To show a priori that this is impossible, or absurd, is really out of the question. The religion of nature teaches nothing for or against this fact. The simple question then is: What has John said? and not, What has your philosophy led you to regard as probable or improbable? And I must be allowed to say again: If John has not taught us that Christ is truly divine, I am utterly unable, by the laws of exegesis, to make out that he has asserted anything in his whole gospel.

If I believed then, as you do, that a Saviour with a human and divine nature is "an enormous tax on human credulity," I should certainly reject the authority of John. To violate the laws of exegesis in order to save his credit, I could regard as nothing more than striving to keep up a fictitious belief in divine revelation. It is what I cannot do; and what no man ought to do. It would be impossible for me, with your views, to hesitate at all, about giving up entirely the old idea of the divine inspiration and authority of the sacred books. How can they be divine, if they teach palpable absurdities? And that they do teach what you call palpable absurdities, I feel quite satisfied can be amply proved, from the simple application of the laws of interpretation that are established on an immovable basis.

66

You have, however, undertaken to vindicate your method of construing the Scriptures, by intimating the necessity of interpreting several seemingly unlimited assertions in respect to Christians, in the same way as you interpret many in respect to Christ. Recollect," you say, "the unqualified manner in which it is said of Christians, that they possess all things, know all things, and do all things." And again, in order to show how we may "modify and restrain and turn from the obvious sense," the passages that respect the divinity of Christ, you say: "It is our duty to explain such texts by the rule which we apply to other texts, in which human beings are called gods, and are said to be partakers of the divine nature, to know and possess all things, and to be filled with all God's fulness."

I have already sufficiently examined the manner in which

the Bible calls men gods. There is, and can be, no mistake here; for instead of attributing to them divine attributes, it always accompanies the appellations with such adjuncts as guard us against mistake. It does not call them God, and then add, that the same God is meant who is the creator of the universe.

Nor does the New Testament, (your sole statute book), anywhere call men God. Will you produce the instance? That the appellation God, as applied to Christ, is bestowed under circumstances totally diverse from those in which it is applied to men in the Old Testament, is a fact too obvious to need further explanation. The Hebrew word (Elohim) had plainly a latitude more extensive, i. e. it was capable or a greater variety of use, than the Greek word Oɛós. Can you produce from the Greek Scriptures, i. e. the New Testament, an instance where Oɛós is applied to any man whatever?

In regard to the assertion, "that Christians are made partakers of the divine nature," (2 Pet. 1: 4), a mistake about the meaning is scarcely possible: "Whereby [i. e. by the gospel] are given unto us," says the apostle, "exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature." But how? He answers this question: "Having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." That is, by moral purification you will become assimilated to God, or partakers of that holy nature which he possesses. Does the context here afford any

ground for mistake?

In 1 John 2: 20, Christians are said to have “ an unction from the Holy One, and to know all things." In the preceding verse, the apostle had been describing apostates, who forsook the Christian cause because they were not sincerely attached to it. The case of real Christians, who have an unction from the Holy One, is different. They "know all things." And what means this? The sequel explains it. "I have not written unto you," says he, "because ye know not the truth; but because ye know it, and that no lie is of

the truth." To "know all things," then, plainly means here to know all that pertains to Christian doctrine and duty, so as to persevere and not apostatize from the truth as others had done.

Is this however asserting (as you affirm in your Sermon) in "an unqualified manner, that Christians know all things ?" In John 14: 26, the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles, "to teach them all things, and to bring all things to their remembrance," whatsoever Christ had said unto them. Again, John 16: 23, the "Spirit of truth is to guide the disciples into all truth," and in 1 John 2: 27, the anointing which Christians have received, is said to "teach them all things.” In all these cases, the context leaves no room to doubt, that "all things essential to Christian doctrine and practice" is meant. No person, I presume, ever understood these passages as meaning, that the apostles or Christians should be endowed with omniscience.

Yet in the other case, where Christ is asserted to be God, the context is such, that the great body of Christians, in every age, have understood the sacred writers as asserting that he was truly divine. Is there no difference between the two cases? You make them indeed the same, in respect to the principle of interpretation. To my mind, the difference is this, viz. that in the one case, the adjuncts prevent you from ascribing omniscience to Christians, while in the other, they lead you necessarily to ascribe divine properties to Christ, unless you turn their meaning from the obvious sense" so far as to transgress the fundamental maxims of interpreting language.

66

In 1 Cor. 3: 22, the apostle says to the Corinthian churches: "All things are yours ;" and the same apostle speaks of himself (2 Cor. 6: 10), as "having nothing, and yet possessing all things." In the first case, the context adds: "Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come-all are yours; and ye are Christ's;" i. e. simply, (when the phraseology is construed as elsewhere), let no man glory in this or that particular teacher,

for all teachers belong to the church, and all things in the present and future world will minister to the good of the church. In other words: Why should you covet exclusive individual possessions, when you have an interest in the whole? Refrain, therefore, from the spirit of jealousy and contention.

The second case is merely antithesis. The apostle evidently asserts, (compare the context), that although he has little indeed of this world's good, yet he possesses a far more excellent and satisfactory good, in comparison of which all else is nothing. In the same sense, we every day speak of a man's all, meaning that which he most desires and loves best.

I can no more see here, than in the other instances already discussed, why you should affirm that Christians are said "in an unqualified manner to possess all things."

One expression still remains. In Eph. 3: 19, the apostle exhibits his fervent wishes, that the Christians at Ephesus might "be filled with all the fulness of God." By comparing this expression, as applied to Christ in Col. 1: 19. 2: 9, with John 1: 14, 16, and Eph. 1: 23, it appears evident, that by the fulness of God is meant the abundant gifts and graces, which were bestowed on Christ, and through him upon his disciples; John 1: 16. Eph. 1: 23. When Paul prays, therefore, that the church at Ephesus might be "filled with the fulness of God," he prays simply, that they might be abundantly replenished with the gifts and graces peculiar to the Christian religion. But how does such an affirmation concern the principle of exegesis in question?

I am well satisfied, that the course of reasoning in which you have embarked, and the principles by which you explain away the divinity of the Saviour, must eventually lead most men who approve them to the conclusion, that the Bible is not of divine origin, and does not oblige us to belief or obedience. I do not aver, that they will certainly lead you there. The remains of your former education and belief may still serve to guard you against the bolder conclusions of some of your brethren, who have not been placed under instruction such as you enjoyed in early life. You have more serious views

of the importance of religion, than many, perhaps than most, of those who speculate with you. Consistency, too, will afford strong inducement not to give up the divine authority of the Scriptures. Yet many of your younger brethren have no inconsistency to fear, by adopting such views. Deeming what you have publicly taught them to be true, viz. that it is "no crime to believe with Mr. Belsham," who boldly and plainly declares that the Scriptures are not the word of God; feeling the inconsistency, (as I am certain some of them will and do feel it), of violating the fundamental rules of interpretation, in order to make the apostles speak, as in their apprehension they ought to speak; and unable to reconcile what the apostles say with their own views; they will throw off the restraints which the old ideas of the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures impose upon them, and receive them simply on the ground, on which they place any other writings of a moral and religious nature.

I make no pretensions to uncommon foresight, in regard to this subject. I certainly do not say these things with invidious designs, and for the sake of kindling the fire of contention. Very far from it. On the contrary; I believe that the parties now contending here, will have no quiet, until this ground be openly taken on the part of those who side with you. For myself, I view it as incomparably more desirable, in every point of view, that the authority of the Scripture should at once be renounced, and its claims to divine inspiration rejected, than that such rules of exegesis should be introduced, as make the Scripture speak nolens volens whatever any party may desire. Avowed unbelief in the divine authority of the Scriptures can never continue long, as I would hope, in the present day of light and examination. Such a state of things may pass away, with the generation who are actors in it. But it is a more difficult matter to purge away the stain, which Christianity may contract by violated laws of interpretation; because those who indulge in such a violation, profess to respect the Christian religion, and to acknowledge its divine original. They may therefore obtain, and hold, for