constituted a proper man ; but to infer from this, that the Son
^j/ Gof/, or that the self-existent and independent Jehovah be-
came a man, is evidently too repugnant both to reason and
scripture, I should think, ever to be admitted. Besides, should
ilN*** ^ the advocates for this article be called upon to exhibit^heir be-
lief, that Christ the Son of God became man by taking to him-
self, as well a reasonable soul, as a true body, what could they
produce for this, but mere conjecture, or human authority !
But these questions will probably be evaded by the plea,
which is so often made — that the subjects to which they refer
are too mysterious to be explained or understood. And it is
not to be doubted they are so, as they are stated in the above
articles. But how then, I would ask, can any man consistent-
ly with reason assent to them as Bible truths ? How can
a man solemnly declare, withan enlightened conscience,
that he verily and religiously believes certain doctrines
or propositions to be true, when he does not understand the im-
port of those doctrines, or the terms of those propositions ? I
am constrained to say, though very reluctantly, that I do not
see how this declaration can be made with the approbation of
the understanding-, or consistently with that moral integrity and
truths which ought to govern the christian's conduct. Would
you not censure and condemn a man as highly criminal, who,
before a lawful magistrate, should unreservedly swear to the
truth of a certain written instrument, when at the same time he
knew not the import or meaning of a very important and the
inost essential part of that instrument ? But is it less censura-
ble in a man to declare in the most solemn manner, appealing^
to God to witness his sincerity, that he believes in the truth of
an article, or articles of faith, when he neither knows nor pre-
tends to know their import or meaning ! There is that in this
transnction, which to me appears not only unjustifiable but ex-
ceedingly repulsive, *
But suppose that these articles should be as untrue as they
are inexplicable, would not assent to them in this case, be still
47
mor^ nnjustifiable^repulsive ? This I presume you will admit.
And is it not possible they are untrue ? This you will not de-
ny, unless you should stand forth the champion for the cause of
human infallibility, which I think you will not do. But that
these articles are not true^ is not barely possible^ but in the
highest degree probable. Many of the greatest of men, and the
best of christians have, in all ages of the christian era, believed
them to be untrue ; nor can any satisfactory evidence be produc-
ed that they were believed to be true by any individual in the
the christian church, till th^ fourth century^ when the church
had become corrupt and enflamed by angry passions, and con-
vulsed by unhallowed and violent controversy. Then, indeed,
articles of faith analagous to these were invented^ embraced,
patronized and enforced as tests of orthodoxy and terms of
christian communion. And as such tests, they have existed
in the church of Rome for more than a thousand years. Dur-
ing this long lapse of time, these articles have been considered
2k^& fundamental^ by the great body oihereticks in the christian
church, fef the Roman Catholic church is to be considered as
heritical.
I mention these things, my dear Sir, not as an argument fur-
nishing conclusive evidence that the articles under consideration
are not true ; but as an argument which is, at least, equally for-
cible against the truth of these articles, as the argument which
is often urged by their advocates in favor of their truth. It is
not unfrequently said that these articles are believed to be true
by the great body of orthodox chrsitains. Hence it seems to
be inferred as a thing not to be questioned, that the articles are
and must be true. This kind of reasoning may have weight and
be conclusive with the ignorant and the inconsiderate. But
men of ealightened and reflecting minds will not fail to hold it
mproper estimation* And who that possesses any discernment
but must see, that if, besause orthodox christians believe in
these articles, they must be tnie^ they must ^\so be U7itrue,ii ht -
lieved by an equal number of hereticks ; and if believed by a
much greater number of hereticks, they must, if possible, be
much more than untrue !
But after all, the inspired scriptures are to be acknowledged
as the only standard by which the truth or error of these arti-
cles is to be tested. If these scriptures teach us that there are
" three persons in the Godhead," we are bound to believe the
doctrine, however difficult it may be to understand it. But if
they always speak of God, as one individual person or being,
we are bound to believe this doctrine, and it would be wrong
to believe otherwise. What then saith the scriptures on this
subject I' Do they not expressly and invar'ably speak of the
self-existent God as one person or beings and but one P This, it
48
should seem cannot reaso7iablif be questioned. Nor can it rea-
sonably be denied that they never say that God is three persons
or th\t there are three persons in the Godhead, And it is con-
fidentlr believed that they never speak a language, which im-
plies this^ Is it not unsafe then, is it not unjustifiable — is it not
criminally adding to the scriptures, to believe and say that they
teach this mysterious and uninttlligible doctrine."
If the scriptures teach us that *' Christ, the Son of God,"
is the same being or God, with him who is his Father, or
equal to him in power and glory, we are bound also to believe
this doctrine, however above our reason, or however difficult
to be understood. But if, on the contrary, the scriptures teach
us, in the most unequivocal manner, that Jesus Christ is a
person or being distinct from the one God, his Father ; that
he is the one mediator between this one God and men ; that
he is the advocate xvith this one God for men ; that he is be-
gotten of the Father, and dependent on the Father for his
titles, his dignities, and for the power by which he perform-
ed his wonderful works ; that his Father is greater Jthan he,i
and that he is hereafter to give up the kingdom committed to
him^ to his Father, that God might be all in all. If the Bible
gives us this represeniation of Jesus Christ, as it certainly
does ; and if it says nothing contradictory to this representa-
tion, and it is bt-lieved it does not^ then to believe that he is
either the same being with his Father, or that he is equal
in power and glory to his Father, cannot be conformable to
truth*
If the scriptures teach us that the Holy Spirit is a person,
and a person equal to God in power and glory, we are, without
hesitation, to admit the truth of this doctrine. But, if instead
of this, they speak of the Holy Ghost or Spirit as a thing, and
not as a person^ unless in a figurative sense, then it must be a
great error to believe that he is a person. But it is a fact
which cannot reasonably be controverted, and which I think
no one who has attended to the subject will deny, that Holy
Ghost, or Holy Spirit is of the same import, as used by the
inspired writers, with the breath of God, poxver of God, or the
emenation of his eneogetic fulness; that Spirit of God is al-
ways an impersonal or neuter noun ; that no expressions of
mutual affection occur in the scriptures betxveen God and the
Holy Spirit, as between God and his So7i, or between different
persons, and that ?Z(? ascriptions of praise or doxoloi^ies are offer-
ed to the Holy Spirit, These things, duly considered, exhibit
very strong evidence that the Holy Ghost or Spirit is not a
person, in any other, than an improper or fgurative sense.
If it be true that Christ, the Son of God, became man by
taking to himself not only a true body, but a reasonable soul;
49
and if the scriptures teach this doctrine, it is undoubtedly-
worthy of all acceptation. But if the scriptures teach us only^
that a body was prepared for him, that he partook Q>i fiesh and
bloody that he was made Jiesh^ then it cannot be our duty, nor
can it be justifiable to believe, that he took to himself a rea-
sonable soul. Where the evidence is to be found that Jesus
Christ took to himself a human soul, in the reign of Augustus
Caesar, or that he possesses such a soul, or that he became, or
was properly a man^ \ know not. If evidence of this exists,
it is to bci found, I should presume, in such passages as speak
of him as a 7nan^ and as the Son of man. But do these pas-
sages teach, that he was really a man like other men, sin only
excepted .'' If so, how are we to account for it that as 7nan^ he
should be represented as God'^s fellow f And that as Son of
man he should be Lord of the Sabbath and of angels ; have
power to forgive sins, and have judgment committed to him
to judge the world ! What higher names, and dignities, and
offices are ascribed to Christ in the Bible as Son of God^ than
are ascribed to him as Son of man or man ? But are these
things to be ascribed to a mere man^ whose existence com-
menced but about eighteen centuries past ? What evidence
have we then that Christ is such a man t Or that such a man
constitutes any part of his character^ or that he possesses a
higher character than is ascribed to him as 7nan P If Christ as
7nan is God'*s fellow^ does he, or can he possess a higher char-
acter than this, considered as the So?i of God? But that Christ,
whether he be spoken of as Son of God, or as man, or as Son
of man, existed before Abraham and before the creation of the
-world; that he was the ag^nt by^ or through whom the Su-
preme Father made the worlds, and that he is the brightness
of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person, are
truths which seem very clearly taught in the scripUires of truth.
And in these same scriptures we are taught, and I should think
with sufficient clearness, what we are to believe concerning the
Father^ Son, and Holy Spirit, And can we, my dear Sir, at-
tentively read these scriptures, without finding clear and satis-
factory evidence, that the Father is the one only living and true
God, self-existent and independent ; that the Son is a person or
being distinct from the Father, and dependent on the Father^
but possessing a character and dignity unspeakably and iticon-
ceivably greater than that of a mere man, or even the highest
archangel, ^c, ; that the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the
breath, the power, and if I may so speak, the fulness of God!
This seems to be the intelligible and plain account which the
scriptures give of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that
this is the view which orthodox christians generally have of the
subject, or would have of the subject, were they suitably to
7
50
examine the scriptures, scarcely admits of a doubt. And yet
this intelligible, and plain, and scriptural statement of the sub-
ject must be obscured by words without knowledge, and by
words, which it is probable in the highest degree, are very far
from being the words of truth and soberness. And these
words of human invention, must be formed into a creed. Nor
is this all; the creed must be set up as a test or standard of
orthodoxy, and must be assented to as a term indispensably
necessary tg christian communion ! In order to be accounted
" upright and faithful" christians, we are to assent, not to the
form of sound words, which the scriptures furnish ; not to
" wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Josus Christ,"
but to '' words whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil sus-
misings, and perverse disp&tings ; words which I should think
no man would venture to say are words of infallible truth, but
which many believe, and not without reason, are words preg-
nant with bewildering, hurtful, and even dangerous error.
That christians who have the Bible in their hands, who are
capable of reading and judging for themselves, and who pro-
fess attachment to this blessed book, as the standard of their
faith ; that christians of this description should, in so many
' instances, assent to this creed as the truth of God, when, at
the same time, they acknowledge it to be an inexplicable, and
of course, an unintelligible mystery, is a subject both of sur^
prise and regret. That the sentiment should be advanced and
advocated, that the belief of this unintelligible and erroneous
cr^edis necessary to salvation, is a subject of greater surprise
and regret ; and that they, who are not allowed to have do-
minion over the faith of others, should oblige their fellow
christians to assent to this creed, in order to their admission
to the special ordinances and privileges of the gospel, is a
subject about which 1 know not how suitably to express myself.
My dear sir, these things ought not so to be ; and it is as
ardently hoped, that they will not, for a great length of time,
continue in this train. Indications of drvine providence, that
the inspired scriptures will, ere long, have free course, run and
be glorified, are now to be seen. This is encouraging, as these
indications will no sooner prove a happy reality, than human
creeds and middle walls of partition will be no more ; Jews
and Samaritans^ sacrificing their mutual enmities on the altar
of the gospel of peace, will maintain with each other the most
friendly and benevolent intercourse ; the unhallowed bicker- ^
ings and contentions between christians of different sects and
denominations, will give place to mutual harmony and love ;
none will be of Paul^ of Apollos, of Cephas^ but all will be of
Christ ; wars, both civil and religious, will cease from the ends
of the earth ; the family of man will be united in one great and
51
friendly family, and nothing will hurt or destroy in all God's
holy mountain. Animating prospect ! soon may it be convert-
ed into a joyful reality.
My opponent (p. 19) objests to " a creed drawn up wholly
in texts of scripture," on the consideration that it '* affords
every one an opportunity to assent to it in the sense in which
he understands the passages, of which it is composed." And
this, it seems, is an evil too great and alarming to be tolerated !
It must be provided against, and by no means suffered to ex-
ist ! But how is the evil to be prevented ? By requiring assent
to the passages in a sense, in which the party assenting does
7iot understand them ! This it seems is the " grand expedient"
to be used ! But in what sense is the person assenting to un-
derstand them ? In the definite sense affixed to them by Mr. A ?
But how is he to accord his assent to these passages, in a sense
in which he neither does nor can understand them^ or which is
the same thing, in a sense in which he neither does nor can as-
sent to them P Let it however be supposed that this seemingly
insuperable difficulty may be removed ; yet I desire to know
in what sense this same definite meaning' is to be assented lo.
If in the sense in which the person assenting understands it, I
see not but " Arius, Socinius, Swedenborg, and even Jemima,
would readily assent to it." But if this definite sense must be
understood conformably to the sense of the dcfiner, hard in-
deed must be the case of those who are required to assent to
it, unless they are to be understood as assenting to, or acknow-
ledging it, as a sense very indejinite and erroneous I No other
assent I am persuaded could, consistently with truth, be given
to the gentleman's definite meaning of scripture, if we may be
allowed to judge from the specimen he has given.
A creed drawn up wholly in texts of scripture, the gentle-
man adds, same page, " opens v/ide the door of the church to
the grossest hereticks, not to creep in, but to come in openlj^
under the name of orthodox good christians." This observa-
tion I will not say is so " obscure and crooked" that *^ it ex-
ceeds the ability of an archangel to make it luminous orstraight,"
yet I am verv willing to say that it exceeds my ability. How
the grossest Acre-fic/^*, by means of a scriptural creed, or by any
other means, can come openly into the church, under the name
or guise of orthodox good christians^ is utterly beyond my com-
prehension. That such hereticks might some how or other
creep into the church, is conceivable ; ancT I can hardly con-
ceive of a better expedient by which they might effect it, than
a definite meaning of a scriptural creed, which is grossly inde-
finite and heretical. But let them be properly tested by a scrip-
tural creed, '' and this fine stratagem will be entirely frustrat-
ed." If, however, a scriptural creed cannot be available to the
' n
52
exclusion of these same gross hereticks from the pale of the
church, let them come in. But are we, my dear sir, to hold the
sacred scriptures in so low and degradmg estimation, as to ad-
mit that they " open wide the door of the church to the gross-
est hereticks !"
If others hold them in this estimation, I 2Lm persuaded better
things of you, and will hope better things of them ; yet I can-
not but express deep regret, mingled with astonishment, that
anif man bearing the christian name, should seem to estimate
these scriptures, as a bulwark against the inundation of heresy,
not only at a much lower rate than particular definite mean-
ings of them, but as opening wide the fiood gates to this perni-
cious inundation !
In page 20, my opponent observes, " If no definite meaning
is to be affixed to the language of your scripture creed, one for
an English church might as well be drawn up in an Hottentot
translation as any other." — But by whom is this definite mean-
ing to be affixed ? By those who are to assent to the creed ?
According to this gentleman's views, such liberty or indul-
gence is perfectly inadmissible ; for if '' every one has an op-
porturity to assent to it in the sense in which he understands
the passages of which it is composed, it opens wide the door
of the church to the greatest hereticks." But this same defi-
nite meaning must be affixed to the scriptural creed, it should
seem, by some one who " sits in Moses' seat," whether he had
been brought up at the feet of Gamaliel or not, or whether he
is acquainted or unacquainted with the original of the scrip-
tures, or whether he is competent to the writing of his own
language with grammatical precision and logical correctness.
Since then this definite meaning must be affixed to the " scrip-
ture-creed," by some one who has, or who claims a right tode
it^ upon whom, but upon Mr. A. will this business be likely
to devolve ? for who has a better right than this gentleman to
affix definite meanings to scripture passages, and who, in his
own estimation, is better qualified for this important business ?
It is however much to be regretted that a scriptural creed with-
out this gentleman's meaning affixed to it, would be no better
than a creed " drawn up in an Hottentot translation !" But is
it indeed true that the scriptures are no more intelligible to
christians, generally, than the language of Hottentots ! Will
christians in this enlightened age suffer the scriptures thus to
be vilified^ and their ouon understandings to be treated with
contempt J Will they tamely submit to these things lest they
should be branded with th« epithet oi hereticks and put out of
the synagogue / If such be the ascendency of orthodox arro-
gance and superstition over rhe understandings, the consciences
and liberty of christians of a particular description, " wo worth
53
the day !" Their situation is to be commiserated ; and the
yoke, if possible, to be broken fromtheir necks, and their chris-
tian liberties to be asserted."
In the same page my opponent further observes, that " if
mere words without ideas is the thing to be believed, the beads
of the Catholic are as good a creed as any other." — This is un-
doubtedly true, and a truth which it is presumed, no man does,
or even did dispute. For what purpose, th^n, did the gentle-
man make the remark ? Was it for the purpose of making the
impression on the mind of his reader, that words^ and particu-
larly the words of scriptures are xvithoiit meaning'^ until he af-
fixes to them a dejimte meaning f Or was it meant as an insin-
uation that his opponents affix no vieamng to scriptural words,
or that in assenting to those words nothing is intended but an
assent to " mere words without ideas." — If he intended neither
of these things, it is difficult to conceive what could have been
his intention ; but if he intended either^ he has not failed to ex-
hibit himself in a point of lights in which no one, who is not
blind, can i2a\ pretty clearly to see him*
In ti»e same page Mr. A. introduces the opposers of creeds [hu-
man creeds] as saying that their object is most noble and benevolent'*
— thai " instead of anathematizing each other," they " wish to unite
discordant tongues in hosannas to the one God and Saviour in the
same temple." — And this; he observes, is " an object devoutly to be
wished.'* " But,** he adds, " do you imagine it is to be effected by
the wisdom of this world ?" — That discordant tongues might be hap-
pily united, as well in hosannas to the Saviour ^^ lo the 07ie God^** is,
as the gentleman observes, an object devoutly to be wished ; but that
this desirable event is not likely to take place through the insrumen-
tality of ivorldly wisdom cannot reasonably be questioried. Is it not
the part of true nvisdom^ then, to abandon human creeds or ariicies of
faith, which are the device or invention of worldly wisdom, for effec-
tuating this wished for event, and to substitute the Bible in theif
room, as the only stmidard of christian faith and union ? Could we
but persuade discordant tongues to use the pure words of this in-
spired book, and discordant hearts to embrace its pure doctrines, the
object so much desired would be happily accomplished. Nor can
any expedient be devised, it is presumed, so likely as this, to effect
the important object.
" How," enquires my opponent, in the same page, " can he that
deems the Saviour a mere creature, and he that adores him as God
over all, blessed for ever, worship in the same assen^bly ! Sup-
pose he that leads in the solemnities addresses the Lord Jesus as the
Jehovah of Hosts, can the Socinian join in thib idolatry "? If he who
believes the Saviour, to be God over all, and he who believes him to
be a mere creature, should find it difficult harmoniously to " worsliip
in the same assembly ;" yet perhaps this difficulty is not an nnsufier^
able one, I humbly conceive that it is not. Indt-ed there are n.any
christian societies where religious worship is maiiitaincd in the same
assembly, although by many of the worshippers the Saviour is con-*
sidered both as a mere creature^ and as God over ell in the highest
and mostabsolute sense. Is not this the case in sdl real Trinitarian
assemblies ? If I understand them, all real Trinitaiians believe that
Jesus Christ the Saviour is a mere man like other men, sin only ex-
cepted, and ihat he never actually existed till the reign of the Ro-
man Emperor, Augustus Caesar ; and yet they profess to believe
that he is God over all, even self-existent and hidependent. Now
since these christians do worship in the same assembly, it requires
no reasoning to show that they can do it. Nor do I see but "• the So-
cinian can join in this idolatry.'* Why should he not I for, with the
Trinitarian, he believes that "the Saviour is a mere creature." and,
with the Trinitarian, he believes there is but one supreme and inde-
pendent God. He believes also, with the Trinitarian, that this one
God is united, and so intimately with the man Christ Jesus, as to ena-
ble him to perform miracles and to do all his wonderful works.
Such is the unity of sentiment between Trinitarian and Socinian
christians, respecting the one God, and the one Lord Jesus Christ,
that they might well harmonize, I should think, in worshipping in
the same assembly. And this union between them in sei timent
would, I am persuaded be very apfiarent^ were " the doting about
questions and the strife of words" but once abandoned, and their
seemingly discordant opinions, fairly analysed. Their difference in
opinion, it is confidently believed, relates much more to words than
to things, I would ask my opponent then, " how can they not wor-
ship in the same assembly ?" If " he who leads in the solemnities
addresses the Lord Jesus as the Jehovah oi" Hosts," or as the self-ex-
istent God, neither will the Socinian nor the Trinitarian consider him
as addressing a Twerif crea/Mre ; but as addressing the one supreme