt to which we have
referred would have alleged, in its justification, the prevailing indifference, the lethargy, the disgust, that attached
to Orthodoxy in this community. It would have pleaded, that what so many had outgrown, and discredited,
and despised, and what others still believed was spreading an alarming amount of infidelity over the land,
deserved no courtesy or forbearance of treatment. The
coarseness and virulence and dogmatism of some of the
Orthodox champions would doubtless be made, indeed
they were made, the justification of some of our own
partisans whom we cannot honor. The petty and vexatious artifices, the gnats and wasps of controversy, evi
32 
IRRITATIONS OF CONTROVERSY.
dently were very provocative of ill passions among the
Unitarians. The arrogant denial to them of the Christian
name; the attempt to confound them by putting quotations from their writings into parallelisms from the writings of Tom Paine; the mean effort to foreclose the
issue by a monopolizing of the epithet Evangelical, and
by a constant use of the phrase "the peculiar doctrines
of the Gospel," as if by simply insisting upon their
identity with Calvinistic doctrines the question might be
decided by being begged; -these offences, together
with sundry shocking perversions of Scripture, as in the
wicked application to Unitarians, for denying the Messiah to be God, of those words of Peter which refer to
the faithless deceivers of the first age, "denying the Lord
that bought them," -these offences were strong provocations to some of our predecessors. One of our own
editors was moved to write the remonstrating words:
" Let our characters be spared. We are not infidels.
We are Christians, with the most sincere convidtion of
the truth of our religion, and with a deep sense of its
inestimable value. We do not deny the Lord who
bought us," &c.*
These irritating and odious strokes of bigotry, which
were not intended for argument, but as evasions and
substitutes for it, addressed to prejudice and designed to
foreclose an issue that should have been calmly and
seriously debated, excited much acrimony. We can
estimate the force which these aggravations then had by
the occasional recourse which is even now made to the
same unworthy arts to help in giving Unitarianism a
bad name.   That some of its early advocates shuld
have been put out of temper by this ill usage is but
natural. Still, candor compels us to say that some prominent advocates of Unitarianism conceived too lightly
* Christian Disciple, for 1819, p. 139.
33 
UNITARIAN AND ORTHODOX METHOD.
of the resistance they might expect to meet, and were
not sufficiently aware of the revolutionary character of
their own views. For Unitarianism did in fact involve
a radical change of opinion and practice as to the true
theory of the Gospel and the method of its dispensation.
Only as one carefully and in detail compares the views,
the usages, the tone, and the measures connected with
religious offices by the two now existing parties among
the Congregationalists, will he really appreciate the matter and the amount of this change. Orthodoxy is more
intense, systematic, and pointed in its whole substance
and in all its methods, than is Unitarianism, when under
their respective organizations they represent types of
religious belief or modes of religious action.   Orthodoxy has sharp, well-defined, elaborate, and systematic
standards for its disciples.  Unitarianism is loose, vague,
general, indeterminate in its elements and formularies.
Orthodoxy commits the charge and the direction of its
institutions to those pledged believers who, as communicants, constitute the avowed and available strength of
its doctrinal fellowship. Unitarianism, conceiving that
in a nominally Christian community all its respectable
members may be considered as in a degree influenced
by Christian convictions and purposes, extends its trusts
and responsibilities through a whole religious society or
congregation. Orthodoxy makes account of crises and
temporary devices and periodical excitements. Unitarianism wishes to avoid all schemes and spasmodic
action.  Orthodoxy bands its disciples, assesses them,
sets them at work, appoints committees to inquire
afters new-comers, in many places confines its patronage
within its own communion, is apt to know "4'the faith"
of applicants for schools, and will not always divide its
sympathies and honors among those from whom it asks
money and other aid. Unitarianism dislikes such agencies and intrigues. Orthodoxy is sacrificial. Unitarian
34 
THE ORTHODOX TYPE OF CHARACTER.
ism is moral. The intensity which characterizes the Or thodox system, and the laxity which is manifest in the
Unitarian system, might be traced in all their respective
doctrines and methods. The difference, though in some
points trifling and hardly distinguishable, appears in
others to be of exceeding importance. It could hardly
be possible, therefore, for the milder system to displace
the more rigid system in any community, without the
visible tokens of a revolution. If the processes and results of this change should be followed up through its
effects on feelings, habits, prejudices, interests, and cherished convictions, it will at once appear that it must
have been burdened with dislikes and pointed with
pains for many excellent persons. This fact, we say,
some-of the Unitarians made too light of., They did not
estimate it and allow for it as they ought to have done.
They did not try to soften, soothe, or conciliate the sufferings which it involved, and the opposition which it
aroused.   Some  Unitarians did not treat, as became
Christians, with respectful tenderness and with filial reverence, the faith and convictions which had been rooted
in the hearts and honored in the churches of New England.
Nor is it to be disguised that the type of character
formed by unrelieved and unqualified Orthodoxy, when
it intensified its peculiarities, was not attractive to a
Unitarian. Puritanism always was an uncomfortable
neighbor to all who were not Puritans. We can admire
and respect, almost to the border of a reverential homage, the heroic virtues, the dauntless spirit, and the enthralling soul of piety in our orthodox ancestry.   But
we feel that they need some set-off or concomitant from
persecution, exile, or romance, some hill-side lurkings,
some ocean risks, some wilderness trials, some prison
straits, to fix our attention upon the severities of their
lot that it may be withdrawn from the severities of their
35 
THE DECAY OF PURITANISM.
creed. We love Puritanism while it is in its process of
purification by fire, prison, or banishment, and the sharper its pains, the softer and sweeter is its spirit. Nor can
it be gainsaid that the Puritan creed needs such methods
to secure disciples, to make them genial and of high soul
while they live, and the subjects of an admiring reverence when they enter into stories of the past. All Puritanical persons ought to be pioneers and missionaries,
and the more remote their sphere, and the harder their
work, the worthier they would be, and the better we
should like them. But living Puritans in prosperous,
quiet times, are something different. When, after the
softening influences of a quiet course of life, the strain
of early zeal was relaxed, and the tenets of a severe
creed were keenly examined, then it was manifest that
there were Christian men and women here who could
no longer come up to the rigid standard of the old piety.
The fact presented itself in many little signs and tokens,
as well as in some very serious exhibitions of a modifying influence that had long been at work in this community. When the effects of this change were brought
together and commented upon, they admitted of being
very easily exaggerated and misrepresented, as well as
of being very severely censured by those who wished to
retain the old forms and methods. The tone and phraseology of public prayers were changed. The old custom
of supplicating the Deity in specific and almost dictatorial terms for the sick, the convalescent, the afflicted, and
those going on journeys, was greatly modified. Children ceased to be taken directly from the womb into the
meeting-house for baptism, and parents began to shrink
from a public return of their thanks for such blessings,
and a public supplication for more. The style of sermon-writing yielded to the weariness which impugned
the old fashion,- of turning over the leaves of'the Bible
from beginning to end in what was little more than a cull
36 
AN ASSUMING PIETISM.
ing of texts, - and brought in the modern fashion of writing after the manner of an essay on a Scripture or religious theme. The mode of keeping Sunday was relaxed.
Extra meetings and evening lectures, which old persons
in both parties equally objected to, were adopted first by
the Orthodox, and then, after fruitless complaint, by the
Unitarians. The custom of making a severe inquisition
into the religious experience of candidates for the communion was set aside. Church discipline for heresy and
private sin was less frequent. Some discriminations were
adopted in the way of using and quoting from the Bible,
- discriminations which honest criticism and common
sense proved to be necessary, and yet perfectly consistent to a reasonable mind with the highest practical
value assigned to the Bible as a whole. Here then were
various tests and tokens for the designation of two parties among the Congregationalists. The one party was
called Liberal.   The other party remained rigid, and
seemed to try to become more rigid, by clinging to the
shadows of things whose substance had passed away,
and by assuming the championship of a form of piety
which belonged to another age, and to quite another
class of characters. Now it was the assumption of this
type of piety by those whom it did not become, simply
because it was not theirs, which was very unattractive,
not to say exceedingly repulsive, to Unitarians. It had
lost all its living characteristics, its realities as embodied
in the style of thought, demeanor, conviction, and life,
and was driven to make its manifestation in words
alone, - in what was said and written. To have their
neighbors, who in real character and course of life showed
no grace above others, who were just as devoted to thrift
and prosperity, just as eager for good bargains, just as
worldly and faulty, just as censorious and imperfect, yet
professing to be "saints by calling," successors to stern
old Puritans, heirs of the covenant, and sealed by God's
4
37 
38        THE TESTS OF CHARACTER AND LIFE.
spirit for a life of eternal bliss, because they held the
five sharp points of an old creed of man's devising, and
had passed through some mysterious inward change, in
proof of which they could give nothing but their own
assertions, - this experience, we say, was not of a sort
to make the advocates of Orthodoxy very amiable in the
eyes of Unitarians. When two parties who, as far as
the eye of man can see or know, stand upon the same
level of piety, intelligence, earnestness, and sincerity of
purpose, are seeking to decide between them questions
of Scripture truth, if the one party assume to itself the
title of "the friends of Christ," it can hardly be supposed that the other party will accept very graciously
the title which by construction is assigned to them of
"the enemies of Christ."   Nor did it tend to conciliate matters that the Orthodox freely wrote and spoke of
the Unitarians as "the worldly party," the patrons of
the theatre, the lovers of balls, festivities, dress, amusements, and other gayeties. Good sense, however, and
"that common human nature," which has been found to
attach to human beings independently of their creed,
soon settled these not very dignified elements of the
controversy. It has been made to appear that what is
called "worldliness" of this sort is rather a token of
one's social position, pecuniary means, and private tastes,
than of his religious character. Certainly, in this community, at least, it would be difficult to establish a superiority in any Christian grace or excellence as having
attached peculiarly to those who have opposed Unitarianismn. Sensible persons of both parties have accorded in the conclusion, that the grave questions of Christian doctrine which are at issue between them are not
to be settled by calling hard names.
' Turning from this survey of the past, we attempt to
sum up its results as in our own judgment they bear
upon the present relations of parties. Endeavoring to 
LACK OF ZEAL IN UNITARIANISM.
exercise that degree of candor and impartiality of which
we may be supposed to be capable while our sympathies
favor one of these parties, we will venture to express
plainly what we really think. Unitarianism has relatively failed in comparison with Orthodoxy at one point
which should be paramount with a truly Christian denomination; and Unitarianism has met with eminent
success, and has secured a triumph significant of further
results, in a direction in which it has spent the strength
of many earnest efforts.
Unitarianism has proved itself inferior to Orthodoxy
as a working power, a method of presenting and applying the Gospel so as to engage the enthusiasm, the zeal,
the hearty, devoted service of its disciples in devising
eminently Christian schemes, and in carrying on great
religious enterprises.  The "coldness" with which the
Orthodox have charged us we have felt, and instead of
denying a plain, manifest truth, we prefer the grace
of frankly acknowledging it.  We  cannot gather our
strength and bring it to bear effectually in a great religious movement. Opportunities have slipped through our
hands. Interests which we.might have strengthened we
have sacrificed. We have sustained many noble benevolent agencies, but the element which has been lacking
to their cheerful, vigorous, and most Christian efficacy,
is the very element which our views in their working
processes have not yet developed. We do not connect
the fountain-head of all evangelical power and motive
and impulse with a hundred little ramifying conduits to
bear it among the different classes of the community, as
do our Orthodox brethren. We do not distinguish between the means necessary to foster piety in the horne,
the school, the literary and benevolent association, the
church, and the congregation. The differences of opinion and the alienations of sympathy which exist among
the Orthodox are smothered up when they make any
39 
WORKING OF UNITARIANISM.
public anniversary exhibition of their sectarian or Christian purposes; but with us, such differences and alienations form the very staple of debate at our conventions,
and make up the report of our "doings" published to
the world. If any two of us walking arm in arm on one
side of a street should find that we perfectly accorded in
opinion, we should feel bound to separate instantly, and
the strife would be as to which should get the start in
crossing; and this is true in spite of the fact that there
is more real harmony, fraternal feeling, and mutual regard between our brethren, with all their amazing individualism, than among the ministers of any other sect
in Christendom.   Yet we cannot bring our forces to
bear as do the Orthodox in combined zeal and earnestness of purpose. We have no pass-words, we have no
connecting wires, no electricity to traverse them if we
had them. It may be said that this confession only admits our failure in comparison with Orthodoxy at the
very point in which Protestantism fails in comparison
with Romanism, which leagues its forces and displays a
working power in methods and ramifications of energy
of a kind to amaze us all. This plea, however, will not
cover more than about half of our relative lack, and will
still leave a balance against us in reckoning for our comparative inefficiency, in the use of what we allege are
more legitimate and more consistent Christian weapons,
against worldliness and sin and impiety and coldness
of heart.   Unitarianism has certainly exhibited some
marked deficiency, either of power, or of skill, or of ingenuity, or of enthusiasm. For ourselves, we should not
admit this to be an absolute failure from a cause inherent in our system of doctrines, or our mode of interpreting the Gospel. We are at perfect liberty to improve
on our methods, and the same main-spring which is the
motive power to all Christian hearts may  move  us,
though we have not yet learnt how most wisely to regu
40 
OVERTHROW OF DOGMATISM.
late and dispose the mechanism which connects it with
the world around us.   We  are satisfied in our own
minds that we have been at fault in the mode in which
we have dispensed the Gospel, not in the mode in which
we have received it.
The point at which Unitarianism has secured an eminent victory, in realizing the sure success and the prospective universal triumph of its foundation principle,
is in its dethronement of dogmatism in religion, -that
dogmatism which insists upon confining the power of
the Gospel to a metaphysical system of doctrines set
forth by man as the exponent of revealed truths. Unitarianism has inflicted a death-blow upon this dogmatism, which was the deadliest vice of Protestantism,
because utterly inconsistent with its own charter of
liberties, and fatal to its own dissent from authority.
Unitarianism has had an immeasurable effect upon Orthodoxy in this one direction. Orthodox preaching is in
some quarters so qualified in its general character, that
if it sounds to the ear as its printed specimens utter
themselves to our hearts and minds, we should be quite
content to listen to it in several places. When we read
in the controversial pamphlets of a half-century ago the
positive assertions made by Orthodoxy, - that all which
we retain of the Gospel is as nothing compared with the
importance of what we reject, that all the sublime revelations, the spiritual truths, the divine precepts, and the
heavenward promises of Scripture are lighter in the
scale of faith than the dogmas of John Calvin, - and then
turn to the pages of the eminent Orthodox writers of the
present day, we stand amazed at the change.   True,
some lean and querulous and stingy souls still give
forth their dreary or petulant utterances, but they are
not the ones that win a large hearing, or speak for their
party. The tone and matter of Dr. Edward Beecher's
"Conflict of Ages," compared with the sulphurous
4'
41 
CONCESSIONS OF ORTHODOXY.
preaching of his now venerable father, when he was the
leader in revival meetings about this neighborhood, tells
an interesting tale of the work that has been wrought
here in the interval between the father's manhood and
that of the son. True, the very problematical hypothesis by which the son has sought to relieve the Orthodox
dogma of its dogmatism, is but a poor device.  But he
is not to blame for that, as he did the best he could;
better indeed than could have been expected, for in
assailing one dogma he has not substituted another.
The two Orthodox men who now have the most influence over the higher class of minds to which Orthodoxy
is to look for its advocacy in the next generation, are Professor Park and Dr. Bushnell, men of brilliant genius, of
shining gifts, of eminent devotion, and of towering ability,
and regarded by large circles of friends with profound
regard and confidence. Those two noble expositors of
truth as they receive it have added a century of vigorous life to many Orthodox churches around us, and
have deferred the final dismay of that system for at least
the same period of time. Professor Park's Convention
Sermon is, in our judgment, one of the most remarkable
and instructive pieces in all our religious literature. For
subtlety, skill, power, richness of diction, pointedness of
subject, and implications of deep things lying behind its
utterances, it is a marvellous gem of beauties and of
brilliants. Dr. Bushnell's writings, in some sentences
unintelligible to our capacity, and in some points inexplicable as to their meaning, are rich in their revelations
of a free and earnest spirit engaged upon themes which
keep him struggling between the wings that lift him
and the withes that bind him. Those two honored men
have relieved Orthodoxy in some of its most offensive
metaphysical enigmas.  How  have they blunted the
five points of Calvinism! How have they reduced the
subtile and perplexing philosophy of the Westminster
42
t 
WHAT IS UNITARIANISM?
Catechism, by the rich rhetoric with which they have
mitigated its physic into a gentle homcedpathy! Unitarianism aimed thus to abate and soften religious dogmatism. It has succeeded; and the noblest element in
its success is, that it must divide the honor with champions from the party of its opponents.
And now what is Unitarianism? It might seem as
if this question presented to us the hardest element in
the task which we have assumed. Unitarianism, as it
has been popularly represented and received, and, indeed,
as it has been set forth in any promiscuous collection of
its voluminous literature, may seem to be a most undefined form of theology. Yet we insist that its essential
principles are very few and very well determined, so that
it is at least as definite a system as is that which goes
by the name of Orthodoxy.  There has been a wonderful variety in the range, the methods, and the results
adopted by separate expounders and advocates of the essential principles of Unitarianism, simply because with
their Unitarianism they have had a philosophy, or an
idiosyncrasy, or a love of speculation, or a habit of mind
or feeling, which they might have had in connection with
any other form of religious opinion. Indeed, nothing
would be easier to a skilful opponent than to gather
from our literature a most astonishing array of inconsistent admissions, limitations, and definitions, and to infer
frong them that the sect is but a rope of sand, each individuality of which was composed only of angles, and
sharp ones too.  "What do Unitarians believe?" is a
question which has perplexed many who felt bound to answer it when put to them, while it has been made to point
ridicule or censure against our faith.  How much of all
this variety and inconsistency of belief and exposition is
to be accounted to the reasonable necessities, the first
principles, the essential terms, involved in the action of
independent minds upon the subjects of faith, and upon
43 
THE NON-SECTARIAN SECT.
the Scriptures which furnish its materials, only a very
considerate judgment is competent to decide. H1ow far
these individual eccentricities reflect a prejudice on Unitarianism, is a matter for the confident to pronounce upon
while the prudent are reserved.
In the antagonistic and apologetic position into which
Unitarians were driven, they naturally dealt much with
denials. In assailing dogmatism they had to assail doctrines; and in assailing doctrines they left many positive
points of faith, common to them and to other Christians,
to win something of their own assurance without a positive advocacy in their congregations.   In the mean
time the Orthodox party were fond of representing Unitarianism in its minimum of substance and of life. While
we were saying, Such a verse of Scripture, or such a
doctrine, means "only this," or " only that," - the Orthodox added, "Unitarians believe only this," or "only
that." Saying nothing about the false view of our own
position and aims which we may sometimes have been
negligent in averting or correcting, if not instrumental in
producing, the Orthodox, it must be asserted, have succeeded in fixing a reproach upon us in many quarters.
Their polemical literature has had such a prevailing character of abuse and misrepresentation towards us, that
many of their own communions have been greatly misled by it.  Again, while we have suffered the utmost
disadvantages of being a sect, we have never turned 4nto
sectarian channels the real strength of our fellowship.
From the very first, a sectarian name, a sectarian organization, and a sectarian association were strenuously opposed by some of the most prominent Unitarians in this
community.   The "sAssociation"' has never  engaged
the hearty sympathy or the efficient aid of a quarter part
of our real numbers. The formation of Unitarian societies in some of our towns and villages, where there seemed
to be an opening for them, was discountenanced, on the
44 
THE NON-SECTARIAN SECT.
ground that it was better for "liberal persons" to retain
their connection with the Orthodox societies, with the expectation of gradually relaxing bigotry and modifying
the creed. Some able men who have won distinction
and place through the controversy, have not been emulous of repaying the favor by any show of sectarian zeal.
In one sense, we seemed to begin to decline the moment
we began to try to strengthen ourselves. The Unitarian
sect has hindered the progress of Unitarianism. The
softened aspects and manifestations of Orthodoxy, the
bad name attached to us, and the dread of loosing from
old moorings, with various local and family attachments,
and the diminished prestige of mere preaching to many
persons, who say "they will listen to, and believe what
portion of it they please, and let the rest go," -  these
and other reasons which might be mentioned retain in
other communions thousands and thousands of persons
who are really Unitarians, unwittingly or consciously. In
an early page of one of our journals, we find the words:
"We cannot help believing, that, but for the existence or
a Unitarian sect, there could be no obstacle, among a
free, intelligent, and inquisitive people like ours, to the
rapid and universal prevalence of Unitarianism itself." *
The inference would seem to be, that Orthodoxy has
been, in times past certainly, a more efficient agency in
promoting Unitarian sentiment, than has a positive Unitarian sectarianism, with its imperfect methods, and the
lack of sympathy on the part of its friends, and the resisting measures which it has provoked. And this we
take to be about the truth, as nearly as it can be stated
in a brief way.  Unitarianism came in when  nothing
was done for it; but it is not as effective an agent in its
own behalf as are circumstances, occasions, and emergencies working in the natural course of things, and
* Christian Examiner, September, 1830, p. 19.
45 
THREE DOOTRINES OF ORTHODOXY.
after the methods of a complicated issue between truth
and error. Wherever there is a propitious union of healthful religious feeling and of intelligence, in proportions and
measurements that we will not attempt to define, there
always has been, and there always will be, Unitarianism, in every age of the Christian Church, and in every
spot of the earth.
These suggestions might seem only still more to embarrass an attempt to answer the question, "What is
Unitarianism? "' In one sense they do so; but in another sense they help us to answer the question, as all
these suggestions must be kept in our minds as indicating the elements that enter into the Unitarian view of
the substance and the significance of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. A proportion, we think a large proportion, of those
who through force of one or another reason retain a nlominal connection with the Orthodox Congregationalists,
the Presbyterians, the Baptists, and the Episcopalians,
in places where Unitarianism has uttered itself through
books or pulpits, have degrees of sympathy with it which
needs only to be better defined to become much stronger.
We consider that it is of about equal importance to insist upon what we have in common with other Christian
denominations, and upon the points which put us into
opposition with them. Unitarianism stands in direct
and positive opposition to Orthodoxy on three great doctrines, which Orthodoxy teaches, with emphasis, as vital
to its system; namely, that the nature of human beings
has been vitiated, corrupted, and disabled, in consequence
of the sin of Adam, for which God has in judgment
doomed our race to suffering and woe; that Jesus Christ
is God, and therefore an object of religious homage and
prayer; and that the death of Christ is made effectual to
human salvation by reconciling God to man, and satisfying the claims of an insulted and outraged law. Unitarianism denies that these are doctrines of the Gospel,
46 
THE REAL ISSUE DEFINED.
and offers very different doctrines, sustained by Scripture,
in their place.
The rejection of these three Orthodox doctrines, and
the belief of those which Unitarians substitute for them,
constitutes Unitarianism.   All the rest of  Christianity is common ground between us and other denominations. On all other matters of Christian doctrine a
Unitarian may be in entire accordance with the general
views of the Orthodox, and yet be not one whit less a
Unitarian.  We do not say, that Unitarians, as a class,
are in entire accordance with the Orthodox on all other
doctrines, but that there is nothing in their Unitarianism
to hinder that accordance. As regards the inspiration
of the Scriptures; the special design and agency of the
Gospel, as a Divine and miraculously attested scheme
and a remedial provision for the redemption of men; the
necessity of regeneration, or a change of heart, wrought
and attested by the Spirit of God; justification by faith;
the present mediatorial work of Jesus Christ in behalf
of his Church and upon the soul and the life of a be:
liever; revivals of religion, and the doctrine of future retribution; -as regards all these doctrines, there is nothing in the essential and characteristic substance of Unitarianism which puts a disciple of it into antagonism
with Orthodoxy. There are Unitarians who hold the
Orthodox views on all these doctrines, because they regard them as Christian doctrines. The issue between
us and Orthodoxy does not, and never did, involve any
necessary collision or variance on these points. At the
opening of the controversy, it seemed as if the whole substance of the Gospel, and every ingredient of it, were under debate between us and the Orthodox, and many
times and in many ways was it asserted, that the qqstion between the two parties was that of a Gospel or no
Gospel.  Discussion has brought our differences within
the range of three doctrines. As to the fundamental
47 
48        THREE DOCTRINES OF UNITARIANISM.
tenets of Orthodoxy already mentioned, Unitarianism in a
strongly antagonistic position maintains the following:  1. That human beings do not inherit from Adam a
ruined nature; that there is no transfer from his guilt made
to us, inflicting upon us a moral inability; that our relation to God has not been prejudiced by his fall; that life
is not a foregone conclusion with any one of us when it
begins; that we have not been condemned as a race, but
shall be judged as individuals.
2. That, whatever be the rank of Jesus Christ in the
scale of being, and whatever be his nature, he is not presented to us in the Scriptures as the Supreme God, or as
a fractional part of the Godhead; therefore he is not the
source, but is the channel, of Divine grace; he is not the
object of our homage or our prayers, nor the ultimate
object of our dependence and trust, but fulfils his highest work for us when he leads us on to the Father.
3. That the Scriptures do not lay the emphatic stress
of Christ's redeeming work upon his death, above or
apart from his life, character, and doctrine; and that his
death as an element in his redeeming work is made
effective for human salvation through its influence on
the heart and the life of man, not through its vicarious
value with God, nor through its removal of an abstract difficulty in the Divine government, which hinders the forgiveness of the penitent without further
satisfaction.
Unitarianism defined a position in direct and complete
antagonism to Orthodoxy on these three points, and on
no others. On these three points Unitarianism has resolutely held its ground, and intends to hold it, firmly and
without yielding a hair's breadth. Orthodoxy has been
during the half-century reconsidering its position as regards one or another of these three points, modifying,
qualifying, and abating its dogmatic statement of its
three primary doctrines. 
THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.
Now, if there has been any tendency to harmony and
accordance of opinion and reconciliation of differences
between the two parties, it is to be referred either to a
recognition of sympathies, and a common belief in the
other doctrines of the Gospel, in the realm of Christian
truth and faith which was not appropriated exclusively
by the Orthodox or by the Unitarians, or else to the
fact that the Orthodox have a better appreciation of the
strength of our position, and of the dubiousness of their
own position, on the three points of doctrine just stated.
We propose in successive papers to deal with those
three great doctrinal issues. And when we have disposed of those topics we shall have to discuss a very
important question relating to the proper view of the
Scriptures, and the mode of treating them and of criticising and expounding them, so far as that question
has entered into the controversy.   We  hope thus to
gather some of the best fruits of a half-century of sharp
but not unprofitable strife between brethren.
5
49 
a 
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
NATURE AND THE STATE OF MAN.
ON THB  
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
ON THE
NATURE AND THE STATE OF MAN.
WE closed the summary review, in the preceding pages,
of a Half Century of the Unitarian Controversy in Massachusetts, with the statement of three great doctrinal issues around which a protracted and a thorough discussion between the two parties of the old Congregational
Church had proved that all their differences now centre.
Of course we are not unmindful of the possible suggestion that, as these three doctrinal issues concern the very
fundamentals of Christian truth, and decide the opinions
held by the respective parties on all other subordinate
Christian doctrines, it can hardly be said that the controversy is perceptibly made more simple by being condensed into these terms.  It is convenient, however, to
avail ourselves of this condensation of terms, even if the
simplification of them is only in the seeming. But we
feel persuaded that there is a real as well as an apparent
step taken towards a better conduct of the controversy
when it is thus centred on its main issues. No one call
read over the voluminous records of the strife without a
conviction that, had the pains and the skill of both parties been spent upon a close and careful discussion of the
5* 
DISPUTED FUNDAMENTALS.
preliminaries of the controversy, the incidental questions
which it opened might have been made to aid in clearing
much of its perplexity, instead of serving, as they did, to
distract and confound, to irritate and to mislead, many
readers on both sides. And after all it is found that the
two parties still have bonds of union. They accord in
their theories of church institution and organization,
against Romanists, Prelatists, and Presbyterians. They
cherish many sacred sympathies, memories, and historical
associations, precious and venerable to both alike. Alike
they cling to the revelation of God by Jesus Christ, to
the Scriptures as a rule of faith, and to many common
Christian convictions and experiences. They agree, too,
upon a great many points of Christian doctrine which
the Unitarians regard as, in fact, the fundamentals of
Christian doctrine. As, however, these points, which to
us are fundamental, though they are also admitted as
such by the Orthodox, are by them connected with disputed doctrines, and are sometimes made subsidiary in
vital importance to other doctrines, our real accordance
in fundamentals with that party passes for but little.
But as regards the three doctrines which we have already
defined, the two parties are at variance; distinctly and
positively opposed to each other. The controversy which
commenced in the supposition of a great many other differences, as well as in the recognition of these three, while
it has sunk or harmonized the others, has emphasized
these. According to the side which any one may espouse
on each or all of the three Christian doctrines relating to
the Nature and the State of Man, the relation between
Christ and God, and the Atonement, will he define his
own position as to this controversy.
We now propose to gather up the results of a long
discussion, as they bear upon the first of these doctrines.
The first point on which Unitarian sentiment is found
to be in positive and entire antagonism with the Stand
54 
TERMS OF THE CONTROVERSY.
ards of Orthodoxy, is that which concerns the Nature
and the State of Men as responsible creatures of God.
Let us start with a frank understanding of our ground.
Unitarians do not affirm that human beings are born
holy; nor that the original elements of human nature are
free from germs which grow and develop, if unrestrained,
into sin; nor that no disadvantage has accrued to all the
race of Adam from his disobedience, and from all the accumulations of wickedness that have gathered for ages
in the world into which we are introduced. Unitarians
do not deny that all men are actually sinners, needing
the renewing grace and the forgiveness of God, dependent upon the Gospel of Christ as a remedial and redeeming religion, and having no other hope than that
which Christ offers. Unitarians do not deny the great
mystery which invests sin and evil, nor profess to have
any marked advantage over Orthodoxy in looking back
of that mystery or in dealing with it. But Unitarians do
deny positively, and with all the earnestness of a sincere
and solemn conviction, that the original Calvinistic doctrine (or any subsequent modification of that doctrine
which has the authority of an accredited formula with
the party) concerning the Nature and the State of Man,
is either a Scriptural or a Christian doctrine.
Let it be remembered that we are dealing with a coiltroversy whose present aspect refers us back to its early
form and shape if we would judge intelligently of its
character. It is essential, therefore, that we define very
clearly one of the paramount conditions of the controversy when it opened, in order that we may appreciate
its original elements. We have already said that the
Unitarians understood and avowed that they were assailing, - not the undefined and modified semblance now
called Orthodoxy, - but Calvinism which had expressed
itself in positive formulas, and to which the Orthodox
party professed an unqualified and unequivocal allegiance.
55 
THE TRUE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE.
Since the controversy opened, Orthodoxy, being restless
under each and all of the dogmatic statements in the
creed of the three doctrines to which it committed itself,
has exhibited its uneasiness in continual efforts to modify
and qualify its formulas.  Some of its disciples, feeling,
precisely as our first Unitarians felt, a shrinking reluctance against the plain literal meaning of the creed, and
knowing that they could not accept it as "the Fathers"
held it, and yet fearing to commit themselves to our theology, have tried in various ways, with an amazing exercise of ingenuity, to soften and dilute the creed. Especially on this one doctrine of the complete original depravity of human nature have there been endless variations
and shadings of opinion. Therefore we must keep in view
what the doctrine was,- what it is now in the creed,as defining the doctrine which the Unitarians assailed
and denied. The original, substantial Calvinistic doctrine on this point we find, of course, in Calvin's works,
- who received his views essentially from Augustine,and in the formulas which professedly Calvinistic writers
and authorities have advanced.
Professor Norton, in a tract entitled "Thoughts on
True and False Religion," had represented Calvinism as
a "religion which teaches that God has formed men so
that they are by nature wholly inclined to all moral evil;
that he has determined in consequence to inflict upon
the greater part of our race the most terrible punishments, and that, unless he has seen fit to place us among
the small number of those whom he has chosen out of
the common ruin, he will be our eternal enemy and infinite tormentor; that having hated us from our birth, he
will continue to exercise upon us for ever his unrelenting
and omnipotent hatred." The writer referred any one
who wished to examine this scheme to the Institutes of
Calvin, and to the perfected development of it in the
works of the Westminster Assembly. Here certainly 
MR. NORTON AND THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR.
there could be no question as to what form of Orthodoxy
Mr. Norton was impugning: it was, distinctively, Calvinism.
The  Christian Spectator, an Orthodox journal published at New Haven, in its number for May and June,
1822, quoted the above language of Mr. Norton, and refleeted upon it with extreme severity of tone and epithet,'
accusing the writer of first distorting, and then stigmatizing as blasphemny, doctrines which had been received
by a large proportion of intelligent and devout Christians.
The reviewer in the Spectator added further, that the
views portrayed by Mr. Norton had "never been taught
or professed extensively, as fundamental doctrines of
Christianity: that there never was a sect or body of
men, denominated Christian, who would not reject this
system as false and injurious, if presented to them as
their creed: that there never was an individual author
of any celebrity or influence, who ever taught or undertook to defend such doctrines; and that neither' the Institutes of Calvin,' nor'the works of the Westminster
Assembly,' nor any of the Protestant Confessions of
Faith, and, least of all, the Confessions of those to whom
he intended it should be applied, contain doctrines which
are fairly represented by any clause of the foregoing
extract."
Mr. Norton, feeling his reputation as an honest man
to be insulted by this direct assault upon his integrity,
addressed a caustic letter to the editor of the Christian
Spectator, the insertion of which in the pages of that journal he claimed as his right. In this letter he made a series
of quotations from Calvin, from the works of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and from President Edwards, fully and triumphantly proving all his points and
disproving those of his reviewer, either by the positive assertions made in these quotations, or by the irresistible
inferences to be drawn in perfect fairness from them. We
57 
58    MR. NORTON AND THE CHRISTIAN SPECTATOR.
admit that these extracts, when arranged and summed
up in their doctrines, present a most shocking portraiture
of Calvinism. We do not wonder that an Orthodox
man should shrink from them with mingled feelings of
horror and indignation, or that he should avail himself of
all the skill of evasive dialectics and subtle metaphysics
to find relief.
The editor of the Spectator declined to insert this letter,
on the ground of its containing some "reproachful and
menacing expressions," but promised to publish its substance if these were "purged" out of it.  Still, though
the editor refused to allow Mr. Norton to address his own
reply to the readers of the Spectator, he proceeded to
make a very imperfect and unfair representation of the
contents of the letter, and, by garbled, partial, and perverted quotations from the authorities in the case, to endeavor to set aside the overwhelming evidence adduced
by Mr. Norton in support of his positions. Mr. Norton
therefore published his letter, with the remarks of the
Spectator upon it, in the Christian Disciple for July and
August, 1822, and added some further comments of his
own. The utmost that his reviewer had effected was to
show that Calvinistic authorities contained some contradictory and inconsistent passages. Of this fact Mr.
Norton, of course, was well aware, but it was no concern
of his to disprove it. He convicted his reviewer, however, of absolute misrepresentation in a professed quotation from Calvin; of a poor quibble in applying the
words "creation of nature" to the divine endowment
with which each of us enters upon existence, when Calvin had used them only of the nature created in Adam;
and of confounding an issue of metaphysics concerning
the doctrine of necessity.   There Mr. Norton left the
matter, as well he might.
It is only with pain and regret that at this distance of
time a Christian of any denomination can review this 
ORTHODOXY EVADING CALVINISM.
episode in the controversy.  Candor and justice, however, demand that we record our deep and unrelieved
sense of the disingenuousness to which recourse was
had on the Orthodox side in this issue. How can there
be serious or useful discussion where there is such artifice, such evasion practised in asserting and denying, in
shifting one's ground, in disputing the authority of the
very authorities first appealed to, and in denying the fairest inferences from dogmatic statements?  Mark  the
startling inconsistency between passages from the two
attacks on Mr. Norton in the Spectator, as the second of
them gives up the very point assumed in the first, and
wholly abandons the original ground of the controversy.
The Spectator first wrote thus:  "We  are often compelled to complain, that the opponents of Calvinism never
fairly attack its doctrines, as they are stated by Calvin
himself, or exhibited in the creeds of the churches, or the
writings of the authors who bear his name."   But after
Mr. Norton had given a most scholarly and thorough answer to this plea, the same editorial pen, or authority,
which had so recently sanctioned the above statement,
was compelled -it is a sad revelation to make - to
write or to sanction the following: "What Calvin believed and taught, and what any modern Calvinistic authors have taught, are questions of no real importance in
the present discussion, any further than their opinions
are proved to be prevalent in our own country." What
an astounding inconsistency!
But why, - it may be asked,-  why should we hold
the Orthodox to the very form of words which was chosen,
centuries ago to express a doctrine the terms of which
have since been modified?  We answer, that we do this
in order to meet the claims of historical truth and justice,
and in order that we may clearly understand that of
which we are speaking. The question does not, at this
stage of it, concern the qualifications and abatements
59 
EVASION OF THiE FORMULAS.
which in recent years may have been made of this doctrine of Orthodoxy. Unitarianism may or may not oppose these deviations and reductions. But at the opening of the controversy it was the real Calvinistic doctrine
which was assailed, -the doctrine of the Westminster
Assembly's Catechism which our fathers had accepted,the doctrine of the New England Confession of Faith,
which our churches sent forth in 1680. Fifty years ago
the Orthodox began to complain, and they have ever
since complained, that Unitarians misrepresented them
in charging upon them "in this neighborhoods' a shape
of Orthodoxy which had been held by Calvinists of a
former age, and which survived only in other parts of this
country. And here we must be pardoned for giving
frank expression to a disagreeable truth.  There seems
to Unitarians to be something evasive and very unworthy in the pleas with which the Orthodox have met ourexposures of what we regard as the errors of their system.
They censure us and deny us the Christian name because
we reject their creed; and when, with the best faculties
which we possess for analyzing that creed, we attempt to
state the reasons why-we reject it, they proceed to tell us
that they themselves do not hold the creed in what is to
us its plain signification. We have endeavored to state
fairly its essential doctrines, and the honest, unexagger
ated inferences which logically flow from them. But no
statement which we can make of the system is ever
allowed by the Orthodox to be fair; some private qualifications which they attach to it in their own minds, and
of which we have no means of knowing or judging,
justify them, as they think, in charging us with misrepresentation.  Now some Unitarians, no doubt, have made
caricatures of Orthodoxy, and have aimed to load it with
offensive, shocking, and blasphemous conditions. These
exaggerators of the hideousness of Orthodoxy on our side
correspond in temper and spirit, if not in tone, with those
60 
" THE FAITH OF THE FATHERS."
among our opponents whose delight is in stating Unita rianism at its mninimum of every substance and effect, save
those of pride and chilliness. But there have been can did and truth-loving men among us, and when such had
tried their best to set forth their conceptions of Calvinism
at one or more points, indorsing their statements with
the testimony as to what had once been taught them and
believed by them, the remonstrance was raised, " You are
bearing false witness; you are ridiculing us."
Let it therefore be again repeated, Unitarianism op posed and still opposes the Calvinistic doctrine of the
entailed corruption of human nature in all our race as the
punishment of Adam's guilt. Nor did the Unitarians
err in addressing their arguments against that authoritativ      e   statement of Calvinism which is given in the Ortho dox creeds. The Orthodox wished to have the praise,
they   claimed the honorable and grateful repute, of" adhering to the faith of the fathers of New England."'
They claimed also the exclusive inheritance of the old
piety,  on t    he score of holding its doctrinal standards.
Was not the assertion repeated by them even to wearines s,  t       oo often certainly to be regarded as a mere empty
boast, "        We hold the doctrines of the Reformation, the
doctrines  of t he fathers of New  England"?   Now  the
Calvinistic doctrines were held heartily and firmly, and
without subterfuges of metaphysics, by the fathers of
New England. Their professed successors cannot enjoy
at the same time the honor of holding their opinions and
the privilege of changing them. We are ready to grant
to the Orthodox the fullest benefit of all the modifications
of this doctrine which the most ingenious man among
them is able to devise. But we must urge that these
modifications all accrue to our side, as they relax and
soften and qualify the sternness of our old foe, and are
kyielded or availed of for the sake of mitigating the repulsiveness of the original doctrine. When Orthodoxy iden
6
61 
62      THE CALVINISTI6 DOCTRINE OF THE FALL.
tifies itself with Calvinism, we, of course, must confront
and oppose Calvinism. When Calvinism, with its teeth
drawn, and its claws filed, and its horns lowered, and its
hoofs covered, has tamed itself down into something
called Orthodoxy, we shall first look at the thing from a
safe distance, to judge how near it is best to come to it,
and with what weapons we must be provided.  How
long actually it will take Calvinism really to transform
itself into an angel of light, it is impossible to say. Time
and truth have had a wonderful effect upon its visage,
but its old trust-deeds, proclamations, and formulas are
unalterable.
Here then is the doctrine which Unitarians understood
that they were opposing. We quote from the sixth
chapter of the Confession of Faith of the New England
Churches.
" God having made a covenant of works and life thereupon,
with our first parents, and all their posterity in them, they being
seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, did wilfully
transgress the law of their creation, and break the covenant in
eating the forbidden fruit. By this sin they, and we in them,
fell from original righteousness and communion with God, and
so became dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and
parts of soul and body. They being the root, and by God's appointment standing in the room and stead of all mankind, the
guilt of this sin was imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed to
all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.
From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to
all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions. This corruption
of nature during this life doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified,
yet both itself and all the motions thereof are truly and properly
sin. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression
of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, doth in its
own nature bring guilt upon the sinner, whereby he is bound
over to the wrath of God and curse of the law, and so made sub.
ject to death, with all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal." 
TIIE BASIS OF CALVINISTIC THEOLOGY.
The Shorter Catechism of the Assembly, which also
had been formally recognized by our churches, and was
taught to all our children, advances the same doctrine on
the same grounds, and tells us that " All mankind, by the
fall [of Adam], lost communion with God, are under his
wrath and curse, and so made liable to all the miseries
of this life, to death itself, and to the pains of hell for
ever."
We purposely abstain from adding to these authoritative statements of doctrine any quotations from approved
Calvinistic writers, which follow it out into its revolting
and blasphemous details.  We  think that the hideous
and yet perfectly consistent speculations and representations made by Edwards, to set forth the horrors of helltorments, the anguish of the reprobate who suffer them,
and the exquisite happiness which the " righteous" derive from contemplating them, have done their service in
controversy. It only aggravates our opponents if we
renew those fearful delineations. We are content to follow the doctrine as nakedly presented in the formula.
This is the doctrine which by profession one hundred
years ago, and in sober sincerity two hundred years ago,
underlaid the theology -the Calvinistic, the Orthodox
theology -of New England. It was made the startingpoint of the Christian system. It decided the terms of relation and duty, of accountability, judgment, and doom,
in which men stood to God. It was made to establish the
necessity and the method of redemption by an infinite
sacrifice to God, designed to serve as a substitute with
God for the sufferings of men.  When Unitarians brought
this doctrine into prominence, and made its positive, literal assertions, and the legitimate logical inferences from
them, a ground for repudiating such theology, an alternative was presented to the Orthodox party. It offered them
a choice between two honest and manly methods of pursuing the controversy in allegiance to simple truth, and
63 
MINOR CONTROVERSIES OPENED.
with an entire security against those odious passions and
recriminations which entered into it. The one method
would have held them to a candid allowance that they
were pledged to that doctrine, with all the legitimate logical inferences which of course must be admitted to result
from it as the basis of a system; and to a resolute, unswerving, and unabashed support of it against all opposition. The other method would have dictated to them
to state frankly any abatement or qualification under
which they might wish to accept the doctrine, and to insist upon their right so to modify it, and to be made answerable for only a mitigated form of the doctrine. But
instead of following either of these methods, the disputants on the Orthodox side endeavored to devise a third
method, fashioned from some of the proper elements of
the other two, yet lacking, in our judgment, the candor
and truthfulness of both of them.   A profession was
made of holding ill all loyalty and confidence the faith of
the Fathers; a confession was very reluctantly drawn out,
that that faith was accepted only through certain undefined abatements made of it by a new philosophy of doctrine. We have read much of the controversial literature
of the half-century, but we have not met with one single
page which boldly meets the real issue opened by such a
plea for Calvinism as would have been offered two hundred years ago. The very best proof possible that Orthodoxy did not at least understand the ground it had
undertaken to occupy, and was consequently in danger
of putting at risk and yielding something of what it was
trying to defend, is offered us in the following curious
fact, - that, in conducting the controversy with us, Orthodoxy opened controversies in its own ranks that have
never yet been decided or pacified.  "The Spirit of the
Pilgrims" was established to do battle with Unitarians.
But just midway in its series of volumes, the reader will
find that it allowed us a breathing spell, while it occu
64 
ORTHODOX DISSENSIONS.
pied its pages with the doctrinal contentions in its own
household, which at once arose when Orthodoxy undertook its own defence. Drs. Taylor, Tyler, Beecher, and
Woods address each other, as well as ourselves, in those
pages.
Dr. Woods, who aimed for candor and courtesy in his
argument, realized the necessity of making a distinct
avowal on this point; and he was the first writer of ability
on his side who yielded to the pressure of the Unitarian
exposition of Calvinism by itself. He therefore wrote as
follows: "If there is any principle respecting the moral
government of God which the Orthodox clergy in New
England earnestly labor to inculcate, it is this: that, as
accountable beings, we have a conscience and a power of
knowz'ng and performing our duty. Our zeal in defence
of this principle has been such as to occasion no small
umbrage to some, who are attached to every feature and
every phraseology of Calvinism. On this subject there
is, in fact, a well-known difference between our views,
and those of some modern, as well as more ancient
divines, who rank high on the side of Orthodoxy.'"*
How those who, according to the creed just quoted, are
"wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and
body," and "disabled, and made opposite to all good,"
have still "a power of knowing and performing their duty,"
Dr. Woods does not attempt to show. The difference,
therefore, by his own statement, between those who held
his views, and the true Calvinists, is, that he tried to hold
to Calvinism and to something utterly inconsistent with
Calvinism.  No wonder that "zeal in defence of this
principle" occasioned "no small umbrage."
Thus it was that, the moment a decided opposition
was raised by Unitarians to this Calvinistic doctrine,
those who came forward to vindicate it began to evade
* Letters to Unitarians, p. 130.
6*
65 
DOCTRINAL STANDARDS.
its full force. They shrank from facing it; they shrink
from it now: they try to soften it. A hair's breadth of
relief from the pressure of the doctrine has been held as
a blessing by those who have argued in its defence. We
might try to present here a series of the ingenious or
futile, the actual or only apparent modifications, and at tempted modifications, of this Calvinistic doctrine. But
some of them are unintelligible to ourselves, and others
of them which we think we understand we know we
could not make intelligible to our readers. By and by
we must refer to some of them. We must not, however,
leave an impression that, singly or together, they give
much relief. They are of service to us, as showing a
constant uneasiness under any form in which the old
doctrine has as yet been presented, and as indicating how
trifling a relaxation of its old terms will be welcomed as
a comfort.
The doctrine still stands, however, unchanged in word,
unrelaxed in authority, in the formulas of Orthodox
churches. Still is the repute of holding the faith of the
Fathers claimed by those who are called Orthodox. The
Westminster Catechism and Confession are the standards
of the American Presbyterian Church. The New Eng land Confession is the doctrinal foundation of the Say brook Platform, which was re-adopted by the General As sociation of Connecticut in SO1810. The Reformed Dutch
Church uses the Confession of Faith of the Synod of Dort,
which certainly does not soften this one Calvinistic doc trine. We know, too, that those who formed and phrased
, these standards held this doctrine with an unflinching
steadfastness, in the boldness and fearlessness of which
they seem even to have found a trifle of merit on their own
part, while they never shrank from the most unrelieved
statement of the doctrine. And this is the doctrine which
Unitarianism rejected, positively, and without qualifica tion, concession, or tolerance; asserting that it is not
66 
THE TESTS OF DOCTRINE.
taught in the Bible, but'is utterly inconsistent with the
teachings of that book; that it dishonors God by ascribing to him a method arbitrary, unjust, and wholly subversive of all righteous law; that it wrongs human nature,
destroys moral responsibility, corrupts the Christian system, unsettles morality, and leads to infidelity and irreligion. This is the ground of opposition, and these are
the terms of it which Unitarianism recognized at the
opening of the controversy. Unitarianism has held its
ground without misgiving or compromise. Unitarianism
means to hold its ground, — no more and no less than its
ground, —on this matter of doctrine. Its courage and assurance and confidence have steadily increased, as it has
realized its own strength and the weakness of its antagonist on this doctrine of the entail on all the human race,
on account of the sin of one man, of a corrupted nature,
which must work corruption in this life, and which is
sentenced to the torments of hell for ever.
When the human mind calmly and deliberately, without bias, but with all the seriousness of which it is capable, brings itself to confront that doctrine, two great tests
will present themselves for trying its truth. IHow does it
consist with faith in a God of adorable attributes, a
Being of infinite wisdom, power, and benevolence?
IHow has the preaching of it affected the great mass of
those to whom it has been taught, in persuading them
to believe it, and in impressing them with any sense
of its appalling significance corresponding to its terrific threatenings?   It is impossible for any  active
mind to repress its own instinctive impulse to apply
these two great tests to the doctrine. Indeed, the irresistible evidence furnished by any fair inquiry through
the second test, as it presents us with matters of practical
experience, is so conclusive against this doctrine, that we
are content with simply asserting, without any argument,
that the doctrine cannot abide the first test. The utter 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL.
unconcern, the blank sense of unreality, with which the
vast mass of human beings have heard that doctrine
preached and taught, has proved it to be in fact but little
better than a bugbear. It is to be remembered that our
churches here were constituted at first of men and women who had been picked out as already believers of the
doctrine; but as soon as they had descendants, and the
increase of population had brought society into that state
of mixed and various elements which is natural under
ordinary,circumstances, the doctrine became a fable to a
larger number of persons than those to whom it was a
truth. Indeed, the preaching of the doctrine never excited the dread in any one of our communities which
attended merely the apprehension of a visitation of the
small-pox. But, in the mean while, what was the influence of the theoretical truth and authority of this doctrine
upon all the best interests of religion among  us?  It
caused an untold amount of unbelief and indifference
and irreligion.
Consider, now, how appalling and crushing is this old
Calvinistic dogma. God fashioned this globe as the
habitation of a race of his own intelligent creatures, of
beings made in his likeness and gifted with his inspiration. God then staked the issue as to the nature, the
character, the experience, and the doom of all the uncounted millions to be born here "by ordinary generation," through all ages, upon a single act of the first pair
who represented humanity on this fresh earth. God was
thwarted in his purpose at the very start. His first two
children acted for all his children, and by the deed of a
moment, instigated not by any evil inclination of their
own, - for by the theory they were created holy,-  but
by the subtlety of a wicked spirit, consigned themselves
and all their posterity to the dread pit of torments.
Human reason instantly suggests, if God was so early
thwarted in his plan because the constitution of those
68 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE FALL.
two beings, with their state of exposure to Satan, brought
them so instantaneously to ruin, why did he not at once
cut short the growth from a corrupted stock, forbid the
mischief to extend even into one more generation, and
create a second pair? If the doctrine be true, we enter
upon life at a dreadful disadvantage. As the famous Dr.
Bellamy frankly affirmed, in full consistency with his
creed, "Mankind were by their fall [meaning by their,
Adam's] brought into a state of being infinitely worse
than not to be." * We as frankly own, that Unitarians can
say nothing worse of this doctrine than one of its own
defenders said of it in that sentence. And yet we should
even now be met with the old charge of misrepresentation, if by way of construction and inference from that
assertion we should say, that Dr. Bellamy admitted that
all the power which God has exerted in the creation of
all human beings since the first two, has resulted in something infinitely worse than would have been a perfect
blank of non-existence.   Our patrimony is all spent.
The portion of our father's goods which would have
fallen to us was all squandered by our eldest brother.
Scripture tells us that there is a curse upon the fields of
our labor; but Calvin has gone beyond the Scripture,
which cursed neither Adam  nor Eve, and has taught us
that there is a curse upon the soul of every infant, even
while it is in the womb. The prospect, the hope, the
elating, spurring motive of a possible charm and blessing
in existence, is destroyed for us by a foregone conclusion
at our birth. Tell a young man, in the prime of his manhood, that, as'his father died leaving unpaid debts, he
must give up all the fruits o his own toil till those debts
are discharged, and the buoyancy of youth and a filial
sentiment may perhaps bear him cheerfully through the
sacrifice. Tell a young man, that his father was bound
* Works, Vol. I. p. 333.
I
69 
T]HE GOD OF THE BIBLE.
at his death by an unfulfilled contract, and manly honor
may induce the son to complete it. Or tell that young
man, that his deceased parent died in a penitentiary
where he had spent but half of the years for which he
was sentenced, and that he, the son, must go in and
serve out the sentence. Possibly, even then, a loyalty to
the laws of a community, which, as they secure to a son
his father's property, might also impose a father's obligations, might induce the son  to acquiesce  uncom plainingly in the hard exaction. But tell us, all who live,
or ever have lived, or ever shall live, of the race of Adam,
that we accede to the obligations of one of his debts which
there is no paying by all our labors, - that we are held to
a contract which we never have made, and which God,
one of the parties to it, has discharged himself from keeping according to its original terms with us, whom he has
nevertheless compelled to be the other party to it, -and
that while we are yet in the womb a transfer is made  to
us of an endless sentence in the pit of hell; - tell us all
this, and what heart of man, what hope, what faith, can
face it, as the appointment of a just God? A child has
to be taught that doctrine. And what a lesson it is for
a father or a mother to teach to a child, -to teach, too,
as a doctrine of the Bible, the will of God!
We read in that Bible of Jehovah and of Baal. The
book leaves us at perfect liberty, -indeed, it asks us to
choose either of those beings as our God. By what
ground of choice do we take Jehovah, and not Baal, for
our Deity, to believe in, to worship, to love?  Our choice
is not decided by the words, the names, applied to the
one or the other of those delies, but by the character, the
dealings, the purposes, ascribed to each of them. We
choose the ONE who is to be loved, to be revered, because
of his holiness, his justice, his righteousness, his benignity.  And so reason enters its protest against that doctrine. For there is a certain test principle within us, call
70 
THE BASIS OF FAITH IN THE BIBLE.
it reason, judgment, or by whatever name we will, which
we must apply at least in first accepting the Bible on the
score of what it contains.  There is no denying that rea son, the highest gift of God to us, is shocked by that
doctrine. Even the defenders of the doctrine allow this.
Dr. Dwight says, "Perhaps no doctrine is more reluctantly received by the human mind."'*  Even if the doctrine were plainly and positively taught in a Bible, the
issue would then be, Does that Bible authenticate the
doctrine'? or, Does that doctrine disprove and nullify the
claims of the Bible? We feel no hesitation in affirming,
that a Bible which advanced that doctrine would divest
itself of the first and all-essential proof from its contents
that it came from inspiration of God, and would throw
upon all the other elements of such proof a burden
which it is almost inconceivable that they could bear.
Below this and all similar discussions as to Scripture
doctrine, lies a question, which, although it may be uncandidly and unfairly presented or arrayed, must be honorably allowed its full pertinence and propriety; namely,
Does the system of doctrine taught in the Bible conform
itself to, or outrage, the highest and purest exercise of the
natural abilities which God has given to his creatures
for interpreting a revelation from him? Are we driven
to the alternative of living wholly without God, without
faith, or of conforming our faith to a shocking and unreasonable representation of God and his ways? Does
the Bible teach such a scheme as those who wish to
have. its help in a right and holy life can accept? If it
does not, it will be classed with the Shasters, the Vedas,
and the Koran. Theologians of all parties and sects
may assure themselves that this is henceforward the real
issue on trial before the world. And the parties for trying that issue are not a few classes of theological stu
* Sermon XXIX.
71 
REASON AND REVELATION.
dents, trained under professional influences, made to
cramp the natural processes of their minds by subtle
metaphysical speculations, and taught to infuse the pure
zeal of earnest hearts for evangelizing the world into a
strained allegiance to a creed which the heart repudiates.
No! Not one in a score of those whom Orthodoxy addresses with this dogma accepts it, believes it, or does
otherwise than loathe it. Let Orthodoxy regard, before
it is too late, that trial of its dogmas which the other
nineteen out of every twenty of those who listen to it are
making.  Dr. Woods  says: "Without supposing that
Unitarians have a preconceived opinion which they wish
to support, I am not able to account for it, that they
should interpret the word of God as they do."* It is
even so.  Unitarians, we are free to confess, have a preconceived opinion, though it is by no means confined to
avowed Unitarians. It is only by and through the help
of that preconceived opinion that we are able or disposed
to take the first step towards receiving the Bible as in
any sense "the word of God," and not the word of Baal.
The preconceived opinion which we possess and exercise
is just as much a revelation from God as anything that
Prophet or Apostle ever wrote; and revelation was given
to add something more to it, not to mock and outrage
and deny it. The same Andover theologian, in addressing Unitarians previously (Letter IV.) had written: "We
have nothing to do with the question, how the common
doctrine of depravity can consist with the moral perfection of God." But, it may be asked, in what way,
through what means and processes, are we persuaded of
"the moral perfection of God"?  Certainly not through
a doctrine which is utterly inconsistent with all the instincts and perceptions which God has given us.  Would
Dr. Woods maintain, that we have the means of assuring
* Works, Vol. IV. p. 271.
72 
THE GROUNDS OF DOCTRINAL BELIEF.
to ourselves the perfection of the Deity, wholly apart from
the study of his methods in nature and revelation?
Would he maintain, that by these supposed means we
can so convince ourselves of that sublime truth, that no
amount of injustice or cruelty attributed to God would
either shake our faith in him, or bring into doubt the
record of an alleged revelation which so impugned his
equity? The methods of the Divine government cannot
be distinguished so positively from the attributes of the
Deity, as to leave our confidence in his moral perfection
unimpaired by the slightest deviation from absolute equity in his dealings with us.
The question will naturally present itself to many
minds, How have men ever been made able or willing to
accept this doctrine?  How  have  they overcome  the
shrinking reluctance of their own reason at a doctrine
which they supposed was taught in the Bible? Why
did they not rather discredit the Bible, than accept the
doctrine? Much might be said in reply to this question.
If we had space and motive for its thorough discussion,
we should raise a doubt whether the doctrine ever had
been really and intensely believed by any large number
of intelligent persons. We are aware that this assertion
will provoke one of those positive, protesting affirmations,
that millions of pious Christians have heartily believed
the doctrine. We are willing to admit that they thought
they believed it. But this is very far from satisfying us
that all, or even the larger part, of those who have nominally professed to hold this doctrine, have ever grasped
and wrestled with its appalling horrors, and, after stoutly
and intelligently pursuing it by the logic of its antecedents and its consequences, have yielded to an entire
persuasion that it is the truth of God. If it be said that
millions of the believers in the Molochs and Juggernauts
of heathenism have. held, without misgiving, doctrines of
a similar character concerning their gods, we reply that
7
73 
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.
there is an unspeakable difference between the two classes
of believers, - the Christian and the heathen, - as indicated by the whole of their respective religions. Heathenism is self-consistent. Its doctrines harmonize with each
other, and one who accepts a portion of them can accept
the rest. But a Christian who professes to believe this
doctrine, that a corrupted nature, which dooms us all to
unending torments, has been entailed upon us by ordinary generation on account of the sin of Adam, is compelled to receive it in connection with Scripture doctrines
of the Divine justice and benignity, and of human individuality in duty and responsibility, which are totally and
irreconcilably inconsistent with it. So we infer that his
belief must necessarily be mistrustful, wavering, and not
fully assured. Whether it be a fact that most, if not all, of
the men and women who have professed to believe this
doctrine have had the effort of belief facilitated to them
by the assurance that, through some remedial process of
free grace, they had been delivered personally from the
terrific sweep of the doctrine, is a suggestion which we
do not care to follow out. Any one who could believe
this doctrine concerning all his race the more readily, because, without any merit of his own, he was rescued from
its eternal sentence, would be a monster of selfishness.
Those who have professed and have tried, successfully or otherwise, to believe this doctrine, have held it
on the ground of the  " sovereignty of God."   They
have referred it to the dread and irresistible prerogative
of that Being who has a right to fashion clay to honor or
to dishonor, to do what he will and as he will with his
creatures, and who doubtless will be able to vindicate
his justice, even to those who call it injustice.  In stern
loyalty to that view of the sovereignty of God, sincere
and pious men and women have choked down the risings
of a spirit rebelling against this doctrine.
It is plain that only the most positive authority and
74 
ADAM AN INDIVIDUAL MAN.
the most explicit testimony could lead us even to enter tain such a doctrine as having a claim on our thoughts.
It is but little to say that the authority, the tesLimony
adduced for the doctrine, are totally inadequate to sustain it.  The evidence adduced for it from the Scriptures is essentially drawn from a single passage in the
Old Testament, and a single passage in the New Testament.   There  are indeed many sentences scattered
over the Bible which are alleged as incidentally confirming and illustrating the doctrine. But its intelligent
believers will not deny that, were it not for the two passages which are supposed explicitly to assert it, the doctrine would not be claimed as a Bible doctrine.
The first of these two passages is the narrative in the
Book of Genesis, of the creation, the sin, and the punishment of Adam. Even if we interpret that narrative in
the most rigidly literal manner, we cannot find in it the
faintest intimation of the doctrine of the Westmrinster
Catechism. Not one word is said in the narrative to
imply that the sin of Adam passed over to his own children even, much less to all his posterity. It is not asserted that his act of sin corrupted his own nature even,
much less the nature with which God, for all time to
come, would endow his posterity. What a stupendous
interpolation does the creed force into the record, iii its
positive, but most false assertion, that Adam was acting
for all his posterity, and that he "stood in the room and
stead of all mankind," and that death for him means eternal torments for all his race! There is not a word of it in
the record. Adam is addressed as an individual, acting
by himself and for himself alone, and for no one except or
beyond himself.  " Thou shalt," and "Thou shalt not,"
is the emphatic announcement of his own unshared obligation and responsibility. The most literal interpretation
of the record confutes the creed.  But no one -  no, not a
single intelligent reader - confines himself to a strictly
75 
THE LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN NATURE.
literal interpretation 6f that narrative. Whatever be the
religious opinions of such a reader, he sees at once that
some allowance, more or less, must be made for the
Oriental imagery, the figures of speech, the rhetoric and
the drapery, of that concise record of a far-off age. 211
interpreters make such allowances, - not the same allowances, indeed, in matter and degree, but some allowances; they all depart from the letter of the narrative,
and explain it constructively and inferentially, the question between interpreters being, Which explanation is
the right one?
Every just and consistent claim of that narrative is
met when we regard it as giving a sketch of the workings and the experiences of humanity on this earth, in
an allegorical representation, by which an individual is
made to stand as a type of us all. Adam is and means
Man, and Adam's experience is representative of the experience of all human beings. We are all created as he
was. Human nature works in us as it worked in him.
We sin as he sinned; we suffer as he suffered; we die
as he died. We do not sin because he sinned, but as he
sinned; in like manner, since we have a like nature.  We
do not suffer because he sinned, but because we ourselves
sin. The narrative teaches us that a being constituted
as we are, - a type of humanity on the earth, - with our
endowments  and limitations of nature,-our balanced
powers and infirmities, subjected to the tenure and the
exposures of life here, would be capable of sinning and
liable to sin, - that he would sin, and that his sin would
subject him to labor and sorrow and death. This is the
solemn, yet not unreasonable, doctrine of the narrative.
It is sufficiently serious and overshadowing in the dismay
and awe which it casts over us. Yet we accept the lesson in all its solemnity, and would not trifle with a letter which is used in conveying it to us. It {vould be
invested with an unrelieved gloom to us, did not the nar
76 
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF MAN.
rative immediately connect with this typical representation of the workings of the experiment of humanity, the
promise of continued aid, and of mercy and blessing and
redemption from God. So far is the narrative from
asserting that the personal sin of Adam entailed a vitiated nature on his posterity, that it expressly tells us that
one of the two sons of Adam was righteous and approved
of God. But supposing even that the original human
stock had been corrupted in Adam, the flood was designed to secure a new and purified stock, and the progenitor in that hope, in whom it is written that the world
had a new start, was "righteous Noah," while all human
beings, save himself and his family, were cut off. It is
written, "Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations; and Noah walked with God." (Genesis vi. 9.)
His family started afresh, with a new blessing from God:
"And God blessed Noah and his sons." Why then, if
character is propagated from a parent, - why did not
Noah propagate a pure stock?
That one narrative of Adam in and out of Paradise is
the only passage in the Old Testament which can be
alleged as recognizing in any way our connection with
his personal sin or Fall. Not another sentence, not another line in all the elder Scriptures, ever makes the
slightest reference to the subject. No oracle, vision,
chronicle, proverb, or psalm recognizes the doctrine.
Not a single one of the inspired prophets of the Almighty to the Jews ever uttered, so far as we know, one
word implying that Adam acted for all his posterity,
ruined us all in his fall, and so foreclosed the trial of
existence for all who should ever live. Is not this an
amazing fact, -that those sacred oracles should be so
dumbly silent about a matter which is said to underlie
the whole doctrinal teaching of revelation!
One passage in the New Testament furnishes all the
substantial authority which the Gospel is supposed to
7*
77 
DOCTRINES OF REVELATION.
give to this doctrine. Not a word, however, can be
quoted from the Saviour's lips in recognition, still less as
an assertion, of the doctrine. The passage referred to is
not from the teaching of Christ, but from an argumentative letter of St. Paul. In the fifth chapter of the Epistle
to the Romans, we read an illustrative comment on the
narrative in Genesis,- not a new revelation of doctrine.
We find nothing in the Apostle's statement which conflicts with, but, on the contrary, everything to favor, the
view we have already derived from the earlier record. If
in the peculiar style or method of the Apostle's reasoning lie may seem to imply more than the record conveys
from which he quotes, that is a trace of a habit of his
which the intelligent interpreter of his writings meets
with in other places in his Epistles.  His words are: "As
by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned."
And this is saying, not that we all sin because our progenitor sinned, nor that we all die because he sinned,
but that, as the first man was a sinner and a mortal, so
we are all sinners and all mnortal; not because of a corrupt nature, but because of a human nature.
Yet it is said that this doctrine of a disabled nature
entailed upon us by ordinary generation finds support in
the whole system of revealed truth. We affirm that it is
wholly and at every point inconsistent with that system,
and with each of the doctrinal elements that enter into
it. It is not consistent with the attributes of God, as
WVise, and Good, and Righteous. To say that his whole
scheme was thwarted, and that one lapse of one individual ruined a race of beings, and visited upon the unborn
in endless succession the guilt of a sin to which they
were not parties, - to say this, will not harmonize with
the character of God. Some Orthodox writers'have presumed that they involved Unitarians in a dilemma, by
reminding us, that, though we assert that this doctrine of
78 
THE METHOD OF THE GOSPEL.
native depravity is not consistent with justice in our Creator, we still have to admit that the existence of Evil is
consistent with the attributes of that Being. But we do
not recognize the dilemma. The allowance of evil may
be a means of good for all men, but native depravity
must insure the ruin of untold millions. Dr. Woods'
speaks of "that vulgar charge, which contains too much
apparent truth to be directly denied, and yet too much
falsehood to be admitted, that we [the Orthodox] represent men to be as God made them, incapable of any
good till renewed by irresistible influence, irreversibly
appointed to destruction without any regard to their
sins." W5e will not use the word quibble in connection
with anything that seemed like an argument to Dr.
Woods.   We  must say, however, that the Westminster
creed asserts literally, positively, and fully of God, all that
Dr. Woods here repudiates. The loophole for escape,
however, lies in this plea, -that when we are born into
this world we are not what God made us, but what
Adam made us.
Again, this doctrine is inconsistent with what revelation teaches of the nature of man, as a free, moral, and
accountable being, capable of good and evil, living in
individual responsibility, never bearing the iniquity even
of his nearest in kin, nor having his teeth set on edge because his father had eateni sour grapes. It is inconsistent,
too, with the purpose of life, as an opportunity, a gift, a
fair trial, an unprejudiced experiment, and not a foregone
conclusion to each and every human being. The doctrine is inconsistent at every point with the Christian
scheme. The Calvinistic system, which teaches this doctrine, expressly affirms that the Gospel of Christ does not
save all men. So, according to this doctrine, the Christian remedy is not equal to meeting the disease entailed
* Works, Vol. IV. pp. 335, 336.
79 
ADAM AND CHIRIST.
upon our race. Adam did more of harm to our race than
Christ can do of benefit. God- for in the Calvinistic
scheme Christ is God - cannot wholly undo for the innocent the mischief wrought upon them by one of his
own creatures!  Well may the modern Calvinist object
to inferences fromn his doctrine, however rigidly fair the
logic by which they are drawn. Now St. Paul says that
the freegift of Redemption from God by Christ is more,
instead of less, than the oflence of sin by Adam; that
grace exceeds, rather than falls short of the occasion for it.
"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,"
is the Apostle's emphatic statement. But it cannot be
true in an economy under which a human being entails
sin and ruin upon his whole race, while a Divine Being
— the Redeemler -rescues only a portion of that race.
"Not as the offence," says St. Paul, "so also is the free
gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead,
much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, by
one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."
(Romans  v. 15.)   But is it so  by  the  Calvinistic
scheme? Look at it and see. Adam brought ruin upon
every one of his posterity.  "The guilt of his sin is imputed, and corrupted nature conveyed to all by ordinary
generation," says the creed. Adam, then, made shipwreck of the race. Christ saves individuals here and
there. The first pair could communicate their corrupted
nature to unborn millions; but Christian parents, regenerated, purified, and sanctified by Christ, cannot commnunicate their renewed nature to a single one in a large
family of their own children. It would be difficult, with
such a theology as this, to calculate by how much the
free gift is less than the offence. But our Orthodox
brethren must devise a more subtile philosophy than they
have yet invented, to rectify the loss on their side of the
balance by the excess on the Apostle's side. We cannot
but conclude that this doctrine, instead of being con
80 
IS GOD OR ADAM OUR CREATOR?
formed to the Christian system, is in utter discordance
with it. Sin has come in like an ocean tide, bearing all
before it; the Orthodox Gospel saves only here and
there a wreck from the dreary wastes of woe.
We must now fix our attention for a moment upon
one of the most odious features of this doctrine, because
it was there that the struggle against it was concentrated
by its opponents, and its professed believers began their
attempts at modifying it. Observe in the creed the assertion, made as positively and literally as language will
allow, that a corrupted nature is conveyed, by ordinary
generation, to all of Adam's posterity, in consequence of
his personal sin.  To an ingenuous mind this assertion
can convey but one idea. The lamentable shifts and
evasions and subtilties to which Orthodox theologians
have had recourse during the last half-century, in trying
to evade the plain meaning of this article of their creed,
are a scandal upon  our whole profession.  That we
ought to expect a long and sad reckoning to be visited
upon us, in a widely diffused unbelief, a distrust of religious teaching, and a general and dismal sense of unreality about theological dogmas, is but a looking for a
retribution the tokens of which are too evident to be
disputed. f this Orthodox doctrine is not a most shame.
ful trifling with solemnities, as well as with language, it
asserts that, by the constitution and appointment of God,
the one man Adam had the power to communicate a
vitiated nature, like an hereditary disease, not merely to
the bodies, but to the souls, of all human beings, and that
the possession of that vitiated nature disables us for anything good, and inclines us to all evil, involving us all in
guilt, and dooming us all to woe. This doctrine either
contradicts truth and reason, in affirming that any one
can'be a partaker in sin committed before his birth, or it
contradicts justice and righteousness, by subjecting-us to
punishment for the offence of another. Now the doctrine
81 
THE DAMNATION OF INFANTS.
of a sinful nature being propagated by bodily descent,
like an hereditary disease, is the most outrageous and
malignant form of materialism ever devised. It makes
man, instead of God, to be "the Father of Spirits."  And
what is the meaning of the phrase, a sinful nature?
Does not this assign to nature what can be assigned only
to character?  Would Orthodoxy persuade us that we
create our own nature? Would Orthodoxy transfer from
God  to Adam  the office of endowing  human  souls?
Character exhibits moral qualities, and within the range
of its freedom involves responsibility; but nature is an
original limitation and confine within which there is no
responsibility. A sinful action is a possibility, a sinful
nature is an impossibility.
An episode in the controversy upon the Scripture doctrine concerning the nature and the state of man, related
to the doom of those who died in infancy. We must
make  some reference to this episode, though it must
needs be brief.
The Christian Disciple for May and June, 1823, had
quoted the following sentences from Dr. Twiss, Prolocutor of the Westminster Assembly'  "In regard to those
who are condemned to eternal death solely on account of
original sin, their condemnation to eternal death is the
consequence of Adam's transgression alone. But many
infants depart this life in original sin, and consequently
are condemned to eternal death on account of original
sin alone; therefore the condemnation of many INFANTS to
ETERNAL DEATH is the consequence of Adam's transgression solely."  "Adamn's sin is made ours by the imputation of God; so that it has exposed INNUMERABLE INFANTS
to DIVINE WRATH, who were guilty of this sin, AND OF NO
OTHER." "There,"-adds the Disciple,-" we ask whether
any Unitarian ever attempted to color or exaggerate a
doctrine like this, -a doctrine taught in so many words
by the Prolocutor of the Assembly of Divines at West
82 
THE DAMNATION OF INFANTS.
minster, and by a thousand others,- a doctrine, more over, which follows necessarily from the Calvinistic sys tem, and which would now be insisted on by all real
and consistent Calvinists, if they thought their people
would bear it?" (p. 220.)  In an earlier volume of the
same periodical had occurred this sentence: " We suspect that Orthodox congregations are less accustomed
than formerly, to hear of infants being justly liable to the
eternal pains of hell."'  Dr. Lyman Beecher, in a note to
the seventh edition, published in 1827, of a sermon originally preached and printed in 1808, repelled as a calumny the charge that Calvinists believe and teach "the
monstrous doctrine that infants are damned." He asserted among other things, that, having lived fifty years,
"and been conversant for thirsty years with the most ap.
proved Calvinistic writers, he had never seen nor heard
of any book which contained such a sentiment." lHe
added: "And I would earnestly and affectionately recommend to all persons who have been accustomed to
propagate this slander, that they commit to memory
without delay the ninth commandment, which is,' Thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.'" The
Christian Examiner (Vol. lV. p. 431, for 1827) boldly
took up the implied challenge of Dr. Beecher, and positively affirmed that "the doctrine of infant damnation
has been expressly maintained by leading Calvinists, and
is connected with essential, vital principles of the Calvinistic system."  Then followed a series of articles in the
Examiner, and a series of letters by Dr. Beecher in the
Spirit of the Pilgrims, in exchange, not exactly of courtesies, but of arguments and testimonies, and of what were
designed for arguments and testimonies, on either side of
the issue thus opened. To say, as in the spirit of perfect
candor and full sincerity we are compelled to say, that
* Christian Disciple for 1819, p. 279.
83 
THE DAMNATION OF INFANTS.
Dr. Beecher was utterly and most ingloriously vanquished,
and that his opponent gained a complete and unquestionable victory,- to say this, while it affords us no pleasure whatever, may be accounted as only a partisan boast
on our part. If any one is inclined to judge, not us, but
our decision or opinion on this matter, we will be content with receiving his promise that he will read the articles referred to in the fourth and fifth volumes of the Christian Examiner.  Never, in our judgment, was there a more
fair, or thorough, or exhaustive, or decisive course of argument, authenticated at every point, brought to sustain an
assumed position in a matter of controversy, than may be
found in those papers.   The utmost that Dr. Beecher
could be induced to admit sustained only the assertion
already quoted by us from the Christiall Disciple, that Calvinism taught "that infants are justly liable to the pains
of hell." He acknowledged that, according to his creed,
"infants, by the imputation of Adam's sin, are depraved
and guilty, and on this account children of wrath, and exposed justly to future punishment." * He admitted it also
to be a doctrine of Calvinism, according to Turretin, " that
infants deserve damnation, because, though not subjects
of law as regards action, they are as regards disposition."
We  should have been fully content to have accepted
these admissions as a complete warrant for the assertion
that the doctrine of infant damnation "is connected with
vital, essential principles of the Calvinistic system." The
essence of the horrifying imputation which Calvinism
casts upon the Creator consists rather in ascribing to
him the making of dying infants liable to the doom of
hell, than in positively affirming that any infants suffer
that doom. The Westminster Catechism and the Newr
England Confession tell us that "Elect infants dying in
infancy are saved by Christ." But all the reserved and
* Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. I. p. 46.
84 
THIE DAMNATION OF INFANTS.
implied difference which there is between infants and
elect infants is certainly suggestive of a class of non-elect
infants, and if the distinction in the terms secures salva tion to the elect, it intimates perdition for the non-elect,
"dying in infancy."
If, besides drawing out these Orthodox allowances and
implications, Unitarianism had wished to repel the charge
of having invented this calumny against Orthodoxy or
Calvinism, a very few quotations like the following from
writers not on the Unitarian side would have sufficed.
Bishop Jeremy Taylor writes thus: " Gregorius Ari minensis, Driedo, Luther,  Melanethon, and Tilmanus
Heshusius, are fallen into the worst of St. Austin's [Au gustine's] opinion, and sentence poor infants to the
flames of hell for original sin, if they die before baptism." *
Rev. Thomas Stackhouse writes thus: "The Calvinists
carry the matter much farther [than the Schoolmen], asserting that original sin (besides an exclusion from heaven)
deserves the punishment of damnation; and therefore they
conclude that such infants as die unbaptized, and are
not of the number of the elect (which have always a particular exemption), are, for the transgression of our first
parents, condemned to the eternal torments of hell-fire.
It must be confessed that the doctrine of the Church of
England makes too near approaches to this opinion,
when it tells us that,' in every person born into the world,
original sin deserves God's wrath and damnation,' - for
the words seem to be too strong and express, to admit of
those mollifying constructions which some, by way of
apology, have thought proper to put upon them." t
While it would be the most hopeless of all tasks for a
Calvinist to attempt to iret aside the assertions quoted
from "leading Calvinists," beginning with Calvin him.
* Heber's Taylor, Vol. IX. p. 91.
t Body of Divinity, 1760, pp. 292, 293.
8
85 
THE MYSTERY OF SIN AND EVIL.
self, in proof that the damnation of some infants has been
expressly taught by them, it would be equally vain for
such an advocate to dispute the logical inference of the
doctrine from the Calvinistic system. How can the doctrine be kept out, as a consequence of that view of the
nature and the state of man which we have been examining as a matter of controversy?
We must now attempt to state, in terms as brief and
plain as is possible, the doctrinal position which Unitarianism has taken in rejecting this Calvinistic dogma of the
ruin of the human race by the sin of the first man, and
the consequent entail upon every human being of a depraved nature, the burden of which is guilt, the fruit of
which is sin, and the doom of which is eternal woe. It
can hardly be said that Unitarianism has fashioned any
dogma of its own upon this point. Like all other classes
of Christians, like all other serious thinkers, we are baffled by the original moral mystery involved in the existence or allowance of evil in the universe of God. The
solution of that mystery would be an essential condition
of any full and complete doctrinal formula as to the
source of sin in man's heart and life; but before that
mystery we bow in a bewildered amazement, and with
an oppressed spirit which cannot look for relief in this
stage and scene of our being. The great and leading
position which Unitarianism takes in antagonism with
the Calvinistic doctrine on this point is, that there must
be some other construction put upon the facts and the
arguments which are the materials for a theory, a construction radically opposed to that which Orthodoxy
gives them. Unitarianism lives upon the conviction, that
earth or heaven must afford same other explanation of
our frailty and sinfulness than the assertion that the
fruits of one man's disobedience are entailed upon all his
posterity.  Unitarianism lives upon the assurance that
there must be some other mode of representing the essen
86 
SATANIC AGENCY.
tial terms of the Divine government over us, than by including among them this of the propagation through
ordinary physical generation of a corrupted moral nature,
the possession and the exercise of which makes us guilty
before God. If God be the righteous legislator and judge
of every human soul, he cannot hold us amenable to a
higher standard than our natures will admit, nor visit
upon us a sentence for another's sin, nor extend our responsibility beyond the range of our individual ability. By
no effort of reasoning, and by no humbling restraint placed
upon our impulse to reason,- by no straining of the mind
to reach after truth above its grasp, and by no violent
crushing down of our rebellious remonstrances, - can
we reconcile the Calvinistic doctrine with our instinctive
or our educated conceptions of God, the Wise, the Omnipotent, the Righteous. If this mortal life of ours puts
us on trial for an eternity of conscious existence, no retributive results there can have in them the first element
of justice, unless we have had an unprejudiced start here.
Any disability of nature, any taint or bias or proclivity
which precedes the conscious exercise of our powers, becomes an infinite injustice to us when its consequences
are projected into a future state.
Yet Unitarianism recognizes the deep and the unsounded perplexities of this subject. No serious person
can ever think or speak otherwise than with a profound
and oppressive solemnity and dread about sin, the perversion and debasement of moral powers, the source of
unmeasured woe, the defying attitude of human beings
toward God. It is a relief to us to know that even the
Orthodox theory of it is compelled to recognize for sin
an origin or agency apart from the sphere of humanity,
in attributing the instigation of it to a Spirit of Evil. Still
Orthodoxy leaves wholly unexplained the alleged fact,
that the Good Spirit subjected the first pair, on -hlose
conduct the fate of uncounted millions of intelligent be
87 
UNITARIAN VIEWS OF SIN.
ings was staked, to the machinations of that Evil Spirit.
Unitarianism admits all the perplexing mysteries of fact
and experience about sin, but does not feel disposed to
deepen or increase them by involving them with satanic
agencies, or with dates or incidents prior to or outside of
human life on this globe. Unitarianism does not deny
the sinfulness of man, nor does it discharge that sinfulness of positive guilt, nor does it trifle with the consequences of sin here or hereafter.   Some of the most
appalling admissions, and some of the most startling assertions as to the guilt and the devastations of sin, are to
be found in the writings of Unitarians. We think our
general views of it are all the more serious, because we
ascribe it to character, not to nature, and regard it as a
-wilful wrong-doing, not as an inherited disease. Unitarians ask the Orthodox to help them, and they offer their
aid to the Orthodox, that together we may try to cast some
rays of reason, light, and truth upon this mystery of sin.
But Unitarians insist, firmly and positively, without
yielding on this point a hair's breadth, that the explanation proposed shall not involve the dogma that we are
born with a depraved heart, that life is a foregone conclusion when it begins, that the nature which is God's
endowment of us is corrupt, and that the character which
is the development of that nature and the element of our
accountability is from the first committed to  a diseased
and wicked growth.  Calvin tells us (Comment. on Ephesians ii. 3): "We  are not born such beings as Adam
was created in the beginning, but are the corrupt descendants of a degenerate and adulterate parent." Dr.
Woods, even in a note designed to relieve this dreary
doctrine (Letter XI.), says: "There is nothing which
hinders man from obedience but his depraved disposition,
his wicked heart." What a dismal way of intimrnating
that an impossibility might be a possibility, if it Were not
an impossibility! Suppose Dr. Woods, travelling with a
88 
UNITARIAN VIEWS OF HUMAN NATURE.
companion on a dreary wilderness way, and coming to a
well which he knew to be poisoned, should say: "There
is nothing to hinder our being saved from a terrific death,
and helped on to our happy homes, by the waters of this
well, except that they are mixed with a deadly poison."
His companion, if not an Orthodox casuist, would be apt
to reply, that the exception was fatal to any desired good
from the waters. It is but little to say of the Calvinistic
doctrine, that it relieves us of all responsibility. It substitutes a Pharaoh for our God, ever demanding his tale
of brick while he withholds the material of them. Unitarians, therefore, insist that-as to that weakness or liability in human nature which shows itself as we grow up
as sinfulness, some other explanation of its origin shall
be found than to call it an entailed curse, and some
other reason shall be assigned for its existence in us than
the sin of a progenitor, and some other title be given to
it than guilt, and some other retribution be announced
for our helpless disability than that of a hopeless hell.
Unitarians have been seeking, and are still seeking, for
relief and for such satisfaction as may be within the
reach of human faculties, concerning the problem of evil.
They have received some most valuable aid in their
speculations from Orthodox writers, who  have worked,
to some extent, with us and for us, while appearing
to work against us.  All the modifications, abatements,
and palliatives of which professedly Orthodox writers
have felt compelled to avail themselves in dealing with
their doctrine, have been of great service to us. In the
mean while Unitarianism, taking Scripture for its guide,
develops its own peculiar views somewhat after the
manner following.  After God had fashioned and furnished this earth, he left it for long ages without a
human inhabitant, while vegetables and animals lived
and died upon it. The remains of these primeval plants
and creatures, imbedded in some of the lower strata of
8*
89 
UNITARIAN VIEWS OF HUMAN NATURE.
the earth, bear witness for themnselves. In his own good
time, God was pleased to create a race of human beings
to inhabit this earth in a series of generations. Some of
the conditions and limitations to which the life and the
range of existence of these beings would necessarily be
subjected, were fixed in the elementary constitution and
arrangements of the scene of their abode.  They are
human beings, a race lower than the angels. They are
spirits in bodies of clay, formed from the dust of the
earth, breathed into by the breath of God. By the universal law of all elemental organizations,  human bodies
need renewal, are exposed to disease and accident, and
subject to waste, decay, and death.   These  human
beings are moral beings. So far as they are accountable
beings they are free, and so far as they are free beings
they are accountable. That they may be free to do
right, they must also be free to do wrong. Adam, the
representative man, was capable of sinning, and as the
extremest Calvinist never pretended that Adam   was
created with a depraved nature, the conclusion is irresistible that a human being may be capable of sinning,
and may actually sin, without having any original taint
of corruption or depravity.   This inevitable inference
visits an utter discomfiture on the Calvinistic dogma,
that our sin can have no other origin or source than a
vitiated nature. If Adam could commit actual sin,
though he was not born in original sin, so may each one
of his posterity err as he did without inheriting iniquity
from him. The only idea which we can form of the
purpose for which human beings exist, is that they may
serve the ends of their Creator by the best use of the
faculties he has given them. In connection with all the
physical powers and relations of these beings, relations
which concern the body and its wants, we think we
discern an inner life, a nobler range of existence, in the
elements of thought, of affection, of conscience, a life of
90
6 
UNITARIAN VIEWS OF HUMAN NATURE.
the mind and the spirit, amid cares and conflicts, failures
and attainmnents, lapses and recoveries. That this higher
life may be served, good and evil must be placed before
these human beings, while the command is addressed to
them to "overcome evil with good."  I-However far we
may carry the assertion or the allowance of an unexcep tionable and a universal human sinfulness, we must stop
short of the admission that man is necessarily a sinner,
for this admission at once severs the connection between
sin and responsibility. This necessary sinfulness is ad mitted, if it be affirmned that man has a corrupted nature.
An evil tree can bring forth only evil fruit. The decision
as regards our moral character cannot be supposed to
have been made at our birth, but the means, the materia-ls for making it, must lie latent in the germ of humanity, and life will afford the opportunity and the scene of
their development.  We are not born holy, for then we
should be what the angels now are, who are denizens of
heaven while we are creatures of the earth. We are not
born fiends, for we are made after the similitude of God.
As  these beings must be capable of doing wrong in
order that they may be able to do right, they should not
be restrained physically or morally from feeling impulses
to do wrong. They should be addressed by the power
of outward temptations, and there should be internal
weaknesses, spots on their breasts not defended by
heavenly mail, -spots and weaknesses  which temptation should assail. Righteousness, holiness, conformity
to the will of God, is the highest possible result which
we could look for to be attained by such beings, and we
should never dream of realizing it as a birthright, nor as
an instinct, nor as secured by an inward impulse, nor
by outward help. It should be the result of life-long
struggles and strivings, of falling and of rising often, of
groaniligs and weepings, of aching and praying; of
sinning and repenting. It is enough for man if he can
91 
THE IMPERFECTION OF HUMANITY.
die a reconciled penitent. It is enough for him if he can
reach at the end of his course, after a life of blind and
troubled wanderings, that same Father's house from
which he went out as an infant and an embryo spirit.
Should any one object that it is not worthy of God to
be charged Wvith the creation of such a race of beings,
we reply, that this is just the race of beings that inhabits
this earth, and that the fact speaks for itself. here they
are, and they have never been anything different from
what they are. At any rate, the sort of beings which
we have aimed to portray from the reality of life are, in
our judgment, infinitely more worthy of God than are
those which Calvinism ascribes to him. Imperfect then
we are; imperfect, frail, and mortal. Adam proved in
his own case the result of the experiment made by God
with the elements and conditions involved in the constitution of a human being.  The result of the experiment
in one case of course signified what would be its result
in all cases. As Adam was a sinner and a mortal, so all
human beings are sinners and all are mortal; not because
he was a sinner, but because they are all like him in their
humanity. But is this nature of ours corrupt and depraved because it is imperfect?  Does the fact that we
must all learn righteousness prove that we have previously graduated in iniquity? Does our imperfection
prove that we are cursed, and does our being under that
curse prove our guilt? Let us see.
There are four elements needed, as we say, to make
up a human being,-a body, a heart, a mind, and a
spirit. These are all undeveloped, untrained at our
birth.  How do we regard the infirmities, the imperfections, the need of discipline, help, and reinforcement to
which they are respectively subject?
If a child is born with an inherited bodily defect,
crippled, deformed, maimed, or blind, he is an object of
our tender commiseration. Who ever blames him for
92 
THE IMPERFEOTION OF HUMANITY.
his defect?  Who  would  address to him  a word of
reproof, or inflict upon him a blow, as for sin? Even if
his defect is entailed upon him for the sin of his parents,
this is not his personal guilt, and though it subjects him
to suffering, his suffering is not punishment. His visitation is directly from the hand of God.
If a child is born with a feeble intellectual faculty, and
it is very hard to teach him, and teaching utterly fails
through his dulness of mind, still there is no guilt in
this, but simply an original natural deficiency.
If a child is lacking in affectionate sensibilities of
heart, and shows from infancy an ungovernable temper,
the parents will try patient culture to subdue and train
the child's heart, and up to, its mature years its faults are
for the most part spoken of as constitutional infirmities,
rarely as guilt, while its moderate success in self-restraint
is estimated as a heroism in self-discipline.
Thus it is that we disconnect all natural defects of
body, mind, and heart from the imputation of guilt.
We do not expect a child to walk till it has learned to
walk; nor to read till it has learned to read. We are
satisfied always if a child learns anything after it has
been taught, and the more valuable the art or science or
knowledge which is commnunicated, the more content are
we to multiply efforts, to extend patience, and to prolong
time in imparting it, and in looking for the fruits of the
instruction. But now mark the inconsistency of Orthodoxy as it deals with the fourth element ir a human
being, - the spirit. While the whole of life is allowed
to be education and preparation in the training and use
of all our lower faculties, the very dawn of life is expected to show  a full-formed perfection in the exercise
and manifestation of our highest faculty. Orthodoxy
tolerates infants that cannot walk, or read, or love their
parents beyond others; but it will not tolerate an infant
that does not love and obey God in perfect holiness of
93 
THE TRAINING OF A HUMAN SPIRIT.
spirit. If the spirit of this little helpless being does not
instinctively discern and follow the supreme good, and
without any struggle, training, or conflict, any guidance
or experience, yield itself to the love of piety, then Orthodoxy cries out, A Fall, a Corruption, an Alienation
from God! Over the waste of dreary ages, and through
the ashes of mortal generations, Orthodoxy tries to trace
back the venom in that infant's constitution to the slime
which the old serpent dropped from its mouth when it
spake its deceiving word to Eve.
Dr. Woods puts to Dr. Ware this question: "Do
children show a heart to love God supremely, when they
are two or three years old?"* We may answer the
question by asking another: Why should they?  When
it takes the highest spiritual exercises of an eminent
saint to fashion forth an adequate conception of God,
how can we expect a child two or three years old to
love that God supremely?
It seems to us as if Orthodoxy involved not only the
notion that Adam, not God, is the father of all human
spirits, but likewise the implication that God has nothing
to do in his usual providence with the training of any
human spirits except those of the elect. Does not Orthodoxy convey the implication, that when human spirits
are launched uponi this earth, God, as a usual thing, has
done with them? Now we regard the beings we have
described from the realities of life as constantly dependent on the Divine guardianship and grace; as constantly
needing new replenishments of spiritual power and aid;
and as constantly receiving, or at liberty to avail themselves of, such help in their earthly training. We do not
believe that we are all orphaned of heavenly affection
and care the day after we are born, -left as infants in a
wilderness cast to the wolves. It is not our-doctrine,
* Reply, Chap. II.
94 
ATTEMPTED MODIFICATIONS OF CALVINISM.
that the influences of God's Spirit are granted to some
and withheld from others. We believe that his Spirit is
ever prompting and helping all spirits, and is rejected
when not yielded to and accepted. That aid of the
Spirit is not a specialty even, still less a partiality, any
more than is a parent's needful advice and oversight in
the training of all his children. That spiritual influence
is the needful and the natural complement to the elements of our nature, and to the other influences which
develop it.
We should need space exceeding that which we have
already occupied, if we attempted to do anything like
justice in stating the various modifications which have
been introduced during the last century into the old
Calvinistic doctrine of the corrupted and disabled nature
and the doomed state of man. These modifications are
designed to relieve and soften the doctrine, to make it
less revolting, and, if possible, more reasonable. It is to
be understood that these palliating devices are invented
by men who still profess to hold substantially the doctrine of the Catechism and the Confession, and who claim
a right to avail themselves of the utmost liberty of
explanation and abatement. When we contemplate as a
whole the subtilties, the worse than dubious ingenuities,
and the self-convicted duplicity in evasion, which have
been spent upon this Calvinistic doctrine by some of its
nominal disciples, a rising disgust for everything associated with this department of our theological literature nearly
overwhelms us. There is but one suggestion that relieves
our feelings; it is, that all these efforts are made out of a
tender desire to reconcile the God of the creed with the
God of the heart. It is not strange, however, that Unitarians should watch with a very lively interest, and
occasionally with a sort of subdued and mischievous
satisfaction, the processes and the results of these modifications of Calvinism.  The disciples of that system
95 
96     ATTEMPTED MODIFICATIONS OF CALVINISM.
must have become fully aware that it is a venturous
and a hazardous work to attempt to bring its dogmas
into reconciliation with right reason.
There are three elements entering into the doctrine of
the entail from Adam upon all his posterity of a disabled
nature, and they suggest three questions: First, is this
disability of nature a fact? Second, is it to be regarded
as constituting, in the eye of God, personal guilt? Third,
does it involve an everlasting and inexpressible penalty?
Of course a very large range is opened for pleading and
for modifying opinions in the discussion of these three
elements of the old doctrine. Doctor Chauncy, who
held the Calvinistic views in the most moderate form, if
he held them at all, took refuge in Universalism, as did
the late amiable and earnest John Foster, of whose
orthodoxy there is no question.
Down almost to the time of the commencement of
our great controversy, the general teaching of Orthodoxy
conformed to the doctrine of the Confession, that a corrupted nature, a vitiated and depraved constitution, was
transmitted from Adam to all his posterity, by natural
descent, exactly as a. bodily disease, a gout or a consumption, would be transmitted. This certainly implies
a physical inheritance of depravity, a depravity running
in the blood; and this legitimate inference fromn the doctrine was prevailingly drawn from it, and prevailingly
accepted. It was at this point that the shock of the
doctrine was first and most strongly felt, and here an
issue had been opened between Orthodox theologians
before Unitarians were a recognized party in the case.
Dr. Lyman Beecher has given us a very concise summary of the matter in hand, in substance as follows.*
He reminds us that Pelagius maintained that infants
were born pure, and became depraved by a corrupted
* Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. I. p. 158. 
CALVINISTS, ARMINIANS, AND HOPKINSIANS.
moral atmosphere and by bad example, while he denied
that there is any certain connection between the sin of
Adam  and that of his posterity.   Augustine, on the
other hand, asserted an innate, hereditary depravity, by
the imputation of Adam's sin. Dr. Beecher adds, that
the Reformers agreed with Augustine in the belief that
sin was propagated with flesh and blood. Certainly
one would think that, after this admission, it was no
Unitarian slander to charge this doctrine upon those
whose boast it was that they held to "the doctrines of
the Reformation." This doctrine was first openly assailed after the Reformation, says Dr. Beecher, by the
Arminians and the Remonstrants, and was one of the
Five Points under sharp debate in the Synod of Dort.
The Pelagian doctrine, having been revived at the Synod,
has found acceptance and prevalence in the Established
Church of England, while "our fathers," down to the
time of Edwards, and including him, held close to the
views of the Reformers. After the time of Edwards, Dr.
Beecher proceeds to tell us, the way of stating the docetrine was  changed.   "Now, the New or Hopkinsian
divinity holds that men are not guilty of Adam's sin,
and that depravity is not of the substance of the soul,
nor an inherent or physical quality, but is wholly voluntary, and consists in the transgression of law, in such
circumstances as constitutes accountability and desert
of punishment." Our readers will observe that, while the
old doctrine has a meaning perfectly lucid, which explains itself to us at a glance, the modifications of it are
for the most part stated in a cloudy, obscure, unintelligible way, as if their vagueness and indefiniteness of terms
would afford a sensible relief. Dr. Beecher, if hard pressed
in close conversation by a clear-headed questioner, would
have to admit that "the transgression of law," and the
"circumstances," of which he speaks, involve the original
9
97 
VIEWS OF PRESIDENT EDWARDS.
elements of the nature which an infant receives from the
Creator on being born into this world.
In the first number of the periodical just quoted, we
find the Orthodox belief on this doctrine stated thus:
"That since the Fall of Adam, men are, in their natural
state, altogether destitute of true holiness, and entirely
depraved. That men, though thus depraved, are justly
required to love God with all the heart, and justly punishable for disobedience; or, in other words, they are
complete moral agents, proper subjects of moral govern.
ment, and truly accountable to God for their actions." *
One year passed, and then the same periodical announced
the following: "We  do not believe that the posterity
of Adam are personally chargeable with eating the forbidden fruit [that is, they did not bite the same apple];
or that their constitution is so depraved as to leave them
no natural ability-to love and serve God, or as to render
it improper for him to require obedience." t Again is
the scale of modifications a scale of unintelligibilities.
How plain, as well as strong in contrast, is the language
of President Edwards, when he tells us: "All natural
men's affections are. governed by malice against God,
and they hate him worse than they do the Devil." Considering that these natural affections have their source in
the heart, and that the heart is the endowment which
we receive from God, the inference from the assertion is
unavoidable, unless we again have recourse to the notion
that Adam, and not God, is our Creator.
Yet, strange to say, there has been a dispute among
the Orthodox as to whether Edwards did or did not
teach the doctrine of the physical entail of depravity!
Strange to say, he has been claimed as an authority,
both by those who believe the old doctrine in this form,
and by those who deny it. Any unprofessional reader
* Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. I. p. 11.
98
t Ibid., Vol. II. p. 4. 
-   -.       X
<~/f'\;'l-  <Th>.  j
- I   -';
THE OLD AND NEW SCHOOLS.
who should attempt to peruse the discussion of this question, Did Edwards, or did he not, teach that human nature was constitutionally depraved by physical entail?
would be apt to give over the task with a rather hopeless idea of the lucidness of some doctors of divinity.
The Orthodox Congregationalists around us have
agreed upon some terms of amity touching their differences of Old School and New School, as to the matter
of Original Sin, and the essential quality of our depravity. But the Presbyterians, who build upon the
Westminster Catechism, and mean to stand or to fall
with that, are by no means inclined to pacification on this
issue. There has been a fierce strife carried on under the
blinding c(loud of dust raised by the fraternal quarrel of
the  Old and the New  Schools, as to whether man's
Inability to meet the requirements of God's law is a
Natural Inability, or a Moral Inability. The Rev. Ezra
Stiles Ely, in his " Contrast between Calvinism and
Hopkinsianism," (published in 1811,) has given us a sharp
rehearsal of the controversy, as between the real Orthodoxy
of our Middle States and the diluted Orthodoxy of New
England.   But to us this question between  the two
Schools is not even a war of words; for the word Inability, the only emphatic and decisive word involved in
their doctrine, is a word accepted and used oni both
sides. All in vain does Dr. Woods tell us that Moral
Inability, in which he believes, means only "a strong
disinclination " to do the will of God, and that "it con.
stitutes blameworthiness," -" while Natural Inability," in
which he does not believe, "frees from blameworthiness." *
For he also tells us, in his Fifth Letter to us, "that men
are subjects of an innate moral depravity, in other words,
that they are from the first inclined to evil." Fromr tIhe
first!-the whole doctrine goes with those words. The
* Works, Vol. IV. p. 285.:...... 
99 
THE PRIVATIVE THEORY.
force, the stress, the strain of the doctrine, lies in the word
Inability, - that noun substantive which tells the effect
of a death-blow struck at the very core of our being. It
makes very little difference whether we connect with that
substantive the epithet Nctural or Moral, for the adjective seems in this instance almost to lose the office
assigned to it in the grammar, of qualifying a noun. Yet
the two epithets make two Schools.  How significant
is the token that a hair's breadth of relief, or of supposed
relief, by vagueness of words, under the old doctrine, is
welcomed as a blessing. One School tells us man's depravity consists in this: "He  cannot do right if he
wishes to do so."  "No,"  says the other School; "it
consists in this: Hie will not do right if he can." He
can't if he will! - He won't if he can!  A precious difference! It is well for the two Schools that they have
both retained the word Inability. Their Orthodoxy is
safe so long as they hold to that, but their loyalty to
Orthodoxy is doubtful if they are bent on neutralizing
the substantive by any adjective.  There certainly is a
real difference between a lack of power, and a lack of the
will to do one's duty; but if the lack of will springs
from a lack of power to will, or of a capacity of being
influenced by the will otherwise than to disobedience, a
moral want of will becomes essentially a natural want
of power.
Then there is what may be called "the Privative
Theory" of our depravity. Some Orthodox men have
found an appreciable degree of comfort in this theory.
It suggests, that, besides having all the faculties and opportunities which we have for meeting our responsibility
to God, Adam was favored with a peculiar- spiritual
guardianship, an additional inducement and protection
from a closer intercourse with the grace of God, which
additional security has been withdrawn from all his posterit.lea.viugtltem, under the privation of divine grace,
100 
" THE CONFLICT OF AGES."
to the common influences and circumstances if our appointed state of being. Well may we ask: If Adam,
with such an additional security, could not retain his
innocence, is our condition fairly allotted to us, when it
visits upon us the inheritance of his depravity, and deprives us of his original aid from the Divine Father?
Still another modification of the old doctrine is proposed in the theory, that we are not at our birth positively
and actually sinful, but are simply destitute of holiness.
An infant is destitute of holiness!  Very true. So he is.
And so he is destitute of arithmetic and spelling. But
this does not prove that he is ruined, nor that he will go
to the pit. It certainly does not prove that he deserves
to go to the pit, for a natural lack of the knowledge or
the attainments for the purpose of acquiring which he
is brought into this world as a school. As well might
we complain of an oak for not bearing full-grown trees
instead of little acorns.
The most recent and every way the most astonishing
device that has been suggested by one professing to hold
the old Orthodox doctrine, for the sake of abating its
manifest inconsistency with the righteous method of government established by God, is that proposed  by Dr.
Edward Beecher, in his marvellously significant book
entitled " The Conflict of Ages." He admits, he asserts,
he strenuously and emphatically protests against, the conflicting relation which Orthodoxy presents to us between
what God requires of us and the nature and opportunity
which we have for meeting his demands. God calls us
into being with a depraved nature, exposes us to the
corrupting influences of a fallen world, and subjects us
to the assaults of evil spirits, and then holds over us a
law of holiness which we are incapacitated from obeying,
while any falling short of it condemns us to an unenlding
woe. No Unitarian pen has ever made a more painful
or a more appalling statement of the irreconcilable con                    9 
101 
PRE-EXISTENCE OF HUMAN SOULS.
flict between Orthodox doctrine and the laws of honor
and justice ascribed to the Divine government, than the
pen of Dr. Beecher has written out with a most heroic
sturdiness of candor. His conclusion is, that, according
to the Orthodox doctrine, God has not dealt fairly with
us, but is practising toward us a tyranny of the most
ruthless sort. God has not given us a fair start, an unprejudiced, free, and hopeful trial for an immortal issue.
If God has appointed our earthly existence as a probation for eternal life, he should have created us with an
integrity of nature and a healthfulness of soul which
would have excluded every sinful proclivity or bias;
indeed, we might even claim that we should have been
biassed in the direction of holiness.   Orthodoxy says
we are not born in this state of innocence. Dr. Beecher
says the same, and he says it with an unquestioned
loyalty to the creed in conformity with which he discharges his office of a Christian minister. How then
does he reconcile the" Conflict" which he has so nobly
and so faithfully delineated? Why thus. He says that
we once had a fair and unprejudiced start in the unending career of existence;- not indeed here, in this world,
but elsewhere. We were not created when we were born
into this world. We had been created and had existed
in another place, and in another state, as spirits, and had
sinned, and fallen, and been condemned. God is giving
us here a new trial under the light of the Gospel. Re.
served in some of the gloomy caverns of sentenced guilt
and hopeless despair in this universe, are imprisoned the
rebel crew of angels who sided with Satan in the great
rebellion in heaven. When an infant body is born into
this world, God looses from the chains of that prison.
house one of these condemned spirits, with the chance of
beint)g numbered among the elect as one whom the Gos.
pel of Christ may redeem. Behold how wonderfully this
solution of the problem converts the darkest imputation
102 
PRESENT RELATION OF PARTIES.
ever cast upon the righteous government of God into a
most winning display of his grace, in offering a new op portunity to beings already condemned   Calvinism  re quires of beings created as sinners that they should live
as angels. Dr. Beecher sees the countenance of an old
fiend under the sweet features of infancy, and takes the
fair mask as the symbol of a redemption which, by the
grace of God through Jesus Christ, shall recall that vic tim of the pit to the communion of the saints above.
Such, is the latest modification of Calvinism.
We have thus given - at a tedious, though a neces sary length -a statement of the controversy opened fifty
years ago, and ever since kept open, between Unitari anism and Orthodoxy, on the Scripture doctrine of the
Nature and the State of Man. We have stated the Calvinistic doctrine in the words of the old formula, which
is even to this day nominally held in Orthodox churches
and schools of theology. WVe have avowed the positive
denial of that doctrine, and of every accepted modification
of it, by Unitarianism, and have presented the general
views which Unitarians in the lack of a dogma adopt
as a substitute for that doctrine. There is a vast difference between falling from and falling short of holiness.
We deny that there has ever been on this earth a fall of
a single human being from holiness, and assert the fact
that all human beingsfall shorl of holiness. Finally, we
have made a brief reference to some of the modifying
and qualifying theories which Orthodox writers have
invented to relieve the strain of their own doctrine.
And now comes a question which embraces two terms,
as it concerns the present bearings and aspect of this
controversy to the original parties to it: Is Unitarianism yielding its opinion, reconciling its difference, abating its opposition, and going over to Orthodoxy, on the
ground covered by this doctrine? We answer positively,
No! Unitarianism does not yield an inch. It holds its
103 
CONDITIONS OF PEACE.
ground firmly and resolutely, and means to hold it. It
was never better assured of its position than now.
Is Orthodoxy yielding its ground on this doctrine?
Our readers shall answer that question for themselves.
In the mean while, how shall the two parties to an old
strife regard their present relations to each other, in view
of their fundamental variance concerning this one doctrine involved in the dark mystery of sin? Let us cease
from all acrimony and strife, and try together to throw
what light we can upon the problem. A truer philosophy
of life and of man may help us. A better understanding
of the Scriptures may aid us. But after all, Unitarians
and Orthodox will be most likely to throw light on this
sad mystery of sin, when with Christian hearts and hands
they strive faithfully, in their own way, to rid themselves
and the world of its malignant power.
104 
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
GOD AND CHRIST.
ON  
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
GOD AND CHRIST.
THE second of the three great, comprehensive doctrinal issues to which, as we have inferred, the controversy
between the Unitarians and the Orthodox has been reduced, after an half-century of earnest and various discussion, now invites our attention. Our aim is to sum
up its prominent points, to concentrate its scattered disputes, and to seek the results to which either party may
have been brought, so far as they involve concession, or
qualification, or a reassertion of the original grounds of
the controversy.
The controversy centres upon this question,- Is Jesus
Christ presented to us in the New Testament as possessing the underived honors of the Godhead, as claiming by
himself and by his Apostles the supreme prerogative of
Deity, and therefore as an object of worship and prayer,
and of our ultimate religious dependence? Orthodoxy
answers this question in the affirmative, Unitarianism
answers it in the negative.
In strictness of construction, this one point of doctrinal difference might be regarded as constituting the sole
issue which divides the two parties. For controversial
ON 
CONNECTION OF DOCTRINES.
discussion has made it evident that the doctrine of the
Deity of Christ has been maintained chiefly on account
of the relations which are presumed by Orthodoxy to
exist between this and its two other fundamental doctrines,-the depravity of human nature, and a vicarious
sacrifice made to God for the redemption of men. Orthodoxy affirms, that nothing short of an infinite expiation
could suffice to redeem our race from the consequences
of Adam's fall; therefore Christ, the Redeemer, must be
God. Orthodoxy affirms, that only the Being against
whom the offence of sin is committed could provide an
adequate penalty for it, as it required an infinite penalty,
and therefore the sacrifice made for it was the sacrifice
of God. It is thus that the doctrine of the Deity of
Christ has been supposed to be vital to the Christian
system, as alone consistent with its other doctrines concerning God and man, and the relations of enmity and
the proffered terms of reconciliation between them. The
doctrine having been thus pronounced essential to the
theological exposition of the Christian faith, it is made
to carry with it, not only such weight of authority as it
is claimed to derive from its positive announcement in
the Scriptures, but also such strong incidental support
and warrant as attach to it from its inter-relations with
other so-called fundamental doctrines. The bias of error
on any single point touching this matter may thus prejudice a fair view of either one or of all the great elements
of the Christian scheme. It is the very decided, and, we
must believe, the very fairly reached and the very intelligent conviction of Unitarians, that the supposed exigencies of the Orthodox system are to the full as constraining a reason with its disciples for holding to the
doctrine of the Deity of Christ, as is the force of direct
argument for it from the text of Scripture. If this bias
be real, it must needs be very strong. Orthodoxy, therefore, proclaims that the -Deity of Christ enters into the
108 
METAPHYSICAL AND SCRIPTURAL TRUTIH.
very substance of the Gospel, and Orthodoxy commits
itself to that doctrine.
The doctrine of the Deity of Christ enters into the
more general doctrine of the Trinity of persons in the
Godhead, and is, indeed, the chief element in this doctrine, as the process necessary for developing the Deity
of Christ requires a previous recognition of a possible
complexity in the Godhead. The doctrine of the Trinity
is, that in the one God are united three distinct, co-equal,
and co-eternal persons, revealed to us by the titles of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. What an untold
amount of thinking, reasoning, arguing, asserting, and
denying has been spent upon this theme! When we
regard it as a matter of mere speculation, in dealing with
which words must for the most part stand in place of
ideas, we may be impatient that in this short life of man,
where his zeal and strength are all needed for great
Christian duties, he should have bestowed so much of
thought and interest upon a metaphysical abstraction.
But when we regard the issue as one that has been
raised to be decided by a most careful, thorough, intelligent, and reverential interpretation of the New Testament, we are the more reconciled to the spending of so
much study upon it, because of the possible incidental
benefits resulting to our Scriptural knowledge and culture. And yet once more, rising to a still higher view,
when we look at the issue here raised as it bears directly
or indirectly upon the whole doctrinal substance of revelation, our impatience yields,-  we become more than
reconciled to the discussion as it offers to guide us to its
various and momentous relations to all Christian truth.
We accept the subject, as one alike of speculative, Sdriptural, and practical interest.
As we enter anew upon this ancient topic of acrimonious strife, of ardent controversy, and of perplexed
debate, let it be with due preparation of: thought and
10
109 
MODE OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.
feeling. High abstractions, profound speculations, and
themes of mystery are comprehended in this discussion,
as well as the simple verities which have a solemn interest for the unlearned, who wish to believe as Christians. It is no subject for our presumption to deal with,
nor for our dogmatism to decide. If we choose to concern ourselves with a question as to the mode of the
Divine existence, or if we feel that an inquiry on this
point seriously involves the clearness and the correctness
of our doctrinal belief, we must remember that the subject is wholly unlike those which relate to our owni characters and experience; so that our familiar methods and
processes, and certainly our bold and impatient spirit of
curious investigation, will no longer serve us. Men will
interest themselves with questions about the origin of
this globe, the date when human life began upon it,
and the time appointed for its dissolution. Men will
even discuss and argue the probabilities as to whether
the other orbs of heaven, within our view, are occupied
by beings in any respect like ourselves. Very slender
are our grounds for the adoption of theories, and very
meagre are our results after debating such questions.
And yet, as these relate to matters of sense, to physical
operations, to mathematical calculations, and fall within
the province of exact science, we have certain resources
for dealing with them with considerable satisfaction.
We can hammer out from the earth's rocky breast some
of her secrets; we can put to the test the question
whether the fires of the sun are wasting; we can push
forth the telescopic tube and dilate with our lenses the
compass of the planetary orbs, and put the heavens wellnigh out of countenance by the boldness of our own gaze,
as we pronounce upon what nutriment of fog, or flame,
or stone, or ice, the inhabitants of those orbs must respec.
tively subsist. But a question concerning the mode of the
Divine existence is remote from all these, and all other
110 
THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY.
similarly profound and vast questions.   By searching
we cannot find out God.  We cannot hope that any of
the incomprehensibilities which invest him will yield to
our reasoning.   We  have never seen it affirmed, we
are confident it never can be proved, that the effort of
faith which is essential to a conception of God will be
one whit relieved or facilitated by conceiving of him
under the form of a Trinity. The vast and awful solemnity remains still to confound or to dazzle us. We find a
warrant for intermeddling with this loftiest of all themes,
-the existence of God,- in the fact that revelation addresses it to our faith through our reverent and intelligent thought. But all questions as to the mode of the
Divine existence are voluntarily opened by us. These
are- not forbidden, and certainly, if one of the great purposes of revelation was to disclose to us the doctrine of
the Trinity, and if the whole scheme of Christian truth
centres upon that doctrine, it becomes as legitimate, indeed as importunate, a theme of thought and interest,
and, under proper conditions, of controversy, as any that
can engage our minds.
Let us understand, too,. how the subject before us has
come to enter into controversy. The most superficial
reader of church history is made aware that the controversy, instead of being one of recent origin, has followed
down the fortunes of our faith from a very early age.
Hle learns, also, that the party differences and strifes which
the controversy from its beginning excited, called together numerous general and local councils of Christian
ministers, were brought before imperial tribunals, and
disposed of, or at least taken cognizance of, by civil
edicts. He discovers that the disputed terms of the controversy have been blazoned on the banners of contending armies, and have been authenticated, not only by
the legitimate processes of Scripture criticism and -fair
argument, but by the ruder methods of fines, prisons,
ill 
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
banishments, excommunications, and executions.  The
popular notion among the uninformed members of orthodox sects, favored often by the uncandid authorities on
which the ignorant and prejudiced rely, is, that the plain
doctrine of Scripture is Trinitarianism; that the Saviour
and his Apostles taught this doctrine and founded their
churches upon it; that the early Fathers and all other
Christians unanimously believed it; that no question for
long ages attached to it; that the whole Church down to
quite a recent time agreed upon it; and that only a daring heretic here and there has ever doubted or assailed
the doctrine. The Unitarian, on the other hand, is perfectly satisfied that the teaching of Scripture is in complete opposition to Trinitarianism; that violence must
be done to the text in order to support it; that the Apostles never recognized, never even heard of it; that such
of the Fathers as in their confused and inconsistent
teachings give it more or less of their countenance, derived it from unscriptural sources, from previous philosophical fancies; that the doctrine from its first announcement was controverted, and that it is itself a
heresy whose origin and whole way of strife are thoroughly known to us.
We select, out of a multitude of statements of the
doctrine of the Trinity lying at our hand, that which
is given in the Confession of Faith adopted by the New
England churches in 1680, as follows:  "There is but One only living and true God.  In the
Unity of the Godhead there be Three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Ghost. Which doctrine of the
Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with
God, and comfortable dependence upon him."
We might exhaust all our space in giving a series of
statements and definitions of this doctrine; and then we
might occupy twice the number of pages in simply ar
112 
UNINTELLIGIBLE AND INEXPRESSIBLE.
ranging the various modifications of conception and be lief which have marked the chronological history, or the
symbolical adoption, or the heretical aberrations from
any one of the several orthodox formulas of this doctrine.
A volume which should faithfully present the abundant
materials of that nature for filling it, might well pass
among us for a relic rescued from Babel. The doctrine
of the Trinity is confessedly incomprehensible, and many
readers of the controversies about it must feel a profound
regret that it was not allowed from the first to be inexpressible likewise.  Indeed, the question is a fair one,
Has not the doctrine really proved itself to be inexpressible? It is this great variety of terms and forms of
speech used for announcing the doctrine, and the failure
of all of them to leave an intelligible idea in the mind,
that first excites the anxious distrust of many persons to
whom this doctrine is presented as "the foundation of
all our communion with God." We find even Calvin
objecting to the use of the word persons for defining the
distinctions in the Godhead. He called the word barbarous; he regretted its use; he wished that some other
phraseology might be substituted for announcing the
doctrinal formula. The excellent Dr. Watts called the
doctrine of "three persons" a "strange and perplexing
notion." A great deal of ingenuity has been exercised
by intelligent but bewildered theologians for devising a
simpler, a more intelligible, a less self-contradictory, and
a "more Scriptural" method for stating the doctrine.
Evidently some of the best minds have been exercised
upon it in vain. The unanimous decision of all competent teachers who hold and try to communicate the doctrine now is, that when the word person is used to express each of the Three in the One God, it does not have
the same sense that is attached to it in any one or in all of
the other uses of the word. A very worthy volunteer in
the work of teaching a doctrine of which he could make
10*
113 
SCHEMES OF THE TRINITY.
no intelligible expression, after confounding his own
thought, fairly gave over the more dignified and professional speech of his calling, and avowed that it was
"necessary to believe in Three Somnewhats as equally divine."
This is an amazing perplexity to be put at the very
threshold of an entrance to the Christian doctrines. We
cannot but feel a strong persuasion that, if all the bewildering and confounding speculations which have attached
to this doctrine-and which, while they have embarrassed
the reception of it in any intelligible form, have also established the supposed necessity of accepting it in some
form - could be wholly set aside, Christians would
come to the discussion of such a theory in a far more
candid state of mind. They are now prepossessed and
prejudiced on this subject. We cannot believe for one
moment, that, if it were left to this age and the present
resources of speculative conception in religious philosophy to fashion forth a dogmatic statement concerning
the Divine nature, any such notion as Trinitarianism
includes would find acceptance, even if it should find a
suggestion or an advocate. All the attempts which are
made to state the doctrine more intelligibly or more simply have resulted in such refined or sublimated metaphysics, that we almost forget the mathematical puzzle
of the original formula, while we turn back to it as for a
sort of relief.
There has been, however, one essential step of real
progress secured in the discussion of this subject. Those
who will turn over the voluminous records of the Trinitarian controversy, as conducted by English divines in
the last century, will find it doubly and trebly perplexed
beyond its own intrinsic difficulties, if that be possible,
by a complicated and intricate network of definitions,
schemes, and secondary issues. If any one should feel
compelled to trace the course of opinion in all its wind
.L
114
0 
FANCIFUL INGENUITY IN ITS STATEMENT.
ings and relations between the starting-point of doctrine
as an accepted creed defined it, and the attempts of religious teachers to give it an exposition conformed to the
utterances of their own individual views, he would have
need to bury himself in heaps of antiquated books. As,
for instance, after mastering Dr. Samuel Clarke's modification of the doctrinal Trinity, he would have to master
Dr. Waterland's refutation of that modification, and this
would be a specimen task of a work which would occupy
a long life. But as this sort of rubbish has accumulated
in masses in sight of which heart and flesh absolutely
quail, it has come to be understood that henceforward
no one is expected to meddle with it. He would be a
high offender who should venture to open anew the specific issues of the modes and schemes which our fathers
felt compelled to entertain. Our recent discussions have
on this account been greatly simplified, and will become
even yet more simple as they become wholly Scriptural.
The doctrine of the Trinity has indeed been so sublimated and refined, and so reduced in the rigidity of its
old technical terms, that it may now be said to offer it.
self in some quite inoffensive and unobjectionable shapes
to that large number of persons who feel bound to accept
it in somne shape, and yet are aware that in full mental
honesty they can accept it only in the least dogmatic
and most accommodated shape. Though for our own
part we can connect no intelligible idea with such an
assertion as Dr. Bushnell makes, for example, when he
says that God has been "eternally threeing' himself," we
can recognize the fact that genius and fancy and irrepressible restlessness of mind are determined to festoon
and array a dogma whose angular sharpness and whose
barrenness of look would offend.  If we could only find
any occasion for believing a Trinity in the Godhead, in
any form of the dogma, Archbishop Whately might
largely help us to make the very little effort which is all
115 
PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
that is left as essential. In some of the modern shapings of the doctrine, we confess that there is no reason
for rejecting it which will weigh against the slightest
good reason for receiving it. But that slightest reason
for receiving it is the very thing which fails us: it is
wholly lacking.
We have said that the chief reason for asserting the
doctrine of the Trinity is that it may include or cover
the doctrine of the Deity of Christ.  Frankly, and with
general consent, is this admission yielded by Orthodox
writers.  Professor Stuart says: "All difficulties in respect to the doctrine of the Trinity are essentially connected with proving or disproving the divinity [he means
the Deity]  of Christ." *   "When  this [the Deity of
Christ] is admitted or rejected, no possible objection
can be felt to admitting or rejecting the doctrine of the
Trinity." t The plain inference from such statements
evidently is, that the Deity of a third personality in the
Godhead (the Holy Spirit) is affirmed and insisted upon,
in order to secure and make good the Deity of a second
personality in the Godhead.   The Holy Spirit is admitted to the prerogative of a distinct personality in order to
facilitate that distribution of the essence of the Godhead
which will assign to Jesus Christ the rank of the Supreme. And this device is adopted, because into some
of the texts which are needed inferentially to confirm
the assumption that Christ is God, the Holy Spirit enters by equally distinct mention.
It is even so.  There is no other reason for asserting
the separate personality of the Holy Spirit, except as
that will bear upon the claim for Christ of the underived
and self-subsisting prerogative of Deity. The weakest
point in all the arguments in support or defence of Trinitarianism, is that which attempts to prove from Scripture
* Letters to Dr. Channing, 3d edition, p. 45.
116
t Ibid., p. 59. 
GOD  IS A  SPIRIT.
the separate personality of the Holy Spirit. Yet weak as
this point in such arguments always is, laboring at the
very start, made essential by an indirect instead of a di rect and independent necessity, and requiring a most tor tuous and unsatisfactory dealing with the phraseology of
Scripture, it is the very point on which Orthodox divines
spend the least of their strength, as if conscious of their
weakness. The personality of the Spirit is expected to
come in by indulgent construction after the divisibility
of the Godhead has been affirmed for the sake of sharing
its attributes between Christ and the Father. So obvious is it to all minds not prejudiced by a dogma, that
the term Holy Spirit, wherever it is used in the Bible,
may always have its whole meaning recognized when it
is regarded as expressing the agency or influence of
God's spiritual operations.   We might as well attempt
to claim a distinct personality for the Wisdom of God,
or the Power of God, or the Fear of God, or the Love of
God, as to claim it for the Spirit of God. God is himself a SPIRIT; that is the very loftiest and fullest title by
which the Saviour made him an object of our faith. All
the agency of God is spiritual, though for convenience
of distinction we generally withdraw that epithet from
uses relating to God's agency in the physical world, and
confine it to the methods of his operation on his intelligent creation. The advocate of Trinitarianism thinks
that he visits upon us a perfectly overwhelming argument, when he gathers texts from the Bible to prove that
Divine attributes of Creation, Omnipresence, Wisdom,
Might, and operative energy are assigned to the Spirit.
It would be strange if they were not so assigned. We
are amazed that any one should offer these manifest'inferences of simple truth, the conditions which constitute
the great truth that "God is a Spirit," in proof of the
astounding dogma that one third part of the Godhead is
Spirit. God is himself a Spirit. Now if we distinguish
117
0 
118      GROUNDS FOR REJEOTING THE TRINITY.
the Spirit as a divided personality in the Godhead, what
crowning attribute have we left for the Father? The
device would seem to us puerile, if it did not appear
monstrous, which would distinguish, not the agency, but
the nature of God by a division, or a duplication, of his
essence into God the Father as one person, and God
the Spirit as another person.   How  can a reader of
Scripture fail to recognize the fact that the Spirit of
God is itself but one of many terms used for expressing
the operating, penetrating, and sanctifying energy and
influence of the Supreme Being? If Scripture, in deference to the straits of- our limited power of intellectual
conception, gives us several terms for defining the methods and the attributes of the One Supreme, shall we
seize upon them, and, instead of using them for the purpose for which they are given, turn them back upon the
Unity of the Godhead, to confound it with a plurality?
It is at this point, of course, that one who has been
educated under this Trinitarian dogma, and is seeking
to test its truth, or one who is brought into debate with
a professed believer in it, will begin to raise the question
whether the Scriptures teach, or the Christian scheme
includes, any doctrine of a Trinity of co-equal and coeternal Persons in the One God. Though the doctrine
is advanced chiefly as a help towards the proof of another doctrine of the Deity of Christ, we object to the
doctrine, in the first place, on grounds wholly distinct from
its relation to that article of the Trinitarian faith. We
object, in general, to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it is
an invention of the human mind, for which the Scriptures
afford no warrant; and that its prominent effect is to introduce into the system of truths taught in the Scriptures an extraneous, artificial, and perplexing dogma,
wholly inconsistent with, utterly unlike to, the acknowledged and accepted doctrines of Scripture. We do not
object, as is often charged upon us, that the doctrine
0:
* 
THE TRINITY NOT A MYSTERY.
involves a mystery. On the contrary, we object that the
doctrine when urged upon us as a mystery misuses and
perverts the word mystery, and avails itself of the ac knowledged and allowed credibility of what the word
mystery properly signifies, to propose to us something
quite unlike a mystery; namely, a statement that is ab surd, so far as it is intelligible, and that is inconsistent
in the very terms which it brings together for making its
proposition. We accept all such religious truths as can
fairly be covered by the word mystery. We live religiously upon such truths; they are the nutriment of our
spirits, of infinitely larger account to us than anything
we can learn or understand. We are made familiar, by
every moment's exercise of close thought, with the necessity of accepting mysteries, and we know very well what
a sensation and sentiment they send down into the innermost chambers of our being. But we are conscious
of feeling quite a different sensation and sentiment when
this doctrine of the Trinity is proposed to us under the
covert of a mystery. Quite another quality in it than
that of its mysterious character at once suggests itself
to us.  Its utter absurdity, its attempt to say something
which it fails to say intelligibly, simply because it cannot say it truly, is the first painful consciousness attaching to the doctrine. If the doctrine be true, then it is
the only doctrine of the Gospel which causes the same
sort of puzzling, confounding, bewildering effect on the
mind that seeks to entertain it. It sets us into the frame
into which we fall when any one proposes to us an enigma, or a conundrum. It lays at the very threshold of
the Christian faith an obstacle at which we stumble.
It requires of us a summoning of resources, or a concession, a yielding up, of our natural desire for intelligent
apprehension, as if to be addressed by some profound
truth, when in fact we are only bewildered. The state
of mind into which we should be driven by an attempt
119 
THE ONENESS OF GOD.
to accept the doctrine of the Trinity as fundamental to
the Gospel, would be of no service to us in dealing with
the real doctrines of the Gospel. The doctrine is not
homogeneous with the contents of revelation; it is unevangelical and anti-evangelical in all its characteristic
elements. Just where we need the clearest exercise of
our thoughts, and wish to accommodate our ideas to our
theme, and to engage the orderly action of all our faculties, we are beclouded and staggered, and thrown into a
maze. Has not our whole theology been made to suffer,
by thus taking its start from a metaphysical subtilty
which confuses the mind, instead of from one august
truth which lifts and solemnizes the spirit?
How  much  of sublime and penetrating power did
the Hebrew faith carry with it in the announcement,
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is One Lord!"
Would we as Christians sacrifice anything of this majestic utterance by substituting for it, " Hear, O Christian, the Lord thy God is one God in a Trinity of Persons"?   The  Trinitarian, however, assures  us  that
his belief of a triplicate personality in the Godhead does
not impair his belief in the Divine Unity. How inoperative then must be his Trinitarian belief, unless, as is
probably the case, the idea which he has in his mind
fails to find expression in any phraseology that can give
a verbal announcement of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The purest attraction, the most spiritual warrant of revealed religion, is the oneness of God. It is by that distinction that revealed religion stands loftily and simply
elevated above all earth-born religions. Yet this high
distinction is at once impaired, and in some measure
neutralized, by a doctrine of tri-personality in unity.
Long use has accustomed us to the assertion of this
doctrine in words, but none the less is it chargeable with
an influence prejudicial to the best exercise of our faculties upon the great truths of Gospel revelation.  A ques
120 
NO SCRIPTURAL FORMULA OF THE TRINITY.
tion for which this age is fully ready, instructed as it has
been by so much experience in the past, is this, and it is
a question which earnestly addresses itself to earnest
persons in all communions: - Cannot full justice be
done to the Christian scheme, and to the orderly connection of every one of its dependent truths, without any
use of this doctrine of the Trinity?  Do we need it?
Can we not dispense with it, and yet be Christian believers?
Having thus begun the statement of our objections to
this scholastic doctrine of the Trinity, by impugning it
as unintelligible and confounding, not enlightening or
solemnizing, we are led on through a series of valid and
strengthening reasons, which amount, in our own mind,
to ani unanswerable refutation of it.
Though Christians have insisted upon the fundamental character of this doctrine, they find it utterly impossible to state it in the language of Scripture. A human
formula is necessarily the vehicle for its expression.
Though t        he Scriptures, as we often affirm, have a peculiar directness and simplicity of phrase, and excel all
other forms of literature in the conciseness and vigor
with which they express truths and precepts, they nevertheless fail to furnish one single sentence which can be
used in a creed to announce the Trinity. Yes, this socalled primary and all-essential article of the Christian
faith,               -" t he foundation of all our communion  with
God," - cannot be uttered in any Divine oracle, but
must look to uninspired men for an expression. No announcement of it can be quoted from the lips of prophet
or apostle, or from Him who spake as never man spake.
A piecemeal selection of tthe elements which are to' be
wrought up into the doctrine must be gathered from isolated sentences and phrases of the Bible, and even then
one of the most familiar and well-defined words of our
langu     age- t he word person, which is already appropri
11
121
e ~lis~ i.t     1, 
THlE BAPTISMAL FORMULA.
ated past changing to mark the separate individuality of
one complete being - must be perverted to a wholly new
use, while they who thus pervert it profess to dislike it,
and aver that it wholly fails to convey the idea that is
in their minds. Are they sure that there is any real,
well-developed idea in their minds, seeing that they cannot express it without perverting language, and even
then are forced to confess that they fail to express it.
Are they sure, too, that the idea which they wish to express is one received from the Scriptures? Does Scripture bid us believe, as a fundamental, a doctrine which
Scripture itself does not announce in its own "form of
sound words"?
Again, a fundamental doctrine ought to be emphatically announced and constantly reiterated. Now all
candid persons must admit that no stress, no prominence, no directness or earnestness of statement, is made
of this doctrine in the Scriptures corresponding to the
emphatic and pre-eminent place assigned to it in all Orthodox creeds. Considering too with what strenuous
positiveness and reiteration the Unity of God'is there
asserted, ought there not to have been a balancing of
this assertion by as emphatic a proclamation of the
Trinity? This triplicity of constitution of the Godhead
was certainly a new doctrine to the world. It was new
to the Jews. It demanded, therefore, at least one announcement from each Apostle, and each Evangelist, in
terms as clear and strong as the resources and capacities
of human language will admit. What is most remarkable under this head of objection is the fact, that, on the
occasions upon which we should have looked for the
most distinct statement of the doctrine, it was held back.
The baptismal formula, which, unlike as it is to the formula of the creed, does gather together the three component elements of the Trinity, stops far short of the assertion that three personalities are mentioned, -and that
122 
THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING.
such three make up the one God of the Gospel. The
most natural and unprejudiced construction of that baptismal formula views it as announcing a Gospel message
from God the Father, through Christ his beloved Son,
attested by spiritual evidences from God's Holy Spirit.
What an opportunity was there here for the statementwhat an imperative demand was there for the statement,
if fundamentally true, and of paramount importanceof the full doctrine of the Trinity!  But it is not here!
After the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus, after the miraculous illumination of the
Apostles on the Feast of Pentecost, one signal event
occurred. The religion which, with its author, the Jewish rulers supposed had been committed to a hopeless
tomb, was resuscitated. Instead of having heard the
last of it, the world was now to begin to listen to a new
and unceasing proclamation of it. The opportunity for
making its first re-announcement came to Peter after an
astounding manifestation of Divine power. And what
an opportunity there was, what a pressing and emergent
necessity and demand there was, for proclaiming the
doctrine which Christians now  make fundamental in
their creed! We should look and listen to hear Peter
announcing to the Jewish rulers that in the person of
Jesus Christ they had rejected and condemned one who
shared the underived attributes of their own Jehovah.
But no!  What says he?  This: -" Ye men of Israel,
hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of
God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know; him, being delivered by the determinate
counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and
by wicked hands have crucified and slain: whom God
hath raised up."  (Acts ii. 22-24.)  And on how many
other occasions through Judea, Asia Minor, and'at
Rome, on the first promulgation of our faith, was it in
123 
DOUBTFUL PROOF-TEXTS.
cumbent on its preachers to have put foremost its foundation doctrine! But if the Trinity be such a doctrine,
they did not make one single statement of it which will
serve the use of the creed.  And now what can be offered in frankness, and in the thorough simplicity and
ingenuousness of true candor, to meet the force of this
objection?
Another fact most significant of the unscriptural character of the doctrine of the Trinity is, that the texts
which are quoted to support it are peculiarly embarrassed with doubts and questions as to authenticity, exactness of rendering, and signification. The three prominent proof-texts most likely to be first adduced, and
which promise at first sight to be most available, are the
least reliable. Of these three favorite passages with
Trinitarians, on which so much scholarship and ingenious reasoning and pleading have been expended, the
foremost onc is that in 1 John v. 7. This text comes
nearest of any in the Bible to a statement of the Trinitarian formula, though still falling short of the statement by all the distance of the difference between Three
agreein.- in One, and Three being- One. Yet this text
is now discredited as wholly without authority, as a corruption, an interpolation, foisted into the record. Every
Christian scholar, of whatever denomination, competent
to pass an instructed opinion on the matter, admits that
St. John did not write that sentence, and that the words
were most unwarrantably introduced into a manuscript
written some centuries after the Apostolic age, the
crowning proof of the fact being that no one of the Fathers quotes the text. Now let us at least have the
benefit of this allowance,- that the only sentence which
is acknowledged to be spurious in thle New Testament as
we read it, was introduced and is retained for the sake
of its supposed announcement and support of the doctrine of the Trinity. That text is to us a type of the
124 
DOUBTFUL PROOF-TEXTS.
unscriptural origin and the unscriptural character of the
doctrine.
The second of these favorite Trinitarian proof-texts is
1 Timothy iii. 16: "Great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh," &c. As the passage
stands, it neither presents the slightest embarrassment to
the Unitarian, nor affords the slightest support to Trinitarianism. But with the gloss and the forced construction put upon the passage, the word mystery is interpreted as signifying, not a disclosure of something before
concealed or unknown, but as implying an announcement of an occult and impenetrable secret; and the word
godliness, which means simply piety, is regarded as designating the Godhead, or the mode of the Divine Existence. Our readers are probably for the most part well
informed as to the question of scholarly criticism opened
on the text, whether a very ancient Greek manuscript has
the character o or a, and whether, as a consequence, we
should read in the English, "Whichi was manifest in the
flesh," or "God was manifest in the flesh."  As the Unitarian may claim, on grounds of criticism, that the passage should read, "Great is that marvel of piety which
was manifested in the flesh," so also the Unitarian may
consent to withdraw all such criticism from the text,
and read it as others read it, while he asks, with some
considerable earnestness, what shadow of argument can
be drawn from it in support of the Trinity. Are Unitarians to be forbidden to believe that "God was manifested
in the flesh," or that Christ was a marvellous exhibition
of piety? *
* Professor Stuart, in the Biblical Repository, 1832, p. 79, says: "I cannot
feel that the contest on the subject of the reading can profit one side so much,
or harm the other so much, as disputants respecting the doctrine of the Trinity have supposed. Whoever attentively studies John xvii. 20 - 26, 1 John
i. 3, ii. 5, iv. 15, 16, and other passages of the like tenor, will see that'God
might be manifest' in the person of Christ, without the necessary implication
of the proper divinity [Deity] of the Saviour; at least, that the phraseology
11'
125 
INGENUITY IN TEXT-HUNTING.
The third of these favorite Trinitarian proof-texts is
Acts xx. 28: " Feed the Church of God, which he bath
purchased with his own blood." The question raised by
variations in manuscripts, and other sources of critical information, is whether we should read "the Church of
God" or "the Church of the Lord." Our aim here is not
to present the merits on either side of the results which
criticism reaches on these texts, but simply to show that
the passages which Trinitarians would be most likely to
quote are the very ones which are most embarrassed or
dubious in their authority or their signification. Professor Samuel Davidson, an Orthodox critic whose conclusions are among the most recent ones which have
been offered to scholars, after a most candid arbitration
between the disputed words in the Greek which give
the two renderings, decides strongly in favor of "the
Church of the Lord." *
But what a dreary and repelling task it is to go over
the New Testament, or the whole Bible, to hunt out
words, phrases, and sentences that may constructively
or inferentially be turned to the support of a doctrine
which ought to lie patent on the page. It would seem
as if Trinitarians had reconciled themselves to the condition, that the only consistent way in which Scripture
could convey to us such an enigmatical and puzzling
doctrine, was by a method which should engage the
most tortuous, adroit, and mazy ingenuity of the human
faculties in seeking for results that must partake of the
character of the process for reaching them.  Roman
Catholic critics acknowledge manfully, as did Dr. New
of Scripture does admit of other constructions besides this; and other ones,
moreover, which are not forced."
* Treatise on Biblical Criticism, Vol. II. pp. 441 - 448.  We  may add,
that Dr. Davidson, though a Trinitarian, is as decided in his rejection of
1 John v. 7, as "spurious," and in his accordance with the critical judgment
which reads 1 Tim. iii. 16, "Great is that mystery of godliness which was
manifested in the flesh," &c.
126 
TRINITARIAN USE OF THE BIBLE.
man while he was yet an Oxford divine, that the Trinity
is not a Bible doctrine, but a Church doctrine, and that
our knowledge and recognition of it and its authority
rest for us on the same basis as does the substitution of
the Christian Sunday for the Jewish Sabbath.  And if
the method by which Trinitarians hunt through the
Bible for intimations and implications of the doctrine of
the Trinity be a repulsive one, not the less uninviting is
the task of answering all such arguments by a similar
process.   Since the doctrine gained currency in the
world, and found a positive statement in many creeds,
the Scriptures have been translated into the vernacular
languages of Christendom under the bias of a Trinitarian belief. The present Archbishop of Canterbury, who
ought to be the highest of human authorities, speaks,
in his discourse on Apostolic Preaching, of "the many
passages of Scripture which have suffered by the general
bias of the age in which our translation was made,"the bias of Calvinism. Those who have argued for the
Trinity, having started with a bias, helped by their ingenuity and guided by their fancy, have, with a vast
deal of pains, gone through the whole Bible, trying to
see how many intimations of this doctrine they could
cull out. There has been an amazing amount of trifling
exercised in this direction. Some who have ridiculed
or censured the follies of Rabbinical and allegorical
interpretation, or the puerilities of the Cabala, have
rivalled these follies in their attempts to find hints of
the Trinity in sentences whose writers evidently never
dreamed of the doctrine. Thus the use of the Hebrew
plural in the word (Elohim) for God, and the use of the
plural pronoun when " God said, Let us make man in our
own image," modes of speech used to denote majesty or
sovereignty, are urged in proof of a companionship in the
Deity.   Sentences are quoted asserting that no man
hath seen or can see God, and are compared with other
127 
SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
sentences which speak of manifestations of God to the
patriarchs and others; and the conclusion is drawn, that
the Jehovah of the Old Testament was the revealing
Son, not the Father. Yet even then the chain of intended proofs breaks at one link, while another link is in
the welding; for if a manifestation of one person ill the
Trinity was impossible, how could there be a manifestation of another person in it?  Again, the assertion is
quoted as from God, that he "will not give his glory to
another," and then an argument is raised to show that
the honors of God are assigned to Christ; while the inference follows that Christ is God.
We have no heart for going through this unnatural,
this offensive task of tracing the windings of this textual
ingenuity, or of answering its characteristic results.  The
process has no natural limitations or rules, because it
has no reasonable basis, no first grounds. It is all a
forced work, and fancy will make more or less of it ac cording as it is pursued by those who have more or less
of fancy,-fancy, however, of a very inferior sort.
For we have to object once more, that the Scriptures
bear a positive testimony against this doctrine of the
Trinity, by insisting upon the absolute Unity of God.
Trinitarians think that they recognize the force of these
reiterated and emphatic assertions of Scripture by after wards gathering up into one God those whom they have
made three divine persons.   But as the analysis was
forced, the synthesis must be strained. As the ingenuity
of the human mind could alone devise the triplicate dis tinction, the same ingenuity has to nullify its own work
to construct the Unity. Trinitarians do indeed assure us
that there is no incongruity, nothing inconceivable, in
the essential substance of their doctrinal statement. But
we must be judges as to that matter, certainly so far as
our own minds are concerned. Our minds assuie us that
violence must be done to the most explicit statements of
128 
DEVELOPMENT OF TRINITARIANISM.
every page of Scripture, before it can be made to yield
to us the doctrine of the Trinity.
We object, finally, to this doctrine, that we know its
origin to have been, not in the Scriptures, but outside of
them. It was the Greek Philosophy of Alexandria, and
not the Hebrew or Christian Theology of Jerusalem, that
gave birth to this doctrine.  We can trace its fount, its
spring, its incomings. There is no historical fact more
fully supported than that of the addiction of the Church
Fathers to the study of the Greek Philosophy; they
loved it, they fondly pursued it, they were infected by it,
their speculations were influenced by it, their Christian
faith received intermixture from it. Dr. Cmaesar Morgan
acknowledges this fact most candidly, though he pursues
a critical examination of all the passages in Plato which
are thought to contain references to an ante-Christian
Trinity, for the sake of proving that the Fathers did not
get the doctrine from the philosopher. But the argument which he assails does not yield to his assault upon
it. We might as well dispute whether an ancient tragedy, whose catastrophe turns on Fate, were of Grecian or
Jewish origin, as debate the issue whether a theosophical
fiction concerning the Godhead, which involves the most
acute subtilty of philosophy, sprang from the Abrahamic
faith or from Hellenic Gnosticism. The history of the
doctrine of the Trinity makes to us an evident display
of a development, an amplification and steady augmentation, from a germ which was forced into an artificial
growth. It was an evolved doctrine which was constantly seeking to define itself, which was never at rest,
and whic(h never has been at rest under any of the definitions which it has found for itself. A comparison of
the three old creeds, the so-called Apostles', the Nicene,
and the Athanasian, with a reference to their dates, will
unmistakably reveal of what processes and elements the
doctrine of the Trinity is the product.
129
0o 
NATURE AND RANK OF CHRIST.
We return now to that great doctrine of controverted
theology, the Deity of Christ, to maintain which, as we
have said, the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in the
Unity of the Godhead is so strenuously asserted in Orthodox creeds. Very many Trinitarians have candidly
acknowledged the force of one or all of the objections
which have just been hinted at. They allow that the
Trinitarian scheme is burdened with the most serious
perplexities to the understanding, that it is not simply a
mystery, like some of the other tenets of their faith, but
a confounding and puzzling enigma, teasing their minds,
rather than yielding them an instructive idea, -straining
their comprehension instead of enlightening it. And yet
those who most candidly make this allowance insist, with
their fellow-believers, upon the vital truth and importance
of the doctrine of the Trinity as involving the essential
doctrine of the Deity of Christ.   This latter doctrine
then presents itself to us as really the primary rudiment
of a scheme of which, in other aspects, it claims to be
only one of the conditions and consequences. A Trinity
is insisted upon in order that it may include the Deity
of Christ, and then the Deity of Christ is affirmed as an
element of the Trinity. We do not err in saying that
the doctrine now before us is charged with the double
obligation of sustaining its own truth, and also that of
the doctrine of the Trinity, by the positive authority of
the Scriptures. Orthodoxy has a dogma on this point,
but Unitarianism has no dogma, except in the quality of
denying a dogma. Let the issue be fairly understood.
The question is not whether the Scriptures do or do not
assign to Jesus Christ an exalted and mysterious nature
and range of being, which lift him above the sphere of
humanity. The question is not whether from what is
revealed of the Saviour we can fashion a full and satisfactory theory, which will make him to us a perfectly intelligible and well-defined being, holding a fixed place
130 
CHRIST DEPENDENT UPON GOD.
on the scale between man and God. But the question
is this: Do all the offices and functions and honors assigned to Jesus Christ exhibit him as undistinguishable
from God in time and essence and underived existence,
and in self-centred, inherent qualities? Is he, or is he not,
presented to us as a fractional part of the Godhead, - the
object, not the medium, of prayer, -the source, not the
agent, of redemption,- the substitute, not the representative, of Jehovah,- as the occupant of heaven's high
throne, not as seated "by the right hand" of the Supreme.? We are not to be driven, as to a sole alternative,
to the affirming that Christ was a man, because he was not
God, nor to the holding ourselves bound to show what he
was less than God, nor yet to the assigning him a sphere
of his own distinct at every point from that of Deity, because we say that the New Testament presents him as
receiving everything from the Father. What that everything includes, it would be presumptuous in us to define;
but it is not presumptuous in us to say that it excludes
underived prerogatives. There is indeed large room for
choice amid the range of speculative opinions which
Unitarianism has covered on this point, in seeking to
find a substitute for the Trinitarian opinion. The office
which we have assigned to ourselves in this review of
the substantial issues of a protracted controversy, does
not require an elaborate and exhaustive statement of
Unitarian views on this point. We have but to present
the antagonistic positions of the parties in this controversy.
If there are two connected truths taught with emphatic
and reiterated distinctness in the New Testament,'- or
rather we should say, if there are two such truths taken
for granted there, - they are that of the sole and simple
unity of God the Father, and that of the derived and
dependent relation to him of Jesus Christ. In order to
secure distinctness and clearness of thought upon Scrip
131
49 
GOD REVEALED IN CHRIST.
ture doctrine, we must subordinate the Son to the Father, and having done this to take our first step in Christian faith, we cannot complete our progress in that faith
by  confounding the Son with the Father.  We  must
distinguish between that being who appeared in Judma
as a messenger from God, and the God whose messenger he was.   The office of Christ  in warming  and
clothing and making welcome to us what otherwise
would have been a cold and naked and distant doctrine
of Deismn, appears to us exceedingly unlike what it is
represented to have been by the excellent Dr. Arnold.
Often, and most approvingly, triumphantly indeed, has
the following remark of his been quoted:' While I am most ready to allow the provoking and most illjudged language in which the truth as I hold it to be respecting
God has been expressed by Trinitarians, so, on the other hand,
I am inclined to think that Unitarians have deceived themselves
by fancying that they could understand the notion of one God
any better than that of God in Christ; whereas it seems to me,
that it is only of God in Christ that I can in my present state of
being conceive anything at all. To know God the Father, that
is, God as he is in himself, in his to us incomprehensible essence, seems the great and most blessed promise reserved for us
when this mortal shall have put on immortality." *
There is a singular confusion of thought and inconsistency of sentiment in these sentences, which glance
off from a beautiful truth into a foggy fancy. Christ
comes to facilitate our conceptions of God, to be the
medium for our vision, our confidence, and our knowledge of God, to make clearer and stronger to us the
sublime truth of Deity; and Christ effects this, Dr. Arnold implies, by substituting himself for the Being whom
he represents, reveals, and brings nearer to us!  If from
our own point of view we can discern any change which
* Letter to William Smith, Esq., March 9, 1833, in Life by Stanley.
132 
FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF UNITARIANISM.
in process of years will be sure to manifest itself in the
technics of theology, it is this,- that theologians who
have been so long trying to accommodate this doctrine
of some sort of a Trinity to their belief, will surrender it
altogether at the very point at which they have felt
bound to accept it; namely, that point at which a
recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity has been
thought essential to the defence of the Deity of Christ.
Unitarianism is committed to this fundamental posi tion, that, however exalted, however mysterious, however
undefined by limitations in a divine or a human direction, may be the nature and the rank of Jesus Christ, he
is not presented to us in the Gospel as claiming the underived prerogatives of Deity; nor, consequently, as an
object of our homage or prayer.  All those reiterated
commonplaces of reproach cast upon us, -of denying
the Lord that bought us,- of defrauding him of his due
honor, - of relying for salvation on a created being, -
are based upon assumptions which suppose us to yield
in one form what we object to under another form of
doctrine. It is a gross perversion of the Apostle's language to say that he meant, by a denial of the Lord, a
denial of him as our God: we do not defraud Jesus of
his due honor, when we honor him for what he is, precisely as we honor God for what He is; and if we rely
on the being "whom God has set forth to be our Prince
and Saviour," we feel that the reliance is worthy of our
trust. We certainly cannot be said to withhold the
honor due to Christ, if, persuaded as we are that he
always, and in the strongest terms of definite precept,
claims our supreme homage for his Father and our
Father, we restrict the tribute paid to himself within the
limitations of religious awe. We do not understand the
object of the Gospel to be to give us an idea of a complexity of personality in the Godhead, but to exalt, refine, and render practically effective the old reverence
12
133 
USE OF SCRIPTURE IN ARGUMENT.
associated with the unchangeable Jehovah. Christ, we
think, came into the world to show us the Father, not to
divide our homage with the Father. He came to lead
us to God, not to draw us to himself as our God. He
continually, and with much variety of language, refers us
to One above himself, without whom he could do nothing, the Source of all his powers and gifts, the Being
before whom he was himself to bring and lay down the
tokens of his fulfilled commission. HIe forbids all homage or supplication addressed to himself, and enjoins
that such exercises be offered to God.
Unitarians, therefore, are concerned to hold and to
vindicate the sole unity, the undivided sovereignty, of
God. If any spiritual penalty is to be visited upon us
here or hereafter for our opinion or our teaching on this
point, we must submit to bear it. We do and shall
plead, however, that some one emphatic sentence - one
at least -ought to have been recorded from the Saviour
in assertion of his underived Deity, equal in the positiveness of its statement to that of a hundred sentences in
which he affirms his subordination to God.
If the proportions. and the completeness of a view,
however summary, did not require it, we would most
gladly omit all reference to that very unwelcome work of
following the argument for the Deity of Christ into those
ambushes of sentences, half-sentences, and phrases called
texts, - proof-texts,- in which it is thought to hide.
We can urge ourselves only to the very briefest recognition of this element in the controversy. The processes
for constructing and for answering what is called argument on this point, are precisely like those already referred to in connection with a plea for or against the
doctrine of the Trinity. A conception which has originated outside of the Scriptures, from the exigencies of
speculation and theorizing, is ingeniously carried into
a textual examination of the Scriptures, and is made to
134 
DOUBTFUL AND EXPLICIT TEXTS.
claim support from them by pleas which would not be
considered valid in the interpretation of any other documents. Happily, however, long and free discussion has
simplified the terms of this questionable method. The
marvellous discovery has been made by a most careful
and candid student of the works of Christian divines,
that each single text and each single process of reasoning by which Trinitarianism has sought to prove its
Scriptural authority, has been surrendered as wholly unavailable for that purpose by a series of writers of highest eminence and scholarship in various Trinitarian communions.* Yet more remarkable, too, is the fact, that in
the very closest proximity to the sentences or the halfsentences which are claimed as intimating, darkly or
clearly, the Deity of Christ, are found other sentences of
a most explicit character which are in direct opposition
to such an inference.
The first sentences of John's Gospel are quoted triumphantly by Trinitarians, with this brief comment:
Christ is the Word; the Word is said to be God; therefore Christ is God. Now suppose in those sentences we
substitute, not only Christ in place of the Word, but also
a Trinitarian equivalent for God. That equivalent must
be either the term Father, or the term Trinity. We will
try both of them, thus: "In the beginning was Christ,
and Christ was with the Father, and Christ was the
Father." That will not do. "11In the beginning was
Christ, and Christ was with the Trinity, and Christ was
the Trinity." Neither will that do.
We are reminded that Jesus enjoined "that all men
should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father."
(John v. 23.)   But do the words "even as," when' so
used, imply identity of being in two who are to be honored, or that an identical regard is required for each?
* See "Concessions of Trinitarians," &c., by John Wilson.
135 
DOUBTFUL AND EXPLICIT TEXTS.
Can we not honor the Son for what he is, even as we
honor the Father for what He is? Is it an unusual thing
for a principal in sending a deputy on an embassy to ask
for his representative a regard conformed to what would
be paid to himself? For Jesus himself adds, " He that
honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which hath
sent him" -certainly recognizing his own dependence.
We are reminded that Thomas, on recognizing his
Master by his wounds, exclaims, "My  Lord, and my
God!"  (John xx. 28,) and the Trinitarian insists that
he  applied both terms to  the Saviour.   But must
Thomas be precluded from the possibility of having
both Christ and God in his mind in that moment of surprise and earnest outbursting of emotion? Could he
not apostrophize the Deity as we ourselves do under excitement on far lesser occasions?
We are reminded that the martyr Stephen, rapt in a
vision of glory at his death, "saw Jesus standing on
the right hand of God."  (Acts vii. 55.)  He saw  two
beings then. But our translators have introduced into a
subsequent verse the word God, which is not in the original, thus: "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God,
and saying, Lord Jesus," instead of "calling out and
saying, Lord Jesus," &c. (verse 59.)
We are reminded that Jesus says, "I and my Father
are one." (John x. 30.) But does he not twice pray that
his disciples may be in the same unity which exists between him and his Father?  "That they may be one,
as we are." (John xvii. 11.) " That they all may be one:
as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also
may be one in us." (verse 21.)
We are reminded of Paul's assertion, that "all things
are put under Christ." (1 Cor. xv. 27.) But does not
the Apostle add, as if to guard against all possibility of
misconception, -"It is manifest that He is excepted
who did put all things under him; and when all things
136 
DOCTRINE OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.
shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all"?
We are reminded that the same Apostle says of Christ
(Coloss. i. 16), whom he has just called "the first-born
of every creature":  "For by him were all things created
that are in heaven, and that are in earth," &c. But when
the Apostle proceeds to add, "For it pleased the
Father that in him should all fulness dwell," (verse 19,)
he leaves us to infer that all things were created and disposed with reference to Christ: "All things were created
by him and for him."
We are reminded that the writer of the Epistle to the
Hebrews quotes a Psalm as addressing the Son, thus:
" Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever!" (i. 8.)
But saying nothing of the sufficient reasons for reading
the passage, "God is thy throne for ever and ever," what
are we to do with the next verse, which says: "Thou
hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore
God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows "?
But even this hopeless method of attempting to deduce from scattered sentences or half-sentences the proof
of a doctrine which is positively precluded by contiguous
sentences of the plainest import, - even this task must
be pursued under the pressure of a necessity for proving
that Christ, himself one in the Trinity of the Godhead,
united in his own person a divine nature and a human
nature. If that dogma did not take its start in a complete renunciation of the natural demand that an intelligible idea should be connected with every positive assertion, the dogma would have to yield itself at a very
early stage of the process for pursuing it through the
New Testament. Now an Apostle tells us, that we ourselves are "partakers of the divine nature "; but we interpret the words as teaching us that this gift of God in
12' 
138      DOCTRINE OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.
us distinguishes us from brutes and makes us men,
not men and God; still less does it make us partakers
in the underived prerogative of Deity,- divine in our
own right.   We institute no comparison between the
measurements of the divine gift in us, and that in
Christ, for we believe there is no room for such a comparison, as Christ had the spirit of God without measure.  But a gift, however unlimited in its measurement,
does not change the receiver into the giver, nor transfer
the original prerogative of self-centring fulness of essence. The more such a gift imparts, the more does it
strengthen the difference between its source and its receiver as such, and the closer does it make the dependence of its object upon its original.  This fiction of a
double nature in Christ does not cover the phenomena
for the explanation of which theologians have recourse
to it. Jesus says of his highest gifts and powers, those
which in him are most exalting and most divine, that he
received them from the Being who also gave him a body
for the manifestation of them. We might possibly conceive of Deity under a form of flesh, and listen to the
speech of the tongue'which should refer its wisdom to
the indwelling God. But what if the indwelling Spirit
refers us to the Source of which it is a ray?  The qualities in Christ which lift him nearest to the Supreme are
the very ones to which he most emphatically assigns the
proof of his dependence upon God. All power in heaven
and on earth is his; but not self-possessed,- for he says
it was given to him. He had power to lay down his
life, and he had power to take it again, and that, too, he
had "received from the Father."  When a believer in
the double nature of Christ- that is, as defined by
the popular theology - undertakes to go through the
New Testament, and assign his words and deeds respectively to his Deity or his humanity, he will find that
he gathers a reserved list of qualities and elements of a 
UNITY OF CIIRIST'S NATURE.
doubtful reference. As these present themselves, the
inquirer is forced to ask, Did Christ say this as God or
as mian?  Often will such a process make it appear that
what Christ is represented as saying or doing in his
human nature is above the sphere of humanity, and
that what is affirmed of him in his divine nature is
below the sphere of Deity.
And what becomes of the individuality, the personality of Christ, the consistency of his character, and the
identity of his consciousness, when in the sacred drama
of his Gospel manifestation he is represented as performing in two parts, and without change of fleshly garb or
tone or speech lays aside now his Deity and now his
humanity in alternate moments and in successive sentences of his discourse?  His prayers must be construed
as soliloquies: his deeds of power must be referred to
himself, and his professions of dependence to one element
of that self, speaking of another element in the same self.
The incongruity, the incoherence, which the Orthodox
doctrine of two natures in Christ either puts into or draws
from the Scriptures, is not the least of the confounding
conditions of the theory.  When an individual speaks
of himself to others, they understand him as speaking of
all that is embraced under his seeming and his real individuality. Unless he has announced himself as representing two characters, and as free to pass from the one
impersonation into the other without giving warning of
the transition, his two characters will be regarded as
making up one character, and some deeds and utterances
which would have been intelligible if assigned to either
of his impersonations, become inexplicable if referred to
his composite character.  Only through the help of an
illustration - for which, however, we need not apologize,
as the candid will recognize the simple intent of a par.allelism at only one point - can we express the real embarrassment which we meet in attempting to deal with the
139
I  j  i 0  - -  >P 
!UNITY OF CHRIST'S NATURE.
theory of a double nature in Christ. Let it be allowed
us, then, to conceive of a man who is concerned in business under two relations,-first as an individual, and
second as a member of a firm of three partners. Under
each of these relations he receives and writes letters,
meets at his two offices those with whom he has dealings, and speaks and acts under the exigencies of his
double mercantile connections. As a member of the
firmn he has visited its place of business, consulted its
books, and read letters which have made known to him
certain facts of a very serious import and interest to
others. He goes to his place for transacting the business
which he does on his private account. While there, a
friend, who is deeply concerned in the very matters of
which he has just come to the knowledge, enters and
asks for information about them, addressing him as an
individual possessing one mind, one consciousness.  He
replies that he knows nothing about the matter, keeping
in reserve, however, the explanation which he makes to
himself, that he means that his private letters are silent
on the subject. Does he deal fairly with his questioner,
especially if that questioner has appealed to him oil the
very ground of his well-known extended and various
relations to the business affairs of the world, and perhaps
on the day previous has heard him speak in that character?  Precisely this question would be continually
presenting itself to us in embarrassing and painful
shapes if we accepted the theory of a double nature in
Christ, under which, when questioned as an individual
on the ground of all he ever claimed to know and to be,
he replied according to his choice of characters for the
moment, by a claim founded on his Deity, or a profession of limited knowledge or ignorance justified by his
humanity. The Jews understood that the same individuality of being addressed them in the words, 4"I can of
mine own self do nothing," as in the words, " I will raise
140 
WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST?
him up at the last day." Not the least intimation does
the Saviour appear to have given to his disciples in their
privacy, that the mystery which invested him was to be
solved by distributing his words and deeds, his claims of
unlimited power, and his acknowledgments of dependence upon one above him, to two natures united in him.
If he had two natures he must have borne two characters, and his discourses and actions must be referred
respectively to the one or the other, so far as is possible.
But when ingenuity has exhausted itself in this task, it
will still have to account for phenomena attendant upon
the Saviour which are referable neither to a Self-Existent
and Infinite God, nor to any' manifestation ever yet
made of human nature.  We reject this theological figment of a double nature, as a pure invention of human
brains, a Gnostic conceit, unwarranted by the record, and
unavailable for the solution of the mystery which invests
the Messiah. The Gospel is not chargeable with it.
But after Unitarians have formed and avowed a most
positive and unqualified conviction, as the characteristic
distinction of their creed, that Jesus Christ is not presented to us in the Scriptures as claiming the underived
prerogatives of Deity, nor as the object of our worship
or our ultimate trust, Unitarians have to answer to
themselves and to others the question which the Saviour
puts to all his disciples, " What think ye of Christ?"
It is indeed a matter for thought, for serious and perplexing thought. The field over which that thought will
range is so wide, and men will bring to it such various
capacities, methods, and biases, that they will find themselves led to speculate towards different conclusions.
Obvious it is to every candid mind, of whatever sect, that
there is nothing in the fixed fundamental tenet of Unitarianism on this point, which prevents our rising to the
highest possible conception of the nature, the offices, and
the agency of Christ. Trinitarians sometimes speak of
141 
EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
us as if, in denying an underived divinity to Christ, we
actually deprived ourselves of a God in whom we might
trust, and left the central throne of heaven empty because
we do not seat upon it the vicegerent of the Most High.
We can tell them that our doctrine gives to us the same
God whom they worship, and another being, -yes, a
Divine Being besides. We know of nothing that hinders but that God may impart, may delegate, any measurement of his own properties, save simply that of selfexistence. And as the properties of God are infinite, the
One who partakes of them in the highest measurement
must be exalted above human powers of conception for
defining the compass of his nature, leaving, however, one
single limiting distinction, -that, as there can be but
One Infinite, Self-Existent, Supreme, the Son must be
subordinated to the Father. And this is the truth which
is in part declared and in part intimated in the Saviour's
own affirmation, " My Father is greater than I." The
declaration subordinates Christ to God, the intimation
exalts Christ all but infinitely above humanity. It would
be preposterous, for a being standing in human form
among men, to utter. the blank and stolid conceit of
owning his inferiority to God. A distinctive exaltation
above the sphere of humanity is the essence of the
meaning of that utterance. The pointing upwards to
the one who is Higlhest as the only one who is higher,
distinguishes Christ alike from Deity and from humanity. The universe of being is to us enriched by an additional being, through the view which we entertain of
Christ. The awful vacuum between the loftiest partakers of angelic natures and the Supreme has now a
radiant occupant, who fills the whole of it. That Unitarians are disposed to conceive of Christ under the
highest exposition which the strongest phrase or sentence
of Scripture makes of him, is an admission which they
will not ask of the charity, for they demand it of the
142 
EXALTATION OF CHRIST.
justice, of their opponents. How absurd it is to charge
us with derogating from the claims or the honor of
Jesus! Such censorious words imply a motive which
we know is not in our hearts.  What possible inducement could we have to entertain it?  Between us and
other Christians, what different influences in purpose or
inclination can be traced, which would warrant such an
impugning of our sincerity as is implied in these odious
charges? To derogate from the just claims or honor of
another, to reduce his dignity, or to withhold his rightful
tribute, implies always a mean or a malignant feeling;
and if Unitarians deserve such a charge, let it be spoken
boldly, in manly candor, and not intimated by covert
insinuations. During the progress of this controversy
many an Orthodox preacher in city and country pulpits,
relying upon his own conceit, or trusting to the oracular
authority which he may have with those who are willing
to listen to him as a teacher of Christian truth, has ventured to tell them in unqualified terms, " Unitarians
degrade and deny the Saviour." It is difficult to suppose thatany one can so speak of professed Christians,
without communicating to. himself at least a glow of
unchristian passion, even if the language were not suggested by such a feeling. But imagine these preachers
to have substituted some such language as this:' "Unitarians, with all the means of knowing the truth which I
myself have, and in the exercise of a desire, which I have
no right to think is not as thoroughly sincere and pure
as my own desire, to discover what the truth is, believe
that Christ, however exalted he may be, is not identical
with God."  We venture to say that this latter style of
address, if it had prevailed, would have given us a better
opinion of the candor of Orthodox preachers in seeking
to instruct large classes of those who are disposed to
listen to them most confidingly, than we have now.
Our sole aim and wish are to gather from the New
143 
RANGE OF UNITARIAN VIEWS.
Testament as intelligible and adequate a conception as
is possible of Jesus Christ. We are concerned to do
this through the force of two equally serious and sincere
motives, - the one having in view the strength and
clearness of our own mental and spiritual apprehension
of him as the Messiah, the other looking to a reverent
gratitude to Christ himself in assigning him his place in
our hearts. We wish to think rightly of Christ, in order
that we may believe in him, may rest our confidence in
his authority and his sufficiency; and in order that we
may love him, as he made our affection the highest condition for putting us into such a relation to him as will
constitute him our Saviour. It is simply and wholly
through force of convictions wrought by a serious study
of the Scriptures, that Unitarians, who agree in a denial
of the Deity of Christ, are led to differ in their metaphysical views of him. Their differences range over the
whole field of conception between an idea of Christ as
a man miraculously endowed, and an idea of him as the
sharer of God's throne, his counsellor and companion,
holding rank above all other orders of being, and touching upon the prerogatives of Deity.  To some, the Arian
hypothesis of Christ as pre-existent, ranking above all
angels, and dwelling before all worlds were made in the
bosom of God, has been a favorite conviction. To
others, this hypothesis is barren of all that gives to a
high theme of faith its glow and grandeur, as it vainly
attempts to exalt Christ chiefly by extending his existence through a longer space of time. Others still insist
that the very last question suggested by the New Testament, as a matter of concern to us, is that of Christ's
nature, inasmuch as we are interested only in his office,
and have to do with him only as a visitor to this earth
for the especial purposes of revelation which he has now
fulfilled. And yet again, we have met on Unitarian
pages an accepted use of the phrase "the eternal gener
144 
HIIUMANITARIANISM.
ation of the Son." We know that those who use this
phrase neither intend to utter an absurdity, nor to signify
that they are saying something while yet they say nothing. Still we are sure that we do not get their idea,
for we get no idea at all from their words. The generation of a son, or the birth of a son, indicates an event,
an incident that transpires at some point in time. Now
if the epithet mysterious, or original, or undated, or a like
epithet, was connected with the word, we should acknowledge the presence of an idea; but to connect eternal with the generation of anything, if it effects any
purpose, takes back in one of the words what is asserted
in the other. Happily, however, it is an understood
canon of language that every idea, if it is an idea which
requires two words to express it, may be stated in at least
two ways,- generally in several ways, but always in
two. Now if those who use the phrase "the eternal
generation of the Son," as expressing a point in their
belief, will put their idea into another form of expression, we may perhaps be helped to understand their
meaning.
Those Unitarians who regard Jesus as presented to us
under a simply human aspect, hold this opinion not necessarily through the force of any prejudice, but as the
transcript and substance of what they think the plain
New Testament teaching upon it. They believe that
miraculous endowments from God on a basis of pure
humanity - complemented, perfected, and inspired manhood - fill out every representation there made of Christ,
account for all he was and did, ratify all that he taught
or promised, adapt him to all our necessities as a
"high-priest touched with the feelings of our infirrtnities," as "the faithful and true witness" of God, and as
"able to save unto the uttermost those who come unto
God by him." And when those who thus believe are
taunted or challenged for relying, - as the rebuke is
13
145 
ARIANISM.
worded,- for" relying for salvation on a created being,"
they have but to answer, that they no more rely for their
salvation than they did for their existence upon a created
being, as their reliance is simply and ultimately upon
God, though it may be mediately upon any agency or
method which God may have chosen. For if God chose
a created being to be the medium of our salvation, as he
made created beings to be the mediums of our existence, his power and wisdom in the choice of such an
agency or method are not to be questioned, while "the
grace is still the same." If any one should refuse to accept the proffer of salvation through such an agency, as
too humble or inadequate, he might be reminded of the
rebuke conveyed to the Syrian leper by his servant,
when he compared the river of Israel so contemptuously
with Abana and Pharpar. This taunt of relying for salvation on a created being is meant, of course, to convey the idea that the Scriptures teach that not only the
Source, but the  Mediator, of our salvation is an-uncreated being. But this, however, opens again the whole
question as to what the teaching of Scripture on this
point is. Let that.sole, simple issue stand clear of all
such taunts upon those who, as sincerely and as intelligently as others who come to different conclusions, are
brought to the belief that Christ is presented to us in
Scripture as the perfection of humanity, or, in the words
of Peter, as, "a man approved of God by miracles, and
wonders, and signs which God did by him."
Yet others among the Unitarians have been as strenuous as have been any of the believers in the Trinity in rejecting this humanitarian view of Christ. Earnest have
been the protests of many among us against that view.
Some have firmly believed that the truth lay wholly in
an opposite direction, and so have embraced the theory
of the pre-existence, the super-angelic glory of Christ, as
being the first-born of the creation of God, constituting
146 
RELATION OF CHRIST TO GOD.
a sacred companionship in the otherwise lonely majesty
of heaven, the sharer and almost the equal in essence
with the Supreme, waiting that fulness of time which
should bring him in human form to this earth. One
may hold this belief as millions have held it, and still be
in all strictness a Unitarian; for Unitarianism is committed simply to a distinction between God and Christ, -
a distinction which subordinates Christ to God. Certainly here is a wide range for faith,- wide enough for
every phase of mental conception, wide enough to fill
out every form of language, every shaping of thought,
which we find in the Scriptures. We must distinguish
between God and Christ, and the attempt to confound
them would to us require a yielding up of the most explicit statements of the New  Testamnent, which give
added distinctness to our conceptions of both those beings by assigning to each a work that individualizes
their relation to us. Even though, in the work of redemnption, and in the manifestation made to us of the
Father in the Son, there is a blending of their glory, and
we find it hard to separate their office and agency, they
are still seen to part at the very point in which they are
in closest union; just as when a powerful telescope is
turned towards one of those sparkling orbs which glitter
in the midnight sky, it seems to the eye to be single,
but the keenest gaze resolves it into a double star, one
of which is'of the first magnitude, and the other of which
is not.  Dr. Woods (in his Ninth Letter to Unitarians)
says that the distinction between the Father and the
Son " is of such a nature that they are two, and are in
Scripture represented to be two as really as Moses and
Aaron, though not in a sense inconsistent with their essential unity." The obvious meaning of the last clause
of this sentence is, evidently, not the meaning which the
writer intended to convey; but conveniently for himself,
though disappointingly to us, he. stops short of convey
147 
THE WORD MADE FLESH.
ing what meaning he must have thought he had in his
own mind.
It seems to us that some of the highest and most
precious uses for which God was manifested in the
person of Christ, are wholly sacrificed when Christ is
merged back into Deity. Some of our own writers, in
the sedate calmness of written discourse, as well as in
the loftiest strains of their devotional rhetoric, have expressed their earnest belief in "the Incarnation of God,"
and have spoken of Christ, not simply as the Incarnate
Word of God, but as the Incarnate God. It is evi.
dent that the use of this phrase must involve some of
those indeterminate and undefined significations attaching to phraseology, the materials of which are metaphysical, while its purpose is to convey a most literal
and direct meaning. The phrase is burdened not only
with all the wealth and majesty of Christian conceptions, but also with all the poverty and meanness of
Hindoo doctrines. In fact, it is one of those phrases
which indicates either a doubtful fancy, or an adequate
and intelligible and satisfactory interpretation of one of
the highest conceptions of the spirit,-  according to the
companionship which it may find in the other religious
ideas of each human mind. But our point is this: that
Jesus Christ is presented to us as a real and distinct being,- as a real individuality, not merely as the medium of
a manifestation. To resolve him back into Deity, while
it makes no addition to the Godhead, deprives us of a
being nearer to our conceptions, and more available to
some of our highest needs of guidance, knowledge, and
confidence. The moon we know receives all its light
from the sun, imparting only to us the brightness and
blessing which it has received. But having received
those rays from its source, it has a power of concentrating and reflecting them, and that.power in the moon
of concentrating and reflecting the rays of the sun is the
148 
PRESENT AGENCY OF CHRIST.
subsidiary condition which makes the moon a helpful
orb to us. The sun would have no perceptible increase
of light if it called in the beams which it lends to our
beautiful satellite, but then we should lose one of heaven's fairest objects. If it were to be proved that there
really is no organized body answering to what we call
the moon, but that the sun's rays not only gild, but also
by some wondrous process create, the appearance of such
an orb, by casting a blazing focus like a spectrum into
one spot amid the mists of heaven, the realms of space
would be deprived of a solid body, and in place of it we
should have a phantasm. Similar would be the loss
among the objects of our religious faith and devotional
reliance, if Christ, as a distinct reality, is resolved into a
radiation of God.  We believe, indeed, that his light is
not his own, yet we also believe that that light does not
create a phantom form, but is concentrated and reflected
by the Son, who "has life" and being "in himself."
Nor is it only in the earthly offices and ministry of
Christ that we find reason to distinguish him from God.
The straits of devotion, trust, aspiration, and religious
experience are relieved by a firm belief in him who is
seated at the right hand of the Supreme, still intrusted
with the mission which thirty years of an earthly ministry did not complete. We believe in the present existence of Christ, not as God, but as Christ. We believe
in his present agency for his Church. The Scriptures
positively affirm that he is now watching over his own
work, advancing his own cause. He is called our Advocate and Intercessor with the Father. Christian trust
and love, and the conscious want and dependence of the
heart, can fill out the meaning of those terms if- and
only if - Christ is still existing, not as God, but as
Christ. It is utterly impossible to give any natural or
intelligible meaning to those terms, if we call Christ
God; for then we have God interceding with God,
13~
149 
INADEQUATE VIEWS OF CHRIST.
and we lose our Mediator. Trinitarianism teaches that
Christ parted with all that in him and about him was
not God when he left the earth, and in dropping the
flesh, which alone brought him into sympathy of nature
with us, returned to the sky in the simple exaltation of
Deity. If so, his separate ministry for us has ceased.
But we need it still, and never more than since he has
passed into the heavens. We need him still, as a being
distinguishable by our thought and faith from God, that
he may lead us up to God, and reconcile us to God.
The Trinitarian view of him now is but a barren theory
of metaphysics to us. Reliance upon his written teachings is but a cold, didactic exercise, unless quickened by
faith in an ever-living Christ.
The candor with which we have aimed to pursue this
discussion requires of us one frank confession at its close.
We are concerned to state with emphasis the fact that,
as one result of the controversy on this point, there has
been a marked and most edifying change in the prevailing tone of Unitarian discourse upon the offices and the
agency of Christ. We are willing, too, to admit our indebtedness to some -cautions and remonstrances from
our doctrinal opponents, while we also affirm that our
experiences within our own fold and within our own
breasts have ratified these remonstrances as not wholly
uncalled for and as highly salutary to us. Not forgetting the mlany tracts and essays and sermons by early
Unitarians, whose fervor of faith and exalted trust in the
mediatorial and superhuman offices of Christ fed the
piety of multitudes of our cherished and sainted dead,
we admit that some of high repute among us have favored what are called low, and chilling, and inadequate
views of the Author and Finisher of our faith.  One of
the least available uses which Christ serves to us is that
of an "Example," simply because the availableness of an
example consists in exciting and aiding us to imitate it,
150 
INADEQUATE VIEWS OF CHRIST.
and our imitation of Christ must necessarily be at so
fearfully long and hopeless a distance, that even to lay
much stress on his being an example to us would be
more apt to mislead us into an over-confidence in ourselves as imitators, than to an adequate conception of
that perfect being. We may imitate some actions of
the Saviour, - but to imitate him is a task which means
more than the words convey. If we were to spend
a lifetime on the study of Newton's Principia, and
were to undertake to verify every process in his deductions, we should be disposed to take the name of a disciple, rather than that of an imitator of Newton. Have
not Unitarians overlooked some of the proportions of
truth in speaking of Christ as an example? There may
have been no speculative error in this, seeing that Christ
set before us God himself as our example. But if that
has been to any a paramount view of Christ, it may
have practically obscured some of his other offices.
Nor does the epithet "Teacher" suit any high devotional conception of Christ. When curious dividers of
the word of truth have proclaimed that every didactic
lesson, every precept, every moral truth, taught by Christ,
may be paralleled by a quotation from Hebrew or classic pages, what is there left to signalize him as a teacher?   True, we may sublimate the word Teacher, and
make it embrace the authority, the evidences, and the attractions of the lessons conveyed by the only perfect and
heaven-attested Teacher; but that is connecting the epi.
thet with Christ rather for the sake of exalting the word
than for the purpose of giving him his highest title. The
distinction of a teacher is his doctrine, and when that
doctrine so far transcends any other teaching as to embrace not only the loftiest lessons, but also the influences,
the appeals, and the aid which give them their power
over the soul, the functions of a Teacher are absorbed in
the offices of a Saviour. A didactic view of the Gospel
151 
LOVE AND REVERENCE FOR CHRIST.
has found perhaps an excess and disproportion of favor
among Unitarians.
" You do not make enough of Christ," has been the
remonstrance addressed to us. We have listened to it.
If it ever offended us, it shall henceforward be of service
to us. We believe that it has been of service to us, for
the reason that some in our own communion have made
it a self-reproaching accusation, which has warmed their
hearts and deepened their Christian love. We have not
made enough of Christ. No denomination of Christians
makes enough of Christ. Unitarians, having been compelled to treat of Christ by methods which metaphysically subordinate him, have been in danger of losing sight
of the best influence from him and of the conditions for
securing it. We should be glad to feel that we have
done with the metaphysical discussion, and may henceforward forego it, that we may give all our thought to
the devotional, the spiritual apprehension of Christ. This
is to us the great, the best result of the controversy.
Henceforth it shall be with less and less of reason furnished by us, that our opponents shall say, " You do not
make enough of Christ." Having distinguished him
from God, we feel all the more our need of him to guide
us to God, to manifest God to us. We recognize in our
own deepest wants the craving to which he ministers.
We know and own that, in a Gospel which comes by
Christ, Christ must be the foremost object, and that every
sentiment engaged by that Gospel must yield some tribute of heart and soul to him. If in the ardor of controversy we have seemed to depreciate any office of Christ,
or, in our jealousy for the prerogative of the Supreme, to
forget any of our obligations of love and reverence to his
Messiah, we can say that it has been so only in the
seeming, and not in reality. If in the spirit of. charity
our opponents have charged us with our seeming error
on this point, we thank them for it. We would, how
152 
A POSITIVE FAITH.
ever, remind them, that we are not driven to such a mistake by any exigencies of our doctrinal position, as denying the Trinity and the underived Deity of Christ.
"To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things, and we by him." (1 Cor. viii. 6.)
Our negations may be the most striking characteristic
of our creed to its opponents; but our positive faith is
the condition of its power and truth and value to ourselves.
153 
I 
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
ON
THE ATONEMENT. 
I 
UNITARIANISAI AND ORTHODOXY
ON
THE ATONEMENT.
PeRSUING our general review of a half-century of the
controversy still in agitation between the divided representatives of the old Congregational body of New England, we have summed up the views of the two parties
on two of their great doctrinal issues. It remains for us
to follow the same method in dealing with what we
have already defined as the third of the chief topics of
discussion and division. This concerns the Scripture
doctrine of the Atonement: the agency of Jesus Christ
in securing the reconciliation between God and men;
the need of such an agency, the mode of its operation
and of its efficacy.
"Unitarians deny the doctrine of the Atonement," is
the judgment pronounced against us by the Orthodox.
" Unitarians believe the doctrine of the Atonement," is
our earnest, self-convinced, and solemn assertion, made
in answer to that judgment. What then? Is it a question of veracity between us, involving a slander or falsehood on the one side, and a plea of self-defence on the
other?  No!  There may be misunderstanding, there
may be misrepresentation, but we make no charge of
intentional falsifying. Is it then a question as to the
14
I..,.".  - -  3.. 
THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
meaning of a word, so that, while the parties respectively
affirm or deny, they do not affirm and deny the same
thing, because they attach quite different significations
to the same word on which the whole issue hangs?
There certainly is involved in the controversy much
difference of opinion and much debate as to the meaning of a few very important words, especially of the
word atonement.   The  controversy  some  years ago
turned far more than it does now upon the meaning of
that one word. Unitarians insisted, that the word atonemnent, according to its etymology and its actual use at
the time when our English version of the Bible adopted
it, signified reconciliation.  Unitarians also urged, that
a false view of the Scripture doctrine had connected an
erroneous association with the word atonement, had in
fact changed its popular signification; and that the word
reconciliation ought to be substituted for it in the only
place where it occurs in the New Testament. Orthodox
controversialists stoutly and obstinately denied these assertions.  Happily, however, that point may now be regarded as yielded by them.  So far, the controversy as a
strife about words has abated. But while the embarrassment of one merely verbal dispute is set aside, the
controversy is still largely and almost hopelessly complicated with questions as to the signification and the
interpretation of terms of language. Charity, therefore,
requires of us to explain that, when the Orthodox so
flatly and positively affirm that Unitarians do not believe the doctrine of the Atonement, in spite of the assertion of the Unitarians that they do believe it, the Orthodox mean simply that Unitarians do not accept their
interpretation of the Scripture doctrine. The Orthodox,
taking for granted the infallibility of their decision in
scholarship, criticism, and matters of open debate in the
articles of Christian faith, identify their conclusions with
Scripture doctrine. They hold Unitarians not only to a
158 
PARTIES TO THE CONTROVERSY.
belief of the Scripture doctrine of Atonement, but also
to a reception of their construction and interpretation of
that doctrine. It is thus that an issue is opened between the two parties, and fairly opened.  The controversy has so far warranted its own just grounds and
occasion, as to prove that the assurance heretofore exhibited, in quietly taking for granted the identity of Orthodoxy and of Scripture doctrine, had better give way
to the more becoming and deliberate processes of patient,
serious, and humble examination. Disciples of Christ,
as sincere and faithful as any of those whose names
shine on the records of the Church Universal: scholars as
profoundly versed in the mysteries of tongues and interpretation as any of those whom Orthodoxy has accepted
for oracles: and humble, obedient, and hopeful disciples
of the faith in every condition of human life, have found
a glorious and merciful doctrine of Atonement in the
Scriptures, quite different from that which Orthodoxy
teaches. The issue, then, is not whether the Orthodox
speak truth or untruth when they affirm that Unitarians
do not believe the atonement; but the issue is simply
and solely this, - What is the Scripture doctrine of the
atoning work of Christ? If the Orthodox have any
advantage over the Unitarians, as respects sincerity of
purpose, or docility of mind, or humility of spirit, they
have but to claim it, and to prove their claim. They
will find us quite easy of conviction on proper proof.
Failing any such inequality of position or advantage,
the issue between the parties seems to be, as in fact it
always has been, one depending entirely upon an honest
and intelligent interpretation of the, Scriptures.   The
candid Bishop Butler has frankly remarked, "There is
not, I think, anything relating to Christianity which has
been more objected against, than the mediation of Christ
in some or other of its parts." * The admission affords
Analogy, Part IL Chap. V.
159 
A FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINE.
an admirable introduction to every attempt at a fair
inquiry, for the sake of discovering where the strength of
the objection to the Orthodox doctrine really lies.
Would that the time had fully come for the treatment
of this theme solely under a positive form of statement,
simply to present accepted truth in all its manifold relations of tenderness and power for the heart of man; because the Christian doctrine of Atonement is a doctrine
which, by the consent of all parties, addresses the heart.
There are two emphatic reasons which make it above
all things desirable that this doctrine, instead of being
a ground of division and alienation between Christian
believers, should be the very point of their warmest sympathy and union. For, first, the doctrine which opens
the way for our reconciliation to God, ought to reconcile
us to each other, to engage our common love, to harmonize all our alienations, and to be the bond of peace
between believers. And second, as this is one of the
fundamental doctrines of Christian theology, it must
constitute one of the chief tests of the truth and value
of that great remedial scheme of the Gospel. The doctrine truly stated must furnish the strongest testimony
for the truth and the adequacy of the alleged Divine
intervention for the deliverance of men; while any false
view or perversion of the doctrine will at once constitute
the most offensive obstacle in the way of a confiding
belief, and will make the Gospel most impotent where
it ought to be most effective in its power. Indeed, our
consciousness of moral and spiritual disease, our sense
of exposure under sin and of our need of redemption,
the measure of our love and gratitude to Christ as the
medium of relief, and our views of the character, attributes, and government of God, will all be affected by
our view of the nature and method of that remedy
which the Gospel has provided.
We think we express the prevailing sentiment among
160 
DOGMATISM AND ASSUMPTION.
Unitarians when we say that this is the theme upon
which they love the least to dispute, are the most reluc tant to engage in controversy, and are the most anxious
to have a clear understanding with their opponents as
to the grounds of division and the prospects of harmo nizing our differences. We feel that the subject is alien
from all strife, a subject eminently engaging, pacifying,
and constraining of sympathy  and harmony.   That
Christ died for us in any sense, ought to exclude his
death from angry or passionate controversy among
those who claim to share the benefits of his sacrifice.
It is a grievous thing to us to be told that we deny his
Atonement, and then to have so severe a charge vindicated by forcing upon the Scriptures a doctrine which we
are persuaded is not taught there, but is an inference or
invention of the mind of rnman. And especially is it grievous to us to be charged, as even now we are charged, -
when we affirm that we believe the doctrine,-with using
words deceptively, and with trying to claim Orthodox
sympathy of belief under double meanings of language
and the perversion of terms from ther ordinary significations.  It is only from the sense and4b4e smart of the
wrong thus inflicted upon us, that we still engage in controversy upon this doctrine. We say that we do find a
doctrine of Atonement in the Scriptures, and that we
heartily and gratefully believe it: that the doctrine exalts
Christ as the Saviour, wins to him our highest trust and
love, and brings us adoringly to praise that once alienated Father in heaven, whose love has provided a means
for the redemption and salvation of men. Our opponents, venturing at once to assume their own infallibility
in the dogmatic view which they have formed of the
method and efficacy of the Atonement, and to pronouncee upon the inadequacy of the faith which we
hold and love, charge us with a denial of the Scripture
14 
161 
MODIFICATIONS OF ORTHODOXY.
doctrine of Atonement. Hence arises the issue between
us.  We are perfectly ready to meet it.
On no other of the larger or the lesser topics that have
entered into this controversy has there been so wide a
variation, and so marked a modification in the specific
terms of the Orthodox doctrine, as on this of the Atonement. Without claiming that Orthodoxy has made any
distinct approximation to our views, or has essentially
relieved what is and has always been to Unitarians the
most unscriptural and offensive quality of its doctrine
of the Atonement, we may safely affirm that it has
essentially changed its own dogmatic position. The
definition of the Atonement made by the leading Orthodox divines of the present day is quite different from
that given two centuries ago by those whom they claim
to represent. Notwithstanding the very bold assertions
made in the religious newspapers issued from week to
week this current year, that Orthodoxy has not departed
from its standards, and that it still holds to "the substance" of the Calvinistic formulas, it is impossible for
us to assent to the assertions, when we compare pages
of the old divinity on our shelves with the recent productions of some of the most eminent men of the Orthodox
communions. Would Cotton, Hooker, Shepherd, Edwards, or Hopkins have admitted, with Dr. E. Beecher,
that the system of Orthodoxy is utterly inconsistent with
the principles of honor and justice in the Divine government?   Or with Professor Park, that the rhetoric of
Orthodoxy needs to be toned down, if one would harmonize it with logical truth?  Or with Dr. Bushnell,
that the death of Christ is a dramatic scene, in which
we must discriminate between the subjective and the
objective meaning? Ask the aged persons among us
who used to listen to Orthodox preaching, if its tone,
and even its substance, are not changed.
Therefore, the issue between us now is not exactly
162 
SOFTENED CONSTRUCTIONS.
what it was even fifty years ago.  Those terrific and
harrowing representations of some of the Divine attributes which were current in the old divinity, do not enter
into modern preaching. Those dramatic representations
of the covenant work between God and Christ, involving stipulations as to what the Father should require to
soothe his wrath and accept as the ransom of human
souls, and as to how much the Son should suffer, are
now withdrawn, either in deference to the exactions of
good taste, or as a consequence of an actual change of
opinion. Some of the many sharp points of the Orthodox doctrine are worn smooth. Vague terms which
may be unobjectionable are substituted for very shocking
terms once in common use. It is getting to be difficult
now to discuss the real issue between the parties, without a vast deal of definition and interpretation, and
clearing up of the outworks of language and ideas.
We take in our hands some of the modern essays on
the doctrine of the Atonement, and as we begin the
perusal it would seem as if some of the views most
antagonistic to our own convictions were about to receive a most offensive statement, leading farther and
farther as the argument progressed to a perfectly heathen
conclusion. But no! They melt and soften and become very yielding, till, what with dramatic uses of
language and shapings of thought and governmental
theories, the sternness of the reader's brow is relaxed,
his dissent is soothed, a degree of sympathy, a stage of
conviction, is wrought within him, and he asks, Is the
old doctrine reduced down to this?
But what is the doctrine? and where does the controversy upon it between Unitarianism and Orthodoxy commence? and in what directions do the parties diverge?
and what is the substance of their difference? We shall
soon have to ask here, as we have asked concerning the
two previous topics which we have discussed, What
163 
ATONEMENT IS RECONCILIATION.
was the doctrine when the controversy opened, and
before it had been reduced to simpler and more vague
and elusive terms as the result of controversy?
The English word, the noun atonement, occurs but
once in our version of the New Testament (Romans
v. 11). No respectable scholar or writer would now
affirm or argue, - as was once affirmed and argued, -
that the original word in the Greek should here be rendered by an English word conveying the sense of compensation, commutation, or expiation.' The verb to which
the noun is related means, and is translated, to reconcile,
and atonement, or at-onement, is reconciliation, as in
other instances it is rendered. An explicit avowal to this
effect has recently been made by Professor Pond of the
Bangor Theological Seminary: t' "An atonement, therefore, in the sense of our translators, is a reconciliation.
But the word has undergone a slight change of meaning
within the last two hundred years. As now used, it
denotes not so much a reconciliation, as that which is
done to open and prepare the way for a reconciliation.
As used by Evangelical Christians, it refers to what has
been done by our Lord Jesus Christ, to open a way for
the recovery and salvation of sinful men, that so a reconciliation may be effected between them and their
Maker." It is something to have the fact clearly and
fully admitted that the Apostle's word does not imply
the sense which has long been associated in controversy
vitih the word atonement, a sense which Dr. Webster
has very unwarrantably introduced into his English
Dictionary. Our literature in the age of Shakespeare
will'show the signification of the word then to have
been reconciliation.   The perversion of the Seripture
* Dr. Woods says: "The word atonement has become ambiguous, its
common use being somewhat different fromt its use in Scripture." (Works,
Vol. II. p. 493.)
t See his Article in Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1856, p. 130.
164 
SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE.
doctrine gave to the word atonement the new use
which it begins to have in the literature of the age of
Queen Ann.* We might, indeed, raise a question as
to the perfect accuracy of the signification which Dr.
Pond says that Orthodoxy now assigns to the word.
We  certainly should wish to include under "what has
been done by Jesus Christ," what was said by him, with
the same design of opening a way for reconciliation.
The doctrine of Atonement or reconciliation is one of
a large sweep and compass, and the first condition for
any fair and satisfactory treatment of it is to secure the
discussion of it, at the very start, against all such influence'from definitions or limitations, as will surely give
us a part instead of the whole doctrine. The question
is, not what theory about it will the thought or the reason
of man adopt or approve, but what do the Scriptures
teach us concerning the doctrine, as it is exclusively a
doctrine of revelation? The sweep of the doctrine embraces a great many contingencies dependent upon a
duplication or an alternative connected with all of the
large elements which enter into it. Thus Christ may
be regarded either as a medium for announcing terms
of reconciliation from God, or as an agent for facilitating
and accomplishing such a reconciliation; or he may be
both the announcer and the agent of the process of ree.
onciliation. The Orthodox doctrine assumes that sin is
* "Lod. Is there division'twixt thy lord and Cassio?
"Des. A most unhappy one; I would do much
T' atone them, for the love I bear to Cassio."
Shaksp. Othello, Act. IV. Sc. 1.
"Or each atone his guilty love with life." - Pope.
The transition between the two meanings is well marked in Milton:
"Man,.....
......once dead in sins and lost,
Atonement for himself or offering meet,
Indebted and undone, hath none to bring."
Par. Lost, Book III. 1. 234.
165
0 
ELEMENTS OF THE CONTROVERSY.
an infinite wrong, and deserves an infinite punishment or
requires an infinite expiation, because it is committed
against an Infinite Being. This is looking at facts from
one point of view, namely, the Divine. But the alternative point of view would suggest the question, How
can sin be of such infinite demerit, seeing that it is committed by a finite and limited being? Another duplication of issues presents itself in the rivalry of claims
on our fullest affections raised by the confusion in the
Orthodox theology which refers the prime movement
for our redemption to the love of God, or to the interposition of Christ. This confusion is not removed by
the interchange of such references, or by the attempt to
prove them identical. When Calvinism tells us that
the Father chose and appointed and qualified the Son to
be our Redeemer, and also that the Son offered himself
to be our sacrifice, one who would have clear thoughts,
so far as he has any, must ask, Which of these two statements would Orthodoxy have us accept? Again, Was
Christ's death an actual expiation, equivalent in anguish
to all the sufferings that sinners would have endured, or
was it a demonstrative exhibition of a legal penalty?
Once more, Did or did not the Divine nature of Christ
share in his sufferings? Still other alternatives of doctrine present themselves in the divergencies of Orthodox
teaching as to the relations between the Divine Justice
and the Divine Mercy, by which God might or might not
freely forgive, while his law might or might not freely
remit; and in the discordant opinions as to whether a
knowledge of the sacrifice to be made, and now made by
Christ, was and is necessary or not necessary to all who
share in its benefits. And finally, Is the Atonement
limited or unlimited in its efficacy? These are all complications of the controversy for us, and the grounds of
minor controversies among the Orthodox themselves.
There is no chapter in the old Confession of Faith
166 
THE NEW ENGLAND DOCTRINE.
of the New England churches, which is still the standard for the Orthodox Congregationalists, devoted specifically to the doctrine of the Atonement. The word
itself does not occur in that formula, nor even in the
Westminster  Catechism.   The  substantial Orthodox
doctrine under which our fathers were educated, and
which was had in view at the opening of the Unitarian
controversy, is found in Chapter VIII. of the Confession,
under the title " Of Christ the Mediator," as follows:
"It pleased God in his eternal purpose to choose and
ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten.Son, according
to a covenant made between them both, to be the mediator between God and man: the prophet, priest, and king,
the head and Saviour of his Church, the heir of all things,
and judge of the world: unto whom  he did from all
eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him
in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity,
being very and eternal God of one substance, and equal
with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come,
take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;
being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the
womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance, -which
person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the
only mediator between God and man; -was sanctified
and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure,that he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the
office of a mediator and surety: which office he took
not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father,
- and did most willingly undertake; which that he
might discharge, he was made under the law, and did
perfectly fulfil it, and underwent the punishment due to
us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made
sin and a curse for us, enduring most grievous torments
immediately from God in his soul, and most painful
167 
CONFUSION OF TERMS.
sufferings in his body, was crucified and died, was buried
and remained under the power of death: -by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through
the Eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, he hath
fully satisfied the justice of God, and purchased not
only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in
the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father
hath given unto him. Although the work of redemption
was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were
communicated to the elect in all ages successively from
the beginning of the world," &c.
We must bear as well as we can the confusion of terms
and the irreconcilable statements in this formula; they
are some of the dreary conditions to which any one must
submit in reading even, and still more in attempting to
digest, the schemes of divinity wrought out from the fancies of theologians. Here we are told of a covenant
between two persons, when in fact there was but One;
of a Mediator between two parties, who was himself one
of those parties; of an office " willingly undertaken" by
the Son, which, however, "he did not take upon himself," because "he was called to it by the Father"; of a
being who was essentially the Supreme God, who yet
"was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit";
of a being compounded of Deity and humanity, in.order
that the union of Deity might exalt a sacrifice in which,
however, only the human nature suffered  of Christ's
thus "purchasing from God" those w.hom  God "had
given" to him from all eternity; and finally, we read
that the death of Christ is made to stand as a substitute
or equivalent for the eternal torments and the remorseful
heart-sufferings of millions of condemned sinners. If we
pass by these confused and inconsistent terms in the old
formula of the doctrine of Redemption, our attention is
fixed, and our protest is raised, by the following sen
0
168 
VIEWS OF CALVIN.
tences in the Confession: " Christ underwent the punishment due to us"; "enduring most grievous torments
immediately from God in his soul," "he hath fully satisfied the justice of God," and "he hath purchased reconciliation." The statements and inferences of doctrine
in these sentences formerly constituted the staple matter
of Calvinistic teaching concerning the redeeming work
of Christ: they present to us the essential, the peculiar,
the characteristic features of Calvinism. One who honestly assumes the name of a Calvinist will unflinchingly
accept these essential elements of his creed, and will
make no adroit attempts to evade them. Any one who
takes the name of a Calvinist, and yet endeavors to
soften or explain away the manifest meaning of these
sentences will certainly act more candidly if he will
change his own name, which he is at liberty to do, and
give over trifling with written formulas, which he is not
at liberty to do. Of late the sharper phraseology, the
positive and unqualified statements which we find in
the above sentences, have yielded to a less direct implication of more or less of their substance, and to an
infinite variety of softening constructions put upon them.
If, in the course of this controversy, some nominal
Calvinists had not ventured to deny the truthfulness of
the representations made by Unitarians as to the essential views expressed by Calvin himself, one would hardly
suppose that any question could be raised on this point.
The following sentences, all drawn from the sixteenth
chapter of the second book of Calvin's Institutes, are
a fair exhibition of his theology on this point: "That
Christ has taken upon himself and suffered the punishment which by the righteous judgment of God impenided over all sinners; that by his blood he has expiated
those crimes which render them odious to God; that
by this expiation God the Father has been satisfied and
duly atoned; that by this intercessor his wrath has been
15
169 
CALVIN ON THE ATONEMENT.
appeased; that this is the foundation of peace between
God and men; that this is the bond of his benevolence
towards them."  "Indeed, we must admit that it was
impossible for God to be truly appeased in any other
way, than by Christ renouncing all concern for himself,
and submitting and devoting himself entirely to his
will."  "For we ought particularly to remember  this
satisfaction, that we may not spend our whole lives in
terror and anxiety, as though we were pursued by the
righteous vengeance of God, which the Son of God has
transferred to himself."  "For the Son of God, though
perfectly free from all sin, nevertheless assumed the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and, on the other
hand, arrayed us in his purity." "Christ at his death
was offered to the Father as an expiatory sacrifice, in
order that, a complete atonement being made by his
oblation, we may  no longer dread the Divine wrath."
" If Christ had merely died a corporeal death, no end
would have been accomplished by it; it was requisite,
also, that he should feel the severity of the Divine vengeance, in order to appease the wrath of God and satisfy his justice. Hence it was necessary for him to contend with the powers of hell and the horror of eternal
death." "Christ suffered in his soul the dreadful torments of a person condemned and irretrievably lost."
"And, indeed, if his soul had experienced no punishment, he would have been only a Redeemer for the
body." "Whence we may conclude what dreadful and
horrible agonies he must have suffered, while he was
conscious of standing at the tribunal of God accused as
a criminal on our account." *
The Assembly's Catechism tells us that "Christ was
a sacrifice to Divine Justice."  The old divines, who
That we might not intensify by our own version any of the expressions
used by Calvin, we have adopted the translation of the Institutes published
by the Presbyterian Board at Philadelphia.
170 
FLAVEL ON REDEMPTION.
made the Catechism the expository rule of their faith,
were wont to receive its statements literally. They held
themselves bound to an unflinching fidelity to its doctrines.  We will take, as an illustration of this remark,
the example of that pious Puritan minister, John Flavel,
son of Rev. Richard Flavel, who entered upon his work
in Dartmouth, Old England, just two centuries ago, and
whose devotional spirit and writings have made him a
favorite among the disciples of Orthodoxy to this day.'
He published an Exposition of the Assembly's Catechism, and had no distinction among his brethren as
one who forced it beyond a fair construction of its doctrinal statements. It will be seen by a few extracts
from his sermons, how boldly and literally he was disposed to accept all that was implied in the Calvinistic
view of the Covenant of Redemption. Our extracts are
made from the folio edition of his works, Edinburgh,
1731. It should be observed that he aims to support all
his positions by references to texts in Scripture, made
after the usage of his time, without the slightest recognition of any just principles of biblical criticism, and
with an entire disregard of the connection in which the
passages quoted stand in the original.
Flavel's third sermon is on "Christ's Compact with
the Father for the Recovery of the Elect." Isaiah liii.
12.
"Doctrine, that the business of man's salvation was
transacted upon covenant terms betwixt the Father and
the Son from all eternity." " The substance of this
Covenant of Redemption is dialogue-wise exprest to us
in Isaiah xlix. Having told God how ready and fit he
was for his service, he will know of Him what reward
he shall have for his work, for he resolves his blood shall
* The late Dr. Alexander, the Princeton Professor, wrote, "To John
Flavel I certainly owe more than to any uninspired author." - Life, by his
Son, p. 47.
171
Irs-e 
FLAVEL ON REDEMPTION.
not be sold at low and cheap rates. Hereupon the Father offers him the elect of Israel for his reward, bidding
low at first, (as they that make bargains use to do,) and
only offers him that small remnant still intending to
bid higher. But Christ will not be satisfied with these;
he values his Blood higher than so. Therefore he is
brought in complaining,'I have labored in vain, and
spent my strength for naught.' This is but a small reward for so great sufferings as I must undergo; my
blood is much more worth than this comes to, and will
be sufficient to redeem all the elect dispersed among the
isles of the Gentiles, as well as the lost sheep of the
house of Israel. Hereupon the Father comes up higher,
and tells him He intends to reward him better than so."
"The persons transacting and dealing with each other
in this covenant are great persons, God the Father, and
God the Son: the former as a creditor, and the latter as
a surety. The Father stands upon satisfaction, the Son
engages to give it."  "And forasmuch as the Father
knew it was a hard and difficult work His Son was to
undertake, a work that would have broken the backs of
all the angels in heaven and men on earth, had they
engaged in it, therefore He promiseth to stand by him,
and assist and strengthen him for it." We read that the
Father also agreed to furnish Christ with all the necessary qualifications for his work, and to reward him for
accomplishing it.  "The  Father so far trusted Christ,
that upon the credit of his promise to come into the
world, and in the fulness of time to become a sacrifice
for the elect, He saved all the Old Testament saints,
whose faith also respected a Christ to come." (pp. 6, 7.)
In the next sermon, on John iii. 16, we read: —
" God's giving of Christ implies his delivering him
into the hands of justice to be punished: even as condemned persons are by sentence of law given or delivered into the hands of executioners. The Lord, when
172 
GENUINE CALVINISM.
the time was come that Christ must suffer, did as it
were say,' O all ye roaring waves of my incensed justice, now swell as high as heaven, and go over his soul
and body: sink him to the bottom; let him go, like
Jonah, his type, into the belly of hell, unto the roots of
the mountains.  Come, all ye raging storms that I have
reserved for this day of wrath, beat upon him, beat him
down. Go, justice, put him upon the rack, torment him
in every part,"' &c. (p. 9.) This terrible vengeance is
represented as but fulfilling what the Father in the compact had announced to the Son, thus: "My Son, if
thou undertake for them, thou must reckon to pay the
last mite; expect no abatements; if I spare them, I will
not spare thee."  (p. 8.)  "To wrath, to the wrath of
an infinite God, without mixture, to the very torments
of hell, was Christ delivered, and that by the hand of his
own Father." (p. 10.)
With equal plainness does this earnest and outspoken
Calvinist insist, in his eighth sermon, that God could
not exercise his mercy without satisfaction to his justice.
"i He, therefore, that will be a Mediator of Reconciliation
betwixt God and man, must bring God a price in his
hand, and that adequate to the offence and wrong done
Him, else He will not treat about peace." (p. 21.)  "Our
Mediator" like Jonah his type, seeing the stormy sea of
God's wrath working tempestuously, and ready to swallow us up, cast in himself to appease the storm." (p.
22.) More distinctly still we read in the twelfth sermon: "The design and end of this oblation was  to
atone, pacify, and reconcile God, by giving him a full
and adequate compensation or satisfaction for the sins
of these his elect.  From this oblation Christ made of
himself to God for our sins, we infer the inflexible severity of Divine justice, which could be no other way
diverted from us and appeased, but by the blood of
Christ. And though he brake out upon the cross in
15*
173 
FLAVEL ON A LIMITED ATONEMENT.
that heart-rending complaint,' My God! my God! why
hast thou forsaken me?' yet no abatement: justice will
not bend in the least, but, having to do with him on this
account, resolves to fetch its pennyworths out of his
blood."  (p. 35.)  In the fourteenth sermon Flavel says:
"Only the blood of God is found an equivalent price
for the redemption of souls." (p. 41.)
Conformed to these representations is Flavel's description of the actual sufferings endured by Christ, thus:
"The wrath of an infinite, dreadful God beat him down
to the dust.  His body full of pain and exquisite tortures in every part. Not a member or sense but was
the seat and subject of torment." (p. 8S.)  "His cry was
like the perpetual shriek of them that are cast away for
ever. Yea, in sufferings at this time in his soul, equivalent to all that which our souls should have suffered
there to all eternity." (p. 102.)  "As it was all the wrath
of God that lay upon Christ, so it was wrath aggravated
in divers respects, beyond that which the damned themselves do suffer." (p. 106.)
One other quotation will prove that the author did
not believe that God would grant to Christ anything
beyond the covenant as it embraced the elect. The
extract is in strange contrast with admissions made by
eminent champions of Orthodoxy at the present day, in
allowing an unlimited atonement and the efficacy of
Christ's death for millions who have or have had no
knowledge of him.  It is from Sermon XV.: "Hence
we infer the impossibility of their salvation that know
not Christ, nor have interest in his blood. Neither heathens, nor merely nominal Christians, can inherit heaven.
I know some are very indulgent to the heathen, and
many formal Christians are but too much so to themselves. But union by faith with Jesus Christ is the
only way revealed in Scripture by which we hope to
come to the heavenly inheritance. I know it seenms hard
174 
EDWARDS ON REDEMPTION.
that such brave men as some of the heathens were
should be damned. But the Scripture knows no other
way to glory but Christ put on and applied by faith.
And it is the common suffrage of modern sound divines,
that no man, by the sole conduct of Nature, without the
knowledge of Christ, can be saved." (p. 44.)
Thus the old Calvinistic construction of the doctrine
was, that the obedience of Christ takes the place of our
lack of obedience; that he became to God the personal
substitute for condemned sinners; that by the imputation of our transgressions to him, he endured the suffering threatened upon us; and that, by bearing the just
penalty of an outraged law, he discharged our indebtedness to it, and purchased our redemption from the
Lawgiver. It would be possible, if time and space allowed, to trace by a chain of quotations from Orthodox
divines the course of softening and modifying speculations which have reduced the old doctrine to the mildest
form of the governmental theory, presenting the elder
Edwards and Dr. Hopkins as the mediums for working
the prominent changes in the use of terms or in the construction put upon them. We might thus easily exhibit,
were it worth our while, all the shadings off, if we should
not rather say the shadings over, of the old doctrine.
Edwards very ingeniously remarks: "Most of the words
which are used in this affair have various significations."  The following sentences from this eminent
divine will exhibit his views of "the work of Redemption ": "There is no mercy exercised towards man but
what is obtained through Christ's intercession."  (p. 26.)
"For when man [Adam] had sinned, God the Father
would have no more to do with man immediately; he
would no more have any immediate concern with this
world of mankind that had apostatized from, and re
* Works, edition of 1808, Vol. II. p. 190.
175 
DR. HOPKINS ON REDEMPTION.
belled against him."  (p. 27.)  "All is done by the
price that Christ lays down. But the price that Christ
lays down does two things. It pays our debt, and so it
satisfies. By its intrinsic value, and by the agreement
between the Father and the Son, it procures a title to
us for happiness, and so it merits. The satisfaction of
Christ is to free us from misery, and the merit of Christ
is to purchase happiness for us." (p. 190.)  "The satisfaction of Christ consists in his answering the demands
of the law on man, which were consequent on  the
breach of the law. These were answered by suffering
the penalty of the law. The merit of Christ consists in
what he did to answer the demands of the law, which
were prior to man's breach of the law, or to fulfil what
the law demanded before man sinned, which was obedience." (p. 191.)
There is a savor of good old Mr. Flavel's view of the
"covenant work" in the following account given of it
by the excellent Dr. Hopkins: "It is evident from Scripture, as well as from the nature of the case, that there
was a mutual agreement and engagement between the
Father and the second person of the Trinity, respecting
the redemption of man, by which the distinct part which
each person in the Trinity was to act was fixed and
undertaken. This mutual agreement is of the nature of
a covenant and engagement with each other to perform
the different parts of this great work which were assigned to them. This is an eternal covenant without
beginning, as is the existence of the triune God, and as
are all the divine purposes and decrees. The second
person was engaged to become incarnate, -to do and
suffer all that was necessary for the salvation of men.
The Father promised that, on his consenting to take
upon him the character and work of a Mediator and
Redeemer, he should be every way furnished and assisted to go through with the work; that he should have
176 
DR. HOPKINS ON REDEMPTION.
power to save an elect number of mankind, and form a
church and kingdom most perfect and glorious.   In
order to accomplish this, all things- all power in heaven
and earth - should be given to him, until redemption
was completed. And then he should reign in the exercise of all his offices as Mediator, in his Church and
kingdom for ever." After quoting passages of Scripture
by the old method to authenticate these views, Dr.
Hopkins adds:" Though in the passages of Scripture
which have been mentioned, and others of the same
kind, the third person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, is
not expressly mentioned as covenanting or engaging to
perform any part of this work, yet he is necessarily ulnderstood as concerned and included in this covenant, as
he is in the Holy Scripture everywhere represented as
acting an equal part in the redemption of man, and
therefore must be considered as taking that particular
part by consent and agreement."  Were it not for the
more dramatic view of the "covenant," not between God
and man, but between the Father and the Son, which
we have already quoted from Flavel, and which might
be paralleled from other divines, we might affirm that
Dr. Hopkins was not wholly destitute of the imaginative faculty in having conjured up the above conceit, for
which the Bible is not responsible. His ingenuity in
apologizing for the apparent neglect of the Holy Spirit
is not the least striking element in his description. He
is explicit in stating a limited atonement, limited at
least in its actual work.  "Redemption," he says, "does
not extend to all sinful, fallen creatures, but many are
left to suffer the just consequence of their rebellion in
everlasting punishment. It is expressly and repeatedly
declared in divine revelation, that a part of mankind
shall be punished for ever."  (p. 248.)  Anticipatory
* Professor Park's edition of Hopkins's Works, Vol. I. pp. 356- 358.
177 
DR. HOPKINS ON REDEMPTION.
hints of the "governmental theory," as now held by
a philosophical school of Orthodox divines, are to be
found scattered over Dr. Hopkins's pages.  He speaks
of what is consistent or inconsistent wkith  "rectoral
righteousness."   He  says:  " The sufferings of Christ
answer the same end with respect to law and divine
government, that otherwise must be answered by the
eternal destruction of the sinner." (p. 328.) He says
the blood shed upon the cross " was the blood of God."'
(p. 282.) Dr. Hopkins is generally very scrupulous and
careful to sustain his own strongest assertions by references to passages of Scripture, which, however strangely
or fancifully he may quote them, and however unjustifiable and inapplicable the use he makes of them, prove
at least his fair intent to bring his assertions to a true
test. But for one of his boldest assertions, that which
covers one of the vital and most disputable points in
the whole discussion of the atonement, he alleges no
Scripture authority. Thus he says: "It was in early
times expressly declared that sacrifices and offerings were
not desirable, or of any worth, in themselves considered,
and that God did not institute and require them for
their own sake, as making any real atonement for sin;
but that this should be made by an incarnate Redeemer,
to whom they pointed as types and shadows of him."
(p. 325.) The good doctor drew wholly on his imagination here, as regards the statement which we have put
in italics. It was in early times expressly declared and
emphatically reiterated, that sacrifices had no value except as they indicated penitence and piety of heart.
Obedience was better. The Jewish sacrifices were subordinated to contrition, mercy, faith, and amendment of
life,-never in a single instance to another prospective
sacrifice. Scripture has not a word to this effect.
The favorite form under which the old doctrine is
now advocated by the advanced party among those
178 
DR. POND ON THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
who claim to represent the ancient Orthodoxy of Congregationalism, is called technically "the Governmental
Theory."  We  will cite a quite recent and very clear
statement of it. Dr. Pond, in the article above referred
to in the "Bibliotheca Sacra," states, as the first reason
for the necessity of Christ's agency in reconciliation, that
which all Christians will heartily accept, namely, that it
'"was necessary in order that sinners might be humbled
and brought to repentance."   He might have quoted
many beautiful Scripture sentences in proof of this
statement, as every doctrine that is really Scriptural
may be expressed more beautifully and forcibly in that
than in any other language.  Thus: "It behooved Christ
to suffer and to rise from the dead, that repentance and
remission of sins should be preached in his name among
all nations." (Luke xxiv. 46, 47.) " God, having raised
up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away
every one of you from his iniquities." (Acts iii. 26.)
But, adds Dr. Pond, "This necessity for the atonement is not, after all, the most urgent and fundamental.
There is a necessity greater than this.  We  remark,
therefore, the atonement of -Christ was necessary to sustain and honor the broken law of God, to vindicate his
authority, and satisfy his glorious justice." Now we
see how easy it is for the believers of this theory to state
it intelligibly and boldly. But how comes it that they
have to state it in words and phrases bf their own? If
the sacred writers had wished to state it, nothing would
have been easier. But where is there a sentence within
the covers of the Bible that can be quoted as explicitly
advancing it?  We  do not hesitate to say, with all the
frankness and positiveness of full conviction, that there
is not a line or a phrase of Scripture that affirms such a
doctrine. Divines have to state it in their own terms,
because Scripture terms fail them. Of course we are
well aware that there are passages in the Bible which
179
11r I *-., I, I-, 
180    DR. POND ON THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
are constructively and inferentially turned to support
this dogma.  But the constructions and the inferences
are the very matters in debate. Having entered our distinct protest here, with an honest and sufficient reason
for it, we must follow the reasoning which proceeds on
a human formula.
Dr. Pond argues, it, is necessary for God as the Supreme Ruler "to sustain law.  He must not suffer his
law to be trifled with and trampled on. He must maintain it inviolate in all its strictness and strength, its authority and purity, or his government of law will be
subverted and overthrown." The law, he adds, can be
sustained by punishing the transgressors as they deserve,
by inflicting upon them the threatened penalty, and only
in this way, unless some expedient can be devised by
which the honor of the broken law, and the display of
God's righteous regard for it, and all the ends of government, can be secured as fully, as perfectly, as they would
be by inflicting the penalty. Without some such expedient, to pardon and save sinners would be a moral impossibility, intolerable under the government of God,
inconsistent with its stability, its perfection, and even
with its continued existence. The Professor does not
stop to weigh the balance between the two conditions
under which the law may be duly honored, nor to decide
by which of the two the ends of law, and the very idea of
Law, may be vindicated.  One of these is, the repentance
in dust and ashes, in deepest contrition, of those who,
having broken the law, have already suffered from it and
by it, and who now honor it by suing with imploring hearts
for forgiveness; taken in connection with the tribute also
paid to the law by the sufferings of those who break
it and do not repent. The other condition is, the visiting the penalty of a broken law on one who has not
broken it, but has honored it in all its provisions.  Which
of these two conditions wins the nobler tribute, the more 
CHRIST A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE SINNER.
adequate satisfaction to an outraged law? Let the par ent ask the question as it applies to family discipline.
Are its ends better answered to him by the kneeling
contrition and the importunate appeals for forgiveness
of an erring child, or by requiring, or even allowing,
an unoffending brother or sister to submit to a punish ment? Would the parable of the prodigal son win a
new attraction for our hearts, an enhanced power over
our consciences, if the father had been represented as
scourging the elder son before he embraced the younger?
Dr. Pond proceeds to argue, that the agency of Christ
offered an expedient alternative to the suffering of sinners,
for sustaining law, - not, however, through his perfect
holiness, nor through his perfect obedience to the divine
law, the merit of which obedience is imputed to us,
as the old doctrine affirmed,-but thlrough his sufferings
and death,- "i n the shedding of his blood."  In pronouncing upon the mode of the efficacy of Christ's
death, "the manner in which it availed to make an
atonement for sin," he rejects that element of the Catechism doctrine which teaches "that Christ by his suffering for us literally paid our debt to divine justice," or
that "he met the strict and proper penalty of the law," as
the fulfilment of these conditions would have required
that Christ should have been the subject of the most
hateful and painful passions, stings and reproaches of
conscience, dissatisfaction with God, and the pains and
agonies of the bottomless pit in eternal death.  These
Christ did not suffer.  But he answered "the ends of
justice."  "His death was vicarious.  He died as a substitute."  "He endured, not the proper penalty of the
law for us, but an adequate substitute for that penalty.'"
I' He offered a fair and full equivalent for the everlasting.
sufferings of all who shall be finally saved."  In this
view, Dr. Pond finds the reason why "Christ must have
been just such a personage, God and man, divine and
16
181 
THE CROSS A SUBSTITUTE FOR HELL.
human, as he is represented in the Scriptures. Had he
been a divine person only, he could not have made anl
atonement, because the divine nature cannot suffer and
die. And had he been a human person only, he could
not have made an atonement, because he would have
been unable, without the divine nature, to endure the
requisite amount of suffering, and he would have lacked
that personal dignity and glory which impart such a
value and efficacy to his death."
Now, if without the least feeling of disrespect to the
writer of the last-quoted sentences, but with the simple
purpose of expressing how tortuous is the idea which
they present to our own minds, we may venture to
paraphrase them, we must say that they seem to us
to intimate that Christ's human nature needed the divine
element, because the human nature could not suffer
enough; and that the divine nature needed the human
element, because the divine nature could not suffer at
all. Is Christian doctrine answerable for such devices,
or do they come of the brains of men?
Similar to these views of the Bangor Professor are
the following, which we find in a recent devotional
work, otherwise enriched with some of the choicest and
most impressive lessons of Christian piety, conveyed
in the most chaste and fervent language. We refer
to "The Communion Sabbath," by Rev. Dr. N. Adams.
The author says: "God alone was able to expiate the
sin of his creatures, by taking man's nature into union
with the Divine, in the person of the Word, and making
satisfaction to justice by that which He saw to be equivalent in effect to the endless punishment of the race."
(p. 34.) The author speaks of Christ as " expiating our
.guilt." (p. 37.)  He also says: "The death of ChrisT
was not a substitute for our crucifixion, but for.our endless misery." (p. 63.)
Now if the denial, unreserved and emphatic, of this
182 
A HUMILIATING DOCTRINE.
-view —call it "the governmental theory," or by any
other title —of what it was necessary, in reference to
God, and to God's law, that Christ should do, and of what
Christ did, to open the way for our reconciliation with
our Heavenly Father, -if this denial be indeed a denial
of the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement, then Unitarians must needs submit to the charge, and meet it as
they can. But not for one moment will Unitarians allow that this is the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement.
They find no such doctrine in the Scriptures, but one
quite unlike it. It is usual for Orthodox writers against
us to assert that boastful reason and obduracy object
to this doctrine, because of its humiliating character, because of its affront to human pride! But how differently- do men judge of the same things! For ourselves,
we must say that we know of no mounting fancy or
conception'among all the fabulous incarnations of Hindoo or Indian mythology, or among the apotheoses of
Pagan idolatry, which offers such an incense to human
pride as do some of the shapings of this popular doctrine
of the Atonement. The charge against us has always
seemed to us to be one of the most perverse distortions
of truth which polemical inventiveness could devise.
What is there humbling to human pride in the doctrine
that God for our sakes (for his own sake, even!) condescended to such a method for our redemption? Were
the subject of a monarch in captivity in a foreign land
to send home to have a ransom provided for him, and
were the monarch himself to go to redeem him, the last
effect which we should look for would be that the redeemed captive should feel humbled by the transaction.
He would boast it as the highest of his honors. The
Orthodox doctrine seems to us, certainly in comparison
with our own, to foster a surpassing conceit of human
pride. But the implication intended to be conveyed by
the Orthodox charge against us is, that we really find 
ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
their doctrine in the New Testament, or, at least, have a
misgiving that it is there, while we contumaciously resist
it. Will they therefore give us the benefit of our own
most sincere and earnest profession, that, with all the
means which they have for understanding the Scriptures,
and with as profound a sense of their value, and as single
a purpose to know and obey their lessons, we find no such
doctrine in them as Orthodoxy teaches?
We have stated that the antagonistic issue opened
between Orthodoxy and Unitarianism, after long and
full debate, has committed us to the following position:
That the Scriptures do not lay the emphatic stress of
Christ's redeeming work upon his death, above or apart
from his life, character, and doctrine; and that his death,
as an element of his redeeming work, is made effective
for human salvation through its influence on the heart
and life of man, not through its vicarious or' substituted
value with God, nor through its removal of an abstract
difficulty in the Divine government which hinders the
forgiveness of the penitent without further satisfaction.
All the points now left in debate between the two parties are recognized in this summary statement. A brief
reference to them, successively, will exhibit in as summary a way our denials of Orthodox positions, and
the reason for such denials, and also the substance and
grounds of our own doctrinal belief.
A few years ago Unitarianism was compelled to object that Orthodoxy laid the whole emphasis of Christ's
redeeming work upon his death, upon his cross, his
humiliation, his ignominy and sufferings. Of late the
co-ordinate value of the life and doctrine of Christ has
been acknowledged by some able Orthodox writers,
though essential Calvinism and the formula of the
Westminster Catechism made no account whatever of
these elements of his redeeming work. His merits and
obedience were recognized as prevailing with God, -
184
tk
I 
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
not with man. Still we think that even the fullest recognitionl which we have ever met on any page of modern
Orthodoxy does not do justice to the proportions of
Scriptural truth on this point. No conviction lives more
sincerely in the hearts of Unitarians than this, that the
first erroneous bias of Orthodoxy arises precisely here.
God forbid that we should write a word to depreciate
the importance, the stress, or the value, in the whole
work of redemption, of the cross, the death of Christ.
But we do not fear this risk when our sole purpose is,
not to compare the death of Christ with any other death,
but to insist upon its relative aspect and proportions in
connection with all else in him and by him. It is Christ's
life, and Christ's character, and Christ's doctrine, which
we would not have overshadowed by his cross.
Christ came into the world, as he said, to die for the
world, and, in dying, to bear witness to the truth the knowledge and obedience of which would insure eternal life to
men. Thus his life, his character, and his doctrine are
made the elements of his work. When these were displayed to men, they would bring him to his cross, while
by that cross he would draw all men unto him. We have,
then, to look to his life, character, and doctrine to find the
purpose and the lesson of his deaths But, in our view,
Orthodoxy does violence to truth by impairing the proportion of its ingredients on these vast and solemn
themes. Orthodoxy does not follow the harmony of
Scripture in laying equal stress upon all that Christ
w a s an       d       taught and did.  We  do not charge Orthodoxy with laying too much stress upon the death of
Christ, but with laying too much stress upon the death
of Christ. The error of Orthodoxy here seems to us
to lie in the same direction as does that of the Church
of Romne, in the painful multiplication and obtrusion of
it      s scenical  a  nd symbolical pictures of the crucifixion; in
its analytic representations of the incidents and instru                    16~
185
i,-, -,   I'-I 
THE CROSS AND THE RESURRECTION.
ments of the Passion, as shown in the " Stations of the
Cross," and in its elaborate ingenuities for keeping all
the agonies of Calvary ever before the eye of the worshipper.  The Scriptures do not thus isolate and emphasize the Saviour's sufferings. A misleading effect
has been produced by the habit of Orthodox disputants,
when arguing upon the cross of Christ, of selecting and
bringing together from each separate document of the
New Testament all the passages which refer to the
death of the Saviour. It is forgotten that those documents were addressed by different writers to different
communities, and the impression is designed or left that
anll the passages entered into each announcement or appeal of the Gospel. Indeed, if one could be content to
go through the New Testament for the purpose of deciding by count or by the force of emphasis what one
element of the Saviour's whole agency or history is
chiefly insisted upon by the Apostles, he would probably find that his resurrection takes precedence of all
others. Paul does not say, If Christ has not died,
your faith is vain; but, "If Christ be not risen from
the dead, then is our preaching vain: ye are yet in your
sins." (1 Cor. xv. 14, 17.)  It was his "hope of the
resurrection of the dead," for which Paul was called in
question before the Pharisees. (Acts xxiii. 6.) When
the Apostle enjoyed the coveted opportunity of addressing Felix and Drusilla concerning " the faith in Christ,"
the record tells us that "he reasoned of righteousness,
temperance, and judgment to come," with no reference
to an expiatory offering made by Christ. And when
he stood before King Agrippa to proclaim the hope and
promise of the Gospel, there was the same silence about
the expiation, and the same stress laid upon the doctrine
of the resurrection.  "Why should it be thought a thing
incredible with you that God should raise the dead?"
(Acts xxvi. 8.) "Jesus and the resurrection" were the
186 
CONSISTENCY OF CHRISTIS DEATH.
strange things that Paul preached at Athens. (Acts
xvii. 18, 20, 31, 32.)
Why, then, it may be asked, if the death of Christ is
not made in Scripture to be the paramount and only emphatic incident in his manifestation to men, -why did
he so die? Why was not his ministry terminated peacefully, gently, and by some natural process? We answer,
at this stage of our argument, - leaving the point for
further remark in another connection,   that a suffering
end was the consistent termination of such a life and
of such a work. The sacrificial character of his deathand we hold his death to have been sacrificial in the
highest sense of the word -had been foreshadowed by
every incident and element of his manifestation. In the
body of flesh, through which he suffered on the cross, he
had been humbled, and tempted, and scourged, and buffeted. The hands and feet which he showed to his disciples, pierced by the nails on Mount Calvary, had shared
the toils and weariness of his ministry as the servant
of all.  How far the knowledge of "the decease which
he should accomplish at Jerusalem," and of the method
of it, may have pervaded and deepened the spirit of all
his words and deeds, and given to what humanly we
call his character its solitary perfectness and its fulness
of heavenward consecration, it would be presumptuous
in a disciple to judge. It is written of him, however, that he was himself " made perfect through suffering";  that the crowning grace of his soul was  his
triumph over mortal weakness; and that by his own
endurance of trial he became the consoler and the supporter of those among whom his cross is divided. How
much of his fitness for his mediatorial work was secured
by his own subjection in the flesh, we know not. But
we have the knowledge of his life and ministry, which
warrants us in saying that the only consistent termination of his life and work was that which closed it on
187 
RECONCILING LIFE OF CHRIST.
the cross. His was a public life of outward severities,
humiliations, and mortifications. To have ended it in
retirement, on a peaceful couch in a private dwelling,
under a gentle ministration such as his houseless lot had
never shared, would not have been in harmony with its
course and consecration. Not with reference to any
legal exactions of the Almighty Father, but as addressed
to the hearts of men, do we enter into the touching significance of such words as these, from the Saviour's own
lips: "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and
be rejected"; "He must be delivered into the hands of
sinful men";" He must needs have suffered and risen
again from the dead"; and, on the walk to Emmaus,
" Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to
- enter into his glory? "
In the mean while the reconciling offices of Christ, as
they are concentrated under the shadows of his cross,
are distributed over the toils and the benedictive services of his life, are manifested in the graces of his
character, and are set forth in his counsels, his appeals,
his promises, and his personal ministry in the heart of a
believer. His touch could heal; his word could forgive
and save; his look could rebuke and win; his common
converse could make hearts to burn within them; and
his dying groan did but finish the work he had long been
doing. It may be that the greater multitude of his disciples in every age have been won to him by the "power
of his sufferings." Indeed, this result would follow, or
would seem to follow, from the fact that his preachers
have selected for stress and reiteration that single point
of appeal. But confident we are, that, without diminution from the attractions of the cross, it may be affirmed
that his life and character and doctrine, his grace and
truth, his humility and patience and sinlessness, have
secured him unnumbered believers in all time. The
death of Christ takes we know not how much of its
188 
EFFICACY OF CHRIST'S DEATIIH.
meaning from his life. The blessed power of sympathy
in suffering in a world of sufferers, where disciples "must
drink of the cup and be baptized with the baptism" of
their Master, is an influence which we dare not fathom
or bound. We feel, however, that some of the most
sacred and potent sway of Christ over the weary, the
crushed, the woful and agonized, depends upon the
fact, that the holiest and the tenderest sharer of our infirmities was "a man of sorrows and acquainted with
grief." There is an intimation which we will not ungenerously force, but which we cannot but follow up
in our thoughts as dropped by St. Paul, when, in a mysterious way, he says that he rejoiced in his sufferings,
and filled up in his flesh that which was "lacking in the
afflictions of Christ for his body's sake, which is the
Church." It is as if the Apostle ventured to suggest
that he would contribute even his own pains and agonies
to fill out the sacred purpose of his Master's sufferings.
We come now to the vital point of the doctrinal difference between Unitarianism and Orthodoxy as regards
the Atonement. Since we are now found to accord in
the meaning of that word as.expressing reconciliation, we
accept the condition that the Scripture doctrine which we
wish to define is - the agency of Christ in opening and
preparing the way for a reconciliation between God and
men. Keeping in view what has just been said respecting the whole agency of Christ in his life, his character,
and his doctrine, we will now concentrate the issue
upon his death.   How is the death of Christ made
efficacious for human salvation?  What is the revealed
method of its working to that result? The two parties
to be reconciled are man, the sinning child, and God,
the kind and righteous and offended Father; man,
who  is a debtor to the law, and  God, whose  just
due and service have been denied him. Man is in
the wrong, not God; man needs to be changed, not
189
I;-  Ir    r, r'     -   I      t       i' I       I               ir -  1-   P 
THE POINT OF CONTROVERSY.
God; for he is ever waiting and willing to be gracious.
There is a relation of hostility between the Father and
the child, and Christ comes to mediate between them.
His death, whether or not it has the chief efficacy,
has at least the crowning agency in his mediatorial
work of securing reconciliation. But how? Through
what instrumentality, method, or process? We recognize two, and only two, directions in which we can look
for an answer to this question. Orthodoxy looks in one
of these directions, and brings back a report which fixes
its doctrine on this subject. Unitarianism looks in another direction, and accepts as a consequence another
doctrine. We do not wish to avail ourselves of any
dubiousness of language, of ally confusion of terms, of
any specious assumptions of a deceptive accord in opinions which are in fact radically different. We aim for
candor, and we would rather overstate than understate
our difference with Orthodoxy on this point. Clearheaded, out-spoken, frankly avowed conviction is what
we all need here, — what the interests of truth, what the
hopes of amity and tolerance, even amid differences, are
rested upon. Orthodoxy regards the death of Christ as
looking GOD-WARD for its efficacy. Unitarianism regards the death of Christ as looking MAN-WARD for its
efficacy. If we have not in this distinction fairly and
fully stated the whole issue between us, we beg that
our error may be ascribed to our inability to comprehend and define the issue, not to any lack of right
intent or desire to do so. We believe that we have
expressed it fairly. Indeed, it is because we regard the
Calvinistic theory in all its shapes and modifications as
involving an influence in Christ's death which looks
toward God for its efficacy, that we reject it in heart
and faith, unreservedly and earnestly, as a heathenish
and an unchristian doctrine.
The essential token of the Calvinistic or Orthodox 
THE POINT OF CONTROVERSY.
scheme on this doctrine, whether characterized as a
covenant between the Father and the Son, or centring
upon the word vicarious, or satisfaction, or planting itself upon a "governmental theory," is that the efficacy
of Christ's death works by its operation upon God, or
some attribute of God, or upon some abstract difficulty
in which he is involved by the laws of government he
has himself established. Orthodoxy interposes a law
between God and man which mercy cannot relax, but
which only a victim can satisfy. God can freely forgive, but his law cannot freely remit a penitent offender.
The essential token of the Unitarian scheme is that the
whole operation of Christ's mediatorial death is upon the
heart and life and spirit of man. We cannot confound
or merge this fundamental distinction; it reaches deep;
it rises high. Though Unitarianism may not undertake
to fathom, or comprehend, or give expression to all the
mysterious influence and efficacy and mode of operation
upon man and man's soul and destiny, though Unitarianism is free to acknowledge an unexplained and inexplicable agency in the sacrificial death of Christ, it
nevertheless looks for it all in the direction of humanity,
not in the direction of the Deity. We are ready for ourselves to go all the lengths of mysticism and mystification on this point and to yield to the feeling of being on
unsounded waters beneath unfathomed depths of ether.
We are cheerfully willing to admit that God has comprehended influences in the sacrificial death of Christ
which are designed to be efficaciously felt and mercifully availed of by us without yielding to the solution of
our understanding. We can even accept some statements which we find in Orthodox pages about "a satisfaction made to law," by simply construing them as
applying the sanction and penalties of the law to usthrough the sufferings of Christ for sin. Wre can accord
well with the following remark of the great Bishop But
191
, l,, 
THE CONDITION OF FORGIVENESS.
ler: " How and in what particular way Christ's death
had this efficacy [obtaining pardon], there are not wanting persons who have endeavored to explain; but I do
not find that the Scripture has explained it. And if the
Scripture has, as surely it has, left this matter of the
satisfaction of Christ mysterious, left somewhat in it
unrevealed, all conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain." * We too would
be willing to leave the matter unexplained. But our
protest against the Orthodox scheme is, that, instead of
ascribing the intelligible or the mysterious efficacy of
Christ's death to its uses for offending, sinning, and repenting man, it makes a revolting dogma, or a needless
device, and follows the sacrifice of the cross into the
skies, as setting matters right between God and his own
attributes of Justice and Mercy.
We are sensitive to any blurring of the dividing line
between the God-ward or the Man-ward working of the
efficacy of Christ's whole mediatorial office. We ask
no compromise of opinion, we will make none whatever. We are impatient of any confusion of terms, any
intermingling of distinctions, on this point. Reconciliation involves two conditions,- repentance in the offender, forgiveness on the part of the wronged. Or, if
we add to the condition on the one side, we must qualify
the grace on the other. If we require that the offender
must not only repent, but make reparation, then we
must recognize in the other party, not simple forgiveness, but the exacting of a satisfaction.  As God is revealed as forgiving iniquity, he consents to forego satisfaction; and as man is unable to make reparation, he
is required to offer penitence.   We  cannot attribute
forgiveness where repentance and reparation are both
demanded, for then the remission is not of grace, but by
* Analogy, Part II. Chap. V.
192
!5:: t FSTI,, o.-   -.-,,, _     I. _   le 
CHRIST A SACRIFICE FOR MAN.
payment. We can neither fetter God's administration
with laws which restrict his prerogative of mercy, nor
take the benignity out of his forgiveness by attaching a
purchase to its exercise.
Unitarianism, in opposition to Orthodoxy, maintains
that the death of Christ, so far as its efficacy is distinctly defined, is instrumental to our salvation through
its influence on the heart and life of man, not through
its vicarious value with God; and also that revelation
does not acquaint us with any obstacle in the method
of administration which God has established as his government, which prevents his exercising mercy to the
penitent except through the substitution of a victim to
law.
And here, for the sake of averting an erroneous and
an injurious judgment often visited by Orthodoxy upon
our views, let a simple statement be strongly made.
Orthodoxy, not through  warrant of anything which
Unitarianism proclaims, but by one of the unkind arts
of controversy, attempts to confine our construction of
the atoning death of Christ to the power and service of
an example. We protest against the charge: we repel
it. What some Unitarians may have recognized as a
subsidiary and incidental lesson from the cross of Christy
ought not to be thus represented as exhausting our view
of it. It is not our doctrine that the death of Christ
becomes efficacious to us as an example, or even that
it is especially needed or available in that direction.
Christ is to us a victim, a sacrifice: his death was a
sacrificial death. Its method and purpose and influence
fix a new, a specific, a peculiar, an eminent meaning to
the word sacrfice, when used of him.  Indeed, the highest and most sacred signification of the word ought for
ever to be associated with his sacrifice. But, in conformity with that deciding distinction already made
as settled by the terms of a God-ward or a Man-ward
17
193 
CHRIST RECONCILES MAN, NOT GOD.
intent in the cross, we regard Jesus as a sacrifice for
man, but not as a sacrifice to God. The difference is
an infinite one, as indicated by those two prepositions
attached respectively to the creature and the Creator.
We regard Christ as a victim offered by human sin for
human redemption; as one who could not have been
our Redeemer but by being "faithful unto death," and
as a willing sacrifice for our redemption. He was led
as a lamb to the slaughter, and his murderers, as the
Prophet had foretold that they would, had wrongly
"esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted."
(Isaiah liii. 4.) But instead of being "stricken of God,"
he was "wounded for our iniquities."  " He tasted death
for every man"; not eternal death, but death.  He was
nailed to the cross to secure our salvation, but not to
make reparation for our sins to God.
If reconciliation between man and God be the object
of the death, as of the life, the character, and the doctrine
of Christ, the process for securing that reconciliation requires that the party who has been wronged shall announce first on what terms he will grant it, and that the
offending party shall then yield to those terms. Men
are the party in the wrong; they are to be brought to a
sense of their sin, to be made acquainted with the terms
which God proposes for forgiveness, and induced to
comply with them. So complete has been the perversion of the simple  Scripture terms  of reconciliation
which Orthodox views have for ages made current in
the world, that there has been an actual inversion of
the relations of parties. How frequently do Orthodox
writers, as if wholly unconscious of the strange liberty
which they take in wresting Scripture, allow themselves
to speak of Christ as "reconciling God to us," instead
of following Scripture, which always speaks of Christ
as "reconciling us to God"!  Indeed, the second of the
Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, as also
194 
A VICTIM TO LAW.
of the Episcopal Church in this country, speaks of
Christ's manifestation  as designed  "to reconcile his
Father to us"! Such are the risks of false doctrine.
What, then, are the terms of reconciliation which God
announces through Christ to men? The terms on which
God offers forgiveness are such a faith in Christ as will
lead us to realize his doctrine of our sinfulness, our hostility and alienation from God, and our consequent state
of danger and condemnation; and further, such a faith
in Christ as will persuade us of his authority to promise forgiveness on our repentance and future obedience,
while at the same time we avail ourselves of those conditions and yield to the constraining influences of God's
Holy Spirit. These are the termns which Unitarianism
recognizes for reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ.
If God will give us grace to fulfil these conditions, we
will compound with ourselves for all anxiety about every
"Governmental Theory" which the fancies of theologians can conjure up.
Orthodoxy recognizes these same terms of reconciliation, but adds to them another, looking, not man-ward
but God-ward, for its necessity and its efficacy. Orthodoxy argues that violated law requires not only such a
recognition of its authority as is offered to the lawgiver
by a penitent offender, but also a victim, an expiation,
to sustain and vindicate its honor. As God is the representative of that law, he requires that a substitute suffer
for the penitent offender in order thus to sustain the
authority of law. Christ was that suffering substitute
to outraged law for us, and one of the effects of true and
saving faith in him is to make us partakers in the merits
of his God-ward sacrifice.
As Scripture affords not a single sentence which, even
by the aid of a gloss or a false construction, can be used
as a formula for stating all the elements comprehended
in this Orthodox dogma, we will present some of the
195 
VIEWS OF BISHOP BUTLER.
simplest announcements of it which we have found in
the writings of theologians. Bishop Butler, all whose
words seem to have been weighed in the scales of a
calm and cautious wisdom, says: "Some have endeavored to explain the efficacy of what Christ has done
and suffered for us, beyond what the Scripture has authorized; others, probably because they could not explain it, have been for taking it away, and confining his
office as Redeemer of the world to his instruction, example, and government of the Church.  Whereas the
doctrine of the Gospel appears to be, not only that he
taught the efficacy of repentance, but rendered it of the
efficacy which it is, by what he did and suffered for us;
that he obtained for us the benefit of having our repentance accepted unto eternal life; not only that he revealed
to sinners that they were in a capacity of salvation, and
how they might obtain it, but moreover that he put
them into this capacity of salvation by what he did and
suffered for them,- put us into a capacity of escaping
future punishment, and obtaining future happiness."
He had before recognized it as among the teachings of
revelation, "that the rules of the Divine government are
such as not to admit of pardon immediately and directly
upon repentance, or by the sole efficacy of it." He
afterwards adds, in reference to the supposed Scriptural
view of the purpose designed in Christ's sufferings, "Its
tendency to vindicate the authority of God's laws, and
deter his creatures from sin, has never yet been answered, and is, I think, plainly unanswerable; though I
am far from thinking it an account of the whole of the
case."  "Let reason be kept to, and if any part of the
Scripture account of the redemption of the world by
Christ can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the
Scripture, in the name of God, be given up; but let not
such poor creatures as we go on objecting against an
196 
VIEWS OF DR. WOODS. 
infinite scheme, that we do not see the necessity or usefulness of all its parts, and call this reasoning." *
This moderation is the very majesty of wisdom. Let
us see what the modern Orthodoxy of New England
says on the same point. Dr. Woods tells us, that " all
the influence of repentance results from the death of
Christ. Repentance is a means on our part of obtaining the good purchased by Christ's death."  "Christ's
death was appointed by God as a substitute for the
punishment of sinners; it answered the same purposes;
it made'substantially the same display of God's attributes and the principles of his government, and has the
same efficacy, though far superior in degree, to promote
the permanent welfare of his kingdom."   "A brief definition of the Atonement, then, might be given in some
such manner as this: It is Christ's obedience unto death,
even the death of the cross in the place of sinners, for
the purpose of vindicating the violated law, manifesting
the righteousness of God, making expiation for sin, and
procuring forgiveness, sanctification, and eternal life for
all believers." t The strange confusion of ideas and
terms which necessarily attaches to the Orthodox theology, presents a specimen of itself in the following
sentences, when compared together. In his Eighth Letter to Unitarians, Dr. Woods says: "God would never
have saved sinners, had not Christ interposed and made
an atonement."  Yet in his Ninth Letter he says:" It
is uniformly the sentiment of the Orthodox, that the
origin, the grand moving cause of redemption, was the
infinite love, benignity, or mercy of God."
Very frequently we find the point of the Orthodox
doctrine thus sharply presented:" Repentance is the condition of forgiveness with God, but the death of Christ
* Analogy, Part II. Chap. V.
t Dr. Woods's Works, Vol. II. pp. 404, 453, 463.
17*
197 
THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
is the ground on which that condition is effectual."
" The ground of salvation is the completed work, the
atoning merits of our Lord Jesus Christ: the condition
of their bestowal on an individual is repentance."  Such
formulas as the following we might quote from many
writers:-" The sufferings and death of Christ were
necessary to make the exercise of the divine mercy to
men consistent with the maintenance of divine justice."
" Christ died for the purpose of remnoving an obstacle
in the divine government, in the way of extending pardon to the penitent."
The Orthodox doctrine of the Atonement may, therefore, be regarded as concentrated now upon this "governmnental theory," and as standing or falling with the
proof or the failure of proof that this theory, owing nothing to the wit or fancy of man, is positively and clearly
taught in the Scriptures. We have seen how positively
and clearly its believers can state it, and this raises our
demand, that, putting aside their own formulas, they
should offer us instead "the law and the testimony," and
give us at least one text which includes all its essential
terms. It is something, however, to have the old shapings and concomitants once attached to the doctrine, as
by good Mr. Flavel, withdrawn from our current religious literature. Those who, as professors in divinity
schools, and as men of eminent distinction as theologians, are educating a new generation of ministers, will
very soon introduce more or less important modifications in the popular belief by different constructions of
this governmental theory. The fluctuations and tonings
down of opinion which have reached that form of doctrinal statement are not likely to stop with it.  If with
due modesty we may intimate a conviction which the
tendencies of thought, with some recent striking examples of the result of those tendencies, lead us to hold in
strong assurance, we will say that this legal view of
198 
THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
Christ's death must and will yield to a profounder Christian philosophy. Its best recommendation, its strength,
consisted in the relief which it afforded to Orthodox
believers when they were pressed by the objections to a
more repulsive theory. It still has a strong sway over
the sentimnents; it will fail when tested by textual criticism and the logic of truth. Within the month, we have
read three very able arguments against it by men who
were educated to defend it, from three such different
quarters as the Scotch Church, through J. MeLeod
Campbell, the English Church, by Mr. Jowett, and the
Baptist Church in this country, by Dr. Sheldon.  We
must devote our little remaining space to a brief mention of a few of our many objections to this last phase
of the old Orthodox doctrine of the Atonement.   It
might seem needless, yet, to avert misunderstanding or
misrepresentation, we will here remind all readers, that
we are not bringing our reason to bear against a doctrine of revelation, which may God forbid our ever doing,
but against what we pronounce to be a human dogma
constructively ascribed to revelation. It is against the
Orthodox formula that we reason,-the formula which
affirms that God, in order that he may exercise mercy
towards the penitent, requires or accepts an expiatory
offering made by innocence to his own law.
A governmental theory implies, in this use of the
phrase, a law which restrains, or at least regulates, the
perfect freedom of the working of the Divine administration over men.  It was a prime essential in revelation
to make known this theory to us if it be true. But
where are we to look for it in the explicit teachings of
Scripture? What sentences, what single sentence, can
be quoted as offering a direct, or even an indirect, intimation of it?  Not one!  This fettering himself with
conditions of his own law, within which alone God can
exercise the pardoning prerogative of a Supreme Mon
199
*- - in   ill air:r   -1 
DIVINE MERCY TO PENITENCE.
arch, must either have always attached to the Divine
rule over men, or it must have been introduced in connection with the revelation of the Gospel by Jesus
Christ. Now any single case by which, on the authority of inspiration, full forgiveness was promised on simple repentance, without reference to any implied or
reserved condition, would prove that the Divine administration, as revealed to men, did not always recognize
this limitation of the prerogative of mercy. Will any
one venture to assert, that there are not many such cases
plainly brought before us in the Old Testament? But
when we allege any such case in which forgiveness is
explicitly promised to repentance without a hint of any
reserved condition, Orthodoxy makes a bold interpolation to meet the straits of its own theory, and urges that
prospective faith in the mediatorial sacrifice of Christ
was still the implied ground of the forgiveness. What
violent dealing with Scripture would be necessary for
the sake of interpolating this theory, will appear if we
attempt to make the required insertion into any text.
Thus, when Ezekiel says that a wicked man turning
from his iniquities shall be forgiven and shall live, we
must supply  the words, "through  the efficacy of a
sacrifice which the expected Messiah is to offer to God."
The emphatic sentence, "I will have mercy and not
sacrifice," must be made to read, "I will exercise mercy
on condition of a sacrifice." Jesus Christ emphatically
announced the pardoning methed of God's grace for
penitent and renewed sinners, as exercised independently
of any agency of his own. This method must, therefore, have been applicable to, and available for, those
who lived before it was confirmed by his announcement
of it. It must be as available for those who might
never know of his announcement of it, as for Christians
who receive it from his Gospel. It is in strict conformity with this view, as we learn from the Jewish Scrip 
THE TERMS OF THE OLD COVENANT.
tures, that there was no other condition attached in the
former revelation to the promise of Divine forgiveness
than penitence for the past and subsequent obedience.
What else is the significance of such beautiful passages
as the following, which gem the Old Testament: "To the
Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though
we have rebelled against him." (Daniel ix. 9.) " He that
covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth
and forsaketh them shall have mercy." (Prov. xxviii. 13.)
"For thou desirest not sacrifice.  The sacrifices of God
are a broken spirit." (Psalm li. 16, 17.)
Such were the explicit and benignant terms on which
the pardoning prerogative of God was exercised before
the mission of Christ. If we had only the Old Testamenrit to instruct us, it may safely be affirmed that not a
single believer or reader of it would imagine a governmental theory as standing between God and the exercise
of his sovereign mercy. Christ came from God to proclaim a free and universal Gospel from the Father of all,
to extend the blessings heretofore restricted to Jews to
all the nations of the earth. In announcing the terms
of the Divine forgiveness, did Christ introduce any alteration in those which were in force before? Did he take
from them or add to them? In proclaiming anew the
Divine mercy, did he make our enjoyment of it depend
upon anything that he was himself to do or suffer with
a view to satisfy God? Is his mediation, besides its
manifest purpose of bringing us to repentance, designed
to complement the deficiencies of that repentance as a
tribute to the Divine administration?  Did the death of
Christ manifest that God had imposed a new condition
for the exercise of his free grace? No! There is no
evidence that Christ uttered one word about this governmental theory. It certainly does not appear in any case
in which he himself announced forgiveness to the penitent. It is not recognized in the Parable of the Prodi
201 
THE TERMS OF THE OLD COVENANT.
gal Son. We do indeed read in that parable of the
killing of a fatted calf, in connection with fthie forgiveness and welcome of the repentant profligate; but it
was to heighten the joy of a festival, not as the victim
of outraged law. We find no hint of this theory in the
Lord's Prayer, which teaches us to look for forgiveness
from God on condition that we forgive others; nor any
hint of it in the absolution of the penitent woman, who
was forgiven much because she loved much, and loved
much because she was forgiven much. And let it be
observed with emphasis, that if Christ impaired or restricted the terms of free forgiveness in the older dispensation, the Gospel, instead of being a freer and a wider,
becomes a narrower covenant. The attempt to evade
this objection by assigning to the penitents of the old
dispensation a prospective faith or an anticipated interest in a sacrifice to God's law, to be offered by Christ, is
a mere device of theologians, - a pure figment of their
own fancy.* The governmental theory is compelled to
cover with its benefit Jews who cannot be shown to
have had any knowledge of it, and then it stands perplexed as to what it shall decide concerning the fate of
the heathen, who certainly had no knowledge of it. This
is indeed a sore perplexity to Orthodoxy. We take the
substance of the sublime revelation made through Peter
concerning a heathen man,-" Of a truth I perceive that
God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he
* A fair specimen of the ingenuity of theologians in supplying the omissions of Scripture by the baldest inventions of their own fancy, is offered in
the following sentence from the younger Edwards: "Did not Abraham and
all the saints who lived before the incarnation of Christ, and who were
informed that atonement was to be made for them by Christ, sincerely consent to
it and earnestly desire it?"  (Second Sermon on Grace consistent with
Atonement.  New Haven, 1785.)  We do indeed read of those who "desired" to see and know in what the scheme of Revelation was to issue,
without being gratified. But Edwards tells us that they not only knew, but
consented to it!
202 
THE OLD AND THE NEW COVENANT.
that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted
with him" (Acts x. 34, 35),-as declaring a method of the
merciful rule which our Father in heaven exercises over
his children, independently of any grace won for them
by a meritorious offering from Christ. It proves, at any
rate, that God could show mercy to those who had never
heard of Christ, and who had no conscious sense of
obligation for his death. But Orthodoxy is confounded
here by its own inventions. We have seen how decidedly Mr. Flavel and Dr. Hopkins utter themselves as
to the hopelessness of the heathen. Bishop Butler was
wiser on this point. In a note to the chapter which we
have already quoted, he deprecates the inference, from
anything that he says, "that none can have the benefit
of the general redemption, but such as have the advantage of being made acquainted with it in the present
life." We find, too, that Orthodox theologians of the
present day, who by the solvent of their philosophy make
their creed elastic, are quite willing to allow that the
expiatory sacrifice of Christ, as a legal offering, will impart its fullest benefits to multitudes who have had no
knowledge of it. But what this admission gains in one
direction it loses in another. For it is an express recognition that repentance is the actual condition of salvation for many, and the sole ground of it as known to
them; that the death of Christ is so exclusively legal
and Godward in its efficacy, that no motive or sentiment
drawn from it is absolutely essential for its operation to
the benefit of men; and also that the mediatorial office
of Christ in heaven bears no definite relation to its scope
on the earth. Now, if that expiation can avail for multitudes who are ignorant of it, and who draw no conscious
motive or impulse from it, why should it be wholly
nugatory, or even condemnatory, as it is said to be, for
those who, finding every other grace in Christ, cannot
believe that God required or that Christ made any legal 
204   OBJECTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
expiation for them?  Besides, the theory in this point
of view is liable to much of the objection urged by
Protestants to that of the supererogatory merits of the
saints, by which a large balance of excess of merits
was supposed to be set against the account of the eminently pious, and to be available to supply the deficiencies of those for whom these saints would intercede
with God. Orthodoxy, in its milder moods, gives promise of salvation to the heathen, not from the unexhausted fulness of God's fount of mercy, but from the
infinite balance entered upon the ledger-book of heaven
to the atoning merits of Christ.
If it be asked, Why, under our view of the Gospel as
proclaiming essentially the same message of free forgiveness on repentance which the elder dispensation
announced, we should depend on Christ at all, and
why we do not revert to the Old Testament Scriptures for our teaching? —we answer, that we are not
Jews, but Gentiles, and that as Gentiles we receive the
doctrine which we teach from Christ, as resting upon
his authority. He is to us what the Law was to the
Jews. And this doctrine is, after all, the real point of
harmony between the two dispensations.
Looking with a keen and earnest scrutiny into the
terms of this governmental theory, we try them by the
tests of Scripture, the logic of truth, and the uses of
piety. The theory involves two conditions, both of
which must be united in its statement, and be authenticated as its warrant:  First, that suffering of an intense character must in
some form or shape be offered by the guilty or the innocent as a tribute to the violated law of God; and that
Divine mercy cannot possibly remit this penalty without
making grace overthrow righteousness.
Second, that the death of Christ, by a method and in
a compound nature which so intensified his agonies for 
THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY A FICTION.
a few hours as to make themn an equivalent'for the eternal woe of a doomed race of human beings, is looked
upon by God as offering to him and to his law that
needful penalty.
From the first verse of Genesis to the last verse of
the Apocalypse, the Bible will be searched in vain for a
sentence which expresses either of these two terms of
the governmental theory. The search for a sentence
which contains them both may therefore be pronounced
hopeless. Give us one such sentence from the lips of
Christ, or by authority from him, and we will accept the
theory as of revelation from'God. The Bible knows
nothing of a Divine Mercy bound in the chains of Legality. Mercy is there represented as the supreme attribute of God, and not as needing a device to compensate its relaxing of judgment. The limitless expanses
of the universe, the unmeasured space up from the earth
to the heaven in one direction, and from the east to the
west in another, are made the dimensions of its scope.
" Mercy rejoiceth against judgment," and rejoiceth over
it,- -not one word being interposed about legality. The
God who from the infinite fountain of his love can
forgive, can from the mildness of his sceptre remit.
We object to the governmental theory, that it is altogether an inferential, constructive theory, artificially
wrought out by the brains of theologians, not distinctly
revealed nor directly taught in the Scriptures.   Take
the simplest form of language in which it has ever been
stated, and observe how far short of its assertion any
passage of the Scripture will fall that may be quoted
in proof of it. We grant that Orthodoxy, by the aid
of inference and construction and ingenuity, can make
out an argument of considerable plausibility in support
of this theory. By culling and bringing together scattered texts of Scripture, and relying upon the associations which for a length of time have been attached to
18
205 
206     SACRIFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE EPISTLES.
them through the sharper view of the doctrine of the
Atonement, and then by skilfully arranging these texts
and assimilating their repelling elements by a logic quite
natural to theologians, a marvellous show of apparent
authority may be claimed for the theory. In practised
hands, guided by an earnest heart and a mind already
prepossessed by Orthodox influence, the theory admits of
quite a forcible statement. When subtilty of reasoning,
and partiality of interpretation, and ardent piety qualified
by the restraints of dogma, engage upon this theory, the
result even looks formidable to some who feel that they
are held to withstand it. The strength of the theory
now lies in old associations attached to texts under
the influence of another view of the sacrificial doctrine.
A perfect mosaic-work of symbols, phrases, and sentences, picked from between the covers of the Bible,
polished down and filled in and held together by the
cement of human ingenuity, is made to produce, by a
highly artificial process, such a representation as will
answer to an immolated victim who is pleading with
Heaven, not with earth. Certain glowing Orientalisms
of speech which have a free and lofty spiritualism, and
some ritualistic images of quite a different tone, are
wrought together, and petrified into hard literalisms, and
stiffened into forms which, when reproduced in our own
language, are false to the truth. As Mr. Jowett has remnarked in his Essay on the Atonement,- so significant
a production as coming from an Oxford theologian,
"Where the mind is predisposed to receive this theory,
there is scarcely a law or a custom or rite or purification or offering in the Old Testament which may not
be transferred to the Gospel." It has often been cast as
a reflection upon Unitarians, that in their discourses they
have allowed some of the sacrificial terms applied to
Christ in the Epistles to fall out of their common use.
We know not but that the censure has the apparent 
THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY A FICTION.
justification of fact. But if so, it would be averted by
those whom it concerns, by the plea, that, though Unitarian theologians find no difficulty whatever, nor the
slightest embarrassment, in the real significance of such
terms, they do believe that very erroneous associations
have warped and perverted them for popular use. Mr.
Jowett has admirably indicated the process by which
the writers of those Epistles through force of their
own previous associations with the shambles and altars of sacrifice, were led to cast some of their Christian
conceptions in the mould of their own former ideas. If
to this fact - a fact which critical Scripture students
will less and less be disposed to question as their noble
toil advances -be added an allowance for the associations which Calvinistic theology has connected with the
sacrificial terms of the Epistles, we should find it no
difficult work to justify a temporary disuse of some
phrases of misconstrued Scripture. When popular views
have been recast, and popular belief has been conformed
to the Scriptural doctrine, old language and old imagery
may suggest their true meaning.
But we have dropped that plea in defence of others;
for ourselves we do not need it. We also have gathered
together every sentence from the New Testament, and
from the Old too, which Orthodoxy works into the mosaic
composition and statement of its governmental theory.
We have the fair transcript before us. We know, we
think we know, the force and meaning of such sentences,
and the significance of most of them. And again we say,
that they do not contain or intimate either, much less
both, of the two conditions stated above as entering
into the governmental theory. It is claimed that the
Orthodox have a great advantage over us in this, that
while we have to make a somewhat vague and undefined statement to express the mode of efficacy of the
death of Christ, they are able to state it very definitely.
207 
CONTINUOUS SCHEME OF REDEMPTION.
True. But while they have to state it in terms and
phrases and formulas of their own, instead of allowing
Scripture to state it for them, the advantage on their
side is at least neutralized. We had rather take refuge
under the large ambiguities of some Scripture phrases,
than define them rigidly by adding phrases of our own.
While we have laid down our pen within the last hour,
we have read the following sentence in the columns of
the week's paper of our "Congregationalist"  brethren
(May 2): " The Lamb of God, slain for the forgiveness
of human sins." The sentence is a very definite one;
but it is equally unwarrantable as a most startling perversion of Scripture.
The Bible teaches us that the whole plan of redemption, with all its incidents and stages, was contemporaneously arranged in the Divine mind. It was a continuous
scheme slowly developed to the knowledge and experience of man.   Inspired prophets caught anticipatory
glimpses of stages in it which were not to be realized
till long after their day. The scheme was to culminate
in a suffering Messiah. The Lamb was slain, his death
was foreseen at the'very commencement of the dispensation:  "before the foundation of the world."   Now
the fact that the scheme results in the death of Christ
has led to the inference that the death of Christ under
a legal view of its purpose was really the substance of
the scheme, and that, as no stage of it had any significance except what it derives from the result, so the legal
view of the death of Christ is in truth the whole substance of the scheme of revelation. If this is not an
inferential and constructive theory, we should be at loss
to find one among all the conceptions of human brains.
We believe that each step and process in the scheme
was complete in its operation for its own date in time,
and for the subjects of it. The old Hebrews did indeed
"drink of the spiritual rock which followed them, which
208 
OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES NOT TYPICAL.
rock was Christ," but it was because the virtue of the
whole scheme was concentrated in every element in it.
"The mystery which had been hid from ages and generations" was the result which was "made manifest"
only to Christians; but its blessings were not deferred
till its disclosure, nor made dependent on the method of
its disclosure.
Orthodoxy enters into an elaborate argument to prove
that the sacrificial offerings of the Old Testament were
all typical of the great sacrifice, and took their validity
from that.  How inconclusive and defective and inconsistent that argument is, will, we think, appear to every
one who will examine it without prepossession. It fails
at the application of each test of criticism, evidence,
authority, and analogy. Not the most distant intimation
is given in the Old Testament that the ritual sacrifices
looked beyond themselves to an anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ. Not a word can be quoted from Lawgiver, Prophet, or Priest, to prove that such a reference
was had in view. The aim and efficacy of those sacrifices were complete in themselves; and a close study
of all that is enjoined in connection with those sacrifices
will persuade us of the very slight importance attached
to them except in a ceremonial way. They are not
invested with the awe, nor set forth with the solemnity,
which would belong to them as the shadows cast back
from the cross. The only one of all the offerings of the
Jews which was said to "bear the sin of the people,"
was not immolated, sacrificed, or slain, but was sent off
into the wilderness. It is remarkable, likewise, that the
Levitical sacrifices were enjoined in a routine way,
without the slightest reference to the state of mind or
feeling with which they were offered. It was not them
and repentance, according to the priestly ritual, but them
alone. The Prophets seem even to have stood as protesters against the Priests in this matter, in insisting
18' 
HEATHEN SACRIFICES IDEALIZED.
upon the worthlessness of the offering except as it indicated a contrite heart, which was the better of the
two. But what the Prophets thus insisted upon as the
greater, namely, humiliation, contrition, and repentance,
the governmental theory would persuade us were all
secretly subordinated to a prospective sacrifice. When
we quote to our opponents the sentiment approved by
Jesus, - that to love God and one's neighbor "is more
than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices" (Mark xii.
33),-the reply is, "that is the very loftiest and most
exacting demand of the Law, exhaustive, impossible of
obedience by us, and therefore, as we do not come up
to it, we need a sacrifice for us." No! we rejoin. We
need mercy.  In no instance recorded does Christ make
a retrospective reference to the effect that he is giving
efficacy -to the repentance of penitents under the old
dispensation. Nor can any assertion be quoted as from
him, that under all circumstances, whenever and wherever a sinner is redeemed and saved, it is on condition
or in consequence of his death.
Yet not only from the Jewish, but even from the
heathen sacrifices, would Orthodoxy draw types and
foreshadowings of a great legal victim. The foul and
impious offerings of Paganism, brute and human, with
all their revolting horrors, are made to yield one gleaming ray of pure light as testifying to the strong instinctive conviction of the human heart that God must
be approached, even by penitence, with a propitiation.
When we attempt to bring home to our thoughts the
fearful reality intimated in this incidental illustration
of the governmental theory, so intense is the horror
which it excites, that, were it not for the restraining
influence of Christian respect for those with whom we
differ, we should charge them  with confounding the
purest and holiest element of the Gospel with the most
hideous element of heathenism. We utterly and almost
210 
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CROSS.
indignantly reject this dreadful fancy. We reject it alike
in its use of heathen and of Jewish sacrifices. It seems
to us a most degrading view of the redeeming work of
the holy Jesus to say that his final offering of love had
been foreshadowed for ages in the sacrifices of brute
beasts. Strained visions of prophets and kings, longing
hopes of devout hearts in humble scenes of life, and
angelic anthems ringing their symphonies in the ears of
shepherds, are the befitting heraldings of " the desire
of all nations." But the bloody shambles of fed beasts
and the reeking altars of a blinded idolatry, are images
which no transfiguration can elevate into types of the
Lamb of God.
God had forbidden the Jews to offer human sacrifices,
as abhorrent to him. We tremble as we ask the question which forces itself upon us, - Would God signalize
the abrogation of the Jewish code by offering for men
a human victim, and thus make the crowning act of
human sin the essential condition for the expiation of
all sin?  It is Mr. Jowett of Oxford who uses  the
words, "the greatest of human  crimes, that redeems
the sin of Adam by the murder of Christ."
We have said, that we had before us all the passages
from the Bible which connect our redemption with the
sufferings of Christ, and that we had weighed their import, without finding in them either, still less both, of
the terms involved in the governmental theory.  We
are not about to quote those passages to show how
each of them falls short of authenticating that theory.
With the briefest glance over specimen passages of such
a tenor, we  gather sentences like these: -" he hath
borne our griefs"; "he was wounded for our transgressions"; "the chastisement of our peace was upon him,
and with his stripes we are healed"; "his soul" Lhis
life] was made" an offering for sin"; "he bore our sins";
"he purged our sins "; "he suffered for our sins "'; he
211 
CHRIST MADE SIN FOR US.
died "for the remission of our sins "; he "laid down
his life for us"; "he redeemed us to God by his blood"
[his death]; "he gave his life a ransom for many"; "he
was delivered for our offences "; "he is the propitiation
[the mercy-seat] for the sins of the whole world." But
where in all these sentences, looking man-ward for all the
solemn and sacrificial efficacy of the sufferings they express, do we find any intimation of a God-ward design,
necessity, or working of a legal expiation? We read,
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
of the world." It is the sin which he takes away. But the
governmental theory would require the passage to read,
"who taketh away the punishment of the world."   We
read, that " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the Law, being made a curse for us." (Gal. iii. 13.)
Leaving unnoticed the confusion caused to our minds
by the use of the word Law to define both the Mosaic
and the moral law, which makes us uncertain whether
the Apostle meant more than that the death of Christ
relieved Gentiles from subjection to the old legal code,
we remind ourselves that it was man, not God, who
made Christ "a curse,  and treated him as if he were
accursed. We read, " For he hath made him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin." (2 Cor. v. 21.) The Rev. A.
P. Stanley, of Oxford, Canon of Canterbury, in his recent work on the Epistles to the Corinthians, construes
the passage thus: "He was enveloped, lost, overwhelmed
in sin and its consequences, so far as he could be without himself being sinful." And he paraphrases it thus:
" The object for which He devoted the sinless One to the
world of sin was, that I, and you with me, might, through
and with that sinless One, be drawn into the world of
righteousness."   The  scholarly works of Jowett and
Stanley are most profitable study for those who are
resolved that the Apostles shall not use a single trope,
or other rhetorical figure, without having it urged into a
212 
THE LOGIC OF THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.   213
literal interpretation. If a thousand passages of a tenor
simnilar to the above were to be quoted from Scripture,
they would all fail of conveying, by any fair interpretation, an idea of Christ's death as a sacrifice to God.
There is indeed one passage which speaks of Christ's
offering for us as "a sacrifice to God."   But the very
aroma of the phrase connected with it relieves it of
its literal construction.   The sacrifice of Christ must
have been of such a nature, that we can regard it as "a
sweet-smelling savor" to God.  (Eph. v. 2.)  The song
of the redeemed in the Apocalypse to Christ is, "Thou
wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood
[thy death]." (Rev. v. 9.) This is the burden of the
whole Gospel strain. But where do we find in it an
intimation of the legal theory of a substituted victim to
God? It is characteristic of all the figures of speech
used in the Scriptures, that they are constantly varied,
played upon, presented in changing aspects, balancing
and mutually explaining each other. Christ is not only
called the Redeemer, but also the ransom  money; not
only the payer of our debt, but also the price of our discharge; he not only bears or takes up, lifts and carries,
our sins, but he also bears our diseases. But who would
force either of these terms to such an interpretation as
would compel us to say that Christ became palsied,
deaf, and blind, in the process of relieving human maladies? The very variety of the symbols and images used
concerning him indicates that they are symbols and
images.
If we submit the governmental theory to the test of
logic, we find it assailable and vulnerable at the very
points in which it most needs to be strong. It may be
a misconception of our own, but we think we discern in
most modern statements a shrinking from a full, direct,
unqualified expression of it, while affectionate and deprecatory phrases are connected with it. Now if it is to 
214   THE LOGIC OF THE GOVERNMENTAL THEORY.
be asserted, let it be with all the frankness and boldness
becoming a fundamental theory of the relations between
God and man. To our minds, the title of legality, the
very idea and substance of law in the sense of equity,
are perverted in the theory. We are told that the law is
outraged, and the sanctions of justice are defied, if the
guilty, even when penitent, are freely forgiven.  But
into our very idea of law enters the condition, that the
penalties of its violation, if inflicted at all, shall be visited on the transgressor. Which contingency would the
more peril our reverence for law, the remission of its
penalties, or the infliction of them on the innocent?
Etymologists derive our word mercy from the Latin
merces, a reward or payment; and they tell us that the
connection, which is in fact a separation, of the meanings is to be explained thus, -that when the next of
kin to a murdered person received a money equivalent
for the murder, he yielded to the payment and returned
mercy.   It is a most tortuous definition, and is, we
think, in this respect, similar to the working of the governmental theory. When Orthodoxy fetters God's exercise of mercy by the restraints of his penal law, it forgets
that the Divine Lawgiver can harmonize his own laws of
justice and of mercy. Mr. Jowett says, in his Essay on
the Atonement, that the theory affirms "that there were
some impossibilities in the nature of things which prevented God from doing otherwise than he did. Thus
we introduce a moral principle superior to God, just as
in the Grecian mythology fate and necessity are superior
to Jupiter." He also says, that the view of the sufferings
of Christ, as a sort of "satisfaction to God," "interposes
a painful fiction between God and man." Orthodoxy
makes the difficulty which it professes to find for God
in looking for a device for mediating between his mercy
and his justice. Not regarding penitence as a competent mediation, it interposes a victim. The Apostle
l, -o          — Ah..,                  --             ": F. I....  
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
speaks of God's being "just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus," as if the two assertions were
identical. Orthodox pleaders are in the habit of interpolating the word yet in the sentence, thus, "and yet the
justifier," &c., as if the two assertions needed reconciling.
Even Professor Stuart makes that interpolation when he
quotes the passage.
We shrink from following the lead of Orthodox disputants into the dread audacity of seeking to define and
measure the degree of intensity in the sufferings endured
by Christ. Sure we are, that no statement of Scripture
presents the question of the amount of those sufferings
as deciding their purpose. If there be one point in this
controversy which, from the shock it causes to our sensibilities, we should pronounce to be forbidden ground to
all parties, it is this. We have much of bold and offensive assertion upon it, copied from various writers lying
before us, but we forbear to transfer it to our pages.
Calvin, arguing from the Saviour's momentary dismay,
that his sufferings were more than human, says: "What
disgraceful effeminacy would this have been to be so
distressed by the fear of a common death, as to be in a
bloody sweat, and incapable of being comforted without
the presence of angels!"*  But the younger Edwards
emphatically declares that the suffering "was barely
that of the man Christ Jesus," as "the Eternal Logos
was not capable of enduring misery." ~ And yet there is
something vital to the theory before us dependent upon
the ascribing an intensified degree of suffering to Christ,
in order that his suffering might be of infinite value.
The Orthodox dogma is to us hopelessly confused here
by variance of testimony and definition among its general advocates. Some, with Calvin and Hopkins, tell us
* Institutes, Book II. Chap. XVI.
t Third Sermon on Atonement and Free Grace. 
THE ENDS OF THE DIVINE LAW.
that God died. Others tell us that this is impossible in
fact, and unallowable in statement, while, like Dr. Pond,
they ascribe some influence from the Divine nature to
what was endured in the human nature of Christ. But
Orthodoxy perils its theory by definitions and explanations. What was it for God to pass through the show
of dying as a man?   It could not be real tragedy.
Was it a drama? No! It was real in what it was,
not fiction in anything. The pleading petition of Christ,
" Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me!" is
to us inexplicable, if Jesus had entered into a covenant
with God by the terms of which he knew that the removal of an obstacle in the way of the exercise of
Divine mercy to all our race depended upon his sacrifice
to God. The petition needs no explanation, if; in conformity with the view we have presented of the consistency between such a close of his ministry and its whole
tenor, Jesus for a moment addressed to his Father the
struggle of his own spirit, "Must I drink of this cup?"
If we wished to make an exhaustive statement of the
objections to be offered against even the consistency of
this legal theory with the elementary principles and the
majestic equities of true law, we should need the space
which we have already used. Especially should we
urge with earnestness, that forgiveness on penitence does
not in any case peril the authority of the Divine law.
One who has truly repented needs no dramatic offering
to impress him with an adequate sense of the evil of all
sin. His own breast is the best testimony to him. The
forgiven penitent is not harmed by the exercise of mercy
toward him; the impenitent sinner is not hardened by
the announcement of mercy to the contrite.- All the
attempted analogies which Orthodoxy tries to institute
between school discipline, or human tribunals, and the
Divine administration, fail at the most important points.
Of course, a judge on the bench of a human court can
216 
SIN NOT YET COMMITTED ALREADY EXPIATED.  217
not discharge a professedly repentant criminal.   The
judge cannot know if the penitence be sincere, nor has
the criminal sinned in matters which injure only that
judge, nor does the judge make or execute the law.
But do we err in intimating that, if by any infallible test
human tribunals could know what criminals of every
degree had thoroughly turned from all wickedness to
righteousness, the voice of the merciful in a community
might plead for their discharge?   An  analogy drawn
between the parental government of a household and
the Divine administration would give us the best illustration of what a mild but firm method of law and
benignity requires. A kind parent asks only for contrition in an erring child. He forgives the penitent. His
law is satisfied.
What shall we say, too, of this legal theory, as respects
the terms by which God is to forgive all the sin that is
ever henceforward to be committed by the unborn millions of our race who shall live on the earth? God has
already received the funded payment which shall make
their repentance available for forgiveness, says the theory.
All coming sinners are to plead an interest in the past
sacrifice of Christ. The victim which was by anticipation available for the penitents of old times, is by retrospection available for all future time.  "How  am I to
be forgiven for the sins I may commit next year?"
asks one who hopes that up to to-day he is pardoned.
" Draw upon the infinite fund of purchased grace," is the
answer. Not in irony-, not for offence upon the cherished convictions of any disciple, but in serious perplexity, in troubled anxiety, do we express something
beyond mere misgivings here.  And in the same spirit,
deprecating intended offencej we utter what comes to
our thoughts.  When  Tetzel, the broker of the indulgences sent forth by the Pope, sold for money tickets of
pardon for past sins, Roman casuistry might plead that
19 
THE DOCTRINE THAT QUICKENS PIETY.
the pardon granted by them was merely a remission of
ecclesiastical penalties. But when he proposed to furnish for a graduated scale of prices tickets which should
absolve offenders for any sins they might in future. cornmit, his traffic presented itself to Luther in the shame
of its full enormity. We disclaim utterly any analogy
here with anything in the legal theory. We adduce
the instance merely to define this one objection, that
sins which are virtually forgiven before they are committed must lose something of their dread for the conscience, while repentance for them is divested of something of its imperative necessity as the operative condition of pardon.
We have but a word to utter in conclusion bearing
upon the relation between the governmental theory of
Atonement and the uses of piety. No word of ours shall
question the testimony of the believers of that theory, as
confessing to its power over their own hearts. Into the
sanctuaries of human breasts we will not intrude, certainly not as disputants. We challenge an oft-repeated
assertion simply as it indicates an attempt to monopolize a disciple's love and reverence and gratitude to
Christ, and to insist that the grace of his reconciliation
shall flow to the human heart only in one channel.  It
is claimed that the Orthodox view of the Atonement
is pre-eminently, almost exclusively, favorable to true
Christian piety; that from contemplating Christ as such
a sacrifice for such an intent, and as making by such a
method our peace with God, the heart is most profoundly penetrated with horror for sin, with a sense of
the need, the cost, and the value of redemption, and that
the fervor and glow and gratitude of that heart are thus
most effectually kindled toward the Saviour. Be it so
to all who can thus testify. They cannot love Christ
too much, whatever be their view of the grounds or
method of that love. What he has done for us admits
of no measurement, and it is for what he has done that
218 
THE CENTRAL TRUTHS AND SYMBOLS OF PIETY.  219
he claims the full tribute of our hearts. But may we
suggest, not from theory, but from the recorded experience of Christians of various communions, that Christian hearts have chosen different central truths, different
symbols of piety, different images and objects out of the
rich treasures of devotion to set before them in their
various shrines and oratories? The Roman Catholic
exalts beyond all other sacred and fond objects in his
heart, the Virgin Mary. Her graces and sorrows, her
sword-pierced breast, her motherly office for God, her
queenly prerogative in heaven, and the prevalence of her
intercession, have made her to millions of professed
Christians the fountain of their piety, the altar of their
worship, the sweet assurance of all their faith. The
most acute dialectics of the most skilful apologists of
Romanism cannot make clear to the least prejudiced of
Protestants how "devotion to Mary " differs from what
the Christian owes to God. Again, the mystic pietist
finds the central theme of his devotion, and the fullest
nourishment for his spiritual affections, in the "Divine
Love." His highest moods of peace and joy and faith
are ministered to when he yields himself to the fruition
of the sentiment to which he gives expression in those
words of unfathomed meaning. Other types of Christian piety, comprehending larger or smaller numbers of
affiliated souls, engage the inner choice of classes of
Christian disciples, according to the delicacy, the culture, the depth, the intelligence, or the refinement of
their whole being. It is unwise and unsafe to attempt
to concentrate the whole motive energy of piety upon
any one truth or element of a universal religion. Each
grateful heart is free to express its own experience, and
to indicate the point of view in which the Gospel scheme
gathers for itself the brightest beams of all the light that
it reflects from heaven.  But beyond this expression of
personal experience, we question the right of any heart
to give rules for the method of spiritual radiation to 
DIVIDED FELLOWSHIPS.
other hearts. And especially would we object to any
theory which makes a formula upon the method of reconciliation through Christ to monopolize or to exhaust
the compass of the Gospel influence over the various
sympathies and exercises of human hearts.
And  now  we have to confront the conclusion  to
which our long, and we fear wearisome, debate has
brought us. Orthodoxy, not willing to allow each believer to interpret to his own mind and heart the Scripture method of the efficacy of Christ's reconciling work,
insists that its own constructive view expressed in its
doctrinal formula must be accepted as the condition of
acknowledged Christian discipleship. Because we reject this constructive view, we are pronounced to be outside of the pale of Evangelical communion. We regret
the decision. We regret it on account of the Orthodox
themselves, for it compels us to qualify our respect and
affection for them, seeing that they usurp a right which
their Master and ours never gave them, and seeing that
they prove faithless to their own Protestant principles.
We regret the decision on our own account, for we
should love to share the sympathies, and to participate
in the labors and hopes and noble enterprises of those
whom we still regard as brethren in Christ. We regret
the decision, but we will not mourn over it. It has no
ecclesiastical penalties to visit upon us for which we
care one straw.  It has now no inquisition, no ballotbox even, to turn its dogmatic test into a torment or an
annoyance. It cannot deprive us of Christian fellowship, for whatever we may say of numbers, we have a
fellowship of our own, of men and women, who, while
they consent to reject in every shape and form the
dogma of a God-ward efficacy in the living or the dying
work of Christ, accord in a better and a more tender view
of the great Redemption, as devised by the love of God,
and perfected by the love of Christ. We too love him
because he laid down his life for us.
220 
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
THIE SCRIPTURES.
19*
ON  
UNITARIANISM AND ORTHODOXY
THE SCRIPTURES.
No controversial discussions concerning the doctrines
of Scripture can be thoroughly pursued without involving sooner or later an incidental controversy upon the
authority of Scripture, and the right principles of its
interpretation.   At whatever point an issue bearing
upon this subject is raised, it leads on step by step
to all the questions opened by biblical criticism. The
character and composition of the Bible as a whole; the
nature of its contents; its age, sources, and authors; its
natural and its supernatural, its historical, prophetic,
and spiritual elements; its relations to other literature
and to the demonstrative and physical sciences; its
exposure to assaults upon its credibility; and its means
and methods of defence,- all these large and perplexing
themes present themselves for treatment by the aid of
such powers as belong to the human mind under the
guidance of a various and progressive culture.   Nor
does even this specification of some of the more important elements of a necessary task exhaust all the incidental topics which enter into it. The more thorough
and deliberate and microscopic the criticism, the more
ON 
TEE BIBLE BROUGHT UNDER DEBATE.
abundant and suggestive appears the material of it.
Delicate questions about the exact meanings of words
in ancient languages, and even in our own, and about
the translation of words and phrases from dead into
living tongues, are to be debated by scholars, who must
afterwards set forth the results of their study in a style
intelligible to the unlearned. The figurative uses of
language, idioms, Orientalisms, and metaphors, complicate the discussion. And crowning all comes the great
theme of Inspiration, —the meaning of the word, the evidence of the thing, the compass and extent of its influence, -whether it covers all the contents of the Bible or
only a part of them, and what part, - whether it was confined to the original writing, and so has been impaired
'by the risks of time, of manuscripts and their translation into various languages, or whether the gift is of
such a nature that its fruits are essentially preserved in
every faithful transcript and version of the record.
Some unreflecting persons complain, at the very outset, that such a multitude of questions of such a nature
should be opened at all, to perplex simple understandings, to impair in any way the confidence with which
people love to read the Bible, to peril the authority, or
to bring under debate the truth or value, of any of its
contents. The same persons are apt to charge these
consequences upon the Unitarian Controversy, and to
hold Unitarians answerable for an unfair dealing with
the Scriptures, tending to unsettle their Heaven-authenticated claims. In this topic of controversy between
those once brethren, as well as in the discussion of the
great doctrinal questions to some of which we have
devoted many pages, the leading aim and purpose of
Unitarians was in part misunderstood and in part misrepresented. The views of Scripture, and of the proper
way of treating it, to which they were brought in the
exercise of their best intelligence, as honest thinkers and 
THEORIES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.
careful students, were represented by their opponents
as wanton and daring results of a spirit of pride and
unbelief. Unitarians adopted their opinions from the
compulsory influence of facts and arguments, whose
force they could not resist. They did not hold and
advance their views because their inclinations misled
them, for they felt that they were yielding to the simple
force of truth, the straits and necessities of the case.
We have therefore first of all to remind ourselves how
such questions as relate to the authority and the right
interpretation of the Bible were naturally and necessarily opened in the controversy, how just the grounds of
them were and are still, and how, when they have been
opened, candor and truth require that they should be
met. Wise and considerate men have often been perplexed when confronted with the consequences of their
own theories; and though it may be a token of courage,
it is certainly no proof of wisdom, to regard such consequences, when of a very perplexing or alarming character, with entire indifference, and as wholly without force
against our theories. Whether in the adoption of a
principle or a theory we should have in view the inevitable consequences, the practical effects, which will follow from it, is a question on which those who have
concerned themselves with it have been divided; the
dividing line being generally drawn so as to commit all
mere theorists to a disregard of consequences, while
those who have been compelled to face consequences
have insisted that they should be had in view in the
formation of theories. It will be found at the close of
our present discussion, that the main issue between the
Unitarian and the Orthodox views of the Scriptures, and
the proper way of treating them, centres around this
question: Shall we start with a theory about the inspiration, the authority, and the infallibility of the Scriptures,
which recognizes the qualifications and abatements and 
IDOLATRY OF THE BIBLE.
embarrassments that will be sure to confront us as we
meet the trial of that theory, - or shall we assume the
very highest position possible, and then ingeniously con test, or grudgingly allow, the various objections of a fair
and reasonable character which invalidate our position?
Shall we form our theory in view of certain facts which
we must sooner or later deal with in verifying our
theory, -or shall we adopt a theory which will compel
us to deal uncandidly or unsatisfactorily with facts that
are plainly inconsistent with it?
When the Unitarian Controversy commenced here, it
found prevailing in the popular mind, so far as that was
in subjection to the popular theology, an almost idolatrous estimate of the Bible. This popular view of it
allowed no discrimination in the value or authority of
its various contents, and would scarcely tolerate any
debate which went beyond the apparently literal meaning of the English version. In their use of the Bible,
the people recognized no right of choice, no range for
discrimination. It was all Bible. Indeed, a reader of
the old tracts and sermons of our fathers is led to the
persuasion, that they spent the hardest toil upon the
least profitable portions of the Scriptures. That they
found those portions edifying, only proves how diligently
they wrought upon them. Very many of their devoted
ministers are known to have spent years of industrious
zeal in writing extended expositions or commentaries
upon the whole Bible, or upon its larger or smaller
compositions. A few specimens of such comments on
books or chapters are in print, but no complete work of
the kind from their pens has ever been published. Cotton Mather's voluminous exposition still lies in manuscript in the cabinet of our Historical Society. Several
generations of ministers, in the full sincerity of their
own earnest faith, had inculcated a view of thie Bible
which modern opinions regard as superstitious. They
I I                               -,I  -  n  4,,,,_
226 
CREDULITY AND SCEPTICISM ABOUT THE BIBLE. 227
had fostered this view, and insisted upon it as vital to
faith and the ends of edification. To what extent this
estimate of the Bible in the minds of believers was
balanced by, or even accountable for, a lurking or a
full developed scepticism and unbelief in the minds of
others, we of course cannot know.  Our knowledge of
the workings of human nature and the facts which experience presents us in our own day of free, outspoken
dissent from the popular belief, would warrant the inference that multitudes of the inquisitive and the restless
in mind entertained misgivings, though they might keep
silence about them. It would seem that the common
rule applied here as in other matters, that when the
standard of belief made an excessive and arbitrary exaction; a readiness to recognize it on the part of some
was offset by an immoderate rebellion to it on the part
of others. Much of the confessed and latent unbelief of
our day is the costly penalty paid by a grown-up generation for the austerities and exactions with which faith
was connecte:.'in the training of their childhood.  But
as the popular view of the Bible was made the standard
for belief, all who for any reason could not accept it
were left to make such abatements of it, or to find such
a substitute for it, as they could, practising meanwhile
such reserve of tongue as prudence or fear might dictate.
It is a remarkable fact, that, in all the voluminous and
unfinished discussions which have been pursued on this
high theme of the authority of the Bible, the witness
whose testimony is of chief relevancy and importance
has received the least attention. All other tests and
arguments have taken precedence of that which would
bring the Bible to a trial through its own claims and
contents. Common sense suggests that no reason for
demanding for it the reverence and faith of men could
possibly be offered from any external source or any 
THE BIBLE IN OLD TIMES.
subordinate grounds, which would compare in cogency with its own internal warrant. How far the old
popular view of the authority of all the contents of
the Bible is warranted by any clains set up for themselves, is a question which, to our knowledge, has never
been tried thoroughly and candidly by a discussion
unbiassed by any other considerations. We must defer any dealing with that question until we have
briefly noticed some of the extraneous, incidental, historical, and conventional influences which helped, at
least, very effectively to support, and, as we sincerely believe, to originate, a view of the contents of the Bible,
as a whole, that is not warranted by any claims which
they advance for themselves.
The Bible has been a book in popular circulation, free
to the use of all Protestant readers, for a little more than
three hundred years. For the greater portion of that
time, and for all but a very small fraction of the masses
of its readers, it has been perused and interpreted under
the restraints of some external, ecclesiastical, or doctrinal teaching. For long ages after its contents had been
gathered, it was withdrawn, kept back from popular use,
in part from the policy of the priesthood, in part from
the necessity of the case, as its cost, when written on
parchment, was heavy, and those who could read were
comparatively few.   The  Bible, indeed, was never in
the possession of more than a very few private owners
until after the Reformation. Before the Christian era,
a few wealthy Jews might have copies of parts, or even
of the whole, of the Old Testament made for them by
the Scribes; but the families of Israel looked to the
temple and the synagogues for their knowledge of its
contents. Faith then came wholly by hearing, not from
reading.  When the two Testaments had been united
in one or more volumes, copies were so rare that they
were not found in the libraries of all the churches, con 
FIRST FREE USE OF THE BIBLE.
vents, monasteries, and universities. Occasionally, the
choice cabinet of a monarch contained a copy. That the
Christian world could have kept its faith and worship
so long without depending upon the popular use of the
Bible, would, after all, be the most effective argument in
support of the policy of the Roman Church in its prohibition of the Bible, were it not for the counter argument which Protestants would instantly advance, in
urging that the faith and worship which prevailed
while the Bible was hid away were not consistent
with Christian purity and truth.
Luther and Erasmus parted friendship at the Reformation, when the former, in resolute opposition to the
judgment or the fears of the latter, resolved upon the
translation of the Scriptures into the common tongue,
for the free use of his countrymen. The knowledge that
there was such a volume as the Bible, the difficulty of
procuring it, the excitemnent ra sed by the expectation of
it, the fact that it was identified with the Protestant
cause, in antagonism with all the corruptions and inventions and additions of Romanism, made the multitude most eager to obtain it.  Considering  that, as
Luther said, "the Papists burned the Bible because it
was not on their side," we can hardly over-estimate
the zeal and longing of the people to secure it. The
license included on the title-page of our English Bibles,
though passed unnoticed by many readers, tells a burdened tale. "Appointed to be read in churches," is
the royal warrant which goes with the once forbidden
book. When that warrant first accompanied a version
in our own tongue, every one who could obtain a
Bible was free to possess it, and all who had the precious gift of knowledge might read it. To read it
was to interpret it in some way. And what a valued
possession it was is hardly to be realized now, as the
flood of literature floats by us. What an intense and
20
229 
230     POPULAR ENTHUSIASM OVER THE BIBLE.
deep joy has been experienced by millions of hearts over
that book! Not only must it " be read in churches,"it might be read in homes, by the way-side, anywhere,
everywhere. As the larger portion of the people of
England were then unable to read, others who had the
gift would be to them the medium of its joy and instruction. We can paint to ourselves many impressive and
touching scenes of which it was the centre. It took the
place and performed the service of priest and altar, of
confessor and teacher, of counsellor and judge, to thousands of persons. It repeated the Pentecostal miracle
of preaching the Gospel to every one in the tongue in
which he was born. It represented in the household all
the sanctities connected with the Church, the Sabbath,
the grave, and the hope that extends beyond it.  We
still see, in some of the rural parish churches of England,
the solid folio Bible held by a strong ring and chain to
the reading-desk as in days of yore; when, after the hours
of public worship, the minister having retired, simple
villagers, with grave and reverent mien, gathered around
some old man or woman, or some youth or maiden rich
in the blessings of the mind, and listened to the precious
pages. Every one of those pages was a revelation, and
we may be sure that such perplexities as the narratives
now present, not of scholarship, science, or criticism, but
from the questionings of an unsophisticated mind or
heart, received as fair and full a solution as the best
wisdom of the world has ever since given to them. For
nearly a century and a half portions of Wickliffe's translation had been read in English rural homes by wandering apostles of the new light, and each multiplication
of copies in that or in subsequent versions extended the
circle of readers and hearers. We may infer that, to those
who had been trained on monkish legends and lore, the
Bible was of easy learning, offering but rare occasion for
raising distinctions in its contents. 
NEW ENGLAND PIETY AND THE BIBLE.
It could not be but that such a book, so demanded as
a designed gift from Heaven, so prized, so used, as a substitute for poor superstitions and services performed in
a dead language, would draw to itself the deepest, fondest, purest attachment of human hearts. It was living
truth conveyed in the language of household life, that
gave to the lessons of the Bible their sacred charm and
power. For of all the reproaches, stern or gentle, visited
upon the policy of the Roman Church, the most withering of all must be confessed to be this, that the very
language which she chose for all her services became a
dead language; her piety could not keep alive the tones
and forms of her speech, and the spell of delusion which
was laid upon her withheld her from change. The Bible
was found worthy of all the affectionate trust which it
received, and affection and confidence alone in it, however unlimited, never harmed and never can harm any
one. Only when the mind- the curious, searching, debating mind - asserts its own prerogative, does that
unlimited confidence begin to falter, and need to be
confirmed or restored by some deliberate methods of
inquiry and discrimination..
But the piety of New England, and of those in the
Old World who were in sympathy with the faith that
was first nurtured in this wilderness, accepted the Bible
- the whole Bible - in the fondest reliance of the whole
heart and mind. Every family owned a Bible, and
every member of each family read it, studied it, or heard
it and revered it. All were either teachers or taught by
it. Children were named after its worthies. Occasionally, too, names were borrowed from it in baptism of
those who were not among its worthies, on the ground,
perhaps, that being in the Bible, no matter how poorly
they figured there, was warrant enough for perpetuating them. Precedents, examples, and warnings were
quoted from the Bible, as from the whole world's his
231 
232    FIRST SUGGESTIONS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
tory of all past ages, and from the Sibylline prophecies
of all that was to come. The Bible was actually accepted here as a statute-book of civil and criminal law
till a code could be deliberately framed; and when a
code had been digested, Bible legislation furnished its basis and its penalties. It was well-nigh forgotten that the
Bible was not written in English, and that it had ever
been translated. The intermediate agency of men, in
penning, gathering up, authenticating, transcribing, and
transmitting its contents, was well-nigh lost sight of;
and as God was the leading subject of the book, its
authorship was directly referred to him.
It is easy to understand how ill those who had been
educated under this warm, confiding, and entire reliance
upon the letter of the Bible, would bear the first bold
dealings of criticism with it, however cautious or reverent might be the language of such criticism. Painful
and startling was the first experience of this kind.
When the natural popular feeling against the intimations of criticism found expression through the teachers
and defenders of the popular theology, it was to have
been expected that some severity of judgment should
have followed. Those who began to discriminate between parts of the Bible,- to raise questions about the
relative value and authority of its several contents,to suggest new renderings of important passages, and
to intimate the possibility of error introduced by time
or chance in successive copies, or even into the original, by lack of knowledge or false reasoning,- those
who opened here these now familiar "offences," were
prepared to be misunderstood. They had great reason,
however, to complain of being grossly misrepresented.
Time, with its wonderful revolutions, has realized a
signal triumph for our early Unitarians in this direction. As we shall show before we close this essay,
those who claim a doctrinal succession from the as 
OPPOSITION TO BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
sailants of Unitarians have accepted, ratified, and indorsed to the full all the positions taken by those who
bore the odium of first reducing the popular idolatry for
the letter of the Bible.  We  utter boldly the unqualified assertion, and stand ready to maintain it in the
lists of fair scholarship, that all the leading and essential canons of criticism, and all the qualifications
and limitations which the most esteemed Unitarian
divines applied to the Scriptures, have, within a few
years, been recognized as just by eminent writers in
various Orthodox communions. The American Unitarian Association has now in preparation a Commentary and Exposition of the New Testament. Such a
work, covering both Testaments, might be made to
the perfect satisfaction of our fellowship, every line of
whose  necessary comments  and dissertations should
be compiled from nominally Orthodox volumes. As
we survey the crowded pages now before us, containing carefully culled extracts embracing admissions and
assertions from distinguished Orthodox divines in the
field of biblical criticism, and then recall how Unitarians were once abused for saying the same  things,
we feel a profound respect for men who nobly led on
a work of consecrated toil and manly courage in the
spirit of Christian fidelity to truth.
But the protest first raised against the ventures of
criticism was earnest and foreboding; doubtless, too,
it was sincere, however wise, discreet, and just- or the
opposite of all those epithets- it may have been. The
appeal, in censure and protest, was in substance and
tone as follows: - If you cannot substantiate your
new views by the letter of the English Bible, just as
we and our fathers have been reading it for centuries,
give up the matter. Stick to the letter as it stands,
and accept the established authority. The wise and
good have found nutriment for their piety in a faith
20 *
233 
234      PROTEST AGAINST BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
which never looked behind, beyond, or under the English version, and you will become no better than they
were, —no wiser,-no more enlightened in the truth,by meddling with a jot or tittle in the text. Forego
the exercise of your bold reason, your proud imagination. If you find difficulties, humble yourself before
them: you ought to expect difficulties, and there is a
merit in succumbing to them, while it is wicked  to
practise your ingenuity upon them.  Question everything else, if you will; let philosophy, and science,
and politics, and trade, and social theories hang all in
the wind, as open debates, as themes to try all your
wits; task yourself on these as you please; exercise
your fancy, your zeal, your spirit of opposition, your
eccentricity, your obstinacy, as you will upon them;
but leave us the Bible untouched, unchallenged. There
ought, at least, to be one thing sacred from dispute,
from cavilling, from tricks of debate, from ingenious
speculation, from the assaults of human pride, which
so readily pass into scoffs at what is to be revered.
The interests of religion require and demand this
reservation of the Holy Scriptures, and of every line
which they contain, from all such presumptuous risks.
It is the condition on which alone they can be of
best use —of any real, edifying use —to simple men
and women. You cannot press any such treatment as
you propose upon the Bible, without at once raising
unfair distinctions between Christians as regards the
terms of salvation and a knowledge of those terms.
But scholars are here entitled to no prerogative beyond the unlearned. We all stand on a level before
that book; we have no right to judge it, for it is to
judge us. Let it remain respected, revered, holy. As
the Heaven-appointed style of an altar required that
no tool should be used upon it, so the Bible should
stand free of any profaning touch from man. Yield 
THE BIBLE PRECIOUS TO ALL.
to it and secure to it such an unqualified regard, that,
wherever any one opens to it, he may feel sure that
he is reading what was writ by God, that the plainest sense of it is the truest, the literal meaning the
right meaning, and that the Holy Spirit is addressing
him in every sentence.
Such was the appeal made in behalf of the Bible
against those whose questions and critical processes
were met by intimidation or foreboding. The plea
was spoken in various tones of kindness or severity,
of courtesy or insolence, and it was enforced by various measurements of breadth or narrowness of intelligence, against those who first opened here the now
familiar discussions, critical, philosophical, or sceptical,
concerning the contents or the authority of the Bible.
From the tone and temper in which this plea has
often been spoken, one might suppose it was addressed to some reckless and ruthless men, utterly
indifferent to religion themselves, and bent only upon unsettling the faith of others. That those who
were thus remonstrated with had an interest of their
own at stake in the Bible fully equal to that of any
others, and were as heartily and vitally concerned in
all the questions thus raised, is but the suggestion of
common sense. For who is there that connects his
own hope and faith with the Bible, but would rejoice
with all his heart and mind to yield to this appeal
in all its warmth and earnestness? Are we not all
equally interested in a revelation from God, in the
volume which contains it, in asserting its authority,
and in maintaining the infallibility of the record, if
it be infallible? It is preposterous for one class of
believers, who are ready to blink all biblical perplexities for themselves, and to offer unsound and inadequate explanations of them to the weak, the confiding, and the credulous whom they may influence, 
THE BIBLE AND THE COMPASS.
to address another class of their fellow-men, who give
proof of honest motives, as if they were seeking to
discredit the Bible because they opened their eyes to
obvious difficulties in it. It is as if one set of mariners should rail at another set for attempting to speculate upon, calculate, measure, and allow for the variations of the compass, -the compass on which all
alike depend, and by which all alike are glad to steer.
Is there an honest and sincere person on the earth who
would not be grateful for an infallible Bible, or who
would be disposed to pick flaws in it? Are those who
have given years of scholarly toil to the study of the
Bible -all unrequited except as the result has cleared
and strengthened their own faith by reducing alike
their superstitious prejudices and their doubts -to be
assailed as a set of religious Vandals? And if, as the
deduction of intelligent and fair biblical criticism, it
should appear that, within a few very definite restrictions and qualifications, a few guards of caution, and
a few allowances for manifest error, the Bible is entitled to the character for infallibility which popular belief
has set up for it, would not the critics who verified and
proclaimed the fact be the heartiest sharers in the confidence it would afford?  When  the variations of the
compass have been reduced to rule, its guidance is followed as implicitly as if it were subject to no variations. Let the highest standard be set for the authority
and the infallibility of the Bible which honest truth
will allow, and we may safely affirm that there is not
a single right-minded person in the community who
would turn coldly away from it, or willingly do or say
anything to detract from it.
But the very occasion for making such an appeal
is an intimation that it relies not wholly on fact, but
somewhat on feeling and fear, and on a conscious misgiving as to its entire validity. The appeal could
236
I 
0
MOTIVES OF UNITARIAN CRITICS.
not avert criticism, and it cannot stifle it. Doubt and
inquiry had the start of the appeal, and had already
preoccupied the ground. The strife began at this very
point. Apprehension got the better of courage, and remonstrances, often charged with abuse, were substituted
for arguments. The question forced itself upon trial,
not whether the Bible could be rescued from the scholar's or the sceptic's touch, but whether it could fairly
and fearlessly stand the test, which it ought not for one
moment to dread, if it were worthy of the confidence
claimed for it.  If God  had written it, his hand and
mind might safely be left to vindicate their work. If
it had passed unharmed through the risks of ages, of
transcription and translation, it need not quail before
the dictionary, the grammar, or the commentary. The
explorer of the Egyptian catacombs, the curious antiquarian digging away the sand from the plains of Assyria, or marking out the sites of the seven churches
of Asia, could not discredit the record. The chronologist
by old-world cycles, eclipses, and royal dynasties, the
geologist gathering up the medals of creation, the mariner on the Mediterranean, and the traveller through
Southern Italy, would never unsettle the Scriptures of
Moses or Paul. The timidity of the champions of the
Bible would bring its claims into peril far more than
would the boldness of its challengers.
So far as the discussions connected with the Unitarian Controversy are had in view, we feel at liberty to
say that Unitarians as a class have made a loyal recognition of the paramount importance of true Scriptural
knowledge by the labors they have spent upon the original text, and by their scholarly zeal to authenticate
and interpret it.  In view of facts, of which unfortunately the evidence is painfully abundant in current religious literature, it is the sincere conviction of Unitarians, uncharitable as the confession of it may seem,
237 
UNITARIAN VIEW OF THE SCRIPTURES.
that many Orthodox writers, for the sake of sustaining
unimpaired the authority of the Bible, deal disingenuously with difficulties to which they really cannot close
their own eyes or those of common readers. Orthodoxy
attempts to hide from observation, or to make too light
of, some of the perplexities which the Scriptures present
to many conscientious and serious persons; while the
obtrusion of these perplexities is regarded by the Orthodox as proof that they cannot be proposed by any
really conscientious or serious person, but indicates of
itself a depraved  heart.   The  Orthodox in general
insist that faith in the Bible, and love for it, should shut
the eyes of all readers to the misgivings which their
theory of its infallibility creates, and should reconcile
them to encounter, unexplained and unrelieved, every
embarrassing suggestion. It is claimed that the same
Christian submission which reconciles us to bear bodily
affliction and bereavement from God, ought to make us
docile and tolerant over the seeming flaws in an infallible record.  We are asked not only to accept the Bible
under the highest character which we can intelligently
assign to it, but as. burdened with claims which Orthodoxy has set up for it; and in trying to uphold these
claims Orthodoxy does not deal fairly with many of the
difficulties which, not the Bible, but the Orthodox theory
of the Bible, presents. Orthodoxy gives the Bible a
weak side at that very point where it takes up the
championship of the Bible.
We will now frankly state the position which Unitarians have in general affirmed, which they have maintained against many opponents, which they believe those
opponents must and will sooner or later be compelled
to accept, and which has in fact within the last quarter of a century received either an outspoken or an
implied recognition from the most competent biblical
students of various Christian communions. It is, that
238 
ASPERSIONS ON UNITARIAN CRITICS.
the prevailing popular view of the authority, the inspiration, and the infallibility of the Bible, has been superstitiously attached to it, that it did not originate in the
Bible, is not claimed by the contents of the Bible, and
cannot be sustained by any fair dealing with them;
while the special pleading, the subterfuges, the artifices, the evasions, the forced constructions, and the
actual violence to truth and fact, needed to uphold the
popular view, are the very scorn of many intelligent persons and the grief of many pious persons. That position stands attested by overwhelming truth, and he who
is competent to pronounce upon it must be something
more than a bold man, and something worse than a
weak man, who will now venture to question it.- Is it
now the pride of reason, the rebellion of a sinful heart,
the entering into a controversy with God, which has instigated biblical criticism, and led Unitarians to adopt
those general views about the composition, the authority, and the inspiration of the Bible that are identified
with their position in this controversy? Let us try to
answer this question.
We regret again to have to say, that an unjust aspersion was cast upon the motives of those who, in our
doctrinal discussions, advanced the usual and now very
familiar terms of biblical criticism, in suggesting the
possibility of error, of mistranslations, perversions, and
corruptions in the text of Scripture. It is to be granted
that such suggestions may be made in the spirit of cavilling, of hypercriticism, of contempt and poor conceit of
mind.  But they may also be prompted by the highest
conscientiousness, by the most intelligent candor, and by
a most reverent and sincere intent. The instigating motive and spirit of them must be inferred from the characters, the professed design, and the language of those
who offer them. It requires but a little discernment to
distinguish between a reckless and a captious disputant,
239 
CONTROVERSY ON BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
and an honest, humble doubter over perplexities,though both may ask the same questions and make
similar assertions.   But the charge quite confidently
and indignantly uttered against the Unitarians in pages
of "The Panoplist" and "The Spirit of the Pilgrims"
was in substance this:" You are flattering the pride
of human reason, you are judging the word of God by
your own prejudices, and making your own taste or intelligence or conscience the measure and test of revealed
truth; you wish to warp and twist Scripture, to perplex
the unlearned, and to unsettle the foundations of faith
and reverence, leaving us all to the mercy of private
judgment and a sort of freedom which Protestantism
never contemplated."
In answer to this aspersion upon their motives, Unitarians replied, in general, that it was unjust and bigoted; that in the issue they would be found to be the
wiser friends of the Bible; that the object which they
had in view in proposing some discrimination in the
contents and the popular estimate of that book, and in
arguing for certain textual constructions and emendations, was simple truth, to meet the actual emergencies
and exactions of the case; that the Scriptures were exposed to harm and to abuse, were open to honest criticism as to a safeguard, and that the human elements in
them were subject to examination and revision by the human faculties. They also urged, that, whatever was the
authority of the original inspiration, unless we were prepared to claim that all transcribers, translators, and
printers of the Bible, as well as the collectors who first
pronounced upon the canonical documents, were divinely
watched over, restrained, and helped, there must have
been risk of error and consequent material for criticism.
Whether Unitarianism or Trinitarianism would gain or
lose by the processes proposed, was an issuer entirely
subordinated to the Christian scholar's loyalty to his
appropriate work.
240 
UNITARIAN VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE.
Thus the whole question concerning the authority,
the inspiration, and the interpretation of the Bible was
fully opened, though prejudiced in the tone of its discussion by this unfair imputation of motives. In conducting their arguments, founded on textual criticism,
Unitarians suggested the following and similar considerations: - That some books and some portions of books
in the Bible are of doubtful authority, and probably spurious; that the collection is of a miscellaneous character,
of unequal value, credit, and present authority; that science, history, chronology, geography, and even morality
and piety, can propose valid objections to more or less important contents of the Bible, if the letter is insisted upon
and a plenary inspiration is claimed for it; that inspiration could not be ascribed equally to all its contents, and
was not needed in some of them, while the nature and
measure and proof of inspiration itself were all unsettled
and difficult of determination by any formula; that the
writers used Orientalisms and figures of speech, exaggerations and metaphors, which would mislead us if
rigidly interpreted into more literal forms of language;
that what Christ said is more authoritative than anything that comes from any other'source; that he may
have conformed in language to views and conceptions
then prevailing in the world, without always authenticating such views and conceptions as his language implied; that possibly his own words had sometimes been
misunderstood or misreported, or affected by transcription or translation; that there are discrepancies, even in
the New Testament, which cannot fairly be reconciled
into a perfect consistency with the entire infallibility
claimed for the writers; that the strict rules of logic
were not always observed by the writers in their reasoning; that they were liable to mistake if they went
out of the range within which their inspiration was limited; and that on one point at least the Apostles were
21
241 
REASON AND REVELATION.
manifestly in error in expecting the end of the world in
their generation, and in speaking of it as certain.
When the controversy, leaving these broad fields, was
concentrated upon some specific issue, a dispute was
raised as to the proper province of reason in dealing
with the Bible and its contents.   Unitarians insisted
upon an undefined, but still a real and legitimate faculty in a human being, not to judge Divine Truth, but to
judge upon what other men offered to it as Divine Truth,
-upon its message and its vehicle, upon its consistency
with reason and with the elementary constitution of that
nature which God had given and which God addressed.
Unitarians accord with the judicious Hooker in a belief
in "the primary revelation of the human understanding."
Holding to this as, though a vague and undetermined,
still a vitally essential right, some Unitarians have been
wont to express themselves very strongly to this effect:
If the Bible could be proved to teach this or that doctrine,
professedly drawn from it, so inconsistent with its other
contents, with the attributes of God and the nature of
man, and so shocking to human reason, then the necessary inference would follow, that the Bible is not
from God. Unitarians were replied to by their opponents, that, if a book advancing the claims of the Bible were found to contain such monstrous doctrines, its
Divine authority would of course be perilled.  This
being yielded as an hypothesis, it was then denied that
the Bible had any such contents, and when, notwithstanding, the Orthodox continued to press upon Unitarians doctrines as from the Bible which to the latter had
that character and aspect, the revulsion of heart, mind,
and soul against them was not allowed to discredit the
doctrines or the Bible which was supposed to teach
them, but was referred to the pride of carnal reason
and a haughty heart. The doctrines, nevertheless, came
from God, and were good doctrines, and the Bible was
242 
REASON APPLIED TO THE BIBLE.
all the more precious for teaching them; and until a
man could choke them down, he was unmistakably in
a hopeless state of reprobation.
When the discussion reached this point, it was a
blessed thing for both parties that there was such a
door of relief opened as that of biblical criticism. God
be thanked for the understanding he has given to man,
as well as for the inspiration he has given to his Word;
for the faculty to interpret, as well as for the oracle; for
the certain expounder of its uncertain sounds. The
great question presents itself, What doctrines does the
Bible teach? So that, beside all the broad issues relating to the authenticity and authority of the different
books of Scripture, there came in for discussion a large
range of topics connected with interpretation. The direction of these discussions and the spirit brought to
them may be inferred from the following instance.
There appeared in "The Spirit of the Pilgrims"    a
very censorious review of Milman's History of the Jews,
written in the spirit of an alarmist. In that review the
liberal-minded and intelligent author, though, as a distinguished clergyman of the Church of England, he belonged then as now to a nominally Orthodox communion, was severely handled for venturing to make some
concessions of a semi-rationalistic character. The reviewer expresses his own opinion in this sentence: "We
know that, of all impossible vagaries of a learned fancy,
that of making the Bible a book which infidels will believe is the wildest." This remark is made concerning
the efforts of the critic, in allowing for the Orientalisms
of the record, to reduce some apparently marvellous, legendary, or exaggerated details to a more credible selfconsistency. Suppose now we invert the remark of the
reviewer, and say that, Of all the most objectionable
* Vol. III. p. 487.
243 
ANTAGONISTIC VIEWS OF TIHE BIBLE.
ways of viewing and treating the Bible, that is the
most harmful which fosters infidelity and burdens a
vigorous and effective faith in its substantial truth with
a slavish bondage to the letter of all its contents. Is
not this assertion of ours as true as that of the reviewer?
And is not the truth in it as worthy of practical regard
and caution from the defenders of the Bible? The advocates of the Bible have found occasion in many cases
to be its apologists. They ought to be furnished for both
these offices, as were the great ministers of the Christian
Church in the centuries after the Apostles. But it is a
curious fact, that many divines who have been most
ready to write upon the evidences of Christianity have
been the least tolerant of the harder tasks of the biblical
critic.  While those who are already firm and assured
in their Scriptural faith of course may look to their religious teachers for instruction founded on their faith, it
would seem as if those who are tried by doubts, but are
anxious to believe if their difficulties can be removed,
deserved some sympathy from the friends and champions of revelation.   Some  of our divines, however,
seem to have acted on the principle, that the harder
they made the terms of biblical faith to the sceptical,
the more precious those terms would be to the believer.
On the same page of the same review just quoted, we
read the following sentence:  "Let the defender of the
inspiration of the Bible take the highest ground; he will
find it easiest to maintain." But what is the highest
ground? The writer evidently means by the expression
to recommend the boldest assertion, the most unqualified, unscrupulous, and dogmatic assertion, of plenary inspiration.   This, however, would be to our mrinds the
lowest ground, lowest in the scale of reason, truth, value,
and evidence. Who shall be judge in any case whether
an obstinate and rigid adherence to an unintelligent and
a reckless theory, or a candid concession to a recon
244 
THE LETTER AND THE SPIRIT OF SCRIPTURE.   245
sidered and a reconstructed theory, be the truest ground?
- for the truest will be the highest. An issue raised by
common sense concerning hundreds of passages in Scripture, asks whether they are to be interpreted literally or
figuratively; and if figuratively, how we are to choose,
out of an infinite number of harder prosaical forms of
language, a east into which to compress the poetic figure.
Thus, twice does the Bible affirm that the Ten Commandments were " written with the finger of God " on
tables of stone. (Exod. xxxi. 18; Deut. ix. 10.) If we
insist upon the letter, we must say that God took into
his hands those slabs of stone, and actually engraved
upon them with his own finger the Ten Commandments. But if we yield the literal for some figurative
interpretation, we have abandoned logic with the letter,
and we follow our fancies as they rove in a thousand
directions to seek the proper shaping of an image for
expressing God's agency in acting through man as an
engraver or scribe, a dictator or oracle. How vain, then,
is the attempt to trammel such ventures as those of Milman, provided they are reverential, with the broken
bonds of literalism! Over.and over again we find the
Deity represented in the Old Testament as rising early
in the morning light, as if, like a man who had a task, he
determined to start apace and make a long day of it.
No one interprets such language literally. But when we
abandon the letter, the alternative is not to insist upon
some specific, figurative form, but to launch freely into
the expanse of devout and reverent imagery.
Suppose a serious reader of the Bible, with a burden
on his mind, comes to his minister with this question:
"How can the Bible twice repeat the assertion, that
'David was a man after God's own heart, fulfilling all
his will,' (1 Sam. xiii. 14, Acts xiii. 22,) when the
same Bible presents David to us as an adulterer and
a murderer, and tells us that he was expressly forbidden
21~ 
INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE.
to build a temple for God, because he was' a man of
blood'? "   Doubtless the minister in the age of our
fathers would have replied, that "God sanctified all his
instruments," and would have let the matter drop there.
A minister of our own time would be likely to reply,
that the English words "a man after God's own heart "
do not convey exactly the Hebraism in the original;
which means, more strictly rendered, a man of God's
choice for funlflling his purpose in one or more directions.
The relief is appreciable and sufficient. But is not this
a use of your reason for removing a seeming inconsistency in the record, a trial of your own skill and wisdom
to improve upon what your fathers left you? It surely
is. Suppose, then, you try the same intelligence upon
the popular notion that David's fierce imprecations upon
his enemies in some of the Psalms come from inspiration of God, and so are of edifying use in Christian
churches for the devotion of Christians at this day. Of
the nine verses in that exquisite and heart-moving lyric,
Psalm cxxxvii, the first six might have come from a
soul kindled by the fire of the divine altar. But what
shall we say of the last verse,- " O daughter of Babylon,
happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones
against the stones"?
We can give but a few paragraphs to that element of
the great controversy before us which involves the subject of Inspiration, though a volume might be filled by
that topic alone. All clear, distinguishing, and satisfactory views on this topic are embarrassed by the unsettled and undefined senses attached by different persons
to Inspiration when ascribed to the Bible. The most
encouraging reason for hoping that we have made approximation to a true theory of Inspiration, and to more
accordance of opinion and belief in reference to it, is
found in the fact that we have given over our attempts
at a rigid definition of its substance, scope, or limitations.
246 
INSPIRATION AND TESTIMONY.
And yet, till we have something like such a definition,
we can argue, advocate, and object to but vague conclusions. Who will tell us, to the content of all, what is
meant by Inspiration? We all know what we mean to
mean by it. Wie all have a clouded sense of its august,
oracular source, its exalted authority, and its intended
uses, as abiding in a writing whose words, or at least
whose contents, have a Divine sanction. But what rigid
exposition can be given of its method, its operation, its
limits, its distinguishing marks and tokens? What are
the securities of its tenure for human use? Is it restricted to the communication and the sanction of one
class of truths, namely, religious truths, and even, by a
rigid analysis, to that class of religious truths which we
call the highest, that is, the spiritual as distinguished from
the moral? Does the inspiration by the Divine Mind of
a human mind, as a channel or organ for the communication of religious truth, affect all the views and utterances of that mind, and make all its judgments and
opinions infallible? Does this inspiration intermingle
with the knowledge and the wisdomr derived by the inspired man from other sourees?  How does such inspiration pass from the mind into speech or writing, using
the vocables of a language and its grammatical forms,
and words and images which have a variety of significations and associations?  Does this inspiration confine
its authority to the actual utterances and to the original
record made by the subject of it, or is it of such a nature
as to admit of being perpetuated unimpaired in a tolerably faithfiul translation of the record?
The Apostles affirmed, on an occasion when evidence
was all important, that two sorts of it were offered in
the cause of the Gospel. Thus, " WE are his witnesses
of these things; and so is also the HOLY GHOST,
whom God hath given to them that obey him." (Acts
v. 32.) Here they evidently distinguish between their 
4  THE WORD OF GOD."
own testimony as competent witnesses to what they had
seen, heard, and known, and the assurance of belief
which God gave by inspiration to the obedient.   St.
Paul often makes a distinction between what he teaches
as a man, speaking by his own judgment and prompting, and what he teaches through the Spirit of God.
Thus the personal Apostolic testimony is made to be
that of independent, veritable eyewitnesses, who had
cognizance of facts transpiring within their own observation, and of intelligent judges of truth as to matters
level to human comprehension. The testimony of the
Holy Ghost stands in some sense apart, as to a degree
authenticating what the Apostles knew, and to a degree adding to their knowledge, their power, and their
ability to teach, and attaching a demonstration to
their testimony.   Is there not here a fair distinction
between the contents of the Bible as embracing alike
what is taught, from human sources, of history, wisdom,
moral precept and doctrine, and what came by immediate inspiration from God? And if that distinction be
allowed, then Inspiration must be restricted to a portion
of the contents of the Bible, while what the book contains of mere human teaching or writing must be subject to the conditions attaching to all the operations of
the human intellect.
The old Orthodox theory wavered and oscillated between a verbal inspiration and a plenary inspiration of
all the contents of the Bible, and either epithet attached
to inspiration has been the warrant with the Orthodox
of all parties for speaking of the Bible as " the Word of
God," which, as the careful reader knows very well, has
no Scripture warrant for its use.' The usual form of
* In illustration and confirmation of an assertion made on a preceding page,
to the effect that all the discriminating suggestions of leading Unitarian
critics had recently received full approval from scholars in other communions, who, in a candid dealing with the Bible, have admitted the necessity of
248 
"THE WORD OF GOD." 
the Orthodox argument is as follows: Christ authenticated the Inspiration of the whole of the Old Testament
by referring in confidence to its parts and contents, by
quoting it as authority in all cases, and by ratifying its
prophecies and doctrines.   "Thus saith the Lord" is
the warrant of Inspiration for the whole Old Testament.
The Apostles of Christ follow in this respect the example of their Master, while the Inspiration which he
promised to them assures to their own writings the
qualifying popular exaggerations concerning it, we adduce the following very
pointed remarks. They are extracted from a volume of sermons, entitled
"Rational Godliness, after the Mind of Christ, and the Written Voices of
his Church," by Rowland Williams, B. D., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, England, and Professor of Hebrew at Lampeter. "Above all, let no
man blunt the edge of his conscience, by praising such things as the craft of
Jacob, or the blood-stained treachery of Jael; nor let the natural metaphor
by which men called a sacred record' the Word of God' ever blind us to
the fact that no text has been found, from Genesis to Revelations, in which
this holy name is made a synonyme for the entire volume of Scripture; but
rather, the spirit is often, especially in the New Testament, put in opposition
to the letter; and the living word, as for instance it was spoken by the
Apostles, is constantly distinguished from the written tradition of the days
of old. Most commonly, in the New Testament, the phrase Word of God
means the Gospel of Christ, or the glad tidings of the Messiah being come.
It should also be noticed, that, while the discoveries of modern travellers do
so far confirm the books of the Old Testament as to show their historical
character, they give no countenance to any exaggerated theory of omniscience or dictation, but rather contravene any dream of the kind. When
men quote discoveries as confirmations of the Bible, they should consider in
what sense and how far it is confirmed by them." - pp. 298, 299.
Again: "But above all, the critical interpretation of the sacred volume
itself is a study for which our generation is, by various acquirements, eminently qualified. Hence we have learnt that neither the citations usually
made in our theological systems, nor even those adduced from the Old Testament in the New, are any certain guide to the sense of the original text.
The entire question of prophecy requires to be opened again from its very
foundation. Hence, to the student, who is compelled to dwell on such
things, comes often the distress of glaring contradictions; and with some
the intellect is clouded, while the faith of others has waxed cold. If the
secret religious history of the last twenty years could be written, (even setting aside every instance of apostasy through waywardness of mind, or
through sensuality of life,) there would remain a page over which angels
might weep. So long, indeed, as such difficulties are thought absolutely to
249
I 1 — -I., ~,,?  -., O     *.si I 
ORTHODOX VIEW OF INSPIRATION.
same Divine sanction which they ascribe to the elder
Scriptures. The warning, at the close of the last book
of the Bible, against taking from or adding to it, is
made by the Orthodox theory virtually to cover and to
guard the whole volume, and to make it literally the
Word of God.*
The Unitarian argues thus, in general terms. The
contents of the Bible were not gathered into a volume
by either of the writers of it, but by men unknown to
militate against Christianity, the strong necessity which the best men feel for
Christian sentiment will induce them to keep the whole subject in abeyance.
Yet surely the time must come when God will mercifully bring our spirit
into harmony with our understanding.  He who dwells in light eternal does
not promote his kingdom by darkness; and he whose name is Faithful and
True is not served by falsehood. If knowledge has wounded us, the same
spear must heal our wound.
"Nor can I close without humbly asking the grave, the reverend, and the
learned, whether all this subject does not call for greater seriousness, tenderness, and frankness. Who would not be serious on observing how many
men's hope of heaven is bound up with belief in the infallibility of a book,
which, every day convinces us, expresses, as regards things of earth, the
thoughts of fallible men? Or who is so blind as to think that the cause
of eternal truth should be defended by sophistries of which a special pleader
would be ashamed?  One would make a large allowance for the conscientious anxiety of those eminent persons whose position makes them responsible as bulwarks of the Faith; and who are ever dreading the consequences
to which the first outlet of the waters of freedom may tend. But may God
in his mercy teach them that nothing can be so dangerous as to build on a
false foundation." - pp. 306- 308.
* The same Episcopal divine from whom we have just quoted so largely
thus offsets the common Orthodox notion that the Saviour and his Apostles
authenticated and indorsed the whole Old Testament:  "Now all these
writers of the New Testament appear partly as antagonists of the Old, and
partly as witnesses who confirm it. Partly they are antagonists, for even
the doctrines of Christ find fault with much that had been spoken of old.
He appeals from the law of Moses about marriage to the purer instinct of
the heart, as that which had been from the beginning; he refuses to confirm
the law of retaliation; and both he and his Apostles, especially St. Paul,
turn men's thoughts from the tradition of the wisdom of old time, which was
principally enshrined in the Bible, to that life of the soul which comes of the
Holy Ghost, and to the ever-expanding law which is both written in the
heart, and which accumulates enactment from experience." - Rational Godliness, p. 300.
250
rl 
UNITARIAN VIEW OF INSPIRATION.
us. We have no reason for believing that a protecting
and guiding inspiration presided over this collection or
selection of writings, and we are wholly ignorant as to
the degree of care, or the terms and means for authenticating its contents, employed in the work. Some apocryphal or disputed books were excluded from either
Testament, and some of the books admitted into the
New Testament have from the first been admitted to be
of doubtful authority; not so much on the score of their
contents, as because they lacked the evidence necessary
for authenticating them. The Old Testament bears on
its face the appearance of including all the Jewish literature extant at the time of its compilation, and is therefore of a very miscellaneous character, while it mentions
and quotes from other Jewish Scriptures which seem to
have been lost. We know not the authors of a large
number of the books of the Old Testament, and the
writers do not all of them by any means claim to have
had inspiration. Some of the books relate simply and
purely to matters of history, having no concern with
doctrine and scarcely any relation to religion. In writing them honesty would be the best and the only necessary sort of inspiration. A competent knowledge of
facts and a power to relate them would be the full
qualification of the writers of a large portion of them.
There are also manifest errors and perplexities, inconsistencies and discrepancies, found in a close and careful
study of the records, which utterly confound one who
seeks to refer them all to inspiration from God.
Still Unitarians, so far from denying, have always
affirmed and insisted upon their belief in an inspiration
of the Scriptures. They have never given a rigid dogmatical definition of their idea or their belief on this
point, because the very conditions of the case prevent
their doing so. Again do we have to admit vagueness
and indefiniteness into our creed, rather than purchase a
251 
THEORIES OF THE BIBLE.
rigid formula at the expense of truth,- a formula taken
from human hands, under the false guise of a Divine
oracle. Our aim shall now be to illustrate this position,
- that Unitarianism forms its view of the inspiration,
the authority, and the value to be ascribed to the Bible,
under a recognition of the allowances and limitations
which must be made in qualification of the claim for
its Divine origin and infallibility that has been popularly
advanced for it; while Orthodoxy nominally clings to
and insists upon an unqualified theory of the Divine
origin and infallibility of all the contents of the sacred
volume, and then by actual compulsion yields certain
concessions more or less invalidating its theory. The
actual issue, then, between the able biblical critics on
either side of this controversy is, as to whether it be
wiser and better, more honest and more candid, to make
these necessary concessions first or last; to advance one
theory in view of the facts that must be recognized,
or to advance another theory in spite of those facts.
Sooner or later those facts which compel us to qualify
the popular view of the Bible must be confronted. Do
we not speak a truth, of which the Christian scholars of
our day have met much painful and mortifying evidence,
when we affirm that the concessions compulsorily drawn
out in the course of the arguments proposed by many
Orthodox divines in support of the old view of the inspiration and the infallibility of the whole Bible, are
made most grudgingly, awkwardly, timidly, and in some
cases are ingeniously smothered over in evasive, uncandid, and irrelevant equivocation.
We have a task, in many respects an unwelcome one,
before us, but we must perform it as faithfully as we
can. The course of our argument compels us to present
some specimens from each of the various materials of
embarrassment with which an honest defender of the
Bible must in our day reconcile his view of the Scriptures.
252 
DR. ARNOLD ON DIFFICULTIES IN SCRIPTURE.   253
Protestants have in one respect at least been faithful
to the high liberty and to the solemn obligation which
they asserted for themselves, the right and the duty of
studying the Scriptures with the freest and the most
scrutinizing faculties God has given them. Commentaries, expositions, and critical helps without number
have been provided.   The  Bible has had a million
microscopes of the intensest power turned upon it.
"Reference Bibles," with their curious apparatus, have
reduced the theory of interpreting Scripture by Scripture into a literally practical work for thousands of
readers. Now let the excellent Dr. Arnold state to us
a plain truth in his moderate and guarded way. He
says: "It is very true that our position with respect
to the Scriptures is not in all points the same as our
fathers'. For sixteen hundred years nearly, while physical science, and history, and chronology, and criticism
were all in a state of torpor, the questions which now
present themselves to our minds could not from the
nature of the case arise. When they did arise, they
came forward into notice gradually: first, the discoveries
in astronomy excited uneasihess; then, as men began to
read more critically, differences in the several Scripture
narratives of the same thing awakened attention; more
lately, the greater knowledge which has been gained of
history, and of language, and in all respects the more
careful inquiry to which all ancient records have been
submitted, have brought other difficulties to light, and
some sort of answer must be given to them." *
Dr. Newman, the Puseyite champion of Romanism,
in his argument in support of a priesthood, an extrascriptural church authority, and the doctrine of transubstantiation, illustrates his position that people must be
* Dr. Arnold's Christian Life; its Course, its Hinderances, and its Helps.
Notes, p. 485.....
22..!*.. 
PERPLEXITIES OF SCRIPTURE.
lieve in spite of the difficulties and the seeming unreasonableness of some tenets, by alleging the perplexities
of Scripture. Dr. Arnold censures him, because, "'with
great ingenuity, but with a recklessness of consequences,
or an ignorance of mankind truly astonishing, he brought
forward all the difficulties and differences which can be
found in the Scripture narratives, and displayed them in
their most glaring form." * Dr. Arnold says for himself: "Feeling what the Scriptures are, I would not
give unnecessary pain to any one by an enumeration of
those points in which the literal historical statement of
an inspired writer has been vainly defended." t We
think this excellent man was greatly mistaken in the
opinion which he afterwards utters as to a general
unconsciousness or ignorance on the part of the readers of the Bible of the difficulties presented by it when
tried by the popular theory; but we must commend
his earnest plea, "that, if ever these difficulties  are
brought forward, let us not try to put them aside unfairly."
The difficulties to which we shall make a brief reference, as specimens of various classes of perplexities and
misgivings, are such only and entirely in view of the
popular notion of the infallibility and the homogeneity
of all the miscellaneous contents of the Bible. In view
of what we regard as a more just and an equally edifying theory of the Bible, they are trivial and harmless.
When, under the best restraints of reverence, intelligence, and a proper self-distrust, we apply the tests of
criticism to the various contents of the Bible, we find
many tokens of human fallibility, either in the original
writers, or at least in the records which have corme to us
in their present form. It is a relief to us to find, as Dr. Arnold also says he "must acknowledge, that the scriptural
Ctli.tia.  Liie,  c.: p. 480.
I, *: *.*.:.:..
254
t Ibid., p. 491. 
SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM ON GENESIS.
narratives-do not claim inspiration for themselves,"' and
though, with him, we believe in inspiration in the Scriptures on other grounds, it is a comfort to us to be free
to define it to our own minds. As but few of the books
claim to have been composed by those to whom they
are ascribed, we are left in doubt as to the source of the
whole or of parts of some of them.  Names are assigned
to some places which were not attached to those places
till after the death of the reputed writers. In one of
the books ascribed to Moses there is a compliment
bestowed on him as the meekest of men, and an account of his death, indicating certainly some editorial
work, we know not by whom. Admitting the inspiration
of Moses, would it necessarily follow that his editor
and biographer was inspired? Besides the multitude
of historical perplexities presented by the Scriptures,
they are embarrassed by much of apparent conflict in
their statements with matters of positive science and
chronology. Whoever maintains the "plenary inspiration" of the Scriptures, of course commits himself to
uphold the perfect accuracy of the writers in every
statement which they have' made, alike in their incidental allusions and by-the-way remarks, and in their
most direct and emphatic announcements. Even if
they were not inspired to write on scientific matters,
still, if they were restrained or aided by a Divine oversight while holding their pens, they could have written
nothing but truth. Now, what heaps of volumes have
been composed in attempts to frown down the demonstrative sciences whenever they seemed to threaten a text
in Genesis!  How much futile ingenuity, how  much
trivial special pleading, how much absurd theorizing,
have been exercised on such matters as " The Six Days
of Creation," "The Unity of the Human Race,"' The
* Christian Life, &c., p. 487.
255 
DEVELOPMENT OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
Flood," the capacity of "The Ark," "The Rainbow,"
" The Ages of the Patriarchs," "The Plagues of Egypt,"
"The Red Sea," "Manna," and "Joshua and the Sun."
How was astronomy first resisted as an impious science!
When the history of geological science shall come to be
written, with special reference to the alarms and opprobriums through which Buckland and J. P. Smith and
Mantel and Lyell led on the line of the earth's revelations of its own history, will not Protestantism be regarded as having fully matched the old story of Galileo
and his Roman inquisitors? Not the least ludicrous
among the incidents to be rehearsed in that history
will be the grateful avidity with which a large number
of the "Evangelical" party threw themselves and their
Bibles into the arms of Hugh Miller.
When the Bible presents us with duplicate narratives, or contemporaneous records covering the same
time, events, and characters, of course we are urged to
a very searching criticism of them. The Books of
Samuel, of Kings, and Chronicles are of this character; and when their contents are brought into comparison, they are often found in strange conflict in
their statements. Matters which have not the slightest importance, and no sort of connection with the
realities or the sanctions of our faith, in themselves
considered, are thus exalted into alarms and dangers,
if the standard of inspiration and infallibility is set for
all the promiscuous contents of the Bible. These books
present us with some specimens of a most perplexing
nature, under one of the chief class of embarrassments
attaching to the narratives of the Old Testament, -
the matter of numbers, in stating population, military
forces, and amounts of money. It is a comfort to confess, in our confusion and bewilderment, that "we are
very ignorant about the Hebrew system of notation,"
and that old records that have been frequently copied 
KINGS AND CHRONICLES COMPARED.
by the pen are especially liable to error in the matter of figures and numbers. When, by command of
David, Joab numbered the forces, according to 2 Sam.
xxiv. 9, Israel had 800,000 soldiers, and Judah had
500,000; but according to 1 Chron. xxi. 5, Israel had
1,100,000 and Judah 470,000. In 2 Kings viii. 26,
Ahaziah, son of Jehoram, was twenty-two years old
when he began to reign; but in 2 Chron. xxii. 2, he is
said to have been forty-two years old. This latter account makes him to have been two years older than his
own father, who died just before the son's accession,
aged forty (2 Chron. xxi. 20). In 1 Kings xv. 32, it is
said, "there was war between Asa and Baasha all their
days"; but in 2 Chron. xiv. 1, it is said, Asa had peace
in his land ten years.   In 2 Chron. xiv. 3, it is said
that Asa took away "the high places " of idolatry; but
in the next chapter, verse  17, it is said, "the  high
places were not taken away." In view of these and
similar phenomena, of which he makes a most candid
recognition, Professor Stuart very truly says, the critic
" has a somewhat formidable task before him; especially
if he adopts the theory of plenary verbal inspiration." *
The Professor also remarks, very naively, in reference to
a matter already noticed, that " the statement of numbers occasionally wears the air of something very extraordinary." t It seems hardly credible that the wealth
collected by David for the temple should have been
what is stated in 1 Chron. xxii. 14, calculated by Dr.
Arbuthnot, in his Table of Ancient Currency, to amount
to ~ 800,000,000. One, too, may be allowed to hope
that there is some error in the statement, that a man
so wise as Solomon should have burdened himself
with a thousand women.
* Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon,
p. 161.
t Ibid., p.158.
22* 
257 
INSPIRATION IN THE BOOK OF JOB.
Similar discrepancies, found by comparing two or
more representations of the same events, incidents, and
discourses, are now among the familiar themes of discussion in the criticism of the Gospels. The advocate
who attempts to reconcile those phenomena with the
theory of Infallibility in the present form of those records, must task his ingenuity at the expense of his
candor.
Take, next, the phenomena presented by the Book of
Job. The interlocutors in the discussions contained in
that marvellously rich and precious Scripture debate
the great mystery of the purpose of evil, its allowance
and tolerance by God, and its seemingly unequal, unjust, deferred, and immoderate visitations upon different
human beings. The speakers approach and recede from
the mystery; they clutch at it, and then quail before it;
they offer all sorts of notions about it; and we find in
the book arguments affirmed and answered, objections
raised and set aside, and a great variety of discordant
views intimated or insisted upon. Statements are made
in single sentences which are false, wicked, irreverent,
almost impious, and are charged to the different speakers whom Job answers, while the Almighty himself is
represented as answering Job. Now, wherein lies the
inspiration and the infallibility of that book? In all its
sentiments, or in a part of them? and in what part?
Does the book contain a veritable narrative of real life,
or is it an artificial composition, written to convey a
great lesson? and how will this contingency affect its being referred to a Divine Source? Mark, now, how Professor Stuart utters himself on the main point:   " Not a
few persons appeal to the speeches of Job, Eliphaz, Bildad, Zophar, and Elihu in support of doctrinal propositions; just as if these angry disputants, who contradict
,each other, and most of whom God himself has declared
.to be in the wrong (xlii. 7- 9), were inspired when they
258
PI,.,, v:.-.I,'d 
WAS JOB A SCEPTIC OR A PROPHET?
disputed!  The man who wrote the book, and gave an
account of this dispute, might be-  I believe he was —
inspired; he had a great moral purpose in view; but
how Job is to be appealed to for a sample of doctrine,
who curses the day of his birth, and says many things
under great excitement, I am not able to understand.
Are we indeed to follow him in the sentiment of chap.
xiv. 7, 10, 12? And are we to appeal to his angry
friends, who are in the wrong as to the naian point in
question, for confirmation of a doctrinal sentiment of the
Gospel?  The practical amount of the matter is, that
those who refer in such a way to this book merely select what they like, and leave the rest. They complain,
however, in other cases, of doings like to this. They
accuse the Unitarians and the Rationalists of very unfair
and unscriptural practices, in so doing with other parts
of the Bible." * Is not that frank speech from an Andover Professor? We apprehend that, if some preachers
who have discoursed upon several texts from Job were
to look sharply into the connection of those texts, they
would find that they had taken some sentences as Divine
oracles, uttered by inspiration from God, which are in
fact false and wicked opinions expressed by men.
We have noted the reference made by Professor Stuart to a passage indicating Job's scepticism or unbelief in a future state. Yet it is from Job's lips that the
beautiful sentences in the Liturgical Burial Service are
taken, "For I know that my Redeemer liveth," &c. (xix.
25 27.) This passage has been read millions of times
over human graves, under the impression entertained
by Christian ministers, or at least encouraged by them
for the comfort of mourners, that Job knew and prophesied of the coming of Christ, and also of the resurrection of the body. Professor Stuart says of the text,
* Critical History, &c., p. 144. 
260      TENACITY OF PREJUDICE ON THE BIBLE.
"It is constantly quoted to show the Patriarch's knowledge of a Messiah to come, and of the doctrine of the
resurrection, notwithstanding the context, and the tenor
of the whole book, are totally of a different nature." *
Our readers are, doubtless, for the most part, well
aware that a fair and just interpretation of the passage finds in it no such references; but that its meaning conveys the expression of Job's confidence that, before his diseased body should be brought to death, his
vindicator, God, would make his innocence evident to
living men on the earth, - a confidence which the event
verified. The Presbyterian Dr. Barnes, in his Notes on
Job, confesses to us with what a painful violence to
fond associations, connected with the old version, he
was forced to admit this true interpretation of the passage. Yet the reader who knows the superstitious as
well as fond tenacity of prejudices linked  with religious feeling, knows very well that a demonstration
of an error in such a passage as this in our English
Bibles would not persuade to its correction. The passage is a good one for use in an attempt to enlighten
such persons —and there are many of them -as cling,
with a puerile and sickly fancy, to all the weak sup.ports which use or association has led them to regard
as essential or helpful to their faith. They wish to believe that God dictated through Job the words on which
we are remarking, as found in our English Bible. Suppose, however, they yield to the common-sense suggestion, that the translator happened to give to the passage a construction which it will not fairly admit; will
their faith in truth be shaken by the removal of error?
Still, let an appeal be made to "the Christian public,"
to have that passage correctly rendered, and what a
storm would ensue in "the religious journals "!
* Critical History, &c., p. 409. 
DIFFICULTIES IN SCRIPTURE.
A remark similar to that just made, in reference to
the false and irreverent sentiments advanced in some
sentences of the Book of Job, is equally pertinent-is
indeed more emphatically applicable -to the Book of
Ecclesiastes. Taking that composition as an essay on
human life, in which the writer tells us how he was led
on through sensuality and scepticism, with their temporary lures and mottoes and maxims, to the conclusion
of all wisdom in the fear of God, we find the work to be
of exalted value to us, a treasure and a guide. But in
what sense are we to attribute inspiration to it? Are its
sentiments inspired, or only its moral? Or shall we
say, as Professor Stuart says of Job, that "the man who
wrote it was inspired," allowing the inference that what
he wrote is not inspired, - that not all which his pen
put down partakes of his inspiration? When preachers
take texts from that strange compound of Epicureanism
and piety, what must they do about the old theory of
an infallible inspiration?
In the Prophecy of Jeremiah, xxii. 24, 28-30, the
Prophet says he was solemnly moved by God to utter
a most fearful malediction on Jechoniah; he was to
be cursed as childless, with no posterity to sit upon
his throne. What are we to say, then, when, on turning to the genealogy of the Saviour, in Matthew i.
12, we find this "childless" man appearing as a parent, and holding his place in the ancestral lineage of
the Messiah? What meaning or limitation has an
infallible inspiration here? Again, the Book of Daniel, which reads as a wondrous prophecy of future
events, is, with scarcely a shadow of doubt, a history
of events that had already transpired cast into the form
of predictions. If there is inspiration here, it would
therefore seem  to be of the memory.   The Book  of
Esther, making no mention of God or of divine doetrine, seems to have been composed simply to account
261
I. 
262  RELATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TO THE OLD.
for the introduction of a fourth Jewish feast, - that of
Purim.   Professor  Stuart  makes  a very impressive
statement of the difficulties in the way of receiving
some of the contents of this book even as veritable
history, still more as inspired narrative. Yet through
force of considerations satisfactory to his own mind,
he concludes that we ought to regard it as in some
sense inspired. The Song of Solomon is an utter
scandal to many readers, and their offence at it is aggravated rather than relieved by the hard and far-fetched
device of some fanciful commentators, who, without a
shadow of reason, profess to find in it a fond portrayal
of the love of Christ for his Church, under the guise
of an amorous Jewish ditty.  Professor Stuart's lucubrations on this matter are among the most extraordinary utterances which the book has ever called forth;
their squeamishness runs into pruriency. The unblushing presence of that "Song of Songs" in the Old Testament is enough to make all theologians and divinesto say nothing of unlearned Christians -grateful for
each announcement and repetition of the suggestion,
that the Old Testament probably embraced all the extant Hebrew literature.
Still another class of perplexities present themselves
to our minds when, in view of the theory of an infallible inspiration, we attempt to form a satisfactory
idea about the relation between the Old Testament
and the New, as regards quotations from the former ill
the latter, represented as the fulfilment of prophecies.
The allowance of the principle, that the New Testament writers often quote from the Old, and use the
phrase "it was fulfilled" merely for illustration and by
accommodation, without implying prophecy, is an adequate solution of all the difficulties in the case. But
this principle is so undefined in its applications as to
leave the popular theory of the Bible at strange hazard. 
THE APOSTLES LIABLE TO ERROR.
Quite a courageous announcement of the principle was
made by Dr. Hey, a Divinity Professor in Cambridge
University, England, as follows: " One thing which has
occasioned difficulty is quotations of prophecies being
introduced with'that it might be fulfilled'; but this is
mere idiom; it means no more than a propos does in
French, or than our saying,' I dreamt of you last night;
now I meet you, the dream is out."'   Stuart seems to
admit the same principle, ill recognizing quotations in
which the fulfilment "consists in the striking points of
resemblance." t
A still graver question presents itself when we ask if
it was possible for the Christian Apostles, the writers of
the New Testament, to fall into mistakes incidentally at
least connected with the substance and history of the
Gospel religion.  We  shall shortly note some  remarkable concessions on this point from the pens of the ablest
modern scholars and critics in nominally Orthodox communions.   But we have in view now the matter of
infallible inspiration. When Peter and Paul differed, that
is, in plain English, quarrelled, about the Judaizing element which some wished to connect with the adoption
of the Gospel by the Gentiles, when Paul "withstood
Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed" (Galat.
ii. 11), on which side was the inspiration? If with both
of them, as we believe it was, it must have consisted
with fallibility in one of them.  To what limitation must
Paul's inspiration have been subject to account for the
fact that he did not know that it was the high-priest
whom he had just rebuked? (Acts xxiii. 5.) How are
we to account for a fact of which the fresh pages of an
Andover periodical now before us remind us, that "Matthew says that our Lord ate his Last Supper with his
* Lectures in Divinity, Vol. I. p. 259.
t Critical History, &c., p. 340.
263 
CASUISTICAL PLEAS FOR THE BIBLE.
disciples on the evening of the Passover, and John that
he ate it the evening before the Passover?" *
-Now is the question, whether God has made a revelation of religious truths to the world, to be burdened
with all these perplexities, or to stand clear of them?
That question is to be decided by the possibility and the
success of an attempt to reconstruct, not a rigid theory,
but a satisfactory view of the authority, the inspiration,
and the value of those various records which are contained in the Bible.   "Perhaps," says the author of
" Rational Godliness," "a greatness and a place not
far from the Apostles in the kingdom of heaven may
be reserved for some one who, in true holiness and humility of heart, shall be privileged to accomplish this
work." t
All these suggestions of perplexity, with all the specific
materials of them, may be sadly exaggerated, or they
may be regarded as of very trifling consequence. The
way in which they ought to be dealt with after they
have presented themselves to our notice, offers, after all,
the most essential difficulty in the case. Unitarians believe that they may be reasonably, fairly, and candidly
disposed of, in perfect harmlessness to our faith. Unitarians also affirm that these perplexities have been aggravated by being blinked or denied, by being treated with
shirks and evasions, with forced constructions, and with
alarming appeals and remonstrances, as if faith were perilled by recognizing or discussing them. It is our own
conviction, that pages may be found in some works written in defence of the Bible actually more prejudicial to
a healthful faith in its blessed revelations than anything
that can be found in infidel works.  Worse than all the
difficulties presented by the Bible are many of the crooked and jesuitical pretences for their solution.   There
* Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1856, p. 678.
0
264
t Page 307. 
THE ORTHODOX VIEW OF THE BIBLE UNTENABLE.  265
are precious works in our language, erudite, reverential, and honest, chiefly from the pens of those whom,
in the best sense of the epithet, we may call Liberal
Christians, in which most of the perplexities which we
encounter have been treated with caution and wisdom.
Grotius, Le Clere, Locke, and Lardner, and many of the
contributors to that admirable repository called Watson's Tracts, collected and indorsed by the excellent
Bishop himself, have anticipated and dispelled our fears
in the direction of biblical criticism.
Solemn, therefore, is the obligation to which truth commits all those who in this age of the world would defend
an intelligent faith in the Bible, to announce only such a
theory concerning its authority and its divine inspiration
as is consistent with its own contents. The strong must
in many things bear the infirmities of the weak, but ministers and theological teachers have had many a serious
warning against that extreme deference to old wives'
fables and old wives' prejudices which many of them
have exhibited in attempting to gloss over such phenomena of the Bible as they were afraid fairly to recognize.  Do not the strong, those who will be strong in
unbelief and in hostility to the sacred mysteries of faith
if they are fed on the husks of superstition, deserve
some regard?   Are all the secret strivings of the robust and inquisitive and sceptical to pass for naught,
that the silly notions and the anile prejudices of those
who are willing to pin their faith upon the assertions
of a narrow-minded religious exhorter may be kindly
fostered?
But we have solid material yet to work into this essay.
We revert to the fundamental question of Inspiration.
The Orthodox theory is untenable; it is burdened with
mischief. Over and over again it quotes the misused
text, interpolated with a word which turns its noble truth
into a falsehood: "All Scripture is given by inspiration
23 
GAUSSEN ON INSPIRATION.
of God, and is profitable," &c. 2 Tim. iii. 16. The inference drawn from this perverted text is, that all the
promiscuous writings embraced in the Old Testament
were dictated by God. Common sense might suggest
even the grammar rule to be applied to this passage
as meaning, "Every divinely inspired writing is also
profitable," &c.
Professor Gaussen, of Geneva, may be taken as the
living representative and advocate of a theory of Inspiration which was maintained by the Orthodox at the
origin of the Unitarian Controversy here, but which may
now be pronounced as utterly discredited by all scrupulous and competent biblical scholars. We leave to those
who are concerned in the more than equivocal case presented to us to reconcile the ostensible public approbation which the Orthodox party have extended to Gaussen's work, with what the leaders of that party must
know to be untenable in its main positions.' The following extracts will show with what a recklessness of
consequences this modern Genevan divine ventures to
affirm positions which common sense falsifies. Speaking of the writers of the Scriptures, Gaussen t says:
"Whether they record mysteries antecedent to creation, or those of a futurity more remote than the return of the Son of Man; or the eternal counsels of the
Most High; the secrets of the heart of man, or the deep
things of God; whether they describe their own emo
* At least two editions have been published in this country of Rev. E. N.
Kirk's English Translation of Gaussen's fuller work, entitled "Theopneusty,
or the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures." This work has been largely
indorsed by "the religious journals" of various Orthodox communions
around us. The terms of Christian courtesy which we desire to regard in
all things restrain the utterance of our own feelings in reference to the
policy which attempts to recommend such daring and defiant assertions as
those of Gaussen.
t "It is written"; or, The Scriptures the Word of God. From the
French of Professor Gaussen. London: Bagster and Sons.
266 
GAUSSEN ON INSPIRATION.
tions, speak of things from recollection, or repeat what
has been noted by contemporaries; whether they copy
genealogies, or extract from uninspired documents; their
writing is inspired; what they pen is dictated from on
high; it is always God who speaks, who relates, ordains,
or reveals by their mouth," &e. (p. 2.) Again, he says:
"We have next to inquire, whether the parts of Scripture
which are divinely inspired are so equally and entirely;
or, in other words, whether God has provided in a certain, though mysterious manner, that even the words of
the sacred volume should be invariably what they ought
to be, and that they contain nothing erroneous. This
we assert to be the fact." (p. 4.) Again: " Jesus said,
' It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one
particle of a letter of the Law to fail,' and by the term
Law Jesus Christ understood the whole of the Scriptures, and even more particularly the Book of Psalms.
What words can be conceived which would express with
more force and precision the principle we are maintaining than the foregoing? I mean the principle of the
plenary inspiration and everlasting character of all the
parts, even to the very letter of the Scriptures. All the
words of the Scriptures, even to the least letter and particle of a letter, are equal to the words of Jesus Christ
himself. Students of the Word of God, behold then the
theology of your Master!"  (p. 54.) This reckless writer,
when proffering to meet the objections which assail his
theory, says: " We will begin by acknowledging that, if
it were true that there are erroneous facts and contradictory narratives in the Holy Scriptures, we must renounce the defence of their plenary inspiration. But we
can make no such admission. These pretended errors
do not exist." (p. 81.) Our readers would hardly care
to know how a man who is capable of making such an
assertion would try to vindicate it in reference to specific cases of difficulty. We can assure them, however,
267 
268    PROFESSOR STUART ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.
that his method is tortuous and jesuitical in the worst
sense.
If our object were to sow discord among those who
suppose that opposition to Unitarian views of the Bible
is a bond of union among themselves and a warrant for
their own common Orthodoxy, we might make some
developments here of quite a startling character. But
the exhibition would be painful to all who hold the
Christian name, to all who love and cherish the Bible
as the most precious of our earthly possessions. We
will confront Gaussen's views with but moderate rebukes,
conveyed, like those we have already quoted from Dr.
Williams, by men of highest honor and credit. Professor Stuart's " Critical History and Defence of the Old
Testament Canon," which is to be regarded as the fruit
of his life-long labors in a beloved pursuit, is a most curious exhibition of weakness and strength, of boldness
signified in passing hints, and of timidity manifested in
deference to weak  sisters and weaker brethren.   He
makes admissions on nearly every page which are fatal
to the positions advanced by Gaussen, though to the
uninitiated in critical.linguistic skill he appears to plead
for the old Orthodox notions of the Bible. His kindly,
sometimes humorous, but altogether risky way, of letting
out an acknowledgment of the embarrassments of his
theory, really invests his work with a sort of mischievous charm. He wrote the work professedly to rebuke
and answer views advanced by Unitarians, especially
some extreme positions of Mr. Norton that have not
found adoption, so far as we are aware, by any other
member of our brotherhood. But the kind-hearted Andover Professor has proved himself a prime offender in
the same outrages which Unitarians have been charged
with upon "a settled faith in the Bible."   Notwithstanding some sharp rebukes of the rationalizers, some
little positive dogmatism, some cautious salvos, and 
ALFORD ON BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
some unsupported assertions and conclusions of his
own, it is utterly impossible for an intelligent reader
to close his book without recognizing its author as a
heretic of the first water, in view of the old theory of the
inspired infallibility of the miscellaneous contents of the
Bible. Apart from such acknowledgments of opinion as
these,-  that Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon,
nor Joshua by Joshua, that Job was probably written
during the time of the Kings, that Samuel, Kings, and
Chronicles, Esther and Jonah, present inexplicable difficulties to us, and that quotations of seemingly prophetic
passages from the Old Testament may be made in the
New by accommodation, -the whole spirit of his work
tends to qualify and chasten, rather than to favor, the
fond-dream of an infallible Bible.
One of the noblest fruits of a revived zeal in England
for critical Scriptural study, is the revision of the Greek
Testament, with a most scholarly apparatus, by Henry
Alford, B. D., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,
and now a minister of the Established Church in Londonl. There is an honorable frankness in such passages
as follow from his pen.
" Christian commentators have been driven to a system
of harmonizing which condescends to adopt the weakest
compromises, and to do the utmost violence to probability and fairness, in its zeal for the veracity of the Evangelists. Equally unworthy of the Evangelists and their
subject has been the course of those who are usually
thought the Orthodox Harmonists. They have usually
taken upon them to state, that such variously placed
narratives [as those of incidents and discourses in which
the Evangelists differ and appear to have confounded the
order of time and circumstance] do not refer to the same
incidents, and so to save, as they imagine, the credit of
the Evangelists at the expense of common fairness arid
candor. Christianity never was, and never can be, the
23*
269 
ALFORD ON INSPIRATION.
gainer by any concealment, warping, or avoidance of the
plain truth, wherever it is to be found." *
" With regard to verbal inspiration, I take the sense
of it, as explained by its most strenuous advocates, to
be, that every word and phrase of the Scriptures is absolutely and separately true, and, whether narrative or
discourse, took place or was said in every most exact
particular as set down. Much might be said of the a
priori unworthiness of such a theory, as applied to a
Gospel whose character is the freedom of the spirit, not
the bondage of the letter; but it belongs more to my
present work to try it by applying it to the Gospels as
we have them. And I do not hesitate to say, that, being
thus applied, its effect will be to destroy altogether the
-credibility of our Evangelists. The fact is, that this
theory [of verbal inspiration] uniformly gives way before intelligent study of the Scriptures themselves, and
is only held consistently and thoroughly by those who
have never undertaken that study. When put forth by
those who have, it is never carried fairly through; but
while broadly asserted, is in detail abandoned. If I
understand plenary inspiration rightly, I hold it to the
utmost as entirely consistent with the opinions expressed
in this section. The inspiration of the sacred writers I
believe to have consisted in the fulness of the influence
of the Holy Spirit specially raising them to, and enabling them for, their work, in a manner which distinguishes them from all other writers in the world, and their
work from all other works.   The men were full of the
Holy Ghost, the books are the pouring out of that fulness through the men,-the conservation of the treasure
in earthen vessels. The treasure is ours in all its richness, but it is ours as only it can be ours, in the imperfections of human speech, in the limitation of human
* Prolegomena, Chap. I. ~ IV.
270 
ALFORD ON MISTAKES OF THE APOSTLES.
thought, in the variety incident first to individual character, and then to manifold transcription and the lapse
of ages." *
We heartily accord with these noble statements. The
passages which we have last quoted from Mr. Alford,
if they were left without illustration, might be pronounced vague and dubious. We therefore add in illustration of them a passage which precedes them in
his own Dissertation.
"There are certain minor points of accuracy or inaccuracy of which human research suffices to inform rnen,
and on which, from want of that research, it is often
the practice to speak vaguely and inexactly. Such are
sometimes the conventionally received distances from
place to place; such are the common accounts of phenomena in natural history, &c. Now in matters of this
kind the Evangelists and Apostles were not supernaturally informed, but left, in common with others, to the
guidance of their natural faculties. The same may be
said of citations and dates from history. In the last
apology of Stephen, which he spoke being full of the
Holy Ghost, and with divine influence beaming from
his countenance, we have at least two demonstrable
historical inaccuracies. And the occurrence of similar
ones in the Gospels does not in any way affect the inspiration or the veracity of the Evangelists."! Again
we say, he speaks for us.
Turning to the passage in Acts vii. 14, 16, where
Stephen, as Mr. Alford suggests, "in haste or inadvertence," made these two " mistakes," - of naming three
score and fifteen souls instead of seventy, and calling the
burial-place Sychem instead of Hebron,- we find the
following manly comment from our author.
" The fact of the mistake occurring where it does, will
* Proleg. Chap.    I. ~ VI. 
272     ALFORD ON MISTAKES OF THE APOSTLES.
be far more instructive to the Christian student than the
most ingenious solution of the difficulty could be, if it
teaches him fearlessly and honestly to recognize the
phenomena presented by the text of Scripture, instead
of wresting them to suit a preconceived theory."
Similar to this is Mr. Alford's comment on 1 Cor. x.
8, where the Apostle mistakes 23,000 for 24,000 (see
Numbers xxv. 9): "Probably set down here from memory. The subtilties of commentators in order to escape
the inference [of error in the Apostle] are discreditable
alike to themselves and the cause of sacred truth."
On Romans xiii. 11 our author comments thus, in
reference to the much-vexed matter of the Apostolic
delusion as to the immediate coming of the end of the
world: "A fair exegesis of this passage can hardly fail
to recognize the fact, that the Apostle here as elsewhere
(1 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51) speaks of the coming
of our Lord as rapidly approaching. Professor Stuart
(Commentary on Romans, p. 521) is shocked at the
idea, as being inconsistent with the inspiration of his
writings. How this can be, I am at a loss to imagine
[then quoting Mark xiii. 32]. And to reason, as Stuart
does, that, because Paul corrects, in the Thessalonians,
the mistake of imagining it to be immediately at hand,
therefore he did not himself expect it soon, is surely
quite beside the purpose."
It is possible that Mr. Alford may not have looked
carefully through all the pages of Professor Stuart's
voluminous Commentary; if he had, he could scarcely
have failed at being amused or startled by what we are
about to quote. When we consider how Unitarians
have been berated for saying substantially what we are
now to read, we remind ourselves that the odor of Orthodoxy will often neutralize the flavor of heresy. Recalling the horror with which, at the opening of our
controversy, the assertion that the Apostles might pos 
STUART'S LIMITATION OF INSPIRATION.
sibly be mistaken, was received from our side, let the
reader mark how frankly Professor Stuart could say the
same under the protection of his Orthodox reputation.
In his comment on Rom. i. 13 he writes: " One thing is
clear, that the Apostles were not uniformly and always
guided, in all their thoughts, desires, and purposes, by
an infallible spirit of inspiration. Those who plead for
such a uniformn inspiration may seem to be zealous for
the honor of the Apostles and founders of Christianity,
but they do in fact cherish a mistaken zeal. Those who
maintain the uniform inspiration of the Apostles, and
yet admit (as they are compelled to do) their errors in
purpose, word, and action, do in effect obscure the glory
of inspiration by reducing inspired and uninspired men
to the- same level. To my own mind, nothing appears
more certain than that inspiration in any respect whatever was not abiding and uniform with Apostles or any
of the primitive Christians. [To Jesus only, adds the
commentator, was unmeasured and permanent inspiration given.] This view of the subject frees it from
many and most formidable difficulties. It assigns to
the Saviour the pre-eminence which is justly due. It
accounts for the mistakes and errors of his Apostles.
At the same time it does not detract in the least degree
from the certainty and validity of the Apostolic sayings
and doings, when these ministers of the Gospel were
under the special influence of the Spirit of God."
" When they were under," &c. We draw the reader's
attention to this loose but convenient expression of Professor Stuart, but must leave the point without further
remark, except the simple suggestion that an admission
of a single instance of mistake, or error "in purpose,
word, or action" in the Apostles, impairs the inspired
infallibility of their teachings and writings, and leaves
every reader to draw the line as best he can in deciding
the authority of Scripture.
273
-. -,.,- -             -1 
STANLEY ON MISTAKES OF ST. PAUL.
Dr. Arnold candidly yields the point that Paul did
erroneously believe and teach that the world was coming to an end in his own generation.* Mr. Stanley, also
of Oxford, another of the advanced minds of the English Church, the biographer of Dr. Arnold, and the son
and biographer of the good Bishop of Norwich, makes
the same admission.  Mr. Stanley seems to feel less
anxiety in allowing Paul's error here, than in reference
to another serious matter. The Apostle, in that precious chapter to the Corinthians on the Resurrection (1
Cor. xv.), asks, "What shall they do which are baptized
for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" (ver. 29.)  Mr.
Stanley remarks upon these words: "Their natural signification undoubtedly is,'Those who are baptized vicariously for the dead,' and this meaning is strongly confirmed by finding that there were some sects in the first
three centuries, one at least of which extends back to
the Apostolical age, who had this practice. From Chrysostom we learn (accompanied by an apology for convulsing his audience with laughter at the account of a
ceremony so ridiculous) that,'after a catechumen [dying
unbaptized] was dead,' (implying that it was chiefly in
such cases that it took place,)'they hid a living man
under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the dead
man they spoke to him, and asked him whether he
would receive baptism; and he making no answer, the
other replied in his stead, and so they baptized the living
for the dead.' " t Here the Apostle evidently adduces
the disappointment of those who practised such a superstition, as one of the deplorable disappointments of a
Christian's faith which would result from the falsification of his doctrine of the resurrection. How could he
make such a reference in a way rather to countenance
* Christian Life, Notes, pp. 488, 489.
t Stanley on Corinthians, Vol. I. p. 372.
274
0-..,; "      -,,.   -...T'."        v.     -,; sa 
TONE OF ST. PAUL'S TEACHING.
than rebuke the superstition? Mr. Stanley notes the
methods to which recourse has been had for "escaping
from the difficulty."   He himself accounts it to the
Apostle's habit "of accommodation to the feelings and
opinions" of those whom he addressed, as in "his frequent adoption of reasonings founded on the allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament, in which, indeed,
the Apostle may, to a certain extent, have shared himself," &c.
Mr. Jowett, in his work on some of Paul's Epistles,
even treats us to an essay on the Apostle's mistake in
reference to the end of the world, and other subjects on
which he was in error. The discussion is a reverent one,
but it goes deep into the heart of a matter vital to this
question of inspired infallibility in the teachings and
writings embraced in the Bible.   The  single point of
an error as to the immediate conflagration of the world,
if confined to its own subject-mnatter, might seem of
limited importance; but the question forces itself upon
the thought of a serious and inquisitive reader, May
not the Apostle's expectation on this point have affected
all his teachings, have colored all his doctrines; and especially, did it not intensify, aggravate, and throwa out of
just proportions, his relative estimate of a Christian's duty
to despise this life, in reference to a life to come? An interest in the affairs of this world, in marrying and giving
in marriage, in buying and selling, in providing for and
educating one's children, and in establishing the institutions of society on a firm foundation,-an interest in
such matters of reasonable forethought, is one thing, if
the consummation of all terrestrial concerns is to be
looked for within a score of years, and it is a wholly
different thing if "the time is not short," and "the day
of the Lord is not at hand." It might not be difficult to
show that the alarmed and expectant state, the forced su;periority to all worldly interests, and the tone of " heav
275 
276  THlE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS AND THE EPISTLES.
enly-mindedness," which the Apostle commended to his
converts in view of the coming of the Lord while some
of his generation were yet alive, have introduced some
exaggerated or disproportioned conceptions into the idea
of "true piety."  Certainly the fact that " the conming
of the Lord" may be realized to any one of us inrldividually at any moment of our uncertain lives, will make
motives drawn from such a possibility always harmless
and always of a wholesome influence over us. Still
the question whether the Apostles believed that this
world was to be the scene of Christian conflict during
unnumbered ages of the slow triumph of the kingdom of
God, or that it was to be burned up and its judgment
sealed within a score or two of years, cannot be regarded
as irrelevant to a discussion of the inspired infallibility
of their teachings.
And this question does but logically and fairly open
the way to yet another question, which goes deeper into
the profound speculations of our modern Christian commentators. Mr. Stanley puts the query in this plain
form: "Is the representation of Christ in the Epistles
the same as the representation of Christ in the Gospels?
Is the'Gospel' of the Evangelical Apostle different
from the' Gospel'  of the Evangelistic narratives? "*
We know that some of the fellow-laborers of Paul intimated that he "had not seen the Lord Jesus," that
he was not truly an "Apostle of Christ," and that "he
taught things contrary to Christ's teaching." The phenomena which indicate diversity of view or doctrine
among the Apostles must of course engage our attention. We must remember that the Judaizing party was
not confined to uninspired disciples, but involved the
heralds of the Gospel also. Therefore it is not wholly
without a show of reason that some scholarly critics
* Stanley on Corinthians, Vol. II. p. 276. 
BIBLICAL CRITICISM ABOVE SECTARIANISM.
have declared, and some unlearned readers have imagined, that when amid local controversies and under technicalities of language the Gospel was preached in Judea, Samaria, Asia Minor, and Rome, the simplicity of
its pure evangelic doctrine was to a perceptible degree
impaired. Orthodoxy, on the one hand, objects to what
it calls the ingenuities of Unitarian criticism in putting
a gloss upon the technicalities or the rhetoric of some
sentences in the Epistles; but on the other hand it works
up most elaborate and intricate speculations upon those
mysterious profundities of spiritual experience and of
"the plan of redemption" which it finds intimated in
the same sentences. Is it probable, now, that the unsophisticated minds to which the Gospel was offered, "the
poor,"-the "babes in Christ," whether Jew or Gentile,
could enter into the philosophy of Orthodoxy?   Mr.
Jowett, with his very keen, but by no means irreverent
method of analysis, goes perhaps a little farther in the
direction of allowance for an Apostolic adulteration of
the pure Gospel, than even our own brethren might approve. But the issue itself which is covered by all these
questions is one that has very momentous bearings upon
our present theme, and, while it tasks the noblest powers
of an intellect trained in Gospel humility, it refuses to
be pronounced upon by dogmatism or by the deprecatory ban of the alarmist.
We hope that we have made it appear that much of
all this critical work of studying and testing the Bible
stands above any sectarian object, and designs, in the full
earnestn ess  of a   purpose common to all who love the
Scriptures, to sustain their authority, to remove prejudices, to ward off assaults, and to make them more and
more precious to the whole race of men. Of course we
maintain, because we believe, and may even say that we
know, that false doctrine is indebted for some of its
credit to erroneous views of Scripture, to unfair construc                   24
277 
RICH MATERIALS FOR CRITICAL STUDY.
tions of texts. Those who are not familiar with the
processes of critical study have no adequate conception
of the range over which Scriptural criticism, when intelligent, keen, and thorough, and still reverent, may extend. Many who read the Bible in English come almost
to forget that it was ever translated; that when it was
translated, it was by men like ourselves, from manuscript
parchments written by men like ourselves; that, since our
translation was made, many old and very valuable manuscripts have been discovered; and that our knowledge of
the original languages and of Oriental history and life
has greatly increased. Certainly in view of all these
facts one should not marvel that there are materials and
grounds for much fair criticism of the English Bible.
Nor can an intelligent reader, however vigorous his
faith, resist the impression, when perusing those portions, especially of the Old Testament, which are contemporaneous with our earliest classical literature, that
the spirit of the writers often presents as miraculous
what under other circumstances would have been regarded as natural. The religious consciousness of the
Jews that they were under a peculiar providential training, may reasonably and reverently be supposed to have
dictated much in the records which represents God as
nearer to them than to the rest of his children on the
earth.
Again, few persons are aware what a range of meaning and interpretation may be covered by some important words and phrases and sentences. The ambiguities of language, its idioms, its duplicated relations to
sense and soul, the associations acquired by words from
technical use, from prevailing theories of life and truth,
and from each one's own private experience and culture,
all gather their richest, as well as their most perplexing
and misleading materials, about the Bible. Scholars
here have an advantage in some respects above the un 
SIGNIFICANT TERMS IN SCRIPTURE.
learned, but in many cases scholars are baffled. Take,
for instance, a sentence from the Gospel which has no
connection with doctrinal controversy. Jesus says to
Martha, as we read his words, " But one thing is needful." (Luke x. 42.) We ask what the words mean.
Now the wisest scholar on the earth cannot pronounce
positively, or give us a decisive reason on the one side
or the other, for interpreting the passage to mean, "Only
one article of food is necessary for me "; or, "Only one
thing - religion - is necessary for you." And then
there is matter for whole libraries of curious and searching criticism, for learned commentaries and scholarly investigation, in debating the meaning of many words
and phrases in the Bible which have been invested with
paramount interest by our controversies. Is the Scriptural phrase "Son of God" used to express the peculiar fondness and nearness of a relation of obedient holiness, or an actual "Sonship" in a sense answering to
the earthly tie between a father and a child? The sentences, " This is my body," " This cup is my blood,"
open the issue about Transubstantiation between Romanists and Protestants; but when Orthodox Protestantism has availed itself of a certain method of interpretation in fixing the sense of those sentences, it turns
against us when we apply the same method upon other
sentences. When the terrified Pagan jailer asks, "What
shall I do to be saved?" Orthodoxy supposes him to
have been struck with what it defines as conviction, and
to have been instantly directed to trust in Christ in the
sense of an expiation.   Thousands and thousands of
sermons have been preached under that view of the
text. Is the view justified? The words Faith, Salvation, Justification, Election, Eternal, and many more,
which either are used in peculiar senses in the Bible, or
have been turned to peculiar uses because they are in
the Bible, carry with them now an equal weight of im
279
. I
. i — --  -,-. —. * -  . 
RESULTS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
portance from doctrinal theology and the science of criticism.
Another very serious question, which is claimed to be
exclusively within the province of fair criticism, asks
whether the use of certain technical terms, and the reference to certain current views in popular language, by
the Saviour and his Apostles, do or do not ratify the
doctrines or opinions supposed to be conveyed in such
terms and such language. By the decision pronounced
upon that question the doctrine of a Personal Devil, and
the reality of the possession of human beings by his emissaries, will be affirmed either to have been substantiated
by the Saviour and his Apostles, or to have been only
incidentally noticed by them, without receiving any authentication from such notice.
Occasionally, in the works of disputants at the present
day who have had a scholarly training, we meet with
what seems to us an obstinate persistency in maintaining certain readings and constructions, and certain corrupted texts, which have been fairly and fully condemned
on adequate authority. Then we are led to ask, To
what end do patient explorers hunt out old manuscripts
and edit their recensions,- to what end do munificent
donors found libraries and theological professorships,
and multiply all the critical helps of grammars, dictionaries, and commentaries, —if from our seats of sacred
scholarship are to come renewed appeals to old prejudices, pleas in defence of old errors, and flat denials of
any real progress?
5We must reach the conclusion of our present task by
a statement of the results to which it leads us. We
have in our hands a volume which bears to us the highest character for holiness and truth. We receive it as
an actual communication from another world; while the
alternative of holding right or wrong views concerning
the book is made to suspend the question, whether it 
RESULTS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM.
can be regarded and proved to be precious and authoritative as such an alleged divine gift should be. The
Bible has been assaulted by hostile criticism; a standard has been set for it by men, which is denied to be
warranted by its own claims or contents; flaws have
been found in it which cannot be repaired in consistency with once prevailing views of its infallibility and
its verbal inspiration. The close and rigid study and
criticism to which modern scholarship has subjected it,
have pretty well settled, in the minds of its most intelligent readers, the decision, that some qualifications and
limitations must be allowed in abatement of the positive standard that has been claimed for it.  It is deemed
by Unitarians the part of simple honesty and wisdom to
make-this concession, and to insist upon its being made.
Without forgetting the respect due to those who do not
accord with them, and recognizing the honorable motives
of some who carry special pleading in support of a crippled tradition beyond what seem to be the bounds of
candor or justice, Unitarians hold that an attempt to
sustain such a view of the inspiration of the Bible as
has been reasserted by Gaussen, subjects the interests
of true faith and piety to a fearful risk.  The fact that
some persons are willing to avert their own gaze from
all the real difficulties of the case, will not close the eyes
or silence the complaints of others.  That the strong
and childlike in the docility of faith are ready to believe
in behalf of the Bible that full explanations may at one
time or another be given to all its historical, scientific, or
critical perplexities, ought not to make them obstinate
or unjust in slighting the embarrassments of faith for
such as may value the Bible as highly as themselves.
Within the last few years we have had offered to us
the best fruits of long and anxious discussions upon
the authority and the interpretation of the Scriptures.
Angry controversies, venturesome scepticism, perilous
24 *
281 
MODIFIED ORTHODOXY ON SCRIPTURE.
and reckless audacity in theorizing, have mingled largely,
but we must think only incidentally, in the great work of
Scriptural criticism.  We would by no means undertake
to justify the positions which some even of the most
eminent among Unitarian interpreters have taken. Far
otherwise. Our own humble opinion is, that in general
we have made larger concessions to what threatened to
be a destructive criticism, than the emergencies of the
case have really been proved to demand. For ourselves,
we yield only inch by inch, and then only when the
necessity is fairly made out, in each instance which qualifies the highest possible view of the authority and the
inspiration of the chief contents of the Bible. But when
any demand is fairly made out, we pay our homage to
truth under the form of concessions to it, not under the
form of obstinate denials of its presence. It is with a
profound satisfaction that we now find in the works of
distinguished scholars and divines, nominally of various
creeds, admissions, full, frank, and complete, of views
advanced by Unitariantis in qualification of the popular
estimate of the Bible, and in the general and specific
applications of critioism to important texts. Gaussen
has indeed received the indorsement of Orthodox  religious journals." Let us see how the mature views of
Tholuck, as they are now obtaining currency, will be
treated by those who have heretofore given him their
love and confidence.  Neander has strained the elasticity of Orthodox attachment to its utmost limits by his
historical, doctrinal, and symbolic construction of Christian ideas. Bunsen and Tholuck have yet a repute to
keep, but if they retain it, let them prize it as generous.
If we bring into close comparison some of the lectures, essays, or sermons of eminent modern writers,
Orthodox and Unitarian, upon the inspiration and authority of the text of Scripture, we are struck'with the
following difference in their tenor,-the difference shall
282 
ORTHODOX AND UNITARIAN METHODS.
stand as one of great or of little moment, as our readers
shall choose.   The elaborate Orthodox essay begins,
takes its start, opens, with bolder assertions of Infallibility and Plenary Inspiration than we could make, pitched
in the old tone, as if announcing the old theory in a way
determined to maintain it, stiffly, resolutely, and defiantly.  But read on carefully, and you will find admissions cautiously, timidly yielded, forced out by facts
which are not to be winked out of sight when such men
as Professor Stuart, J. P. Smith, Arnold, Alford, Jowett,
and Tholuck have their eyes turned upon them. When
you reach the end of the essay, you will find that every
allowance has been granted that you think is essential,
and that the conclusion is in marked contrast with the
beginning.  You may think of the text, "Let not him
that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that
putteth it off." On the other hand, a similar essay by
a Unitarian will begin with perhaps an excessive allowance of concessions, with an admission of all the
necessary qualifications and limitations of the claim of
inspiration. It will have in view, at the start, the difficulties which are to be encountered. Therefore it will
not open so boldly or defiantly as an Orthodox essay.
But when it has made its concessions, it will hold resolutely to the main substance, the essential truth, the
kernel of the nut which is within the shell.  The contents of the two essays will have more in common
than we should by any means expect. In some cases
we might even conceive that, if they had come from the
same printing-office, some labor of composition might
have been saved by transposing and overrunning pages
or paragraphs. Is the difference of great or of little
moment?
We must be supposed to have intimated all through
our discussion our own views upon the serious themes
involved in it. If any one asks, To what extent must
the popular estimate of the authority and inspiration
283
F-1,  -    i     -          1~     _;        I,;  
INTELLIGENT AND DEVOUT STUDY.
of the Bible, as a whole, be reduced? what limitations
are to be defined for denial? what position is to be assumed for rebuilding a new citadel of faith? we can but
answer, The Christian scholarship of this and of the next
ages will decide those questions. Our province has been
merely to redeem these momentous issues from the contempt of a poor sectarian strife.
The most favorable position for the attainment of
just views on this great subject is that which is occupied by a faithful and devout Christian minister, who
has received the best intellectual culture of his time.
The most thorough critical study of the Bible in private, and a daily application of its lessons to the sins
and sorrows, the duties and the straits of human life,
are the two conditions which must meet and  harmonize. The critical study of the Bible, with no reference
to its uses " for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness," will be sure to turn the
most devout man into the coldest of sceptics. On the
other hand, a devout exhorter, with his thumbs and
fingers inserted in the Bible ready to turn to any part
of it for words which he ascribes directly to God, if his
ignorance exposes him to recklessness, and his feeling
runs into rant, will make infidels of the majority of his
hearers, and fanatics of the rest. The educated and devout minister alone can meet the emergencies of the
case. His critical studies, his knowledge of the unbelieving, as well as of the "religious" world, will keep
him mindful of the perplexities which faith in its relation to the historical records of a revelation must present, and will lead him continually to draw from his
own triumphs over struggle and doubt the wisest aid in
dealing with the difficulties of others. His use of the
Bible in the pulpit and in the sick-chamber, as the inestimable and inexhaustible source of all holy lessons
which have power over the soul of man and can alone
sanctify life and cheer affliction, will day by day renew 
THE ROCK OF OUR REFUGE.
his grateful confidence in the preciousness of the sacred
volume. He knows that it is the world's only light, law,
and hope. The very conventionalities of his office, the
very straits of his daily and weekly duties, require that
those to whom he ministers should with him believe and
love the Bible. The measure of his power over the sinful and the afflicted- and those terms embrace all that
live -is proportioned to the vigor of his own faith, and
to the depth of his own experimental acquaintance with
the truths conveyed in the Bible. Hle is in every way
concerned that faith in it should reach the highest
possible height, and that gratitude and reverence for
it should know no abatement.   For many weary centuries the piety of Christendom was kept alive by
the Romish priest without the Bible. It will be hard
if that piety cannot live with a brighter and purer
vigor through the Protestant minister with the Bible.
Let us have no fear of the work of scholarly and
reverent criticism upon Scripture. It is in the hands of
men and women who too well know its worth to allow
it to suffer from the very inquisition which tests its
value. We know nothing beyond what the Bible
teaches us in any direction or upon any subject in
which it undertakes to instruct us. One barrier is
fixed; one limit is certain; one condition, known from
the beginning, still stands unchallenged, —the Divine
element in the Bible always has exceeded, exceeds now,
and always will be acknowledged as exceeding, its
human clement. The Bible has floated on the sea of
human life, below which so much has sunk of the
ever-changing interests, and of the ever-changing generations, of men. Or rather it has risen from that sea
as an island rock, and has heard the storms of ages,
and has been lashed by all the waves that have tossed
us and our poor barks. Can we find a better anchorage? 
i
.17....,.        i, Al 
RELATIONS
REASON AND FAITII.  
A
RELATIONS
OF
REASON AND FAITH.
WE have carried out, according to our ability, the intention intimated in the first of these papers upon the
Unitarian Controversy.  We have discussed the bearings
of this controversy upon the Scripture doctrines of the na.ture and the state of man,- of God and Christ, —and of
atonement,-and upon the grounds and methods of biblical criticism and interpretation. These large themes
have been debated for ages by parties holding different
convictions concerning them. The history of opinions
on these subjects, a mere review or summary of the cumbrous literature of these discussions, would be nothing
more than an extension of materials similar to those with
which we have had to deal, in confining our view, for
the most part, to the last half-century of the controversy.
The controversy on these doctrines has divided those
who otherwise would have been friends in all the relations and sympathies of a Christian fellowship, while
their conscientious differences upon matters which, in
the view of both parties, involve the vital truths of the
Gospel, have alienated them widely from each other.
These protracted and unfinished discussions carry with
25 
SINCERITY IN BELIEF.
them a moral distinct from any of their own specific
issues. That moral embraces many serious and practical lessons. This great lesson, especially, stands prominent, -that experience has proved it to be altogether
unlikely that all professed Christians will ever thoroughly
accord in matters of speculative faith, of doctrinal opinion, or religious observance. There are reasons which
compel us to adopt this conclusion. The materials for
the formation and exercise of our faith are found in a
large book, as to the authority, meaning, and interpretation of which there certainly is room for a wide variety
of opinion. Then the vagueness of language, the diversities of intelligence, insight, temperament, sensibility, of
mental depth and power, of moral culture and of spiritual apprehension among human beings, would persuade
us that it is hopeless to suppose that they can ever believe alike in a sense which includes the two vigorous
conditions of true faith, - the thinking alike and the
feeling alike. The utmost that we can look for in this
direction is to divest controversy and all religious differences of everything that is acrimonious and odious
and passionate, so that we may at least learn the graces
of courtesy, of kind temper, and of charity: so that we
may respect sincerity of belief everywhere; for there are
tokens which will always prove whether one is sincere,
earnest, truth-loving, and really religious in forming and
holding his convictions. When wise and faithful and
devout persons differ very decidedly in opinion, we must
find what relief we can - and the relief is highly compensatory for our anxiety -in reflecting that they also
agree in loving the Gospel and the Bible. The most
eccentric orbits are all made true to mathematics, because they own a primary attraction.
But, it may be said, to allow sincerity in belief or
opinion is one thing, and to attach to it the epithet
Christian, thus admitting that the extremest differences
290
'46
. 
THE FORMULA " FIDES ANTE INTELLEOTUM."   291
of a professed Christian faith come within the safe range
of acceptance with God, is quite another thing. It is
insisted on the popular side in this controversy, that
there is a limit within which liberty of opinion, however
sincere, must be restricted, if it would be safe. The
human mind, with all its inquisitiveness, its boastfulness,
and its love of freedom in its speculations, is but one of the
elements to be taken into account in discussing matters
of faith. There is the positive authority of Christian
truth, which is paramount to any claim of liberty we
may set up for the exercise of our reason. Sincerity
and zeal, when transfused into speculative opinions, imply that there is some truth of transcendent authority
and value in the subject-matter of belief. There must,
then, be an attractive power, a compelling sway, in truth
revealed by God to compensate and hold in check the
tendencies of reason to fly off into independent orbits of
their own. The question whether there is anything in
revelation which impugns or demands a renunciation of
reason, is intercepted by the claim, that, if there is, reason
must yield. The champion of the rights of reason will
then urge that the help and warrant of reason are indispensable in authenticating a revelation.  If reason must
thus unavoidably be allowed to judge of the credentials
of revelation, a consistency between the two sources and
methods of our knowledge will require that what we
are called to accept through our reason shall also harmonize with our reason.
The scholastic formula advanced by theologians to
meet the conditions of the case is, Fides ante intellecturn;
or, Faith must precede the understanding in the reception
of revealed truths.  As is the case with all such formulas
on test questions, so in this, the seeming positiveness
and explicitness of the statement made in it are so qualified the moment we proceed to definitions, as to throw
us back into the very vortex of debate. The formula,
I~ [ v. 
BELIEVING THE IMPOSSIBLE.
indeed, contains within its own terms all the elements
of the controversy which it would decide. What do we
mean by faith? and what do we mean by the understanding? Does faith involve an exercise of the understanding, or can it under some circumstances dispense
with the aid and resist the suggestions of the understanding?  And again, What is meant by the word precede in the formula? Does it signify merely that faith
should have the start of the understanding, leaving that
faculty free to come up with faith, and then to settle all
matters of joint interest with it? Or does it signify
that faith has a title so to occupy the ground that it may
warn off the understanding, and refuse even to hold a
parley with it? The formula may be construed to mean
that some things must be first believed in order that
the understanding may be engaged and qualified to deal
with them; or that some things must be believed, in
order that the understanding, restrained to its proper
province, may not require sensible or demonstrative evidence where faith itself, when its suggestions are listened to, will substitute another kind of evidence, or
supply the lack of evidence.  And, once more, the formula may be construed as meaning that we must believe some things without the slightest exercise of the
understanding, and even in spite of its protests. We
might gather a curious category of definitions for this
formula from the uses it has been made to serve. There
have been boasts of faith, and ventures of faith, and submissions of faith, and sweet and gentle triumphs of faith,
all of which have made the various exercises of man's
believing faculty to cover a richer field for thought,
for story, and for philosophical discussion, than is offered
even by science, with all its wealth of interest. The old
father of dogmatic theology meant to boast of his docility when he said "he believed some things because they
were impossible." That boast becomes the merest com
292
ax  ll, ym - En  1, 
FAITH BEFORE THE UNDERSTANDING.
monpiace, if it means that the things believed are impossible to men, and it is but irreverent folly if it vaunts
a belief in things that are impossible with God.
But what becomes of the supposed authority in the
formula, Fides ante intellectum, when, instead of deciding
all the issues in the controversy as to faith and reason,
it is found to open them all anew? The simple truth is,
that there is either sophistry or disingenuousness involved
in the expected advantage to be gained from this formula, whenever the motive for alleging it is to affront or
deprecate or humble the reason. We have found the
formula, Fides ante intellectumn " Faith before the understanding," used for a purpose of which we should not
exaggerate the outrage done by it to common sense, if
we interpret it as saying that dig6estion must precede eating; that we must incorporate and assimilate the nourishment to be drawn from the food of religious truth
without any exercise of those faculties, any help from
those processes, by which all other crude food passes into
sustenance. And when the theologian thus calls upon
us to deal with the dogmas which he proposes to us, we
may be sure that he means to offer us some indigestible
food. When the formula, taken in the sense in which
popular theology is thought to have ratified it, is made
to accompany any proposition offered to our faith as a
doctrine of revelation, it is well for us always to pause
and make sure of our ground. "Once admit," says the
pleader for faith in spite of reason, -" once admit that
God has said this or that, and then, however incomprehensible or confounding it may be, we must believe it."
Very true. Most certainly we shall believe it; for the
admission that God has said it, would be the highest
possible proof of it. But how thin is the veil of sophistry by which the theologian thinks to blind us to the
whole amount of the difference between what God says
and what God is said to say! "Once admit that God has
25 * 
294   THE EFFORT AND THE CONDITIONS OF FAITH.
said it," &c. Why, the whole preliminary process, the
toil and task of the problem, is glibly slipped over as if it
were the merest pastime of the mind. One, at least, of
the conditions for securing from us the acknowledgment
that God has said or revealed what claims our belief as
from him is, that we can believe it of him. If we cannot believe it of God, we cannot admit it to have come
from him. Every truth or doctrine or message which
we receive as from God is accepted either by an intuitive and spontaneous faith, or by a process in which
faith has been won by the exercise of our intellectual
and moral faculties. A spontaneous faith by no means
restricts its ready reception to what we call the easiest,
simplest materials. On the contrary, it loves to take in
some of the loftiest and most august objects; it prefers
soaring to creeping, and the more sublime and awful
and overpowering its themes, the more confiding in general is its trust. But when faith involves a process, and,
whether upon a large and free, or upon an intricate and
narrow theme, finds itself teased and perplexed, then it
has an alternative before it. Either its confidence must
be won through processes which the reason regards as
legitimate, or it may yield what looks like confidence,
but at the loss or sacrifice of the quality in itself which
makes it a divinely trained faculty of the soul. Even
if in the seclusion of a deep wilderness a being of seemingly celestial nature should appear to us, and with audible voice should declare a message as from God, all the
inquisitiveness and strength which our reasoning faculty
has gained by all previous exercises would engage upon
the more or less deliberate trial of the question, whether
it was probable that the messenger and the message
were from God. We should bring all the reasoning
power which we possessed by natural endowment, and
all the practised skill and caution and distrust and confidence which we had acquired in its use, to help us to a
lpl:-,,,,       -         ",."         i,. 
THE RATIFICATION OF FAITH.
decision of the understanding, and then as the understanding pronounced, we should believe or disbelieve. Of
course the decision of the understanding would be different in different persons, because the range and vigor and
processes of the understanding faculty are different in
different persons. The credulous, the superstitious, the
sceptical, the logical, the prejudiced, the candid, the
clear-headed, the wise, and the well-informed, might
each hold a different opinion about the supposed heavenly manifestation. If they all believed it to be a heavenly manifestation, they would all believe the message;
but whether the one or the other should believe or disbelieve the appearance would depend upon the relations
established previously between his faith and his reason,
and upon the confidence and training of his understanding. For such appearances have been alleged under
various circumstances, and they have been believed in
and discredited under various combinations of these circumstances. The history of the beliefs of men is but a
history of the relation between faith in its spontaneous
exercise, and the various modifications of its exercise
under the sluggishness-or the activity, the neglect or the
culture, the true adjustment or the lawless action, of the
elements of the understanding. In some ages and places,
and by some persons, that seemingly celestial messenger
would have been received, and would now be received,
as divine, independently of the tenor of his message.
The marvel would satisfy so much of the reasoning
powers as were brought to bear upon it, and would
accredit it to the faith. In other ages and places, and
by other persons, that appearance would have been discredited, and would now be discredited, as a hallucination, or an ocular deception, or a creature of the woods.
But to the robust and healthful and well trained in mind
of all ages, and of the present day, the tenor of the message would be the main ground for a decision of the
reason as to its claims to faith. 
REASON IN MORALS AND IN SCIENCE.
Ought not the plea that we must humiliate and prostrate our reason as a condition for receiving through
faith a doctrine of revelation, at once to suggest the fear
that something unreasonable is to be proposed to us?
How is it in other departments of our intellectual, and
even of our moral training?   Ought we not to suspect,
do we not suspect, the temptation, or the counsel, or the
pleading which proposes itself to us by first flouting at
the natural, instinctive promptings of our own  inner
being? When any one undertakes to seduce from virtue the pure, the innocent, the unskilled in wickedness,
he will begin by ridiculing as prudish prejudices those
sentiments of the heart which are silently protesting
against his solicitations. And when those instinctive
sentiments have been trained by affectionate and healthful care, by parental love and wise teaching, the beguiler insinuates his contempt of those who, instead of
indulging their own freedom, are held in the leadingstrings of home or conventionalism. Is there not one
point of similarity between this flouting at moral " prejudices," and the affronting of the reason of those whom
God addresses as reasonable beings?  Do we find that
natural science, as in its highest range and its widest
ventures it trespasses on the realm of religion, requires a
prostration of our reason? An attempt is often made
to contrast and set in opposition those qualities which
are respectively needed in scientific and religious investigations. Humility, simplicity, docility, and candor are
represented as peculiarly and especially requisite in the
theologian, and the implication is that the scientific man
may dispense with the fullest exercise of such qualities.
But let the scientific man  dispense with them in any
measure, let him venture to disregard the least suggestion from them, and then mark how the world will estimate his merits or the value of his labors. Our own
professional biases shall not hinder our acknowledg
296 
REASON NOT IMPAIRED BY A FALL.
ment that divines will not wisely challenge a cowparison on this score between themselves and natural philosophers. Who, among the humblest and most docile
and most candid students of the Revealed Word, -and
it has had many meek and lowly-minded disciples, -
can be named as Surpassing Newton in those graces of
soul? But it is positively wicked to require an abasement of the reason as a condition for the exercise of
those graces which are the ornaments of all true wisdom
in divine or human science.
But it is said that our reasoning powers have been
impaired and vitiated by our descent from Adam after
his fall. Dr. Pusey, in a recent sermon opposing views
advanced by Mr. Jowett and others,* says: "It is almost
a received formula on the evidences of the Gospel, that
the province of reason is antecedent to that of faith;
that we are on grounds of reason to believe in revelation, in other words, to receive faith, and then on the
ground of faith to receive its contents, which are not to
be contrary to reason. True, as is urged, since reason
is a gift of God, it will not conflict with his other gift,
revelation or faith. But then, what reason? Reason
such as Adam had it before the Fall, unwarped by prejudices, unswayed by pride, undeafened by passions,
unallured by self-idolizing, unfettered by love of independence, master of itself because subdued to God, enlightened by God, a mirror of the mind of God, reflecting his image and likeness after which it was created, a
finite copy of the perfections of the Infinite?  Truly,
no one would demur to the answer of such an oracle as
this. A work of God, which remained in harmony with
God, must be in harmony with every other creation of
* Christian Faith and the Atonement. Sermons preached before the
University of Oxford in reference to the views published by Mr. Jowett and
others. By E. B. Pusey, I). D., Rev. T. D. Bernard, M. A., &c., &c. Oxford and London: J. H. Parker. 1856.
297 
TIHE REASONING AND THE BELIEVING MAN.
God, for both would be the finite expressions of the one
archetype, the mind of God. But that poor blinded
prisoner, majestic in its wreck, bearing still the lineaments of its primeval beauty and giant might, yet
doomed, until it be set free, to grind in the mill of its
prison-house, and make sport for the nmaster to whom it
is enslaved, -this, which cannot guide itself, is no
guide to the mind of God."
The title to the sermon from which this extract is
taken is "All Faith the Gift of God."  Our readers will
have noticed the confusion or the error in the first sentence of the paragraph.  The writer changes the meaning of the word belief, as defining the conviction attained
by reason and testimony of the credibility of a revelation, into another meaning, as a miraculous gift bestowed
by God. But from those grounds and processes of reason by which we reach a faith in an alleged revelation,
is it possible for him to exclude all regard to the contents and substance of the message? And again, unless
we mean to allow in this transcendent matter one startling exception to the wise law of adaptation which we
ascribe to God's workings, we must claim that a message addressed to an impaired reason must be suited all
the more skilfully and mercifully to the infirmities of that
reason. It is bad enough to have to suffer, for the guilt
of another, the inheritance of a crippled and diseased
reason; but to have what is left to us of its original
functions baffled and ridiculed, is to allow us but a very
questionable remnant of a divine endowment.
We are not going any farther into the metaphysics or
even into the polemics of this dreary controversy. For
ourselves, we cannot accord with a sentiment which we
have somewhere seen expressed, that " the glory of the
believing man consists in the prostration of the reasoning man."  We know of no  doctrine or precept or
promise or declaration in revelation which throws con
.298 
ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM ON FAITH.
tempt on human reason, or scorns its aid, or does otherwise than appeal to it and invite its companionship as
far as it can go. That some truths in revelation baffle
our reason, exceed its grasp, and lift it into realms too
rare and dizzy for its breath and thought, is a lesson
with which we started in our childhood, and are rejoiced
to learn anew every day that we live. We do not care
to be trifled with by theologians, when, for the purpose
of confusing us, they confound the meaning of the word
reason with the meaning of the word conceit. Reason
is one thing; the pride of reason is quite another thing.
Our Creator and Disposer has happily -we ought rather to say, fearfully —given us abundant means for distinguishing between the just, the true, and the safe~
exercises of reason in its healthful action, and that painfully large variety of its workings when impaired by
disease, by prejudice, by vice, or any other limitation or
perversion. Nor is there any very profound mystery involved in the familiar truth that humility and docility,
and self-distrust and confidence in the great Source of
reason, with a filial trust and a waiting submission, refine and strengthen the soul's high faculty. True'faith
exalts human reason, instead of humiliating it.
Every human being who has intelligently received the
Christian religion has accepted it either through a process of his own reason, or through his confidence in the
reasoning processes of others who have proposed that
religion to his belief. Protestantism represents the application of the former of these conditions, -  the trial
of one's creed by his own private reason or judgment.
Romanism represents the application of the latter condition, -that of reliance upon the supposed ability and
conscientiousness of others in establishing reasonable
grounds for the creed which it offers. When the controversy between the two parties is narrowed down to the
essential issue of the whole strife, it is reduced to this 
300    ROMANISM AND PROTESTANTISM ON FAITH.
question,-whether the rule of faith and life for a Christian allows him to ratify it to his own reason through a
proper use of the Scriptures and all the means which
throw light upon them; or whether he must rely upon
authority, upon an ecclesiastical authority, which is supposed to have at once relieved him of the responsibility
of private judgment, and to have secured for him something more sure than such judgment, in the large majority of cases, could possibly attain. Those who yield to
such authority may still carry on between themselves a
half-amicable, half-hostile skirmish, like that between
the Romanists and the Puseyites.  Their limited controversy centres upon the tests which the individual reason, surrendered up to church authority, still insists upon
applying to the historical credentials of that authority,
to the subjects and conditions and measurements of its
lawful exercise, to the range of its prerogative, and to the
exponent of it in pope, bishops, councils, or convocations. Even within this limited department of the whole
issue between authority and liberty, there is material
enough, not only for an open controversy between Romanists and Protestant Episcopalians, but also for a
sharp strife between the Transmontane and the Cisalpine Romanists, and between the High-Church and
the Low-Church Episcopalians. To dispose of all these
subordinate contentions requires a faculty like that which
one needs in sounding the unfathomed depths of the
canon law. Those who forego some measure of their
own liberty thus differ as to the terms and limitations of
that ecclesiastical submission which they yield to the
principle of authority. Protestants, whom consistency
commits to an entire rejection of such authority, have
found quite as wide a field for their own strifes in settling the terms and limitations for the exercise of private
reason in matters of faith. Some forms of Protestantism, after battering the outside defences of Romanism, 
SCRIPTURE APPEALS TO REASON.
have removed its engines and weapons into their own
peculiar citadel. Protestantism has but slowly and reluctantly come to confront the practical results of its
own first principles. It has endeavored to arrest the
action of reason at various stages of its inquisitive pro cesses with matters of faith.   The Scriptures do not
contain a single sentence implying that their lessons are
offered to a reason impaired by the Fall. They do affirm
that pride, and hardness of heart, and prejudice, and a
love of error and sin in individuals gathered in a common crowd, make some Scripture truths offensive and
incredible to them. But these offensive and incredible
truths are not what the theologian calls the mysteries
of faith, they are generally matters of plain commonsense, morality, and wisdom. Individuals in the same
crowd would receive gladly the same truths, not by any
prostration of their reason, but through a healthful condition of their hearts. Those Scriptures represent God
as inviting men to "reason together" with him; they
put from him to us the fair question, "Are not my ways
equal? " they " speak as to wise men,"  and bid us
"judge" what they say; they ask, "Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?"  If Scripture truths
were addressed to an impaired reason, they would be
accommodated to its infirmities; at any rate, they would
give us warning to put away the poor remnant of our
reason, instead of inviting and appealing to its exercise.
The astronomer gives us fair notice that, when he takes
us under his tuition, he expects us to begin with a complete inversion of our supposed position as regards the
heavens. We must stand upon our heads instead of
upon our feet; the east must become west with us, our
right hands must become our left hands, and we must
set the whole skies on a countermarch that a retrograde
motion may show for a progressive motion, as it really
is. It would have been easy for revelation to proclaim
26
301 
CONDITIONS OF FAITH.
the same condition, and just as high science constantly
reminds us that we must take the testimony of our
senses as the opposite of the truth, so might faith have
required us to interpret the suggestions of reason by
contraries. But it has not required this.
The great question to which all the thoughts and inquiries and controversies of long Christian ages have
been pointing is this: Whether there is within our
reach and use a religion which will meet the wants of
devout, earnest, and thinking persons,- a religion which
we can refer to the Supreme Father as its Divine Source
and Sanction, - a religion which in the highest and most
honest exercise of our own faculties we can approve,
and to which we can yield our hearts and lives with
manifest evidences of benefit and sanctification? The
overwhelming evidence that the Christian world is in
possession of such a religion must be supposed to be
admitted, not only by all believers, but even by some
unbelievers; for the candid and wise of the latter class
would not venture to dispute what millions have testified to as a matter of personal experience. But what
we wish to mark and to explain is the fact that many
candid and wise unbelievers, who will allow the sincerity
and the sanctification of others in and by their own
faith, cannot of themselves accept that faith under the
conditions by which it is offered to them. So strong is
the natural need and craving of human beings for the
comfort and strength of religion, that, as experience has
fully proved, in lack of a religion possessing all the attractions just mentioned, most men will accept a religion that fails in one or more points of that high standard.   Men have been found able to believe religions,
and some forms of the Christian religion, which did not
present to them lofty and generous views of God, which
would not commend themselves to the sober'inquiring
processes of the mind, or touch the deeper affections of
802 
DEFECTIONS FROM UNITARIANISM.
the human heart, or have a purifying and exalting effect
upon the life. Religions and forms of religion lacking
one or even all of these qualities, have engaged the intensest faith of human beings. By some overruling
influence which has made sincerity of soul to compensate for heathen superstitions and a grove]ling creed,
some power of devotion, some impulse of virtue, some
nutriment of piety, has come from the very lowest idolatries, from the meanest objects to which the soul has
clung. But as mind and heart work their way out of
these delusions through the impulses of a purer and a
nobler faith, the religious instinct of man is educated,
and is made to apply higher and more scrutinizing tests
to what is offered to it as a divine religion.
We wish to illustrate our own views upon the relations
between Reason and Faith as they have been developed
in the controversy of which we have been treating. It will
be found that Orthodoxy, assuming the championship of
the principles of Faith, has denied the full prerogative
which Unitarianism claims for Reason in the study and
interpretation of revealed religion. Orthodoxy says that
Unitarianism has been found insufficient to satisfy the
heart, to feed the life of piety, and has been renounced
on that account by some of its disciples. Unitarianism
asserts that Orthodoxy insults the reason, and has been
abandoned on that account by multitudes of intelligent
persons who once accepted it.
It has never fallen within our personal experience to
know a single man or woman of fair intelligence and
true Christian culture who, having in the full maturity
of life received the essential and characteristic views of
Unitarian Christianity, understandingly, devoutly, consistently, and in practical fidelity to them, has renounced
them for any of the forms of Orthodoxy. If any such
case were brought to our notice, we should venture largely upon the risk of being pronounced a bigot in our ob
303 
DEFECTIONS FROM UNITARIANISM.
stinacy of Unitarianism, before we would yield to the
show of evidence that all the conditions thus specified
had been fulfilled. We should ask full assurance that
our views of the Gospel had once been thoroughly understood, heartily believed, and loyally honored in the
training of the character and the conduct of the life.
We should require proof likewise, that, since Unitarian
views have been compelled to assert themselves against
a considerable amount of prejudice and popular opposition, and against a prevailing notion that they are unscriptural, a professed disciple of them should have known
something of the long controversy in which they have
been involved. We should ask evidence that he had
been a Unitarian from personal study and conviction;
that he had been able to vindicate his faith from Scripture text and from Church history. Then we should be
exceedingly inquisitive as to the occasion, the reasons,
and the method of his conversion. If he made large account of his feelings or his heart, as the medium of his
conversion, we should be prompted to probe him as thoroughly as possible. There are piques, and passions, and
disappointments, and partialities; there are fancies, and
there are morbid and despondent sentiments, which may
have great influence in such cases. Now we do not say
there never has been an instance in which a renunciation
of Unitarianism for Orthodoxy would bear all these
tests. We say only, that we have never personally
known such a case.
We are fully aware of the strength of the assertion we
have made, and we have weighed every word in which
we have uttered it. We have done more. We have
sat down in deep and silent reverie to recall and summon before us, not without the beating of some sad
memories in the chambers of the heart, every friend, acquaintance, and traditionary associate in the pure Unitarian faith, and every one who has been the subject of
304 
DEFECTIONS FROM UNITARIANISM.
a religious biography, who might be said to have realized the kind of conversion to which we have referred.
We find our assertion will stand the test of such a trial.
Even the little fellowship of acknowledged modern Unitarians has seemingly suffered much from defections.
Our opponents have loved to call it the half-way house
to infidelity. It has apparently been so to some who
seemed to find in what they took to be Unitarianism a
temporary delay in their course of sceptical experience,
the first impulse in which they derived from Orthodoxy.
We have never, either here or in Europe, furnished the
Roman Church with a priest from one of our pulpits,
but a few men and women have gone from our communion to her altar-rails. The pages of our own journal once had a contributor, who, having used his strong
lance both for and against most of the creeds in heaven
and on earth, including our own, is now a Roman
knight. But even now, as formerly, is the question
asked concerning him, whether he helps or harms the
religious cause which, for the time being, he advocates with such a marvellous versatility in logic and
philosophy.
Two  or three once zealous Unitarian laborers, the
promoters of benevolent and even sectarian schemes
among us, are now in other fellowships. Either they
have more of soime qualities, or less of others, than
were compounded and proportioned in their former associates. Either they desired a sympathy which they
did not find, or they offered a sympathy which was not
accepted, and they did wisely to go and seek what they
needed where they could find it, and to go and exercise
what they had where it would be appreciated. Young
girls, too, there have been and are, -and unless there
is more fidelity in our churches and families in the
work of robust religious training for the minds and souls
of the young, there will be many more of that most
26 *
---— 
305
I 
R1ELIGION OF THOUGHT AND FEELING.
interesting class in our community to imitate the catching example,- who have found the faith, or rather
we ought to say, the mode of worship and the creed of
their parents, ineffective for their feelings. Our communion, though small, has been free, and we have done
so little in the work of indoctrinating a new generation,
that we have no right to suppose that even half of those
who are nominally with us have really any decided
faith. As the generation of noble Christian matrons
who trained their minds and souls by a religion which
fed the thoughts as well as the feelings has been vanishing year by year, we have had no reason to expect their
full-formed, consistent, and abiding religious convictions in those of their granddaughters who leave out
the thought, and have regard only to the feeling, which
enters into a living and earnest Christian piety When
these young persons of either sex profess to have found
in some other communion what they did not find in our
own, a kindly suggestion may prompt them to ask, if
they did not take with them to their new religious refuge
some element of a true religious life which they did not
bring with them  to our communion.  Unitarian views
may not have been congenial with their feelings, because
their feelings were not then brought into sympathy
with religion in any form.  It may have been an empty
frivolity, a light-headed indifference, or a lack of such
thought and mental discipline as an intelligent faith requires of its disciples, or it may have been a vacuum of
heart, or a neglect of the law of practical Christian usefulness, which chilled the growth of piety. It may perhaps be said that a minister is bound to engage the feelings of all who are under his religious care, and that he
will rouse in the young and the susceptible those emotions which kindle the religious life, if he really preaches
the truth as it is in Jesus. We can only reply, that it is
easier to say this than to make it good. There may be
306 
CONVERSIONS TO UNITARIANISM.
a show of religious sensibility, and a manifestation of
religious interest, produced under other ministrations
of doctrine, which we may regard as debilitating or
unhealthful to the spirit, or as a poor substitute for
some gentle grace of character, or some robust virtue
in the life. At any rate, if a minister tries to preach
the truth, those who listen should try to receive it by
some engagedness of their own feelings. Then, if they
fail of conviction, and satisfaction, and true religious
impulse, they may offer their feelings to some different
ritual or doctrine. When any one, man or woman,
young or old, speaks of having been converted, he should
remember that the word implies a former as well as a
present belief, a conversion from something as well as to
something. If this suggestion should remind some persons that they held no real religious convictions, and
had no earnestness or assurance of faith before they experienced their change, charity will forbid their speaking
of themselves as converts.
Of course, as it would be invidious in us to specify,
in each case of seeming dissatisfaction with Unitarian views, the defect or the bias or the motive or the
reason which would explain it without the least discredit to those views, so it may appear like arrogance in
us to imply that all defections from our communion
may be explained by some process not conclusive of the
truth in any such case.  But if it be arrogance, we cannot but indulge it. Every case within our own knowledge yields to an explanation which leaves our confidence in the Scriptural truth, the practical power, and
the sufficiency of Unitarian views, all untouched. And
if that confidence needed to be rallied and sustained
under any shock which it receives, the conversions to Unitarianism, the manifold tokens of tendencies to it, and
the constant and amazing assertion of its principles by
those who have been trained in all other Christian com
307 
PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY.
munions, would more than reinstate our confidence.
Our opponents must not suppose us to be mere jot and
tittle sectarians in such a way as to claim every nominally Orthodox man who accepts our interpretation of
a proof text, or our principles of Scripture criticism, or
joins with us in a slight upon the offensive peculiarities
and the short-comings of the popular forms of religion.
As we are revising these pages, we have chanced to read
the criticisms in several Orthodox pages upon one of the
most striking features of Mrs. Stowe's new Antislavery
novel, a book now in the hands of a hundred thousand
readers. Those characteristic features of Orthodox faith
and piety which have always been most offensive to
Unitarians receive from her pen a most scorching delineation. And so her critics visit upon her in return
the sharpest censures. She is accused of " caricaturing
Orthodoxy just as the Unitarians do." We leave her
to the tormentors.  But we gather up the "concessions
of Trinitarians," the heresies of commentators, the bold
utterances of men who have signed the Thirty-Niine
Articles, and the merciless castigations visited upon
"I Presbyterian ministers and elders" by the pen of a
female Beecher, and we say they all mean something.
They mean just this, and something more too, - that
Orthodoxy is not the ultimatum of Christian faith for this
world. We do not say that Unitarianism holds that
honored place, but we have a strong conviction that
Unitarianism, or rather the excellent thing which we
mean by the word, and which is infinitely better than
an ism, is in near proximity to it.
The true and thoroughly trained and thoroughly convinced Unitarian holds that his view of the Gospel is
identical with the primitive Christianity of Christ and
his Apostles. The New Testament is radiant to him
with that sublime and simple system of Divine Truth,
the heighth and the depth of which transcend the power
308 
EARLY CORRUPTION OF CHRISTIANITY.
of his reason, and often confound the searchings of
his understanding, but do no violence to the intuitions
or the suggestions of his reason. The deep-sea plummet of the mariner fails to find soundings on the midocean, not because it is not perfectly adapted to its
uses, but because its capacity is exceeded by the profundity into which it sinks. If there be shoals or dangerous rocks rising even in the deepest waters, the plummet is as good for its uses there as on the coasts. But
the fact that the plummnet finds no bottom on the ocean
assures the confidence of the mariner in sailing without
a continual recourse to it. So is it with reason when
engaged upon the truths of revelation. Reason cannot
sound their depths because they exceed its capacity; but
so far as it can exercise its functions, it meets with no
obstruction, no embarrassment. The system of Gospel
truths invites the admiring homage of human reason,
and casts no reproach and visits no discomfiture upon
it.  Yet more, Unitarianism insists that it was this very
simplicity of the Gospel, this full accordance of its truths
with reason, that led to its corruption. Theologians and
philosophers, impatient of that naked simplicity which
made it level to the apprehension and consistent with
the understanding of the common mind, at once tried
their wits upon it. All manner of complications of
theory and fancy, of creed and symbolism, were introduced into the faith of Christendom.  Among all the
early heresies, so called, it is evident that the simple
Gospel itself was the most odious and unpopular heresy.
How transparently clear upon the pages of ecclesiastical
history is the evidence, that, from the very year in which
the Gospel engaged the interest of speculative minds,
it yielded its severe and easily apprehended truths to
the cunning processes of philosophy! The pages of
Neander are strewn all over with sentences of like tenor
with the following: "In Irenwus [himself a disciple of
309
,,.   >b 
RETRACING OF ERRORS.
a disciple of St. John] the sufferings of Christ are represented as having a necessary connection with the rightful deliverance of man from the power of Satan. The
Divine justice is here displayed, in allowing even Satan
to have his due. Of satisfaction done by the sufferings
of Christ to the Divine justice, as yet not the slightest
mention is to be found; but doubtless there is lying at
bottom the idea of a perfect fulfilment of the law by
Christ,-of his perfect obedience to the holiness of God
in its claims to satisfaction due to it from mankind." *
Such sentences intimate to us the steps in the constructive processes of dogmatic theology, the abstruse and
fanciful and often the grotesque devices of men's minds
to rid themselves of "the simplicity that is in Christ."
Whole ages were passed in these constructive processes
of theology- When we realize the extent and the sway
of that empire which the philosophy of Aristotle once
had over the minds of men, we can understand how a
theology compounded of the elements of pure Christian
faith and the devices of human ingenuity should have
taken a strong hold of Christendom. Nor is it strange
that processes which had for long ages been working to
embarrass and complicate our faith should require time
and struggle and controversy for their detection and rejection.   While the Unitarian traces out the visible
stages of the corruption of primitive Christianity, he
learns to expect just such a method for the restoration
of it as the experiences of his own brotherhood of believers have verified. He is persuaded that the emancipation of the mind from the bondage of theological systems and formulas, by an intelligent and devout study
of the New Testament, is the real explanation of the
facts attending the appearance of what are called Liberal views of Christianity, wherever they have been
* Torrey's Neander, I. p. 642.
310
I-f 
THE PROCESSES OF REFORMATION.
reasserted.   Those who are still in bondage, excellent
and honored and intelligent Christians, as many of them
are, may lengthen their faces, and say in lugubrious
tones that Unitarianism is a fatal heresy, into which
men and women are led by the pride of reason and by a
corrupt human heart. But there are two sides to this
argument, and the Unitarian side, so far from yielding
to the defeat which is said to have been visited upon it,
marks a steady recognition and triumph of its principles.
Let us say again, as we said in opening the series of
papers which we are bringing to a close, that we are not
set upon the use of the word Unitarianism, nor vindicating all that has passed under the name.  We  use the
term to designate a more or less homogeneous and definite system of opinions about Christianity, which are in
open hostility to the Athanasian, the Augustinian, and
the Calvinistic construction of the Gospel.
The processes of the Reformation have worked according to a method which common sense and fair intelligence can observe to have been conformed to the natural constitution of things.   As ages had wrought in
the work of ecclesiastical usurpation, through a proud
hierarchy, through an ingenious system of spiritual despotism, through a ritual, a calendar of fasts and festivals,
a casuistical code, and through a patient moulding of
feudal institutions and political relations into a conformity with its own ghostly rule, so the Reformation could
advance only by undoing the work of Romanism in all
these specific devices. Every imperfect element in the
Reformation, as at present it shows itself to us, and all
the lingering lookings-back of prelatists, ritualists, and
Puseyites to the old, forsaken, and dishonored Church of
Rome, are tokens that a strife for independence has not
yet quite satisfied itself that it had no quality of a rebellion against lawful rule. The processes by which a pure,
a liberal, and a rational view of the Gospel has been
311 
UNITARIAN DEVELOPMENT.
developed, answer at every point to those which led on
the Reformation. Had we time and space, we could
easily illustrate the parallel.
Let it be allowed to us "to glory" a little, in boasting
of what we regard as the glory of our own views of Christian truth. If what we are about to say in illustration
of our theme, of the relations between reason and faith,
shall seem to some to be rather a vain offering to our
own conceit, we will still ask them to bear with us, for
we have to bear much from them. Considering that the
Orthodox so exalt themselves above us for their humility and docility in faiths for their exclusive experience of
the life of piety, and their perfect assurance that they
have the seal of the covenant, they can well yield to us
the poor indulgence of allowing us to justify, if we can,
our "pride of reason."  We  say then, that when a free
and intelligent mind, and a heart devoutly engaged in
the search for a vigorous and practical and satisfying
faith, combine their efforts in a healthful and just proportion, respecting each other's rights, and supplying
each other's weaknesses, the study of the Bible will result inll, or tend towards, Unitarianism. This we believe
as we believe in our own existence.   An unbiased and
unfettered mind, intelligent, inquisitive, and well-trained,
with a devout and earnest longing of the heart to know
the will of God, are the conditions which, united, are
favorable to the adoption of Unitarian views, and all the
world over, in all time, have developed those views from
the Bible. The fact has been verified under a great variety of circumstances. The strongest prejudices of training, association, and interest have yielded in evidence
of it. A combination, a fair and just combination, of
the elements of intelligence and piety, an harmonious
adjustment of the relations of reason and faith, will issue
in Liberal Christianity. Let mind and heart be brought
to bear upon the contents of the New Testament, and
312 
HUMILIATION OF THE REASON.
let the proper functions of the understanding and the
spirit engage harmoniously in the work, and "Unitarian
tendencies" will be developed even from Orthodoxy.
Let there be an excess or a deficiency in the exercise of
either of the functions of either of those joint searchers
in the field of Christian truth, let the felicitous proportion between the elements of intelligence and piety fail
in any case, and the result will be different. A disproportioned action of the mental faculties, an indulgence
of mere curiosity, or bold inquisitiveness, or a restlessness under a deficiency of logical or demonstrative evidence, will issue in a philosophical scepticism, a cold
and unspiritual frame of one's religious nature. Let the
spiritual instincts, the emotions, the sensibilities audi
cravings which furnish nutriment to piety, be allowed toe
act without the aid of the mind's best workings, and the
result will be some form of enthusiasm, fanaticism, or
superstition. The most zealous advocates of Orthodox
Christianity will go with us in acknowledging these consequences, when either reason or faith is allowed to act
by itself in contempt of the others The controversy between us and them concerns the just relations of reason
and faith when engaged upon revealed religion, and the
proportionate indulgence to be allowed to the inquisitive
intellect and the believing spirit. We give to ourselves
what we regard as an adequate and just, as well as a
charitable and courteous, explanation of the prevalence
of Orthodox views, and of their hold upon the popular
faith, when we say that these views won their first acceptance, and now retain their impaired authority, because the mind, the reason, has not been allowed its rightful functions in the province of interpreting revelation.
Unreasonable views and doctrines have been accepted
on the ground that reason must be humbled in homage
to the nobler graces of faith. Our opponents invert this
charge, and allege that we indulge the pride of reason at
27
313 
RUPTURE OF ORTHODOX TIES.
the sacrifice of docility and humility in our faith. This
censure takes for granted the supposition, which we by
no means admit, but resolutely deny, that revelation
proposes to our faith doctrines which confound and cross
the suggestions of our reason. Denying that position,
we of course insist that Unitarian views engage our
intelligent faith because they satisfy our reason and win
our hearty belief. If we are arrogant in claiming some
of the more profound, intelligent, and cultivated Christians as witnesses to our views, we only display the
same unamiable quality in a direction opposite to that
in which the Orthodox indulge it, in claiming the more
humble and devout of believers for their communions.
And what we have said, we repeat, that when intelligent
mental culture and discipline, and an earnest spirit of
piety, engage in fair and rightful proportions upon the
study of revealed-religion, the result is Unitarianism, or
a tendency to Unitarianism. The prejudices of an Orthodox education have yielded to the free and earnest
efforts of the mind to clear up some of the perplexities
of its faith. In cases so numerous in our religious biographies, that candor must allow more than Orthodoxy
has ever yet admitted on this point, this result has been
verified. Wherever that proportionate combination of
intelligence and piety of which we have spoken has been
found, in a single person, in a village, in a religious society, in a community, in a social or academic circle, or
in a nation, there Unitarianism, or a tendency to Unitarianism, has been the sure consequence. Poland, Holland,
Switzerland, Old England, and New England present us
both with eminent individual names and with general
testimonies illustrating that truth.   Out of the besttrained Orthodox fellowships in those lands have come
men and women, who, often by wholly independent studies and exercises of their own, have espoused a Liberal
Christianity. The exigencies of consistency with their
314 
COURSE OF DISSENT IN ENGLAND.
own creed compel the Orthodox to maintain that all
these lapses are tokens of an inborn depravity which
leads the pride of reason to emancipate itself from the
humbling doctrines of the GCospel.   Those who  were
regarded as saints, so long as they kept silence and re'pressed their tendencies and remained in Orthodox communions, simply by acknowledging the results to which
faithful Scripture study and religious discipline have
conducted them, become all at once the most odious
heretics, victims of one of the most subtle forms of depravity. This gross outrage alike upon common sense
and upon Christian charity has been well-nigh shamed
out of countenance in some places, where it was once
boldly indulged; but it occasionally hints even now
what -it shrinks from proclaiming. Again, persons who
have in youth, and under strong excitement, been converted by Orthodox doctrines, and have for years led a
religious life under the same influences, and joined in
the aspersions east upon Unitarianism, have in their
maturer years, on fuller study and experience, become
disciples of the very heresy which once engaged their
hostile zeal.
What candid reader of the lives and writings of Dr.
Doddridge and Dr. Watts will deny the traces in their
religious experience and culture of those influences and
tendencies which, in a hundred familiar cases on record,
have relaxed the rigidness of an early creed, and led on
to a more or less complete recognition of substantial
Unitarianism? Were not those excellent men, and
others of their contemporaries at that very interesting
period in the history of the English Dissenters, inclining
towards the views which were adopted by some of their
most cherished friends, and by many of those a little
younger than themselves, who had been in close sympathy with them?  Doddridge's Letters and Expositions
contain a great many intimations of this liberal bent
315 
316     THE ADVANCED MINDS OF CHRISTENDOM.
and tendency of his mind. There has been a great deal
of speculation as to the opinions in which Dr. Watts
finally rested about the doctrine of the Trinity. The
most significant fact in the whole matter is, that his mind
was working so restlessly upon that doctrine, that it is
impossible to say what his final opinions about it were.'
Now, for ourselves, we regard that period in the religious
history of England as the most favorable for the manifestation and working of an intelligent piety. Its eminent Dissenting ministers were devout men, faithful pastors, diligent students of Scripture, and thorough scholars.
They had been trained under Orthodoxy, but were loyal
to freedom in faith. Their tendencies have an emphatic
significance, and as to what they were, our opinion is
decided past the likelihood of a change, for it has been
formed by many delightful hours of Sunday reading
given to their writings.
In what direction do the heretical tendencies of the
more independent, scholarly, and catholic-spirited men
of the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, and Methodist communions, here and in Europe,
develop themselves?  We  hear again the lament over
the subtle depravity of the human heart, the pride of
learning and reason!  Leaving the judgment of the
heart to Him to whom it belongs, we maintain that
reason is a gift to be proud of, and learning is an
excellent distinction. Of both of them, their possessors ought to be at least proud enough to be moved
to use them for the noblest purpose, which is as helpers
in attaining an earnest and intelligent faith in divine
truth.   And if the intelligent exercise of close and inquisitive thought, and the searching tests of reason, while
they weaken or destroy confidence in some old dogmas
of religion, tend to strengthen faith in the great truths of
revelation, we see no sign of depravity in confessing the
result. Pride and obstinacy may be exhibited in cling 
VIGOR OF UNITARIANISM IN ENGLAND.
ing to old dogmas rooted in education and prejudice, as
well as in the confession of a change of opinions. Unitarian tendencies bid fair to become so familiar, that
there will be more to bear their reproach and fewer to
pronounce it upon them. At any rate, Unitarianism, to
those to whom it is a spectre, is one which they have
never succeeded in laying. It starts up in strange places,
and shows itself under a bishop's lawn, in the robes and
surplices of Episcopal clergymen and Oxford Fellows.
The same heresy, manifesting itself in a new compilation
of psalms and hymns for public worship among the
Orthodox Dissenters in England, has opened a sharper
controversy in their own fellowship than they have ever
waged with us.  "The Rivulet School," so called, from
the title of the new hymn-book, is now said to embrace a
large number of the most earnest and able of the reputed
Orthodox divines among the Dissenters. The British
Banner, and other organs of the Three Denominations,
are filled with high-tempered discussions about this constantly intruding heresy of Unitarianism. The current
number of the British Quarterly, an Orthodox review, in
an article on the Life of the late Dr. Wardlaw, says, in
reference to recent Unitarianr manifestations among the
"Evangelical Dissenters": " It is true, that, in so far as
they are at all tangible, these appearances go within a
small compass at present.  But it is not necessary that
these small beginnings should continue small. As the
religion of a sect, Unitarianism is feeble,- feebler relatively than it was in the days of Kippis and Priestley
[which is not true]; but as a complexion of thought,
tending to affect the opinions of reading men on religious subjects, it is widely diffused, and by no means contemptible.   The open profession of Soeinianism is a
very harmrnless affair; the secret leaven of it, beyond that
circle, is another matter." These sentences are quoted in
another Orthodox periodical, which adds the following:
27 *
317 
318      RELATIONS OF INTELLIGENCE TO PIETY.
"The chief danger from Unitarians is not from Unitarianism embodied in a sect, but from its secret and gradual
spread among those who do not adopt the name."
What we have thus so frankly avowed, touching our
own opinions as to the conditions of intelligent thought
and religious sentiment, which, when combined in fair
proportion, are sure to result in the adoption and firm
belief of Unitarian views, indicates our hope for the
future, as well as our interpretation of the past and the
present. Unitarian views of Christianity will advance
in a single mind, in a comTmunity, and in Christendom,
according as that combination and co-working of the
ingredients of intelligence and earnest faith exists and
strengthens itself. Unitarian views will decline wherever those united and well-proportioned means for attaining satisfying convictions of religion are not brought
to their work. According as either reason or faith yields
its just office, or usurps the rights of its co-worker, will
the question be decided as to what shall serve as a substitute for Unitarianism. If the pride of reason, and the
restlessness of the intellect, and the sceptical tendencies
of an undevout mind, reject the control and guidance of
the spiritual nature, unbelief will find a welcome and
a sad triumph. If reason is denied its rights, and is bid
to humble itself before dogmas that are insisted upon,
notwithstanding they shock and confound the reason,
if an intelligent and inquisitive mind is forbidden to try
its tests upon the evidences and doctrines of revelation,
and if these conditions are yielded by those who are
still willing to believe,- then the various forms of the
Christian faith which have prevailed under those conditions in past ages will retain or regain their hold.
Those who, like some converts from Protestantism to
Romrnanism, say that they do not wish to use their ownl
freedom of speculation, nor to depend upon their own
judgment in matters of faith, will turn back to the old 
ROMANISM AND SECULARISM.
Church because it offers them authority.  Reason could
not receive a more direct slight and outrage than is visited upon it by some who, with this plea, commit themselves to the guidance of a yearning sentiment, a longing for a religious refuge without bestowing due thought
upon the rightful grounds of the very authority which
they value. Reason would suggest, that, if an authoritative church is to be sought as a refuge fromthe conflicts of speculation and private judgment, the mind
should first use its best efforts in testing the claims to
such authority. What has the Roman Church to show
for its credentials? What authority has it for demanding and exercising its assumed prerogative in matters of
faith? Certainly the claim of authority is no sufficient
warrant of it.  Such converts to Romanism as have
tried to. test the rightfulness of its claims by Scripture
and history have not really renounced their private judgment, as they pretend to have done.   On  the contrary,
they have set their reasoning powers upon one of the
severest and most serious tasks, and, by resting in the
restlt to which they have been conducted, they have
allowed reason to settle their relations to faith. Those
converts who have submitted to the authority of the
Roman Church without challenging the grounds on
which it claims that authority, have simply deceived
themselves.  They can have no assurance of the lawfulness and security of the very authority under which
they seek a refuge. A fair and just process of their
reason, applied to an examination of the foundations of
Romanism, might prove to them that the stupendous
fabric is a fraud or a fiction.
Reliable English journals assert that there are three
millions, at least, of the full-grown men and women of
Great Britain in avowed or real sympathy with the new
sect of Secularists.  The epithet is preferred to that of
Atheists, because of the prejudices said to attach to the
319 
THE ORTHODOX CREED UNREASONABLE.
latter title, as indicating immorality and reclklessness of
life, as well as a lack of religious belief.  The Secularists, not recognizing a life to come, nor any motives or
influences drawn from spiritual or heavenly sanctions,
maintain that reason and science are sufficient guides,
and that the relations of this life give sufficient warrant
to virtue. Here we have reason usurping more than its
rightful prerogative, and violently crushing out the natural instincts and yearnings of faith. For even science
teaches us that this earth is dependent upon and is controlled by heavenly influences, and would be a wreck if
cut off' from the resources and the sway of the upper
realm.  Analogy followed out even by reason, to say
nothing of faith, would suggest that man and man's life
may need to recognize a dependence upon unseen powers and mysterious influences.
While Romanism thus requires an implicit faith, and
Secularismn makes an idol of reason, the popular standards of Orthodoxy treat reason with degrees of slight
and violence according as they strain or relax the sharper conditions of the  Orthodox creed.   Dr. Edward
Beecher has frankly affirmed that the doctrines of Orthodoxy are utterly iticonsistent and irreconcilable with
the principles of honor and justice in the Divine government. If this be so, and of course we believe it, then
the Orthodox creed must outrage human reason. We
cannot believe, without violence to our reason, that our
Heavenly Father has called all the human race since
Adam into existence with a disabled nature, requiring of
them at the same time a holiness which only a perfect
nature could manifest, and condemning them to eternal
woe because of their inability, either moral or physical,
to obey him. Reason protests against such a doctrine;
and if it were found in the Bible, the issue would be
whether the warrant of the Bible substantiated the doctrine, or whether the doctrine disproved the claims of the
320
.... 
HOW UNITARIANISM MAY BE REPRESSED.
Bible. Orthodoxy pleads that reason must humble itself before such humbling doctrines, and receive them as
coming from God. Unitarianism insists that the Bible
should be thoroughly tested by reason; that the same
reasoning powers which we trust in other matters, recognizing  humility, reverence, and faith as guides  in
their exercise, should sit in judgment upon the doctrines
offered to our belief. Finding no such doctrines in the
Bible, Unitarianism rests in the harmony between reason
and faith, and proclaims that an intelligent piety may
live and thrive in what is called Liberal Christianity.
Our opponents assert that there is relatively less of
Unitarianism in our immediate neighborhood than there
was twenty or forty years ago. It may be so. And it
may be that there is relatively less of some other good
things here. It must certainly be granted, that, if the
old tests and tokens and outward manifestations of an
interest in theological speculations and in spiritual truths
were fair and reliable, as indicating the real amount of
religious faith and zeal in the community at large, there
has been a real decline of piety among all denominations. Whether there are not other and better tests of
true piety, the application of which would prove an advance in the sentiment and practice of true religion, is
a question on which we will not enter.  There is a condition, one essential condition, under which Orthodoxy
may succeed here or elsewhere in repressing Unitarianism and Unitarian tendencies. It is by persuading men
and women to accept a religious creed founded on revelation, with a full consent to forego the freest exercise
of their reason, their intellects, in view of the superior
demands of faith.   Orthodoxy must persuade us that
this is necessary, and must induce us to comply with it.
It must insist upon the formula, Fides ante intellectum,
almost in the sense of digestion before eating.  Orthodox criticism has to admit errors of various kinds in the
321
P- i,       -,; 
ORTHODOXY OUTRAGES REASON.
Bible, but requires us nevertheless to believe in its plenary inspiration and infallibility. Reason is staggered.
Reason must consent to be staggered, that it may pay
lawful homage to faith. Orthodoxy requires us to believe that on account of Adam's sin all human beings
who have been born since have an impaired ability as
regards the demands of God's law, but still are held
rigidly to those demands, and are subject to the penalty
of disobedience. Reason wishes to ask if God's ways
are " equal" in this respect. But Reason is reminded
that she has nothing to do with the matter. Orthodoxy requires us to believe that Christ the Mediator,
who referred all his power to the Being whom he bade
us worship as the Father, is still the very God who he
says sent him into the world. Reason is prompted to try
to reconcile the terms of these statements, and, failing
in the trial, is distrustful. But Reason is told that she is
trespassing upon what is beyond her province. Orthodoxy teaches us that penitent sinners could not be pardoned through God's mercy without the vicarious sacrifice of a victim, because the Divine Word had threatened,
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die!"  Reason asks how
the Divine veracity is vindicated by the scheme, seeing
that the threat is not fulfilled on the sinner, but that the
penalty is evaded. But Reason is bidden to humble herself
before the mystery of mysteries. Reason is even denied
the privilege of trying her own rigid methods to discover
whether these Orthodox doctrines are really taught in
the Bible. Indeed, every suggestion of Reason, to the effect that possibly erroneous interpretations and mistaken
notions may have been applied to the Bible, is visited
with a reproaching denial. Now if reason in all men
and women, here and elsewhere, can be induced thus to
forego all its instinctive and intelligent impulses to comprehend and ratify and clear up the subjects offered to
faith, and will admit that this is a reasonable condition 
HOW ORTHODOXY MAY TRIUMPH.
for revelation to require, then Unitarianism will be utterly extirpated. If all our race can be made to assent
to that condition, then all our race will be Orthodox
Christians. If that theory of faith be the only theory
offered, and no one challenges it, while human beings
are left free to believe or not to believe on those terms,
there will be many Orthodox Christians, but there will
also be an innumerable host of "infidels." If we are
asked to account for the fact, that the majority of professed Christians have been Orthodox, we answer, that
it is because the majority have been persuaded to yield
up the freest exercise of their reasoning or intellectual
powers in deference to the supposed exactions of faith.
In other words, and with a changed application, the
same explanation which comfcrts our Orthodox Protestant brethren under the fact that the majority of professed
Christians are Roman Catholics, comforts us also in view
of our minority as respects other Protestants. Orthodoxy then can repress Unitarianism by bringing about
a change in the proportions of free intelligent speculation
and living devotional sentiment, which, when they are
brought to bear upon the Scriptures, have always heretofore made men and women to be Unitarian Christians.
But after Unitarianism had been thus killed out, it would
be sure to reappear in an individual or in a community
the moment that reason and faith in fairly proportioned combination and action were freely exercised
upon the Scriptures. The result will be as sure as
will be the appearance of water when we bring together
eight parts of oxygen and one of hydrogen. The condition on which Orthodoxy may thus extirpate the Unitarian heresy may thus be very simply stated, whatever
be the probability that the result will ever be realized, or
the degree of difficulty in the way of reaching it. Orthodoxy must- prevent the birth and the growing up of
the sort of persons, men and women, that are sure to be or 
MEMOIRS OF UNITARIANS.
to become Unitarians. Such developments of the intellectual and spiritual nature of human beings as inevitably result in the adoption of Unitarian views by persons otherwise quite unlike each other, must be made
impossible. Let Orthodoxy take a miscellaneous collection of persons whose biographies are within easy
reach, and who, having been trained under Orthodoxy,
became Unitarians; for instance, the biographies of Sir
Isaac Newton, John Locke, President John Adams, Dr.
Mayhew, Judge Story, Dr. Channing, J. S. Buckminster, Henry Ware, Mrs. Mary L. Ware, Sylvester Judd,
and C. M. Taggart. Let the relationship between the
inquisitive processes of the well-trained and freely searching mind, and the longing instincts of the soul for a living confidence in spiritual truths, which led the subjects
of all those memoirs to become thoroughly convinced,
earnest, happy, and consistent Unitarians, be fairly understood. The secret of Unitarianism is bound up in that
inquiry. Let Orthodoxy master the secret. Then if
Orthodoxy can make such a use of its discovery as to
prevent such an exercise of such a relationship between
reason and faith in all coming generations, it will annihilate Unitarianism. The process may seem formidable, but it is the only one that is available. Our own
opinion is, that Orthodoxy will find labor enough of
this kind within its own fellowships, at the present
time.
In closing this train of remark, it can hardly be necessary for us to repeat our assertion, that we do not deny
the union of the most profound piety and the loftiest
intelligence in men and women shining with every
Christian grace, whom Orthodoxy claims as among her
jewels. Well may she be proud of them, and we will
join in paying to them the tribute of our gratitude and
homage. Our position has been just this, and'no more,
- that, when with a humble and devout spirit, yearning 
DISESTEEM OF ORTHIODOXY.
for true faith in God as revealed by Jesus, the mind is
able and disposed to exercise all its faculties upon the
medium and the substance of that revelation, and feels
free to indulge its reasoning powers upon everything
which is offered to faith, the result is Unitarianism, or
a tendency to Unitarianism.   We  know of no single
fact better attested than that, by all our religious literature, and by experience in various parts of Christendom
and in all classes of believing men and women.   We
anticipate the protest, the denial, which Orthodoxy will
raise against the assertion. But we calmly and firmly
aver, that the grounds of our conviction are such that
Orthodoxy cannot shake them.
There has been, and is, something very peculiar in the
experience of Unitarian ministers in this and in other
communities which has never been sufficiently allowed
for. The older members of our societies were all of
them in their youth under the teaching of Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy does meet the religious wants, and engage the
sensibilities, and satisfy the spiritual cravings, of a class
of persons in every community. But Orthodoxy always
leaves wholly unreached and unsatisfied another class
of persons just as sincere and devout and faithful, - so
far as the eye of man can discern, - as are the converts
to the old creed. Yet more, there are some who tell us
that the balance of confidence, of respect, of neighborly
reliance and dependence for the various services of life,
is far from being on the side of those who have been
sealed by the testimony of Orthodoxy. Some who have
had large occasion to draw on the sympathy, the forbearance, the service, and the pecuniary aid of others,
in the straits of business, in bankruptcy, in misfortune
and sickness, have proclaimed that the " world's people"
are found at least as reliable and merciful in such emergencies as "the elect."  A communication in the "Presbyterian" newspaper, quite recently, astounded us with
28
325 
326    INFLUENCE OF ORTHODOXY ON CHILDHOOD.
the avowal, that it gave no assurance to confidence in a
man in the walks of business that he belonged to "an
evangelical church." We hope we make no trespass
upon fair charity when we simply recognize the fact,
that some not severe judges of their fellow-men cannot
help believing that there is an element in the Orthodox
doctrine which impairs the stringency and the solemnity of individual responsibility. How can a human being believe that he has been ruined by the sin of one,
and is to be saved by the righteousness of another,
without realizing a shock of confusion in all his ideas of
private accountability? For these and other reasons,
Orthodoxy always leaves some who are as sincere and
devout as its best converts utterly unreached by all its
appeals and methods. Some, too, who once accepted
its doctrines and adorned its communion, lose their faith
in its peculiar elements, and crave a higher, freer, religious life. Now experience has proved that very many
who are not satisfied with Orthodox views or who have
outgrown their faith in them, and are repelled by them
as false and of an injurious tendency, are always made
more difficult of religious impression. Their early training has warped or prejudiced their religious nature.
They are often made sceptical for life by this process.
Their childhood seems dreary to them in memory.
Their early religious instruction comes back to them
as superstitious and forbidding. Then, too, there is a
grotesqueness and sometimes a spirit of grim satire and
ridicule associated in the minds of the irreverent with
themes and nursery recollections that ought to be bedewed in later life with the very holiest and most melting power for the heart. That strange little primer of
the childhood of our fathers was even harder in its association of subjects than in its rhymes. Capital B, standing by the Bible, sustained a noble burden in the lines:
"Thy life to mend, God's Book attend."  But capital
i_Is   ls 
INCREASE OF INTELLIGENT BELIEVERS.
C came next, with Tabby and her two little victims
singing the burden: "The Cat doth play, And after slay."
The wit of some young sinner against reverence and
grammar added to the legend on capital A, "In Adam's
Fall, We sinned all," the strictly Calvinistic comfort:
"Christ Jesus come, To save some." Some of the biographies to which we have just referred tell us how sad
at heart and almost unbelieving the subjects of them
were made, how alienated from the joy and fervor of
all earnest, soul-quickening faith, by the form in which
Christianity was presented to them in their early years.
By the help of an intelligent and a devout study of the
Bible they worked their way out of the dreary vapors
of a Calvinistic education, and it became afterwards
the joy of their lives to indulge the liberty in which
Christ had made them free. But our communities
still contain multitudes whom Orthodox views have
rendered sceptical, -hard to impress religiously.  Orthodoxy takes up those of easiest sensibility and conviction,
and leaves the hardest subjects to Unitarianism.
We often turn over in our minds the question, whether the number of those who really believe and feel the
power of religion- of the Gospel religion - increases
proportionately to the increase of the population of
Christendom. Of course the answer must be made more
or less at random, according to the information and the
judgment of those who are interested in the matter.
This, at least, may be regarded as certain, that the
number of persons in each Christian generation who
believe and feel the power of religion as the result of intelligent conviction from their own study and thought, not
from authority or fear, or superstition, has been steadily
increasing in every age. Religion has been more and
more taken from the hands of priests, and men have become their own priests, their own interpreters of oracles,
their own sacrificers, their own teachers in sacred things. 
LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY.
Among a million of nominal Christians four centuries
ago, there were probably not five hundred men or women
who had made the foundations and the substance and
the doctrines of their faith matters of their own independent inquiry and thought, through the Scriptures
and history, through their nature and experience. The
mass simply believed or tried to believe as they were
taught, on authority.  But now, out of any million
of nominal Christians around us, a very large number
would be found independent and intelligent thinkers,
having more or less "reason for their faith," acquainted
with the Bible, and able to sustain an argument for high
truth. Unbelief, too, where not connected with gross
vice, is more dignified and self-distrustful, less bold and
violent and reckless.
We have left but narrow space for noting some of the
chief distinguishing conditions of a religious faith which
will engage the confidence of devout and intelligent persons, under the present aspects of life.
The first of all the requisites in such a religion is that it
shall be Liberal. We mention this condition even before
that of Truth, because a religion that is not liberal cannot be true. The devout and intelligent demand a liberal religion, a religion large, free, generous, comprehensive in its lessons, a religion expansive in its spirit, lofty
in its views, and with a sweep of blessings as wide as
the range of man's necessities and sins. This is what
is meant by a Liberal Religion, or Liberal views of religion, or Liberal Christianity. An attempt is made at
the very start to prejudice this liberal view of religion
by giving to it a bad name, and by assigning to it an
unsatnctified purpose.   Some  persons would interpret
Liberality in a religious creed as meaning laxness,
looseness, as making things easy for easy consciences,
as letting down the high demands of righteousness, and
as taking light and dangerous views of duty and sin
328
11,, - I -' -'WI,7 OP 
QUALITIES OF LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY.
and man's future destiny. This is a perversion, a false
charge. Under a liberal religion the utmost seriousness
and solemnity of feeling, and the strictest laws of moral conduct and religious responsibility, find at least an
equal sanction with what they do under narrow, cramped,
and illiberal views of religion, if not a higher one. Liberal views of religion do not exclude the just workings
of the wrath of a holy God from this world; nor do they
by any means require the teaching that death is salvation for everybody, and that there is no state of hell beyond the grave. It is not in order to obtain a license
for sin or excuses for folly, or to diminish the pains and
penalties of unrighteousness towards God or man, that
we demand a large and generous and comprehensive
faith.- It is that we may free the Deity and his attributes and his government from all those offensive and
degrading and enslaving notions which false opinions
have gathered about them. It is that we may have a
faith that can radiate the whole space up to heaven, and
shine benignantly over the earth, and interpret largely
and gratefully, seriously and confidingly, the will and
purposes of God towards man. We want a faith so
generous and forbearing and merciful in its delineations
of the Father of our poor, sinning, dying race, that it
will shame every mean outrage which we through our
own passions inflict upon a brother-man, - a faith that
will not only open a loophole for our exit from the pit
of condemnation into a psalm-singing conference of
saints, but will fling open and keep open the wide doors
of a gracious clemency to catch the crowds who can at
least be grateful for forgiveness.
Take now two or three illustrations of what is meant
by Liberal views of religion, in contrast with the coatracted and illiberal views which have prevailed in Christian communities. These millions of human beings who
live on the earth in their ever-changing generations, -are
28*
329 
FATE OF THE HEATHEN.
they all a doomed race, born in sin, destined to eternal
woe, unless rescued by a partial exercise of Divine mercy? Or are they creatures and children of a kind and
good Father, born with the nature which he has pleased
to give them, imperfect, frail, needing discipline, righteously governed, piteously commiserated, and so to be
judged here and hereafter by what they can themnselves
admit is a perfect rule of equity? One of these views
is Liberal, the other is Illiberal. One is large, generous,
free, just; the other is dreary, hopeless, unjust.'
Then there is the still current form of the doctrine of
Election.  The word is used freely in the Scriptures, and
what the word truly signifies is there too, a Scripture doctrine. But Election is never applied in the Scriptures
to individuals as such distinct from a class, and it never
refers to a future life.  It always relates to the calling
We have taken much satisfaction, all through this series of articles, in
quoting at length concessions from Orthodox sources, amounting sometimes
even to rebukes of what have long passed for accepted tenets in the creed
of Orthodoxy. Our readers may remember a figure of speech used on
the May platforms twenty years ago, by Dr. Scudder, a returned Orthodox
missionary,- of a platoon of heathens a mile or two broad, and three or
four miles long, driving on to the pit of hell, and demanding zeal in the
missionary cause to save them.   In an admirable article in the North
British [Scotch Church] Review for August, 1856, on Christian Missions,
some stuff of a similar tenor is quoted from a recent American missionary
report.  Thus: "Every hour, yea, every moment, the heathen are dying,
and dying, most of them, without any knowledge of the Saviour. On
whom now rests the responsibility?" &c., &c., - implying that the responsibility of rescuing the heathen rests with men.  The Reviewer adds: "Can
this be mere ad captandum language, intended to draw contributions to
the missionary societies? If so, it is very wicked. But if it be really
genuine and sincere, how melancholy a fanaticism does it display!   We
shudder at the accounts of devil-worship which come to us from so many
mission-fields. We pity the dreary delusion of the Manichees, who enthroned the Evil Principle in heaven. But if we proclaim that God is
indeed one who could decree this more than Moloch sacrifice of the vast
majority of his own creatures and children, for no fault or sin of theirs,
we revive the error of the Manichee; for the God whom we preach as a destroyer of the guiltless can be no God of justice, far less a God of love,"
&c., &c.
330 
THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION.
or the choice of a whole people like the Jews, and afterwards of all who should ever live under the Gospel, to
the enjoyment of peculiar privileges here, in this world,
during this life. Judgment and destiny were of course
made dependent upon the use, the improvement, or the
neglect of these privileges. Judas himself was one
of the elect.  "Jesus said,'Have  I not chosen you
twelve? "  But this did not hinder that Judas should
"go  to his own place."  The  Jews were the "elect
people," because to them was given the knowledge of
the will of the true God.   They were elected to enjoy
the truths of religion and the blessings of a visible Divine government here in this world.   But individual
Jews were subject to the same righteous judgment for
the use of their privileges, as were individuals not Jews
for their use of lesser privileges.   Future judgment
would decide between the faithful and the faithless
among even the elect. Christians acceded to the advantages heretofore enjoyed by the Jews as an elect
people, i. e. as permitted certain precious privileges here
in this world; they were not made sure of salvation in
the next world merely on the score of their having been
thus favored here. Thus St. Paul tells his converts, that
he had prayed for themn "lest their election should be
vain," i. e. lest they should prove to make an unworthy
use of the privileges they enjoyed. How could their
election be vain if it insured their future salvation? So
also he exhorts his converts "to make their calling and
election sure," evidently proving that election means the
enjoyment of opportunities here, on the right improvement of which depended the promised reward hereafter.
But now observe, by contrast, what a shocking perversion has been made  of this doctrine of Election
by an illiberal theology.   It has been interpreted as
meaning this: That, ages before we were born, God,
331 
CALVINISTIC VIEW OF ELECTION.
of his own sovereign partiality, or-as says the New
England Confession of Faith -"out of his mere free
grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good
works, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him thereunto," chose some of
his children for salvation, put their names upon a record, and as these appear in their generations makes
them by his Holy Spirit the subjects of renewal and
the heirs of bliss.  The Confession adds: "This effectual call is of God's free and especial grace alone, not from
anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein." " The rest of mankind God was pleased
to ordain to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of his glorious justice." After this shocking parody of a noble and reasonable Scripture doctrine had
been established in the popular faith, as an element of
Calviniiism, there arose a question as to the terms and
conditions of this election. Arminius ventured to suggest that God elected for salvation those who he foresaw
would improve the means of grace; and that he thus
had respect to their obedience and good works. This
suggestion, which carries us half-way back to the true
Scripture doctrine, was an attempt to let in one ray of
reason upon the Calvinistic dogma. But it was denounced as a heresy, and is so regarded to this day,
under the name of Arminianism, - the real Orthodox
doctrine being that God, in electing the heirs of his
grace from all eternity, has no reference whatever  to
their merits or obedience, but acts entirely according
to the sovereign pleasure of his will. Now we call this
an illiberal, a contracted, a narrow and unworthy doctrine, besides being a perversion of the true Scripture
view of Election. It gives us a most illiberal and grovelling representation of God and of his government. In
contrast with this, the liberal, the Scripture view is that
God knows no such partiality, no such favoritism, but
332
I,,.... 
A LIMITED ATONEMENT.
puts each one of his children on an equality as regards
the future, by judging them righteously according to
the good or the bad use which they make of their various privileges and opportunities.
Then follow this distinction between a liberal or an
illiberal theology into the doctrine of the Atonement, or
the work of reconciliation by Jesus Christ. Is the efficacy of Christ's death limited to a portion of our race,
or free for the advantage of all? Calvinism originally
taught a limited atonement. New-School Orthodoxy
professes to believe in an unlimited, unrestricted efficacy
of the death of Christ as a ground for proffering salvation to all.  But how  do the two parties explain
themselves on this difference between them? The advocates of the limited atonement maintain that Christ's
death is of service only to those whom he actcually saves.
The advocates of an unlimited atonement come, in fact,
to the same result; for they teach that though all have
the offer of salvation through Christ, though all are called
by him, yet that the renewing work of the Holy Spirit,
which alone can dispose the sinful heart to avail itself
of this offer, is wrought only upon the heirs of salvation.
The agency of the third person of the Trinity, which is
necessary to render the work of the second person of
the Trinity of efficacy to individuals, is not as extensive
as the benefit of the Atonement. The offer is made to
all; but the- ability to accept it, to avail of it, is not
granted to all, but only to a portion of those who live
under the Gospel. The Atonement is sufficient for all;
but it is efficient for only a portion of our race. What,
then, is the difference in the real substance of the matter between these two Orthodox parties as to a limited
or an unlimited Atonement? Nothing at all. We call
their view, then, an element of an illiberal theology. A
liberal theology insists that the love and offers of God
through Christ should be construed in the largest, freest
333
I|   --,! 
THE CREED OR THE CHARACTER.
sense; that the work of the Spirit, which makes the proffer of reconciliation available, should be as unrestricted
as the grace of God and the mediation of the Saviour
in providing the means of it for all.
Once more, what says a liberal theology, in contrast
with an illiberal theology, in reference to the whole work
of religion on the heart and life, - the substantial tests
and tokens of a Christian character,-the proof that any
one is in the way of salvation? An illiberal theology
exalts a creed, a speculative opinion, into prominent importance as a test.   A  liberal theology subordinates
opinion to the prior significance of a pure and faithful,
a devoted and useful life, conformed to the practical
precepts of the Master. Whatever tests we refer to Almighty Wisdom for the judgment of men here or hereafter, must be such as will impress us with a sense of
their absolute justice, such as we can ourselves confide
in, and can apply rigidly. If our faith in these tests falters, they will bring down all our religion.  The progress
of independent thought and inquiry applied to religion
has brought about much the same results as have followed from political strifes and convulsions, all the
world over. It has led men to demand their impartial
rights, to insist upon an independence of soul, upon impartial laws, and upon a destruction of all class privileges. There have been forms of religion in' the world,
and even under the name of Christianity, which have
corresponded to all the forms of government, the patriarchal, the priestly, the tyrannical, the despotic, the monarchical, the aristocratic, and the constitutional. The
latest struggles and developments of religion demand a
pure independency, a democracy. No longer can we
ascribe to the Divine rule over us an arbitrary election
and reprobation, by which some persons, not one whit
different in life and character from some of their neighbors, may claim to have been the subjects of a mysteri
334 
TRUTH THE AUTHORITY OF RELIGION.
ous change, sealing them for heavenly bliss, while the
rest of the world is left to perdition.  "A just weight
and balance are the Lord's." Thoughtful, earnest, and
devout minds now demand a liberal religion. Liberal
in the honest, pure, and noble sense of that word. Not
liberal in the sense of license, recklessness, or indifference; not in turning the sanctities of heaven into the
streets, nor in making a scoff of holy restraints and
solemn mysteries. Not liberal as the worldling or the
fool uses the word, for overthrowing all distinctions, and
reducing life to a revel or a riot. The demand is for
a liberality which will leave the soul uncramped and
untortured in working upon the solemn problems of divinity, and casting its conceptions of a future state, and
interpreting the ways of God to men,-insuring a large,
free, strong, and sanctifying faith. Such a faith cannot
afford to raise an issue with reason on a single point,
so far as their road on the highway of truth will allow
them to keep company together. When they part for
faith to advance beyond reason, they must part in perfect harmony.
A second prime requisite in a religion that shall satisfy thoughtful, earnest, and devout persons is that it
shall have authority,   the authority of positive, reliable
truth. It must have a firm basis, a solid foundation.
We have learned in this age of the world the utmost
limit of man's attempts to work his way by mere human
wisdom, by philosophy, by science, or any other exercise
of his own ingenuity. We want something better than
these, something more stable, more satisfactory, something that has authority. Man is better at guessing
than in any other exercise of his faculties; and in accepting the results of his guessing faculty, he often forgets
the risks of the process by which he attained them.
Man can conjure up all sorts of notions about himself,
and about all the mysteries which surround him,- the
335 
336    CHRIST THE FAITHFUL AND TRUE WITNESS.
mysteries in which he lives, of which he thinks, of which
he feels the solemn power, and especially of that mystery which he himself is.  Man can construct theories of
his own about everything, and so about religion, and
sometimes he can believe his own theories, and find
strength and comfort and hope in them. But notwithstanding all this, a religion which is to satisfy a thoughtful, earnest, and devout person must have authority over
and above and outside of his own thinking and reasoning powers, his own guesses or fancies, his own knowledge or wisdom. The inmost soul within him is capable of answering to divine truth; but it must be divine
truth, not human imaginations or guessings, that will
move the secret depths of that soul.
What, then, is the authority of the true Christian religion, and who gave it that authority? The revelation
of God's will made by Christ has two chief mediums of
addressing itself to us, of communicating to us its lessons, its substance, its design, and its proof. One of
these is in the record of the revelation in the New Testament.   The other is in the actual presence of the
workings and effects of that religion in the world, for
ages, - its institutions, its experimental trial, the illustrations of its influence, the manner of its operation in an
infinite variety of cases and ways. We search and try
according to our ability both these sources of knowledge
about our religion, and we ask whether we find in them
tokens of a divine authority before which our souls
should bow? Can our faith seize on them with a bold
and joyful confidence, leading us to say, with the first
two disciples, "We  have found the Messiah, the true
messenger of the Covenant, one whom we can believe
and love, and follow as he guides us through this world,
with the hope of a purer and a holier life to come"? There
is room still left for our speculations and our- guesses.
All the questions which the mind asks are not settled
':,I,           A     i - %!,  - 
A RELIGION OF AUTHORITY.
once for all, when we find something that has for us the
authority of heaven-taught truth. We may still debate
matters of evidence, and matters of doctrine, and mysteries of faith. There is still a range for free speculation
as to the shape or the point at which we will frame
our spirits to accept.the mysterious, the inexplicable,.
the supra-rational elements of religion. But the main
question after all is, Have we faith?  Have we found
something which wins and holds our confidence,- something which we can believe, something which we do believe as our lives, something that has authority for us?
We all know that the very foundations of faith are
unsettled for multitudes around us, and that on this account the Gospel has not the authority of truth for them..
A great many influences may contribute to cause this;
lack of faith. Ignorance, conceit, bewilderment of mind,.
honest perplexity, prejudice, the distractions of religious.
controversy, the varieties of belief and opinion, -aUIthese~
causes, besides real worldliness or wickedness of heart
and life, pride, indifference, wrong biases of character,
and obstinacy of spirit, may help to account for scepticism and all irreligion. Various remedies,. also may be
applied to remove these obstacles to faith in the authority of revelation. Good advice, good books,,. argument,
appeal, may all be of service. Still there is a condition
paramount to all others, on which alone any one can be
made to feel the authority of Christianr, truth, He must
put himself in the attitude of a pupil, at the feet of its
Teacher.  He must realize the, existence within him of
a believing faculty, which is to.- dispose. him, to receive convictions through his spiritual nature when his
mental powers have reached their, limits in. exploring the
field of truth.  His heart must be reverently ordered
into a humble frame; his ear must listens that he may
be in a state to attend to the voice of God, should God
speak to him.  He is asking whether there is in. this
29
337 
PRACTICAL RETIGION.
world, available for his use, a doctrine and method of re-'
ligion worthy of being referred to God as its source, and
suited to renew and purify and sanctify all the elements
of his own life. That question must be submitted to
the personal consciousness and experience of every human being. No one can answer 4it for another. The
answer to it decides for each one whether the Gospel
has to him the authority of truth. Jesus taught as having this authority. His. hearers could understand him.
They felt, they appreciated, this quality of his teachings.
They were impressed by the marked contrast between
the substance, the tone, and the weight of his lessons, and
those which they had been in the habit of hearing from
quibbling scribes, and word-splitting doctors, and ingenious lawyers, with all their fanciful interpretations and
silly traditions and weak conceits, so debilitating to the
healthful energies of a craving religious soul.   We
want a religion which has authority, evidences and demonstrations, sanctions and solemnities, befitting a doetrine which claims to rule our spirits and to guide our
lives, to minister to our sins and sorrows, our fears and
hopes.
A third and last requisite which we may mention, in
a religion that will meet the wants of thoughtful, earnest,
and devout persons, is that of a living, practical power
to promote true holiness, to work on the springs of
character, to foster ardent piety in the soul of a believer, and to cultivate benevolence and virtue in his life.
This is the final test of all true religion.   There is
no more deplorable, dreary thing on this earth, than a
lifeless faith, a cold, torpid, indifferent religion. We
want a faith by which we can live, which shall be the
energy of our own lives, which will continually excite
the depths of our being, and move us to fidelity, and be
hourly rebuking our worldliness and sinfulness.   We
want a cheerful faith, -a faith which will make us
338 
UNGENIAL RELIGION.
kind and generous and unselfish and happy. Professed
Christians, the church-members in some communions,
under somne forms of faith, in their way of regarding and
treating those who do not belong to them, have seemed
to think that a line of separation has been drawn by
their creed between them and their fellow-creatures for
all eternity. If in a humble and thoroughly self-searching spirit they were to ask themselves what quality the
pure eye of God discerns in them to distinguish between
themn and all others in the allotments of the everlasting
retributions of a future life, they might be perplexed to
answer the question. The old stereotyped answer, that
they rely upon their faith in the merits of Christ, will not
do now-a-days, unless it is translated into the intelligible
language of practical common-sense.   They consider
themselves as the saved, and all others as the lost. They
resemble those who clutch at the long-boat of a sinking
ship loaded with passengers, and row off, leaving their
former companions to a fearful fate.  Now a religion
which regards the vast proportion of human beings as
under the curse of God, doomed for ever, may perhaps
lead to a sort of holy horror or a dismal pity towards
them, but cannot excite a love and tenderness and mercy
and devotion like that of Christ.
Not in a censorious spirit, if we know our own heart,
but in mortified sadness at seeing the short-comings of
a religion which ought to live and act with all the genial energies of a glowing flame of universal love in a
community, and attract every well-disposed heart to its
high work, would we venture to hint at facts which
our own professional biases might dispose us to palliate. Take the body of communicants, the church-fellowship in some of our town or village parishes) where
the spirit of an ungenial religion rules supreme, and ask
what attraction that covenanted circle has for many
generous-hearted, warm-souled young persons of either
339 
SCHEMING RELIGION.
sex?  They know very well that the "Church" includes
some most excellent men and women, wearing every
winning grace of piety and love; persons whose naturally amiable characters have been called out and refined
by pure religion, or have helped to temper the austerities
of a repulsive creed.   But such persons, unfortunately, do not make up the whole Church, nor furnish the
standard which exhausts the prime conditions for admis-sion to it. The young know very well that there are
some exceedingly hard, uninteresting, and forbidding
members among the foremost in such communions,sour-visaged, scandal-loving, morose old women, and
men whose sharpness at a bargain proves that the eye
opened on another world has lost none of its keenness
for this. The exercises which engage these fellowships
in their meetings have often a clammy or sombre character, a grim and.dreary aspect, to the young. And so
the "vestry" assemblies for conference, held generally
in the cellar of a meeting-house, draw together for the
most part those who have long shared all the privileges
there offered. The young are not attracted by a religion which makes such an exposition of itself and its
prominent disciples. And so the current of the world
sweeps by the Church. Hearts that yearn for some kind
of fellowship,-fellowship too in works of love, of mutual benefit and extensive benevolence,-the very works
which the Christian Church ought to be foremost in instigating and serving, - are driven to organize all sorts of
odd-fellowships, and semi-charitable associations. The
masses of the tempted, the indifferent, the pleasure-seeking, and the industrious and well-disposed, pass by these
basement conference-meetings, catching perhaps the
burden of a psalm-tune, but with no drawings to dispose
them to enter.  When religious movements are brought
to bear upon vigorous young men, it is often by a sort of
intriguing, scheming policy, which will hardly bear look
340 
RELIGION ON FALSE PRETENCES.
ing at very closely.  "Young Men's Christian Associa.tions" are formed; but if we scan one of them in a pro cession or a meeting, the number of the gray-headed
among them opens the unpleasant suggestion, that a too
generous interpretation is given to the word young, for
the sake of showing force and strength. Some zealous
ministers will be debating some religious or sectarian
project, when a shrewd one among them will suggest,
that, after the plan has been agreed upon, it will be well
to have it announced and carried on under the auspices
of the Young Men's Association. So, after due prep aration, the community is informed that the Young
Men's Christian Association, in this or that town or
city, have determined upon this or that. Painful and
mortifying is it to a true lover of his country, to learn
how much of unworthy manceuvring and blinding arti fice now passes under the title of "wire-pulling."  Sadder yet is it to realize, that something of the same inge nuity, under disguises, is availed of to make it appear
that pure religion has more real sway in the hearts and
enterprises of men than it actually exercises. One re sult is, that a large body of persons who claim to be the
very leaders and supporters of movements undeniably
belonging to the work of the Christian Church, boast
themselves as come-outers from it.
Here certainly are facts which, without needing the
embitterment of a sectarian or a sarcastic spirit, convey a severe reproach to every professed Christian, rebuking him for his own share of blame for a state of
things which ought not to exist. We will not concentrate this reproach upon Orthodoxy, and meanly boast
that our own faith exonerates us from all participation
in it. We feel our own short-comings, we know those
of our own religious fellowship, too painfully, to allow
even the intimation that Unitarianism has shamed by its
vigorous spirit and practice of benevolence all other
29 *
341 
THE WORDS OF THIS LIFE.
forms of sectarian Christianity.  We may, however, accept, as affording a ray of comfort, what has been visited
upon us in censure, -the fact that we have emphasized
in our communion the duties of benevolence, philanthropy, practical righteousness, and virtue. When the Rev.
H. W. Beecher published last year his large volume of
Hymns for Public Worship in his congregation in "Plymouth Church," he was severely assailed by reviewers in
his own Orthodox communions for having drawn some
of his pieces from Unitarian and other heretical sources.
His justification was most significant. He wished his
book to embrace hymns adapted for use on occasions of
a benevolent, reformatory, and philanthropic character,
hymns baptized in the spirit of a merciful, humane, and
loving faith. For these he was compelled to draw on heretical sources, the Orthodox collections not furnishing
the requisite material. So far as this fact avails, we will
use it, in closing, not as a compliment to heresy, nor for
a poor boast, but to plead for that much-neglected element in religion,- that which includes the cheerful, the
humane, the genial, the merciful,- that which ministers
to man's wants and woes in this world, as well as opens
the hope of another.
342
0 
TilE NEW THEOLOGY.
-    --      " -     -,,; —-- -; , -- -.7.. I'..,-;xl".              I.:.                                            i  
THE NEW THEOLOGY.
MUcH of the interest in religious discussions which, a
half-century ago, was engaged in the Unitarian Controversy, is now enlisted in the developments of what is
called "' The New Theology." Among communions
nominally adhering still to the formulas and doctrines of
Orthodoxy., are many men of mark and power whom their
brethren accuse of heretical tendencies. It is not strange
that Unitarians should feel a lively interest in the many
developments of the past few years which expose the efforts and struggles of the advanced minds in orthodox
communions. They have produced for our perusal and
study many laborious volumes and many vigorous essays,
laden with the results of profound scholarship, and quickened with the glow of true piety. In no age of the Christian Church has the current theological literature been
so attractive in itself, so worthy of extended circulation, so
free from the poisonous elements of acrimony and passion, or so edifying in subject-matter and spirit, as in our
own time. We confess to finding the materials for our
own most profitable hours of thought and study in the
fresh theological utterances of some noble-minded and
scholarly Christian men who traditionally regard us as
outside of the Christian fold.  It might be said that our
interest is only of that questionable character which loves 
LIBERALISM OF THE AGE.
to mark the tokens of discord or the signs of division in
a hostile camp. We may be charged with heresy-hunting for the sake of finding comfort under our own state
of exclusion from Christian fellowship. Of course there
is a risk of that sort besetting us. We would endeavor
to appreciate the kindness which reminds us of our liability to it, and we would endeavor to reinforce our candor, and to overcome our own prejudices, that we may not
injuriously or uncharitably interpret any generous concessions of Orthodoxy as affording comfort to our heresy.
We may be too ready to claim every free expression of
every free mind as a discomfiture of our opponents and
an amicable recognition of our own position. But while
we would not assume to be secure against the weakness
thus recognized, we are conscious of a higher and purer
reason for our interest in the developments of the New
Theology. We believe it to be among the possibilities
of things, that the Orthodoxy which we have rejected
may still be of service to us. We should be ashamed to
boast of a contempt for all its scholarship, devotion, and
piety.  The largest modifications of religious or doctrinal philosophy to which some orthodox men are inclined
to yieid, still keep them aloof from sympathy with us.
We are bound, therefore, to read their freest pages with
the conscientious and most earnest purpose of rectifying
possible errors and supplying possible defects in our own
theological system by the help of men who prove their
sincerity alike by what they yield in our favor and by
what they retain to our reproach. We trust therefore
that our orthodox brethren will interpret our interest in
the speculative and doctrinal liberalism of which their
communions have recently afforded us so many instructive tokens, as attaching but in part to our pleasure at
the discomfiture of Orthodoxy, and for the rest to our desire to be made aware of the possible -we will even say
the probable - defects and errors of Unitarianism. With
346 
THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS.
this introduction, we proceed to treat of the New Theology. We do not intend to enter upon any elaborate exposition or any learned discussion of the materials which
crowd upon us in overwhelming abundance. We aim
only for a more popular and simple treatment of our
subject.
A New Theology has been in every age of the Christian Church the hope and the object of one party in its
fold, and by another party the same title has been used
for designating the whole series of successive heresies
while in their incipient state.  Till the rupture takes
place, both parties claiming a common orthodoxy divide
between them the epithets progressive and conservative.
The New Theology alwayg receives its first nurture in
the bosom of Orthodoxy. Sometimes its early training
is most affectionately fostered by those who visit upon
its mature development the most bitter hostility. When
what has thus for a proper length of time been under
subjection and pupilage manifests itself as palpable and
full-grown heresy, Orthodoxy discards all relationship with
it. Henceforward it must take a name, and the party
adopting it must stand by itself, excommunicated, until
time or strength or success gives to it that assurance
of its own full Christian integrity and authority which
it may find in being able to excommunicate a subordinate party that has risen up in its own fellowship. The
Roman Church for an indefinite time sheltered a New
Theology, which in due course developed into Protestantism. Reaching its maturity and manifesting its undeniable heretical qualities, Protestantism came under excommunication, and it was not long before it found itself
strong enough to set up for Orthodoxy within a limited
fold and region of its own. Then in turn Orthodox Protestantism began to hear warnings of a New Theology as
announcing the aim and hope of a party called Puritans:
Puritanism, having reached man's estate, was offered its
347 
THEOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS.
choice either to be chastised into obedience and submission, or to be driven out to set up for itself. It chose to
set up for itself, though under a double sentence of excommunication from pope and prelate. But still the
possibilities of novelty in the field of Christian theology were not exhausted. As sentences of excommunication multiplied, the fear of that penalty lost its power to
overawe free souls. As the sentence has been annually
kept in vigor at Rome against English and all other
Protestantism, and no harm has ever yet been known to
come from it, it was hardly likely to inspire terror when
pronounced by any communion that was already under
its ban. It would be as unreasonable to fear a repetition
of excommunication, as it would be to fear in one's
own person the undergoing of successive capital punishments. So Unitarianism, which ages of corruption had
only kept in abeyance from a reassertion of the pure, the
primitive Gospel, was for a time the New Theology in
the Protestant, Reformed, Puritan, Independent Orthodox Church. Unitarianism engaged in its turn the interest and excited the hostility which attend the last
development of organized dissent before it has been visited with excommunication. Unitarianism attempted to
reduce the Christian faith, not to its mninimum as is often affirmed but to its ultimatum, by going back to the
primitive substance of the Gospel.  There can be no further heresy developed from Unitarianism but the heresy
of actual unbelief in revelation,- a heresy, by the by,
which is just as possible, and which in fact has as often
been realized, under all the other forms of Christian theology.
But when Orthodoxy has rid itself by processes of exclusion and excommunication of the successive heresies
which have developed in its own communion into parties capable of an independent life, its warfare is by no
means ended. Hardly has the expurgated fold kept its
348 
PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR VIEWS.
feast of purification before its exercises of humiliation
begin again. Heretical processes will still go on within
the best-guarded fold, and very soon after it has exorcised
its avowed traitors.   While excommunicated heresies
are frankly labelled with their own assumed or imposed
titles, they have to part with that of'the New Theology,
which they bore before their ejection. That title is al ways reserved as the designation of the undeveloped
views of the progressive party, the embryo and in cipient heretics, the lovers of novel speculations and
free thought, who in due course of time will give evi dence of their presence and industry in the orthodox
fold.  Thus "The New Theology" is now the title of'
the more or less perfectly developed and avowed, butnot as' yet excommunicated heresies, that are known
to exist in those communions of Christians which have.
withdrawn fellowship from acknowledged  Unitarians
and fortified themselves within their citadels of nominal
Orthodoxy.
There is a form of religious faith floating around the
communities where Christian thought and sentiment are
most active, and giving the most significant tokens of its
energetic working in our best theological literature,- to
which is for the time being attached the title of " The
New Theology."  Its opponents in Great Britain have
endeavored, with sine degree of success, to substitute
the title of The Negative T/leology. We have called it
aform of faith.  But perhaps that is too strong and definite a term to be applied to what has not as yet taken
a distinct shape, or set itself forth in clearly stated and
systematic views. The popular mind is but very imperfectly acquainted with the facts of the case, as these are
known and watched by professional observers. Yet, as
we shall attempt to show, this popular mind is one of
the chief elements, one of the most important parties, in
the interest of the subject.  Indeed, it is from time to
30
349
---  S    l,-  r'! 
HERESY UNDER ORTHODOXY.
time a matter of curious speculation with us how the
uninitiated readers of the religious journals of our orthodox brethren interpret to themselves the incidental
and sketchy references to the developments so constantly
brought to their notice. For instances, take the following, selected from a very rich budget of similar cases.
The North British Review is established in the championship of Scotch Orthodoxy, and with the design of
offering able discussions by the most competent men of
subjects which the other quarterlies treat after too free
and heretical a manner. That Review wins a large circulation and a high repute, both well deserved because
of its sterling merits.   In successive numbers we are
treated with two noble articles on Missions to the Heathen, and on Dr. Chalmers. Running through both articles, entering into their very stamina and substance,
forming indeed the very point and pith of their strength,
are unmistakable tokens of opinions held by their writers utterly inconsistent with real orthodoxy. These indications are all the more significant to liberal readers,
because they imply and intimate much more than they
directly advance, though their assertions and positions
are frank and bold to a degree which is startling. We
read some of the pages with amazement which subsides
into a calm delight over these manifest evidences of progress within denominations which have tried every meth od to resist it. Here we have a sentence or a paragraph
which flings actual contempt on some one of the most
positive articles of the creed; and then we have a sly
hint or suggestion, the animus of which is plainly intend ed to convey its risky suggestion only to a safe esoteric
circle of readers. By and by we watch to see how these
bold utterances will be received by the orthodox. The
Review tells us it is impious to suppose or to proclaim
for the sake of swelling missionary funds that the Hea then will perish because they know not the Gospel. The
350
"!!'I'm - 
THE RELIGIOUS JOURNALS.
Review also challenges the repute of Dr. Chalmers, confesses his incompetency as a great Christian advocate
against unbelievers, and affirms the untenableness of his
view- the orthodox view- of inspiration.  Some of
the religious newspapers commend in general terms the
contents of the Review.  Others, whose editors are more
watchful, spy out these alarming heresies, and in little
paragraphs of invidious, alarmed, or deprecatory strain,
follow a second-hand, diluted, or unfair report of them with
their rebuke. Again, the Orthodox Dissenters of Great
Britain establish monthly and weekly religious journals
in the interest of their cause, and pledged to defend their
orthodoxy. They try to select able men for editors and
contributors, because the scholarship and the literary
standard of the times demand that condition for even
-moderate success.   But these able men are very apt
now-a-days to be free, progressive, and independent
men.  As a natural consequence, these pledged orthodox
journals are soon found trespassing in heretical fields.
The cry of alarm is raised by men of second-rate abilities
and of inferior standing, who however are better than
any other men for sounding. an alarm. The councils of
the fellowship are distracted, our own journals catch up
the echo of the strife, and give a very partial and insufficient account of its occasion. Once more, Andover and
New Haven dare the venture of applying a new philosophy to old theology. Professor Hodge of Princeton is
on the watch for every such venturesome speculator, and
he reckons with them forthwith in his Review. The Old
School religious newspapers rehearse such portions of the
questions at issue as suit their space, their idea of fairness, or their temper. Meanwhile, we ask again, what
think the uninitiated orthodox readers about these shootings forth and presages of the New Theology? Something is going on evidently which they do not comprehend. Their leaders and guides are all orthodox still.
351 
THE NEW THEOLOGY.
They "are all, all honorable men." But they do not
seem to understand, or if they understand, they do not
indorse, each other.   The venerable and honored Dr.
Dana, in his vigorous old age, looks with a troubled
mind towards Andover, the fond hope of unchangeable
orthodoxy in his youth. He is burdened in spirit by a
sense of responsibility, but still he finds it impossible to
indict a heresy which does not instantly prove an alibi.
Drs. Tregelles and Davidson are employed to re-edit the
orthodox work of Mr. Horne on the Scriptures. They
are two of the most competent and distinguished Bibli cal scholars in Great Britain. The work comes from their
hands brimful of such views and opinions as have drawn
excommunication on Unitarians. An intense excitement
is the consequence. ~ The lesser of the two heretics, Dr.
Tregelles, writes a very severe letter against the more
heretical Dr. Davidson, his colleague editor, and an inci dental development proves that all the pupils of an ortho dox school of the prophets have been trained in most
alarming defections from the faith by such an instructor.
To those who try to get to the bottom, or who without
such pains discern the bottom, of all these innumerable
tokens of the restlessness, disquietude, and treachery with in the fold of reputed orthodoxy, the philosophy of them
may be very simple.  But to the uninitiated they must be
mystifying and perplexing, especially as their leaders de cline to give them a full, fair, and unprejudiced view of
all the issues thus opened. Yet it may be worth while
for these leaders and sentinels of orthodoxy to ask what
the consequences will-be when some of these secrets can
no longer be kept, and the heraldings of dawn are fol lowed by the orb of light itself.
The New Theology is the title assigned in New Eng land to those modifications of Calvinism which were first
systematically proposed by Edwards, and which became
perceptibly a trifle newer, as developed by Bellamy, Hop
352 
,THE NEWEST THEOLOGY.
kins, West, Benton, Emmons, and others.  Those names,
-which the orthodox in New England cherish with a
homage that we of course cannot be expected to offer,
except to the character of the men, for their ability,
acuteness, and talent seem to us to be almost absurdly
exaggerated, - those names would be very gladly accepted by the friends of the New Theology of our day, as
a protection for their heresies. But we must modernize
that word New if it is to take in more recent developmerits. We will frankly say, that we are not interested
in what was the New Theology of Edwards.   We  are
on the track of something newer. Not the nova, but the
novissima, is what engages us. A pupil who should translate novissima luna as the "new moon" would need to
be told that the words mean the moon in the last quarter.
It will be understood, therefore, that we use the title-of
this paper as defining the as yet not perfectly developed
religious system of those who claim to hold the substance
of the old orthodoxy, but who have essentially modified
its symbolical exposition, the terms for stating its elements, and the philosophical language in which it casts
itself.  The able and progressive men of whose speculations we are writing would freely admit that they had
gone the lengths in heresy which we have just defined.
Perhaps some of them who will still claim to be orthodox would confess to having gone a little farther. We
wish, however, to be held as uttering therefore only an
inference of our own, not an admission of theirs, when
we add the expression of our honest and firm belief, that
many of them do go farther, some of them consciously,
some of them unconsciously. We are convinced that
their concessions and modifications of creed reach beyond
the mere philosophy of orthodoxy, and assail its doctrinal substance, its very life.  We will add, that if this be
only a surmise of our own, then there is a vast deal of
30* 
TOLERANCE OF HERESY.
agitation about nothing in the debates of our most intelligent divines. The vigorous life, the interest of religious thought and discussion, in our day, are almost wholly
identified with the concealed or avowed divergencies of
belief among those who nominally accept the same creed.
The heretics in the Church cause the heretics outside of
it to be forgotten.
It may be asked how we know that there is any such
restlessness in the larger ecclesiastical folds, any secret
modification of old religious opinions working effectually
at the sources of thought, though eluding definition? We
answer, because we know that there are recognized parties in each of the great orthodox communions, because
their newspapers are blindly discussing some suspected
and half-acknowledged heresies within the pale of supposed uniformity, and because the more able men, the
leaders of thought, especially some of the teachers in
the'most flourishing theological seminaries, are well understood to have essential differences with each other. It
may not perhaps be spoken of as a matter of common
notoriety, but all those who would be likely to know
are very well aware that there are doctrinal divisions with which tolerance is compelled to bear, because
policy forbids a rupture in reference to them.   Heretics have learned to cling to their own native folds.
They do not go off as they once did. They are not
driven off so summnarily as they once were.   Ecclesiastical discipline, once so bold and incessant in applying
its tests, has become very forbearing; because of this
reason among others, that it fears to encounter the work
which might possibly lead on from a venturesome beginning. There is infinitely more material for such discipline
now than there ever was before. Many members of the
English Church, who from time to time utter themselves
upon the feuds which now distract it, maintain that the
real wisdom and sufficiency of its principles are for the
354
O'   t —'.,-.,,''  -.' -,,."".,,N 
THE SCIENCE OF DIVINITY.
first time put to the trial in the comprehensiveness under
which it embraces all the creeds and all the scepticisms
that prevail in Christendom. This opinion startles some
of the living, but we apprehend that the true test of it
would be  if it admitted of the application-  to imagine some of the departed victims of the old intolerance
of that Church to be summoned from their graves and
treated with the gentle announcement of that plea. That
certainly is the newest doctrine of our times.
The question now -presents itself, - What scope or
material is there for anything that can be fairly called
"A New Theology"?  How can the old, worn ways of
thought, the wrinkles in the world's weary brows, be
made fresh again, so that they will receive a new impress? How can the formulas of faith be converted to the
uses of a new theological creed? Especially, if this question concerns robust and honest minds, and is to be pursued under the limiting condition that the New Theology
is substantially the Old Theology, - how can we expect a
reward for our pains in trying to track the shape of new
impressions on these old ways?  We must now sharped
our vision.
Theology is the oldest of human sciences.  The epithet human belongs as justly to it as it does to any of
the sciences; for though the themes of theology are
divine, its forms and methods and processes are subjected to precisely the same limitations, through our
finite and fallible minds, as are attached to the pursuit of
either of the departments of human inquiry. Theology
is the human term for expressing the science of divinity.
It covers all man's thought, philosophy, and theory about
the things of God. We call it the oldest of all the sci.
ences, not only because it enters into the first records of
the thought and history of our race, but also because every
science which might aspire to an earlier date would be
sure to involve the theological views of the minds whose
355 
PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY.
observations on nature, on life, or on man it comnprehended.
But what is thus found to be the oldest of sciences
has been described by two extreme classes of those interested in it under two most inconsistent epithets. One
class has pronounced it to be unprogressive, making no
advance upon the elemental substance or materials with
which it first started, as the first generation exhausted
its discoveries and recognized all its insoluble problems.
Another class of students comprehends those who,
whether with boasting or complaint, allege that theology
is a progressive, unstable science, never permanently settled on its foundation, and continually changing in its
substance as well as in its terminology.
Every Christian age has had to recognize something
which, rightly or wrongly, has been called "A  New
Theology."  The phrase is suggestive to some of all that
is quickening and cheering in the evidence of progress,
-progress in the discovery of truth, in every province
of human interest. To others the phrase is synonymous
with heresy, and what is signified by it is a fright and a
bugbear. But can we hesitate to call theology a progressive science? It certainly deserves the epithet progressive if it deserves the title of a science.  How can
it be otherwise than progressive, seeing that it is cumulative, that it is built up out of theories, that it arrays
men in contending schools of opinion, and makes every
independent thinker upon it an independent theorist?
Of course we must allow for the fact, which is merely
disguised in the familiar trick of language that ascribes
to the theme of our thoughts the modifications which
actually are made only in our own opinions. When we
say that theology is a progressive science, we mean that
men make progress in their dealing with subjects essentially unchangeable, in their theories about truths which
were perfect and assured before a single human mind
356 
PHIIILOSOPIY OP RELIGION.
engaged upon them. In this sense, theology has proved
to be the most progressive of all sciences. More startling revolutions of human opinion are to be traced in
connection with man's views of the Divine nature, attributes, and government, than are to be recognized as
wrought in his views of the physical universe by all the
amazing discoveries and processes in the crowded cyclopredias of natural philosophy.  And in fact the progress
of the natural sciences has been the most effective
agency in modifying theological opinions, in subverting
dogmas and doctrines of a venerable authority, and in
compelling each generation of human beings, as it advanced in civilization and knowledge, to find a higher
method, a nobler argument, for vindicating the ways of
God -to men. Theology, as a science, bears down with
it from age to age all that made its themes interesting
to the first thinkers, and all that was added to it by their
speculations upon it. Originally, theology was the science of Divinity. It is that still, and is besides the
science of man's speculations and opinions and theories
upon its own original materials. The discussion of
Bible doctrines is now hopelessly complicated with philosophy.   All in vain, as respects the weight of his
warning beyond its probable effect on his young disciple,
did St. Paul warn  Timothy against "striving about
words to no profit,"- against "foolish questions which
gender strifes."   No  age after that of Timothy has
heeded the warning. Men cannot do without a philosophy of religion, and all attempts to disconnect religion
and philosophy have utterly failed, while those who have
most strenuously argued for a doctrinal system nomintally drawn from the Bible, and as authoritative in defiance of all philosophy, have been compelled to adopt a
philosophy of their own in the conduct of their argument.
Religion brings down with it from all past ages, not
357
1.
I
;F!       7:  r    w-sw    — J I 
TRADITIONS OF R1ELIGION.
only the records which to those who receive them have
a more or less decided authority of infallibility and
inspiration, but it comes also laden with the precious or
questionable burden of tradition. They may be theoretically right who assert that their Christian liberty makes
them wholly independent of tradition, as challenging
authority with them in matters of faith. But it is one
thing to claim that immunity, and wholly another thing
to form our own views under an absolute freedom from
the influence of tradition. Tradition passes into the
forms of language, into words and idioms and phrases,
into versions and translations from one tongue into
another. There are expressions, yes, sentences even, in
our English Bible, which, in their variations from the
exact meaning of the original, carry with them more
effectively a traditional construction or authority in the
teaching of doctrine, than do any of the most positive
decrees of the old councils, or any of the most absolute
decisions of ecclesiastical tribunals. It is safe to say
that the influence of tradition in doctrine and opinion,
and in its associations with the Scriptures and their contents, is the larger element in the faith of even the most
ultra Protestants.
Religion brings down with it from past ages some old
covenants, creeds, and formulas, and when religion is
arrayed and set forth with this traditional garb, it becomes theology. These covenants, creeds, and formulas
are of earthly fabrication. They become time-worn and
rusty, they get rent and moth-eaten; they need patching; they fade, they become thin, they are outgrown;
the faith of the last days cannot adapt itself to them.
The Christian Church has always had to concern itself
with two very distinct matters, the one being religion,
the other being the philosophy of religion. About
religion Christians have never had a single dispute or
variance among themselves, except on one point; and 
MODIFICATION OF THEOLOGY.
that has been prolific beyond all statement in debate
and strife, namely, as to how religion is involved with
the philosophy of religion, that is, with theology, —with
an intellectual system or theory of doctrines. Theology
means and includes man's speculations and opinions
about God, and the things of God, his being, his nature,
his will, his revelations, his relations with humanity, his
work in Christ. There never has been an hour in the
history of the Church when, among those who received
the Scriptures as authoritative in their religion, there
has not been difference of opinion on all these subjects
which constitute theology. When sufficient interest
has been felt in these differences of opinion to prompt to
an utterance of them, there has been controversy. Then
come into use such terms as "the old theology," and
"the new theology."  "The new theology" has various
synonymes, heresy being the one most in use and most
readily spoken. The title has been borne, as we have
seen, by all the successive modifications of opinion which
have manifested themselves within the fold called for
the time being that of orthodoxy. It is among the very
last of the conditions requisite for the use of this title
that there should be absolute, or even relative, novelty in
the views to which it is attached. On the contrary, the
most startling and striking developments made under
a fresh modification of theological opinions have generally been but a revival or reassertion of some very old,
and often of primitive opinions. When the wrongheaded conservatives of established error at the time of
the Reformation wished for a sharp epithet of reproach
to visit upon the rising zeal for the study of the Greek
literature, they called it "the new learning"; forgetting
that their Latin and Teutonic tongues had to translate
from Hellenic sources not only the text of their Scriptures, but also the terms and processes of their philosophy. The newest opinions of the wisest Christian theo 
METAPHYSICAL THEOLOGY.
logians often prove to be a more pretentious exposition
of the simple views advanced by those who were first
trained in the school of Christ. The great interest with
which liberal Christian scholars and theologians watch
the ever-restless speculations of all the more vigorous
minds in the orthodox communions is to be accounted
solely to an expectation that primitive and simple truth
will thus be reasserted. We do not look for the striking
out of a single ray of new truth in theology. Our
highest hope is that the murky darkness with which
orthodox philosophy has obscured the light of simple
Gospel verities may be scattered by the agitations raised
in the world of opinion. Time was when Unitarianism
was called "the new theology." Orthodoxy, having cast
-that heresy out of its communion, uses some other title
to designate our views, and reserves the phrase for application to such of its own heresies as have not yet been
visited with the extreme penalty of excommunication.
We  have intimated that what is called "the popular
mind" is especially concerned in the development of the
new theology. It may be taken as an axiom in the
history of religious opinions, that all which tends to
complicate and pervert theology by abstruse and unscriptural philosophy has come from the brains of professed theologians, while all the influences which tend
to the restoration of the primitive simplicity of our faith
find their full sympathy in the minds and hearts of those
whose best wisdom is common sense. When Protestanrtismn first won possession of a free Bible, it received
with it a philosophy of religion which prejudiced an
intelligent study and interpretation of it. That philosophy of religion has ever since complicated the faith of
men, and when the reception of it has been identified
with a belief in the revelation whose substantial truths
it is intended to epitomize, it has exposed a religious
belief to all the risks consequent upon the action of the
360
-,., "I "I,  
METAPHYSICAL THEOLOGY.
mind. When religion is dispensed by. its teachers to
their pupils in connection with a philosophical theology,
the intellectual element will always be more excited
than the spiritual. So long as the mass of people of
ordinary culture and intelligence can be interested in
the metaphysics of divinity, they may be content to
refer the perplexities of an orthodox creed to the difficulties they might reasonably expect to find in the intricate
processes of philosophy. But the moment they insist
upon having a religious creed which shall stand clear of
the more involved problems of metaphysics, then they
demand that what they are asked to believe shall ber
reconciled with reason and common sense. It is not so,
easy for them to indicate the defects and the unscientific
qualities in poor metaphysics, as it is for them to appreciate unreasonable, inconsistent, or incredible elements
in a simple religious creed. Now we understand thefacts of the case to be precisely these. Intelligent culture and activity of thought in practical directions have
induced the result that the mass of people who crave a
religious faith and hope demand a better philosophy of
religion; or, as the matter more correctly stands in their
view, that religion should be distinguished and separated
from metaphysics.   Let a devout-hearted but clearminded and inquisitive man, longing for the elements of
a religious life to come to him from God in as simple
and available a form as light, air, and water, meet with
the following sentence, for instance, from the pen of the
Old School Dr. Hodge: "A man may be justly accountable for acts which are determined by his character,
whether that character or inward state be inherited,
acquired, or induced by the grace of God."* If that
sentence does not prove a poser even to the clearest
brains, our own brains are not trustworthy for judgment.
* Princeton Review, January, 1857, p. 135.
31
361
I1~  -~>*Her.- @-  -.-            > 
POPULAR WORKINGS OF FAITH.
How long divines can expect to carry the faith of common men with them when they write such things as
that, is one of the questions for our new theology to
dispose of. But no man would dare to write such a
sentence were it not for his confidence in the unbounded
facilities furnished him by metaphysics, by his philosophy of religion, for evading the common-sense inference
from it, -which is, that God, guided by what men
recognize as justice, may entail a wicked character like
a physical disease upon a child of his, and then punish
him for its irresistible outgrowth into wicked actions.
Such a sentence is admirably adapted to remind us of
the large indebtedness of orthodoxy to metaphysics for
its boldness in advancing the most outrageous doctrines
smothered up in technical language. A leading new
theology divine lays down these three distinctive principles: "that sin consists in choice; that our natural
power is equal to our duty; and that our duty is limited
by our natural power." Here is common sense. To
Dr. Hodge, however, it is deadly heresy. Yet he would
not venture to assert the opposite of either of these
statements in plain,.positive language, which admitted
of no metaphysical mystification.  The demand of "the
popular mind" is now that religion be divorced from
metaphysical subtilties.   Scholars of course interpret
this demand as requiring a better system of metaphysics,
a new philosophy of the doctrines of revelation. While
we may look with but a partially satisfied curiosity to
discover the precise shape and amount and degree of
the modifications which leading minds in orthodox communions have introduced for softening the sharp features
of their system, we have another means of information,
very instructive if we use it wisely. We may consult
the popular tendencies, the actual state of minds among
independent thinkers in the community at large. The
new theology has a strong hold upon the convictions
362
IMII-S vI.-, i 
AIM OF THE NEW THEOLOGY.
and sympathies of large numbers around us. Undefined it may be in these minds, as in the minds or the
essays of prominent teachers, but still it is sufficiently
apprehended to be available as a creed of living faith
and cheering hope, and as a ransom from a night-mare
oppression which else would weigh upon the spirit.
Our own convictions extend to the length of a firm
belief that, within the shattered and no longer defensible
intrenchments of disabled orthodoxy, there is under
training a party which sooner or later will affiliate with
another party, now outside of the fold, to prove the main
reliance of the Church when shams and conformities and
traditions must sink into ruin.
The new theology then starts with the honest and
generous purpose of reconstructing the: philosophical
method for the statement and explication of the doctrines of revelation. It assumes that the doctrines long
recognized as orthodox are substantially true and Scriptural. It flatters itself with the thought that orthodoxy
is prejudiced to many serious and intelligent minds, not
because of anything- really inconsistent or unreasonable
in its doctrines, when  rigidly tested by the laws of
Divine truth or the human understanding, but solely
because of its metaphysical exposition. It cherishes the
hope that, by recasting or reconstructing the philosophy
of the old creed, its sway may be retained and largely
extended even to the winning of the allegiance of its
open assailants. Whether the new theology can thus
spend all its energies upon the philosophy of the creed,
and yet spare the creed, is the question of chief interest
to us. If our friends who are engaged in this generous
enterprise can feel perfectly at ease onl that point, and
can find an equivalent interest in watching the experiment for reconciling us to the creed through a new
philosophy of it, we  see no reason why we  cannot
amicably afford to sustain our present relations, and to
363 
LIMITATIONS OF UNITARIANISM.
divide our hope for the future. The new school divines
think that, by recasting the philosophy of orthodoxy and
reconstructing its formulas for the statement of the substance of its old truth, they can meet all that is reasonable or plausible in our objections to orthodoxy as a fair
exponent of Christian doctrine. We think that these
divines cannot consistently pursue the processes involved
in their undertaking, much less bring it to a conclusion
which will satisfy us, or even themselves, without introducing essential modifications into the substance of the
orthodox creed.  Now this issue is worthy of our age,
and of the scholarship, the sincerity, the piety which is
to try it. Let it be honorably and faithfully contested.
Let him be considered as putting himself outside of the
lists of this fair Christian contest who introduces into
the conduct of it a mean  motive, or a word of bitter
invective. For our part, we are willing to admit that
Unitarianism, as it has been set forth by its ablest expositors, has not approved itself to all who have been cornpetent to test it as an adequate doctrinal summary of
Christian truth; nor as an exhaustive transcript of the
essence of the religion of the Bible; nor as a fair exponent of the phraseology of Scripture; nor even as a
system which can draw and engage the religious sympathies of large numbers of persons of various culture
and temperament in the great offices of Christian piety.
As we said in the first of this series of papers, so we say
in this, which is the last, something has proved to be
lacking in Unitarianism. It is true that we can give
plausible explanations of its supposed deficiencies, or lack
of adaptation to a great variety of intellectual constitutions or spiritual temperaments.  We  may say that the
severe simplicity of its doctrinal system is above the
comprehension and offensive to the tastes of many; or
that the prejudiced hearing which it addresses, or its
inability to cope with rival systems more attractive to
364 
LIBERAL ORTHODOXY.
the mass of persons and more in harmony with the traditions of piety, stands in the way of its fair and deserved acceptance. But the facts of the case, however
explained, are facts still. While the defects and shortcomings and failures of orthodoxy, and the amount of
positive evil which is directly chargeable upon it, are
matters which we have had occasion most painfully to
know and deplore, we make no boast for ourselves or
for our own  system.  Well, therefore, may we watch
with a generous interest the issue whether the nobler
spirits of a nominal orthodoxy can make such modifications in it as will satisfy them and reclaim us.  Nor will
we be churlish about words. We will allow that good
word substance its largest possible meaning, when a man
who we think believes essentially as we do affirms that'
he holds the substance of orthodoxy. But still there are
certain rights vested in dictionaries, and substance must
always be supposed to mean some part of the thing to
which it is applied, and the substantial part of it too.
We may say to our orthodox brethren, in the spirit of
Christian candor, that never does a humble distrust of
our own possible error in' the interpretation of the
Gospel of Christ present itself with such a religious
earnestness to our minds, as when we read the writings
of progressive men in their ranks. Their manly sincerity, their intellectual strength, their independence of
soul, their fidelity to conscience in their protests against
some part of orthodoxy, give a new warrant to the portion of it which they retain. But we can conceive of
nothing more utterly ineffective, hopeless, or dismal,
than the pleadings of the old school divines of our day
in defence of their antiquated system.
It will be understood, therefore, from our remarks thus
far, that what we are writing of under the title of the
New Theology is not a well-defined, consistent system of
qualified or modified orthodoxy, which can be gathered
31' 
CLERICAL SCEPTICISM.
out of the published opinions of one or more eminent
men. We shall doubtless have something of that sort
before long, and we hope that we may be living to welcome it. No one orthodox writer has as yet ventured
to give form and shape to a set of formulas whose language varies from those long received so far as to express the new philosophy of religion. So we have to
use the title of this article to designate an undeveloped,
unsystematized class of speculations, fragmentary por- 
tions of which are to be found in a great many publications, intimations of which are continually presenting
themselves in unsuspected quarters, and suspicions of
which are known to be far more widely entertained, and
on better evidence, than some who are concerned in
them care to have made public. This, at least, we are
warranted in saying, that, if some of our more acute
and earnest theologians are not profoundly exercised by
a sceptical spirit in reference to their own orthodoxy,
they are trifling with the community, and, what is more,
with truth. Clerical scepticism is the root of much of
our present religious agitation. Men in the maturity of
their intellectual powers, and with the best aids of good
scholarship, set to defend and to preach the Gospel, find
themselves struggling painfully within the fetters of the
creed by which they have pledged themselves. To accept it in its own plain sense, is to them an utter impossibility. They cannot, they do not, believe it in its traditional sense, or in its popular acceptation.   They
know that the belief which it once expressed, the belief
which fashioned the stiff and positive terms of the creed
simply for the sake of expressing itself, has not the hold
upon the living convictions of Christendom which it
once had. The suggestion comes to their minds, that
perhaps the substance of thie old doctrines may be distinguished from the hard and discredited formulas used
for stating them. What Dr. Bushnell calls "the deep- 
366 
MODERN RELIGIOUS LITERATURE.
est chemistry of thought," is brought to bear upon the
perplexity.  The creed is subjected to a powerful solvent
in the mind. That process it cannot bear without suffering decomposition. The part of it which is digested
and made to pass into the spiritual system is then pronounced "the substance of the old doctrine."  It ought
rather, and more honestly, to be called the substance of
what was true in the doctrine, for when fair and candid
men have thoroughly tried this experiment, they are apt
rather to need and seek for the substance of truth in a doetrine, than for the substance of the doctrine itself. Clerical scepticism is a disease under which thousands have
suffered who have not proclaimed it, nor, perhaps, manifested the symptoms. But when any professed orthodox scholar undertakes to soften the terms of his creed,
or to avail himself of the ambiguities of language for
evading its unreasonable or unscriptural dogmas, the
symptoms of his inner state are not to be mistaken.
Now we say, without any fear of being challenged for
the assertion, that the best works in Biblical criticism
and exposition, the most vigorous essays on religious
themes, the articles of highest character in the religious
quarterlies at home and abroad, the most able sermons,
and all the other utterances of the most scholarly, earnest, devout, and effective men in the various orthodox
communions, indicate opinions and a spirit more or less
inconsistent with the formulas of their creed.   Take
this select religious literature and compare its contents,
page by page, with the writings of the old standard orthodox divines, and the contrast will amaze any reader.
We will not transgress the rule of charity, and therefore
we will explain our charge of the infidelity of orthodox
men to orthodoxy as meaning this, —that, if we avowed
ourselves to be believers in the substance of the doctrines of the Westminster Assembly's Catechism or of the
Thirty-nine Articles, we could not, in consistency with
367
ii""It mi;s 
PRINCETON DIVINITY.
religious or intellectual honesty, write or preach what
we find in the contents of a hundred valuable volumes
now lying within our reach, bearing the names of divines in the American Congregational and the English
Episcopal churches.
If any one should ask in what single volume he
may find the most of general or particular information
upon this latent and undeveloped heresy of "New Theology," we should have to refer him to a volume written
by its ablest and most resolute and unflinching opponent. Dr. Hodge of Princeton is now the most distinguished defender of the old school divinity. Manfully and consistently, with his whole heart's zeal, with
an honesty which we must respect, and a power which
those against whom he exerts it have to fear, does he
take up the gauntlet thrown down by every nominally
orthodox man who ventures to try his liberal philosophy
on the Calvinistic creed. We think that in every such
case, starting, of course, on orthodox premises, he has
won a fair and honorable triumph over his opponents.
He has recently published a stout volume, in which he
collects his Essays aid Reviews.   There is in them
strength, courage, acuteness, exact metaphysical skill,
and sound doctrinal teaching,-sound, we mean, according to the creed, not according to the Scriptures.
All the New School men who have ventured to publish
their heresies pass under his reckoning in separate papers. Dr. Cox's heresy on Regeneration, Professor Stuart's on Imputation, Dr. Beman's on the Atonement,
Professor Finney's on several doctrines, Dr. Bushnell's
on Christian Nurture, the Trinity, and the Double Nature of Christ, and Professor Park's on Rhetorical and
Logical Theology, are all lucidly discussed, and the
views of their respective authors are fairly proved to be
inconsistent with the formulas of orthodoxy.   Now if
any one tells us that the Princeton Professor is fighting
368 
OLD AND NEW DIVINITY.
only shadows, or has spent so much strength upon the
mere verbal technicalities which do not concern the substance of the doctrine, he will cast but a poor reflection
upon the best efforts of the ablest men among us.  We
stand by the Professor, for he stands by us, and he verifies what our own common sense teaches us, that the
rebellion of free though devout minds against the creed
of orthodoxy has carried them far beyond the lawful
limits of metaphysical speculation or philosophical explanation, and has made them treacherous to the creed
with whose fair, honest, well-understood teachings orthodoxy stands or falls. We cannot believe that this
strife between the masters of Christian science is mere
child's play. It is a manly conflict, and some new
views enter into the challenge.
And the real aim of the champions of this New Theology is a noble and a generous one. They have all
our sympathy, while we yield to their opponent only our
conviction that he is more consistent than they. Their
object is to redeem Christian truth from metaphysical
perplexity; to shape the dogmas of the creed into assertions of faith which will bear to be uttered in this
modern age of time; to affirm as doctrines only such
positive statements of great, solemn verities as will bear
to be looked at in the light of common sense, and professed without the blush of insincerity, and offered to
earnest, longing minds without calling out a protest from
the heart. These men know that all manner of palliations, evasions, and apologies have to be offered in connection with anything like a hopeful effort to propound
the orthodox creed to the clear-headed, the mature, and
the strong-minded of our times. They have been let
into the secrets of official or professional intercourse,
by which they have learned that orthodoxy requires of
its disciples a denial of the rights of reason, and a tribute of implicit faith inconsistent with the fundamental
369 
370  THE FORM AND THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CREED.
principles of Protestantism. They will not condescend
to practise the hoodwinking and the falsifying essential
to the maintenance of such doctrinal opinions as have
been discredited by more just views of Seripture, of the
nature of man, and the government of God. Their
hearts are in open rebellion against Calvinism, while
their associations through tradition, fellowship, and sentiment are with orthodoxy. They dread Unitarianism.
The bad name which their predecessors gave to our heresy has warned them effectually from much sympathy
with us. They have a horror of the calm, cold, languid
spirit of Unitarianism, of its bleak and houseless exposure, and of the precipices of infidelity which it leaves
unfenced. Still they are not orthodox. It is wrong for
them to retain the epithet. The severest condemnation
of their inconsistency comes in part from their own
forced silence, and in part from the positive sentence
passed upon them whenever they dare to utter themselves by those who are really orthodox. They wish to
make religious doctrines more intelligible, more reasonable, less bewildering, less shocking, as the announcement of solemn truths embracing things human and divine.  " N! " say the men of the Old School, " that is
the very thing you must not do, for it is the very thing
that spoils religion. The bewildering, the mystifying,
the confounding element in it is a large part of its life.
Let it alone. The more it baffles your reason, and prostrates your pride of mind, the more devout and evangelical will be its influence over you."
Dr. Hodge fairly states the issue opened by the New
School mnen in their attempt to distinguish between the
form and the substance of the truth taught in the creed.
He maintains, consistently, that the form answers to the
substance, and was chosen as the vehicle to convey the
substance by those who really believed the substance.
" The main point" he says, " is nothing more or less 
DR. HIODGE ON HERESIES.
than this: Is that system of doctrine embodied in the
creeds of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, in its
substantial and distinctive features, true as to its form
as well as to its substance? Are the propositions therein contained true as doctrines, or are they merely intense
expressions, true not in the mode in which they are there
presented, but only in a vague, loose sense, which the
intellect would express in a very different form? Are
these creeds to be understood as they mean, and do they
mean what they say, or is allowance to be made for
their freedom, abatement of their force, and their terms
to be considered antiquated and their spirit only as still
in force? For example, when these creeds speak of the
imputation of Adam's sin, is that to be considered as
only -an intense form of expressing the'definite idea,
that we are exposed to evil in consequence of his sin'?
This is surely a question of great importance." *  "The
definite idea" which Dr. Hodge puts in contrast with
the creed, is that which he ascribes to the teaching of
Professor Park.
Again, Dr. Ho dge boldly faces his own orthodoxy in
the following sentences. " The origin of sin, the fall of
man, the relation of Adam to his posterity, the transmis sion of his corrupt nature to all descended from him by ordinary generation, the consistency of man's freedom with
God's sovereignty, the process of regeneration, the relation of the believer to Christ, and other doctrines of the
like kind, do not admit of'philosophical explanation.'
They cannot be dissected and mapped off so as that the
points of contact and mode of union with all other
known truths can be clearly understood; nor can God's
dealings with our race be all explained on the commonsense principles of moral government.   The  system
which Paul taught was not a system of common sense,
but of profound and awful mystery." t  There ig a plau
* Essays and Reviews, pp. 572, 573.
371
t Ibid., p. 583.
~ 11: 
COMMON SENSE AND THE CREED.
sibleness in the ingenious shaping of the assertions in
these sentences. It will be observed that the aim of the
new school men is misstated by being exaggerated, if not
caricatured, and that the plea of censure against them
seeks to strengthen itself by an unfair construction of
St. Paul. We do not understand any of those who are
interested in the New Theology as asking that the doctrines of revelation shall be so divested of their peculiar
characteristics," dissected," " mapped off," and reduced
to the same category as other known truths. Nor do we
understand St. Paul as setting "the mystery" of the
Gospel in antagonism with common sense. We should
hardly have expected of a Christian scholar, holding the
position of Dr. Hodge, that he would indorse the popu lar error in the interpretation of that word mystery as ap plied to the Gospel scheme. He uses it as synonymous
with something that baffles reason and confounds com mon sense, whereas his Master repeatedly asserted that
it had been given to those to whom he spoke to know
and understand it. The mystery, or rather the secret,
was disclosed, and the commonest sense was invited to
see the simple wisdomn, the divine love and mercy, dis played in it. The admission made by Dr. Hodge in the
above-quoted sentences will not hinder any one from
questioning the metaphysics of orthodoxy in the hope of
reconciling common sense and the creed. To proclaim
an antagonism between them would be fatal to the
world's confidence in the one or the other of them. As
it could hardly be expected that the mass of men would
give over their reliance upon common sense, they would
find a warrant in the assertion of the theologian for dis-.
trusting such a "mystery" as was irreconcilable with
it. This, however, is to be regarded as one of the results
already brought about by the disciples of the New The* ology, namely, the drawing forth a confession that the Old
Theology and good metaphysics cannot be reconciled 
RELIEF SOUGHT FROM NEW THEOLOGY.
A most striking and startling illustration of the same fact
transpired in London some four years ago. Mr. Holyoake, the unwearied and by no means despicable champion of that theoretical and practical atheism called
" Secularism," which is thought to be alarmingly rife in
England, challenged a defender of revelation to a series
of formal discussions. The Rev. Mr. Grant accepted
the challenge, and a course of public disputations followed. But the Christian advocate, though an orthodox man, expressly demanded that the subjects in debate
should not include the peculiar tenets of orthodoxy.
The discussions concerned those points of the Christian
belief common to us and the orthodox. These were argued precisely as a Unitarian would argue with an unbeliever, and every tenet peculiar to Trinitarianism and
Calvinism was kept out of sight and notice.  Mr. Grant
did not fear to apply the tests of common sense, sound
philosophy, and good metaphysics to the great, fundamental truths and doctrines of the Christian religion, as
we regard them. Why, then, should he shrink from their
application to what Orthodoxy regards as the life and
substance of the Christian system?  Again, Mr. Rogers,
also in profession an orthodox believer, in his Eclipse of
Faith, designed to answer the sceptical and rationalistic
views of Mr. Newman and others, has not one single
word of pleading to offer in the name of reason and philosophy for any of the special tenets of Orthodoxy. He
does use those noble weapons, but only as we would use
them, and only in behalf of simple Christian verities. Are
we mistaken in our inferences from these striking facts?
It would be but an easy task for us to offer in detail a
long specification of the doctrinal difficulties in the orthodox formulas, from which relief is sought in the New
Theology.  We  must confine ourselves to a selection,
with but few words of comment. First of all comes up
the orthodox doctrine of the Inspiration of the Sbrip
373 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
tures.  Dr. Hodge says, "The old doctrine of the plenary
inspiration, and consequent infallibility, of the written
word, is still held by the great body of believers." * Now
we will not answer for the great body of believers, but
we will affirm that the old doctrine,- the doctrine of the
creed, - the doctrine proposed, argued for, and accepted
even a hundred years ago on that subject, - is not the
doctrine of leading orthodox divines at the present day.
Nothing but subtle tricks of language as to the meaning
of words, nothing but evasions and special pleadings
when insurmountable difficulties are encountered, will
serve to vindicate an antiquated and exploded superstition on this subject. A Christian scholar knows very well
what was understood when the creed defined the doctrine of inspiration by the words plenary and infcallibility.
Any competent theologian who tries now to assert the
old, stringent claim conveyed by those words, must trifle
with truth.   The issue raised on this subject is very
plain, even to the unlearned; it may all be expressed and
set forth in a'few words.  Each of the Evangelists gives
us a copy of the inscription over the cross of the Saviour.
Matthew says it was "This is Jesus, the King of the
Jews"; Mark, that it was "The King of the Jews";
Luke, that it was " This is the King of the Jews"; and
John, that it was "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the
Jews."  Now, what was the inscription?  Suppose the
design were to erect in the most splendid Christian temple a more imposing artistic representation of the crucifixion than was ever yet wrought, and that it was
proposed to set the inscription on the cross in blazing
diamonds. Which of these four versions - given in a
plenarily inspired and infallible record- shall the artist
follow?   The very claim set up for the record suggests the perplexity. No one would be embarrassed by
* Essays and Reviews, p. 539.
374 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
it, except when it is aggravated by an assertion which is
utterly irreconcilable with it. The inscription could
not have been written in all the four ways in which it
stands in the Four Gospels. Three of them at least,
then, are not infallible, unless a trick is played with the
meaning of that word. Nor shall we find help in the
suggestion that the variations may arise from different
ways of putting into English the original words given
by the Evangelists. The Greek text presents these variations. Let the same process be tried with the four narratives of the Saviour's resurrection, or with the three accounts given in the Book of Acts of the conversion of
St. Paul. Let the structure and contents of the whole
Bible be studied in the light of our best wisdom, and let
the phenomena which they present be confronted with
the fair and honest signification of the terms infallibility
and plenary inspiration. The result must be, either that
the meaning of those words must be tampered with,
or that they must no longer be used to define a dogma
about the Bible as a whole. Honest, candid, and inquisitive Christian scholars and readers of all denominations
are confronting this fact. Dr. Hodge may tell us that
"the great body of believers" still hold to this or that.
The assertion is of very little consequence, whether it be
admitted or denied. We have serious facts to deal with.
We are asking what the great body of believers of the
next generation will have toehold by in this matter. We
are asking how those who, as orthodox men, profess to
hold the old doctrine of the creed on this point, are to reconcile it' not merely with their speculations, but with the
contents of the Bible? It is but poor and miserable
dogmatism, heartless and cruel contempt, which would
invoke the odium theoogbicum to the aid of a discomfited
and discredited superstition against men who are laboring in the utmost sincerty of soul to find a more truthful expression for their faith. The strictures to which 
INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.
we have referred in that remarkable article in the North
British Review are a fair exhibition of the incompetency
of Dr. Chalmers's views on the subject to meet the facts
and phenomena that are to be taken into account. The
New Theology has subverted the old theory of the inspired infallibility of all the contents of Scripture. We
do not believe that it will rest content with quibbling
with the two words, but will labor to define and vindicate a new and defensible statement of such a truth as
to the authority and value of the Bible as will make it
not one whit less precious to us all. For the simple fact
is, that the doctrinal formula and the popular belief on
this point are cast in a form which does not fit the manifest evidence of the very contents of the Bible. The
abatement already allowed in the old doctrine, and hardly contested by any one whose arguments have weight,
amounts to this: it distinguishes between the inspiration
of the sentiments contained in the Bible, and the inspiration of the writers who were prompted by God to put
those sentiments on record. Thus our New Theology
men affirm that there are objectionable and positively
false sentiments and.statements advanced in the Bible;
as, for instance, in the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes;
and these cannot in any sense be said to be inspired of
God. But still they were none the less written by inspiration of God, as God induced and qualified the scribes
to put them down as entering into the method of a divine oversight over human errors and follies.   There
have been some very able statements of this distinction
by orthodox men. It is easy to apply it in some cases,
but when we come to test it in reference to alleged errors
and discrepancies in the writings of inspired men about
things within their own knowledge, the distinction is
found to labor.
We see that high praise is lavished in some quarters
upon the new work on this profoundly serious sub
376 
LEE ON INSPIRATION.
ject by Mr. Lee.* We think the book will most grievously disappoint those who turn to it for wise instruction and efficient relief. The author seems to understand and appreciate the difficulty and the urgency of
his work, for he says: "With reference to the nature of
inspiration itself, and to the possibility of reconciling
the unquestionable stamp of humanity impressed upon
every page of the Bible with that undoubting belief in
its perfection and infallibility which is the Christian's
most precious inheritance, it may safely be maintained
that in English theology almost nothing has been done;
and that no effort has hitherto been made to grapple directly with the difficulties of the subject." t He intimates
his own especial method of argument in the following
sentence:" There is one principle which forms a chief
element of the theory proposed in the following Discourses, - I mean the distinction between Revelation
and Inspiration, - that has never, to my knowledge, been
consistently applied to the contents of Holy Scripture, even by those writers who insist upon its importance." t When approaching the close of his work,
the author says: "Thus far I have endeavored to lay
down principles from which the divine authority, the
infallible certainty, and the entire truthfulness, of every
part of the Scriptures must necessarily result. To this
conclusion many exceptions have been taken; and with
some general observations on the nature and foundation
of such exceptions, these Discourses shall fitly terminate.." ~ Our readers would care but little to know
how an author who could affirm the above inferences
from his principles, would meet the facts and explain
the phenomena that are utterly inconsistent with them.
* The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, its Nature and Proof.  By William
Lee, M. A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College. New York: Carter
and Brothers. 1857.
t Preface.                    t Ibid.                       ~ Page 342.
32*
377 
COMPOSITION OF THEOLOGY.
His work is weakest where it ought to be strongest.
He evades what he leads us to suppose he is about
to reconcile and explain.   He  tries to withstand the
allowance indorsed by Mr. Alford, another University
man, that the Apostles, in quoting the Greek version of
the Old Testament from memory, have fallen into mistakes, and affirms that, if this were capable of proof, it
would be "obviously fatal to that view of the inspiration of Scripture which I have endeavored to maintain,
according to which each and every portion of the Bible
is perfect and divine." * He seems to censure Professor
Stuart for "having enumerated, without annexing any refutation, most of the strong points which De Wette and
others conceive that they have established against the
Books of Chronicles."t We have no doubt it would
have greatly rejoiced the excellent Professor to have annexed such refutations, if he had only known where to
find them. So much for the matter of Inspiration. The
issue raised there is no longer one between the Unitarians
and the Orthodox. The New Theology is at work upon it.
The aim of the New Theology ill its dealings with the
organic doctrines of Orthodoxy is one which we are to infer from a great many intimations of it from a great many
different sources. Religion, as it is presented to our
minds through the education by which we have received
our knowledge of it, comes to us as a homogeneous whole,
combining divine and human elements. Our first efforts
in theology suggest to us the necessity of distinguishing
betweent these human and divine elements as regards the
sources of our knowledge and the substance and authority
of the truths supposed to be received through each of them.
And then comes up the question, How far off, how deep
down, must we begin in attempting to draw this distinction?  How  radical must  the process be?  The old
t Page 393, note.
378
* Page304. 
REFORMS IN THEOLOGY.
school men are right in affirming that theological soil
does not admit of mere top-dressing to any good purpose, and that its crops cannot be changed by sprinkling
seed on the surface. The wisest and most candid
inquirer, the least prejudiced and most unbiased student
in theology, can never succeed in relieving himself wholly
of the constraining influence on his own mind of the
system under which he has been trained, and from
which he starts when he begins his investigations. He
has fixed for himself the meanings of important words.
He has formed his associations of sympathy, his prejudices of sentiment, and in large measure his standard of
judgment. His present views or prepossessions, his inclinations, and his range of speculation, have been determined by circumstances. He naturally takes his traditional or habitual method for deciding between truth
and error as the standard by which his further.:.quiuries
are to be regulated. He asks himself whether he is to
believe more or less than what he now believes. The
mould already formed in his own mind gives shape to
the new materials which he receives into it.  Every
workman must find some of the conditions of his work
in his materials, and whatever novelties of pattern he
may propose will be judged to be improvements or
defects according as they are compared with some present pattern. Every theological inquirer starts with a
creed, which, up to the date of his first attempt to subject it to a thorough inquisition, has passed with him
for a standard and symbol of truth. He soon finds a
fruitful, almost an exhaustless and endless task, in settling the meaning of theological terms, in coming to an
understanding with others about their use of those
terms, in asking whether all who employ them connect
the same sense with them. The range within which we
may accord in our opinions with others, and yet contend
and quarrel hopelessly in our attempts to express our 
THEOLOGICAL TERMS.
views in common formulas, is a problem which requires
vast wisdom and unbounded charity for its solution.
Nor are the perplexities which arise from this source
relieved by our agreeing to use Scripture terms in our
theological discussions. All the terms used in these discussions become technical. They are generally chosen
from other languages than our own, and are perplexed
with etymological niceties of definition, or they are used
in a sense different from that which associates them
with common, earthly things. These technical theological terms are adopted as if more expressive or comprehensive in their signification than any which our household speech affords; but certainly one prevailing reason
with theologians for keeping them in use is, that they
are often so vague and indefinite, and so burdened with
double meanings, like old oracles, as to allow those who
employ them a considerable range of liberty, and to excuse them from being too explicit. If we take any one
of the contested problems in doctrinal or speculative
theology, we find it to be involved with terms each of
which asks for a re-definition, or a rectification of its
popular or scholarly interpretation, before any new writer
can profitably use it in discussion. He must at any rate
tell us in what sense, and with what limitations, he intends to use each of these test words. Thus, in discussing the question of the freedom of the will, the
venturesome speculator must define anew, or choose out
of many accepted definitions that in which he intends
to use, such words as these, Ability, Motive, Freedom,
Necessity, Conting,ency, Will, &C., He can make no progress till he has done this, and in doing it he has unbounded opportunities for bewitching the simple truth,
for confusing himself and mystifying his readers. He
may find, after all, that he has but been traversing the
same old weary cycle of human thought symbolized to
us in the motion of the serpent as it curls on till its two
380 
CHANGED MEANINGS AND TERMS.
extremities, its beginning and its end, meet together and
complete the circle. Our dictionaries grow larger with
every revision of them, and while our language is adopting new words, it is also doubling the significations of
some of its very oldest words.  Professor  Whewell
opens this whole issue, when he distinguishes between
the language of science and the language of Scripture
in reference to the needful changes to be recognized by
the progress of thought.  He says: "Science is constantly teaching us to describe known facts in new
language; but the language of Scripture is always the
same." *  But we have to change our scientific language
because we get a better knowledge of scientific facts.
As we cannot change the language of Scripture, we
have'to allow for changes that creep into the meaning
of words, and for the associations that may erroneously
attach to them; and so, while studying the truths of
Scripture, we have to show the variance of our philosophy of them by casting them into new formulas. Then,
too, our theology, or our philosophy of religion, must
respect the facts and the form of revelation in spite of
its perplexities and its seeming anomalies; precisely as
our natural philosophy has to respect the mysterious and
inexplicable phenormena of nature.   Taking all these
things into view, we may well understand how complicated is the task of the theologian in attempting to
fathom and systematize the profound themes of his
study. His attempt resembles, in one respect at least,
that of the experimenter who is seeking to sound the
ocean depths, and finds that the necessary weight of the
plummet and the length of his line become embarrassimg to him, and may leave him in doubt whether he has
reached bottom.
We find, then, that the aim of the New Theology
* History of Inductive Sciences, Vol. I. p. 686.
381 
FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF ORTHODOXY.
admits to itself an earnest and determined spirit in the
pursuit of such speculative ends as the following;- even
at the risk of doing something more than speculate, if it
be found necessary to do more. It seeks to reconstruct
the formulas for the statement of fundamental doctrines,
and to rectify their phraseology. It seeks to secure a
more philosophical expression of the truths which these
formulas are intended to convey, without any essential
variation from the accepted doctrines which are admitted
to be announced by them.  Again, the New Theology
wishes to modify in some cases the philosophy of doctrine, by softening some aspects of some of its dogmas
which have been exaggerated in their exhibition, and by
reconciling some of its inconsistencies, with a view to a
more harmonious system. If all this can be done and
leave the solemn old sanctities. of the creed to an unimpaired reverence and an undiminished faith, the new
form shall be offered as but a better way for setting forth
the old substance. But if these speculative processes
are found to involve substantial changes of doctrine,
what then? Dr. Hodge- says, and he writes like a most
earnest and perfectly competent witness, that the New
Theology cannot even argue for, much less reach, its intended alterations in the philosophy of doctrine, without
trifling with and perilling its substance. The doctrines
of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement ask
of the New Theology at least a reconstruction of the
formulas for expressing their orthodox teaching. The
objection to the use of the word Persons in stating the
doctrine of the Trinity has been well-nigh universally
admitted by our best theologians, for the double reason
that the formula does not convey the real idea which
they wish to express, and that it does assert something
which they do not wish to affirm. Dr. Bushnell has
gone beyond any writer, still holding to the repute of
Orthodoxy, in challenging not only the language of the
382 
ASSAULTS ON THE OLD DIVINITY.
formulas, but the contents of themn, in reference to the
three doctrines just specified. Dr. Hodge says: " He
rejects the old doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation;
but he has produced no other intelligible doctrine. He
has not thought himself through. He is only half out
of the shell. And therefore his attempt to soar is premature."* The difficulty which most Unitarians have
found with Dr. Bushnell is,- if we may use the not
very elegant similes of the Princeton Professor,-  that
he is carrying about with him some fragments of his
broken shell, and even with that encumbrance soars too
high for them.  " He rejects the doctrine of three persons in one God," says Dr. Hodge, and "in opposition
to such a Trinity he presents and urges the doctrine of
an historical Trinity, a threefold revelation of God,- a
trinity of revelations." Still, Dr. Bushnell is evidently
striving after and intending to hold the truth, the Scripture truth, which the makers of the creed endeavored to
convey in the formula.  We may put in the same claim.
Let us understand what Scripture truth is conveyed in
it, and we too will accept it.
Dr. Hodge says much the same of the "half-ism" of
Orthodoxy to which Dr. Bushnell clings in his view of
the Incarnation, - as God appearing under the limitations of humanity, without admitting a distinct human
soul in Christ, or assigning to him a twofold nature.
More positive still is the Princeton Professor in corndemning Dr. Bushnell's "Altar view" of the Atonement,
"which regards it as designed to produce a subjective
effect, to impress men with a sense of God's love," t &c.
But the New Theology does not confine its venturesome speculations to these three doctrines. It grapples
not only with the orthodox formulas of the nature, corruption, and destiny of man, but it assails with something
* Essays and Reviews, p. 434.
383
t Ibid., p. 436.
Iw- -I" ilgo; 
PROFESSOR STUART AMONG HERETICS.
more than metaphysical strength, — yes, even with the
logic of common sense, - the doctrines which are adequately expressed in those formulas. Here the aim is
to find, if possible, a theory of Free Agency which can
be reconciled with the doctrines of original sin and
efficacious grace. Edwards's work is built upon a union
of the philosophical theory of necessity with the theological doctrine of predestination. The new school of our
times, the novissinia, insists upon regarding the freedom
of the, will as an axiom, a first truth, whose evidence
goes with the statement of it. Is man an agent, or an
instrument, is the question? The new school will have
it, that the old school believes in physical depravity and
physical regeneration, and that it antedates consciousness by responsibility, and makes us accountable before
we are intelligent. The issue is not, as Dr. Hodge
insists', with reiteration of phrase, that the new theology
denies God's sovereignty in every gracious work; the
attempt is made to lift that sovereignty, and to extend
its range and workings, beyond the compression of metaphysical definitions. Professor Hodge reflects on the
late Professor Stuart for having expressed himself as
being shocked by the old school doctrine, "that all men
are subject to death, i. e. penal evil, on account of the
sin of Adam." The Princeton Professor adds, that he
and his brethren believe, " that the grace which is in
Christ Jesus secures the salvation of all who have no
personal sins.to answer for."' But how will this accord
with the three following assertions from the same pen,that "the mere absence of a native tendency to God
leaves the soul in moral confusion and ruin"; t and that
the withholding by God of those divine communications
which Adam enjoyed, but of which God deprives us
because of his sin, "is a penal evil, from which, it is true,
* Essays, &c., p. 71.
384
t Ibid., p. 43. 
THE NEWEST THEOLOGY.
utter ruin results, but it is the ruin, not of innocent, but
of fallen human beings"; * and with another statement
which Dr. Hodge advances as his doctrine,- that " the
sin of Adam is so put to the account of his posterity
that they are condemned on account of it, antecedent
to any action of their own"? t  Here is metaphysical
theology with a vengeance, and we repeat our former
remark, that no man would venture to offer to us such
theology, if he did not rely on the unbounded capacities
of metaphysics for mystifying simple truth. Professor
Park says, that " it is more difficult to reconcile the New
England divinity and the old Calvinism on these subjects than on any other." f Professor Stuart, as Dr.
Hodge asserts, tried hard to evade the plain meaning of'
his oown formulas on these points.  If we pronounced a
judgment in the ease, we should assume the office of
umpire between two professed advocates of Orthodoxy,
an office not excluded from the scope of our charity, but
not inviting to our logical skill.
The actual loss incurred by all the millions of the human family through the sin of their progenitor, the actual resources still left in human nature for meeting the
demands of God's law, and the mode of adjusting the
obligation under which we lie to the impaired ability
with which we are born, - these are problems on which,
with the help of metaphysics, endless discussions may
be kept up between the Old and the New  Schools.
Professor Park tried the whole resources of his amazingly acute and skilful mind upon these and other
problems. He tells us that we may use, in addressing
the heart, language and modes of expression which may
be true to the heart though false to the mind. We
may excite emotions by appeals and statements which
the intellect will afterwards dispute and qualify. In a
* Essays, &C p.44.                              t Ibid., p.630.
* Essays, &c., p. 44.
t Ibid., p. 83.
33
385
f Ibid., p. 630. 
PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY.
word, we may have one theology for the feelings, in
their ardent, illogical, earnest workings, and another for
the intellect, in its cool, deliberate processes of thought
and reasoning. We trust all our readers have perused
that Convention Discourse of the Andover Professor to
which we have more than once referred. We regard
it on the score of what it boldly affirms, and of what it
so significantly implies, when taken in connection with
its wonderful beauty of style and its marvellous subtilty of analysis, as the most noteworthy contribution
which Orthodoxy has made to the literature of New
England for the last half-ceiitury.   That single discourse would win fame for any preacher. It has evidently exercised Dr. Hodge beyond any heretical dose
which the newfangled system has ever administered to
him. And the Princeton divine has shown almnost equal
acuteness in meeting the propositions of the Discourse.
He tells us, without any anxiety for seeking soft words,
that Professor Park has published "an attack on doctrines long held sacred "; that "he has obviously adopted
his theory as a convenient way of getting rid of certain
doctrines which stand out far too prominently in Scripture, and are too deeply impressed on the hearts of
God's people to allow of their being denied"; and that
the aim of the Discourse is "to show how the same
proposition may be both affirmned and denied."   It so
happens, too, that the doctrines to which Professor Park
applies his ingenious method of reasoning are the very
doctrines which constitute the life of Orthodoxy. The
creed. he says, states these doctrines in a way suited to
make them effective in addressing the heart, but the
mind can. by no means receive them when it analyzes
them logically. The old doctrine of our utter ruin, inability, and state of doom is reduced by Dr. Park's
a Essays, &c., pp. 542 - 544.
386 
PROFESSORS HODGE AND PARK.
intellect to the following logical statement,-  " that the
character of our race needs an essential transformation
by an interposed influence of God." On this nice piece
of tamed Calvinism, " cold and deadening" enough to
have come from "the most chilling of Unitarian pulpits," Dr. Hodge remarks: "Certainly a very genteel
way of expressing the matter, which need offend no one,
Jew or Gentile, Augustin or Pelagius. All may say
that much, and make it mean more or less at pleasure.
If such is the sublimation to which the theology of the
intellect is to subject the doetrines of the Bible, they
will soon be dissipated into thin air." * The difficulty
is, as Dr. Hodge shows, that Professor Park commits
to the theology of the feelings, as rhetorical or impassioned statements uttered for effect, the carefully worded
intellectual propositions which have been selected for
catechisms and creeds as gathering up the substance
of the manifold and diversified representations of Scripture. The theory, though seemingly so specious and
fair, is pronounced to be radically false, vitiated by a
flaw in its premises.  It starts from the assumption,
than which no assertion can be more diametrically opposed to the truth, that strong feeling is engaged by
and expresses itself in metaphorical language; whereas
strong feeling uses and demands simple, direct, naked,
literal utterance. Thus, says Dr. Hodge, Professor Park
adduces the sentence, "God, the Mighty Maker, died!"
as one which excited and engaged Christian feeling
may utter, but against which the intellect protests; but
the truth is precisely the other way.  Does not feeling
recoil shocked on hearing the sentence, while the intellect by the forced ingenuities of doctrinal constructiveness tries to ratify its assertion? So the Princeton divine affirms that the only grain of truth wrought up in
* Essays, &c., p. 551.
387 
FAITH PROFESSED WITHOUT BELIEF.
the theory of his brother of Andover is, that the Scripture makes use of metaphorical language, -a fact that
was recognized before Dr. Park wrote. The latter divine tells us that "the theology of the heart, letting the
minor accuracies go for the sake of holding strongly
upon the substance of doctrine, need not always accommodate itself to scientific changes, but may often use its
old statements, even if, when literally understood, they be
incorrect, and it thus abides permanent as are the main
impressions of the truth."  This, Dr. Hodge says, "is a
rather dangerous principle." 
Nor is this all.  Dr. Hodge will not allow that these
tricks with language are consistent with a real, honest
faith in the doctrines announced in the old formulas.
And here we come to the only point which has much
interest for us in this discussion. Can these earnest and
able divines, who stand with us as the prime movers
in the yet undeveloped scheme of the New Theology,
be regarded as actually holding the substance of the
old doctrines? Certainly not, we answer, as we should
feel bound to hold them if we professed to receive
the formulas under any sense which the fair construction of language will admit.   So, too, answers  Dr.
Hodge. In criticising Dr. Bushnell, he says, "It is very
difficult to understand what a writer means who employs a new terminology."  It is difficult. But we
are apt to understand or infer one thing, and that is,
that such a writer does not believe what is expressed in
the old terminology. Dr. Hodge very bluntly affirms
that Professor Park's theory "enables a man to profess
his faith in doctrines which he does not believe." t
Equally grave is the following judgment: "There is a
large class of words to which Professor Park attaches a
meaning different from that in which they are used by
* Essays, &c., p. 546.
388
t Ibid., p. 325.
i Ibid., p. 543.
ja,,,-,,". *', -4.OF   ins I'                     r            A e           *<a           l+t.,+..d 
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF DOCTRINE.
theologians of the Reformed Church, and he therefore
unavoidably misunderstands and misrepresents their
doctrines."*  And, not to leave anything to be surmised, he adds, once more: "His articles [in reply to
Dr. Hodge] are to a great degree characterized by evasions and playing with'words." t  Yet Princeton must
be careful of its consistency, for when its divines are
writing with different aims in view, they are apt to utter
statements which even metaphysics cannot reconcile.
Thus Dr. Hodge says: "The two sentiments of cornplete helplessness, and of entire blameworthiness, are
perfectly consistent, and are ever united in Christian experience "; t and also: "It is one of the most familiar
facts of consciousness that a sense of obligation is perfectly'consistent with a conviction of entire inability." ~
But in the Princeton Essay " On the Decrees of God,"
we read: "Every man of sense feels that he cannot
justly be accountable for what he could not possibly
avoid." Now the being born in a state of complete
spiritual helplessness and of entire inability seems so
much like being in a condition which we "could not
possibly avoid," that we are at a loss to see how any
one can feel that he is entirely blameworthy, and yet
not justly accountable for it.  But on  the question
whether "the substance of doctrine" is touched in the
honorably waged contest between the Princeton and the
Andover Professors, we will allow the former, who unmistakably holds the old theology, and knows what it
is, to decide. - He says: " To say that the sin of Adam
is imputed to his posterity [the Princeton creed] is to
express a different thought, a different doctrine, from
what is expressed by saying [with Professor Park] that
his sin was merely the occasion of certain evils coming
upon his race.   The one of these statements is not
* Essays, &C p.617.                                Ibid., p.36.
* Essays,  &c., p. 61,
t Ibid., p. 625.
33 *
389
t Ibid., p. 36.
~ Ibid., p. 252.
~~3! #W b v~Ia 
O RECEPTION OF THE NEW THEOLOGY.
merely an intense, figurative, or poetic expression of
the thought conveyed by the latter. The former means
that the sin of Adam was the judicial ground of the
condemnation of his race, and therefore that the evils inflicted on them on account of that sin are of the nature
of punishment..... There  is here a real distinction.
These two modes of representing our relation to Adam
belong to two different doctrinal systems. According to
the one, no man is condemned until he has personally
transgressed the law. Every man stands a probation for
himself, either in the womb, as some say, or in the first
dawn of intelligence and moral feeling. According to
the other, the race had their probation in Adam; they
sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression. They are, therefore, born the children of wrath;
they come into existence under condemnation. It is now
asserted, for the first time, so far as we know, since the
world began, that these modes of representation mean
the same thing."'
Such are some of the developments of the New Theology. We believe that its latent forces and workings
reach deep into the minds of many of the most devout
believers and the most efficient Christian laborers in the
Church of Christendom. Our friends of the old school
warn us against supposing that the restlessness of a few
speculative minds, here and there, indicates.any failure in
the power and hold of the orthodox creed as the generally accepted faith of that Christendom. We ask the
liberty of being allowed to form our opinion on that point
for ourselves. It certainly is a significant fact, that the
very class of men, the more thorough scholars, the calmer,
profounder, and more earnest and independent thinkers,
who were once the builders up of Orthodoxy, - the constructers of its formulas,- should now be found, in all
* Essays, &c. pp. 592, 593. 
PROGRESSIVE AND POPULAR VIEWS.
sections of the Church, engaged upon invalidating the
doctrinal views which those formulas have imparted to
the people at large. Such influences as are uninistakably working in our higher religious literature will sooner
or later become popular, will work downwards. It may
then be, that something will be offered to us as Orthodoxy which we shall pronounce to be better far than
Unitarianism, - something which we can receive with
the same sympathy of soul and cordiality of heart with
which we read the writings of thQse who are constructing the New Theology from the ruins of the old.
The way in which free and venturesome speculations
in religious philosophy are received in the communions
in which they originate, offers much that instructs, and a
great deal that mortifies, a lover of the truth. There are
of course canons of good sense and rules of caution to
be recognized here; and as far as they will justify a reasonable conservatism of what is established, and a dislike of all that is unsettling and distracting, they may
properly be brought to bear against some who love to
open all manner of unprofitable questions. There are
good reasons why all who believe in any system of religious truth may wish to be left in peace to enjoy its
comforts, and to work out its conditions of duty. Especially in any brotherhood knit together by the sympathies and interests which unite a fellowship of Christians,
large or small, will dissensions always be grievous. Each
member is held bound to keep himself within the recognized formulas and methods of his communion. Any
one who opens dividing issues, and pushes his own freedom beyond the limits recognized for liberty, and introduces seditious or revolutionary speculations, will always
provoke a more exciting strife than if he assailed his
brethren from without. There are eccentric, morbid, and
ambitious promptings, which lead the subjects of them
to raise schisms in their own fellowships. Occasionally
391 
392      SECTARIAN BONDAGE AND OBLIGATIONS.
those who would never have attracted attention or won
notoriety by a quiet fidelity to duty within the rounds
of professional labor, will blaze out into public fame by
adopting a heresy or by stirring a strife. There are always,
in a large community, enough persons of unsettled mind,
or of a restless temperament, and an easy sensibility, to
welcome the radicalisms of opinion. Generally, the more
startling or defiant the utterance, the greater the throng,
and the more keen the interest, which, till the novelty is
worn away, will receive it. It is, however, in general, a
very easy exercise of common sense in discerning minds
to decide whether one who seeks to unsettle an established belief is influenced by a pure love of truth or by
a personal impulse, a restless disquiet or a desire of no'toriety. He whom the love of truth makes a heretic is
modest, gentle, prudent, slow, and considerate. The
reckless speculator is rash, contemptuous, and dogmatical. It may be well, therefore, that each fellowship of
believers should be naturally jealous of the rise of any
heretical speculations within its own communion, when
the very fundamentals of its distinctive system are put
in jeopardy. It is not all theological hate that is called
out and enlisted against free speculations under such
circumstances. While some love freedom, others love
peace. Those who are supposed to be united in allegiance to a creed, feel as if they were consolidated into
a structure; their old traditions, and their venerated authorities among the departed, lying deeply buried for
foundations, while all the living members are built by
joint and rule into the solid walls. An heretical member
makes the whole structure topple. It is dangerous to
open a new window through such an old edifice, even if
it be only to get more of heaven's own light and air.
There is something, too, that strongly resembles presumption, as the disciples of a fossilized creed view the
matter, in the attempt of any speculating mind to recast 
OPPOSITION TO FREE THOUGHT.
the philosophic or doctrinal formulas of a faith which
have stood in honor for long ages.
Allowing all that is reasonable in the protests and the
opposition with which the New Theology is received in
the communions among whose more advanced members
it originates, we have what is unreasonable in such
opposition still left -to be defined and accounted for.
Were the work to our taste, we could open here a rich
budget of tempting cases with which to illustrate the
matter before us.  But our readers know very well how
all orthodox communions receive and dispose of the
heresies that always have risen up among them. True,
these manifest themselves in our day in so many ways,
and win so much immunity from the character, position,
and influence of those who advance them, that the old
inquisitorial processes are somewhat relaxed.  It is our
firm conviction that much real dissent and free speculation is now held in prudent reserve, enjoyed and indulged
secretly, but not divulged.   We  believe that there is
relatively a vast deal more latent heresy in orthodox
communions, yes, even among the professors of theological schools, than has ever existed before. We infer this
partly from the tokens which manifest themselves, and
partly as a natural consequence of the way in which all
candid utterances of bolder minds are treated. Orthodoxy visits some of its most bitter censures upon those
within its communion who have practised concealment
about their lapse from its creed, and who occasionally
are entrapped or compelled unwillingly to confess the
extent of their heresies. Does Orthodoxy suppose that
it hunts out one in each score of these quiet and silent
heretics who outwardly conform to its discipline? But
then comes up the question, Is this silent dissent, this
smothered rebellion, honest?  Doubtless the subjects of
it are perfectly easy in conscience under their secret burdens. They know the price to their own peace at which
393 
BLIND RESISTANCE TO TRUTH.
they would have to make avowals. They are consistent
Protestants to the extent of believing themselves free of
all human responsibility in their creeds. They too have
distinguished between religion and the philosophy of religion, and have a way of satisfying themselves that they
may still hold the substance of a creed though they may
object to all the terms by which it is expressed. Finally,
these secret heretics among the orthodox consult the edifying and practical interests of religion. They know
that schisms and feuds and minor controversies among
brethren are ruinous to the temper of those who engage
in them, are occasions of scandal, contempt, and unbelief
to the world at large, and are so much waste of the resources of true piety. The way in which Orthodoxy
'treats avowals of free and dissentient opinion in its
communion, is a bounty on concealment.
But how preposterous is the attempt made by Orthodoxy to reconcile its demand for an unswerving allegiance to its dogmatical theology with a fair and zealous
use of all the new means for the attainment of truth.
Take, for instance, the blind and obstinate resistance
now made in Great Britain by all orthodox sects, with
the exception of a very few of the most intelligent and
candid in each, to the proposed revision of our common
version of the Scriptures. No one advocates a new translation, an entire substitution of another English version
of the Bible. All the acknowledged beauties and excellences of the present version are to be retained. All the
fond associations connected with phrase and figure and
text are to be respected, except where they are nmanifestly wrong and misleading. Neither the Saxon vigor, nor
the antique quaintness, nor the homely directness, nor
the pointed boldness, of the received version is to be
sacrificed. The aim is only for a revision, for the sake
of amending undoubted errors, removing obsolete words,
and letting in light wherever there is unintelligible ob 
REVISION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
scurity. Nor is it proposed to have this revision made
under any favored sectarian auspices, to turn it into a
job or a scheme for speculators or partisans, or to the
service of any cause save the highest and holiest, - the
edification of all persons of all classes. The advocates
of the measure, being found chiefly in the liberal and
progressive party, have the countenance of some wise and
good men in all parties.  They are all willing that the
Established Church, the prelates, the Universities, should
have the direction of the work, under a commission from
the Parliament or the Queen. Now let any one read
the religious journals of the different orthodox sects,
which abound in more or less extended references to the
project, and which are prevailingly and most doggedly
hostile to the measure. Scan their allegations, their arguments, their reasons. Weigh their objections, mark
their appeals to prejudice, their evasion of unwelcome
facts, their doubtful and false assertions. If the intent
of their pleadings, and the subject on which they are
spent, did not claim for their writers the tolerance of a respectful regard, simply because a religious feeling, however mistaken, is involved in their opposition, one might
be pardoned for using the severest language about them.
But compare their opposition to this measure, and the
grounds of their opposition, with their professions as
Protestants. They call the Bible the Word of God, and
claim liberty for all to read it and interpret it in the fear
of God, assured of finding in it the way of salvation.
They know that, owing to the fallibility and the imperfect
means at the disposal of those who translated the Bible
from the original tongues, it is not always truly rendered.
They know that a large number of new manuscripts are
now available for the purpose of securing a more exact
text; that the Oriental languages have been cultivated by
modern scholars to the very best ends; that the laws of
language, the principles of criticism, the manners and
395 
PAPAL PROTESTANTISM.
customs and history of ancient times, have been so faithfully studied, that the results gained from them must be
eminently serviceable in the proposed measure. Orthodoxy in its own way favors all these helps to the understanding of the Bible, establishes theological schools,
founds professorships, furnishes libraries, and would emphatically maintain that all these means ought to be of
some service, and that an improvement of them must
enter into the conditions of Christian responsibility for
those who enjoy them. But, marvellous is the inconsistency!  Orthodoxy most resolutely withstands the palpable and inevitable consequences of its own principles and
methods. The noblest result to which all these appliances of Scriptural knowledge could culminate, would be a
more exact version of the Scriptures.  But no.  The Bible
shall not be touched. Its inspiration must not be perilled.
The door must not be opened, for it will never afterwards
be shut. The Spirit shall pour no more light upon the
Word. The detected, exposed, andsconvicted error, the
interpolated corruption, the spurious text, shall not be
rectified or expelled.  The Word of God shall stand impaired and vitiated, not only by mistakes which man has
unwittingly introduced into it, but by marked and evident corruptions, which he knows very well how to purify.
Such is the opposition of Orthodoxy to an amendment
of the version of the Scriptures in the language of the
dominant race and people of Christendom, - a version,
too, which has transferred its errors into the versions in
all the heathen tongues into which the Bible Society or
missionaries have translated it.
What hope, then, can there be for "New Theology,"
while so stout and blind a resistance is offered to an attempt to relieve the Bible from such errors as man's
ignorance once introduced into it, though his own added
knowledge is so well qualified to remove them*? The
hope would indeed seem faint, if our reliance was on
396 
DR. TREGELLES AND DR. DAVIDSON.
anything less potent than the undecaying, resistless energy of truth. There is much indeed to dishearten the
champions of that truth. Let any one interested in
studying the issue now so intensely working, as far as it
has dared to manifest itself, in the orthodox communions
of Great Britain, take some pains to inform himself on
the subject by reading the volumes which are issued as
rapidly as will allow of a perusal. Let him take, for instance, that work of daring impudence and ignorance," Bible Revision and Translation: an Argument for holding fast what we have," by Dr. Cumming, - whose popularity as a millenarian preacher in London and whose
fecundity in issuing worthless religious books are phenomena of equally astounding character. Of this work
the Rev. Dr. Burgess, the liberal and learned editor of
one of the best orthodox periodicals of Great Britain,"The Journal of Sacred Literature,"- says: " If our
readers wish to see how far sheer impudence can carry a
man in the field of ignorant assertion, let them read Dr.
Cummiing's  book.   We  scarcely dare write what we
think of this production; but we will bring forward two
out of the many literary and historical falsehoods which
it contains." 
Or take another instance. In the pages of the same
valuable and scholarly journal from which we have just
quoted, Dr. Tregelles publishes a most disgraceful attack,
in the form of a letter, upon his colleague, Dr. Davidson,
in the task of re-editing Horne's Introduction to the Scriptures. Our opinion of Dr. Tregelles's scholarship is so
high, that the utmost stretch of our charity will not
acquit him of insincerity and duplicity in that letter.
He must know that Dr. Davidson's allowed qualifications
and abatements of'the popular notion of inspiration cannot be honestly challenged. The spirit of his letter is
* Nuniber for January, 1857, p. 261.
34
397
I I'!  
DR. DONALDSON AND " THE RECORD."
acrimonious and bigoted. His attempt to prove that
Wisdom, as personified in the eighth chapter of Proverbs,
refers to Christ, is utterly unworthy of him. Dr. Burgess
is to be commended for his manly, Christian candor in
saying of this letter, to which he gives a place in his
journal, that Dr. Tregelles "has but little sympathy with
ourselves in the line of argument he has pursued.....
We cannot now enter-on the subject further, but simply
protest against Biblical science being thrown back three
centuries by a sort of papal intolerance. The way in
which the Record has treated Dr. Davidson, and is treating all who cannot indorse its ignorant and bigoted views,
is barbarous; not only unworthy of a Christian, but disgraceful to a free country." * "The Record" here referred to is the title of a tri-weekly newspaper, published
in London, as " a highly remunerative organ" of the Low
Church, or Evangelical party in the Establishment, and
so very acceptable to the corresponding party among the
orthodox Dissenters. Some plain words about this notorious and scandalous paper may be found in another of
those fresh and earnest volumes of which we have been
speaking. Its title is," Christian Orthodoxy reconciled
with the Conclusions of Modern Biblical Learning: a
Theological Essay, with Critical and Controversial Supplements."  Its author is the Rev. Dr. John William Donaldson, late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He
claims still to hold substantially the essential doctrines of
his Church, but there is a bracing vigor of thought, an
heroic and earnest sincerity of utterance, and an ability of
scholarship, logic, and good sense brought to bear in his
work upon the rotten elements of popular belief among
Christians, which indicate the fullest development of that
new spirit whose workings we have been attempting to
trace. He is a master of his theme. Cant, superstition,
* Number for January, 1857, pp. 483, 484.
398 
DR. WILLIAMS ON INTOLERANCE.
bigotry, and Jesuitical agencies in religion, receive from
him an honest condemnation. He is measured and dignified in assailing views under which he was educated,
but which he knows to be discredited by the science and
intelligence of the age. As his work has but just appeared, we know nothing of the way in which it has
been received; but that way will be stormy. He exposes
most ably the pretensions and fallacies and utter inconclusiveness of the views set forth by Mr. Lee in the
work on Inspiration to which we have already referred.
He spares none of the shams by which timid theologians
attempt to cover and evade their own weak points or
the heavy blows of their assailants.   But his especial
wrath is visited upon" The Record," before named. " The
malignity and falsehood," " the pitiable weakness," "the
- calumnious personalities," " the nefarious conduct," "the
intolerance, folly, and slanderous violence" of "this
wretched journal," are indeed hard terms to be used in
describing a religious paper. But Dr. Donaldson offers
most melancholy and overwhelming evidence that they
are not inapplicable to a journal which meets every man
and every opinion, not in sympathy with its own views,
with cruel abuse, or ignorant misrepresentation, or spite
ful bigotry.
Take one more striking testimony illustrative of the
hateful spirit by which the results of independent and
serious Christian study and thought are received. The
Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams, of St. David's College,
Lampeter, the author of that admirable volume of sermons entitled "Practical Godliness," is at present engaged upon a work on "Christianity and  Hinduism."
This profoundly interesting subject, which may task
the scholarship and candor of the ablest mind of our
age, with all the best helps of native talent and true
culture, has been intrusted to Dr. Williams by the University of Cambridge. He is well aware that his process
399
0 
GENERATIONS MAKE PROGRESS.
Of treating his subject, the method of argument he will
be compelled to adopt, the concessions he must yield,
and the results he must accept and commend to others,
will cause an intense shock to the prejudices of a blind
and narrow orthodoxy. We find a letter from him to
Dr. Burgess, in the journal we have just quoted, the object of which is to purify some of the vapors of the
cloud which he apprehends with good reason will break
in vengeance upon him.  We wish that our space would
allow us to transfer his letter to our pages. It would
convey to our readers more forcibly than can any words
of ours a conception of the pains and penalties under
which the purest disciples of truth in conflict with popular error, prejudice, and superstition are compelled either
to silence and heartless conformity, or made to suffer
for their loyalty to a holy cause. One sentence from
the letter must suffice. Dr. Williams says:" Experience has taught me that any Anglican divine who will
'write honestly as a scholar, in our day, does so with a
halter about his neck."
But it must not be so. It is so only because the
weakest and the most prejudiced yield to what is the
most unworthy and unreasonable among the meaner
motives that influence them. Such as these, however,
profess that a zeal for truth instigates their opposition to
all the free ventures and all the honest efforts of inquiring
minds. Their cure is in their own hands. They must instruct their own ignorance and yield themselves up to the
heart-work of the Gospel. It is not wise to try one's temper or to waste one's time upon these stiff and crabbed
worshippers of the infallibility of their own prejudices.
A good Providence has appointed that there shall be a
change in human generations, and so that new truth shall
have new fields in fresh minds. The things which are no
longer susceptible to receiving impressions become fossils and get buried, while the glorious and beautiful pro 
THE PREROGATIVES OF SOUL-FREEDOM.
cesses of this still young earth are wrought upon its
living germs as they yield to the divine chemistry.
He is no true believer, no real disciple of Christ, who
identifies the everlasting Gospel with the metaphysical
or doctrinal system of any age,- least of all, of any
past age. Why, indeed, should we attempt to resist the
maturer workings of the human mind upon the dogmas
which that mind fashioned in its earlier and less competent efforts?  Why should we discredit the views and
convictions of our manhood, because they are in conflict
with the fancies of our childhood?
Certainly the human mind must ever be allowed to
range freely over that wide field of speculative theology
whose blank, unoccupied spaces it has itself fenced in
and -bounded and divided according to its own theories.
Our systems, the best of them, are but human devices,
and we must be free to assail and reconstruct them.
Whatever man's thought has fabricated, however fixed
and unalterable the materials which it has wrought
upon, will be regarded by each generation of thinkers as
something which they have a perfect right to take apart,
with the purpose of working over the same materials
again more wisely, more truthfully.  No one can examine with care the most skilfully constructed system
of theology, professedly deduced from the Bible, without
being reminded that the system is exposed to fallibility
in every stage of its developmnent. The common ground
of accordance and sympathy among Christians will in
vain be sought for in allegiance to any speculative system. The bad passions which have been enlisted in
controversy, the cumbersome heaps of almost worthless
literature which have been accumulated in conducting
it, and the steady increase of the points of difference
which it has multiplied, prove that neither edification
nor harmony is to be sought in that direction. And yet,
in spite of all that has been said about the resistance of
34 
401 
CONCLUSION.
dogmatism and acrimony to every venture made by
scholarly and scientific criticism, the spirit of theological discussions has been, of late years, infinitely softened
and dignified. This result is the triumph of true Christian sentiment over the hearts of those who are seeking
to interpret the mind of Christ. While the life which
he manifested and the truth which he taught are admitted to be the best of all our materials for the construction of a system of theology, while the deepest and tenderest motive that incites the inquiries of the intellect is
to come nearer to the spirit of his doctrine, we must feel
that it is safer to allow than to restrain the liberty of
speculative thought. We may or may not find a New
Theology, but we shall be better disciples of Him whom
we call our Master. That fellowship of Christians with
xwhoge doctrinal views our own assured convictions most
nearly accord, have had enough of mere liberty. We
are content now to forego any portion of It that may
need to be renounced, for the sake of a-better improvement of its glorious franchise. We therefore look
with sincere and unprejudiced interest to the speculative
and scholarly labors of the advanced minds in orthodox
comnmunions.   The first-fruits of the as yet not fully
developed or acknowledged modifications which they
have already made of their system, are the production
of many valuable works which are highly acceptable to
Unitarian readers, and the affording of pulpit instruction
in all our great cities which is wholly unobjectionable to
large numbers of Unitarian hearers. May God's blessing be on their labors, to keep them loyal to Him, to
Christ, and to the everlasting Gospel of grace and redemption.  If the New  Theology shall prove to be so
much truer and better than "Unitarianism" as to obliterate the sect, whose visible increase it does withstand,
we are ready to welcome it.
402
, —.".....- hv 
APPIND IX.  
APPENDIX.
THE pages which follow are designed to furnish illustrations
or confirmations of the views already presented.
It has been repeatedly intimated in the preceding essays
upon some very important themes of a long-continued controversy, that one prominent object of this new discussion of them
is to prove how the results of the most advanced Christian
scholarship and culture bear on the old issues. If competent
and sincere inquirers after truth find, that, after debating their
differences, they cannot harmonize them, they ought at least to
gain a better mutual understanding of the points in controversy
between them.  The only desirable objects to be gained by a
review and a re-statement, from time to time, of the doctrinal
positions which are assumed by antagonistic sects in the Christian Church, are a more distinct apprehension of their differences, a more charitable adjustment of their relations, and a
more earnest attempt to reconcile their strife. It would be no
unfair condition for those whose liberality provides the resources
of Christian scholarship in schools, libraries, and funded wealth,
to exact of their favored beneficiaries that they should be bound
to reduce these lavish means of intelligent culture to practical
uses. The most practical of all these uses is the promotion of
a spirit of respectful and fraternal regard between Christian
scholars and teachers whose opinions set them at variance. If
that spirit is secured, i* will help more than will any attainments
in scholarship or any skill in argument to insure accordance of 
APPENDIX.
belief in the essential truths which make the substance of religion.
As I have aimed in the preceding essays to trace down
the discussion of the controverted topics to our own times, I
have of course been interested to note how the present representatives of the Orthodox party received what I had intended
should be said in candid and respectful terms of them. I am
happy to find that I have been regarded by those who have remarked upon these papers as having kept within the limits of
propriety, and as having respected my own rules for approving.
what is useful, and for condemning what is hateful, in controversial discussions.
A series of seven newspaper articles has appeared in the
Puritan Recorder, a weekly paper published in Boston, as the
organ of the conservative party among the Orthodox Congrega-tionalists, in which I find some courteous and friendly, but still
adverse, criticisms upon a portion of the contents of the first five
of these Essays. They are dated between September 11 and
October 23, 1856. These communications are without a name,
but I am informed by good authority that they were written by
a distinguished Professor in one of our New England Orthodox
Theological Schools, whom I know as a personal friend, and
esteem highly, as does the community in general. I have
thought it might serve thie interest of a sacred cause, which we
both- should put higher than any sectarian object, to quote here
the substance of his criticisms, and to follow them with a few
additional remarks. I must respect his anonymous personality,
and speak of him as my critic.
406
I1 
APPENDIX.
I.
DATE OF THE UNITARIAN CONTROVERSY IN MASSA                       CHUSETTS.
MY critic opens his comments with terms of personal courtesy
to myself as a friend, and with a generous recognition of my
attempt to be perfectly candid in a task where candor is sorely
tested. I must be content with an expression of my gratitude
for all such acknowledgments from an anonymous writer; the
proprieties of the case will not allow me to quote them.
The first point which he raises is a matter of date. He holds
me strictly to the month and year, which would make the Unitarian controversy exactly a half.-century old. Having quoted
my opening sentence, he adds the following paragraphs: -
"We are at a loss to account for the time here specified (Jan.
uary, 1806) as the commencement of the Unitarian Controversy
in Massachusetts. That there was Unitarianism here at a much
earlier period, and that it occasioned more or less of controversy,
Mr. Ellis knows full well; but then it was a controversy, like
Indian warfare, with an invisible foe. The smart of the arrow
was occasionally felt; but the hand that sent it was unseen.
Unitarianism was closely concealed, and it was not till the
spring of 1815 that it was drawn from its hiding.-places, and
'the war was opened as on the tented field.'
"I am not aware that the controversy assumed any new phase
or feature in 1806. There had been a sharp controversy in
1804, respecting the appointment of Dr. Ware to the Hollis
Professorship of Divinity in Harvard College; but this could
hardly be called a Unitarian controversy, since Dr. Ware had
never yet declared himself a Unitarian. Nor could he be induced to declare himself, pro or con, at the time of his election.
His'particular principles, though often asked for, were not disclosed.'' It was particularly asked, whether he was a believer
in that important doctrine, the Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ;
but the reply conveyed no precise or satisfactory answer on that
point.'
To this criticism I answer, that it was the perusal of the very
documents which he quotes, on the very matter to which he refers,- the appointment of Dr. Ware to the Hollis Professorship
at Cambridge,-  that suggested to me the date assigned to the
407 
APPENDIX.
controversy. The date itself is a matter of no importance;
nothing that I have written on the subject is made to depend upon
the exactness of a date in time. But to a reader of this genera.
tion it is obvious that the discussions in the Board of Overseers
of Harvard College, and the pamphlets founded upon those discussions, did in fact draw out into direct controversy what had
long before been a latent alienation between brethren on points
of Christian doctrine. On that occasion Orthodoxy was for the
first time openly withstood, in the same way in which it has
since been withstood, by a positive refusal, on the part of socalled Liberal Christians, to regard its dogmas and formulas as
authoritative exponents of Christian truth.
II.
DISAPPOINTMENT OR SUCCESS OF UNITARIANISM.
THE next point made by the critic is more important. He
quotes some of my concessions, beginning with that on page 6,
where I admit that Unitarians have been disappointed in their
expectation of a more rapid and extensive reception of their distinctive views. I am not disposed to take back my admission.
Unitarianism, in its distinctive, dogmatic form, has not won the
visible and triumphant success which its early friends believed,
which some of the more sanguine of them predicted, would
attend its maturer development.   The  amazing revelations
which presented themselves of the deadness and incompetency
of Orthodoxy; the protests uttered in many independent quarters against Calvinistic doctrines; the feeling of inexpressible
relief which a more liberal and Scriptural faith afforded to
thousands of devout and earnest minds and hearts; and the distinguished position and abilities of those who declared themselves as disciples of the " new views," naturally encouraged
the hope that such auspices were propitious of a signal success,
in the way in which men generally define success. Success of
the kind expected has not been realized, and so far I admitted
— *        I,
408 
APPENDIX.
disappointment. My critic had not space to quote and answer
what I wrote concerning a real success and influence, as attained
by Unitarianism.  Orthodoxy has renewed its zeal.  But it has
never regained, and it never will regain, its relative strength in
this Commonwealth at the time when the old Congregational
body was ruptured. With the increase of the population, there
has been a multiplication and a subdivision of sects. The old
New England spirit of faith and piety works through other than
Calvinistic manifestations. Popular influences helped by foreign influences, a perfect freedom in speculation, an extensive
prevalence of scepticism, and a zeal for practical reforms and
revolutions which has been kindled outside of the Orthodox
Church, have brought about changes to which Orthodoxy has
been forced to accommodate itself, as utterly helpless to restrain
them, and with but moderate power to guide them. In the
mean while a conviction, which it would be very difficult, if not
impossible, to root out of the minds of well.informed Unitarians,
assures them that, through good literature, social influences, and
religious teaching, their substantial views have had an unspeakable effect upon the communities where they have been brought
into antagonism with old-fashioned Orthodoxy.
My critic shall speak at length in answer to what I have said
about the disappointment realized  by his own party in their
expectations when the controversy opened.
"Mr. Ellis is good authority as to the early expectations and
consequent disappointment of the Unitarians. With regard to
the Orthodox, he does not seem to be so well informed.' The
Orthodox, on their part, expected that they should succeed in
putting down and utterly extirpating Unitarianism, by identifying it with infidelity, and by discrediting all its show of argument
from Scripture and Christian history, if not from reason.' (p. 7.)
With regard to the expectations here imputed to us, I am sure
that they are considerably exaggerated. They are too strongly
expressed.  We  expected no great and startling changes; no
general and sudden conversions.  We  did not expect to'put
down and utterly extirpate Unitarianism.' In all honesty, I
affirm, so far as concerns myself, (and I think the same is true
of my brethren,) that our expectations thirty years ago were
not very different from the results now actually realized. Believing that we had reason and religion on our side, we did
35
409
"I#, 
APPENDIX.
expect that the truth would prevail; that our churches would be
increased and strengthened. And so they have been. We did
also expect, when the din and the smoke of controversy had
measurably passed away, that a portion of the Unitarian cornm.
munity would begin to see the truth, and to acknowledge it;
would begin to feel and to work their way upward into the
region of Evangelical religion. And in this we have not been
disappointed, - I trust we have not. We certainly find some
reputed Unitarians preaching and writing, on some of the great
truths of the Bible, in a strain very different from that which
formerly prevailed, - in language not very unlike that of their
Orthodox brethren. At the same time, knowing, as we did, the
force of prejudice and habit, even upon sincere and honest
minds, we thought it likely that another portion of the Unitarian
community would maintain their position, as we think they do,
with little change, unless it be in the use of terms."
My reply to these fairly expressed suggestions must be brief,
and must take for granted some degree of information in my
readers as to their subject-matter. Any one who will undertake
the hard task of reading the old controversial pamphlets on the
Orthodox side will find them to abound in the most scorching
denunciations of Unitarians as infidels, and of Unitarianism as
bald, malignant, and wicked infidelity, and with the most confident predictions that a very short time would prove these hateful charges, and result in the utter discomfiture of the system.
A smile, oftener than a' frown, will be excited now by the read.
ing of these spiteful diatribes. Yet they were read in the time
of them by some of the most devout and intelligent Christian
men and women that have ever adorned our pulpits, our colleges, the courts of justice, the high places of magistracy, the
walks of honest business, the humbler callings of faithful industry, and the retired scenes of home. These denunciations and
predictions were read as the sentence pronounced by Orthodoxy
upon views of which thousands had experimental evidence that
they were the truth of God to their souls. I do not understand
my critic as denying in so many words that such utterances
were made by Orthodoxy, or that the expectations based upon
them have been disappointed.  I will do my Orthodox brethren
the justice of believing that they are glad that Unitarianism has
not proved so awful a thing, or come to so dreadful a catastrophe,
as they once asserted and predicted. But having read these
410 
APPENDIX.
things in print, indorsed by well-known names, I cannot allow
any one to plead that no such opinions and prophecies were once
expressed, and that they have not been disappointed.
But the critic, correcting my account of the expectations of
the Orthodox, says, they did expect "a portion of the Unitarian
community would begin to see the truth, and to acknowledge
it," &c. The Unitarians cherished the samne expectations concerning the Orthodox, that they too would begin to see the truth.
What my critic so kindly regards as tokens of a more serious
and Evangelical spirit among a portion of the Unitarians, we are
apt gratefully to refer to a better knowledge of our views, and a
dropping away of the scales of prejudice among the Orthodox.
Our own brethren were always aware that their " use of language not very unlike that of their Orthodox brethren," when
dealing with " some of the great truths of the Bible," was regarded as a very remarkable phenomenon by their opponents.
Time was when Unitarians were considered trespassers and deceivers, if they ventured to use the dear and consecrated terms
and phrases of a traditional piety. The Orthodox imagined that
they had monopolized or appropriated even Scriptural epithets
and texts, by having assigned to them an interpretation which
might claim to be a part of their signification for ever after. It
was wicked for a Unitarian to employ the language in which
Orthodoxy spoke its own convictions. Still, the Unitarians would
not be warned off the sacred precincts. They considered that
Bible terms, and even the affectionately treasured phrases of
devotional literature, formed a part of the common stock of the
language. Orthodoxy now concedes that Liberal Christians feel
at liberty, in consistency with honesty, to use such terms and
phrases; and, instead of admitting its own error in its former
charges of hypocrisy, accounts for the fact by supposing something like a reaction among Unitarians. If a portion of the
Unitarian community has become more Evangelical, it is a cause
for gratitude. But the supposed result is not to be admitted,
even though alleged to the credit of living Unitarians, if it is to
be used for the purpose of reflecting a censure back upon some
of the earlier Unitarians. There were among them men and
women as devout, as Evangelical, as earnestly attached to a
Scriptural faith, as are any to be found among their successors.
411 
APPENDIX.
III.
UNITARIANISM AND TRANSCENDENTALISM.
ANOTHER of the expectations which my critic affirms was
entertained by the Orthodox was, that a portion of the Unitarians would lapse into the infidelity which I have already referred to as the predicted issue of their views for the mass of
those who should receive them.  The following paragraph is
therefore significant.
"There was still another result, not only expected, but expressly predicted. It was predicted by Professor Stuart, and
others, thirty years ago, that many Unitarians- the young, the
adventurous,  the men  of impulse and progress-  would not
long remain where they then were. They would drift farther
and farther away from the letter of Scripture and the restraints
of the Gospel, until they arrived at the very borders of open
infidelity.  And neither in this have we been disappointed.  We
have seen it all verified before our eyes; and Mr. Ellis has seen
the same. There are ministers around him, calling themselves
Unitarians, with whom he would not exchange pulpits more
than we should, - with whom, if I mistake not, the more serious
part of his brethren have no longer any Christian fellowship."
The implication conveyed in this paragraph is that the form
of scepticism known among us by the misused term Transcendentalism, was the natural outgrowth of Unitarianism. This
charge has often been boldly made, and more often insinuated.
It has no just foundation. Plain facts disprove it. The differ.
ences between Orthodoxy and Unitarianism arise from questions
of interpretation; questions about the meaning of sacred records
whose value and authority are admitted by both parties, and
which Unitarians have always shown themselves so zealous to
maintain, that they have produced works of acknowledged superiority in defence of revelation and the Scriptures.   Transcendentalism, so called, denies a revelation, pronounces its
miraculous sanctions to be philosophically impossible and absurd, and subverts the authority of Scripture. The relations
between the three parties - the Orthodox, the Unitarians, and
the Transcendentalists- on the subject.matter of revelation
may be illustrated by a reference to the relations of three other
412
I- ~~~~,"    Er        A        g       e -  ),..     ~ " 
APPENDIX.
parties among us concerning a political question. We have
two large parties divided by a very serious issue touching the
organic provisions of the Federal Constitution and the functions
of Congress on slavery, and all the debates and agitations connected with it. Does or does not the Constitution recognize and
legitimate slavery, and implicate all the States in its allowed
existence in some of them, and expose free territory to be overrun by it? Has or has not Congress power to discuss the subject, and legislate upon it? On this issue our two prominent
parties are divided. They make it a question of the interpretation of an instrument, through its own plain or obscure provisions and through the known views of its authors. Both parties
profess to accept and recognize and honor the Constitution.
They are willing to receive its fair and decisive meaning, when
intelligently expounded, as authoritative, as binding upon them
in all their political relations. They will not go behind the
Constitution, nor dispute it, nor resist it. In the mean while a
third party presents itself, which declares that the Constitution is
pro-slavery, that it implicates all our citizens in the iniquity of
slavery, and therefore that it must be denounced and subverted.
This third party, therefore, plants itself outside of the Constitution. The two former pawrties, so far as the parallel is designed
to illustrate one point of resemblance, may be regarded as representing the Orthodox and the Unitarians, as divided by questions about the interpretation of records and documents whose
peculiar authority, value, and sanctions they agree in venerating.
Their disputes centre upon and are to be decided by criticism
and exposition. The third party, just referred to, represents the
Transcendentalists, who insist that the Bible is committed to an
unphilosophical, incredible, and impossible theory of miracles,
and that they must, therefore, reject it and plant themselves outside of it. Now with what justice can the Orthodox confound
Transcendentalists with Unitarians, and condemn the latter for
complicity with the former in a theory of unbelief which comes
not from methods of criticism and exposition, but from philosophical speculation?
As a matter of fact, too, Transcendentalism, so called, and
even New England Transcendentalism, was not the outgrowth
85' 
APPENDIX.
of Unitarianism, but an imported product that had been developed from German Lutheranism. A few young New England
Unitarians have attracted attention to themselves in connection
with their adoption of that form of philosophical scepticism, because of their eminent talents as men of marked endowments.
But very many of the undistinguished Orthodox have adopted
the same views independently of Unitarianism. It would be an
ungracious office to attempt a statistical estimate of the proportionate addition to the ranks of infidelity which has accrued from
Unitarianism or Orthodoxy. For myself, I have no doubt on
that point.  "Secularism," i. e. Atheism, in England numbers
millions of adherents. Its leaders came from under the most
thorough Orthodox training. Those who compose its ranks
were never under the influence of Unitarianism. But Unitarianism is laboring earnestly, and with better promise of success
than any other sect has yet realized, to reclaim the Secularists.
Professor Stuart's prediction has not been verified among the
Unitarians to the extent of its verification among the Orthodox.
Justice Story and Dr. Channing both tell us, in their Memoirs,
that Unitarianism saved them from the infidelity to which Orthodoxy had exposed them as young men. What saved them
has saved thousands.
My critic receives with kindly reciprocation, and with some
remarks which I need not quote, other concessions of mine,
expressing regrets for the embitterment and arrogance exhibited
by some Unitarians in the controversy, and acknowledging some
proved deficiency in the working power of Unitarianism. I need
not meet his suggestion which refers this deficiency to a lack of
belief in some Gospel truths, for he has not observed my suggestion as to the more marked deficiency of Orthodoxy. I pass
to the closing paragraph of his first paper, which relates to
414 
APPENDIX.
IV.
THE LEGAL DECISIONS IN CASES OF CHURCH PROPERTY.
" BUT the most important concession which we find in these
articles, is that relating to the old decisions of the courts respecting church property. These decisions are still unrevoked, and
the younger portion of the community, Unitarian and Orthodox,
may not know precisely what they are. They grew out of the
separation between the Unitarians and Orthodox, from twenty-five
to thirty [forty] years ago. In the progress of this separation, it
sometimes happened that a church and a parish, which had long
co-operated in the support of public worship, could agree to do
so no longer. The parish would call a Unitarian minister, the
church  by a large majority would refuse to concur.   The
parish, unwilling to recede from its vote, would go on and
settle- the Unitarian minister; and  the church,  in  regular
church meeting, and by a strong major vote, would decide to
withdraw from  the parish.   They claimed  the right, as a
distinct and independent body, and a quasi corporate body, to
withdraw, and to carry their records and their property with
them; expecting, of course,,to leave all parish property behind.
But the parishes thus left were not content with holding their
own property; they claimed also the property of the church.
They sued for it, and in repeated instances recovered it. The
ground taken by the courts, in opposition to all reason and Scrip.
ture, to precedents and history, was, that a Congregational
church is a mere appendage of the parish; that it cannot exist
separate from the parish; that it may think to withdraw and
retain its property, but it cannot do it; that the few churchmembers which remain are legally the church; or if none remain, the parish may proceed and gather a church, which shall
succeed to all the rights of the property of the seceding body.
Such was the ground of these decisions, and on this ground
church after church was plundered of its property, even to its
communion furniture and records.  We called this proceeding
plunder thirty years ago. We call it by the same hard name
now. And we solemnly call upon those Unitarian churches,
which are still in possession of this plunder, to restore it.  They
cannot prosper with it. And we call upon the courts of Massa.
chusetts to revoke these unrighteous decisions, and put the Congregational churches of the State upon their original and proper
basis. And in this call, the editor of the Christian Examiner, if
415 
APPENDIX.
he is consistent, will not longer fail to unite. For he says:
' We do not feel perfectly satisfied with the legal decisions in
two cases, bearing upon the ownership of church property,
though we admit that the issue raised was quite a perplexing
one."' (p. 31.)
As my critic has gone so largely into this subject of the litigation concerning church p)roperty, and has made such strong
assertions in reference to the legal decisions which established
what he regards unjust claims, I must make a brief reference to
the subject. He has pressed my admissions beyond their reasonable and fair construction. That the issue raised was so
perplexing a one, as I have said, relieves the decisions of our
highest legal tribunals from the imputation of injustice, and yet
makes it not inconsistent for me to add, that I do not feel perfectly satisfied with them. I will state the strongest case possible to illustrate the legal operation of those decisions.  Suppose
that in one of our best established Unitarian societies, worshipping in a meeting-house built by the voluntary contributions of
its members, a portion of them, being a minority, should form
themselves into a church body, or fellowship of communicants,
under a strictly Unitarian covenant. Suppose that these communicants assess themselves for the purchase of a costly service
of communion plate, and that one or more of them bequeath
a fund equal to sustaining all the expenses of supporting religious institutions in the parish. Suppose further, that, on the
death or retirement of the Unitarian pastor, a majority of the
owners of pews in the meeting-house see fit to invite an Orthodox, Methodist, or Baptist minister to become the pastor, and
that the members of the church, without a single exception, protest against the measure, insist that the vacancy should be filled
by a Unitarian, and, failing to carry their point, retire unanimously, and establish worship and the ordinances in a new
meeting.house, hall, or dwelling, within a rod of their old temple.
Our Supreme Court has decided that, in retiring, they go as individuals, not as the church body, and must leave or surrender
up the recently purchased plate, and the recently founded bequest to the parish within which the communicants had been
gathered, to be used by a new fellowship, pledged, as the case
416
ir       1'*,,.,,;             A      t     *   a -*L 
APPENDIX.
may be, by an Orthodox, Methodist, or Baptist covenant. There
is no denying that the first aspect of such a decision is that of
gross injustice, high-handed oppression, aggravated by virtual
sacrilege. And what was the ground of the decision? Simply
this, as defined by Chief Justice Parker, in the Dedham case,
1820, that " a church cannot subsist without some religious
community to which it is attached." I have supposed a case
in which a Unitarian church fellowship would be deprived of its
ecclesiastical property this very year, by the precedent established by that decision. The illustration will help us to understand how odious and oppressive the decision seemed to some
of the Orthodox party when it took effect by favoring the Unitarians in the sharpest crisis of the controversy. Now let us
look at the matter under its original bearings.
When a party of men with their families proposed to plant a
new town, settlement, or precinct within the limits of this Commonwealth, they addressed a petition to the General Court for
a grant of land in the wilderness. Receiving their warrant, and
reaching their destination, they proceeded to allot the land, in
parcels of upland, meadow, and woodland, to the members of the
company, according to a fair rule of division. They set apart
the dreariest and bleakest spot, provided it was sandy for easy
digging, and worthless for culture, for a burial-ground.  Other
lots were staked off for the meeting-house, the school-house, the
pound, the parsonage, and the ministerial wood-lot. A tax was
then levied upon the inhabitants, according to their property, to
open roads, to build a meeting-house and a school-house; and a
tax was annually imposed to keep these works in repair, and to
support the minister and to pay the schoolmaster. So far, of
course, no distinction was made founded on church relations.
The roads, the meeting-house, the minister, and the school entered into the public burdens. in some cases a church body, the
members of which had already entered into a covenant, made the
new settlement in their religious capacity, and formed the nucleus
of a religious society, which, being joined by new-comers, and
by the uncovenanted members of the families of the communi.
cants, laid the foundation of religious institutions in the precinct.
The meeting-house, however, was built, and all the expenses
417
I' I-        I t -. ~,*S - L                  - I> I~ 
APPENDIX.
connected with religious institutions were defrayed, by the tax
on all the inhabitants, as before.  In other cases a church body
was gathered in and from the uncovenanted membership of a
parish or religious society. In all cases, whether the church
had been the nucleus of the society, or culled from out of it,
it became an imperium in imperio. It established its own
terms for the admission of new members. As the judgment,
charity, and zeal of those who from time to time were in communion dictated, these terms might be lax or rigid, might enter into minute specifications of doctrine conformed to the
Calvinistic formulas, or be cast into a more free and general
form; might take Calvinism for granted, by using phraseology
implying it, or insist upon it emphatically, or else might allow
virtually or expressly a greater or less liberty in the range of
belief. All the inhabitants were compelled to support and attend public worship, but the right or privilege of a participation
in the ordinances was exclusively within the refusal or the gift
of those who had already secured the prerogative to themselves.
The existing church for the time being, from year to year, and
from week to week, had an unrestrained liberty to modify the
terms of its covenant. The voice of the majority would ratify
any change in its doctrinal definitions, or in the stress of its
provisions for making members mutually subject to each other's
oversight. True, there'was a theory on this matter, reinforced
by a platform, and professedly based upon texts of Scripture,
which seemed to warrant an assumption of apostolic authority
for the New England model. But this did not hinder the prevalence of a great variety of usages as regards covenants, nor
impair the actual independency of the churches, nor restrain'
the freedom of opinion among individual members. If it was
thought desirable to alter the terms of any church covenant, to
resist an insidious heresy by a more stringent definition of Orthodoxy, or to license an advancing liberality by yielding what
Protestantism from the first pretended to claim, - the right of
private judgment, - the proposition was made; the vote was
taken, and the decision was in force.
The church body, thus established and perpetuated within a'
parish, received its appellative name from the parish, or the
418 
APPENDIX.
town, or the precinct, in which it was gathered.   Sometimes
lands and funded property were set apart, anld taxes were im.
posed, by vote of the freemen of a town, on the estates of all inhabitants for the support of "the church" in that town.  Individuals, sometimes members of the church, and sometimes not,
left bequests for religious uses, the destination of which was
variously defined as for "the town," "the parish," "the religious society," or "the Church of Christ," in this or that precinct. Parish property and church property, however distinguished in terms, was in early times designed and used for the
same purposes. A question warmly debated between the parties
to the controversy referred to in these pages was, whether or
not, by the laws of the Commonwealth, the church body, the
fellowship of commnunicants in a parish, composed a full corporation, with corporate powers independent, within its own range,
of the-parish. Our courts decided the question in the negative.
But the merits of the question were complicated by historical
and conventional references and usages. It was maintained by
one party that the church was of paramount importance, as it
called into existence the congregation or religious society, and set
up the crdinances for establishing a Gospel work in the precinct.
It was replied by the other party, that the church-members
had from the first usurped an undue power, which was oppressive, in sacred things, and had gone the lengths of utter tyranny
in secular matters by restricting the franchise to communicants.
A variety of customs and of statutes had regulated the relations and respective rights of parishes and the churches connected with them.  In the beginnings of things here, circumstances alone had disposed of these matters, and the usage had
been various. The first law passed on the subject gave the
choice of the minister to the communicants, but compelled the
parish to support him.  Then each party had a right to a separate vote, the church taking the precedence. Then it was provided, that, if the society in any case dissented from and withstood the choice of a minister made by the church, a council from
sister churches should be convened, and its decision should be
bindingon the society if in accordance with the choice of the
church, and upon the church if it favored the choice made by
0
419 
APPENDIX.
the society. Afterwards a concurrent vote, and then a joint
vote, seem to have gained prevalence, as a sort of compromise
between custom and law. The deacons of a church were, in
1754, constituted a quasi corporation, for the sake of holding
and administering funds for church uses.
As changes in religious sentiment, and the legitimate exercise
of Christian liberty, advanced with the growth and expansion of
our communities, it was easy to foresee that difficulties would
arise from the relations between parishes and the churches
formed in them, when a strife should be opened that was embit.
tered by sectarian passion, and vitiated by a prize in the shape
of property. Some of the churches and parishes in the Commonwealth had large funded possessions. The ministerial land
and wood-lot, the parsonage, the money at interest, the meeting.
house, and the communion plate, had rival claimants. Where
the society, the church-members, and the minister all yielded
to an extending liberalism in religion, no conflict would arise.
When church and society had a prevailing element of liberalism,
even if the minister, who had a life tenure of office, remained
Calvinistic and rigid, it was necessary only to wait the event of
his death to secure a new and liberal pastor, and to relax the
terms of the covenant. Where the minister held to an unabated
Calvinism, and his church sympathized with him, of course no
new members could pass the ordeal of the covenant without
acceding to the terms required of a member of the congregation
for securing the privilege of church communion.   Thus all the
parishioners who held liberal views were excluded from the
church. The large majority, the whole of the uncovenanted
members of the society, might become unorthodox; the church
might dwindle to a mere handful, and retain its rigid orthodoxy;
and under this state of things a vacancy might occur in the pulpit and pastorate. Of course, the parish, who were to attend on
the ministrations, and afford the entire support, by tax or from
income of funds, of a new minister, would by vote make choice
of one whose religious views accorded with their own. The
church might convene and choose a pastor, to whom the parish
would refuse a hearing, or might content itself with dissenting
from the parish choice. What was to be done? It was clear
420 
APPENDIX.
that the parish had a right to say who should and who should not
occupy its meeting-house, derive a support from a tax imposed
on its members and from funds in their keeping, and stand in
the relation of a religious teacher and friend to them and their
families. If the members of the church in the parish, being a
minority of the parish voters, withstood the choice of the society,
they had the same right to withdraw, and to organize another
society, as belonged to any minority of the parishioners, inde pendently of covenant relations.   But suppose the church so
withdrawing claimed a right to take with it, and appropriate for
its new institution, a ministerial fund which had been given in
terms designating "the Church of Christ" in this or that pre cinct or parish. It was comparatively easy to resist this claim,
on the ground that the design of the fund was to support the
ministry in that parish. But suppose the church, or the large'
majority of its members, grieved by " the decline of piety," and
irritated by an embittered religious quarrel, should turn their
backs upon the old meeting-house, and upon its new heretical
minister, and, assembling in private dwelling, hall, school-house,
or rival temple, should spread the sacramental table with the old
vessels consecrated by the faith and fellowship of the dead, or
purchased the year before by their own contributions, and should
open the record book of covenants and acts of church discipline;
have they not a right to this remnant of their traditional privileges, to these peculiar possessions of theirs, in which the parish
had no interest, and had never used or touched?  Our courts
answered this question in the negative. The new minister and
the old parish may proceed to organize a new church body, with
new deacons, who may institute a legal process against the deacons of the retiring church, to obtain possession of the communion vessels, the church fund, and the records.
I have stated a hypothetical case, with all the aggravations
which could possibly attach to it. I will now proceed, not for a
controversial, but for an historical purpose, to report the substance of the case which actually came before our courts, and
drew out the decision which established' the legal precedent.
Its date is at a Law Term of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, October, 1820. The issue concerned the right of
36
421 
APPENDIX.
property in certain ecclesiastical funds. For the sake of bringing
the case to a decision on the first principles which it involved,
the point was conceded, — though it might have been challenged
and disproved, - that a majority of members previously in communion with the church of the old or First Parish in Dedham
had withdrawn, and established worship and the ordinances in
another sanctuary. Did the church property vest in the receding body, or in that portion of the fellowship which remained in
connection with the old parish?
The church at Dedham had, with great unanimity, liberalized
the terms of its covenant previous to the close of the last century, under Mr. Haven's pastorate. The late Dr. Bates, his
successor, was regarded at his settlement as one of the liberal
or moderate men, and was chosen as such; the majority of those
who elected and were to support him being in sympathy with
what, in the then transition process of theological opinion, was
called moderate. In the course of his ministry he was supposed
to have grown more rigid in his views, and he ceased to exchange with brother ministers whom the society had been
accustomed to see in the pulpit. When he was dismissed to
assume the presidency of a college in Vermont, a strife grew
out of the seeds of division which existed in the parish. The
measures connected with the choice and ordination of a new
pastor set the parish and the church in opposition. The old
ecclesiastical usages which marked the action of our societies,
having been as variable and unsettled as I have already noted,
were found to have been peculiarly so in this parish. Usage
afforded no fair or final arbitrament in the emergency. The
funded property, which had accumulated from early times, with
many additions, was of considerable value. It had been given
by portions to the town, the parish, and the church, those three
terms being used, in fact, as synonymes to designate the common purposes to be served by these funds. They had been
managed at one time by the whole town, and afterwards by the
deacons, under the law of 1754, which made them trustees of
property designed for religious and charitable uses. When
there had been a vacancy in the same parish in 1685, the communicants and the non-communicants, voting together, had
( 
APPENDIX.
invited Mr. Bowles to become the pastor; a general meeting
having decided that "the church and town will act together as
one." In an election two years afterwards the parish took the
lead, and the church followed. In the case before us, the majority of the church opposed the vote of the parish for calling and
ordaining a liberal pastor. After much agitation, the will of the
parish having prevailed, the disaffected party withdrew from the
old meeting-house, and from the ministrations of the new pastor,
to set up worship in another place. A suit was instituted by
the newly-chosen deacons for the possession of the funds, to
which the retiring party laid claim, as lawfully in their adminis.
tration. It would seem as if a primary point for decision was,
whether the majority of the church-members had withdrawn.
But, by the advice of legal counsel, the parish, as has been
already said, conceded that a majority of the church constituted
the opposition to its proceedings. This concession was intended
to secure a decision on the first principles involved in the case,
and being yielded, it of course entered into the assumed facts,
constituting the law question to be pronounced upon by a full
bench, not by a jury. It is not admitted, however, that a majority of the church-members actually withdrew from connection
with the old parish. The Rev. Dr. Lamson, whose candor and
integrity will not be disputed by any one who knows him, and
whose knowledge of all the facts of the case, from his own
prominent place in them, his possession of the papers, and his
intimacy with the parties, makes him our best witness, is very
explicit on this point. It was at the opening of his ministry that
the litigation occurred. The lapse of nearly forty years finds
him still the much beloved and honored pastor of the same
parish. In a note to his Second Century Historical Discourses,
preached in 1838, he says: "The majority of the old members
did not, in fact, retire."  "This I believe, from a careful inspection of a very accurate list of the original members, to be a
fact."  "Of one thing there can be no dispute; that is, that
after the ordination there was a larger vote sanctioning the proceedings of the parish than was ever given against them. I
make this whole statement after a diligent examination of
authentic documents, and ample means of information, and I
believe that every part of it can be fully substantiated."
423
I!;     - I 
APPENDIX.
The court, however, adjudicated as if the point conceded, viz.
the withdrawal of a majority of the old church-members, were
really the fact.  Its decision was, that the "Church associated
and worshipping with the First Parish is the First Church," and
the custody and improvement of the funds were transferred accordingly.* A decision by first principles.
It is unnecessary to revive here the remembrance of the
bitter and unmeasured abuse visited upon our highest judicial
tribunal for this decision, which became a precedent for other
cases.   An  Ecclesiastical Council  in Groton, in 1827, formally challenged the decision. Nor is it my province to enter
into a legal argument in vindication, or in denunciation, of the
professional judgment of men whom with good reason this community regarded as most conscientious and wise. But as candor
has led me to connect with an admission of the perplexity of
two of our church cases, an allowance that I " do not feel perfectly satisfied with the legal decisions," and as my critic has
permitted himself to write about "the plundering" of churches,
I may add a few words of measured explanation.
When the issue arose which was sure to present itself here,
as it had presented itself in several of the European Continental
nations, and more particularly in Great Britain, in connection
with changes in the popular religious belief, it was necessary to
settle a principle of law touching funds vested for religious uses.
The form of the question in our Commonwealth was, whether
church funds belonged to a selected body of persons in a religious society covenanting in a separate fellowship of their own,
and belonged to them in such an absolute sense as would admit
of their being withdrawn by these covenanted members if they
should retire from the society; or whether such funds were to
be for ever available to a continuous fellowship, or even to new
and successive bodies of communicants perpetuated or arising
within the original society.   The legal decision ratified the
latter alternative. The following reasons suggest themselves in
support of the decision.
A  "church"  can subsist and perpetuate itself only by an
* The case is reported in Massachusetts Term Reports, Vol. XVI. pp.
488 - 522.
424 
APPENDIX.
organic connection with a "society." The society is the soil
for the roots of a Christian vine, supplying the new material to
repair waste by death. A church not connected with a society
would die out.
Again, it has been found difficult in some instances to settle
disputed cases involving the right of membership of religious
societies, when depending upon only such tangible conditions
as residence, taxation, the ownership of a pew, and occasional
presence in a place of worship. But it would be infinitely more
difficult to dispose of cases involving the right of church-membership, if large pecuniary interests were in question, and the law
were invoked to review matters of church discipline, creed, and
covenant.  "Church usages" have been so various in different
parishes, that there Is no common law for authoritative reference in half the cases that do or might arise. Some persons
may be members of a church, who are not members of the
parish in which it is gathered. Some persons disaffected or not
edified in the places of their residence, may go on the Lord's
day to participate in Christian ordinances wherever they please.
Do such persons become legal administrators of the old parish
church fund in the place where they may commune?   The
majority of the church-members, as found among the living
signers of the covenant, in one of our old parishes, might decide
in church meeting to-day to emigrate to Kansas.   Can they
take with them the funds given to the church of their present
parish? Some church-members after marriage, or in pursuit of
health or business, have removed from the State or the town in
which they had entered into covenant relations.  They know
not how long they may stay abroad, they may expect to return
sooner or later, and so they may not take up their church relations; or the church to which they belong may decline to release them, because unable to commend them to the fellowship
of any other church in their new residence. Shall these absentees and wanderers be hunted out for the sake of their votes,
by proxy or otherwise, when contested questions are closely
tried in their old fellowship, and shall they be allowed to present
themselves at any time and claim and exercise the privilege?
Shall the question as to the choice of a pastor from the Cam                    36*
425 
APPENDIX.
bridge or the Andover schools, over one of our old churches
and parishes, and the continuance of the funds in its possession,
be left possibly contingent upon the answer to a telegraphic
message sent to three men or women living in Ohio, whose
names are on the church-books?
Again, some church-members have been factiously excommunicated to deprive them of their votes.  In other cases, as
many members of a society not in communion as have already
joined the church, and perhaps a far larger number, may strongly
desire the privilege of communion, and in the judgment of
charity may be as worthy of it as are any who share it, but
may be kept out by arbitrary terms or hostile voters. Many
devout and faithful people have been thus notoriously deprived
of their Christian rights, because they exercised the same soulfreedom under the profession of which our churches were
planted.
Once more. How could a church be identified, except by its
connection with a local parish or society? Supposing even the
possibility, it has never yet been verified, but always disproved,
that a succession of men and women could be found in a
town for several centuries who could honestly profess to hold
precisely the same religious and doctrinal views held by the
founders of their church. It is well known, that those founders
laid equal stress upon the measures of an unrelaxed discipline,
as upon the integrity of an undiminished creed. It may be
fairly affirmed, that, if the original members of our churches
could return to their places in the holy assemblies of those who
claim to be their successors in doctrinal purity, they would be
greatly scandalized at the utter disuse or the mere shadowy
remnant of the old, stern discipline, which exacted confessions
and administered penalties before the whole congregation.   Ecclesiastical sentences were as rigorous as the civil sentences
in the early days of this colony, and more galling and humbling. The old church record-books contain something beside
the covenant, and the list of those who owned it. Would even
our most Orthodox brethren consent to be held to a strict process for the identification of one of their churches with a church
of the fathers? Surely, the money is not the only considera.
tion.
426 
APPENDIX.
Our courts recognized as fundamental law, that a church was
a voluntary association of some or all of the members within a
religious society; and as so far identified with that society, protected and sustained by the corporate rights of that society, that it
extinguished itself by withdrawal, and could exist and be perpetuated only by retaining an organic connection with it. Had our
courts fallen short of that decision, or adopted any other, they
would have involved themselves in all the perplexities of the
Canon Law. They would have been forced to assume the functions of ecclesiastical tribunals, to adjudicate on questions of
simony, bigotry, heresy, and excommunication. Then, too,
acres of territory, and heaps of funded wealth, the lawful inheritance of new generations unfettered by conditions of creed,
would have been pledged to obsolete terms and disbelieved doctrines.  The  Legislature of Massachusetts was saved by her
judiciary from the necessity of following the lead of the British
Parliament in transferring all the ecclesiastical property of the
realm from the use of" Orthodoxy" to the service of" heresy."
Still the case was "perplexing."  Still one may "not feel
perfectly satisfied," that in every instance the conditions of
Christian equity were realized. But do not let us say that the
honored and revered men who have adorned the high places of
justice in Massachusetts were ever concerned in "plundering
churches."
ON reviewing what I had written upon the subject of the
Church cases, it occurred to me that, in my desire to treat the
matter under its general bearings, I might not have done justice
to the strength of the legal reasons on which the decisions were
based.  I therefore submitted the proof-sheet of this portion of
my Appendix to a professional friend, with the request that, taking note of what my critic had written in such strong terms upon
this subject, he would supply any deficiency of mine in the
proper treatment of its legal relations. I have received from
him the following remarks:  "It is true, as you have stated, that in the earlier years of our
colonial history the power of choosing the minister, or teaching
427 
APPENDIX.
elder, in a parish or religious society, was vested in the church;
but so was the election to civil offices. Church-members alone
had a right of suffrage in civil affairs. Afterwards the church
and the society had a concurrent vote, and the law on the subject was varied from time to time.
"But to avoid any collision or conflict of authority on this subject, it was expressly provided by the Constitution of 1780,-  the
fundamental law, not to be changed by the Legislature,-  that
the parish, or religious society, or town, or district, where the
same corporation exercised the functions of a town and religious
society, should have the exclusive right and power of electing
the minister and contracting with him for his support. The language of the Constitution upon this subject is explicit as follows:
'Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all
times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers,
and contracting with them for their support and maintenance.'
And when the Third Article of the Declaration of Rights, containing this provision, was abrogated by amendment in 1833, this
provision securing to religious societies the right of election was
reinstated, and is now a part of the Constitution of the Commonwealth; except that, instead of the term' public teachers' in the
first instrument, the more specific designation of'pastors and religious teachers' is substituted. This was accompanied with another fundamental principle, that all religious sects and denominations shall be equally under the protection of the law, and no
subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall
be established by law.   These provisions constitute the legal
foundations of the religious institutions of the Commonwealth.
"The religious society may be a territorial or a poll parish,
or organized as a religious society under the statute, and may
be of any denomination. Such a religious society is a corporation and body politic, capable of taking and holding property in
its own right, for the purposes for which it is organized, which
are, the support and maintenance of public worship and religious
instruction, providing for all the expenses incident to these duties, as building a meeting-house, settling a minister, providing
for his support, and the like. The Church is a body of individ
i        i!;       A;    Fair',.I                ---
428 
APPENDIX.
uals formed within a religious society by covenant, for the celebration of Christian ordinances, for mutual edification and discipline, and for making charitable provision for its own members,
and for all expenses incident to these specific objects. The
church may be composed of all or of a part of the members
of a religious society. It may be composed of males and fe.
males, adults and minors; though by long-established usage
adult male members alone vote in church affairs.
"Now it is manifest that, under the foregoing provision of the
Constitution, the legal voters of the parish alone have by law the
power to vote in the settlement of a minister, and the church as
an organized body can have no negative. But each male member of the church is usually, if not necessarily, a member of the
religious society, and as such has his equal voice with all other
members of the society. But in fact and in practice, churchmembers, being among the most respected members of the society, will ordinarily have an influence, by their counsel and their
character, much greater than the proportion which they numerically bear to the whole number of votes. And from the respect
due to such a body, as a matter of courtesy, they are usually
consulted, and in many instances are requested to take the lead
in giving a call to a mipister; and, if the parish concur, in making the ecclesiastical arrangements for his ordination, the invitation of a council, and the usual solemnities attending such settlement. This customary deference to the church is all just and
proper, and a course which every lover of Christian harmony
and order would approve. But if such harmony cannot be maintained, and the parties come to a controversy requiring an appeal to the law, the law must decide these questions of right
according to the express provision of the Constitution, and the
laws of the land, without regard to sect or denomination.
"Another fundamental principle lying at the foundation of
these legal decisions is this: that the church of any religious
society, recognized by usage, and to some extent by law, as an
aggregate body associated for highly useful and praiseworthy
purposes, whose usages and customs are to be respected and
encouraged, is not a corporation or body politic capable of taking and holding property. No doubt, in the very earliest times
~ 429 
APPENDIX.
there was some confusion in the minds of our ancestors upon
this subject; but ever since 1754, now more than a century, the
distinction between church and society has been well known and
universally observed. The very purpose of the statute of 1754
was to vest deacons of Congregational churches, and the wardens and vestry of Episcopal churches, with corporate powers
to take property for the church, for the very reason that the
church, as an aggregate body of individuals, not a corporation,
could not by law take property, or hold and transmit it in suc.
cession. Since that time, church property and parish property
have been regarded as wholly distinct. Church property holden
by deacons could not be appropriated by the parish as of right,
nor could parish property be used or appropriated by the church.
In the Dedharn case there might be some doubt raised in the
mind of one not attending carefully to this legal distinction. The
property originated in grants made to the church in form at the
very early date of 1660, when, as I have said, there was some
confusion of terms; for though it was given to the First Church,
it was for the support of "a teaching elder," i. e. a minister,
which is peculiarly a parish purpose. The court decided in that
particular case, that, by the particular grant, the legal estate,
being given to " the church," by force of the statute of 1754
vested in the deacons as church property in trust for the support
of a minister, and so was, in effect, in trust for the parish. But
the court decided in that same case, that, but for the trusts declared in those grants, the parish, as such, would have no claim,
legal or equitable, to the property granted, or the proceeds of the
sale of it.
" The effect of that decision was, that the legal estate vested
in the deacons as church property, and that the First Parish, as
a corporation, had no title to it. And this is manifest from the
consideration, that the deacons of the church maintained the action as the recognized legal owners.
"As to which of the two parties in that suit were rightfully
the deacons of the church of the First Parish, that was a distinct
question. And upon considerations, and as matter of law, the
court decided, that although a majority of the members of the
First Church seceded and withdrew from the society after they
430 
APPENDIX.
had given a call to a minister, in which the church as a body
did not concur; yet those of the church who remained and adhered to the First Parish constituted the church of the First Parish, with the incidental right of removing and choosing deacons,
and the deacons whom they had chosen, in place of those whom
they had removed, were the deacons of the church of the First
Parish.
"The principle, then, appears to be this: that a church is
an associated body, gathered in a religious society, for mutual
edification and discipline, and the celebration of the Christian
ordinances.  It is ascertained and identified as the church of
the parish or religious society in which it is formed.   The
church of the First Parish of D., for example, is ascertained
and identified by its existence in, and connection with, that parish. If a majority of the members withdraw, they have a full
right to do so, but they thereby cease to be the church of that
parish. They withdraw as individuals, and not as an organized
body. They may form a religious society by applying to a justice of the peace, under the statute, to call a meeting, and a
church may be gathered in such society. But it would be a new
society, and the church gathered in it would not be the church of
the First Parish of D.  They might associate others with themselves and settle a minister, but this would not make such society
the church of the First Parish. It follows as a necessary legal
consequence, that all church property, even a service of plate
for the communion, given to the church of the First Parish of
D., must be and remain for the church gathered in that parish,
and those who may succeed them in that parish, and it cannot
go to the use of any other church, or the church of any other
society. However desirable it may be by all right-thinking persons, that all such controversies should be avoided, by an amicable adjustment of all such claims upon the principles of the
most liberal equity and charity, and with a just regard to the
feelings as well as the rights of all, yet, if parties will appeal to
the law to decide a question respecting the right of property,
even to a service of church plate, the law must decide it upon
the same legal principles which govern the acquisition and transmission of property in all other cases.
431 
APPENDIX.
"There is'no case in which it has been decided, in this Commonwealth, that any parish or religious society, acting as a corporation charged with the special duty of supporting and maintaining public worship, have a right to recover property of a
seceding church, or of any church of such parish. But the controversy has always been between those members of the church
of a designated parish who remain with that parish, and those
who secede, retire, or withdraw therefrom, as to which is the
real church of said parish. It has been a question of identity,
and the decision has gone upon the principle, that, whatever other
rights or claims the retiring or seceding members, even though
a majority, may have, they could not be considered in law, after
such secession, as the church of that parish."
V.
UNITARIANS IMPEACHED FOR CONCEALMENT.
MY critic devotes the substance of his second paper to the reiteration of the specific evidence on which the Orthodox party
charged some of their former brethren with a concealment of
their newly adopted Unitarian opinions. If the reader will turn
back to page 17, he will note my very emphatic statement, that
any one who should attempt to vindicate our first Unitarians
from the charge of concealment, "would undertake a needless
and futile task."  I admitted, also, that there was "a show of
evidence to support the charge, though not of a sort to fix the
slightest stain upon the characters of those who were the sub.
jects of it." The simple facts of the case I considered to be a
complete relief from all that was censurable in such concealment, and I remarked, that those who would not admit in their
favor the force of these facts were not within the reach of any
plea that could be offered.  I then added this sentence: "Not
for their vindication, then, but merely as a matter of explanatory history, will we briefly advert to these facts."
432 
APPENDIX.
It was with some surprise, therefore, that I read the first sentence of the comments of my critic, as follows: " A  considerable part of Mr. Ellis's first article is taken up in the attempt to
vindicate the early Unitarians of Massachusetts from the charge
of improperly concealing their peculiar sentiments."  But not
to lay stress upon this inaccuracy in my critic, which, in the oldfashioned style of controversy, would have provoked a sharp
reply, the facts of the case still stand unquestioned, and I do
not find a single 1-ine in the comments before me that recognizes or meets them.  The critic quotes from a series of Unitarian witnesses the evidences, as he thinks, of their own complicity in the wrong of keeping back a full and frank avowal of
their Unitarianism. I admit freely the facts of the case, so far
as they are facts, and attach to them the motives by which, as
I suppose, they are reconciled with the full integrity and the
measure of wisdom possessed by good and intelligent men.
The reader will observe the stress that is necessarily laid upon
the word Unitarianism, in order to the maintenance of the side
taken by my critic. The word, after all, -the word with its
prejudiced and perverted associations, and the bugbear frights
once connected with it, - explains what is most dark about the
matter. Had some ministers and laymen, now known to have
been what are now called Unitarians, stood up fifty years ago,
and announced themselves by that name, they would have misled their friends to a far greater extent than that to which they
deceived their opponents by disavowing the name. We have
had hundreds of the warmest and most determined opponents of
slavery among us who would in any company disavow the
charge of being "Abolitionists."  And why?  Because the conventional use and the associations of the terms attach to it the
idea of ultraism, of extreme opinions and measures with which
they do not sympathize, and the odium of which they are unwilling to bear. Will it be fair, a halfecentury hence, to charge
upon such persons the dishonest concealment of abolition opin.
ions'? The case of the first Unitarians was nearly a parallel one.
A few sentences found in the early controversial writings of Dr.
Channing will always be sufficient for a lucid exhibition of the
whole truth in the case to a candid reader.  When the word
37
433
0,-. 
APPENDIX.
Unitarian first came into use here, its signification was quite unlike that which it bears now. It was burdened with the reproaches of ultraism, extravagance, eccentricity, looseness, and
recklessness in speculation, and, moreover, it actually defined a
form of belief about Christ and his Gospel which, from that day
to this, has never had the convictions or the sympathy of the
majority in our fellowship.  When the epithet was associated
with Priestley's materialism and reputed Jacobinism, and with
the Rev. S. T. Coleridge's two sermons, "with blue coat and
white waistcoat," in the Unitarian chapel at Bath, on "The
Corn Laws," and "The Hair-Powder Tax," some of the good
people of Massachusetts who well knew they were neither Calvinists nor Trinitarians might well object to recognizing themselves as Unitarians, and still. more to proclaiming themselves
such.  Very many even now who accept, without assuming,
the epithet, are willing to do so only because it has been discharged, in the place of their residence at least, of these associations.  Perhaps, too, some of these persons, if removing to
other places, where Orthodoxy has given a false and slanderous
report of Unitarianism, would feel justified in the court of conscience in repudiating the name. And here doubtless we have
a hint of one of the most effective reasons which influenced
some in disavowing or temporizing with an epithet which they
were solicited by their jealous opponents to accept.  Orthodoxy
had wrought out a very awful delineation of Unitarianism.
There was nothing too bad for spite or bigotry to say of it.  It
was worldly, licentious, devilish. It did all sorts of wicked
things. It made light of sin. It offered an opiate to accusing
consciences. It mocked at the Bible. It ridiculed a change of
heart.  It argued down a future retribution.  It favored "promiscuous dancing," and it "denied the Lord that bought us."
It can easily be conceived that Christian men and women, who
believed themselves to be as sincere, as earnest, as wise, and
as pious as their neighbors who so maligned them, might object
to falling into ranks which had been thus described.  Some real
Unitarians may have thought that a prudent and gradual development of changed views which they themselves were thinking
and studying out, in loyalty to the truth, might be wisely pro
434 
APPENDIX.
tected from an ill name, till the excellence of the views would
prove of avail to redeem a good name from unjust reproach.
When the people knew what Unitarianism really and essentially
signified, and its disciples knew their views under that name,
there was no concealment.
It is evident, however, that under this charge of concealment
some  Orthodox controversialists  mean  to convey  something
more than the word signifies in any use of it consistent with
honesty. It is in fact used by such as synonymous with deception. In this form the charge refutes itself. The charge, too,
in any form, is carried too far to be sustained, because it is not
self-consistent. " Unitarians concealed their peculiar sentiments." Does this mean all their peculiar sentiments? Of
course not; for then they would have never have been known,
or even brought under suspicion. They must have divulged
freely and effectively some of their peculiar sentiments, in order
to have drawn attention to themselves as suspicious persons.
They probably announced most plainly those of their sentiments which they regarded as most peculiar, because most significant of their dissent from popular views, and the most antagonistic to the traditions of Orthodoxy. These were not the jot
and tittle matters of verbal criticism or doctrinal logomachy,
but the weighty principles of a rational and intelligent faith.
There are some peculiar sentiments advanced in the writings of
noble Jonathan Mayhew. Yet there is not in them a single line
or sentence of dogmatic Unitarianism. Did he practise concealment?
There is a paragraph of my critic's paper on this subject
which demands a particular notice.
"We  find another admnission in these pages, which contains
more of truth, possibly, than the author was aware of when he
wrote it.' It is a fact,' he says,' familiar to all Christian scholars, that Unitarianism has lainii latent in all ages of the Church.
There have always been intimations of its presence, and of its
secret workings. It has cropped out here and there always.'
(p. 30.)  The testimony here given is true so far as this: Unitarianism in the Church has always been latent, before it has
been patent. It has worked in secret, before it has ventured to
appear openly. Thus Irenaus describes the Unitarians of his
435
, piplr 
APPENDIX.
day, as'using alluring discourses in public, because of the
common Christians'; as'pretending to preach like the Orthodox'; and as'complaining that, though their doctrine be the
same as ours, we abstain from their communion, and call them
heretics.' But he adds:' When they have seduced any from
the faith, and made them willing to comply with them, then they
begin to open their mysteries.'"
Availing himself of a double meaning in the word latent, my
critic- shall I say unfairly, or sarcastically? - suggests that I
have admitted more of truth than I was perhaps aware of. If
he had allowed me to use the word latent as I did use it, his
own remark would have lost its point, and he would have saved
his space for an answer to my assertion. Could he, however,
deny, that in every age of the Christian Church, and in every
place, when and where Orthodox views may have been popularly
or prevailingly received, some of the most intelligent and sincere and devout persons have always held Unitarian views, or
been the subjects of Unitarian tendencies? If my critic be indeed a Professor in a New England Theological School, his
reading, if not his charity, would prevent his venturing on such
a denial. For he would only subject himself by the denial to
account for the fact, that Unitarianism had always manifested
itself under favorable circumstances among the born and educated and honored disciples of Orthodoxy.   What is so ready
to appear must have had a previous latent existence. Nor does
it consist with what we know by many interesting disclosures of
the slow and hesitating processes of honest minds in working
their way from error to truth, to describe the slowness and secrecy of the method as a sneaking or artful fear or policy.
I am amazed, however, to find a New England Theological
Professor committing himself to such a scholarly injustice, to
say no worse of it, than appears in the quotation at the close of
the paragraph above.  I excuse what is excusable in the wrong,
by referring it to a cause which has often violated truth and
complicated controversy,- the taking quotations at second hand.
My critic credits his pretended extract from Irenaeus to Dr. Mil.
ler's Letters on Unitarianism. If my critic had taken pains to
verify the quotation, he would have crossed out his own'indorsement. What dreadful creatures these Unitarians of the time
436 
APPENDIX.
of Irenmus must have been, of whom such hard words could be
used!  "Using alluring discourses," "pretending to preach like
the Orthodox," " seducing" some from the faith, and then opening "their mysteries"! One would suppose the description answered to a sort of Mormons. And in fact it does apply to persons with whom Unitarians are no more concerned than they
are with Mormons. Nor does Irenmus speak of Unitarians as
such, nor on a matter involving the views of Unitarians. Neither
does he use half of the hard words which Dr. Miller ascribes to
him. Dr. Miller's professed quotation from Irenmus is one of
those gross outrages for so many of which polemics have been
made odious. Any one who will turn to the fifteenth chapter
of the third book of Irenmus " Contra HIereses," may see what
this pretended account of certain " Unitarians of his day" really
is. He is dealing with a mixed mess of Ebionites, Gnostics,
and Valentinians. These, he says, having publicly won disciples, "his separatim inenarrabile Plenitudinis suta  enarrant
mysterium." Some very excellent Unitarianism might be quoted
from Irenmus himself.
The historical list of the concealments charged upon these always latent Unitarians closes thus:  "For some reason, this policy of concealment seems to have
been common among Unitarians in all ages. They have worked
in secret (no doubt with the best intentions) before they have
ventured to appear in public. And not only so, the doctrine
has perhaps always been most successfully propagated in secret.
It has made the most progress, not when standing openly upon
its own foundations, but when silently mingling with other sects,
and secretly diffusing itself among them. So it has been in
other times and countries.  So, in the judgment of Mr. Ellis,
and in this judgment we entirely coincide,- it has been here.
' We seemed to begin to decline the moment we began to try to
strengthen ourselves. The Unitarian sect has hindered the
progress of Unitarianism.'- p. 45."
It is even so. Popular Orthodoxy has always been very effective in repressing the utterance of Unitarian convictions,
where they have been entertained by comparatively few persons, and the odium of heresy is heavy and stringent. The rule
applies equally to the repression of Protestant opinions in Roman Catholic countries. Through force of this rule, thousands
37*
I-i AK 
APPENDIX.
of Unitarians in Orthodox communities and societies think their
own thoughts, say their own prayers, meditate religious truths
by themselves, and hold their tongues, as do thousands of Protestants in Roman Catholic countries.
VI.
GENEALOGY AND INFLUENCE OF UNITARIANISM IN
MASSACHUSETTS.
THE third of the series of critical papers on which I am commenting challenges some of the views I have incidentally
expressed about the successive modifications of religious opinion, which finally resulted in Unitarianism in this region, and
about the reflex influence of Unitarianism upon the Orthodoxy
which has been in antagonism with it. The writer objects to a
statement of mine on page 19, part of which only he quotes,
that, "for a whole century before the full development of Unitarianism, there had been a large modification, a softening and
toning down of the old theology, an undefined but recognized
tempering of the creed:" The remainder of my sentence is,
"a relaxing of the strain upon faith, and a compliant acquiescence in that state of things."  To this it is replied:  " We think'a whole century' throws the date of these modifications too far back. It was, however, more than half a century.  And whether the modifications spoken of were' a toning
down,' or a toning up, of the old theology, we will not now say.
Most people would think they were  the latter.   They  commenced with President Edwards, and were followed up by his
pupils and admirers, Bellamy, Hopkins, the younger Edwards,
West of Stockbridge, Emmons, &c. In distinction from the
old theology, they were sometimes called'the New Divinity,'
and sometimes' Hopkinsianism.% As they changed none of the
facts or substantial doctrines of the old theology, but merely
modified some of them, i. e. stated and explained them in a
somewhat different way, they are properly called modifications.
And as the authors of them renounced not one of the five points
of Calvinism, they considered themselves consistent Calvinists;
438 
APPENDIX.
though they did not adopt all the explanations of Calvin, or of
the earlier settlers of New England.
"While these changes were going on in one direction, a portion of the clergy, the most remote from the Edwardeans, were
sliding off into what was called' Moderate Calvinism,' or' Arminianism.' Still, there was no marked division or classification
among our ministers, until near the close of the Revolutionary
war. At that time, there came to be a threefold division among
them, pretty clearly marked, which continued for the next thirty
years, viz. the Calvinists, the Hopkinsians, and the Arminians.
" Among the two first of these classes there never was any
concealment of their peculiar opinions. The Calvinists, being
strictly what the first settlers were, had nothing to conceal, and
no motive for concealment. The Hopkinsians, so far from concealing their peculiarities, were rather disposed to make them
prominent. They believed them to be improvements upon the
old Calvinism of the country,-  a carrying of it out in greater
consistency, - and they were inclined to make the most of them.
The concealment at this period was confined to the so.called
Arminians. This was the body which came out at length Unitarians; and without doubt, many of them were concealed Unitarians long before they ventured to declare themselves. It was
among these that the concealment spoken of in my last number wholly existed. Nominally Arminians, - a name which, as
Mr. Ellis says, has been made to signify almost anything, -
they were really, and must have known'themselves to be,
Arians, Unitarians, disbelievers in the proper divinity of Christ."
I cannot admit that a whole century does throw the date of
these modifications too far back. The most cogent evidence
that could be brought to bear upon the case has passed carefully
under my notice, in reading the writings of some prominent
ministers and laymen of a century and a half ago, and in comparing them with those of the first generation on these shores.
If the occasion calls for it, I will undertake to gather from writings of the date defined religious phraseology and expressions
of religious opinions which stanch and unswerving Calvinists
never would have put forth. Though it is only about a hundred
years since Mr. Rogers of Leominster was dealt with as a Uni.
tarian heretic, we may well understand that there must have
been considerable of a compliant acquiescence in a previous
gradual modification of doctrinal opinion to have enabled him to
continue in the ministry. The dread of stirring up a strife
439
,,  6,.    uI,,:j,d' 
APPENDIX.
kept back in many cases the avowal of much of the mental
dissent from the doctrines of the Catechism; but some were too
frank and bold to hide all the proofs of their deliverance from
Genevan bonds.
Whether, as my critic pleasantly suggests, the phrase "toning
up," or "toning down," is the more applicable to the modifications now in view, depends upon the sort of modifications to
which he has reference. I was writing of one class of such
modifications; he of another class. I- do not trace the genealogy of Unitarianism through the opinions of Edwards, Bellamy, and Hopkins.  Unitarians attach very little importance to
what is peculiar in the New School of a century'or less ago.
We take the happy statement of my critic as expressing about
the fair truth touching these divines, that "they changed none
of the facts or substantial doctrines of the old theology, but
merely modified some of them."  " They did not adopt all the
explanations of Calvin." No. They had grace given to them
to realize that Calvinism needed some tinkering. Their successors of the New School have not accepted all their explanations of the explanations of Calvinism. I have therefore referred all along to the speculations and modifications introduced
by these New School divines, as tokens only of a restlessness
under the obvious meaning of formulas which they professed to
receive. A man who apologizes for Calvinism, or trims or reduces its sharp definitions, or tries to make it less revolting to a
pious and loving heart, is to us a witness against it. We date
the first beginnings of Liberal Christianity here from the time
when professedly Orthodox ministers began in their shame-facedness to apologize for Calvinism. They felt that it needed an
apology, and this was their first disloyalty to it. The true old
Puritan divines would have been roasted before making that confession.
Unitarianism draws its direct lineage, as my critic affirms,
and as I had expressly said, through Arminianisrrim; though probably there were hundreds of Unitarians who could not have
defined Arminianism, any more than they could have talked
Chinese. Now there is not the least need of all this painstaking exactness in drawing the genealogy of heresy. My sole
440 
APPENDIX.
point in the part of my statement quoted was, and is, merely
to remniind my readers that the responsibility of a change of
sentiment from old-fashioned, real Calvinism to Unitarianism,
does not rest upon the Christian men and women of any one
generation. The influences which are still modifying the opinions of those reputed Orthodox, and which have made thousands
of them un-Calvinistic, began to manifest themselves here more
than a century and a half ago.
There were, however, single cases, many of them of men
and women of independent and earnest minds, who made the
whole transition from Calvinism to Unitarianism. We find
many such around us now. Every Unitarian minister knows of
persons in his own congregation and church who are able to
relate with a fervent gratitude the history of their deep religious
experience in passing from the creed of the Genevan bigot to
the glorious Gospel faith of Christ.
It is to the aforesaid Arminians that my critic says the guilt
of concealing their change of opinions is to be imputed.  "Many
of them were concealed Unitarians long before they ventured to
declare themselves." From the turns of expression, the epithets
and phrases used in describing these persons, one might suppose
that my critic regarded them as a crew of dark, malignant, and
cunning conspirators against God and truth, instead of a company of his own brother Christians, erring, imperfect, and frail
like himself, but still realizing, perhaps as profoundly as he does,
their responsibility to God and Christ, and seeking to know, believe, and obey the truth in the deepest sincerity of their souls.
I know that my critic would not use these abusive terms of language of a living friend. Why, then, should he use them of
the dead?
There are two or three points which require brief remark in
the three following paragraphs:
"As the real character of these men became more apparent,
and the issue to which things were coming could no longer be
concealed, a disposition was manifested by the Hopkinsians- and
Calvinists to drop their divisions and come together; and, without any of the formalities of a compromise or union, a real arid
general union was effected, embracing the great body (though
not all) of the two classes above indicated. Among the visible
441
-                -      --  -             i - - i. 
APPENDIX.
results of this union was the founding of the Andover Theological Seminary by Hopkinsians and Calvinists, and the uniting
of the Calvinistic Panoplist with the old Massachusetts Missionary Magazine. And here we have the origin of what has since
been called' The New England Theology,' or at least of this
name for it,- a modification of old Calvinism, and yet not high
Hopkinsianism, as this has been held by some of its more recent advocates.
"I make this statement for a twofold purpose; first, to show
where the concealment of Unitarianism began;  not, as Mr.
Ellis thinks, in a'section of the Orthodox party,' but among a
class of men who chose to be called Arminians, while they
really were (or many of them were) concealed Unitarians, and
came out as Unitarians when the mask was torn off. And,
secondly, to show the inaccuracy of another statement in the
articles before us, that' it was Calvinism, - the real concrete
system of the Genevan Reformer, - and not the vague and undefined abstraction entitled Orthodoxy, which our predecessors
assailed.'- p. 4.
"Who does Mr. Ellis mean by'our predecessors'?  Does
he mean Dr. Channing, and Dr. Ware, and Professor Norton,
and the early editors of the Christian Examiner? But Dr.
Worcester, the opponent of Channing, was ever known as a
New England theologian, and not an Old School Calvinist. And
Dr. Woods, at the time of his appointment at Andover, was regarded as the special representative of the Hopkinsian interest
in that union Theological Seminary, as Dr. Pearson was of the
Calvinistic interest. And certainly Professor Stuart and Dr.
Beecher, the early assailants of Unitarianism, were never regarded as Calvinists of' the concrete Genevan stamp.' In short,
as I have said before, the Unitarian controversy, divested of all
disguises, did not commence till the spring of 1815; and those
who then, and more recently, stood forth as the champions of
Orthodoxy, were not Old School Calvinists, but those who had
imbibed the Edwardean or New England modifications."
As to the truce between Hopkinsianism and Calvinism, which
was brought about by the opening of the real Unitarian controversy, it was a matter of policy. All politic schemes are sooner
or later followed by a catastrophe. Nor will Andover fail in
some way to illustrate old experience on that fact with a new
token.
I still insist that a section of the Orthodox party, not, however, of the Calvinistic portion of it, brought in the heresy which
developed into Unitarianism. To say that the direct transition
442 
APPENDIX.
was made by Arminians, is no sufficient answer to my statement,
any more than it would be to object to the statement, that men
are grown-up children, by the critical suggestion, that it is not
children, but boys, that make men. But there were downright
Calvinists who became Unitarians, without stopping for a week
in the stage of Arminianism, or knowing that there was such a
system of modified Orthodoxy.
My critic fails entirely to make me see the alleged inaccuracy
of my statement, that it was the real, concrete system of Calvinism which our predecessors assailed.  Those predecessors
are rightly apprehended and named by him. And what was the
whole strain and burden of their professed intentions? What
did they say over and over again, With wearying reiteration, that
they were assailing?  It was simply Calvinism.  It was not the
New Divinity.  It was not the system which might be lying in
the brains or the heart of Drs. Woods, Beecher, and Worcester,
or Professor Stuart. Indeed, one of the bitterest aggravations
of the controversy was found by Unitarians in the perpetual
misrepresentation made of their most positive and earnest profession, that they were arguing against and rejecting Calvinism.
They took the Calvinistic formulas and standards. These they
quoted honestly. They defined what they regarded as the fair
meaning of these formulas, the meaning conveyed through them
to their own minds, the meaning which was to them so obviously unscriptural and untrue as to make them earnest opponents of Calvinism. They drew fair inferences from the doctrines of these formulas.   They introduced and closed their
discussions with repeated and tiresome references to standards.
They found the Orthodox with whom they were in controversy
claiming the reverent, filial praise of allegiance to the faith of
the fathers of New England,- the doctrines of the Reformation,
- the doctrines of the Westminster Catechism, and of the New
England Confession of Faith.  What did it all mean?  Did it
mean that all these standards should be taken under the reduced
or subdued interpretation which they might have in the minds
of some gentlemen of Andover, who had not then, and, we may
add, who have not yet, ventured to put into print citable evidence of the precise degree to which they have impaired the
443 
APPENDIX.
integrity of Calvinism? Our predecessors undertook to give
reasons for rejecting Calvinism. They were competent to say
what Calvinism taught. They quoted these teachings. And
what was the consequence? They were accused of slandering
living men, -of caricaturing the faith of living men;  they
were even accused of misrepresenting Calvinism, till Professor
Norton, by his elaborate quotations, made Calvinism recognize
its own features. I have not said anywhere, as my critic implies
that I have, that those who "stood forth as the champions of
Orthodoxy were Old School Calvinists." Some of them were,
and some of them were not. If the Orthodox did not defend
Calvinism, then they did not defend what Unitarian's were as.
sailing. Unitarians understood their opponents as claiming the
credit of being lineal and loyal descendants in the faith of the
New England fathers, who fastened upon our churches and nurseries the doctrines of the Assembly's Catechism. It is those
doctrines that Unitarians assail. How far professedly Orthodox
men may have elaborated a system based upon an appreciable
modification of those doctrines, is a question of our own times,
and to that issue two schools among the Orthodox are the parties. That, however, was not the question fifty, or forty, years
ago. The Unitarians believed, and their successors believe
still, that there was a great deal of disingenuous, uncandid, and
provoking argument and feeling displayed by the Orthodox, in
trying in all sorts of ways to evade the blows dealt against
Calvinism, by charging upon Unitarians a misrepresentation of
the system. Of course it became very evident, as the contro.
versy advanced, that many of the champions of Orthodoxy had
no idea of assuming the defence of pure Calvinism. If they
had candidly announced this at the outset, and had proclaimed
how much of the system they intended to defend, and under
what abatements and modifications they would alone be held
responsible for it, they would have relieved the controversy of a
world of acrimony. But they did assume the defence of Calvinism, and the defence of those specific doctrines of it which were
sharply defined in the formulas. Unitarians took them at their
word, as holding the pure old dogmas of Geneva. How were
Unitarians to know anything about the precise amount and shap. 
APP]ENDIX.
ings of un-Calvinistic theology, as held by the men whom my
critic names? It is only with great difficulty, and with but limited satisfaction, that any one can obtain, even at this day, the
knowledge he may crave about the real creed taught at Andover.
Having corrected my supposed inaccuracy on this point, my
critic passes to deal with another, as follows:
"And this leads to another correction in the statements of the
article before us. Mr. Ellis supposes that the modifications of
old Calvinism, which now are, and long have been, current in
New England, are to be ascribed to the Unitarian Controversy;
that the Orthodox party, unable to defend Calvinism, as it was,
against the assaults of Unitarianism, have gradually modified
their system, softened it,' toned it down,' till it has come to be
a more plausible and defensible theory.' The Unitarian may
say, that the old Orthodoxy has been extirpated, as the modern
shape and temper of it are greatly unlike the old Calvinism that
we assailed, when it was nominally believed and theoretically
defended.'' Unitarianism has had an immeasurable effect upon
Orthodoxy in this one direction.   Orthodox preaching is, in
some quarters, so qualified in its general character, that, if it
sounds to the ear as its printed specimens utter themselves to our
hearts and minds, we should be quite content to listen to it.'pp. 7, 41."
The issue opened in this paragraph may be said to be so entirely dependent upon mere opinion and judgment about a supposed
matter of fact, as not to be profitably debatable. My critic says
that he is " sorry to remove or disturb so flattering an unction as
this, or to spoil such a pleasing dream...... It is a pity, certainly, to disturb it; but it cannot be helped.  It is all a dream.
There is no foundation for it in truth...... We repeat, then, our
firm conviction, that the influence of the Unitarian Controversy,
in modifying and softening the Orthodoxy of New England, has
been inconceivably small. It is an infinitesimal, which no theological calculus can reach or compute."
Now, I might quote many highly approved Orthodox testimonies to the fact, that the influence of Unitarianism in New
England has impaired the integrity of Orthodoxy here, and sensibly reduced the vigor and pungency of Orthodox preaching.
But these testimonies, again, would express only opinions and
judgments, though, as coming from my critic's own fellowship,
38
445
- —   — -1 ---- -1 --- "I 
APPENDIX.
they should have weight with him. It will hardly do, however,
to tell a Unitarian, who, by intimate friendships with Orthodox
persons, and by a perusal of their writings, has an opportunity
of comparing their views, and their tone, sentiments, and feelings,
with those which characterized the old-fashioned Orthodoxy, that
Unitarian culture and liberality, Unitarian scholarship and philosophy, have not had a calculable effect on Orthodoxy. Boston
and its neighborhood are the last places on the earth in which to
proclaim that notion. Those who can actually see and feel how
Unitarianism finds the greatest obstacle to its denominational
extension to lie in the wholly unobjectionable character of very
much of the present Orthodox preaching, will be very slow to
indorse the averment of my critic. He insists that Unitarianism
has brought about no additional modification of Calvinism, beyond what was current forty years ago.  "There has been-no
change among the great body of our ministers in this respect.
Or if any considerable change is perceptible, we think it has
been in the other direction. Probably a larger proportion of our
ministers may adopt the old Calvinistic statements and explanations now, than would have been willing to do so in the early part
of the present century." I have copied these sentences of my
critic, with the courteous intent of allowing him to say positively
what as positively with all frankness I contradict. There has
been a change in the tone and in the advocacy of Orthodoxy.
There is an essential change in the substance and character of
the prevailing Orthodoxy.  Orthodox congregations in intelligent
communities would not listen now to what were called the old
"blue light" doctrines and preaching.  My critic suggests that
Dr. Edward Beecher be asked whether Unitarianism has had
any effect on OrthQdoxy. Unfortunately for him, that vigorous
heretic has written a book expressly to treat of a method for vindicating Orthodoxy from the reproach which Unitarianism has
fairly fixed upon it, and compelled it to face; namely, the reproach of being irreconcilable with principles of rectitude and
honor in the Divine government.
446 
APPENDIX.
VII.
THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF HUMAN NATURE.
THE fourth of the series of newspaper articles now under
review discusses a part of the contents of the second of the preceding Essays. That Essay, on the controversy upon the Nature
and State of Man, was one which, in justice to my subject, I
could not have written without reflecting in terms of severity
upon the disingenuousness and evasiveness with which some of
the Orthodox party shirked - that is the proper word, though a
vulgar one - shirked the fairly expressed terms and the fairly
drawn inferences from the Calvinistic doctrine which they professed to receive. I think I have given abundant evidence of
this unworthy and reprehensible course of conduct in the pages
of that Essay. The Unitarians found it utterly impossible to
hold the Orthodox to the plain significance of their own formulas.
They said they were Calvinists, that they accepted the doctrines
of the Puritans, that they held to the articles of the Assembly's
Catechism and of the New England Confession of Faith. Very
well. This seemed to give a fair starting-ground for the discussion. The Unitarians avowed that they did not accept Calvinism, nor its doctrines, nor the standards just mentioned. They
proceeded to define Calvinism, and to quote these doctrines, and
they were immediately assailed as if they had been a most uncommon company of deceivers and slanderers. The Christian
Spectator, as I have quoted it (p. 57), insisted upon the authorities in the case for charging upon Calvinism such odious views
of human nature under God's righteous rule, and flatly denied
that the Institutes of Calvin, the works of the Westminster Assembly, &c. contained the doctrine charged upon them. But
when evidence which no reasonable person could refute was
brought to bear upon these denials, the Spectator, with the most
amazing effrontery, affirmed (p. 59): "What Calvin believed
and taught, and what any modern Calvinistic authors have taught,
are questions of no real importance in the present discussion."
How could there be any profitable discussion, as between Chris
447
i.I  -R An, P 
APPENDIX.
tian opponents, when such a sleight as this came in as a token of
the irritation of the Orthodox party, and as a sure means of irritating the Unitarian party? The Orthodox were goaded into the
heats of passion by being compelled to face the literal terms
of their own formulas, unrelieved by the plausible, softening
explanations and reductions through which their own teachers
presented them. The Unitarians were forced to the conviction,
that the Orthodox wished the credit and the security of holding
to the creed of the fathers in its undiminished integrity and
rigidness; while they were still ashamed, under the light of day,
to admit to themselves, what Dr. Edward Beecher has so nobly
confessed, its utter " inconsistency with the principles of justice
and righteousness in the Divine government."
I endeavored to write about this painful element in the old
controversy with candor and moderation. I could not suppress
all reference to it, nor write otherwise than rebukingly of the
inconsistency and unfairness of the course pursued by the Orthodox.  The embittered and malignant spirit which their evasions of their own creed introduced into the controversy will
always require notice from the historian of the controversy, as
the phenomenon is so obtrusively offensive there. Rather than
utter in one manly sentence the avowal, " We do not hold
unqualified Calvinism, and will not defend it," the Orthodox
preferred to charge upon their Unitarian opponents ignorance,
slander, and the most odious vices. This I had to say in order
to be true to the relation of facts which there was no disguising.
My own personal acquaintance with many Orthodox persons of
recent years would prevent my charging upon them my own
construction of their professed creed.   I understand them as
avowing their belief, that God calls us all into being with a
wrecked nature, holds us to a service which only an unimpaired
nature could perform, and dooms us to an unspeakable woe for
our shortcoming. This, in the best exercise of the faculties
which God has given me, and with all the mastery I.can exercise over every bias that might pervert my  judgment,    this is
the only intelligible view which I can gather from the Orthodox
doctrine of human nature. But I would not charge.that view
upon an Orthodox friend; for I know how angry or uncomfort
448
X w           v,     SWa' - 
APPENDIX.
able an Orthodox person is made by having his own tenets set
forth in the frank, strong language of one who rejects them as
revolting and impious. An Orthodox believer wishes the benefit
of all the palliating, subduing, apologetic phraseology and metaphysics that can possibly relieve the hideousness of his naked
doctrine.  This benefit the Unitarians, when their controversy
was sharp, would not yield to the Orthodox. They insisted that
those who professed to be Calvinists, and to defend Calvinism,
should face and recognize Calvinism, and not take refuge behind
some softened, reduced shape of the grim- spectre.
Now my attempt to do justice to this element in the controversy, and to rebuke and censure in measured terms the injustice
of evading a fair issue once espoused, has drawn from my critic
the following language: -
"And here we are sorry to say that Mr. Ellis's wonted fairness and candor seem, in a great measure, to forsake him.   He
too often seems heated and excited, and on that account incapable of doing that justice to his opponents, or his subject, to which
his unsophisticated good-nature would be likely to prompt him.
But we derive one advantage from his misfortune. It will be
the less necessary to follow and refute him. Our remarks, in
reply, may be very brief."
They are brief, too brief,- so brief as not to meet a single
one of my prominent positions in the Essay. He shall have
the benefit, however, of addressing my readers for himself.
The following paragraph is an ingenious combination of statements to be admitted, and statements that might be questioned.
The zeal of the writer has driven him into anachronisms
which make him appear uncandid, though I would not for a
moment entertain the suspicion that he could be influenced by
any other than honorable motives. Yet he none the less makes
some of the concessions and confessions which Unitarians drew
out of the Orthodox grudgingly, as admissions of their reduced
Calvinism, to show as if they had been publicly avowed'before the controversy as the terms in view of which it was' to
be conducted.
"Mr. Ellis begins by affirming that the early'Unitarians understood and avowed that they were assailing, not the undefined
and modified semblance now called Orthodoxy, but Calvinism,
38 *
449 
APPENDIX.
which had expressed itself in positive formulas, and to which
the Orthodox party nominally professed an unqualified allegiance.' (p. 55.) We care not what these early Unitarians
' understood and avowed.' They well knew, and we know, that
the current Orthodoxy of New England, in the year 1815, when
the Unitarian Controversy properly opened, was not precisely
that of the old Calvinistic formulas. To these formulas the
Orthodox of that day did not'profess an unqualified allegiance.'
They were willing to accept them, and they did,' for substance
of doctrine,' as the phrase was; but this implies that they were
not accepted ad literam. Nor were the modifications of statement which they wished to make unknown to the public, or to
Unitarians. They had long been exhibited in sermons and in
books. They were paraded with some exaggerations in Ely's
Contrast, as early as 1811, and of this work an elaborate review had been published in Norton's Repository. All this took
place some years before the opening of the Unitarian Controversy. And yet, at the commencement of the controversy, the
attempt was made, and is still persisted in, to hold the Orthodox
to the letter of the old formulas; and what is worse, to all the
' logical deductions,' amounting in some instances to the grossest distortions, which their adversaries have been pleased to
draw out from them. It was vain for Doctors Woods, and Worcester, and Beecher to say,'We do not accept your logical
deductions, or the old formulas themselves, without explanation.' It was vain for them to state, as they often did, and
had a perfect right to do, (and their opponents should have believed them and met them accordingly,) what their explanations
and modifications were. They were brought back and reined
up to the' old formulas,' with the appended' logical deductions,'
and must fight for these, or abandon the contest."
Here, it will be seen, is the old charge of misrepresentation,
because Unitarians insisted upon taking Calvinism to mean Calvinism.  My critic says, he "cares not what the early Unitarians understood and avowed." But they did care. They knew
their aims; they had a right to choose their aims; they did
choose them; they avowed them. They undertook an assault
upon Calvinism, upon the doctrines of the Westminster Assembly's Catechism and of the New England Confession of
Faith. They did not undertake to assail the specific theological
system of either Dr. Woods, Dr. Beecher, or Dr. Worcester,
for the best reason in the world, - they did not know what the
system of either of those divines was, and  might not have 
APPENDIX.
thought it worth their while to controvert the views of an individual.- They had no means of knowing, we have no sufficient
means of knowing now, precisely how much of consistent Calvinism those divines received or rejected. Dr. Hodge, of the
Old School, tells us that the New Theology does not hold "the
substance of Orthodox doctrine." Unitarians might shrink from
this direct giving of the lie to their Orthodox opponents, even at
the risk of offending them by charging upon them their own
construction of the substance of Calvinism. But there was one
privilege demanded by the Orthodox which the Unitarians had
no idea of granting them, namely, the privilege of professing
to be Calvinists without be~eving Calvinism. Still less would
Unitarians permit any ingenious trickery, under the phrase of
" substance of doctrine," to metamorphose Calvinism into something wholly different from  Calvinism.  There was a sort of
scientific passion for keeping the verisimilitude of old fossilized
antiquities, which led the Unitarians to insist that Calvinism
should not be trifled with even by its assumed patrons. The
feeling was similar to that which would protest against the
patching out and filling in and substituting, by any of Barnum's
fabrications, of a veritable collection of the remains of old
saurians and mastodons. As my critic says, ", Unitarians well
knew that the current Orthodoxy of New England in the year
1815, when the Unitarian Controversy properly opened, was
not precisely that of the old Calvinistic-formulas." Achy, then,
did it pretend to be substantially what it was not precisely?
Why did it insist, in all sorts of persistent phrases, that it held the
faith of the Reformers and the New England fathers, and of
their Catechism and their Confession? " The modifications of
statement which the Orthodox wished to make," were known to
the Unitarians. These modifications would either affect the
substance of Calvinism, or they would not. If they did affect
its substance, then Unitarians denied the Orthodox the right to
make these modifications and still claim to be Calvinists.> If,
on the contrary, the modifications did not reach to the substance
of Calvinism, then the Unitarians did no wrong in holding the
Orthodox to the Calvinistic formulas. It was fair that they
should "fight for those, or abandon the contest." 
APPENDIX.
If, as my critic fears, heat and excitement interfered with
my candor in reviewing this part of the controversy, he would
hardly allow that I am reasonable in objecting strongly to his
own course in the remainder of his paper. He quotes some of
the strong and pointed statements made by Unitarians and myself, to set forth what we understand to be the substantial Calvinistic doctrine of human nature, and our objections to it. He
then adds:  "Such  is the view of the doctrine of depravity
which, through this long article, Mr. Ellis imputes to the Orthodox of New England, and which he labors to expose and
refute." My reader has but to turn back to the Essay and see
that I impute this view to the Westminster Catechism and the
New England Confession, which I quote.  My critic proceeds:
"Nor can it be said (we wish it could) that Mr. Ellis did not
know that he was misrepresenting the Orthodox, [I was writing
of professed believers of the creeds quoted,] for he quotes the
following statement of Dr. Woods, made more than thirty years
ago:' If there is any principle respecting the moral government
of God,' &c." (See page 65.) I do quote that disclaimer of
Dr. Woods. And why? For the very candid purpose which
my critic denies to me, of showing that the Orthodox wish to be
relieved of the imputation of holding rigid Calvinism. So far
am I from affirming that all the Orthodox of New England hold
all the views in question, that I took pains to quote from Dr.
Woods and others, that they might have the benefit of their
qualifying assertions. Strangely enough, my critic resorts to
my own pages for quoted passages which he thinks may be
adduced as means of relieving the modern Orthodox from receiving my  construction of Calvinism.   And yet, after I had
taken pains to make the very quotations which he adopts, in my
-desire to deal fairly with the authors of them; I am charged with
knowing that I am misrepresenting them. This certainly is hard
measure. I cite the creeds, I cite old Calvinistic authorities, I
state the doctrine drawn from them, and my objections to it. I
add some quotations in which professedly Orthodox men advance softened or modified views. My critic quotes my quotations, as available for the very purpose to which I adduce them,
and then censures me as if I had failed of this fair course. He
452 
APPENDIX.
takes another of my quotations from the Spirit of the Pilgrims,
(see page 98), adduced by me with the same intent of allowing
the modern Orthodox the benefit of their own modifications, he
continues the quotation a few lines further, and then adds:
"These statements of our real belief Mr. Ellis had seen, some
of them he had quoted." His piece contains two quotations,
no more, and they are transferred as such from my own pages.
He is safe, therefore, in saying that I "had seen them."  What
he means by "some of them" being quoted by me, is pointless;
it is probably to be referred to a careless slip of the pen in
writing. I have, then, quoted just such passages, the same passages, as he would himself adduce, to show that the modern
Orthodox do not hold the constructive view of a Calvinistic doetrine previously presented. And yet my reward is a charge of
intentional misrepresentation, as not having done the very thing
I have done. My critic makes quotations with which to condemn me; but, with marvellous strangeness, he borrows them
from me. All through my Essay, from the beginning to the
end of it, I recognize fully the modifications of Orthodox doctrine. See particularly the statement beginning near the bottom
of page 59.
I will overlook, and freely pardon, the error into which my
critic was thus led, probably by reading wearily and carelessly
my long article. But his next paragraph would justify some
sharpness of reply from me. By bringing together three sentences, or parts of sentences, culled from a space of twenty
pages in my article, and by wholly severing the connection of
thought and the line of remark in them, he would present me
in the ridiculous light of the following inconsistencies.
"In his remarks upon the quoted statements of our real belief, Mr. Ellis talks variously. In one place, he represents our
modifications as'unintelligible,' and says that,'singly or together, they do not give much relief' (p. 66). Then he represents them as so evasive and pitiable, as to be a' scandal to our
whole profession' (p. 81). But finally, thinking rather more
favorably of them, he says:' The modifications, abatements, and
palliations of which professedly Orthodox writers have felt compelled to avail themselves,. in dealing with this doctrine, have
been of great service to us' (p. 89)."
453 
APPENDIX.
I do use all the words jumbled together in this paragraph,
and as I use them, and in their connection, I think they have a
meaning in them, and that their assertions are happily consist ent. I had hoped that the style of controversy drawn upon in
such a jumble of an opponent's words was out of date among
well-disposed writers. If my reader will do me the favor to turn
to the pages from which the critic has quoted words enough to
make a burlesque of my statements, and will connect them as I
have connected them, I venture to think that he will find the as sertions to hold very well together. First, I say, on page 66,
that I might have attempted to quote "a series of the ingenious
or futile, the actual or only apparent modifications, and attempted
modifications, of the Calvinistic doctrine of the nature and state
of man." Knowing very well, however, that the metaphysical
jargon and the subtle evasions and mystifications employed by
theologians of the Old and New Schools in their dealings with
this subject, were absolutely unintelligible to many readers, I
declined the undertaking. I took care to guard against leaving
the implication that much relief would be found in these modifications of Calvinism, singly or together. They still fail in relieving the Calvinistic doctrine of this unscriptural and revolting
element, -that, born with a nature ruined by an inherited corruption, we are still held by God to an undiminished responsibility. So much for the unintelligible quality in modern Orthodox
speculations, and their deficiency as means for effectually clearing an offensive doctrine.
Secondly, on page 81, I say, and I repeat with emphasis the
assertion, that "the lamentable shifts and evasions and subtilties
to which Orthodox theologians have had recourse during the last
half-century, in trying to evade the plain meaning of this article
of their creed, are a scandal upon our whole profession." And
a scandal they surely are, -  a grievous one; — more scandalous, because of the sacred bearings of the argument, than are
the quirks and trickeries, the fallacies and the deceptions, introduced by a class of lawyers into their pleadings. Calvinism pro.
poses to us in its formulas a doctrine which, if words have any
clear meaning, asserts, that, as the result of our covenant or
federal relation with Adam, we are born with a corrupt nature,
454 
APPENDIX.
and are yet held by God to such a responsibility as could be
justly exacted only of an unimpaired nature. Unitarians protest
against the doctrine, and reject it. They reject it because it outrages reason, justice, and Scripture: They state their objections, and in this statement they generally include a definition
of the doctrine, and a plain, frank description of what is to them
its odious and revolting quality. But how are their statements
and objections met? Often with a whining and petulant complaint from Orthodox disputants, that Unitarians misrepresent
their doctrine, and also with scandalous tricks of language and
sophistry used in the vain attempt to evade the substance of their
own doctrine. Now I have admitted that some Unitarians have
caricatured Orthodoxy. But I have also insisted that some fairminded and candid persons, as Unitarians, have tried to understand the Orthodox doctrine as it is held by its professed disciples, with all the alleviations and abatements of its harsh features
of which its friends give it the benefit. Yet these candid inquirers find the same odious and unjust quality in the doctrine. In
courteous and emphatic terms they express their dissent, their
repugnance to it. What then ought the Orthodox to do? They
ought to defend their doctrine or to renounce it. They may
claim the privilege of amending phraseology where equivocal or
antiquated words, or misleading phrases, interfere with the intelligible announcement of their doctrines. But they can claim no
more than this. As frank, bold, unwavering champions of truth,
they should stand for what they advance in their formulas.
They say, as we understand them, that God requires the tale
of brick without the straw; that he demands that a clean thing
should come forth out of an unclear, that a corrupt nature should
develop into a pure life. If the Orthodox do not say this, then
plainly we have no real controversy with them upon so vital an
issue as has always been supposed to be involved in the doctrine
of human nature. Dr. Edward Beecher, with noble and heroic
frankness, has admitted that the Orthodox doctrine includes precisely that odious and shocking quality of injustice, unrighteousness, as ascribed to the Divine Government; and he does more
than allow, he insists, that Unitarianism rejects and assails it
with valid reason and in loyalty to holy truth. But all Orthodox
4 
APPENDIX.
believers will not yield this full justice, nor even the least measure of it, to Unitarians. Some of them charge us with slander, falsehood, and every other unchristian vice, rather than
admit that we have the slightest ground for objecting to their
doctrine. They would make us the most unreasonable beings
in the world, because we reject something that is perfectly reasonable. One would suppose that the intelligence of educated
men in this age of the world was equal to the task of interpreting the meaning of a Calvinistic formula. But no! Unitarians
prove that they cannot interpret it, simply by rejecting the doctrine conveyed in it. To make this appear, the doctrine has
been tampered and trifled with by "lamentable shifts, evasions,
and subtilties" on the part of its professed disciples, in a way
to amount, as I have said, and repeat, to a scandal upon the profession of theologians.
And, thirdly, I have said on page 89, and I also wish to say it
again, that "All the modifications, abatements, and palliatives
of which professedly Orthodox writers have felt compelled to
avail themselves in dealing with their doctrine, have been of
great service to Unitarians." And why do I say this? And
how do I consider that we have been served in this way? My
own pages answer these questions. My critic had only to note
what I said in connection with the first of the three sentences
which he has quoted and Jumbled together, in order to have been
prevented from attempting to prove my assertions inconsistent.
For, on page 66, I had said of these attempted modifications of
Cavinistic doctrine: "They are of service to us as showing a
constant uneasiness under any form in which the old doctrine
has as yet been presented, and as indicating how trifling a relaxation of its old terms will be welcomed as a comfort." Again,
on p. 61, I had said: "We are ready to grant to the Orthodox
the fullest benefit of all the modifications of this doctrine which
the most ingenious man among them is able to devise. But we
must urge that these modifications all accrue to our side, as they
relax and soften and qualify the sternness of our old foe, and
are yielded or availed of for the sake of mitigating the repulsiveness of the original doctrine."
Thus I have taken pains to put back into their connection the
!Cjf!;;S*g     > *+'t eR     t       t     +      A,       F    -H; 
APPENDIX.
three sentences which, after having suffered violence, were used
to prove upon me inconsistency or ludicrous incoherency of
statement.   Set the three sentences together by their connection, and they affirm these three easily demonstrable propositions: that many of the attempted modifications of Calvinistic
theology require such metaphysical terms and subtle distinctions
for their exposition as to be unintelligible to many readers, while
they still stop short of essentially relieving the reproach of the
doctrine; that some of the devices of theologians to evade, and
get round, and extenuate and apologize for formulas which they
will neither frankly yield up nor boldly defend, has brought
scandals upon our profession (I did not include as among these
scandals Dr. Edward Beecher's theory for supplementing Calvinism, that, when we are born into the world, we are old sinners
under condemnation from a previous state, with a new chance
for redemption, as this theory is ingenious, not scandalous); and
that every concession, evasion, and modification made in defence
of Orthodoxy, whether amounting to much or nothing, is of
service to Unitarians, as revealing the restlessness and lack of
full satisfaction among the Orthodox.
Most gladly would I have used the space just given to a side
issue, in meeting any argument offered by my critic in opposition to the positive points advanced in my Essay. But he has
not met a single one of my positions, he has not sought to relieve a single one of the objections which I urge against the Orthodox doctrine, nor questioned a single one of the arguments by
which I defend the Unitarian view. His article is wholly given
up to statements of the same character as those to which I have
already referred. Here are more of the same tenor.
"It is clear from these quotations [those which I have made
in my Essay], that Mr. Ellis knew what our statements were, in
regard to this doctrine of depravity. He knew what they had
been, from the beginning of the controversy to the present time.
A n d    yet he persists in urging upon us dogmas which we do pot
believe, insisting that we must take them, swallow them, and be
responsible for them, when we repudiate them, or some of them,
as sincerely as he does himself. And this is that of which we
complain. Are we not competent to make a statement of our
own views? And when we do make it fairly, honestly, and re
39
457 
APPENDIX.
peatedly, are we not worthy to be believed? Must we be perpetually held up to ridicule and reproach, as holding opinions
which are as foreign to us as they are to our accusers?
"Will it be asked again, What do you believe on this painful
subject of human  depravity?  I answer, we  believe just what
Mr. Ellis has quoted us as believing, in his extracts from the
Spirit of the Pilgrims.  We  believe'that, since the fall of
Adam,'- and, I will add, in consequence of the fall of Adam, -
'men are, in their natural state, altogether destitute of true holiness, and entirely depraved'; but'that, though thus depraved,
they are justly required to love God with all the heart, and justly
punishable for disobedience; or in other words, they are complete moral agents, proper subjects of moral government, and
truly accountable to God for their actions.'- Vol. I. p. 11.
'We do not believe that the posterity of Adam are personally
chargeable with eating the forbidden fruit; or that their constitution is so depraved as to leave them no natural ability to love
and serve God, or as to render it improper for him to require
obedience.  We  do not believe that God has made  a part of
mankind on purpose to damn them; or that he compels them to
sin; or that he mocks them with offers of pardon on conditions
that they have no power to comply with; or that he punishes
them.eternally for not performing  impossibilities.' — Vol.  II.
pp. 3, 4.
"This statement of our belief on the subject of depravity we
made, in all sincerity, almost thirty years ago. In all sincerity,
we repeat it now.  We cannot but think it intelligible and explicit; and if Mr. Ellis cannot, as he intimates, harmonize all parts
of it, we humbly think tlmt we can. It will be seen, at a glance,
that it differs most essentially from Professor Norton's statement
of the Orthodox belief, and from the extracts above quoted from
Mr. Ellis. And this imputing to us of opinions which we do not
receive, and then arguing from them as though they were conceded verities, and holding us up to scorn and reproach on account of them; - this is that of which we feel that we have
good reason to complain."
After the repeated perusal of the above extract, I can hardly
account for the strange misunderstanding which has evidently
warped the judgment of my critic.  The very quotations from
modern Orthodox writers which he credits me with presenting
on my own pages, were made by me for the set purpose of giving his brethren the benefit of their own professed qualifications
of Calvinism, which he insists that I deny to them.' If I had
given no such qotations, he wuld have had reson in his c,n
giv-en no such quotations, he would have had reason in his cen
458 
APPENDIX.
sure.  But as I do offer them, and offer them, too, as they are
offered by their writers, in mitigation of judgment, what more
could I do?  My critic says: "We  believe just what Mr. Ellis
has quoted us as believing, in his extracts from the Spirit of the
Pilgrims." Very well. Then I have fairly stated their belief,
have I not? Near the close of the extract, my critic says that
the Orthodox belief, as just defined by him, differs from Mr. Norton's statement of it, and from statements of it made in some
other quotations from me. Very true again; and the statements
ought to differ, according to his own showing.   For those defini.
tions given by Mr. Norton and myself were of old-fashioned, pure
Calvinism, from its formulas and its stanch champions.   Some
of these my critic says he repudiates as sincerely as I do, and
that they are as foreign to some of the Orthodox as to the Unitarians. But this does not prove that the repudiated opinions are
not Calvinistic, nor that they were never entertained by the Orthodox, nor that they are not to be fairly inferred by sound and
irrefutable logical deductions from the very substance of Orthodoxy. It was against this veritable form of Orthodoxy, namely,
Calvinism, easily ascertainable and well understood, and not
against its softened, palliated shapings and reductions, that
Unitarians first directed their opposition.   The concrete, oldfashioned Calvinism of the formulas andthe Catechism and the
Confession was, I say again, the original target of Unitarianism.
They knew what that was, and could get at it. Every subsequent modification and abatement of its doctrinal form or substance - especially those for which  my critic pleads in his
attempt to state them-  has received attention from  Unitarians.   Their periodicals anid controversial essays will afford
abundant proof that they have been quite eager to seize upon,
yes, even to anticipate and forecast, every heretical development,
every modern phase of dissent, from the Calvinism of the standards. Indeed, my own aim and method were to begin with fair
quotations from these standards, and with contemporary expositions of them, as furnishing the criteria from which to define the
faith of those who accepted them, and the heresy of those who
rejected them. After a clear statement of these preliminaries, I
endeavored, in reference to each of the great doctrines in con
459 
APPENDIX.
troversy, to follow down the course of discussion, and to make
note of every substantial or supposed variation from Calvinism
made by those who still claimed to be Orthodox. The quotations
of which my critic has availed himself for exhibiting his own
modifications of the creed, were offered by me in the carrying
out of this design. I cannot yet see how I could have pursued a
method better suited to meet the wishes of my critic, or the conditions of fair polemics.
Within the compass of the pages now gathered into this volume, will be found a recognition of every modified and softened
statement of the leading Orthodox doctrines that has ever passed
under my notice. As one of my objects was to prove that Orthodox men had departed from their standards, or tried to evade
the full doctrinal significance of them, all such subdued views as
my critic wishes to have the benefit of were the very things
which I sought to hunt out, and to present in the plainest way.
How, then, can he justly accuse me of urging upon him dogmas
which he does not believe?
I think, however, that I can appreciate, or at least understand,
the reason why my method and course of argument should have
called out the expression of such indignant feeling from my opponent. It is simply because I will not allow that the modifications of Calvinism conceded by him and his friends furnish any
essential relief of what are to us the unscriptural and revolting
features of the system. Most cheerfully would I yield this allowance if I could do so; but I cannot. On the contrary, the
statements of my critic are only to my mind another exhibition
of the utter futility of such attempts to hold the substance of Calvinism through the softening and apologetic help of a mere variation of phrase in the verbal exposition of it. I cannot allow
that my critic has succeeded, where hundreds of good men before him have failed, in reconciling the substance of Calvinistic
doctrine about the ruin of our race in Adam, and its undiminished responsibility, with the sense of justice and the gift of reason with which our Maker has endowed us, and which he addresses in the inspired teachings of Scripture. Let him turn
from me, and meet the frank avowals of his own brother in faith,
Dr. Edward Beecher. Modify Orthodoxy as he may, if he still 
APPENDIX.
retains the fiction that God demands a clean thing from an unclean, he retains the Calvinistic dogma which we insist flouts the
very foundations of Divine equity., Explicit as my critic says
his professed departure from real Calvinism is, I must frankly
reply, that to me it is not explicit, that it amounts to little, if
anything. It leaves still the outrage which is inherent in Calvinism,   of assigning to us a prejudiced start on an immortal career, of making human life a foregone conclusion at its commencement.   The statement still leaves the question, " What
do you believe on this painful subject of human depravity?"
wholly unanswered, so far as the answer promised or expected
is to convey any essential relief from pure Calvinism. With the
utmost courtesy, but with frankness, I must reply to my critic,
that I cannot reconcile the two terms in which he avows his own
belief. After his warm protest against being held answerable for
Calvinism, he sets himself to meet the question, "' What, then,
do you believe?" and I read on, looking to find some generous
concession, some explicit renouncement of the odious element in
Calvinism, some more reasonable and Scriptural exhibition of the
relation between man's native condition and his responsibility.
'But I am grievously disappointed. I cannot reconcile the statement, that, in consequence of the fall of Adam, we come into existence entirely depraved, with the statement, that, though thus
depraved, we are justly required to love God with all the heart,
and are justly punishable for disobedience. How does the doctrinal belief affirmed in those two statements differ from the doctrine of the formula? The two statements appear to us selfcontradictory. They involve that gross outrage upon reason and
righteousness, of which we complain in Calvinism.  To assert,
that, though we are born without wings, we are justly punishable
by God because we do not fly in the air all the way up to God,
is to our minds not one whit more affronting to reason and equity,
than to assert that, though born entirely depraved, we are justly
punishable for not loving God with all our hearts. Of what character or value must be all the love of an entirely depraved heart?
Is pure love, or the love of a pure object, possible to such a heart?
I say, then, frankly, as my critic very reasonably fears that I shall
say, " that I cannot harmonize all the parts" of his proffered
39*
I''il
461 
APPENDIX.
doctrinal statement. I say more, namely, that he himself cannot harmonize them in a way intelligible to other minds. If, further, he asks me to admit that his view differs substantially from
what he says that he repudiates, I must decline to make the admission.
But I cannot pass without a word of denial his vehement complaint, at the close of the above extract, that Unitarians hold up
him and his brethren to "scorn and reproach" on account of
their professed belief. It is the dogma which we subject to that
scorn and reproach, as an outrage upon the reason and the sense
of justice with which our Maker has endowed us, as an utter
perversion of the doctrines of the Bible, and as the occasion of
an untold amount of infidelity, first, among those outside of the
Church, and, second, among those who have once been received
into it. We are, therefore, bound to scorn and reproach the
dogma, to try against it every weapon which Christian faith,
reason, logic, and zeal can supply. The only modification of
the dogma which will be explicit enough for us, will be an entire
and honest renunciation of it. There are two ways by which it
may be relieved: one is by graduating the claims which God
makes upon us to the impaired nature with which, in the course
of his providence, we are born into this world; the other is by
asserting for us such a degree of unvitiated, uncorrupted moral
power, as will enable us to love God with all our hearts. Either
of these methods of relief would involve the renunciation of Cal.
vinism.  My critic avails himself of neither of them.  He asserts
entire depravity' at birth; he claims for God the whole heart's
love; he holds us justly punishable, and by a most terrific
doom, for falling short of what, under the conditions, is an
utter impossibility.
462
F,,s, -, i 
APPENDIX.
VIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
THE fifth paper in the series upon which I am commenting
deals with some few, and those by no means the most inmportant,
points suggested in the third of the preceding Essays. It opens
with another of those partial representations of my views, which,
through the aid of imperfect quotations, attempt to convict me
of inconsistency or incoherency of statement. Thus my critic
writes: -
"Mr. Ellis does not object to the Trinity on the ground' that
the doctrine involves a mystery,' but rather onf the ground of
' its utter absurdity.' And yet hlie confesses that,'in some of
the modern shapings of the doctrine, there is no reason for rejecting it, which would weigh against the slightest good reason
for receiving it. But the slightest reason for receiving it is the
very thing which is lacking.'  If the doctrine be an'utter absurdity,' it would seem that there ought to be strong reasons for
rejecting it, -strong enough to overbalance any and all reasons
in its favor. But let that pass."
It is true that I represent Unitarians as objecting to the doctrine of the Trinity, not because it states a mystery, but because
it is absurdly inconsistent in the very terms which it brings together for making its proposition (p. 119). I have also admitted
what I am quoted as asserting in regard to some of the modern
shapings of the doctrine (p. 116). And yet I have not avowed
that any force of reasoning would induce me to accept an "utter
absurdity." It is the bald, dogmatic statement of the doctrine
in the formula, copied on a previous page, which I represent as
involving an absurdity. But my critic seems to have skipped
the following sentence, in which I pass from the doctrine as advanced and defined in the formula, to the shadowy views of
some professed Trinitarians. My words seem plain enough as
I turn back to them, on p. 115:  "The doctrine of the Trinity
has indeed been so sublimated and refined, and so reduced in
the rigidity of its old technical terms, that it may now be said to
offer itself in some quite inoffensive and unobjectionable shapes."
463 
APPENDIX.
My critic now  favors me  with some direct replies, which it
gives me pleasure to meet as directly.
"Mr. Ellis objects, first, to the doctrine of the Trinity, that' it
is impossible to state it in the language of Scripture.' And so it
is impossible to give a precise, scientific statement of many other
doctrines, which Unitarians and Orthodox both believe, in the
language of Scripture. The objection proves too much, if it
proves anything."
I must try the virtue of a fiat denial, if courtesy will allow, in
meeting my opponent on so vital a point where an unproved assertion cannot be admitted. I therefore do deny positively that
Unitarians receive one single doctrine or tenet of their faith
which they are unable to state in the precise language of Scrip.
ture. I might even go so far as to affirmrn, that we receive no doctrinal tenet for,which we cannot quote the very words of Christ
himself. My critic must have sadly underrated the importance
which I attach to the Unitarian objection to the doctrine of the
Trinity above announced, if he supposes he can evade its force
so easily and dogmatically as he has essayed to do. We boast
that our Scriptural faith can express itself in explicit, ungarbled,
positive, and emphatic sentences of Scripture. We will receive
nothing as vital to our faith which cannot be so expressed. We
object to Trinitarianism, and the objection has never been fairly
met, and never can be fairly met, that it presents to us, as the
groundwork and basis of the whole Christian system of revealed
truths, a dogma. for which it cannot quote a single comprehensive
text. It certainly cannot be alleged that it was any less important for Christ and his Apostles to announce the doctrine clearly
and emphatically, than that subsequent Christian teachers should
lay stress upon it. What stress such teachers have laid upon it
we all know. The doctrinal statement of the Trinity leads off
the Orthodox creeds: no vague, inferential implication of the
contents of the doctrine is thought to be satisfactory.   Doubt
about it is dangerous; a rejection of it is fatal. The doctrine is
obtruded upon us in its stiffest literal terms, though, strange to
say, many of its champions affirm that they dislike its terms, and
wish that they could express it more adequately. Hered certainly
is no backwardness, no hesitation, on the part of those who, be
464
q,
7 Be, 
APPENDIX.
lieving the doctrine, think it ought to be reiterated and emphasized. Now, how comes it that Christ and his Apostles furnish
us not one single announcement of it? If anything can be inferred with certainty as to the belief of the Jews concerning the
mode of the Divine existence, it is that they knew nothing of the
Orthodox dogma of the Trinity. Surely then we might expect
that their first Christian teachers would have been at least as
careful to declare it to them as a new revelation of truth, the
basis of all Christian doctrine, as modern Christian teachers are
to demand a faith in it from their pupils. It will not do to say
that the Apostles left other essential Christian doctrines without
any direct, explicit statement of them. It is not true. They had
a commission from their Master, and they discharged it. Whatever they have not taught plainly, must be pronounced to be. no
part of their teaching, however positively their successors may
have taught it. Peter, who preached to the Jews the first Christian
discourse after the Church had risen from the grave of its Founder, told them that "Jesus of Nazareth," "whom they had put
to death," was "a man approved of God by works which God
did by him," and that God had raised him up. Words could not
be more explicit. Yet not from them, and from no other words
spoken by the Apostles to the Jews, as recorded, could they
have gathered a plain statement of the Trinity. As to the Gentiles, we find traces, among a school of philosophic dreamers, of
a sort of Trinitarian conception, far unlike that, however, which
Christian divines now receive, though the dogma came into the
Church by that channel. No direct announcement of the doctrine was made by the Apostles when they preached to Gentiles, who certainly were ignorant of it, and might claim to be
distinctly informed about the first fundamental doctrine of the
Gospel.
I must, therefore, reiterate the objection which my critic so
strangely tries to parry by asserting what is directly opposite to
the truth, that Unitarians receive many doctrines as of the prime
substance of Christianity, of which the Scriptures make no precise statement. I must do one thing more. I must express my
disappointment at the hopelessness of any issue of harmony from
discussions in which the main points receive such a slighting 
APPENDIX.
treatment. I do not know a more valid argument which could
be alleged to a fair and unbiassed mind against the claim of any
doctrine to be received as vital and fundamental to the Christian
system, than the fact that it is not taught in the plain and earnest utterances of Christ and his Apostles.   We  know how
eagerly Trinitarians would snatch at any Bible sentence which
comprehended all the elements of the doctrine.   We know that
they are at no loss for words and phrases in which to state it.
We know how they obtrude it and emphasize it. We turn earnestly towards them, and ask why they are compelled to do this
in words and phrases and formulas of their own invention?
Why they cannot find a single Scripture sentence which wilt
serve their use? We hope much from reasonable men, when
we ask such a question. We are as honest and as earnest as
they are.  We wish to be reasonable and teachable.  We  protest that we wish to have the fundamentals of the Christian system in the sufficient words of Christ and his Apostles. And what
satisfaction do we receive from our opponents?  Such only as
we are left. to find in a disengenuous evasion of the difficulty
that is raised, unless we can accept such a reply as my critic
offers to my next objection, as follows:  "' Again,' says Mr. Ellis,' a fundamental doctrine ought to be
emphatically announced and constantly reiterated.'  And  we
hold that the doctrine of the Trinity- in its elements, its necessary component parts-  is' emphatically announced' in the
Scriptures. We think it is, not'constantly,' but frequently reiterated, much more frequently than' the unity of God."'
That clause, "its necessary component parts," comes in very
ingeniously.   The  necessary component parts of almost any
doctrine which the human brain could devise, might be found in
Scripture, if we admitted the lawfulness of the process for making
such a composite of Scripture language as is often brought to the
proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. My critic, by that ingenious
clause of his, will have suggested quite forcibly to many Unita.
rians one of their very gravest objections to the admission of the
Scriptural character of that doctrine. We first object, that it is
not directly taught in Scripture. We next object, almost, if not
quite, as triumphantly, to the processes and the dealings with
466 
APPENDIX.
Scripture which Trinitarians are compelled to pursue in order
to get out of it the component parts of the doctrine. We pronounce these processes unreasonable, violent, and unfair. They
are a reproach upon the science of Biblical criticism. The dislocations, transpositions, glosses, and hard-drawn inferences and
artificial reconstructions which make the Scriptures yield up the
component parts of the doctrine of the Trinity, do not approve
themselves to us. Sometimes young school-children, who inherit a championship of Unitarianism and Trinitarianism from
their parents, will try these dislocated texts, sentences, half-sentences, and phrases on each other. The vanquished champion
of one day will ask of parent or Sunday.school teacher a rebutting text for the next day. The Orthodox child will quote the
assertion of Jesus, "I and my Father are one." His opponent
will meet him with the petition of Jesus to his Father, that his
disciples may be one, in precisely the same way and sense.
Now we had better leave this sort of doctrinal tactics to children. It may be well for grown men to remember that the component parts of a house will not make a house unless they are
orderly disposed.
The next objection advanced against the doctrine of the Trinity is, that the three texts on which Trinitarians would most
readily seize for its vindication, and which the most ignorant
and obstinate among them insist upon bringing forward, are discredited for such a use by all competent scholars. The fact is
most significant, as it proves that the Scriptures have been tampered with for the sake of interpolating testimony to a doctrine
which was evidently recognized to be in need of testimony. My
critic replies thus-                        *
"Mr. Ellis further objects to the doctrine of the Trinity, that
'the texts which are quoted to support it are peculiarly embarrassed with doubts and questions as to authenticity, exactness
of rendering, and signification.'  He instances three prominent
proof-texts, viz. 1 John v. 7, 2 Tim. iii. 16, and Acts xx.
28, which have been regarded as of a doubtful character. We
have no time or need to go into a consideration of these vexed
passages here. The history of them proves that, incsome of the
early controversies respecting the Trinity and the person of
Christ, they have been tampered with, either by the Arians,
467 
APPENDIX.
or the Orthodox, or by both. We do not abandon the common
reading of these passages, more especially of the last two. Neither are we disposed pertinaciously to contend for it.  They
may be held in abeyance, for further light, without at all endangering the Scriptural support of the doctrines which they seem
to teach."
On this reply I have only to remark upon the evident reluctance of the writer to admit the full force and pertinence of the
objection. I should have been glad to have had this cumulative
evidence which impeaches the Scriptural character of the doctrine of the Trinity met with a little more candor. Trinitarians
are fond of charging Unitarians with interpreting Scripture under a bias, of bringing prejudiced opinions to it, and of explaining away its manifest teachings. The charge seems to us almost
ludicrously self-convicting, in view of the stages of pleading
through which my critic passes. I must remind him that the
text 1 John v. 7 has no part in "the early controversies respecting the Trinity."  It did not exist thenr.  As to "holding
in abeyance for further light" these texts which the best Ortho.
dox authorities agree in surrendering, we must answer, that life
is too short for it, and the claims of progress will not admit of it.
The course recommended by my critic seems to me rather like
holding light itself in abeyance.
The next paragraph offered by my critic contains a little wordplay, of which he and my readers shall mutually have the benefit,
so far as the copying it here can avail:  -
"Mr. Ellis objects, that' the Scriptures bear a positive testimony
against the doctrine of the Trinity, by insisting upon the absolute
unity of God.' But.does not Mr. Ellis know, that the unity of
God is an essential part of the doctrine of the Trinity, -so essential, that there can be no Trinity (Tri-unity) without it? Trinitarians are not Tri-theists.   They hold to the unity of God as
firmly, and would contend for it (if denied) as earnestly, as
Unitarians themselves. How then can the testimony of Scripture as to the unity of God be regarded as a positive testimony
against the Trinity? "
All that I need say in answer to the question here asked is,
that the Scriptures, by insisting in variety of phrase upon the
single, undivided unity of God, and by affirming, not only that
468 
APPENDIX.
there is One God,-but that God is One, and by not containing a
single assertion of the Trinity, do give a'.mnost emphatic testimony against the latter doctrine.
The following, though it seems to open with the promise of
rebutting a statement of mine, leaves it valid.
"Finally, Mr. Ellis' objects to this doctrine, that we know its
origin to have been, not in the Scriptures, but outside of them.
It was the Greek philosophy of Alexandria, and not the Hebrew
or Christian theology of Jerusalem, that gave it birth.' To all
this we have only time now to reply, that we know, or we think
we know, precisely the opposite of what is here stated. We can
clearly trace the doctrine of the Trinity, in its essential features
and elements, in the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, and in the writings of the fathers who preceded the school
at Alexandria. Plato taught no doctrine at all resembling the
Christian Trinity. We speak advisedly on this subject. The
New-Platonics of the second century after Christ, in their zeal
for a general comprehension, corrupted the Scripture doctrine of
the Trinity, and introduced their corruptions into the Church,
and in so doing they laid a foundation for the disputes and
controversies of the next five hundred years. What I have
here said is a true historical statement, which I am prepared to
vindicate, whenever called to it in the providence of God."
That my learned opponent thinks that he "can clearly trace
the doctrine of the Trinity, in its essential features and elements,
in the Scriptures," I have no doubt.   But that would not prove
that the doctrine came into the faith of its first believers through
the Scriptures.   The school at Alexandria and the doctrine
of the Trinity both had the same fathers.   Jewish Platonists
were the most efficient corrupters of Christian doctrine through
this world's philosophy.   Any one who has tried to read Philo
has learned a lesson on this point which he can never forget.
Though the story in Eusebius, that Philo was acquainted with
the Apostle Peter, and that of Photius, that Philo was a Christian,
are not reliable, there is evidence enough that some of the Christian fathers were readers and copiers of Philo. My critic says,
truly enough, that Plato taught no doctrine at all resembling the
Christian Trinity. But still he and his followers speculated about
a Trinity, and it was, as we firmly believe on the best sort of
evidence,   it was through them that a school of philosophizing
40
469 
APPENDIX.
Christians were first misled into a corruption of the simplicity
of the Gospel.  Ever  argument, from the most elaborate to the
most superficial in character, which has ever passed under our
notice, in attempted proof that the Scriptures reveal a Trinity
of co-equal persons in the One God, bears on its fa/ce unmistakable evidence that it is an argument in behalf of a preconceived and extraneous notion, not a development of plain Scripture doctrine.
The summing up with which my critic closes his attempted
refutation of Unitarianism on this point, is as follows:
"Before leaving the doctrine of the Trinity, I wish to say
a word  as to the often  alleged  absurdity. of it.  Without
doubt, the doctrine in question (or something like it) may
be-so stated as to become an absurdity. To say that each
person in the Trinity is God, in the same sense in which
they all are one God, would be a contradiction.  But to say
that each person in the Trinity is in some sense God, and
that in some other sense they all constitute one God, is no
contradiction.  Here is one tree, one trunk, made up of three
distinct and equal branches.  Now each of those branches is
in some sense a tree, having bark, sap, wood, leaves, and all
the attributes of a tree; and yet each of the branches is not
a tree, in the sense in which they all constitute one tree.  In
this tree, as in a great many other things, there are three in
one, and one in three; and yet there is no contradiction, no
absurdity.   And just so-in so far as divine things can be
illustrated by created things - in respect to the Trinity. Properly conceived of, and properly stated, it involves no absurdity.
For aught that any created being can show to the contrary, it
may be true; and as God has so revealed to us the mode of his
existence, we are bound to believe that it is true.
"As to the quo modo of the Trinity, or the manner in which the
three are one, and the one three, here lies the whole mystery of
the subject.   A thousand questions may be asked with regard to
this point, which no human being can answer; which it is presumptuous to try to answer. But as to the fact of the three
personal distinctions in the one undivided essence of the Godhead, we have a divine revelation, and consequently ought to
have no doubt."
We may gratefully recognize it as one among the approved
results of a long controversy, if it be that a Professor in an
Orthodox Theological School has said in those paragraphs the
470 
APPENDIX.
best that he feels able to say in the way of apology for a metaphysical dogma. We may pertinently ask, Why perplex the
simple Christian faith with such a confessedly undefinable, inexplicable dogma?  What possible connection can be indicated
between the revelation of God's will to man, and'the obscuration
of the Oneness of God by an inconceivable distinction of personalities in his essence?  Why should the subtilty of metaphysics
make such a perplexing theory to lie at the basis of a knowledge
of God's will? We deny, as positively as our opponents'assert,
that "revelation discloses the fact of the three personal distinctions in the one undivided essence of the Godhead." We
find no such fact disclosed in our Bibles. We maintain that
it is a direct contradiction to affirm "that each person in the
Trinity'is in some sense God, and that in some other sense they
all constitute'one God." The contradiction is nothing for which
Scripture is responsible, but it is a device of human brains. The
critic ventures on the perilous attempt at illustration.  He tfells
us, that of a composite thing, a thing composed of parts, we may
ascribe the quality and attributes of the whole to each part. We
say, no. A branch is not a tree in any sense, and no trickery
with language will justify any one-in calling it so. A family
may be composed of a father, a mother, and a son, but no usage
of words will allow us to speak of either of those three parties as
in any sense a family.   My critic insists that the doctrine of the
Trinity, "properly conceived of, and properly stated, involves no
absurdity."  But what is a proper conception of it?  And what
is a proper statement of it?' Before puzzling our thoughts with
the problem "as to the quo modo, the manner in which the three
are one, and the one three," we ask for a distinct assertion
from revelation of the fact itself.  There is no such assertion,
from the beginning to the end of the Bible, of any such enigma.
Our own opinion is, that the presumption is not on the part of
those who try to solve the enigma, but of those who have
invented it, and who still insist upon perverting the Scripture
doctrine of the supremacy of the Father, the spiritual operation
of God's spirit, and the subordination of Christ to God.
471 
APPENDIX.
I X.
UNITARIANISM ON THE NATURE, RANK, AND OFFICES
OF CHRIST.
PASSING now to the discussion of the point in controversy
concerning Christ's nature, my critic makes many specifications
of apparent reply, but does not address a single word even of
recognition to the thesis towards which I argue.  I begin my
article on page 107, with the plainest possible announcement,
repeated from page 48, of the view to which Unitarianism
here commits itself.   That is not, as I expressly say, to any
definition of Christ's nature, nor to any denial of his Divinity,
nor to any bold attempt to measure the distance between
him and God in one direction, or between him and man in another direction. It would seem difficult to express in more intelligible terms than are used in the following sentence the
sole point to which I address myself; namely, that Unitarians
maintain that Jesus Christ is not presented to us in the New
Testament as possessing the underived honors of the Godhead,
as claiming by himself and by his Apostles the supreme prerogative of Deity, and therefore as an object of worship and prayer,
or of our ultimate religious dependence. Plain and prominent
as my statement is, and so worded as to comprehend all the
essential conditions of Unitarian doctrine, my critic averts his
attention entirely from it, and turns to the usual. strain of Orthodox pleading from disjointed texts for the sake of mystifying,
rather than elucidating, the Scriptures. I must object to this
method of dealing with something other than my argument. I
find in his criticisms two incidental Scripture quotations, that
might be intended to meet my statement, though they are not
addressed to it.  The first of these quotations is from Revelation i. 8: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and  the
ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty."  He says, "When we hear Christ speaking these
words, we cannot doubt that he speaks as God." But waiving
the possible question whether Christ or God is represented as
speaking these words, we find the form of speech twice re
472 
APPENDIX.
peated as by Christ, with the omission of the words " the Almighty." (xxi. 6 and xxii. 13.) There is a very remarkable fact
in connection with the use of these terms of speech which my
critic would have done well to note. John says, that he " fell
down to worship " the Beingwho spoke these words, and was
repulsed with the counsel: "See thou do it not; for I am thy
fellow-servant; worship God." (Rev. xxii. 9.) The other quotation is from the words of Isaiah: " His name shall be called
the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting
Father," &c. for the proper rendering of which the best Orthodox lexicons will afford all the necessary means, though they
can hardly be regarded as words in which Christ for himself, or
the Apostles for-him, claim the underived honors of Deity. And
it is from these quotations that I am to consider my plain position as refuted! Will not all the teachings of Christ himself
afford us a single passa', in which he presents himself as the
object of our worship and ultimate dependence?   No!   For
one such passage would be manifestly inconsistent with his reiterated and emphatic assertion of his subjection and subordination to God, his reiterated and emphatic assertion, that not he,
but God, his God and our God, his Father and our Father, is
the object of our homage, worship, and ultimate dependence.
When Christ says that we shall ask him nothing, but shall ask
in his name, how are we to understand him? When he says,
that of an hour and an event in the future he is ignorant, how
else than by the blankest sophistry can it be alleged that he
claims the prerogatives of Deity? It cannot be replied, that he
is then speaking as a man, as but a part of himself, for this
would be trifling, as no man need disclaim the prerogative of
omniscience.
Disappointed as I am, that my critic should so wink out of
sight the position on which I build the whole of my argument, I
must follow him on some subordinate issues. I have not argued
against the Divinity of Christ, for my own belief is that Christ is
Divine, that God has imparted to him Divinity. I have asked
for a single word of proof that he, or his Apostles for him, demand our worship. One sentence would have satisfied me on
that   point, b  ut the New Testament cannot furnish one.  I re                    40* 
APPENDIX.
member very well, that, when I was composing my article, I
hesitated long upon the doubt, whether I had better attempt any
statement of the varieties of speculation, conception, and belief
as to the nature and rank of Christ held by Unitarians as secondary to their essential, Scriptural tenet that he was wholly
subject to and dependent on God, referring to the gift and endow- 
ment of God all that he was and said and did, as one who could
do nothing of himself, but had received his commandment from
the Father.   The essential belief of Unitarians is admirably
expressed, both on its positive and its negative side, by a plain
statement of St. Paul, to which it would delight us to see our
Orthodox friends do justice. It is found in 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28:
" All things are put under Christ; but it is manifest that He is
excepted which did put all things under him. And when all
things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God
may be all in all." Knowing very well that, after assuring the
Scriptural character of their faith on this point, Unitarians yielded
to the speculative instinct which prompted them to form some
conception of the rank and nature of the being whom the Supreme had constituted his vicegerent, and knowing also that
their speculations covered a wide range, I hesitated, as I have
said, whether it were expedient to refer to them at all. I did,
however, devote a very small space to them. Of course there
are extreme views among them, and these extreme views are
mutually inconsistent, and not reconcilable with those which
lie between them. Of these my critic allows himself to say,
that "Unitarians place Christ anywhere they please in the rank
of derived or created existence." If he will allow me to speak
in behalf of brethren with some of whom I agree, and with
some of whom I differ, I will venture to suggest, that none of
them would claim a right to place Christ where they please.
They feel at least some measure of the honest and earnest interest of Orthodox persons in trying to reduce the terms applied
to Christ to a consistent and exhaustive theory concerning him.
Precluded from availing themselves of the conclusion to which
the Orthodox leap by skipping over all the passages in which
not merely " the human nature of Christ," but Christ himself, is
474
0 
APPENDIX.
subordinated to God, they are left to construct a theory that
shall start from that as a fixed fact. They insist, however, that
Christian truth is concerned with Christ in his offices, rather than
made dependent upon any speculative view of his nature or
rank in creation. They affirm that the Scriptures speak to us
of the being, will, and attributes of Jehovah, and present an especial mediator between us and him under the title of Christ, or
the Son. It is with this Christ the Mediator that we have to do.
We  should regard it as but poor presumption to undertake to
limit the gifts or prerogatives which God may impart to him,
but we do insist that, by the clearest Scripture testimony, all
that Christ was, was of the bestowal and endowment of God.
Of his own self he could do nothing. This does not mean that
of his own self in another or duplex sense he could do everything. The passages of Scripture which lead the Orthodox to
assign to Christ a double nature, lead the Unitarians to insist,
that, like any other creature of God, he was nothing of himself,
while, through the special work and purpose of God in him, he
was so endowed as to be a sharer of the Divine counsels. Not
a single sentence or line do we find in the Bible, the fair and
full meaning of which is not accepted and exhausted by the
simple statement of the august truth, that Christ "received from
God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice
to him from the excellent glory,' This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased.' "
I made but a passing recognition, in a few sentences, of the
extreme variations in the speculative opinions held by Unitarians
as to the nature and rank of Christ. A cool, rationalizing con.
ception of him, and a fervent, devout, and loving reliance upon
him, must of course lead to extremely different views of him.
My critic rightly infers, though from no direct statement of my
own in that connection, that I hold the highest possible view of
the nature and the rank of Christ that is consistent with his
subjection to the Being who sent him into the world, and to
whom he prayed. But after quoting a few of my sentences,
which present the extreme views of Unitarians, and bringing
into prominence those which define the loftiest and most revering conceptions of Christ, my critic remarks upon some sentences which he copies from pages 144, 146, and 147.
475 
APPENDIX.
"And I would inquire, first of all, whether Mr. Ellis has reflected on the inherent absurdity'of some of the expressions
above quoted. If Christ is not infinite in his nature and perfections, then he is finite. If he is not the Eternal, then he is
subject to the limitations of time. And certainly, between the
infinite and the finite, the eternal and the temporal, there can be
no comparison. There can be no such thing as a created intelligence being almost equal in essence with the Supreme.   A
created being may hold rank above all other orders of created
beings, but he cannot'touch upon the prerogatives of Deity.'
' The awful vacuum between the loftiest angelic natures and the
Supreme, has now a radiant occupant, who fills the whole of it.'
Is this conceivable? Is it possible? The truth is, if Christ is
not God, he is infinitely less than God.'Between him and God
there is no comzparison.  There can be none.  Those, therefore,
who deny the proper divinity of Christ - however high they may
exalt him in the scale of finite intelligence- do really pull him
down an infinite distance.  They may  think to honor  him;
they may not intend to degrade him; but (if he is what we believe him to be) they do degrade him, and that infinitely. However good their intentions may be, they cannot help it."
I would answer, that all the expressions which I have used as
employed by Unitarians for the exaltation of Christ are relieved
of any "inherent absurdity" the moment they are referred to
the exhaustive sumnming up of the Apostle in these words: "It
pleased the Father that ixn him should all fulness dwell" (Col. i.
19); the work which God " wrought in Christ when he raised
him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the
heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and
might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only
in this world, but. also in that which is to come; and hath put
all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all
things to the Church."  (Eph. i. 20-22.)   ".Wherefore God
hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above
every name." (Philip. ii. 9.) Now in these and many other passages the loftiest titles and prerogatives are assigned to Christ,
to the being presented to us in the New Testament as-our Mediator, who came to lead us, reconciled, to God. And all these
exalted honors are attached to Christ as derived gifts. They
are never spoken of as self-possessed, nor as given'by one of
his natures to the other of his natures, but as bestowed upon
476
4k 
APPENDIX.
him by the sovereign pleasure of the One Supreme God. Some
Unitarians, and, if it is proper to add, the writer is one of the
class, love to gather from the New Testament all these lofty and
transcendent terms of Divine honor attached to Christ, and to
fashion from them such conceptions as I have sought to express,
and on which my critic comments as above. Now if he finds no
difficulty in conceiving of the Messiah as the Supreme God, I
am certainly at a loss to understand how he can stumble at any
of the expressions which I have used.  Will he question the ability of God to communicate, impart, transfer, or divide any of his
prerogatives to Christ, to make Christ as "his fellow" almost his
equal, to allow him to touch upon the prerogatives of Deity, and
to fill the whole space between himself and the loftiest angelic
nature? My critic may stumble at these views, but it is a silly
trifling with the old bugbear frights of polemics to pretend that
Unitarians, in trying to fill out the Scriptural delineations of
Christ,'" degrade him infinitely." For I must remind my critic
again, that Unitarians have a God beyond and above his Messiah,
and that we still connect with the Supreme his supremacy.
I have in these remarks anticipated the answer to be given to
the next two queries of my critic, as follows:  "Let it be inquired, secondly, whether the language above
quoted does not present us with two Gods, - not two persons in
the one Godhead,  -but two Gods.'Our doctrine gives to us
the same God whom they worship, and another being,- yes, a
.Divine being besides.''The awful vacuum between the loftiest
angelic natures and the Supreme has now an occupant who fills
the whole of it.' Besides the Eternal Father, there is another being,' the sharer of his throne, his counsellor and companion,'
'touching,' in point of perfection,'upon the prerogatives of
Deity.' If here are not two Gods, I hardly know in what language such a doctrine could be exhibited. What have Trinitarians ever written that was so palpably inconsistent with the
unity of God as this.
"But I must inquire, thirdly, how the language above used
can be reconciled with the testimony of Scripture as to the
proper humanity of Christ. Our Saviour is expressly called a
man more than fifty times in the New Testament. He is represented as possessing all the sinless affections and infirmities of a
man. He' grew in wisdom and in stature.' He was hungry,
thirsty, weary, and tempted; he ate, drank, and slept; he ap.
477
1!',   -;             o   anaa- 7 —o' 
APPENDIX.
peared, lived, suffered, and died as a man.  In short, we have
as much evidence from Scripture that Christ was a man, as we
have that Peter, James, and John were men, or that any human
being is referred to or spoken of in the Bible.
" But a mere human body does not make a man.   It requires
also a human soul; not that pre-existent, super-angelic, godlike intelligence of which Mr. Ellis speaks,- but a human soul,
' made in all points like as we are, yet without sin.' Without
sach a soul, Christ could not be a man; and  the fulness of
Scripture testimony, as to thefact of his humanity, is falsified."
Supposing my critic to be as well able as I am to answer  his
question, whether the Unitarian view does not present us with
"two Gods," I leave him to find relief from his perplexity here
without my help.  As to "- the proper humanity of Christ," we
receive that as the basis, the medium, the manifestation, through
which God wrought his work in Christ.  "Christ was found in
fashion as a man."  This is all that the Scriptures reveal to us
about the matter, and to inquire below or beyond it is to inquire
in vain.
To meet the claims of candor in allowing an opponent a fair
hearing in his own words, I copy the following long extract in
continuation of his comments
"I have spoken of the abundant Scripture testimony as to the
fact of Christ's humanity. This testimony is equally explicit,
and scarcely less abundant, as to the fact of his Divinity. The
names, the attributes, the works, and the worship of the Supreme Being are all, in Scripture, ascribed to Christ. In fact,
it is as easy to prove, from the language of Scripture, that Christ
is God, as it is to prove that the Father is God, or that there is
any God at all.
"A few of the Scripture proofs of the proper Divinity of
Christ Mr. Ellis runs over, disposing of them in the briefest
manner, much as Unitarians generally have done before him.
It is painfully evident, from the manner in which these passages
are disposed of by Unitarians, that no additional amount of
Scripture testimony would be likely to satisfy them. As these
texts are explained away, others might be.  Indeed,.the same
glosses and interpretations that would take the Divinity of Christ
out of the Bible, would take it out of the Athanasian Creed, or
the Assembly's Catechism, or any other Orthodox formula of
doctrine.
" But if Christ is both God and man, - if he speaks, and is
478 
APPENDIX.
spoken of, in both these characters in Scripture, Mr. Ellis thinks
that, in all fairness, we ought to be admonished of-this important
fact. And so in truth we are. We are admonished of it. The
Scriptures set Christ before us as both God and man; and now,
when we hear him speaking to us, we can easily decide as to
the character in which he speaks, from the tenor of his words.
When we hear him saying,'My soul is exceeding sorrowful,
even unto death,'- we cannot doubt that he speaks as man.
And when we hear him saying,'I am Alpha ana Omega, the
first and the last, which was, and is, and is to come, the Almighty,'- we can as little doubt that he speaks as God.
"It is further said, that, of the whole doctrine of Christ,
nothing is more plainly set forth in the Scriptures than his dependence on the Father, and his inferiority and subordination
to him. And now, strange as it may seem to our Unitarian
friends, we accept this statement fully.  We  believe in Christ's
inferiority to the Father.  As man, he was essentially and infinitely inferior.  And as the constituted mediator between God
and men, he was, and is, subordinate to the Father. He taught
what he was appointed to teach; he did what he was appointed
to do; he suffered what he was appointed to suffer; and all this
in perfect consistency with his possessing a Divine nature, in
which' he thought it not robbery to be equal with God.'
"Again, it is said, that, by making Christ God, we'-confound
him with the Father'; we  make  him  identical with God';
and thus' his prayers must be construed as soliloquies'; and in
his intercessions we have'God interceding with God.''We
are told of a covenant between two persons, when, in fact, there
is but one'; and of'a mediator between two parties, who  is
himself one of those parties.' All this, and much more like it,
is based on the groundless assumption, that Trinitarians make
no distinctions in the Godhead. But do not Unitarians know
that we make such distinctions, essential and eternal distinctions? Do they not know that the Bible makes them?' 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.'
' Glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I
had with thee before the world was.'   The doctrine of the
'Trinitv is the doctrine of three personal distinctions in one God.
The Son is not identical with the Father, nor the Father with
the Son, nor the Spirit with either the Father or Son. In the
Scriptures, the Son in his Divine nature often addresses the
Father, and the Father the Son.'Thy throne, O God, is for
ever and ever.'' Glorify thou me,' &c., as in the passage above
quoted.
" Mr. Ellis has some strange misconceptions of the Trinitarian
4
479 
APPENDIX.
doctrine, such as that it' represents Christ to us as a fractional
part of the Godhead.' We never before learned that a spiritnot even a human spirit, much less the Divine -could be divided into parts. Why should any Theist indulge in such materializing conceptions of the Godhead? "
These suggestions, in the usual strain of Orthodox special
pleading, ar6 equally familiar and inconclusive to Unitarians.
Most of what-can be called argument in these paragraphs will
be found to have been anticipated in the essay that is under
criticism. As to the assertions made by my critic, they are
easily disposed of. There is a great difference between the
Divinity of Christ and the Deity of Christ. " The names, the
attributes, the works, and the worship of the Supreme Being
are" not " all in Scripture ascribed to Christ."  This cool assumption of the affirmative on a point on which my essay maintains the negative side, is too hasty and unsatisfactory. In a
note to the paragraph containing this assumption, my critic
makes a Scripture quotation, bearing on an emphatic topic already referred to by me, - the lack of proof that Christ is an
object of our'worship. He quotes Rev. v. 13, for honors paid
" to the Lamb," after worship has been paid to God. And this
is the Scripture testimony to his broad assertion above!
Let the reader mark the blank affirmation in the fourth paragraph, that the Orthodox "believe in Christ's inferiority to the
Father.  As man, he was essentially and infinitely inferior!"
Indeed!  This is a great admission!  A man is inferior to God!
But was not Christ as Christ, in every manifestation and representation of him to us, inferior to God? An Apostle, commending to us the lowliness of Christ, says, that, though divinely furnished by God, "he did not grasp at an equality with God."
Yet a Theological Professor is reduced to the strait of quoting
these words under a mistranslation which directly inverts the
Apostle's assertion, to set aside the whole Scripture testimony
that Christ - not as a man, but as Christ, the Messiah - was
not the Supreme God.
In the fifth paragraph my critic endeavors to controvert a
direct argument, by alleging that it " is based on the groundless assumption that Trinitarians make no distincti6ns in the
Godhead." We know they try to do so. But to his question
480 
APPENDIX.
whether we do not know that the Bible makes them, I answer,
for one, No!
As to the objection of my critic founded on "fractional parts
of the Godhead," I have but to refer him to his own illustration
used above, about the tree and its three branches.
A few incidental suggestions close the criticisms which I have
followed at such length. I had asserted, on page 150, as of the
teaching of Trinitarianism, "that Christ parted with all that in
him and about him was not God when he left the earth," &c.
My critic answers:  "Mr. Ellis will be glad to learn that Trinitarianism teaches no
such thing.  We  do not believe that it was'the flesh alone'
which brought'Christ into sympathy of nature with us.' He had
a human soul as well as a human body, with all the capacities
and sinless affections of such a soul. With his human soul and
his glorified body he has gone into the heavens, where he ever
liveth-  God-man and Mediator -' to make intercession for us.'
I am glad of an opportunity to correct here my own error,
which I discovered soon after the printing of my article, in saying what I did say about the teaching of Trinitarianism on this
point. The sentence was but a blundering and inadequate expression of what was in my mind. I object to the Trinitarian
view of Christ, that by converting him into God it deprives us of
that mediatorial being whom the Scriptures present to us " in
our likeness."
To my remarks on page 151, relating to the necessity of some
other views of Christ than as an "Example" or "Teacher,"
my critic replies, that we are in danger of losing him in those
precious earthly offices by not recognizing "his proper humanl.ity." I have copied this suggestion, not because I see any force
in it, but because my critic seems to have attached importance
to it.
He concludes with a comment on my affirmation, that candid
Orthodox judges of Unitarians will have less and less reason to
say, "You do not make enough of Christ." After expressing a
devout hope that this resolution may be faithfully fulfilled, he
adds:  " We cannot utter for our friend a better wish, or a more important prayer, than that he may be led to think more and more
41
481 
APPENDIX.
of Christ, until he comes to the full realization of him as' the
child born, and the son given'; a human being like ourselves,
who is yet the' Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.'"
Fully appreciating, as I sincerely hope I do, the kind, Chris.
tian spirit which prompted this suggestion, I cannot but as kindly
say to my critic, that such a garbling perversion of Scripture language, for the sake of levelling it against us, is especially offen.
sive to our taste, and utterly ineffective as appeal. A vital, fundamental Christian truth ought not to be made dependent, even
for a statement of it, on a mistranslation of a few old Hebrew
words, which candid Orthodox scholars are as ready as Unitarians to correct. But when, as a matter of fact, was Christ ever
called "the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father"?  We must
not be robbed of our Christ, by having him substituted for our
God.
X.
THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT.
I HAD expected to find the zeal and earnestness of my critic
most effectively brought to bear upon a refutation of my statements in the discussion of the great doctrine of the Reconciliation of sinners to God by Jesus Christ. My disappointment
strengthens with each reperusal of what he has written, as wholly
inadequate to meet the terms of the discussion. No reader of
his criticisms could learn from them the substance either of my
statements of the Unitarian view, or of my objections to the Calvinistic view, while the point of controversy on which alone I
lay stress is not even recognized.   I must therefore ask my
readers, who may be following me through this reiteration of my
argument, to turn back to a few references which I shall indicate. On page 191 I affirmed, in the most explicit and strong
language which our mother tongue affords, the following:
482 
APPENDIX.
"Unitarianism does not undertake to fathom, or comprehends
or give expression to, all the mysterious influence and efficacy,
and mode of operation upon man, and man's soul and destiny,
of the sacrificial death of Christ, but is free to acknowledge an
unexplained and inexplicable agency in it." Stronger sentences
even than this are added, for the sake of presenting with all possible stress my own conviction, that an efficacy is ascribed in the
Scriptures to the mediatorial work of Christ, which, as to the
method of its operation, is not explained.   I wrote: "We are
cheerfully willing to admit that God has comprehended influences in the sacrificial death of Christ, which are designed to be
efficaciously felt and mercifully availed of by us, without yielding to the solution of our understanding." With warm gratitude
I accepted the noble avowal made by the great Bishop Butler,
which I quoted on page 192, "that Scripture has not explained
how-and in what particular way Christ's death is efficacious for
our pardon." This avowal, from one of the sincerest Christian
men and most clear-minded thinkers that ever accepted Orthodoxy in some undefined modification of it, I regard as a rebuke,
all the more effective for its gentleness, of those who are so
ready with a dogma of their own about God's need of satisfaction, or the demands of his law. After these reiterated acknowledgments of an unrevealed and mysterious element in the mediatorial work of Christ, which are to be found stated or intimated on many of my pages, I defined the Unitarian view as
looking wholly man-ward for the operation of these mysterious
and inexplicable influences. I wrote on page 193, Unitarianism
"maintains that the death of Christ, so far as its efcacy is distinctly defined [leaving still the mystery allowed for and unattempted], is instrumental to our salvation through its influence
on the heart and life of man, not through its vicarious value with
God; -and also that revelation does not acquaint us with any obstacle in the method of administration which God has established
as his government, which prevents his exercising mercy to the
penitent, except through the substitution of a victim to law."
Unless now I lack the faculty of expressing what is in my
mind, I have plainly conveyed a clear statement of the Unitarian
view, and have intimated an objection to a precise theory of an
483 
APPENDIX.
inferential or constructive character, which Orthodoxy interpo lates into the Christian system. This theory I have stated on
page 199, as affirming "that God, in order that he may exer cise mercy towards the penitent, requires or accepts an expia tory offering made by innocence to his own law." Of any.pos sible form, shaping, or announcement of this theory, which shall
retain the substance of it, I have avowed my belief, that not a
single line or sentence can be quoted in testimony from the
Scriptures. The Bible knows nothing of such a theory, and says
nothing about it.  There is no intimation, not the faintest, that
an explanation of what is left in mystery about the efficacy of
the mediatorial work of Christ, is to be looked for in the direc tion of that theory. It is from beginning to end, in every stage
of it, and in every element of it, a pure invention of the human
fancy, and only by the hardest and most ingenious constructiveness of inference can the parts of it be picked out from the
words and imagery of disjointed texts, and tessellated into a
doctrinal formula. I have quoted, page 197, the assertion made
by Di. Woods, that " all the influence of repentance results
from the death of Christ."   But if his whole share in the
blessed life of heaven, which we doubt not that excellent divine is now enjoying, had been,made to depend upon his quoting a single proof of that statement from Christ, or an Apostle,
he would have fallen short of the great salvation.   To  Dr.
Woods applies the censure which I have also quoted from
Bishop Butler (page 196): "Some have endeavored to explain
the efficacy of what Christ has done and suffered for us, beyond what the Scripture has authorized."
It is for going beyond what the Scripture has authorized, and
for trying to force upon it a theory inconsistent with its other
teachings, that we object to the Orthodox dogma of the Atonement. We do not object to it, that it makes Qur forgiveness and
salvation to depend upon the death of Christ, nor that it asks us
to believe in some mysterious and unexplained efficacy in that
mediatorial work.   But we do object to that unscriptural and
pagan element in its theory, which represents God as looking
upon the misery endured by Christ as an equivalent offset, expiation, or substitution for the sufferings of the sinner, and the
484
Ik. I 
APPENDIX.
only method by which God could exercise his attribute of mercy
toward man. We hail with gratitude the relief offered us in the
writings of some of the most liberal and enlarged minds of existing Orthodox communions, which repudiate the old, barbarous,
and vindictive representations once used in setting forth the imagery of the doctrine of the Calvinistic Atonement. But-we still
encounter a remnant of the old, hideous device, however it be subdued, in the "governmental theory."  In exact proportion to the
element retained in this theory of the ancient and the substantial
Orthodox doctrine, which taught that God's law prevented his exercise of mercy except ttrough the expiatory suffering of an innocent victim substituted for the sinner, - in that same proportion
do we measure our opposition to the theory. We insist, that what
the Scripture has left unexplained as to the mode of efficacy of
the mediatorial work of Christ shall not have the veil drawn from
it by the obtrusion of any such theory as this in the place of the
mystery. Scripture tells us that Jesus was a victim to the wickedness and prejudices of the Jews. But no earnestness of Orthodox
appeal can ever dispose us to believe, that, had the passions of
those Jews fallen one whit short of the actual crucifixion of Christ,
God, the Father of the human race, could never have forgiven
and restored one single penitent sinner of that race through time
or eternity.
After this summary of the positive and direct points discussed
in my essay, I revert to the criticisms now before me.  I find
the paper plentifully strewn with those texts from the Epistles,
especially from that doubtful Epistle to the Hebrews, which,
with their perverted constructions, glosses, and associations,
form the staple of an Orthodox argument on this doctrine.
One needs not go out of the range of the works of the best Orthodox commentators and expositors, particularly of some who
have written within the last few years, for proof of the utter
irrelevancy of those texts for the use to which they are adduced.
Translate by the term Mercy-seat the word  mistranslated by
Propitiation, and connect with it the uses and truths of which
the Mercy-seat of the Ark was the symbol in the old Covenant,
and the Orthodox theory is lamed in the very start for authenticating itself by Scripture.
41*
485 
APPENDIX.
Recognizing my allowance of the favorable modifications of
the old doctrine, and assuming a defence against me of the governmental theory, my critic says:  "It supposes that an atonement for sinners was necessary,
not merely as a means of bringing them to repentance, but to
open a way of salvation for them, when they had repented. It
was necessary to sustain the honor, the broken law of God, to
vindicate his authority, to satisfy his glorious justice. Or to
present the whole in almost the precise language of Paul: a
propitiation, an atonement, was and is necessary,'to declare
God's righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
through the forbearance of God; - to dcclare, I say, at this time,
his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him
who believeth in Jesus.' Rom. iii. 25."
The reader can hardly fail to note the chasm which divides
the assertion of the critic from the assertion of the text, even
after he has used the help of false emphasis and italics upon
its words. Where is there anything about the insufficiency of
repentance, the demands of an insulted law, and the value of
substituted sufferings as recognized by God? My critic would
say, these come from the text by fair inference. I grant the
operation of inference, but deny the fairness of it. The lucid
paraphrase of Locke lets in a better light':-" They have all,
both Jews and Gentiles, sinned, and fail of attaining that glory
which God hath appointed for the righteous. Being made righteous gratis, by the favor of God, through the redemption which
is by Jesus Christ. Whom God hath set forth to be the propitiatory or mercy-seat in his own blood [death], for the manifestation of God's righteousness, by passing over their transgressions,
formerly committed, which he hath borne with hitherto, so as to
withhold his hand from casting off the nation of the Jews as
their past sins deserved. For the manifesting his righteousness
at this time, that he might be just in keeping his promise, and
be the justifier of every one, not who is of the Jewish nation or
extraction, but of the faith in Jesus Christ." And in a note
this discreet commentator remarks: -" Redemption by Jesus
Christ does not import there was any compensation paid to
God, by paying what was of equal value, in consideration
whereof they were delivered: for that is inconsistent with what
St. Paul expressly says here, namely, that sinners are justified
by God gratis, and of his free bounty." 
APPENDIX,
The following paragraphs might seem at first sight to contain
matter covering the purpose for which it is alleged.
"Mr. Ellis admits that the death of Christ was a sacrifice,
'in the highest and most sacred signification of the word';
but'a sacrifice for man, and not to God.' Unfortunately, the
Apostle Paul seems to have taken a different view of the matter.
' Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an
offering and a sacrice TO  GOD, for a sweet-smelling savor.'
Eph. ii. 5.' H,;ow much more shall the blood of Christ, who,
through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot TO GOD,
purge your conscience from dead works.'  Heb. ix. 14.  Also
the bloody sacrifices of the Jews - all typifying, shadowing
forth, the sacrifice of Christ -were offered, in every case, to
God. And the same may be said of the intercession of Christ.
This is but the carrying out, the consummation, of his work of
Atonement; and yet no one can doubt that his intercessions
are addressed to God.
"Mr. Ellis denies -in face of the full and explicit exposition
of them given by the Apostles, and especially by Paul in his
Epistle to the Hebrews —that the sacrifices of the Jews had
any reference to the death of Christ, or anything in them of a
typical character.' Not the most distant intimation is given in
the Old Testament, that the ritual sacrifices looked beyond
themselves to an anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ. Not
a word can be quoted from lawgiver, prophet, or priest, to prove
that such a reference was had in view.' We cannot stop to
argue the question as to the typical character of the Hebrew
sacrifices. If this character is not expressly given to them in
the Old Testament, it is in the New. Paul has argued the
question sufficiently, both for himself and me.
"Mr. Ellis has another notion respecting the sacrifice of
Christ, which is, perhaps, peculiar to himself. Certainly it is
very different from that of the New Testament. The doctrine
of Paul is, that Christ, the Great High.Priest of our profession,
offered up himself a sacrifice for our sins,'who, through the
Eternal Spirit, offered up himself, without spot, to God.'  But
Mr. Ellis thinks that he was offered up by his murderers.'We
regard Christ as a victim offered up by human sin for human
redemption.'' It was man, not God, who made Christ a curse
for us.'"
I might ask my critic here a series of questions which he
would find it difficult to answer. Thus, for instance, How did
he succeed in satisfying himself, against the judgment of the best
critics and an overwhelming array of external and internal evi. 
APPENDIX.
dence, that St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Would
he take upon himself the defence of all the forced analogies,
accommodations, and fanciful parallelisms by which the writer
of that Epistle —so strangely unlike everything which we have
from the pen of St. Paul —attempts to cohciliate ritualistic
Jews to the simplicity of Christ? Again, leaving as of no account what I have said in my Essay in explanation of the class
of texts here quoted, does either one of them, do all of them,
when their figures are forced into the most literal construction,
convey the terms of the Governmental Theory? Is the death
of an innocent victim really of sweet-smelling savor to a holy
God? Is a sort of Divine suicide really suggested to us by the
Apostle as a matter of gracious contemplation in heaven? Is a
"purging of our consciences from dead works" equivalent to
a satisfying of the Divine law by a vicarious victim? And,
-once more, if Christ by his own voluntary submission was not
made a victim by men, was he, the Beloved Son, really made a
curse by God?
I cannot here reargue matters which I have discussed according to my ability, however inadequately, in the preceding Essay.
Yet, as I recognize the kindest possible intent in my critic, as
well as his firm persuasion that his plea ought not to be without
force with me, I will not slight any part of it. In connection
with what I have just quoted from him is the following:
"Mr. Ellis's objections to our doctrine of Atonement are such
as these: -First,'it is not distinctly revealed, nor directly
taught in the Scriptures.' He admits, indeed, that,' by the aid
of inference, and construction, and ingenuity, Orthodoxy can
make out an argument of considerable plausibility for this
theory.'' A marvellous show of apparent authority may be
claimed for it.' Still, it is in his view an unscriptural doctrine.
'Where is there a sentence within the covers of the Bible that
can be quoted as explicitly advancing it?' Its believers' should
give us at least one text, which includes all its essential terms.'
If by this it is meant, that we have, in no one text of Scripture,
a full, scientific statement of the doctrine of Atonement, we
admit it. The Scriptures do not abound in scientific statements
of doctrine. But if it be meant that the Scriptures do not, in a
great many passages, teach the doctrine of Atonement, in our
sense of the word,- Atonement by the sufferings and death of
Christ,' an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling 
APPENDIX.
savor,'- we record our most solemn dissent from such a statement; -a dissent in which we have the concurrence of nine
tenths of the Protestant Christian world, including most of the
Unitarians of a former age. Mr. Ellis is not ignorant of the
numeroustpassages which clearly enough assert this doctrine; for
he cursorily reviews some of them, and endeavors to set aside
their obvious import. But the attempt is a vain one. The real
meaning shines out too clearly to be obscured by anything short
of torture. Professor F. D. Huntington, having quoted the same
Scriptures, says:' Now, as one ponders the singular force, and
directness, and agreement of these passages, and very many
more of the same import, and marks their cumulative power, as
they resound through the New Testament, we submit that it will
not be strange if he feels that on those' who deny the Orthodox
doctrine'rests the burden of explaining how, according to the
Bible, the death of Christ is not the divinely ordained and essential ground of human salvation.''There is some reason to
think that passages like those we have quoted have become
comparatively unfamiliar to Unitarian ears, by having been
dropped out of Unitarian preaching, under a natural persuasion
that they do not harmonize with the Unitarian theory."'
No! The Governmental Theory of Atonement is not distinctly revealed nor directly taught in the Scriptures.  It is for
those who place this theory at the very foundation of the Christian system to account as best they can for the fact that they
have to use their own ingenuity to construct a formula for expressing it. How is it that, in all the discourses of the Master
and of his Apostles, from first to last, not a single sentence was
uttered embracing either, much less both, of these two terms of
the Theory, - namely, the insufficiency of penitence to win the
mercy of God, and the necessity of satisfying an outraged law
by the suffering of the innocent, regarded by God as an equivalent by way of substitute for the sufferings of the guilty? But
my critic yields the point. I thank him for his candor in affirming what nevertheless could not have been denied. He grants
that no one text of Scripture contains a.full scientific statement
of the doctrine of Atonement,- i. e. of the Orthodox doctrine.
Why then should he make a scientific statement of it for us?
Confessedly, it must be only by putting together texts, and parts
of texts, and by making one's own inferences and constructions
a solvent or a cement of them, that this Theory can find terms
469 
APPENDIX.
for its expression. But even then it cannot express all its terms in
Scripture language or phraseology. Let this most significant fact
be pondered well. Inspiration has not given us the means for stating the Orthodox doctrine of atonement in a formula. Not a single other Christian doctrine can be specified for the expression of
which we cannot find in Scripture language an adequate and exhaustive sentence, whether for the simple uses of a child's catechism, or for inscriptions over the most magnificent portals or the
most august altars. The mediatorial work of Christ must be expressed in the uninspired speech of men, if we wish to express it
by the terms of the Governmental Theory. There is a remnant
of the old-fashioned style of controversy in the sentences in
which my critic says that I am not" ignorant Of the numerous
passages which clearly enough assert this doctrine "; and that I
"endeavor to set aside their obvious import."   The  clearly
enough may signify the evidence which satisfies him without
satisfying another. To charge a serious searcher for the truth
in the Scriptures with an endeavor to set aside their obvious import is to give up one's charity under a momentary testiness at
being foiled in an argument. The obvious import of Scripture
is what I am seeking, not rejecting. Some Unitarians have
doubtless, as I said in my essay, allowed the passages and
phrases quoted by Professor Huntington to drop out of their
preaching, because Orthbdox perversions had connected false associations with their meaning. But other Unitarians have loved
to retain tlhem in use, not finding in them a trace of the terms of
the Governmental Theory.
The next paragraph challenges my assertion that "the Scriptures do not lay the emphatic stress of Christ's redeeming work
upon his death, above or apart from his life, character, and doetrine." (p. 184.) My critic, on the other hand, says that fifty
years' reading of the Scriptures has shown him that they lay an
"emphasis altogether peculiar upon the blood, the cross, the
sufferings, and the death of Christ," in connection with the salvation of sinners. He admits the stress that is laid upon the
resurrection of Christ, but ventures the assertion, that "the number of passages in which our salvation is referred to the sufferings and death of Christ, compared with those in which it is
490 
APPENDIX.
referred to his resurrection, will be as four to one." I cannot
call to mind a single passage in which our salvation is referred
to the resurrection of Christ. I spoke of his redeeming or mediatorial work as a whole. Any one who wishes may make a
count of the passages.
The paragraph which follows will be found to contain a good
Orthodox argument against a difficulty of its own raising.
"Mr. Ellis objects again to our view of the Atonement, that
it' fetters God's exercise of mercy, by the restraints of his penal
law.'  (p. 214.)  But the laws are of his own appointment, and
he is no more fettered by them than he is by the great law of
justice, of right. It is no restraint of God's moral liberty, that
he cannot do wrong; nor is it any restraint upon his mercy,
that he cannot exercise it in violation of justice,- to his own
dishonor and the detriment of all those great interests which his
law protects."
But the actual difficulty is, that the claims of real justice are
not met by the method invented by Orthodoxy for relieving the
Divine government of the dilemma also invented for it.  We
do not find any such dilemma recognized in Scripture as embarrassing the Almighty. He has mercy on whom he will have
mercy. If he has said, as revelation affirms that he has, that he
that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall be forgiven, -- not a
word being intimated of any " governmental difficulty " in the
way, -we certainly shall leave the Merciful Judge to harmonize
his own methods, and shall create no embarrassment for the
sake of getting round it. It is hardly fair, however, to meet the
assertion, that God may freely forgive the penitent, with the dogmatic affirmation that God cannot do wrong. It is hard, too, to
find that mercy, which all through the Bible is represented as
the crowning attribute of a God of love, needs an Orthodox invention to secure it from turning to his dishonor.
The next point argued by my critic is as follows:
"Mr. Ellis insists that repentance is not only the sole condi.
tion of pardon, but the sole ground of it; - that no other ground,
no expedient to sustain law, while dispensing mercy, is required
or needed.'Forgiveness on penitence does not, in any case,
peril the authority of the Divine law.' (p. 216.) To prove this,
Mr. Ellis cites cases in which forgiveness is promised and
491 
APPENDIX.
granted to the penitent, without any referrenece to an Atonement
as the ground of it.  He even says, that one'single case by
which, on the authority of inspiration, full forgiveness was
promised on simple repentance, without reference to any implied or reserved condition, would prove that the Divine administration, as revealed to men, did not always recognize this
limitation of the prerogative of mercy.' (p. 200.) Now this
seems to us a very strange assertion. Suppose forgiveness to
the penitent cannot be imparted, except through the efficacy of
a provided Atonement, is God bound, in every promise of forgiveness to the penitent, to make a full statement of the ground
of such promise?  Not at all.  As well might we infer, because
forgiveness is said to flow through the blood of Christ, without any
express mention of repentance, that therefore repentance is unnecessary.' In whom we have redemption, through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.'
(Eph. i. 7; Col. i.' 14.)  The truth is, God has stated with
sufficient clearness and frequency, both the grounds and the
conditions of pardon under his government, - though not always both together,- and we are not at liberty to set aside
either the one or the other."
No other ground for the exercise of mercy on the part of God
is recognized in Scripture, than penitence on the part of the sinner. To say that God is not bound; in every case of the exercise of mercy to a penitent, to make known to him a reserved
but all-essential condition beside penitence, is to make a supposition of a merely possible contingency to stand as an offset to
hundreds of passages which say that penitence insures forgiveness. The subtle distinction between the grounds and the conditions of pardon is a pure Orthodox invention, a dogmatic device of which the Scriptures know absolutely nothing.
One other matter of extreme importance, in its vital connec.
tion with the true Scripture doctrine as to the terms of acceptance with God, is recognized by my critic in the following para
graph: —
"Mr. Ellis thinks the Orthodox are much perplexed about the
condition of Jews and heathens, who have died without any
knowledge of the sacrifice of Christ. But we feel no such perplexity. We hear of none. We believe with Peter,' that God
is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth
him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.' (Acts
x. 34.)   But  how  accepted?   Undoubtedly,  through  the
492 
APPENDIX.
Atonement of Christ, though he may never haye heard of it.
The Jew, the heathenr, who fears God, and works righteousness,
has the element of faith in Christ, though not the form of it. He
has that (as in the case of Cornelius) which will be faith, the
moment he comes to the knowledge of Christ, whether that
knowledge is first imparted in this world, or the next; and he
is as really forgivenfor Christ's sake, as.the devoutest Christian.
The entire company of the redeemed in heaven,' of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation,' are represented as
singing with one voice:' Thou art worthy to take the book, and
to open the seals thereof, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed
us unto God by thy blood.'"
I will take the word of the writer as evidence that he himself
feels no perplexity on this painful and fearful issue raised by the
Orthodox dogma that the terms of salvation are repentance and
faith in the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But I cannot
receive his disclaimer as meeting the terrible perplexity presented by the creed. The pages of this volume contain abundant
evidence of the perplexity which consistent Orthodox men have
found in disposing of the heathen through the Calvinistic theory.
Some of the Orthodox of firmer theological nerves rode over the
perplexity by sending the heathen in a mass to hell. On pages
174 and 175, I have quoted good Mr. Flavel's own words to this
effect.  Hte has no idea of being "indulgent to the heathen."
He maintains the direct " impossibility of their salvation that
know not Christ."  Heathens, he says, cannot "inherit heaven."  He adds: "I know it seems hard that such brave men as
some of the heathen were should be damned. But the Scrip.
ture knows no other way to glory but Christ, put on and applied
by faith. And it is the common suffrage of modern sound divines, that no man by the sole conduct of nature, without the
knowledge of Christ, can be saved."
Again, on pages 350 and 351, I have taken notice of the
shock caused to many of the Orthodox by the bold assertion of
the North British Review, that the heathen will not perish because of their ignorance of the Gospel. I cannot but admire
the ingenuity of my critic in his curious device for disposing of
the perplexity. The purpose of it is so kindly, humane, and
Christian   that it must be winked at.  In fact, it comes to the
same   result as does the Unitarian view, though it goes the long
42
493
Is
I 
APPENDIX.
est way round to get to it. Faith in Christ as an expiatory
sacrifice is essential to the salvation of a penitent, - says the
creed. The pious Jew, says my critic, has the element of that
faith, he has what will be it when he has a chance to know it
as such. It is a beautiful and a grateful suggestion. Heartily
do I thank my critic for it. But still it is a most round-about
way for bringing the free mercy of God to bear upon the peni.
tent.
When I wrote the essay with the criticisms upon which I am
now concerned, I devoted considerable space to the argument,
that the exercise of the Divine prerogative of mercy under the
Tewish covenant was not fettered or made dependent upon any
express or implied limitation, least of all that limitation which
Orthodoxy now imposes upon it. This argument was designed
to meet the well-known Calvinistic theory, that the Old Tes.
tament sacrifices were typical of the crucifixion, and that the
penitents had an anticipatory share, through faith, in the benefits
of Christ's death. I should not have then spent such labor on
an incidental point, had an essay which has appeared in print
this year been available for my use during the previous year.
I refer to a most remarkable and significant essay which ap.
peared in the Bibliotheca Sacra for January, 1857,- one of
those admirable papers which that valuable periodical has furnished as the fruits of liberal scholarship and the tokens of independent thought in the Orthodox body. The theme of the
essay is,-" The Knowledge and Faith of the Old Testament
Saints respecting the promised Messiah." The question under
discussion is, "What Knowledge had they of him in his pecu.
liar character as an atoning Saviour, and what Faith, if any,
did they exercise in him as such?" The answer is, None at
all, of either Knowledge or Faith! The argument is as follows: -"The promised Messiah is never held up in the Old
Testament as the object of confidence, faith, or love; nor are
the Jews called on to rely personally upon his Atonement for
the remission of sins and acceptance with God. Nowhere in
the Old Testament is faith in an atoning Messiah proposed or
required as a condition, or pardon promised on the ground of
it." "The promise of pardon is everywhere made to repentance
494
k 
APPENDIX.
and reformation, when they are hearty and thorough enough."
"We may have our theory, that to know and believe on Christ
has, in all ages, been indispensable to pardon and salvation. But
the Bible nowhere says that it was so to those who lived before
the crucifixion, or even to those now living where the Gospel is
not known. Is it not presumptuous for us to have opinions and
theories on such a point, not fairly deduced from the revelations
of God?"
I must quote two more choice extracts from this excellent
paper.   "Repentance is a saving grace, as well as faith in
Christ. And where one of them, genuine in its character, is
exercised, the other infallibly will be, if the subject has the
requisite knowledge." " All that can be regarded as moral
excellence in the renewed sinner is probably not less clearly
indicated by his godly sorrow for sin, and his hearty striving
against it, than by the simple act of faith in Christ."
For writing and saying precisely such things as these fifty
years ago, Unitarians were charged with opposing and ridiculing
missions to the heathen. Compare now the views of Mr. Flavel
and other old Calvinists with these "indulgent" views, which
have the indorsement of an Orthodox periodical.   Let the
reader do that, and then he will gratefully thank God for the
progress and power of true Gospel light amid dark human speculations.
But a very serious embarrassment still arrests one's thoughts,
as he considers that those who yield all that I have just quoted
insist, nevertheless, that the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ,
whether the fact of it be known or not known, is still the allessential ground of the pardon of a penitent heathen, Jew, or
Christian. Most significant is the suggestion which forces itself
upon our minds in leading us to ask, If Orthodoxy, in conceding
what it does concede to avoid one terrible perplexity involved in
its theory, does not run the risk of sacrificing a chief, if not the
highest, recommendation of its theory,- namely, the power of
motive which it offers to the penitent in displaying and appealing
from the willing sacrifice of Christ? The more that Orthodoxy
concedes as to the efficacy of Christ's Atonement for those who
know nothing of it, the less does it make of that Atonement as
495
I 
APPENDIX.
furnishing motives to the sinner, while it increases proportionately the stress of value assigned to it for satisfying God, in the
way of a substitution. We know and admit the power over the
human heart which goes with Orthodox appeals from the cross
of Christ.  Those appeals turn themselves into earnest and loving motives to penitence and amendment of life. This is the
one redeeming influence even of the most harrowing views of
the Atonement which have been presented under Roman Catholic
or Calvinistic preaching from the crucifix or from Calvary.
Sinners have often been induced to forget the hideous representations made to them in the name of God the Father, of his unrelenting demands and his stern vengeance, through force of the
gentle and melting sway of the self-sacrificing Saviour over
their hearts. It is an incitement, a help to penitence. It furnishes a motive of irresistible might, and one which the heart
loves to own and obey without imposing upon it measurement or
limitation. This power as a motive comes from the cross of
Christ, in that view of it which has its highest and holiest influence to Unitarians. Orthodoxy, too, has won some of the triumphs which it has ascribed to the God-ward view of the Atonement from this irresistible power of motive which goes with
appeals to the heart from the cross. Yet this power of appeal
from the cross, as "furnishing motives for penitence and obedience, of course is restricted to those who actually have knowledge of Christ. The old Jews and the heathen, then, if benefited by the cross, had no help of motive from it, and its entire
efficacy in their case must be its God-ward efficacy in their behalf for them, not at all upon them. It is implied.that, at some
future time, these forgiven Jews and heathen, who supposed
they were forgiven by a simple exercise of God's mercy, will
learn that the real ground of their forgiveness was the cross of
Christ. The discovery will disclose to them that, while they
thought they owed their discharge solely to the clemency of
their judge, their debts have, unknown to them, been paid to
him by a substitute. The admission being yielded, that millions
of human beings may have the whole benefit of the cross without any knowledge of the sacrifice upon it, without -any help
from motive or gratitude in appeals from it, it must follow of
496
'k
tI
N 
APPENDIX.
course that in their case the whole necessity for the cross was
on the side of God, and the whole operation of it is God-ward.
Now, if millions of the human race may thus have the full
benefit of the cross without any knowledge or subjective help
from it on earth, why is that knowledge or subjective help from
it essential to any portion of the human race? Is not this a
making the cross of Christ of none effect upon men, to assign
all its effect to its operation with God? Why, then, might not
the crucifixion have transpired, and the whole world for ever
have been ignorant of it? If the mediatorial work of Christ, in.
stead of being a means and medium for manifesting the merciful purposes of God, was the ground of the Divine mercy, why
was not heaven, rather than the earth, the scene of its display?
As to the Scripture quotation with which my critic closes, I
have yet a few remarks to offer. His scholarly attainments
would forbid his denying that "the blood of Christ" is simply
an idiomatic synonyme of "the death of Christ." Some Orthodox writers of less culture would not admit this etymological
fact, because they love to indulge every fancy which associates
the cross with an immolation, and turns its blood to the service
of a ritualistic purification. But proceeding upon the allowance,
which an intelligent reader will not withhold, how does that song
of the redeemed afford any support to the Trinitarian, or to the
Governmental Theory?  How can God be said to have redeemed
us to God? Where is there any recognition of the indispensable condition of expiation, or of the Divine demand of a substituted victim, or of God's acceptance of Christ in that character?
Much of the most emphatic statement of Orthodox doctrine on
this subject, as in opposition to us, is made by a mere blind or
catch in words.  We are said to fall short of the problem of redemption by giving up "an Infinite Saviour."  This is intended
by the Orthodox to convey against us a charge of depreciating
Christ. But if the charge were really taken by us as meaning
anything, it would be that we did not believe in God. We have
" an Infinite Saviour," for as Christ, the medium of that salvation taught us, we refer the plan, the method, the grace, and the
glory of our salvation to God. We say, in words as intelligible
as those quoted from the mystical Apocalypse, "God so loved
42*
497
1
.1 
APPENDIX.
the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
This speculative and argumentative dealing with the sacred
theme of Reconciliation to God by Jesus Christ, has not been to
me a congenial or welcome process. On the contrary, I have
found positive pain in bringing the holiest and tenderest of all
the precious soul-sacraments of the Gospel under debate as a
theory, a dogma. God forgive me, if, in secularizing the theme
as the claims of controverted truth seemed to allow, I have
brought to its discussion any other than chastened and serious
and humble feelings. The meaning of prepositions is one thing.
Saving and efficacious faith in Christ is another thing. Accepting the great text with all three of the meanings of its preposition, I read, "God was BY, IN, and THROUGH Christ reconciling the world unto Himself."
XI.
EXCLUSION OF UNITARIANS FROM CHRISTIAN FEL                        LOWSHIP.
NEAR the close of my Essay on the Atonement, I had expressed a regret that the rejection by Unitarians of a constructive interpretation or theory of the Orthodox doctrine was made
a principal reason for excluding them from Christian fellowship.
My critic makes a most kindly reference to this matter, and I
doubt not his gentle and earnest words are but an inadequate utterance of the sincerity and full conviction of his heart. But he
says that, "while existing differences remain, this lack of fellowship is inevitable."  It is impossible that we should "unite cor.
dially and consistently in the most solemn rites and acts of
Christian fellowship." I cannot deny my critic the right of addressing the reader in his own words on this point.
"Most gladly would we accept the fellowship of those (or the
more serious part of them) who now constitute the Unitarian
498
t4
l 
APPENDIX.
community in this country. We have longed for it, prayed for
it, waited for it; and still we wait. In this community we recognize not a few whom we respect and honor, and whom we are
permitted to regard as among our most valued friends. We had
hoped that the time was approaching, and near at hand, when
those who had gone out from the old Orthodox Congregational
churches of New England, and embraced what themselves think
is another Gospel, would return. But at present we see little
(we are sorry to say it) to encourage such a hope. Accepting
the articles before us as a specimen, we see little advance in the
right direction (unless it be in the matter of phraseology) beyond what was inculcated thirty years ago. We have the same
differences now as then, in respect to the mode of the Divine
existence, the natural state and character of man, the person and
work of Christ, and the foundation of the sinner's hope; and
while these continue, we see not how there can be fellowship,
as Christians. We impeach not the sincerity of those who differ
from us; we question not the excellence of their moral characters and social virtues; we will treat them not only with courtesy, but kindness, in all the relations and intercourse of life.
But until they can sing with us the "new song" which should
be sung by all Christians on earth, as we know it will be by all
in heaven:' Unto him who hath saved us, and washed us from
our sins in his own blood,' we see not, as was said above, how
there can be the fellowship of Christians."
Now I would not be understood as laying any undue stress
upon an incidental matter, to which I made a passing reference
fully as much under a prompting of regard for Orthodox friends
as with a zeal for securing a full Christian recognition for my
own brethren. I have noticed in some other quarter a criticism
on what I had written, to the effect that, though Unitarians denounced and withstood Orthodoxy, they had a timid longing, a
weak and fond craving, to hold an unbroken fellowship with the
Orthodox. I do not share that feeling in any form or measure
of it which implies a desire of being indorsed by the Orthodox,
or of being admitted into their more private or confidential religious associations. On the contrary, I think our present relations
are, on the whole, preferable to any such forcing of sympathies
and overcoming of mutual antipathies as would enter into the
first conditions of such close fellowship. On some matters we
could not possibly harmonize. If I may be allowed to say in
the mildest terms possible what it seems ungracious to say in
499 
APPENDIX.
any way, I will avow my conviction that Unitarians would find
full as much, if not more, embarrassment and hard forcing of
sympathy in a full union with the Orthodox, as would the other
party to the compromise. A fellowship between the parties
would require full as much of concession and charity from
the liberal as from the rigid side. As there is no denying
the fact, there may be some grace in making the frank assertion, that Unitarians do not like some of the ways and schemes
of the Orthodox. We do not like the strictly Orthodox type of
character, certainly not till it has been modified, humanized, and
liberalized. We deem it harsh, ungenial, narrow, repulsive, not
winning, gracious, expansive, or attractive. It is in our view
but an inadequate expression of our ideal of a Christian character. We think that the intense concentration by which Orthodoxy makes the whole problem of the universe to turn for each
individual upon the means of rescuing his soul from the wreck
of a doomed world, and from the fate sure to befall his neighbors, has a most direful effect upon the more loving sensibilities
of the human heart. Then, too, when we hear the Saviour of
the world monopolized, in the boastful arrogance of some confident converts, as "my Saviour," as if they were dearer to him
than the veriest wretch whom they would scorn, —when we
hear this from some whose peculiar favor with God is to human
judgment more than doubtful, — we cannot but feel that Jesus is
wounded in the house of his professed friends. Nor is it by any
means in matters of taste and sensitiveness that Unitarians are
thus often repelled by some of the Orthodox. Far otherwise.
Grave objections arise as to the policy, the propriety, the rectitude, of what is known among men by the phrase "Orthodox
management." \Ve could not heartily accord with some measures which engage often their heartiest zeal. Most seriously,
too, do we dissent from their mode of presenting the Gospel, and
from their interpretation and application of it. I have allowed
myself to write with this frankness merely to convey something
of my meaning in affirming that the embarrassment attending a
full fellowship between the Orthodox and the Unitarians would
by no means be wholly on the side of the former. And still I
repeat what I had written as to our regret at our exclusion from 
APPENDIX.
"the pale of Evangelical Communion," because of our rejection of "a constructive view expressed in a doctrinal formula."
We regret it, as I also said, as much on account of its effect on
the Orthodox, as on account of its effect on ourselves. The reason by which this policy, taking the name of conscience for
its warrant, justifies itself, is but one of a series of similar
reasons used by different Christian sects for vindicating their
exclusion of their brethren of other communions. The Orthodox Congregationalist bars out the Unitarian, as we say, simply
because of speculative differences about matters which are not
vital to belief in the Christian religion, and to a course of life
conformed to that belief. The Baptist denies fellowship to the
Orthodox Congregationalist, on the ground of his heresy as to
the form and subjects of baptism.   The Episcopalian stands
aloof from all who are outside of his Church, as being really
outside oT the true Church of Christ. The Romanist draws out
the great Gospel net, and, while assorting its contents as under
the direction of St. Peter, makes~no more account of an Episcopalian, a Baptist, or an Orthodox fish, than of a Unitarian. It must
be a strange sight for Him who is walking the waters and teaching from the shore, to see the fish in his great net assuming the
office of self-selection and mutual rejection, the office which he
reserved for himself!
But this exclusive policy seems more odious to us when practised by our former brethren, because of its more obvious inconsistency in their case with the principles of Protestantism.   We
maintain, too, that the ground of our exclusion is a matter not
so much of belief, as of speculative opinion. We ask our brethren to look at the facts of the case as they appear to the Christian community at large, and then to Roman Catholics, and then
to unbelievers, and then to the critics and impugners of Protestant consistency. Here are intelligent and sincere men and
women, who avow themselves as believers in Christ, disciples
of his, resting all their hopes on his Gospel, and zealous of
sharing with other Christians the practical works of Christian
benevolence and effort.   The simple acknowledgment on the
part of such persons, that their speculative views are such as are
generally, though vaguely, called Unitarian, is sufficient to put
i
501
f
I
I
i
Ii 
APPENDIX.
them outside the pale of fellowship. There is something, too,
particularly offensive, at times and on occasions, in the way in
which the sentence is executed. Unitarians are solicited to aid
in every measure of benevolence and enterprise, they are allowed even a silent presence in the gatherings and associations
of the elect; but they may not cause their voices to be heard, or
their votes to influence any practical work. In the mean while
the fact is well known and indisputable, that nominal Orthodoxy
shelters an uncounted number of persons who, though when
they joined their respective communions they may have sincerely accepted the received tenets so far as they understood
them, have been led by thought, inquiry, and experience to
adopt essentially Unitarian views. Real but unavowed Unitarianism is tolerated, but an open profession of it is punished.
Our Orthodox friends, however, would misjudge us if they ascribed our feeling on this subject to any poor pique, or any weak
desire to receive their countenance. We are affected by their
course towards us solely and simply as it violates the consistent
cies of Christian truth, the harmonies of Christian charity, and
the principles of sound Protestantism. Most free are we to acknowledge, with the generous rivalry of Christian esteem, the
piety and zeal of those bodies of fellow-believers who repel us.
We will institute no boastful comparisons which will exalt ourselves by depreciating them. But still, though severed from their
fellowship, we do not feel that we are really cut off or estranged
from a true Christian participation with them in common sacred
interests. No sectarian edicts of theirs can deprive us of our
full share by faith and works in the glory of all their eminent
disciples, and in the powerful efficacy of their testimony to truth
and righteousness. No decree of the Council of Trent can exclude us from real fellowship of heart with Fenelon and Pascal,
and the very sentiment of love which moves us to approve any
evangelical work of Orthodoxy makes us really more effective
participants in it, than would a right to raise our hands for voting about it. Thus Orthodoxy is really baffled in its excommunicating purpose against us: its pales cannot be driven so deep
as to divide heart-sympathies, nor raised so high as to cut off
from us either the direct or the reflected light of Christian truth
~,
502
I
kI
iI
I
A
i 
APPENDIX.
and love. Granting all this, Unitarians might say one word
more as evidence that they are not suing for Christian sympathy under any timid or lonely sense of their own peculiar
position.  Unitarianism has a fold and a fellowship of its own.
Collect together the names and services of those who by their
own full consent might properly be entitled Liberal Christians,
and -if we can say it with becoming humility, we will say it
boldly - a Christian man or woman may regard the hospitali.
ties of their household as a fair offset to the sectarianism of other
Christians which turns them out of doors. We have within our
own fellowship all the elements and fruits of a true membership
of the Christian Church. We have our traditions and associations, our saints and martyrs, our poems and biographies, our
charities and our progressive enterprises. If need be, we can
stand a long and a hard pressure from without, and subsist with
tolerable satisfaction on our own resources.  Our policy must be
to yield forbearingly and heartily to every condescending appeal
from Orthodoxy which would enlist us in its good works. So
far as, in anything that is right, they ask us to co-operate with
them, we must cheerfully assent. For the most part, they have,
so far, restricted their advances to us to a simple request that we
will allow them to sanctify our money given for benevolent uses.
Let them have the money freely, and by and by they may
think better of the hearts and minds whose feelings and views
the gift represents. Even in the words of my critic which have
drawn from me these remarks, it will be observed that he admits
the sincerity, the moral fidelity, and other religious virtues of
some Unitarians. According to the Christian rule, one man has
no right to judge another, beyond these qualities, if even within
their range.  Why then jEdge us for speculative opinions, and
exclude us because of them? The Orthodox certainly would
not sever us from their fellowship for the sake of diminishing
the chance of our salvation. Is it, then, because they fear to
imperil their own?
t
503
i
i
.ii
tl
II 
APPENDIX.
XII.
CONTROVERTED VIEWS OF SCRIPTURE.
I COME now to the last. of the series of critical papers which
are engaging my notice. It relates to my Essay upon the Orthodox and the Unitarian Views of the Scriptures. The paper
presents but few points to which I need make a particular reply.
In its form and tone it seems at first to remonstrate with a considerable degree of earnestness against some of my positions;
but when I try to fix an issue with the writer on anything in
which he appears to raise an issue with me, I am baffled. The
simple truth is, that, like many modern Orthodox writers, he
does in fact make all the concessions, yield all the qualifica.
tions, and allow all the exceptions, insisted on by Unitarians,
though in an indirect and more guarded way. Indeed, had his
paper been in print when I wrote, I might have quoted sentences
from it, as I have from the pens of other Orthodox men, in illustration of my own positions. I am compelled, however, to add,
that, like many of his brethren, he protests against the views of
Unitarians on this subject, in a tone and way which indicate an
entire misapprehension of our purposes and ruling aims. What
we  say in opposition to exaggerated and mistaken Orthodox
views of the Bible, is construed by them as said in opposition
to the Bible. The abatements which we allow or insist upon as
required to reduce an old, superstitious, and untenable notion
about the Scriptures, are represented as assaults upon the authotity of the Scriptures. Now Unitarians ought not to be compelled at this day to define their position touching these preliminaries of a discussion. I ask with all confidence the question,
What denomination of Christians has done more than the Unitarians in Europe and in America to authenticate, defend, and in.
terpret the Scriptures in a way to secure the grounds of a strong
faith in them, and to keep them sacred for the uses of piety?
Have we not the same interest, the same momentous interest, at
stake in them with all other Christians? The Orthodox might
as well charge us with trying to vitiate the title-deeds of our
>1
504
I
I
I
I
I
li
N 
APPENDIX.
dwelling-houses, when we are verifying them and securing our
tenements from decay and the weather, as charge us with undermining the Scriptures.
Recurring to the fifth Essay in this volume, the reader will
note the method and the purpose of the argument there pursued.
In brief, it is as follows. When the Unitarian Controversy
opened here, there was a prevailing popular view of the Scriptures which was superstitious, exaggerated, and untenable. Biblical criticism came in with the controversy. In the course of
their discussions, Unitarians had to suggest as novelties many
facts and considerations which have now become quite familiar.
They suggested a revision of the translation in some passages,
the presence of error here and there, the necessity of allowing
for metaphoric or rhetorical language, and, above all, the utter
impossibility of holding to and vindicating against reasonable objections the prevailing views of the verbal inspiration and the
infallibility of Scripture. These concessions and suggestions
Unitarians made, not for the sake of foisting their own views
into the Scriptures, not to diminish one whit the support they
were supposed to afford to Orthodoxy, but simply and solely in
justice to the claims of solemn truth and for the purpose of vindicating the Bible against the cavils of infidelity. So far as concerns the evidence from Scripture texts of the truth of their own
views, Unitarians were perfectly willing to take the Bible as it
is. But they know very well that the faith of millions in the
Bible could not stand if compelled to hold up ignorant and childish superstitions with it. Therefore they insisted upon the concessions and suggestions just referred to. For this, as my argument proceeded to show, they were sharply censured and
most grossly misrepresented by many champions of Orthodoxy.
I proceeded then to treat at some length of the grounds and the
extent of the needful modification of the old popular notion of
the Bible, and to prove, as the crown of my argument, that approved Orthodox writers, from whom I quote, now ratify, in the
fullest possible way, all that Unitarians demand and insist upon
in the substance of their own views of the fallibility of the Bible
in some of its contents, and of the necessity of modifying-the
old notions of its inspiration. If my mind is clear on any point,
48
I
) 
APPENDIX.
it is on this, that even some of the essays and works written by
Orthodox men, for the set purpose of answering the Unitarian
heresies on these subjects, do in fact ratify and indorse those
heresies. Professor Stuart himself is quoted by me as an evidence of this assertion, and it is one of which there is overwhelming proof in his own pages, though his concessions to the
exigencies of criticism are often made in the most curious and
indirect manner.
In the paper before me, the writer claims for Professor Stuart
the credit of originating the science of Biblical criticism in this
country, and of " diffusing it, inspiring a zeal for it, and impelling it onward." He adds: "Nearly all in New England, and
I might almost say in the country at large, who have attained to
eminence in this branch of learping, received their first impulse
and instruction from his lips." The valuable services of that
excellent and devoted man must indeed be acknowledged by
every Scripture scholar in the land. Liis iron diligence, his
independence, energy, and conscientiQotsness, as well as his
thorough kindliness of heart, and his entire consecration to
the work of his life, will assure for him renewed and ever fresh
memorials of gratitude. My own impression, however, from
my private reading, has been, that Mr. Buckminster was really,
in order of time and in actual outlay of zeal, the first individual
to quicken an interest in'Biblical criticism. My critic says that
Professor Norton was undoubtedly the first Unitarian who gave
himself to the science, but Mr. Norton acknowledged his obligations to Mr. Buckminster. My own admission is quoted to the
effect that Mr. Norton adopted some extreme opinions, in which
Unitarians have not followed him. But if my critic will consult
the work to which I have referred on page 398, he will find that
a divine of the Church of England, who aims "to reconcile
Christian Orthodoxy with the conclusions of Modern Biblical
Learning," indorses Mr. Norton to the fullest extent of his heresies, and even goes beyond him.
Exception is taken to an inference from my words to the effect that Unitarians may believe in the doctrine of inspiration in
the Orthodox sense.  My critic forgets what in other-places he
has insisted upon, namely, the modifications of their own theories
l 
APPENDIX.
on some subjects which approved Orthodox men allow. I am
willing, for one, to say, that I hold views of Inspiration which are
taught and indorsed by such authorities.  It is a part of my
argument to show that the two parties have been brought into
essential accordance of theory here. There is an old Orthodox
theory and a new Orthodox theory, between which I have tried
to distinguish. My critic shall here speak for himself.
"And yet it is evident that Mr. Ellis does not understand the
Orthodox doctrine of Inspiration. At any rate, he does not represent it correctly. We do not believe in the inspiration of
translators, or transcribers, or interpreters. A translation of the
Scriptures is a proper subject of criticism, like any other translation. And the same may be said of a copy or an interpretation. We do not believe the Apostles to have been inspired in
all their intercourse and conversation one with another. For we
find them often dull, stupid, prejudiced, ignorant, and sometimes
disputing one with another. We find our Saviour not unfrequently reproving them; and Paul on one occasion (to which
Mr. Ellis refers) withstood Peter openly, because he was to be
blamed."
,
I am not aware that I have affirmed the belief of the Orthodox
"in the inspiration of translators, or transcribers, or interpreters."
I have implied, however, what is strictly true, that the old popular view of Inspiration left out of sight the fact that there had
been fallible translators, transcribers, and interpreters, and proceeded on the assumption that the text of our common English
Bible constituted an authority back of which there was no appeal.
I wish the reader to mark the very loose allowance made by my
critic as to the imperfections of the Apostles. It is one of those
back-handed concessions to which I have already referred.
To what is said in the following paragraphs no real objection
can be taken, for when the premises required are established,
the conclusion may be accepted:-x
"It is sometimes said that the Orthodox repudiate reason altogether, and leave it little or nothing to do in matters of revelation. But this is a great mistake. We hold that reason has
much to do in this matter.  It belongs to reason to decide
whether God has made any supernatural revelation of himself
to the world; and if so, where and what this revelation is.
What books contain it?  Have we the right books?  If these
.t
507
s
I
I
I
t
i 
APPENDIX.
books are in the original tongues, have we accurate copies?
Or if in a translation, is our translation accurate? Does it give
the real sense and spirit of the original? And when all these
points are satisfactorily settled, what does the language mean?
Do we understand it aright? Here are various points of great
importance, which are submitted to our reason, and on which it
is the province of reason to judge.
" But beyond and behind all these questions, reason, we think,
has no right to go. When we have ascertained, to our satisfaction, that any particular book is from God, and that we understand it as God has revealed it, then we are bound by it. It is
to us the word of God. So far as it goes, it is an infallible rule
of faith and life."
We too may say, that "when we have ascertained to our satisfaction that any particular book (and why not add, any part
of a book?) is from God, and that we understand it as God revealed it, then we are bound by it."  But the contents of such
book will always and necessarily claim to enter among the tests
of its Divine origin and authority. If we detect,manifest errors
in it, our conclusion must be that the particular book or part of
the book which is fallible, either nevertame from God, or has
been corrupted.
There is much also that is very loose in the following para
graph:
" We believe that' all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,'
but then there is an important distinction between inspiration
and revelation, which Mr. Ellis does not make, and which may
relieve him of some of his difficulties. Revelation makes known
to us God's truth and will. Inspiration has respect to the assistance afforded to the sacred writers in recording God's truth and
will, or in recording anything else which God is pleased to have
written in his word. There is much in the Bible that is not revealed truth, or truth in any sense; and yet'all Scripture is
given by inspiration of God.' The speech of the serpent to our
first mother was not revealed truth. It was the first and greatest lie that ever was uttered. And yet Moses was as really inspired in recording the speech of the serpent, as he was in
recordin     g  t he T en C ommandm  ents.  T  he book s  of Job and of
Ecclesiastes (to which Mr. Ellis refers) are not all of them revealed truth. They cannot be. And yet the record - at least
the original record - may have been divine and infallible. It
may have been written, and we think it was, under the inspiration of God."
I
t
i
508
I
I
i
I
I 
APPENDIX.
It is hardly necessary to repeat here, that the intended Scripture quotation at the beginning of the paragraph is but a begging
of the question. There is a great difference between the true
reading,  "All God-inspired Scripture is profitable," &c., and
the reading which my critic adopts. There is hardly an appreciable distinction between revelation and inspiration; for if anything is communicated by inspiration, it must be something that
is revealed. Mr. Lee, in his very disappointing work on the
subject, labors hard upon the distinction, for which, by the way,
in the form of it which he adopts, he is under an unavowed obligation to another.
I am not prepared to admit that Moses was inspired to serve
as an amanuensis for a Personage, who, if he has half the power
that has been attributed to him, was abundantly able to keep his
own records without taking into his disloyal service a penman
previously engaged for a worthier Master.  As to "the original
record" of Job and Ecclesiastes being divine and infallible, it
is enough to say that we have not got it. I am confident, however, that I rate the value and authority of those books as high
as does my critic. He makes a passing reference to a few of
the specific cases of palpable fallibility in the contents of the
Bible, some of which he thinks have come in through the error
of transcribers. They are in the Bible, nevertheless. But all
these difficulties, he thinks, "may be disposed of in one way or
another, without impeaching the truthfulness or the inspiration
of the original writers." But how? That is the very question
the discussion of which opens the whole fair field of Biblical
criticism. On that field dogmatism and unsupported assumption are sure to be worsted. How can any one assume the infallibility of the Bible, as the mass of readers have it, and then
fall back on the autographs of the original writers, which are not
in our possession?
One example, most comprehensive in itself, of all the principal
assumptions and difficulties embraced in this theme, may serve
to present all its bearings to us.
The chief argument in proof of the.inspiration of the Old
Testament is, that the Saviour quoted  it as authority.  Of
course, then, we are concerned to have a most exact report
(li
I
I
509
f.
i
4
i
I 
APPENDIX. 
of his very words.  Thd main argument in proof of the infallibility of his Apostles -is the Master's commission and promise
to them. This inspiration and this infallibility, then, we should
expect to find combined in a report of the Saviour's words authenticating the Old Testament.
Now take the three reports which three of the Evangelists
give us of an argument from the Saviour's own lips, founded on
a quotation from the Old Testament, for the discomfiture of the
cavilling Sadducees.
Matthew xxii. 31, 32 gives it thus: "But  as touching the
resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spo.
ken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham," &e.
Mark xii. 26 gives it thus: "And  as touching the dead, that
they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the
bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham," &c.
Luke xx. 37 gives it thus: "Now that the dead are raised,
even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the
God of Abraham," &c.
What were the exact words of Christ in this instance? We
may say, substantially, the three reports of them convey them
to us. But when salvation is often made dependent upon the
exactness of verbal renderings of originally infallible statements,
-as in the quotation of some other sentences of Scripture,we must demand unerring accuracy.
Yet the critic affirms that the tendency of my article and its
argument, notwithstanding my "solemn asseveration, is to bring
the Bible into doubt and suspicion with the great mass of readers." In vain, therefore, I suppose, shall I assure him that I am
fully persuaded that the views referred to are the only possible
means for removing the doubt and suspicion of another large
mass of readers. He asks, "What is the use of parading these
difficulties, and exaggerating them, so as to make the impression
that the Bible is a very unreliable book?" Whoever does what
-the critic here suggests, I hold, as heartily as he would, to be an
unwise, an unfair, and a mischievous person. No one who commits to the Bible such transcendent interests of humanity as I
believe to be intrusted to it and dependent upon it, would run
510
I
I
Is 
APPENDIX.
the risk of being justly liable to such at'charge. It is very easy
to discern the difference between a captious, cavilling critic, and
a discreet champion of the Bible.  Where have I paraded, where
have I exaggerated, the difficulties presented, not so much  by
Scripture, but by Scripture when embarrassed by an artificial
and superstitious authority or character?  My aim has been to
state them in a moderate and cautious way, for the simple purpose of showing that they arise and receive their whole seriousness, as objections of any weight, from the Orthodox theory
which assigns to the promiscuous contents of the Bible a divine authority not claimed by them for themselves.
My own strong conviction is, that the Bible carries with it its
own warrant for asking our faith in its principal contents.  It
commends its lessons to the heart and soul of man.  The old
Orthodox theory of its inspired infallibility would never suggest
itself to an intelligent reader of our day, who, with the best
training which the other sources of knowledge afford him,
should turn for the first time to the perusal of its pages. The
hostile criticisms which pick flaws and detect imperfections in
it here and there, answer to the superstitious and exaggerated
claims which are set up for it by its indiscriminating idolaters.
We have no right to tamper with the record, nor to overstate its
difficulties, nor to dispute the authority of inspired writers on any
points covered by their divine commission. Neither have we
any right to speak of everything in that book as having the es pecial sanction of God. We have no original record from either
.of the writers. In their present form, to the mass of readers the
Scriptures present themselves as sufficiently intelligible and au thoritative for all the reasonable uses of faith and piety. To the
scholar they present perplexities which he must deal with as
best he can. I am happy to close these remarks with an ex pression of my entire persuasion, that, allowing for our different
ways of conveying the positive and the negative elements of our
belief on this subject, my critic and myself are substantially
agreed.
THE END.
511