$12 Difficulties in the Scriptural Representations of Christ. will endeavour to explain them in their original purity, according to the uniform declarations of the unadulterated Bible." But this latitude, it will be said, will produce almost as many creeds as there are men. I think, on the contrary, that it will soon terminate in the universal reception of the good word of truth, and lead all men to embrace that holy church, in which there is no spot, nor wrinkle, nor any such thing. Voltaire, notwithstanding his great infidelity, believed that there is one God, one great and good God, the God of all beings, of all worlds, and of all ages and, had he not supposed, without making that inquiry which became him, that the Trinity and some other unfounded doctrines were contained in the Bible; or, had he perceived that the Divine Unity, and that true holiness, &c. contained in the New Testament, were the real doctrines which the Lord Jesus taught, he never could have become an infidel, nor have ridiculed what he did not rightly examine, and therefore did not understand. A NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIAN. I SIR, August 1, 1816. HAVE heard it occasionally remarked, that at one period of the history of the Christian church, it was in agitation, by some synod or council, to place the Virgin Mary as a person of the Trinity, in the room of the Holy Ghost. In referring to the remarks of Theototus, M. Repos. Vol. VI. page 399, I find some confirmation of it, as represented by the Novogorod Idol, and in the censures of such a Trinity by the Arabian Impostor but setting aside such authorities, I should be glad to be informed by your more learned readers, if there be any other and better authority for such an assumption. SIR, IN J. W. August 2, 1816. N this our sad season of logomachy, may I take the liberty of requesting from some of your more polemically given Correspondents, the proper name for a denomination of fellow interrogators with Pilate "What is the truth?" Who, (not more firmly as sured of the existence of the Christ thun of the divinity of his mission), while, on the one hand, sitting at the feet of Jesus and hearing from his own lips that he knew not the precise date of an event which he was yet empowered to predict (Mark xiii. 32); that he might well assume the very title about which so much controversy has arisen, and found his apology for assuming it on the ground that other missionaries of God had in Elohim arrogated a higher one than he did in that of Ben Elohim, John x. 36; that of himself he could do nothing, viii: 54; that if he bare witness of himself his witness were not true, v. 31; that the very words he spake, he spake not of himself, xii. 49, xiv. 10; hearing him, in short, referring every thing he said, and did, and was, as unequivocally, as invariably, as absolutely to that Being whom he called his Father, as any other pious man whom he had taught to address by the same endearing appellation could have done:-then superadding to this unimpeachable testimony the still (if possible) more unambiguous attestations of the Most Highest Himself at the several periods of his baptism, transfiguration and crucifixion, so admirably adapted in kind and in degree to the "beloved Son," in whom of all human kind God deigned to express himself emphatically well pleased," so palpably infra dig. to a Being of an infinitely superior order:-and last and least, recollecting the remarkable incidents of the temptation, when this heavenly personage is accosted by another (whom later ages have almost invested with the character of omniscient) as a "Son of God," who might haply not only be seduced from his allegiance to his Father by such a consideration as the kingdoms of this atom of the universe, yclept our world, but to transfer it, and with it the homage of religious worship, to his seducer, as the donor of them-who, ruminating I say over thus much, and more that might be adduced of a kindred description, regard the Christ in no other light the Son of God than as figuratively so constituted, or at most so miraculously born as no other human being ever was before him. Yet, on the other hand, reading the proem of St. John's Gospel, surprising as they think they do the interpolation of the reporter at the 16th verse of his third chapter, not to mention a multitude of appositions, turns and probable emendations, sufficiently indicative as they hold of the historian's construction of the more Doctrine of Eternal Misery fatul to Christianity. 513 genuine phraseology-looking indeed The Orthodox now would perhaps • look no further than 2 Tim. iii. for a title for our Catechumens, but illi in nos saviant if they will! You will not I hope be so short or severe with an almost conscious semi-proselyte to their heresy, in your Correspondent and Constant Reader, at the general tenour of our Saviour's discourses as edited by that Evangelist, and collating them with the subsequent original letters of the same author: then again turning to the Epistles of St. Paul, observing his repeated classifications at the beginning of them, his closing sentence to the 2d Corinth. his Lord of Glory, his 5th and seq. verses 2d chapter Philippians, in spite even of their unlucky TECUwe-remembering too the exclamation of Thomas, the prayer of Stephen-can scarcely dispossess themselves of something very much like a conviction that these first disciples of their heavenly Master recognized in him (consistently however always as they thought at least, with their most pulpably fundamental doctrine of the unity of their ancestors' Jehovah in the sole person of his God and Father) a 80s pos (apud) HIM their One 05, an homousian the subordinate Logos, an only begotten Son from the beginning, the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, a One Lord by whom are all things, the Associate of a One God of whom are all things, HIS co-eternal but not co-equal image, delegate, minister, representative. of Jesus, or How indeed these excellent men could reconcile some of these doctrines with others; how they could make up their minds to believe (as in the opinion of our inquirers they most unquestionably did, not more unquestionably any one tenet they published) that such a Son of God died, such a Lord of Glory was crucified, in the person how (compatibly with their hypothesis) one of them could dispose of such a Being in the manner he does in the 15th chapter 1st Corinthians, they avow themselves quite incompetent to conjecture. Not less perplexed, aghast rather, (their reason and faith both utterly confounded) do they confess theinselves upon the recollection of the familiarity, the chit chat, the rebuke, the lying on the bosom, the probable concurrence in the opinion that HE was beside himself, of these HIS contemporaries. As willingly do they avow themselves unable to reconcile the argumentation in the 1st chapter of Hebrews with the Scripture on which it professes to be founded, or that in the chapter of the Philippians already quoted, with the antecedently sempiternal claims of such a "Christ Jesus." TE TACE. P.S. And quare against our heretics On what Son of God does St. John suppose the Chief Rulers to have believed, when he expressly states, that though they did believe on him, they had not the consistency to confess him, John xii. 43, on a presens Deus of any kind, or in the anointed Messenger of their One only true God? Could so monstrous a practical faith have ever existed in any human breast? And again, Martha, when she took it for granted HE had no power to bring back her brother from the grave though he might have prevented his going thi ther? Or the Disciples when they all forsook him and fled? SIR, T August 1, 1816. is pleasing to know that there is ligious inquiry, which has for its main one publication connected with reobject the reconciliation of the doctrines of revelation with the conclusions of reason. It appears to be one of the great evils of establishments, that they often operate in the prevention of their members, from speaking fully their convictions, on the most important subjects. Thus we see Paley, when he reviews the popular objections to Christianity, wholly silent about the only weighty objection which existsits future punishments. His situation, I think, must have been the cause of this, for there is nothing in all his writings which shews his belief in lasting or everlasting misery. We see those men who were independent of establishments, Hartley, Priestley, Simpson and others, quite explicit on this great subject. Paley says at the end of his "Natural Theology," that man lives in God's continual presence, and that death resigns him to his merciful disposal. This is language scarcely consistent with the popular doctrine concerning the final destination of mankind. Indeed this is the one fundamental objection to Christianity, for if the popular idea of its punishment be true, every human being must wish it to be false 514 : Scriptural Examination of Original Sin. : There are certain facts with which we are all acquainted that fill us with dismay, if this popular objection be the doctrine of revelation: That the great majority of human beings have not lived up to the acquirements of Christianity That sensuality and selfishness (the true original sin of nature) have generally prevailed That natural evil (of which our native passions and appetites are the greatest beyond all estimation) has universally produced moral evil: That the Scriptures seem to say that there are few that be saved, and if only those be who have completely overcome animal nature, the language of Scripture appears to be correct. Now original strength of human appetites, and the unfavourable circumstances in which men are placed for their innocent gratification, the final lot of mankind becomes a most tremendous question. There is so much misery in this life, that it is a momentous question whether, considering this life alone, it be right for a man to become the father of a human being; but if the popular doctrine concerning futurity be true, no man that exists should in any case or circumstances become a father. This is the one moral duty, which must swallow up every other. And that men become fathers, professing this belief, shews that no one does indeed believe it to be true; for a man believing it true, and becoming a father, is a monster, little better, though not indeed so bad as the God whom he professes to worship. Unprejudiced reason tells us, that although it may be right that the obtaining of eternal felicity should be very difficult, yet that the escape from eternal misery should at least be very easy, if in any case a Creator could be justified in making it possible for any being to involve himself in such a calamity. Besides what is this world and what are its enjoyments? Taken singly and of itself it is what no human being would have on such a condition, and very few would have it upon no other condition, than what their present circumstances impose. It may be proper that very few should be saved, but it never can be just, that any should be damned, if by that be meant any thing more than destruction. A human legislator can only punish, a divine can reward and to an extent more than equal to any difference of character. How can then the popular doctrine stand-and if it be Christianity-how can that religion be defended. All other objections are as dust in the balance, this is first, last, amidst, around and above them all, and I should hope that your publication would ever keep it in its eye, for the time will soon come, that this doctrine must be otherwise explained, or Christianity will be universally discarded. SIR, SENEX. July 30, 1816. A S truth ought to be the sole object of religious as well as philosophical inquiry, men who pretend to be friends to the human race, will not be permitted by those who really are so, to impose their conjectures on the world as so many facts. The art of thinking justly on interesting subjects, especially on religion, is nevertheless generally speaking, but little understood. The multitude are dazzled too much by authority and prejudice, to view with steadiness, or to measure correctly the perfect symmetry of unveiled truth. They are used to think as they have been taught, and believe what they have been told; thus many things which are received, as obvious and essential truths, concerning natural and revealed religion, are certainly no better than vulgar preju dices; often, pernicious errors, as dishonourable to God as they are contradictory to the concurring dictates of reason and revelation. Commonly these errors lie at the root of a system, consequently the data being false, the reasoning from them is sophistry, and its moral tendency often detrimental to the interest of virtue. Such, I am fully convinced, are the popular opinions concerning original sin. In this paper I purpose with your permission to lay before some of the occasional readers of your Miscellany who hold that doctrine, my reasons for rejecting it. Educated as I was in the Established Church, where the Calvinistic articles of that Church were constantly enforced, as well in the domestic circle as from the pulpit, it was natural that till I began to examine for myself, I should receive them as others do, without hesitation. I supposed that they were believed by Scriptural Examination of Original Sin. all people who had any title to the Christian name. Time however convinced me, chiefly by study of the Scriptures, that amongst the rest this doctrine of original sin, was not to be found in revelation. Experience and observation, equally led me to feel, and think, that its tendency was very bad, dishonourable to God, and productive of much evil to men; that it was not merely a doctrine on which Scripture was silent, and that therefore it might be true, but that it was an error which both Scripture and reason condemn. I would advise my friends, who are the subjects of relí gious depression, arising out of this soul-harrowing doctrine, to take the method that succeeded with me: if they can find a better I shall not object to it. My method was this: I took the sacred volume and determined to abide by its dictates whatever they might be; I kept my mind as indifferent as I could to every thing except the decision of truth; I would not admit during the investigation for a moment, that the belief or rejection of this doctrine was of any consequence whatever with respect to my future state, for had interest or fear prevailed while the question was pending, the decision would have been dictated not by reason, but passion. I kept all my thoughts together, as much as possible, upon the one point I was investigating, and I tried to dismiss every thing foreign to it. I had no business with the existence of moral evil, nor with the universal mortality of creatures, nor with the frailties, follies, and imperfections of mankind. I had nothing to do with catechisms, creeds, the opinions or impertinences of fathers, priests or expositors. I cared as little for the mere assertions of those about me on either side: when they quoted texts, I compared them with others, and suffered no hypothetical explanation to contradict plain evidence; I was to see and examine for myself; I prayed to God as a believer in Jesus Christ, for his assistance and blessing, and opened the Bible. I began with the Mosaic account of the creation of man. There I read, Gen. ii. 7, that "the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul," and that he placed him in circumstances suited to 515 his nature. I read of a tree of life, and a tree of knowledge which grew in the garden of Eden, that to the former man had free access, and that from the latter he was prohibited; but I read nothing of the natural immortality of his creature, made of the dust, nor of any powers, either of body or mind, that he possessed in a superior degree over many of his descendants. He appeared to me to be the same frail, fallible and peccable creature in his original state that his posterity have ever been. My reason told me that he could have but few wants, few ideas, very limited knowledge, that his language must have been barren, that he could have no acquaintance with either science or arts, that without a miraculous communication of ideas from the fountain of intelligence, he would have continued in this state of imbecility and ignorance, till he slowly, and by degrees, acquired ideas. I saw that his positive duties were but few, and that as his nature was frail, the test of his obedience was simple. I conceived of him as a youth whose capacity is indeed good, whose passions are strong, whose experience is nothing. His passions prevailed, his reason was vanquished, he took of the forbidden fruit, he sought happiness, more happiness, a higher degree of glory, he fell, and found death; he was told by his Creator the consequence of his disobedience, he was capable of understanding what he was told, but in an evil moment he transgressed. Were a man to be found with an equal simplicity of nature, and placed in the same circumstances, he would doubtless act in the same manner, and precisely the same consequences would follow. Reason weak, passion strong, temptation urgent, the man falls, and the sinner dies. "All die for that all have sinned." "It is appointed to all men once to die." It appeared to me therefore that death is an ordinance of nature and that it is only an evil to an accountable creature, who has broken the laws of God." Dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return." As I read nothing of the death of the soul in this account of the fall of man, I found nothing there to support the modern doctrine of destruction or that of eternal future torment, nor indeed could I gather from any thing in that history, the evidence of a future state, 516 Scriptural Examination of Original Sin. and I saw nothing there to induce me to think that a just God would impart any moral incapacity, or radical and inherent depravity to Adam's descendants, much less the imputation of his sin. By a necessity of nature, I perceived, that the first man must produce creatures in his own image, by which I understood frail, fallible, and peccable beings like himself, liable to sorrows and death, but possessed of equally high mental powers of reason and conscience, the image and superscription of God; and therefore accountable like their original parent for their moral actions, and in many instances more than he was, because placed in different and more favour able circumstances. I therefore think, that to represent, as some have done, the venerable parent of the human race as the greatest of all sinners, is an instance of the folly of hypothesis, and of shameful disrespect to the first of men, nor is it at all calculated to give glory to God his Creator. Josephus says well, that Moses spake philosophically concerning the fall of man, he meant I suppose figuratively. Many truths historical and moral were thus according to the eastern wisdom, given to the world by the ancient sages. To take the story literally, is to receive a fable without its moral, the account would be very lame and absurd. It is indeed a description of the triumph of passion over reason and conscience, and thus the birth of sin, misery, and death. Read the subject in this light, and it is intelligible, the imagery awfully sublime, well adapted and beautiful, and the moral in the highest degree impressive. Let our sons contemplate Adam, and our daughters their first mother, in their happy state of simple and satisfied nature, before the riotous passions began their wild uproar, before irregular desire awoke in their bosoms, before reason quitted her throne, and sensation assumed the sceptre. Then let them consider these parents of the world the victims of remorse, dissatisfaction, guilt and death. And let them fly with horror the pursuing and fascinating serpent, the first temptation to vice. Child of the dust! to taste is death. "Enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men, avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it, and pass away." I then proceeded to the examination of such other passages of Scripture, as I knew were advanced with a view to establish this doctrine of original sin. The next I considered was that awful one recorded in Gen. iv. 8, 9, the murder of Abel, the fruit of envy and revenge; but I hear the Creator exhorting Cain to do well, and promising him acceptance on that condition; and I read, Heb. xi. that Abel obtained witness that he was righteous: he believed and obeyed-" God testifying of his gifts;" yet both were the sons of the same parents, consequently both partook of the same nature. I sup posed that both had the same moral capacity, and were therefore liable to the same degree of responsibility. I saw no difference in the brothers in the eye of God, beside moral difference evinced by their conduct; hence I concluded that not nature but habits made one brother a murderer and the other a righteous man. The next portion of Scripture I considered was the account of the moral state of the world before the flood-Gen. vi. 5, 11, &c. "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." This passage I knew was advanced as a stock text, to prove the radical and inherent corruption of human nature, derived from the fallen Adam; yet, while I admitted all this strong language, as giving a just description of universal degeneracy of manners and corruption of hearts, I saw nothing in it to prove the original and radical corruption of nature; I knew that bad habits deprave the heart and imagination, and that if partial corruption of principles existed, universal corruption might also prevail, that men might become desperately wicked, that the voice of conscience might be stifled, and a moral death ensue. I knew that when men "like not to retain God in their knowledge," he might "give them over to a reprobate mind." I knew that "what may be known of God is nevertheless manifest in them," for "God hath shewed it to them." I knew that "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world (before and after the fall of man) are. clearly seen being understood by the |