Farewell to the First Congregational Church in Norwalk, Conn. (bound with other addresses)

But suppose they should be thus inconsistent, and actually vote to call the council for his trial, while adhering to their decision of October, 1849. "Would not their act, in that case, be null and void ? And could the council, when convened, properly proceed to try the case ? 3. Having relinquished the hope that our brethren of the Hartford Central Association would, at our request, reverse their decision, or even discuss our arguments ; and seeing no way open for a regular trial of Dr. Bushnell before his con- sociation, we have been led to inquire whether we could, consistently with our duty, stop here, and, for the future, hold our peace respecting the published sentiments of Dr. Bush- nell, and the decision of hi^^^sociation concerning them. 17 The labor and anxiety involved in going forward in this case, did not appear to us to be in themselves desirable. We have concluded that we cannot keep silence, and yet remain in our present relations, without consenlmg (1.) that those doctrines of the Gospel and of our Confession of Faith, which Dr. Bushnell has publicly denied, shall no more be considered and treated as essential, by the Associations of this State ; (2.) that Dr. Bushnell himself, while continuing to hold and teach the errors which we have set forth as con- tained in his book, shall be treated by us and by all the Asso- ciated Ministers of Connecticut, as sound in the faith, and justly entitled to our confidence ; (3.) that any other members of our Associations may hold and teach a part or all of the errors contained in Dr. Bushnell's book, without exposing themselves to censure from their brethren ; (4.) that candi- dates for the ministry and for the pastoral office in our churches may hold and avow all the errors contained in Dr. Bushnell's book, and yet find them no hindrance to their ordination and installation ; and, finally, that regular testimonials of good standing in the ministry, given by our Associations, shall henceforth be no evidence whatever, that those who hold them, do not believe and teach all the errors contained in Dr. Bushnell's book. With these views, we dare not remain silent, lest we bid God speed to those who preach " another Gospel." 4. Since the date of our last letter to the Hartford Central Association, Dr. Bushnell has published another book, entitled " Cheist in Theology," being the answer of the author before the Hartford Central Association of Ministers, October, 1849, for the doctrines of the book entitled " God in Christ." The relation which this second book bears to the first and to the decision of the Hartford Central Association, against which we remonstrated, has led us to examine it with considerable care. We do not find that he has, in this second book, changed his positions in any important particular, or so explained their meaning as to make them more consistent with the truth of the Gospel. ..The same system of error 18 whicli is contained "in the first book, is also contained in the second. To prove this, we present to you an epitome of the teachings of Dr. Bushnell in this second book, respecting several doctrines which our General Association, in 1850, declared to be fundamental. We ask for it your patient and candid attention. "We underscore several passages, that the points to which we call your attention, may the more readily attract your notice. TEINITY. ._ _ TEACHINGS OF DE. BTJSHNELL EESPECTING THE TEINITT, IN HIS BOOK ENTITLED " CHRIST IN THEOLOGY." Sec. I. Showing that according to Dr. B., we have no warrant for he- lieving in Three Persons or even distinctions in the Di/vine Ifature. The Orthodox are not justified in maintaining against the Sabellians, that tliere are Three Persons, or even distinctions in the divine nurture, [pp. 119, 147-8, 162, 118;] or that the I [P. 119.1 " ScMeinnacJier and Ms translator both assume the possibility of entering into the interior nature of God, and forming an authorised ju^ment cmicerning the Trinity as predicable of it. This I deny, and am thus left behind by tliem both. The judgment of the German critic is, that the One becomes Three in the process of revelation, and that the Three are only media of reve- lation. This IS modalism. His translator, on the other hand, argues that, since fiod is revealed as being three, lie must be essentially or immanently three back of the revelation; else the revelation would not be true. This is admitted Orthodoxy." [Pp. 14'7-8.] "Thirdly, it costs me nothing in the -way of opinion to admit, as many are fond of doiag, a 'threefold distinction' in the Divine nature, back to the exterior instrumental trinity, as its original ground. I say 'nothing in the way of opinion ;' partly becavise the admismm really means nothing ; and partly because it ■would, for that reason, cost me some sacrifice of self-reepeet to shelter myself under it. You will always observe that, when this language is resorted to, it is done only as a way of getting back in words what has been given up or lost in the pressure of argument. It comes into view always after the argument is over, and not as being an integral pai't of it Moored as every honest man must be, in a logical attempt upon the persons, the debater recovers him- self upon the ' threefold distinction f conscious, meanwhile, when asking of himself what or how much he means by it, of resoHing to his ear, in fault of any meaning discoverable to his understanding. But this recovery of soundness by words, after it has been lost in argument, is too much like saving one's Orthodoxy by a codicil to his last will and testament. "But you may desire to ask of me anotto' and different question, viz., whe- ther, letting go all consideration of what mav be involved in the process 'of reve- lation or redemption, there are not three persons in the Divine nature answering to, or equivalent to, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost of scripture 1 "To this I answer, first, that possibly no one has a right to require or to make any answer concerning the Trinity of Q-oa, as viewing it wholly apart from wliat is incidental to the matter of revelation." 20 Trinity of Scripture is any tiling more than a medium or in- strument of revelation, [p. 117.] To do so is to enter into God's interior nature, [p. 119.} Dr. B. declares that his scheme re- quires him to controvert all arguments which go to prove a Trinity immanent in the Godhead, [p. 133.] Thus he would relieve the Orthodox doctrine of a r|w absurdity, [p. 121.] Or- thodoxy and Unitarianism have their root in the same vicious assumption, [pp. 128-9.] [P. 162.] "Indeed this horror of Sabellianism, that has kept the church, for so many ages, asserting and re-asserting it as a test of Orthodoxy that the Fa- ther is not the Son nor the Son the Spirit, appears in this viev to have been » kind of theological distemper, of which it is difficult to speak with respect" [P. 1 1 8. ] " Just here, too, in withholding from any attempt to solve the Trinity, and refusing either to affirm or to deny any thing concerning, it, as pertaining to the substance or the immanent properties of God, is the peculiarity-i-^the merit if there is any, the heresy if there is none — of the exposition I have ventured to offer. It differs, in this view, from Sabellianism on one side, and common Ortho- doxy on the other, in the same manner, being an attempt to forestall the contro- versy between them ; a controversy that is eruUees, for the simple reason that the subject of it is impossible." [P. IIY.] "I did indeed seek to account for the external fact of Trinity, showing that when God, the Absolute One, is revealed to us — the infinite in the finite, spirit in form, or subject, as the nature of language itself requires, to con- dition; of form — the process involves a necessity of antagonistic symbols, and, if there be an incarnation, pluralities of person, such as meet us in" the Trinity of the 'Sew Testament. But having thus accounted for ih4 external fact of a Trinity, taken as instrumental in respect to the revelation of Ood, I insisted that we have now come to the last limit of possible investigation ; that we cannot pass over into the Divine nature itself and show how the instrumental three of revelation are related to its interior distribution, or precisely what they affirm concerning it" [P. 133.] " When now it is remembered mat my position required me to con- trovert all drgyiments which either prove or disprove an immanent Trinity, could I not be understood here also as objecting simply to the argument?" [P. 121.] "The advantages attached to such a disposition of the subject are many. "First, it is a solution, jnst so far as a solution is wanted. It finds reason to believe, assuming the strict unity of God, that he will be revealed under condi- tions of form and number; the Absolute by relatives, or, in case of an incarna- tion, by relative persons. Then, when the scripture Trinity appears, the disciple IS not shocked by a raw ebmrdity thrust upon him." I?; 128-9.] Unitarianiem is not excluded, in so far as it adequately maintains the Divine unity, and should not be. Many of its arguments, taken as alleged against certain forms of immanent Trinity called Orthodox, are admitted and justified. None of the real absurdities against which it has arrayed itself are aUowed to remain. And yet they are cleared by a method that makes no breach upon the scripture Trinity,, it has rejected or explained away; a method which affirms the real use and sacred importance of tliat Ti-inity, and maintains the essential Divinity of the Son of God, as a conception necessary to Uie vital energy of the gospel in its reconciling power. Indeed, if it be true that multi- phcity IB involved in the highest expression of God as the One, Unitarianism is seen to be engaged in the same futile effort mthyOrthodoaiy, when it enters and attempts to clear the interior mystery of tbe Soripticre Three, atid so to have its root in the same vicious assufpption." 21 Sec. II. The reason, acoording to Dr. B., why God, even if hut one person in reality, reveals himsflf as tri-personal. As a man best displays himself ti^ 'contrasts, so God best reveals his Oneness by antagonisms, [pp. 160-l.J All know- ledge given by the Trinit)^ of revelation which goes beyond the Unity of God, is" a residuum of form and number that be- longs to the medium and vehicle of, truth and not to the truth itself, [p. 126.] The use of this mode of revelation is to prevent pur diminishing God into a magnified man. Most Christian teachers make him three magnified men, [pp. 137-8.]