Channing, W. S.
A sermon delivered at trie ord
ination of the Rev. Jared Sharks
... Baltimore, May 5, lgl9 ...
Boston, 1821.

JLXEmAESW

From the estate of
Miss Martha Day Porter
192S

SERMON,

DELIVERED AT

Rev. JARED SPARKS,
TO THE
PASTORAL CARE OF
The First Independent Church of Baltimore,
hay 5, 1819.

BY WILLIAM ELLERY CHANNING,
MINISTER OF THE CUURCH OF CHRIST, IX FEDERAL-STREET, BOST03T.

SEVENTH EDITION.

BOSTON :
PUBLISHED BY CUMMINGS AND HILLIARD, NO. 1 CORNHILt.
Univ. Press... .Hilliard and Metealf.
1821.

1 THESS. V. 21.
Prove all tilings ; holdfast that which is good.
The peculiar circumstances of this occasion not only
justify, but seem to demand a departure from the course
generally followed by preachers at the introduction of a
brother into the sacred office. It is usual to speak of
the nature, design, duties and advantages of the Chris
tian ministry ; and on these topics I should now be happy
to insist, did I not remember that a minister is to be
given this day to a religious society, whose peculiarities
of opinion have drawn Upon them much remark, and may
I not add, much reproach. Many good minds, many
sincere Christians, I am aware, are apprehensive that
the solemnities of this day are to give a degree of influ
ence to principles, which they deem false and injurious.
The fears and anxieties of such men I respect ; and,
believing that they are grounded in part on mistake, I
have thought it my duty to lay before you, as clearly as
I can, some of the distinguishing opinions of that class of
Christians in our country, who are known to sympathize
with this religious society. I must ask your patience,
for such a subject is not to be despatched in a narrow
compass. I must also ask you to remember, that it is
impossible to exhibit, in a single discourse, our view of
every doctrine of revelation, much less the differences of
opinion, which are known to subsist among ourselves.
I shall confine myself to topics, on which our sentiments
have been misrepresented, or which distinguish us most

4
widely from others. May I not hope to be heard with
candour ? God deliver us all from prejudice, and un-
kindness, and fill us with the love of truth and virtue,
There are two natural divisions, under which my
thoughts will be arranged. I shall endeavour to unfold,
1st, the principles which we adopt in interpreting the
Scriptures. And 2dly, some of the doctrines which the
Scriptures, so interpreted, seem to us clearly to express.
I. We regard the Scriptures as the record of God's
successive revelation to mankind, and particularly of the
last and most perfect revelatian- of his will by Jesus
Christ. Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly
taught in the Scriptures, we receive without reserve or
exception. We do not, however, attach equal impor
tance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we
believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dis
pensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we
consider as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted, to the
childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler
system, and chiefly useful now, as serving to confirm and
illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the
only master of Christians, and wj^itever he taught, either
during his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles,
we regard as of divine authority, and profess to make
the rule of our lives.
This authority, which we give to the Scriptures, is a
reason, we conceive, for studying them with peculiar
care, and for inquiring anxiously into the principles of
interpretation, by which their true meaning may be ascer
tained. The principles adopted by the class of Chris
tians, in whose name I speak, need to be explained,
because they are often misunderstood. We are particu
larly accused of making an unwarrantable use of reason
in the interpretation of Scripture. We are said to exalt

reason above revelation, to prefer our own wisdom to
God's. Loose and undefined charges of this kind are
circulated so freely, and with such injurious intentions,
that we think it due to ourselves, and to the cause of
truth, to express our views with some particularity.
Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is
this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the lan-i
guage of men, and that its meaning is to be sought in
the same manner, as that of other books. tWe believe
that God, when he condescends to speak and write,
submits, if we may so say, to the established rules of
speaking and writing. How else would the Scriptures
avail us more, than if communicated in an unknown
tongue. J
Now all books, and all conversation, require in the
reader or hearer the constant exercise of reason ; or
their true import is only to be obtained by continual
Comparison and inference. Human language, you well
know, admits various interpretations, and every word
and every sentence must be modified and explained ac
cording to the subject which is discussed, according to
the purposes, feelings, circumstances and principles of
the writer, and according to the genius and idioms of
the language which he uses. These are acknowledged
principles in the interpretation of human writings ; and
a man, whose words we should explain without reference
to these principles, would reproach us justly with a
criminal want of candour, and an intention of obscuring
or distorting his meaning.
Were the Bible written in a language and style of its
own, did it consist of words, which admit but a single
sense, and of sentences wholly detached from each other,
there would be no place for the principles now laid down.
We could not reason about it, as about other writings.

6
But such a book would be of little worth ; and perhaps,
of all books, the Scriptures correspond least to this de
scription. The word of God bears the stamp of the
same hand, which we see in his works. It has infinite
connexions and dependencies. Every proposition is
linked with others, and is to be compared with others,
that its full and precise import may be understood.
Nothing stands alone. The New Testament is built on
the Old. The Christian dispensation is a continuation
of the Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of provi
dence, requiring great extent of view in the reader.
Still more, the Bible treats of subjects on which we
receive ideas from other sources besides itself; such
subjects as the nature, passions, relations, and duties of
man : and it expects us to restrain and modify its lan
guage by the known truths, which observation and expe
rience furnish on these topicks.
/-We profess not to know a book, whieh demands a
more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In
addition to the remarks now made on its infinite connex
ions, we may observe, that its style no where affects the
precision of science, or the accuracy of definition.! Its
language is singularly glowing, bold and figurative, de
manding more frequent departures from the literal sense,,
than that of our own age and country, and consequently
demands more continual exercise of judgment. — We fiad
too, that the different portions of this book, instead ®f.
being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the
times when they were written, to states of society, to
modes of thinking, to controversies in the church, to
feelings and usages which have passed away, and without
the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of
extending to all times, and places, what was of tempo
rary and local application. — We find, too, that some of

these books are strongly marked by the genius and
character of their respective writers, that the Holy
Spirit did not so guide the apostles as to suspend the
peculiarities of their minds, and that a knowledge of
their feelings, and of the influences under which they
Were placed, is one of the preparations for understand
ing their writings. With these views of the Bible, we
feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it
perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the
letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject,
and the aim of the writer, his true meaning ; and, in
general, to make use of what is known, for explaining
what is difficult, and for discovering new truths.
Need I descend to particulars to prove, that the Scrip
tures demand the exercise of reason ? Take, for exam
ple, the style in which they generally speak of God,
and observe how habitually they apply to him human
passions and organs. Recollect the declarations of Christ,
that he came not to send peace, but a sword ; that unless
we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we have no life in
us ; that we must hate father and mother, pluck out the
right eye ; and a vast number of passages equally bold
and unlimited. Recollect the unqualified manner in
which it is said of Christians, that they possess all things,
know all things, and can do all things. Recollect the
verbal contradiction between Paul and James, and the
apparent clashing of some parts of Paul's writing with the
general doctrines and end of Christianity. I might ex
tend the enumeration indefinitely, and who does not see,
that we must limit all these passages by the known at
tributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of human nature,
and by the circumstances under which they were writ
ten, so as to give the language a quite different import
from what it would require, had it been applied to differ
ent beings, or used in different connexions ?

Enough has been said to show in what sense we make
use of reason in interpreting Scripture. From a variety
of possible interpretations, we select that which accords
with the nature of the subject and the state of the writer,
with the connexion of the passage, with the general strain
of scripture, With the known character and will of God,
and with the obvious and acknowledged laws of nature.3
In other words, we believe that God never contradicts,
in one part of Scripture, what he teaches in another ;
and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches in
his works and providence. And we, therefore, distrust
every interpretation, which, after deliberate attention,
seems repugnant to any established truth. We reason
about the Bible precisely as civilians do about the consti
tution under which we live ; who, you know, are accus
tomed to limit one provision of that venerable instrument
by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts by in
quiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of its
authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions,
and circumstances of the time when it was framed.
Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly
acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority
of the Scriptures. Deny us this latitude, and we must
abandon this book to its enemies.
We do not announce these principles as original, or
peculiar to ourselves. All Christians occasionally adopt
them, not excepting those, who most vehemently decry
them, when they happen to menace some favourite article
of their creed. All Christians are compelled to use them
in their controversies with infidels. All sects employ
them in their warfare with one another. All willingly
avail themselves of reason, when it can be pressed into
the service of their own party, and only complain of it,
when its weapons wound themselves. None reason more

frequently than Our adversaries. It is astonishing what
a fabrick they rear from a few slight hints about the fall
of our first parents ; and how ingeniously they extract
from detached passages mysterious doctrines about the
divine nature. [We do not blame them for reasoning so
abundantly, but for violating the fundamental rules of
reasoning, for sacrificing the plain to the obscure, and
the general strain of Scripture, to a scanty number of
insulated texts. J
We object strongly to the contemptuous manner in
which human reason is often spoken of by our adversaries,
because it leads, we believe, to*universal scepticism."
If reason be so dreadfully darkened by the fall, that its
most decisive judgments on religion are unworthy of
trust, then Christianity, and even natural theology, must
be abandoned ; L for the existence and veracity of God, ,
and the divine original of Christianity, are conclusions of
reason, and must stand or fall with it. .- If revelation be
at war with this faculty, it subverts itself, for the great
question of its truth is left by God to be decided at the
bar of reason. It is worthy of remark, how nearly the
bigot and the sceptick approach. Both would annihilate
our confidence in our faculties, and both throw doubt
and confusion over every truth. We honour revelation
too highly to make it the antagonist of reason, or to
believe, that it calls us to renounce our highe ' powers.
We indeed grant, that the use of reason in religion is
accompanied with danger.) But we ask any honest man
to look back on the history of the church, and say,
whether the renunciation of it be not still more dan
gerous. Besides," it is a plain fact, that men reason
as erroneously on all subjects, as on religion. Who does
not know the wild and groundless theories, which have
been framed in physical and political science? But
2

10
who ever supposed, that we must cease to exercise reason
on nature and society, because men have erred for ages
in explaining them ? We grant, that the passions con
tinually, and sometimes fatally, disturb the rational faculty
in its inquiries into revelation. The ambitious contrive
to find doctrines in the Bible, which favour their love of
dominion. The timid and dejected discover there a
gloomy system, and the mystical and fanatical, a vision
ary theology. The vicious can find examples or asser
tions on which to build the hope of a late repentance, or
of acceptance on easy terms ; the falsely Refined contrive
to light on doctrines ?which have not been soiled by
vulgar handling. But the passions do not distract the
reason in religious, any more than in other inquiries,
which excite strong and general interest $_ and this facul
ty, of consequence, is not to be renounced in religion,
unless we are prepared to discard it universally. The
true inference from the almost endless errors, which have
darkened theology, is, not that we are to neglect and
disparage our powers, but to exert them more patiently,
circumspectly, uprightlyj The worst errors, after all,
have sprung up in that church, which proscribes reason,
and demands from its members implicit faith. The most
pernicious doctrines have been the growth of the dark
est times, when the general credulity encouraged bad
men and enthusiasts to broach their dreams and inven
tions, and to stifle the faint remonstrances of reason, by
the menaces of everlasting perdition. Say what we may,
God has given us a rational nature, and will call us to
an account for it. We may let it sleep, but we do so at
our peril. L Revelation is addressed* to us as rational
beings. We may wish, in our sloth, that God had given
us a system, demanding no labour of comparing, limit
ing and inferring] But such a system would he at

11
variance with the whole character of a present existence ;
and it is the part of wisdom to take revelation as it is
given to us, and to interpret it by the help of the facul
ties, which it every where supposes, and on which it is
founded. To the views now given, an objection is commonly:
urged from the character of God. We. are told, that
God being infinitely wiser than men, his discoveries will
surpass human reason. In a revelation from such a
teacher, we ought to expect propositions, which we
cannot reconcile with one another, and which may seem
to contradict established truths ; and it becomes us not
to question or explain them away, but to believe, and
adore, and to submit our weak and carnal reason to the
divine word. To this objection we have two short an
swers. We say, first, that it is impossible that a teacher
of infinite wisdom should expose those, whom he would
teach, to infinite error. But if once we admit, that
propositions, which in their literal sense appear plainly
repugnant to one another, or to any known truth, are
still to be literally understood and received, what possi
ble limit can we set to the belief of contradictions ?
What shelter have we from the wildest fanaticism,
which can always quote passages, that, in their literal
and obvious sense, give support to its extravagancies ?
How can the. Protestant escape from transubstantiation,
a doctrine most clearly taught us, if the submission of
reason, now contended foi*, be a duty ? How can we
ever hold fast the truth of revelation ; for if one apparent
contradiction may be true, so may another, and the
proposition, that Christianity is false, though involving
inconsistency, may still he a verity.
L We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he
cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures.

A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself
to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them
with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with
apparent contradiction, not in filling them with a sceptical
distrust of their powers J An infinitely wise teacher,
who knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best
method of enlightening them, will surpass all other
instructers in '. bringing down truth to our apprehension,
and in showing its loveliness and harmony. We ought,
indeed, to expect occasional obscurity in such a book as
the Bible, which was written for past and future ages, as
well as for the present. But God's wisdom is a pledge,
that whatever is necessary for us, and necessary for
salvation, is revealed\too plainly to he mistaken, and too
consistently to be questioned by a sound and upright
mind. It is not the mark of wisdom to use an unintelli
gible phraseology, to communicate what is above our
capacities, to confuse and unsettle the intellect, by ap
pearances of contradiction. We honour our heavenly
Teacher too much to ascribe to him such a revelation.
A revelation is a gift of light. It cannot thicken and
multiply our perplexities.
II. Having thus stated the principles according to
which we interpret the Scriptures, I now proceed to the
second great head of this discourse, which is, to state
some of the views, which we derive from that sacred
book, particularly those which distinguish us from other
Christians. First. We believe in the doctrine of god's unity, or
that there is one God, and one only. To this truth we
give infinite importance, and we feel ourselves bound to
take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by vain philosophy.
The proposition, that there is one God, seems to us
exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is

13
one being, one. mind, one person, one intelligent agent,
and one only, to whom under ived and infinite perfection
and dominion belong. We conceive, that these words
could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple and
uncultivated people, who were set apart to be the depos
itaries of this great truth, and who were utterly incapable
of understanding those hair-breadth distinctions between
being and person, which the sagacity of latter ages has
discovered. We find no intimation, that this language
was to be taken in an unusual sense, or that God's unity
was a quite different thing from the oneness of other in
telligent beings. v
We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it sub
verts the unify of God. According to this doctrine,
there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing
supreme divinity, called the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theolo
gians, has his own particular consciousness, will, and
perceptions. They love each other, converse with each
other, and delight in each other's society. They per
form different parts in man's redemption, each having his
appropriate office, and neither doing the work of the
other. The Son is mediator, and not the Father. The
Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent ; nor is he
, conscious, like the Son, of taking flesh. Here, then, we
have three intelligent agents, possessed of different con
sciousnesses, different wills, and different perceptions,
performing different acts, and sustaining different rela
tions ; and if these things do not imply and constitute
three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know
how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is
difference of properties, and acts, and consciousness,
which leads us to the belief of different intelligent beings,
and if this mark fail us, our whole knowledge falls ; we

14
have no proof, that all the agents and persons in the
universe are not one and the same mind. When we
attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing
more, than represent to ourselves three agents, distin
guished from each other by similar marks and peculiari
ties to those, which separate the persons of the Trinity ;
and when common Christians hear these persons spoken
of as conversing with each other, loving each other, and
performing different acts, how can they help regarding
them as different beings, different minds ?
We do then, with all earnestness, though without re
proaching our brethren, protest against the unnatural and
unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity. " To us," as to the
apostle and the primitive Christians, " there is one God,
even the Father." With Jesus, we worship the Father,
as the only living and true God.* We are astonished,
that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid
the conviction, that the Father alone is: God. We hear
our Saviour continually appropriating this character to
the Father. We find the Father continually distinguish
ed from Jesus by this title. " God sent his Son." " God
anointed Jesus." Now, how singular and inexplicable
is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament, if
this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal
object of this book is to reveal him as God, as partaking
equally with the Father in supreme divinity. L We chal
lenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New
Testament, where the word God means three persons,
where it is not limited to one person, and where, un
less turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it
does not mean the Father. Can stronger proof be given,
that the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead, is not
a fundamental doctrine of Christianity ? J
?John 17.

15
This doctrine, were it true, must, from its difficulty,
singularity, and importance, have been laid down with
great clearness, guarded with great care, and stated
with all possible precision. But where does this state
ment appear ? From the many passages, which treat of
God, we ask for one, one only, in which we are told, that he
is a threefold being, or that he is three persons, or that
he is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. On the con
trary, in the New Testament, where, at least, we
might expect many express assertions of this nature,
God is declared to be one, without the least attempt to
prevent the acceptation of the words in their common
sense ; and he is always spoken of and addressed in the
singular number, that is, in language which was uni
versally understood to intend a single person, and to
which no other idea could have been attached, without
an express admonition. So entirely do the Scriptures
abstain from stating the Trinity, that when our oppo
nents would insert it into their creeds and doxologies,
they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent
forms of words altogether unsanctioned by scriptual
pharseology. That a doctrine so strange, so liable
to misapprehension, so fundamental as this is said to
be, and requiring such careful exposition, should be left
so undefined and unprotected, to be made out by infer
ence, and to be hunted through distant and detached
parts of Scripture, this is a difficulty, which, we think,
no ingenuity can explain.
We have another difficulty. Christianity, it must be
remembered, was planted and grew up amidst sharp-
sighted enemies, who overlooked no objectionable part of
the system, and who must have fastened with great ear
nestness on a doctrine involving such apparent contra
dictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an opinion

16
against which the Jews, who prided themselves on their
adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal
clamour. Now, how happens it, that in the apostolick
writings, which relate so much to objections against Chris
tianity and to the controversies, which grew out of this
religion, not one word is said, implying that objections
were brought against the gospel from the doctrine of
the Trinity ; not one word is uttered in its defence and
explanation ; not a word to rescue it from reproach and
mistake ? This argument has almost the force of demon
stration. We are persuaded, that had three divine per
sons been announced by the first preachers of Christian
ity all equal, and all infinite, one of whom was the very
Jesus, who had lately died on a cross, this peculiarity of
Christianity would have almost absorbed every other,
and the great labour of the apostles would have been to
repel the continual assaults, which it would have awak
ened. But the fact is, that not a whisper of objection
to Christianity on that account reaches our ears from
the apostolick age. In the epistles we see not a trace
of controversy called forth by the Trinity.
We have further objections to this doctrine, drawn
from its practical influence. We regard it as unfavour
able to devotion, by dividing and distracting the mind
in its communion with God. It is a great excellence of
the doctrine of God's unity, that it offers to us one
object of supreme homage, adoration and love, one
infinite Father, one Being of Beings, one original and
fountain, to whom we may refer all good, on whom all
our powers and affections may be concentrated, and
whose lovely and venerable nature may pervade all our
thoughts. True piety, when directed to an undivided
Deity, has a chasteness, a singleness, most favourable
to religious awe and love. Now the Trinity sets before

17
us three distinct objects of supreme adoration ; three infi
nite persons, having equal claims on our hearts ; three
divine agents, performing different offices, and to be
acknowledged and worshipped in different relations.
And is it possible, we ask, that the weak and limited
mind of man can attach itself to these with the same
power and joy, as to one infinite Father, the only First
Cause, in whom all the blessings of nature and redemp
tion meet, as their centre and source ? Must not devo
tion be distracted by the equal and rival claims of three
equal persons, and must not the worship of the conscien
tious, consistent Christian be disturbed by apprehension,
lest he withhold, from one or another of these, his due.
proportion of homage ?
We also think, that the doctrine of the Trinity injures
devotion, not only by joining to the Father other objects
of worship, but by taking from the Father the supreme
affection, which is his due, and transferring it to the Son.
This is a most important view. That Jesus Christ, if
exalted into the infinite Divinity, should be more inter
esting than the Father, is precisely what might be ex
pected from history, and from the principles of human
nature. Men want an object of worship like themselves,
and the great secret of idolatry lies in this propensity. A
God, clothed in our form, and feeling our wants and sor
rows, speaks to our weak nature more strongly, than a
Father in heaven, a pure spirit, invisible, and unap
proachable, save by the reflecting and purified mind. —
We think too, that the peculiar offices ascribed to Jesus
by the popular theology, make him the most attractive
person in the Godhead. The Father is the depositary
of the justice, the vindicator of the rights, the avenger
of the laws of the Divinity. On the other hand, the Son,
the brightness of the divine mercy, stands between the
3

18
incensed , Deity and guilty humanity, exposes his meek
head to the storms, and his compassionate breast to the
sword of the divine justice, bears our whole load of pun
ishment, and purchases with his blood every blessing,
which descends from heaven. Need we state the effect
of these representations, especially on common minds,
for whom Christianity was chiefly designed, and whom
it seeks to bring to the Father, as the loveliest being ?
We do believe that the worship of a bleeding, suffering
God, tends strongly to absorb the mind, and to draw it
from other objects, just as the human tenderness of the
Virgin Mary has given her so conspicuous a place in
the devotions of the church of Rome. We believe too,
that this worship, though attractive, is not most fitted to
spiritualize the mind, that it awakens human transport,
rather thanlihat deep veneration of the moral perfections
of God, which is the essence of pietyJ
Secondly- Having thus given our views of the unity
of God, I proceed to observe, that we believe in the unity
of Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus is one mind, one
soul, one being, as truly one as we are, and equally dis
tinct from the one God. We complain of the doctrine of
the Trinity, that not satisfied with making God three
beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus intro
duces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his char
acter. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant
to common sense, and to the general strain of Scripture,
is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy
in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.
According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of
being one mind, one conscious, intelligent principle, whom
we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds, the
one divine, the other human ; the one weak, the other
almighty ; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now

19
we maintain, that this is to make Christ two beings. To
denominate him one person, one being, and yet to suppose
him made up of two minds, infinitely different from each
other, is to abuse and confound language, and to throw
darkness over all our conceptions of intelligent natures.
According to the common doctrines, each of these two
minds in Christ has its own consciousness, its own will,
its own perceptions. They have in fact no common
properties. The divine mind feels none of the wants
and sorrows of the human, and the human is infinitely
removed from the perfection and happiness of the divine.
Can you conceive of two beings in the universe more
distinct ? We have always thought that one person was
constituted and distinguished by one consciousness. The
doctrine, that one and the same person should have two
consciousnesses, two wills, two souls infinitely different
from each other, this we think an enormous tax on human
credulity. We say, that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so
remote from all the previous conceptions of men, be in
deed a part, and an essential part of revelation, it must
be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our breth
ren to point to some plain, direct passage, where Christ
is said to be composed of two minds infinitely different,
yet constituting one person. We find none. Our op
ponents, indeed, tell us, that this doctrine is necessary
to the harmony of the Scriptures, that some texts ascribe
to Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties, and
that to reconcile these, we must suppose two minds, to
which these properties may be referred. In other words,
for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult passages,
which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly
explain, we must invent an hypothesis vastly more dif
ficult, and involving gross absurdity. We are to find

20
our way out of a labyrinth by a clue, which conducts us
into mazes infinitely more inextricable.
Surely if Jesus Christ felt that he consisted of two
minds, and that this was a leading feature of his religion,
his phraseology respecting himself would have been
coloured by this peculiarity. The universal language
of men is framed upon the idea, that one person is one
mind, and one soul ; and when the multitude heard this
language from the lips of Jesus, they must have taken
it in its usual sense, and must have referred to a single
soul all which he spoke, unless expressly instructed to
interpret it differently. But where do we find this in
struction? Where do you meet, in the New Testa*
ment, the phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian
books, and which necessarily grew from the doctrine df
two natures in Jesus ? Where does this divine teacher
say, This I speak as God, and this as man ; this is true
only of my human mind, this only of my divine ? Where
do we find in the epistles a trace of this strange phrase
ology ? No where. It was not needed in that day. It
was demanded by the errors of a later age.
We believe then, that Christ is one mind, one being,
and I add, a being distinct from the one God. That
Christ is not the one God, not the same being with the
Father, is a necessary inference from our former head,
in which we saw that the doctrine of three persons in
God is a fiction. But on so important a subject, I would
add a few remarks. We wish that our opponents would
weigh one striking fact. L Jesus, in his preaching, con
tinually spoke of God. The word was always in his
mouth. We ask, does he by this word ever mean him
self? We say, never. On the contrary, he most plain
ly distinguishes between God and himself, and so do his
disciple's/] How this is to be reconciled with the idea,

21
that the manifestation of Christ, as God, was a primary
object of Christianity, our adversaries must determine.
Ifji&e'examine the passages in which Jesus is distin-
Isned from God, we shall see, that they not only speak
of him as another being, but seem to labour to express
his inferiority. He is continually spoken of as the Son
of God, sent of God, receiving all his powers from God,
working miracles because God was with him, judging
justly because God taught him, having claims on our be
lief, because he was anointed and sealed by God, and as
able of himself to do nothing. The New Testament is
filled with this language. Now we ask what impression
this language was fitted and intended to make ? Could
any, who heard it, have imagined, that Jesus was the
very God, to whom he was so industriously declared to
be inferior, the very being, by whom he was sent, and
from whom he professed to have received his message
and power ? Let it here be remembered, that the hu
man birth, and bodily form, and humble circumstances,
and mortal sufferings of Jesus must all have prepared
men to interpret, in the most unqualified manner, the lan
guage in which his inferiority to God was declared. [Why
then was this language used so continually, and without
limitation, if Jesus were the Supreme Deity, and if this
truth were an essential part of his religion ?J I repeat it,
the human condition and sufferings of Christ tended
strongly to exclude from men's minds the idea of his pro
per Godhead ; and of course, we should expect to find
in the New Testament perpetual care and effort to
counteract this tendency, to hold him forth as the same
being with his Father, if this doctrine were, as is pretend
ed, the soul and centre of his religion. We should ex
pect to find the phraseology of Scripture cast into the
mould of this doctrine, to hear familiarly of God the Son*

22
of our Lord God Jesus, and to be told that to us there is
one God, even Jesus. But instead of this the inferiority
of Christ pervades the New Testament. It is not only
implied in the general phraseology, but repeatedly and
decidedly expressed, and unaccompanied with any admo
nition to^ prevent its application to his whole nature.
Could it then have been the great design of the sacred
writers to exhibit Jesus as the Supreme God ?
I am aware, that these remarks will be met by two or
three texts, in which Christ is called God, and by a class
of passages, not very numerous, in which divine proper
ties are said to be ascribed to him. To these we offer
one plain answer. We say, that it is one of the most
established and obvious principles of criticism, that lan
guage is to be explained according to the known proper
ties of the subject to which it is applied. Every man
knows, that the same words convey very different ideas,
when used in relation to different beings. Thus, Solomon
built the temple in a different manner from the architect,
whom he employed ; and God repents differently from
man. Now, we maintain, that the known properties
and circumstances of Christ, his birth, sufferings, and
death, his constant habit of speaking of God as a distinct
being from himself, his praying to God, his ascribing to God
all his power and offices, these acknowledged properties
of Christ, we say, oblige us to interpret the comparative
ly few passages, which are thought to make him the su
preme God, in a manner consistent with his distinct and
inferior nature. It is our duty to explain such texts by
the rule, which we apply to other texts, in which human
beings are called Gods, and are said to be partakers of
the divine nature, to know and possess all things, and to
be filled with all God's fulness. These latter . passages
we do not hesitate to modify, and restrain, and turn from

23
the most obvious sense, because this sense is opposed to
the known properties of the beings to whom they re
late ; and we maintain, that we adhere to the same prin
ciple, and use no greater latitude in explaining, as we do,
the passages which are thought to support the Godhead
of Christ.
Trinitarians profess to derive some important advan
tages from their mode of viewing Christ. It furnishes
them, they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for it shews
them an infinite being suffering for their sins. The con
fidence with which this fallacy is repeated astonishes us.
When pressed with the question, whether they really be
lieve, that the infinite and unchangeable God suffered
and died on the cross, they acknowledge that this is not
true, but that Christ's human mind alone sustained the
pains of death. How have we then an infinite sufferer?
This language seems to us an imposition on common
minds, and very derogatory to God's justice, as if this
attribute could be satisfied by a sophism and a fiction.
We are also told, that Christ is a more interesting
object, that his love and mercy are more felt, when he is
viewed as the Supreme God, who left his glory to take
humanity and to suffer for men. That Trinitarians are
strongly moved by this representation, we do not mean
to deny, but we think their emotions altogether founded
on a misapprehension of their own doctrines. They
talk of the second person of the Trinity leaving his glory,
and his Father's bosom, to visit and save the world.
But this second person, being the unchangeable and
infinite God, was evidently incapable of parting with the
least degree of his perfection and felicity. At the mo
ment of his taking flesh, he was as intimately present
with his Father as before, and equally with his father
filled heaven, and earth, and immensity. This Trinita-

24
rians acknowledge, and still they profess to be touched
and overwhelmed by the amazing humiliation of this
immutable being ! ! — But not only does their doctrine,
when fully explained, reduce Christ's humiliation to a
fiction, it almost wholly destroys the impressions with
which his cross ought to be viewed. According to their
doctrine, Christ was, comparatively, no sufferer at all.
It is true, his human mind suffered ; but this, they tell us,
was an infinitely small part of Jesus, bearing no more
proportion to his whole nature, than a single hair of our
heads to the whole body ; or than a drop to the ocean.
The divine mind of Christ, that which was most properly
himself, was infinitely happy at the very moment of the
suffering of his humanity. Whilst hanging on the cross,
he was the happiest being in the universe, as happy as
the infinite Father; so that his pains, compared with
his felicity, were nothing. This Trinitarians do and
must acknowledge. It follows necessarily from the im-
mutableness of the divine nature, which they ascribe to
Christ; so that their system, justly viewed, robs his
death of interest, weakens our sympathy with his suffer
ings, and is of all others most unfavourable to a love of
Christ, founded on a sense of his sacrifices for mankind.
We esteem our own views to be vastly more affecting,
especially those of us, who believe in Christ's preexist-
ence. It is our belief, that Christ's humiliation was real
and entire, that the whole Saviour, and not a part of
him, suffered, that his crucifixion was a scene of deep
and unmixed agony. As we stand round his cross, our
minds are not distracted, or our sensibility weakened, by
contemplating him as composed of incongruous and infi
nitely differing minds, and as having a balance of infinite
felicity. We recognise, in the dying Jesus, but one
mind. This, we think, renders his sufferings, and his

¦25
patience and love in bearing them, incomparably more
impressive and affecting, than the system we oppose.
Thirdly. Having thus given our belief on two great
points, namely, that there is one God, and that Jesus
Christ is a being distinct from, and inferior to God ; I
now proceed to another point, on which we lay still
greater stress. [ We believe in the moral perfection of
God. We consider no part of theology so important as
that which treats of God's moral character; and we
value our views of Christianity chiefly, as they assert his
amiable and venerable attributes. J
It may be said, that in regard to this subject all Chris*
tians agree, that all ascribe to the Supreme Being infi-1
nite justice, goodness, and holiness. We reply, that it
is very possible to speak of God Magnificently, and to
think of him meanly ; to apply to his person high-sound"
ing epithets, and to his government, principles which
make him odious. The heathens called Jupiter the
greatest and the best ; but his history was black with
cruelty and lust. We cannot judge of men's real ideas
of God by their general language, for in all ages they
have hoped to sooth the Deity by adulation. We must
inquire into their particular views of his purposes, of the
principles of his administration, and of his disposition to
wards his creatures.
We conceive that Christians have generally leaned
towards a very injurious view of the Supreme Being.
vThey have too often felt as if he were raised, by his
greatness and sovereignty, above the principles of morali-
ty, above those eternal laws of equity and rectitude, to
which all other beings are subjected^ We believe, that in
no being is the sense of right so strong, so omnipotent, as
in God. We believe that his almighty power is entirely
submitted to his perception of rectitude ; and this is the
4

26
ground of our piety/] It is not because he is our Creator
merely,. but because he created us for good and holy
purposes ; Lit is not because his will is irresistible, but
because his will is the perfection of virtue, that we pay
him allegiance, j We cannot bow before a being* however
great and powerful, who governs tyrannically. LWe res
pect nothing but excellence, whether on earth, or in
heaven. We venerate not the loftiness of God's throne,
but the equity and goodness in which it is established.J
We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevo
lent, in the proper sense of these words ; good in dispo
sition, as well as in act ; good not to a few, but to all ;
good to every individual, as well as to the general system.
We believe too, that God is just; but we never forget,
that his justice is the justice of a good being, dwelling in
the same mind, and acting in harmony with perfect be
nevolence. By this attribute we understand God's in
finite regard to virtue or moral worth, expressed in a mor
al government ; that is, in giving excellent and equitable
laws, and in conferring such rewards, and inflicting such
punishments, as are most fitted to secure their observ
ance. L God's justice has for its end the highest virtue of
the creation, and it punishes for this end alone, and thus
it coincides with benevolence ; for virtue and happiness,
though not the same, are inseparably conjoined. I
God's justice thus viewed appears to us to be in per
fect harmony with his mercy. According to the preva
lent systems of theology, these attributes are so discor
dant and jarring, that to reconcile them is the hardest task
and the most wonderful achievement of infinite wisdom.
To us they seem to be intimate friends, always at peace,
breathing the same spirit, and seeking the same end. By
God's mercy, we understand not a blind instinctive com
passion, which forgives without reflection, and without

27
regard to the interests of virtue. This, we acknowledge,
would be incompatible with justice, and also with enlight
ened benevolence. God's mercy, as we understand it,
desires strongly the happiness of the guilty, but only
through their penitence. It has a regard to character
as truly as his justice. It defers punishment, and suffers
long, that the sinner may return to his duty, but leaves
the impenitent and unyielding to the fearful retribution
threatened in God's word.
v To give our views of God, in one word, we believe in
his parental character. We ascribe to him, not only the
name, but the dispositions and principles of a father.
We believe that he has a father's concern for his crea
tures, a father's desire for their improvement, a father's
equity in proportioning his commands to their powers,
a father's joy in their progress, a father's readiness
to receive the penitent, and a father's justice for the
incorrigible. We look upon this world as a place of
education, in which he is training men by mercies and
sufferings, by aids and temptations, by means and oppor
tunities of various virtues, by trials of principle, by the
conflicts of reason and* passion, by a discipline suited to
free and moral beings, for union with himself, and for a
sublime and ever growing virtue in heaven.
Now we object to the systems of religion, which prevail
among us, that they are adverse, in a greater or less
degree, to these purifying, comforting, and honourable
views of God, that they take from us our Father in
heaven, and substitute for him a being, whom we cannot
love if we would, and whom we ought not to love if we
could. We object, particularly on this ground, to that
system, which arrogates to itself the name of orthodoxy,
and which is now most industriously propagated through
our country. This system teaches, that God brings us

28
into existence wholly depraved, so that under the inno
cent features of our childhood is hidden a nature averse
to all good, and propense to all evil ; and it teaches that
God regards us with displeasure before we have acquired
power to understand our duties, or reflect upon our
actions. Now if there be one plain principle of morality,
it is this, that we are accountable beings, only because
we have conscience, a power of knowing and performing
our duty, and that in as far as we want this power, we
are incapable of sin, guilt, or blame. We should call a
parent a monster, who should judge and treat his children
in opposition to this principle, and yet this enormous
immorality is charged on our Father in heaven.
This system also teaches, that God selects from the
corrupt mass of men a number to be saved, and that they
are plucked by an irresistible agency from the common
ruin, whilst the rest are commanded under penalty of
aggravated wo^to make a change in their characters,
which their natural corruption places beyond their pow
er, and are also promised pardon on conditions, which
necessarily avail them nothing, unless they are favoured
with a special operation of God's grace, which he is
predetermined to withhold. This mockery of mercy,
this insult offered to the misery of the non-elect by
hollow proffers of forgiveness, completes the dreadful
system, which is continually obtruded upon us as the
gospel, and which strives to monopolize the reputation of
sanctity. That this religious system does not produce all the
effects on character, which might be anticipated, we most
joyfully admit. It is often, very often, counteracted by
nature, conscience, common sense, by the general strain
of Scripture, by the mild example and precepts of Christ,
and by the many positive declarations of God's universal

29
kindness and perfect equity. But still we think that
we see occasionally its unhappy influence. It discoura
ges the timid, gives excuses to the bad, feeds the vanity
of the fanatical, and offers shelter to the bad feelings of
the malignant. By shocking, as it does, the fundamental
principles of morality, and by exhibiting a severe and
partial Deity, it tends strongly to pervert the moral
faculty, to form a gloomy, forbidding, and servile reli
gion, and to lead men to substitute censoriousness, bitter
ness, and persecution for a tender and impartial charity.
We think too, that this system, which begins with degrad
ing human nature, may be expected to end in pride ;
for pride grows out of a consciousness of high distinctions,
however obtained, and no distinction is so great as that,
which is made between the elected and abandoned of
God. The false and dishonourable views of God, which have
now been stated, we feel ourselves bound to resist un
ceasingly. Other errors we can pass over with compar
ative indifference. I But we ask our opponents to leave
to us a God, worthy of our love and trust, in whom
our moral sentiments may delight, in whom our weak
ness and sorrows may find refuge. We cling to the
divine perfections.! We meet them every where in cre
ation, we read them in the Scriptures, we see a lovely
image of them in Jesus Christ ; and gratitude, love and
veneration call on us to assert them. Reproached as
we often are by men, it is our consolation and happiness
that one of our chief offences is the zeal with which we
vindicate the dishonoured goodness and rectitude of God.
Fourthly. Having thus spoken of the unity of God ; of
the unity of Jesus, and his inferiority to God ; and of
the perfections of the divine character ; I now proceed
to give our views of the mediation of Christ and of the

30
purposes of his mission. With regard to the great object,
which Jesus came to accomplish, there seems to be no
possibility of mistake. LWe believe, that he was sent
by the Father to effect a moral or spiritual deliverence
of mankind ; that is, to rescue men from sin and its con
sequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting
purity and happiness. ! We believe, too, that he accom
plishes this sublime purpose by a variety of methods ;
by his instructions respecting God's unity, parental
character, and moral government, which are admirably
fitted to reclaim the world from idolatry and impiety, to
the knowledge, love, and obedience of the Creator ; by
his promises of pardon to the penitent, and of divine
assistance to those, who labour for progress in moral
excellence ; by the light which he has thrown on the
path of duty ; by his own spotless example, in which the
loveliness and sublimity of virtue shine forth to warm
and quicken, as well as guide us to perfection ; by his
threatenings against incorrigible guilt ; by his glorious
discoveries of immortality ; by his sufferings and death ;
by that signal event, the resurrection, which powerfully
bore witness to his divine mission, and brought down to
men's senses a future life; by his continual intercession,
which obtains for us spiritual aid and blessings ; and
by the power with which he is invested of raising the
dead, judging the world, and conferring the everlasting
rewards promised to the faithful.
We have no desire to conceal the fact, that a differ
ence of opinion exists among us, in regard to an interest
ing part of Christ's mediation; I mean, in regard to
the precise influence of his death on our forgiveness.
Some suppose, that this event contributes to our pardon,
as it was a principal means of confirming his religion,
and of giving it a power over the mind ; in other words,

31
that it procures forgiveness by leading to that repentance
and virtue, which is the great and only condition on
which forgiveness is bestowed. Many of us are dissat
isfied with this explanation, and think that the Scrip
tures ascribe the remission of sins to Christ's death with
an emphasis so peculiar, that we ought to consider this
event as having a special influence in removing punish
ment, as a condition or method of pardon, without which
repentance would not avail us, at least to the extent,
which is now promised by the gospel.
Whilst, however, we differ in explaining the connex
ion between Christ's death and human forgiveness, a con
nexion, which we all gratefully acknowledge, we agree
in rejecting many sentiments, which prevail in regard
to his mediation. The idea, which is conveyed to
common minds by the popular system, that Christ's
death has an influence in making God placable or merci
ful, in quenching his wrath, in awakening his kindness
towards men, we reject with horror. We believe, that
Jesus, instead of making the Father merciful, is sent by
the Father's mercy to be our Saviour ; that he is nothing
to the human race, but what he is by God's appointment ;
that he communicates nothing but what God empowers
him to bestow ; that our Father in heaven is originally,
essentially, and eternally placable and disposed to for
give ; and that his unborrowed, underived, and unchange
able love, is the only fountain of what flows to us through
his Son. We conceive, that Jesus is dishonoured, not
glorified, by ascribing to him an influence, which clouds
the splendour of divine benevolence.
We farther agree in rejecting, as unscriptural and ab
surd, the explanation given by the popular system, of
the manner in which Christ's death procures forgiveness
for men. This system teaches, that man, having sinned

32
against an infinite Being,' is infinitely guilty, and some
even say, that a single transgression, though committed
in our early and inconsiderate years, merits the eternal
pains of hell. Thus an infinite penalty is due from
every human being ; and God's justice insists, that it
shall be borne either by the offender or a substitute.
Now, from the nature of the case, no substitute is ade
quate to the work of sustaining the full punishment
of a guilty world, save the infinite God himself; and ac
cordingly, God took on him human nature, that he might
pay to his own justice the debt of punishment incurred by
men, and might enable himself to exercise mercy. Such is
the prevalent system. Now to us this doctrine seems to
carry on its front strong marks of absurdity, and we
maintain that Christianity ought not to be encumbered
with it, unless it be laid down in the New Testament
fully and expressly. We ask our adversaries, then, to
point to some plain passages where it is taught. We
ask for one text, in which we are told - that God took
human nature that he might appease his own anger
towards men, or make an infinite satisfaction to his own
justice ; — for one text, which tells us, that human guilt
is infinite, and requires a correspondent substitute ; that
Christ's sufferings owe their efficacy to their being borne
by an infinite being ; or that his divine nature gives in
finite value to the sufferings of the human. Not one
word of this description can we find in the Scriptures ;
not a text, which even hints at these strange doctrines.
They are altogether, we believe, the fictions of theologi
ans. Christianity is in no degree responsible for them.
We are astonished at their prevalence. What can be
plainer, than that God cannot in any sense be a sufferer,
or bear a penalty in the room of his creatures. How
dishonourable to him is this supposition, that his justice

33
is now so severe as to exact infinite punishment for the
sins of frail and feeble men, and now so easy and yield
ing as to accept the limited pains of Christ's human
soul, as a full equivalent for the infinite and endless woes
due from the world ? How plain is it also, according to
this doctrine, that God, instead of being plenteous in
forgiveness, never forgives ; for it is absurd to speak
of men as forgiven, when their whole punishment is borne
by a substitute ? A scheme more fitted to bring Chris
tianity into contempt, and less suited to give comfort to[
a guilty and troubled mind, could not, we think, be easily-
invented. We believe too, that this system is unfavourable to
the character. It naturally leads men to think, that
Christ came to change God's mind, rather than their
own, that the highest object of his mission was to avert
punishment, rather than to communicate holiness, and
that a large part of religion consists in disparaging
good works and human virtue for the purpose of magni
fying the value of Christ's vicarious sufferings. In this
way, a sense of the infinite importance, and indispensa
ble necessity of personal improvement is weakened, and
high sounding praises of Christ's cross seem often to be
substituted for obedience to his precepts. For ourselves
we have not so learned Jesus. Whilst we gratefully
acknowledge, that he came to rescue us from punishment,
we believe that he was sent on a still nobler errand,
namely, to deliver us from sin itself, and to form us to a
sublime and heavenly virtue. We regard him as a
Saviour, chiefly as he is the light, physician, and guide
of the dark, diseased, and wandering mind. No influence
in the universe seems to us so glorious as that over the
character ; and no redemption so worthy of thankfulness
as the restoration of the soul to purity. Without this,
5

34
pardon, were it possible, would be of little value. Why
pluck the sinner from hell, if a hell be left to burn in his
own breast? Why raise him to heaven, if he remain a
stranger to its sanctity and love ? LWith these impres
sions, we are accustomed to value the gospel chiefly as it
abounds in effectual aids, motives, excitements to a gen
erous and divine virtue J In this virtue, as in a common
centre, we see all its doctrines, precepts, promises meet,
and we believe, that faith in this religion is of no worth,
and contributes nothing to salvation, any farther than as
it uses these doctrines, precepts, promises, and the whole
life, character, sufferings, and triumphs of Jesus, as the
means of purifying the mind, of changing it into the like
ness of his celestial excellence.
Fifthly. L Having thus stated our views of the highest
object of Christ's mission, that it is the recovery of men
to virtue, or holiness, I shall now, in the last place, give
our views of the nature of Christian virtue or true holiness.}
We believe, that all virtue has its foundation in the
moral nature of man, that is, in conscience, or his sense
of duty, and in the power of forming his temper and life
according to conscience. We believe, that these moral
faculties are the grounds of responsibility, and the high
est distinctions of human nature, and that no act is
praiseworthy any farther than it springs from their
exertion.. We believe, that no dispositions infused into
us without our own moral activity are of the nature of
virtue, and therefore we reject the doctrine*of irresistible
divine influence on the human mind, moulding it into
goodness, as marble is hewn into a statue. Such good
ness, if this word may be used, would not be the object
of moral approbation any more than the instinctive affec
tions of inferior animals, or the constitutional amiableness
of human beings.

35
By these remarks, we do not mean to deny the impor
tance of God's aid or Spirit ; but by his Spirit we mean
a moral, illuminating, and persuasive influence, not
physical, not compulsory, not involving a necessity of
virtue. We object strongly to the idea of many Chris
tians respecting man's impotence and God's irresistible
agency on the heart, believing that they subvert our
responsibility and the laws of our moral nature, that they
make men machines, that they cast on God the blame of
all evil deeds, that they discourage good minds, and
inflate the fanatical with wild conceits of immediate and
sensible inspiration.
[_ Among the virtues, we give the first place to the love
of God. We believe, that this principle is the true end
and happiness of our being, that we were made for union
with our Creator, that his infinite perfection is the only
sufficient object and true resting place for the insatiable
desires and unlimited capacities of the human mind, and
that without him, our noblest sentiments, admiration,
veneration, hope, and love, would wither and decay.!
We believe, too, that the love of God is not only essential
to happiness, but to the strength and perfection of all
the virtues ; that conscience, without the sanction of
God's authority and retributive justice, would be a weak
director ; that benevolence, unless nourished by commu
nion with his goodness, and encouraged by his smile,
could not thrive amidst the selfishness and thanklessness
of the world ; and that self-government, without a sense
of the divine inspection, would hardly extend beyond an
outward and partial purity. God, as he is essentially
goodness, holiness, justice, and virtue, so he is the life,
motive, and sustainer of virtue in the human soul.
But whilst we earnestly inculcate the love of God, we
believe that great care is necessary to distinguish it from

36
counterfeits. We think that much, which is called piety,
is worthless. Many have fallen into the error, that
there can be no excess in feelings, which have God for
their object ; and distrusting as coldness, that self-pos
session, without which virtue and devotion lose all their
dignity, they have abandoned shemselves to extravagan
cies, which have brought contempt on piety. Most
certainly if the love of God be that, which often bears its
name, the less we have of it the better. If religion be
the shipwreck of understanding, we cannot keep too far
from it. On this subject we always speak plainly. We
cannot sacrifice our reason to the reputation of zeal. We
owe it to truth and religion, to maintain, that fanaticism,
partial insanity, sudden impressions, and ungovernable
transports, are any thing rather than piety.
L We conceive, that the true love of God is a moral sen
timent, founded on a clear perception, and consisting in a
high esteem and veneration of his moral perfections^
Thus, it perfectly coincides, and is in fact. the same thing
with the love of virtue, rectitude, and goodness. You
will easily judge then, what we esteem the surest and only
decisive signs of piety. We lay no stress on strong
excitements. We esteem him and him only a pious man,
who practically conforms to God's moral perfections and
government, who shows his delight in God's benevolence,
by loving and serving his neighbour ; his delight in
God's justice, by being resolutely upright ; his sense of
God's purity, by regulating his thoughts, imagination,
and desires ; and whose conversation, business, and doT
mestick life are swayed by a regard to God's presence
aad authority. In all things else men may deceive them
selves. Disordered nerves may give them strange
sights, and sounds, and impressions. Texts of Scripture
may come to them as from heaven. Their whole souls

. 37
may be moved, and their confidence in God's favour be
undoubting. But in all this there is no religion. The ques
tion is, do they love God's commands, in which his char
acter is fully displayed, and give up to these their habits
and passions ? Without this, ecstacy is a mockery.
One surrender of desire to God's will is worth a thousand
transports. We do not judge of the bent of men's minds
by their raptures, any more than we judge of the direc
tion of a tree during a storm. We rather suspect loud
profession, for we have observed, that deep feeling is
generally noiseless, and least seeks display.
We would not, by these remarks, be understood as
wishing to exclude from religion warmth, and even trans
port. We honour and highly value true religious sensi
bility. We believe, that Christianity is intended to act
powerfully on our whole nature, on the heart, as well as
the understanding and the conscience. We conceive of
heaven as a state, where the love of God will be exalted
into an unbounded fervour and joy; and we desire in our
pilgrimage here to drink into the spirit of that better
world. But we think, that religious warmth is only to
be valued when it springs naturally from an improved
character, when it comes unforced, when it is the recom
pense of obedience, when it is the warmth of a mind,
which understands God by being like him, and when,
instead of disordering, it exalts the understanding, invig
orates conscience, gives a pleasure to common duties,
and is seen to exist in connexion with cheerfulness,
judiciousness, and a reasonable frame of mind. When.
we observe a fervour, called religious, in men whose
general character expresses little refinement and eleva
tion, and whose piety seems at war with reason, we
pay it little respect. We honour religion too much to
give its sacred name to a feverish, forced, fluctuating
zeal, which has little power over the life.

38.
Another important branch of virtue, we believe to be
love to Christ. The greatness of the work of Jesus, the
spirit with which he executed it, and the sufferings
which he bore for our salvation, we feel to be strong
claims on our gratitude and veneration. We see in
nature no beauty to be compared with the loveliness of
his character, nor do we find on earth a benefactor, to
whom we owe an equal debt. LWe read his history with
delight, and learn from it the perfection of our nature..
We are particularly touched by his death, which was
endured for our redemption, and by that strength of
charity, which triumphed over his pains. His resur
rection is the foundation of our hope of immortality.
His intercession gives us boldness to 'draw nigh to the
throne of grace, and we look up to heaven with new
desire, when we think, that if we follow him here, we
shall there see his benignant countenance, and enjoy his
friendship for ever.
I need not express to you our views on the subject
of the benevolent virtues. We attach such importance to
these, that we are sometimes reproached with exalting
them above piety. We regard the spirit of love, charity,
meekness, forgiveness, liberality, and beneficence, as the
badge and distinction of Christians, as the brightest
image we can bear of God, as the best proof of piety.
On this subject, I need not, and cannot enlarge ; but
there is one branch of benevolence, which I ought not
to pass over in silence, because we think that we conceive
of it more highly and justly, than many of our brethren.
I refer to the duty of candour, charitable judgment, espe
cially towards those who differ in religious opinion. We
think, that in nothing have Christians so widely departed
from their religion, as in this particular. We read with
astonishment and horror, the history of the church, and

39
sometimes when we look back on the fires of persecution,
and the zeal of Christians in building up walls of separa
tion, and in giving up one another to perdition, we feel as
if we were reading the records of an infernal, rather than
a heavenly kingdom. An enemy to our religion, if ask
ed to describe a Christian, would, with some show of rea
son, depict him as an idolater of his own distinguishing
opinions, covered with badges of party, shutting his
eyes on the virtues, and his ears on the arguments of
his opponents, arrogating all excellence to his own sect,
and all saving power to his own creed, sheltering, under
the name of pious zeal, the love of domination, the con
ceit of infallibility, and the spirit of intolerance, and
trampling on men's rights, under the pretence of saving
their souls.
LWe can hardly conceive of a plainer obligation on be
ings of our frail and fallible nature, who are instructed
in the duty of candid judgment, than to abstain from
condemning men of apparent consciousness and sincerity,
who are chargeable with no crime but that of differing
from us in the interpretation of the Scriptures, and
differing too, on topicks of great and acknowledged obscu
rity, "j We are astonished at the hardihood of those, who,
with Christ's warnings sounding in their ears, take on
them the responsibility of making creeds for his church,
and cast out professors of virtuous lives for imagined er
rors, for the guilt of thinking for themselves. We know that
zeal for truth is the cover for this usurpation of Christ's
prerogative ; but we think that zeal for truth, as it is cal
led, is very suspicious, except in men, whose capacities and
advantages, whose patient deliberations, and whose im
provements in humility, mildness, and candour, give them
aright to hope that their views are more just, than those
of their neighbours. Much of what passes for a zeal for

40
truth, we look upon with little respect, for it often appears
to thrive most luxuriantly where other virtues shoot up
thinly and feebly ; and we have no gratitude for those
reformers, who would force upon us a doctrine which
has not sweetened their own tempers, or made them bet
ter men than their neighbours.
We are accustomed to think much of the difficulties
attending religious inquiries ; difficulties springing
from the slow development of our minds, from the
power of early impressions, from the state of society,
from human authority, from the general neglect of the
reasoning powers, from the want of just principles of
criticism, and of important helps in interpreting Scrip
ture, and from various other causes. We find that on
no subject have men, and even good men, engrafted so
many strange conceits, wild theories, and fictions of
fancy, as on religion ; and remembering, as we do, that
we ourselves are sharers of the common frailty, we dare
not assume infallibility in the treatment of our fellow
Christians, or encourage in common Christians, who
have little time for investigation, the habit of denounc
ing and contemning other denominations, perhaps more
enlightened and virtuous than their own. Charity,
forbearance, a delight in the virtues of different sects,
a backwardness to censure and condemn, these are vir
tues, which, however poorly practised by us, we admire
and recommend, and we would rather join ourselves to
the church in which they abound, than to any other com
munion, however elated with the belief of its own ortho
doxy, however strict in guarding its creed, however
burning with zeal against imagined error.
I have thus given the distinguishing views of those
Christians in whose names I have spoken. We have
embraced this system, not hastily or lightly, but after

41 .
touch deliberation, and we hold it fast, not merely because
we believe it to be true, but because we regard it as pu*
rifying truth, as a doctrine according to godliness, as
able to " work mightily" and to " bring forth fruit" in
them who believe. [ That we wish to spread it, we have
no desire to conceal ; but we think, that we wish its dif
fusion, because we regard it as more friendly to practical
piety and pure morals, than the opposite doctrines, be
cause it gives clearer and nobler views of duty, and
stronger motives to its performance, because it reconr
mends religion at once to the understanding and the
heart, because it asserts the lovely and venerable attri
butes of God, because it tends to restore the benevolent
-spirit of Jesus to his divided and afflicted church, and
because it cuts off every hope of God's favour, except
that which springs from practical conformity to the life
and precepts of Christ. We see nothing in our views
to give offence, save their purity, and it is their purity
which makes us seek and hope their extension, through
the world. J
I now turn to the usual addresses of the day.
My friend and brother ;< — You are this day to take
upon you important duties ; to be clothed with an office,
which the son of God did not disdain ; to devote yourself
to that religion, which the most hallowed lips have
preached, and the most precious blood sealed. We
trust that you will bring to this work a willing mind,
a firm purpose, a martyr's spirit, a readiness to toil
and suffer for the truth, a devotion of your best powers
to the interest of piety and virtue. I have spoken of
the doctrines, which you will probably preach ; but I
do not mean, that you are to give yourself to controversy.
You will remember, that good practice is the end of
preaching, and will labour to make your peoplej holy
6

42
*
livers, rather than skilful disputants. Be careful, lest
the desire of defending what you deem truth, and of
repelling reproach and misrepresentation, turn you aside
from your great business, which is to fix in men's minds
a living conviction of the obligation, sublimity and happi
ness of Christian virtue. The best way to vindicate your
sentiments is, to show, in your preaching and life,
their intimate connexion with Christian morals, with
a high and delicate sense of duty, with candour towards
your opposers, with inflexible integrity, and with an
habitual reverence for God. If any light can pierce
and scatter the clouds of prejudice, it is that of a pure
example. [ You are to preach a system which has noth
ing to recommend it but its fitness to make men bet
ter ; which has no unintelligible doctrine for the mys
tical, no extravagancies for the fanatical, no dreams for
the visionary, no contradictions for the credulous, which
asks no sacrifice of men's understandings, but only of
their passions and vices ; and the best and only way to
recommend such a system is, to show forth its power in
purifying and exalting the character J My brother, may
your life preach more loudly than your lips. Be to this
people a pattern of all good works, and may your instruc
tions derive authority from a well grounded belief in
your hearers, that you speak from the heart, that you
preach from experience, that the truth which you dispense
has wrought powerfully in your own breast, that" God,
and Jesus, and heaven are not merely words on your lips,
but most affecting realities to your mind, and springs of
hope and consolation and strength, in all your trials.
Thus labouring may you reap abundantly, and have a
testimony of your faithfulness, not only in your own con
science, but in the esteem, love, virtues, and improve
ments of your people.

43
Brethren of this church and society ; — We rejoice with
you in the prospects of this day. We rejoice in the
zeal, unanimity and liberality, with which you have se
cured to yourselves the administration of God's word
and ordinances, according to your own understanding of
the Scriptures. We thank God, that he has disposed
you to form an association on the true principles of
Christianity and of protestantism, that you have solemn-'
ly resolved to call no man master in religion, to take your
faith from no human creed, to submit your consciences
to no human authority, but to repair to the Gospel, to
read it with your own eyes, to exercise upon it your own
understanding, to search it, as if not a sect existed around
you, and to follow it wherever it may lead you. Breth
ren, hold fast your Christian and protestant liberty. We
wish you continued peace and growing prosperity. We
pray God, that your good works may glorify your Chris
tian profession, that your candour, and serious attention
may encourage our young brother in the arduous work
to which you have called him, and that your union with
him, beginning in hope, may continue in joy, and may
issue in the friendship and union of heaven.
To all who hear me, I would say, with the apostle,
Prove all things, hold fast that which is good.- Do not,
brethren, shrink from the duty of searching God's word
for yourselves through fear of human censure and denun
ciation. Do not think, that you may innocently follow
the opinions, which prevail around you, without investi
gation, on the ground, that Christianity is now so jfcri-
fied from errors, as to need no laborious research. Tnere
is much reason to believe, that Christianity is at this
moment dishonoured by gross and cherished corruptions.
If you remember the darkness, which hung over the gos
pel for ages : if you consider the impure union, which

44,
still subsists in almost every Christian country between
the church and the state, and which enlists men's self-
fishness, and ambition, on the side of established error ;
if you recollect in what degree the spirit of intolerance
has checked free inquiry, not only before, but since the
reformation ; you will see that Christianity cannot have
freed itself from all the human inventions, which disfig
ured it under the papal tyranny. No. Much stubble
is yet to be burnt ; much rubbish to be removed; many
gaudy decorations, which a false taste has hung around
Christianity, must be swept away ; and the earth-born
fogs, which have long shrouded it, must be scattered,
before this divine fabric will rise before us in its native
and awful majesty, in its harmonious proportions, in its
mild and celestial splendours. This glorious reforma
tion in the church, we hope, under God's blessing, from
the demolition of human authority in matters of religion,
from the fall of those hierarchies, huge establishments,
general convocations or assemblies, and other human insti
tutions, by which the minds of individuals are oppressed
under the weight of numbers, and a papal dominion is per
petuated in the protestant church. Our earnest prayer to
God is, that he will " overturn, and overturn, and over
turn" the strong holds of spiritual usurpation, " until he
shall come, whose right it is" to rule the minds of men ;
that the conspiracy of ages against the liberty of Chris
tians may be brought to an end ; that the servile assent,
so long yielded to human creeds, may give place to hon
est and fearless inquiry into the Scriptures ; and that
Christianity, thus purified from error, may put forth its
almighty energy, and prove itself, by its ennobling in
fluence on the mind, to be indeed " the power of God
unto salvation."

45

NOTE.
The author intended to add some notes to this discourse, but they
would necessarily be more extended than the occasion would justify.
He wished to offer some remarks on the word mystery, but can only
refer his readers to the dissertation on that subject, in the inestimable
work of Dr. Campbell on the Gospels. He was prevented, by the
limits of the discourse, from enlarging on that very interesting topic,
the great end of our Saviour's mission ; and he would refer those, who
wish to obtain definite views on this point, to an admirable treatise
on the design of Christianity, by Bishop Fowler, which may be found
in Bishop Watson's tracts. Had I time, I should be happy to notice
the principal texts adduced in the Trinitarian controversy, particular
ly those which are either interpolations, or false or doubtful readings,
or false or doubtful translations ; such as 1 John v. 7. Acts xx. 28.
1 Tim. iii. 16. Philipp, ii. 6, &c. These last texts should be dis
missed from the controversy, and they cannot be needed, if the doc
trine, which they are adduced to support, be a fundamental truth of
Christianity. A fundamental truth cannot, certainly, want the aid
of four or five doubtful passages ; and Trinitarians betray the weak
ness of their cause, in the eagerness with which they struggle for
those I have named. But I cannot enlarge. The candour of the
reader will excuse many omissions in a sermon, which is necessarily
too limited to do more, than give the ' most prominent views of a
subject.

46

NOTE FOR THE SECOND EDITION.

We are told by Trinitarians/that Jesus Christ is the supreme God/
the same being as the Father, and that a leading end of Christianity
is to reveal him in this character. Were this true, we should expect
to hear Jesus continually spoken of as the supreme God ; and the
more so, as various circumstances attending his appearance naturally
led men to view him in a very different light. Now it is notorious,
that this is not the case ; but on the contrary, Jesus is habitually dis
tinguished from God, and spoken of as inferior to him. It is said,
however, that in some passages Jesus is called God> and as these are
the strength of the Trinitarian argument, I propose to give them a
brief consideration.
Thejirst passage of this kind in the New Testament is found,
Matthew i. 25, " A virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel, which, being interpret
ed, is, God with us." Whoever consults the prophecy, Isaiah vii.
from which this passage is taken, will have reason to think with the
learned and " orthodox" Bishop Lowth, that this text primarily relat
ed to a child, which was to be born in the time of Isaiah ; and of
course that it can have no weight in the present controversy. Sup-'
posing, however, this criticism to be unfounded, any person acquaint
ed with the Hebrew method of giving names will see, that this pas
sage, if belonging to Christ alone, is no proof that he is strictly the su
preme God. It was only a prediction, that by the coming, instruction,
miracles, and offices of Christ, God was to manifest himself to men
with peculiar clearness, to visit them and dwell with them. Among
the Jews it was very common to give to individuals, names expres
sive of the leading circumstances and purposes of their lives ; and
what deserves attention, these appellations often contained the name
of God in a manner which may astonish a modern reader. Cruden,
near the end of his Concordance, has given the meaning of the prop
er names which occur in Scripture. He tells us that Elijah means
God the Lord, or the Strong Lord ; Elisha, Salvation of God, or God
that Saves ; Jotham, Perfection of the Lord ; Ishmael, God who
hears ; Lemuel, God with them. Now to a people accustomed to

47
such names, what must have been the import of the passage under
consideration ? Could they have understood any thing but what I
have stated ? In this passage then Jesus Christ is not spoken of as
the supreme God.
In looking through the gospels of Matthew, and Mark, and Luke,
we meet not an instance in which Christ is called God, although we
are told that a leading object of these books is to exhibit him in this
character. We have to wait for this phraseology until we arrive at
the 1st verse of the 1st chapter of John, " The Word was God."
Now in this passage we are taught, not that Jesus is God, but that
the Word is God ; and some learned men have insisted, that by " the
Word," we are not to understand Jesus himself, but the Wisdom of
God which dwelt in him ; and that the passage was intended by John to
oppose certain errors which sprung up among the Gnosticks in the first
age of the church, and which must now be known in order to a full
understanding of the introduction to his gospel. But admitting that
Jesus is " the Word,'" which seems to me probable, it is very plain that
the Evangelist did not intend to represent him«s literally and strictly
the supreme God ; for he says once and again in this very place, " the
Word was with God." Now if " the Word" be a person, and if this
person "was with Godj" it is very obvious that he cannot be God him
self, the very being with whom he dwelt. There is a plain distinction
between God and the Word, such as obliges us to depart from the
most literal sense in interpreting the clause, " the Word was God ;"
and when it is considered, that the term God is sometimes applied in
the Scriptures to men and higher beings, who in authority or other
circumstances resemble the supreme God, we shall see that we have
authority for explaining the term with a "degree of latitude in the
text under consideration.
If Jesus be " the Word," we must consider him as called by this
name, because he is the expression, or the revealer of the mind and
will of God ; and when we are told that " the Word was God," we
are to understand, not that he is identically and literally the supreme
God, but that he was so bright and clear an expression of God's mind,
that it was not so much Jesus, as God himself who appeared and taught
mankind. In accordance with this explanation, we find Jesus fre
quently expressing the sentiment, that it was not he but God, whom
the people saw and heard in his miracles and instructions. " He that
believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me ; and
he that seeth me, seeth him that sent me. The words that I speak
unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father, that .dwelleth in

48
me, he doeth the works." Thus " the Word" was God. I can illus
trate my meaning by a familiar case. Suppose that we were to meet
an ancient book, written for the purpose of recommending Plato to
the admirers of Socrates, and that among various declarations of
Plato's striking resemblance to Socrates, and peculiar intimacy with
him, we should find expressions to this effect ; " That Plato was in
the beginning with Socrates, and that Plato was Socrates : that who
ever saw and heard Plato, saw and heard, not Plato, but Socrates,
and that as long as Plato lived, Socrates lived and taught." — What
•should we infer from these expressions ? That Plato was literally
Socrates, or that Socrates and Plato were numerically one and the
same being? Should we not rather consider the language as a strong
and emphatic manner of teaching us, how entirely Plato was formed
on the doctrine, and imbued with the spirit of Socrates ? It is not
unusual to call one person by the name of another whom he strongly
resembles. Thus John the Baptist is called Elias, because he came
in the spirit and power of Elias. So a distinguished orator is called
Cicero. We say of aeon who has a strong likeness to his father in
countenance and character, " he is his father in every respect." In
this way he that seeth Jesus, seeth the Father also ; and we see with
what propriety Jesus is called God, if his name be really applied to
him in the text.
The next passage in which Jesus is supposed1 to be called God,
and the only other in the four gospels, is John xx. 28, " And Thomas
answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." The great
stress laid on this text is no evidence of a good and well supported
cause. Thomas, overpowered with astonishment, and too full of
emotion to give an orderly arrangement to his thoughts, breaks out
into the sudden exclamation, My Lord ! and My God ! and theo
logians build an essential doctrine on this passionate language of an
uninspired man. Whether Thomas addressed Jesus in the first
clause of the sentence, My Lord ! and then in a pious rapture looked
up to heaven and exclaimed, My God ; or whether he left the sen
tence unfinished, through the force of his feelings, so that his precise
meaning cannot be ascertained, I will not determine. But that he
did not intend to recognise Jesus, who stood before him in a human
body, as the invisible and infinite God, seems to me very plain from
the nature of the case, and from the circumstances which produced
the exclamation. Thomas had refused to believe the testimony of
the other disciples, that they had seen Jesus, and had insisted on
seeing and handling him before he would admit his resurrection.

49
Jesus accordingly appeared and said to Thomas, " Behold my hands,
and thrust thy hand into my side, and be no longer faithless, but
believing ;" that is, believe that I am risen, as thy brethren have as
serted. This was the evidence, which drew from Thomas the ex
clamation under consideration. Now to suppose, that Thomas was
not only convinced of Christ's resurrection, but believed him to be
the supreme God, from seeing and handling his body, is to set him
down as a very illogical reasoner, and to explain his language very
uncandidly. A directly opposite inference would have been vastly
more rational. It appears from the language of Jesus, immediately
following, that the belief which Thomas intended to express in his
vehement language was founded on the evidence of his senses.
" Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed
are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." Now what was
the natural inference which a man of good sense would have drawn
from seeing and handling Jesus ? Plainly this, that he was risen
from the dead ; not that he was strictly and literally the infinite
God, a being who falls finder none of our senses, " whom no eye hath
seen or can see." Thomas' language, when thus viewed in connexion
with the circumstances under which it was uttered, gives no aid to
Trinitarianism, and we wonder that a broken exclamation of a man,
so strongly moved, should be appealed to as a main proof of a lead
ing doctrine of Christianity.
The next passage, in which Christ is supposed to be spoken of as
God, is Acts xx. 28, "Feed the Church of God, which he hath bought
with his own blood." We learn from Griesbach's critical edition of
the New Testament, a work approved by learned Trinitarians as
highly as by others, that the word God in this verse was not probably
written by Luke, the author of the book of Acts ; that it is a false
reading ; that the passage, as it came from the hands of Luke, proba
bly stood thus, " Feed the Church of the Lord, which he hath pur
chased with his own blood." Christ then is called in this passage,
not God, but the Lord, a title often given him as expressive of the
dominion which he received from his Father over the church. This
text has nothing to do with the controversy before us.
We now come to the next passage, in which there is any reason to
suppose that Jesus is called God, viz. Romans ix. 5. Paul is speak
ing of the Israelites, " of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came,
who is God over all, blessed forever." There are strong reasons
for thinking, that this passage should be differently translated, so as

50
to stand thus, " of whom Christ came, God who is over all be blessed
forever." The last clause, according to this version, is a devout
ascription to God, not a declaration of Christ's dignity — Allowing
however our translation to remain, it will not justify the strange
belief that Jesus is literally the supreme, God. In this passage it is
worthy of remark, that Christ is first spoken of as a natural descend
ant of the Israelites, a circumstance as inconsistent with supreme
divinity as any which can be well imagined. Now could any
persons acquainted with Paul, with his belief of God's unity, eternity
and invisibleness, could any such persons, on reading this passage,
have imagined, that the Apostle intended to declare Jesus, whom he
called a Jew by birth, to be the supreme God, infinite, eternal, unbe-
gotten and invisible ? How natural and necessary is it to restrain
and modify the last clause by the first ? Jesus we know was exalted
by God to be head over all things to the church, to be Lord of Jews
and Gentiles, of the living and dead, i. e. of all mankind. We also
know that the title, God, was frequently applied to persons possess
ing extensive power and dominion. How much more natural is it
then to suppose, that Paul intended to express Christ's exaltation to
universal empire by calling him God over all, than to suppose that he
meant to ascribe proper and supreme divinity to a descendant of the
Israelites ? These arguments show that the passage does not support
Trinitarianism, even if translated rightly in our English Bible, of
which, however, I am by no means satisfied.
The next passage in which Christ is supposed to be called God is
1 Timothy iii. 16, " God was manifest in the flesh." — On this it is
sufficient to say, that Griesbach excludes the word " God" from the
text, or supposes that it was not written by the apostle Paul, but has
been inserted either by design or mistake since his time. No candid
and learned Trinitarian will consider this passage as an authority in
the present controversy.
Another instance of the application of the name God to Jesus
Christ is supposed to be found in Hebrews i. 6, " unto the Son he
saith, Thy throne, oh God ! is forever and ever." On this passage it
may be observed that several learned men translate it thus, " God is
thy throne forever and ever," a version which renders it similar to
others, in which God is said to be our rock, fortress, &c. — If this be
correct, the word God does not belong to Christ. But admitting our
present translation, if the reader will proceed to the next verse, he
will see that this title is applied to Christ in a subordinate sense.

51
"Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; therefore god,.
even thy god, hath anointed thee," &c. Here the Son is plainly dis
tinguished from God, and said to have a God. Could the sacred
writer have intended to represent Jesus as the same being with him,
who is declared to be his God ?
One more text is sometimes thought an instance of the application
of the name of God to Christ, viz. 1 John v. 20. " This is the true
God and eternal life." But even in our imperfect translation of the
text to which these words belong, the distinction between the true
God and his son Jesus Christ is so distinctly stated, that a reader of
plain sense will be little in danger of applying these words to Jesus
Christ. I have not thought it necessary to notice 1 John ill. 16, be
cause the word God, as the italics show, is an addition of our trans
lators, without any warrant from the original.
I have thus collected all the passages in the New Testament, in
which Jesus is supposed to be called God, and the result is, that in two
or three passages, this title may be given him ; but in every case, it is'
given in connexions and under circumstances, which imply that it is
not to be received in its highest and most literal sense. To all these
considerations let it be added, that the word God is applied more fre
quently in scripture to human beings, than to Jesus. And what is
the inference from the whole ? If Jesus were the supreme God ; if
this were an essential part of his religion ; if the scriptures were
most solicitous to exhibit him in this light ; can we believe that he
would be habitually distinguished from God ; that this his true title
should be given to him less frequently than to men ; that we should
meet but two or three applications of it to him ; and that it should
then be found in passages which imply that he is not the supreme
God, but a distinct or subordinate being ? So weak are the strongest
proofs of Trinitarianism. The texts which call Christ, God, are the
main pillars of this doctrine. Who then can believe that this is the
vital, central, essential truth of our religion, without dishonouring
revelation and reflecting upon the wisdom and goodness of its Au
thor? FINIS.