Letters to the Rev. Wm. E. Channing, containing remarks on his sermon, recently preached and published at Baltimore

LETTER I Reverend and Dear Sir

I have recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at the ordination of the Rev. J. Sparks, in Baltimore, with no small degree of interest. The subjects of which it treats must be regarded as highly important, by every intelligent man, who is a serious inquirer after revealed truth. And if the views which you have developed will stand the test of examination, and prove to be those which the word of God maintains, or which it will justify ; it certainly will be the duty of every friend to Christianity, to embrace and promote them.

I have endeavoured to read and reflect upon your Sermon, without prejudice or party feeling; and to weigh the arguments, and examine the views which it presents, with a wish to know and believe the truth. I dare not flatter myself, indeed, that I have entirely succeeded in doing this ; for every man who is acquainted with his own heart, will find reason to believe, that he often has been, and may be deceived by it. Will you permit me, however, to lay before you my thoughts in regard to three topics of your discourse, which stand in close connexion with each other, and which are among the principal points, wherein I feel myself compelled to dissent from your opinions ?

The points to which I refer are ; The principles of interpreting Scripture; The unity of God; and the divinity and humanity of the Saviour. I limit myself to these three, because it would make a book and not a pamphlet, to examine all the statements of doctrines which you have made, (and to write a book would require time and health which 1 have not to spare ;) and because, if the principles of reasoning and the results which you deduce from them, in regard to some of the points on which I am about to remark, are incorrect, or untenable, the influence of this must extend itself essentially, to most of the remaining topics, w r hich you have presented.

The general principles of interpreting Scripture, you designate in the following manner.

M 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 imperfect, earthry, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. Jesus Christ is the only master of Christians, and 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, and. with such injurious intentions, that we think it due to ourselves, and to the cause of truth, to express our views with some particularity.

w 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 condescends to speak and write, submits, if we may so say, to the established rules of speaking and writing. How else would the Scriptures avail us more than if communicated in an unknown tongue ?

" 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 candour, and an intention of obscuring or distorting his meaning.

u w ere 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 bears the stamp of the same hand, which we see in his works. It has infinite connexions and dependencies. Every proposition is linked with others, and is to be compared with others, that its full and precise import may be understood. Nothing stands alone. The New Testament is built on the Old. The Christian dispensation is a continuation of the Jewish, the completion of a vast scheme of providence, requiring great extent of view in the reader. Still more, the Bible treats cf 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 topicks.

" 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 no where 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 county, and consequently demands 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 cen~ stantly in danger of extending to all tunes, and places, what was oi 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 : 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 the}' 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 Scripnires. Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its enemies." pp. 3 — 6.

To a great part of these principles, I give my cheerful and most cordial assent. They are the principles which I apply to the explanation of the Scriptures, from day to day, in my private studies and in my public labours. They are the principles, by which I am conducted to the opinions that I have espoused; and by which, so far as I am able, I expect to defend these opinions, whenever called in duty to do it.

While I thus give my general and cordial approbation to most that has been presented, in the extract above ; will you indulge me in expressing a wish, that the rank and value of the Old Testament, in the Christian's library, had been described in somewhat different terms ? I do most fully accord with the idea, that the gospel, or the New Testament, is more perfect than the Mosaic law, or than the Old Testament, in a comparative sense. On what other ground, can the assertions of Paul, in 2 Cor. hi, in IJeb. vm, and in other places, be believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view, than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and our destiny; of the objects of our hopes and fears ; of the character of God and the way of salvation. I agree fully, that whatever in the Old Testament respects the Jews, simply as Jews ; such as their ritual, their food, their dress, their civil polity, their government ; in one word, whatever from its nature w r as national and local, is not binding upon us under the Christian dispensation. I am well satisfied too, that the character of God, and the duty of men, were, in many respects, less clearly revealed under the ancient dispensation, " The law came by Moses ;"— yet " no man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten, who dwelleth in the bosom of the Father, He hath revealed him i. e., it was reserved for Christ to make a full display of the divine character; no man ever had such knowledge of God as enabled him to do it. I am aware that many Christians do not seem to understand this passage ; and with well meaning but mistaken views, deduce the character and designs of God, as fully and as clearly from the Old Testament, as from the New.

I must believe too, that the duties of Christians are, in most things, more fully and definitely taught in the gospel, than in the Old Testament ; and I cannot approve of that method of reasoning, which deduces our duties principally from texts in the Old Testament, that sometimes are less clear, when the New Testament presents the subject in such characters of light, that he who runneth may read.

But when you say, " 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 does not this naturally imply, that we are absolved from any obligation to receive the Old Testament, in any sense, as our guide ; and that what it teaches, we are not bound " to make the rule of our lives ?'•' I do not feel certain that it was your design to affirm this ; but the words in their connexipn seem naturally to bear this import. To this view, I should object ; that such parts of the Old Testament as express the will of God, in reference to those great points of duty that must, from the nature of moral beings, be forever the same under every dispensation, may and ought to be regarded as unrepealed : for it is a very sound maxim in the interpretation of divine as well as human laws, that ma~ nenie ratione, manet ipsa lex ; A law is unrepealed, while the reason of that law continues. The case of an express repeal only, can exempt from the application of this maxim. And when our Saviour says, that " Heaven and earth shall sooner pass away, than one jot or tittle of the law shall pass, until all be fulfilled ;" he seems to me plainly to have declared the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense already explained.

What shall we say, moreover, to the devotional parts of the Old Testament, (the book of Psalms for instance;) or those numerous prophetical parts, which are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictions of a future Messiah and of the nature and prosperity of his church? Are these any more Jewish (except as to the garb in which they are clothed,) than Christian ? I admit that they are all less perfect, than what the New Testament presents us with, on the same topics ; but I believe them to be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar respect and deference.

As to what follows, in the passage above quoted ; nothing is clearer to my apprehension, than that God, when he speaks to men, speaks in language which is used by those whom he addresses. Of course, the language of the Bible is to be interpreted by the same laws, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. I ask with you ; How else is the Bible a Revelation? How else can men ever come to agree in what manner the Scriptures should be interpreted, or feel any assurance that they have attained to the meaning of its language ?

I find little from which I should dissent, in the remainder of your observations upon the principles of interpretation. I might, perhaps, make some objection 2 to the manner in which the office of reason, in the interpretation of Scripture, is occasionally described. But I am confident, that I admit as fully as you do or can do, the proper office of reason, in the whole matter of religion, both in doctrine and practice. It is our reason, to which the arguments that prove the divine origin of Christianity are addressed ; and by reason, that we prove or admit this, as to its general historical grounds. Reason prescribes, (or at any rate developes and sanctions,) the laws of interpreting Scripture. The cases which you have presented are, in general, striking exemplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied that the Bible is the book of God, by proof which she cannot reject, and yet preserve her character ; and when she has decided what laws of exegesis the nature of human language requires ; the office that remains for her in regard to the Scripture, is the application of those laws to the actual interpretation of the Bible. When by their application, she becomes satisfied what the sacred writers really meant in any case, she receives it without hesitation whether doctrine or precept. It is the highest office of reason to believe facts or doctrines, which God has asserted to be true, although the manner in which these things exist, or can be explained, is beyond her reach. In one word; the Scriptures being once admitted to be the word of God, or as of divine authority ; the sole office of reason in respect to them is to act as the interpreter of Revelation, and not in any case as legislator. It is limited to judging of the laws of exegesis, and the application of them, in order to discover simply what the sacred writers meant to assert. This being discovered, it is either to be received, in that simple state in which they have left it ; or their divine authority is to be rejected, and we are to cast off our obligation to believe all which they assert. There is no alternative ; no middle way, in this case. Philosophy has no right to interfere here. If she ever interferes, it must be when the question is pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor has system, prejudice, sectarian feeling, or any thing whatever of a similar nature — neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy, so called, any right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to be authoritative once being admitted, the simple question is, What does it mean ? — And of any particular passage ; What idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, this is authoritative ; this is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word ; and every thing which differs from it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy ; to whatever name or party it is attached.

1 presume you will agree, without hesitation, to these principles. The grand Protestant maxim, that the Bible is our only and sufficient rule of faith and, practice, amounts most clearly to the very same thing which I have stated ; and which every man must admit, that acknowledges the paramount claims of the Bible to be believed, and has any tolerable acquaintance with the subject of its interpretation.

If there be any thing to which I should object, in your statement generally considered of the laws of Interpretation, it is rather in the coloring which has been given to some of the language in which it is expressed. You commence with saying, that your party are charged w ith " exalting reason above revelation with " preferring their own wisdom to God's;" and that these charges are " circulated freely and with injurious intentions." You will readily acknowledge, as a general fact, that there is difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which we thus strongly feel to have been misrepresented ? We certainly, in such cases, are under temptation to set off our own views to the best advantage, and to place those of our opponents in the most disadvantageous light.

With the two last paragraphs of your sermon, that are quoted above, I wish not to be understood as signifying that I entirely agree. It is, however, rather the application of some exegetical principles that is introduced into them, than the principles themselves, from which I dissent. I shall have occasion to remark hereafter on this subject, and have mentioned it here, merely to prevent any mistake with regard to my meaning, in what I say upon the laws of interpretation, as exhibited by you.

I am happy to find you frank enough to admit, that the principles of interpretation which you defend, are not original, or peculiar to your party ; although you seem to qualify this, by saying that " all Christians occasionally adopt them." If I understand you rightly, then, you would admit, that only Unitarians receive and practise upon the whole system of exegesis, which you have described. In this, however, if this be your meaning, you are mistaken ; at least, it appears plainly so to me, as far as I am acquainted with the men called orthodox, in New England, at the present time. I doubt whether any man can study the science of interpretation, for a considerable time together, without adopting, for substance, those principles of it, which you seem to claim appropriately, (as a whole,) for Unitarians,

How can it be explained, then, that supposing you and I are both sincerely seeking after truth, and that both adopt, for substance, the same maxims of interpretation, we should differ so Avidely in the results that flow from the application of these principles ? Perhaps this question may have some light thrown upon it, in the sequel of these letters.

Letter II

Reverend and Dear Sir, I could wish to find as much in your sermon respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, with which I might accord, as in your principles of interpretation. My apprehensions respecting this doctrine, however, differ from yours. I have not hastily, nor without examination and reflection, embraced my present views of this subject. Nor can I say that I am convinced, by perusing your statement of the doctrine and the arguments against it, that I am erroneous in my views respecting it.

You will not expect me, however, in these letters, which are intended to be brief, to go into a general discussion of this great subject, which shall embrace all the important topics which it presents. I intend to touch only on those points, on which the hinge of the controversy seems to me to turn ; and these, in a manner as summary as the nature and difficulty of the case will permit.

The statement which you make of your own faith in regard to the unity of God, and your account of the doctrine of the Trinity, are as follows : —

" First. We believe in the doctrine of god's unity, or that there is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance, and we feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by vain philosophy. The proposition, that there is one God seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand by it, that there is 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 hairbreadth distinctions between being and person, which the sagacity of latter ages has discovered. We find no intimation, that this language was to be taken in an unusual sense, or that God's unity was a o t uite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent beings.

" We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts 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 consciousnesses, 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 fail us, our whole knowledge falls ; 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 ?" pp. 8, 9.

My object in this letter is not to controvert your creed ; but to remark on your exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity, as stated, believed, and defended, by those with whom I am accustomed to think and act.

Admitting that you have given a fair account of our belief; I cannot see, indeed, why we are not virtually guilty of Tritheism ; or at least of something which approximates so near to it, that I acknowledge myself unable to make the distinction. But I cannot help feeling, that you have made neither an impartial, nor a correct statement of what we believe, or what we are accustomed to teach and defend.

It needs but a moderate acquaintance with the history of the doctrine in question, to satisfy any one, that a great variety of explanations have been attempted by inquisitive, or by adventurous minds. All acknowledge the difficulty of the subject ; I regret to say, that all have not refrained from treating it, as though it were more within their comprehension than it is.

But among all the different explanations, which I have found, I have not met with any one which denied, or at least was designed to deny, the Unity of God. All admit this to be a fundamental principle. All acknowledge that it is designated in characters of light, both in the Jewish and Christian revelations ; and that to deny it would be the grossest absurdity, as well as impiety.

It may, indeed, be questioned, whether the explanations given of the doctrine of the Trinity, by some, who have speculated on this subject, are consistent with the divine unity, when the language which they use is fairly interpreted, agreeably to the common laws of exegesis. But that their representations were not designed to to call in question the divine Unity, is what I think every candid reader of their works will be disposed to admit

Now when I consider this fact, so plain and so easily established; and then look through your statement of the doctrine of the Unity of God, and the Trinity, as given above : I confess it gives me pain* to think that you have not conceded or even intimated, that Trinitarians do, or can, admit the Unity of God. You have a right to say, if you so think, that the doctrine of the Trinity, as they explain and defend it, is at variance with the divineUnity; and that they are inconsistent with each other. But to appropriate solely to those, who call themselves Unitarians, the belief that there is but one God ; or to construct an account of the Trinitarian creed, (as it seems to me you have done, in the paragraph on which I am remarking,) so as not even to intimate to your hearers or readers, that your opponents admit, or advocate the divine Unity ; is doing that which you would censure in an antagonist, and which cannot well subserve the interests of inquiry after truth.

But let us examine your statement of our creed : —

" We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that it subverts 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 consciousnesses, 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." p. 9.