^ 
 
 C-ir 
 
 
 REESE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 
 
 AWaWd. C^^' 
 
 Accessio?is j\o. 
 
 'Q Shelf No , 
 
 O- 
 
 ^^ 
 
 d 
 

 / 
 
 a/ 
 
 S*^- 
 
 UNIVh 
 
 Access ion\ 
 
 
 « 
 
t 
 
*^ 
 
LETTERS 
 
 REV. WILLIAM E. CHAl^TNIIVG, D. D. 
 
 ON THE EXISTENCE AND AGENCY 
 
 FAI.I.EN SPIRITS 
 
 BY CAXONICUS. 
 
 No demonstration can be stronger thanthis ; God hath said so, therefore it 
 is true. — Chilli ngworth. 
 
 U NIVERSIT Y 
 
 T. R. MARVIN, 32, CONGRESS STREET. 
 
 SOLD BY CROCKER AXD BREWSTER, PEIRCE AND WILLI^l^ISj 
 
 HILLIARD,-GRAY, LITTLE, AND WILKINS, BOSTON: 
 
 J. P. HAVEN, AND J. LEAVITT, NEW-YORK. 
 
 18-28. 
 

 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS to wit : 
 
 District Clerk's Office. 
 
 Be it remembered, that on the twenty third day of October, A. D. 1828, 
 in the fifty third Year of the Independence of the United Slates of 
 America, Theophilus R. Marvin, of tlie said District, has deposited 
 in this Office the Title of a Book, the Right whereof he claims as 
 Proprietor, in the Words following-, to 7vit : 
 
 Letters to the Rev. William E. Channing, D. D. on the existence and 
 agency of Fallen Spirits. By Canonicus. No demonstration can be 
 stronger than this ; God hath said so, therefore it is true. — Chillingworth. 
 
 In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, enti- 
 tled '' An Act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies 
 of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, 
 during the times therein mentioned :" and also to an Act entitled " An 
 Act supplementary to an Act, entitled, An Act for the encouragement of 
 learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books to the authors 
 and proprielors of such copies during tl)e times therein mentioned ; and ex- 
 tending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving and etching 
 historical and other prints." 
 
 JNO. W.DAVIS, I '^^Itf^;^!' 
 
By 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LETTER FIRST. Page, 
 
 Introduction. Statement of subject, 5 
 
 LETTER SECOND. 
 
 Preparatory Argument, , . 12 
 
 LETTER THIRD. 
 
 Scriptural Argument commenced, " . 15 
 
 LETTER FOURTH. 
 Scriptural Argument continued, 24 
 
 LETTER FIFTH. 
 Scriptural Argument concluded, 49 
 
 LETTER SIXTH. 
 
 Recapitulation. Philosophical Argument. Objections 
 
 considered, $5 
 
 LETTER SEVENTH. 
 Inferences. Conclusion, 77 
 
 NOTE A. 
 
 The Jewish belief in the existence of Satan not " a 
 
 fiction of Oriental Mythology," 97 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 Consistent Rationalism denies all angelical existences, . 99 
 
 NOTE C. 
 English Unitarian views of the temptation, devil, &c. . . 100 
 
IV CONTENTS. 
 
 NOTE D. Page. 
 
 American Unitarian Canon of Inspired Books, .... 108 
 NOTE E. 
 
 The credulity and tendency of Rationalism, 122 
 
 NOTE F. 
 Priestley. Eichhorn. Calvin. The effect of Liberal 
 sentiments in Switzerland, and of Evangelical senti- 
 ments in Great Britain, 123 
 
 NOTE G. 
 
 References to passages of the New Testament, asserting 
 
 the existence of Evil Spirits, 129 
 
 NOTE H. 
 Reason — its province and use. Judge Story, .... 129 
 
 NOTE I. 
 Are Unitarians Universalists ? 134 
 
 NOTE J. 
 Are Unitarians Christians ? . 146 
 
 NOTE K. 
 Books specially deserving attention, ....... 154 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 The present is a day of free inquiry. Our creed 
 cannot now rest on authority, but on argument. The 
 subject about to be examined, which constitutes one 
 article in " the popular creed," you will, doubtless, think 
 of importance, of great importance, if the view here taken 
 be correct ; and even if this view be erroneous, it is surely 
 important to disabuse the public mind of an error so long 
 and so generally prevalent. 
 
 But you will ask, " Why are these letters addressed to 
 me ?" The question is a fair one, and shall have a frank 
 answer. Your high standing in this community, your 
 acknowledged talents, your various learning, your culti- 
 vated taste and extended influence, point you out as the 
 proper person to be addressed, that any mistatement of 
 facts or fallacy of reasoning may at once authorise and 
 invite from your able pen prompt and certain refutation. 
 Another motive, I am free to state, is the influence of 
 your name in arresting attention and inviting inquiry. 
 The simple fact, however, that you have long been known 
 as an intelligent and influential advocate of Unitarianism, 
 would of itself justify the course I have taken. To whom 
 could I so appropriately address a series of Letters, con- 
 troverting the opinions of Unitarians on an important 
 subject, as to the most influential of the Unitarian clergy ? 
 Another reason, however, for this course will soon be 
 1 
 
apparent, which, if well grounded, will not only justify, 
 but render imperative the selection of Dr. Channing as 
 the individual to be addressed. 
 
 Without further preface, I shall proceed to a considera- 
 tion of the subject which is now to be discussed. I am 
 about to present a simply scriptural argument in proof of 
 the existence of a mi glity fallen Spirit, called Devil or Sa- 
 tan ; and of his agency and influence in this world. The 
 subject thus presented is uncommon, and will, no doubt, 
 with many, be unwelcome and unpopular. But you, my 
 dear sir, and the writer, together with his Unitarian and Or- 
 thodox readers, will all agree in this, that the uncommon- 
 ness or unpopularity of the views presented, either singly or 
 combined, will afford no proof, nor presumption even, that 
 they are untrue. The truth or falsity of our religious 
 views must be decided by another standard than popular 
 opinion. " To the law and to the testimony," is our 
 ultimate, and on this subject, our only appeal. The 
 scriptures, fairly interpreted, are the only legitimate 
 source of evidence to which the nature of the subject 
 admits of an appeal. On a subject relating to the invisi- 
 ble world, its existences and influences, the Lord from 
 heaven — the divine teacher, and those illuminated by his 
 Spirit, are the only admissible, because the only compe- 
 tent witnesses. We wish to know what the Lord Jesus, 
 and John, and Peter, and Paul believed and taught ; not 
 what Plato or Cicero imagined, or Farmer or Edwards 
 asserted. Quit the scriptures, and '' shadows, clouds, 
 and darkness" envelope at once all our speculations, not 
 only on the immortality of the soul, but on all questions 
 relating to immaterial and spiritual existences. We shall 
 see, however, as we proceed, that reason does teach 
 and can teach notliing contrary to the declarations of 
 inspired wisdom, relative to the beings and influences of 
 the unseen world. 
 
I assume at the outset of this discussion what you, 
 doubtless, will readily grant, that you give, and acknowl- 
 edge yourself bound to give, implicit credence to what 
 the Bible plainly declares, — declares not in a solitary, 
 isolated, doubtful text, or in a few scattered, uncertain 
 passages, but plainly, repeatedly, explicitly. I shall omit, 
 on the immediate subject of these Letters, all arguments 
 from the Old Testament, not because that was a revela- 
 tion " adapted to the infancy of our race," for " all 
 scripture," an inspired apostle, referring to these very 
 books, says, "was given by inspiration of God," who surely 
 would not deceive in the infancy any more than in the 
 manhood of our race, (if such terms have any meaning ;) 
 but because the Saviour and his apostles have more fully 
 revealed the fact of diabolical existence and agency, and 
 thus authenticated previous revelations, rendering '* as- 
 surance doubly sure." 
 
 Before we proceed farther, it will be necessary to pre- 
 pare the way for the discussion, by a statement of those 
 views, which to the writer appear alike unscriptural and 
 untrue. Whether they are so or not, is the question at 
 issue. Unitarian views on the existence and influence of 
 evil spirits, have recently been more fully developed, I 
 believe, in this country, than heretofore. The following 
 extract from a communication in the Christian Register 
 for December 22, 1827, gives us to understand, at least, 
 what Unitarians do not believe on this subject. It is part 
 of a review of Dr. Beecher's missionary sermon, and is 
 all that relates to this topic. " The sermon departs from 
 the true missionary spirit, in making erroneous represen- 
 tations of religion. It asserts, as an undeniable fact re- 
 vealed in the scriptures, the notion which was grafted 
 upon the purity of the Jewish faith from the fictions of 
 oriental mythology, that the world is under the dominion 
 of a presiding spirit, who divides the empire with the 
 
8 
 
 only God ; and that without his agency it is as impossible 
 to account for the modifications of evil among men, as it 
 would be to account for the origin of the material world, 
 without the existence of an Intelligent Mind. We say 
 nothing of the truth or falsehood of diabolical agency, but 
 we do say, that a man advanced beyond the simplest ele- 
 ments of theology, who asserts this doctrine, as an 
 acknowledged principle of revelation, and of such evident 
 truth, that, without it, * the Bible is one of the most de- 
 ceptive books ever written,' displays a carelessness, or a 
 hardihood of assertion, that excites our unaffected amaze- 
 ment, and is utterly inconsistent with the spirit of fair- 
 ness and good faith, which lies at the foundation of the 
 missionary cause. Did not the preacher know, that theo- 
 logians inferior to none in extent of learning, deep re- 
 search, ardent piety, and studious attention to the word 
 of God, have been unable to discover the doctrine there ? 
 How could he then declare, that, if these minds had been 
 successful in their investigations, ' the Bible is one of 
 the most deceptive books ever written.' We know not 
 this gentleman's views of the sacred volume, but, with 
 our views, no temptation could induce us to stake its 
 veracity on the truth of any doctrine which was not, ex- 
 plicitly, revealed ; which men, studious of its contents, 
 have believed it did not contain ; and men, studious of 
 nature have utterly denied." 
 
 The style, the talent, the glowing eloquence, no less 
 than the adroitness and the tact, to mention no other 
 qualities, of the whole piece, point to the practised hand 
 of a master. If it be not from the pen of the gentleman 
 to whom these letters are addressed, it is just what might 
 have been expected from Dr. Channing. Published in 
 the Register under the circumstances mentioned, it is 
 evidently an expression of Unitarian opinion. If, how- 
 ever, I have misjudged as to its real author, this will not 
 
affect the question at issue between the parties. The 
 piece thus pubhshed, no one can doubt, is intended as an 
 expression of Unitarian views. No Unitarian has ques- 
 tioned the soundness of those views. Am I not authoriz- 
 ed, through this discussion, to take this communication 
 as a recorded, recognised expression of Unitarian opinion 
 on this subject ? Notwithstanding the Ciceronian ex- 
 pression, " we say nothing of the truth or falsehood of 
 the doctrine of diabolical agency," it is very plain that 
 the writer says and intends to say something, and that 
 something is a plain denial of the doctrine. This doc- 
 trine he distinctly calls '' a fiction of oriental mytholo- 
 gy," and traces its history by telling us, that it " was 
 grafted upon the purity of the Jewish faith ?"* All 
 we have to do with this quotation now, however, is to fix 
 on the precise meaning of the author. It is evident 
 that he does not believe in the existence of any invisibJcy 
 superhuman, evil agent, having influence over himself or 
 others. 
 
 Let me now ask Unitarians generally, do you believe 
 in the actual existence of a mighty fallen spirit, who se- 
 duced our first parents from their allegiance to God, and 
 still continues tempting men to sin, and thus plunging 
 them deeper and deeper into misery ? I might have di- 
 vided this question, but I prefer putting it in this shape 
 first ; and if you say No, as I expect you will, is that 
 answer the result of the theological tenet attached to it, 
 the doctrine of the fcdl 1 If so, do you believe in the 
 actual personal existence of the devil and his angels, ab- 
 stracted from all questions of influence, past or present ? 
 Is not your answer still the same. No 1 I wish to state 
 your views with perfect fairness and precision, so that in 
 my subsequent remarks I may neither do you injustice, 
 nor combat '' a man of straw." Unless I am misinform- 
 
 * See note A. 
 1* 
 
10 
 
 ed, and I have taken some pains to learn the truth. 
 Unitarians, as a body, deny not only the actual agency, 
 but the personal existence of the devil and his angels. 
 This, to preserve even the show of consistency, they must 
 do. Surely, if the scriptures teach the existence of 
 mighty fallen spirits, they teach, with no less clearness, 
 their agency in this world, their influence over men. 
 With the writer of the article quoted above, you do not 
 believe in any invisible superhuman evil agent, having 
 influence over yourselves or others. You do not believe 
 in any such agent. You do not perceive or feel any such 
 existence or influence. You do not believe the scriptures 
 teach any such fact ; therefore you do not believe the 
 fact. Is not this your state of mind, fairly expressed, so 
 far as negatives can express it ? 
 
 But the scriptures assert, or at least see7n to assert, not 
 only evil agency but personality of evil agency, that is, a 
 real devil, an actual Satan. How do you and your teach- 
 ers get over assertions of this sort often made in the word 
 of God ? There is, no doubt, some theory, some mode of 
 interpretation on this subject, which satisfies the inquisi- 
 tive among Unitarians. Many may throw the whole 
 subject by as unworthy of a thought, taking it for granted, 
 that their no belief is sound belief Some may consider 
 it one of the ''vexatious questions" more easily asked 
 than answered. Others may think these expressions an 
 allegorical mode of asserting something which they can- 
 not define, but consider an " oriental fiction." Still, 
 among rational, unshackled inquirers, there is, doubtless, 
 some explication which removes the difficulty that is 
 thought to embarrass the commonly received opinion. 
 The Rev. Mr. Ware in his discourses* calls " Satan, the 
 personified principle of evil." How far Mr. Ware speaks 
 the opinions of American Unitarians on this subject is 
 * Second edition, p. 118. 
 
11 
 
 left for inference. But as this is the interpretation of the 
 same word, and also of the word devil, throughout the 
 Improved Version, it may fairly be presumed that the 
 approved Unitarian explanation of these words is contain- 
 ed in the expression " principle of evil." If I knew of 
 any otlier explanation more or less plausible, I would give 
 it. This discussion may not be wholly useless, if it tend 
 to enlighten us as to the opinions held by different parties 
 or individuals on this subject. If any Unitarian shall 
 think that his opinions or those of his friends, are not 
 properly stated, I trust he will find an excuse for the 
 writer in the want of explicitness on this topic in Ameri- 
 can Unitarian writings. Priestley, Belsham, &c. are not 
 oracles for consultation, or at least their responses are not 
 allowed to be authoritative on this side the Atlantic, 
 And it certainly is unfair to attribute to an opponent, 
 sentiments, which he does not, or we do not know him, to 
 believe. The opinions of the Orthodox on the subject in 
 question, are sufficiently explicit. Unitarian ism, so far as 
 it is known to have taken any positive shape, is embodied 
 in the phrase already quoted, " principle of evil." Permit 
 me to ask you, my dear sir, do you not assent to this in- 
 terpretation of your brother in the ministry, and of Unita- 
 rian expositors generally 1 I also desire every reader of 
 these Letters, before he proceeds farther, to settle in his 
 own mind and for his individual satisfaction, the precise 
 import of the words, Satan, Devil, &-c. so often used in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 The writer is not ignorant of the difficulties, which 
 either do, or are supposed to attend this subject ; nor of 
 the names that may be brought to bolster up a denial of 
 what the scriptures, left to the plain import of language, 
 evidently teach. In the discussion, however, on which 
 we are about to enter, all names and all authority will be 
 thrown aside, except the authority of those names, to 
 
12 
 
 which Unitarians and the Orthodox attribute inspiration. 
 Unitarians will, of course, be the last to reject the grand 
 Protestant principles, the sufficiency of scripture, and the 
 right of yrivate judgment. To these scriptures, with what 
 judgment we possess, let us now appeal. 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 I REMARK that the Bible reveals the existence of good 
 spirits, angelic natures, sent forth to minister to the heirs 
 of salvation. This position is analagous to the main one 
 I shall take, and will tend to introduce, illustrate, and 
 confirm it. These spirits not only exist, and take an in- 
 terest, but are actually concerned in the government of 
 this world. For proof of this, I simply ask, who walked 
 with the three children of Israel in the fire ? Who is Ga- 
 briel, sent to Daniel, to Mary and others ? Who is " Mi- 
 chael, that great Prince that standeth for the people of 
 God ?" Who were the multitude of the heavenly host, at- 
 tendant on the angel that announced the advent of the 
 Saviour to the shepherds in Bethlehem ? Who strength- 
 ened Jesus, when he fainted in the garden ? Who are the 
 twelve legions of angels, that he might have commanded 
 at any moment ? Who were the shining ones, that rolled 
 away the stone from the sepulchre, and there appeared 
 to the disciples and the women ? Who told the apos- 
 tles, that in like manner Jesus should return, as they 
 had seen him taken up into heaven ? Who opened the 
 prison doors by night, and brought the apostles forth and 
 
13 
 
 said, '' Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people 
 all the words of this life ?" Who smote Peter, sleeping 
 between two soldiers, bound with two chains, saying, 
 " Arise up quickly, and the chains fell off from his hands, 
 and the iron gate opened to them of his own accord V 
 
 In these passages a visible, perceptible, angelic agency 
 is asserted. But is such an agency never invisible and 
 imperceptible ? Does any one doubt it ? Read the sixth 
 chapter of the second book of Kings. The king of Syria 
 had sent horses and chariots, and a great host, to seize 
 Elisha. The servant of the man of God trembled when 
 he saw the city thus encompassed, and said, " alas, my 
 master! how shall we do ? And he answered, fear not: 
 for they that be icith us are more than they that he toith 
 them. And Elisha prayed, and said. Lord, I pray thee, 
 open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened 
 the eyes of the young man ; and he saw : and behold, the 
 mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round 
 about Elisha." The imagery, here attributed to the spir- 
 itual world, was probably drawn from the visible horses 
 and chariots, which encompassed them. The actual fact, 
 however, .of invisible protectors and protection, is distinct- 
 ly asserted. So true is it, that " the angel of the Lord 
 encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth 
 them." Should any one suppose the import of these pas- 
 sages doubtful, because the one is figurative and the 
 other poetical, to remove such doubts, only one passage 
 more need be quoted. This is from an argumentative 
 epistle. " Are not the angels all ministering spirits, sent 
 forth to minister for those, who shall be heirs of salva- 
 tion ?" This passage is thus rendered by Professor Stuart ; 
 *' Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to assist 
 those who are to obtain salvation ?" But enough. You 
 believe in good angels.* You believe also in gradation 
 * See note B. 
 
14 
 
 of rank among them, angels and archangels, and in their 
 interposition in the affairs and the government of our 
 world. All this, American Unitarians, unless I greatly 
 err, believe plainly revealed, or at least, have not denied 
 to be plainly revealed. But I ask you, sir, and your Uni- 
 tarian brethren, if you are conscious of any such guardi- 
 anship, protection and influence as is positively asserted 
 in the passage last quoted 1 According to Unitarianism, 
 recently developed, there is no such thing as future eter- 
 nal punishment. Some incorrigible offenders may, per- 
 haps, be annihilated, but most will be restored to purity 
 and to heaven, either during the course of this life, or by 
 the disciplinary, reforming power of punishment in the 
 life to come. The great mass of human beings during 
 all past ages, and of those now upon the stage, whatever 
 may be their character, must ultimately, according to this 
 theory, be " heirs of salvation." But the " heirs of sal- 
 vation" " have angels ministering to them," or assisting 
 them in obtaining this unspeakable blessing. Are the 
 great mass of men conscious of such ministration ? Will 
 they not pronounce these "angel visits" very " kw,' 
 and so " far between," that not even one can be recol- 
 lected ? Have the " men, studious of nature," found or 
 believed in such an influence from the invisible world for 
 even the best of our race ? 
 
 But lest you should be dissatisfied with this view of the 
 subject, let us look at it from another quarter, and with a 
 different light. 
 
 Unitarians, while they deny the personality and agency 
 of the Holy Spirit, yet believe, or profess to believe in a 
 divine influence of some kind, expressed by the terms, 
 grace, Holy Spirit, &c. by which men are assisted in 
 forming habits of virtue. But is not this influence imper- 
 ceptible ? Is it not, though experienced, yet unfclt by its 
 subject ? But does that affect its reality ? Certainly not. 
 
15 
 
 Neither does the fact, that the agency of angels in min- 
 istering to the salvation of men is imperceptible, affect 
 its reality. Will not all agree, then, that whatever bene- 
 ficial influence is exerted in behalf of our race, either by 
 the Father of our spirits, or by those unseen messengers 
 that fly to do his will, is exerted in such a way, so exactly 
 according to the principles of our nature and the laws of 
 mind, as to be imperceptible ? It does not at all inter- 
 fere with our own activity or accountableness. The fact 
 of its existence is beyond the province of unassisted rea- 
 son to discover, and is to be believed, like the facts of a 
 future resurrection and a general judgment, simply he- 
 cause revealed. 
 
 Let the reflecting reader carry these last remarks along 
 with him in the discussion before us. 
 
 LETTER Iir 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 Having thus prepared the way for the discussion, I 
 now assert, and shall endeavor to prove, that the Bible, 
 plainly and imeqitivocally reveals the existence of evil 
 spirits, one of whom, ccdled Satan or Devil, being repre- 
 sented as leader of the rest ; and reveals also the fact, that 
 they jjossess and exercise a great and terrible influence 
 over men. 
 
 It has been seen that American Unitarians, generally, 
 believe, or do not deny the existence of good, while they 
 do deny the existence of evil spirits of a loftier order than 
 our race. Does the inquiry suggest itself, why is it that 
 
16 
 
 men readily believe in a heaven, and as readily disheVievQ 
 a hell, — willingly believe in good angels, but de?ii/ the 
 existence of bad ones ? What is the explanation of this, 
 but that men love to have it so, and easily believe or dis- 
 believe what they wish ? Is not this a general principle of 
 our nature ? Is it not strongest, when least perceived ? 
 And may it not be operative in the present, as in other 
 questions ? Selfishness would feel, and of course would 
 offer no objections to a companionship and brotherhood 
 with Gabriel. But what principle of humanity would re- 
 cognise an intimate alliance with Satan ? It is a logical 
 maxim, quicquid recipitur, recipitur ad modum recipientis, 
 which may be freely rendered, our belief is shaped and 
 coloured by our desires. Let us now attempt to lay 
 aside our wishes, and decide on the question before us 
 from arguments addressed to reason, discarding prejudice 
 and all preconceived opinions, and believing the simple 
 testimony of Him, who was, and is the truth, who knew 
 the truth, and has plainly revealed the truth. 
 
 Let us now proceed to examine the testimony and the 
 witnesses to be adduced. 
 
 The first argument in proof of diabolical existence and 
 agency, is the fact, that Christ himself was tempted, and 
 put to exquisite suffering by Satan. Matthew, iv. 1 — 11. 
 " Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, 
 to be tempted of the devil. And when he had fasted 
 forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 
 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be 
 the Son of God, command that these stones be made 
 bread. But he answered and said. It is written, man 
 shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that pro- 
 ceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the devil taketh 
 him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle 
 of the temple, and saith unto him. If thou be the Son of 
 God, cast thyself down : for it is written, he shall give his 
 
17 
 
 angels charge concerning thee ; and in their hands they 
 shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot 
 against a stone. Jesus said unto him, It is written again, 
 thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again the devil 
 taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and 
 showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory 
 of them ; and saith unto him, All these things will I give 
 thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith 
 Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan ; for it is written, 
 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt 
 thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and behold, 
 angels came and ministered unto him." Compare Mark, 
 i. 13, Luke, iv. 1—13. 
 
 Whatever difficulties, real or imaginary, may attend 
 the subject of " the temptation," the actual existence 
 of a mighty evil spirit is plainly asserted. No American 
 critic has yet ventured to deny, that, when angels are said 
 in this passage to have come and ministered to Christ, 
 personal existence, attributes, and actions, are ascribed to 
 them.* They really approached and served their Lord, 
 whom *' all the angels are commanded to worship." Put- 
 ting other passages of scripture out of the question, as 
 equally in favor of angelic and diabolical existence, what 
 is the evidence from the above quotation in proof of the 
 existence of angels ? It is found in a single verse, and a 
 solitary assertion. Angels came and ministered to him ; 
 the devil came and tempted him. If the passage stood 
 thus, the evidence for angelic and for diabolical existence 
 would be equal. But how stands the evidence now ? 
 Through the whole passage, not only personal names, 
 devil, Satan, the tempter ; personal actions, coming, 
 talking, quoting scripture, reasoning ; but all the ingenui- 
 ty of artifice which can be imagined as belonging to the 
 
 * Wliat, according to Unitarian exposition, can the assertion 
 " angels came and ministered unto him," mean ? 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 great enemy of mankind, is employed to accomplish his 
 diabolical purpose. Jesus is hungry ; the devil knows it 
 and says, " here now is an opportunity, if you are what 
 you profess to be, to show your power. Make bread of 
 this stone." " Man shall not live by bread alone." " You 
 claim God for a protector. Cast yourself from this pin- 
 nacle, and see if his angels will take charge of thee." 
 " Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." " Here are 
 all the kingdoms and riches and glory of the world. 
 They are mine. Only fall down and worship me, and 
 they shall be thine." " Get thee behind me, Satan. To 
 God only belongs worship." Having thus assailed Christ 
 through the most importunate of sinless appetites, and 
 through the strongest principles of humanity, the love of 
 riches and power and glory, and having been thwarted in 
 each attempt by an " it is written," ** it is written," " it is 
 w^ritten," the devil leaveth him, and angels came and min- 
 istered unto him. Is there not as much evidence in this 
 passage of the existence of Satan, as of good angels? If 
 the existence and agency of the former must be explained 
 away, on what principle can the existence and agency of 
 the latter be allowed ? I wish you, my dear sir, and every 
 Unitarian reader of these Letters who professes to think 
 for himself, to say whether you are prepared to adopt a 
 principle of interpretation, which not only denies the ex- 
 istence of Satan but of Gabriel also. Let him who doubts 
 it, suppose for a moment, that there is a mighty evil spirit, 
 whose great desire was to divert Christ from the purpose 
 of his ministry ; and suppose him to have approached 
 Christ with this intent, could words and actions more 
 appropriate and in character, have been selected ? Are 
 there any cliaracters drawn by Shakespeare more exactly 
 " in keeping," than those of Christ and Satan, as drawn 
 by the publican, Matthew? Reflect on the immensity of 
 interest staked at this moment, when the second Adam 
 
19 
 
 was thus assailed by " the prince of this world," and say 
 if the very grandeur uf the conception does not substan- 
 tiate and authorize the common interpretation ? Cut, not 
 to rely on this, does not every mind on first reading this 
 passage, believe the existence of an evil spirit to be 
 asserted? Does not the most intelligent mind, reading it 
 for the hundredth or thousandth time, believe such an ex- 
 istence asserted J whether he believe ihefact of such an ex- 
 istence or not? Would not every one believe i\\efact, were ' 
 it not for certain philosophical or moral difficulties thought 
 to attend the subject ? Will these difficulties be removed, 
 and the whole subject cleared up, by turning the concrete 
 into the abstract, " Satan" into " the principle of evil," 
 to accommodate German Neology, and American Unita- 
 rianism ? to meet the opinions of Professor Semler and 
 Rev. Mr. Ware ? Will it not require a stretch of 
 even " rational" credulity to believe, that " the principle 
 of evil" should say, or be represented as saying, " all this 
 power will I give thee, and the glory of them ; for that 
 is delivered unto me ; and to whomsoever I will, I give 
 it : if thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine" ? 
 Was Christ, " full of the Holy Ghost," tempted to fall 
 down before, and to worship the abstract principle of evil ? 
 Can any believer in revelation, possessing an iota of rea- 
 son, believe this ? But not to dwell too long on a diffi- 
 culty which meets us at the outset, and will not be found 
 to lessen as we advance, is not the first part of this argu- 
 ment made out, to wit, that Christ was tempted hy 
 Satan .^* 
 
 * The intention of the writer is, that while this discussion assumes 
 a popular shape, it shall have an immovable foundation in the sound- 
 est criticism. No quotations, however, will be made, except from 
 the common version, for these reasons, first, that every one has ac- 
 cess to that in an intelligible shape ; and, secondly, that the result of 
 the severest critical examination is an establishing, beyond dispute, 
 of the common text as genuine in all the passages on which any reli- 
 ance is here placed. No Unitarian critic will attempt to evade the 
 
20 
 
 Let us consider the proof of the other part of the propo- 
 sition, that Christ teas also put to exquisite suffering hy the 
 tempter. After the devil had departed from him, no other 
 mention is made of any such temptation through his whole 
 life, till near its close, when he makes this remarkable 
 declaration, " Hereafter I will not talk much with you, 
 for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing 
 in me." John, xiv. 30. Can any one doubt that by *' the 
 prince of this world" Christ meant " Satan," " the devil," 
 " the god of this world," '' the prince of the power of the 
 air," " the spirit that now worketh in the children of 
 disobedience" ? Christ was " holy, harmless, undefiled, 
 and separate from sinners," *' knew no sin," was " with- 
 out sin ;" was he then tempted by " the principle of evil " ? 
 Even on tlie supposition of some Unitarians, that he was 
 a " fallible and peccable man," according to all known 
 principles of human nature, and the well established con- 
 stitution of the human mind, he had now acquired a 
 fixedness of principle, and elevation of moral character so 
 
 force of the following arguments by appealing to " various readings." 
 Some principle of interpretation must be hit upon to undermine their 
 foundation, or the question must be given up. I shall hereafter 
 prosecute this investigation, as though no other book were in being 
 except the New Testament in plain "English, with, perhaps, a very- 
 few exceptions ; one of which refers to this first quotation from Mat- 
 thew. The full strength of ai-gument by which this passage proves 
 the position taken, cannot be perceived by the mere English reader. 
 The word here translated " the tempter," is of peculiar structure and 
 significancy in the original, and may be pronounced untranslatable. 
 It is a present participle with the masculine article prefixed. Gerard, 
 in his Institutes of Biblical Criticism, treating on " the usage of par- 
 ticles " has this rule, (913) " the article prefixed to a participle present, 
 often makes it to denote a character, an employment, a habit of life 
 or a general state of being ; and that, not only absolutely, or relative 
 to the present time, but also with respect to the past or the future." 
 Under this rule he adduces ten illustrations, the first of w'hich is 
 that of the w^ord in question, which he thus translates : " he, whose 
 character, custom, employment it is, to tempt." The same word is 
 translated by Storr in his Elements of Biblical Theology, vol. ii. page 
 20, " he, who is in a habit of seducing to sin." Gerard is of high 
 authority in the Theological School at Cambridge. Storr is from the 
 Codman press at Andover. Both of tl^ese writers, particularly Storr, 
 liave been considered in Europe and America, as having attained, at 
 
heroic and sublime, as to bid defiance to^wl(iR$»se tefiflpta- 
 tions which can be supposed to spring from wff pt'inciple. 
 Have you ever reflected on the agony of Christ in the 
 garden, when the sweat fell from him, " as it had been 
 great drops of blood"? Why the earnest entreaty, " let 
 this cup pass from me" 1 Why this extremity of agony 
 during the whole of the passion ? What occasioned it ? 
 Socrates died not thus. Washington died not thus. " Dr. 
 Payson died not thus. Multitudes, of the tenderest years 
 and of the most delicate sex, have been broken upon the 
 rack or consumed in the flames, and come ofl* conquerors 
 and more than conquerors, rejoicing to suffer affliction, 
 rejoicing to die for the name of the Lord Jesus. Was 
 Christ less innocent, less noble, less capable of endurance ? 
 Was there not a struggle with " the powers of darkness " ? 
 ''with spiritual wickedness in high places"? "Foras- 
 much, then, as the children were partakers of flesh and 
 blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that 
 through death he might destroy him, v/ho had the power 
 
 least, to " the simplest elements of theology." Their testimony to 
 the force of language according to Greek usage, coinciding ia the 
 present case, gives them an authority with all parties, which it will be 
 difficult for the most tortuous and remorseless criticism to resist or 
 evade. If words can mean any thing defmite and certain, " the tempt- 
 er" in this passage means, according to these critical philologists, '* an 
 agent, whose unceasing occupation it is to tempt to sin." Let hin) 
 who can, evade the force of this, by showing it to be a principle of 
 Greek usage, to predicate abstract existence of the masculine article 
 prefixed to the present participle. I have referred to but two au- 
 thorities on this subject, though a host might be mentioned of philo- 
 logists, commentators, and critics, all in unison on this point. But 
 Gerard and Storr, having lately issued from the American press, are 
 accessible to all, and of ample authority. It may be well to state 
 here, once for all, that many pertinent, as well as many more 
 doubtful proof texts, will be wholly omitted. Of the latter, the Lord's 
 prayer affords a well known and striking example. The clause " de- 
 liver us from evil " is ambiguous in the original, and may mean, as in 
 the common version, from the evil principle, or from the evil one. 
 The word is in an oblique case, and may be derived from either a 
 neuter, or a masculine noun. No dependence could be placed on 
 such a word, and in the present discussion, there is no necessity for 
 thus misplacing it. Even the univocal passages must be decima- 
 ted, to bring the subject within proper limits. 
 
 2* 
 
22 
 
 of death, that is, the devil."' Heb. ii. 14. " Having 
 spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them 
 openly, triumphing over them in it," (that is, by his cross, 
 his death.) Col. ii. 15. '* For this purpose the Son of 
 God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of 
 the devil." 1 John, iii. 8. The preceding passages show 
 how — bi/ his death. Is there any other rational interpre- 
 tation than that just given 1 Christ was innocent, perfect, 
 was to suffer for a limited and short time, and on the 
 third day to rise again. All of this he knew. What so 
 dreadful in this, if barely or chiefly to attest the truth of 
 his mission, and the doctrine of a resurrection and a 
 future life, that he could not meet it '' like a man," and 
 rise above the mere physical suffering he would now en- 
 dure ? Rather was not this, as he himself has assured 
 us, the hour of his earthly enemies, and the power of 
 darkness ? Was he not at this time so *' forsaken of his 
 Father," that he suffered all that could be inflicted by 
 him " who has the power of death, that is, the devil ;" 
 " whose works he came to destroy," and whose power 
 and dominion at this hour, trembled and were broken ? 
 This is an intelligible and rational explanation of this 
 great and momentous subject. This view of the passion 
 of Christ does not exclude, but may very properly include 
 all suffering he may have endured from his clear percep- 
 tion of the evil of sin, and of its tremendous consequences ; 
 all suffering of a vicarious nature, with which it pleased 
 the righteous Judge of the moral universe " to bruise 
 Him, by whose stripes we are healed." That he, bow- 
 er, suffered at this moment " hell torments," we do not 
 for a moment believe. Innocence can iiever endure the 
 agony of remorse, or feel the stings of personal guilt, or 
 suffer the burning torture of an accusing conscience. 
 Holiness can never, till the principles of mind and the 
 laws of moral agency are completely subverted, endure 
 
23 
 
 the same kind of suffering with unhoHncss. The suffer- 
 ings of Christ sprung from a different source. The pas- 
 sages just quoted, point out this source, it is believed, 
 with great distinctness. Not a gleam of light breaks in 
 upon this subject from any Unitarian hypothesis. 
 
 The prince of this world, then, tempted Christ, enter- 
 ing on his ministry, and agonized him, (so to express it,) 
 finishing it. At these two periods we might, a priori, 
 expect the enemy of all goodness, if ever permitted to as- 
 sail the Prince of Peace, to be awake to the dangers of 
 his kingdom, and active to prevent its overthrow. The 
 commencement and the completion of the great work of 
 redemption, were epochs too marked not to call forth all 
 the art and the venom of the powers of darkness. If 
 Christ, if spotless perfection, could be thus tempted and 
 caused to suffer, what shall we think of those in lohose 
 mortal members sin reigns, whose hearts are evil only, and 
 continually ?* 
 
 * See note C. 
 
24 
 
 LETTER TV. 
 
 Rev. and Dear S'iTj 
 
 My second argument is, that Chrut himself repeatedly 
 and explicitly taught this doctrine. 
 
 I. He taught it to the Jews at large, as a people. 
 
 Proof. John, viii. 44 — 48. " Ye are of your father the 
 devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do : he was a 
 murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, 
 because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, 
 he speaketh of his own ; for he is a liar, and the father of it. 
 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which 
 of you convinceth me of sin ? And if I say the truth, why 
 do ye not believe me ] He that is of God, heareth God's 
 words : ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of 
 God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, say we 
 not well, that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil ?" See 
 the whole chapter. It contains an account of one of the 
 most extended conversations between the Jews and our 
 Saviour, which the Holy Spirit has put on record for our 
 instruction. If we can, by any strength of prejudice or 
 ingenuity of supposition, doubt, after reading it, whether 
 Jesus really meant to assert the fact of diabolical exist- 
 ence and agency, let us for once fancy ourselves wholly 
 divested of our Christian birth and education, feelings, 
 opinions, and prejudices. Let imagination annihilate 
 eighteen centuries, and place us in the midst of this per- 
 verse and querulous group. What are the opinions of this 
 multitude whom the Saviour is addressing? They are 
 mostly, if not all, of the sect ol* the Pharisees. They be- 
 lieve in evil spirits of different orders and influence. 
 They pride themselves on their lineal descent from Abra- 
 
25 
 
 ham. Jesus denies that they are truly the children of 
 Abraham, possessed of like faith, feelings and character. 
 " No. Your real father is one whom you are little dis- 
 posed to own. Ye are of your Hither the devil, and his 
 lusts ye will do. Who of you ever knew me utter a false- 
 hood ? Have I not always spoken the truth ? Do I not 
 speak the truth now ? Why then do ye not believe me ? 
 He that is of God hearcth God's words : ye therefore hear 
 them not, because ye are not of God." The Jews are 
 hard pressed by these accusations and arguments. They 
 must evade them. The edge of truth must be blunted. 
 " Say we not well, thou hast a devil ?" "I have not a 
 devil ; but I honor my Father, and ye do dishonor me. If 
 any man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 
 " Now we know thou hast a devil. Even Abraham is 
 dead. Whom makest thou thyself? None but one influ- 
 enced by a devil could bring such charges against us, the 
 offspring of Abraham, the chosen people of God : and 
 make such pretensions. Thou hast a devil." It deserves 
 special notice, that when Jesus in the 34th verse states 
 the abstract proposition, " whosoever committeth sin is 
 the servant of sin," it excites little notice, no rage. 
 When in the 3Sth verse he gives them to understand that 
 their father and his were different, they forget God and 
 claim Abraham. But when he distinctly asserts their 
 connexion with the devil, then, to evade the accusation, 
 they throw it back upon him. They do not deny diaboli- 
 cal existence, nor raise any cavils about the mode, or the 
 reasons, or the propriety of this invisible influence. They 
 concede all this, but to exculpate themselves, charge him 
 with being instigated by an unseen evil agent. " Thou 
 hast a devil." Was it not incumbent on him, who in this 
 very conversation called upon them to declare if he had 
 ever uttered an untruth, not to utter one at this moment 1 
 How could he address them, '' I tell you the truth when 
 
26 
 
 I say ye are of your father, the devil," in whose personal 
 existence and influence he knew them to believe, when at 
 the same time he knew he was uttering an untruth ; kneio 
 that there ivas no devil ; that they could not be injiuenced 
 by any such evil being; and that their belief loas an 
 " oriental fiction^^ 1 Should the Saviour now ask '' who 
 convinceth me of sin V the reply would be easy, the 
 writer quoted from the Register. " You say there is a 
 devil. You know better. There is none. I do not be- 
 lieve you, because you do not say the truth." If that 
 writer object to this as harsh, or in any way unfair, let 
 him explain how those Jews necessarily understood Christ. 
 It is not enough to say, that they sometimes perverted his 
 meaning, wresting it to a sense which he did not intend. 
 What, in the present instance, was the inevitable import of 
 the Saviour's language ? What meaning did he intend to 
 convey to the ears of Jews, with their education, opinions 
 and feelings, followers, as they were, of the Pharisees 1 
 I call upon the Unitarian critics, those best skilled in the 
 science of interpretation as stated by Carpenter and 
 Ernesti, to answer these short simple questions ;* What 
 did Christ, addressing Jews, followers of the Pharisees, 
 mean, when he said, " ye are of your father, the devil" ? 
 What must such Jeios have understood him to mean 1 
 What did they mean when tliey disclaimed such a parent- 
 age, and threiv a similar charge bach upon him 1 The 
 whole subject is here contained in a nutshell. Either 
 Christ did assert to these Jews the existence and influ- 
 ence of a mighty evil spirit, or we must " go the whole" 
 of the accommodation system, as advanced and de- 
 
 * Before any gentleman reply to this argument, I would invite him 
 to read Carpenter's introductory chapter to his work on Unitarianism. 
 The principles of interpretation, stated by this writer, are generally 
 correct, and happily expressed. I will only add, if he and his Ameri- 
 can coadjutors will abide by these principles, the question, as to the 
 existence and influence of evil spirits, is settled. 
 
27 
 
 fended by Seniler, in its broadest and most offensive 
 shape.* Every mind, capable of understanding principles 
 and of applying them logically, will see that there is no 
 middle ground here. But, perhaps, some may think that 
 these Jews might not have been all Pharisees, but part 
 Sadducees. Grant it. What difficulty is removed ? The 
 dilemma will then be, he either knowingly confirmed an 
 existing false impression, in case they were Pharisees, or 
 asserted for truth what his hearers rejected as falsehood, 
 if they were Sadducees. In the latter case, what room 
 remains for any supposable species of " accommoda- 
 tion"? Let the impugners of the doctrine asserted, take 
 which horn they please, neither will relieve the Saviour 
 from the charge of teaching falsely , if he did not teach 
 the existence and agency of evil spirits. From the pas- 
 sage quoted from John's gospel, and from the preceding 
 remarks, these three inferences are fairly deducible. 
 
 1. The Jews did not understand the phrase, " servant 
 of sin,'"' that is, of the evil principle, as a perfect synonyme 
 with " child of the devil." It is evident that there was 
 a personality of meaning attached to the latter phrase, 
 over and above the import of the former. 
 
 2. The Saviour assumes the fact of the existence of an 
 evil spirit, who was a liar and a murderer (homicide) from 
 the becrinninor. This fact the Saviour assumes, asserts 
 and reasserts. 
 
 3. The existence of such an agent is not denied, but 
 
 * The accommodation system represents " Christ and his apos- 
 tles as speaking and teaching hi accordance with the erroneous 
 opinions of their hearers, and as not expressing precisely and truly 
 their oicn opinions." See Ston's Theolooy, vol. i. p. 228. For a 
 full refutation of this fundamental principle of infidel neolog;y, see the 
 treatise on " The Historical Sense," by the same ahle writer. A new 
 and revised edition of this treatise is much needed at the present 
 moment. The learned and industrious translator would add to our 
 many obligations of gratitude, another of no slight weight, by a new 
 edition of that masterly performance. 
 
28 
 
 assented to, and asserted on their part by the irritated 
 and captious Jews. 
 
 But if, according to the " rational" interpretation, the 
 word "devil" mean "principle of evil," it will not be 
 easy to clear the Saviour from uttering, or confirming at 
 least, three distinct untruths. He allowed, in this con- 
 versation, two falsehoods to pass uncontradicted, and as- 
 serted that which substantiated them. Was such the 
 practice of the true and living teacher ? Does any one 
 say, " these were a blind, ignorant multitude. They 
 could not know the truth"? The more need, o-;*^ would 
 think, that their errors should be rectified, not confirmed. 
 But the fallacy of such an objection will soon be appa- 
 rent. 
 
 II. Jesus taught the same doctrine to the Pharisees, as 
 a sect. 
 
 Proof. Matt. xii. 22 — 29. " Then was brought unto him 
 one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and he healed 
 him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. 
 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the 
 son of David 1 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, 
 This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the 
 prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, 
 and said unto them. Every kingdom divided against it- 
 self, is brought to desolation ; aijd every city or house di- 
 vided against itself, shall not stand ; and if Satan cast out 
 Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his 
 kingdom stand ? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, 
 by whom do your children cast them out ? therefore they 
 shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the 
 Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto 
 you. Or else, how can one enter into a strong man's 
 house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong 
 man ? and then he will spoil his house." Compare 
 Mark, iii. 22—27, Luke, xi. 14—26, also Matthew, ix. 
 
29 
 
 32 — 34. A man possessed of a devil, blind and dumb, 
 had been restored by Jesus to sight and speech. The 
 multitude, astonished at tliis miraculous display of power, 
 asked, Is not this the promised son of David, the expected 
 Messiah ? The Pharisees, indignant that a carpenter's 
 son should be mistaken by the populace for the king of 
 Israel, answer this question by a most malignant charge 
 against Jesus. " This fellovir casts out devils, not by di- 
 vine power, but by the assistance and co-operation of the 
 prince of the devils." Jesus refutes the charge by this 
 argument. " No one will destroy his own power. But 
 Satan would destroy his own power were he to cast out 
 himself. Therefore it is not by the assistance of Satan 
 that I cast out devils. No. It is a stronger than he that 
 hath come upon him. Here now is the proof of my divine 
 mission. If I, by the Spirit of God, cast out devils, then 
 it is plain that the kingdom of God has come unto you, 
 the reign of the Messiah, the mighty descendant of David, 
 under whom Satan is to be crushed, has commenced." 
 Here the Saviour makes the evidence of his messiahship 
 turn on the fact of the subjection of evil spirits to him. 
 This is the very point, the gist of the argument. Did he 
 know it or not? Did the Pharisees tlius understand 
 him or not ? Was the argument valid or not ? Should 
 any one suppose this was an ad Iwminera argument, let 
 him read the record of this conversation as given by 
 the three evangelists. Is there the remotest liint, tlie 
 slightest ground in their narratives for such a supposition 1 
 Is it not an entire assumption 1 Does not the Saviour 
 address the Pharisees with most evident sincerity and 
 earnestness ? Still more, was it necessary to give addi- 
 tional conjirmation to their error ? This, if it were an 
 error, he did according to Luke, xi. 24 — 26. He here 
 repeats the same doctrine, in entirely different phrase- 
 ology. On what other occasion did Christ stake the 
 3 
 
30 
 
 truth of his mission on an untruth, " an oriental fiction " t 
 In what other case was he so complaisant to the Phari- 
 sees, so tolerant of error and falsehood 1 In the fifteenth 
 and twenty third chapters of Matthew, the reader will find 
 that Christ openly denounced the Scribes and Pharisees, 
 as hypocrites, as fools, blind leaders of the blind, closing 
 with this terrible denunciation, *' Ye serpents, ye genera- 
 tion of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" 
 Was this the class of teachers whose errors Christ con- 
 firmed in the hearing of " all the people" ? 
 
 Should a doubt yet lurk in the mind of any one, whether 
 he might not have designed by this argument merely to si- 
 lence his cavilling and supercilious opponents, no room 
 will remain for such a doubt when we have consid- 
 ered, 
 
 III. That Christ taught the same doctrine to his disci- 
 pies in private. 
 
 Proof. In Matt. xiii. 24 — 39, is recorded the parable of 
 the tares, which was spoken in the hearing of " great mul- 
 titudes, that were gathered together unto him." In 36 — 39 
 verses we have this interpretation of the parable hy Christ 
 himself. " Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went 
 into the house ; and his disciples came unto him, saying, 
 Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He 
 answered and said unto them. He that soweth the good 
 seed is the son of man ; the field is the world ; the good 
 seed are the children of the kingdom ; but the tares are 
 the children of the wicked one : the enemy, that sowed 
 them, is the devil ; the harvest is the end of the world ; 
 and the reapers are the angels." I ask in the name of rea- 
 son, of conscience, and of common sense, if words could 
 have been selected more explicit, to express the same truth 
 in the same compass ? Words must fail to express ideas, 
 and human language be given up not only as a medium 
 of revelation, but as a medium of intercourse between 
 
31 
 
 man and man, if the Divine Teacher did not, in this ex- 
 planaiion of a parable, before uttered with intentional 
 comparative obscurity, assert distinctly the existence of 
 an evil spirit, his influence in this world, and the agency 
 of angels at the last day in separating the good from the 
 bad among men.* An accumulation of similar testimony, 
 after an explanation so distinct, so pointed, so express, 
 were a needless waste of time and paper. The mind, 
 which is in a state to resist or explain away the explana- 
 tion already given, would not believe though one were 
 to rise from the dead. In relation to this very sub- 
 ject the Saviour said, " because I tell you the truth, ye 
 believe me not." Is there no reason to fear that a similar 
 charge would still hold good ? The Jiature of the truth 
 itself is, often, the very reason why that truth is rejected. 
 The passage quoted from Matthew presents to every 
 mind, on first reading it, one meaning, and one meaning 
 only. It admits of no other. This meaning the Saviour 
 expressed to his confidential friends in their retirement, 
 when they had requested him to explain the parable of 
 the tares. There was no possible room for an ad horn- 
 inem argument here. All occasion for obscurity was re- 
 moved. The apostles express no remaining difficulty as 
 to the parable. It is all cleared up. Philologically con- 
 sidered, this meaning lies on the surface, and pervades 
 the substance of the passage. Those who have studied 
 the scriptures, simply as a record of human opinion, with- 
 out considering themselves bound to submit to its decis- 
 ions, have come by general consent to this conclusion, 
 that '' Jesus did mean to teach the doctrine of diabolical 
 agency. But he erred. It was however the error of the 
 times, from which it is not rational to expect that any 
 mind should have been entirely free." Whether Amer- 
 
 * The following references would confirm, if additional testimony 
 were needed, the position taken. Matthew, xiii. 18, 19, xvii. 19 — 21. 
 Mark, iv. 14, 15. Luke, viii. 12, x. 17—21. 
 
32 
 
 ican rational inquirers are willing to take this ground, 
 remains to be seen. With us it is now a question of 
 philology, 2uliat did the Saviour teach ? That made out, 
 the question is allowed to be at an end. What Jesus 
 taught we acknowledge to be true. Philosophy, extrane- 
 ous to the scriptures, whether skeptical, dogmatical or 
 critical, knows nothing, and can teach nothing upon the 
 subject. The doctrines of the Bible, in relation to the un- 
 seen, spiritual, eternal world, are yet held, in the land of the 
 Pilgrims, to be sound philosophy. The private opinion of 
 the Saviour, as divulged to his chosen companions and 
 friends in their most secret retirement, we have found to 
 coincide with the opinion which he openly advanced to the 
 Jew's at large, and to the Pharisees as a sect. He did not 
 teach a Pythagorean, esoteric, Eleusinean system of doc- 
 trines, to gull and hoodwink the people, while to the 
 initiated he intrusted the key which unlocked the whole 
 hiystery. His opinion was not cloaked in ambiguous 
 generalities. It was distinctly uttered, and definitely 
 understood. Can this be said of all ivho claim to he 
 Christian teachers ? 
 
 Additional proof as to the Saviour's private opinion is 
 unnecessary. Other related truths will receive still fur- 
 ther elucidation from a passage in the gospel of John. 
 This is a part of his instructions in that solemn interview, 
 which took place just before he was betrayed into the 
 hands of men. The shepherd was about to be smitten, 
 and the sheep to be scattered. Jesus was aware of his 
 approaching end, of the conflict before him, of the agony 
 he was to endure. Though desirous of avoiding, he was 
 still resigned to meet it. " Not my will but thine be done." 
 If ever he was honest and open in his instructions, one 
 would think, from the account given by the apostle whom 
 he loved, that it was on this occasion Jesus unbosomed 
 all his heart to his sorrowing disciples. " I tell you the 
 
33 
 
 truth ; it is expedient for you that I go away ; for if I go 
 not away, the comforter will not come unto you ; but if I 
 depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, 
 he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and 
 of judgment ; of sin, because they believe not on me ; of 
 righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me 
 no more ; of judgment, because the prince of this world 
 is judged." John, xvi. 7 — II. What does the Saviour 
 mean when he says the Holy Spirit shall reprove or con- 
 vince " of judgment, because the prince of this world is 
 judged"? Does he here mean '' the principle of evil," 
 or an actual person ? If the former, what does he mean 
 when he says, the spirit shall convince *' of sin " ? Does 
 not a plain understanding, or a profound and erudite un- 
 derstanding perceive, that, when the Saviour asserts that 
 the spirit shall convince of sin, of righteousness and of 
 judgment ; adding, of sin, because they believe not on 
 me ; of righteousness, because I go to the Father ; and 
 of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged ; 
 he meant to assert some distinction, some diversity of 
 truth? But according to "the principle of evil" inter- 
 pretation, the Saviour is unmeaning, or at least tautologi- 
 cal in his declarations. A candid mind, unwarped by 
 theory, cannot help seeing that Jesus taught here, as in a 
 multitude of other cases, the existence of a mighty evil 
 spirit, '' the prince of this world," " an archangel ruined." 
 This, he solemnly assures his disciples, is one of the doc- 
 trines which the Holy Spirit shall specially make known 
 to men. The following remarks by Hess, are well worth 
 the attention and solemn thought of all, whose minds are 
 not yet callous to evidence, who are not yet compromised 
 to party, who are inquiring for truth, and willing to re- 
 ceive it, coming from whatever quarter and with whatever 
 odium. "In this passage, Jesus is not addressing the 
 illiterate populace, but he is speaking to his own apostles. 
 3* 
 
34 
 
 Nor is he conversing of unimportant opinions which 
 might yet be tolerated for sometime, but of the future 
 preaching of these teachers of the world. Nor is he 
 speaking of certain modifications which the discourses of 
 the apostles might assume from their own infirmities, or 
 of the erroneous ideas of some of their hearers, but of the 
 contents of their gospel, as derived from the Spirit of 
 God, who should teach the truth, regardless of the cir- 
 cumstance whether it accorded with their former ideas or 
 contradicted them." 
 
 A third argument is, The so'ipiurcs assure us that 
 Christ possessed and exeited the power of expelling devils 
 from individuals tormented by them. 
 
 Proof. Matthew, iv. 24. " They brought unto him 
 all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and 
 torments, and those that were possessed with devils, and 
 those tha^t were lunatic, and those that had the palsy ; and 
 he healed them." viii. 16. " They brought unto him 
 many that were possessed with devils ; and he cast out 
 the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick." 
 Mark, i. 34. " He healed many that were sick of divers 
 diseases, and cast out many devils ; and suffered not the 
 devils to speak, because they knew him." iii. 11. '' Un- 
 clean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, 
 and cried, saying, thou art the Son of God." Is this the 
 same "principle of evil" that, in the account of the 
 temptation, is supposed to have called upon Christ to fall 
 down and worship it ? Tn the preceding quotation, it is 
 intelligent, but speechless ; it is here both obeisant and 
 communicative. In each case there is a striking external 
 appearance of personality. The artless historians, or 
 rather this abstract " principle" has a wonderful aptitude, 
 it must be confessed, for keeping up this fabulous veri- 
 similitude. It is done to the life. But to proceed with 
 the evidence. Luke, iv. 40, 41. *' Now when the sun 
 
was setting, all that had any sick with divers diseases, 
 brought them unto him ; and he laid his hands on every 
 one of them, and healed them. And devils also came out 
 of many, crying out and saying, Thou art Christ the Son 
 of God. And he, rebuking them, suffered them not to 
 speak ; for they knew that he was Christ." How did 
 disease, or evil principle, which are generally thought 
 modifications of matter or of mind, rather than subjective 
 of intelligence itself, know this great truth, that Christ 
 was the Messiah ? A truth, unknown to the Scribes, and 
 the Pharisees, and the High Priest, and the Sanhedrim, and 
 the wise men, and the rulers, and the mighty men of the 
 age ; a truth, revealed to Simon Barjona, not by flesh and 
 blood, not by any human intelligence or instrumentality, 
 but by the Father, who is in heaven? Or how should 
 maniacs and lunatics, who had been thus for a *' loner 
 time," know him to be the Messiah ? The whole minis- 
 try of Christ, from his baptism to his crucifixion, is not 
 thought to have exceeded three years. Let the reader 
 examine the recorded cures of demoniacs, and say whether 
 appearances warrant the belief that their insanity was, at 
 the utmost, of only three years^ duration. This supposi- 
 tion will throw all these cures into the last year of Christ's 
 ministry, a supposition plainly untrue. Many of them 
 occurred in the early part of his ministry, probably, much 
 the largest number of such cures were effected in the 
 first eighteen months of it. But what shall we say of the 
 young man, whose cure is recorded in Mark, ix. 17 — 29 ? 
 His father, when asked by Jesus, how long is it ago since 
 this came unto him, replied, of a child. This was one of 
 the most violent cases recorded in the gospels, yet of the 
 same general nature with others. " Jesus rebuked the foul 
 spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I 
 charge thee come out of him, and enter no more into 
 him ; [did Christ secure immunity from subsequent dis- 
 
36 
 
 ease ?] and the spirit cried and rent him sore and came 
 out of him." Does this look like the cessation of merely 
 natural disease 1 — Again, did the maniacs ever mistake 
 either of the 82 apostles and disciples for the Messiah ? 
 How should madmen always have judged thus correctly ? 
 A large number of passages like those already quoted 
 must be wholly omitted ; as also a multitude of particular 
 cures, such as that of the two men among the tombs, of 
 the daughter of the Syrophenician woman, &c. &c. each 
 of which, if closely examined, would of itself, establish the 
 position taken as beyond the possibility of rational doubU 
 The forecited passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
 are however amply sufficient, and at once, short, pertinent, 
 and coriclusive. In these passages, the fact, that Christ 
 expelled demons, devils, or evil spirits, is expressed in 
 language so diverse and varied, generic and specific, as 
 to admit of no doubt what the loritcrs intended to assert 
 If the testimony is intelligible, are the witnesses credible ? 
 The authority of the witnesses^ it is believed, is the only 
 reason why doubts, as to the import of their testimony, 
 were ever expressed. Over similar language in Philo or 
 Josephus, the veriest tyro could not stumble. Were such 
 miracles ascribed to Apollonius of Tyana, and not to 
 Jesus of Nazareth, who would doubt as to their mean- 
 ing?* 
 
 A fourth argument is. The scriptures declare that Christ 
 communicated this power of expelling demons to his apos- 
 tles, and that they repeatedly exerted it. 
 
 Proof. Matthew, x. 1, 8. " And when he had called 
 
 * Beausobre, in his Remarks upon the New Testament, says, 
 " some think these, (the demoniacal possessions,) were natural dis- 
 eases, though the causes were unknown. To this opinion I sub- 
 scribe. My reason is, that the miracles of our Saviour, who cured 
 them, will appear to be more wonderful (plus grands) on this than 
 on the other supposition. Which is the greater miracle, for inteUi- 
 gent beings to obey a command of Christ, or for him to cure diseases 
 by his simple word?" Strange as it may seem, Lardner counte- 
 nances this " rational" mode of interpretation. Any one who wishes 
 
37 
 
 unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against 
 unclean spirits, to cast tJiem out, and to heal all manner 
 of sickness and all manner of disease. . . . Heal the sick, 
 cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils, freely 
 ye have received, freely give." Compare Mark, iii. 13, 
 14, vi. 7, 13. Luke, ix. 1. Two remarks suggest them- 
 selves on these passages. Does any one suppose that 
 when Christ selected his apostles and sent them forth, 
 commanding them to " cast out devils," he intended to 
 impart to them merely the ponder of curing natural dis- 
 eases, lohetlier of a more or less aggravated nature ? 
 Besides the want of evidence for such a use of language, 
 the awkwardness of such an expression, and the needless 
 repetition of ideas, which that interpretation would force 
 upon the commission, there is another answer to the ob- 
 jection, less apparent at first, but not less conclusive. 
 This extensive commission, " heal the sick, cleanse the 
 lepers, raise the dead and cast out devils," is, according 
 to the three evangelical historians, limited to the twelve 
 apostles. But in Luke, tenth chapter, we read that " the 
 J^ord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and 
 two before his face, into every city and place whither he 
 would come. . . . And into whatsoever city ye enter and 
 they receive you, eat such things as are set before you ; 
 and heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, the 
 kingdom of God is come unto you." That is, in other 
 words, " be content with your fare, heal all the diseases 
 you meet with, and preach the reign of the Messiah." 
 *' Heal the sick that are therein," is as general, as un- 
 
 for a medley of learning, ingenuity, contradiction and absurdity, will 
 find it in Lardner's four sermons on demoniacs. He acknowledges 
 that the apostles actually believed in demoniacal possessions ; and 
 that Christ knew better, but^did not rectify the error. Dr. Lardner 
 was a learned, and somewhat ingenuous Unitarian. He seems to 
 have believed in the existence of Satan, yet, from his qualified use 
 of language, it is somewhat doubtful what he really believed, and 
 what he only said in reference to the prejudices of his hearers and 
 the times. 
 
38 
 
 limited a commission as could have been issued for the 
 purpose of curing simply natural diseases. So these dis- 
 ciples understood it. But it is very plain that they did not 
 think it communicated to them the ability of ejecting evil 
 spirits. For we read in the same chapter, that " the 
 seventy returned with joy, saying Lord, eveji the devils 
 are subject unto us through thy name." It is evident 
 that these disciples had unexpectedly found themselves 
 in the possession of miraculous powers, greatly beyond 
 the letter of their commission, and rejoiced in the dis- 
 covery. This certainly would not have been the fact, 
 had they understood this commission originally in the sense 
 now controverted, i. e. liad tliey understood the commission^ 
 " heed the sick that are therein,'^ to have involved the poicer 
 of casting out evil spirits. There could have been no oc- 
 casion for them to express their joyful surprise to Christ, 
 on finding that they possessed simply the poivers they 
 knew to have been delegated to them. To have done this 
 would have been a tacit impeachment of the veracity, or 
 the power of their Lord. But additional and unsuspected 
 powers, imparted to them through the name of Christ, 
 afforded a natural and a suitable occasion for an expres- 
 sion of their joy and their surprise. The two expressions 
 in the apostolical commission, " heal the sick, cast out 
 devils," are not synonymous, neither does the former in- 
 volve the latter, the disciples being judges. " To cast out 
 devils," in their judgment, was something different from 
 ''healing the sick" of merely natural diseases. Who would 
 best understand the import of their commission, those dis- 
 ciples or modern critics ] rather, Christ himself, or the de- 
 niers of demoniacal possessions ? Had it not been true, that 
 the power of expelling demons was superadded to that of 
 curing diseases, or had it been true that both these were 
 the same, would it not have been natural, nay, would not 
 common honesty and the interests of truth have required 
 
of Christ, when the disciples thus returned, some explana- 
 tion of his commission, or some correction of their error? 
 Might it not, under such circumstances, have been most 
 reasonably expected, that he would have said to them 
 something like this, '' the joy you express is without pro- 
 per cause. When I sent you forth to cure diseases, your 
 commission was unlimited. How could you be surprised 
 that diseases of any form or of the most malignant nature 
 should be cured, when that was the intent of my com- 
 mission?" Instead of this, Jesus confirms the fact, assert- 
 ed by these disciples to have occurred beyond their 
 expectation. He said unto them, '' I beheld Satan, as 
 lightning, fall from heaven. Behold, I give unto you 
 power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all 
 the power of the enemy ; and nothing shall by any means 
 hurt you. Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the 
 spirits are subject unto you ; but rather rejoice, because 
 your names are written in heaven."* 
 
 A second remark on this apostolical commission is also 
 deserving of notice. " Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, 
 raise the dead, cast out devils." Here all admit miraculous 
 
 * A remark may here be made that, perhaps, will serv^e to explain 
 a passage of somewhat doubtful import. The twelve apostles and 
 the seventy disciples were commissioned and sent forth at different 
 times. There is no evidence that they all knew each other ; or if 
 the apostles knew these disciples, they could not have known them 
 to possess the power of expelling demons, as Jesus at this time alone 
 knew this fact. Hence, when " John saw one casting out devils in 
 the name of Christ and forbade him," this may, for aught that appears, 
 have been one of the seventy. As the commission of both classes 
 extended, at this time, only " to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, 
 and they were forbidden to go into the way of the Gentiles, and into 
 any city of the Samaritans," the probability is great, that the apostles 
 would have met with some of the disciples in their various, yet 
 limited peregrinations. When the answer of Christ to John is con- 
 sidered, " forbid him not, for there is no man, which shall do a 
 miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me," this proba- 
 bility rises very near to certainty. In the same way we may also 
 illustrate the forecited argument of Christ to the Pharisees, " if I by 
 Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out ?" 
 From this passage Storr infers, that " this power of expelling demons 
 
40 
 
 powers were conferred on the apostles, independent of the 
 voluntary agency of the subjects affected. " In healing the 
 sick, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead," the will of the 
 individual, cured, or cleansed, or restored to life, 7ieed not 
 be consulted. But how stands it with the last particular, 
 *' cast out devils"? If this mean cast out " the evil prin- 
 ciple," was this to be done without the voluntary agency 
 of the persons themselves ? Is it credible that bad men, 
 very bad men, were, in the time of Christ, by an immedi- 
 ate act of divine power, altogether independent of their 
 wish and will and effort, yes, contrary to these, against 
 their express and earnest entreaty, cleansed of their evil 
 principles ? Is this consistent with Unitarian notions of 
 " moral liberty"? Is it consistent with any man's com- 
 mon sense ? Does not the intelligent Unitarian perceive 
 that in adopting such a mode of interpretation, he slides 
 into what he considers one of the most obnoxious tenets 
 of five-pointed Calvinism, — "irresistible grace"? that he 
 really destroys free agency, and makes mere physical 
 machines of these men ? And if of these, why not of 
 others ? Why not of all ? 
 
 was possessed by others besides the followers of Christ." But this 
 is neither a necessary, nor a natural inference. Besides, such an 
 interpretation would destroy the whole force of Christ's argument. 
 Surely if others possessed the power of expelling demons, independ- 
 ent of Christ, his possessing that power would not prove his messiah- 
 ship, any more than their possessing it would prove their messiahship. 
 The question, " by whom do your children cast them out ?" may very 
 naturally mean, according to the well known latitude allowed to those 
 words, the apostles — the disciples, who were Jews, and, probably, 
 most of them of the sect of the Pharisees, before called to follow 
 Christ. These apostles and disciples would all with one consent, if 
 questioned as to the origin of their power over Satan, have ascribed 
 it to Christ. The appeal then to these eighty two individuals, " they 
 shall be your judges," known, as they must have been, in different 
 parts of Judea, and probably to many of his auditors, to the Pharisees 
 among the rest, was peculiarly pertinent and forcible. This view 
 gives to the argument an appositeness and force, hitherto in some 
 degree overlooked, and is also simple, natural, and unencumbered 
 with any difficulty. Whether it is the true interpretation, let the 
 reader judge. 
 
41 
 
 From what has been said under this argument, it fol- 
 lows irresistibly, that " casting out devils," whatever it 
 may mean, does not mean "curing the sick" of any 
 simply natural diseases, nor rooting out ** the evil prin- 
 ciple." What does it mean 1 '* Casting out devils." 
 Nothing more nor less. On the whole subject of de- 
 moniacal possessions, I cannot better consult the instruc- 
 tion of the reader, or the strength of my own argument, 
 than by quoting the following passage from Storr. 
 
 "Some of the narratives of the influence of demons are 
 of such a nature, that no reasonable exposition can well be 
 given of them, without admitting the reality of demoniacal 
 agency. Such, for example, is the account of the expul- 
 sion of the devils from the two possessed men in the 
 country of the Gergesenes. Jesus could not have addres- 
 sed those demons and granted them permission to enter 
 into the swine, if he had not really regarded demons as 
 the cause of the disease of these individuals. Otherwise 
 he would have confirmed an error of his contemporaries, not 
 only with words, but actucdly hy the performance of a 
 miracle. We must carefully distinguish between the ex- 
 pressions, ' curing a demoniac or one possessed of a 
 devil,' and ' expelling demons, or commanding them to 
 depart.' It might indeed be conceded, that, according 
 to the usage of the language, the expression demoniac, 
 signified a person affected by a particular natural disease ; 
 and that the writers of the New Testament used it in its 
 common acceptation, although that acceptation of the 
 word originated in an erroneous opinion ; just as the 
 word lunatic could with propriety be applied to a certain 
 species of diseased persons, because, though it originated 
 in error, it had by usage become the customary name of 
 persons affected by a certain disease ; and yet it would 
 by no means follow, that the person who thus iises the 
 word in its ordinary acceptation, must have entertained 
 
42 
 
 the erroneous opinion, that the subjects of lunacy were 
 under the particular influence of the moon. Thus, when 
 the astronomer uses the erroneous phraseology, ' the sun 
 rises, or the sun goes down,' no one will think of charg- 
 ing him with holding that vulgar opinion. But if we 
 suppose, that, when Jesus addressed the demons, and 
 when he commanded them to be silent or to depart, he at 
 the same time believed the disease to be entirely natural, 
 and to have no connexion with demoniacal influence ; we 
 could not believe that Jesus merely used a peculiar cus- 
 tomary expression, which usage had made proper ; hut we 
 must believe that he actually confirmed an erroneous opin- 
 ion hy the language tohich he used. In reference to the 
 possession, mentioned Matthew, viii. 28, Hess remarks, 
 * the fact that these demoniacs had, agreeably to the nar- 
 rative itself, actually been delivered from their affection 
 (v. 32) before anything happened to the herd of swine, 
 proves that it was not the possessed persons who threw 
 themselves among the swine in a fit of madness, but that it 
 Vt'as the devils who had been expelled from these persons.' 
 And it is evident from the history of this event, that its 
 object was to expose to view, (in reference to the defence 
 of himself, which Jesus was compelled to make against 
 the most horrible slanders,) the number, legion, and ma- 
 licrnity of these demons, and their actual, though involun- 
 tary subjection to Jesus ; and the utmost publicity was 
 given to this matter by the incident of the swine. Rela- 
 tive to the cures of the demoniacs in general, Hess re- 
 marks, ' it cannot be denied, that the sacred historians 
 did actually mean vexatious spirits, which grievously op- 
 pressed the bodies and minds of men. Agreeably to their 
 intention, therefore, the numerous examples of the cures 
 of demoniacs acquire a peculiar importance, inasmuch as 
 Jesus appears, not only as their deliverer from bodily 
 evil, but as the conqueror of hostile powers from the in- 
 
43 
 
 visible world.' Paulus, in his Commentary on the New 
 Testament, has maintained that * the cures of the demo- 
 niacs were nothing else than cures of diseases of the mind, 
 which were effected hij the opinion in the deranged per- 
 sons, that the demons which possessed them could not 
 exist near that man of God, the Messiah ; and therefore 
 that they must necessarily flee at his approach.' In re- 
 ply to this, a Tubingen writer justly remarks, ' it is 
 altogether incredible that in so short a time, and in the 
 population of one small country, a mere opinion should of 
 itself, in so many instances, have effected a permanent 
 cure of mental derangement, a disease generally resulting 
 from some radical disorganization of the body ; or that in 
 so many cases it should happen, that just at the precise 
 time when Jesus approached such unfortunate beings, th« 
 bodily causes of their derangement should in so many in- 
 stances have spontaneously vanished, and their minds 
 have been restored by mere chance.' " 
 
 Such a belief as that attributed to Paulus in the preced- 
 ing extract, requires a degree of faith " a thousand times 
 greater" than that held by the Orthodox. Yet he consid- 
 ered himself a 7nost rational believer. The mode in which 
 these evil spirits were connected with or affected particular 
 individuals, who can define ? The fact of such a connexion 
 and such an influence who can deny 1 " The phrases in 
 which the demons are spoken of, " being in," and " going 
 out," or " being driven out," are used, the first to denote 
 the influence of the demon on the individual, the latter 
 two to denote the cessation or removal of such influence. 
 Christ possessed and employed the power to destroy 
 this visible mfluence of the devil, in a visible manner. 
 The like power he gave to his apostles, and they also 
 frequently exerted it." Beyond this, to attempt definition, 
 were to be wise above what is written. If the philosophy 
 of the day would allow us to retain the natural distinction 
 
44 
 
 of Ji7ial and efficient cause, the quotation above made 
 would show that on the former of these something might 
 be said. 
 
 I cannot enter fully into the subject of demoniacs. 
 My argument does not require it. Yet I cannot say that 
 I am satisfied with any exhibition of this subject, which 
 has fallen under my eye. President Appleton has written 
 more logically, and more to the purpose, than any other 
 writer. Yet Lectures, addressed to Under Graduates, 
 would hardly admit a full statement of the subject. He 
 has, however, stated fairly the pretended arguments of 
 Farmer, Lardner, and Sykes, and annihilated them. His 
 amenity of manner is equalled only by the pungency of 
 his logic. Whoever seeks for truth on this subject, may 
 be greatly aided by President Appleton, whose Lectures 
 are less known and read than they deserve to be. 
 
 The word translated devils, in the plural number, would 
 be more literally rendered by the word demons. The ques- 
 tion arises, What did this word mean in Judea in the time 
 of Christ ? To settle this has called forth much investi- 
 gation. President Appleton gives the result of this in- 
 vestigation thus : " The word, dcemon, is very general, 
 and corresponds, in a great degree, to the English word, 
 spirit. It does not designate the moral character to 
 which it is applied. It is used in relation to the supreme 
 God, by Plato and Isocrates. It was used by certain phi- 
 losophers, and afterward by some of the Christian Fathers, 
 to signify evil spirits of a rank superior to mankind. It 
 was likewise used, and, I apprehend, very commonly, to 
 signify the souls of dead men. The evangelists did not 
 apply the term either in the first or last of these senses, 
 but in the second. They did not assert that demoniacs 
 were disordered by the supreme Deity, or by the spirits 
 of the dead, but by spirits of a malignant character, and 
 of a rank superior to man. The term is not used, there- 
 
45 
 
 fore, in the New Testament, in a sense unknown amono- 
 the Greeks." President Appleton has given the sense, in 
 which the evangelists used the word, correctly. It may 
 be doubted, however, whether, in classical use, it had not 
 a still greater latitude of meaning than he has assigned it. 
 He, who wishes to know the wlwle trutli^ must not depend 
 on the authorities cited by Farmer and Lardner, who had 
 a theory to support, but must look farther. He should 
 consult the Commentary of Proclus on the First Alcibiades 
 of Plato, which he will find subjoined to Taylor's trans- 
 lation, and especially the work of J. G. Mayer, published 
 at Tubingen, 1780, entitled, Historia Diaboli. His first 
 chapter is full of information. In it he treats, to use his 
 own words, de exsistentia Diaboli, daemonumque, nee ex 
 ratione, nee traditione, apud Chaldceos, Persas, JEgyptios, 
 Graecos ut Pythagoram, Platonem, nee ex Judaeorum 
 scriptis, sed ex sola revelatione, demonstrahili ; contra 
 Adaemonistas crassiores, SadducaBos subtiliores, speciatim 
 Semlerum Tellerumque.* 
 
 I have already endeavored to show, that the explana- 
 tion of the cures of demoniacs by the curing of simply 
 natural disease, is wholly insufficient. President Appleton 
 has argued the case of the cures of the demoniacs among 
 the tombs, with irresistible effect on every mind, disposed 
 to take the scriptural account to be what it professes to 
 be. See his twenty-seventh Lecture. 
 
 I wish to present a somewhat different view of this 
 
 case, but tending to the same point. This cure is re- 
 
 * Those to whom the words, " fictions of oriental mythology," are 
 in the place of sense and argument, might do well to think, and think- 
 ing, to answer. Quid, quseso, communem illam persuasionem, de 
 Deo bono maloque, quorum neuter ab altero dependeat^ apud Chal- 
 daeos, Persas, Magos, ^Egyptios, Chiuenses magis peperit, quae 
 Manichaeismi ante Manetem,oranes terras, ad ortum soils et occasurn 
 sitas pervadentis, causa exstitit, quam depravata ilia de auctore mali 
 traditio ? Whence the Ophiolatria of .-Egypt, India, Scandinavia, 
 and Mexico, except from the influence of the Old Serpent, auetov 
 mali ? 
 
 4* 
 
46 
 
 corded in Mark, v. 1—20. Matthew, viii. 28—34. Luke, 
 viii. 26 — 36, passages which the reader is requested to 
 examine carefully. 
 
 Lardner states three hypotheses adopted to explain the 
 destruction of the herd of swine. Christ either commu- 
 nicated the disease, (inscmiti/,) with which the two men 
 were affected, to the swine ; or these men drove them 
 down the hill ; or evil spirits were cast out of them, and 
 suffered to enter the swine, by which they were driven 
 into the deep. He rejects the first as unreasonable. He 
 adopts the second, as do rational christians generally. 
 The Orthodox adopt the third. Let us examine the ra- 
 tional theory. If the two maniacs drove the swine into 
 the deep, (to say nothing of the difficulty [impossibility ?] 
 of the attempt, and not to ask what the keepers were 
 about,) they cither drove them before they ivere cured, or 
 afterwards. If they drove them before, while they were 
 yet maniacs, why should the people so earnestly have be- 
 sought Christ to depart out of their coast for curing 
 afflicted maniacs, and preventing farther mischief? Was 
 it common in other cases, when Christ had cured the 
 sick, to beseech him to be gone ? Would it not have been 
 more rational in this instance to have besought him to 
 stay 1 or were they, one and all, desirous of a further 
 destruction of their property ? If they drove them after- 
 wards, were not the maniacs more insane after their 
 insanity was cured, than while their madness raged 1 
 
 From the narrative of the evangelists, it is evident, that 
 the cure, in some degree, preceded the destruction of the 
 swine. There is no hint nor shadow of a hint that the 
 men were themselves the cause of this destruction ; still 
 less, if less be possible, that they were this cause after 
 they were restored to " their right mind." This supposi- 
 tion is not only gratuitous and without evidence, but 
 at^ainst the whole mass of evidence. Yet Lardner says, 
 
47 
 
 " when lie had imagined the thought of gratifying the 
 evil spirits by which he imagined himself to be possessed, 
 with the destruction of the swine, he would without much 
 difficulty drive them off the precipice. [Would two mad- 
 men from the Insane Hospital drive two thousand swine 
 off Central Wharf in the presence of " their keepers," 
 '' without much difficulty ?" Were swine less contrary in 
 Judea than in Massachusetts ?] If some few of them were 
 put in motion, the whole herd would follow. Nor is it un- 
 likely that the other person, his companion in affliction, 
 joined his assistance ; for St. Matthew speaks of two. 
 They invested the herd [this partakes rather of an Irish 
 than an Oriental idiom,] on each side and thus drove 
 them before them." Lardner's Works, vol. i, p. 474. All 
 this is rational, very rational. No one more highly res- 
 pects the amiable character and extensive acquisitions of 
 Lardner, than the writer. But I must protest ao-ainst 
 absurdity of explanation even though offered by Lardner.* 
 The question between the Orthodox and the Rationalists 
 is not wlietlier these persons icere diseased 1 It is admit- 
 
 * When Peter speaks of" the angels who were cast down to hell," 
 the editors of the Improved Version explain the assertion in a note 
 thus, " the spies, who were sent to explore the land of Canaan." 
 Sir William Drummond thinks that Moses in giving an account of the 
 twelve sons of Jacob meant to describe the twelve signs of the Zodiac. 
 Mr. Mitford, the historian of Greece, outstrips Mr. Belsham even in 
 the race of liberality. He not only rejects " the introduction of the 
 gospel of Matthew" and " the proem of John's gospel," and the com- 
 mon interpretaion of demoniacs, for all which the English Unitarian 
 Reviewers greatly commend him, but "he justifies Caiaphas, in pro- 
 nouncing sentence upon Jesus, absolves Pontius Pilate, and con- 
 cludes that the sacrifice, predestined by Almighty Providence, was 
 accomplished — if not without crime, yet, the signal treachery of one 
 man excepted, without any that we seem warranted to impute." He 
 also justifies the Roman government for persecuting the early chris- 
 tians. Pity it is ! that Mr. Mitford cannot antedate his existence by 
 a retro-metempsychosis in the personage of Trajan. He could easily 
 answer the inquiries of a too tender-hearted Pliny in one sentence, 
 " Christianos illos jugulate." Are the improved editors, or Sir W. 
 Drummond, or Mr. Mitford, most rational? Will it be beliave'd 
 that Mr. Mitford escapes with almost no Unitarian censure ? That he 
 is even hailed as an enlightened advocate of Unitarianism .' 
 
48 
 
 ted on all hands that they were afflicted with a dreadful 
 disease. The question is, what was the nature of this 
 disease 1 Was it a physical derangement only, or the result 
 of possession hy evil spirits ? This distinction should be 
 kept in mind, to detect the fallacies of Lardner and 
 Farmer. When Jesus says of the woman, who had 
 been sick eighteen years, " Satan bound her," does it 
 follow that Satan did not bind her, because she had been 
 sick eighteen years 1 Yet this is the species of logic 
 adopted by those celebrated authors. In view of such 
 scriptural statements, as have been exhibited under this 
 and the preceding argument, the Rationalists, to produce 
 conviction in reasoning minds, must adduce some argu- 
 ment more weighty than ^ petitio principii. It should also 
 be remembered, that what in some passages is attributed to 
 evil spirits in general, is, in other places, attributed to Sa- 
 tan in particular ; just as the defeats of Burgoyne and 
 Cornwallis were the defeats of King George ; and what 
 was done by those Generals was done by their Sovereign, 
 according to the received maxim, quod facit per alium facit 
 per se. The scriptures represent Satan as the leader of 
 the fallen hosts. These things kept in mind, the whole 
 subject will be plain» 
 
49 ((UNirEESITY 
 
 /> 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 A fifth argument is, Tliat Christ liims elf taught concern^ 
 ing evil spirits a continuity of agency ,infiuencc andconnex' 
 ion, intelligible only on the supposition of personal existence. 
 
 In the passage from the eighth chapter of John^ before 
 quoted, the devil is called by Christ " a murderer/' lit- 
 erally a homicide, or in still plainer English, though of 
 precisely the same import, a man-killer. To what inci- 
 dent recorded in scripture can this refer, except to that 
 which '' brought deatli into the world and all our wo" ? 
 With what terrible emphasis of truth is it applicable 
 here ? Is it necessary to quote other passages of -scripture 
 to show that our first parents were teinpted to sin by the 
 wiles of Sataa J But having tempted men to transgres- 
 sion, is Satan content to resign ail farther inSaence over 
 them ? Luke, xiii. 16. " Ouglit not this woman, being a 
 dauo-hter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these 
 eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath 
 day?" xxii. 31. ''And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, 
 behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift 
 you as wheat." Here various, ceaseless, continued ac- 
 tivity is ascribed to something, which looks very like an 
 agent ; which, if it have not a personal existence, is of a 
 unique, indescribable, inconceivable character. Was it 
 " disease" of any name or nature, or " the principle of 
 evil" more or less inveterate, or " Sammael the angel of 
 death," in the popular Jewish mythology, " that desired 
 to have Peter, to sift him as wheat"] Matthew, xxv. 
 41, " Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire 
 prepared for the devil and his angels." Here the Lord 
 Jesus Christ distinctly asserts, that, at the judgment day, 
 
50 
 
 the impenitent shall be sentenced to an everlasting resi- 
 dence with something. With what ? With *' evil princi- 
 ple" or " disease" in the abstract ? With madness ? 
 With epilepsy ? With a Jewish mythus ? With — ? 
 With — ? or " with the devil and his angels V Supply 
 the preceding blanks with whatever explanation or suppo- 
 sition you please, fanciful or philosophical, (which is only 
 another word for ultra-fanciful,) learned or unlearned, will 
 it meet the innumerable and pressing difficulties of the 
 case ? Will ani/ supposition meet these, except that of 
 the personal existence of the devil and his angels 7 In 
 stating this argument, I have purposely limited it to the 
 very luords of Christ ivhile on earth, a few of which only 
 have been quoted. The apostles would afford abundant 
 confirmation of it. Considering the early and deadly in- 
 fluence of Satan over Adam, his continued agency in 
 afflicting our race, his seducements in leading men into 
 sin, and the destiny that Christ declares to await the 
 finally impenitent in connexion with fallen angels, we are 
 constrained to pronounce " the Bible one of the most de- 
 ceptive books ever written" if " Satan" do not mean an 
 agent, and not an attribute ; a person and not a quality. 
 This will appear still plainer when we consider, 
 
 The sixth argument, That Christ personally taught the 
 existence of a mighty evil spirit, who occnpics a usurped 
 dominion in this world. 
 
 Proof John, xii. 31. "Now is the judgment of this 
 world ; now shall the prince of this world be cast out." 
 xvi. 11. "Of judgment, because the prince of this world 
 is judged." xiv. 30. " Hereafter I will not talk much 
 with you, for the prince of this world cometh and hath 
 nothing in me." 
 
 What possible explanation can be assigned to these 
 passages, consistent with a denial of diabolical agency ? 
 Can believers in the native original purity, or, what may 
 
51 
 
 more properly be called, the moral equipollence of our 
 race, suppose " the principle of evil" intended here ? If 
 so, another corner stone of the Unitarian fabric, if not 
 subverted, receives a severe shock. Can those, who sup- 
 pose every child now born into the world, as free from 
 every taint and predisposition to sin as Adam fresh from 
 the hand of his Maker, or as the child Jesus when " the 
 magi fell down and worshipped him," believe that " the 
 evil principle" is " the prince of this world V Has not 
 Dr. Ware proved to the satisfaction of Unitarians that 
 simplicity, innocence, virtue, purity, veracity, honesty, 
 love of kindred, and of country, philanthrophy, &c. are 
 as natural as the opposite qualities, and far more general ? 
 Not only are two truths spoken to one lie, but ten debts 
 are paid to one not paid. Is not man holy and good, or 
 at least as holy and good, as he is unholy and bad 1 " Of 
 a mixed character?" The good preponderant? Why 
 then should " the principle of evil" be exalted to this bad 
 eminence, — have this monopoly assigned to it, while the 
 principle of goodness is forgotten or slighted ? Is there 
 not something rather askew here ? The different parts of 
 the Unitarian edifies do not tally, or if they do, they re- 
 quire a joiner of greater skill than has yet appeared to 
 put them together, to suit the tenons to the mortises. Is 
 it not a curious fact that different Unitarian interpreta- 
 tions of the words devil, Satan, &c. interpretations of the 
 first authority and most general prevalence, applied to 
 different passages tend at one time strongly to one point 
 of '' hateful" Calvinism, irresistible grace, and at another 
 time, to another equally hated doctrine of the same 
 " gloomy system," original entire chpravit)/ ? Whence is 
 this ? Is this tendency of the Unitarian mode of interpre- 
 tation stated unfairly ? Is not the expression " tend 
 strongly," rather below than above the truth ? 
 
 But suppose we adopt either of the other liberal expla- 
 
52 
 
 nations. Is " disease" so much more prevalent than 
 health, that it deserves to be called " the prince of this 
 world" ? " Would you go to a hospital to learn the health 
 of the community?" Had Christ dealt in Grecian, rather 
 than in Jewish mythology, would not his cheerful and 
 complacent spirit have exalted Hygeia to this eminence ? 
 Instead of this, can the really enlightened Unitarian be- 
 lieve that he would have given the sceptre to Sammael or 
 Pluto, the grim king of death ? Are such conceptions 
 consistent with his notions of the character of the messen- 
 ger of glad tidings ? Either of the three hypotheses is 
 hemmed in with insuperable difficulties. The attempt 
 to stand stock still and say nothing, is the only tenable 
 (because unassailable) position the Unitarian can take. 
 This, however, hardly falls in with the assumed character 
 of those who are leading the age in " the march of mind," 
 looks had, and is scarcely compatible with the genius loci 
 of Boston, which has ever been reputed alike inquisitive, 
 intelligent and communicative. These pioneers through 
 the great wilderness of theological science must feel 
 themselves the forlorn hope of human illumination. Is 
 any Unitarian satisfied that in the passages quoted '' the 
 prince of this world" means " the principle of evil," or 
 " disease," or any merely popular Jewish mythological 
 fancy about the angel of death ? It is readily conceded 
 that Sammael, like Belial or Apollyon, might be another 
 popular name for Satan. But to call this a mere mythus, 
 would be simply an assumption of the zvhole subject in 
 debate. In what sense was disease ''judged" or ''cast 
 out" by the death of Christ? Was it "the principle 
 of evil" that " came" to Christ, " having nothing in 
 him," and yet so afflicted him as to prevent Christ from 
 " talking much with his disciples" ? If this was the sea- 
 son when " the powers of darkness" assailed Christ, as 
 has been already shown, all this is plain and intelligible. 
 
But ichat can the proof texts quoted under this argument 
 mean, on any Unitarian hi/pothesis ever yet proposed ? 
 
 My seventh argument is, That Christ taught the same 
 doctrine after his ascension to heaven. 
 
 Proof. Acts, xxvi. 16 — IS. '' I have appeared unto 
 thee (Paul) for this purpose, to make thee a minister and 
 a witness both of these things, which thou hast seen, and 
 of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ; de- 
 livering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto 
 whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn 
 them from darkness to light, and from the potver of Satan 
 unto God." This passage, by itself, affords the same evi- 
 dence of the existence of Satan as a personal agent, that 
 it affords of the existence of God, as a personal agent. 
 Any interpretation that would turn the word " Satan," 
 into the abstract principle of evil, would turn the word 
 " God," into the abstract principle of goodness. This 
 would drive us to the incomprehensible pantheism, under 
 the less intelligible name, transcendental idealism, of 
 Fichte. In this passage, darkness and light are abstracts 
 and opposites ; Satan and God are concretes and opposites. 
 I ask the writer of the article quoted from the Register, 
 I ask the theological students and professors at Cam- 
 bridge, I ask you, my dear sir, and the Unitarian clergy 
 of Boston and New England, I ask all Unitarians of this 
 land and of every land, did Christ, in commissioning the 
 great apostle of the gentiles, confirm^ from the throne of 
 his glory, an oriental fction ? 
 
 In order to give no offence to the most fastidious 
 critic, the quotations on which the principal reliance has 
 thus far been placed, have been taken, almost exclusively, 
 from the evangelists : still more — from the apostolical gos- 
 pels of Matthew and John : still more — from those parts 
 of their gospels, which Unitarians allow to have been 
 written by these apostles. There is no dispute as to 
 5 
 
54 
 
 the genuineness of the readings. What still adds weight 
 to this selection is, that these quotations are, for tlie most 
 part, in the very words of Christ himself. 
 
 The prejudices of those, whose professed reverence for 
 the instructions and doctrines of Christ himself is so 
 great, that they reject a quotation from Paul or Peter as of 
 quite inferior authority, have thus far been consulted in 
 their fullest extent. A fter this accommodation of ourselves 
 to the views of Unitarians, it is but fair, in adducing 
 further arguments, to take the liberty which the views of 
 the Orthodox on this subject permit. Believing the epistles 
 to be of equal authority with the gospels, and a more 
 systematical revelation and fuller defence of the Christian 
 system, the Orthodox receive whatever they contain, 
 supplemental or explanatory of this system, as spring- 
 ing from the same authoritative origin, the inspiration 
 of the Spirit of Truth. They believe the apostle Paul 
 to have spoken the truth, when he said to the Gala- 
 tian churches, " I certify you, brethren, that the gospel 
 which was preached of me, is not after man ; for I neither 
 received it of man, neither was .1 taught it, hut by the 
 revelation of Jesus Christ'' They believe, that the 
 epistles of Paul contain the instructions and doctrines of 
 Christ as really as though they heard them from his own 
 lips. What the apostles believed and taught, who did 
 not write gospels, but wrote epistles to individuals, to 
 particular churches, or to the church at large, they think 
 deserves the same attentive deference, that is paid to the 
 four evangelists ; especially, believing as they do, that it 
 was not the unassisted apostles who spoke and wrote, but 
 the Spirit of their Father, who communicated divine truth 
 through them. If this be a prejudice, yet, having the 
 sanctity of age and the authority of the church universal 
 in all ages, the writer must be excused, if, without further 
 deference to the critical skill of Dr. Priestley, who thinks 
 
the apostles, especially Paul, reasoned inconclusively, or 
 to the conscientious freedom of Mr. Belshain, who does 
 not hold himself bound to believe because they believed, 
 he is unwilling to forego so early, so deep-seated and 
 wide-spread a prejudice, but chooses to summon these 
 witnesses to give their testimony on the subject under 
 consideration. Whether inspired or not, all will allow 
 that the apostles were quite as likely to understand the 
 truths they were to teach; and which they actually did 
 teach through a series of years, as any Socinian writers, 
 from the Fratres Poloni to the Editors of the Improved 
 Version. Whether we can understand what they taught, 
 we shall soon have occasion to decide. If our belief 
 must rest on the dictum of any man, the writer is willing 
 to express the strong prepossession, reasonable or wirea- 
 sonahle, that one distinct declaration of Paul, would 
 out weigh the most elaborate criticism of Cappe ; and that 
 ten verses from Jude, would overturn ten chapters from 
 Lindsey, or even from the estimable and intelligent Lard- 
 ner. In other words, if I could ascertain the opinion of 
 an apostle, who listened to the instructions, which fell 
 from the lips of Jesus while on earth, or received his in- 
 structions from him after his ascension to glory, that 
 opinion in regard to the spiritual, eternal loorld, I icoidd 
 prefer to all the specidations of all the schools. If in 
 this opinion, all the apostles coincided, I should consider 
 it just as credible and as certain, as though the voice of 
 the Eternal were to proclaim its truth from the whirlwind 
 or the lightning. No black cloud over the face of day, 
 no tempest of fire and smoke, no thundering in the heav- 
 ens above, nor shaking of the earth beneath, could add to 
 the certainty of the truth, however they might to the 
 vividness of the impression. If individual and, still more, 
 united apostolical opinion, in reference to the spiritual 
 world, is not of unquestionable authority y not only must 
 
56 
 
 the epistles be given up, but the gospels also, and all 
 revelation, and the possihility of revelation. In this case, 
 I must become an absolute skeptic, " I must doubt of every 
 thing ; yes, of these doubts themselves." I am thrown into 
 a state of more perplexing doubt than Socrates himself. I 
 cannot even liojjc that a divine teacher shall ever come. 
 What that class of Unitarians expect to gain, who, while 
 they profess most sincerely to believe in Christianity as a 
 revealed system of divine truth, give but a partial, forced, 
 unwilling acceptance to the epistles, is more than any of 
 them have yet distinctly informed us. — It would seem, 
 from a recent article in the Christian Examiner, that 
 American Unitarianisrn is about to undergo an unwonted 
 and unexpected transformation.'*' Paul is apparently 
 about to become a favorite, at least till the epistle to 
 the Hebrews is uncanoncd. Whether he will retain his 
 hold on Unitarian affections after that, considering his 
 "inconclusive reasoning" and the things in him "hard 
 to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest 
 to their own destruction, as they do also the other scrip- 
 tures,^' can scarcely be thought problematical. I beg the 
 writer of the article just alluded to, seriously to consider 
 the quotations, which will shortly be made from Paul, from 
 the unquestioned writings of the great apostle of the 
 Gentiles. Paul is not an allegorist. He does not indulge in 
 "allegorical," "mystical," or "merely imaginary senses" 
 of quotations from the Old Testament, or of arguments 
 addressed to Roman, Corinthian, or Ephesian Christians. 
 " We must recollect that the words of Christ were report- 
 ed from memory by the evangelists, and not always with 
 perfect accuracy." " The evangelists, differing as they 
 do occasionally as to the sense and bearing of these 
 words," and " being all allegorists," " it would not have 
 been strange, if unconsciously and through inadvertence 
 * See note D. 
 
57 
 
 they had given an allegorical turn, by a slight change of 
 expression, to words, which were used by our Saviour 
 himself only by way of application." Perhaps Matthew 
 and John, with the very best intentions, were not, after all, 
 faithful reporters of uhat Christ said in regard to the 
 existence and agency of Satan. The medium of commu- 
 nication may have tinged the instructions of Christ with 
 a superadded allegorical sense, which they did not possess 
 when first uttered. But this cannot be said of Paul. He 
 is plain and explicit, indulging in no allegorical, rejecting 
 all mystical, imaginary interpretations and applications. 
 He never allows himself in liberal *' accommodation" to 
 suit his doctrine to his hearers. If he at times reasons 
 ad liominem, the context and occasion plainly point this 
 out. Let it be remembered that this is the '" latest 
 fashion " of Unitarian belief. 
 
 Wlien Paul and the other apostles icere sent forth to 
 *' turn raenfrom darhicss to light, and from the poicer of 
 Satan unto God,'' what did they understand their commis- 
 sion to mean ? 
 
 Omitting the Acts and the Apocalypse, we will limit our 
 quotations to the epistles, and here too we can only make 
 a selection, omitting many passages equally as pertinent 
 and strong as those to be quoted. 
 
 Romans, xvi. 20. " The God of peace shall bruise Sa- 
 tan under your feet shortly." 1 Cor. v. 5. " I have judg- 
 ed to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruc- 
 tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of 
 the Lord Jesus." vii. 5. " Com.e together again, that 
 Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." 2 Cor. ii. 
 IL *' Lest Satan should get an advantage of us, for we 
 are not ignorant of his devices." What does the word 
 " Satan" in these passages mean ? " Principle of evil ?" 
 " Disease?" " Mythus ?" A leading Unitarian writer, of 
 great learning and ability, has recently told us, that *' ac- 
 5* 
 
58 
 
 cording to a Jewish conception, Sammoel, the angel of 
 death, was identified with Satan." Satan, if I understand 
 the writer, was only another name in the popular Jewish 
 mythology, for the angel of death. But then there was in 
 reality no such being as the angel of death. The word 
 was used in " a merely imaginary sense." I ask that wri- 
 ter to examine his assertion, these remarks and the above 
 passages, and, in view of the whole, to decide what the 
 word " Satan," used hy Paul, means. What in a special 
 manner does it mean in these passages ? 2 Cor. xii. 7. 
 " Lest I should be exalted above measure through the 
 abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a 
 thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan, to buffet me." 
 Did Christ strengthen '' the principle of evil" in the 
 chiefest apostle 1 
 
 1 Thess. ii. 18. " Wherefore we would have come un- 
 to you, even I Paul, once and again, but Satan hindered 
 us." TVas Paul hindered from visiting the Thessalonian 
 Christians hy the Jewish conception about the imaginary 
 angel of death ? or if it mean that he was hindered by sick- 
 ness, how will that explanation suit 1 Tim. v. 14, 15? 
 " Give none occasion to the adversary to .speak reproach- 
 fully; for some are already turned aside after Satan." Is it 
 any occasion of speaking reproachfully of Christians, that 
 they " suffer those ills which flesh is heir to "? Did not the 
 importance of the subject and the strength of opposing 
 prejudices demand that varied and multiplied illustrations 
 should be given, and the fallacy and absurdity of the 
 Unitarian theories be shown, I should fear exhausting the 
 patience of the reader by any further quotations, after so 
 full and so unequivocal an exhibition of this apostle's 
 meaning. But as Paul is just now likely to be listened to 
 with special deference, it may be well to give him a 
 still farther hearing. 
 
59 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 3, 4. " If our Gospel be hid, it is hid to 
 them that are lost, in wliom the god of this world hath 
 blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light 
 of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, 
 should shine unto them." 
 
 Do you doubt who " the God of this world" is? See 
 Eph. ii. 1, 2. "And you hath he quickened, who were 
 dead in trespasses and sins ; wherein in time past ye walk- 
 ed according to the course of this world, according to the 
 prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh 
 in the children of disobedience." The phrase, " the 
 prince of the power of the air," according to the well 
 known idiom of the New Testament, evidently means the 
 powerful invisible prince, which the synonymous parallel- 
 ism, " the spirit that now worketh in the children of diso- 
 bedience," still farther explains and limits. All this ex- 
 actly coincides with the declarations of Christ before quo- 
 ted, that the prince of this world is judged, is cast out, &/C. 
 
 One passage more from Paul, and only one. Eph. vi. 
 10 — 12. " Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord 
 and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour 
 of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles 
 of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, 
 but against principalities, against powers, against the 
 rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual 
 wickedness in high places." See the whole of this most 
 striking passage. It is so full a representation of our in- 
 visible spiritual enemies, and of the mode of meeting and 
 vanquishing them, that those, who may be in doubt as to 
 the truth on this subject, and yet willing to believe what 
 the word of God declares, are earnestly requested to read 
 it, study it, meditate upon it, compare it with the pre- 
 ceding declarations of Christ, and of this apostle, and 
 see if it must not refer to actual spiritual existences, 
 and not to abstract impersonalities. Compare it with 
 
60 
 
 Col. i. 13, and ii. 15. See how by the cross, i. e. his 
 death, Christ triumphed over his enemies and the ene- 
 mies of the human family, spoiling principalities and 
 powers, delivering true Christians from the power of dark- 
 ness. Let every one examine this subject without preju- 
 dice, dispassionately, ready to give up preconceived opin- 
 ions, if unsound, and say, will any Unitarian theory meet 
 the apparent intensity of apostolic meaning ? 
 
 In reference to the quotation from Eph. vi. 10 — 12, 
 the following remarks by Storr deserve special attention. 
 " St. Paul, who had dared to overturn the magical system 
 of the Ephesians, regarded the doctrine of evil spirits as 
 not at all inconsistent with the dignity of that very Chris- 
 tianity, which had discarded superstition. And he did 
 not hesitate to interweave this doctrine with his epistle to 
 the Ephesians themselves, although in this same epistle 
 he inveighs against the superstition of the Essenes, with 
 which the Ephesians were in danger of being tinctured. 
 Had not Paul believed the doctrine of wicked angels, the 
 epistle to the Ephesians would surely have been the last 
 place in which he would have spoken so impressively and 
 circumstantially concerning their temptations, as he in 
 this very epistle was contending against the Essenes, who 
 had manifested a veneration for good angels and a terror 
 of wicked ones altogether extreme." 
 
 On 3ny Unitarian hypothesis, which has yet been ad- 
 vanced, darkness, thick darkness, and only thick darkness 
 rests upon this subject. The plainest language must be 
 wrested and " turned aside from its obvious meaning,*' 
 or the defenders of that system would, long since, 
 have either, quoad hoc, embraced Orthodoxy, or renounced 
 revelation. This is strong language, but see, in confirma- 
 tion and illustration of the remark, another passage from a 
 plain, literal, im-figurative apostle. James, ii. 19. " Thou 
 believest there is one God ; thou doest well. The devils 
 
61 
 
 also believe and tremble." What was the object of 
 James in his epistle, especially in this assertion ? Was 
 it not to show that/«/M alone in accountable beings, i. e. 
 mei-e belief without right affections and actions, could not 
 justify ? In the passage just quoted, he allows that belief 
 in the existence of God is " well " enough in itself, but 
 this alone can never justify and save. How does he prove 
 this ? Thus. Even the devils believe and, what is more, 
 tremble, and thereby show the sincerity of their belief. 
 What, to Unitarian conception, can this mean ? Does a 
 mythus or madness believe and tremble ? Does " the evil 
 principle" believe and tremble ? Of rational accountable 
 beings, this may be said, but of what else can it be ? 
 Either of the liberal explanations applied to the word 
 " devils," in this connexion, makes the apostle's reason- 
 ing, instead of an argument, a mass of unintelligible 
 nonsense. If language can express the conception, is 
 not actual personal existence attributed to evil spirits 
 here ? 
 
 In an unornamented argumentative discussion, can 
 " belief and trembling" be predicated of disease or of the 
 abstract principle of evil under the personal name of 
 *' devils," while the only pertinent use of the ivord, while 
 the lohole drift of the argument, requires that it be taken 
 in its personal sense 1 In the compass of language, in- 
 spired or uninspired, oriental or ofccidental, prosaic or 
 poetical, can there be found a catachresis so harsh and 
 craggy, as Unitarian interpreters would here thrust upon 
 one of the simplest and most matter-of-fact writers in the 
 New Testament ? The expression itself, the context, the 
 object of the writer, the general character of the epistle 
 and of the apostle, are all for a simple natural meaning, 
 which a child could not help understanding right; yet an 
 unwillingness to believe an unpalatable fact, together with 
 the prejudice of system, introduce and defend a figure 
 
62 
 
 that, at once, bids defiance to all laws of language and 
 rules of logic. If such be "rational" interpretation, what 
 is irrational 1 Let him, w^ho believes the Bible to contain 
 a revelation from heaven, and the epistle of James to be a 
 part of that revelation, read the passage already quoted 
 from that epistle, read it in its connexion, and then, in 
 the presence of his maker and his judge, lay his hand 
 upon his breast and say whether the passage does not 
 seem to him to teach the actual existence of evil spirits, 
 of " devils that believe and tremble." Is it irrational to 
 interpret scripture, not only according to its literal and ob- 
 vious meaning, but according to its only consisteiit meaning ? 
 
 The opinion of the apostle John, on this subject, has 
 been already exhibited from his gospel. His first epistle 
 abundantly confirms that opinion, as may be seen by 
 quotations in note C. 
 
 In order to elicit the opinions of Peter and Jude, the 
 second chapter of the second epistle of the former, may 
 be compared with the epistle of the latter. These two 
 passages are very similar, and designed to teach the same 
 lesson. Let us examine them with some particularity. 
 They both assert the fact that as there had been false 
 prophets among the Israelites of old, so " false teachers," 
 had already, even in the apostolic age, " crept in una- 
 wares" to the Christian church, *' privily bringing in dam- 
 nable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." 
 It would be foreign to our purpose to inquire who these 
 teachers were. The assertion " that they denied the 
 Lord that bought them," sufficiently indicates the cast 
 and stamp of their theology. The apostles, seeing the 
 danger to which the Christian church was thus early ex- 
 posed, " gave all diligence in writing to those sanctified 
 by God, the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ," " ex- 
 horting them to contend earnestly for the faith once de- 
 livered to the saints." They assure them at the same 
 
63 
 
 time, that, though " many should follow the pernicious 
 ways of these false teachers, so that the way of truth 
 should be evil spoken of, yet their judgment lingered 
 not, and their damnation did not slumber." In this case, 
 both the teachers and the taught, ** following pernicious 
 ways," the apostles most plainly declare should speedily 
 be involved in one common ruin, " bringing upon them- 
 selves swift destruction." Peter, well acquainted with 
 the human heart and its readiness to deny or doubt the 
 plainest and most unequivocal assertions of divine ven- 
 geance, immediately adduces other recorded examples 
 of the terrible wrath of Almighty God against sinners, 
 to show the certainty of the threatened punishment against 
 these false teachers. " For if God spared not the angels 
 that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered 
 them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judg- 
 ment ; and spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the 
 eighth person, a preacher of righteousness bringing in the 
 flood upon the world of the ungodly ; and turning the 
 cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned 
 them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto 
 those that after should live ungodly ; delivered just Lot, 
 
 vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked the 
 
 Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, 
 and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment 'to be 
 punished." How much of this is literal ? Was a whole 
 *' world of the ungodly " destroyed by a flood, or a figure? 
 Was Noah saved literally or figuratively ? Were those 
 that " dv.-elt in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah burnt 
 to ashes," and thus made " an ensample to those that 
 should live ungodly," by figure or in fact ? Was there 
 such a man as Lot, whom God delivered from this confla- 
 gration ? Or is this a personification ? Were " the an- 
 gels that sinned," real angels, who transgressed the divine 
 laws, or the evil principle, or a mythus, or disease ? Were 
 
64 
 
 these angels, or this principle, disease, or mythus, " cast 
 down to hell, and there delivered into chains of darkness 
 to be reserved unto jadgment " ? What principle of inter- 
 pretation, sanctioned by usage, common sense or consis- 
 tency, could thus jump at once from the simple, self-evi- 
 dent meaning of language, to so harsh, crabbed, unmean- 
 ing and incredible an explanation as the self-styled rational 
 theory forces upon this passage 1 Does not the expression 
 " angels that sinned," in this connexion presuppose 
 their existence in a sinless state ? When was " the prin- 
 ciple of evil " in this sinless state ? How did " the prin- 
 ciple of evil" sin? Can any thing but voluntary agents 
 be said to sin ? Is the principle of evil a voluntary 
 agent 1 Or rather a multitude of such agents, " angels 
 that sinned "? According to Jude, these angels " kept 
 not their first estate." What was the first estate of the 
 principle of evil ? They left their own habitation. What 
 was the original habitation of this principle 1 Innumera- 
 ble questions like these might be asked on the different 
 passages, which relate to this subject, that will admit of no 
 conceivable answer, consistent with the Unitarian hypothe- 
 sis ; no answer, which would not carry absurdity on the 
 face of it. Even a " rational " believer would hardly 
 venture to predicate sin of disease, or of a mythological 
 Jewish fancy. This would startle Dathe, who thinks 
 Satan, in the book of Job, a good angel, though rather a 
 rigid censor of morals ; or even Brennecke, who believed 
 that Christ remained twenty-seven years on earth after 
 his resurrection.* 
 
 * See Note E. I regret to notice that Mr. Noyes, in his spirited, 
 faithful and elegant translation of the Book of Job, rather counte- 
 nances this absurd dream of Eichhorn, Dathe, &c. To mention such 
 aa hypothesis is to refute it. 
 
G5 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 The sum of the argument is this. Christ himself 
 was tempted and put to exquisite suffering by Satan. He 
 also repeatedly, and explicitly taught the doctrine of 
 personal diabolical existence. He taught this to the Jews 
 as a people, to the Pharisees as a sect, and to his own 
 disciples in private. Christ possessed and exerted the 
 power of expelling devils from individuals tormented by 
 them. This power he imparted to the twelve apostles and 
 seventy disciples, which they also frequently exercised. 
 Christ taught, concerning evil spirits, a continuity of 
 agency, influence, and connexion, intelligible only on the 
 supposition of personal existence. Christ distinctly 
 represents a mighty evil spirit as occupying a usurped 
 dominion in this world. After his ascension to heaven 
 he confirmed the same truth. The apostles Matthew, 
 John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude, together with the 
 disciples iMark and Luke, understood their commission to 
 mean that men were literally to be turned " from the 
 power of Satan unto God." 
 
 Hitherto the argument has been shnpli/ scriptural. The 
 principles of interpretation applied, have been those of 
 common sense ; just those principles which are in daily use 
 when we decide on the meaning of language. Before 
 closing the argument, I wish to present to the truly philo- 
 sophical inquirer one train of thought, differing in a 
 degree from those already suggested, though it has been 
 hinted at, and would be perceived by a reader of the class 
 now particularly addressed. 
 
 What is the evidence on which the Copernican the- 
 ory rests, and by which it has supplanted all others ? 
 Simply this, all knoicn facts tally exactly with this the- 
 6 
 
66 
 
 ory. No one hypothesis, from Ptolemy to Des Cartes, 
 will meet and explain all known astronomical facts, 
 except the theory of Copernicus, as proved by Newton, 
 and illustrated by La Place. His theory is verified, 
 because it meets and explains all the facts of the case ; 
 while the other theories are proved to be false, be- 
 cause neither of them will do this. Let us apply these 
 principles of the inductive philosophy, to the subject under 
 consideration. We must bear in mind that the Bible 
 is to the truly religious philosopher, what the external uni- 
 verse is to the natural philosopher, a great store-house of 
 facts. The Orthodox theory of a personal meaning at- 
 tached to the words ** devil and his angels," meets and ex- 
 plains all the passages in which these and similar terms 
 are employed ; i. e. exactly tallies with all the facts re- 
 vealed on this subject. No other theory, nor combination 
 of theories, will thus meet and harmonize these facts. 
 No theory has been advanced, or (I will venture to add) 
 can be advanced, that shall, at the same time, deny a 
 personal meaning to those personal words, and afford a 
 consistent meaning in its stead. Which theory ought, then 
 to be called (I do not now say scriptural merely , but) Ba^ 
 conian, philosophical, rational 1 All know which assumes 
 to itself the latter title. But which is and ought to be con 
 sidered the truly rational theory ^ that which meets and ex 
 plains all the facts, or that which in one point or another 
 is constantly running into some egregious, palpable absur 
 dity ? Is the Copernican or the Ptolemaic, the Orthodox 
 or the Unitarian theory, the true one? I invite the dis- 
 criminating, the cultivated, the truly philosophical minds 
 among the Unitarians, to examine this argument, to sub- 
 ject it to the most rigid scrutiny. 
 
 Will any one, as a dernier resort, deny that the Orthodox 
 theory docs thus tally with the facts ? Then let me ask. Is 
 there one liberal theory, which tallies with them 1 With 
 
67 
 
 which of the theories do most of the facts readily harmo- 
 nize ? Apply any one Unitarian theory, or tlic w/iolc oflhcrn, 
 and the one universally received theory of the Orthodox, 
 and say which seems most exactly accordant with the re- 
 peated scriptural declarations of personal diabolical exist-' 
 ence. Borrow illustrations as to Jewish opinions in the 
 time of Christ, from Josephus and Philo, from the Rabbies, 
 from Euxtorf and Lightfoot, — to which interpretation will 
 their testimony and the historical illustrations afforded by 
 them, give support? Allow then, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that both theories are embarrassed with some diffi- 
 culties ; is it not rational, is it not indicative of true philoso- 
 phy, to embrace that icJnch is least embarrassed 1 But I 
 deny that there is any difficulty in the Orthodox theory, as 
 a revealed mutter of fact. The question here is not how or 
 why, these facts exist ? but simply and only ivhat facts are 
 revecded? The subject is perfectly analagous to the doctrine 
 of a general resurrection. The fact of such a resurrection 
 is plainly revealed. Who can tell hoio this will take place, 
 and answer all the questions that skeptical ingenuity, aid- 
 ed by chemical philosophy, can propose ? Could Paul 
 have done this ? Since the severe blow given the Aristo- 
 telian logic by the Lord Chancellor, truly philosophical 
 minds have been content to renounce the essence, the 
 mode, and the reason of things as the primary, if not as 
 the ultimate, objects of inquiry, and confine themselves to 
 simple facts. It is this modesty of inquiry within legiti- 
 mate bounds, that has produced the splendid results of 
 modern science. Had Dr. Priestley and other " rational" 
 inquirers only been as reasonable in their religious, as in 
 their philosophical investigations, they would have saved 
 themselves, their readers, and their opponents, a deal of 
 trouble.* The time will come, and is near at hand, when 
 men will see that the same principles which guide their 
 * See note F. 
 
68 
 
 inquiries into the works of God, must also guide their 
 inquiries into the word of God. Then will the character, 
 the perfections and the will of the Eternal, now faintly 
 shadowed forth to corrupted human hearts from the former, 
 beam out with resistless and glorious effulgence from the 
 volume of his Son. 
 
 To return to the argument already offered, I repeat that 
 the Orthodox theory harmonizes all the facts revealed on 
 this subject, while no one Unitarian theory, nor combina- 
 tion of theories, will do this, but, on the contrary, they 
 constantly involve evident and acknowledged absurdities. 
 Which is true, the self-consistent or the self-contradictory 
 theory ? The attempt to remove the personal meaning of 
 these passages, and leave any consistent sense remaining, 
 would be as idle, to use the beautiful illustration of anoth- 
 er, " as the attempt to separate the veins from a slab of 
 variegated marble, without destroying the stone." 
 
 The argument is closed. What shall we say to it? 
 Will you believe Christ and his apostles, or plunge into 
 all the uncertainty and skepticism exhaled from the fogs 
 and mists of Germany ? Will you assume the air of 
 learning, and talk of mythus, and poetical fable, and phi- 
 losophical romance, and eastern drapery, and " oriental 
 mythology," and tell of unenlightened Jewish peasants, 
 and the progress of mind, and '* pure reason," and go 
 through the whole cycle of learned nonsense, to avoid a 
 plain and often repeated truth of God's ivord ? 
 
 Here let me ask, can the fact of the existence of evil 
 spirits be disproved 1 Are there any passages of scripture, 
 which so clearly assert the non-existence of evil spirits, as 
 to nullify or render doubtful the import of those already 
 quoted and commented upon ? Are there any which 
 even hint such a denial ? 
 
 Let it be distinctly understood, that the fact, often 
 asserted in scripture and confirmed by reason and con- 
 
69 
 
 science, that men's sins arc their own, and that they are 
 accountable for them, does not in the least affect the sub- 
 ject in dispute. They are tlius accountable, whether 
 these sins spring entirely and solely from an evil heart, 
 or whether they are induced to commit them by an addi- 
 tional influence of wicked men or wicked angels, by 
 visible or invisible enticers. No violence or force is of- 
 fered to their moral nature in either case. They act of 
 their own choice, freely, voluntarily, and are, of course, 
 moral agents, or in other words, are responsible for their 
 conduct. A man is not held innocent because his wife 
 tempts him with the prospect of gain, to commit murder. 
 Judas is not thought blameless because the priests and 
 rulers tempted him '' with thirty pieces of silver" to be- 
 tray his master. Is his innocence established because 
 " Satan put it into his heart" ? A disposition to cherish 
 or to comply with the suggestion of Satan was evil, and in 
 this Judas sinned. A disposition to comply with the 
 offer of the priests was evil, and in this also Judas sinned. 
 All this is perfectly consistent with the declaration of St. 
 James, that " every man is tempted, when he is drawn 
 away of his own lust, and enticed." This is the only 
 passage from the New Testament which I now recollect 
 to have seen adduced, with which to oppose the multi- 
 tude of passages quoted in these Letters ; a passage, which 
 if it prove that Judas could not have been tempted by 
 Satan, proves also that he could not have been tempted 
 by the priests with the thirty pieces of silver. 
 
 Again. Let it be remembered that the fact, that God 
 overrules all the beings, and controls all the events of the 
 universe, does not touch the question. The universal 
 providential government of God, extends to '^ the vast and 
 the minute," to the evil and to the good, to his enemies 
 no less than to his friends. When Jehovah declares, by 
 the prophet Isaiah, " I form the light and create dark- 
 en 
 
70 
 
 ness ; I make peace and create evil ; I the Lord do all 
 these things ;" or when he asks by the prophet Amos, 
 " shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not 
 done it ?" is it rational to infer that there is no other 
 intelligent being in the universe, who can sin and tempt 
 others to sin ? If these passages disprove the existence of 
 Satan, they disprove at the same time the existence of evil 
 men. The fact is, however, that they have only a remote 
 and indirect bearing upon the subject ; no other relation 
 than what may spring out of the much agitated question 
 as to the existence, origin, and end of moral evil. Yet 
 these are the strongest objections I have anywhere met 
 with against the repeated and univocal declarations of 
 sacred writ ; objections totally without weight, unless 
 they disprove that men are sinners. It is only the weak- 
 est of weak causes that thus renounces the explicit decla- 
 rations of Christ, made and repeated under every variety 
 of circumstance on earth, and even confirmed from 
 heaven, for a metaphysical disputation as to the origin of 
 evil. Is it not the boast of Unitarians, (no matter whether 
 well or ill founded,) that they draw their instructions, 
 their system of doctrines, duties, &c. from what Christ 
 personally taught during his ministry 1 Is it not, profes- 
 sedly, on this account that they pay a higher deference 
 to the gospels than to the other portions of the New 
 Testament 1 
 
 On this Unitarian assumption, (granting what they have 
 hitherto repeatedly affirmed, to be true,) that the instruc- 
 tions of Christ loere not only more intelligible than those 
 of the prophets, but also more than those of the apostles, 
 I have in the preceding Letters built my argument. My 
 object has been in the first place to discover what Christ 
 taught during his personal ministry. Will any Unitarian 
 shrink from this inquiry? Will he prefer what can, at 
 most, be but a doubtful expression of Isaiah, to the certain 
 
71 
 
 and intelligible assertion of Christ? One might, with 
 equal propriety, reason with a pendulum, as with such 
 pretenders to logic ; never at rest in one place, but first 
 in one extreme, then in the other. I do not allow that 
 there is the least contrariety between what Christ taught 
 personally, and what he taught by the prophets before, 
 and by the apostles after him. The only apostolical pas- 
 sage adduced against the personal existence of Satan, is 
 that from James, which is perfectly consistent with all the 
 passages on which any reliance has been placed, and the 
 quotations from Isaiah and Amos are wholly irrelevant. Is 
 there, then, any reason for explaining away and disbe- 
 lieving the many reiterated declarations of scripture, which 
 at the first blush, and after the most thorough examina- 
 tion, evidently state the fact of diabolical existence and 
 agency ? If this were an error, why did not Christ ex- 
 plode it ? Whi/ need he have confirmed it 7 Is not a single 
 " thus saith the Lord," worth a thousand fancies, reason- 
 ings, and hypotheses of the most learned theologians 1 
 What do we know of the unseen, eternal, spiritual world, 
 except what the Bible reveals 1 What can the Bible re- 
 veal, iclicd can God himself possibly reveal, in regard to 
 that unknown world, whither we are rapidly tending, if, 
 after admitting the Bible to contain his revealed will, we 
 subject his declarations to our purblind reason in this cradle 
 and shell of our existence 1 Does not the short-sightedness 
 of reason prevent our looking " a step beyond the grave?" 
 Cannot Omnipotence, that created millions of worlds, and 
 spread them out through infinite space, have also peopled 
 them with myriads of intelligences ? Must all these be 
 dwarfed to the puny dimensions of earth-born man ? Is 
 there not truth, as well as poetry in the declaration, 
 "Think not, though men were none, 
 That heaven would want spectators, God want praise." 
 
 AmonfT the millions of spirits " that walk the earth 
 
72 
 
 unseen," why may not some be^'H'?* Will Unitarian 
 notions of moral liberty present any obstacle to the belief, 
 that some of them may have perverted their high powers, 
 and apostatized from their allegiance to the Lord of the 
 Universe 1 If good angels are *' ministering spirits sent 
 forth to encamp about the righteous," why may not evil 
 spirits seduce the ungodly to greater ungodliness 1 What 
 is there mysterious, unscriptural, irrational, or anti-analogi- 
 cal in the fact, that intelligences of a higher power, offi- 
 cial or intellectual, real or relative, should be disposed to 
 draw those of lesser capacity into sin ? Were Jeroboam 
 and Lord Byron scrupulously conscientious on this point? 
 Is it not a most extensive principle, that " misery loves 
 company ?" Does not the very nature and essence of sin 
 consist in malevolence ? just as, on the other hand, ho- 
 liness is benevolence, God is love 1 Learned men may 
 speculate what they will on the nature of sin, as consist- 
 ing in the transgression of law published or imprinted on 
 the original constitution of the soul, they do not reach the 
 full truth of the case till they understand, that sin, of its 
 own proper nature, exhibited, simply in .and by itself, is 
 unmixed, defecated malevolence, hostility to all good, in- 
 clination to all evil. Such it is in hell. Such it is among 
 the fallen spirits of the unseen world. If such spirits 
 exist, the simple question is, have they any injiuence over 
 men 7 Who can answer this question ? Can reason un- 
 
 * If the existence of Satan and of evil spirits be an oriental fiction, 
 is not the existence of good spirits such a fiction also ? What firmer 
 foundation would a thorough rationalist want for his anti-angelical 
 creed, than the following lines from Hesiod ? 
 
 " Aerial spirits, by great Jove designed 
 To be on earth the guardians of mankind ; 
 Invisible to mortal e3es they go, 
 And mark our actions, good or bad, below : 
 Th' immortal spies with watchful care preside, 
 And thrice ten thousand round their charges glide. 
 They can reward with glory or with gold, 
 Such power divine permission bids them hold." 
 
 fVorks and days. B. i. v. 120. 
 
73 
 
 enlightened by revelation ? Can experience, however 
 general ? Their answer might be ambiguous, and would 
 certainly be unauthoritative. The only indisputable answer 
 must come from one who knew the truth, would state the 
 truth, and ivliose testimony ^ ive hwio by sufficient evidence, 
 is true. Such an answer we have heard from the lips of 
 Jesus Christ, and heard it confirmed by all his apostles 
 whose written testimony has come down to us. There is 
 no room for a subsequent question as to the how in this mat- 
 ter. The current philosophy would teach us there is no 
 how in the universe, at least no intelligible, explicable how. 
 Actual facts, we are assured, antecedent, coincident, or 
 subsequent, are the only ho20s of philosophical investiga- 
 tion or rational belief 
 
 If, however, you will not believe a fact till you under- 
 stand how it is, how is your soul united to your body ? 
 Are you not constrained to reply, as all others have been 
 before you, " I do not know" ? Disbelieve the fact then. 
 Your soul is not united to your body ; or you have no 
 soul ; or you have no body. If ignorance of the mode in 
 which a fact exists is to disprove the fact, each and all of 
 these conclusions may be legitimately drawn from man's 
 ignorance of the mode in which spirit and matter are con- 
 nected in himself 
 
 Do you deny the existence, presence, and influence of 
 evil spirits, because you cannot perceive and comprehend 
 them ? Can you perceive or comprehend the existence, 
 presence, and influence of an all-pervading, ever-present, 
 infinite Spirit, " in whom you live and move and have 
 your being "? Must you not say with Job, " Behold, I go 
 forward, but he is not there ; backward, but I cannot 
 perceive him ; on the left hand, where he doth work, but 
 I cannot behold him ; he hideth himself on the right hand, 
 that I cannot see him" 1 Follow out your principles. You 
 cannot perceive by any internal sense, by any perspicaci- 
 
74 
 
 ty of intellect, a present, incomprehensible, impalpable 
 Spirit. He cannot exist. You are an atheist. You 
 shrink with horror from this conclusion. It is the legiti- 
 mate, the inevitable result of your principles of reasoning. 
 But if one Spirit may be present to our souls, yes, must 
 be ever present or we sink into annihilation, and yet we 
 are unconscious of this sustaining, ever-active energy, 
 why may not other spirits be present, either constantly or 
 occasionally, and we be unconscious of their presence ? 
 Does God know the creatures of his power 1 their nature, 
 their capacities, dispositions, efforts and tendencies ? If 
 so, shall the Omniscient be credited when he speaks, or be 
 subjected to the skepticism of an insect, that, but as yes- 
 terday, saw the sun, and to-morrow shall see it no more ? 
 Shall loe believe God or not 1 Shall we follow the bewil- 
 dering light, the ignis fatuus, which Hume or Eichhorn 
 may hold out to allure us, or Him, who is the way. The 
 Truth, and the life? 
 
 There is, then, in short, no reason, no argument, no 
 analogy, no plausibility, for which to give up the plain, 
 repeated, intelligible declarations of eternal truth on this 
 subject ?* 
 
 Before proceeding to some practical remarks, which 
 either spring from, or are intimately connected with the 
 subject discussed, I wish to say, that the testimony of the 
 Lord Jesus, and of his apostles, is the only ground taken 
 or desired for belief on this question. What their repeat- 
 ed, explicit, and united testimony is, has been seen. All 
 other authority has been rejected. The Council of Trent 
 and the Augsburg Confession, the Synod of Dort and 
 the Racovian Catechism, the Thirty Nine Articles and 
 the Assembly's Confession of Faith, Rome and Canter- 
 bury, Andover and Cambridge, the churches of Boston, 
 whether creedless or " trust deed"-ed, have been thrown 
 * See note G. 
 
75 
 
 aside to give place to this one question, 1V7iat saith the 
 scripture /* 
 
 Whoever shall honor the writer with the notice of a 
 reply or review, or attempt to instruct an inquiring and 
 intelligent community on the subject here discussed, will 
 permit him to suggest, that a simply scriptural discussion 
 is what the course here pursued and the exigencies of the 
 times require. An answer, to deserve the name, must 
 consist of a refutation of the arguments here advanced hy 
 a critical examination and satisfactory explanation of the 
 texts here quoted. Let the remark, often quoted, " retor- 
 quere non est respondere," not be forgotten. '* A virtual 
 answer" may ''differ widely" from an actual answer, and 
 has sometimes been thought a softer name for " evasion." 
 Having taken my stand on the great Protestant principle, 
 a principle often acknowledged and appealed to by Uni- 
 tarians, to wit, the entire sufficiency of the scriptures as 
 the only rule of faith and practice, I shall not willingly 
 and of my own accord be drawn into any other discus- 
 sion. If, however, contrary to the wishes indulged and 
 here expressed, any gentleman shall think that important 
 information may be obtained or illustration thrown upon 
 the subject by an examination of eastern mythology, or 
 by a comparison of the philosophical tenets of minds 
 widely separated in time and place, or by an etymological 
 view of such words as Abaddon, Baalzebub, Diabolos, 
 Satan, dz/C. or by an extended comparison of the classical 
 and scriptural use of demon, daimonion, &lc. or by an ex- 
 amination of patristical opinions, or by a collation of the 
 opinions of all ages and all countries, early and late, re- 
 mote, savage, and civilized, the writer hereby expresses his 
 entire readiness, should Providence permit, to enter on such 
 an investigation, after a reply of the character above de- 
 scribed shall have been given. 
 
 * See note H. 
 
76 
 
 I cannot here hint at even the heads of argument that 
 might be pursued, should the scriptural ground be thought 
 insufficient, each of which might be auxiliary to the truth. 
 Still the writer repeats, that such a course of investigation 
 he does not wish to pursue, not because he has the slight- 
 est doubt as to the result, but from the wish to restrict 
 the discussion within its appropriate limits. The scrip- 
 tures are a common arbiter, and to their decision, fairly 
 made out, each party, as yet, allows itself bound to submit. 
 When we make reason, unenlightened by revelation, the 
 umpire, we enter on a wide interminable field of fancy, 
 vagary and folly, which different minds may explore, and, 
 culling what suits, and rejecting what opposes their con- 
 flicting theories, they may make out by apparent learning 
 and wily ingenuity, a plausible defence of any system, 
 however futile or preposterous. To those best acquainted 
 with the history of controversies, these remarks will ap- 
 pear most pertinent and forcible. I repeat again, that the 
 proper arbiter is that, whose decision is final and author- 
 itative, the Bible. To this the discussion has in these 
 Letters been confined, and to this, so far as the writer is 
 voluntarily concerned, it will continue to be confined. 
 
 I have one request to make of the reader of these Let- 
 ters, viz. that he will consider why the terms " principle 
 of evil," and "disease," have been so frequently repeated. 
 These are the main theories of those professing to believe 
 the scriptures, and yet denying the personal existence of 
 the great adversary of souls, and of evil spirits. 
 
77 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Rev. and Dear Sir, 
 
 Reflecting on the arguments presented in these Letters, 
 each of which proves the position taken, some remarks 
 suggest themselves of solemn import. 
 
 One is, That tvhile men doubt or resolutely deny the 
 agency of Satan, they may at that very moment be giving 
 strong evidence that his malignant injiuence is greatest 
 upon them. 
 
 The writer's powers of exaggeration fail, who describes 
 the Orthodox belief as " a notion that the world is under 
 the dominion of a presiding spirit, who divides the empire 
 with the only God." The prince of this world is not content 
 with a divided allegiance or sovereignty. He is a thorough 
 usurper. He, ichose right it is to reign, the Creator and 
 Preserver, the Redeemer and Sanctifier of man, is cast out 
 from the heart, while Satan meets with no resistance to 
 his ill-gotten authority from man himself. Man does not, 
 by nature, even know that he is thus enslaved. When 
 the declaration is made, he denies it ; his feelings rise 
 in ^nger at the imputation. P^xamine, examine well the 
 feelings that rise in your bosom at this declaration ; you 
 must be turned "from the power of Satan unto God." 
 He that is of God heareth God's words. The declaration 
 of Baxter is naked, but momentous truth, that " the soul 
 of every man is by nature Satan's garrison ; all is at peace 
 in such a man till Christ comes, and gives it terrible 
 alarms of judgment and hell, batters it with the ordnance 
 of his threats and terrors, forces it to yield to his mere 
 mercy, and take him for the governor ; then doth he cast 
 out Satan, overcome him, take from him all his armour 
 wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils ; and then doth 
 7 
 
78 
 
 he make a firm and lasting peace." Have you ever re- 
 flected that you have an invisible active enemy, whose as- 
 saults can be resisted only by repentance for sin, by faith 
 in the divine promises, by prayer for heavenly strength and 
 light, by the word of God, by a holy life, by the hope of 
 salvation through Jesus Christ? Clad in this panoply 
 of heaven, the Christian soldier may go forth to his 
 spiritual conflicts, fearless of assaults and confident of 
 victory, and while engaged in the heat of battle, he may 
 send forth shouts, jubilant of praise to his great Captain, 
 who fought, conquered as he fell, rose, reigns, and shall 
 forever reign. 
 
 Another remark is, That Satan has few more success- 
 ful servants, (though they hiow it not, and mean not so,) 
 than those professed teachers of Christianity, who either 
 openly deny his existence, or, by never asserting it, let it 
 slip out of the minds of their hearers. 
 
 The amiable and estimable qualities, the varied learn- 
 ing and beneficent dispositions of such teachers, may 
 make them revered and loved and honored in any com- 
 munity. Bat if there prowl about a terrible adversary, '* as 
 a roaring lion," thirsting for blood, seeking with a sleep- 
 loss activity '' whom he may devour," and they disbelieve 
 and deny it, and, watchmen and shepherds of the flock as 
 they are reputed, they cry " all's well," " peace, peace," 
 v/hen imminent danger threatens, and "there is no peace," 
 but " sudden destruction cometh," are they not the great- 
 est enemies of those committed to their trust ? It is, 
 indeed, a most ungrateful task to bring forward, either 
 directly or by implication, such a charge against a highly 
 respectable portion of the community. Sensibility would 
 gladly keep silence. But, if the argument, herein pursued, 
 be valid, I trust to the intelligent candor of the gentle- 
 men implicated to say, whether the charge is not well 
 f mnded, and whether duty does not demand that it be 
 
79 
 
 made. I take my stand on the declarations of the New 
 Testament. If these have been interpreted correctly, all 
 must allow that the char^re is too true; and surely we 
 should not shrink from publishing the truth Christ preach- 
 ed, whoever may feel themselves condemned by it. If this 
 interpretation be erroneous, let these gentlemen, who 
 certainly are competent, show it, and I will as readily ac- 
 knowledge my error and make all concessions, by them 
 and the public deemed proper, as I now bring forward 
 this charge. It will be seen, on a moment's reflection, 
 that the imputation which may by some be thought per- 
 sonal and invidious, is the necessary inference from the 
 Orthodox view of this contested subject. Truth, truth, 
 not men, should he sought and honored. Determined op- 
 position to the opinions, by us deemed false and danger- 
 ous, of those about us, may certainly consist with the 
 kindest feelings towards those who entertain those opin- 
 ions. No one would more readily pay the tribute of 
 merited respect to the integrity, the exemplary manners, 
 the kindly social virtues, the literary and general intelli- 
 gence of the Unitarian clergy of New England, than the 
 writer. Eulogium I shall not write. Truth I will not 
 conceal, but with the modicum of ability I possess, will 
 distinctly state, " without fear or favor or hope of reward." 
 I call upon those, who are standing as beacon lights to 
 direct immortal voyagers over *' that vast ocean they must 
 sail so soon," to beware, lest they put the coruscations of 
 their fancy in the place of that light which has burst upon 
 our world from the throne of God. Vain are all brilliancy 
 of imagination, kindliness of affection, and nobleness of 
 nature, vain are all intellectual attainments, all cultivation 
 of taste and refinement of feeling, which exist independ- 
 ently of the great change, the second creation in Christ 
 Jesus to good works, that divine regeneration by the 
 Spirit of God, by which holiness is wrought into the un- 
 
80 
 
 dying soul, and " without which no man shall see the 
 Lord." All else is but bran, chaff, husks. The chisel 
 may have unveiled the majestic form ; the pencil may 
 have caused the all but living group to start from the can- 
 vass ; the orator by the energy or the pathos of his elo- 
 quence may have " ruled the wilderness of free minds 
 with unbounded authority ;" the poet, catching inspiration 
 from the fervid glow of his own intense and creative 
 spirit, may have sent forth strains of unearthly sound, and 
 more than earthly might, by which he outlives kings and 
 conquerors and empires ; yet upon the walls of this glo- 
 rious fabric, erected to honor and perpetuate the triumphs 
 of human genius, a man's hand may be seen writing, thou 
 art weighed in the balances and art found loanting. 
 Knees, that trembled when rising to address a British or 
 an American senate, may never have knelt in humble 
 reverence to the King of kings. The noble heart, that 
 scorned an ignoble deed, may never have felt one throb 
 of penitence for sin, or one pulsation of gratitude for re- 
 deeming love ; no, may have scorned the service of Hinij 
 that, born in a manger, was crucified with thieves. Art- 
 ists and poets and orators and statesmen there have been, 
 that have given too fearful evidence that they knew not 
 God, and obeyed not the gospel of his Son ; whose great 
 engrossing object of pursuit has been, not, to render 
 thanks to the giver of life and talent and opportunity of 
 personal improvement ; not, to adore the perfections of 
 Infinite Eternal Excellence; not, to admire ''the unsearch- 
 able riches of Christ," which arrest the inquiries, and 
 pass the comprehension of the heavenly host ; no, none of 
 this ; hut to perpetuate their own fame, when they them- 
 selves shall have quit the earth, and have been called into 
 the presence of their Maker and their Judge. Is not the 
 hand of the Great Deceiver in this, thus to hold out an illu- 
 sive shadow before these gifted intellects, which they pur- 
 
81 
 
 sue with such an intensity of eagerness, and which van- 
 ishes when grasped, while the bread of heaven, of which 
 if a man eat he shall never hunger, offered freely by a 
 divine hand, without money and without price, is rejected 
 as loathsome and nauseous ? Well might Burke patheti- 
 cally exclaim, " what shadows we are, and what shadows 
 we pursue ! " If all this may be true, as it certainly is, it 
 need excite no great additional wonder, that others of the 
 same race, temperament, and character, should pass their 
 lives within the precincts of the catholic or protestant 
 church, all unconscious of their alienation from God, 
 their subjection to Satan, and of the necessity of a mighty 
 influence from on high to be sought in a divinely ap- 
 pointed way, to create them anew in Christ Jesus. 
 
 A profession adopted at first, perhaps, to please friends, 
 perhaps for w hat may be thought its learned leisure, or for 
 its acknowledged respectability, with but little thought of 
 the immense, unspeakable responsibility of having the 
 care, the direction, and, in a great degree, the formation 
 of immortal souls for an endless destiny beyond the grave ; 
 a profession, thus adopted, becomes ere hmg a business 
 merely, not unfrequently, a drudgery. The scriptures 
 are studied, either to support a system, or to find materials 
 for a sermon, an essay, or a dispute. It is to be feared 
 that this is the fact with numbers of every religious de- 
 nomination. Biblical critics have too often been any thing 
 but Bible Christians. The man of God, thoroughly fur' 
 nishecJ, should combine both characters. Can there be 
 any wonder that teachers of an intelligent and naturally 
 amiable character, but ignorant of their own alienation 
 from God, and of the necessity of regeneration by the 
 Spirit of God, should also be ignorant of that enemy by 
 whose devices as *' an angel of light," it is greatly to be 
 feared, they are ensnared ? Well did a heathen say the 
 precept, " know thyself," descended from heaven. True 
 7* 
 
82 
 
 self-knowledge is of heavenly origin. Let Orthodox clergy- 
 men, whether Baptist or FJpiscopalian, Methodist, Presby- 
 terian or Congregational, take heed to themselves, that they 
 love the Saviour, while they preach the truth as it is in Je- 
 sus. While other reputed teachers deny the empire and the 
 agency of Satan, the prince of this world, let them never 
 shun to declare the whole counsel of God on this, as on 
 every other subject. Is there not among the Orthodox 
 clergy and societies at the present moment, a false delica- 
 cy on this subject ? This ancient and active enemy of 
 man smiles in his wrath, when, in compliance with a 
 sickliness of taste, or through fear of offence, those that 
 should be bold for the truth shrink from declaring it. If 
 the bosom of Satan is ever the seat of one happy emotion, 
 it is, when those, set to icarn men of his devices, deny 
 his existence ; his joy is complete, tohen his agency is 
 ridiculed. 
 
 Another remark is. That this doctrine does not stand 
 cdonc, but is indissolubly connected icith the other great 
 truths of the Orthodox system. 
 
 If this world is under the usurped dominion of a great 
 fallen spirit, the enemy alike of God and man, the doctrine 
 of man's original entire depravity will cease to be an incredi- 
 ble enigma. And if Satan " rules in the hearts of the chil- 
 dren of disobedience," deceiving and " leading astray the 
 whole world," the necessity of the interposition of the Son 
 of God " to destroy the works of the devil," will become 
 apparent. Hence also the necessity of the Divine Spirit, 
 "to create men anew in Christ Jesus." Man's alienation 
 from God, and aversion to his sovereign character and holy 
 government, will no longer be denied as a doctrine of reve- 
 lation. " The carnal mind " will be seen "to be enmity 
 against God." Now, without a stock of Rabbinical 
 learning, the Saviour's declaration will be very plain, 
 " except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
 
83 
 
 dom of God." And the impenitent, it will also be seen, 
 " must go away into everlasting punishment." These and 
 other associated doctrines stand or fall together. On the 
 simple fact, then, whether Christ, speaking to the Jews of 
 Satan, the devil, the prince of this world, &c., meant 
 what these words plainly express, and what the Jews un- 
 derstood them to mean, may be considered as depending 
 the truth of the great cardinal doctrines of Orthodoxy, viz. 
 man's original apostacy, continued and entire depravity, 
 redemption by the Son of God, regeneration by the Holy 
 Spirit, a heaven of blessedness for penitent, obedient be- 
 lievers, and an eternal hell for the finally impenitent. 
 
 Here I willingly state, that this remark is one which has 
 been borne in mind from the commencement of this dis- 
 cussion. I have wished Unitarians and Universalists, (who, 
 with different names, are essentially one,*) who solemnly 
 profess to receive the Bible, as the only, the sufficient, and 
 the obligatory rule of their faith and practice, to shift the 
 position from which they have been accustomed to look at 
 Orthodoxy, and to view the subject in another light and 
 from another quarter. The passages of scripture, which 
 the Orthodox quote to prove the divinity of Christ, origi- 
 nal sin, atonement, &c., have been so often produced, 
 and so often considered by those now grown old in this 
 controversy, that it were idle to expect, by them, to awaken 
 a new train of thought in minds thus barricaded by preju- 
 dice. These passages are now classed as spurious, of 
 doubtful authority, ambiguous, mistranslated, not to the 
 point, &-C. &c., so that the critic and the pretender to a 
 critical acquaintance with the scriptures, is armed, or 
 imagines himself armed cap-a-pie, ready to ward off any 
 blow, or parry any thrust, from that quarter. Perhaps by 
 varying the point of attack, an assailable spot may be 
 
 * See Note I. 
 
84 
 
 found that will lead at once to the enemy's fortress. Spu- 
 rious, doubtful, ambiguous, mistranslated, pointless texts, 
 have given place, English Unitarians being judges, to 
 those which are genuine, of indisputable authority, *' found 
 in the oldest manuscripts," of univocal meaning, cor- 
 rectly translated, and perfectly to the point. 
 
 Even now, it will be perceived by a subsequent note, 
 the most prominent leaders of the Unitarian party are 
 openly and fearlessly publishing opinions in regard to 
 parts of the Bible, which have heretofore been kept back, 
 or only let out drop by drop, with a cautious (shall I add, 
 time-serving ? ) timidity, that proves these leaders to have 
 been heretofore fearful, that the people were not quite 
 prepared for a naked plunge into the stream of pure, ra- 
 tional truth. These leaders would now seem nearly, if not 
 quite, ready to quit the inspired authority of the sacred 
 volume for — what 1 Who of themselves can tell 1 We 
 could point them to a land where learning has had its 
 most illustrious votaries ; where inquiry on religious 
 topics has been free as air ; where " rational" Christianity 
 has "had full sweep," experiencing but slight opposition 
 from gloomy, calvinistic, puritanical, pharisaical strict- 
 ness ; where every received truth has been subjected to 
 the most rigid test, to the most fearless scrutiny ; where 
 all possible disjunctions and alliances, permutations and 
 combinations of opinion have had their day, been tried, 
 condemned, and passed off to forgetfulness. But the sun 
 of truth, which rose upon the world at Luther's bidding, 
 obscured for a time, has again burst forth, promising to 
 shine brighter and brighter unto the perfect day. Are 
 Unitarians here, prepared for German experiments and 
 German neology? 
 
 "I would that I could pierce the ears, as with a trum- 
 pet-call, of those who stand" in the pulpits, and preside 
 over the first and the cherished Institution, of our Pilgrim 
 
85 
 
 Fathers. " I would awaken them from their slumber to 
 the fearful responsibility they incur" by withholding, dis- 
 guising, or misrepresenting that system of divine truth, 
 which their fathers would have poured out their life's-blood 
 to its last drop, rather than have renounced or concealed. 
 " I would implore them to look to it, lest, when poor and 
 wretched man, with the whole head sick, and the whole 
 heart foint, asks them for medicine, they give him a poi- 
 son ; lest they should administer a cup of tremblin n: for the 
 waters of salvation ; and, as the children cry for br 3ad, they 
 should give them a stone." 
 
 Guardians of our youth, instructers of our manhood, 
 guides of our immortal spirits, remember in whose places 
 you stand, and zchose children cry to you for the bread of 
 life. Our Fathers, whatever faults or foibles may have 
 clung to them, were distinct, full, and fearless in the 
 avowal of their religious opinions. Those opinions they 
 fondly cherished, distinctly expressed, and boldly defend- 
 ed, yes, with the faggot and the sword before them. 
 Hither they came, not to conceal, but that, unmolested, 
 tTiey might enjoy those opinions, and teach their children 
 the fear of the Lord, and the distinct truths of his revealed 
 laill. They taught their children something more than 
 Mahomet, or Lord Herbert, or even Moses taught ; they 
 taught some doctrines besides the facts (questioned by 
 none called Christian, or even Mahometan) that there is 
 one God and a future life, and that Jesus is a divinely 
 appointed instrucler. They openly and fully taught what 
 they understood and believed Christ revealed in regard to 
 his own person, character, offices and object ; in regard 
 to the spirituality, perpetuity, and sanctions of the divine 
 law ; in regard to a future judgment and the final destiny 
 of man ; in regard to the ground of man' s justif cation, and 
 the conditions he must fulfil in order to divine accept- 
 ance and final approbation. On these subjects of mo- 
 
86 
 
 mentous interest, there was no necessity of questioning, 
 and cross-questioning, and almost putting them to the 
 torture, to discover their opinions. They felt it to be 
 their duty, their high honor, their ennobling privilege, 
 to let their light shine. They did not believe all opinions 
 either innocent, or equally valuable. They believed that 
 truth was light, and that error was darkness. They be- 
 lieved Unitarianism to be dangerous error, and Orthodoxy 
 to be saving truth. True, too true it is, where first this 
 light was kindled, now is portentous darkness. But the 
 fire from the altar of God, brought hither by sacred hands, 
 has not gone out. It has been kindled up on other can- 
 dlesticks, and is now bursting forth on the right hand and 
 on the left, the joy of " the saints " and the terror of those 
 that know not God. 
 
 If our Fathers' creed were erroneous, rectify it. Do 
 not believe, merely because they believed. Such a faith 
 none would more heartily have deplored than the Cottons, 
 and Nortons, and Wilsons of New England's earlier days. 
 Scholars they were, that would yield to few or none of 
 their successors. In acuteness of intellect, classical at- 
 tainment, and logical precision, the Norton, who, two 
 centuries past, enlightened New England by his learning, 
 and enlivened it with his piety, need not shrink from a 
 comparison with him, who now darkens it with learned 
 doubts and logical inaccuracy. A faith, springing from 
 examination and from a love of the truth, was what those 
 men, who first occupied Boston pulpits, possessed ; and 
 prayed and labored that others, their successors, might 
 evermore possess. Whether " their understandings were 
 so debased, their moral sentiments so brutified," whether 
 they possessed " sense or spirit, or knowledge of right and 
 wrong, enough" to distinguish between " a Calvinistic 
 God and the Prince of Hell," let their children decide. 
 
 Still we are not called upon to believe, merely because 
 
87 
 
 our Puntan Fathers believed. Far higher is the obliga- 
 tion of our faith. The ever living Jehovah, our maker 
 and our judge, and not our departed ancestors, has laid 
 us under obligations, which we cannot shake off, to know 
 and believe the truth. If the Bible be a fable, we are un- 
 der obligation to the God who gave us reason, to reject it. 
 If Orthodoxy be a wrong interpretation of that sacred 
 volume, let those who know this interpretation to be 
 wrong, reject this interpretation ; but let them give in its 
 stead the right interpretation, fully , distinctly. Professing 
 to believe the Bible to contain a revelation from heaven, 
 can you so impugn the character of its author, as to sup- 
 pose he has given us an enigmatical book to tantalize us ? 
 Tell us, then , fearlessly and fully , what you believe and 
 why you believe it ; ichat you disbelieve and why you dis- 
 believe it. Be at least as frank as Dr. Priestley and Mr, 
 Belsham, " the most illustrious advocates of English Uni- 
 tarianism." Do not fear the reproach of a name. If 
 Universalism be true, glory in the term Universalist. Sin- 
 gularity is not a reproach, it may be an honor ; it is not a 
 fault, it may be a virtue. Galileo and Columbus were 
 once ridiculed for their opinions. Who ridicules them 
 now ? The Huguenots, Methodists, and Puritans, by the 
 excellence and sanctity of their lives, have rendered 
 honorable, epithets not so intended.* Liberal Christians 
 surely, will not shrink from the honorable task of enlight- 
 ening a benighted community. Even if you are to perish 
 in the attempt, fear not. Whose fall would be more 
 glorious than that of the martyr of truth? Whose reward 
 more certain ? Cranmer and Latimer and Ridley, those 
 
 * I venture to predict that, before this century closes, " the mum- 
 mers " of Geneva will be a more honorable distinction tliroughout 
 Europe, than the strange misnomer, which the Venerable Company 
 wish to attach to themselves, Evangeliques Reformes. It is charac- 
 teristic of Unitarianism, in all latitudes, to be exceedingly solicitous 
 of " a good name." This, like fame, followed, is lost ; deserved, but 
 disregarded, is secured. 
 
88 
 
 worthies of the English Church, did not shrink from a 
 chariot of flame to bear them home to glory. 
 
 If Unitarianism be, as its advocates aver, a serene and 
 lofty eminence, on which the human mind, liberated from 
 error, "redeemed, regenerated and disenthralled," walks 
 abroad in the image of its Maker, in the conscious dignity 
 of an immortal and purified intelligence, 
 
 Despicere unde queat alios, passimque videre 
 
 Errantes, 
 
 with outstretched hand and suppliant voice, we earnestly 
 entreat admission to this light, to be elevated to this 
 summit. We think the optic nerve of our moral eye can 
 bear any truth, which is of so pure and perfect a nature. 
 We desire to put an instant termination to our pupilage, 
 to be held under Calvinistic bondage no longer. Our 
 minority we wish ended at once. We will assume " the 
 manly gown " forthwith, if it can thus be afforded from 
 the Unitarian wardrobe. Surely Unitarians will not im- 
 prison or keep back for their individual benefit, any part 
 or portion of so inestimable a trust, held, not for them- 
 selves, but for the race. " Freely ye have received, freely 
 give," is a plain directory in circumstances by them con- 
 sidered so peculiar and favorable. Henceforth we look 
 for the distinct utterance of the whole truth, for it is well 
 known, not only to the bench and the bar, but to minds of 
 any reflection, that a part of the truth is often an initruth. 
 
 Before closing these Letters, I have some important and 
 practical questions to propose, which I trust you, my dear 
 sir, and the readers generally, will not think out of place 
 or inopportune. Do you really believe that Christ and his 
 apostles taught Unitarianism 1 If so, which of the many 
 theories, embraced under that most comprehensive name, 
 did they teach 1 Is Christ " a fallible and peccable man," 
 or higher than the highest archangel, the instrumental 
 
89 
 
 
 UFIX'EUSITY 
 
 creator of these heavens and this esft^th^'the go^remor of 
 the moral universe, subordinate only to'Uie Eternal, him- 
 self almost divine ? Or does he occupy an intcrmeiliate 
 place between these vast extremes? Did Christ, as Lo- 
 gos, exist " with the Father before the world was"? 
 Was he supernaturally begotten of the Virgin Mary, or is 
 this " a fiction of oriental mythology "?* Had Christ, in 
 any view of his character, a proper personal pre-existence 
 before he was born at Bethlehem? If he had, is Christ 
 merely a man ? If he had not, how was he " with the 
 Father before the world was "1 How was he ** the root of 
 David"? How "did God create the worlds by him "? 
 What did Christ and the apostles teach as to man's native 
 character ? What is regeneration ? What is the ever- 
 lasting state of the finally impenitent ? Or, in other 
 words, what is the condition of those impenitent at the day 
 of judgment ? Is there an endless hell for those on the left 
 hand, as surely, as there is an endless heaven for those on 
 the right 1 Will those who go away into everlasting pun- 
 ishment " with the devil and his angels," return to purity 
 and to blessedness ? — These questions, though often pro- 
 posed, cannot be too often considered by those, who will 
 ere long, and may shortly, be summoned hence to return 
 no more, but to hear from the lips of their Judge the wel- 
 come invitation *' come, ye blessed," or the irreversible 
 doom, "depart, ye cursed." 
 
 I assume, in the following questions, as an indisputable 
 fact, that to reason from moral effects to moral causes, is 
 a legitimate mode of ratiocination. I knov/ full well that 
 it is sometimes a delicate process, and requires a skilful 
 hand. This is not the place to enter into a consideration 
 of the qualifications, distinctions and limitations requisite 
 
 * May we be permitted to ask the Unitarian biblical critic!, what 
 part of the introduction of Matthew and Luke's gospels they receive, 
 and what part they reject ? 
 
 8 
 
90 
 
 to the proper understanding of this whole subject. Nor 
 is it at all necessary. Broad, palpable, blazing distinc- 
 tions often force a reluctant acknowledgment from un- 
 willing prejudice itself A man, having the sense of sight, 
 with his eyes open, unbandaged, unobstructed, cannot 
 easily mistake the brightness of uneclipsed noonday for 
 the darkness of midnight. 
 
 I ask, then, has Unitarianism in any shape, within the 
 last three hundred years, either broken off from the Ro- 
 man Catholic church, or christianized a before unchris- 
 tian people ? Has not Unitarianism invariably come in 
 after reformation — after Orthodoxy ? Has it, for that pc- 
 7'iod, taken the lead in any one great movement for the re- 
 formation of the world? Bat is it so, that real, primitive, 
 purified Christianity, the Christianity of Paul and Peter, 
 is so backward and diffident, that it only comes in as a 
 sedative to prevent an over-zealous activity in the friends 
 of man ? a sort of make-weight in the moral scales ? or, 
 in other words, follows in the rear of an *' exclusive," 
 hot-headed, intolerant Orthodoxy ? 
 
 Are these things so ? Is the religion of Christ in its 
 purity, of secondary and subsidiary power only in revolu- 
 tionising the world, and purifying, and elevating, and 
 sanctifying it ? It was not so of old. Either Christi- 
 pinity has lost its primitive energies, or Unitarianism is 
 not Christianity. But the salt of heaven has not lost its 
 Favour. Declensions in Orthodox Churches are no new 
 thing, from the Seven Churches of Asia, to the Genevan 
 and the Boston Churches. Christianity in its purity, is 
 mighty. Weak in numbers, wealth, and intellect, up- 
 held only by those accounted *' the filth and the off-scour- 
 ing of all things," it is still irresistible in power, for by 
 prayer and faith, it takes hold on the arm of Omnipo- 
 tence, and the world feels its influence. It conceives, at- 
 tempts, accomplishes, great things. When did Unitarian- 
 
91 
 
 ism ot'iginate Bible, Tract, Education, Missionary, Sab- 
 bath school. Bethel, or Prison Discipline Societies ? All 
 these originated in England and America among " the 
 saints," as they are deridingly called in tiie former coun- 
 try, and here too by a preacher of some note, and, what 
 is more, they are so called in the Bible. Now if " the 
 saints of the Most High God," might naturally be sup- 
 posed to take a leading interest in building up the moral 
 kingdom of God, it is only a question of fact, as to whom 
 those saints are, who lead in the benevolent Christian ef- 
 forts of the day ? Bible societies, however they may have 
 originated, unite now all among us who profess to believe 
 the scriptures to be from God. But look at missionary so- 
 cieties. All the principal denominations, holding the head 
 Christ Jesus, the Lord of glory, crucified for sinful man, 
 have established and are extending their missions. Not only 
 Orthodox Congregationalists and Presbyterians, but the 
 Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, all are active to make 
 known a Saviour's dying love, and to extend his kingdom. 
 What have all the preaching, and writing, and discussion 
 of Unitarians amounted to on this subject, in Boston ? Is 
 there a single Unitarian clergyman found ready to go to 
 Calcutta, with its numerous Christian population and civi- 
 lized society 1 Is there one that will quit his home and 
 his fire-side, to lend a helping hand to the great oriental 
 philosopher, Rammohun Roy, in his attempt to destroy 
 paganism, and introduce pure Christianity ? Are Unita- 
 rian ministers in such demand at home, that not one can 
 be spared ? Is there no call for Orthodox clergymen 
 from the north and the south, from the east and the west ? 
 Are Unitarians ignorant of the first principle of Orthodox 
 benevolence, ^' there is that scattereth, and yet increas- 
 eth ; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, 
 but it tendeth to poverty " ? Who will go to New Hol- 
 land, to Borneo, to Ava 1 Who will take up his shivering 
 
92 
 
 abode among the Greenlanders ? Who will brave the 
 burning sun of the tropics, and the scorching sands of 
 Africa ? Who will cast from him the recollections of 
 civilized life, for the cabin of the Hottentot ; the charms 
 of elegant society, and the attractions of literature and 
 cultivated taste, for the wigwam of the Osage or the 
 Choctaw ? Who will give up the security of Boston, for a 
 dungeon in Avaorin Beyroot? If missionaries are to go 
 to such places, thus putting in jeopardy their lives, not 
 knowing what things shall befall them, apprehensive of 
 bonds and imprisonment, yet not counting their lives dear 
 to them, so that they may win Christ and be found in him, 
 so that his name may be preached to every creature, they 
 must be sought at Andover and not at Cambridge ; among 
 the Moravians, the Baptists, the Methodists, or Evangeli- 
 cal Churchmen, but never, no, never, among Unitarians. 
 Will you explain this in connexion with the parting com- 
 mand of Christ 1 Surely the Unitarians of the United 
 States, if not as numerous, are at least as able to support 
 missionaries as the Moravians. What cultivated rational 
 divine ever sold himself into slavery, that he might have 
 the opportunity of preaching Christ to his fellow man, as 
 some Wesleyan Methodists have done in the West Indies? 
 These are the men " who count all things but loss," for 
 the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus their 
 Lord. Which now is the true original gospel, published 
 by Christ and his apostles, that which originates and sus- 
 tains such efforts, or that which looks coldly on, finds 
 fault if there happen to be something either faulty or 
 thought to be so, attempts to do something itself, but is 
 paralysed in its first step, and, with all its boasted wealth, 
 and numbers, and talent, and disinterested generosity, in 
 Europe and Asia and America combined, can only sup- 
 port one missionary on heathen ground, and he, an indi- 
 
93 
 
 vidual at first seKt forth by the Orthodox themselves? The 
 first Unitarian missionary remains yet to be sent out.* 
 
 Pause now, in view of this matter-of-fact mode of inqui- 
 ry as to the original, heaven-published gospel. Unitari- 
 anism, in none of its protean shapes, still less in its So- 
 cinian or Humanitarian form, ever went forth to civilize 
 and christianize the heathen. In books and theory, they 
 may speculate what they will about the simplicity of their 
 faith, and the efficiency of truth in the Unitarian form, 
 but facts, facts, are wanted to substantiate theory, and 
 verify assertion. The Orthodox faith is here based on 
 the surest philosophy, supported by indisputable facts, a 
 species of irrefragable argument. Let the islands of the 
 Pacific, as described by Cook and by intelligent impartial 
 voyagers now, bear testimony to this. Unitarians may 
 imagine and propose the most scientific mission, with all 
 the apparatus of Greenwich, if they please ; they may 
 have the telescope of Herschel and a solar miscroscope ; 
 they may add to these the alembics, deflagrators, and re- 
 torts of Davy ; and what will it all amount to ? The 
 Gospel of Christ is foolishness to man, yet it is mighty 
 through God. Here is the Unitarian error. They over- 
 look the agent, who gives efficiency to means, and blesses, 
 not the wisdom of words, but the words of heavenly wis- 
 dom. " Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit 
 saith the Lord." Witness Brainerd, with his Bible only, 
 preaching, through an ignorant Indian interpreter, to the 
 savages, and say, would the National Institute, with all 
 their philosophical apparatus, have brought these stoics of 
 the woods to weep and cry out *' what shall we do to be 
 saved V^ Those who, unlike " the English traveller," 
 wish to philosophize deeply , as to the cause of the revi- 
 
 * If, according to a recent Unitarian publication, " the aposlle 
 Paul " was " a Unitarian," he remains to this day not only without an 
 equal, but without a successor. 
 
 8* 
 
94 
 
 vals of religion in America^ would find here matter for 
 solemn thought. Was it Brainerd^ or the Spirit of God 
 attending Brainerd's ministrations, that humbled the 
 haughty savage, and caused the fearless lords of the crea- 
 tion to weep for their sins,^ and to cry to the Lamb of God 
 to wash away their sins, and save their souls 1 Let ra- 
 tional Christianity answer this. 
 
 But, perhaps, you will tell me. Unitarians have now their 
 missionary society. True, they have, and their tract soci- 
 ety also. And what think you they will accomplish? Is it 
 man or God, that will convert the world % If God is to do 
 this great work, man is no doubt to be the instrument. 
 How then is man to effect it ? Preaching, the press, edu- 
 cation will do much. But is not the secret of missionary 
 effort and success to be found in a spirit of prayer 1 
 Throughout the world^ on the first Monday of every month 
 those that worship Christ and sing hymns to him, " Quasi 
 Deo," unite to pray to him, the Lord of the harvest, that he 
 would send forth more laborers into his vineyard, and gather 
 in speedily an abundant harvest. Is there any such thing 
 in existence,^ or was it ever conceived by any of the party, 
 to establish a Unitarian monthly concert of prayer ? If 
 God be a hearer of prayer and " will be inquired of" as 
 to the spiritual blessings he bestows, and Unitarianism be 
 o^f a more elevated, purer and more spiritual nature than 
 the Evangelical faith, is it not strange beyond the bounds 
 of ordinary strangeness, that the one class are thus united, 
 persevering, importunate in prayer, while the other class 
 think or act as though they thought a passing Sabbath 
 day's remembrance quite sufficient ? 
 
 This ungodly world, my dear sir, is not to be brought 
 back to allegiance to God by smooth periods, nor gentle 
 names, nor soft, endearing epithets, nor by professions of 
 an enlarged (but undiscriminating) charity. The time has 
 come when the Spirit of God is lifting up a standard here, 
 
95 
 
 on the spot early trod by the Pilgrims, watered by their 
 tears, hallowed by their prayers, and still " sacred to their 
 memory." Abroad, the vials of God's wrath would seem 
 about to be emptied on nominal and anti-christian powers. 
 The false prophet trembles on his throne ; Babylon is 
 shaken ; a mighty angel is flying through the heavens, 
 preaching the gospel to all people, " the kingdoms of 
 this world are about to become the kingdom of our Lord 
 and of his Christ." What has Unitarianism to do with 
 these great events ? It has had nothing to do with them, it 
 will have nothing to do with them. It will itself soon pass 
 away, and leave not a wreck, not a memento, behind. 
 
 The wheel of the divine government is rolling forward 
 the divine purposes. The simple question for each one 
 to consider is, will you lend your feeble aid in impelling 
 it forward, or oppose its progress, and be crushed beneath 
 its weight ? Unitarianism is not the faith once delivered 
 to the saints. Its foundation is rotten. There is a stone, 
 a tried stone, rejected of old bi/ the builders^ which will 
 afford a sure foundation. Fly to that before it be too late. 
 Based on the rock of ages, you may resemble Knox, 
 '* who feared not the face of clay ;" with Luther you may 
 go forth to any duty, " though the devils be as thick as 
 the tiles upon the houses ;" "fearing God, you need have 
 no other fear." 
 
NOTES. 
 
 NOTE A. Page 9. 
 When, or by whom, this scion was inserted into the Jewish stock, 
 the writer does not say. If he can fix the age and the author of the 
 book of Job, and the country he inhabited, he will have taken 
 one and the tirst step, which is always the most difficult, towards the 
 determination. If, with one class of critics, we assign this book to 
 Moses, or with another class, we date it still farther back in the pa- 
 triarchal age, in either case it is the oldest record of human opinion ; 
 and, adopted into the Jewish canon and sanctioned by Christ and 
 his apostles, stands forth as the first revealed expression of divine 
 truth. Its date is thus, from six hundred to a thousand years anterior 
 to the period assigned to Homer by any of the classical critics. But 
 diabolical existence and agency are asserted and reiterated, not in the 
 poetical, but in the historical parts of this book. Was it then " care- 
 lessness or hardihood " that asserted as an undeniable fact, that " this 
 notion was grafted on the purity of the Jewish faith from the fictions 
 of oriental mythology" ? " Did not the gentleman know, that theo- 
 logians, inferior to none in exact learning, deep research, ardent piet}'', 
 and studious attention to the word of God," have discovered, in this 
 first remaining production of the human mind, and original revela- 
 tion of divine truth, a clear and distinct recognition of diabolical 
 agency ? Have they not traced this notion up to the very fountain 
 of truth, to the light of heaven, to the inspiration of the Almighty? 
 Did he not know that they have seen this notion, not merely en- 
 grafted into the purity of the Jewish, but ingrained and interwoven 
 with the whole system of the Christian, faith ? How then could he 
 assume, with such roundness of period, and fearlessness of conse- 
 quence, (shall I add, disregard of fact 7) that this notion, presented 
 to human contemplation in the first written record extant, and under 
 the authoritative sanction of inspiration, was " a fiction of oriental 
 mythology"? in other words, a dream, a fancy, an untruth? Need 
 we be at a loss to know " this gentleman's views of the sacred vol- 
 
93 1 
 
 urae "? All acknowledge the writer of the book of Job to have been * 
 
 a genius of the loftiest order, a sun of surpassing brilliancy, before 
 which the lights, greater and less, of Grecian and Roman glory, 
 fade away into dimness, or totally disappear. Why, then, are we 
 constrained to imagine him, so meagre in imagination, so jejune in 
 invention, so derelict of inspiration, that in order to produce this book, 
 he had recourse to fabulous legends, and unreal phantasies ? Where 
 is the evidence of the existence, and what v/as the character of these 
 fictions ? Is there any Idunisean history, any Assyrian roll, any Ara- 
 bian chronicle extant, from which to hazard a conjecture on these 
 points ? Neither Egypt nor Babylon affords a hieroglyphick, or 
 character, by which to pierce the darkness that broods over those 
 remote ages. Be it known, that the first period of authentic profane 
 history commences at least seven hundred years subsequent to the 
 latest date assigned, with any considerable degree of probability, to the 
 author of this book. Is Herodotus to give evidence in this case ? 
 W^hat did he know, or could he know, upon the subject ? Would 
 you admit Tacitus and Suetonius to be credible historians in regard to 
 the belief and the practices of even contemporary Jews ? What then 
 could a Grecian historian, removed a thousand miles in space, and a 
 thousand years in time, know of that remote age and distant country ? 
 Evidently, nothing. Suppose we could summon Sanchoniathon and 
 Manetho, Berosus and Abydenus, the Ossians of history, and put them 
 to the question, what could they testify ? Nothing, nothing at all. 
 Are we then to quit " the sure word of prophecy," wherein " holy 
 men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," for the 
 supposititious imaginings of a soi-disant rational Christianity ? Is 
 " pure reason," on a s\ih]eci wholly and forever beyond its unassist- 
 ed grasp, of paramount authority to recorded fact and inspired de- 
 cision ? 
 
 Following out the assumptions of the reviewer, we shall soon find 
 ourselves compelled to adopt the rationalism of Rohr, Wegscheider, 
 and their school ; and if we pretend to receive the scriptures, it will 
 be as a collection of oriental fictions, an assemblage of traditionary 
 tenets and mythological fancies, by the aid of which, so far as they 
 correspond with eyiUghtened reason, we may elaborate a system of 
 " divine truth." " Theologians, inferior to none in various and exact 
 learning, deep research, studious attention to the word of God, and " 
 (would it not be uncharitable not to add ?) " ardent piety," have been 
 unable to discover any thing more than such tenets and such fancies in 
 the volume of inspiration. The sons of the Pilgrims are not yet so 
 bereft of reason as to renounce revelation, and take in its place, they 
 
99 
 
 know not wliat, dignifieJ, though it he, with the name of " rational 
 
 Christianity." 
 
 Before this writer again decide? with such oracular authority, it may 
 serve to refresh his memory and shape his periods, to review his 
 chronological tables. He might consult Niebuhr to learn Avhat 
 authority is attributed by the learned to the first five centuries of Ro- 
 man history. How much in Grecian history, previous to the first 
 Olympiad, is not fabulous ? Eusebius, in his Chronicon, shows, ac- 
 cording to the chronology of the heathen historians just mentioned, 
 whose works, some fragments excepted, have long since perished, 
 and also of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Diodorus Siculus, that 
 Moses lived prior to the worship of Jupiter, to the birth of Latona, 
 of Bacchus, Apollo, and most of the heathen deities, to the flood of 
 Deucalion, to the foil of • Phaeton ; and centuries prior to the first 
 poets, philosophers, and historians of Greece. The first Olympiad 
 was instituted in honor of Jupiter, B. C. 776. Moses was eighty 
 years of age when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt, 
 B. C. about 1500. 
 
 NOTE B. Page 13. 
 The writer is not ignorant that " rational Christianity," carried out 
 to its legitimate results, (that is, pure rationalism,) has denied the 
 existence of good as well as of bad angels. Nor does he see how a 
 man can pretend to reason upon the subject and deny that the exist- 
 ence of the latter class is revealed, and yet iJelieve in the existence 
 of the former. Consistent " rational criticism must sweep away 
 both classes together, and it were idle to deny it. This has been the 
 result, where liberal minds have been unlaced fiom creeds, unfettered 
 by authoiitv, and at liberty to speak out their undisguised sentiments, 
 fearless of offending popular opinion. " Theologians, inferior to 
 none in" extent of information and compass of research, profoundly 
 versed in the original languages of the scriptures and the kindred 
 dialects, and loaded with stores of classical and oriental learning, men 
 " studious of nature" in her permanent and her ever-varying forms, 
 have blotted out, with unsparing hand, every vestige of angelic exist- 
 ence from the sacred page. This is consistent inconsistency, an 
 honor, to which the American supporters of a kindred system cannot 
 yet lay claim. Should the descent of opinion, however, be as rapid 
 for the next ten years as during the ten years past, (not to speak of 
 an accelerated velocity,) it may be questioned whether " the lowest 
 
100 
 
 depth" of German rationalism will be more than a step to " the deep- 
 er still" of American rational Christianity. A new illustration, it is to 
 be feared, is about to be given to the adage, corruptio optirni pessima. 
 If this be thought severe, let the reader remember that in 1815, the 
 views of the atonement given by Butler, in his Analogj% were said by 
 Dr. Channing, to be as generally received by the Unitarian clergy as 
 any others ; and that ten years afterwards, " a central gallows" is 
 erected, by which to hold up those views to scorn and detestation. 
 A descent, equally rapid, cannot be paralleled in Germany, from 1750 
 to the present moment. With Dr. Priestley, this divine, accom- 
 plished and eloquent though he be, may well say, •' I do not know 
 where my creed will be fixed." The remark of the satirist, nemo re- 
 pente fuit turpissimus, can apply only to manners, not to sentiments. 
 
 NOTE C. Page 23. 
 
 What American Unitarian interpreters suppose the three evange- 
 lists to mean by their narratives of " the temptation," remains to be 
 seen. They are of age, and can speak for themselves. It is not 
 probable that any of them are yet ready, openly, to take the ground 
 of Professor Schleiermacher, a name, though unknown here, of great 
 learning, and of great authority throughout Prussia and all Germany. 
 He thinks " the most natural explanation of the temptation is, that it 
 is a parable, delivered by Christ to his disciples, which might easily 
 have been misunderstood historically, and yet as easily, notwith- 
 standing this misconstruction, pass through a great number of hands." 
 Putting this into intelligible English, it reads thus, the disciples, each 
 and all, misunderstood Christ, and have perpetuated their miscon- 
 ception in a volume said to he inspired. In this " most natural" 
 opinion, we see the reverence felt for the scriptures by this learned 
 and most rational member of the German Lutheran Church. " He 
 avails himself," as another distinguished German writer has said in 
 his reply to Rose, " of the Established Ecclesiastical System, as, in 
 some way or other, the envelope of his philosophical system." 
 
 All this may be disclaimed by American rational inquirers, as 
 irrelevant. But how can we know what is considered rational in 
 Boston, if the advocates of rational inquiry here, will maintain an 
 astringent silence on such topics, but by learning what is thought 
 rational by Unitarians, where the lips are unclosed, and communi- 
 cation of opinion is free and unrestrained ? Whence is it, that in a 
 monarchy, and with an established religion, the principal writers are 
 
101 
 
 frank, undisguised, and fearless in the expression of their belief and 
 of their disbelief, and of their reasons, vvhile, in this Republic, with no 
 religious establishment to fetter thought, or the utterance of thought, 
 this birthplace and home of free opinion and free expression, the 
 opinions of a large class of professedly religious teachers should be 
 known only as they are wormed out ? How loud a panegyric does 
 Unitarian silence undesignedly pronounce upon the character and the 
 influence of our Puritan Fathers ? 
 
 The wild speculations of continental dreamers the Christian Disci- 
 ple and the Christian Examiner have often reprobated. There is 
 allowed to be no blood-relationship, no fellow-feeling between the 
 professors of Gottingen and of Cambridge ; while those of Andover 
 are cordial fellow-laborers with those of Tubingen, and, recently, with 
 those of Berlin. Insular writers, however, the good sound common- 
 sense writers of England, are not thus recklessly thrown to the winds. 
 True, the headlong Priestley, the daring Belsham, and even the Im- 
 proved Version, embodying as it does, the results of Unitarian learning 
 and the inventions of " rational " ingenuity, are rather ungratefully re- 
 garded as questionable coadjutors, ^'usf yet. But wliat shall we say of 
 Cappe, the most learned and the most critical of all the English Unitari- 
 ans, not excepting Wakefield, and far the most cautious ? "What shall 
 we say of the Monthly Repository, the accredited organ of Unitarian- 
 ism in Great Britain, especially of its first volumes, when the writers 
 were desirous of " putting the best foot foremost " ? Unitarians in 
 this vicinity have recently expressed the desire of drawing closer the 
 bonds between them and their brethren over the waters. By looking 
 into the Christian Register, it will be seen, that the Monthly Reposi- 
 tory is the Magazine from which most of its foreign articles are taken. 
 Is it not fair to presume that Unitarians here adopt the same belief in 
 regard to Satan, Diabolos, &,c. as their English brethren, and, more- 
 over, adopt the same inode of interpreting these words in the 
 scriptures 7 The English critics, with their characteristic bluntness, 
 speak out what they believe, or disbelieve, with considerable fulness 
 and precision. It can hardly admit of a doubt that their more wily 
 younger brethren, will, ere long, be constrained, either from self- 
 respect, or a compliance with the reiterated call of public opinion, ti 
 take the same course. 
 
 The following quotations may serve to take off the bandage, al- 
 ready somewhat loosened, from Unitarian eyes, which their leaders 
 of their own accord are quite unwilling to remove. 
 
 Cappe, in his critical notes on the temptation, is quite lean in his 
 explanation, and evidently feels himself embarrassed. This is appa- 
 
 9 
 
102 
 
 lent, both from his remarks there, and when the same subject recurs 
 in his Life of Christ, which, on this period, is for the most part, a 
 repetition of what he had said in his Notes. He gives us the most 
 approved " rational " interpretation thus. " The case with the writer 
 here, or with some one before him who first told the story or re- 
 corded it, seems to have been this, to wit ; he was about to relate 
 such things concerning Jesus, as to the precipitate, and to any who 
 were not well disposed towards him, might appear to be a blemish on 
 h;s character, and not to consist well with the appellation, Holy One 
 of God. To preclude such disparaging conceptions concerning 
 the character of Jesus ; to prevent any such effect of doubts and 
 difficullies, the growth of his own mind, the result of impressions 
 rr.ade on him by his present circumstances, and which tended, as it 
 might seem, towards apostacy and unfaithfulness ; the evangelist, go- 
 ing to relate them, does not choose to represent them in plain naked 
 language, as the spontaneous produce of his thoughts, but rather as 
 the suggestions of another. He avails himself of an idiom much in 
 use among the Jews, figuratively ascribing to a being of evil character, 
 any thing in the person and circumstances of any man that either 
 was, or that tended to what was deemed, either naturally or morally 
 evil." 
 
 Cappe, in this explanation, has adopted a mode of expression some- 
 what analogous to that which he attributes to the evangelists. He was 
 afraid to speak out, and yet he was unwilling to withhold, his opinion. 
 In plain English, Cappe means that Christ had " doubts and difnculties, 
 the growth of his own mind" solely, misgivings as to the work on 
 which he had entered, which tended to apostacy and unfaithfulness. 
 These the evangelist knew would not, " to the precipitate," consist well 
 v/ith the character of the Holy One of God, They must in some way 
 be concealed or palliated, or so expressed, as to remove the offence 
 that would be felt by those not well disposed towards him. The 
 evangelist was unwilling to express the plain truth in naked language? 
 that these doubts and difficulties were the spontaneous produce of 
 Chiist's own thoughts, and so he avails himself of the Jewish idiom of 
 charging upon Satan, what wholly belongs to Christ himself; of 
 cliarging upon the imaginary, fictitious Satan, the doubts and difficul- 
 ties of the Holy One of God ! 
 
 I will make only a remark or two, in passing, on such an explana- 
 tion. If I mistake not, it has always been pointed out as a peculiar, 
 prominent, and most distinguishing feature in the evangelists, that they 
 told, and were disposed to tell, the whole, simple, undisguised, naked 
 truth, for, and against, their master, and themselves, unsuspicious 
 
103 
 
 of criticism, and fearless of consequences. They drew no characters. 
 They pronounced no eulogiunis. They told the truth, and left it to 
 make its own way, under the God of truth, believing, or at least acting 
 as though they believed, that " unadorned, it was adorned the most." 
 Where else shall we look for any fears on the part of the disciples, 
 that the character of " their Lord and their God " would suffer from 
 the plain statement of what he said, or did, or thought ? If Cappe's 
 view be the true one, we must hereafter give up the artless, truth - 
 telling character of the evangelists, and believe them artful and 
 truth-concealing, if not Jesuitical. 
 
 But again. " This was an idiom much in use." What was this 
 idiom ? Why, a general national behef in the actual existence of the 
 devil and his angels. On consulting Cappe's references for this 
 idiom, it will be found that he has referred to passages w^hich prove 
 this national belief. Suppose I should deny that Boston means a 
 literal city ; it is only an American idiomatic expression, much in 
 use for the general idea of residence, and in proof of the assertion, 
 should refer to New York, Philadelphia, Washington, &c.; would my 
 logical and critical abilities be trumpeted forth as of the highest order } 
 Yet this is precisely the reasoning of Cappe, who must be acknowl- 
 edged by all, as among the most intelligent, critical, and cautious, not 
 to say icily, of Unitarian writers. It is the system, and not the inan, 
 which is answerable for these absurdities. Let him have truth on his 
 side, and he would be irresistible. As it Is, to those but partially read 
 ^n biblical criticism, and who are predisposed to follow a learned leader 
 in rejecting Orthodoxy, I know few Unitarian writers more able " to 
 make the worse appear the better reason." 
 
 I am about to extract some passages from the Monthly Repository, 
 which will not only give us English Unitarian belief (or disbelief:) 
 on this subject, but also, which is of great importance, the principles 
 of interpretation by which they arrive at their conclusion. The es- 
 say, from which these extracts are taken, was continued through 
 three numbers of that Magazine, for 1809. The writer begins by 
 saying, that the word diabolos, translated devil, occurs thirty-eight 
 times in the New Testament, and proceeds to consider these cases in 
 detail. He does not advert to those passages in which the word Satan, 
 tempter, wicked or evil one, god of this world, prince of this world, 
 &.C. &c. are used. These are left unnoticed. However, he had 
 enough to do with the thirty-eight passages. In some of these, it is 
 admitted on all hands, this word is properly translated, slanderer, in 
 the common version. Let us see how he treats those translated devil. 
 
 Math. xiii. 39. This is the exp)lanation of the parable quoted in the 
 
104 
 
 fourth letter under the third head of the second argument. " In this 
 connexion, it may justly be doubted whether Jesus means positively 
 to assert the existence of the devil, and his ascendancy over the 
 human mind. It is far more probable that he uses the phrase in 
 conformity to the prevailing notio7is of his countrymen. From a 
 parable, nothing can be inferred but the doctrine or instruction which 
 it is intended to inculcate ; the circumstances are to be overlooked, 
 and every thing which is collateral is to be considered only as the or- 
 nament of the allegory." The writer does not once advert to the 
 fact that this is not a parable, but the interpretation of a parable, 
 given by Christ himself, not to his countrymen at large, but to his 
 own bosom friends in their retirement. It would seem that a Unita- 
 rian writer, is under an almost physical, a sort of " absque remedio " 
 inability to state a difficulty fairly, to meet an argument logically, or 
 to translate correctly. 
 
 To proceed with this writer. " John viii. 44. ' Ye are of your fa- 
 ther the devil,' &.c. Such is the influence of association and of long 
 established habits of thinking, that it will not be easy to suggest any 
 interpretation of this passage different from the common one, which 
 will not appear to many very harsh and unsupported." True. 
 Header, how do you think he gets over or round this difficulty ? Tax 
 your invention to the utmost, and you will be disappointed at last. 
 This writer is not one of those, gi-avelled with a small or a sizeable dif- 
 ficulty. He thinks it most natural to suppose that Cain was the mur- 
 derer, who abode not in the truth, referred to by Christ in this place. 
 But should any of his readers have some "doubts and difficulties," as 
 to this allusion, he has still another bridge over which he can retreat. 
 In that case, he says, " Jesus need only be supposed to refer to the 
 commonly received opinion of the origin of evil designs and wicked 
 practices." Any farther explanatory notice one would think a work 
 of supererogation. However, he follows up these two rather start- 
 ling proposition? by a third, which is not far out of its proper place in 
 capping such a climax. " In the language of his reproaches and of 
 his accusations against those who were seeking his life, we are not 
 to look for his authorized instructions upon a subject incidentally 
 inti'oduced" .'!.' Incidentally introduced! Expressly introduced by 
 himself, without any call or extraordinary occasion for it on the part 
 of the Jews. — Such is the reverence of English Unitarians for what 
 they allow to be the very declarations of Christ himself No 
 wonder after this, that the apostles should be treated quite cavalierly. 
 " Acts xiii. 10. ' full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child 
 
105 
 
 of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness,' &c. Paul was a man 
 of strong feelings and strong passions, and no doubt was greatly irri- 
 tated and provoked by the conduct of Elymas. It seems there was 
 just occasion for this resentment, for it is recorded that Elymas was 
 struck blind by the instrumentality of Paul ; but no argument for 
 the existence and agency of the devil can be founded on the indig- 
 nant language of the apostle." Certainly not ! If the language " of 
 reproach and accusation" employed by Christ only conlirmed his 
 hearers in a long received error, what else could be expected from an 
 " indignant " apostle ? It matters not that, in the ninth verse, Paul is 
 said to have been " full of the Holy Ghost ;" a cii'cumstance thought 
 too unimportant by this writer to deserve even a passing notice. The 
 devil, who goes about as a roaring lion, is, according to this writer, 
 none other than Nero. 
 
 We now come to a passage, to which, and this writer's remarks 
 upon it, I do most earnestly invite the serious, inquiring, reflecting 
 reader to give special attention. " 1 John, iii. 8. ' He that committeth 
 sin, is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For 
 this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy 
 the works of the devil.' Unquestionably the devil is here spoken of 
 as the author of sin ; and as a being who himself sinned ; in reference 
 to which the apostle again says, verse 10, ' in this the children of 
 God are manifest, and the children of the devil ; whosoever doetli 
 not righteousness is not of God.' " This writer allows, that in the 
 12th verse, the same allusion is made, " not as Cain, who was of that 
 wicked one and slew his brother." Even a rational understanding 
 could not help seeing that " the wicked one," of whom Cain was, 
 differed from this very Cain himself, who is said to be the devil in 
 the eighth of John. " It may however be questioned," [what can- 
 not be questioned by a sturdy, heartless skeptic ?] " whether the apos- 
 tle means to support the truth of this opinion, or only adopts it as 
 the common and prevailing one." Again. " This may be only in 
 allusion to the philosophy of that dark age, v,^hen the Jews incorpo- 
 rated the mythology of the heathens with the pure doctrines of reve- 
 lation. They on whom the Sun of Righteousness has arisen," [wlitit 
 does this mean in the Unitarian vocabulary ?] "have learnt that God 
 isthe Creator and Maker of all, that all men are his offspring, and th.;t 
 it is only in a figurative sense that the vicious are the children of the 
 wicked one, i. e. of the devil, or the being who is supposed to sustain 
 that character, the author of every thing which is evil." How they 
 have learnt this last fact, he does not inform us. Christ and his 
 apostles " unquesiionahlv" taught a directly opposite docU'inc. 1 
 9* 
 
106 
 
 am not aware that any chemical analysis, or any geological stratum, 
 or any botanical classification, or any phrenological nomenclature, or 
 any of the results of comparative anatomy, or any of the wonders 
 developed and demonstrated in the Mechanique Celeste, fasten upon 
 Christ and his apostles the charge of teaching falsely, or of incompe- 
 tence or unwillingness, at the hazard of their lives, to teach the 
 truth. Till something in the shape of evidence is produced, I trust it 
 will not be thought indicative of either weakness or prejudice, to 
 believe Christ, " that for this end was he born, and to this end came 
 he into the world, to bear witness unto the trutJi." 
 
 But this writer is yet to give the finishing touch to his picture of 
 revelation. " Tlie only passage in Jude is one of very doubtful 
 authority. I do not mean that it is wanting in any of the copies 
 now extant ;" [alter this, I hope we shall hear no more from the 
 Unitarian press about Griesbach : of what use are his labors ? The 
 lower criticism is gone ;] " but of doubtful authority, that an inspired 
 apostle, or one who had a competent knowledge of the history of the 
 Old Testament, and of the dispensation of the gospel, should intro- 
 duce such a flibulous legend as that, which is the subject of the 9th 
 verse, how that Michael, &c. If any one can build his faith in the 
 existence of such a being, on such a contemptible story as this, I 
 would leave him in quiet possession of his opinion ; for there is little 
 room to hope that reason will have much influence, where absurdity 
 has obtained such an absolute dominion." Let it not be forgotten 
 that English and American Unitarians solemnly profess to receive the 
 epistle of Jude as a part of the inspired Word of God. 
 
 Let it be remembered that the preceding extracts have been taken 
 from the accredited organ of English Unitarianism, evidently written 
 by one able to make the best of his subject. It is no common mind, 
 which can give such uncommon twists to scripture. These were 
 written twenty years ago. L^nitarianism is a precipitous declivity ; 
 down, down, down to a bottomless abyss. But few prints of return- 
 ing feet are to be traced in an upward pathway. What Marshal Ney 
 said to Napoleon, " revolutions never go backward," is equally true 
 in the religious and in the political world. A distinguished Unitarian 
 writer thinks, that if forty years more are allowed his system, it may 
 be proved as true by its ivorks, as Calvinism. I will only ask, if 
 fifteen years have brought the greater part of the Unitarian clergy of 
 New England, from Worcesterians or Semi-Arians to Humanitarians, 
 how long it will take the latter to become infidels in speculation ? 
 Mark thiSy I do not charge any one with designing to become 
 
107 
 
 infidel. But I recollect who said, "'ye know not what manner 
 of spirit ye are of." / know what have been the results with 
 mi7ids similarly circumstanced. Moral causes and moral effects are 
 as indissolubly conjoined as any in the physical world. Mr. Belsham, 
 ungratefully neglected by his American brethren, shall have a hear- 
 ing. " In the New Testament the word devil is sometimes used to 
 personify the principle of evil, and sometimes the idolatrous and per- 
 secuting power ; and the want of attention to this figurative mode of 
 expression, has misled many readers who were ignorant of the 
 Hebrew and Oriental phraseology, and has induced them to believe 
 the real existence of an evil spirit." Month. Rep. p. 305, 1807. 
 Mr. Belsham is a man of thought, of greater capacity of thinking, 
 I verily believe, than any American co-worker in the same cause, 
 and not inferior in learning, and far, very far beyond them all in 
 open frankness of expression. He is an honest man. In the passage 
 just quoted, it will be seen that he coincides with Cappe, with the 
 anonymous representative of English Unitarianism, and with the Rev. 
 Mr. Ware. 
 
 I have not thought it necessary to remark, in the Letters, on the al- 
 leged use of the word devil, in the New Testament, as a personification 
 of the idolatrous and persecuting power. I know not that any New- 
 England Unitarian holds that opinion. Let the reader, however, 
 apply either of Mr. Belsham's personifications to this one passage, " the 
 devils believe and tremble," in its connexion in the epistle of James. 
 Mr. Belsham is not ignorant of the power of words, nor what a mist 
 hard names can conjure up before ignorant imaginations. He under- 
 stands the " philosophy of mind" too well, to let slip the opportunity 
 of verbal influence. We could tell him of some, who, after years of 
 study in the Hebrew idiom and habitudes of thought, and after an 
 acquaintance, not altogether slight, with the Syriac and Chaldaic and 
 Arabic languages and learning, still " believed the real existence of 
 an evil spirit." In his own land, he might find in Proffessor Lee, " the 
 admirable Crichton" of the age, such an one ; he need not go far 
 from his own door to meet John Pye Smith, the first dissenting cleri- 
 cal scholar of Great Britain, whose chastened taste, and various learn- 
 ing, and unassuming yet active piety, present one of the most finish- 
 ed models for youthful contemplation. 
 
 One other quotation from the Monthly Repository, shall close this 
 Note. A writer therein thinks the sufferings of Christ in the garden, 
 resulted from the exquisite susceptibilities of his physical frame. 
 Besides, " he had a most severe and distressing bodily disorder" at 
 
108 
 
 this time. He was seized " with a violent nervous affection." Hence 
 his distress. I suspect this will be news to the most enlightened 
 American rationalist. 
 
 NOTE D. Page 56. 
 
 As the Unitarians have recently broken ground on a subject, where 
 it has long been known, often predicted, and as often denied, that 
 they must ultimately come, it may not be " travelling too far beyond 
 the record," to meet them at the outset in a note appended to this 
 discussion. The subject referred to will be found, in the end, to be 
 nothing less than a denial of the inspiration of the whole sacred 
 volume. In the Christian Examiner for January and February, 1828, 
 is the continuation of a learned and elaborate essay on the author of 
 the epistle to the Hebrews. The writer of this essay has come out, 
 with a degree of boldness, and a distinctness of expression, hitherto 
 unusual in his school. For this the community will thank him. No 
 religious teacher, least of all an instructer of religious teachers, should 
 hold opinions which he would not freely state, and, when called upon 
 respectfully, defend with what of argument and ability he may 
 possess. For his own religious opinions, individually, he is alone 
 responsible to his God and his Redeemer. But when he assumes 
 the office of a public teacher in any community, his situation changes. 
 He is then in duty hound to let that community know, fully and 
 frankly, what his opinions are. The writer referred to is, both by 
 report and by internal evidence, a distinguished individual in the 
 Unitarian ranks. When on common ground, he writes with a beauty 
 and a force that are truly admirable. Two pages from the pen of 
 Johnson can scarcely be selected, superior in discrimination and fe- 
 licity of expression, to those which precede the discussion in this 
 number of the Examiner. In this essay, though something, I doubt 
 not, is still undisclosed, something new, in this country, has been 
 advanced. The fact, that Unitarians reject the epistle to the He- 
 brews as uncanonical, is not now for the first time known, though it 
 is for the first time distinctly made known in the accredited organ of 
 American Unitarianism.* The epistle to the Hebrews must be got 
 
 * I shall not stop to inquire why so absurd, illogical, mystical, unintelligible a 
 book has been 50 Zo7io- allowed by intelligent Unitarians to pass for g-e/uiine, be- 
 lieving it, as they must have done, to be spurious. 
 
109 
 
 rid of at all events. Such a feeling seems to have actuated this 
 writer, from the beginning to the end of his communication. He 
 does not state, nor give even a passing notice to the arguments, 
 historical, critical, and irresistible, of Professor Stuart. I will not 
 suffer myself to state in appropriate terms what he has done, lest 
 some of my readers should think that such words ill become the ad- 
 vocate of truth. I will only say to the intelligent reader, who is 
 willing to know the truth, " read, compare and consider the Introduc- 
 tion to this epistle by Prof. Stuart and this essay, which purports to 
 be a review of this Introduction." 
 
 The rejection of this epistle, however, will ultimately be found an 
 immaterial and unimportant part of the developements made in this 
 essay. As this writer has not noticed Prof. Stuart's arguments, he 
 will not complain, (at least he need not,) that I do not here notice 
 the first number of his essay, but confine my remarks to his second. 
 His argument, in his own words, is this, " St Paul and the writer to 
 the Hebreivs differ widely from each other in their prevailing mode 
 of interpreting the Jewish scriptures, in the use which they make, 
 in reasoning, of -passages from those scriptures, and in their style of 
 reasoning generally:' p. 38. To those who are not disposed to submit 
 the dictum of any man, however learned, but rather to examine 
 every argument however plausible, something may be suggested, 
 which will not only call in question the validity of this argument, 
 but may also start the inquiry, whether, if not under, at least hi con- 
 nexion with it, something more is not meant than meets the eye. 
 This argument may first be refuted as above stated, and then stated in 
 the altered form the writer has contrived to give it in the course of his 
 remarks, and whiqh he well knows it must take or not be " worth a 
 straw." 
 
 This writer being judge, " all the evangelists are allegorists."* He 
 will not deny that Christ himself indulged in the allegorical or mys- 
 tical interpretation and appUcation of the Old Testament, if his con- 
 versations and remarks are reported correctly by these evangelists. 
 Peter, in his addresses to the Jews, adopts this mode of reasoning. 
 Thus far Paul is untouched. But the following concession is by the 
 essayist himself. " Allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament, 
 similar to those on which the reasoning in the epistle to the He- 
 brews is founded, occur, likewise, in the gospels and in the Acts of the 
 
 * This writer shall have the privilege of defininar his own terms. We hope he 
 and his brethren will be as courteous iu return. " Allegorical," " mystical," " mere- 
 ly imaginary," are synonymous. " An allegorical meaning is amj supposed mysti- 
 cal meaning, answering in some sort to the true meaning of a passage, whether 
 that passage be literal or figurative." p. 40. 
 
no 
 
 apostles. They are found in a speech of St. Paul, as it is given by 
 St. Luke, in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts." p. 53. This was a 
 speech addressed to " the men of Israel," i. e. to the Hebrews. 
 Grant now, what this writer labors through ten pages to prove, that 
 Paul in his other epistles addressed to Gentiles, never allegorizes. 
 What becomes of his argument ? Surely when the evangelists, and 
 Christ according to these evangelists, and Peter and Paul in ad- 
 dressing the Hebrews, all use interpretations of the Old Testament 
 similar to those on which the reasoning in the ejnstle to the He- 
 brews is founded, this writer might have spared both his learning and 
 his labor to prove that Paul, in addressing these very Hebrews, 
 would not still adopt the same mode of reasoning. To show that he 
 allegorized to Gentiles but little, would only show that there was 
 little occasion for it ; or to show that he did not allegorize at all, 
 would not at all touch the point. What should we think of the bibli- 
 cal critic's logic, who should attempt to prove that the speech re- 
 corded in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, could not have been dehv- 
 ered by the same orator, who, on Mars Hill reasoned with the 
 Stoicks and the Epicureans " out of their own poets," and should 
 give as his reason, that in the first speech the orator reasoned with 
 the Hebrews according to their own principles, and " out of their 
 own scriptures " ? Yet this is precisely the absurdity of this writer, 
 learned as he is, and discriminating as he can be, when the least flaw 
 is to oe uetecteu In an opponent's argument. 
 
 In principles of reasoning, and methods of quoting scripture or po- 
 etry, the orator at Athens " differs as widely" from the orator at 
 Antioch, as the writer of the epistles to the Thessalonians, differs 
 from the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews. Was Paul at Anti- 
 och a different orator from Paul at Athens ? Would not this essayist 
 have done but impartial justice to have recollected an avowed maxim 
 of the apostle, that in things not criminal, he " became all things to 
 all men," " to the Jews as a Jew " ? I will here quote a remark from 
 an author, who, this writer will admit, understood what he said. 
 " His reasoning, [the apostle Paul's,] which, at first view might 
 seem unsatisfactory, will in many cases appear striking and forcible, 
 when we have a correct notion of the opinions and sentiments of those 
 for whom it was designed." p. 69. This remark is equally true and 
 valuable. Let the essayist review his quotations from Lightfoot, &c. 
 and let him decide from his own authorities, whether the epistle to 
 the Hebrews was not the place of all places for that mode of inter- 
 pretation, which he himself allows to have been common and popular 
 among that people. 
 
Ill 
 
 Let those at Cambridge, accustomed jurare in verba magistri, 
 examine well before they take assertions to be proof, or as- 
 siimptions to be arguments. For the benefit of those, who im- 
 agine themselves enjoying the pure light of unsullied truth, I will 
 quote another remark from this essayist, and contrast it with one or 
 two from a different quarter. " Among his cotemporaries, he [the 
 writer to the Hebrews] was probably distinguished for his intellectual 
 powers. But his reasoning cannot be regarded as of any force by 
 an intelligent reader of the present day. It is difficult so far to ac- 
 commodate our minds to the conceptions and principles of the au- 
 thor and his cotemporaries, as to perceive how it was adapted to 
 produce any effect at the time it was written." p. 40 Again, " The force 
 of St. Paul's reasoning, and the weakness of the reasoning of the 
 writer to the Hebrews, will be most clearly perceived by him, who 
 best understands their writings." p. 70. It seems, then, according to the 
 dictum of this essayist, that " an intelligent reader" must at once 
 detect "the weakness of the reasoning" exhibited in the epistle to 
 the Hebrews, and, contrasting it with the usual strength of Paul's, 
 must reject the claims of that apostle to its authorship. This is as- 
 sertion, depending for its credibility on the character of its asserter. 
 What he presents in the shape of argument, has been met by argu- 
 ment. His assertions, put forth so confidently, may he fairly met by 
 counter assertions of names quite as learned and quite as willing to 
 look at both sides as himself. Storr, in his Theology, vol. i. p. 120, 
 says, that " Eerger, in his Dissertation entitled, ' The Epistle to the- 
 Hebrews a Homily,' finds so great a similarity between the epistle to 
 the Hebrews and Paul's discourse, Acts, xiii. 16 — 41, that he believes 
 this discourse might be regarded as an extract from that epistle, or 
 vice versa, that epistle as a commentary on this discourse." Storr 
 was himself something of a dialectitian, and paid as close attention to 
 the epistles of Paul and that to the Hebrews, probably, as this es- 
 sayist, and, perhaps, as any man now living. Need I say what was 
 the result with this " intelligent reader " ? This essayist, probably, 
 does not consider Prof. Stuart an " intelligent reader," and does not 
 number him among those who " best understand their writings," 
 i. e. of Paul and the vviiter to the Hebrews. But as, in this com- 
 munity, he will probably be singular in his opinion, the following 
 remark from Prof. Stuart, may, by some, be thought of equal weight 
 with that of the essayist. " My own conviction, (if I may be permitted 
 to express it,) is as clear in respect to this point, as from its nature I 
 could expect it to be. I began the examination of the subject un- 
 biassed, if I was ever unbiassed in the examination of any question ; 
 
112 
 
 and the evidence before me has led me to such a result ;" viz, that 
 Paul was the writer of the episUe to the Hebrews. How can the 
 essayist wonder that Berger, and Storr, and Stuart, should believe 
 that the reasoning of the writer to the Hebrews had the exact force 
 of PauVs reasoning, when he himself tells us, that interpretations of 
 the Old Testament, similar to those on which the reasoning in the 
 epistle to the Hebrews is founded, exist in Paul's speech to those 
 Hebrews ? Is it a wonder that Paul is consistent with himself ? 
 
 I do not expect by these remarks, to shake one prejudice in the 
 mind of a settled, thorough-going, Unitarian. But will the young, 
 ingenuous, inquiring minds, who boast that their opinions must rest 
 on reason, take the self-contradictory dogmas of any man in lieu of 
 evidence ? I ask all reflecting, intelligent, candid minds, Has not 
 the argument, as stated in the words of the gentleman himself, been 
 refuted ? Just recollect that he himself assures us, that Paul alle- 
 gorizes in his recorded speech addressed to the Hebrews ; that his 
 epistle to the Hebrews is an epistle to the Hebrews, with whom, 
 according to his own showing, the allegorical mode of interpretation 
 was in general favour and use ; and the essayist's forty pages are 
 null and void. 
 
 I come now to considerations of greater moment. I will here 
 state the argument in the form it must take, and which this writer 
 knows full well it must take, or go for nothing. Paul never allego- 
 rizes. The writer to the Hebrews does allegorize. Therefore he 
 is not Paul. Again. He who employs the allegorical mode of 
 interpretation is unworthy of credit. This writer employs this 
 mode of interpretation. Therefore he is unworthy of credit. Where- 
 fore this writer is not Paul, and, be he who he may, is unworthy 
 of credit. 
 
 Should the essayist object to the syllogism by which an allegorist 
 is proved unworthy of credit, I would thank him for the arguments 
 by which he would disprove it. Though the gentleman has given his 
 argument in words as before quoted, he has contrived in its progress, 
 to present it in the form which I have just stated. He is too intelli- 
 gent a man, and too skilful a logician, not to see, with Paul's speech 
 before him, that the argument, as stated by himself, is at least ex- 
 ceedingly unsatisfactory, and to the Orthodox will be wholly nuga- 
 tory. How he disposes of Paul's speech, we shall soon see. 
 
 That the writer strongly desired and covertly designed to present 
 the argument as just stated, the following extracts, 1 think, will show. 
 " We have thus gone through those passages of St. Paul, which we 
 believe would be selected by a writer, whose object it was to show 
 
113 
 
 that he had given a mystical sense to words of the Old Testament. 
 JVone of them, when properly understood, seem to afford any foun- 
 dation*' for the opinion. But supposing it to have been proved that 
 they do not, more has been proved than is necessary to the present 
 argument. In order to establish a wide difference between St. Paul 
 and the writer to the Hebrews, it would be sufficient to show, that 
 the mind of the apostle, during that period of his Ufe when he wrote 
 his epistles, was hut little affected by the prevalent errors of his age, 
 respecting the interpretation of the Old Testament." p. 68. Again. " It 
 is a most striking proof of the intellectual power of this apostle, that he 
 so far, or entirely, disengaged himself from the errors of the learned of 
 his nation, respecting the interpretation of the Old Testament." p. 69. 
 The words, " or entirely," were not used by this writer without 
 thought, or the perception of their bearing. He thinks this a circum- 
 stance hitherto overlooked, in estimating the intellectual stature of 
 this apostle. He is right. By Unitarians it has been overlooked ; we 
 are glad it has at length been discovered. Again, p. 69. "Be has no- 
 where in his epistles attempted to accommodate to Jesus any of the 
 allegorical expositions by which so many passages were made by the 
 Jews to refer in a mystical sense, to their expected Messiah ;" a for- 
 tiori, we must argue, that he nowhere accommodates those Jewish 
 allegorical expositions to any other subject. JV one of the passages in 
 his other epistles, wherein he has been supposed to adopt the allegori- 
 cal mode of interpretation, seem to afford any ground for such an opin- 
 ion. The apostle entirely disengaged himself from this error of the 
 learned of his nation. He nowhere attempts to accommodate any of 
 the allegorical meanings, attributed by the Jews to the Old Testament, 
 to Christ (or to any other person or subject.) The inference is irre- 
 sistible. Paul never allegorizes. In other words, Paul never uses 
 that mode of reasoning adopted by the writer to the Hebrews, where*- 
 fore he is not that writer. This is the drift of the essayist's explana- 
 tions and argument. Still the speech, recorded in the Acts as having 
 been deUvered by Paul at Antioch in Pisidia, when invited to address 
 the " men of Israel " by " the rulers of the synagogue," wherein, 
 according to this writer, Paul indulges in " allegorical interpretations 
 of the Old Testament, similar to those on which the reasoning in the 
 epistle to the Hebrews is founded," remains to be disposed of. 
 How does he meet this difficulty ? He does not meet it. He 
 does not attempt to meet it openly. He tries to shun it. It is only 
 by hints, and a cautious mode of stating his argument, that we can 
 conjecture how he could evade ^ concession so destructive to his 
 10 
 
114 
 
 whole argument, as that just quoted. This writer understands per- 
 fectly the force of language, and if he adopt a peculiarity of expres- 
 sion, it is not without reason. " Allegorical interpretations are found 
 in the speech of St. Paul, as it is given by Si. Luke, in the thirteenth 
 chapter of the Acts. This speech was delivered a considerable time" 
 [how long is a considerable time ?] " before the composition of the 
 earliest of his epistles, which was, probably, (?) that to the Gala- 
 tians."* Those words, " as it is given by St. Luke," are very inno- 
 cent and very true in themselves. Whether they have a hidden 
 meaning, the author has not told us. In the absence of positive, we 
 must cast about for circumstantial evidence, which, though often in- 
 conclusive, is sometimes irresistible. The same Luke, who wrote 
 the Acts, it must be remembered, is one of the evangelists, " all of 
 whom are allegorists." If " they unconsciously and through inad- 
 vertence may have given an allegorical interpretation to the words of 
 Christ, which as uttered by him, were used only by way of applica- 
 tion," as this writer avers, Paul surely could not expect to fare better 
 than his master. It might very naturally be expected, that " by a slight 
 change of expression," Paul's words, "used by way of application," 
 would receive from the pen of the allegorizing historian " an allegori- 
 cal turn." This will appear still more probable, when we recollect 
 that 710 jjassage in the epistles of St. Paul seems to afford any foun- 
 dation for the opinion, that he ever used the allegorical interpretation, 
 that he had not " entirely disengaged himself from this error of the 
 learned of his nation." 
 
 The inference from all this is, the moral certainty that " the speech, 
 as it is given by St. Luke," is not the speech as it was delivered by 
 iSt. Paul. Should, however, any " doubts or difficulties " remain 
 after this logical demonstration, the reader must further consider, 
 that " this speech was delivered a considerable time before the com- 
 position of his earliest epistles."t This is plainly the writer's resort 
 
 *.Tf this uriter will permit, I would suggest another probability, at least equally 
 as great as his. I would say that the apostle Paul, after addressing the "men of 
 Israel" at Antioch, his heart glowing with aflection to "his kinsmen according 
 to the flesh," expanded into this circular epistle the doctrine he had just been 
 teaching in the synagogue. This was " a considerable time" before he wrote his 
 epistle to the Galatians. Some years after this, " the mind of the apostle might 
 have been but little affected by the errors of his age." Would not such a suppo- 
 sition avert the disagreeable necessity of rejecting this epistle, and even allow 
 this writer's argument to be of some weight ; For the real probability in this case, 
 see Prof. Stuart's Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
 
 t Whether this writer " is able so far to accommodate his mind to the concep- 
 tions and principles" of this orator and his auditors, "as to perceive how it was 
 adapted to produce the intended or any effect at the time it was delivered," he has 
 r.ot informed us. Before he decides ultimately and forever to reject the epistle to 
 the Hebrews, on such ground as that above stated, might it not be well for him to 
 
115 
 
 to rid himself from any difficulty arising out of this early speech, 
 as it is given by St. Luke. Whether a really insjiired argument 
 ever becomes superannuated, I am not aware that the omnivorous 
 Germans have discussed. These facts combined, — that Luke may not, 
 and most probably has not, correctly reported the speech of Paul, 
 and the very natural fact that Paul, growing wiser as he grew older, 
 outgrew his own early prejudices, if he had any on this subject, and 
 the certain fact, that in the epistles, written " a considerable time," 
 even the earliest of them, after this speech, the apostle appears to 
 have entirely disengaged himself from this common error of the most 
 learned of his countrymen, — will leave the argument, as I have stated 
 it, and as this essayist has contrived to present it, valid and irre- 
 sistible. 
 
 " Look before you leap," is a plain maxim, of some age and much 
 wisdom. Let us see where such reasoning would carry us. This 
 writer being judge, " all the evangelists are allegorists." But allego- 
 rists are unworthy of credit. Therefore the evangelists are unworthy 
 of credit. Something of a step this, to begin with. The allegorizing 
 evangelist, John, wrote three epistles and the apocalypse, wherefore 
 these are unworthy of credit. Luke, :n addition to the gospel, wrote 
 the Acts, wherefore this is unworthy of credit. After this, one would 
 think that Paul need apprehend no more danger from the speech, " as 
 it is given by St. Luke." But to proceed. The inspiration and au- 
 thority of the gospel by Mark, have universally been deduced from the 
 sanction given this book by Peter. Peter, then, having sanctioned the 
 allegorical gospel of Mark, (to say nothing of his own speeches as given 
 by St. Luke,) must be involved in the same condemnation with this 
 allegorist ; wherefore his two epistles are unworthy of credit. What 
 has just been said of Mark and Peter, applies also, in the same way, 
 though with still greater force and certainty, to Luke and Paul. The 
 gospel, and the Acts of the apostles, written by this allegorist 
 having been sanctioned by this apostle, the latter falls into the same 
 condemnation with the former ; wherefore the epistles of Paul are 
 unworthy of credit. Q. E. D. Truly this is an expeditious mode 
 of despatching business. The Unitarian canon of inspired books, will 
 consist, then, of the epistles of James and Jude. But these, it is well 
 
 reconsider the apostle's speech, from the thirty-first verse to the end ? In this in- 
 spired argument, the apostle "adopts the same principle of reasoning, employed ia 
 the e'Jistle to the Hebrews." " A considerable time" after it was delivered, even 
 "as it is given by St. Luke," it came before the mind of the apostle, who not only 
 inconsiderately failed to correct the errors of his reporter, but actually restamped 
 upon it the seal of his inspired authority. This consideration I seriously suggest 
 to the attentive thought of this learned and ingenious essayist, whose system, ami 
 not his intellect, is answerable for these unavoidable absurdities. 
 
. 116 
 
 known, we?^ot among the universally received books in the primi- 
 tive Christian churcl^.* To reject the epistle of Jude, considering 
 the obscurity, not t§^iention " the fabulous legend, the contemptible 
 story, found in the most ancient manuscripts," cannot be considered 
 presumptuous, but rather a proof of earnest desire not to receive for 
 the Word of God, the mere word of man. Much the same may be 
 said of the epistle of James, which even Luther, in the very infancy 
 of biblical criticism, thought of doubtful authority ; a fortiori, liberal 
 interpreters must reject it. A doubtful book cannot be received as 
 undoubtedly inspired. This is " clearing the wreck" quite effectually. 
 'Wliitfield is said to have told his hearers that, were they permitted 
 to tear out, one by one, a leaf from the Bible, such as they individu- 
 ally disliked, they would leave him " only the covers." Whether 
 the biblical critics in our ancient University, early dedicated to 
 " Christ and the Church," are not in a fair way to leave us only the 
 covers, let the intelligent reader decide. The appeal is here made to 
 those capable of discrimination, who can distinguish between logic and 
 rhetoric, between argument and assumption, who can trace the con- 
 nexion, if it exist, between premises and conclusion, whether, al- 
 lowing the evangelists to be allegorists, according to the concession 
 ef the essayist, and his argument, as he has contrived to present it, to 
 be valid, the conclusion is not irresistible, that all the Nev/ Testament, 
 excepting the epistles of James and Jude, is unworthy of credit, as of 
 divine inspiration, and of , infallible authority? "The intelligent 
 reader" will bear in mind, that this question does not relate simply to 
 the honest endeavors of the evangelists and apostles to tell the truth, 
 " to the best of their knowledge," but to their inspired, infallible 
 authority. How the epistles of James and Jude could be proved in- 
 spired after the rejection of the rest of the New Testament, and 
 whether the dispute about them would be " worth the candle," I 
 shall not stop to inquire. 
 
 The great importance of this subject warrants an extended and va- 
 ried illustration. The essayist thinks the epistle to the Galatians, the 
 first epistle written by Paul. p. 53. His reasons for this opinion he has 
 
 *To prevent misapprehension on the part of any, it may \ye stated, that of the 
 twenty-seven books, which now compose the New Testament, twenty were re- 
 ceived by all the early Christian churches witii unanimous consent from the apos- 
 tolic age. These are called universally received books. The remaining seven, 
 were generally received by the churches, hut not, at first, universally. About the 
 first class, there was no doubt on the part of any. About the second, there was 
 very little, resulting generally from circumstances easily understood. The latter 
 class consists of the epistles to the Hebrews, of James, second of Peter, second and 
 third of John, Jude, and the Revelation. As the attack has recently been commen- 
 ced on the first named of this latter class, it may safely be presumed that is this but 
 the opening of the campaign, a war of extermination having been resolved upon. 
 At all events, when war begins, who can tell when and where it will end ? 
 
not stated. Among these he would probably pft^tHis, iM manner, o-f 
 reasoning employ edin this epistle hears a greater, resemblance to 
 that of the speech in the Acts, than that employed in his other epis- 
 tles. Paul v.-as a young man when that speech was delivered, in 
 which he uses the allegorical mode of interpretation and reasoning. 
 This epistle shows that he still cast a lingering look back to the favo- 
 rite mode of argumentation, employed by the most learned of his 
 countrymen. Though he had not as yet divested himself of every 
 prejudice, he does not suffer his argument to be marred by it. After 
 this, he manifests no trace of this error of his countrymen, as is appa- 
 rent from his other epistles, in which " he nowhere attempts to ac- 
 commodate to Jesus, any of the allegorical expositions, by which so 
 many passages were made by the Jews to refer, in a mystical sense, 
 to their expected Messiah." p. 69. The essayist would argue, and 
 with apparent logic, this epistle, more nearly resembling the allego- 
 rical argument, as given by St. Luke, than any other of Paul's epis- 
 tles, though written " a considerable time " after that speech, was 
 probably written before the other epistles. The whole force of this 
 argument (the strongest I can imagine to support the essayist's extra- 
 ordinary position) rests on the assumed state of the apostle's mind at 
 different periods, as either disposed or not disposed to use the alle- 
 gorical mode of reasoning from and appealing to the Old Testament. 
 The apparent weight of this argiunent, which is all it possesses, may 
 be soon made to disappear. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter, no mean critic for a Unitarian, and the Unitarians 
 and Orthodox generally, think it probable that the tirst epistle to the 
 Thessalonians was the first epistle written by Paul, about A. D. 52, 
 I assume the position, that the concurrent opinion of the great body 
 of the Unitarian and Orthodox critics is quite as probable, as the 
 opinion of this essayist, learned as he is. They generally think this 
 epistle to the Thessalonians was written, at least five, and perhaps 
 ten or even fifteen years before that to the Galatian churches. But 
 in this epistle to the Thessalonians, as all allow, Paul does not em- 
 ploy the allegorical mode of reasoning ; he does not quote nor even 
 refer to the Old Testament. He was at least five and, perhaps, fifteen 
 years ("a considerable time," this!) younger, than when he ad- 
 dressed the Galatian churches. How should this happen, that, in the 
 epistle generally believed to have been the first he wrote, there i:^ 
 no trace of an allegorizing spirit, when in his epistles to the Galatian^ 
 and others, written a considerable time later, there are many pas- 
 sages, which, the essayist allows, " seem to- require some explana- 
 
118 
 
 tion "? Is it not possible that his opinion and argument are alike 
 without foundation ? With the Orthodox, the explanation is easy and 
 satisfactory. The Thessalonians were chiefly converts from pagan- 
 ism; few, perhaps none of them, knew any thing of the Old Testa- 
 ment. The allegorical interpretation would have been wholly out of 
 place in an epistle to such converts, and the occasion did not so much 
 call for argument as exhortation. The epistle to the Galatian 
 churches, was occasioned by Judaizing teachers, who had crept in, 
 corrupting the truth. In these churches there seems to have been a 
 mixture of Jews and Gentiles, the latter, probably, much the most 
 numerous. This epistle was addressed to just such persons. Is 
 there any thing wonderful in this, that an inspired and divinely- 
 guided apostle, whether in the earlier or in the latter part of his min- 
 istry, should adapt his speeches, letters, and arguments, to the cha- 
 racter, condition, and capacity of those addressed .' That in addressing 
 an Athenian audience on the Areopagus, he should appeal to a 
 Grecian poet, in confirmation of his own sentiments, while Isaiah and 
 David are left unnoticed ? That in addressing the " men of Israel " 
 in their own synagogue at Antioch, he should appeal to the scriptures 
 which were there read every Sabbath day, and with which he had 
 been familiar from childhood ? That he should appeal to these scrip- 
 tures in the very manner in which his auditors were wont to appeal 
 to them ? That in addressing the Thessalonians, he should write to 
 them " as without the law"; while, in addressing the Hebrews, he 
 should write to them as those who had been under the law, and knew 
 ail its rites, its ceremonies, and its observances ? That he, who at one 
 time could claim his right by avowing, " I am a Roman," should also at 
 another, addressing " his kinsmen according to the flesh," prove that 
 he was " an Hebrew of the Hebrews" ? If an author is not to be 
 confined to one class of topics, and one mode of illustration, if he 
 may adapt his mode of reasoning to the persons and the circum- 
 stances of the persons addressed, then the wide difference, on 
 which the essayist reposes his argument, is a dream of his own 
 imagination, and nothing else. For it is generally believed, that 
 this difference is most wide between his speech as recorded in 
 the Acts, and the first epistle he ever wrote ; and the argument, if it 
 prove any thing, (I beg the reader to mark this,) will prove, either 
 that he did not write the first epistle to the Thessalonians, or did 
 not deliver the speech recorded in the thirteeenth of Acts. The 
 essayist can take his choice, which he seems already to have done by 
 implication, and necessary inference, rejecting the latter. Unless I 
 greatly err, the unprejudiced reader will believe that he delivered the 
 
119 
 
 one, and wrote the other, and that the essayist's elaborate argument 
 is straw-built, and tunables not so much through its weight, as its 
 weakness ; not so much through the strength of its assailant, as the 
 insufficiency of its foundation, and the feebleness of its defence.* 
 
 In that state of things to which the essayist's argument would 
 bring us, to whom, to what, can we go, " having the words of eternal 
 life" ? To this question, another writer in the same Examiner has, 
 by rather a noticeable coincidence, unwittingly supplied an answer. 
 I look upon this essayist and this reviewer, (whom I thus name for 
 distinction sake,) as having given us the strength and the set of the 
 Unitarian current, far more fully and unequivocally, than has before 
 been done, and more so than they individually intended. But opin- 
 ion, like murder, will out. In the review of Dick's Christian Philos- 
 opher, there is much truth, beautifully expressed, happily illustrated, 
 and forcibly applied. There are also expressions symptomatic of a 
 disquiet spirit, of a heart ill at ease, as yet all unconscious of the 
 heights and the depths, the length and the breadth of the unsearcha- 
 ble riches in Christ Jesus, which break upon the soul that receives 
 and loves the Saviour as participent of our nature, and " God mani- 
 fest in the flesh," at once " the root and the offspring of David," 
 a descendant of Abraham as to his humanity, and " God over all, 
 blessed forever." 
 
 Nature, without revelation, has always been considered " a sealed 
 book." But according to the argument of the essayist, just examin- 
 ed, we have little or no revelation, or at all events, we must be in 
 great doubt as to what this revelation is. I do not wish to over- 
 charge this statement. Is it not the truth, and is it any thing more 
 than the truth, that a Unitarian, who adopts the opinions and the rea- 
 soning of the essayist, must be in great doubt as to what revelation 
 is ? In this state of darkness, into which one Unitarian writer leads 
 and leaves us, another takes us. He says, page 24 of the same 
 Examiner, " we often need something more direct, and immediate, 
 and palpable, than the feelings and sentiments, which we have de- 
 rived from written knowledge, v/hich, however sublime and glorious 
 in itself, has been conveyed to us, through the fallible medium of 
 written languages and translations of languages." Let not this writer 
 
 * In replying to the argument of the essayist, and showing its fallacy, I have not 
 thought it necessary to call in question his assertions relative to the allegorical use 
 of the Old Testament, &c. by the writer to the Hebrews. Granting all that he 
 assumes on this subject, his argument is still entirely without weight. The reader, 
 desirous of understanding the manner in which passages are quoted from the Old 
 Testament by the writers of the New Testament, will find much valuable informa- 
 tion in the Commentary by Prof. Stuart, especially in the last Excursus. Consult 
 also a Lecture delivered and published by Dr. Woods on this subject. Seo also 
 The Spirit of the Pilgrims, Vol. I. No. 9. p. 478. 
 
120 
 
 think that any objection is raised against the study of the works of 
 God, while a solemn protest is entered against such a view of the 
 Word of God. Chalmers would have written thus, when abroad on 
 his botanical excursions, or engaged in his laboratory, for the first 
 ten years of his ministry. During the last fifteen years, he has not 
 forgotten his previous acquisitions, nor overlooked the obligations 
 of science to Christianity, while he has found the Bible to be " a 
 storehouse of unworked materials," from which to bring out, for the 
 certain instruction of man, and the glory of God, "things new and 
 old." Dwight, and Payson, men of no ordinary grade, in whom taste 
 and learning and piety were happily blended, would have given their 
 right hand to the flame, ere a sentence like that should have dropped 
 from their pen. What? Has it come to this? For the instruction 
 of our ignorance, for the strengthening of our faith, for the consola- 
 tion of our sorrows, for the support of our spirits when hovering over 
 the unfathomable abyss, whence none return, are we to quit the 
 written word of God, the everlasting gospel of his Son, which shall 
 not fail though heaven and earth pass away, and take in its stead the 
 hieroglyphics of nature, which the wisest and the best of heathen 
 sages pronounced indecipherable ? No wonder this reviewer should 
 elsewhere add, " there are hours, we suspect, in the Ufe of every man, 
 in which it seems to him as if the foundations of truth and faith were 
 breaking up around him, and his hopes were to be confounded and 
 defeated.* These are indeed sad and gloomy hours, when all that 
 we have believ'ed, and all that we have hoped, seems fading away 
 in dim and distant uncertainty. Yet he must be either a very firm and 
 enlightened, or else a very thoughtless man, who does not sometimes 
 experience feelings like these." p. 19. 
 
 " What can we reason but from what we know ? " 
 
 If such be Unitarianism, that it unsettles the canon of sacred 
 books, and shakes the foundations of faith, and truth, and hope, as 
 it would seem from the concurring testimony of the essayist and the 
 reviewer, truly may the poor and ignorant, aye, and the wise and the 
 wealthy, and the great of the world too, say, " my soul, come not 
 thou into their secret ; unto their assembly, mine honor, be not thou 
 united !" 
 
 In concluding this note, I will only add, that whatever may be 
 thought of the essayist's argument, of the analysis here given of it, 
 
 * It is necessary to state a distinction of great importance, which the Reviewer 
 has not noticed. The truly pious man may, and often does tremble, lest, a promise 
 being left, he should fail, through his own fault, of attaining to the heavenly rest. 
 But the foundations of truth and faith remain unshaken, a.gd.insl which the gates 
 of hell shall not prevail. 
 
121 
 
 or of the reviewer's assertions, this is plain, the epistle to the He- 
 brews is no longer to be received by the Unitarians as apart of the 
 inspired Word of God. It has been pronounced, ex cathedra, un- 
 canonical, unintelligible, absurd. No Unitarian has yet whispered a 
 surmise that the argument, so called, of the essayist, is not conclusive 
 and satisfactory. The Orthodox, be it known, are not prepared to 
 renounce this " foundation of truth and hope "; they do not feel that 
 it has been shaken ; knowing the ground on which it rests, they 
 have no fears that it ever will be. But, we may be permitted to ask, 
 will Unitarian clergymen continue to read this apocryphal Bel-and- 
 Dragon epistle from their pulpits, and in their families, without in- 
 forming their hearers distinctly, that it is not properly a part of the 
 Word of God, is not of inspired authority, and is read only as the 
 Shepherd of Hermas might be, or any other merely human production ? 
 After such an explanation, it might be read honestly. Can it be 
 without it ? Do Unitarians read 1 John, v. 7 ? If they do, are they 
 not careful to tell their people that "it is an interpolation," though 
 something may be said in its behalf? Is it not required of them, if 
 they would sustain a character for consistent honesty, to inform their 
 hearers that the whole epistle to the Hebrews is of no more author- 
 ity than this much disputed verse, since the Corj-pheus of the Unita- 
 rian chorus has informed a select literary audience that nothing can 
 be said in favor cf the Pauline origin or canonical authority of this 
 epistle ? 
 
 "WTiy, it may be asked in sober earnestness, should not this epistle 
 give 'place to Robinson Crusoe, " the reasoning of which " can " he 
 regarded as of great force by an intelligent reader of the present day "? 
 " It is, moreover," not " difiicult so far to accommodate our minds to 
 the conceptions and principles of the writer, as to perceive how it 
 was adapted to produce great effect at the time it was written ;" all 
 of which is denied by the essayist in regard to this mystical, illogical 
 misplaced epistle. Surely Unitarians, coinciding in the views of this 
 writer, must allow that Robinson Crusoe or Gulliver's Travels have 
 a better right, have a stronger and more rational claim, to be read from 
 the pulpit, being written on rational principles and for intelligible 
 purposes, than this incomprehensible jargon, so long and ignorant- 
 ly revered as an inspired epistle to the Hebrews. In the next '• Im- 
 proved Version " shall this epistle have a place ? Will not Mr. Pal- 
 frey exclude it from his text according to Griesbach ? No matter for 
 opposition from the ignorant, and the bigoted, and the irrational. 
 Trutli, truth will finally prevail. Let this be the course with those, 
 who profess to hold in their hands the torch of science, and to gaze 
 
122 
 
 with undazzled, eagle eye, on the Sun of Truth. Let not the modern 
 Reformers, emulous of perfecting the work of Luther, shrink from 
 the task. 
 
 We have now an entering wedge by which we may hope to obtain 
 Unitarian notions of the inspiration and authority of the several books 
 of the New Testament. Though, according to the argument of the 
 learned essayist, the epistles of James and Jude compose the Unita- 
 rian canon, it may be doubted whether the latter of these will not 
 be the very book first to follow the fate of that to the Hebrews. The 
 reverence of English Unitarians for the epistle of Jude has been al- 
 ready seen. The Christian Examiner will not yield to the Monthly 
 Repository in intelligence, and will not long continue more "illiberal, " 
 or less " rational." It may be questioned whether any further bene- 
 fit is to be obtained by the longer concealment of Unitarian views. 
 Unitarians must feel that the time has come, when strength of argument 
 and not ingenuity of artifice must decide where is truth and what is 
 error. This reflecting community requires reasons, and not preju- 
 dices ; arguments, and not assertions ; proofs, and not assumptions of 
 the points to be proved. It may be said, then, with propriety to all 
 parties, ' bring forth your strong arguments plainly , fairly , and for- 
 cibly. If Unitarianism be true, let Unitarianism prevail ; if Ortho- 
 doxy be true, let Orthodoxy prevail ; or if any intermediate system be 
 true, let that prevail.' In the mean time, it need only be said, that 
 Orthodoxy, like Revelation, does not fear examination of any kind. It 
 invites, it has endured, and it can endure, the severest test. It only 
 asks that men will examine it, will do it justice without prejudice, 
 without partiality, and without favour. 
 
 Fiat Veritas, ruat caelum. 
 
 NOTEE. PageU. 
 
 The first step to become a " rational " believer would seem to be, 
 to renounce reason ; after that, one can reason himself into the be- 
 lief of any thing however absurd, and out of the belief of any truth 
 however certain. The freethinkers of England, the atheists of 
 France, and the philosophizing divines of Germany, would afford 
 abundant evidence of this. Whether cis-atlantic rationalism has 
 altered its character by changing its place, those who are competent 
 
123 
 
 can decide. The philosophers of Germany are waiting, it is said, 
 with an anxiety unusual to that meditative race, for a full dcvclope- 
 ment of Schelling's philosophical system. In this vicinity, a some- 
 what similar anxiety is felt by many, to know what course " rational" 
 opinion is ultimately to take. The young divines are placed in a 
 predicament, which they must, at times, feel to be awkward. To go 
 back, they cannot ; " facilis descensus averni ; sed revocare," &c : 
 to stand still is impossible, amid the increasing light of an improving 
 age ; to go forward is perilous. Many eyes are upon them. Hith- 
 erto the wind has been what the sailors call baffling ; whether, here- 
 after, we are to have " steady gales," setting from " the frozen zone 
 of Christianity," on the icebergs of avowed rationaUsm or open infi- 
 delity, it were premature to say. Time will show. 
 
 NOTE F. Page 67. 
 
 PRTESTL.EY, EICHHORX, CALVIX. 
 
 The celebrated Cuvier pronounced the eulogy on Dr. Priestley 
 before the National Institute. The following estimate of his charac- 
 ter is accurate, and, considering the person who made it, and the au- 
 dience before which it was delivered, wonderfully so. " In fact, his 
 history will exhibit, if I may so speak, two men of distinct and almost 
 opposite character. The first, a circumspect philosopher, he exam- 
 ines those objects alone which come within the hmits of experience ; 
 employs only a strict and cautious mode of reasoning ; fosters in 
 his mind no prejudice, no love of system ; seeks truth alone, whatever 
 it may be, and seldom fails to discover truth, and to establish it in the 
 most solid and lucid manner. The other, a daring theologian, rashly 
 pries into the greatest mysteries ; contemns the faith of ages ; rejects 
 the most revered authorities ; commences disputant with precon- 
 ceived ideas, which he endeavors to extend rather than to examine, 
 and to support which, he falls into the most contradictory hypothe- 
 ses.'' The whole character is drawn in the same discriminating 
 manner. Had it been Dr. Chalmers, instead of Cuvier, who gave 
 this view of Dr. Priestley's character and efforts, it would have been 
 branded as Calvinistic bigotry. As it is, we believe the admirers of 
 Dr. Priestley are quite willing to foi-get the impartial estimate of the 
 
124 
 
 French philosopher. The whole eulogy exhibits evidence that 
 while Cuvier admired the talents, he understood the character of 
 Priestley. 
 
 The following account of the life, labors, and death of a man not 
 less distinguished, will be interesting to many readers. It is mostly 
 from the Foreign Review and Continental Miscellany. /. G. 
 Eidihorn was born 1752, in the principaUty of HohenzoUern Oehrin- 
 gen. His theory, as to the origin of the gospels, and the controver- 
 sies springing out of it, it would be out of place to detail. His 
 various and immense learning, and indefatigable labors, may be 
 judged of by a partial enumeration of his works. History of Litera- 
 ture from the beginning to the latest times, 11 vols. General History 
 of Cultivation and Literature of Modern Europe, 2 vols. History of 
 Eloquence in the Modern Languages, 3 vols. History of the three 
 last Centuries, 6 vols. General Library of Biblical Literature, 10 
 vols. Repertory of Biblical and Oriental Literature, 18 vols. Intro- 
 duction to the Old Testament, 5 vols. ; and Introduction to the New 
 Testament, 5 vols. The last two volumes of this Introduction were 
 finished but a short time before his death. Besides these works, 
 which he either wrote or edited, he also translated the Hebrew 
 Prophets. In a proem prefixed to this translation, he ranks Isaiah, 
 Jeremiah, &,c. with Orpheus, Pythagoras, and other heathen vates. 
 He died June 25, 1827, at Gottingen, where he had resided thirty- 
 nine years as a Professor. " From the gradual decline of his 
 strength, he felt the approach of death with the most imperturbable 
 tranquillity ; and he remarked in the last hour to his friend, the 
 anatomist Languenbeck, and the celebrated Professor Blumenbach, 
 as a point of physiological curiosity, how he felt by degrees the vital 
 spirit withdrawing from the different parts of the body, and only a 
 quarter of an hour before he breathed his last, he distinctly stated that 
 life was becoming extinct in the spina dorsi." If Eichhorn did not 
 survive his reputation, he lived long enough to see that it would be 
 any thing but reputable, with a generation not far distant. 
 
 When a Unitarian writer wishes to blunt an argument, or an orator 
 desires to awaken a prejudice, there is a standing illustration always 
 ready, with which 
 
 "To point his moral and adorn his tale," 
 Calvin burnt Servetus. How it will follow from this, that Socinus was 
 born without any taint of original corruption ; or that Davidies was not 
 in the right to withhold worship from a being whom he deemed a 
 creature merely, the gentleman, who visited Geneva and " reported 
 progress" of rational Christianity among those, who sit in Calvin's 
 
125 
 
 seat, did not inform the Unitarian Association. The following char- 
 acter of that champion of the reformation deserves attention. 
 
 " Let Calvin's unimpeachable integrity ; his exalted sanctity ; his 
 firm stand for truth ; the salutary and wide-spread influence of his 
 personal labors, and his admirable writings ; let these be fairly esti- 
 mated, and we shall hear rather less, than we have of late been ac- 
 customed to hear, ignorantly re-echoed, of the one deep blot on an 
 else spotless name. The dreadful punishment inflicted on Servetus 
 ■was in compliance with the notions of the time ; but a man like 
 Calvin, we admit, should have been superior to the errors of his age. 
 It was defended by a mistaken application of scripture authority, but 
 Calvin should have better known the character of his sanction. His 
 act was in the stern spirit of the law, while his creed and his chris- 
 tian experience should have referred him to a more merciful dispen- 
 sation. But let it not be forgotten, that he had no personal end to 
 serve ; that if there ever lived an individual above all imputation of 
 priestcraft and hypocrisy, Calvin was the man ; and that, although 
 an act of unrelenting severity was perpetrated, it was not done in 
 wantonness of cruelty, nor in the lust of power, but in erroneous 
 deference to principles and prescriptions, which even in our own 
 times and in enUghtened countries, retain a strong grasp on the 
 prejudices of men." 
 
 The conduct of Calvin in regard to Servetus, admits of no justifica- 
 tion, and scarcely of apology. But why Unitarians should bestow^ 
 all their sympathies upon Servetus, and " remember to forget"' 
 Davidies, venting all their antipathies upon Calvin to the entire 
 exclusion of Socinus and his friend Blandrata, is somewhat myste- 
 rious, if their object be, in so often producing this illustration, to 
 express their hatred of persecution, and their love of liberal principles 
 and free inquiry. To awaken jnejudke is not to infix principle. 
 Unitarian orators seem well aware of the fact, that most people rea- 
 son with their ears. At least their arguments are built on this " au- 
 ricular confession." If Unitarianism, whether in its larger or more 
 limited sense, be true, it must be proved so by some better argument 
 than " Calvin burnt Servetus." It is unworthy the taste of Dr. 
 Channing and the learning of Mr. Palfrey, to harangue in this style 
 of bar-room declamation. 
 
 If Unitarians mean to insinuate that those, who are now called Cal- 
 vinists in this country, are desirous of imitating the conduct of Cal- 
 vin in this instance, without stopping to notice the enlarged " liberal- 
 ity" of the insinuation, may we be permitted to ask whether Dr. Prince, 
 11 
 
126 
 
 or Dr. Bolles, or Mr. Emerson, is answerable for the scenes exhibited 
 on " Gallows Hill," a century ago .' Are Judge Story and Mr. Salton- 
 stall disposed to hang witches .' By what exuberance of liberality, we 
 desire to know, are the Andover Professors held accountable for the 
 reprehensible conduct of Calvin, three centuries ago ? May we be 
 permitted " to call for information," and request any intelligent gentle- 
 man to inform us what special purpose they expect to accomplish by 
 this frequent rhetorical flourish ? In the mean time we take the lib- 
 erty of adding the following facts. Teulmin, no friend of Calvin and 
 no enemy to Socinus, in his Life of the latter, speaking of Cranrner, 
 Luther, Calvin, and Socinus, says, " they all erred in regard to Tol- 
 eration," " it should, however, rather be ascribed to the times than 
 the men, that they favored in one respect or another, intolerance 
 or persecution." Let those who possess, as well as profess, liberality 
 of sentiment, meditate upon this remark of the biographer of Soci- 
 nus, and say, whether it is perfectly fair and just to the memory of 
 the Genevan Reformer, without any reference to his merits, his at- 
 tiinments, or his efforts, thus to hold him up to perpetual scorn, while 
 the circumstances of the age, and the feelings and conduct of his con- 
 temporaries, are studiously concealed ? When the character of Soci- 
 nus is drawn, is that trait of it, explained and modified by Toulmin, 
 its leading, prominent feature ? In what Unitarian imagination is not 
 Calvin painted as only the gloomy, iron-hearted, relentless persecutor ? 
 Why, we ask again, and desire every Unitarian writer and declaimer 
 before penning another sentence, or rounding another period, to an- 
 swer the question, why is not Davidies entitled to as much conimis- 
 seration in Boston, as Servetus ? The plain truth is, that both Cal- 
 vin and Socinus deserve reprehension. " Call no man master, for 
 one is your master, even Christ." Imitate Paul only so far as he 
 imitated Christ. Neither Abraham, nor David, nor Peter, nor Calvin, 
 is the exemplar of Christian perfection. Yet what Unitarian would 
 hazard his reputation for liberality by dwelling only, or chiefly, on 
 the faults of the three names first mentioned? Why not treat Cal- 
 vin with the same impartial justice as others, who either through re- 
 maining imperfections of nature, or the prescriptions of prejudice, 
 fell into similar or equal faults ? Really liberal men, of every denomi- 
 nation, need only have this subject presented in its proper light, to 
 gilence all the slang about ■" Calvin burnt Servetus." I would 
 not have dwelt so long upon a topic, in itself so unimportant, but 
 that the frequent recurrence to it in Unitarian sermons, periodicals, 
 pamphlets, speeches, &c., has made it necessaiy, both in justice to the 
 illustrious reformer., and to those who are now called Calvinists. 
 
127 
 
 Thus far I have merely acted an the defensive, and exposed the hol- 
 lowuess of the Unitarian insinuation attempted to be conveyed by the 
 unreflecting repetition of, " Calvin burnt Servetus." Were it neces- 
 sary, the state of things in Switzerland in the nineteenth century, 
 opens a field, which strongly invites offensive operations. Geneva 
 would present much, and the Canton of Vaud more, for thoughtful 
 consideration, especially contrasted with the present state of Eng- 
 land. If the theology of Dr. Ware's Letters be liberal and rational, 
 the theolagy of the Canton of Vaud is liberal and rational. In both 
 cases, and in that of Geneva also, it rs anti-calvinistic. In regard to 
 the doctrine of the Trinity, so far as I can learn, that is still held in 
 the Canton of Vaud, but it is a solitary column of a once fur fabric 
 already tottering to its fall. All the connected doctrines, which con- 
 stitute what is here called the Orthodox system, have long since been 
 given up. Why, then, should a writer in the Christian Examiner 
 call the Canton of Vaud an " Orthodox Canton "? The term Ortho- 
 dox, in Boston, has a settled meaning, and when used by a Unitarian, 
 is of necessity supposed to express that meaning, unless otherwise 
 explained. Did not this writer know that the Canton of Vaud is not 
 *' Orthodox," in the sense in which his readers understand that word ? 
 If he did not, " it is a shame for him to write so confidently " on a 
 subject he does not understand. If he did, we allow him to select the 
 epithet appropriate to the deed. If he meant by Orthodox, what is so 
 called in England, he should, in all fairness, have said so. In that 
 case, it means anti-calvinistic, the complete antipodes of Orthodox 
 in New England ; just what is here understood by Unitarian, in 
 contradistinction from Evangelical. T%e Mummers of Geneva 
 and the Canton of Vaud have been ridiculed, or silenced, or 
 iinprisoned, or banished, simply and solely, because they preached 
 distinctly and heartily the doctrines here held to be Orthodox; 
 and were so exceedingly zealous as to hold night meetings, and 
 to read the Bible, four or Jive of them together, and to pray over 
 it for divine illumination. This we assert, and stand ready to 
 prove, was the head and front of their offending in liberal, rational, 
 anti-calvinistic Switzerland. Amphigouri would seem not confined 
 to the Genevan clergy. 
 
 Look at England for a moment. The House of Commons has re- 
 cently astounded Mr. Peel and the High Church party, by a large 
 majority for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, and by a 
 majority for removing Catholic disabilities. How happens this ? 
 Who does not know that, for the last thirty years, the Evangelical 
 party in the Church and among the Dissenters has been rapidly in- 
 
128 
 
 creasing, while the Arminian party has been diminishing ? The re- 
 sult is seen in the late votes in the House of Commons, the members 
 of which might be, and the great majority of them, probably, are, 
 wholly ignorant of the origin of that public sentiment of which they 
 are merely the organ. Bible, and Missionary, and Tract, and Educa- 
 tion Societies, and Sabbath schools are at once raising heathen na- 
 tions to the rank of Christians, and casting off shackles that have too 
 Jong encumbered Christians in the land of our Fathers. These insti- 
 tutions, be it remembered, are principally Evangelical in their origin, 
 their character, their influence, and their support. 
 
 If the history of religious sects and opinions establishes one fact, it 
 is this, to which we particularly invite philosophical Unitarian minds. 
 Evangelical sentiments have ever favored civil liberty. So true is 
 the text and the exposition of the text, by Prof. Stuart, " where the 
 Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." The character and influence 
 of the Puritans, as exhibited in the Edinburgh Review of Milton's 
 Theological Treatise, arrested attention, and commanded universal 
 approbation. I would suggest to the reflecting Unitarian, as a sub- 
 ject of curious investigation, the comparative influence and tendency 
 of Calvinistic or Evangelical sentiments ia England, and of Liberal 
 sentiments in Switzerland. 
 
 The defection of Geneva from Evangelical sentiments, has been a 
 subject of no slight rejoicing in this quarter. The mode, the cir- 
 cumstances, the consequences, have not been so much dwelt upon. 
 We have no-t time nor space for detail here. We wish, however, to 
 present a specimen of Unitarian " established" liberality. " The 
 Venerable Compagnie," require all candidates for the ministry to 
 sign a promise to abstain from expressing their opinions, either by a 
 discourse, or part of a discourse, [Unitarians can be definite if 
 necessary ,^] upon these topics—" 1. The manner in which the divine 
 nature is united to the person of Christ. 2. Original sin. 3. Effica- 
 cious grace. 4. Predestination." One would think this enough. — 
 Not so the Venerable Company. The candidates must also promise 
 " not to ojjpose the opinions of any of the pastors." The Venerable 
 Company, in these few " promise nets," beat the Bishop of Peter- 
 borough with his eighty-seven questions, out and out. In England, the 
 Bishop was met with a public frown, from which he soon fled. Not 
 so in liberal Geneva. A writer upon the spot well observes, upon 
 this Venerable Company ; " Self-contradictory men, who renounced 
 a profession of faith, and forced subscription to promises ; who 
 mocked at ancient formulai'ies, and established new ones ; who de- 
 clared that the spirit of the reformation was a spirit of liberty, and 
 
129 
 
 chained up instruction." Yet the Christian Disciple and the Chris- 
 tian . . .aminer, published in Boston, United States of North America, 
 volunteer apologies for the Venerable Company. 
 
 NOTE G. Page 74. 
 References to passages of the New Testament, exclusive of the 
 Apocalypse, which relate to evil spirits. Matthew, iv. 1 — 11, 24. 
 viii. 16, 2S— 34. ix. 32—34. x. 1, 8. xii. 22—29, 43—45. xiii. 
 IS, 19, 24—30, 36—39. xv. 21—28. xvi. 23. xvii. 14—21. xxv. 
 41. Mark, i. 13, 23, 27, 32, 34, 39. iil. 11, 13, 14, 22—27. iv. 
 14, 15, 24. v. 1—20. vi. 7, 13. vii. 24—30. ix. 17—29, 38—40. 
 xvi. 9. Luke, iv. 1—13, 33—36, 40, 41. vi. 18. vii. 21, 22. 
 viii. 12, 26—36. ix. 1, 37—42, 49, 50. x. 17—20. xi. 14—26. 
 xiii. 16, 32. xxii. 31. John, vi. 70. xii. 31. xiii. 2, 27. xiv. 30. 
 xvi. 11. Acts, V. 3. \nri. 7. x. 38. xiii. 10. xix. 12—16. xxvi. 
 18. On the narrative contained xvi. 16 — 18, see Storr, vol. ii. p. 26. 
 Romans, xvi. 20. 1 Cor. v. 5. vii. 5, x. 20, 21. 2 Cor. ii. 11. 
 iv. 3, 4. vi. 15. xi. 3, 14, 15. xii. 7. Eph. ii. 2. iv. 27. vi. 
 10—18. Coll. i. 13. ii. 15. 1 Thess. ii. 18. iii. 5. 2 Thess. ii. 9. 
 1 Tim. iv. 1. V. 14, 15. 2 Tim. ii. 26. Heb. ii. 14. James, ii. 19. 
 
 IV. 7. 1 Peter, v. 8. 2 Peter, ii. 4—11. 1 John, ii. 13. iii. 8—12. 
 
 V. 18. Jude, 6—9. 
 
 By Christ himself, by the eight writers of the New Testament, in 
 sixty-seven different chapters, and in more than two hundred verses, 
 the personal existence and agency of " the devil and his angels" are 
 distinctly asserted. Are the united, explicit, and often repeated decla- 
 rations of Christ and his apostles worthy of credit ? Whose decisioy> 
 is authoritative and final, in the land of the Pilgrims, that of divine 
 inspiration or that of a self-styled rationalism ? 
 
 NOTE H. Page 75. 
 
 REASON ITS PROVINCE AND USE. JUDGE STORV.. 
 
 It is a common assertion with Unitarians, that their system is more 
 rational than the Orthodox. If this be true, it is more worthy of 
 credit, and the sooner its claims are substantiated, the better. The 
 following remark is a fair specimen of Unitarian assertion on this 
 subject. " In addition to aovelty, it has the advantage of claiming a 
 11* 
 
130 
 
 more intimate alliance with reason than those systems, which re- 
 quire a belief in doctrines that are incomprehensible." Month. 
 Rep. 1806, p. 434. Let us examine the validity of this claim. Do 
 the Ortliodox discard reason ? Who dare assert it ? Do they under- 
 value reason ? To answer this question we must ask another, what is 
 the legitimate province of reason ? To this the Orthodox reply, that 
 reason is properly employed, 1. In examining the evidence of the 
 existence of the Divine Being. 2. In examining the evidence on 
 which a professed revelation of the divine will rests. 3. In ascer- 
 taining the authenticity and genuineness of the documents, which 
 contain the truly divine revelation. 4. In investigatirtg the meaning 
 of these documents according to the established principles of lan- 
 guage. 
 
 The Orthodox, believing the Bible to be the Word, and to con- 
 tain the will, of God, profess to use reason simply for this pur- 
 pose, to discover what the will of God is, as revealed in his 
 Word. They conduct the investigation an principles similar to 
 those appUed by the classical critics to Homer, Hesiod, and 
 Euripides. These critics, however, do not feel bound to defend 
 the sentiments of those writers as true or rational. They mere- 
 ly state them as they find them. The Orthodox^ on the other 
 hand, adopt this argument of an able reasoner, "no demonstration 
 can be stronger than this, God hath said so, therefore it is 
 TRUE." And what is true, they hold to be rational. The Orthodox, 
 then, use their reason to discover what God hath said, not what he 
 ought to say. Unitarians, practically at least, adopt the latter 
 course, or there is no dispute between them and the Orthodox as to 
 the principle of reasoning in this instance. The course practically 
 adopted by Unitarians, their opponents consider bath irrational and 
 presumptuous. Reason with the one party acts as a judge, deciding 
 what the law is ; with the other, it is too often a legislator, declaring 
 what the law shall be. The Orthodox found the reasonableness of 
 their belief, chiefly, on the declarations of that God, who gave them 
 reason, who knows the truth, and cannot lie. What firmer founda- 
 tion for a truly rational belief does the Universe afford ? Who, then, 
 make the proper use of reason, — those, who submit their reason to the 
 declarations of the omniscient Jehovah ; or those, who subject the 
 declarations of the eternal God to their mole-eyed reason ? If it be 
 irrational to trust Gad rather than man, the Orthodox cheerfully sub- 
 mit to the imputation. It should be kept distinctly in mind, that the 
 question here, relates not ta the interpretation put upon any passage, 
 but to the principle of interpretation, applied to the whole sacred 
 
131 
 
 volume. Whether the Orthodox interpretation be true, is a question 
 of grammar and philology. Not only the lexicons of Gesenius and 
 Schleusner, but the dictionary of Calmet, may be properly studied. 
 But human philosophy is to be silent, when the question relates to 
 subjects on which the human mind never had experience. In this 
 case, real philosophy listens, but does not speak ; questions, but can- 
 not answer. 
 
 I have wished here to reduce tlie subject to its elements. A full 
 discussion is unnecessary. Those, who have reason and are disposed 
 to use it, will find this subject ably discussed in the appendix to the 
 first volume of Storr, by Prof. Schmucker. See also the review of 
 the Evangelical Church Journal, in the Spirit of the Pilgrims for April, 
 1828. The same subject is also discussed in Dr. Beecher's sermon, 
 entitled, " The Bible a code of laws."* Intelligent, reasoning minds, 
 of every denomination, who are willing to examine the foundations, 
 not only of the Orthodox, but of all religious faith, for themselves, 
 will find matter for deep and satisfactoiy meditation in the works just 
 mentioned. 
 
 Though somewhat acquainted with Unitarian writers, I know not 
 the book where the Unitarian views on this subject are presented in 
 a simple, coherent, dispassionate, and intelligible shape. The fact is, 
 that Unitarian writers, when they refer to this topic, are generally 
 not a little confused, from their forced admission of the inspiration 
 and authority of the scriptures, and their wish to appeal to human 
 reason, separated from, and in contradiction to those scriptures. 
 A confusion arising, not from the want of talent or general learning, 
 but from the contradictions inherent in their system. 
 
 The proper use of reason in matters of religion is, surely, a subject 
 of great importance, deserving serious thought. Bretschneider has 
 said, in reference to the Supernaturalists, or believers in the plenary 
 inspiration of the scriptures, of Germany, that " they believe that 
 reason furnishes the proems of revelation, and that revelation cannot 
 possibly contain any thing contrary^ to reason, though it may contain 
 much that rises above reason." This, he adds, was the ground taken 
 by Doderlein, Morus, and Reinhard ; and it is the ground now held 
 by Ammon, Schot, Niemeyer, Bretschneider and others. To this 
 the Orthodox of this country would subscribe without a dissenting 
 voice. 
 
 At the annual meeting of the Unitarian Association in May of 
 the present year, a learned Judge addressed the audience on a 
 variety of topics, among others, dwelling at some length on the 
 * Occasional Sermons, p. 138. 
 
subject of this note. The original talents, the general acquire- 
 ments, the unwearied application to his chosen science, and the 
 laborious duties of his office, the judicial uprightness and inten- 
 tional impartiaUty of Judge Story, to say nothing of his pri- 
 vate character and social virtues, no one is more willing, or 
 more happy to admit, tha'. the writer. He honors a station that 
 would honor any man. But that honorable gentleman will pardon 
 me for reminding him, that there are legal subjects, and others be- 
 sides legal ones, that require to be studied, in order to be understood ; 
 and he need not be in doubt as to the hint, that fluency of remark 
 does not always indicate intelligence of the subject professedly discus- 
 sed. Instruction from laymen, upon subjects bearing more or less re- 
 motely upon rehgion, is desirable. It will not, however, be thought 
 asking too much that it be instruction, and not ignorant declamation. 
 The assertions of even a Sir Matthew Hale, will not now pass for ar- 
 gument. There was propriety in the proverb adopted by the Latins 
 from the Greeks, which it is not necessary to apply, " Quam quisque 
 norit artem, in hac se exerceat." Will the learned Judge pardon me 
 for asking, rf it be judicious to decide, in a popular meeting, a legal 
 question that may come before him for legal adjudication ? Whoever 
 listened to the earnest remarks of the Judge, must have perceived 
 that the zealot had got the better of the man, that the partizan had 
 supplanted the judge. The rights of Mr. Story to the Unitarian be- 
 lief, and to advance the Unitarian cause by proper means, personal, 
 pecuniary, or other, are undoubted. But great legal questions (one of 
 which has not yet been argued, or even started, in our courts*) with 
 due deference to the Judge, I shall take the liberty to remind him, 
 (though he long since knew, but seems recently to have forgotten it,) 
 are to be presented in open court, where both parties may be heard ; to 
 be thoroughly investigated, by the judge or judges, in moments of 
 cool, unbiassed i-eflection ; and to be decided, without the impulse of 
 passion, without the influence of prejudice, and without the re- 
 membrance of party. When a judge, throws his decision, formed 
 tvithout exannination, into one of those scales, which he is bound 
 by his oath to hold with even hand, while we may respect his 
 social virtues and not despise his talents, we shall not long fear his 
 influence. If Judge Story should contend that he had thoroughly 
 examined the question, we should like to know how this will mend 
 the matter, or reUeve the difficulty ? Will he, or any one, say, " he 
 is a judge of the United States' Court, and this is a question for the 
 
 * The rights oi xo-lwta.ii.y religious associations to hold property by "trust 
 deeds" under the Constitution of Massachusetts 
 
133 
 
 State Courts, and so he is at liberty to give his private opinion" ? 
 Let us examine this plea. A. B., a merchant of Boston, brings, 
 or may be supposed about bringing an action for 100,000 dollars, 
 against C. D., also a merchant of Boston. The question is to come 
 before, and to be decided by Judge Parker. Mr. Justice Story, in 
 the course of a public address at Fanueil Hall, takes occasion to 
 argue and decide, the question. The gentleman in whose favor 
 Judge Story might decide, would, no doubt, feel additional con- 
 fidence in his cause. But what would Judge Parker, and the 
 good people of Massachusetts, think of Mr. Justice Story? The 
 truth is. Judge Story has, in this instance, (on reflection, I am 
 convinced, he will think so himself,) descended from that lofty 
 eminence of impartiality, where he usually resides, and from that 
 perception of the proprieties of his station, in which he generally 
 excels. He was indeed unfortunate in the time, place, and mode 
 of his descent. What he said on human reason, has been said a 
 thousand times, and a thousand times shown to be mere declama- 
 tion : and his argument about trust deeds, could be most easily 
 showTi to be of the same character. It was, in fact, but a repetition 
 of the unfounded assertions of " A Layman," which had been a little 
 before triumphantly refuted in the review of his famous pamphlet on 
 trust deeds. Judge Story would do well to remember that the fol- 
 lowers of Jonathan Edwards can reason ; and that the descendants 
 of the Puritans know to whom they owe allegiance, and of whom 
 they may claim their rights. 
 
 Unitarians object to the term rationalism, as indicative of their 
 system, though "it claims a more intimate alliance with reason" 
 than Orthodoxy. But what is rationalism ? Let Wegscheider define 
 his own system. " It is an unquestionable fact, that in the canonical 
 books of the New Testament, are contained the authoritative docu- 
 ments of the Christian religion, and of the divine truth, which it de- 
 clares ; and these documents are of the antiquity, which they purport, 
 and are perfectly worthy of credit. This being the case, in con- 
 ducting a system of instruction for mankind at large, it is our duty to 
 employ the utmost attention and pains, that, laying aside those far- 
 fetched conjectures and questions, equally difficult and unprofitable, 
 which have been brought up in later times, concerning revelation and 
 the inspiration of the sacred books, we should evince that the Chris- 
 tian religion, as well as the Holy Scripture, originated in God as its 
 author, and should urge upon men the truly divine contents of the 
 scriptures, which become constantly better understood, as what has 
 proceeded from God, and is the true word of God ; and therefore 
 
134 
 
 should applylrto the practical use of life." What is there in this so 
 frightful, that Unitarians shrink from it? Is it not as near a defini- 
 tion of American Unitarianism as can be given ? Those who know 
 what word^ mean, or do not mean, know, that this so plausible and 
 smooth-speaking definition excludes all revelation. 
 
 I will only add that, if Unitarians continue to pervert the word ra- 
 tional, as for some time past they have done, we shall be obliged to 
 renounce it, and use the word ' reasonable' for what ' rational' once 
 meant. Knave formerly signified boy. 
 
 NOTE I. Pase 83. 
 
 rxiTARIANS AND UNIVERSALISTS. 
 
 What I have to say upon these topics, not very popular in some 
 high places, I shall arrange under these heads, 1. Unitarianism, 
 properly defined, inchides both classes. 2. American Universalism 
 is really the original American Unitarianism. 3. Unitarians, now so 
 called, do not understand, or wilfully misrepresent, Universalism. 4. 
 Unitarianism, in its largest, broadest sense, as beUeved by the great- 
 est number of its adherents, is Universalism. 
 
 Can these propositions be made out ? If they cannot be, I ac- 
 knowledge myself obnoxious to the charge of bearing false witness 
 against my neighbor. If they can be made out, the consciences of 
 those concerned can decide on their past conduct and future duty. 
 The community will also be prepared to take some new views of 
 " the arguments of liberal Christians, that are before the public, and 
 of their characters, which are the property of society." The first 
 question, which arises in this investigation, and which must be 
 settled before we proceed, is, what is Unitarianism ? What is it in 
 its essence, as defined and believed by its friends ? This question 
 shall be answered by English and American Unitarians. The Month- 
 ly Repository, the Christian Disciple, the Christian Examiner, and 
 the Christian Register, shall decide this and other connected ques- 
 tions. 
 
 " The essence of Unitarianism is the doctrine of the One God, the 
 Father. This is to be carefully distinguished from the heterogeneous 
 mass (?) of opinions, which have in different individuals been com- 
 bined with it." Month. Rep. Aug, 1827, p. 554. 
 
 Rev. W. H. Drummond, D. D. a Unitarian preacher of Dubhn, in 
 a work dedicated (the English reviewers say, " with great pro- 
 
135 rfUFTtrr--T 
 \ ■"^■*? 
 
 priety,") to Rammoliun Roy and Dr. Chaniffla^, ** lias divided all 
 Christians into two denominations, Unitarians and. Tnnitarians." 
 Dr. Drummond adds, (and we shall soon see that his American 
 friends chime in to the same tune,) " in proportion as the chords of a 
 musical instrument are multiplied, the diflTiculty of preserving concord 
 is increased." " The term ' Unitarian,' applied to our places of 
 worship, should be understood as denoting nothing more than that 
 all prayers are strictly addressed to the One God and Father of all," 
 says a writer in the Monthly Repository. " The essence of [Eng- 
 lish] Unitarianism is the doctrine of One God, the Father," (with- 
 out any reference to Jesus Christ, the Son ol God.) American 
 Unitarians have not, as yet, adopted quite so "exclusive" a creed. 
 " The basis of the Unitarian creed is, the One God and Jesus 
 Christ, whom he has sent." Christian Disciple, 1822, p. 313, 
 This has rather an unusual share of Unitarian definiteness. With 
 suitable explanations, it might apply to all Christians, of all coun- 
 tries, in all ages. Dr. Priestley would infer from this, that 
 the church universal has been, and will be evermore. Unitarian, 
 However, the following extract from the Christian Regi ter, of Dee. 
 22, 1827, will help to define what might be thought 5omet/?/iaf indefi- 
 nite in the preceding quotation. " Unitarians are those who believe, 
 that there is one God, even the Father: and that Jesus is not this one 
 God, but a distinct being, denved and dependent, and sent by God to 
 accomplish his benevolent will on earth. ...Unitarianism excludes the 
 doctrine of the Trinity, and the popular notions about atonement. 
 On other subjects Unitarians divide." We shall have occasion for 
 this witness again. 
 
 Unitarianism, then, comprehending English and Ameriean be- 
 lievers in the doctrine, is simple monotheism, or pure theism. 
 American Unitarians believe in this one God, deny that Christ, 
 in any view of his character, w^as properly participant of the di- 
 vine nature, but believe that he was (as every other prophet was) 
 wholly derived and dependent, yet sent by God to accomplish his be- 
 nevolent will on earth ; and they also reject the popular notions of 
 atonement. How long it will be before they will find that they 
 have too manj'^ chords to their " musical instrument," it is not neces- 
 sary to decide. It requires, however, a skilful hand to touch the re- 
 maining two, and not produce a jar. Unitarianism, defined by its 
 friends, consists either in the belief of " One God the Father " or of 
 *' One God, and of Jesus Christ as sent to accomplish the benevolent 
 will of God, excluding the doctrine of the Trinity and the popular 
 notions about atonement; and on other subjects, Unitarains divide." 
 
136 
 
 I shall now adduce the evidence of the truth of the two first propo- 
 sitions, that Unitarianism, properly defined, embraces both classes, 
 Universalists and Unitarians, and that American Universalism is 
 really the original American Unitarianism. The intelligence, com- 
 petence, and credibility of the witness are beyond exception. In the 
 Monthly Repository for March, 1827, p. 176, is a communication 
 entitled, *' Universalists in the United States of America," signed 
 by Robert Aspland, a well known Unitarian minister of Hack- 
 ney, near London. He says, that he has received a letter from 
 the Rev. Thomas Whittemore of Cambridgeport, Mass., and adds, 
 " the following account of the present state of the Universal- 
 ists of the United States, in the words of my correspondent, 
 is a pleasing proof of the natural tendency of serious minds to- 
 wards scriptural truth, when they are not checked by the influence 
 of institutions bearing a mingled civil and religious character." Then 
 follows this quotation from Mr. Ws letter. " The denomination to 
 which I belong, is composed of upwards of three hundred societies, 
 and about two hundred preachers. Their numbers are continually 
 receiving accessions. We have increased most in New England, 
 New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, though there ar« Universalists 
 scattered all over the United States. It will, perhaps, be pleasing to 
 you to learn, that this sect is, with indeed a very few exceptions, 
 entirely Unitarian. I know of but three ministers in the whole 
 order, who are Trinitarians, and I believe the greater proportion 
 are Humanitarian. With the very few exceptions just mentioned, 
 we concur in rejecting, as absurd and unscriptural, the old idea of 
 atonement, believing that this scheme of man's redemption from sin, 
 originates in the Father of all who sent his Son to commend his love 
 to mankind."...." My friend, as the tenor of his communication 
 authorizes me to call him, apprizes me," continues Mr. Aspland, 
 " that the ministers of his denomination in Boston and its vi- 
 cinity have sent me a package of their publications, presuming 
 that it will be agreeable to the Unitarians in England to be- 
 come acquainted with the numbers, doctrines, and arguments of 
 the Universalists in the United States. In the package, I am in- 
 formed, is a ' Treatise on Atonement ' by Mr. Ballou, whose 
 labours, Mr. "VMiittemore says, have greatly promoted the change 
 which has taken place among the American Universalists, with re- 
 gard to the atonement and the character of Christ. Of this ' Trea- 
 tise' and its author he further says, that it is the first American 
 work in which the doctrine of Unitarianism was ever advanced and 
 defended. Here you find it distinctly stated and argued. This 
 
137 
 
 work was first published about the year 1803, two years before Slicr» 
 man's Treatise, which has generally, but erroneously been considered 
 the first public attack on Trinitarianism, which America afforded ; 
 Dr. Priestley, being a European, I except. Mr. Ballou's work is the 
 fruit of his own mind, aided by the scriptures. He never read an 
 authoi-, either on Atonement or the Unity of God, till after he wrote. 
 I believe I have now extracted the whole of the intelligence relating 
 to the Universalists furnished by my highly valued correspondent, 
 which would be interesting to your readers." 
 
 It seems, then, that this sect with very few exceptions, three 
 out of two hundred, are Unitarian, rejecting the old idea of atone- 
 ment ; and still more, that the first definite public statement and 
 defence of Unitarianism and attack upon Trinitarianism were made 
 by the leader of this sect about the year 1803. This was "a 
 considerable time " before the present Unitarians acknowledged 
 themselves to be of that sect ; yes, while they yet resolutely 
 denied it-, while Dr. Channing himself was yet groping in a pene- 
 Calvinism. Hereafter Mr. Ballou must be considered another 
 " Venerable Lindsey," the father of American Unitarianism.* 
 If the evidence before us do not warrant the conclusion that the 
 present Unitacians are Universalists, this is certain the Univer- 
 salists are Unitarians. The term Unitarianism, then, in its broad 
 and proper sense, includes or belongs to both the Universalists and 
 the Unitarians of the present day. Mr. Ballou's church is as' truly 
 Unitarian, the doctrine taught there is as genuine Unitarianism, as 
 the church, or the doctrine taught in the church of Mr. Pierpont. 
 Mr. Whittemore is as strenuous an advocate for Unitarianism as Dr. 
 Ware. Mr. Turner of Charlton, is as liberal in his theology as 
 Ml". Walker of Charlestown. The recent conjunction of these latter 
 gentlemen shows that all imaginary differences are removed. They 
 have risen above the prejudices of the day, and a prominent Unita- 
 rian minister has preached the installation sermon of a Universalist 
 pastor over a Unitarian congregation. It does not appear that Mr. 
 Turner, in passing from the Universalist to the Unitarian ranks, has 
 altered or in any way modified his doctrinal views. He remains still, 
 as he was before, a Universalist. Knowing him to be such, a council 
 of Unitarian clergymen install him, and admit him to their ranks. 
 
 Let it be remembered, that Unitarians, as such, believe in one 
 God, and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent, and reject the popular 
 
 * The slight exception at the Stone Chapel, is hardly worth noticing. Mr. 
 Ballou first, openly, frankly, fully avowed Unitarianism. He is the first Americaa 
 " Author " of the system. 
 
 13 
 
138 
 
 notions or old ideas about atonement; and on other subjects, divide. 
 Here then the present Unitarians and Universalists are one ; and 
 one name should, unquestionably, be appropriated to one thing. 
 That American Universalism is the original American Unita- 
 rianism, has also been made apparent. In 1803, Mr. Ballou, in 
 his Treatise on Atonement, first advanced and defended from the 
 American press the doctrine of Unitarianism. Here it was " dis- 
 tinctly stated and argued." This early distinct statement is notice- 
 able. Whether all subsequent writers have followed Mr. Ballou in 
 this particular, we cannot now stop to inquire. The first public an- 
 nunciation of Unitarianism in the United States was in connexion 
 with Universalism. What Unitarianism is, in its own proper essence, 
 detached from every thing extraneous, we have now seen ; when it 
 first made its public appearance in this country, under whose patron- 
 age and in what connexion, we have also seen. 
 
 I come now to the third proposition, which is, that Unitarians 
 (using the word in its limited sense) either do not understand, or 
 wilfully misrepresent the opinions held by the Universalist- Unita- 
 rians. This charge is not advanced without thought, nor without 
 caution, nor, what is more, without evidence. In the Christian Ex- 
 aminer for 1826, is a Review of a Sermon by Prof. Stuart, in which 
 the reviewer says, " the Universalist holds, in common with the 
 preacher, the doctrine of atonement by the blood of Christ. He 
 belief es in a full atonement for all men, that Christ was a propitiation 
 for the sins of the whole world." p. 236. This writer is no novice, 
 and would not, at the moment of writing this review, have allowed 
 his ignorance of the doctrine held by American Universalists. In the 
 Christian Register, March 8, 1828, is an abstract of a sermon preach- 
 ed by Rev. Mr. Pierpont, at the ordination of Mr. Presbury. The 
 preacher, attempting to repel the charge that Unitarians are Univer- 
 salists, brings forward this as one of his strong reasons, " besides, 
 do not Unitarians voluntarily retire from the great, the best ground 
 on which the Universalist's doctrine can be built, i. e. an infinite 
 atonement 7 If full satisfaction has been made, how can any more 
 be demanded ? If the sins of all men have been laid upon one, and 
 he has borne the punishment due to all, why should any more be 
 punished ? An infinite atonement cannot be limited ; a debt cancel- 
 led cannot be again demanded."* And more to the same purpose. 
 The reviewer before quoted, writes in the same style. But, says Mr. 
 
 * In this passage, Mr. P. has the misfortune not to slate correctly the opinions, 
 either of the Orthodox, or the Universalists, or even of the Unitarians. -'Distinct 
 statements" of opinions, have gone out of fashion since 1803. 
 
139 
 
 Whittcmore, who certainly has the best opportunity of knowing, " Uni- 
 versalists, with veiy few exceptions, concur in rejecting, as absurd 
 and unscrijiiural, these old ideas of atonement.'' Here then, are two 
 leading Unitarian writers, (to one of which the Christian Examiner 
 gives the sanction of the Unitarian party,) charging upon a numerous 
 and respectable body of clergymen opinions which they do not hold ; 
 opinions which they reject and decidedly condemn. If these gentle- 
 men have done this in ignorance, let them, if they do not think it 
 due to the interests of truth publicly to acknowledge an error publicly 
 proclaimed, at least refrain in all coming time from a repetition of the 
 same mistatements. If they have done this, knowing at the time what 
 they were doing, " to serve a turn"* — but I wnll not trust myself to 
 comment on a supposition I am reluctant to believe. It is hoped these 
 gentlemen will not attempt to shield themselves behind w^hat 
 Chaunccy, and others long since under ground, may have said. 
 We do not hold Dr. Channing bound to believe " Bible News," nor 
 even his own sermons published fifteen years ago. Those who set 
 up for teachers, however, when they attempt to give the opinions of 
 " two hundred clergymen," should know what they say, and whereof 
 they affirm. It is said of some of old time, that they were " ever 
 learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 
 Is this applicable to past time only 7 Is this changeling race 
 extinct ? 
 
 My fourth remark is, that Unitarianism, in its largest, broadest 
 sense, as believed by the greatest number of its adherents, is Uni- 
 versalism. By this I mean to say, that the great majority of those, 
 who profess in England and America, to be believers in the simple 
 Unity of God, in contradistinction from those who believe in the 
 Trinity in Unity, are also believers in the final salvation of all men. 
 About the American Universalist-Unitarians, there is no question ; 
 though it should be remembered, that some of thesef believe in future 
 punishment, which, however, will be limited and remedial, ending in 
 the final restoration of all to purity and blessedness. What do Eng- 
 lish Unitarians believe on this subject ? A writer already quoted 
 from the Christian Register, says, " in England, where the doctrine 
 of necessity prevails among Unitarians, the connected doctrine of 
 the ultimate happiness of all human beings goes along with it." So 
 
 * A writer in the Christian Examiner says ; the Orthodox charge the Unitarians 
 with being Universalists to serve a turn. One tiling is evident from Mr. Pierpont, 
 this writer, and Dr. Ware, Unitarians are ashamed or afraid to avow themselves 
 Universalists. Is it the name, they are afraid of? " What care we for names r'' 
 asked Mr. May, at the Unitarian Association. 
 
 t In what does this class of Universalists differ from the great body of Unita- 
 rians f 
 
140 
 
 far then is plain, the English Unitarians, and the whole Univer- 
 salist class of American Unitarians, believe in the ultimate happi- 
 ness of all human beings ; or are Univer salists. 
 
 The question now remains, What do those, known here by the 
 name of Unitarians, believe on this subject ? I answer, that some 
 leading Unitarians, who surely ought to know, state the final resti- 
 tution of the impenitent to be a part of their system ; that those, who 
 deny it to be a necessary part of their system, admit that many Uni- 
 tarians do hold this doctrine ; that few, if any, deny a final restitu- 
 tion ; and that most reject the proper eternity of hell punishments. 
 
 Can these propositions be made out ? If they can be, will it be 
 any longer asserted, that when the Orthodox charge the Unitarians 
 with being Universalists, it is to serve a turn ? 
 
 The writer already twice quoted from the Ch. Register, Dec. 22, 1827, 
 begins his communication thus : " In looking at the first number of 
 ' The Unitarian,' a new periodical published in New York, which has 
 many claims onimtronage, I find a sketch of Unitarianism, in which 
 it is more than implied, that the doctrine of the final restitution of 
 the impenitent, through the disciplinary and reforming power of future 
 punishment, is a part of this system. Now that many Unitarians 
 hold this doctrine is true, &c."....He then admits that " a free being 
 may make himself sinful and miserable during his whole being. / 
 mean 7iot, however, to object to the doctrine of final restitution. 
 I only say it is not Unitarianism," which he then defines as before 
 quoted. The New York Unitarians, not slightly indebted to the 
 Cambridge School for their liberality of thinking, " more than imply " 
 that the doctrine of a final restitution is a part of their system. A 
 Boston writer, somewhat more cautious in the use of words, " does 
 not mean to object to the doctrine of final restitution" in itself, but 
 only to say that it is not Unitarianism ; i. e. as defined in this note. Mr. 
 Pierpont, according to the Christian Register, tallies in his notions with 
 this writer. Dr. Bancroft says, " For myself, I freely declare, that, 
 from a diligent examination of the New Testament,,! am satisfied it 
 does not contain the doctrine of punishment, endless in duration." 
 Sermons, p. 391. "Many who disbelieve the doctrine of eternal 
 punishment, are afraid to avow their opinion, lest it should weaken 
 the restraints of religion. This is not my fear."* p. 392. 
 
 We must omit a large mass of evidence, collected on this point, and 
 
 close these extracts by a quotation which, (let this be noticed,) speaks 
 
 * What! Those who reject "the heart withering doctrine of eternal torments" 
 afraid to announce the glad tidings. Afraid to preach the truth, they believe 
 Christ came to publish ! Afraid to preach what God has commissioned and com- 
 manded them to preach I ! Are these the followers of Christ >. the successors of 
 Luther ? 
 
141 
 
 in tlie name of the Unitarian sect. " If by everlasting punishment 
 is meant the proper eternity of hell torments, it is a doctrine which 
 most Unitarians of the present day concur in rejecting ; some un- 
 derstanding by that everlasting destruction to which the wicked are 
 to be consigned, an absolute annihilation ; others conceiving of their 
 sufferings as consequential, and indefinite as to their duration ; and 
 others that all punishment will be necessarily remedial, and will end 
 at last in a universal restoration to goodness and happiness." Chris- 
 tian Disciple, vol. iii. New Series, p. 451.* 
 
 The case stands thus. All the English Unitarians, with whom the 
 American Unitarians are in an alliance as intimate as distance and 
 political circumstances admit, and with whom they profess to be de- 
 sirous of still more active co-operation in the great work of human 
 illumination and mental emancipation, are Universalists. The largest 
 and the original class of American Unitarians are Universalists, 
 openly taking the name, and distinctly and honorably stating their 
 opinions. Some of the most intelligent among the Unitarian 
 leaders, in " a periodical having many claims on patronage," more 
 than imply, the doctrine of the ultimate restitution of all to holiness 
 and happiness to be apart of their system. Many, who deny that- 
 this is a necessary part of Unitarianism, yet hold to the doctrine. 
 Few, if any, deny a final restitution ; and most reject the doctrine 
 of everlasting punishment. Surely, after this accumulation of testi- 
 mony from their own writings, Unitarians will no longer attempt 
 to disguise a fact, which they dare not deny, and which, if they 
 would be frank, they would openly confess. Dr. Bancroft speaks 
 his own opinions, with a distinctness that does him honor. He 
 says, " future punishment will be of limited duration, and will 
 terminate in the annihilation of the wicked." Sermons, p. 407. 
 The only qualification, then, to the proposition, that Unitarians 
 are Universalists, is, that some, apparently a very small number of 
 Unitarians, are Destructionists ; but the opinions of a small minority 
 cannot affect the question, what the great majority believe. 
 
 While this subject is under investigation, and to prevent, if pos- 
 sible, a further recurrence to it, it may be well to sift it thoroughly, 
 and, for this purpose, to view it in various lights. There is a gentle- 
 man at Cambridge, well skilled in the doctrine of chances, which he 
 has lately presented in formidable array against the Pauline origin 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews. His formula is something like 
 9 99,999,99L-,999 to 1, against Paul as the author of that Epistle. If 
 
 * For further evidence, if needed, see the Spirit of the Pilgrims, March, 1828, 
 p. 155. 
 
 12* 
 
142 
 
 his time and other avocations admit, he may, perhaps, be able to 
 throw some light on this problem. Unitarians in England and 
 America state but one article of a creed, which they all believe. 
 On most other subjects they " differ widely," combining this one 
 tenet " with a heterogeneous mass of opinions." But the whole 
 body of English Unitarians, together with the Universalist-Unitarians 
 of this country, agree in another article, to wit, the ultimate happiness 
 of all men. Most American Unitarians reject the everlasting pun- 
 ishment of any. Few deny the final restitution of all. Some of the 
 most intelligent and influential of the Unitarians, who cannot be ig- 
 norant of their own opinions, and ought to know what their system 
 teaches, " more than imply the final restitution of all to be a part 
 of this system ;" and many not only believe, but openly acknowledge 
 it. What, then, according to the doctrine of chances, is the proba- 
 bility that a believer in Unitarianism is a Universalist ? 
 
 Again. American Unitarians, as a sect, are the same as the English 
 Unitarians. There is a strong feeling of oneness, of identity, as a 
 sect, in all they say of each other. The American Unitarian feels 
 himself ai ho7ne in the Enghsh Unitarian's pulpit. We presume no 
 one ever thought of questioning this position, the English and Ameri- 
 can Unitarians are as much one sect, as the English and American 
 Calvinists, INIethodists, &c. But is it not fair to infer, that the same 
 sects hold the same opinions, till they inform us otherwise ? 
 
 Will it it be thought irrelevent or impertinent, if the writer take 
 the Uberty to ask, what opinions are taught by the Hollis Professor on 
 the subject of this note ? What is the doctrine, as to the duration 
 i)f future punishment, taught in the theological school at Cambridge 7 
 I forbear to dwell directly upon the attitude in which the Hollis Pro- 
 fessor now appears before the public. The subject might be thought 
 personal, because it is official, and would be thought invidious, be- 
 cause the attitude is, to say the least, neither frank nor honorable. 
 This gentleman may not wish openly to express his sentiments, but 
 he cannot conceal them. What " turn " is " to be served " by the 
 course now pursued at Cambridge, though not matter of conjecture, 
 it is unnecessary to specify. At all other theological schools, the pro- 
 iessors think it rational to state fairly to the public what they believe 
 the Bible teaches on this momentous question. At the Institution, 
 which professes to be rational beyond all others, it is thought irra- 
 tional to state either the opinions of the sect, or of the individual 
 professors, who have made up their own opinions, and are appointed 
 to teach others the doctrines of the sect. In the college, " no doc- 
 trines in particular" are taught. This would seem a meet intro- 
 
143 
 
 duction to the divinity class, where some doctrines in particular are 
 no doubt privately taught, though not publicly acknowledged— nay 
 more, by implication at least, even publicly denied. 
 
 How shall we ascertain the opinions of the Hollis Professor ? 
 I shall not open his letters to Trinitarians and Calvinists. He does 
 not allow them to be sutficiently definite for the public to infer Uni- 
 versalism from their statements or arguments. We will now grant 
 that his letters on this subject are ambiguous. Is there any re- 
 maining source of evidence by which we may elicit his real opin- 
 ions ? I cannot say how other minds may estimate testimony, 
 but were the question much more doubtful than it is, the fol- 
 lowing witness would satisfy me. There is a paper published 
 at New York, called the Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer, 
 edited by Rev. Abner Kneeland, a well known Universalist min- 
 ister. In noticing the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Lunt, as pastor 
 of the Second Congregational Unitarian Church, the Editor says, in 
 the number for July 5, 1828, " The Rev. Mr. Ware, [of New York,] 
 in giving the right hand of fellowship, stated, that after laboring so 
 many years, (six if my memoiy serves me,) this was the only church 
 with whom he could have fellowship as a sister church, and Mr. 
 Lunt, the only minister with whom he could reciprocate an exchange 
 of gifts in this city. Now we would ask, why is it so ? Are they 
 Unitarians ? So are we. Do they believe that ' in the resurrection of 
 Jesus of Nazareth, we have an assurance of our own resuri-ection and 
 immortality' ? So do we. Do they believe that ' the production of 
 happiness is the great aim in all the dispensations and plans of divine 
 providence' ? So do we. Do they believe that all suffering is either 
 indispensable, or * else is made subservient to the same good and sub- 
 lime end ; that it will therefore be disciplinary, remedial, purifying, 
 saving in its character, and will consequently some time cease' ? 
 So do we.* [See the ' Unitarian, No. 1,' written by the Rev. Mr. 
 Ware, of New York.] Now, we beg to know and wish Mr. Ware or 
 some other Unitarian would inform us, what it is which the Unita- 
 rian believes, that we do not believe, which prevents their fellow- 
 ship as well as with those who bear the name of Unitarian ; or is it 
 wholly because we do not appear in a mitre and gown 7 We have 
 
 * " In addition to our own society, and the other tJnitarian-Universalists in this 
 city, [New-York,] there is the Rev. Mr. Clough, who has his peculiar views, it is 
 true, but lie is a decided Unitarian, and has done as much, perliaps, towards dis- 
 seminating the Unity of God, as the Rev. Mr. Ware himself. There is also the 
 numerous class of liberal Friends, who are decidf.-ly Unitarians, and who can bring 
 as much scripture for their peculiar views, as Unitarians can bring for what they 
 call " infant baptism." Why then should the doctrine of Unitarianism, and the 
 fellowship of Unitarians, be confined to the Unitarians of tho Cambridge stamp 
 alone.'" — Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer. 
 
144 
 
 not the least wish to crowd ourselves into company where we are not 
 wanted ; but we should like to know the true reason why we are ex- 
 cluded. We wish to have it distinctly understood that the doctrine 
 of Unitarians, so far as the unity of God, or the person and mission of 
 Jesus Christ is concerned, we firmly believe and heartily fellowship ; 
 but with bigotry and illiberality we have no fellowship, though they 
 should bear the name and wear the garb of a Universalist." 
 
 This extract is of much, and various value. Mr. Kneeland informs 
 us, that it is the Rev. Mr. Ware who asserts in the Unitarian, " that 
 all punishment or suffering will be disciplinary, remedial, purifying, 
 saving in its character, and will consequently some time cease." 
 This does somewhat " more than imply " the final restitution of all 
 men. Is the Rev. Mr, Ware of New York a fair representative of 
 Cambridge theological students .' May we not presume that his 
 opinions are the opinions of the Hollis Professor? Has he de- 
 parted from the opinions taught him in childhood, from the in- 
 structions of his collegiate and the doctrines of his theological 
 education ? Till otherwise informed, we shall feel ourselves war- 
 ranted to take the opinions of the Rev, Mr, Ware of New 
 York, published in the organ of Unitarianism in that city, as the 
 opinions held at the theological institution, in which he received 
 his education ; we shall take his opinions to coincide with those of the 
 Hollis Professor, till he or the Professor explicitly, intelligibly, and 
 unambiguously denies it. We then assert, on this evidence, that 
 Unwersalism is the doctrine taught by the Hollis Professor in the 
 theological school at Cambridge. Will he deny this ? 
 
 Will Unitarians notice the questions propounded by Rev. Mr, Knee- 
 land ? Why does Dr. Channing refrain from offering to exchange pul- 
 pits with Mr. Ballou ; or Dr. Lowell with Mr. Dean ? or Mr. Ware with 
 Mr, Streeter ? Why do Unitarian ministers wish to exchange pulpits 
 with the Orthodox, who, they say, " deny the Lord Jesus " and from 
 whom they " differ widely," while they refuse to exchange with the 
 Universalists with whom they agree, and who are willing " to recip- 
 rocate an exchange of gifts " with them ? There is something rotten 
 in a system afraid of itself and ashamed of its shadow. I forbear to 
 press this subject farther, not that the materials at hand are all ex- 
 hausted, or that numerous and pertinent inquiries might not be press- 
 ed, but because enough has been produced to satisfy ingenuous minds, 
 hitherto held in the dark by intentional ambiguity of language, of the 
 Universalism of Unitarians, The difference between Universalists 
 and Unitarians is this, the former openly state their opinions ; the 
 
145 
 
 latter disingenuously conceal them. "Wliich is most worthy of con- 
 fidence, — honesty or craft 7 
 
 Since writing the foregoing remarks, an authority has come to 
 hand so full and so explicit, that, one would think, it must settle the 
 question " whether Unitarians are Universalists," forever. It should 
 be premised that " the Olive Branch and Christian Inquirer," from 
 which a quotation has already been made in this note, is a paper 
 formed by the union of the two whose names it takes. The former 
 of these has been for some time avowedly a Universalist weekly 
 paper, edited by the Rev. Mr. Kneeland ; the latter was a Unitarian 
 paper, edited by the Rev. Mr. Bates. Of these, the Unitarian paper 
 failed for want of patronage, and the Universalist paper was in nearly 
 the same predicament, when a joint effort was made to sustain one 
 weekly " liberal" newspaper. The first number of the new journal 
 appeared 17th May, 1828. From this the following extract is taken, 
 signed and evidently written by " A New York Unitarian." He is 
 giving his reasons for being pleased with the re-appearance of the 
 paper under new and favoring auspices. 
 
 "1. It will have a tendency to make Unitarians and Universalists 
 better acquainted with each other than they now are. There is no 
 good reason, which I discover, why these two sects of liberal Chris- 
 tians should remain at so wide a distance from each other ; and I ara 
 persuaded it is only necessary that they should be better acquainted 
 with each other's sentiments to create mutual esteem and good 
 will. Some Universalists, I am sorry to say it, have indulged in un- 
 warrantable severity of remark upon the New England Unitarians, 
 and on the other hand, some Unitarians, not understanding the doc- 
 trine of the Universalists, have made unfair statements of the tendency 
 of their sentiments. These things have operated to keep the two 
 sects wider apart than any minor differences of opinion seem to 
 justify. 
 
 " 2. Another reason why I am pleased with this new arrangement 
 is because both sects are firm believers in the doctrine of the divine 
 Unity ; and equally advocate the same spiritual and rational views of 
 the character and mission of Jesus Christ. 
 
 " 3. Another reason and the only one I shall now notice, is that 
 hath denominations believe in the final restoration of all men to 
 virtue and happiness. It is true a few Unitarians may beheve in 
 the Orthodox doctrine of eternal misery, and a small number also 
 may be the advocates of the annihilation of the finally impenitent ; 
 yet the great mass of Unitarians both in this country and in Europe 
 
146 
 
 boldly avow their disbelief of eternal misery and their firm persuasion 
 of the restoration of mankind to holiness and happiness. So obvious 
 is this fact that there is no publication of any Unitarian of respecta- 
 bility, but what discloses these views, and it is one of the charges of 
 unsoundness of faith which is brought against them by their Orthodox 
 opponents. It is, however, an acknowledged fact that Unitarians 
 have not felt themselves called upon to say much on this subject, but 
 when called upon they have not shunned to declare this part of the 
 counsel of God. In England it is otherwise, for as there are but 
 few, if any Universalist societies, in contradistinction to Unitarians, 
 the ministers of the latter both in their preaching and writings boldly 
 and fearlessly declare their belief in the doctrine of universal restoration. 
 TTiat there is a difference of opinion between Unitarians and some Uni- 
 versalists as to the time when it will take place, I freely confess ; 
 hut that they agree in the ultimate destination of man to virtue 
 and hajjpines, all must allow. As this then is an admitted fact, I 
 cannot possibly conceive that this difference of opinion should any 
 longer operate to keep them from acting in concert in the common 
 cause of liberal Christianity." 
 
 Comment is unnecessary. Is it io express a fearfully impor- 
 tant truth, or is it merely " to serve a turn," that the Orthodox call 
 the Unitarians, Universalists ? Hereafter, be it remembered, this is 
 " an admitted fact," admitted by the New York Unitarians, admitted 
 by the Rev. Mr. Ware in the first number of the " Unitarian." Will 
 the Unitarian Advocate, or Christian Examiner, or Christian Register 
 favor the Rev. Mr. Kneeland with the precise reason why he and 
 his Universalist brethren are refused " an interchange of gifts " with 
 their Unitarian fellow labourers ? Why, (we repeat this question 
 and wish it deeply pondered,) why do the Unitarian Clergy of 
 Massachusetts seek to exchange pulpits with the Orthodox, who, in 
 their view " are guilty ef denying the Lord Jesus,^' while they close 
 their own pulpits against the Universalists, loith whom they are 
 essentially agreed; and ivho desire to ''reciprocate an exchange 
 of gifts'' with them? 
 
 NOTE J. 
 
 ARE TJjN'ITARIANS CHRISTIANS ? 
 
 Unitarians complain that the Orthodox deny them the name 
 • Christian.' If the term properly belong to them, the Orthodox have 
 no right to withhold it, and the Unitarian complaint is not without 
 
147 
 
 reason. In what sense, then, i^ the term withheld ? Not in its geo- 
 graphical sense. Those that live within certain lines and colours on 
 the map, are Christian, or Mahometan, or Pagan. Unitarians and the 
 Orthodox and Deists are all, in this sense, Christian. If the term 
 Christian, mean merely reputable, honest, kindhearted, intelligent 
 men, in this sense it is cheerfully conceded to a great majority of 
 Unitarian professors. But if the term be understood as indicative of 
 a saving foith and holy character ; indicative of those, who will at 
 tlie last day be acknowledged as the real followers of Christ, it is as 
 generally withheld in this sense, as it is conceded in that immediately 
 preceding. That there may be real Christians in Unitaiian churches 
 and, of course, that such deserve the name Christian, in the sense 
 last explained, the Orthodox do not deny. They do not pretend, 
 they do not feel themselves called upon, or competent to decide, how 
 much error may be innocently connected with a saving knowledge 
 of the truth ; nor how small a portion of divine truth may be made 
 instrumental to the saving of the soul. But that those, who, under- 
 standing at the time what they say, deny the original entire corrup- 
 tion of the human heart, the divinity and atonement of Christ, re- 
 generation by the Holy Spirit, gratuitous pardon through the 
 merits of the Redeemer, and the everlasting punishment of the im- 
 penitent, are Christians, they cannot concede without renouncing 
 all their main principles, without giving up the whole subject in debate. 
 To insist upon the Orthodox yielding to Unitarians the name Chris- 
 tian, in this sense, is to insist upon the Orthodox renouncing their 
 I)rinciples and becoming Unitarians. A very modest request, surely ; 
 or, at least, a very liberal one ! It seems to be a favorite argument, with 
 some " rational " preachers, addressed to the prejudices of their hear- 
 ers and personal friends, who know them to be estimable men in their 
 civil and social relations, the Orthodox deny that we are Christians, 
 therefore ice certainly are ; and they are bigoted Calvinists, disjjo- 
 sed to imitate their master, who burnt Servetus. If it were neces- 
 sary, passages might be adduced, the logic of which fully equals this. 
 But, not to dwell on this, do the Unitarians of Boston icorship 
 Christ ? No. They refuse to worship him. Was Socinus a bigot ? 
 No. He is held in high estimation by the Unitarians of Boston, as 
 an enlightened, libtral, rational Christian. Toulmin informs us, in 
 his Life of Socinus, page 467, that " Socinus denied that those who 
 refuse to worship Christ are to be called Christians." Let Socinus 
 speak for himself. Speaking of Paleologus, he says, " he was one, 
 and, if I mistake not, the chief standard-bearer among those, w^ho at 
 this day affirm that Christ is not to be adorei^ and invoked in prayer, 
 
148 
 
 and yet in the mean while have the effrontery to call theinselves 
 Christians." Lindsey's Historical View of Unitarian Doctrine, p. 
 263. In the judgment of Socinus, the hierophant of Unitarian mys- 
 teries, the Humanitarians of Boston, refusing to worship Christ, do 
 not deserve to be called Christians. Is it a clear proof of fire-and- 
 faggot, Calvinistic bigotry, to coincide with the first great leader of 
 their sect ? Dr. Priestley, at once the Briareus and Corypheus of his 
 party, frankly said, " the truth is, there neither can, nor ought to be 
 any compromise between us. If you are right, we are not Chris- 
 tians at all ; and if we are right, you are gross idolaters." He 
 considers it " ridiculous that Unitarians should be allowed to think 
 Trinitarians idolaters, without being permitted to call them so ;" and 
 adds, " 1 have no idea of being offended with any man in things of this 
 kind, for speaking what he believes to be the truth." Dr. Priestley 
 here speaks like a man in earnest, believing what he said to be truth. 
 Why should the admirers of the Doctor wish for a compromise, when 
 the fact is just as stated by him, either Trinitarians are idolaters, or 
 Unitarians are not Christians ? Why should not the Orthodox say 
 what they believe ? Or why should they be compelled to say what 
 they do not believe ? The gentleman, who writes with such fiippant 
 ambiguity about the " exclusive sect" and system, mi^ht take a pro- 
 fitable lesson from the frank and unjustly persecuted philosopher of 
 Birmingham. 
 
 Let us vary this subject. "SMio are Christians ? Are not those 
 who worship one God and only one, and acknowledge Jesus to he 
 a divinely appointed prophet, and believe in a future life. Chris- 
 tians 7 I shall not take the trouble to verify this definition by refer- 
 ence to Unitarian writings. But if any one, entitled to notice, calls 
 for verification, it can be given in abundance. Unitarians are Chris- 
 tians in the sense just defined, believing and doing all which that 
 definition requires. But let me ask the Boston Unitarian, is the 
 Mahometan a Christian ? Ai-e the Turkish armies, engaged in 
 butchering the Christian Greeks, Christians ? Certainly not. But 
 the Turks worship one God, and only one ; acknowledge Jesus 
 to be a divinely appointed prophet, and believe in a future life. 
 The Turks, then, or Mahometans, are, according to the Unitarian 
 definition of the term Christian, Christians, believing precisely 
 what the Unitarians believe. But Mahometans, in the judgment 
 of Boston Unitarians, are not Christians, wherefore Unitarians, accord- 
 ing to their own reasoning, are not Christians. The logical force of 
 this argument will be more clearly seen thus. If Unitarians, as suchy 
 ai-e Christians, Mahometans, being Unitarians, are Christians ; but 
 
149 
 
 Mahometans are not Christians, wherefore Unitarians, as such, 
 are not Christians. Taking the Enghsh definition of Unitarian- 
 ism, and alloicing that a believer in Unitarianism is a Christian, 
 this argument is irresistible to prove that he is not. If that, which 
 constitutes men Unitarians, makes them also at the same time 
 Christians, Mahometans believing precisely what constitutes men 
 Unitarians, are of course Christians. There is no possible way for 
 a Unitarian to avoid this conclusion. He must then admit Mahome- 
 tans to the fellowship of Unitarians, as " good Christians," or he 
 must adopt some other definition of a Christian than that already 
 given. But Monotheism is not Christianity nor Mahomctanism. 
 Unitarians, to deserve the name Christian, must adopt some other 
 article into their creed than that quoted in the preceding note from 
 the iNIonthly Repository, or those from the Christian Disciple. 
 
 Boston Unitarians, it appears then, in the opinion of the Orthodox, 
 of Socinus, and (shall it be said?) of themselves also, are not Chris- 
 tians. Must the Ortliodox yield a name, v/hich Dr. Priestley allows 
 Unitarians do not deserve, if Orthodox views be correct ? 
 
 Here then we might rest our defence, exonerated, as we trust, 
 from the charge of illiberality, higotry, a disposition to persecute, &c. 
 &c.; but we have other facts and reasons for our conduct, to which 
 we ask the particular attention of candid, inquiring Unitarians. We 
 believe the fact, that the Orthodox deny that Unitarians are Chris- 
 tians, from the manner in which this denial is represented by Uni- 
 tarians themselves, forms in many minds a strong objection to Or- 
 thodoxy. This forms one of the most popular ad invidiam argu- 
 ments of Unitarian writers. I shall not stop to inquire whether the 
 same argument, in the same manner, was not advanced by the op- 
 ponents of the early Christians ; nor shall I adduce any quotations 
 from Gibbon to show the " exclusive," " intolerant " character of 
 the gospel of Christ, compared with the elegant forms and liberal 
 spirit of paganism. I choose to take another, and a somewhat 
 unusual course. 
 
 I premise, that the Unitarians of Boston entertain, and have 
 often expressed, a high opinion of the learning, the piety, the 
 enlarged and genuine liberality of the Polish Socinians. They 
 would have us understand that they have not done this ignorantly. 
 Will they abide the decision of their Polish brethren on the question 
 " whether they are Christians ?" Let them recollect the character 
 they have repeatedly, in their publications, given these Polish Uni- 
 tarians, and they will, doubtless, be happy for an appeal from bigoted 
 Calvinists to the learned, pious, and liberal-minded Polish Socinians. 
 
 13 
 
150 
 
 The opinion of Socinus we have already seen, but in this he may have 
 been singular. We will not again appeal to hirn. What we wish is 
 the opinion of the whole body of Polish Socinians. Is it to be had ? 
 Happily it is. The first Polish Socinian catechism was published in 
 1605, and in 1609 was printed at London. In it are this question and 
 answer. " Question. What think you of those men who do not pray 
 to Christ, nor allow that he is to be worshipped ? Answer. I think 
 they are by no means Christians; because in fact they do not own 
 Jesus to be the Christ, and though in words they dare not deny it, 
 yet they do it in their deeds." More to the same purpose may be 
 found in Lindsey's Historical View of Unitarian Doctrine, p. 252. 
 This catechism was published after the death of Socinus, and is 
 known to embody the deliberate opinions of that numerous, original 
 class of Socinians, whose extensive learning, unshrinking piety, and 
 unquestioned liberality, have been the theme of repeated commenda- 
 tion from American Unitarians. We ask for a passage in any Ortho- 
 dox catechism, wherein those, who refuse to worship Christ, are as 
 explicitly denied to be Christians, as in this first Unitarian catechism 
 published after the Reformation. We hope after this, either to hear no 
 more commendations of the liberal Christians of Poland, or no more 
 censure of the Orthodox for that in which they agree with them. 
 Let not my object here be mistaken. I am not attempting to prove 
 any thing because the Polish Socinians believed it. I am attempt- 
 ing to silence a Unitarian objection by an appeal to their own much 
 applauded, much quoted, much credited witnesses. 
 
 Let us vary this subject once more, and view it in yet another 
 lio-ht. Intelligent Unitarians in England and this country perceive 
 and allow, that the scriptures confine prayer or invocation and adora- 
 tion to that divine Being, who will not give his glory to another. To 
 invoke or to worship Christ is said by them to be unscriptural, irra- 
 tional, improper and idolatrous. No Unitarian minister in Boston is- 
 ever guiby of the impropriety, the idolatry, of invoking or calling 
 upon Christ in prayer. The case of Stephen is thought to have been 
 extraordinary and unique, he having had especial manifestation of 
 Christ, which made it peculiarly proper for him thus " to call upon 
 the Lord Jesus to receive his spirit." The Unitarians of Boston 
 agree with Lindsey, Carpenter, Davidies and Paleologus in withhold- 
 ing adoration and supplication from Christ. Yet in the scriptures, the 
 primitive Christians are described as " those, who called upon the 
 name of Christ." How can this difficulty be got over ? How can 
 he contrariety between present Unitarian, and apparently primitive 
 Christian practice be reconciled ? The intelligent Unitarian, who 
 
151 
 
 understands the original Greek in these passages answers, " very 
 easily, thus ; the phrase, which, in various places, is translated, 
 • those who call upon the name of Christ,' is mis-translated ; it should 
 be rendered ' those, who are called by the name of Christ ;' i. e. this 
 expression simply designates them, as Christians, followers of Christ, 
 and must have been so understood by those, who first used this lan- 
 guage. Those, who were called by the name of Christ were Chris- 
 tians, just as those, called by the name of Plato were Platonists ; or 
 of Calvin, Calvinists ; or of Socinus, Socinians. This expression 
 then, on which the Orthodox have so confidently relied to prove the 
 divinity of Christ, from the fact that the primitive Christians address- 
 ed prayers to him, means nothing more than that the disciples tvere 
 called Christians, no very strong argument, surely, unless it will also 
 prove that the Unitarian Christians of Boston worship Christ." I ask 
 intelligent Unitarians if this is not a fair statement of their opinions on 
 these disputed texts. It will not be denied that these passages mean 
 either, to be called by th^ name, or, to call upon the name, of Christ. 
 These are the only interpretations, which professed scholars will 
 venture to produce. Should these words, then, be shown to mean 
 simply Christians, without pointing them out as those that invoked 
 Christ, though the Unitarian critics would effectually remove one 
 class of texts on which the Orthodox have placed some reliance to 
 prove the divinity of Christ, they would deserve credit for presenting 
 us with simply scriptural truth. This, certainly, is of higher impor- 
 tance than any mere support of party or sect. We should willingly 
 follow where truth leads, come what of contempt, of odium, of per- 
 secution there may. 
 
 But how shall we know, in the present case, that the Uni- 
 tarian interpretation is the true one in preference to the Ortho- 
 dox and commonly received interpretation .' Each party claims 
 Greek usage and Greek authorities. I am not disposed to enter into 
 this discussion, whatever may be the truth. The reader of the 
 English Testament merely, may stand in doubt, when Mr. A. affirms 
 and Mr. B. denies. Let us grant, for sake of argument, that the case 
 is doubtful, that the evidence for each interpretation is equal. The 
 scales now hang in equilibrio. Is there any weight which may turn 
 them ? What would Gesenius, and the whole class of consistent 
 thorough-going rationalist scholars, say upon these passages ? Will 
 Unitarians abide their decision ? But this would not help the Eng- 
 lish reader, who wishes for argument and not authority. Is there 
 any way in which a plain common sense English reader can deter- 
 mine this much controverted question to his own satisfaction ? Let us 
 
152 
 
 see. Suppose we can fix by one and the same historian, upon the 
 time and place when and where the disciples were^rs^ called Chris- 
 tians ; and suppose, according- to this historian, that this expression 
 was in common use before the disciples were so called, will not the 
 question be settled that whatever this controverted expression may 
 mean, it does not simply designate the name Christian ? For this 
 purpose compare Acts xi. 26 and ix. 14. " The disciples were called 
 Christians first in Antioch." This was, according to the chronologists, 
 between A. D. 42 and 44. Ananias answered, " Lord, I have heard by 
 many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jeru- 
 salem ; and here he hath authority fiom the chief pi'iests to bind all 
 that call on thy name." This was A. D. 34 or 35, i. e. from 7 to 10 
 years before the disciples were called by the name of their master. 
 It should be borne in mind, that it is the same historian who relates 
 both facts. Comment on these passages in this connexion is almost 
 superfluous. Yet I will ask, whom did Ananias address by the word, 
 Lord 7 Not the Father, certainly, for Christians were not called by 
 the name of the Father. " By thy name," as Unitarians would ren- 
 der this passage, they themselves say, is to be understood the name of 
 Christ. Here then is an explicit instance of an early disciple calling 
 upon the name of Christ, or invoking or praying to Christ. Was Ana- 
 nias guilty of uttering in prayer a solemn falsehood to Christ, saying 
 that the disciples were called by his name seven years before they were 
 so called ? Or did Luke forget in the eleventh chapter, what he 
 related in the ninth ? Or is this an instance in which he only related, 
 according to the best of his knowledge, but certainly erred ? To sum 
 up all in one question, I ask the English reader of the New Testament 
 and the most learned biblical critic, whether the disciples of Christ at 
 Jerusalem and elsewhere, previous to 'the time when Barnabas and 
 Saul assembled themselves with the church a whole year and taught 
 much people at Antioch, where " the disciples were first called Chris- 
 tians," were not described as those that called upon the name of 
 the Lord 7 In the Improved Version these passages are rendered 
 thus. " The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch." " He 
 hath authority to bind all, who are called by thy name." Whatever 
 system of chronology we adopt, it is admitted on all hands, that this 
 latter assertion, made by Ananias in prayer to the Lord, must have 
 preceded the other fact recorded by the same historian, that the dis- 
 ciples were first called Christians at Antioch, by some years. I ask 
 if this testimony is not sufficiently explicit, of sufficient weight, to 
 turn the scales, and decide the question forever ? Is not the prac- 
 tice of Ananias an intelligible comment on his words ? If Ananias 
 
153 
 
 might properly address Christ in prayer, why might he not describe 
 others as accustomed to do the same ? Had not Stephen just com- 
 mended his departing spirit into the hands of the Lord Jesus ? Will 
 Unitarians still think it unscriptural, irrational, and idolatrous to imi- 
 tate Stephen, Ananias, and the saints of the Lord ? 
 
 Other considerations strengthen this view of the subject. At 
 the time of Paul's journey to Damascus, " the disciples." were 
 not yet called Christians at Jerusalem. Ananias had never known 
 such a name applied to " the saints" of the " Lord ;" or at least, with- 
 out assuming the point in debate, there is no evidence that he ever 
 had, and, if the hUtorian is to be credited as to its suhsequent origin 
 and appUcation, he never had. It is apparent from the narrative of 
 Luke, that it was a new name, first given to the disciples at Antioch, 
 before and elsewhere wholly unknown. At Jerusalem the name 
 Christ was synonymous with Messiah, anointed of the Lord. The 
 disciples would not take the name from reverence to their Lord.* 
 The Jews would not give it because it would imply that the Mes- 
 siah had come, and that these followers of the despised Nazarene 
 were believers in the true Christ. At Antioch the case was different. 
 The heathen converts had not the same reverence for the mere 
 name, and those, who continued heathen might very naturally apply 
 the term as an opprobrious epithet, which would readily be adopted 
 by those, who wore spoken evil of " for the name " of their master. 
 These considerations, suggested on reflection, lend additional weight 
 to the opinion, which is forced upon us by the comparison of the two 
 passages already quoted from the Acts. 
 
 " Those that called upon the name of Christ" means, then, those 
 that invoked or prayed to Christ, and not merely those that were 
 called by his name. Let liberal minds follow out their principles, 
 and as they allow that invocation or prayer is a proper, and the most 
 proper act of religious worship ; and as the scriptures limit such re- 
 ligious worship to the one Supreme Jehovah ; let them not shrink 
 from the conclusion that the Lord from heaven is, in some view of his 
 character, truly and properly divine ; God over all, blessed 
 
 FOREVER. 
 
 One word as to a name appropriate to the present Unitarians, and 
 distinctive of their creed. What objection can there be to the term 
 Humanitarian? In England, it is proposed by a writer in the 
 Monthly Repository to substitute Philadelphian for Unitarian. By 
 the extract before made from Socinus, it appears that Paleologus was 
 
 * Besides, why should they not be called after, or take their name from, Jesus ? 
 " Thou shall call his name Jesus." 
 
154 
 
 the first and the chief standard bearer among those, who, after the 
 Reformation, denied that Christ was to be worshipped, and yet "had 
 the effrontery to claim to be Christians." In the view of Boston 
 Unitarians, he must have been a most enhghtened Christian, liberal 
 and rational beyond his age, throwing all other of his contemporary 
 reformers into the shade. Would not the name Paleologians be at 
 once appropriate, definite, and distinctive for American Unitarians ? 
 But we have no dispute about names. We are quite willing to be 
 called Calvinists, (claiming the liberty of defining what we mean 
 by the term,) than which. Unitarians being judges, no name can be 
 less desirable or less honorable. Will Boston Humanitarians be afraid 
 of the name of their " standard-bearer"? Will Unitarians longer 
 " have the effrontery " not only " to call themselves Christians," but 
 to insist upon the Orthodox calling and considering them such ? 
 At all events, the Orthodox cannot be thought bigoted for agreeing 
 with the Polish Socinians, that those who refuse to call upon the 
 name of Christ, do not deserve to be called by his name. 
 
 NOTE K. 
 
 It has been seen from the preceding Letters and Notes, that 
 American Unitarians have at length reached the point where the 
 canon is openly, and the inspiration and authority of the sacred 
 volume are really, to be called in question. I do not believe that 
 all, who bear the Unitarian name, or are claimed as of that sect, are 
 willing to expunge the Epistle to the Hebrews from the sacred 
 volume, or to adopt the sweeping process of reasoning by which the 
 writer in the Christian Examiner would undermine its authority. 
 Still the leaders of the party are committed to reject that Epistle, 
 and we have already seen that the principle of reasoning by which 
 it is rejected, goes to an entire subversion of the whole sacred 
 volume. What ground the Unitarian critics will now take, and how 
 far the party will follow the leaders, remains to be seen. To all who 
 reflect and understand the subject, it is apparent that the same ques- 
 tions are soon to be debated here, that have long been discussed 
 between the Supernaturalists and Rationahsts of Europe. Professor 
 Stuart, ten years ago, predicted this result. By his Commentary on 
 
155 
 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews, he has compelled the Unitarians to show 
 their colours. They must either acknowledge Orthodoxy- to be 
 the doctrine of inspiration, or reject the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 (which all well-read critics must allow to be Orthodox,) as part of the 
 inspired volume. They have chosen the latter alternative. What 
 ground will be taken by the Christian Examiner when the Epistle to 
 the Romans shall be given to the public by the Professor, though 
 matter of conjecture, is hardly a matter of rational doubt. 
 
 As this work may f\ll into the hands of some young or inquisitive 
 minds, who have not yet examined the great subjects of revelation and 
 inspiration, it may aid them in their investigations on these all-im- 
 portant topics to have a few of the best authors pointed out. The 
 following list may all be studied to great advantage and, perhaps, in 
 the order in which they here stand as well as in any other. Dr. 
 Channing's Dudleian Lecture. This is a beautiful specimen of 
 composition, having the writer's usual elegance, and an unusual share 
 of logic. Leslie^ s Short and Easy Method with Deists ; an incon- 
 trovertible argument as Middleton, with his infidel prejudices, can- 
 didly acknowledged. Erskine^s Internal Evidence ; a scholar-like, 
 philoso|,hical and truly rational work, in which vital religion is 
 divested of technicality, and presented in its own lineaments, colours 
 and proportions. The last edition is the best. Paley's Horce PaulincB ; 
 the most original and masterly production of its author ; containing, 
 not oulv an able defence of Christianity, but the most satisfactory 
 proof of the genuineness of the documents of Christianity to be found 
 in the English language. Bishop Marsh's Lectures contain the most 
 scientific view of the evidences of Christianity accessible to the 
 English scholar; though designed as a directory for theological stu- 
 dents, they will richly reward the study of intelligent laymen. If 
 but one book could be read, Paley's Evidences should probably be 
 selected. In addition to the preceding list, Bogue's Essay on the 
 A^ew Testament, and Littleton's Conversion of St. Paul, might be 
 studied with great profit. To remov^e difficulties and silence objec- 
 tions, Butler's Analogy is unequalled. It were easy to swell this 
 list, but these works are among the best, and deserve to be first 
 studied ; and he, who has mastered these, will be master of the sub- 
 ject, in regard to the canon, inspiration and authority of tlie scrip- 
 tures, Storr unquestionably holds the first place. Jahn's Introduc- 
 tion to the Old Testament has recently been given to the public, for 
 which il.e translators deserve many thanks; this, together with 
 J/ui^'s Introduction to the Writings of the J\''ew Covenant, which 
 has recently been translated and published in England, supply a de. 
 
156 
 
 sideratura long felt in our Biblical apparatus. Home's Introduction 
 is worth having. As an Introduction to a particular book, Profes- 
 sor Stuart's Introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews is a work, 
 that will be more highly appreciated the more it is known, and will be 
 most highly valued by those best able to estimate its worth. The 
 Rationalists may despair of success, when they see every attack 
 anticipated, every argument sifted, every fallacy exposed, every ab- 
 surdity portrayed, before hand. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 6Jan'65Vl 
 
 kEjC'D L.D 
 
 LD 21A-60m-4,'64 
 (E4555sl0)476B 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
This- ;^ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY