           UNITARIAN CHRISTIANITY
         By William Ellery Channing

Delivered at the Ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks
in The First Independent Church of Baltimore on
May 5, 1819.

1 Thes. v. 21: "Prove all things; hold fast 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 Christian 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 influence 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 views 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 widely from others. May I not hope to be heard with candor?
God deliver us all from prejudice and unkindness, 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 records of God's successive
revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most
perfect revelation 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
importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we
believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of
Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as 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 whatever 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 ascertained. The principles adopted by
the class of Christians in whose name I speak, need to be
explained, because they are often misunderstood. We are
particularly 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, 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 language of men, and
that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of
other books. We believe that God, when he speaks to the human race,
conforms, 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? 
     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 according 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 candor, 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. But such a book would be of little worth; and
perhaps, of all books, the Scriptures correspond least to this
description. The Word of God hears the stamp of the same hand,
which we see in his works. It has infinite connexions and
dependences. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be
compared with others; that its full and precise import may he
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 providence, 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
language by the known truths, which observation and experience
furnish on these topics.
     We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent
exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now
made on its infinite connexions, we may observe, that its style
nowhere affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of
definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, and
figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the literal
sense, than that of our own age and country, and consequently
demanding more continual exercise of judgment. -- We find, too,
that the different portions of this book, instead of 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
temporary 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 understanding
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 Scriptures
demand the exercise of reason? Take, for example, 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, and 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 writings with the general
doctrines and end of Christianity. I might extend the enumeration
indefinitely; and who does not see, that we must limit all these
passages by the known attributes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of
human nature, and by the circumstances under which they were
written, so as to give the language a quite different import from
what it would require, had it been applied to different 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. 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 constitution under which we live; who, you know, are
accustomed to limit one provision of that venerable instrument by
others, and to fix the precise import of its parts, by inquiring
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 favorite 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 those from whom we
differ. It is astonishing what a fabric 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.
     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 skepticism. 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; 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 skeptic approach. Both would
annihilate our confidence in our faculties, and both throw doubt
and confusion over every truth. We honor revelation too highly to
make it the antagonist of reason, or to believe that it calls us to
renounce our highest 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 dangerous. 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 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
continually, and sometimes fatally, disturb the rational faculty in
its inquiries into revelation. The ambitious contrive to find
doctrines in the Bible, which favor their love of dominion. The
timid and dejected discover there a gloomy system, and the mystical
and fanatical, a visionary theology. The vicious can find examples
or assertions 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
faculty, 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, uprightly. The worst errors, after
all, having 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 darkest times, when the
general credulity encouraged bad men and enthusiasts to broach
their dreams and inventions, and to stifle the faint remonstrances
of reasons, by the menaces of everlasting perdition. Say what we
may, God has given us a rational nature, and will call us to
account for it. We may let it sleep, but we do so at our peril.
Revelation is addressed to us as rational beings. We may wish, in
our to sloth, that God had given us a system, demand of comparing,
limiting, and inferring. But such a system would be at variance
with the whole character of our 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 faculties, which it everywhere
supposes, and on which 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 answers. 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 possible 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 extravagances? How can the
Protestant escape from transubstantiation, a doctrine most clearly
taught us, if the submission of reason, now contended for, be a
duty? How can we even 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 be a verity?
     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 contradictions, not in filling them
with a skeptical distrust of their own powers. An infinitely wise
teacher, who knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best
method of enlightening them, will surpass all other instructors 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 be mistaken, and too
consistently to be questioned, by a sound and upright mind. It is
not the mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology, to
communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and unsettle
the intellect by appearances of contradiction. We honor our
Heavenly Teacher too much to ascribe to him such a revelation. A
revelation is a gift of light. It cannot thicken our darkness, and
multiply our perplexities.
     II. Having thus stated the principles according to which we
interpret Scripture, 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. 
     1. In the first place, 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 one being, one mind, one person, one
intelligent agent, and one only, to whom underived 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 depositaries of this great
truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding those hair-
breadth distinctions between being and person, which the sagacity
of later 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 intelligent
beings.
     We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst
acknowledging in words, it subverts in effect, the unity 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 theologians, has
his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love
each other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's
society. They perform 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 consciousness, different wills, and
different perceptions, performing different acts, and sustaining
different relations; 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 fails us,
our whole knowledge fall; we 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, distinguished from each other
by similar marks and peculiarities 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 reproaching
our brethren, protest against the irrational 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 distinguished 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! We challenge 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, unless
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?
     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 statement 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
contrary, 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 universally
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 opponents would insert it into their creeds and
doxologies, they are compelled to leave the Bible, and to invent
forms of words altogether unsanctioned by Scriptural phraseology.
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 inference, 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 earnestness on a doctrine involving such
apparent contradictions as the Trinity. We cannot conceive an
opinion, against which the Jews, who prided themselves on an
adherence to God's unity, would have raised an equal clamor. Now,
how happens it, that in the apostolic writings, which relate so
much to objections against Christianity, 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 demonstration. We are
persuaded, that had three divine persons been announced by the
first preachers of Christianity, 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 labor of the Apostles would have been to repel the
continual assaults, which it would have awakened. But the fact is,
that not a whisper of objection to Christianity, on that account,
reaches our ears from the apostolic 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 unfavorable 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, in 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 favorable to religious
awe and love. Now, the Trinity sets before us three distinct
objects of supreme adoration; three infinite 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 redemption meet as their centre and source?
Must not devotion be distracted by the equal and rival claims of
three equal persons, and must not the worship of the conscientious,
consistent Christian, be disturbed by an 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 interesting than the Father, is precisely
what might be expected 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 sorrows, speaks to
our weak nature more strongly, than a Father in heaven, a pure
spirit, invisible and unapproachable, 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 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
punishment, 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 than that deep veneration of the moral
perfections of God, which is the essence of piety.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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.
     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. 

     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." 
