posable, how unequal and disproportional, how inadequate and unlike himself must such a Deity be! To grasp the terraqueous globe with a human hand, to make a tulip-cup contain the ocean, to gather all the light of the universe into one human eye, to hide the sun in a snuff-box, are the mighty projects of children's fancies. Is it possible, requisitions similar to these should proceed from the only wise God! There is, we have reason to believe, a certain portion of spirit, if I may be allowed to speak so, that constitutes a human soul; there are infinitely different degrees of capability imparted by the Creator to the souls of mankind; and there is a certain ratio by necessity of nature, between each degree of intelligence and a given number of ideas, as there is between a cup capable of containing a given quantity, and a quantity of matter capable of being contained in it. In certain cases it might serve my interest could the palm of my hand contain a hogshead: but in general my interest is better served by an inability to contain so much. We apply these certain principles to revelation, and we say, God hath given in the Christian religion an infinite multitude of ideas; as in nature he hath created an infinite multitude of objects. These objects are diversified without end, they are of various sizes, colours, and shapes, and they are capable of innumerable motions, productive of multifarious effects, and all placed in various degrees of perspicuity; objects of thought in the Christian religion are exactly similar; there is no end of their variety; God and all his perfections, man and all his operations, the being and employment of superior holy spirits, the existence and dispositions of fallen spirits, the creation and government of the whole world of matter, and that of spirit, the influences of God and the obligations of men, the dissolution of the universe, a resurrection, a jugment, a heaven, and a hell, all these, placed in various degrees of perspicuity, are exhibited in religion to the contemplation of intelligent creatures. The creatures, who are required to contemplate these objects, have various degrees of contemplative ability; and their duty, and consequently their virtue, which is nothing else but a performance of duty, consists in applying all their ability to understand as many of these objects, that is, to form as many ideas of them, as are apportioned to their own degree. So many objects they are capable of seeing, so many objects it is their duty to see. So much of each object they are capable of comprehending, so much of each object it is their duty to comprehend. So many emotions they are capable of exercising, so many emotions it is their duty to exercise. So many acts of devotion they can perform, so many Almighty God will reward them for performing, or punish them for neglecting. This I call the doctrine of religious proportion. This I have a right to expect to find in a divine revelation, and this I find in the most splendid manner in Christianity, as it lies in the Bible, as it was in the first churches, and as it is in some modern communities. I wish I could exchange the word some for all. This doctrine of proportion would unroost every human creed in the world, at least it would annihilate the imposition of any. Instead of making one creed for a whole nation, which, by the way, provides for only one nation, and consigns over the rest of the world to the destroyer of mankind; instead of doing so, there should be as many creeds as creatures; and instead of affirming, the belief of three hundred propositions is essential to the felicity of every man in both worlds, we ought to affirm, the belief of half a proposition is essential to the salvation of Mary, and the belief of a whole one to that of John, the belief of six propositions, or, more properly the examination of six propositions, is essential to the salvation of the reverend Edward, and the examination of sixty to that of the right reverend Richard; for, if I can prove, one has sixty degrees of capacity, another six, and another one, I can easily prove, it would be unjust to require the same exercises of all; and a champion ascribing such injustice to God would be no formidable adversary for the pompousness of his challenge, or the caparisons of his horse: his very sword could not conquer, though it might affright from the field. The world and revelation, both the work of the same God, are both constructed on the same principles; and were the book of scripture like that of nature laid open to universal inspection, were all ideas of temporal rewards and punishments removed from the study of it, that would come to pass in the moral world, which has actually happened in the world of human science, each capacity would find its own object, and take its own quantum. Newtons will find stars without penalties, Miltons will be poets, and Lardners Christians without rewards. Calvins will contemplate the decrees of God, and Baxters will try to assort them with the spontaneous volitions of men; all, like the celestial bodies, will roll on in the quiet majesty of simple proportion, each in his proper sphere shining to the glory of God the Creator. But alas! We have not so learned Christ! Were this doctrine of proportion allowed, three consequences would follow. First, Subscription to human creeds, with all their appendages, both penal and pompous, would roll back into the turbulent ocean, the Sea I mean, from whence they came; the Bible would remain a placid emanation of wisdom from God; and the belief of it a sufficient test of the obedience of his people. Secondly, Christians would be freed from the inhuman necessity of execrating one another, and by placing Christianity in believing in Christ, and not in believing in one another, they would rid revelation of those intolerable abuses, which are fountains of sorrow to Christians, and sources of arguments to infidels. Thirdly, Opportunity would be given to believers in Christ to exercise those dispositions, which the present disproportional division of this common benefit obliges them to suppress, or conceal. O cruel theology, that makes it a crime to do what I have neither a right nor a power to leave undone! I call perfection a third necessary character 2 1 of a Divine revelation. Every production of an intelligent being bears the characters of the intelligence that produced it, for as the man is, so is his strength, Judg. viii. 21. A weak genius produces a work imperfect and weak like itself. A wise, good being, produces a work wise and good, and, if his power be equal to his wisdom and goodness, his work will resemble himself, and such a degree of wisdom, animated by an equal degree of goodness, and assisted by an equal degree of power, will produce a work equally wise, equally beneficial, descends to propose this noble end, of assimila- equally effectual. The same degrees of good-gospel proposes to assimilate all to God: but ness and power accompanied with only half the =degree of wisdom, will produce a work as remarkable for a deficiency of skill as for a redundancy of efficiency and benevolence. Thus the flexibility of the hand may be known by the writing; the power of penetrating, and combining in the mind of the physician, may be known by the feelings of the patient, who has taken his prescription: and, by parity of reason, the uniform perfections of an invisible God may be known by the uniform perfection of his productions. I perceive, I must not launch into this wide ocean of the doctrine of perfection, and I will confine myself to three characters of imperfection, which may serve to explain my meaning. Proposing to obtain a great end without the use of proper means-the employing of great means to obtain no valuable end-and the destroying of the end by the use of the means employed to obtain it, are three characters of imperfection rarely found in frail intelligent agents; and certainly they can never be attributed to the Great Supreme. A violation of the doctrine of analogy would argue God an unjust being; and a violation of that of proportion would prove him an unkind being; and a violation of this of perfection would argue him a being void of wisdom. Were we to suppose him capable of proposing plans impossible to be executed, and then punishing his creatures for not executing them, we should attribute to the best of beings the most odious dispositions of the most infamous of mankind. Heaven forbid the thought! The first character of imperfection is proposing to obtain a great end without the use of To propose a noble end argues proper means. a fund of goodness: but not to propose proper means to obtain it argues a defect of wisdom. Christianity proposes the noble end of assimilating man to God! and it employs proper means of obtaining this end. God is an intelligent being, happy in a perfection of wisdom; the gospel assimilates the felicity of human intelligences to that of the Deity by communicating the ideas of God on certain articles to men. God is a bountiful being, happy in a perfection of goodness; the gospel assimilates the felicity of man to that of God by communicating certain benevolent dispositions to its disciples similar to the communicative excellencies of God. God is an operative being, happy in the display of exterior works beneficial to his creatures; the gospel felicitates man by directing and enabling him to perform certain works beneficent to his follow-creatures. God con. it proposes such an assimilation, or, I may say, such a degree of moral excellence, as the nature of each can bear, and it directs to means so proper to obtain this end, and renders these directions so extremely plain, that the perfection of the designer shines with the utmost glory. I have sometimes imagined a Pagan ship's crew in a vessel under sail in the wide ocean; I have supposed not one soul aboard ever to have heard one word of Christianity; I have imagined a bird dropping a New Testament written in the language of the mariners on the upper deck; I have imagined a fund of uneducated, unsophisticated good sense in this company, and I have required of this little world answers to two questions; first, what end does this book propose? the answer is, this book "was written, that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing we might have life through his name," John xx. 31. I ask secondly, what means does this book authorize a foremast man, who believes, to employ to the rest of the crew to induce them to believe, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing, they also with the foremast man, may have eternal felicity I dare not answer this through his name? question but I dare venture to guess, should this foremast man conceal the book from any of the crew, he would be unlike the God, who gave it to all; or should he oblige the cabin-boy to admit his explication of the book, he would be unlike the God, who requires the boy to explain it to himself; and should he require the captain to enforce his explication by penalties, the captain ought to reprove his folly for counteracting the end of the book, the felicity of all the mariners; for turning a message of peace into an engine of faction; for employing means inadequate to the end; and so for erasing that character of perfection, which the heavenly donor gave it. A second character of imperfection is the employing of great means to obtain no valuable end. Whatever end the author of Christianity had in view, it is beyond a doubt, he hath employed great means to effect it. To use the language of a prophet, he hath "shaken the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land," Hag. ii. 6, 7. When the desire of all nations came, universal nature felt his approach, and preternatural displays of wisdom, power, and goodness, have ever attended his steps. The most valuable ends were answered by his coming. Conviction followed his preaching; and truths, till then shut up in the counsels of God, were actually put into the possession of finite minds. A general manumission followed his meritorious death, and the earth resounded with the praises of a spiritual deliverer, who had set the sons of bondage free. The laws of his empire were published, and all his subjects were happy in obeying them. "In his days the righteous flourished," and on his plan, 'abundance of peace would have continued as long as the moon endured,' Ps. lxxii. 7. Plenty of instruction, liberty to examine it, and peace in obeying it, these were ends worthy of the great means used to obtain them. Let us for a moment suppose a subversion of the seventy-second psalm, from whence I have borrowed these ideas; let us imagine 'the kings of Tarshish and of the isles bringing presents,' not to express their homage to Christ: but to purchase that dominion over the consciences of mankind, which belongs to Jesus Christ; let us suppose the boundless wisdom of the gospel, and the innumerable ideas of inspired men concerning it, shrivelled up into the narrow compass of one human creed; let us suppose liberty of thought taken away; and the peace of the world interrupted by the introduction and support of bold usurpations, dry ceremonies, cant phrases, and puerile inventions; in this supposed case, the history of great means remains, the worthy ends to be answered by them are taken away, and they, who should thus deprive mankind of the end of the sacred code would charge themselves with the necessary obligation of accounting for this character of imperfection. Ye prophets, and apostles! ye ambassadors of Christ! "How do ye say, we are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo! certainly in vain made he it, the pen of the scribes is in vain!" Jer. viii. 8. Precarious wisdom that must not be questioned! useless books, which must not be examined! vain legislation, that either cannot be obeyed, or ruins him who obeys it. All the ends, that can be obtained by human modifications of divine revelation, can never compensate for the loss of that dignity, which the perfection of the system, as God gave it, acquires to him; nor can it indemnify man for the loss of that spontaniety, which is the essence of every effort, that merits the name of human, and without which virtue itself is nothing but a name. Must we destroy the man to make the Christian! What is there in a scholastic honour, what in an ecclesiastical emolument, what in an archiepiscopal throne, to indemnify for these losses! Jesus Christ gave his life a ransom for men, not to empower them to enjoy these momentary distinctions; these are far inferior to the noble ends of his coming: the honour of God and the gospel at large; the disinterested exercise of mental abilities, assimilating the free-born soul to its benevolent God; a copartnership with Christ in promoting the universal felicity of all mankind; these, these are ends of religion worthy of the blood of Jesus, and de serving the sacrifice of whatever is called great among men. Thirdly, The destruction of the end by the use of the means employed to obtain it, is another character of imperfection. St. Paul calls Christianity unity, Eph. iv. 3, &c. He denominates it the unity of the Spirit, on account of its author, object, and end. God the Supreme Spirit, is the author of it, the spirits, or souls of men are the object, and the spirituality of human souls, that is, the perfection of which finite spirits are capable, is the end of it. The gospel proposes the reunion of men divided by sin, first to God, and then to one another, and, in order to effect it, reveals a religion, which teaches one God, one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, one rule of faith, one object of hope, Tim. ii. 5. and, lest we should imagine this revelation to admit of no variety, we are told, Grace is given to every one according to the proportional measure of the gift of Christianity, Each believer is therefore exhorted to speak the truth in love, to walk with all lowliness, meekness and long suffering, and to forbear another in love. Here is a character of perfection, for these means employed to unite mankind are productive of union, the end of the means. Should men take up the gospel in this simplicity; and, accommodating it to their own imaginary superior wisdom, or to their own secular purposes; should they explain this union so as to suit their designs, and employ means to produce it; and should they denominate their system Christianity, it would certainly be, in spite of its name, a Christianity marked with the imperfection of its authors; for in the Christian religion, in the thing itself, and not in its appellation, shines the glorious character of perfection. The Christian religion unites mankind. By what common bond does it propose to do so? By love. This is a bond of perfectness, a most perfect bond. This is practicable, and productive of every desirable end, and the more we study human nature, the more fully shall we be convinced, that we cannot imagine any religion to do more, nor need we desire more, for this answers every end of being religious. Had Jesus Christ formed his church on a sentimental plan, he must have employed many means, which he has not employed, and he must have omitted many directions, which he has given. One of his means of uniting man. kind is contained in this direction, Search the scriptures, and call no man your master upon earth; that is to say, exercise your very different abilities, assisted by very different degrees of aid, in periods of very different duration, and form your own notions of the doctrines contained in the scriptures. Is not this injunction destructive of a sentimental union? Place ten thousand spectators in several circles around a statue erected on a spacious plain, bid some look at it through magnifying glasses, others through common spectacles, some with keen naked eyes, others with weak diseased eyes, each on a point of each circle different from 1 that where another stands, and all receiving the picture of the object in the eye by different reflections and refractions of the rays of light, and say, will not a command to look destroy the idea of sentimental union; and, if the establishment of an exact union of sentiment be the end, will not looking, the mean appointed to obtain it, actually destroy it, and would not such a projector of uniformity mark his system with imperfection? Had Jesus Christ formed his Church on the plan of a ceremonial union, or on that of a professional union, it is easy to see, the same reasoning might be applied, the laws of such a legislator would counteract and destroy one another, and a system so unconnected would discover the imperfection of its author, and provide for the ruin of itself. The These principles being allowed, we proceed to examine the doctrines of Christianity, as they are presented to an inquisitive man, entirely at liberty to choose his religion, by our different churches in their several creeds. The church of Rome lays before me the decisions of the council of Trent; the Lutheran church the confession of Augsburg: one nation gives me one account of Christianity, another a different account of it, a third contradicts the other two, and no two creeds agree. difference of these systems obliges me to allow, they could not all proceed from any one person, and much less could they all proceed from such a person, as all Christians affirm Jesus Christ to be. I am driven, then, to examine his account of his own religion contained in the allowed standard book, to which they all appeal, and here I find, or think I find, a right of reduction, that removes all those suspicions, which variety in human creeds had excited in my mind concerning the truth of Christianity. The doctrines of Christianity, I presume to guess, according to the usual sense of the phrase, are divisible into two classes. The first contains the principal truths, the pure genuine theology of Jesus Christ, essential to the system, and in which all Christians in our various communities agree. The other class consists of those less important propositions, which are meant to serve as explications of the principal truths. The first is the matter of our holy religion, the last is our conception of the manner of its operation. In the first we all agree, in the last our benevolent religion, constructed by principles of analogy, proportion, and perfection, both enjoins and empow ers us to agree to differ. The first is the light of the world, the last our sentiments on its nature, or our distribution of its effects. In general each church calls its own creed a system of Christianity, a body of Christian doctrine, and perhaps not improperly: but then each divine ought to distinguish that part of his system, which is pure revelation, and so stands confessedly the doctrine of Jesus Christ, from that other part, which is human explication, and so may be either true or false, clear or obscure, presumptive or demonstrative, according to the abilities of the explainer, F who compiled the creed. Without this dise tinction, we may incorporate all our opinions with the infallible revelations of Heaven, we may imagine each article of our belief essential to Christianity itself, we may subjoin a human codicil to a divine testament, and attribute equal authenticity to both, we may account a proposition confirmed by a synodical seal as fully authenticated as a truth confirmed by an apostolical miracle, and so we may bring ourselves to rank a conscientious disciple of Christ, who denies the necessity of episcopal ordination, with a brazen disciple of the devil, who denies the truth of revelation, and pretends to doubt the being of a God. But here, I feel again the force of that observation, with which this preface begins. How few, comparatively, will allow, that such a reduction of a large system to a very small number of clear, indisputable, essential first principles, will serve the cause of Christianity! How many will pretend to think such a reduction dangerous to thirty-five out of thirty-nine articles of faith! How many will confound a denial of the essentiality (so to speak) of a proposition, with a denial of the truth of it! How many will go further still, and execrate the latitudinarian, who presumes in this manner to subvert Christianity itself! I rejoice in prospect of that "day, when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to his gospel," Rom. ii. 16, when we shall stand not at the tribunal of human prejudices and passions, but at the just bar of a clement God. Here, were I only concerned, I would rest, and my answer to all complainants should be a respectful silence before their oracles of reason and religion: but alas! I have nine children, and my ambition is (if it be not an unpardonable presumption to compare insects with angels,) my ambition is to engage them to treat a spirit of intolerance, as Hamilcar taught Hannibal to treat the old Roman spirit The enthusiastic of universal dominion. Carthaginian parent going to offer a sacrifice to Jupiter for the success of an intended war, took with him his little son Hannibal, then only nine years of age, and eager to accompany his father, led him to the altar, made him lay his little hand on the sacrifice, and swear that he would never be in friendship with the Romans. We may sanctify this thought by transferring it to other objects, and while we sing in the church glory to God in the highest, vow perpetual peace with all mankind, and reject all weapons except those which are spiritual, we may, we must declare war against a spirit of intolerance from generation to generation. Thus Moses wrote "a memorial in a book, rehearsed it in the ears of Joshua, built an altar, called the name of it Jehovah my banner, and said, The Lord hath sworn, that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation," Exod. xvii. 14-16. We are neither going to contrast human creeds with one another, nor with the Bible; we are not going to affirm or deny any propositions contained in them; we only design to prove, that all consist of human explications as well as divine revelation, and consequently that all are not of equal importance, nor ought any to be imposed upon the disciples of Christ, either by those who are not disciples of the Son of God, or by those who are. The subject is delicate and difficult, not through any intricacy in itself, but through a certain infelicity of the times. An error on the one side may be fatal to revelation, by alluring us to sacrifice the pure doctrines of religion to a blind benevolence; and on the other an error may be fatal to religion itself by inducing us to make it a patron of intolerance. We repeat it again, a system of Christian doctrine is the object of Christian liberty; the articles, which compose a human system of Christian doctrine, are divisible into the two classes of doctrines and explications: the first we attribute to Christ, and call Christian doctrines, the last to some of his disciples, and these we call human explications; the first are true, the last may be so; the first execrate intolerance, the last cannot be supported without the spirit of it. I will endeavour to explain my meaning by an example: Every believer of revelation allows the authenticity of this passage of holy Scripture, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life," John iii. 16. If we cast this into propositional form, it will afford as many propositions as it contains ideas. Each idea clearly contained in the text I call an idea of Jesus Christ, a Christian sentiment, a truth of revelation, in a word, a Christian doctrine. Each of these ideas of the text, in forming itself into a proposition, will naturally associate with itself a few other ideas of the expletive kind, these I call secondary ideas, in distinction from the first, which I call primary; or, in plainer style, ideas clearly of the text I name Christian doctrines, or doctrines of Christ, and all the rest I call human explications of these doctrines; they may be Christian, they may not; for I am not sure, that the next idea, which always follows a first in my mind, was the next idea to the first in the mind of Jesus Christ; the first is certainly his, he declares it, the second might be his; but as he silent, I can say nothing certain; where he stops, my infallibility ends, and my uncertain reason begins. The following propositions are evidently in the text, and consequently they are Christian doctrines emanating from the author of Christianity, and pausing to be examined before the intelligent powers of his creatures.-There is an everlasting life, a future state of eternal happiness-the mediation of the only begotten Son of God is necessary to men's enjoyment of eternal happiness-believing in Christ is essential to a participation of eternal felicity every believer in Christ shall have everlasting life-unbelievers shall perish—all the blessings of Christianity originate in God, display his love, and are given to the world. These, methinks, we may venture to call primary ideas of Christianity, genuine truths of revelation: but each doctrine will give occasion to many questions, and although different expositors will agree in the matter of each proposition, they will conjecture very differently concerning the manner of its operation. One disciple of Christ, whom we call Richard, having read this text, having exercised his thoughts on the meaning of it, and having arranged them in the propositional form now mentioned, if he would convince another disciple, whom we name Robert, of the truth of any one of his propositions, would be obliged to unfold his own train of thinking, which consists of an associated concatenation of ideas, some of which are primary ideas of Jesus Christ, and others secondary notions of his own; additions, perhaps, of his wisdom, perhaps of his folly, perhaps of both but all, however, intended to explicate his notion of the text, and to facilitate the evidence of his notion to his brother. Robert admits the proposition, but not exactly in Richard's sense. In this case, we assort ideas, we take what both allow to be the original ideas of our common Lord, and we reckon thus; here are nine ideas in this proposition, numbers one, three, six, nine, genuine, primary ideas of Christ; numbers two, four, five, secondary ideas of Richard; numbers seven, eight, secondary ideas of Robert; the first constitutes a divine doctrine, the last a human explication; the first forms one divine object, the last two human notions of its mode of existence, manner of operation, or something similar: but, be each what it may, it is human explication, and neither synod nor senate can make it more. To No divine will dispute the truth of this proposition, God gave Jesus Christ to believers; for it is demonstrably in the text. this, therefore, Beza and Żanchy, Melancthon and Luther, Calvin and Arminius, Baxter and Crisp, agree, all allowing it a Christian doctrine but each associating with the idea of gift other ideas of time, place, relation, condition, and so on, explains the doctrine so as to contain all his own additional ideas. One class of expositors take the idea of time, and by it explain the proposition. God and believers, says one, are to be considered contemplatively before the creation in the light of Creator and creatures, abstracted from all moral considerations whatever; then God united Christ to his church in the pure mass of creatureship, without the contemplation of Adam's fall. Another affirms, God gave a Saviour to men in design before the existence of creatures: but in full contemplation, however, of the misery induced by the fall. A third says, God gave Christ to believers, not in purpose before the fall: but in promise immediately after it. A fourth adds, God gives Christ to believers on their believing, by putting them in possession of the benefits of Christianity. In all these systems, the ideas of God, Christ, believers, and gift remain, the pure genuine ideas of the text; and the association of time distinguishes and varies the systems. A second class of expositors take the idea of relation, and one affirms, God and believers are to be considered in the relative light of |
