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

upon their being called in question, lie was bound to use the terms "faith " and "justi^oation " in their current sense, as he knew they would be received by those whom he addressed, and by the intelligent community before whom the declara- tion was to bq spread and have its effect ; the only sense in which the declaration could exonerate him from heresy. To use them in a sense entirely di|fferent from this while they could exonerate him from heresy only by being understood in the current sense, would have been dishonest, deceptive, and culpable, in the highest degree.- But this declaration, if the terms were employed in their current acceptation, was a re- traction and renunciation of all that he had taught on the subject in his book. "We, therefore, admitted, in our Eemon- strance, the possibility of such renunciation ; and if it were so, we declared ourselves satisfied, provided the retraction were made as unequivocal and as public, as the report of his Association, as the book itself. Bat Dr. B.'s second book shows that he has not retracted his views. He speaks still of a '■^justification^'' and a '^^ justification iy faith;" but it is a justification, and a faith, and a "justification by faith," dia- metrically opposed to the common orthodox doctrine known by that name, and utterly subversive of it. 2. Whether our method of setting forth the doctrines of Dr. B.^s booJc, is fair and conclusive. Whether, on the sy/pposition that he has taught as we have alleged, yet another and contradic- tory scheme of doctrine may not be proved from his booJcs by the same method. It may be aUeged that the method which we have employ- ed in setting forth the doctrines of Dr. B.'s books— -viz., of ex- cerpting passages to show the doctrine that he teaches — is in- conclusive and even unfair; that "by this method the Bible itself may be made to teach universalism," or almost any sort of doctrine ; that Dr. B.'s books contain passages which appar- ently contradict the doctrines which we liave supposed him to teach, " insomuch that another systeraj contradictory to the one set forth, might equally be proved by these opposing and contradictory passages." 76 To this we reply, 1. that we have shown the passages re- ferred to, to be neither inconsistent with, nor contrary to his denial of the doctrines in question. 2. MoreoTcrthe method which we have purstied is the only practicable method of ascertaining the doctrines of any book. It is the established and uniform method by which the doctrines of the Bible are ascertained and proved, and error rejected. The only thing necessary to the accuracy and fairness of this method is, that the passages be cited fully and fairly, accord- ing to their connection, in their true meaning and intent. Thisi we claim to have done. If we have done btherwisie. We hold ourselves open to correction, even to just exposure or rebuke. If nothing of this kind can be alleged, then his doctrines are set forth correctly and fully proved. 3. TJniversalism, or other error, endeavors to establish it- self upon the word of God by citing passages either not fairly or fully, or by taking advantage of some separate ambiguity which instantly ceases upon a comparison with other passages elucidating more clearly the mind of the Spirit upon the point in question. Nor is it true, as this objection supposes, that one part of the word of God contradicts another, so that we must take the weight of opposing declarations, and adjust and strike the balance between contradictions, in order to deter- mine whether such a doctrine as universalism be true or not. The doctrines of the Bible cohere together in a combination and system so harmonious that no passage rightly quoted and inter- preted jars upon the system. But a fundamental error, like uni- versalism, or like a denial of the vicarious atonement of Christ, not only requires a perversion of every individual passage cited to sustain it, but jars discordantly on the whole system ; nor can it be admitted without the displacement and radical overthrow of every essential doctrine in the whole scheme. It is a mis- take to imagine that any other doctrine than that which we have set forth can be fairly excerpted from Dr. B.'s book. His system coheres together. His denial of a vicarious atonement, has required him also to deny the received orthodox doctrine concerning the Trinity, the law, condemnation for sin, remis- 77 sion of sins, and justification by faith. But if we suppose any contradiction on the doctrine of the atonement, it does not re- lieve him; for his doctrine on the subjects here specified requires precisely that denial of a vicarious atonement which, as we have seen, he has made so frequentj so ample, so unequi- vocal, and so emphatic. Nor is it necessary to suppose any contradiction ; for only admitting his own definitions and ex- planations of the sense in which ,hp uses the terms " justifica- tion," " sacrifice of Christ," " consecrating the law," — all the parts of his scheme are found to cohere together, with nothing contradictory or inconsistent ; and it is in our view as impossi- ble to raise out of his books another d ine of the atonement inconsistent with that which we have set forth, as it is to raise the doctrine of universalism or Socinianism out of the Word of God. THE PRACTICAL BEARINGS OF THESE VIEWS, AND OF THE PRmcrPLES ON "WHICH THEY ARE TO BE VOTDICATEP, AS SET FOETH BT DK. BTJSHNELL. -^ At the close of each of the chapters on the Trinity, Incai- nation, and Atonement, in the volume under consideration ,•■ Dr. Bushnell endeavors to quiet the alarm of his brethren, by alleging that, however he may differ from them in his ap- prehensions of doctrine, this difference need not extend itself into preaching and practical religion. Justice to him, therefore, reqiiires that we should examine those portions of his first and second volumes, in which he himself more particularly sets forth the bearings of his scheme on those religious, moral, or practical interests most seriously affected by it. These are presented in preliminary chapters on language in each vol- ume, and in the concluding discourse on dogma and spirit in the first. We will briefly examine these, especially as he evi- dently considers them important to a just understanding of his views of Christian doctrine. We will just premise, however, that all admit the imper- fection of human language, at least so far, that single words and phrases are often capable of different meanings. They also admit that it can express no more concerning the Infinite God, than our finite minds can apprehend concerning Him. Yet most persons hold that, if not by single words and phra- ses, at least by the aid of connected and qualifying words and phrases, every good writer can generally express himself clearly and surely in regard to whatever is a subject of know- Y9 ledge. What we may know of God can be accurately ex- pressed in language, which may, at the same time, suggest much that we cannot know concerning Him. To deny this, is to deny the possibility of revelation ; of so stating any moral or religious truth that men are bound to believe it ; of arguing, teaching, or preaching, to any good purpose ; it is to destroy all confidence between man and man, and render the gift of speech worthless, only a Babel confusion of tongues. The extent to which Dr. B. teaches, that language is im- perfect, we will now show. Truth cannot be well expressed except in terms of contra- diction and paradox. Ood in Christ, [p. 55.] No good writer is afraid of inconsistencies and self-contradictions in his lan- guage. God in Christ, [p. 57.] Clear writers and speakers are false and do not advance Dr. B. in knowledge. God in Christ, [p. 87.J Hence, logic is a defective and often deceitful instrument. God in Christ, [p. 57.] It is a good and lawful weapon, however, for assailing the doctrines which Dr. B. im- pugns. Christ in Theology, [pp. 91-2.] The doctrinal propo- sitions in creeds and catechisms are dogmatical and uncertain. God irh Christ, [pp. 79, 80.] Those who regard them as " God in Christ." [P. 55.] " Accordingly we never come so near to a truly -vrell rounded view of any truth as when it is offered paradoxically ; that is, under contradictions; that is, under two or more dictions, whichj taken as dictions, are contrary one to the other." " Godin Christ." [P. ST.] "No good writer, who is oconpied in simply express- ing truth, is ever afraid of inconsistencies or self-contradictions in has language. It is nothing to him that a quirk of logic can bring him into absurdity." " God in Christ" [P. ST.J " Shall I dare to go further 8 Shall I say that of all the ' clear' writers and speakers I have met with, — those, I mean, who are praised by the multitude for their transparency, — ^I have never yet found one that was able to send me forward an inch; or one that was realty true, save in a certain superficial or pedagogical sense, as being an accurate distributor of that which is known," " God in Christ." [P. 57.] "It is a part of the same view, that logic itself is a defective, and often deceitful instrument" "Christ in Theology." [P. 91-2.] " Accordingljr, I did not hesitate to make free use of logic as a negative and destructive instrument , (which I lawfully might), to sweep away the piles of rubbish heaped upon God's truth, by scho- lastics and amateur disciples, who could not observe the distinction between constructing and receiving, a Gospel." "Godin Christ." [P. 79-80.] " It is important to notice, as connected with the subject of language, that dogmatical propositions, such as are commonly woven into creeds and catechisms of doctrine, have not the certainty they are com- monly supposed to have." 80 guards and tests of parity^ have lost the sense of purity. God in Christy [p. 81.] Dr. B. has no consciousness of oppres- sion or constraint under any creed. He is ready to accept as many as fall in his way, hy virtue of a chemistry of thought which descends to the point of relationship between the form of truth and its interior, formless nature. Qod m Christ, [p. 82.] Christ im Theology, l^. 53,] These views of language bring an element of mysticism into the Christian doctrine and lif*. God 4n Christ, [p. 95.] Ministers ought to study mystic and quietistic writers. God in- Christ, \j^. 347.] " God in Christ." [P. 81.] "Theyoan be regarded only as proximate represen- tations, and should therefore be accepted, not as laws oyer belief or opinion, but more as badges of consent and good nnderstanding. The moment we begin to speak of them as guards and tests of purity, we confess that we hare lost the sense of purity, and, with about equal certainty, the virtue itselt" "God in Christ." [P. 82.} "So far from suffering even the least consciousness of constraint or oppression, under any creed, I have been readier to accept as great a number as fell in my way ; for when they are subjected- to the deep- est chemistry of thought, that which descends to the. point of relationship be- tween the form of the truth and its interior, formless nature, they become there- upon 80 elastic, and run so &eely into each other, that one seldom need have any difficulty in accepting as many as are offered him."