i^ a o^ i:a. «^::^ i:a. "^:2^ OF THE PRINCETON, N. J. SAMUEL AGNEW, OF PHILADELPHIA, PA. Tyueyvolu Z^ti.^j^^S'^ m ( " "" t (3 Division.. i. V 7 ^. -f-Q; >e£<^^>Qe' //•■v BIBLE NEWS: OR, SACRED TRUTHS RELATING TO THE LIVING GOD, HIS ONLY SON, AND HOLY SP5EIT, ILLUSTRATED AND DEFENDED, IN A CONTINUED SERIES OE LETTERS AND INaUIRIES. ** But to us there is but one God the Father." St. Paul. " This is my beloved Son." Jehovah. " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." St. Peter. TO WHICH IS ADDED A RESPKCTFUL ADDRESS TO THE TRINITARIAN CLERGY, RELATING TO THEIR MAN^- WER OF TREATING OPPONENTS. BY NOAH WORCESTER, D. D. BOSTON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THOMAS B. WAIT. SOLD ALSO BY RICHARDSON AND LORD, CHMMINGS, MILLIARD, AND CO. AND AT THE CHRLSTFAN REGISTPZR OFFICE, 1825. DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO WIT : DISTRICT clerk's OmCE. BE it remembered, that on the fifteenth day of Jaiiuaiy, A. D. 1825, in the forty-ninth year of the Independence of the Umtecl btatts of Anitrica} ]4oah Worcester, D.D. of the suid district, has dcpOMted in tl is office tlie tiile of a book, the right whereo) he claims as author, in the words foUowing, to wit : »* Bible News : or Sacred Truths relating- to tht- Living God, his Only Son, and Holy Siunt, illustrated and defended m a series of l.i ttt-rs ami Ii.qiiiries. *But to us tht-re is but one God the Fata tr.' St. Paul. ' This is my beloved Son ' Jehovah ' G-jd anointed Jesus of Nazaietn with the Holy Gliost.' St. Peter. To whic'i is added, a respt^cilul Address to the Tri- n taran Clers^y, relatuig to their manner of treating opponents. By NOAH WORCESTER, P. D. Third edition.'* In youfjrin ty !•» lii;; ict ofiii- Congress of the United States, entitled, '• \n act for the encouragement of learning, by securing ihp copies of Maps, Charts,aud Books, to the nuthoi-s nnd proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned;" and also to an act, entitled, " An act supplemen- tary to an act, entitled, A'l act for the encourag-ment otlearning-, by securing the copi 's of vlaps. Charts, and Books, to the authors and piopi ietors of such copies during the times tlierein mentioned ; and tx' ending the b* nefits there- of to the arts of Desigaiug, Engraving and Etching !I storical and other Prints." JNO. W. DAViS, Clerk of the District of Massachtisetts^ ADVERTISEMENT. It lias long been regretted that not a copy was to be obtained of the volume entitled *' BIBLE NEWS.'* Believing that this little work has done much good, and is calculated to do much more, by its vigour of in- tellect, its scriptural truth, and the spirit of conciliation in which it is written — the publisher has been induced to ask the privilege of printing a third edition. The following Letter from the venerable Author will show that his consent has been given ; but that it is not in his power to make any additions or alterations.— And shall we be dissatisfied with this? — Shall we com. plain because one of the best books ever written is not made still better ? A LETTER FROM THE AUTHOR TO MR. T. B. WAIT. Brighton, August 24, 1824. MY DEAR SIR, Having consented that yon should reprint the book entitled " Bible News," it may be proper for me to assign the reasons why I do not revise the work. Want of health is the principal reason for this neglect. Since you proposed reprinting, in 1822, such has been my situation that it would have been impossible for rae LV ADVERTISEMENT. to make a revision satisfactory to myself, without omitV ting other things which T regarded as of more importance. It is now twelve years since the second edition was pub- lished, and nearly as long since 1 have read the book. During that period the spirit of inquiry, and Biblical criticism have done much to correct publick opinion. Many of the criticisms I have occasionally read ; and by their aid I might furnish support to the interpretations which I gave to many disputed texts. Perhaps too I might in several instances, correct mistakes of my own ; and I am far from deeming it a just ground of reproach for a man to confess and correct his own mistakes. But want of health is not the only reason why I do not revise the work. After I began to write on the sub- ject of War, in 1814, I soon lost all disposition to pursue the controversy which had for several years occupied much of my attention. I found that I had long been in errours in relation to w'ar, far more pernicious than I was disposed to impute to any class of my brethren in respect to the Trinity. From that time to the present, 1 have been deeply impressed with the belief, that of all the errours which have ever afflicted mankind, those which sanction war as an honourable employment are the most fatal and the most to be deplored — not except- ing the pagan errours which induce men to offer human sacrifices to imaginary gods. When 1 have reflected on the facts, that Christians of various denominations have been disposed to contend, and to rejiroach one another on account of a diversity of opinions on subjects oi little practical importance, while they have united in giving glory to the practice of national robberj and murder, I ADVERTISEMENT. V have been shocked at the blindness and inconsistency of the Christian world. These reflections and feelings have completely overcome all the propensity I ever had for disputation on the subject of the Trinity. Indeed they have in a measure rendered me incapable of pursuing such inquiries and discussions ; as they have disqualified me for fixing my attention upon them, in such a degree as is necessary to think and write to advantage. What I formerly wrote relating to the Trinity I be- lieved to be the truth, and it was my aim to speak the truth in love. But I made no pretensions to infallibili- ty. There may be errours in what I wrote ; and my neglect of further attention to the subject may be a rea- son why I have not discovered them. It is however my hope and belief that the book contains nothing re- proachful to the Father or the Son, and nothing which can endanger the souls of men. If, however, the reader shall find any thing in it evincing an unkind temper to- wards any class of Christians, he is desired to consider it as cancelled at my request, as what I disapprove and retract. For, in my opinion, no other errour relating to the controversy is so dangerous, as that wliich is found in the hostile spirit with which the controversy has too commonly been conducted. Whatever may be the dignity of the Son of God, he is most honoured by those who are mo^st careful to imbibe and exhibit the spirit required in his precepts, and displayed in his example. However unexceptionable a man's creed may be in other respects, he has little claim to be regarded as a friend to the Saviour, if his faith works by hatred instead of love. 1* VI ADVERTISEMENT. The bitter controversies among Christians, relating to the doctrines of their religion, may perhaps account for the astonishing blindness which has so long prevailed in regard id the antichristian practice of War. By such disputes the attention of people has been diverted from the benign and forbearing spirit of Christianity. A be- lief in some mystical doctrines, expressed in language not found in the Scriptures, has been treated as more important than that love which is the " end of the com- mandment," " the fulfilling of the law," and ' the bond of perfectnesS." When, therefore, it shall be duly un- derstood, that love is the sum of all Christian duty and all moral excellence, that true faith always works by- love and purifies the heart, that the precepts of Christ are designed to teach us what we must be and do to ob- tain eternal life, and that the doctrines of the gospel are exhibited as motives to obedience ; then the bitterness of theological controversy will subside, sanguinary cus- toms will no more disgrace the nations of Christendom, and the Pagans may again exclaim — " Behold, how the Christians love one another!" That such a period may soon arrive is the fervent desire of Your afifectionate friend, NOAH WORCESTER. ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SECOND EDITION, The letters contained in the following pages are, generally, those which were formerly published under the title of " Bible News ;'' and " addressed to a wor- thy Minister of the gospel." Some things, however, have been omitted to give place to others which have been deemed of more importance. But whether this may be properly called an Improved Edition^ the pub- lick will determine. On condition that it shall be consistent with the will of God, under the general title now assumed, the pub- lick may expect some farther communications. A series of Inquiries have, for a long time, occupied my atten- tion ; and some things are nearly ready for the press ; which, it is hoped, will give additional light respecting the character of the Son ofGod, andthe Holy Spirit; and also additional evidence that the doctrine of a " Three one God" has no foundation in the Bible ; and that it is really reproachful both to the Holy ONE of Is- rael and to his ONLY SON. It was foreign from the desires of my heart to occasion any schism, tumult or clamour among profe^ssed Chris- tians ; and I cannot but deeply lament that any things of such a nature have been the consequence of publishing my sentiments. It is most sincerely hoped, that those who have been offended with me for thinking for myself ^nd publishing {he fruits of my inquiries, will yet allow Vlll ADVERTISEMENT. themselves time for cool reflection and patient examina- tion. For it is confidently believed, that the time is not far distant, when the doctrine, that Christ is really God's SON, will not by Christian Ministers, be classed among *' damnable heresies.'^* There are things, respecting which, I must be allow- ed to express some astonishment, because, when the things are compared together, there seems to be some- thing of the nature of a paradox. So far as 1 am informed by reports, by private letters and by conversation, the sentiment that Christ is really God's SON, has, above every thing else in my Letters, been made the ground of objection among Trinitarian Ministers. It is on this very ground that thej have taken the liberty to represent, that I have degraded the cha- racter of Christ, that 1 am an Arian, a Socinian, and a heretick. In my own defence, and in opposition to their views, I exhibit evidence from Scripture, that believing in Christ, as the Son of God, is stated as a condition of salvation ; and that tiis6e/ie/' of this doctrine is what is termed mak- ing God a liar. Then, my Trinitarian brethren, turn right about, and consider me as really reprehensible, tor so much as intimating \hdi\ they do not " as fully as^'' I " do,''* believe that Jesus Christ is the SON of God. But if they do, rs fully as I do, believe that Jesus Christ is the SON of God, why the alarm? Why the oppositioti ? And why the cry oi '^ damnable hereses .^'^ If believing, as I do, that Christ is really God's Son; and if, as they affirm, they do, ns fully as I do, believe that he is the Son of God. why are they free from the charge of '■'- damnable heresy ?'* Is the very same senti- a gospel truth, and in me a " damnable AJDVERTISEMENT. IX heresy?''* And if my sentiment be degrading io Christ, and they really believe the same, why is not their sen- timent equally degrading to the Saviour ? They will reply, tl>at they really believe that Christ is the Son of God ; but not in the seuse I have given to the terms. But can any man of candour honestly say, that the sense 1 have given to the terms is not the highest sense which can po5s?7»/?/ be given them, consistent with any analogy ? If, then, these Ministers do really be- lieve, that Christ is God's Son, but not in the sense I have given to the terms ; they must believe that he is the Son of God in a loz5. Thus we have three Trinitarians and one Unitarian concurring 3d the fa( t that the doctrine of a '•'• three one God" was not finish' (jduntilA. D. 381. On the Unity of God. 19 communications on this subject. I may therefore now state and answer it, that the way may be opened for a candid hearing. It is said, that my views imply a departure from a great and important article of the orthodox faith, which has for many centuries been admitted by the great body of the most pious Christians, and has been advocated by great numbers of learned and pious divines ; that it has long been admitted as an article of Christian faith, that there are three dis- tinct, co-equal, and self-existent Persons in the ONE God ; and that it would be reproachful to the great Head of the church, to suppose that he would suffer his most faithful friends to be so long in an errour on a point of so great importance. This, I confess, has appeared to me the most weighty objection which has ever been stated against the theory I have adopted. I shall there- fore attempt a serious and candid reply, 1. I have no inclination to doubt either the piety or the learning of those divines who have advocat- ed the doctrine of three distinct Persons in one God. Many such, I doubt not, have already been admitted into the realms of bliss, and others, I be- lieve, are in the way which leads to the same state. Some of this class of divines with whom 1 am ac- quainted, I esteem as the excellent of the earth, and as vastly my superiours in piety, learning, and discernment. Biv. fallibility has been the rommon lot of Christians, as long, at least, as the Afhana- sian theory has been received as the orlhorJox faith. And among all the great and good divines, I cannot find one who has ever given evidence of infallibility. Great and good divines, like other gno,| people, have been linble to err. Nor can I find, that Christ ever promised that he would not- 20 On the Unity/ of God. suffer his church to fall into any errour in senti- ment respecting the charncier of the Father, the Son, and ihe Holy Spirit. Therefore, however improbable it may appear to you (hat there is any incorrectness in the doctrine which has been so long and so generally received, and so ably and abun- dantly advocated, the possibility that there may be incorrectness must be admitted. An investigation, therefore, may be highly proper and useful. 2. I would ask, Is it not a truth, that, for many centuries, the doctrine before us has heen popular — so popular that a man must run the hazard of losing his reputation for piety, if he should call in question its correctness ? And would not such a stdle of things naturally preclude any general, tho- rough, and impartial examination of the subject ? Would not many, even among good people and good ministers, be likely to choose to take it tor gi-anted that ih^ popular doctrine is true, and con- tent themselves with searching the Scriptures for texts to support it ? Surh a course of proceeding, I confess, I adopted for a number of years. Such was my veneration for the characters of those wri- ters who had defended the theory, that it seemed to me safe to follow them. My object, therefore, in studying on the subject, was merely to support the doctiiiie. I do not know that others have been so deficient; but if they have, this may be one rea- son why the dorinne has beeti so long and so gene- rally admitted. The proposition which affirms that there are three distinct P.-rsons in one God. is surely not a Bible p!"oposiiio!j — 1 am willing to adrnit it as a proposition formed by good men to exj^ress their vitws of the meanhig o{ G-)'\''i> word. Bui we have the Bible before us, as well as those who formed On the Unity of God. 2t the proposition, and it is our duty to bring the doc- trine to the Bible for examination, and not merely for support. 3. Do not your peculiar sentiments, as a Hop- kinsian, imply a departure from doctrines which have been considered as highly important, which have been generally received for several centuries by the most pious Christians, and which have been advocated by multitudes of great and good divines ? Why were you not afraid of impeaching the charac- ter of the great Head of the church by adopting sen- timents in a manner which, in your own view, would imply that he had sufTered his most faithful friends for a long time to be in an errour on some impor- tant points ? Why were you not contented to re- ceive for truth the theories of our pious forefathers, and thus have saved yourself the trouble of labo- rious investigation, and from the reproaches of those who have viewed you as departing from doc- trines which have long been received by the pious and faithful friends of Christ ? It docs not, sir, appear, that our Hopkinsian brethren have been much afraid of impeaching the character of Christ, by preaching and writing what they have thought to be the truth, although, in some respects, they contradicted theories which have long been receiv- ed as essential doctrines of the gospel. 4. I willingly admit, that the great body of Christ's faithful friends have been so far united, as to adopt, as an article of faith, a proposition which affirms three distinct Persons in one God. But is it not a solemn truth, that nineteen-twentieths of those, who have professed to believe the article, have never examined the terms of the pi oposition so as to be able to tell in what sense they believed it to be true ? And have pot the great and piovts 22 On the Unity of God, divines in every age, since the proposition was adopted, been greatly divided as to its real im- port F Mr. Jones, and some others, have informed us, that by the three Persons they mean three dis- tinct Agents. But Dr. Hopkins says, '' It must be careT'illy observed, that when this word is ap- plied to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as ihree distinct Persons, it does not import the same distinction as when applied to men." But he does not pretend to be able to tell what the word does import^ as applied to the Deity. There are other ministers who frankly own that they know not what is intended by Persons in the pro- position. Dr. Watts, in his day, said, " The common or scholasiick explication of the Trinity, which has been long and universally receivcJ, and been call- ed orthodox, is, that God is but one simple, infi- nite, and eternal Spirit : Hence it follows, that the Divine essence, powers, and essential properties of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, in the God- head, are numerically the very same : that it is the same numerical consciousness, understanding, will, and power, which belongs to the Father, that also belongs to the Son and to the Holy Sjiirit : and that the sacred Three are distinguished only by the superadded, relative properties of paternity, filiation, and precesswn.'^^ Perhaps the word procession should have been used, instead of ^^ precession ;''^ but 1 hyve given the word as 1 found it in Memoirs of Dr. Watts, page 98. If Dr. Watts gave a true account of what had " hvx'D long aol universally rfceived" as the ortho- dox taiih, Mr. Jones and those who agree with him On the Unity of God. 25 in sentiment have greatly departed from the ortho- dox faith. The orthodox taiih, according to Dr. Watts, implied no more than one infinite, self-ex- istent Agent ; the terras Father^ Son, and Holy GAo^/, denoted ''superadded, relative properties." But Mr. Jones supposes three distinct Agents. Some, by the three distinci Persons, have under- stood no more than one Being acting in three dis- tinct offices. The same Person or Being is Fa- ther as Creator, So2i as Redeemer, and Holy Ghost as Sanctifier, This may harmonize with the doctrine of" superadded, relative properties." In the conclusion of the '■' Memoirs of Dr. Watts," the writer says, " If I understand the great reformer Calvin aright, he in like manner conceived of the Word and Spirit as the Wisdom and Povi^ER of the Deity personified.* The pious Mr. Baxter adofited a like personification." The same writer quotes from Mr. Baxter a passage, which shows that there had been other methods still of explaining the personality of the Trinity. " Abundance of hereticks." says Mr. Baxter, " have troubled the church with their self-devised opinions about the Trinity, and the Person and nature of Christ. And I am loth to say how much many of the orthodox have troubled it also, with their self-conceited, misguided and uncharitable zeal against those they judged hereticks. I would advise ihe reader to be none of them that shall charge with heresy all those who say that the three Persons are Deus seipsum intelligens, Deus a seip- * When this passage was quoted I had not seen Calvin's " In- stitutes." lie indeed says things whirh favour the idea that the wisdom and power of Deity are personified, for the Son and Holu Spirit. But he says other things of a very diiferenl complexion. See the quotations in Part II. Letter iX. 24 On the Unity of God, so intellectus^ et Deus a seipso amatvs, ({hough I am not one ) nor yet those holy men whom I have cited, and many others, who expressly say that Potentia, Sapientia^ et Amor, Power, Wisdom, and Love, are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." I'hus, sir, we may see how the great and pious divines, wiih which God has blessed his church, have been divided in their real opinions of the meaning of a proposition which they all had adopted as an article of faith. One class out of six has agreed with you in sentiment, that by the three Persons are intended three distinct Agents ; a second class uses the terra Persons in an indefinite sense, with- out explanation ; a third, by three Person?, under- stands three offices ^ the fourth supposes one pro- per Person, and His Wisdom and Potoer personified for the other two Persons ; the fifth supposes the three Persons to be three principal attributes of God^ Power, Wisdom, and Love ; the other sup- poses the personality to mean no more than this, God understanding himself God understood by him- self, and God loving himself Of what use, sir, to Christianity, can that propo- sition be, which is thus variously understood by the best divines ? While there is so great a varie- ty of real opinion about ihe import of the article, their agreeing to adopt it as an article of faith can be no evidence of its correctness. But is not the disagreement as to xhe import of the word Person, in the proposition, some evidence that the word is improperly used 1 You cannot justly accuse me of differing more in real opinion from those who have adopted this article, than they differ from each other. And 1 would suggest it for your seri- ous consideration, whether your departure from the ancient orthodox faith is not infinitely greater than On the Unity of God. 25 mine — yea, greater by tzoo infinities ? You sup- pose thrte sell-existent, infinite Agents; 1 suppose but one ; and if Dr. Watts fairly stated the expli- cation of the Trinity, which had '' been long and universally received" as orthodox, the ancient orthodoxy implied but one infinite Agent. And with his statement agrees all but one of the seve- ral explanations which have been enumerated ; the personality was evidently understood as figu- rative. The evidence we have before us, that great and good men have been greatly divided on the sub- ject of the personality of the Trinity, may serve to evince the propriety of the caution given by Mr. Baxter against indulging a censorious spirit one to- wards another. The more deep and mysterious the subject, the more occasion we have for self- diffidence, and the more room for the exercise of Christian candour towards those who may differ from us in opinion. The experience I have had of my own fallibility may be considered as an admonition to me against indulging a self-confident spirit respecting the cor- rectness of my present views. I have indeed been long searching and labouring to ascertain the truth, and to bring my views to harmonize with the mean- ing of the word of God. But I am yet far from any claim to infallibility. I can hardly expect that I shall be free from mistakes in explaining the nu- merous passages of Scripture which will naturally come under consideration. But this I know, that I have no interest to serve by perverting or misap- plying the Scriptures. It is, I hope my aim, to art faithfully for Christ in attempting to explain his word ; and with him I may safely leave the event. 3 26 On the Unity of God. I am not insensible that I expose to peril the lit- tle share of reputation which I have hitherto pos- sessed by taking ground so singular and unpopular. Nor am I at all indifferent as to the esteem and good will of my fathers and brethren with whom 1 have been in fellowship. My esteem for them is not at all abated by any change in my own sentiments; and it is my wish to give them no occasion of of- fence in my manner of writing. It will be my duty to expose what I esteem to be erroneous in their sentiments ; but I hope to do it in the spirit of meek- ness, of candour, and of love. My dissenting from them in opinion is surely no reason why I should be offended with them ; and 1 am not sensible that it is a reason why tkey should be ofiended with me. But should they view my dissent as ground of of- fence, I hope they will deal with me in a gospel temper and on gospel principles, duly bearing in mind that bitter revilings and sound reasonings are things of a very different nature.* Three principal propositions 1 shall attempt to il- lustrate and support, in the course of my letters to you-^viz. I. That the self-existent God is only one Person. II. That Jesus Christ is God's own Son, III. That by the Holy Ghost is intended the ful- ness of God, or the efficient, productive emanations of Divine fulness. In support of the first proposition, I shall, in my next Letter, distinctly consider what is meant by the word Person, * Such was my '' hope^'' when I published the first edition. I must now say I wish it may be so in future. But alas ! " what is man 1" Oil the Unit)/ of God. 27 LETTER II Personality defined and illustrated, REV. SIR, It has been supposed to be a very difficult thing to ascertain in what personality consists, or what constitutes personality. It may, however, be found an easy thing to tell what is nieant by the word Person, as it is used in Scripture, and in common discourse. I will exhibit a lew instances ol" the use of the term in the Scripture-. " Noah the eighth Person." *' Joseph was a goodly Person." " No uncircumcised Person shall eat thereof." " Whosoever hath killed any Per- son." " Goest to battle in thine own Person." " A rififhteous Person." " A wicked Person." «' Thy Person," " His Person." Such a manner of nsing the term is common in all writings, with which 1 aui acquainted. We apply the term Person to any man, or woman, to an angel, to Jesus Christ, and to God. But we do not apply it to any class of beings below the human race. The pronouns /le or 5^6, &;c. we apply to the bru- tal creation ; but it would be thought an impropri- ety of speech to apply the term Person to the most sagacious horse or dog. By careful observation, it will be found that we use the personal pronouns in reference to any beings which are supposed to possess animal life ; but the word Person is proper- ly applied only to intelligent Beings, Inanimate objects, in figurative language, are often personi- iied ; but the very idea andm^Je of personification 2S On the Unity of God. implies what is intended by the word Person^ viz. an INTELLIGENT BeING. What is meant by the word Person^ is just as ob- vious to common people as what is meant by the ^noon. And we have no more occasion to inquire what constitutes personality in order to tell what is meant by the word Person, than we have to ascer- tain the essence of the moon in order to tell what object is called by that name. And it is no more difficult to ascertain what constitutes personality, than to ascertain what constitutes intelligent exis- tence. It may be objected, that there is no part or pro- perty of a man but what is spoken of in the posses- sive case, as though it were something distinct from personality. We say, his hands, his feet, his head, his intellects J his heart, his body, his soul, as though personality were something distinct from any of these. This is all granted ; but in the same manner we use the word Person itself ; we say his Person, And thus the term is used in the Bible, " the ex- press image o^ his Person.^^ But it does not hence follow, that personality consists in something dis- tinct from Person. As one person is one intelligent Being, so two or three persons are two or three intelligent Beings. So obvious is this to the common sense of man- kind that it may be doubted whether any man can form any other idea of two persons than that of two intelligent Beings. If it be understood that we are speaking of human Beings, and mention is made of two persons, it as clearly conveys the idea of two inr telligent Beings, as if we should say tiuo men. The same observation will apply to angels. Some writers of eminence have suggested, or as- serted, that Person and Being arc not terms of the On the Unity of God, 29 same import ; and therefore it may imply no contradiction to say, three persons in one Being or one God. But I have not found that they have at- tempted to explain the difference between Person and Being, 1 shall not pretend that these terms are uniformly of synonymous import, for the term Be- ing may be applied to any object which exists, but the term Person is applicable only to intelligent ex- istence. But the phrases an intelligent Person and an intelligent Being may properly be considered as synonymous. If you think otherwise be pleas- ed to explain the difference. In writing on divinity, it is highly important that we should use language according to its common acceptation. To make use of terms, of which we can give no intelligible explanation, has no ten- dency to communicate light. Those who make use of terms in relation to God or to Christ, ought, at least to be able and willing to tell their own meaning in the use of those terms. If 1 say that the Father and the Son are two distinct Persons I ought to be willing to tell what I mean by the word Per- son. And if I have any definite meaning to the term, it may be expected that in some way, I can make it known. But it I have no definite meaning to the term, how is it possible that another person can tell whether he agrees or disagrees with me in senti- ment ? If I only slate, that I believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct P-rsons, there is, perhaps, no Christian but will say h*:* believes the same. Bit as soon as I explain what I mean by the word Person many will dissent and avow their disa- greement. Havirjg thus exposed myself to their disapprobation, by explaining my meaning, may 3* 30 On the Unity of God, 1 not be pcrmilted to ask what they mean by the term, that I may be able to compare the two opin- ions ? And ought I to receive it as a satisfactory answer, if I am told that Person and Being are not the same, and that personality is something which cannot be defined ? As you, sir, profess to believe that the Father and the Son are two persons, and yet but one in- telligent Being, 1 would ask whether the Father is not one intelligent Being? And is not the Son also an intelligent Being? Was he not an intel- ligent Being who came into the world to die for our sins ? And was he who came and he who sent him one and the same intelligent Being ? As you also deny the human personality of Christ, or that as a derived Being, he was a Person, and still admit that he was, in respect to his human nature truly a Man, I would ask what addition , would have been necessary to constitute that Man a proper person ? If we deny that, as a derived intelligence, he was a Person, will it not be difficult to make it appear that there is any such thing as personality in Man ? Sin excepted, what do we find in ourselves which was not found in the Man Christ Jesus ? If we take ground respecting per- sonality, on which it cannot be proved that there is any such thing as a human Person^ how shall we be able to show that there is any propriety in ap- plying the term Person to the Deity ? It is a clear case, that so long as we remain ignorant of the import of the term, we can never be sure that it is properly applied. I have not, sir, pursued this inquiry with any de- sire to perplex the minds of others, or to multiply or widen the breaches which exist among pro- fessed Christians, but^ if possible, to do someihing which may contribute to greater unanimity. Noth- On the Unity of God.- 31 ing, perhaps, has contributed more to keep the sub- ject of the Trinity involved in obscurity, than an indefinite and unmeaning use of the term Person. I will not affirm that the definition 1 have given is perfect ; but I will hope, that by frankly avowing my own views, and exposing myself to the censure of others, I may, at least, be the occasion of further inquiry and further light on the subject* Permit me now, sir, to appeal from your theory to your enlightened common sense. Did you ever conceive of the Father and the Son as one and the same intelligent Being ? When you thank God for the gift of his Son to die for us, do you not uni- formly conceive of the Father as one intelligent Being, and of the Son as another? From my own past experience, I may presume, that according to your common sense, the Father and the Son are as distinctly two intelligent Beings as Abraham and Isaac. Of what importance then can it be to Chris- tianity, to attempt to support a theory of personality which is undefinable and ineffable, which does not accord with the common acceptation of the term Person, nor with the practical views even of those who adopt it? Scarcely any thing is more obvi- ous to the common understanding of men, than what is usually intended by the word Person; but when the term is applied to the Deity, they must be told that it means something which cannot be explained. But if ^he explanation I have given of the meaning of the word Person shall be found to accord with the common sense of mankind, and with the practical views of Christians in relation to the Father and Son, may I not hope to escape the cen- sure of those who profess not to know what is meant by Person as applied to God. It will probably be urged, that God is incompre- 32 On ihe Unity of God. hensible, and that the doctrine which affirms three persons in one God or one Being, is no more above our comprehension than the eternity and self-exis- tence of Jehovah. It will readily be granted, that God is to us in- comprehensible in his Being and all his attributes; yet, in respect to any of his attributes, we can ex- plain what we mean by the terms in which they are expressed. We can so explain as to make each other understand wJiat we mean by the terms eterni- ty and self-existence. Let it, then, be as intelligi- bly explained what is meant by Person^ when we say that there are three Persons in one God or one intelligent Being, The incomprehensibleness of an object is no rea- son why we should use terms without any definite meaning. God is an incomprehensible object ; but in using the term, we may have an intelligible and definite meaning. We ought, at least, to have so much meaning to the terms we use, that we can ex- plain our own meaning. By some good writers it has been supposed, that the proposition which affirms a plurality of Persons in one intelligent Being, imfjlies no contradiction. But I would ask, how is it known that it does not imply a contradiction ? Can we alfirm any thing of a proposition any further than we understand the teims / Let the terms be explained, and then we stand on fair ground to judge whether the proposi- tion does or does not imply a contradiction. But until this be done, it would be very improper, at least for me, to affirm any thing concerning it, one Wi^y or another. Until we understand the term Person, we know not what is affirmed in the pro- position. And if therr be no definite meaning to the term, he who states the proposition either af- On the Unity of God. 33 firms nothing, or he affirms he knows not what. If we think to give instruction by using terms in an indefinite and undefinable sense, we most certain- ly miss our aim. For no person can be enlighten- ed by any proposition any farther than he under- stands the meaning of the terms. U then, in writ- ing on divinity, we use terms which are undefina- ble in our own application of them, what do we better than to darken counsel by words without knowledge ? The following proposition is supposed to be apostolick, " There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost." This passage, I am fully satisfied, as will appear. Letter VI, is an interpolation. But even should it be supposed genuine, it affords no proof of the Trinitarian sentiment. For neither the term Persons, nor the name God, is to be found in the passage. And if we know not the import of the term Persons, was it not very improper for Trinitarians to insert it in a proposition intended to express an apostle's meaning? It was with a view to render this proposition more explicit, that the term Person was inserted. But however inex- plicit or indefinite the proposition may be, as it stands in the Bible, it surely could not be amended by inserting a word without meaning, or by using a definite term in an undefnable sense. As to the improper use of the term Person, I consider myself as having been culpable as well as others. And while I frankly place myself on this ground, I do it in hope that the preceding re- marks will not be viewed as designedly reproach- ful to any class of Christians or divirjes. Thus, sir, I have attempted to establish one point in favour of the proposition, that the Supreme 34 On the Unity of God. Being, or self-existent God, is only one Person. If the account which has been given of the word Person be correct, to say that the one self-existent God is three self existent Persons^ 16 the same as to say that the self-existent God is three self-ex- istent intelligent Beings. And if there be a pro- priety in saying that the one God is but one su- preme Being, there can be no propriety in saying that the one God is three self-existent Persons. — But there are still other considerations which may be brought into view in subsequent Letters. LETTER III. The^ Scripture use of pronouns and verbs in rela- tion to God, REV. SIR, Although the definition which has been given of the term Person should be adn^itted as cor- rect, still it may be thought that a definition may be given of the term God, which Avill render it consistent to say three Persons in one God. And such a definition has been given by Mr. Wil- liam Jones in his celebrated performance on '' The Catholick doctrine of the Trinity." In page 9, he says, ** The word God, though of the singular number, IS o( plural comprehension*'^'' In proof of this idea he has written a distinct chapter, in which he has evidenced both labour and ingenuity. And it will be admitted, that if, in the Scriptures, the term God be intended to import three self- existent Persons^ there is no more contradictiou in On the Unity of God, 35 affirming that there are three Persons in one God, than there would he in affirming tuai there are three Persons in one Council, or one Senate, or one Tri- umvirate. In support of his idea, Mr. Jones has not only mentioned some 7ioims which are plural in the Hebrew, which are in English translated God ; but he has stated that there are dilao pronouns and verbs of the plural number agreeir)g with the term God. And it must be acknowledged that, at first view, these things appear much in favour of a plu- rality of Persons in God. For according to the established principles of grammar, pronouns and verbs should agree with their nouns in number. It then behooves us to examine the subject with care and with candour. Mr. Jones has exhibited several instances in which, in our translation, the pronouns us and OUR are used, as he supposes, as proper pronouns for God only, and as denoting a plurality of Per- sons in the one God. The first text which he mentions is Gen. i. 26. ^' And GoD said, let us make man in our image, and after our likeness." — In reference to this text, it may be observed, that these pronouns do not necessarily imply more than two Persons, nor do they necessarily imply that both of them were self- exislent. The representation is, that God spake to some other Person, And as he created all things by his Son Jesus Christ, the Son was probably the Person to whom God spake. And all the plural pronouns which Mr. Jones has relied on may be accounted for in the same manner. In respect to the plural nou7i$ which he has men- tioned, I shall only say, that they go as far to prove a plurality of Gods, as they do to prove a plurali- ty of! self-existent Persons, 36 On the Unity of God. But besides nouns 'd.]v\ pronouns, be has suggest- ed, that, in the Hebrew, several plural verbs and adjectives are found agreeing with the noun God. This he also considers as evidence thai the word God impli»^s a plurality of Persons. Being wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew language, I cannot pretend to dispute the correctness of his state- ments. Some things, however, may possibly be suggested, which may be sufficient ground on which to doubt the correctness of his inference. 1. I think we have no evidence, that the sacred writers were perfectly acquainted with the rules -of grammar, nor that the Divine Spirit, by which tliey wrote, secured them from every departure from the rules of grammar in the construction of sentences. — But, 2. If it were certain that the inspired penmen never deviated from the rules of granimar, it would still be possible that as many as Jive or six mis- takes in the number of verbs, might be made in copying the Old Testament five or six thousand times. For though we have evidence that great care was taken in copying the Scriptures, we have no evidence that scribes were infallible. And if, in the innumerable copyings of the Old Testament prior to the art of printing, not more than Jive or six verbs were changed from the singular to the plural number, we have great reason to acknow- ledge a superintending Providence. Thus, sir, 1 have endeavoured candidly to reply to Mr. Jones's arguments from plural pronouns and verbs. Let it now be supposed, that instead of Jive or six plural pronouns of doubtful relation, he had found Jive or six thousand plural pronouns which obviously stand as substitutes for the names God, Lord or Jehovah ; would not his argument On the Unity of God, 37 have been at least a thousand times more forcible than it is on the ground he has produced ? Yea, let it be supposed that, on the most careful exami- nation, he had found in the Bible only Jive or six pronouns for God of the singular number, and those, too, of doubtful import ; and that, on the other hand, he had found all the pronouns for God, of the plural number, excepting the 6ve or six doubtful instances ; would not his argument have been invincible in favour of a plurality of Persons in the Godhead ? Would any man of sense, after such an exhibition, ever have called in ques- tion the doctrine of three self-existent Persons ? Confident f am, that such an argument would have had more weight in my mind than all the argu- ments I have seen or heard in favour of th*t doc- trine. Permit me then, sir, to retort the argument from the use oi pronouns and verbs in the Bible. Ex- cepting those doubtful instances of plural pronouns mentioned by Mr. Jones, are not the pronouns for God uniformly of the singular number ? Instead o{ Jive or six doubtful cases, do we not findjive or six thousand instances in which personal pronouns of the singular number are unquestionably used as substitutes for ihe nouns God, Lord or Jehovah ? — And setting aside Mr. Jones's exceptions, do we not find the verbs, agreeing with ihenounGoD, uni- formly of the singular number P When God speaks of himself in the first person, he uses the pronouns, /, My or Mine, Me, When he is addressed in the second Person, the pronouns are Thou, Thy or Thine, Thee, When he is spok- en of in the third Person, the pronouns are He, His, Him, — This, you must be sensible, is the general and uniform use of the pronouns for God, 4 38 On the Unity of God. in the Old Testament and the New. It may be added, that Myself, Thyself and Himself are also used as pronouns for God. If God were three co-equal Persons, it would be very natural to expect that we should find ex- plicit evidence of this in the manner of giving the law, and in the prayers of saints. But when the law was given on Mount Sinai, God spake in the singular number, ''/ am the Lord thy God — thou shalt have no other Gods before me." And is it not, sir, a solemn fact, that in all the prayers throughout the Bible, in which God is addressed, that he is addressed as one individual Person ? Moses, David and Daniel, may be considered as well acquainted with God. Each of them address- ed God as one Person only, Moses said, " Yet now if thou wilt, forgive my sin ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thit book." David said, " O God, to whom vengeance be- longs, show thyself," — noi yourselves, " Lift up thyself, thou Judge of the earth." Daniel said, " O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive ; O Lord, hearken and do ; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God : for thy city and thy people are called by thy name," We may here add, that Christ, who must be sup- posed to be better acquainted with God than any ancient prophet or any modern divine, addressed the Father not only as one Person, but as the '' only TRUE God." As the Son, he addressed the Father, and in his prayer he had these words, '^ And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." 1 think, sir, I may say, without hazard, that there On the Unily of God, * 39 is no intimation in the Bible of three self-existent Persons in one God, either in the manner in which Divine commands were coiumiinicated, or in the prayers of saints. But in giving; commands, God uniformly made himself known as one individual Person; and as to an individual Person, the {)ro- phets and saints addressed their prayers to God. Moreover, in all the remarkahle manifestations of himself to mankind, God made himself known as one Person only. — When he appeared to Adam after the fall, he manifested himself as one Person. And in pronouncing the curse upon the serpent, as one Person he spake, " /will put enmity between thee and the woman. And unto the woman he said, /will greatly multiply thy sorrow," he. As one Person, God manifested himself to Noah. *' And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come up before me. And behold, /, even /, do bring a flood upon the earth. But with thee will /establish my covenant." In his various appearances to Abraham, he re- vealed himself as only one Person. — "• / am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward — / will make thy seed as the dust of the earth — /am the Almie;hty God, walk before me, and be thou per- fect." Similar to this, was the style and manner adopt- ed by God in all his appearances to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In all the manifestations which God made of himself to Moses and the people of Israel, he uniformly represented himself as one Person. And thus he represented himself in his communications to the Prophets. It may also be observed, that in several instances God adopted forms of speech which not only implied a denial of the existence of 40 0?i the Unity of Go (I, any other God, but also of the existence of any other SELF-EXISTENT Person. — " See now that/, even /am he, and there is no God with me ; / kill, and / make alive ; / wound, and / heal." Deut. xxii. 39. — " And there is no God else besides ME, a just God and a Saviour ; there is none be- sides me. Look unto ME, and be ye saved, all ye ends of the earth ; for / am God, and there is none else." Isa. xlv. 21, 22. — '' Remember the former things oT old ; for / am God, and there is none else ; /am God, and there is none like me." When God reveals himself under the title of the Holy OxNe, or the Holy One of Israel, he repre- sents himself not only as one God but as ok& Person. *' Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons ; and concerning the work of MY hands, command ye me." In conformity to the idea which God gave of himself, as being one Person only, all the sacred writers, in speaking of God, speak of him as one Person, by using a personal pronoun of the singu- lar number, as He, His^ Him, together witb cor- responding verbs. The Son of God, in the course of his ministry, spake of God as one Person. " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son," &c. — And the apostles uniformly spake of God as one Person only. — The scribe who came to Christ, and received his approbation as not far from the kingdom of God, in the course of the conversation, and in reply to Christ, said, "There is one God, and fhere is none other but He." And his remark was approved by Christ. Nouns of •' plural comprehension," such as Mr. Jones supposes the word God to be, admit the ar- On the Unity of God. 41 tide the before them, as the council, the senate ; and the pronouns, to agree with them, must be either neuter pronouns of the singular number^ or masculine pronouns o{ ihe plural number. Speak- ing of a council, we either say, // adjourned, or They adjourned — Of a senate, It passed an act, or They passed an act. We do not say of a council, He adjourned ; nor of a senate, He passed an act — Nor does a senate or a council, speaking in the first person, say /will. In view of these observations, sir, suffer me to present to your notice some of the foregoing pas- sages of Scripture, in a manner conformable to the Athanasian theory. I will begin with the pas- sage in Genesis, so much quoted by Athanasian writers, and connect with it the following verse. The passage, to agree with your views, shdiild read thus :...." And the Gid said. Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. So the God created man in their own image, and after their likeness ; in the image of the God created they him." If the pronouns us and our are pronouns for God only, the following pronouns should be also of the plural number. Upon the same principle, the first commandment would read as follows:,..." Thou shalt have no other gods before" us. When God said, ''/am God, and there is none like ME," would not your theory have required the followmg form ?....We are the God, and there is none like us. Would not the words of Christ, to have corres- ponded with your views, have stood thus ?...." The God so loved the world, that they gave their only begotten Son," &c. 4* 42 On the Unity of God, The words of the scribe, " There is one God, and there is none other but them," or but it. A remarkable variation would also be requisite in the passage in which God speaks of himself as the Holy One. " Thus sailh the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask us of things to come, concerning our sons ; and concerning the work of OUR hands, command ye us." I would further suggest, whether another varia- tion in this text would not render it still more con- formable to Mr. Jones's scheme, even to the lan- guage of Athanasians in genera! ? '' Thus saith the Lord, the Holy three of Israel !" This, I con- ceive, would have been a correct expression of your doctrine of the Trinity in Unity. Under the term Lord or Jehovah, the ?7/?i7?/ would have been implied ; and under the terras Holy three. the Trinity would have been expressed. Will you, sir, be pleased now to consider what a great and surprising change must be made through- out the Bible, in respect to the ^7'onown5 and verbs agreeing with God, to have the lancruage confor- mable to the Alhanasian doctrine ? You cannot be insensible, that in every instance in which a per- sonal pronoun of the singular nuQ)ber is used as a substitute for the noun God, something is implied contrary to that doctrine. Of course, a very great portion' both of the Old Testament and the New, is, according to the natural import of language, opposed to that theory. Jf the doctrine of three self existnnt Persons in one God were true, and of such infinite importance as seems to be supposed by our good brethren, how can it be accounted tor, that God himself, and all the sacred writers, should so uniformly adopt such forms of speech as would On the Unity of God. 43 naturally lead to the conclusion, that the one self- existent God is but one self-existent Person ? Mr. Jones has indeed suggested the idea, that the singular pronouns and verbs are most common- ly used as agreeing with God, to guard mankind against the idea of more Gods than one. But may I not, with as much propriety, suggest, that they are thus used to guard us against the idea of more than one self-existent Person ? or that they were thus used, that in case any should adopt the opin- ion of a plurality of self-existent Persons, the errour might be detected by the current and uni- form language of Scripture ? If it be a truth, that there are three self-existent Persons in one God, it is doubtless a very impor- tant truth. Nor is it to be admitted, that God should constantly speak in a manner which tended to impress the contrary idea, to prevent our falling into the errour of a plurality of Gods. Had it been a truth that there is but one God, and that this term is of " plural comprehension," compris- ing three co-eternal Persons, it would certainly have been a very easy thing with God to have adopted language conformable to both parts of the propo^ sition. The suggestion of Mr. Jones amounts to nothing less than this, that God made use of lan- guai^e" which was calculated to /eao?W5 into one er- rour^ lest we should/a// into another. Would it not, sir, shock the feelings of a Chris- tian audience, if a minister, in his prayers and preaching, should conform his language to the Athanasian theory, and the established rules of grammar? But if the theory be true, ought you not to adapt your current language, in prayer and preaching, to your theory ? You cannot be insen- sible, that to \x%e pronouns and verbs of the singu- 44 On the Unity of God, lar number, in relation to God, has a direct ten- dency to impress the minds of your hearers with the idea that God is but one Person. And if you believe the contrary, ought you not to avoid such forms of speech as naturally tend to mislead the minds of your hearers ? You will probably retort the question, and ask, why 1 did not avoid such forms of speech while I was an Athanasian ? I an- swer, I was not aware of the inconsistency be- tween my common forms of speech and the theory I had adopted. If this be your case, you may possibly be excused in respect to what is past ; but what will you do in time to come ? To evade the argument resulting from the use of singular pronouns and verbs, some will probably say, that each Person in the Trinity is God, and may say I am God-, and that when a singular pro- noun is used for God, one Person only is intended. In reply, the following questions may be asked. 1. If each Person, as a distinct Person, may say / am God, will it not follow that there are as many Gods as Persons ? 2. If there be three seff-existent and co-equal Persons in God, can it be proper for either of the three to say /am God, and there is no God be- sides ME? When any one Person adopts this lan- guage, does he not naturally exclude every oth'^ Person from the dignity which he claims for himsell ? Suppose three Persons to be united as co-equal in one government, under the title ol King, would ii be consistent for either of those Persons to say /am King, and there is no King besides me ? If any one of the three should say thus, would it not he untrue in itself, and a contempt of the other Persons ? Supposing that you are of the number of divines who venture to tell what is to be understood by On the Unity of God, 4i> the word Person as applied to God, and that by three Persons you mean '' three ^genis^"^^ I would here suggest some thoughts for your consideration. Those who avow, that, by three Persons, they understand three distinct Jgents, allow to each of these Agents self-existence, independence, infinite intelligence, and almighty power, as distinct Per- sons. Of course, the three Persons are three infinite Agents* I would now wish to be informed, what more would be necessary to constitute three infinite Beings. And I would ask you seriously to consider whether it be possible for you to form any idea of three infinite Agents^ which does not involve the precise idea of three infinite intelligent Beings, I will next bring into view a text, in which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are ex- hibited, that you may see to what the representa- tion in the text would amount on your hypothesis. The text we find. Acts x. 38. " How God an- ointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." Here, sir, we have the Trinity fairly exhibited. But what would be the representalion, if by the three be i[itended three infinite Agents F Would not the representation be distinctly this, that the FIRST infinite Agent gave the third infinite Agent to enable the second infinite Agent to ferform miracles ? 46 On the Unity of God, LETTER IV. The language of good Writers in favour of what they mean to deny, REV. SIR, For the support of the doctrine, that the self- existent God is but one Person, my reliance is placed on the nnost obvious and natural import of Scripture language. It is, however, hoped, that it will not be deemed improper oc vnfnendly, should 1 avail myself of the reasonings, concessions, and language of Athanasian writers, for a further illus- tration and confirmation of what I esteem to be the truth. The authors, whose writings I shall quote, are, in my opinion, deservedly in high esti- mation, as learned, discerning, and correct writ- ers. And no author will be quoted or named with the least desire to provoke controversy, or in any respect to detract from his reputation. I would now solicit your attention to some pas- sages from Dr. Hopkins. In his chapter on the Unity of God, and the Trinity, to prove the Unity of God, or that there is but one God, he has made use of some arguments, which, if 1 mistake not, are of the same weight against the doctrine of a plurality of self-existent Persons, that they are against the doctrine of a plurality of self-existent Gods. — Thus he reasons. — "There can be but one First Cause who exists necessarily, and without beginning ; for there can be but one infinite Being. To suppose another, or a second, necessarily excludes the first; and to suppose the first, necessarily excludes the second, and any other infinite Being. The same is evi- On the JJnily of God. 47 dent from the consideration of the Divine perfec- tions. God is infinite Power, infinite Wisdom. But there cannot be two infinite Wisdoms, &;c. for this implies a contradiction." Yet, sir, your theory supposes that there are three distinct self-existent and independent Per- sons, which, if I mistake not, as fully implies three " infinite Wisdoms," &c. as the supposition of three infinite Beings. The Doctor proceeds...." Moreover, if we make the impossible supposition that there are two or more infinite Beings, they must be perfectly alike in all respects, or not. If not perfectly alike and without any difference in any respect, then one or the other must he imperfect ; for absolute infinite perfection admits of no variation or diflference ; so that if any two Beings diflfer in any respect, they cannot be both absolutely perfect; therefore can- not both be God. But if they are perfectly alike in every respect and every thing, then they are per- fectly one and the same; and the supposition des- troys itself, being a direct contradiction." If this reasoning be conclusive, will it not ap- ply, in the most direct manner, to invalidate the theory of three self-existent and infinite Persons ^ The three Persons must be perfectly alike in all respects, or not. If nut perfectly alike, one or the other must be imperfect, and therefore cannot be God : " But if perfectly alike in every respect, then Ihey are perfectly one and the same." Those who admit the Doctor's reasoning as con- clusive against three infinite Beings, must, I suspect, to be consistent, reject the theory of three infinite, independent Persons. Dr. Emmons, in his Discourse on the Trinity, has made this concession. ...'* Did the Scripture 48 On the Unity of God. doctrine of the Trinity imply that three Persons are one Person, or three Gods one God, it would ne- cessarily involve a contradiction." — Yet this cor- rect writer has adopted forms of speech which evi- dently imply that one Person is three Persons, Such are the following. '* God can, wi'h propriety, sav, I, Thou, and He, and mean only Himself." — " Nothing short of three distinct Persons in the one undivided Deity, can rendor it [iroper for Him to sper.k ot Himself in thf- fir^t, second, and third Persons, I, Thou, and H*."* — '' And so there is a certain something in the Divine Beini;, which ren- ders it equally necessary that He should exist in THREE Persons." In these passages, He, FIim, and Himself, are used as pronouns for God or Deity. And each of these pronouns strictly conveys the idea of one Person only. Yet the Doctor supposed that this one He or Him, might speak of Himself as three distinct Persons. • Dr. Spring, in his Sermon on the self-existence of Christ, gives the following exhortation...." Let us then not deny the self-existence of God, nor the universality of His existence, nor that His indivis- ible essence comprises three distinct Persons." By the pronoun His, God is, in the first place, clearly considered as but one Person ; yet we are fervently exhorted not to deny that " His indivisi- ble essence comprises three distinct Persons." Mr. Jones stands on similar ground. He says, " No sensible reason can be given, why God should speak of Himself in the plural number, unless He consists of more Persons than one." ♦ Astonishing ! Did not the Doctor know that it was a common thing for a jnan to speak of himself in the first, second and third person ? On the Unity of God, 49 And thus says Dr. Hopkins, *' If there be a God, He does exist without beginning or succession ; and this is as much above our comprehension, as that He exists in three Persons." To what, sir, are we to attribute these solecisms ? Not to the want of mental energy ; nor to ihe want of piety ; nor to the want ofscientifick or gramma- tical knowledge. But these worthy men had been conversant with the Bible, and from that source had insensibly formed the habit of usually speaking of God as only one Person ; but this being contra- ry to the doctrine which they wished to support, they naturally involved inconsistency in their forms of speech. A volume might be filled with such solecisms from Athanasian writers. And indeed, sir, I very much doubt whether yoii ever preached a gospel sermon, or ever prayed five minutes, without using pronouns in direct contradiction to your theory. LETTER V. The Mystery of the Trinity in Unity unfolded. rev. sir, In a former letter, I observed to you, that Mr. Jones considered the term God as of "plural com- prehension." I therefore classed the noun God with otfTer nouns of " plural comprehension," such as, Council, Senate^ Triumvirate, &c. — But since that time I again perused Mr. Jones's performance, and find that I did not fully comprehend his mean- ing. As I was reading his remarks on 1 Cor. viii. &•. " But to us there is but one God, the Father," 00 On the Unitij of God, 1 noticed this idea, " the one God, the Father, is the name of a nature under which Christ, as God, is connprehended." 1 was at first wholly at a loss for his meaning; it however soon occurred to me, that he considered the term God, in this case, as a general or generick term, comprehending a plurality of Persons, of one common nature ; as Man is sometimes used for all mankind. I therefore pur- sued the inquiry, to ascertain, if possible, his real meaning. When I came to the part of his book, entitled, the "Conclusion," my apprehension was fully confirmed. In page 80, he says, " That the Persons of God are three in number, precisely distinguished, on some occasions, by the personal names Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit; and also by dif- ferent offices. That the same term is not always peculiar and proper to the same person ; because the words God, Lord, Jehovah, and Father, are sometimes applied to one Person and sometimes to another ; while at other times they are not personal, but general names of the Divine nature,'^'' In page 81, he observes, " There can be no real Unity in God but that of his nature, essence, or sub- stance, all of which are synonymous terms." That the three Persons are of the same nature or essence, he considers as proved on this ground, " Be- cause they partake in common of the name Jeho' vah, which being interpreted, means the Divine es- sence ; and what it signifies in one Per^n it must also signify in the others, as truly as the singular name Adam, in its appellative capacity, expresses the common nature of all mankind.'^'' If this be the true Athanasian theory of the Trin- ity, it is not so mysterious as has been generally supposed J and I suspect, it will be a much less dif- On the Unity of God, 51 fic.ult task to pxplain it, than it will to reconcile it to the saered Scriptures. It is obvious, from the passages quoted, that Mr. Jones considers the term God, as sometimes used, as a ge/rieral op generick name, comprising a plural- ity of Persons of one common nature, just as we use the term Man, as compvWm^lhe whole species* And he also supposes, that God is used in this sense as meaning; the Divine nature^ when it is said, " But to us there is but one God." And as he has given us plainly to understand, that "there can be no real Unity in God but that of his Tiftfwre," it is manifest that, on this theory, (he Unity of God is the same as the unity of Man, Mr. Jones supposes, that the three Persons in the Deity are all of one nature, that is, of a Diviyie na- ture. So all the individual Persons of the human race are, in the same sense, 07ie, they are of one na- ture^ that is, human nature. The whole mystery of the Trinity in Urnty, ac- cording; to this theory, results from the ambiguous use of the terms God, Lord, Jehovah, &c. these terms being " sometimes applied to one Person, and sometimes to another ; while at other times they are not personal, but getieral names, of the Divine naturc,^^ When it is said, there are three Persons in one God, the word God is used '' as the name of a nature ;" and the import is simply this, that there are three Persons of the same Divine nature. On this theory of the Trinity in Unity, I would suggest the following inquiries : — 1. Whether there can be any reasonable objec- tions to the proposition, which affirms that (here are as many self-existent Beings as there aTe sclfex- istent Persons? While it has been maintained that there are three sclf-exislent Persons, it has been 55 On the Unily of God, affirmed that there is but one self-exislenf Being, But if the unity is no more than a unity of nature, why may not each of the Persons be considered as a distinct intelligent Being, according to the natu- ral import of the word Person ? When the word Man is used "as the name of a nature," it com- prises many intelligent Beings ; as many as it does of intelligent Persons. Why is it not thus with re- gard to that ORDER of Persons included under the *' general name" God? 2. If it be admitted, that, when it is stated in the Scriptures that to us there is but one God, that the term God is used " as the name of a nature'^'' com- prising a plurality of Persons, what evidence can we have that the number of Persons is limited to three P Why may not that order of persons, which is denominated by the " general name" God, be as great as the number characterized by the gene- ral name Man ? — The advocates for the theory wall doubtless say, that the Scriptures mention huiihres Persons; but do the Scriptures say that there are 710 more than three Persons in God ? The Scrip- tures teach us, that ^' there is one God, and that there is none other but He." And if such decla- rations do not limit the number of self-existent Per- sons, the limits are not ascertained in the Bible by any thing with which I am acquainted. 3. Will it not follow, from this hypothesis, that in the sense that each of three Persons is called God, there are as many distinct Gods as there are distinct persons ? — When the term God is used as "the name of a nature," or as "a general name for the Divine nature,^"^ it is easy enough to see, that in this sense there may be no more Gods than one ; but Mr. Jones does not suppose that it is alzLHiys used in this sense ; he supposes the same On the Unily of God. 53 name is sometimes used personallu^ and applied " sometimes to one of the three Persons, and some- limes to another." This is precisely the case with the word Man. It is sometimes used '' as the name of a nature," comprehending the whole species; yet at other times it is applied in a personal man- ner, sometimes to one Person, and sometimes to another. John is a man^ James is a man^ Peter is a man^ &:c. And when it is used in this sense, it admits of the plural number ; and we may say three men., or three hundred men ^ yea, in this sense there may be as many Mem?> Persons— And in the sense in which the Father is GoJ, and Christ is God^ and the Holy Spirit is God, why are there not as many Gods as Persons ? It is a clear case, that if each of three Persons is 07ie Man, those three Persons are three Men, And analogy will teach us, that if there are three Divine Persons, each of whom is one God, then those three Persons are three Gods. I am well aware, that this conclusion is not ad- mitted by our Athanasian brethren ; but if i( do not fairly result from Mr. Jones' premises, I shall re- joice to see the fallacy of the reasoning detected. On the whole, the hypothesis of Mr. Jones pre- cludes the necessity of any distinction between Perso?i and Being, or intelligent Person and intelli- gent Being ; and under the genenck or general name God, it exhibits an order of supreme and self- existent INTELLIGENCES, to cach of whom the nauie God may be properly applied; the number of this order of DIVINE INTELLIGENCES he supposes to be but THREE ; this, however, is only supposi- tion ; there is no certainty in the case. The Divine nature is doubtless as extensive as human nature; and if it include more than one self-exisfent Per- son, it may be impossible for us to see why it may 54 On the Unity of God, not comprise as many Persons as human nature. And as Mr. Jones supposed that not only the word God, but also the word Lord, was used both as an ''^appellative'^'' or general name, and also in a per- sonal manner as applicable to each of the Divine Persons, the hypothesis seems to open the way for the re-admission of" Lords many, and Gods many,^^ In speaking of the three Persons in the Trinity, Dr. Emmons says, " There is a certain something in the Divine nature which lays a proper founda- tion for these personal distinctions. But what that SOMETHING is. Can neither be described nor con- ceived. Here lies the whole mystery of the Trini- ty." Had the good Doctor understandingly and be- lievingly read Mr. Jones on the subject, he would doubtless have been able to describe that " certain SOMETHING," as wclI as Mr. Jones has done. For the " something" appears to be simply this, the Divine nature, like human nature, may comprise a plurality of Persons. Thus I have endeavoured to unfold the Athana- sian mystery of the Trinity ; the business of recon* oiling it with the Bible, I shall not undertake. PART 11. on^'the real divinity and glory of christ. LETTER L Jesus Christ truly the Son of God. REV. SIR, The first thing which I proposed to establish was this, that the Supreme Being, or self-exisfent God, is onli/ one Person. And it is believed, that, in proof of this proposition, something has already been done. My second proposition is, That Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. — If the second proposition should be supported, addi- tional evidence will appear in favour of the first. For according to your theory, Jesus Christ is one of the three self-existent Persons, and is personally the self-existent God. But should it appear that he is personally and truly the Son of Gofl, it will also appear that he is neither the self-existent God nor a self-existent Person. For, to a discerning and unprejudiced mind, it must he obvious, that it is a natural impossibility that the same Person should be truly the self-existent God and truly the Son of the self-existent God. So far as the natu- ral import of language is to be regarded, the terms, 5G On the real Divinily a self-existent Son^ imply a real and palpable con- tradiction. The term self-existent is perfectly op- posed to the term Son, and the term Son is perfectly opposed to self- existence. If there be any teim in our language which naturally implies derived exist- ence, the term Son is of this import. To affirm that a Person is a derived self existent Being implies no greater contradiction than to affirm that a Person is a self existent Son, And toafSrm that Jesus Christ is personally the self-existent God, and at the same time truly the Son of God, is precisely the same contradiction that it would be to affirm that the Prince of Wales is truly King George the Third^dind also truly the Son of King George the Third. These things I have stated on the ground of the natural meaning of terms. That the things I have stated are true, according to the natural import of language, will not, it is believed, be dertied by any person of good discernment and randour. The proposition, that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, is so obvious iii its natural import, and so plainly scriptural, that many may suppose it requires neither explanation nor proof. Yet such is the state of things in the Christian world, that both explanation and proof are necessary. For al- though there is no one point in whic;« Christians are more universally agreed than in calling Christ the Son of God, there is scarcely any thing about which they are more divided than that of the in- tended import of those terms. But amidst the va- riety of opinions which have been formed on the subject, the natural import of the words has been pretty uniformly rejected ; and almost every other possible meaning has been affixed to them, in pre- ference to that which the terms naturally excite. Indeed, it seems to have been generally taken for and Glory of Christ. 57 granted, thai it is impossible with God to have a Son. Athanasians appear to have taken this for granted ; and finding that divine titles, divine at- tributes, divine works, and divine honours, are as- cribed to him in the Scriptures, they have set it down as an unqupsiionable truth, that Christ is so far from being the Son of God, in the natural sense of the terms, that he is the very self-existent God; yea, that very God of whom the Scriptures de- clare that he is the Son. Other denominations, taking for granted the same principle, have pro- nounced the Saviour to be a mere creature^ more or less dignified and endued. And thus, on the one hand or the other, almost every possible grade of intelligent existence and dignity has been allowed him, excepting that which is naturally imported by his title the Son of God. Two ideas are naturally suggested by the title the Son of God, viz. Divine Origin and Divine Dignity. By Divine Origin, I do not mean that the Son of God is a created intelligent being ; but a Being who properly derived his existence and his nature from God. It has not, perhaps, been common, to make any distinction between derived existence and created existence; but in the present case the dis- tinction appears very important. Adam was a crea- ted being ; Selh derived his existence from the cre- ated nature of Adam ; and therefore it is said *' Adam begat a son in his own likeness." And as Seth derived his existence from the created nature of Adam, so it is believed, that the only begot- ten OF THE Father derived his existence from the self-existent nature of God. In this sense only do I mean to prove that the Son of God is a derin- ed intelligence. 58 On the real Divinity The hypothesis, that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, by properly deriving his existence and nature from God, will probably, by many, be pronounced a very great absurdiiy. And as, in my view, very much is depending on this point, you will suffer me to be particular in the exaininalion. That the terms the Son of God, as applied to Christ, do most naturally denote that his existence andjm- ture were derived from God, will, it is believed, be granted by all judicious and impartial inquirers. "And it does not discover the greatest reverence for the Scriptures, nor the greatest sense of our own fallibility, hastily to reject, as absurd, the natural import of inspired language. If there be any ground on which the hypothesis may be pronoun- ced absurd, it must be found either in the works or the word of God. But what do we find in the works of God, by which it may appear, that it is absurd to suppose that God has a Son who has tru- ly derived his existence and nature from the Fath- er? In examining the works of God, we iind rea- son to suppose that God has given existence to va- rious tribes of beings, with natures distinct from his own. And is it not quite as difficult to con- ceive, that God should give existence to beings by proper creation, with natures distinct from his own, as that he should give existence to a Son truly de- riving his nature from the Father ? We also find, that God has endued the various tribes of creatures with a power of procreation, by which they produce offspring in their own likeness. Why is it not as possible that God should possess the power of producing a Son in his own likeness, or with his own nature, as that he should be able to endue his creatures with such a power? May it sot, ihenj be presumed, that no shadow of evidence find Glory of Christ, 59 ©an be produced from the works of God, to invali- date the hypothesis that Chnst, as the Son of God, possesses divine nature hy derived existence ? What then saith the Scripture? We may, in re- ply to this question, notice several things, 1. Dr. Hopkins has said, "The Redeemer is th« Son of God in a peculiar and appropriated sense and by which he is distinguished from every other person in the universe." The doctor adds, " He is mentioned as the Son of God more than an hun- dred times in the New Testament; and the Father of Jesus Christ the Son, is mentioned above two hundred and twenty times." The correctness of these statements is not doubt- ed ; and on the ground of them I may say, that ac- cording to the natural import of words, Jesus Christ is, in the New Testament, more than three hundred and twenty times mentioned as a derived intel- ligence, an intelligence who has properly derived his existence and nature from God. For in con- tradistinction to angels and men, and to all who may be called Sons of God by creation or adoption^ Jesus Christ is definitively called the Son of God. 2. It is to be observed, that several epithets are used as with explicit design to preclude all mis- take, and to give us unequivocal evidence that Je- sus Christ is the Son of God in the most strict sense of the term. He is emphatically called God's " own Son." And to denote that God has no other Son in the sense in which Christ is his Son, he is called God's only Son. And more fully to ex- press the idea that he, and he only, properly de- rived his existence and nature from God he is call- ed '* the ONLY begotten Son oI God," " the on- hx begotten of the Father." 60 On the real Divinity I would here ask, whether it he possible to find terms which would more ciearly and more empha- tically express the very thing which I undertook to prove ? If no further evidence could be produc- ed in favour of the hypothesis, it would certainly require something very substantial and positive to invalidate what has been already exhibited. But additional evidence is yet to come. What has been produced, is from the general and current language of the New Testament. We may add, 3. It appears to have been one particular design of the miracles which were wrought by Christ, to prove that he was the Son of God ; and that, as the Son, was sent of the Father into the world. Christ said to the Jews, " Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness of the truth. But 1 have greater witness than that of John : for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works which 1 do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." John v. 33—36. The account that the Jews sent unto John, and the testimony he gave, we have recorded in the first chapter of the same gospel. The testimony is this, '^ But he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God." This was the truth to which John testified ; but Christ stated, that the works which he did were of greater weight than the testimony of John. And it is observable, that, as it was one design of Jiis miracles to prove that he was the Son of God, so this conviction was produced in the minds of many upon seeing the miracles which he performed. and Glory of Christ, 61 4. Jesus Christ is the failhlul and true Witness, and he repeatedly affirmed, " I am the Son of God ;" and he also abundantly affirmed that God was his Father. I am not insensible, that, on this gronnd, some have supposed that Christ meant to affirm his self- existence, independence, and co-eternity with the Father. But surely I can think of no words which would have been less calculated to impress such an idea on an unprejudiced mind. And had it been his design to affirm his self-existence, and at the same time to mislead the minds of his hearers, I know not of any language which would have been more adapted to such a purpose. Would any per- son of common discernment and common honesty ever think of asserting that he is General Wash- ington, or that he personally existed as early as General Washington, by saying, I am the Son of General Washington, and General Washington is my Father ? — But if Christ meant to assert that he derived his existence and his nature from God as a Son from a Father, what language could have been more to his purpose than that which he adopted ? 5. The awful display of Divine majesty and power which were concomitants of the crucifixion of Christ, produced a conviction in the minds of the centurion and others that Jesus was the Son of God. "Now when the centurian, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earth- quake, and those things that were done, they fear- ed greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." And according to the opinion of St. Paul, he was "declared to be the Son of God, with power, ac- cording to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec- tion from the dead." — Rom. i. 4. 6 62 On the real Divinity 6, That Jesus Christ is the Son of God was a principal article of primitive Christian faith, and a principal doctrine ot apo.-^t personally \he self -exis- tent God, and to believe thai Christ is truly the Son OF God, are, in my view, very distinct things ; and I cannot but be amazed that ideas so perfectly dis- titict should ever have been admitted as one and the same. 7. The self-existent and supreme Majesty, by an audible voice from heaven, did repeatedly con- firm the truth which I have aimed to support. *' And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water : and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him : and lo ! a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom 1 am well pleased." Again, at the time of the transfiguration. " Be- hold, a bright cloud overshadowed them ; and, be- hold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is 64 On the real Divinity MY BELOVED SoN, in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye him." Is it possible, sir, that any man can attend for a moment to the natural import ol these words trom heaven, and then believe that God meant to be understood as saying, This Person, who has been baptized, and transfigured, is the self-existent God, co-eternal with myself, and the same Being? 8. The avowed design of St. John, in writing the history of Jesus Christ, is a proof that in his view Jesus was truly the Son of God. At the close of the 20th chapter, he says, "And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing, ye might have life through his name." You will probably urge, that in the very first verse of his gospel, John says, " The Word was God." This is true ; and it is also true, that in the same verse, and in the next, he says, '• The Word was w^TH God." The God whom the Word was wilK was doubtless one God ^ and unless we are to suppose that John meant to afl[irm a plurality of self existent Gods, he did not mean to affirm that the AVoRD was God in a sense which implied per- sonal self- existence. Besides, the title, the Word, or the Word of God, probably denotes that the Son was the Medium of Divine manifestation j and hence we may easily infer, that it was on the ground of a constituted character that the Son is call- ed God. John proceeds to say, that all things were made by him; and Paul tells us hoic — "that God created all things by Jesus Christ." In some future Letters, I shall more particularly show in what sense Christ is called God. But I and Glory of Christ. &3 may here observe, that the general current of John's gospel corresponds with what he says was hU object in writing, viz. ^' That ye might be- lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name." In my next Letter, you may expect still further evidence that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. LETTER IL Mditional evidence thai Christ is truly the Son of God. REV. SIR, As introdiictory to the arguments which I am ^bout to urge, 1 would suggest to your mind the following suppositions. 1. Suppose that God, in giving the ten command- ments on tables of stone, instead of writing the word sabbath-day in the fourth commandment, had left a blank ; and in giving the fifth, he left a blank instead of writing the terms father and mother. 2. Suppose he wrote a second time, and filled tip those blanks with characters or words which had never before been seen or heanl by men. 3. Suppose he wrote a third time, and instead of leaving blanks for those words, or filling them with unknown characters or terms, he, for sabbath- day, wrote birth-day : and instead oi father and mother^ wrote son and daughter : suppose also, that these words had never been understood by men to 6* 6Q On the real Divinity mean any thing different from their common ac- ceptation at the present day. Permit me now to ask, whether cither of these modes of writing those commands could be consi- dered as a revelation of the Divine Will? And would not the mode of writing birth-day for sah- bath-day, and son and daughter for father and mother, be as likely to mislead the minds of men, as writing in unknown characters, or even as leav- ing blank spaces to be filled up by conjecture ? But what, you may ask, is the object of these ex- traordinary statements ? My object, sir, is this, to evince, that in his communications to us, God must make use of language in a sense which agrees with some analogy, or his communications can be of no use to mankind, any more than unknown characters, or blanks to be filled by conjecture. In a connection as deeply interesting as that of giving the law, God has made use of the terms the Son of God, MY Son, God's own Son, the only BEGOTTEN SoN of God, He has represented his love to us as being exeedingly great, on the fol- lowing ground, " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever be- lieveth in him, should not perish, but have ever- lasting life." " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." Such, you know, is the common representation in the New Testament. And being well acquaint- ed with the natural import of the terms an own Son, an only begotten Son; and having an idea of the love of a father to an own and only son ; the scriptural representations of the love of God towards us become deeply interesting and affect- ing. and Glory of Christ, 67 But the Athanasian theory represents the Son of God as personally the self-existent God, and the very same Being of whom he is abundantly decla- red to be the Son. And on this ground, th€ term Son is used in a sense foreign to every analogy with which the human mind is acquainted ; as fo- reign as it would be to use birth-day for sabbath- day, or son and daughter for father and mother. On this ground, the representations of God's love, and the scheme of salvation, are involved in unin- telligible metaphor; and we need an inspired Dan- iel to interpret the import of the term Son, as much as Belshazzar did to interpret the enigmatical hand writing on the wall. And until this interpretation be given, we have no definite ground on which to estimate the love of God in the atonement made for the sins of the world. What has been now exhibited, is viewed as a very weighty argument against your theory, and in favour of the hypothesis that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. But there is another argument which, if possible, is still more weighty, to which we may now at- tend. You cannot be insensible, that it is plainly and abundantly represented in the Scriptures, that the Son of God did really and personally suffer and die ft)r us. And that on this ground, both the love of God and the love of his Son are represented as having been manifested in a very extraordinary manner. And if the Son of God be truly the Son of God, a derived intelligence, these representa- tions may be strictly and affectingly true. For on this hypothesis, the Son of God may be the same intelligent Being as the soul of the Man Christ Je- sus who suffered on the cross. 68 On the real Divinity But your theory will not, I suspect, be found to admit, or support, any thing more than the shadow of the suffering and death of tlie Son of God. Writt rs and preachers on your side of the ques- tion, do indeed, often speak of the abasement, the sufferings, and death, of the Son of God, as though they believed these things to be affecting realities. But, after all, what is the amount ot these represen- tations, upon your hypothesis ? You do not con- ceive that the Son of God became united to flesh Bnd blood as the soul of Jesus Christ. So far from this, you suppose the Son of God was person- ally the self-exisient God ; and instead of becom- ing the soul of a human body, you supj^ose he be- came mysteriously united to a proper man, who, as distinct from the Son of God, had a true body and reasonable soul. And I think, sir, it will be found, ihat on this Man your theory lays the iniquities of us all ;- that this Ma7i, and not the Son of God. en- dured the stripes by which we have healing. For while you maintain that the Son was personally the only living and true God, you very consistent- ly affirm that *' he did not suffer in th€ least in his Divine nature, butalt( gether in his human nature." And what is this but affirming that he did not suf- fer at all as the Son of God, but only the Man Je- sus suffered, to whom the Son was united ? As, on the Aihanasian hvpoihesis, the Man Christ Jesus and the human nature are the same, so the Son or -self existent God and the Divine nature of Christ are the same. You suppose the Son as incapable of suffering as the Father, and t}»at he did not in reality suffer on the cross any more than the Fath- er did; nor any more than either of them suffered while Cranmer was burning at the stake. How and Glory of Christ, 69 then does it appear, that "God spared not his own Son .^" You will probably plead, that the Man Jesus uas united to the Person of the Son of God, and ihat Person suffered in his human nature. But, sir, as you predicate personality on th« Son or Divine na- ture^ and do not allow personality to the human na- ture, it will, I suspect, be difficult for you to prove- that any Person suffered on the cross : tor the suf- ferings tell simply on a nature (o which you do not allow personality. As, in your view, the Son was the self-existent God, and could not suffer in his Divine nature, he could not suffer in a7iy nature. The man was only an appendage to his Person, mysteriously connected ; and yet so far was the union from being very intimate or essential, that the appendage or the J\Ian might suffer the severest agon- ies, and the Son or real Person be at the same time in a state of infinite ielicity. Abraham's offering his son Isaac, has long been considered as typical of the conduct of God in giv- ing his Son to die for us. Suppose we should add to the scriptural account the following ideas — That Abraham knew beforehand that his son was inca- pable of suffering, and that all the sufferings would fall on another man, to whom his son was mysteri- ously united ; and that Isaac also understood the matter in the same light when he consented to be bound and laid upon the altar. Would not this ad- ditional account, if believed, depreciate, in our es- timation, the conduct of Abraham and Isaac, at the rate of ninety-nine per cent. ? This illustration may serve to show how much your hypothesis, when understood, tends to lower down our ideas of the greatness of the love of God 70 On the real Divinity in giving his Son to die for us; and also the love and submission of the Son in consenting to make his life an offering for our sin. — I would, however, by no means intimate, that you and others, view ihe love of God in this depreciated light. F'or I think it probable that it is with you, as 1 am sensi- ble it was with myself — the plain representations of Scripture, by the help of analogy, superseded the force of theory. It has been, and I think justly, supposed, that the dignity of the Son ol God gave value to the sufferings of the cross. And il" we consider the Son of God to be what his title imports, a derived hitelligence of Divine origin and dignity, the one by whom God created the world ; if we consider this self-same Intelligence as personally and really suffering the death of the cross, we may perceive something, in view of which we may vvell exclaim, *' Behold, what manner of love !" But if the sufferings of the cross did not really fall on that very Son, who had sustained pre-exis- tent glory in the '' form of God," but on a man who had existed less than forty years, who had acted in public character not more than four or five ; how sn^all the degree of condescension on the part of the sufferer, how small the display of the love of God, and of what diminished value are the sufferings of the cross! In the Assembly's Catechism we are taughl, that "Christ's humiliation consisted in his being born, ami 'hat in a low condition, being made under the law ; undere;oing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time.'" Yet this same Catechism teaches us to believe, that Jesus Christ was personally the self-existent and Glory of Christ. 71 God. I will then ask, whether there be one parti- cular of what is said respecting the humiliaiion of Christ, which can possible/ be true? Was the self- existent G )d ever born ? Was he ever in a low condition ? Wds he ever made under the law ? Did he ever suffer the wrath of God, or the cursed death of the cross ? Was God ever buried ? — It the self-existent God has not passed through such scenes, then the Son of God has not, according to your doctrine respecting the JSon. ThcTcfore, ac- cording to your theory, all the abasement^ which can be snp[»orted, falls on the Man to which the Son was united : And this Man you suppose had no existence until he was conceived in the womb of (he virgin Mary; of course, he had no glory to leave, or lay aside, when he came into the world. As he never ha(i been rich, it was impossible for hitn to become poor for our sakes. He had no op- porrunity to say, " Lo, 1 come to do thy will, O God ;" and so far as his humiliation consisted in " bf'ing born, and that in a low condition," there was nothing voluntary in if ; and it could be no evidence of any love or condescension ir» him. To make out your theory of the humiliation and abasement of the Son of God, you have to take into view two distinct intelligent Beings ; one of which you affiim to be the self-existent God, and the other a proper Man. This God, or Son of God, you find had been in a state of pre-existent dignity and glory ; and he, as you suppose, was united mysteriously to a man ; this Man was born in low circumstances, endured the miseries of ihis life, and suffered death on the cross ; and bv vir- tue of his union to the Son of God, he was enabled to bear a vastly greater weight of suffering than he could otherwise have endured. 72 On the real Divinity But, sir, is this all ihai is intended by God's SPARING NOT HIS ov/N SoN ? Is this the waj in which the Son of God bare our sins in his own bo- dy on the tree ? What, sir, was the real condition of the Son of God, the self-existent God, from the birth of the Man Jesus till this Man rose again from the dead? According to your theory, the Son of God, during the whole of that f)eriod, was in a state of infinite glory and felicity, and as incapa- ble of .suffering the agonies of death as the Father. How then can it be true, that " Though a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he SUFFERED.^ As it Tcspccts the real character o{ the SUFFERING Saviour, what is your theory better ihs^n Socinianism enveloped in mystery ? LETTER III. Ko absurdity in the hypothesis that Christ is truly the Son of God. REV. sir, What has been exhibited in the preceding Let- ters, it is hoped, will be sutficient to satisfy impar- tial minds that the Scriptures afford abundant evi- dence that Jesus Christ is tridy the Son of God. But a contrary belief has been so long and so gen- erally prevalent, that it may be necessary to say something farther on the subject, with a view to show that the natural import of the terms the Son of God^ or God's owji Sun, implies no contradiction or absurdity. That God is a self-existent Being, is acknow- ledged by all Christians ; and i shall freely admit. and Glory of Christ, 73 that it is impossible with God to beget or produce a SELF-EXISTENT SoN. But what have we to do with the mode of God's existence, in determining whether it be possible with him to produce a Son ? What have we to do with the mode of Adam's ex- istence, in determining whether Seth could be his Son ? Respecting Adam, it is said, " The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of lite, and man became a living soul." And probably Adam was a man in size or stature at his first existence. Could not Seth be the son of Adam, unless the mode of his having existence was the same with Adam's ? When Adam was in existence, he had a nature by which he was distinguished from God and from angels. Such a nature Seth derived from Adam. Self-existence may be essential to the Divine na- ture in God, and proper creation might be essential to the human nature in Adam. And as human na' ture in Seth might be derived from the created nature of Adam, why may it not be true that Di- vine nature in the Son was derived from the self- existent nature of God ? We often speak of Divine nature, angelick na- ture, and human nature ; but what do we know of either, excepting certain properties, attributes, or qualities ? Are we not unable to tell what is the radical difference between an angel and a human soul ? Yet we believe there is some radical distinction. So we may be unable to as- certain the radical distinction between the Divine nature, and human nature, exclusive of the different m:>des of existence. Yet, aside from those attri- butes which simply respect the modes of existence, there may be some radical difference between 7 74 On the real Divinity those natures. If we suppose this diversity of na- tures to result from ihe diversity of attributes or qualities united, yet there may be some property, attribute, or quality, by which one natui-e is dis- tinguished from another, and the distinguishing property of nature may be wholly unknown to us. Are we not, sir, too ignorant of the nature of God, to pronounce that there is nothing in his na- ture which may be properly derived in the exis- tence of an OWN Son ? It may not be necessary that every attribute ef Deity should be communicable or derivable in order that he may have an own Son. Among the children of men, it is not neces- sary to the existence or the idea of a son, that he should possess all the attributes, properties, or qualities of his father. Nor is it necessary that he should possess no other attributes but such as were possessed by his father. Among the seventy sons of Gideon, perhaps, there were no two thai per- fectly resembled each other in their attributes, properties, or qualities ; and probably no one who was ihe perfect likeness of his father. So Jesus Christ may have truly derived his existence and nature from God, and yet not possess every attri- bute of the Father. Jesus Christ was the Son of David, according to the fleshy yet we believe his body was not pro- duced by ordinary generation ; but as iVlary was of the seed of David, and as the body of Christ was derived from her, Christ is called David's Son. Had he not properly derived any proper- ties from David, he could not with propriety be called the Son of David. And if his spirit or soul had not been as properly derived from God, as his body was from David, it is difficult to see why he should be called the Son of God, or God's own and ONLY Son. mid Glory of Christ, 75 It has been said by a respectable writer, that " it is totally inconceivable that a derived, de- pendent nature, should really possess any of those Divine perfections which essentially belong lo an underived, independent, self-existent Being." Had the word exclusively been used instead of the word " essentially^'^'' the observation would have been unexceptionable. Self- existence and independence belorii^ to God, not only " essentially,^^ but exclusively. But knowledge, power, and holi- ness, are essential Aitvibuies in God, and yet know- ledge, power, and holiness, may be communicated, not only to a derived but to a created intelligence. God may, indeed, possess these attributes in an un- limited extent, while in other beings they may be limited; but these attributes may be of the same nature in men that they are in God. That God does communicate knowledge, power, and holiness, will, it is believed, be granted by most Christians. Nor may we set any limits to the degree in which they may be communicated,, unless we may limit the Divine power of commu' nication. However, I have no occasion to maintain that Christ did, with his existence as a Son, derive any attribute of Deity in the extent in which it is possessed by God. Had he been personally self- sufficient and all- sufficient, he would have had no occasion for God's giving him the Spirit without measure. He might, with his existence, derive so \much of the Divine nature as to be truly the Son of God ; and yet he might be the Almighty, and the Searcher of hearts, by the indwelling of the Father, or ihe fulness of the Godhead, When men are renewed in the temper of their minds, they are said to be " born of God," 76 On the real Divinity/ to have the image of God on their hearts ; and on this ground they are denominated Sons ot God. For that which is begotten, or produced, in ihtm, is truly of a Dixine nature. It is that holiness of heart \vhich is the glory of the Divine character. There is nothing more essential, or more excel- lent, in God, than holiness ; this we gee may be derived as the attribute of a dependent being. And this holiness is precir>ely of the same nature in men that it is in God. Its nature is not changed by being derived or communicated. As that which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of (he spirit is spirit — it is of the same holy nature as the spirit by which it is produced. Will it be denied, that holiness is the excellence of all excellences in the Divine existence and character? And if that which is essential to the Divine existence may be communicated or pro- duced as the attribute of a dependent agent, by what principles of revelation, or philosophy, can it be affirmed, that it is impossible with God to pro- duce an intelligent existence from his own nature ? If God, from his own nature, may produce his mo- ral image, why may he not prodiice his natural image? And why may not Jesus Christ be as truly the " IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GoD," as Scth was the likeness of Adam? Holiness is as self-existent in God, as any attri- bute of the Divine nature ; yet holiness may be produced as the. attribute of a dependent agent. And if one attribute, which is self-existent in Dei- ty, may he produced or deri'Oed, as the attribute of a dependent agent, without any change in its na- ture, what evidence can we have that other attri- butes, properties, or qualities, which are self- existent in God. may not be properly derived ? and Glory of Christ* 77 Yea, by what evidence can it be made to appear, that all the radical and essential principles or pro- perties of intelligent existence, may not have been properly derived from the Divine nature in the person of God's own Son ? From the circumstance, that holiness is of the same nature in angels and men that it is in God, we may easily discern that the term self-existence ought not to be used as expressive of the nature of Divine attributes, but only to express the mode of their existence. And the same may be said of the terms eternity, independence^ and infinity. In God, holiness is self existent, eternal, independent, and infinite. But considered as the attribute of a dependent, created agent, an angel or a man, nei- ther of these epithets can be applied. Yet holi- ness may be of the same nature in men, in angels, and in God. Why may not the same be true res- pecting other attributes or qualities of the Divine nature ? Some additional light may possibly be obtained, by attending to the idea o{ supernatural or super- hu'uan powers, with which God, at some times, endued human beings. Samson, at sonie seasons, was weak like another man ; but when the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, he was able to per- form prodigies. This supernatural strength, it ap- pears, was immediately derived from God. Yet while Samson possessed this strength, it was truly HIS strength ; and be was no more dependent on God for the strength by which he performed the wonderful things recorded of him, than I am for the strength by which I move my pen. The prophets were endued wiih supernatural foreknowledge, by which they were enabled to un- fold the volume of futurity, and predict events noi 78 On the real Dmnily only hundreds but thousands of years before the lime in which the predictions were to be fulfilled. By a baptism of the same Spirit, the apostles were instantaneously endued, and enabled to speak in foreign languages which they had never studied. These supernatural powers were but occasional properties or attributes of the several persons who possessed them. But while \\\ey were possessed, they were personal properties or attributes. Those persons were truly endued with power from on high. The prophets foresaw as the Spirit gave them foreknowiedge ; and the apostles spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. This Spirit was the Spirit of God ; and when it was given in an extra- ordinary manner, men were enabled to do extra- ordinary things. When men have been thus endu- ed, they have possessed extraordinary portions of Divine sufficiency ; and these portions of sufficien- cy, it appears, they possessed by a communication of Divine fulness. Nor is there any evidence that God might not, if he pleased, endue every in- dividual of the human race with the strength of Samson, the foreknowledge of Daniel, and the gift of speaking all human languages : and these, if he pleased, might be continued as permanent at- tributes of character. From what has been exhibited, it is pretty evi- dent, that created intelligences may, by the plea- sure of God, possess holiness, knowledge, and power, which are truly of a Divine nature. May we not properly say, that Samson possessed an ex- traordinary measure of Divine power, and that the prophets and apostles possessed an extraordi- nary measure of Divine knowledge; and that all holv beings do partake of that attribute which is the glory of the Divine nature ? and Glory of Christ, 79 If the attributes of holinoss, knowlrdge, and power, may be properly commuDicated from God to dependent agents, and in such a manner as to become personal properties or attributes of these agents, what properties of intelligent existence may not be properly derived from Deity, as a stream from a fountain, or as a Son from a Fa- ther ? The communication of these attributes, from a self-existent to a derived agent, seems to imply something as distinct from these attributes as the Being who is the recipient of these communica- tions. But what that is which constitutes Being, distinct from such properties or attributes, is per- haps beyond the reach of mortal discernment. I have not, however, made this remark with a view to deny the existence of Being, as distinct from all we know of attributes or properties. The lan- guage we use, antJ the language of the Bible, natu- rally imply a recipient or receiver of Divine com- munications I qind that Being does imply some- thing more than all we know of properties, at- tributes, or qualities. If any thing be commu- nicated from one agent to another, there must be an agent or capacity to receive sach commu- nications. But if, from his own self-existent nature, or fulness, God may communicate the attributes of knowledge, power, and holiness, to created intelli- gence, so that they shall possess, in measure, these attributes d^ii derived excellences, what evidence can be found to invalidate the hypothesis that the ex- istence of the Son of G«)d was properly derived from the Divine nature ? Angels find saints are called sons of God ; yet Christ is God's own and only Son, the only be- 80 On the real Divinity GOTTEN of the Father. The primary and radical distinction may possibly be this : angels and saints, as created intelligences, may derive from the Di- vine nature some attributes or properties : while God's OWN Son may derive not only some attri- butes, but his very Being or Existence from the Divine nature. Some may imagine, that I hate .laboured hard, in this investigation, to support a self-invented theory. But this is not the case ; I have been labouring to support the primitive Chris- iian faith, that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, God's own and only Son ! and to rescue the plain, abundant, and emphatical language of Scrip- ture, from the strong prepossession of my fellow Christians. Dr. Spring says, " The Scriptures were inspir- ed, to instruct common readers, by using words according to their common acceptation, and not to confound them by an abuse of language."*" Had the principle advanced in this excellent re- mark been understood and duly regarded, I should have had no occasion for a laboured discussion to prove that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, But the plain meaning of the terms has been so involved in the labyrinth of controversy^ and the mists of prepossession^ that it has required some fortitude to assert and some labour to prove, that the concurrent testimony of God, of Christ, and ihe apostles, is to be regarded difi a correct expres- sion of the truth. Yea, 1 have been labouring to prove, that these witnesses used '^ words according to their common acceptation," and that they did not mean '^ to confound us by an abuse of lan- guage, "^^ Had the plain and natural import of language * Sermon on the Self-existence of Christ. and Glory of Christ, 81 been heretofore duly regarded, an allompt to prove that Christ is truly the Soiv of GofI, uould have been as needless, as an attempt to prove that Isaac was truly the son of Abraham. POSTSCRIPT. ^HER^ are some who predicate the Sonship of Christ simply on the ground stated by the angel to Mary, '* The Holy Ghost shall tome upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." That this text contains a reason why Christ, in his incarnate state, should be called the Son of God, I will not deny ; and if I were in the habit of believing that the soul or spirit of Christ had no pre-exi'^tence, I should readily admit this as the primary ground on which he is called the Son of God. But even on such an hypothesis, nothing could be made to appear against the sup{)Osition that his existence was truly derived from God, in a sense by which he is distinguished from every other intelligent being. But 1 as fully believe that the Son of God, as an intelligent Being, ex- isted before the world, as 1 believe that he now exists. Some will probably object, that it is unaccounta- ble and inconceivable how God should have a Son. But, you, sir, I trust, will not make the incompre- bensibleness of the mode of Divine operation an objection to the theory. For this hypothesis is far more consistent with all we do knozo. than the sup- position of THREE infinite Persons in one intelligent Being. The hypothesis which I have proposed contradicts nothing which we know of Person, of Being or of God. It is doubtless repugnant to 82 On the real Divinity what some men have thought ; but it may be pre- suQied that it is not repugnant to what is knownhy any man. Nor does the hypothesis imply any thing more inconceivable, unaccountable, or incom- prehensible, than what is implied in the existence of every other intelligent being in the universe. Hozo God exists without any cause, and how he could give existence to angels, or to men, are as perfectly in- conceivable to us, as hozu he could give existence to an OWN Son. And I may ask the objector, whether it be more inconceivable to us how God could have an OWN Son than it is to conceive how or why such a thing should be impossible with Him ? If we are to draw our conclusions from all we know of God by his works and by his word, we have surely as much ground to say that such a ihing is possiblej as we have to say it is impossible. LETTER IV. The Divine Dignity of the Son of God, REV. SIR, Whatever may be the apprehensions of others, respecting my attempt to prove that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, you may be assured, sir, that it has been no part of my object to degrade his character. If it did not seem a " light thing" to David to be a " kingU son-in-law,^^ it surely ought not to be viewed by us degrarling to Christ, to coH'iider him as God's own and only Son. — And I shall now attempt to show, That the Son of God is truly a Person of Divine Dignity, and Glory of Christ, 83' No principle, perhaps, has been more univer- sally admitted, than ihis, that a son derives digni- ty from illustrious parentage. The Jews, to whom Christ made his appearance in the flesh, were all acquainted with ihis princi- ple ; and though many generatiotjs had intervened, they still gloried in the idea that they weie ihe de- scendants of the illustrious patriarch Abraham. There is, perhaps, no nation, whether barba- rous, civilized, or christianized in which the prin- ciple is not admitted. The sons of emptrors, kings, and noblemen are considered as deriving dignity from their respective fathers. And the de- rived dignity of each is according to the acknow- ledged dignity of his father. — But more especially is ihe first-born or only son of a king or en.peror, considered as deriving royal or imperial dignity by royal or imperial descent. It is indeed true, that a son of the most renowned and worthy king may by vicious or disobedient conduct, forfeit his deriv- ed dignity, and subject himself to the displeasure of his father, and to general infamy ; but this forms no ground of objection to the principle of derived dignity. And on the same principle that a worthy son of a worthy king derives rot/a/ dignity, the Son of God derives Divine dignity. And on the same principle that the most worthy son of the most renowned king derives higher dignity than the son of a common peasant^ the derived dig- nity of the Son of God will appear to be infinite. For his Father is infinitely iliusirious. This must certainly be the case, unless the Son has done something by which he has forfeited his claim. But that he has not, we have the highest ground of assurance ; twice by an audible voice from hea- ven, God has proclaimed his perfect satisfaction in 84 On the real Divinity his Son, by saying, " This is my beloved Son in whom I am zot II pleased."^^ Aikj we have still far- ther assurance of the sanrie thing, by ihe high and important offices with which God has invested his BELOVED Son. It has sometimes been the case in earthly gov- ernments, that a king's son who was well beloved of the father has been admitted, during the father's life to a joint participation in the government, and invested by the faiher with kingly authority. Such was the case with Solomon the son of David. Solomon derived his authority from David, and by the pleasure of David he was crowned king ; but Solomon was as truly the king of Israel as though he had possessed the same authority by self-ex- istence. If it be true, that God has an own and only S'on, in whom he is well pleased, it would be natural to expect that he would delight to honour him in the highest possible manner. Moreover, any wise and benevolent king, being about to invest his son with kingly authority, would, were it in his power, endue his son with every qualification or attribute which would be requisite to the most perfect and honourable execution of the otiice which he was to sustain. And such we may suppose v/ould be the pleasure of God res- pecting his Son. Nor may we suppose any insuf- ficiency in God, in respect to communicating of his own infinite fulness to the Son, in whom he is ever well pleased. Let us now examine the sacred oracles, to see whether these reasonable expectations are justified by revealed facts. In respect to communicated fulness or sufficien- cy, we have the following declarations: *' He and Glory of Christ, 85 whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God ; for God givelh not the Spirit by measure unto him." John iii. 34. ** For it [)leased the Father, that in him all full- ness should dwell." Col. i. 19. " In him dwelleth all the fulness of the God- head bodily." Col. ii. 9. Such then has been the pleasure of God in res- pect to enduing his Son with Divine sufficiency. If by a portion or measure of the Divine Spirit, the apostles were instantaneously endued to speak a number of languages which they had never learned, what may not the Son of God be able to do, who has the Spirit without measure ? And if it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell in his Son, we can with no more propriety set bounds to the sufficiency of Christ, than to the fulness of the Godhead. Thus we find one of the reasonable expectations justified by plain and positive declarations of Scrip- ture. We have next to show, that God has manifested a disposition to honour his Son in the highest pos- sible manner. As the first token of this disposition in God, we may notice that God constituted his Son the Creator of the world. In this great and astonishing work, a surprising display was made of the power, the wisdom, and the goodness of God. But in this work, it appears that the Son was honoured as the constituted Creator ^ for we are expressly told, that God " created-d\\ things by Jesus Christ." Eph. iii. 9. The work of creation is sometimes expressly attributed to God, and sometimes as expressly at- tributed to the Word or Son of God : and from 8 8C On the real Divinily these rcprpsentations many have argued that the Son and God are the same Being. But it is thought that this conclusion has been too hastily adopted. For if God created all things by Jesus Christ, the work of creation may, h itti great pro- priety, be attributed to either the Father or the Son; and yet they may be two distinct intelligent Beings. God spake by the prophets ; and what the prophets said, may, with propriety, be attribut- ed to either God or the prophets ; but it will not hence follow that God and the prophets are but one and the same intelligent Being. As the pro- phets were constituted mediums 9,nd agents in fore- telling events, so Christ was the constituted Creator of all things in heaven and earth. In the next place, we may observe, that the Son was constituted ihe angel of God^s presence^ or tbe medium by which God appeared or manifested him- self to the ancient patriarchs. We have many accounts of God's appearing to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Moses; and seeing these visible manifestations, is several times represented as seeing God. Yet the matter is so explained in the New Testament, as to give us rea- son to suppose that these visible manifestations of God's presence were made in the Person of the Son of God. For it is said, " No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him," or manifested him. The Son, in those ap- pearances, was usually denominated the angel of the Lord.* And when this angel was employed by God, as the conductor and guardian of the peo- * I feel less confident that Christ was the angel of God than I did when I wrote these Letters. BiU I have not seen satisfactory reasons for relinquishing the sentiment. March, 1812. ^ and Glory of Christ, 87 pie of Israel in iheir journey from Egypt to Canaan, God gave this solemn caution to the peoj)le. '• Be- ware of him, and ob.ey his voice ; provoke him not: for he will not pardon your transgression; for MY NAME is in him." By 7iame here may be understood, dlgnily^ fulness^ and authority. And as G(»d thus dwelt in the Son, and manifested his dignity, fulness, and authority, through the Son, Isaiah denominates the Son the An,2;cl of God's presence — '* And the angel of his presence saved them." Accordingly, those visible manifestations are sometimes represented as the appearance of God, and sometimes as the appearance of the angel of the Lord, or the angel of God : And what was spoken on those occasions is sometimes represent- ed as spoken by God, and sometimes as spoken by the angel ; just as the work of creation is some- tim<^s attributed to God, and sometimes to the Son of God. And as God manifested himself thus in the person of his (So?z, so the patriarchs considered God as present in those visible manifestations. I am not, sir, alone, nor an original, in consider- ing the Son of God as the Medium of Divine mani- festations. Athanasian writers have done (he same. But is it not a manifest impropriety to con- sider a Being as the Medium of his own manifesta- tions ? If Christ be truly the Son of God, he may be truly the Medium through which God mani- fests himself; and may thus be in the '^forjn of God,^'^ But if he be personally the self-existent God, he can, with no propriety, be considered as the Medium of Divine manifestations. Although God had, in various ways, manifested his love to his Son prior to the incarnation, yet such was his love to mankind, and so important was our salvation in the view of God, that he was disposed to give his only begotten Son as a sac- 88 On the real Divinity rifice for our redemption. And although the Soft of God had been highly honoured and exalted by bis Father, and had often appeared in the '-'-form ef God^^ to transact affairs of high importance, yet such was the benevolence and condescension of this Son, that he freely concurred in the Father's proposal for the redemption of man, and said " Lo, i come to do thy will, O God." But to accom- plish this great purpose, the Sou must lay aside the form of God, and take on himself the form of a servant — he must become incarnate, be united to a human body, and be the " Son of David according to the flesh,^'^ Thus he who was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we, through his poverty, might be made rich. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient tinto death. But such voluntary and deep abasement in the Son, was not to pass unnoticed nor unrewarded by the Father. And we have the most plain and un- equivocal testimony, that God did honour his Son by constituting him a Prince and a Saviour, the Lord of all, and the SufrExME Judge of the quick and the dead. That it is as the fruit of the Father's love to the Son, and on the ground of a constituted charac^ ter, that Christ bears those and other Divine names and titles, I shall endeavour clearly to prove. John the Baptist, in his testimony concerning the Son, not only said, " God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him ;" but added, " the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things intd his handJ^"^ — John iii. 35. When the Son was about to leave his disciples and ascend into heaven, he proclaimed in their ears, " All power is given unto me in heaven and earth." — Matt, xxviii. 18. and Glory of ChrisL 89 Peter, in his iin|>ressive sermon on the day of Pentecost, having stated many things from ihe scriptures, to prove that Jesus was the Christ, addressed the audience in these words, " Therefore let all the house ot Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus^ whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." — Acts ii. 36. In the same sermon, Peter also said, " This Je- sus hath God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of fhe Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear." — Arts ii. 32, 33. In another address, Peter said, " The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified his boN Jesus. — Acts iii. 13. And again, " the God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree: Him h ith God exalted, with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins." — Arts v.'SO, 31. The same views of the constituted charac- ter of the Son as Lord of all, are, if possible, more forcibly expressed by Saint Paul. Speaking of the astonishing disphiys of the erace and power of God, he says, '•' which he wrought in Christ, whew he raised him from the dead, and set HIM at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name which is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And haih put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the Head over all things to the church."— Eph. i. 20, 22. The same apostle, having in a most striking 8* 90 On the real Divinity manner represented the astonishing condescension and deep abasement of Christ, proceeds to slate the reward given to him by God — " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."— Phil. ii. 9, 11. To unprejudiced minds, the passages of Scrip- ture, already adduced, may be sufficient to prove, that it is by the gift and pleasure of God, that his Son sustains the offices and bears the divine names of Saviour and Lord. Much more of the same im- port might be produced ; but those who can resist, evade, or set aside such plain and unambiguous testimony as has been already exhibited, might do so by a volume of the same kind. I have yet, however, distinctly to show, that God has constituted his Son the Supreme Judge of the quick and dead. In proof of the point now before us, we may begin with the testimony of Christ himself. As he is the faithful and true witness, and well acquainted with his own charac- ter, much reliance may be placed on his testimony. It will be needless here to introduce the nume- rous declarations which Christ made of his author- ity as the Judge of the world. All we have to do is to show how he came by this authority ; whether he possesses it as the self-existent God, or whether he hath been invested with this authority by the Father. When Christ had healed the impotent man, the Jews accused him of profaning the Sabbath day^ In reply to their accusation, Jesus said, "my Fa- and Glory of Christ. 91 ther worketh hitherto, and I work." His calling God his Father, the Jews considered as blasphemy, and sought the more to kill him. It appears pro- bable, that the Jews well understood the principle of derived dignity, and that they understood Christ as claiming divine dignity by professing to be the Son of God.* They evidently understood him, as calling God his Father, in the peculiar and proper sense. For while they gloried in having " one Father, even God," they considered Christ as guil- ty of blasphemy in claiming the title of the Son of God. In reply to their accusations, Christ gave them a more full account of his character and dignity, and said, " Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeih the Father do : for what things soever he doeih, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth : and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judg- ment UNTO THE Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." — John v. If God hath committed all judgment unto the Son, then he has constituted the Son as Judge. But Christ gives a further account — " Verily, veri- ly, 1 say unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, * In the common translation of John v. 18, we read, " but said, God was /iw Father V Dr. Macknight says it ou^ht to be ^'- his fro-per Father'''' Dr Hopkins says '■'' his own proper Father.''^ Dr. Campbell translates the whole verse thus, " For this reason the Jews were the more intent to kill him, because he had not only bro- ken the sabbath, but by calliog Godj?ecw/iari!y A/*Fo//ierhadequaN led himself with God." 92 Gn the real Divinity when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of- God : and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in hi[nself, so hath he given to THE Son to have life in himself ; and hath given HIM AUTHORITY to execulc judgment, because he is the Son of man. — I can of mine own self do nothing: As I hear,! j'Jrlge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." To those who place full confidence in Christ as a faithful and true witnes>, his testimony may be sufficient. But for the conviction of those who may think that two or three witnesses are needtul in the present case, we may add the testimonies of Peter and Paul. Peter, in his sermon at the house of Cornelius, af- ter stating that he and others did eat and drink with Christ after his resurrection, said, '' and he com- manded us to preach unto the people, and to testi- fy that it is he which is ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead." Paul, in his discourse to the people of Athens, said, " and the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that Man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath rais- ed him from the dead." I see no rational way in which these testimonies can be invalidated, without impeaching the charac- ters of the witnesses. An earthly sovereign, whose will is the law of the enipire, can, at pleasure, advance an own and only Son to nny rank or office, which does not in- volve a contradiction. and Glory of Christ, 9S The father cannot cause his son to rank with himself as to age^ nor can he render the son inde^ pendent of himself in respect to existence^ dignity^ or office. But it is in the power of a king or empe- ror to confer on his son any office in the army, from an ensign to that of commander in chief. He may also, at pleasure, make his son the gov- ernour of a province, chief judge, or sole judge in the highest court of justice, or viceroy of half the empire, or even a copartner with himself on the throne; and in testimony of the high esteem he has for his son, he may place him at his own right hand. Such a course of conduct in an earthly sovereign towards an only son may indeed be the result of caprice or partiality ; but it may also be the result of consummate wisdom and benevolence. For the good of the empire may be in the best manner pro- moted by such measures. As an earthly sovereign may advance his son to any office he pleases, so he may confer on him whatever title of dignity he may think proper. He may dignify his son with the title of lord, or arch- chancellor of the empire, lord chief justice, prince of peace, president of the princes, or he may con- fer on him his own royal or imperial title, as king or emperor. And in respect to several relations, he may at the same time have various titles of dig- nity. These observations present to our view some- thing analogous to the representations given in Scripture in regard to God's conduct in dignifying his only and well-beloved Son. The titles Lord, Saviour, and Judge, are titles which properly be- long to God. But God had a right to confer the same titles on his beloved Son, and to invest him 94 On the real iDiviniiy wilh the authority and sufficiency imported by these titles. And if we may safely rely on the testimony of Christ and his apostles as proof, God has actu- ally thus dignified his Son. — He hath " exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour" — "made him to be both Lord and Christ" — " given him all power in heaven and earth" — " ordained him to be the Judge of the quick and the dead" — " com- mitted all judgment unto the Son, and given him a name which is above every name." And the Scriptures afford no more evidence that Solonion sat on the throne of Israel, by the appointment and pleasure of David, than they do that the Son of Gfod sits on the throne of the universe by the ap- pointment and pleasure of God his Father, There are other titles that belong to God, which by his pleasure are given to his Son. God often styles himself the Holy One, or the Holy One of Israel. The title of Holy One is also given to the Son. Bdt the Son is plainly dis- tinguished from the self-existent Holy One, by be- ing represented as God's Holy One, or the " Holy One of God." To the truth, in this ca«p, Satan himself was constrained to bear witness* '•• I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." The words of David, quoted by Peter, are to the same purpose—" Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." The name Jehovah, which is often translated Lord in the Old Testament, is a name which be- longs to God ; but by the pleasure of God this name with some addition is given to the Son. " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will r«i5e unto David a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days and Glory of Christ, 95 Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is the i.ame whereby he shall be called, The Lord [or Jehovah] our righteousness." That the Messiah, the Son of God, in his incar- nate state, is intended in this prophecy, there can be no reasonable doubi. And that it is on the ground of a constituted character, and by the pleasure of God his Father, that he bears the name Jehovah our Righteousness, is sufficiently plain from the passage quoted It is God himself who gives the informaiion in the text: and this one God tells us of a person or character which he would raise up, and the name by which this Son should be called. The name Jehovah being given to the Son, is considered by Mr. Jones as evidence thaf the Son is personally the self-existent God. But had he compared one of his own remarks with the words of an apostle, he might have seen his own mistake. Mr. Jones suggests, that the name Lord, in the New Tesiarae^nt, which is given to Christ, is of the same import as Jehovah in the Old Testament. The apostle Peter says, ''Let all ihe house of Is- rael knozo assuredly, that God hath made thai same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." If, then, Mr. Jones be correct in affirm- ing that Lord and Jehovah are terms ot the same import, and the apostle be correct in the text just quoted; am' I not authorized to say that God hath made, or constituted, his Son Jehovah our righteous- ness ?* * Jehovah our Righteousness. Emmanuel That these signi- ficant names, as applied to the Messiah, are no proof that he was jthe living God may appear from the following considerations, ▼iz. 1. "Jehovah our Righteousness" is not only applied t« 96 On the real Divinily On similar ground, and by the same Divine pleasure, the Son bad his name called Emmanuel — Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, and ihe Prince of Peace. On the very face of the prophecies, in which these names are brought into view, it is clearly intimated, that it is by the pleasure of God that the Son bears these titles. The Son is manifestly the subject of the predictions, and God the author. And God says respecting his Son, " His name shall be called Enmianuel — His name shall be called Wonderful." That it is by inheritance as a Son, and by the pleasure of the Faiher, that Christ bears the name God, is plainly revealed in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews* As the chapter was evi- dently designed to give us a correct and exalted view of the Son of God, and the ground on which he possesses such an exalted character, and such divine titles, I shall quote nine verses : — the Messiah^ but by the same prophet it is applied to the church or to Judah and Jerusalem—^'- This is the name by which She shall be called the Lord (Jehovah) our Righteousness." Jer. xviii. 16. . ' 2. The name " Emmanuel" is used three times in the Bible. Isa. vii. 14, it is applied to the son of the prophetess, probably as a lypt of Christ. Matt. \. 23, it is applied to Christ, as the antitype. But in Isa. viii. 8, it i^ applied to the people of Judah, " Thy land, O Emmanuel " In all the instances the word im- plied that God was ivitk that people by peculiar favour. But such significant names determine nothing in respect to the dignitj of the persons or the people, to whom they are applied. The name /'' by which we may un(Jerstand, that in this anointings the Son was endued with Di- vine fulness^ and invested with Divine authority. In expressing Divine commands, in foretelling events, and in performitig miracles, the Son of God adopted a style of speaking, very different from that of the prophets. He did not preface what he uttered with a "Thus sailh the Lord;" but his usual style was, " I say unto you" — " 1 will, be thou clean," &f". Oii this ground, an argument has often bepn formed, in proof of the hyj)othesis that Christ was personally the inflependent God. In reference to this argument, I would ask, 1. Was it not to be exftected that God's own Son would adopt a style corresponding with his dignity as the Son of God? Would you not expect that a king's son should adopt a ?>{fiQ 'v\ speaking, ditferent from an ordinary ambassacfor? — But, 2, I would ask, whether justice has been done in urging the above argument ? It is indeed a truth, that Chrisl spake in a style different from the pro- phets ; but it is also true, that no prophet was ever more particular and careful than Christ was, to let it be known rhat he came not in his own name, hut in the name of God the Father ; that the words 9* 102 On the real Divinity which he spake, he spake not of himself; and that the Father in him did the work. How often did he declare, in the most unequivocal manner, to this effect, " I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of the Father that sent me." — " I proceeded forth and came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me." — " The words that I speak, I speak not of myself." If John has given us a true account, Christ dis- tinctly mentioned his being smt of the Father, Dearly forty times. How, sir, has it come to pass, that these ideas have been so much kept out of view in urging the argument from Christ's peculiar style of speaking ? I would by no means suggest a suspicion of dishonesty ; but is there not evi- dence of a strong prepossession, by which good men have been led to overlook some things which are of weight, and to form their arguments without due consideration? LETTER V. How the Son of God became the Son of Man* REV, SIR, According to your theory, the Son of God be- came the Son of Man " by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul," or a proper Man. It is my object to prove, that the Son of God became the Son of Man by becoming himself the SOUL of a human body. and Glorj/ of Christ, 103' It has been supposed, that the Son of God could not, with any propriety, be called a man on the hypothesis I have stated. But could he not with much more propriety be called a man, if he be- came the soul of a human body^ than on the hypo- thesis that he became united to a proper human soul and body or a proper man ? if the Son of God became united to a proper man, the Son and the Twcfw were two distinct intelligences, and the union would be properly a union of two persons. Besides, you say that this union does not imply that the divine nature became human nature^ nor that the human nature became divine nature^ nor that these two natures were mixed or blended. These positions, if I mistake not, are precisely of the same import as the following — The Son of God did not become man, nor did the man become the Son of God, nor were the Son of God and the man mixed or blended. For so far as I can discern any meaning to your language, the Son of God is the same as the divine nature of Christ, and the man the same as the human nature. It will hence ap- pear, that the Son of God did not become man, but only became united to a man. There are a multitude of considerations and pas- sages of Scripture, which may be adduced in sup- port of the hypothesis that the Son of God became Man, or the Son of Man, by becoming the soul of a human body. Out of many, I select the follow- ing ;— 1. If the Man Christ Jesus had been united to a second divine and self-existent Person, we might reasonably expect to find, that, in some of his dis- courses, he had mentioned that union. But in no instance did he intimate that he was united to any divine person but the Father. His uuion with the 104 On the real Divinity Father he often mentioned, and he affirmed that it was the Father in him that did the work. 2. Had the Son of God become man in no other sense than *' by taking to himself a true body and reasonable soul," and had he been, as jou suppose, personally the independent God, he could not with any propriety have asserted h\s personal dependence. For however dependent his human nature might be, as a person he would have been independent and self- sufficient. Yet it is believefl, we have no ac- count of any other person in the S( riptures, who said so much of his personal dependence as did Je- sus Christ the Son of God. In the mo'^t personal and most emphatical manner he declared. '- / can of mine own self do nothing.'''^ It is rpmarkuHe, that any of the friends ot Christ should think it dishonourary to him to say that he was dependent, while he himself so constantly affirmed his depen- dence on the Father. Not only did Christ abun- dantly assert his personal dependence on the Fath- er, but as a Person, and as a Son, he prayed to the Father fur himself as the Son of God. See his solemn pra\er, John xvti. 3. When angel"" hnve appeared '' in the likeness of men," they have been denominated eithf r angels cr men, just as the Lord Jesus is soaietimes call*^d the Son of God, and sometimes the S5sibly be meant, in any case, by the word equal, is insisited on as the only [)0ssible meaning of the term ; and that too in the face of the natural im- port both of the text itself and the connection. For it is urged that the Son is absolutely^ essential- ly^ and independently equal with God. And this con«;truction of the term -Jeems to be urged with as much confidence as though the word had nevei? 16 On the real Divinity been, and never could be, used in a qualified sense. But, sir, is it a truth that the word equal always implies absolute equality in the persons or ihings which are said to be equal ? Does it always imply equality in every respect ? — And do we not often use the term in regard to two persons who are sup- posed to be unequal in several respects ? When we say of a son^ that he is equal with \\\s father, do we ever mean that he has existed as long as his father ? or that he and his father are but one being ? May not a son be as rich as his father, and yet have derived all his riches from his father ? Might not Solomon be equal to David in authority^ though he derived all his authority from David ? It is, sir, no robbery for a king's son to think of himself according to the authority or dignity which his father hasgiv^-n him. — David said, as it is sup- posed, respecting Ahithophel his counsellor, " But it was thou, a man, mine equals my guide, and my acquaintance. " Do you, sir, suppose, that these words imply that Ahithophel was, in all respects, David's equal? If David had said, " a man my companion^'^ would not this term have expressed about the same idea as the word equal ? Why then should you be so very positive, that the term equal^ as used by the apo-^tle must mean an absolute equali- ty, even a co-eternity of God and his Son ? ^ Let us notice another text which evidently res- pects Jesus Christ : •' Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow. ^^ May it not be reasonably supposed, that fellow in this text means the same as equal in the other ? But the very text in dispute, may f>erhaps be found to contain suffirirnt evidence that Christ is not the self.eiistenl God ; and thai God aud Christ and Glory of Christ, 1 1 7 are as distinctly two Beings as any other father and son. '* Who being in the/orm of God" — Is not Christ evidently spoken of in contradistinction to God ? If he be a Person in contradistinction lo the selt-ex- isient God, he is certainly not the self-existent God, unless there be more Gods than one. If the af^os- tle had been speaking of the Father and had said of him, *' Who being in the/orm of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," would not such a representation of the Father have been a manifest impropriety ? But if the Son be the seif-existent God, such language with respect to the Father would be as proper as in respect to the Son. By the form of God, we may understand the same as the similitude or image of God — Christ is declared to be " the image of the invisible God" — "the express in:^3gc of his Person." But does not every body know that a Person and ilie Image of his Person are distinct objects ? and that it is im- possible that any Person should be the image of himself? Seth was the image of Adam ; but he was not Adam, nor was Adam and Seth the same being. — It is, however, true, that an image often bears the name of the Person represented. So Christ, by the pleasure of God, often bears the Di- vine Names of his Father. If, by the term God, be intended three Persons, as Mr. Jones suggests, then for Christ lo be in the form of God, he must be in the/orm of three Per- sons, The terms, also, equal with God, plainly import that Christ is a Person distinct from (jod. Two Persons are here compared together, one of them is God, the other is the Son of God ; and of the Son it is asserted, in some sense, that he is equal with 120 On the real Divinity reasonable soul." But if it has never been known among men that two intelligent spirits were united to one body, then for the Son of God to be made in the likeness ofmen^ and to be lound in fashion as a Man, he must become the soul of a human body. And 1 would propose it for your most serious con- sideraiion, whether the Aihanasian theory of the incarnation of the Son of God, does not come nearer to the scriptural view of possession^ than it does to the scriptural view of incarnation, I do not, sir, mention this comparison with any view to make light of the subject, or to ridicule your theory ; but to enforce an examination. And is there not much more evidence, that, in a case of possession, Satan took ^' to himself a true body and a reasonable soul," than that Christ did so by incarnation ? Besides, in a case of possession, it is easy to conceive that the Man might suflfer, and even die, and yet Satan be not at all affected by the sufferings and death of the Man : and just so you suppose that the Man Christ Jesus might suf- fer and die without any pain to the Son of God. lu respect to uhat constitutes a Man in the pre- sent state, what more do we know than this, that an intelligent spirit is united to a human body, so as to constitute one Person ? While one affirms that the souls of men are properly produced by ordina- ry generation, the same as ihe body, another will affirm that the soul or spirit is the immediate work of God, and united to the body in a state of em- bryo. And these two, perhaps, will unite in con- filenlly affirming, thai Christ could, with no pro- priety, be called a Man, it his sotjl h;'d pre-existed as the Son of God. But if a true body and reasona- ble soul united, will constitute a man, is it not un- safe for us to affirm that the Son of God could not and Glory of Christ. 121 become a Man by becoming the rational soul of a human body ? \{ I have not misunderstood him, Dr. Emmons differs from Dr. Hopkins, and supposes that the souls of men are not propagated like their bodies ; but are the immediate work of God, and by him united to bodies. To this liypothesis I do not object ; I am ignorant on the subject. But I do not see how the Doctor, or any who agree with him, can reasonably say that, on my hypothesis, Maiy was not properly the mother of a son. For if the Son of God were united to a body in the womb of Ma- ry, and born of her, he was, according to Dr. Em- mons's hypothesis, as truly the son of Mary as Seth was the son of Eve. And it is just as con- ceivable that a pre-existent spirit should be united to an infant body, as a spirit formed at the very mon)ent of union. The portion of Scripture which we have under consideration, fairly supports another idea upon which I have insisted, viz. That the Son of God was the re.al sufferer on the cross. He who had bpen \ni\\e form of God^ when found infashionas a Man^ humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. O 1 your hypothesis, the Son of God was truly and personally the self existent God. I ask then, Did the self-existent God become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ? If he did, who supported th^^. universe during that event? And woo raised him from the dead .^ B a you will say, that it was the Man Jesus, to whom the Son was united, who became obedient unto death. B.it does the apostle say any such thing ? Tne obedience unto death he attributes to the same Intelligence who had been in the form of 1! ^22 . On the real Dhinily God. For the Son of God to suffer^ and for a Man to sxfffer to whom the Son was united, are as dis- tinct ideas as any two which can be named. And what trace of the latter idea do you find in the apos- tle's description ? The idea, that it was truly the Son of God who ohpijed^ svffered, and died, and not another iritelli* gentbein^ to whom he was united, is plainly as- serie:^ in other passages of scripture— " Though a SoN,x^€t lef^.rned he obedience by the things which HE suffered" — " Who his own sklf bare our sins in his own body on the tree" — •' We are reconcil- ed to God by the death of ms Son" — " But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice 0/ himself." A vat^t multitude of texts of similar import might be produced. And can you, sir, pretend that these texts do not support the idea that the Son of God, as such, did really suffer? Can you find any language which could more fairly or more fully express the idea that the Son of God was the real sufferer ? And shall we still be told that this same Son was personally the self-existent God, and in- capable of death or suffering ? I cannot, sir, but feel most deeply interested, when I happen to touch on this point : and I hard- ly know when, where, or how to dismiss it. It cannot be admitted, that God is chargeable with any imposition on mankind. And yet, what, short of an imposition, would it be for him to pretend that he has so loved the world as to give his only BEGOTTEN SoN to suffer an ignominious death for our redemption, if at the same time this Son was so spared, as your theory implies? So spared, that all the sufferings of the cross were endured by a Man to whom the Son was united ; and the Son and Glory of Christ. 12-3 himself as free from pain and deatl), as though there were no such thing as suffering and death in the universe. No possible union between the Son of GoiJ and a iM m could render it proper to call the sufferings and death of the Man the sufferings and death of the Son^ if it be true that the Son did not suffer -nor die. And on this hypothesis, the suffer- ings of the IVUn might as well be called the suf- ferings of Gabriel^ or the sufferini^s of God the Fa- ther, as the sufferings of the Son of God. Must the sun be darkened, must the rocks be rent, must the earth quake, and nature be thrown into convul- sion?, while the Son of God suffers and dies on the cross ? Must the angels show so deep an interest in that scene, and must all the world be called on to behold with wonder and astonishment, the height, and depth, the length, and the breadth, of the love of God, as displayed in that event ? Must all the redeemed of the Lord unite in songs of everlasting praise to the Son of God, because he hath loved them and redeemed them to God by his own BLOOD ? And can it, after all, be made to appear that the Sw of God suffered not at all, unless it were by proxy or substitute ? May it not, sir, be fairly inferred from your the- ory, that instead of the Son of God's dying; for us, that the Man Jesus died for the Son of God? If the Son of God had covenanted with the Father to lay down his life for us, but instead of bearing the suffering himself, united himself to another intelli- gent being, and caused the sufferings wholly to fall on that Man, did not the Man die for him ? And to whom, sir, are we indebted for the redemption purchased on the cross ? To the real sufferer, or to the one who " suffered not in the least ?" To the Man Jesus, or to the Son of God ? m 124 On the real Divinily Most gladly, sir, would I recall every syllable 1 ever uttered in support of a theory so opposite to the natural import of scripture language, so de- grading to the love of God, and so dishonorary tO the Lord of glory. There is another point stated in the passage, viz. that the high official character which the Son of God sustains as Lord of the universe, is the result ot'God^s pleasure, and not any thing which the Son possessed as a self exisent or independent Being. Having stated the abasement of the Son, his obedi- ence unto death, the apostle says, " Wherefore God haih highly exalted hih, and GIVEN HIM a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Is it, sir, in the power of language to give a more full idea of a constituted character, or of DELEGATED AUTHORITY, than is given in these words of the apostle ? Is not the rrpresentation perfect and unequivocal, that the same Being who was once in the form of God, then in fashion as a man, who humbled hiraselt and became obedient unto death, was, in consequence of that abasement, exalted by the self-existent God, to supreme and universal dominion ? Did not the apostle mean to be understood as representing extraordinary and real changes of condition in Jesus Christ the Son of God? Did he not mean to represent that the first change of condition was a voluntary act on the part of Jesus Christ, that he voluntarily de- scended from the form of God to the form of a servant, and voluntarily became obedient unto and Glory of Christ. 125 death? If this change of condition was not real and voluntary on the part of the Son of God, why is he exhibited as an example of humility, conde- scension, and benevolence ? Why are we requir- ed to let this mind be in us which was also in Christ Jesus ? But if the Son of God was really the subject of ihis change of condition, if he did really and truly suffer and die, can he be the Son of God in your sense of the terms ? In other words, can he be the self-existeiit God ? In regard to the second great change of condi- tion — Did not the apostle mean to represent, that for the suffering of death, the Son of God was re- warded by his Father with transcendent dignity and glory ? Did he not mean to represent, that the very identical intelligent Being, who hung in agony, who prayed, who bled and died on the cross, was exalted by God as Lopd of all ? But if the real sufferer on the cross was thus exalted by God, then, according to your own views, he could not be the self-existent God ; for you cannot admit that the self-existent Person may either be the subject of death or of delegated authority. The self-existent God could no more be raised to the throne of the universe, than he could suffer death on the cross. As Athanasian writers have found it necessary, or convenient, on their theory, to attribute all that is said of the obedience^ the suffering and death oi the Son of God, to the human nature, or the man Jesus^ to whom they suf)pose the Son of God was united ; so, on the other hand, they have found it convenient, or necessary, to attribute what is stat- ed in the Scriptures respecting the exaltation of the Son of God, to the same man or human nature. As .they have perceived that it must be improper 11* 126 On the real Divinity to attribute real abasement^ suffering and death, io the self-existent God, so it appears they have per- ceived that it is equally improper to suppose a self- existent Person should be capable of deriving or receiving e\\\\eT fulness or authority front) any other Person. And as they have supposed the Person who is called the Son of God, to be the self-exis- tent God, so they have found it necessary to the support of that theory to attach to this Person a proper man, capable of obedience, suffering, and death, and also of receiving communicated fulness and authority. According to Mr. Jones, and other writers, it was the man Jesus, in contradistinction to the Son ofGody who received the Spirit without measure — to the man was given the name which is dboviS every name — it was the man who was ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead — and the man who was anointed with the oil of glad- ness above his fellows. In view of these representations, 1 would propose to your consideration (he following inquiries : — 1. If the Sfmo/Gof? were self-existent and inde- pendent, and the man, or human nature but an.ap- pendage to a self-existent Person, what occasion could there be of any communications from the Fa- ther to ihat man or human nature ? If, as a Son, that Person were the independent God, as a Per- son he possessed independent fulness and authori- ty ; and no addition or accession to his fulness or authority could possibly be made by the Father. 2. If the Son of God, as such, were possessed of independent and infinite fulness i)nd authority, and in addition to this the Father gave the human na- ture of the Son the Spirit without measure, and all power in heaven and earth, will it not appear that and Glory of Christ, 127 the same Person was posspssed, in a two-fold sense, of infinite fulness and authority ? 3. If the Son of God were united to a proper man, and that man, in contradistinction to the Son of God, was endued by the Father with all the ful- ness of the Godhead, and invested with all power in heaven and earth, what is the office or bvsiness of your supposed second self existent Person ? Jt is be- lieved, sir, that you cannot make it appear that the man Christ Jesus received any support, fulness or authority, or even benefit from any Divine Person but the Father — As a derived intelligence, all he re- ceived was from the Father. But, 4. If the man Christ Jesus may be the recipient of the Spirit without measure, of all the fulness of ijrod^ if he may be exalted with God's own right hand, and made a Prince and a Saviour, and the Judge of the quick and the dead ; I would ask what evidence you have of the existence of a second Person in union with God, distinct from the soul of that MAN who was the Lord from heaven ? 5. If it was in fact the Man Jesus, who was the subject of all the abasement, suffering, and death, which was endured for our sakes ; and if it was .the Man who has been the suhjectof all the exalta- tion which is in the Scriptures attributed to the Son of God ; is there not abundant evidence that the Man Christ Jesus and the Son of God are identically the same intelligent Being ? And that the Son of God became the Man Christ Jesus by becoming the soul of a human body? You may think, sir, that I ought to notice that all Athanasian writers do not agree with Mr. Jones, that it was the human nature of Christ, or the Man merely, who is represented as receiving fulness and. authority from the Father. I am sensible, indeedjthat 128 Oti the real Divinity there is another opinion advanced by some writers of great resp 'Ciability ; and it is to me a matter of regret, that 1 have occasion to bring it into view : for, if it be possible, it is to me more inconsistent than the opinion of Mr. Jones. — The opinion re- ferred to is of this import, That the representations in Scripture, respecting the derived fulness and au- thority of the Son, result from the covenant of re- demption, in which a mutual agreement was enter- ed into by the Three self-existent and co-eternal Persons, respecting the part which each should perform in the work of redemption. Dr. Hopkins gives the following view of these covenant transactions: — " The second Person was engaged to become incarnate, to do and to suffer all that was necessary for the salvation of men. The Father promised, that on his onsentiog to take upon him the charac- ter and work of a M^'diator and Redeemer, he should be every way furnished and assisted to go through with the work ; that he should have power to save an elect number of mankind, and form a church add kingdom most perlVct and glorious : In ord*^r to accomplish this, all fhings, all power in heaven and earih, shouM ^>e given to him, till the work of redemption is completed." The Doctor observes again, " The blessed Trinity, in the one God, may be considered as a most exalted, ha[)py, and glorious society or family, unitmg in the plan of Divine operations, especially in acv:omplishing the work of redemption. In this, each one has hi-^ part to perform, according to a njost wise, mutual regula- tion or agreement, which may be called a covenant. In performing these several parts of this wrk, one acts as superiour, and another as irferiour ,* or one and Glory of Christ, 129 acts under another^ and by his authorily, as ap- pointed or sent by him. This, by divines, is call- ed the economy of the work of redemption. Ac- cording to this economy, the Son^ the Redeemer, acts under the Father, and by his will and appoint- ment, and in this respect takes an inferiour part ; and in this sense he is supposed to speak, when he says, the Father is greater than /." I confess to you, sir, that 1 oannot but be amaz- ed and grieved to find such representations in the writings of so great and so good a man as Dr. Hop- kins. I am amazed, because I must suppose that he was so blinded by theory as not to pay due at- tention to the import of what he wrote. And I am grieved, that a man so eminent should do so much to expose Christianity to the ridicule of unbelievers. " A glorious society or family /" — A family of what? ^oioimen ; noi o^ angels. What then? A family oi' self-existent and independent Persons, each of whom, as a distinct Persouy the Doctor supposed to be God. And if we pay any regard to the natu- ral import of language, what are we to denominate this family, short of a family of Gods ? I very well know that the Doctor denied the idea of a plurality of Gods ; nor would I intimate the contrary ; and I most sincerely wish that all his reasonings and rep- resentations had been consistent with that denial. But, far from this, he has not only undertaken to prove that each of these self-existent Persons is God, but in the very passages under consideration he rep- resents these Persons as properly distinct Beings, as distinct Beings as any three angels in heaven. They can enter into covenant with each other — each can have a distinct part assigned him — one can be snpcriour, and another act under him, or by his order — one can send the other on the most 130 On the real Divinity important business ; and what more than all this, I beseech you, would be requisite to constitute them three as distinct beings as Peter, James, and John. But the most extraordinary of all these represen- tations are the engagements of ihe Father to the Son — '' The Father promised, that on his consent- ing to take upon him the character and work of a Mediator and Redeemer, he should be every way furnished andi assisted to go t-hrougii the work ; that he should have ^ozuer to save an elect number of mankind — In order to accomplish this, all things^ all power in heaven and earth, should be given to HIM, until redemption is completed/' Be pleased, sir, to keep in mind, that the Doctor was writing about two self-existent, independent, and all-sufficient Persons. Was it possible that he should suppose that an independent person ever became dependent ? Did the independent God ever cease for a moment to be independent ? If the supposed self-existent Son did not become a de^ pendent agent by incarnation^ what could be the ground ov occasion of the Father's promises that he should be furnished 3 nd assisted, and have all things, all power in heaven and earth, given to him ? I am not, sir, meaning to deny, or to doubt, the fact respecting the existence of these promises of the Father to the Son. The Doctor has proved the existence of these promises o( assistance and svp- port in the connexion of the paragraphs quoted. But my question is, Why were these promises made ? They were either needful, or they were not. To say they were made, and yet 7iot needful, would be imputing to God a kind of trifling which would be degrading to a wise and good man. But if they wer& needful^ it must be on one or other of these. and Glory of Christ, 13l grounds, viz. either the Son was originally depend- ent on the Father by incarnation, or he became de- pendent by incarnation. That he was originally df'pendent, you and the Doctor positively deny. What ground then have you IrTt but this, that a solf-exislent and independent Person became de- pendent by incarnation ? I see no possible ground but this which you can take, unless you prefer to reduce the solemn transactions in the covenant of redemption to a mere iboiv. But can you, sir, believe that an independent person ever became dependent ? If you maintain this position, it must be at the expense of another which you have wished to maintain, viz. the abso- lute immutability of the Son of God. For an independent person to become dependent, is, I suspect, as great a change as was ever expe- rienced by any creature ; and as great as for a man to be changed from entity to non-entity. But ibis is not all — if you support the hypothesis that the Son became dependent by incarnation, you must do it at the expense of the immutability of God. If it be as you suppose, that the revealed God was three independent Persons, and one of those Persons has become a dependent Agent, Deity has been changed, and has ceased to be three independent Persons in one God. Will you, sir, think of evading these objections, or solving these difficulties, by saying that the Son did not really become dependent, but only appa- rently^ by becoming united to a dependent nature ? This, ray friend, will increase the difficulties, by representing the part acted by the Son as not real, but only in appearance, as well as the part acted by the Father. On this hypothesis, the Son would put on the appearance of needing his Father's sup- 130 On the real Divinity important business ; and what more than all this, I beseech you, would be requisite to constitute them three as distinct beings as Peter, James, and John. But the most extraordinary of all these represen- tations are the engagements of ihe Father to the Son — '' The Father promised, that on his consent- ing to take upon him the character and work of a Mediator and Redeemer, he should be every way furnished and assisted to go througli the work ; that he should have ^ozuer to save an elect number of mankind — In order to accomplish this, all things, all power in heaven and earthy should be given to HIM, until redemption is completed." Be pleased, sir, to keep in mind, that the Doctor was writing about two self-existent, independent, and all-sufficient Persons. Was it possible that he should suppose that an independent person ever became dependent ? Did the independent God ever cease for a moment to be independent ? If the supposed self-txistent Son did not become a de^ pendent agent by incarnation, what could be the ground or occasion of the Father's promises that he should he furnished and assisted, and have all things, all power in heaven and earth, given to him ? I am not, sir, meaning to deny, or to doubt, the fact respecting the existence of these promises of the Father to the Son. The Doctor has proved the existence of these promises of fl^szs/a^ce and sup- port in the connexion of the paragraphs quoted. But my question is, M^hy were these promises made ? They were either needful, or they were not. To say they were made, and yet not needful, would be imputing to God a kind of trifling which would be degrading to a wise and good man. But if they were, needful^ it must be on one or other of these. and Glory of Chris t» 13t grounds, viz. either the Son was originally depend- ent on the Father by incarnation, or he became de- pendent by incarnation. That he was originally dependent, you and the Doctor posiiively deny. What ground then have you left but this, that a self-existent and independent Person became de- pendent by incarnation ? I see no possible ground but this which you can take, unless you prelVr to reduce the solemn transactions in the covenant of redemption to a mere §bow. But can you, sir, believe that an independent person ever became dependent ? If you njaintain this position, it must be at the expense of another which you have wished to maifjtain, viz. the 06^0- lute immutability of the Son of God. For an independent person to become dependent, is, I suspect, as great a change as was ever expe- rienced by any creature ; and as great as for a man to be changed from E^T1TY to non-entity. But this is not all — if you support the hypothesis that the Son became dependent by incarnation^ you must do it at the expense of the immutability of God, If it be as you suppose, that the revealed God was three independent Persons, and one of those Persons has become a dependent Agent, Deity has been changed, and has ceased to be three independent Persons in one God. Will you, sir, think of evading these objections, or solving these difficulties, by saying that the Sou did not really become dependent, but only appa- rently^ by becoming united to a dependent nature ? This, ray friend, will increase the difficulties, by representing the part acted by the Son as not real, but only in appearance, as well as the part acted by the Father. On this hypothesis, the Son would put on the appearance of needing his Father's sup- 13€ On the real Divinity port, when in fact he did not need it — he would put on the appearance of obeying the Father, when in fact he did not obey ; and of suffering and dying, when in fact he did neither die nor suffer. Will you say that the engagements of the Father to th' Son were of this tenour, that he would sup- port the human nature to which the Son should be united ? If so, I ask what need had the Son of this ? Was he not personally sufficient for the support of his human nature ? Again, I a.^k, if the engage- ments of the Father to the Son were, that he would support the J^hn to whom the Son should be unit- ed, what part had the Son to perform ? W^as it not simply this, that he should appear to become de- pendent by becoming united to the Man, and the Father would furnish, assist, and enable the Manxo do the whole business of obeying and suffering? And is this, sir, the ground of our obligations to the Son of God ? !s this the ground on which the redeemed of the Lord sing " Worthy is the Lamb that was slain ? It is, sir, painful to me thus to expose the theory I once attempted to maintain, and which has been advocated by some of the greatest and best of men. But I view it to be a duty which I owe to God, and to his Son who has given himself for us. And while I sincerely lament that the representations of Dr. Hopkins, on which 1 have remarked, are to be found in the writings of a man so justly esteem- ed, it affords me abundant joy that the Bible itself is not chargeable with such inconsistent represen- tations. As I understand the Scriptures, the promises of the Father were made to one who was in truth and reality the Son of God — to one who e-oer was de- pendent on the Father, who ever felt his depen- und Glory of Christ, 133 dence, and was ever willing to acknowledge it — one who could pray with propriety and sincerity while in the flesh ; and in view of his dependence^ in view of the covenant of redemption, and in view of the sufferings he was about lo endure, he could lift up his eyes to heaven, and say, " Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thv Son may also glorify THEE : as thou hast given him power ovei' all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him : And this is life eternal, to know THEE, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom THOU hast sent, 1 have glorified thee on the earth; I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self zuith the glory which I had v:ith thee before the zoorld was,"^^ To a Son who could, in sincerity, make such a prayer, the Father might, with perfect propriety and sincerity, make promises of assistance, of sup- port, of /jozoer, and exaltation. On this ground, the covenant transactions between the Father and the Son may appear solemn and affecting realities ; and likewise all the subsequent proceedings on the part of the Father, and on the part of the Son. With -this view, also, agree all the predictions respecting what the Son should do and suffer; all the promis- es of Divine assistance and support; all that is Slid by Christ of himself, of his dependence, his derived fulness and authority; and all that is said by the apostles respecting the fulness of the Deity dwelling in him ; 8n«l of the power and authority which Christ received of God as Saviour, Judge, and Lord of all. We have no occasion for any forced or unnatural cov\%\.T\xc\.\or\ of any of these nu- merous passages of Scripture ; nor have we any occasion lo frame and invent hypotheses which con- 12 134 Oil the real Divinity tradict the plain import of Scripture language, and finally involve us in contradiction and absurdity. Is it not, sir, a truth, that the personal self-exist- ence of the Son of God has been too hastily estab- lished as an article of Christian faith? — established as an article of such unquestionable truth and in- finite importance, that every opposing passage of Scripture must be made to bend to it, or break be- fore it? And that too while the general tenour of Scripture language and Scripture representations are, according to the most natural import of words, directly opposed to the idea ? Yea, with a view to glorify Christ with the attributes of personal self- existence and independence^ have not hypotheses been formed which imply a sacrifice of the solemn realities of the covenant of redemption, and of the obedience and death of the Son of God ? And in attempting to support this one doctrine, have not the plainest and most simple representations of Scripture, and even the whole gospel scheme, been involved in mystery and obscurity ? Surely, sir, be- fore we allow any doctrine such a share of impor- tance, we ought, at least, seriously to inquire whether it be founded in the word of God. As the doctrine ot the personal self-existence of the Son of God has long been a popular doctrine, have we not on that ground received it as true, and made it our business to support the doctrine before we examined it by the light ol God's word.? And instead of making the Scriptures a standard by which to measure the doctrine, have we noi been in the habit of making the doctrine a standard by which to measure the Scriptures ? Will you, sir, still urge that Christ cannot be a Divine Person unless he be self-existent ? By what authority, or by what analogy, will you be able to und Glory of Christ. 136 support such an objection ? Nothing more was ne- cessary to constitute Seth a human person^ than being the son of a human person. And il God be a Divine Person., his ownSonxnusi be a Divine Per- son, According to every analogy in nature, to af- firm that Jesus Christ is God's own Son implies that he is a Person truly Divine. LETTER Vn. Divine Honours due to the Son of God. REV. SIR, That ihe Son of God is to be regarded as an: object of Divine honours, is so plain from the Scriptures, that it seems extraordinary that it sho'jld ever have been denied by any one who has admitted the Bible as a rule of faith and practice. — In support of the idea, we may note several things — 1. We have express declarations of the will of God, " The Father judgeth no man, but hath com- mitted all judgment to the Son, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father." ^his is a sufficient warrant for 7nen to give Divine honours to the Son of God. Angels have their warrant also ; for " When he bringeth in his only BEGOTTEN into the world, he saifh. Let all the an- gels of God worship him." — And we have another passage which amounts to a warrant both for men and angels : " Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." 1 36 On the real Divinily 2. We have the example of saints on earth and saints in heaven. In rrspect to saints on earth, we not only have many individual instances recorded, but the great body of Christians in the apostolick age were characterized as "those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus, '^'' That both angels and saints in glory pay Divine honours to the Son of God, is represented by John in the account he gives of his visions : " And 1 beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, and the beasts and the elders ; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thou- sands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, Wor- thy IS THE Lamb that was «lain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing: And every crea- ture which is in heaven, and on the earth, and un- der the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, saying, Blessings and ^onour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sit- teth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever." To those who regard the Scriptures as of Divine authority, the things which have already been no- ted may' be considered as sufficient to authorize us to pay Divine honours to the Son of God ; even if we should be unable to investigate the grounds of the Divine directions, and of the examples of saints and angels. It may, however, be desirable that we should obtain a clear view of the reasons why such honours are to be given to Jesus Christ. — We may therefore observe, 1. That Divine honours are due to the Son of God, on the principle of derived dignity. He is God's own Son, his First-begotten, his only begotten Son ; and he hath, by inheritance^ a more excellent and Glory of Christ, 137 name than the angels. On the same principle that an own and only son of a rightful king is to be re- garded and honoured as a rrtyal person, Divine honours are due to the Son of God. 2. The Son of God is worthy of Divine honours^ on the ground of his Divine fulness ; for it hath pleased the leather that in him all fulness should dwell. That fulness which Christ possesses by the pleasure of the Father, is really ChrisVs fulness ; and it is as excellent, considered as ihefulness of Christ, as it is considered as the fulness of the Father, The self-existence of God does not imply that he was the cause of his own existence or his own ful- ness. And God is, in truth, no more the cause oi his own fulness than Christ is the cause of the Di* vine fulness which dwells in him by the pleasure of God. If, therefore, the fulness there is in God be a proper ground on which to give him Divine hon* ours, the fulness there is in Christ is a reason why we should honour the Son as we honour the Father — that is, so far as Divine fulness is the ground of Divine honours, 3. The Son of God is worthy of Divine honours, on the ground of his Divine offices. It is a dictate of reason and revelation, that official character should be respected and honoured. And the high- er the office any person sustains by right, the great- er are the honours which are due on the ground of official character. The official character of a gen- eral demands higher honours than that of a corpo- ral — the official character of the president of the United States demands higher honours than that of an ordinary civil magistrate. And or) the same principle, Z)bme/ionowr5 are due to the Son of God: for his offices are truly Divine, The offices of Sa- 12* 1 3S On the real Divinity viouR, Judge, and Lord of all, are as truly Divine offices as any offices sustained by God the Father. And if there be any reason to jiive Divine honours to God in view of his Divine offices, there is the same reason to give Divine lionours to the Son of God : for the Son has not obtainfeTf tft^se of- fices by violence or usurpation, but by the plea- sure of God, v^^ho had an unquestionable right to bestow them. And if he truly possess those offi- ces by the gift of the Father, so far as official cha- racter may be a ground of Divine honours, Christ is as worthy of Divine honours as though he had pos- sessed the same offices by self- existence. There- fore, on the ground of official character, we may honour the Son as we honour the Father. 4. The Son of God is worthy of Divine hon- ours, on the ground of Divine w^orks. Creation is a Divine work; and by him were all things cre- ated. Upholding and governing the world is a Divine work; and he upholdeth all things by the Avord of his pow?r ;* and he is Lord of all. Sal- vation is a Divine work; and God hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour — The price of redemption he has personally paid ; and he is made head over all things to the church. Judging the world is a Divine work; and the Father hath com- mitted all judgment unto the Son. It is indeed a truth, that God does all these things by his Son ; but the son is the real agentor doer of these things, * Heb. i. 3. In his Family Expositor, Dr. Doddridge expresses the opinion, that the phrase *' his power'>'> intends the power of the Father ; and the construction of the sentence is in favour of his opinion. But this is no objection to the idea, that the power, by which the world is upheld, is also truly ChrisCs power. It is the poioer of God, originally and independently, and the power of Christ by the pleasure of the Father. and Glory of Christ. 139 as truly as Paul was the author of the epistles to Timothy. It is a principle of reason and common sense, as well as of revelation, that great and excellent works are a proper ground of honour. When the elders of the Jews came to Christ to request favour in be- half of the centurion, whose servant was sick, in commendation of the centurion the elders said, That, " he is worthy for whom he should do this ; for he loveth our nation, and hath built us a syna- gogue." What honours have been paid to Wash- ington^ on the ground not only of the important offices he sustained, but on the ground of the impor- tant works he performed ! Now, if more honour has been due to Washington on the ground of his works, than has been due to the meanest soldier in his army, or the meanest peasant in community, Divine honours are due to Christ on the ground of his Divine works, A greater than Washington is here ; one who has done greater things; one who hath loved our race, and built us a world, and filled it with the fruits of his kindness; yea, one who hath so lover! n* ae ingiiTP. h^mpecf his own iife^ for our redemption. But God raised him from the dead, and '' exalted him with his own right hand." God viewed him worthy of Divine honou7s. on the ground of what he had done, ^^ wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.'' ^ If it was not improper for God to place the Son on his own right hand^ it is not im- proper for us to pay Divine honours to his name. From the evidence we have in the sacred wri- tings, that Divine honours are to be paid to the Son of God, it has been inferred, that the Son is personally the self-existenl God, And so confident 140 On the real Divinity have some been that this inference is infallibly cor- rect, that they have ventured, on the supposition it be not so, to implicate the Christian world in a charge of gross idolatry, and the God of truth in a charge of self-contradiction and inconsistency. Is not this, sir, for fallible creatures, carrying things to a great length ? And does it not imply such a degree of confidence in the correctness of their own understandings, as none should possess until they arrive to that state where they shall see as they shall be seen, and know as they shall be known ? But what, sir, is the ground on which this extra- ordinary confidence rests ? Is it not a principle, taken for granted, which has no real foundation in reason, analogy, or the word of God '? Yea, a prin- ciple which is contradicted by analogy, and by as plain representations as are contained in the ora- cles of truth ? The principle taken for granted is this. That it is impossible with God to constitute a CHARACTER which shall be worthy of Divine hon- ours ; therefore, if Jesus Christ be not personally the self-existent God, ho cannot be an object of Divine honours. But, sir, be pleased to admit, for one moment*, the possibility that Christ is just such a Person and character as I have supposed him to be — truly the Son of the living God, God's own and only Son a Son in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell — one truly united to Deity, and by God invested with the Divine offices of Sa- viour, Lord and Judge : What but Divine honours are due to his name ? What says analogy ? — By David's pleasure, wc behold Solomon placed on the throne of Israel ; and we see the friends of David and of Solomon a7id Glory of Christ, 141 giving him the honours which were due to the so». of David and king of Israel, We also see the Son OF God, " for the suffering of death ^ crowned vvith glory and honour," seated on the right hand of the Majesty on high, exalted by God, as Lord of all ; and shall we pronounce it idolatry to pay him Di- vine honours as the- Son of God, and the constitu- ted Lord of (he universe ? Or shall we arraign the conduct of God, and pronounce it absurd for hio) thus to exalt his own Son ? But what saith the Scriptures? When they re- present Christ as an object of Divine honours, do they not uniformly represent him as a Person as distinct from God as he is from the Father ? Is there one instance in which he is represented as the self-existent God, and on that ground worshipped ? — In regard to those declarations of the Divine will respecting the honouring of Christ, or the worship- ping of Christ, is he not in the plainest manner distinguished from the self-existent God ? All judg- ment was committed unto him by the Father, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father. Was he not a Being distinct from the one who committed all judgment unto him ? In the connexion, he calls that Being his Father ; and Pe- ter says, that Christ commanded his disciples to preach and to testify that it is He who is ordained of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead. Therefore, when he is ho'ioured as the Judge, he is honoured as one ordained of God. He is then, in this case, plainly distinguished from God. It was God also who brought him into the world, as the ONLY BEGOTTEN, and Said, " Let all the angels of God worship him." It was God also who ^^ ex- alted him;''"' and God gave him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every 142 On the real Divinity knee should bow. In all these cases, the Son is as clearly distinguished from God, as Solomon is, in any place, distinguished from David. As there is no declaration importing that Christ should be worshipped or honoured as being person- ally the self-existent God, we may perhaps find, that, in the examples of worshipping Christ, he was honoured or worshipped as a Being distinct from God. When he had stilled the tempest, they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, "Of a truth thou art the Son of God." And in several instances he was worshipped under this title. By the woman of Canaan he was worshipped as the Lord, the Son of David. Can any person of candour and discernment suppose, that in either of these cases he was considered as personally the self-existent God ? The terms they used certainly import no such thing. To be the Son of God, and to be the self-existent God, are ideas as distinct as David and the Son of David. The angels were not required to worship him as the* self-existent God; but the self-existent God required them to worship Christ as the only begotten Son of God, When John, in the Revelations, gives us such a striking representation of the worship or Divine honours paid by all the angels and saints to Christ as the Lamb of God, the Lamb, in the represen- tations, is clearly distinguished from God as another intelligent being — as one who had been slain — as ONE who had redeemed us to God by his blood. No one, it is hoped, will pretend, that God, the self-existent, was ever slain ; yet when Divine hon- ours were paid the Lamb, the angels and the re- deemed of the Lord said, *' Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom and strength, and honoufj and glory, and l^lessing." and Glory of Christ, 143 There is not, perhaps, a more striking represen» tation of Divine honours paiJ to the Son of God, in any part of the Bible, than those which are giv- en hy John in the Revelations; yet all those hon- ours were paid to one who could say, '^ I am He that liveth^ and was dead, and, behold, I live for- evermore;" and to one whom the worshippers con- sidered as having been slain. Then, as true as it is that God was never personally dead^ so ti ue it is that Jesus Christ may receive divine honours as an intelligent Being, personally distinct from God. It may not be amiss here to notice an extraordi- nary idea suggested by Mr. Jones, in regard to the Lamb. Speaking upon these words, " Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood," and feeling the impropriety of supposing that God suffered and died^ he informs us that by the Lamb is intended '' the Messiah's humanity,^'' [p. 32.] That the liile Lamb includes the Messiah's humani- ty, is not denied ; but that the term Lamb means the Messiah'4. humanity in contradistinction to his own proper nature as the Son of God, may nrit be admitted. If the name Lamb mean the " Messi- ah's humanity" in the sense suggested by Mr, Jones, we may properly substitute the terms " Mes- siah?s humanity'''' whenever the word Lamb is used as denoting Christ. Let us then make use of the substitute in the connection from which Mr. Jones selected the text. " And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne — stood the ^^ Messiah'' s humanity,'''' as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God : And he came and took the book — And when he had taken the book, the four beasts an ! the four and tweniy elders fell down before the '* Messiah'^s humanity''^ — and they 144 On the real Divinity sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, &:c. — Worthy is the *' MessiaK's human- ity^"^"^ that was slain, to receive power. &;c. — Bles- sing, and honour, and power unto him that siueth on the throne, and to the '''■ JMessiaJi'^s humanity^^ for ever and ever." Rev. ch. v. To such absurdity, sir, are great and good men sometimes reduced, in attempting to support a the- ory in opposition to the plain import of scripture language. Had Mr. Jones duly regarded the na- tural meaning of the terms ihe Son of God, and be- lieved that he was made in the likeness of men by becoming the soul of a human body, that he really suffered and died on the cross as the antitype of the paschal Lamb, he might then have considered the L.\MB, seen by John, as the Messiah himself, and not the " Messiahs humanity.'''^ But if an Aihana- sian writer may so construe the names of the Son of God, as implicitly to represent all the heavealy hosts as worshi{)ping the ^' Messiah''s humanity,'^^ may 1 not escape censure in regard to the hypothe- sis that God hath exalted his own Son, and conslitiu ted him an object of Divine honours ? What! you may say, are we to have two Gods? No, sir ; *my object is to prove that we have but one self-existent God, by proving that, in the view of God, of angels, and of saints in glory, the Son of God is an object of Divine worship ; not indeed, on the ground of self-existence, but on the ground of his dignity as God^s own and only Son, and the constituted Lord and Saviour of the world. But, sir, let it be distinctly understood, and never forgotten, that while vve thus honour the Som of God, we honour the Father also. Christ, taught and Glory of Christ, 145 his disciples this doctrine, He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. And when he taught the Jews that the " Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men may honour ihe Son even as they honour the Father," he sub- joined, '' He that honourtik not the Son, kononrclh n>)t the Father that sent him." And when Paul stated to the Philippians how God had exalted his Son, and given hin a name above every name, that evert/ knee should bozo to the name of Jesus, he let them know tliat the Divine honours to be paid to Christ were " to the glory of God the Father,^^ On whichsoever of the grounds that have been stated, we pay Divine honours to the Son of God, the same are, at the same time, paid to the Father. If we honour the Son on the ground of the Fa- thpr's requirement, we thus honour the Father. If we honotjr the Son on ihe principle o( derived dignity as (he Son of God, the character of the Fither is the primary ground of the honours paid to ihe Son, If we pay Divine honours to Christ on this ground, that " in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead," we honour the fulness of the Fa- ther, as truly as when the person of the Father is immediately honoured. If we honour the Son on the ground of his official character and the Divine authority he possesses by the pleasure of the Fjither, as the constituted Sa- viour, Lord, and Judge of the world, it is not only the authority of the Son, but the Father's au- thority IN HIM, which we honour and adore. If we honour him on the ground of his Divine works as Creator and Lord, the Father in him does the work, 13 i46 On the real Divinity If we honour the Son on the ground of his abase- ment, sufferings and death, for our sakes, we are at the same time to remember, that " God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son" — and that it is *' unto God" that the Son hath re- deemed us by his blood. Therefore, in every point of view, and on every ground, the Divine honours which are paid to the Son are " to the glory of God the Father,^^ Is it not, sir, surprising, that Christian writers should have been so unguarded as to assert, that if Jesus Christ be not personally and truly the self- existent God, then the Christian church in all ages have been guilty of " gross idolatry ;" and that the religion of Christ " is so far from destroying idola- try, that it is only »Ht#re lefined and dangerous species of it ?" If such wrrPei»s have incautiously implicated themselves in a charge of idolatry, it is hoped they will not blame me for that. To accuse them of idolatry, or to view them as guilty of it, is far from me. For though the correctness of their views, in respect to ihe ground on which Divine honours are due to the Son of God, is doubted, yet in my view they have not given him more honour than is due to his name. They may have, indeed, in support of their theory, said things respecting the personal self-existence and independence of the Son of God, which are more than are true ; but it is doubted whether any Christian on earth, in his devotional views and feelings, ever ascribed so much real excellency and glory to Christ, as are properly due to his name. If you, sir, entertain the idea, that my views of the real excellency, glory, and love of Christ, have been lowered down by adopting the present theo- ry, be assured that the very reverse of your «p- and Glory of Christ, 147 prehensions is the truth. While supporting your theory, and speaking conformably to it, my lan- guage imported ideas respecting Christ which now appear incorrect. But it is one thing to adopt forms of speech of high import, and another to have distinct and impressive ideas oi real majesty^ dignity^ and glory. And while formerly using language which imported the self-existence and indepen- dence of Christ, my ideas respecting his greatness, and glory, as a distinct Person from the Father, were very confused and indistinct. For it was im- possible for me to form a definite idea of what could be meant by Person^ on the theory o( three Persons in one God or one Being, The Son of God, as united to the man or human nature of Christ, was to me a certain something's^ out which the terms self-existence and independence were used by me as by others, but of which no definite idea was con- ceived, any more than of that in bodies which is called the principle or power of attraction ; ex- cepting when, by the aid of analogy, the Son of God was viewed as a distinct intelligent Being, But as this was contrary to the theory, when that occurred my mind was necessarily confused. But on the present theory, the natural import of Scrip- ture language, in view of analogies, affords me ideas of the majesty, the glory, the dignity, and the love of Christ, far more distinct, exalted, and impressive, than any which ever entered my mind on Atha- nasian ground. Here it may be proper to notice more particular- ly the self-contradiction and inconsistency, in which it has been supposed God must be involved if his Son be not self-existent — The parts of the suppos- ed contradiction are of the following tenour, viz. 148 On the real Dimnity On the one hand, God has positively prohibited the worship of idols^ or any god but himself. He has said, " I am God, and there is none else. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." " I am the Lord, that is my name, and my glory 1 v*'iH not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." On the other hand, God said respecting his Son, " Let all the angels of God worship him" — And he has given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. In view of such passages, it has been inferred that Christ is personally the same God who has made these-declarations, or there must be a con^tra- diction. To show that neither of these inferences is correct, is the design of the follomiig observa- tions. 1. If Jesus Christ be irvly the Son of the self- existent God, he is neither a graven image, an idol, nor 2i false god. Hence, 2. A prohibition respecting the worship of graveti images, or idols, or false gods, amounts to no pro- liibition of paying Divine honours to the Son of God, as the Son of God, or the constituted Lord of the universe. Therefore, 3. Consistently with all that God has said in the Bible against the worship of graven images, of idols, or of false gods, he might exalt his Son, and require men and angels to pay Divine honours to his name. - It may still be thought, that if the Son be not the self-existent God, but has been exalted by God as an object of Divine honours, then God has given his glory to another, contrary to his own word. It may therefore be observed, and Glory of Christ, 149 4. For God to give his glory to another, in the sense of the text alluded to, must imply doing some- thing respecting another or authorizing something to be done respecting another, which is dishonorary to himself. To glorify another, or to cause another to be glorified, in a manner which contributes to his own glory, is perfectly consistent with his de- claration that he zoill not give his glory to another. To make out, then, that there is so much as the shadow of a contradiction in the case, it must be made to appear, that to pay Divine honours to the Son of God, as the Son of God, and the one in whom the Father is ever well pleased, is dishonor rary to the Father. But to prove this, will be a task which probably very few will venture to un- dertake. By those who have urged this supposed contra- diction, has it not been taken for granted, that the Son of God may be a distinct Person from God the Father, and yet the self-same Being ? And should this, sir, be taken for granted ? But if it be, still the texts which they rely upon for the support of the supposed contradiction, do as fully import a prohi- bition of Divine honours to any other Person but the one who made the declarations, as to any other Being, In those texts God does not represent him- self as three Persons^ but as one individual Person — " / am God, and there is none else — Thou shalt have no other gods before me — / am the Lord, and my glory / will not give to another." — Therefore, if these passages amount to a prohibition of paying Divine honours to the Son of God, as being truly the Son of God, they equally prohibit paying Di- vine honours to the Son considered as a distinct Person from the Father, whether self existent oi'not* The self-same Person is represented as saying at 13* 150 On the real Divinity one time, / am the Lord, and my glory I will not give to another — At another time he says respect- ing the Person who is called his only begotten Son^ '' Let all the angels of God worship him." And, if these passages wonld involve a contradiction on the hypothesis that the Son is a Person truly de- rived from the Father, they involve precisely the samp contradiction on the hypothesis that the So7i is a self -existent Person distinct from the Father, Having thus endeavoured to show, from the Scriptures, that Divine honours are due to the Son of God, and the grounds on which they are doe, and also to obviate what has been viewed by some as insurmountable objections te the theory, you will suffer me now to appeal to your own conseienceyi and ask, whether my views of the honours due to the Son of God do not harmonize with your own practical views and feelings, and with your usual forms of speech in prayer and praise ? Reflections on mv own former views and feelings, and observa- tions in regard to the prayers of my Athanasian brethren, encourage me to do this. In respect to my own experience, adopting the present theory has given no occasion to vary my forms of speech from what was natural and usual with me before, in regard to the Son of God. And it is observed, that the prayers of my Athanasian brethren, so far as the Son is mentioned, agree with ray present views ; excepting when they appear to wish to introduce some particular exp^es^iions to oommimicate or support their particular theory. It may not then be amiss to class myself with you and them, and observe how roe pray. We occasionally address petitions to Christ as the Son of God, the Lord of all, the Redeemer of and Glory of Christ. 151 our souls, or the Head of the church. We some- times distinctly thank him for his kindtiess and nur- cy in laying down his life for our redemj)iion ; and for the benefits we receive through his mediation and atonement. But in this particular, perhaps we are generally deficient ; and much less frequently bring the Son into view in our prayers than would be proper. In our ascriptions of praise, at the close of our prayers, we frequently and properly mention the Father and the Son as two distinct Persons, or intelligent Beings. But in general, we address our prayers to God as one distinct Person and Being. We bless the name of this x)NE God for his kindness and love in giving his own Son to die for our offences. And the forms of speech which we use clearly convey the idea that God is one distinel intelligent Being, and his Son another; as distinct as any other Father and Son. We beseech God to bestow favours through the mediation and atonement of his Son. We plond with God on the ground of what his Son has done and suffered (or us. We adore God for having ex- alted his Son as Lord of all, and making him Head over all things to the church. And, in conformity to the language of Scripture, we make use of thou- sands of expressions which denote as clear a dis- tinction between God and his Son, as are ever made between Abraham and Isaac. And, however inconsistent such a distinction may be with the Athanasian theory, it is a distinction to which we are naturally led by our intimacy with the laf)guage of the Bible. And these forms of speech are, it is tfc(outi:ht, a correct expression of the habitual and practical views even of Athana- sians themselves, in their c/ero/ion«/ exercises. Be- lieving this to be the case, and that it is consistent 132 On the real Divinity with the manner in which Divine honours are paid to the Son of God by saints and angels in heaven^ who can believe that the Christian church have been guilty of" idolatry'^^ in the homage they have paid to the "Lamb of God?" In considering him as the self-existent God, it is thought my brethren have been under a mistake ; but not in considering him as an object of Divine honours; nor is it apprehended that in their ha- bitual and devotional feelings they have ascribed more honour than is due to his name. And so far as they have fallen short of believing^ feelings and acknowledging the awful realities of the personal abasement^ suffering, and death of the Son of God, so far they have, in my opinion, in one particular, fallen short of giving him due praise. The ten times ten thousand, and the thousands of thousands, who were observed by John as paying honours to the Son of God, did not say, Worthy is the Lamb who united himself to a man that was slain ; nor did they say, Worthy is the " Messi- ah^s humanity''^ — that was slain : but, " Worthy is the Lamb, that was slain, to receive," &;c. In a preceding verse, the redeemed do not say, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof; for the man to whom thou wast united was slain : but, " Thou art worthy — for THOU WAST SLAIN, and hast redeemed us to God by THY blood." Must it not, sir, appear on your hypothesis, either that Divine honours were paid to the *' MeS' siah'^s humanity, ^^ or that the self-existent God was personally slain? As you will clipny both these po- sitions, let me ask, how can you consistently join the song of the redeemed, till you renounce your a?id Glory of Christ, 153 theory ? Can you ever, consistently^ say, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain ? POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER VII.' So far as I have had opportunity to be acquaint- ed with the views of others, it has been, in general, professedly conceded by Athanasians, by Arians, and by Socinians, that there can be but one object of Divine honours ; and that if Christ be not per- sonally the self-existent God, io worship, or io pray to hirn, must be idolatry. But, sir, are not God, and the Son at his right hand, two distinct objects ? Are not God, and the Lamb, two distinct objects ? When God said re- specting his Son, ''''Let all the angels of God wor- ship HIM," is the meaning the same as though he had said, Let all the angels of God worship me? Suppose an earthly king should exalt his own son, and give him the right hand as a co-partner with him on the throne, and require all his subjects to *' bow the knee''^ and pay royal honours to the son ; would not the father and the son be still two dis- tinct objects? And have we not reason to believe, that it is in allusion to such events that we have it represented in the Scripture, that God hath exalted HIS Son with his own right hand ? If God has, in very deed, given all things into the hands of the Son, and exalted him to be Lord of all ^ can it be idolatry to worship him according to the rank assigned him by God ? Can it be im- pro[)er or criminal to pray to him who is thus able to help us, and to praise and thank him for what he is, and for what h4*has done for our sakes ? When you say that it must be idolatry to wor- ship or pray to Christ, unless he be the self-exist- ent God, do you not implicitly accuse God of estab- 154 On the real Divinity/ lishing idolatry ? For the Divine honours to be paid to the Son are instituted by God, Besides, do you not arbitrarily attach ideas to the terms worship and prayer, which do not necessarily or naturally belong to them ? viz. That -worship anil prayer im- ply, that the object worshipped and addressed is acknowledged lo be personally the self-existent God. by him who worships or prays. But by what authority do you attach such ideas to the words worship and prayer .^ May not a child bow the knee to his father, and ask forgiveness for an offence, or pray for favours which the father can bestow ? May not a subject do the same before a worthy king '/ The word worship is used to express the reverence or respect paid by an inferiour to a superiour ; and in proportion to the degree of dis- parity, is the degree oi homage and respect which is due, Shiill it, sir, be deemed consistent for a poor malefactor to bow the knee to one whom the people have exalted as president of the United States, and supplicate favour? And shall it be deemed a crime to make supplication to Him whom God hath ex' alted with his own right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance and remission of sins ? It is not indeed proper to pray to the presi- dent as to the self-existent God ; but it is proper to address petitions to him, and to pay homage to him according to his rank or dignity. Nor is it in my view proper, in addressing prayers to Christ, to consider him as the self-existeni God. Yet it is proper to pray to him, and to worship him as Lord OF ALL ; as a Being whom God hath seen fit to "exalt with his own right hand ;^^ and as one in whom God, by all his fulness, dwells. und Glory of Christ, 155 And how, sir, can v;e be in subjection to God, unless we cheerfully '' bow the knee^^ to the Son, and acknowledge him to be ** Lord, to t!>e glory of God the Father?'*'^ The worship paid to the Son is called Divine; not because it is divinel) requir- ed; but because in my view the Son is a Divine Person ; a Person of Divine Origin and Dignity, of Divine Fulness and Authority, If you, sir, are surprised to find me thus approv- ing the idea of paying Divine honours to two dis^- tinct objects, will you not be still more surprised, should it be demonstrated, that, on your theory, Divine honours must be paid to three distinct ob- jects ? Your theory supposes three self-existent Persons or Agents ; and each of these three distinct Agents you consider as an object of Divine worship. As you disavow the idea of three Gods, it would be un- generous to accuse you of worshipping three dis- tinct Gods, But that you profess to worship three distinct objects^ as God, how can you in truth deny ? Is not every distinct person qt agent a distinct object of contemplation ? And are not three distinct per- sons as clearly three distinct objects as three trees ? Is it possible for you, or any other man, to form an idea of three distinct persons which does not include three distinct objects? It has, sir, been urged, on your side of the ques- tion, that we can easily conceive of the Father as one distinct Person^ of I he Son as another distinct Person, and of the Holy Ghost as a third distinct Person ; and the difficulty is, to conceive how these three distinct Persons Can be but one Being, or one God. This part of the hypothesis is acknowledged to be mysterious and totally inconceivable, Ynur worship, therefore, must be paid to the three Per- 156 On the real Divinity sons as to three distinct objects; for if you worship the three persons at all, you must worship them ac- cording to your conceptions, and not according to what you do not conceive. If you have no ccncep- tion of the three, otherwise than as three distinct Persons^ you can have no conception of them otherwise than as three distinct objects. From my own experience as an Athanasian, suf- fer me to appeal, sir, to your conscience, whether you e\ er did conceive of the Father and the Son otherwise than as tivo distinct objects. When you address the Father, and ask favours through the mediation of his Son^ do you not conceive of the Father and the Son as two distinct objects ? And do you not consider yourself as addle^si^g one of the distinct objects, and not the other ? When you address a prayer directly to the Son, as the Head of the church, do you not conceive him as an object distinct from the Father? And when you consi- der the three Persons as one God^ do you not consi- der them as being as distinctly three objects as THREE MEMBERS of ONE CouNcix ? Moreover, do you not love the Son of God as a distinct object from the Father, and the Father as a distinct object from the Son ? If you speak of the three Persons as three objects^ if you conceive of them as three objects, and if you love them as three distinct objects^ is it not undeniable that you worship them as three ob- jects ? If you say that worshipping one of the three is worshipping the whole, why are you not satisfied with the worship ofSocinians? They profess to worship one of the three^ as possessing all possible perfection. But with this you are not satisfied. And why not? Because, in your view, the other ivoo Persons are neglected and treated with disho- ajid Glory of Christ. 157 nour. The other two Persons, you say, are wor- thy of the 5«me honours as the Father. And does it not appear from this, that you consider three dis- tinct objects as worthy of Divine honours? Besides is it not a common thing for writers and preachers to take pains to prove that each of the three Per- sons are worthy of equal honours ? And are they not fond of using expressions of this import in prayor? Is it not, then, evident, that they do consider the three distinct Persons as three distinct objects ? When we have but one object in view, we do not say equal honours are due to that object ; it is, then, in view of three distinct objects that they say that equal honours are due to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, And every time they say this, they implicitly say there are three distinct objects equally worthy of Divine honours. Now, sir, is it not clearly evinced that your theo- ry does imply the worship of three distinct objects AS God ? Yet to fix upon you the charge of wor- shipping ^Ar^e Gods^ is not in my heart; doubtless while you worship the three distinct objects, you do it conscientiously, believing that in some mysteri- ous, inconceivable manner, these three distinct ob- jects are so united as to be but one God. Such was the case with me, and such it is believed is the case with you. Suppose a venerable council, composed of A, B, and C, by whose benevolence you have been bene- fited — you address to them a letter of gratitude — In the first place you address them as one body or coun- cil ^ then you distinctly thank Jl, as moderator, for proposing the plan ; you thank B, as an advocate, who has exposed himself to insults for your sake ; you thank C, for some special agency in carrying into effect the result of council — You then conclude 14 158 On the real Divinity with an ascription of equal thanks to A^ B, and C, as one council. Let me ask, iiave you not distinct- ly addressed three distinct objects 2 Is it not, then, in vain to pretend that you wor- ship but one object^ while you, in your prayers, dis- tinctly name three, and thank each for some dis- tinct agency. LETTER VIII. The tzoo theories compared, in respect to Christ, co?}- sidered as a Sufferer on the cross, as the Saviour of the world, and the Lord of the universe, REV. SIR, Perhaps it may be useful to enter into a more critical examination of your theory, as it respects the character of him by whom the atonement was made for the sins of the worlds For the purpose of examination, let it be admit- ted as true, that the Father and the Son are two self-existent and co-equal Persons, and that the in- carnation of the Son implies his union to such a proper man as you suppose ,Jesus of Nazareth to have been. Let us in the next place make the supposition that the Man Jesus had been united to the Father instead of the Son, in as strict a manner as it is possible that God and Man should be united. If the Father be equal to the Son, a union of the Man to the Father would imply precisely the same dignity as a union with the Son, Then suppose, that in that state of union with the Father, the Man Jesus had suffered on the cross ;, would not his mid Glory of Chrisl, 159 sufferings have been of precisely the sanae value as an atonement, as in the case of his suffering in union with the second Person ? This, it is pre- sumed, you will not deny. Permit me now to ask, whether the sufferings and death of that Man^ could, with any propriety, be called the sufferings and death of God the Fa- ther ? Moreover as on your theory the value of the sufferings of the cross results not from the dignity of the real sufferer, but from the digriity of the Per- son to whom the Man was united, we will further suppose that this Man, in a state of union with the Faiher was called the Son of God ; would not the atonement for the sins of the world have been pre- cisely the same that it is on your hypothesis ? The SUFFERER would be precisely the same, and the Per- son with whom the Man was united would be of precisely the same dignity. And on this sup- position, would there not be a far greater propriety in saying that the Son of God died for us, than there is on yours? If that Man united with the Father should be called the Son of God, and did really lay down his life for us, it might then be a truth that a Son of God did die for us. But on your theory, what propriety could there be in such a represen- tation, any farther than the Man is considered as the Son of God ? But as you consider the Son of God as having complete existence and even self-exis- tence distinct irom iheMaji, the incarnation implied a union of two intelligent Beings, as properly so as Gabriel and Adam. The first of these " suffered not in the least," but on the Man was laid the ini- quities of us all. What then, sir, is the difference in the character of him who really bore our sins in his own body on the tree, considered on your theory, or on the So- ^60 On the real Diviniiy cinian theory ? You may indeed suppose the Man to be more iniimately united to God, than is sup- posed by Socinians. But the second self-existent Person, or even a pre-existent Son of God, suffered no more according to your theory than according to theirs. The sufferings, on both theories, were all really endured by a proper J\Ia?i, whose first ex- istence began less than forty years before his death ; a man who never had possessed even the shadow of pre-existent dignity, riches, or glory, and who was in no higher sense the Son of God, than Abraham or Moses. You may indeed say, that " the Man Jesus was united to the Person of the Son of God ;" but this ivery assertion implies that the Son and the Man were two distinct intel- ligences ; and that the Man was not truly the Son of God, but another intelligent being united to the Son of God. Suffer me now', sir, in an impartial manner, to exhibit in contrast, the different theories we have adopted as they respect the character of Him who was really slain for us, and who 6ore our sins in his own body on the tree. On your part the case stands thus, The suffer- ings of the cross were wholly endured by a Man, who was somehow mysteriously united to a second self-existent Person, whom you call the Son of God. Yet this Person you call the Son of God, endured no share in the sufferings of the cross; the Man only suffered and died. This real sufferer had never enjoyed one moment of pre-existent dignity or glory. He knew nothing what it was to be in the Father's bosom; and as he never had been rich, he knew nothing what it was to become poor, in any other sense than is known by other poor and Glory of Christ* 161 children who are born into the world. His '* being born, and that in a low condition," was a matter to which he had never consented. He lived, in- deed, a life perfectly exemplary, and died a death truly distressing. But this Son^ to whom you sup- pose this Man was united, was so far from sharing a part in the suffering of the cross, that he only enabled the Man to bear a greater portion of suf- ferings than he would otherwise have been able to endure. But can this circumstance be con- sidered as any real favour to the Man ? Indeed, sir, can you see that this Man ever received the least benefit from a union with your supposed self- existent Son, from the time he was born in the manger, to the moment he expired on the cross ? So far as the inspired writings have informed me, this Man derived all the benefits which he did derive, from God the Father. And why should it be thought to contribute greatly to the dignity of this Man to be united to a Person from whom he derived no manner of assistance or support, unless it were to enable him to endure a greater portion of redl sufferings ? On the other hypothesis, the sufferer on the cross was a very different character — He was truly the Son of the living God, had long been in the bosom of the Father before the foundations of the earth were laid, " as one brought up with him, and was daily his delight." He was highly honoured by the Father in the great work of creation ; for God created all things by him. In him it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell. He was as intimately united to the Father, as it is possible the Man Jesus should be, on your theory, to a second self-existent Person. He was honoured by itic 14* 162 On the real Divinily Father as the Angel of his presence on the most so- lemn and interesting occasions, and was truly in the FORM OF God : for he was the " image of the invisible God." But while in this state of pre- existent glory, he beheld our perishing state ; he saw that the blood of bulls and of goats was not sufficient to take away sin ; and he said to his Fa-* ther, '' Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a BODY hast thou prepared me" — " Lo, I come to do thy will, O God." He laid aside the form or God, and voluntarily became united to the body which God had prepared, and was thus " made in the likeness of men,'''' And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled hin^iself and became obe- dient unto death, even the death of the cross." Such, sir, is the Lamb of God who takelh away the sin of the world. This is the character, in view of which, tm thousand times ten thousand tongues sing, Worthy is the Lamh that was slain. Having thus carried out the two accounts, let us cast them up,' that we may clearly see the dis- parity. As you cannot deny that as much dignity may be derived from a union with the one God, the Father^ as from a union w^ith a second self- existent Person ; in respect to the character of the real suf- ferer, the case will stand thus : On your part, the sufferer is a Man with such dignity as he may derive from a union with a second seif-existey\t Person, On my part, the sufferer is that glorious Son, by whom God created all things in heaven and earth, possessing all the dignity f which can result from the most pei-fect union with theo/i« God, ih^ Fa- ther, The difference, then, in the character of the suf- ferer, is, at leabt, as great as all the difference be- and Glory of Christ, 163 Cvvefen the constituted Creator of heaven and earih, and the mere Man or human nature of your Mes- siah. You have, sir, too much candour to deny, that the real sufferer is a character of unspeakably greater importance on this theory, than on yours. •But still you may think, that Christ, considered as the Saviour and Lord of all, is greater on your hy- pothesis than he is on mine. This, however, may appear to be only imagination. We are perfectly agreed in one point, viz. That there is but one infinite self-existent God, In your view, this infinite Gof? consists oi three self- existent Persons ; in my view, the one infinite God is but one Person, The one Person, then, on my theory, must be equal to the three Persons of your theory, in regard io fulness and sujiciency. In your view, one of the three Persons is united to the Man or human nature, and this self-existent Person and the Man are the Saviour and Lord of all — In my view, the Saviour and Lord of all is the Son of the living God, and by nature " the brightness of the Father^s glory, and the express image of his Person ;" so united to the one infinite God, that in him dwells, not merely one of three Persons, but all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. As, in yoar view, the Deity consists of three dis- tinct Persons, each possessing independent fulness ; and as but one ©f these Persons is supposed to be united to the Man Jes2is ^ inquiry might be made, whether your theory does not naturally suggest the idea, that there is but one third of the fulness of God implied in tl\p' character of our Lord and Sa- viour Jesus Christ, But it is needless to urge this. And on the ground already stared, the matter is submitted to every impartial mind, whether the 164 On the real Divinity character of the Lord Jesus does not appear vastly more impressive and glorious on the theory now proposed, than on the Athanasian hypothesis. It may possibly be urged by some, that if Christ derived his existence from God, as a Son from a Father, he must be as incapable of suffering as the Father. This conclusion is not admitted as re- sulting from the premises. But it would sooner be admitted that it is possible with God to render himself c^pMe of suffering by union with a human body, than that the Son of God did not suffer on the cross. My knowledge of the nature of God and his Son is all derived from the Bible. This informs me, that Christ is God's own Son ; and that " though he were a Son, yet learned he obe- dience by the things which he suffered." And who is so well skilled in the philosophy of Divine Jsl'ature, as to be able to contradict this testimony in either particular ? Is it not more safe for us to receive the Divine testimony as stated in the Scrip- tures, than to reject it by philosophizing on unre- vealed properties of Divine Nature ? How often, sir, have our brethren, on your side, urged our ignorance of the DrviNE Nature, as a reason why we should not reject revealed doctrines concerning God and his Son ? Yet, have not the same brethren, on the ground of their supposed knowledge of the Divine Nature, implicitly denied and explained away two of the plainest truths which are contained in the Bibie ? Are there, sir, any two propositions more clearly affirmed \n the Scrip- tures, than these, viz. That Jesus Chri^i is God's Son ; and, that the Son of pod suffered and died on the cross ? Yet how many n.illions of pages have been written, and how many millions of sermons have been preached, to prove that Jesus Christ is and Glory of Christ, ' 165 so far from hems; properly the Son of God, that he is the VERY God, the very Being, whose Son the Scriptures deHare him to be ! Yea, the very Be- ing who proclaimed from heaven, " This is my beloved Son P"^ And have not the numerous, plain, a.nd unequivocal representations of Scripture, res- pecting the sufferings and death of the Son of God, been so explained away as to imply no more than that a Man or mere human nature suffered and died, to whom the Son of God was mysteriously united ? And what is all this, sir, short ni philosophizing upon Divine Nature, and drawing conclusions at an extraordinary rate ! Would Gabriel himself pre- tend to so much knowledge of Divine Nature as thus to contradict Divine Revelation ? Though I may have been accused of being " too mathematical for the Bible," yet it is my desire never to be so philosophical as to prefer my own deductions from fancied properties at the Divine Nature, to the most explicit delarations of the word of God. But while thus disapproving the conduct of my brethren, the Monitor within whis- pers. Such has been thy own inconsistency : and perhaps, as great iiiconsistency, in some other point, still lurks undiscovered — " Let him that thinkelh he standelh take heed lest he fall.""^ * Either while asleep or awake, the following scene has some- times been presented to my imagination — The writer of these Letters is called before an Ecclesiastical Council to answer to a char;;e of heresy. The accusers, with solemn formality, j|resent against him the following articles of charge : 1. He has publiek^y taught, That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God's owijr Son. 2. He has abo taught. That the Son of God did reallt/ suJUi' on the cross for the sins of the world. 166 On the real Divinity rOSTSCRIPT. Since writing the foregoing Letter, it has occur- red to rae, that there is one mode of illustrating and supporting the dignity of the sufferer^ which has been adopted by some Athanasians, that has not been particularly considered. As a wonrian of low rank is exalted by marriage to a worthy prince The Council inquire of the accused in what sense he understands those propositions. He replies, ' According to the common acceptation and most 7ialural meaning of the words.' The result follows — * This Council are of opinion, that the said accused is guilty of heresy. Vox though in some mysterious sense^ Christ is called Uie Son of God, yet he is not the Son of God according to the com- mon acceptation of the term Son : so far from this, he is personal- ly the on/j/ true God; yea, "Jesus is that God, besides whom there is no o/Aer."t And though it be represented in the Scrip- tures, that the Sojr of God suffered ; yet as he is personally the immutable God, it was impossible that he should really suffer^ The Man or human nature suffered, which was united to the Person of the Son of God : The sufferings, therefore, are called the sufferings of the Son of God, It is in our view infinitely de- grading to Christ, to say, that he is frope'rly and truly ^he So:v of God ; or to say, that He did really suffer the death of the cross.' — Thus far the result. It has, however, been intimated to me, that some of our breth- ren are prepared to evade all I have written on the sufferings of the Son of God, by saying that they ever professed to believe that Christ is the Son of God, and that he suffered on the cross. I have, sir, aimed honestly to state the real difference of sentiment be- tween us on those two points If, in any respect, I have misap- prehended 3''our theory, 1 shall rejoice in being corrected. And if indeed you do believe that Christ is truly the Son of God, and that HE really suffered on the cross, I shall be happy in being informed that there is no ground of controversy between us. But if 1 have not mistaken your theory, it is believed that you have too much generosity of soul and uprightness of heart, to attempt to evade the /orce of truth by a mere quibble upon words. t Mr. Jones— page 3.' and Glory of Christ, 167 or potentate, so it has been supposed that the Man Jesus or the human nature was exalted hy union with the Son of God, Upon this hypothesis, let it be observed, 1. When this ground is taken, the dignity of the real sufferer is supposed to result siraply from union with a Person of infinite dignity. The queen, after marriage, takes rank from her royal husband : so It is supposed that the Man Jesus is exalted by union with the Son of God. It is true, that the king and queen, in a certain sense, are one ; but not in such a sense that the obedience or the death of the queen might be properly considered as the obedience or the death of the king. And if a king for a certain purpose, had engaged to obey and to die, his be- coming married to a woman of low rank, and caus- ing her to die instead of himself, would not be es- teemed very honourable conducU 2. The Scripture representation is, that the Son OF God did really abase himself, and become poor, for our sakes. But on the hypothesis now before us, the scene is changed — Instead of abasing him- self, and taking on him the form of a servant, he took to himself one who was naturally in the form of a servant, and exalted the Man instead oT abas- ing himself — Instead of being " made in the like- ness of men," he raised a man to the likeness or dignity of God— Instead of dying himself he caus- ed the Mayi to die to whom he was united. It seems to have been the genera) idea, that the Son of God became united to the Man or human nature, that he might be in a situation to obey and to suffer. And yet, on your theory, it was just as impossible that he should obey and suffer after the union as it was before. Dr. Hopkins expressly says, that " this personal union of the Divine na- 168 On the real Divinity ture, or of God ihe second Person in the Godhead, with the human nature, does not cause or suppose any change in the former; all the change, or that is changeable, is in the human nature, ^"^ [System, vol. I. p. 41 1.] — By the ^' Divine nature, or God the second Person in the GodheadV ihe Doctor njeant the Son of God. The Son of God, therefore, ex- perienced no change, either in becoming united to the Man or human nature, nor in consequence of this union — He was then in precisely the same situation in regard to obedience and suffering after the union, that he was before. What then, sir, has the Son or God either done or suffered for our salvation ? And why will you pretend that he became united to a Man that he might obey and suffer ? 3. If a mere Man, by virtue of a union with the Son of God, might derive such dignity as to atone for the sins of the world, it is evident that the same dignity might result from the same mysterious union between the same Man and the Father. And as the Man Christ Jesus never spake of his union with a second Divine Person, but often spake of his union with the Father, the probability would be much in favour of the idea that his union was with the Father. — If, then, the Socinians would only add to their theory the idea of a mysterious union between the Man Christ Jesus and God the Father, what would be the difference between your Saviour and theirs ? It is not in my power to discern that there would be so much as one shade of difference. The Man Jesus, considered separately from his union with the Deity, is per- haps as great on their theory as on yours; nor will you pretend that the Son is greater than the and Glory of Christ. 169 Father. If the Socinians would only annex that one idea to their theory, it does not appear that you would have the least ground to dispute with then\ about the greatness of the Saviour, however much you might dispute about the number of self-exist- ent Persons. — Be not, sir, offended at this com- parison : my aim here is simply to urge you to inquiry, and to a thorough examination of your own theory. LETTER IX. On modem Trinitarian viczus of the So7i of God, with the general dissonance respecting three Per- sons in one God. REV. SIR, Since the publication of the preceding letters, I have found that a great portion of our Trinitarian brethren entertain an opinion very different from yours, and from what has, for ages, been called the orthodox faith. They indeed agree with you that God is three Persons ; yet they say, that the second Person in the Trinity was not originally or by na- ture^ the Son of God ; but that he is called the Son of God on the " ground of a constituted charac- ter," or that he became the Son of God by incar- nation^ &c. &c. This, you know, is a flat contra- diction to the opinion of those who were reputed orthodox in former ages. Yet these modern Tri- nitarians claim to be considered as the orthodox of the present day ; nor have I been able to dis- cover much inclination in you, or those who agree 46 170 On the real Divinily with you, to dispute \he\v claim. Before 1 publish- ed my letters to you, 1 was aware that (his novel opinion had been adopted by some of our brethren ; bui I supposed the number not to be ^reat. So far as it respects the Sonship of Christ, they make the same oi)jections to your views that they do to mine ; and if their objections to my views are of any weight, they are of equal weight against yours. Nearly a year ago 1 addressed a private letter lo one of the most respectable of our brethren who had taken that ground. It is possible that the letter might have miscarried ; it is certain I have receiv- ed no reply. Report says, it was the opinion of that brother, that it was best for the Clergy to let the sentiments I addressed to you "die of them- selves a natural death," rather than to be at the trouble of refuting them. He rriight think (he same in regard to what was contained in my letter to him. I shall, therefore, give you a copy of the letter that the whole may live or " ofze" together. The person to whom the letter was addressed is one for whom I have entertained a great respect, and I addressed him accordingly, in the following manner ; — " REV. SIR, • " The high rank you sustain in the Christian world, involves a proportionate degree of responsi- bility, and renders it exceedingly important that the sentiments you publish should accord with the unerring standard. Although we entertain dif- ferent opinions of the character of Christ, in this, I presume, we are agreed, that no sentiments can be of higher importance in divinity than those which represent his character in a true light. If, there- fore, I am in an errour in my views of Christ, it is and Glory of Christ, 171 of great Importance that I should be convinced. And if you are in an errour, it is of much greater importance that you should be convinced, as your influence is more extensive tlian mine. As it res- pects us, individually considered, ihe importance may be equal ; but as it respects the publick, the di3j')arity is great. " Lately 1 have re-examined your discourses on the ' Trinity,' and ' On the testimony of Christ to his own Divinity.' I shall now submit some things to your serious consideration ; hoping that, if I have mist.iken your views, you will kindly cor- rect my mistakes ; and, on the other hand, if I shall show that your theory is dishonorary lo Christ, that you will candidly retract what is erroneous. For I consider it as a fact, that it was not your de- sign to c/egmJe the character of Christ, and that you have too much regard to his glory to sacrifice it to your 07vn, " In your sermon on the ' Testimony of Christ lo his own Divinity,' you say, that ' he called himself ihe Son of God,'' and also called ' God his Father^'* and that by each of these he meant 'to a.^sej t his Divinity.' This I esteem as correct ; for if he was properly the Son of God, he was pro- peily a Divine Person, But in your sermon 'on the Trinity,' have you not given up this testimony in favour of the Divinity of Christ? You say that ' each of the Divine Persons takes his peculiar name from the peculiar office he sustains in the economy of redemption. The first Person assumes the name of Father, because he is by office the Creator, or Author of all things, and especially of the human nature of Christ, The second Person assumes the name of Son and Word, by virtue of his incarnation and mediatorial conduct.' Hence 172 On the real Divxniiy you infer that ' there seems to be no just founda- tion for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son,' and to suppose that the Son, in respect to his Divine nature^ was begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the concur- rence of the Father and the Son, is to suppose that ^ Trinity of persons is not founded in the Divine nature, but merely in the Divine Will.' You add, * This opinion sets the Son as far below the Fa- ther as a creature is below the Creator.' " According to these passages God is the Father only of the human nature of Christ, and the human nature of Christ only is the Son of God. " We have next to consider what you mean by the ' humanity of Christ.' You say ' he asserted his humanity on the just foundation of having a true body and a reasonable soul united in the same manner as the soul and body are united in other men.' By the ' reasonable soul' you mean a hit- man soul. Accordingly you add, ' If he had a human soul united with a human body, then he may be as properly denominated a man as any of his progenitors whose names are mentioned in the first chapter of Matthew.' " Thu?, for the human nature of Christ we have as proper a man as Abraham* Of this man God was the ' Creator or Author' by a miraculous con- ception. On this ground only is God the Father of Christ. Of this man God is the Father, and this man only is the Son of God. " But you suppose that this man was united to the second Person in the Trinity, which Person was not by nature the Son of God. But how unit- ed ? You observe, ^ It is easy to say what is not meant by it. It does not mean that the human na- ture, was made Divine nature— -"NoVf on the other and Glory of Christ, 173 hand, that his Divine nature was made human na- ture''^ — nor ' that his two natures were mixt or blended toj^ether.' '• Still then we have nothing but a mere man for the Son of God, For God was the Father of the human nature only. The second Divine Person, who was God^ wis not the Son of God ; nor was he made human nature or even ' mist or blended' with the man of which God was the Father. Conse- quently, the Son of God was originally of no higher nature'than David ; nor did he become of Divine nature by his union with the second Person, nor were the two natures so much as ' mixt or blended together.' As, on your hypothesis, the two natures are God and man, and as it is the m,an only of Avhich you suppose God to be the Fathe?', we can have as distinct a view of your Son of God as we can oi Adam or David. And he is a being of pre- cisely the same nature. What then has become of Christ's ' Testimony to his own Divinity /' You have tauiiht that he meant to assert his Divinity by calling himself the Som oI God; but could he have so meant with your views of his own Sonship ? Did he mean to assert his Divinity by asserting that his humanity was the Son of God? If the Jews had supposed that he meant that Gnil was his Father in no other sense than as the ' Creator or Author of his human nature,' would they have ac- cused him of blasp'^^emy ? With all his prejudices against Christ. I should not fear to submit the ques- tion now before us (o the Hii2;h Priest him-iclf, who abjured Jesus bv the living God to tell whether he was the Son of God, " Lci us, sir, on your hypothesis, state the accu- sation madr- to Pilate, ' we have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he' said that God was 15* 174 On the real Divinity his Father, the * Creator or Author of his human nature,'^ Can you admit that this was the import of the accusation ? \i not, we must suppose, that he meant, and was understood to mean, something by his Sonship very different from your explana- tion. " Do not the following things fairly result from your premises ? viz. " 1. That the Son of God, as such, is a mere creature, and by nature a proper Awman being, " 2. That the Son of God, as such, not only had a beginning, but a beginning of recent date. And no longer ago than the days of Herod ? '' 3. That if the Son of God he out Mediator, wa have precisely a Socinian Mediator ? " 4. That the astonishing love of God in our re- demption, consists in this, that he ' spared not^ a proper man miraculously begotten, but freely de- livered him up for us all. ' Sparing not his own Son"^ is the highest ground on which the love of God is ever represented. But what is this Son, on your theory, but a mere man ?^ " 5. That the Son who sitteth on the right hand of the Majesty on high, whom alt the angels are required to worship, and to whom every knee must bow, is, by nature, only a man ? ''6. That the Son, whom the 'Father showeth all things which himself doeth,' and whom he hath < ordained to be the Judge of the living and the dead,' is, by nature, of no higher dignity than Da- vid, or Solomon ? " If the hypothesis that the Son, in respect to his divine nature, was begotten of the Father, ' sets the Son as far below the Father as a creature is below the Creator,' to what depths has your hypothesis tunk the Son op God ! How low, compared wHh etnd Glory of Christ, 175 Ihe natural meaning of Bible language? 'Yet having one Son^ his well beloved, he sent him last of all, saying, They will reverence my Son,' 'He who spared not his own Son,' &;c. How different from the import of the language used by the Coun- cil of Nice in o})position to the views of Arius, ' The Son was peculiarly of the Father, being of his substance as begotten of him.' " 1 do not, I cannot, believe, that you meant to say any thing dishonorary to Christ. But when we depart from the natural meaning of Scripture language we fall into the regions of conjecture ; and in those regions we are liable to be bewildered^ and to say things which will not bear examination. But can you, my dear sir, be willing that such views of the Son of God should be handed down to posterity sanctioned and impressed by the weight of your character ? When posterity shall inquire what the Lord Jesus is, on your theory, distinct from the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, will they not find that he is the same as on the Socinian theory ? as properly a man as David, and no more than a mere human being ? " I hope, sir, you will not consider me as acting an unfriendly part in this address. If 1 know my own heart, I write with the feelings of cordial friendship and respect \ and with a desire that truth may be thoroughly investigated. It has been my aim not to depart from the golden rule ; but to do as I would that you and others should do unto me» And notwithstanding our diversity of sentiment, I can heartily subscribe, " Your affectionate friend and brother, 176 On the real Divinity " P. S. In your Sermons you represent that the phrases ' These three are one,' ' I and my Father are one,' mean ' one God, one Divine Being.' But will the Greek text admit the word Gor/ after the word ' one P If not, by what authority may Ave add it ? When Christ prayed that ail his fol- lowers, with himself and the Father, might be 0716, even as He and the Father are one, did he pray that all the redeemed, wiih himself and ihe Father, might become ' one God, one Divine Being ?' '' According to Mr. Milner, the Council of Nice resulted in opposition to the views of Arius, * That the Son was peculiarly of the Fathor, being of his substance as begotten of him:' And with this the Nicene Creed j>erfpcily harmonizes, so far as 1 can understand the meaning of their language. No idea is suggested that the Father and Son are the same Being; but Beings of the same nature as Father and Son, But in subsequent Councils an addition was made, by which the Father and Son were represented as two distinct Persons in the same Bring. Still they endeavouied to maintain the relation oi Father ■a{\(.\ Son ; and considertH the Son as ineffably begotten of the Fiiiher. When we come down to the time of the Westminster As- sembly, we find that veneruble body ujaintaining both pu'ts of what we believe to be a contradic- tion. They not only declared their belief ol the doctrine of tliree P( rsons in one God, but they stated also that ' It is proper to the Father to be- get the Son, and to the Son lo be begotten ol the Father.' They did not, therefore, mean to give up the relation of Father ari(J Son by affirs; ing the doc- trine of three distinct Persons in one God. and Glory of Christ, 177 " Perceiving, as you imagined, a contradiction in their theory, you have boldly exploded one part of the contradiction that you might main- tain the other. Viewing the doctrine of three in- dependent Persons in ©ne God as of more impor- tance than the natural relation of Father and Son, you have, without much apparent reluctance, made a sacrifice of the natural relatio,n of Father and Son, that you might consistently support the doctrine of tbee Persons in one God. " Having so high authority for calling in ques- tion the correctness of the doctrine of three Per- sons in one God, I ventured to look into the subject for myself. After inquiry I was led to agree with you in opinion thus far, viz. that the natural rela- tion of Father and Son between God and Jesut Christ is inconsistent with the hypothesis of three independent Persons in one Being. But instead of exactly following your example, I gave up the hypothes is of three independent Persons in 07ie Being, that I might consistently support the relation of Father and Son, " The true state of the case appears to be this,^ — We have both departed from the former Trini- tarian doctrine, on the supposition that it implied a plain contradiction. You have chosen to defend one part of the contradiction, and I the other. By thus departing from the theory of those who went before us, one of us has probably approached nearer to the simplicity of the gospel, and the other departed to a greater distance. Being equally sensible of an inconsistency in the opinions of our fathers, and having taken opposite sides of their supposed contradiction, it would perhaps be pro- per, that we should carefully examine the opposite hypotheses by comparing each with the scriptures. 178 On the real Divinity to see which harmonizes best with the most obvious meaning of the gos[)eI. " If the gospol plainly teaches that God is three Persons^ and that Jesus Christ is one of those Per- sons, then my hypothesis of proper Father and Son is uaquestionably erroneous. If, on the other hand, the gospel clearly represents the natural re- lation of Father and Son between God and Jesus Chr>st, then your hypothesis of three persons in one God is obviously erroneous. These things are slated on the supposition that we are correct in the opinion that these two hypotheses are incon- sistent with each other. " Let, then, a nrian of integrity and discernment, who has never heard any thing of the disj)utes about the character of Christ, nor seen our New Testament, take that precious book, and read it through with care and impartiality ; which hypo- thesis w^ould he most naturally discover, yours or mine? In what sermon or discourse of Christ or his apostles would he find God represented as three Persons ? But how often would he find God repre- sented as the Father of Christ, and Christ as the Son of God? On what ground would he find Di- vine love rejH-esented in our redemption ? Where would he find it represented on lliis ground, that God is three Persons, and that one ol those Per- sons became imited to a man? But would he find any difficulty in discovering thai ' God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son to be a propitiation for our sins V What would he think on finding, that Christ so commonly, in speaking of God, used this familiar language — "^ my Father?'' What would he suppose Christ meant by speaking so much of his Father's sending him, loving him, teaching him, commanding him, committing all judg- and Glory of Christ, 179 ment to him, delivering' all lhing<^ into his hand, giving him e^W power in heaven and earth? And of his coming not to do his own will ; coming from God nnd going to God? Would the impirtialin- quifor suppose by any of these, or any other of Christ's representations, that God was three Per- sons, and that the Son was one of the three ? Would he not, in fact, find, that God had spoken of Christ, and conducted towards him as we should naturally expect he would do, if Christ were his own Son? Would he not also find, that Christ has spoken of God, and conducted towards God, as we might reasonably expect he would do, if God were his own Father? If the impartial reader would find no declaration in the Bible expressing the doctrine that God is three di>ti/ict Persons ; but should find the gospel full of representations agreeing with the hypothesis of the natural rela- tion of Father and Son^ between God and Jesus Christ; which part of the contradiction would he adopt, yours or rnine .^" In writing, sir, to our bi'other, it was my aim to make an honest comparison of the things he had published. Yet I believed it to be possible that I might misapprehend his meaning, and, of course, make incorrect deductions. On this account I re- quested that he would kindly correct my mistakes, if, in any thing, I had misapprehended his meaning. Whether he thought it would be too great conde- scension in HIM to correct my mistakes, or whether he was aware that he could not mend the matter by any exjilanation which he could give, you must determine for yourself. It i?, however, possible that he might have good reasons for not replying, which have not come to my knowledge. 180 On the real Divinity This writer seems to have been aware, that, in his explanations of the Trinity and of ihe Sons hip of Christ, he bad departed from the faith of former Trinitarians. Thus he writes — *' Many have sup- posed that the Son^ the second person in the Trinity, is, in some mysterious manner, begotten of the Father.^^ This " many'^^ included not only the Westmin- ster Assembly of Divines, with all their adherents, but the Council of Nice and a multitude which no man can number. It is true indeed that the Council office did not suppose God to be three persons ; but they supposed Christ to be " by na- ture the Son of God ;^'' — " of the substance of the Father as begotten of him." But this opinion our good brother has censured as setting " the Son as far below the Father as a creature is below the Creator.^'* If this censure be just, it falls with all its weight on your hypothesis ; and the great body of Trinitarians of past ages are represented as entertaining a belief which " sets the Son as far below the Father as a creature is below the Crea- tor." Calvin you will admit as an orthodox Trinita- rian. Let us attend for a moment to his testi- mony. '• We indeed do confess that the Mediator who was born of the Virgin is properly the Son of God. For Christ, in that he is man, could not be the mir- ror of the inestimable favour of God, unless this dignity were given him to be, and to be called, the only begotten Son of God. But in the mean while the definition of the church standeth firmly established that he is counted the Son of God, be- cause he being the Word begotten of the Father before all worlds, did, by hypostatical union, take and Glory of Christ. 181 upon him the nature of man," — Calvin's Insti. p. 223. '' Servetus, and other such frantick men would have it, that Christ who appeared in the flesh is the Son of God, because out of the flesh he could not be called by that name." — " We grant indeed that Christ is, in the flesh of man, called the Son, but not as the faithful are, that is, by adoption and grace ; but the true, and natural, and therefore, the only Son, that by this mark he may be discerned from all others. For God vouchsafeth to give the name of his sons to us who are regenerate into a new life ; but the name of the true and only begot- ten Son he giveih to Christ only. How can he be the only Son among so many brethren, but because he possesseth that by nature which we possess by gi//?"— p. 224. " According to the common use of the Hebrew tongue he is called the Son of man, because he is of the offspring oiAdam* By the contrary I affirm, that he is called the Son of God in respect to the Godhead and eternal essence ; because it is no less proper that it be referred to the nature of God that he is called the Son of God, than to the nature of man that he is called the Son of man.''^ — p. 225. Thus you may see that the orthodoxy of Calvin did not secure him from the censure of holding an opinion which ''s.*ts the Son ris far below the Fa- ther as a creature is below the Creator." I am aware that passages might be quoted from Calvin which could not easily be reconciled to those which have been now exhibited. But Calvin is not the only Trinitarian who has advanced, and attempted to support, contradictory hypotheses. Since the publication of my letters to you, much pains have been taken to circulate the idea that 16 '■^^2 On the real Divinity my views of the Son of God do not distinguish him from a created being. But the censure quoted from our brother was published long before my let- ters to you ; and it was your hypothesis and not mincf that he meant to condemn. Is it not, then, time for you to inquire on what ground you can de- fend yourself from the chnrge of holding an opi- nion which "sets the Son as far below the Father as a creature is below the Creator ?" Mr. Brown, who was with you in sentiment, in his Dictionary of the Bible under (he word " Christ,'^'' has passed as severe a censure on the hypothesis of our brother as he has on yours. He says "To pretend that Christ is called the only begotten Son of God, because God sent him as our Mediator, or because of his miraculous conception by the Virgin, is not only groundless and absurd but even blasphemous ."^^ Thus Trinitarian writers contradict and condemn one another; and if Trinitarians are the only good people, " who then can be saved ?" P. S. The great diversity which has firevailed in the Christian world on the subject of the Trinity, may be in some degree understood irom the follow- ing extracts from a note in BenMordtcaPs Letters, Vol. 1. page 153, annexed to this sentence: "the Christians have never agreed ujDon the sense of the propositions they disputed about." Cyril and Alhanasius define a person to be " Essentia cum suis quibusdam proprietaiibus, ab lis quae sunt ejusdem speciei numero differens." Cudworth, p. 603. Dr. Water land allows Person and Intelligent Being to be the same. p. 350. Reply to Dr. Waterland's Defence, 352, and Glory of Christ. 183 Mr, Locke defines person to bo a thinking, intel- ligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself. [Doddridge says, "'the word person commonly sij^nifies one single, intelli- gent, voluntary agent, or conscious being; and this we choose to call ihe philosophical sense of the word : but in a political sense it may express the different relations supported by the same philo- sophical person; v. q. the same man may be fa- ther, husband," &c. and afterwards says, " If it be inquired in what sense the word person is used in the proposition, (respecting tiie three Perions in the Godhead,) we answer, it must at least be true in apolitical sense, yet cannot amount to so much as Q philosophical personality, unless we allow a plurality of Gods." — So that Doddridge was only a modal Trinitarian.] The Greek fathers said there were three Hypos- tases ; which the La/ms- rejected as signifying three geneiical substances^ and accused the Greeks of Arianisn). The Latins used the word person (per- sona); the Greeks rejected that as signifying no rea/, but only a modal distinction, and accused the Latins of Sabeliianism. Athanasius summoned a council upon it to quiet the division ; and it was found they were both of the same opinion, and only differed about words ; upon which the Synod de- creed, than thenceforth the Greek hypostasis and the Latin persona should be taken in the same sense, to mean particular substance. But the school- men have confounded the subject more than ever, by explaining hypostasis to signify a person distin- guished from the substance j in which sense it is used by the Romish church, but was never used before, and is utterly unintelligible. 184 On the real Divinity Mr. B, Bennet, in his Irenicum, p. 81, tells us, the Avgustan Confession uses the woid person^ not for a part or quality, but for that which properly subsists. The Wirtemberg Confession says, *' tres pro- prictates per se subsistentes ;" but whether the disiinction of persons be real or modal, is a ques- tion. A learned controvertist says, the distinction is something less than modal, and greater than real* Dr, South makes the Persons to be internal rela- tions of the one substance of the Deity to itself. Dr, ?ffl//i5 makes them ea^/erric/ relations of the one substance of the Deity to mankind, Zanchy says, a Person is nothing but the Divine essence, distinguished, and as it were individuated by a certain personal property. Junius thinks, the Persons are distinguished from the essence in notion only ; ratione tantum ; ah in^ vicem reali distinctione : but really distinguished. Lud, Capellus says, non re, sed ratione. Mr, Baxter says, he is past doubt, there is in God a trinity of essential, formal, inadequate con- ceptions or primalities ; viz. vita!, active power, intellect, and will. Baxter's Works, vol. II. p. 132. Dr. Doddridge gives the following : — Mr, Howe seems to suppose that there are three distinct, eter- nal spirits, or distinct, intelligent hypostases ; which, on account of their consent, affection, and mutual self-conseiousness, may be called the one God. Dr, Waterland, Abraham Taylor, with the rest of the Athanasians, assert three /?rojoer distinct per- sons, entirely equal to and independent on each other ^ yet making up one and the same Being. and Glory of Christ. 18o B/7. Pearson, with whom Bp, Bull and Dr» Owen also agree, is of opinion, that though the Father is i\\e fountain of the Deity, the whole Divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, and from both to the Spirit ; yet so as that the Father and Son are not separate, nor separable from the Divinity, but do still exist in it, and are most inti- mately united to it. Dr. Watts maintained one supreme God dwell" ing in the human nature of Christ, which he sup- poses to have existed the first of ail creatures ; and speaks of the Divine Lo^o^, as the wisdom of God, and the Holy Spirit as the divine power, or the in- fluence and effect of it ; which he says is a scrips tural person ; i. e. spoken o( figurative ly in Scrip- ture, under personal characters. Others, to avoid the inconvenience of defining, say in general, that there are Three Differe-ces ; as Dr. Tillotson : Three Diversities ; as Bp» Burnet : Three Somewhats ; as Dr, Wallis : Three Subsistences ; as Archbishop Seeker, St, Augustine being asked what the three are, gays, Human learning is scanty, and affords not terms to express it ; 'tis therefore answered, " three persons, not as if that was to the purpose, but somewhat must be said, and we must nut be silent." Aug. de Trin. 1. 5. c. 9. The word OfMHTiog, or consubstantial, was no more determinate than the word Person. It was reject- ed by the eighty fathers who condemned Paulus Samosatenus, as Sabelhaa ; and within fifty years was made he test of orthodoxy. 1 , It was understood by the Aihanasians to signify the same kind of substance as are the tnii»k and ihf branches and leaves of a tree ; or the sun, its light, and derivative 16* 186 On the real Divinity light; yet so existing, as that the second and third should depend on its original; as the light upon the sun. 2. By Gregory Xyss en. Cyril, &c. it was understood to mean the name kind of substance existing independently ; as three men. 3. By the Montanists, it was understood that the Son and Spirit existed as parts of the Divine substance. 4, By the Sabellinns, as one and the same identical whole substnnce. 5. By Ew5p6w^, merely that the Son was not of the substance of the creatures ; divid- ing all substance mlo created and divine. 6. By the Lateran Council, in a sense, if intelligible, very little, if at all, different from the Sabellians, and the ancient opinion of Samosatenus. Nature is another technical term, much u§ed in the dispute between the Eutychians and Nestoriaifis ; and the meaning of it is as uncertain. De Rodon, a learned Frenchman, says, it is taken in nine senses ; and iMr. Richard Baxter says, " the sense was not agreed on before they disputed the matter." Ch. His. p. 98. " Though the J\''estoria7is still go for desperate hereticks, 1 verily believe, says Mr. Baxter, that all the quarrel was about ambiguous words." Jsfestorius believed the Divine and human nature of Christ were united, non hypostasi, sed habitu- dine. Eutyches was condemned for affirming, that Christ had but one nature, after the two natures were unitrd. DiGscurns said, that Christ is o/two natures, but not that he is or has Uvo natures. The Euty- chians said, he was ex diiahus naturis ; others, in duabns naturis : and Cyril reproves J\''esforius for assorting only an union secundum personam, and not secundum naturam ; and one of Quiniianus^s and Glory of Christ. 187 anathemas wavS, IfaDy say, God Man, and not God and Man, lei hitn be accursed. Baxter's Ch. Hist. 120, &c. &c. There is much more in the note from which this is extracted, on the other questions to which this subject gave rise ; and however difficult it may seem to have been orthodox in the days of the Nestorians, it would appear by the fnliowirig ex- tract from the pious ^nd orthodox Bishop Beve- ridge, that the difficulty is in no degree diminished' in our days. " We are now to consider the order of those persons in the Trinity described in the words be- fore us, Matt, ^xxviii. J 9. First, the Father, and then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost ; everyone of which is really and truly God ; and yet they are all but one real and true God. A mystery, which we are all bound to believe, but yet must have a great care how we speak of it, it bting both easy and dangerous to mistake in expressing so myste- riotis a truth as this is. If we t^tnkoi it, how hard is it to imagine one numerically Divine nature in more than one and the same Divine person F Or, thr' e Divine persons in no mtwe than one and the same Divine nature? If we speak of it, how hard is it to find out words to exprr>s it? If I sav, the Father, Son, anrl Holy Ghost be three, and every- one di-tinrtly God, it is true; but if I say they be three, and every one a distinct God, it is false. I may say, the Divine persons are distinct in the Divine nature ; but I canr.ut sav, that the D vine nature is divid< d into the Divine personri, I may say, God the Father is one God, and the Son is one Go I, an»l the Holy Giiosi [<^ one God. but I cannot say. that the Father is on*' God, and the Son another God, and the Holy Ghost a third God. I may say, 188 On the real Divinity the Father begat another who is God; yet I cannot say that he begat another God. And from the Fa- ther and the Son proceedeth another who is God ; yet I cannot say, from the Father and the Son pro- ceedeth another God. For all this while, though their nature be the same, their persons are distinct ; and though their persons be distinct, yet still their nature is the same. So that, though the Father be the first person in the Godhead, the Son the second, the Holy Ghost the third ; yet the Father is not the first, the Son a second, and the Holy Ghost a third God. So hard a thing is it to word so great a mystery aright ; or to fit so high a truth with ex- pressions suitable and proper to it, without going one way or another from it." Bishop Beveridge^s Private 'Ihoughls, part ii. p. 48, 49. The same Bishop adds a few pajjes farther on — "This is the principal, if not the only characteris- tical note whereby to distinguish a Christian from another man ; yea, from a Turk ; for this is the chief thing that the Turks both in their Koran and other writings upbraid Christians for, even because they believe a Trinity of persons in the Divine na- ture. For which cause they frequently say, they are people that believe God hath companions^ so that, take away this article of our Christian taith, and what depends upon it, and there would be but little difference between a Christian and a Turk." How different the language of the admirable Je- remy Taylor ! '' He that goes about to speak of and to understand the mysterious Trinity, and does it by words and names of man's invention, or by such which signify cotitingently, if he rrckon this mystery by the mythology of numbers, by the ca- bala of letters, bv the distinctions of the school, and by the weak inventions of disputing people ; if and Glory of Christ, 189 he only talks of essences and existences, hyposta- ses and personalities, distinctions without differ- ence, and priority in co-equalities, and unity in pluralities, and of superior predicates ot no larger extent than the inferior subjects, he may aojuse himself, and find his understanding will be like St. Peter's upon the mount of Tabor at the trans- figuration : he may build three tabernacles in his head, and talk something he knows not what. — But the good man that feels the power of the Fa- ther, and he to whom the Son is become wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption, he in whose heart the love of the Spirit of God is spread abroad, to whom God hath communicated the Holy Spirit, the Comforter; this man, though he under- stands nothing of that which is unintelligible, yet he only understands the mysteriousness of the Holy Trinity." Taylor's Suppl, Sermons, p. 91. PAET III ON THE CHARACTER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. LETTER h By the Holy Spirit is intfnded the same as the ful- ness of God, REV. SIR, Having stated to you my vievvs of the Father and the Son, the character of the Holy Sfirit v\ill now be considered. On this point the oracles of God are our only guide; and [o their dictates it behooves us to submit with reverence. You will not consider me insensible of my ac- countability to God in regard to my writings : nor can you reasonably view me as having any interest to promote, aside from the promotion of truth. If your views of the Holy Spirit are according to truth, certainly there can be nothing for me to gain by advancing and advocating a different hypothe- sis : unless it may be for my advantage to expose iHyself to censure and reproach. On the other hand, if my views are according to truth, it is as important for you, as it is for me, to understand and admit them. On the. Character of the Holy Spirit. 191 Your having so great a majority of the Christian ivorld on your side, is not sufficient to secure to you the approbation of God. Be entreated to keep these things in mind, while you read and re- fit vt on the important subject now belore us. From what you have ah-eady seen on tlie charac- ter of God and his Son, you have doubtless con- cluded, that in my view the Holy Spirit is not a self-existent Person. You will now see, that in my view the Holy Spirit is compreheniled in the self-existence of Jehovah, but without distinct per- sonality. The terms Holy Spirit, or H()l\ Gnost, as used in Scripture, do not appear to nie intended to express another Person besides the Father and the Son ; yet, to my understanding, these terms convey an idea of that which is of no less estima- tion. It is that in God, by which he is able to do good and communicate, either immediately, or through the instrumentaliiy of other agents. By the Holy Spirit, radically considered, the same is understood as by the phras^e, ihe fulness of God. Yet the ternis Holy Spirit, are, ii is thf)ught, most commonly applied to ihe productive, efficient emanations of Divine fulness. The following phrases appear to be perfectly synonymous — The Holy Ghost — the Holy Spirit-^ the Spirit of Gid — the Spirit vf the Lord — the Spi- rit of t fie Lord God — the Spirit of the Father. That these are synonymous, will probably not he denied by any person well acquainted with the Scrip- tures. And should any one be disposed to deny it, the idea may be fairly established by comparing Scripture with Scripture. My ideas of the Spirit m,ay be better understood by a little attention to some Scripture metaphors. — God is represented by the metaphor of the natu- 192 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, ral Sun. " The Lord God is a Sun." Then the rays ol" light and heat, which emanate or proceed from the sun, are an emblem ot the "-Holy Spirit which proceedeth from the Father,^^ Like the rays of the sun, these Divine emanations of the lulness of God, illuminate, quicken, invigorate, and fruc' tify* God is also represented as a Fountain of living waters. If we consider the Fountain as in the earth, then the effusions or streams which pro- ceed from the Fountain may represent the Holy Spirit, But if we consider the Fountain as a foun- tain of vapour in the air, then the showers of rain or dew will properly represent the emanations of Divine fulness. By the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, is not, in my view, intended any one attribute merely, but all those attributes which are implied in the ful- NESjS or ALL-SUFFICIENCY of God. Before an attempt to explain those texts of Scrip- ture which have been supposed to import that the Spirit of God is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son, it may be well to exhibit a part of the considerations which have had influence on my mind in favour of giving up that opinion. 1. It has appeared to me inconsistent to sup- pose that the Spirit, should be both a self existent Person and the Spirit of a Person ; yet the Spirit is spoken of as the Spirit of a Person twenty times to its being once spoken of as though it were a distinct Person. There are indeed several in- stances in which the Holy Spirit is personified or spoken of as it would be natural to speak of a Person; but the number of these instances is much less than was expected previous to inquiry. And it is observable that the spirit or soul of man On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 193 is also personified in the Bible, and spoken of as though it were something distinct from the man; or as though the man and his spirit were two' per- sojis. Instances of this are perhaps nearly as nu- merous as the instances in which the Spirit of God is personified. But it ought to be distinctly noted, that when we have become habituated to the sen- timent that by the Holy Spirit is intended a Per- son, the idea of a Person will immediately arise in our minds, upon hearing or seeing the words Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, So if we had been taught from our infancy that the natural sun is a person, then we should think of it as such whenever it should come into view. This may account for its having been supposed that there is much in the Scriptures in favour of the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. In general, throughout the Bible, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as the spirit of a person, just as we speak of the spirit of man as the spirit of a person ; and in the same manner as the sacred writers speak of the attributes of God ; not as distinct Persons, but as something of a Person, or in a Person, or be- longing to a Person. The inspired writers speak of the Spirit of Man, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Wisdom of God, the Power of God, the Goodness of God, and the Will of God. We may also observe, that when God speaks of the Spirit, he says, " my Spirit," just as he says, **m?/ Power," *' mi/ Goodness," <£c. These and similar forms of speech, respecting the Holy Spirit, are very numerous in the Bible, and they naturally convey the idea that the Spirit of God is not a dis- tinct Person, but the Spirit of a Person ; as natu- rally as the forms of speech, respecting Wisdom, Power, and Goodness, convey the idea that they 17 1 94 On the Character of the itoly Spirit, are attributes of a Person, and not so many distinct Persons. If it were admitted, that the term God means three self-existent Persons, even on that supposition the phrase, the Spirit of God, would not imply that the Spirit is one of those Persons, but it would be the Spirit of three Persons. If the Holy Spirit be a self-existent Person dis- tinct from the Father, it is doubtless an important truth, and one which we should not expect would have been unrevealed until the taking place of the gospel dispensation. Yet may it not be said with safety, that there is no more evidence in the Old Testament of the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit, than there is of the distinct personality of the Power of God, or the Knowledge ot God, or the Goodness of God? For, as before observed, the Spirit is uniformly spoken of as something 6e- longing to God, and not as a distinct Person. The phrases " the Spirit of God," " the Spirit of the Lord," " my Spirit," " thy Spirit," '♦ his Spir- it," are the usual phrases by which the Holy Spirit is represented in the Old Testament. The terms, " the Holy Ghost," are not, I think, to be fond in it. The terms, Holy Spirit, are found three times ; and in each of those instances it is spoken of as the spirit of a person, and not as being a self-ex- istent Person. ^' Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." " And vexed his Holy Spirit" — •'' And put his Holy Spirit within him." Unless, then, the saints under the Old Testament had some evidence which has not come to us, was it possible that they should believe that by the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, was intended an independent Person co-eternal with the Father ? The manner of representing the Holy Spirit in On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 195 the Old Testament is common in the New. — We often read, in the New Testament, of the '' Spirit of God," the " Spirit of the Lord ;" we also read of the " Spirit of the Father," and "his Holy Spir- it." Some writers, if I have not misunderstood them have been disposed to make a disiinction between what they call" the personal Spirit,""and the Spi- rit of God or the emanations of Divine fulness; l3utl have not been able to find any ground for this disiinction. That which is called the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of the Lord, in one place, is called the Holy Ghost in another. In the pro- phecy of Isaiah, we have several pretiictions res- pecting the Son of God, and his being endued whh the Spirit of the Lord — '' I have put m?/ Spirit upon him." — '' The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me," &;c. These predictions wi^re fulfilled on the day of Christ's baptism, when the Holy Ghost de- scended upon him. Matthew says, " the Spirit of God descended;" Mark and John simply say, " the Spirit descended;" but Luke, in giving the same account, says, " the Holy Ghost descended." From these passages it is evident, that " the S^-ji- rit," "the Spiritof the Lord,"" the Spirit of God," and " the Holy Ghost," mean the same thing. Moreover, when the Holy Ghost was given to the apostles in such an extraordinary manner, on the day of Pentecost, Peter in his sermon said, " This is that which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." There is another class of parallel texts which may help us to some correct ideas of the Holy Spirit. When Christ sent forth his disciples to preach, he forewarned them that they should be 196 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, brought before governours and kings for his sake; " But," said he, " when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak : for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." [Mat. x. 19, 20.] This is Matthew's representation. — Mark ex- presses the same thing thus, " For it is not ye that ^peak, but the Holy Gh>st," [Mark xiii. 11.] — Luke says, " For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the sanne hour what ye ought to say." [xii. 12.] And Luke, in another place, repeats this, or a similar promise of Christ, in these words, " Fori will give you a mouth, and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay norresisl." [ch. xxi. 15.] From these several passages com- pared, it clearly appears, that the Spirit of the Father, and the Holy Ghost, are the same thing ; that the Spirit of the Father speaking in them, the Holy Ghost's speaking, the Holy Ghost's teaching them what they ought to speak, and Christ's giving them a mouth and wisdom, are all of the same im- port ; and that the sum of the promise to the apos- tles was, that they should be endued with supernat- ural sufficiency or assistance on such occasions. 2. That the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, is not a distinct Person, may appear from a number of other terms which are used as synonymous. The hreath of the Lord is used as synonymous with the Spirit of the Lord. The wicked are rep- resented as consumed both by the ''^ breath oi the Lord," and by the " %n7 of the Lord"—" By the blast of God they perish, and by the hreath of his mouth are they consumed" — •' And then shall that wicked be revealed whom the Lord shall con- sume with the Spirit of his mouth,^^ Moreover, as On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 197 an emblem of giving the Spirit, Christ breathed on his disciples, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost."* The HAND of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are used as synonymous. " So the Spirit of the Lord lifted me up, and took me away — but the HAND of the Lord was strong upon me" — '' By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens ; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent" — " The heavens are the work of thy hand?'* — " And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great multitude believed and turned to the Lord." The finger of God and the Spirit of God are sy- nonymous. *' By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens" — ' I consider the heavens the work of thy fingers'*'* — '' But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unio you" — " But if I with iht finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you." Can it be viewed as proper or respectful to speak of one self-existent Person as the 6rea/^, the hand, or the finger, of another co-equal Person ? As the arm, the hand, or the^n^er of a person, is subordinate to his will, so the Spirit of God is uniformly represented a? subordinate to the will of God. Anrl as any thing which is done by the hand of a man, is done by the man, so any thing which is done by the Spirit of God, is done by God. Ac- cordingly, in the Scriptures, the same things are at one lime attributed to God, and at another to the Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit. * The Spirit of the Lord, and the breath of the Lord are the same io the original. Is the breath of the L^rd a Persou? If no*, neither is the Spirit of the Lord or the Holy Spirit. 17* 1 88 On the Character of the Holy Spirit. 3. The metaphors made use of in Scripture to represent the Spirit, the act of giving or sending the Spirit, and the descent of the Spirit, are clearly against the opinion that the Spirit is a distinct Person. Water is the metaphor most frequently used to represent the Spirit; and the act of send- ing or giving the Spirit is represented by pouring out, shedding forth, sprinkling, washing, or baptiz- ing ; and the descent of the Spirit is compared to the descent of rain and dew. Giving the Spirit is also compared to giving wa- ter to drink, and to anointing with oil. And in re- ference to the impression the Spirit makes on the hearts of saints, it is compared to ink. Can you, sir, suppose, that these metaphors and representations properly apply to a Person, or to the act of sending a self existent Person ? Pouring out and sprinkling are perhaps the most common metaphors to represent the act of sending the Holy Spirit ; and what metaphors could you invent more improper to represent the act of sending a Person ? It is God who says, " I will pour out my Spirit." And if you say by God is meant only one of three self-pxislent Persons, will you also say that one self-existent Person promises that he will pour out another self-existent Person ? Permit me, sir, to ask, what do you mean when you pray to God to pour out his Spirit ? Do you mean to ask one self-existent Person to pour out another ? Do you not mean to ask God to make a gracious display of his fulness for the production of son,'P important effects ? When you speak of a great outpouring of the Spirit of God, do you mean to represent that one self-existent Person has made a great outpouring of another co-equal Person? Do you not mean On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 199 that God has made a great display of his power, wisdom, and goodness, upon the hearts and minds of men? It is presumed you will admit that the latter is your meaning. And it is a comforting thought that my views of the Spirit not only accord with the natural import of Scripture language, but with what appears to be the real views of God's people in their prayers for the Spirit. 4. The Spirit of God is spoken of in the Scrip- tures as something which may be given by mea- sure^ or without measure ; and when communicated or displayed by measure, we may speak of a residue. After John the Baptist had seen the emblem of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Son of God, he not only bare record that He is the Son of God, but al«o that " He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words 'of God ; for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto Arm." In this verse, the Son's having the Spirit without measure, is given as the reason why the words which he speaketh are the words of God. As'the Son of God had the Spirit not by mea- sure, so he had it in a manner that he could com- municate it to others ; therefore John further testi- fied, " This is He, or the same is He, which bap- tizeth with the Holy Ghost, "^"^ But while the Son had the Spirit without measure, the apostles and saints had it by measure. The prophft MJachi, in bearing testimony against the conduct of the Jews in putting away their wives, brings into view the wise conduct of God in creation, in making but one woman for one man — ** And did not he make one? yet had he the residue of the Spirit.'^^ The idea intended to be communicated appears to be this, that God did not neglect to make more than one woman for one man 200 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, through any defect of wisdom, power, or goodness. Had it been best, he was all-sufficient to have made more, and would have done it. Does not, then, this text plainly suggest, that by the Spirit is intended the fulness or all-sufficiency of God ? And do not the phrases, the Spirit by measure^ and the residue of the Spirit, naturally oppose the opinion that by the Spi- rit is intended a distinct and independent Person? As infinite wisdono saw fit not to place me on a level with you, and most of my brethren in the mi- nistry, in respect to the advantages of a learned education, you may think it improper for me to suggest any argument from the Greek language res-, pecting the Holy Spirit. But not pretending to much knowledge of that language, permit me to ask a few questions. Are not the articles and pronouns in the Greek language, agreeing with the terms Holy Spirit, uniformly of the neuter gender ? And are not the articles and pronouns agreeing with the Father and Son, of the masculine gender? And what is the ground of this distinction, if the Spirit be a proper Person ? In reply to these questions, it has been said, that the noun, Spirit, is of the neuter gender; and the genius of the Greek language requires, of course, that the articles and pronouns should be of the neuter gender. All this is easily believed ; nor is it seen that, in this respect, the genius of the Greek language differs from our own. But why, sir, is the noun neuter ? And how did you know that it was neuter, but by the neuter articles and pro^ nouns ? Had masculine articles and pronouns been uniformly used throughout the New Testament, as agreeing with the noun, Spirit, would you ever have known or thought that the noun was of the neuter gender ? On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 201 In some instances, the translators gave us the pronouns, agreeing with the Spirit, in the neuter gender, according to the Greek — " The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit." — " The Spirit itself mak^ih intercession for us." — Instead o( itself they might have said himself as well as to have given us Ae, his^ him, for it, its, &c. And if they had as uniformly given us the pronouns in the neu- ter, as they are so in the Greek, the appearance of the Spirit's being a distinct Person would have been nearly excluded from the Bible. And we should have as much reason to suppose that by *' our Spirits" are intended Persons distinct from ourselves, as that by the " Spirit of God" is intend- ed a Person distinct from the Father. This pro- bably would have been completely the case, unless we should have had some source of information, by which we should have been able to correct the natural import of Iq^pirprl language. This subject of the pronouns is not introduced as having had any influence in forming my opinion of the Holy Spirit. It was formed previous to any information on this particular. Yet, in my view, this circumstance corroborates that opinion, and is worthy of the most serious attention. No person, in conversation with me, has pre- tended to deny the fact, that the pronouns in Greek for the Spirit are of the neuter gender ; and no one has given me any satisfactory reason why they should be translated as personal pronouns of the masculine gender. It is, however, possible, that you, or some other person, may yet do it ; but until it is done, you will allow me to consider the argu- ment in view, as of great weight against the per- sonality of the Holy Spirit. 202 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, LETTER II. Some passages considered^ which have beevL supposed to support the Personality of the Holyopirit, REV. SIR, It may be proper now to pay some attention to those passages of Scripture, which have been sup- posed most certainly to imply the distinct personali- ty of the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor. ii. 10. *'The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God." This passage has much of the appearance of fa- vouring the personality of the Spirit. But if we candidly attend to the following verse, this appear- ance may disappear — " For what man knoweth the things of a man, savp tH<= pjoi^^-it nf man that is in him ? Even so, the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." It is obvious, that the Spirit of God is here represented as bearing the same relation to God, as the spirit of a man does to the man. But as a man and his spirit are but one person, so God and his Spirit are represented as one Person. Mr. Jones has quoted the last of these verses, to prove, in opposition to Arians, that the Spirit of God is essentially God, as truly so as the spirit of man is essentially man. This text does indeed afford a conclusive argument against the Arian hy- pothesis ; but it also affords an argument equally conclusive against the hypothesis of Mr. Jones. It is on the ground of the comparison or parallel exhi- bited in the text, that Mr. Jones shows this text to be opposed to tke Arian scheme ^ and on the same On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 203 ground it is as clearly opposed to his own, unless he would un'lertake to say that a man and his spirit are two persons. If he could make this appear to be true, then he might well argue that God and his Spirit are also two Persons. Acts V. 3. " But Peter said, Ananias, why bath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost ?" Peter and other apostles had been filled with the Holy Spirit in a remarkable manner; and it was doubtless by the Spirit of God that Peter was ena- bled to discern the deceit Sind falsehood of Ananias. His lying, therefore, was really lying to the Holy Spirit, Ananias had been a witness of the wonder- ful things which God had done, and that the apos- tles had done, by the Holy Spirit, or in consf quence of being " endued with power from on high," and for him, in the face of those manifestations of Di- vine goodness, wisdom, and power, to come for- ward with a lie or deceitful pretence to the apostles^ was truly to '*• tempt the Spirit of the Lord," or to tempt the Lord to display the same power in his destruction, that had been displayed for the salva- tion ol others. Heb. ifi. 7. " Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith^ To-day if ye will hear his voice." We have many instances in Scripture, in which it is represented that the Holy Spirit spake^ said^ &;c. The words of Peter will f>xplain the matter — " Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." [2 Peter i. 2L] God by his Sjxirit or fulness taught them what '^ they ought to speak." 2 Cor. xiii. 14. *' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." This passage has often been urged with conside- 204 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, rable confidence as a proof that there are three self- existent Persons in God, and that the Holy Spirit is one of those Persons, But a little attention to the natural import of the passage may be sufficient to show that neither of these ideas are implied. We may note — 1. God is here named as a person distinct from ihf' Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Chrisr is named as a Person distinct from (he self-existent God. 2. The text does not say, " communion with the Holy Ghost," as though the Spirit were a Person; but " communion o/the Hol> Ghost," as though the Spirit were something to be received. We have a similar phraseology, 1 Cor. x. 16. '' The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ P^ Neither the cup nor the blood of Chrisi is a person; but a benefit of which we may be the thankful partakers. The imjiort of the benediction may be this. May you experi- ence the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God. by being made thankful partakers of the Holy Spirit, to sanctify, to teach, to support, and to comfort you for ever. The phrase "fellowship of the Spirit," is the same in the original as communioji of the Spirit. This by Poole's Continuators is explained to mean, communion among saints in the *■' grace of the Spi- rit." [Phil. ii. 1.] In our Saviour's affectionate discourse with his disciples before his passion, for their comfort and support, he promised them the Holy Spirit under the title of the Comforter. The substance of what he said in that discourse, respecting the character of the Spirit, shall here be brought into view. " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you 071 the Character of the Holy Spirit, 205 for ever, even the Spirit of truth." [John xiv. 16, 17.] '* But the Comforter^ which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remem- brance all things whatsoever I have said unto you." [John xiv. 26.] " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of mej' [John xv. 16.] " If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send him unto you ; and when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment." [John xvi. 7, 8.] '* When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak : And he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." [John xvi. 13.] Had weno other passages of Scripture, by which to determine the character of the Holy Spirit, we should most naturally be led to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a distinct Person, Yet, it may be asked, should we conclude that the Spirit is a Person independent and equal with, the Father? For throughout the whole description, is not the Spirit represented as subordinate to the will of the Fa- ther l In these passages, sir, we may contemplate the Holy Spirit as prnper\y personijled under another name, for the same reason that we personify the natural sun when we wish to giv e a striking and im- pressive view of its glory, utility, and importance. 18 206 On the Character of the Holy Spirit. And yet there seems to have been particular care taken that our minds should not be misled by the personification. If you, sir, will be at the trouble of removing trom these verses the masculine pro- nouns, and write neuter pronouns in their room, so far as the original will justify such a change, you may find the personification far less strong than it is in our translation. After you have made this change in the pronouns, you will not find the Spirit more strongly personified, than the spirit or soul of man is often personified, or spoken of, as a distinct person from the man. Thus the Psalmist addresses his soul, " Why art thou cast down, O my soul ? Why art thou disquieted within me ? Hope thou in God," &:c. The rich fool is represented as address- ing his soul as it would be natural to address ano- ther person — " I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast goods laid up for many years, take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Moreover, there are several things said of the Comforter, which naturally suggest the idea that it is not a Person, but an emanation of the Divine ful- ness, which is intended. When Christ had named the Comforter, he immediately explained — the Spi- rit of truth; which naturally suggests the idea, that what he was speaking of was an efficient influence or emanation from that God who is truth. Besides, he said, " The Holy Ghost which proceedeth from the Father;" and this is the precise idea of emawa- iion. But it does not comport with the idea, that the Spirit is an independent person, co-equal with the Father. There is, however, still more deci- sive evidence to be produced. These gracious promises of the Comforter were renewed to the apostles after Christ had risen from On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 207 the dead ; and in renewing the promises, the. per- sonijication was wholly omitled. In giving the account of what Christ said to his apostles between the resurrection and ascension, Luke in his gospel slates, that Christ said to them, " And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you ; but tarry ye at Jerusalem until ye be endued WITH POWER FROM ON HIGH." Lukc XXiv. 49. In the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, Luke brings the same thing again into view, but in a different form. After mentioning that Christ "showed himself alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being seen of the apostles forty days, and speaking of things pertaining to the king- dom of God," he adds, ''And being assembled toge- ther with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for ihe. promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized zvith zcater, but ye shall be ba(;tizedty///i the Holy Ghost not many days hence." The apostles were inquisitive, and asked, saying, '^ Lord, wilt thou at (his litne restore again the kingdom to Israel ? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you,"^^ In these several accounts there is an obvious re- ference to the prior pro7nise of the Comforter ^ and these passaojes serve to explain the import of that promise. To be endued with power from on high., to he baptized with the Holy Ghost, and to have the Comforter sent unto them, are all the same thing. The substance of the whole was this, that they should be endued with supernatural powers, sirper* natural fortitude.^ supernatural support, assistance, 208 On the Character of the Holy Spirit. and comfort ; and thus be prepared to go forth in the name of Christ to preach the gospel, and to con- firm their doctrines by signs and wj07 is united with him in government, whatever the King does hy his Son, may be proper- ly attributed to either the Father, or the Son : And the disrespect shown to the Son may be considered 20"^ 234 An Examination of as disrespect to both the Father and the Son, Had these ideas been duly considered and applied by Mr. Jones, a great part of his inferences and con- clusions would probably have never appeared in print. But by disregarding such analogies, he compelled the Bible to speak his mind. LETTER V. The Son of God not the same Person as the God of Israel. REV. SIR, Much time and labour have been expended, and much ingenuity displayed, in attempts to prove that Jesus Christ is the very Person who is called the God of Abraham, and the God of Israel, in the Old Testament. That he was the Angel of God, and the Medium of Divine manifestations^ has been al- ready admitted ; but that the Angel of God and the God of Israel mean the same Person, is not admit- ted. For the phrase the Angel of God as clearly presents to the mind two distinct Beings^ one of which is sent by the other^ as the phrase the Mes- senger of David, Besides, the God of Israel said respecting this Angel, " Beware of him, provoke him not, for he will not pardon your transgressions ; for MY name is in him." In these words, the God of Israel is, in the most decided manner, distin- guished from the Angel of his Presence, as another Being or Agent. That the Son of God is not the same Person as the God of Abraham, or the God of Israel, may ap- pear from the following consideratiojHs : difficult Passages of Scripture* 23ii 1. It was the God of Israel who gave the promise of the Messiah. He never promised that he would be the Messiah ; but the Messiah was to be a Son whom the God of Israel was to raise up, 2. The title given to Christ as the Son of God, will naturally lead us to the same conclusion. It was the God of Israel who proclaimed from heaven respecting the Messiah, '^ This \s my beloved SonP As Christ was made known to the Jews as the Son of God, would they not naturally be led to conclude, that if he were the Son oiany God, he was the Son of the God of Israel j' And if you, sir, suppose that he is the very Person who was called the God of Is- rael, please to inform me of what God he was the Son. Will it not follow inevitably from your hy- pothesis, either that Christ was not the Son of God, or that the God of Israel was the Son of some OTHER God ? 3. We have the most decided testimony, both of Christ and his apostles, that the Person who is call- ed the God of Abraham and the God of Israel, was the Father of Christ. In John viii. 54, we have the testimony of Christ himself — " Jesus answered, If I honour myself my honour is nothing ; it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say that He is YOUR God." What God, sir, did the Jews say was their God ? Was it not the God cf Israel ? If so, then the God of Israel was the Father of Christ. And is not this testimony of Christ sufficient to over- balance all the arguments on your side of the ques- tion ? And unless you can persuade yourself, that Christ might be both the Father and the Son of him- self, must you not either relinquish your hypothe- sis, or call in question his veracity ? Moreover, from this portion of Christ's testimo- ny, we may learn, that when he spake of God, he 236 An Examination of meant his Father ; and when he spake of his Fa- ther, he meant the God of Israel. Therefore, whenever he spake of God, or his Father, his lan- guage implied that he himself wus not the Person who had iDeen called the God of Israel. Let us now listen to the language of Peter, Acts iii. 13. '' I'he God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesys.''^ This testimony is too plain to need any comment. Paul, in his address to the dispersed Israelites, whom he found at Antioch in Pisidia, said, " The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people where they dwelt as s'rangrrs in the land of Egypt." He then rehearsed a fium- ber of events between that period and the days of David ; and having mentioned David as a man '• af- ter God's own heart," he added, " Of this man's seed hath God, according to his promise^RAisED unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus." [Acts xiii. 23.] In the fiist verse of the epistle to the Hebrews, we read that '' God, who at sundry limes and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers, bi/ the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us BY His Son." Was it not the God of Israel who spake by the prophets ? If so, Christ was the Son of the God of Israel. In support (if the idea now before us, a very con- siderable part of the New Testament might be quoted ; for at the very foundation of the gospel this idea is laid, that Jesus Christ is the Son of the God of Israel ; and this idea runs through the writings of the evangelists, and the sermons and epistles of the apostles. The matter is so clearly and so abun- dantly expressed, that it is amazing that any one, acquainted with the Scriptures, should. ever enter= difficult Passages of Scripture, 237 tain the idea that Jesus Christ was the very Per- son who had been called the God of Israel. In regard to the texts which have been relied on to prove that Christ is the very Person who was called the God of Israel, it may be observed, that the most of them would be easily explained, and the argument set aside, by only making a pro- per distinction between the Angel of God as the Medium of Divine manifestation, and the God who was manifested through that Medium ; or by only observing that whatever God does by Christ, may be properly attributed either to God or his Son. Many of the principal texts of this class have been already examined ; and it is hoped enough has been said to convince you, that the hypothesis that Christ is the Person who is called the God op Israel, is without any solid foundation in the Bi- ble. But the circumstance, that this hypothesis has been so long and so generally admitted by pious Christians, may be considered as evidence that it has had advocates who w^ere esteemed emi- nent for piety and ability* For it is difficult to conceive, how any thing short of distinguished emi- nence of character in its advocates could ever have given currency and popularity to an opinion so manifestly repugnant to the express declarations of Christ and his apostles, and to the general tenour of the gospel. If you, sir, should be disposed to say, that you never implicitly denied that Christ is the Son of God, let me ask, Is not an attempt to prove that Christ is the very Person who is called the God of Israel, an implicit deyiial that he is the Son of God ? Would not a serious attempt to prove that Isaac was the very person who was called Abraham, imply a denial that Isaac was the Son of Abraham ? 238 An Examination of POSTSCRIPT. No one thing relating to this subjrct has as- tonished me- more than the attempts oi ministers to prove that Jesus Christ is the very Person called the ^'' God of Israel. "^^ With just the s^me reason, and show of argument, you might attempt to pjove that he is the very Person called " God the Fa- ther,^^ Any argument by which you attempt to prove that Jesus Christ is the Person called the God of Israel is of the same weight to prove that he is God the Father. This circumstance, if duly considered, may give you reason to suspect thai absurdity or sophistrij is implied in all such ar- guments. In Isa. xliii. 11, the Holy ONE says, "lam the Lord, and besides me there is no Saviour ;" and as Jesus Christ is called our ''Lord and Saviour.'' you infer, that Jesus Christ is the Holy ONE of Israel, who said, " Beside me there is no Saviour." This is one of your strongest arguments. Now all you here wish to prove is, that Jesus Christ is a Person in the one God ; but if your ar- gument proves any thing, it will prove that Jesus Christ is the God and Father of himself, or that God the Father is not a Saviour. For the Holy ONE did not say, besides us there is no Saviour, but " besides me there is no Saviour." Yet we have as full evidence that the title Saviour originally belongs to God the Father, as we have that he is the Supreme B^ing, or the " God of Israel." . Besides, in your argument, a principle is assum- ed by which we can as fairly prove more than three difficult Passages of Scripture* 239 Persons in Deity as we can prove that Christ is a Person of the one God. As the Holy ONE said, '' besides me there is no Saviour,^'' you assume the principle, that each Person to whom the Scriptures give the title of Saviour must be a Person of Deity ; and as this title is given to Christ, you infer that he is the living God. But in 2 Kings xiii. 5, we read, that the " Lord gave Israel a Saviour,'''^ You will not pretend that this Saviour was either the Father, the Son, or the HoIj/ Spirit. In Neh. ix. 27, we find the Jews con- fessing that when their forefathers were in affliction, the Lord gave '• them Saviours who saved them out of the hands of their enemies." Neither the number nor the names of these Saviours are given in the connexion ; but there was a plurality/ of them, and we may probably find their names in the history of the Judges. But are we to admit that Othniel Ehud, Gideon, &;c. &ic. are Persons of Deity ? If not, your argument fails. You may indeed reply, that we are expressly told that these were Saviours whom the Lord gave or raised up. This is true ; and it is good evidence that these persons were not the Deity or Persons in the one God. But we are no less plainly told, that "God raised unto Israel a Saviour Jesus:'''* *' Him hath God exalted with his own right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour;^'' and that "the Fa- ther sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." How tnen are we to reconcile the idea o^ di plu- rality of Saviours with the declaration of the high and lofty ONE, " besides me there is no Saviour ?" He is the only independent Saviour, He saved Is- rael by raising up dependent Saviours; and he saves siiiners by sending his Sun to be the Saviour of the world. 240 An Examination of Thus fallacious, and thus easily answered, are all the arguments to prove that Jesus Christ is the vert/ Person called the God of fsrael. They either prove too much, or they prove nothing. LETTER VI. On 1 John v. 7, 8. REV. SIR, In the first edition of my letters to you, I admitted, as genuine, 1 John v. 7, and endeavoured to show that it contained nothing inconsistent with my own views. I was not then ignorant of the fact that the genuineness of the text had been denied ; but I had not seen the evidence of its being spurious. Since that time, I have seen evidence which, 1 think, must be sutficient to satisfy any mind which is free from prepossessions. To admit the text, and re- mark upon it as genuine, after such conviction, would be little better than to countenance forgery. In- stead, therefore, of again admitting the text, I shall exhibit the evidence by which I was convinced that it was an unwarranted interpolation. As the evi- dence will be taken from a Trinitarian author, it is hoped that it will be satisfactory to you and many others. The writer of the " Eclectick Review" of the " Improved Version," and of '• Griesbach's Greek Testament," decidedly approves of the omission of the text in those works, and says, " It is found in no Greek MS. ancient or recent, except one to which we shall presently advert ; in no ancient ver- difficult Passages of Scripture, 241 sion, being m/er^o/a/ec? only in the later tr?inscripts of the Vulgate. Not one of the Greek fathers re- cognises it, though many of (hem collect every spe- cies and shadow of argument down to the most al- legorical and shockingly ridiculous, in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity, though they often cite the words immediately contiguous both before and af- ter ; and though with immense labour and art they extract from the next words the very sense which this passage has, in following times, been adduced to furnish. Of the Latin fathers rio/ o^ie has quoted it, till Eusebius of Lyons, in the middle of the fifth centary ; and in his works there is much reason to believe that it has been interpolated. Under these circumstances, we are unspeakably ashamed, that any modern divines should have contended for re- taining a passage so indisputably spurious." This, sir, is the decision of one on your own side of the question ; and one who has given evidence that he possesses both learning and candour. In connexion with the text which has now been given up, I introduced the following verse, " And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one." Upon this text I made some observations to pre- pare the way for a right understanding of the pis- sage contiined in the apostles' commission. Bat as considerable was then said, which has no im- mediate connexion with the main subject of inqui- ry, I shall ht^re give only the leading thoughts as they relate to the institution of baptism. By the Spirit is understood those communica- tioas of (he H )ly Spirit which have been given for the conjir. -nation of the truths of the gospel, and the promotion of the Christian religion. By the 21 242 An Examination of ivater and the blood which bear witness, is suppos= ed to be meant baptism and the LordPs supper^ as in- stituted memorials of the inauguration d^n^ the death of the Messiah. The sabbath, circumcision, and the passover were respectively memorials of extraordinary events. The Lordh day is kept as a memorial of the resur- rection of the Son of God ; and the Lordh supper as an instituted memorial of his death. It is, there- fore, reasonable to suppose that baptism is, also, an instituted memorial of some extraordinary event. When our Saviour was baptized by John, he was inducted into office, the Spin7 descended and abode upon him, and God from on high proclaimed, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." No event, prior to this, had been more worthy of a perpetual memorial. But of this event we have no memorial unless it be that of Christian baptism. Nor is there any event but this, of which baptism can naturally be supposed the memorial. Therefore, as by analogy we are led to believe that baptism is a memorial of some interesting event, and as no other event can be so naturally supposed to be the one, it is believed that it was instituted as the memorial of the Messiah's induction to of- fice, when he was baptized with water, endued with the Spirit, and announced to the world as the Son of God, It was on this occasion that " God anoint- ed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost." Ac- cordingly, in instituting the memorial, the Goc? who anointed, the Son who was the subject of the anoint- ing, and the Holy Spirit, with which the Father anointed the Son. are all brought to view. difficult Passages of Scripture, 243 LETTER Vir. The Apostles'' commission considered, REV. SIR, The language ofthe Apostles' commission, Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, shall now be considered. " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." That the text, as it stands in our translation, docs very naturally suggest the idea of baptizing by the authority of three Persons, is admitted ; and of course it suggests the idea that the Holy Spirit is a Person. But when this view ofthe text is urged, as the only possible meaning, there is perhaps one thing overlooked, which out to be considered ; and some things taken for granted, which require /)roo/ that is not easily obtained. In the verse already quoted, immediately pre- ceding the one so much relied on, Christ had said, " All power is given unto me in heaven and earth." And what is here asserted appears to be overlooked. It was, sir, on this very ground, that he added, " Go ye, therefore, into all the world," die. Now, if Christ had all authority in heaven and earth, his authority must have been sufficient for baptizing in his own name, without connecting any other. — Nor does it appear very natural to suppose that Christ would say to this effect, I have all authority ; go ye, therefore, and baptize by ihe joi^it authority of my se// and two other Persons, And has it not 244 An Examination of been also too much overlooked, that we have no cxaniplf lor h.-iptizing in any other name than that of the Lord Jesus? If it be a matter of so HiUch mon^ent as has been supposed, that baptism should be administered in the name of three Persons, is it not sf^mewhat extraordinary that we are not able to find so much as one example of the apostles to support the practice ? But perhaps somethings are taken for granted as well as overlooked. The things which seem to have been taken for granted, that require proof, are these — 1. That the preposition, which is translated in, does not mean into, to, for, or unto- — 2. That the word name, unquestionably means authority — 3. That the design of Christ, in the passage, wag to show the authority by 7vhich baptism is to be ad- ministered, and not the end for which it is to be administered. Respecting the Greek preposition f/jj you are doubtless sensible that this is much n)ore frequent- ly translated into, to, or for, than it is in. And had either of those words b^^en used in the text instead of m, this would have entirely precluded the idea of baptizing by the authority of three Persons. And the woid name is abundantly used in the Scriptures, as of the same import as the word cha- racter : it is also used for renown, glory, or praise ; and it is sometimes used as of similar import with the word memorial. In one or other of these senses the word is used oiuch more frequently than as im- porting authority. It is, sir, my present opinion of the words in dis- pute, that it was the design of Christ to express the #BJECT or END for which, and not the authority difi cull Passages of Scripture, 245 5j/ which, baptism is to be administered ; and that the preposition would be more properly translated so as to read " to the name," or ''^ for the name," than " w the name." Some reasons or analogies, to justify this explana- tion or construction of the text, may now be stated. 1. This construction agrees with the character oi the Holy Spirit, as already illustrated from the gene- ral and natural import of Scripture language. 2. This construction corresponds with the idea that baptism is a standing witness and memorial in the church, that the Son of God came by water, and was publickly inaucjurated, endued, and announced, as the promised Messiah, the Son of God. 3. It agrees with the frequent use of the word 7iame, as signifying renown, glory, praise, or me- morial. When monuments are erected, or memorials in- stituted, to perpetuate the memory of illustrious characters, or illustrious events, renown, glory, and praise, are the object of these memorials. When memorials are instituted to perpetuate the memory of remarkable and distinguishing events of Divine providence, they are designed for the renown, glo- ry, and praise of God. 4. When, in the New Testament, any thing is said to be done, or required to be done, for a wit- ness, for a sign, for a testimony, for a memorial, or to the glory, or to the praise of God, this same pre- position, 5'5, is used, and translated/or or to. And can one instance to the contrary be found in the New Testament? Thus sir, you have before you some of the analo- gies which it least seem to justify me in supposing, that it wa* the design of Christ, in the apostles' commission, to express the end for zohich, and not 21* 246 Jn Examination of merely the authority by which, baptism is to be administered. The authority by which, is indeed expressed in the introductory words, ''All power is given unto me in heaven and earth ; go ye, there- fore ;" bui the clause in dispute appears to me not designed to re- express the authonty, but to show the END for which baptism was instituted. Can you, sir, produce such analogies in support of the common construction of this passage ? Can you produce one analogy from the Bible which will justify you in saying that this text requires u$ to baptize by the authority of the Holy Spirit as a dis- tinct Person ? If the construction now given of the passage should be admitted and adopted, it would occasion no change in the form of words to be used in baptiz- ing, but simply that of using to, ovfor^ or unto, in- stead of in. The adoption would, however, open a door for much to be pertinently and profitably said, respecting that momentous event in which the pro- mised Messiah was publickly inaugurated, endued^ and announced to the world as the Son or God; and the grace and glory which was displayed on that memorable occasion. In this inauguration we may contemplate a fulfil- ment of what had been promised and predicted, and also of what had been typified in the manner in which prophets, priests, and kings, had been in- vested with their respective offices.^ The holy oil was poured on the heads of prophets and kinj^s, as an emblem of the Holy Spirit, with which the Mes- siah was to be endued. Aaron was first washed with water, and then had the oil of consecration poured on his head, as the Son of God was first washed or baptized, and then endued with the Spirit of God. If we may connect* in one view, the Old and the Nevy difficult Passages of Scripture, 247 Testament forms o( inauguration or ordination ; in that event we may behold the Messiah condescend- ing to come to John, his herald, to be washed with water as Aaron was; then we behold him making his own ordination prayer ; and what is still more august, we may behold the Eternal Father per- forming the solemn rites of layihg on of hands, and giving the Right Hand of Ftllowship — He iirsl sent down his Holy Spirit, which is often represented as his Hand ^ this abode on (he Son; then, with an audible voice, God procbimed, in the ears of at- tending angels and men, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." A scene more august, and more expressive of grace and glory, had perhaps never been seen in heaven nor earth. POSTSCRIPT. Let it be distinctly understood, that the opinion, that baptism was mstituted as a memorial of the m- auguration of the Messiah, is not viewed by me as essential to the main theory respectmg the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The opinion resulted from a serious inquiry into the meaning of Christ'^s com- ing by water, and of the water'' s bearing witness, Jt is proposed, for examination, as that which appears to me probably true. But the main things had in view do not depend on the correctness of that opin- ion. Various reasons may be given for the use of the terms- Holy Spirit, in the apostles' commission which do not imply the personality of the Spirit. But what, sir, if no such reason could be given by me, or by yourself? Shall one clause of a text, of doubtful import, be admitted as proof of a fact, in opposition to the general tenqur of plain and inspired 248 An Examination of representations ? More, it is believed, than iwo hundred times, the Holy Spirit of God is brought into view in the Scriptures, in a manner which clearly conveys the idea, that, by the Spirit, a self- existent Person is not intended. And shall one, two or three texts, which seem lo favour your opinion, be allowed more weight than two hundred others which are clearly in opposition ? Suppose, sir, that after long and laborious inquiry, I could obtain no satisfacJory exposition of the disputed clause in (he apostles' comn)ission, which would accord with my present views of the Holy Spirit; and on that ground should give up the whole theory, and return to VAIT. 1825. ADDRESS. REV. FATHERS AND BRETHREN, In writing the " Series of Letters" to one of your number, it was my aim to treat you with candour and respect. Although I had seen reason to dis- sent from you in opinion, my feelings and affections were not alienated. I felt no inclination to revile or degrade any class of men ; nor to do any thing to cause a schism among the friends of Christ. Feeling bound by the command of our common Lord "to call no man Master'''^ in matters of faith, 1 was led to examine the correctness of some po- pular opinions by the light of revelation. The re- sult of which inquiry was, a full conviction that some opinions had passed for essential doctrines which had not so much as once been named either by Christ or his Apostles; and, indeed, that Christ and his Apostles had taught doctrines directly op- posed to those popular opinions. With this con- viction I wrote, hoping to occasion a more thorough inquiry. Before I was prepared to publish, information was circulated that I was writing; and very incor- rect representations of my views were rapidly spreading. No way appeared for me to put a stop to these reports but by publishing what I believed to be true. Knowing ihd^i fallibility was attached to all human productions, and knowing by experi- ence my own liability to err, I had no expectation that every thing I had written would be found cor- rect. But I was willing to exhibit my own views, in hope, by that means, I might have the aid of others to discover my mistakes, I was aware that, in publishing, I should bring on myself the displeasure of those Ministers who were opposed to any inquiry into the truth of some popular opinions ; but it was my hope that the num- ber of this class was so sinall that 1 might publish, in a respectful manner, the fruits of honest inquiry, without greatly endangering my life ; or, what is still dearer, my character as a disciple and min- ister of Christ. Conscious that 1 had no disposition to injure any one of my fellow creatures, I enter- tained a hope, that but few would be found dispos- ed to ruin my character, merely for the attempt to offer light on an important subject. Whether I have been disappointed in the event, 1 have no occasion to state. The treatment! have received, and the measures which have been adopt- ed by some persons, it would be too painful for me to relate. Sensible of the danger I may be in of rendering evil for evil, I shall forbear to enter into many particulars. Some things of a move general nature it may be useful to notice. But as there was not, prior to my publishing, any animosity between any one of my brethren and myself which might account for the improper treatment I have received, I am willing to believe that those who have conducted improperly have thought they were doing God service. Paul once verily thought he ought to do many things against Jesus of Nazareth, which things he did ; so it is believed that some of my brethren have verily thought they ought to do many things against me. But in the example of Paul we have evidence, thai a man may think fie is doing right while he is destroying the real friends of Jesus Christ. Therefore, admitting, that my breth- ren have thought they were doing God service, it may still he proper to examine respecting the cor- rectness of that opinion. For in no case are we more liable to err, than in judging of the nature of our own conduct towards such as oppose our opinions. Permit me, then, my fathers and brethren, to aslf, has it not been common among Ministers to repre- sent me as an Arian^ or a Socinian ? These terms you know have become terms of reproach. What have been the motives in applying them to me? Every person acquainted with my views, and the views of Arius and Socinus, knows that 1 am neither an Arian nor a Socinian. And those who are not acquainted with my views, have no right to pretend that they are, and to stigmatize me for they know not what. Has not then a disposition to re- proach been at the bottom of such representations ? It is well known that some have said, that they see no difference between my views and the views of Arius. If the affirmation be true, it is also true, that they can conceive of no difference between a Son from \.\\e uncreated essence of Deity and a Son created out of nothing* For this is the precise dis- titiction between my views and the views of Arius. Whether I am in an errour, or not, is not now the question ; but whether my brethren have conducted uprightly in their representations of my sentiment. Is It not a fact that some persons who have said that they can perceive no distinction in the two ca?es, have also objected to my view^ on the same ground that Arius objected to the sentiments of his 22^ 6 opponents — viz. That they implied that God is '• mutable, divisible," &;c. Do these objectors suppose that for God to create a Son out of nothing, would imply that he is " 7/tw^a6/e and divisible?''^ If not, is it not a fact that these objectors have proved that they do see a distinction, even while they affirm, that they do not P Some will probably plead, that they have called me an Arian, or a Socinian, because they viewed my sentiments as no better than Arianism or Soci- nianism. But is this either honest or safe ground to lake ? Are you willing to have others treat you in the same manner? With sincerity I can say, that I consider your theory to be as dishonorary both to God and Jesus Christ as Arianism or So- cinianism. May I then lawfully, or honestly, re- port that you are an Arian, or Socinian? May I safely report my inferences, or deductions, from your theory as your real sentiments ? No, my brethren, such conduct in me would be but one remove from positive falsehood. For I may be in an errour in my deductions from your hypothesis ; and if I am, you do not believe in the sentiment I deduce. My duty, then, is to state fairly what you profess to be- lieve, when I pretend to state your sentiments ; and not defame you by substituting my inferences for your sentiments. Let us, then, in our representa- tions, regard the golden rule, and prove that we are *' children that will not lie." Has not this method, also, been adopted to pre- possess the minds of people, viz. To represent that Arians and Socinians were generally pleased with what I have published, while " pious Trinitarians" were generally grieved and dissatisfied ? How far this objection is founded in fact, I am unable to say , hut admitting the facts to be as stated, what evf- dence do they afford against the truth of my spnti- mcnts ? Are Trinitarians ihe standard ot correct thinking? Is it not a f peculiarities in his manner of writing; nor do I expect ever to arrive to perfection in this respect, or to be able perfectly to correct the fault which is said to be natural to me. But as to the practice o{' reviling, which has be- come so common among professors of different de- nominations, I feel bound to protest against it, as one of the most pernicious t;ice5 to be found in oar land, or our world. There is scarcely any vice more abundantly prohibited in the scriptures; and the reviler is classed with tlie most odious characters (o be found among men. There is no vice more de- structive to ihcpeace and happiness of society ; none which more confounds the distinction between coed 28 and bad men ; and no one which more endangers both the civil and religious liberties of this nation. And shall such an enormous vice be countenanced and encouraged by the examples of those who are set apart to teach men the way of life ? Would it not be shocking to hedivprofane swearing from the lips of gospel ministers ? But in what res- pect is profane swearings or even stealing, a greater evil than reviling, I know not on what ground re- viling can be esteemed a less evil than the others, except it be simply on this, that it is more common, -' A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches;" and to take from a man a good name is a greater evil than to take his property — a greater in- jury to him, and a greater injury to community. Shall, then, profane swearing and stealing, be held in detestation by christians, and reviling be ap- plauded as a christian virtue or duty ? In how many instances have publick discourses, from ministers of different denominations, been applauded as most efxcellent^ when the main object of them was to vili- •fy and loadzvith reproach opponents in religion ; yea, when the chief excellence oi the discourses consisted in learned ingenuity in reviling. Would you not, my fathers and brethren, esteem it slander and reviling in your opponents to repre- sent you as hereticks, apostates, adversaries to the truth ^nA propagators oi damnable doctrine? If you would call this reviling in your opponents, how do you expect to be cleared from the charge, if you thus reproach them? Have you obtained an exclu- sive privilege to utter such reproachful language with impunity ? Is it not shocking, that pulpits, con- secrated for the display o{ Divine love to mankind, should be turned into theatres for the exhibition of the preacher's prejudices against sucb as disseat 29 from him in opinion ? Is it not iainen fable that pul- pits, consecrated to the purpose of teaching men to be meek, humble, kind, and o( a forbearing spirit one towards another, should be employed for exciting in them the most bitter and unfriendly feelings to- wards their fellow creatures ; and to give them ex- amples of a vice which ought to be held in detesta- tion by all mankind ? Is it not a truth, that a great part of the bitter revilings which are heard among common people, of different sects, one toward ano- ther, orii;inale from the examples of puhlick teachers, of the ditFerent denominations ? And do not many preachers, by ihexY fervent d'clamalions, and their violent denunciations, excite real hatreds in the hearts of their hearers ? Is such preaching the wis- dom which id from above? Or is it that which is from beneath ? What opinion was ever entertained of Jesus Christ by any of his professed friends more disho- nourable to him, or more dangerous to the soids of men, than a belief ihai he is of such a temper and character, that he can be pleased with such abomi- nable revilings under ihe pretext of love to him ? I do not believe that even Satan himself ever enter- tained a sentiment concerning Christ so reproachful to him as this. Yet, has not the preaching of many publick teachers a direct tendency to excite and cultivate this horrid belief ? So extensively has this spirit of reviling prevailed in our land, that it may be doubted whether there be one minister in it, who has not been reproached as a heretick, rn false teach- er, a blasphemer^ an enemy to Christ or a propagator of damnable doctrines ; and, that too by some other publick teacher, or teachers. Shall those who ha- bitually indulge themselves in this practice be es- teemed as the real foUoioers of Jesus Christ ? If 24* 30 you say, yes; what do you make of Christ better than the one whose works he came to destroy ? Should it be asked, have not those who are right in sentiment, just ground for denouncing those in errour ? It may be replied, that there is no reason to suppose that any sect of christians dire free from errour, yea great errours ,* and there is no reason to suppose that all the sentiments of any sect are erroneous. There is no infallibility in any sect or any person : and there is no person who does not view his own sentiments to be right. Therefore, to admit that those who are right in sentiment, may lawfully denounce those who differ from them, would be the same as to give universal license to reviling ; or the same as to admit that each sect has a lawful right to revile others. And such is the ground which seems to be generally taken ; and thus the christian world is filled with bitter vey'iU ings, to the great dishonour of the christian name, and to the grief of every considerate and humble follower of Christ. But are there no essential doctrines, a denial of which justly exposes a person to be denounced as 2i heretickP — Every doctrine of the gospel is im- portant in its nature and connexion, yet some doc- trines are doubtless more important and essential than others. But there is no doctrine of the gos- pel, a belief of which has half the appearance of being represented as essential to the salvation of the soul as this, that " Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God." With a belief in this doctrine, promise? of life and salvation are connected— with a disbelief of this doctrine, threatenings of wrath are connected. But, in respect to the doctrines which you have made essential, viz. that God is three persons, and that Christ is the living God ; no 31 promise of life or favour is connected with believ- ing in any such thing ; no threatening of wrath against those who reject them; neither did Christ, or his apostles require a belief in any such senti- ments, or so much as propose them to the conside- ration of mankind. If any one of you will show me a single passage in the bible, which has even the appearance of making a belief in either of those doc- trines essential io salvation, I will hold myself under solemn engagement never afterwards to move my tongue or my pen against them. If you cannot do this, be pleased seriously to ponder the following quotation from the pious Mr. Baxter. "Two things have set the church on fire, and been the plagues of it for above one thousand years. 1. Enlarging our creed and making more fundamen- tals than God ever made. 2. Composing, and so imposing, our creeds and confessions in our own words and phrases. When men have learned more manners and humility/ than to accuse God'^s language as too genera/ and abscure, as if they could mend it ; and have more dread of God and compassion on themselves, than to make those to be fundamen- tals or certainties which God never made so ; and when they reduce their confessions, first, to their due extent, and, secondly, to scripture phrase, that dissenters may not scruple subscribing ; then, I think, and never till then, shall the church have peace about doctrinals." How happy it would have been for the christian world if the sentiments here expressed by that god- ly man had been universally adopted ! Have you not, my fathers and brethren, " made more fundamentals than God ever made ?" Yea, have you not, in effect, set aside those which God made, to establish those of your own making ? Do 32 not your hypotheses that God is three persons^ and that Jesus Christ is the " only true God," fairly imply a denial of that great truth on which the church is built, viz. that Jesus is " the Christ the Son of the living God ?" Can he be both the'^ only true GocP^ and the ''Son of the living GodP^ I know that it has been pretended that he is both ; but Peter, in his confession, neither said nor inti- mated any such thing. Nor did Christ correct his confession before he said, *' On this rock will I build my church." Have 1 been censured by you for believing that Peter's confession was the truth l You will sny no ; but for not believing that Christ was the self-existent God as well as the Son of God, That he is the Son of God, you saif, you admit,but you hold it to be also essential to believe that he is " the true God" as well as " the Son of God," Why then did not Christ correct Peter's confession before he gave it such a decided approbation ? The confes- sion, to have accorded \^ith your views, should have stood thus : '* Thou art the Christ," the TRUE God, and "the Son of the living God." And the language of Christ in representing the love of God to mankind, to agree with what you hold to be essential^ must be accommodated in a similar manner, ''God so loved the world that he gave" the true God, " his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." Such interpolations are needed in a thousand passages in the New Testament to accommodate the scriptures to your views. And does not the whole of my offence^ on the ground of which I have been reproached, con- sist in this, that I reject all such interpolations in the sense of scripture ? 33 To allude to Mr. Baxter's language, one of the " fundamentals that God made" is this, "that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God;" but have you not " enlarged the creed" by making it also a " fun- damental," that ^' Christ is the true God?'>'> If your theory be correct, the confession of Peter, and the testimony of Christ, are %o deficient as to really need the words which have been interpolated, to ex- press the zuhole truth. But Mr. Baxter thought, that "when men" shall "have more manners and humility than to accuse God'^s language as too gen. eral and obscure^ as though they could mend it," better times will be enjoyed in the church. Let us then, my fathers and brethren, unite in our en- deavours to learn such ^' manners and humility. ^^ Permit me here to add, as my belief, that when we shall all have so " learned" as not " to accuse God's language as too general and obscure,^^ we shall most cordially acquiesce in thi^ truth, that Christ is God^s own Son, and shall give up the doctrine, that God is three persons, as the fruit of irreligious con* troversy, I am neither a prophet nor a prophet's son, but it seem^ to me, that it requires but little more than common sagacity to foresee, that the manner in which some of your sect are disposed to treat all who dissent from your creed, will, in the course of events, involve consequences unfavourable to your own tranquillity. But if, in this imperfect state, it be an honour to any sect to assume to themselves all \\\Q piety in this world, and to set up such a claim to infallibility as to denounce all who dissent from their favourite opinions, this honour, I hope, you will enjoy without a rival. I find in myself no dis- position to set up such a claim, nor to share in such HONOUR. I prefer being despised and d&nounced 34 for my sentiments, rather than to despise and de- nounce you or any other sect of professed chris- tians. *' Behold how the christians love one another!" Such was the exclamation of unbelievers in the early ages of Christianity. But what is the excla- mation of utibelievers at the present day, in view of the conduct of different sects of christians one towards another ? Must it not be this, '' Behold how the christians hate one another ?" Has Chris- tianity perfectly changed its character ? or, is there *' utterly a fault" among christians at this day ? What is the occasion of this mournful state of things, that a man must expose to peril his character, or neglect to inquire respecting (he truth of the opin- ions he imbibed before he was capable of judging for himself? What is the reason, that persons of different sentiments cannot exercise forbearance, and love one another with a pure heart fervently ? Is it not this, that professed christians have for- gotten that zcithout love they are " nothing .^" Has not Lovs, in the christian scheme, been supplanted to give place to a belief in the commandments of men ? And have not professed christians, in a great measure, lost the s'p'irit zxn6forgoilen the example of their Lord and Master ? Were not the apostles of Chrisl in so great an trrour respecting the nature of his kingdom, as t^ suppose that he was to reign literally on the throne of David ? Did they not entertain this opinion, even after he rose from the dead; and on this ground say to him, '* wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom unto Israel ?" What sect of christians, at this day, entertain a more erroneous opinion than this ? How then did Christ treat those apostles in respect to their erroneous opinions ? Did he denounce them as hereticks^ as enemies to 35 Aim, and adversaries to the truths' Did he exclude them from his fellowship^ shun their company^ and reproach them before the multitude ? Or did lie biill love them, treat them tenderly^ and continue to in- struct, and employ them ? For what purpose was this part of our Saviour's conduct recorded ? Was it recorded as an exam- ple for us to imitate in our conduct towards such as we should consider in errour? Or was it recorded as a blemish in his character, and a warning to us to take heed that we be not thus candid towards the erroneous ? Let it be supposed that, in our New Testament, an interpolation had been handed down, purportmg to be a sermon from the iips of Christ, addressed to the multitude, respecting the erroneous opinions of the apostles. Let it further be supposed, that this sermon was written in the same reproachful strain of some sermons of the present day; denouncing the apostles as hereticks^ adversaries to the truth, too proud to submit to the dictates of revelation ; accompanied, also, with fervent exhortatiojis to the people to beware of such " damnable heresies,^"* What a figure would this sermon have made in the history of the Son of God ? What a perfect con- trast of temper to all that is now recorded of him ! It even makes me shudder when I compare the temper and conduct ol Christ, tow.irds his erring dis- ciples, with the temper and conduct oi some ])reach- ers of the present day. The universe itself can hardly furnish a greater contrast. Shall we, who are of yesterday, and liable to ten thousand errours ourselves, be censorious and incompassiorjale to- wards such as dissent frou) our opinions ? Shall we pretend to know better how to treat the erro- neous than our Divine Instructer ? 36 What a blessed change would tak^ place, if all the publick teachers in our land would, in temper and conduct, inaitate our common Lord and Master ? If publick teachers of diiferent sentiments were to lay aside the spirit of bitterness and reviling, asso- ciate together, and endeavour to aid each other in their inquiries after truth, what rapid progress might be made compared with what has been in time past. Besides, this kind spirit in publick teachers would have such an influence upon their respective churches and societies, that we should soon have occasion to saj, *' Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity !" In view of such a state of things, Deists would see that there is something in the " power of religion" not to be derided, nor despised. But so long as they hear us talk about the ^'' power of religion,'''^ and see at the same time, that it has no power over our passions, or our tongues, unless it be, to make us the more fierce in our contentions, and the more bitter in our revilings, will they not, and may they not, deride our pretensions to piety and benevolence? If they neglect to study our scriptures, and judge of the nature of our religion by the conduct of different sects towards each other, will they not very naturally conclude that malevo- lence is a principal ingredient in Christianity ? But, if they can fully study our scriptures, duly observ- ing the temper, the example, and the precepts of Christ, and then judge o( our characters by our tem- per and conduct toward such as dissent from us in opinion, will they not naturally conclude, that the greater part of professors are real hypocrites .^ Take away from the christian religion the spirit of love^ meekness, humility, forbearance and for- 37 giveness, and what is it better than the mndlcUvt and blood-thirsty religion of Mahomet ? Is it not a shame for professors, or ministers, to talk about the " power of religion" and its eflicacy upon the hearts and lives of men, while their own tongues are so unbridled that out of the same mouth pro- ceedeth blessing and cursing .^" Or, praising their own sect and reviling others? " Can di Jig-tree, my brethren, bear olive berries .^" If the same amount of time, and the same fervent exertions which have been devoted to inveighing one against another, had been employed in culti- vating feelings of tenderness^ love, forbearance, and all the kind affections required by the precepts, and exemplified in the life of our Saviour, how hap- py would have been the state of society at this day ! Should we not have been able to put Deists to the blush by the " power of religion ?" Should we not have been on fairer ground to obtain access to the consciences of careless sinners ? And should we not have known better by experience, that the ways of wisdom are ways of pleasantness, and her paths the paths of peace? I am not insensible, my fathers and brethren, that I stand on. very unfavourable ground to be heard by those of you who have ventured to de- nounce and treat me as a heretick. When once a man falls under the imputation of /iere^y, however unjustly it may be, an unfavourable construction will be given to whatever he may say or do. But I cannot believe that you have all concurred in this imputation. I have had reason to think that very dilTerent feelings have been indulged by dif- ferent persons; and that those who have exani'nicd most patiently have judged mosi favonrahb/. What has been said on the subject of reviling is by no 25 38 means (o be applied indiscriminately to all ; nor to be limited to those of your denomination. It is the vice itselt which I wish to bring into contempt^ and not the persons who are guilty. It has long ap- peared to me, that this 'oice forms the most general and the most intolerable blemish in the character of professed christians. Nor is it, in my view, possible, that either ministers or churches should, in the scriptural sense, "shine as lights in the world," whde this vice is by them indulged. If they shine at all, their light will not be like the mild, vivifying and comforting shining of the sun ; but it will more resemble that of vindictive light- nings, accompanied with ttrrifick thunders. This vice has long stood as a bulwark in the way of free inquiry, respecting the truth of popular opinions : it excites such an "awe" in the minds of people, that the greater part but half inquire, or forbear any inquiry at all. Before I published any thing on the subject of the Trinity, a learned, ingenious and pious friend, having heard that I had engaged in the inquiry, felt great concern about the issue ; he kindly cautioned me against speculating much on the subject, and to enforce his caution mention- ed, that most of the men of great talents, who had allowed themselves in speculations of this kind, had finally given up the great ^''fundamental doc- trine,'''' This 1 have mentioned to illustrate the fear and terror with which even joiow5 and /earMec? men look at any thing which relates to an inquiry into the truth of the popular doctrine. But, in my opinion, the very reason he kindly gave against pursuing my inq»iiries should be considered as a reason for inquiry. If most men of great talents who have allowed themselves to examine, have seen reason to give up the doctrine, we may pret- 39 ty naturally infer a probability, that those men of great talents who have not c^iven up the doctrine, h^we neglected ?i thorough examination; and that this neglect is the real reason wh^ theij^ also, have not renounced it as well as those who have exam- ined. Those who have examined thoroughly, arq likely to be in the best situation to ju'lge': and, in ordinary cases, a man's possessing '•' great talcnls" is not a very weighty reason why the result of his inquiries should he disregarded. From the caution given by my friend 1 think it may be pretty safely inferred, that he had not al- lowed himself to examine the subject very closely ; and, that he was deterred from so doing through fear of the result. I did not however understand him as supposing that there were men of greater talents among those who had given up the doctrine, than among those who had not. Nor do I suppose any such thing. Yet I believe he would have been correct in staling that most of those of great talents, and even of moderate talents, who had allowed themselves to go into a thorough examination of the subject, have given up the doctrine ; and this I suspect will ever be the case ; and, that the only way for a person to persevere in a belief of the doctrine is, to forbear any thoroygh examination. When you represent this doctrine as essential ov fundamental, I conclude your meaning is that a belief in this doctrine is essential o salvation. But if ihis doctrine be thus essential, why was it not thus stated in the preaching of Christ and his apos- tles ? What has become of all the pious Jews who died before the coming of the Messiah '? They had no idea that their God was three persons. What has become of the multitude of pious, ignorant christians, who have died since the doctrine was 40 admitted in the church, and who had no idea of what was intended by the terms ? Are you aware that a very great part of ihe pious people, even in your own churches, are as ignorant of the meaning of the proposition as though they never had seen Or heard it expressed ? Are you aware that, not- withstanding a ii the pains you have taken, by far the greater part of your own hearers do really con- sider Jesus Christ as a being properly distinct from God, yea, as distinct as any son is distinct from his father ? Whether you are aware of this or not, it is believed to be in fact the case. And this belief is founded on the result of inquiries of pri- vate christians who had always lived under the preaching of Trinitarians. Inquiries having been made of many such persons of the most unques- tionable piety, and very respectable in point of talents, who have said they nerer/i«c? any other idea of Christ than that which I have published, that they never had a thought that he was the self-exist- ent God. or the same Being as the father ; but they ever supposed that he was properly God's Son, And it is believed that the censures which have been passed on my views, are censures of the views of a very great part of the pious christians in this land. How could it be otherwise ? No sooner are the children of pious parents able to speak in- telligibly, than they are taught to say, and to be- lieve, that " Jesus Christ is the Son of God." They grow up with this idea : their reading in the scriptures serves to confirm it, and so does a great part ihey hear from the pulpit, both in prayer and preachiyig. And every analogy with which they ever become acquainted leads them to consider the Son of God as a being distinct from his Father. When they hear ministers preach on the doctrines. 41 that God is three persons, and that Christ is the same Being as God the Father, they may give a kind of assent that, in some unknown sense^ what the preacher says may be true; but all this does not eradicate from their minds the early impression of Father and Son, To make common people believe, that a Father and his own Son are really the same individual Being is no easy task. But it is not so difficult for you to make them believe that a brother in (he ministry has published a very wicked doc- trine, although it may be the same that they al- ways have believed, and do still believe. Not a small number have been greatly alarmed by the outcry of Trinitarian ministers in respect to what I have published, who, when they came to know the truth respecting what was written, have been surprised to find that they had always believed the same doctrine. And it is supposed that many thousands more will yet be surprised in the same manner; unless you shall have influence enough to prevent their reading for themselves. Should you severally make, to your respective churches and societies, a fair and honest statement of the views I have published, without any intimation whose views they are, or whether you approve or disapprove ; then inquire of each adult person whether such had been his or her views of God and Jesus Christ ; it is believed that you would find a very great number of such hercticks as I am, in your own enclosures. Andt hese hereticks would perhaps be able to tell you, that they had suppos- ed from your own prayers and preaching that you believed the same things. In bringing this long address to a close, permit me, my fathers and brethren, to observe, that the time is rapidly approaching, when you and your 25^ 42 reproached brother must meet at the tribunal of Him whose character has been the great vSubject of debate. He knows how many days and nights, months and years, I have spent in serious inquiry respecting his character, the character of the one God and his Spirit, He knows the motives by which I have been governed, and the temper with which I have pursued my inquiries. If I have been prompted by pride ^ vanity^ or love of novelty^ or any base motive^ it will be made to appear, and will meet deserved dis-^ppi obation. On the other hand, he has been acquainted with your treatment of the ^i/ijVc/, and with your treatment of me. If you have bestowed on the subjpct that decree of impartial attention which its importance demands^ this will be clearly shown. If you have treated wie, and my character^ with that tenderness which his laws and his example require, this will appear to your advantage, and, I hope, to my great satis- faction. But if any of you have censured me rash- ly, judging me prior to any proper examination, or have impeached my motives without ariy evidence of my guilt, and endeavoured to prepossess the minds of others against me by revilings, or by misrepresentations of my views ; for these things it is my prayer that you may obtain forgiveness. Although I cannot but sensibly feel the injury done to my character, by what I conceive to be improper conduct on the part of some of my fathers and breth- ren, 1 do not find the least desire in my heart that any evil should be recompensed to those, by whose conduct my character is suffering. I wish them no evil in the present, or the coming world. My eonscience bears me wi:ness, that 1 have made it an object of my study and care to avoid giving of- fbnce to my brethren, and to forbear wounding ob- 43 servations ; yet in some instances I have doubtless been faulty. I have some knowledge of my nat- ural temper and liability to go astray ; and yon will not doubt that I have had considerable to bear while under the disfDlnasure of such a numt^rous host. But for every wounding or improper remark which has proceeded from me, I ask forgiveness, to whomsoever it may have been made. No pro- vocation whatever can justify me in doing wrong. 1 hope I have not been unmindful of tlie hand of God in the trinl I have endured. I needed afflic- tion, and, 1 think, that it has not been altogether unprofitable tome. Still heavier trials may be in reserve; but Go J is all sufficietjt. To html would com nit my cau^e. It has not been uncommon, that those, who have dissented from you in opinion, have been represented as very indifferent in res- pect to dhctrinal sentiments ; as though they view- ed it a matter of no consequence what a man be- lieves. But whatever may have been your appre- hensions, this is not the case with me. Had it been so, I think I should not have spent so much time to obtain satisfactory views for myself of God and his Son. I hope, however, 1 shall never have such a kind of zeal in favour of my own views as to become indifferent in respect to the temper with which I attempt to propagate and defend ihem. For it is seriously my belief that a temper of heart conformed to the temper of Christ is of far greater importance, than ani/ particular senti- ment in respect to his person and dignity, Ameek, humble and benevolent temper may, 1 think, be pos- sessed by persons who have very incorrect views of the character of God, and of Christ. It is on this principle, that i have comfort in believing that many of you are the real children of God. If I 44 were in the habit of believing that correctness of sentiment^ \n respect to the person and dignity of Christ, must necessarily be implied in the charac- ter of a true christian, I could have no hope of any one of you, or of those who agree with you in sentiment. For some of your sentiments appear to me as foreign from the gospel as light is from darkness. There is, however, another sentiment which seems to be entertained by some of you, which is much more difficult for me to reconcile to the christian character than your views of the Trinity : viz. that sentiment by which they feel authorized to limit their charity to such as agree with them in opinion, and to denounce others as hereticks. This sentiment has the appearance of originating in the heart, and of involving such /eeZ- ings and affections as are directly contrary to that humility, meekness and benevolence, without \<^hich we are nothing. Yet, when 1 feel perplexed in view of this sentiment, and its effects, I turn my eyes immrd and contemplate my own imperfections ; 1 look around on others for whom 1 cannot but en- tertain charity, and see imperfections in them ; I meditate on the amazing influence of education in the various parts of the world ; particularly on the almost unconquerable prepossessions of the apostles znd pious Jews respecting the nature of Christ's kingdom; on the views and feelings of James and John, when they would have called fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans, who had treat- ed their Master in a disrespectful manner ; and I call to mind the former days in which we took sweet counsel together, and the evidences I then had of your piety. By such means 1 am enabled to sur- mount many difficulties, and still entertain a favour- able opinion of your piety in general, and am sav- 45 • ed from a disposition to denounce even those who have denounced me. But sometimes conscience whispers to me thus, " If you can entertain a favourable opinion of men who believe doctrines which appear to you so con- trary to the Bible, as that the self-existent holy ONE is three distinct persons, and the Son who was sent and the God who serit him the same indi-- vidua! Being: and not only so, but entertain a principle of conduct which appears to you so re- pugnant to the nature of humility and ihe feelings of benevolence ; yea, while, on this very principle, they have done things which have tended to the utter ruin of your own character ?.c, a minisier, who is to be excluded from your charity on the ground of mere errour in sentiment P To this demand of con- science, 1 have to answer in the vulgar style, *' / donU know*^'' I find I need some acquaintance with ihe general disposition and conduct oUi\ en ^ be- fore I can properly estimate ihe'w moral characters, I feel happy in the thought that I had acquaintance with many of you, before I fell under your displea- sure. From this circumstance I am led toappre- he»id, that if I had more acquaintance with men who differ from us both, I should find still more sources of joy. The more good people I find in the world, the more numerous are the sources of my own comfort. While I entertain the pleasing hope of enjoying your fellowship in a better world, I am also com- forted with the belief that many others of different denominations, whose piety may have been buried from our view, by our own prepossessions, will al- so unite with us in a-icriptions of praise to God and the Lamb for ever and ever. APPENDIX TO THE ADDRESS. A PRUDENT and faithful friend, who saw the ad- dress in manuscript, has suggested to me, that not- withstanding all I have said^ or meant, to the con- trary, it will, probably, be thought by some, that I am in favour of that kind of Catholicism which em- braces all, as real christians, who profess to be such ; and which countenances sentiments of immor- al tendency, Sind p7'actices inconsistent with unfeigned piety. Nothing, however, could be farther from my heart than such a kind of Catholicism. The Catholicism for which 1 plead, embraces as chris- tians, all who give evidence that they possess the humble, benevolent, peaceable, and forgiving spirit of Christ, whatever varieties there may be in their speculative opinions. As it is this temper which is above every thing else in men,, pleasing in the sight of God ; this, above every thing elsf^, should be regarded as essential to the pious character. He who loves Christ will keep his com.mandments, and regard his example; of course, he will be op- posed to sentiments which license, or justify^ irre- ligious conduct. It is, however, my opinion that, in the present state, the best of men are liable to imperfections in sentiment, in temper, and in practice, I'he remarks towards the close of the "address'' were designed strongly to express the convictions of my own mind, that^wcA imperfections are to be found in my Trinitarian brethren, as well as in professors of ©ther denominations. 47 No farther than wc manifest the temper of Christ, in our opposition to what we esteem to be errour, do we manifest love to him. Certainly, if we have the love <*f Christ reigning in our hearts, we sh.jll feel tenderly towards surh as we view in dangerous errours ; and instead of adopting measures which tend to destroy them, we shall adopt such as tend to their conviction and recovery. Would Christ have Inid down his life for us, with such feelings as people indulge in reviling one anoiher ? Let couscienre answer the question. But if we have not the s{)ijit of Christ we are none of his, whether we are Trinitarians or Unitarians; and if we have his spirit we are his^ hy whatever name we may be caileiJ. It has not been uncommon with sojue Trinitarians to accuse other denominations, of hold- ing sentiments of a loose and immoral tendency, I do not know that the accusation is not just. But would it not be proper for those who state the ac- cusation to inquire whether they themselves are free from such sentiments ? What is immorality^ if reviling be not of that description ? And if indis- criminate and reproached denunciations, against ail who dissent from the doctrine of three persons in one God, be not of the nature of rei;i/i/?^, will it not be in vain to look for any thiiig in the conduct of mankind deserving of that name? Yet I have ex- pressed my charity for some who have been occa- sionally guilty of such improper conduct. But why ? Not because I do not view such conduct as contrary to the nature of piety and Christianity ; but because I believe they have habitually in them something better than what they manifest on such occasions. If Doctor Campbell be correct in his investiga- tion of the sciipLural meaning of the term heresy. 4« there is, perhaps, no sentiment which is more of an heretical nature than that which licenses people to reject and denounce all such as dissent from their opinions. Th^ Doctor has shown, that the word originally signified sect ov party without any reter- ence to sentiment whether good or had. He has examined in an able manner, the several passages of scripture in which the word heresy is found ; and has shown that when any blame is attached to the word it always implies a spirit of dissentioyi^ or a disposition to make divisions or form sects to the in- jury of the comnion good. Thus he writes : — "The word a/ffc-;?, heresy, in scriptural use, has no necessary connection with opinion at all. Its immediate connection is with division or dissention, as is that whereby sects and parties are found. — At^eTixoi uvS^aTTog {{he man that is an heretick) must therefore mean one who is the founder of a sect, or, at least, has the disposition to create sects in the com- munity ; and may properly be rendered 'a factious man. This version perfectly coincides with the scope of the place, and suits the uniform import ol the term ui^eTig^ heresy, from which it is derived. The ad- monition here given to Titus is the same, though difft rently expressed, with what he had given to the Romans when he sSiid, Mark them which cause divisions, make parties or frictions, and avoid them. As far down, indeed, as the filth century, and even lower, erronr alone, however ^ross, was not consid- ered as sufficient to warrant the charge of heresy. Malignity ovperverseness of disposition Vf as held es- sential to this crime." The Doctor closes this dissertation with these words : — " 1 shall conclude with adding to the ob- servations on the words schism and heresy^ that how much soever of a schismatical or heretical spirit^ in 49 the apostolick sense of the terms, may have contri- buted to the formation of the different sects into which the christian world is at present divided, no person who in the spirit of candour and charity ad- heres to that which, to the best of his judgment, is right, though in thi-i opinion he should he mistaken, is, in the scripture sense either schismatick or here- tick ; and that he, on the contrary, whatever sect he belong to, is more entitled to these odious appella- tions who is most apt to throw the imputation up- on others. Both terms, for they denote only dif- ferent degrees of the same bad quality, always in- dicate a disposition 7\nd practice unfriendly to /?f ace, harmony and /oi'e."* These quotations have not been made with any desire to tix on my brethren the infamous charge of Aere^^ ; but to give all who may read these pages opportunity to judge for themselves, whether I am more liable to such a charge than those who have been fond of treating me as an heretick. Heresy^ in the sense given by Dr. Camp- bell, is a thing of which ministers and churches may be competent judges ; and it is, in my opinion, a much greater evil than any mere errour in opinion. If any of my brethren wish me to be tried on an ac- cusation oi heresy^ in the scriptural sense of the term, let the process he regular, and I will not shun the trial ; and if I shall be found guilty, let me be regularly excluded. But I would entreat my brethren to be careful that they be not guilty of heresy through anxiety to have me viewed as a heretick. Lest it should still be thought that I do not suffi- ciently {ee\ the importance q{ right sentiments in re* * See Piel. Dissertations, Vol. II. p. 141. 26 50 ligion, suffer me further to observe that, in my opin- ion, a man ran give no 6e/fer evidence thathe/ec/5- the importance of right sentiments^ than that of lying open to conviction, and faithfully and thoroughly examining, and correcting his own 0!)ininns by the light of revelaion ; and doing ail in his power to communicate light to others. In what de^rree I have given this kind of evidence that I am not indif" ferent as to religious sentiments, God will deter- mine. If this be not as good evidence of a sacred regard to truths as a pertinacious adherence to " tradition, received from the fathers," without any impartial examination as to their correctness, then I have failed of giving the best evidence that I am not indifferent as to religious opinions. As to that kind of evidence of res,ard to truth, which some give by hitter^ censorious and reproachful conduct towards such as dissent from their opinions, it is, in my view, of the most questionable natvre ; is as often displayed in favour of falsehood as of truth j and it is no part of the evidence which I wish to have set to my account. For it is my firm belief, that that kind of attack raent to any opinion, which disposes us to violate the laios of love can never be approved by God. iH: