DISCOURSES AND REVIEWS UPON QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSIAL THEOLOGY AND PRACTICAL RELIGION. THE UNITARIAN BELIEF. I SHALL undertake to state in this article what I understand to be the prevailing belief of Unitarian Christians. Our position as a religious body seems still to require statements of this nature. It is a position, that is to say, entirely misunderstood. Misconstructions once in vogue, seem to have a strange power of perpetuating themselves; or, at any rate, they are helped on by powers that seem to us very strange. In the face of a thousand denials, and in spite of the self-contradicting absurdity of the charge, it is still said, and, by multitudes, seems to be thought, that our creed consists of negations; that we believe in almost nothing. It seems to be received as if it were a matter of common consent that we do not hold to the doctrines of the Bible, and that we scarcely pretend to hold to the Bible itself. It is apparently supposed by many that we stand upon peculiar ground in this respect; that we hold some strange position in the Christian world, different from all other Christian denominations. We must, therefore, if our patience fail not, explain ourselves again and again. We must, again and again, implore others to make distinctions very obvious indeed, but which they are strangely slow to see; to distinguish, that is to say, or at least to remember that we distinguish, between the Bible and fallible interpretations, between Scripture doctrines and the explanation of those doctrines. The former we receive; the latter only do we reject. Our position in the Christian world is not a singular one. We profess to stand upon the same ground as all other Christians, the Bible. Our position, considered as dissent; our position, as assailed on all sides, is by no means a novel one: The Protestants were and are charged by the Romish Church with rejecting Christianity. Every sect in succession that has broken off from the body of Christians — the Lutherans and English Episcopalians first, then the Scotch Presbyterians, then the Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Puritans, the Independents of every name has been obliged to reply to the same charge of holding no valid nor authorized belief. And what has been the answer of them all? It has been the answer of Paul before Felix: that they did believe; that they "believed all things that are written" in the holy volume. -- This same defence, namely, Paul's usage had fixed upon them. We bedefence to the Jews, Luther's and Wick- lieved in the things themselves; we liff's to the Romish Church; the de- believed in the words as they stood in fence of Knox, of Robinson, of Fox, of the Bible, but not as they stood in Wesley, and Whitfield, and of our own other books. But finding that, whenMayhew and Mathers to the English ever we used: these terms, we were Church, this same defence it has fallen charged, as even our great Master himto our lot to plead as Unitarian Chris- self was, with "deceiving the people," tians. We bear a new name; but we and not anxious to dispute about words, take an old stand, a stand old as we gave up the familiar use of a portion Christianity. We bear a new name, of the Scriptural phraseology. Whether but we make an old defence; we think we ought, in justice to ourselves, so to as every other class of Christians have have done, is not now the question. thought, that we approach the nearest We did so; and the consequence has to the old primitive Christianity. We been, that the body of the people, not bear a hard name, the name of heretics; often hearing from our pulpits the conbut it is the very name which Episco- tested words and phrases; not often palians, Presbyterians, Arminians, Cal- hearing the words, propitiation, sacrivinists, have once borne; which all fice, the natural man, the new birth, Protestant Orthodoxy has once borne; and the Spirit of God,― hold themselves which Paul himself bore, when he doubly warranted in charging us with a said, "After the way which they call defection from the faith of Scripture. heresy, so worship I the God of my It is this state of things which makes fathers." We bear a new name; and it especially pertinent and proper for a new name draws suspicion upon it, us, as we have said, distinctly to deas every Christian sect has had occasion clare not only our belief in the Scripfull well to know; and we think, there- tures generally, but our belief in what fore, that our position and our plea de- the Scriptures teach on the points in mand some consideration and sympathy controversy; our belief, we repeat, in from the body of Christians. We think what the Scriptures mean by the phrase, that they ought to listen to us, when we "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," and make the plea, once their own, that we by the words, atonement, conversion, believe, according to our honest under-election, and others that stand for dis standing of their claim upon our faith, all things that are written in the Holy Scriptures. There is one circumstance which makes the statement of this defence peculiarly pertinent and proper for us; and that is, the delicacy which has been felt by our writers and preachers about the use of terms. When we found, for instance, that the phrase, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," and that the words, atonement, regeneration, election, with some others, were appropriated by the popular creeds, and stood in prevailing usage, for orthodox doctrines, we hesitated about the free use of them. was not because we hesitated about the meaning which Scripture gave to them, but about the meaning which common It puted doctrines. To some statements of this nature, then, we now invite attention; only premising further, that it is no part of our purpose, within the brief limits of this exposition, to set forth anything of that abundant argument for our views of Christianity which so powerfully convinces us that they are true. Our object at present is limited to statement and explanation. We would present the Unitarian creed according to our own understanding of it. With this object in view, we say, in general, that we believe in the Scriptures. On a point which is so plain, and ought to be so well understood as this, it is unnecessary to dwell, unless it be for the purpose of discrimination. If any one thinks it necessary to a reception of the Bible as a revelation from God, that the inspired penmen should have written by immediate dictation; if he thinks that the writers were mere amanuenses, and that word after word was put down by instant suggestion from above; that the very style is divine and not human; that the style, we say, and the matters of style, the figures, the metaphors, the illustrations, came from the Divine mind, and not from human minds,— we say, at once and plainly, that we do not regard the Scriptures as setting forth any claims to such supernatural perfection or accuracy of style. It is not a kind of distinction that would add anything to the authority, much less to the dignity, of a communication from Heaven. Nay, it would detract from its power, to deprive it, by any hypothesis, of those touches of nature, of that natural pathos, simplicity, and imagination, and of that solemn grandeur of thought, disregarding style, of which the Bible is full. Enough is it for us that the matter is divine, the doctrines true, the history authentic, the miracles real, the promises glorious, the threatenings fearful; enough, that all is gloriously and fearfully true, true to the Divine will, true to human nature, true to its wants, anxieties, sorrows, sins, and solemn destinies ; enough, that the seal of a divine and miraculous communication is set upon that Holy Book. So we receive it. So we believe in it. And there is many a record on those inspired pages which he who believes therein would not exchange; no, he would not exchange it, a simple sentence though it be, for the wealth of worlds. That God Almighty, the Infinite Creator and Father, hath spoken to the world; that He who speaks, indeed, in all the voices of nature and life, but speaks there generally and leaves all to inference; that he hath spoken to man distinctly, and as it were individually, -spoken with a voice of interpretation for life's mysteries, and of guidance amidst its errors, and of comfort for its sorrows, and of pardon for its sins, and of hope, undying hope beyond the grave; this is a fact, compared with which all other facts are not worth believing in; this is an event so interesting, so transcendent, transporting, sublime, as to leave to all other events the character only of things ordinary and indifferent. But let us pass from the general truth of this record to some of its particular doctrines. Our attention here will be confined to the New Testament. I. And we say, in the first place, that we believe "in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." This was the simple primitive creed of the Christians; and it were well if men had been content to receive it in its simplicity. As a creed, it was directed to be introduced into the form of baptism. The rite of baptism was appropriated to the profession of Christianity. The converts were to be baptized into the acknowledgment of the Christian religion; baptized into the name, that is, into the acknowledgment, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. three points of be This creed consist of three parts. It contains no proof, nor hint, of the doctrine of a Trinity. We might as well say that any other lief are one point. The creed consists of three parts; and these parts embrace the grand peculiarities of the Christian religion; and it is for this reason, as we conceive, and for no other, that they are introduced into the primitive form of a profession of Christianity. The first tenet is, that God is a paternal Being; that he has an interest in his creatures, such as is expressed in the title Father; an interest unknown to all the systems of Paganism, untaught in all the theories of philosophy; an interest not only in the glorious beings of other spheres, the sons of light, the dwellers in heavenly worlds, but in us, poor, ignorant, and unworthy as we are ; that he has pity for the erring, pardon | teth on the right hand of the Father; for the guilty, love for the pure, kindness for the humble, and promises of immortal and blessed life for those who trust and obey him. God, yes, the God of boundless worlds and infinite systems, is our Father. How many in Christian lands have not yet learned this first truth of the Christian faith! The second article in the Christian's creed is, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person; not God himself, but his image, his brightest manifestation; the teacher of his truth, the messenger of his will; the mediator between God and men; the sacrifice for sin, and the Saviour from it; the conqueror of death, the forerunner into eternity, where he evermore liveth to make intercession for us. We are not about to argue; but we cannot help remarking, as we pass, how obvious it is, that in none of these offices can Jesus be regarded as God. If he is God in his nature, yet as Mediator between God and man, we say he cannot be regarded as God. The third object of our belief, introduced into the primitive creed, is the Holy Ghost; in other words, that power of God, that divine influence, by which Christianity was established through miraculous aids, and by which its spirit is still shed abroad in the hearts of men. This tenet, as we understand it, requires our belief in miracles, and in gracious interpositions of God, for the support and triumph of Christian faith and virtue. whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Church; the remission of sins; and the resurrection of the flesh." Not a word is here of "co-equal Son," as in the Nicene Creed; not a word of "Trinity," as in the Athanasian. Things approach nearer, it should seem, to the simplicity of the gospel, as they approach nearer to its date. To that simplicity of faith, then, we hold fast. On that primitive and beautiful record of doctrine we put our hand and place our reliance. We believe "in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost." May the Father Almighty have mercy upon us! May the Son of God redeem us from guilt, from misery, and from hell! May the Holy Ghost sanctify and save us! From this general creed, let us now proceed to particular doctrines. II. We believe in the atonement. That is to say, we believe in what that word and similar words mean in the New Testament. We take not the responsibility of supporting the popular interpretations. They are various, and are constantly varying, and are without authority, as much as they are without uniformity and consistency. What the divine record says, we believe according to the best understanding we can form of its import. We believe that Jesus Christ" died for our sins; " that he" died, the just for the unjust;" that "he gave his life a ransom for many;" that "he is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world;" that "we have redemption through his blood;" that we "have access to God, and enter into the holiest [that is, the nearest communion with God] by the blood of Jesus." We have no objection to the phrase Let us add, that these three, with the addition of the doctrine of a future life, are the grand points of faith which are set forth in the earliest uninspired creed on record, commonly called "The Apostles' creed." Its language is, "I" atoning blood," though it is not Scripbelieve in God the Father Almighty; and in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was born of the But what now is the meaning of all Holy Ghost and Virgin Mary; and was this phraseology, and of much more crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was that is like it? Certainly it is that there buried; and, the third day, rose again is some connection between the sufferfrom the dead, ascended into heaven, sit-ings of Christ and our forgiveness, our re tural, provided it is taken in a sense which the Scripture authorizes. demption from sin and misery. This we all believe. But what is this connection? Here is all the difficulty; here is all the difference of opinion. We all believe, all Christians believe, that the death of Christ is a means of our salvation. But how is it a means? Was it, some one will say, perhaps, as if he were putting us to the test; was it an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation? We answer, that it was an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation. But now the question is, what is an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation? And this is the difficult question; a question to the propersolution of which much thought, much cautious discrimination, much criticism, much knowledge, and especially of the ancient Hebrew sacrifices, is necessary. Can we not "receive the atonement," without this knowledge, this criticism, this deep philosophy? What then is to become of the mass of mankind, of the body of Christians? Can we not savingly "receive the atonement" unless we adopt some particular explanation, some peculiar creed, concerning it? Who will dare to answer this question in the negative, when he knows that the Christian world, the Orthodox Christian world, is filled with differences of opinion concerning it? The Presbyterian Church of America is, at this moment, rent asunder on this question. Christians are, everywhere, divided on the questions, whether the redemption is particular or general; whether the sufferings of Christ were a literal endurance of the punishment due to sin, or only a moral equivalent; and whether this equivalency, supposing this to be the true explanation, consists in the endurance of God's displeasure against sin, or only in a simple manifestation of it. The atonement is one thing; the gracious interposition of Christ in our behalf; the doing of all that was necessary to be done, to provide the means and the way for our salvation, this is one thing; in this we all believe. The philosophy, the theory, the theology of the atonement, is another thing. About this Orthodox Christians are differing with one another about as much as they are differing from us. Nay more, they are saying as hard things of one another as they ever said of us. Is it not time to learn wisdom? Is there not good reason for taking the ground we do; the ground, that is to say, of general belief and trust, without insisting upon particular and peculiar explanations? We believe in Christ; and well were it if we all believed in him too fervently and tenderly to be engaged much in theological disputes and denunciations. We believe in Christ. We pray to God through him. We ask God to bless us for his sake; for we feel that Christ makes intercession, and has obtained the privilege to be heard, through his own meritorious sufferings. Christ's sacrifice is the grandest, the most powerful means of salvation. It was a transcendent and most affecting example of meekness, patience and forgiveness of injuries. It was a most striking exhibition of God's gracious interest and concern for us, of his view of the evil and curse of sin, and of his compassion for the guilty, and of his readiness to forgive the penitent. It was an atonement; that is to say, a means of reconciliation, -reconciliation not of God to us, but of us to God. The blood of that sacrifice was atoning blood; that is, it was blood on which whoever looks rightly, is touched with gratitude and humility and sorrow for his sins, and thus is reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Now it is possible that we do not understand and receive all that is meant by the Scriptures on this subject. We admit it, as what imperfection ought always to admit; but we admit it, too, for the sake of saying, that, so long as we receive all that we can understand from the language in question; so long as we receive and believe every word that is written, no man has a right to say to us, without qualification, "You do not believe in the atonement. He may say, "You do not believe in the atonement, according to my explanation," or accord |