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<?ct of Ihe following investigation is an inquiry into 
 the doctrine of the Eternal Sonsliip of our Lord iesiis Christ, 
 as set forth by certain Theologians. 
 
 The writer of ihe following pages fakes the position that the 
 doctrine of the Eleinal Sonship of Christ is not a doctrine of 
 the Bible, and as such iff a dangerous heresy. In attempting 
 to prove our point in order that weoojiistice to them from whom 
 wo dissent, we propose to call in two class of witnesses, all of 
 whom though dead yetspeakt^th in iheir writings, whose testi- 
 mony should satisfy the living, namely : — All they who may 
 come in our way while we investigate ; who have wrote in i's 
 lavor on Mie one part, and the inspired writers on the other 
 part. Meantime we call in all pious Bible Students as jurors 
 to hear both sides of the evid'^nce produced, that they may at 
 leakt be fully decided in their own mind whether it is a doc> 
 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 t<j TrefFry's truthful idea, neither Angel, 
 Pn/jdiet, nor Ajwstle, nor any other creature knows any thing 
 about the subject in question, win re did it coine from ( Who 
 brought it U) usl The terms on which it ai-e built are not in the 
 Bible as above noticed, consequently where did it come from'? The 
 traditional talebearers that cannot give us teaching which scri]»- 
 •ture corobcnates, when God is the subject matter. Is there any 
 credit dtje to them 1 I tliink not, the doctrine in question is of 
 this stamp, it contradicts the holy scriptines. This point we ja-o- 
 pose demonstrating in the following jtages, and strange to tell that 
 many who entertain this doctrine make the reasons above noticed 
 of finite ignorances, their authority for receiving it, and say it is 
 a matter of faith, aufl not of sens(%- and take the testimony of 
 the individual who personally acknowledges his incapficity to know 
 anything about it, and yet tries to U'W us all about it, contraiy to 
 truth and reason, as a cause why he conceives of it as being an 
 article of faith. I confess he must be suspiciously credulous who 
 receives the doctrine on these groxnids, for we have not come U) that 
 age in the world yet when men cannot carry falsehoods, and re- 
 cijive falacy at whatsoever exi)ense. Who can be Tretfry's pupil in 
 his telling us all about, what he confessedly knows nothing at all 
 about. ' 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE SILENCE OF SCRIPTURE ON THE SUBJECT. ,, 
 
 Now a<ld to the fcjregoing acknowledgment of his entire lack of 
 faculty to examine the subject in question, his acknowledg(;d sil- 
 ence of the scriptures on this subject as he gives it on page 155 
 of his book in the following words : — " It will be sufficient if 
 uf)oii enquiry we meet with several j^assages of scripture which 
 according to the most fair interj)retation, indirectly or by inference 
 suggest the doctrine under consideration. This in Jact is the 
 only species of evidence which we have any right to expect."*^ 
 
 Again on page 2.3 he says : " It is therefore highly rational to 
 admit the doctrine if conveyed only by inference, and far from 
 justified in rejecting it because not stated in express tttrm-s. We 
 ought U) prepare our minds for testimony of a comjjarative low 
 and unconvincing character ^ It is no wonder that his elaV>orat- 
 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 knowle<lge of that so\d saving name, So?i of God. 
 It should take 500 f>ages 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,, <kc. These 
 attributes are essential to the God of the universe, and they 
 are consistently inseparable, where one is they all are. The term 
 Godhead includes all the attributes of Gf>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, <fcc." To this prophetic description it appears that 
 the Jews paid no particular attention, for they might have seen 
 in Jesus whenh9did appear amongst men, the above predicted char- 
 acteristics to the letter fulfilled. Another capital error which the 
 Jews fell into in the misconstruction of the promise above referred to, 
 was the idea of Divine generation in the production of the Eternal 
 Son; as they thoughthewouldbeafac-smileof the Everlasting Father 
 This capital error also, God, by the same Proj)het denounced In the 
 43 chapter, 10, 11, of Isaiah — That he may know and believe me, 
 and understand that I am he, before me there was no God formed, 
 neither shall there be after me, I, even I, am the Lord, and besides 
 me there is no Saviour ; and Isaiah 44, 8 : Is there a God besides 
 me ] Yea, there is no God, I know not any, and yet the traditional 
 doctrine in question attempts to recommend to us a begotten God, 
 as the pre-existent Divine nature of Christ. This absurd doctrine, 
 we think, originated as above decribed. In view of these things, 
 who is that Bible student who will venture his salvation for 
 eternity on a traditional fictitious begotten God ? Eternal cons&> 
 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<l 
 word. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and 
 men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to 
 be testified in due time. Ist Tim. 2, 5, 6. 
 
 It is evident that a doctrine which is not taught in the Bible, as 
 the doctrine now under consideration is not, the defenders of such 
 doctrine in their attempt to press the holy scriptures into their 
 service, are invariably under the necessity of misconstruing scrip- 
 ture teachings. Treffry is caught in this snare ; on page 134-5 
 where he attempts to deny holiness to the human nature of our 
 blessed Lord, " he says the opinion that the designation, the holy 
 thing, was confined to the human nature of our Lord. Beside 
 l)eing liable to exception on other grounds, it appears to clash with 
 the entire preceding exposition. Since if conceded, the title Son 
 of God can hardly escape the same limitation." Behold the absiir- 
 
15 
 
 dity that sIkjws itself hare. The Holy Scriptures are denied, 
 where he in calle<l "the holy child, "thy Iioly one." He is holy, 
 harailess, undefiled, sejiarate from sinners, <fec. Tliat holy thing 
 that shall be bom of thee ; and applying the tenii holy to the Divine 
 nature of our Lord, as he does. He charges the blessed Virgin 
 with not knowing that God Wii.s holy till the angel told her, and 
 accuses the angel of telling her that her maker would Ije Ixjrn of 
 her, which is absurd. Such gleanings on his part to deny holiness 
 to the immaculate Christ are outrageous ; he seems to see that if he 
 admitted the designation holi/ thing wius spoken of the human 
 nature of our Lord, it would make the term Son of God originate 
 in the incarnation, which he attempts to deny. 
 
 On j)age 136 he further raislejuls the unwary. He says " thus 
 in his entire person, human as weH as Divine, he is called God, 
 and in the same comprehensive sense is entitled the Messiah. Tlie 
 mere complexity of nature is insufficient to account either for 
 these, or any other of our Lord's titles." 
 
 The above is not true. For the complexity of nature in our 
 blessed Lord, is sufficient to account either for these, or for any 
 other of our Lord's titles. For he as our Lord Jesus Christ being 
 j^ossessed of pro[)er humanity and proper Divinity, absolutely 
 united in his own di vive person, both the human and divine natures, — 
 even all the fullness of the God-head bodily, not partially, but per- 
 fectly — hence on the grounds of the complexity of his divine mi- 
 ture, we find sufficient gi'ounds to account for all the titles attribu- 
 tjible to our blessed Lord. On same page more absurdity. He says, 
 " The obvious reason why in his mixed nature he is called God, is, 
 that before his incarnation he was a truly Divine person." If the 
 term person here mentioned is used in accordance with the doc- 
 trine of j)ersonality in the God-head it is untenable. For the pre- 
 existent Divine nature of Christ does not compoi-t with the idea of 
 personality in the God-head. For in him dwelleth all the fulness 
 of the Godhead bodily, not partially— no part left out by inspira- 
 tion, as the doctrine in question does by tradition. 
 
 On page 354 he charges the Apostles with imprudence. He says 
 " Had the meaning the Jews attached to the term been false — the 
 most pnident plan would have been for such an appallation to he 
 declined, especially as the Apostles could not have been at a loss for 
 another which in the case supposed, would have been more appro- 
 priate." We say, had the Jews or professed Christians believed 
 the terms Son of God, as the Apostles used it, it would be all 
 right, for they meant what they said, and there was no other term 
 could comport with his nature but Son of God. He had no human 
 Father. God was his Father. He was a Virgin's Son, produced 
 or begotten by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin, with- 
 out male intervention, hence, what other tenn could be appropriate 
 but Son of God. Adding the term eternal to it destroys its true 
 meaning. Tradition does this. 
 
16 
 
 •• ^ ^ ^ CHAPTER VII. 
 
 'an absurd analouy, draw.v by tbeffry, bktween god and 
 
 '"',■ i ,j* ; , > ***** 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 pro<jf that God is 
 more prolific than animals, he says, "Animals when they come to 
 the perfection of nature, then become prolific, In God eternal 
 perfection showeth his eternal fecundity." If this idea is tnie, 
 how many Gods have we now 1 Did Pearson or Trefiry ever reaxl 
 Isaiah 43, 10, 11 — " Before me there was no God fonried, neither 
 shall there be after me. I, even I, am the Lord, anrl beside me 
 there is no Saviour." Heathens who have not the Bible are more 
 excusable in worshipping a plurality of Gods, than a profess(?d 
 Christian theologian with an o|)en Bible in hand. Is it not idolatry 
 to vindicate, and worship a family of Go<ls produced by generation 
 and production. The doctrine in question caimot be maintained 
 short of this absurdity, which contradicts God's inspired word, and 
 he seems to glory in man's natural capabilities to propagate his own 
 species, and attributes to him a dignity on account of the fact that 
 he is the instniment of calling into existence a spirit capable of re- 
 ligious knowledge. Whereas there is no more gloiy due to man 
 on these grounds, than is due to any other species of God's crea- 
 tion, Man isgenerallv as low thoughted in the act of j»ropagation, 
 as the ass or the swine. The holiest saint has no moi'e to do in 
 human propagation, as to calling forth an immortal spirit, than the 
 vilest adulterer or fornicator that ever violated the laws of chastity. 
 
 He further says, " it surely then cannot seem extraordinary if 
 the type of a human relation so eminent, should be found to exist 
 in the Divine nature ; and although hy tsvch a mode o/ reasoning 
 we could not arrive at anything like assurance, yet. apart from 
 the direct testimony oi scripture, we might surmise the probability 
 of an eternal, vital, spiritual, divine production. That in singu- 
 lar and unfi'irpfoachahle eminence, there is in God the model of the 
 noblest attribute of man" Are not these bold assertions ? Is there 
 any true fear of G<xl ; or regard for Holy Ghost teachings here 1 
 He lias no scriptural assurance. He has only human sunnisings, 
 confessedly so. Whether is it the spirit of God which taught 
 Isaiah the Prophet in writing chapter 43, 10, 11, above quoted, or 
 the spirit that actuated Tom Paine, that dictated the above senti- 
 ments 1 Here he candidly tells us that we cannot arrive at any- 
 thing like assurance, yet he ventures in his human surmisings as 
 his sole foundation, without shame or fear, to invent such wonders 
 about that God who hideth himself, and of M-hom we know nothing 
 
17 
 
 but what iiIh wonl levealt*— a iiecewiary part of which in found in 
 laaiah 43, 10, 11, and iHtCon. 8, 0, and Mark \'2, 2U, ikc, Jcc. 
 
 He further, in th'i abtjence of all Hcripture authority, and in a 
 courHe of independent reasoning Hay h on page 157, as if he waH 
 taking a lo<jk intf) the generating, and bii-th chamber of his family 
 of Godt»: — "Ah far an our infonnation goes, any one of the per- 
 sons in the Trinity might have supplied th«i j)attern. There did ex- 
 ist some relation between these subsistencies, which was the model 
 and original of an anahigous relation in the liuman race — which 
 was primarily c<Jiit<:;niplatt;d in the Divine councils, and that with 
 a certain speciality, the human power of sj)iritual generation luid 
 its archity])e in the ett^rnal Trinity, The intervening verse goes 
 to confirm this view, for the sacre<l hisU)rian having stated the 
 fact that in the image of the Elohim created he him, adds 
 male and female created he them, a claiise which anticipates 
 the order of the narrative." 
 
 Now what (\(XiH the aVM)ve independent reasoning amount to 1 
 It just means that the Godhetul exists in three subsistencies, 
 each of them possessed of sexual fjualities, and that they held 
 their sexual intercourse together, aimlagous to the act of human 
 propagation, and the result is an Eternal Son produced by 
 Divine gen«;ration. This is what he m(;ans and teaches. 
 
 In the above mode of reasoning the subject of Divine genera- 
 tion is reduced to its most severe test, by Treffry, as being the or- 
 der of (xfKl in the act of Divine generation, in the production (►f 
 an Eternal 8on. Now if this inde]i>endent 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 t<j sexual intercovu'se in the 
 Divine Godhcnul. It is therefore clearly <Ieducible from the above 
 mode of reasoning that Divine generation is dependent on some- 
 thing analagous to human propogation — that there was but one 
 pei*son existed originally in the Divine Godh<!arl ; if this is dis- 
 put^;d we can have no Divine generation, for to generate that 
 which did exist, is not ctmnrion sense. Generation injplies pro- 
 duction as the result of sexual intercourse. Now the expounders 
 of the doctrine in question asseil' virtually that the first pei-son 
 exist<fd not as a plurality, but tts a luxity, and produced by gene- 
 ration a second j>erson, 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 f<M>l 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 whats<xjver extent. 
 
 ' In the above Tretfry compares, virtually, the God of the uni- 
 verse to a Hermaphrodite. (The tei'm signifies an animal, or 
 human being, which has the faculty of generation both of nuile 
 and female.) This is the characteristic Trefiiy surmises God is 
 possessed of, and ingeniously surmises that God pregnated himself 
 in the production of an Eternal Son, without the least authority 
 from the Bible. Is it not another Gospel — a counterfeit? f 
 
 His argument on page 157, endeavouring to prove that an im- 
 portant part of the image of God in which man was created, was 
 a capability to propagate his own species, amounts to a virtual 
 denial of universal depravity. It is evident that man retains all 
 the faculties of human propagation. If so, what image of God 
 did man lose in the fall of our first parents. Could the adher(;nts 
 of the doctrine in question tell us ? For they have not lost the 
 faculty of human pi'opagation. Treffry seems to think that God 
 could not make man capable of propagating his own species, but 
 for that he himself was also such a being that he could proj)agate 
 his own species. This is carnal seasoning on the part of Treffry. 
 Our worthy Poet widely disagrees with him where he holds forth 
 the hallowed utterances : 
 
 1. God is a name my soul adores. 
 
 The Almighty><the Eternal one ; 
 Nature and grace with all their jjowers, 
 Confess the Infinitf! unknown, » 
 
 2. Thy voice produced the sea and spheres. 
 
 Bade the waves roar, the Planets shine, 
 But nothing like thyself apfjears, 
 
 Through all these spacious works of thine. 
 
 M^ , 
 
'«fl» ii 3. Still n-Htlf^B imture (lies and ^'owH, 
 
 From cliange to chanj^t; the creature nin«, 
 Thy VKHiig no Kucoession knowH, 
 And all thy vast deHigns are one. 
 
 4. A glance of thine nuiH through the globe, 
 •» V'-. , KuleH tlie bright worIdH Hn<l inovcH their frame, 
 
 '»{iv ,*i 4**- Of light thou form'st thy rlazzling rolie, 
 Aij4^ "MU-ki Thy ministei-s are living flume. 
 
 ,4;jtri,>piljiB, 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 ma<lu them so ; and none of them can take 
 honour to themselveH as to why they belong U) such a class of 
 beings, and the very circumstance of man pro])agating his own 
 species, which Trcffry uses an analagous proof that there is fecun- 
 dity in the Godhea<l, might be easily shown to be proof to the 
 contrary. If Trefliy's speculations are true how many (jlodshavo 
 wo now i If FostuH had as good giounds to say to Paul, Much 
 learning doth make thee nuul, wouhl there not be some truth in it? 
 The wisdom and mercy of God are vindicated in the jireaence of 
 his Church relative to his dealings with Treiiiy. Prior to his 
 commencing this work, he was so powerfully wrought upon with 
 impressions that the doctrine was not tine, that he was almost led 
 to relinquish the doctrine in toto. Meantime God wrought a con- 
 viction in his soul which he exinesseg in seveml i>art« 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 ini<piity which doth already work. 
 Its i-eception will not remunerate for the penalty it incurs. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE DOCTRJNK OP SOXSHIP AND TRINITY STAND OH FALL 
 
 TOGETHER. 
 
 Treffry says on page 20, " If objection be valid against the 
 Divine afUliation of Christ, it is equally so against the Trinity." 
 
Thi8 iH a conHWiteiit concluHion of Treflfry. Tliere \h no man can 
 Hhow in the language the Holy GhoHt teacheth that thewe two 
 doctrinefi are time ; they stand or fall together. ThiH Treffiy 
 teacheH in the al>ove 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., <kc. 
 
 We further observe that Treffry is supematurally constrained to 
 denounce the practice of dividing God doctrinally, which wjis a com- 
 mon thing done by false teachers in St. John's day, against which 
 heresy St. John wrote, according to Trefliy. On page 227, he says : 
 The apostle John wrote as a provision against the blasphemous 
 dogma of those who, as far as it was in their power, would divide 
 the Lord — hence we perceive with what propriety St. John affirms 
 Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and also where he carefully 
 concenters in his one person the several titles by which our Re- 
 deemer is distinguished ;" and still the foul heresy is entertained 
 by Tretfry and his pupils, as a virtual denial of the unity of God, 
 nothwithstanding God denounces the practice by fc>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 <loctrine in question 
 was disputed from the tii-st age of Chri.stianity, and it is reasonable 
 to admit that its modem defen<lers who are ajjproved of as such, 
 are quite capable of stating its jirinciples a.s they telieve them ; 
 and we are wairantable in concluding that they mean what they 
 say. We take Bishoj) Pearson, late Lord Bishop (jf Chester, 
 the Rev. Richard Watson, and the Rev. Richard Trethy, as 
 acknowledged standards in its defence, who all agree in this j)oint, 
 that there was but one pei-aon originally in the Eternal God-head, 
 called the Father. Pearson says in his ex}>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 b<Jok " a blasi)hemous dogma of those 
 who as far as it was in their power, would divide the Loid " 1 
 Now, how is it, that men of piety and learning, with an open 
 Bible in their hand, will receive and vindicate the ])rinciple8 which 
 Trefiry (truly) calls " blasphemous," and who is it could not ygi-ee 
 with him in this 1 The absurdity herein discoverable is more 
 extensively seen in the fact, that the liistoiy of man in all ages of 
 the world, practically can-ied out by him, shows to the enlighten- 
 ed observer an inclination to multiply go#<Is. Tradition is the 
 source whence the rising posterity obtains the inducement that 
 leads into this en*or. It teaches in the doctrine in question that 
 there is greater and lesser in infinity, and that there is an in- 
 ferior God-head, which the venerable John Wesley said before he 
 died " shocks our senses." Such is the God exhibited to us in the 
 doctrine in question. These are not the characteristics of tlie God 
 of the Bible : Witness Isaiah 4:3, 10, 11 ; Zeeh. 14 9 ; 1st Cor., 8 
 4, 6 ; Eph. 4, 5, 6 ; 1st Tim. 2, 5. A professed Christian with 
 an open Bible in hand looking to traditi(jn for charactei istics of 
 the God of the Universe, and receiving the above principles, de- 
 bases himself lower than the Heathen who has not the Bil>le. 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 g<idH, and suppl}' tlu-iv [)lace, like the doctrine in question 
 attempts to do. 
 
 Grod has convinced them, as far as scripture teachings can go, in 
 their case or any other man's case. Their own writings prove 
 this. They are convinced there is but one Divine Essence, and 
 that this is indivLsable— cannot l^ u».'ued. This is as true as the 
 Bible. And they are convinced that Christ Jf-sus or Son of God 
 " could not have been a person existing in tht; God-head originally 
 of himself." This also is as true as the Bible ; " and that Christ 
 cannot receive a part only of the Divine Essence but the whole." 
 This is als(j supported Ijy the scriptures ; this Ls pro])er divinity 
 given to Christ. These convictions were fastened in their judg- 
 ment by the spirit of God. While they abide by scripture in the 
 use of right reason they aie truthful. These convictions thus ex- 
 pressed in their own handwriting amount to a perfect denial of 
 personality existing originally in the God-he.ul. Thus far they 
 have the whole Bible in their favor. Now when the doctrine in 
 question was presented' to thera, had they examined it by the 
 above scriptural principles, they would have rejected it at once ; 
 and even now any honest Bible Student examining the principles 
 of the doctrine in question with the p-bove principles, carefully and 
 prayerfully, will be constrained to give it up as a dangerous 
 heresy. 
 
 Tradition, with the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship came to 
 these pious theologians, whose minds were 8crij>turally 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 rao<le of originating jjei-sonality destroys the doctrine of the 
 Trinity; for you have four 8ul>sistence« instead of three? — Father, 
 Son, and Holy Spiiit, and the Divine Essence. Tlie <loctrine 
 deniroyn itnelf, when looked at as its defenders explain it It 
 gives tiR but one person in the GrMl-hejwl [mssessf^fl of the undivid- 
 
ed Divine Essence, and it gives us also four subsistences in the 
 God-head, — the Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Divine Essence. So 
 in these two essential views that its expounders give of the origina- 
 tion of personality in the God-head, they destroy its trutlif illness, 
 root and branch ; its piinciples destroy itself. Tiaditional fallacy 
 cannot supersede God's word, short of showing its cloven foot to 
 the scripturally guided in the use of right reason. 
 
 Now, this is the doctrine of personality and eternal Sonship in 
 the God-head, according to its most apj»rovcd expounders, who 
 have taken the platform in its defence. Hence is it not a fair 
 deduction from the above considerations, that they who admit 
 scripturally that theie is but one God, must reject the doctrine 
 in question, and admit that we have yet but one subsistence in 
 the God-haml ] as it was originally indisputably so, rts acknow- 
 ledged by the above mentioned theohjgians, who drift into the 
 most papable absurdities when attempting to point out the origin 
 of j)ersonality in the God-head. I would therefore ask the 
 impartial Bible Student whether the above system of human sur- 
 misings does not hold ovit an inducement to the redeemed com- 
 munity to worship they know not what — (an eternal Son) — a 
 name that inspiration never spoke or wrote 1, Is he not presented 
 as a rival to the Virgin's Son, the true Son of God, who had no 
 human Fatlier? God was his Father. He is the only name 
 given imder Heaven, amongst men, b} which we must be saved. 
 Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was crucified, whom God raised 
 from the dead. Neither is there salvation in any other name, 
 Acts 4-10, 12, Apply the name Son of God as originating in and 
 belonging to the complex-character of Jesus Christ, and we then 
 have no difficulty. Nor do we want a lesson from tradition to 
 make the subject as plain as God designs it t«j be ; for the New 
 Testament descril^es it as clear as a sunbeam. 
 
 Again, in the use of right reason the absurdity increases still, 
 in irreconcilable disci'epancy ; for the doctrine in question, as above 
 described, virtually leaves us lio God. As Iwifore noticed, a God 
 who communicates the whole of the Divine nature or Essence to 
 another, logically ceases to be God ; and a cieature of whatsoever 
 order, to whom is communicated the whole of the Divine Essence, 
 is no God, for such htvs not the attributes of eternity, self-existence, 
 independence, <fcc., kc, which is indispensably needful to the God 
 of the vuiiverse. Therefore, in c( nimon sense, leason and scrip- 
 ture, the doctrine in question leaves us no God ; its defenders be- 
 ing judges. So in attempting to build a fabric of i)ersonality, and 
 eternal Sonship in the God-head, they pull it down in the judg- 
 ment of the man who searches for the; true characteristics of God 
 in the Bible, and not in traditional fallacy, and this doctrine thus 
 described by its expounders supplies the j;rinciple which actuates 
 the fool who says in Iws heart, "There is no God." 
 
 The doctrine involves another impcssibility, that is, tliat God 
 could communicate the whole of His divine nature to another ; 
 but, to speak with reverence, God could not make another God, or 
 commuuicato His incommunicable attributes to another. Does 
 
$7 ; 
 
 it not outrage scripture and common Hense, to teach what in- 
 volves the absurdity, that God conld and did communicate his 
 attributes of Eternity, imrautiibility, omnipresence, omniscience, 
 omnipotence, self-existence, and independence, Ac, tiirc., to an 
 oi'iginated production of Ids own t Does it not appear as the 
 wonder of wonders, that the liunian mind could conceive without 
 the least scripture guidance thereto of an imaginary eternal Son ? 
 — that a necessity existed on any grounds foi- the conception or ad- 
 mission of such a fabulous scheme, which tends to libel the God 
 of the Universe as being untrutliful, (Isaiab 4,'i, lU-ll,) and turn 
 the mind of the unwary away from contemplating the true Son of 
 God, the oV>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 L<jrd Jesus Christ. It 
 gives him but the one-third of the God-head as the conjectural re- 
 sult of imaginaj*y personality in the God-head ; this doctrine we 
 call wood, hay and stubble, and we think it never converted a 
 soul yet, and never will, for God's Spirit cannot use falsehood to 
 convert or sanctify the redeemed race. II' 
 
 Whereas, the converting power that attends the minister's 
 labours is attributable to his faithfully holding forth the New 
 Testament description of Christ. With what salutary pleasure 
 we listen to him when lie manifestly forgets the wood, hay and 
 stubble, and gives"" us the golden truths found in the New Testa- 
 ment description of Christ. That God was in Christ reconciling 
 the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, 
 yet all the fulness of the God-head bodily (for it takes all the ful- 
 ness of the God-head bodily to jiossess Christ Jesus with proper 
 Divinity. ) This is what the doctiine in question don't give Him, 
 it gives Him but one imaginary subsistence out of three, and that 
 " Jesus Christ by the grace of God tasted death for every man." 
 " He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again* for our 
 justification," and by Him, whosoever believeth in Him are 
 justified fi-om all things, from which it was impossible to be justi- 
 fietl by the law of Moses." " He died, the just for the unjust, to 
 bring us to God." " He is the end of the Law for righteousness 
 to every one that believeth," '* and to him that worketh not, but 
 believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
 to him for righteousness," and " he is the author of eternal salva- 
 tion to them that obey him," " and be thou faithful unto death, 
 and I will give thee a crown of life." Father, I will that where I 
 am there shall my servants be also to behold my glory." " It 
 doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He 
 shall apj)ear we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is," 
 " and so shall we be ever vath the Lord," " and blessed are they 
 that have not seen and yet have believed," " and what we know 
 not now in reference to these things, we shall know hereafter." 
 The minister who preaches these and such like golden truths faith- 
 fully " shall save himself and them that hear him." I might 
 enumerate, but my reader has an open Bible and God's authority 
 and guidance, to gather up the golden tniths in a right use of 
 which God conveys the converting sanctifying power into them 
 that believe ;" " sanctify them through Thy truth. Thy woi-d is 
 truth." God cannot sanctify by falsehood ; false doctrines of 
 whatsoever import may be called "doctrines of devils," " of vani- 
 ties," "of men;" "in vain do they worship me, teaching for 
 
29 
 
 doctrines the commaudmentB of men." It is in the use of tliese 
 materials, the miniKterial builder i8 iiistnimental in convei'ting 
 sinnerH, not by using wood, hay, stubble ; all Huch materialH used 
 in God'w buiklingare to be bunied up and the builder Hulier Iosh, 
 who uses such materials ; and if the simple hearer be led to trust 
 in a redeeming s icritice that never had an existence as such, what 
 will be the conseqeunce in their case i If lost by unscripural 
 teachings, are these ministers skirts clear 1 Oh ministers ! take 
 example by Christ, (John 12, 49-50, --John 17, 8.) The doc- 
 trine in question does not 8j>eak 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 <livi)ie tauth, in v.liich conHi;st<'d the converting ]*ower. 
 What tl»e AjKistles pr«!ached was lUt irvth ; the Ajtostles, writ- 
 ings a.M consiMt«;ntly coni])ai'e with each other as the links of a 
 chain. The enliglitened ohserver does see where i-evivals of 
 rehgiou tiike place, tliat it in not by denying j)roper JJivinity to 
 Clirist, but Ijy giving hi:u ali the fulhu i-w of the Go<lhead bo<lily, 
 not pai-tially, as the «lfK;trinf in (iuestion does. 
 
 Now, as 1 have before intiniiited, ii there is no other way to 
 prove th(! d'^Kjtrine in question, than wliut these modeini defentlers 
 have exlnbited, the doctrine is exph)ded with their own i>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<j relative to their sacriiices, in Matt. 
 23, 10-llJ, so reproved and denounced by the Haviour, is equidly 
 chargeable against the a<lherents to this doctrine, relative t^:» the 
 views they take of the sacrilice by which (iod redt^emed the world; 
 they both fell intfj the same error. In tlie above f)ortian of scrif>- 
 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 <aid paid. Hence it. is absurd to teach that it 
 was a Divine sacritice God required, and in supplying it God hira- 
 «elf died ; this is equal to sayinf* that the altar was the aacrihce, 
 which is absurd. This is the error the doctrine in question snares 
 its adherents into, and the entertainers of the doctrine in question 
 are as worthy the appellation of fools and blind as to the views 
 they take of the Siicrifico by which God redeemed the world, as 
 were the Jews in reference to the view they took of their otferings ; 
 both are found in the same error and are worthy of the same re- 
 proof. 
 
 The adherents of this doctrine «ee clearly they cannot have an 
 Eternal Hon- short of having pei-sonality in the Godheatl, and they 
 cannot have pei-wjnality in the Godhead short of having an Eter- 
 nal Hon ; hence the one doctrine is de])endent on, and arises out of 
 the other, so it is clearly seen these two dcxdirines stand or fall to- 
 gether, m Tell'ry plainly taught on jjage 20 of hi« book. The prin- 
 ci[)le8 on which it is b;ised saj) its foundation; look at it from 
 whfvtsoever scriptural standpoint you will, it .carries self refuta- 
 tion on the face of it, in view of those who are not governed by 
 prejudice, Ijut are guidfxl by God's word in the use of right reason. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 A SUGOESTION GIVEN, AND EGOTISM AND SLANDER EXPOSED. 
 
 Now is it to be expected that the entertainers of the doctrine 
 in question will attempt any new rawle of proving its tnithfulnessi 
 I woidd suggest to them to not <lo as the above theologians have 
 done, in their gmrig to old Jewish and Heathen historians as their 
 authority for s<!ntiment and phraseology, but go to school to your 
 Bible in the use of right reason, and see if in the search of an 
 eternal son, you enter into those holy ranks of inspired writ^jrs, 
 th^ will not sajr unto you in reference to your i)aiit conduct, *' O 
 ffwlisli man ! who hath bewitched you," to go to |>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 Lor<l JenuM Christ, in the 
 very act of admittiiig {)er8onality in the Godhead ; the doctrine 
 /jiveH him but one HulrmiHtence out of three an IiIh Divine naturo ; 
 tbiH JH not pro[»er, but partial Divinity. 8t. Paul given him all 
 the fulueHH of the Godhead ; ti'ailition denicH liim thiH ; no man 
 can couHwUintly give Chriht pro|)er Divinity and entertain the doc- 
 trine in qut'btion. ^ 
 
 ThiH doctrine in doing in thin what it intended Ut do, <]enying 
 proper Divinity to Chriat. Thia Dr. Clark did i.ot do. Nor does 
 the doctrine give the Son of God proper Immanity, for it nays the 
 Hon of God waH originated in the Grnlhead l)efore time or flesh ; 
 this is the mark given by Ht. John in his second Epistle to the 
 anti-christian teacher whom Ht. John calls a transgressor ; he con- 
 fesses not that Jesus Christ came in the flenh ; the Eternal 8on 
 came not in the flesli ; the doctrine says he came Ix-fore time or 
 flesh, even in pa>rt eternity ; hence he is said t<i be a H<jn before there 
 was human flesh. This is" not the Son of G«hI St. Paul points to 
 when he says, *' in the fulness of time G(kI sent foi-th liis Son made 
 of a woman " ; hence the Eternal Son hu.s no projH-r natui'e, nei- 
 ther human nor Divine, 'j'his is not the Son of God Dr. Clark 
 believetl in. 
 
 It is evident that Triffryor his ancestral tulebparertf, who brought 
 to him the traditional* vanities contained in the do<;trine in ques- 
 tion, WHS not actuatt5d by tlif same spirit as St. John and St. 
 Paul. John was in the Isle of I'atmos, and was in the spirit, and 
 saw a gi'eat white throne, and him that sat on it ; but though he 
 describes the glorifled humanity of our Ijord Jesus Christ, he does 
 not |)resume t<^) describe him that sat on the Great Whit<5 Throne. 
 Paul was caught up in the visions of God into the third Heaven, 
 was an eye and ear witness of the language and melodies of the 
 spirit world ; y«.'t when he returned, was not jjennitted to relate to 
 mortals what he was a living witness of; the laws, language and 
 eraphjyments of the spirit world, and the scenes above that of 
 earth must not be tiiught or related on earth by human voice to 
 human ears. 
 
 But our author as an acknowledged incaj»acitated moi'tal,will link 
 arms with Heathens, who have not the Bible, and will attempt tr> 
 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 H<jn of (jr(xl." And Philip baptised the eunuch in this faith. 
 The tnan that overlooks the exustijuce of auch scriptures is not a 
 fiafe 5(uide. • 4,. :gn 
 
 t/Vlt »»not likely lie saw* that if this identity of Christ and Son of ^ 
 God was apj)lied specially to our blessed Lord, it w<aild destroy 
 his system of eternal sonship, for it would make the term sou 
 originate in the incarnation, and belong to the complek character 
 of Christ, which he labr>urs 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<l in 
 the way to Heaven. ^i,i'^m,u^ z^** 
 
 He further says on page 178, '" Assuming that these appella- 
 tions, Christ alid Son of G(kI, w61ib commonly regarded as dia- 
 criptive of tSvo distinct persons." This is another false proposi- 
 tion, and is consequently calcuUted to lead to false conclusions. 
 But let us be divinely guided to assume truthfully, that these 
 appellations, Christ and Son of God, were descriptive of one fjer- 
 son possessed of two natures, human and divine, and then we 
 have their true meaning. 
 
 On page 8, he says, " It would be a melancholy consideration, 
 that in this present d-^a of extensive enqidiy, and with all the 
 aids which the research ahd Wisdom of ages can supply, we should 
 yet, upon this point, be generally in en-or." 
 
 Its adherents and defendei* must remain in enor on this sub- 
 ject, till they go to the judgment seat of Christ ; if instead of ex- 
 amining they employ their energies in defending, and handing 
 down to posterity the traditional error, and will prefer Heathen 
 and Jewish phraseology and sentiments, to the teachings of the 
 Holy BiVde, 
 
?>.•) 
 
 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 nh8ur<litieH to befoiiiul in Treffry's ho,Qk ; in his acknow- 
 Iwlge*! inoapabilitieH to umlerstand or explain the iloctrine in ques- 
 tioii, and liiH acting contrary to his convictions. We shall noH^ 
 examine the soin'ce whence he received this doc;trine of a <^enera- 
 ;ted l>eity, and liis pupils nmy ask themselves the same que8ti<m, 
 Avhile we invite them to-fui-ther continne with us till they hear 
 his acknowledgements. He sHys on page 238 of his book : — " The 
 WMirce whence thf^ corrupt doctrine of a flivtne generation found 
 its way int<» the C'hurch of Christ, M'as even in St. John's day — 
 (though he does not appear himself to f)erc€nve that he has em- 
 braced the foul heresy) the doctrine of a divine genemtion, wa« 
 extensively i-eceived, it was common at once to the theology of the 
 Jews, or the orientalized f)hilos()])hy of the Greek, and so strong 
 iuul it laid hold upon the faith of men a« eventually to be extend- 
 «l to all int<41ig(!nt existences. It was this tenet in an exaggera- 
 ted and distoi-ted form, which systematized the most perntcioi^ 
 heresies in the Primitive Church. Numerous defms or emaniitious 
 l)eing fancied or feigned jjosscssing h divine gfuiture, and a, cer- 
 tain sort of consubstantiality. This teiTn means an existence of 
 more than one in the same subsistence. This figment in all pro- 
 })ability had l>egun 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, <Xrc. 
 
 When Philo does not speak the words that suit Treffry, he 
 takes the liberty to divine Philo's thoughts. On page 80, as fol- 
 lows, " The natural conclusion from his silence is, that while 
 Philo considered the Logos and the Hon of God of identical ap- 
 plication, he had no conception that the glorious being thus desig- 
 nated would ever becoiue incarnated , or that the Mesiah and the 
 Son of God could be one and the same person " He tells \is above 
 that Philo had no reference to the Messiah — no indications that 
 in pnd sense he waited for the consolation of Israel. We would 
 present the question to the enlightened reader, that presents itself 
 to our mind, and request him to answer it to himself if he can, 
 whether is Philo as above desciibed by Treffry, or Treffry him- 
 self, most ignorant of God and Christ, according to tJie scriptures ] 
 He therefore tries to make Philo's silence prove his theoiy : who 
 would he at a loss for witnesses if such evidence would pass in 
 court 1 
 
 The above is a specimen of the character Treffry givt s of Philo, 
 and he further says of him on page 59, " But the writings of 
 Philo, — they are therefore in many respects the most valtiotde 
 aids to the present part of our investigation which wn can com- 
 mand." Hence Pliilo is his stronghold, as before intimated ; the 
 character and doctrinal views of ou^^ associjites become the stan- 
 dard by which our own theological character is measurtni, in re- 
 ference to the knowledge of G'od and of Christ. The inspired 
 writei*s could give him no help in making out his point an to the 
 phrases needed ; his doctrine is a transaction altogether outside 
 the Bible ; he gets no materials inside as to terms or phrases suit- 
 able for his purpose ; in all his objectionable pro|)08ition8 he labours 
 
 I 
 
-. '• 
 
 to establish ; and his mean theoiy is ohjectionJfcle ; lie cannot in 
 one instance say thus saitli the Lord, but he tries to say, thus 
 saith Philo, whether by saying or by silence. The doctrine in 
 question solely belongs to and poLtits, according to traditional 
 teachings, to ' the pre-existent divine natuie of Christ, and the 
 burthen of its efl'ort concenters -in one point, and that is to deny 
 proper divinity to Christ lesus. The New Testament gives him 
 all the fulness of the God -head bodily by hypostatical union ; but 
 this doctrine gives him but one-third of the God-head, and that by 
 communication from another. Are these differences trival or 
 trilling, as Tretfry says they are in his preface to his book t There 
 is not more dilference between light and darkness, between right 
 and wrong, than there is between Treti'ry tradition and the Bible, 
 relative to God and Christ. 
 
 Choosing Philo in preference to St, Paul for terms and phrases 
 on which to base the doctrine in question, cairies with it its own 
 condemnation ; for an inspired writer never used the terms which 
 he gleans from Philo, which he thinks are favourable to divine 
 generation, whtither they be Eternal Father, Eternal Son, three 
 persons, Tjinity, Divine generation, or Triune God, these terms 
 are each of them dependent on and arise out of each other ; and 
 when these terms are not found inside the Bible, he goes to Philo 
 for them. For neither angel, patriarch, prophet or apostle, ever 
 spoke or wrote the terms above referred to. "I have givtii them 
 the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them," 
 saith Jesus ; b\it the above terms God never gave ; they are hu- 
 man coinage by uninspired men, forced on us by tradition. 
 
 Do Trctiry's pupils ever think that it is only a j^rofessed 
 Christian that can preach anti-christian doctrine, that is, entertain 
 and propagate opinions of Christ .) esus that are not true 1 Jews 
 deny that Christ has come ; Heathens know nothing about Him. 
 There were many anti- Christian teachers in St. John's day, who 
 went out from the Ai)08tles, whom the Apostles described as de- 
 ceivers ; though they preached Christ, they misrepresented Him. 
 Tretiry does not seem to think there could be such men in the 
 Apostles' day, or any other day ; but he seems to think that any 
 man, Jew or Heathen, or professed Christian, may say what he 
 pleases about the divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, or Son 
 of God, and if it savours of divine generation, he will willingly 
 endorse it as genuine. 
 
 But the Holy Scriptures teach us in reference to the ti*ue sacri- 
 fice by which the world was redeemed, " Christ our passover wa« 
 sacrificed for us — (1 Cor. 5-7)," even proper humanity, and not 
 a divine sacrifice. The complex cliaracter of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ becomes an altar on which the redeemed race may cast 
 their individual souls by faith, and obtain a sanctity thereby 
 that meetens for glory. Hence the error found in the doctrine 
 in question, which imposes tiie belief on listening multitudes, 
 that " God for a guilty world hath died." " The great Creator 
 died." " The God of angels died," <kc. We are siu'o the Bible 
 does not teach so. 
 
39 . 
 
 Jesiw, my great high priest. 
 Ottered His blood and died, 
 My guilty conscience seeks, 
 
 No sacritice beside, 
 His powerful blood did once atone, 
 .f • And now it pleads before the Throne. 
 
 "Hence we say it was not a divine sacrifice, but God j)rovided 
 the sacrifice which suited the demands of the case, which was 
 found in the seed of the woman, the Vii-gin's son ; he had blood 
 to shed ; he had a corporeal body which could become extinct ; in 
 him humanity suffered, bled and died ; hence God did not die. 
 The Rev. Richard Watson vindicates this principle in his Insti- 
 tut«s, Vol. I, page 623 4, " And the hiiterodox know that we 
 neiiher belitve that Gud mir the Lord could die. God himself — 
 His nature was incapable of death." This is Watson's sentiment 
 on the subject : this is his own independent view, which accords 
 with scripture and right reason ; but, the reception of the doctrine 
 in question necessitates its adherents to a denial of this, and com- 
 pels them to say and sing the untruthful assertion, — " God for a 
 guilty world hath died." 
 
 The multitude who with inspired tongues vindicate this senti- 
 ment, that Jesus' blood is the redemption price in connection 
 with his mangled body, in opi)osition to a divine (or spirit) 
 sacritice, are as a cloud of witnesses. Hear their imperishable 
 language: — *'Thou hast redeemed us to God by the blood;" 
 " which He has purchased with his own blood." "Being justified 
 by his blood." " Made peace through the blood of his Cross." 
 •'Without shedding of blood there is no remission." " Into the 
 holiest by the blood of Jesus." " With the precious blood of 
 Christ." " His blood cleanseth us from all sin." "Washed in 
 His own blood." •* Made white in the blood of the Lamb." "For 
 the life of the flesh is in the blood : and I have given it to you 
 upon the altar, to make an at(mement for your so\ils : for it is the 
 blood that maket an atonement for the soul" Lev. 17-11. This 
 is the sacrifice inspiration guides us to as the redemption price. 
 Now, in view of these things, who would be the pupil of tradi- 
 tion, and be led theieby to accept rival sacritice that had no 
 blood to shed ] Such is spirit of any kind. 
 
 We therefore conclude that is a gi-eat mistake to believe that 
 it was a divine sacritice that died to redeem us. Let tlie Bible 
 student hjok at it from whatsoever scriptural stand point he may, 
 he will see its absurdity. The construction commonly put on 
 that passage of Scriptun; — Acts 20-28, — " which he has pur- 
 chased with liis own blood," is commonly said to be the blood of 
 God. This is calculatiul to mislead the simple. It was the 
 blood of Christ in his complex nature ; for the invisible God Ijad 
 no blood to shed ; the Son of God in his union with the Father 
 had blood, and it was shed when in that union with tlie Father ; 
 in this the blood of Christ had its merit. 
 
 Therefore, in believing that it was a Divine or spirit sacrifice, is 
 it not us poeative a mistake in reference to the true sacrifice that 
 
''■■...■■■" » 
 
 died to red(3em, as there would have been discoverable in the sac- 
 rifice of the Jewish Passover, had the Jew selected the young of 
 the ass, or the elephant, or swine, instead of the young of the 
 sheep or goat ? They would only have been wrong in selecting 
 a saci'itica which God did not appoint ; had they done this, we 
 may conjecture what would have been the result in their case. 
 Hence it is a great mistake to say God for a guilty world hath 
 died, as before said ; we are sure the Bible does not say so, Wat- 
 son in his Institutes fui-ther says, — Page G24 — '* All modern sects 
 of Christians agree in admitting that the greatest benefits arise to 
 us from the Saviour of the world being man." Watson further 
 says what involves a deep truth, on page 453,— "The God of 
 those who deny the Trinity is not the Got! of those who worship 
 the Tiinity ; so that one or the other worship what is nothing in 
 the world." He further says : — '* We are betwet.'u the extremes 
 of pure and acceptable devotion, and of grace and ollensive 
 idolatry, and must run to one or the other if the dfxtrine of the 
 Trinity be true." Equally so, if the doctrine of the Trinity be 
 false. 9 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 MISKEPRESENTATION t'ORRECTED. 
 
 Another great error has wonderfully obtained in reference to 
 the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and has been frequently 
 preached to us from the pulpit! That the Father forsook the Son 
 on the cross; and it is given as proof our Lord's words. "My God, 
 my God, why hast thou forsaken me." Now, we think if it was so 
 that the Father forsook the Son in the hour of the world's atone- 
 ment, that the world would not be redeemed yet. But "God was 
 in Christ reconciling the v«^orld to himself, not imputing their tres- 
 passes to them." What God has joined together in the atonement 
 let no man attempt to put asunder. My reader may ask, and 
 what did his exclamation on the cross mean ; if the Father did 
 not forsake the Son '? The corporeal part of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, several times before he came to the cross, was so over- 
 whelmed by mental sufferings, that he felt soiTowful even nnto 
 death, as in Matt. 26, 37-38, and Luke 22, 42-44, and in Hebrews 
 5, 7. " Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up 
 prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him 
 that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he 
 feared." Angels ministered to him and stiengthened him on these 
 occasions, and humanity continued to survive. But now he is 
 come to the cross ; his hour is now come, and when nailed to the 
 cross ; the same humanity that on former occasions, when sorrow- 
 ful unto death, had prayed to him that was able to save him from 
 death, and was heard in that he feared, cry's again to his Father 
 and God, for relief as heretofore ; but no relief comes ; for this 
 end he came into the world. Humanity — corporeal nature must 
 die, must become extinct; the intellectual spirit must leave the 
 house of clay ; and \mder these circumstance he cries, " My God, 
 my God, why hast thou forsaken me ]" — thou who ministered to 
 
41 . 
 
 me at other times ; but no relief for corporeal nature ; the blood 
 which is the life of the flesh ia being poured out. Now the pre- 
 diction is being fulfilled : " awake a sword against my shepherd," 
 Zech. 1 3, 7 ; now the hour is come in which he is to taste death 
 for overj- man ; and now there is no support or escape for corpo 
 real nature, the corporeal man Chriat must die ; animal life must 
 becozne extinct, for the intellectual spirit cannot die, nor was spirit 
 of any kind required to die ; s])irit of any kind cannot become 
 extinct, either angel or man, but iu as defiant of extinction as Gotl 
 himself j the intellectual spirit must leave the corporeal body : and 
 he cried, " it is finished, and bowed his head and gave up the 
 Ghost." Exacted is the legal pain and required death ; the world 
 of mankind is redeemed. But did the Divine nature leave the in- 
 tellectual spirit of the Son of God when or before he dismissed 
 his spirit from the dying body on the cross ] No ; God was in the 
 intellectual spirit going to Paradise, where he promised to meet 
 the dying thief that day ; yea, and from the conception in the 
 womb, to the cross, and fi^om the cross to the throne, before which - 
 he appears in the presence of God for us ; the blessed Jestis 
 could ever say : — " The Father that dwelleth in me he doeth the 
 works." John 14, 10. The finite mind has no right to attempt 
 to explain this union ; " this holy thing is covered, we should not 
 attempt to look in." Numbers 4, 20. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 WHAT THINK YE OF CHRIST, WHOSE SON IS HE? 
 
 Seeing that we reject on scriptural gi'ounds in the use of right 
 reason, even the existence of an Eternal Son, my reader may feel 
 inclined to ask me the very proper question which the blessed 
 Jesus asked his audience, Matt. 22, 42, saying, " What think ye of 
 Christ, whose Son is he V 
 
 In order to give a proper answer to this question, we must be 
 directed by the holy scriptures (not by ti^adition.) The scriptures 
 exhibit to us the Redeemer of the world in a threefold point of view, 
 each part of which must be considered in itself, and also in its 
 relation to the other 1 Fiiwt; as God the maker and governor of the 
 world, (Isaiah 43, 10 11.) — " before me there was no God formed, 
 neither shall there be after me ; I, even I, am the Lord, and besides 
 me there is no Saviour." This is proper Divinity ; God originates 
 the plan of our redemption, and in carrying it out, he takes hold of 
 the very humanity that sinned, and finds in it a substance suitable 
 which he uses in connection with his own mercy and })ower as a 
 redeeming sacrifice ; this is j)ointed to in the fiixt promise given to 
 the fi rat unhappy pair; "the seed of the woman." (G^n. 3, 15, 
 and Gala. 3, 8,) — preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, 
 " In tliee shall all nations be blessed;" and vei-se IC, — "Now to 
 Abraham and his seed were the promises made. H e saith not, 
 and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one. And to thy seed, 
 WHICH IS Christ." The scripture here calls Christ, the seed of 
 AV)raham, by Isaac. '' In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and it 
 calls the seed of Abraham, "Christ," — "which seed ts Curiht." 
 
42 
 
 - " Whose Son is he V It is seen here, in sciipture language, the 
 son of Abraham. This is the proper humanity. Now we have 
 proper Divinity, and projjer humanity 8crij)tural]y exhibited to u» 
 as the Saviour of men. We may further notice as the lin(»ige by 
 which Ciirist came, he was the root of David, in the peraon of 
 Jesse his Father, and the offspring of David in the person of Solo- 
 mon, tfec. See Isaiah 11,1; "and there shall come forth a rod out of 
 the stem of Jesse, and a bi'anch shall grow out of his roots," and 
 Kevelation 5, 5, " Befuild iha Lion uf the tribe of Jadah, the root 
 of David." — Jesus Christ springs from this tiibe as his genealogy 
 
 ^ proves ; see on Matt, 1 and Luke 3. " Dr. Clarke says there is an 
 allusion here to Gen. 39, 9. " Jndah u a Lion's uhf^p;" the Lion 
 •was the emldem of this, tribe, and was suitposed to have been em- 
 broidered on its ensigns." The lineage is traceable down through 
 generation after generation until the blessed Vii-gin made her a})- 
 pearance, of whose seed according to the promise " in the fulness of 
 time God sent forth his son mode of a woraun,'" — (in time not in 
 past eterfiihy^ us ttadifion says); " he was made imder the law," "to 
 
 " redeem them tiiat were under the (curse of a broken) J^'iw." The 
 same princii)le is still further seen in Acts 2, 30 : — " Therefore being 
 a prophet, and knowing that God had 8 woni with an oath to him, 
 that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, he would rais^ 
 up Christ to sit on his throne." The inspired writers with uniform 
 caution and clearness, point out proper hamanity in Christ, distin- 
 guishing between the corporeal and intellectual natures of Christ ; 
 they claim kindred with the corjjoreai nature of Christ, but not 
 \/ith the intellectual spirit of Christ. The in.spired writers are 
 uniform in this ; God swore to David that of the fruit of his loins 
 according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. 
 St. Paul claims kindred in this stmse with Christ's corpoi'eal nature 
 
 k also ; *' Tor we ar« meml)ers of his bo<ly, of his flesh, and of his 
 bones.*' Eph. 5, 30. " God sending his own Son in the liJeeness 
 of sinful ^e»/4, ami for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Horn. 8, 3, 
 "Whose are the Father's, and of whom as concerning the flesh, 
 Christ came." Rom. 9, 5. " For as much, then, as the children 
 are partsikeis of flfsh and hluid, he himself likewways took part of 
 the same; that through death he might destroy liim that had the 
 power of death, that is the devil." Heb. 2, 14. The reason is 
 more clearly seen in this, that the intellectual spirit of Christ that 
 w^ent from the cross to Paradise, in accordance with his pi-omise to 
 tlie i>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 t<i 
 human propagation ; there was no arnalganuition of natures in the 
 l»roduction of the human body of Christ, he was nuulc. of the 
 setd of the woman ; (Gal. -i, 4.) 
 
 As there is no ititellectual g^rm in the seetl of the woman, 
 therefore the rational spiiit of which Christ was possesnod must 
 have come from the same sotiree whenoe the rational H[)ifit of ^mr 
 
44 
 
 iirat Adam ctime, — God supplied it, and for the Hame reafton lyhy 
 our first A<lam is called the 8on of Qo<l (Luke 3, 38) as his 
 author and maker, equally ho is our second Adim Christ, culled 
 the Son of God, for he had no human Father. As our first Adam 
 was a foileral head to propagate the i*ace, even so in our second 
 Adam a federal to redeem the i-ace ; henc«i he has his intellectual 
 spirit immediately from God, as our first Adam ha<l ; neither the 
 first Adam, nor our second Adam, Chiist, had their int«;llectual 
 spirit by propagation, like Adam's posterity has, for they hml no 
 human Father. (Jhfist was the only existent intelligence in the 
 univei-se that was both begotten an(l made. Our first parents were 
 made ; they had neither human Father nor mother ; God was 
 their Father, by immediate creation ; Christ hax^l a human mother, 
 he was made of her seed, and she gave birth to him, as '* the only 
 l>egotten 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 lj<xlily." Heb. 2, Id. " For verily he took not on 
 him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abra- 
 ham." Now we think these are quite suflicient to establish the 
 IM>int. 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 <louth the works;" he does not attribute any miracle to the man 
 Christ, but as to his union with the Father, in his comjilex char- 
 acter ho thought it not robbery tf» be equal with God. The Father 
 gave not the spirit by raeiisure to him, in him dwelleth all the ful- 
 ness of the Uod-hejal bodily. 
 
 Now we think it is wrong to say in an unqualified sense that 
 Christ is God ; for the seed of Abraham (Gala. 3, 16,) was not 
 God ; nor the term Christ, in 1 Cor., mentioned some 13 times 
 by the apostle when proving the death, and resurrection of Christ, 
 did not mean God, but merely the man Christ Jesus ; hence it is 
 needful for us who teach in Jesus* name to understand the scrip- 
 tural distinctions given to us of Christ ; that we exhibit the Lamb 
 of God in his true character, whether in liis proper humanity, or 
 in his complex nature ; this being understood by us, we dare not 
 say nor teach that God died. This misrepresents the true sacri- 
 fice. 
 
 Now, it is to be distinctly understood, that the sciiptures speak 
 sometimes distinctly of the human nature of the complex charac- 
 ter of God manifest in the liesh, as the Chiist, as follows : — 
 " There is but one God and one mediator l>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, <kc., (fee." It is equally seen that the 
 scriptures sjjeak of Christ in his Hypostatical union with the 
 Father ; "I and my Father are one ;" *• they that have seen me 
 have seen the Father also ;" '* whore two or three are met toge- 
 ther in my name, there am I in the midst of them," <fec., <fec. This 
 union of human and l)ivine natures in the Messiah does not 
 foiin two persons ;" ^^ I and my Father urn one," This was pre- 
 dicted by the Prophets (Isa. 7, 14, and 9, 6), and is acknowledged 
 as being fulfilled by the prophets ; He, the Word, that was God, 
 took not on him the'nature of Angels, but he took on him the 
 seed of Abraham ; God was in Christ reconciling the world to 
 himself. 
 
 Hence, we being guided by scripture are led to conclude that 
 this Son of man, this Hon of God, this Christ, came in the flesh 
 (not sooner,) not in past eternity, befoi-e time or flesh, as the doc- 
 trine in question teaches, that Christ came from Heaven as an 
 Eternal Son. We are sure the Bible does not teach so. It is fur- 
 ther urged in favour of the doctrine in question, that the Father 
 gave and sent his Son to be the Redeemer of the World, and it is 
 alleged that these terms mean that he was originated iii past eter- 
 nity, even iu the eternal God-head, and that he must have come 
 
4C 
 
 from past eternity, even from Heaven, Now, this conBtruction 
 of the above terruH in contrary to all scripture guidance ; the fol- 
 lowing 8cri]>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 Go<l, whose name was John ;" 
 the meaning is he was God's messenger, commissioned of God to 
 do and teach as he did : Again, "We know that thou art a teacher 
 come from God, for no man can <lo these miracles that thou doest 
 except God \>e 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 ma<le. 
 
 And as to him l)eing ckIKmI the Son of (}(m1, the following 
 reasons appear: — He had no human Father •, the Power of the 
 Highfst overshadowed the blessed Virgin, and pnwluced the pro- 
 mised see(,l in the proper h>cality ; 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 d<jctrine. I make this 
 assei'tion fearless of successful contradiction. It is not Wesleyan 
 doctrine. I take the venei-able Wesley for ray witness ; though 
 he is dead, he yet speaketh ; the following explanation is indispu- 
 table proof ; let the objector examine how he exposes aud destroys 
 its foundation in the following way : — 
 
 It is not my int(Mition to say much in reference to the venerable 
 Wesley ; his praise is in all the churches ; but this every man will - 
 admit, that he knew more when he was 80 years old than when he 
 was 40. John Wesley was bom and educated a member of the 
 Church of England. His fatlier wiuj a minister in said Church, 
 and he was inducted into the Ministry of said Church. As a pious 
 youth, he received the doctrines of said^hurch with implicit con- 
 fidence as to their truthfulness, among which the doctrine of the 
 Eternal Sonahip of Christ held a prominent position. These , 
 doctrines he preached and defended and expounded, without the 
 least suspicion of their fallacy, till his head whitened in the Minis- 
 try, interspersing his ex[)lanations and defence of it in his seiinons, 
 and notes on the New Testament, and hymns. 
 
 And toward the close of his usefxil life, his son in the Gospel, 
 the venerable Dr. Adam Clark, in publishing his commentary on « 
 the Bible, exposed and disproved the doctrine in question ; which 
 no doubt led Mr. Wesley to examine tlie doctrine with care. He 
 was now well up to 80 years of age ; aixd it clearly appears that 
 he perceived the doctrine was unscriptural, and that it was the 
 foundation of Arianism. Age now forbade an attempt on his pai-t 
 to publish in the Church a personal retraction of hisfonner senti- 
 ments on this subject, lest it would unhinge the consolidated unity 
 of the Church ; and what was to be done ? It ap{>ears 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 an<l Hymns, are attributable to his reception of the 
 doctrine in his youth, as contjiined in the formulas of the Church 
 of England, as before noticed ; and his renouncing the principles 
 of the doctrine before he died, is proof that it is not Wesleyan 
 doctrine. They who are tnily Wesleyan on this doctrine feel 
 cause of thankfulness that the blt^ssed Lord abundantly honoured 
 Wesley among men in convincing him l)efore he died of the error 
 of the doctrine, which led him to renounce its principles, as above 
 noticed, in the article referred to, where he leaves the unretract- 
 ed assertions : — "Greater and lesser in Infirmity are not ; inferior 
 God-head shocks our sense ; our Redeemer from everlasting had 
 not the inferior name of Son ; yet it is lamentable that there are 
 so many of his Ministerial followers that have not allowed them- 
 selves to examine the subject like the venerable Wesley did near 
 the close of his valuable life, the result of which we notice alwve; 
 and if many of them have examined the subject as did Wesley, 
 an(| are as convinced as was Wesley, they are putting tljeir. light 
 
51 ' • 
 
 (as it were) under a buBlit'ljin not coi/iing out as did Wtjsley, in 
 denouncing tjie intntnal principles of said doctrine, as did Mr, 
 Wesley in the article above referred to ; and don't seem ■ to be in 
 dread of incurring tlio penalty, "to him that knoweth to do good 
 and doeth it not, tf) him it i« sin." 
 
 To reject truth, and hold to error, is the great^'st source of 
 blight the nomhud Church of Christ is dwarfed with ; they that 
 receive light and truth, and don't exhibit it, ai-e in diuiger of 
 being abandoned t(f judicial J)lindness, so a« to lose the relish for 
 truth, and be snared into readily Ijelieving a lie. Setting an un- 
 due estimate on the judgment of the mistiilcjn multitude, forms 
 sjlf-shackies, which blinds the mind like grasping a forbidden 
 oV)ject. The youthful minist-er is «et easily tempted to not let his 
 light shine in reference to this subject, lest ministerial seniority 
 should lay stumbling blocks in the way of his juvenile progress, 
 and he be dealt with tujcordhig to the principles of the test act. 
 Man is subject to temptation on this groun<l ; but woe to that 
 man by whoui the offence cojneth. 
 
 It is fiu'fcher manifest, we say, that there is some secttirijin soil 
 so polluted with otlica- obnoxious theological weeds of a most wild 
 discription, so well cultivated by human art, as to render such sec- 
 tarian soil very con^^^enial to this sj)urious, da)'kening, God-dishon- 
 ouring doctrine <A' n generated deity, I hope the ministry and 
 membership in every branch of the Christian Church will sincere- 
 ly, and pi'ayerfully consider these things, jind expunge from their 
 theology that anti-christian principle of a generated Deity ; and 
 Cod will use them more extensively than ever in the conversion of 
 the human family ; and I am further constrained to think and say 
 that if the jiresent theolc^iy which now overspreads the land, 
 found in the doctrine in question, remains unchanged, Cod will 
 raise up another penjjle ; should he Jig them out of the inountahi, 
 sooner or later, let theni be called by whatever name they may, 
 who will embrace and retain i\ pure seri})tui-al th(!ology, and in(li 
 vidually, and faithfully confesithat Jesus Christ came; in the flesh 
 (not sooner) in St. John's s'use of tiie \v<n'd, as a.l>ove 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 appellati<m of the 
 second advent of Christ, in as much as all branches of the Chris- 
 tian Church since the apostolic age, who have received the tradi- 
 tional doctrine in question, have only preaehcd Chiist truthfully, 
 commencing at the incarnation. Tlie pre-existence of his Divine 
 nature was by them misunderstood, and consequently misrepre- 
 sented, discoverable in the doctrine of a generated Deity, giving 
 ('hrat only the one-third of the God-head, even one imaginary 
 
substance out of three ; whereas iuapiratiou gives him all the full- 
 ness of the God-he;i(l bodily ; hence the necessity in this 1 9 th 
 century of a second advent of Christ in a n\ore clear and full ex- 
 planation of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of th© Father, in 
 reference to the pre-existence of his Divine nature, prior to the 
 incarnation of the Eternal Word, which posses Clirist in his com- 
 plex nature with all the fullness of the God-head bmlily, and par- 
 tially, as the doctrine in question enjoins. In the above, my rea- 
 sons are found for waiting against the dootrin^ in question, and 
 I'emaiuing still in the Church of my choice, and I sincerely pray 
 for the expunging of this heresy from the theology of Protestant- 
 ism. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 schlftubje and tiudixion as candidates for suffrage of bible 
 students; ah to which pkesents the true son of UOD. 
 
 Meantime we shall take a condensed look at the contrast exist- 
 ing between tlie scripturally exhibited Son of God, and the 
 the traditionally exhibited Eternal Son of God. The name and 
 characteristics of the Eternal Son are not found inside the Bible ; 
 he is questionable on this ground as being an aiicn. The govern- 
 ment of the Bible does not admit such candidates as a rival to the 
 only name given under Heaven amongst men by which we must 
 be saved ; even Jesus ( Jhrist of Nazareth, who was crucified, 
 whom God raised from the dead, neither is there salvation in any 
 other: (Acts 4, 10-12.) 
 
 Our blessed Lord teaches the redeemed race where they are to 
 search, from whence to receive a true knowledge of himself ;'* 
 " search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
 life ; and they are they which testify of rae." John 5, 37. The 
 scriptures know nothing of an Eternal Son ; it is a name the 
 tongue or pen of Inspiration never spake or wrote ; hence he 
 is not introduced in the language the Holy Ghost teacheth ; 
 neither Prophetic predictions, nor Apostolic teachings knew any- 
 thing of him. 
 
 The scriptural Son of God was " the only begotten of the 
 Father." (John 1, 14-18.) The Eternal Son, tradition says, 
 was twice begotten ; Bishop Peai'son on the Creed, (page 26) so 
 this cannot be the only begotten. 
 
 The scrii)tui'es point us to a Son of God who had a Virgin 
 mother. (Luke 1, 31.) Ti'vdition does not know, at least does 
 not tell us who was the mother of the Eternal Son ; traditional 
 conjecture could .lever point her out ; man that is born of a 
 woman must be very credulous to believe that there is a son 
 produced by generation who never had a mother. 
 
 The scriptural Son of God had two proper natures, human 
 and Divine. (John 1, 1; Hebrews 2, 6. Gal. 3, 6. Rom. 1, 
 3. Isa. 7, 14.) The tt^itional Eternal Son had no proper 
 nature at all, as being originated in past Eternity, ho could have no 
 human nature, and the principles of personality in the God«head 
 try to teach that there are three stibsristetices in the God-head, and 
 
53 
 
 tlio secuiul is 8ai«l to be the Eternal Son ; hence there are two 
 other subsistencies ijaicl to be in the God-head, the Eternal Son is 
 not possessed of; consequently, he has not proper Divinity, so he 
 has no proper nature, neither human nor divine. Wc may say of 
 him as inspiration says of an iilol, " we know that an idol Is noth- 
 ing in the world." (1 Cor. 8, 4.) 
 
 The scriptural Soii of God had blood to shed. (Rev. 5, 9. 1 
 Peter, 1, 19.) The Eternal Son which tradition brings us, had 
 no blood as such . Tradition tells us he existed from all eternity 
 lus spirit, for there was no huTuanity in the Eternal God-head prior 
 to the incarnation ; hence they are two characters in this also. 
 
 The scriptural Son of God was made of a wf>man. (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 ( <l(>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 <pu'stion 
 inakes him neither the first nor the last, but the second, on the 
 principle of personality in the God head : they are two charaoters 
 in this also. ■ 
 
 The scriptural Son of God eoidd die, and did die ; Christ died 
 for the uiigodlv. (Kom. 5, G.) Christ dieil for our sins. (1 
 Cor. 15, 3.) lie could not die on any other principle than being 
 jMjssoss^ of ooii.)oreal nature. The life of the tlesh is in the 
 
54 
 
 blood : — it iH the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 
 (Lev. 17, 11.) Blood the Eternal Son hjul not; he is deficient 
 here also. 
 
 The scriptural Son of God was to come of the seed of the wo- 
 man, and was to be a Virgin's Son, having no human Father ; 
 God was his Father, and he was to be born of a woman (Gen. 3, 
 15. Isa. 7, 14), and to come of the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3, 16), 
 and down through the seed or lineag3 of David (Rom. 1, 3, &c,). 
 The traditional Eternal Son we have nothing given to us from 
 any source, as to the seed or lineage by which he came ; the 
 Bible knows nothing of such a being ; he is presented not as the 
 fulfillment of Propliecy ; he is not God-sent ; his name is not in 
 Heaven's available library, the Holy Bible ; he is a production of 
 human immagination ; so he is destitute of the credentials of the 
 scriptural Son cf God in these things also. 
 
 The scriptural Son of God not only died and rose again, " but 
 appears in the presence of God for us," (Heb. 9, 24,) which hei 
 wi'ought in Christ, whom he raised from the dead, and set him at 
 his own right hand, in the Heavenly places. (Eph. 1, 20.) By 
 ,the which will we are sanctified thn>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 <lied as a man, they also say he was raised as a 
 man, and the Apostle Thomas with the rest of the Apostles is 
 witness, the prints of the nails in his hands, the hole of the spear 
 in his side is witness. " Handle me and see, a spirit hath not 
 flesh and bones as yon see me have," is also witness that he was 
 raim'd as a MAN. The Saviour himself aj*plied the term Son to the 
 human nature of the complex character of Christ ; Christ teaches 
 the listening multitudes in reference to the day of Judgment ; ho 
 says, "of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no not the 
 Angels which are in heaven, neither the Sow, but the Father." 
 (Mark 13, 32.) The Father never revealed to Angels, Prophets 
 nor Apostles, nor even to the man Christ Jesus, when that day or 
 that hour would come : it is not for you to know the times and 
 the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power. (Acts 
 
 Apply this innocent ignorsmce to the imaginary Eternal Son as 
 
55 
 
 being a puraoii in the Gud-head; and it virtually iraplicH that one 
 of the persons is ignorant of the end from the beginning ; then 
 the Etei-ual Son has no cktini to a share in the Divine God-head. 
 " To the only wise God our Saviour, be gh^ry and majesty, domin- 
 ion and power, Ijoth now and ever, amen." The ternL Son is ap- 
 plied to projier humanity in 1st Cor. 15, 24, 28. "Then shall the 
 Son also himself be subject unto him tliat put all things under 
 him, that God may b<' all in all." The offices of Kedemption, 
 Mediation, and Judge, have done their work ; pi'obation is ended ; 
 every one of Adam's raee luis rriceived his reward. The Kingdom is 
 now given up to the Father, " that Gtul may be all in all," and 
 the Son of the Virgin in his glorified humanity, now takes his 
 place at the hetid of redeenieil millions, who have obtained redemp- 
 tion through his blood, all of whom shall join in (»ne eternal song 
 of united praise ; " for thou was't slain, and hast redeemed us to 
 God by thy blood, out of every kindred and tongiie, and i>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 S<jn of God, as above pointed out, or the traditionally exhibited 
 Eternal Son, as above noticed? Your decision will meet you at 
 the Judgement Seat of Ch.rist ; may the Lorrt direct thy heart in 
 thv decision. .«?.. ji:?.vi^;t i.^ jr*. iv- «»jvi'- ^m ij;;ii.-j 
 
 We give the foregoing remarkg to the public, praying God to 
 bless them, as far as they an; consistent with his will, to his 
 name's glory, and theg<>od 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.