Xk OF THE WORKS OF CERTAIN AUTHORS WHO HAVB wniTTEN IN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OP THE turnlx^ 0f ^kxmt^ NAMELY THE REV. RICHARD TREFFRY AND OTHERS. BY THOMAS BJACK But the Father which sent me, he gave me 'i commaiulment, what I should sav, and what I sh(»iild speak, even as the Father said unto me sf> I speak. — Jon llJ, 49, 50. For I have |/iven them the words' wich thou gavest me, and they have rect-ived them. — John 17. S Search the scriptures for in them ye tliink ye have eternal lile,and they are they which testify of me. — John .5,39. But 1 will show thee thai wliich is noted in the scriptures of truth.— Dan. 10, 21. If any man shall add i»uto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Hook, and if any man shall take away from the words of thti hook of this prophecy, God s^^iail lake away his pirt out of the book ot life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.— ilev. 22, lb, lU. J). Crew, Liiw and Municipul Priulcr, Bar' ir -■■-.•: ^ •5? foli^ 0' «•.-' " 'f Itrr ■^6 *tUrJ"H.'- »«'f **^ rl^^i-*^ ^#' ^^"c^:j^|i.^^. **^' ■..»! ■ ■■♦■ » i'" J ''tV 11 luvi %m!*"^.''- !► 4'"s -i ' r\ „f.,.^ A, « A CUES0ET RBVIBW OF THE WORKS OF CERTAIN AUTHORS WHO HAVB WRITTBN IN DKF£NCB OK THE DOCTRINB OF THI 0nship 0f ^hrmt^ NAMELY THE REV. RICHARD TREFFRY AND OTHERS. BY THOMAS BJ.ACK Bii the Father which sent me, he gave me i commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak, even as the Father Sfaid unto me so I speak. — Jon 12, 49, 50. . For I have given them the words wich thou gavest me, and they have received them. — John 17. 8 Search the scriptures for in them ye think ye have etersaf life, and they are they which testify of me. — John 5, 39. But I will show thee that which is noted in the scriptures of truth.— Dan. 10, 21. If £ny man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Hook, and if any man shall take away from the words of the liook of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of tte holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.— 'Rev. 22, 18, 19. D. Crew, Law and Municipal Printer, Barrie i-ii- PREFACIi:. The 8ubj trine of the Bible t-r an Anti- Christian heresy. Man of comparative limited education, who have not M.A. or D.D. to their name, are by a great many considered incap- able of taking up the question in theology, where the most profund linguists disugrije on Bible doctrines. We think this is a great mistake. For when the question is confined to scrip- ture doctrines, we think we have equal advantages lor two reasonf. Fir»t — While we give credit te the profound scholar for honesty and capability to translate the original language into our varnacular tongue, we have a right to believe that we may know as well in our own tongue what scripture language implies, as he does who translated it. And secondly — The man possessed of common sense under the influence of Divine Grace, is as capable, ou the principle of his accountability to God, of knowing what God says, when it is given to him in his own language, as if he wasahle to read the command in all the difTe/^ent languages ip the world. The sole difficulty that exists between the comba'auts that have taken the platform ou this subject consists in the different views taken of the pre-existeiit Divine nature of Christ. Let it be observed here, once for all, that the author gives credit to the polemic theologians for unimpeachable piety and learning, and whatever leads to their difference of opinion, it cannot be attributed to the lore ol error or their lack of true piety to God. A good man may hold a wrong opinion owing to the prejudice of early education; entertaining an undue re- spect for ancestral instruction, and an unjustifiable neglect of •cripturai investigation in reference to the disputed point. Is It not high time now in the 19th Century, that believers in the Bible were of one mind as to who is the true Son of God, The superficial thinker may have failed to discover the discre- pancy existing on this point between profound theologians. They who entertain the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship, be- lieve and teach that the pre-existent Divine nature of Christ was produc'd by generation in the eternal Godhead, and on that account the Divine nature of Christ should be called the external Son of God. The opposite class believe and teach that there is no Eternal Son exhibited iu the scriptiire&, but merely the Son of God, a Virgin Son, by whom God redeemed the world. . .. » ' ' ; >** » As this y»»s ft dlipate^ point from the first ngn of Christianity, we believe that Ihe theologians who write in its favour can give a true digest ot the doctrine in question as they be- lieve it, and we are therefore warrantable in believing that they mean what they «ay. A caraful consideration of the varions points raised by the defenders of the doctrine in question, has induced the writer to take a re-survey of the arguments produced in favor of the doctrine in question, which has resulted in a satisfictory con- viction that the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ isnot a doctrine of the Bible, but lather an injurious heresy ; and he ventures to believe that on those points upon which the difler- ences are irreconcilable, he has not been betrayed into a tone which is unworthy the respect due to the frankest candour, and he also believes that the defenders of the doctrine in question have looked at it from a traditional 8tand|>oint,and have reached an untenable conclusion. *' ^ *' ^y !; ,!r; ;,;.,, jsui* Therefore, that we may do justice to them from whom we dissent, and set the doctrine as entertained by them in as clear u light as their own words are capable of doing. We take the liberty of presenting a cursory review of the work of the l^ev. Richard Treffry on this subject, and may touch at other authors whose authority he claims as we pass along. Our mode of procedure kliall be conducted by deducting quo- tations from the writings o( such authors, for which we givo them credit for beleiving what they write, and shall insert the replv their sentiments call forth as a contrast, which the pious Bible Student may examine foi his cwn satisfaction, and choose for himself. It would be a task as useless as it would be tedious for me to take up every idea that Treffry advances in favor of hisscheme, contained in his book from page to \tage ; but we shall content ourselves in taking his princifial ideas asgiveu in his own words inters|)ersed on whatsoever page. The edition of Rev. Richard Treffry^s work from which we quote ^ was 'published by John Mason y 14 . Cityroad, London, and sold 66 ^ Paternoster' Row, '.1837. . V.,,. -- i-.v.. ,. ..... -. <^11A1 lh.K, 1. ,i, ,^,,,^,,^ i.r...ti uV^H. HIS MENTAL EXERCISE IN COMMENCING THIS WORK. > '« ^ The piety and learning of the Rev. Mr. Treffry is prwise* worthy, and is indisputaUly admitted in all the Churches, and his judgment and explanation relative to the doctrine in qiies- tiod, is bowed to by many of his compeers, as proper authority for their implicit reception of the doctrine in q^ue8tion,to which we take exception. , ^r. , ,/ , ' ' .. He tells us in his preface *< that his undertaking originated in no silly conceit of his capabilities — for he calls no man mas- ter; butinadeeply painful process of scepiical reasoning, which at one time led as near as possible to the rejection of I he doctrine in question, but the thought of being a! variance with the Church of God at large, was lo him a strong presumtive of error. It was a great thing to have against him the traditional voice of 18 Centuries." He here submits to be governed by tradition, and it is worthy of remark that it is from traditional sources he gleans the terms and phrases on which to base the doctrine in que»t«on; for the terms on which it is based are not found inside the Bible, name- ly : — Eiernal Father, Eternal Son, Three Pei&ons, Trinity, Divine Generation, Triune God. These terms arise out of, and are dependent on each other. These are sought for outiiide the Biblo, in tradition, which he so much admires. uiuiu umu It is very observable that though he calls no man master, yet he very much regrets that he has so few teachers in refer- ence to the doctrine in question. In his preface he thus laments, '* That he has but some half dozen polemic pamphlets on the subject, which almost anticipated an objection to the pre- sent underiaking, which pamphlets are not sufhciently ample, critical and comprehensive, r.nd have not secured to themselves the permanent interest which either the subject or their argu- ments merited." So he rejects the capability of all authors who wrote before him, whose writings he had recourse to, as not having proved the point in band, which he says on page 9 of his pre- face," is evidently still a blank in our theological literature." It appears from this, that in his judgment the doctrine in ques- tion was never yet proved to be true, so he now ofiers his ser- vices to fill up this blank, which he says is evidently still dis- coverable in our theological literature, and to accomplish this he writes 500 pages to prove (as he thinks) that the pre-existent Divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, was produced by Gene- ration in the Eternal God-head, and as such is worthy the name Eternal Son of God. We utiderstatid that Mr. TreS'ry isheid in a champion light by many u( his Ministerial readers, and that ha is considarad by sume of them to have silenced the controversy which arose on this subject heiweon ])r. Adam Clark and same influential members oi (he British Conference, who regarded all those who entertained Dr. Clark^s opinion, as being unfit to preach the everlasting Gospel of the Grace «/f God to the redeemed race. Notwithstanding it is written *' let him that hearettisay come.'' Jn confirinafion of which opinion the fJritish Coriference pass- ed an unprecedented test act on this point, and if carried out, no candidate for the Methodist Ministry will bo taken into the British Conference who does not implicitly believe in the doc- trine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ. And it appears that the adherenisio the doctrine in question congratulate themselves ur der the bnllwarks of the test act, and rest passive, ae if they had nothing to do with the subject but teach its truthfulness as demonstrated by Treffry and others. Bui it is to be seen that Jesus speaks to every man who has the Bible. *' What think ye of Christ, whose son is he?''"' Under the iniiHtei's authority we enter into this eiujuiiy in oljedi- ence to his command, where he saith, "search the scrij^tures, for they are they which testify of lue," (truly.) The doctiine that has not its foundation in the scrii)tures, and is not supjioi-tt-d by tlius suith the Lord, iss classtied by insjiirution as doctrines of devils, doctrines of vanities, doctrines of men. In vain do they worship we, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men. We should be careful that tha doctrines we embrace ha^ e the Holy Hcnptures for their foundation, for all scripture is given by inspiration of God, anil is pr<;litable fof doctrine, for rej)ro<->f, for con-ection, for instruction in righteousn«5ss. That the man of God may be per- fect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Tim. 3, 16, 17. Scripture doctrine truthfully })reaclied tends to save the preach* r and those who hear him, 1 Tim. 4, 10. False doctrine cannot profit. Impressed with the necessity of great cauticm from the al>ove considerations, we would now tiike a cursory review of Mr. Treiiiy's work above referred U), as his })ublished opinions may be consid(;red as public propei-ty, we, therefore, have a right to examine what they are worth on this subject, which stands an ojjen question. CHAPTEK II. HE ACKNOWLEDGES HIS INCAPADILITY TO EXAMINE THE DOCTRINE IN (QUESTION. On page 13, of his iKujk, h(; makes the ff>llowing acknowledg- ments, " of all the subjects which Ijelong to this remote and inap])reciable class, the nature of God is the most eminent and most inscrutable. It is not enough to characterize our faculties as feeble, we are absolutely without the faculty by which tliis lofty subject can be realized, and hence are as incapable of inde- pendent reasoning as is a man destitute; of some bodily sense re- r. Bpeoting the objectH with which that sonHc i« converRAiit." Again on page 456, he quot«rt from Novatiau, and indorses the sentimf^nt by inserting it in his Jwok, asserting man's incapabilitifs as above referred tof>, as follows : — "The secrets of the Sacred and Divine nativity (tf the word, neither AjM)«tl(! teacheth, nor Pro[)het disco vereth, nor Angel knoweth, nor any creature unilei-standeth," Now if Treffry was )iot in some sense thologically insane, would he have moved one step fui-ther in his enterprise, God having con- vinced him that he had not the facidty to t^mch or t<'ach the snU ject more than he coiihl lay his hand on the moon. Now, if according torat- ing the subject according U) the above rules, resulted in his own conviction, for it seems he was determined to believe it, though scripture was silent on it, and all God's intelligences knew nothing about it, " and he being as incapable of indej»endent reasoning as is a man dentitiitf? <»f wmu; bodily sense respecting the objects with whicli tliat sfnise is conversant," Does he not in the above, seem U) charge God with unjustitiahhi concealment of the process oi" l>iviue generation, and an Eternal Hon produced, in his act of supplying what may be called God's lack of service, by attempting to exhibit the secret by adding the tenn eternal, to the term Son of God. Jm not this worse than works of suf)ererogation ] Does it not savour of adding to God's word t Is it not at least show- ing disrespect to the teachings of the Divine lawgiver, where he says, " But they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered lest they die. Numl)ers 4, 20. Should not the judg- ment that fell ujKni Uzza for his forbidden care of the trembling Ark, teach GhrLsti;ins to j>ay due respect to the prohibitions of the Divine l^awgiver," jis in Dent, 21), 29. "The secret things belong imto the Lord our God, but these things which are revealed belong unto UH and unto our children forever." The silence of the scrip- tures {US a teiudier of hi* theory he further acknowledges on page 14, i\n follows : — •* Hence, however, diligently or devotedly we may avail ourselves of scripture instruction. The Divine nature will still remain shrouded in mystery, or rather in light which no man can apjjroach unto," He acknowledged on page 13, that he had no grounds tf> use indej)endenl reasoning, and y(;t he acted perfectly contrary to this conviction, as we leani from himself on page nine of his ju-eface. That he reasoned himself into the belief in the absence of human faculty and scripture guidance, that he found out all aljout Divine generation, what Angels, Pro{)het8, nor Apostles, nor any other- creature knew anything about, nor had the faculty to examine or undei-stand. He says on page nine, "Thus -^^as the pn^sent work originated; sliould it fall into the hands of any one in like circumstances he will find in it what its author was compelled to elaiwrate for himself, l)ut what eventually proved perfectly ade- quate to his own conviction." The course of independent rea«oning which Tiefiry entei-s into which f)roved j)erfectly adequate to his own conviction, is to be seen on i)age 1'6 of his book, where he attempts to illustrate the reason- ableness of Divine generation, and thinks he made it clear by an iittempt to give a blind man an idea of the nature and relations of light and colors, " He, the blind man, is told for example that light is colorless ; but, nevertheless, by the most satisfactory experi- ments it is proved to be composed of seven colours." Now what does this mode of independent reasoning amount to ? Why, that his theorv is as hard to be \inderstood as for a blind man to under- stand that light has in it seven coloi-s. Such is the metaphysical reasoning he has used to lefid himself into the belief that though he has no faculty to understand the subject, yet he has found out to his own satisfaction what neither Angels nor man knew anything al>out, and says to this amomit that its truthfulness is as easy under- stood as for a blind man to understand that light has in it seven colors. Is not the above mode of reasoning one way of teaching false- hood, for a man to tell us all about what he confessedly knew nothing at all about 1 Where is the thoughtful Bible Student that could be Treffry's pupil on these grounds. We think those that glory in Treffry as theii- authority for receiving this doctrine, must be thoughtlessly credulous. This is one illustration that he uses in tilling up the blank in our theological literature, by which he pre- tends to have demonstrated that there is Divine generation in the Eternal Godhead, and iis the result an Eternal Son produced. How could Tretliy or his pupils think that that 8oul-sa\ing name Son of God, which is the only name given under heaven amongst men by which we must be saved ? Faith in what name, is sold saving, or unbelief in what name is sotd damning? That in refer- ence to a light knowleages of metaphysical reasoning of a gigantic mind, wielding all the art of classic metaphysics which is tit to mistifiy the mind of the common y)eople, as on page 13 already re- ferred to, where he presses his aiguments so for}>idding to the com- mon sense preception of the unlearned, attempting to give a blind man an idea of the nature and relation of light and colors, '* The blind man for example is told that light is colorless, but that never- theless by the most satisfactory experiments it is proved to be com- posed of seven colors." Now here is an example which he felt he had need of using to mystify j)lain scripture teachings, and appears thereby to supei-sede that complete scripture name. Son of God, and to make way by artful cunning, that leads to the admission of the name Eternal Son of God. According to his own showing it is as easy for a blind man to understand that light has in it seven colors as for the redeemed race to understand what the term Eter- nal Son means — the one is as admissable as the other. Is there no danger here of worshi[)ping we know not what? The man convinced according to his above acknowledgments of his own incapabilities, not having the faculty to deal with the sub- ject, and the utter silence of the sciiptures on the subject, and yet leap desperately into the regions of past and unrevealed Eternity, as he tries to do on page 390. " The Father as God btigets ; the Son as God is begotten ; the Holy Ghost as Gotl proceeds. Does he not deny truthfulness to God's Prophet?" Isaiah 43, 10, 11. " Before me there was no God formed neither shall there be ajter me ; I, even I am the L/rrd and besides me there is no Saviour f Is it not like a refusal on his part to be guided by the scriptures, which alone teach the true knowledge of God. " Search the scriptures, saith Jesus — and they are they which testify of me," (truly). " Vain man would be wise." " Canst thou by searching find out God V "Canst thou tind out the Almighty to j>erfection ]" " It is as high as Heaven what canst thou do?" "Deeper than hell, what canst thou know ?" but what God's word i-eveals, God's word reveals to us the different incommunicable attributes of the Godhead, such as his eternity and immutability, indej)endence, self- existence, oraniprasence, omnipotence, omniscience, «fec,, d, a few of which are re- ferred to above ; and to sf)eak witli reverence God cannot divest himself of them, nor can he communicate these attributes io an- other. There can be but one such being in the universe'? "To us there is but one God, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus," " and this is life eternal to know thee the ONLY TRUE GoD, and Jesus Christ whom thou has't sent." CHAPTER IV. «,?>..^ . .* >.^^^..^^ , PROPER DIVINITY. It takes all the fullness of the Godliead bodily to possess the man Christ Jesus with jjroj>er Divinity. Cal. 2, L>. " For in Him dwelleth all i-he fullness ^of the Godhead V>odily." The doctrine in question denies him this ? It gives to the pre-existent Divine nature of Christ, but the one-third of the Godhead, which is con- trary t^) scripture teachings. The doctrine teaches that the God- head was metamorphised, or transformed into personality, or three subsistences, the lirst of which existed as a unity, the second was produced by generation, and the third was produced by the united effort of the tirst and second persons, or subsistences of the God- head, and the second has got the name of the Eternal Son, This is the only subsistence which the doctrine gives to the man Christ Jesus as his Divine nature. According to the explanations of its defenders there are two other subsistencies denied to him, name- ly, " the Father and the Holy Spirit," According to the princi- ples of the doctrine in question ; for the exi)ouders of the doctiine say that he left the bosom of the Father, and was sent down from Heaven to die to redeem the race, and that the divine nature thus given to Christ was not self-existent, but was originated in the Godhead by generation. So proper Divinity is denied to him by the doctrine in question, by not giving to the Divine nature of Christ the attributes of eternity, self-existence and independence. This virtually denies the union of pi-oper Divinity and [>roper humanity in the complex character of our Lord Jesus Christ. The convictions that rested on Treffry's mind when contemplat- ing the writing of his book, to which he refers in hLs preface, " which led him as near as possible to the rejection of the doctrine in question," which was the effect of Divine light. This follow- ed him through every stage of his book, so that he could not sup- press its appearance as a standing doubt remaining on his mind of the truthfulness of the doctrine he was defending. This doubt makes its appearance on page 1 54 of his book. He has got no further yet than an if. He says, " In the Divine essence, there- fore, there may bean emaiiant generation — andemanant it is if it exists at all. Now for him to assert elsewhere that it does exist, is it anything less than irreconcilable discrepancy, for all who exjiound the doctrine agree that the Divine essence csmnot be divided. On page 252, while standing on the sandy foundati^)n of a con- jectural if, he says, " here then we take our stand 1 Either the epithet before us describes our Lord's Divine relation to the Father, or his own statements and those of the Evangelists'are untrue." To this may we not say the devil dare not call Christ a liar but through human lips, O, may God save us from bowing down to Kimmon in obedience to tradition ] 10 CHAPTER V. THE PROBABLE ORIGIN OP THE DOCTRINE IN QUESTION, ' J From all we can gather fix»ia the scriptures we conclude that the doctrine in question originated among the Jews about 738 yeai"8 before Christ came : in the lifetime of Isaiah the Prophet, whom the Lord employed to speak forth the promise of a coming Saviour in a clearer manner than it was ever spoken before. For now the promise as spoken by Isaiah clearly implied the complex character of the coming Saviour, perfect humanity, .and perfect Divinity, hypostatically united in our glorious Saviour. This is to be seen in Isaiah 7, 14. " Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel, which is, God with us." And also in the 9th, 6, 7 of Isaiah — " For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the Grovemment shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Councillor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his Government and peace there shaU be no end ; upon the throne of David, and upon his Kingdom, to order i^ and to establish it with judgment and with justice, from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this," This was the cleaveat promise uttered to this time of a coming Saviour, to be possessed of Human and Divine natures, as his complex character. It appears that the Jews became elate^l looking at the promise, and it seems as if they have flattered themselves that the promise was spoken in the present tense, and that it was not wrapped in Prophetic Mystery, and that they could see right through it, and explain it in the following way : — " Unto us a child is bom," Where is he 1 "Unto us a Son is given," He is wonderful ! There is the Everlasting Father in the promise, and the Mighty God in the promise. The Son bora, the Son given, must be a produc- tion of the Everlasting Fathar, in the Eternal Godhead, an ever- lasting or an Eternal S;>a, When he appears he will be wonder- ful. The Government on his shoulder. He will rule the nations. He will restore the Kingdom tf> Israel, He will be all that is de- sirable. The Everlasting Father, therefore, must have an Eternal Son which now exists in the Etaraal Godhead. He will change times and laws all in our favor. His Gtxl-like power and appear- ance will subdue all opposition. We look for him as the desire of the nation. Come, then, conquer ! We hail thine appearing ! Hence they were looking for the wonderful one. Thus, in all pro- bability they construed the promise into an Eternal Son, origi- nated by Divine generation in some way in the Eternal Grodhead. Their conduct toward Christ in after yeai-s seems to be proof that the above principle governed them. What other could prompt them to say and do to the blessed Jesus what they did but a mistaken notion of the coming Mesiah, as to the glory, the splendour and powerful Majesty, and Godlike aj>pearance he should appear in as the Eternal Son of God ; hence, when the true Son of God did come, he was the very opposite of what they lookefl for. It a{>pears the prejudice of error when deeply seated has neither eyea nor eaira ; for God in mercy endeavoured to undeceive them by the very Prophet that wrote the promi.se which they misconstrued, as above noticed, and explained to them their mistake, and showed them that the Mesiah, when he would come, would be the opposite in human appearance to what thtjy expected. In the 53 Chapter he thus describes the true Mesiah : ** For he shall grow up before him a^ a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see him there is no bexuty that we should desire him. He is desp' ed and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefs, and we hid aa it were our faces from him. He was despised, aaid we esoeemed him not. Surely he has l)orn our griefs, and carried our sorrows^ yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes, W3 arj healed, ijuences are at stake. ^ "If the Lord be God, follow him as his word directs, and renounce that tradition which contradicts Gods word." The Jews tlierefor3 took a wr )ng view of the blesseJ promise, and it ap)>ears that they would not be warned, or put right by the Prophet, but retained their views till Christ came, and because he exhibited not the glorijs they thought the Messiah would display, they rejected him an a deceiver, and crucified him as such. This was the first important result of the doctrine in question, it led the Jews to crucify the true Son of God. The same deception to some extent has its influences on the ad- herents of this doctrine to the present day, for the defenders of this doctrine quote the opinion the Jews expressed in favor of the Divine affiliation, as one of their most stibstantial proofs of its truthfulness. Let us view the deception of this refuge of lies ; ie* the believer in Christ point to the bloody hands and wicked heart of the Jewish murderer under Jewish authority, nailing my blessed Saviour to the cross as a deceiver, and hear Jesus say Father, forgive them for they know not what they do ; and then say, was their opinion of Divine affiliation under which they were acting, 12 taught them by the spirit of truth or the spirit of error. Should we therefore take them as our exemplars in reference to the doctrine of Divine affiliation which moved the Jews to crucify Christ as a deceiver — if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a ditch on tliis subject. It is to be feared that in thi.s nineteenth century the pi*ejudice of many in favour of the doctrine in question, while claiming Jewish prejudices as truthful authority in favour of the Eternal Son, that sooner than give it up in favour of the Virgin's Son, being the tnie Son of God. Many of them would give their voice againstj him to have him crucified as the Jews did, if he lived on earth in this day. Hence, as before intimated, the Apostles saw the prejudice the Jews entei-tained in favour of an Eternal Son, and they kneAv that when the Jews would embrace Christanity, some of them would bring their Eternal Sonship opinions into the Christian Church, and use their influence to pro- pagate them. In view of this the Apostles predicted that anti- christ would come. 1 John, 4, 1, 3. The doctrine in question bears all the inherent marks of this dangerous heresy. It is evident to the unj)rejudiced reader that every idea that TrefFry can find among the Jews, Platonists, Gnostics or Heathens of whatever class, that favors the doctrine in question, he gleans them as if they were inspired truth, and it is not inspired phraseology he looks for, for this he acknowledges he has not ; but he goes to the dark source of Heathen Mythology for teims and phrases where there are families of gods exhibited, one vieing with the other as to the prefei*ence attributable to their differ- ent deities. Greater and lesser, superior and inferior, one hav- ing authority to rule over and send on errands of importance, and subjective obedience in those delegated to obey, and this is the Hierarchy or rank of celestial beings. That is somewhat like a model in accordance with which the principles of the doctrine in question were framed by our ance^ors, and handed down to us, enjoining on us to believe that there is greater and lesser in infinity ; that there is inferior Godhead, which the venerable John Wesley says, " shocks our sense." This prin- ciple is plainly taught by the venerable Bishop Pearson, in his exfMJsition of the creed, which is held up as a standard work for young ministers to be governed by. On page 50 of Pearson on the creed, we read the following sentiment, " That God is the proper and Eternal Father of his own Eternal Son." What is the eminence or excellency of the relation in general then 1 We may safely observe that in the name of Father there is something of eminence, which is not in that of Son, and some kind of priority. We must ascribe unto him whom we call the first, in respect to him whom we call the second person, and as we cannot but ascribe it, so we must endeavour to preserve it." This is undisguised arianism of the highest stamp^ when be- lieved in connection with the doctrine in question. ' , -13 -: CHAPTER VI. OF THE TRINITY, AND DENIAL OF HOLINESS TO THE MAN CHRIST JESUS. Treffry's mode of proving the doctrine of the Trinity aDi)ear8 on Page 438 of his book, he, finding that the scriptures don't speak plain on the doctrine of the Trinity, and not finding the term inside the Bible, does not labour much comparatively in favour of the term, but what he gives us appears to be a burles- que on Christianity ; for a professed Christian theologian to glean from heathen profanity, witty random sayings from a dark un- hallowed source, uttered in the most Avicked, blasphemous spirit, is highly objectionable. What is thus referi'ed to is found on page 438, and is as follows : " Before we enter upon the third century it might not l)e improper to quote a heathen testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity, which incidentally bears upon our present subject. It is found in a witty but profane dialog\ie intitled- Philopatris, and ascribed to Lucian of Samosata, who flourished toward the close of the second century. Bishop Bull thought it genuine." Treffry en- dorses the following sentiment on the authority ©f Bishop Bull, by his inserting it in his book. As he says above, it bears on our present subject, it is as follows : " The interlocutei-s in this piece are Chritias a Heathen, and Triphon, who personates a Christian. The former asks, by whom shall I swear ; the latter answers, by the Cod that rules on high, the grea^, the immortal, the heavenly, the son of the Father, th« spirit proceeding from ' the Father, one in thi-ee and three in one : I'egard thfse as Jupiter, and think tins God ; shortly after Triphon begs Chritias to tell him what he had heard m the assembly of the Christians of which ' he had before complained, to which he replied : by the Son out of the Father this shall not be done." The above sentiment Treffry says : bears upon our present sub- ject, and is genuine, for Bishop Bull says so. The interlocutor says above to his fellow : regard this Father, Son and Spirit as Jupiter, and think this God." Here is the way Gods are multi- plied by human immagination. Treffry says this is genuine, for Bishop Bull says so ; some Bishops have not the knowledge of God, this may be spoken to their shame. Such teachings might be received V>y Heathens who have not the Bible, but how a pro- fessed Christian Theologian with an open Bible in hand can i*e- ceive such trash, is a crime that I could not charge against en- lightened common sense, it must be light refused that blinds the proselyte. This seems to be the source whence the doctrine in question has been gleaned. Heathen Mythology and Jewish dreamings, a little modified, traditionally handed down, ind re- ceived without due examination. For a Christian Theologian to use and boast of such authority, is something like going down to Egypt for the leeks and onions, in preference to the milk and honey of Canaan ; and an unprejudiced Bible student who h)oks to the Bible as the true source whence true testimony of God is to be obtained, is forced to conclude that the above is worse than false, it is calc\ilated to beguile the unweary and blights the interests of God's Church on earth. God' i spirit cannot work with fallacy, and such doctrines are comparable tcj the building material of wood, hay stubble, it will not stand the tin; of God's truth, and all such doctrinal material shall be burned up, and the build- er's labor lost — J^ot so much i-eward as for the cup of cold water. Ministerial builders should be guided by the example Christ Jesus gives, and be surethat it is not traditional fallacy, of human coinage they take, with which to build on Christ. For the terms on which the doctrine in question is built, are not found inside the Bible, namely : Eternal Father and Eternal Son, three persons. Trinity, Triune God, Divine generation. There is a snare in using terms the Holy Ghost never used, on which to base and from which to derive a doctrine, said to contain an article of faith, relative to the Redeemer of the world. Oh ! that ministers of the Gospel were as careful (and they should try to be as careful) as the blessed Jesus was. He gives them an exaiAple, which, if followed, would save them from the snares of traditional fallacy as above chargeable against the doctrine in question. The man Christ Jesus, tells us the source whence he derived his authority for the doctrines he taught, — " but the Father which sent me he gave me a command- ment, ■> hat / should sat/ and what 1 sliould speak. Whatsoever 1 speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me so I speak." John 12, 49, 50 ; and also, "but as my Father has taught me I speak these things." John 8, 28. " For I have given unto them the tvords which thou gavest me, and they have received them" John 14, 8, And, awful to contemplate, the adherents to the doctrine in question will not receive the words Christ spoke, Son of God, short of adding the term Eternal to it, which tends to change its nature, locality and origin, which amounts to an imaginary being who never had an existence, as being exhibited by the inspire ***** creaturf8. ' On page 156, he )ah<>urH to prove IjIh doctrine by di-awing an analogy between tlie ineffable Jehovah, and his crea^nre man ; and worse still, he arguesthe analogy is discoverable as existing between God and the brute. His proj>osition is, that as man was created with faculties in the use of which he is capable of propagating his own spticies, this was the image of God in which he was created, and that God is infinitely more able to j)roj>agate his species, tlian the creature is to propagate his. On page 151), he quotes from Bishop Pearson on the Creed Art. 2, P, 137, in proendent rt^asoning is found to caiTy self-refutation on the face of it, his (hx^rine is exploded and Divine generation is a farce, notwithstanding he being suj)j>orted by his traditional compeers. They that Glory in Trefiiy's autho- rity in the above reasoning cannot deny that Divine generation is dependent on something analagous terson, and thes<^ two j)roduced a third, Tliis is the ilea they attempt to give us of the origin of jjer-sonality in the Godhead, hence their carnal independent reasonings sap their own foundation, for there was no jiossibility of such a j)roduction, owing to the umly of the only jHii-son existing originally in the Godhead, There was no mother with which to hold sexual inter- coui-se for the fjroduction of an Eternal Bon. The term generate is tuitenable here, and too carnal to be referred to in reference to G(k1, -but I am obliged to do so, being encouraged by Proverbs 26, 5, ** answer a fl accorrling to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit " '■ Beside JiIh otemiil unity, implies eternal sterility, wlijch in the use of right roHHrui logically earned out, stands in et<^mal opiKwi- tion to Divine fecundity. Treffry don't begin at thf? light end of his story, he begins ir the personal family alrfmdy produced by human imagination, and says virtually that their intercourse with each oth(!r produced themselves. Is not this equal to asserting that the effect produced the ca\ise : he says alx)ve '♦ as far as our information goes any of the jiersons in the Trinity might have supplied the iwitt(?m," Is it of Fatlier, or Mother, or Hon ] "Fo;* there did exist some relation between these sul.rnstencies." Whf) will be Trefiry's j»upi] here ? Led by tradition to do violence to common sense and right reason, all exjiounders of the doctrine in question are in thcjir defence of it found in some difficulty. Let the unprejudiced Bible Student lw:»k at the doctrine of Divine generation from whatsoever 8tandj)oint he will ! Its principles sap its own foundation. That but one pei*8on originally existed in the Eternal Godhead is a ti-uth that all the subtlety, from the bottomless pit wmnot transmute into divine generation. Men miay allow tradition to deceive them with an oi>en Bible in their hands to their own shame and loss, to whatspiljiB, How Khali polluted mortulH dare, rU #'^)«»i To sing thy glory or thy grace, ■*,.l> iui.J ■HA'i Beneath thy feet we lie afar, ('i-is| ^tif|ur.j <.tt And see btit shadows of thy f:u;e. -m*ikum^^»' Who can behold the blazing light, ' ' • Who can approach consuming fiame ; , t None but thy wisdom knows thy might, •sM.i f>-.i '|»')U- 1i« None but thy word can npesik thy name. All exiwtences whether animate or inanimate that j^roducc their own kind, God has maart« of his book that no creature had even the faculty of soul to examine the sub- ject, and tliat the scriptures gave no instructi«m as a fiMUidation for the doctrine in (piestion, and therefore man hatl no right or grounds for independent reasoning on the subject. Yet Tretfry seems to have closed his eyes U) all this light, and bounds into the investigation to fish out what neither angel nor man knew any- thing of ; and he trys with others to divide the Godhead into parts. May not this doctrine, so delusive, be that pointc'd to in 2 Thes. 2 7, 12, called the mystery of iniove Hentimeut where he Hays, " If the objection l)e valid against the Divine affiliation of Christ, it is equally bo against the Trinity," The {principles of the doctrine in question teach this idea. For to have an Eternal Hon we must have a second person in the Godhead, and to have a second pei-son in the Godhead is to have an Eternal Son. Hence the one is the other, and they stand or fall together. Besides the Patriarchs and Apos- tles, never taught us to conceive of God as being divided into sepei-ate subsisttnicies ; and if there is no other way to prove the doctrine than its defenders have exhibited, they explode the doc- trine with their own pen. This we shall show in its proper place; meantime we call on the inspired writers for their testimony. We call on Moses, God's Secretary, for witness in this matter, whose writings we all have recourse to. So far from leading us to con- ceive of the Godhead being divided, he presses the opjjosite idea with uniform care. Hear O Israel ! The Lt»rd our God is one Lord : Deut. 6, 4. Exod. 20, 3. Deut, 4, 35, 39. Deut. 5, 7. Deut. 32, 39. We now call on Isaiah, another of Heaven's avail- able library : Isaiah 43, 10 11, and 44, 6, and 45 5. We also call on Zechariah, as anotlier of Heaven's penmen: 14, 9. In that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one, (not three.) New Testament writers, Matt. 19, 17, Mark 12, 29, John 17, 3, 1 Cor. 8, 4, Gal. 3, 20, 1 Tim. 2, 5, Rom. 3, 30, Rom. 10, 12, Jude 25, &c., t. John ac- cording to Treffry. • Now the doctrine in question is supposed to be of vital im- portance, and it is by many thought to be doing violence to truth and righteousness to susprct its truthfulness. All men will agree with me in this, that it is either true or false. If 999 in every 1000 take the wrong side they cannot make it right. Now we call on those who take the platform in its defence, to join us in examining the origin of personality in the God-head, according to their own mode of explaining it, which to us appears a mere traditional whim, to which there i« no credit due. 21 CKAFfER IX. THE ORIOION OF PEUSONALITY IN THE ^OD-HEAD BY ITS DEFENDERS. We tike the positioji that thf? 'doctrine in qncHtion iw not a Bible doctrine, and if its dfjfenders have no other way of proving it, than those they have resorted tf>, they explode the doctrine with their own iten. We point this out to the unprf?jiidiced Bible student by refen-inj^ to and examining their own mode of «!Xplanin;jj it. It is well known that the osition of the Creed, page 204, " wherefore it necessarily follows that Jesus Christ who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the divine nature originally of himself" On the next l)age he says, *' and being the Divine nature as it is absolutely immaterial and incorjioreal, is also indivisible, Christ cannot have any part of it only communicated to him ; but the whole." This is as true as the Bible: had he applied this idea to the Virgin's Son, he would have given Chiist proper divinity, even all the fulness of the God-head bodily, which the dpctrine in question denies him. On page 203, he says, " The Divine e8.sence which Christ had, he had not of hinis(;lf, but by communication of the Father," this also is true. Had he looketl for this Christ in the Virgin's Son, and not in past eternity, he was all right. At this point tradition led him astray into past eternity, to divide the God-head, which St. John denounces, according toTreffry, "Rev. RichardWatson quotes Bishop Pearson and Bishop Bull, who all agree in the opinion that' though God the Father is the fountain of the Deity, the whole of . the Divine Nature, or undivided Divine essence is commimicated from the Father to the feon," Ins. Vol. 1, page 451, here is the same idea prostituted by barkening to unscriptural tradition, which leads into past eternity, ^o divide the God-head by originating per- sons therein, by human conjecture, and saying " Lo here is Christ." Jesus saith, " l>elieve them not." Let us now examine the above teachings. Pearson says : It necessarily follows that Jesus Christ who is certainly not the Father, cannot be a person subsisting in the Divine natiu-e originally of himself — but being that the Divine nature as it is absolutely immat-erial, and incorporeal, is also indivisable, Christ cannot have any part of it only communicat,ed to him, but the whole." This is as true as the Bible, and all scripture agrees in applying this idea to the Virgin's Son, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the God-head bodily. • Now here is an acknowledgment of the unity of Crod, which accords witli scripture and right reason, and a virtual denial of personality existing originally in the God-head. The whole tenor of scripture acconls with this principle, God is justified in j)re- sence of the Children of light, in giving the above mentioned theologians light on this point. Their hand writing is witness to this in the Church militant. Now the above idea is |)erfectly ap- plicable to the term Son of God, as originating in the act of tlie incarnation iii the complex character of Christ in tlie Virgin's womb. Now the question is this, how did the alx)ve theologians, with their abetters, who agree with' them in the indivisible unity of the Divine essence, turn about and embrace implicitly what Treifiy calls on page 227 of his ble. The God of the Bible is one God ; no other God with him, Isaiah 43, 10 and 44-8, and 45, 5-G ; Zach. 14.9 ; 1st Cor. 8, 4-6 ; Mala. 2-10 ; Ephe. 4, 5, 6 ; 1st Cor. 12-11 ; 1st Tim. 2-5 ; Deut. 6-4. The idea given to us of God by the doctrine in question outstrips in ab- surdity that of Heathens in general. They have their lords many and Gods many, but we are not aware that they have yet con- ceived the idea of dividing any of their Gods into three, or trans- mitting three into one. This the doctrine in question attempts to do in ' reference to the God of the Bible. Is it not to be be- loved that it is the mystery of iniquity that still works, found in the principles of the doctrine in question, which is framed by hu- man conjecture and pressed on us by tradition, with all its charac- teristic, inherent, irieconcilable discrepancies 1 Now, it is to be seen by the enlightened observer whei'e the al>ove-mentioned pious theologians are led astray by tratlitioa into past and unrevealed eternity, looking for the son of God, that they have no guide but human imagination as suggested by others and exercised by themselves. They have no scriptural guidance into paet eternity to examine the eternal God-head for the origin of an eternal 23 Stm. Here is where tradition Ijewitches tho pious ChriHtiaii to go looking for the Son of God into past eternity. Tlie Holy Bible don't multiply gods, nor divide gods, nor genei'ate go(Js, nor anni- hilate gturally right in reference to God and the Son of God as above pointed out, and they incautiously received, with implicit credence, the doctrine in question, as it was handed to them ; and in their simplicity enter- ed into an explanatory defence of the doctrine, and so far are bidding God-speed to anti-christian heresy. CHAPTER X. AN EXPLORING TOUR INTO PAST ETERNITY. Now we will submit to go Mdth these theological explorers in their imaginary search of an eternal Son, and three persons in the God-head, two of which are to be originated by human imagina- tion — one by generation, and the other by j)roduction in some other way, and see whether their conclusion relative to their having found thera is not the result of judicial blindness. Pearson takes the lead. We will follow him and his pupils and try to show thera whore they err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God. He (Pearson) now sets to work to find in the God-head three distinct persons, sarae in substance, equal in power and glory, and his colleagues look on and agree, and shocking to be- hold, the plan he takes loaves us no God, when logically examined in the use of right reason. He tells us as above referred to, '* There is but one Divine Essence," and this cannot be divided ; and on page 203, exposition of the creed, " Tlie Divine Esscnco ■ . .-24 , ^, which Christ had, he had not of himself, but by communication of the Father." Watson agrees with this in his Instituttjs, page 474-5. He tells us in reference to the orgination of nersonalitj'' in the God-head, without any authority from the scriptures, " There is a communication without any depiivation or deminution in the communicant, an eternal generation and an eternal procession — without precedence or succession — without projjer casuality or dependence — a Father imparting his own and a son receiving his father's life, and a spirit issuing from both ;" and on page 630 he says, ** The Father commimicateth the God-heatl to the son and both to the spirit ;" and Trelfry, i)age 390. The Father as God begets, the Son as God is begottf ii, the Holy Ghost as God j)ro- ceeds ;" all this without being able to say in one instance, " thus saith the Lord." Now it is admitted by all, that there was but one person originally in the God-head, even the Father ; but these expounders of the traditional doctrine in question say, as if they had attended the generating and bii-th chamber of the imaginary eternal Son, that the Father begat, by a pnjcess of generation, His own eternal Son in the God-head (I would ask who told you '<) and communicated to him the whole of the undivided Divine Essence. The Father communicateth the whole of the God-head to the Son. If you had said to the Viigin's Son in the act of in- carnation in the womb, you would have scripture to support you. Now a third person is wanting yet, and to originate him they say, " that the Father and the Son produced the Holy Spirit." This is originating the Holy Spirit. Is not the Lord that Spirit 1 God is a spirit. Are there two Divine Spirits ] Would not this be God making God ] Facts are agaijist you. Is not one God enough] Read Isaiah 43, 10-11. This is also a denial of per- sonality existing originally in the God-head. Now let us ex- amine the above conjectures, and we shall see that God's spirit never suggested them. I ask these explorers where have you located the Father — the original and only person in the God-head— since you have taken from him the whole of the undi\ ided Divine Essence, and given it to an originated Son, What kind of a being is he ? or where does he live ] He once had the whole of the Divine essence ; now he has none of it. There can be but one being in the world j>os8essed of the undivided Divine Essence. I say where have you located the original person. " Some have not the knowledge of God. I s|)eak this to your shame." But this is not all, for at this point in their theory they are obliged to wrench the whol6 of the undivided Divine Essence, not only from the Father, but from the imaginary eternal Son, and give it to the imaginary originated Holy Spirit, in order to have three persons. Now laskthese theologians what kind of a wilderness or forbidden ground have you been led into by tradi- tion 1 You are now in your exploring tour, where you are in darkness. God's word has not been a light to your feet nor a lamp to your path. You are where God's word never guided you. You cannot presume to say thus saith the Ix)rd, in your attempt an to multiply subsisttmces in the God-head, You don't know where T you are. You have now found out a region in your travels with ' tradition where there is no God. You have annihilated God « virtually in your own imagination, in yoUr attempt to originate ' personality in the God-head, for the acknowledged original peitjou in the God-head, even the Father, you have dethroned him in your own imagination by tiiking from him the whole of the God- head, even the only and undivided Divine Eswence, and giving it to an imaginary generated production. A God that divests himself of the whole of the undivided Divine Essence, ceases to be God, and an originated being of w hatever order, to whom is ^ communicated the whole of the divine nature, he is not God; he ^ has not the attributes of eternity, self-existence and indepen- dence, which is indispensibly needful to the God of the Universe, j You have taken away my Lord ; I know not where you have ^ laid him." ^ You have also taken the whole of the undivided Divine ^ Essence from the imaginary eternal 8on, and given it to the im- *' aginary originated Holy Spirit. Here you have Originated the f Holy Spirit in your imagination. You have got into big busi- *'ne8S. Is any credit due to you ] If your neighbor should tell r you he was finding out Gods — one mocking another — would you i'call him a mad man ] And worse still on your part ; for with all I'the helps tradition gives you, of 18 hundred j^ears experience, you * have not fixed it yet ; for you have yet but one pei*8oii in the I God-head possessed with the undividetl Divine Essence. Your own theory, the way you give it, destroys pei-sonality in the God- head. In the act of building your fabric of personality you pull it down with your own hands, on the ground that it never 'existed, and you cannot fix it ; and the dupes of tradition have ,been at it generation after generation and it is not fixed yet. You cannot ;innihilate God and supply his place ; you may be the means of cheating the unwary on this subject, and put your, finger in your own eye, and live and die in darkness with an optni Bible in your hand, while you look away to tradition in preference to the Bible for the knowledge of the tnie God. And this is not the worst of it ; for by your mode of explana- tory defence, while ingeniously trying to divide or nmltijily the God-hend, yon say the Father is not the Divine Essence, for the Father communicated it to the Son, hence the Father and the Divine Essence are two. And it involves the same difficidty in reference t*> the Son ; foi- the eternal Son is not the Divine Essence, because the ])ivine Essence was communicated to the Son. And you have the same difficulty in reference to the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is not the Divine Essence, because the Divine Essence was communicated to the Holy Spirit. Henc« your raosistence« instead of three? — Father, Son, and Holy Spiiit, and the Divine Essence. Tlie ject of faith and eternal salvation, '' to whom all the Prophets gave witness that through His name wliosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." I think surely the Apostle liad refei*ence to the princijdes of this doctrine, when he said, the mystery of iniquity dotli alrwidy work- This is . the doctrine I think he had special reference to, and if so, every branch of the nominal Church of Christ which holds the doctrine in question is chargeable with holding anti-christian heresy. They now exonerate themselvas by the one charging it on ;the other in a sectarian point of view, and tliereby eaj*e their (jwn minds ; and they who are more oithodox in theii* own yiew, on the ground that there are more conversions to God effected through their sectarian instrumentality, and make this the basis from which they conclude that tlteir doctrines are all true, have need to compare tlie jn-inciples of this doctiine with the word of God. • It has been said as a I'eeommondation to the doctrine in ques- tion, that almost all the good that Inus bt;en done in the world has been done by men that held this doctiine. To this we agree ; then why ough£/jtheir doctrines as a whole to be considered truthful '( There is suggestt^d one reason by St. Paul, that Is, they build on Christ as tlie only foundation, not only with docti'ines compai-able to gold, silver, j)recious stone, but also with doctrines compamble to wood, hay, stubble. The same ministerial builder may use both materials. The gold, silver, and precious stones are ma- terials that will stand the tire of God's truth, but all the labor spent in building with wood, hay and stubble is laUjr lost, not as much reward for it as a cup of cold water. And how does the ministerial builder keep these materials apaH when he ispositively using both wheii building on Christ J We con- sider in the following way : God has in the de[)th of his mercy aiul wLsdom struck out the dividing line in what the Scriptures call " th 6 fulness of time." When the period arrived when the promise of a coming Saviour was to l)e fuliilled, Gtnl sent forth his son made of a woman. This is proper humanity. He took not on himself the uatui* of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham, (He) who is He '{ all the fullness of the God- head Ixxlily, Col. 2-9. (This Is pmper Divinity.) Now, the gold, silver and precious stones, or doctrines com- ' 'ivd to these materials, all a}>ply to and lx»long to the New ■ :' ^ ^ 28 .- ';■.;--' Testement description of Jemis Christ, oommencing at the incar- nation, and all wood, hay and stable (or doctrines compared to these materials) all apply and belong to the traditional descrip- tion the doctrine in question gives of the pre-existent divine na- ture of Christ. It solely points to that God who took not on him the nature of angels, but who took on hiro the seed of Abraham, which the Apostle desciibes as all the xulness of the God-head bodily, and the burthen of the doctrine concenters in one point, and that is, to deny proper divinity to our Leak accf)rding to this rule. The New Testament teaching in reference to the blessed Jesus is calculated and designed to meet the lowest capacity of the ac- countable individual, and tliey that believe are saved by gi-ace through faith. Now, it Ls in the reception and right use of these New Testament doctrines, comparable to gold, silver and precious stones, that the redeemed community are saved ; it is rejection or abuse of them by which any are lost, for all have redemption in his blood ; the forgiveness of sins, provided and offered to them. The doctrine in question, in its bones and sinews, in its in- herent principles, in its origin and perpetuation, is inflammable, combustible, in the presence of inspired truth, as-iti« observable that tb'- doctrine points solely to the pre-existent divine nature of Christ, and every principle it contains goes to deny him proper divinity, it takes hohl of the God-heail in the absence of all scrip- ture guidance, and it libels, and dissects the God-head iifbr) parts, and its principles give but a partial share of the imaginary divis- ions of the God-head to Christ, which division, logically examinee!, has not attributes of eternity, self-existence or inde{>endence in it ; hence it is no divinity all ; and the doctrinal teachers say this i^ the second j)erson originated by generation in the God-head, that left the bosom of his father and came down to this world to die, to re- deem. This is the dangerous heresy. Now, stretch this partial divinity, which this doctrine gives to Christ, or wood, hay, stubble, combustible, in the presence of the Judgment Seat, along side of the golden truth, — in Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullnessof the God-head bodily — and will not theflre of God in His truth consume the inflammable combustible, that is by ti-adition only working as the mystery of iniquity so deceiv- ing to the unwary. What do ministtirial builders expect to gain by using this combustible, or what could they lose in their own view of it in giving it up] The doctrine that necessi- totes them to deny proper divinity to our Lord Jesus Christ, and btiild sotely in future with gold, silver and precious stone, which is found in the New Testament quarry, as contained in these blessed truths, God was in Christ. There is but one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, *'inwhom dwelleth all the fullness of the God-h«id bodily.' This is proper divinity ; the doctrine in question denies Christ this. We give it as our opinion that this is bj((f reason, and per- haps the chief reason why so many religious servicm are com- parable to busy idlenesw, and that tlie coiivtn'ting po^ver in al- most loHt, C5<>ini)ared with the Apust^jUc diij iind Apostolic biboui-H. It was not claasical eUuoation, nor the power of rhetoric, but it waw tl»e unction that nccompawied uimdnlteitf t<5d en, and it apjiears tlnit (iod has so ordained it that all who ever yet wrote in its defence manifestly exhibiteil their own folly in their irre- concilable discrejiancies — themselves being judges. ■^^hmfummit. The eiTor the Jews fell int- ture it is manifest the Jews Ixjlieved their sacrifices or gifts which they ofiered as a type of the Ljtmb of Gml by whom God was to redeem Hie world, had in themselves inherent worth or natural in- trinsic value, independent of obtaining it from the altar on which it was laid as a gift or oft'ering. The baviom* lejjroves this error, chjirging them tliat were taken in it as blind fools. " Woe unto yovi ye blind guides which say, whosoever shall swear by the Temple, it is nothing ; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the Temple, he is a debtor. Ye fwds and blind : for whether is greater the gold or the Temjde that sanctifieth the gold ; and whosoever shall swear l>y the sillar, it is nothing : but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is u|)on it, he is guilty. Ye fotjls and blind ! for whether i« greatc.T the gift or the altiir that simctifieth the gift." The gift though it was gold had no worth in it till it obtained it out of the altar on which it was laid. This typifies the complex character of Christ, and shoM » us where the blood of the man (Jhrist obtained its merit. Christ was sacrificed for us on the altar of projxir Divinity, this is where the blood of Christ obtains its merit, and becomes the wjng of the redeemed, unto him that loved us and washed us from opr sins in his own blood, &c. Now the doctrine in question {Hjints to a Divine sjicrifice which has in itself infinite merit, independent of obtaining it from its Ijeing laid on any altar, hence it ifc. put into our mouths in de- votional song, " God for a guilty world has died." " The great Creator died." *' The God of Angwls died." We are sure the Bible does not say so. This is precisely the error of the Jews re- lative to their sficrifice, for which the Saviour called them blind fools. ^ The reproof thus given to the Jews is designed to teach thetn 31 how tliey hIiouKI think of their Bacrifices and ofl'eriugB, even that they ilerived tJieir jtrinciple of acceptance out of the altar on which they were IniU, Tlii« inhtiructive reproof 'm i»eifectly ap}>lt- cable to the adhereutH to the doctrine in queHtioii. " Christ our j>aHsov('r wu8 KunctiUed for uh"; (1 Cor, 5, 7,) even projjer humanity (Gal, '6, 1<») which received it« redeemiiig merit out of the Divine nature with which humanity in Chriht was unitiid. For verily lie toolc not oa hiui tlie nature of angelii, I ut he took o» him the seed of Abnihum. (Heb, 2. 10.) It is obHervable in the ca8e of tlie Jew«, that their Kacritice Wiix not their altar, nor wna their altjir their KHCiiiice. Etpialiy ho, in reference to Christ our at«>ning Hticriiico. He wan not the altar ; the Divine nature wan the altar on which he wmh laid oh the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world, nor wa8 the Divine nature tlie sacrilice; it co\dd not Ix) tlie sacrifice by which the world wa» rede<;med. The Jewish altar j)religui*ed the Di>-iue nature as the altar that* gave merit to the man Chmt, bleeding and dying as the redemp- tion price exacted a«t eternity looking for the Son of God," before whose eyes (in the holy sorip tnres) Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth crucified among you." " Therefoitj lie it known unto you all, and U> ail the peoi»le of Israel, that by the namo of JeHUH Christ of Nazareth, whom ye cinicitied, whom God raiHed from the detwl, even by Him is tliis man made whole, neither is there Kalvation in any otlier, for there is none other niiine given under Heaven amongst men by which we must be saved." 80 it is worse than vain to bring a name that Inspiration never spoke nor wrote, and present Him as a rival to . the abovts name '* who was crucified, whom God raised from the dead," " who now appears in the presence of Gful for us." * His egotism. On page 1.' J, of his preface, "he says, he never willingly pi^everted the sense of an antagonist — he never inten- tionally used an irritating mode of speech, he has never given 'to citation any meaning which the strictest impartiality did not seem to warrant, or used expressions which, su])posing them apjiropriate, he is. not willing to have retorted upon himself." Let us see whe- ther this is true. It api)ears he has forgotten himself, by what we see on page fifty one. He there libels his opponents with in- justifiable misrepresentation ) he says — " the term Son of God — were it blotted out of the New Testament, far from leaving any blank in their system, one can hardly supfKJse but that they would rejoice at getting rid of the phra«e so indefinite and vexatious." If this is not misrepresentation, I don't know what could be. We who reject the doctrine in question, reject it as a dangerous - heresy, b\it we glory in the term 8on of God, being so frequently • mentioned in the inspired word, and that in no single instance in- side the Bible, is the term eternal attached to it. The term Son is not blotted out of the Bible, God has preserved the precious . name uncontaminated inside the New Testament, and till the last trumpet sounds, it will remain the same ; and though other books may contain the term Eternal 8on in them, it never was, nor ever will be found inside the Bible ; thank God for the truth, and a disposition to receive it in the love thereof. On page 25, he says, in vindication of the inspired writers, .*• That they should get credit for an equal degree of precision and correctness with authors in general." Yes, we should admit that they mean what they say, and to make their word convey a differ- • ent meaning to what they intended, is a daring absurdity, and denial of precision and correctness to the inspii-ed writers. This is done by adding the term Eternal, to the term Son of God. It changes His origin, locality, and nature ; so we say to Treffry and his followers, Physicians heal yourselves. Page 130, in note there which he quotes from Sherlock, and by so doing he admits it as truth, " He charges Dr. Adam .Clark, with a denial of the union of human and Divine natures in the Son of God." Misrepresentation in some instances is as bad as murder, when it leads to it, either of person or character, whereas the impartial reader can easily ascertain that the Son of God which he speaks of never was other than possessed of two natures, human and Divine, united in the act of the Lncamation in the Virgin's womb. Not so in reference to the imaginary Eternal Son ; he had not n 3 two iiittureit, tor the d(x;trin« in question givcK hirn iiu pi'OiK.'r na- ture at all, neither hinnan nor Divine ; it neccHHitateH its adherentH to IhiH, and whoever entei-tuinM the doctrine in (]ueHtion is obliged thereby to deny proper Divinity to our Lorrt eternity ; hence he is said t tt^ll us imaginary wondei-s alwut the ineffable .lehovah, which the Mciiptures tefich nothing of. He tries to tell us who it is that sitteth on the gi'eat white throne, whom St. Joint durst not attempt to descrilje, and that Tretf'ry acknowledges no creature has the faculty to scxnitinize, yet he ventures to All up the blank in our theologi- cal literature, in a^geiting that he is a U;ing who (exists in three subsistences, each of which is iK)Ssessed of sexual propagating qimlities, nnd ingeniously suggests tlie idea that a i>rfxluctive inter- etjux-ne was practically carried oirt, analagous to human j)ropaga- tion, and the result was an Eternal Son produced. Will not the Bible student admit that a higher species of vanity can not be iiuiigirietl. He tlooH not stop lieie ; on i>ap<' 160 lie wiyH, •' Be- yond controvei*«y there irt uothinj^ in the CJospel recoixln which Hpeciiically altiiiuH tins identity in onr Lord of the elmr.ujtei-8 of tl«! Chriat and the ISon of God." 1h it po.sHil)l«; lie did not see thin ' in the GohjhjI rewjrdH 1 1 HhaJl point hiw reiidei*H to whei-e it is inuei'ted, — Matt. 10, 10, "and bimon Peter anHwered and said, thou art the Ohrist, the Hon of tlie lii'ing (rod." And alHO John 20, 'M ; " But thew! are written that ye might l>elieve that Jemui iti the (Jhriht, the Hon of the livinj^ Ged," (not the dead God), "anJ ' that Ixilievinj^ ye niight'have life thnnigh his name." And in Acts ^>, 37, " and Philip Haid, if thou l)elieve,st with all thy heart thou mayest, and he auMWered and said 1 lielieve that JesuH C/hrint is the Hurs to deny. As a further repetition of the above absurdity, he finds it necessary on gage 177 to bi-and the teaching of the Holy Ghost as absolute nonsense, in tlie following words: — *' The addition of , the title to that of Christ, in all, the foregoing cases is a mere redundancy, and orife which far' from aiding actually obscures the sense. Soine of these passages, indeed, thiK exposition reduces to absolute nonsense." Such arrogance against Gotl is not found in the highway of holiness ; such scebticism does not point or iea.•) HKHOLD TIIK MOUiUK WJIENOK TIIFFRY OBTAIN'KD HIS MOST VALIABLE AIlJS. < We ImvH so far sflfC'teil a few of many ^If the same ini[iort, rtf the nh8ureity, and liis pupils nmy ask themselves the same que8tiegun to develoi)e itself duiing the lifetime of Ht. John, and in the following century, as taught by Valentinus and others of ivnn iiOte, assumed prominent poKition among dogmas of the day." What shall we tliink of a Christian thelogian >vhyse eyes eonfessedly wei-e open to see this coiTupt iigment so pen^ici- ous in its result, and who tells us it was this tenet which systema tized the most peniiciouH heresies in the Primitive Church, anjl with liis eyc^s open thus, takes hold of itsvs if it wa« revealed from Heaven, and labourH t<^> establish it fun tnith i t)oefi he not aiit- ])ear to act as if detemiined to believe falsehood himself, and takej* ]>leasure in them that df> the same.? Can such a man be a safe guide on the point in which he thus eri-s ( C'ould he vindicate such corrupt hgments for any other reason than to receive glory from his Ministerial associates, who had taken the platform in its defence 1 For God could not give glory and approbation to sucli conduct. If f»w applicable that scripture is, " They have their re- ward." See h<'^ many gloiy in Ti-effry as proper authority 1 The bible do<'S not appear to liave been his reference book on this subject ; the phraseology to suit him is not inside the Bible ; he gets it with Heathens and ancient Jews. He gi-apples at Jewish and Heathen phrasex^dogy, and the selection he makes is very objectionable ; he goes to a man who lived probably in the age of St. John ; even Phih^, a Jewish histoiian, for Jewish phrs;soh>gy. We think that a Christian theologian in the 1 9th centuiy shonld rather look to a convei-ted Jew a,s was St Paid, for evangelical phraseology, than look to the mau who was piobably a party in plotting the ci*ucifixion and death of the true Son of God. ': On page 57, he says, " Indeed the only sources of information of this class that are not liable to serious objection, are the writ- ings of the Aypocrypha, the Targum of Ankelos, and the works of Philo Judffius ; yet they are interesting and instructive, as sup- plying the germs of cei-tain opinions and modes of expressions, which in a subsequent age became prominent and remarkable-" Here is where he got his germs and opinions, and not in the Bible, On page 59, he says, " But the writings of Pliilo belong to the precise period respecting which we enquire, and upon the points they treat, are usually sufficiently voluminous, in addition to which their genuineness is not suspected. They are, there- fore, in many respects the most valuable aids to the present part of our investigation which we can command." . Now, let us see the character Treffry gives of Philo, as an un- reliable author, aud we shall see that the source from whence he gleans, is as umeliable as his own capabilities are, he having not the faculty to examine the subject according to his own con- viction, as above noticed. On page 76, behold the character he gives of Philo, whom he chooses in prefei-ence to St. Paul, in phraseology, for his example : — " No ancient writings with which I am acquainted so frequently disappoint a Christian reader as do those of Philo. There is often in them a gleam of truth so bright as to lead to the expectation of some developement of doctrine purely evangelical ; but scarcely has the hope been frames!, when a cloud of philosophic dreaming intervenes, and all is dark again. Hence there is scarcely any author of whom a less correct idea is to be framed from detached expressions or isolated phrases," For example : — The Christian reader, upon being told that he re- presents G d as a great shepherd, who appoints the Son to the care of his sticred flock, at once recurs to the inimitable discourse of our Lord as recorded by St. John, chapter ten, and to its assemblage of aftecting images ; but all this agreeable emotion subsides, upon the introduction of the cold and repulsive fancy that the object of the divine pastoral care is not the Church of the blood redeemed, but merely the elements and the planetary system. This is the man Trefi'ry derives his most valuable aids from respecting his present investigation, and uses him in pre- ference to St, Paul or St, John, who lived probably in the same age with each other ; but the g(U'ms of phrases used in Philo's day, that became so conspicuous in Tretlry's day, the Apostles knew nothing about ; such as eternal Son or divine generation, Tretfry had to go outside tlie Bible for examples relative to these things. On page 77, he says, " No 'one could penise the works of these Fathers (element and origin) even in the most cursory way, without recognizing them as the production of men who believed in Jesus, and in the great tiniths delivered by His Spiiit. But nothing can be more remote from the genius of the writings of Philo ; he has no reference to the Messish, no indications that in Oi any sense he waiWd for the consolation of Isniel. Large portions of his works might be transferred to the pages of a heathen philosopher, without any perceptible in congruity, and his allegori cal exposition of pentateuch usually terminates either in the sensible imi verse, or in abstracts on the Divine Essence and go- vernment. On page 7>S he says, " His genius, lofty and colossal in its creations like the sculpture of the land in which he dwelt, is obscure, unnatural, and profitless." He further says, "Sujiposing him (Philo) to huve been a Ckrtstian writer, his testimony to the Divine generation of the Logos prrj-oes it to have been a dootrine of the apostolic age" This puts on the topstone of absurdity, by Trefi'ry, as to the source from whence he gleaned, in suiiport of the doctrine of divine generation. He might as well have said, if fallacy is truth, we have no call for the Bible ; or if the black crow is white, then there are no black birds at oil. L'oes not gleaning from such a source prejudice his case] Our theological associates in reference to the doctrine of God, and of Christ, from a standard by which our own theological character is measured. "He that walketh with wjse men shall be wise, btit a companion of fools shall be destroyed, (Proverbs 13-20.) It is disgraceful for a Christian writer to claim Philo as authority for the doctrine of generation in the God-head, against which absurdity the inspired word is vocal — Isaiah 43, 10-11, tfec, enitent thief, this intellectual sj)irit of Christ, our seconil Adam, was not a dcscendint of our first Adam, iis is the spirit of Adam's posterity; all individuals that are born of a woman according to the natural course of human propagntion, ai*e kindred t<[>irits, on the j)rinciple that man piopngates his own species in re-, ference to the intelle'ctual spirit, as wf 11 aa the body ; this intel- lectual germ is i>rojxigat(.^d by the male pai'ent ; posterity is reckon- ed from the male parent ; the scriptures are vocal on this. On this principle the seed of the woman lias no intellectual germ in it; consequently the seed of the male parent is the source through which intellectual life, with all its contamination of universal 43 depiavity, in traceable, hb the cLaunol throiigli w]iich Adam's depravity in transmitted with univei-sal ajjplicatioii to the race ; now, on this true principle the se*^.d of the woman is &h free from Adam's contamination, as the Virgin earth out of which the Inxly of our first jiarent Adam was made ; to this \nicontaminated seed the first promise points, — Gen. 3, 15, God would not use contami- nated material in the formation of the sacTificial Lamb he provid- ed : — John 1, 29 ; contamination in him, or thf seed of which he was made, would have been a blemish, that would have rendereil him unfit i'or the hallowed purpose of redeeming the world ; hence in his intellectual spirit, he has no kindred relation tt» our fii-st fallen Adam, and still as [)ertiiining to his corjwreal nature, he is of the seed of Abraham, according to the Hesh, and the root and offspring of David, in the Regal line, according to promise : Acts 2, 30 ; for lu was of the stock or offspring of David a« to his human nalure, for that he took of the sUx-k of David, l)ecoming thereby heir to the Jewish throne, and the only heir which then existed ; and it is ren^arkable that the whole regal family termi- nated in Chriijt, and as he liveth forever, he ih the only true David and everlasting King, Dr. Clark / The necessary importance of the fulfilment of the promises that went before of him as the Ajming Saviouj*, to come of the seed of Abraham, of David, jind of the seed of a Virgin, he gives evidence of tlie truthful fulfil- ment of these pi'edictions in his revelations of himself to St. John, llev. 22, 16. " I, Jesus, have sent my Angel to testify unto you these things in tlie churches ; I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning stjir." Hence the only name given under Heaven amongst men by which we must be saved. The al)ove are among the reasons why he is called the Hon of man, in that lie hn« come according Ut the fiesh, of the seed of the Patriarchs, and Kingly Pro})hets, kc. Now i\n to why he is equally called the Son of God we further remark : — In refei-^jnee to human propagation, our second Adam,Chiist, is not a descendant of our first Adam, for the production and per- petuatioTi of })(wt«^rity is dejjnndant on sexual intercoui-se ; the intellectual germ i^ the offspring of the male parent. Now, these laws have not governed the blejused Virgin ; she hjul never known a man in the above sense of the word ; male intervention wa*i not ;admittcid ; tine Holy Gho.st came upon the Virgin in the mighty jK)wer of the most high, ami prtaluced the pi"omi«ed seed in the proper lowxiity. This is what the scriptures call begotten; God iiever V>egot a Wing in this Avay before, nor sinc<', nor ever will ; he, Christ, or Son of God, is the only l»egotten (»f the Father, full of gi'jwe and tnith. He liad a htuuan mother, but no human Father ; God wjis liLs Father ; beg(>tten in no ways analagous tegotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Now we think we have pointed out to some satisftiction what the scriptures teach as to whose son Christ is, as to his corporeal and intellectual nature and relations. In canying out the proposition we corpmenced with, namely, that the scripture exhibited the Redeemer of the world to us in a threefold point of view, we consider we have shown his proper Divinity and equally so his proper humanity ; it now remains that? we |»oint out the tuiion of these two j)rop!r natures, by a complex or bypostatical union of an unexplainable nature,, concentering in that glorious pei-sonage our Lord Jesus Christ. In Isaiah 7, 14, — " Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, anc^ shall call his name Immanuel, that is God with us ;" here is the union of human and Divine nattires in our Immanuel. Isaiah 9, 6 ; — " For unto us a child is bom, unto us a son is given ; jind the Government shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall l>e called.Wonderful Councillor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Here is humanity and divinity in a complex union. 2 Cor. 5, 19. — *' God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto him- self." Col. 2, 9. " For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead ljint. In addition to this, we have the blessed Jesus' own sanc- tion for these views alM>ve given, expressed by him in several ))laces. He points to his proper humanity in John 12, 49-50. — *' But the Father whi(rh sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and what I shouM Hi>eak, and I know that his commandment is life everlasting. Whatsoever I speak, therefore, even as the Father said unto me so I speak." John 14, 28. — "My Father is greater than I." John 14, 10.— "The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth tli£ io6fk»" Mark 13, 31. — "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." We might enume- rate, but the above is sufficient. He also exhibits to us his com- plex nature, John 14, 9. — " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," Vei-se 10.— " I am in the Father, and the Father in - 45 mj." John 10, 30.—" I aud ray Father are one." — " Where two or thre.) ard m^t together in my n^ime, there ata I in the midst of them." When he Hjieaku in hin comjdex character he claims om- nipreH.JUce, and all the attributes of omni[>oteuco ; though he says I and my Father are one in hiH complex character, yet he says, " my Father is greater than I ;" " the Father that dwelleth in me, he etween God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus ;" " If I hiul not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin." " By man came death, by man came also the resurection of the dead." " My Father is greater than I." " The Father that dwelleth in ME, he doeth the works, ture is proof : — In John 1, 0, we have an example, " There waH a man bent from God whose name waH John," Will any man say that John came from Heaven, or from ptist eternity, on the gi'ound he was sent from (iod 1 The meaning is, he was God's messenger, commissioned of God to do and teach as he did j he had God's authority for what he said and did. ^ God's ministeiial officials in and for the Church militant, are somewhat analagous to national officials. According to the laws of the state, whether the candidate admitted into office as a Judge or Magistrate, ever saw the King or the Governor, as sent by him, or not he is possessed with the King's authority to decree Justice as mucli so as if he had his commission delivered to him by the Sovereign in person, and he is the King's confidential servant, waiting on this office in the King's name ; this makes his right<'ous decisions law- ful ; suppose he never saw the King, he comes with his authority as sent by the King ; hence, with great propriety, the apostle .fohu says, " there was a man sent from Goe with him," (John 3-2.) Now this has the same meaning as the above passage ; here, he came from God, and yet God was with him. The term came from God implies that he hatl God's presence and authority, and ■ a[)probation, in and for what he did ; this form of speech the Jews were in the habit of using to denote that they came not merely in their own name, indej)en- dent of God, but that they had God's authority and presence with them as his messengers. We lind the same principle and form of speech made use of in John 16, 27-30, — " I came out from God." I came forth from the Father ;" " because the Father is with me." Also in John 17 14-16, —" Because they are not of the world, even as I am not f)f the world ;" " as thou hast sent me into the world, even so have 1 also sent them into the world." Verse 20, *• Neitlier pray I for these alone, but for them /ilso which shall believe in me through their word." 21, ** That they all may be one ; as fhou. Fatlipr, art in me, and / in thee ; that they also may be one in us ; that the world may Ijelieve that thou hast sent me." The above scripture proves the sense of the terms in question to any honest Bible student, and enlightened common sense rescues them from vindicating that Christ or Hon of Go*l came from Heaven to die to redeem us, as the df>ctrine in question teaches. Therefore, we think it is a great mistake, extremely dangerous, to believe or teach that the Hon of God, the Lord's Christ, camo from past eternity, and that he left the bosom of the Father in doing so. This denies omnipre.sence to the God of the Universe, and denies proper divinity to the comi)lex character of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is anti-christian, and Arianisra of the rankest character. Hence the al»ove is an epitome of what we think of Christ, 47 whouoHou Hii Im. Ah to Jliui beiii^ calh^l ili<; 8011 of Man, it U owing to hJH lleslily or coi-jjoival nature, aH to hJH genealogy tiTice- able in accordance with the firHt proniVKe (den. .3, 15) down from our first parents to Abraliam, thcjnce to King iiavid, thence to tho blessed Virgin, of whowt need, an above noticed, his corporeal boily was macality ; this is what the scripture calls begotten ; and of this seed, the (lod and Father of our Lor«l Jesus Christ, made tlje human l)ody of the J/a// (Jlirist Jesus, and as above noticed, tlie seed of the woman having no intellectual gemi in it, the intellectual spii-ft of the Virgin's son must have come from tlie same source whence the intellectual sjtirit of our first Adam's came, (ioil breathed into him the breath of life ; in this sense of th»5 word, (iod was as much the Father of our second Adam as he was of our i'mt Adam ; neither (»f them hud a human Father ; God was their Father, their Maker, their CJod. Christ has a pre-eminence alx)ve all other existences, in that he was both l)egotten and made ; he was made of a woman, (Gal. 4, 4), and the only begotten of the Father (John 1, 14); being guided therefore by the Scriptures, this is what we think of Christ as to whose son he is ; and we renounce and denounce the traditional eternal son. We don't denounce him as a pretender, for he never had an existence ; but it is his conjectural originators and ad- herents, that are chargeable with j)resenting a rival against the true Son of God ; all such should compare their character with llev, 22 18-10. (JllAPTFH XV. IIEMAIIKS KELATlVi: TO THE liKV. .JOHN WKSLKV. I woidd take the liberty hero of answering an enquiry that may very probably arise in th(! mind of my reader, namely : How is it that you professing to \h<: a Methodist, and holding an official standing in that body of j)rofessed Christians for fiver fifty years, retain your i-elatirm to them, while you are wiiting against one of their most jirominent doctrines, namely, the Eternal Sonshi[> of Christ 1 I answer by giving the following reascui : — First, the love I h.'ive for all the standard doctrines prejtched among the Methodists, witJi the exce[»tion of the doctrine in question, believ- ing them to be scrij)tnral. Secondly, a desire to throw out a healthy influence anifmg those I call my brethren in the Lord ; and thirdly, sjieaking in n sectarian point of view, in almost every other seot, the doctrinal objection is to l)e found in their (creeds and confessions ; so that considering the whole matter, I think my- self better where I am than I could be elsewhere. God converted my soul the 14th day of March, in the year 1810, in old Ireland, by the instrumentality of Methodism ; befqre which time I had never given one serio.is thought to the doctrine in question ; and 48 the fourth and last reason, yet not the least, is that I believe that it is not Wesley an doctrine, nor scriptural dears that he con- sidered it his duty as a dying Minister, to write an article expressive of his faith on this subject, as to his views being changed, a few years before his death, entitled " An Arian Antidote," by which he wisely escaped as an old man all polemic strife as to why he renounced the doctrine in question ; for he would have had an- tagonists had he come out vocally on the subject ; the opj>08ition Dr. Clark met with is proof. He being induced to examine the doctrine in question for him- self with care scripturally, from what Dr. Clark wrote on the sub- ject, it appears that he clearly perceived that the doctrine had its origin and per]>etuation in unscriptural principles, which he found it his duty to renounce ; namely : First, that there is greater and lesser in infinity ; secondly, that there is inferior God- head, and thirdly, that our Redeemer from everlasting had the inferior name of Son. Wesley saw, and so may any man see, that in examining the doctrines scripturally these are the three principles on which the doctrine is based, and that thev are the sole foundation of Arianism. The doctrine of Arianism consists principally in a be- lief that the divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ is inferior in some degree to tlie Heavenly Father, (Buck's Theological die- 49 tioiiary) ; and he, Mr. WeHley, writes an article entitled " An Arian Antidote," referred to by the Rev. Adam Clark, D. D., in his commentary (in the latent revision foi- a new edition), to be found in the concluding nMnarks on the first of Hebrews, which is as follows:— In 1781, Hev, John Wesley published in the fourth volume of the Armiuuin Magazine, pager 348, an article entitled " Au Arian Antiilote," in which are the following words : — (Let the objector examine). Greater or Tesser in in- finity in not; infffrior Ood-heatl shocks our sense, — John 14-28, He was a son given, and slain intentionally from the foundation of the world, Rev. 1 3-8, and the firat bom from the dead of every creature; Col. 1, 1 .'>-](», but our Redeemer from everlasting had not the inferior nam(; of Son. In the beginning wan the word, and the word was with God fn>m eternity, and the word made flesh was This is pointedly against t)>e etenial sonship of the divine na- ture of Christ. But why did Mr, Wesley insert this 1 and if by haste, (fee, why did he notcoiTectit when he published in 1790, in the thii*teeuth volume of the Magazine, eight tjibles of en«ta to the first eight volumes of the work. Now, although he had care- fully noticed the slightest errors tliat might affect the sense in these preceding volunie.s, yet no fault is found with the reasons in the Arian Antidote, and the sentence, " But our Redeemer from everlasting harl not the inferior name of Son." This is passed by without the slightest notice. The above is prcKjf [)osifive to the unprejudiced reader, that the inherent principles of the doctrine in question were rejected by the venerable Wesley, before he dieil, and as such, the doctriiie in question cannot be called Wesleyan doctrine, for tw^ indisput- able reasons : — namely, fii-st, he receiveil it originally nanded to him as a youth, and secondly, he renounced the doctrine befoi'o he died ; as the article abo\e referred to is proof ; so that Wesley's Ministerial followers, to V)e truly Wesleyan on this doctrine, must of necessity renounce it, aa did Wesley in the above article. Again, what legal grounds have MethodLsts to claim this doctrine to be Wesleyan doctrine % where did Wesley get it % he got it in the fonnulas of the Church of England ; and where did the Church of England get it 1 The great reformer Luther obtain- ed it in Popery, but did not shake it of!' with other eiToi-s in com- ing out of that corrupt C/hurch ; and his contemi)orary, Calvin, the founder of the Presbyterian Church, also brought the doctrine of a generated Deity with its concomitants out from Popery also ; and Popery obtained it from the Judeising teachers that appeared in the Chiistian Church, in the Apostolic day, who would not give a truthful exhibition of Christ to the people ; they preached the doctrine in question ; the apostles opposed tliem, and denounced them as deceivers, and they went out from the Apostles, and would teach and preach their wrong views of Chrisjt, which were exactly the principles of the doctrine in question, q» exposed by the Apostle John in his Epistles. In his first epiatle, 4th Chapter, three first verses, and in his second epistle, verse 7., 9, they con- »*.- . ^ - 60- ...... fessed not that Jesus Christ cume m the flesh ; they tiught like the doctrine now teaches, that Jesus Christ came in past eternity, be- fore time or flesh ; that he was originated in the eternal God-head, and came from thence as Jesus Christ, and left the bosom of the Father, and came down to earth to die to redeem us. This is ex- actly the heresy St. John points to "For many deceivers are en- tered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.* This is a deceiver, and an antichrist." Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the (true) doctrine of Christ, hath not Cod (in his Christ). He that abideth in the (true) doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." " Hath not God," does not apply to the transgi'essor's personal experience, but to the doctrinal view he gives of Christ. Has the Eternal Son the Father in him ] No : he has left the bosom of the Father, so the doctrine in question teaches ; " If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house (as n teacher) neither bid him God-speed, — For he that biddeth him Go(l-si)eed is a partaker of his evil deeds, John 2nd Epistle." '^"'':i- ^^■'-^" 'yi--y Hence, there is no good reason why it should be called Wesleyan doctrine, or Lutheran, or Calvinistic, for the founders of either sects cannot take the credit or discredit of originating the doc- trine in question ; fn' it is more especially Popish than Protestant reform. It is a species of the mystery of iniquity that has eat vital godliness out of Popery, and was not cut off by the Re- forraei*s, but was carried into the Protestant Church, and it is blighting the pure spirit of Protestantism, and should be cut oil'; it is Ritual ising Protestantism, and it is de.stined to do so, and it is doing ite work. But saOP'to say, tlie British Conference have bound themselves in adamantine chains in passing t^? test fict on this subject, and consequently are not Wesleyan on this doctrine. For Wes- ley's writings in the way of defending the doctrine in the early part of his life, found in his notes on the New Testament, and his sermons anove r.3f(Trod to, exhibited in his ei>i8tles. Men .talk about the second advent of (Jhrist, and say that he is to bo expected t;» come and reign on earth with his saints for a thousand year.'; ; tlieir sentiments, iis they advance them, convey ideaii contrary to scripture ; if the Christian Church would unite . in believing and confessing that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, in St, Johu's sense of the word, as above refeiTod t(^, then it would l»e as it ought to be, a denial of the spiu'ious doctrine of a gene- rated Deity, and this would be mon? wortliy the appellatiman. (Gal. 4, 4. Phil. 2, 7.) The traditional Eternal Son was not made. (Atha- nasius' Creed Church of England Prayer-book.) So we see in this also that they have no more sympathy with each other than truth and error. The scriptural Son of God, in him dwelleth all the fullness of tlio God-head bodily. The Traditional Eternal Son had only the one-third of the God-head, and that by communica- tion by another ; he is wanting in this also ; likewise in the attn- butes of eternity and self-existence, and independence, which are indispensably needful to proper Divinity. The scriptural Son of God has the Father dwelling in him. (John 14, 10.) The traditional Eternal Son has left tlie bosom of the Father, and left the glf)ries of heaven, and was sent down by the Father to die to ledeeiu the world ; this is not the Son of God who has said " he that hath seen me hath seen the Father ;" the Father that dwelletli in me he doeth the works. One that studied the Bible might think that traditional votaries •might blush at such groundless fallacies. Where did the Eternal ) Son leave the Father ( es not this deny omnipresence to "tihe God of the univei-se ; "in whom we live and move and have our being ;" for in the seri[)tura! Son of God dwelleth all the fullness of the Gud-h(!ad bodily, not [lartially. In this the two ch!iriictei*s appear also, as distinctly as light from darkness. ', Tlio scriptunil Son of God said of himself, on the princij)les of the Hypostaticid union of human and Divine nature«, " i and my Father are pne ;" but the traditional Eternal Son is not al- lowed this relation to the Father : Athanasius' Creed, Church of England Prayer-book tradition, enjoins a penalty of perishing everlastingly, if we confound tiie Divine natures of the Father and the Son ; they are two charactei-s in this also. The scri]ttural Son of God, on the j)rinciple of his complex charact€'r, said of hunseif, 1 am the tirst and 1 am the hwt ; but the tnvditional Son is d«Miiod this, for the doctrine in ugh the ojjenng of the body oj Jesus Christ once for ail. (Heb. 10, 10.) The above idea of death, and of being raised from the dead ; apply it to the Eternal Son, and it outrages scriptui'e anil common sense ; apply it to the Virgin's Son, to the man Christ, and then we have as his God and Father one Gf)d, and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus. The 8crii)tural Son of God not only died, but God raised him from the dead ; the scriptures don't teach that Christ raised him- self from the ilead, but that his God and Father raised him, whom' . God hath raised up. (Acts 2, 24, and chapteu 3, 5, and 4, 10, and 5, 30, and 10 40, and 13, 30.) By that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17, 31.) Tradi- tion tells us that he died as a man, and arose like a God. We are sure the scriptures don't say so of the scriptural Son of God ; while they say he eople, and nation —saying with a loutl voice, worthy is the Lamb that M as slain to receive power, anct riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing, be unto him that siteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever ; and my heart doth sav amen." Now, ye pious Bible Students, we call on you in the name of your accountability to God, and the use you should make of your influence amongst men ; in whose favor will you record your vote, as ])eLug the true Son of God ^ Whether the scripturally exhibit- ed Sod of his Church. Ontario, Dominion of C.vnada, ) Innisfil, Sept lo, 1869 / THOMAS BLACK. o "The author T)ermits any man to re-print and publish this pamphlet. — THf»MAS Black. -<)- Page. CBArTER I. — His Mental Exekcise in Oommencinq this Wokk 4. Gaaptbr II. — He AcKNowiiKDOBS His iNCArABiUTT TO Examine THE Doctrine m Question ... S . Cbaptkr III. —The Siucncb or Scripture on tbb Subject 6. Chapter IV. — Proper Oitinitt 9. Cbaptbr V. — Tbi Probable Origin or thk Doctrine in Qubtsion. 10. Chapter VI. — Or the Trinity, anp Denial or Holiness to the Man Christ Jesus 13. Chapter VII.— An Absurd Analogy, Drawn by TRErraY, between God and His Creatures 16. Chapter VIII.— The Dootri.hb or Sonship and Trinity Stand or Fall Together 19. Chapter IX. — Tub Origin of Personality in the God-Hbad By ITS Defenders 21. Chapter X, — An Exploring Tour imto Past Eternity 23. Chapter XT. — A Suggestion given, and Rootism and Slander Ex- posed 31. Chapter XII. — Behold the Source whence Treftry Obtained His Most Valuable Aids 35. Chapter XIII.— Misrepresentation Corrected 40. Chaptfr XIV.— What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He 41 Chapter XV.— Remarks R»lativb to tub Rev. John Wesley...... 47. Chapter XVI.— ScbiptUIi* ind Tradition as^Candidates foR sur- FrfAGE or BiBLS STUDENTS,' AS TO WHICH PRESENTS THE TRUE Son or God. • 52. -» «♦> — • On (lie 25ib liae from the bottom, od the 15tb page, the word divine should not be there. Od page 23, on the 9ih line from the top, the word denied should be divided. On 25ih page, on 22nd line from top, the word mocking sbonld be making. On 27th pflge, 2l3i line from the bottom, the word to should be not. On page 29, the second line from bottom, the word our should be the. On page 37,' the 7th line from top, the word ncriplure should be sculifture. On page 38, 6lh Me from top, the word his shoold be it$. On prtge 62, 7th line fiom the top, the word awl should be not.