Skip to main content

Full text of "Illustrations of the end of the Church"

See other formats

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make iion-coninieicial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from autoiiiaied querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Mainrain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use. remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from countiy to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at http: //books .google . com/ 

600051 206S 












TD WHICH «■■ tDpau. Kiaiui vraH 


"Srut thod thms aaiiT bdildihui t Thsu ihiu. hot bi lett our from iroK 


Mark slil. S, 4. 



Fanmtrlg qf Ei. ColL Orm. 



M laxc XL). 




The rollowing work is only a sketch. The object of it is 
to illuBtratc, upon the principles of Swcdcnborg, tlic state 
of the church as prwlictcrf in Scripture. 

Christendom may be said to be divided into three parts; 
the Greek, the Roman, And tie Protestant churches. With 
regard to the former, vrc luxvo said uothiug specilically in the 
present work ; because, upon the subjects wc h«vo consi- 
dered, it ia BO nearly identified with the Iloman and Pro- 
teatant nliurches, aa to render any ptuticular mention of it 
tmneccssaryj the observations we have appUcd to the two 
imtter, being in general equally applicable to the former. 
Our illustrations, therefore, of the end of the church, arc 
taken from Roman Catholic and Protestant writers. 

There are three way* in which a church may be con- 
cctTcd to come to its end : the first, by the closing of the 
dispensation ; the second, by its apostocy ; the third, by both. 

With regard to the first it may be observed, that a«, 
in general, the several dispensations of Providence arc all 
relative one to the other; so, in particular, the Jewish was 
relative or preparatory to the Christian. Had the Jewish 
nation continued faithful to their religion, yet the ilis[)en- 
saliou, being only preparatory, would have ceased at the 

ateirmum. « ..mmmatrr 

-w. ^ir £. -voti «Bie aramBnaBOs. *«! iioa'ing 

amdenvL if nr jmMa. a «:£&.9-:iDBn: m. "im n^s jmu. 
f «« jtafcr "ill* b M Mi-.«ni 11 L<a 
vitr n » JKiK ^sMssies. cH -=uf 

"U "iut ^nif. %v: 'SOK "ae vioi i x 'amsnc subul ^sve. is 
'^itii -vmui le iiihhimTiii r inc "aK "aer lOiniuL ne ssar'iec 

w tmaiKr Iftssnt if lv*it. vonea. lad mscBRORL trcffais 

^WM:t2wC dw tBQiBUiKaaBi vmter ^r^oES is amiomaziiBC. sad 
'AnMKnnmcn' ^k ^aima. rr«»y ^^i aix emit a ic» <m. T^ 
lUMR ^nmoHtfii!: ttmrjucncaam ■wwrtr x £irm^a2 ia jtwri' 
^iutc raft *anra. ▼» v'jKaaeal z "i fc g : tfcr dc^en ii^ kc Jwck 
"Jw r^at f-KUtanusica^ i^'jena^s «f i&£^ sh^ : ^3ac skr jam*- 
jwj«t 'J r^ rasgefe v«r b ictkt acccrdi^K Tick tbt rad 
^t ^0VL ■ ^ac suar veze sbe ta^MJam . «^ kad w^tHwd 
*.dft «»% ^iaoM 'if tfe cstk. xod Enr t&« ^Maar* df die 
^lui^A -*v« \aA £ed ia fix &iik : tcc. m R^vd to tke &ct 
?&d£ tiK <±UE7ei !uid K/ o-jok to 113 Old. aB tiiB vcoid piore 
wxlua^r. Tlut t»tt arcinnssaiKr of the frhUnliMSB of tbe 
'Aiwei KufkJK l« dud to ibev, thai tfar L«d had hutmed 
^ xrri^-VxA. ^ tbu tU' Spim uid the' faride hvl nid. C«xiie ; 
*Adf t*'. t^iji: vfc. a:lun« tdd aid, C<mdc : thai tbc bnguage 




uf the nhuU' church, in this case, had been, " Evcu so, come 
Lord Jesus." The faithfulness of the church, therefore, so 
far from proving that her time liad not yet come, might only 
tend to ihcir tlic fulfilment of the prophecy, " iVrisc, shine, 
for thy light is come, aud the glory of the Lord is risen upon 
thee." At such a period, any tniwlllinguc«9, any hesitation 
on the part of the church to wclcoiuc Itis coming, might 
rather tend to awaken the surmise whether her loins renjly 
were girded, her lighttt really boruing, and she herself wait- 
ing for the coming of the Lord. 

This considcmtiou brings us to the Bccond way in which 
a church may bo conceived to cume to ita end, namely, by its 

In this ctiae, although primitively a true churcli, she had 
subsequently fallen away from the truth. Under tbcse dr- 
cumstaucct), to »hew that tlie early writers of the church wore 
in possession of the truth, and, in oj^oniian to prevailing 
doctrines, to revert to those writers, would only be a con- 
fession of a prevailing defection : on the other hand, to main- 
tain that tlie prevailing doctrines of the church, as opposed 
to tliosu of its earlier ages, were right, would only be to 
admit the fact of a prcvioiis defection. It should be remem- 
bered, however, that there are three kinds of defection or 
npostacy : first, apostacy from love ; secondly, apostaey from 
truth; thirdly, apostacy from both. 

Witli r^^ard to the first, or apostacy from love or 
charity, wc arc told, By this shall all men know that ye are 
my diacipies, ^ ye love one another. Love u the futJUiing 
€^ the law : and St. Paul says. Now abidetk faith, hope, and 
love : but the ^eatest of these is love. The beginning, thcrc- 
fora. of the time in which the members of the ClirisCian 



church cease to live in love, is the real beginning of its 
dc&ctjon. In this case, the illustnitious of the end of the 
church are derired from the lustoiy of its iuterual wars aud 
dissensions : but as the reception of Cliristian truth depends 
upon the state of the will, ns a pure heiuli receives the truth 
in its purity, and an impure one corrupts aud perverts it ; so 
n dcfectiou from love naturally leads, in the course of time, 
tu a defection from truth, or a corruption of the faith ; that 
is to say, to the consiimmatiou of both the second and third 
kinds of defection or apostacy. Ilere, however, there ore 
two things to be rcracmbercd. First, that a pcrsoti may love 
Ood and hia ueiglibur, aud yet believe Home things that are 
false. Under sneh circumstances, untruth does not hurt him. 
False doctrine is, indeed, a deadly thing; but all deadly 
things do not hurt : for our Savior says of his true disciples, 
y thejf drink any deadhj thatff, it sfta/l not hurt them. Se- 
condly, a [lerson may have no love of God, and yet maintain 
true doctrine. In this case ho is, nevertheless, not a true 
disciple of Cluist. The first hHH within him the esseuce of a 
true chtm;h, but not the perfect doctrinal form ; the second 
has the doctrinal form, but uot the real essence. A church 
composed of individuals such as the latter, would ncvcrthclcsa 
uot be a church ; there might be an outwiu-d appearance of 
life and health, but inwardly there would be nothing but 
death anil comiption. 

The last way in which a church may lie conceived to oomc 
to its end, is, by the closing of the dispensation, and by its 
apostacy combined. For a church might be apostate, and 
yet be allowed by Pruridcucc to continue, until the fulness 
of time ithould come when a new church inigbt be estab- 
lished. For Pro\'iduucc docs not remove evil at once, but 



awnilH times and seasons ; letting the tares grow up with the 
wheat, lest, ill removiug tbe tares^ the wheat should he 
removed also. 

Let n.1 apply these remarks to the present state of 

All writers iij^ci;, that at some period or other, and in 
^Bomc way or other, the present dispensation will ceasu. iVll 
writers agree that, previously to this period, the Scriptures 
predict an aijostacy. We have the testimony of the Church 
of Itome, that the Protestant Church is apostate ; we liave 
the testimony of the Protestant Church, tliat the Church of 
Rome is apostate ; wc have the testimony of both churches, 
tliat the doctrines of the two arc fundaroeutHlly the same: 
what then is the uatural conclusion ? Let us take the testi- 
mony of writers of eminence in the Protestant Church : and 
first, the testinmny of Bishop Ilurd. Tracing the hiatory of 
Antichrist, he observes : 

" We now enter on the sixteenth century, disdnguishcd 
in the annals of mankind by that great event, the reforma- 
tion of long oppressed and ranch adulterated rehgion. The 
Christiau world liad slumbered in its chains, for full ten 
agM; but liberty came at last, lU/ertas tfute gera taiaeu 
Tcxperil inertem. This important work was begun and proao* 
cutcd on the common principle, that the bishop of Rome 
ru Antichrist; and the great separation from the Church of 
Home wax everywhere justified on the idea, that Home waa 
the Babylon of the Revelation, and that Christiaus were 
bomid, by an express command in those prophecies, to oome 
out of her communion." (It is well known that, in the 
Apocalypse, tliis Babylon is eiUlcd the great whore that hath 
filled the caith with her foiiiicatious -, that she iv the mother 

of liiurlotji, for vhoni m rcscrvrd the dregs of the cup of the 
vrath of Gml.) " I'>om this time to the preseut," says 
Uishop llurd, "the charge of Antichristianisra agmiist the 
Church of Kome, U to he regarded, uot as the lauguage of 
private men or particular sTnods, but as the coinmon vwx qf 
the whole ProtettatU world," Kre. toL r. p. 200. 

On the other band, let db hear the testimouj- of other 
Protestant divines, Duuutaiiiing that the doctrines of the 
Cliurch of Rome and of the Church of England are funda- 
mcntaUj the same ; no that each belongs to one and the 
s:mic cathohc church. 

" I icry much doubt, indeed, whether the Church of 
Rome, corrupt m it may be, can properly be called apostate." 
In her doctrines, "there has nlways been much alloy, often 
much absurdify, much that I believe to be error and heresy ; 
yet .... (siwakiug of her tracts and formularies) taking them 
altogether, as books put into the bands of nneducatod per- 
SODS, they have generally contained better materials for 
fonuiiig a etcriptural faith on the fuuilRmeutnl points of 
Chnfltiaiiity, than can be found in the ueological divinity 
which lias overrun almost all the Protestant churches of 
Europe.** Todd'» Discourse* on the Prvphecies, p. 331, &c. 
The Augsburg Confession says, "This is the sum of the doc- 
triuc ivhich pre\'ails among us ; in which it may be seen, 
that there is notliing uhich is at variance witli t)te Scriptures, 
or from the catholic church, or froui the Church of ItomCj in 
an far an she is known from her writers." Hid. Speaking of 
the Church of Uome, " She is, I im^incj" says a modem Pro- 
tcstaut divine, "and always haa been, a part of the catholic 
church of Christ ; ami tliat she is liewed in this light by the 
Church of Kuglaud, secios to be phuxd t)cyoiid all doubt 






by the fact, that n, priest of tlic Roman Cliurch, on his 
joiuiitg the Cliurch of Kngknd, is not required to be re> 
ordnineti," /Ai'rf. Hooker says, " As there are which mHko 
the Church of Home utterly no cliurch at all, by reasou of 
so many, so grievous errors in their doctrines, no we hnro 
them amongst ua, trho, under pretence of imagined corrup- 
tions in our discipline, do give even as hard a judgment of 
the Church of Euglaiid itwdf." lifid. p. 8:W. 

The foregoing testimoiues are, iu some respect*, all rceou- 
cileRbic. Tn order tobehevc tlie testimony of Itishop Iliird 
tu be true, it is not noecsaury to coiusidcr the others to be 
wholly untrue. It will be found that Swedeuborg regards 
them all aa in some meaHure correct. First, he coiacidw 
with those who say that tbc doctrines of the Church of llomc 
and those of the Protestant churches agree on some points, 
wliich have been called fiuidamciitaU. " The Komati Cutbo- 
lies," anya he, "before the Reformation, held and taught 
exactly the same things as the Reformed did after it, iu ro- ' 
spoct to a trinity of persons iu tlic fiodhead, original ahi, the 
imputation of the merit of Christ, aad juatiiication by faith ; 
only witli this difference, that they conjoined that faith with 
charity or good works.'* Bri^ Expogition. Secondly; Swcden- 
borg agrees with Bishop Ilurd and the conunon voice qf the 
whole Protestont teorid, that the Church of Rome is apostate. 
Indeed, e*"en those Protestant divines who say the Church of 
Rome in not apivntatc, have had their faith very much shaken 
by what luu lately occurred in regard to tlic canonization of 
certain saints. 

Supposing then, that the doctrines belonging to the Ro- 
man and l^roteBtant ehurclica are fundamentally the wmiu; 
hence, that an catholic, the two chnrclies form only one : 



tlicrc an? certain .serious consiHcrntions which, bv this view 
of the subject, arc nnttirally suggestcnl. The late Disbop uf 
Durhom says: 

" It Bcema evident, that if popery be really an Anti- 
cliristiau syatom, it (lescrvcH lo he treated as a epecicit of 
ajjostttcy from the faith, and to be numbered among the 

ilences of Satan to defeat the purpose of the gospel 

Even if the Kcriptural character of Antichrist were intended, 
as some suppose, rather to denote a series and succession of 
different adversaries to the gospel, from the time of its pro- 
mulgation to the end of the world, lucLuding every dcscrip- 
tion of iiifidelity and apostacy that has arisen or may yot 
arise; still poperj* woulil be justly entitled to a share in that 
reproacliful character, ioaaraueh as its tendency to propagate 
error and delusion lias manifestly had the effect of promoting 
au absolute apostacy from the faith. In mauy respects it 
bears a striking resemblance to paganism, or rather it 
appears to be a system of paganism engrafted upou Chris- 
tiauity. Its idolatry, its superstitious ritual, its saint wor- 
ship, all 80 nearly approaching to the spirit and practice of 
the ancient mythology, beapeak, it to be of similar character 
and origin." Vcm Mitdert ; Boyh Lecture*, vol. L p. 313. 

Again; '^'fariatianity vas »o miserably defaced by the 
superstitions of the middle ages as scarcely to be distinguish- 
able in mauy respects from paganism. Infidelity, even in 
tlie very bosom of the church, was in scvcnd instances noto- 
rious and undisguised. Indeed in no part of Cliristcndom 
did gross atheism prevail so much as in Italy, and even in 
Rome itself, in tlic college of cardiuals and under the patron- 
ago uf popes. AVitli this general corruption anil apostacy 
was cunncctcd such a system of aulhurity, Itulh tcm[mrai 



nnd tpirituiL), ns rendered it imprncticabk', n^liilc the 8)rstem 
continued, to liberate mankind firom their dq)lornI)Ip thral- 
dom. Tlic adversary seemed to be rapidly advancing to t!ic 
completion of his design ; and the means cmployctl to dtfuat 
tlic labors of tliosc who songht to restore the gO!i[icl to its 
genuine purity^ were truly characteristic of the author of 

" Persecution, calumny, nnd Bophistry, were the enpnes 
employed hy papal, as they had been formerly by papnn, 
llomc, against all who endeavored to enlighten mankind with 
the pure knowledge of the gospel. According to the strong 
langnagc of tic Apocal3'p8e, • K«nie was drunk with the 
blood of the martyrs/ " Ihid, vol. i. p 293. 

Now we would a»V, whether such a state of corruption 
can be conceived to be consistent with the supposition of a 
purity in regard to those fundamental doctrines which belong 
to a true church? If it be, let us further nsk, whether Komc 
be really the Itabylon of the Apocnlypac, as it is above dc- 
dared to be t If so, is it possible that we can believe tliat 
this Babylon was afler hII a Catholic Church, nay, funda- 
mentally, a true church ? That the great whore spoken of 
in the 17th chapter of the Revelations, is no other than the 
bride of the Lnmh sjKtkcn of in chapter 21 ? 

Strange as it may seem, even tbia hj'pothesis has been 
fwioptcd, and wc shall see the reason for its necessity and use. 
"With regard to the Church of Rome," says a modern writer, 
" lltHhop Ualliulo|it.s the 'charitable pmfession of the zealous 
Luther, We profess that luidcr the papacy there i» much Chris- 
tian good, yea, oil, &c. I say, moreover/' adds the Bishop, 
" that under the papacy is true Christianity, yea, the very ker- 
nel of Christuiiiity, JScc., and that, on the very ground, that it 



held the fiimlnmcHtfU tnitli in the creeds. Neither do we 
censure that church for what it hath not, but for what it 
Uath. Fuudameatal truth is Ukc tliat Mnroucaii vine, which 
if it be mixed with twenty tinic» »o mucli water, holds its 
strength ; the sepulchre of Christ was overwhelmed bv the 
pagans with earth and rubhish, — yet still, there wiis thceepul- 
clire of Christ ; and it is a nilud owe of Papiiiian, that a sacred 
place loseth nut the holiness with the dcmohshcd walls ; uo 
more doth the Roman lose the claim of a tmc visible church 
by her mimifold and deplorable comiptions ; her nnsouudness 
not less appurcut tlian her being; if she were onoe the 
>use of Christ and her adulteries arc known, yet the divorce 
is not sued out.' " Pusn/'n Letter to the Rev. li. IV. Jeff, p. 20. 
The Church of Rome then wan the sxiousc of Christ ; 
her adulteries are known, but her divorce is not Rued oat, 
hence she ia the legitimate spouse stiU, yet an admitted 

Again; says Bishop Davcoant, "For the being of a 
church does principally stand upon the gracious notion of 
God, calling men out of darkness and dcitth, unto the par- 
ticipation of light and life in Clirisl Jesus. So long as Chwl 
continues this caUing unto any people, though tht^ (an mnch 
as in them Ucs) darken this light, and corrupt the means 
which should bring them to life and salvation in Christ ; yet 
where God calls men unto the participation of life in Chriat, 
by the word and by the Hacraments, there is the true being 
of a Christian church, let men be never so false in their ex- 
positions of God's word, or never so untruat}' in mingling 
their owu traditions with God'a ordinancea. Thns the church 
of the Jews lost Dot her being of a church when she became 
an idolatrous church. And thus under the government of 


the Scrilica niul Plinrisoesj who voided the conininiuimRnts nf 
Ood by their own traditions, there was yet standing a true 
church, in which Zncharins, KUz-ahctb, the virgin Mary, anil 
our Savior hiiiiHclf was bom, who were members of that 
church, and yet paiticipatcd not iu the corruptions tborcof. 
Thus tu grant that the Homftn wan an<l ta a true nsihlr church, 
(though in doctrine a false, imd in practice an idolntroTU 
church,) t» a true aasertiou, and of greater use and necessity 
in our controversy witli papists about tlic perpetuity of the 
Clihstian church, tlian iu understood by those Uiat gainsay 
it." Ibid, p. 21. 

What then is the wrr and neceuity which they who gainsay 
it do not underHtand 'i This we arc informed in the following 
extract from the British Critic, and here in fact lies tlic secret 
of the whob argument. 

"We consider that it is impossibb to maintain cert&iu 
branches of the church (such oa that of Rome) to he the 
communion of Aoticlirist, as it has long been the fashion 
with Protestants to do, iviihoui our vum branch beiny involved 
in the chttrge : if any part of the church be Antichristian, it 
will be fouud that all the church is so, our own branch inctu- 
rive. \Vc. ore much disposed t« question whether any teats 
can be giveu to prove that the Roman communion is the 
synagogue of Satan, which wdl not, iu the judgment uf the 
many, ittvotpv the Church of Enijiand. This w a most serious 
cousideratioii, iu proportion as tee incline to concur in it. 
In such cft«c, it will be from no special Icnuiug towards Ro- 
manism, that we become eager to prove that Home is not the 
scat of the enemy of God; it will arise simply from pru- 
flentiai motives if we Iiave no other. . . . We take up Dr. 
Todd's position, if it must so be snid, from nothing more or 



less tlmn the insiinet of seif-jtrfsnisiiinn. It is vcrj- well fur 
tSamlcmaiiian, Ranter, or Quftkcr, to call Rome the scat of 
Anlichrist. iTe cannot afToril to do so; no$ira reaaffUw; 
tve come next. Mcmbcre rif our churRli should he ontrcatcsd 
to conaiiter thi» carefully. In tliiit awmulting llome, they 
itrc usin^ all ai^umciit whicli is ;u) certainly, if not hs fully, 
available against t/u-ir prrscnt rclipoiis position, and one 
wliich, if they use it coiwiatcntJy, raurt drive them forward 
into some more Bimple sj'stem of religion, nay, on and on, 
they know not whither, till ' tota jacet Bnbylon.' " Review 
of Tada's Discuurin^g on Propfmcy : British Critic, Oct. 18-M). 

The following is the snm of the fon^going extracts. In 
fundoincntaJs, the Protestant and Iloinuii churches arc iden- 
tical, forming one and the same catholic church. But the 
Church of Rome is corrupt, is the great whore, is an adiU- 
tcrciis, is apoutatc, yet she is a true visible church, though in 
many doctrines false, and in practice idolatrous : for if this he 
grantcil, then it may be granted that the Protestant church 
i» a true church, which it could not be if the Church of 
Rome were not granted to be such, since they are both the 
same iu fundamental)*, Tlicrcforc the Protestant Church 
must grant the Church of Rome to be true, were it merely 
from the inntinct of self-preservation. In other words, " to 
grant that the Roman was and is a true visible church, 
(though in doetntic a false, and in practice an idolatrous 
church,) is a true assertion, and of greater use and necessity 
in our controveny with papists about the perfwtuity of the 
Christian church, than is undcrstoo^l by those that gainsay 
it:" they who gainsay it, not perceiving thu inevitable 

But it i« said, that uudcr the govcniracut of the Scribes 



and Pliariaees there wns a true cliurcli, iu which were Zacha- 
rias, Elizabeth, the virgin Mary, nay, in which our Savior liitn- 
aelf was horn. Granting even this, which Swcdcnborg does 
not, it docs not follow that the church had not approached 
towardii its end, hnt the contrarj', for these very peraoHa 
appeared at the end of the Jemali dispensation. So, when 
ihe Christian church corocfl to its end, there will always he 
an elect few ; but the eusteuce uf thi» elect, doe« not shew 
that therefore the clnirch has not come to its end. 

If then the Protestant Church he achureli only upon the 
foregoing principles, and if these principles have been adopted 
from the instinct of self-preservation, in it not calculated to 
raiae those serious questions with regard to the arrival of the 
latter times, which ore refurred to iu our seventh chapter? 
or ought it, under such circumstanccB, to l>e a matter of 
snrprisc, if they who do not interpret the prophecies from 
any iHslinct qf eeif-prejienfalion, should regard the Protestant 
Church as having come to its end also ? 

If it be said that the Protestant Church ia a true chiuxb, 
because it administers the Kacramcuta and distrihutcM the 
Word of God, then is this placing the questiou on a diflerent 
groundj and surrendering the argument which would prove 
it to be true on the ground of catholic doctrine. So far as 
the Protestant Chiupch docs this, so for we grant that it has 
some of the sigus of a true church, but not all; for doctrine 
also ia requisite, and a life according to it. The question 
then ia, whctlicr it |>osecssca tliis true catholic doctrine; and 
wc have seen that there is reason to regard it as a question. 
Here I am content to leave this part of the argument, after 
deairing the reader to compare the former definitions of a 
churcli, with the foUowiiig one (som Swedeuborg : 



" TliP clmrcli « so callwl "not Trom tho circumstnncc of ita 
liaviug tlic Word and tloctxinuls tliuncu derived, nor from the 
circumstance of the Lord being known there, and of the 
sncniments being there ndmiuistered ; but it ia the cbiurli 
from this circiiniBtanoc, that life is formwl according to the 
Word, or according to ilyctrinc derived from the Word, aud 
that such doctrine is the rule uf life. They who tire not of tills 
description, arc not of the church, but arc out of it; and they \\ 
who hvo in evil, thus who live contrary to doctrine, arc fur- ^M 
thcr ont of the church than the gentiles, who know nothing 
at nil concerning ttic Wonl, coneeriitng the Lord, and con- ^H 
ccming sacraments ; for the former, inasmuch iw they are ii 
ncquninled with tlic goods and truths of the church, extin- 
guish the church in themselves, which the gentiles cannot 
do, becaujic they are iguoruut of those goods and tmtlw." 
Artana Cwieslta, vol. \i. p. 5. 

Having thus shewn a few preliminary reasons for institut- 
ing an entjuir)' into alleged catholic doetrines, the author will 
now proceed to a few remarks ii|x)u tlie exoeution of his task. ^M 

Tn pursuing his lahoni he has been obliged to he very ^^ 
copious in his extracts ; and as these have been taken from 
dilferent writers, living in different ages of the church, it 
may be well to state the principle upon which this has been 
done. This he cannot do l>cttcr than in the words of a modem 
author, who, having put the question. What arc the sources 
from which we are to gather our opinions of Popery? obscrres : 

" Merc the Komanists complain of their opponents, that, 
instead of referring to the authoritative documents of their 
church, Protestants arail themselves of any errors or excesses 
of iudiriduals in it ; as if the church were responsible for acta 
and opinions which it does not enjoin. ..... Candor wiD 



m to grant, that the mere tuAa of individuoU should 

not be im[iuted to tbe body Ccrtaiuly no member of 

the Englisli church can, in commou prudence as weU ua 
propriety, do othcrwTsc; since he is exposed to an immediate 
retort, 111 cousequence of the errors and irregularities which 
have in Protestant times occiurcd among oursclvea." .... 
However, " though the nets of imlitidualH arc nut the acts 
of the church, yet they may bo the results and illustration of 

Us principtcs It is not unnatural, or rather It is the 

procedure we adopt in any historical rcacorcli, to take tlie 
{^neral opiniouti and conduct of the church in elucidation 
of their syuoilal liecrecs ; just as we take the trailitiuii of the 
church catliolic and apOKtuUc an the Ic^timatc iiitcrprL-ter of 
Scripture, or of the Apostles' Creed." TracU fur the 'thnea; 
Coniiroteny with tht^ Rfnaanisti, p. 1-1. 

Such arc the priuciplutt which the present author has hait 
hi view, in quoting the writings of individuals. In furnish- 
ing these quotations, ho has endeavored to consult the con* 
vcnirncc of tlic gcnerul rcjuler, by giving the tnuisliition 
instead of the original. These translatious are, for the most 
part, such as have been given by eminent divines of the 
Church of England, who, for their reputed leaniiug and 
orthodoxy, arc gcuemlly considered, upon such subjects, to 
bo good authorities. Transhitions by the author of the 
present work have l>ccn roHorlod to only where he couhl fnid 
no other. (Jpim the plan he ho-i pursued, lie has reason to 
believe that he has nowhere misi-qjrcscuted the views of the 
cfithulic church ; and if he has, it has been done uneon- 
scioiuly J for « faithful rcproscutottou of lier doctrines is of 
course esmrtitial to the ai^ument. To ipiute the fathers !it 
•ecoud hand is uideul, gvucrull)', fur fi'om dcairablc ; but, in 




the present case, the ai^mnent secmwl to rcqnire it : for, 
in the first place, it was accessary to avoid the imputation of 
giving such a coloring to the translatioii as might sevax to 
favor the author's oi«m views ; in the next, it was necessary to 
give not only a right vcrsiuii of the pHssagcti, but such a one 
as wonid express the views not only of the fathers, but of 
modern divines. Translations, therefore, by competent theo- 
l(^ians may, in this point of view^ be considered a doable 
evidence ; an evidence, namely, not only to the views of the 
early church, but also to those which aru held in the present 
day. A stronger testimony we do not want ; and a fairer 
one, we presume, there cannot be. Ambiguous passages 
we have in general avoided, except iu a few cases on the 
subject of the Trinity, where the very ambiguity formed an 
important part of the argument. The testimony of the 
church, which has generally been takeu, is that which i» 
alleged in support of catholic doctrine. We enter into no 
niceties of detail, but confine ourselves to broad and leading 
principles. It is with the cHthotic doctrine of the catholic 
church, and with this alone, that we have any concern. 

As a kind of text, upon which the rest of the work is but 
a discourse, we have begun by presenting to the reader a few 
Preliminary Extracts, nhewing the importance of forming 
right nppreheuaiona of God. In the first chapter, we luve 
viewed the doctrine of the Trinity more especially iu relntian 
to the subject of TriperBonality, Tritbeism, and Sabclliauism ; 
the works which have been consulted upon these points, arc 
not ouly those of Pearson, Bull, Waterland, Hooker, Ac., 
but also occasionally of papular nuthors, who fumi&h us 
with the practical application of the abstract theory. In 
the second chapter, we have examined the doctriucs com- 




monly held on the subject of the Incarnation, more par- 
ticularly in their relation to Patripassiiuiism and Deipas- 
aianism. In the third chapter, wc have furnished some 
general remarks introductory to the doctrine of Swedenboi^ 
upon this subject. Our object in ttiia chapter, has not been 
so much criticallv to lay dowu his views, nor indeed fullv to 
explain every point upon which we have touched, as rather 
to state some general propositions introductory to his princi- 
ples, and to load tlic reader to that poitit at wliicli, by a re- 
ference to his works, he may be enabled to answer the several 
qnerics which the ebapter nill sugg'est. If any one, there- 
fore, is disposed to tiud fault with an}'thing the author has 
there said, he may be referred at once to Swcdeuborg's works, 
either to correct the statement or to confirm it. In the fourth 
and Hflh chapters, we have analysed the several doctrines of 
tiic Atonement, as held by different divines of the alleged 
catholic church. To this analysis we have added the doctrine 
as maintained by Swedeuborg. In the sixth chapter, wc have 
pursued a sirailor plan with regard to the Rubjeet of Mcdia- 
tiou or Intercession, aa treated of by writ^jre in the Church 
of Rome and the Church of England. In the seventh and 
last chapter, we have added some remarks on the Time of 
the End, also a few testimonicB bearing upon the subject, 
and a summary of Swedciiborg^B doctrines. Tbo whole of 
the preceding chapters may he euuBidered merely na [)rupura' 
torr to Swcdenborg's interpretation of the twcntj'-fourth 
chapter of Matthew, which we have appended. 

"With regard to the execution of the present work, the 
author is not unaware of its iuofficicucy ; ho is satisfied that 
toatcrials exist for a treatise on this subject of a far higher 
character than the present, and whenever such a publication 



niny be rLM|uin.-tl, doiilitlcsa some fah,hrul Bcn'ant will be 
called to provide it. In the mean time the prcacut aketch, 
imperfect us it is, may uot bo without its use, till sometliiag 
belter be supplied. 

There we possibly two classes of persons who may rcaJ 
tliis book. Tlio one cousistiug of mere critiL-B, whose solo 
object will be to detect errors, however sccondarj", and to 
fastcQ ujwu these, to the cutirc exclusion of the great and 
1cfu]in<; arguments; the other may consist of those who will 
(.'outcmplate the general argument as of first importance, and 
all other points us only secondary. To such minds, the sug'- 
gcstion may present itself, ' Can these things be, and over- 
come us like a summer clourl/ Wliatevcr may be Hie occa- 
sional inaccuracies diseovcrablc itt the ensuing pagca, the 
author has only to say that luippily the cause is not com- 
mitted to his hands, nor docs its 8iicoca» rest upon his excr- 
tioos; be is but au humble laborer in a field that has luug 
been white for the harvest. To refute the general argu. 
mcnt in the ensuing work, even were it possible, is to do 
nothing ; tlie works of Swedenborg are themselves the walla 
of tlic New Jerusalem ; and all that tlic present author 
attempts iu the following pages, is only to place tlic qutnttiun 
in aucli a point of view as nhall lead the reader to a serious 
enquiry, in the works of Swedenborg, whether these things 
are true; whether the bttcr days may uot have come as n 
snare upon all them who dwell upon the face of the earth I 
At all eveuts let the rtrailcr peruse uiu- several chapters uudcr 
the impression of the possible truth of the cusuiug remark*, 
extracted from the notes in the work by the late Mr. Rosv^ 
cntitlc<l Chriatianity aJmaya }*tttgrta»im, p. 20fl : 

'^Tturough thu whole order of creation, and the Mliole 




Kchcmc of Providence, we obacrve marks of n progressive 
ftdvnnccmcnt, and a gradual diacovexy of truth. In all the 
f>irurntioDs uf the liumau mind, iii the impoKaitt discoveries 
of art, and the improvements of laws and governments, we 
go ou step bv stop, aa leisure and opportunities offer, or 
new wants titp created, until, at last, we have corapletcly 
filled up the first rude outline, which necessity suggested. 
A similar progress is to bcs observed in the higher and more 
valuable tniths of religion ; and God Almighty, in mercy 
and lore to his creatures, seems nlwnys to havo propurtionet] 
hi« discoveries, not only to the actual wants of mankind, 
but to their capacity of r©cei\-ing truth thcnisclves, aiid their 
means of communicariTifj it to others." Hall's Bamp. Lcctur&a. 
" I am far Irum uuagiuiug thai ChruHunUy ia yet come to 
its mature state; that it is understood in the whole extent, or 
held in its utmost purity aud perfection by auy one church. 
But, as whcu it was first preached, men were Wx. to hear ajul 
profit by it in a competent degree, as that was a proper 
tunc to divulge it in order to improve the world, which it 
did very considerably, excelling all former dispensations, 
refioiog the conceptions even of those who did not formally 
receive it, and yet was itself for some time but partially 
cummimicatcd aiul imperfectly understood, so now it is of 
much greater advantage to the world in general, and yet still 
capable of increase ; it waits for its own fuJaeM ; nor shall 
mankind receive the proper influence of it, till their minds be 
much farther opened and enlarged, their reason more freely 
exercised, in tliis great mystery of divine love/* Laai/s Tfieory 
of HeHgion. 


Dsltion of riiMen luiman nulurp to Ohristinnily.— Iti inflarncc up&n 
"doctrine of Ihe Tnnitj.~l'ror*i3ril unity, tttl plnralily.— OHglQ and 
progreM of Trith^km traced to the vrriUDgs of the «Bxly Cbrbtiftna.— Dr- 
CndwBrlh's nccannt of llio Antc-Niccoi: fAllicr*.— A.thana»iua,— Dr. Bur- 
toa's accDUDl of Orig«ii'« viuwH.— Lami'Dl of St. Hilary.— Thtbe'iBiu of 
Philopunu*, die— SeDtiiueiiU of Roicelin, Abclnrd, Abbot JoAchiEn, &c. — 
Deu Sberloek : Bull'* defenft of Sherlock.— DiffercDcvs of opinionns to 
wkal coMlitutea Siibclli&.ni*in and Tritttciaxn. — Dr. Whitby'k account at 
Sabellianbin.— Dr. WaterUnd tin TrllbviwD.— Dr. Durton mainUitis tho 
csiiteofH! i)f nuire! than one Divine lieiiiK> — Perplexities ockoowtnJged by 
Bishop WaijOD, Dr. Hey, Dr. Bal^uy, Dean Vincent, Mr. Newton. — 
Ediecta at these cualnhvcr>icft. — Tbe catbcilic or iillcjcrd ortbudux ductrioe. 
—lit influeoM upon ibe laiadi of obildnn and adiilta. — ^TeBlimoAy to tb« 
eiisleocc uf Trhli^iam.— Cuofutiiiia uf thi; terms dad and Oiidhead.— Fael- 
litj of fonuing trilhcistical Dotioas ; dilSculty of formiai; aJlviied orthodox 
uDcs. — Gvoernl efTecU produced by Ibeje cootroTRnuM upon tho utbrr doc- 
iriwn vt Chiiilianity. 



Biabup P«ar*ria'a atatrmonl of Tertullinn'a arguuent.— Obfrervalioaa of 
the Bishop of Dorham And Dr. Walerland.— Pearsoa'a account of lh« 
orisioal coreDaut between the three PeraoDi of the Ttiuity.— Scott, Owen, 



FEavel. — Rejrdioa of IImmv doctrines b]r*oim«of ibe reroniwd. — BotgctV 
Inlerpretatitm of tavcnaot. — Connection of Tritheism with the popvlar 
dAclrine uf Ibe [acatDalion of the sci^uml Pnnnn uf tlie Trtnilj.— Omer&l 
remvki — Wi)«in*a account of S*r<>(l(>nbDrg^s doctrine.— ConHraied bjrUi* 
Itishajt of Bmtnl. — What he tlumld have Hid- — InflurDce of NalumliuD.^ 
Alleitfid confusion of the officen of Fitthxtr and Son. — Mere Natanlun of 
certain impular doctrioeii. — lUuBtrniiooB of DcipusiuiUin from thu writinfc» 
of tbt Falbcrs — of liter nulliom in lite Cburch of Ramo nod Church of 
Kngland.— A poiiular ruk' pKtpoundvd in regard to tbc two ttatores of Cbrist. 
— lt« influcncif on ttir inlerpretatioD of Soriplurc. — Leaili to D«ipassiuibia. 
— Fotllf di«lincii(iii» bptwern pfrKon wiid «ubttance. — Nccewiiy of ttiMc 
ftistibctions lo tht papolar iloclrine of Atonemeal. — More Naluralidm.— 
View* of St. Alhtintuiut and St. AuKUilin,— CvorirmaUvn in the Cburch of 
principles of OeipauianiuQ. 



fiod i« man and man U Ood. — Locke on (he rule fur aciuirinj; rii 
i<Iea» of God, — Its abuse.— Mode of tran*iUua of ideas from tb^ floiie lo 
thr inHnile. — Kmira upnn this viibjrct. — Annln^ belvrei^n the dirine and 
hiiiDAn miod. — Hooker's obseriiitiua. — Externkl and inlemat ideas. — Ami' 
billion lothn Deity of onr own HlMesof mind. — Seller's «iewsof the Deity. 
—On the Father as Ihe lovlsible God.— The Word as God risible, aod as 
elemal form. — The Hoi) Spirit im procrcdinii;. — EiinanitioD,— Analogies 
froui visible aaturc.— lorarualion. — The dlfTcrence bctvreen (.'hrisi and ikr 
prikpliAlN. — Priefltley's rejeclton of Ihe dortrine of Ilie MinK^nlons Concep- 
lioD. — The reikson of it. — The jiopular theology lirtualij of the Min« cbknic- 
Irr. — Indiir.nre of thr doclrinr! of ibi- Miracuhiua Coacepltoa upon (hiralag^ 
in Keneral. — Of the VirKin a« Uie alleged moUicr of God. — Nalurv and COB^ 
fequencee of the doctrine.— Mr. Ncwman'N rnnark*. 






BoMurt's declaroCiou of Ihe callioUc doclrino. — Hislur; of it bj Dr. Hby, 
&e. — Arohbisbop King upon analog,— The doctrine of Oiriofi Anger «s 
•Utnl br UcUntiui, Terlolllan, Wesley, West, Scolt, &<?.— Eril ascribwl 
lo God. — Divine Anger «b Mid lo be exhibited in the Anal JudKment of ihr 
wiched. — Ow»n's de&nilion of anger and sin. — Dilcmtnns Tcsulting fram llw 



doctrine.— F)ib«r's sUtfimiit of the doctrine of Satisfocliop.— Purtialljr 
oppatcti by Archbiftliop Mftf^tte itnil Dr. Bfilgiiy.— Conlmdictory alolrmcBta 
on Ui* (loclTine of KepealKiice, — Vey>le'» odmiseioa Ibal (lie doctrine of 
SUbfACtion has do foHndnticm in Scriphirf^.-^Ur. Mc;'m n-jcalioo of the 
doctrines of Sativfitrtion and ImpnCntion, — Impropriety of oppoBing one 
alliibalo of Gad to anotli«r, mi ttAtt^il by TilloUon and Scott.— It*»V' 
queocci in rctfard to tbu popnlju- doctrine of lEio Atonement. — Wbltley'a la- 
ment of the confusion prevHilJn^ upon this lubJecL 




H ment of I 

^B Statement of Snedcnlrarg in rt^x'^rd to the extent of Chrurt's snlTrrings 

B^ opposed by iomr writcn, cuafinncd by othcra, — Enquiry into thv popular 
V diwCrilw conceraiii); ilie t-fticticy nf Ckrikt'n sufTerinK*.— Dnnial of (Ins 

pfficacy by Archbishop Magce.— The reason.— Bishop Heber's remnrks on 
diitlielitf in the existence uf tvil spirits.— fiunrrnlly osctuded from (ho 
Rcetvfd doctrine of thc< Atonement. — Kcmarks on thu spiritun] world by 
Bull anj. ulljBts. — Their ohsurdily.— Swcclrnborg's »irws oa this subject. — 
CoaQrm^id by other authors. — Kfficacy of the Atonement in the suhiusUion 
of (he infem*l powers, flto.— Th« nature of Christ's su 0*611 i]c.—.Reiiiarki of 
SwedetsborK on tcmptntiona. — Romarksof St. HFfn>tird, St. Au^stin, hti— 
Account of Chimt's suUerinsa Ms Riveo iu lh« ]'iulius. — The uatuie of these 
sofferinga aa further declared by SMudenhurfi. 



Diuuuiobs ia tb« time of Stancaros. — Division on this subject in the 
Roniun «ncl Pfol«lmit Chiirclics.— Stateinonls of Harris, timilh, Waterland, 
and Owen.— Buy le'o remarks on Ihoir iibsurdity.— Description of the act 
of oicdiution as understood by Roman (Catholics, and described in Tena'a 
Commentaries: also, as underaluod by Prolcslauts, aiiil de>crib«ct in I'onle's 
Synopsis. — Scotl.— Other reniarlts of 'VVBlerhiDtl, Horbcrry, and Owen. — 
Tbci* d*U!ul that Christ's human nature i^ to be worHhipped.— Their sdmls- 
siuo to the contrary.— The confusion prevalent upon this subject.— The 
lestiniDoy of Uie Anlc-Nicciic and Post-Nloeno writers.- Scott's account of 
the prcMOl aod future office of Christ's human uaturc.^Conse<inencea. — 
Particular elTecb of the popular Tiaws upon Chriiliaa morality.— Proofa 
from Scripture that the human nature is to be worshipped.-IoterpTeiatlon 



of texU apparently nudntainiDg the eontm?. — Prooft fiom biitoricaJ testi- 
mony and from reason, — On the divine form of God. — Remarlu of a writer 
of some of the Oxford Tracts.— Remark! of Sherlock, Bereridge, Origea. — 
GoncluBion from Swedenbors. 



Snmmary of the foregoing chapters, illaatratiTe of the end of the Chnrch. 
-~BeaaoDS for which the catholic church will not beliere that it has come 
to its end.— Teadmonies in proof that these are the latter days.— Sweden- 
berg's interpretation of the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew. — Summary 
of Christian doctrine as propounded by Swedenboi^. 



or t«B 



1. " Seeing all the happiue&s that mankinri is cnpabte of, 
cxmsistetli iu tlic enjoyment of that supreme luul all-giorioua 
Being, whom we call God ; ami seeing we cnu never enjoy 
Him, nnlcjis we first serve Him; nor sene Him, unless we 
fir»t kuow Him ; henco it ncccssiirily fuDows, that m soon as 
ever we desire to he truly happy, our first and grrnt earn 
must be ti> know God ; not only so as to acknowludgu Him to 
be, but so as to have a due Heusc and right and clear appre- 
hciiaions of Him, and of those infinite perfeetions that are 
concentred in Him ; for it is oidy such a knowledge of God 
as tliia that will int'ltne our affections to Him, and put us 
upon constant and sincere endeavors to serve Him Iicrc, that 
wc may enjoy Him for ever." Sermon on Ute Being and Attri- 
butes of Hod, by hishop BeverUlge, 

.... " The llmt thing to be done in order to oui- scrring 
Uod, is to know and bcUci*e that He ia, and tliat he on^ht to 
be served and adored by us. ... It is necessarj- to know Ida 
essence too aa well aa his cxit^cncc, — what as veil aa that He 
is, &e." Jfumffhts on t/u: Knowli'dge of God, by Bix/iop Beve- 
ridffe, in hia Thoughts on a Christian Life. 

" How is it [Kwsihle for lis to know how in serve CJod, un- 
IcM we first know tliat Uod whom we ought to serve ? fur all our 



flcrvices unto G«l sliould be both proper to his nature and smt- 
nblc to his pcrfcctious; and thcrcfon^ unless I first know his 
nature aud perfections, how can I adjust my services to them t 
As for cxampkr, 1 am to foiu" his grwitiicss and trust on hu 
mercy, aud rcjutec in hh pxKhieHs, aiiddcaire his favor: but 
how cau I do this, unless I know that He ta just and merci- 
ful, good aiid favorabli;? Moreo^^cras a man eaunot scnre 
(iod, when he hath nut a miud to do it, so neither will he 
have a niimi or heart to serve llini, unless ho first knows 
Him ; for the motions of the will are always regulated by the 
ultimate dictates of the practical nnricrxtandin'; : so that » 
lan ehoo-sea ur refuses, loves or liateM, desires or abhors, »o- 
>rdiug as he knows any object that is prcscutcd to him to be 
good or evil. And therclbrc, how can I choose God as my 
chiefutit good, uuleBs I first know Ilim to be so; or love H i m 
as 1 ought above all things, unless I first know Him to be 
better than all things; or perform, any true senice to Ilim, 
unless I first know Him to he such a one as dcncrvca to have 
true service performed unto Ilim? — Nay, lastly, nothing that 
we cau do cau be accepted as a service tu God, unless it be 
both founded upon, and <lirected by, a right knowtcidge of 
Him. God. would not acuept of blind aacrilicus under the 
law ; much less wiU He accept of bhud services now under 
the gospel; and therefore He expects and requires now that 
whatsoever we do either to or fur Him, be a reasonable 
service (Rom. xii. 1) ; that oiu* souls as well as l>odies, jca, 
and the rational as well as sensitive part, be employed in all 
the services which we perform to Him ; which certainly can- 
not be, unless we first know Him ; so that there is an intli»- 
penaablc connexion l)ctwi>:t our knowing and scrvinf; Ood ; 
it being as impossible for any oian to senc Him, that duth 
not first know Him, as it is to kuow Him aright and not to 
serve Him." Itiii. 

"There are none of us but have attained to knowledge in 
other things. Some of us hare searched into arts and sctcnccs. 


PRSMKi^fAHV r.xrn\cn. 



othcni are acquaintml witli srveml langun^cs, nonp of ua but 
arc or woiild be expert in the affairs of tliis world, and imdcr- 
fltuDd tlie mysteries of our several trades and callings. VVTiat! 
and shall Tic alono, by whom we know other things, be him- 
self unknown torn? What is, if thia be not, a just cause 
wherefore Go<l should inCatuate and deprive us of all our 
knowledge of other tliinga ; seeing we labor more to know 
them, tlian Him from whom we receive our kuowledge? Ig- 
norance of God is itself one of the greatest sina that we can 
be guilty of, and which God ia most atigiy for (Hos. ir. 4). 
And there God imputes the destructioEL of lus people to the 
want of knowledge (%'crse 6). Nay, and it is that sin, too, 
that makes way for all the rest ; for what ia the reason lliat 
many so frequently blaspheme God's name, ulight his serNice, 
transgress his laws, and inccane Ids wrath against them, but 
merely because they do not know Him — how great, how ter- 
rildc a God be in ! For did they but thus rightly know Him, 
they could not but regard the thoughts of doing any thitig 
that is offcn&ive to Him ; and therefore the true knowledge 
of God would be the best security and the most sovereign 
antidote in the world against the infection of sin and the 
prevalency of tcm]itationa over uk. Neither would it only 
preserve us &om sin, but put us upon our duty and service, 
and direct ns also in the performance of it; insomuch that 
the iiardest duty will be easy to one that knows God, the 
easiest will be hard to one that knows Him not. Hard did I 
say f — ^yca, and impossible too ; for, althougli a man may 
know God and yet not serve Him, it is impossible that any 
man should servo God unless he knows Him ; kuuwlcilge it- 
self being the first duty tlmt we owe to God, and the founda- 
tion of all the rest." Tbid. 

"A right knowledge of God and a practice conformable 
to it, and both in onlcr to a more complete and blissful en- 
enjoyment, arc not spceulntive or indifferent matters, but 
matters properly practical and of infinite conccmraciit. If 

u 2 


rclipioiifi practice <lepends in any measure upon a prrvioiw 
knowledge of God, as luidoubteclly it does, then certainly, tor 
the like reason, the perfection of that practice depends upoji 
the perfection of such knowledge. A general and confiwc 
nol.imi of (iod may prmhieii as f^eiiend imd confuse rules of 
demeanor towards Ilini ; n'liilc a more particular and explicit 
apprehension of the Deity will of course produce a more par- 
ticularand explicit service." Doctrine of t!ie Trinity gufficienity 
Practical. Works of Dr. Watinrlmut, vol. v. p. 26. 

" A right apprehension of God is necessary to instruct im 
what nerriccH are pleasing to God. For, to he sure, nothing 
Clin lie picafiing to llim hut what iit nffreeahlc to the perfec> 
lions of liis nature, which are the orifpuals, from ■which the 
eternal kws of relipon arc transcrihed : unless, therefore, wc 
know what his perfections are, how is it possible ve should 
know what services arc ag:recab!e to them ? If yon would 
seiTe a prince gratefully an<l acceptably, you must inform 
youraelf before band what liis nature and disposition is; that 
ao yon may accommodate ynurRcIf Iherciinto, and compose 
your actiuntt and l>ehavior accordingly, &c. &c. ... And 
thus if yon would serve the great King of the worhl, in aoch 
ways a.s art; plea-sing and acceptable to Him, yuu must study 
his nature, and endeavor to inform your»etvc« wliich way his 
infinite perfections do incline Him ; that so yon may know 
how to comport yourselves towards Him, and to render ilim 
such serviccjt as arc agreeable to his nature." Scott't Ckriatiaa 
L^e. Riffhi AyprdmnaUma of God, vol. ii, p. 1 60. 

"WTiilst therefore wc are ignorant of God's nahirr, or 
potiRcssed with wrung and falKC approhcnKioua of it, wc muat 
neee«sftrily wander in the dark, and neither know what to do, 
nor how to behave ourselves towards Ilim. For, how can we 
imagini.' what will please or displuisu a dark and unknown 
nature, whose bent and inclinations wc are utterly unsie- 
qiiaintcd with ? but if we are under false apprehensions of his 
nature, they must necessarily mislead ua in our behavior 



>war(1« Ilini, and put us upon fabc wavii of serving and 
pleasing Him." Ifmt, p. 161. 

" If we truly uutk'Pstand wliat GotI is, we cannot lint 
apprehend whut worship is suitiLhlc to Him, by that ctornal 
cougruity iiud [>ruportiou that there is Ifctwecu lliiiif^a and 
tiling?; which is as ubvious to men'!} iniuds oii sounds &nd 
colors to tht'ir cars and eyca. If God he a being endowed 
with such aikd such perfections, every man's mind will tell 
him, that, hcrtwccn sncli an object and snrh artlona and affec- 
tions, there is a natural (.Mn^^niity; ami therefore so and so 
!lc ought to be treated and addressed to; witli such and such 
actions and ailcctions to bo Hervcd and worshiped. So that if 
vic apprehend Ood truly as He is, circled with all his natural 
glories and perfcctionsj our apprehensions will produce in n» 
such aQ'ectiuns, and our afl'uctious such de|Kjrtment aud be- 
havior towards Him, as arc suitable to the perfections of his 
nature; and we shall pleiisc Him with such scmccs as will 
both please and become lliui; with Hdmiriug ihouybts, and 
dutiful wilU^ and ■godlike airectiuna; with an iii^nnons fear, 
an humble coulideuce, aud au obedient love ; with cheerful 
pndses and profouml adorations ; with sober, wise, and ra- 
tional devotions ; such as will wing ntid employ uur bust 
afTectiuns and most noble faculties ; for it ia such a worsliip 
only as can suit such perfections, and please such a nature as 
Ood's." Ibid, p. 163. 

"A right ai)[>rehcnsion of God Lh also necessary to inspire 
us with the best principle of serving Him. For it is certain, 
tlial, there is no principle in human nature that will so effec- 
tually engage us to the senice of God, or nriider our nervicc 
so acceptable to Him, as that of love ; which will tunc our 
wills into such a harmouy with God's, that we sball no longer 
choose and refuse according to our particular likings aud dis- 
likings ; but what is most pleasing or displeasing to Him will 
be so to us; and our wills being thus uuitcil and subjected to 
his, uur obedience wijl extend to all his commands, aud utlmit 
no other bounds hut liis will and pleasure." /Airf. 



" But to tho inspiring our souls with this principle, theiw 
is notlung more necessary' tlian right iippruheiisious uf Uod ; 
vho in Himself is doubtless the most aminlilc of beings, u 
having all thow; perfections in infinite degrees, that can beget 
or desen'C a rational aiTection. So that "wc eauuot think Ilim 
to be any way otherwise than lie is, without thinking Tlim 
lens lovely, and detracting more or less from the infinite 
beauty of his nature : for, since He cannot be more lovely 
than He is in Himself, every false ap]irolicnHion uf Him must 
needs represent Him less lovely. But, since of all liis per- 
fections, that of liis [goodness is the must powerful, motive and 
engagement of love, there is uotliiug more necessary to kindle 
our love to Him, than right apprehensions thereof. For being 
infinitely good aa Ho is in his own nature, it is impofisiblo we 
should conceive Him to be better than He is ; and therefore 
every false notion we entertain of liia goodness, must neces- 
sarily detract from it : and tto much tm* wc detract from hia 
gooducs.<), BO much we detract from tho principaL reason uul 
motive of our loving Him." Ibid^ p. 1G5. 

"Correct views of the Di^ino Nature constitute the on 
foundation of proper obedience to the Divine fFiii. Hcuce^ 
miaconccptiou with regard to the object of worship, must 
attach its consequences to our character and conduct. Until 
well instructed on the subject of the Dinne perfections, we 
mnat continue incapable of judging with respect to the claims 
they possess on our homage and coufidence ; while false licws 
can only produce false imprcasions, and lead to mistaken 
cirort. Men must know God, before they can glorify Him as 
God: and it is in this connection between knowlctigc and 
sanctity that wo find the profound import of the Redeemer's 
emphatic saying. This u life ettmal, to know Thee tite only 
true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast gent." Vaughatfa 
Cam^tioHs of Chrixiianiiy, p. il'K5. 




"Thk DuiXlllNa «* &iBauW*."— Voti. silv. e. 

Whkn we reflect upon the purity of the Christian rcligioiij 
and the inipiiritj' of the human heart, wc miiHt be Iwl to sec 
the great oppositiim hetwcuu the two. As, from the first 
cstflblishmcnt of Christianitj*, it might be expected that ita 
power would be displayed in transforming cumipt humim 
nature into the image and likeness of its own truth and love, 
BO might it cqujdiy be expected, that the power of corrupt 
humau nature would be diaplayed in endeavoring to transform 
Clirisliiinity into the image and likcncsK of itaclf. Where 
religion prcvailetl, the former would occur; where human 
nature prcvailetl, the latter would oeciu-. 

However faithful, therefore, the church might be in preach- 
ing the truth in love ; nay, the more faithful it might be in 
this respect, the more would it be opposed to fallen human 
nature, the more would fallen huiuan nature be opposed to 
it; and, in its conflict with Christianity, endeavor to gain the 
mastery over it. Here, thcrcfon;, wc are led to sec the origin 
of heresy. 

Now since, at first, Christiiinity gcncrnlly spread more from 
being taught l)y others tluin firom being nMid aud studied in 
the Bible, as at the present day ; if we would trace np the 
earlier heresies iu the Christian church, wc must ascertain 



cnAP. I. 

nrliat tliat was which wus taiiglit os Christianity ; how Ut it 
Imd been preached in its purity ; hov far any principles had 
been promulgatCMl, evcu by the reputedly orthodoxi which 
might hare cuntmued the elements of these heresies in 

In pursuing this subject, we tihall confine our attention, in 
the present chapter, to the doctrine of the Trinity. 

TIiiB doctrine, a* grneralhj rcceiwd, in one whieli, accord- 
ing to many eminent writers of the Church of Enghtnd, ia not 
ao much formally expressed in Scripture, as rather deduciblc 
from the general revelation of Christianity. It has becii re- 
marked, that this is also the way in which it might he cx|M;cted 
that a fimdametita) doctrine would be practically «et forth; 
that being a first principle, it would be diffused throughout 
the whole Christian revelation, instead of being found oniy ia 
some particular places, formally c\prr*«cd a& a speculative 
truth. There is no doubt that, conveyed in thus niannej-, the 
do<.'trine is more liable to produce a practical effect tliau when 
stated theoretically. Now theology, in general, ought always 
to observe the same order. If there be a Trinity' in Unity, 
it shoidd be dednciblc from every part of our system, eren 
though never formally exprcMsed j whereas it is too oflcn the 
case, that theologians advance tlie doctrine of the Unity as a 
upeculativc truth, and then proceed to set forth n system from 
which it is impossible tu infer it. Others again assert rightly, 
that true ideas of Ood arc the foundation of all true religion ; 
next, that God is love ; hut baring stated tliis truth na a 
fpocnlative article of faith, they proceed to develop a system 
which conveys only the idea that God is anger, wrath, and 
fury, wliich rctiuircd to be appeased and reconciled. Now, if 
any ouc imputed to them a belief in the doctrine of a rcscutful 
Deity, might they not disclaim it ? Do you not perceive, thoy , 
might say, that the fundamental principle from which ve ^j 
started is, that God ia love ? True, it may be replied ; but ^M 

your theory, and your practical dcvclopmciit of it« do not 




TBIPEa80:<ALlTy — tiutiieism. 

coincide. Were it uot tlmt you bcRan by sayitiff, tliat God is 
lore, we sliould I)c quite unal>lc to inter it from your system ; 
and since you seldom montiuu your fmidamciitul priuciplc, 
and are constantly enlarging upon what conveys a directly 
contrary idea, the impression produced upon our minds ia 
practically the same us if you omitted the speculative article 
altogether, or maintained the contrary. The case is the same 
with regard to the Divine Unity. Abstractedly, the doctrine 
may be held, that God is one ; the most complete demonstra- 
tions may be urged to prove it; it may he professed us a 
sacred article of faith ; but the question is, whether it coin- 
cides with the rest of our theology; that is to any, with the 
doctrine of what is cidlcd the Voluntary Kcoiiomy. 

We have hitherto stated the case only theoretically. It 
remains to be ascertained how far the statement is justified 
by historical fact; how far there has been any just rca&on for 
complaining of the introduction luto the churcli of a system 
of Tritheism, under the pica of luivot'atiug the Trinity in 
Unity. The truth, theu, we need uot Icam from Praxeas, 
Noctu-i, or Snbcllius, whose testimony, as tliat of heretics, 
might be doubted: we shall take it from the account fur- 
nished by the orthodox themselves. 

Before doing this wc would ohscnT, that the present in- 
quiry leads to a iiistory over which wc would wiUiugly draw 
a veil. It is a subject which nuist fill every Cliristiau mind 
with (he most painful rcflcctious; and therefore, if we allude 
to errors which charity might induce us to conceal, it is not 
iix>m that disposition which rejoiccth in iniquity, but which 
requires «» to poirtt out tlie evil in order to its correction. 
If, in common wiili others, we are regarded as imputing Tri- 
theism to Christian communities, when it is declared there is 
no just ground for it ; we presume that a brief outhnc of the 
history of Tritheism in the Chrixtiau chiuxli, may not be un- 
serviceable in helping the reader to form a right dcdsiou 
upon the subject. 



CHAP. 1.1 


Swcdcnhorg, moroovcirj liiih ilcclnml, thai llir tmd of the 
jjitiacut churcU, as foretold by the Lord in Matthew, chop, 
uiv., 13 arrived. A statement of tliis kind caniiot be received 
except upon tidequate endence. How far tlic church is in 
possession of this evidence, the reader must judge. He that ^ 
tiatk ean to hear, let him hear. | 

Wc shall bc};iu with the age imuRMliatcly succeeding thtit 
of the ftp08tlc8, and in wliich Justin Martyr is the fimt writer 
tliat prcaenta liimself to notice. He was bom in the ycjir of 
our Lord 89, and published his Disputation with Trypho the 
Jew about a.d. 140, or, as some think, a little hitcr. Dr. 
llnrton, late Rc^us Professor of Divinity at Oxford, in his 
Testimonies of the Aute-Niecnc Fathers to the Divinity of 
Christ and of the Holy Spirit, (works of wliich we shall make 
considerable use in the course of our remarks), obaervcB u 
follows : 

" He (Justin) now slicwa that he did not understand this 
miinileatution of the Fatlier by the Son in u Saheliian scnae; 
and though theology Imd not yet employed any Greek term 
oquivalcnt to person, he sufliciciitly expresses the distinct per- 
sonality of the Father and the Sou." 

" Hctuming to the Scriptures," saya Justin, " I will en- 
deavor to persuade you, that this God, who is said in the 
^scriptures to have been seen by Abraham, and Jacob, and 
Moftcs, is a different Being from the God who created the 
universe J I uuam different in number (or numerically)^ bat 
not in counsel: for 1 aBlrm that he never did any thing:, 
cxcqit what the Creator himself, above whom there is no 
other God, wished him to do or to say." Divinity oj the iloiy 
Spirit, p. 24. 

On tiiis pa&sBgc Dr. Burton remarks: 

"The word person, as 1 have observed, not having tfet 
come into use in tfas sentc, Justin coidd hardly have cjnploycd 
ftiiy other which would more plainly convey an idea of dis- 
tinct individuality tlian afi0fiM nmnerically." The learned 



CUA?. I. 



nutTior then refers to other piuuagCR, hk Hficwin*; tliat somc- 
tbtng like iJabcliianUm bad already been mauitaiucd, but 
tlmt Justin wna decidedly opposed to it. Aasurcdly he was; 
but who will say that, by u&mg such expressions, Justin 
wi* enabled to explain away any objection that Tritheism 
was taught. It is intimated by Kpiphaniun, that when 
SabcUiauism aroscj its advocates embraced their peeuliar 
opinions out of a dread of Polytheism ; for, as he says, when 
they met with other Cliristianti, especially such as were un- 
learned, tlicy would put this slirewd question to them ; " Well, 
good friends, what is our doctrine ? Have wc one God, or 
three Gods?" Lardner's Works, voL ii. p. 663. It appears 
then, that tlie doctrine of Sftbcllianisra was received principally 
by reason of the difficidty of understanding the reputedly 
orthodox doctrine, except upon a principle of 'iVitlicism. 2le- 
move this difficulty, and so far SabeUinuiam was removed ; 
whereas in opposition to SahcUianiaru, which contemplates 
the Deity as one persou, or one hypostasii!, perpetually to 
endeavor to prove three distinct bypostRsea, or persons, is 
only to add fuel to the fire. 

Again ; in another passage, Joitin obscrvca to Trypho, on 
the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush : 

" Admit that both God and an angel were concerned in 
that appearance to Moses, as has been proved from the text 
cited; yet I insist upon it, that the Maker of all thin^ was 
not the God who told Moses that lie himself was Qod of 
Abraham, and God of Istuu:, and God of Jacob ; but it wax 
He of whom I liavc proved to you, that He appeared to 
Abraham, and to Jacob, administering to the will of the 
Maker of all things." IVntertand, vol. ii. p. 253. 

In another passage, Justin observes, in answer to Trypho: 

** I will endeavor to shew you from the Scriptures, since 
yoti understand them, that there is another who is God and 
Lord, and one who is so mlled, under the Milker of all things; 
who also is dcnoininatcd an augol, because he announces to 





man whatsoever tLc Maker of all tilings wishes him to im- 
uouncc — that Maker uburc whom there ia do other God."* 
Art. 56. 

Other piwsagcs tliere arc in Justin to the same piirpcirt,^ 
shewing thut the dixtiuction muilc by him nas nut made ui a 
careless moment; but was considered conducive to a right 
understanding uf ChriHtian doctrine. 

In defuncc of thbi futhcr it has been pleaded^ that 
all that he meant hy another M'ho im God And Lordj or, 
another Qod and Lord, was another h^'postasis, or person, in 
tlic Godhead. In reply to this, it is stated, that the term 
hypostasis, or jiorsoii, was not yet apjiropriatcd by the fathers 
to this signification ; and it is rejouied, that this a of no con- 
acqucucc if Justin meant the same thin^. We may remark, 
however, that what Dr. WaterUind has translated another 
yersoaff Dr. Burton has translated another btriat/. 'Uniatcver 
may have been the real mcaniug of Justin, is to the present 
argument a matter of no consequence. All that wc arc now 
concerned to ascertain, is, whether cxjircxiiionA were not made 
use of at tliis time by the orthodox, fltroiif^ly caleulatod tO| 
favor a tendency to TritheieiticiLl notions ; and hence, whe- 
ther lan^agc which was esteemed to convey orthodox doc- , 
trine, did not become oue source of the subse^jucnt heresies. 
Tliis iuquiry we are at Uberty to pursue, without impuguiag^i 
the doctrine of the Tri personality itsw^lf. 

The next author we »IiiUl quote im TortuUiati, who flonr- 
ishcd in the year of our Lord 200. He distinguished himself 
upon Ibis subject by his coiitrovurBy with Praxcas, who is one 
of the carJicst perrans who, we are informed, began to enter- 
tain the notions which nf^t^rwardn were known by the name 
of SabelUanism. In the following passages, extracted from 

* Tbi« pusage has been Tariousty rendered : vrn hart adopted Ihe r«*d- 
IBS "^ vsTPt mnder, in>t<.-«d of ii-prlf, beiidetr as bviog, pcriiapv, tbe 
sdvulafMtM to Ibe prcaeol argnincnl. 

I Sec Walerlud, vol, li. p. 260. 


CHAT. 1. 



Dr. Burton's Trstimmiiea of the Antc-Niceuc l-'athcrs, Ter- 
tiilliaii is arjaiiiig against Praxeas, who, like Iii» successor, 
SahcIUns, maintained n unity of person in the Deity, in nnlcr 
to prevent liimself from otherwise falling into a system of 
Tritheism. Now in what manner tlyi-n TfrtulHan confiite 
him ? In what manner does ho shew that tlic reputeLlly or- 
tJiudox doctrine miglit he maintained, without falhng into the 
iden of a phiralit}' of dinue beings in the Goidhcwl? TIjc 
following is a H]iecimcn. Papc 75, Hurlon'jt Tf-Htimonie^ af 
the AntC'Nicene Faiktm to the Divinity of tht Holy G/tost, 

" If you still take offence lU the number of the Trinity, as 
if it was not connected in simple unity, I ask. How does one 
individual being spenk in the plural numlier? Let ua make 
man, &c., when lie ought la have said, I will make man, &r., 
aa being one and singular. So also in what follow8. Behold 
Adam is become as one of us (Gen. iii. 22) ; he deceives ns, 
or is amusin;; himMrlf, by speaking in the plural when he is 
one, and alone and nngidar. Or wan he speaking to the 
angels, aa the Jcwb oiplaiii it, because they also do not 
acknowledge the Son ? or, because He was liimself Father, 
Son, and Spirit, did He therefore make himself plural, and 
apeak plurally to himself? The fact is, that He used the 
plural expressions, Let U9 make, and cur, and to us, because 
tlie Son, a second person, his AVord, was united to Him and 
the Spirit, a third person, in the Word. For with whom did 
He make man, and to whom did He make him like? It was 
with his Son, who was to put on the human nature, and with 
the Spirit, who was to sanctify man, tliat lie converted o* 
Vfith minister* and wttneMoi, by tlie imity of the Trinity. 
Again ; tlie following words distinguish between the jiersons : 
" And God made man ; ht the haage of God made He him." 
Gen. i. 27. Tcrtidlian then goes on to speak of the Son aa 
assisting the Father in all tlie works of creation, according to 
that passage in St. John ; By wftom all thingt vsere made, 
and without tehom nothing wag made. i. 3. After which he 



CHAP. l.\ 

lulds, " if this same being u 0«l, nccording to the cxpr 
of St. John, the Word was God, you have two beings, one 
sKyiiif;, Let it be matle, — Another making it. But 1 hare 
iLlrcndy cxplnined in wlmt sense you are to underatand 
another ; with reference to pcreon, not to suhstancc ; to di»* 
tiuction, not to (linsiou. But although I cvcr^-wliere hold 
one substance in t/tree united beings, yet from the neccsaaiy 
meaning of words, I must make Hint who commands, and ^1 
llim who executes, to be different betnga." * ^^ 

Aceurding to l)r. Burton, the Fatlier Htid the Son arc here 
considered to be two tUifcrent beiiiga, which he conceives to be 
the meaning of two hypostases, or persona. Certain dirines, 
however, perceiring the tendencj' of such notions, have id 
order to avoid the iicceKsary consocpicncc, interpreted the term 
persona in its elaasicnl nensc, intttcad of considering it aa sig- 
nifying a substuncc Jiccorduig to the popular view. Tliis idea 
was propounded, in order if possible^to make both for thcm- 
Holvca, and for tlie fathers, a way of esenpe from tbc charge 
of Tritheism, and to render the common doctrine of the Tri- 
nitj- more iutclli^ble. Without saying any thing upon the 
proi)ricty of sucli an interpretation, it is sufficient to ohseiTB 
that it is rejected by those who call themselves orthodox ; nnd 
we are required to understand the term aa signifying a sepa- 
rately existing being. This we shall see firom Dr. Burton's 
(•ommcnts upon the following passage of Tcrtulban, in hi* 
Teslimonies to tfie Divimty of the Hofy Ghost, p. 72. Tbe 
passage is taken from the treatise against Praieas. 

" You will make him a liur and deceiver and a falRe <*? 
pounder of tlus faith, if, when he hijni»clf is Sou to Idmsclf, 
he aacribcd the person of n son to another being; whereas 
all these passa^s of Scripture prove the clear existence and 
the distinction of a Trinity." 

According to Kr. Biuton, Tcrtullian'a ar^uncnt to Praxcaa 
is this : You consider God to be a sou to himself. But Ood 
■ See HnmpdeB's BoiaploD Lccttmi, p, 126, ddIc K. 


rAp. 1. 





ascribes the person of son t.i> another beinj^. Aimt}icr bcinj; 
conuot be the bnmc being with liimaclf ; to say so is uutrue. 
Coii-tcquently it is untrue that God aaya he is son to himacif ; 
since GufI rc^rtlH another beln^ na hifl son. On this passage 
of TertuUian thcn^fure Dr. Burton t)iuH comments : 

"I need not ob8cn.'C thnt thisurgiimcnt is directed agninrt 
the Sabellinu notiuti, whieb destroys the personahty of the 
Sou, aud in fnct niakeH (juil to be son to himself, as Tcrtul- 
liim here remarks. It will aUo bo seen, that the vrordpiTsona 
ia used iu thiti passage: and the advocates of Sabelliauism 
would wish us to understand, that it merely means a chamc- 
ter asaumeJ, or a part performed, by sume jicrson ; as wlirii 
Cicero «ay» of hiiuself, * I snutain myself three ehaructcra 
(persons), — my own, that of the adversary, and of the judge.* 
It is true that Cicero here uses the word persona in its original 
and clawical sease ; but to assunae from such an instance, that 
this iviia the meaniii;; given to the word by ecclesiaatical writers 
is most illogical, and betrays little acqiuiintonce witli the 
works of tlic fathers. It is in fact a petith prindjni : it 
is to aHsnmc Uie vcr\' point at issue, What wc want to as- 
certain i«, not what was the meaning given to the word by 
Cicero and chis-iical writers : that may be learned from dic- 
tiuuaries and indices: bnt wc wish to know, whether thin 
classical sense was retained by the fathers; or whether in 
course of time, the word (Ud not receive a new theological 
nieamng. Tiiis can only be discovered by a perusal of the 
writings of the fathers; and if wc find them using prrmna 
according to its mrHlerii sense, for a teparaMtj exiitting fmntf, 
for a person (Uatinyuished by iiulivitiualitif, it is iu vaiii that tlic 
Sabelliau refers to chiKsical antiquity : the criticism may I)c 
correct, but it is irrdevaut : and Cicero can no more acquaint 
us with the meaning of pcrnona, as used by Tertnllian or 
Jcram, than these late writers can enable ns to ilhiHtrnto 
Cicero. In the passage which I have quoted from TcrtulUau, 
he ia exposing the inconsistency of Sabcllianisra : and he 





Ui.ya, tliat wlien God speaks uf liis Sou, if )ic dw« iiol mcwn 

t Being tiidi- 

8on in the 




proper sense of the term 
riduatiy dutinct, he deceives us by giving the person of the 
Son to anotlier Bciii!?, or ratlicr to Himself." 

In aiiotlicr place Dr. Burton ohscncs, p. 80: 

"TertuUiun uoticcs those passaj^, in which thu Son 
speaks of sending tlic Comforter, and ret the Father iras to^| 
send hira: and upon those ivords of our Savior, AU thingr ^^ 
thai the FaUier hoik are mine .- ther^ore said J that He sttaii 
take of mine, and shall sh^w U tatta you," John xn. 15, he 
obser\'C£, " Thus the union of the Father in the Soii^ and of 
the Sou in the Comforter, makes three beings united one to 
tlie other : irhich three arc one thing, umim, not one pcraou 
umu, as it is written^ / and tlte Father are one, Jolui x. 30; 
with respect to tlic unity of substance, not to nnmericnl 
iudindualitr." TcHiurUfme* to the Dkvtity nf the Holy Ghott, 
p. 80. 

Tertnllian sap i^Wrf, p. 71^ : 

" God put forth tlie Word as the root puts forth the shmtiy. 
;md the fountain puts forth the river, and the snn put* forth 
the ray — nor yet is the shrub distinct from tlio root, nor the 
river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun ; aa ueither 
Is the Word from God. According, therefore, to the form of 
these analogies, I profess to Bp(>ak of two beings, God and his 
AVordj the Father and his Son." Br. Burton shews that 
Justin did not mean to abide rtrictly by these annlo^cs, 
which would otlicrwisc lead to SabcUiaiiiam ; cousciiucntly, J 
that the Father and the Sou are far more truly two beings, 
than the ray and the sun, the root and the shrub. For 
many who adopt the belief that God is one person only, 
would also avail themselves of these illnstratious; tliough they 
would refuse to call the root and the shrub two bcinga^ ftnd 
would consider them ouly as parts of uac aud the aamc boo^. 
The Tripersonal doctiiue requires something further ; that ta 
the Trinity, these two beings shall be two distinct persona. 





harinp; two dutiiict offices, and covcnmitin^ and ooiivcr&ing 
with ouc another; which oiigiuatc:* in the luiuil of coiimion 
people, the idea uf two GodH nml two Lonls. How closely 
Tertulliiui hinutctf bordered upon this Ditheism, may bo partly 
seen in the fuUoM-ing extract : if/id 78. 

" If they are univiUiiig that the Son slioidd be reckoiM^d 
B iccoud jwrsou with reference to the Father, lest a second 
should make two Gods to be named, / have ahevm that two 
Gotls and two Lords are ia fact meatioiutd m Scnptttre : and 
lest they should still tidtc offence at thia, I have fpven the 
reason, that tlicrc ore not two Gods nor two Lords mentioned, 
except as the Father and the Son are two : and this not by a 
separation of the snbstancc, but aecerdinj; to the divine 
economy; when wc a*sert the Son to he not dindcd and 
separated from the Father; and different, not in nature, but 
in order ; who, although he is called God when ttc is named 
by himself, doct not thrrcforc make two Gofls, but one, from 
the very circumstance of his beiog called God from the unity 
of the Father." 

It is not our part here to shew what TertiiUian did menu, 
or what he did not mean. Let the reader bear in mind the 
prrat truth that then' is one God, and read consecutively tlic 
passages wc shall continue to quote from different ^Titers and 
fiithcrs; and then ask himself, whether Swcdenborj? had or 
had not any just reason for asftcrtiiif; the prevalence of Tri- 
theism in the church. Origcn, wlio flourished in the year 
240, in his fiilb book against Cclsus, culls the Son the Second 
God, but observes, " iVlthough we call him t/ie Second God, 
let them know, that by thii Second God we mean twjtlung 
more than the virtue which comprises in itself all the virtues.*' 
See Bttlf* Defence of the Nicene Creed, pp. 717, 718. 
K itishop Bidl, in his chapter on the subonlinatinn of the 

H Son, observes, p. 730, " jVlniost all the ancient CutboUcs who 
H preceded Ariiu, ttecm to ha^x- been ignorant of the invisible 
H and immeasurable nature of the Son of God. Thev 








times, for instance, speak of the Son of God, as if 
accortling lo liis Dmnc Nature he were finite, risible, iiiclt 
in some certain place, and circumscribed within given limits/ 
Bishop Bull pi-ocecds to slicwtliat, ncvcrthclcM, they bcUci'rdi 
the Son to he the Tnic GotI of the True God, "rerum Demn 
ex Deo vera" 

Another antbor Bajn, "lu tlic books of Wisdom and 
FcelftriMticns, and much more, in the writings of Philo, 
the 7vd?of of Plato, which had denoted the divine energy in 
forming the world (^'ij^iB^yof), or the previous all-in-rfect, in- 
communicable deiti];ti of it, (hence called >wroririff,) was 
armved in the attrilmtes of personality, made the instmraent 
of creation, and the revealed iina^u of the Incuniprcltcnsible 

God This remark applies particuliirty to I'tulo, 

who, associatinfc it with Plntonic notioiiH n» well an wordi^j 
developed its lineaments with am rude and hasty a hand, 
to 8ep:irjite the idea of the xoy^i from that of the eternal 
God ; and so perhaps to prepare tlie way for Arianism." (That 
is, for the contemplation of God as two, or as three baagt.) 

In a note, the author observes, " Tliis may be 

illustrated by the thenlupcal lan^mij^e of the Paradiiic Lost, 
wliich is unexceptionable as far a» the verj- words go, con- i 
fomnablc both to the Scriptures and the writings of the^| 
lathcni, but becomes oHeusivo as being dwelt upon as if it^^ 
were Hteral, uot figurative. It is scriptiuul to any that the 
Son went forth from the Father to create the worlds ; but 
when this is made the basis of a secue or pageant, it bordcm 
on Arianum. Miltou has made allcgoiy, or the economy, 
real." Nrwntan's Hint, o/t/w Ariam of the Uh CerUwy, p. 102. 

We shall !tcc that modem theologians have done the same; 
have contem])lated the economy as real, as manifciitcd in the 
doctrine of the eoveiianta between the three Divine Persoiu, 
the doctrine of the pacification of Divine wrath, satisCnction of 
Divine justice, and intercession. Hence that the whole system 
in often thoroughly Arian, imder the pretext of being orthodox. 

VUAt, I. 




TVc will now pass to tlie ^-ritingsof St. riyprinn, iw quoted 
by Dr. Watcrkud, vol. v. ji. 247. Tliis lather flourished in 
the year 256. 

Arguing, says Dr. Watcrland, for the invalidity of here- 
tical ba])tisma, lie asks how any person baptized by heretics 
and thereby partaViug of their heresy, can he presumed to 
obtain remiitsion of sins and to become tlie temple of God? 

"If he be thereby," says St. Cyprian, "made the temple 
of Ood, T would a-nk of whal flod it in? Is it of {God) the 
Creator? — he could not bo so, if he believed not in Ilini. la 
it of Christ f — neither can he be Hit temple, while he denies 
Clirist to he God. Is it then of the Holy Ghost ? lltit aiiice 
the three ai-e one, how can the Holy Ghost have friendship 
with him that is at enmity wnth either Father or Son ?" 

Tlic csxprcHsion, the three are one, will he illuHtratcd as wc 

Tlie following arc specimens of what a modem author 
calls the Platonic huij^'iiagc of the early fathora, and ^^liich 
contributed to the doctrine of the Tritheism of Arianism. He 
»»}■« (p. 103), " Justin speaks of the Word as ' fulfilling the 
Father's will.' Clement calls him the inontut q( (joil ; and 
in another place the Second Principle of all things, the 
Father himself being the first. Ulscwherc he speaks of the 
Son as an ' all perfect, alt holy, all sovereign, all authorita- 
tive, imprcmc, and all sewrcliing nature, reachin/} fhse upon 
the sole Atmitfhiy.'* In like manner, Origen speaks of tlio 

* Bishop Bnll mainUini thai Clrinrnl did not mran \\trt tliBt Ihc nutur^ 
uf tbe Swu rtachtd eloit iipcn GotI (7rpDirf;(;traT7i) eilima aa llie Gr««k woiU 
ia hcri! ir.udrtcd, liiil that ll Mueaiia cor\j»vctit*i'«a, iiiii»l inlilualt'ly currjuitiipij i 
in ihia huwercr he dilTen Trom olhcr anih'Ora, and anionK Ihcte I'elaviua 
ttBd Huetius. Sfi BuII-tU'/entfy IL 6.6. The author of the Htstgry of lhi> 
Ariiuii would not thaa htive ri>n<l(-rf-r3 the paKnagr, had he lhnuf;)i( it tn ^c ^r- 
ronrou*. Wc Imve bcfiin! laitl, il isbnl nf liltl)ic9o»«>queDCP whichof llii? ton 
tneaniDiia nuungiDally <l»lgtied ; If wc grant tliai lli« pn&iai;!) Is auTsgue^Iy 
wot(]«d ai (u favor a iL-ndcoc; to InihejatUai Dotiou, wlioietcrthvj had ptc- 
c-iialed, ibU will be infficieot for the argumrnl. 





Son an being 'the hnmeeliate Creator, and na it were Artifitvp' 
of the world ;' and the Tatlier, ' the Origin of it, aa tuning 
committed to his Son the creation of the world/ *^ ^ 

The same iiimlern author Bpeitlts of n atill balder Iheo/ogy 
than thJH ha\iii<; bccu adopted hv Tlicophilus of Aotiodi, 
(a.d. lOH) ; Tiitimi, pupil of Justin Martyr, (a.d. 1^;. 
Atbcnagorns of Alexandria, (a.d. 177); Hippolyttis, 
disctpte of Irenaeus and fricad of Origcu, (a.d. 2^0) ; xuc 
the author, who fpics imdcr the name of Kovatinn, (j.o. 250).| 
These writers, none of whom bowcrcr were of aoy especial | 
authoritj' in the church, " explained the Scripture doctrini 
of the gcuemtion of the Word to mean Uis manifestation at 
the beginning of the world us dinHact from God." 

"We a.rc informed by Knwrhius, in hi.* Eccle3in5tical His- 
tory, that Dionysiiis, Ri^hop of Alexandria, and cotcmiiororr 
with his namesake, Bishop of Borne, became distinguished i 
by writing apjiuust the Sabellians. The following h an extract 
from H note on ehnp. vi. book 7, of hi.s IJiston.' (KogUsh 
Translation, folio, 2nd edit. 1709,) concerning the heresy of 
Sabclliiis. ^M 

" Managing the cause with too much eagerness and fer- ^^ 
fBiicy of disputation, he bciit the atiek too much the otiicr 
Wfty ; asserting not only itt^oTiila Tur ii-xifontiv a diHtiiiction 
of persons, but also itaiai ^apofxv a difference of essence, and 
an inequality of power and glor^'. Upon whieh account he is 
scvcrclj- censured by St. Basil (Epint. 4>1. ad nmyn. pftilot.J and 
others of the ancients, m one of those who in a great ntea- 
aurc opened the gap to those Arian impieties, which aftcr- 
wnrdH broke in upon the world." Folio edit. p. 111).* 

Now after the ]iriiicipal ecclesiastical uutliondes had used i 
these expressions, it may bo useful to ai^certaiu what were thftjH 

* II in bill rigbl lo rnvntioB ttiBt Bishop Bull shields Dion]rsiia from die 
Hnrg« of Tritlivikin, in liii D<!r<.-[ic« nf (lie Nicene Crenl, ii. II. 1. W* 
•ball, however, »cc bow fur this tcwcd prolate could hboKlf bend Lb* bow 
wiUioul cQBCL'iving thai lie broke it 




ideas which were p-adually stealiiig upoa the minds of the 
iiifcriur and less wlucntcd teachers. Ou this subject we de- 
rive iiifonuatiuii frum the fnlluwiiig extract &om Bishop IJu]], 
in his Discourse on the Catholic Doctrine couccmiug the 
BIcsshI Trinity. 

" Diouysius, Bishop of Xtonie, who fiouhahed iihout the 
year 25f>, whom his great namesake of Alexandria styles a 
Icnrucd and wonderful man, in au epistle against the Sabel- 
linns, (which donhtleas he wrote, as the manner then was, 
inth tlio advice and cunHunt of the clor{!;,v of his diiHTese 
syntxlically convened), after he had refuted the doctrine of 
SaheUiuH, thus proceeds to discourse against the contnuy 
heresy of those, ' who (Unde and cut asunder and overllirow 
the most sacred doctrine of the churclt of Go»l, pjirtiny the 
monarchy into three certain powers anil liypostascH, separated 
from each otlier, nud conpcquently into t/inv Vtrii'ma. For I 
hear that there arc some eait^ckists and teacherg of the Word 
of God among yon, who maintain this opinion, therein ihiu 
metrically, if 1 may so speak, opposing the hypothc«i« of 
Sabctlius. For ho blnsphenicth, hy iiffinning that the Fatlicr 
is the Son, and, on tlie other side, that the Sou is the Father ; 
but these men in a manner teach three GmIs, while they divide 
the holy unity into hi-postases, alien and wholly ditidcd from 
each other. For it i» absolutely ucccswarj- that we liold, that 
the Divine word U united to the God of all things, and tliat 
the Uoly Ghost remains and dwells iu Gwl; and also, that the 
Divine Trinity is pathcred tof^cther and united into one, us 
into a cei-titin head; I mom the omnipotent God, the Father 
of all things." 

'W'e have then here an unexceptionable testimony as to 
the ciistence of Tritheism in the church in the year 259. It 
prevailed, we arc told, among the catechists and tetichers. 
Now these catechists and teachers were often hitendcdiorthe 
priesthood. The pcrsouu they instructed were such as were 
cicstgucd for baptism ; and as baptism was administered in the 





name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
it vaa uatural to expect that if IVitlicUm, in its lower fomu, 
would manifest itself any ^herc, it would be among the class 
which has been here specified. 

iJut we now come down to a later age, namely, that in 
which the Niceuc Creed wiw composed. A» the Council of 
Nice is so celebrated in ecclesiastical history, and ns the creed 
it authorized has contiuued to this day a staudard of the or- 
thodox fnith, it may be nm-fnl to asfcrtain, if possible, what 
were the opiniirtis, bchl about that time, on the Kubjcci of the 
Trinity. Here we meet with two accounts, somewhat opposed 
to cnch other. One claiia of the learned represent some of 
the fathers as the lowest Tritheists. This is the opinion flf 
Dr. Cudworth and others. The other class, such a» Bull and 
Watcrland, represent them aa maintaining, not Trilheism, 
but the doctrine now said to be received among the orthodox.* 
Wc shall first atatf the opinion given by Dr. Cudworth, 
reserving the orthodox doctrine for the latter part of om 
chapter. In the ensuing extract Dr. Cudworth is adverting 
more particularly to Orepiry Nyssen, Cyril of Alexandiu, 
Anastanins, Maximus the Martyr, Damascen, and Atliana* 
sius. His remarks upon the principles of Athannsius, we 
shall reserve till we have noticed those with regard to ih 
fathers tirst mciitioued. Hia obscn'ationa are the followixig 
IntrUectual Srjttem, vol. iii. p. 149. 

" 'Hieae were they who principally insisted upon the abso- 
lute coequality and independent co-onlination of the threo; 
hj-postaaea or persons in the Trinity, na compared with one 
another. Because, as three men, though one of them were 
a father, another a sou, and the tliird a nephew, yet luivc no 
essential dependence one upon another, but arc naturally 

" D«n Sliertfick al>o miiijiUiiird ilint Cudwortli, Petarins, ite., 
Diilakcn the fUbere, in sappoftiDg ihal thrj nrre TrithcUU; but be. Id 
turn, imputed sucU » wnw upon ll)o falhere, ss mu Jci'larvil by Soulh ui4 
others, toboTritbtiim c^UKlIf objcci ion able. Stt kia Vittdicatiom, |i. 106. 



equal and unRubordinutc, there being only a miTTiprical 
difference betwixt them ; ao did they in like manner couclude, 
that the three hypostases or persons of the Deity, (the Father, 
Son, aufl Holy Ghost), being likewise but three iiidividuiUv, 
under the same ultimate species or specific CMcncc of the 
Godhcml, and diiferiug only numerically from one imothcr, 
urcre absolutely coequal, uiisubordinate, and independent : 
and this was that, which ivns mmmnnly called by them their 
o/.ip^ff'ionK, their eoessentialit}- or consubstaiitiality." .... 

. . . "Tlieae thcologcrB supposed the three persons of their 
Trinity to have really no other than a specific unity or iden- 
tity ; and b<.'cauBe it seems plainly to follow from hence, that 
therefore they munt needs he a» much three gods as three 
nien are three men ; tlicac loanicd fathera endeavored with 
their logie to prove, that three men are but abusively and 
improperly mm railed three, they bcinp really and truly but 
one, because there is but uue and the same specific essence 
or substance of huinau nature in them all ; aud Acriouitly 
persuaded men to lay aside that kiud of language. Uy xrhieh 
name logic of theirs, they might as m'cII prove alao, that all 
the men in the world arc but one man, and that lUI Kpi- 
ctmis' god« were but one god neither. Bnt not to ui^c 
here, that according to this hj-pothesis, there cannot possibly 
be any reason {riven, why there should be »o many as three 
such individiiaU in the species of God, which differ only 
numerieally from one another, they being but the very name 
thing thrice repeated ; and yet that there should be uo more 
tlian three such neither, and nut three hujidreil, or three 
thousand, or as many as there are individuals In the 8{>c<Mes 
of man ; ve say, not to urge this, it seems plain, that tliis 
Trinity is no other than a kind of Tritbeism, and that uf gods 
independent and co-ordinate too. And therefore some would 
think, that the ancient and genuine Platonic Trinity, taken 
with all ita faults, is to be preferred before this Trinity of St. 
Cyril, and St. Gregorj- Nysseu, aud several other reputed 



IB±T. I. 

orthodox fathers ; and more agreeable to the principles both 
uf Christianitjr and rcBson. Howcrcr, it is eridiait from 
hence^ that these reputed orthodox fathers, who were not a 
few, were fiir from thinking the three bTpoataaos of the T!n- 
nity to have the same singular existent esamoc^ th^ it^ptM- 
iug them to have no otherwise one and the same essence of 
the Godhead in them, nor to be one God, than three indi- 
vidual men linve one common specifical essence of "'■"^'"^ 
in them, and arc all one man. But ta this Trinitj came 
ailcrwards to be decreed for Tritheistic; so in the roooi 
thereof started there up that other Trinity of persons Duue- 
rically the same, or having' all one and the same singular 
existent essence ; a doctrine which seemeth not to hare been 
owned by any public autboritr in the Cliristian churc^ sane 
that of the Latcraii Council only.*' 

Such ii the histon,' which Dr. Codworth gives us of tbe 
views of the Tiiuitj- held by tliese fathers.* AVe now como 
to the bihiory of the news of Athann^ius, us furnished by the 
aame author in the sequel. Having enlarged npoa tike 
doetrinrt uf the specific niiity, or the oneness of the species 
of tbe Godhead, ttiis writer observes, page 167 : 

"Notwithstanding all which, it mnst be granted that 
though this homoendoteti or coesseutiality of the three per- 
sons iu the Trinity, docs imply them to be all God, yet does 
it not follow from thence of necessity that they are thcrdbre 
one God. What tlicn I shall we conclude lliat Athauaaias 
himself also cntcrtaiuod tlut opinion before mentioned and 
exploded, of the three persons In the Trinity being but 

' In reply lu Ihia view of the cue, ft h«s been said, Thi? diwtriiM of tiM 
•pv^fle Cnlty 1b a very iilaio tfoctrine, for it iit palpable Trttbelui; cas- 
*c(]u«n(l]r it could Dot have been tbe docUine of tlie f«tben, wbo il«<:lara lh« 
doctriae Co ba a profoMiKl mjstcry. To Ihii i( u rejoined, The iloclfiitft of 
the TitpcnoBalitf. ia lbi» case, Is pl&in, but not ibe doctrio* of th« Unicx. 
The Triaiiy U U]tclli|;iblc, thn Unity anialelligibk, in other words the 
doclrlne ibftt Ood i> t>irt^«i ^nons U no nyvtery | but tbut, in this csm, II« 
la 0B« aDOierlcml sabslancv, Is a ^rrat mystery. 

cn*p. I. 



tlime indiriduabi under the samo spccica {ns Peter, Paul, 
uud Timothy), and having no otter natural unity or identity 
than specifical only ? Indeed, Bouie have confidently fastened 
this upon Athnnasins ; bccansc, in those Dialogues of the 
Trinit)', publialicil anioupit his works, and there entitled to 
him, the same is grossly ovracd, and in defence thereof 
thia ^isurd paradox mAintnincd, that Peter, Paul, and 
Timothy, though they ho three hypostascR, yet are not to 
be accounted three men, but only when they dissent firom 
one another, or disagrco in will and opinion. l)ut it is 
certain, from several passagea in those Dialogues themsclres, 
that they eonld not be written by Athana»iii« ; and there 
hath been also another father found for ttiem, to viit, Maxi- 
mua the Martyr, ^^otnith&tanding wliich, thus much must 
not be denied by us, that Athanasius, in those otheni hia 
reputedly genuine writiugsi, does somotimc approach so 
near unto, that he lays no small stress upon tlds homomutioter, 
this cocsscntiulity and common nature of the Godhead to 
the three persons, in order to their being one God. For 
"fiius, in that book entitled, Concerning the Cotamon Essfmce 
of the Three I'ersonSr and the chapter inncribetl, Thut there 
are not three Gods, doth Athnnnsius lay his foundation here. 
When to that question proposed. How it can be eaid that 
the Father is God, the Sou God, and the Holy Ghost God, 
and yet that there arc not three Gods? tlio first reply which 
he makes is this : Wliere there is a commuuioa of nature, 
there is also one common name vS dignity bestowed. And 
thus doth God himself call things, ditided into mnltitudca 
from one common nature, by one singular name. For both 
when He is angry with men, doth He call all those who are 
the objects of hia anger, by the nmne of one man ; and when 
He is reconciled to the world, is He reconciled thereto as to 
one man. The first instances which He gives hereof ore in 
Genesis, chap. vi. 3, 7 : My tpirit shaH not afwaijt iirive with 
man; and, / vHU destroy man whom I have abated. Upon 





irliicli Athannsius makes this reflection. Though there was , 
not then only one man, but infiiiite myrindB of men, never- 1 
thc]csa by the name of one nature, doth the Scripture eall all 
those men one man, by reason of thrir (immunity of nsacncc 
or substance. Again, he coiuniciitelh in like luanncr u[xni 
that other Scripture pajtsngc, Exod. xv. 1 : 77i« horse and Ai* 
rider hath Ifc Ihrowti into the sea. When Pharaoh vent oat ^| 
to the Red Sea, and fell with iufiiiltc chariots in the same ; . 
and there were many men that were drowned together with 
him, and mauy hurses ; yet Mosch, knuwingthat there was but 
one common natiu'c of oil those that were drowned, spcakcth 
thus both of the men and hunics : 7'he Lord hath i/iroum both m 
the horse and the ridt-r into the sea : he calling such a niul- H 
tituilc of men hut one singular man, and such a multitude of 
horses but one horse. WTiereupon Athannsius thus con- 
cludcth : if therefore amongst men, where the things of nature 
are confounded, and where there arc diflercuces of form, 
power, and will, (all men not having the game disposition of 
mind, nor form, nor strength), as also different languages 
(from whence men are called by the poets pitropf*,} — uevcr- 
thelcBS, by reason of the community of nature, the whole 
w(»ld is called one man ; might not tlutt 'IVinity of Pcrmnii 
where there is an luidivided dignity, one kingdom, one 
power, one will, and one energy, be much rather called one 

Athanasius however had too much discernment not to] 
perceive, that all this was so fiir only a system of Tritheisui j 
accordingly he has recourse to four different expedients, as 
enumerated by Dr. Cudwortb, to prove tlie Dirine Unity. 
These four wc proceed to consider ; but before we do so, must 
make one remark upon an expression used by Dr. Cudworth. 
He says, that although the foregoing doctrine of the siiccific 
unity imphcs all the three persons to be Uod, yet it does not 
follow from tlieuce of necessity that they arc therefore one 
God. Might he not have spoken more strongly? Might ho. 

CUAP. 1. 



not have said, that it follovs thence of necessity that they 
are not ouo God ; or at least, one Divine Bciug. And in 
this case, would it not have beeu imputttiiblc fur uny one to 
hold this doctrine and to reconcile it to that of one God by 
any additional articles of heUefj except upon the principle 
of the specific unity 1 ViTiatever other sentiments, therefore, 
might he held upon the subject, in conjunction with the 
fureguiug, with nricw to establish the doctrine of one Divine 
Being, the two muat be considered irreconcilable. Accord- 
uig'y* ^^ ^'"^ ^^^ ^^^^ *■'"'>' ^icvcr have been reconciled ; 
that in pro|iortiou as persons have advocated the former, 
they have been regarded as Trithcists; in proportion as 
they have udvocated tlie latter, they have been regarded as 
SabdJiaoB; and in proportion as tlicy have held both, they 
hiiTc been regarded ns men of ambiguous and racillatiug 

In Ulustration of these remarks, we proceed with our 

The 5rst additional proof of the unity of God, as eim- 
meratcd by Dr. Ciidworth, is the introduction by Athanasiua 
of a priority of order or rank among the Uircc persons; ao 
that instead of being co-ordinate, the Sou was regarded sub- 
ordinate to the Father, and the Spirit to the Son. On this 
proof wo need not dwell, as Dr. Cudworth admits that it 
might be objected this was only making three subordinate, 
instead of three co-ordinate, CJods. Wd. p. 174. 

The second argument for the unity of God, was, that the 
three persons were indi^Hsibly united. Thus the Father was 
like the Snii, the Word was like the splendor uf the sun. 
Hence the Word could no more be Bcparatcd from the Father, 
than splendor from the sun. An excellent iUuatratiou ; but 
the difficidty waa to reconcile it with the doctrine of three 
distinct h}*po!itases, or persons. 

In relation to this subject, the late Bishop of Bristol 
obscnes, in his account of Justin Martyr, p. 178. "Justin, 







ill Hpcakirif; of the goiicratiou of the Son, csprcssty ccasum 
thust- whu cuiupiired it to the emitssion of a rav from the sun ; 
and uses tlic illustratiuii of a fire lighted from imothcr fire. 
\Vc liavB here another instance of the (liffieulty of !)riupn^ 
forward, on this mysterious subject, any illustration, to iviurli 
nil objection may not be made. .Tiistin^s illustration better 
conveys the notion of a distiuetiou of persons; that of 
Atbeniigona the UJiity of subMtanee. But they who arc db- 
poaed to niisc cavils will any, that the former tends to Tri- 
theism, the latter to Sabelliauism." 

The tliird ai^imcnt for the l>innc Unity was the principle 
introduced by some of the fatliorB of Kmpcriehorcsisj circumin- 
ccssion, cuiuherciicc, mutual iuhabitatiou, immeation, or iiD> 
permeation* of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Here Ngain 
arose a difficult)'. If this was described na perfect, it tended 
to reduce the iloctriiic of the Trinity to that of a sijigiilarity of 
essence, and to confound the {Wrsous, wliich was Sabellianism; 
if dciteribed as imperfect, tlicn there were lliree not perfectly 
united, hence disunited, which was Tritlicism. Accordingly, fl 
it WHS left by the orthodox unexplained, and dechircd to he 
inc.\pUcable ; and m prouotmecd by Bi&bop Bull to be an ^ 
inscrutable mystery. ( 

The fourth and last expedient used by Athnnasius was, to 
compare the Trinity to a fouutain, with its two emannting 
streams; and to a tn^ with its root^, trunk, and branchct. 
This again, accnrdinj^ as it whs explained, exposed the doctrine 
to the charge of SabcUiauism on one baud, or of Tritlicism 

* Th« Diriac unitj and circumincrMion are Uias ilesoribed (kliall Wi 
Mj •xplsiocd ?) by St. Ainbraso :— " Hua autem dicitur D«u» pKti;r, quia 
fpiS Ml t% quo 1 et Mipi^ntiR ot, i]tiil tirdinimlur (jtntiiit ; «l dtlecUu, qu& te 
TolUDtoBiUaitEOtuicre, 111 ordlnatBfiunU Ex quo ^rgo, ct qni ex co, rt 
qoo I* diltguat ip«ii duo, triu iiual, rt itln tria idea ttnuin, quia tie aunt «x 
QDO ilia duo, nl taiDi;n ab Ipso nnn fiinl scpanti j ted ex ipsu eunt, quia atn 
a m; ut In ipH> quia nun Hrpnnila ; rt ipKiiiu ipiii, i|uik1 ipiie; ct ipauB 
[pfc, quod lp>a ; et noo tpsum Ipsn, qal ipac ; oi nan ipsa ipse quv i$l^'' 
BmIPb D^tmct «/ tht yUnt Crrr^t It. *, 18. " 




on tlic Other. Thu.s the two never "hate been reconciled ; Mid 
the only inidiUe way between them, has led through that land 
of darkness, jji which the dUtiiiutious betwccc tilings being 
impcrt-cptible, their mutual repuguancc bceomcs invisible. 
Tlie moment any light is attempted to be let in on the sub- 
ject, that moment discordance begins. Hence Atliimasius 
himiicif, who attempts ia pnss fi*om words to ideas, did not 
escape the chai^ of Sabcllianiem, in ailrocating the unity of 
God ; wliile ou the otlier hand, he seemed perplexed by the 
ilifficulties into which he was led by the doctrine of the Tri- 
penonality, "The life of Athanasius/' aaj's Gibbon, "was 
consTimed in iTrcconcilabIc opposition to the impious mnd- 
oaa ai the jtriann ; but lie defended above twenty yam the 
SftbeUianism of Mareelliis of Ancyra ; and when at last he 
was compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he 
continued to mention, with an ambiguous smile, the venial 
errors of his respectable friend." Decline and Fall of the 
Roman Empire, vol. iii. p. 33S.* 

In the foregoing remarks wc have a ready, and we believe 
a tnie, account of the origin of mo-st of those dissensions 
in the church, which afterwards took place upon this sub- 

* " It wiu in ihc coutBc of k waik Jn rcfaUlion oi the SopkiBt Atitvriu«, 
fbo founder of Lbe Semi -.\n an*, thai Mnrcpllus uf Ancjra uas led to siui- 
|ilif/(uhccui]ccivcd) Ihc crcrtl of iho cburcb, by Fiiitriuviii* nliicti iiitvured 
of SAbclllwilAm ; i.e. he in&inUiDeil lbe uniCj uf Ibc Son with the Fuhcr, 
al the ex|it^Dce uflhe d4>clriii« of Ihe (i«r*uu>I diiliovtioQ between thom. He 
WM UMvrettA not odIj by Afllcrins, but by Kuscbiiis nf Cmaraa and 
Acwiui ; auil, a.d. 33S, he whs driiuHril rrain kis btv b* lh« EoMbiana, in 
order tn miilKf nny farlhr Scmi-Ariiui BamI. In spile of tlt^^ mspii'lona 
■gainst him, Llie orlhodox parly defended him fur » conisidernblo lime, and 
the Council (if Sanltoa (a.d. 347) aoqulttcd bim and restored hiin lo bia sco ; 
but a( leaglh, perbupp on accoont of the incnnxing dclinita^nria of bis 
heretical vlem, he was abandoned by his friends as hop^lDSe, uvcn by 
Atluuiulus, who qoletly pal him aside, with the acfjuiracrDru of M«c«llu« 
lilnielf. The ctII did n&t end there; his disciple PholiDOs, Qixbop of 
Simrium, increased the scandal, by advooitinft the same opinioaa wilh 
groairr boMness lltan bjs maslcr." Tietfrnam't Hist, o/ iht Ariaju i(f ike 
Ftmrth CtmtMri/ 



cuxr. J. 

ject.* It is acknowledged even by the orthodox, that to 
attempt to reconcile the two fundamental ideas of the trioiiv 
and unity, is difficult; that it is better not to make the at- 
tempt, hut to leave the question involved in mystcnr. As 
Ion{^ as the difficulty remained, however, it could not be re- 
moved by the use of mere words, — nay, us miglit naturally be 
expected, the very words themselves became a subject of war- 
fare. In illustration of this port of the subject, we aball 
quote the following account from Dr. Burton's Testimonies of 
the Ante-Niccnc i^'athers to the Divinity of Chmt, p. 341: 
" Origeu liaving given his definitiou of a heretic, proofiedi to 

'ThcCalliulicB "were furalimeinconsitEcatwitk oacholh«r Jo themMOC 
pKrliculiini vf lUrir duclrinal atatvuienla, beioK f4r f»i>r« hvcl un oppatinK 
rrror, tirna rurniing* iheology ; inconiittcnt, tliAl », b^rore ttir ctperi«D(x 
of contruieray, aiiiJ Uie voice q( trdUjltoQ, tad delaclted ib^ra from leu ic- 
cunlc or whimblr cxpirstiouK, and niiidc Ihcm concede, ot at leut con- 
pare and n.dju*t their tevvml deolttratloDB. Thu*, Mme BBid that Ihere wa< 
bill on« uiiroriffii f iBbntHnfc in tliu Gudlicad)^ olbcri thrtc irttoraffiif 
(»ubilaoc«8 or p^rsosB), and one tfiTia (sabstuoce); othfrs apokc of more 
thnn one iata. tiomf. nllon'cd, name rtjecteA, the Xermt irf«0i>SnmA 
Oft»Bfftov, nccotding iu ibi'}* w<?t« jiuided by lb« prevailing bemy of Cbt 
day, and liielrown Judgeinfiat ennceroiui; the moiLe of meetini^ JL So«M 
■(Hike uf Ibe S»n an existing ffnin eTFrhi»ting in tlin Di<inr ntind; Otbura 
iuiplic'j ilut Ibo Logos wuf everlDsling, xnd h^canie the Son in time. Soma 
anwrled bit ava^j^ti/, allien di'OJed ic. Some, when interroealed by h*re* 
tics, tauKht thm he wfl« bo^DUro by tbo Fnlher, ^fXriJii.; olber», ^C^tt 
Mai ftn tx ffmxiifftui; olhere, Sri SiMfTOf t* xoJfJj ti7t nn 9iurrsf 
aXX« iv TJf vvif 0nf.yiv fu9U ; oiben apoke of a fu*B^Ofio( SiXn^if. 
Some declare that God is aft5/*S r^iif ; others, iHinocrically one; while 
to other* it might Mpjieai more pbiloEupbical to esclodc ibc Idea of number 
altogedier, io ilio di»cttMion or tbul nfjsterious Nature, wbicb im beywod 
comparifluii, wbrtbrr viewed as One or TJiree, and neithor falla undcf aor 
fbrnHi aaj concciTable fprcies." /Aid, p, 240. 

** Athaiwiiua, witlnnut carintt lu be utLifureo In bit uM of tcnaa. about 
whkb the orthodox, differed, favors the Latm usage, sprakinK of the So- 
ftrnt HciuK B» una bypostuis, i.e. tubatauco. And in tliii he differNJ froiB 
lUe prerioua writers of hia own t liurtli ; who, not haviDg esperieoca of tli« 
Latin theoloiiy, nor of ih<< perTerfloDB of Arlaaitin, adopt, not only ih« 
word wiraffit, but (what Is stronger) the words ^ucrifaud ij/a, to denols 
the separata peraonality of the Sod and Spirit." fftid. p. 393. 







(Miut out aornr^ particular herewesj &c. Tliosc who say that 
the horti Jesus waa a man before known and piToriljiiiU'ii, 
who before his adveut iu the flcsli did nut exUt suhstautially 
and iiro|icrly; hut, that being bam a mere man. Ho hiul in 
hiiiiwlf only the Divinity uf the Fiither; they cannot williont 
danger be reckoned in tlic uunibcr of the church ; as those 
altto who, with mure superstition than reli^on, (that they ma; 
not appear to make two Go<U, nor on the other hand to deny 
the dinnity of the Savior,) assert that there ia one and the 
Mime exUtcucc of thu l<'ather and Son, namely, that one 
hypostasis exists, which receives two names according to the 
difference of causes, i. e. one person answering to two names : 
and the-se arc called in Latin, Patripassians." 

Ou which Dr. Burton rninarka : — 

"It might be thought at first that Origen here espoused 
the Ariaii doctrine of dividing the substance of the Father 
and the Sou. It is true that ho condemns tlie doctrine aa 
heretical, which taught that there was only one hyportftsi* ; 
but we mnat remember, that hypostasis, which was used by 
later writers for suh»tnnrc, was taken in the time of Origen 
to aipiify person : and iu this passage he alhidcs to the Patri- 
passian heresy, to which the SabelUan was nearly aUied, of 
confounding the persona of the Father and the Son. In his 
work Hgaiuat Celiius, he expressly colts those peraonH heretics, 
who deny that the Father and Son are two hypostases; and 
lie adds, *We woraliip the Father and the Sou, who are two 
in hj-postasis.' In those places hypostasis is used (ot per$OH. 
The word, in its proper signitication, is applied to any thing 
which has an indiridual and substantiai ear'utericv .* thus wc 
may speak of the liypoataaia of man ; by which we may mean 

* "The word Perton, which wo Tenttiro to oie in apeaklo; of than 
tbrre ditlinct itinnlfH:*la(i4iDii uf Iltcuacir, uliicli il hjia pUiuirit AliiiiKbljr 
Cod to give us, is In iU ptvilosophicat acnso too wide for our mcaDiiig. Iu 
fiuenttal ni^lQcBtioB, aa applied la ouraelvci, li Ibat of an imditidinxt 
rHfWIiffnt agmt. aotwerin^ to tlie Greek iivif ajif, or rMJtljf. On Ihc other 
liBitJ, if nti rchUicI It to itD etymological »«□» of pmeaci or TTfOfftivsy, 




cither t!ic aubstMicc of mnu, aa different from the sobatanco 
of any other animnl taken ReneriwJly ; or we mar mean the 
aubstoitcc of any indiviitunl mnn, «. g. IJomer or Cicero. Id 
tills latter sense the word comes to siguify peraon, idwnTi 
retaining the idea of individuality and KiiKttiuttiality. And 
in tMs sonso most of the fathers umitl the term, who wrote 
before the Council of Nice."* 

'^ Jjtit since it might also ho npphcd to God, and mmi 
either the substance of Uodj i. e. his lUstiuctirD esgetiM, 
which separated Ilim from c**cr)' other being; or theindii.'i- 
dual person (?) whom wc call God ; there arose an ambiguity 
in the term ; and persona, speaking of the Trinity, might 
nay either that there were three hypog(oae», meaning three 
iudiviilual persons, e<ich of whom had a substantial custence, 
or that there was one hypostasis, meaning that there was one 
substantial mode of being which was common to the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. Hence some persons were branded 
with the name of heretic, though they were only guilty of a 
confiuion of terms ; and when it is said that SabcUius held 
one hypostasis in opposition to the church, which held three 
It^lKMitase*, the statement is calculated to mUlcod, because 

■.<. tkaraeter, ll evidently meani Icsa than the Scripture doctrine, whiefa 
we witli to uccrtain by it ; denalinf; ineretj' cen^in outwiutl esprcMiOM of 
Ibe Supreme llein; rclktlTcly U> ourficlvea, wbich are nf in sccjdcnt&l Mad 
variable uuliire. Tlie statementB of revelutiDo tlien Ue htimen Uns iairniAl 
uiij vxlrrnitl ricvr of iNe Uirine Kf.trnce, hrltrcen Trillicisiii, and wlial ia 
P>[i<ilai1y called Unilarianiuu " ^ricman'* Hut. nf tkt Ariumtof tkt F«*rtk 
Cemtmy, p. 39&. The quRMiOR has alwaT* beta, frhat tbU bettuen it, or ' 
wfiRlhtr IhpTff ii any btltcrm. 

* Arcbbiahop KiJii; iiisi>t«, that the Una pcrMo as applied to the Deity. 
mutl be ciu-d in nil itnalogicBl aeusv ; hi*i>ce tbut il meaus something «i>ij 
dUTennt from what il du(» in iU urtlinary arccptatiiin, though what thai b 
be diM-a not preaumii to say. His aanolatoT, howa*OT, remarks, Ibat Ihie 
scBH mnst be that of tkaracter, a doctrine tbe tame wlih ihst wbkh b Mid 
lu be Sabelliauiam. Srr DUcour»c an Fredriiimiluiii, hy Arthbuhap Khif, 
pp. 26, 36, 37. Il decs aot iippcar tb»t Dr. Burtoa bcrr euniiilcn tJie Icfm 
to have aa; analogical aeoae «■ applied to Hie Deity, but Ibat it retaiiu ila 
ordinary neaaiifC' 






tlir nntnc word is taken in two senses. Sabcllins UoIicvmI 
tliat there was one »ub!itanci!, mcuning that thcrt: wus uuly 
one person, who was substantiaUy Ood : thus using hypostasis 
iu each of its senses. But when the orthodox party sold that 
there were tlircc hypostases, they did not mean to deny that 
there was only one suhstautial essence, which was trod ; but 
they meant that there were three persons, who, though 
individually and numerically distinct, were united iu this one 

*' AMiat Sabellius meant by hypostasis, later writers ex- 
pressed by ivfia, and the orthodox sense of the terra was less 
equivocally coiivcye<l by Trfojuwov, person. But the Latin 
writers contributed to increase tlic coul'usiou, by translating 
both vi9%a and itvatrTocn, by the same word aubatautia, sub- 
Rtaace. The Latins, from their dread of Ariauism, would 
never say that there were three liypo-staaca, heeaiise it Hounded 
as if they said there were tluree substances ; and the Greeks 
bad an equal dislike to acknowledging one hypostasis, for feiir 
of countenancing Sabellianism, which deuied tJiat there were 
three persons. At length, however, all parties began to 
perceive that they were taking offeuee at a mere word : and 
in the Council of Alexandria, which was lield in the year 
363, it was wisely agreed ' that the word hypostasis might 
be uaed in either sense, without imjieachiug the ortbodoxy 
of him who used it.* " 

The Council of Alexandria, however, did not settle the 
question. Another term, immediately related to tlic foregoing, 
and which had occasioned difficulties in the Council of Nice, 
continued to be the source of the greatest trnuble. 

The contests on the subject of the hoiitaoimotes arc tlius 
described by St. Hilary : 

" It is a thing eifually deplorable and dangerouR, that 
there are at present as many creeds as there arc opitiious 
mmong men, as many doctrines as inclinations; and as many 
sources of blasphemy ua there are (iiultK among us; because 




wc make crocds nrhitrarilf, and cxplnin tlicm an oihitrtmlyT 
\ad as tliL-re is but oitc fnitli, so there is but one oilIv Ckxl, 
one Lord, and one baptism. Wc renounce tliia one faitli 
when wc make so many difTcrcnt creeds ; and tbat divtirsitT u 
the reiiaoii why wc have iio tnie faith among us. We cannot 
he ignorant that, since the Council of Nice, wc liavc dowi 
notliing but make creeds. And wliilc wc ii(;ht against vtudi^ 
litigate al>out new questions, diapnte about equivocal terms, 
complain of authors, tliat every one may make his own party 
triumph; wlule wc cannot a^pre ; while wc anathematize one. 
another; there is hardly one that adheres to Jesus Chriatfl 
^Vhat change was there nut in the creed last year ? Tlie first 
council ordained n silence upon the homooiuiinn ; the sccon^H 
eiitablisherl it, and would have us to speiik; tlie third cmtums^ 
the fathers of the council, and pretends they took the word 
ousia sim<p\v ; the fourth condemns thera, instead of excttsittg 
them. With nspi^ct to the likeness of the Son of Goil tOw 
the Father, which is the faith of owr deplorable times, thc^S 
dispute whether he is like in whole, or in part. Ilicte an 
rare folks to imravel tlie secrets of heaven. Ncvcrthelcsa it 
is for these creeds, about invisible mysteries, that we calumni- 
ate one another, and for our bcUef in God. We make creeds 
every ycAr; nay, every moon we repent of what we liatr^J 
done. We defend those that repent, we anathomatixc those 
wc defended. So wc condemn either the doctrine of others 
in ourselves, or our own in that of others ; and, reciprocally 
tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each 
other's min." Boo* to Const. Aug. p.211 ; 1530, fol Basle,* 

• '* O^oif^io; properly mpau* of the terat nmlmre, »'. t. under the 
goitnt nature, or bikck-b ; I'.r. in upplicd lo tliini;*, wliivh ar« bul liniilu 
to each olb«r, aiiO are coni>ider«d as ont by an abstnctiuB or our nUdj. 
Thu* Aristotle epeoki of ihe ftLara being Ofisavff^ia vrilh each mber} u<l 
Porplif ry, of ilio souls at bruttt aninialt b^liig oftaaiTia to onra." St 
tiiit. i^iht Arianat^tht Fourth Centurg, p. 203. 

Aa tliiH Mens to favor the doctrina of lb« Kpeoific Bnfty, Mr. Nr 

• LpUg'iTwilihflii. Sw >1m SliUlaiOm'i Dbraon* on Um ThWO, A 





The introduction of the term liypoataais, which among 
a Urf;c cliis» of the enrly Chmtiaus aiguified aeepaniteiudi- 
ridtuil Huhstance, such as that of I'etcr, in contnwhHtinction 
to that of James, was not calciUated to discourage the 
tendency to Tritheism ; although by some tmderstood in a 
technical sense. Indued, in wtiichevereense we use it, whether 
as signifying a substance, a nature, or a Hulwtantial indivi- 
duality denominated person, Sabellins was of opinion that 
the use of the term was objectionable, if it were s:ud thure 
were three h_\*postasc8 in the Deity and not one only. A large 
class of the early Christians who were iiot Sabellinus, but 
orthodox, for a long time, as we see, refused, for a like 
jpeason, the use of the word; anil Uidugb Dr. Burton and 
Itold other writers affirm, that they at length saw the dispute 
WM only about a word, yet it is certain that in the mind of 
Sabcllius and uthera, the dispute was atiout an idea, and it is 
i^qually certain that the same dispute has continued to this 
day. Tlicrc is in the minds of many, to this day, the same 
reptignauce to the doctrine of the orthodox as tending to 

u*igB> lo the word Ihe >utu! »ca*e as U conmonly altiibutcd to the word 
ravrt^Ttov, Hooce ha saja, of (he word ifjioA^itv; 

" Wlicn, towcrer, it wua used io relnlion to the IncoioiDUiiicattle 
Bmcucc of God, tb«rc wa* otiTioiut; no abulraclion putiiible in contrnplat- 
Idi; HiiH, wbo is\<i all cotnpiuiftun, with bb «rvrk>. Hi» nature is 
»»litary, pKuliftr In IliniBeir, uad aue; &i> UiuL nlialKvi'r waa acconnlcd lobo 
ifticCciet "!''' Him, was neccGsarilj Includod !□ bis indiriduulily, tfjr all 
wIm> would avoid rrcnrring ta the rnK«irn«ii> of philuauptif, and wcr« cau- 
tfeua to disliDfnilsb between Uie iDConuDuaicatila Euquco of JchoTab and 
all created inlelliyfiici-»." Itiid. p. 203. 

"Il sv bnppi-iii-d thill, in tbo course of ibfl tkinl century, the word 
oftoovffioii tiKCniue more or less connected witb tliF^G&osli>a, Mnnlchn'an, and 
Sabelllao Ibeologlca. Hence wrilcn wtiu had but vppoied thete li«mitefl, 
Moned ID a aubMviiiMiit age la hare appo««d what was then received aa the 
clum^teristk of orthodovy ; as, on the oilier baoJ, the catholics, od their 
adopting it iLeu, were accuaml uT SnlH-lliutitilng, oi of iulruduciiis cor|iO> 
real notions iato Ihcir cr«cd." Ibid. p. 143. 

The word ofAoiffin wan opposed to lh« word ntpfaior, but was dis- 
eankd by tlie l»ciDi-Ariaaa wbo adopted the term sM^MffiOK. 






Trithcixm ; tmtl the same repujsrnaiice of the orthodox to t)te 
doctriiiR of the monarchy »h bciiTi)^ SabclliHiiism. Hcncej in 
regard to Sabellius, Dr. Burton ohnen'oa, (Testimonies of the 
AiitR-Xiccnc Fathers to the llivinity of the Holy Ghost, p. 
I2'i,) 8[}ciLkiii^ uf two frii^u-iLts of r work by Dionymu 
Alexandrinus, and prescncd by Basil, 

" In the first of them it is necessary to remember, 
the term hj'postasis was sometimes used for the nature 
essence of tlic 1 Vit}- ; sometimes for a person, that is, for tlw 
substantial individiuUity of the three persons in the iTOithead. _ 
TlieSubelliann declined !«ayin^', in the latter sense ofthctcnn,^ 
that there were three hj-postasos ; and wished to argue, that 
such an expression implied three distinct, unconnected beings. 
Dionysius obsen-es, thongh thry may say that the h\'postases 
by being three are divided, still they are three, though it mty 
not suit these peraous to say so : or else let tlieni altogether 
deny the T)i\"iiie Trinitv-." 

The doctrine of three distinct hypostases being now fully 
establiBhed iu the church, we will proceed to the sijrtli ccn-^ 
tuTV. In Mosheini's KuclesiR«tical History, it is obscircd, 
that from thi- cuiilroversiea with the Monophysitcs, arose a 
sect commonly dcnominntetl 'IVithcists. The chief of this sect 
was John Ascusnagc, a S\-i-ian philuKophcr, who imagined in 
the Deity three naturea, or substances, absolutely equal in 
all respects, and joined together by no common esscncr ; to 
which opinion his adversaries gave the name of Tnthci^ni. 
One of the warmesit defenders of the doctrine was John Phi- 
lo[>onua, an Alexandrian philosopher, and a grammarian of 
tlic highest reputation. Vol. ii. p. 133. 

On this circnmstancc Baylc observes : 

"The foundation of his opinion was this: that he eon- 
founded the nature with tlie hypostasis or person ; in con* 
sequence of which he arguetl, that since there is but one 
h^'postatiis or person iu Christ, there must uocessarily be but 
one nature, which is his Divine Nature ; nav, he carried his 


CIIAI*. t. 





n-asoiiing still fiirtiuT, and asserted, thnt since llicn.- nr« 
tlirce li}'po8ta8es or ]H:rsuiu iu the Trinity, couseiiuuutly tbcrc 
nre three natures." Dictionary, vol. i. p. 156.— S« also 
Siiilirt^eet on the Trinity ; Preface. 

Oil this part of thu subject nu NhiiU not at present make 
further obsenatious ; iw we slmll have to refer to it in the 
course of our remarks on the doctrine of the Tnciu'UHtiun. 
We shall tliercfnrc piws on tx> the sclnilastic theolog)-, which 
forms a distinct epoch lu ecclesiastical hiatury, and brie% 
uienHoii, tbat in the eleventh century, Rosceliu, tutor to 
Abelard> undertook ia prove tliat the three persons of the 
Trinity arc tlircc different tilings ; because otherwise it might 
be said, that the Father and the Holy Ghost were inramnte. 
ilu was anMWurcd by Ausclm, ArehbiBhup of Canterbury, who 
atttcs Uoscchn's proposition in these terms: " If the three 
Hivinc PcrsoiiB be one and tlie same tJiin^', and not three 
things considered every one apiut, as three augehs or tliree 
flOuU; nevertheless iu such u manner that they are the same 
thing in vUl and power; it fulloM's, that tbu Father aud tbo 
Holy Ghost were incamntc with the Son." St. Auselni 
declares that this man admits three Gods, or else that he does 
not know what lie says. He siskn him what he means by 
three tbin^; and acknowledges that, in one sense, it may 
be said timt the three persons of the Trinity are three things, 
if their relation one to another be understood by that term ; 
but that it cannot be so said, if their Kubsfanec be under- 
stood, which seems to be Roscclin's meaning ; since be says, 
that tbcv are tbrt-e ilintinct thingK, as tfirft sou/a and t/irer 
angcU,"* &c. Dupiu'a Ecdcsiasi. llUt. Cent. 11. Art. St. 

Of Abelard wc ahall say uotliiug more, than tbat Dupui 

* A qumlinn w«s proponnl b; Petrr Lomb&rd, one of tbe dmmI e-miaent 
fnilDtlrrs of the new m>ebiphy>iciil icbocil of thco]>u):y, " Whether the Falhf r 
ami tti« Suu inuluall J lovr uiii! uoathcr hy the Holy tihott ; or whether 1h<* 
Psllwr b« wite by llie Wisdom ho biu bcgotlro V* 





CUAT. 1. 1 

say.? it cannot be denied that he had catholic notions on 
the doctrine of the Triniti,-; thnt Milner, in his I^lcsiaatical 
History, describes hini as rcprcscutiug that tliu Sou is to the 
Father as the jtppdee to the ffrmu, the sjteries man to the 
ffenm animal, — which is tJie doctrine of the 8|>ccific Unity ; 
and that St. Bernard conceived liis ideas to have a ten- ii 
dency to the Tritheism of Arianism. ^M 

In the beginning, however, of the 13th ccnturr, the Ahhot ' 
Joachim, according to Dr. Bernman "undertook to main- 
tain, that however it might be said that Me three prrtonf 
are one and t/ie tame essence, yet it cannot be said, on the 
other hand, tliat ihe fanm essence is t)iree persona. So tfask 
he was not without some ground xuspcctcd of Tiitheism, and 
understood to allow no other imity. but such as is collectiro 
or specifical." Lady Mover's Leclta-et, p. 378. 

Of this author, Dopin rcmai-lcs, in hi« lilcclcsiastical His- 
tory of the Thirteenth Centurj' : 

" He seema to g:raut that tliis essence is a real and proper 
unity ; and yet to consider it only as a eol/ective and tntta- 
jthorical unity ; because he makes use of those passages iu 
Scripture to cxphun it, in which the word unity has tiiia 
sense ;* aa where it is written, ' that all bclteTers hare bat 
one heart,' that 'they are but one body,* that 'they are but 
one,' &c. Yet there is no reasoD, hereupon, to believe that 
tliis abbot was an Ariau; but it b more probable that all his 
error consisted in his way of expressing himself; but as for , 
the rest, it is very hard to hnow or giicsa what his real senli- ^| 
ments of the thing were ; and perhaps it was more than he ^f 
knew himself." vol. iv. p. 54, See aim StUHngfieet' s Dis- ^i 
couTK on the Trinity; Pn^ace. ^| 

The Bcforraation did not profess to introduce any change 
in the ordinary faith reKpecting the Trinity ; but In a dispute 
which arose concerning the mediation of Christ, we read that 

* The original traiulatioa being h*r« dvfmtire, Ukw it^rIs Imtb beoa 
■lighlljr •llctrti, with a view to cooTAy a morr doGaitei meaning. 





Stancaru9, considering the office of Mediator, as consisting in 
intercession, to be unwortljy of a person consubstjintial with 
the Father, maintained, that if lie were a Rfediator accord- 
ing to his Divine Nature, He mn»jt he a hcing inferior to the 
Father. In this he waa followed by others ; and from this 
controversy, observes Bajlc, arose the Trithcist* of Poland, 
the Arians, and at last, the Socinians. Cfdviu, writiug to 
his brethren in Poland, obsun-es, " It is with the utmost 
grief I have seen lately a table (lublisbcd in Poland, which 
mnkes the Son and the floly Uhost itoo beings different from 
the Father. 1 feared indeed at Hrat, and not without reason, 
that Stimcarua' perplexing objections would puzzle those of 
the bretlircn who are not well \'er«ird in the Scriptun'j and 
as they labored to avoid one absurdity, make thcin fall into 
another, which i» worse." Uexa ackuowletlges that Tritheism 
and Arianiani, whieli wore revived in Vuliind, were owing 
originally to Stancarus' controversies. Bayl^s Dictionary — 
Article Staticarus. 

Aa we BhuU hare occasion to advert to these controveraics 
again, when treating of the doctrine of the Mediation, we 
proceed to make a few obscrvutioua upon another which anwe 
iu the Church of Fngland. 

In the year 1690, Dr. Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's, and 
father of the celcbnitcd Bishop Sherlock, published hia me- 
morable Vindication of the Doctrine of the holy and over 
blessed Trinity, against the Socinians. In tliis wurkj p. GO, 
the author observes : 

" The Athannsian Creed tcaehes us to worship one tiod in 
Trinity, and Trinity iu Unity, neither coufouuding the per- 
sons, nor dividing tlie substance ; for tticrc is one person of 
the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost : 
but the Godhead of tlic Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Uoly Ghost, is all one; the glory eqiud, the majesty co- 
ctcmal. There are two things, then, which an orthodox 
Cliristian must take caro of, neither to confound the pcnton», 



cajir. t; 


nor to diride the substance ; that is, to acknonled^ throe 
dUtinct persoui*, and ret but one God ; aud nothing cam be 
more apparent thati both these, in that acooimt irhicli I hare 
given uf the ever blessed Trinit}*. 1. It is plain the pcrsonsfl 
arc perfectly distinct, for they are three distinct and infinite ™ 
minds, and therefore three distinct ]iersona ; for a person is an 
intelligent being, and to say they ore three dinne persons, and 
not throe tlistinel. infinite minds, is both hercjij* and nonftenac: 
the Scripture, I am siu-e, rc]ireseiit» Fatlier, Sou, and Holy 
Ghost, as three intelligent i/eintfK, not a» three powers or faculties 
of the same being, which is downright Sabellianism," &c. 

Thh work, it appears, had been in circulation for nearly 
three years, when an answer appeared trom the pens of l>r. 
South and Dr. Wallifs. In the preface to SoutVs second work, 
entitled, Tritheism charged upon Dr. Sherlock, &c. 1695, the fl 
author obscn-es, that they overthrow the true doctrine of the 
Trinity iu Unity, who introduce a Trinity of Guds, " us they 
inevitably do, who asitert the three dinac persons to be three | 
distinct infinite rainda or Mpirits, which," Jtaya he, '* I posj- 
tiveiy aSiiiu h equivalent to the asserting the said tlirec 
persons to he three Gods." Aiul in eoutimiation of tliia view 
of the subject, the author appeals to " AU Profea$or» ^f Di- 
vinity in tht Two VniversiHes of Ihif Kingdom" to whom also 
he dedicates his work. "I doubt not," says he, "of your 
learned concurrence with nic, aud abetmeut of me in thii 
affirmation." Accordingly the irniversity of Oxford, in con- 
rocation, cundemtied the work as 'IVitheistical. Ofthecba^ 
raetcr of Dr. South's work, the following notice ie given us by 
Dr. Berriman, in his Lady Moyer's Lectures, preached at 
Unireraity of Cambrii^e : 

"The great incrca.<sc and boldness of this heresy (naznel 
Socinianisno,) gave occasion to » eelfbnitcd diiine of our 
church, to write Ids Vindication of the Doctrine of the holy 
and ever blca.sed Trinity : who, by some terms that he msde 
use of in the explication of that great nij'stery, gave but too 




pinusible a color, in tliR jiulr^niciit of »niiiR persons, for the 
ctiiirgti of Tnlhi.-i!im ; whicli became the fuitudatiou of a most 
unhiqipr controversy, and provoked another groat dnHne of 
our church to enter the lists with lum, and propose a ditt'ervnt 
scheme, whieh^ howe^'er it made use of the cntltolic expres- 
enoDii, viun ncvothclcaji charged tritli Sahclliunisin." Scr. 
viii. p. 42G. 

Ou this subject, the Bishop of Durham ohaerre*. Life of 
Watcrlnnd, p. 41 : 

Dr. Sherlock's mode of expLainiug the Trinity " vas much 
disapproved, not only by Socinian writcrtt, but by men vhu 
were no less siticere advocates of the doctrine than himself. 
Dr. Wallis, Sa^ilian Professor of Geometry, one of the most 
profound scholars of his time, though he npprot*ed of much of 
Dr. Sherlock's Treatise, yet regarded some of his illustrations 
as approaching too nearly to Tritheism. Dr. South, a man 
of no less |H)werful intellect, op|Miserl it, upon Kiiriitar grouiiilH, 
with great vehemence and with unsparing repjiuich. Both 
these distinguished writers substituted, however, for Dr. Sher- 
lock's hypothesis, theories of their own, far from being gene- 
rally satisfactory ; ami were charged by the opposite party 
with U^ning towards SahcllJanism. In the Uuivcniity of 
Oxford, SberhHrk's view of tlic doctrine was piibhcly cen- 
sured and jiroliibitcfl. This produced further irntation ; and 
such was the unbecoming heat and acrimony with which tlin 
controversy was conducted, that the royal authority was at 
last exercised in restraining each party from introducing 
novel opinions re*<|M;cting tlieso myHtcrious articles of faith ; 
and rci)uiriug them to adhere to such cxpUcatioiu only, as had 
already received the sanction of the church." 

About this time Ured Dr. Bull, afterwards Bishop of 
Iilandaff. Aa a dinne, he (liatingiiixbcd himself by writing 
his memorable Defence of the Niecnc t'aitb, whicli he pub- 
lished, A. D. 1685, — a work wliich soon became knxtwu over 
almost all Europe, and was highly a]iprovcd by many theolo- 





gians of tlie Roraau CatlioUc Church. In the controvi 
between Sherlock and South he took no pjirt; hut Mr. Ne 
iufDrnu ua^ in his Life of thia prelate, p. 293, ''that th 
University of Oxford Accoinitcd it an honor to them, to ha' 
80 kariied and useful ft treatise printed ut their press, and 
nrlttctt by one who had formerly hocn a member of their 
body. AVhcrefore th^ thought it inciuubciit upon them to 
confer wii;it honor they could upon him, who, by this judicioiu 
and elaborate defence of the catholic faith, had contribute < 
so much to the honor not only of the irniTcrsity itself, hut 
of the church aud nation — in foreign ehurehcs luut nations," 
According to Mr, Nelson, this defence of the creed bad 
gaiued over many as friends to Dr. Bull, irho before were 
doubtful whether he wiis orthodox in the faith, lie likewise 
informs ua, p. 422, that the then Lord Arundel " liaviug 
HcrioiiHly eoiitiidorc-d that controveriiy at the time when it wni 
debated bct\«ecu Dr. Sherlock, theu Dean of St. Paul's, and 
Dr. South, found himsclt' not clear in the sense of the 6nt 
and purest ages of the church, in reference to that great 
mystery. The method his lonUbip pitched upon to relieve 
himself under these doiil>tH, was to apjdy to Dr. liull, that 
great master of prlmitivo antiquity, &c." Accordingly, 
throuf^h the medium of a friend, the application was madCf 
aud tlie result of it was a manuscript discourse, " Oa the doe* 
trine of the Catholic Church, for the first three a^ei of 
Christianity, concerning the Ble«sej:l Trinity, in opposition to 
SabclUaniHrn and Trithelsin." In thin discourse occurs the 
following remark, relft1i%c to the coutrovei-sy between Sherlock 
and South. Speaking of the passage in the writings of 
Diouysius, Bisliop of ilome, wluch we have already quoted, 
he sayB, 

" Here we ace what is Sahelliauism, namely, to affirm 
that the Son is the Father, aud the Fiilher the Son, and 
coni»et|uently that the Holy Ghost is the same with both. 
Aud all they voiue very near this heresy, wbo ackuowlcd^ 


CHAP. 1. 





only ft mwlal <li-stinction iH-twerii thr Fatlicr, Son, nml Holy 
Ghost. Wliat is TritliciHin, he iilno shnw:^ ua pliunly, uniurly, 
that it is to bold tlmt the three pvrsous lu the Triuity are uf a 
difl'crent nature, or separated and di%'idcd from each other ; 
or tliat there is more than one fotuitmiL or principle of the 
Diviiiitj'. According to which aecouut, Dr. Sherlock u cer- 
tainly clear from tkc charge of Triiheism .- the catholic doctrine 
bo declares to he this, ' That there arc three really distinct 
liypostascs iii the Godhead, and yet that there is but one 
God, because the i'ather only is the bead of the Divinity, 
and the Son and Holy Ghost as they are derived from llim, 
so they exist in Him, and arc inseparably unitrd to Ilitn.* ■" 

i^Ir. Nelson^ aUo, ob&cn'cs in his Life of Bishop Bull, 
p. U^Jl, that. 

Or. Sherlock had " so expressed himsrlf, as to Bccm to 
destroy the unit}' uf the Deity, and to make himself inspected 
of Trithcism by more tlimi a few ; tliough our learned author, 
in hi-s Discoiirsc: of llic CiUholic Doctrine of the Trinitv. aeems 
to char him from thut charge," 

Hence we sec, that so long as Dean Sherlock maintained 
,'tlua doctrine of the three In-postascs, he was at liberty to undcr- 
'flbnd them to be three distinct uitelligeut iigcnta, three di»- 
tinct infinite minds or apiritu, or three distinct infinite beings, 
and yet that he uced not Ije considered as erring from the faith 
of the catholic church, or that «f primitive autiqiiity; while, on 
the other hand, those who maintnincfl one nnmcricBl eaacnce 
o£ the Deity, in opposition to the doctrine of the specific 
unity, and that the persona of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
were modal distinct ioua of tlmt one nmncrical essence, had 
come very near the heresy of Sabellianism. 

The case, therefore, is as follows. Dr. Sherlock main- 
taiucd, that the Trinity were three distinct minds, three 
distinct spirits, three distinct intelligent beings : to say other- 
wise he regarded as hercHy and Monsensc. In this he wiw 
joined by various other clergy. On the other baud, the 





O)nvocalu>n of llie Uiiiveraity denounced tliis doctrint 
Tntlii-i»ticiU ; MbiLc Dr. Hull, in whose orthodoxy the Uni 
(rily reposed the hi-ihcst m>nfiricncc, aftenTanis pronounces tbc 
work to be not Trithei«tica]. 

Now when we cuusider that eiich party diRcIaimcd the 
errors imputed to tlicm by the other; that for inst:incv Dean 
Sherlock dcelaretl tliat liis doctrine was not TritlieisticiU, and 
South, ^VaUi!t, and others, that their doctrine vma not 
Sabellian ; it is clear that there was a mJKameeption some- 
where of wliat Siibetlianisni is, and what it la not ; of what i» 
Trithcism, and what it ii not. 

Fimt, thtrn, with r<.'^ard to Sahelliauism, let us hear Dr. 
Wiitljy.* (See LiwtTlioughts of Dr. Whitby: Preface.) It is 
rijjhtly observed by Jnatia Martyr, in the bejiinnin^ of Ilia 
exhortation tu the Greeks, that " au exact scmtiuy into thin^ 
doth often produce conviction, that those thinga which wo 
once jndfjed to he right, wcri'j after a more diHgcnt inquiry 
iitto truth, found to be otherwise. And truly I am not 
ashamed to aay, thia is my case. For when I wrote injr 
Commentaries on the New Testament, T went on ton hastily. 
I own, in the commou beaten rood of other repnte<l orthudoK 
divines; eonceinng first that the Father, Son, and Holy 
Uhost, in one complex notion, were one and the same (rod, 
by virtue of the same individual essence communicated firom 
the Father. This confnacil notion I am now fully convinced, 
by tlie arguments I have offered here, and in the second part 
of my Reply to Dr. Watcrlaud, to be a thing impoasible, and 
full of groHH absurditi^^H and cnntritdictions. And then, aa a 
natural consequence from tliis doctrine, I secondly con- 
cluded that these divine persoua differed only in the manner 
of their existence. And yet, what that can signify in the 
Son according to this doctrine, it will not, I think, be very 
caisy intelligibly to declare. That the difference can lie oiity 

* Fork fnrthcT ncciiunt D^f SiibellifeaitiD, ute Ncwnikn** HiMorf of tfc* 






raodal, e\'en Dr. South has fully demonstrated; and that 
tliis wu the oinnioD generally received from the fourth cea- 
turv, may he accn in the close of my first part to Dr. 
Watcrland. And yet llio Right Rev. Binliop Bull positively 
nffirmn that this is rank SahelliauJsm, in these worfU: 'A 
pcraoi) cannot be couceivcd without csscucc, unless you make 
a person in divine matters to be nothing else but a mere 
mode of existence, vrhirh is manifest Sahfrlliimism/ And 
the judicious Dr. Ciidwortb tells us, that 'the orthodox Anti- 
Ariftu fathers ilid all of them zealously condemn SubcIIinn- 
isra, the doctrine whereof is no other but this, that there 
is but one hj'poatasis or single iadi^idual essence of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Gliost ; and eonsoquently, that tlicy 
were indeed hut three narat-s, or uotioiiH, or modes, of one 
and the selfsame tiling ; whence such absurdities as these 
would follow, that the tVher's begetting the Son was 
nothing but a name, nation, or mode of one deity bcfretliug 
another ; or else the «ftmc deity under one notion begetting 
itself uuder another notion. ,\iul when again, the Son or 
Word w said to be Incarnate, and to have suffered death 
for UB upon the cmsH, that it vaa nothing but a mere 
logical notion or mode of the Deity under one particular 
notion or mwlc only.' That the doctrine of the Sahellians 
was exactly the same with that of those who style themselves 
the orthodox, asserting that the Father and the Son are 
numcricany one nnd the same God, is evident from the words 
of Athauasius and Kpiplianius, both testifying that to say the 
Father and the Son were Va^SHirioi or Tavrtiirtet, of one imd 
the same substance, was SabelUauism : and surely, of couse* 
qucnce to contend, that this is the doctrine of England, is to 
dishonor our church, and in elTect to charge her with that 
heresy, whicli was citploded with scorn by the whole chureh 
of Christ, from the third to the present century. In a word, 
all notions of the word person, besides the plain and obvioni 
one, signifyuig a real and iutclligcDt agent, have been already 




80 excellently liafHcrl nnd learnedly confuted, that I onm I iin 
not able to resist the Khiniug evidence of truth." £ay/rV_ 
Dietlonary : Art. Jr/iiiby. 

It will here be seen that Dr. Whithy, before the alt 
of his vieirs from orthodoxy to alleged Arianlsm, maintuD«d 
that there irna ouc substance of the Deity hanng tUrccr modal 
distiuctious or persons. Tliat he considered this to be the 
orthodox fiiith, and to be the faith of all the orthodox thcolo-j 
gians with whom he was ac(|uainte{l ; that it wan under 
uuprct»ioii that he wrote liis Comments on the GospeU 
Ejiiiftlcs, which to this day are reputed orthodox. On the 
other hand, Bull, Wutcrlnnd, South, and others. maintuD 
that this is not the opinion of the fathers, or of the chiux^h, as , 
Whitby and oLherit had luuterted, but is SaljcUianism. | 

The diflcrence between the two appears to be thia : ac- 
cording to South and others, a person is a substance modolly 
distinguished ; according to AVhitby, a person is a mwlal di«> 
tinctiuQ. The former considered the person to be the aub- 
stanoc, having a given mode, or motlally distinguished; the 
latter considered the }>ersnn to he the mode, as (»ntcni plated 
•eparately £rom the substance. Without entering into the 
dispute, wc shall have occasion, in tlie second chapter, to 
point out, in the apphcatiun of the doctrine of Bishop Bull, a 
departure from it ftmong the orthodox ; and to shew tliat they 
sometimes eeparate the person from the substjiucc, and the 
substance from the person, as truly aa do those who arc 
denominated Sabellians. 

We may here add with respect to Dr. Whitby's view of 
Sabelliauism, that certainly if his were a true statement of 
the doctrine, we should regard it as absurd; and should make 
no hesitation in aa^-ing, that to snppojte a person to be a merO] 
mode anil not a substance, is nonsense. 

To affirm, as some do, that Swedcnborg held soch a dbe-j 
trine, is pure fiction. His view of the Trinily in Unity, ia,| 
that God is one substance ; that this one substance ia one 


person, who is that one aubstftncc, nnd not n mere mode 
M.-[Hiratud from the tnibstnncc; that in this one substance, 
which is one person, there awi three real distinctions, luid not 
merely nominal, as it is ^d Sabcllius held; thut th(»ie three 
difltinctiomt arc those of goodness, wisdom, and power ; con- 
sequently tlint there is one divine substance and person, 

■ distinguished according to degrees (not modes) in a tlireefold 
manner, as expressed by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that 
between these three there is a mihordination of the second to 
the fir»t, aiul of the third to the itecund, — tlic »amc witli that 
of wisdom to love, and of power to wisdom. 

Tlius much will suffice M-ith regard to the uncertainty m 
to what Sftl>cUianism is, and what it i» not ; let us now advert 
to the uncertainty as to what is Tritheism. 

Tlic question of Trithcism belongs entirely to the Roman 
and the Protestant Churches; neither of which, IheHcve, have 
as yet thought of imputing this error to the writings of Swc- 
dmiboi^; although thu) imputatioa would be quite oa rcaxon- 
able OS others which they make. 

In remarking upon this subject, we shall begin by observ- 
iiig that in the vcilt \&J9, a little after the lime of some of 

I the foregoing discussions, was published n work of great 
learning and repute, by Dr. Allix, entitled. Judgment of 
the Ancient Jewish Church agninst the Unitarians, &c. This 
called forth an answer from the Kev. Steplicn Nye, Rector 
of IJormead. On these two works Mr. Baylc makes the fol- 
lowing rcmarka : 

" He (Mr. Nye) charges Dr. Allix with being a Tritheist ; 
because he sometimes speaks of God iu tlie plural number, 
and says that the three dinnc persons arc three beings, tlireo 
uncreated spirita. But if Dr. ^Vllk'tf notion he Tritheistical, 
I do not know whnt to make of Mr. Nye's notion, except 
they be SabelLian. For if the three persons be but tlutse 
distinctions, fui eternal Spirit, a divine Hclf-knowlcdgc be- 
gotten by that spirit, and a divine self-complacence which 




CRAr^ It 



iiccoHsnrily profrrds from liutli, aiul not Oirco Lcmgaj it muat 
be the same being cuuudercct uuder diflercut names, aud in 
different circumstaucesj vhich I thiuk is mere Sabellianism. 
Iluw to liitd » nii'dium bctwceu mm bciii{; oiil^' and tbzve 
beings, is n very difficult point ; /tic labor, hoc opus ett" 
liatjie's Ihciionary — Article Allix. 

Let ua consider wlicnce the alleged difficulty Um anaen. 

The (ioctriijc of the Trinity has become so perjilcxod, tlitt 
tthnoat every Trord connected with it, has come to Uavc mi 
equivocal meaning. One would think that the question as to fl 
what lire three Gods, nud what is one, is cxccudiugly plain 
aud ^liuiple. By no tucau!4 ; for uhcu lo^ctd terms are intro- 
duced, jiuy one thuig nniy be proved to he any other, or may 
be proved not to be nay thing; because, cither what that ii fl 
which corresponds to the tc;rm«, the dis[>ntaiiu arc at a lost tu 
ooueeivc, or eLsi- the Deity himself is regiurdcd aa lio-ini; eu 
dilTerent from uU other objecta of thought, that what would 
be contradictory and absurd in created things, ia not con- 
ceived to be 8o in Hira. Let the question be raised, for in- 
stance, whether God is one, wliat orduiary simple miad would 
have any difficulty on the subject ? but when the learned 
come to debate it, see what a myirtcry it beeumcs. " You can 
never," says Dr. Waterhmd, " fix any ccrtiiin principle of in- 
dividuation. It is for want of this, that you can never aasurc 
me, that three real persons may not be, or are not, one uumc- 
rical or individual substance. In short, you know not prrci$tli/ 
what it ui that jnakes oiw bt-ing, or one atsencCp or one mtbstance." ^ 
Vol. ii. p. 215. " The great difficulty is still behind, to " 
determine what makes an imliridual, or to fix a certain prin- 
ciple of iuilividuation. I called upon you for it before," saja 
Watcrland to his opponent, ''knowing that very wise men 
Umught it as difficult a problem as to square the circle." VoL 
iii. p. 298. Again, lie obscn'ca, "IndiWdual is something 
undivided in such respect as it ia conceived to be one ; aiid 
one is something single, and not multiplex, in that respect 



CRAr. I. 




wherein it is concdved to he one. I protend not to make 
any man vUcr hy kucIi an arcouiit as thisj hut it is pmpcr 
to confeaa our ignorance where wo know nothing." Ibid. 
p. 802.* Also, rol. v. p. 336. 

We Itnow nothing then, it secras, of what (speftkiug of 
the Poit}') makes one indindual being, one essence, one sub- 
stance; to attempt to attain that knowledge is as difficult as 
to square the circle. T\m is ouc step toward rendering it 
impo^iiiblc to determine what is Tritlicism and what is not ; 
for if we cannot determine what, makes otw. being, we cannot 
determiue what makes t/iree. 'When, moreover, we speak of 
<Tod a* one und the same individual essence, the very term 
sameness itself implies either of two ideas, oneness or multi- 
plicity. ITius, for instance, three separate coins arc formed 
out of one and the samef individual substance of gold, silver, 
or copper. The three have, in this re8j>ect, one and the same 
individual suhstancc common to all. Thus ho lonj,' as the doc- 
trine of three hypostases is lulmitted, no luiiguiigu however 
rigid is a safeguard against ambiguous ideas ; nnri according 
to the sense in which the words are taken, there will he endless 
disputes as to what constitutes Tritheism and what does not. 

What can be more rigidly orthodox than the wording of 
the ductrine in the foUowing passage, yet what can be more 
tritheistical? The passage is taken from the Questions and 
^Vnswcrs to the Orthodox, appended to the works of Justin. 

"There is one God in a eo-existcncc of three divine hypos- 
taacs; which differ from each other not in essence but in 

' "Cyril of AlexandriM defines Affla, tob« that which has eijstcnce in 
lUeK, ladependenl of ftvery ihing cUc (o fix iU rr«lit; ; i.t. sn individual 
lieiDg. Thi* Krniio or Ihr word muKt W rArofull? boin« tn mind, sine*- il wu 
■ol ibf MNIM giren ta It by Uie phllmH>iih«n ; atnong nhoni il iimK] Tor (he 
gmiia or speci«>, doI tiic ladividuul, i.r. not Iho umeng nnmrrv, (at lopcianft 
Bfttk) hut \bt m mum in nultit ; which Utter bfoab of cunrse it could nol 
bear when mpjdicil to oav Mpprtacbable Cod." S'ncman't /fiat. 4/ tht Ariami 
^ Ikt Fnrlh r'niiiiry, p. 203. 

t See Hanipdeo'a Bamphiti Lcntufea, p. I3!>. 





modes of subaistcucc ; the difiercncc in the TOod« of mA 
eoce makes nu division in tlie nuily of the essence 
in like manner as iu Adam, Ere, and Seth, there is one «s- 
xucCf namely, a rational soul and a niortiU body, irhile the 
modes of subsistence are different (for Adaui was made ixil 
of tbe enrtb, Kvc otit of the rib of Adam, aud Seth firom 
aeod), and in like manner as in tAese tiiffaraU modes t^ mth- 
tiittnee there rtttuiiua one exnenee wlt/iout ditixion and divrrnij, 
so altu til rt^gard to (Jud, in Wliming in the identilT of ihi' 
essence of the ijersuus, one God is believed in; Tatbcr, Sun, 
and Holy Spirit; for the mode of suluistcnce affects in no 
wise the vonsidumtioii of the essence. Coiipeqneiuly what ta 
siiid of the three divine hypostaKeti being in Uke mauiicr iritli- 
out any difference, is to be onderstood in relation to the unity 
of the e»euee. And what is suid of their not bciu^ iu Uke 
manner without any difterenre, mtut be understood of the 
mode of 8u1>8isl<>neu of tho persons." Anmeer to Question 131^. 
Here, although it be aRLrmed that the essence of (jod l* 
one and without dintion, yet it ifl anch only as is tlic eaaenoe 
common to Adam, Kve, and Scth; who are three distinct 
bcingti hann^ one only eK«eoce. Hence wc remark* that 
when Justin aiiys aiM [Saxn tn %to{), tlicy who hohl ibeae 
views would mmntain llmt Justin uses the term $i^ in iho 
sense of the specific unity. Tlint when he nay* there is no 
«M9f other God, he means no other Godhead but Gwl's, as 
there is no other manhood but man's ; but in that one God- 
head there is another tn^t being or person, as iu the ons 
manhood there is a plurality of beiugs. That of these three 
l>eiutpi the fwsence is indivi^hle, because it is the genua; ud 
a genus divided is no longer a genus but a species ; thcreTonv 
in its character a^* a gentM, it must Im^ considered uidiviaibl 
This, at least, ui the itten or indivisibility which would 
itself HS applied to the (Jodhead, it' contemplated in thefw^' 
going i|uotati(ni hh three bciuga. See StUUni/JieeVs Gth and'th 
DUeourteM on the Trinity. 

CHAr. I. 



A similar idra wTurs in (he worka of Dr. Owen, where 
the uiuty o( God ia made quite consistent with the idea of 
three Gods. 

"It is a saving gonerally admitted^ that, ^era Trinitalis 
ad extra nmt ind'msa. There is no siich division in the exter- 
nal opcmtions (if God, that fiiiy one of thrm should he the 
■ct of one person without the concurrence of the others. 
And the reason of it is, hecause the nature of God which is 
the princi])le of all divine operations, is one anil the same, 
undivideil in them all. Wliercas, therefore, they are the 
effects of dinne power, and that power is essentially the same 
in each person, tite works themselves belong equally unto 
them. As if it were possible that ihrtv men rai^ht sco hy the 
same eye, the act of seeing woidd be but one ; nud it would 
be equally the act of all three." fVorh, vol. ii. p, 180. 

Seeing then the diflicult}' of ascertaining, what (speaking 
of the Deitj'), constitutes one and the same individual heing, 
wliy need wo wonder at so many disputes, aa to what is Tri- 
theism, and what is not? Why need we wonder, that those 
upon whom it is charged, repel the impntationV — that one 
should regard that, as signifying three divine beings, which 
another denies to have that Bignifieatiou':' In respect to men, 
the question us to what makes tltoni thnio individual beings, 
is very easily answered ; tliough even that h«» been attempted 
to be obscured, by the doctrine of the specific imit}- I But 
in regard to Uod, to attempt to determine what is, and what 
is not, one divine individual being, very wine men, it seems, 
have thought it as difhcutt a problem as to square the circle. 
Alas ! we caauot but think, that had they not been so very 
«nM>, the problem would have been very easy. The Arians 
often repelled the imputation of believing in three Oods, and 
thus of holding the doctrine of Tritheism ; at the same time, 
they M'ould acknowledge, tliat they maintained the existence 
of three divine beings, each of whom is God ; for to say that 
there are three Goda in the slrid sense of the word, was to 




cRjtr. 1 J 

them as nh<<iir(1 as to sny there n-cre three manhoods : whercMl 
there is only one mniihood, but many beings, cncU of wbirb-j 
is man. The ditTert^nce bctu'con the Trithcism of tlte Ariftii«,l 
and the Tritheitiiii of some of their opjioiienla, is this ; that the] 
former believed Ciod the Son, juid God the Holy Ghtwl, to 
be created hciiigs, and, consequently, not cou-subtftautinl 
with the Father: the latter eltlier express ur imply that thejJ 
mean three tiiicrcated beings, ooet|ua1 iind con-substantial 
with each other, etich of them being God.* This ia pretty 
clearly Bignitied in the following observation of Dr. Biirtou, 
wherein, conformably to hixvicw of the meaning of the word 
person, an a nejfitratcttf tixifitinff fji-uii/, an iiidivutuat aubstatUi^ 
triMtfWe, the transition in easy (if indeed any be m^uindX 
to the contumplittion of God and (^hrist, as Uco bfinga, and 
this under the ancient pretext of opposition tu SHbclUaniaoL 
"Tlie SnhDllifln hypothesis," says be, "removes some of- 
the difficnitics in Ihp doetrine of the Trinity ; but it docs nnt 
remove the »liolc of tlieui, and it creates new ditlicultics of 
its own. It saves ua from inquiring into the mode of the 
divine generation, and nimpliflcs the notion of the unit^ of 
God ; but it faiU to explain why the apostles constantly used 
such figurative language, and why Crod is spoken of as being 
Sou to Himself. It assigns no reason, why Qud should be 
called the Son, when viewed as tlic llcdecmcr of mankind fi 
and the notion of the Son iiiti-rcediug with the Father, of 
his having made satisfaction to the rather, and of his being 


* In hii Hintnry nf Cbrittinnity, Mr. Milmnn apnklLiog, »» w« und«-^_ 
•Uad, of the AnoDH nad Trinitarians (thQURli the pasoasfl li not qaltv «• ^| 
cl«arN* inii;bt Ik- dr-xirrcl) nt*rrTrii ; " TW tloclrinr af Ihn Trinilj', tb«t U, 
tliD dLviii« oatiirc or tlit- Futlicr, the Sun, and the Holy Gboal, wis «- 
knowledgnl by uU. To eiurh i(f Ikttt dialiiut and Kpafait h*i»fr*> '>otb pktliet 
aacribeil tJie attribulen vf iku Gwlhi-ad, with tlie iMccption uf Mlf-cxineM^ 
which wai Tcttrictcd hj Ihc ArluH 1u the FMlicr. Both admiUvd ^ 
Antc-miinclaae [teinR of ibe Sun Dn<I ihc HolySpinl." . . . TbU ullur 
thvn kild*, ikut Iht- Ariao* believed there wb» a lime wbeu iba Soa 
lA be. Vol. U. cbif. It. p. 430. 






a mediator between God and man, must lead us to t!ic notion 
of two beintfg, who io some wa^' or otlicr have distiuct indivi- 
duality. That, when it appoBred in the third 
ceutuT}', wu!i Itiukcd upon as a ht-resy, is nut a mattur of 
8[HKrtdatiun, Lut of hifiton.'." Tt-stimoNien to the Dii-inittf of 
the Holy Ghost, taken from the Anie-NiceRe FaUierg. ttUroduc- 
thn, p. 11. 

It is clear from this and other passages, that Dr. Durton 
concctvod the Ante-Nicene fathers to maiutain the eiislence 
of lliree Divine IJcingSj and oik; (Jod ; which is the doctrine 
of Deau Sherlock^ or of those who maintained the specific 
unity ; although Dr. Burton would have duuhttess titsclaimed 
the doctrine of Tritheism. 

It may here be obsun'cd tlmt, while mnne liave objected 
to the use of the term Aewyr as Tritlieiatical, others for tlie 
same reason have ccinallr objected ti» the use of the term 
kifftMiatij, as moaning a distinct acparatc individual, and 
the same with person in its ordinary sense. To avoid the 
dilemma, the cxprctution of St. AukcUu that the Trinity were 
trcM nescio quid, van revived by some at the time of the con- 
troversy between Slicrlock and South. Thus Dr. WallJs 
observes in one of liis letters, with regard to the three person* 
of the Trinity, that %vc may "content ourselves to say, tbcy 
be t/tree sometehatg, which are but oneOod. Or, we may so 
explain ountcb'cs, that, by tiircc persona, we mean thret such 
tmriewhatu as arc not inconsistent with being one God." On 
whicli a cotemporar}' author obsen'ea, in a brief tract upon 
the subject, entitled An Earneat and Com/taitshNsle Suit for 
Forbearance, p. 14 j* "another doctor of our church is 
pleased more tenderly and safely to C-Xphiiti it thns, — 'The 
Blessed Trinity ia tliree somewUats; and these three itomc- 
whats we commonly call persons; but the true notion a]id 
true name of that distinction is unkuovm to us. . . . The 

* TheaatbomlUfautiKlf in lliclilli-p«Krt *"*'' ^ iMrI«it(-A«l!ji Stit»4trby; 
bill i1m tr«cl, we beliete, hu been tttlribuled Iv Dl»hup Wiiciiball, 



CHAP. 1.1 

wonl pcreoHH (in divini») is but mctnphoric-al, not tngmfying 
just the s&me aa wheu applied to meu. We muun thcrefaT do 
more but somewhat analogous to persons/ This latter part 
has been ever held to by all learned Triuitarinns, niid the 
doctor speaks like himself. Yet it troubles me what sport 
some people make even with this explication. But, in fine, 
thtis sta]]d what improvcincnts doctors have mode on titis 
great Christian dogma. Now, were it not much better these 
doctors had let it alone? And t)int wc let it alone, and bend 
our own and endeavor to draw other men's thoughts, to the 
practice of plain and unquestionable devotion aud Christian 
morals ? for suppose any people hearing the word person, 
when applied equally to Father, Son, aud Holy Uhoat, to be 
thus improper, and that the word sometehat is a propercr and 
clearer (else certainly so great a doctor would not Iwve nsMl 
it as an explicatory) term ; suppose, I bhv, some hearers or 
readers should substitute soviewhata in their prayem instead ^ 
of persons, and say, ' holy, blessed, and glorious Triuitr, fl 
three somewkais an^l one God, hare mercy oa M3, &c./ or, 
'to Father, Sun, and Holy Ghost, three aoirtewbats and one 
God, be all glorj', &c.' ... So that, to conclude, 1 must 
now desire our doctors, as tliey are friends to tlu: church and 
would not expose her liturgy, that they would forbear tbe« 
controversies, r.s being not only unprofitable, but cormptire 
of and prcjudiciid or iujurions to, our commou devotion." 

We have now completed our proposed sketch of Tritheism 
and SabcUianism. By way of conclnsion to this part of onr 
STibject, we shall here obsene, what of course the reader 
might naturally be prepared for, nnmdy, that so bewildered ' 
hs^'e been the minds of many divines on the subject of the | 
Trinity, that, on the one hand, not approving of heresy, 
and, on the other, nat seeing their way through the mraterin 
of orthodoxy, tUc whole doctrine of the Triuity lias bees 
given up as uninteliigiblc. '• I think it safer," says Bishop 
Watson, " tu tell you whore the doctrines of Chhstiaiuty aic 


to be found, tlinii what tlirry lU'c." C/wrffe to the Clergy, 
1795 -■ qnotud in Afi/ncr's End of Contnjcersy. 

" Would to God," says Dean Vincent, "that questions of 
this sort bad ne^cr been iiptated, or professions of tLis kind 
never been required of iw ! Rcuson and laujtjuage fail us 
while we mention these subjects; imd while we are compelled 
to renounce the doctrines of our adveraaries, wo tremble at the 
ptiund wc stand on ounelves. I speak not this vrith a 
spirit of doubt, but in all hmnilit}* of soul, &c.'' Athanasian 
Crted, MatU and lyOy ley's Prayer Book. 

Dr. Hey, formerly Regius Professor of Dirinitj- in Cam- 
bridge, whose works have been printed at the University 
press, and are even notti reatl as preparatory to entering into 
orden, has the following bold, — 1 might ainuwt say adven- 
turous — a-iscrtion iu hia Lectures, quoted from Dr. Bal^y, 
vol. ii. p, U)S : " Wc ought least of all to censure and perse- 
cute our brethren, perhaps, for no better reason than bix-ause 
their nonsense and ours wears a different drc«s ;" and in pngc 
251, the hui}^na^e i.s ntill hrsii equivocal. He is there sup- 
posing the case of u person subacribiug to the liturgy and 
articles; he shews in what state of mind he may do this can- 
scientiously, so as to subscribe to the common doutriiie of a 
Trinity in Unity. 

Let hia reflections, he says, be something of tliis kind : — 

" As to the existence and unity of God, wlieu my business 
is only to interpret his Word, I have no difficulty, &c., &c. 
But, wbcu it is proposed to me to affirm, that in the unity of 
this Godhead, tlierc be three persons of one substance, power, 
and eternity ; tlio Fatlicr, the Sun, and the Holy Ghost ; 1 
have difficulty enough ! my uudcrstauding is involved in per- 
plexity, my conceptions bewildered in tbe thickest dai-kness. 
1 pause — I hesitate ; I ask what nceeswty there in for making 
such a decbiration. And my difficulty is increased when I 
find that making this declaration scpuratcH me &om Cbristiaus, 
whom 1 must acknowledge to be rational and well informed; 







from thoKC who have sttidicd sonic [iiirts of Scriptnre with 
tungular success, &c., &c., &c. I am, moreover, ver^' for- 
cibly struck, with finding a kind of settled custom in Scrip. 
ture, of mcntioniag Kather, Son, and Uoly Ghost, together, 
ou the most solemn occasions, of which baptism is one ; tioi 
more peraous, not fewer : to what can this be ascribed ? 
Stitl, there is one thing never to be forgotten for u moment ; 
that is, the unity of flod : liowcvcr the pnwfa of the diWnitj 
uf the Sou Olid Holy Ghost may seem to interfere with this, 
nothing is to be nllowcd them, but what is consistent witi» 
it : the divine nature or substjince can therefore l)C b\it one 
substance; the divine power can be but one power. But 
doc9 not this confound all oiu- couccptiouii, and make ua uae 
worda urithout meani-mj? I think it does; I profess and pro- 
claim my confusion, in the most unequivocal manner ; I make 
it an csficiilial part of my declaration. Did I prntimd tu 
understand what 1 say, I might be a Ththeist or an infidel; ^j 
but 1 could not both worship the one true God, and acknow- ^| 
ledge Jesus Christ to be Lord of aU. In using words with 
wrong idea», I might express error and fnl^iehood ; but, in 
using words without ideas^ T profesa no falsehood; I onljr 
unite the different sayings of Scripture in the beat manner £ 
am able, though in a manner confessedly imperfect : but thia 
imperfection I udopt, lest I should ruu into a greater evil, hy 
putting a forced and wrong con^itruction on Script\iml say- 
ings, in order to reduce them tu the level of my liumnn 
capacity. Thua may any man assent to the first article, sup- 
posing him connnccil of the truth of the second and fifth." 

Yet, in opposition to all this, Dr. Waterland sa^i, ineon- 
aistently indeed with what he has sometimes intimated, 

" Enough has been said, to shew, that the Icamrd 
Ltmborck has used a little too much art, in repreacuting our 
doctrine as obscure, oidy by the elouds misted from m 
obscure expression. The doctrine itself is otherwise dear 
enough, as I have before manifested at large ; and cveiy 







plain Christian will understand as clearly what he mpans, 
when he says, the tlirue divine persons arc one Uod, as when 
he aaj-s, there will be a resurrection of the dead." Doctrine 
iff tlte Trhaiy Imporlani, vol. T. p. 72. 

At the end of this chapter, will he seen an exposition of 
the mnnner in whieli every plain Christiuu will uiulerstand 
the Trinity and the Unity. It will l>o shewn with what 
facihty he will nndcr^tnnd it in a Tritheistical sense, under 
the semblance of believing in the Divine L'nity ; that in 
any other way, he merts with a great difficulty in under- 
standing the doctrine lu any sense. To tlie testimony of Dr. 
"Waterland, therefore, wc will add the two following; one 
being that uf a learned writer above mentioned, namely, Dr. 
Hoy : the other being that of the piuus Mr. Newton; both 
authorities being supplied by the Church of England. 
And first, we quote the testimony of Dr. Hey, which is as 
follows : — 

" It might tend to promote modcmtion, and in the cud 
agreement, if we were industriouslvi uu iiU occasions, to 
represent our own <ioctrine as whole unintelUg'thfe. Some- 
thing of this has been hinted before : the plan would be 
useful, as it would put us upon the footing of those who 
profess unintclligihle doctrines, and give us all the liberties 
described iu the teuth chapter of our third book. It would 
also oblige our adversaries, who arc di-^puscvl to eoutinuc the 
combat, to oppose us ou ground less advantageous to thcm- 
selrca ; on the ground of expediency : at the same time that 
it would dispose others nut ti> attat^k us at all. 1 fear we in 
general pretend too much, that our doctrine is intelligible ; 
or we use langungc, which aeems to imply such pretension. 
llishop Pearaon and Dr. Waterhiud would have written with 
grcAtcr effect, if they had taken occasion from time to time 
to say, that though they exposed the raisrcpreacntations of 
others, they did not pretend to hare any clear ideas of their 
own doctrine." Vol. ii. p. 253» 





The nest testimonr is that of the pioas aud excellent Mr, 
Nertou, in his Sermoti on MesdAh, the Scm of God. 

" Far from attempting to explain the doctrine of 
Trinity to my hearers, 1 rather wish to Icsre an tmpre* 
upon yoiir minds, that it ia to as, and pcriupB to the higlieit 
crratcd intelligt^nccs, incomprebcnmble. Bnt, if it be ood- 
tained in the Scripture, which I must I«tc to jonr mm 
consciences to determine In the sight of God, it ta thoebr 
BofficicDtlr proTcd, and humble faith requires no other pTOo£ 
Allow me to confirm my own statements, by an obaeiration 
of a celebrated French writer, to the following purport :— 
' The whole difference, with lespect to this subject, bctwem 
the common people and the learned doctors, in, that while 
they arc both equally ignorant, the ign(»^iice of the people ■ 
modest niid iugmuou&, and they do not bluab for being nn-^ 
able to see what God has thought fit to conceal. Whercai^ 
the i^orancc of their teachers is proud and affected : they 
hat'e reoQUTBC tu scholastic distinctious and abstract reason- 
inga, that they may not be thought upon a lerel with the 
rolgar.' "* 

TVe now come to trace the effects of these controvcrnca: 
first, in distressing the miuds of the pious ; aecoodly, in e*fc^| 
cooraging Ariauism and Sociuianism ; aud lastly, in produo> 
ing infidelity and atheism. 

First, with regard to the distress produced in the miuda sf 
the pious. 

Of this we have a well known instance in the case 
Watts, who ATites &£ follows : 

" Iladst thou informed me, gracious Father, in any place 
of thy word, that this dirine doctrine is not to be underatoiid' 
bj men, and ret they were rcquircnl to believe it, I wooU 
have flubdned all my curiosity to fmth, kc. But I csnnot 
find thou hast any where forbid me to understand it, «r 
to make these enquiries. Ihly consncnce is the best natnial 

* Tlic reader b ber« TMOBUDraclnl to p«ra»« Ott prtliauvtry «xlru(*. 



CUAP. 1. 







liglit thou hast put within me : and since thou htuit {nvrn 
me the Scriptures, my own couscieiicc bids me ttcarch the 
Scriptures to find out truth, Sx. I hare therefore beeu long 
acarcliing into thia diviiie doctrine, that I may pay Thee due 
houor with understanding. Surely I ought to know the God 
vhom I worship; whether lie be one pure and aimple being, 
or wbotbcr Uiou art a threefold Doity cousisting of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

" Dear and blessed God ! bndat thou been pleased in any 
one plain ticripture to hare informed mc wtiich of the dif- 
ferent opinions about the Holy Trinity among the contending 
(Mirties of Christians hod been truc^ thou knowest with how 
much tcul, satijifactiou, and joy, my unbiassed heart would 
have opened itself to receive and embrace the discovery. 
Uodst thou told mo plainly in any tungle text that the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, arc three real distinct persons 
in thy divine nature, I had never auffcred myself to be be- 
wildered iu so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many 
strong fears of assenting to tho more inventions of men 
instead of divine doctrine ; but I sliould have humbly and 
immediately accepted thy words, so far as it was possible for 
mc to understand them, as the only rule of my faith. Or 
hadst thou been pleased so to express and include this pro* 
position in the several scattered parts of thy book, from 
whence my reason and conscience might with ease find out, 
and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully 
employed all my ruaitoning powcra, with their ntniost skill 
and actirity, to have found out thix inference and ingrafted 
it into my sf>ul. Tliou hast colled the poor and the ignorant 
the mean and foolish things of this world, to the knowledge 
of thyself and thy Sou ; and taught them to receive and par- 
take of the salvation which thou baat providcrd. Rut how 
can such weak creatures ever take in so strange, so difficult, 
and so abstruse a doctrine as this, in the explication iin<l 
defence whereof multitudes uf men, even men of learning 





aiid piety, have lost tbcmaclvcs in infinite subtleties 
8U(1 eiidles3 mazeif of darkness ? Ami can tliis st: 
perplexing notion of three real persons going to moke ap one 
true God, be so neeessury and so important a port of that 
Christian doctrine, which in the Old Teptament and the Neir 
is represented as so plain and so ensy even to the mcancit 
iindcnitandings? Oh, tliou searcher of hearts, who knuwot 
all things ! I appeal to Thee ronrcming the sinccritv of mi 

enquiries into tliese discoveries of tliy wonl Bli 

and faithfid God ! hast thou not promiswl, that the 
thou wilt guide in judgment, the meek thou Mill teach t! 
way? Hnth not thy Son our Savior assured us, that our 
heavenly Father nill give his Holy Spirit to them who uk 
him? And is lie nut appointed to guide us into all truth I , 
Have I not sought tlic gracious guidance of thy good 
continiinlly ? Am I not truly seiiaihte of my own darkneai^ 
and weakness, my dangerous prejudices on every side, and 
Diy utter iusufficicney for my own conduct ? Wilt I hon leave 
such u pour creature bewildered amoug a thousand per- 
plexities, which are raised by the various opinions and con- 
trivances of meu to explain thy divine truth? lldp inev 
heavenly Father I for I am quite tired and weary of tb«M 
human explainings, so various and uncertain. When wilt 
thou explain it to me lliyaelf, oh my Gml ! by the secret and 
certain dictates of tliy spirit, according to the intimations d 
thy word?" Hawkirtx' Hiwi/tton Lecittrat, Annotathm, p. 378. 

Not only, however, have the controversies on the IVinity 
produced this distress in pious minds, but they have been 
one main cause of ^Vrianism and Sociniauism. Tliia ii M> ^ 
knowlcilgcd by all cliutses, only each lays it at the door of^l 
tlie other ; the orthodox at the door of the hcttrrudox, th« 
heterodox at the door of the orthodox; and some few reflect* 
ing minds to both. lu the life of Waterland, p. 133, the ^ 
Bishop uf Durham lays it at the door of the heterodox. ^ 

" The jMiriod in which Dr. Waterland livied, was strongly 




marked by n spirit of hostility not only ajrainst some petulinr 
doctrines of Christianity, but ngiiinst Clu-istiitnity ittiuLf. lu- 
fidclity and heresy grew and flowrialicd together, as if of 
kindred nnturcs, and the soil eongciiial to the one was found 

to be no loss favorable to the other It appears to have 

been owing to the prevalence of tliis spirit, that the coui-sc of 
deism in this country, for a couaidcrable length of time, ran 
urarly pnrnHd with that of hetfrftdoxy. Lord Herbert of 
Cherbun', the philo»ii|)her of Maluibbury, luid Tuland the 
follower of Spinosa, were eotcmporary with Biddle, Firmiu, 
and the host of Antitrimtariaua who poured forth their 
lucubration* va a ccuuti-rpoise to the labors of Bishop Bull. 
In the next generation, Chubb, Morgan, Collins, and Tind;il, 
united their forces against revealed religion ; while Whixton, 
EmlvTi, and Clarke, were maintaining tenet* at variance wdth 
aome of it^ essential doctrines. Whoever is conversant with 
the Antitriuitarian writers of the former period, will perceive, 
that they wantonly or inconsiderately put weapons into the 
hanila of the infidel party, who would hardly fail to render 
them avaihihV to their purpose. So little reverence did they 
sometimes shew for sncnrc) writ, and so hold and uuquahttcd 
were their assertions of the supremacy of huiuuu judgment 
in matters of religious belief, that scarcely could the 
determined mibetiever desire to have principles cuueedod to 
him, belter adapted to his own liews." 

On the other hand, a eotcmporary divine, before alluded 
to^ in bis Earnest and Cumpiusioiiate Suit for jb^orbearaiiee, 
with a mind appareittly humiliated and dcprciiscd by the cou- 
troversiea of the tlay, thus writes : 

" He who considers the sxun of Christian doctrine, a.s it 
now onlinarily stands in tbe church, and compares it with 
the faith ouce dehvcrcd to the saints, will scarcely forbear 
censuring tbe school doctors to have been worse eucmicii to 
ChnBtianity, than cither the heathen philosophers or perse- 
cuting emperors. The evil which those unlucky wits have 




introdnccd, hna been roccivcd into the Ijowcis, and affects the 
very x-itals, of our Christiamty ; insomuch that it ia likely to 
stick Bot only cIohot, but longer to the church, than auy 
other darts t]iat Iiave wounded it. And 'tis sad to thiuk that 
that very branch of the church, from whence abore any 
other hcaUiig might be expected, is uow teiiniig the wouud 

wider ITic sum of what I now ui^e niid would 

pcrsiuulc, isj that our dociom would so far hold their hsnd<, 
that the people may be able to use with due rcvt'reuce such 
passages in rmr iitun?y, wherein the scholastical terms hinted 
at do ocenr: which ! do avow, if some men procMid, will 
soon he rendered ridiculoii!i even amon-ptt the commoD 
people, who are neither so blind, nor haply so ductile, aa la^ 
former days/* ^| 

" The controvers)' now of late revived, and mi hotly 
a^tated at present, has been above thirteen hundred yean 
ago deteniiiiied by two general councils, the Niceiie aud firrt 
Constantinupulitan, both which are Iiighly owned and hare J 
been ever adhered to by tliis our church ; the creed made np 
betwixt them stands in our litnir^*, and their dcterminatiooi 
have been ratified by succeeding general councils. Why 
cannot we let the matter stand upon this bottom of authority ? 
TlioM who are versed in the history of that coimcil, may be 
pleaseil to remeniluT wliitt were the arfruracuts urgtsl, and 
that it was authority cliiefly carried the iioint. Tin true, 
indeed, there are more hard temia introduced into the church 
doctrine, even since that coiuicil, which use haa now made 
old : but let \u stop somewhere ; why should we be still mor* 
iug the aucicnt hounds?" 

. . . . " This matter has been sufficiently determined j ■ 
and by due authoritv (if any caOcsiastical authority can bo 
gnch) is settled already. The Councils of Nice and Coiuta»- 
tinople, as before said, and many other councila since eoB- 
firming the same, have done what authority cau do in tC. 
And, whcu we have moved every stone, authority must define 







it. Our church articles insist iu the Bsmc track ; and we 
profess ourselves, at least for pence sake, lioaud tlicrclij'. 
.... As far as I can perccirc, the more men dmvr the dis- 
putations saw, the more perplexed and intricntc this question 
is; at least that truth which is contended for is Btrthcr oS 
{roiii htriii^ etettlctL Fur the new uttcmpts still, in the issue, 
not sutbiijing the old ditticultics, men look upon them to be, 
what weti they maij, uusatui(inble or insoluble ; aud impute 
not this to the depth of the mystery, hut to the absurdities 
of the hypothnsiitj wliich by the same means becomes still 
more involved." 

"And hereby our church at present is, and the commnn 
Cluristiftuily (it may be feared) will be more and more, daily 
exposed to atheistical men ; for this being but the residt of 
the former parlieulura, and such kind of mcu daily (sjowing 
u|jon us, it cannot be beheved they caa overlook tlie ad^-an- 
tage which is so often given tliem. 

" On these nccouiits as « ell as others, this controversy is 
the most dangerous m well as unrcasonahle. The danger 
hereof is especially huuce evident, in tliat the doctrine of the 
blcsKcd Trinity, or of the Father, Sou, and Holy CJlinst, in 
whose names we aud all Chnstians arc or ought to have been 
baptized, is esteemed, as it is if duly stated, one of the ftm- 
dauiCTitals of the Cliristiuu religion. Now to lUit/ate ioaekhtff 
a /ufntamentai, is to turn it intu acoutrovcrwy ; that in, to urt- 
Kith; at leant endanger tlit tumettliaff, the whole gupersiructure." 

Let us, howcve.-, now proceed to pUce the subject in 
another pointof \icvr: that is, to take into con-sideratiou what 
is commonty called the orthodox doctrine, as prupoimded by 
ttishup Hull and others. 

We will suppoHc, for the sake of the argument, that the 
imputation of Tnllieism to the catholic doctrine of the church, 
is unfounded ; that tlic church always rejected such a doc- 
trine; that although the expressions three spirits, three su(>> 
stances, three hypostascx, three persons, three being*, three 





separate nxistcncca, ttircc distinct stihstantiftl individnalitie^ 
three intelligent ngeuta, have been used, yet that by apn^KS 
defiuitiou of all the terms, they may be made consisteitt wii 
the idea of one God. Let lis take all this for ^raiitedj mkI 
presume tliat cleHr-hcadcd lof;icians, such lu Bull, WatcrUnd, 
and others, can dcnioiistnibly prove, upon their principIcBi 
that such expressions do uot involve Trithcistical ideas ; nay, 
tliat, upon tfieir principles, their defence of the Trinitarian 
doctrine, an grounded upon the tcatimony of the fathers and 
uiMiii reason, is triumphant. Wc turn from tht; testiinouy vS 
the fatlicrB and from metaphysical ailments to tke phyricai 
lours oj human nature. 

We all admit that the infant mind receives its first idea*^ 
througli the medium of the souses ; that it is in early veanB 
that hahiU of thought arc most easily formed; and that 
habits 80 formed it is afterwards pi-oportionahly difficult t» 
remove. The child uot liaviug yet wiuic to ycarsof maturity, 
is incapable of undcrstuuding logical arguments, or schulastK 
distinctions; all its ideas being such as arc nearly allied to 
mere impressions derived from the senses. Fcter, James, 
and John, we will suppoac, it is taught to distinguish aathree^ 
separate persons, — three sepnrate men. Let now the c\ 
be further instructed that the Father is one person, the Sonj 
another person, nnd the Holy Ghost another person. "Let itj 
nc\t be told, that Christ is a mediator for sinners ; that he t*1 
in heaven prajnng to the Father for us; and tiiat the Father 
hears bis prayers. The following is a quotation from a Torl 
entitled FamUiar Lectures to ChUdren, by a Clergyman of tii*\ 
Chttrch of England. 

" Almost every prayer we hear is made in the name of 
Jesus Christ, and every thing we ask for is asked for Christ'aJ 
lake. Nobody can be happy without a friend; and almovt 
every person, however wicked he may be, tries to get and 
keep a few friends. There was onoe a man who had three 
friends i he knew them aud lived near them many yean. It^ 


80 happened, that tliis man was accusocl to tlio king of being 
very wicked, and the kiug ordered that hu Hhould be put to 
death. The poor man lieard of it, and was in great trouble. 
He expected to Iohc his life and to leave his family in great 
distress. After tliiiikiiig it over and weeping bitterly, he 
determined to seek the king, fall down before him, and beg 
his life. He called therefore on his throe friends, and begged 
them to go with him. The first whom he asked, he thought 
bis beat friend. But noj he would not wivancc one step 
towards the king's court ; he would not move to help him. 
He next went to the second friend, and requested him to go. 
They set out, but when they came to the gates of the king's 
oo\irt, this friend stopped and would not go in and ai?k for 
the poor man's life. Then he went to the third friend, 
whom he loved the lea-it, and besought his help. This firiend 
WW known to the king aiid beloved by liim. So he took the 
condemned man by the hand, Jed him to the king, aud inter- 
eedeit, or bc^cd for him, and the king pardoned liim, for 
the sake qf his friend who inierceded for him. Jesus Christ, 
that fiiend of whom we tluTik so little, and whom we love so 
little, can go with us before the great King of kings, and 
intercede for us, and thus save our soulg from being con- 
demned to eternal sorrow. This is the time when wc need 
his friendahip imd interccsHiun. He died fur us; He can 
therefore be our friend, and ple»d fyr us, and save us." 

" A king once made a Uw agninst a certain crime. The 
law w»jf, that every one found guilty of that crime, should 
have both his eyes put out. A' cry soon, a man who had 
broken the law, was taken up, tried, and condemned. It 
was the king's own son. Now the king saw, that if he did 
not punish the criminal, it would be giving a licence to 
wickedness, and that nobody woidd keep the law. Ho there- 
fore had one eye of his son put out, and one of his own ! He 
could now go before the court and ptetul for his son, and by 
his own mfferiugs and intercession save him from fturther 



CBAr. I. 


puiiiskmeni. AD people saw that the good king liatfld crime 
autl loved Uis laws. So does Jesus Clirist save lu. He lia» 
suffered for ns, and now lives to intercede for as. ^^^H 

"This vsui interceding before h humfin being; Ci^St 
mtercedes before God. Hiis ira.<( ititerceding for one m&a ; 
Christ iuterccdca for all Lis people. This wna for one nbort 
life ; Christ's intercession is for eternal life. Tfaia was for 
ODC sin; Christ intercedes for all our sins. This vaa for fli^ 
6riend; Christ pleads for those who have ever tieen im^ 
enemies. Tliiu saved one man from the cune prououuccd 
hy human Intrs; Christ save^ all men from the cune 
God'H law. 

" You know, dear children, that it is a great comfort to' 
have good men to pray for us : you kuow too that the prayen 
of good men avail much with (jod. In the Bible you wiB 
find, that one man prayed, and the dead child of a heathen 
woman wh.s raiited to life; that another prayed, and an angd 
came dowu from heaveu andmliut the mouths of lions, sothit 
they did not hurt the good man. Peter prayed, and a dead 
woman cnme to life. Paul prayed, aud a young man who had 
fallen from the third story of the house and wan killed, WM 
revive*!. Ahniham prHywl for Soilom and (fomorrah, and tfaoae 
cities would have been Kparcil if there had l>ecn ten rigfateoos 
men in live cities. 13ut all the good men ou enrth might 
pray for you, an{l if Christ should not do so likewise, it wooU 
be of no avail. All the good spirits in heaven, sainta and 
angeht, might pray for you, but this would not be so good m 
one prayer of Clu*ist. He is worthy; the uunts and the 
angels cast their crowns at his feet, and cr^', ' Tbon art 
worthy.' He is worshiped by all in heaven. He aits on the 
throne with God; God loves Him, and will hear Ilim in uur 

More is written to the same purport ; but wc have 
for a subsequent chapter a passage here omitted, though man 
strongly worded. 

CflAF. 1. 






What ia there, under the circurastaiicea we hare mon- 
tioncd, to prevent the child from regarding the Father and 
the Sod, the one hs God^ and the ot}icr m Mediator, aa two 
separate beings ? Indeed uo one, I tliiuk, how great soever 
an advocate of the cathoHc doctrine, either could or wonld, 
upon mature considenitioii, hiive any doubt upon thu B\i\}jv.ct. 
The ideas of the child being now nearly idhed to impresifious 
dcrired immediately from the senses, suppose the child hc- 
coinen further in»tniete<l, that it is the Father who creates, 
the Son who redeems, the Holy Ghost who sanctifies; that 
ooDsequently, whenever these separate offices are spoken of, 
they are the offices of three distinct persons : wotild not these 
expressions, however accordant with the idea of one (Jod, 
only tend to confinn tlie first idea of three distinct penions as 
three separate beings? Suppose, in the next place, the 
child having grown np to jckth of maturity, is further in- 
structed in the d(}ctnue of the Trinity in some sueh tnauner 
as the following ; (the parage is quoted from the works of 
Dr. Watcrlaud) : 

" To know or conceive God as a single person, is to know 
God ven,' imiwrfcctly, or is rather a false conception of God. 
It is, therefore, of as great ooneerumeut to know that God is 
three persons, supposing it really so, as it is to conceive 
truly, rightly, and justly, of God. Further, if there really 
be three divine persons, it is as necessary that man should be 
acquainted with it, as it is that lie slinuld rliroet his worship 
where it is due, and to whom it belongs. For, if all honor, 
and glory, and adoration, be dne toercry person a* much aa 
to any, it was hif^hly requisite that a creature made for wor- 
ship, as nmn is, slir>ul<l be instniiHetl whore and to whom to 
pay it. To offer it to any single person only, when it is 
claimable by three, is defrnndiug the other two of their just 
dues, and is not honoring God perfectly, or in full measure 
and pTO]iortion. Besides, how sliall any one person .justly 
claim all our homage and adonitiun to himself, and not ac- 

r 2 



quaint us that there are two persons more, who have an 
claim to it, and onghtj thereforCj to receive eqxial 
ledgmeats?" Vol. viii. p. 4-U. 

Or let tlie cliild peniso Matthew Henry's account in the 
Boolt of Provcrhs, chap. nii. 22. Speaking of WifMlom, at 
heiiig a distinct lUviuc iiitcUi^'cut Person, and appointed in 
the eternal cotinseU to be the Mediator bctw(!cn God mi 
man, observe, says lie, "the infinite cuniplncency which the 
Father had in llim, and He in the Father ; (r. 30.) / tear tf 
Htm, fl* one brought up with Ilim. As by an eternal gcnen- 
tion He was brought forth of the Father, bo by am etenul 
conn.^) He was brought np n-itU Him ; which intimates, not 
OTdy the infinite love of the Father to the Son, who is there- 
fore called the Son of his love, (Col. i. 13.) but the mutual 
consdouHness and guixl understanding that were betwiXB 
them, couceruing the work of man's redemption, which the 
Son was to undertake, and about wliich the i^tmnari of ptaa 
wax between them both, Zech. vi. 13. He was aiumntu Patm 
— the Father's pupil, as I may say, trained np from eternity 
for that service which, in time, in the fulness of time, H« 
was to go tlirough with, and is tlicrein taken under the specul 
tuition and protection of the Fattier; Ho is mt/ servant whom 
I up/iold, Isa. xlii. 1. He did what He saw the Father d<^fl 
(John V. 19.) pleased his Father, sought his glory, did accord- " 
ing to tho commandment Ho received from his Father, and 
all this as one brought up unth Htm. He was daihj his Falhrf't 
Delight, (mine Elect, in viltoiu my stntl delighteih, says Ood ; 
Isa. ilii. 1.) and He also rejoiced nlway.* before TTun. Thii 
may be uridcrstood, cither, (1.) Of tlic infinite delight which 
the persons of the blessed Trinity have in each other, whereiii 
oonsists much of the happiness of the divine nattuv. Or, 
(2.) Of the pleasure which the Father took in tho operatkm 
of the Sou, when He made the world; God saw every thing 
that the Son made, and, beholdj it toas very good, it pleased 
Him, and therefore his Son was dailtf, day by day, daring 




the six days of the creation, upon that account, Am Delight , 

Exod. xxxix. 'K3. \i\A the Son tJso did himself 





ITtm in the beauty and harmony of the whole creation, Ps. 
cir. 31. Or, (3.) Of the satisfaction they had in each other, 
with reference to the great work of man's redemptiou. The 
Father dchghtcd in the Son, as Mediator between Him nnd 
man, was well pleased with what He proposed, (Matt. iii. 17.) 
and thiTffore loved Him, because He tmdcrtook to lay down 
hi* life for the aheep ; He put a coufideneu in Him, that He 
would go through his work, and not fail or fly off. The Son 
also r^oiced always bffore Him, dehghted to do Iiia will, 
(Fs. xl. 8.) stuck close to his undertaking, as one that was 
well satisfied in it, and, when it came to the setting to, ex- 
pressed as much satiafdction hi it as ever ; saWng, Lo, I come^ 
to do (u in the volume of the book it is written of me." 

What is there, again, in such instruction, however true, 
to alter the origiual impressions produced upon the mind? 
on the contrnry, is not every thing calculated strongly to 
confirm them P Suppose, now, the child grown up to matu- 
ri^, should begin to have some thoughts concerning tfac 
Divine Unity. We will presume that ho is instructed as 
follows ; (the passage is quoted from Dr. fVardlato <m Soci- 
nianitm, p. 56} : 

"Incalculable mischief has arisen from men's as|>inng at 
Icaowledgc beyond the reach of their own or any finite powers, 
and beyond the limits of the divine declarntioiis. Yet, the 
attempt to comprehend the mode in which the Divine Unity 
Biibirists in three persons, is certainly not more fooli.^h, than 
it is to refuse cre<h-iicc to the fact hccaufic it exceeds our com- 
prehension. Oh ! the presumptuous arrogance of the huninn 
mind, that will not be satisfied unless the natxirc of the infi- 
nite God ia brought down to the comprehensiou of the 
creature I" &c. 

What, now, is the state of the mind of the iudi\idua] 
upon this subject T There is a clear idea of three beings, 






aiid an obacnrc idea of one txiing ; the nttempt to have «i 
clear an idea of the unity or oDctncss, as of the separate indi 
viduahty, beiiif; regarded as a presmaptuotui attempt 
fatJiom an incomprcliciisililc niysteTy. 

liCt us next jiit^ume tlic persuD to be taught, that the 
doctriue of the Tripersonalit^- is a fundamental doctrine ; that 
ail who do uot receive it, are gruiity of heresy ; that no com- 
muiuQD should be held with heretics: that the church has 
always taught it as the catholic doctrine ; that it is the diity 
of erery true Christiau, to be zcaJously affected in a good 
cimac, and hence, earnestly to contend for the faith once 
dclircrcd to tlic sntiits; in this caae, arc not the feelings o^f 
the individual eniiKted in the work of conRrmiiig the originai' 

Let US next auppoae thct pupil to complete his rcligionafl 
education, and after being well read in tlie fathers, and the 
works of modem authors, to be able like them to rniitcnd 
for the Divine L'nity. He can accumtely define the mcuuios 
of the tcrmH kypostam, persona, tuhatttntia, wppositum, owta, 
hoawougia, and so forth ; Itc can prove how a mode of sub- 
aistence together ivith the substance, constitutes a person : 
that there are nut three GodR, iKcause there is only one 
Bubataiicc with thrci; modea of subidiitciicc. He repela the 
imputation of his advocating or entertaining the notion ot 
three Gods; because )ic can prove that one and the aamc 
Kubstance may beloug to three personal subsistencca ! True ; 
but lot him remember, first, that the ideas of tkKl originally 
impressed upon his mind, were not those received through 
the medium of tnctaphyjiics, but through the medium of the 
•enaes ; secondly, that he woa capable of being instructed on 
tlie Trinity through the medium of the aensea, before he was 
capable of being iiistructod on tlie Unity through the medium 
of metaphysics; tlurdly, that liithcrto, aU tliat he has learnt 
has ouly served not to change, hut to illustrate and confirm 
his original impressions; the only difference being, that 






whereas he before t)iiuuglil. from tlic si-iisch, ho now tliinks 
fn>ui corrcepuntliug abstructiuns uf n-asuii ; hi-i early im- 
pressions being tmnsferretl more inwanUy, and cou*C{|iicntly 
become more concealed from his notice; fourthly, that he 
haa no interior thought in correspondence «itU the orthodox 
idcn of the unity of tiio Tri|)crson!dity, whinli h not only 
uot derived from an^-thiug in tiatiixc, bnt La iu direct 
contrariety to it ; fifthly, that, as the intcruH) and cxlcraal 
mind may be in a stnte of conscious variance, so, for the 
same reaaou, may they be in a state of uncouscious va- 
riance ; hence, that interior ideas may be at variiuict; with 
exterior metaphysical distinctions in the outn^ard mcmor}' ; 
sixthly, that tliis is tlu^ more likely to be the cane, when 
hifl zeal for examining a doctritic bits diverted liin atten- 
tion &om being turned inwardly, and hence pi-cveutcd him 
from making the nature of his own ideas a subject of serious 

To illustrntc these remarks, bt us quote n passage from a 
well-known work on the Human Understanding, and then 
take au ftxamplc as supplied by the orthodox doctrbie of the 
Trinit}'. On the Association of Ideas (book ii. clmp. 'AiA, 
vol. iL), Mr. Locke observes : 

"Intellectual habits and defect* this way contracted, are 
^99t less frc(|ueui mul powerful, though Icks ob8er^-ed. Ijct 
^'flie ideas of being and matter be etiongly joined, uitlier by 
education or much thought ; wliiUt these are fitill c<imbined 
iu the mind, what notions, what reasonings, will there be 
mhout separate spirits? Let custom, from the very childhood, 
have joined liguru luul Hliapc to the idea of (iod, and what 
absurditieti will that mind be liable to about the Deity 1 Let 
the idea of infallibility be inseparably joined to any person, 
and these two ennstantty together possess the mind, and then 
one body in two places at once, shidl unexamined bt- swal- 
lowed fur a tvrtain truth by an implicit faith, whf'uovcr that 
imagined infallible ircrMm dictates and demands aweut with- 
out inquiiy. 




" Some sue]] wrung and unnntural combinations of ideas, 
wiU be fouud tu ustablibh tliL> irrccuuciluablo oppusitiun be- 
tvrecn different sects of philosophy and religion ; for wf 
cniinot imagine ever}' onn of their followers to impose wil- 
fully ou himself, and knomugly refuse truth oflfered by plain 
rrason. Intttrest, though it dcic^) a f^TCAt deal in. tiic case, 
yet^ caiiiiot be thought to wnrk wtiole societies uf mcu to so 
iinivemal h pcrvcntcuejts, as that cver|- one of them to x man, 
should knowingly muintain falsehood : sonic, at least, louit 
be allowed to do what all pretend to; i.e. to pursue tmt& 
sincerely ; and, tbcroforc, there must bo something that 
bliuds their understanding, and makes them uot see the 
falsehood of what they embrace for real truth. That which 
thns captivatcfl their reaaons and loads men of siticeritf 
bUndtbld from common sense, will, when exaniincdj be found 
to he what wc lu-e speaking of: some indc|iciide»t ideas of no 
alliance tu one Htiollier, arc liy education, custom^ and thi^_ 
con^ttAot din of their party, ko coupled in their miiid.^ tha^| 
they always appear there together j and thc^ can uo nUMV 
sepantte them iu their thoughts, than if they were but one 
iJen; and they oiK'nite as if they were so. This givea seuK, 
tu jargon, deuionstratiou to abaurdittes, and consistency 
iionncnsc, and is the foundHtiom of the greatest, I had 
■aid of all, the errors in the world : or, if it docs not reach 
so far, it i» at leiiat the must dangerous one; since, as farii 
it obtains, it hinders meu &om seeing and examining. WheflH 
two things in theniHclvcs disjoined, ap]>car to the sight con- 
tinually united, if the eye sees those things riveted which are 
loose, where will you begin to rcctiTy the mi^takcH that fnUaw 
in two ideas that they have been accustomed so to join ia 
their minds, a« to substitute one for the other, and, as I am 
apt to tlitnk, often without perceiving it themsclvea. Tbu^ 
whilst they are under the deceit of it, makes them incapable 
of conviction ; and they a[)plaud thcmselres as ftcaloua cham- 
pions for truth, when indeed they are eoutcuding fur error i 
and the confusion of two different ideas, which a customary 

eiicy t^H 






K man 


coun«iion of tlicm in their minds hath to them made in effect 
hut OTIC, fills their minds wtli false news, and their reason- 
ings with foise consequences." 

If, now, things which are opposite, may by habit com« 
to be thiw coTifonnded the one with the other, is it difficidt 
to presume that things which iire not so tipposite, wliich 
are so nearly allied with each other, that the one may be 
easily mistaken for the other, should at length come to be 
generally coiifoimded ? 

Let us apply this remark to the orthodox idea of the 
Trinity. Dr. South obsencK, "It is certain, both Srom 
phihisnphy and religion, that there is but one only God or 
Uodhnaii, in which the Christian rehpon has taught us that 
there are tluee pcrsonsi." Aniviativersiowi, p. 106. 

Here the terms Ood, or Godhead, are used «}*nony- 
moiuly, yet, strictly speaking, fiod means a DiWnc being, 
and Godhead means a Divine nature. Let us see the conse- 
i|uence. The icnu mim may be considered as the name of a 
single being, or, like manhootl, as the name of a nature. 
But the expression, one God, is hero used to signiij'one God- 
head; just as one man may signify one munlioud, or one 
human nature. lu this sense a person may speak of one 
human nature as of one Godhead, and yet retain the idea of 
many men. In like manner, a person may speak of one God 
synonymous with one Godhead, and yet retain the idea of 

y Goils, or at least many beings. Tlma the strongest 
moments may be imcd by a person to prove the existence of 
one God, by wliieh, after nil, he means nothing more than 
one Godhead, one Divine Nature ; just as there is only one 
human nature. Hence, in the Athanasian Creed, where he 
re[]ents the worda, " Tlie Father is God, the Son is God, and 
the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not thrcrc Gofls, 
but one God," he means only that the Divine Nature belongs 
to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that this Divine 
Nature or Godhead is but one ; which no more implies that 


the person believes in one Uod as one being, than vbcn be 
sa>-s that Peter is naan, •Tames is man, and Jolui w man^ he 
bclicvcft them all to be but one being. All tliu xevutU &rm 
tte double signification of the term God ; — the term imper- 
ceptibly ahitliiig ita meaning; in one caao si^ifying cae 
being, in another one nature ; so that if we anolne the 
ideaa of many who would prove the existence of one God, we 
might upon their principles prove anv three mtn to be ok 
man, that is, only one manliood, one human nnture. HiK I 
it 18 asserted by Dr. Cudworth and others, the father* hire 
done, liitleed this double sen&e of the term God, if it doo 
not actu;dly occur in the Athanasian Creed, yet it is almCMt 
impossible for the ordinary mind to avoid rccciTiagr. Tfaoa it 
is said, JV/io, allhouffh He be God and Man, yet Ife is not tw*, 
biU one Chrhi. Here man is said to sii^ify, nut a eepanU 
distinct being or pc»uii, fur that would be NustoriauistOf bst 
simply manhood or human nature; and the fireqnent a»- 
Junction of the term man in tliis sense vith the term God 
as it)t correlative, naturally Icada the mind to a "mjlar oeuc 
of the term God. Houco, alluding to those passages ia 
Scripture in which God speaks a& una person. Dr. Waterland 
remarks fSermon on tJw Divine. Unity, vol. ii.) : 

"Perhaps the word God In those places, is to be unda>- 
stood in the indejhiile sense, abstracting Irom the particular 
consideration of this or that person, in like manner as the 
word man often BtaiulK, uvt for any ])arti(:iilar human person^ 
hut the whole npccics or human nature ; num u (rail, man 'a 
mortal, or the like. I say, the word God may he thus under- 
8tood ; and since the doctrine of the Trinity ia dumonstrable 
firom other Scriptures, n*c have great reason to bcUere, that 
this u the true and real meaning of the word God, as often u 
the context or other drcumstances do not continc its ngnifi* 
cation and intent to one person only." 

Agiiin : " I must observe to you, that it is far from batB( 
certain that the Father or any particuhur iierson is ahrart 






nicmit, whciKTver the word God U naed absolutely in Scripture. 
For, as ! before hinted, uogood reason can be given why the 
word God may not be used in a lHrg;e indefUiite Hense, not 
denoting any particuinr person ; just m the word man is often 
nscd in Scripture, not denoting any [mrticulnr man, but man 
in general or man indefinitely. Aa the word man sometimes 
stanrffl for the whole Jtpec'tef, sometimes indefinitely for Buy 
indivithiai of the apccics, without dctenuiuing which, and 
sometimes for tiiis or that particular man; so, by way of 
analog)* or imperfect resemblance, the wuril (lod may somc- 
timea signify all the Divine persons ; wnietimcii any person 
of the three indefinitely, without determining wbich; and 
sometimes one particular person, either Father, Son, or Holy 

In like manner Dr. South obscrrcH {Anhnadver^oju, p. 
J20), " As it is true that one mid the same Ood or Godlicad 
is common to, and subsists in nil and every one of the three 
persons; as it is trac that one and the same infinite miud or 
spirit ht common to, and subsists in the s^d three persona ; 
and eonticquently, aa it i» false that one and the same God or 
Godhead, by being common to, and subsisting in the three 
persons, becomes three Gods or three Gialhcads, 8o is it 
equally false that one and the same infinite mind or spirit, 
hy being common to, and subsiBting in the said three per- 
rons, becomes three infinite minds or spirits." 

Thus, although Smith ainl Waterlaud both professed to 
rqect the doctrine of the specific unity, they hare cither both 
fallen into it ; or else, to maintain the idea of the Triper- 
sonality, felt themselves obliged to use such language as any 
ordinary mind conld not distinguish firom that which waa 
used to Cs.prcss the doctrine of the specific unity. 

For a person might readily afiirm, iu accordance with the 
foregoing reasoning, that GchI is only one infinite mind, be- 
cause there is only one iufinitc Godhead, aa iu men there is 
one only manhood ; thus he might speak of the Gmlhead as 

rf myia^ tfcit BJwri ■ Tula Asfir 
bepcpncdEo i^ferfi^ ife Xcv l^ib. 
tfcat apeifeet mxn is pcHeet God, W Hvit be aaf^- 
0m«aif led touwader tlie vord God m eifnaii« » f"^ 

IV IB MBBOte of Bnafitia, wliidi issjr be BrafiatBd flf 
■«r» Aaa «oe m (At wan« 0/ « ^7x00 .- jwt m «Wn -w« m. 
Joha B maa, Peter u man^ Andrew is maa. And «o tf ii* 
with Uh doeptioB of • few (wbo ia dua onaatK^ nv aCiS ac- 
cpiBBtM win nnt nccnoBujr ptmnt i)f9lm o« vom*, dt 
mean* of which the tmly icfaolastic TnIUtarilBi^ audi ai 
Bishop Boll, and WaterUod, vbo had aocoratdr atia£ed tke 
fnthen and the ichoolnurn, appear to ende th« logical ooa* 
tradictioiu with which the doctrine of the Trinity nboands}— 
aD, a* I hare obserred for manf vean, take the %f ord God, 
in regard to Christ, aa the name of a species ; and mm ftr- 
qnently of a dignity." Blanco fVhUt't Herajf amd Ortkodcay, 
p. 01. 

Here is the testimony of sn intelligent writer, who had 
been in t)ie Church of Borne, who had associntcd with ntanj 
tbeologiana of the Church of England, to the prevalence ol 
the doctrine of the specific unity. And the writer of thft 
Oxford tract fruni which this testimony is taken^ declaree that 
he quotes the paasage because the remarks are ine ami 
hmporiaat, howerer pttbtfui it might be to quote them. 7Wrf# 
for the Timfv — Introduction qf KationatuUk frincipla aUv 
Heligion, p. 36. 




Thus we see the facility with which, upon the principleB 
commonly held, a person falla into a system of Tritheism. 
First, because tu childhood ideas being received through ini< 
pressions upon the senses, the child can conceive of three 
persons only as three men. Secondly, hecnusc, in its prayers, 
it is nuable to conceive of God and Christ as any other tlum 
two beings. Thirdly, because the Unity is tanght only as an 
iricotnprcheDKihlc myiitery, while a Trinity is easily ctjmprc- 
hcuded. FourllJy, because the doctrine of the Trinitj' is 
consequently more enlarged upon than the Unity ; and, 
Fifthly, becaiise the idea of specific Unity is that which the 
mind cnn scarcely help failing to form. There is another 
rcaiiOM which wc shall reserve for n future chnptcr. Having 
then shewn the facility with which Tritheistical ideas may be 
entertained, let us proceed on the other hand to hIicw the 
difficulty, the ithnost impossibility, of forming any supposed 
just conception of the reputedly orthodox doctrine. 

In proof of this circumEtancc, wc Hhall firKt quote a pas- 
Mge firom Bishop Bcveri<lge, on the Mystery of the Trinity, 
fPriuate T/touffhti upmi IMf^hnJ . 

" If we think uf it, how hard is it to contemplate upon 

one numerically Divine nature in more than one and the 

same Divine person ! ur upon three Divine persons, in no 

more than one and the same Divine imturet If we speak of 

it, how hard is it to find out fit words to express it !" And 

again — " So hard a thing it is to word bo great a mystery 

aright, or to 6t so high a truth with expressions .tuitablc and 

pro[M:r to it, without guin{; one way or another from it. And 

therefore 1 shall not use many words about it, lest some should 

slip from roc luibcconiing of it/'* 

' " No one can be idoi« convinced than 1 iin, thai there ii a real myitery 
of Ood re*cale<I in Ihe Chrbtiao diapenMUon ; aod thst no acben)« ofUni- 
tarianiirn can aolrr ihrviliolc of Ihr ]iltc-nonii*na wliirh Ncnptui* recntdl. 
Dnt [ UD alto u fully icnsiblr, (bat (btrrp it a mystery atUcbod lo th«i Aub- 
jecl, which ii not a myaterj tif God." fiampton Letturu^ Ul. p. 146, bg Dr. 
JfaMpdn, Ittgitt* Pr^tuvr n( Dicixity, at Oxford. 


r,«!;r- •w;ftsail-* ■mi T-iMt—n^ -n 

SNf t^mavKr i/ lov catf. 'ir "nei. e Jive 

V u~i'4. toil ^sZjt -afjL i» 1] ionr<i3i=iiL ^ae 
jATi:**. M «q •■c!«:"^',r :n. "hrrs smmsaabiy 

V. v-aeE" » ii'.T "'-'* ao. :« :3. "uma i^nEmt 
»a-» >i-.rr. :r 3. IZ.7 tkzif iine. -: Zit Sac 
»*.ijiaa. iar-.r^ Viiiii •^^^-'''7 Tc-asein* Ty "a 
-/ *K!u^^ iJK* i«7 ii2-il7 inzie ^- raeii ^n- 

^t'-,^ r TJ_-t -jt "-id ;**e t::::! lid ^axraaL 
^« r. ▼.".^ •^rxz^ "^^ "^ 'zi-eaj^tiii 1 Kui it^w Hvdk sHtr agaft 

r--^*^ ;^->:li^.': " 1/ tie ^zrci erea a die jevned are obh^ 
V* '.^.'VT^rr tLi« *-"■'«*' z^jfjical T^LMCCaK ui farmii^ to thnn- 
•«i*s ti^ iCea OS :i* Trlper«oaalhT. mmj Te not ooncfaide it 
b> r>t; w^l^ iti^ii k3 impr«s.0L::tT vith tbe anlettcml and the 
y^iitjc : lAJtJcnl&rlv, -vhtn manj of ilie ieamcd profess tbtt 
tur/ kr*: thenueiTo &l:osetber iDcranpetcnt to tlie task ? To 
ft^nci t^iAt, oerertheleas, the doctrine is tvi^t in ScrqitnR^ 
tui/i }fT aU the fathers and ecumenical cooncib, or br the 
t:hurt:ii ixtittjUc, is onlr to oppose the ScriptUTea and ths 
iAturt-.h catholic to the known constitution of human natuzc; 
a/i strf^imimt which little accords with that which teaches the 
ariaf/tatiou of one to the other. Perpetoallr to preach thii 
tiiMAhiin thcrcfure, and to insist upon it, i^ to be perpetuallr 
*;niploycH in the work of Sisyphus; the stone is no sooner 
r(/ll(»l liv ail external pfjwcr to the top of the hill, than down, 
'if itH own accfjrd, it faUs again to the bottom. We ife 


taui^Iit to believe in the Tripersoiudlty ; yet, except in the 
Tritheisiical manner we have explained, the oonstitntion of 
the whole \isil)le creation is against it I the constitution of 
the whole human mind ia agaiiiHt it; anil not only ito, but 
achuitvkttijfd to be no, even by those who luaiiitain it ! If 
tliis be the faet, wc conclude, cither ttiat Tritlicism is no 
grreat evil, or that a disbelief in the iinity of God is of no 
f^reat importance; fur that God should commnud ns to be- 
lieve in Him as Due, and yet so create us that the very 
constitution of our being should make it an exceedingly difB- 
cult thing, — verj- arduous for the learned^ almost impossible 
for the unlearned, and (|nitr out of the question with rrgard 
to children, whose angels do ucverthcles.'* always bf^huUl the 
face of their heavenly Father, is a paradox which, if true, 
places such a stumbling block in the way of a right know- 
knlge of (Jod, as uu Ic-Hruiug, no logical acumen can remove ; 
for it is one which arises out of the direct repugnance of the 
doctrine to the nature and constitution of things; which 
accordingly cannot be removed by the cxtc-mai authority of 
any church, fathers, or councils, unless by the perpetual 
intcrpoaitiou, on their part, of a miraculous power drlcgated 
to them for the pmpose of counteracting the known laws of 
the human mind. This power the church has never poo- 
9e»sed ; consequently, the difficulty never has been removed ; 
for it cannot he auppoacd, that any abstract formularies of 
doctrine, soch as that of the Athauasian Creed, or any de- 
crees of councils, however metaphysically enounced, and 
merely committed to pajwr, are of themselves a barrier auffi- 
cicnt to stem the ordinary current of human thought ; fur be 
it undoratood, the difiicidt^- in question is not alleged to arise 
from the evil or impurity of the mind, or from the fallacies 
and ignorance of the natural man : it arises, we are told, 
from a direct repnguonce of the orthodox idea of tlie Creator 
to all the laws that Ue has laid down in creation ; 80 repug- 
nant, that there is "«» niter want of all instattrea of the kind" 
from which to reason by way of analogy ; uud hence it is 

H iruui null 



CSAr. L 

that, as Dr. South infamu lu, the fathen ban caDed Ihfa 

myrtery " ineffable, inconceivable, tminteUigible, ineosqice- 
henaible, and, if posable^ tnnacendiag the rery notkni ti 
the Deity itself^ ubore all human ondentanding^ mnd rmmm, 
discoorec and Bcrtitiny." Animadverwoji, p. 237. 

Seeing, then, the difficulties which lie in the w»y irf form- 
ing a right idea of the Divine Unity, and the facility wiifc 
which the mind inscnaibly passes into Trithcistical notiooi^ 
ought we to be surprised at a pre^-aleuce of Tritheism t I» 
prcnuning the widely spread cxistmoc of these principIeB, we 
need not attribute it to wilful corruptions of the trotfi : «c 
need not impute to others any one improper motii-c : we need 
not even question the truth of the orthodox doctrine : «« 
might eien suppose all parties to be sincere in their eode^ 
Ton to think and act rightly to the best of their power; awl 
oeTcrtheless, we might be enabled to shew how, finoni tfas 
very nature of the doctrine itself, under the semblance 
of a catholic i^xntolicity, there might prevail a caraouc 


That such an apostasy should exist, wc bcliere most 
tons admit to have bcc-u foretold iu Scripture ; and that sudt 
aa are the subjects of it should be oneonscious of itA existence, 
wc believe to be foretold with equal plaiuness. It was de- 
clared it should come upou the church like the flood of 
Nonhj of which mimkind was ignorant (though warned of its 
approach) until it came and swept them all away. "At cndi 
an hour as yc think not/' said the SaWor, "the Son of Man 
Cometh." Of the whole church, including the virgins both 
wise and foolish, it is said, that as the " bridegroom tanied 
thoy all slumbered and slept ;" for as the natural man, Uring 
only to the senses, is said to he asleep, so by sleep is repn- 
scntcd, in Scripture, the state of the imtural mind, which is 
as unconscious of spiritual things as if they were not ; and ta 
which only natural ideas and imaginations up|>ear to be rcaL 
Hence to foretell that tliu church, as represented by the wiae 
and foolish rirgins, should slumber and sleep, is to foretcA 


CKA.P, I. 



that not only its foolish, but even its vise merobOTs should 
all be overcome hy merely natural ideas, affections, and ima- 
giontions; aud if so, on what subject would the«c be more 
sure to manifest themselves than on the nature of God ? 

Many Prott^stants have accused the KumiiQ Church of Jje- 
ing the apostasy ; many memberH of the Roman Church have 
accused Vrotestaiittsm of being the same. In these mutual 
accusations, both jiartics seem to forget, that the ajiostasy 
predicted was to be universal; that as such, it would equally 
beloug to both ; lliat it did not siguiiy' — as Kumanist!! repre- 
sent against Protestants, and ProtestautA against Romanists 
— that it was to consist in a few dead branches which should 
be broken off from the trunk, but that the tree itself should 
become rotten to the core; that the whole temple of God 
•hould be thrown down, so that not one stone should be left 
Htanding upon another; and truly when, to say nothing of the 
fuoliah, even the wise are at such variance with each other, in 
regard to right apprehensions of God, which, as wc have seen, 
are the fomidationa of all true rclipon, why need we wonder 
that all tlie other doctrines which rest upon tlicni sUotdd 
give rise to such wars and rumours of wars, such risings of 
nation agauist uatiou, aud kingdom against kingdom ? 

It has indeed been affirmed of the Trinity, that, " it is 
that mysterj", the kmnvlcdge wlierrof is the only means to 
bare a right apprehension of all other aacretl truths; and 
trithoat it, no one of them can bo undcrsttKid in s due 
manner, nor improved unto a due end. This is that alone 
which will give tnic rest and peace to the soul. . . . All grace 
and truth ar(> built liereou and do centre herein, and thence 
derive their bntt power and efficacy." Owen's IVorka, vol. ivii. 
p. 309. If this he the case, an ignorance of this iundamental 
doctrine must involve in darkness all the other doctrines ; 
nay, all the princlptcx of morality founded upon them. Ac- 
cordingly Dr. Balguy observ'cs, 

" You mean to assert, that the difficulties of religion are 





cuiifiiioil tci tlio doctrinal part only, while tlic precepts i 
delivered vvitli h plaiuiiess aiid |H-n<picuity, fitted to the tun 
nnd level to the capacities of all mnnkind. If this were id- 
mitted, it might Eeem a little iiiifurtutiatc tlint rcvelaSian 
should be plaiu on those subjects only where it is leait 

wanted Nothing is more precnrioiu than the wars in 

which men luiially judge coiiccntiiig the fitness of divinr 
dispcnftfltions; and there cannot he a more remarkable inatan^r 
uf this rash judgment, than an opinion which nrc hear deh- 
vered every day, that religion must of necessity be mmnthmg 
plmn and easy. . . . How aUgfat, how uncertain, how miscd 
with error, ia all that knowledge of which we make our bosst 1 
and how large a portion among the inhabitants of this ^b^_ 
still remain in darkncsH, and in the shadow of death ! . .^| 
' But what,* you will reply, ' is all this to Cluistiaus ? to thuxi 
who see by a clear and strong light the dispensations of GoA 
to mankind 'f We are not ns those who ha^e no hojie; the 
day-spring from on high hath visited us; the Spirit of God 
ahall lead ua into all truth.' To ihis delusive dreatn t^ hmmm 
/oi/y, founded only on mistaken inleryrctalioHs of Senptmr, 
1 auKwer in one word, * Open your Bibles. Take the fir«* 
page that occurs in either Testament, and tell mc withtmt 
disguise, is there nothing in it too hard for your underHtaiid- 
ing? If you find all before you clear and easy, you m»y 
tliank Gml for giving yuu a privilege which he has denied ut 
many thousands of sincere bcUevers/ ... It is supposed, if 
I mistake not, by the prrflons of whom I speak, that the 
doetnuca of Christianity are to be thrown into clasaca — the 
one necessary, the other unncccssarr ; that doctrines of the 
first cians are so plainly taught in Scripture, that no sinone 
Christian can posaibty mistake them ; whereas doctriaes of 
the second class, not being of equal importance, are often 
lelt exposed to doubts and difTtcultin), which, without atten- 
tion and penetration, are not to be rcmored. Now tkU 
distinction, on which so much stress is laid, I moin/atfl to ir 




tJtogHAer ehimericai. . . . Were there any real foundatioa 
for such a (listinction, vc mij^ht loii^ mncc liavc expected to 
Me aa exact catalugue of theitc {ilain tuid necessary tloctriiicii : 
but no such catalogue has vet been produced, or is likely to 
be produced hereafter. . . . fi'/uU doctrinal are of necessity 
to be be/iemi, what tiuty Ik overlooked by xta witfumt harm or 
danger, are queBiiota to which no geTierat answer can possibly 
be given. 1 hare only to repeat, that we ore to do what wo 
can. The more wc study, the better we undrmtaud the 
Scriptures; the more dcUj^ht, the more proHt we shall 
MceiTe fipom tUem, Aft;er all our endeavors, we can but 
hope to attain to a very obscure aud imperfect view of the 
wisdom of God iu the redemption of mankind. So long as 
we continue in this life, divine things arc to he apprehended 
by faith, not by sight ; we only discern them through a glass 
darkly, aud shall not be admitted to a ftdl participation of 
them, till we puss from a state of trial to a ntatc of glory. . . . 
To sum up all iu a few words : it was plainly uot intended by 
the author of our being to give ua clear, orJuU, or certain, 
information on the subject of religion. He baa designedly 
throwu a veil over hi* own works, both of nature and grace. 
Without the help of a]>plication and study, we shall under- 
stand neither the one nor the other; even with those helps 
we shall understand them very imperfectly ; and in vikat tve 
do understand, we shall iwver arrive at certainty ; never, I 
zuean, till we are placed in another aud a higher scene of 
things." DiffimUiea whir.n attend t/ie Study of Religion; Dr. 
T.Baigwy; Diaeourae \\\\. 

Much in the same manner it is obaerred by a modem 
writer, (Oxford Tracta. lutroductiun of Rationalistic Prin- 
ciples, p. 9) : 

"Religious truth is neither light nor darkncs.s, but both 
together. It is like the dim view of a country seen in the 
twilight, with forms half extricated from the darkness with 
broken lines and isolated masses. Rc^'elation, in this way f>f 





considering it, ia not a revealed system ; but oonnsta of » 
number of iletached and incomplete truths belonging to s 
viut sy-itcm unrnvcalcil ; of doctrines and injunctions myste- 
riously conneotisel toj^cthcrj tliat is, connected by unknuwn 
media., and bearing upon unkitomi portions of the syHtcm.*^ 
It should be remembered, that Dr. Balguy considers cvra 
Christian morals to be inrolvefl in the same darkness and 
perplexity ; being connected with principle* of philosopbr, 
the true nature of which he coiisidere to be as obscure as th? 
doctrines of Christianity. ^| 

These observations we do not quote merely as thcne of 
iudividunls ; but because, when the sun hath gone down otct 
the prophets, they must be iutrinsicnlly and nnircrsally tnit-. 
If the doctrine of the Trimty be the foundation of ChriS' 
tiauity, it must, if involved in obscurity, equally iuvotve i>H 
obscurity all the other doctrines which arc founded upon it^ 
Were it independent of the whole system of theology, the 
common observation might be true, that other doctrines were 
plain, while this only was obscure: but it is not independent. 
Dr. Balguy and the Oxford writers, therefore, arc so far ri^bt 
iu regarding all the rest of Christianity as involved in equal 
obscurity; cousequeutly, in regarding all the ordinary expla- 
nations of those doctrines as merely Imman. 

Ttiew c\planationK we proceed, in the ensuing cha; 
to examine ; conuucuclng fmt with the doctriac of 

• Oxford Tfacte. Lcclurra on the Scripture Proof «f tho Doctrjncai 
theChnich: Lecture il. p. 14. 



" Urn tt aCT ■■«!"— Jfuff. uilU. ft. 

In this chapter, wc propOBO to oousidcr the subject of the 
Incarnation in relation to the doctruics uf Putriptuisiuuism 
and Dmpnstiiiiuism. Our observations wc commence hy 
quoting tlm rvmarkH of Itisbop Pearson {Creed, vol. i. Art. 3) : 
** Wc must take lieod," says he, " lest wc conceive, bccauac 
the Dinnc Nature bclongeth to the Father, to which the 
humau in coujuiucd, that therefore the Father should be in- 
carnate, or conceived and born. For as ct^rtainly as the Son 
ms crucified, and the Son aluiic; so certainly the same Son 
was incarnate, and that Sou alone. Altliough the human 
nature was conjoined with the dii-inity, which is the nature 
common to the Father aud tlic Sou ; yet was that union 
made only in the person of the Son. Which doctrine is to 
be observed against the heresy of the I'atripassians, which 
was both very ancient and far diffused ; malting the Father to 
he incarnate, aud, hccominj,' man, to he cruciJied." 
lu hix note upon this paH<iagc, he observes: 
"The heresy of the Patripassinns seems to have reference 
only to the suffering of oiu* Savior, because the word signifies 
no more than the passion of the Father. But it is fuimded 
in ao error conccruing the iDcarnatian ; it being out of ques- 
tion, tliat lie vrhich wa« made man did sufTcr.'* 



CUAt. II. 

TertulUan, cndeavoiing to express the absurdly of the 
Patripassiim doctrine, says : 

" So at^er the begiimiDg of time, the Father was 
and the Father suQerefl, and the I^nl Ood Omjupotent 
declared to bo Jesus Christ \" 

Again, speaking of Praxeas : 

"Tliin man dcclarcii that Ood the Father Almighty 
Jcsiia Christ ; he contends that it was the Father Hi 
thdt was crucified, snfFered, and died ; nav more, with a pro- 
fane and sacrilegious raBliness, it is maintained, that 
Himnclf sat down at his own right hand." 

Dr. Watcrland, in explaining why it was the person of tl« 
Son who became incarnate, and not the pcrwn of the Fatho", 
after speaking of supremacy of office, observes (sec his L^, 
vol. i. p. 9-1) : 

•' This, by mutual agreement and voluntary economy, bft> 
longa to the Father j while the Son, out of voluntaiy cm- 
desceusiou, submits to act ministerially, or in capacity of 
mediator. And the reason why the condescending part 
became God the Son rather than Ood the Father, is, bctauHB 
He ijt a Son ; and because it best suits with the natural 
order of persons, which had been* inverted by a coutnuj 
economy." t 

On the same anthor it is observed by the Bishop cf 
Durham : 

" The distinction between a supremacy of nature or per- 
fections, and a supremacy of order and of office, is ever t^ ' r 
kept ia view. It solves many difficulties in oiur apprchcn'-i ■ 
of this mysterioua and inscrutable subject. It makes the 
language of Scripture, as appUed to the scrcral pcnonc in the 
Godhead, consintcnt and intelligible ; and though it still 
leaves utt uninformed as to that which is nowhere roreftlcd, the 
mode iu which the persouii thus iiubsist under one tiadivided 
substance ; yet it preserves their united, as well as their dis- 

■ Would tu«e been. i Sm Horberrr'k Vorka, Oi.Ed., Ti>l. ii. p.3«0. 

iro- I 


CllAF. 11. 





tiuctivc, properties unimpaired. This vos a poiut wliicli 
BUhop Bull liart pjirticiLtarly labored to cstablUli, aiid had 
ooitfirmctl hy the general concurrence of tlic Nicenc aiid 
Aute-Niceue fathers." 

Id pursuance of this idea of mutual agreement and vohm- 
tary economy, Bisliop Pearson observes (Art. iv. Sujfrrrd) : 
" Tlie promised Sfessias was not ouly engaged to suffer for 
us ; but, by a certain and exftrcM affretrotent betwixt Him and 
tlie Father, the measure and tnunncr of his sufferings were 
determined, in order to the re<lcraptiou itself which was 
tliereby to be wrought ; and what vas so resolved vnu, before 
liiii coniing in the flesh, revealed to thp prophets and written 
by them, in order to the reception of the Mcaaias and the 
acceptation of the benefits to be procured by his sufferings. 
That what the Messina was to undergo for ns, was precJctcr- 
mincd and decreed, appcarcth by the timely acknowledgment 
of the church unto the Father, * Of n trtith, against thy 
Holy Child Jesus, whom thou fiast anoittted, both Herod and 
Pontita Pilate ivith the GentOea in t/te people of hratl, were 
gathered togellier fur to da wkatsoever tliy fumd and thif countel 
deteroiined before to be done.' . . . iVnd well may we say that 
the hand of (}od, as well as his counBcl, determined his 
pa^on; because He was delivered by the determinate 
counsel and foreknowledge of God. And tlm determination 
of Ood's counsel was tints made upon a cownmit or agrve?nent 
between the Father and the Son; in which it was concluded 
by them both, what Ho Bhuuld Ruffcr, what He should 
rccciTo. For beside the co^euaut made by Ood with man, 
confirmed by the blood of Christ, we must consider and 
acknowledge another covenant from eierttiiif made by the 
Father with the Son, tfc. . . . The determination therefore 
of our SaWor'a paasion wad made by covenant of the Father 
who sent, and the Sou who suffered. And as thus the 
sufferings of the Mcaaiaa were Offreed (m by rtauent and 
determined by the coimsel of God j so wore they revealed 




CH.tP. 11^ 

by the Spirit of Ood unto the prophets, and by them 
Uvered unto the church ; they were involved in the ^pn 
and acted in the sacrifir^es/' J 

In his Chriatiati Life, (vol. ii. p. 292,1 8()eakitif; of tl» 
subordioatbD of the pcmuus uf the Trinity^ it is observed , 
by Scott,— 

" In the matter of the Mediator, it is endent that tbiaj 
Bubordinatiou of these sacred persons was founded uot ooifl 
in tlieir personal inequalities, but also in n mutuai agreemad 
between them, in vrhich the Son agreed with the Father, 
that, in case Tic would be ao far reconciled to rrbe1Uou»| 
mankind as to grant them a covenant of merey, aud therein^ 
among other blessings, to promise them his Holy Spirit, Hej 
himself would assume our natures ; and therein not only treat] 
with xi8 personally in order to the reducing us to our bouudea 
allegtiincCj but also die a sacritice for our sins; upon which 
ayrv^netU the Father, long before the Son had actually per- 
formed his part of it, even from our firat apostasy, granted 
his Spirit to mankind ; which Spirit was granted to this cud, 
that, under the Son, He bIiouW mediate with men, inordtfj 
to the reducing thcni to duo Hnhjoction to the Father." 

Dr. Owen obBcncs, vol. v. p. 241 ; 

"The third net in God Detiding his Son, is his pnterin* 
into covenant and o/mpart with his Sou, concerning the work 
to be undertaken, and the issue or event thereof: of which 
there be two parts. First, — his promise to protect and usist 
Him in the accomplishment and perfect fulfilling of the whole 
business aud dispensation about which He was employed, cr 
which He was to undertake. The Father engaged himself^ 
that, for his port, upon his Son's undertaking this great worit 
of redemption. He would uot be wanting in any assistauce 
in trials, strength against oppositions, encouragement ag&init 
temptations, and strong consolation in the midst of terran, 
which might be any way necessary or requisite to carry Hin 
on through all difficulties to the end of so great an cmploiy- 

cmv. II. 




luent. Upnu wliich He uiidort»kcH tliiK lioavy burden sn full 
of misery and trouble : for the Father, before tlu8 eagagemettt, 
requires uo less of Him than that He should become a Savior, 
Kud be afflicted in all the Hfllietiun;! uf his people. . . . Heuce 
arwc that conjidcucc of our Savior in his greatest and utmost 
trials; beiug assured, by virtue of his Father's engagtment 
in thi« covenant, upon a treaty with Him about the redemption 
of man, that He would never leave Him nor forsake Him. . . . 
So that the grouiid of our Satior'n contiiteiicc and aHSurancc 
in this great midcrtakiug, and a titrou}; motive to exercise 
his graces received in the utmost endurings, was this et^age- 
numt of his Father, upon this compact of assistance and 

Flavcl obsen'es, ( Foujtiain of Life, Sermon iii.^; 

" That the business of man'« salvation was transacted upon 
covenant terms between the Father and the Son, from all 
clcniitj*. Now to open this great jwint, we will here con- 
sider, — thcpcreoiwtrauHactiug one with another — the business 
trausacted — the quality and mauuer of the trausaction, which 
'^A federal — the articles to which they agree — how cncli person 
performs his engagement to the other — aud, hiatly, the 
antiquity or eternity of this covenant transaction. 1. Tlie 
persons transacting and dealing with each other in this 
covenant : and indeed they are great [wraons, Clod the Father, 
and (Jod the Son ; the former as a creditor, and the latter as 
a surety. The Father stands upon satisfaction, the Sou 
engager to give it. 2. The business transacted between 
thcm^ and that was the redemptiou and recovery of all God's 
elect. Our eternal happiness lay now before them, our dearest 
and everlasting comwrns were now in iheirhaudH. The elect, 
though uot yet in being, arc here considered as existent ; 
yea, and as fallen, miserable, forlorn, creatures; how these 
may again be restored to happiness, without prejudice to the 
honor, justice, and truth of God ! — ^this, this is the bnainess 
that hiy before them. 3. For the matmer or quality* of tho 
transaction: it was federal or of the uuturu of a covenant; 



cajir II 


it WHS by /auitml engaffementa and 9ti/nUaiioru, each penoa 
undertaking to perform his pnrt in wder to our recovery. 4 
More particularly wc Mrill next consider the ariiclea to which 
they do both offret, or what it is that each pcmon doth for 
himself promise to the other : ami to Irt us sec how much 
the Father's heart is cnfj^aged iu the salvation of poor aiunenL" 
The author then proceeds to poiut out the pronuaes of the 
J'ath<'r to Cliriat ; to shew liow the articles aud agreemetitj 
were ou both parts performed, and that precisely aud punc- 
tually : and how the compact between the Father and the 
Sou bore its date from eternity. 

The whole mystery of this eternal covenant, oompaet, 
or, as Flnvel calls it, spiritual bargain, between the three 
persons of the IVinity, may be found syatenuUicaUjr isxplained 
in the work of Witsiua on the CovenaDts. fl 

Tlic ease then stands thus. The persons of the Trinity 
being distiuct, and having a siibordiuation of diittinct and 
separate offices, eovenani and agree one with another, f5rom 
all eternity ; the Father to send, and, on certun contUtions^ 
to be satisfied; the Son to be incarnate, and to make the 
salLstuction ; the Holy S|Hrit, to assist or co-operate n-ith the 
Sou in fulhUiug the couditiouB. AH this is so Car cleafj 
consistent, and intelligible. 

Let us now consider the other side of the question. 

Mosheim afimus (vol. v. p. 3;il), that the wisest and 
learned divines of the reformed ehnrch, observed : 

" That the metaphor of a covenant appUc*! to the Chris- 
tian religion, must he attended with many inconveniences ; by 
IcatUug uninstructed minds to fonn a variety of ill-grounded 
notions, which is the ordinary consequence of straining me> 
taphors; and that it most eonthbut« to iutrofluce into tfao ^ 
colleger of divinity, the ca[)tioua terms, — distuictious aud ^ 
(juibblcs, that arc employed in the ordinary coiuts of justice; 
mid thus give rise to the moat trifling and ill-jndged diMua- 
fious and debates about rcligioiu matters." 

Ou which his auuotatur thus remarks : 

cle ar. 




** The rcpresentRtion of the gospel dispensation undei- the 
idea of a covenant;, whether thia representation be literal or 
metaphorical, ia to be found ahnost creiTwlien; in the Epis- 
tles of St. Paul and of the other fi[iostlcs ; though rarely, 
Bearcely more than twice, in the gospcla. Tlic same phrase- 
ology has aUo been adopted by Christians of ahuost all 
denominations. It is indeed, a manner of speaking; that hna 
been grossly abused by tbosu diviueK, wlio, ur|;ing the meta- 
phor too closelyj exhn)it the sublime trauaactioim of the 
Divine vriHclom under the narrow and imperfect forms of 
human tribunals ; and thus lead to false notions of the springs 
of action, as well as of the dispensations and attributes, of 
the Supreme Being. We have remarkable instances of this 
abuse in a book lately translated into Englinh ; I mean the 
■ Economy of the Covenants, by Witaiua: in which that 
learned and pious man, who has dcscnedly gained an emi- 
nent reputation by other valuable productiuiiK, bas incnnside* 
nt«ly introduced the captious, formal, and trivial tertus 
employed in human courts, into his description of the stu- 
pendous scheme of redemption." 

The ijueation \i> then wliat i^ the acnsc in which wc arc to 
understand the term covenant. 

" Ou this important term Sia^»v," says Bloomheld, (in 
his Recenaio S^j/noptica, vol. rii. Gal. iii. 15), " it is rightly 
obsened by Burger, that tlic Dinuc SioSnxn can liave no simi- 
litude to a himtan testament." Borger Bays, ** We ought to 
take groat care, lust we be tuo soheitous to transfer to the 
Divine ^loSilwo all that helongn to a humati one, and again to 
m^oin what is proper to the former to a human institution. 
I am of opinion, therefore, that in our present passage this 
word retains it<i usual ittgnification of covenarU, or compact ; 
but in verse 17, where tlie Divine &»5a*>t is spoken of, wc 
must attribute to the term the force of a promi-ic dirinely 
made. Nor must wc think that, by this iutcqirctatiun, the 
agreement between a divine and a human SioSqan is thus 
taken away, or dimiiiishcd ; and thai St. Paul is only playing 




CBAr. II. 

with irords. For in hitmai), cqiudly as in diriiio, compaeU, 
they who rutify Uium do iiothiug more Ihau yromite some- 
(liiiig to one another (whether it be two or more), wlurh 
promise is perhaps attended witli some ccremonia], wfaieb 
Kcrves aa the external hasis of the agreement. Tbe two 
therefore agree in tliia ; that each iiaBiit-yi ia comprised in the 
pniinioc made ; with this difference only, tliat in a huntau 
one, several miitiiaUy promise each other ; while, in DiTine 
tlxiiigs, Goii is one onl^ testament or covenant maker." 

However reasonable this ricw of the subject may appear 
to some, yet, if applit^d to the TripcrBonntity, it appears to fnl] 
into the following errors. First, it makes no mention of the 
distinct hypattiuioft ; having reference not to the persons, hot 
to the nature. Sceoudly, a covenant cannot, in the literal 
or ordinary sense, be made by one, without implyiug the 
idea of another with whom it is made. So that, thirdly, 
the term thus interpreted as involving tbe idea of only one, 
and hence confounding the persons, is no other than Sabel- 

Here, then, we are led back to Ihc field we have already 
traversed ; wc have to rcdiscusa the same questions of the 
TViperaonalitj', Tritheism, and Sabcllianism, and have to 
come to the same end. For the true doctiine of the Incar- 
nation depends upcm the tnio doctrine of the Trinity in 
Unity. If tlic hypuHtn^CH are dcitcrihcd lu distinct and sepa- 
rate, there is the danger of Tritheism ; if they are described 
na united, there is in proportion the danger of Sabeilionism 
and Patripasaianism. For instance, a modem writer, who 
though maintaining nevertheless the Tripersoualttr, evidently 
had the idea of Unity most prominent in lus mind, obscrm 
(Harrvt on the Great Teacher, p. 74; ■ 

"Had the ^Vlniif^hty Father veiled His gloricii, and dwelt 
among us, the history which now beloiigs to Christ would 
have related, word for word, his own condescending grnee ; w 
that, in every word and act of Jesns, wc arc to roct^uizc, lu 
effect, the voice and movemeutit of Paternal Love." 








And again, p. (V4> : 

" How doca it enhance our conceptions oT the Dtrtnc 
compasstou wheu wc reflect, that there in a Bcoae in which 
the iiufferhiffs of Ckrht were the friffprinffs of the Faihrr also. 
From eternity their Diiine subsistence in the unity of the 
OotUiead had hecti onJy sliurt of identity ; nor coiUd tlie cir- 
cumstance of the Sa^-ior's humiliation, in the !ilight<*st degree 
relax the bonds of this mutual in-being: while walking the 
earth in the form of a servant. He could still affirm, Mtj 
Father u tn Me, and I in Him ; I and My Failter are one." 

Now Dr. Waterlaiid says (vol. iv. p. 345), " Nothing is pro- 
perly colled a being but b Beporatc being The being 

of the Son is an improper exprtiinon ; ifecause it supposes the 
Son to be a bving properly to called, that is, a separate being, 
which He is not." Uudoiilitctlly God in but one being, and 
to speak of Uie being of the Father, the being of the Son, 
and the being of the Holy Ghost, is to make three beings 
instead of one. In this case, the federal transactions nmung 
them are clearly understood ; there is no dllliculty whaterer 
upon the subject. Wc can also understand, upon this prin- 
ciple, how one of those beings became iuoLniate, and how 
lie intercedes with another ; thus, how each hait a separate 
and distinct office ; each may be separately and distinctly 
an object of worship; Ui each wparalt'ly and distinctly we 
may address our prayers ! Yet not one of them is of him- 
self a hcing properly so called ; this seems a diffieuity ! But 
we have before shewn, how with some writers it is no diffi- 
culty ; nay, how it is no difficulty- with members of the church 
in general, who would, u[mn their priuciples, see hut little 
impropriety in the use of the expression, — the being of the Sou. 

Here we leave to its own diilicutty, or its own facility, of 
being comprehended, the notion concerning the coveiuuit 
from cttmiity between the three persons of the Trinity ; and 
proceed to observe, that the doctrine of Sabellius on the sub- 
ject of the lucamation is generally opposed upon two grounds. 
First, that it confounds the oflicoit uf the Father and Son. 





iT . I . ■ t ■■ ■ ^ 


Secondly, that it tenches what Ib commonly called Pat 

These two objections are cquallv adduceil agnitist tliedo^' 
trine of Sw'cdeubor^. Heucc the views of Praxeax, No^ui, 
SabcUiiiH, and those of iSiredcnhorg, nrc often declarml to be 
identical. In a work, for iostance, entitled, on libalraSm 
qf the Method of explain'my the New Testament, by the earfy 
o/Huions of Jews and Chriatiatut concerning Christ, by W. 
■\Vjli4on, B. D. Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, m^ 
find the following remark, p. 438 : 

" The modcniH, wliu have departed a little from tha 
Mcomits of the ancient writcra in their description of 
Mouarchiam, (or SabcUinniam,) seem to have bail no other 
leasou for the deviation, bat a persuasion that some artickt 
of their crccdj particularly that of the pasaiMlittf ^f God tfu 
Father, were too cxtniva^i:atit to ha^'e been real ; when-u 
their Icadiug teaets are at this time profewicd by the Sweden, 
borgian Chri»tians: who, if they still profcu all the teMti 
of their fuunder, arc Patripassians in the strictest seiute." M 

In the account of the Life and Writinga of TertuUJan by ^ 
the late Bishop of Bristol, tliis obserratiou of Mr. Wilson 
is alluded to by the learned prelate, and apparently in the 
way of confirmation. It will be seen tlmt, had the forc^iing 
authors fiXiX. hccn duly iuformod upon the subject, inatead of 
making these statements, they would have written as foUom. 
' Swedenborgian Christians arc strongly opposed to the dois 
trine of Fatri passion ism ; and so far are they from entertain- 
ing the doctrine of the pasaibihty of God in any sense, that 
they rather lay it at our own door, as one of the gmteit 
corruptions pervading the church ; and candor require* w 
to coniess, tliat the ancient fathers and modem writers haw 
atlbrded them but too just a ground fur the chai^.' This, 
it will be seen, is what the foregoing writers would hare nid, 
had they further considered the subject. 

Wc Ikst proceed to remark upon the error of coofbt 
the offices of the Father and Son. II. 



Without reference to the views of SabelUns, it may he 
well to cxantinc the groiinci upon which they nre opposed ; 
for granting that Sahrlliu.4 is wrong, it doeti not follow that his 
opponents are right. In doing this, it is not our intention 
at present to cuter into any mere d^ictrinal contro\crsy ; hut 
to lay open the principles npon which the generally received 
doctrines are founded. 

It is affirmcil against those who maintain the contrarr, 
that the Father could not become iucaruate, hecause the 
end of the incarnation was to make satisfaction to the 
Father ; and if the Father became incarnate, this wonld he 
to make satisfaction to himself, which is absurd. Thus 
Dr. Waterland otwen'es, (vol. v. p. *W) : " If the Father and 
the Logos be one person, then the snfTcringii of the Logos 
will be the sufferings of the Father, which is the ancient 
heresy of the Patripatisians ; and the natne person both pays 
and accepts the ransom; makca an atonement to HiniHelf; 
which is not conitonnnt to Scripture, nor to common sense." 
Sec also vol. iii. p. 63.* 

Now what, we would ask, is the meaning of the word 
ransom? Hmimm is a price paid for rciiemptinn from capti- 
vity or puniahmont. It is also called by some writers, as 
applied to the atouemcut, a valuable consideration, that is, 
in a pccnniary sense ; also the discharge of a debt, which is 

* Dr. WatPrlaoil eayd, tbal for itie Son lo make satis fact ion id himiclf^ 
i« Kot mMUOnanf to atmman ittiuf. It is, lionrTi-r, attrniltud tlmt Ihc 8uo ti 
God ; hence «ri»ci the cdocIumod, thai if ihr Son niBdo MtbfacUon to Ood, 
He mual have made aalUfactiun tu liicaself. This U admitted by tomi^, who, 
wiib Dr. WaiiTlatiti, uiuitiliun iliv Trltivrxiaul >cb«inv. Hence BiiUr«, in 
his Work on the llArinony oT llir Divine AUribulcs in coulriving Mnn*9 
Rvdemplion, abarrves, cliap. xiii: " It is nvt infonattfit vith r«ii«in, Ibat 
the Son of God clothed with our nattira, shonid, bf hts <Ir«ih, make nti*< 
fiwtlDO to the Deity, and tlivrcforr lo JlimM^." Socli a view of Ballsracllon, 
however, Abvioualj dinpf^naca with Ili« neceasilj of the Trlperaooal achenw ; 
and oppiwr*, in ■ lueMuir, the doctrine of llie Atonetnent to th« dncttinc of 
lbeTnp«TSonalil)r, Dr. WHterlud Kema (o hsv« been swan of Ihis} snd 
heon hk rancrk. 



cK&r. n. 

[mid not by money, but by bloutl. Id all tlus, what is then 
which the lowest nntural mind m&j not conceive, and m 
remain iiatura] still ? Undoubtedly, many of these vordi 
mity l>c accomnnxlatioDs, by the Diricc Mind, to thctiatunl 
man ; hut if tlicy are reccivud only in their natural or litenl 
sense, is there anything, so far, to exalt the mind abcn'eitsfl 
merely natuml stiite, more than is to be found in thr heathen 
writings concerning the transactiuns between the gods? V 
the fact be no other than is described in the letter, there ii 
no accommadntiun of the letter to the miud of man. Hib 
mind reccivea it as it is wUhovt accommodHtion. On Uw 
otlicr Imnd, if the h*tter lie reiilly at'coniniotlatcd to the miwi, 
the fact must not be understood in the nntiual seuse of tbafl 
letter ; B spiritual intcrpnrtation must be given to the fact, u 
u spiritual interpretation is given to the letter: the fact can- 
not he the same as the letter dcscrihes it ; it must be spiritM^^ 
if the letter be intended to convey what is spiritua]. ^^^| 

It will be replied, that the distinct offices of I-^ther and 
Son, as literally understood, teach us the extreme Iotc of the 
Father for us, in willing to be satisfied, and in pronding for 
us a satisfaction ; and the extreme love of the Son, in beinj 
wiUing, for our sakcs, to become the satisfaction. True ; ho» 
where the essential attribute of kn'c is thus divided between 
two, muKt it not become merely natural ? must not the coo- 
tcmjilation of such a love excite in u» ouly the feelings of 
the nntiu*a1 mind? Tf the mind be sunk »o low, that onlv^ 
langua{^> of hucIi a kind Cfui reach it, duuhclesK it is an ad oT^ 
mercy of Divine Providence to employ such a method to 
accommodate Himself to it. Nevertheless, in forming oor 
ideas of this circunijftance, there will always be this danger; 
that where low ideas of God have become universal, and a 
low kind of phraseology is introduced to suit it, then, inas- 
much as what has olwoys been in the chnrch, and is niii- 
versaUy received, is considered to be true, the very cnstom 
of using such a language, without exptanatiottt may only 



to confirm the mind in its natural state, instead of raising 
the mind out of it; thus the adnptation of the lanfruoge will be 
I forgottcoj and the language itself be regarded m conveying 
the reai truth — the w/trjf-e truth. Rcasmiuig, we any, morcly 
from the effects of Imhit and cuNttim, this must he the result; 
and hence the meam irhich were dcngned to eletmte us out of 
our ruiiural state are employed only to confirm vt in it, with 

I the less prospect of escape. 
Heaide«, in the foregoing Btatcment, the distinction of 
offices is not said to ariae> as it ought, out of distinctions in 
the Deity, hut out of distinctions between natural ideas 
I Cramed by the natural man. Tliclr origin is thus natural, 
not iiptrituaJ. For it is said the Father cannot make satis- 
fiictioD to Himself; the debtor and rro<litor cannot he the 

I same person. The fundameDtol distinction therefore is here 
in the merely natural idea; and theologians argue from thin 
to the Deity, instead of from the Deity to it. They design to 
establish the same distinctions in God, which exist in tho 
miod of tho natural man ; thus the very ofliees of the Deity 
ore made merely natural : and spiritual ideas are made sub- 
ordinate to the aaturiil, instead of the uutural to the spiritual. 
The whole process of reasoning is thus inverted. Not that 
M there is no distinction in the Deity corresponding to the one 
ixDplied,- far from it; tre only say the distinction alluded to is 
merely natural, and, as such, consequently untrue. 

The same obscnation is ajiplicahle to the terms recon- 
ciUation, expiation, satisfaction, pacification, and propitiation; 
not but that all these terms arc right when rightly under- 
stood ; that is to say, when the natural idea is made sub- 
ordinate to tlic spiritual, not the spiritual to the natural. 

It is a general law too, that llie higher our minds are 

> raised, the more universal and comprehensive do our ideas be- 
come; the more therefore do they tend toward n state of unity, 
»nd conse(|uently to a more perfect idea of unity. On the 
contrary, the lower we descend, the less consouimt to our 





CHAr. II. 

mindH 18 a state of nnity, and licnoo the idea of mutr; uhI 
tliu luurc do we di^liglxt in reparation, dinsion, and multipli- 
city. Cotuequentty, the mure any theology is foiuded oa 
thu idea of uuity, the more must it be rcpuguant to the U' 
tural man ; aud the more it is founded on the idea of diri- 
siou and multiplicity, the more highly agreeable to him viil 
it be ; the more will it fall witUiu his comprehensioii, becaoK 
the more will it partake of his nature : for this ca».4c aha, 
his reason, whiuli follows the inclinatiou of his nature will 
he the more ready to defend it ; to explain it, where explioi- 
hie, upon merely natural pnnciplca ; and to veil it in wj^ 
tery where it cnuuot be thus explained. X'or reason can ticit 
only of the relations of the ideas irhich it possesses ; and a 
proportion as tltese are derived only from apace and time, ii 
the same proportion must reason itself be merely uaturaiaiul 
cariml ; and the natural maf<ou of man is often m^ost amte^ 
subtle, and ready, upon the same principle that the sciUBi 
of animals are often more acute than those of men. Mor^ 
over^ where a religion, like the Christian, accommodstcs 
itself to the mind of the natural man, by the use of nattird 
ideas and images, naturtd reason ascending nu higher, will tet 
in them only its owu ideas, and thus etdist the letter of Ser^ 
turc in its own cause, lu this case, the admissioa that the 
language uf the Word of God is arconwtadattd to the hnmiB 
mind is only speculative ; the fact being regarded as othcnriar. 
For when it is said, that the langiiugc of Scripture is aecom- 
modated to the natural miudj sueli an admission implies thsi 
there is a condescension, — a stooping^-of divine truth to tbe 
apprcbcnsiuii of man ; that this divine tnitli is itself higher 
in its origin than human thought, and descends only in ordci 
to make iis ascend. But, in this cose, the natural man acts the 
part of a sinking mariner, who, instead of allowing liiniself 
to be raiMul fn>m the deep by the rope that is flung to faioi, 
seeks only to draw down to the same depth as his own, fantk 
the rope and the person who wished to be the means of bis 




safety. TI1U8 the more natunU the mind is, the more incom- 
prehensible miiBt any thiug appear to it that is above iu own 
level ; the more does it seek to bring every thing down to 
itself; and as all its reasons iu such a state are mere fallacies, 
which are nevortheless regarded as truths, whatsoever opposes 
those fallacies it must regard its untruths. When to this 
wc add the feelings of the uatura] man, wluc}i, instead of 
having been changed, have only been enlisted in a cause 
agreeable to their nature, we may find a ready solution of all 
thow; diasensioun which have destroyed the pctus'. of the 
church, and divided the mother againrt the cliildren, and the 
children against the mother. 

Notwithstanding, however, these divisions and separations, 
by the natiuml ninn, of the properties, nttribntcn, and offices 
of the Deityj it la quite eonaistent in liiin to maintain the 
doctrine of a divine unity. His idea of unity, however, will 
not at all affect his original conception of the quality or na- 
ture of the Divine attributes, being only the result of abstrac- 
tions, by bin natural reason, from these attributes ; not of 
the contemplation of a highest, inmost, eentnd, acting cause 
and power. It is m if, in arriving at the first principle of 
the visible utiiverse, a person should contemplate all the 
planets a» a one, by conaidcring what la common to all ; 
without having the slightest idea of a sun, and hence of 
«ular heat and light. Mlicreas if our ideas of the sim be the 
same with those we form of a planetary hotly, we may indeed 
nluttract firom our ideas of planetary bodica so as to form a 
one : but, as we began so we shall end, in mere abstraction j 
nor ever arrive at the idea of a solar principle as a first-acting 
created cause. 

To illustrate this remark ; if we contemplate the Deity as 

i/tts Sun of HighteouRncsR, and the Spirit proceeding from 

mm m heat and light, the rays of which come forth and 

variously descend into all minds according to their nature 

and state; in this case, there will lie tlic highest rays or 





cnir. i^^J 
Lcgrec, ft^H 


truths for the third heaven ; the some, in a lower degree, 
the lower hcftvcns ; and the same, iii a yet lower degree, 
nan. Thus will thnrc he angelic truths for angels ; and tbe 
same brought down in a lower dcfptic for the natnml mind ; 
the lower thus procrffiinj; from the higher, and hence alwa« 
in corrcKpoudeiiei! with (hem ; a correspondence by means rtf 
which man is cnnblcd to j)n»» from the InweT to tlie higher. 
Ilut the merely uiituml umii m ill not be able to ascend hif;h< 
He will see and know of nothing ont of hw own s|4icre 
aljovc ]iis own level ; and thus, when the Dixiue vork 
redemption, in accominodHtion to his cntural state, n td 
forth to liim tiiiilcrthe ideas of dvhtoraiiil creditor, WTHtii and 
pacification, hu will l>e unable to comprvhcud it in a holier 
sense. He will rcf^artl the woi'd-H us conveying only a litenl 
truth, the same to the augelie mind aa to his ovn ; am) m 
incapable of being apprehended in a higher decree aa the 
niere nrithmelietil fmi, that two aiifl two make four; which, 
in a merely nmiterical xense, is the same truth tu spirits a ndtfl 

Thus it does not follow, that because Sabe' 
nntruc, Naturahsni is true. Tliere is, however, another 
in which the Incarnation has hccii eotitemplatcd, uamci 
in relation not to periieinii but to principles. 

Thus, it is snid, the Father was not incarnate, 
the Father is the principle wliich is the fountain of tlie Dd 
or goodncM and love; that, hence, tlic Father cannot 
Bcnt, inasmuch as this would imply a prior priucipic fi 
which He descended, whereas He is himself the first prinopll 
of Deity; coTiscqucntly, tliat it is the Word which waa ieal, 
and hccamc incarnate. With this view of the subject, the doo- 
triue of Swedcnborg coincides; for ccrt^nly it was not the 
ifinit principle, by itself, that was made flesh, but the Won!. 
This mode of contcmphitiiig the incarnation, however, doc» 
not invidve the doctrine of the Tripcrsonality ; and if 
Sabelltns, Noctufi, or Praxcas, coufoondcd these diatinctiouiv 


it is certain llmt Swetlcnborg does not, — nay, to do so, we 
should rejrard as a fundamental error. But the doctrine of 
the TrinitT must uot he identified with that of the Tripcr* 
wmolity J they nre very different things. 

Thus much with rrpLnl to the SabcUian confnsion of tlie 
offices of Father itiid Son. 

"We now proceed to the second considemtiou ; namely, 
that the doctrine of Sabellius, as also of Swcdenborg, teaehcit 
Patripassiauisin ; consequently, the iiaaaibility of the Divine 
Nature. Without riudicating the doctrijic of Sahdhns, it 
may be olwen'ed, that this has been denied by Epiphanius 
and others ;* who, ncA-crthchyiSj were opponent<i of that doc- 
trine. One reason for which they have so denied it, may 
have been thi.t, — that if, according to the coimnonly received 
doctrine, it may he waid, that thd second pcfHon of the 
Trinity may Buffer, and yet not his Divine Nature ; by parity 
of reason it follows, that, if the first person suffered, it does 
not necessarily imply that the Dtiinc Nature suffered. Again : 
if from the ajuumption that the Father boeamc iucnmatc, it 
neccsaarily follows that the Dirine Nature suffered; by parity 
of reason it follows, that, if the Sou became incarnate, it 
was hiH Divine Nature that Huffercd. If, however, it he 
Sabclliantflin, to hohl that tlic Divine Nature auffcred, we 
shall sec that tlic commonly receivwl doctrine borders so 
nearly upon it, that the ordinary Christian miwt be unable to 
perceive the tlifference. Indeed, the real heresy which has 
been profcsseilly rejected hy the cluirch, has not been that 
of the paasihiliti,- of Ood, hut the paMibihty of God in one 
person inntcad of the other. Before, however, wc enter upon 
this subject, it may be well to ask fir»t, where the great evil 
it in supposing the Dirine Nature to hare suffered ; may wc 
not presume that it shcwti the great lore of God for tut, in 

* Sec Lardarr, vul. ii, p. 6ti2. Abo, Ncniniiit'ii IliAlnr; of llie Ariana, 
in which, tlir in(l4>llnilo mannor [d wbkb lh>c term SabcllwaJJtiii bu been 
■Bcd, it Innlecl of inore nt l&rgc, 




iganl !• 
nam} i^M 

enduring so much upon the ctqss for our sakes ? The 
tiou to this (Uictniu'-, \» the aainc as in a former ioatancei it' 
UcH in iniputiug to the Creator creaturcly attributes. For i^ 
Oud suffered, then, siuce God is love, tho iiifinuitv « 
rcudercd Him capable of sniFerin^, must belong to the 
that loves; so that llic love oiUBt partake uf the^ aaincittfiv*' 
mity as the nature, i,e. it muit be crcaturely. Howenr 
pathetic, however afFectiug, therefore, may be any dwoifw 
tions of God's love, which might lead lu into the idem of tine 
Divine Nature sufleriug, they must be untrue ; and b> neb 
vc ought to guard against them. The evil of tlicm txmnti 
in degmdiug the divine attributcn to the level of the motif 
natural mind : to Kueh a mind, hoTre^'cr, nothing; vill Ik 
muru acce|itable, nothing more pliun ! Thus, in regard u 
the doctiue of the Trinity, it will run into Trithcinn 
regard to thnt of the Incarnation, it vill nin into 
uuimin : tbu c-vil in both cases consisting entirely in a men 
system of naturalism. 

If now Tritheism mid Naturalism be bo intinmtclr eoo- 
nectcd, it follows, that the doctrine of the Divine Unity is 
most particularly oppuBcd to naturalism; and that he hss 
the greatest tendency to become spiritual, who maintaiu 
the Divine Unity. So far, therefore, aa the Christiui dwdb 
upon the real unity of the Trinity, he hiw, in this respect ii 
least, a motive to a higher degree of npirituality, than he 
would otherwise have ; and if Sabelliua, or Praxeas, theory 
ticnlly muintaincd the doctrine of the suffering of the Dirint 
Nature, yet so far a» either of them was faithful to iht 
doctrine of the Dirine I'^nity, he must lia\*e poa!ie»ed whst 
was capable of pro^ ing an antidote to the error. 

Here we cannot but ohflcn-c, how mistaken is tho phn 
of cun»idering the hcreaies of nhl, either in relation to lbs 
pergom who held them instead of in relation to XUc j/rimiple 
from wliich all have their riHe, mere naturalism we mean ; or 
else, in relation to the particular thing asserted in oppomSiB^ 


to the; church, rather than to the scueual and carnal principle 
which is opposod to the Divine Xaturc. TIio great evil of all 
heresy ia their principle nf naturalism ; this ia the proper 
ground on which they merit our anatlicma. But this natu- 
raliBm may he conjoined to forma of true doctrine, cqnjJly 
as to false : fur while the doctrine we hold may be true in 
words, we may naturjjize it in thought. We have before 
ob«r\'Rd, how (lod has accommodated tlie mystery of re- 
demption to the natural mindj and expressed it by mere 
natural aimilitudp-i. Suroly, it may be said, wc may receive 
his words ; for these alone must convey the true orthmlox 
doctrine. Undoubtedly ! accordinR an they are understood 
as convc}'in{; only a Htenil, or vIrc an iw^eummodated sense. If 
received in the mere literal seuse, they are so fur a mere 
system of natiunlism; yet the words remain scriptural and 
orthodox : so that mere naturalism and exteninl orthodoxy 
may bo combined aa certainly, as that we may receive, in a 
natural rhiisr only, spiritual tnitlis conveyed by uatund 
ideas. The great principle of all heresy mar, therefore, be 
in conjimction with a perfectly orthodox form of doctrine. 

7^his is very clearly admitted by a writer of the Oxftvd 
Tracts, who observes : 

"The Arian creeds were often quite unexceptionahle. ; differ- 
in!* from the orthodox only in this, that they omitted the 
celebrated -viorA homoautiion." &c. And again; "Whcu the 
catholics at Arimiiiiuiii were reduced into a subscription of 
one of these creeds, thou;;h unobjectionable in its tDordiny, 
thrir opponents instantly triumphed and circulated the news, 
that the cathohc world had come over to their opinion. It 
may be added, that, in conseqnencc, ever since that era, 
phrases have been banished from the language of thouli^v, 
which heretofore had been ititiocently used by orthodox 
_ tcaclicrs." Tracta; C&Htroeermj with the Romanintn. No. 1. 
I We have already seen how, upon this principle, the 

I Athanasian Creed, and language the most rigidly orthodox, 





cBjkr. II 

is no safeguard agiurut TntKcism ; tliat Trithcista mny hoU 
that language^ as Arians held the orthodox. The ortbodosjr 
therefore, of the form of words held by a cliurch, doc« not 
determine its cnthoticity, or npostolicity ; lun* onuld jo^ 
<^urch be proved to be cothuUc or apostolical, by tracing it* 
creed to the ftpoatlcs. For, as an individual is not neceaauil; 
of an apostolical character, beciiiuic hn receives tlic Apostles' 
Creed; so neither is any nnmbcr of individuals, or the chuicb. 
A mere system of naturalism may be latent under alL 

If now a principle of naturalism be the fruitiiil source td 
nil heresy; if, nevcrthelcsB, it may be cunjoined with a per- 
fectly orthodox form of doctrine ; and if it be true, that thu 
naturalism has cxiiitcd in the church ; then lias the chnrdi 
itself been so lar the mother of heresy, even thougli we ad* 
mitted she held perfectly orthodox doctrine. That this priiH 
ciplu of naturalism has existed in the church ; that it his 
been so closely combined nith doctrine received as orthodox, 
that many have not been able to separate the twoj that 
consequently intxorpretations of doctrine have been ptit faith 
by the church, which have encouraged the propeuaities ami 
views of the merely natural man ; we may the more easily 
see, trheu wo consider that tiie merely natural mind is under 
the necessity of iraputiDg to the Dinne Bein^ merely natanl 
properties ; and that, laboring as it does under this wtioo^ 
this overwhelming necessity, DcipaKsiauism has, in all ige^ 
been taught in the church as true doctrine. 

Dr. Burton, in his TeMtimoniea af the AnteSicene Fkdkerti 
to the Divinity of Christ, quotes the following passage 
Clemens Romanus : " Yc have all been humble-minded, arriK 
gant in nothing, subjected rather than subjecting, giving 
xathcr than rcccinng, being satisfied with the suppUcs seat 
from 6W.- and, jiaying careful attention to bis words, n 
have fixed them deeply in your minds, and Hi* t^fferhys were 
l)efore your eyes." 

Ou this passage, Dr. Burton observes : " The 



whoso words nnd mffaiitg* had made such an imprcsfrion 
upon thciii, iH Naid to 1>n dad: and it is cciiinlly evident, that 
the sufleriu^ were those of Jesus Christ, who tras therefore 
considered by Clemens to be God," p. 6. 

Now ClumetLs lived in the year of our l<ord DO, which in tlio 
date of the epistle. Let us obscr^'c the progress of these views, 

Justin says, that "prayers and thankagi^igs, made by 
those who are worthy, arc the only sacrifices that are perfect 
and well pleasing to Ood; for thane are the oidy ones wliich 
Cliristiaus have been taught to perform^ even in that remem- 
brance (or memorial) of their food, both dry and liquid, 
wbcrt^iii also is ciiinmcmoratcd the piuisiuii wliieh Corf of Cod 
tnfftnred in his own person (or for them). Vol. vii. p. 61, 

Tatian, speaking of the lioly Spirit, calls him, as llishop 
Kayc remarks, " The minister nnto tlie God who tuffered." 
L^e awl H'ritings of Justin Mariifr, p. 175. 

Dionysiu.-* obscr\'cs, in his Epistle to Paul of Samosata 
('/Jr. Bitrton'a TentiiiUimft of tlte Ante-Nicew Fathers to the 
Divinitif of Christ, p. 401): "He that was begotteu yf God 
before the worlds, the same, in the latter days, was bom of 
his mother; for this reason the Jews were murderers of God, 
because they crucified tlic Lonl of Glory," &c. 

Tertullian says : " There arc otiier tiling which the world 
tbiuk equally fuoUsh, which relate to the iudigoities and 
sufferings of God. Or, perhaps, it might srem wisdom to the 
world that GoU tihould be crucified ! Deny this, Marcion, 
even rather than the other. For iThioh is more unworthy 
of God? which would He be more ashamed of — to be horn, 
or to <fie ? to bear our flesh, or the cross 7 But answer me 
this ; was not God really midjied ? ^Vaa he not really dead 
as he was really crucified? Our faith therefore ia vmn, and 
idl that we ho[>e in Christ is a phantom. Thou most wicked 
oi men who funuBhcst excuses to the marderers of God." 

ibid, p. aoo. 



ciur. It. 


Again : " If God, and indeed the higher God, lovend 
the eminence of his maj<»tty by huoIi humility, tliat He sub- 
mitted to death, even the death of the cross ; why caimot jim 
tliink, that some degradations were compatible also with our 
Gml, which were even mare tolerable tlian Jewish repmoebn 
and cn>i»es and Hcpulchrea V Ibiti, p. 221. 

Again: " God. was found in a degraded state, that buu 
might be la the most exalted state. If you diitdaiii such a 
God as this, I donbt whether yon really believe that God vat 
cruc^ed," IhUt, p. 223. 

" Tertullian," t».y% Dr. Bnrton, "speaks of God bnag 
bom and tmcijted, in t)ie same manner that wc should speak 
of Jesus or Clirist Ixriug burn and crucified. It ia pkiii, 
also, that ho meant the one only God, uncreated an dm^. 
changeable." /*«/, p. 206. 

Hippolytus say* (a-d. 220): "The virgin, wbcQ 
brought forth a body, brought forth also tJie Word ; 
therefore is mother of God : the Jews also, when they cmn- 
ficd a body, erttcified God the Word : nor does any diatinotwi 
between the Word and the human body occur in tJic Scrip- 
tores; but lie is one nature, one person^ one hi'postascs, ow 
operation ; the Word who was God ; the Word who waa mag, 
a» in truth Ho wrs." Ibid, p. 277. 

Origcn says (a.o. 240): "The wicked watclicth tfc> 
righteons and sceketh to slay him. Which n-ithout dotAt 
they did agsinst the Sa\-ior who killed the prophett^ and 
crutijied God, and persecute uii even now, and the people of 
God who is Christ. Ibid, p. 312. 

Lactantius, (A.n. 310,) speaking of the eircnnutaooea of 
Christ'B life and sufferings, as predicted by the p«t)^cti; 
observes : " And when I shall bare proved all these thinp 
by the writings of those very pemons who kilUd Ihcir God 
when in a mortal Ijody ; wlwt will prevent the conclusion, 
that true wisdom ia to be found in this religion only f 
Ibid. p. 458. 




i^;am : " What shall we eay of the iiitll{;iiity of this cri)iw, 
on whicli God wot gnfrpaided and fattened by the worahipen 
of Ood?" /Md^p. 462. 

Agaiu : " But, that it sbuultl cume to piiss, tlmt the Jews 
would hiij fiandg vpvn their God, and put him to death, tbe 
following tcslimonic's of the prophets liiivc siiewii," 

Again: "The foUowiug i« the reason why the Suprrmo 
Father chose particnlarly that kiud of dcnth with whicli be 
permitted Him (Christ] to bt; visited. For perhapa n person 
may say, if He (Ctirist) wan God, tiiid wished to die j why 
did He not suffer some honorahle kind of death T'* lie then 
gives some reasons why the death of the croHs was cho^eii ; 
and ftddiR, "thia also was n priucipal cause why God jtre- 
ferrttd the erom ; biTniiso by that He would Iw pxtdted, and 
the mifferitiys vf God would bo made kiiowu to all iiatiuns." 
Ibid, p. 463. 

After the phraseology which we have aeen was adopted 
by some of the fathers, oufjht we to be surpriBed at any one 
discotirsing ** Against those who say that God the WonI 
suffered impossibly,' — ' Against those wlio aay thnt God suf- 
fered hcoaiwe He jto willed,' — ' Against those who nay that 
God the Word suffered in the fienh,' — 'Against those who 
nsk what punishment the Jews incurred, if they did not slay 
God,*— * Against those who affirm that he is a Jew who does 
not acknowledge that God snffereti V Having seen, then, 
what \-iews of tbe possibility of God had, in tJie early 
agea, crept into the church, let us come down to the present 
age, and ascertain how far the aome doctrine continues to tbe 
present day, both among Romanists and Protestants. First, 
in reganl to tbe Churcli of Home. 

In the Roman Missal, we find, in tbe Hymn to the Cross 
on Good Friday, the following linea, p. 296 : 

■ Tbuc titles belong to Trcutiiwi troujid up aniuu); the works of Aiha- 
Duiiu. Dupiii dues nut Bj>pcu to euumemte Ihem niuoug llic genuiai; 
■ wriliDS*- 





" Iti-nrf, lowftrinic trcp, Ihf hranfhed b«M(l, 

■ • • ■ 

Wllh floftcftt anns reoeive Ihjr toad. 
And Ketilly kvar our dicing Gorf." 

Again ; in a little manual of de^'otion, entitled The' 
Ardent Lgver of Jesus, -tth edition ; to wbich is prefixed the 
approbntion of tho hishop of tlio district, who siivn, " In the 
work / have not found aiujlhmg contrary to the doctrine of thcj 
catholic church, or of the sentutu-nta of the Iioiy father»t 
otbcr pious writcra :" wc rcail iw follows ; 

" O God of luy heart I liow can 1 endure the tliought, 
for my oBeiiceB Tfitai art sacrificed! — that by my hand 
art imnutlatt'd ! — for me Thou steepest in smi'ows /" p. 29. 

" O Ood of love ! let me not frustmtc tlic clcsigua of thy 
mercy; raay I, after thy example, \w- rcsi{;ii«d to the salntaiy 
bitteniess of iutcnor desolutiou ! Look, ou me uow, 1 coa- 
juro Thee, before thif ditfine eije.t close m death ; for I see Thim 
art expiritig ! — thy strength is sjip/U ! — thy preciMts blood, wtuch 
shall sprinkle many nations, lutw distih ia kssening drofta ! — 
the incrcjwiiig weight of thy adorable body culnrget* th/ 
wounds, and eo multiplies thy pangt, that thou thyself pro- 
claimest thy sacriticc consummated ! — Thou rccommcndest i 
divine soul into the haniLi of Him who sent Tlicc, — aiul, full 
grace and truth, full of mercy and consumed with lor< 
erpirestr* p. 39, 

" Let us lift up our eyes, and behold, in the midst of tu. 
a God Eternal, Infinite, fmmortal; who, for our sakcs, hai 
appeared visibly among mcti ; nan clothed with their miscrici ; 
was siuceptihfe of t/ieir jtain* ; and, at length, triL» imntolatftt 
for their sidvation." p. G6. ^ 

" Let us labor to ndvimcc so far Ui the lore of our 
crucified God, that our hearts may hum within us, each lime 
that wc really and truly behold, iu this sacrament, tiie 
sacred victim who oucc bled for our transgrC4sioiu." p. 99. 

' pro- 




In the Meditations, by Abbot Blosins, on t/v Lift ttwl 
Death of Jesua Chrigt, wu rvnd the following : " Rnisc, Lord, 
my fallen soul, aud Uit it up to Thee ; that lookiu^ down 
upon all transitory things with scorn, I may admire nothing 
but God crucijied for me." p. 61. 

"Introduce my soul, tlirough the wound of thy side, into 
tho secret of thy henverily Iotc, — into the treasury of thy 
diiinity ; that thence 1 may receive the power to glorify Thee 
m I ought ; Thee, my God cntrijifd and dead for rne.'' p. 72. 
" The Roman Catholic Ui^ihop C'liuJiouor, says, in his 
Meditations on Good Friday, " Stand astonished, Christians ! 
tlint L^e Useif ahnvhi die, to deliver you from a sccunil death, 
and to impart to yon utumal life. 1 consider well who thia 
in, that hangs here dead before your exfea ! The Word ! — the 
Wiiwltira ! — the Son of the Kterrial God t — the Lord of Glory ! 
— the Kmg of kings ! — the Lord of lords I — the tftmt Creator 
of heaven and earth.'* Hmenheth's Editirm, 190. 

Father Thomas observes, in his work entitled, The 
Sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ, "Can there be no 
eschmige made? Could I not he cn/cr^frf in ^Ay stead, O 
my God; and save thy life by my death ?" vol. ii. }). 222. 

" St. Auf^istin olwcn-cfl, that Christ himaelf consccratwi 
the chnreh with his ovni blooil, by dying u|ion the cross; 
that an infinite number of martyrs hare shed theirs for his 
luvc; an<I tliat those who died without shedding it, did nut 
die without suffering ; because one cannot fight under tho 
standard of a erucijced God, nor have a shore in his glory, 
but by the cross." vol. i. p. 131. 

" I conjure Thee, O my God,' by that mortal thirst which 
Tlum endarest : by the gall, myrrh, and vinegar, which they 
presented to Thee ; to root out of my heart the love and 
relish of the world." p. 301. 

" The pains Thou euduredst in that state, O my God! are 
ctccsaiTC. Thy precious body, become heavy by its own 
weakness, supports itself only upon the nails which fasten it 



CHAP. It.! 

to the cross. Tht! wounds of thy hnnds imd feet are enliirgpi 
and aw^ment thy paiiu every moment." p. 306. 

" Thus died the Author of life,-~the Redeemer of min. 
kind, — ^tliu Sou of the living God, — the Prince of Peaces — 
the Fat/ier of Ihf worfd to come ;— our Comforter, — our 
Friend, — our Shcplicrd, — oiir Mwlcl, — wid onr only Hope." 
p. 303. The words. Fattier of the world to come, arc tnn%- 
laUidf in our common edition, the Everlasting Father. ^ 

Let us now pass on to the Protestant Churuh. " 

In the HomiliDSj wc read (Second Sermon of the Pansum), 
concerning the cruci&uoa : " Couidest thou behold this wofu] 
sight, or hear this inoumful voice, without tears ; conaidettB|; 
that he suffered all this not for nuy desert of his cnro, but 
only for the grievousuess of thy nins? Oh! that maoluiid 
should put the enerltt»t'ttuf Son of God to such pains ; oh ! titMt 
we tibould be the occasion of his death, and the only canae of 
his eundoinniition." 

Archbiahop TUlotsoa saya, he acknowledges with thank- 
fulness the truth, " that God should vouchsafe to become mu 
to reconcile miui to Ciod ; that He should come down from 
heaven to earth, to raise up from earth to heaven ; that tie 
sliould [uwumc our vile and irail and mortal nature, that Ht 
might clothe uh with gloiy, aud honor, and immortality ; thA 
ffe should suffer death to save us Irom hell, and shed hii 
blood to purchtise eterual redemption for us." Sermon xti^^^ 
D'winitij of our blessed Savior. ^^^H 

Bishop Pearson observes : " By the immediate cohercnoe 
of the articles, and necessary consequence of the crccd^ it 
plainly appcarcth, that the Kternal Son of Go<l, God of God, 
vertf God of very God, aufftrred under Pontius PUate, ■*■■ 
crucified, dead, and buried. For it was no other person whidi 
suffered mider Pontius Pilate, than He which was bom rf 
the virgin Mary ; He which was bom of the virgin Marr, 
was no other person than He which was conceived by the 
Holy Ghost; He which was conceived by the Holy GboBt, 




was no other person than our Lord; and that our Lord, no 
other than tlie only Sun of (iod : therefore, by the immediate 
coherence of the articles it foUoweth, that tlic only Son of 
(hM\, our liord, stiffired luuicr Pontius Pilate. TTutt Word 
whic/i was in the btiy'mmny, which then was with God, and was 
God, iu the fulness of time being made flesh, did suffer. For 
the piinces of tliia world cnicified the liord of Glury ; and 
Goil purchased his chtirch witli his own blood. Art. 4, 
Suffered. See also Hooker's Eccleguistical Polity, vol. ii. 
iVrt. 53, &c. 

Bishop Bcveridge observes (Private Thoughts on thf. Mtf*- 
tmj of the Trinity) ; " Wliat a strange mystery the work of 
man's redemption is! — that God himself should become man I 
— that He that made the workd, Hhould he Himaclf made iu 
it t — tliat iuuoceuce should be betrayed ! — ^justice condemned ! 
and Life ilseff shoidd die," &c. iice. 

Goodwin observes: "O! ataud astouibhed at it, all you 
•ngcli and men ! And with mere amojiement fall and shrink 
into your tint nothing, to ttiiuk that ever it aliuuid be said, 
and he a truthj that the Great Grtd, the Lord of Glory, »Iiould 
be erucitied, the Lord of Life killed !" Christ the Mediator^ 
chap. xi. 

Charuock observes (Christ Cntcified, p. 181.— £rf. of Rei. 
Tract Society) : " In all his auft'erings, he retained the rela- 
tion and reality of the Sou of God : the union of his natures 
remained firm in all his paaKionn; and, therefore, the efficacy 
of the Deity mingled itself with cvei^' groan iu his agony, 
every paug and cry upon the cross, as well aa with the blood 
which was shed : and as liia blood waa the blood of God, 
no his groans were the groans of God — his pangs were the 
pangs of God, and were therefore subjectively infinite in 
value," &*•. 

Dr. Barrow says, " Hereby perceive we the love of God, 
becauao He laid down hia life for us. That tfte imaun-tai God 
shoidd die ; that the Most High should be debased to w low 



cnAP. If. 

a condition, »s it cannot be hcani without vondcr, wi it 
could uot be uiiderliikcn without huge rcaaon, nor sccmd- 
plished without mighty effect. Well might one drop of (hit 
royal blood of heaven soiGcc to purchase many woridi." 
Creetl Senium, 27, 

Again : *' Greater Ioto hath no man than this ; that a 
man should lay down his life for his friends. But tbat (hi 
should lay dottm hu life ; should pour forth his blood, ahould 
be liflpcrscd vtitli. tlic worst crimesj and clothed with fuukxt 
tihamc, should he executed on a cross ;ls a malefactor, and a 
slave ttxr his enemies, and rchclhoua traitors; what ima^- 
nation can devise any cxprcsuon of friendship comparable to 
this ?" Sermon on the Paasion. 

Ignatiiui, having used the expression, "Being tinitatm 
of God, having animated yoiu^clvcs by the Mood of God, ye 
linvc performed perfectly t}ic congenial work ;" Dr. finrtan 
(Testimonieg to the Divinity of Christ, p, 17.) obserrca; "In 
this pa&sflgc, the term blood obliges ns to refer the annexed 
term God to Je-sus Christ, who shed his blood for ua." "TV 
blood of Ood," say* he, " is certainly a tvry atrong ejtpremm ; 
but it was not unusual with the fathers, and seems to afford 
an additional coufirmatiou of the received reading, in Acta 
II. and xxviii., Feed the church of God, which He hath yttr- 
chased with his own blood.'* p. IC. See dso Bulft Defemet, 
Jmtot. ii. 3. 

Now, on thin doctrine of tho sufferings, and, what I am 
shocked to repeat, execution, and death of Ood upon tho 
cross, we beg to make the following ohsenrationa : 

"L'ndonhtedly, there is a sense iu which sin may be rcpr^ 
sentcd aa Deicidium ; or, aa thcolo^aus intci^rct it, a kiUiiig)| 
of the divine life iu the soul. This is what may be called 
spiritual murder; and, in this sense, St. Taul justly apeaki 
of tliosc, who, by their sinful condoct, crucify the Lord of 
Glory afirsh. The crucifixion and death, nay eren the 
murder of the Spirit of God in the soul, is in this aeuM u 




apparent truth, wbicli is a modium of conveying to us a real 
tnitli ; namely, the opporitiou of our nature to the nature of 
God, and consuqucntly the destruction in ourselves of all 
spiritual life. But this ia not the aensc in wliich the words 
arc used in the passage just tjuoted ; and which derive their 
meaning not from the nature of &in, but from the doctrine 
which is held concerning the union of the di\inc and hmnaii 
natures of the Lord. Tim union van of such a kind, that wc 
arc told Mary was actually the mother of God. Tlius Dio- 
uysius obsen-es, in his Epistle lo Paul of Samoeata ; " One 
only virgin, the daughter of life, brought forth the living and 
self-substantial Word ; the uncreated Creator ; the God who 
created the world, and waa unkuovn ; God who ia above the 
hcavcn-s, — the Maker of heaven ; the Creator of the world" 
( Burton's AnieSieenc Testimonies to the Dimntty af Cltriat, 
p. 401>. Marj' being thus the mother of God, it follows, 
that in a correlative sense, God was tlic Son of Mary; 
and BLuec it was the Son of Marj' M-ho was crucified, dead, 
and buried, for tlus retison aUo that Ood wah cntcilicd, 
dead, and buried ; in fine, that a merely natural, corporeal, 
crucifixion, dealh^ and burial, ua diatiu^^uiidied from that 
which is spiritual, may be predicated of God.* Tlicse were 
not tho sentiments of a few fathers ; nor were tlicy mere 
slips of the pen, however they may have occasionally ro- 
%'olt«d some miiidii, or however contrajlictorj- they might 
be to other ports of their tbcology. We shall sec, that, 
not only arc the expressions used even to this day; but 
that they are defended by divines of learning, and by the 
most subtle an well an serious argument* ; that there arc 
other doctrines based upon them ; and that hence they form 
part and puxet of the common system of tlicology. 

* Mflaer obscfve^ In his EcctuiuUcal HUlorr, val. i. p. lOU. **&onc 
penoas, whci wera bruuifht bpforv Ihe «oip«ror (Nuro), were clMn[«l nlll> 
being relKlcd to lliv Tovai famtl; (of Ihitxl;. Thry Ait)>otir ki kavc b<xn 
ivJatfil t« our Lord ; and mvtt gnuidftgot at Jodr tlit^ apo»tIc, hit <»•■■■." 






In examiiiing tliw subject, wo shall first give the fatlieft 
nnd modem writcni the credit due to thcnij fur proCm- 
ing the followiug rule, in contradictiou to the fbregoBg 
atatcmftnta. Faber's Jpostolkiiy of TVimtariamam, toI S. 
p. 243. 

"Wlien, respecting the single pcraon of the Son, ym 
honr contrndictory declarations; divide between hia two 
nntiires all such van'ing expressions. If, for inntancc, sdt- 
thinj; grent nnd divine he snid of Hiin, ascribe it to his divine 
nature ; if, on the other band, anything low and hiunui tw 
Miid of Him, nsciibe it to bis human nature. Thus, otA 
nature receiving its due, vou will avoid all onntradictoriuai 
of language." See aito St. Bernard's tVork*, vol. u. p. 
Ben. ed. 

Such being the rule ncltnowtcdgcd in the early ages< 
thp church, frc<]neiitly repeated by the fatbcra, and pnv 
fm^iedly re(!civcd at thiti day, we purpose to shew its in- 
fluence upon theology ; tirst, in regaurd to the iuterpretatiaa 
of Scripture ; and secondly, in regard to the received doe- 
trine of the atonement. 

Fintt, wc purpose to ^ew its influence upon the tnterpn^ 
tfttion of Scriptitrc. ^| 

In doing this we would premise, that to sciinretc tb« 
human nature from the Divine, is to regard the hiimao oiilr 
as creaturely ; and hence, subject to all the imperfections i 
the creature. But between the creature and the Ci 
there ifi an iniinit'Q distance. Consvqnently, upon the fo 
going prindple, all thsd portion of the life of CUritit, 
may he regarded as tlic history of his humanity, ta 
only the liistory of a creature ; and all the actions and wonk 
recorded of Ilim as such, arc only the words and actions of 
a crcatiuT' ; of that which is human, as opposed, iti the co»- 
mon acceptation of the terms, to tluit which i» diviue. Suck 
then is the real origin of the doctrines of Arius and Socinoa 
Tlicy necessarily flow from making such b separatiun, wbetha 





the |icnon profcsafta to hold thosw doctrincH or not. There 
i», Jiowever, tliis diJlereDCe between the two. The orthodox 
member of the church will maiatnin nomiaalhj the Divinitj 
of Christ; be will prove it, as iudccd bo easily may, from 
Scripture ; IiO will hyld fast to the form of sound leords, as 
taught in the Scripture ; the subsiance of the dixitrine, how- 
ever, the real Diviiiity of Christ, will have departed from him, 
and will have, consequently, no influence orer his conceptions 
of the character of Christ att (rod. Hence the Arian, pcr- 
cetnng tliis, perceives tlicrc is no practiciii diflcrcnce between 
these members of the church and liimsclf. The difference 
becomes discoverable, only when the Dignity of Christ comes 
to be a subject of Scripture proof, or of abstract meta- 
physical argument. Tliis is the reason for which mnuy, who 
would wish to be considered truly orthodox and truly evau- 
gehcal, express their thoughts concerning Him, in such a 
way as no Arian or S<^ieiiiian would object to. Hence also 
it is, that, a modern Sociniaii, perceiviug this, observes : 
"Many indeed among the Trinitarians, if they understood 
tbcmsclves, would perceive that they only dilter in language 
ixom some Unitanans." Ortltoihxy and Heresy, p. 11". In 
regard to the Arianx, the differouee of language is not ao 
perceptible ; indeeil, as we have already observed, there is 
to all ordinary purposes, a perfect coincidence between 
the two. 

In iUustratiug the truth of these remarks, let us consider 
first, according to the foregoing ndc, the properties of 
Cluiiit's human nature, regarded merely as a creature, that 
is to say, such as those of bodily wcnriiieas, hunger^ thirst, 
suffering, and de^ith ; and tiriit, with regard to wearineas. 

We rea<l that Jesus passing through Samaria, approar-hed 
the aty of Sychar, and being wearied with hia journey sat on 
the welL Now this weariness, as ia admitted by all, mui^t 
have pertained to the human nature ; for the Uodltead of 
Cbriat, being omnipresent, his spirit was at the well always ; 




CBAF. n. 

conaoquently, before in body he bad arrived there. Tlir 
ficwihowl therefore could not be tlius weary ; much leas maj 
with a journey. Wlitit then is the lesson which, Bcoordiog 
to the common interpretation, we leam from this part of the 
gn<tpc1 hiiitorT ? Such as, in gencralj no Arian ur Suciniu 
would object to. Let us, however, quoto the commenUnn 
on this pn-iAA^ of those who strenuously maintain the Di- 
gnity of our Lord. 

" Now obwne," wivs Matthew Henry, "the posture of 
our Ijord Josus Cluist at this place. Bcinff wcarietl with hie 
journey, lie sat thiM on the well. We hiirc here our Lonl 

1. "Lnlwrinj* under the commou fatigue of travcHcn. He 
was wearied with his journey. Tliouph it was yet bat the 
jiiiLth hour, and he bad performed but half thia clay's juiinicy, 
yet lie wa.H weary ; or because it was tUc sixth hour, the time 
of the heal uf the day, therefore he was weary. Here wc mx 
first that he was n true man, and subject to the cummon in- 
firniities of the human nature. Toil came in with sin CGm. 
iii. 19); and therefore Christ, having made himself a cniip 
ibr us, submittod to it. Sccundly, that he whh h j/oor asm : 
else he might liave trareUed on hot/ie/tark or in a chariot. To 
this instance of mejuincss and mortification, he humhlrd 
himself fur us, that be went all bis journeys on foot. Wlm 
servimts were on horse*, princc-s walked as scn'ants on t' 
earth (Eeclcs. s. 7). When wc are carried easily, let ua thi 
OD the weariness of our Master. Thirdly, it should 
that he wan hut a tender man, and not of a robust constitu- 
tion; it should seem his disciples were not tired, for thrr 
went into the town without any difficulty, when their Maria 
sat down and could not go a step farther. Bodica of tlMC 
finest mould are must tteusible of fatigue and can worst hew it 

2. " We have him here betaking himself to the commoQ 
relief of travellers. Itcing vrciuied, he sat thus on the wefl. 
First, he sat on the well ; an uneasy jihice, cold aad hard ; 







lie hod no coucb, no easy cluiir to repoac liiniitclf in ; but took 
to tluLt which vas next hand, tu tcnt-h iia nut to he nic<? ami 
cunuua in the convuiiicucus uf this lite, but content with mean 
things. Secondly, he sat thus, in an tuica^ po&turc ; &at 
carelessly — incuriosc i-t neglectim — or lie sat aa people tlint are 
vfearieil with travelling arc accustomed to sit." 

In Poole'a Synopsi«, the comment is as follows : 

" Fatigatus, ^'c. Nun eidm ft/nr/ it^tut trral in-il pvdi/ras, tfc. 
ladicatur r^riias fntman^ natnr/e. Waury, for lit- had not 
t/iOii^^ use of a ftorae, but had gone on foot. Shewing tlie ve- 
ritableuesB of his hutnim nature. 

Other comments on this pn-wngn are in general to the 
same cifect. 

Consistently with the separation of the humftnity from 
the divinity, these corarnenta arc sullidcntly dignified ; suffl- 
cieiitly worthy of the subject. 

It is howc\'cr tlie doctrine of Swedcnborg thtit, in Christ, 
there was not this pnictieal disuuiun of tlie two natures, di- 
vine and human; but a real union. If so, what i% it that in 
the present iiiataiico, exhibits this union? For bow can wea- 
riness be ascribed to the Divine Nature? In wiswcr to this, 
we observe that, in consequence of the union betivcen tljc 
two natures, there was nothing which took place in the hiuuan 
nature which did nut correspond to sonictluug in the Di^-inc. 
But how can the weariness of tlie body of CImst correspond 
to any thing in the Diriue Nature ? The answer is, in the 
Old Testament Jebovali himself speaks of being weary? 
Thou hojtt wrarird nu' with t/iine iiiii/uilinit. Isaiah xliv. 24. Ye 
have ictaricd thtf Lord with ymtr words ; tjel ye »By, Wherein 
have we ivearied him ? H'/ien ye say, trertf une t/ml lioelh evii 
i* good in the fight of the Lord, and he deiiyhieth in Ihem ; or, 
iVhere is the God ofjttdyment ? Now every one acknnwledgcii 
that where there ai'C cxprc&^iona of this kind, there is somc- 
tliing in the Divine Mind which corresponds to them ; conse- 
quently MnDCthiug which correspuuds to being weary, bet 




cmxr. It. 

a spcnr, nml finiJIy was Ijuricil, — vioirs which arc ooofinHd 
by the imturiil man, wlicu anncd witii thnt mctaphnk* hj 
which he shcvs, that it must be the Divine Peraon thit » 
aufl'cred nnd died, and hence that it most be God. 

Let \i& next proceed to shew, hor the mme principle of 
nntunJkm upon which thcHC intcrprctationa are fisondcid, 
leads ua not only to assign himiRa properties to the Dinar 
Ntttnrr, hiit conBCfiucntiy to (?ivc thr lowest interpre tati on 
of his ili^iue works. The miraclca of Christ, for instance^ 
are coiiaiilcrnd to hn a proof of his divinity ; yet wh«t Ariu, 
what Soeinian, would object to the foUo^ring iutcrjirctatioD of 
the Tniraclo of the five lonvcs and two fishes ? 

" IV/ietice aimtt we but/ bread that these may eat ? ObMnc 
tlio dcstgu uf tliiti inquiry. It watt only to try the liuth d 
Philip ; for He himaelf knew what He would do. Note ; on 
Lord Jesus is never iit a loss in his counsels; but> how diftimll 
soever the citite in. He knows what He haa to do, and what 
courac He will take, &c. . . . \Vhcu Cluist ia pleased to punk 
Lis people, it iy only with a design to prove them, lie 
question put Philip to a nonplus ; yet Christ proposed it, 
try whctliur he would say, ' Lord, if thou wilt c:Lcrt 
power for them, wc need not buy bread.' " 

"Observe Philip's answer to this question; 7«>o hmuhrd 
pemyit}orih of l/rcad is not ri^icietit. ' Master, it is to no 
ptirposc to tnlk of buying bread for them ; for neither wiB 
the countr)' afford do niueli bread, nor can wc atTurd to b^ 
out so much money ; ask Judas, who carric-s the bag.' IVt 
hundred pence of their money amount to about six poondi 
of ours ; and if they lay out all that at once, it will cshaMl 
their fund and break tliem, and they must starve thcnuelTca. 
Orotiua computes that two hundred pennyworth fif bread 
would scarcely reach to two thousand : but Philip would gd 
as near hand as he could ; will have every one to take a li 
and nature, wc say, is content with a little." . . . 

" Tlic provision was coarse and ordinary. They 



baricy loaves, Canaan was » land of wlicnt ; iU inhabitants 
were commonly fed with the finest wheat — the kidniT's of 
wheat; )'ct Christ and his di»:iples were glad of barley hread. 
It docs not follow hencD, that wc should tic oursolvca to snch 
coarse fare, and place religion in it. When God Imngs that 
which is finer to our Imiids, let us receive it and Imi thaultfid ; 
bnt it does follow that, thcrcforn, we must not he desirous of 
dainties, nor murmur if we be reduced to coarse fare, but be 
content and thankful, ami well reconciled to it. Barley 
bread is what Cluist had, and better than we dcscrrc. Nor 
let ns despise the mean provision of the poor, nor look upon 
it with coutempt; remcinhering how Clirist was provided for. 
It was but short and scanty ; there were but five loaves, and 
those so small that one little lad carried thcni all ; and wc 
find that twenty barley loaveti, with somo other provision to 
help ont, wonld not dine a hundred men without a miracle. 
There were hut tvTo fishes, and tho«o amall ones, so small 
that one of them was bnt a morsel. / take the fish to have 
been pickletl or cured ; for therj had not fire to dress them vUk, 
Tlie pnniaiun of bread w:ir little ; but that of fish was Icaa in 
proportion to it ; so that many a hit of dry bread they must 
cat before they could mako a meal of this pronsiou : but they 
were content with it. . . . It was done to univertml satiKfaction. 
They did not every one take a little, but all had as much as 
they would ; not a short allowance, but a full meal : and, con- 
sidering how long the}- had fasted, with what an appetite they 
sat down, how agreeable this miraculous food may be supposed 
to he above common food, it was not a little that sen-ed 
them, when they ate ii* much a-s tlicy would, and on free cost. 
.... Wlicii they were filled, and every tnan had Vfilhm htm 
a letmbte witness to the truth tif t/ie mirticfe, Clirist said to his 
disciples — ^thc servants He employed, 'Gather up the fmg- 
mcntd, that nothing be lost.'" .... Then follows a recom- 

■ mcudatiun to household economy. Mattlhew Heary on John vi. 

■ Without entering into an explanation of the details of 



cuAr. U.I 

this mimctu, as givca hy Swcdcnhorg, we ahall taeniy 
obser\-u, that his general view of the miracle is this; tim 
before working it the Lord had taught liis dlicipleft; thtt 
thej* had received his doctrine, and had apitroprititfxl il 
themselves. Tills vRs what tlicy had catcti aud cirauk ^^ 
ritnallv ; and this spiritual food was turned into corrcspoDdiiig ' 
luttural food, juhC aa iti the wilderness the food of angels wib 
every morning turned into manua. Tlds miracle wu ooB- 
sc([uciitty representative of those truths of dtniic triiidoni wiUi 
wliich Chrtiit, as the AVord, feeds the souls of his diwiples: 
BO that as the Word who ia God wrought the miracle, in that 
miracle was lateut bis diWiiitj- ; henee liis divine wiadmii, 
and hence the spiritiiid truths of that »isdom. The minckt 
therefore, was e»iicntially diWuc; it manifeHte<l Clitist'i £- 
vini^, because his dinuity was in it as the houJ ia in tlie 
body. Possibly, liowevcr, after the inteqjn-tation commonly^ 
received, and which wc hare given in the wunls of a ma^H 
commentator, the intcrpretiitiou just supplied will be rc^wdtd'f 
as vitionary. Whenj as Mathew Henry obserres, thej" woe 
all filled, and every man /lad irit/iin him a nenridie proi^ ^ 
tfte truth of the miraclv, what otlier proof, or what "d^g 
truth, will the natural nuui require ? ^ 

We are far from saying that some divines havo not ginn 
a Rpiritnaliiiterprctation to this miracle; but these tntcrpft- 
tjitions arc comparatively rare, vague, aud indefinite. Netcr- 
thclcsB, whore there is the slightest tendency to a ratMnil 
and spiritual interpretation, we gladly hail it. Such miadi 
arc not tlioKC who arc the adversaries to the doctrinw rf 
SwiHlcnborg ; rath>(;r they arc those, in the difl'crniit denook* 
nations of Cliristendom, out of which the disciples 
Swttdeuborg's principles have been eoUected. 

Wc have now seen the influence upon modem th< 
cicrciscd by the rule wc have cited, especially in its appHe^' 
tion to the intcrpretatiuu of Scripture ; we next come to : 
its appUcation to the received doctrine of the atonciucnt. 

lies ufl 





Although the divine and human natures liavc been con- 
templateil ns neparnte, in the way wc have heen consiclcring;, 
(inasmuch as bodily wcarinnts, thirst, and hunger, it is said, 
cannot be attributed to the Divine Mind) yet this separation 
leads to a difficnlty. For though Christ had two natures, He 
had only one person : that person was originally tlic jierscin 
of the Divine Nature ; for the human nature, apart from the 
divine, had no personality. If, thereibre, the foregoing 
properties are attributed only to the hiunan nature, this is to 
regard that as suffering Trhich had no personality, which is 
absurd ; more especially as, on these occa&ious, a i>ersonality 
is asserted. Consequently, as the only person is that of the 
Divine Natnre, thetjlo^ians arc obliged to say that a divine 
person sufTered. Ag;ain ; as the sufferings are only creaturely, 
they are obliged to attribute these creaturely sufferings to the 
Divine Person ; whence arise all those revolting expressions 
which have been used by the fathers and other divines down 
to this day. What is thercsultV that the Divine Nature is 
regarded as creaturely ; and hence, that a system of the lowest 
naturalism is introdueod. Thus Dr. Burton obscrvcj*, "When 
our Savior felt hunger or sorrow, they were the feelings which 
belonged to Him properly as man ; they did not belong to 
Him as God, but Gofi felt them ; because He had united 
himself to man." Burton's Testimonurs to the Divinity of 
Vhrist, p. 428. 

Again; Bishop Pearson observes,* "That person, which 
was begotten of the Father before nil worlds, and so was 
really the Lord of Glory, and most truly God, took npon 
Him the nature of raau ; and in that nature, being still the 
same person which before He was, did suffer. AVTicn onr 
Smtior fasted forty days, there was no other person hungry 
than that Son of God which made the world ; when He sat 
down weary by the well, there wan no other {X'Tson felt that 
tliint but He which was eternally begotten of the Father, 
' 8<M aIw tlM Workf of F. Turrttiln, vnl. ii. fliai>. 13, H. 




the fountain of the Deity ; when He vihs buffeted aoi] 
Kourgcd, there was no otlicr pcrwon stTtaiUe of Ikatepam, 
than that Eternal Wvrd which before all world» waa impas- 
sible; when He waa crnci6ed iind died, there was no other 
person gave up the gbost, but the Sun of Him, and n of 
the sunie nuture with Him, who only hnth immortality. And 
thua we conclude our first considcratiou propouutlcd, namely, 
who it wa.1 wliieh sufieredj iLffirmin^ that, in ruspiHjt to lui 
office, it was the Mcssin-i ; in reitpect f^fhvi nature, it woi 
the Sm." 

Let na now ascertain how the question stands. 

Hunger, pain^ sufferings, and death, being nnd 
only in the lowest corporeal sense, arc aacnht^I only to 
human nature; they cannot be ascril)cd to the Divine N 
Vet the person of the Divine Nature wa^ joined to the hu 
man; consequently, these things must be attributed to tbe 
Dinuc Person; the Divine Person hungers; the Divine Per- 
son thirsts ; tlio Divine Person suffers pain j tlic Di\-ioe Vavm 
bleeds; the Divino Person dies; and the Divinu Peraonii 
buncd. Tliereforc, although a dtstiuctiou between the 
dinnc and human natures is maintained, so that what ii 
ascribed to one cannot be BHcribcd to the other; yet, in tit 
person uf Christ, the distinction is lost, and what ia M cribed 
to one may be ascribed to the other. " Seeing," aara Bishop 
Pearson, " these tno natures cannot be made one, cither bj 
commixtion or conversion, and yet there can be but 
Chiist subsisting in them both, because that oikly Son 
He which was conceived and bom; it followcth, that, Ike 
union which wtis rwi Tmule. ia Um juiiure, wa» laaJc in the pmom 
of the Word,'* &c. 

Again: "Aa we proved before that the Only Be; 
and Etcnial Son of God, God of God, very Guti of way 
God, was conceived atid bom aud sidTcrcd ; nud that ikt 
tmth of these jtropositiouH relied upon the communiuii of 
pro]K:rtie«j grounded u|H)u the hvpo&taticat union; m, whSbt 




ibe crcnd in tho aatriR mumnr procccdnth upoiiViit^ of /At? 
*ame person, that He was buried, luul descended iiito hcU, it 
shcwetL that neither hia body in respect of which lie whs 
boricd, uor his soul iu respect of which He was gcuerally 
conceived to descend into hell, had lost that union." Creed, 
4th Art. ; Suffered and Ser/. 

Again : " Aa we beUei-c that God redeemed tw by his own 
blood, so also it hath been the constant tamfvutge of the church, 
that God died for ui ; which cannot be true, except the soiiJ 
and body, in the instant of separation, were united to tlic 
Deity." //fid. 

Now, iu wliat manner ia an ordinary, simple mind enabled 
to discriminate between person and suhstnnce, so iis to say 
the person suffers hut Iiis niiturc does not? We gnuit the 
l<^cian all the bcne6t of hiii speculative distinctions ; the 
gnait mnas of the eoraraunity know nothinj; of them, and 
judge of the doctrine only by its practical application, \\1ien 
it is said that Ocd or tlii.' Divine I'erson suffers, what in to 
prevent their nnderstanthtig bodily pain and sullering to be 
experienced by the Di%'inc Natiuv? what is to prevent their 
cotitem plating Ooti liimaelf n» so suffering and so dying ? Tlic 
distinction between person and substance they caitnot under- 
stand ; it may l>e true, they will say, but we cannot compre- 
hend it. The distinction is speculative; the doctrine it^clf^ 
as we understand it, is plaui and practical. 

But e\'cn with regard to the logician, that which infiu- 
moes him in the interior formation of hia thoughts, is not the 
art of logic. There is one plain and broad fact which he must 
admit. There ia no real casotitiiil communication between 
the two natures of Christ, the divine and the human ; and 
yet he attributes to the Divine Person what caiiuot [Mjssibly 
beluug to the Divine Substiuice. Suppose now a simple- 
minded Chriatiao were to ask him to explain this ; would not 
the oxplanntions only cmbarmss the question the more ? Fur 
what itt person de6uod to be ? 'It is,' says one, ' an intel- 



Ugeut ageat Hoir then caii au iotcUigent agent suffer, tnJ 
yet not his nature or sufwtancc suffer f "What snys Iluolccrf 
"The substuQce of God, with tUis property to beat tnac, 
doth make the pcrsou of the Father; the very tctfiAiiie lak 
stance in uumber, with this prupcrty to be of the Father, 
mokcth the perwu of the Son; the siune substance, harm; 
addcrl nnto it the property of proceeding from the other tvt, 
maketh the peniou of the HvAy Ghost. So that in eym 
person there is Implied both the substance of God, which b 
one, and also that prupert.v which causcth the same perm 
really and truly to differ from the other two. Eveiy penoa 
hath his own subsistence which no other person hath; 
although there be othera besides that arc of the same saV 
ttance." Ecckmasticai Polity, Book v. Art. 61. 

Wliat says Wnterland ? " You object/' says he to 
opponent, " that no worship ia paid to the Father, but to 
substance or essence of the Father. Ridictdoua ; as if mr- 
■hiping the Divine Subataiiec as personaliaeii in the FathCT, 
were not the same tiling with worshiping the Fnthor's prrxaL 
Pray, what ia tlic person of the Father, but living, actta^ 
intelligent, substance? Do you mean by intclli^nt agoii 
iutelligent and actiug nothing ? All worship, you mjt « 
personal ; and 1 say every person is substance." Wvfh, 
V. iii. p, 301. 

Now, we would ask, wlien person is thus defined as s 
complex of a substance and certain property, how the pefsni 
can Bufler and uot the substauce ? Are wc to attribute suf- 
fering to the property, independent of the sub»tJuico ? If 
>D, wliat is this but to separate the substance from tbo peiBOO, 
and to fall into the error of Sabellianiinn ? fortlic person sepa- 
rate from tlic snbstjiricc, is only a mode, a relation, or a pn>- 
pcrty. Suppose however the nictaphysiciau were able to soItc 
this difliculty ; yet even if he does, what will it avail him ? WiQ 
he not still remain the merely naturid mau? For that whudi 
prevents his falliug into naturalism, is not a more speoulatin 



distinction, but a spiritonl perception. Yet in this cane, he 
is Jis for aa ever from perceiving the analogy between the 
human and divine natures. HSh idcBa of Christ's sufToring 
and de&th are still natural. This naturnli^tui, m we hare 
observed, is the ono great sin of the humnn heart, from 
which no mere logical subtlety ciui save any one. Hcnco 
notwithatandiug all the intellectual diHtinctions made by the 
learned, tlieir real and practical ideas of God, may be as 
low as those of the most uuetlucatcd perrons. This we have 
Been verified in tfic language of those, who have nevcrthtlcas 
streauQUsly maintained the distinction of pei:sona, and the 
unity of substance. 

The coiicin»ion then i» this ; tliiiL the unity of the jicrfiou 
nullifies the duality of the uaturc ; because uo auulogy ia 
inculcflted between the divine and human natures ; so that 
when considering the Divine Nature, theologians are obliged 
to deny that to Go<l, which, when they arc conaidcriug 
the Bii"ine Person, tliey are obliged to attribute. In the 
mean time, human nature gaining the ascendancy over 
logical subtleties, even in the same individual, the natural 
properties which the metaphysician Hseribes to the person and 
not to the Nubntance, his own natural and carnal mind 
attrihntcit to the substance, as well as to the pcfiion. He is 
obliged to do 80 J 'for the natural man parreiveth TUti the 
things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness ttnto him, 
neither can he know them, for tfiey are apiriUialitf dixcemed.* 
And in this case to what amonnt all his specidationa concern- 
ing the Divinity ? Ah long a.s any natural ideaa avail him, 
he thinka he knows something about it ; but the natural idea 
being only oa one side of the analogy, the other is totally 
lost ; lost in clouds and darkness ; lost in an abyss where all 
diittinctioDs cease ; where the seeing and the blind, arc 
equnlly wise, equally ignorant, equally knowing much, and 
ci|uaUy knowing nothing. Even the natural idea however 
does not serve him, for he cannot fully apply it, for fear of 




CBAf. B. 

inconsistency, and when tfacac inconsistencies arc nj^i, 
wliat is the answer ? 

"It is not in raan'a ability," savs Hfioker, "eiUierto 
exprctis perfectly or cuuccive thu manner bow this was fanMslit 
to paas. Hut the strength of our faith is tried by thc» 
things wherein uur wits imit ai|Hu:ities are not straog;" 
Booi V. Art. 52. Ecciesiaitieal Poliiy. 

In his Founta'tTL of Life, Sermon v., Mr. Flavel obserm: 
" It is one of the deepest mysteries of godliness ; ■ mptci? 
by which npiirchenttion is (lazzlcd, invention astonished, ml 
all c)q>rcxsioii uwallowed up. If ever the tou^ue» of moffk 
were desirable to explicate any word of God, tliey aie m 
here. Ttio proper use of words is of great inipurtancc in tloi 
doctrine. We walk uikiu the brink of danger : tite leMt 
trcwl aivrj* may cngulph us in tlie Iwgs of error. ... It it ■ 
doctrine hard to uudercitaud, nud diuigerous to mistakr." 
"In truth/' says Mr. Newman, "it is a more OTcrwhcliain; 
mystery even than that which is involved in the doctrine i^ 
the Trinity. I say more ovcrwhehning, not {^eatcr ; Ua »t 
cannot measure the more and the less in subjects nttcrij 
incoioprchcrisible and divine ; hut with more la it to pefpks 
and Rubduc our mindK." Sermon xii. Humiliatitm t^ tie 
EJtrr/iai Son, 

We have seen how the propertied aacrihcd to the hunwi 
nature are ascribed aim to the DInnc Person, and wc do« 
come to see, further, the reason of it. 

In Ills Christian Life, it is obaen'cd by Scott, vol. 
p. 254 : " How could tliu blood of one man, tbougli never 
innocent or excellent, have amounted to a valuable couunuii- 
tinn for the forfeited Uvea and souU of a world of guillT 
•inucni ? Or, what leas than the b1oo4l of God-man coold 
have been any way equivalent to that ctcmid puuisUm 
tliat was due to God &om the whole race oi maukind ? 
yet, tliat it »liou!d he. in some way cquivjdcnt, was hi, 
rc(|iusitej iut I sliail hIlcw hereafter, both to satisfy the di 




tier, for what i.s iiast, anil to secure the ilivini? authority for 
future; auii nccoriliugly we are said to Ije purchaiteil wilh 
the blood of Cod (Acts kc. 28). Not that the divine essence 
ma suffer or bleed, but being united into one person with 
the humnn nature, the properties of this nature, and also the 
actions and pn.wons thmcc proceeding, may be tnily attri- 
buted to it J and therefore, since in the person of Christ 
God was united to man, whatsoever his Iiumanity suffered 
may be truly called the *iy?trfw^ 0/ God; and, being so, it 
was a suffering every way equivalent to the eternal damr 
nation of the whole world of sinners." 

Bislio[> Bevcridge obscnes in his Semum on the Meritn 
of Ckriifg Pfigxion: "And now, behold the Lamb of ("Jod 
roasting in the fire of hi^ Father's wrath, and offering up 
himself as a whole burnt-offering to Him ; until at length, 
being no longer Hble to endure the flames. He givefi up the 
ghost. But then, in the next place, let ns conHider who it 
wa» that underwent all this. Who? No other, no lesa a 
person ihan the Eternal Son of God, of the same nature 
nod glory with the Pnthcr; for when they crucified Ilim, 
they cruritied the Lord of Cilory, as the apostle saith, 1 Cor. 
ii. 8. The blood we Haw uponli in luinds and feet, and dropping 
down 80 fn«t from thence to the ground, it was the blooil of 
God ; for so the same apostle calls it in the charge he gai-e 
to the Asiatic bishops, requiring them to fewl the church of 
God, which lie, Gotl, Imth purchased with his own blood 
(Acts XX. 28). Nay, when He died, God himself may be 
truly said to have laid down his life ; for so his own tieloved 
disciple saith exprcsslv, Hrreinj pertenv Wft the Imtf of God, 
becawNf He laid tiotcn hh lifi' fftr tur, ] John iii. 16. Strange 
■ expressions! yet not so striuige as true; aa being uttered by 
truth itself; neither will thcv seem strange unto 11 s, if we 

I truly believe and consider that He who suffered all this 
was both God and man ; not in two di.ftlnct persons, ns if 
He waa one person as God, and another person ns man 




COir. II. 

(according to the Ncstorioit Iicrcf^) ; for if so, then bis 
iDgs as mail would have been of no value for u», nor fant 
stooil us in any stead, as being the suflbhn^ of only • finu 
person ; but He is both God and man in one and the oat 
person ; as thn thinl general council dccbircd out of the Hoh 
Scriptures, and the catholic ehurch aJways believed. Fniii 
whence it comes to pass, that though his sufTeriugs aScctti 
only the muiihuod, yet that, being at the same time uniiai 
to the Godhead ui ouc and the tmme person, they thcrdorr 
were and may be properly colled the mffvrinffa of God Ai»- 
Kif; the person that suffered them being really and tn^ 
God. And why should lie who is God himself swffer ?" hc- 

Again ; a modem writcj* ujion the sanie subject ohaerm 
(Chriatiiiuity compared with Uuitariauiam, p. 71) : 

"The Unitarians object that upon our principles, tk 
atonement wiui fictitious; for that, if Christ was divine, tf 
«-as only his humau nature which suffered ; liis death w» 
therefore merely the death of a man, and that could nut kt 
an infiuitc atonement. But this objection seeiuii mbre tlM 
usually destitute of foundation. The language of Scnptisr 
is, that he who was rich became poor ; that the Jewish nilen 
crucified the Lord of Glon,- ; and that he who had been » 
the form of Unci, emptied liimself and humbled himself H 
the death uf the croins. All these passagev, with nutny oiIkis. 
shew that the two natures were su imitcd in Chritft, astbil 
what Mas done or felt in his hiunan nature wua done and Ut 
by God Incarnate. Hence we may properly aay, that GflJ 
Incarnute ilicd. Not that God the Son could ceoac to be, s 
ao much ns lose for a single moment the slightest portion d 
his Divine Ghjry; but becHu»c lie had truly assumed hoiou 
nature, and therefore He iu//tscl/ experienced wftaievrr in 
human nature experienced. VThy do Ave say that auy one dies'' 
not because the pcraun ceases to be; but because hix body 
dies, and he therefore suffers the pains of dissolution, la 
precisely the same sense did God the Son die ; because hit 




body died, und He suffered the pains of diBsoIution. The 
death of Christ on the crow was therefore truly the death of 
Qod Incnmate ; and that dcatli wah tlicrcfoni a tnic and fvdc< 
quate atoaement for our sins." 

We thus see that it is requisite to modern theology, that 
the Kuflcring^s and deatli of the crcaturely human unturc 
should be attributed to the Divine FerBou of Christ ; because 
without it the received doctrine of the atonement would l)c 
endangered. In our remarks upon thm subject wc would first 
obscrrc, that there is no question, that if, in coining a word, 
we give to that word a certiiin mcauiug and make it stand 
for the complex of certain ide&s, then, if we remove any one 
of its constituents, we alter the complex, so that the whole 
undergoes a corresponding change. Thus, if in using the 
term person,* we make it stand for the complex of soul and 
body, then if we aepamtc one constituent or the !>ody, douht- 
le>a the term has undergone a cbangc of meaiiing corrc- 
^ooding to the separation effected. In the present instance, 
tiie sepamtion of body and soul produces two changes ; the 
chftuge to the body, which is called death, and the change to 
the soul, which is a more perfect state of life. In this case, 
when we say tlie person dies, wc mean only that part of tlic 
person, or of the complex, which is the body ; wc can with 
no more propriety confound the two changes, and impute tlic 
change which the body has undergone, to the whole person 
and hence to the soul, tliau we con impute the change, which 
the aoul has undergone, to the body. In line, at the separa- 
tion of body and soul, it would be as absurd for as to impnto 
death to the soul, as it would be lo impute the soul's more 
perfect state of Ufe to tlie body. Now, when this scpanition 
takes place, inasmuch as wc sec not spiritual things, but only 
natural ; w that which wc sec is only one of the changes, 

* Or. South, in hii AtiiniBdvcniQaii, ctntir* Uiwt Uin miiiI i> a perwfii. 
Dr. WatcrlADd'i idw of pereon we ahkll h*ro farlhor tu csamine. 

K 2 



cBjir. u. 

namely, the change which the body has undci^nc ; and in- 
asmuch also as man is inclined to be natural, not tfjantaal 
and to Judge only from what is presented to tiia eense», h; 
calls thcchftiif:^ death ; wliprnas if he were spiritual, not ni- 
tiiral, he -would call the change life ; and instead of sariag 
that Peter had died, we should say that he bad entend into 
H new lifl'. 

liut, KOcoiuUy, were it e%cri true thai we might laylfe 
whole person died, it is a language which would onfy tend n 
inroLve the natural miui still more deeply in uatiiriilinm. All 
unhclicf in a ftiturc state, is produced hy a merely canal 
and naturHl mind; and so strong is this naturalism, eten id 
many otherwise good CliriBtiaiis, that their luinds are often 
haunted by the ideas of the coldness, the dews, the dampi 
of the grave, the shroud, a:id the worms. This fcelta^ 
moreover, is unhappily fostered by ench cxpre^^ious as,— 
"When I shall lie Inid in my grave;" "When 1 shall sl«p 
in the dust, and awake uji at the judgmeut^day ■/* and n 
forth. If now to a person in snch a state of mind, we nor 
to insist n[K>n the propriety of Raj'ing that the whole penn 
died, in laid in his grave, and is buried with his fathen; 
would he not rather wish ua to he proving the cantnay ?— ta 
shew him that death coidd not he imputed to the whole pc^A 
son ? — that although at death there is a change which tii» 
soul undergoes, death is not that change, but a greater per* 
fection of life? But what would be the consequences, weft 
wc reasoning with the unbeliever, and using every subtlety 
argument to ehcw that at death the whole person, u 
complex of soul and bwly. may properly be said to die, — 10 
be buried, — to moulder in the grave? Arc not bia idea* al- 
ready too inclined to that side of the question ? to confound 
the properties of matter and spirit? in iine, to naturmlizc aU 
that is spiritual ? 

It was this view of the subject, tliat led Tncker, in Im 
Light of Nature, to make the following remark {vol. v. p. 610). 






Spcftkiug of tho fixpression, % Ihiae atfony and bloody mfvat, 
as a(ldrc-ssc(l to the one God in the Litany, lie obscrvcsi ; 

" Wc arc taiig^lit to compare the union of tho two natures 
in Cliriat witU the vital uuiou of the soul and body in our- 
lelves, which together make one man. Therefore the man 
may claim to liimself whatever belongs either to his koiU or 
body; and I may properly say ray understanding, my memory, 
my blood, and my lioncji; hut when we apeak of them sepa- 
rately, we cannot apply to one what belongs to the other ; 
for it would he absurd to talk of my body's understanding, my 
body's memory, my soul's blood, ur my houI's bones j and, 
though I must expect to die before many years mn out, yet 
I trust my suul will nut die when 1 do. In like manner it 
deems as great a solectfm in modern language to Huy, the 
blood, the death, the burial of God, notwitKstanding his gra- 
cious union with human nature, as it would be to speak of 
the blood, tin* death, the burial of a soul, notwithstanding 
ita vital union with the body." 

Tlio same view of the subject ia taken in the tract iutro- 
duced among the works of Alhanasius, * Ayainst tftose who 
way titat God the U'ord mffertd in the Jhah,' wiiere it i» ob- 
NiTcd, "If God the Word suffered, He suifcrcd in himself. 
If any thing else suiFered, such as the body, this does not 
affect the Word, except in so lar as the injury done to the 
body, redound* to the Word united to it. Still, that way 
of s|H.*akiug in which it ih Kuid, God t/ie iVord suffered in 
the flesh, (to «ay nothing of its being nuknovn to Scrip- 
ture and foreign to it) is inconsistent and incoherent. But, 
inasmuch as these persons have resolved never to stop blas- 
pheming, and well know that the phrase God the Word 
tuffered would in no wise he received by pious cars, they 
have thought proper to add to it the phrase w» the flesh, ns 
a sort of salve for the wounds which their words inflict. 
But as we do not want the wound to he inflicted, so wc 
do not want their deceitful rouicdv. . . . Neither was (Jod 



the Word pasBiblc in the flesh, nor w&a the flesh impMnMi 
in the Ward. But aa the flesh, according tu its own fapt 
nature, in passible, so the proper^ inseparable fnnn tW 
essence of ihc Won! itt impjwsiljility. If, therefore, ire Bf 
tfie Word n^ffhrd in the fiesh, in tliia catie -wttat b it thiA >c 
predicate of the flesh ? either that it mfferB in the Word, or 
dues nut suffer. If it does not suffer, then it ia mode tmpv- 
BibLe : if it dues sulTer, then we admit the suSering of botti, 
when, to use their language, we say the Word suffen is Ae 
flesli and the flosh auffers in the nature proper to the VTori 
Pcrlinps they will say, ' How tlicu is it tliat the apostle ugt, 
qf whom in Christ according ia tlie fiaih?* I nn-twrr, aar tfat 
C/trist suffered, and the name (or idea) of the ^^M is inipliad; 
but, he who says, Gcd the Word gnffercd, by the cxprewwi, 
God the Wor^l, designates a ttinglc essence; while he «fa» 
says Chrini BufTcitid, declarCB, in the word Christ, a ooajoB- 
tion of two nntnrca. Wl-icii, therefore, wc nsc the wi»4 
Christ, the phmae, Chrht m0ired, may be suitably explained; 
inasmuch as it siguiGes two things together, the impMwblf 
Wortl, and the passible flesh which tasted of death. Ham 
also, St. l^uil dues not i>ay of whom w<u simply God, bat •( 
whom wa« Chrixt according to the flesh; ehcwTng that He, rf 
whom he was making mention, was, acounling to the flesi, 
of the Tsrachtea ; iiiccordiug to his Deity, from eternity witli 
the Father. He said not, 'of whom was God in the flesh:' 
■ay you the stune, and I shall understand you us saying that 
Clirist suffered according to the flesh; but, if you say that 
God mfftrcd in the fiaih, then tell me plainly whether God and 
the flesh be, in their natiu^s, one and the sainc, or wlieCfaer 
God be one, and the flesh another. Tf they be the same, ihoi 
God suffered in himself; for yon aay the flesh is the same viik 
God : if they be different, how can one suffer in the otbr* 
when every nature siiflering in itself, does not suffer ia at 
Maence diverse from itself, A man doea not suffer in a hone ; 
the soul does not die in the flesh ; but the fleah imilmgii 


(liwtDliition, while the bohI is only iirparatetl fmm it. Tim 
mau iudced is said to dic^ as bciiig the complex of soul aud 
body, still he is conceived to be dead only in regard to that 
which is captibSc of dcnth ; that is, in regard to the fleshy not 
to the immortal suiJ. VTUat then ? uo one snys that the soul 
of any one died in thr flesh, but thttt the man died, as con- 
sisting of soul and body : while at ttic same time he intimates 
the soul's immortality after death, saying, tlmt the soul lives 
eternally among the just, according to the testimony of the 
ScriptuR'H. These men, therefore, are condemned by one 
and all the hooks of the Holy Scriptures. In all the prophets, 
apostles, evangelists^ there is not a single place where such a 
phraseology ttn theirs occurs ; while, ou the other hand, it i» 
cvcrywhcrt) niatiifcstly procliumed, that it was Chruii whn 
sufftrred, — 'Chriat our passover who was sacrilieed for us;* 
and if it was Christ who was paxxihlo, it was Christ who died 
for our sins, according to the Scriptures; the cr«8.t was 
Christ's — the b«ly was Christ's — the hloiHl was Clirint's." 
Thus does this author maintiun the paasihility of llio flcsli, 
and tlie impassibility of God ; thus does he reject the ex- 
pressions, Ood died, God was crucified, God was buried, 
even thongli maditicd by the additional words, in Ike fiegh. 

Let us now hear St. Augustiu. " Paul the apostle says 
to those who arc wciuy, and whom he calls animal and carnal, 
far I dfUmniwd not to know anyihing amonif ywt, nave Jesaa 
Christ and Him crucified. For Clirist was, and yet wa.i not 
crucified. In ihe beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and God was the Word. And inasmuch as 
the Word itself was made flesh, so also the Word Use^f was 
crucified; not changed into man, though man is changed in 
it. Man is changed in it, in order to be made better than he 
"WBM, but not so as to be converted into the substance of the 
Word. Hence, through the medium of that which was man, 
God died; through the medium of that which was (lod, man 
recovered from death, rutte again, and ascended into heaven. 




CHAf. It. 

liV'Imtcver man (or the human nature) suS*ered, it ca n ot it 
taid (hat Gnd alto did not suffer ,- for God aanumcd the mw- 
hood, thotij;h He was not changed into man. How '» 't, 
that you cuuld not »ay that yen had suffered an injiirr, tf 
any body had torn your cloak V Surely, whcu you compUinRi 
of it, cither to your t'ricuda or l>cforo a magistrate, rtn 
would sAv (lu the Latin idiom) he has torn nic ? not he W 
torn my ctoak, but 7/ur. Now, if your clothes could be oOM 
you, which nevertheless are not you but your clothes, kw 
much more does the argument npply to the flcsli of Guut, 
the temple of the Word united with the WordV so tbtf 
whatever He suffered in the flesh, God himve^ tn^md; 
althuugh the Word could neither die, nor undcrgx> corrafOaa, 
nor ehau^e, nor he put to death; but whichever of tfacHns 
endured, was, endured in the flcah. Be not surprixcrd, if w 
say the Word suffered nothing; for the soul of man mil sufiii 
nothing, when the Hcsh in put to death, siuce the Ixird aan, 
/ear not t/iose who idll the body, btU cannot kill the tad. 
Still, if the soul cannot be put to death, how could the WoH 
of God he put to death? Yet, notwitliHtaiidlujf, what doo 
He say? He hath scourged m^" — He liaili smitten jue^Hr 
hath struck ate — He hstli torn mt to pieces. All tliia hatk 
not its accomplishment in the soid, and yet He used only tkr 
word nip ; by reason of the oneness of participation." H'i/rh. 
vol, vi. p. K77. Srd ed. P'ert. 

Again : "The human nature wan axmmied as an ■fccjiwoi 
to the Word; not conversely, the Word as an accc3S8iim lo 
the human nnturc; so that the Word together with tbt 
ati:uuoed human nature in cidlcd the Sou of God. Ilenoe tk 
same Son of God is uuchA useable, and coetemal with tJtf 
Father, hut only in the Word ; also the Son of God wis 
buried, but in the Hcjih ouly. Hence let ua sec in whit 
respect i» spoken that which is predicated of the Sou of Gti. 
By the asaumptiun of the manboo<l, the aumber of the 
persons in the Trinity in not increased ; the Triuitv 


the same. For, as in every m&n beside th.e one a^sUDied by 
the Word, the aout and body are one jicrson, so in CJuist 
the Word and man is one person. And aa a man, (a plii- 
lo«opher for instance) is so called only as to his soul, aud 
yet wc aay without absurdity, nay, by a perfectly con»iateiit 
and customary form of s|>fech, that the philusuphcr was 
lulled, the philoxupher died, the pliiloiwpher was buried ; 
when ntivcrtheless all this happened only according to the 
flesh, and not according to that in virtue of which he was a 
philosopher; so also may we say the same of Christ, of 
Ood tlio Son of Uod, of the Lord of Glor\-, or of bimaclf 
under any other name by which he is called in reference to 
his character aa the Word ; and indeed, we rightly sny, that 
thai God was crudjled, eince there is no doubt that He 
suffered according to the flesh, and not in that respect in 
which He was liord." vol. ii. p. 78fi. E[). to Kvod. On these 
extracts we only obsene, that tlie reasoning of St. Auguatin, 
being that which is most favorable to naturalism, secma con. 
sequently to have prevailed over that of the other author we 
have cited. 

From the several statemrnt^ wc Inu'c adduced, then, wc 
feel justified iu concluding, that the assertion that our Lord's 
Divine Nature did not suffer, is virtiially nullifird by the asscr- 
tk>u that our Lord's IHvitic Pemon did suffer j that even were 
it possible fur lliia not to be the case, still that the distinction 
between person and substance is, to nil practicnl purposes, of 
too subtle a nature to be generally comprehendetl ; and thus, 
that while a member of the cimrch prttfesscs, on the subject 
of the Trinity, to avoid tlie evils resulting from Deipassiaii- 
ism, lie falls into the midst of them on the subject of the 
Incarnation. Indeed, as might naturally be cs[>ceted, theo> 
logifljis themselves lose sight of their own distinctions between 

_ nature and per&ou. 

I Thus Bisliop Reynolds observes, that, " Tlie Scriptru-es 

> not bald good, 

itts tlw 111 
tfc^it be ■ Unbuied afaoto 
tUo BifiBaLu it 

«r tIteDdlir wilL vkkk the 

Are we tbcn to aT that the Ssnor Qinst did 
npo« the croM, becmae it VM Q^ bu bo^ tbat died 
qneatioo is alicadj^ m — B e d ; far, uidaubtedly, it b a 
eCem&l trnib that icam QsHk colend ukI died apoo Ac 
aim Co JBTc ss; ycC ve OBDOt C17 ibat Gorf m^ard md 
Sed. Wbea it i» afincd, as in Sdiptara^ Ual tbe Jen 
mufied tbe Lovd of Okcr: or tbat God bnd down bitife 
for nt ; ve regard the expTcawm aa aa lyprcnt tmtb, ta^ 
T^ing a Kol tratb: beoor, if nndentood aa to tbe dhiat 
nature or poaon, ve regard it as bein^ m mncb a &illacy m 
tbe expicaBMD God was angry, or wrmthlol* or indignai^— 
expressions wbicK are onlj ^parent tnitbs emplorcd la 
convey a rod truth. Bat theologians maintain it is not a 
fallac}- ; thcj maintain tbat God really was crudfiod, de«l, 
and buried, because the dirine person wns crucified, deaii 
Hnil buned ; and this bv reason of the bjpostatical onion 
between the human nature and dinnc person, in oottse- 
qiicncv of wliich the pru|)crtic3 of the human naturVi ^"^ 


hence the actious and pfutKtoii.i of thnt imtttrc, may be 
aacribcd to GofJ : for, says Uishop Pearsuu, Art. iv., " Seeing, 
by reason of the Incarnation, it ia proper to say God ia man, 
it foUoweth unavoidably tliat whatsoever necesmrily belonffeth 
to the human nature may be irpoken of God." It is true that 
the author had previously 8aid, " The conjunctiou with 
homani^ couJd put no imperfection upon the Deity ;" but if 
it could not, why then impute it ? Assuredly if any view of 
the lacamutiou be such as to assign to the Divine Person 
positively, to the Divine Nature iniputfttivcly, the imperfec- 
tkiiis of the creature ; what is this but making God such a 
one as ourselves ? Whatever may be the mere speculative 
doctrine with regard to the passibility of the Divine Nature, 
the practical one openly maintains it ; and heueo huij^age is 
UKd OM strongly implying the passibihty of this nature as 
if the theoretical doctrine openly maintained it also; in- 
deed, supposing it were really thus mlvocatcd, wliat stronger 
language upon the subject could be used by divines than 
we have already quoted ? That while the church has denied 
the doctrine in theory, it has maintaiued it in practice, it 
what Swedcnhorg has shewn ; and hence that the whole of 
theology has lust its spirituality, and is become in the lowest 
degree natural. This, he says, is the necessary consequence 
of ascribing to God merely natural properties and attri- 
butes ;* and yet he who exposes these corruptions of Chris- 
tianity is himnclf absurdly charged as profe^cxUy advocating 
them. In no merely natiu^ sense whatever can we say 
either that the Divine Nature, or the Divine Person, or God 

* A roodcra writer obierrn, "The Dirtnity ia not Buaceptiblv of pMin 
or death. In-rontiileniln ImnKuAK^t ■KcniitiK to iRiptj- Ihc contrary lu this, 
liu duD« much linriu la the cua»e uf Scriptuiml Irulti." iSdcrifke aitd Priut' 
AoitJ <if Jttu* Chtitt, bt) Dr. P^t Smith, p. GG. The observMion is Irur nnd 
candid. Bui iuuonnidcruto IncKuuite, su (ceoenilly prwulvnl, iritpiiDa u deep]; 
rooted principle ; Ibe evil cui never br removed (ill tlie cftusc is remoTMl. 
Both ot thcM, tlieraforc, wc luiv« ebileavoml to palm gut, Id ordei U> Iheif 
■ reaonl. 




ctur iL 

himself suffered, or was crucified, or dcad^ or buried. Is 
no way whatever, whether as to his Diriue Nature or u W 
his Divine Person, can vc attribute merely natural propertin 
to the Deity. 

It may be said, that the firequency iritli which the hut 
writers dwell upon the distinction between the divine ind 
human natures, is itself sufficient to negative the asantin 
of their confounding tilings divine and human. But n^ 
nut the very reverHC be the faet? Why should the dtitiBfr 
tioQ be 90 frequently insisted upon, were it not lor tk 
imminent danger of not observing it ? Were the doctrai 
of the Incarnation understood upon the principles explained 
by Swcdenbtirgj there woiild be no more necessity for (»• 
tioning the reader against confounding the two nnturcs, tb«> 
there would for cautioning him ngiilnst Tritheism. The tlis> 
tiuctions between the two arc too broad, too palpable, to be 
confounded by any one aciiuaiiited with his views ; so iiax 
upon tills subject tlie reader would require uo warning wbat- 
erer. But when jieraona are told there are three intelligtst 
agents in the Godhead, the offices of which are separate tai 
distinct; when they arc told that the properties of the humiB 
nature may be ascribed to tlic Divine Pcraon ; tbcu indeed 
a caution becomes perpetually requisite, both against the 
doctrine of Trithelsm and tluit of Dcipassiauisni aud Patji- 

When merely natural properties arc ascribed to God, aD 
■piritual properties must cease to be ascribed ; the two cauoot 
agree. Hence we find such a general, we might almost Mf, 
tmivcraal disrelish for whatever is spiritual ; which oonar- 
quently is no longer called spiritual, hut visionary and mr»* 
tical. For natural ideas being maintained to be alone true 
aud real, spiritual ideas of course are considered fantaxti^ 
and unreal. As long as the Fnther is rt^prescuted as deem- 
ing, the Son executing, the Holy Ghost approving, and nil 
three covenanting from all eternity one with another ; as long 



OS the Father is rcproscntftd as tlcmmuiing payment, the Son 
making the parmcut^ aud the Holy Glioat consenting and 
Bssiating; the Christian world can understand the theobgy, 
and it ia pronounced to be orthodos. But, if we say the 
three persoos did not literally coveuaut one with another; the 
Kathrr did not literally demand a payment; the Son did not 
literally make it; the Holy (ihattt did nut hterally approve of 
it; then it is often objected that we are dispeiuiing with the 
plain and obvious sense of Scripture, obaenriuf; the truths of 
theology, luid sliaking the doctrines of the church to their 
vciy foundation. 

In the sense, indeed, in wliich St. Paul aaid tliat the 
JewUh diMpcnxation was shaken, we may aDirm that the 
popular theologj' of tlie day is shakcu. Vet onre more I shakf 
not the earth only, hut also heaven. And this word, yet once 
more, aiffmfidh the removing of thote thmffx that are shohtm, 
at of things thfit nrc madt- : Ihitt Ihfinf thinrja which cannrtt be 
shaken may Temain. Ileb. xii. Sfti. 

By way of corollary to the present chapter, we may add, 
timt the doctrint- of three distinct hypoatasea leads to a sepa- 
ration of the substance and tho person in the following 
manner. " They who maintain it, hold," says ISieliup 
Burnett (Art. i. 48), " that it imports n real diversity in one 
from tho otlicr; and even «uch a diversity from the substance 
of the Deity itself, that some things belong tf> the person 
which do not belong to the stibstaiice ; for the subatuuce 
neither begets nor ia bcgotteu, neither breathes nor 

But to contemplate the person separately from the sub- 
stance is to contemplate only a mode, relation or property, 
which is said to be Sabeliianinn. 

Secondly ; they ascribe the properties of the human 

!■& IXCAmSiTIOS. CKAP. u. 

naCixve of CbziaC to the Dmne JtaaoB, mat so Ac DrriK 
Mature ; aa if the Dtrine Penan amid ■sfls' and. noK tie 
IK-nne Nstore. 

TUa a^aza id to iepuate the penaafnai de mfaitance; 
vfaicii ia said to be Salytflraiiiin 

Svn.'—Vom aame Jw&eiiMa Ksarka «a htripaaBBu^H and fcr ■ 
expoMCMM of the naaner in wkkfc Ac dactrise of DcipiuBiau^ ha 
nteoded iiKlf throogbnt Mae of the gofmlmM hjaa* of tke ^t, kc 

TtiJile's Appeal, Zad edit, Apfcadzz. 



It is a doctrine proftSHi-diy received by the Christian worid, 
thatj in Jesus Christ, GoU 18 Man aud Man is Oud ; that 
tlio Ijcird JfAHs Christ thcretbrc is God-Man nnd Man-God. 
Thin d<x;triiio ia idso the fundamcntaJ doctrinR of Swrdeuhorg, 
though he differs from others as to the mode iu which it is to 
be understood. Accordijig to his prindples, it is a doctrine 
literally true ; according to theolog^s in geucrul, it is not 
so. Tlic church founded on the principles made known 
through Swcdeiihorg, believes tho Humanity which our Lord 
now has to be di^-inc, uncreated, infiuite ; the Christian woHd 
believes it to he created and finite. 

Now, if we say that, in Christj God ia man and man is God, 
wc consider it to he equivalent with saying, that, in Christ, 
the liuman nature is divine and the divine nature is human ; 
in other wor<ls, that, iu Christ, God is human and mail dirinc. 
If in Him God be not human, how can we say that God is 
man? for how can God be man and yet not human ? Again; 
if wc say, that, in Christ, man is God, we believe it to be the 
same witli snying that, in Him, manhooit is also Godhead, or 
that the human nature Is divine; for how can man be God, 
if that which is human is not dirinc 7 or, how con we say 

:\:AiSATios. cHAf. ni. 

•:-:ir Ttivrr 2» jriif. Kiif J?; ^- ^2ie ainu c of man is not thr 
liiTLTi u: I-'j: - "wiiSL r^tfrsjt s it ^od, that, in Qiid, 
'---•i j* =uiz. Liii 3Xdx ^ *jr:*L "v? TUf ibe vonls in tlieirphiB 
ir^ru zira.-: '.:.r "i^iJit iiTr^tr -re boU. that, in Chril 
zzii iiTTUti i;ir~:r^ ::& •""-»• izti ibe iisman nature is dinn^ 
r: £•» z<;c d.Cjr-w -rbfr^rrs tic tiee is no <H<*inftinii hi>- 
TTrinL -Lir^- Titfy tTf rwEziK. bin not separate ; wbtf 
•ii: zD^JTZirij:!:! it ▼■* tt^ sTtisecamihr pcMnt rait. WA 
TirTLTL T : tLr ^ znioz. Kiii pTiccsar.: Clmidies;, thej miintiiB 
"'• '" ti-f tt; lar^^-j* .t: Crrac tif b^man and divine, ire, m 
:: "I-:,? inrJi^.ft »'■' Tr;cerDes. KiD essentiaUy sepintt 
iT.zi :-ji:-l riilfT izii irJTeii -rhi each ocher onlv hr being 
rrjcri: - .-^r-iir — -Jhn jersoa rf Chrisr. That ther ut 
th-frifjc^ ~"" :*sf!:.r.i2T i* ie»r»ie* as vhat is finite ii 
sctain:; zr;— TLtt 3 iL±zr:«, -wnsi is cicated fiom vlutif 
-j.:L.-trva,:ei : — iji-f . t'-.j-t ibr rr:osti« of the two cannot he 

t«jtur..CT ■■ :--.-:£■- J--- ■::. each ocher. In this pmnt of 

TT;^. IT :* z:t Irtcrtl- rifiifred in general, that, in Oirut, 
0>A i< ~iz iz,.-. —5- ■-* Lr:»L AhboGzh the Christian worid 
Afirr-. til: G->i. :* ~ is- »ZI ihar they mean is that God 
si.?"-:.v. tV.f L'zziizs.'iy i* in crrernal idjnnct ; and although 
:hc;r irf.T:= :"ii: — *iZ. i* i.V:ii, all that ther mean is that the 
hu:r:iz:r- '.> —.:::;•.■ ':■ ti? i^liin- in one person, bo thu 
*:i\":'.v.:v — av ">; --7^T-:ai to tbe hnmanitr-, vithoat bein; 

"WV.i.o. ;..^-»sv:-T. scvvriiiis to Svedenborg, we affirm it to 
bo litomV.v :rj:f . t'-it. :- Christ. Crod is man and man is God; 
vot. ill ;<■« i:.'>i;".r. ^i" tL-.icrstsnd the term man in a far more 
eul:irp.xi st'.iK- :* cv-ninior-lv done — a sense, nerertheless, 
Hliioli is i:s i*:\^:vr s<s«c\ We regard it as a collectire of the 
tlinv |H'riVv::oii* — ^vdiics*. wi^doci, and power ; correspond- 
ing to will, millers ;:v::Aiai:. and action. These three embodied 
in rv:»l cxistoniv aw the es*«:ntird human form, and ccm- 
st'i^nently moM. Many of the diicalties which hare arisen 

• Sff Si.-\>tr» W otki. T L-i",. li. p. 274. 


among thcologiaaa upon this subject, originate from the con- 
tracted news wliicU have been taken of the meaning of this 
Tord. This explanation of the terms human and divine will 
suffice for the present; they will be further explained in 
the sequel. 

If in Christ man is God and Uod is man, however cer- 
tain it is, that upon, this principle the human nature ia 
divine and Iiuh all the essential properties anil attributes of 
dirinity ; that, moreover, the Bivine Nature is Human, and 
has tdl the ensential prupi^rtJes and attributesof the humanity; 
ncverthelcM, it is equally certain, that such a statement will 
Btartle moat persons, who yet have professed to believe that, 
in Christ, God is man and man is Uod.* 

There are two reasons for their aversion to this doctrine. 

First, they cannot believe in ita literal truth, without 
falling into some of the ancient heresies; — heresies which 
tlicy laudably desire to avoid. 

SecoudJy, it is that great mystery of p;odlines8 which has 
alwaya been a Atumbling-block to the humau mind ; it is tlmt 
.^ratery which has set at unuf^ht the wi»dom of this world; 
which, to the natural man, it has been more hard to believe, 
and which has given more offence, than any other mystery of 
Cliriatiuiiity. There is the same obstacle to its rracption now, 
which there ever has been from the time of its being revealed; 
and many wliilc professing to believe it, have, in fact, oidjr 
contrived how to evade it. The reason has been, the diQtculty 
of uniting, in their conceptions, what is finite and what is 
infinite, what is created with wliat is uncreated ; for of an 
infinite hnmanity they have no idea, and therefore they can- 
not conceive how, in the strictest sense, man can be God and 
God can be man. Indeed upon their principles he cannot; 

* For tbebi»l«r? Qftbe TamusdiKUteJouB nhlch ha*« bwn raited upon 
ihu MbjMt in rtilTerent agti of tliR church, and Ihe dtft'ercnl itatti In which 
the expreMJAu kna becD eiplained, bw I'eUviua on th« iDcmntation, Iratik 
Iv. ehftp. 9, 13, &c. 





CBAT. lU. 

for wlint is finite cannot be infinite, nor vlmt is infinite BiaSt. 
Tlieir tUfficidty, liowo-cr, arises — first, from the error rf w. 
timtly OTTiittinf; the dootrinc of tlic miraculous coDcrpCiai); 
and secondly, from making uo diatinction between the glno- 
ficd or infinite linmamtT wliich Clirist now has, and titM 
fiiiile bimianity wtiieh was derivt^id fitmi the \Hrgiu; enoa, 
the consequences of which to Chtii^au moralitv, ve Aill 
hnvc ptirticiilarly to point out. 

The great end and object for which the Lord came into 
the world, and took our hnman nature nimn his l")iTinf Ni- 
turc, irns in order to make his Immau nature the fuhie»^of 
the (jodhead, and our human nature the imnge and hTienw 
of Hi«. lliH taking our nature npou Him, was the oprabi; 
of the way by which, in a lower sense, we are enabled tot^ 
f lis nature upon nt; or by which, as St. Paul says, wtp^ 
oji {.'Am/. This nature we cnnnotpnt on witliont first wiUisg 
and knowing its perfections. We cannot put on Christ wili- 
out flrst knowing Ohrist. \Vc cannot imitate the |ierfcctk>Di 
of God, unless wc first will to know them. Uuw then at 
wc til arrive at this knowlc<tj?c ? This is the question. 

We do not arrive at a knowledge of God, and of Difiat 
things witbout rule or order. There is a law by which, tai 
by which alone, the mind ascends from things natnral ti 
things spiritua! ; from the creature to the Creator. Wlui 
then is that law Y for whatever it may he, thejc wc shall fia* 
the Way, and the Truth ; which truth will be itually to ■ , 
the liifc. M 

It bas been said, that the way in which wc arriTe at ^^ 
knowledge of God is tbc following : 

" Haring, from what wc experiment in oorsdves, got tkr 
idcaa of cxistcucc and duration, of knowledge atid power, tf 
plen-surc and bappiiioss, and of several other ipialitics md 
powers which it is better to have than to be without; when 
we would frfunc an idea the most suitable wc can to the 5o- 
prcmo Being, we enlarge every one of these with our idea of 

CnAF. 111. GOD WTTB V». 147 

infinity; nnd so puttinf; tlirm topctlirr make our romplRx of 
G<k1." Locke'* E»tay o» the Human Understanding, book ii. 
chap. 23, art. 85. 

We are here jjrofewedly suiJpUed witb tbe law above iJ- 
ludwl to. lip oTir ideas of Ocwl what they may, it is said to 
be only in this maimer tliat true ideas cam he formed. 

The process which is here first mentioned, is the attain- 
ment of the ideas of the several qualities and powers. 

The second is that of eularg:ing them with our idea of 

Tbe third that of putting tliem to^tlior. 

First, let us consider the process of attftiuiug the ideas. 
The question is, bow or irhcucc they are to Ite deriveil ? 

That there is a close couneciioii between the conceptions 
we form of tiod, and the nature and character of our own 
minds, there can be no question. Every man, whether he be 
an idolater or not, may ht! said to hp the image and likeness 
of his own (rod. The heathen takes his own iilcas of virtnc, 
his owB ideas of wisdom, goodness, power. Justice, and so 
forth, and then by making; these, as he imagines, infinite, he 
literally makes his own God. If he does not c\alt the virtues 
of his own mind with the icJeas of infinity, still he exalts 
those of other minds which he Jma^ned to possess them. 

Now, a jirincipid relation of the Creator to the creature, 
is that of being Father, namely, the Father of its atfections 
and thoughts; and as it is a Uiw of creation that like hegt-ts 
like, so ,the true God is the Fatlicr of the affections and 
ibougbts of the Christian ; a false god, or idol, is the father 
of the affections and thoughts of the idolater. Speaking of 
the Jews, siud our SaWor, Ye are of i/our father the devii, and 
the (tutu (^ your father tje ifnit do. AVLoever then is the lather, 
the actire cause of our affections and thonghts, he is the 
god we virtually love; on the same principle that the child 
lores its parent. 

I The error, then, of the heathens in general lav in this ; 



CBAr. ut- 

Uiat the wisdom, gootluess, aud power, &c., vrhiclitlieyvap- 
pfMcd they mnrie infinite, they tlcrived from themwlTei, « 
from some creatiircly being. Tbcy looked to a crcstUR^ 
model. Their own nature was, in general, the &ther of tbar 
ovrn msdum. 'Ilic-y did not derive their ideas from tbe vor^ 
uf CJod, or frum the Lord Jesus Christ. A tendency to «i)r> 
ship uur uwn selfhotid, hclonging to human miture tn gcneni, 
(and this human nature being witluu the church as vcUm 
out of it,) has more or leas corrupted the "religion of Ckm- 
tianity. Henee, indeed, the origin of all heresies; hernia 
that ore not to be eradicated by creeds, however corrertlr 
worded, nor by logical subtleties : the root of them alt ia b 
znau'n uvvii ticlfhoud. It is true that, iii actiuiriu^ ant id^ 
of vrisdiim and guoduess, hic., ve have, as ChriatiaaSr tlx 
word of God to g;uide us ; that we need no longer look to tk 
wistlcm and ^uodnciiis of any mere creature^ and hy cularpn; 
them with infinity in our uwn way, regard them a« thepcr- 
f{M*titins (if the (toil whom we wurtthip. As we have a distifict 
word placed before ua, au have we a distinct Uvin^ exempUr, 
who is himself the realization of that Word ; and his good* 
nt^», his wii^dcm,, his power it is, ^hich, not tee make infioitr, 
but wliich fic in hi:i ajtsimicd humanity made intiiiitc, Uut, 
as CliristiauH, wc are called upon to follow. Nerertheleai, ii 
forming our ideas of God, tliis does not preveut the operaOoa 
of the corrupt priiieiples of oiir nature; because it doe* not 
prevent ua from originating our own notions first, and t^HB 
nttributing them to the word of Ood. It is a fault of £iUea 
huniau nature, ever to be attributing it«clf to Ood, innlCM! 
of siilferiug God to impart liimsolf to it ; and this self-arttn 
life of human nature is ever working against the self-actiTr 
life of God. This uiiivcraal principle it is, which haa mani- 
fested itself within the church, as well as out of it ; and vfaidi 
ought to put us upon our guard against recei^*ing anr <)o^ 
trine, come from whence it may, which, under any ni 
attributes merely creaturely properties to the Crcatur. 




Wlien, in the Old Testament, an^r, fury, indijpiation, 
wecpini^, and ro|ifiitjmcc, ura ascrihcci to the Ocitj-j wc more 
easily perceive, from their opposition to the Divine Being, 
that these arc mere crcatiirely attributes ; and that, aa such, 
they cauuot belong to Him; whereas, when we attribute to 
Him the better quahties of our nature, the diilercucc is not 
so perceptible; and we easily run into the ciror of regarding 
Hiin^ na the Ariaii docs Chrint, only as a higher order of 
creature, without at all perceiving the impropriety. 

Hence many wlio call Cluist God, and who would revolt 
trom any idea of depriving Him of his divinity, nererthclctn 
write, speak, and think, of Him in a way no more exalted 
than would others who deny hiH divinity ; so that in the 
writing* of any Arian, hratlicu, or Sociuian, were we to 
insert the ordinary phrasoolo^ ooncerniug the merits of 
Christ, faith in his blood, and »o forth, we might find much 
the «ame order and chiu"iieter of thought in the one a-s in the 
other; the one not in the leant more exalted than the other. 
One author may say that Christ is our High Priest, Mediator, 
and Intercessor; another may omit these offices altogether; 
and wc may regard him as heretical or unbclio-ing; but if, 
when we eonie to consider the work of redemption as merely 
the payment of a valuable cousideratiou ; the office of me- 
diator, as that of a Roman patron intervening between God 
and ourselves, or else of a proctor, solicitor, atturiii-y, or at- 
torney-general ;* and the work of intercession as a silent or 
vocal prayer of Clirist in heaven, whose lilmHl and wounils 
effectually move the Father; we have not yet eniaryed the 
idea with irtjiuitij; in other words, divinity is not witliiu it, 
as it was within the humanity of Christ; but that tphich is 
dwine, we have made <miy ereaturdy. To imagine that, he- 
cause ]H.'r»ons speak of the cross, of the blood, of the atone- 
ment of Clirist, and m forth, they arc therefore setting forth 
diviue truth, is an error; it is no more divine than the 

* Sec Afipcsctii (o tli« Autbor'a LelLcr to Ihn) Archbi&hop of Dublin. 



ctur. Ut-i 

linman body and soul of their Chmt is diritin : for tlie 
diflcrL-ucT wliicb they iustitute between the two mtsmflf 
Clirist, must belong to the attributes, properties, mud tttiam 
of those lULttires. The tva orders of properties cmn uo nan 
be coofoundcd, thau, upon their system, the two natMmi^ 
Christ. Their doctrine of the atoning sacrifice raiut nmn, 
UicrcfurCj ciueutiaUy as scjiarate and distinct from dhiae 
tmth, as the nature <ii which it is predicated; and u Hat 
natUTR 19 declared to be crenturely, and to receive no cmoidiI 
commumc&tiun uf divine pi-operties, tt fullonrs that wc cuntf 
regard the theology derived from such a ricw of Christ'* ba- 
man nature as conveying divine truth. Tlio only vi; la 
vhich, iu this case, it could be snid that tlic acttoiu tr 
attribute's of the human nature of Christ are divine, a tkst 
in which divine attributes are predicated of the Babataimrf 
the human nature; i.e. iniputatirely, not actuaUy. 
however in virtue of which attributes are divine, is 
boiug proper to a dinuc nature or substance. Hut tlic W 
man nature of ChriKt is not acknowledged to receive difiae 
properties ; fur even though united to a divine penoo or 
divine nature, it is acknowledged to be essentiftUv diffntai 
from that nature. If thuu, upon the oomiuunlr recriwi 
principles, certain actions and words of the human naturr of 
our Savior are calle^I divine, it is merely because divia^a 
80 imputed, not that they are such in themselves. Bm, i>- 
aflmuch at Rucli nn expression is a fallftcy, — because sAcr all 
vhat is only creaturely cannot be dtviuc, luir what ii dinar 
only crcattux'ly, — it followM, that the theology which is ma- 
Tcraant with the human nature uf Christ, conaidered only n 
crcatiuvly, is also a follucy. 

To sum up the argument. It is ajfirrocd that the anxmi 
ponou of the Trinity, who in tiotl, aj^umcd to tuiUMtf t 
tnunun nature ; that tu this humim nuture there la no esaca- 
tial communication of divine properties: nevcrtUelen, tbl 
because it is unitnl to this divine pereon, it may, by 



CUAP. III. UOU WITU l<». 151 

of t}ii.s union, he calli^d diniic, though, in itself, it itt not io. 
CoiiHoqunntly, nouc of the. wordH luid actioiia tif our Savior, 
as beluugiiig to the humaji uature, arc iu their owu esseuco 
divine, nlthuugU thcv arc so called : casciitially. the di\-ine 
nature is not conimuuicabto to the Iiuoian : hut though not 
commuuicabie to it, inasmuch as thu human nature is united 
with the dtrinc person and «*ith the divine nature through 
that person, the words and actions of the hiutiaii nature may 
nevertheless be ca/ied divine, though not essentially such. 
Thus, for instance, the ideas of redemption, considered ai 
the payment of a debt, or as a raosom ; of mediation, con- 
sidered as the office of an advocate or attorney, or of a aup- 
pliaut whose prayer confii»t» in the cxiiibitiuii of hia wounds; 
arc all of them merely uaturid or creaturely. We may call 
these things divine truths, if wc please ; but if we do so, it is 
not because they are essentially siu:h, but only because they 
are predicated of a divine person; or arc so called iu the sense 
in wbicli we speak of the Life of the Chrixtian aa divine. Yet 
certain it is, that an attribute is not divine, merely because 
toe aiwign it to a divine person; for tf it were, there could be 
no such thing us error in theology. Thu great omission then 
in this cose, cousLita in overloolcing the other proccjw of 
nhich liocke speaks, namely, that of enlarging these attri- 
butes with ideas of infinity. 

A like observation will apply with regard to the word of 
God : we may call it dinne, and yet regard it as human. 
For the rule which is laid down iu the common theology 
inoontostibly prove*, that what is attributed to a divine per- 
son may nevertheless be only ercaturely, although it may be 
called (lirine bccnusc of its being imputed to a divine person. 

We totally deceive ourselves, then, if, by reason of 
ttttributiufC the actions or the wool of Christ to a divine 
person, we really for that reason regard them as sncli. 'llin 
chamctcrs and (|ua]ities of the divine nature, though imputed 
to the humanity, arc considered to be a]>solute]y inconununi- 

-I. - *:i .■^,tw :XiJ 'X 

r- —• ^'^~^ ^'~ mii, 31 f»«-"'iM— rt:f ra.MT' to be 

L '.r^ ?■ — ■■!ii"]i'r fi^i^~ t!'i ,!«» " —1 B 

III n. Ttn. a: crrairT^ -3 Tac ixaaa aanscf 

:- zi lie -CTTTH xnaiianinL u "^e -y- ^r-a^. -n .V 

-.siir-r^ -1 nan Ir u -zae r^:ri'MtG»ete i 

"znj "- ••.Till!. mznTiM ~; TTt*^ ■wr*a sfter- 

:r^ J! h;ani:'»'>'ijyi ■; re ::»^ irriiae- I ned 

7zr-*T rriuLTi.- a "±1; *:i=rs rrcci -^ziA oar ideai <> 
."- ■: : ^r-TT^^n. -i> ir4 j^r^L jfai, ■»* to coa^icr. secoaiiT, 
-jiz -zr.!.":— ? :' •" -i.-r^ r t± jiriat :c ^r'->= rT thone qcaiieei 
1:1: T'-v:r* TL^ii :z. -:'- u^ iiTSf : ft prc«ess which. « 

: 1.1": M':\ !■. v - ^tj 'i^^in iSl^l. 'Z.U. in l'->r fiTT 

.:■■_• z -iz -rTZz-i-L iji :z '-:*L r> f~*: ac!^-.iir¥ <ach a» iff 
:-i-:::7". > »' z-;f.rf '.if jrics**, tien. of their beins 
— -■: .^1-: ;* -i Lj-i.- ;T.T:jei :l-:7 ire only creanirfir. 
'-.::■: 'linir: .r :^r.ziirec tl; ;r:cess of making the fiaitt 
:_ir-::: "i: l"-ziii i_-jie . ":_: t^ ire spoken of a* th; 

N,- .:■ : ::-^i :•; siii — ir.y sc-asc. that me could male 
it'::.;: ;> iziTf -~- t-- :r Tii: i* humia divine^ there woold 
i../.; ' -;-:r- „ ■_:-:i .: :!; Izt-iiriiition : no necessity for tia 
P/.".i:v i^c:-j :\zLLz^ ii-a^ t-> u^ sjid assuming the huiMn 
i:riturc. }:-: : u: ::■. l,u lunianin- certainly, that we might 
Ih' iiiriir'.ti :■. r;:?^c cir :-cas :md afl'cctions like his ; but oor 

• Alih^'u^:. H.-.ker A::i i.:ifr* tpcak of the hnmui nalure of Cbrbi it 
ileidrit. >t': \'r.t} >. r.M-irr it <.>s:> as vnjiutattTtU. not tstnlmitf, deifird. 

CRAP. 111. GOD WITO C8. 163 

capaliility of w doing is derived only from Ilim, and the 
way in vhicli wc arc to do it, in Ktrictly a subject of divine 
rcvclatiou; not of any philosophy independently of it. The 
attempt to make wliat is human divine, independently of re- 
Telation, has alwayH eiidcd lu makin); what is divine into what 
is merely human. As a general rule we may observe, tliat the 
capaeity of cnlaipng our ideas with infinity [ho to speak), 
and thus forming a right apprehension of God, ia tlic capa- 
city lost by the fall. It was only the I>ivinc which as'tumcd 
the human, that could make the human divine, and it it 
only by the same process by which He did so, that we, in 
a lower degree, can do the same. How few bear this in mind 
iu forming their ideas of God ! Yet it is as much a phiIo> 
sophiciU as a theological tnith. All the errors in the church, 
all the false religions and false philosophies of the heathens, 
arose from the himian mind originating its own attemptn to 
make what is humau divine, and then calling it rcUgioua 
truth and eternal wisdom. 

liCt na apply these remarks to the commonly received 
ideas c^ God's attributes; for instance, to those of his eter- 
nity, love, wisdom, &c., and observe the process by which, in 
general, pcniuns endeavor to make their human ideas divine, 
or tu pass from the human to the di vino, from the linitc to 
the inlinitc. First with regard to eternity. 

If we take the idea of time, and add to it that of its 
contiiiuirig without end, we arrive at the common idea of 
eternity. Etcnjity is thus conceived of in reference to dura> 
tion of time; though time, however extended, (even if con- 
ceived to be of endless duration) docs not give ns the true 
idea of eternit}". The true idea of eternity, as well as that of 
the Eternal, is essentially spiritual ; and is of a quahty totally 
different from that which involves the natural idea of time; 
nor can any extension, or any endless additious to time itself, 
ever alter its real nature. We may, indeed, thus make it 
apparently infinite ; but we do not make it spiritual or divine. 


^e-: »e la^e ^eoloaiaiis tpeak of the conntless ages* rfete- 
1^7 ; eirresskrtis wiikh, u ther uc enoneoiulj undentood. 
*o 'j^-sj na::;r:u:T kad to intenniiuhle cmitzoTersies, psitin- 
lar.T .:c zhie dcctrine m* pzedesniiatioii. 

Ajain: !« m ake our idea of the attribute of lore ; h» 
can »c ec^arjen with the idea of infinitT? The ordiniir i^ 
» rr ci;<bxiTini oi love u being more intense ; thus iffcA, 
k^i5re£2:iiedask>v?Qfiii£nitei]iteiisitT. But we nu? god- 
cere az affection to be nM»e and more intense, naj, to hnt 
an :n:c3srr withoin end. vithont conceiring the nature v 
c/iiliiT cz Tie a&L-tion to be ahered : it is the same lore, ba 
v -^T =:■; :« in reuse. Hot therefore we commit the same emr u 
»io :i;6<;. wno tiiink to arrire at the tnie idea of etemity b 
ciiiin^ :iz:e innnhe,-*- or regarding etemitr as time vithori 

Aini:i : 1:^ Gs take our idea of the attribute of wisdom. \(t 
Tzxj i.vz.'' zhsz Gcii is omniscient, or that He knova iQ 
:>.-.v.r? - vt: cur coaceprion of God's knowledge mav be the 
ja;v.> v.:'~ tr.i: <:: niire oreatmelr knowled^. This koowledse 
• Sr vvr-.tivti: :o be inanirelv expanded; vet its essential 
-.i.^TV-r;' :s nx Tj these means altered. Here, again, m 
o,'v.:r.-.".: rr-f saint r:i£s:akc. as in our ideas of etramitv. 

Tr.;- l-l; Ti rjLir observe with repud to power, josticf. 
pvv.r.^-j*. an/, sll tne periections of God; the ideas cf 
»l;vV.. N"-.; cr.i:nsl> hv.niaii or creatnrely, are not in their 
u:«r.r»- .-.".Ti-rtvl Vv ^v.;s:-.:irlng them, in the sense we have a- 
I'laimv.. •.■.■.r.n;:e ct infthrii-^Tible. The attributes still rcnuin 
iiu-i\'.v oTvsrv.^-'.y ; a::d wo are deceiving ourselves, if, after 

• 1:' n<r »,-.■> /.;: i^: :.' -;*; saw, ihe »pr«uioD« are rijhl; bii 
tW> *!v n:vri ■.:' ,--r>..:: rfi i> *;jr=i:>itr time. I'fiag the term icf )• 
til.' i.'v.Mi'i MT^ki-, :>;■ >i,sr.::s lS.^l-. pred««usiIiOD Tanishes. 

» I lu»t- T-*--;-.-.^ 7::> *.:,rw\i ihi exprt^iod df Locke, ntmrgimf ^wr Htu 
t>u\ I'im », A^:.- .-<;;■. ilsf TfAJ*r cat perrfiTc lh« it u not su-ictlf comti. 
Till- fvpiv»it-ii »-■-■»:: ",^»",' >'- i."»*»tr, «iT appropriate to conie\lk'> 

V t».'i) i.I.M. ..J S'.r; .-L r.>!r\- jitiw/ c- fU.Vw MUifina. Dot an funlui 

rfinni:>ifii-«. |t>-i'-i rvrr(»«i.^=» rcit : nihtr to quAstitr Iban to qualitj. 


making them infinite in the manner wc have explained, wc 
regard them as di\-iuo; for after all they remaiu only finite. 

It was to remedy tbis evil, thus to open the tme way by 
which we might arrive at right iilciw of God, and receive 
true love fi*om Ilim, that uur Lord took ujKJit himself our 
human nature. For if wc have formed to onrselre* a 
crcaturely GikI j if, ratiroovcr, the worship of any God con- 
Biiftti ill the worahi[)er*8 becoming an image and likeness of 
his nature j it follows, tliat the more wc worship tlie God we 
have formed, having creaturely attrihutes, the more we are 
conformed not to a tnily di%*inc, hut to a ercatnrcly nature; 
the more wo become the image and likcnetis not of the true 
God, but of onr own imaginary God ; not of the selfhood of 
Jehorah, but of our own scUliood ; in fine, the more we be- 
come idolaters of tlic creature. And if, in tliia case, we tramc 
a theological system founded upon our views of the Deity, 
the more ctdpablc shall wc consider those who differ from ua, 
because the more adverse to our selfhood. Thus the root of 
the evil will lie in this, that our ideas uf God arc not yet en- 
larged with that of infinity, — we have not jiurified or spiritu- 
alized them, — they remain still crcaturcly ; and the more we 
worshif] our own God, the more will the evils of our imture 
he devctopod under the guise of religion. 

For in order that we may have right ideas of God's goocl- 
uess, wisdom, and power, thus of the trinity of these princi- 
ples iu God, or, in other words, of God him»elf, these 
attributes mmtt be n\ich. in us as correspond with those which 
arc in llim. Hut tliin cannot be, unless we ourselves are first 
the image and likeness of God ; for thus only is our nature in 
oorrc!i]}Oudenee with his, our affections and thoughts, the 
image and likeness of his. Consequently, before we attain 
to this image and likcnciis, any attempt on our part to take 
certain quaUties of our own, and by making them iufiuite, 
to arrive at a true knowledge of God, must only lead us into 
cmv; nay, into idolatry ; by tcaebiug us to worship a gofi 




cBAr. m. 

of (lur own creation, insteRtl of Him vho is uncreated; ni 
a religion founded upon these notions, muat be radicilf 
fidae : it will origiimtc only deiticfij us miicli at varianoe wiA 
each otlier as the minds vrhich created them. Hence ilwTt 
will be as many religions as there are gods, as many god* u 
there are men. 

Whca man, liuwei-er, is become the ima^ aud Hkcnm 
of the one true God, when God is in him nnd he in God, the 
God of one is the God of all ; and thus lie becomes the Go^ 
of Hosts. It vas to make man the image fuid likcuea»e( 
Gud, that Ood took upon Him the image and likenen itf 
mau; that in the humanitii^ He might be seen and appnndK 
able; that through it He might import to man the poveraf 
tniiu forming himself into an image and likeness, tho^ 
creaturely and finite, of the Divine Lov^ Wisdom, ni 

Although, however, the Scriptures have expressly decbntf 
that man was created in the image and likeness of God, yet 
thcologiiULs have been obliged to deny it : for the exprana 
holds good, tlipy say, in regard to some of the pHncipIet tt 
the Divine Nature, but not in regard to all ; nor in. any w 
spect in regard to the hypostases ; (w there ii no one 
who was ever an image and likeness of three hypostiao,' 
however lie may have been an image and likeness of 
principles. Hence they maintain very consistMitly, that 
Christian is an image and likcncsB of God only in Mome thineii 
not in all; and this rule being once established, it is no woo* 

Ldcr that the same natundism which has introduced divinn 
and separation into the hji'postasis, should have iatrodiiM^^ 
them also into the perfections of the Deity. ^^^| 

Thus a modem writer observes, (Scriptwre TcMtimomn IW 
theMesnah, btj Dr. Pye Smith, vol. iii. p. 407 :) 
" In the luiiuitc Being there must 1)c, beaadct the attf> 
bules w/tic/t we a$cnbe to Him, inniuuerable other rcalitio^ 
* E:iccpl upvD some of (h« Sabcllifto h;i>o(b«»e». 



en A p. III. 



properties, or perfections, of which we hatv not the least know- 
ledge or idea. . . . We attribute to God only the jierfections 
irhich we find in ouraelvea, or obtain aome knowledge of from 
the o])erationfi of Mh power in nature ; but are the»e taken 
together all possible realities or perfections? How manythou- 
saud species of creatures may there yet be, gradually exceed- 
ing each other in their perfections, until the mighty scale 
that reaches from earth to heaven is filled up ? How vaat the 
distance! How many millions of spirits, between a human 
soul atid the Loll teat of created natures 1 Non*, since to all 
these bcingA, 90 vastly different from each other, God has given 
their respective conditions of existence ; there must neceasa- 
rily be in Him infinite perfections, corresponding to thoso 
which are finite in them. As then we are absolutely and en- 
tirely destitute of any ideas of the properties which belong 
to other rational and created beings in the universe, excepting 
anf^ls, of whom we know a little from revelation ; it follows, 
tliat there are in God nonie pprfections which are entirely con- 

txaUdfrom our capacitij of knowledge The realities or 

actual perfections which arc in the Deity, may with propriety 
be distingnished into two classes. The one consists of those 
to which we liud somctliing very similar in the human mind. 
Gud has knowledge, will, and freedom : He is wise, benign, 
and mcrcifid. The other class must comprehend those, to which 
there i* nothing t« the human mind thai bears any mnfortnity or 

resemblance whatever Since God Is a being of a nature 

and mode of existence altogether different from those qf man, 
and infinitely superior, therefore there mutt be in Him much 
that has no count rrpnrt in man." 

In conuncntitig on these views, it is not uccesaary to en- 
large upon the fact, that the whole of this argument falls to 
the ground if, as Swcdeuborg maintains, there Is an analogy 
extending throughout all creation ; we shall merely poiut 
out how exactly they harmonize with what i« stud in support 
of the doctrine of three hypostases. 

1-W ixcaexatios. chap. in. 

TTe rppest the obsermtioii of Dr. Soath : " A third kmb 
of our short and imperfect Dotions of the DeitTj espeaaDr 
viih Teicrenre to the Tnnitr of persoiu, is the utter mnt «f 
all inscuices aad examplet of this kind. For when a kof 
and cvnisant course of obserration has still took notice, thtf 
cTcn' nmnericallT distinct person, and every snppositnii^ 
has a numericallr distinct nature appropriate to it; nd 
rrlipt.m iMmes afterwards and calls upon ua to apprehend the 
saino niimcrioad namre. as subsisting in three numeriallT 
di»iint.n persons : to are extremelr at a loss hov to confim 
our notions to ir. and to conceire hov that can be in thne 
|vr!i*,M»s, which we nerw saw before, or in anything els^ tv 
K* hn: ou'.y in one. For human nature, which originil^ 
pnxvixls br the obs^^rraiions of sense, does very hardlj fnoe 
to itsoli anr i;oTions or conceptions of things, but what it 
has drawn tivni thence." 

Snoh is iht' harmonT between what is said npon theper- 
tV\*tions, and what is ssid upon the hvpostases of the Deitr. 
Lot i» Av how these riews affect the doctrine of tk 

X( i; tv* trac :hat man. in his regenerated state, is u 
iii\»!;^^ »ud hkoiu-s$ onh- C4 some perfections in God; and 
tliat (tvst has other pertections;. the nature of which iin 
lotaltv ditTcnrn: trvnu anvihinf that man possesses, as to 
hn\o no a«aky>- to i; ox no cwnformitT with the constitntiM 
\^( his Ivni^ : V.t>w is i; |v«siblc that God coold erer faaic 
IxHHMtto iu»i\ ! It i.vuid oiihr havie been jome pcirfectionf d 
Ihr (unlhoad th»; assun^cvi the hnmanitr; and these perfee- 
(loii!*. MU'ti oit'.y :u 'jwrnoi'.lar as bore some analt^y to the 
i|u»hlio!t of the luind. If we once admit thisi, and 
«i »li>uIo t\w ins;h*\*ii. i: is not difficult to see the resnh: 
iiiutiol\. t\tc *lvv:r-.j:o thst some Being, the mirror of those 
dnuH' iilovu-s iu tlu- tnx:ht-ail whieh curresponded to sadi u 
nrt' lit ma»». caiwo i:o»:\ aiui assumed our nature ; f<vthit 
Mod hnnM'lf tvuKl not ha^t^ axsumod it, since there cooU 

cnAP. III. aoD wiTB cs. 169 

haxc been no union between the divine and human imttirf m ; 
innumerable perfections of the one l>caxing no confonuity 
iritfa the qualities of the other. The bein^ therefore^ 
thus asfltuuiiig our nature, must liave been such a one aa 
embo(lic<l in IiJmsclf the [>crfectioii.s of the Divine Natitrc 
only in n certain ilegree, and wlio thus could never be the 
fiiluc88 of the Godhead bodily. Accordingly, this has been 
and is the real doctrine maintained by a large portion of the 
Chriiftian commnuitj-. Apparently, the lirst division niain- 
tained was in the hypostases ; one only liyptwtasis being 
considered as incarnate and not the other. Apparently, the 
second division was in regard to moral perfections, only 
Bomc of these bdnj; ineamatc and not the other. In reality, 
the first iliviHion va8 the Arian; the second was Uio con- 
sequeuce of it. Thus the tripcrsonality of orthodoxy and 
of Arianism had the nanie orisi"> namely, that naturalism 
of the human miud by wldch the pcrfectioria of tlic Detty, 
from being conceived of in a lower degree, came to be conri- 
dcrc<l as susceptible of division ; the moral principle in the 
human mind thns alwiiya taking prcce<lcncc of the intel- 
lectual. Hence the division whicli at first wan made in the 
perfections of the Triune Ood, wa* afterwards made in the 
hypostases ; so that now we have a division both of perfec- 
tions and of hypostasis. This is only a natural consequence: 
there is as intimate a relation between a division of hypos- 
tases and a division of offices and perfections, as there 
ia between person and substance ; the one practically lead- 
ing to the other.* 

So far, however, as the correM|>oiL(lcnce between what ia 
human aud what ia divine is destroyed, so far is cut oS all 
conceivable communion between the two; not only in the 

t' The doctrine of thriM coetjniit Gudt, of one and Ibe trnmo aubalAiice 
with tho other, cannot b<^ maiutalncd by tbr hutnon mind, being conCradic- 
tDry to jucif, AM Trithcisnt U ouenliiillT Ariui, liuwe*er Kemiugl^ it is 

160 ikcarnatiok. cuat. m. 

pc.Tmn of Clirist, but in n lower tle^ree, in our own penoDf ; 
tliiui so fiir is mau hIsu shut out from access to God. VTbUe, 
on the other hand, so far aa the correspoii donee between the 
two nmy be considered complete, bo far, iu. the iterma «( 
Clirist, limy be consulcrud to hare existed a complete comma- 
nion of the two uatures ; aud so far, iu a lower deg^ree, nxi 
every Christian be considered as capable of enjoying cooimiu 
nion vith the wliole Godhead. To this end, as we hut 
obsnrved, there must be a correspondence between the tn 
natures ; without which, it ib not possible to effect a transitiai 
from the divine to the human, or from the human to ihe 

Now, it hna been justly swd, that only can ascend to hm- 
reo, which hath first come down firom, heaven. But lit 
Savior aloae i« He vrhicli hath come down from Iwtvi^ 
which He did in assuming our nature, or ntnking the dirne 
human ; He therefore could first ascend unto he«veu or nudw 
the human divine. The process by which He did thui, is thi: 
same by which, iu a lower dej^rcc, we paw) from the hmnn 
to the divine. 

In conaidenng this subject, then, we muat hc;ta3ie mr- 
«cItch to the U^-ing and the wntten Word of God; tai 
consider firKt, the process of making the divine haman, or 
of the Divine Nature assuming the human. This nuR 
directly brings lis to the doctrine of the Incamatiou. The 
proccsM of making the human divine, we shall consider in 
our subsequent chapters. When, however, we speak rf 
the Divine Natiuv assuming the hiunan, it may be «d) 
to enquire more precisely into our meaning of the tentt* 
divine and human. 

In general, the terms human aud divine are opposed la 
each other, much in the same way us the term man i> 
opposed to that of (tod; man implying one who is finite aB^ 
crcaturcly, and Go<1, one who is Infinite and uwcn^buL 
The reasons for this appear to he the following. Pint, the 

CHAP. III. 0«n WITH v%. ^^^^^ '191 

coutnictetl siguificatiou of the tcmi man, arisiug partly from 
inati's ignorance of his owii nnture. Secondly, the supposi- 
tiun thnt Uod is a being possessing Rttiitmtea csscatially 
dtflcrcnt from the hnnian in thcwaytrc hnvc already noticed; 
oud of course, the greater the diversity is conceived to be 
between the two, the more opposed to each other are the 
ideas belon^ng to the words cxprcsfting them. Thinily, 
because between Qod and the natural mind nut yet trans- 
formed into tlie imiige and likeness of God, there is ac- 
tually no correspondence ; snch miiiils tlicrcfore cauuot but, 
on this account, oppose what is bnman to what is dinue, 
and WW versa. Foiirtlily, a persuasion that a literal under- 
stauding of the doctrine that in Clirist God in niau and 
luau is God, implicit a species of aulhro[K>inorphism. Such 
are the reasons for which the Christian world, in general, 
ajipears to have adopted tliis custom. 

Let ns, however, etirteavor to ascertain the Scripture 
sense of the terms; but lK.-f(irc wc do so, as the enquiry will 
lead lu iuto some brief remarks on the essential perfections 
•of the Deity, it may he useful to premise one observation. 

There arc two ways in which wc form our notions of 
tilings, — an external, and an internal ; tte external belongs 
to the senses, the internal to the intelligent mind. But 
man is prone to become a creature of the senses ; nor is he 
necessarily the lets so, because be cultivates his reason ; for 
even reason may be made subject to the senses. Hence the 
idea* which he forms, have a tendency to be merely sensual 
anil natural; a tendency which, of conrsc, will manifest 
itself particularly in his thoughts concerning divine thingii. 
In regard to his own species, it is not from the internal ijua- 
lities of the mind that ho is apt to form his opinions, but 
from the person : thus he is dispused to think from person to 
■ essence, not firom essence to person ; from form to tpudity, 
H not firom <]unlity to form. In bkc manner iu regard to God, 
I the great disputes which have prevailed in the church, have 

I • 




CBAT. m. 

not hMMi a])out a trinity of principles, liut a trinity of penoM: 
not 80 uiucli about loie, nisdom, and power, as about pcnv 
naUtjr or hypostases. In aocunlnnco irith this external Tin 
of the sulijcct, a iiuiubcr of artificial retations, equallj external, 
hate bvcii cataU>Ut*Iicil i>etwrcn the persons ; arising not n 
c\'iilcntly from the iiHture of the latter, as from n sort of Tohui* 
tory economy agreed upon between them ; utd in the itrrplop. 
mcnt of these relations, has been cmploye<l a large portion uT 
t)icolo{;y, often to the entire cxclusiuii of the real prinapleiol 
the Divine Nature itself, as consisting of ifOodneas, wisdia^ 
and power. Hence it is, that the estemal idea has bccoop 
the hrst in importance, the internal idea the second ; lad 
providcfl the former has been entertained in accordance irilk 
the decrees of eouncils, the latter has been compantiTdf 
disrcganled; ami a nian might entertain tlie tnovt tuiwvtlff 
ideas of God's goodncfw, the motit fooHah ideas of hia visdoa 
and ^Hiwer, antl yet )>e esteemed orthodox, jinivided be w 
considered to be right on the fOibjcct of the TrijH.*r8owahtT. 

Having made tbcso remarks, we proceed to observe, in 
regard to the terms divine and human, that aa the vaM A- 
Tine romcs from the I>atin word Dctut, sipniryiug Ood; »» 
iuasmtich na God was uiiknowu to the heathens, we mtMt 
turn to the Scriptures in order to determine its trae meuuog. 

In the Old Testament we find the Deity frciierallr calM 
by the two uamci< Jehovah and Klohim. These two distintc 
names imply two distinct ideas ; Jrhoi-ah aignifVing tW 
innermost principle, or life, essence, being: which we earn- 
monly imply in the name of Lord : Elohim adpiifnng a 
principle lower in order or truth, because it signifiea pover:* 

* " la the Word, Jclio^ali or ibe Lord i» in sevenl plmces namad Dtt 
Llic tifij^alar, aUo F.loah, ttml b lihcwisc namcid Blohim in thv |)liinLl,aKk 
■ornvtimes in one ie»e or iu uDt- iwrk'». The reaMQ yhj He La ao loa^ 
cuinot V kni>wn, unlrss llie inl(>n)nl ien»fl of the Word be knuwa. TkH 
CI involvp* one (hini;, and Eloah uoUicr, nod Eluhim aooUMr, rti^n ow 
mar jud(:e from llii*, (bat Itie Word Is dirliM, Ihsl i», dcrivM Its oncw (*«• 



a principle which it properly implied in the tCTm God. In cor- 
respondence with these distinctions, we find two others in 
the New Testament, the Father and the Son. The Father, 
who is GoodncfM, being Jehovnh ; the Son, who is tlie Eternal 
Word or Truth, being God. la the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. 
John i. 1. We thus see the meaning of the terms Jehovah 
God ; the Spirit proceedbig from both and operating on the 
spirit of man, being called the Holy Spirit. 

Properly »peakiug then, the term Divine has relation to 
Jchomh ; the term Human to God ; and thus the terms Di- 
vine Honuui siguiiy Jehovah God: divinity having relation 
to goodness or love — humanity to wisdom or tmth : the Hu- 
manity being the form of the Divinity as windom ia the form 
of love, and the Word, or^^Son, the form of the Father or 
goodness. The temu Divine and Human, therefore, in the 
foregoing sense, both imply infinity. But as in their common 

the (lirinc, and thai it ia lieDc« Inspired a» to all «ij>r«a&iai)e, yea, u to Ihc 
Miutlle>l apex. Wliitt (N inrolvri} in El when il i> tiunml, anil viU«t in 
Elabim, thkj appUT frDm what ban been abundantly shcwD kboio, namoly, 
tiut El and Elulitiu, m Giul, in menlionrd wh<^n (ruli:i it Irrtitnl uf : htiucc 
il b tliat by El and Elohitn in tho auiireinc scum it signified the diviiw 
spiritual, for Ibis is the same wilb ditia« iruUi, but with the dUTervnce that 
by El Is sipiitied Iruth in tho nill nri'l act, which is the same thing wilh Xht 
(COod of truth. Bluhim in the plural is used, becuusu by the illvine truth 
an meant all truths which arc from Ihc Lord ; h«icc also the aog«ls in lli« 
word ar« somdisuiii called elohiiD, or gods. Inascuuch, now, «■ Kl and 
Eloblu in Uie suprentc sense slirnify the Lord as to truth, they also slfnlfy 
Ilim AS to |Mwrr, fur it il truth (if wlilcit power in pmlicAlcd, for good acts 
by tratli wbsa il cirrciKx iwwcr; thcrofure, whcrvaocvor (wwer dori'Cil 
from truth is trcAtcd of in the U'wnl, the Lvrd is called ivi and Elohim, or 
<}od : hence also it is, tkat £1 in the oriipnal luitgu? likewise sIxBUles one 
who is powerful." SietAnb«rg'» Arcmnn CvUitia, vol. vi. art. Ai<Sl. 

"Thp trnnOod, as applied la Uie Word, is grounded in ability or potancy 
(|w«f wit ftttntut), but the term Jciiovah in esse or eaaence : hence it is Uai 
Ui« tcmi God i) usnl in speaking of truth, and tlio term Jeburab in speaking 
uf good i for ability {yuue) Is predicated of tmlk when ease ta predicated of 
good, inaxronch as gixxl ha* power by truth, for by truth ROod produre* 
wbatMCVur exists." Ihtd, vol. v. art. 3910. 




signification they do not convoy the foregaing^ disthictiaiif, tt 
follows that irlicn it is asked, how Oofl nmy be conceived to be- 
come man, there Is s degree of vagweness ia the ven' espre*- 
sion : a* in like manner when it i» asked, how what U dinw 
can hpcome hnnian : nor can the snhject receive ftny clear sai 
definite cx|>lana1ion, till UiOKe ili^tinctions arc Uttst uiidcrvtood. 

Via ohscnc tlicn, that in the tcnns Father, Son, ud 
Holy S|>irit arc implied the principles of Gootlnesn, AVtsdonn, 
and Power; the FatluT heing GckxIucss, which is the Divii>e 
Essence; Ihc Son Wisdom, or the form of (iouducss; tJx j 
Holy Ghost Power, or both in operation. Agroenblr wH 
what is stated by Hooker, who says: "The Father m Good- 
ness, the Son as Wisdom, the Holy GhoKt as Power, Ai 
all concur in every particuhu- ; outwardly issuiuj* from tlatf 
one ouly glorioua Deity which they aQ arc. For that whidr 
movcth God to work is goodness, and that which atder- 
eth His work is wisdom, and that which pcrfectcth Vh 
work is power. .... Therefore wliataocver we do 
now in this present world, it was eo^irapped withtu 
bowels of the Divine Mercy; writtCTi in the hook of rtcnul 
wisdom; and held in the hands of omnipotent power; tkv 
first foinulatioiis of the world heing as yet unlaid-" 
tiaMkal Polity, book v. art. 56. 

"Still," as lie says, "Although the Father lie first, the 
next, the Spirit Inst, and consequently ncnrest tiiito cvi 
cITcct which growcth from nil tliree ; nererthel»!S8, they 
being of one essence, arc likewise all of one efficacy." 

We tlina see how our ideas of God, as a Trinity in Unity, 
arc put together: let us next proceed to make a few obffP- 
Tatious on the subject; and Jinit, on the name Jehovab, ■ 
designating tlic Father. It is ackuowleilged tlint the Father, 
contemplated separntely from the Son, \a without form, iwl 
hence has neither body nor parts. There are two wa^-s ia 
wliich this truth may be received ; a wrong way, and a lifiii 
one. With regard to the first, it will we presume be gen^ 


iu nM 

CU.iF, in. 



rally ndmittcd, tlrat we cHiinot conceive of any rt-al existence 
without body, or williyut parta; that cvury thiug wu know of 
is orgnuizcd ; tliiit tlic more wc know of it, the more parts 
do we perceive ; that is to Htiy, the mure do we undcrxtaiiil of 
its comfKwitioii. Thus, the more we know of the human 
body, the more organic it appears to be, and the more or- 
ganic, 80 to speak, is our idea of its nature ; in other wordii, 
the more complex it is, or the more docs it <'onsist of com- 
|)oneiits. In regard to our knowledge of God, the case is the 
same ; the more wc know of llim, the more organic or com- 
plex will otir idea bo; ou the other hanil, llie Icrh wc know 
of Fliru, the !c»a coinplcx will he our idea, or the fewer com- 
puucuts will enter into it ; aud this successively, till we come 
down to a state of |Ki8itivc ignorance ; in which (iwL is to ns 
aa without Wly or without partK; that i a to say, aa if He 
were not. In thin ease, the God whom we worslnp, if wc 
worship auy, will he the Father acparately from the Son; the 
unknown God, irithout body ur nithunt piu^; an all-pcrvad- 
ing power, formlesK, bccau»o uur vvrii itica is without form ; 
the indcfiuitcness of our oirn conccptiona being mUtakcn for 
the intioitudc of the Supreme lleiug. 

Thus docs our own state of mind become attributed to 
the Deity. The Sociuians complaiuj and witli rea-son, that 
many invest the Supremo Bcin^ with human or creatiirely 
attrihutea wlion they regard Him as Gwl nmdc man. But 
do tiicy not fall into a simitar error, when, though not attri- 
buting to God particular human properties, they nevertheless 
attribute tu Him the general stale of their own minrls^ 
and worvhip Him as a sort of ChaoH, without form and void, 
with darkness upon the face of his Divine abyss ? 

In contemptatiitg tliuu the C!>scntial divinity Jehovah, or 
the Father, as without form, wc should he careful to distin- 
guish between our own tttate of mind and the real principle 
indicated by this term. In the prcM^nt case, the priucipic 
h implied is that of Divine Lovc^ or Goodness, wltieh has no 




ibrni except in the Son, or Divine Wisdom or Trulh ; tr 
wc know nothiiig of Divine OoodneaB except through iht 
medium of Divine Wisdom. Divine Wisdom is Div-ine li^ 
without which our affections are blind. To worslup ihe 
Father out of the Son ia to worship Love without Wiadom ; 
and, as we know nothing of love except through wiftdom, it iifl 
to worship we know not what ; and to attempt to iniit«tc Ha ~ 
love without knowing any thing of His wiBdom, Le. to ip- 
proach the Father out of tlie Son, leads either to infidelitr, 
or to a zeal without knowledge, nunicljr, that blind fiunti- 
cism which indulges in ecstasies and raptures unconttoDed 
by any wisdom or judgment. The Father, then, has no dit- 
tinct and separate existence out of the Son, any more tfau 
Lore has out of Wisdom. Bearing; this in mind, let us prtK 
ceed to our remarktt upoa the Son or Wisdom, Tmth or the 

Of the Son it is observed by St. Paul, irAo beimg m Ih 
form </ God, thuught U not robbery to be etftuU wUk GodL 
Here tlic apostle declarci) that the Sou poascsaca s form, wbH 
that this form ia the form of God. 

In the present case, as in the previous one, there ait 
two wa^'s in which this truth may he oontcmplated, an erro- 
neous itiid a true oiur. Let u» finit consider the former. 

All ideas of God, in order to be tmc, mnat be spirituaL 
But the natural man cannot originate spiritual idcu ; he 
thinks only from time and space ; hence his idea of form Ieh- 
cludus the idea of visible space, place, matter, or natmc 
Hence also if he thiuks of God as possessing a farm, fas 
imagines it to he the same with the form of a visible hmaan 
body, occupying visible space; which is commuuly cailled 
anthropomorphism. Such a view of the Deity is no otbs 
than the lowest naturalism. 

A similar one is taken by the idolater. God being to Ium 
unknown, he finds he cannot worship Him, as He has oathir 
body, parts, itor puKHioiis. Hence he fonus to hinkself a 

cuAr. tii. 



sensible Image, « hich lie take* to be the reprcscntntirc of the 
attrihuti'3 he ascribes to Uim. For otiiennse, (uhI being 
considered to be without furm, he catuiot worship stieh n 
God, any more thnti he can vronhip without ideas, lliii 
ideas formed from tlic senses, arc the forms or fonn under 
wliicb he worships God; aud as tbt'se iire merely iintunil^ so 
he attributes merely nntural qualities or properties to God, 
thus consideriug the Deity to )>c such an one as himself; to 
be po>«iM>8sed of auger, wratli, ftu^', and all those attributea 
which art; cummunly assig^iicd to the erenture. 

The idea, however, which thccnlighteued Christian eiiter- 
tmns of the divine form of God, in altogether different. Irft 
us here, therefore, make a f(-w ohservatious on tliitt subject, 
although we shall ba^c oceawiou to treat of it more at large 
in our nixth chapter. 

Farm is popularly' conceived to be the »amc with fipnre, 
outliue, or external shape. And indccfl this it nometiuiei 
implien, but not this aluays or only ; for we sjiejik of a form 
of govcrumeut, when we do not mean external figure ; of a 
form of speech or of exi>re3siou ; of an establift!i('tl form and 
custom ; by all which is meaut only a priuciptc brought out 
into ultimate act. 'Vgairi, there is a contingent form and an 
essential form. Thus with regard to the firrt, we sny of 
water that it appciu^ to us uudcr several forms ; the form of 
a liquid, like common water; the form of n solid, like ice; the 
furm of va[>or aud uf steam ; in all which euitCH wc do not 
mean mere external figure, but a contijigcnt manner of 
being. There is finally an esseutial form, or that by reason 
of which a thing c.\i8i!i such as it is; water as water, by way 
of distinction from any other substauce, such as marble or 
gold. This mauuer of being is not contingent, but results 
from the csscntinl nature of the thing itself; so that to deprive 

I it of its essential form, would be to deprive it of its existence.* 
* How far thti idet of etteotial form b WMeded witk thai of ipini 
Biid >lin|i«, u ii|iplinl la Uk Deity, will be wctn in Uie Ritlli clMiiler. 

_v? :>;ai»atiox- chaf. iit. 

Iz. tii* TTT - 3# Tiis wt tz^ f "I'lniiTH- tlie term fonn to 

Ti«T ii2»* :c 5:- A-srusc::. vpaa tbis snlvject, so nenlT 
vs^zL^ Tttl Tb:«(c :c 5-*-?af^'Mer. Has ire sliaD hare quote 
ti^-^, Tl:» i=. .>r-»i:« iS2. tcL ttL p. 581, &d e& 
\'-:zJ.:^- Lt >tHie?T«». -" Tzitrt » m cercun fonn, ■ fan 
Tliii L* --:- z.^^ttL \ r: ^ii(i » iseif tike fonn of all thiii^ 
i:-r=.-^i -. \ f.'Tzz. -z-»-rj.~ s^^'Sjs, »ti!»in decav, vitboiit drfeet, 
vhLir: t^«. vr.l-:c: i-lkw. tmuceadinf all tlung^ ni 
tiL'srzz^ zm kll M?Tir^ If tbe focsdaxiaa npcm vliidi, ind ■ 
ti* r:"-".-: iir.itT wiici. iH thinsv »re." Sncli is St 
A-isrisdi-'i ilea of & diTtje »ai i::£aiTe farar. which he ittri- 
b:::** '.o ~i.' EtcTTiil Wc-rd. vhcK. being form itself, hnw 
raTfc f.TTz. ■:> :lv ^iiiirerse. Tjoa the principles we h»e 
f!'i.:ec.. xti* ::-r=. i> l.> ciher ih&a the hmnan : for wisdom is 
:Le f.T= o:" ^yjizi^ ris: a mr.h if the form of kwe, tie 
usder«:aadir.g :i.e i"jr=;" o: the wilL thought or ides the 

• 1= :.l:«v^-..:i .f :i.i Ti-i^'iL. .i i* ;-l*(r««l by Swnleabors io ok 
■,f ■..» w.rki. '.ii:. " ^ii.- '-ii t-rt »it=.s**. w^b are c^ImI fpclinf. tMtt. 
iTL't::. ••■i-inir. i;: s:ji:, Ti? §^:;'r-:: ;f fs^Iins u the (kin wiih wiki 
k =.1!; li eir:=;-us^i. lit »-~::L&=c« a^I fonn iu«lf of tb« akia nQ»- 
jii* ;: Ij i'.rl -lii: ;s i_;j!.ri: ^s rczt* vf ft^linz i» not in ibt ihiao 
w:.;-L *r^ a;;.'..^;. '.: ,: -i .- :i; j::iit=:e &£d fonn of ih* xkio, whirhi: 
t;.^ i..'\,r'.'. : ti- »^=i^ li <.-'.; m &£Kt:oa thtrKf from tiiinis applied. Il 
Ii '.Lr ii^i n i'.h tie U^tv ; iL:> i-ezM is cs'.t aa aJipciion of the sabfUsct 
tLl iir::. :• IT.': l.LTi^: '':.i U-Z^e u the iuhjtcl. It U the suae with tb( 
•tL-.-:'.'! : i':.^! v'J rs ^=r<:t tLv :: -m. a=J &re ic the BOM. and that th»iv u u 
*.?i-.'.;.03 t:,^re-.f ■■d rif=r.-js s^bitictt* loucbia^ it. u w«ll kofiwi. 
It li '.K'-. ii:n': 'Aith tit he^ris^: it ipi>ean v if the hearing were ia ikt 
filsir.e i^h^rt ti.^ <-^uC'l b^ziB?. tut the htario^ is in the ear, and is an idee- 
ti'.n 'if lU I'jtiitatxte iz>] i-jm : tbkt the hearing i^ at a distance from the ear 
is ■ajii.':nn:.<.^. It i» the iaxe nith the «i^ht : it appears whea a au 
iA':» 'j\ij-:!:Vi at & Ji-Ur.(fc ai if the si^ht were there ; but BcTertheless itisia 
tli<: <:}•'■ ^<hi(-i i> the ?'jV^cI. anil i» ia like nidCDcran aff«ctioD thereof ; tb( 
'JiiLanc': if only from iLc judjmeDl cone luiIJDC cunceraiBg space from inter- 
iiiMiiti- i>>,J'-(-:-. >jr fmiu thr liiLiiDuiion hdiI conMqucot obscuration of the 
iti.y.'f whi-v ..ii;,;" :- [r'.'iu'.r-l witbiE the e>?. according to the angle M 


flOI) WITH C8. 


fonii of iifFdctioii, wliiicli arc csscntinlly properties of the 
human uature. To say llicu llmt the Son is the fonu of thy 
Fatlicr, the Word the form of the Dixine Love, is only to 
say, th»t the e&seutial (Uritiity or Father h:u his manner of 
being or form of existence iu tUe Sou, a« Dirinc Lore has 
in the Eternal Word ; and to say that tliD Father is without 
form, is to say that He Kan no such existence iu the Son, or 
that Divine Love has no Divine Wisdom, tlie essence no 
form, and hence the fonu no eisseuce. Such an assumption 
implies that this Divine Wisdom or Word is uureveoled ; 
whence Ood is conceived by us as fornUesa because out own 
idea is formless; that is to say, we have no true idea of God, 
oithcr as Father or Sou; in other words we are entirely 
ignomitt of Him : aud we have shewn that, in attributing 
formlessness to God, we are only attributing to Itiin the 
statu of our own minds and investing Him \ntli a ereuturuly 
condition, nnder the pretext of not doing so. Wis(lf>m, then, 
or the Word, or the Son, being the form of the Fatlicr, to 
worship the Sou apart from the Father, is to worship the 
Won! apart fWim goodness, that is to say, it is to contemplate 
truth without love, faith without charity, which is the doc- 
trine of soliBdianism, in which case there can be neither 
truth nor faith. For truth is the form, and love the eascnec, 

iiivIdeDOti. Hencv it uppviLtt, lUul the aiKtit dot* oot fo from tbo vjo to iho 
ubjecl, but thnt the tiungc of Clic objrct rntrrs llip eye, and affbcta its sub- 
■lanc» aud furm : fur it n tlie muic with llin liclit ft* 1( » vith llie ItMuluKi 
tbe lieaiiiiK <loe8 not go out of the car tu ctiU^h Llii^ saund, but ihrt flound 
CD(er> ihc «ur uod alTettj it. Hcdco it mij ap|Miir, thmt ili« aiTecUou of ■ 
Mibubuirc and fbnn, which coDiUlutn the aeaM, b not a UiiBgKpante 
tnm the iu1>JKl, but onl^ cau(» a vhsnite in it, ibc (ubject rem&iniiiK the 
subject tlien ns bl^fo^(^, and after, llcncc it (ollowt, (hat Um aight, lieaiiog, 
•tncll, U<tc, nod fixlinK, ure nul sd} tiling volatile fluwio^ frooi thOMOfgaiH, 
but tlial thcj are Hie Qij(niiB (lioiwrlvcs contidcn-d in ihcir aubMaaccud 
ttnm, and that wUlUt the; am afTetted the vensp U produced. It ia the 
aamn with lov*^ and wladon, irilh tbiii only dlirerftnct>, that the sabalaares 
und foma whtcb arv lo*« and wiidoni aie nitl cxUnI before the ryi-a, u (he 
DrEanbof lL«rii(eiBal acflaeaara; but atill naone can den; that ihoae Ihiaga 

170 ixcabxatiov. Qtur. iii. 

and to separate the form from, the emeaiot, and die eamr 
from the form, is to deatror both; fiar netthitt^ cmn ait 
without the other. 

Havin°' now arrived at some idea rf a I>nriiie fini, wd 
!)cen how it corresponds with the finite human, let as not 
proceed to a.<Kcrtain how this Dirine fimn may be concarediD 
ajwnme the creatnrelv hmnaaitT. St. Panl, speaking of ^ 
IHvine Word, savs, that He emptied fainuelf. Hoir are wc 
to nnderstand this? The meaning of the term. oupttiB g 
haft otherwise been expressed br that t^ exinanitioD, and ha 
for its correlative the term glorification. It was br the pro- 
cess of e\inanition that the Divinitv assumed the ci c jtiudj 
hnmanity, and we shall see that it was br the process of ^ 
rification, that this hnmanity became divine.* The Divinitr, 
indeed, assumed the humanitv in order that this hnnumitr 
mi^ht become divine, or be the Divine Hnman. Hie fonpw 
process is that br which the Lord emptied himaelf in *» \ ™ f 
the hiimanitv, the latter is that by which the hnmaxiitT ahi- 
matoly became the fulness of the Godhead bodily ; this rttfe 
of fulness being the opposite of that of inanition. Under- 
standing the term form, then, in the sense in which we hsTf 
<lcfiiicd it, n» the name of that by which God is such as He 
h, or by which au essence has an existence, it is e\'ident thtf 
(jod could no more deprive himself of his form, than He 
could deprive himself of his existence. K then God couU 

uf wisdom and love, which are called thoughts, perceptions, and affecdooi, 
arc eubstancea and forms, and that they are not Totatile entities dowtB^rnM 
nothing) or abdlruclcd from that real and actual substance and fomi, whitfe 
is the subject. Fur there are in (he brain innumerable Bubatancn tai 
forms, in which every interior sense which has relation to Ihe nDdentxndiBg 
and the will residcit. That all the affections, perceptions, and thougkv 
there arc not exhaiationa from Ihem, but that they are actually and reaU; 
the subjects, which do not emit anything from theroflelves, but ooly nader^ 
changes according to the influences which affect them, may eridently ttppai 
from what has been said aborc concerning (he senses." Angelic TKiiriM 
eoncertiing llie Dicine Lnrt, art. 11, 42. 

* This will be further oxplaiued in chap. vi. 

tCBAP. 111. 



not deprive liinuelf of Ida runn, it is evident, tliat, wlieu in 
[tftking our nature upon Him it is Kuid that He emptied 
: himself, the exinanition must refer not to any state of the 
Deity prcnous to asmuuiug the finite human form, but to the 
act of assimiptioii ; the csLioaiiition, therefore, wus the as- 
'sumptiuu of the humanity. 

Now there is nothiug upon which ve are more liahte to 
fallncy, than in reasoning upon the Deity ; and this must 
necessarily be the case, until our affections aud thoughts 
■re of a nature and quality corresponding to those which arc 
divine. Thus we say the Divine ileing descended from hea- 
ven to take upon Him the form of our humanity; and yet it 
is clear that the omuiprcKant Uud can nercr change place. 
To say that He descended, therefore, is to say what is, in 
rcfjard to place, not literally true, and yet itcxprottscH a literal 
truth. We say that the Spirit of Gwl proceeds from IJim; 
yet we profess the same Spirit to be omnipresent. Here, 
again, unless we arc can;ful, we fall only into a fallacy. The 
^fcllacy, however, in both cases proceeds from that naturalism 
which cannot rid itself of the idea of spuec To illustrato 
the case by analogy. The highest natimd substance we are 
acquainted with is the sun; and the more proximate to it are 
the natural things wliich we coutcmplate, the farther do we 
recede in our contemplations, eren in the natttral world, from 
the onlinary ideas of space and time : for the nearer that 
natimU substances are to the nature of the stui, the less fixity 
■ do tbey possess, and, in fine, the fewer of those properties 
I vliich generally give rise to our idea of matter and space : 
'the less, therefore, when eontemplatcd in themselres, do they 
suggest the onlinory idea uf motion frum ]ilacc to place ; for 
the more are they omnipresent in their own system, and 
hence permanently operating in that place from which grosser 
bodies are said to move. Now the highest natural things, or 
those which most approximate to the nature of tlic luu, arc 
heat aud light. Through the medium of these the sun is 

evervvhere omuipreaeat in our system. Xo hoSj cu tf- 
proach the sun, hut by snccesaiTelT losEa^ its own natnre, ad 
a.'tsTiaiin^ more and more of the aolxr ; no liad^ on cone 
farther awuv from it, but bj paztakkin^ less and lea d thi 
nature; that h to say, by a proceas al privuioa or Enmamtm. 

Nov that which proceeds from, the son is iight azid bat: 
by the proce»>ion of these, the nin may be said to deMcnd, 
becaiue his light and heat descend. That whicfa [mcedi 
from the Deity is the Holy Spirit, or loTe mud wisdom ; lir 
the pnjcesiiion of these the Deity is said to descend. Bat 
natural U^ht and heat cannot proceed withoat a medioBi 
that medium is the different auras and atmospberes. So die 
Holy Spirit cannot proceed withoat a medhun ; that me£iia 
is the three angelic hearens, for St. Paul speaks d thm. 
Granting that the highest is the third, to which the ^ortle 
declares he was caught up ; the intermediate the second, sad 
the first, according to thb order of reckoning;, the hiweit; 
we sec how it is tliat, in passing through these three hearai^ 
frfjra the liighcst to the lowest, the Holy Spirit descend and 
by this Jehovah himself. Now, we are told that Mary wm 
ovcrsharlowcd by tlic Holy Spirit, that is to say, br \ht 
divine love and wi^tdom proceeding irom Jehovah as a son, 
vcilcfl over by mediums as the sun is veiled over br atmos- 
pheres, until it is attempered or accommodated to that whid 
is to become the subject of his operations. 

But natural light and heat arc dead. They hare indeed 
an intense acti\ity, but it is the activity of that which has no 
life ; for life, properly speaking, is intelligent, and as saA 
can be predicated of mind alone. On the other hand, spi- 
ritual light and heat arc li\'ing ; lining light being wisdom, 
and living heat being love. But love and wisdom united 
constitute the human form or man, and hence the light and 
heat which had proceeded through the heavens down to the 
earth, posscssctl an essential himian form ; a form which ni 
finited by the hcavcus, and which, according to Hooker, 

CRAP. lit. aan with vs. 179 

beiug nearest unto the efibct, aud Iieuce proximately produc- 
ing it, is therefore called power. This latter form then was, 
in his natural state uf existence, the soul of Clirist; a form, 
the eaae of which was Jchovali, nnil whicli waa to be miulc 
the medium through which .Tehovnh (Jod was to be brought 
near to man; the soul of Christ thus comprehending within 
it alt the heavens. Thus was the soul provided ; hit n» next 
eni|uirc with rcgHrd tu tlic bixly, and titc union between itaclf 
nud the soul. 

It is a physical fact, that the soul of man comes from 
his father, and the body firum his mother. This body, or 
rather the matcrialH to form the body, wru all that was pro- 
dded by Mary in her womb; for the body is an orgiuiized 
Riibstancc, and tliis orgauizatiou wna effected not by ilarj", 
but by the »oul, and was hence n body in correspondence 
with the KitU. Lu tliis correspondence consisted the uuiua 
between the two ; soul and body being united in all subjects 
by correspondence. What, however, was tlic (piftlity of the 
•oul thus uniting to itself the body f Surely it was different 
rasnitially from that of men in general; because man derives 
Jlis soul Jroui a crcaturely origin : nay moi-e, he is hereditarily 
tiotbing but cnl, and it is not possible for us to suppose that 
thia evil shouhl t]e inherent ui his nature and yet not injure 
it, that is to say, not injure his moral or iutcUectual faculties. 
It is notorious, that, during iiifoncj', man is more helpless, 
weak, and ignorant, tJinu other animals ; and that this state 
endures longer with him than with any other part of the 
animal creation. Wliat then is the cause of this ? Is it not 
to he found in that hereditary c^il, which has disordered tlic 
faculties of the soul; without which nuin would have been 
far more rapidly bora into the use of lus rational powers, 

Ithiui at present; even as animals nre more quickly than man 
born iuto the use of their sererai faculties. Now Jesus was 
possessed of no hcreditjuy evil from the Father ;* for his 
* Though oar Lmd wu vriUioul beredilarf evil from the Pslher, n«Tcr- 




CBAf . UL I 

Father, as we have sacn, iru eaacntiaUy Jchorah ; nit,] 
tlicreforCj tirnm possouiiiig this evil, Ho was iiuooatly peritA 

tliel«M eril vru drrived Into the cMfttnrelf bumuiity froB lb* aMo^ 
naiiiKi; which however wm &ftBrward extirpated hy inSuz froH Ibr » 
prune Dirinity ; an J in prDpurtlua lu ibi* «u clfected, the bnatailjai 
glorified. The»e «re luhJvcUi, buwu*t.T, hi iho koowledgc of wbkb ■* 
nter thn reader to Sired en borg'B works ; tre ohall lier« ni^^nrly tputx it 
foltoMing suteiueDti, obterrioK, that «c could not vny tiiat ubt Luid u- 
aucieil a tlnfui nature, for that sin implies ciil in volantarjr act 

Dr. Bmton ssysf.SVmftn*, p. 3Se): "Kthe Brsi Adam Iwd c«aliM<4 
rigbteoua, be woald nnl have died: the imrand Adam trai rifhlwini, ■! 
when He died, it whi not fnr his own nni, but in conMqamc« of (be mM 
nature which He had aaaumed." 

Dr. Van Mildtrt, Du- Biahop of Durhato, 6hja ('A^i-mmmu, vol. i.p.3Drt 
"The Divine Nature we liuvw tv bo impeceiahle. Whether ibahunm* 
tufc bi'CAiuo so by il« union witli the divine, wamjttcrjr DutrtveaMM 
us. The upwitle't declaraliun, that uur Lord ' w«a (q tUi poiniB linii|>l 
like uii wcatr,' *i-rins lo indicaU' the posslhilily of kianiogi ainceadar 
ni«e we can hardly coaceire vbure Utore wna room for tampWlow k 

Archdeacon Wilbcrf»rce aaya: "To be tmly templed. ChrttL msM h 
truly ninn. riilt-Mt Uin t^miiluliiins, bis BuSkringa, and h in death, wm*«> 
wrouKbt iu uiipcarunceunly, thore mutt be that nature truly (0 Hlmwluiiil 
cnpHbli; tiT lUmr aix'identa. And thu, in Ite fullest signiBcajice, ia tlw A» 
trine of the catliolk chuiuh. Tbat ChrUt did truly lak« our nature lo hl*M<( 
of the very natural Bubstanne of bis Tirgin -mother, itttth a LckIj fntly lal 
really derived fronibere; and asabudy, svalaotbe higher part&urotuslMl 
nature,— a mind and will dwclHiig In a reasonable sou). And lu the fall fO- 
coplioD of tliie truth, it muEt bonutcd, that tlivnulure Ho look vraa the boa 
nature a* it woa in bi» otuUiur ; nuL, aa iiiiue have fancied, Uiv natnrw of.UiB 
before bis fall ; for how sboold He have obuincd that nature rrom the vufS 
Mary, who liFTM-lf |hiiiii«mmI it mil ? nod if He had, (tow ouvid Ht bvt 
been ' in all points lik« as wc arv, sin only uxccptnl t' for wc know natiM 
in Adam's budy were all llmsc Ainkss iufiTniities which d>*ell In ovn. Ml 

which indeed we acknowUKlgD ia our Lord's Asd herein WBaakwtd 

hu luarvdluuH love, ' in lahinK,' bs St. Ucmardsaltfa, 'mj Beah •pmBh. 
my vrry Arab, not that which Adain brtd before liis fault.'* The ooilttfy 
opinion ha* aiisen fmni the piouit but uiistakeu fear, lest tn allcnrtaf OM 
Christ took the very nnturc of faia mother, wc should nnawu^s allow a« 

* " In qiu coin m<U tionuacndsn potent btaicaiUKn < 
Dirsnit M«un, Imiuin. ikid cmnrm AitaiD. lit M oat qwlnn flk balnll aM> 
Si. Btn. In ^t*. Swn. 1. mc II. vuL I. p. nt. 




08 the FaOicr ims perfect, bccansc his esse wtw the Fatlior. 
Cunscqucutly, the suui bum intu the body van \vitUotit here- 
ditary cril from the Fnthcr; and for this retwon the hu- 
manity, in its fitiitc stnte^ made rapid progrcasiou in wisdom, 
in stature, aod iu favor with God and num.* 

He tsok what wu slQfnl ; bul the tnu Kostrer to this apprebeRsion is, tliol 
lite Rtrrna) Son took tohimteir, In the *Tomb of the virgin, nat a bunum 
pcr«cHi, but huuMnity— huiDKDttr, which, if It had brca impursoaatud in vbd 
of us would hurt liM-o ainfol, l>iil whkh conttl uolbceiorul uklililwxaa 
pvreuD. und <*&> ocTcr a pvnoa Ull it was in Ihe ChrisU ' Tu hia ufii per- 
ftOB Me OMumed a raan's Diilurt. The llcab, and ibe cor^iimcliun of the tlctli 
with Oud, begao at one inittant. . . . Aud thai wbkh in Him mada «>ur nature 
vaeorrapi, waa the uninn of his Deilj- with our naiuK.'t Hare, then, 

the proTisian laade fur the realllj of his laoiptatloa; for in wbatover 
Salaa caa approach u» from wiLhtiut, by the iaBM«ticr« of a spiritual 
pr4>>«DCP, as »i)gK«iliDg tu the hnaKlniilion, and throiving into tho mind 
tliat whii-h ia at uni^e (cmpliitian, and b«c<>iiiM sta as eoaa aa the will has 
(h^aa to it lb* first t)e|{iDain|[S of asaant ; in this aana way ara w«i aDfuived, 
bj the ferity of hia hanaii soul, to bcIleTe thai the Son of God coald be 
■pproachod b; iiataii. ' I'ur.' to use tb« words of Hooknr, ' as Ihe parts, 
dcfKSS, aad oIHg«B of that myatical admintsuratioii did r^quin which Us 
volniUarily nnderliMk, ttio iK-anis of Ucity did in oprratioo alwaya aceord* 
Ingly either restrain or enlargfithemseWoa.' So that, to make hia expasDni 
tn tamplaliua parfect, we muHl >u[ipi>aii no kialoai avenues to tta approach, 
which in ua an open, closed ia Uiiu. Tbv fic-ry darb, iedesd, fouod ia ihut 
laost true loyal scul no siiirul tendencies oa which tu fall; they oerevasl 
back at once from (he coaGaet of bia inafcination hy a will truly in accord- 
uce with ibe will of the Father, aod dwelt In beyond nwasare by Uie pre- 
Kfit ioduence of the Spirit of all grace. So that, with a perfect pxpeanre 
to lemplatlon, «|>at of tin Iht'ii* cculd be clearly iioiie ; nod m> is fuldlled la 
Hioi the dcrtatation ihul, ' He wiu in all ihiIdLi Icmptcil like as wu are, 
yet nithout tin.' >ii'Ch are- the mynlerioq* truth* wn must keep clew In oiii 
renwmbTance, if we would vit'w aright this wonderful relation." Sermaiu, 
—TtniptatiouiifCkTut, pp. 144, I4G, I4i). 

■ It la ubservvd by Swcdctiljon; that, " The deepest mysteries lie cod- 
caab'd in the inlc^mal sense uf the U'urd, Mbich hure hFretufurr camn (o 
no oDc'a kauwlc^gc. . . . The sunie may uwsl maoifesUy appear from the 

I internal aense of tlie tvro names of our Lord, Juci Christ. When these 
nanea arc pronouDced, few have any other idea than that they are proper 
names, and uloioal like the naoii-J of another mas, but more holy: Ihe 


» Honkti^ EMfoiantnl PoHiy, v. p. n. 

. ■ :■■. ■ ii^iTios. c air. 111. 

In -hii ;t:r^:a :e Ti^jn. tbercSxe, as consisting of Logn, 
>.(!_ ijii. l:tL^. -Jit7 .ricT i* ihi*^ — the sapreme prinnplt 

'j;xr3>fi Jiit^-L i^nr* r^az Jr*;ii sup^ies SATior, mnA Christ Um awriited, 
i:i<i .i-iSij-f ^17 riit>:-±i''-: *:b« 3i>:r^ isz^n:^ ides; bat ■till tbb i> iH 
■n-uz -^t u^:^ -1 ic:!--;? 3«r:-;r'f ^:n liMe — fr, their percepliMi 
*^va<ijij tj :a^:^ idl sun i.-'-.a« : 'm br Jcs«9. m bea the nsMe » ;n- 
ai]ii30fii :▼ T-'t ^ ■-■■' ■» ■ tiitf T^ri. :^y petreive the diTise good, ni 
!i7 CIlttsc 'Jm L-'-^'i ^n'ii- tjii zj xa. tz.-i dinne KisrTiage of good ud 
Sntj, !::>£ 7;' r-i-^i i2*i ^i:!!. -.-ilm>;'MS-7 til t&At U divlDe io the haiedf 

-Tltii: 3isZi ^ -.^n :^'jinal mxw i<at:6e» dnin« goody aMdthatCnw 
iK!x>:Cis i-*-.^-; r-i~j. hat ~zk i-^ji-taz frritD bu=; if wpn in the Wotd. Tk 
£r:'A3'i i::'i rf-j^-a vir J-^s^jt i-*si:Cj» lirrise good is, because it tijufti 
i*:zVj. *il^-iZL-:ii. u-i Sltj.t: i=-i :3 irjaaei^BCBee of sacb signiiotisft, il 
HjsiiAi imij:'^ r:<>:. juaaiica ii} til lalTuio* is from diriae good.wUcfc 
is cf ;ie Lcfi'i k<4 u-i iu:c?. <A-i uas bf the recepiiaB theuMf. Tk 
craos'i A3>i r«jd<:a v:t dr.jC >i« iirise tmth is, luf atf itsigsiia 

~ Tia: M^ddi:!^. Xz:L3-.i'l. Lid Kiaj;. U the tame as diriae tnitt, ■ 
CTidtfBt frum H*^nl piiASLTf^ 12 i&« WonI : the Lord also himself Incki 
tJii^ in J.ja. - Pliu miJ L3 Jam. Art iAm ■ kimg thctkf Jesu u- 
fv^KiI. ' T'^oa Mij^^:, tvexan I <h « fciif .- fiir this iras I bora, ml 
i-jt tiiu i:a=« I i^Lj ii« w.rM. u^: I Hutj bear witness to (Ac Indt; 
eT*r>- i;ce »^> :i »:: t.u fne* h^jjvEh my toim.' xTiii. 37. Whescc il 
is Bi-kz.fe*i. th^: ;i^ «sm=-iI •iiri^e ti-jch u thit priociple by Tutw 
whereo:' (he LcrU wu c^le^i icu-. Tse irrunnd and reason why Licp 
Wen; tu b-i iBOLB'.e^. i^J w«re h«=i:e c^I«d the snointed, *ss, bccuK 
oil nherewiih ih^y norv .i=<.L::£\i si^niiicxi ^wd : denoting, tlist inU 
which Via iizniitid bv Li=^, nu :r:m j^xd. cocscijueotlj the truth of good, 
snd ihui that the r>y^tT »;p«rt.\i=i3f U iLiDrf represented the Lord uts 
diriae troth grouadi^ii ia ditioe ^iMd. coaiei]aeDtly the divine marriage of 
guod in truth ; whereas thif pnesth^'d ^or pnettlr principle] rcpicseotod 
tb« diriae marriage of truth in j<xid : lh« latter ii signified by Jesos, ikt 
former bj ChriiL 

" Hence it ia eTidtnt. what » signified by Ckritts in these words of tk 
Lord in Matthew, ' See that no one seduce >ou ; for many shall coBie osdci 
mj name, Mtin^, I am Ckritt, and ehall sednce many. Then, if any ou 
■hall M)' to you, Lo! here u Ckrut, or then;, believe not, for there ^>U 
arise /ulff Ckrittmnd false propheis.' xxiv. 5,23, 24; Mark xiii. 21, 21 By 
false Christd are here si^nibed truths not divine, or falses, and br f'l"' 
pruphets they who tvach them. Again, in Matthew, * Be ye not called 
niabters, fur (jne is your master. Vhiifi.' xxiii. 11): where (Jhrist denoiK 

CHAP. 111. GOD WITH Vtt. 177 

of divinity was Id tlie Logos or Word ; the Logos in tliu Iicr- 
vcns B» tlif S[iirit proceeding; the hcnvens in the mtional 
soul i the rational soul in the body; the body upon earth. So 
that the divinity was the essential principle of the hnmau 
Boul, finittjd by proceeding. 

Sucli is the ladder which reaches down from heaven to 
earth; at the foot of which, he who reposes may say, Sttre/y 
the Lord is in this ptace, and I htew it not f Horn tireadful is 
this place ! This is mne otfurr bui the /umse of God, this is 
the gate of /leaven ! Gen. xxriii. 16, 17. 

Fully to unfold this myatcry, neither man nor angel can 
preautne; nor do we, in the present work, profess to unfold it 
even to the degree in wliich it may be known to tlie ordinary 
reader of Swcdcnhorg's writings. \Vc attempt only to sivo 
a most general idea of it, to tho extent in whieh the contract 
may be drawn with the common system of theology. Thus 
all that wc aim at is only to bring the reader to that point 
at which, if he pleaaes, he may pursue the subject in the 
works of Swcdenhorg; and in wliich, whatcrcr errors may 
here be committed, will there be rectified. 

If, then, the supreme divinity constituted, the inmost soul 
of Jesus, and this soul were always in Him, it follows, that 
in all that He said and did there was a lat-ent divinity. Tlic 
iumoat essence was uncreated, tho e:tternul body was crca- 
turely. In human beings gcnomlly the aoul may think one 
thing, and the body perform the opposite ; even as St. Paul 
Bays, what I ttmtld, that I do not, but what I hale, that J do. 
This, however, could not be the case with the Sarior, for He 
bad no hereditary evil from the Father ; and though He was 
tempted in all things like unto us, yet He was without sin. 

Imlh divine. Ilencr it is ovideot what i* mrHiit bjr a Clirlttiut, aamelj, 
ose who la pnn(;i|ile(li Id truth fTouiidi>d in pood. 

" From what lins brvn luit], it may appi^ar bow man; liidiiro Ihings ara 
conulned In ihe. Word, wbich can in no wise come lo any vne'a kaowledce, 

taxciipt from the internal K(tn»e." Anana C/rUtlia, tul. it. art. 3004, 30P5, 
a00»,3010, 3DII. 

17? rXilAKXATlDS. CBlP. Ill 

1- a:vj;Ts. -iiffnz.rt. -ii: so nr there w»s a corrpspondncr 
IT :<r: :c ^~s> iir'^ir: berveen Lis acann^r lnunaxutr uid bit 
i:"-i„:7- f-^e- i» iber^ b becveen the j^nrit erf" man uid iuf 
tiifciT . s^£ tl-i ifriiLirr lirent in the hmnanitT becune » 
trijv — *--'--'i.-^' iz. il-e :rr»3ini actioiu of Christ, v tW 
*.■£ -c zit- ■-* — A-.r'fg^cc ia hi» words, looks, and »rticaii 
Hi* w ."•rl*. '.'ziiTTiiK. »£7t r.-x lie the words of the {nopheti: 
T'fT z.sJ. -s-TLir. :ii=i "i-r csf ai the erer-liTmg God. Tim 
»i*. •:i.-:r::';r;. i .rrrifiTir-iiieiice between, those words Hf 
.---:^-.v~I ij 1 —-LL. iZri tie visdom of the Eternal Mind: 
:: -wx* ti,-; *£-i7Zil Miiii t-r:-::^: down to earth, mnd speakin; 
Thr-jv^':: Tijsi? T.ri,? :.- zi*ii ; lor wh^ reaoon He spake ■ 
::e^r ni.'z. T-Tyif. Hizrf. :n aH his iustmctions, there ¥» 
Trrf vz.'wur:. : -.a ;: :;-: Eternal Mind: and CQnsiK}aei]tlT. 
«3L:i Wi, ;v x-. ~Cf :lr^- / K>rzk v«/o yotf /Ary are ^rtiat 
:W» --Tr ."■> Wi- SIT -z< same ci all the miracles thit lb 
;vrf.-v..v. . L'lL -:• .ily c-i wba: He did. bat of what He 
*".™:'Ttv. ;v. :1\ -r;^ '-iTs-T 'hc civinCT, and conseqneotlr n 
al",. :"r.--- v..> .. ,- 77\>:':~I;z.v oi tte earthH- with thebei- 
vv:-."\ --^ ":;■.■.:■,■ -: .-^- c-i'rloi :o pass num the earthlr lotbf 
h:\i'.;:. V :'--■_ ::.; ": .— .v^ '.:■ -.'zc olivine: frotn. the creaturrij 
:.» ::.;■ v.-.,-- .■.:.;. . zTrsj. :i; -idL'.c to the innuite. 

;*" t :"',^ ■■--.•■*-«? .-':':? /i.v-«*::io«. or miracuJotu r» 
(■riO,-« -i ",- -.- - :vr r/"r.-* Mcry, ttandt or fall$ tk 

,;.v;-:v- - . . .-. '- -4 .-' :"•: Wjrd of God. He wis 
u»"i:".>.'-> :'".i' iv.: ■ ■.r:v.:.V,;- .■;-j,:;* The other; he cannot con- 
*;sTt".-.:'.> ::.'..-, t';,: :t:.-: ':.>::t.':.c ■:z:''-c miraculous conception,* 
an»i vu'-y :>„- --.ii-t-.', .-..;. J.;t-Uif life in our Savior's bodr. 
»i»T\l*, rvV..". '.v.-.rv-.' -> . -.-.r ;-.u' b.^ -iiiiT the dirine life in tbcsr. 

* l'> •.-.■.-.i.. ..>,..-...•■, r. ^f =:i«rKA:J &ci>nc«ptioDari»tiif;fnniiW 
Holt Si":;. I N ;..■.■ .:: -'i:>^r .:.--: b<k!t 4 roBcvptioB the MBK> 

v*.'u:it .■;'■;-">.■ ■!•. -v*. r-i r.^ ± i'iaia fftibcr. bat in the pr«MBt(»(* 
u»ii4.u:,_> » .•-■,; V IT:-.: . ::■.* ■.-: <-ii'..-r yraald thru have been celt 

au >'!\i;-.- I'l wA- ■ I.-. . >i :^ -.-T-^T ; iri i<=ce the fmrt of the ■!!»■ 
t-u'.>.> ..-•.i-j:-,- -. .-..,■ ..:»»i.-i w lIz: .'.i^i, *Tt>cld be Tirlumll; drairt- 
lot lie v.t> :■.; n; ,"- -.- , :._(.:.:> ,-. .li i^ :;:3Fted. h* Iiimm, 2813. 

CHAP. III. OOO WITH 1'8. 179 

Mid conBistcntlv hold the true doctrine of the mirneuluus 

Ilencc we sec tbc reason for wliich Priestley did not faesi- 
tste to deny this doctrine. Disbclicnng that Scripture wna in- 
spired, having his mind immersed in the senses, he could form 
no conception of au}'thing spirituid ; according to that snyiug 
of St. Paul, tlte natural man perreirvth not the thinffn of the 
Spirit of God, for they are foolis/irtess mUo him, neither can 
he knotp them for they arc spiritunlhj dbremed. Ilcnce he 
mtiiutaiucd, tliat Jcsuk was only n» oni' of the prophets, and 
that He was not miniculoufdy "begotten ; for wijTt he, " the 
doctrine of immortality, which is the ^reat object of the 
whole revealed will of (io<l, in junt as acceptable to me from 
the mouth of tlic Sou of Joseph and Mary, as from the 
mouth of any man crented for tlie puiTJosc; from that of nn 
angel, or firom the I'oice of God hinmelf speiikiug from Ikea- 
veii." Hiatortj of Enrhj 0//iniam, vol. iv. p. 9, 

Wliere, therefore, the luiniclcs of our Lord arc regarded 
only aft external evidences of the truth of "what He declared, 
just as miracles would he regarded if performed by any other 
person ; where the truth of his doctrine is regarded as founded 
upon the external evidence uf his mirnelcs, having in them 
no latent diriuity, no inmost wisdom of the mind uf God ; 
where the sufFerings of his human nature are r^arded only 
as crcaturety and inlirm, without any et4?mal spirit and 
power bom into them all, there is virtually deni'cd the doc- 
trine of the miriunilous conception ; for, on these grounds, 
there is no reason why Jesus should not hare been conceived 
in the usiml way, and have had only the pcrionality and the 
soul of a cn-aturti. " How was it," asks St. Augustiu, " that 
Chrbt emptied Iiimsclf ? By taking upon Him that wliich 
He was not, and, not by losing that which Ho was." vol. vii. 
fi. 500. The reai doctrine of c\inanition in the present day, 
i« that according to which Christ is supposed to lose that 
wliich He was. I^rofesscdly indee<l the doctrine w received 



is is ixiaer bbik. bm so l e uoi e d ■• to be rejected ; iim- 
TTizt:^ ht litt criahr w^A pot m die hnnunity, is, wki 
tite >TrFT-.«-^ » ooBsoeRii, TntuDr cMiaded. If, hoven^ 
tiie Sari? w ia toIzt naracnlonihr omoexred; if the pff- 
9R:>2nT ckT ilif aJTzac uxaiv ns icalH' the inmott ps- 
KcuiZnT cf Jesu: h is impcnsbte to nuke the aepnitia 
vhxi: wske 60 at the diriiie and hnman lutiirea ; ti if de 
dhiiM zjszsT ad c«k ihii^ Inr had:^ the htrntan utoi 
&i>c<:beT -'•-■^F r7 iseill and both natmes were contndietaij 
C'Tie to ibe cdtB*. If thr drrine nature wma in the hmou it 
all :t TK^ in zix hmcan ahnn; hovner^ cm oocaaiouii 
nutT iavt z^^^ xdzxasi^ absent. That theology then ihnA 
is built 90 in-^A -upsa mincks as an extenul erideiiectf 
the tmt^. bev'Ksse: the truth has no intmul evidence d h 
ovn in cvcifecitf^aop ai having vithin it no diTinitjr, is » fe 
bmJT nion tLe dorsiae aroTcd br Priestln*, c£ a natnnl, Dot 
minrul'ous cc-noerti-oB. 

" It t^ been tLe &shion of the dar," aarm a modn 
irriter. *- to 5pe&£ &5 to unbeberen ; and, there for e, to M 
the sscrevi ti^t-jtrv ro the nnl: of a human record^ br varof 
Jirpaiiczt. Hei::iie *e hare learned to Tiew the trnth meich 
extcTiiHllT, I. f . &s £11 cabeliever vonld view it ; and ao to net 
and tnr:at it even, vhen ve sn not arguing ; whicdi inndra^ 
of courst-, aa habitual disrespect toward what we hold to be 
divine, and ou^tt to treat as snch.'' Ojffitrd TVaets, — A- 
tioncJitiu- Pritwipi^*. p. 47. 

" When the churv^h has been considered moat prospenw 
from her union vitb tte stale, her writers hare been dia- 
ntcterized bv cold and low liews ; and so &r had their tbeo- 
losT taken up its station in the mere outskirts of Christitt 
truth, that in the last a^ it v^s driren to contend tor natnnl 
religion and the existence of a God; her aaccamenta woe 
couEidered almost as lifeJess as Jewish rites ; reli^ioas am- 
troTcrsies were cnsmged in on points on the vny anrftcc of 
Scripture, as if uncoiuciotu of the hidden deptMa wkith wen 

CHAF. ril. OOt) WITH VS. 181 

behw," Oxford Tracts, — Indicatiom of a Suprrintrnding Pro- 
vidence in the Preserxyntion nf Ihr Prayer Book, ifc. p. 72. 

It IK of no use to Bay in these cases, that the doctrine of 
the miracaloiis conception is luauitained. As a speculative 
doctrine it may, hut beyond this it is not, for it enters not 
the Icaat int^ tliu iiiter])rt;tutioii of the words, the miracles, 
the mental and bodily sufTeriugs of the Savior ; and where 
this is the case, the doctrine, as we have said, is virtually 

Ttic theology thus taught is indicated in the following 
extract : " When t}ic doctrine of the niiraculous conception is 
•not particularly nttendcd to, we all readily say, that it is the 
belief of the doctrines, the miracles, tlie death, and the resur- 
rection of Clirist, that makes the ChristiiLn. ... It docs not at 
an concent us to know hoiv Clirist canic into the world ; but 
wfiai He taught u'hni He vfaa in it, and what He did and tiuf- 
/e-red n* a proof of the authority hy which He tauykt it. Every 
man, therefore, who believes that Christ had a divine com- 
misaiou to teach the great doctrines of a resurrection and of 
a life to comCj is an much a Christifiji and has tut strong mo- 
tives to govern his hfe hy the |>recepts of (vhristinpitr, as he 
who likewise believes, that he was without fatlier or without 
mother, that he was the maker of the worldj or the eternal 
God himself." 

Seeing the very little u«c which, in relation to the iu- 
Bpimtion of the Scriptures, hod been made of the doctrine 
uf the miraculous conception, by those who professedly be- 
lieved it, Dr. Priestley proceeds to inform them how, having 
dispensed with the one they naturally come to dispense with 
the other. History of Early Opinions, vo\. W. p. f>. 

In speaking of the inspiration of the Scriptures, he ac- 
cordiugly gives the same uccouut of it which is given by 
many who yet profess to maintain the doctrine of the miracu- 
lous conception. "I think," says he, "they were written 
without any particular iuitpirHliuu, by men who wrote accord- 




cuAr. iiu, 

ing to tlie best of their knowledge, and wlio, from tbdr 
cumstanecs, cuuld not be mistaki'ii with rcstpect to thv grnhf-i 
facts of which they were proper wituesseii ; but who, hka] 
other men subject to prejudice, might be liable to adopt a 
hasty mid ill-grounded opinion concerning tilings which (bd 
not fall within the compass of their own kuowledge, wmI 
which bad no connection with anj-thing that was ao; lud 
such I hold the miraciitous conception to be.'* ^ 

Clearly did this autliur i»ce, that the doctriuc of the mi-^ 
raculona cwnccption and the intemni sense of the Scriptnrei 
staud or fall together. That if divinity was not latent in the 
one, it was not latent in the other; that any one who dcniei 
the divine internal ^licuKe of the Scriptures, oti<;ht to dnn 
the diviuit)' of tlie Lord Jesus Christ ; that wlieihur or not 
he does so profcHsedly, certain it is that he docs so rirtuallj. 

Thua we see what ia Sociuianism ; its real foundation ■ 
a denial of the miraculous conception, consequently a denial 
of the divinity latriit in the moral instruction, miracles, aod 
suiTeriugs of the Savior; thua a denial of the di'vinity of hu 
person. His Hfc, therefore, is hence regarded as the life oohr 
of a prophet anuounciiig the reality of that which was not 
realized in Tlim : He being not the reality, Iiut the ahado* 
of it ; thuji only the creaturcly exemplar of some of the iia> 
known perfctctiona of a God still unknown. Cuiiscquentlyt >> 
this case, there is not couceivcd to be any efficient power pat 
forth and coming Irani Him to enable man to be the tma^ 
and likeuess of Uod ; He is not considered as the Son c( 
Right couanes.t, for He i.s not eoniddcred aa the fountain <rf 
Ught and life, but only sm a being reflectiug from an inviai- 
hie source some few of its rays ; like the moon which reflecti 
light but not heat. It was, therefore, bnt comutent ia 
Priestley to deny the miraculous couception ; aad he said 
only the truth, when he declared that Sociniana were inooo- 
■listcnt in maintaining it. 

The theology' founded upuu that view of the Incumatua 

cii :ir. til 

GOD TTirn us. 


ill wliicli Miin- is ropirded tw the Mother of God, is in some 
respects of a dilTcrcut sort. In this ciwc tlic miraculous con- 
ception is indeed miiintained, but tlic divinity of Clirist ia 
considered rather as im ctlect than a caiue, as the oSspriiig 
mther than the parent. The creature Is regarded a» first, the 
Creator «.■» second in order; the manhood is the grcnt object 
of cuntcra|tlatiun, the divinity hein^ utiknovru, e.\ce|)t no far 
u it ia iuvc9tc4 with the attribute!* uf a creatiircly hninaii 
nature. In the former case, the divinity is denied und un- 
known i in the latter it is acknowledged and falsified; for, 
before it is admitted to he divine, it pruMes through the pro- 
cess of 11 creation or hirth from the creature. In the history 
of the conception, that creature is the virfjin Mary ; iu the 
histon.' of the theolog)' professedly founded upon it, that 
creatitre is the human mind ; thus the church, councils, 
ikthen, the Pope. Tlie theology re*iilting from «u<'h a prin- 
ciple 19 regarded as divine, heeausc men have delcnnincd 
tliat it i» so ; they are the parents uf it ; its hirth is derived 
from the church, who is the mother of its diirinity, the DH- 
para, Iteuce tlic Verbipara. The result is the prufanation and 
(alsification of the whole ; the creature being the ncti^-c, the 
Creator the pa-ssivc subject ; the creature hciujj; the parent, 
the Creator the ctiild, and consequently also all the attri- 
butes of the Oeator, which m« thus the offspring only of 
the mind of man. 

In illnslration of these remarks wo may observe, that the 
virgin, regarded as the spouse of God, has frequently been 
considered to be the emblem of the eliureh, regarded as the 
lAmb'swifc; hcuce the autliority of the \nrgin lias a repre- 
Hentiitivc in that of the chiurh, and vlcfi rerm. Compare, 
for iostaucc, what is said of the virgin with what is said uf 
the chnreh. 

Bemardinus de Uustis observes, "Since the virjpn Mary 
is mother of God, and God is her son, and every son is natu- 
rally inferior to bis mother, and subject to her ; and the 



CBir 111 


mother is preferred ubuve and is 8ui)erior to ker sua, it Bit- 
lows that the blessed virgin is herself superior to (jod ; nd 
God himself is her subject, by reason of the hunumitr ie- 
rived from her. . . . Olt ! the unspeakable dignity of Mai; ; 
who was worthy to commaud the comnuuider of all." Tjffa'i 
Primitive Worship, p, 375. 

Dr. WisemHu iu tiis Fiflh Loeturo on Church Autbantr, 
observes as fallows, itith regard to TcrtuUinxi, in hiK Tretfitf 
on the Prescription of Heretics, or Persons who depart fron 
the Commuuiou of the Universal Church : 

" The whole drift of hi^ argument is to shcnv that tbc« 
have no right whatsoever tu appeal to the Scrt|)ture, hecuK 
th€ Scriphvre hat no authority a« an inspired book, «rrr ti>tt 
which it receives from the aanctioa of the infailibU charek. 
That, conseijuently, they are to be arrested in this fint ttxf, 
atid not allowed to proceed any further in their argument; 
but be told — Yon have no right to this word of God, wfaick 
is not yours ; for > ou reject tliat authority of tlie chnit^ 
which ftlone can give it yon. You have^ therefore, no ri;^ 
to niipeal to that volume from the authority of the dinii^ 
on whose aulftority alone it can staml ; and consequently tliet 
are never tu be allowed to enter into a detailed argument (ram 
the Scriptures, but they ore to be brought to the first fnodft- 

mental principle It is extremely reniarkable bo*, 

when the first general conncU is enacting canons or rule* d 
discipline, it prefaces them by saying, ' It has appeared to 
us proper to do so and so ;' but the moment thi^ cotne to 
give the decree or the rule of faith upon the subject, tfan 
say, ' The church of God teaches this' — ^not the Word of God, 
not the Scripture — the cfrurch of God teaches this doetiine^ 
and because, consequently, the church of God teaches it, thea 
Uw (locirine must be trite; and all tlic bishops over the wnU 
must subscribe to it. This prindpU' which was comtnimctd tn^ 
tliat occasion, wa.i continued in every subsequent coiuki] i)fl 
which we have any notice iu eecJesiasticid history." (IHd. Ker 

CHAP. 111. 



tbo Mibm'n Entl af Controversy, Letter x.) Such is the 
'rimisuou uf a distioguialini member of the Church of 

Nov wheu tbo crenturc assumes this authority over tlic 
written Word of God, wLy should not tlie creature be iu- 
vested witli authority over the living "Word of (Jod ? If the 
church thus give birth to divine truth, why should not the 
vii^i be prc3ume<l to give birtb to the Divine Word ? 

We 8CC then how in these eases the iiitcnial ia, in its 
inTerse order, boni from the external. Wherever the churcli 
IB sensual, this inversion is manifested by a special cultiva- 
tiou of the extemid ; thus, among members of the Church of 
Rome, by prayers to creatures, snch na the rirgin Mnry and 
the aainta; by extemiU imiircssiona upon tlic sctwea, produced 
by mu»ic, by the exhibition of crosses, paiututg, statuary, 
arehituctnre, robcfl and phylacteries of all descriptions, pe- 
nance*, pilgrimages, uud so forth ; the end of all wliich, ia to 
make the external the mother of the internal ; the natural the 
parent of the spiritual ; the effect the progenitor of the cause. 
Such i» the resiUt of the doctrine in regard to the senses. 

Wlicnn'cr the church is more intellectual, the same prin- 
ciple manifests itself in the fact of human reason giving birtli 
to the doctrines which arc to be received ; thus of the hu- 
man mind becoming the mother of the Word; whence arise 
heresies ou one side and councils against them on the other : 
each originating from the same source. Both among Pro- 
testants and Romanists it gives rise to the doctrine of tliree 
Infinite Beings, minds, or spirits, or of the specific unity ; 
to the whole system of treaties, compacts, bargains, and so 
forth, between the three persons of the Deity i to the 
doctrine of the wrath and indignation of the ono-^of paci- 
fication and satisfaction by the other ; to the doctrine of the 
paiwihihty of God, whether in one person or the other; 
thus to that uf the Niiffcrings, death, niid burial of God, 
as attributed to the |>orsuu of the Godliead ; and Lastly to 

186 1NC.4RKATION. CBAF. 111. 

the idea of the e\hibitiDii of Cbrut's wouuila in hcKnai^ b 
prayers hihI intcrce-t-sioiui, a-s attributed to titc hum&n aatni, 
or partly to tho Iiuman, partly to tliD divine. 

Ill liue, heucc arises the whole of the thcologjr ilriinH 
in the nbu8C of tliat rule hy which wc arc to mrrm wk i 
knuwlcdgo of God. The creature takeu certaiu attributes d 
its titcn, the best It can, or irhat U eonsidera beat ; time rOb- 
hutes the creahire maTtcs infinite; thiLs it is the maker rfidr 
own God ; the parent, tbc inuthcr of its &u7n Ocity j in »if- 
shipiug wliich, it worships iistif; the creature being in im 
Deipura, Vifr^pitra, or 9iD're»(. 

The theology which is laxt in order, is that in whidi tb 
creature is eonsidered as the parent only of what i* crcfttmrir, 
while irom the Dinnity alone pruceuds vlmt is cwienttally di- 
vine. In this case, the divinity is regarded vm so veiling ibctf 
over wit}) the finite hnniiuiity, us still to hi* latent in it; inifl 
its actiou8, in all its paasious, in all its wurds, ia uU its rndx 
While 80 latent, however, he ia nut known, nor is the knaa 
nature itself yet filled with all the fulness of God ; bat 1)j s 
process of glorification, it comes to receive the X>iviue Pleni- 
tude. Then, and not till then, the heat, light and riviiyiBg 
beams of Ibe ditiuity are poured forth, exhibiting tiie h» 
tuauity as fully divine. Then is the glorified biunwi natuR 
worshipped, but nut till then, because not fully glacificdi 
even as uur Savior naid, when Mary fell »t his feet to worship 
Him : ToHch me noL Have nu longer eomniunicatioB vttk 
mc, until I am ascended to the Father; uutiJ my baaM 
nature is aaceoded; until yoti acknowledge tliia naturotnbr 
di\ine ; until that which was slain, nhall be gloriticd by fii, 
as worthy to receive power, and wisdom, aad buiiur, uhI 
blessing. Such is the doetrine of that church which ia ioaaiti 
upon the principles which the Lard,^hy his servant, has anil 
known iu these latter dayn. 

In conclusion, tlien, the doctrine of the Incarnation Md 
A»cension, lu expressed by the terms God is man and man » 


CUAF. III. Oon WITH U8. 187 

God, may be thus summarily utatcd in lU rclatioii to fixe 
diurcb. There is. 

First, — ^the case in whicli the Incarnation is \TrluaIiy dc- 
mad; and a cudu of himiun mumlf) substituted iu the place 
of diviue truth. Thiit ivill include both Sociniaiiisiu, and 

SecDUiily, — there is that iu which the Godhead is cou- 
tidered as so assuming the manhood, that the Godhead Is 
excluded fE'OiTi heing within, and the creature man only 

The theology founded on tliis view of the Incarnation, 
is that in which the pei'fections ascribnl to Ood are not of 
dirinc, hut of crciiturcly origin. Ilils theology ia expressed 
by Maria Di'ipara, Verbipara, or SfOTe«af. 

In this ctue, whim in Clirist man is said to be (jod, cer- 
tain creaturcly attributes, by some process of our own, come 
to l>e considered as infinite or divine. 

The theology corresponding to this is that which ia gene- 
rally received, and often admits a large portion, both of So- 
cintanism aud Ariauiam. 

Thirdly, — there is that in which the Godhead is con- 
sidered so to have as»umed the manhood, that the Gmlhcad 
is not excluded, but is latent in the manliood ; so that the 
divinity of Jcfaovali is regarded as being the inmost essence 
of Christ while Hl- was npon earth. 

The theology founded on tliis ■view of the Incarnation, 
is tliat in which the creaturcly attributes of Christ are under- 
stood only as the exterior tiipxn, correspondences, or analo- 
gies, of more interior qualities ; having itimostly a dirine 
sigmficatioii, eveu aa the humanity of Christ had inmuatly 
the divinity. 

In thLs case, when man ia said to be (in the highest 
sense) God, the manhood is considered as so exalted to the 
glory of the Godhewl «» to be dirine. 

The theolog}- founded on this view of the subject, is that 




cajir. la 

which is made known through the medium of Swedenborg , 
in which the human nature of the Lord^ which He had wtofc 
upon earth, is fucctjtsiveiy put off", acoording as the diriutj 
descended into the degree in which it was. In this »iit, «D 
that our Savior said and did upon earth, is, aa wc have stated. 
exalted into a sense proper first to the divinity, mcoiuUt to 
nngels, and finally accommodated to man. 

Fourthly, — irndcr this head may he crmmcrHicd the doc- 
trine that God is mau, or Divine Love is IHvijic Wisdom ia 
lUtimntes; also, that man is God, or Diniic AVisdom in fti 
ultimates is one with Divine Love in its first principles. Thi» 
fourth new of the subject wc omit altogether, as IcsuKog u 
bt^yond the limits of the present treatise. 

This chapter we caiiuut close in words moro approprixic 
than those of a modem divine {NewTnan's Strmon*, vol ii 
pp. Ifrt— 186) : 

" To conclude, if any one ia tempted to consider sadi 
suhjccts as the foregoing, abstract, speculative, and unpro- 
5tahLe, I would observe, lu amwer, that I have taken it on 
the verj' ground of its being, aa I hclicve, cspeciiilly pnif- 
tical. Let me uot be thouj^ht to say a strmigc thing, tbou^b 
I say it, that there is much in the reUgious belief, even of tJie 
more serious part of the community at present, to make ob* 

Her\ant men very anxious where it will end "WTiat do 

we gain from words, however correct and abundant, if tbey 
cud with themsolvos instead of lightiug up the image of tbe 
inearniite Son iu oiu* hearts ? Yet this charge tuny too surdy 
be brought against the theology of late centimes, vUch, 
under the pretence of guarding against presumptiou, denies 
us what is reveciled ; like Ahax, refusing to ask for & cign, 

lest it should tempt the Lord We arc too often led, n 

a matter of necessity, to distinguish between tUo Christ who 
Uvcd on earth and the Son of God Moat High, spcaldngof 
his hmnan nature luul his divine nature so sepHmtely as not 
to feel or understand tliat Oo<1 ts man and man is Ijod. 1 




aril B[»ciikiiig of ttiosQ of ub whu have leametl to reflect and 
rcnsou, inquire and inirsue their thoughts, not of the illite- 
rate ; and of such 1 fear I must say, (to use the language of 
ancient theology,) tliat they begin by being SabplliaiiB, that 
they go on to be Nestorians, and that they tend to be 
Ebiouites and deny Christ's dinnity altogether. ^Meanwhile 
the rcligiou8 world little thinks whither its opinionii iirc lead- 
ing j and will not discover that it la ailoHng a mere abstract 
name or a va^oe creation of the mind for the ever-living 
Son, till the defectiuu of its members from the faith stiirtle 
H, and teach it that the so-culled rcUgion of the heart, with- 
out orthodoxy of doctrine, is but the warmth of a corpse, real 
for a time, but sure to faJX 

"How long will that complicated error last under which 
our church now labors ? How long arc human traditions 
of modern date to obscure, in so many ways, the majestic 
interpretations of Holy Writ, which the church catholic has 
iuhfanted £rom the age of the apostles i** 

* The KDlhoT h«T« refers to (he internal »«nie of 8rriptiirc u expoundH 
b}' Mine oT th« fathrri, nnd which h-u Mnce bevD fiirClier treal«ct of in onit 
at tbe Trwu for the Times, No. 89. 


"Eriav KiKODOM DiTioiD iiMiMrr iniu' u uuwawr td dkjwutioh.''— JTMI. *t* 

BoMCBT maintnmfi, that the doctrine of the satufiKtiaii of 

Chritit, aud <if imiJutcd justice or rii^hteousness, hmt 
been the doctrine of tlic catholic church . Tliua, in Wi 
IHelory of the Variations of the Prolestant Churches, |i. lit, 
(Maijnooth Edition,) he obaenes ; 

*' The Lutherans tma^iied they had discovered aomeflnn); 
wondcrfu] and peculiar to theuiitelves, when they BBtd God 
imputed to us the justice of Jesus Christ, who ha<l perfrrtlT 
sntisfied for ub, and rendL'red his merits uurs. Vet the 
scholastics, ao much censured by them, were full of tlm 
doctrine. Who amongnt us has not ever believed and taugii. 
that Je»ns Christ suptrabuiidantly satijtjied ftr men : ami thi 
the Eternal Father, conttmtrd with this satisfaction of Ais &■, 
€leaU with us as favorably as {f we ourtcfver had sa/isfitd iit 
Justice ? If this be all that is understood vhcn the jiutkr of 
JcauB Clirist iH said to be imputed to us, it is irhat no aor 
doubted; nor should they have disturbed the whole vocU, 
nor taken on themselves the title of reformers, for ao kunn 
and so avowed a doctrine." 

Speaking of the Atonement, says Dr. Hey, the N< 
Professor, vhom wc have already quoted on the 

cH\r. IV. 



" Before tlic reformation, lliis doctrine was left to arise natu- 
rally from Scripture, as occasion reqiiircd ; at the rpformatiftn, 
it began to be made a mcaos of deprocriatint; tlic merit of 
Popish good works, as was the whole doctrine of justification 
by faith; on tlm arcotint the Romanists made what opposition 
to it they could, coiisiKtcutly witli their notions of tlic mass, 
which supposes the death of Christ to have been a real sacrifice. 
They misrepresented it, pitrhaps, sometimes; but they were 
the occasion of it» becoming more definite, by charging the 
reformed with had consequcnccii arising from it, or from what 
they conceived it to be, which naturally brought on explana- 
tions and ar^imcnts in it« defence. During t)ie time when 
all men were set on thinking for themselves by the reforma- 
tion, the Socinians arose; and their ^neral principle being 
to reduce all things to the level of common sense, to throw 
out of religion overythinp; strange and extraordinary, they 
have been constiintly endeavoring to give ail thutto texts of 
Scripture, on which wc found the very wonderful doctrine of 
the Atonement, an ordinary construction, and to prove that 
reiwtttanco is all that is necessary for the remission of sins ; 
and that the death of Christ was not properly a sacrifice, but 
only wlint fie suffered in onlcr to give men such an example 
and such a proof of hiii mission, as could not be given 
by a common departure out of life." Norrisian Leciareg, 
vol. iii. p. 2HG. 

Wc thus see, that the doctrine of the Atonement, such as 
it is now recognized, did not, before the refunnatiou, stand 
mit as it were from the scheme of Christianity as a separate 
and distinct doctrine in the prominent numncr in which it 
now does ; being merged mt it were in the doctrine of the 
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, considered as a daily satis- 
faction. The dissentnons which took place upon the subject, 
between the Church of Rome and the Reformed, gradually 
dcvelopc<l it in fuller detiula. For in.Htancc, according to the 
rcformem, goial works and works of supercrogation, bariog 





ClAt. IV. 

been liclil liy the Church of Rome to poaaeas merit cd^ 
capable uf prucuring satisfaction, it foUuwctI tiiat the Atote- 
mcnt wrought by Christ, the mcrita and satisfaction <if ha, were proportioiinbly the less insisted on by the Htiotao 
Churcli. Wiiilcj on the other Land, the more the refiomns 
insisted upon the works of man posscMing no merit, and is- 
capable of procuring satisfaction, the more importjinoe they *- 
tached to the doctrine of the merits and satisfactiua of Chriji; 
until some, carrjnng the doctrine to the other extreme, ami 
averting that not good works, but faith only hnd auTthingt* 
do with procuring our salvation, and others deolnring that both 
good works and repentance were equally rejected by God, it 
followed, that faith alone in Christ's blood, merits, death, a»l 
atoning sacriiicc, came tu be regarded by the gcncnditj at thr 
prucuriug ciiuse of mau's salvation ; lience fnith an the ok 
hand, and satisfaction on the other, became witU them the iB* 
absorbing topics of Christianity. Previoua to this time, n 
little was the doctrine of aatieifaction regarded a« a subject of 
separate ami distinct investigHtion, that, as ve arc infonncd 
by VuBsius, and as is admitted by Dr. Hey, Orotiua wu the 
first person that wrote a treatise specificaUy on this subject 
This treatise being not approved by somCj as Icwiing tw 
much to Sociuianism, it was followed by other expomtiou; 
and these, again, not being approved by those wlio took dit 
ferent views, were followed by still more. 

The Oxford divines, however, have begun to retrace tfe 
steps, which in respect of the Atonement, theology bad takes 
since the reformation; and to divest the doctrine of thit 
cxclusiTc importance which it had come to assaoic. " TV 
system of wliieh 1 speak,'* says the writer we olladc Us "it 
characterised by these circumstances ; an opinion that it it 
necessary to obtrude and bring forward prom.incntly and 
explicitly, on all occasions, the doctrine of the Atonemeat 
Tliis one thing it puts in the place of all the principles hdd 
by the chiurch catholic; dropping all proportion of the faith. 


CHAP. [V. 

PACIPICATIOX' uf wuatii. 


tt (lisparagps com|Mvpativrly, nsy, in RomccaMs has Rvcn Itlw* 
pIictOLxl, the moat blesjted sacraments. It is very jealously 
afrnitt of church authority, of fasting and tnortificntion being 
recommended, of works of holinnas hcin;; tnsintcd on, of the 
doctrine of the imivcrsal judfrnicut. It in marked by aji 
unreserved discoui-sc on the Iioliest subjects. To this system 
all thnt we bare said is thoroughly opposed." Regerve in Com* 
mnnicating lieUffious Knowledge, p. 47. 

Again, (page 51,) it is said, " With rrgnrd to the notion 

that it is ueccssarj- to bring forward itiedoctriuc of the Atoiie- 

. tncnt OR all occasions prominentlv and cxcliuti?cly, it is really 

difficult to sny auj-tliing in answer to an opinion, however 

popular, when one is quite at a loss to know on what grounds 

tlic opinion is maintained. Is it from it* supposed effects ? — 

pious frauds might be supported on the same priuciplc. Rut 

I let us observe these uttccts as tlicy become more fully devo- 

' loped ; the fruits of the system have shewn themselves iu the 

diaohcdience of ministers to their ecclesiastical superiors, of 

individu&k to their appointed ministers, of whole bodies of 

Christians to the church. Is it the popularity of the opinion ? 

— this is uot a test of truth, but an argument to the contrary : 

Christian truth is in itadf nscniinUy nnpoptiiar ;♦ aud, even 

' wen it otherwise, what is popularity when it is opposed to 

catholic antiquity? Is it from Scripture? — we have shewn 

that the tone and spirit of Holy Scripture is quite opposed 

I to it." 

* In hU fidmpfm X.nlure((*iii. p. 357), Dr. lltimpdca niAltes a ■imilu 
rentarli;, though alllTeriBS on il>« Hibject of catholic auliqnity . " No unlvvr- 
ftaliiy nr ubi<|ail;," lajs hr, " can ever make ibut diviur which nevnr wm 
such. Il i« n iDcre |>t('Ju(lic4* of vcovrmtioo Tof niiliijuiljr, aii<l thi; iinp<i>ing 
aspect of an unannuivua uctiu licence (if unanimous it reull; be), which 
tnak«> MS ntganl that as Irulh, which cohim »o rBcommanded In as. Tmlh 
ia mkir the tUrihule ttf Ike ftv (ban tt/* the many. TUe real charch of Gu4 
tnaj (m Ibe ncuill rvnutnot, xarcL'lj viiiblr aiiiid thr mass of aiirtuuiiiting 
profcKson. M*ho tben aball pronouDce aarthios to be divine tniUi, simply 

Ib<r4;aiis4- it faa« tti« nmrka of lutviog hna gSDcrall; or uDiwrMltx n-tritcd 
amra; raeo r" 





cmxt. IL 

The course wliicli wo slinl) pursue will lie, t(i conaidflrlk 
cluctrinc uf the AUuiciucut tirst, ad intra, or in relation b 
the three persous of the Trinity; secondly, ad extra, or a 
rcbition to man. lu rcliition to the tbrcc jtentons uf Ibr 
Trinity, it may be considi-rcd under two IieAds ; ftnl, ut 
pacificntjon of wmth or iiitf^rr, stecoudly, as a sntisfiK<i«U 
diriiic justko. Wc shall first consider it as a Pacifictdien V 
T>mae Wrath or Atiger. 

It is an ub»ervntiun of Arclibishop Kinpr, in hin Discaom 
oti PL-etU'Rtiiialiun, p. 73, thnt " Wlirn God is »aid lo U 
mcreiful, loving, nnd pitiful, all-weinir, jealous, parienl. « 
aitgrjr; if these were taken literally, and undcntood tW 
snmc way oa we find them in ns, what absunl and intokmU 
consef|nrncca wtnUd follow ! and how diMhoiioraljIy must ila; 
be suppoRcd to think of (tod, who aiicribe sach pMsdgnit* 
Him \ Vet nobody is shoeked at tlicm, because tlicy nndtr- 
stand them iu an aualogiciil sense." 

We propoHe first to make a few eommcnt« ou tbc tnitlit^ 
this remark. 

lu tlic book concerning tbc Anger of Gofl, writtaU 
IjaetantiuH, a.s early as a. ti. 310, we find that numerouupcnov 
(amoiij,; whom were certain pluluM>plicr») having thought lis 
God was cither so beuevoleat that He could nut be «np; 
or thnt He was so undisturbed by aflfections, that He cnjimJ 
ft pcrtbet rcjmxc and vi|uability of state, or else tliat He W 
no concern for hiimnu afTnirs ; this Father uiidcrtako) 1* 
prove tliat auger may be predicated of God. " Some offira,' 
says he (chnp. i.), "that God is neither pleased nur v»p} 
vith any one, but enjoys, at case, the ricbos of iii» ovn mp 
mortality. Othen, takiug away auger from God, ascribe M 
Him merey ; sa^-ing, that his nature, being endowed iriii 
\-irtue of the highest kind, must be benefircut, not ^ 

In the fourth chapter he obscrvca, "(lod is not God, if B( 
i« not (inwardly) moved, (wliicb is ttie charactcriatic of a bnv 


bein^,) nor iIock anything vhich to man is imposaihle; if there 
pertain to liim no will, no act, no (^ovcmmcnt wortKy of him. 
"What cnn the bcittitude of the Deity amount to, if He is 
always at roat, Always in a .itate of motionless torpor ? if He 
U deaf to his supplinnts, blind to his wonhipers? 

" The firrt thought of Kpienrus wati, thnt nn^er was not 
consonant to the Deity. Ant! when this apjKrarcd to liim 
true, and not to he gainsayedj he could not refuse to admit 
the consequences ; liavinn deprived Iho Deity of one affec- 
tion, he was under the necessity of deprinng him of the 
TOst ; HO that be, who is not moved by anger, is not moved 
liy mercy, which is contran' to anger; and if he haa no 
anger, neither has he any mercy, any fear, joy, sorrow, or 
compassion. Now if tltcrc be uo aflectiou in God, because 
nil affection implies infirmity, then He has uo care for any* 
thing, and conaequcutly exercises no providence. 

"The Stoics say (chap, v.), if anper is not hccoming to 
men, it is not hccominf; to (lod. If amou;; men it be 
praiseworthy to do good, rather than to do harm> to confer 
life rather than take it away, to save mlhnr than to destroy, 
how much ranrc in it becoming to the Deity ?" 

These arguments, however, arc, he says, only speciously 
put forth in a popnlnr maimer, to allure disciples ; " for if 
God is not angry with the wicked and uuju«t, so neither doe* 
He love the pious and the just. lie who loves the good and 
docs not hate ihe hiid, doe-s not luv« the good j for a love of 
the gooA arises from a hatred of the evil, aud a hatred of the 
ovil, from a lore of the good. 

" Perhaps some one may say (chap, xa.) that God cannot be 
aogiT, hccnnsc He has forbidden man to be angry- In reply 
to which I nu{!ht say," he obacr\'es, " that tlie anger of man 
ought to he restrained^ because he is often angrj* unjustly, 
tliat his anger hath only a tcmpornry motion, laittin^ only 
fur a time. Consequently, that many actions ought not to 
be done, whidi nevertheless arc douc^ by members of society 




cair. 11 

in humble Ufi*, in the mulilln claRHWi, (itiil by mij:Iity Vit 
that thus the far^' uf a pcrsou uught tu lie mudcjutol 
repressed, leat he should ccnsc to have restmint oxer hini'wlt. 
and so should be led into the perpctmtion of some aim 
which could not W cxpiatnl ; but thnt Ou<t csuinot haic > 
tcmponiry nng<T, hcciiu-sc He is cteniiU, and of perfect tirftr 
nor 18 ever augry without a cause, 

" Tliough tills ftiisircr might be given," he ««ys, " ;«* tiii 
would nut be a true Htatemcnt of the case. For if God cntiRh 
forbad m tu be atigty, He would in wjme mcaaaro refmn 
bia own work, sinec from the begitiiiing He imptiuitcd xapt 
in Jecori kom'mtn : inasmuch as it is the gcuemJ belicrf, Uiat ilv 
cause of this commotion is contained in huuiort! frfiit. Uf 
doc8 not therefore prohibit ns totally from angrr, since B ■ 
an affeotiou which is implanted in us noceuBrily ; but Hr 
forbids OUT nngcr being jK-rmancnt. For the aiigcr oS taat- 
tnis ought to be mortal j since, if it remaiiiod, emmikr 
would be confirmed to our perpetual hurt. Agtiin, whea Br 
eommunded us to be angry. He commanded ua not (oaa; 
He did net design that we should extirpate anger, but abouU 
control it ; ko tliiit in all the cliastisements wc uiig'ht infiict. 
wc might observe moderation and justiec. He, therd^irr, 
who 'Comoiaiided us to be angO'i must assuredly himself br 
angry. He who commanded ns quickly to be np|>cased, nis* 
asHurertly himxclf he placable; for vhnt He eammauds, ■ 
ju«t, and condncive to the general good. 

" I have oliacr^'cd, however," says he, " thnt God canaot 
have a temporary' anger, like man who kindles with a pmol 
emotion, and, by reason of his frailty, canimt easily caotid 
himself; hence we arc to uudcrstand, that, &» Gud is ctma^ 
so his anger is eternal; but, inasmuch as He is cnikmil 
with the highest virtue, no He in rnnblcd to keep his an^ 
under command ; He docei not will to be coutroUcd by it, te 
rntlior of himself to moderate it as He plcaacs ; a positin 
wluch docs not oontradict our former asBertiun. For 

CKAP. IV. PAdPtCATlUX Of WK.tTll. 107 

bis linger altogc'tticr inimcirtftl, then would tlicro be no i-dodi 
for satisfaclioa, or for mercy after the oomniiaiiioii of hhi ; 
besides. He himself commautled men to he reconciled hefon: 
^ goiog down of the sun. StiU his di«inc anger cuntiDuc!) 
to all ptemitj* against tho«c who sin to nil clrmity. So tbnt 
Goil is not to Im; upjieaiKuI hy im^i-nse, l>y «HcrifieiHl victims, 
or hy prccioua giftjt, all of wliicli arc wrniptiblc, but by 
reformation of momls ; imJ he who eeascs to nii, cnuxes the 
anger of Uod to ibe." 

Speaking of the crimes of the wiekcd, aa beheld by Ootl, 
Lactautiua ohtierves (ebap. xvi.) " It is not right that He who 
srcth such things should not be tnoved, even to vengeance 
U|i<jn the nicked ; that Ke should not extirpate the [testi. 
ferous and raischievou!, so as to consult the geucnil good. 
In anger it:tetf, tlicrcforc, He finds a ]>lea3urc. Hence how 
empty, and how false are the argnments of those who arc 
nnwilliug to admit that God cuii be augiT, or be plciwcd ! 
or of thoitc who think that in (lod there ia no movement of 
the affectioUH ! who, because there are some aOcctiuuH which 
have 110 place iu Him, such to. fear, avarice, grief, cmy, &c., 
imagine that He in destitute of all affection whatsoever. It 
i» tnie that fmm the furmer He is free, bccaxisc they are the 
alFectiona of *tcc9 ; but tlie affection* of virtw, such as anger 
ngainst the nncked, love townrils the gtKKl, eumpnHsion to the 
aflliitcd, these implying no infirmity hnt being consistent 
with the diviue powerj Ht possesnes m nffeclitms which are 
proper to Him, jtul and true. . . . Hence it appears (chap, 
xxiti.), how vain are the reajwmings of those philosophcni, 
who think that Ciod is without auger ; whiUt among uther 
perfifctioiis they altriiiute to Him, as worthy of prainc, what 
is oontmry tu hi.s divine majesty. Xot only would this king- 
dom but the whole eoipiro throughout the world fall to ruin, 
were it nut guardet) by a spirit of fewr. Take away anger 
from the king, and uul uuly would no one obey him, but he 
■ would be even hui'ij.*d from his tbroue. Take it nwuy from 




cmr. 1*. 

the peasant, imil wtio would uot go niwl rob him '•' who witU 
nut Lold liiiu up tu dcnHJou ? whu would not immlt faiai 7 
He would have neither numcntf honsc, nor food, for d il 
these would othcra despoil him; find let us not think, tlra, 
that the majesty of the empire of heaven would bo opbcU, 
without nngcr on one side, and fear on the other." 

Tlio smnc idea of CtuiI'h tuigcr is pru|K}unt]od by TertoUai, 
in his fint book ngaiu^tt Marciou.* In accordance witli tk 
views of these fathers, Mr. \\'ealey observes in anr dt hi 
letters flVarkif, vol. xiii. p. Si) : 

*' The qucstiou is, (the only question with me, Xttpli 
nothing else) what saith tlie Scripture? It snv-s, Gotlwmm 
Christ, reconcilmg the wortd vhIq ttitnurlf; that, Ueiniido Ub. 
whu knew uu sin, to be a sin-offering for ns : it ftays, Hr ■<■ 
wewided/vr vitr trunsffremoru, ami bru'uted for our iwqviia. 
it says, we have an advocate with the Father, Jt»tt$ Ckrut tie 
TighivQUs, and lie is the aionaaetU for our mu. 

" But it is ccrtiiin, liad God never been augr>-. He cxnK 
never have been reconciled ; so that, in aflSrming this, llr. 
Law strikes at the tvrif root of ihv AtonerHent ; and finib > 
shorter method of converting dciata than Mr. LeaUeV ^U- 
though, thorcfore, I do uot temi (rod, as Mr. Law s uppuB% 
a wrathful being (which conveys a wrong idea), yet / firwl^ 
believe He was angrrf with ait taatikimi; and that He vm 
Tceouciled tu theui by the death of his Sun. And / hum Hi 
was angry with me, tiU I beheved in the Sou of his luve ; vA 
yet this in no impeachment to his mercy. But He is jngt » 
well OS merciful." 

In his Letter to Mr. Law (vol. ii. p. 481), Mr. "WedBf 
ohsen'cs ; " I lutve no ubjectiou to the uxing the vorda wnA 
or anger, and justice, as nearly synon^oaoua, seeing aapr 
atandii in the same Telntiou to jutftiec, iia love docs to mefrr; 
love and anger being the passions (speaking alter the mnnuT 
of men) which curreBpuud with the Uispoeitiuna of mcrcv aad 
* Sve PlIkvIos, virf. 1. book iii. cbkp. 1. 





justice. WhoCT-cr, tlicrefore, denies G«l to be capable of 
WTEtli or anger, ncta consistently in denying liia justice 

" You begin," says he to Mr. Law, " no wrath, anger, 
vindictive justice, ever wna, or ever will he, in God. If n 
wrath of God were any where, it must bu everywhere." To 
which Mr Wcaley replies, "so it is, tut sure as the just God 
ia cverj'whcrc.'"' 

TurrcHn also, speaking of mitiafaction, observes: "This 
was uecesKikrily reciuired Ijy uur HHlvHtiou; because since tUe 
disagrvctueitt which, by reason of sia, had arisen betweeu 
God and raan, rendered men haters of (iod, (Koin. i. 80;) 
and not haters of Ciud actively, but also htUed by God paa- 
sivcly, such a disagrceinciit cuu)d not be removal by pn^rcpt 
merely, or by ciampte; but it rcquirod tlutt a ransom 
•hould be luude, by lucauii of which uot merely num might 
be reconciled to God, by means of repentanct^ and a holy 
life, as the Socininus ntiiintain, but Gud also migbt be recirn- 
cilcd to man, with whom, from the nature of his nndictivc 
jiiMtii'K, He wan anipry ; autl therefore euuld nut l»e appeatcd 
without an adcijuate satisfuctiuu, by the eubstitutiuu of a 
mediator in man's place ; who, by oflcring liimscif up for 
man, migbt receive, iu his own person, the puuiahmcut due 
to man, and liberate man from punishment by bearing it 
himwif." Mediatorial Office n/ Chrint, vol. ii. art. 9. 

The ductriuc of Atonement, as based u|H)U tlie&e prin- 
ciples, is thus also stated by Scott, (It'orks, vol. i. p. 190;) 
who, after speaking of the Mediation of Christ, obsenea, 
" The design of all which is thoroughly to convince lu of 
tilis great truth; that by our apostasy from God, and rchcUiou 
against Him, we have all rendered ounKlvos so vi^ obnoxi- 
ous to bis vfiufi^anef, that lie would not pardon us U[>ou any 
Ics3 atonement than the precious blood, nor admit wt into 
favor u[Km any \&i» motive than the powerful ijitcrce«sion, of 
bis owu ISun ; that by the heinouime^ of uur guilt, wc have 



ciur P 

«j biglily incetaed* the Fatlicr of mcrcieB agAinst qb, titf m 
less coniudcration than tho death and advocutioti uf tk 
grcKtwst aud dearest person iu the wliolc world, will nwu 
Ilim to admit of our repentance, and listen to unr to^ 

" This, therefore, we ought to be deeply aud thom^ 
convinced of, — that our sins have set us »t suefa & dtftau 
frou Oodj that it is nothing but the bluod uf Chret «3 
reconcile Him to ns ; and that though n-tthout our repcncwt 
He will never be reconciled to na, yet it is not fur the nkctf 
that, or aui-tbing else wc can do, that lie will be indnocdt* 
Tccciix us intit his favor ; but only for the luUtc of fhi 
precious sacrifice wbicli hia Rtcrual Son Latli oBend Bp 
for us." 

Again : it is maiutaiued by another writer, with feipsfl 
to the agony of our Lord, ( Wcat on the At onement, p- 81tl ■ 
" This mutit certaiuly have ahseu from some invisible ouut, 
nor can it be accounted for any otherwise, than by snppoMf 
that it arose from the immediate hand of God." Hea7>. 
" tluit God brought on the man Jans Clirijit all tlie sufferiap 
which He endured. Hiii haiul was not Icsa visible, nurb 
power and providence less active, in brin^ciug sufferings mi 
death ou his only begotten Sou, than on sinners of mankia': 
nor indeed was the governing providence of tiod lew coa- 
current aud active in bringing pain and flistress on Job* 

* LHDguKgo of iLiii kiad i» somcUmw raid to b« ver; inemHun. ta 
why sboulil it be so MoaiderMl, whea the wi>rds nre adapted lo Uw idwi. 
and tbe idvKS to ihc words f Where tlie Iudkuak^ does mot cvprew the Jar 
trine, it luAy I>i; aaid it tte iacuulioua ; but vrhtn- it dof*, ftuuredlf 1W Mn 
incautiow iw% nut Hpply. The ftiult i« tiol iu (lio laoguMge, bat ia Ibattei 
nor in itc Idea alone, but in thai prinriple n{ DAtnimllBiii which (IvMoeaaiM 
to llip ld«a, and hence iv the UnKUHgr. Nnr in MBylhinK RMtned bj iavalttif 
tb« tacnc idea, in inore rt-fined language ; for >a lODg as the sbibv pnadfk 
of natnraliUD exi>l«, it it b«tter to iiac m tnaKuuKe which pUlalj eipraw* 
il, than lodcc»reoiir«rlvM by imagining ihktlhv tirinciple Is remutnt, if 
only the laiiKuaKe which exprossos it b** imlleiiiHl down. 
CirctiUtrd by tlir^ Iteliglons Tract Society. 

CUAl'. IV. PACiriClTlON OV WRATH. 201 

Christ, than it is in brinpiig pain and distress on impcaitcnt 
aiimera, rithcr in this world or t\u: world to come." 

After quoting passages of Scri|itiirc in support of thrac 
[■news, he observes (p. 85): "It would be very inconsistent 
both with reaflon and the plain nud natural import of these 
Scriptural e\pri;"SHion8, to suppose that He, who is only Uod, 
the ori^uul and supreme Governor of the world, suspended, 
even in the least degree, that agency which had hitherto been 
unremitted and universal; and that He stept a&ide, and 
stood as a mpre spectator of this horrid scene. If this were 
the case, how could it l^itU propriety have been predicted, 
that God should sniitc, and bruise, and put Him to grief, 
mid ]il\eru'arri» be acknowledged^ that hts sufferings and 
death wctl-- the ellects of the haud and determinati: euuuscl of 
God, is not easy to be comprehended. Were it so, that the 
■Iwiid and power of God were less active in bringiug those 
erila oil, than iu any other evils brought ou moral 
beiugs; it is not easy to sec why Christ, who in the cha- 
mcter of mediator always considered liimsclf as a servant 
and acknowledged subjection to God, should yet cry to Him 
for help and dciiveranec. It is ctidcnt, therefore, that what- 
ever C"ls were eudim;(l by Christ, were from the hand of 
that God between irhoin aud men He acted as mediator. All 
the sufferings He endured, were fnHU his active power and 
providence; they were as much from the hand of God, as 
any evils that ever were brought on any of the human race." 
In pursuance of the same idea, the author pbscncs 
(p. 87) : That *' the sufferings aud death of Clirist wen; ex- 

Iprcssions of div'ttie aitger ;" that " there is nothing in the 
Word of God to lead us to suppose that c^its brought on 
moral beings are not in every iustaucc expressive of Avinc 
anger, but a variety of tJungs Umt evidently prove the con- 
trarj- ;" that " the Holy Scriptiurs clearly and very evidently 
teach us, that the sufl'eriugs and death of Christ were ex- 
pressious of rftrinr auger ■^' in line, " that Goit brought on 
the man Jesus Christ all the sufferings nhich Ue endured." 





In siipiiorl of these \Hpws, the foUoiring text is 
quoted by viuiuus ituthurs (Magee or the Atoftement, niLt' 
p. 213;, "The LonI said to Kliphax the Temaiiite> ay 
tprath is kindled against thee and th^frimds ; for yc Imvt Bit 
spoken of me the thing that is right, aa my sonaut Job hitk 
Therefore tnke unto yon now seven bullocks, and seven ru» 
and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yiiuractm ■ 
bumt-oflcring ; and my acn-nut Job slmll pmy for yon; fi^H 
Itim vrill 1 accept, lest I deal witli you iU\cr yonr (dh.^l 
Job xlii. 7, 8 ; see >1bo i. 4, 5 : \st. edit. 

In the following extract, again, the Father is coundavd 
to bo the ininiedintc author of the sun'oriiigs of the Son: 
for of the Father in regard to the Sou, it in said, " Yeai, nol- 
withstnnding the infinite love that He bore Tlini, aitd Ik 
piteous moans that his torments forced from Him, lle(li 
l<^ther) M'a» so far from relieving p[im> that, for mir sik^^ 
He inflicted upon Him the utmost mtJttry thai AumoM MiMPr 
couJd bear; that bo, having an experimental sense of tk 
momt grievous suffering that mankind ut liable to, and bdo; 
touelied with the utmost fc<'Iing of «nr infirmities, and in d 
points tempted like unto us, lie might carr^' a more iKoder 
commiseration for us to henrcn, and knov the better ho* tt 
pity UB in our grief and extremities." IVorka t^ Sati, 
vol. V. p. 292. 

Thi.H doctrine; of the Pocifieation of Divine Anger Iw ^ 
8acri5cc, is fiulhcr said to he conutenaoced by the custom rfV 
sacrifice* among the benthens. Thus it in observ-ed, {Hvr^i 
Jntrodueiion to the Scripttireg, vol. i. p. 157) : 

"There is nothing in wliich the traditioiia and opiniaon 
of the heathens hear stronger testimony to the doctriun d 
Scripture, than the comiction which prevailed of the uee» 
sity of an atonement for sin, and of the intervention uf % 
divine mediator; and the universal practice of flevoti&t 
piacular victims, which has, at one period ur other, cq« 
prevailed lu every qunrtcr of the globe. 

" It has been alike adopted by the most barbarods. 

caAt. IV, PACiPicATioN ar whatii. 206 

by the most sftrnge natioiui. The rude idolater of tlie receully 
dJHoovcred hemisphere, and tlic polished votRry of polytheism, 
equally concur in the belief, that, wUhotU glteddiny oj blond 
there can be no reniunon of thu. Nor wiw the life of the 
brute crcntioti idiviiys deemed sufficient to remo\-e the taint 
of guilt, and h> ai-ert the wrath of heaven : the death of a 
nobler victim ivas frequently reqiured, and the altars of 
paganism vcre bedewed witli torreut«of human blood. Thus 
the Canaanitcs caused their first-born to pass through the 
fire, iu order to appease the anger uf their false deities ; and 
one of the kings of Moab is said to have offered up lus eldest 
sou as a b unit-offering, nhen in danger from the superior 
power of the Edomites. Nor was the belief that the gods 
were rendered propitious by tliis ]>eeuliiir mode of sacrifice, 
confined to the nations which were more immediately con- 
tiguous to the territories of Israel. We Icarn from Homer, 
that a M'holc hecatomb of firHtting lambs wan no uncommon 
oOeriug umoug his cuuutrymeu; and the aucieut Goths, 
having laid it dowu as a principle, that the effusion of the 
blood uf animals appeased (fte anger of the godn, and that 
their juatice turned aside upon the victims those strokes which 
were destined for men, soon proceeded to greater lengths, 
and adopted tlie horrid practice of devoting human victims. 
In honor of the mystical number three, a munber deemed 
particularly dear to heaven, every ninth month witncftseil the 
groans and d^nng struggles of nine unfortunate victims. The 
fatal blow bcin^ ntmclc, the lifclRu bodica were consumed in 
the sacred Hrc which was kept pcqictually burning ; while 
the blood, ill singidar conformity with the Lcritical ordi- 
naneesj was spriiLkled, pnrtly upon the surrounding multi- 
tude, partly upon the trees of the hallowed grove, and partly 
upon the images of their idols. Even the remote inhabitants 
of America retained ttiinllar customs, aud for similar reasons. 
It is observed by Acosta, tliat iu casea of »ickDe«s, it was 
uauai for a Peruvian to sacrifice his sun to Vinichoca, bcscocli- 




ing him to spare liix life, Hnd to be satisfied with the blood rf 
his child." 

Oil thcitc extmcta Mr. Home obserrcts, " In the cotulatE 
use of fire, the iiivnriablc Scriptural emblem of wratM mil 
jeaioititij, we view the iiuliffnation of that God, who la a tm- 
turning lire, averted from uiu' {guilty race, uud poured onl 
upon the immaculate head of our great Intercessor." 

The BHine idea of auger iiiid vcup;aiico Ixung in titid, uii 
of ponishmeut being inflicted by Him, is carricil out iib» 
into the several descriptiona coiiceniing the torments of Ac 
damned. Thus, ol^er quoting from Scnpture the [lassa^ ia 
■which it is said, that the wicked shall awake to cvcrlutin; 
shame and eoutcmjit ; llmL thry shall eurac forth to tlir 
resurrectiou of dauinatiou ; that ujiuu their rcsurrcetion tfacr 
shall be judged aceordiug to their works, and cast into tltf 
lake of fire; it is observeil by Scott (vol. iii. p. IDH) : 

" From whence it in apparent, that they shalJ be dukJ 
for no other end hut to he [luntiihcd, to cndiirc the tvitj^MMff 
which shall then be rendered to them, even the vengeimetd 
etcnial fire; for that will be their doom, — " Depart ye 
iiitu everlasting hru prepared for the devil aud his ang«4i. 
Since, therefore, their resurrection will he only in order I* 
their being fctchctl fi-om prison to judgment, and scut irm 
judgment to execution, to be sure their bodien will be niiAi 
in ftiU capacity to suffer the fearful execution of their duun, 
that w, with au exquisiti; sense to fecl^ anil an iiiiinhk 
(ttrcngt}i to sustain, the torment of ctcrual fire : fur bIdcc 
they must suffer for ever, they must l)e raised both insH«c 
and immortal ; with ii sense as quick as lightoiug to percraia 
their miscrj', and yet as durable as an anWl to undcr|^ 
atrukes oi it, which to all eternity will lie repeated iipoii (hen 
without any pause or iutenuissiou. TUua shall they he raixd 
with a most vivacious and everlasting sense of pain, that « 
they may ever fuel the i>angs of dcidh without ciia* dviwy- 
So St. Cyril, (Cattch. IHum. ir. p. 26,) Oi oMOfTvAM 




'fiifttnv, i.v. ' Wicked men shull be clothed %nth cteruiU bodies, 
thnt in them thcr may suffer the cteniid puiuithmcnt of their 
nm ;' nnd so tliey shall hnrc strength to suffer, as long aa 
i^tnufeartcv hath will to inflict. Acd, therefore, isiiice it is the 
will of divine vi-ngeanrc thnt they should suft'er eternal fire, 
the dinDc power will fumiali them with such bodies as shall 
be able to endure cverla-sting scorching in that fire without 
Itcin;; ever consumed by it. For at tlieir reaiirrwtion tlioir 
wrctchwl f;liontfl shall lie fetched nut of those imnsible prisons, 
whcmu they arc now reoervei) in chains against the judg- 
ment of the great day, to suffer in that body wherein they 
sinned ; nud, that therein llicy mny be capable of lingering 
out an eternity of torment, they shall he reunited to it in 
a fatal and indijiaohibic bond, a9 neither death nor hell 
shall ever be able to unlooae. 

" And now the souls of the dead being i*]iut \ip iu their 
bodies again, like prisoners in a sure hold, ami thore sccnrcd 
by an immortal tic from ever making another escape, the 
bodies of the li^-ing shall, by a miraculous change, be rendered 
at once so tender nnd soiiKiblc that the least touch of misery 
shuU paiu them, and yet so strong and durable tliut the 
greatest loads of miaery shall never be able to sink tliem ; 
and thus being fdl uf them ]nit into an immortal capacity of 
sufi'ering, and thereby prepared to undergo the fearful doom 
wliich await-i them, tliey ahidl, from all parts of the world, he 
dnven before the judgment -seat of Christ. 

" And now, good Ijord, what a tragical spectacle will be 
here! An innumerable number of sclf-coudenuied wretches 
aMembled together bt-forc the tribunal of an iVlmighty and 
Implacable Judge, quaking and trembling under the dire 
expectAtinns of a fearful and irrerocahle doom, and with 
weeping eyes, pale looks, and ghastly countenances, aboding 
the miscrnblc fate that attends them. 
■ " Ixiok up I oh ye miserable creatures I see yonder is 




cRjr. ir. 

that glorious Person, wliosp nuthority you hnve no nuolrr*'- 
alVmiitetl, wliosc name voii !iavi>. so impiously bUspJun 
wboae merciea you have so obstinately rejcctc<l, — behoU tA 
what a stern and terrible mnjesty He flits upon yooder fi» 
ing throne, Erom whence He is now just ready to exact of tr 
a dreadful account for all your paat rebcUiuna agaiurt Ilim. 
But oh ! nulia]ipy and forlorn, sco how they droop nnd hn^ 
their heads, as being both ashamed and afraid to look tbcir 
terrible Judge in the face, whose incensed eye. Kparkloi npai 
tlicm with Kueli an insuflerablr terror aud indijirnBtiao ■ 
they are no longer able to endure, but arc fbrccMl, to tk 
bitterest anguish and dcspiur that ever btixnnn bouIb *fii 
seized with, to tty out to tbe rocks aud mountains to &II 
npon them aud to bide them from the fiice of Him that «b 
upon the throne and frani tbe wrath of the Tjamb. 

" The righteniw Jud^n, who tii too great to bo ownivri 
too jiiat to be bribed, and too much provoked to be tntreatd, 
whose ears are now for ever stopped, aud whost; bawds we 
impenetrably hardened against all further OTcrtnrea of inerty, 
will, with a stem look and terrible voice, prononncc tht 
terrible doom upon tbem, — * Go ye curbed into ereriaaCiif 
fire prepare«I fur the de^'Jl and bis an«;els,' &c. Oh I tbe Um- 
ful shrieks and laiucutationa that will then be heard ftuB 
these poor condemned creatures ; for if a ' liort) have maty 
upon thee,' a 'Take him, jailOT,' from an eaxthlv jndge, W 
able to extort ho many ai^^bs auid tcan from a hardened mak- 
factor, what will a * Go ye cursed,' from the mouth of ik 
righteous Judge of the world, and when so many miUioDifif 
men and women shall be all involved together in the ant 
doom, and all at unco lamenting their dismal fate ? Leri, 
what a horrible outcry will they make I Nov, in the btttix 
agonicH of their simls, tbey will cry to hcarcu £[« macr, 
mercy ! — but alas I poor souls, they cry too late. 

..." AU on a suddcu they will see the douda fratn ahan. 
and the earth from beneath, casting forth torrent* of Are ops 




them, vhich in on instant viU net nil the irorld in n hijuo 
ubout thuir cars; at the sight of wliich all tins wrr!tc)K>d 
world mil be turned into a mournful stage of horrors, in 
which the mi.sArable nctors, being seixcd with incxprcasiblc 
amusement to »<»; themsclveH all un a auddon encompassed on 
crery side with HamcH, will raise a hidoouii roar and outcry ; 
miUianB of burning men and women Ahriekiiif; toother, and 
their noi»c shall with the archangel's trumpet, «ilh 
the thmiden of the dring and gnianinf; heaven, and the 
ctuck of the dtssolving ivorld that is siiikini; into eternal 
rain*. In which miserable state of tltiuj^s, whither can the 
|KK»r crwitnn^s fly, or whert^ can they hupc to find a sanc- 
tuary ? If they go up to the tojis of the moiuitains, there 
they arc hut more openly exposed to the drondfitl li^litnin^ 
of heaven ; if they go down into the holes and cavcma of the 
rocks, there thoy wUl be swallowed up in the burning fur- 
naces of the earth : if they descend into the deep, there they 
will be soon overtaken with a storm of firn and brimstone; 
and wherever they go, the vengeance of God will still pursue 
them with itn everlasting huniings. And tlm» having no 
retreat tell them, uo avenue to escape out of thi» buruing 
world, here they must n*maiii for ever, Bur«)utuled with Bmoke 
and tire and darkness, mid wrapped in fierce and mereilcsti 
flauiCD, which, like a shirt of buniing pitch, will stick clone to, 
and pierce tlimngh, their passive liodies, aud for ever prey 
upon, but never consume them."* 

In commenting upon thcao views of the attributes of the 
Peity, let us first lulvert to the words of Archbishop King. 
Speaking of Goil as being angry and jealous, he says : 

" If these (attributes) were taken hterally, and under- 

' The tftme views uf (he subject arc propounded by nom* or the moKt 
respeclitM*! writers uf ibe Chuich of Itume, mid tD<I«ed frfqucitlly occur in 
Ibcir scvnal worki. It ia cvidcot, that they arc uietLnl Iv \x taki-n Ule- 
rally ; fur llie *amc Qrr wLicU preys upon the body, cunaunics alto the visible 
ttBiTonv. It is in opposilivn tu these niunstrous views, whicli ue only part 
Mid parcel of Ibe uoiTerwl syatein of niilaraliBin, thai Sircdooborg wrote 
his Irealijir on HoKTra and Hrll. 



Vttit. It A 

stood the same way iui ire Hiiil tlicni in us, what abinrd mi 
intolerable eonxcqucnccs would follow? oiid hoir dLshoaon% 
must tlicy be supposed to think of Godj who oacrtbc ndb 
pn<^<uoii<> to Uim ! Yet nobody i» shocked at t)icm, becua 
they understand thcin in an analogical sense." I 

Now Lactantiua tetlH us that auger is a virtuous ajjertiaa, 
and that without it the world conld uot be gorcmed. Wealej 
expressly aOimiH, that had Gud never becu an^jy. He anU i 
never have been reconciled ; and llierefore tliut to demf e^kr.^ 
that God was angiT, or that by the removal ot uigir Ucfl 
was reeuneilc<l, is to ttrtke at the wry roof t^f the Alomwai. 
There is no donbt that, in this respect, Wealey waa right; ir 
rather [lerhaps he sliould have miidj that it struck at the tmt 
of a common iuterpretation of the doctrine of the AtoaemeiA. 
Swcilcnborf; denying thai the description of the Muflcrinp tl 
the wicked, ax giveu in Scripture, is to be takeu in a hteni 
scnae, and explaining how they arc to be iiii<icrstood in m 
iLiialogical sense, in iu like manner chartfcd with striking al 
the root of the Atonement ; nay, even of that of tite puuiil- 
ment of the wicked, hecanac he says, the fac in which tbcy 
suffer ia spiritual, not uatural or material. But *miu wcpr 
Arehbisliop King's ubser^'ation true; and the terms angiff 
and nratli, as applied to God, were taken in mi nnnlnpnt 
sense {as}ic nnderstjinds it), it does uot follow that the vim 
takeu upon tlie siibJM^, woidd even then be nccOManlj 
of a much hig}icr order. 

For it is to be ubscr^-cd, that analogy is of two kind*- 
tliere is the analogy of things natural to thinf^ spiritual, ami 
again to things natural. Thus, tlic paschal lamb woa analo- 
gous to the true Lamb of Uod ; the blood of the one to the 
blood of the other; the one thus typifying the other ; but, m 
bdtli ciiscs, the blood, regarded ns material, ia nnlv a iiatursl 
object. Again, in reasoning from the animal world to num 
and vice versa, wc K{>eak of the animal affections of one bdn^ 
auulogous to the luiimal affccttous of the other. Thni ia 
neither caac, do wc rise any higher than mere ammal q«ib- 


PACiriCATroT* Of wrath. 


Hes. So in rpfjftnl to God, wc may understand nngtr in Him, 
(W not being thu same with anger in man but only nualo- 
gouB to it, as that of an animal is to tliat of man ; and jret we 
may ri»e uo liigber in our ideas of the Divine anger, than 
wc do in oiir tclctu of the auper of man. So in a geometrical 
projHtrtionj one straight line may be analoguua to another, 
yet both are apprehended as ec|ually in the same natural 
degree. In reasoning, therefore, by analogy from man to 
God, our ideas may pass from things natural lo things na- 
tural again ; and not nccesaarily from tilings natural to things 
Bpintnal, much less divine : in whieb case t!ic spiritual ia not 
in the natural, as the divinity was incarnate in the natural 
body of Christ ; the spintna! is only an adjunct to the im- 
tuml; hut still an aitjiinct (liMtiiiet and sciiarntc, without any 
real comraunicatiou between them, so that the natural in not 
the manifestation of the spiritual ; consequently, itpiritnality 
can, iu tluK case, no more be imputed to the natural, than di- 
rinity can to the mediatorial works of Christ.* But, inasmuch 
08 the two are adjoined, yet the spiritual ciuinot be attri- 
buted to the uatund, the consequence will be that the natural 
will come to be imputed to the spiritual ; nay, to be rcgiinhid 
as one and the mudc with it. In this point of view, the 
doctrine of the Atonement will be founded, though on a 
professed reception, yet a rirltinl denial, of the dtKrtriue of 
the mirneulous conception or the Incarnation; and such ia the 
doctrine popularly mlvocated. There is nothing dinne, no- 
thing spiritual, existing in the natural ideas ; hence there is 
no transition from the natural to tlie spiritual, but only from 
the natural to the natural. 

Such is the doctriijo "f the anger, wrath, and vengeance 
of the Father ;t and the pacification of these by the blood of 

* See the precediog ctupler ; also chap. vi. 

t Some obaervlng ibe unainliLble aApecl which tlipir dnctrinp of Uivine 
Ugcr imfMirta ta thi- Deity, eodcftvoi to r»ra[H^ frfiiu Ibr doclriDe white they 
ntalo II, thus (LvdlMi, vol. i. p. 89) :— " There b anolber carious scheiae 



CBAF. n 

Ilia Son, 'Wliile, however, we regard thu» doctmf m tir 
lowest naturaliam, and consider it both txt have Ijren anditfl 
to he prevultiiit in the church, yet it ia remdily granted, tirt 
(ill who have adrocated it have not been equally tainted by it; 
Aud that so fhr as there lins prevailed a tendency to jpoibi^ 
niindcdne»», thi;rc has arisen in the samo miiid sncfa anO|i|i^ 
sition to the doctrine, u» that while it is maintained, it ii 
nevertheless either directlr contradicted, or much altered in 
ita prineiplrs. 

Tliua, for inataneo. Or. Owen speaking nf ang(;r tn <i ■:, 
calls it vindictive justioe ; and even goes so far as to mt, tb* 
it memin only the eff'octs of anger ; or that we aliall he m 
truly punished as (/God were angrj*. This is the view tikn 
by Archbishop King:, who observes (p. 10) : 

"We find iiim represented as affected with such pwakn 
as wc perceive to be in oiirsclves, namely, as angrv tai 
pleased, as loving and hnting, as repenting and changing !■ 
resulutioua, as lull of mercy and provoked to revenge; nA 
yet, on reflection, we cannot think that any of these puMV 
can literally affect the Divine Nature. But the mnuaas 
confessedly is, that ile will as certainly punish the miekxA, 
a» if He were inflamed with the passion of anger agu' 
them," Sec. 

by which sonift think the luw inajr be boonrnl, rmdoIjt, that sin tntfataAHnc 
Bsy be punisbfld, ihal is, (he eiu iUeir may be pvcufaed sud ao tbe MM* 
auffernotluDi;. 'Thn!i Hcrv^y, — UiougbGod pftrdunsoin (BteAnlDs ibcfioMt;. 
jKt il(u3vunin^th<.< »a), shall not go a hpu Dished.' .. . Sla denote:! 4 ^mIk* 
of an actiiiii) but en action (ninnnl vxixt witboul an artur, ai>r ftia wWtr 
iKcre is no siancr. Tho notion of sin as eouirlhiitK >cparaie frofu, aid «ta 
may ex'xsX witbuut a sinner, taken iln ritie (roui Ihc {lucla, wito f^naa U j VK 
death, &c. When wc say sia Ocs^rvcs puniahmcnl, it Is the sinDcT tfeal • 
tmoaiit. Nothing I* capable of di^icrrin^ but what ia cRpable of viiq. 
Desert, vrliclticr cu^ or bad, can be pi-ndicatt'd udIj nf morul ageati. n* 
sinner, be hIju commits the >ln, ll i», wliu in the objctrt of GoO's wnik,**' 
vbo alunu can be (ho subject of puuiebntent. It would be atrmBi^ iadtsd if 
the felony roald sufTcr llic Inw and be haagcd, vrhilc Iho feloa »lio<lM i 
tmhurl." £(sojr«. 


Now this may be a less objcetionalile description of the 
diviue attribute corresponding to anger, m doubtless it is ; 
but still it duP8 not tell us wliat that attribute is. !n regard, 
therefore, to the real perfections of God in this respect, it 
Icarca us in darkness; and this is where theologians are, la 
gcueral, content to leave it. 

Nor could the case be otherwise consistently with the doc- 
trine of Christ's human nature rceciring nocBsontial commu- 
nieatiou of diviue properties; hence of the natural receiriug 
no communication of the diTiuc. For the natural idea oiily 
bcin^ received, the spiritual is unknowu. There ia theology 
for the natural man, but none for the spiritual. Tlie sign is 
luiowii ; nay, it in known to he a sign ; but the thing signliied 
is uukuowu; the spiritual idea is gone; the soul is fled, the 
body is left. The nntural man, indeed, does not acknovlcdgc 
the sign to be such ; he receives it uut as a sign, but ns the 
thing signified. Others mny reject his view ; and m so doing 
must be allowed to take one step in advance. But when the 
merely natural idea is rejected, what is left ? The knowledge 
that it is only a sign of the spiritual, (»nnot make a man spi- 
ritual; there must be alsu, fur this purpose, a knowledge, and 
a clear and distinct one too, of what the spiritual idea is. For 
no man is made spiritually-minded by belie\'ing tliat there is 
such a thing as spiritual truth, though he does not know what 
it is, any more than he is made religious, by helicring that 
there ia such a tiling as religion, though be does not know 
what religion is. 

The question then is, what is that attribute in the Divine 
Being which corresponds to anger ? 

Dr. Owen says, it is the same with ^-indictivc or avenging 
jnstice; but again, what is this? In vol. xxiii. p. 139, he 
obserres, " What law ia unto another judge who is to proceed 
by it, that ia the infinite rectitude of his owu nature uuto 
Mm. And it is ncccssarj* to a judge to punish where the law 
requires him so to do, and if be do not, he is not just. And 






ciitr. II. 

h(x*au»c Oot\ is jtist by an oeacotial hgbtcouaness, it a usd- 
sarj- for ilim to puuisL «in, as it is contrary thcxvonto; nil 
not to acquit the guiltr. And wtmt is sin, cannot bat br 
gin ; neither ciiix God order it otherwise. For vlist ii «•- 
trary to his nature, cannot by any set of his will be rcaidisal 
otlicrwino. And if siti be siii nccesDnrily^ because of iti 
Cfmtrar'ieiij to the nature of God; on the (iuppo«itioD of tic 
order of all tbiii^K by himself creiUcd, the puiiisltiucut <jf il 
is on tlie same ground ueceimtrif." 

On this ^ouncl then ein is its own punishment ; forbcnf 
contrary to tlic uatLirc of God, it w contnirj- to his felidtyjj 
Bud Bs there is no happiness imt of Him, siu, from its natinqj 
eutiuU its own nusery. Tiitis if T run iuto the firCj 1 
biixnt; and the paiu I feel and tbc disorganization of tbc 
parts of tin: body, arc the wriitli of the fire. Ilenrc, sin. 
we read of the nuger and the fury of the Erc^ aa we do tf 
the anger luid furj* of God ; not that nn-jer and fnn* arc m 
either, but that the nature of one is so opposite to the uatoM 
of the other, that the two cannot be together without tlx 
strongfj' consiiiniug the weaker. Now that wliich is ofips- 
site to sin, ia holiness; holiness in God ts truth, for a life 
tnitli is holiness; lieufe our Saiior said. Sanctify /Am 
throujfU thy truth, thy word is truth. But truth in God is hi 
other than the form or law of his love ; so that now we rciobr 
anger into lu>'e, and the pnnlshmeut inflicted by anger into 
the sufierin^ Kupcrinduccd by what is contrary to that Itm- 

The truth of this, Dr. Owcu both admits and contiadldk. 
He admits, as we huve seen, that sin is its owu miii—j 
punishment Ho contradicts it as follows: "God Bated 
sin ; He hatcth every siu ; Ue cauuot otberwiiK: do. . . . Tiat 
hatred of sin in God can be nothing but the displtceticy Ok 
or contrariety of his nature to it ; with an immutable nO 
punishing il theuce luising." tuI. xxiiL p. 142. 

Here the punishment of sin. is said to proceed from 
will of God, OS an act separate and indopeudcut of ttadf; 



ciiAP. IV. rAciricATioN or ukatii. 213 

says he, " to have a natund displicency against sin, anfl not 
an ininurtabic unll of punishing it, is unworthy of fiofi ; fur 
it nnist arise frum imputency." He admits that God u a 
consuming fire : but, aaith he, " God workcth freeW ; the fire 
biimH necessarily ;" and then finding tlint this argument does 
not scne, he suhjoius, " God, I say, idways worketh freely, 
witli B freedom accompanying h\n r»|iorntinn ; thmigh in Mvoe 
BUM, on auinr Hii|i|iOKiti[>ns, it is necessary tliut He should 
TTork fa I!e doth." 

God then worl;s sometimes treiily, sometimes by ncces- 
•ity ; and this docbine of contrasting the will of God with 
the nature of God, (as if God, when acting only from his 
natiu'c, was acting only fnmi necessity, and not freely fruin 
his owu intelligence and wisdom,) the advocates of these 
views are obliged to maintain for the purpose of prcscrnng 
the poiJiilar liews of punishment voluntjirily inflicted by God; 
hence of penal satisfaction. For if sin is its own pnnishcr, as 
contrary to the nature of God, in this ease (iwl is not the 
author of the pnnislimeut; if wrath or auger te the name of 
a state of the sinner in conflict ttith the Divine Natur*', it is 
not the name of a change in the Divine Nature, but of the 
state of the creature. Hcnee, recoiieiUatiou is not of God 
to nuui, hut of man to God. 

This iiideetl is wlmt many writers, who hold in its literal 
sense the doctrine ofthopju-ification of the divine auger, when 
they come home to the i-eal question, are obliged to adrait. 
Tims Mr. Scott, although he speaks of the Atouemeat as the 
pacification of God*8 anger,* yet when he treats of the pcr- 
foctious of God, Httd the ucceissity of funning nglit apprehen- 
sions of his nature, is obliged to express himself in the 
following more rational manner. 

"Though there is no doubt but He resents all those evils 
which good men suflTer aud had men coinrait ; yet, it is not 
firom any painful impression that they make upon his nature, 

* 9ve Sui«cr'R Tli««aiini», OfrH ud hufUf, 





for lie neither feels the miiteries He pities aud relieves, 
is vexed at the aina He deteata and abhors ; bwt all the n- 
aentment He hotb, both of theei-il uf our suficriugs andnai 
U peiftetly calm to /litnwif, and dnvid of alt pttfsion and A- 
turiiance. It is tnie, his will, buing perfectly rcaaouhie, 
must be diflenmtly KfTeeted toward different objocte, andcot- 
trarily affected toward cttutrarj- objectSj because they propo* 
to it different andcontrarj- rcnsous; and therefore as it niut 
be aflected witli compJaccucy towards good objects, so it idibI 
bo affected with abhorrence towards had ; hnt this abhomencf 
arises nut citlicr from any scusc of hurt they do Hint, or fcv 
of hurt tlioy can do Him, hi^ nature being wholly impa$lihk; 
but from the repugiiann) they bcar/u his ottm itifaiii&le rewa; 
and his nbhorrence, being wholly founded in liia reason ud 
not in any sense or feeling He hath of the evil He deterti, 
muat, upon tliin account, be stripped of al) grief and \'eutioa." 
iVorkg, vol. ii. p. 192. 

Now if God be perfectly calin to himself, and dcroid «f 
all passion and disturbance ; thus, if his nature be wfcollf 
impassible, what is the meaning of pacifvin^ n nature alzci^ 
calm and devoid of all passion and disturbance t what is ife 
meaning of appeasing an impassible nature t If we gcint 
that the natiure of the DiiHuc Being is thus culm and im- 
passible ; and il', afler all, this only is what is meant when 
we say that He is angry, does it not Ibllow tliat, when we ley 
He is pacified, the term patify must undergo some change d 
meauitkg currospouding to that winch has taken place in tbe 
correlative term anfferY fur to pacify Him who is peaoatetf 
is absurd. In tliis case, then, what duos the term padi^ 
mean ? 'We must either take both terms in the literal seaM, 
and cx]M)sc ourselves to what the uelibishop justly calls ftU 
the absurd and intolerabte conserpumceti vhich follow; orefai 
we muMt use it hi such a sense as, according to ACr. Walcyi 
strikes at the root of the popular doctrine of AtoDeoMBl; 
that is to say, the doctrine of anger iu one person, and pacifi- 
cation bv the other. 


Now, from the cxtriurt immt'eliaU'ly prccediiif,' it w clear, 
that when luigur is Hpukuii of as bciug iii UoiL, that wUi(;b ia 
aignifietl is the repugnance of the cvW of the creature to tlio 
divine gooUuess, consequently the repu^auce of the uHture 
of the creature to that uf the Creator. 

Pacification is thus the rcmoral from thn creature uf Ms op- 
position to the Cruator. TliuiHcntiC, hovrcvcr, of pacification and 
Wiger, theologians while explaining the doctrine of the Atone- 
ment, Mcldom or never adopt; though, while not cxplaiuiiig it, 
they are obliged to admit it. If they adopted it, while explain- 
iug the doctrine, this would be, ua alreiuly Itas been iutiniated, 
to vjrpiain away one view of ihe Atonement aUoi/elfier ; in fine, 
the ^rfaolc of thu tiyatem would be seen to rest upon a fallacy. 

Thus, a mndcni writer observes (Gilbert oa tfte C/triatian 
Atonaatnt, p. '^'^7) : 

"Nothing can be more injurious to the eharaeter of the 
aupremc and adorable majesty of the Father, thuu the manner 
ia which the advcruirics of Atouement, and, it is to be 
feared, not unfriifueni/t/ simw. 0/ ijs iea* Judicious frifvda, re- 
present its bearing. Thf iuipresBiun produced by their 
nietliod of speaking is something like the foUowing : — "A 
mighty Being has it in his power to subject to nuHeriug, or tu 
release and rcitdcr happy, a number of inferior bciugs wlio 
linve fallen undrr his di^pleiusure, and iltc absolutely at Ills 
disposal. Uc is determined to punish, and they are likely to 
be for ever undone. A third party, however, is moved ^with 
pity, and iu liia anxiety for their deliverance, interpoecs liis 
utmost endeavors to m^compUsh that end. He offers to pur- 
chase tlioir relejise from suHeruig by his own, — tu buy their 
dfiliverauce, by hiuiitelf becoming a victim. For this price of 
innocent blood, that mighty Being consents to change his 
puqiose, and to suH'er the objects uf lua wrath to be released I 

" Thus IS the whole transaction de!icril>cd aa a pi^rwnal 
affair, and one iu which a feiirfnl contni£t is exhibited l»o> 
IwccD the gloriotis Persons of the Godhead. In the Son, 





indeedj we linve a tueltiug anuableuess of chamcter "kici 
catuiot but attract our love and cosfldeDce ; but in the ^ithr. 
a severity, and even tiArsbness, which repels lu. Id tim, 
wc have [wrsonal resentment, pcrstonal determination to g» 
tify that feeling, personal plea^nn; in inilictiit^ suflonf, 
coupled with iudifl'ercncc as to who Bhall siifier; pcmnal 
satisfaction in the exchange of a noble for ignoble ndiai 
and personid vvitlinj^ncn;) in cutiscquencc to sell his pardum. 

" How frightful is this portrait ! the lieart sickens »« 
coutemplatc it. Farther frum this is the scriptural acconSr 
than the east from the weat. Ko lan^a^ can psist tke 
contrast. In such a case tlicre could be expressed do ori^Bd 
mercy, no regard for jujttice, do abhorrence of crine, w 
love of holiness ; — what, on the contrftiy, would be palpaUf 
enough, were the love of power, plcasare in wituessiii^ fua^ 
Hud an uudistiuguishiiig self-gratificatiou."* 

\Vu now dcc the reason for wliicJi they who hold the ikr- 
trine of diiiue anger in its most bteral sense, cumphua thil 
Swedcnborf;, in rejecting it, rejects the doctrine of the Atotx^ 
ment. TIius be observes ( DortritK of the New Jenuakm tf- 
Mpecting the Sacred Scripture, art. 9-1) : 

" In many passages of the Word, we find anger, wraik 
and vengeance, attributed tu God ; and it is said that Bf 
punishes, casts into hell, tempts, with many other expresoHl 
of a like nature : now where all this is believed in a ihHifftl 
sirapUcity, and made the ground of the fear of God, and tf 
earc not to offend [lim, no man incurs condemnation by sorit 
a simple bdicf. Hut where a man coufirms himself in mi 
notions, so an to be persuaded that anger, wrrath, vengeaacc, 
belong to God, and that He punishes mankind, and csiti 
them into hell, xuidcr the influence of such anger, wrath, a^ 
Tengcaue<\ in tliis case, his belief is cundemnntorv ; beauvt 
he has destroyed genuine truth, which tc^chtm that God ii 

' PosHlbly a iDkiprinl for, " whilr on ibe codtnry thvre wvoM Iw hI|*- 
ble enough, ■ lo*«of ponvr," Aic. 




love itself, mercy itself, anci goodoeoa itself ; and btiug these, 
tliftt IId cauiiot he anpry, wrathfbl, or revcugcful. ^Vlle^e 
such evil passions then are attributed, iu the Word, to God, it 
is owing to appearauce only." 

AVith rrgard to the apparent confirmation of the doctrine 
that Hiiger i« litentlly in God, as derived from the inli'rpreta- 
tion of Jewish and heatlicn sacrifices, npon this subject we 
shall tihwrr^c in the sciiuel ; at present we furnish the follow- 
ing extracta from n modem work on the Atonement i 

" Satis liiction to holiness and jnatice, so often raentionod, 
i» essentially different from the vulgar representations of it. 
Such satisfaction is not really plaraiTing anger, not appeasing a 
personal passion, not overcoming any personal indispo.sition 
to lenity ; — it docs not consist in offering a given quantity of 
pain and sorrow for the gratiBcatioii of a feeling, hut in the 
whole extent of its nature la cntii-ely repugnant to such cou- 
sidcrations. It is simply a provision irhich shall, in the view 
of wisdom, and in practical effect, he adequate to maintaiu 
that moral order in which holiness delight*, and to the main- 
tenance of which, justice is bound. 

" The cause of much mititake in yeneral ajtj/rehmtsion on 
this subject, appears to be the unpcrceivcd iuterblcuding of 
cases, not only quite distinct, but even in all their hearings 
mutually opposite. It arises from unconsciously transferring 
the principle of pagan notions of sacrifice to tliat of tho 
Cliristlan lustitutiou. Through this medium the doctrine is 
viewed generally by opponent."!, and not unfrcquently a bias 
dcduiTcd fn)ni it may be traced in the representatioTU even 
of friend*. Classical storj- has imperceptibly lent its dete- 
riorating influence, and associated it»iOf with Christian state- 
ments. The general occurrence observable iu both in the 
notion of sacrificial 8cr^-icc, has, without suspicion, suggested 
au analog}' beyond the facts. 

" In pagan sacrifices the victim is coniddercd to be pro- 
vided by the party sinning, not by the deity, whether re- 





gardcd na the being against whom t3ic crime U committed,* 
only as the viiidic&tor of the injured : tho victint is Tnamma 
)40Toe object which i» dear to the crimiuiJ ; but to the don 
no uthorwisu than as he is supposed to hare the gnwKr 
pleasure and hoiuagu, the mum precious it may be to the 
offerer In the Christian system, the fads are exactly tlir 
reverse. There the victim is iii the highest degree an objm 
dear to the Being against whom the crime in coiuniittcd, ba 
, nut at all, when tlic uBoring is presented, to the sinner wiui 
is to derive the benetit. Nor is it in any sense provided hr 
tlie guilty party, but moat freely and graciously ^vcn by tlic 
Supreme Governor liimsclf. .... 

" lu the pugaii iuxtitution, the precise nature of tfa 
traiiHflctioD consists in an auidogy to the purchase of a boMfil. 
The utfehiig deriveit its entire- eUicacy from its being accepted 
as an equivalent for a favor bestowed ; — an equivalent pn*- 
tHiiited by either the (iftbudiog party himself, or by someone 
on his behalf, .so that it is regarded as beiug «ulcty »t im 
cost: hut in the CliriHtian system, not only is the benefit i 
must free gift, but in conceivably mure expressive of^^raceaol 
goodnca* than a mcrt; gift, however valuable > since the j^ i 

itself i& at an inftnitc cost to him who presents it '^^I 

only are we nut, hut Christ himself is not n purchaser fiuD 
the Father, but rather the price itself paid by the Fatlwri 
at uoee the muiUum of his grace, and tho most stupoiidav 
expression of it. Neither by ourselves, nor by a subititati; 
have wc bouf^ht mercy and life; on the contrary, we am- 
selves arc purchased to the Father by the unittid act uf the 
Father and the Son, the one in }'ielding up a beloved ol^ect 
to suflering for us, and the other in willingly ooduring tlie 
agouv through which the purchase is effected. In this aaam 
only it is that we are bought with a price, not of the Fatlier, bit 
hy Him and to Him; wt are reiUxmed unto Gud by n iirice paid 
iiulccd, but not by the Son alone,— by a price paid bv botb 
the Father and the Son, uniting in one bliwaed purpMc of 



love. So far fn)m rriurcy )i»viiig been ](nmcrly purcrhascd for 
US, mcKy herself buys ua ;— love, diiiuc love, »o far from 
having been bribed, herself lays down the ransoin, and brings 
her stores tu enrich us. 

" It will be said— of whom, then, is the purchase made ; 
to whom tlie price of mn-wm given ? ITic answer is hy no 
mcaus difiicultj provided we keep iu mind that the terms 
price and purchase, and all similar expressions, are not to be 
tEdicu strietlyr hut in au analo^cal sense. We are nut aetuatly 
bouglit of any iwraou whatcycr, considered as having pre- 
viously a property in us, which property he yields up imd 
alienates for a. valiiable consideration. It is nut literally a 
transaction of commercial exchangCj an affair of bargnit] and 
sale; so that wlnlc one being clainibi us as liiu, another buys 
us, and we tlieuceforward pass over from the possessiuu of the 
one to that of the other. 7%)j? i* Mr t/riisii manner, indeed, 
tfi which tfu! unrtjhcting vulgar conceive (/ ihe trmuiactian, and 
in wliich the enemy of atonement represents it ; but how dif- 
ferent from the fact, and how disjiamging to tlie dtvinc good- 
ness and dignity !" Gilbert on the Chruftian AfonetiMrtU, p. 234. 

" The causes which dispose men to assimilati] the cha- 
racter of the Almighty to their own, arc inseparable from the 
present state of human nature ; and the pagaai»jn wliich 
affected the theology of our remote precursors in the Chris- 
tian profession, is not without its influcucc ou our ovm notions 
and sentiments, though operating along the distance of many 
generations." Vattghan'g Ct/miption qf C/rruitianiiy, p. 3tt0. 

Having now considered the first new of the Atonement, 
or that in which it is regarded as a Pacification of the Divine 
Anger, we next proceed to the second, or that in whicli Atone- 
ment is regardcil as the same with Satisfaction. 

As this satisfaction is liaid to be neccKsary, in consequence 
of the unavailing nature uf Kepeutaucc, it will be requisite 
first to consider the subject of Repentance. 

On a cjucstion so simple, it might be imagined there would 




pruvail nothing but liaimony ; yet has no question beni 
controverted; on tioncha^ there prevailed greater discwdnia; 
not evim on the doctrine of the Trinitj-. 

The arguments on this subject n:iay be arrnngcd under i a 
classes: one which is against the availing nature uf rri'^ ■" 
aucc, the other wbieb U iii its fuTor. The argumciii 
it may be stated jw follows. 

If we look abroad in the worhlj we find that whcrr ncn 
bring eabvmilies upou themselves by an im|trudent coune of 
conduct, however aftcrwnrdu they may regret it, when ifcn 
come to reap the consequences, their regnt^'t is of no inril. 
thus if a pcnton, from a {irofligatc course of life, nmu lu 
constitution, ropeutiuice will uot restore it ; it will not rmum 
a ferer, or a consumption ; it will not restore a lost limb. 

Tliua Archbishop Magce olwencs (Aionetiunif voL i. |, 
old edit.) : 

"Our experience of the present state of thin^ cnoM 
thiit indemuity is not the consequence of repentance bar: 
can the Deist adttuce a counter experience to shew that it «I1 
be HO hereafter ? The justice and gooducsH of God are lut 
then necessarily concerned, in lirtue of the sinner's repcaC- 
aiice, to remove all e\il couscqncut upou sin in the next 
or else the arraugirmcnt of cveutB iu this hn«i not been 

latcd by the dictates of justice and goodness Cm 

repentance aunihilntc what is past? or cau vo do more If; 
preseut obedience, than acquit ourselves of present ob 
or does the contrition we experience, added to the 
duties wc discharge, constitute a aurjiluaage of merit, 
may be transierrcd to the reduction of our former demerit 

This argument assumes tliat repeutauce is the wmxae 

to the body which it \» to the soul ; in reply to whidi 

(^uervc, that mu is the disease of the soul, or sin ii to 

• Sfc ulxo ScDtl's CbriKian Life, t<A. W. p. 398. Oilbflrt on the 
Uan AtouFUieDt, [tp. 172 vX »rq. 117, 3.51, when- Ihc afgument is Mt 
in mil iU cDofiiAiwii. See kUo Jernuu dd ibe Alvovmcuit. p. 316. 


spa*- I 





sou] what disease ia to the body. Now vlicn a man repents, 
his rcpcntaiioc is the retnoval of his sin. Were rcpcutancc 
defined to be mcjo temporary sorrow, certainly more sorrow 
would no more uecessarily remove the evil of the soul, than it 
would rcmoTc the disease of the body. What then i» that, 
which, in relation to the body, currespondB to repentance ? 
AsBureiUy, a removal of the disease ; a state of convalescence ; 
a return to former health. Thw removal is rflcetrd by the 
medidue of the phj-sician, even as Christ is the good phy- 
sician, and by the word of his truth hcala the malady of 
the soul. Convalescence, thcreXorc, is to the body what re- 
pentance is to the soul ; and repentance as much implies a 
putting away the evil of the sonJ, as convalescence implies 
a jmtting away of the malmly of the body. The first act of 
the Holy Spirit is to produce conviction of sin, hence re- 
pentance; but the very coming of the Holy Spirit, hence 
conviction of sin, hence also repentance itself, is u result of 
the Atonement. 

MoreoTer, Clirist did not shed his blood as a substitute for 
onr repentance, or because our rejKiitauce would be ineffi- 
cient ; but in order by that atonement both to enable ns to 
repent, and to render it elticicnt. Had Hu died and not risen 
again, onr faith had been iu vain ; liad He risen, but not a-s- 
cendcd, the Holy Spirit would not have come, heaiuse He 
would not have been fully glorified; but when that Spirit 
comes, what is his first operation ? \Vc repeat, to reprove or 
con\incc the world of sin. And what is this conviction of 
sin but the first beginning of rqicntancc ? There is no 
remission of sin without blood j true j but there is no 
remission of sin without repentance ; and to say that without 
the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, is In imply 
that without the shedding of blood there is no true rc|»cnt- 
auce. How lameutablc then is it, to find theologians oppoa* 
iug one doctrine of Scri[)turc to another; the Atonement to 
llepeutance, and Kcpeutaucc to the Atonement ( 



CB». IT. 

Tbe argument, one might nlmost say agfunst JUsftaitatn. 
18 thuH cuntiuued by Magec flbiii, p. 93) : 

" Biilguy, in lun Essay on Itcdcmption, and after lufe 
T)r. Holmes, lias iir»ued thitt point with uncommoa stttu^ 
and clenniess. The case of jxnitence, be remarks^ is c^eaij 
different from that of hmoeencf ; it impUcs a mixtore of fnik 
prucuntructod, and puuisluucDt pruportiuiiably dcaenred. ii 
is coiist'«(ut;iitly inconsistent witli rectitude, that both tbodj 
be treated idikc by God. The present conduct of the pm- 
tent nill receive Qod's approbation; but the reformatiaa if 
the sinner cannot have a retrospectirc effect. The agent vmf 
\>u ehnugtxl, hut his former sins caiitiut be thereby cancelled; 
the convert and the sinuur tu'e the same individual penoi^ 
and the agent mujtt be aiutwerabh; for his whole conduct. Tbi 
conacienre of the penitent furnishes a fair view uf the am. 
I[i« sentiments of himself can be only a mixture of appnibft* 
tiuu and disapprobation ; ualiKfactiou ami displeasure, lb 
past sius must still, liowe\'er siucerely he may have r efan—i 
uccasiou sclf-diasatisfaction ; and this vill even be the stroagff, 
the more he impruvee in virtue. Now as this is n^pveaUe ts 
truth, there is reason tocoucludc, that God behold* 
the sainc light, &e 

"Lamentable it is to coufesa, that the luinic of Waxtnr-' 
ton is to he coupled with the defence of the deiatical objectioa, 
H{^inst which the above reasoning its directed, lint no \m 
true is it than strange, that iu the account of nmtuml ndipn 
which that eminent writer has given iu the 9th hook of Ik 
I>i%-iue Legation, he lias pronounced, iu terms the mati va- 
qualified, ujion tbe intrinsic aud ncocasary efiicacT of repent* 
oncej asserting, that it is plainly obvious to human reuoOt 
from a view of the connection that mnst nubsist between the 
creatiuw and his Maker, that whenever mau forfiMta the Uxv 
of God by a violation of tlie moral Ihw, his sincere repentance 
entitles him to the pardon of his transgressiona. 1 have beta 
led with the le^ reluctance to uuticc this pcniicioua patadoa 




of ttio Icaniwl bisTiop, bfcimsc it affurds me the opportunity 
of directing the reader's attention to the judicious and natis- 
GuAory refutntion, which it liaa Ifitrly recoivtMl in n prize essay 
m one of the sister unirersities. See Mr. Pearson's Critical 
RsMiy on the 0th book in t!ie BiWue Legation." 

The arclifmhop then adds, that Locke and Nye have given 
but too mncli countenance to the erroneous opinion coucem- 
JBg repentance which he has hen* combated.* 

It woiJd be easy to continue quotations from dinnes to the 
Hunc effect ; and cnlcidatcd to exritc a surmise whether, after 
all, rcpeiitance wan not a questionable dnty ; and wore tldti not 
the CMC, whether it were not of very secondary importance. 
Without, however, jinrsning thin subject, we will quote the 
ibntiments of those who take the other side of the ar(;ument. 

In the Doctrine of Atonement and Sacrifiee, Whitley 
observes (p. 42} : 

" Nor are the views and syntcms of writerft on the Atone- 
ment, rcspcctin*; repentance and rcniission of sins, less im- 
perfect and incoQsiateut with Scripture, and less at variance 
with truth anri witli right, than tlione of sin nnd of the law ; 
for they seem to regard repentance as the natiu^l effect and 

' Tbc whole argumciLl is further elated by Gilbert on Ibc Chrisliui 
Alaneuit^at, pp.34!). 332; al»i tiy Wnntltiw un thi- Scvrinitin ContriiTcnj, 
p. 346 : where Itiv latter makca the followini; obEcrvKiiDO : 

"BeiMDUncc it inxopiinibl} c<inn«cletl with r»rKit(rncM; bu( la not tl« pn- 
nrinjf cauti, iu mDritvriout grouad. This hta be round ooly io llic fnfthct 
obedience, aad atuaui|; di'iith uf thir Sii'n of Ooi); nod aimrl from /ailh in IHm, 
and drpendanrr apon Au rifihleoHnen and iatrijiee at Iht /cimdaliim ^ acffpt- 
«M£t, there exult »• repmtlance Ihal iigmuitir and rtnl," Aod yet rc|ientAae« 
rMultinijE rroiB the aloDing dculh af (lio Son of God, ii nut it procuring cau»e. 

On the subject of guilt, it is diftlcalt to describe th« confusion which 
pT«vuil>. Surov ipvak of ibe guilt of oriicinal Sid, u if It were the lune 
with that of actu&l sin. Ottiera cviilldor (lierv are two kinds o( guill, 1hf> 
Rulli of oriKtnal sis, ftsd tb« icuilt of uuluftl sia. Others coosider the irullt 
of MClual sin (o be of Iwo kinds, the guilt of repented sin nnd the giiill of 
•in flDrepeotvO. Others mfilnu, that allhoueh repeuiance rcmoTes the sin, it 
4ot» Dul reiuovo the Riiill of sin, nhich is remoicd only hj the atOD^meol. 
Others sArm ihnl repcnlano: rcinuvci neither llie kuIU uot the sin. 


CUM. rr. 

of an em eve md oonaidoxtian ; ag 4ei»- 
ftvit, tlie neeoHTf resnlt, of onu- own viMlmiBi 
of c i tef«i B g it, ms Uiej ouglit, t^ n- 
aaos cAeet, tfe mocifid pft aad operation of tht Spat J 
Oei, At sfcenl ^ace aad beorft of tiie Aumemenl iiidC 
Ife bA poRfaae lod pecnlbr hJwing of the BcdraKr 
^^hi m Ii vboa alone we i^» tliink vluu is good, mi 

tBfUfltkeMBc;«itlKKitvlioni, He Mm 
do DOliniig, mw^ less cmn ve a c w if tt 
or attain oht ow^ salvatioo ; ncaMf 
br npentaoce an actnsl chan^ of mind and c^unetcrfrn 
evil to good, fraa faOf to vudom, from an to boliiiCM. 

" We BBit aot ■■take aor Sorget, vith these vrita 
that fCB Bt f oc e or t qwwU ii fe is of the special iuflnrace xA 
of firine ^race; the immediate benefit and 

of Him, htKa whom aO ho]j- desires, all pwi 
and all JMl worki, do pro c e ed. So that irprr- 
of bcng oyp owd to mlcmption, diiftinguu^ . 
fron it, and made indcpcadeot of it, is the ■"T-irfrr** M 
and UeHi^ of i^ the ptt rthwe d and pnuziiaed grace of tb 
A tp n eft aad 3Ie£atioii of Christ, whereby akae «c m 
hare the damandwill torpprai, and the power and itmtA 
to think and do those things that be rigfatfoL 

" Otherwise St. Pan! wqald not have Hi«ringii^iJ>wl b^ 
twttn godh- sorrow that wovketh repentance, and the MR* 
of the world that wovketh death, the one bcing^ the k^f 
and gradooa work, the immediate Ueasing of God, the o^ 
the rain eSbct and fmtleas labor of otusch-cs. Nor ao^ 
repentance and remtssiDn of sins hare been, by the uiiiiiMid 
of Chmt himsctf, preached to the worid in bis namr, tte 
is, through hb grace and inflnence, thnmgh his racnts ai 
mettiation. Much kss wooM St. Peter Xmvk annaaacei 
that He was exalted a Prince and a Sasior, to yitw refffi-. 
fence and remindon of ans." 

Clemens Romauus obserres, " IV bkiod of Christ 

■CBAP. rv. 



tho grncc of mpoiitimcc to all tho world." Epitik to the 
Corinthians, sect. \Ti. 

" No man's sins are pardoned, but in the same meuure 
in which tlicy are mortified, destroyed, and taken away ; ao 
that if faitli does not cure our sinful natures, it never can 
(y, it never can procure our pardon. Now, na Christ 
red his power to forgive sins by curing the poor man's 
pais}' (because! a man ia never piird<mrd bnt when the pnni«h> 
tneat ia removed], so the great act of justiHcation of a 
sinner, the purdoning of his sins, is th<*n only effected, when 
the spiritual evil \a taken away. That is the best indication 
of B real and an eternal pardon, when God taken away th« 
horduess of the heart, the lore of sin, the accursed habit, 
the evil incUnatioa, the siii, that doth so easily beset us ; and, 
when tlint is gone, what rrmnins within im that God doth 

lliatel" See BtHhop Taylor on Hefteriianee. 

"It is not an uucouimou thing," nay the Oxford Tracts, 
" to hoar sermons which are tliroughont specious and plau- 
•iblc, wkicli eeem at first sight scriptural, and are received 
US «nch without hesitation ; and on a little consideration, it 

I will appear that they arc bnt partial views of the truth, that 

'they are quite incousisteut with the mucL-forgotten doctrine 
of a future judgment," i. e. according to works. 

" Is there not an extraordinary confusion aud perplexity 
raised, which has the effect of entangling men's minds with 
word* and plirnscsV Arc there not frequently logieal fal- 
lacies couched in verbal inaccuracies wltich will appear, on a 
little consideration, to be mere confurious of expression, yet 
ever leave a false impression ! Chrijttian repentance m spokm 
t^f as aooieihing not only sejtarate from, but oppoatd to Christ. 
*t\iB effect of Christian good works, is treated as hanug a 
tendency to puff us up with pride and sclBshness ; works, 
that ia of humility and charity, exercised in secret, purely 
with tlic desire of pleiusiug God, for of course such only arc 

, good works wbieli could he insisted on ; (though of course 




Thirdiv, as a doctrine, wlucb^ whether tmc or 
not to be found in Scripture. 

Wc first proceed to consider the Atonement ms the 
with I'eaal Satisfaction. 

This view of t)ie tiuhjcct is thus stated br Mr. Fibr 
(ApottoliHty of TYinitarianism, vol. ii. p. 379) : 

"As the Catholic helieres Clirist to be very God incm*; 
so he believes^ that God the Son became iticamatr for tb 
^irposc of tnakini; Katisfnrtion to the nl>solntc justice uT i'-i 
the Father, without which s:itisDictiou the siiiful race of bOa 
tnau could not he sared consistently wriOi the natuic of ti< 
uiiheiidin» Httriliiite ; mid he further lielievcs, that thcnui; 
in which this satisfaction was mailc, was by tlic pi n n ilur *» 
fioc, or the expiatory sclf-dcvotenicnt of Christ hU S»vi*r. 

"The doctrine of Satufacli<m may somettraes hartba 
not quite accurately expressed by those vho hai'c ooanCM% 
handled it. 

" Thusj for instance, by some writcrB, the dcnth of Cta* 
has been descrit>cd as tiik cacse which renders tlio Alm^ 
Fntlicr Disposcu to foi^ve our sius. 

" Now this statement I apprehend ia not perfectly ooiRd. 
" God so loved the tcorld, said our Lonl himself, /Asl A 
govt his Qnly-begoften Son, in order thai whttaarv^r jWiotfia 
liim should not peruh, hut haw evertoMiintf life, John iii. 15. 

" Here, and ill mouy other pBssagcs, lun riasT mini" 
CArsE, by vhich the Father is disposed to foi^re oar wa^* 
his own merciful love. 

" To assert, therefore, that the death q/" Cytritt kw m 
LArsB icMeh retutertd the Father disposed or ixcuxus 
forgiveness, ichereas raBvioc&LT Ife vaa stvt to disPoso ' 
INCLINED, is, J cotirdiw, not acriptvroUg accurate. 

"But, though by some good men the doctrine un irt 
always hare been expressed uritfa perfect coirectneas * t^m 
occasion has mischievously been taken to say, that it jiMfr 
God the Father under the unloveig aspect of mitettiad af^ 


eahiiittj: irtill Cat1)nlic& arc fully agreed ns to the main position 
which it sets forth ; and I may perhaps venture to assert^ thnt, 
ax the following is the most general view of the subject, so 
likewise it is deemed the most sound and exact. 

" The perfect inherent love and locrcy of God were tlie 
first impelling cause which disposed Him to forgive the ralleii 
raice of man, to reconcile them to Uimself here, and finally tu 
»doiit them to glory hereafter. 

" But, tlioiigli inherent love and mercy wcry the firet 
impelUug cause ; yet God is a God of perfect jutttice, as well 
as a (!od of perfect mercy and love : and, however his love 
and mercy might be displayed in the unconditional panlon 
of ft sinner; his justice would erase to be |>erfcct, if the 
sinner were pardoned withont full satisfiiction being made for 
his offence. 

"Now snch satisfaction the sinner himself cannot make; 
for mere ropeiitaneej though [louhtlcss required by <iod at 
his haiiitn, cannot in perfect juetlce exempt liim from nierltod 
jntninhmeiit . A murderer may profcsM to he, and really may 
be, lery sorry for his ott'cncc : but hut fmnigfunetU cannot on 
that :iccoinit he remitted without manifcjit injustice ; he must 
Htill [my the penalty of the hrokou law. Ilenee, analog; icolly, 
however the mercy of (iod may fJutjjuge Him to piurdon. He 
would ccatc to he a God of perfect juBticc, if He pardoned 
icHhafU ailm/ualv mUin/urlion. 

" What, then, was tu be doncT 

" According to the mode ttt which the Catholic undcr- 
Ktaudii Scripture, such wa« the infinite impelling love of the 
Father, that He gave his only-begotten Son, the Son himself 
fully coiuscuting and freely undertaking the task, to Htand in 
Ibe place of niuuem ; so tlud, by undergoing the jm/tighmeNJ 
due to them, He might make complete satisfaction to the 
Tather, and thus render it jmssihle (as St. Paul speaks) for 

I God at once to be just, anil yet the justificr of him that bc- 
licvcth in Jrauit. Rom. iii. 2<!. 




" Thi« lA held by tlic Catholic Church to be tlHt 
Chmtian paradox, in irhich perfect mercy and petfeet 
tmite to pardon aud to save the guilty. 

** I^ irithout satisfaction to his riolated law, God 
foi^vc sinners, He might be merciful, but He cotdd aal 
perfectly just ; for the idea of simpltf pardoning a 
the idea of perfect Justice arc clearly incompatible. 

" But God's mercy provided a satisfaction to his jtud 
Through the vicarious death of the incarnate Son ftv tivfl 
of all mankind, the two othemrisc jarring attributes vcR 
reconciled ; and a way of pardon and acceptance wat fil 
opened to every one vho was willing to avail hinuelf ci' 
propounded tcrma." 

Mr. Ludlam obacrres : " The explauation of the 
which t)ic death of Cliritit was of any efficacy in procnnug 
pardon of sin, called the doctrine of penal aaii^attim, 
great antiquity. It has been patronized by nien of 
tionable learning and piety. Among thcse^ the two 
reformers, Calvin and Luther, all the puritans, many doM 
men of the Inst age, and some of this. It in fully explafl 
in the writings of the most eminent puritan dirincs,* [OJ 
Goodwin, IIowc, Bates, FUvel, Canl, Manton, Foole,»l 
and defended, as well as it can be, by the late l^Ir. llentj.'i 
his Dialogues, called Thcron and Aspasio. Mr. IT 
highly esteemed by all the disciples of that schocd; 
been complimented with the litli! of seraphic, and 
dedications on the score of these dialogues : they arc 
mended to all, are in the hands of all," &c. Ejtsaifs^ toL i- 

* It i« rfoiarkablr. thnl comparaiiTcljr little ia Mid upon ihi* i 
tbe nrilinga of ihe fathers, aa will b« evident iipon contuIUDg ' 
Ut» cilctl hy Oroliuti, I'ricsllc;, nod PeUviua. Th« lulter ii iim 
Uie prlncipnl develo|H»eol of Ihe populoi doclrine of Si 
writinxs of .St. Aiifclm, Arclibiibop of C«ii(»bury ; Indeed, an ! 
fgund upoa this flubjecl lu ttie earltvr fathen, ihkl it haa been 
soiao of ihuM will) Rii^intaiD tin; doctiiuo, U a v«ry pfvtaiDUlt 
thv rnrlj ctrrruplioa of the cburcb. 

xruAV. IV. 



We mnjr here add, that the doctrine of pennl satiBfnctioii, 
tlins explained, is ndvocntcd by Tillotson, Revcridgc, Baxter, 
aud utlicnt ; aud is vi^ry gcucndly received in the prcseut day. 

We have now aecii that Mr. Fahcr asacrta, that the most 
genenJ view uf the Atuneineut, and that which is deemed 
roont sound and exact, is, that the Sou underwent the puTiit/i- 
nimt due to our sins ; and that hy this punishment, whicli 
He votuntiLrily endured, He mode cumplutc aatisfitetion tn 
the Father. This is the generally received doctrine. With 
regard to the sntitfaction made to the Father, others main* 
taiu tliat it was made to all the three persons of the Trinity ; 
and with rcfiard to undergoing the puninhment of our sins, 
Archbishop Maffcc observes; "/ vnlt not coniead thai thh 
»houif{ be callrtl xuffrrinrf the pttmshmtifit of tfiote sin*, because 
t!jn idea of puni.*hmvtii cannot be abstracted from that of 
fftalt;* aud iu thia reupcct, I differ from uiany resiwctablc 
authorities, ami even from Dr. Blajiiey, who, as we have seen, 
uses the word puniahmnU iu hin traiiHlatimi. But it is evi- 
dent that it i)t, uotwillistandiu^, a judicial infliction; and 
it may perba]>8 be fipiratively denominated pmiia/tmmi, if 
tlicrehy be imphed a reference to the actual trausgrciwor, aud 
be understood that sidlcring which was due to the ofTcuder 
himself; aud wliieh, if inflicted un him, would then take the 
name of punishment. la no other sense can tlic suffering 
iuflitrted on une, on account uf the trtuis^n^^ssionx of another, 
be called a putushiuent ; and, in ttiis Light, the bearing the 
punishment of another's sins, is to he understood as hearing 
that which, in relation to the sins and to the aiuuer, admita 

* ArobbiahopMKgeeubjecU to iheuM nf the Una punuliinRiil,w applied 
lo the aaflTerinK* of Ihc Satior, lircnnK i( invulies lh<^ l(lr«af guiU, which 
ll« fiaievirca it impmper ta iiiipnte. Anolhi^r imxlerii wtiler, hawnrer, 
re* uf the Hiivior, " Itf hia own frw Knd tovriloriaiu coowot, Ho was 
UtaMi'd u K tiaoar that we mlgiht be treated as righteous. ThU is liaputA- 
tioi, aod an impmtaliait if guiU bxt, in Ifaat arnac uf il wbi«li implica to Iw 
really b«ld bouml by a voluntary rca|>on»lbilitj." (iilbal ra Uk t'krkimm 
AlMtmnl, p. 3IJ. 



CHir. 11. 

the name of pimislimeiit, but frith respect to the indinilnl 
ou whom it is ncttially iiillictcr<l, abstractedly considered, cai 
be viewed but in tlio Ugbt or suffering. Thus the cxpravs 
may fkirly be explained : it u, however, on the wfmie, U k 
wished that the word punhhment had not been ustd. TV 
liieuuin^ is substHutiiilly llu; luiiuo H-ithuut it ; and the tinf- 
tioii of it has fiuriiialied the priiicipul grouud of coTi] to tli 
adversaries of the doctrine of Atonement, who affect to ma- 
aider tlic word as appUcd iu its atrict si^iifi cation, ukI ax- 
■eqiicutly as implying the transfer of actual j^uilt. I rocM 
therelbre wiah, that such distin^'uished scholnn at Biibf 
Lowth, PrimHte Newcomb, and Dr. Blayuey, hadiiotfltBc> 
tioncd the expression." Atonemeni, vol. i, p. 458. Ist edit. 

Somewhat in accordance vitb the same \'i(;'ws, Dr. Balgvr 
denies the character of sacriiiees to have been penid; ami 
Rtahop Butler niaintiiins that the subject of sacrifice isia 
much iuvulved tn obscurity to justify ua Id coming to 0I 
complete interpretation of its meiining. 

First, Dr. Balgny denieti the character of sacrifica tt 
have been pt-na!. Thus* lie obscn'ca : 

" Tliftt the death of Christ was propcrlj' sacrificial, aavA 
rewtonably be called iu cjuestiou. It has been takoi fir 
granted, I know not why, that the word aacrificc is a fed 
word ; yet surely tht^re is great room for doubt whethn it »■ 
ever au understooil either by Jena or heathciut. ThehetllH 
Bacrifices were nothing more than feasts given to their !■»■ 
giuary divinities. The sufferings of the victim made do pvi 
of tlio »amfice ; but were only a necessary preparation fat it 
'Whence it conicK to piuts, that the act of killing ms ntf 
naually ait^gned to the priests; but to inferior offioen i^ 
pointed fur that purpose. The priesf s otHcc was to pitiM 
and offer to the gods citlier the whole or the choicest dmo: 
and particularly the blood of the rictim : and sach offcrinp 
were considered in no other hght than as bribes to obtain tk 
bror of heaven ; or a« marks of gratitude for benefits abcvh 


r(!(*i^'e(l." fialtpty's fntrod«cfory Discourse to on Ensay on 

Bi»lio|> Butlcr^s observation we reserve for the ncqucl. 
That among the hcRthcMM, notions pmailed that sncrifioe 
would avert the iui(,'cr of the Deity, tlicre seemn to be no 
doubt; but the question is, whether this wns the original 
meaning mul intent uf Hacriiice, or whether it wtis only a gross 
corruption wliich was subsequently introduced.* 

}lHviug made these remarks on penal aatisfactioii, we now 
proceed to the second view of the doctrine of Satisfaetiou, or 
that in which it is regarded in its relation to Dieine Justice. 
On this subject tbe O&ford writers maiutalin that, "Though 
the death of Christ manifcflts God's hatred of sin, as well as 
his love for man, (iiiasmucti lut it was sin tliat made lii» death 
uccessary; and the greater the sacrilice, tbe greater must 
have been the evil that caused it,) yet how his death expiated 
our sins, and wlmt tatittfaction U was to God's Justice, arc 
surely subjects quite above ns-t It it in tto *efM* a great and 
gloriou* numifestatifm of Im jtistire as mtra apeak now-a-days ; 
it is as event ever mvsterions on nccoimt of its necessitr : 
while it is fearful from the hatred of sin implied in it, and 
most transporting and ch^vntirig, from its display of God's 
love to man." Kationalis/ic Principles, vol. iii. p. 29. 

Stronger testimony on this subject wc reserve for the con- 
sideration, thirdly, of Satisfaction to Divine Justice, or of 

* Much has been written on the quntioD, whether or not Mcrilice waa 
vriKuiaHy a divine iDslilulivo : a> we consiiler ihvl the very ulure of ncri- 
Ice il>elf ta not UDcIuratood, vtc caociol be lurjirir.eii at the conlradt clary 
weoupti adraacecJ upon this lubject. SncriJcc i> a toriKuaice of cormpuuij- 
eDtes ; the»e corresponiieneeB were hnriwo in Ibe (.-arliesi ages of the twarld, 
and were the nalnml medium of expreiniag divine truth. The ■civnce waa 
afterwHril* ^>duiilly [ott, and oothiog rcmaiDsd bnl thr eilernal rile, such 
ait pn.-vailed uutoui; ibe lieatheoa. Vh«n adopted qodcr tlie Mosaic dbp60- 
>aliaa, tlicir originally apiritual me&niDg wm revired, allbougb it waa tin- 
kaovrn hi the Jews. 

1 8ce alM Gilhcrt on Ibe CbrUiian A.toneuienl. pp. 824, 325, 237, 234. 




Satisfaction iu any 8euM>, as a dtictrino, whichj wbethertnr 
or faiae, is nowlicrc to Ijc found in Scripture, 

It will he <lesirablc here, however^ to premise two ABn 
mcnts, contiuniiig the popular \ipw*; one by Scott, thcudkv 
by Choniock. 

Firit, wc quote tlie statement of Scott, who ny« in ha 
works (vol. ii. p. 387) : 

" If tlic life of a king lio, as David's people told kn, 
worth ten thousand lives, of what nu iiifimtc value murt fr 
life of the Lurd uf Glury and of the Pnncc of liifc bot *H 
being the Son of Ood, of the Kamc uatiirc and rmrmirn wtk 
tlie Eternal Fiither, must from thence necessarily derive opoa 

his sacrifice ail inmiensity of worth and efficacy ChMlS 

life being in liis own fn-c dJspuMnl, lie bad itu lutdoobtoi 
light to exchange it vitU God for the liven of our booIs; i^ 
the lives of our souls being iu God's free dispostU, Uc lad ■ 
unduubtpd a right to exchange them with Christ for bii ft, 
upon the free toutlr)' which He made of it. And, in tt> 
cxclmnge, neither party could be injured ; because they bod 
roccLvcd an equivalent for wliat they gave ; Christ gave ha 
own life to Gotl, for which God gnvc Him the lives of tm 
aouls in exchange, which were far dearer to Him. GodfiK 
the lives of oiu- souls to Christ, for which Christ gave EHb 
his own precious life in exchange ; which, cutUDdensg tk 
infinite dignity of his persoUj was at the least tantamoait' 
In another place lie says, "Of such an inJiuitc value wai 
worth was his sacrifice, that it not only countcrvHikd far tk 
punishmeut due for our sin, but did abuudaittly prtpondf^ 
rate it." 

Charnock, in his work on Ckrut Cnu^ufd^ obierm (^ 
177, Tract Society's edition) : 

" Ilis sufferings were partly finite, partly infinite. 
were finite in regard of the time of duration, finite in 
of the iuunediate subject wherein He sulfenMl, His h 
nature ; which, being a creature, could no more bcvouc u 


finite, tliau it could become omiiipotent, omniscient, or 

eternal. But in rc^'Hril of tlic ptjrsoii who suffered, the auf- 

fcriugs weru iutiiiite ; the Dtiity beiug in conjunction with 

the humanity. That which is finite in regard of time, and 

in regard of the subject, may be infinite in regard of the 

object. As the nin of a sltort minute and the sin of a finite 

creature, in regard l)t>th of the time when it is committed, 

and the person guilty of it, ia finite ; but, tn regard of the 

object, God, whose glory is eclipsed, it i« an injiuite evil : 

M the greatness of an offence is to be measured by the 

greatness of the person whose honor ia invaded ; as the 

■Inking of a king is capital, vbcu the striking an ordinary 

man falls under n small pecuniary fine ; hu the vabic of n 

satisfaction is to be measured by the cxceilunej' of the person 

satislying. As therefore an infinite sin deserves an infinite 

punishment, bocanae it is committed against an infinite God; 

8o the sacrifice of Christ deserves an infinite acceptation, 

because it is offered by an infinite person."* 

Such is the popular mode of advocating the doctrine of 
a satisfaction of infinite value made by Christ, and so impor- 
tant is it considered, aa to l>c regarded a^i the fundamental 
principle of man's salvation. "That Gud doest require such 
a satisfaction (says the Bishop of St. Asaph in Ills Warbur- 
tonian LcctnrcH, quoted by Wiutle, in his fifth Bamptou Lec- 
ture), has been the sense of mankind in all age*, however 
acquired. jVnd this opinion is confirmed by tlic revealed Word 
of God, from one end to the other of the Old Testament." 

Let us now refer to another author who treats of this 
subject ; an author of established repute, and oUcu (|uoted 
by orthodox writers of the Church of England with commen- 
dation. AAcr asserting that the true meaning of the Atone- 
ment is recoucilialion, he observes (Veym's Hampton Lec- 
ture*, i) : " And accftrdingly to assert of Christ, that He 
hath made an atonement for us by his blood, is the same as 


to assert tlint He hnth reconciled ii» to God by his blood: or. 
in otiicr words, that by lii<i death lie bath nifulc God fn^ 
piiiouK to siuful man, and tiatli procured, for all vbo belicR 
iu Him> pardoQ and acceptance. 

" Ajid this proposition contain;?, ra I conceire^ all thu * 
esBcntioi to the doctrine of the Atonement. It has, indeed, 
been usuhI to state the doctriae in a fuUer manaer, to w Ml 
simply to luiicrt our reconciliation to God by the blood ti 
Citrist, hilt also to superadd the grciuad and reason of tlr 
reconciliation. And this addition, dcrirwl not so much bta 
tlic poaitivc dcelaratiuns of Seriptiut;, as fruni the rien 
which men hare entertained of the snhjcct, and tbcir mioft- 
ingH rCHpccting itj has been so generally acquiesced in ai 
aclcuuw'lcdgcd, tlmt it ia euuimouly supposed to be iiisepanbl* 
connected Tvith the doctrine and to constitute a neccMi; 
and essential part of it. But however true in itself, it hii 
unfortunately occasioned much miHreprcaoutatiou and UDJm 
censure; and, as wc shall sue in the sc^iucl, boa been thi 
fouudatiuu of uioift of tlic priucipal objectioiia against tlie 
doctrine itself. It ia, therefore, heeome highly uacfnl lati 
even iiL-cettsary, to i^eparate frooj the rcul question tlda ad 
every adventitious circumstnucc with wliich it has been 
idly implicated. 

" It has, perhaps, already occurred to every one «l» 
hears mc, that tbc circumstance to which I principally re&r, 
a» an addii'wn to the fiirc and itimple doctrine qf the Atem- 
menty or reconciliation by the death of Chnst, i» the following, 
namely, that Christ died to make sat'uifaction to the Dinat 
Justice. Now the sacred xf.yrUcrs jw where, as far aa I kno*. 
exitreaahj assert any satisfaction at ail as havint/ been ^«ttd 
by tiut death of Christ. At the same timCj it must be •► 
kuowledged, that the generality of Christiana, in moden 
times at least, have concurretl in uuitntiiining, as abovo>Bco- 
tiuncd, that, by the death of Chriat, satisfaction was madr 
to the justice of God ; and^ so uuivcrHu) has bceu Uu» ctn* 

e&r. " 


ritAP. rv. 



currciice, timt the doctrine of mlhfactioH has been commonly 
used as a synoiiymoua cxprcssiun for tlic doetrine of Atone- 
meni. Divlues of our owu coiuitry may probably have been 
confirmed in this uac of the term, by its common accepta- 
tion. For though it was anciently tukeii, in what ia. stiU its 
wle Scriptural sense, to signify rteoncxHation ; yet, because 
rcconciliationii arc, for the most part, brought about by the 
aggressor's making satisfaction for his wrong, by the payment 
of an equivalent to tJic jiarty aggrieved, therefore, in pro- 
i«m of time, alfinenuiU came to signify compengation and 
MtisfactioH ; and men accustomed to this use of thetcnn, 
may hare been Led to imagine, that the work of Christ for 
our redemption was undertaken with a view to something of 
this kind. Rut, from whatever cause it has arisen, certain 
it is, that the death of Clirist has been called and "accounted 
not merely a pmpilifttioa, or that on account of which Go<l 
is to become merciful to man and innn nfcrptnbic to God, 
but further, a iatinjact'wn. And this aatisfMCtion is siippDHod 
to have been required in consequence of that nolation of the 
divine law, and that disobedience to the divine authority 
which occaiiioiicd the fall of man. And since the sntisfnctiou 
must of course be made to God whose law was broken, and 
whose authority was disobeyed, to what attribute of tho 
Deity could it with such projiricty be ascribed as to his justice, 
which Bccms especially concerned to viiulicate tlie honor of 
the dirtuc law, and to inflict upon offenders the due reward 
of their evil deeds ? 

" Concerning this siitisfaction to the justice of God, there 
hare been principally two opinions. And first some, and 
those divines of great learning and piety, have contended 
for the absolotc necessity of such a satiafaction, in order to 
maintain the inviolability of the divine attributes. l'*or they 
argue, that sin is so oppcuite to the purity aud holiness of 
Goil, and of consequence so odious in his sight, that it can- 
not but provoke his displeasure, and expose all who commit 

it to his wiath and indignation. And since justice is 
ttftl to the (liTinc nuturc, und exists there in ■ 

degree, it must inflexibly require the puuishnaent of tlio» 
who are thiLstfae objects of his wrath : nor in it posuhlr tlitf 
the punishment due to sin could have been remitted, if Mti>* 
faction had not been made to the justice of God. Heacr 
thin* conclude, that such satisfaction was actually madr In 
Jesus Clirist^ whose death being an equivalent for that «( 
the whole human race, ohtained our acquittal, and laid tk 
foundation of our title to eternal life. 

" Otiicrs, in the second place, not contending for the ib- 
»olntc iiccotusity of a satisfaction to di\*ine justice, insist onlf 
upon the wisdom aud fitness of the nioavure ; and nich cm- 
sider (iod iu the light of a Gorernor or Judge, who, for thr 
direction (If liis subjects, had given them an express law, mi 
had sanctioned it by denouncing po-sitive punisluneut a^tbit 
all M-hu rtliould transgress it. Now, say they, it unqucstioiiaMv 
became the Almighty Sovereign aud Ooremur of the Via- 
verse to consult the honor of his law, and not to sitfTer it to 
be violated with impunityj or without satisfaction ; lest & 
subjects of his authority should be induced to call in qtie^ 
tion his justice, and to vilify and net at nouj^ht his office d 
Judf,'e. Willing, thcreforn, to shew mercy to his offendin; 
creatures, but imwilling that Ids forbearance of puuiahiBeBt 
shordd endanger the cuds of his government. Ho waa ploMd 
to onlaiu a propitiation for sin. Accordingly, He sent into 
the world his own Son, who, by dying for our sins, obtaiatJ 
our rulciuto from all obligation to punishment; while at the 
Munc time He made a most glorious display of the rtghtcois- 
ncis of God. And thus, it is contondedj by the appointment 
of Jeans Christ to be a propitiation, satisfaction was madv 
for sin; the divine law was satisfied, i.e. its claim was ailenctti 
and the sinner waa no longer exposed to its rig;or: the diriae 
justice was also satisfied, i.e. it no longer retjuired tliat xbe 
punishment duo to sin should be inSictcd upon the i^EBiida. 

CHAr. IT. 



In a wordj accordiug to this opinion, CliriHt is dmA to have 
nuulc luktiat'oction fur oiir mis, not hecause his death !» to bo 
tuxuuutcd nn adequate cumitcnsatiou ur a full cqwvalcut, but 
because his sufferings in our stend maintained the honor of 
the divine law, and gave free ecope to the mercy of the Law- 
giver, vithout auy impeachment or diminution of his justice. 
And satisfai'iinn in this t/nnfijleft feiute, has Itftm commonly 
reentfcd mtwng flir'uKu ; anil cspw-ially is niiiiutaincd by Gro- 
tius in his celebrated tre«ti»c sgainHt Socinus, expressly 
entitled, De SaiUfactiime Cbrigti, and also by StilliDgflcet, in 
his able defence of (irotius against the subtleties of CrelUus ; 
Ijoth of wbom consider Gotl not as a partj- ng^cved or of- 
fended, deniandiji;; full amen<]!i and a<lc<[imte eompcusation 
for the wrong He had suffered, but as a wise and prudent 
Governor, requiring such a satisfaction as He miplit iloem 
noccsHtrj' for miiintaiiiing the authority of liLs laws, and for 
enabling Ilim to extend mercy to criminals, without giving 
encouragement to crime, or in any respect endangering the 
purposes of government. 

" Which of these opinions is true, or whether eiilifr of 
them be irtuf, 1 am not called upon to determine ; for neither 
of thtm M eMciitial to the thctritw of Atonement ; and could it 
even he prove<l that //ath of them arefalae, the peal question 
would not be at all affectoil." 

In the foregoing extract then, we hare a distinct admis- 
sion : first, That the doctrine of siitisfactJon is not to be 
found in Scripture. Secondly, That it is a mere human 
addition. Thirdly, That oltliough it is such, it has succeeded 
in usurping the place of the true doctriue. 

The cardinal point upon which the argument turns is the 
folkrwiitg. Atonement, iu the Scriptural sense, signitica only 
reconciliation ; in the popular sense, it signifies the particular 
method by wluch reconciliation is supposed to be effected, 
namely, Satisfactian of Diviuo Justice; and this particular 
mode of effecting reconciliation which, the author admits, 



ciAr. n. 

is no wlicre mentioned in Scriptnre, has at length «j ba 
usurped the phicc of the Scripturftl doctriue, that satiifitftM 
and rcconcilintifm liavc come to he considered (nmonyreuw 
In the foregoing obsenatious the autlior demolishes tWif- 
ginnctLt by which the doctrine of sntisfactiou is mftintoinri 
even among the Roman CaihoHcB.* 

But we have not yet concluded the atithor*!! rrmark* 
he proceeds to point out one of the principal &hada 
vhich the doctrine is supported. He obscn'es ; 

" There is n further misrepreseatation of the scntuncnti rf 
believers, in tlic statement which our historian has prcn rf 
the manner in which the doctrine of the Atonement ii em- 
nectcd with tliat of the diWnity of Jesus Christ. In oontorf- 
iug for this councction, yre arc supposed to argue after t&r 
following manner. ' Sin being an offence against an infiniir 
Being, re(|uire^ lui infinite Katisfuctiou, which con only bf 
made by an infinite penon, that is, one who is no In* (ha 
God liimself ; Ctuistj tbcrcfore, ia order to make this infiutr 
sattnfaetion fur the sins of men, must himself be Gud, eqol 
to the Father/ This arg^umcnt, as it prtKeeda upon the np- 
position that an adequate satisfaction was required fortbc 
tins of mankind, can only he ohicctcd againat those whoirr 
advocates for tliat opinion ; and is therefore unfiiiriy attn- 
butcd to believers in ^ueral. Indeed, even allowing tfe 
foundation upon which it is built, it would still be a wai 
argument, and might easily be retorted. For with no k> 
reason might it be argued, that sin being oomnuttcd br > 

* " In Kcnnnil," luys m moilRrn a.uthnr, '* w« dcttn tlio woni At 
to exfirvw a speclllc maiJo b; nhlch tbe iwoticiliaiioB is ■ccoiRplbk«4, M 
m-erely Uie tccuncilinliipn itself; nciil whrtfirr m ill primitivt tmtt w&tkit^ 
irfimte tign^fitAt'un or not, it hu certainly acqutrril ihnt popular niMibw-* 
GMrrt ox the CAriKun Atonemcnl, pp. 30—335. It ia adniittud by Mr.Tff* 
tKnt till; popular rarKninic of the word ii not it> primilive Beaoint ; u4U 
pi>inl* out Ihi- way iu tvhirh llic word ciudc to iciiuirv il» pap%lar ■Mlllt 
Tfaia iDGULioic beiuij uncc enUbltabcd, of courw It procerdnl l« caltai !■ h 
■up|)ort the *Briuu» tpxt» of Scripture. 




finite creature, reqiiires only a finite natisfaction ; to the 
making of which a finite pcrdou is fully nilcquatc. If sucli 
an argument for the divinity of ChriBt has nuwarily fallen 
from any friend to the doctrine of Atonement, it is to be 
lamented that it shouM liavt- been liiiziu'ded unneccKsarily, 
timl iirithoiit sufficient warrant from Scripture. Wc believe, 
indeed, the dlnai^ of Christ, because the Scriptures have 
expressly declared it ; but we pretend not to infer from it 
the supposed necessity of an infinite satisfaction : on the con- 
trary-, we iiifiT from it the love of Uod towards us, of which 
tiic appointment of his Dinnc Son to he ttic propitiation for 
onr sius is a most convincing proof; and wc build upon it a 
ffurc and certain expectation of his fntxire favor." 

Such are the intelli>^nt rcmarkH of thin author. Could 
we be surprized at an\-tliing, it would be at tliia; that in 
order effectually to (ypposc Socininnism, he should declnrc it 
requisite to clear the doctrine of those human additions, 
for rejecting whicU Swedenborg is by some called Socinian. 
In the extracts immediately preceding, every reader of the 
writiugs of Swedenborg will heartily couciu* ; and it is no 
little gratification to him to find, amid such a general fall- 
ing away from the truth, some few faithful witnesses re- 

Mr. Ludlam, a kamcd lay- member of the Church of Eng- 
land, also spcuk-i of the |iopular explanation of the doctrine of 
vicarious satisfaction with great boldness. Tims, in hi* EMnys, 
(vol. u p. 128) he observes :—" We have now gone through 
the whole that is alleged for this achcmc of vicarious satisfac- 
tion, both from reason and Scriptm* ; if that can be called 
reason which is oidy positive assertions, rhetorical tluunsbcs, 
or metaphysical jargon, or that Scriptxire where so many and 
such plain texts arc niiaapiilicd." 

Closely connected with this doctrine of satisfaction there 
is another; namely, the imputation of our sin to Christ aud 
of Christ's merita or rightcousucits lo us. 






Tlirj- who advocate this iloctrine of mipiitation, Hpnk tft 
iu terms oxpresiiive of the liighest importance. 

It is said to be the rcry fnndamcntal article of the Goipd 
Tliiu Hci-vey obitcrvcs [LutHam's EasayB, vol. L p. 100) i 

" WtiHt our Lurd says with regard to the love of God 
tlic love of our neighbor, on t/tese two amtmaruimcnU hmg 
the law and the prophets ; much tbo sanio would T TCDlnn b 
(wy concerning the imputation of our sins to OirisI and Ik 
imputatiuii of Chnsfs rightcouBnesa to us, on thaif twohh 
triiies hany ati the prinkg^s and l/tf ipA*/t' ylonj of the Gaprf'" 

This view of tlic importance of the doctrine of im|ratiiia 
ia so generally adopted by all irho malutain the doctm 
that it is unncccsaar)' to bring fonrnrd any farther pnnf ■ 
support of it. 

On this subject, Mr. Veysie oWrres : 

" AnotJier circumstance connected by our historian' 
the doctriuc of Atonement, and made as it weire to 
firom it, iR the imputation of Christ't righteoumeM to k^ 
lievcTS, as the groimd of their acceptance with God. Whf 
was before obscnxd respecting Satisfaction to Divine Jiabct, 
iM hIho true of Imputed Rightfx>usnes5); ii ia nowhere ci7ft*4J 
asserted in the sacred wriitngs. Aud although our faiataiiaH 
appears in words to cou»idcr it as a necessary appendacr f 
the doctrine of Atuncment, and as universally nuiiutaineil In 
the ndvocntea of this doctrine; yet he could not ho ignanrf 
that the fact \a othcnrise; and that imputed rijftffnwrif if 
not fnore a ijrtnmd of controversp fnitvem tftoae who brRtn tk 
doctrine of Atotiemeni nnd tfiose wha do not, than it it brlwrn 
ihoae who believe the fioctrine among themseirea. Thrr »!• 
hold imputed righteousness, seem to he of opinifm, ihA 
since Christ died in order to bcnr the punishment of ourttM 
no higher effect can properly lie ascribed to his death, tk* 
our deliverance firom conderanatiou. But somothiJig factiKf 
is necemary to restore us to God's fiiror ; vie., a pcffa* 
* ReferrlBf; to Fn«sllcy's History of Ihc ComipHottB of ChrMlarilr. 

Cbat. IV. 

sATitricnoH or jcstice. 


nghteousncm. Ktit sinct; such righteousness is not inherent 
iu evcu tlic best oT men, it cuii bu uur« oiilr W iiupututiuii. 
And hence they argue, that, as by the imputation of our guilt 
to Christ ve are dcUrercd firom the punishment of sin, to by 
the imputation of his righteousness to us we are restored to 
the favor of God. But litis doctrine, so ttrongbj insisted ujmn 
btf smne, is, in tfw eaiirnation of others, unnecessary to Ike 
Christian scheme. It is granted that, iu order to forgiveness, 
we must be cleimsed from the guilt of sin by the blood of 
Chriftt : now they argue, that to those who are thuH cleansed 
sin is not imputed, that is, in other words, they arc accounted 
righteous ; they arc, in the sight of God, as though they had 
never offended ; and consequently are again become what, 
had they continued innocent, they would never have cca»ed 
to be, objects of his love and favor. And thus, acoordiug to 
this argument, not only pardon, but acceptance nlso, arc the 
immediHte effects of Christ's death. 

" I am not concerned to shew which of these opinions is 
most consonant to the spirit and inicntian of the sacred 
writings. It is sullicieut that Imputed righteousness, how- 
ever consistent with the doctrine of Atonement, is neverthe- 
less aoi esseaiiat to it, and may therefore be considered as 
an addition to the pure and simple doctrine. And I cannot but 
observe, that this, or any other doctrine, is miarepresentMl, 
when that is assumed as necessary and essential, which is 
merely adventitious and accidental, and which, if denied, 
would sftill leave tlio gcauino doctrine entire and unim- 

Dr. Hey observes, in Ids Dtvinity Lectw-es, vol. iii. [>. 30 1 : 
" 'flie doctrine of satisfaction, the notion of satisfying 
jostice, conceived to he under the ueccs«ity of punislilng 
rigoronsly the sins of mankind, brings on what appeiu^ to mo 
a «tiU more difficult doctriue, I mean that of imputation of 
nn to Christ. If God must puniah because He is just, lie 
can only punish guilt. Chriat 18 to be punished for tlic sins 




ca*r. IT. 

of Oi<^ worUl, tlicrernrc He must l>r ffttUly of lliom ; ytt Iff 
was iicrfectly innocent, — lie waa tlu- IjiuiiIj without tyA,— 
lie (lid no ain, — He was in nil points tempted like ai we ur, 
yet without sin. How ore these things to be reconciled T B; 
n word; Christ is to have renl guilt, but uot inherent, onK 
imputed. In tnith when one oomea to cxnminr this nixttrr 
of imputed gitiU, it aoems to be merely nonnnat. It ii a 
fiomclhiug wholtj inconceivable ; and only spoken of in nitt 
to keep the thpon' of Katinfi/uig Oiniic Justice entire ad 
compact; though, as far a» 1 can judge, tliHt theory wbd 
cannot he anpjiortcd without terms out uf wliieli all xutma^ 
miut be throuii^ shoiUd answer some useful purpose." IW 
i« to say, the doctrine is both uspIcm and untrue. 

Mr. LmUam obscnes (RgHaya, %-oI. ii. p. IOC): "TW 
schoolmen can always escape tltruugh a distinction. (ibU. 
they tell us, is of two sorts, culpable and pctial, aa it n* 
cnllcd in the last ccutiiry; or inherent and innputcd, udi> 
now cidlcd.". . . (p. 128), "It is not easy to rrrply lotlr 
fanciful distinctionn of inherent and imputed guilt, kt; 
such phantoms will aJwayn elude your stroke, 
" I'matra frrro div^rbfrct umbna." 
But then you may coiijurt? n[i as many more tu rou plow; 
we may reckon another sort of {^utlt, assumed guDt, not a* 
tTirally inherent, not conveyed by the imputation of onatkv. 
not furettd on us by a clinr(;;e, but tlint whitJi a man b^ 
upon hiniHclf; or we may split imputed guilt iul^i voluotin 
find involuntary, &c., and ao on for ever. . . . We find D» 
thing in the apostolic writiii^^ about Clirjaf s being joriif 
or truly punished ; about imputation of sin, or aduuprf 
guilt ; about standing in our law place as a snbstttnte « 
obUgatiou to puuishmcut; about commutation of pcnoiui^ 
penal Kntisfactiim." 

" What," snys one of the writers of the Oxfoni Tratt". 
"what do they really nieau, who adopt the bumiui tAtmK 
of teaching and receiving in its fulness the doctrine ^ 

in AT IV. 



the Atoiicmont? liow i« thin Ui Ik* ihmeV do tliey niider> 
stand the meniiiiig uf their uwii wunbi? IVc hardiy kaaiif 
what we speak qf when ice »pvak of the Atonement, it in a VAst 
sea wtuch tio man can fathum : trho can think of it worthily ? 
who can comprchctiil the Micrauicritn in which it is htdtleu? 
Thtt sea iDdcett itself i» tUe type or ligurL' of haptism, wherein 
the wayn of God arc, aiid liis jtatha iu the great waters, aud 
his fuoLHtcpH arc not known. Surely men know not what 
they do, when they define and ayBicmatijtc the ways of God 
in man's redemption, under cxjircssiouH such an imputtd 
riifltirotunteM, juntijivation, aud sancT-Uicatiun, and the like; 
which words stand, in tlieir minds, for some cxceettiag ihaltow 
poor human ideas, for which tliey vehemently contend as for 
Ihe whole of rt^lijpoii." Tmctsfnr Ihe 'Hnwa. lieiem: iu Com- 
municating Retitjious Knmvfed(/e, p. 67. 

In fine, thcsti writers seem to coincide in the following 
obsen'atiou of Mr. Ludlaru (Etxatjit, vol. i, p. 135) : " Tliese 
cxplunntions of the mystery of redemption, are not the 
Bible, but the hay and etubblc which indiscreet piety hiu 
built upon that foundation. The great roystm- of godlinooi 
rcfVues to be senitinixcd hy our shidlow under8tan<tin^ ; 
hiuuau explanations only disgrace aud dc&lc it- Thou rhalt 
huild tlte altar of the Lord thy God of whole attmrs ; thou Khali 
not (mild it af heum stone ; for if thou lift up thy toot upon it, 
thoH haai poliutudit." 

Thus have we completed our review of the doctrine of 
Satisfaction ; a doctrine which in founded on a dimiun of the 
diriuo attribntCM, wliicli Inw well accorded, as wc have seen, 
with the division into three hypostases : so that, hy ascribing 
one attribute to one InTKistasis, and luiother to anttthcr, the 
jarring attributes themselves arc prcrcutctl from eonung into 
collision iu the snmu jiersun. Iiuleed, one main support of 
the doctrine of thn-e hyiwstaws, has l>c**n the doclrine of sa- 
tisfaction; aud again, the doctrine of satisfaction, as founded 
ujwn the jarring nature of tliu divine attributes, finds great 



cBiir. tiJ 

siipiKjrt ill Ihc cloctrinD of tlirce faypustiLscs, capedallj wk» 
these ure avowedlv maintained to be tlircc divine beinp. 

Let us now 8«e irhal dirines have said, with n^ard tot^ 
inseparability of the divine attributes, and ita couaeqwaca 
in relation to the popular iloctriuu uf the AtoncnnM. 
Archbishop Tillutsuu ubscrvcs (vol. ri. Scrmun 130, — O fttk 
Ferfectiuu of God) : 

"Let us always consider the perfeetiona of God 
junction, and so an to reconcile them with oac another. 
not consider (lod as mere power and aovcrei^ity, as ncn 
mercy and goodness, as mere justice and sovcrity, bstaad 
these tf^cthcr ; and in snch a measure and degree^ u am 
make them consistent with one another. The greatest ■» 
takes lu i«ligiou are certainly sprung frum this root, trm 
separating the perfections of God and ooDsideriiig tba 
singly, and framing such wide and large notions of one Mtv 
exclude another; whcrca« the perfections uf God agr«e Vh 
gcthcP} and that is not b divine pcrfectiou which contndiM 
any other perfection. Among men, indeed, an riiiiirt 
degree of any one cxcclleucy doca usually shut out tim 
other> and tbercfoi'e it ia observed tlutt power ;ind moddft 
tioD, lore and discretion, do not often meet together ; thai « 
great memory and a small judgment, a good wit and as 2 
nature:, are many times found iu cunjunetiou. Bsl d 
inlimtc perfection all periections do eminently meet and eoi- 
sist together; and it is not neccoaary that one excellcM? 
should be raised upon the rains of another." 

Affain; it is observed by Scott, in his works: "it » 
necessary, in conceiving the perfections of God, wc dm* 
suppose them exactly liarmonious and consistent with mk 
other. For all perfectiuns of being, so for forth aa ther m 
perfections, are consistent with each other; and, likortxa^ 
lines drawn from the wunc centre, run on together viUsitf 
crossing or interfering. For there is nathiag contnrr H 
perfection but imperfection, and there is no disafrvOBm 




but what arises from contrariety. '^Vheo, therefore, wc 
couceivc of the pcrfoctions of God, we must so conceive of 
them, as that there nuiy be no manaer of iuconsisteitcjr or 
diaagrccmcnt botwccii them ; othcrwiic wc must admit into 
onr cuncepttoiiH of them aomctliing or other that is defective 
or imperfect. As for iiistaocc ; in God there is iuAnitc wis- 
dom and infinite jnsticc, infinite goodnewi and infinite mercy ; 
wherefore, if we would couceivc aright of tlieac hiii glurioiitt 
perfections, we must take care not to admit any notion of 
any uuc uf them tliat renders it i-epugnuut to any utlier; 
but HO to conceive of them altogether, as that they may 
mutually accord and aj^rcc with each other. I-'or while wc 
apprehend his goodness to be such as tliat it will not aceoni 
with his wisdom, we must cither supiKwe Lis wisdom to be 
craft, or his goodness tu be folly; and whilst we apprehend 
hia mercy tube such as that it will nut agree with his justice, 
wc must either suppose his justice to be crueltj-, or his mercy 
to be blind pity and fondness; and it is certjun^ that that 
Koodiiesa cauuot be a perfection which exceeds the measures 
of wisdom, nor tliat mcrc>' neither which trnnsgressea the 
bounds of justice; aud so ou the contrary. For if either 
Uod's goodness excludes his wisdom or his n-isdom his good- 
ness, if either his mercy swallow up his justice or bis 
justice his mercy, there is an ap]iarcut repugnance and 
contrariety between them; and where there is contrariety, 
there must be imperfection in one or the utiier, ur both. 

"Wliercfore, if vrc woiUd apprclieud them altogether as 
they tndy are in God, that is, under the notion of perfec- 
tions, we must so conceive of them as that in all respects 
tliey may be perfectly consistent and harmonious ; as that 
ius wisdom may nut clash witli his goodntTSs, nor his goud- 
iieas with his wisdom ; us that his mercy may not jostle with 

I ius justice, nor his jnsticc with Ids mcrc}'; that is, we must 
conceive of Him to be as wise as ilc euo be with iufinite 
goodness, as good as He can be with iulinitc wisdom, as just 




as He can be vrith infinite mcrc}', and aa mcrcifhl n Hecn 
be with iiifiuite justice ; whicli is to be wUc, tuxd good, ml 
juat, and mercihil, so far aa it is a perfection to he so. F« 
to be witsc beyond what is good, is cnifl ; to be good henai 
what la wise, i» dotage ; to be just beyond what ia maaM, 
is rigor ; to be mci-ciful beyond what is just, is cuuua ; tbi 
is, they arc all imperfection so fair as thej are beyond wte 
is perfect. Wherefore, we ought to be very carcfiil d<i to 
rcprcHCiit these liIs munU pcrfeetioiia aa running atilt a: uk 
another ; but to conceive of them alti^ethcr as ooe oitiB 
perfection, which [though like the centre of a circle it had 
many lines drawn from it round about, and ao is looked apa 
Bonictimea ns the term of this line and aomctiiues of that\ 
yet is but one common and undivided term to them aU: tf, 
to apeak more plainly, though it exerts itself iu different win 
and actions, anil operates diversely acccording to the dii» 
sitie» of its objects, iiud accordingly admits of diffcrat 
names, auch ns wisdom, goodness, justice, and mcrty, jfla 
in itself but one simple and indivitabh prinrtpte qf arUm, 
all whose operations (how diverse soever) are such as pcfibcl)* 
accord with each other; whoKO netn of wisdom arc oQisi 
uitely good, whoac acta of goodness are all infinitely viK 
whose acts of justice arc infinitely mcrcifid, and wboac «» 
of mercy are infinitely just; so that, in this aa well aaa 
their extenttiou and dcgreet>, they are all most perfect, (*^ 
that they always operate with mutual consent and poftd 
harmony." vol. iL p. 204;. 

Let us now see how far what ia called the Vbliiffltl^ 
Kcunomy, is an illnstratiuu of this jiriuciplc.* 

It ia remarkable that, when reasoning &om the eaenee d 
Ood, authors often more particularly incline to the ide* irf th 
Divine Unity; and when reasoning from the hypostases, th; 
iuchnc more to the idea of the Trinity. But |>er80nalitj, 4> 
hypostasis, is the exterior idea; essence, tlie interior. Hcoct 
* See Gilbert on Ibe ChrieUan AtoaeiDcot, pp. 183, 189, t4& 




"nlicn thinking interiorly they advocntc the unity; vhcn think- 
ing exteriorly, they advocate the Tri personality. Now the na- 
tural man, thinking exteriorly, advocates the doctrine of three 
hyiwstascs, seldom or ever adverting to tlic essential unity, 
tvhteh to him \» the mystery; and a» it is a principle of 
naturaliiiiu wliich has prevailed in the churchy it foUovrs of 
course, that the predominant doctrine is the Tripcwonality, 
and that upuii tliis principle it is that the voluntary economy 
is established. This being the cane, the forcgoiug principles 
of unity are not those upon which the doctrine of the church 
is founded ; indeed, iu proportion as these are m^ntained, 
the advocates of them arc charged vrith Sahcltiauism and 
PathpuHHianiam. Considered as speculative, these principles 
may be regarded rw true, but they must not be applied to 
the illustration of the doctrine of the Incarnation, Atone- 
mcnt, or Mediation ; for if so, they lead infallibly to thoHO 
views of the unity of God, which some maintain to be mere 
Sal>ellinni»in ; whence arise! the inextricafalc perplexities some- 
times complained of by the orthodox. 

Tlius a modem writer observes : " Few wortis, however, 
arc cniph)yed with less distinctuctis of idea thau the word 
Juitice, especially when wc speak of it as a dinne attribute, 
or when wc arc inqniring what must be demanded hy it iu 
those instances in which ita awards strictly taken would inflict 

" Divbic Justice, as a personal attribute, is, without doubt, 
that rectitude of the Dinnc Nature by which his judgments 
and acta are ever in harmony with the relations of thingH, as 
well morally as intellectually; or, it in that proportionate 
approbation of \Trtue, and disappnihation of vice, of which 
we have already spoken. Our references, however, to Divine 
Justice, «rc UKually to its operations in connectioD with a 
moral system. 

" In this *iew of it, I think wc most adopt the definition 
given hy Leibuitz, as well as by numy coutiueutal dirincs. 

" Men may frame for themselves," ny* a 
" uew notioua of the Divine Justioc, and 
ftway, aud coufouud it in fauciful rellueraeuts, and 
gibic cxplaDfttions of fteaevalaice: bnt it must he 1] 
nckuowleilgc tlic weakness of thuir own underst 
to involve thcmftclvcs in tMxtrieabie perplexUin, 
iiig citlicr to unfold the several mysterious pc 
Divioc Nature, or lioping to explain them man i 
coiisolidat'tHg the whole into one." IVntUi^^ 
p. 202. 

Tlie author possibly saw that if the whole were 
into one, as for instance, Uod's justice and wisdom it 
there could be uo necessity for the lusiunptiou of tl 
ptxHtiiscs, one voluntarily satisfj'ing the justice of thl 
henec the mextricabie perplexiiies of which he apcaluj 
which they are reduced who adopt such idcaa ; ide^ 
wo cunfuBs are but ill accordant with tliat scheme a 
meut, which is founded upon the popular idea of pM| 
or satisfaction. Hence the other author above aUad^j 
servus: "StiU the enquiry will recur, did not Chij 
liimsclf to God n sacrifice of a fragrant odor, ou acC 
which sacrifico He pardons and accepts us? 
did i — but the term God, iu this case, u« an (ifficiol,. 
Bonal designation." ((sUbert on Me Ckriatiau Att 

9.9ft V W flit Id niA iVt'tu fiil . «M»»«JW 1m. vminmm^imjj 

CDAr. IV. 



the Deity ; nnd the doctrine of the Atonement considered, 
in the popular vny, tis h doctrine of tlic Paeification of 
Anger and Satisfaction of Justice, effectuallj- encourages 
this tendency. Explained in this manner, he sees no difK- 
cultf ill the doctrine, — it faUs in exactly with his own notions, 
his own state of uaturahsm ; a state which, as it is inherent 
in man, is fur thia reason sufiiciently diificult to be removed; 
but when it comes to be confirmed or consecrated under the 
name of reUgiou, to call it in question is regarded as a sort 
of profancneM. 

We next proceed to our pcniarks on the Atonement, con- 
Bidered ad extra, or in relation to man. A few ohsenrations 
on this tmhjcct will suffice, and these wc will premise by an 
extract from the works of Scott, vol. ii. p. 398 : 

" i£," saith he, " after 1 have seen my Savior in his 
Agony deprecating with fruitlesa crici that fearful cnp which 
I have deserved; if after I have beheld Him lianpng on the 
cross, covered with wounds and hlood, and, in the bitter 
y of liis soul, heard Him crying out 3/y God .' my God! 
haat thou forsaken me ? and, in a word, if after I have 
that God, to whom He was infinitely dear and precious, 
turn a deaf ear to his mournful cries, and utterly refuse to 
abate llim so much as one degree or circumstance of a moot 
eftU and tormenting death, in consideration of my 
ffmrdon ; if, I say aflcr such a Iiorrihte Kpcctaclc, I have 
lieart caongh to sin on, I am a courageous sinner indeed, 
cr rather a desperate one, not to be affected or restrained by 
fOl the terrors of hell."* 

Such i» the account given hy those who regard the cru- 
cifixion in its relation to nmn solely or principally as am 
inhibition of God's hatred of sin. Sin is here viewed in 
Tcbtion to suffering ; the horror of it is to he acquired from 
ounsideration of the tremendous suU'eriug« wliieli it cutiiiht. 

This also is the view which is taken by tlie merely natural 
' 8r« OilbcH dd llw Chrutisn AttHirmpat, p. 370. 

- sr rr T-ji^ "^^T- - .^*-t— ^ j.:.. Ti^ ^iw¥iii-j 5j ia*;^^f tit 
^- V 'T- = — ■■"T -^ • ^- er-^:'^— T — T^^^T- Bf KUS . ^3C Chi irf it 

-i^^ -1^ — '■■ —. - z -^KT siL xmac HirisLraoidatf 

t_- I — wj - i^ ^ TO n^Ha^ ^n. mi-T" 2^" aafea^ 

.£i- _ii :_ rrTr,i^ >?* — ^ — ,-.ti if ja ;*^ wsaotK ^ hii ■ 

• r .• ^L T-rzE-ji -ciSzrair I* "^ nitiassETS •:£ c; ; ai 

in^i^iir^- --irr iiic- -=i: --TT-r ^.KTT "ai; Hij- -rrtAT- ccciTiies 

i-T"Jlir^ •:. n. -zfb-.S2. -nan. 11 X3 lar-n— ^^n-rr '^i-r. ':Z3ticSBB 

\. :h Ti:prui:i la cTzatirii. ixx "^e-anae t: 2t K> roll d a 
-'IT TeTaiL**; r « =. Till a: scferztr . eii£ iiicru" fj sai 
ittm-s ::i=-ir: r-j^ij^ T::«:a i jciae :r znzLiaii^rjKi: asA fa&c:i( 
Mini TTZi.c I -tfzsi; It r:- :rT:i:snLit i; "ii ■" — .««.* 

Ti-^ Ir TTTijfr ;i:s*;r--:i =l lis S:n'*r't Lftnrts. "TV 

"i.'ir.r uiil u-TZ-'iTi- ;r _-;c * Ti:r^';t^'; :l9. li tie f,-r:iii3! 
x' ." "wrr ;•-■ I// n: -,->.f- T-'r/ .;- ■»'i.r..*j cmr:^yr% hu hiP^' 

;.i" -^ :n.».- -.k L;i.ri ti- L;e-i G-jii zv-.ze sin ' Cl^ 
T-^ •■-': :; Li:-: it. :.-r :!:- si^; rta*.- Th_i: He »i:ei- !:■<■ 
— ■**.i.~ !• ".'-i-T r'r-^*-:r. - ^"j^tr-rr It t*. :« it not sutect-j^ 

E-.*:! :i^ "-lrj.--i.j-- iir.-ei rr:zi the AionemcE: b-' 
K'r.-.C: VAL r^:^in-:^i ~:':.iT 2> 3 rtHioval t't' the punistz^ 
of *rt:;, tr.&ri £.- i rt=L>:,v:Ll c: ?::; itsvli: lor upon tlii* pric;< 
»iri :.- rif^jt rf.-c^^^i.iz'yi &.s sin c-xct-pt ouly by the su5'er^ - 
fiiI»*:rift']iJo. We know iriJc-t-ii thiit srrcat arivcrsitie*. ci 
(rdlaruitif:'!, art often rciui-itc to hrius sinuers torcjWEtii" 
but Swwlfjiibor;^ maintains, and uitli him, «-e are hat".'* 
Hay, many olli(;r tlitolo-hans, timt tliry have no just i.:r^ 
tiinl or of tlnrir own ^-umlitioii, hIio rcfrartt their sins rn-.r. 
Ill rulntion to tlicir .suiicrini:.* ; ami arc sorrv to hiut -u.-: 




only because tlioy mre Borry to bnve suffered. To say that 
Climt siifTcred ouly to shew u«, by the intensity of hU suffer- 
ings, the lioinousncss of sin, is to found the doctrines of 
Ciirist's sufferings only on the most external riev of sin 
which cfin he taken by the unturnl man. It is the lowest 
posHiblc xiev of the case. It is that indeed with which he 
may begin the Clin»tian Life, but he must eud it with a far 
liighcr sense of its nature. Our Savior's mental suffering 
arose, as wc Hhall sec, from a seu»c of the contrariety' of sin 
, to the Divine Nature ; or of iu being the death of the divine 
!c iu the soul. 

licsidea, even where suffering is considered as penal, there 
is aiiotlier view of it which may Ik taken, and winch is de- 
rived IJrom the nature of punishmeut itself. 

It IB common, for the reason wc haw mentioned, to iHcw 
punishnicDt only as the infliction of suffering, and tlie end 
of the punishment merely as the production of so much 
pain. Nevcrihi'less, the rfal object of punishment ia to rc- 
Ibrm the offender ; and as far as possible to neutralize, by au 
example of suffering, the evil influence which liia example of 
Crime had cxerdsed. Thus the cud in view, is the good both 
of himself and of others. This is the sole object of the pun- 
iahments appointed by tlie law ; and in proportion aa this 
effect can be produced with the leas degree of suffering, so 
in the same proportion, may the severity of pnniahmcnta bn 
rcmitlt.'il. Hence, Jud^^c [Uaek»<tciiie affirmB (vol. iv. p. 7.): 
"The end of human punUhments is to prevent future offences, 
1. ^y amending the offends luaue^f.* 2. By deterring others 
through his example. 3. Uy depriving him of the power to 
do futnrc raisehicf."t 

* Vet Jerrain tnaintaioi lo hii book on lb« Atotmifnt, tn OTdflff On^ 
laiD bU popular ihcory, that " punUbioeiil U not prlnnrily intcndtd tbrtfa* 
individual goo«l of ihc tranagiciMf, bat for that of ibe graeral caamNBtly." 
p. 913. Tb« reader U rvferrMl alw to Ibe Work* orScod, vol. it. p. 397, Sec. 

t Sm Gilbtrl uQ th« Cbrislian AtoDMnenl, p. 4(17, 


" Amj I Biuti.D, iHu ui, if> ma aiivi or tUt tiitONm «nd or Tm« PAcm ni: 
ta mi HIMI lll> TUB ILDUf , RgAD A LtMi if IT H>P MKIt •l.*!*." — ib*. T. «. 

We now proceed more immediatoly to the considenti 
tlic doctrine of tlie Atonement; and, in so doing, Khali in 
into the extent, the efficacy, and the nature of our Sai 

I'irst, with regard to their extent- 

Swedcnhorg affirms (Umttrml Tfieolot/y, vol. i. 240): 

" That the passion of the cross was not rcdcmptioiii 
was the laat tcmiitation which the Lord endured, as the 
prupliBt ; and that it was the means of tlic gloriiicaticai 
humanity, that v», of union with the divixuty of hia E^tlM 

Wc liBVc already pointed out a difierence, thonj^h 
represented, yet supposed by theologians as existing, bet 
the sujfcnngfl rcsultitig from Christ's temptations, 
sufferings resulting from an infliction immediat^^ 
Father ; the Father being thus one source of suffcna^ 
Satan uf the other ; the sufTcriiigs inflicted by the 
being for the purpose of exacting, in the way of j 
equivalent, or more than an equivalent, for the tun fli 
Hence the suiforiugs rcsultiu); &om the trmptati 
Savior, form no essential part of this doctrine of » 




they are quite sabordiiintc j and, in many instances, the con- 
sideration of them ia therefore consistently omitted. Now 
the ductrine of the Atonement being rcsolred into a demand 
on tlic otic side, aiid on the other a payment of a certain 
amount of nuflVTlng due as a satisfaction to Divine Justice; 
and this suiTeriug being principally that which was expC' 
ricnccd in the garden of Gcthsemaue, and on the cross ; it 
has licnee cumc to paas, that the Atonement has been fro- 
queutly confined to this particular portion of our Savior's life; 
though not altogether to the nominnl, yet to the rirtnal, ex- 
clusion of the rest. This contracted view of the aubject haa 
been vindicated by appeals to such texts as the following: 
" I am determined to know nothing among you, save Jesua 
Christ, and Him crucified," "we preach Christ crucified," &e.; 
u if the whole of our Savior's mediatorial works upon earth 
were resolved into his crucifixion. In the Ajwstlcs' Creed 
aUo, it 18 »aid of Christ that He was " bom of the \'irgin 
Mar)-, sutFered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, aud 
"buried,*" expressions in which there is no mention of our 
Savior's Hfc, but in which a transition is made immediately 
&om Ilia hirth to his death. Hence Cliamoek obaen'es /'CAm£ 
Crucified, p. 169 ; Bei. Tract Society's edit. J. 

"Tliough He was rccondhng us all his life, yet it is prin- 
cipally ascribeil to tlie sHcrifiec in liis death. Col. i. 21, 22. 
All that Clirist did in hi<t life had not been available fur us, 
had He not added the topstonc in the shedding his blood; 
jauid therefore, in the creed, there is a transition and leap 
6rom his birth to his death; all intermediate actions in his 
life being omitted, because that was the great work whereby 

^it was finished." 
. . . . " Christ is a sacrifice. This was his intent in coming. 
His death, as a sacrifice, was his intention in the assumption 
of OUT flesh ; the prophecies predicted it, — the types repre- 
sented it, — this Ho pursued, — for this He thirsted A 

Kediator He was by meajis of his death. Heh. ix. 15. It is 
I ' 

r^ <r za i^L =m x£ amTr ^ ii jib asKZ. m pHii 

;■/.« r— ,*7ir. > -ra 'ins Or^in -viari. w a 

r£.» Kt*r3i:ieL w :ie ^r-ijw •nrtT' :'x.k. H^tt. tWw »t Iff 

Lit ."!;:;••■.»::. iz>'- ..Lrsrt ;<<.>:«£ lif "ibe ^nce ceil- WauaS 
;^-.r. T^irtn. '.n zz. tilt i:,£i»e«: ^f^pee ibs=i\i t*> dmr li* i 
O-T*. It :iri >".•- :»:' ''-.>i 2* Tife ri-n-irtisa and the cobsoa 

tA-Tt-y.- '• ,.,... We lt: saved Tj the (Jcci/A of Ctnt" 
'x.-: . to-.. .V?s:z z. iTT . - Ti.-e dxcrine of oar Lord'f A« 
aA a^i t.roiifiTL.czit for rLr.. vis ir.e ronftazit subject 01 »I i 
fcjr/^*.,'rv t.T*:^iinz, and tie rreai instmment of tlieir (d- 

Tli^ pa.->>'i''jTi of the cross ^one bemg thus conadovi* 
Ik: tl»: act of rcdemptioD, we see one reason for whki ^ 
f^jfiular drxrtriDc of the Atonement has been made so O'.b- 
iif:nt ; namely, it has been confined to the death of Ck^ 
hII 4Ahi:r parts of our Savior's life being either exdndBi' 
cUc coriKiilr:r(:(t to be so rcry subordinate as to be ^! 
(liNCMirdcd without occaitiouing any particular loss. 

'DiIh \h the doctriiic, then, which, in the forcgoiD^T^ 




position, Swedenhorg opposes ; affirming that tho pusion of 
the cross was uot an exaction by the Father of a certain 
•mount of anflrniig, but r tcmptfttion or trial induced by the 
poirers of darkness ; and that it was not the sole act con- 
■tituting the work of redemption, but only one and the Inst, 
although the chief, of a scries of acts consisting of conflicts 
with and victories over the powcn of darkness. 

In taking this view of the subject, at least »o far at 
regards the extent of the work of redemption, Swedenhorg, 
although he has bccu so much opposed, by uu means stands 
sloDe. Thus Witsius, in his Trmtite on the Covfnantt, ob- 
serves <p. 138) : 

" It is indeed to he deplored that, in these latter years, a 
new Hubjcct of litif^tiun has arisen amon^ the orthodut ; 
namely, what were the particular suffering of Christ which 
are to be regarded as those which were aatisfiurtory, and 
as such, endured in our stead. One writer, indeed, may 
be said to maintain that none of the sufferings of Christ 
vere pro|}crty speaking satisfactory and endured for U0> but 
itboM which He experienced during the thrco hours of solar 
darfcncas which took place while He was upon the cross and 
before lie expired; thus excluiling from the number of satis- 
factory sufTerings those anxieties of Christ which He suffered 
in the garden of the Mount of Olives, on the night upon 
which He was betrayed; oa also tho blood which He poured 
out before He was mirifird, while He was crucified, and 
after He had died upou the cross ; atKnning that the bodily 
death of Christ ^-aa not endured by Him in his character as 
our sponsor and in our stead ; cuusequently did not appertain 
to the satisfaction wliich lie offered to I>ivine Justice, since 
ft plenary satisfaction had already been made to God at the 
moment preceding his death. And Icitt all these things ahuuld 
be considered as happening to Christ iu vain, tlie learned 
author maintains, that these things were done in the way of 

t a to the -Divine Truth, which Imd foretold that such 

both in soiil and txidy, and extending thus tl^H 
wliolc life, from its commencement to liis direful^ 
tlie cpijss, oombtned to m»lcc one imty perfect mi 
filtliough we udiuit tliat those sulleriugs were thi 
wliich lie endured rux,6vfU(i>, and that those He ei 
thu body were far surpassed bv those lie endured 
just as the entire and most holy obedience of Chi 
puted to us as mmtoriouH ; although this obodu 
e!i|H;dn!1y nmuifeittcd in the act of Itcing obcdiei 
Father e^-en unto death, yea, the death of the ct 
nllliough it consisted more in a ralanlary subjccti 
dispositions, than in the mere motion of the ni 
body kept utidtir control by the rational powers. 
In p. 1 47, the author thus continncs : 
"It is untrue that Clirist was not a priest 
mencenieiit of his life, for, from it* very bcginiuna 
the Cluist, that is to any, the Anointed of t| 
anointed, uot less to his sacerdotal, than to his otb 
Even when He lay in his cradle, He was saluted by) 
as king; when only twelve years old. He she 
among the doctors in the character of prophet j 
then hing and prophet, who shall take away 
honor of being also priest? And aince it ijs the pi 
priest to stand in the house of tlie Lord, (P«alm a 
do we not find a proof of hia aacerdotal office ill 


surpEftiNos or curist. 


Suunrledge^ indeed, tliat Christ was pulilicly inaugurated into 
liis mediatorial office on the thirteenth year of his age; yrt 
we iniiat no more conclude that heforc that timo Christ wiis 
not a priest, than we mu»t conclude that before that time 
He was not a ^lediator. 

"I ejuiuot here avoid subjoining to my remarks the very 
flOtind ohscrvatious of Cloppetiburptia, in his Disputation 
upon the Private Life of Christ, pp. 15, ]0: 'In liis daily 
practice of piety,' says he, 'and the obscrt'ancc of his duties 
to God, offered up in the days of his flesh, it was not possi- 
ble but that, eouKcious as lie was of his unction eveu from 
chiKihood (as is cndent firom Luke ii. 49), Christ must liave 
offered up prayera and aupplieatious fur Iho salvation of 
that church of which lie was hum lite king and Savior. 
See Lukeii. 11 ; Heb. v. 7. Nor ia there anything to forbid 
our extending the words of the apostle to all the davH of the 
flcnh of Clirist, and to all the sufferings lie endiirctl even 
from his infancy ; for from these it was that He Inanicd ohe- 
dience. it was thua tho part of Clirist, who from his 
childhood walked with God, continually to perfect the raedia- 
toriaJ office (a work which was given Him by his Father, for 
the redemption of the church, and which He dftily pcrfnrmwl 
with pcracvcnng obedience) ; as aliici fully to oonaummate 
thia office by that crowning act of obedience which w»« 

» exhibited in his self-inimolntion, when to this He was pub- 
licly called, or sot apart and devoted. Jolin xvii. 4. Acts 
ii- 23.' 

" Moreover, it is not true that Christ waa not, from the 
beginning of his life, a victim. For although the oblation of 
himself was communicated in the cro«a and in hifl death, 
still, prior to tliis {HTiod, He wna tfie Lwnh of God tvhich 
taketh aieaif t/ie gin» of ifie wvriJ, Juhn i, 29. It was in his 
character as such, that all our iniquiticii were laid upon Ilixn ; 
MB such, it was, that He took upon Him the To- " r 
servant; rhnt He a»8umed the likcucu of sinful t, 



CBJi?. ▼. 

although rich, He waa made poor for onr nnkca ; and tfai, 
even from liis infancy, He was subject to f^ricf, somnr, ad 
persecution, — miseries, which all procooded from tHa^ (■ 
aouice ; that He was both the priest, and the nctiin wldct 
had taken upon Hira our ains, — sins which, were tu be fiiii% 
done awuy by his death. 

" When Christ is said to have anffcred under Pooto 
Pilato, nothing is fartlier from the meaning of the wh 
than to distinguish between those sufferings which vrm »■ 
tisfibctory aud those which were not satisfactory ; au into^ 
tatiou whicl), 1 tliink, nerer entered into the mind of flf 
one. It ia au expression which aimply ahcwa the timr a 
which Christ consummated his sufferinga ; and the pnW 
by whom He was condemned to the cross." p. 149. 

When, therefore, St. Paul says, tliat Christ toek ^ 
Him fle»h luid blood, "that through death Ho might deatn^ 
Him that had the power of death, that is the devil,*' Dr. Pii 
Smith observes {Scripture Tegtimomf to the MeuiaA, vaii 
p. 343) : 

"The manifest denipfi of the passage nppenrs toniei* 
require that the death, which ia here stated to have been tl( 
means of iiccompliBhing the stupendous purposes of tSeni 
mercy, should bo understood not of the mere physical 4b«1 
of the Lortl Jesus, but of the whole comj/rcfiengion of hat af 
frringa for the redemption of the world. The feet of nttmi 
death, the mere ceasing; to hvc, was the smallest part uf tk« 
.sufferings; it was their termination aud relief. The taam 
which He endured, ineffiibly transcended all corporal agwj 
It was death in the sold. Our moral fccUugB siu has biA 
slow and torpid ; m that we can form none but tctt fM 
conceptions of the load of distress and horror which pi 
ou that soul, whose unsullied innocence and perfoctios 
scnt<ibility were without an cc|utd in all human nature. 
suffered all that a perfectly holy man could suRcr; bot^ 
highest intensity of his anguish lay in that which was meii' 





As ttie Priace of salvation, lie was mule perfect through 
suffcrinpi ; and the total of those mtfferiagg, U seevm projar to 
comprehend in the death, by which Uo BpoUed the destroyer, 
and delivered the captives,"* 

In accordance with the views of Witaiua, Tuirctin ob- 
serves ({ustUulio TheoloffM Elenchtic^, vol. ii. p. 'Ift^l) : 

"With respect to the subject matter and the several parts 
of natisfactiun, the opinions of theologians aru at Tfiriuucc. 
ThuHC there are who restrict it to the sufTchngs or punish* 

ments which Oirist underwent for us Of these some 

place tho whole righteousness of Clirist in his death ; sumo 
adjoin to these nil the niiffcrings which He underwent 
throughout the whole jicriod of hia life; and tlxis they call 
passive righteousness, wliilc active righteousness, which they 
place in obedience to the commandments, they consider to 
have been a condition requisite, in t!iu person of the Media- 
tor, to the execution of his office ; still that it docs not enter 
into any part of the satigfiiction, or of tho merit which is 
imputed to na. 

" But the general, and in our cliurclicfl, the received 
opinion is, that the satisfaction of Christ, which before Ctod 
ia imputed to its for righteousness, embraces not only the 
flufTcrings of Christ, or those which He endured both in 
death and life, but also the obedience of his entire life, or 
those righteous and holy nctions by which, in onr stead, He 
perfectly fulfilled the commandments of the law ; so that 
firom these two parts arises the entire and perfect price of 
oar redemption, &c. 

" Nor is it to any purpose that an objection is nigod from 

-the words of Zcchariah, iii. 0, / tmit remove the inupaty of 

that land in one darj ,- or from the passage of St. Paul (Ileb. 

X. 10)} where he roGcrs the propitiatorj- siicririce to thf» one 

oblation of Clirist offered up upon the cross. For we ciuuiot, 

' ScF Bitkop Reynolds OD l*salBics. Victortesof Christ; slso, Mnnimit 
t§*ary'* f.'u«umeiilarir». Malt. xsvi. 99. 





&om these passagCH, conchide that tho auteccdeat lufferap 
of Christ did not partaltc of n aatisfnctoiy nature, hat oeir 
that the satisfaction vos then oonsammated ; the fruit d 
which wsa, that on tliat Any nil the Hind of all the elect wra 
blotted out. This ia the rca-sou for which St. Paul rdtn 
syuecdochically to the ouc oblutiou of Christ, as an exptfiai 
for our sins ; because it ww the heaviest and the lait of il 
the suficrings ; without ntiich they would uot kare suffioed,* 
&c. &c. p. 4«6. 

The doctrine of satisfaction we have already examiari; 
the foregoing passages, therefore, wc have quoted only forlit 
purpose of shewing, tliat on the tcatimuny of writers ia dt 
Christian chnrch, Swedenhorg has not without reaiOD JD- 
eluded in the work of Kcdemptiun and Mediation, notflrir 
the death of Clurist, but the whole course of his hfo firum tk 
time of his birth. 

Having thus considered the extent of Chrisf a suflerinp^ 
we proceed to ascertain in what consisted the rfficacy of di 
Atonement} before doing which, it will be requisite to inqna 
iuto the fiews of this subject prevalent in the church; wd 
which for convenience wo shall arrange under three pnac^ 
classes. First, that wherein the efficacy of Christ's snffsiBp 
is founded upon a covenant from eternity, between the thm 
persons of the Godhead ; more particularly the Father ari 
the Son. Secondly, that wherein it is founded simp^ nfa 
a divine appointment, without particularly involving the ids 
of a covenant. Thirdly, that in wtiich it is fouuded upas a 
moral vindication of the dirinc law. 

First, with regard to the efficacy of Chriat's aufferings a 
founded upon a covenant from all eternity. 

Dr. Waterland, who as wc have already seen, retts tk 
whole of revealed theology upon tlie voluntary eccmaiBT,' 

* Some rcintrks ua thi* compact from ulemily, or voluntary mco^r' 
ooevr in Lbe * Theolugio&l Do|;ni«t«,' uf PeUvias, In his Work on th« 1m 
oitloi), butfk sii. chu.p.9. 




a- corenant l>etwepa the throe persond of the Trinity, nftcr 
taring (juutcd a variety of texts iu proof of tlic benefit we 
derive from tlic sacrifice of Christ on the cross, obsen-es 
\WorkB, vol. vii. p. 7C) : 

"The least that wc can infer from the texts abore- 
ncntioncd is, thst there is some very pccnlinr virtue, merit, 
and cflicacy in tlic death of Christ ; that Ood's accqitancc of 
sinners, though penitent not perfect^ depended cntitiely npon 
H. Common sacrifices coutd never make the comers there- 
onto perfect ; bttt it was absolutely necessary ttiat the hea- 
vealy things sliould be purified witli some better sacrifice. 
Which is so true, that our Lord is represented as entering 
intf: the holy of holic-i, that i«, heaven, by his own blood; 
where He ever Uvetli to make intercession for those who come 
unto God by Him. The efficacy even of his intercession 
above, great and powerful as Ke in, yet depends chieHy upon 
that circumstaucc, Iiiis having entered thither by Lis own 
blood ; that is to say, upon the merit of his death and pas- 
MOii, and the atonement thereby made." 

We are here told that the efficacy of Christ's death arises 
from its merits. With regard to the nature of these merits 
Dr. Owen observes (Works, vol. xxiii. p. 97) ; 

" Merit is such an adjunct of obedience, as whereon a 
reword is reckoned of debt. Now there was, in tlic nature 
of the things themselves, a proportion between the obedience 
of Chriitt the Mediator, and tlie salvation of believers. But 
I this is not the next foundation of merit, though it be an 
I indispensiblc condition thereof. For there miwt not only be 
■ proportion, but a relation also between the things whereof 
the one ia the merit of the other. And this relation, in this 
case, is uot natural or iiecessarj', ariaJug from the nature of 
the things themselves. This therefore arose from the com- 
pact or covenant that was between the Father and the Son, 
to this purpose ; and the promises wherewith it was con- 
firmed. Suppose, then, a proportion in distributive juit) 



cair. T. 


between the oIkmIJcucc of Clirist aad the aalvation of bdircn. 
tlicu add the relation ftnd respect that they hnvc one to n 
other by virtue uf this covenaat, aud in particuliir thit ov 
salvation ia engaged bj promise unto Christ ; &nd it givo 
the true nature of his merit." 

We sec then, that as the efficacy of Christ's desth 
upon its merits, so its merits depend upon the promite on- 
idnolly made by the Father to the Sou. Uut this pxmaat. 
we arc told, does not imply any natural or ucgcsmuj ititlm 
1>ctweeu the tidngs themselves ; it was a mere vofamM 
promise of the Father to the Sou, tbatupou certain conditi* 
He would he satisfied. 

Hcuoe Choniock observes, (Chitt Cntcijieii, p. 137; ic 
ed.) " If we cousider it simply in itself, without any prm* 
order, without any ooi'cnant struck between the Father id 
the Sou couecruiug it ; He was not obliged to have anj i» 
spect to the apostate creature upon the account of it fi« 

after a covenant Htriick between them God couiil tf 

but accept it ; imlcss Uc could have found a ^pot in dr 
(ifTeriiig, and charged Him with a uoupcrfomumce of if 
article covenautcd between them." 

Inasmuch, then, as the efGcucy of Chrint's death depfstU 
upon its merits, and its merits upon the promise ar^aJf 
made to the Sou by the Fatber, it follows that this \iumt 
is the foundation uf the cSicocy of the dcatli of Christ V 
therefore this idea of a promise, as arising &um a fxrreBUtffi 
a federal tran^iction, be discarded, it would aeem tfai 
foundation uf this doctrine uf the efficacy of Chriat't 
is taken away, and that the whole aupentmcturo Cdk to 
groimd ; for, in the present case, if there be uo 
there can he no efficacy ; and if there were no literal 
nont, tlicre was no literal promise. Where diriiits, 
reject the |>opular idea of tlio eflicacy of the AtoDeaeit 
founded upon a co>-cu]uit promise, what other view hai 
to substitute ? 




Thu brings m to tho second new of the efficacy of the 
Atonement, nnmcly, thnt of simple divine appohUtneni ; in 
wbich it is declared first, thut admitting the fact of the effi- 
cacy of Christ's interposition, no explanation of it can bo 
given ; and accondlv, as a natural conseriiicnce, thnt there is 
no ground, as far as wo can comprehend, for admitting the 
sacrifice of Christ to be of any efficacy whatever. 

First, admitting the fact of the eflicncy of tho Atonement, 
Bi*hop Butler remarks : " Neither reason nor analogy can 
shew how, or in wliat particular way, the inti:rpo«iliun of 
Christ, as revealed in Scripture, is of that efUcacy which it 
is there represented to be ; yet this is no kind nor degree of 
[Hresuinption against its being really of that efficacy." Ana- 
bffy: Cimciusion, part ii. 

Tlic learned author does not mean, that although neither 
reason nor analogy can explain the way in which the interpo- 
sition of Cninst is L'^lltcacious, yet Scripture dcxat ; on the con- 
trary, he says (part ii. chap, v.), " How, and in what particular 
way, this sacrifice of Christ had this efficacy, there are not 
wanting persona who have cudearured to explain ; but / ih no/ 
Jind thai the Scripture ha» erplained it. We seem to be very 
much in Uie dark conecmiug the mnuner in which the ancients 
understood atonement to be made, i. e. pardon to he obtained 
by sacrifices. And if the Scripture has, as surely it has, left 
the matter of the satisfaction of Ciirist mysterious, — left 
aoroewliat in it uurevcaled, all conjectures about it must be, 
if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain. Nor has any 
one reason to eomplaiu for want of farther information, unless 

can shew his claim to it. Some have endeavored to 
the efficacy of wliat Christ has done and suffered for 

beyond what the Scripture has authorized ; others, pTx>- 
babty because they could not explain it, have been for tak- 
ing it awuy, and confining his ofiice as liedeemer of the 
vorld to his instruction, example, and govcmmertt of the 
church, &c." 

turn, Atoii^Betii, ana menu oi i^oruc, soi 

^ doctrines is n mysten'; that is, each stal 
ccrtaiu degree wotated frum the rcat, ttnsystcmaiiCf a 
with the rei^t by unhiown intfrmediaie truths, mud 
upon subjects imJaumm. Tlins the Atonement^ irAj 
necessary, Aow ii operates, is a mysterj' ; that i«, > 
vcnly truth which is revealed, extends on each a^y 
an unknown world." ^H 

Dr. Hey, speaking of the sacrifiee at tlic death t 
and the two different \Hews taken of it hy the Soot 
the orthodox, observes : " Both parties are procccdti 
way, though they may be helped forwaj^ by diflfe 
tivcs. Both own the mercy of God, both ascribe 
salvation of mankind, tlnjugh we suppose it to il 
vieans, wliich they do not ; but of these means our i 
to indefinite, as to produce propositions nearly untni 
the nature of whirh, we know, is such, as to diininid 
the difTerenec between aflirniatire aud ncgativi 
Lectures, vol. iii. 328 ; 2nd edit. 

Thus we see, that, when the popular idea 
IrtLUsaction between the Father aud the Sou is dxscu 
ctficaey of the Atonement cannot be explained cithe) 
son, aualugy, or Scripture. Thisbein^' adiuittcd, thd 
is enay, as we hare obserred, to a denial cf tf»e 
being, as far as we can comprehend, yf any e^caeg 






ansver of the Christian is, / know Tiot, nor does it concnrti 

me to know, in what niaimtr Mf sacrifice of is con- 
necUtl wUh the fortfiveneas of sins. It is nno4j;;)i tliat this is 
declared by Ood to be the medium through which my salva- 
tion is effected. I pretend not to tlivc into the councils of 
the Almighty ; I submit to his wisdom, and I will not reject 
hta grace, because his mode of Touchaafing is not within my 
com prehension. IJut now let us try the doctrine of pure 
intercession by thia same objection. It. liaji been asked, how 
can the sufferings of one being be conceived to hare any con- 
nection with the forgiveness of another? Let us, hkewise, 
enquire how the meritorious obedience of one being can be 
conceived to have any counection with the pardon of the 
transgressions of anotlier ; or wlietiier the prayer of a 
righteous being in behalf of a wicked person can be ima- 
^'ued to have more weight in obtaining forgiveness for the 
transgression, than t!ic same sujipli cation, seconded by the 
offering up of life itself, to procure that forgiveness? The 
flftct is, the want of discoverable connection has nothing to 
do with either. Neil/ier 1/k sacrifice nor the iutercessitm has, 
at far as we can comprehend, antf eficacy whatever. All that 
we know, or can know, of the one or the other, is, that it 
has been appointed as the means by which God has deter- 
mined to act with respect to man." vol. i. p. 25 ; Ist edit. 

We thus SCO that neither reason, nor analogy, nor Scrip- 
ture, explains the efficacy of Christ's death ; and that we 
bavc no right to presume cither his sacrifice or his inter- 
cession to be of any efficacy whatever; which brings us to 
the interpretation of the wonis of the Oxford writer, " H'e 
hariSltf Jnwiv what we i^eak of when we speak of the Atone- 
matt" Both they who admit the popular idea of a covenant| 
and they who, seemingly rejecting it, substitute the doctrine 
of simple (fitnne appotnttneni, declare, that between Christ's 
death and the foipvencss of sins there is no perceptibly real 
relation. An arbitrary one has, therefore, been chosen by 


that the actmO rcmmion of sin is n mere secondaiy 
8C(]ucncc of this pardon, the primainr bcung the rcnuMiaiif 
the pimishiueut.* This new of tlic subject has been ni; 
prvvali^iit in pDpiiliir nysteras of thcolugr ; and it is obnaa 
that, ill propurltoii na there is couccivcd to be no rro/, bN 
oiily au arintrary relation between onr foith and God's motr, 
there con be conceived to be no real, but only an arbitmr 
relation between forgivenesK of sdu and tlie blood of Chri*. 

" Few wordii," snya Dr. Whitley, writing upon this rat 
jectj " are in more general and coiuttant use, and in nor 
close and inttniAtc connection ^y\i\\ the doctrine of AtmeiM* 
and SacrincCj than those of the remission or the forginMS 
of sills; few, however, are more frequently niisuudentood* 
misapplied : the far-fetched glosses, the labored conoMife 
and expUcntions of them, having rather obscured and pni^Bi 
than chicidated and explained tliem ; — the entire error ai 
confusion wherein, may be traced to the misapprchcnwi 
and perplexity in winch the word sin is itaclf iuTolved al 

obscured, &c Kemission of sin is not the mere edi 

repntative or forensic remission of a legal bond or debt ; il ■ 
not a bare judicial external dischar)^ from the ubligatioBif 
the law to positive pains and penalties; it doubtless inTDlm 
and includes all this, hut it is also something still man <i^ 
tinct and practical, something still more present and boncAk 
within us, — 'it is remission or Uberation from the i mi iiriJ 
naughtiness, heinousness, and malignity of moral eril orn 
itself; for whilst all {leual ire and positive infliction migU kr 
remitted and forborne, &c. . . the spiritual disease and inA 
of the soul might remain in all their genuine horrora, iad 
their innate mischief and misery." Atonement and Snerjfa, 
sect. 12, Remiajtion of Siiis. 

Dut, ftucoudly, another reaaon for which there is no pa* 

* Sw Vtrdlaw on the Soelniui Contrarersy, p. 23S : alko, 
look'* Uiftcouno canccmiiig the Happiuot of Good M«n uid tk« 
ateat of Uw Wicked, p. 49. 

CU.VP. V. 

SDrrRRivns np chxist. 


ceptihiyreal rektioii botwivn forpivcncM of ain ami tlin hloocl 
of Christ, is, because the blood of Christ is itself »ii expres- 
inon on tlio definite idea of which theologians have not 
agreed. For some regard it iis signifying the merely material 
blood of Clirist, «uch as tliat which was sht-il upon the cross ; 
some, hs si^if\'jag his death ; some, as including the passion 
l-on the cross ; eotue, as including his whole suffering or 
passion throughout his life ; othcrst, a^i impljing also the 
doctrines which He taught. See Homf^n Introduction to the 
SfTipturea, — /n//er of Syaihohcal Lanfftiage. 

Dr. Whitley m^tains, that the expression the A/twrfq/" 

Christ, M used in Scripture, has four dilferent significations. 

First, his uaturnl blood shed on the cross : the price of our 

fSalvation, the musom of onr souls. Second, the sacramental 

ilood : the blood of the new testament or covenant, which ii 

the blond of Christ, by hiii own institution and sanctifl- 

ition. Third, the thing intended and signified: his spi- 

itiial gra?o and virtue, the power and inhabitation of the 

toly Ghost, the Comforter. Fourth, the risen humanity: 

the glorified Mediator in heaven." Atonnnent and Sacrijiee, 

322. The same author CjUotcR Ignatius, as saying, "T 

the (hriuk of God, hi» blood ; wlucli is iucomiptible 

re and eternal life:" he also justly adds in the sequel, 

How few have duly considtTcd and digested the spiritual 

itore, the profound doctrine, of the blood of Christ !" 

It is obvious, then, that as long as the idea of Christ's 

)lood is vague and uncertain, no dcBoite relation can be 

>inted out hetwLTn itself and another thing, the idea of 

rhich is equally vague — equally uncertain. 

Thirdly, another reason why there is no perceptibly real 

ition between forgiveness of sin and tiic bluoil of Christ, 

that much of the language commonly used in regard to 

Atonement,* is language expressive of the sign, not of 

thing signi5ed ; that, hy way of accommodation to man, 

■ 6m Gilbert an the ChrisliBii Atoo^mcuf, p. 307. 

lie LAAjinuif; ui viuuigfiig, u« un jiicfncun* ■•^im wy cukh 

besides wKicli, as wc Iiave sewn, a mimhcr of other *fl 
Ih'cu introduced, ail tlmmlcd upon iialtiral, mmal, i 
uiifidal distinctions, between wliich there is uot, i 
tlicrc bCj auy real relation of cauiie and effect, ocnui 
any discoverable real connection. Wliou, tlicrefor^' 
writers wlio tiikc! the lowest view* of tlio Divine Ka£a| 
of the cffieaey of the Atonement, the tjfficacy of Chril 
fice, tlie elficacv of liis merits, the efiicacy of his int^ 
the ctTicacy of hitt blood ; it is most tnte, as the cfi 
priniHte has stated, that upon the principles he hM 
out, all these expressions are nuautlionzed ; tliat hi 
tlicse thiiigs is there nay perceptible cfficncy, nor tllj 
pereejitihlc connection between these and the fofgh 
sin, any more than between things of the uiiture i 
wc arc profuiiiidly iKnarant, and of which we cmn 4 
in nny ^vcu case, ' It is m>, becaiue it is ; I see 
should not have been othenrise, orereu the veiyi 
fourth reason we sbidl furnish in the seqnel. 

We have now stated the doctrine of divine iqip 
as advocated by Arehbisiiop Magce, and some of 1 
learned aud orthodox divines of the Church of I 



We next proceed to the opinions of other di^-iu 
are reputed to be orthodox and learned, but wlio 
dfictrinc altogether. I>r. Wnrdl&v obscrvw : 

CHAP. r. 

srppKRtivos or cubist. 


represents the Infinitely Wise, as hnviiig ndopted means, the 
greatest and moat stupcndoua, for effecting an object, which 
might have been accompliahed by &ucli as were inferior, and 
ercn infinitely inferior. If it be true, that the efficacy of 
the Atonement arises solely from dinne appointment, then it 
yuan pOKHiblCj biul Ood only so \villcd it, for the blood of b)ill« 
and of goats to have taken away sin." Discourses on the 
Soanian Controversy, p. 308. 

" The hj-pothesis involves a severe reflection on the divine 
ffoodaeju. — It is a truth intdstcd on in Ids word, that the 
gilt of his own Sou is a wonderful, a transcendent diwplay of 
his poodiicRs. — For God jto loved the world, that He gave kin 
ontif-bcyotteu Son, that trhoavetvr bclufveth in Him should no! 
perish, but have ecerlasting l\fe. John iii. IG. He that toveth 
not, ktutweth not God ; for God u tew. Herein is love, not 
that loe ioved God, but that He fot*id m, and sent his Son to 
be the propitiation for ortr sins. 1 John iv. 8, 10. nut if it 
he true that the blood of bulls and of goats, had Gml so 
willed it, might have answered the end ; then, if wo can be 
siiro of anything, we may be sure of this, that God, as n 
beint; of immntAblc ;:^iidiiexs, must have so willed it; lie 
must have spared the unutterable sufferings of a Person of 
•uch eminent susceptibility of mcntiU anguish. — He is, by 
the hypothesis, supposL-d to have done, wliat no idea we can 
.form of a good being wUl for a moment iillow us to fancy He 

libly could do, — to have itiflietcd nt'L-dlcss siiflcnng, and 
that even to a degree fay us incomprehensible. — ^The scenes 
of Oethscmaiie and of Calvary, — the cries, and prayers, and 
tenrs, the bl(MKly sweat, the Iiodily tortiirtw, and the soul's 
deep agonies, of the self-devoted Immanucl, — art; in no way 
rcconcilnhlc, on the rapposition in question, with divine 
beDCvolcnce. Snrcly when the innocent Redeemer there 
prayed, with strong crying and tears, — ' If it be po*»ihle, let 
this cup pass away from me !' — He could never, by the love 
of his heavenly father, have been permitted to drink it, 






eovJd the pinpaie lor vhieh il vav mingled and pnt into b 
hand Inve been m h aw b e ftocompEshrd. 

•* It impeaefan the Dirinp JuMiiee. — All inflictun of v- 
aecFssuT Bufferings invi^vea a reflectiou ou tlic ngfatraamcM 
a* well »s on %ht goodnca* of Him wlio inflict»t it ; noA ilum 
idl, SMcli inflietkNi opoB a piiliUss person — upon psisi 
inDoococc." Ihid^ p. 311. 

AAft stBtin^ six different rcaaotu apuntit the faTjullBB 
of mere dfriar uffoim tm te n t, tbe author obscncrs in tlicwicid 
pbkce: " But what arc vr to thiuk nf llirn, if, indeed^ tbor 
was no sodi eugcncr, — no necenity for nnrthitig w tfi- 
pendons as tW appeanincc at » dirinc pcntoii, t(» alooe 
mil, ill the tikcncNi nf sinful ttcsb? What arc wr to 
of Him, if tbirre vr«nicd only the appoiatmcut of Uod 
reader anr feOow-creatnre oompetent to the taak ; if that 
wfinted oiilr thix to imiKut tbe same efficarr to the aaerfl* 
of a lamb uf the dock, as to tliat of the T>i\-iiuf and Bjwdo* 
Lunfa of God i How coohng, bow qncnching i« thii^ to Ik 
Same of gmtefol lore, — bow rcpreftaing to the ardir 4 
adoring prai»e !" /Airf, p. 317. 

UUiiert, in bis vork on the Chxutian Atonrromt, eqMfc 
oppoaM the doctrine of mere f£nae ajspoiM/mmt. thm ht 

" On the hvpothesis that Talidity results &mn men ^ 
pointmcnt, — that any medium soever of convoyinif pari* 
■light liat-c Itcen chosi'u^ — wc can disccru no n awia «h 
there should have been required any medium at aU. Ttr 
whole i« resolved into the mere will of the auprctne fowtt. 
There remains nothing esscotial in tlie facta of di^tutra 
the victim, of unprecedented rarity, of an^-thing to OcM 
tbe expectation, tlmt as often as occasions for mercy Id tnur 
poRO might aritw, m often repetitions of satn^fice wa^ W 
gmntcd. The Joviab economy, were such a atqipoati' 
tenable, would not be convicted of any eaaeotial iuum ft i t 
and invalidity to take away sin ; and that whicfa conliti 





tbe Klory of tlie Cljii-ttiiui u\pi:ilioit wuuld be rwluced lu Ji 
mere circiinistniitiHl (titTcrcucc, uut ati ititlispcusablt} »upc* 
riority." p. 273. 

Again : " It ctuinot but occasion surprise tlint tcritert 
ami preachers, hfld in tieaenvd esteem, sboultl hiuc fr«(jtiL'iitly 
expressed themselves witb so much iucautiuusui-ss on this 
Rubjoct.. Cunfouiidiu;; the distinction between the neccjwity 
and the adequacy of divine apjiointmeut, they seem to have 
intnrpn'tMl the varions rcprcscntalicms of (lod'i ha^nnj; set 
forth or apimintcd his Sdii to ho a jiropitiation, a» proofs that 
frora appointment atone was derived the expiatory virtue of 
his propitiation. Appointment whs au indinpeus-Hbh' requisite, 
no doubt, since no sacrifice, how costly wjevvr, could he avail- 
hWc, unless announced as fmch by the supreme nnthnrity ; 
but still it was but one of many easeutia] conditions, 

" What moral efficiency for the support of law, the illui- 
tration of jiistiee, tlie display of divine liolineas, or the pre- 
eiuiiicut munife»tati(ju uf love and gnice to crcaturea, cuuld 
mere appointtnent possess? Were we to nr^oe, that since 
nothing cuuld be selected by Ood for any end, which in itself 
ia nut the heat fitted to nnawcr that end, and that therefore 
the divino designation is to us a Kutficient evidence of fitness; 
the reasoning, we gmut, wouhl be na irrefragable as trite, 
but totally irrelevant, except indeed h& ajtatiming the very 
truth which the rcasoncr was inteudbig to deny. It would 
assume the titnciM itself to be an independent and essential 
uousideration — the very ground of aj/pmUmfni ,- and there- 
fore that sneh appointment did not constitute, but only 
rccogniaeil the vahdity. 

" Without regard to such fitness, our views of atoueuicut 
being uecctitiarily slight and defective, its mom) results on 
our miinls must he pmimrtionuhly im])iiirtil. Its nmneetion 
with law, justice, the purity of the divine character, and the 
ultimate lionur ]u.rrning to the HUpremr guvcnnneiit, in 
tuseparHble union with ila efiicAcy in bringing tu us Hdiatiou, 




18 li truth as strongly enforced in Scripture, as the &ct nf i 
aijpointmcnt. Overlooking that connection, wc cuaat 
sud to nndcrstand its bcaringSf or to appreciate rigfath* tk» 
parts of the di^iue word which dweU so often and m m- 
prcssively on the peerless dignity and glory of the ticta. 
This precise fact is plainly exhibited as uf itaramuunt cuuaia- 
atiou. Conld we have been redeemed by a chemp aaciifioB. 
tlien the idea of tnn could have awoke but Uttlo oompoiKliaB: 
law would have appeared an arbitrary imposition, joitiai 
suppositious virtue, and holiness a fnctitioiiA distinction, rf 
which the standard could be made or unmade at plearait 
All would seem to be fouuded on the mere irresiatibtlitr d 
power and authority. Against conscqticnccs no dffpfy tumm. 
wc An well to be on our guard. Let it never be rep a lii, 
except by those who u-ovid depredate it* provi*iOfu, IhatUi 
effteaof of the Christian atfinetnent it deduced solely from tt 
aypontltiiati of it by Gffd. 

" It is often conceded, even by the varmeit friendi toih 
iloctrine of Atonement^ that we can discern no iiatuni a» 
nection between the sacrifice of Christ and the pardon of m. 
W\\at is meant by this assertion T confess myself zaaiik 
even after frequently revolving it ia my meditations, to &■> 
the least idea. As the doctrine in its several parts is HUd 
in tho Scriptures, the connection seems to me to be u palp 
ble as indissoluble. Nor do I mean merely a connectia 
ariAinK from authoritative declaration^ but one of dirMrif 
moral cause and cHbct. Of course the position conld odt Iv 
intcndcrl to deny only a physical bond of union, like tlul d 
gravity and weight, or that of applied force and motion, h 
must be understood as asserting, that in dependent ty of m^ 
trary appointment to that end, we can see no mond nblia 
between the offering of the Lamb of God, and the ttJtmj i 
of the itin. of the world. 

" llcgardinp, iudcotl, the mere naked facts, that oBci* 
nified and iunoocut being suffered, and that there csait bn? 


surrcRiNU!) ur cubist. 


guilty bcinjr* wlio deserve to suffer, a« insulated from all 
other cousidcrotioiia, we may say that parduti nould not 
ncccMarily be pei-ccived to foUow from tlie conjunction of 
these indepLMideut truths. Bnt consider the complex awe n« 
stated in the Scri|>turc8. With these principal facts unite 
their appropriate adjunct*. Take iuto acctjunt, ou the one 
hand, the prott^ctive puqiose of law, ita cxistoncr, the func- 
tion discharged by its penalties, and those peniUties incurred; 
on the other hand, the inclination to mercy in tlxc cxcaitivc 
power, liiti unebangcablu estimate uf Uio im|K>rtHUce of law, 
although violated ; Ida justice in seeking to uphold esteem 
of it in his creatures, his uniting a personal sacriHce in the 
gift of his Son to suffer, with a promulgation and pardon to 
those who rc]>citt and believe in Ilim; his declarntion that 
He by that act intended to ejtpress his love uud pity, and 
yet bis just condciunation of our conduct ; — unite, wc say, 
these fiicts together in your coutcraplation, anil lio you not 
discern a muriU fitness luiil a mural ]>uwer in the means 
ndojitcd to fulfil the ends? Is it all mere arbitrary asso- 
ciation of circumstimccsj possessing mutually no intiral iu- 
tcrwoi'kin^ energies ? Do not those niind-t which avail them- 
selves of this rt^iiLedial iiitiirposition feel any constraining 
intlueuees, but Him[)ly this one, — that God bns chosen this 
method, among a million which might have done as well, and 
su liavc: s]iared the niiu^L-lIous cost of this ? Again, 1 must re- 
peat, I cannot understand the views of these facts firom which 
such a cuncessiurt can have been deduced." pp. 27-1 — 27H. 

It may be axkcd, then, if the doctrine of mere ditine aft- 
pointmetU be opetdy rejected, what other bypotliesia is substi- 
tuted iu its pbice ? Here we return, as wc see in the forego* 
ingquotati(m,tothc doctrine of the vindication of Gotl's moral 
law, aud a witisfjieliou to Diiiiie Justice. Hut, a.s Mr. Vi-ysio 
infunuK us iu liis itamptou Ix'eturex, this doctrine, whether 
true or false, has nothing irhatcrer to do with tbnt of the 
Atuuemeut, aud iwiy bualtu^elhur deuied without the »li(;ht- 




est ioihngitmciit upuu it.* Thus du the difierent works on tk 
Atoncmctit reciprocally negative each other ; of the cxistem 
of aiiy otlier hypotheaU besides those we liavc stated we mmt 
aware, although of thcsK: there are of course a variety of modi- 
f]cati(iii!i, nil equally moving iu ii circle of rc<nprocal ■uepSxiM. 
It \s remarkable that in these Heveral tlicories, tfaetiiit- 
ence of a spiritual world, of the powers uf darkoeo^ wA 
their subjugation by Christ, arc either ticvcr tmcv referred ta, 
or else are iutroduced as truths merely subaVdiuatc aud iio- 
dcntal ; although St. Pnul expressly afiirma, that the SoatI 

' It U the reJectloD at the pupul&r theories that luu exposed Swtdrtkd 
to the churgc! tif Socio Lnnitm; with kk niurh rcuiutn ■« (he Roaan C<lW^ 
mlKlit cbargc PrulcaUnta wiib reJerUng the Siicnuncnt of th« Li>rd'«5afp<; 
b«ciiuM> ihpy ipjrct iho doclrini! of Tr>n*ub>Unti>1ioii. Oa lliis eh«f^« 
Sucinianlsm, Swodenborg thus writes ta tlic CunsiAlorj «t Goltrabaiip* 

untwer lo Dr. Kkabun : " UcupcctinK Ihn uUicr piiint, ovnieljr tbc thirfi 

tUnne ilucirlDca with Socinianiaiii, Ihfl sudo is a horrid bla«pbru* uim- 
truth ; far««inurh lu SiKinmniHrn nij^iCeti a ncf-A(iua »f the ditiDltj of mi 
Lofd Jhus Christ, nhen in (art, ia this doctrine of lUr New Cbuiet. >■ 
hi* ditinilj principitlly whicli i* tonfirmti amd prmetd, aa bIao ibal (hr 5>>-' 
has sn fully completed iho rccancil iatlun and rcderoptioo of mas, th*i m 
nut hii cominK no onr could hare beeo ■XTed, (*n: Apoc. RcveiM, k,A 
and iu mail)- other placcH), in eoHMquence whereof, I ooiiii«l«f lb« •■' 
Socitiian Id be- iitirDflifiK nnd a diabolical rc^villng. This, wtth llwf"'' 
Ibi: Doctor 'a rcflcctiotia, lun) be cunBidcred in thf' aan>« urn** aa ihrA^ 
ivhich Ihi.* diai;o" ^^^t c"' of hit niuutliafterihe woman, tliai bx mtichiai^ 
her to bo swnl lowed up bj the Hood, duriugthe Hmi; thai aho wa«]clMlv 
itiMerneM- Apocalypse, chap. xii. 15. And it nay cumr ta |Mua.lbMAi 
8Uno nbich is mrntlnRed in verso 17, ma; lihewiw lak« place. Ami fc*a 
gm u-D( u'Vuth iii'lA ihr ni>miin, and uvaf Iv makt utir vilk (A« rewaanfl* 
gted, erbo kept the ctimmitndmen\s i/ God, mi Aan Ihi: tfttimony t^Jtw^ no 
That the New Jeruuleoi aigniDes the N>w t'harcb, which is tu b« the ti* 
and the wife of the Lamb, aee ApocalvpM; Revealed, n. B8(>, a8l, and M 
thifl •iame church, andoubtedly, ia coniine, bri;aua« the Lord hLBnclfte 
predicted it iu thv Apocalypse, chup. xxi. uod zuir. vm« likewise TitimHi 
citap. xiv. Tcnea 7, », 9,) and in the liul cbap. of tl»o Apocmlypae, la 
wordg, /, Jent, htw Mitt mine angtt, to ItHf/y aiU* la yait tkrat Iki^ 
the ckurchtt. t MM tht root aiuJ tact tif Dntid^ Ike lirigkt on 
and ibe rpirit aad tht hride My cvmr, aaJ M Mm vho ktmrtttt mmg ci 
Im urAa u tailing rrctirt' Ikt temttr ^ Ifft, /rtttf. 


God was manifested that He might drstrov the works of the 
devil. Thus has the Scrijitun- ductrine httcu 8et aside, in 
order to make way for the i>o|iiUar theories. 

Bishop Hurd, however, in the foltowiiip pBHsaftc,* places 
this xubjcct ill a riglii point of view, when, spcakiug uf tlic 
temptations of the powers of darkness, he olwerves (vol. vii. p. 
280) ; " In a KELiaiut-s riew^ the behef uf this doctrine is uf 
the utmost importance; for the whole scheme of redemption 
is founded upon it. For there/ore Christ eamc iutotlic world, 
and suffered upon the croi>«, that through death, as St. X'aui 
says, He miffkt deMrotj kirn that bad the junecr of drath, that 
ia, M« DEVIL. Heb. ii. 1-4. And, umvcmtWyf for this purpoK 
(I quote the word.s of St, John) the Son of God waa mam' 
fesied, that He might destroy the works of the devil. John 
iii. H. It eouccnis us, theiij infinitely to take heed, lest, by 
denying, or questioning, or explaining away, the existence 
and agency of the eril spirit, we suhvert tlie foundation of 
our faitli, detract from the glory of our Savior's passion, and 
unthfliikfully despise thv ricliea of his gaodaeat m dying forus; 
nay, and le«t we bla<«pheme the Holy (ihust, who was given 
to heip our infinnities (Horn. viit. 26], to strengthen us with 
might in the inner man {Eph. xiv. 16), and therefore to save 
ua &om the power of that spirit, which workelh ia tlu: chiidren 
of Hiso&rdienre. Kph. xi. 2." 

Such we allow to he the doctrine of Scripture upon the 
subject, and such the doctrine of Swcdenborg. But here 
we find no mention of stipulations, treaties, covenants, com- 
pacts, &c., between Father, Son, nnd Uoly Spirit ; no men- 
tion of pacification of wratb, none i>f satisfaction to justiec in 
any popular sense whatever. The process of Atonement is 
regarded as consisting in a subjugation of the powers of dark- 
ness, to which Swt'diMihfirfT adds, acmrdinf; to the Scriptuns, 
the glorification of the humanity. This view of the subject 
therefore is the n«t we proceed to consider. 

' Yet, in oilict ii)w:», h<' m.-«bis to rollow, is h giml wcuun-, Ibr com- 
nooly (ccciti'd doctrine. 


CBU. t. 

The niitiira) and cnnml state of man^ having led him iat* 
K BCrius of mere fitltacicK iu rcgurd to Ood, autl iuto im intbip 
Ignorance of spiritiinl things, ]ia« led luin, conscquentlj, incD 
nil entire igiionuicc of tbe spiritual world ; and beooc anti 
t!ir wuTit of any discoverable councctiuii bcttrecn the utmi 
wurld Hrid the spiritual. It is cerCnin, however, from Saip 
ture, that there is a constant connection maintained betwra 
the dpiritual world and the nuiid of nmn; it is certain. t}is 
the doctrines of the Christian church thcoruticaUy admil tk 
existence of this connection; it is certain, &oro ScripUn. 
that the atonement Mrought hy Christ prodnccd a great eSm 
upon the spirittml world, and, through the medium of tlo^ 
upon the human miud. Now, aocordiug to S^TedL■ubat^ tk 
want of a disocmible relation of the Nacridce of Christ to Ik 
fon;ivoiicas of sin, aa frequently nlhulcd to, reHolts not ait 
from the causes we have Sjiecitiud, but aUu from the omlnn 
of the connecting medium between the two, namciv, tir 
spiritual world; nud, of course, where the rcaj couaectM 
between two things is thus omitted, there cau be no diicom- 
able real eonnection hetvvecn them. 

"It is indeed but vain to conceal the truth from oiinelm^' 
says Bishop Hcbcr (Swtmow, p. 71), " that partly from Ik 
natural disposition of men to confine tlieir vicrtrs within tk 
hmits of the visible world ; p;irtly from disgust nt tfaone 
strous ami abominable follies with wliich priestcraft and fu; 
stitiou have at different times abused tho notioit of 
agency ; and partly perhaps through the arta of Satoa faiinidC^ 
who may expect to cusnare ns with the greater ease vhai 
inflncnco la tinsnspccteil ; the notion of cril spirits baa 
into discredit nnd (hsrcgard with mauywho are /or intUtdJrm 
disfteliefing or dimbeying the yospel, but who might have 
rived from the contemplation of this truth, yet stronger 
to Christian watchfuhiess, and a yet deeper ecnao of their i^ 
pcudancc ou Hiro, who alone can deliver us from the rril oat' 

How deplorably true \» this olwcrvntioii ! VlH 
cause, in conjunction with the foregoing, might h«T« 



Bpicd ; for where the efficacy of the Atonement is ad- 
'Tmitted, thiit rnicacy bfiinj; coiwidfrrd to rcHult from a federal 
trniiiiactiou between Father and Son, from a »atisJactiou to 
divine jiurticc, or from a simple ditine appoiutment, the admis- 
sion of an uitcmtcdiutc world and the influence of ctiI spirits 
upon the son], is irrelevant. The doctrine is accordingly prac- 
tically dispensed with; so that, as we have already oliservud, 
inany writers, in their works on the Atonement, make no more 
mention of it, than as if there were no intermediate world, nor 
ouy evil spirits to exercise their influences. In this they arc 
consistent; it has no connection with their doctrine, which re- 
lates not to the world of spirits, hut to a series of transHCtiuns 
occurring ui tlie super-celestial regions ad intra, between the 
three persona of the Trinity, or simply to some assumed re- 
hitions between their own abstract ideas. 

Lot us then consider the subject of the spiritual world, 
and endeavor to ascertain whether we may derive from it any 
rational views coucemiug the eflicacy of Christ's death. 

In answer to tho question, whether everj' faithful per- 
son, duriug bis life on earth, hatli bis particular guardian 
angel constantly to preside and watch over Mm, Bishop Bull 
observes (Sermons, vol. i. p. 300) : 

"The affinnative hath been a received opinion, and seems 
to be confirmed by some very considerable texts of Stnipture. 

" It is an opinion that bath lieen entertained in fonner 
ages, with a general consent, both among Jews and Chris- 
tians, as hatli been obscn'cd and fully proved by learned men ; 
nay, the very heathens, too, had such a notion among them; 
thougli perhaps thcv went too far in assigning to every man 
his g(KMl genius universally. Tlius Meniuidcr; 'every man, 
as soon as he is bom, hath his geuius to attend and assist him 
as the good guide of his after life.' And Arrianus upon 
Epietctns, speaking of God, smth, ' Ho hath given to even.' 
man hi?i [>cculiar genius, as his keeper or g^la^dian, to whose 
custody he is delivered, and that a watchful guanbau, that 



nuitiot br anv laeaus be withdrawn fruin tlie liuUiral 
churgc of bis oflicc' 

" Tbc care aud tij^ilaace of the aogcls of light is am^k^ 
in a direct opposition to the nuKhicvoua dcsif^n of the povtn 
of darkness. Tliey study to preserve and promote «f(9 tW 
temporal safirt^-, health, and wealth, peace aitd prai[icnn, 
of the faithful. Tliis we mar Icam, n^iun, from the catfrf 
Job ; before God thought fit, by way of trial, to permit ^ 
devil to afflict him, &c. 

" The good ougcla suggest to the faithful good thoq^ 
mid affections, and excite them to good works »nA mt^m 
For as the evil spirits make It their business to inject rti 
tbouglits into the minds of men, and to lay befure them if 
uccnsious of sin ; sOj on the contmr}', wc need uut doubt te 
that the good angels are as sedulous to pnt good notioin i* 
the faithJul, to frustrate the snares of Satau, and to stir tLs 
up to good works. Satan put it into the heart of Jtufarl 
betray hi» Lord aud master (Jului xiii. 27) : Satan filled 
heart of Ananias to lie to the Holy Ghost, and lo 
siicrilcgc (Acta v. 3) : and, in geueml, it is said of the i 
that he is the spirit that workotb in the children of dii 
ence (Eph. ii. 2). Now, liave the evil angcU this puver 
the thoughts of men fur evil, aud shall wc tltiuk that Ac 
good angchi have not as great an intincncc ovcrtbeiol 
good? or have the good angels less will to incline mra< 
goodness, than the e^il angels liave to draw them to widiei- 
ncss 7 Certainly no. 

" Inilccd, the eternal uncreated Spirit of God aloDC, 
Holy Ghost, is the nutliDr of our aimctification ; the 
of the principle of divine life into us; who only is 
overrule our wills, to penetrate the deepest socreta of 
hearts, and to rectify our m^tHtt inward faculticit. But ret i 
good angels may and often do, hn intttrumcnts of the dint 
goodness, powcrftdly operate u)iiin our faiictrs and ii 
tions; aud thereby prompt us to pious thoughts, afleclaR] 



Riitl action*. There is no niaii exercised in the ways of reli- 
gimt hut must hiivr obscnrotl, that ofttitncs on a amhleii, lie 
Ilhows uot how, most vigorous, powerful, aSectiug thought* 
of eternity and the grciit concerns of religion have seized nnd 
jKisBfssi'il his soul; sueh affecting thoughts as, nt other timiw, 
when he cumposL-th aud sct^ liioiseLf to think of those matters, 
lie caanot, without very great difficulty, at all coniinand nnd 
retrieve. He hath obsen'ed also, that sometimes, vheii hiK 
tlionglit3 have heen cnipluyed and huitied nliout quite other 
matters, he hath Kuddeuly hccn called to his prayers, or 
minded and powerfully instigated to some good work to be 
done by him. Fur my ]JHrt, I i|Uciit)on uot but that mucli 
of this is to be attributed to the niiuistry of the holy angeU. 
"When the v\i\ angels more violently assault the faithful 
1>}' their tempta.tious, the good augcls presently step in to 
succor aid and assist them, that they sink not under these 

"Our Savior, a little before bis dcnth, wai in a moat 
dreadful agony; his soul being exceeding sorrowful; Uic 
Anguish of his mind ovcrtlowing the channels of his body, 
and causing Ilim to sweat great dropsi of blood. (Mark xir. 
S'l; Luke xxii. 44). There is little reason to doubt, but 
that Satan had some Itand in this \ti»t anguish of our Savior. 
For we must not think that the denl, after he had tcmptctl 
our Lford in the wUderuess, so left Uim as uever to rcturu 
again to trouble Him more. Nay, St. Luke expressly ob- 
viates this eoneeit, when he tells us the de^Hl then departed 
from Him for a Beaaon. (Tjuke iv. 13). If he then only de- 
* iMirted frnm Him for il seaaonj we may be sure that this wan 
" uot his last a»»ault upon our SaWor. He set upon Him again 
■ afterwards ; but especially and in the niuat pressing manner, 
' fu is most probable, in his last agony in the garden. But 
^beliold then, there appeared an angel unto Him from heaven 
Bstivngthening Him; aa St. Tjukc asanrca us, chap. xxii. 43." 
H Bishop Heber ubscncs (Sermong, p. 97) : 


rair. t 

" When vo acknowlodi^E the Dtoobcr and pcnrcr o( iW 
trmpUrg to tpkont the name <if StAtm i» applied, ham Anoir 
anil awfiil a prospect of things is opened to our mental nn ' 
How poptUutu, how vita] is the world f Bt what a 6aaA 4 
iritncucs arc onr most secret actions obaervcd ! and oar mm 
lonely hoim begirt by bow manr tutseen campanioiu f Xtf 
a thought pMBe> orer our mindji which may not be pranfUt 
hj Mine unseen Bilnscr ; not a breeze fnn<i ottr cheek, bnl Jl 
may bring Home airy lisitant. Mnuy of these uu doabl uc 
r»itlifiil scrriuits of God, and fetlow-aervanta nf tbov «li< 
■mm the tmtininny of Jntuii ; but liow many iw tbcrc ibo. 
who hover rotinci to work onr nun ; and who cxiilt with Mik- 
ova joy, over crery crime which wc commit, and eruy wa^- 
fortuiic wliich befal» us." 

Now na evil thonghts and affections are produced brcnl 
»pirit»j so to removo the eaune of this e*-il, ia to rcmoTr tk 
evil spirits themselves. Here then, we bnre a key to tLcn^ 
ncction of the Kacrittrc of Ctirist with the rcmtsakin of •■■; 
fbr tlic remission of sins is only the sending away of mbi; 
and sins itrr sinfiit thonghts and affections which are csddri 
by ev'il spirits, and wliich Houietiuies come out into ultnii* 
act ; honcc remission of sin implies the remisaion or waHa^ 
nwuy of these cnl spirits. 

What testimony, then, hai'C wc fix>m Scripture and Km 
the clinrch, that the sacritice of Christ has l>ocn eflficacMOiB 
sending away these evil spirits 7 Let us consider the solgcil 

" Put on," nays the apostle, "the whole armor at OA 
that yo may be able to stand ngaiust the wiles of liw dcri< 
for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, hut a^gainat |a» 
cipalitins against powers, against the mlera of the daricDM 
of this world, agnintct spintnal wiokrdneaa in hi^h place*-** 

On this subject llishop llcbcr obscn-es fSermomtf p. B^; 

" It is plain, thcrefbre» that the cMany witli wliiMe vib 
ttc have to contend b the same with those who ai« «p«li9 ^ 
mder the seiernl njunea of principalities, powers ami mien : 



atid tlmt those several niitJt^iit»tH »rc included under th<; 
same term of the devil ; cither because devU is ngtmeric name 
whieh npplies to their leAoi^ naiitiiudt, or because tlieac |inn- 
ciimliticii and powers urc the subjects niid soldiers of one 
powerfid aiid nijdicious beiufi to whom the name of devil is 
pecidiarly, and by way of eminence, awi^cd ; who lava M-ait 
by their iigeucy for the souls of men ; and who directs and 
stiroulfitcs their craft and violence, in the manner most likely 
to destroy and injure us. 

" By which of these suppositions we explain the words of 
St. Paul, is a matter of indifference; the consrqncncea dcdn- 
cible from either ore m vSX their benriupi the same; and 
cither is consistent with the apjdicntiou of this particulnr 
pRS<m{;e, htkI with the general terms of the gosiwl. Tt is cer- 
tain that the term dtrvU or wicked one is ofleu api)lie<1 tnc/n«rtWi/ 
and gnuvally to very many bcinga, who are represented n.s in 
perpetuiU hostility' with Uod and good men; and it is also 
certain tlmt thcjie heitijjs nrc de!*cribed as nndcr the govom- 
tncnt of one particular ]irince, whose an^eJa they are, mid 
with whom they are liercaftcr to he punished everlastingly." 

In a note on this {lassap; the same prolate ailds, fnnn 
GrotiuSj on Mutt. xii. "ZCy, &c. Sx. : 

" Satanas videtur tnifn hoc loco diei tola umverritas malomm 
tjnrituum, iptomodo humo pro gvnerc humano, tmt ita/ura hn- 
mana. Xun enim sohu j>rincep9 si'trituum, red crmnen iiupuri 
gpirilua eo ju/mine Cfngrnltir" He then snys, " In conformity 
iritii this interpretation St. Chrysostom observes, that Christ 
did not use n plural term when speakino; of the devils on 
the above oecasiou ; but called them under one name, Sntaa, 
to express the union which subsists among them ; 'he callcth 
them not (plurally) devils, tltcrcby shewing the {;rent con> 
conlance among t)iem.' Archbishop Sharpe observes in Ids 
Sermons (v. pp. 3, 72) ■ IVlten we are gpeaking of the devil, iw 
are not to understand any one parlicidar being,* or any one par* 

' ThaenstniD at rrgirdlng the nunc SkUa, waignifying oaljr an IndiTidua) 
•pitil poMeMtd of great power ■«(! eteirwben oppwctl to Christ, hu led 




tictilar et'U spirit, hut the irhole agtfregatf nr eompaaif qf 
spirits niiicl) inhabit round al>uiit us in the lower rcfnooaoldv 
air. All these ar^ in the Scripture lauguage and id cohuik 
speech, CAllcd by the name of the devil. That nercrthclca thnp 
is one person peculiarly aiid by \rny of cmiiieitco thiu oUet, 
as the gcaeral of u hostile iirmr if called tlie uucmy, b pbn 
from Matt- ixv. 41 ; Rev. itii. 9. Inter impuros spiriha wtm 
eue qui prtetideai, if .hidttorum ^ Apogtolorum scripU m 
docenl" Or&Hus on Matthew xii. 24. 

Parkhurst in Im Greek T^xicou also obscnrvea on the«vi 
Satan, it ii used as a collective word for reii tjnrUs or drdb. 
ill Matt. xii. ^6; Mark iii. 23. 26; Luke xi. 18. Hr ilu 
wtyM under the article Uisbolus, that it is used fur esU rfHrii 
itt general. Acts x. 38. 

The KUine uhscn'ntion is made by Scbleusner. 

Ajzain, St. Paul $»}'» (Col. ii. lli): Having ipoiietl fww 
cipalities and powers, he made a ghew qf them, opemijf trwmf^ 
iiiff over them in it. 

On which Whitby obscrvea: "The principalittea tai 
powers here mentioned, are the jiowera of wickcdncM, tii 
spirits of Satan who is styled the power of darkucn (lJii» 
xxii. 53) and of the air (Ephes. ii. *Z), the prince of ibi 
world CJohn xii. 31 ; xiv. 30} ; whose emusarics arc tb 
priueipnlitics and powers, the rulers of the ctarkneM of te 
world ; the Hpiritual wickednestics in high places, afVMt 
which we wrestle (Kphes. vi. 12). Theae pdwcrs ChriH d^ 
stroyed by bis cross ; because, as the apostle aaith, Tkmfi 

uanylouByBtcnitiDtfitrfrDmManichveiftii. The Manic lin^s, liuwdlkBMit 
cnnrc^ivril Ibf.te were two pririrt|>Ici timn whicli the uniwrae uriyiMatHl; v 
evil, UDtl iL good priuciplr. Tbta doctrine itf Uic MuDicb«fM fcrandtbwif 
inlo thL- cliurcli, aud vru alrcnuuuslf npposetl b; home of llip rarij wriM*- 
BdI. vihcn WD cuDsitlcr tbe wuy id which llic power of Chri*! ■■ imiliM 
ba* b«ra dvprecUUil, tad Ihnl uf Satan »t the •utlmr uf cr*il bu yn 
cxaltrd, we •<:« i>aly u tcndL-iicy lt> iiiiiblith aa equkiiolleacy beiim* 
two, yierj iiLUL'h ill ihc uinii: nuinocr ■■ diil thi- TtlanicbcatB betwtvB Ibr 
Bite prisciplca vf Kvi^il nod evil. iDdced, lbs niiuie Saum Im b 
generally uM-d tu imply onljr an inditidtml ipirit, Uiot (be tfarfrf ^^ 
bas been oflen ultugeiher lost tight of. 




tieaih He deatroyed htm that had the. power of d^th, that 
is, the devil ; and delivered them who, Uirmigh fear ({f death, 
were all thdr Uvta ntbject to bondage. Ilcb. ii. 14, 15. Morc- 
uver, the heatlicns lay luider two f^rcat infelicities. First, 
that they were aliena from the commouwcalth uf Ismcl, 
and stranpiM fr(mi the wivcnnnt of pnimisc, and without 
God in the world. The remedy whieh divine wisdom found 
out, iind our Lord's sali>tari»- passion effected with roipoct 
to Uus, in illncoursed of by the apustlo in the preecdiiig 
verse. Secondly, that they were suhjcct to the power and 
doIiLiions uf evil aud npostatti spirits ; walking according 
to the prittce of the power of the air; the spirit that uow 
workcth in the children of disobedience. These principaUtieB 
and powers Christ despoiled on the cross," &:c. 

Let us then here remark upon the subject of good and 
evil spirits ; for, Iwforc wc can venture to connect it with 
tlie great doctrine of the Atonement, it is ahBulutcly requisite 
that it shoiLld be puriiied from wlint itishop Hcber denomi- 
nates those mofuiirotuf fotliej with which it has Itecn loaded b^ 
superatition and ignorance. It will be seen that both Whitby, 
ilclwr, and Archbishop Sharpc, adopt the idea of the place 
of dcviU, in this lower world, being the air. Bishop Pearson 
does the same, snying gf Satan, that liis " dominion 
cth no higher than the air." Creed, vol. i. art. 2, Only 
The Fathers and other eminent members of the Chris- 
ttau church advtjcated similar \-iew». It w. said by the autlior 
of the Treatise oii the lucaruatioti of the Word found among 
the works of Athauaaius, that Clirist purified the air of dctils, 
ib^ bcijig Lifted up iuto the sir nt his crucifixion ; that tliis was 
reason why He died on the cross; as it was that manner 
of dyiug in which lie was enabled to stretch out lus arms, 
and so destroy the powers of darkness tliat lodged there.* 

* Soull observe*, in his norka iipoa Ibb •uhjcct (vol. iii. p. WA): 

[■■ Si. Psiit Mjs of Uiu rigklGaM, tliai nfler ihoir beian raised »r chsnimJ. 

•hall be fuglU Uf i* tkt ckmd; tm mrtl tkr Ltr^ » Itte uir; Nbieh 





Whithy saytt, in hut Annotation on Bphf!■iHlll^ 
verec 2 : "It was the opinion both of Jew* and 
that the nir was full of spirits called demons ; as Diopaa 
saith in the life of Pytliagorav. And the Jews in the M 
Avoth teach, that, from the earth to the finnamcnt, all tfca{» 
vcrc ftiU of these companiea and rulers ; aud t hat then: n 
a prince over them, who was called the governor of tW 
world, tliat iii, of the darkness of it/' 

ii s plain arnumrnl that the lA>ri will »( in judgment oa tkra ta At 
KIT, «ince Lbilher Xbvy wiU be cangkt up to Him aflirr Uirjr aivrmtflrdat 
judKnl. TliUE ill Itiftt Tcr; aii, vrliich it bu*t tbc aval of thtt drvil** NfK 
aba)] Chri*( fix hia thrune, tu DianifMl to kll the world the coaaaanBlMi 
his riclory u?rr (hr powrrs of darkiiew. 'Piirre shall He sU la in}^ ^ 
UtoTj, nli-rre niii* iFie deri) niid bi» anKcU rvigo, and in tl>vpabtic< 
the world itliftll cTCfl in ihcir oira domloivD apotJ th»tf bcllUh 
iriuf }jait<rrs, anil lia«Iu|; tlutinLM then at his chariol wb««U, 
iM^m ofeulif, triumphing vnr Hum: titcn, wtierv tbv^ ouw thiMUiatr all 
tjraiiDize over llii* wrclrliril world, »hall Hf art hia fwl uponlWnanU 
nnd from Ihencp Bhnll Ho tread them down tnio crcrliistla^ daikoru mii' 
■pair. Tliux, IIihI Hi- inny expose btnuplf In the more public *»■, «< 
the devil to tlit' mnru public tbamc and coofution, hn will cfcooac ta I 
KenHTai uia'tte* iu Ibi' air. BcJug Ihrrefore arritetl inlu tJM airf nv) 
ndor a Iuhk and Riorioti* proitrew fron the hlchmt hfrarpo, tbmtHfi 
ail difwu upon tlie lAmiH if hi* Klory, (aa aome Ibjnli ) iiif r maJMl 1 
Olivrt, the plitcc fmmwtirncp He aaeendrd, trhithcr all pn»pl«, 
aad langnagea shall h« gathered before Him to reoefw llniir 

Artording tua recent ptibljoalloti, SI. Cbrjitoatom abaervrt, "Ihal^ * 
Lord bninp iiuiipcnd«il in the air, and Dot ttndcf a roof, the v^rj ■alwt'^ll' 
ajrwaaclpanwd ; in likfl manner aa by the blood droppioit fronhiilklr^ 
earth dertved a >liiiilar blntiDR. la another place Ht. Chryacotta m^ 
' by ilf in); iu the nir Mr f^tpialra tlir air fi»in evil apirita, mkI pfvpa'**'' 
tia an aacvol lo lii-aven.' And St. Athanailus lo like nanoer nwat^itte 
cmr lionl'a tmlTr-ring nlitft in thn air, i*n> there alao hia * piinn>KlW ' 
•erpi'Dt, ilmt fram tli(<nrfl alao He might drive him who had tlw p«««f W ^ 
air, nnd cait down HpiriUial wickedneaaea ia hi^ pl»cea. Hav M ^ 
omit lo heal lh« i-arUi also. For, byhaa^iogoa the cniaa, H<:cl«HHa4M' 
air bj tliuexiiaiinjaa of hi* hand*; and rederaml the carlh by iktwttm^ 
blood of hia tide, by which it was washed.* WtUi^m* •■ IV 




It is lamentable that these childish vlnwit iihDiihl he. 
ndoptfrd, even in the present day, iiistcad of the truly rutiguiU 
find idiilo!to|]liica] \ievfs of Swedcnbor^, who shows how the 

|«(ml of man is the only field of their opemtiou^ atid that 
trhen the devil is called the prince of the power of the air, 
anil St. Paul says, that wo Bhall be caii^^ht up to meet the 
Lord in the air, by tliesc cxprcssious ttt not meant the atmos- 
phere siirroundjug our eartii, but that clement of wliich St. 
John speaks in the Kevelations, and which belonged to 
the siiirituaJ world. Tims, Hcv. ix. 2, it is Anid, T/iere 
arose a ajmke oui of UwjAi, aji the sutoke qf a. great ftimare i 
and the sim and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke 
qf thejnL Again, Rev. xvi. 17, And the senenth angel povred 
out his vial into the mo,. 

Burton, in "iiii Anatomy of MelanrJtoiy (vol. i. p. 64), speak- 
ing of t)ic nature of spirit^), refers to certain writers who in- 
clude the whole region between the phineta and fixed stars as 
tJie abode of spirits. " According to these persons," saj-s he, 
" the uimibcr of ethereal spirits miist needs be infinite ; for if 
that be true that some of our mathematicians nay, that if a 
■tone could fall from the starrj- heaven, or eighth sphere, and 
■houldpass every hour a hundred miles, it would be siity-five 
years, or more, before it could come to ground, by reason of 
the great distance of heaven frum earth ; which contains, as 
some say, one Imndrcd and seventy miUious ci^ht hundred 
and three miles, — (besides those other heavens, whether tbey 
be crystalline or watery, wlucli ^lagiuus adds, wliich perad- 
»cnture hold as much more), — ^how many such spirits may it 
contain !" 

Of the same nature arc the ideas of those who imagine 
heaTcu, as the aliode of angels, to be alKive the sun. Thus 
lop Bull obscn'es (vol. i. p. 269) : " The starry heaven 
but the pavement of a heaven above it, the supreme or 
liighcst heaven ; which is by the consent of nations, the place 

[uf the iVlmighty's most especial presence ; all men, by a kind 




coftr. T.i 

of iintiiml iuBlinRt, with rainAs, cjes, and liandf, lifted 
iliitx'ting tbitlier their yrayers to God." 

Thus we have the regioiu beyond the ana, the abode U 
nngclB ; iiud Miv atmosphere arouud tliis earth, the abod« of 
ticvils, wliosie V.iii<;d<>iii docs not extend liighcr tlkan the air; 
and Kuch is tlio phituHaphj wliich is tnu^Ut iu preference to 
tlie views of SwedculwrgI No wonder tliat siich notiom 
should tend to bring, with many, the whole doctrine of » 
ijpirituu) world into ilisrepute ; that many should object tu 
mt\ up siudi piimlt* siipurstitions* trith the ^rcat trutlw tf 
tlic Atonement, and fio prevent it, as far as possible, bm 
rallin;;, on this account, into discredit. Can it be, 
when Hii<ho|i Itult coti-sidured the regions of heaven to 
placed above Uic sun, and spoke of lilliug up tluther 
minda and onr hands, be could conceive that the mind 
be moved like the hand from place to place, and so be, ia 
relation to tlie auii ur the h(^TCn above it, in a higha or 
h>wnr locality ? Wcli might Bishop Hchcr idlinn, that ti* 
ilisrepute into which the doctrine of the existeuoe of ml 
spirits hml falkii, wjih pnrtly owing to the absurd nolionit 
the positive superstitious, which liud prevailed U(khl the sab- 
jcct. But we Bce, upon the authority' of Seripturc, and tk 
testimony of the church, that the doctrine of the inflnmf 
of evil spirits \» nevertlieless immcdiutely cotinectcd with thai 
of the Atonement ; we see that, while tliis doctrine has &Ua 
into disrepute, miother has been substituted iu ita pfan; 
upon which the church has Iwen divided against itadf, anJ 
which has in its ttini been rejected by a cousidrrable partial 
of the orthodox, who, nevertheless, having rejected it, W 
themsclvcA witlioul any explanation of tho Atonement, viU- 
out any connectiiif; links of cause and effect, hanng notkiMf 

* S«c utao Blair's Sennaos, vol. i. Ser. v, Si-olt'a Work*, tol,A.r 
M9. Harria'a Orrat T«actii<r, »w. *., im SuUaic Agency. II Itk f*^*^ 
lo iho alleuea full of ihc oagels, the reodcT u rcCermi to Ur. TMk'i 
Appr«l. Thc^ lubjtcl haviit!; Ibotw bwo Ircftled of, it ia for lU* 
oralilrd Dii thi^ prexMit uccuiua. 

rHAr. V. strHJCOATinN of the ikfrrval powers. 


wlicrewith to supply its plncc ; so tlmt when they speak of the 
Atoiicmeut, to use their own words, " lltey hurdUj know what 
they ttpeak of;" the doctrine beiiiK iiimoHt imiutrllif'ilile, ex- 
tending into au uiikuowu world, since, (as Mr. Ludlaiu say«, 
p. 73,) " it mny respect and prubably doct rented a» vnjneiuii- 
tmhuntm pari nf hia fforerrinu-nt." 

This wc 8Ay in the position iu which the Christiau cbuKh 
find* itHcIl'; that, iii consequence of the fthnnrtl theories prtv 
vailiug iu regard to the nature of the spiritual world, or c»f 
confessed ignorance of the subject, the great doctrine of the 
efficacy of the Atoticnieiit linn cunie to he hu darkenefl ua tu 
be to ninny nnintcDigihlc, and hence to be all but rejected 
by Butnc, and wholly rqected by others. Let us tliuri proceed 
to unfold tlie views of Swedeuburj; upou this subject ; iu 
doing which, we shall avail ourselves of the testimony of the 
church, 08 far OS it goes. 

Accordiiifi; then to Swcflenborp, there li a *pmhifll world, 
and a natural. Tlio natural world Hul>Mit>t.s liy influx frruu 
the tipiritual. The spiritual world is to the natural, la tlio 
Bonl is to the body; nnd the uiHux of the s])iritnal world into 
the natur.d, is like the inllux of the spirit into the body. 
Tlie spirit is nu orgfanic substance corresponding to that of 
the body; the spiritu&l world is composed of organic sub- 
ea, corresponding to the different objects of the natuml 
arid. Kverythiiifi in the nntural world subsists by infliLX 
finni the spiritua-1 substance corresponding to it iu the spi- 
ritual world. Destroy the spiritual world, and the natnml 
world is destroyed, (^luuigc itn state or cuudiLiuu, lunl in 
whatever respect the change is superinduced, a corresponding 
change will be superiuduccul upon the uaturnl. For the na- 
tural world is the effect, the spiritnid world the cause ; and 
■whatever changes or raoditications t^ke place iu the cause, 
similar will tike place iu the ftfect. 

With i^eganl tu the influx out uf the spirituid wurld inlo 
' mhu, the cane in general is this : 



cnut, u 

Arcana Cvtettia .- art. 5ft4fi, " Mnn cnnnat think mt. 
thing, or will anything, from himself. Kverki.liinjf vhidi he 
thinks and wills, flows into him from the spirituftl wocU. 
Good, imd truth from the Lord throuf^li heaven, thus throufA 
the unguis who htc attendant on man, aud tliiii into mM'i 
thought and wiU. 

"5817. There is not any man, spirit, or angel, who, in 
any case, hath life from himself, thus neither can he think 
and will from himself; for mmi'<i Hfn consista in thinkiog 
and willing ; speaking and acting being the life tfana 
derived. For there is only one life, and that one life ii t^ 
Lonrs, whidi flows by influx into all; but is variooslv 
received, according to tlic qiialitj- which, by his life, man 
hath induced on his soul. Hence, with tin? evil, goods and 
truths arc turned into evils and falsca ; whereas, with the 
good, they are received, goods as goods, and tnitlia an 
Tliis circumataiice will admit of cnmpariaon Mriih the 
wlitch flows-iu from the sun into objects, and whicli is 
diversely modified, and variegated, according to tLe fono 
the parts ; and is thence turned into colors, either dismal or 
chccrfiil. . . . Man, during his life in the world, indoccs t 
form in the most piu-e suhntanccs of his interiors ; Mtlurt, 
it may bo said, that he forms his own soul, that is, tti 
quality; and according to that form, the Lord's lib » 
received, which is tho lifo of his love toward the univcnd 
human race. 

" 5849. Man, without comronnication with heaven wed 
luiU, would uot be able to Uve even a moment ; if those cmn- 
jnmiications were away, he would fall down dead aa a slodt; 
for, in snch ease, would be taken away his conncctian villi 
the first ejf.«f, that is, with the Lord. 

" Angels lead man by his affcctiona ; derils rule man ir 
his lusts. 

" 3886. The case with man as to his affections and m t* 
his thoughts, is this; no pcrsou whatsoever, whether man,* 




spirit, or angel, can vUl mid thiuk from himaclf, littt ouly &Dm 
othcn ; nor can these others will and thiiik from themselves, 
but nil ugaiu from others, and bo forth ; and thus uiich (wm 
the fint source or priuciplc of life, wliich ia the Lord ; thnt 
which is unconnected doth not exist; evil and foL^c priucijilea 
have counectiou witli the hells, whence comes the i»ower of 
willing and thinking with those who are in tho«c princiiilc--), 
aud also tlicir lore, atfuctioii, and delight, consequently their 
freedom; but goodnesses ftud truths have connection with 
heaven, whence comcii the power of willing and thinking with 
those vlio are principled therein, and also their love, nffec- 
tton, aud delight, oon«cquently their freedom ; hence it may 
appear what is tlie Kouree of the one freedom and of the 
other: that this in the real case, is perfectly well known in 
tlic other life, but at this day it is aiioffeifier nnhiowH in Ihe 

" 2887. There arc coatinually attendant on man evil 
spirits, and also angels ; by spirits he Imtb communication 
witb the hells, aud liy angels with the heavens ; if these 
spirits and angels were to bo removed from him, he would be 
iu an instant without the power of willing and thinking, con- 
sequently without life : that this is the caso, may possibly 
appear a punulox, but nevertheless it is most true, &c. 

"2890. Wieked spirits wlio arc attendant on man, and 
wliereby be bath communication with bell, eoiuidcr liim no 
otherwise than as a rile slave, for they inftisc into him their 
own lusts uiul ]KTHiuuiious, aud thtu letid Idm wliithcrsoever 
they desire : but the angels by whom man liath ammiuuica- 
tioti with heaven, consider him as a bratlier, and insinuate 
into liim the aiTections of good luid of truth, and thus lead 
hira by freedom, not whitlier they desire, but whither it 
pleases the Lord : hence may appear what is the nature aud 
quality of the one leading and of the other; and that to he led 
by the devil is alaver\', but to be led by the Lord is freethmi. 

"Spirits who enter into the very affections thcmselvc*. 




possess oDoth^. A man thus possessed by, and Iratind to. 
diabolical apirit9, cnimot in any wiae be loosed thcni^^, 
by divine nicRna from the Lord. 

" 6203. In rcifard to the origin of the inflnx of evil 
hell, the co&c is this; vhcn n mai], first from consent, 
from purpose, lastly from delight of affection, ca«t«th him- 
self into evil, instantly a hetl is c^ned which is in mA 
c\nl, (for neconliiig to evils mid all their nineties, the hdb 
are distinct one amongst another,) and presently there ii 
from that bell also an influx ; when a m&u thus eumes into 
evil, it inheres ; for the hell, in the sphere of which he Urn 
is, is in its very delight when in its cvU • wherefore it don 
not desist, but obstinatuly pnrsscs in, and causca man to 
think about that e\-il, at first occasionally, and nftenranls a» 
often as anything presents itself which is related to it, and 
at length it becomes with him the univcnially reigning prin- 
ciple. "When this is the case, he then seeks out such argn- 
ments as prove it not to be an ctiI, and thi.s until lie 
absolutely perauadcs kimseli' that it is not an eiil; and then, 
as far as he is able, he studies to get qnit of external bonib, 
and makes evils iiUowable and iugeiiious, and, at length, em 
creditable and honorable; such as adulteries, thefU by sit 
and deceit, various sorts of lu-rogance and boasting, contempt 
of others, impeachment of the reputation of others, persecu- 
tion under an nppearanre of justice, and the like. The eair 
with these evils is like that of open theft, which, when a mm 
hath purposely committed twice or thrice, he cannot aftw- 
wards desist from, for It continually iuherca in his thought.'* 

Where tlic affections of good arc strong, there \m a 
more general communication with the tuigclic stxncties who 
tav in those affections. Wlivrc the lusts of evil are stroof, 
there is a more general communication with the diabofiral 
spirits who are in those hists. 

Man lives from communication with angcU and dcrih 
as to his affections. Hence, if his affections he good, bcii 




united to anfTcls, as to those who are one urith his life ; if his 
atTcctioiu be evil, he ii united to devils, W to those who arc 
one with liis life. 

Hence the union of the wicked with diabolical societies, 
is by affections, or rather lusts, which constitntc the life. 
Scparatiuu from those societies, is to the man torracut and 
death ; aud is as dithcult as the destruction of a Inst. VkHien 
the Lord had come into the world, the life of rami was, in 
gcucral, the life of infernal sjiirits, who were so completely one 
with the spirit of man, that, in some instances, they began to 
take poasessiun of the body.* Mau bad ucarly lost the exercise 

' The ftsi* of lh« world la Ihas d^^scribcd by Mncbcim (vol. i. oh. 1. 11) : 

"All lliwe nativn* lived in llie |>tiu;tk« or tlie micisI abnmiDitlilr »iiprr. 
StltiABi; for, tbounh Ihc nulinn of one Sitinf-nif Kt-ing wftS not cntirvlj 
rlf>ccd in |L« linDaii mind, but ebewc^ Itself fr«qu«DtIy vven iLrouKb tlie 
dnrbneuor lh« grovspftt idolalry, jet nil naLioai, t-xci-pi (bal of Lh<! Jc\tc, 
ackaowledgnl n numljffr uf gnvrmin^ powers, whuiu tliry called giHli, and 
uoe or mure nf tvbicb tbpy fiiippciaEd lo proaldn orcr eac b particular prorioce 
or pi»ple. Tlipy urnisliippi'd (lif>«e Actitluus delUes with, varioni ritcii ; lh«^y 
COOSidcTrd tlicm lu widely iliircrtai from Mch ttthn in iti^s and povrar, in 
Uicit oatutt!, and ul»u in thvlr n'uppcliva olUcei ; and Ihry sppraMtd ibem 
by > multiplicity of ci'remouifs&nd olferiQ):*, in nrticr lit obtain their pro- 
trclioD and fuior ; «u. llint, hinrcvrr dilTirrpnl llict drnr(fji of t^Diimiily iiitKiii 
be wllb wbkli tliii nbsurd aad Impious theolof^y ajipeart^ in dilTi^ntnt 
coanlriet, yel tber« was no tiiiliun whuM- Mtcrml ntv» And rcliiiwu* wurkliip 
did Boi discflvor a inauifcst atiiisc of icasua, and icry slriking marks of 
ritntvat^Dce and folly. 

"Tbi^ dcilics of almost all nntions were t-ilber aaciiQl bcroM, rcnownrd 
for noble exploit* itnd btncfin-nl deeds, or kinpt and i;enenili who hud 
fonnded empires, or ifomrn rendered illuslriuua by reniarkable aelioDS or 
UMful inTentions. Tlie merit of theKO dUliiii;ui>L«(t aitd euiineal penvns, 
roBteraplated by ibeir posterity with an cntboaiiulK gratitude, wiu tb« 
masun of thi^ir being exalted to celewUnl bopors. Tbu natural irurld fui- 
nished anoltior kind of deities, wbo were added 10 Ibcse by some nations ; 
and as the aun, mooo, aud stan, eb)D« fortb nith a luitr« superior to Ibal 
of all other material bcingps, ao it ta certain Ibal tbey jtailicularly attracted 
th« atlentton of mankind, and received religious bomage from almosl all 
the nations of the world. Fnim thene bcioKS of a nobler kind, Idolairy 
drac^ndcd into an eoormous multiplication of Infvrior powers ; so tital (In 

ly ca*nlrie«)mounialB8, Ireeji, ud riven, —I he Nutb, the Ma, and the 




emit, V. 


of the will, and hogan to be so far ruled by Insta, that ill 
tiaiuntanf power wan oti the [loiiit i>f crawing ; for by rcasoB of 
inlicritcd aud actual evil, the haman mind in ^iieral had 
become so dc^^neratc, an to hare ceased to roceive any kngcr 

winds,— and ctcd virluet, vicen, nod diwa»es, Uul tbeir ahrues, aneaM 
bjr drvtnit aiid zculoua worshipcra. 

" Tb«6« dciliet wore hvovred niUi riles and McriCc«* of varwu kiaib, 
arcordinj; to tlicir rupectire aa[ur« tind oKJcv*. Tbc rUea used is Uuit 
wursliip were abvurd and ridiculous, and ftcqucntlj cra«l ftod obwcw. 
Mu«t EiHliuna ufl'(.Ti--i) duitnfila. anil *uniL- |>r(>cc«d«d tu tbv couraiilj ot li 
Bacrllkn. A* to llioir prnjcn, tbcy were void of pielj and »c*m; 
with reipecl to tbeir mkllrr and Uiffir farm. PontilG*, prt«3t>, and 
distributvd into >L<vcral i:lai»£t.->, prrsidrd io this •tmiK<' wtmbip, and wtn 
HppuiutL-d to pTcviMit diM>rder ia the pcrfunnanct of Ibe savrMl vtU* ; bat. 
prclvndiDK lu bv di>tii)Bui»hcd b; iin itiiiBcdiatc iDli^rcvntaeand friaaMip 
witb tli« guds, Ihcy nbutcd th(!tT aulboriljr in Ibe baaeai nauiMr, Io 
an iiinaraal and vrretchtd priiplc 

" Vwom tliL- tthula uf tli« pagaa ntM, the iDlellii^Dl f«w mifU 
learn, tbut tlic divinitio Ki-uvralty wonhippeil were rather a«B 
their vieca, tliau dwtiiiKuishiril by virtaMii aad viorttty deeda. . . . TV 
godi aod godiltiMCD, tn whom public homaRO was paid, cahibitadlailuif 
fforabipera rather esamplea of Cgreglwiii crtuMS, than at uwfnl aad Bit*- 
Iriouit virtu«t. Tbe tcod*. Biifrcurer, irere citeriiied ■ a pari w to aaa !■ 
puw(!raDd iinniurlalily ; bul, iu e<r<rrytbiag «)»t!, lli«]r wvro cunudmrf •* 
their aquali. Tlie prieila wrro Littio traliriloaB u> aalnaie ibr pcirpk ta« 
virtuou* conduct, rithtr by Ihcir precepts or Ihrir exaiaple. Tbvy pJalal} 
eoftugb declared, that wbatcTer wae csMBtial to the true woraklpaflW 
gods was vnntninnl nnlj in tlin rite* and inRtilutions wbicb tba paoplvhal 
recelred by tnidltioQ h<»u ilieir aacestvre. Aad, as to what re^idad tW 
rewards of *irtiin mid tb« piiniiliinrut of viccMflcr tbe pfcveiil lirp, (b« Ewar 
ral nolioni were partly uncertain, partly licuatioo*, aiid often awrr olca- 
lalrd to lutministrT indiilgnnce to «ir«, tban nncourageatrnl to rtrlac- Utttt 
the wiser part of mankiDd, aboat the tltn« of Christ's birth, lookail iif« 
lhi> whcili^ iiynlrm of n^lij^iou a* a juit »bjr«l of ridicule and i imliiapt " 

With regard to Uiq Jiiwa, It u obaorrvd, *' Tbc leadera uf iho pMfklvl 
the chi«f piii^vla -neic, accitrdinK to tbo uccount uf Juwpboa, pTndipw 
itrclclicB, who bad purchuacd their place bj bribe* vr by acts of iaJgiiQ ', 
wliu tuainlained their ill>BC(|uired nulhority by tbe moat fla^ittWM' aal 
abomiDable criincH. The Bubonliiiate itnd inferior iat;nilM;ra were tafko^ 
with tfac! currupliun uf tl>c bead i llie pricsta and Iboat who poaaMMda^ 
•badow of authority, wrrc diMolutc and ulHindvavd In tbc bifheat dfip««. 
while tbe pMple, scdured by thcar ronupt cxaiaplee, nu> h««dlMf W 



iuHiix from aiigels. Tlie life of mnu beiug time derivocl from 
hell, earth itself was on tiic point of bccomiut; n hell ; even as 
the spiritual wurtd, in wiiich is the spirit of man, had itlrcady 
become the poaseMion of evil apirits. Indeed, the description 
of the state both of the spiritual nnd natural world, may bo 
^vctt iu the language of one, who nevertheless seems to be an 
uflvocate aUsn, in Home raciisure, of the commonly received 
doctnncs. Speakiu|; of the jiowcrs of darkue^, he obeervea : 
" The work] appeared to be &$ completely theirs, to por- 
tion out and rule at pleasure, sa if they held it by (p'ant aiul 
seal from God himself, aud were appointed to reign in liid 
name. Nor did Judea itat^lf form an exception to this wide 
iufcrual Rway ; for (xhort uf foniuil idolatry) it belonged to 
the universal coufcderacx', aud formed ouc of the fairest aud 
most faithful provinces of the satanic empire. And, as if to 
exact B terrible compensation, eren for this sUght nominal 
deduction from fiill alJ<'gianct', many of it* iuhnbitauts were 
held B8 hostages to hell by a terrible system of demoniacal 
possessiou. Satan had become 'tlie prince of thin world/ 
Wherever he looked, the expanse was his own ; the teeming 

> tort of jniquitjr, itod, by thr-ir rndlcsa ac-iIitioRF, rohbRrin, and cslor- 
Uons, anD«d aji&iiiil ibeto bi>L1i itii^ justiire uf Ooil, &nil llic vengeance of men. 
** It is nnneccuanr lo pmieul nay pkiure uf llie pru«eriji1al byfoerlsy of 
the I'hurisMS, or iollilclily of the Snrlclocm, or with (Lc niinfrablc manner 
in wtij«li tli« vrvnl of Vini wns m&de vf none effect ; eufGce il lo say, ibat, 
while iuch darltnrss, aucb error* and diueoaioim, prevailed aama^ ihoMi 
wbo aacomed ibe cltiuarler and ntittiurity uf prnioai dittiui(uisbcd by Ihoir 
MpartOTMiKlity nnd vriwloni, it will not bo difficult lo imagine, bow lutnlly 
corrupt the religion and muuls »f tbr multitude inuit have been. Thry 
were, accordingly, sank tn the moat deplorable Ignnraoce of flod and of 
divinti Ihingi, and had no notioD of any other way of reodeiiDg tbenuolret 
acceptablo lu the Supreme Bclnj^, than by ucriflcca, abluUoos, and the 
other extenuti ceremoniim uf Ibc Moaair law. Ilrnco procnecird that latity 
of maBAon, and tliat profligate wLckednces, which prcTailed amoag the 
Jews durioK ClirinC's miaiiliy upuo earth.; aud hence the Divine Savior 
compare* thai people to a flock of sberp which wandered without a shep- 
herd, aod their duetorit (o men, who, ihoufih deprived of sight, yet prcleiided 
1« sliew the wity to other*." 



CUAt. «.-i 

population were his suhjrcta ; the inrisiblc rulm were Ui 
»elt:cti,'d agciiLs ; — temptation in liis hands hud became a 
sdencc, and sin wiu titught l)y rule ; the world was one 
storehouse of temptation — an armorj-, in wliich every object 
and event ranked as n weapon, and all classed and kept ready 
for service: every human hcnrt iras a fortified place; crciy 
demon povcr vras at its post ; bo beheld the complicated 
mftchincry of evil, which his mighty malignity bad con* 
struetcd, in full and efiicient operation ; no heart imoceupied, 
no spot unviaitcd, no agency unemployed; and tbc irhdc 
rcsiilting in a vast, organiitcd, and consolidated ranpire. Kd 
sooner, therefore, did Jesus begin to attract the attcutioD of 
J uden, ns the " Sent of God," than he became obnoxious to 
the tyrnut's hate. In the usurped capacity of the soTcreign 
of the world, the tempter went forth and met Htm, ukio^ 
Him only to own tliat sovereignty, and all the kingdoms of 
the world should be his, and the glory of them. 

*' But the great object which had broiJ^ht Cbrist npuD 
earth was to ilinpute that sovereignty, to rc-aasert the original 
luid supreme rights of God to the alienated homngc uf man* 
kind, and thus rescue man from the grasp of the Destroyrr. 
What the enemy reserved as his last, and most powerfnl 
temptation — the splendid vision of a thousand pruiincca — 
was a .'dght, we may suppose, familiar to the eye of Cbri*; 
tliuiigh seen by llim, alas I under a ftur diiferent aspect. He 
beheld in it a scene of woe, wliich never failed to call forth 
his pn)fouud compassion. On all sides He beheld the blinded 
victims of Satanic cruelty : vast, crowded tracts of spiriln^ 
beings — immortal essences — wasted, ruined, murdered, I«tf; 
' — a captive world, chained to tlic wheels of tlio apoiler, >nl 
moving along (most of them so beguiled as to bu nctuillj 
pleased with the mock pomp of tlic gloomy procession) to 
endless death : while immediately beneath his cyc^ in tkr 
very land where He had taken humanity. He saw lc|;;iiiiu d 
fiends in actual bodily possession of miserable man. N«t 



satisfied with the eiil tlicy could inflict bv ordinary tempta- 
tion, lie beheld them conaummnting their crnclty by actually 
iuoorpuratiiig with inenj — tuniiiig their bodies into living 
tomb*, cnfffostfting and tlemoniaiug all their powcrSj merpng 
the man in the ficod. Yes, man, who had been created in 
the image of God, became ' the habitation of dragutm;' his 
heart, the ^cl consumed by their passions; his ticnscs and 
organs, the slaves of tbdr rampimt impiety ; hell brought to 
him, and begun in liim, u|(on earth ; an incarnate demon, 
bis features putting on the image of the legion within him. 
WTiat a aight for the Lover of souls! — what a spectacle for 
infinite Goodness to contemplate ! The Snvior beheld, and 
meditated reUcf. He made bare his Hriii, and tlic uuelean 
spirits fled at hin approach. He scut his disciples — first 
tirelre^ and then ecvcuty — to traverse the land in all dircc- 
tious, each of them armed and charged to cast out de\'iU; 
and again Me repeated the charge to his apostles, when on 
Uis way to ascend from earth to heaven. 

" When 1-indicHting the character of his power from the 
imputation of the Pharisees, He athrmcd that it was of a 
nature esseutiidly hostile to Satan, and Kubvennivc of his 
kingdom ; while the foresight of the redemption his death 
would acbiLTe, enabled Him to speak of the fuLuro as if it 
had been present, and to say, ' Now is the prince of tliia 
world cast out.' The voice of prophecy had declared, ' He 
shall diWde the spoil with the strong;* and, in fullUment of 
that prediction, He planted himself full in the pathway of the 
destroyer; He uuiy be sjtid to liave erected liis cross in the 
highway to Iiell, that He might rescue sinners from the very 
jaws of perdition." Harris's Great Teacher, pp. l'J3 — 195. 

We ace then in what coiisisteti the efficacy of Christ's 
Atonement. It consisted io the subjugation of thcjK- powers 
of darkness. The subjugation was ctlccted in the person of 
Chriat, in a manner similar to that in which it is effected in 
the Christian. There is, first, the presence of these powers 



CBAr. T. 

aa perceived by h tcraptatioii to ri'U ; secondl;*, there i> tbe 
elfort to uvLTCOiiiu the temptation* or evil iiitlueucc of iu- 
fenial powers ; thirdly, there i» the rictory over thorn. At 
every temptation wtiich is ovLTCome, there is iniplauted tbe 
particular good and the truth wliich arc the opposites of the 
particular evil mid false to which the person i& tcroptod. This 
is effected by the death of the evil and fidsc, mud tlie life oc 
^ncration in the soul of the good aud true ; such bein^ the 
pruce&s of regeneratiuD, or of glorilication in man, which ii 
an image and Ukenesa of that which took place iii tbe hauua 
nature assumed by the Lord, with this difference, that in nun 
the oil was not extii-pated, but in the Lord's humauitf it vm. 
Thus, hy means of temptation, the Divinity which wai whlutt 
the humanity as a soul, or the Dihnc Good and Truth, 
desceude<l into the d^ree before occupied by evil. Thiu 
alao the Sanor, who did no sin, abohshed cril from the 
humanity, hence from the spiritual world so far as to aliov 
to man the cxcrci&c of hia voluntary powers. In and throogh 
this humanity was Jehovah gnulually hrooght nearer to man* 
kind. How thi« was effocted will be fuilber explained as «e 

It may be well, however, before dismissiug, for the pmea^ 
this part of the subject, to obsenc that, a» tbe whole of oar 
Savior's life is hy Swcdcnbor^f inchidcd in the work of tbr 
Atonement, su also the whole is regarded as one continaed 

* In coDDeij uvocr of our tJaTioi'* lulTcrini;! twiai euwidarvd u ■ iirti- 
futiun lamle by Him tu the FuUier, iiui»l tttoulogiuu b*ve bc-n l«l to 
rc^rd Ibrni ae foreign, ia every scn»r, to lliv vipvrictKii of the ChriMin; 
wtio c«nacit endure auj antttfactury suBeriagt, bMausi> h« ran akkc m 
BKtUfiictiua. WhcTo«« by TCRurdtng; ihcm u (he retuK of InDptatloaiMl 
i atniK^lc afiaiast tlicui, tbo Cbriatiao act* th&l he Is colled upon ta taikM if 
bis cross and sulTcr nitb Cbhal. " Tbit we know," says GUbart a* ttr 
Christian Aluac qichI, " tlint wc »tiHll not be cftlled to cniliirr a* Ua vtV 
that to tu will never br ndninixtered tbe cuji of wbich He dnuk. VasWI 
nut be called to aulTer Ibe deMrl uf sis, nor any esptatgry aagafaii mtiA 
Jiulicc claims." p. 403. 




pnxx&s of t)ic Kanctification or glorification of the humanity' 
by victory over the powers of darkiit;**. Tliis prtJcr&B, or 
progKw, is represented externally by our Sapor's joumey- 
injrs from one place to another; some of which, indeed, arc 
admitted by divincw in general to refer to our Savior's sjii- 
ritiiAl states ; but the difference between these di^-iues and 
Swcdcnborii;, is, that according to the latter, not some but 
all our Savior's pilgrimages were representative, as truly a* 
were the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness. TIma, 
our Sanor went down to Egj-pt, and retunicd ; tlmt the pro- 
phecy might be fidfilled, mtt of Bgijpt have I called my Son ; 
that is, out of the Egj-ptimi bondage irom which cvcrj- Chris- 
tian i» brought. He was led up of the Spirit into the wilder- 
ness to be tempted ; the wilderness being a place externally 
i^ireseutative of a state of internal trial and temptation. Ue 
went over the brook Ccdroti (near the garden of Gethscmane) ; 
he waa also taken to Golgotha, u-hich, being interpreted, is 
the place of a skull ; all which locahties are representative 
of states of inanition. On the other hand, his different states 
of glorification arc represented by his aneeut of Mount Tabor, 
also of the Mount Olivet, and his going up to Jerusalem, 
and the multitude epreoding branches before Ilim. On these 
things, however, we do aot enlarge ; for though ua the prin- 
ciples of Swcdenborg, these considemtionti are of the fir»t 
importaucc, iniuimuL'h jis tbcy shew tlic process by which the 
Lord glorified Itis humanity, and which was the great object 
(rf his coming in the flcah; yet, as in tho theology generally 
received, there is almost a perfect hiatus in this respect, and 
u our object is to contrast the tivo, so where we find notliing 
coQatend in the generally received theology, we are not 
enabled to follow out any coutraat ; and are obliged therefore 
to omit the subject. There is, however, a vcrk* recent excep- 
tioD* to the foregoing statement ; and one so fully confirma- 

* Tk« prvGvdiiiK obicrvatioiii bad been «rriU«K for roiuc llnio b«lor« ibc 
Imcl tlladMl In UaiJ mule its KpiwnrnBcc. 



tory of these news, that ve fe«l plessnre in mnSiiig oonehei 
tfC it. 

" Did we reaDr,'' sara the vriter. " lar it to heart, at «e 
read vene after rcrse of the Gospels — did we in eamert pot 
our minds to the thonglit, — that this Jesus of Xaxareth, the 
Son o( MazT, is indeed the Most Hi^ Gon, Creator aad 
Possessor of Heaven and Earth, and erf" all things Tisihle and 
■arisible; did we zeaHie car convictioo of this truth in 
connection with each and all of his acticHU and disooarsei, 
and of the scenes and circumstances in whjdi we find Him 
engaged ; we shoold of course feel on all these subjects, thit 
which conaiderBte persons fed in regard of all God's wodi 
and works : viz. that the least of them is far too deep fo o; 
the most tririal of his commandments is exceeding broad ; 
the slightest, to our conception, <tf his acts mmst have etern^ 
and infinite associations and consequences. The mnds them 
and doings of our blessed Savior, being as ther are the 
words and doings of God, it cannot be but they nrnst mean 
far more than meets the ear, or the ere : they cannot but be 
full-charged with heavenly and mysterious meaning, whether 
vc are as yet competent to discern some part of that meaning 
or no; and to look at them in that light may be called 
Mysticism, but is it any more than the natural and necessary 
result of congiderate faith in his divine nature ? Or can it be 
doubted, that so far as the Mysticism of the old interpretos 
is traceable to this connction, so far it not onlv admits of 
justification, but the dmise of it ia a fearful symptom of irrt- 
verent forgetfvJness at least of that vital doctrine ? 

" Knowing our Lord to be the Governor and Overrnkr 
of all things, even the least, by his good providence, knowing 
from his own lips that not a sparrow falls to the ground 
without Him : they could not be wrong in noting those 
circumHtanccs and accompaniments of hia conduct, which in 
ordinary human lauguage would be called accidental, as being 
in fact divinely ordered; worthy, from their nearness to Hiia, 



of hcing contemplfttcd witli peculiar awe, as forming part of 
tlie clouds and dnrknes* that He gnthers rouud about Him : 
which if wc can at all peuetrate bv the help of other rcvela- 
tioas, it is well; if not, nt least we may a*loro in silence. 

" Tlie fathers arc positive only in one point, that there u 
a spiritual meaning, could we but find it ;♦ but of their own 
special expottitiou they coininonly speak as <loulitfully aa 
Origcn on this \*en,- pkce, whose language iB.t ' Thus far 
haTD 1 been able to reach iu conjecturing the scnae of the 
five loaves and the two titihes. i3ut in all Likelihood those 
■ who are better able to store themselves with [the spiritual 
food meant by] those li^-nibols will be able to give a fuller 

• account of these tilings.' 
" It i» clear, again, referring to some examples given 
above, that the names of the ecveral places which our Loan 
chose wherein to utter his discourses and work his miracles, 
will come under the bead wliich we are now considering — 
that of ctrcumstanccjt which in ordinar}' history might he 
called insignificAnt, but in this can hardly be Less than ])ro- 
vUlential. Our Luhd's moving from place to place, among 
the towns, mountaius, and rivers of Israel, wna the moving 
of the God and King of Israel, among the places wliich lie 
tiiiDself had marked, out, fi'om all ages, to be the scene of 
hnt mighty words and works, when He should literally risit 
his people. 

*' So also, applying the same remark to his discourses, the 
imagery which Ho used^ his references to natural objcctSj are 
to be looked at with other and far higher feelings than those 
of mere wonder and delight, anch aa the same words would 
' came, could we imagine them proceeding from human lips. 
His mention (e.ff.j of the birds of the air, the lilies, the vino 
And its branches, the wheat and tares, and whatever else 

* Nihil vacuum, ivpc|ui! une Hi^ou apud Dtuni. Ireo. ir. 21 ; ei). B«ii«d. 
, II Mena to bare btta k surt of CbrUliun Prurcrb. 
t Ortg. ubi Ruiira. 



cn*r. r.J 


fwctirs of the like kind, arc so many insteiicfs of lhcO«BiTfli 
applying to moml or spirituiil iisus Ids own outvarU mid nM- 
blc works; vhich works He had created, Icnowing in 
omniscieiicc tlint He should so apply them, and thcrefiMf 
(among thoir other final enures) with the very purpoK of 
doing ao. And it is but cnrrying the same obBcrvutkui roe 
step further, to 3ay, that his not imfrcqucnt alliisioiis to do- 
mestic processes also, and the simpler modes of tnde, aiul! 
hushnndnr work, arc in like mnnucr oUusionato tiling whkft! 
himself bad prepared by his proridence^ no doubt with a firVj 
to such application. 

" The dit-init}- then of our Loru, and his rclntion to mn^ 
kind, would cftusc us to feel snrc that all liis words moA 
doings must be so far mystical, as that they mean mOR, 
infinitely more, than mods the eye and ear of the mat 
human observer. But his Incarnation and Economy, of whjd 
his words and actions are part, may have had other objedi, 
relative to otlier races and other states of being. Who kiuj*i 
but any pven work or discourse of his may have nHcrenoe to 
some of these, and wc may have, conitctiucutly, to wnit tat 
its full explanation until (if ever) our eyes be oiicncd to bclwU 
them in another world ? Certainly tljcrc arc obBcurc hint« in 
Scripture, theirc is a partial, a very partial, disclosure, of mar 
change in heaven as well na on earth, to be wrought by tk 
Incarnation of the Son of God. 'The principaUtiei mJ 
powers iu heavenly places,' it is intimated, hare some deep 
though undefined interest in tliat unspeakable work of Gov, 
which is our sanctilicatiou and salvation. Such hints miquet* 
tionahly the New Testament contains : and it was the paft fi 
watcliful pict}', such as that of the fathers, to notioo aiul atnt 
them up : and what more natural, than that they abooU 
somctimcH remember them, when eugapcd in the chacvart 
poitious uf the Gospel histor}', imd should say within tiia^ 
Betvcs, What if such and such a saying of our Loa u, sodi ^ 
such a circumstance of his behavior, evidently too ftobtii 



for OS, should hnloiig to Him na tlic IjOrii of aiigcta rather 
than of men, — shoiUd allude to hia govcrumcut uf heaven 
ratlier than uf earth ? 

" He ttlio luoka no deeper thau the letter, may fsimply re- 
camiDcnd candor, and paticut invcatig^tion, aiid freedom from 
sonsuid and other disturbing tlinughts : hut he who knows 
beforehand, tliat the Personal Word is every where in the 
written Word, could we bnt di.iccrii Him, will feci it nu 
awful thing to open his Dihlc; fastiug and jiruycr, and scni- 
pnloits self-denial, and all the ways hy wliich the flesh is 
tamed to the Spirit, will seem to him no more thau uitturid, 
when he J9 to sanctify lilmscLf, and draw near, with Muses, to 
the darkness where CJod ih. And this hu mueh the more, the 
more that darkucsa is mingled with evangelical light ; lor so 
much the more he may hope to sec of Gon ; and we know 
who it is, that luw iusepnral>ly ciinncctal ticcing God with 
purity of heart/' 

Such are the excellent observationa of tliia author. Uaring 
uow explained the doctrine of the efficacy of our Savior's suf- 
fieringa, wc further proceed to make some remarks upon their 

Wo have seen how, by reason of the miraculous couccp- 
ticm, there wa» in the humanity of Christ the latent dinuity; 
how there is correspondingly, in the ScriptMret, a latent 
divine meaniug; how he who rejects the one, virtually rejects 
the other, howsoever lie may profess to receive it ; how the 
tlieolo^ fuundcrl upon thin rejcetiun, is that whcrciu the 
evidence of Scripture truth is external, not internal; how 
such a theology preaumcs the words and actions of our Savior 
to be like those of any other prophet ; how, coasequeritly, 
there is no inward divine life and wiwlom in the words and 
actions of the assumed luimanity ; linnec, how their ctticncy 
in procuring our redemption caimot be conwdercd to arise 
out of their own natnrc, hnt is cither referred to some arhi- 
tTRry rchUiousliips hctwccu tlio tlu'ce persons of the Trinity, 




CDiLT. ri 

or else, where these nre not attmittcd, is cleclnifil to 
unknown, or is idtugethcr rejected. \Vc have seen Ihnl inifr 
reason of thin in, that between the lacriBcc of Christ and the 
forgivene-aa of sin the inti:rmc{liate truths arc uiikuoirQ, 
ccmsequently that the two do not appear connected with each 
other as ani\ effect ; nil of which is the rcsnlt of tluU 
nnturiLlisiii wliirh has confined the work of the Atoncmnit 
to the most nsiblc and external actions and ifulTcrings of 

Now the intermediate between the divinity of the Lord 
and his mntcriiU body, was the rational aouI. The ivxcr- 
nie^liate between the divine windom and the letter of Snip- 
turc, 18 it» 8j)iiituiil meaning. This spiritual meaning treat* 
of the Lord's rntionnl soul, of his sufferings or teraptatioas; 
in fine, of the whole spiritual work of reilemptioo. Dotj 
this, and the intcmiodiftte tmths are denied, — the ccmncctiiH 
between the hhiod of CliriNt and the nmiisaioii of sin L« dii- 
solved, — the whole is unsystematic and di^otuted,'-the sIohm 
of the temple have no coherence; in which case, gradoiIlT 
in the course of time, not one will bo left standing npon 
another, ii<jt one tnitU will be left in counection with another, 
that will not ho thrunni down. 

Of all the things that rcjiuke the ^eat mass of p r ufc wM ^ 
Christians in the present day, nothing docs »o more cff«v 
tiiiUly than ai^vthiu^ in the tilmpc of Hjiiritual truth ; n* 
wonder therefore that the intermediate trutlis alludctt to, uxd 
which art! spiritual, slioidd be unknown. The reason for 
whicli there is such a distaste for whatever is spintoal, ». 
that t}icro is »uch a taste for whatever is sensual and lufiunl; 
thus, fur all that theology wluch is founded upon this pn>- 
cipic- Ucncc, aa Swedcnhorg a£Brms, there nre few in tk 
present dny who experience genuine spiritual tcmptatJoi^ 
such us were those endured by the Lord. Their se%-enU tnk 
relate only to external things, sucli as worldly diaappoiiii- 
ments, tliu lustt of friends, and calamities of different Utfk 

\ V. avfuuoATio:^ tip thr inprhkal rowEnt). 300 

WljcTeas, to expcriL>iicR Kpinliml triids, there miist be h 
npirituid principle livinp witliiu us ; for no one is trietl iii the 
loss or injury of that wliidi ho <tcH»i not {mMicsti. The ahMiiicc 
of all experience of these spiritual trials pveu rise, of courae, 
to an ignorance of the iinture of our Savior's spiritnal snfTcr- 
ingB, consequently of the uatcire of the Atonement; hence, 
also, the reason for which our Savior's boHily sufferings arc 
placiHi hefonr ii« by most thcu!o(i^iariB, virtniiHy tu the exchi- 
sions of such m are spiritual. 

Now, if there wjis a divinity latent in the body of Christ, 
if the conununicatioD between the two waa by currcapondenec, 
it follows, fmm the doctrine of the miracidous rnnreptiou, 
that the sufferingN of the body had tlicir correspondence in 
those of the soul, and the suJlcriugs of the sotU had their 
correspondence in certain perfections — not sufFerinpt — of the 
Supreme Divinity ; and althoujfh the i>odily Bufferings of 
Christ are seldom thus viewed by theologians in the jircdCTit 
day, Tct thin was not the case witli some of the fathers. 

Thus St. Augu&tiu ubsurvcs ou those words of Psului 
nxxv. (Works, vol. v. p. 317*), " / rhthed myseff tpith sack. 
cioihj and humbled my suul wilfi fiutijiy. Having exphiiued 
tin Bonification of sackcloth, how arc we to understand that 
of fasting? Christ desired to ent when He sought fruit upon 
the tree; and would hare eaten, had He found it. Ctuist 
desired to drink wIk'H He said to the woman of Samaria, Give 
toe to drink : when He Koid upon the cross, / Ihirtt. And 
what was it for which Christ hungered and thirsted, hut for 
our gtjoii worliH? Heeause in Hhwo wlio crueilled and per- 
secuted Him He had found no good works. He therefore 
hoiigered. They presented unto his soul nutliing but un- 
fruitfulncw; and what a fast must He have experienced, 
who, as He hung upon the cross, found only one, and he a 
thicf> in whom his appetite eoidd regale itself." 

In p. 927, the author rcpcHt« the intcq)rctatton. Ot\ tht 

' ThinI Mill., V«Q. 1807. 




CBAF. *. ' 




passage in Psalm Ixix. vcr«e 10, lie obscn-es, " It was sfiA 
with Christ when all who hrul believed on Him forsook Himf 
for tlic hunger of Christ was that they should believe od 
Him, and tho thirst of Christ was a thirst for their faith ; 
as whai He said to the woman, / tftirst, give me drink, \f\uai 
also He was upon the cross and stud, / thirst, lie mhi^ 
the fnith of those of whom Ho Raid, Father, forgtve them; fir 
they hutay not what they do. But what did these givo Ilim to 
drink when He thirsted ? Vinegar," &c. 

St. Bernard says (rol. ii. p. 1-tJ}*), ou the expreadoo, 
' I thirst ;' " But although these things were really doae 
order that the Scripture might Sc fulfilled, still, by the 
/ thirtt, something more seems to be signified ; for I think 
it clearly means to indicate the immensity of his most aidcnl 
love for US; for by a thirsty person drink in much moic 
ardently desiix^, than food by n hungr>' one. The Lwd 
Jesus, therefore, manifesting in himaclf the desire of thsl 
which is sought with the most ardent appetite, shews, thsl 
by it is figured the lurdor of his love. For although we vaan 
take the term in its literal sense, and understand by it tfc* 
Christ had a literal thirst, inasmuch as He who had hta whole 
body drained by the outpouring of his sacred blood, matf 
have had also his very bones dried up as a rood ; atiU, it ■ 
not credible that He spake these words of mere corponl 
thirst, so as to ask for drink to satisfy merely his csnul 
apiwtitc; inasmuch as He knew that the death of liiabwfy 
was close at hand. We believe, therefore, ibat hi* thirst w» 
a most ardent desire for our solvation ; and what more jmh 
tieularly induces us so to think, is tlic circumstmnce, ibii, 
as the hour of his iFuit passion drew nigh, the Loud Jcm^ 
betaking liimself to prayer, fell upon his face, and md. 
Father, if it be possible, let this eup pa»* from me, — a pram 
which He uttered not oneo only, but twice, and even thnir- 
Now by the cup which lie was (o driuk, doubtloss wu lii:- 
• Ell. Mnbillou, I'arif, 1600. 


liified the passion He was to endure; yet when lie had drunk 
of this very cup, lie exclaimn, / thirst. What is the meaning 
of this? Before thou didst taste, O blessed Jcsua, thou did«t 
[»ray rather for the cup to be taken away ! and yet after thou 
hadst drank, tliou didst feci thirst! A mftn-cllous partaker 
of the cup art thou ! Wa« it then brimmiug with the wine of 
mirth, or rather was it not full of remorse and bittcmcsii ? 
Yea, truly, of tlic {jrcatcat bitterness, which might have ge- 
nerated rather nausea than thirst." 

After (wiyiiig that Christ first prayed for the cup to pasa 
away in order to give on example of lus iufirmity as man, 
St. Bernard adds, '* But when thou hadst exhausted that cup 
uf thy i>as8ion, which bufurc thou had^t prayed niJi,'ht pasH 
£ram tliec, thou cxclaiiucdst, / thirst; in which thou hast 
commended unto us the greatness of thy lore ; as if thf>u 
liadst miid, ' /Utliuu^'h my pjusaiun is so bitter, that, in regard 
to the 8CI1SCS of human nature, 1 could dechnc it, still, 
O mn» ! the anlor of my love for thco trauacending the 
bi^meoa of the croaa, I tliirst oven to undergo stiU more 
and greater agonies, if it be ncccsaar}'. Wiv should I refuse 
to sutt'cr for thee, fur the nmsom of whom 1 lay down 

Such arc the commentaries of St. Bernard and St. Au- 

Here, however, we proceed to give a summary of Swcden- 
borg's views on thia subjcet;, in which will be seen how faithful 
Jkc has been to the grand and. fundamental doctrine of the 
miraculous coneeptioii, or eascntial Divinity of our Lord. 

"There are some witliiu the church who believe that the 
Lord by the passion of the ctom took away Biiiii, and satis- 
fied the Father, and thus did the work of redemption ; some 
alao that lie transferred upon himself the sin.H of those who 
have faith in Him ; that He carried them, and cast them into 
the depth of the aca, that is, into hcU. It may be therefore 
Obedient to »ay Brst what is meant by bearing or C3trryin» 





iniquities, and afterwards what by taking them avay. Bv 
beating or canyiug iniquities, nothing dsc ia memnt hot ma- 
taining grievonii temptations, abo suffering the Jews to do 
with Him as thcr had done with the Word, and to treat 
Him in like manner, because lie waa the Word ; for the 
churcli, which at that time waa amongst the Jews, wai alhi> 
gether de\*astated, and it waa devastated by this, that thcr 
perrected all things of the Word, inaomueh timt there waa 
not any truth rcmiuning, wherefore neither did they acknow- 
ledge the Lord. Tliis was meant and signincd by all tlnap 
of the Lord's passion. In like manner it was done with the 
prophets, because they represented the Lord as tu the Woci^ 
and hence as to the church, and the Lord was the real pe^ 
phet hunaclf. Ilis being betrayed by Judas, signified there- 
fore that He W&8 betrayed by tlic Jcwisli nation, amonpl 
whom at that time was the Word, for Judas represented Hut 
nation; his being seized and condemned hy the chief pricab 
and elders, Eugnificd that Uc waa so treated by all that chorch; 
hi« being beaten with rod.«, his face being spit npon, hia bcipg 
struck with fists, and smitten on the head with a reed, idgnified 
that it was so done by them with the Word as to its dinac 
truths, which all treat of the Lord; by crowning Him willi 
thonis was signified tliat they falsificxl and adulterated tbuv 
truths ; by dividing his garments, aud casting lots upou liia 
eont, was aignified that ther disitcrscd all the truths of tie 
Word, but not its spiritual scusc, which sense was ■jpr***^ 
by the Ix>rd's coat; by their cradfj-ing Him, waa tagaiSti 
that they destroyed aud profaned the whole Word ; by tlwir 
offering Him ^incgnr to drink was signified that they offcni 
Him merely things falsified and false, wherefore He did not 
driuk, but aflerwards said, it is finished ; by their pieroDf 
his side WA« sigiuBed that they absolntely cxtinguiahed all 
the truth of the Woni and all its good. By his being buitiJ 
was signified the rejection of the human [principle] remain- 
iug from the mother Hy his rising again on the third ixr 





was signified glorification. Like things arc signiRcd by those 
things in the prophets and in Diivid, where thcv are pro- 
dieted. Wherefore after that lie was 8coiirge<l^ ami Jed forth 
earning the crown of thorns and the purple garment, put 
on by the soldiers. He said, Hehohl the man! John six, 1, 5; 
tliis was said, because by the man was signified the church, 
Eor by the Son of the Man is signified the truth of the 
church, thiu the Word. From these considerations it is now 
evident, that hy hearing ii^iqnities is meant to represent and 
effigy in himself sins against the divine truths of the Word. 
That the IJord sustained and sufiercd such things as the Sou 
of the Man, and not as the Son of Gwl, will he seen in 
what follows ; for the Sen of the Man signifies the Lord ns 
to the Word. 

" It may ho expedient now to say sometliing concerning 
what is meant by taking away sins. By taking away sins the 
like is meant Jis hy n^deeraing man, and saving him ; for the 
Lord came into the world that muii might be saved \ without 
liis coniing, no mortal could have been reformed and regenc- 
ratetl, thus saved; but tliis can be effected^ after that the 
Lor<l had taken away iill power from the devil, that is, from 
licli, and had glorified his himian [principle], that is, had 
united it to the divine [priuciple] of his Father. l/nlcHs 
these things had been effected, no man could have reccivetl 
any divine truth abiding with Him, and still loss any diiine 
good, for the devil, who before had 8Ui>erior power, woiUd 
have plucked them away from the heart. From these con- 
siderations it is evident, that the Lord by tlic passion of the 
cross did not take away sins, but that He takes them away, 
that is, removes them, with those who heUeve in Him, by 
Uring according to his precepts, as also the Lord teaclieth in 
Matthew, Do not nupfiose that 1 came to dhuohv the law and 
—^ the f/nip/tetit. iVhoaonyer gfiall (omen, t/ie leant of thetie precepts, 
■ am^ teach men go, shall Ik called least in the kingdom of the 
I heavens ; but Ite wJto doeth and teacheth sfutll be adled r/reai in 

31-i ATDxcwxirr. our. yj 

Or imgitm ^ ike Aeanw. r. 17, 19. Ktcrj oaeimjiee 
fioa RMOB ■kme, if be be io anv UlnstiatMn, tbat aw aa- 
■at be taken avmv from man except bjr aetnal nfMBtaBti, 
wbacb cootitfi a mas't aecng liii liiis, and impilani^ the 
Lord's aid, and dewtiB^ torn Aen. To aee. beliefs^ aad 
icadi anjtJnng dM^ m mat froai tbe Word, nathcr is it fima 
KNmd reaaon, bat bvm Int and a depnvBd vill, wkidi ifc 
tfce fnprnOB of aaa, bj nrtne -vbercof tbe ondentudBg 
ianfirtMted." DMtrime eomxrmmg Ue Lard, 15—18.* 

Let MS, bowmr, proceed to coostder our Lord'* wi Mm- 
iop aa tfaer related to him wtif and to the Charcfa. ^^^| 

The xationd aoal «£ Chriit, as wc hare aeen, had, a^^^ 
nteanatMOi • fairtb pnper to itself, conaeqnently & r n n ari n ai 
■eaa proper to itself; so that whaterer befcl it, ^ipeand M 
be Us trnn, as moch, in appearance but not in realitji at if 
it had a distinct personalitT. 

It vas the coxadaaaaesa proper to tbe bnmanitT, wfaidi 

• Tbe Oiftxil Trvt CM 1^ JAjvOeata ot ikt Fatben, »peak%t,t aD^m 
ttasnctfNS m twMtmatieal of tbe cpiritvKl peiwcatiHM «Uck tW b* 
thvA esperimCM. Tk« naftrii ■*iMti Iwcuap the Waid m WilUa At 
tive ekvrk ; ud olut u irfirCed VfO» ike Wonl. nitut be uilli<:k>l up* 
tWtroe Charcb. Bat when Ibc ckarck it cum: lu iUcnd, it U nut a m* 
ehwdi, ImI ■ blcr rae, aBd la llib cue, ii is not Ihc saffcnr, baS lb 
ialican-. B«wi>g lUs Id nlad, It b Instnictive lo nvi fwom ihm ftf^ri^ 
met the fulloifiac qanMtisstt "As, iksKfiwe, tbe dmnitjr of ««r Uu 
ms fonm a cooaidcntB panoa to ragaH UadnnpaiHw towsnli tkoar >k* 
cwM oMi Hitt u tbe bod;, ai imlicatiire of bi^ waja of (ncc aad trul 
towards n*, wilb nboa H«< i* invUibt; prcsral : m* Ibr naitjr betw w Wm 
ami bis cbarchwoald le«d atloiaqaliv, tnta tine lotimr, wbctlKf Alip 
wUch w« fiod happoslag to Bin nay aot b« prophotlc tokens of Mm (Wan 
foftnnea of tbe cburcb ; as well »• hit coadsct a leiwu to bet, h«» la 1^ 
fcenelf in hci conQicts witb tb« world, . , . Bui it caa acmrre br a miwn 
to dwell mocb no ik'ts part of tbe subject, since Cbristtaiu io |rkmJa|fi« 
to feel tbat e«cb frrater ernil of our Loip's ^mde on ewlh, His PaariM. 
lor example, in all its rircunataocos, was piwpbetie of the ttrktneal •%■* 
tbe Cburrh, Hid Bodr, misht eipeot, and at tbe Mae ttne ayMbeUaJ W 
the inwanl pfoMW, wbeteb; each oacof Uis mcnben should be uaiaad ai' 
nvriHrd. The very expiceaiiw, " lakini; op the Crvas," aeoBB lu imftj *> 




caused Him to speak and to think from that humanitT as if 
from a distioct pcrsonalitj' ; and that humanity it was which 
underweat as «/* own, and which felt as its own, during its 
glori6c&tion, tinuttcrable agonies. Hence, in Psalm Ixxxviii. 
appointed to be read on (food l-Viday, the Savior is repre- 
sented as saying, — 

Lord God of my itairation, I have rried day and night 
before thee : let my prayer coriut before thee, — inciine thine au- 
to my rry. 

Fm- my soul isfuli of irauities ; for my l\fe draweth nigh to 
the grave. 

1 am cmtnied unth them that go down into the pit. I am ax 
a man that tuxth no utrenylh. 

Free amony the dead, Hke the afain that He in the grave ; 
whom thou reniemberest no more, ami they are cut off from thy 

Thmi hast laid me in the low&it fni, — in darkness, — in the 
deeps. Thy wrath iieth hard upon me, and t/iou hast affiicled 
me with all thy waves. 

Now, a« our Lonl was perfect man as well as perfect God, 
Ue possessed all that was jiropcr to man, hence a creaturely 

and a creaturely understanding; so that, when tcmpta^ 
tiona to evil presented themselves, that evil ajipcarcd to the 
CTCftturely humanity as its own, and the temptations or suffcr- 
inga were felt as ita own ; just as when any other man is 
tempted, the ei-il to which he is tempted aypcam ax his own. 

Hence, in the Psalraa which are acknowledged by the 
church itself to be proplietic, and are consequently np|)oiiited 
to be read in Passion week, and on Good I'Vitlay, the liuman- 
ity is represciitiHl aa pouring out bitter lamcntatiorm, unilur 
the weight of temptation and suficring. Tlius, in Psahn xl,, 
we read, — 

iHthhold not thou thy tendisr mercies from me, O Lord ! 
let thy loving-kitidnesg and thy truth alway preserve me ! for 
imntuaeraide evils have compassed me ahtmt : mine initpdties 




cmxt. ^4 

Amv taken hoid upon me, *o that I am not nhle to took ^ , 
/Ary are more than the hairs of my Itead, therefore my heart 
faikth me. ■ 

Hence kIso Swedenborg observes (Doctrine concimnng the 
Lordf p. 68) : *' In coDscquence of his hnring from the finl 
a hutiianity from the mother, which lie put off by bqcccspw 
steps, the Lord, during; his abode in the world, was ahcr. 
o&tely in two states; the one n state of hiiniiliAtion, a 
exinuiition, wid the other a state of glorification, or uniaii 
Tith the Dirinit}', whiclt is calletl the Father. He was in 
the state of humiliation at the time, and in the degree, tkd 
He was in the liumauitr frum the mother; and He was tn 
the state of glorification at the time, and in the degree, tktt 
He was in the humanity from the Father. In the it^eof 
humiliation He prayed to the t'other, as to a being distinct 
firi^m hiuiM^lf ; but in the state of glorification Tic spoke wilb 
the Fulher as with himself. In this latter state He mmL 
that the Fnther was iu Him and lie in the Father, and tint 
the Father and He were one; but in the other state He 
undenrent temptation^ and suffered the cross, and pr^ei 
to the Father not to forsake him ; for the Divinity cuuJd not 
be tempted, much less could it suffer the cross. Hence it 
further appears, that, by temptations followed, by coutiiiiai 
victories, and by the passion of the cross, which was tlic but 
of those temi)tat>uns, he fully conquered the bells, and ftStj 
glorified the humanity.'** 

* Swpdenborg ubwrvrs (An*»a VaUMia, Art. 1816) : ^Man 
Ana bia fniber ill UiU Is inlcnal, UmI U. hii fery eoni «r lift ; tal b* 
nreivva frnni bis DraUtBrftll that t> cxUtaal : in « word, the inlcriot •■>• 
or tbr tpirii, is from the ^Uwr, bot tko vslerwr nuD. or tltc body, minm 
Uir inotber. This amy b« coouivaUr lo cvory one roerely ttn^ tiUit »•»' 
(k-r«lii>ii, tbnt ihe m«iI itself U ImpUnted fnat the father, whicli bc^Hi* 
clixlw itself with k IkmIiI)' forai in the ovvj, lod whatM«>« t* sfttnw* 
•ildml, whrlbrt in the ur«r> or to the womb, is i>f iho tmithpr, foiitm 
ceivM no Mldilkw from elwwiicn:. Ilrncr it nuir appMr, lluil (he L*^ 
u to hU laleraBl*, wu Jchoisb i bgt u the exiersal, witlch IU rmnfi 



Now tcmptntious are uo other tluoH nnficatioiis as it 
were of the durirmHt «vils of our nature, or of tlic [icncrtcd 
forms of the soul's iuUrior c»suncc. When all is equally 
perverted, there is no consciousucsa of their existence, hence 
there b no oppasitian. Wc hccome conscious of the tempta- 
tion oui}* in proportion to the opposition between itself and 
our nature : but the power and intensity of the temptation in 
in propoilion to the inlCTiority of tlie principle tempted. The 
more inward it is, tlic more powerful it is ; because the more 
(locB it liotd under its iutluencc all the rest of the being 
belovit; just as the contamination of the more ntal parts 
of the body, or forms of its organization, more affects the 
system iu general^ than tliat of llio luwcr or more externa) 

Id tliia cnae also, the evil is apprehended as more inti- 
mately present, and all but omnipotent; whence, althoujjh 
still Tiphcld by the spirit of God, the soul appears to iticlf as 
if lost and undone. All bnt deprived of utterance, in it« 
horror of great darkness, its only language in, My God t mtf 
God ! tpfitj hast thou forsaken me? Yet this lan^age, seem- 
iugly of entire despair, is also the language of liope; for the 
■md ura not, Tliou hast abandoned me ! I am lost and un- 
done! but. Why bust thou forsaken me? She still questions, 
— etill wishes to know; here love still bums witb a latent fire, 
bnt only latent; for to ontward appearance all in darkness, — 
dtisolntiou, — despair!* And, indeed, despair there must be; 

fntm llift iwrthfr, wa> la be unileil to Iho DJvmilj or Jchovali, nod Uii« hy 
t«nptnl>on« anil Ticturios, u vraa BAid nbovir, il mud nvi-db oppvor (o Him 
ID lliu#e iliiti-*, viliiltt Hl- wai upcflkiaK nilli Jrhuvali, ai ir Ht wu upcak- 
InK witb HBotb'er, when, BcvonliflcES, Ho weu sppaktng wilh binttclf ; to 
far, thai !•, iwi cwDJaoctiuD with Jehov&b Mai ctrecled." 

♦ .Swcdenlwrfi ubservu* {Areana CtrUili^t ■rl. 1787): "All h.iuputii>n 
n altcniled y\\\\ Butn* Itiud of dciipajr, olIirrwiaF it is not a tcniplutiitn ; 
trcfvrv, &J*o, cottfolatioii fullowt. Wbusoevcf ia t«DipI«*l ■» brought iato 
lirtic*, nbkh orcwtUin « ststc i>f ilr»pnir in rcgftrd to Ihc end ; and Id thi» 
the cnnbat of ivinpliktloD cucuUally coaaiaU. lie wbo ii ceitain of victory 




OAF. T. 

beatoM: eril can hare no hope !— cm see no tight I anl ■• 
evil is tndi becatuc it tnuts oulr in itself, m> mmA il be 
left to itadf, that it may see that itself is nodung 1 IV 
fi^Aw»>a aristD^ from the teioptatioo b eotireljr from hdl : 
the loffiiariiif^ in the case of the Christian, has a mixed onpn; 
Gar it arises from two couBkting priDciplcSj the one goad, 
the other evil, — the one trac, the other Cslse. The enl uti 
Use are frnnt the powers of darkness; the good and tmc Cm 
tlic Lord alone, hence, in the present ewe, from the Lonfa 
mtcrior essence, -which iras Jchamh God. Here then va 
the descent of the divinity uito a region occupied with eril. 

M » aa Bfliirtj, mkI, of coane, in no IcnpUlioo. The Lord, trW radmtt 
Ifcs SMM dtCsdAil «ad cniel b-tnptatiaas of all, eosld not bat Iw dri*«a to 
rialH of dwpsir, «hicb He dtap«ll«d and orareante bj hi* own fomn. 
Thit may nppeu plainly frtna bu UMftaUen Is CethseBsaa, of wfatrk il ■ 
thai wrltlra in Lake : Wkem Uete** mttkt flat*. He Mid mnl» Ocm, Pt^ 
that ye enter mot imU trmpUtin. Aad He wta atfAirann /nm (Am ^aW • 
tl«mt^» nM, m»J JtarrM ibini, nd prayrd, ta^»g, Falhrr, ^ tkw &r wiUH(, 
fnwM tAii tvf /mm mt : txtfihtUu, mU «y iriiJ ftU xhimt ht 4tmt, M 
tktrt mfftmn4 «a m»gH nM« Hlm/nm kntfn, rtrtm£tktwiag Hm. Ami, Mv 
is «a «(«a|r, He prnfed mmt* 4wnv«(iy ; aad U« tvMi mac «• tl mrc frnrf 
dnp« «r Wood /«//»« ^ra !• tht grwrnd. sxIL 40—44. And in Ktattlwa : 
B* ^tfmi ta he aarrMc/id naJ rrry Jkracy : lira mi(A H< na(« iK^m, Stf mt 
il ot H i mg mmtt^ml, nva aa<* dM(A. A*d lie a^of a Ufllr /anker, mt 
/tU tm ku /met, »mit frmyrd, tayimg, O mj Fatkrr, ^ H he ftMrnUe^ lei tha t^ 
fvu Mwmif /mm mtl HevrrlkeUm, Ml ai / vUi, hil itttkmm, Bewai^^ 
agmiM (Ji< tetMtd time, n W frayed, aijrnv, O my Father, \/ (Au »]> a«^ mI fiM 
/ma •i', rx>-«pj / rfriajf il, lly triXt IW dMc. jIbJ f/r yra^Mrf ifcr lUrd (Ma, 
Mgrraf U« Mmt ««rd(. xxvj. 37 — 44. And in Mark c Bt httr^t tt te mn 
mmitzeJ, «md to be ivry ht«ry. And /f( aaU «>(•■ lArM, Jtfjr waJ u umSnr 
•MTM^, nva ani« dfotJh. ilad //< avvt /annr^ a UttU, and ,>UI m ib 
fTMOKf, awl priu/td tlut, ^ it Hvr« pomble, the Wr auf &I y«a> /ma ifw- 
JnJ Het^, Abb€, Fciker, ati tAuif< «k piuMil« nal* IAm ; tafe m^ tti* 
emp/rom mt ' mterrtheUf, mit what I tnO, 6«f aikal IAm wtt. Aa4 ttb S* 
did a Mcoad and a tbiid lime. sir. 3:1—41. Hesca mxj appear tte sslMi 
nod qualitj of the Lord's temptation*, and tbal they wen the Boal cfWl al 
terrible thai ever wen endured, being attended with anicuiah frwa kit tt 
swat uul, opcratiuK '^en to the awvatini; of blood; aanlto, ihu Hepw 
then In a etalc of dcapair conrereijiE the end and eveal ; and ikai ll« ■• 
•Ui^portad with ronaolatiana." 


The very intensity of the siiffcriuf; shewed that the divinity 
watt prvHCut, nut absuiit ; aiid tlic more inwariUy luteuse the 
■ suffering, the more intimately present tlie diTinity, and the 
more opemtivc in casting out the evils which HueccBsivcly 
gave place to principles truly diviue. For iheir sakes, said our 
Saiior, I mnclifif myaeif. Kor their safccs nlso was lie glo. 
riiicd ; inasmuch as every process of aauctirication was a pro- 
cess of glorification of the ImmRiiily, or of receiving into it 
In greater fullness uf the Guilheaxl. And, iti proportion to 
this descent of the divine eascnce and consequent emanation 
of B divine sphere, the powers of darkness receded. For as 
to the holy angels the life of hell is death^ and the pleasures 
of hell infernal tormcntj so, to the devils, the life of Ood 
in the soul is death, and the felicity of lictivuu insnjlcrable 
agony; whence also, wherever they are overtaken by the 
apherc of divine love, their language is, tiliat have me to do 
toil/i Thct; Jcmis, thou Son of the Moat Uigh God I art thou 
come hither to iormtvl iw ? Then do they liidc themselves in 
their dcna, and in the rocks of the mouiitnins, and say to the 
rocks and raountains, Full on us f uiid hide u» from tfie face 
of Him t/uil itUMh on tite throne, and from the wrath of the 
Lamb. For the ffrtai day of /Us wrath u cmne, and who bIuU! 
(k able to ftatid ? Thus it is that were despoiled the jiowers 
and principalities of hell. 

But if even the powers of hcU were thun dismayed ; if 
eren capiiritj* was thus itself led captii'c, what shall wc say 
of the poweraof heavcnV for we are told that tn-eu the powcni 
of hcjiven shall be slmken ; — Yet once more I shake not the 
earth only, bui also heaven ; for the very heavens are not pttre 
is his sight, and lie chargeth his angels wiih folly. To the 
interior dirinc csucncc, which was now filling with its fullness 
the humanity, the very heavens were impure, thiw also to the 
homanity ; their consolations if ministered, would have been 
but folly ; nay, even wickcrinCsSs ; for, knowing the Lord to 
be Jehovah, it would have been setting up their own wisdom 



CRir. Tj 

apiinst his to minuit<^ consolRtion ; hcnec, on the pnritT of 
the iuclTabie glor}' lilluig the humanity, the presence of wa- 
gels, of archan^ls, and of all the powers of heKren eooU 
onhr intluce a sense of impnrity and defilcnient ; fur, m the 
angels tbenuelves in hearen cannot withstand the nuahroailed 
rajs of the divine ^ory, br reason of their own inward oooi* 
parativc impurity; bo upon that con&ciuiut glury in the ha* 
manitT of Christ, the presence of the most holy beings mut 
have supaindoocd a sense of temptation. Hence SwedoH— 
borg obaerres (Artaam Qrkstia, art. 1295) ; fl 

'* That tfic Lord in temptations fonji;bt at length with the 
angnlK thcmsclrcs, yea, with the whole angelic hc^ren, is an 
arcanum which hath not heretofore been discovered; but tbe 
ease herein is this ; the angels indeed are in the atmost n* 
dom and intelligence, but they hare all their wisdom lad 
intelligence from the Ixird'a dtrinc [principle], and firm 
themselves or tbcir own prophum they bare nothing of wis- 
dom and intelli^ace ; so far tliercfore as they are principled 
in truths and goods from the Lord's dit-ine [principle], to ftr 
they arc wise and intelligent. That the angels hare nothing 
of wisdom and intelligence from themselves, they themselni 
openly confess, yea, they arc also indignant if any oas 
attributes to them anything of wisdom and intelligence, far 
tbcy know and perceive that this would be to derogate fnm 
the divine [principle] what is divine, and to claim to thoa- 
selrcs what is not their own, thus to incur the crime of ip- 
ritual theft ; the angcb also say, that all their own pg o pf i aia 
is evil and bise, as well what they iuivc received heveditihtf 
as what they ha%-c contracted by actual life in the world wbei 
th^ were men, and that what is evil and false is not lep* 
rated or wiped away from them so that thereby they are jo*- 
tificd, but that it all remains with them, yet that they si* 
withheld of the Lord from what is eiil or false, and mn k«ft 

■ The ugel appeartif le ClinM is hb ifMy. wu ■■>! ■ amtmidf 
beisK, but wu ibe diiia* ialut to iU own asKClie ram. 



((tf held) in g;oo(l and tnith : thcsic tiling all the nnj^U coii- 

fesa, uur U any ouc lidoiittcd into heavcu, imlcss he knows 

ftnd believe* these things; for otherwise they cannot bo 

in the light of vi-ix[h)m ntid intcUij^ciici- which w from the 

Lord, cuuscquently uot iu good oiid truth : hence also it 

moy be Itnnw-n in what manner it i.s to be understood that 

heaven is not pure iu the cyca of Qod, w in Job, chap. 

TV. 1.5. This being the case, to the intent that the Tjord 

mi^ht restore the universal heaven to celestial unler, He 

even admitted into hituaclf temptatioua from the nugcls, 

wbOj so for B8 they were in their own proprium, ao ftir 

were not iu good ai»d truth ; these temptations are the 

intnoiit of nil, for they lu-t only upon end.-), niid with such 

subtlet}- as to escape all observation ; but so far as they 

•re not in their own proprinjn, so far they are in good and 

jtrath, and ko far incnjHiblc of tempting; moreover the nnj^cla 

[bjc coutiouaUy perfecting by the Lord, and yet cannot in 

\*ay wise be perfected to eternity to such a dejfrce, that their 

['iria<lom and intelligence may Mlmit of comi>arisnn with the 

[.divine wiwloni and lutcUi^'ence of the Lord; for they are 

finite, and the Lord ioiinite, and finite admits of no com- 

puiwn with infinite." 

For a further explanation of the sense in which our Lord 
said to have home otu- nius, the reader is referred to the 
l^rcana Cceletlia, art. 9937. 

What has been said upon this subject, may possibly, in 
! the minds of some give ri«e to many questions ; and we know 
how any attempt to answer tbcm, may only give rise to more. 
If the trailer is sincere, he will jmrsue the enquiry iu the 
works of Swedcuhorg. Unhappily, however, some there are 
whn are as opposed to the spiritual tnjths of Clirintianity, as 
others are to its natund Irutlis. Wlu:re a person is an infidel 
bv reason of n ^^ler^'ertcd heart ; if one of his objections be 
rrmored, it is ooly to make room fur a huudrcd. more. His 
wdl, hi« ftffcctioTw, are all, a-i Swedenborg expresses it, in the 



n^BtiTe principle, and can therefore be the parents only of 
perpetual n^ations ; irhereas, if they irere in the affirmatire 
prindple, the remoral of one objection, instead of creatini; 
others, would only dispel them, and thus perpetually fiudlitate 
the mind in its advancement in heavenly knowledge and life ; 
whereas, in the other f»se, there is a flaming 8w<nd taming 
every way to guard the way of the tree of life. Not the 
sword of the spirit of trath ; but the sword of man's seUliood, 
which is not trath, bat fiUlacy and ftlsehood; and whidi, 
when flaming with evil affections, or the lusts of a &lleQ sad 
corrupted nature, is an effectual guard against entering tbe 
gates of paradise. 



MAN IB (iOI}. 

I It has been justly remarked, that if Christ be God, the 

doctrine of bin deity is not merely KpcculntiTC, but affects 

, the whole nature of Christian morality ; in likr manner we 

premise, that if Clirist'H liumati nature be divine, the dcK^triue 

'©f its divinity is not merely speculative, but chanpcx the 

rhoie nature and quality of the Christian virtues. 

lit the present chapter we propose to shew first, that the 
human nature of Christ i« generally considered to be not 
le; and hence not an object of divine worship. 
Secvodly, the influcnee of such a doctrine upon Christian 
^morality and worship. 

Thirdly, that this nature is strictly divine. 
Fourthly and lastly, the effect this doctrine prodnces upon 
I Christian morality and worehip. 

First, wc propose to shew that the human nature of 

^Christ is generally couBitlercd to he not divine ; and, oonse- 

|uently, not ac object of di\-iue worship. 

It is not, as generally considered, divine. 

" In Christ," as Bishop Bull obsenes, "though tbe divine 

[nature enters in every respect into the human, the human 

does not in turn enter into the divine ; for the human is finite 




and limited ; the diviBe infinite and unlimited ; so that thr 
human cannot be wheresoever the divine is." " There ii in 
other words," sars Bishop Kara, upon this passage, ** a per- 
fect perichoresis of persons in the divioe nature, but not s 
perfect perichoresis in the person of Christ. Life and Writngi 
o^ Jwslm, p. 176. 

The humanity of Christ being thus considered as remnn- 
ing finite and limited, it has been consistently determiiied, 
that the human nature is not an object of divine worshqi: 
at the same time it has given rise to the controversy — ^whether 
Christ is Mediator as to his human nature only ; as to bis 
divine nature only; or as to both: consequently, whetbff 
Christ as Mediator is to be worshipped. We shall first brieflr 
allude to this controrern-, as it was carried on in the time d 
Stancarus, because it will sufficiently develope the views npoi 
tlus subject held by the catholic church. 

The mediation of Christ being agreed by all parties ts 
consist in his intercession with the Father ; and this interco- 
sion being grnerally understood as consisting in prayer and 
supplication of $ome kind or other, Stancarus thought dot 
this was iucousistcnt with the divinitv of the Savior's peraot; 
and therefon*, although he held that Christ as to his dinnitT 
was consubstantial with the Father, according to the CotutcO 
of Nice, yet ho maintaiued, that Christ was Mediator ai to 
his human uaturc only. 

Tliis ap{)ear$ to be the doctrine of the Church of Rant, 
as admitted by its members ; and ascribed to them by tbeir 

First, it is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, as vi- 
mittcvl by its members. Becanus, a writer of that churdi, 
observes :* " The second inference, namely, that Christ ii i 

■ Of ibisirritfTDupin rvnarks, '■ He hu pnblUhed k tract upon Kboltf' 
ilii inilv, nhich \s i^nr sbon wad clear, and haa bc«o much Mte«Btr<J; *■■ 
•^'fial trraii*** of codirorerev. Hia iheolog; is the moat t\ru ad »*■ 
ihodical of any that has btta ptibliah«d. 




Mediator nccorditifc tu liis humftu nature ouly, and not ac- 
ci>nliii(; to liiH iliviiK! iihIuiTj is ngainst the Lutherans and 
the CaU'iutets ; who teach tJiat He U a Mediator aca>rding to 
botli hJA iiaturuti/' Mart. Hecaruts Sum. Thfol. par. 3. cap. 
xsi. ji. 71G. A.i». 1G:U. 

That is to say, the Lutlifraiw ami Calviiiists maintain, 
tbat Clirist '\% Mciliator bnth aceonliug to his diviuity and hia 
hummiit}' ; but the Churcli of Koiue maintains, that lie i* 
Mwiiator according to his finite and limited humanity iilonc. 
This view of tlie aubjoct is still more clearly expressed iu 
the following extract from the Compendium of Ueranua' 
Manual of C'ontroversieH,* in whieli it is oliservfil : 

"The fifth question is. Whether Cliriat be Mediator as to 
both natures? Thiii i« answered by our opponents in the 
mffirmatire; we, on the contrary, maintain that He is a Me- 
djator only iu respect of his humaiiitj', not in respect of hi* 
divinity. Thii«, in the Epistle to Timothy, ii. 5, the apostle 
sap. Then; is ane Mediator betivvtm God and mtm, the man 
Ckri»t Ji'ttta ; in which pa>ixHt,;c the term man ia added, in 

"Order to make it evident, in respect of what naturt; it is that 
He ia Mediator; ivecording to the rt^mark made by St. Augmi- 

I tin in various places, as also on tlio ftamc words of the apostle. 

' The reason that Christ is our Mediator acconling only to the 
Iinmanity, is, that He ia Mediator because lie reconciled us 
to (Joil by hi« own pnssion and death. This, however, he 

,did in respect of his human nature; because, iu respect to 

■ his divine. He could neither suffer nor die." p. 271- 

Secondly, tlie same doetritie is aserihed to Roman Catho- 

tlics by their opponent-*, lender the article Staucanis, fiayle, 

tin bia Dietiuuart', ohservcB, with rejipird to Clirist being 
tor only as to his human nature: "Tfiisisa doctrine 
rbich the Itoman Catholics assert against the reformed mi- 

fnisters. Read the following words of the celebrated Muna. 
?tin (a Protestant writer) : ' la Cliriiit a Mediator ac- 

■ I'uUliibetl Bl LoD<luo, l(^7^. 




CMAP. 11. 

cording to botb bis natures ? We assert it apainat the Papiata, 
and against Stancarus. Wc have a ooDtroversr witb tbe 
Papista, who that it might be the caater granted that tbere 
nay be mauy mediators, have asserted that Christ ia a Me- 
diator by liis human nature only ; as Ix)mbard, and afUr 
him Thomas Aquinas, Bellnrmine, Beconu-i, and olhen 
teach. Whom Stancanu follows herein,'" Sec. Thmi. EitMk 
fuu. 3, qui»t. ii. p. 411. 

Such is the view of the subject talteu by Tumtin; «bf 
afirms that, according to the Rcfurmen, Christ ia Mediator 
as to both his natures. Thus Melancthon obacrres agahut 

" I hesitate not to pronounce Stancams' notion an crrat; 
for to the Mediatcu* it belimgs not only to die, but thu Idb 
death should be an equivalent muwrn for men, and that He 
should be the conqueror of death: also, that Ue should bei 
phest euteriu^ into the hobeat of all, into the secret coawe) 
of the Most High; yea, mureoTer, that He should atactiiy 
the hearts of men, by giring to them his Holy Spirit. Bol 
theve things belong to the di\-iue nature." Again, " Whn 
1 recite to myself the wortls of i>\u- Lor*l Jesus Chriat, Ctm 
im/tf Mr sM ye thai lobar, and I wilt give unto ytw remt, I ondv- 
staud him to be Mediator alike in the diipine and hvam 
uat^irc," &c. Seotfi Coniinttation of MUiur's BedetimM 
Histmy, vol. ii. p. 127. 

The same view of the subject is taken by Calvin, in tk 
itamc of all the pastors anil miniatera of the Chtncb d 
(ienoik. Sw Ike CoUecttom <^Mt L^ter* and Reptiea, 

From tbcitc and other statements ve shall lui%-c to iMaet, 
it will be seen, that the divine and honian natures, bowvw 
coticurhng one with the other, arc considered to retain ««> 
uow ■*c|uu-atc functions; those of tlic di%-inc nature btav 
couiiidenHl divine, and thuse of the human natura bnae 
cuDsidcrcd creatur^. 

Thus Owen, ^peaking of the opinion of certaia andn* 


cn.\v. VI. 



respecting the composition of tlic person of Christ, ob- 
serves : 

"The union which they inteuded by this compositiou they 
citUed ivurn fvTttiiiv, hi-^aiiNo it witH of divers natures; and 
inifftr KoJa aun^irtv, a union bv coiiijiositiotl. 

" But because there neither was, nor can be, noy com- 
position, properly au called, of tlie divine and human natures, 
and that the Son of God waji a perfect peraon before his 
■ucaniation, wherein He remained vh»t He whs, and was 
made what He was not ; the cxpreaston hm 1>ccn fonukcu 
and avoided ; the union being better expreaaed by the ansump- 
tion 0/ a trtfbslantial ai{funct, or of the liuman nature into 
personal Kubaktence with the Son of God, as shal] be after- 
wards explained." Owen's Works, vol. jtii. Preface, p. 22. 

The diversity of natures beuig thu» preserved, that is to 
say, the human n»ture being creaturely, or invested with no 
diviue attributes ; and no worship being allowed to be offerod 
ap by one creatiwc to another, an being idolatry ; it has come 
to puu, that the human nature, aa not being divine, ia not 
regarded as an object of diviue worsltip ; and hence, although 
it be affirmed that Christ is Mediator both as (rod and niun, 
I yet, from the immediate relation of the mediatorial office to 
I tho human nature, it baa been determined, that as Mediator 
He is not to be worshipped. 

Firat, it is affirmed that his human nature ought not to 
be worahippcd. 

Thus it is obscn'od by Calvin : " It is a damnable idolatry, 

if the tnwt and faith of the heart be placed in Christ, not 

unly acconling to his divine, but also aecortling to his human 

I nature; and if the honor of adoration be directed to both." 

Swedeaborff'M Umveraai Tfu}oloffy, vol. ii. p. G6L* 

Mr. Pye Smitb observes (Testimonies to tlte Messiah, vol. i. 

' I tia*r ncil Uqfu abU to dm) Ihi* parlicutai pHia*t;u in (h(? itrit>nx» »f 
|.C«]vtt>, and lher«rure quoli; it qii thi- autliimty of SWMlentwrg, and bwciUM 
It will t>f- MKa I0 be coDlirmi^d hj citracta fiani uUicr aulhon. 



p. 189; : " It is a aUmmnif <rften urged by these ingenioua per- 
floos (the Sodni&ns), that the Trinitanans are goiltr of idtJitn- 
in vwshiping Jesus Christ. Xov this char^ can have no ap- 
pearance oi pertinent-, except on one of these two rappos- 
twos: other that there is no personal onion between the divine 
and human natures, which is to beg tlw question in dispute; or 
that the human nature of Jesus is r^arded as an object of wor- 
kup, trkici ig perrmptoriig denied. The cotmatenU Trvuian^ 
dee* met mrtkip tie kmauH mature; though assumed fay the Di- 
vine, and though crowned with gloir and honor inexpressible." 

Mr. Harris obserres, in his work, entitled the Gnat 
Teadtfr, p. 90 : "In order to inflame our affections, lod 
carrr our imaginations with Him, He affords us glimpses of 
his offices and relations in hesTen, and prays that we may 
behold his glory; thus making that glory henceforth tbe 
appnqoiate and engrossing object of evangelical &ith. Str, 
in thus yielding to the dictates of piety and the claims cf 
Christ, earn we be charged icith woT$lupimg his humam matwn. 
Though that nature is exalted above the whole creation,— 
thoush it is crowned with glory and honor, — though the 
fulness of the Gudhead is in it, — though it forma even a iteri 
<*■'■ ihtf f-frmsm of God: yet the object we adore is He to whom 
that nature is bypostatically united, and who stooped to ihai 
luiioii cxpnKsly that He might become a more palpable ami 
deiiiiitc object i>i our love." 

Waterland and Owen take the same view of the subjert, 
and ^ve IIS the reason for so doing ; both denying, secondlr, 
ihat as Me»ua:or Christ is to be worshipped. 

Pr. Maieriaud says, alluding to an Ariau, (IVorka, vd-ii- 
/V%;.y. pp. 33. 36 ; also p. 103 : ' If Christ our Mediator b 
worshipjxM. ii is Invause He is God as well as man, — a (finif 
Mcrliator. This writer canuol prove that Christ's mediat<Hnl 
ortitv is the in\>uud and foundation of the wcvship whicb »f 
:h\' (vminamiovl to pay Him ; but it may on the contrary t* 
pr\«ctl that It IS not. " 

CUAl'. M. U.A\ 18 UUD. 329 

" Thus far I have proceeded in obserriug that this writer 
baa not been able tu nmkr f^ood liis position, that the worship 
of Christ is founded on tii» medititorial olRce. The contrary 
may Ixt proved from two plain rcajious : 1st, That the only 
scriptural foundation of any reli^ons worship, is the divinity 
of the person to be »dored, in opposition to all creature 
worship, tm I have formally proved in my defence." vol. i. 
^luest. 16, &c. 

2nd, "That the mediatorial yffice will cease at the day of 
jadgment, aiirt thercfure cAnnot be the foniidatioii of that 
woi-ship which will continue beyond it, even for ever and 
CTcr, a» Christ's wi>rship will." 

lu reference to Clirist's ctaltatiou to the right>hand of 
God, Dr. Watcrlaud commends the interpretation of a pas- 
sa^ iu St. Paul, as given by an ancient writer, who says, 
" The things mentionwl, as given to Christ, arc ti»o high and 
great for the tnun to receive ; unh-SJi thv humun nature be 
tirppottd to be dipine, wfiich u abmrd." See aim vol. iii. 
p. 374, et leg. 

Dr. Owen follows the same line of argumcmt. Ilms, lu 
vol. viii. of Ilia Work-i, in tlic coneluding chapter on Christ's 
kiiigly office, be obsenes (pp. 200^513} : 

*' In general, divine wursliip is not to be ascribed to any 
Aat U not <iod by nntnre, who is not pnrtnkrr of the dirine 
eawnce and being. In particular, Jesus Christ is not to be 
teorsfiippefl on the arroHut of Ifte pouter oiui authority winch He 
hath received from God us Mediator." 

Again : '* Tlie nature of divine or religions worship, is 
that whereby we ascribe the honor and glory of all inlitiite 
perfectionti tu Him whom we so worship ; to be the tirat cause, 
the fountain of all good, independent, inliuitely wise, power- 
ful, all-sufficient, almighty, all-scei]ig, omnipotent, eternal^ 
the only rcwanlcr; as such we submit ourselves to Him 
religiously in faith, love, obedience, adoratiun, imd invocation. 
But now we cannot ascribe fhesedivine excellences and perfections 



mmlo CkriH a$ Mediator ; fiir then his mediation aiumU be tfar 
reaKHi wbv lie i% kII thi*, vhich it is not ; but it ia frotn lai 
dhrine nstnre akme tkat bo He is, uid therefore thenec akmc 
IB U thst Ue is flo vorahipped." 

Agiin : " So mArr Christ's Bsoensioii God pnv Uim t^ 
rcreUboQ that lie made to the ipostle. Ker. i. 1. Tkt 
kmmmtt natmrv tltrr^ortj kmr nvr inamcrivahf^ whameid, it 
mot the m^feft of h^Uu/e eaatnlially dhiMe propertieM," «oL ii. 

p. isa 

" Vow \oak ! vhat difference there is factreea the tmeaa 
of the Creatur and the crcBturc, the nine ia b e twe ea dav 
exoeUeiicr ; ret hit dignitr U not at all nifcfaer to the dignity 
•ad eieellencT of God ; faecauac therv u no proportioa fa»- 
tveen thai which is infinite and that which is 6nite ad 
hmitcd. If, them, eJtoeOatiy mtd pre-emntnt» fie thr covir^ 
wonki^ mad tike dbtrnmn A tfaju aa lAr eactUairy qf Ged«^ 
Oat ^f Ike wiott cnxikml 9md mttt Ujfkfy mkixncrd aratmn k 
wfiaiU, a w wyowAfe that Me Topect mtd tconkip datk 
tkam should he i^ the tame timi. Now it is reli^ovn or dinRr 
adonUm that is due to God, whereof the cntodlgncy of to 
natore is the fcrmal cmbk ; this, then, eaniiot fas aaoibed to 
any other. And to whmnsoever it is ismbed, thenby ds n 
■rknowtcd^ to br in Uim all dirine perfections, wkick, if Ik 

Ar mot Gcd Ay mMtMre, u gnm i d o hlry Ue is our adntstr 

with the Fisther. In thb raped^ then, seeing that ia »a 
ueeem to God ercn the Father, as the Father of Him sd 
his, — with our worship, hocna^ service, — our fiuth^ irm, 
hope, eonfidrntv, and sBpflici f ioes,— eyeiny Christ as sar 
Mediator, Advocate, Intaneasor,— opoa whose aoomut m 
■re aeecptad, for whose take we are pardoned. thiM^ 
whom we have Tt'^n*'"**^^ to God, and by whom we have hdp 
•■d aiMtnwe in all that we han to do with God ; it a 
endent. T w, that, ■> /Air na^eW. Hr w m/ «ycrf«sr«^ 
dr*Med to M esr wenkip m the Dliimale tidfi/aate farad 
object of it, but » the meritaho*i» cauie of our appnaA lai 


tUAP. VI. MAN 18 GUU. 331 

acceptance, and so oS great eomideration therein. And, thcrre- 
forc, wlicrcBs it is said tliat God hath ^et Him forth to be u 
propitiation througli faith in bis blood, it is not intended that 
£uth lixei OD hin blood or bloodshcdding, or on llini as 
shedding bis blood, as the prime object of it ; bnt as the 
meritorious cause of uur foi^ivcuctta of ain, tlirough the 
rigbteoiunetra of God." 

" For the work of bis mediation ire arc eternally obliged 
to render all ^lorr, honor, and thanksgiving to Him ; but yet 
his mediation is not the formal cause thereof, but only an 
invincible motive thereunto." 

" It ia true Christ bath a power given Him of bis Fa- 
ther, above iiU angels, priucipiilititrs, and powers ; cailed aii 
fowvr in heaven and earth, a namtr abwt i-very name, &e. . . . 
the consideration whereof, with his ability and willingiicsa 
therein to succor, relieve, and save us to the uttermost, in 
the way of mediation, is a powerful effectual motive, as was 
aaid before, to liis worship. Excellency is the cause of honor : 
every distinct cxeellency and eioiuetioc is the cuuae of distinct 
honor and worship. Now what excellency or dignity soever 
is commuQicated by a way of delegation, is digt'mct and ^f 
anolMtrr kind from that which is original, infinite, luid cora- 
mnnicating ; and therefore c-minot be the formal caune of the 
same honor and woi'nliip." 

" The sum of all is — Jcstw Ciirist, God and man, our 
Mediator, who is to be worshipped in all things, and in- 
Tocated as the Father, and whom we ought night and day to 
honor, praise, lore, and adore, beeaiiKe of \m mediation and 
the office of it whicli fnr our sakcs He hath undertaken, is so 
to be honored and worshipped. Not as Mediator exalted of 
God, and intrusted with all power and dignity trum Him ; 
but as being eiiual with Htm — God to be blessed fur ever; 
his dioiae nature being the fundamental formal reason of that 
worship, and proper ultimate object of it." vol. tiii. p. 51-1. 

Thus we sec that although lie who is Mediator is to be 





'wonldpped, He U nnt to Ik worihlppetl as Me^atm, 
bcGBose He was Ood befunr He was ML>diator. As He 
He is no object of warship, though He who U Mediator U i 
be worshipped. Befbrev however, Ue asstHDed the ht 
naitiirc, He was Mediator; acoordiiig at least to Prototal' 
writen. Thus Bishop Bull, qnoting St. Hilary, obserrci: 

** ' There is one ^lediator between God and man, naoelri 
He who is hoCh God and man, and who acted as Mediitar 
both in giving the law, and in sssuminf; the human bodr.' 
Where," »B}-5 Bishop Bull, " we may obserre br the ww 
against Bellannine and other Roman Catholics, that Hilsff ■ 
txfmafy afirms, what indeed it ia evident that aQ tfae 
ancients in general inmlcated, that our Savior was, even in 
the givinf; of the law and before bi^ Incarnation, Medistsr; 
ooaaoqoenth', that He was not Mediator, as the Romaniiti 
strenuDualT maintain, in respect onljr of his hiimau nstiin^ 
which indeed He had not ret asstnncd." Hut/'s ZV^wrtfJ 
tie Mam Owed, iv. 3, 1 1, p. 758. 

1^ tbes, Christ was Mediator before He a&sumed tW 
human nature, and while He was only divine ; and tf^ at ikc 
same time. He U uot to be worshipped a.< Mediator ; it fol- 
lows, that we exclude Him from worsliip as Mediator b^fisv 
He assnmed the humanity; so that nut only his hanuu 
nature, but even his divine natnre also, i», in this reipNt, 
deprived of our adoration. Thus, by excluding Irom wonlnp | 
tlie mtiliiiturial character of Clinst, there will be, upaatliiij 
prinriple, a strong tendency to exclude Him altogether bom I 
worship before He assumed the humiuuty ; caiisoqucntJt. 
while lie was yet divine only. 

Here wc arc reminded of a remark which ia mwkrhf^ 
Baylc, in his article upon Stancanu. " To speak sinccfely, if 
there oue tungte man among the people who follows citho' ^ 
these doctrines, when he puts his trust iu the death of Jcxs 
Christ t And do not the doctors themselves, who have nm 
piMAtonatrly disputed on those points, worship him ; wtUwOI 


citAr. VI. 

so much tk» thinking of tlioae di»tiiictiuu8 betivecii tiis liumiiii 
nature and Iiis ilivinr- nature?" 

The common people may uot fullow thL-sc doctrines, as 
Baylc obscn'cs ; hut the learned, upon tlirir own principles, 
ooglit and must; for there is no alternative in this rose^ but 
the worship of the crcjiture, that is, of the human nature: 
licnce, upon /Arrt" principles, avowed idolatry. I^Bt lis, how- 
crer, further examine into the mediatorial office of Clirist, 
and wc shall soon sec the reason for which it is maintained 
that Christ is not to he wor«hi|ip(^d an Modiator. 

The church, in general, tick now ledges that by the inter- 
ceasian and mediation of Christ are meant prayer, supplien- 
tion, or postulation, as it has been variously called. But it 
has been divided upon this question, whether that prayer be 
only n>prc»eutativc or vocal also. Wc shall jirst gi\e the 
riewn of the Church of Rome, and in so doing shall refer 
to the commentary of Tena, as presented in bis remarks on 
the seventh chaptL-r of the; ICpistlu to tlic HcbruwH, p. ^8-1. 

After stating that the whole difficulty among Cntholies 
Ufon this aubji.>ct, is, tUc; (jucstiun whether our Saviour's 
prayer in heaven he only metaphorical, interpretative, or re- 
presentative ; consisting in an actual exhibition of his huma- 
nity to the Father, and of the wounds he had received in it, 
nnnceompanied by any forma! petition, either mental or voeij ; 
or, on the coutrary, accompanied by either ; he cjuotea au- 
thorities on both sides, propounds what he calls the true iHew 
of the subject, and contirins it by various reasuna adduced 
even by those who allege the contrar)'. 

On the subject of Christ's intercession considercil as a 
reprcM;utative prayer, luiaccompanied by formal petition, he 
obiicr^'cs, that " St. Thomas says, Christ appeases in heaven 
the anger of the Father, by representing to him his own 
human nature marked with wounds, and iu this manner it is 
that lie pleads his o^vn meriU. There is a tlureefold inter- 
cesiiou for us by Christ ; the fir&t, before his passiou, by 



CM At. VI 


Bpoa the 

I, by die 

ion, br the 

aC im blood ; the Unrd, after bn m 
laliaa of kii vnanils.'* In «a p )> or t ei tliu view ef the fdb- 
iDd, Tetm quotes tiregorr the Great, BBpettaa, Jcc, ■■ iho 
qK ywtu w, who ^^ tkat tbe fnaeux of Cfarut vitfa tbs 
hdnr, and ha ftwent bm^ operate for u* «« a poweiiy 
miihtmi and that in tfaii manner He is our adrocatp ; not 
became He asks any ibiiig anew, cr vocally prvrs, but (m 
tbeicaaoa tbaft bis prei CTce appeaaw tbe Jndgr and 

He tben adds, tbat ** ancb as hold these ricvx undertake to 
pnm it by icaaon ; for thai vere it the case tbat Cbrist tnlf 
and pt oj i erir pnxd for us in hearcD, we might, in tlui caic; 
MfcboB to piwr for ns; for that what He doeth for v it 
'victne of iaa faolr office, we oiigfat with a holy bent aak \am 
to p afo fi . Bat this wmld lM^ foret|^ to the naage «f tlic 
e b wc h , vbiek only pnys Christ to hare merrr npon tts, sad 
not tbat He shoold ask tbe Father for v», ia tbe same mu- 
ner as we ask the Vir]gin Maiy. Indeed it wonld be fon^ 
to tbe manner in wfaicfa Christ taught us to pmy, when Bf 
aaid, loArtistwr je mat tAf Father in mt/ aoiw, He wiiigiit'i 
iftm; DOl — wbitou etcrye ask me to ask the Father. BoUe^ 
naHMKb as it docs not seen to be becomiu» tu the mi^eitT 
of Christ, who sitteth at the ri^huhand of the Father, fv 
Him to pray to the Father for us (because since He has k- 
eraded into heareo. He eti^oys a ftiU exercise of bis pomrl, 
He, for thin reason, docs not ask, hut only ^vcs, aa Bopotv 
also affirms. iVgain ; inssmuch as snch n prayer is nut a» 
ceasarr to obtain, to merit, or to satisfy, since all this m 
done br our Lord when upon earth, such a prayer aoefli 
altogether useleaa. Nor can it be said that He prays will » 
view to exact what He obtained when upon earth ; for iflv 
we hare obtained the frrant of a faror from any prinm, "d 
we again address him in the way of entreaty lo beatow i^ 
this we do only to remind him of his promise, or the 


HAN 18 OOP. 


tn ronfirm liitn m it ; neither of wliich cases nppir to Christ 
iu regard to His Ktcnial Father, who can ncitber let liis ovm 
promises slip from his mcroory, nor stand in need of any 
fresh confirmntion to ahide hy thcm.^' 

The other side of the question, namely, that ChrUt nerer- 
thcloM diK's vocally pmy to the Panther, is thna stated by Tena. 

"Bonaventura affirms, not only thatClirirt, truly and pro- 
perly prays to the Father, but that He adores Him with 
bended knee, aiul prays Him to send the Holy Spirit. Abu- 
lensis, also, and others, observe that a contrary opiniou ia 
improbable ; nny, even St. Thomiw distinf^ishca the inter- 
cession of Chrint into two kinds; the first as performed by 
prayer, the second by the representation of hift humanity. 
If it be said that the first took place only on eartlij the second 
only in heaven, it may be replied, that the same St. Thoma.t 
obnen'CA, that Chriirt in heaven appeases the Father by reprc- 
ftcnting to Him his human nature marked with wounds, 
plendinir hi^i own merits, and interceding for us officially. 
Now what is it for Him to plead his merits, except it be in 
nrtne of those merit* to a.<k the Fathw? — more particularly 
when we consider that St. Thomas distingnishrs the second 
mode from the first, and yet says that Clirist cxprcsMs the 
ilesine of hisi soul for our salvation. Now the expression of 
desire is true and projwr pniyer ; therefore, aceording to St. 
Thomas, Christ prays for us not intcrpretatively, but tnily 
and properly." 

In section the second, Tcna proceeds to give what he says 
is to be re.garded as the true and urthoflux opinion of the 
Catholic Chnrcb upon this subject. 

" Although," 8ay.s he, "it is not repugnant to the huma- 
nity of Christ, a-t it now is in heaven, to pray to the Father 
for us with bended knee, still n condition thus abject docs 
not appear to become his present glorious state, as is testified 
by Gregory Naiianzen, who says, 'wc hare as an advocate, 
Melius ; who docs not on our account lu^ntrate himself at the 


I "T-r: 

IcT 'J 

U -1 -i-lV-Il 2, I. 

nr:^ I.*!' 

.111 -r- 

//-b»-.' -.V" 

rivi .'/f -:* u:iK ; 

.1..- r? r-JT^J. ir':. 

::-•?-. - :i '_j; jjarr-ns. r « -wnn-*— :iti- -n ^nr 

10 t irriV:r .;-.i: "i rr.ii. :i-i--r. T.ier:ii.'r t? .'"n-.i(iir "::;ir ju- 
'iiaiut'.' »< ,1" 'Xj*r-ir,i'a.l" -lu^ijint^-i "" ^e r'.'""Ji;L^ 'T i*'.n 

pOHRmn'->n ■*h..f: -iar-i :a TXi-'ii. is t.^ :irt 'jijoti "J 

bdievft, Hft pr»j*rt :'-,r :.■>. Seeicil^. ^tM.-aiise laoudi hs 

bimuinit./ wm ^**ari::ft*i --.r ■:r,i:>:i;:ei: :.j tie r>i\-iii;rr. or w- 

nuae 'rf bfrfh, Hft rfid no?, ar tLe s-uze tnie. liwe hi* L-mrti 

aire «ik( ff/rrn, hut reicalnj inferior tu Go*i. anii cutw- 

itljf fHjmhU; f»f prayer; for to this end uothina el*e » 

MJt^i. flfiii^f; almt the ftaints who are now in heaven prav; 

uj(li tUfiy nn; l^fntified not only in spirit but in hudy ■ 

ffvidinit frtnn tiu; Hlcmod \'ir^n, who is beatified in Mii 


lesprcta, fttid yet now provs for iw in heaven, as Bernard 
testifies iu his St>rraoii on the nntintj' of the Blessed \'irgin : 
* For thus' says he, ' the Son ttUi hear the mother, and the 
father will hear t lie Son ;' and in like manner as he grant* 
tJint the mother prnys to the Son, he admits that the Son 
pmys to the Father, liut when the mother is said to pmy to 
the Son for us, she is said to do so truly and properly ; tbere- 
[fcjre the Son prays to the Father in the same mnTincr. 

•' If it be rephed, — Should this he the case, we may ask. 

.the Son to pray to the Tather, in like manner a« we ask the 

' mother to pray tu the Son for ns, St. Thomas rejoins by an 

absolute denial of such a CDnsequencc ; for that wo oiif^ht 

Imther to address Christ tlms, Oh, Chrixt, hear us ! or. Have 
mercff upon ua ! and this both becniise we ought to avoid the 
error of Arius and Nestorius, who malntnincd that Christ 
irw a mere creature j and heesinsc the prayer is directed 
ninply to the person ; and an this i» ditine, aud hii* ntHcc is 
aceordin^ly not to ask but to (^vc, it is more n^cenhlc that 
■ we should ask of the person to give, than to pray to the 
Father; just as when we address a prince who may be invested 
with two titles, that uf count and that of king, we always 
make use of tlie more honorable title ; so in like manner, wo 
■bflolutely adore Christ with the adoration of the worship 
(tairite) wliieli is due to the divinity itself; not with the wor- 
ship of hyperduiia, which properly belongs to his hnmanity. 
Inaaniuch, therefore, as it in mure honorable to give than to 
■sic, although Clirist may do both, we never ask Him for the 
htter, but for the former; for the former offieo He excciitea 
^■> God, the hitter as man. This distinction we observe par* 
l^cnhirly in our public prayers, lest persons shouhl otherwise 
lie deceived, and Hhunld ima^nn that He was imt true God. 
BO tlint we thus avoid all oecasiou of scandal or error; and 
prc9cr%'c the usage of the church ; which never jiraya to Christ 
to pray for tu, but only that lie would hear ns and have mercy 
apon lis; especially, ina<unuch as in our public worship, there 



if IB mpfKjpnMtei mode of pniTing exteriortr from diviiie 
wnhip istria , mnd vhidi hai leqiect to God onh-; and 
from vonliip not dhine .'dMRsJ, which has respect to tbe 
oints. Hence xben might be arane ^denutl i^peannce of 
dmser. if anrone should nov pnj tothehtunauitToFChnit, 
jus M to anr of the saints, that it would intercede with God 
Iv Bs. Still if anj «ie, inteiiortT aware of the <li<rtiiyti<w 
bttweoi the humanitT and the divinitf , should contenq^tfc 
die hmnanitT of Chiist which is now pnring far ns, it viB 
be aUonfale for him to ask aS that homanity to make oa par- 
taken ci his piajer, to omjcHn oar own with his, and tooiet 
then to the Faiber; as Augosdn and Ambrose have botk 
death- taosfat ; and this indeed 3Iartha did, when Chiiatni 
npoD earth ; as where she sars to Him, Amd now I tmaw tkd 
witmUomrtkomahmitmak<^Ged, GodwUl gwe it tkee; tlUbaa^ 
slw had b^cve confesaed, that He vas the Son oi the linag 
G<m1 who had come into the wwld for us. Besides, 'n*f"°^ 
as Christ while now in beaTcn, as to his humauitr, offen if 
ptaiies to God and also religioas worship (though not in that 
j«eminelv serrile way which we hare already noticed) it fiit 
lows, in like manner, that Christ also can now prar, and that 
He acniailr does prar." 

After observing that the prayers of Christ are of tn 
^ijjds — one meritorious, which He oflFered np while npoa 
earth, the other not merit(»ioas, which He now offers op ii 
hearen. but oulv requiring of the Father the bestowal of tk 
reward which He had merited in the dars of his flesh— tb 
au:hor proceeds to confirm soeh a new of the subject lif 
Tari*>us reasons allesed by opponents. 

'- St. Paul said that the priesthood of Christ is eternal 
and thereiVwt that He is ever able to save, and to exercise )» 
office. Now the office proper to a priest, is, with a tme and 
formal prayer to pray to God forthose over whom he ispla«ii 
as St. Paul teaches in chapter t. Christ, therefore no* 
prays for us in hearen truly and properly. To this appear » 

cajLT. VI. 



words of St. John. JVe lutr.v an admratf unih the 
Father, Jettis i'hi-iit t/ie rit/htemus ; for He cousoles sioiiera 
with the assuraiirt* tliat they hnvc an iidvociite with the Fa- 
ther; not a»y advocate, but Jesus ChrLat the righteuus. But 
the oflicc of an adrocatc is to intercede, and to ask for the 
clicut whose- advocate he i» ; so that f Christ truly and (jruperly 
now asks and prays the Father for us. Otherwise, what con- 
Bulation would it be, that we hnre an advocate with the 
Father, wlio is altogether dumb and does not exercise pro- 
perly and formally thr offirc of an advocate ? Nor is it 
enough to say, that ttic oflicc of ath'ucate, wliich Ue excr- 
when upon earth, is stiU to the divine mind virtually 
Bent; inasmuch as it would be to little or no purpose, 
jthat Christ sliould now be with his Father in beaveu, if He 
did not still actually perform the office of advocate ; nor 
, would the words of Paul be properly veri6ed ; hceause, he 
docs not say, who lived and nuuie intercesg'ton ; but who ever 
Sveth to make interces*wn for m ; lienco He not only oxcreised 
, this uiiice in the days of his pil^riiuaj^e, but He does so now 
also in his own heavenly country. Nay ; to represent to the 
i Father his wounds, and the merits He had upon earth, and 
Ion account of these to auk for that which He had mentcd for 
is a prayer most properly so called ; and is the office of 
advocate; because there is not only an objective represen- 
' tntion, namely, an cxliibition of the humanity* to the I''ather, 
but a formal ct^nitivo representation, hy which He shews to 
Father what He suffered, anil cxactM the reward of his 
sion; particularly, inasmuch as we have seen prayer to he 
fin act of true relijjious womliip, and the humanity now in 
heaven fin patriaj offers religious woraliip to the Father, by 
ing, adoring;, and giving thanks to the Father; and 
lence, why not therefore by prayer?" Stc., &c. 
^ i>uch is an outline of the principal arguments used by 
HSVou, to which the reader is referred ; the sum of which, as 
Hbearing upon the particidar subject in question, is as follows. 


but a 

mahe I 

"in ac 






Chiiat pn.j» to the Father truly anil formaDy, 
arrrildj'. He abo prays, br an exhibition of hii 
to the Father. But the CathoUca of the Church of Bow 
must DOC pray to Christ to pray to the Father j ahhonghi 
is aUovablr to ask the humnnity of Christ to conjaia ^tm 
pnyen with his, and to offer them to the Father. To dotk 
fimner vonld be dangeroua ; irould lead persons to tUri 
that Chmt was not truly God ; and would anvor of Ahasn 
and Xestotianion. To do the Utter would be to obsenc tk 
vsaf^ vi the chorch. Thus, the difference between Ariaom 
and orthodoCT, acoording to this aceonut, is, that the Anw 
prays to Christ to pray to the Father ; the orthodox pnr a 
the liaauuuty of Christ to conjoin their prayers with hi^ ^ 
to ofier them to the Father. Such &ud so ucar nei^bon ur J 
Orthodoxy and Arianiam. Roth i^ree, according to this accoolH 
that the humanity of Christ still prays to the Father, likelk 
rirffin Vary or any other saint ; both agree that Chrii^ '* 
his hniBBoity, offers np acts of praise and adoratian tB & 
Fbtker; say, as some Rwnaniats admit, eren with beaki 
knee. I^ xa now turn to the view taken by Prolestaak. 

" But it is asked/' says Poole, in his Synopsia, " in «te 
mnT'iHT it is that Christ intercedes for us ': fur the loaliDai 
of a (applicant scarcely becomes the glory of a king. U * 
repbed, that He docs this, because He represents to tk 
Fklfaer the nature which He has assumed for ua, iiidA> 
Mijiiiiiiii which arc celcbtmted in Utni ; obtaining peste if 
«s by the perpetual efficacy of his sacrifice ; as also bccaa* 
tinB Aetin of his soul, which Ue has for our solratioii, fir 
Kkevae ei yrcs s c s . Gregory the Great 8a,(-s, that Cbat 
does not paftfm this act as formerly^ with a submisaTe, btf 
with an authoritative address. Rom. riii, 34. Still, ho«e«> 
the question remains, whether Christ doth now prayfttfik 
or ofibr up supplications. Aquinas, Gregory, and Ri^oai 
■MW to deny this ; allinuiug, alw, that this is the 
of all the learned. But in this they are miatakea ; Ik 



MAN 18 eOD. 





Gregory Naxinnzeii, Augiwtin, TIirodoTPt, &c., inamtaiit the 
contrarj'; iw dors Teim also, who has treated this Huliject «t 
large. The question, howei'er, is Dot so much about a fact, 
as about a oamp. For Christ now truly and pniperly pra}*s 
for UK; htH^ausc! firsts Ho is even now our mU-umtc and 
mediator, 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; 1 John ii. 1 ; whose ofHcc it is to 
pray for us. Secondly; the (Jreek word ttTityxavnt, signifies 
intercession made with prayer or postulation, Rom. viii. li&i 
Acts XXV. 21. Thirdly ; Christ even uoiv has, and expresses, 
a desire for our salvation. Christ therefore prays, mid prays 
vubroissiTcly, which it is to no purpose for Rupcrtus to deny ; 
(hat is to say. Ho prays with the same re^'crence and acknow- 
ledgment of the divine nature, nnd the Httlent^ss of the 
human natiur, whieh He did before upon earth, hut no 
longer with tears, S:c. It may be asked, however, why He 
prays, since He is able to do all things. It i.s answered, 
'first, while lie was upon earth He could do all tliinirx; yet 
nevertheless He prayed. Secondly ; He does so, because, as 
man, He rejoices to be in aubjtiction to God, to acknowledge 
God as the greater, and the author of idl good things, &c. ; 
also, Ijecauflo a.i man He ought not to omit the duties which 
are proper to luau^ of which prayer is one ; finally, becauBe 
He said that God had so appointed for hi» own diWnc glory." 
Not only howei-er, according to some, docs the humau 
^ luhire still pray submissively, and offer up to the divinity 
Htbe acts of adoration due from a creature to the Creator ; but 
Bitsetf is also a.s a crciiture, thmigh uow in heaven in a most 
~ abject condition ; being still wounded and still bleeding. So 
that upon Clirist's intercession, Scott ohscrvcR {vol. ii.p.4i:)}: 
" By the presenting to his leather his wounded and bleeding 
body, which carries with it an inexhaustible fountain iif 
rtietoric and persuasion, He miLkes the most moving and pa- 
intercc^Mon for u» ; the sense of which is this, — ' O, 
ly Father, behold tlua sacrificed body of mine, which by thy 
ct)nsent and approbation hath been xnbiitttutcd to 1>cur the 



cn^p. ft 

punwiiment which was due from thee to mankind ; 
through t!ic wounds of wliich I have cheerfully poured 
the precious blood of Qod, as a rauBom for the nni of the 
vorld ; for the tiakc of this blood therefore be thou so (a 
propitious to tlio»c miscml))!; einiicra it vas shed for, as t^ion 
coudilion they shall repent, to accept it in exchange for Ae 
lives of their souls, which arc forfeited to thee ; to relcMe 
them from the obligation they are under to die etentaUy; and 
upon their finril perseverance in well doing:, to cpovn tkn 
writh eternal life ; and tliat tliis blood, which at thy fxtuuaaaii 
I have willingly shed for them, may not, through their {ni- 
hility to repent and persevere, he utterly ineffectual to then; 
O, scud thy Holy Spirit to assist their weak faculties, to note 
their endeavors, mid co-operate with them.' Thia aignifiim 
action of Christ's preaenting his sacrificed body to God, a bolk 
a claim and a prayer; or rather it is a prayer backed aad 
enforced with a rii^htfu! claim to the hlcsainpi he prays for." 
It is a{p:«ed, then, both by Homauistn and Protcstantlt 
that the intcrceiiRion of Christ is true and formal pn^er, ■ 
uiueh so as that of the virg:iD Maiy and the saiiitx. Buffer 
say, BiesMd JesuA.' ftray for ui, — blessed Mary ,' pra^ form, 
would, accordiiij^ to some, he placiug Christ too much op"" 
a level with the saints ; and would introduce Arianum. Hm 
does the Church of Rome, as asserted by Tena, profen to 
avoid this ? Ky still rctainin<; the same ideas of mediktioB; 
by still believing that the prayer of Christ is as truly flnmil 
aa that of the virgin !Mary or the saints ; bnt by making »o 
mention of the cdrciuufa-tanco in its own acts of public wanlB|i, 
or not allowing the interior ideas to escape from the Ujm; m 
the principle that Arianism is not a dangerous doctrine, M biC 
as it IB not on the lips, but only in the mind. On the olfc» 
hand, the Protestants, not granting that xaints and angiJs *»• 
tcrcede, are in no danger of mixing up the prayer* of Oin* 
with the prayers of saint*, and arc more likely thoTvAur* 
their acts of devotion to pra^ to Chriiti to jtnn/ to tttr Fatk/r. j 


rilAP. VI. MAN IS ROD. 343 

This prayer of Christ is ackiiowlcilgnd to lie real, not fi^ura- 
tire or metaphorical ; but since tins is very much allied to 
the Romish idea of the intercession of the saints and angels, 
some wUl not allow the ]irayer to bo vocal, but declare it to 
be only tacit ; conaisting iu interior supplication, not expressed 
by words, hut in a representation of his wounds, which 
tfectufdly move the Father; and it b upon this principle 
(as some understand it, and T believe most) that the prayers of 
the church are generally addressed to the Father for the sake 
of the Son. 

"Tlius, surely every one," says Buckridge, "that doth 
desire to be heard, and therefore concludes his prayers with 
tlicae words, throuifk Jenux Christ oar Lord, doth represent 
and oifer Christ cmcilicd to God ; and entreats remission and 
grace through hia death and passioti. And Christ our High 
Priest, tliat sitteth at tlie right hand of God, doth, at that 
instint, execute his oflice, and make intercession for us, by 
repreflcnting his wounda and scars to his Father."* Oaiford 
TracU, vol. iv. ; Catena Patrum, No. 4. 

We sec then, that RomanistH admit Christ's prayer to be 

* The way hi wliirh thi> iDtfrcpasiiiD tit «fiV(.-CiM], lU well as llic object of It, 
if ttn caadidLy espluiaed by Btiiisuet, ia lii» Expvrit'wn nf Calholk Dotirmu, 
p. 66, Flelektr'ted.: " Such is the efficacy of lh« •olprori act of cnnircrBlioD, 
Thiii MQTtid Bcl >», tnorroTi-r, n tribute of acknnwicd indent, ofTiired up to 
God's •ovvrpign mnjcaly; inatmocti m by it, Jpiim Chri*!, who it hen 
personally preseivt, rcaeWB, Id eomc rL'Spect, and porpclualcs, the ni«n]i>riftl 
of biK owD O'bctlirnctt orrn to the drath of Itic crua*. Su thut, 13 fad, tbcre 
!• nolhiDK wantinii: lu render it 11 rcaS acd pi-rfccl I'Acritcc. Ncilber chu it 
be doubted tliibl thii holy artion, aUki)U)[b tunsidcrcd »i>iiarate<ly from Uial 
Vl tbc mmidiiicatiou, i» of iuelf peculinrly pleuiDg to ihn Almitclity ; and 
coEniafnf poirrr/ally lo indufe Hint to l«ok dawH leilh an eife <if pity upon 
tlu iliftrtt* a/ hU crritliireM. It tliu* replaces bcfoie Him the TvluDtary 
death wliich tbi» bclovod Son undcrvrrnt for the »akn of siiin«r»; or n- 
tber, it thus ropluces befun* Him Ibis bdorrtl Sod bintsplf, under th« 
embknu of ihnt dnttA, by which flnc« bis Jndr^fMfian Km apptaatii. The 
meri> circuiBSiaiice of ihc prasaocr of Christ Jc*uii upon the altar, Is Ittcif, 
as titry i:hris(iiin mii*t acknowlrdKe, a kind of tnlerc(>Hsiafl eitrcnwly 
pow«rfa1 with God, in r«*9r of mankind ; accofding lo lint sayioB of 



cnjiF. fu' 


renl, but do not in tbcir public worKliip ask llim to praj, 
btit only to mix up tbcir prayers with hia ; Protestants admit 
the prayer to be real, but uot always vocal ; and i\u* i« tlw 
way in wbich both conceivp they avoid Ariaoism ! 

With regard to the Romanists, although, in the accoot 
given by Tena, it woidd seem to be forbidden in the Chnrch 
of Romt! to jn-ay to Christ to pray to the Father ; yet it d«e» 
not seem forbiddeu io pratf to tfte viryin to pray to Gtritt It 
pray to the Father; for the Father hears the Son, aud^^^ 

St. Paul, Chruf pre^mU himMt\f, and apftart in ihe prtfmcr vf Garf»*r 
hthaU". H(rh, ix. It i*, llicrvfiirc, our belier, tlitH our bencTulcnl Rmleeaer, 
preieal ii|iiiii uui Hilars tiiiilcr llic Ajmbols of death, JDtiM^edcs thtre fat h; 
ftnd proBVDU Ihcrv cuntiaually fur us Lu liil Cterowl Father that deslli, mikk 
Hk titJL-r suirvfci] for the •oocliDcaliuii uf bi» charch. It ia in UibitMr, 
Ihkt ipnkioK of tlic cochariBlic siicri&ce, we Mv, that Jeiiuft Chml tbnit 
offen binisi^lf up la God in our bchnlf ; and it i« t1iui that wc belie**, tbi 
the li<»ly otiluiiuD ilhpwiet the dirine tomlneu to be the more Idmd mad jr* 
pitiuUM (« w. fiencv it i*. tliat wr give it the nkmc of jfro^*iiai«ry." 

Coupon (Ills EiposilioD q{ Catholic Docirine, vtith tb« Mlamwt 
obsi^rvAlinii of Dr. I'yc Stnilh, in tiii DiscourM* on the Sacriic* mi 
Piivstlicvd of Jesus CbriM, &c. |>. 13t! : " NothiPK aa hn lutinitiei ihl 
would conlradirt incontroTrrtiljIr Grel principles. Bui Ibrre mm two Mxfc 
pfinvLples, wbich nrv vf^vo violated by 1 neon aide rale tid«ucAtf)« of llMdM- 
lrint> of aaliratian by tht tnedialion of Christ; and tbe violalioa of tka 
ha3 afforded the advantiLga of atl the plausible arcumenLv nrged a^alsMlUt 
doctrlQc by it* ndvrntarini. Thr Brtt is, tlic iiiimiitability of Ood. Hia 
moral priuolples, thai is, bis rectitude, wisdom, and goodoeAs, u espnsi 
by hi* blcMrd and holy iriJJ, COD undergo no nltcration ; Ibf tu wlaiitMcii 
Bupposllion would bo destnictiio of the absolute raartcTiott of tbe dniw 
nalifrr, u* it would iiuply cithv:! an iuiproi rmcnl or a deteriuratioa latt* 
subject uf tlir BUppoved (;haii)i;c. We cuiDut, tliercfore, hear at nti, 
wilhoot uniijieakiMr ttitapprabntiou and itgrtl, represi^ntAtiona of ih« Do^ 
«> Am 4Cluated bj tlie pauiuus i>f »ratb aud fury luTrards alaful nn, sM 
as aflcrwaida turned, by the pn-BCDialion of the Savior's MrriAce, latoa 
dilTereut Icittper, a dispoiiCion of calmoest, kindne««, and fntt. IW 
•econd found iilina- principle is, that the udoiatilr God U, froni elervitr *ad 
In all tbe glorious coostaocy of his uniiirc, gracious and locroful. He «■■ 
DO cKlraneou* motive lo induce Him to pity and rclie** our ■liwuUi 
world. No chaoKO in God is neeeitsary or desirable, if cveii it«cf«f» 
•ibip. Tliifi is abundantly rvidODl from many piuia of thr diTiiM 


Son hears the mother; and the Ilomaniitt prays to the 
mother to intercede ; and tlic Son's intercession, According 
toaome, is like the mnthcr'a. Writers of the Church of Itomc 
have ver)' wisely determiued, that /or its to prny to the Son 
I pray to the Kathcr, savors of Arinni^m ; hut whnt do Ihcy 
lify of the same practiee as uttributud by them to the virfciii 
Mary and the saints ? for, as St. Bernard says, the Father 
hears the Son and the Sou hears the mother. Indeed, this 
Tcry suggestion seems to have occiured to Petavius, and 
therefore i\c says, he does not sct^ why Eoraanista may not 
pray to Christ to pray to the Father.* 

* On Uiis impurtaat •ubJKt, Swedenborg ol<>er*»t : ** The Lord li naid to 
be reJMird, when H« is nut ftpproachi^d and worsLipprd, and UkctriHi; wh<i?n 
Re U apprvaclicd uid wunkiiipcd only ns to his liunmaily, nnd nut at tliu 
Muc limr us Ia bU divinity ; nlicrrforc lie It rejected al lhi» day within tlie 
chuich by ibose wlodo not approe^b aod wur:iliip Him, but pray In the 
Father ttint He trnuld be taCTcifnl fur the inkc of Ihr Snn, wh«n ynl it in 
Inpouible far any idbd or angel lo approKcb ili» F&tlier, and (o wurship 
Him immcdialcly. He bring (be invltible dJTiitily with nltom itn one can 
be ooojoined by faitb and love ; Tor nhut U iaTiaiblo ilolh not fdll into the 
tdcauf thnitglil, and theri'foi« not IntA the altbctltho Af the vilt, and what 
doth not fall into the iden nf [IiourIiI, cannot 1tP an nbjc-<^t i>r Tailh, tnt Ih^i 
llllagB which relate id falilb must b<* objects of thought, and Ithcirlso what 
doth DOl enter intu lite uJiccltun of Ike witl dolh not enter into tUe l(iv«, fur 
Ibe things rolallDg to lovo must aCTect the will of man, aince in the will 
Kvidesall the love which mnn halh. Hut the dirino huiDHoily of lh« Lor<l 
Ihlla into the idea of Ihou^hl, and thus iatu faiCh^ and hence into the 
affection of the will or lo<e; from which con *idc rut ions it ii vtidoni tijal 
DO cnnjancllon cad be bud with the Father exce|>t from the I>ord and in Che 
Lord; thi# tlie Lord himavlf lery clearly teaches ia Ibe evaugelista, aa In 
John. N# »nf kath Hen (itKi nf any time, Iht onliftegollen San, teho it in iht 
iotmm t/ iht I'lillitr, He hiilh l>rniig;hl i/im /nrlh tn rifif. i. IB. Again ,- l> 
hnt MtUluf htaril Iht roue nf Hu Failuritl any liiiu, nor tten An ahufe, t. 37. 
Again ; I am the lf'«y, and the Truth, anii the i.ij't, no one tamtth (« Ihf 

IFallur bml bfmef if gt had itvoitn me, yt would hart knam my Father atto; 
kt wA* SKfb flW, Ktlh Iht Father; Philip, biiirreft thou nuf Ihul S am in (Ar 
Father, and Iht Father im nut BtUtte me that t am in the Fathrr, and the 
FatktriMmr. liv. 6 — II. Hrnce it miiy \tc manifest, ttiHt the LurtI ■■ re- 
>eeteil by thooe within the church who imiDT<d lately atcprtuK^h Ibc f'niber, 
and pray to Hiai to bv mcrcirul fur the Bake of IfaeSua ; further ranaot Ihtnk 





It 18 justly afTinned by Dr. WatcrUnd, that the 
of Christ's chnrtwter is very low, when it is thought of tA 
of " one thai gives lu nothing himae\f, bui orUff oaks amoiherh 

olhervriie a( the trtinl'* humauily, ibu w of tbe huiiMaity of maathtt mn, 
thus Qol si thp samp lime of lib divloitj id tbe buiuaoity, tUll Ina of hM 
divinity catijoined to hi* hnmsnttv a« tbe moI isconjortiMl Iu tfar boAj, 
■Gccirrlingtu the doctrine received thfoUKhuut the ChrUtian wntd. Wtok 
tl^fi Chrlslian irorltl, rtha iicknowlcdgu the Lord's divinily, woald l> 
willing to be Ltader the iiii|jiilati{»n uf placiofc hi» liivtaity oQt of bbhi- 
iiMDilyr Whnn y(>t to think of the humaoily alone, and not AltbcNM 
1lm» of liis divinity in his hnmHuity, r* to look at Ikesi u MpMatft, wbU 
it not to look at the LonI, nur at both nit one penon, whcD jit the dodiMt 
n-crirtd in Chruli'itiiDm tcarlii**, thni Lh« dirinily Rod hBmanity of iht 
Lord arc not Ino, but only unc pcrwn. The men of (he church nt thitfaf 
Iliiuk iudeed of Ihf liord'» divinity in hii butaanity, when Ifary speak bwm 
thedoctriDfl of the church, but uUu^cther othcrwiM when tbey tkiak Mi 
kpeak with tlieniNetveN out uf dortriDe ; but it i« to be noted, Ui%t ibc Mrit 
of man, when he thinks asd speaks frum doctrine, diffeiv from that in ■hir* 
hn thinks and npnukv uul of doctrine ; for wliiliit he thtnlo and epeala bvm 
dociTine, be then thinks and speaks from (he memory of hia natortl an; 
but when be tblnke aod speaks out of doctrine, he then ihliiks ao4 tfok* 
from hi« spirit, fur to think and npcak from the spirit, it to l&iak and tfiA 
froio the Int^rlom of his mind, whence be dorivM hJa very faith ; tke w* 
of mnn il]»o nflrr dralh, hiu a ijuality agreeable to tbat nf iIk thon^ m4 
speech of his spirit out of doctrine, and net agrecnblc to hia tbOMfhliai 
speech from dootrine, unlcM this latter had been one with tbe former. TW 
man hnlh two stales oa to faith and lore, one wbllsl he is io doetriac, aai 
llie i>lher irbpn out of dortrine, but that Hid Mtale of (lis fatlh and latewl 
of dnctrinu saves hitn, and not tbfl slate of his speech conceniltig UHk tai 
love when from Hirrlrinr, iinlriiH [hi* liiltrr *tate make* one irlth ibe IbfBW, 
is unknown tn man ; when yet to think and speak fron doctrine i ^' rftf *^ 
faith and love, is to speak from the natural man and his meniory, as avj W 
taanifcst ^m this consideralioD alone, that the bad ai well as ttaa good oa 
alike so think and »peak when they arc with otlicra ; wberefoevalMA* 
wicked rulers of the church, alike as the sood. or the rulers wha ktrwrn 
faith, alike with thtme who have faith, can preach the gospel with sladK 
zeal and affiNrtloa apparantly ; the reason t>, because in saeb eaao tie ^b. 
■B was said, think* and speaks fiam his untural man and his miweij. 
whereas tn think from his spirit, it not to think from his uamrai naa sad 
his memory, hut fmm the npitilual niaa, and his faith and affeetiaa. 
this eonalderatian alone it may be manifest, that man hath Iwe i 
that the forniCT slate doth not save him, bat Ihc latter ; for mbb aflsv ' 

CH\r. VI. MAN 18 OOD. S47 

yire um :" for this ho conceives to be closely allied to Arino- 
ism. Hence ve find that pnijcrs are iKimctimca directed tu 
Christ himself by the chturches, both of Home and of Eng- 
land ; and this circnmHtJiiicu is appi'alcd to in proof, that the 
Arian notion is not ado]>t(![I liy i-itlii-r, nnmcty, that Christ is 
only one that fftees wjt nothimj hintseif, but only tuh another 
io yive tu. We may instance the prayer imputed to St Chry- 
softom, irhich in directed solely to Christ. But let u» hear 
the account of this praTcr, as (^ircn hy a Church of England 
dii-inc ; " Wc nddresa oniraelves in this prayer," saj-B he, " to 
the second prrxoH in the glorious Trinity, our blessed Savior j 
And remind Him uf the gracious promise He made to um 
whcp on earth, that where two or tlirec arc gathered togrcthcr 
in his name, He would he there in the midst of them : and, 
therefore^ if we can but prc^-ail nith Him to hear our desires 
and petitions, we knotv that the power of hi» intereesaion unfh 
God u so ffrcai, thai uk itted not doribl but vie shall obtain 
thtm." IVheatly cm the Book of Common Prayer. 

In thiH prayer, then, it might appear that Christ is asked 
to bestow of himself, as God, the blessing prayed for; it 
seems, however, according to the forcffoing account, that this 
is a luisapprebension ; for that his iuterccsi<or}' prayer, though 
not mentioned, is implied; and consequently, that He is 
appealed to in this case as on« thai gives us nothing hUnself, 
m Imi otUjf asks another to yive us. Nay further, that He asks 
m9» the second person in the Trinity ; which it is not easy to 
^^Bouat for, except on the principle of the %'oluntary eco- 
nomy ; in which, before the foundation of the world, tlic 
Father and tlic Son covenanted with each other, the one to 
pray, the other to he prayed to, and on this condition to 
grant the desire and petition ; in which case again the pro- 
pcartSa and offices of the creahirely human nature are 
Mcribed to the divine penoii. 

U a Npint, ibcrafore >ucti a» ih« mu wu in tli« woild w to hla ipiril, Kich 
he rcoMin* after his deiMrlurB uut of lh« warM." iVrc Cl»mv» «n St. J«*li, 

pp. 331, 23-J. 

** It most be owned," sars Tncker, in liia Uglit of Xt> 
tun: (raL t. p. 596) : " that this idea a£ the redemptioD hv 
bad manT absurd and pemictotu notiotu engrafted upon k. 
Tbe appnMch to God br intercession bas beea made a baadk 
far tnrma^ oar sahatioa into a business to be nunagtd hj 
intiigite and intcrrst, and to represent the court of beann 
br eimiUtQde with tbe cooits of earthly prinott. to wban inn 
cannot bare accrss nnlcM hr their minister. And beaaM 
sinful man vas uavintby to approsch the throne of gloiy 
without the intercession of a >[ediAtor, therefore tbe Sob, 
being of equal g^lonr with the FlRther, must keep tbe fikf 
*****"■"— vitb aD, except a few particular iarurites, withool 
whose recommendation nobodr could be heard ; who then* 
selves, too, were too great to be addressed by tbe CO MW 
Christiatt : so he could obtain nothing without making intered 
with the priest, to prajr to the saint to pray to Christ to prs» 
to God for him : and, in order to gain favor with these infe- 
rior ministers tx nib-mcdiaton, he must par the prieet snd 
make offinrings to tbe saint/' 8re aiso p. S9G. 

Let ns pnjoced to apply these observations to the Vn- 
testanc Church. Wc bare seen how Protestants admit, Hkr 
the Romanists, that the humanity of Christ pmys to the h- 
ther ; and moreover offers to tbe Father acts of divine adon- 
tiou and worship. We have in particular »een how Romuiiti 
cDiiceiTC they avoid the Axianism into which this leads ; let 
oi farther sec how far Protestants attempt to do tbe Munr. 
Dr. 'Wntcrland, in reply to an Arian, obcierTes (roL iii. 
p. 344) : " There may be a second «cnse of making « mediiiB 
of wiffship ; as if wc were to pray to Christ to proff fir sa 
lliis is near akin to tbe Romish doctrine of jiraying to smhIs 
and augcU. If this be what yon moan by mcduttorial inr> 
ship, your opinion of Chri^ may still be very iov ; at ^ mi 
tkal gktt mg mothmff hxmj^lf, hnt vnly asks tmoihrr to five « 
But, besides that tbrrc is no warrant for praying to aai 
thing less than God, and so nirh n pmcttce must be 


caxt. VI. 



unjuBtifiablc, T (•oticeivft tliat thiH is not wliat y<ni mean by 
roccUatorial worsliip ; it being »o extreiuely low uud dishouor- 
able to suppose that He con bimsclf do nothing fur xin, espc- 
ci&Uy having declared the contrary." Jului xir. 13, 14. 

Mr. Hurbcrrj', speaking of tbf »«mc jVriau writer, oh&erves 
(IVorh, vol. ii. p. 300): "He only tidks of pntyiii}; to the 
Father by the toediiitioa of Christ, in his name, and through 
Him to frod the Father, ' to whom hn himself also prays.' 
So that as far na I nin make any distinct sense of him, we 
are only to pray fo Cbri»t to pray for ujt ; or to praif to the 
Father to hear us for his sake. But now ' they who believe 
Christ to be God, and who honor Him as such,' must also 
believe that this is cbshonoring and degrading Him by inferior 
worship ; and therefore the argument here agaiu conchides, 
that they ought not to communicate with such as are guilty 
of this practice." 

Dr. Owen says (vol. xxiv. p. 57ft) : " Rut it will be said, 
may we not thou pray to Christ to pray to the Father for ub, 
which would bu a distinct act of religioua worship ? I answer, 
we have no precedent in Scn]iture, nor warrant for any auch 
address. 2. It seems not agreeable to the analogy of faith, 
tliat we should pray imto Christ to dischai^e his own oflice 
iUthAiUy. Hut this wc may do, — we may pray unto him dis- 
tinctly for grace, mercy, [uirdon, because He is God; and 
we may pray unto the Father by Him, .xs He is our Media- 
tor ; which two modes of divine worship are sufficiently re- 
vealed in the Scripture." 

Now it is certain that the office of Christ is to intercede; 
and can it imply anything tow and dishonorable iu Him to 
ask Him to discharge Ins office? If it does, must it not be 
the office that is low and disbouurablc ? for, surely, were 
the office high and honorable, how eonld it imply anj-thing 
low and dishonorable to ask Him to discharge it? But Dr. 
Watcrland says, it supposes He can of himself do nothing 
for us. Arc there then some things for which He moat in- 


CBAf. rr.1 

tt n ei t, and nne things for wtudi lie need not? Un, 
what uv thejr? Surdy in pnring to Ilim to interccdp, «r 
ooijr prmr to Uim to diadnrge his office. Btit Dr. Owen mf% 
it is not agreeable to the analogy of faith, that tee aboolil jnj 
moo Chriat to dbcharge hU on office. Whv then is it odo- 
adered agreeaUe to the analogy of faith, thnt Christ shoold 
ftmj onto the father to d»char|{e hia gim oQice ? or that n 
fikewiw ihoald prar to the Father to do the aame ? for wcbr- 
nedi the Father to Ustcn to the pravers cJ his Son^ and abo 
to hear a* for his sake. For Him to do this, is to diachaigt 
his ovu office, and to ask Him to do this, ia to auk Uiai to 
diacfavge bis offioe. .Bcakiea, when we prar to Christ to hare 
Bfny^on ns, enm m this ease, what else do we but ask Bin 
to ^mAar^ his own office ? Whr is there nothing low and &■ 
hononble in this ? simi^j- because the office tt4elf is cultcd, 
bonocmble and dirinc. Why is the other low, and rtiihoMf 
abfe? beenwe we ask Him to discharge a low and diafaoaar- 
■ble office. But there a no warrant for it in Scripture 7 b 
this wo agre^ simply hecanse it implies that Christ can gin 
tts nothing of biunelf, but only asks another to gire «l 
But we are totd that to ask is the office of the human natany 
and that the human nature ia not dirine ; hence, that vt 
must not pray to tbe human nature. Nay; but oonuaoa 
people will eontinae to pray to Christ to pray to the Fadxr, 
ao kug as praying to the Father ia considered to behia oOoe ; 
and not only common people, but divines also, aa we sbafl 
hare occasion to aee ; althuu^ Wati'riand and Owen affim, 
what is nry tn^ that it is anr mhm f* Ike Ru m ia k dodrm 
^ pngim§t»mmi»m»iaitffelM: that if o^plnwAa/ m iwsed 
dMaaoreilr: that it it m>t agntable totkeamaUifff ^Jmtk: 
and that tktre i» ■« wmrmmifar it m Seriptwe ; mud aUhoo^ 
both Pnitestant and Roman writers agree to ita beang mm 
akm also to Ananism. How near we have aeen. 

In Cotteril'a Family Prayers {eifhtJk etStim^ are tW bl- 




" O Lord, our only Mofliator and Redeemer^ vho roakest 
interce»8iou for tlic transgressors, maLutaiii thou oiir cause nt 
tlie right-hand of the Maje^ly on high. Intercede day and 
uight fur us uiiseruble ttiiiuurs. Pluad the etlicacy of tliiue 
own rao8t precious blood ; O thou beloved of the Father I for 
with Thuu He is idways well [ilcoj^ed." 

"Thou that iuttc»t at the right -hand of the Father, have 
mercy upon ub. Thou that ever livcst to make intercession 
for transgressors, pray for w." 

Agnuir Bishop Wilson says; "Intercede for mo. Oh 
Jesus I that I may be aensible of the diseases I labor under ; 
and thankfully embrace the means which thy goodncM has 
ordained fur my spiritual recovery." Binhop Hlimn's k'ruyer$. 

** Obtain for me, oU Jesus! the gracea of mortlficatioii 
and self.^emal, the graces of true humility, and the fear of 
God." ibid. 

" Oh ! blc«icd Jesus, obtain this grace for thy otherwise 
helpless creature." Ibid. 

"Oh! most powerful advocate, I put my cause into thy 
lianda; let thy blood and merits plead for me, and, by thy 
mighty iutereession, procure fur lue a full discharge from all 
my aina." Ibid. 

■''Oh! blessed and ctcma! High Priest! let the sacrifice 
of the cross, which thou didst ouec offer for the sins of the 
whole world, aud which thou dost now and always rcprawnt 
in heaven to thy Father by thy never-ceasing intercessions, 
aud which thiH day has been exliibited on thy holy table 
aacraincutally, obtain mercy au^l peace, faith and charity," 

&c. Ibid. 

** Oh ! most powerful advocate, blessed Jesus ! I put my 
cauac into thy hands, kit it be unto thy servant according to 
thy word ; let thy blood and merits plead for my pardon/' 

" Intercede for me, therefore, most gracious Savior I that, 
by thy powerful mediation and all sufficient merits, L may be 



able Co brin^ Has vwel •.mr soul) and its bulmg safe to 
shoie," kc. Sf. ^■^wfoi. 

Bm TC need not mahipliT quotstions. The question b, 
Tbether they vbo use this language are conscious c^ uang 
anr thai is 5tran^, fwngii, or nnnsnal; or whether tber 
do not regard it as perftcthr hanuoniziiig with the recdnd 
mtaa of theok^. Sm^ ther most so consider it, ot ebe 
they would not use it. That such is the case, there can be 
DO qoesCKHi : but ret thoe is as Uttle question, that, according 
to scHoe Protestant writers, it u arar tJcim to praying to BtmA 
tnmts : and according to some writers of the Church of Rome, 
that it is virtuallr .^oauai. A member q€ the Chordi of 
RiHne mi^i possiblr object to the fore^ing prayen, on the 
ground that tfaer are not conformable to the tisage of the 
rhnrrh. or that no such forms of prayer occur in th«r public 
riniaL The objection mi^t ^ply to them as pttMe fomu 
of pnyer. but not as priratt ones ; if we are at liberty, u 
Tena sars, to ask Christ to conjoin onr prayers with his; 
for bete the diference between such a form and the one 
above quoted begins to be eranescent. Indeed, aa we hare 
seen, it is admitied br some sensible members of the Churdi 
of Rome, that if Christ r^aUy pra\'8 to the Father we miy 
prar to Him to do so : and this is one reason for which thej 
obuvi to suoh an idea of intercession ; although, according 
to Teua, their principles form, in regard to general practiie, 
tho cvrt'ptiou not the rale. 

\Vo SCO then the reason for which it is said, we ought not 
to pray to tho human nature of Christ, and for which tbit 
hitiuaa llat^^re is said to be not an object of worship ; for, 
how (-an »o ask for spiritual power of that which itself i* 
dt'|H'uJant r or spiritual bread, of that which itself is in 
mx*»l * or make that the object of our prayer which itself 
prays : nr of our worship which itself worships ?* 

* The fon-piiri; i¥m»L» h«»e sine* b«*D very aptly illDBtrated in « p»o- 
ilfTD rr1i);ious pcriitdical. It is thtrc maintaiopd, by ti writer profrutas I' 


iixa IS Gou. 



A question of course arises here with regard to the union 
called byjKMitatiraL ; luinieh', in what resjiect it cnu be called 
a union ; for it is obvious, that is not such in the strict sense 

belicTc in Chrial's Divinity, that llie binnsnlty of Chml is not (o be wAf 
•fclppffj. Tlius tp sajs, ■■ noe of iho waat hMuliful of Dr. H'ttttd' bynvos b 
•«(/]i tii*fi;iiiifd hj ihc wonbip, or at least by eomptlLiDg a|>piu«i'lit'<K '« *'"' 
wonbip, ofL'hriAt's Uunianily: 

" ttilt 1> die M*a, Ih' n»l(«J UxD, 

We hKt« nn warritol for stitli teunliip ; but thoufth we iintst not wonhip tiir 
hniuaoil)- ufnur l<ord, Wf may adijie Him as divine, fo* Ihc ftud'i-riDirB wliicli 
Il«r trpilurrd a* tn«n." Cuffg ''A'" ''"'">' ■Wnytirn*, Afiril, 1641, p.l52.^U't- 
b«vc b«fun> obaerfed, tlial a rrjc-ciirin of Ihc worshiii of The buiasnily »( 
Cbrlil, and of Chriil m MedUtur, tmiilt la a Tfjecllon aluo nf Ills Diiinlly. 
Thus BDoiher corr«»poDd«nt nayit, "iShoulct it br. in([uired aKain — Mae 
any mi«ci)ivf tmued frum (he piactic* of p\clii»lTdy, or almontctcluiivply, 
adiirca>iii|: Uiu Kulbrr in praycrl Upcidrdly, Id tbewriK'r'&^ipinion, wuuld 
b« lh« ri;|i1y. I cnnnol but conccivn Llii« a rnuin (^rcinotr nr prnxiiDiilr] uf 
(Jmi alnoit UDivvnat lapse into Arianiam or Unitarian ism of the old Pruby- 
tariaii con^iTfkCiiti'UD!' in llii^fouiilry, which were in dortcirit ii]rDti<'at, and 
in diaclplluu anJ uriltr of vivnbip all but identical, with the [ndi'iiL-ndrDU. 
I Tculurc to affirm tbiscuuld not huve hAppnnril hud Uii^ practice K*'"'^"*lly 
prcTailcd, to which attvnlioii is nnir aolicitcd. Had Christ buca worshipped 
liabtlualty aa lb« bearer of prayer, no; miniMer whu devialed from th« 
OMial CDitoai, Tiwnld havv been narked and dRlected at oncn as hrtcrodox, 
aad ntuuvrd. liut to Ihr ii«u>l bIjIa nf nddrrH in pruyrr in llie cbaprU of 
oar ardrr,^nciiiian ministers nnuld ool object, (adopiangto so great ndr^ree 
«s t!)«y ara Lnown to da, itie pUrdveulvKy vf the urCbudva) nljile, londditts 
Ckriit, lh(>y CDuld never bond, aa ibis wuuld virtually itiTcst Him with om- 
nieicaeG, and woald be nl nllor THrianc« iviih llteir cr^d. I vnulil not lay 
Bon stteu OD thfa &ugReatlon than it may be found lu deiicrv«, but simply 
throw it out fur Ihi- cankidrratiun of (he thaugbtful." /W, l-'fb. 1841, p. 85. 
— Atwlfaer corccspondcat eaye, "The rcmariisof a prrabjler, in your vatu- 
kble periodical, * On the duty of dtrccliiig wnrahip to CbiisI,' reminded tnc 
of ■ paMagc in th« * Diary' of aa emincnltf holy man, whose spirit haa loox 
•IDCe been estranged fruin the iiiiperfcetiuuB mbicli altaeb lu irur ujust perfect 
•eta of honai^e on cailli, and prustrutcd itaulf, in blissful adoraliDn, at tha 

'C( of tbeglurified Redeemer in lieuveii — I nifan the late Mr. Juseph Wtl< 
of Kidd«nniaster. ' I have bean frequently in doDbl, of lair,' wrllM 

i* sainf4-d indiriduft!, ' whether I sliuuld pray to tkr Lonl Jmi I'hritl, or 
fwl. li haa been my provailins opinion that I ebould, and accordingly I 
ttare doae U frt^Meotly, for many months, ia niy SMrel retireiaeata, with 

^^^^^...^^^^ - AX 


cf i^ v?vd : tliat it is (mlr an ^ipendage, an ■djnuct,* 
aed3LS ia a nsaima- pnper to itself. Vfe may illttstnte tht 
eve ?T >a cootal ^us emplored in tTuumitting the nn of 
:2tf sex. I: oia Dot truumit all, but only a &r gmta 
x.23L':Kr iMa anv ocIiet can do. Its nature is not altered br 
:a^ msjBiaaoa. Tlie ^am stiU remains a glass ; the m 
sclI XT <e^i:^ from the son ; and it would be as absmd to ^a picperties of the son to the glass, or the gbw to 
■^ Kix. a» ^be hcman nature to the divine, or the dinne to 
i3at is^aa- Tbe haman natnze in itself is still dead; lul 
» >»a9iect for its hfr, (vhich it receives only in a limited 
oe£:«i£. :^fvc like divinitT. The natiut; of this union, n 
flssT ^iTTZier we iHnstratcd in the doctrine oonceming tlie 
sKTazam: v/ :he Locd's Supper. Thus the ApoUituiiioi, 
h&v'izif wserred ihat oar Lord's human nature was absoibed 
or cccTVTtcti Into his Godhead, Dr. Waterland obsems 
TO- ^jL ?. 137 : 

- la o^?p>^:>.xi to these dangerous tenets, the leiraed 
izc ijx-iii': CLrviceooiD ia.d. 405) made use of an irgn- 
zx^z In-rz fr.-ni the facmnent of the eucharist, to this 
i'liiT. : "Vi: t"-.:" rt."rTies«nta:ive body and blood of Christ in 

'..* ;{i «9tiCj.'iu^ :i t^t'- : *sd. I thisk, I sbonld do it iDore in bmilj piitn. 
u«i BCf^ -.1 jai- >: . >«: :: » "itH •»■' iifieiUtf I hriMg mgtt{f U il ; *>i I 
i^ : i3.i :i Ti-i«f ':' • t»f*ff!f *f 4*iaf it.' AraoBfE the cmuae* which opcnlri 
-1 -js^'w 1 T^f<=rLi3T ^F*-^ *^^ fp«ciK kind of drTotional exercivr, h« ivfcn 
T.- u-J ^ic: ii.i; i-.- ii;*ac*rs. in the circle of hii •cqaaintance were teat-^ :.- ;»< ^izrv^; U the Loid JrMS. with the exeep(ioD of the 1* 
Mr. B-»is^*. sbv :acae occsMoc, is diicaiiniii; of the muiaerof tru>- 
Av.-r.Ti » .-- »^ - ti: "-^ **-'i ^■'f t^ perstw* in the sacred TrinitT, urftd Ik 
•!,-;;.-w-,sj: r.-Tii — " Rlessod J«sa*' usert lh» rig:ht, erect thy tlinM n 
m R.-fi". uii i(-jx i'eni power thereof, and everr member of mj body i»it 
n>>rv-:.'.'a. :-' :^7 !aw.' B««k1<s thi». he could not call to mind ■ liut: 
iTKATi-* -t" i:rfv; Ai«l;*» w Him ia prayer. Sow it is extremely proh^ 
.f.^^^_ :3^ ^-t-r.iT'i put coascMUaess and obserratioB attest the fact, tbn 
,.<^-« i.n» «;!;rfA::eJ a wmiUr doabt. rtvpectiag the propriety' of ist* 

i:r«t *?«*:" '>"- Jr^- '**!• P- -*~- 

• s<^ itwvs'« U ^riK T.I. xii. Pteface. pp. 33, 23, 24. BnH'f Dcfrsff 
,.f iSe N:c<r< I tw^i. II. S. T, p. »5. 

ciijir. VI. MAN [s oou. 955 

the eucUarist, sanctilietl by di\ine grace hut nnt cmtrRrtnd 
into divine substniico, plniiily jraplied, that the uatural Iwtty 
of Christj though joined with thp Gcxlhcad, waa not con- 
vertod into Godhead ; for like as the coustrcruted bread, 
though called Chrisf s hody oti ai^count of its flauctification, 
did not cease to be bread, so the human nature uf Christ, 
though dignified with the Dinuc, did not cease to he the 
■ame human nature Trhich it always was. Wc may call this 
either au ailment or an illustration ; for, indeed, it is both 
under diftV^rcnt incws. Consirlprcd as a similitude, it is an 
illustration of a ca!«c ; but, at the same time, it is an argu- 
metit to slicw that the Apolliuarinns were widely mistaken in 
unaginiug thdt a change of qusditiiw, cirinunstaiiDea, or 
UAmes, inferred a change of nature and subatauce. Uread 
was still bread, though for good reasons diguilicd with the 
name of the Lord'n body ; and the man Christ was still man, 
though, for g(Ktd reasons, that is, on aceount of a pci"»onal 
union, tJignilicd with the title of Ooel." 

We thus sec that notwitbstiuidiiigtlic union of the Di\ine 
Nature with the human, the human was not made dinne ; 
it was only sanctified by diiine grace. Us real attributes, 
therefore, are tlioso of glory, and honor inerpreggihh; hut they 
are not divine. There is as much difference between the two, 
u between the sign and the thing signified} the inward spi- 
lituid grace, and tlie outward matrrird brcjid ; for in the 
Mtcnuucnt, luvmt is still bread and wine is still wine, — not- 
withstanding the consecration ; — »o that the body and blood 
of Clirist's humanity are no more diriuc, than the l>read 
<tf the sacrament ; which is bread still, as the wine is wine 

When therefore St. Paul says, that, it pleaxcd tlie Father 
that in Him mhrndd dwefl uU (hi- fulness of the Godhead hodihj, 
Dr. Ott-cn observes (vol. rxiv. p. 70: "There is a fourfold 

I ^ness ia Chrivt. 1. Of the Deity in his Divine nature. 

Ks. Of union, in his person. 3. Of grace, in his human 


nature. 4. An aothoiitatiTe fulness to commiuiicate it unto 

The hunun nstore not being divine, tbe fulness t^ the 
DeitT, mentioned br St. Paul, is spoken of as not in die 
human nature, but as in the divine, (what an idea !) tbit 
vhich is in the human nature being only grace ; so that die 
DdtT is not im the human nature fant adjoined to it ; vhile, 
on the other hand, grace is not adjoined to the human natiii^ 
but is in it. Hence there was no mbeing of diTinitr in tbe 
faumanitr by reason vS the Incarnation, but only an mbtag 
of grace by reason of the Father's voluntary beneficence 
In that nature, ther^ore, were inherent the gifts vS gnce, 
to the utmost extent to which it was capable of receinnf 
them a$ a creature. Hence Flavel observes, in his Fom^m 
t^ UJr, p. 46 Rel. Tnxct Soc. ed.J : 

" God filled Christ's hnmsn nature to the utmoti es^adi^,* 
with all fmtme** of the spirit of hiowledge, wisdom, lore, ftc. 
beyond all citatum ; for the plenaiy and more effectual ad- 
ministration of his mediatorship. He was full cstensirrlT 
with all kinds of grace, and full intensively with all degnet 
ot grace."" Thus we see that what is in the humanity d 
Christ is not the fidness of the Godhead, but the fulnew 
of grace. 

Hence also I>r. Pye Smith observes (Tettimotiiea to tk 
Mtttitih, vol. i. p 189 ; " Jesus is the oi^anic medium of the 
Ihnnc Nature, mi generis : in a way essentially different 
fmm every other prophet. In and through this medium, 
the IVitA- liispUp himself' to the enlightened intelligent oui- 
vorse, by the fullest expansion and glory of which the hma 
HtitHrr w rti/wi/e-.t through endless ages." 

* Sm- kl«o Bishop RejBoldj on the llOth Psalm, art. ExAltaliM > 
Christ. AIsi\ th* Work* of Bishop Ball, toI. tL p. 333, on Ihe DiTiiitj 
of Cbmt. 

f Str Bull'* D^frncc of the Skrae Cre«d, II. 3, 4, p. 109 : aim, i. li. 
p. KV). Sm also Scott's Works, toI. iii. p. 363. 

c«Ar. VI. 

UAK 18 GOD. 


lluncc Hpiin Dr. Owen affirms (x*oL ii. p. 170) : "The 
only nL'cessBiT cuuiicquciit of this Eis^umptioii uf tlie human 
nature, or the incarnation of tlic Son of Ood, is the per- 
sonal uuiuii o( Christ, ur the inseparable subsiateuce of the 
assumed uature iu tlie person of the Son. All other actings 
of God, in the person of the Son, toward the humnn nature, 
were voluntary, and did nut iioceKiiiarily ensue on the union 
mentioned. For there was no transfusion of the properties 
of cue nature iuto the other; nor real physical communica- 
tion of diriuc essential excellencies unto the humanity." 

Tlic ease then is this : In rirtue of the hypostatical union, 
there was no real communication of the properties of tlie 
divine nature to the human. The spiritual gifts received by 
the human nature of Christ, were pift-* of grace; not gifts 
xcsultiug from that uuion, hut coming from uuotlior source, 
namely, the voluntary beneficence of the Father; hence 
they were gifts of the same kind with those imparted to 
other created beings, only more augclic; yet, however an- 
gelic, always creaturcly, never diviuc. 

Now, according to the princi]i!cs of Swedenborg, the 
gifla imparted to Christ's human nature (1 spenk after the 
maimer of men) Qowcd &om the essential divinity which was 
within the humanity, by reason of the miraculous coiiccp- 
tioa; hence they vera easeniiaUy Hivme, not creaturcly; for 
Ood is nut the Father of angels, in the sense in which lie 
waa the Father of Clirist's humanity. No created being is 
anitcd to Christ by a hypostaticol union or miraculous con- 
ception. Indeed, to what purpose do we admit the existence 
of this union, if after all we explain it away, so as cither to 
render it useless, or identify it with the ordinary uuion exist- 
ing betwecu the Lord and the souls of believers ? Yet such 
is virtually the generally received theology. 

According to Swc<lcnborg, the influx into the humanilj' 
of Christ was fnim the esscutial divinity ; Itcnec it was n 
divim influx ; hence also the gifts and graces of the hnmnnity 


938 MKBixrtos. caxr. vi. 

vac aaaUiaOy drtine. These gifts and graces wse not all 
bant at ones in the ImmanitT, br reason of the minenkai 
conception; bm br its means, descended sncceamvelT', as the 
IjotAj bv ^iwiiM^ acts orcTc a mc^ in the hmwaii nstnr^ tbe 
povos of daibiess. Thus it was from the essential dirini^ 
Titfain thai the hmnanitT receiTed its graces ; which theidbR 
Tcre esseDtiaDr dirine, not creatDrelr; and according to & 
desemt of these the infinn humanitr was gradually jmt cf, 
till the naioial degree in which it was, becanie the tp?"'*-**- 
tion of the fulnesB of the Godhead bodily. 

To enter ftuther into the paitimlan of this view of the 
subject is not my deagn; they who wish to pnrsne tliai 
most refer to Swedenborg's wtn-ks, bearing this in mind, thit 
if their object be mere ctrntrorersy, their search will be on- 
less : for the Lord has not promised to reveal bim'WTlfj except 
to the pore in heart. 

Having thus shewn upon what principles the human u- 
tore of Christ is generally considered to be not divine, and 
heccif an object of divine worship, we secondly proceed to 
consider the influence which these views have upon Chradan 
nionCity. This we can best do, by first considering tke 
nature ot divine worship. 

The worship of God is rtsenilally no other than recdving 
his uanuv iuio our hearts, and becoming his image ind 
likcuoss. To be tnmsfonued into bis image and likeness is no 
other than to partake of hia attributes, viz., goodness mi 
vi$i.lom. Such is the connection between divine wonbip 
auil mondity. If then we cannot pay divine worship to the 
human nature of Christ, it is obvious that we cannot fonod 
the Christian principles of morality upon the virtues of ha 
hiininn natun:. Follow this natnjre as an example, we mst, 
jnst as we may imitate and venerate the virtues of all good 
un'ii : and. in the case of Christ, after a higher manner 
than the ^'u^tues of any other creature. Still, if his hamu 
nature lie not the basis upon which wc ground our wonhip 

CHAr. Vt. HAN IS OOD. S59 

of Him, neither can it he tlie basis of ow momliti*. All 
the virtues of his human iiatiire must, iu thia ca»e, he re- 
garded m only crcntnrely: nnd consequently also tJl the 
precepta of hi» mondity. There can be no such thing, there- 
fore, as ft system i>f strictly divine niorals th-siwu from liis 
human natiuc; in other words, tliia morality cannot he 
e$»eniiaUy divine. 

Now, inasmuch as the mcdifltorial character of Christ is, 
even nccordiug to the received priuciijles of tlieolugy, the 
principal character nnder which wc know Hini; inftsnmch 
B8 it is that of wluch the Scriptures principally speak ; it 
follows, that none of the principles which lie taught iu that 
chnmctcr arc divine ; eonspqncntly, arc not to he nndcrstood 
in any divine sense, bnt oidy in a lower and crcaturely sense ; 
hence that they must be received as less pure, less holy, and 
having less of illnminative virtue, than those wliicli are 
delivered to us (accorthng to the distinctions commonly ob- 
Borved) in his purely dirine cliara<^tcr. The orthodox thcologj' 
therefore differs from the Sociuian in this; that the latter 
allows no portion of our Sav-ior's teaching to be, in the atrict 
senae, divine j bccauac it does not allow the character of our 
Savior to be, in its strict sense, divine. The former allow 
one portion of our Savior's teaching to be divine, bnt not the 
other; because it allows that one of his natures is divine hut 
not the other. The instruction communicated to m, and 
the works wrought by the human nature, arc not allowed to 
be divine ; because the nature from which they proceeded is 
•not divine. If it he replied, the precepts and doctrines He 
tauftht, as well as the works wliich He did, arc all divine, 
because they proceed frT>m the human nature taken into 
nuion with the divine natiu^j then it will follow^ for the 
same reason, that his human nature is also divine; a doctrine 
^lich, we are told, is pervmptorUy denml. 
^ There is a great difference between a lUviue mondity and 
a mondity flowing from di\inc principles. All morality, in 


M &r as it is sndi, flow? bom dhnne principles ; taut iQ 
monhtT is not esaentialh- dinne. Mtuxlity flowing fnm 
dirine princ^les maj be only td a finite creatnr^r utm ; 
but a moralitT aaaliailg divine has within it a spintial 
and divine pifffnw with which it is in correspoiideiue. 
Hence divine moialitT, the interior principles ci whidiaR 
tims ^[Hiitiial, in other words, morslitr in its purest snd 
best character, cannot be attribnted to the hnman mtme 
of Christ; the mtHalin' of this nature mn^ if I maj w 
speak, be <mlT freatnrdj or derived. 

Such, then, is the real ground of all those low idea 
which have aepi into the church; of the orthodoiy of 
natoialism, the hexen- of qniitualism. For as, in what Im 
been caQed natnral tbeologT, the perfection oT its moni 
principles depends upon Uie elevated views taken of the per- 
fections of God ; so in revealed thedogr, the perfection of 
all Christian mwalitT depends npon the views which sr 
taken of the nature of Christ; and as the tenden<7 viD 
be, if we take lov ideas of the human nature of Chiiit, 
to entertain also low ideas <d his Godhead ; so where tliii 
is the case, the vhole srstem of theology, both as to doc- 
trines and morals, will hare a like tendency to becoiae 
degraded. In the same proportion also, will a vrarfare be 
wagc^ against everrthing spiritual, as opposed to all sober 
and practical religion, only because it is opposed to the natu- 
ralism of the natural man. 

As, however, we shall have occasion to revert to thii 
subject, we now proceed, thirdly, in opposition to what hn 
been stated, to prure that the human nature which the Laid 
notr has, is divine. 

This we shall do in three ways : first, from Scriptim; 
secondly, from testimony ; thirdly, from reason. 

First, wc shall prove it from Scripture. We hare she»n 
how a division of the moral perfections of God leads lo a 
dinsiou of tlif hvpostases, and to a lower view of th« 






IxarTcctiouSj than i& «trictlv consistent with their divine 
uature. We have seen huw it bas intltiuncecl, iu particular, 
the doctrine of Christ's mediation. This division results, aa 
we h&vc nhowa, from ii principle of naturalism ; aud thi» 
principle, ha\iug onec found its way into the church, begaOj 
of course, in due time, to exercise its influence upon Scrip- 
ture interpretation. The viewa of mediation to wliich we 
have referred, and consequently, of Christ's human nature, 
lia^ing hceu gcueraliy e»tal)tished, it became requisite to 
reconcile to them the Scriptu^(^ The Inngungc of St. Paul, 
however, was bo obvioualy contrary to these views, as to 
occasiou no little perplcxitj-. But as St. Paul was not a 
metJipbysiciun, tbe sehools were appealed to, for the ])iirpoHe 
of supplying the method by which bis langimge could be 
retained, aitd its meaning evaded. It is, however, but just 
to add, that some, unwilling to resort to these expedierkts, 
resigned the contest, aud acknowledged that Scripture was 
too plain to be mistaken. Accordingly cummeutators aro 
divided on tbis subject into two classes. 

Wc shall first refer to the distinctions resorted, to, by 
which the force of Scri]itHrc is evaded. The passage to 
which we shall first refer ie that of Hebrews, chap, i., vcr. 3 ; 
in which it w evident, that the description of Christ's gloty 
does not harmonize witli Ibc views wc have furnished of 
Clmat's iutcrcessiou. The apo»tle says, IfTio being the 
briffhitu-ss qf hut glory, a?id the esrpress image of his pertton, 
tmd upholding all things by the word vf his poteer, having by 
hiaufif purged oar ititts, sat down on the right hand of the 
Siqicstg on high. 

" We bcpn," says Dr. Owen on this passage, " with the 
douhlc description given us of the Lord Christ, at the 
entrance uf the verse, as to what lie is iu himself; and here 
a doubie difficulty presents itself unto us : first, in gcncnd, 
onto what nature in Cturist, or unto what of Christ, tliia 
dcacription doth belong -, secondly, what is the particular 


■Km ATI OS. 




Ar Ae fin^ aone amait dme words intend onfy dw £fin^ 
mturv of Qinit, wherein He is conanbstentul with In 

ndMC Sooe tltiiik that the aposUe speak* of Hba m 

navBatc" After co ni i de r ii y in three diflcrmt wan tk 
httcr Ld er y e Utimi , Ae mttwc obaerw ; 

' It is not the direct and iiamcdiste design of the apoatie 
to tnat ahnlntGlr of either maturt of Christ, his diTine 
liUMak, btt ottfy of hu ptrttm~ Ucnce, though the 
wtitk he ■wutiuauth and exprcsseth may mhm^ of 
hdon^ onto, or be the prapetliGs of, his rfrrt«e matmre, mat 
of lam iaMfli, 5et ooae of them arc spok^^n of as such, Int 
are all oamfafcd as bdooging unto his formm. And tli* 
sutres that dificaltr vhkh, Chiysostaa observes in the mti*, 
wmi strives to rcmore br a similitxiilc : naraelv. that the 
■foitle doA not obaerre any inder or method in Bpeaktng if 
the dnine and Inman natures of Chmt distinctlr, or ooe 
lAer iBotber, bat first speaks of the one, then of the otber, 
and then returns again to the former, and that freqarnfK 
.... And, thereftfl^ the method and order of tho apostle n 
■ot to bo enquired after,** &e. 

IWologians hare here arailed the ms dfe a of the dbitiw- 
tioa be t wee n peraon and natnre a- substance, which wv haw 
notifxd in our scoond chapter, br which the properties of the 
human nature an asmbcd to the dirine ptrmm, bat noi to 
Uw d&nae JoAstaser. But hy p o shwii signifies peraoo as a 
substMKC, an emM rriatinm, sars Dr. Wotcrland ; ahhoa^ 
in onhr to support ihc common tfaeoiog^, not oolj is thr 
DcstT- divided into three hypostases, but eadi ||yp o«l»<i 
ilsdf is drrisible again into nature or subrtanoe and penoa. 
In the |ve«uS case. Dr. Oven obsenres, that things sie 
MOribcd to the pemm vhidi are not ascribed to the ss- 
t«i« or JuMmor ,■ hot, in p. 106, he saya^ that Jerome «» 
very cautioiis about admowledging three hypostases in t&e 
Deity, auJ that because he thought the word in thu pber I* 





denote mbsiantia,* "and of that mind are many still; it being 
so reudereU by the vulgar translation." Besides, it is obnous 
that St. Paul makes licre no distinction in the kind uf g\ory, 
»s if a superior kind belonged to tlic divine nature, and an 
inferior to the human nature ; or as if that nature which sat 
down at the right hand of God, was not e(|ually glorious, 
equally the express image of the divine hypostasis, with the 
dji'iuity which nur Lonl putjsossod before assuming the human 
UAtiirc. Nor is there auything said of one ki]id of worship 
due Iroin angels to his human uature, and uf another kind 
due to lus divine nature. 

Let us, however, further observe the difficulty in ifhich 
those are placed who refuse to rousider the liuuiau nature to 
be divine. We have seen that Christ is regarded as mediator, 
both as to his divine and human natures ; that the ultimate 
formal objeet of worship is liis dinne person and nature ; that 
his human nature is not considered to be an object of wor- 
ship, though crowned with glory and honor inexpressible, but 
only furnishes us with motives to worship the divine nature 
witli which it in conjoiued. 

There is, however, a passage in the book of Rcvclationt 
that appears to be so vetr express upon the subject of the 
worship of the human nature, that it would nccrn imposaible 
to evade it. N evert lieless, we shall sec that this is done, aa 
also how it is done. The passage is m follows (Kcv. v. 8) : 
" And when fie had taken the book, the four thing creatwre* 
and four and ttoetiiy eldtr* feli down before the Lamb, having 
toery we of them harps, and golden rials full of odort, wineh 
are the pra^erit of the saints. And t/wy sang a new aong, 
tojfiiiff. Thou art worthy to take the book, awl to open the seals 
thereof: for thou wast slain, and host redeemed us to God by 
thg biood, out of every kindred, and tongue, ami people, and 
ttalion; and /taut matte us wtto our God kings and priests - and 

* S«e K noln oa lbi« aulijcct in Ihe walk on Uie Smcuiit ukI I'lwkthDod 
of Cbriai, Dr. Pyc Smiik, p. fi3. 


■, ..J..- V - .1. 


previously laid tlown. Thus, as Scripture affimis thnt 
manhoiid is to tic worabip]H;(l, so the. author alhrma it; 
as the orthodox iloctriue denies it, so the author denies 
Knd oil tliis dcuinl is founded the theology of tho 
There 19, however, one passiige in the epistles of St. 
;ul upon this subject, wliich is very decided. It oocura in 
second ehapter of Philippimis, at the 5th rerse: Let 
mind be in you vrhich was aha tit Christ Jesus : who, beintf 
the form uf dW, tfiought it not rtthbery to be eqtiat trith 
: but made kimseff of no rejwfation, and took tt/irm Him 
'Ae /(/rm of a tervaiU, and wait made in the likeness of man : 
bring found in fasbioa fiji a mail, ffe hitrnhhit himself , and 
\He obedient to death, even the tieath of the rrtms. Where- 
Ood also hath Highly ea-atted Him, and gii>eri Him a 
which is allow even/ name ■ that at tfif name of Jesus 
knee should bojr, of thiriffv in heavm, and thini)s in earth, 
and thinffn under thfi earth ; and that ercnj tongue shotdd 
few ttiat Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the 

In his eommcnt upon this paHBag(\ Dr. AVhithy rciriarks: 
' Wherefore (lod also hutli lii^lily exalted Iliiu even as to his 
MUinhuoii, and giveu II im a name, a dignity, a nmjmty, wliich 
w aljovc every name of miijcsty. Tlie fathers on this plnce 
advise us, to refer these things not to the divine but to the 
human nature ; the apostle not speaking here of the cxalta* 
of the divine nature of Christ, by the manlfestntion of 
his concealed glory and power, bnt of the exaltation of that 
nature which had suffered; this exaltation being, in Scripture, 
represented as the reward of our Lord's salutarj- passion ; 
wc see Him, saitb the apostle, who was made a tittle lower 
than the angels for the suffering of death, croicned mth glory 
and honor, lleb. ii. 9. And agabi, the elders about the 
inne say, IVorthj is the Lamb that was shin to receive 
ower, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and 




CHir. Tl. 

r. T. 12, mA IT. U. Moreorer, St. John dedim, 
ud power ra gncn to the Son o£ Mai, 
He «w SD John t. 17) ; though it was giren to tk 
■M C^»c Jesss, becsBc the fobteaM o£ the Godhead dveh 

<^ «»« 11. IV. Whidn- remaiks : " He does not tax, 
m tibf SocBsaw cooitBd, that Chiist is exalted to the gkiiTof 
G*i ^e Tmzher: tka^ tlmt U trmt t^ the adcmcemeai 9fhi$ 
Aaaa m^vt .- hot hr aith, that beiiig thus exalted, Ue ii to 
he aekwvieisnl <d aD taapnes and nations, as their Lord, 
m the ^Mv c£ the Fad«-; nothing more tending to hii 
jcurr. tiaK that aD ftnout, ovniiig Christ as their Lud aod 
neame obedicBee to Him, dioald abound in those wtaia at 
igh c it i a iBgas which are through Jesos Christ, to the ^orr 
of Gal :^ Fa^er, efcap. L 11 ; Epk i 12. Moreover, tee- 
K iMt Father thas exahcd the ImammUy <£ Christy since He 
^BKed the Lopm to the human nature, (for it pleaied the 
FKher t^tu in Him ahoold aD fnlness dwell,) what hiiidai 
rr*^ c&2$ exil'iaaon should be said to be to the gloir of Gad 
^ Tizhit. cvsn whmn He rcceiTed even the divine nature f 

Mx^bew Heorr. npcm this pass^ie, has a similir 
»vci3rtit; "Ha exahabon was the reward of his humiliation: 
Sn.-:i=r<^ He hcmbied himself, God exalted Him ; and He 
i:iCJT exau"arti Him m^w^s^, raised Him to an exceeding 
brs^T. He exxlted hi$ iHtok peraon, the ^man natwru 
vvC a$ :^ iivine : Kw He is spoken of as being in the foni 
«' i.^\L as weu as in the &shion of a man. As respects the 
osTiTie SAtuie. it could onhr be a rect^nixing his righti, <r 
;be c-jjc" JT and appearance of the glory He had with the 
Fataer wix^e the world was. JtAn ivii. 5. Xot any net 
ac\iuis;6«: »« ?i»MT : and so the Father himself is said to he 
r\3u:^^l- Bat the pr-yper exaltation was of his human nahav .-* 
« hiv-h ^v^e Avms to be capable of it, though in conjaiKtiaB 
with tho aiYxne. His exaltatioD here is made to consiit in 

• Sw PMtlr's Sjmapta ; Eph. i. 20. 

uNir. VI. 

MAN ts aoa. 



honor and powei-. In honor; so Kc h&da name flflMtV" every 
namoi a title of dignity above all the crentoiW, Uen, or 
angels. Ami in [hiwct, cvenf knoc must bow to Him. The 
whole ci'eatiuu mcutt be in subjcctiou to Him; thiugx in heA- 
vrn, and tilings in the cnrtU, mid things under the earth ; 
the inliiibitants uf heuvcii aud earth ; the lining and the 
dead. At the uAnic of Jestu, not at the sound of the word, 
but at the authority of Jesus, atl Rhoitld pay a xolcmn ho- 
nmge. And that eYeiy touguc should confess, that Jcsua 
Christ is Lonl ; every nation and langimgc should jmblicly 
own the utiivcrsa] empire of the exalted Kedeemcr; and 
tluit all power in heaven and in earth is g^iven to tiim. Matt. 
xxviii. 18. Observe the vast extent of the kingdom of Christ; 
it rcaehea to heaven, and earth, and to all the crentures in 
'fimeh ; to angel.5 as well as men ; and to the dead as well as 

li»-ing. To the fftory uf God the Fnt/ter. Obscrt'c, it is 

Ehe gtur}' of God tlie Father tu eunleiis that Jesus Clirist 
in Lord ; for it in hiit will that all men filionld honor the Son 
as they honor the Father. John r. 23. Whatever rcspnet is 
paid to Clirist redounds to the honor of the Father. He whn 
receifTlh me, rrcfhrlh ifim thai sent we. Matt. x. 40." 

Now it ithoutd be boruc in mind, that the paitsa^u in ques- 
is usually ndduecd to prove the dirinity of Christ as the 
nceond person of the Trinity, and his sameness or equality with 
God; hence, if it he apphed to his Annmn nature, it is decisive 
in demon^rating the deity of that nature. The very faet of 
lieavcu and earth being commanded to bow ; of his being 
exalted abo%'c all angels is sufticicnt to prove his deity. 

Tims, Dr. liurton (Teaiimatiy of the Ante-Nicene FathrrM 
t0 the IHvinity of Chritt, p. JJlSy, in commenting upon apaa- 
in which TertuUian had said that was more than 

iveidy, observ'ea : " This passage clearly proves that Ter- 
ituUiuu conceived of Clirist, that his human nature was 

imcd, and that He was himself heavculy, nay, more than 
'lienvenly ; by which He must have meant superior to angola. 

368 MEftlJlTlOX. CHAF. Tl. 

XoT moUimg it m ^trier to aagfU arctpt the dicme naiwre itteif." 
If then the faimiui nature is sapericH' to angels, as is genenllr 
adLnovkd^nL it must upon this i»iDciple be divine. Dr. 
HanuDondr in int«preting the foregmng pasM^^ ^pba it, 
like the anthon 1 hare mentioned, to the human nature. 
Hence, in his coBunent on the words, God also hath ia^ikf 
esattid Him, he sars. "And for this great act of hnmihtr God 
hath advanced his iboua mature to the highest degree of gkir; 
and made this God-man the supreme prince of his chnrdi; 
viren Him all power in hearen and in earth ; that to Hib 
should be paid all sabjectioo, and acknowledgment of 8a1>- 
jeetxMu frran all rational creatures, angels, men, and denk" 
Macknight is also Terr express upon this subject. 

We thus see that the AmuiH nature, as some conmieiita- 
tors admit, is exalted to an equality with the Divinitr ; and 
is acknowledged to be an object of divine wmship. Ihe 
doctrine of the catholic church being however opposed to tlw 
view <rf" the subject, Dr. Waterland, like Dr. Owen, is undfr 
the necessity of attempting to evade it. First, however, he 
is obtised to admit it. Tbus (vol. ii. p. 101), he observes: 

" U~hfnff,rf God hath ai*o highly exalted Him. Here we 
must make a pause, and enquire diligently what this en^«- 
tiom means. Oue that is tmly Son of God and in a propff 
sense God. cannot be properly exalted, that is, cannot be 
prcferrvi,! to any higher or better state than He ever enjoved, 
uor ivceive any improvement of, or accession to his essentiil 
diffnitA". fflory. or happiness. Hence it is, that as many of 
the ancients as have understood the text of a proper exilts- 
tion. have iutcrprrtcd it of the human only, and not tiie 
dirine nature of Christ.* This is true of the Ante-Xiceae « 

* St. Aa);u»tiD in his »c-roDd book kgainst Maximinus Ihr An«B, (toI. i. 
p. (134. ;lrd. <rd. Vi;ii. obstrres, od the pMsage, xherrfan God ab* *** 
higUf <JMUr^ Hit, imd girm Him a mmme, l[t. " Nor do ;oa uk to «kick 
of thr two the auac «aa given, whether to the hunwa nature or to Ooi- 
Kor how it was thai the name wa* Bi»en, evideotlj appean hence. B* 


MAN 18 OOD. 


wli as Pnat-Xtrnii' vrrilent, wlucli apppars from Oriftcn and 
IIippul,vtus : and / do not know of any direct testimony to the 

Secondly, the author is obliged to evade it. " If the 
exallnlion be meant onlv of the human nature, it is more 
natiinil to supposp tliat St. Patil wnuM ii»t here have spoken 
of the coudcsceiision of the TiOgos, but woiUd rather have 
told us only what the man Chrigt Je«U8 had done; how 
bamhly and how righteously Christ had dcnicaued himself 
in that capiicity ; antl liow God had rewaidfd his aen'iecs. 
And thus it is that Hennas, a very early writer of the first 
centurj', represents tliis matter. An ancient commeotator 
npon this text, gives several reasons why the exaltation here 
spoken of cannot be intended of the man only, bnt of Christ 
in faia whole person." The two last are, " The things men- 
tioned as given to Christ arc too liigb and f;;reat for the man 
to receix'e, unless the hutnan nalure l/i; trupposed to be divint, 
which ia ah»urd," i(r. Again; "It appears that the fjaZ/a- 

\twn bebngs to the same uatmre which condescended and 
emptied itj»c]f. And what nntiu-c was that bnt the divine 
natmt! ? Or what great matter would it have been for the 
apostle to liave told us, that a viou did not pretend to be 
e4)ual with God, or was obedient to God. There is n great 

Ideal of weight in the reasonings of thio autlior,^' &c. 

httmhkd kimie\f, unjrii Ihr npnutlc, rcrm unfa death, thr itcalh nf tkt croai. 

Whtrffore Cmt alto hath highly fjiilfnf llim, and givm Him a name which 

it abate ettiy name. If Ibcn He fpive Him ft name whicli is abovo ever; 

uuDft, bucauite Uv wm madu obctliTiit Iv thv ilcatti (if lh« ciou; doM it 

faltaw lliAl fur tbis leosou He waa not alro&d; God Che !>an of God, Ibe 
I Word or 0<kI, God with Gud ; but (hat Hv hos etulla^d afierwart]», because 

He wa* obcdi«nt to Ihc dcalh or Itic croM ; Ihnt Ho then henan lu be 8oa 
^»r Qwl, Ibe on)7 Sou, Gud binisrlf, Ibat He Ibca brgau to harr a name 
''wbkh ii above cvety nnmci* Ubu can be to foolish ai toaajribisf II 
, fellows (h«D, (hat Ibis doido wbitib He already powe«»«l, as Son of God, 
^Uod nf Ood, bj-«<iu(i]ity of natuicdcrivCil from ^neratkoti, was gim unto 
llm ■■ HAV ; it ImIdk in respect of fais manhood ibal (lie 'Sea naa made ob«> 

llmt anlo Ibe d<^alh of tbe chms." 

B B 


370 )iz»iAnos. CBAr. tl 

IV. WiCEzli^^KKpDaeds: ** We were berebj boog^t 
vitb a JBO. ^— ■^■"c w i iaU to diziit, and Chznt a 
'Ltxi-s>wk m apeeslbr sense, and under a new and spfdil 
ti&ie. Upon tkb o ceaM Oo, and oo this aoconnt, it flaati 
GcaL in iW matt solmui and pnapoos manner, to prodtv 
tke hj^ dsaitT id Gcd iht Son, to rcinibn» his rights 
CBCBK. otf' h n nage : aad to oonmand heafcn and earth, angcb 
amd. 3B^ as par Him aD honor^ lerac n ce, and adcnatkai, 
«D the doniT d so peat, so good, so difinf^ « 
at t&it Soa t£ God. He had ran thnHi^ an to- 
!■! iTi h il rak d mocr; had icdeeaned mankind and 
tzmmphcd over d a t k md hdl; npon this hia divini^ ii 
neoemtei, and hii k^ rath pre-ordained," &c 

Tkos.. Kjonckfeandii^ the adniitted testxmonj of tk 
ckazck Ci> tW amtrair. Dr. WaXeriaud is obliged to attrifaall 
'Ar vkofe Z!> :^ drrine pnaon, nothing to the human mtnxc 
H«»ar ke aranwdfv "^Ton mar please to oonaida', tiii^ 
a£^ G^-d t^if Son had shevn sock »in«riTtg ujd astoniihiiig 
aces cc f'.x«r:!iess lowd mankind, then was it prqin' to 
cvuf^nit^f b^ xi=ie t.> the utmost, to recognize the digni^ 
i;>i 3ia.;>fs»:7 oc ti» persoa. and to recommend Him to the 
vccv'i &» Tber G\>i s^d LonL with all imagiuable adTantsj:^ 
*^:i. SDi.-i eooeahni cacnmstances as could not but affect, 
ri'>i„ tTfi tiCociii. e^err pioos and iugenions mind." . . . 

\s:k.-7. . " KT:*i haih giT-en Him a name which is aboit 
riv^T - «-^^ thai is. He has extolled and magnified ha 
&arj< aK-»if all Ea=es- Thns was the Son of God exsM 
i."ff cJ.'T.risV. tr:c ti*e srea: things He had done ; and digni- 
6j^:, i: 1 riiT io scvai. with a very high and honorable titki 
r,.v^ bij ?.«■ a^v i.T¥araie to hare mented, or for aurthine !<■ 
ih*:*. r.:7Jr«ri' to wicar. — that of Redeemer and Pieserrer d 
n-Jir.. *r./. Lkci v'C the wboie muTerse." 

.Virskin : " Tbi? as^ajin^ and astonishing instance of cooit- 
ftrciifidn. iv''^'. asi ^x'<dnes!c God the Father himself has not 
ivxisriabV ^trfcvnco : and has thereupon more aolemnlT ai 

CHAP. TI. MAN IS 60D. 371 

mare illuatriously prnclainicd the super-eminent dignitv of 
God the Sou, who had merited so highly of men : commaitd- 
ing all persons to honor, worahip, and adore Ilim as God 
and Lord; aud, luider the new and spexial title of Re- 
deemer, to the grlory of God the Father, whoso Son He 
is ; thoir honor inscparahio, and their glory one/' 

Xow (in vol. iii. p. 340), Dr. Watcrhuul observes: " Our 
next example of a compound person is the theanthropos, 
coosistiag of tlie Logos, the euul, aud the body. The Logoa 
was a person before tlie incarnation, as much as after. But, 
hf takini^ iu » soul and body, the whole person then Is made 
Up of blU tlu-ec. . . . The same Christ made the world ; 
inrreased in wisdom, was pierced with a spear; in wliieh 
three examples it nppi^iu-s, that the Iju^us, the huuI, aud tlic 
body, all go to make up the one person ; the one compound 
person of Chrurt. And hence it is that the chujche* of God, 
following the common idea of a Niiiglc pernon, which they 
found to suit with the Scriptiire representation of Christ, 
hare rightly and justly concluded all the three constituents 
iu the one person." 

Thus we have seen how npon this principle it is main- 
tained, that God iuciimate suffered, was crucified, dead, and 
buried. Consequently, when the person is humiliated and 
the object is to attribute crcaturely propertiea to the diviuc 
person, it is maintained that the person consists of Logos, 
•oul, and body, and that as such human properties may be 
aacribed to the dirine nature. Jlut when tlie Scripture 
apeaks of the person a« exalted, and the object is to attribute 
divine properties to the hnnmn nature, then although the 
person still consists of Logos, b(ju1, and l)i>dy, yet the soul 
and body are no longer included aa part of the person ; and 
wo arc re(|uired to fidl back upon the personality of Clirist 
before asaunung soul and l>ody ; that is to say, we may attii- 
fante finite human properties to the divine I'Hrrson, but not 
dirine properties to the human nature. This falls in precisely 

B B 2 



vith the tendencies of the natural man ; for, in this caw, 
the properties of the creatnrelr human nature may be attri- 
bated to God ; but the properties of the divine natnTe mn 
not be attiibuted to the human ; and so strongly was tlib 
principle of naturalism manifested in the present instance, 
that the anthw, in coder to support it, is obliged to conba- 
rene the authwitT ot the Ante>Xicene and Post-Xicene 
vriterss. nar, even his own definition of a fx>inpound person.* 
^w miso Tol. T. p. 41, t^ the tamu author. 

A*ain: Flavel we find is obliged to admit the hmt* 
nature of Christ to be dtrvte, and is obliged to denj it; 
fir^, he is obliged to admit it (Fwtmiain of lAfe, p. ^0; 
ReL Tfurf iwr. frf. • -■ " Christ sitting down at God's rigbt- 
hand in heaxen. notes the advancement of Christ's hmm 
mthnr to the highest honor ; eren to be the olpect of odor*- 
turn to tu^it and men. For it U properly hi$ httmam matmt 
that is the tmbjeet of mil this honor and advancement; and 
beinc advanced to the right-hand of ^Majesty, it is becoiK 
an c^jm-i •>/ rr^rthip and adoration." 

S<\v:uilv. he is obliged to deny it : " Not simply as il 
is dos-h A«vi MaxI. but as it is persoually united to the secoirf 
jnTS>.'U. *ad t-uthrvned iu the supreme glory of heaven." 

Sv> tha: here again, it is the divine person not the hmm 
•-tritnr th*; is worshipped : although he admits that, ta 
Sv-nptitre, it is the human nature that is said to be sdvanced 
to V»\xl"s right-hand. AH these divines seem to perccirt, 
that to vvusiitT :he human nature to be really so advanced, 
is to »S.Kish the jvpular doctrine of intercession. Hence, 
il" we eiik^iure whether they really mean what they say, whci 

* Aaoc&^r ct>aM>i«rtl>.'B. ju»i3^ trom not considering; Christ's hsav 
««i'jrv IV S? in -.XT. tj t!>« x^lowia;. It is alGnncil that there is s paM 
ivru'hv'iv^ij v-:" ih* liiviB^ Katarr ia the kasAB, bat not of t)ic hoatu aslsn 
m t^r •.iti ia« : th^; i»« tikirnr u a perfect pericboresis of lite diTiae BStn* 
IK lt<^ l^us^n : bji li.iiie Attnbaiifs aiay not be assi|:a«d b< ibe bnass- 
Tbrrv t* «u4 X ^-^t ^nt:Siore»i:f i>f the baatan aatnre in the diriK ; ;^ 
bwHULB atmbuliMF nAi &■: UMO«d to cbc diTtae * 


uan is god. 


they affinn tlmt the human nature la deified and an object of 
worship, the answer is, tliat at^er tUl thev do not mean that 
it 18 the iiamati nature, but that it is tbc rfirintf /icrww* ; and 
on this \» fonnded their doctrine of intorcessiuu. 

So jK-i-suaded however nere the early writers, though 
miiitakcu in tlic mode of application, that the texts idluded 
to did refer to the humnn nature of Christ, that they often 
flfiplied the words to onr Lord's incamntion, thonj,'h some- 
times, like SwedtniboPff, to his frlorificution. 

Thus, in the tliird division of the BrticSc npon the wonl 
aniMi in Suiccra Thesaurus, wc read : " 3. Name is taken for 
excellence, greatness, eminenee; or for the jfrcateat and 
most eminent dijrnity. Thus, Phil. ii. 9, it is said that to Christ 
ia given u name which vt abwe tvcnj name ; andj v. 10, that 
at the ncme of Jems etvry knee should bow. Here, b^ the 
name Jesus, wc are not to understand 8ira|dy a word eonsist- 
ing of certain letters and syllables, hut the dignity, majerty, 
and glon* to which Christ was raised aflfv his pa»s'mn. What 
this name is which is above every name, Theodoret teaches 
in his remarks upon these words of the apontU', p. 330; 
namely, that the vma ia nailed the Son of Ood. His worda 
are as follow: — 'even to the dullest uudcrstaudiug it must he 
evident that the divine nattire is in need of nothing, and that 
when He who was Ood wait made man, Ifc was not exalted 
]* who before was humble; bat lie, who befoi-c was most high, 
humbled himself: cunsequeutly, He did not then receive 
what Ue did not possess before ; but He received as man 
what He before ponaesied as Cod. Some, indeed, interpret 
oamc 08 signifying gh>ry ; but from the Kpistle to the 
Hebrews I deduce a different meaning of the words of the 
Hpostic : for, chap. i. 3, when he said Me aitlfth at the rii/ht 
hoHfi, he gives us th<! interprclatiuu of the word name ; utid 
observTs, v. 5, for to which of the anyels said Heat any time, 
TTiou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ? and again, 
in the same chapter, / mtt he to Him a Father, and fje shall 

374 UKPtATtOS. CBAF. TU ; 

be to me a Son. Here, therefore, he says, that wfan He 
hmnbled himself, He not onlv did not lose what He poaaaed 
as God, but that ichat He foawetaed at God He received a/** «* 
man' In like manner ThcophTlact alto obscrrca, — ' vfaat wu 
the name given to the human nature of the one Christ! 
It was that of Sou, — God ! For the man is the Sou of God, 
according as the angel said, that holy fhitiff ichirM shali he haen 
of thee, ahoQ be railed the Son of God. Oixnitncniox il» 
(p. 666) observes, — ' What is the name which is given to Hin J 
It is that of Christ,— Son, — God ! For by tbise is He calM, 
when He was in the Besh ; that is to saj, the man a » 
called.' Before these writers, also Kpiphantns had obwmd 
(Hereay box. p. 325],— 'and He piw Him a nauie uboK ettrj 
name, Sec. This was nut fulfilled in the Deitv before, but 
now in his pentonal advent ; for by his incarnation of Muj 
He received a uarae whicli is above every uame ; so tbal. 
together with God the M'ord, He is called the Son of God, 
8u?/ The reason for which Theodoret was not disposed ts 
understand the word name as signif'^'in^ glory was, uu uDOOotf 
of the Arians, who impiously asserted tliat the whulc of tbi 
verse was to be referred to the divine nature of Chiist; s 
Chrj-Bostoni alw explains, and refutes at largo." ffymSfTO. , 
Bputtle to the Pfulippimg, pp. 41, 43. ■ 

AVc thus see, that to refer these versea to the ditiif 
nature of Christ, was formerly considered to belong to tW 
heresy of the Ariaua; and thnt these Arians were oppoirJ 
by the early writers, on the ground that the words did uol 
refer to the divinity, but to the humanity. 

There is, however, another text, the last wo shall addiuv, 
hearing strongly upon the dtrinity of the hnmaa naturr, 
namely, that in wbieh St. Paul says of Christ (CoL iiV 
m whom dweiMh all the fulness of the Goithead bodily. Ol 
this subject, in Poole's Sjmopsis it is observed, *' aU thefnlam 
^f the Godhead bodily, that is, the Logos, the f^, true, sod 
perfect God J whatsoever of Deity bcloiigcth to the Fathtr. 





the whole Oeity through tlae medium of the IjOgoK, not 
some particular portiou of Deity, as the Gentiles believed iu 
the caae of their own gods ; nor merely y'xjla of grace, ifc^ 
but the whole will, the whole majezty of God, as far as it is 
manifested to us in the Word. Bodily; this coinmcntntora 
expbiin varioualy ; first, — by the union of the dinnity with 
tfce corporeal substance of Christ, or his human flesh; not 
with tlic soul only, hut iiUo m ith the Iwily ; so tlmt we may 
truly say, the t/wa Jcsua is the Clirirt God, homineiu Jcsum 
esse Chrijituni Deuai." 

Bloomfield, iu his liecoisio Synoptka, obvervoa; "We 
may, I think, conclude with AiTiitby, adopting the words of 
the Council of Aittiach, thiit the body bom of the I'irgiu, 
receiving the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily, was 
immutably unitctl to the divinity and de^fietl, which made 
the same person Jesuti Christ, both God imd man. Or, to 
use the worda of Doddridge, as the pnsitagc contains an 
cvidnnt allusion to the Schechinah in which Uod dwelt, so it 
ultimately refers to the adorable mystery of the union of the 
dirine and human ntiturcs, in the persiini of the glorious 
Emmanuel; which makes lliu auch an object of our hope 
and confidence, as tlic most exalted ereature with the most 
glorious endowments could never of himself be. Yet, strange 
to say, moat intrrjirrters, for the last century, have taken vp 
expotitioiu which a/tjtrorimate, more or /pjw, lo the Arian 
kentj/, or even that of Saeinuji ftunself; regarding tiie words 
as merely signifying, that God hath lodged in the hands 
of Christ « y?i/n«f* o/ ,174/"/-* to be conferred njnin men, or as 
only referring to hi« complete knowledge of the divine will. 

We see then the fiu't of the di\nnityof Christ's Inimim 
nature plainly a-ssertcd ; by none more plainly than by St. 
Paul ; and yet it is certain, that if the exaltation spokcu of 
in bis epistles be applied lo the linman nature, nothing tihort 
of the Arian or Sucinian inteqiretation of the passage will 
allow us to evade its force-, and if, as Dr. Dloomfleld asserts, 


&vtBa ix t&c bsK «utMi, vUle proCeasing the diniut; of 
C&Esc SKve BCTCtcWkB adopced Anan or Socmiui riewi, 
^ia wfH Knivas far ic For vlioi the office of Christ m 
hesicn » irgii' wririi to be that td pntyin^ and intace£i^ 
Kr as : viusL Ek is iipiueiited as sdll pleading, still nhilHt- 
i:^ ^ vwcfta. IK «Eda far thcxr siletit ihetoric to prenil 
spm. :ae FK&er: vhen He k represented as m |»octor, 
M^icar. bvTvr. aCsarBCT. a ttorner-geaeral, and so forth, — 
v^ «Ki ft»^ir omcave these ideas to be conmstent with 
She i^a£icvaaai£ Bt^efCT^if vhiA St. Pan] qieaks? Whm 
^^erefaEe petsui» •Mn' thr exahatioa of Christ's hvmia 
xanrr. ami ssr the ^EakatioB vaa not in rdation to the 
Hcnv. sac dBh- ia ir fa sioM to Ae office; and i^ after aQ, 
^e cAx 3« SBCft a» «e hane Ken it dcsoribed ; can it ooanj 
■» Ki SILT ^ sea c iaen» of Ckrur's exahaDim 7 

Ctnt^we Sc. FwTs d m i ipri t Mi of the exaltation of 
C^tcuc v:ia. :3if aKwrnxs piren of it in the present dar. 
iTwitr^hrr Gm dus imA kifUf eimlUd Warn, tkai at tk 
vmtf If Jftaa ivvry OKt; tmtmiJ imr. of tUmff* » Antra, mi 
fboRfs n ifgr:x, ad itHMpr mmer tJte tmrtA : ami that ermf 
T/iuTK taunui ."mptst titC J-tva Ckritt it God, to the glory (/ 
^w>/ -ic Tiz.iif' CciZi^aK also S:. John's descriptioo: 
Atti 1 iK'tt-id-^ au i WtCT'i tht Diet c/ weajr ampels roni 
£Mm£ r>*f :cr-/4«r. cuL :br invxt. tmd tJke eiden; amd the aaa- 
jv If :'bf^ v^a Zi-* :ta/a»eu Tiakts if» t kemiamd, amd ttiomta»dt 
if : hflutieuBf. tttyBut vu'.i * ijmd nice, IVarUh/ i$ the LaA 
rhAT 410 ttuat^ 7i 'T'snw gt.'wr. s»J ric^, mmJ leiadom, ami 
A— »«^ L cui hnm/r. oti ./vj'O' **^ bieatimy, Amd frrry 
.-■^•£i.-yry i-hc-l 9 » ta^BTV!*. «u' o« fiii- earthy amd mader the 
rtn K an/ «N."i e* tr^ » '^ ««. «W ctf thai are n ilAm, 
fcvv .' Mft^f/. StKXOMtf, eu itintir. *»d yionf, amd power, be 
fc-fc.-/ .rw# txc «<.T,-- i vw« :.i<f tfc-v«e. «W ica/o /Ae /.«■£, ^ 
rtr-- J=«if --rt"' -iw -i*^ .''»■* w«w jwi ^iMm. Ajtd the 
*>«" /:w .n"e^7 t-M:^ -^f- o;*-«- cW wnb^ipt^ Him tkd 
I* VI* "'■''" ■■--■^ r*tc .-■>"" 

fUAP. VI. 



Compare, we wiy, tlicjic descriptions with the following 
popular illustration taken from a modem puhlicatioii. "Sup- 
pose one of you were coudemned to die, and were going to 
send a petition to the king for your life, who would you wish 
Hhoutd cnrry it? The rnvnt imrihij man in the. whole town, 
certainly. Christ is the most worthy being in the universe, 
and therefore He is a good intercessor. If you were to 
B petition for your life, who would you desire should present 
your petition ? a stranger, or some intimate friend of the 
king;' The fiiend, surely : you will «ay, the king would be 
more likely to listen to his friend than to a stranger. So 
God is ever well-pleaded with hin dcitr Sou ; is willing to hear 
Him whcu He int<?rcede8 for us. History informs lis of a 
miin who wna doomed to die for some crime which he had 
committed; liis brother, having lost an arm in defending his 
countrj-, came forward, held up the stump of his lost arm, 
and interceded for his brother. Tlie judges were so affected 
by the rtmembraneir of Jiis past services, that they freely 
'Iwrdoned the guilty brother for his sake. Tluw is Christ 
represented as sitting on the throne, with his wounds yet 
bleeding (Rev. v. 6), and Intercoding for ua." 

Suehj Iliclieve, \v. now the idea of intercession popularly 
inculcated by divines. But what is there in all this which a 
Socinian or Ariau would not adopt? or rather, we much 
question whether many «f thcui would adojit it, and whether 
tbcy would not choose some more dignified illustration. 

It is true that the foregoing is taken from a work intended 
to convey religious iiiatructiou to children ; nevertheless it is 
the exact statement of the modem doctriiu? of intercession; 
being repeated in Matthew Henry, Doddridge, Bereridgc, 
Beyuolds, &c. ; and I have quoted from the chthVii book, 
merely to show how childish the idea is. For a child cannot 
understand spiritual things ; its mind is as yet but natural, 
receiving ita ideas only through the impressions of the (tenses. 
It might be supposed, therefore, that as the chiW grew up, 



cB^r. vbl 

it Tould be tAu^bt to pat away childisb thin^ : hj do 
the cxpeheacTil throlugian continaes tu inculcate in all ciaaa, 
to the bust mumcut of their lives, one aud tbc same idctL N 
TCitheless, no persona would insist on the diWnitr of 
more strongly than they. Bnt what is the nse of insiatiBg 19a 
the divinity of Chiist as a specnlatire doctrine, and pattisf 
(ortli a system of theology in whidi He is practically ttm. 
oeivcd (if as a mere creature ? To teach as an abstract tialh 
the dirinity of Christ, is not practically to teach 'Kit diviuin. 
To do this, we must put forth such a ^tcm of tbeulogr, it 
■ball lead the mind to infer from the ideas it conreyB that 
Christ is God, even were it not expressly assorted as ta 
abstract doctrine ; whereas, in most systems, no one wooU 
conclude that Christ ii God, were it not aaaertcd to be t 
fundamental article of faith. Thus the diniiity of Christ b 
a subject of an obscure faith, or of apccnlative assent ; lu 
merely creaturely nature is a subject of comparuitTcly plsis 
and palpable apprehension ; henoe one reason uf the pre- 
dominance of the lower riews over the higher. Yet, if *e 
assert, or evt* n prove, that Christ is Ciod, and hold only 1 
system uf theology which might be maintained witbMtf 
believing in his divinity, will not tlic bare speenlatirc sascst 
bo OTcrrulcd by imprcsaioas of a stronger and more de&iatr 
nature, and reduce our apprehension of Christ to the nait 
level with that of those who believe not iu lua divinity ? 

The doctrine that Christ's human nature is not divine, b 
fbimded principally on a passa^ in chap. XT. of St. Paal'i 
£pistlc to Corinthians. 7%en comvlh the tnd, when He ahal 
Amr Jetirrrrd mp the lamgdom to God, eve» the Father : uAm 
Me 9hmII hove pmt ihm mU rule mui a// authority owIjmot'. 
For He wmst rtiifm tUl He hath put alt enemiet wufer hit 
The hst ememg that akalt he detttro^d a death. For He 
fat wU thm^ mmder kit /ret. BtU ivheti He tnith, all thitft 
me put mmder Him, it is mamtfeMt that He w excepted^ whitk 
did put ait thimfft mder Him. And tehen ail thiitgaahaBk 


i-UAP. TI. 

HAS 18 COD. 



tuMued unto Uim, then shall the Son also hhnself be xubject 
mUo Him, that (!od nuiy be all in all. 

This jiiutsti}^ is cxpLaiacd hy Scott as follows (Christian 
L^, vol. iii. p. 337) : " Aa if lie should aay, do not mistake 
me; for when I any all thiols arc put under Ilira, my mean- 
_ ing w, lUl things except God the Father, for it was He that 
ft did put nil thinp<i under Him ; and it is manifest the lie who 
HgBve Him the HUjicriority oTer all things, must lumsclf be 
' superior to Him ; and indeed, considering Christ iw inedia- 
turiiil king, Ho is no morv than hist Father's viceroy, and doth 
only act by deputation from Him, and rule and govern for 
Him; and hence the Father st^'lcs Him his king: Psalm 
u. 6, — Yet have I net my king upon my Imly hill of Zion. So 
that now Ho is subject to the Father iu the capacity of a 
viff'kinfj to a mipcrior sovereign ; and whatsoever lie doth in 
this capacity. He doth iu his Fathier"* name, and by his 
authority ; for Tie mediates, as for mm with God (in doing 
whirh He ih out udvocat-c), bo lor God with men, (iu doing 
vliich He is uur king.) 

" Hien shall the Son also himself be mihject tmtu Him that 
put all thintfa under Him. Why then shall the Son 
elf be siibject unto Him? was He not subject to Him 
before? Yes, doubtlcs-i He was; and, therefore, either this 
/Aen roust be impertinent, or, then He aliall be so subject to 
Him fljt He was not before. Before, He was subject to llim 
as He was his mediatorial kiug or inceroy, as He reigned 
under Him, and by his aathority; but then He is to be 
snbjcict to Him after a different manner, &c. &c. 

"It was a-s He was man, that lie became obedient to 
death ; and it was in the right of that obedience, that (lod 
exalted Him to his me<liatonal kiiij^dom; so that now^ as 
Mediator, He not only reigns in his humau nature, but in 
right of the pnssion of his human nature ; his mediatorial 
kingdom is the purcliasc uf his blood, by wliicb He both 
obtained the new covenant for ns, and regal power to execute 


caiT. HI 

it apoD Ds. Wlkcn, there fo pc. He hfttb executed it to iht' 
fall ^tt^ we are sure He viU do at the dav of judj^mcDt), tiiu 
ngal pover q£ liu, vhicK He purcliased with lua blood, mB 
erase; as having fuHv aceosnpUshpd that which was pna, 
and intended. And now. He being to reign no ionzcrii 
right of the anff a in ga of his hnmaa nature, hi» bunun 
nature will be subject to the Father in a more diJfcfniI 
manner than it vas before. Before, it vas subject to Him 
aa amhoraed, in naM»derat»on at its pasnon, to rdga ftul 
ganwa voder Him; but then, having delivered up it> m^ 
and goremmcnt. it will be subject to Him in a more prinft 
e^mdt$ ; as the presidents of the Roman Empire vcfe «ab> 
ject to Cesar, while ther goremed onder him ; but, who 
thejr rendered back their cbar&cter, ther became his aab|ecti 
in a matt prwwU tlaiitm. Kot that the humanity of Cbat 
aUi be aoT war de pr e aa ed or degnded bj his dehTeriof of 
Us nediataml kingdom ; but as an amhasMe/ior, after U ii 
fiadit^cd of the burden of hia embajmr, doth still ictao 
the honor and dtgnitr of it ; so the human nature of Chriit, 
aitrr He hath sarrmdcrcd up its mediatorial dominion, sfaal 
still remain as highlr exalted in honor, dignity, and heali- 
tnde, as erer ; and angels and saints shall for ever render to 
it the same religions res p ect and veneratiun, aa thef did 
beAm Ue surrendered it; fur it shall »till remain )iypoatatia8^ 
united to his Godhead ; and m Uud sliall ever reign b il, 
though it skmit mot /or rrer rtign with God." 

It irill be ohAMred here, that the author ^Kaks d 
reUgious respect and veneration due to the hiimnn niitnn 
of Chhst, but not divine wonliip. Xo«, as wc bare KfSt 
that the human nature is even at present not the olficri 
of divine wor&bip, beamae not filled with the ftdnoa ■/ 
Godhead ; so it appears, that it is further to he djitsrted fm 
of that wliich it now possesses ; inasmuch as no office is m^ 
kuigcr to be assigned to it. As it is now in bomiii, it ■ 
invested with the honor of riferoy or ofan^aMn^; hut after 


MAS Itt UOI). 


the judgment-day, it is merely aw cr-meeroif, an ex^mhaa. 
sador; no longer being in an official cHpacitj', — no longer 
exercising: a delegated power, but subject to the Father in a 
more private capacity, as the president >i qf the Roman Empire 
toere subject to Canur. 

For our part aiich cxpositionH of the Bible, proccwliiig 
firom those who profess to oppose Soclnianisni aiid Arianifim, 
exdto in iw only mingled vexation and astonishment. It ia 
in Tain to say that they have not plunged authors into end- 
lew difticiiltica. 

For, in the first pince, according to their vieWj the human 
nature of Christ, which is still crejiturcly, after the general 
judgment, has no other office assigned it than that of offer- 
ing prayer and praise continually to Crod, iu the capacity of 
a crentiire. 

Setrondly; previous to the judgment-day, Christ performs 
the uQiee of suppliant and king ; bo that supplicatiou has 
to he reconciled with kingly power. We have seen that 
theologians do not agree upon this subject, nor docs there 
uppear any possibility of reconciling them. 

Thirdly; the cnndiumi of a nature still wounded and 
bleeding, has tu be recuueiled with that of being iuveitted 
vitfa a glory above the highest angels. 

Fourthly; a distinction has to be made between tlic 
veneration and respect due to Christ's human nature, and 
the worship due to hi» divine nature ; ho that while we make 
the human nature an object of reUgious res|)eet and regard, 
we take care not to make it an object of worship, and so fall 
into what has been fearfully called a gross idolatry. 

Fifthly ; the presence of Clirist's humanity, or flesh and 
bloodj in the ftacrnments, has to be reconciled with the local 
habitation of that nature in heaven, and cousequcutly, omui- 
prcKcncc with local presence. 

Sixthly ; wc have to reconcile the idea of the procession 
of a divine nature, such as the holy spirit, &om a nature 




CBJir. VL 

not dt« 


as the hamanity. 
Let us auw turn 

to uiother view of tbe 

t^ine, siicii as the nomanity. Such are only some of 
the dillicuUies. 

We have before remarlced upon the tcndencr of &i 
natunU mind to think of others from person mure tluu Sraa 
essence, thits to make personality the chief couaidentiaD ; 
and to leave out, or rcganl m subordinate, es»entui qiulitiei. 
Sucli a mode of thought ttc Imve ohsert'ccl tu be the inrerw 
of what it ought to be. The name principle of the nitanl 
man influences him in liis ideas of God, and leads him ts 
place the personahtr of God bdbre his essence ; thus to 
regard the tripermnality ba the ehirf doctrine, and the triui^ 
of essential principles lui the subordinate. So that tfaeiiofr 
trine of the Tripenouality butt come to be considenxl far manf 
Bs one and the same with the doctrine of the Trinitr. Hui 
error it is wliieh, in the present raise, lias produced all the 
diflBculty of interpretation. Let us only think of the Ddtj 
from his essential qualities, and the interprctatioii of tbr pis- 
sage in question becomes comjiarativclT easy. Hooker nth 
serves, that the Father is Goodness ; the Son is the Word or 
Wisdom ; the Holy Ghost is Power. Substitute nov tint 
principles for persons ; for instance, Lo\'e or Qoodncss for tk 
Father, and the AVurd or Wisdom fur tlie Son, and tbc pufy 
will stand thus : — 

Then Cometh the end when the Word shall have dcHrEn' 
up the kingdom to God, who is Lore; when tlie Word skill 
have put dowu all rule, and all authority, and power; fir 
the Word must reign, till He hath put all things nndrrlv 
feet. The hurt enemy that shall be destroyed, is dcatk, «k 
himself hath put all things under his own feet. But wfan 
the Word saith, all things are put under Him, it is miaifat 
that the Word is excepted tliat did put all things luuler DiA 
And when all things sKiUl be subdued unto the Wtvd, tkfi 
■hall the Word also himself be subject unto Lotv, tiut fot 
nil things under llim ; that Love may be all in all. 



CHAr. VI. 

VAN 18 OOD. 



This interpretation may be illnstrat^il by another, on 
similar priiid|tlc8. 

No man can come unto me, except the Father, which hath 
tent me, draw him, John vi. 44 : i. e. No mim can come 
unto the Word, except Love, wliich huth dent the Word, 
draw him. 

Again ; Alt that the Father ffiveth me thall come to me, and 
Mm thai Cometh to me, I will in no Ufise cait out, John vi. 37 : 
I. e. All that Love giveth the Word shall come to the Word, 
aii<l him that cometh to the Word, tUc Word shall in no wise 
cast out. 

Again ; As the living Father hath seat me, and I live by the 
FaiheTy even so he that tattlh me iihafi liv^ hy me, John \i. 57 : 
«. e. As living Love hath sent \\u'. Word, and tlie Word 
Uvcth by this Love, even so he that eateth the Word shall 
live by the Word. 

In all these cases it will be seen, that the Father implies 
a prior principle, or love ; the Son a snbordinale principle, 
or wisdom, light, the Word. The object of the Word is to 
bring back man to that luve from wluch he hud wandered ; 
and when this is universally accomplished, then charity or 
love is put before faith or truth, truth being oidy the means, 
luve being the end; then it is the Word is seen to be subor- 
dinnte to love, faith to charity j and hence love U> be all 
in all. 

There is nothing' new in tliis interpretation. It is only 
the application uf a principle which the best writers of the 
church have admitted ; it is only reasoning first from essen- 
tial qualities instead of fnim person. Here also wd see 
elucidated the true principles of divine intercession. The 
Word interceding between us and love. The Word mediat- 
ing between love, which is a consuming fire, and man ; for 
nutn can approach Love only tlirough the Word. 

Now St. John saw, that amidst the ciders stood a Tiamh 
lu it were slain. This Lamb is Christ the Word — the living 




Word. Bnt it was as it were slnin; that isj the Word w 
deprived of tt» life : and how can this be done ? When, Ukr 
tlie Jews, we ao dc^^milc divine TriMtom to the lerel of the 
eensEiST as t« take away frutn it all spiritual life aiid cunvcit it 
into a mere svstem of nnturaliam. To speak thcrribn of 
Christ merely as to lus persou, as coneeived by the natonl 
seiues; to imagiae that He is still covered with wounds, ui 
ns the second person of the Trinity plcadinjr his merits befocr 
the First ; to imagine that no trorsliip is due to bis humanitr ;, 
that his kinf^him shall cease; and that his glorified humtniin 
is only a glorious creature ; is by our merely natural uotiDtii| 
to bring down the Word to a system of natnralisra, thus 'o 
deprive it of spiritual life; tlitis to be ourselves the sbiyen d 
the T^mb ; after which we exclaim, * Behold, tlie office of tke 
Lamb, to staud as it were slmn amid the elders of the 
church V 

The view of nietliation and of intercession then, vfaidi 
we Irnvc here pmposc<l, is one perfectly conaistt^nt with tkr 
divinity of Christ's human nature ; and couscquently villi 
those exulted news of it which were set forth by the apostk 
Nut only so; it is a view which is founded upon the na/ivraf 
Deity, and not merely on hii ptrttatalHy. On this iobjccl, 
there is an obscn'ation in Tiu-kfr^ii Light tff Natvrt, whii^ n 
cannot help qiiotiii;; ; vol. vi. p. flOH: 

" I am apt vehemently to suspect that the prayers of oir 
church, frequently concluding through or for the itake nfJoM 
Christ, ^ves an idea to many persons, that God has no ia* 
mediate regard for us at all ; hut bestows his bicsiiingt, poidr 
to {^nttify hi» Son, upon those to whom be has bappilj taia 
a liking ; and that by the use of that name, we may Bia«f 
Him to do a thing He was indifferent to before. I need nsl 
take pains to shew how repuguimt this notion is to ummi 
aud rntioual faith ; neither do I believe it waa in the tboi^kto 
of the enm]uler» of our liturgy, Aor designed to be iueuIcstfJ 
iu the Scriptures. 1 own, indecil, there are scvend eqn»- 




tiimis which swrn to liwk strongly that wny, and pnrhapK it 
might be uccetHtary that such opiniou shuuJtl bv cuuuived at ; 
for the Jews, who looked for a temporal deliverer to rescue 
tliciu by his might and prowess, or for the grtiBS-miuiIcd 
Gentilus, who cutild take their apprehensions of the Almighty 
only from th« likeness of earthly princes; in order to lead 
jthcm, by tlic areuiic of their own coiiccptious, into au expec- 
tation of benefit from the gospel, , 

" Rnt, fur liuch m have cars to hear, they arc told ex- 
pressly, that God 80 lorcd the world, He gave his Son to he 
^a propitiation for our sins ; so the redemption was a joint act 
i-of love in the Father as well as in the Sou. And He is all 
[ along represented a.H the God of love, sending his sun&hinc 
taiid his rain niHiii the just and the n7ijiist; long-suffering 
id merciful, ready to forgive, unwilling the sinner should 
risb, but that he should return from his evil ways and live, 
being his chanicter, there is no doubt He is always 
sady to give lun creatures all the good things proper for 
Lthcm, and consistent with tlic- order of government rcspcct- 
[ing Ills spiritual natures established iu perfect wisdom, of 
liis own mere motion, without needing an intercession 
jiromptiug ilim thereto. Jk-ifidcs that, however we may 
I Undentnud the distiiictioiis of persons iu the Godhead, they 
[can never be ima^ncd so difFcrcnt in temper and cliaractcr, 
[as tliat one ahotdd take a liking to objects indifferent to the 
thcr, or one ndioutd importune for thingA not already judged 
»per by the perfect wijidom of the other. 
" But the gospel teaches that Christ is the wny and the 
life, for no man eau come to the rather unless tliroujrh the 
Son : He came from God to direct us by his doctrines and 
list us by his institntiuns, and goes before to lead us by 
ja example iu the road which is the natural avenue to the 
[idivine blessings; therefore He is styled the Intercessor, 
[cdiator, and Agent going between God and man. But 
wc must travel the road oun<clvcs, or nhall receive no 

c c 

. -^ 


CBAt. ^U^ 

benefit fiRHB tlie iiilCfcetMon. vliidi operate* no o A cnr ae 

tbu bf b i u i eu» S "* ■>>lv ^ **7 > '''^ <^*^^ ^i> desth u4 
pMaon win arail odIj SBcb wbo strire to imitiite his endo* 
Race in k good ohbi^ to oroei^r thn lusts of their fleah, the 
fade and in d nfanfa and nnrulT patadona of their hist, 
and to nbdae the canal or aeosoal part muler ■ubi tdja 
to the spiritual or ratioiial. 

" Thcrcfare 1 apprdeod we are not wairanied to 
that Christ vill do BBTthin^ for tu at a dtntance in beam, 
nor otberwue than br the initrunientality of oar ovn porai 
towards bringing oar hearts into that frame whidi wof 
qubfy them lor racepCion of those bleaBtngs, that God m 
bii viadotn. and goodaess has prqnred for hia cnatana 
And hy the phnae linmffk Jena drut, is to be VBdastoa^ 
that we hope ta obtain the things we sue for by the vsj Be 
has opened to na for arriring at them j aud /or Aw mIt, 
■*"p**« that God will p\e them to as in ooosidcration of on 
cnptogring the means lie has ptit into our bauds fbr >ttnB> 
ii^ than. So that those erpresakma are of aimilar ittpoft 
with thift cndi^ ene of the seotcDces of the Lard's Pnjn, 
— lioqpTe «• ov Impavei, as ve foi^vc thcnx that tnspM 
against u^ or aooMthing in the nature of an oath, at if «c 
■hndd sajr, so help me God in mv present wants, as I AA 
ttavn iuthftdlr to pene^ere in tlie tenor of aentiacvt ad 
coadnet prescaibed me, and arsil myself of the aids ^iorici 
me in the goopeL 

** I do not mean to conderon the literal aenie of iatB^ 
CHBon in persons who cannot nndersCand any other, fir 
thgn are smv — owy oar v^ar of as fffot* cono^f mm at tit 
tmcient Jtw or tKe Gemtile ; and tu there is meat for men aai 
milk for babes, we mut allow eTerr one to take what is aat 
soitabk to hts digestion; therefore I would not wish ^ 
bodr to distiirb himself that he cannot fiiUy enttt lats ite 
explanation offered above, fur whoever appUes to hn An» 
tions with the purest ideas he ia capable of 




pcrfurmn tlicm woH and will receive all the benefitu Brova 
them {iromiscd in the Scripture. Bui I think tlic literal 
[•ease ought not to be couuteuauced, much less encouraged, 
in whomsoever is susceptible of the other ; becaose experi- 
ence testifies into what mischiofa it bos unwarily led nuinkind. 
[For if God had uo bowels of compassiou for ua aiuce the 
[disobedience of Adam, yet might be moved to give ns eternal 
happiness through the iutcrcesiuou of Ids Sou; the Son too^ 
after we had forfeited his favor by actual tmnsgrrcssions, 
might rt-iustatc iik upon the recommendations of St Hcter^ 
fOr St. Mary, or St. Bcmict, or St. Vedaat, aiitu Foster, or 
some other prime favorite; but if we happen to be atrangera 
! to the foresaid saints, still it is likely they, in imitation of 
|thcir Master** example, will take us uudcr protection, if we 
get some priest or holy man npon eartli to present our 
ition. Thus have men been led to imagine, that in the 
mrt of heaven, as in some Ttnlian court, points arc carried 
interest and favor ; and thus religion has been turned into 
^an infamous trade." 

In eonfirnmtiou of the evils arising from the popular vinr 
[of the auhjtx:t, we need ouly refer to the last quotation from 
[Dr. P. Smith. {See note, p. SU.J 

It is to he hoped that nutburs who, like the former, with 
|bo much justice complain of the gross ideas which prevail 
ipon thw subject, will at length be led to see the real source 
the eril. For if it be " gross" or " damnable idolatry" 
wonthip the human nature of Christ, because that nattu'e 
still creaturely; if his humanity be still employed in offering 
acts of adoration and praise to Ood, how can it be eon> 
sired, as Tcna justly asks, that it is not employed in luits of 
>nual prayer? The foundation, therefore, of the degraded 
which arc entertained of Christ's intercession, is laid in 
degraded ideas which arc entertained of his glori5ed hu- 

Having now made these general remarks on the eridence 

c c2 




of Scnpture iu favor of the DUiaity of Cliriat'& htOBUPtfv 
we shall proccetJ, further, to adduce the testimony 

Ou tluK Bubjcct, however, we shall be brief ; first, bnauor 
we have already been obligod iii some lueusure to allude to it, 
luid next, because altbougb tbc divinity of the hiunaiut; hw 
beeu allowed, the Hubject has occasioned uo little contnmny. 

Wc learn from PetaWus, in bi<i work on the Inc»niKtii 
(book ir. chap. i\.), that the doetrltie that in Christ Mau 
God, ha-s always been admitted by the cutholic chnrdk 
Hence writers have applied to the flesh of Christ the ttrm' 

ficari, dcificari, &e., ike. Most of them, however, in 
these tcmis, appear to have spoken of tbc flr-sh of 
when upon earth ; though «ome there were whu applied thrv 
to the gloriHeation of the 1iumaiiit\' at tbc a»ceiisian. Pnnlt- 
niis Aciuileieusis uiaiutaiued, that the ruau J asus Christ wm 
exalted into tjod, so that Ood and nuui became oue and tW 
same; fmrns tt idem possibly referring to person.) Jmomi 
Daraasccnus speaks of the deification, rcrbificntion, and cull* 
atlnn of the flesh. Grej^ry Nysson observes, — 'the "ffcri 
which appeared iu the llesl^ is the same with llira who tu 
with God; but the flesh was not the same wttli the Wari 
■whieli was with God, before itself became chnnge<l into IV:M 
There are nuineruu!) other tcstiuouies from the fiithen U * 
similar kind, although there were endless disputations bs tntk 
sense in which the terms should be taken. The foUowtn^ ob- 
servntior, however, of Petavins expresses exteniallr tbe 4i^ 
trine of Svredetdiorg, although there is reason to suppose thi 
the words were not meant to signify it: " We may, Hkn- 
fore, nse with propriety the following expression, mn ■« 
made God; that is, this boman nature wliich is in Christ br^ 
by the divine operation and cfficac}' of the Hot^ Spiiit^ e^ 

* See «bo Ihe Second Uralian ag&inil ibe Ariwii, mtrnvafi tb* 
Atlianuiui, vol. 1. pp. 3M, C19; Ed. Colapie, 1680. 


MAN 18 OOD. 




be cuiijuincd with the Won! atui to bo God." Ifnhnppilr the 
doctrine, even when mlmittcd, was generally cvattwl in the 
manner we have |Knntctl out; it was regarded more as ameta- 
phy.sical than as a reli^Qu« trutb ; and buuce rather gave rise 
to such seholastic questions, as how far one substance was 
convertible into another, tlmn exercised any prartical inftn- 
once upon the interpretation of Scriptuje. Still it is certain, 
that among some of tlic Fathers, the divinity of Christ*!* 
humanity* was held in a far stricter nenae than it is at tlio 
prcsrnt day among the gcncTality of Protentaut* ; that some 
of them, aecording as they were faithful to this doctrine, 
inclined to repiidia,te the grosser ideas of Cbiist'B mediation 
as entertained by otbrrs, althoufjh oceawonally they were 
inconsistent with themselves. The doctrine of trniisubstantia- 
tion, moreover, which was sumetimes maiutaiued iu immediate 
connection with it, led either to higher ideas of Christ's huma- 
nity', or lower idciis of his diiinity, aceording as the mind was 
disposed to be sensual or spiritual. The only constidernhlc class 
of Protestants who entertain, with minf^ Riiman Catholics, 

Alliiuugli llie (lodrinv of Ulu chuTtli iu ;ccut'r«l ouh- ii, tliat Ihc liuciianily 
of Cbrlai U nul Ktrictl; diTiDr, hence thai Jl it nut correct tu «pcak of IiU 
di«ii)« liumaallj, j«t Sc. AuK<i*liu u*ts lliii ripreMton in Ihp fnllciwing 
remukfible pasMgc: " For this rraaon al»A He ih MMiniiirbelni-«o Gocl 
ad niJiii, bpcaii!!* Ho i* Outi witli l)i«> Futlicr. und nutn irith mnn. Tlir 
nuuhood ii not mciiiator tndrpcndrnlly of the UoiHicad, nor ii Gad mGiliatur 
lDde[ientleatly of llie buiQauUy, llehulil tho nisiinrr in which Cbriit w 
MediaUr I lh« diviniiy iit nnt medialiir wUh(*ut ibc bumanilj, Uic huaiKnity 
llsnolmedwtur nilhoiil the dtvinily ; bnt brtnrrn thnlirinily alunc «Dd tli« 
hummiiy aloBe, modialea the Humnii Dimity and the Oieint ttumanUy." 
^&e. Vol. »ii. p 262 ; Tliirri v<\., Vcn. 

f We n^ nwu, bl^cau«F ihe rentier may tee in the Manual of Becauua 

rttat (!iiriiiii> oublleties tbc divinity of Dirist's buniaiiity, ^len when 

lUed, is often explained iiviny in lh«- Cliurcli of Kuidp, i»>iwiih»lniKlini; 

^.1h« prufpMed adoraiion of Die eocharUt. Tliittt (ill book li. tliap. 1., on Ihe 

, subjccl of L'biquily). Itcvauuii vbaerrea, — ihat to the humituily of Cliri»t is 

coiainunicalcdadivineaubfliKtciK-i^, Ibal this dirine aubsiBteoce tsoniyrfta- 

lift, and thai a rfl«fjrt divines eabf if Ivncc diM<« not inrliidr pMfntiiilly divine 

. allribiile*. 

890 utuiiArton. vaxr. n. 

th« more exalt«d conceptions of tlie glory of Chritt's faumu 
nature, are the Lutherans; nnd their testimony In hior of 
the diriuity of Christ's hmnaiutT, Swedenborg not mibe- 
qncntly aUudes to. In the Libri Sym^iici of Bruifetical 
Protestants, it ia distinctlv affirmed thiit the hunum natoit 
of Christ is invested with all the attributes of di^iutf. 
" Wc repudiate," say they, " and cxnidcmn ma crroncoiu the 
doctrine that Christ, as to his human nature, is not capafab 
of omnipotenre, and of fhc othrr propertic* of the diriiie 
nature ; nu assertion vliicli persons dare to make ootitniy to 
the express testimony of Christ,— j4// power i» jmwn /• mr 
tti heaven and ia earth: in which hJso they contradict St 
Paul, who says that, in Him dwelUrth all Utc fninem ^ ih 
GoflAead bodily." Of this doctrine of the di*-iuitj- of Cbrist** 
human nature, the Iiuthcrans affirm, " Rojictmiu i^itnr 
atque ffn^Tiiiwi conseusn, ore & corde, damnamns onMs 
errores, qui a commemoratA dortrini't pifi disscntiunt." JhU, 
Among the errant thus condemned and rejected, b the 
following, — "That to the humanity of CUrist is ipTcn tk 
greatest power in heaven and in earth, in such a scnie, tta 
it is a {wwer greater and more ample thnn angeli sad 
creaturely beings receirc, but has no communicution vitk 
the omnipotence of 601I; and that this omnipotence is ovt 
imparted to the human nature. Wlience tbere i» fdgaerf 
a certain inienwdiate power, a something betirecn the tof 
nipotencc of God and the power of other ereiUnrcs, gins 
to Christ as to his human nature, and in rirtuc of hitcxit- 
tation ; a power less than the omnipotence of (tod, brt 
greater than that of any creaturely beings." Ibid. Ttii Ai^ 
trine, which is the one commonly rceeive<l, the l/uthcfU* 
say, " R^hiinua ft damnamua." We bynu menjis undertake tt 
vindicate all the views which the Lutherans btdd upon tki> 
subject ; wc simply quote their testimony in proof that tk* 
considered the language of Scripture to be too pbuu toattf* 
them to deiiv the divinity of Christ's humanitv. 



Having now treated of this doctrine, as proved by 
Scripture, and confirmed by different tcatimoiuctij wc next 
proceed to shew, thirdly, from reasou, that the human 
nature of Chmt i-t divine. 

In doing this, it will be desirable Hrst to notice the ail- 
ment that the mediatorial office of Christ is not the founda- 
tioQ of the worship due to Him, becauee thia oflBce b^an in 
time and is ultimately to ceaae; whereas Cltrist was God 
before He was Mediator; and it U on this ground therefore 
that He is entitled to our wontbip, hut not as Mediator. 

We have already seen the low ideas which hare prevailed 
with regard to Clmst's mediatorial works and oificc, in ^ 
neral, and it is only consistent as long: »« thc*c arc enter- 
tained, not to regard tliesc works as essentially dinne, and 
consequently a foundation of divine worship. At the same 
time, to say that a work is not diviue because the being whose 
work it is wiLH divine tifforc he wrought it, is a somewhat 
incompreheusible argument. One would naturally have pre- 
■umed that this was the very rcaaon for which it is entitled 
to be considered divine; and, as such, one ground of di\ine 
worship ; for in the work itaelf ia the essentia] dirinity, con- 
Bequcutly it must he as truly divine as is the work of a truly 
divine being; unless, according to the prevalent theology, 
wc separate between the dirino and human natures in such a 
manner, that wc conceive there ia no essential communication 
to the human nature of the diiinc properties. In which case. 
Done of the acts of redemption wrought by the human na- 
ture are divine; whence we arc led to this conclusion, that 
1 although tie who is Kedeenicr ought tu be worshipped, yet 
He ought not to be worsliipped as Redeemer; and this not- 
withstanding that there is no such distinction made in the 
book of Ilcvelntions, a]id that Christ is there seen to be wor- 
shipped a» Redeemer, and ftecauM He is Redeemer, just as 
truly a& He is worshipped as Creator, and because he is 

393 MEVunox. cbap. n. 

Certamlr Chrbt was Gtid A^Wv He vbs Mediator; tie 
we tbereftire tut to vonhip Him Awi— f He is Mediate'' 
Is He not n his mediatonal voiks God atOl ? Are they not 
the Godhead manifested? One pnnc^nl mediatoiial work 
of Christ ciMisisted in His raisn^ his honiaiiitT firom tfae 
dead. Who could do this bat He who is God? Is it not i 
work then not impmtatirthi bnt aaemtialbf dirine ? — ai^ not 
the kss so because He who wroo^t it was divine beffxe He 

WTMl^t it. 

Besides, if we worship Christ not as Bedeemer, bat onlr 
because He was God before He was Bedeemer, what ii thii 
bttt to worship Him only as Creator? and to make this the 
onlr ground of oar wturship ? Well may Socimans exdiim, 
that if some Trinitanans did bat understand thenudreiy 
they would see that they differ from them only in language. 

M(HeoTer, the reir same objection, upon the prindpla 
generally received, applies to the wor^p (^ Christ considaed 
as Creator, as to his worship considered as Redeemer ; fiv if 
Christ is not to be worshipped as Mediator, but onlr became 
He was God before He was Mediator, so neither is He to be 
worshipped as Creator, but oaly because He was God befon 
He was Creator. The creation of the visible umTerse began 
with time, but Christ was God from eternity ; therefore He 
is not to be worshipped as our Creator, but as that which He 
was before He was our Creator. Our creation is, for tiiis 
reason, no ground of our worship of Him. 

Is not, however, the very fact that Christ was God before 
He was ^Mediator, itself a proof that the mediatorial office ti 
Christ is divine, and, as such, one foundation of the divine 
worship due to Him ? The objection that this mediatorial 
office is to cease, and that, as to his human nature, Christ ii 
to become, after the general judgment, an obedient subjeet 
of the Father, we have already answered. 

We now proceed to shew, more directly, that the huinsii 
nature of Christ is divine. 




One ar^mpnt ngainst the dmnitj' of llie human nature 
ClirUt, is, that humanity has n form ; and that it ih iib- 
to eonaiiler a human form to be dinne, because form 
implies limit, bouudiir^', termination; whereas God is infi- 
nite aud unbounded, being everywhere equally present. To 
this wc reply, that if we cannot attribute form to God, be- 
cause it implies limit; so neither can wc, for the same reason, 
attribute anything to Him, or frame any conecption of his 
nature. For all the ideas we can entertain of Ilim neces- 
sarily imply Umit, inasmuch as the ideas themselves arc 
limited, being those of a limited, finited creature ; yet we do 
not, for tliat reason, ceaic to consider certain periections as 
bclongbig to the dinne nature. None but an infinite being 
<sui hare infinite and therefore adequate ideas of himacif ; all 
finite ideas, however exalted, must have form, limit, and 
boundary, an truly ho aa the senses or sensations of the body. 
The objection, tlierefore, derived from the idea of form, is as 
applicable to all intellectual ideas, however abstracted, as it 
is to sensational impressions. Tjct any ideas of God enter- 
tained by a creature, however intellectual, however abstrnrtcd, 
nay, however angelic nr spiritual, be pmbo<Iied ; aud that 
embodiment will as certauily present a detinite limitation, a^ 
any object presented to the senses. The objection, therefore, 
derived from the idea of form, if idlowed, would tend to de- 
prive us of entertaining any idea of the Deity whatever; for 
thy only othor ideii we could eutertain is that wliicb is foriu- 
Iom; hence indefinite, indeterminate, chaotic, confused; 
which is nrtunlly no idea, because it has no form ; and that 
wliich has no form, has no quality; aud that which has ueither 
form nor qiudity is n nonentity. 

What then ? arc we to attribute an external shape or figure 
to God like that of tlic human frame? The answer is, if we at- 
tribnte hiunan properties to God, why should we not attribute 
n bumau form ; when this form is only the form of tho«c pro- 
perties, or that which the properties assimic when they arc en- 



eUAf. Tl. 


^at Goa 

t? Bat it is npGed, ire 


identical piopcrtk 
bni onlr br ww cf maaio^ in an cmiocnt Rnae. True ; nd 
«« in like mMmer 1^5* that neitber daet God ponmw tfa 
h^BBB fan, except far wwj of nnalogf in ui eminent Kue. 
Bat tU«, it viD be Mid, is nfter aO, oolj to deny to Hns 
tUs bnman form ; ve answer, it no moro denicB to Him tkii 
linman fcno, tiian the attzibat»n to tbe Deityof Love, Vi>- 
dnn, and Paver, in an ^i«m»«t aane, ia a denial dial He 
liiiiiiiiiii Iboae attzibatcs. God is Lora a^d Wiadna OMa- 
tiaOr; conaeq ag ntlr tber can be a scribed to Htm rancbauai 
trahr than to man ; for tfae aame leason God is fimn itadf ; 
mkkk can ti bttrfw e be aaoibed to Hun mud move pofccti; 

Boi it is replied, infinitB kwe and goodaeaa arc not a cod- 
tiaJirtiua in terms ; bat an infinite form is a contjadictioa. 
Uadodbtodlf ; if vc oonoeire of tbat form as finite, bat not 
a «e eonni ^ e of it as infinite. Bat it ia aaked, how on «« 
co u cg i »e an infinike fin ? and we answer, how can we eoa- 
oeire an infinite ({inditT t Anr ideas of it we cajs fnune sn 
finite; as nUMh limited and boanded as our ideaa of &m, 
figon^ erahape; 

StiO, it is reipfiad, we can csonceiTe, withoat coatmfie- 
tion. tbe finite attributes of lore and wisdom as less and ksi 
finitrd ; co na cqnentlj mate t-w^fwg to infinitr ; bat we caa* 
tMt conceiTT so of ftcas. We lepk, Aoald this be the eue; 
or, if we hare not so learnt to ooooeiffe erf* form, sttll «t 
mar and ought. 

Tlie otgectkm appKed to the idea of, that it iD- 
Tolres limit and booiMlaiT. It is erident h owet c r Aot, ia 
Aia caae, wben we so think of form^ we think of it in » 
ference tonuUeextenBon, magnitnde, or space. WhoMi 
Ood bas no sneh *«♦— — ■«—j or SMgnitode, nor can i^ara It 
aitzihatod to Him ; fiv He was bdiiiv space. The ftnlt hm 
in onr ooa o Bftiea of fonn, is cuctlr the same as we haw 


MAN II OOP. 395 

before pointed out in refcreoce to eternity. Infinite form is 
no moro visible fonn cxtonilcd ad infmitmn, than eternity is 
time esteuded ad infinitum; or diviue love aud wisdom tlie 
same with human love nnd wisdom iufinite iu quantity. 

God, it is aiiid, cunjiot have form because He in omnipre- 
sent. But in this case does not the idea of presence involve 
that of extension thraughont space ? Yet there may be 
presence without extensioo, and cousequently omuipreBcncc 
without nnivcnial extension ; aud when we have Attained to 
this idea, we shall then scu that there may bo form witliout 
extension in space. A. cause mny be an umversaUy pre- 
sent as the cfl'ect; but yet the cause need not he universally 
extended like its effect. The spirit of man, for inittance, 
ij in his whole body; but yet that spirit has not exteusioii 
in our visible spa^e Hke the body. It has a human form ; 
but yet tliat form is not in space ; uor is it bounded by 
the external figure of the body, in such a way that the 
form of the spirit coincides with the form of the body, like 
two equal and similar geometrical figures. 

Many, we know, deny that the spirit of man has any 
form ; but who are they? Ofiteu the same with those who 
deny that Uod could assume to himself a human nattire, and 
hence a human form. The objection ia of th<! same kind in 
both caiKs, and springs from the same source; namely, tbc 
difficult^' which the nntitnil man hits in raising his ideas above 
mere space ; and iu conceiving of form and substance inde- 
pendently of -matcriftl things. As Priestley, for instance, 
maintained that God had no human form, so he maintained 
tbat the spirit of man Jiad no liumaTi form ; for he coidd en- 
tertain no other idea of form than that which is entertained 
by the natural man, as Implying such magnitude aud space as 
•re perceptible to the bodily senses; which is mere naturalism. 
Maintaining thu» that (Jod luis no fonn, and upon the same 
principlen, that the spirit ha.^ no form ; and as such, perceiv- 
ing that wliat has no form is not ; he came to the cuncluston, 




cB^r. %ui 


that there is tio */wrr/ of man : that trhnt la commoni 
gjtirit U material : lieuce that at dcatU mau ceases, olthou^ 
again called into existence by miraculous power. The bum 
reasomng in regard to the Deity is mloiited b^ Athdati 
and Deist.'^ ; who conceiTiug that God hns iia form, aiid tbd 
what has no form is not, arc led either to deny the cxiflt* 
cnce of a Ood, or to re-solre the Divine Being into the n 
Tcrsal extension of the ph}'sical forces cf UAtiue ;* of whidi 
they speak coIh;ctivcIy as nn nU-periiadinff powr. We tL 
sec the real ori[pn of the objectioa that (Jod boa no form; 
that it ia the same with that which originates the theorr 
that the spirit of man has no form ; that is to aay, ■ mac 
priiiriplc of naturalism ; and that, in this respfvt, both 
Socinians, and all others who deny Uod to have a form^ 
tually agree. 

But it is said, form cannot be conceived of without fp«f. 
Cerlaioly, if we imagine to ourselves a mundaiio form, wf 
must also imagiiie to ourselves a muudaue space ; bene*, u 
t}ie spirit of man has a form, though not material^ ao it bw 
magnitude and t^pacc, yet not that space and mngnitndr 
which belong to material things. Hence it cannot, in prl»- 
tion to things material, l>c denominated great or small, uO 
or short; no, oor even in reference to time, either uldor 
yonng; and as this is the case with regard to man's ^drit, 
in its relation to matter, so also is it the case, in a io^iiB 
di^ree, with regard to the Almighty Spirit, in his itbrtiaii 
to creation. Hciiec we see the error into which the AnUinv 
pomorphites fell. They were right in conceiving of God, ■* 
St. Paul says, as possessing a form, but they were growH 
wrong in the notions which they conceived of that farm, Mfi 
which were merely those of the natural mau. 

Bill it will be said, if God has a form, it is only the km 
which we attribute to Tlim by reason of the Umltstioa o/ 
our own ideas. Tlmt it is only the infinite Itnitcd or Somi 
* Eves thf pli)'Hi«nl forces of Mturc hmrt m fans. 





bj the crcfttnre, so a* to become in »nme deffrcc apprchcii- 
eible. "We answer, the form wliicli God Iia-i is an lufiuitc 
form, aiid not tlic fimtc form which w attribnted to Him and 
under which we apprehend Him. Tlie higliext nngcl cannot 
•ee God as He is, couscquently caiiuot see liin irifmite form 
as it is ; nevertheless he sees God, and sees llitn io a human 
tana. Tliis form, however, is no more the iufinite funo, 
than the perfections whic}i the augcLi behold are his infinite 
perfections; both arc indeed infinite, hut both ai'e mani' 
Tested under a finite form, accommodated to the apprehen- 
sionii of the iingelii; othcrflrisc neither wa»dd be apprehensible, 
but, relatively to the conception of the augel, would be 
non-existent. Thus the appcarimcc of the divine form to 
the angel would be no more the divine form as it is in itself, 
than the mimifcstation of the divine perlcctions to the angel 
would be the same with the di^Hne perfections as they are in 

It is the want of perceiving how there can be an infinite 
form, and couseqiieatly how tliat form can be divine, that 
confirms many in the idt-a, that our Savior, in his mediatorial 
character or human form, cannot he divine. If, however, 
this form he inlinitc, anil henco dinuc, it foUoMs that our 
Saviur in his mediatorifd charnctcr, and hence in his human 
form, is divine. This being the case, all those views of 
intercession which arise from conceiving ilim to be still 
aprinkled with mnterial blood, tttill exhibiting his wounds 
to the Father, utill receiving new revelations from the Father, 
fttill pleading his own nicrit)i, and humbly supplicating for 
his people, — all these, 1 say, must be banished, as merely 
those of the natural man ; and we must regard liis human 
nttture na divine, hence as the form of God, the express image 
of bis substance, the fulness of the Godhead bodily, whose 
name is above every name, and at which everj- kucc must 
bow, whether of things in hc-avcn, or things in earth, or 
tilings under the earth ; so that every toiiguu tnust confess 



tbat Urn Hainan Form is dnine, to the gloiy of tlie fvAtri 
who, in il, maki^ hinisclf knun ti to nuukiad. 

The adrantage to be derived from this view of tbe lutijiiBC 
in which ve contemplate God as possessed of a dirinr fam, 
b the following; it is equally opposed to tha gross oooe^ 
tious of the Anthropomorpliites, aud to the vb^uc mod tnde* 
finite ideas of God maintained by those who dechum Him to 
poiresi no form : thus it is equaUy opposed to the Jiiih fiiiiti 
abstractions of the rationalist, and the sensual conocptioo* 
of the naturalist. It famishes to a good man a ckmr idea gf 
the Deit>-f so far as the idea extends ; while at tbe same tuns 
it not only does not interfere with his spiritnality, eCendty, 
and immensity, bat epables as to entertain far mare tne aai 
exalted conceptions of them than wc otherwise oould. Aad 
this, we presomc, gives a complete answftr to those who 
would object to us tbe doctrines of Authropomurplusm ua 
the one hand, or, on the other, of mere rationalistic tt 
VBguc mystical nodons.* 

"God," sa}-8 Swedenborg fDmne Love, art. 385), "m 
not to be thought of from space. His human bodr cuuwt 
be thought as great (ur small, or of any stature, beeanse tlw 
also is of space. ^Vn intelligent person cannot deny in hia- 
sclf, but that in God there is km and wisdom, that there ii 
mercy and clemency, that there is goodness and trath itait, 
because they are from Him ; and forasmuch as he caaail 
deny that these things are in God, neither can he deny t^ 
God is a man ; for no one of them can exist ahatractsdlj 
from man, for man is their subject ; and to separate tbia 
from their subject, is to say that they do not exist. Tfaiafc 
of wisdom, and place it without man, and then let me sik 
is it anything ? can you oonceiTe <tf it as of some etbtml 
principle, or as of some principle of fire? Yon cuMi 

* See Owea'a Wotk«, toI. viii. clup. UL; also lol. xair. f, Wi 
Bfilne*'* Bud of CoatroTcra^, Lettrn 37, 36 i TlUotooo's Sobot, W, «• 
tbe Spjrit«ality of Ui« Divuie Katara. 


CUAf. VI. 



imless, posnbly, as existing in those principles; and if in 
them, it ratist then ho a form, find siicli bj* man Imth; yea, 

I it must be in every form of man's, not one must be wanting 
in order that wisdom may be in it ; in a word, the form of 
irifidom i.i man ; and forasmnch as man is the form of 
irifidom, he is aluo tUu form uf love, mercy, clemcuey, goodj 
and truth ; because these act as ouc with wisdom/' 

Tliis brings us, lastly, to the question how the aeknow- 
ledgmcnt of Chriat's human form to be di\'ine is to the glory 
of Ood the Father; or, in the terms of our propaiition, it 
leads us to shew the eSect which tliis doctrine produces on 
Chriatian morality arid worship. With regard to the term 
g^oryj we consider it an cxpreHsire of the light of divine wis- 
dom. We hare before shewn t)uit the Father is love ; benee 
ftnytliing done to the glory of God the Father, is anything 
done which shall diffuse among his creatures the light of his 
wisdom wi proceeding from eternal luvc; thus making those 
creatures nmre wise unto salvation, having more of love to tJod 
and to each other ; in fine, trantiforniing them into the image 
Mid hkcness of the Redeemer. How then docs the belief 
that the humanity of Christ ia divine produce thin effcet ? 

The answer idj— we have already said that the humanity 
of Christ consists of the two principles of love and wisdom, 
which, when in act, are in power. The glorified or divine 
humanity is the same with a glorified or divine love and 
wisdfim. From this and no other source can the mind re- 
ceive divine illumiaation; hence from this and no other source 
can it sec the nature and consequences of the doctrine of 
the mintculous conception nrof dinuity as the essential soul 
of Christ's humanity ; hence also, the divinity or diWne wis- 
dom contained in the word of God. To deny, therefore, the 
divinity of Christ's humaitity, la to reject the only source of 
light from above, and to substitute in its place a wisdom leu 
than divine, which can never lead us to acknowledge a wis- 
dom truly divine. The con3ec|ueuce must shew itself in a 


low, degraded view of the character of Christ, hence of tbr 
interpretation of Sciipture, hence of the nature of ChriitiiB 

The difference betreen these two kinds of theoli^ van 
well be illustrated br a quotation from one of the Tracts pro- 
ceeding from the Oxford school. The writer expresses him- 
self as follows : 

" If we wish to express the sacred mystery of the inor 
natiou aectuately, we should rather say that God is mas, 
than that man is God. Not that the latter proposition is not 
altogether cathoUc in its wording ; but the former e^tresm 
the htstuiT of the economy, if I may so cah it, and confiui 
our Lard's personahty to his divine nature ; making his min* 
hood an adjtmd .- whereas to say that* man is God does the 
contnu>* of both these ; leads us to consider Him a man per- 
simally, with some vast and unknown dignity superadded, 
and that acquired of course after his coming into existeaoe 
as man." 

It bein^r then declared that the whole essence of modoi 
thook^ consists in this, that God is man ; that the divine ii 
human : that inlinite perfections assume finite perfecdcKU : 
iutiuito truth tiuite truths: infinite wisdom finite wisdom; 
it is obnous. that the whole tendency of this theol<^ ii 
dv^wuwanl. Tbojv is none upward ; since man is not God, 
tho maiihtx^ docs not ascend to the Godhead, the human ii 
not c\alt<\i to the Divine, for this, it appears, would mislesd 
us : iuAsmtich as. in our views of the character of Christ u 
man. it would load us to consider Him a man persooiUv, 
with st>mo vust aud unknown dignity superadded; and thit 
art^uinNl, oi ^xnirse. after his coming into existence as man. 
What follows m>m this? "The Incarnation," says the wri- 
tcT, " was not a conversion of Godhead into flesh, hot t 
takiuiT of the manliood into God. A mystery indeed lesnh* 

• I'omptrv lV*r*oi on »H. 4. Ht mftrH, wilh Owen, toI. lit. p- !*. 


uan is OOD. 



from this view, for certain attributes of divimty and of nian- 
bood seem incompatible, and tlicrc may be some revealed 
instances in our Lord's history im earth of /«»» than divine 
thought and ojteration." Introduction of Jiationa/istie Prineipiea 
into lieliffioH, p. ■\G. 

The conclusion Li unnvoidable, and here the grand secret 
of modern theologj' is rcrealed. How much of what our 
Savior said is of leas tlian ditHne thought, vc arc not told ; nor 
are we told Jiow many of the things He did, are of tvnt than 
dirinc Iteration ; no rule is furnished for drawing the dis- 
tinction ; no limit is aasigned to wliicb it ia to be extended ; 
the gate is left wide open for any one to enter, how far it Ja 
not said; for, undoubtedly, iis the writer observes, acciirding 
to the common views of t)ic liypontatical uuiou, certain 
attributca of divinity and manhood seem incompatible, that 
is to iiay, the divimty cannot be conceived aa being witliin 
them, or thoy cannot he conceived aa interiorly dinnc. Hence 
aUu a modem theologian, in some other respects of dcnerved 
repute, in like manner observes, ** All the acts of our Lord 
Jesus Christ that were physical, or merely inttHectvat, were 
bflcts of his human natun^ alone, being necessary to the »u\i~ 
ce of a human nature ; but all his moral acts, and all 
the moral quaUtics of complex acts, or, in other terms, all 
that Tie did in and for the execution of his mediatorial office 
and work, were imprcwwd with the cwscntial dignity and 
moral value of liis divine perfection." Sacrifice and Priest- 
hood of Jesag Chriift, by Dr. Pye Smith, p. 70. 

Here we have the acts of our Lord dinded into four kinds, 
'neat, inietlectual, moral, and mixed or comple-r. Of these, 
moral alone are said to pertain to the mediatorial office, 
and ore impressc<l with the essential dignity and value of hii 
divine perfection ; that is, possess within them an inherent 
^ divinity. But this, it is said, in not the case with the merely 
HphynoU and mteJieetual acts ; both of wliich must therefore 

r ~ 


4Q2 HKDlATlOli. CHAr. TI. 

it 19 an inqnttant qnestkn, what thae acts are, wludi m 
merdr {Anical and imttOeetmml, and vhich are thus eichM^cd 
firom tbe enential diTinitT, notrithstanding the miraculoBi 
oraioeptkni. Fw beie again, we aee, ia a portion of on 
Savimr's life oMuidacd to be not divine ; and, as snch, cqjia- 
ble of iu true intopretation by any Arian or Soduian. 

In like manner Chamock obaerves (CkriMi Cntdfied^ p. 
180; Afiyiew Trmti Soeiet^t e£titm} : " In regard of thii 
near amjonction ^of the divine aith the human nature), tk 
Gxidhead of Christ did influence ereiy mediatorial action. I 
do not take in all the actions oi the homau nature, that bad 
■0 rofttt to Au BiedSa/ioa, any more than aa they did r^ 
to the sustoitation of faifl human nature, as his eating, drink- 
ing, sleeping^ kc" 

Here again ve aic told that only some of our SaTior^i 
acta Tere mediatorial, the others not, consequently not eawo- 
tially divine; and «e hare shewn bow even the mediatoriil 
acts are conaidacd to be not divine. Hence, thonj^ Uk 
divine and human natures are said to be inseparably united, 
the union is not universal, but paitisl, affecting only tk 
mediatorial works ; which themselves again, though not 
essentiallT divine, require to be distinguished from the siinpk 
physical and inteUectual. 

Such are the notions which proceed from writers, who aD 
the time profess to oppose Sociniaus ; nav, as in the fint 
instance, from one who complains of the degraded ideal 
which many form of Christ, while they profess to believe it 
his divinity. Is not the very source of those ideas to be fmind 
in the fact, that they regard the divinity and humanitr ■• 
incompatible, because the humanity is not divine? — thtf 
oousequently there are instances of our Lord's histoiy « 
earth aa of less than divine thought and operation? AiaA 
what is the effect of such an admission, but to leave opca 
the fountains whence emanate those reiy thoughts whidi tbr 
writer so justly condemns ? 

caAF. rt. 



That God » Mon, saj's tl»i» writer, expresses tlie history 
uf economy. But Goii thus became man at thc.incania- 
tion ; the ascension is equall^v n part uf tlie economy ; and as 
at the incarnation God descended to man, ao at the ascension 
man ascended to God ; the economy thus consisting of two 
princtpa] divisions, dcsceusiun and ascension ; descenaiou by 
which the di^-ine becomes human, nscnmion by which the 
hamau becomes divine. "What is the consequence of exclud- 
ing the Utter part of the cwmomy ? — that tlic human does not 
become dirine ; hence that, inasmuch as by reason of the hy- 
poatAtical union, human attributes become ascribed to- God, 
God ia so conceived to bcMtmc man, ua to be no longer (^kid. 
TTie ascension of »iich a manhood to dinnity is impoBsible, 
the divine being no longer conceived as in the human ; hence 
the attribntcs of the two are incompiitible, there ia no ana- 
logy between them; and, instead of the doctrine of incarna- 
tion, we are supplied with tlie doctrine of adjunction. To 
supjMjsc thul such a mau is God, is to consider Uim n man 
pcrsoDally with some vast and unknown dignity' superadded, 
not indwcLliug, and that acquired of course idler his coming 
into existence as man. That God h man, therefore, ex- 
presses, npon these principles, the doctrine of adjanclion; 
that man m God, the doctrine of superaddiiwn ,- whereas that 
God is man, cxprtisscs the doctrine of the incaraaiioa, — tliat 
num a (ind, tlie doctrine of the Mce/mon. Is not the 
■writer's own doctrine, therefore, the source of the errors he 
80 justly de])recates ? 'i'hat man is God, is a doctrine catholio 
in its wording, the writer admits, but only in its toording; 
not ui reality, but in aemblance only. The shadow of the 
doctrine is retained, the substaoce has departed; the truth is 
TAnished, the words remain, (tod having been conccircd 
to become man so as to be no longer God, no wonder that 
He is spoken of as a man to which the diriuity is an external 
a^%met or Kttpenutdiiion. In this case, nothing can be more 
consistent than to speak of Christ as a mail only ; and, 

D D 2 


thoogh professing to believe in the external adjonctioa of hii 
divinitr, to contemplate bis words and actions aa those ouh 
of a man. 

Let us, however, consider this subject more pazticnliilT, 
in reference to the remarks of a very celebrated diriiie. 
** Being, br reason of the incarnation," sajs Bishop PearsoD, 
(art. ir. ; StrfftredJ, " it is proper to say, God it man, it fiil- 
loweth unaroidablr that vhaUoever belongeth to the hmm 
nattm may be tpoken of God; othenrise there would be ■ 
man to whom the nature of man did not belong, which not 
a contradiction." Here then we see the reason of the d(»- 
trine, that God is man, it teaches that whatsoever bekmgetb 
to the human nature, may be spoken of God. This is tbe 
downward tendencv to which we have aUuded ; the attriba- 
tion vi merely natural properties to the Divine Beii^. 

On the other hand : " Being, br virtue of the nmc 
incmmation. it is also proper to say, a man is God; by the 
santc necessity of consequence we must acknowledge, that 
ttli tMe rsteHtial attributes of the divine nature may be tnJf 
sfioken of that mam : otherwise there would be one troly sod 
l>r\*|x*rly Givi. to whom the nature of God did not belong; 
whit'h is a clear repugnancy-." 

\Vc now see the reason for which this does not eiprwj 
the histori' of the txx>nomy ; for which, though catholic in ia 
«v>r«liu^, it )$ uot so in idea. For this mode of exj»esaioa 
saxors tAt much of the doctrine, that the human nature ii 
divine ; inasmuch as it leads us to acknowledge, that all (if 
<r.venjUt{ cltrifmtf* (/ the dirine nature may he truly ^ken if 
thitt imtm." The merely carnal man has no objection totbf 
tirst form of dAtriuc. because in this case he can impute to 
GvhI. witliout any heresy, whatsoever belongeth to the humiB 
naiurt'. Wo haxosccu that, in this case, his doctrine is,thit 
(i\h1 is jk^ n\»u !is to be no longer God ; the manhood ii 
tix«mM<^/ bv ii».xl. it is itfipended to Peity, it is ad/'otned to God; 
but tnxl is uot in man : that which is m man, are the gifti 




and graces of the llnly Spirit, tlw ('Haciitisil jiropertiea of the 
tU^inc uaturu uut being commaiiicatecl to the humau. 

Hcticc the second form uf cxprcKsion dues not suit him ; 
however catholic in ita wordiug, it docs uot cx.pn9S8 tlit.* hiatuiy 
ttf the economy ; niiy, a belief in it is positively ixyected. lu 
the person of Christj Iho hunmu nntiirc and the divine na- 
ture, t}ic ouc as fiuitc, the other as infinite, are considered 
to "be as diverse firom each other, as the gold and the chy of 
Nebiiehiuhieiuinr'H image. 

Tlic doctrine, then, that man m God, being virtuiJly 
rejected, and God being coueidered to be man only because 
adjoined to mau^ and not in man Hit an es»e»tial soul -, as u 
conscquenee of this doctrine, also, inasmuch as it follows 
unavoidnbly, tliat whatsoever bclungeth to the human nature 
may be spoken of God ; it may be well to trace further tlte 
influence of these principles upon modem theology. 

A modem writer believing that, tu Christ, God is man, 

thns dcscrihos the chftracter of the Savior. " Jesus Christ 

was, in aninc rc»pectit, the nin»t bold, energetic, decided, and 

eou8 man that ever lived; but, in others, He was the 

Jcwt flexible, submissive, and yielding j for the real sublimity 

<jf eounige the spectacle of tliis deserted and defenceless suf- 

r, coming at midnight to meet the betrayer and his band, 

^fax cxcee/ls tliat of Napoleon urging on his eohmjus over the 

I bridge of Lodi, or c%eu that of KeguluK returning to his choing. 

" He sought solitude, lie slinmk from observation ; in 

feet, almost the only enjoyment which He seemed really to 

■love, was Iuh lonely ramble at midnight for rest and prayer. 

It is not surpi-iKing that, after the heated crowds and exfaauiit- 

ing labors of the day. He should love to retire to silence and 

aeclusiou, to enjoy the cool aud balmy uir, the refnsihing 

less, aud all t!ic beantie* aud glories of michiight tuuoiig 

lie aolitudoi of the Gahscan hills, to fiud there happy cora- 

|inniiio» with his P'ather," dec. Trucia for the Timet; Intro- 

I durtioH of HationahMic Pr'mripiea, pp. 46, &c. 

406 MEDlAnON. CHAP. Tl. 

Where Bi the dmneh^ spiritual chazacter of theie idai? 
ostainh-, in tlie ideas there is none, became there is Done 
in die dianct^. 1^ diviiie nature being not within u a 
•ool, but withoot aa an external adjnncL And as thb dm- 
mxj is not in the man Cbzist Jeso^ ao it cannot be in & 
Sq q it nr ea, vfaidi testify of Him. Let ns otmipaTe theaeoontf 
tIuc^ is given oi ibeae tro br different wziten. B ii hU 
«f the Sarior ; ** He endentlr obwrved and easjoyed nstint 
nme are manr aQosions to his aobtary valka in the fiddi^ 
■ndoD the moontains, and br tlie sea aide; bat the patai 
endenoe <€ his lore liv nature^ is to be aeen ia the maav 
in vhich fie qieaks of its beauties. A man's met^Atiti n 
dimwn from the sources vith which he is nnst fiunihar, s 
whi^ interest him most. ... He ofaserred ererTthiiig, aal 
his imi^ination was steted with an inexhmnstible si^^rf 
images drawn from ercrr sooroe; and witb Uiese HeiDiB- 
tzated and enfiuced his {oinctples in a iw«Tii»*-r aHogetha 
onparaDeled by any writings, sacred and pra&ne." 

Now what is the exdamation of the Oxford Tractnin 
upon this subject ? "So Ikis it the asha io be gktn m 
citiJdrfm'* mtat .'" In this we cordially join ; and it is no 
tittle cousiLklation to find that God has at length raiaed ap 
th*»e in the choidi, who begin to discover tlie open uts- 
nlism of such a theology. This phenomenon, for so it ii, 
we ivgard as the harbinger of brighter days. But let u 
t'uuuine the <^iaracter of the Scriptmes acocvdiiig to the 
same principle. 

It is |u\>fes3ed that the Bible, as the word of God, is ti- 
spired by the Holy Spirit, — that Spirit which ovoshadoved 
Mary and bestat the humanity; now why shoold it be thon^ 
luiiwmly to speak of Christ as using common figures of Ifa^ 
tone aiid eicrdsing the cvdinary powers of imag ination, vhes 
ii is not only esteemed not unseemly, but highly orthodoi, to 
attribute the $«me to the Holy Spirit ? for, in the interpnt*- 
tton of Sonptuif, dlTiues speak c^ the hyperboles, met^>bor*' 

caxT. VI. 





figures of rhetoric, oriental imagery, and ao forth, as used 
by the Holy Spirit in his addresses to our poetical taste aud 
natural itnaginRtiun, jiist in the same way as others do of 
our Savior. The wholo schumo of theology is no far cou- 
Bistcut. For if the Scripture* teutify of Clirint ; if thiil Clirist 
be a man, not Imving the dinuity as an inward soul, liut as 
an outward adjunct ; if the word of God, as dictatetl by the 
Holy Spirit, hna no divinity as on inward soul ; there can be 
no impropriety in conceiving Christ to speak only as a man, 
and the word of God to be the word of man ; nay further, 
in conceiving both the Sanor and the Spirit to indulge in 
the powers of natural imagination ; in the one case, the ima- 
gination of the man to which tiic divinit}* was an adjunct, 
in the other case, the imagination of the prophet assumed 
to itself by the Spirit. And when this is admitted ; when 
for children's meat is thtm giren only ashes j why need wc 
be surprized that habit should become a second nature, and 
that a relish should be contracted for the ashes, and a nausea 
for the meat f the meat being the wisdom of the natural 
man, the ashes being tipiritual truth ; the former l^ing sound 
and orthodox, solid aiid suhstautiid ; the latter nnaound and 
heretical, mystical aud visionary. Such then is the state of 
tbc larger portion of the church in the preiteut day ; such 
the secret of the outcry against the spiritual inteqiretations 
of Swedenborg. 

It is indeed generally a<;know lodged, that the word of 
God is accommodated to our apprehensions ; that is, has con- 
dcmccnded to the natural mind of man ; but tlits it has done 
only with the view by this means of elevating the mind. In 
like manner, we believe that Jehovah condescended ; heticc 
we as fiUly receive Scripture in its lowest and most literal 
sense, as we ftilly believe that the THvinc Being coudeecendcd 
and took upon Him our nature in its lowest estate. But 
while we believe that, in the word of Goil, divine wisdom 
has clothed itself with the ideas of the natural man, as the 


Phriae Vame fW***** Mmf W viA our flesh ; ao we bdieic 
TSK f: ■ai Boc » dodie itself as to cesae to be dirine vndom, 
■XT ^x<F tltiB God. ia becoming man, cemsed to be God. 
Bus as ifae ^irins Word became flesh, in orier to dwell amoif 
Txt. To bLLumtt nshit to ns, and to bring nigh to the Mml la 
emesxsalh £nae power ; so the written Word was so writtcs, 
a> u bff ^OMSttd. br the nse of natural ideas, to the mind of 
Oe =iir=nl ran, in onkr, throngfa this medium, to faring 
aexr to lim. and render accessible, the divine wisdom in- 
wardiT eontained. 

A^dMcsfa. tfaerefaie, in the Old Testament and in the 
ewpeis^ there was this essential dinnitr before Christ ascended 
to uae Fsxher. jet. had it not been fcv his aacensoa, n 
ciNiU ux haw perceiTed it, because the Holy Spirit would 
not have descended. The derent of /Ae Ho/y Sjnrit was, cod- 
seqwBth-. the cxowning act c^ the great work of redemptitn, 
aad BOC tit rmdjuiom : the eialtation of Christ's person, snd 
not his abasement. 

He who abide* oulr in the sense of the letter, 0*1011% 
«i?OT 5bcK a: the crocifision. To him the IIolv Spirit, the 
Ui:a: iv^z: Clirisr"* porified hnmanity, is not yet come, be- 
cause he i^.vs sot yet perceive Christ to be glorified. HU ii 
the bap::*=i 01" John, a theology extending but little farther 
tiuin the moral precepts of religion, conversion, repentance, 
the first elements of Christian doctrine, all beyond which, if 
attempted to be understood, is either a profound mpteiy, 
or. il plain, is ^uch because it is sensualized, natundized, 
and earuallied. Hence the church becoming camal, not spi- 
ritual, it »-as, as Orison call* it, only the camal or coipoml 
l^>spel that would suit its taste. Thus he observes ; 

" This we ousrlit to understand, that, as the law was ■ 
shadow of px'^ things to come, so is the gospel as it is under- 
st^Kvl bv the geuenUity. But that which John calls the 
everlasting i^wpel. and which may be more properly ctiW 
the spiritiuil. iustnicts the iuteUigeut vcn- clearly coDceminr 


MAN 18 GOD. 


the Son of God. Wlicrcfore, the gospel mmt be Uuglit both 
,'C(Hporeal]y mid ^iritiin]]y; anil, wlu-ii it in necessary, wc 

mxiHt preach the corporeal gospel ; sayiiig to the carual, tliat 
"we know nothing but Jesus Christ nnd llim crucified. Hut 
-iFhcu the pontouH Hfo fuiinil confirmed in spirit, bringing 

forth fruit in it, aud iu love with he»vcnly wisdom, we inust 

impart to them the liogos returning from his hodiijr atate, in 

that He wiw iu the beginning with Ood. 

" There are who iiartiike of the Ijogoa which was from the 

beginning, the Logo» that was with God, aud the Logos that 
God : aa Hoiteo, Isaiah, and Jeremiah ; and any others 
'that speak of Him as the Ijogoa of God, and the Logos that 
■ wo* with Him; but there arc othera who know nothing but 

Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the Logos that was made 
i ; thinking they have every thing of the Logos, when 
jthoy acknowledge Him occordiug to the flcah. Such is the 
i multitude of those who are called Cliristiaus. 

' The great mas;* or body of Iwlicvers are in.structod in 
Ithc shadow of tlic Logos, and not in the true Logos of Oodj 
[vhich in in the open heaven." IVtlton on the New Teitatnent, 

That Origcn's ideas on this subject were far from being 

always clear and correct, we readily admit j but that he had 

glimpses of a higher order of scripture truth, and beheld 

its divine wisdom, though afar off, there seems little reason to 
Idonht. We shall, however, here subjoin a higher testimony 

tbou that of Origcn — we mean the testimony of Swcdeuborg. 
" The Word, in its htcral sense, is in its fulness and 
[jpower; for there are three senses, according to the three de- 
vgrccs of altitude in the world ; a celestial, a spiritual, and n 

natural sense 

" The Lord came into the world and Baanmed. the humanity, 
. that He might put lilmself iu power to subjugate the helU, 
< and to reduce all things to order, as well tu the heavens as 
[upon earth. This human He supcriuduced over his former 

410 MzviAnox. CH&r. ti. 

liBBSB. Hie bsBSB wUdi He Mqiauidiiced in the vorid 
««» fifcr t^ hoxaa «f « maa in tbe wqkU ; nercartfafdeMCMk 
of ilt^ ins drrinr; tkodate infinitefy tnmsoQodiiig tk 
finiXF liiinn ct aneds ■nd men ; aod fiKaamm^ ai He fiillT 
^upfi ed his taamal human, even to its nltunatea, tharfoR 
He rase Kain vith his wbcde bodr, differently from in 
■na. Bt t^ ■iiiiiiiciiiii of ihis human. He ixiveated himdf 
wiih divine aajofoaatet, not aatr to subjugate the hdh 
and to radncr iht bencns to ctder, but also to hold fte 
befit in a ataxe <d mbji^aiion to eternity and to mnt 
mankind. Ibis power is meant br his aitting at the n^ 
band oi tbe pover and might of God. Forasmnch as tk 
Loid, br die aammpticHi of the natural human, made Ion- 
fclf diTine truth in uhimates ; therefise He ia called tk 
\rard, and it is said that the ^aid was made fieah ; and £- 
Tine truth in nhimaies is the Word aa to ita literal lenie; 
this He made >»iiw^ far the fdlfiUing of all tbingi of tk 
Wwd cukconine himself in Moset and the prophets. ^ 
ertanr man i$ his ovn ^ood and his own truth : and min ■ 
man fitHn no other ground ; but the Lord, by the assnmptitiB 
of the natiir&l human, is divine good and divine truth itseif; 
or. what is the same. He is divine lore and divine wisdon 
itself, both in first principles and in ultimates ; hence it ii 
that in the angelic heavens He appears as a sun, after ia 
coming into the world, with more powerftil raja and in grata 
splendor than before his coming.'' Angelic tflselom coatm- 
htff Dhrinr Lore, art. '2'21. 

.\ccordingl_v, when the mind of Bishop Bereridge n 
withdrawn from the degraded ideas suggested by the popobr 
doctrine of Intercession, how worthily of an enlighteaeJ 
mind docs he write tipon the glory of the Savior. 

" Whensoever I think," says he, " of my blessed Sanr. 
the Sun of Righteousness, I apprehend, or rather by the m 
of faith I behold Him in the highest heavens, there shiniaf 
in gtor^' and splendor infinitely greater than any mortal en 


MAN IK U<)1>. 




can bear; invested with utiprctnc majcstr, honor, and au< 
thority over the whole creation. I behohi llim there Bur- 
Tounded witli an imtuntentblc company of holy aiigels a» eo 
mitiir fixed stara, aiut of glorilicd Huints as planetii enlightened 
by Uim ; all his satollitca or scnuitta waiting npon Him, 
ready upon ol) occasions to reflect and convey ttis bcui^ 
inflncnoes or favors to his people upon earth. I see Him 
yonder by his own light. I behold Him displaying his bright 
beam.4, nnd diH'nsing his tight round about over his whole 
church, both that which is triuiu])tiant in heaven and that 
which is militant here on earth ; tliat all the members of it 
may nee nil things belonging to their pojice. I behuKl Him 
continually sending down liis quickeniug Spirit upon those 
who are baptized into and believe in his lioly name, to re- 
generate them, to be a standing principle of a new and divine 
life in them. I behold Him there manifesting himi^ielf, and 
causing liis face to shine upon thotio who look up to Him, ho 
U to refresh and cheer their xpirita, to malcc them brisk and 
lively, and able to run with patience the race that is set before 
them. I behold Him there coutiuually issuiug forth his Holy 
Spirit to actuate and influence the administration of his 
word and sacraments, that all who duly receive them may 
thereby grow in grace and be fruitful in every good word 
and work. I liehold the Sun of Uightconsnrss shining with 
so much power and clticac;^' upon his church, that all the 
good works winch are done in it, though imperfect in them- 
selves, do notwithstanding H[>pear throtigli Him an gooii and 
zighteoas in the sight of Ood himself, and arc aceordingly 
Tewmrded by Him. In short, as the sun was made to rule 
and govern the day, so I behold the Sun of Bigbteousne»s as 
gOTcming his church, and ordering all things both within it 
and without it, so a.s to make them work toti:Ptlipr for the 
good of those who love God, till Hu hath brought them all to 
himself, to live with Him in the highest heai'cns, where they 
aho sliall by his menus nhine forth a» the whh in thr kingdom 


^ tkfir Fatka- Jitr enr. Matt. xiii. 43." Bevtrufy^t PHntf 
Tha^ktt, p. 380, 24mo edU. 

Wlvn Dean Sheriock also allowed himself to think of the 
TTuiitT moe firom essential prindplea, than &om sepante 
pencmalities, hor neaiir does he ^iproach to the doctrine d 
SvedenbcH;^ npcm the subject of Intercession ! 

*' 11," sars he, " we will ctmnder things anght, we i]iill 
find that there can be no other advocate with the Father trat 
the Son, bnt his own eternal and begotten wisdom. Win 
a man intereedet with lumaelf, it is done by reflecting on kn 
own mind, and examining the reasons and motiTes Iw findi 
there to {utr and spare, and to do good ; that is, ^ Att r^ 
tritdom amd huncledge of hauelf, wtdch in the Godhead b 
the Son, God'M refler knowledge of hinueff, or hit begcttiK 
witdomj that Divine Aiyof or Word, which Philo r*n« tbe 
iifX^ftvf or High Priest : for let us consider, what it u to 
intercede with God, and what kind of intercession is cob- 
sistent both with the sovereign authority and soTereign goo^ 
ness of God. \a infinitely wise and just and good Bemg 
cannot be mored by mere entreaties, nor by the bare intereit 
and favor of the advocate, for this is weakness in men, and 
therefore cannot be incident to the di\-ine nature. Now, if 
you set aside entreaties and importunities and favor, then 
can be no other advocate with the Father, but his own etenui 
tcisdom. It is Am otm wisdom that must atone Him, tfait 
must reconcile Him to sinners, that must obtain pardon ind 
all other blessings for them : for if this cannot be done wisek, 
God cannot do it ; and therefore his own wisdom must do tB 
this, for no created wisdom can. But God loves his own 
wisdom, his only-begotten Son, and therefore wisdom is a 
powerful advocate, and must pre\'ail with the Father. So 
that the Son's intercession with the Father is so iai baa 
being incongruous or inconsistent with his being God, tbii 
the dirine nature can admit of no other advocate or inter- 
cessor, properly so called. To intercede with a never-failing 




■effect nnd supoesa, is an nd. of (inwer rihI aiithoritr, and for 
God to make a creature-advocate and mediator, is to ^ve a 
creature authority over himself, which cannot be; for it ia a 
dcba<trment of tlic diriue nature, and a rejiroacb to the divine 
wisdom, as if God did not bottrr know how to dispose of liis 
grace and mercy than any creature does. For creatures to 
pray to God for themselves or others, as humble aupplicants, 
)8 part of the worship which creatures owe to Ootl ; but to 
intercede with the nuthority of a mediator, is above the imturc 
and order of creatures ; and God cnu no more give this to 

f'tMj creature, than lie can commit bis own eoverei^t power 
und authority to them : but bis own eternal wisdom can in- 
tercede with authority ; for orif/hai mind and wisdom timti 

^yield to thtt inter cess'to/is of his own ttervai wisdom; which 

:1a not to submit to any foreign autbority, but to his own." 
yindicalion of the Doctrine of iht Trimty, p. 182. 

But fiere wc hIiuU lie cliargcd witli the Sabellian heresy ; 
for he wiio intcrccdo-H, c-aiinot be the fiamc with him to whrni 
the intercesHiou is made : and how can God intercede with 
liimself ? Such is the objection which many will urge. And 
yet the Holy Spirit is »aid to intercede ; for, says the apostle, 
T%e Spirit itself tnaieth intercession for its. Ilom. viii. 26. Now, 
Sociuians, who deny this Spirit to be God, object, — the 
Spirit ia not God, bec^itisc lie luakctb intercession witli God, 
and God cannot intercede with himself. Yet wliat is the 
reply of the orthodox, tripersoualist ? " But it is a matter of 

t'&ct, that He (God) has actually done thij; therefore it ia 
wicked and false to say tlmt He e^innot. For God reconciled 
the world to himself, and it was done by intejTcssion." 
Divinily of the Holy Ghost, by Hev. IV. Jonex, of Sayland. 

If now, notwitbstaudiug all that liaa been, stattd, any one 
should still be inclined to impntc to these vieirn the her<!iiic8 

l^of Sabcllius, Eutj'chesj Apolliuarius, or auy other person ; 
'we entreat him, for his own sake, to ponder wcU the follow- 
ing remarks of Swcdcnborg. 


^ AB maA mpihir Dk tkings whidi exist in the spintal 
vorUaBdin tfacBatnnl vorid, coexiat fixmi discrete de^rea 
ad « tfe aae tine from cootmnoiu degrees, or fimn 6»- 
peea of alritilr and dc^reea of latitode; that «**"*—*■ 
vhiek eoBBats of discrete decrees b called a^itude, and tktf 
wlddb eoBBiia of coatniaans degrees, is called latitude: tidi 
s ii Barif vidi lopect to tihe i^kt of the eye does not dianp 
their doMHiiatitaL. ^Hthont a knowledge of these dtgtat 
»«*^^ can be knom ooooaning the differcsice betveen tk 
tkree hta iqi a , nor dw diftience between the love and iraAm 
fif the an^fk tha^ nor Ae difference between the best lai 
h^ in which dicT ai^ nor the difference between the xtiiiai> 
phcm which sHznNind and contain them. Moreover, wfthal 
a knovled^ of these degrees, nothing can be known ooa- 
ceming the diffidence of the interior &calties of the mind ii 
men : therefiae neither any thing coaceming their state uti 
nftaMSliiMi and leg e nera tion ; nor of the difference of the 
exterior fiKakiei, whii^ are of the body, aa well of angebii 
men: and nothing at all of the difference between spiiituatul 
nanual, and therefive nothing of correspondence ; yea, nothing 
of aar djffnenee of life between men and beasts, or of tk 
difference between the more perfect and the imperfect besttt; 
nor «»' the diffoenoes between the forms of the TegetiUr 
kinsd^Hn, and between the materials which compoM tk 
mineral kinsdnn. From which consideTations it mar appctf. 
that they wbo are ignorant of these degrees, cannot from nr 
iadsment see causes ; they only see cffef^ts, and judge of 
causes frvmi them, which is done for the most part from is- 
ductiim continuons with effects ; when nevertheless canses A 
not produce effects by continuity, but discrctehr, for a etrnt 
is one thing, and an effect another ; there is a difference « 
between prior and posterior, or as between the thing fonniaf 
and the thing formed." Jm^eHc Witdom eoneeniit^ the ikiv 
Lor*, art 185. 

Again : " From these few considerations it may ^T* 

Qaw. VI. 



that lie who doth not know anything of diBcreto degrees, or 

degrees of altitude, neither can know anything of the state of 

I nun ftA to hia reformation and regeneration, which arc cffcctcA 

by the reception of divine love and di\iue wiRdom from the 

Ixird, and by the conAcqueut openiug of the interior degrees 

of his mind in their order : nor can he know imything of the 

i influx tlirougli the heavens from the Lord, nor anything of 

[the order into wHch he was created : for if any one think of 

[these things, not from discrete degrees, or dqn't'Eis of nltitude, 

it iJom continuous degrees, or degrees of lulitude, Iheu lie 

gnot ace anything of them hut from ctfecta, and nothing 

3m causes, and to see irom effects alone is to see from 

['fidlftcics, from whence proceed errors, one after anofher, 

■which may he ho mnltipUcii by inductions, that at icngth 

enormous falsities may be called trutlis." Ittid, art. 187. 

" Again : " I do not know wEiether any thing bas been 

iluiuwu heretofore of discrete degrees, or degrees of altitude, 

[tut only of continuous degrees or degrees of latitude ; and 

f(A not any thing of cause in its truth can be known without 

|,» knowledge of degrees of both kind:* : therefore wc shall 

it of them in tbia part of the work throughout ; for the 

id of this work is, that causes may he dijicovercd, and from 

lem cfTecta may be seen, and thereby that darkness may be 

'dispelled iu which the nian of tlie church in involved with ru- 

ipcct to God, and the Lord, and in genera] with respect to 

lings divine wbich are called spiritual. This I can declare, 

jat the augelti are in sadness by reason of the darkness ])re< 

ralent upon earth : they say that scarcely auj-wherc hght ifl 

Laeeii, and that men seize upon fallacies and confirm them, 

^ nod thereby multiply falsities upon falsities, aiid to confirm 

im, devise, by reasonings grounded in falscs and in truths 

falsified, such figments a^i cannot be dispelled by reason of tbc 

darkness that prevails iu respect to causes, and ignorance 

coDceruing truths : they principally lament the coufirma* 

tioTis concerning faith separate from charity, and justification 


thereby j also the ideas concerning God, angels, and spirits, 
and the ignorance of the uatare of love and wisdom." 
Ibid, art. 188. 



*Ah» wmii Hi W4I coac hub, H« mhiut thi cnr, mv wirr d»w rr."— 

"We Iiavc seen, that right n|iprchensions of God are the basis 
of all truo religion, aiifl that so far a» these ai* confused or 
natrue, so far lurv- also nil the (loctriiies founded iipoit them; 
in which case, little or no unauimity in regajd to tliem can 
I Ik expected. In illustration of tliis principle we have 

First, the early introduction of Tritheism into the church, 

in coiiHe([uence of the division of the moral perfections aad 

I the personality uf God. How, by some, Uod and Christ, 

God and his Son, have hccn regarded as two betnijs, and 

the Holy Spirit fiK a titird. How the unity uf God has been 

'described by some as a specific unity ; bow, by others, the 

I doctrine of one numerical substance, having tlirec person- 

^^itie)(, has been easily merged into Trithcium ; how diffimlt 

|Dr impossible it has been to avoid it ; how those who could 

loC receive the orthodox doctrines, have declared the wliole 

ibjpct to be unintclli^hle ; how these differences have given 

to distress in t!ic minds of the pious, and cncoumgcd 

lixni, Socinianism, and Infidelity. 

We have seen, Sfcnruity, how merely natural propcrtiea 

«mc to be attributed to God; and bow, in all ages of the 





diurcli, the doctrine of De^uBianinn has more or lea 
railed, luid been received u a catlioUc doctrine. 

IVc have seen. Thirdly, bow the doctrine, that in Chrbl 
Ood is maa and man U God, has eomc to be denied, It; 
reason Uiat the divinity latent in the humanity Ium beat 
denied; heucr, hor the doctrine of tlie uiirHcnlooacoBce^ 
tioa or of the incarnation, has come to be. though ntamiull; 
trtuned, fK rirtnallr rejected. 

We ba¥e seen, Fotprthty, how the doctrioc of the 
ment hu been based upon the division of the periecti< 
the Ddtv, and the attribatiou to Him of merelv naon) 
pawioM and |»n>pcrties ; how it has been resolved into the 
doctrine either of Pacification or of Satiafnction, dcdand bj 
some to be cathobc, and by others to have no foundaiioB i 

We hare seen, jyUJ^ bow the manner in 
death of Christ was effioctoQs to the forgivenesa of 
been deeUrcd to be tmknowu ; how the efficacy of Uil< diMb 
has come to be denied ; and how those who iirufossed to dov 
up the mratcnr have faOcn into the loweiit natui^isnu 

We have seen, Sirtkhf, bow all worship has been dmeJ 
to Ckiist as Mediator , and how, in consequence of the » 
jectkm of the divinity of his humanity, cither Sirriniasr*, 
or AiiaBini, or a cnn fi w a cd ignorance of the entire aaliBi 
has pcvrailed. 

The offda* of the process of di^neratioa in the chvdh 
^tpean thcacfiire to be the following. 

First,, — a love of astf and of the world usurped the {iatf 
of the love of God and of the neighbor. The love of sdf s 
the lore of our own will and affectwu as good, and ef <n 
own understanding and thon|;hts as true ; while the lo*t ^ 
God, on the other hand, is the hive of Ate goodnea aadrf 
Au truth onlv. Sdf-lor^ therdbre, phuau^ the fcuoAW 
and troth of the omtniv above that of the Creator, it» on 
maturely affectioBs and thon^rta have, in praoaM of tin*. 


ioBi on 









come to be nttributcd to t!io Creator. But as God is one, 
and a» the tjualiticH of the creuture separated from Him 
are mnltifold and ndversc one to the other, hence have 

I arisen strife and divisioD as to which were the gootl and 
true. Though one part of the church diiTeretJ &om tlie other, 
yet all fi^precd more or less in n principle of naturalism ; and 
MB this principle regards the external fintt, and the iiitcnial 
PI KCond or as none, the crtemal idea came to be the main 
•abject of controversy, the internal being comparatively dis- 
regarded. Tliia evil being once established, all the other 
consequences naturally foUon-cd; and every doctrine, occord- 
j ing a* it was understood, came success; rely to be a subject 
of dispute; while that good or love which in the eoscnce of 
truth had vanished. 

Nor has the church in general, 1 believe, under her 

present ciraim stances, any hope of the disputes being ter- 

miuated. Occasionally they seem to die away, but oiJy 

Lirith renewed vigor to reappear. The Bame discussions 

occur over and over again, upon Sahellianism, Tritheism, 

[•nd Arianiflm ; the same upon the doctrine of satisfaction, 

'Impntntion, repentance, justification by faith, and ^od 

rvorksj the iiame upon iircdestination, baptism, transubstan- 

I tUtion, and every other doctrine ; qnestions which are no 

more settled now than when they first originated. Hence 

we arc reminded of the observation of a late divine, — " I sec 

I the unprofitableness of controvcr<n,-, in the case of Job and bii 

[fiiends; for if God had not interposed, and they had lived 

[to this day, they would have continued the dispnte." 

Newton'a iVorkt. May we not pray that God should inter- 

I pose I Ought we not to rejoice to hear that He has ? 
Now the way in which wc believe the Lord hath inter- 
posed in settling these disputes, is by removing the causes, 
namely, the pritkciptes of mere naturalism which bad perverted 
the church ; and by a restoration of the churcli to a truly 
^irituai character. This wo believe to be done by the 
I Be2 



cu*r. VI 

manifestation of a more purr niicl spiritual theologr, *1 
vill ultimately give rbc to a new era in the Christian woriA' 
Thi» lUviue iiitL>q)OHition, however, tlid not take place bB 
the fulness of time, or until the allegetl catholic church b^ 
oome to its end. 

AV'c shall here suggest a few reasons for which the caithiibr 
church, as such, ncverthelcw doi^s not, an<l will uot, bdicw 
that it has come to its end. lu the accancl place, we afcil 
fldd some rcmarkahlc tesrimouie* in cadence of the end of 
the catholic cliiirch. Aiid liuttly, we shall subjoiii tbr 
iutcrpretnttou of the twenty-fourth chapter of I^latthe* u 
given by Swedenhorg. 

First, we will suggest a few reasons for which the 
church dor-s not and will not believe that it has 
it8 end. 

^Before toucliing immediately on this uubjcct, we 
premise the following observations. The catliolidtT of a 
church is the catboHcity of truth; an indiviilual, so Jarisk 
holds cathohc truth. If liia life be coufonuablt: to it, ii • 
catholic ; and in this point of view is distiuguifthcd, in Ui 
character iih a uiomber uf the church, from his cliaractcf ■ 
a private indiridual, 'Frne intcrprctatious of Scripture pna 
in this case by an individual, arc not private inter^M-etaQoui, 
but cathohc, by reusuu of their truth ; catholic, not becaW 
tlicy arc cvcrj'where received, but because they an cmy* 
where true. It is not the church that makes a (tortiw 
cnthoHe, but the doctrine that makes the church catUfe 
If it were only the church that makes a doctrine athofc 
then, in order to ascertain what doctrine is cuthulic. ^ 
should have only to refer to what doctrine the catholic churtk 
has received. But where it is beUeved, that it ia lalhilir 
doctrine that makc^ the church catholic, then wc harr fi 
to determine what the church h(ui rcaiived, but wlut d» 
doctrine is : and hcucc ixoni the catholicity of the doetnrf^ 
to determine the catholicity of the church. 




Newton, for iostance, wa« only a private iiidiviJual, but 
we are not therefore to rcptrtl liis intrrpretiitions of tiaturc 
as private ittt«rpretatioii8 ; tliey arc cattiolic, because tbej 
»re everywhere true ; and so far, therefore, he was not a 
private, Init a ciitliolic expositor of the trutlis of nature. 

It is admitted, however, eveu by some who maiutaiu, in 
the most rigid manner, the catholicity of the present church, 
that tlicy apply this term to tlic docirines only, not to the 
initrprctalion of Scrijjture /frojj/iecr/. They atiinit tliat there 
are yet no such interpretations of propheey as Hre truly and 
properly catholic. " Thougli tfie fatliers," say they, " th not 
eontetj to tw the inierpretation of prophery iintk t/u^ same err- 
tainiy ax Ihnj runvnj it/ictriw: : yet, in jiroportion to their 
agreement, their persoual ehtiractcr, and the general recep- 
tion at ibc time, or the authority of the 8ourec« of the opi- 
nions tbey nxv stating, they are to be reatl with deference; 
for, to aay the least, they arc as likely to be rif^ht as com- 
mentators now, — in soTiic respects more so, — because the 
iiiterpretatiou of propheey has become, 'm these times, a 
■natter of controversy and part)'. And passion and prejudice 
have so interfered with soundness of judgment, that it is 
difficult to say who is to be trusted iii it, or whither a private 
ChrutioH tiuiy not be aa good an exponior as thme by v^hom 
tfte office has been aaauiaed." Times of Antichrist, p. 2 ; Or- 
ford Tracts. 

In his character, therefore, merely as a private indi- 
vidual, though he had no other claims to our notice, 
Swedenhorg's interpretations arc entitled to connidcratiou. 
L/ct us, however, first lie^* the iiiteqiretations given by ou 
iudiridual of the »llcge<l catholic church. 

" TVuit day shall not come except tfiere nmuf- a falliut/ away 
firtt. Hero it \» said that a certain frightful ai»ostuey, and 
the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perililinn, t. e. 
as is commonly called, Antichrist, sluiU precede the coming 
of Chriat. Our Savior seems to add that it will iramcdiatdv 


TBB nuz ur TUX EKD or 

CBA?. TU. 

ineede Him, or that his oomtDg will fiiUow don 
fa; lArr spemktn^ oT biae prophets and fidsc Chrnti dwviif 
si^ns and voiulen, iniquitr abooadiug't and tore vasiag 
t^ and tbe Uke, He adds, fThm ye thali »te ali tk-tt 
tkiHgt, inew Ukat it i* ntar^ rsem at the doon. Agaiai, ht 
my$, Wka ye <ia// at* Ur mkemmatiem nf detobOiom timi m 
the Aojy flaee^ them IH then that be im Jmdem fie* imlo tk 
mtmdmmM. Indeed, St. Paul inpliea this also vhen hr mn, 
tint Antkhnat ahaU be dotroved bj the bnghtuen d 
Chriaf ■ cammf ." Hid, p. 3. 

In comidenBg Uk appbcation of this pnipbecj to tte 
ctttbfJic chordi, vc would obsenre that, however tbe dtnidi 
may admit that then wUl be a falling away, it u not likf^ 
tbat, as betog catholic, it should admit that it faaa biki 
awKjr ; for then tt woold admit that it is not caitbolic, whici 
VDold be a eontndictioD. But as the catholic rinnk 
bebeves that as such it will continue, so also ms nvh it wil 
alwin eontioue to call itself catholic. Let what rnxj 
it, stiUf notvithstandiag, cmthohc it will call itaetfl 

KaT farther ; even if as catholics, we conudered tint 
Boroc future time the chuirh will faD awav; yet it is to br 
remembered that, even then, the church will coutiaue to call 
itself catholic, and tbe mcfflbert of that church will tm- 
tiuue to maJT^tain that tfaojT arc cstholics; and the «^tl>iJiw 
of the present day. tfacr efo re, would be to the catlmlia^ 
that future age not cmthoUca, but misbdievera. The drank, 
however corrupted even in ftttore, will never aa a dmcL 
throw off \xa character and profeti itself not to be the charefa ; 
on the contrary, when assailed, it will more rAmcatiy thn enr 
declare itself to be the diurcb, the true dmich, the cathoir 
chtirch, the chnreh built upon the fiinndation of the prupfatV 
and apoatlca. If, thcrcfoire, the i^urch bcbcrea in tbe ipot- 
tolic doctrine of a falling away, it will always believe that tbr 
fidUng away relates not to ttaelf, but to others ; ur, if t« 
itself, that the apostacy is not present, but to comr ; thtf 

It wd 



the prophecies, when applied to its present state, are wrongly 
intcrpretftl, — intcrprptcil by private individuals, uot by the 
diuicli, wbicb, considering itself to be catliolic, will uot 
condemn itself. Thus thu future is ever future, never 
present, and wimt ia uJvays yet to come, never is.* Why 
docs a man say he will rtipeut at some future period? simply 
because the period is fiihire ; when that future comes to be 
prencnt, it only brings witli it a promise for tu-morrow. So 
with regard to the falling awHv of the church; the church 
may believe that in fttture it will fall away ; but, when that 
future comes, to wliat purpose is it? Tlic prophecy ia 
rie<ilarcd to be yet unfulfilled, and to apply to Mmc/uture 
still ; and ro on without end, till the wliolo prophecy is vir- 
tually nidlilied by the church at the very time that it is 
realized. It is our dutVj the church may say, to be always 
on the look out; but this very principle may render it insen- 
sible to ibt dan^r^ for alwarit looking to what is to come, 
and never cotiseiuiui of that which in, it ultimately ha]>))eiis 
that the thief is busy inside the house, while the watchman 
is on guard without, Thiu a member of the catholic church 
writes as follows ; 

" It is quJtet certain, that, if such a persecution has becu 
foretold, it has not yet come ; and therefore it ia to come. We 
may be wroug iu thinking that Scripture foretells it, though 

• It isotiaervi-cl! by ii mixlrtn niillioi, " Tho«r wriu-r* ur jirtdcbcrs who 
put Dir ihe advent uf Iho Lord Jcbub Iu ft rcmotG pf mchI, di> ut lvn»l iprak 
djreclly custrary to the: tcupn and tenor at (he New T»Luncnt, which «terj- 
wbvTckwpB tc In view. ThAitArguuicnls forsodoJiigt if guuil for uBjUitog, 
will be {;iHid until doiiJDMlitjr i<*i-lf nrrirc; nnil tlie rhurch, nccordiDK to 
them, will b« BJ wroDg in taking up tliiB hope nod cKprrtHlion caitcrl; i>ii 
llio Torjr eveninK tx'l'nre (h^ acCuhI «!r«a( itanlf, as it b Run'.' Such Argii- 
nsaUdo indeod load men to cry, Where it the promae of hu eomimgr (2 
PcL iii. 4,) luid thcrt'fon) tbrir trndrncy i* to expuve thLiu lu< ibi.' perdition 
of the unuadly." EUmenti of Prvphtticat lHt€rpTtlution, by ike Ret. J. W. 
HdmiJm, Vicar rtf Ctarthrtt' , Rtf^ford, p. 12. 

t In (tic Mqncl i( will itr kcq ttial ihv umr writer adauu IImI U ta ■•! 
qnlt* Mttnin. 



it has been Utt omimcHi belief of all ages ; but if there be, 
if if tliUfatmrT: so that ererr generaticm cS Chzistiaiu should 
be on the watch-4over ioohmg tmtf — nsT, the mace and man 
as time goes aa." Ibid. 

What then? will not the dinrch be erer looking <fA, 
because evo- catholic 7 ThtHigfa it believe the danger to be 
imminmt or impending, ret, after all, it is only immineDt— 
onlr impending, — erer at hand, bat erep coming. Hence tbe 
sanw writer observes : 

" Next I oba^re that signs do occur from time to time, 
DOC to enable ns to fix the daj, for that is bidden, but to 
shew ns that it is eomimg. The world grows old, — the eirth 
is crumbling away, — tbe night is &r spent, — the day is at 
kamdj — the shadows begin to more, — the old forms of empire 
which have lasted erra* since Christ was with us, heare tai 
tremble befixe onr ctcs, and nod to their fall. Thej are they 
which keep Chiist from ns, — He is behind them. Wben 
they go, Antichrist will be released from that which lettetb ; 
and afker his short but fearfdl season, Christ kv// eoau," 
Ibid, p. 49. Again : 

" An Antichrist, whoever and whatever he be, is to eome, 
— marvels are to evate, — the old Roman empire is not extinct, 
— the denl. if bound, is bound but for a season, — the contest 
of good aud evil is not ended. I repeat it, in the present 
state of things, when the great object of education is sup- 
pv.>sed to be the gftting rid of things supernatural, tchett trr an 
bid to iamgh ami Jter at frrrythiRg irt do not see, are told to 
account for evervthiug by things known and ascertained, and 
to ass«y every statement by the touchstone of experience: 
1 must think that this vision of .\ntichrist, as a supematunl 
p».iwcr to fjiHf, is a great proridential gain, as being a couater- 
IKUso to the e\nl tendencies of the age." Ibid, p. 26. 

Thus may catholics look to the present, so far as it U > 
sign of s^»uiethiug to couw. But suppose the period who; 
nh»t IS '!•!'• to .viuc -ihoulil have arrive<l ; what will !)<■ 




tlic rca-'«oinng of the catholic churcb tfien ? Let us hear it 
then spooking. 

" The ouly really strong claim which caii ho mutle on our 
belief, is the clear fulfilment of the prophecy. Did we sec 
hJI the marks of the prophecy satisfnctorily aiiswereil in 
the past histyry of the church,* then we might dispense 
wilU authority in the parties setting the proof before iw." 
Ibid, p. 16. 

But the church is CJitholJc ; and how can the catholic 
choreli, as hucIij see that it has not been catholic ? To sup- 
pose that it could, would be to suppose that it came to a 
conclusion contrailiKtory to its premises. Hcginniiig the 
examination uu the pnuciplc that it is the catholic church, it 
cftunot so interiiret events as to nay that it is not. Such an 
interpretation, acctirtUngly, the catholic church does not givcj 
because it does not see it, or understand it as such. The 
hnnil-writing on the wall may he seen, bnt the interpreta- 
tion relatesf to others. Upon its own principles, tlierefore, 
the catholic church never eon aee the ap]ilication of the 
prophecy to itself. Some other meaning must be given to 
the events different from the one which dignificN the present 
fulfilment of the prophecy in itself. Thus, as in the cjwe of 
tbe Jews, the buildings of the temple will be admirul to 
the last — defended to the last. 

TIjc only way in which tlie catholic churcb could be led 
to see the fulfilment of the prophecy in its past liistory, 
would be by beginning to abate her confidence in herself as 
bcnng catholic, — or by abating her claims t^ catholicity. 

* "It is iilainEf dtfcUred llint ' ii»nr uf ttii:^ wii'k«cl aJkniJ un«tenlBii<l ;" 
bnl ifllic circuiusinncf^s wcro lo bt Rnch At miiM produce g^ncrnl convlclion, 
then the iu«jiiiiDii uuit bv u ubviuus tu lUv nicked u t<j (be righlwuM. Il 
•eraw, how«*rr, to be fiM mrltittd « lurrcby Ih* Lnnl t»l(*» llie wi*e of this 
world In thHr onn crafliovvK, ihat wliiLat \\\ry «re drspiaing nhjtl apjiciint 
to th«in ADly foolUhneBi, Xbey arc nflen (hcmsoliee uDconicioUBly hvlping 
fanvard ib« fglliiiMiit." Unokt't KUmrilt </ Prvjtltrtitai /■(cryrrtaJMN, 
p. 167. 


Bat we mold obwnre, ae>ii>* that atthoai^ it ii and tint 
tbe cathofir dmcdi does not pretend to ^re catholic expoa- 
tioBs of pn^ihen-, but odIt of eath<dic doctrine ; atill, thin^ 
■he does not jretcnd to give eqwaitinu of the pn^iheda 
poshing, it voold seem that she does so negatiTcly. Fv 
cadubcs man-, as private indiridnals, interpiet prophen' ii 
sadi a sense as a^iean best to their own jodgment, but 
antr pnmded ther do not so interpret it as to be kd to 
the eon chu ioo that the c hui c h is not catliolic It is not 
ahofcCher tme, thezefare, that the church does not dam 
cathohotT in the interpretatiMis of fxopbecy. Potitinlr, 
she does not, — negarirdr, she does; she must, consisteDtljr 
with her own principles. 

** Manj, indeed," san a modem writer, " who alloT 
that it is proper to study fulfilled pn^hecr, do not intod 
to pt the Ml extent of the admisscxi which th^ make: 
via. ther do not ^^vore of making the iq>plication of it to 
tAar mrm time», even though the things predicted be ac- 
complishing before their ^es. THct hare no objectioD to 
consider pn^hecies which ther presume to have been accnn- 
phshed some two or three centuries, or two or three thoassod 
years back ; but when ther come to be urged with thur 
thin^ which apparently belong to the age in which we lii?, 
they deprecate the presumption of such a use of propbecr 
as warmlr. as ii some one had affected to offer them tn 
oracular interpretation of what was untiiifilled." Bncb't 
Etfment* (/ Prx^etical Imterprttath^ p. 7. 

Hence, not only will she herself not admit such a kind of 
iuterpretatiou : but she will endeavor to constrain othen lo 
do the same ; at the very time that her own language is,—! 
falling awnv is coming. — as members of the church we ought 
to be on the look-out, — signs are abroad that Antichrisi l- 
to come, that marvels are to come,^we are bid to get rid d 
things superuatural, to laugh and jeer at everj-thing wc do vt 
sec. — infidelity is abroad, — the end of all things is at hand 




. . . . " Surely it is profitable to think ubout it, though wc be 
quite mistaken in the detail. For instaucc, after all it may 
not be a persecution of blood, and death, but of crt^t and 
tubtleltf oniij ; not of miracles, but of nattu-al wonders, and 
poircrs of hiiman skill, human ncqttirementH in t/te hand of 
the devil: Satan may adopt the more alaniiiiig weapon of 
deceit; be may hide him»clf ; he may attempt to seduce u« 
in bttlo tbiugSj and w to move the church, not ^ at oiiee, 
but by little and little, from lier true position, ft'e do believt! 
he lias done much in tfiia way in the course of the last few 
centuries. We believe he has moved ewi^ part of the church 
thU way or that wny, but tome way or other, from the tntth 
eu it ia in Jenus, from the old faith on vhich it was built 
before the division of the east and went. It is lis policy to 
split us up and divide as ; to dislodge us gradually from off 
our roek of strength. And if there is to be a persecution, 
pcrhapH it will be then ; tluni |>frbapK when we arc all of iw 
in all parts of Christendom sf> divided and so reduced, so full 
of schism, 80 cloee upon heresy ; when we have cast our- 
aelves ujKin the world, and th^end fur protection upon it. 
Bud have given up our independence and our strength; 
then he may burst upon iis in fury, as far as God allows 
liim. .... But all tliese things are in (iod'a hand, and God's 
knowledge, and there let us leave them." Tracts /or the 
7}Hie», — Antirkriat, p. 51. 

Considering tlic tiuarter whence the statement comes, 
tiiia is going very far, approximating very nearly to a full 
coniessioa ; very nearly, we say, but nothing more — there is 
xoom for retreat. Fur, however faithless one portion of the 
church may be, or even the whole eburcti for a time? ; )iow- 
mer it may thus for a scaBoti fall auay from what it had 
previously received as truth, stiU there is to be a tendency 
to return to her alleged catholicity ; and in this cfl.<ic the one 
great evil she attempts to rcmovo will be that of ibiibeliel' in 
Iter own catholic claims, and of t)elicf in her own catholic 


■liS^ TMK nSE or THE END OF CBAF. Til. 

So doc ^F viD hnfTiw her &ithfulness, in tbis 
&1XC. M> cmss IB RCvnm^ to her fonner pretensioiis, or 
F ^bffts to waaataaa them ; not for a momad 
tis Am m ho* TOT alleged catholicity is to be found 
^i^intipsmapko£hetfaAksaaeaaj — diat if she be catholk, 
ic VBtX za. her tradts^ but in her onxs. 

Tk^ iKaehi iwkrd, we are justified in conduding from 
dvr LcnTs pcopfecy concmiin^ the temple. For what ra 
che bcfjfns of vhieh not one stone was to be left upon 
nsjtUba ? — luc tte oatwatki ci the temple ; not the eitenul 
«af^ tsd saxa of the comts ; not anr edifices, chambers, or 
fcaZLfy isi adrentinoBf oruin ; — no, not these, but the temple 
hseif. dte vczr j w rf aa j aarfon m , the glory of all natioiu: 
t&e my ark. die, the dienibim, nay the tcit )h 
cc' G<kL vidi aU its aacred mysteries, — all irere to become die 
pr«T cc dke spocler; the dmrch — the apostoHcal church— the 
cadwuc fhnrch — the temple oi the Lord — the temple d 
Clutsr * fccdr — is incense, altars, candlestick — all were to 
ct^ase. and the de^i^ation was to come — in what manner r 
C'.-'C wi;ii <?cr»ani obserrarion, bat as a snare, overtaking all 
wi-e- ill ttlt secure, and still erring out, ' Lo! here is Chii-t; 
K? ' :hi;r^ is ChrUt :' — ■ Master! see what great buildingsaft 
hcrv ! " — - The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lwd 
arv we!" 

Thtre i*. howeTer, one more reason for belie^'ing ii 
piv-babl^?, ihat when a prophecy is fulfillc^d, its fulfilment 
shotijvi uot be seen by the catholic church, and this is derired 
from the prinoiple of naturalism. 

For ii a svstem of mere naturabsm has corrupted Chris- 
tian doctrine, it must operate also in the interpretation o( 
tlie pn^iphix'ies. so as to assign to them the lowest aud m«t 
external mcauiuir. 

Thus St. Paul says, the man of sin is to sit in the tem- 
ple of t'lOil. A modem writer interprets the prophecy «* 
uu':miug. thiit a temple of stone aud mortar is to be boih 

cn\e. vif. 



at Jerusalem, and that some inilividtial, who is the man of 
sin, is litcrn]]y to j^o and sit iu it. 

Another modom writer, rcganlinpf the opi^ning of the 
book mentioned ju the Ajjocal^vpac us the commencement of 
the latter daj-o, believes that the roll of the Jcwiah law dcpo- 
Mtwi in tiie temple at the time of iU ileirtniction, and after- 
wnnLi carried off to Rome, is still in tlie Vatican ; and that 
ita disejavcry and oijciiiiif;, perhaps by some nntitinarian, at 
DO distAiit perio<l, will be the signal for the closing of the 

Unt I need not enumerate ail the externa) si^is whieli 
arc awaited by those, who seem to believe that tlie kinjifdom 
of (fwi eom(!t}i witli nbservatiou. Certain it is, that if per- 
Boua luuk fur thuse Higus, and du nut eonslder the church to 
have come to ita end before their appearance, the most griev- 
ous corruptions may have stolen in upon the chureh, the 
darkest dpirituai desolation may have overtaken it, and yet 
the ehurcli may be cousiilciwl to be true and catholic, be- 
cause these ima^ucd external si^^na have not yet appi.'arcd. 
But it will I)p said, that all prophecij' wliicli has been hitherto 
fulAUed, has hnvn fiiltilled literally ; and therelurc we hare 
reason to expect that the prophecies yet to be fulfilled, will 
receive a literal accomplishment. 

Tu this wc reply, that the objectitm comes with but little 
force fnim those who do not believe in the popular ideas of 
tbc alleged literal fulfilment of the prophocies since the early 
Ages of Christianity. In this case, all the prophecies literally 
fidHlii-d, they must consider to refer to events at or before 
that period ; and the last of these would be the destruction 
of Jemsalcm and of the seven ehurchea of Asia. But, is it 
not certain, that these and uther places iu the Ciblc, were 
typical or representative ? Is not this the reason for which 
the pmpbecica were literally fulfilled in them ? lint, is any 
interpreter prepared to say, that modem towns, countries, 
Bod kiogdoma arc representative? If he is not, can he 

tfO rac Tna of nn wxm or 

CBJir. Til. 

viEk «cBik namm imaat ^poa Ac Hterml inteipretitkn of 
lie Tr^cdvew: &r if he did, Tonld it not be nqnishe&it 
ife dor ctf BabvioB jkndd be reboih in all ite giorr, ^ 
3B k=BS fknkl nxnat ibar knar pride and trraainr, 
^ad i&K«Ji ^abi be onxdnovn, in order to fulfil ^ 
HifiiiiLj-rf Af Jul erf" Babrion ? If then ve are not to look 
fe i«irWr visbfe BabrloB, vhr thoold we lo(^ for anotlKr 
««EUe JqiT— icM ? vhr not look far the fnlfilment at pro- 
flHvy ia ikMi vhkh both these sonified ? namely, Babrfai 
t^ ^sBstk xhtf &Ils, and the Xer Jenisalem the dmrd 
if naaei np ^sin. Bnt if we so i nt e rpre t ^opheef, 
w need not vait to Ke whether the ancient Babrloi 
iS be le^xih. and ^ain eome to its end ; hot we mmt 
■btt h u theze k anr state at the chnzch biAt 
n»the d fuiy doa of Babrloo. 

We hone afarBdr sen a few of the iUostrationB derini 
(torn ^ niMi J Mti iM of aame of the {nincipa] doctrines rf 
4e ta ch ofif ehnrch. we now prooeed to direct testimonT. 

la frmif&in^ these, it sbookl be bcme in mind, that, 
fcr lite ratMEts ve have mentioned, the chorch as sncli, b 
K< !i{^e>r ro tesc^ asainst itself. If therefore, while thr 
MsrJttog^ of conndls mar be quoted to prove the chorcli to 
be caib^>5c. we do not quote tbem to testiiy against Hi 
estfaoiidn'. the reado" will imdostand the reason. In like 
manixT wbere tbe dmrch is divided against itself, it is not 
ro be exprned that, in genial, one portion of the tiaoA 
shonM tesdA- against itself, bowerer it mar against u- 
ocber. Henof the testimonT we furnisb, must be dhsc or 
less called in question br those to whom it refers. 

It may be said, that notwithstanding tbe alleged genenl 
deseneracy of the chnrch, there have been throughout sD 
ases men of enlarged and pioos minds, and this indeed nutj 
be granted without supposing that the chnrch has tbCTcforr 
not come to its cad. We may giant likewise that, in the 
present age, thoe are signs c^ still greater improrenieit. 




and of the dlflfiiaioii of ^onrral rclipiim. But wliat then? 
Is it uot universaliy iillowecl tliat there are si^is also of a uew 
<wdcr of things ? Of chaDgca in the intellectual and moral 
of society which the world has yet uever witueiRied? 
that Mplrit of inrjuiry abroa^l, that thirst of kuowledge 
which oft«n apjjears t>u |tenloiiB tu existinj^ principles, solely 
the result of the eflbrts of the church ? Or rather, LaTe 
not the changes, even in the church itself, themselves re- 
sulted from changes iu the times, ia the spirit of age, thiit 
is to say, in the minds of tnpn V If so, this new ordtT of 
Ettings is not merely a development of the old ; rather old 
thirifj^ arc passing away, and al] things arc becoming new. 
The old order of things, or, in other wonla, the old dispeu- 
satiou, ui waning to its close ; the new order of thiugs or 
the new dispensation is as gradually dawning. Perhaps no 
miracle could produce a greater chiuigc in the general state 
of society, tlian wc sec gradually produced by the diffiiBion of 
knowledge. Tliis ilitTusiuii renders men disconteuted with 
old ejiplicatiouH ; a diacuntent which otteii arises not from 
m love of novelty, but from a perception of previous error 
and inconsistency, wliich, when denominated sacred mystery, 
wan received iu a spirit of blind faith ; a spiiit which must 
be destroyed before an cnhghtened faith can come in. 
Agaiiiflt a faith so bliud, but which is not faith, the newly 
awakened tliirst of knowledge is carrying on a warfare. 
This general thirst of knowledge ia one sign of the new 
order of things ; it docs uot beloug to the old ; it cannot 
Emalgamatc with it ; the two cannot agree ; the one mititt 
doatroy the other. The improvements, therefore-, which ape 
I^Mcing place, do not belong to the old order of thing*, but 
to the new. 

Passing on to tlin tmtimony to be adduced, we stiall 
obiierve, that it is natural for individual)!, luidcr the pressure 
of present troubles, to magnify existing evils, to indulge in 
the language of dcspoudcucy or despair; while, aAcr a 





time^ the douds may ilisnppcAr, and there mof retnrii a pir* 
ti«l gleam. In establishing, therefore, cndcooc of the bll- 
ing mwwcf erf a prafessedlr nnireraal ehnrch, the rvidena 
itadf should be as universal as the church prafesteitDtK; 
giren not by one author, but by niaoy, — uot ia one age, bcs 
in alL It is obTioiu, howerer, that to do thi», voald fill t 
Tolame, mppodng such erideace to exist. Wc can, tfaoi- 
forp, onbr pirc a skctrh of it, in conformity with the geocnl 
plau uf the vork. In fumiahini; vliich^ if the languge rf 
one pact of the church against another, or agunst itidC 
Aould Bfftmr to be too strong, it will be remembered, titf 
the present writer has no power to alter it ; and if to Mq^ 
the ^eturcs should appear to be ovemTought, the rciderii 
requested to bear in mind, that the ubject in intradadBg 
them will be fully gained, if tie is led to regard, the defcctiaB 
of the catholic church, from the time of the Council of Xitr, 
sin^ily as po*$ihle. In euch a state of mind, he vill nut 
proceed to the interprcUtious given by Swcdenborg witb k 
predisposition to beheve them impossible. 

These remarks we gladly conclude with our Lord's 
ance, that at the time of the end his t'aitlifid people Ml 
Dot entirdy hare eeaaed; that although iniquity tbaU 
abound, and the lore of many almll wax cold, yet that noK 
there shall be who shall endure unto the eud : tlutrefixe n 
willitt^y add the following obserr&tion. 

** To whatever causes we are lo ascribe that dircniCT rf 
opinion which distracts the world, — how pcrplcung mem 
the present con^tntion of tilings may be, or for wfaabntf 
reasons it has pleased iuliiute wisdom to place ua in a 
of trial, iuErmity, and imperfection,— «ne general truth 
universally be subscribed to; namely, tliat with respect buih 
to fiuth and practice, /Ae Lord hioweth thna thai mrt Air, ui 
will hereafter acknowledge them accordiugly." 
BamptoH Lectures, 1787. End. 

We now proceed, in the sccoud iJaoe, to offer it fe« — 



! shall 





1. Early Chtrch. 
)WEN say 8 : 
" * The church in tins worW is shaken with divers tempta- 

'tions, as with showers, floods, and tempests, yet fnllcUi not, 
because it ia built on the i-ock (PetraJ from whence Peter 
took liis name. For the rock is not called Vetra frotn Peter, 
but Peter is so called from Pelra the rm^k ; as Clirist is not 
*o called from Christian, but ClinBtinn from Christ. There- 
fore said the Lord, L'pon this rock will I builtl my ehurcli ; 
because Peter had said, Tliou art Christ, the Son of the 
living God. (fpon this rock, whicli thou hnst confessed, will 
I build my church. For Clirint himself wsw the rock on 
which foundation Peter hiniscU' «as built. For other founda- 
tion can no man lay, save that which is laid, which is Jesus 

"Against iliis rock, this foundation of tbe church, the 
person of Christ, antl the fiiith of the church cuuceming it, 

I j;rcat opposition hutb been made by the gates of hell- Not 

[to raculion the rage of the pagan world, endeavoring hy all 
effects of violence and cruelty to cast the church from this 
fouiutatioii ; all the hcrenics wherewith fix>ni the beginning, 
and for some centuries of years ensuing it was pestered, con- 
in direct and immediate oppositions unto the eternal 

^trnth coneemins; the person of Christ. Some thnt are so 
esteemed indeed, never prctcndtMl unto any sobriety, but 
were mere effects of dclirant imngiuations ; yet did even they 
also one way or other derive from an hatred unto the person 
of Christ, and centred therein. Their beginning was early 
in the church, even before the writing of the Gospel hy John 
or his Revelations, and indeed before some of Paul's epistles. 
And although their bejanuing was but small, and seemingly 

I contemptible, yet, being full of the poison of the old serpent, 
they difruseU themselves in various shapes and forms, until 

[there was nothing left of Christ, nothing thnt related nnto 

<v rai EXD or 

atlvHCKB% fiffae or kamm, not llieur 
■E>^ BOt lii fOM^ nor Uw union of his 
tkal VH not oppraed md t^MiilteJ bjr tkem. E■p^ 
> aoan m t^ gwr^ had aaUtied the Bomn cmpR 
bnt, aad n ovaed br the ralen of it, the wkA 
tw far Miae ^es 6Bed witb aproan, confonon, id 
I dbocifc n afaooi the penon of Christ, Aroo^ tb 
ommA Offamtiamm Bade themmto bjr the galea ef fad. 
lUAcr kad tibm AarA ujr leiC from theae oooffiob fer 
ikaat tR h^Aed 5«n. Bat aear that period of tine, Ot 
paw «f tr^ hmI religion beginning nnmanallr to daw 
iHoa^ ne aatnrd prafeuon of toeni, ^*'^ti took ailintu^ 
1» aaha ^at haioc and dBrtractam of thp cfaurch, br mpcr- 
it iti w,fcheaqAip, and fwiftawnewt of life, vbich br bAi 
of ia lai aHraqa against ibe penon of Christ, or the doctnv 
SI tiala coaocnuB^ it< 

' b vaaU be a tedioaa work, aoit it may be iwt of 
pnfl arta Aem vho ate ntterlv unacquainted with 
aa Inf pait aad gone, whcreiii they soem to hare no cv- 
eenuKM, to gitv a ygimtfi of the several heresies wfaorh* 
voe made agaiart this rock and foondatioB of tk 
aato thoae who hare inquired into thenoonhif 
it voidd be altogethar uaelen : lor alauMt naf 
page of than at fint Tira proenta the readen vitk ■ 
nfirnf *" of loaK ooe or moic of them. Yet do I atemi 
avfid that the wenr ordinajj sort of Christians sboahl at tad 
m gemati be anjuainted with whst hath passed in thii p^ 
raalBSt about the penon of Christ from the begmninp. f» 
fian Hv two thing! reUting therctuito, wberem thdr fiid 
n pcathr concenMd. Ftar» fint, there is cridcaoe gin 
thaoB anto the tmth of tfaoee prediotions of the Seri|Mi 
wberan thb &tal apostacy from the Imtb, and ofipoalia 
unto the Ldffd Christ, are foretold : and, Kcondly, u » 
ueat inalaaoa of Us pover and faithfulness in the 
laent and coa^aest of the gates of bell, in the 






of this oiip^^sitiun. Diit tht-y linve been all reckoned up, nnd 
digested iuto methods of time and mntttr, by many learned 
men of old, aud of late, so that I shall not In this occaaiona] 
dincoiu-ite, represent tbem unto the reader again. Only I 
aholl pive a brief account of the ways and means whereby 
they who mtaiiieil the profession of the truth, contended for 
it unto a conquest over the pernicious heresies wherewith it 
waa opposed. 

"The defence of the truth from the beginning, was left 
in charge unto, and managed by, the guides and ruler* of the 
church in their several capacities : and by the Scripture it 
was that they discharged their duty, confirmed with apos* 
toUuil traditiuu cuttsoriant thereunto. Tliis was left in charge 
unto tbeui by the great apostle ; Acts xs. 28 — 31 ; 1 Tim. vi. 
18, 14; 2 Tim. il 1, 2, 15, 23, 24; iv. 1 — 4: and wherein 
any of them failed in this duty, they were reproved by Christ 
himself; Uev. ii. 14, 15, 20. Nor were private bclicvcw, in 
their plac^» and capaciticjt, cithejr unable for this duty, or 
exempt from it, but discliarged themselves faithfully therein, 
according unto commHn(lmc>nt given uuto them ; 1 John ii. 
20, 27; iv. 1—3; 2 John viii. 8, 9. All true bclicveRi in 
their several stations, by mutual watchfulness, preaching, or 
vritiug, accurdiog unto their cails anil abilities, effectually 
used the outward meaus for the presenation and propagation 
of the faith of the church. And the same means arc still 
■ufficient unto the same ends, were they attended unto with 
oonscicucc and dihgenoc. The pretended defence of truth 
with arts and arms of auotber kind, bath been tJic bane of 
Teligion, aud lost the peace of Christiaus beyond recovery. 
And it may he observed, that whilst this way alone for the 
preservation of the truth was insisted on aud puraned, that 
^nlthough iunumerable heresies arose one after another, and 
BOmetimcs many together, yet they never made any great 
{vogretw, uor arrived unto any such cousi^itcncy, as to make 
a stated opposition unto the truth ; hut the errors themselves 

p v2 

■^i raa timi -am rmi es» 99 crat. tii. 

mm. Tier Mifiors ^ •1111 at Tiexaac ■rtcan, vliidi appeucd 
fa- I izne v^iie. hue -Ranaint awxr. AAnvanl it ni mt 
s, -T^K3. 10^ '•nr* SUE Tii~inii it ~fcr iinnai wMTn of hcrfiifi 

~ ?ir JO. wM.~m i£ zme. ^ga. ihe povs ai the Bonm 
-an: ra minfTi icg sui kucccUod imto Christiinn- 
"jginr. miQ^ •w^xr -wat ixeti en fcr this end, nameh', dv 
XK IE 'ma. MaiLJiTiues x '■xisiujq* sad ochers as ther ciBed 
nrnwrT^ irsu^ wii a mzud powr, puth- ciril, nd 
-▼xa. Rsoecc nro the aDthwitT ti tk 

■jinnerm^ bul "^ac nicaimrdua ia the cfaun^ whidi bc^ 
~rnfg 11 ~ie JTK 3ik^ •:£ T^b nT was begim in tlie 
*-- jHiii=I iE~ Nii:?. ▼aer^m liE&msh there was a determinttkB 
fc -3e njKTTie ammannig ^ penon ai Otnst then in »pt^ 
'^ua. BUL amameiL is lao hS» diriae nature therein, l^ 
-vpnior moj '3^ '.nu. vet «adiT evils and inoonreniencei 
-fmsmra 'zi^rran. Tic :aiaireeiarth the Cuth <^ Chriadu 
m^m syrad^ 7,' w ?w»:c»*m£ iato the anthcMity of men, ud 
IS iiru.*a- X n-T fiun;. w^;irir to be bid on what was decreed 
'jr -at iicier* tit;™ issecitJeiL than on what was clearh" 
"naiTir zt "fitf S.~.zCTZ7es. Beside*, being necessitated, u 
riir- -ruifETi-. r: -iiriaiz. tbeir coDceprions of the diniif 
lanr^ .£ rirst. -j.* eirber not used in the Scriptnie,cr 
■v-ii-'sie *cn-'T".*ai:i<;ii ria: porpoee was not determioed 
TJtfr^'ji. .wa>a.ii w'^ ri^ir^ unto endless contentions ibcwi 
TJcm TV «,-rwsLi* ■±ie=iiefTes could not for a long seiwD 
jj£— ^ i^*:tz£ liestwlvM. wbetber wtj and i^xsxrayif weir of 
rii.' siziii «jrii^"a^-'c or no. both of them denoting esseore 
ir,'i <--:''<r-ir.':y : cc -ritfclier ther differed in their signifio 
Tac . :i" .r TJiifT oi- wbereia that difference lav. Athanwin* 
1: fr«: i^jTzi-x. -ienr to be the same. Orai. 5. cott. Ariu^ 
rtf -V»-«" -i -I'Ti-r*. Baal denied them so to be, or tin.' 
tlicv w;Tsf '-lifvi u.-Ti.i the same purpose in the Council of Xirt. 
K^-%^ T>. T-'C lik.t- iiiffen?Qoe immediatelr fell out betwam 
ihc lirwaasAcd Latios. about 'hTpostasis' and 'penoni ' 

for tbu Lutiua rcmlered 'Uypostasis* by 'substantia/ and 
'pcrsonn' by iTfaVomov. Hereof Jerome complains, iu his 
epistle to l)juiinsu», that they required of him iu the east to 
ocm^ieu ' tres hj-postasM,' and he would only acknowlnlge 
' tres pcrsonas/ i^yjw/. 71. And Austin gives an aecount of 
the same differeucc, De Trinitate, lib. v, cap. 8, S>. Atlmuasiiia 
endeavored the composing of tlti-s difference, and in a good 
meBsure eflcctcd it, as Gregory of Kazianzen afllmiB iu Ids 
D couccrniu>; tm praise. It wuh done by liim in a 
lod at Alexaudriii, in the first yciu* of Julian's rcigu. On 
thii occasion many contests arose even among them who all 
pleaded th(;ir adhereneti unto the doctrine of the Council of 
'Sice. .\n(l an tlic subtle Ariana nuule incredible lulvantagc 
hereof at tirst, preteudiug that they opposed uot the Deity of 
Christ, but only the expression of it by hfioouirioi, so iiftcrwiu^l 
they countenanced themselves in coining words and terms to 
express their minds with, which utterly rejected it. Hcnci: 
wen; their iftotoujisf, irffauTiof, i^ ouk evriiv, and the like names 
of blasphemy, about which the contests were fierce imd end- 
leu. And there were yet farther evils that ensued hereon. 
For the curious and serpentine wits of men, tiiiding them- 
selves by tills means set at liberty to think and discoui'se 
of those mysteries of the blciwcd Trinity, and the person of 
Chriitt, without nuwh regard unto plain dti'iuc testinumies, in 
such ways wherein funiiing mid sophistry did much bejir 
Bway, began tu miiltipty such uew, curious, and fiiise notions 
ftbout them, especially about the latter, aa caused new dis- 
turbances, and those of large extent and long continuance. 
For their suppression, couueUs were called uu the neck of 
another, irhertwiin commonly new ocauituis of ditfcn^iiecA did 

IMxiaCy and most of them niannged with great scaudal unto 
Christian religion. For men began much to forego the pri- 
mitive ways of opposing cn-ors and cxtingiu-shintr hen-sies, 
betaking themselves unto their interest, the number of their 
fttty, and prcvalcncy with the present emperors. And 




CBAf . f U. I 

'ftflsBl; Miaaist itCaurtMilliiu|ilii, tliefinl' 
Mi tkit at Cbakcdon, that the truth far tk 
af it £d penfl (fix- in mux otben it IwppawJ 
qnte othaaise), jet did ther alwan give cocsiaons mito im 
■■KHitaei, sDd em mntniil fastre<d^ among the 
MBS 01 the ChfiitiKU people. And greftt cmibwli 
then woe SMong aae of them vho pretended to bebetr 
the mmt trad^ whe^er st»di or mch a cooncil ahoold be 
ttaimd, thai >i pbialr, vhcUicr the church shonjd moln: 
it* finth into fikdr anfl w ri t T. IW strifes of this nature aboot 
tte fat J^lMMm coimcil, and that at Chalcedon, aot to 
■eatiiMi ^baa Tfaercm the Arians prevailed, take up a paeA 
pvt of theercfcBMtical stoffTofthow days. And it csaoot 
he denied bat that aone of the principal persons and aMCB* 
Uiea vho adheTcd onto the tnith, did in the heat of oppott- 
tioa imso the herews of other men, fall into nnjustifiablF 
exoesB thcaaehes." 9farJtM : Apottacy, raL xii. pp. 10— 1& 
Aftm : *' We may in the next pUee inquire. What ira» the 
itate uf the chunjiea after the ending and finishing of tk 
sacral records, and the death of the apostles, with aU o(kt 
penons dirindr inspired ? Here some would hare ua befin* 
that all things irere vdl, at lea&t for a long Beason, and mm 
that they are «o to this rery daj. All that waa bdioTCd aa^ 
practiaed among them, must be esteemed almost ma aacned la 
the gospel itself, and be made a part of the ride of onr fiuUi 
and wonhip. It seems those ven- churches, whieh dunaf 
the days of the apostles aud whilst they wore under Adri^ 
Kpection, were so prone to mistakes, to fuUow their own iaa* 
ginatiowt, or comply with the in\'entions of other*, jta, ia 
sundry instances ao as to apfietatize firom the moat i^ivt- 
ant doctrines of the gospel, were all on a soddm, on no otbff 
adf-antage but t)cing delivered &om apostolieal care la^ 
ovursight, so changed, established, and confirmed, that thcf 
declined not in anything irom the trutli and rule of tkr 
gospel. For my part I piiy as great a respect aud rrraaa 

unto tlie primitive churches of the first, second, aud third 
centuries, as I think any man living can justly do ; but that 
they did in nothing decline from the grace, mystcrv, truths 
or mle of the gospel, that thoy gave no lulniittaiicc unto 
vain deceits afler the tradition of men, aud the rudimcnta of 
the world, there arc such cindcnces unto the contrary, as 
none can IkeUcvo it> but thuoe vho have a great mind it 
should be so, aud tlicir credulity at their disposal. 1 shall 
therefore briefly iucinire what was foretold that would ensue 
among those churches, and what came to pass aucordiugly. 

"The apoatlo Paul tells the ciders of the chtircb of 
X^iemtB, that ^e km-tv that after hia departure i/rievom 
Wthe* wouid enter in antotig t/tem, not gpnring the fiock ; 
Acts XX. 29. Though he compare them to devouring wolves, 
yet are they uot bluudy per«ecutont by eiLterual force that he 
doth intend. For that CKprcssiou, shall enter in among you, 
denotes an admission into the society and eonvenie of the 
church, under pretence of the same profcswou of religion. 
They are therefore heretics and scdiioers who lay in wait to 
deceive ttu'uugh vuriuus ideights aud cunning crafliuess, 
being uot (whatever they pretended) really of the church, uot 
of the Qock of sheep, no, not iu profession, but devouring 
wolves. The »ame persons are intended, who by Peter are 
calleil false teiichers, such iaa should prtv'thj bring in dam- 
naiie heitsies, dvnyiug t/te Lord (hat bought them. 2 Pet. 
iL 1. But the apo-itlc adds moreover in the next place, AUo 
qf jfour own »ek'r» ultaU nten arise sjteakitig ptnvrae thingt, 
to draw awatf diitcipifs afttr them. vcr. 30. I do not think 
that the apostle in that expression, aijio qf ymtr otcn jw/if/t, 
intended precisely any of those who were then iK-rsonally 
present with him, or at Icaat it ia not ncccaaary that we 
abould so judge ; but some that were quickly to succeed iu 
their room and oflice, arc inteuded. And all tlic pcn'cree 
I things which they would teach, being contratUctory to the 
I doctrine of the gospel, contained some degrees of apostacy 



ciur. VII.' 

iu them. That they prerailed in this attempt, that tk 
church van learened and infected by them, h evident ftm 
hence, that, not long after, tliat church ia charged by av 
Savior to be fallen in ituiidry' things from \t» 6nt putitjr. 
iter. ii. 4, ^. So he assures Timothy, that the time *oM 
oome (and that speedily, as appears by the prtascnption be 
makes for ib prcrcntton), 2 Tim. iv. 1, 2, — Thai nt^n tevali 
not aubare somut doetrme: imi after Ikeir oten htsis slbmU 
Aap ip to themudvfs teuchers, having itching ears, vAcralf 
thqf tAouid be tHrned /rom the tnUAy and tunud mii» 
fabtet. ver. 3, 4. A plain prediction of that defection fran 
ei-aii^Ucal truth and piiritv which wm to befal the cburtlu, 
and did so. And this, witli the danger of it, lie doth mm 
vehemently urge, as from a spirit of propbecry (1 Tim. vr, 
1, 2)^ Now the Spirit upeaketh eTprestIt/, that tM t/ie Uikr 
ti m et tome shall depart from the faith, gtrittt/ heed to iv- 
ditemff tpirits and doctrine* of devtht. By that phrase d 
speech, the Spirit tpeaUth Azynvjs/jr, the apostle andtr- 
standx not a plain dtitinct revelation made thereuf unto lun- 
sclf alone, but tliat the infallible Spirit of God, wbstlif 
himself and the rest of the apostles were guided, did era; 
where testify the same. It is an expression not unlike thtf 
he useth, Acts xx. 23, — ??;<> Holif Ghotit tcHmeMttA im eetff 
eH$; that is, in all places those who were divinely inqpini' 
agreed on the same prediction. 

" And I judge the apostles did cvcr^'whcre by joint ccb- 
aent acquaint the churches, that after the gocpel had bca 
reccircd and professed for awhile, there would ensue a nnta- 
hie apo«tacy bom the truth and wonhip of it. So Jude tdb 
tlicm, rer. 17, 18, — That the apostie$ (^ our Lord JtmM 
VhriM totd thrm, that m the tatter dayt tAerv akmUt k 
modtent who waik after their hearth luxt*. This all tk 
apostles agreed in the prediction of, and warned all tfte 
churches cxmceming it. St. John exprcMeih it, 1 Epit- 
ehaj) iv. 3, — ThU i* (hat gpirit of Antichrist iphtreqf yo« imt 




inn caTUULic ciirucu. 


htard thai it ghouM com*'. ITc upcak* of the coming of 
Autichrist, uud tliercnitlinl au aiioHtiicy frum the faith^ na 
that which they had beeu fully iustructcd in. And the apos- 
tle Paul inentioncth it, as that which not only they were 
forewarned of, but also nccjuaintetl M*ilh sumu^ partioiiliirH 
conceniiug it, which it wh« not, it nmy be, convenient in 
those days to mention puliUcIy for fear of offence ; them 
mtut, saith he, be u faUtng away, ox ut apostacy from the 
faith, under the It^ading of the miiB of sin ; ami, suitK he, 
rrmtttiber ye hqI thai, when I was yet with you, I told you 
ihae things, and new ye know what withholdelh. 2 Thcsa. 
ii. 3> 2, 6. lie had both told them of the apostacy, and also 
acqnnintcd them with oue particular ahout it, which he ynW 
not now mention. Thi» being the great tcittiniony of the 
Spirit of Uud in those days, that the visible church should 
no fall away from the faith ; one of tlic chief ways whereby 
Satan brought it to posa was, by the advanciti;; of a contrary 
revelation luid principle, namely, Tlmt this or that church, 
the Church of Korac for iitstaucc, wan infallible and inde- 
fectible, and could never fall awny from the faith. By 
this nie-an:* lie obliterated out of the minds of mcu the former 
vrarniiigit given by the Spirit unto the clmrclica, »o rendering 
them secure, detcatiug the ends of the prediction ; for 
hereby he not only led men initcusibly into the greatest 
a|>ustiu,'y, but taught tbt-ni to adhere invincibly unto what 
they had done, mid with the highest confidence to justity 
thenwelvea therein. But all those and many other warnings 
did the Jloly Ghost give coucemiug the defection from the 
mystery of the gospel, which the church*^ would in sucoccd- 
ing times fall into ; which being neglected by secure pro- 
fessoi-8 wlulat their faith was weakened and undermined by 
inniunerable artifices, issued in their apostacy. For these 
things being thus expressly foretold by the Spirit of God 
himself, we may briefly inquire into the ei-cnt of the pre<lic- 
■ tions mentioned, and whether indeed they came to pass or no. 



VUAt. 1 11. 

'* An account in g^nwml of the stato of the chnreh Aa 
the days of the apostles we hare given us by HcgrsipiM^ 
who livnl in the next Hge after them, as Itis words itre n- 
corded by Euttchius, lib. iii. cap. 20. Relating the maitrr- 
dom of Simon, the son of CIcopas, he adds, ' Unto that 
times the church continued a pure and iucormptcd nrgin; 
those who emlcavurcd to corrupt the role of saving tratk, 
where any such were, lying hid in ob»curity. But after tfait 
the holy comi}«ny of the apoBtles came to their stn-eral etuV 
and tltat ^'ueratiou was past who heard the divine wisdon 
with their own cars^ a conspiracy of wicked error br the 
seductions of tboee that taught strange doctrines began u> 
take place ; and where none of the apostles were remainiBf:, 
ihtj b^an to set up their science, falsely so called, witli 
open face, against the preaching of the truth.' Wc hatv 
ah-endy seen that there were many declensions in the dm 
of the apo&tles themselves; hut as they were jealous 
all the churches with godly jealousy (for having 
them to one husband/ they took care to present them as 's 
chaste virgin' unto Christ ; the words which liegeflppai 
alludes unto), and thereon watched against all ways uA 
means whereby as 'tlie tterpcut bcj^ed Eve through ha 
subtlety, lest their minds should be corrupted fh>m the shd* 
plicity that is in Christ,' by the traching of other doctrina 
than what they had received from them, as Paul spaki. 
2 Cor. xi. 2 — 4), so by their wisdom, dihgence, and wafcefc- 
fulness, they were for the most part soon redooed from thea 
wanderings, and recovered &om their mistakes. Ucnoe thii 
holy man pnmouuccth the church a pure vii^n doling Cb 
days a£ the apostles and their inspectioii, at leut oon^ac*- 
tively as to what cn.iucd thereon. For immediately after, W 
acknowled^etli that they were much corrupted and dcAMt 
that is, falleu uS from ' the simplicity that is ia Chhil,' ia> 
tending prohnbly those very things wherein after-ages w^ 
them their example. For things quickly came nnlo titf 


•tatc in the MTorlil, and which yet vrith the mort continuctli 
therein, tlmt lueu desire no f^reater warranty for their prac- 
tice iu religion, than the shadow or appeariuicc of anything 
that vas in use or prci'aikd amotif; those chiircli(!«, tliongh 
themftclvcji tlicrcm went u& evidently iioin ttio nimplicity 
that is ia Christ. 

"This account and unquestionable testimony we have in 
general of the accomplisliment of the predictions before 
mentioned, conceminf; a declension that was to ensue from 
the power, ptiriLy, unil liiniplicity of the gospel, iiut what- 
CTcr is here intended, it must be looked on as the Tcry be- 
^nning and entrance of the apostacy that ensued, which can 
■carce be taken notice of in comparison of that excess which 
it quickly proceeded unto. In particular, the parts of the 
sacred predictions mentioned, raay be reduced nnto four 
heads. 1. Men from among thet/igehes gjwaking petrer$e 
thinffs. 2. (irievoufi wolves entering ia, not nfioring the 
Jlock. 3. Weariness, and not enduring of rtmnd doctrine^ 
but turning the mind unto fables, and from the truth. 
4. A gradual secret roysterious work of a general apostacy 
in the whole visible church. And it might be easily dcmou- 
strate<l by instances, hovr alt the^e had their particniar nc- 
compUshmcnt, until the whole apostacy foretold was formed 
and completed. \Vc may give some short remarks upon 
tliein all. 

" 1. It cannot be denied, but that many of the principal 
teachers in the first ages of the church after the apostles, 
especially among those whose writings remain unto poste- 
rity, did, in a neglect of the gospel and its simplicity, em- 
brace and teach sundry things, pcn-ersc, curious and coutniry 
to the form of wholesome words committed unto them; 
whilst for anything that appears, they were not so duly 
conversant in evangelical mysteries with reverence and godly 
fear, as it was their duty to have been. It is known how in- 
fltauoei hereof might be multiplied out of the writings of 




Cttxr. vfi. 

Justin >Iartvr, Ircnieiis, Clemens, Origcn, Tatumiu, Atlv- 
nagoraa, Tcrtiillmii^, mid others. But I sball not 
reflect vith auy seventy ou their uanies aad meiDories «b« 
contiiiiicd to adhcm unto the fimdamcutal principles of 
Christiun religion, though, what by viirioufl speculaboos 
what by philojiophical prejudices aud notions, by wrested 
itUcf^orical vxpusitious of Seripttire, by opinions openhr Uw 
and cootntdictory to the word of God, they mueh cormptnd 
and debased the pitre and holy doctrine of Jesiu and lu 

" 2. The * giievous wolves' foretold of, who were to ' ijofl 
the flock,' 1 look on as heretics in their vtiriuUH kintU. Aad 
on this nccouut it would sccni to exceed all belief, what mnt- 
titudes and shoals of all aorta of persons fell off from tW 
mystery and truth of tlie gospel, after they hod been dedind 
unto them and professed hy them ; which i« a fiill cunfiznift* 
tion of the assertion before laid down. Bnt they* nun tB 
general be reduced uuto two heads : 

" (1). Of those who in a re^:ardlessnesa and contend of 
the guspel which tlicr had received and prufesHcd, fell awi} 
into foolish extravagant heathenish imngiiiatioiis, tmioteUi* 
gible endless funcies, for the most part (tia is snppoHait 
Bccompaaied with wicked practices, whereby althongb \hpj 
would retain the name of Christiantt, they conjpletcU' nfl 
ahtiututely fell oil' from Christ and his gaspcl. Such wcietkt 
Gnostics in all their branches, and uudcr their sctcthI l^lpel■ 
lationSj Miirciunites, Alanichees, and others lUniosc innmnf- 
rablcj with whose names, me, opinions, and cour*ic of tin*. 
Kpipbanins, Austin, mid Pliiliutrius have filled up that 
catalogues. It may be said, they were all of tbem f u wau 
of so great abominations, thiLt they deserve no conadentiia 
Btiiong siicli 14^ own C^hrit^tiiiii religion. Rut the gre*iErtk 
abominations were wtiich they fell into, the more wild, km*- 
less, and wicked were their imaginations, consideriBf tk 
multitudes of professed Christians which fell into Cheir^ tl> 

CIUl*. VII. 



more rffoctiial is the tcstimonv thoy give unto tlie truth of 
our asacrtiou. For were there not an iiicx[)rcssil>lc {jronciicaa 
in the iniodii of men to relinquinb the mystery of the goapcl, 
was it not promoted by unutterable folly and secret enmity 
ngaitist the truths would it have been possible that so early 
iu the church, taking date immediately from the decease of 
the apostles, sueh multitudes of profe^M'd Cbri^tiaiui nhouli) 
openly renounce tliosi- narrcd truths, for such noxious 
foolish iniaKinntions ? These arc they who are expressly 
prophesied of^ that they Hhould ' bring in danuiable horesics, 
denying the Lord that bought them, bringing on themselves 
awift deutraetioH ; many following their peniieious ways, hy 
reason of whom the way of truth was evil spoken of.' 2 I'et. 
ii, I, !l. For fill their iuipious opinions and praetiw* were 
by the tieathen objected unto, and cliargc»d on (vbristian 
religion, m is evident in Origen's reply to Celsus, among 
others; and so hy reason of them 'the way of truth was eiil 
spoken of.' 

" (2). There waa another sort of heresies^ and so of real 
apostaey from the mystery of the gospel, whose authors and 
followers yet pretended an adherence unto and profession 
thereof. And these may he reduced to two heads : [1.] Con- 
cerning the person ; and, [2.J concemiiig the grace of Christ. 
Of the first Hort, the principal and most prevalent was tlint 
of tlic Arians, in denying his Deity; the latter, that of the 
Pelagians, iu opposing his satisfaction, merit, and grace. 
The first of these was poured out ns n flood from the mouth 
of the old serpent, and bare all before it like a torrent ; the 
latter inainuntcd itself an poison into the vcrj' vitals of the 
church. The iirst, as a burning fever, carried present death 
with it and before it ; the latter, as n gangrene or hectical 
distemiier, insensibly contiumed the vital sjiirits of religion. 
In the tir»tj we have a most woful evidence of the instability 
of professors, and their readiness to foregi» the saving mre- 
terieii of the gospel. For in little more than half an age 




sfter its first rise, tlie genpnUitv nf ChrifltiiuM in 
bishops, [)rie!rts, anil people, fell under the power 
in their public confessions renounced and denied the tror 
etemnl Deity of the Son of Uod. For himng obtained tbr 
patronage uf some emperors, as Constaatias and Vala% 
and the sufira^ of innumenihle prelates, who jointly pro- 
moted this heresy by force and fraud; almost the wbdt 
world, oa to outward profession, was for a aeaaon led into tiiii 
apostacy, wlici'ciu some whole nations (aa the UoUu aaA 
Vandals) contimicd for sundry ages afterward. And forthe 
latter, or Pclapauism, it secretly, subtly, and gnulBaDr 
so insinuated itself into the minds of men, that for thenb- 
stance of it, it continues to he no small part of that relipa 
wliich the generality of Christians do at this day prafa, 
mnd is yet upon a prevalent progress in the vorid. *na ii 
the second way of the ajHuttacy of profcswra, which was fen- 
told by the Holy Ghoat, vrliich so came to pass as that tke 
wounds which Christianity received thereby are not 
unto this day. 

" 3. Anotlier way waa, that men should grow ' weuy ( 
sound doctrine,' and not being able, for the reasons sAob 
ward to be inttisted on, to eudure it any longer, sbosU 
hearken after fables, and be turned away from the tntfk 
And this uo less eminently came to puss than any of the 
former. About the third ceutury it was that monkish &Ub 
began to be broached in the world. And this tu^rt of mOL 
instead of the doctrines of the grace of God, of jostifiortiaa 
by the blood of ('hrist, of faith and repentance, of new oht- 
dicuce and walking before God according to tbe comBuA 
of Clirist and rule of the gospel, which men gnnr wavy of 
and could not well longer endure, filled their minds, and » 
tisfied their itching ears, vith stories of dreams and rtans. 
of angelical persons in themselves, of setf-ioTenUsd dnr 
tious, of inicommandcd mortifications, and a thouaand 0<br 
foolisli superstitions, JJy such fables were iiiiiiimmMr 

tut tae 





souls turned from the truth and simplicity of the goapel, 
thinking that in these things alone religion consisted, de- 
apiaing the whole doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ and his 
apostles in comparison of them. These are particularly pro- 
phesied of and decliired, I Tim. iv. 1 — 3. By the hj-pocrisy 
aud lies, fabulous utories, and doctrines of dcvilx of this sort 
of men, the body of the Christian people was so leavened 
and infected with the belief of vain delusions, and the prac- 
tice of foulinh HUperstitiou!*, that little or nothing waa left 
aound or wholcaome among; them. 

*'4. Lastly, the secret working of the ' myitery of ini- 
quity/ in, under, and hy all these ways and other artifices 
iuminiemhir, which the subtlety of Satan, with the vanity 
the miiLds and luttts of the huarts uf men made use of, 
wrought out that fatal apostacy which the world groaned 
under and was ruined by, when it came unto its height in 
the papacj'. Tlie ris^e and progress of this catholic defection, 
the ways, means, and defjrees of its procedure, its aucccssfiil 
ftdva:ice in several ages, have been so discovered and laid 
open by many, so for as the nature of so mysterious a work 
is capable of a discovery in this world, that I nhall not need 
to repeat here any instance of it. In brief, the doctrine of 
the gospel was so depraved, and the worship of it so far 
csorrupted, that the waters of the sanctuary seemed like the 
river Jordan, to run and issue in a dead sea, or like those of 
Egypt, to be turned into blood, that would >icld no refresh- 
ment unto the souls of men. So was that prophetical para- 
ble of our Savior fulfilled, Luke xix. 12— 15. &c." Ibul, 
vol xvii. pp. 353—301. 

Milmax says : 

" But, in fact, the theological opinions of Christianity 
naturally made more rapid progress than its moral iufluence. 
The former had onlv to overpower the resistance of a religion 
which hail already lost its hold upon the miml, or a philoso- 
phy too speculative for ordinary understandings, and too 


wDwriActory for the more cnrious and enqnirii^ ; it had 
omlr to enter, as it were, into a vacant place in the mind tf 
man. But the man! inflnenoe had to contest, not onlj wiA 
the natural dlspocitioas of man, but witih the baiharism ttd 
d^nared manncra oi ages. While, then, the reUgion of tfae 
world underwmt a total change; the chnrcbrose on the nuM 
of the temple, and the ptmti&cal establishment of Pagania 
became giadnallT extinct, <» suffered violent suppression ; the 
nranl rertdatian was fio* more slow and far less com[^ete. 
With a large pcMtion of mankind, it must be admitted tfat 
die religion itself was Paganism under another Sam md 
with different appellations; with another part, it was ^ 
rehgioD pas^velr received, without anr change in the monl 
soitiments <sr habits ; with a third, and, perh^ts, the mm 
considerable part, there was a transfer of the passions and the 
intellectual activitv to a new cause. They were completer 
identified with ChiistianitT, and to a certain degree acCnstid 
bv its principles, but th^ did not iqiprehend the beantifid 
harmony which subsists between its doctrines and its monl 
periection. Its dogmatic pohtr was the sole engrossing sob- 
jeci : the unity of doctrine superseded and obscured all oth« 
cousideratioas, even of that sublimer unitr of principles snd 
effects, of the loftiest views of the divine nature, with the 
purest conceptions of human virtue. Faith not only over 
powered, but discarded from her fellowship, lore and peace. 
Everywhere there was exaggeration of one of the constitDent 
elements of Christianity ; that exaggeration which is the in- 
evitable consequence of a strong impulse upon the hnman 
miud. AATierever men feel strongly, they act violently. The 
more spoeularive Christians, therefore, who were more in- 
clined, in the deep aud somewhat selfish solicitude for their 
own salvatiouj to isolate themselves from the infected mw 
of maiikiml, pressed into the extreme of asceticism; thf 
moiv pntctii-al, who were earnest in the desire of disseminat- 
ing the blessings of religion throughout societv, scmpW 




little to press mto their Bcrvice whatever might advance their 
cause. With both extrcmea, the dogmatical part of the reli- 
preduininated. The monkish believer imposed the same 
severity hjkjii the aberratioiis of the mind as wi>oii tlie appe- 
tites of the ImmIv ; anrl, in general, tbose who are spvert" to 
themselves, are both diKpused and tliiuk tlicmselvcs entitled 
to enforce the same severity on others. Tlic othrr, as his 
sphere bccatnc more extensive, wa.s satiatied with an adhesion 
to the Christian creed, instead of that total cliangc of life 
demanded of the early Cliriatian, and watched over with such 
jealous vigilance by the mutual superintendence of a small 
•ociety. The creed, thus become the sole test, was enforced 
irith all the passion of intense zeal, and g'uarded with the 
mont subtle^ mill siTupidous jcalousj'. lii proportion to the 
admitted importHitec of the creed, men became more sternly 
aad excluaivel/ wedded to their opinions. Thus an au- 
tagonist principle of eselnsivcness eo-cxistcd with the most 
comprehcnMive ambition. While they swept in converts in- 
riminately &oia the palace uud the public street j 
hile the emperor and the lowest of the populace were alike 
admitted on little more than the open profession of alle- 
giance, they were satisfied if their allegiance in this respect 
■waa blind and complete. Hence a for larger admixture of 

uman passions, and the common vulgar iaceutives of ac- 
tion, were infused into the expanding Christian body. Men 
became Christian^i, orthodox Christians, with little sacrifice 

if that which Christianity aimed chiefly to cxtirpBtc. Yet 
after all, this imperfect view of Christianity had probably 
Bome effect in concentrating the Chrisrtian community, and 
lioldirtg it together by a new and mori! iiidittsulublc bond. 
e world divided into two pfirties. Though the shades of 
Arianism, perhaps, if strictly decomposed of Trinitarianbim, 
irere countless as the rnri-ing powers of conception or cxpres- 
'itnon in man, yet they were Koon consolidated into two com- 

iBCt maoses. The scmi-Ariaus, who approximated so closely 






ca^r. VII 

to the Niceue creed, were foroed bide into the xdjuo hoAf. 
Tlieir 6qc distinctions were not seized by tbeir adrcnahai, 
or bv the genenl body of the Chiistiuu. Tbe bold and 
dectsire dcfinitiTcucaa of the Athanaainn doctrine nrimittrJ 
less discn;tiuu ; aiid no doubt, tbou^h political Tiaaatada 
had some inBacDCc on tbe final establisUineut of tbcir doc- 
tzines, tbe more iUitemte and leas imaginatiTe West was pv- 
disposed to tbe Athanaaian opinions bj ita natural repagnBEl 
to the more va^ue and dnbioos tbeoiy. All, howerer, wm 
enrolled under one or the other standard, and tbe fBtj 
which triumphed, cTcnrually would rule the wbole Chratiu 

** Even the (ends of Chrisdanttjr at tbi& period, tltfo^ 
with the few more dispasnonate and renaonitig of the F*gBi 
tber might retard its progress, iu some reapocta amtiibated 
to its advancFment ; thc^ antite<] iu brpaking up th^t tdcfid 
stagnation which brooded orer the gcuend mind. It ^n s 
new otgect of excitement to the popuLar fccUag. Tbe kt> 
emu and ignorant populace of tbe large citiea, which kmai 
a new ahmeut iu Christian faction for their mntinoui ud 
sangninaty outbursts of turbulence, bad alinoct been betar 
left to sleep on in the passive and uudestructive qoiel rf 
Pagan indifference. Tfaey were dangerotia allica, mois tkn 
dan^rous 'ntal to the purity of tbe goapel." Haton/ if 
ChriMtianitif, \o\. iii. pp. 4 — 7. 

"It was the consummate excellence of Chrutianity, ikri 
it blended in apparently indissoluble onion religioiu Mil 
raoml perfectioa. Its eveotiaL doctrine waa, in its psn 
theoiT, inseparable frtm hnmBe, virtuous, and rharitiM' 
dbpositioa. Piety to God, as He was impersooatBd ■ 
drat, worked out> as it seemed, by spoutaneoaa eaof? 
into Christiau beneficence. 

" But there has always been a strong propenxity to fr 
turb this nice balance; the dogmatic part of rebgiaa, lb 
province of faith, is constantly endeavoring to set iariT 




apnrt, and to maiutain a separate existence. Faithj in tMe 
limited sense, Jispircs to he religion. Thisj in geiicml, takiw 
place soon after the first uutburat, the strung impulse of new 
and absorbing reUgioiis emotions. At a later period morality 
attempts to stand alone, without the sanction or support of 
rcligiou.1 faith. One half of Christianity is thus perpetually 
striring to pass for the whole, and to absorb all the attcntioDj 
to tlie ncplectj to (ho disparagement, at length to a total 
aeparatiou fbam its heaven-appointed consort. The multipli- 
cation and subtle refinement of thculugic dugmai^, the en- 
groesiug' interest excited by some dominaut tenet, eifpccially 
if they arc asi^ociated with, or embodied in, a minute and 
Tigorous ceremouial, tend to satisfy and lull the mind into 
complacent acquiescence in its own religious 
But directly religion began to consider itself something apart, 
something exclusively dogmatic or exclusively ceremonial, an 
acceptance of certain truths by the belief, or the discharge 
of certain ritual observances, the transition from separation 
to hostility was rapid and unimpeded. No sooner had Chris- 
tianity divorced morality as its inseparable conipunion through 
life, than it formed an unlawful eouuectiou with auy doioi- 
nant passion; aud the ytringe and unnatural union of 
Christian faith with ambititiuii, iirariee, cruelty, fraud, aud 
even licence, appeared in strong contrast with its primitive 
harmony of doctrine and iuo'ard disposition. Thus in a great 
degree, while the Iloman world became Christian in outward 
worship and in faith, it remained heathen, or even at some 
pcrimU worse than iu the better times of heathenism, as to 

.benehccnce, gentleness, purity, social rirtuc, humanity, and 
This extreme ^iew may ajipcar to be justified by the 

'general surrey of Christian society'. Yet, in fact, religion 
did not, except at tlie darlci^st pcri<HU, so completely iusulatc 
itself, or ao entirely recede from its natund alliance with 
morality, though it admitted, at each of its periods, much 
rhich was irreconcilable with its pure and original spirit. 

G G 2 


4BS TBI TIME or TSB tHO or COAP. Til. 

Hence tbe win^aA fJiMiitoi of its aoesiU and politick, m 
TeQ IS of its pewonal iwfcienctt. 'Die tuiou uf CUristiaiutT 
witb numadiisti^ with sacerdotal dominatioii, with the aoE- 
taij spirit, Titli Ae spiritual autocncy of the paparr, vith 
dw advaDeemenl at one tomt, at another iritli the reprwiion, 
of tie ImaMa nnnd, had each their darker aod Imghtar ade; 
■id were in snceessioa (however ther departed from the 
primal and ideal perfectaan of Christianitr) to a nrtam 
extent b eneftri il y becawe appanrntlr almoct necenar; to tk 
aodal and intdbeturi defdo p nicDt of mankind at eackiw* 
tacniar junctore. So, for inttance, military Cfariftiaai^, 
wUdi gRv not of the inantahle inoorporation of the tout 
aad OKUi^' of the barbarian conquerors with the amlimcsti 
mad fBeKngi of that age, and whicli finally produced ehinli?, 
■as, in &ct, the sahstitntioB d inhtunanitr for ChmtiM 
gmAaatm, of the lure at glory for the lo^-e uf peace. Td 
wm Aia indispenahV to the pieau lation of Christiafli^ 
is it* eontat with its new eastern antagonist, t'nwariike 
duMtinuty vonld hare been trampled under foot, and lia«* 
faecu in danger of total extermination, bjr triamphant 3f«- 

**Tel wm when its preniling cliaxacter thus rtoodn 
the BOat fiivct contrast with the spirit of the gospel, tt m 
Dot f . rr h r- that the creed of Christianity in its prinaij 
was anhremUT accepted, and a profound deroboa 
tW Christian mind, there was likewise a ooortatf 
nttder>^rowth, as it wen. of Christiau feetiiiga, and croi if 
ChfHtian viitnea. Xothmg €(mld contrast more stiBBftetr, 
Ibr ilaarr. than St. Loom slaughtering Samccns and ba» 
tica nth hit l ew ora cl cas sword, and the Savior of npnlwsJ 
bv the Lake of Gahlee ; yet, when this dominant spint J 
the i«e did not inoocnpj the wfaofe sonl, Che aeU-deui tb 
puritr, em ^ geotleneas of snch a heart boic atiB ■■• 
answerabk testiauaj' to the genuine influeucv of C lu M >iaaL t|^ 
Oar flliliiliiw haa carried us ^ berond the boundBoes (f 




our history, but already tlie great characteristic distiuctiou 
of later Christian history had begun to be developed, the 
severance of ('hiiatinu faith from Christian love, the pas- 
sionate attachment, the stem and remorseless maiiiitciiancc 
of the Christian ciTed, without or with only a partial practice 
of Christian virtue;, or even the predominance of a tone of 
miad, in some respect* absolutely inconsistent with genuine 
ChrlBtianity. While the human mind, in general, became 
more rigid in exacting, and more timid in departing from, 
the admitted doctrines of the church, the raoml sense became 
more dull and obtuse to the purer aad more evanescent 
beauty of Christian holiness. In truth it was so much more 
easy, in a dai'k and uuroasoitiug nge, to subscribe, or ut least 
to render passive submission to, certain defined doctriues, 
than to work out those doctrines in their proper influences 
upon the life, that wo deplore, rather than wonder at^ this 
substitution of one lifilf of the Christian religion for the 
whole. Nor arc we astonished to find those, who were coq- 
stantly violating the (irimary principles of Christianity, licrcely 
resenting, and, if they had the power, relentlessly avenging, 
any riolatiou of the integrity of Cliristian faith. Heresy of 
(pinion, wc have seen, became almost the only crime, against 
which excommunication pointed its thunders : the darker 
and more baleful heresy of uncliristiau pasuons, which as- 
sumed the language of Christianity, was cither too general 
to be detected, or at bent encountered with fticblc and im- 
potent remonstrance. Thus Christianity became at the same 
time more peremptorily dogmatic, aud less influential ; it 
assumed the supremo dominion o%'er the wind, while it held 
but an imperfect and partial control over the passions and 
affections. The theology of the gospel was the rehgion of 
the world ; the spirit of the gospel very Car from the ruliug 
influence of mankind. 

" Yet eveu the theology maintained its dominion, by in 
some degree Hccummodating itself to the human mind. It 





»»— — to E certain degree mythic in its chancter, and 
tkoiHe in its foriD. 

" Now had commenced what maj be called, nather 
mieaMMtably nor unwarrantably, the mytliic age of Clint- 
ttaaitjr. As Chrutianitr worked downward iuto the lower 
dassei of society, as it received tlic rude and ignorant har- 
banana within its pale, the general effect could not bat be, 
that the age would drag down the religion to ita lerd, latte 
than the religum elevate the age to ita own lofty standinL" 
aU, pp. 527— 631. 


2. SchoiaHie Theology. 

Owen sars : 

** If the truth, at any time, be entertained by a son] ahw 
mind is nnhnmblcd, and whose affections are unmortified, it 
is a tronhlcaomc inmate, and will, on the first occasion, br 
parted withal. It is true, we ought to employ the ntraost d 
ma rational abilities in the inTcstigation of isucred truth ; bdl 
yet, if therein we follow the eondnct of our own minds, £*• 
ing perhaps into subtleties and niceties, forsaking a hxoAk 
dependaoce on the teachings of God, it may be under apfR* 
hen aio n a of singular wisdom^ we betray oujselTcs into xmBom 
fioily. This was that which corrupted all the endeann 
of the schoolmen, and left them in the Kcight of their iwpi^ 
ries to wax Tain in their imaginations. The way of hiadfag 
spiritual things in a spiritual manner, in the words wVA 
the Holy Ghust teacheth; that is, not with curious saWi 
reasonings and inrentions of camal unsanctified minds, ktf 
with that c^-idcncc and plainness in ar^mcDtatioa, suIa' 
practically to affect the minds and consciences of an 
which the Scripture gireth us both example and rule fv, «M 
desptsad by thcmj but they rainc to the study nd s«i«( 
things with their minds stuffed and prepossesMd widpl^ 
knophical notions and conceptions, with sopbtsnuL distii^ 
tions, and rarioas expreacious of the serpentine wits ci 




which they mixed with diviuity, or the doctrine uf thfi Scrip- 
lure, wofully corrupting, debusiug, and perverting it thereby. 
Most of their dispatea were such, as had never had 
foundation nor occuslun in the world, if Aristotle had uot 
inTcntcd some ould Icriua and distinctions remote from the 
common understanding and ren.soii of men wiser than him- 
•elf. To inquire into divine revelation with a holy, humble 
frame of heart, waiting and praj-ing for divine teaching and 
illiiminatiou of miud, that thcmselvcii might he made wise 
in the knowledge of the mysteries of the gospel, and able to 
instruct others in the knowledge and fear of God, it never 
came into their minds. But being furnished and pufled up 
with a conceit of their own sagacity, philosophical ability, 
and difiputing facutty, harneiised with syllogisms, distinc- 
tiona, aoliiticmst, and most ])rcpOHtcroiw mtrthods of craft, 
they cmnv with bohhicHs on Christian religion, and forming 
it to their own imaginations, dressing it up and exposing of 
it iu foolish teriris of art, under a Homblanee of wondrous 
subtlety, they wholly corrupted it, and drew ufl' the minds 
of men from the simplicity of the tnith as it is in Christ 
Jeaus. Not one article of religion did thin proud, self-con- 
ceited generation of men leave, that (vrhethcr tbeir conclu- 
ROUS were true or false about it) any man could come to the 
understanding of it, who had not been a better proficieut in 
the school of Aristotle than of Christ. To IwHeve and teach 
the doctrine of tlic Scripture, though with sound reason and 
judgment, and, in the way of the Scripture, to affect the minds 
and consciences uf nion, without their philoHophical notions, 
niceties, di»tinetiou», whereby they had caned a corrupt, 
depraved, monstrous image uf ail things, and the knowledge 
of them, was, among them, to be a heretic, or a blockhead. 
By the pride, confidence, and pretended subtlety of these 
men, wu-s religion totally corrupted, nud the fountains poi< 
soued from whence others sought for the waters of the sane- 
tvar\'. Even what was left of truth among them was so 


debued. lo drrerted of its nadre bemTcnly ^orr, beantr, and 
maj e s ty, v^s laideTcd so deAnmed and unsaited unto that 
H«rn«al li^t wlioan altMK it can be asefaUr discerned, ai 
to lender it ahogether nsdess and inefficacknu nnto itt 
pffcper ends. Xor are wc era in more danger to sobdnd 
o Mw e b e s fimn under the teachings of God, than when ve 
lean unto our ovn understandings in our inquiries into sja- 
ritoal thii^s^ so as to forget that humble lowly frame of 
heart wherein altxie we are meet to be taught, or to leani ia 
a dae manneT. And thb is cme war whereby men, throng 
Ar innate pride of their nunds, are obstructed in the recm- 
i^^ and ^ H mmipJ onto the lefinqniahment of erangdial 
tnolH." tTprb, tqL iriL |^ 426—128. 

3. Oim*i^ Borne. 
OwEX sars: 

~ Faitzal apostacT, is eicrr crime against the gospel whicfa 
partakes of the nature of the other [or general ^mstacy] inn? 
nae^asazif or desrw. And whaterer doth so, makes an uices- 
SA.X1 ro«ani« £he guih of ' crurifdng the Son of God afresh, 
acao r'iTtin^ H:a un:o open shame.' For it is in his gospel and 
ciuTvr. kjo^ie whenfin He can now suffer from the sons of mro. 
Wifs 3kny lairortant principle o( erangelica] truth is forsaken 
jo^d r>f:^>c3oec. espei'ially when many of them are so ; when 
tbe ruve os" iybedienoe which the gospel prescribeth is habitu- 
ally crtTjifvWxi ; when men behere otherwise than it teacheth, 
aa<i hvr oi;}:erwT^ than it reqoireth .: there is a partial apos- 
nk'T frve.! 11. wboise piih and dan^r answers the degrees sod 
cioftsurv^ which in each kind it proceeds unto. 

" AiXvi :his is ihar which we may charge, yea, which the 
l>\rv; Chr.s: in his word doth charge on erery nation under 
hc*»vu whciv the swspcl is pubUdy professed. Menareipt 
:o jrU-asc :hriiis«'lvos, to appiwTe of their own state and ct»- 
*v.:kmi. wheivm thcT hare framed nnto themselres rest and 
sstisiJK'TsoiJ Ctiiurhcs content ihemselres with their ourrod 





order and admini«tmtions, especially where accompanied 
■with secular advantnges ; and cuiitenil ficrcclj- that all is 
well, and the gospel sufficieittly complied witlxal, whilst 
their outward constitHtion ia prMcrvwl, and their laws of 
order kept iimolatn : uhoiil thttsc is the world filled with 
cndlc-ss digladiations, wherein the most aim at no more but 
succi-wi in their especial coutests. Only a few remain who 
fruitlessly complain, that under all these conflicts, the glory, 
'power, and purity of Cliristian religion is lost in the world, 
id it is known that the Judgment of Christ concerning 
churches, na unto their good or bad spiritual estate, is oft- 
timos very distant from their own concerning themselves. 
It was not only fur their sakes, but a* a warning unto all 
others in hU ages, that it is entered on an ererlastiug record, 
that when the churcli of Laodicea judj^d and declared with- 
out hesitation, that she was ' rich, increased in goods, 
and wanted nothing;' the Lord Christ, the Amen, the 'true 
and faitlifiil witness/ pronoiuicetU her * poor^ and blind, and 
wretched, and niiscrahlc." That things at this day arc in no 
better a condition in many, in most churclies in the world, 
IB too endcnt to be denied >vith any pretence of rever- 
ence to the word of God ; and it will be afterward made to 

"Certainly the Ijord Christ may say to the churches and 
nations ainon<; whom liis immn is yet owned in the world, 
what God »aid of old concerning that of the Jews, then his 
only chunrh ; / had pianied thee a noble vitu;, whoiiy a rit/ht 
twd; hmv tfitm art Ihott tunurd into th« degenerate plant of a 
tti/rf vine unto me? Jer. ii- 21. Yea, to most of them, as in 
another pliicc ; How u the faitl\ful city become a harlot ? it 
VMU fttU of judgment , rigkteotuines* lodged in it, Imt now 
imtrderer*. Thy Kthnrr tit t}erotae drosK, t/ig unne mired with 
vtater. Isa. i. *Z\, TZ. The greatness of the evil complained 
of, the secret mystery of its accomplishment, the unrea> 
eonablcnesHj folly, and ingratitude of the fact, the strange- 



4BB THE T1H8 or TBC CKD Or CBAF. m. 

«■■ of tfae ereot, makes tbe complunt to be fiarniod nt» 

a wAtmt of adminboo. Aiul indeed, if a man be aUe 

to eOBsder the nature of Uie eospel, with the benefits am- 

aHOBBated tboein* unto maukuid, be cauuot but be «l»- 

■a^ed to find tbe genenlhr of them to be so soon vary of 

it, and MS rea^ on all octasionB to relinqniah it ; ftr a 

iitaBC 0otT aad bkaipd inunortoUtv are attainable anil; 

ibiirbj. Ki all that tnic freedom, tntnr)nillitT, peace, nd 

bknedasB vhcnof our nature in ibis life is capable, irekf 

■o other nwww oommnnkable onto tbe m>u1s of men. Ia 

bne( wh at e ie i k of adruita^ in anj gradooa CDinnimn» 

lioB bmm God onto us, witJamt wluch ve arc nothing bat tkt 

wtrr want and. most auiIigBant prodnct of sin aud mbwir, it 

it aU ooafiaed unto tbe gospel and tbe contents tben^ 

WWnfac tbe carekwness of men in neg^vctiug of it, tkir 

m ilB rtHmqwAmtat as to its principles and obk 

mxf srcU be expressed as God dutb in tbe isftfi* 

of tbe ■poeCacr of tbe Jewish Cburcb, Jcr. n. 11, 

13: Uatk m mOim etwyrrf Uieir gods which orr frf » 

gt^T Bti m9 peofk iMA ehmped that gUrf >r ^ 

wMA dMi m^pnfit. Be mtmmhed, O ye Aaonw, af Ok 

m^hthmriUf tfrmd: ht ye vof deetUatt, tmth tke t^ 

Yet tb&s is it and do otbcrvisc, as vc shall afVerward ust- 

§mt, Maasv^thBgeaanhtjaftbem that are called Ckmtitw 


~ TW Cbnrch tf Bone Tiotaillf pleads an cxemptuo fa* 
this cbai;^ br nrtae of specia] pmilege. Not w iwoad 
of tftriimn giaoe unto their minds and wilk ^ 
it lad al that bdoogs unto it alwaya in satiap UA 
vbenin slone a compliance vitb tbe fs^ 
; bat sn outward pmilege of indefcctibiUtjr, kcc|>iV 
in tbo state the sospcl requiretb, they know not im. 
t as it vere^ wbe^ar tbcj will or no. 
" But dure is no pwtj or society of men tmdcr ham 
tbe iwUaiaty of msttcr of £net to the 







that cau vith less violeiice unto common raodestjr make nsc 
of tbis preteuce. So when tlie Jews of old were charged by 
the prophets, of apostacy from the law and the obedieuoe 
which it required, with threats of destriictioa for tlicir sins, 
they warded themselves from a cutn-jction of guilt aud four 
of puniahmcut, by an uiireaaouable, yen, outragcoiw confi- 
dence in church privileges, tbea not only appropriated but 
confined unto them, cr^ang out, ' The temple of the Lord, 
The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord arc these;' 
this tlicy thought sufficient to repel the charge of tlic pro- 
phets, to vindicate their imiocency, and aocnre their jjcace. 
The reply of the prophet uuto them will equally serve iu both 
cases; Bekold, ye tmat in lying icords, which rannot pro/it. 
Will ye steal, murd*n; aud mmmit aduiiery, and su