|
Unity of Jesus (not two natures) 2. Having thus given our views
of the unity of God, I proceed in the second place 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 distinct 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 introduces infinite
confusion into our conceptions of his character. 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 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 doctrine, 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 consciousness, 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 indeed a part and an essential part of revelation,
it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our brethren
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. Other Christians, 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 difficult, and involving
gross absurdity. We are to find 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 colored by this peculiarity. The universal language of men
is framed upon the idea, that one person is 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 instruction? Where do you meet, in the
New Testament, the phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian books,
and which necessarily grows from the doctrine of 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 phraseology? Nowhere. 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 those from whom we differ, would weigh one striking
fact. Jesus, in his preaching, continually spoke of God. The
word was always in his mouth. We ask, does he, by this word,
ever mean himself? We say, never. On the contrary, he most plainly
distinguishes between God and himself, and so do his disciples.
How this is to be reconciled with the idea, that the manifestation
of Christ, as God, was a primary object of Christianity, our
adversaries must determine.
If we examine the passages in
which Jesus is distinguished from God, we shall see, that they
not only speak of him as another being, but seem to labor 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 belief, 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 human 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 language 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? I repeat it, the human condition and sufferings of
Christ tended strongly to exclude from men's minds the idea of
his proper 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 pretended, the soul and centre of
his religion. We should expect to find the phraseology of Scripture
cast into the mould of this doctrine, to hear familiarly of God
the Son, 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 admonition 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 properties 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 language is to be explained
according to the known properties 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 comparatively
few passages which are thought to make him the Supreme 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 the most obvious sense, because this sense is opposed to
the known properties of the beings to whom they relate; and we
maintain, that we adhere to the same principle, 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 advantages from their mode of viewing Christ.
It furnishes them, they tell us, with an infinite atonement, for
it shows them an infinite being suffering for their sins. The
confidence with which this fallacy is repeated astonishes us.
When pressed with the question, whether they really believe,
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's 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 moment 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 Trinitarians 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 immutableness
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 sufferings, and is, of all others, most unfavorable
to a love of Christ, founded on a sense of his sacrifices for
mankind. We esteem our own views to be vastly more affecting.
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, nor our
sensibility weakened, by contemplating him as composed of incongruous
and infinitely differing minds, and as having a balance of infinite
felicity. We recognize in the dying Jesus but one mind. This,
we think, renders his sufferings, and his patience and love in
bearing them, incomparably more impressive and affecting than
the system we oppose.
Back to Table of Contents
Moral
Perfection of God 3. 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.
It may be said, that, in regard
to this subject, all Christians agree, that all ascribe to the
Supreme Being infinite 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-sounding 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 soothe the Deity by adulation. We must inquire
into their particular views of his purposes, of the principles
of his administration, and of his disposition towards his creatures.
We conceive that Christians have
generally leaned towards a very injurious view of the Supreme
Being. They have too often felt, as if he were raised, by his
greatness and sovereignty, above the principles of morality,
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 perceptions
of rectitude; and this is the ground of our piety. It is not
because he is our Creator merely, but because he created us for
good and holy purposes; it is not because his will is irresistible,
but because his will is the perfection of virtue, that we pay
him allegiance. We cannot bow before a being, however great and
powerful, who governs tyrannically. We respect 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.
We believe that God is infinitely
good, kind, benevolent, in the proper sense of these words; good
in disposition, 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 benevolence. By this attribute, we understand God's infinite
regard to virtue or moral worth, expressed in a moral government;
that is, in giving excellent and equitable laws, and in conferring
such rewards, and inflicting such punishments, as are best fitted
to secure their observance. 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.
God's justice thus viewed, appears
to us to be in perfect harmony with his mercy. According to the
prevalent systems of theology, these attributes are so discordant
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 compassion, which forgives without reflection,
and without regard to the interests of virtue. This, we acknowledge,
would be incompatible with justice, and also with enlightened
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.
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 creatures,
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
prosperity and adversity, by aids and obstructions, by conflicts
of reason and passion, by motives to duty and temptations to
sin, by a various 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
honorable 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 industriously
propagated through our country. This system indeed takes various
shapes, but in all it casts dishonor on the Creator. According
to its old and genuine form, it teaches, that God brings us into
life wholly depraved, so that under the innocent features of
our childhood is hidden a nature averse to all good and propense
to all evil, a nature which exposes us to God's displeasure and
wrath, even before we have acquired power to understand our duties,
or to reflect upon our actions. According to a more modern exposition,
it teaches, that we came from the hands of our Maker with such
a constitution, and are placed under such influences and circumstances,
as to render certain and infallible the total depravity of every
human being, from the first moment of his moral agency; and it
also teaches, that the offence of the child, who brings into
life this ceaseless tendency to unmingled crime, exposes him
to the sentence of everlasting damnation. Now, according to the
plainest principles of morality, we maintain, that a natural
constitution of the mind, unfailingly disposing it to evil and
to evil alone, would absolve it from guilt; that to give existence
under this condition would argue unspeakable cruelty; and that
to punish the sin of this unhappily constituted child with endless
ruin, would be a wrong unparalleled by the most merciless despotism.
This system also teaches, that
God selects from this corrupt mass a number to be saved, and
plucks them, by a special influence, from the common ruin; that
the rest of mankind, though left without that special grace which
their conversion requires, are commanded to repent, under penalty
of aggravated woe; and that forgiveness is promised them, on
terms which their very constitution infallibly disposes them
to reject, and in rejecting which they awfully enhance the punishments
of hell. These proffers of forgiveness and exhortations of amendment,
to beings born under a blighting curse, fill our minds with a
horror which we want words to express.
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 kindness and
perfect equity. But still we think that we see its unhappy influence.
It tends to discourage the timid, to give excuses to the bad,
to feed the vanity of the fanatical, and to offer 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 religion, and to lead
men to substitute censoriousness, bitterness, and persecution,
for a tender and impartial charity. We think, too, that this
system, which begins with degrading 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 dishonorable views
of God, which have now been stated, we feel ourselves bound to
resist unceasingly. Other errors we can pass over with comparative
indifference. 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 weaknesses and sorrows may find refuge.
We cling to the Divine perfections. We meet them everywhere in
creation, 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 dishonored goodness and
rectitude of God.
Back to Table of Contents
Christ's
mission and mediation 4. 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 purposes
of his mission. With regard to the great object which Jesus came
to accomplish, there seems to be no possibility of mistake. We
believe, that he was sent by the Father to effect a moral, or
spiritual deliverance of mankind; that is, to rescue men from
sin and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting
purity and happiness. We believe, too, that he accomplishes 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 labor 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 difference of opinion exists among us, in regard
to an interesting part of Christ's mediation; I mean, in regard
to the precise influence of his death on our forgiveness. Many
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, 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 dissatisfied with this explanation, and think that the
Scriptures 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 punishment, though
the Scriptures may not reveal the way in which it contributes
to this end.
Whilst, however, we differ in
explaining the connexion between Christ's death and human forgiveness,
a connexion 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 merciful, in awakening his kindness towards men, we reject
with strong disapprobation. We are happy to find, that this very
dishonorable notion is disowned by intelligent Christians of
that class from which we differ. We recollect, however, that,
not long ago, it was common to hear of Christ, as having died
to appease God's wrath, and to pay the debt of sinners to his
inflexible justice; and we have a strong persuasion, that the
language of popular religious books, and the common mode of stating
the doctrine of Christ's mediation, still communicate very degrading
views of God's character. They give to multitudes the impression,
that the death of Jesus produces a change in the mind of God
towards man, and that in this its efficacy chiefly consists.
No error seems to us more pernicious. We can endure no shade
over the pure goodness of God. We earnestly maintain, that Jesus,
instead of calling forth, in any way or degree, the mercy of
the Father, was sent by that 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 forgive; and that his unborrowed, underived,
and unchangeable love is the only fountain of what flows to us
through his Son. We conceive, that Jesus is dishonored, not glorified,
by ascribing to him an influence, which clouds the splendor of
Divine benevolence.
We farther agree in rejecting,
as unscriptural and absurd, the explanation given by the popular
system, of the manner in which Christ's death procures forgiveness
for men. This system used to teach as its fundamental principle,
that man, having sinned against an infinite Being, has contracted
infinite guilt, and is consequently exposed to an infinite penalty.
We believe, however, that this reasoning, if reasoning it may
be called, which overlooks the obvious maxim, that the guilt
of a being must be proportioned to his nature and powers, has
fallen into disuse. Still the system teaches, that sin, of whatever
degree, exposes to endless punishment, and that the whole human
race, being infallibly involved by their nature in sin, owe this
awful penalty to the justice of their Creator. It teaches, that
this penalty cannot be remitted, in consistency with the honor
of the divine law, unless a substitute be found to endure it
or to suffer an equivalent. It also teaches, that, from the nature
of the case, no substitute is adequate to this work, save the
infinite God himself; and accordingly, God, in his second person,
took on him human nature, that he might pay to his own justice
the debt of punishment incurred by men, and might thus reconcile
forgiveness with the claims and threatenings of his law. 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 make an infinite satisfaction to his
own justice; for one text, which tells us, that human guilt requires
an infinite substitute; that Christ's sufferings owe their efficacy
to their being borne by an infinite being; or that his divine
nature gives infinite 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 theologians. 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 dishonorable to him is the supposition, that his justice
is now so severe, as to exact infinite punishment for the sins
of frail and feeble men, and now so easy and yielding, as to
accept the limited pains of Christ's human soul, as a full equivalent
for the 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 seems absurd to speak
of men as forgiven, when their whole punishment, or an equivalent
to it, is borne by a substitute? A scheme more fitted to obscure
the brightness of Christianity and the mercy of God, or less
suited to give comfort to a guilty and troubled mind, could not,
we think, be easily framed.
We believe, too, that this system
is unfavorable 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 magnifying the value of Christ's vicarious
sufferings. In this way, a sense of the infinite importance and
indispensable 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, 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? With these
impressions, we are accustomed to value the Gospel chiefly as
it abounds in effectual aids, motives, excitements to a generous
and divine virtue. 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 likeness of his celestial excellence.
Back to Table of Contents
Nature of Christian virtue or
holiness
5. 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 highest 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 goodness, if this word may be used, would not
be the object of moral approbation, any more than the instinctive
affections of inferior animals, or the constitutional amiableness
of human beings.
By these remarks, we do not mean
to deny the importance 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 Christians 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.
Love
of God
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 communion 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 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-possession, without which virtue
and devotion lose all their dignity, they have abandoned themselves
to extravagances, 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 anything rather than piety.
We conceive, that the true love
of God is a moral sentiment, 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 domestic life are swayed by a regard to God's presence
and authority. In all things else men may deceive themselves.
Disordered nerves may give them strange sights, and sounds, and
impressions. Texts of Scripture may come to them as from Heaven.
Their whole souls may be moved, and their confidence in God's
favor be undoubting. But in all this there is no religion. The
question is, Do they love God's commands, in which his character
is fully expressed, and give up to these their habits and passions?
Without this, ecstasy 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 natural direction 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 transport. We honor, and highly value, true religious sensibility.
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 fervor 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 recompense 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,
invigorates 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 fervor, called
religious, in men whose general character expresses little refinement
and elevation, and whose piety seems at war with reason, we pay
it little respect. We honor religion too much to give its sacred
name to a feverish, forced, fluctuating zeal, which has little
power over the life.
Back to Table of Contents
Love to
Christ
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. We 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 resurrection 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.
Life of virtue as proof of piety
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 candor, charitable judgment, especially 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 sometimes when we look back on the fires of
persecution, and on the zeal of Christians, in building up walls
of separation, 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 every religion, if asked
to describe a Christian, would, with some show of reason, 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 conceit
of infallibility, and the spirit of intolerance, and trampling
on men's rights under the pretence of saving their souls.
We can hardly conceive of a plainer
obligation on beings of our frail and fallible nature, who are
instructed in the duty of candid judgment, than to abstain from
condemning men of apparent conscientiousness and sincerity, who
are chargeable with no crime but that of differing from us in
the interpretation of the Scriptures, and differing, too, on
topics of great and acknowledged obscurity. 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 errors, 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 called, is very suspicious, except in men, whose capacities
and advantages, whose patient deliberation, and whose improvements
in humility, mildness, and candor, give them a right to hope
that their views are more just than those of their neighbours.
Much of what passes for a zeal for 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 better 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
Scripture, and from various other causes. We find, that on no
subject have men, and even good men, ingrafted 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 denouncing
and condemning 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 virtues, 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 communion,
however elated with the belief of its own orthodoxy, however
strict in guarding its creed, however burning with zeal against
imagined error.
Necessity of
spreading Unitarianism through the world
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 much
deliberation; and we hold it fast, not merely because we believe
it to be true, but because we regard it as purifying 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 diffusion, because we regard it as more friendly
to practical piety and pure morals than the opposite doctrines,
because it gives clearer and nobler views of duty, and stronger
motives to its performance, because it recommends religion at
once to the understanding and the heart, because it asserts the
lovely and venerable attributes 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 favor, 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.
Back to Table of Contents
Charge to the minister (Jared Sparks)
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 interests 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 labor to make your people holy 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 happiness
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 candor 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.
My brother, may your life preach more loudly than your lips.
Be to this people a pattern of all good works, and may your instructions
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 heart, 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 laboring, may you reap abundantly, and have a testimony
of your faithfulness, not only in your own conscience, but in
the esteem, love, virtues, and improvements of your people.
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 denunciation.
Do not think, that you may innocently follow the opinions which
prevail around you, without investigation, on the ground, that
Christianity is now so purified from errors, as to need no laborious
research. There is much reason to believe, that Christianity
is at this moment dishonored by gross and cherished corruptions.
If you remember the darkness which hung over the Gospel for ages;
if you consider the impure union, which still subsists in almost
every Christian country, between the church and state, and which
enlists men's selfishness 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 disfigured it under the Papal
tyranny. No. Much stubble is yet to be burned; 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 splendors
This glorious reformation in the church, we hope, under God's
blessing, from the progress of the human intellect, from the
moral progress of society, from the consequent decline of prejudice
and bigotry, and, though last not least, from the subversion
of human authority in matters of religion, from the fall of those
hierarchies, and other human institutions, by which the minds
of individuals are oppressed under the weight of numbers, and
a Papal dominion is perpetuated in the Protestant church. Our
earnest prayer to God is, that he will overturn, and overturn,
and overturn 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 Christians may
be brought to an end; that the servile assent, so long yielded
to human creeds, may give place to honest and devout inquiry
into the Scriptures; and that Christianity, thus purified from
error, may put forth its almighty energy, and prove itself, by
its ennobling influence on the mind, to be indeed "the power
of God unto salvation."
Back to Table of Contents
|
|
to skip or link to chosen
section.