by William Ellery Channing
Delivered at the Ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks in The First Independent Church of Baltimore on May 5, 1819.
There are two natural divisions under which my thoughts will be arranged. I shall endeavour to unfold, 1st, The principles which we adopt in interpreting the Scriptures. And 2dly, Some of the doctrines, which the Scriptures, so interpreted, seem to us clearly to express.
******
II. Having thus stated the principles according
to which we interpret Scripture, I now proceed to the second great head of this
discourse, which is, to state some of the views which we derive from that sacred
book, particularly those which distinguish us from other Christians.
1.
A. In the first place, we believe in the doctrine of God's UNITY, or that there
is one God, and one only. To this truth we give infinite importance, and we
feel ourselves bound to take heed, lest any man spoil us of it by vain philosophy.
The proposition, that there is one God, seems to us exceedingly plain. We understand
by it, that there is one being, one mind, one person, one intelligent agent,
and one only, to whom underived and infinite perfection and dominion belong.
We conceive, that these words could have conveyed no other meaning to the simple
and uncultivated people who were set apart to be the depositaries of this great
truth, and who were utterly incapable of understanding those hair- breadth distinctions
between being and person, which the sagacity of later ages has discovered. We
find no intimation, that this language was to be taken in an unusual sense,
or that God's unity was a quite different thing from the oneness of other intelligent
beings.
B. We object to the doctrine of the Trinity, that, whilst acknowledging
in words, it subverts in effect, the unity of God. According to this doctrine,
there are three infinite and equal persons, possessing supreme divinity, called
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Each of these persons, as described by theologians,
has his own particular consciousness, will, and perceptions. They love each
other, converse with each other, and delight in each other's society. They perform
different parts in man's redemption, each having his appropriate office, and
neither doing the work of the other. The Son is mediator and not the Father.
The Father sends the Son, and is not himself sent; nor is he conscious, like
the Son, of taking flesh. Here, then, we have three intelligent agents, possessed
of different consciousness, different wills, and different perceptions, performing
different acts, and sustaining different relations; and if these things do not
imply and constitute three minds or beings, we are utterly at a loss to know
how three minds or beings are to be formed. It is difference of properties,
and acts, and consciousness, which leads us to the belief of different intelligent
beings, and, if this mark fails us, our whole knowledge fall; we have no proof,
that all the agents and persons in the universe are not one and the same mind.
When we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent
to ourselves three agents, distinguished from each other by similar marks and
peculiarities to those which separate the persons of the Trinity; and when common
Christians hear these persons spoken of as conversing with each other, loving
each other, and performing different acts, how can they help regarding them
as different beings, different minds?
C. We do, then, with all earnestness, though without reproaching our
brethren, protest against the irrational and unscriptural doctrine of the Trinity.
"To us," as to the Apostle and the primitive Christians, "there is one God,
even the Father." With Jesus, we worship the Father, as the only living and
true God. We are astonished, that any man can read the New Testament, and avoid
the conviction, that the Father alone is God. We hear our Saviour continually
appropriating this character to the Father. We find the Father continually distinguished
from Jesus by this title. "God sent his Son." "God anointed Jesus." Now, how
singular and inexplicable is this phraseology, which fills the New Testament,
if this title belong equally to Jesus, and if a principal object of this book
is to reveal him as God, as partaking equally with the Father in supreme divinity!
We challenge our opponents to adduce one passage in the New Testament, where
the word God means three persons, where it is not limited to one person, and
where, unless turned from its usual sense by the connexion, it does not mean
the Father. Can stronger proof be given, that the doctrine of three persons
in the Godhead is not a fundamental doctrine of Christianity?
******
2.
D. Having thus given our views of the unity of God, I proceed in the second
place to observe, that we believe in the unity of Jesus Christ. We believe that
Jesus is one mind, one soul, one being, as truly one as we are, and equally
distinct from the one God. We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that,
not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes; Jesus Christ two beings,
and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character.
This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the
general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy
in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.
E. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one
conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls,
two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other almighty;
the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain, that this is to make
Christ two beings. To denominate him one person, one being, and yet to suppose
him made up of two minds, infinitely different from each other, is to abuse
and confound language, and to throw darkness over all our conceptions of intelligent
natures. According to the common doctrine, each of these two minds in Christ
has its own consciousness, its own will, its own perceptions. They have, in
fact, no common properties. The divine mind feels none of the wants and sorrows
of the human, and the human is infinitely removed from the perfection and happiness
of the divine. Can you conceive of two beings in the universe more distinct?
We have always thought that one person was constituted and distinguished by
one consciousness. The doctrine, that one and the same person should have two
consciousness, two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each other, this
we think an enormous tax on human credulity.
F. We say, that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so remote from all
the previous conceptions of men, be indeed a part and an essential part of revelation,
it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our brethren to point
to some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said to be composed of two minds
infinitely different, yet constituting one person. We find none. Other Christians,
indeed, tell us, that this doctrine is necessary to the harmony of the Scriptures,
that some texts ascribe to Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties,
and that to reconcile these, we must suppose two minds, to which these properties
may be referred. In other words, for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult
passages, which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly, explain,
we must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult, and involving gross absurdity.
We are to find our way out of a labyrinth, by a clue which conducts us into
mazes infinitely more inextricable.
******
G. We believe, then, that Christ is one mind, one being, and, I add, a being
distinct from the one God. That Christ is not the one God, not the same being
with the Father, is a necessary inference from our former head, in which we
saw that the doctrine of three persons in God is a fiction. But on so important
a subject, I would add a few remarks. We wish, that those from whom we differ,
would weigh one striking fact. Jesus, in his preaching, continually spoke of
God. The word was always in his mouth. We ask, does he, by this word, ever mean
himself? We say, never. On the contrary, he most plainly distinguishes between
God and himself, and so do his disciples. How this is to be reconciled with
the idea, that the manifestation of Christ, as God, was a primary object of
Christianity, our adversaries must determine.
H. If we examine the passages in which Jesus is distinguished from God, we
shall see, that they not only speak of him as another being, but seem to labor
to express his inferiority. He is continually spoken of as the Son of God, sent
of God, receiving all his powers from God, working miracles because God was
with him, judging justly because God taught him, having claims on our belief,
because he was anointed and sealed by God, and as able of himself to do nothing.
The New Testament is filled with this language. Now we ask, what impression
this language was fitted and intended to make? Could any, who heard it, have
imagined that Jesus was the very God to whom he was so industriously declared
to be inferior; the very Being by whom he was sent, and from whom he professed
to have received his message and power? Let it here be remembered, that the
human birth, and bodily form, and humble circumstances, and mortal sufferings
of Jesus, must all have prepared men to interpret, in the most unqualified manner,
the language in which his inferiority to God was declared. Why, then, was this
language used so continually, and without limitation, if Jesus were the Supreme
Deity, and if this truth were an essential part of his religion? I repeat it,
the human condition and sufferings of Christ tended strongly to exclude from
men's minds the idea of his proper Godhead; and, of course, we should expect
to find in the New Testament perpetual care and effort to counteract this tendency,
to hold him forth as the same being with his Father, if this doctrine were,
as is pretended, the soul and centre of his religion. We should expect to find
the phraseology of Scripture cast into the mould of this doctrine, to hear familiarly
of God the Son, of our Lord God Jesus, and to be told, that to us there is one
God, even Jesus. But, instead of this, the inferiority of Christ pervades the
New Testament. It is not only implied in the general phraseology, but repeatedly
and decidedly expressed, and unaccompanied with any admonition to prevent its
application to his whole nature. Could it, then, have been the great design
of the sacred writers to exhibit Jesus as the Supreme God?
********
3.
L. Having thus given our belief on two great points, namely, that there is
one God, and that Jesus Christ is a being distinct from, and inferior to, God,
I now proceed to another point, on which we lay still greater stress. We believe
in the MORAL PERFECTION OF GOD. We consider no part of theology so important
as that which treats of God's moral character; and we value our views of Christianity
chiefly as they assert his amiable and venerable attributes.
M. It may be said, that, in regard to this subject, all Christians agree,
that all ascribe to the Supreme Being infinite justice, goodness, and holiness.
We reply, that it is very possible to speak of God magnificently, and to think
of him meanly; to apply to his person high-sounding epithets, and to his government,
principles which make him odious. The Heathens called Jupiter the greatest and
the best; but his history was black with cruelty and lust. We cannot judge of
men's real ideas of God by their general language, for in all ages they have
hoped to soothe the Deity by adulation. We must inquire into their particular
views of his purposes, of the principles of his administration, and of his disposition
towards his creatures.
N. We conceive that Christians have generally leaned towards a very injurious
view of the Supreme Being. They have too often felt, as if he were raised, by
his greatness and sovereignty, above the principles of morality, above those
eternal laws of equity and rectitude, to which all other beings are subjected.
We believe, that in no being is the sense of right so strong, so omnipotent,
as in God. We believe that his almighty power is entirely submitted to his perceptions
of rectitude; and this is the ground of our piety. It is not because he is our
Creator merely, but because he created us for good and holy purposes; it is
not because his will is irresistible, but because his will is the perfection
of virtue, that we pay him allegiance. We cannot bow before a being, however
great and powerful, who governs tyrannically. We respect nothing but excellence,
whether on earth or in heaven. We venerate not the loftiness of God's throne,
but the equity and goodness in which it is established.
O. We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevolent, in the proper sense of these words; good in disposition, as well as in act; good, not to a few, but to all; good to every individual, as well as to the general system.
P. We believe, too, that God is just; but we never forget, that his justice
is the justice of a good being, dwelling in the same mind, and acting in harmony,
with perfect benevolence. By this attribute, we understand God's infinite regard
to virtue or moral worth, expressed in a moral government; that is, in giving
excellent and equitable laws, and in conferring such rewards, and inflicting
such punishments, as are best fitted to secure their observance. God's justice
has for its end the highest virtue of the creation, and it punishes for this
end alone, and thus it coincides with benevolence; for virtue and happiness,
though not the same, are inseparably conjoined.
Q. God's justice thus viewed, appears to us to be in perfect harmony with
his mercy. According to the prevalent systems of theology, these attributes
are so discordant and jarring, that to reconcile them is the hardest task, and
the most wonderful achievement, of infinite wisdom. To us they seem to be intimate
friends, always at peace, breathing the same spirit, and seeking the same end.
By God's mercy, we understand not a blind instinctive compassion, which forgives
without reflection, and without regard to the interests of virtue. This, we
acknowledge, would be incompatible with justice, and also with enlightened benevolence.
God's mercy, as we understand it, desires strongly the happiness of the guilty,
but only through their penitence. It has a regard to character as truly as his
justice. It defers punishment, and suffers long, that the sinner may return
to his duty, but leaves the impenitent and unyielding, to the fearful retribution
threatened in God's Word.
R. To give our views of God in one word, we believe in his Parental character.
We ascribe to him, not only the name, but the dispositions and principles of
a father. We believe that he has a father's concern for his creatures, a father's
desire for their improvement, a father's equity in proportioning his commands
to their powers, a father's joy in their progress, a father's readiness to receive
the penitent, and a father's justice for the incorrigible. We look upon this
world as a place of education, in which he is training men by prosperity and
adversity, by aids and obstructions, by conflicts of reason and passion, by
motives to duty and temptations to sin, by a various discipline suited to free
and moral beings, for union with himself, and for a sublime and ever-growing
virtue in heaven.
S. Now, we object to the systems of religion, which prevail among us,
that they are adverse, in a greater or less degree, to these purifying, comforting,
and honorable views of God; that they take from us our Father in heaven, and
substitute for him a being, whom we cannot love if we would, and whom we ought
not to love if we could. We object, particularly on this ground, to that system,
which arrogates to itself the name of Orthodoxy, and which is now industriously
propagated through our country. This system indeed takes various shapes, but
in all it casts dishonor on the Creator. According to its old and genuine form,
it teaches, that God brings us into life wholly depraved, so that under the
innocent features of our childhood is hidden a nature averse to all good and
propense to all evil, a nature which exposes us to God's displeasure and wrath,
even before we have acquired power to understand our duties, or to reflect upon
our actions. According to a more modern exposition, it teaches, that we came
from the hands of our Maker with such a constitution, and are placed under such
influences and circumstances, as to render certain and infallible the total
depravity of every human being, from the first moment of his moral agency; and
it also teaches, that the offence of the child, who brings into life this ceaseless
tendency to unmingled crime, exposes him to the sentence of everlasting damnation.
Now, according to the plainest principles of morality, we maintain, that a natural
constitution of the mind, unfailingly disposing it to evil and to evil alone,
would absolve it from guilt; that to give existence under this condition would
argue unspeakable cruelty; and that to punish the sin of this unhappily constituted
child with endless ruin, would be a wrong unparalleled by the most merciless
despotism.
T. This system also teaches, that God selects from this corrupt mass a number
to be saved, and plucks them, by a special influence, from the common ruin;
that the rest of mankind, though left without that special grace which their
conversion requires, are commanded to repent, under penalty of aggravated woe;
and that forgiveness is promised them, on terms which their very constitution
infallibly disposes them to reject, and in rejecting which they awfully enhance
the punishments of hell. These proffers of forgiveness and exhortations of amendment,
to beings born under a blighting curse, fill our minds with a horror which we
want words to express.
*********
4.
U. Having thus spoken of the unity of God; of the unity of Jesus, and his inferiority
to God; and of the perfections of the Divine character; I now proceed to give
our views of the mediation of Christ, and of the purposes of his mission. With
regard to the great object which Jesus came to accomplish, there seems to be
no possibility of mistake. We believe, that he was sent by the Father to effect
a moral, or spiritual deliverance of mankind; that is, to rescue men from sin
and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity and
happiness. We believe, too, that he accomplishes this sublime purpose by a variety
of methods; by his instructions respecting God's unity, parental character,
and moral government, which are admirably fitted to reclaim the world from idolatry
and impiety, to the knowledge, love, and obedience of the Creator; by his promises
of pardon to the penitent, and of divine assistance to those who labor for progress
in moral excellence; by the light which he has thrown on the path of duty; by
his own spotless example, in which the loveliness and sublimity of virtue shine
forth to warm and quicken, as well as guide us to perfection; by his threatenings
against incorrigible guilt; by his glorious discoveries of immortality; by his
sufferings and death; by that signal event, the resurrection, which powerfully
bore witness to his divine mission, and brought down to men's senses a future
life; by his continual intercession, which obtains for us spiritual aid and
blessings; and by the power with which he is invested of raising the dead, judging
the world, and conferring the everlasting rewards promised to the faithful.
V. We have no desire to conceal the fact, that a difference of opinion exists
among us, in regard to an interesting part of Christ's mediation; I mean, in
regard to the precise influence of his death on our forgiveness. Many suppose,
that this event contributes to our pardon, as it was a principal means of confirming
his religion, and of giving it a power over the mind; in other words, that it
procures forgiveness by leading to that repentance and virtue, which is the
great and only condition on which forgiveness is bestowed. Many of us are dissatisfied
with this explanation, and think that the Scriptures ascribe the remission of
sins to Christ's death, with an emphasis so peculiar, that we ought to consider
this event as having a special influence in removing punishment, though the
Scriptures may not reveal the way in which it contributes to this end.
W. Whilst, however, we differ in explaining the connexion between Christ's
death and human forgiveness, a connexion which we all gratefully acknowledge,
we agree in rejecting many sentiments which prevail in regard to his mediation.
The idea, which is conveyed to common minds by the popular system, that Christ's
death has an influence in making God placable, or merciful, in awakening his
kindness towards men, we reject with strong disapprobation. We are happy to
find, that this very dishonorable notion is disowned by intelligent Christians
of that class from which we differ. We recollect, however, that, not long ago,
it was common to hear of Christ, as having died to appease God's wrath, and
to pay the debt of sinners to his inflexible justice; and we have a strong persuasion,
that the language of popular religious books, and the common mode of stating
the doctrine of Christ's mediation, still communicate very degrading views of
God's character. They give to multitudes the impression, that the death of Jesus
produces a change in the mind of God towards man, and that in this its efficacy
chiefly consists. No error seems to us more pernicious. We can endure no shade
over the pure goodness of God. We earnestly maintain, that Jesus, instead of
calling forth, in any way or degree, the mercy of the Father, was sent by that
mercy, to be our Saviour; that he is nothing to the human race, but what he
is by God's appointment; that he communicates nothing but what God empowers
him to bestow; that our Father in heaven is originally, essentially, and eternally
placable, and disposed to forgive; and that his unborrowed, underived, and unchangeable
love is the only fountain of what flows to us through his Son. We conceive,
that Jesus is dishonored, not glorified, by ascribing to him an influence, which
clouds the splendor of Divine benevolence.
X. We farther agree in rejecting, as unscriptural and absurd, the explanation
given by the popular system, of the manner in which Christ's death procures
forgiveness for men. This system used to teach as its fundamental principle,
that man, having sinned against an infinite Being, has contracted infinite guilt,
and is consequently exposed to an infinite penalty. We believe, however, that
this reasoning, if reasoning it may be called, which overlooks the obvious maxim,
that the guilt of a being must be proportioned to his nature and powers, has
fallen into disuse. Still the system teaches, that sin, of whatever degree,
exposes to endless punishment, and that the whole human race, being infallibly
involved by their nature in sin, owe this awful penalty to the justice of their
Creator. It teaches, that this penalty cannot be remitted, in consistency with
the honor of the divine law, unless a substitute be found to endure it or to
suffer an equivalent. It also teaches, that, from the nature of the case, no
substitute is adequate to this work, save the infinite God himself; and accordingly,
God, in his second person, took on him human nature, that he might pay to his
own justice the debt of punishment incurred by men, and might thus reconcile
forgiveness with the claims and threatenings of his law. Such is the prevalent
system. Now, to us, this doctrine seems to carry on its front strong marks of
absurdity; and we maintain that Christianity ought not to be encumbered with
it, unless it be laid down in the New Testament fully and expressly. We ask
our adversaries, then, to point to some plain passages where it is taught. We
ask for one text, in which we are told, that God took human nature that he might
make an infinite satisfaction to his own justice; for one text, which tells
us, that human guilt requires an infinite substitute; that Christ's sufferings
owe their efficacy to their being borne by an infinite being; or that his divine
nature gives infinite value to the sufferings of the human. Not ONE WORD of
this description can we find in the Scriptures; not a text, which even hints
at these strange doctrines. They are altogether, we believe, the fictions of
theologians. Christianity is in no degree responsible for them. We are astonished
at their prevalence. What can be plainer, than that God cannot, in any sense,
be a sufferer, or bear a penalty in the room of his creatures? How dishonorable
to him is the supposition, that his justice is now so severe, as to exact infinite
punishment for the sins of frail and feeble men, and now so easy and yielding,
as to accept the limited pains of Christ's human soul, as a full equivalent
for the endless woes due from the world? How plain is it also, according to
this doctrine, that God, instead of being plenteous in forgiveness, never forgives;
for it seems absurd to speak of men as forgiven, when their whole punishment,
or an equivalent to it, is borne by a substitute? A scheme more fitted to obscure
the brightness of Christianity and the mercy of God, or less suited to give
comfort to a guilty and troubled mind, could not, we think, be easily framed.
Y. We believe, too, that this system is unfavorable to the character.
It naturally leads men to think, that Christ came to change God's mind rather
than their own; that the highest object of his mission was to avert punishment,
rather than to communicate holiness; and that a large part of religion consists
in disparaging good works and human virtue, for the purpose of magnifying the
value of Christ's vicarious sufferings. In this way, a sense of the infinite
importance and indispensable necessity of personal improvement is weakened,
and high-sounding praises of Christ's cross seem often to be substituted for
obedience to his precepts. For ourselves, we have not so learned Jesus. Whilst
we gratefully acknowledge, that he came to rescue us from punishment, we believe,
that he was sent on a still nobler errand, namely, to deliver us from sin itself,
and to form us to a sublime and heavenly virtue. We regard him as a Saviour,
chiefly as he is the light, physician, and guide of the dark, diseased, and
wandering mind. No influence in the universe seems to us so glorious, as that
over the character; and no redemption so worthy of thankfulness, as the restoration
of the soul to purity. Without this, pardon, were it possible, would be of little
value. Why pluck the sinner from hell, if a hell be left to burn in his own
breast? Why raise him to heaven, if he remain a stranger to its sanctity and
love? With these impressions, we are accustomed to value the Gospel chiefly
as it abounds in effectual aids, motives, excitements to a generous and divine
virtue. In this virtue, as in a common centre, we see all its doctrines, precepts,
promises meet; and we believe, that faith in this religion is of no worth, and
contributes nothing to salvation, any farther than as it uses these doctrines,
precepts, promises, and the whole life, character, sufferings, and triumphs
of Jesus, as the means of purifying the mind, of changing it into the likeness
of his celestial excellence.
5.
Z. Having thus stated our views of the highest object of Christ's mission,
that it is the recovery of men to virtue, or holiness, I shall now, in the last
place, give our views of the nature of Christian virtue, or true holiness. We
believe that all virtue has its foundation in the moral nature of man, that
is, in conscience, or his sense of duty, and in the power of forming his temper
and life according to conscience. We believe that these moral faculties are
the grounds of responsibility, and the highest distinctions of human nature,
and that no act is praiseworthy, any farther than it springs from their exertion.
We believe, that no dispositions infused into us without our own moral activity,
are of the nature of virtue, and therefore, we reject the doctrine of irresistible
divine influence on the human mind, moulding it into goodness, as marble is
hewn into a statue. Such goodness, if this word may be used, would not be the
object of moral approbation, any more than the instinctive affections of inferior
animals, or the constitutional amiableness of human beings.
AA. By these remarks, we do not mean to deny the importance of God's aid or
Spirit; but by his Spirit, we mean a moral, illuminating, and persuasive influence,
not physical, not compulsory, not involving a necessity of virtue. We object,
strongly, to the idea of many Christians respecting man's impotence and God's
irresistible agency on the heart, believing that they subvert our responsibility
and the laws of our moral nature, that they make men machines, that they cast
on God the blame of all evil deeds, that they discourage good minds, and inflate
the fanatical with wild conceits of immediate and sensible inspiration.
BB. Among the virtues, we give the first place to the love of God. We believe,
that this principle is the true end and happiness of our being, that we were
made for union with our Creator, that his infinite perfection is the only sufficient
object and true resting-place for the insatiable desires and unlimited capacities
of the human mind, and that, without him, our noblest sentiments, admiration,
veneration, hope, and love, would wither and decay. We believe, too, that the
love of God is not only essential to happiness, but to the strength and perfection
of all the virtues; that conscience, without the sanction of God's authority
and retributive justice, would be a weak director; that benevolence, unless
nourished by communion with his goodness, and encouraged by his smile, could
not thrive amidst the selfishness and thanklessness of the world; and that self-government,
without a sense of the divine inspection, would hardly extend beyond an outward
and partial purity. God, as he is essentially goodness, holiness, justice, and
virtue, so he is the life, motive, and sustainer of virtue in the human soul.
CC. But, whilst we earnestly inculcate the love of God, we believe that
great care is necessary to distinguish it from counterfeits. We think that much
which is called piety is worthless. Many have fallen into the error, that there
can be no excess in feelings which have God for their object; and, distrusting
as coldness that self-possession, without which virtue and devotion lose all
their dignity, they have abandoned themselves to extravagances, which have brought
contempt on piety. Most certainly, if the love of God be that which often bears
its name, the less we have of it the better. If religion be the shipwreck of
understanding, we cannot keep too far from it. On this subject, we always speak
plainly. We cannot sacrifice our reason to the reputation of zeal. We owe it
to truth and religion to maintain, that fanaticism, partial insanity, sudden
impressions, and ungovernable transports, are anything rather than piety.
DD. We conceive, that the true love of God is a moral sentiment, founded on
a clear perception, and consisting in a high esteem and veneration, of his moral
perfections. Thus, it perfectly coincides, and is in fact the same thing, with
the love of virtue, rectitude, and goodness. You will easily judge, then, what
we esteem the surest and only decisive signs of piety. We lay no stress on strong
excitements. We esteem him, and him only a pious man, who practically conforms
to God's moral perfections and government; who shows his delight in God's benevolence,
by loving and serving his neighbour; his delight in God's justice, by being
resolutely upright; his sense of God's purity, by regulating his thoughts, imagination,
and desires; and whose conversation, business, and domestic life are swayed
by a regard to God's presence and authority. In all things else men may deceive
themselves. Disordered nerves may give them strange sights, and sounds, and
impressions. Texts of Scripture may come to them as from Heaven. Their whole
souls may be moved, and their confidence in God's favor be undoubting. But in
all this there is no religion. The question is, Do they love God's commands,
in which his character is fully expressed, and give up to these their habits
and passions? Without this, ecstasy is a mockery. One surrender of desire to
God's will, is worth a thousand transports. We do not judge of the bent of men's
minds by their raptures, any more than we judge of the natural direction of
a tree during a storm. We rather suspect loud profession, for we have observed,
that deep feeling is generally noiseless, and least seeks display.
EE. We would not, by these remarks, be understood as wishing to exclude from
religion warmth, and even transport. We honor, and highly value, true religious
sensibility. We believe, that Christianity is intended to act powerfully on
our whole nature, on the heart as well as the understanding and the conscience.
We conceive of heaven as a state where the love of God will be exalted into
an unbounded fervor and joy; and we desire, in our pilgrimage here, to drink
into the spirit of that better world. But we think, that religious warmth is
only to be valued, when it springs naturally from an improved character, when
it comes unforced, when it is the recompense of obedience, when it is the warmth
of a mind which understands God by being like him, and when, instead of disordering,
it exalts the understanding, invigorates conscience, gives a pleasure to common
duties, and is seen to exist in connexion with cheerfulness, judiciousness,
and a reasonable frame of mind. When we observe a fervor, called religious,
in men whose general character expresses little refinement and elevation, and
whose piety seems at war with reason, we pay it little respect. We honor religion
too much to give its sacred name to a feverish, forced, fluctuating zeal, which
has little power over the life.
FF. Another important branch of virtue, we believe to be love to Christ. The
greatness of the work of Jesus, the spirit with which he executed it, and the
sufferings which he bore for our salvation, we feel to be strong claims on our
gratitude and veneration. We see in nature no beauty to be compared with the
loveliness of his character, nor do we find on earth a benefactor to whom we
owe an equal debt. We read his history with delight, and learn from it the perfection
of our nature. We are particularly touched by his death, which was endured for
our redemption, and by that strength of charity which triumphed over his pains.
His resurrection is the foundation of our hope of immortality. His intercession
gives us boldness to draw nigh to the throne of grace, and we look up to heaven
with new desire, when we think, that, if we follow him here, we shall there
see his benignant countenance, and enjoy his friendship for ever.
GG. I need not express to you our views on the subject of the benevolent virtues.
We attach such importance to these that we are sometimes reproached with exalting
them above piety. We regard the spirit of love, charity, meekness, forgiveness,
liberality, and beneficence, as the badge and distinction of Christians, as
the brightest image we can bear of God, as the best proof of piety. On this
subject, I need not, and cannot enlarge; but there is one branch of benevolence
which I ought not to pass over in silence, because we think that we conceive
of it more highly and justly than many of our brethren. I refer to the duty
of candor, charitable judgment, especially towards those who differ in religious
opinion. We think, that in nothing have Christians so widely departed from their
religion, as in this particular. We read with astonishment and horror, the history
of the church; and sometimes when we look back on the fires of persecution,
and on the zeal of Christians, in building up walls of separation, and in giving
up one another to perdition, we feel as if we were reading the records of an
infernal, rather than a heavenly kingdom. An enemy to every religion, if asked
to describe a Christian, would, with some show of reason, depict him as an idolater
of his own distinguishing opinions, covered with badges of party, shutting his
eyes on the virtues, and his ears on the arguments, of his opponents, arrogating
all excellence to his own sect and all saving power to his own creed, sheltering
under the name of pious zeal the love of domination, the conceit of infallibility,
and the spirit of intolerance, and trampling on men's rights under the pretence
of saving their souls.
******
This text was excerpted from an online version of Channing's sermons at the William Ellery Channing Center website. For the full text, click here.