Miscellanies

Front matter

I ll £ I if

tut. }

lap. jjjo.

LETTER I. Principles of Interpretation, page 3—13

LETTER IT. Unity of God, p. 13—20. Meaning of Person, 20—29, Nicene Creed, 29 — 31. Iniperfeetion of language, 31 — 34. Council at Constantinople in A. D. 381, 34 seq. Definitions of Person in modern times, 36 — 40. Nature of divine Unity and objections to it, 40 —46. Twofold Nature of Christ, 47—53.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE TO LETTER II.

Nicene Creed, 54. Brief Sketch of opinions respecting the Person of Christ, 54 — 59. Modern attempts to define Person, 59. Examination of them, 60 — 71. Christology of recent philosophers in Germany, 71 — 74. Sketch of what might be deemed a proper Creed, in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity, 74 seq.

LETTER HI. Mode of Interpretation, 76—79. Testimony of Scripture, 80—145.

POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER III.

Examination of Dr. Channing's Note, added to the second edition of his Sermon, 145—150.

LETTER IV. Human Nature of Christ, 151 — 157. Examination of texts relied on by Unitarians, 158 — 164. Mode of Controversy, 1 65 seq.

LETTER V. Mode of Exegesis, 167 — 172. Exegesis of special passages, 173—175. Modes of evading the results of Exegesis, 176—181.

x I OKTENTS,

j]i«h Iiberattsts, 182— 184 Urn of Qeman Books ritim.uiim of Ptfltananism, 187—190. Arc the Orthodox fairly totted ' 190— 192.

I'm- rSCBIPI 10 i-i-i i ii; v.

nils in Germany and in this Country, 192—1 r i, |fn Dioi'i Letters in defence of Unitarianism, 196

— i'ii: Hysterics of Arianism, 207 — 210. Efumcmitarianism ezamin- IlOteq. Union of two natures person, 211 Beq. Om

II. Etauiom on rue Atonemkiit,

Disc. I. Er] I

:.»--_'! Banks** na si tlic doctrine, 822— 281 Proofofthe 231 seq Philosophy nol judge, 281— 2

Justice oi [mprol ability of i\ be shown

l >: - II B m 240—241. Principles < f Ea

•_mi seq. Scripture proof 242 —24 -i Atonement, 245 — 251. This doctrine ran-

H seq. 1: off ra high m< itemeht to holiness and

vir: .

III. BbRMOK ON Till. LAMB 01 (iJod.

Inquiry hj whom ti John L: 29)

on ' 262. Meaning of John's decla- • |. Credit doe to John, » ' a conveyed by the word / |. LamJ

sins of the world, - :. Prope

1 lommunl ants, 271

Matt ! & 20, - ■•I- What is it to convene 1 I - i other

I DM n N r-. xi

in Christ as the Son of God and only Saviour of shiners, 186 — MA LerttoCMtJ is. Religions homage, tti--2*6. Obedience

lo Christ, - W!kh it it for Christ to be in the midst ofhisdis-

dplee ! 297 seq. D m of Hanover Stiver church to God, 298

V. I. irrr.il to Dk. Ciivnmmj o.v Rki.k.km < I.ir.r.kTY.

Introduction Passages from Dr. Chaiming'fl works, 3< 3 — 308.

Againsl whom are they aimed ! 308 — 318. First principle of true religions liberty, 313 — 31G. Second principle, 816 acq. Summary of complaints against the Orthodox, 381 seq. Cross of Chri-t compared with a gallows, by Dr. Channing, 336. Denial of charges againsl the Orthodox, 388. Challenge to Dr. Channing to support them, 341 seq. How ethers hare been influenced by such charges, 342 scq. Orthodox Creed, 34 G asq. State of feeling among the Orthodox, 349 seq.

posxacnipx.

Present state of parties, 353 seq. Cambridge University, 355 seq. — Rights of churches denied by our Courts, 362 seq. Pilgrim Fathers, 363 seq.

LETTERS

ON THE

DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY,

ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED TO THE

REV. WM. E. CHANNING

LETTER I

Revf.kknd and Dear Sir,

I have recently perused a Sermon, delivered by you at the ordination of the l\ev. 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 disclosed will stand the test of examination, and shall appear 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 your Sermon, and reflect upon it, without prejudice or party views. Unless I am deceived as to the state of my own feelings, I have endeavoured impartially to weigh the arguments and examine the reasonings which it presents, with a wish to know and believe the truth. I dare not flatter myself, indeed, that I have perfectly 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 again be, deceived by it. Will you permit me, without further introduction or apology, to lay before you my thoughts in regard to three topics of your discourse, that stand in close connection with each other, and are among the principal points, in regard to which 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 require more time and labour than I can pos-

4 nmemjM OF INTERPRETATION. [LETT. I.

nbl] at pr«-rnt, and more health than I enjoy, to ex-

ainin.- all the Statements of doctrines which you have made.

I might adduce another reason for confining myself within these limits. If die principles of reasoning which yon adopt] and the results which you deduce from them iu regard to i. of the points Oil which I am about to remark, arc mitt -nahlc. of incorrect, the consequences of this most extend themselves e$$cntiaUy to most of the remaining topics, which yen have discussed in your Sermon.

The genera] principles of interpreting Scripture, you de-

ibe in the following manner.

•W < regard the Scriptures as* the records of God's sue revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ Whatever doctrines Beetn to OS td be clearly taught in the Scriptures, we re- OeiVe Without reserve Or exception. We do not, however, attach

equal importance to all tin- hooks in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dis- P< osation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as imperfect, earthly, obscure, adapted to the childhood of the

human race, a preparation for a nohler system, and chiefly useful new as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures. JesUS Christ is the only master of Christians, and whatever be taught, either during his personal ministry, or by his inspired apostles, we regard as of divine authority, and proT t<> make the rule of our tives,

"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 hj the class of Christians, in whose Dame I speak, need to be explained, because they are often misunderstood. We are particularly accused of making an unwarrantable use of reason

in the in t er p r eta tion rtf BcriptUre. 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, ! tO the cause of truth, to express our views with some particularity.

•■<>tii leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men,

!. l. PUVCIPL1 I CM in i i i:ii:i l'ATinN. 5

and tl wit its meaning m to he sought in die him maim er a a thai »i 'other booka, We believe that God, when be condescends, to apeak and write, submits, if we may so say, to the eatabliahed rulea of speaking and \NritiiiL r . How alee would the Scriptures avail us more than if communicated in an unknown tongue?

"Now all books, and all conversation, require in the reader or bearer the constant exercise of reason ; for their true import is only to be obtained bj continual comparison and inference. Human language, you well know, admits various interpretation*,

and every WOfd and even sentence must he 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,

•• 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.

u The word of God bears the stamp of the same hand, which we see in his works. It has infinite connections 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 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 connections, we may observe, that its style no where affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold,

1*

And figurative, demanding mora frequent departures from the literal sense, than thai of our own age and country, and tonsequentrj it demands more rontinual ezerciae of judgment We tin.l too, that the different portions of this book, instead of being confined i«> general truths, refer perpetually to tin- timet when :h( \ wn re written, to suttee of society, to modes of thinking, to eootrov* nice in the church, to feelings and usages, which have psed away, and without the knowledge of which we are esav stautlj in danger of extending to all times and places, what aras of temporary and local application. We find, too, that some of these books are strongly marked bj the genius and character of their respective writers, that the Holj Spirit did pot so guide the apostles as t « » suspend the peculiarities of their minds, and thai a knowledge of their feelings, and of the influences

under which they were placed, is one of the preparat ions for understand in<; their writings. With these views of the Bible,

we feel it em- bounden durj to exercise our reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the

spirit, t<> seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true meaninir: and, in general, to make use of what IS known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering

in w initio.

•• Need I descend to particulars to prove 4 that the Scriptures

demand the exercise of reason J Take, for example, the Style

in which the\ generally speak of God, and observe how habitually the\ appl\ to him human passions and organs. Recollect the declarations of Christ, that lie came not to send peace, but a

iWOrd; that unless we eat his flesh, and drink his hiood, 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

I of Christians that thej possess all things, know all tiling.

and can do ail thin--. Recoiled the \erhal contradiction he-

tween Paul and .lames, and the apparent clashing of some parts of Paul's writings, with the genera] 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 winch they were written, so as to give ihe language s quite different import from what it would require, had it been applied to different beings, or \\>vd in different connections.

" Enough has been Said to show in what sense we make use

1. I.] HUNClPLKfl Of INI I.KI'Kl.TA IKiN. 7

(>l'p';is(»ii in interpreting Scripture. From I VlrifQ of possible interpretations, we select that which accords with tin* nature of the subject, and the stale of the writer, \% i 1 1 1 the connection of the pass i je, with the general strain of Scripture, with the known character and will of God, and with the obvious and scknowln\j;ci\ laws of nature. In other words, we believe that God

never contradicts, in one part of Scripture, what be teaches in

another; and never contradicts, in revelation, what he teaches

in his works and pro* idenee. And we, therefore, distrust e\< i\

interpretation, which, alter deliberate attention, seems repugnant

to any established truth. We reason about the Bible precisely

civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who,

\on know, ste accustomed to limit one provision of that vener-

ahle 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 ahandon this book to its enemies." pp. 3 — 8.

To a great part of these principles, I give my cheerful and most cordial assent. They are the principles which I applyto 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.

AVhile I thus give my cordial approbation to most of the above extract from your Sermon, 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. On what other ground can the assertions of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, in Heb. viii, and in other places, be believed or justified? The gospel gives a clearer view than the Jewish Scriptures, of our duty and of our destiny ; of the objects of our hopes and fears ; of

8 PRINCIPLE! 01 ini BKPRE1 ATION. [tBTT. I.

!• of God and the way of salvation. I agree

fully, thai whatever in the Old Testament respects the -lews

rfmplj at Jen . g. flieir ritual, their food, their d

civil polity, their government, and (in a word) whatever from its nature was national and local — is not binding

upon u- under the Christian dispensation.

I am well satisfied, tOO, that the character of Clod and the duty of men were, in many respects, less clearly revealed

under the ancient dispensation. " The law was given by

H06< - ;" yel M no man hath seen God at any time ; the only [en, who dwelleth in the besom of the Father, he hath

him" In other words it was reserved for Christ to make a///// display of the divine character; no mere man

ever had such a knowledge of Cod as enabled him to do it.

I am aware that many Christian- do not seem to understand

this passage ; and, with well meaning hut mistaken views, dedooethe character and d( r Cod as fully and as clear-

ly from the Old Testament a- from the New.*

I most 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 text- in the Old Testament that sometimes are less dear, when the New Testament presents the same subjects in BUch character- of light thai 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 thifl naturally imply, that we are absolved from obligation to receive the Old Testament, in any sense, as our

guide; and that what it teaches we are not bound " to make nr lives f I do not feel certain that it was your

* For more ample news of (his interesting topic, I would refer the

;• to the littk work which I have recently published, entitled Criti- < > <! Tett am ati Canon, p. 385 s<p

LETT. L] MUHCIPLBfl Of IHTEBPE1TATIOH. 9

_rn to affirm this; but the wm.N, in their eonneetioa, :i naturally to bear this import To such a view I Bbonkl oppose the consideration, that those parte of tin* Old Testament, which express the will of God in reference to the great points of duty, thai mast from the nature of moral beings

forever tin- same under ev.-ry dispensation, may be, ami.

'it to be, regarded a> unrepealed. There is a very sound

maxim, in the interpretation of divine as well as human law>. which runs thus: Mcmmtt rati<>N<\ mam't ipsa A'-'\ i. 6. a la\s is unrepealed, while tin 1 reason of that law continues. Onlyexpress repeal can exempt a law from the application of this maxim. And when our Saviour says : " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled," he seems to me to have plainly declared the immutability of the ancient moral law, in the sense already explained.

What shall we say, moreover, of the devotional parts of the Old Testament, of the book of Psalms, for example? And what of those numerous prophetical parts, which are sermons on the duties and obligations of men, or predictionsof 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 that which the New Testament furnishes on the same topics, inasmuch as this is an account of the fulfilment of ancient prophecies ; but I believe both to be sanctioned by the same authority, and to require a similar respect and deference.

In regard to what follows, in the passage above quoted, I cannot hesitate to say, that 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 law r s, so far as philology is concerned, as that of any other book. I ask, w r ith you : How else is the Bible a revelation ? How else can men ever come to agree in what manner the Scripture should be interpreted, or feel any as-

N ri:iN( iru;> Of ivn:ui'i; >\. [lktt. I.

hmmmm that tbey have attained to the meaning of it- lan-

I Snd little from which I should dissent, in tin- remainder of poor observations upon the prineiphi of interpretation* I might, perhaps, make some objection to the manlier, in which Ihe oftee of reason in the interpretation of Scripture i- i sionallv described Bat I am confident, that I admitas fully as you do or can <lo, the proper office of reason, in the whole matter of religion, both in regard to doctrine and practice* It is to our reason, that the arguments which prove the divine origin of Christianity are addressed! and it is by reason thai wo prove or admit this origin, on general historical grounds. mm pr o s cri bes, or at any rate developes and sanctions, the laws of interpreting Scripture 1 . Tin- cases mentioned by

you, in which reaSOU must he exercised, arc in general, striking exemplifications of this. But when reason is satisfied

that the Bible is the hook of God, by proof which she cannot ft, and yel preserve her character) and when she lias

led what laws of exegesis the nature of human language

requires ; the offloe which 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 satisli. d in re-pert to what the sacred writers really meant, in any ease, she receives it without hesitation, whether it relate- to a doctrine, a fact, or a precept. It is the high*

Bee <>f reason to believe doctrines and facts which God has asM-rti-d to be true, and to obey his precepts; although

many things in regard to the manner in which those tacts and doctrines can be explained, or those precepts vindic

may be beyond her reach. In short, the Scriptures once

j admitted to be the word of God, or of divine authority,

Ike sole offloe of reason in respect to them is to act as the

inh rprett r of Revelation, and not in any g ridentfron tin- later writings of Dr. Chaaning, tfeal be id-

lnittcl tin- divine authority nf the Old Testament only in a very limited

snd qualified sense Of die New Testament he would doubtless have

laid: ■ it - the word of God;' hut nut: - it u the word of i

. i. ri;i\-< [PLBi 01 in PI UPRIT1 PIOM.

K MOB ran only judge of the appropriate law- oi

and direct the application of them in order to discover -imply what tin- sacred writers meant to assert This being discovciv.i, it ie either to be received simply ai they bare asserted it, or their divine authority must be rejected, and our oblige tion to believe all which they assert must be denied. There is no other alternative. Philosophy has do rigfrl to interfere

hen*. If she ever interferes, it must he when the question II

pending, whether the Bible is divine. Nor baa system, pre-

judi uiriau feeling, orthodoxy or heterodoxy so called,

anv right to interfere. The claims of the Bible to he authoritative once being admitted, the simple question is : What does it teach ? Of any particular passage we have only to ask: What idea did the original writer mean to convey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it is authoritative. It is orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word ; and everything which differs from it, which modifies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxy, is heresy ; to whatever name or party it is attached.

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

If there be anything in your statement, generally considered, of the laws of interpretation, to which I object, it belongs mostly to the colouring which has been given to some of your language. You commence with saying, that your party are charged with " exalting reason above revelation ;" with u preferring their own w f isdom to God's ;" and that " these charges are circulated freely and with injurious intentions." You

In the first esse, only so much is admitted to be authoritative, as agrees with our views of what is reasonable; in the second case, the Scripture is acknowledged as the only rule of faith and practice.

12 PftOfCIFLBfl OF INTKKPKLTATloV. [LETT. I.

will readily acknowledges as b genend fact, thai there is some difficulty in giving an impartial statement of opinions, which ^w• \<rv Btrongly feel to have been misrepresented. We

Certainly are under temptation, in such cases, to set off our own opinion- to the best advantage, and to place those of our opponents in the most repulsive attitude. And although

Trinitarians, in fact, differ less from you in respect to the

laws of interpretation, than you seem to have apprehended,

yet the belief, on your part, that a wide difference exists,

in- to have given a peculiar cast to some of your sentences, which simple and onimpassioned discussion would

hardly admit

With the last two 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 which is made in them, than the principles themselves, from which I dissent. I shall have occasion to remark hereafter on this subject. I have mentioned it now, merely to prevent any mistake with regard to the meaning of what I say here, respecting the laws of interpretation as exhibited by you.

It would have given me pleasure, to find you unconditionally admitting that the principles of interpretation which you defend, are not original, nor peculiar to your party. But you •a to qualify this by saving, that u att Christians occasionally adopt them." It' I understand you rightly, then, you would admit, that only Unitarians receive the ichole syst< in of exegesis which you have described, and practise upon it. In this however, if this be your meaning, you are mistaken, in ease you speak only of leading principles ; at least it appear- plainly BO to me. in respect to the great mass of New England divines, who at the present time are called orthodox. I doubt whether any man can Btndy the science of interpretation, tor a considerable time together, without adopting those principles tor substance, which you seem to claim appropriately (as a whole) for Unitarian*. 1 speak not, of course, of i I it. n. j GOD. 13

particular and occasional applications of these principles by Daiurians] to which, in certain cases, the orthodox can by no deans assent

How can ii be explained, then, supposing thai you and I

arc both Sincerely seeking after truth, and that both adopt for

substance the same maxim- of interpretation, that we should differ bo widely in the results that {low from the application of these principles? Perhaps Bome light may be cast upon this question in the Beqoel of these letter-.