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

He further assures us that his object is to forestall the con- troversy between the Orthodox and Sabellians, p. 118. This cannot be, unless the Orthodox cease to believe that which distinguishes them from the Sabellians. He can scarcely "speak with respect," p. 163, of the protestations of Ortho- doxy against Sabellianism. He signifies to us, p. 121, that the idea of a real Trinity lying back of that produced by the process of revelation, " shocks the nlind by a raw absurdity :" that Orthodoxy and Unitarianism have their root in the " same vicious assumption," and are engaged in a " like futile eifort," pp. 128-9 ; that whatever impression we get of God as Three, which is other than a conception of him as One, is a " residu- um of form and ?^^«m5er belonging not to the truth, but to the vehicle of truth," p. 126 ; that the admission of a three-fold distinction in the Divine nature " means nothing," p. 147 ; that every honest debater must be defeated in an attempt to maintain the three persons, p. 147 ; that he himself can ac- count for a Trinity, because a representative multiplicity is the best means of expressing unity of substance, pp. 164-5. "When, in addition to all this, he repeats the stale charge of all rejecters of the Trinity, that what proves to be the doctrine of the whole trinitarian world is " plain TErraEiSM," p. 172, what does he leave us of that doctrine but the name? After all this, to tell us that the Trinity Tnay be immanent in the Godhead as all number, form, family, sex, &c., are, pp. 144-5 ; that God must reveal himself by antagonisms, as man reveals himself by contrasts, pp, 150-1, is to efface any shadow of this adorable mystery left by his previous speculations. Nor does he elevate his dogma above Sabellianism, by telling us that God has an eternally self-revealing nature, while he contends that we can know nothing of any Trinity not "generated in tiine" by the process of actual revelation. "What we know nothing about cannot be an article of faith. Did Sabellius or any theist ever deny that God has eternally that nature whereby he not only reveals himself, but creates, upholds and governs all things ? "Withal, a trinity made by revelation can be etei'ual only by virtue of an eternal revela- so tion. This is possible only on the supposition, that the crea- tures to whom Grod reveals himself, have themselves eternally existed. Thus we have the Pantheistic doctrine of an eternal creation, which makes God and the creation one. We know not that Dr. Bushnell is prepared to take these consequences of his doctrines. Yet the following passages from his first book, " Ood in Christ" look strongly that way. " Conceive of him (God) as creating the world, or creating worlds, if you please, from etsrnity. In so doing he only represents, pro- duces, or outwardly expresses himself" p. 146. Also, p. lYT, " If God has been eternally revealed or revecdvng himself to created minds, it is likely always to have been, and always to be, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." This may satisfy Pan- theists. To all others, it looks worse than the Sabellianism it is offered to screen. Thus we see the Scriptural doctrine of Trinity discarded, and assailed with whatever ingenuity he can command. All that remains more than Sabellianism, is, in our view, not worth contending for — the mere shadow of a shade. This de- fence in no manner relieves the book defended. It is only a more elaborate plea for the heresies of that book, aggravated by the groundless accusation that New England Congregation- alists are Tritheists. INCAKNATION. Dt. BushneWs view of the Inca/rnation, as presented in Ms hook entitled '■'•Christ in Theology^'' The union of tlie human and Divine in Christ is only for expression. We have no right to inquire whether he had a human soul, [p. 96.] Christ did not, as to his human soul, grow in wisdom and favor with God. When the Orthodox argue from those portions of Scripture which attribute to Christ the mental limitations peculiar to humanity, that He " became man by taking to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul," they show the smallest possible insight. The less insight they have, the more likely are they to draw such inferences, [pp. 96-7, 114.] Christ is no more or better for such a drop of hu- [P. 96.] " The union of the Diyine and human, being only for expreesion, what is there in it for us beyond the expression ? There may be a human soul here or there may not — ^that is a matter with which we have nothing to do, and about which we have not only no right to affirm, but no right to inquire." [P. 96-7.] " If there be passages of Scripture which go beyond external expres- most certainly is language only of external description ; for it is also declared, in the same breath, that he increased ' in favor with God,' which can not be taken in any other sense than the sense of external description. The meaning of the language is exhausted when we understand the writer to say that the infant Christ, grew up, as outwardly regarded, in a course of regular develop- ment in knowledge and character, increasing, as we say of other children, in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man. If we say that this lan- guage refers to the distinct growth of his human soul in wisdom arid in favor, with God, then manifestly we do it by an inference of our own, for the worch affirm no such thing. Besides, the conclusion itself is not Orthodox ; for the unfolding of wisdom and character are th« truest and most fundamental incidents of distinct personality ; and Orthodoxy asserts, not two distinct persons in Christ, but 'two natures and one person.' " [P. 114.] "The doctrine I have asserted refuses, either to deny or to affirm, to know or to attempt to know, any thing which the church doctrine establishes, concerning the human soul of Chris^ by inferences drawn from the words 'child,' 'man,' 'growth,' and the like." [P. 97.] "Now it seems to be a very simple thing to infer, in a logical way, that 32 manity in him, [p. 95.] To say that the Divine person suffers because he suffers in his human nature, and to offer to the world a salvation, purchased by such sufferings, as the very essence of the Gospel, is to reduce the Gospel to a residuum of scholastic subtleties, [p. 103.] The idea is ridiculous that Christ took a distinct human nature that was not a distinct human person. It is taking the mere timber of a man, a wooden humanity to bear the cross, [pp. 109-10.] It requires a cresdulous theologian to believe that Christ will forever remain incarnate, [p. 112.] Our churches had come to regard Christ ■when Christ is said to grow in -Wisdbta and fa^or with God, there must be a dis- tinctly active and distinctly conscious human soul in his composition — at any rate a human soul. Almost any body could draw such an inference. Just as easy is it also to infer, with the Unitarian objector, when the Saviour himself says in his age of maturity, 'the Son can do nothing of himself,' that the Son has no power but such as is derivative ; for if he were essential Deity, or an omnipotent co- equal person with the Father, then he could do something of himself as well as the Father ; and since he can not, he is confessed to be no more than a creature. All stick inferences, I say, are easy. It requires the smallest possible insight to draw them ; and the less of inMght on£ has, the more likely he is to draw tlwm." [P. 95.] " For if the reality of Christ be God, and God is infinite, what more or better is he for this drop of humanity that is merged thus eternally in the boundless ocean of his nature?" [P.103.] "To solve a difficulty by throwing it into a shnfHe where no one can catch it ; to argue that the one Bivine person suffers without Divine suffering ! because he suffers in the human nature, which is impersonal and can not suffer ! and then to offer to the world, as the very essence of the gospel, a salvation purchased by the vicarious penal sufferings of the Son- of God — ^is reducing the Gospel to a residuum of scholastic subtleties, which is likely enough, doubtless, to be hid in the world, but as unlikely as possible to be an active leaven of grace after it is hid." [P. 109-110.] " What a discovery now is this for theology ! that Christ took a human nature that had no personality and is not any constitutive part of his own personality when taken, and never will have any humanly personal exis- tence or character to all eternity ! What is this, in fact, but to discover that the matter of a human creature has been somehow absorbed or hid in Christ's person, with which we can of course have no one feeling of personal sympathy, because it exists in the impersonal way, as being simply the matter of a man, and not a man ? Which of the two views gives our mind the liveliest human sympathy with the Saviour's person, which brings him closest to our human feeling, — to receive him as containing in himself an impersonal man, the mere timber of a man, referring all he suffers to that unconscious, wooden humtmity lie has taken up to bear the cross and die as an impersonal sufferer ; or, refusing all such vain philosophy, to receive him as the mcarjiate Word,- one person, the great mystery of Godliness, a,nd to say in simple, childlike trusty at the foot of his cross, Herein is love — our God is love ?" [Pp. 112.] "That theologian must be gifted with a remarkable facility of faith who has never yet found a difficulty in supposing^ either that the one God, or that an eternal person of the Divihe Three, the Son of God, underwent a permanent change of state before all worlds, -in the year 1 of our Christian era; that in this particular q)eck of the system of the universe, at a certain date in 33 as two persons. Dr. B. denied it, and hence was charged with heresy. His accusers hold to two Saviors, [pp. 106-7.] EEMAEKS. 1. Dr. B. denies that thei-e is evidence that, Christ, in be- coming mail, took, to himself a "reasonable soul," and insists that this is not even a proper subject of investigation.. He thus repudiates it as an article of faith, and contends that it is wrong for us to accept it as such. 2. Onthis scheme, it did noi^ "behoove" Christ to take upon himself the nature which he came to redeem, or " to be made in all things like unto his brethren, that he might be a mer- ciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Heb. ii. 13. The Scriptures set forth that he assumed the nature not of angels, but of the seed of Abraham, of the race which he undertook to redeem. If he took only the body, the inferior part of our nature, we see not but his brotherhood with us, his feeling of our infirmities, his redemption and salvation of us, are limited to this. 3. According to this view, all the ignorance and mental agony of Christ must be referred to his Divine mind or na- ture, for he had no human soul. Thus God is divested of his blessedness and omniscience, -essential perfections of his na- ture; or, 4. God suffered a change in his essential properties in the incarnation, and became neither God nor man, nor both God the parish register, if I may so speat, of the town of Bethlehem, he entered into union with humanity, and is hereafter and for ever to reign over the known uni- verse of angels and all the populations of the sky, in the humanity then assumed and shortly after glorified."