MA 
 
 
 mm 
 
 NOAIJ WOKCKS 
 
 W4 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2007 with funding frDm 
 
 IVIicrosoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/biblenewsoffatheOOworcrich 
 
,/ 
 
 o 
 
 L/^^ 
 
 JsPCm4*j ^^ '^J 
 
 fk-^ 
 
 1 -1' 
 
 tjt-j--^^ 
 
 M^^VCA 
 
 ^ 
 
 (UI 
 
 
 %-r 
 
BIBLE NEWS, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT, 
 
 IN 
 
 A SERIES OF LETTERS. 
 
 IN FOUR PARTS. 
 
 I. ON THE UNITY OF GOD. 
 
 II. ON THE REAL DIVINITY AND GLORY OF CHRIST. 
 
 m. ON THE CHARACTER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 IV. AN EXAMINATION OF DIFFICULT PASSAGES OF 
 SCRIPTURE. 
 
 THE WHOLE ADDRESSED 
 
 TO A WORTHY MINISTER OF THE GOSPEX* 
 
 BY NOAH WORCESTER, A. M, 
 
 PASTOR OF THE CHURCH IN THORNTON, 
 
 " But to US there is but One Gor>, the Father."— St. Paui.; 
 
 " This is MY BELOVED SoN." — Jehovah. 
 
 •* How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy GhoST 
 and with Power." — St. Peter. 
 
 ConcorU : 
 
 Printed by george hough. 
 
 ' ',J(810. . ; > 
 
cUims as ^uv"-. ■■■ . pother, son. ■»"" -, . „{ GoG. h- '^'^ 
 
 .. Bibl. ^««^vf four parts. I- On *« "^';\ue Character o£ 
 
 Ties of letters. In *^ r Lyy of Christ. W- "^,,,11 Passages oE 
 
 the rea\Divintyanrt Glory o_^^^.^_^^ °*„f5; rn nister li the 
 
 the Holy Sp.r>t. J^„^^^",adressed ^o a ^or^y^^^,, ,h„rch ut 
 Scripture. The «*'.5^„,eester, a. M jastor j^^^,_st. PauU 
 Gospel. By.^°fto us there is one Gf^-^^^cod anointed 3es« 
 Thornton. V^Vm Son'--.3ehovah. ' Ho^Y^.^St. Peter. , 
 
 • This is tny^^.^^fi Holy Ghost and «'''^^"*,fe United States. 
 o£ Nazareth «ith the Hmy^^^ Congress ot the ^ 
 
BIBLE NEWS, 
 
 PART L 
 
 ON THE UNITT OF GOD. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Introductory Statements and Observations^ 
 REV SIR, 
 
 JLn solemn praj^er to his Father, our Divine Redeemer 
 said, " This is life eternal, to know thee, the o>fLY tkue 
 God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast6rn^." It must 
 hence appear, that no inquiries can be more justifiable nor 
 more interesting than those which respect the true charac- 
 ter of the Father and the Son. So far as we are in dark- 
 ness respecting these characters, we must necessarily be in 
 darkness respecting the Gospel of Divine Grace. To obtain 
 clear and scriptural views of the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Spirit, has long been a principal object of my 
 study and pursuit. 
 
 From my infancy, I was taught to believe the Athana- 
 $ian doctrine of three distinct co-equal and co-eternal Per- 
 sons in one God. And I do not recollect that I had any 
 doubts of its correctness, uni:iJ several years after I began 
 the work of the ministry. Believing it to be both true and 
 important, according to my ability I taught it to others. — 
 But even while I believed and taught the doctrine, 1 Wi;s 
 often embarrassed by it both in prayer and in ^r pching. 
 In giving thanks to God for his astonishing love in giving 
 his Son to die for our offences, ihe theory has occurred v/iiK 
 a chilling and confounding influence. These thoughts would 
 ';navoiclably rush into my mind — God and his Son are one 
 
 M128819 
 
4 On the Unity of God. 
 
 and the selfsame Beiang; the $on could not in reality die 
 or svffer any more than the Father ; it was only a mere 
 man ihM' sjifFerfed, tp whopti, the Son \vlas mysteriously 
 united. In my preaching, 'while expressing the love of 
 God in SPARING not his own Son, the same theory and 
 the same train of thoughts would occur ; and, in some in- 
 stances, both in prayer and in preaching,* the influence of 
 these thoughts has been so great as, for a time, to obstruct 
 my utterance. 
 
 Such embarrassments had a natural tendency to excite 
 suspicions in my mind that there must be some defect in 
 the theory which I had adopted. But the doctrine had 
 been so long and so generally believed by great Divines 
 and good people, that I almost trembled at the thought of 
 indulging my suspicions. At length I became acquainted 
 with the views of Dr. Watts, as exhibited in connexion 
 with the Memoirs of his life. These I read with care. He 
 supposed the Son of God not to be a self-existent Person^ 
 but a human Being created before the worlds, and inti- 
 mately united to the Father, so that in him dwelt all the 
 fulness of the Godhead ; and that from this union his Di- 
 vinity resulted. — His reasonings, to prove that the union 
 of the Man Jesus was with the Father, and not with a 
 second self-existent Person, appeared to me conclusive and 
 unanswerable. And as a union with the Father must im- 
 ply as great fulness and dignity as a union with another 
 Person just equal with the Father, I was unable to see why 
 his theory did not support the Divinity of Jesus Christ in, 
 as ample a manner as the Athanasian theory. 
 
 Another consideration, which greatly recommended to 
 my acceptance the theory of Dr. Watts, was this, it freed 
 me from those distressing embarrassments which I had 
 formerly felt in prayer and in preaching. For on his the- 
 ory, the real Person^ who is called the Son of God, was 
 the real Sufferer on the cross. 
 
 Having obtained this relief to my mind, I rested prettv 
 quietly for several years as a believer in Watts's theory of 
 the Trinity. But my apprehensions and ideas were so in- 
 distinct, that I indulged no thought of writing on the subject 
 with any view to publication, until the year 180r» In the 
 course of that year, my attention was in a peculiar manner 
 ^rrcsted by the natural import of this text, " But to us there 
 is but one God, the Father^ of whom are all things, and 
 
On the Unity of God. ^ 
 
 we in him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
 things, and we by him."* I noted, that in this verse the 
 apostle was exhibiting the faith of Christians, in contrast 
 with the faith of Heathens. In the preceding verse he had 
 said, '• For though there be that are called gods, whether 
 in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lords 
 many.'') Such is the faith of the Heathen world. With this 
 he contrasts the faith of Christians, " But to us there is but 
 ONE God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we m 
 him ; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all 
 things, and we by him." The ideas which appealed to me 
 to He plainly on "the face of this text, were these : 
 
 1. That the one sel^-existent God is one Person, 
 viz. the Father. The apostle does not say, But to us 
 there is but one God, yet this one G^od is three Persons. 
 His language is, " But to us there is but one God, the Fa- 
 ther." He distinctly names the Person whom he stiles 
 the ONE God, and calls him the Father. 
 
 2. That this one God is the Fountain or Source of all 
 things — " OF whom are all thmgs.^'*^ 
 
 3* That Jesus Christ, the one Lord, is a Person as dis- 
 tinct from the Being of God as he is from the Person of 
 the Father. After the apostle had distinctly told who is 
 the one God, he then proceeded to say, " and one Lord, 
 Jesus Christ." As he had named the one God, so he 
 also named the one Lord. 
 
 4. That Jesus Christ, the one Lord, is the Medium 
 or Agent, through whom or by whom God displays his 
 fulness in the production of events — *■' by xvhoin are all 
 things^ andzve by him»*^ 
 
 Such being the views I had of the text, a field was open^ 
 ed which appeared clear, spacious, and delightful. Thisv 
 field I entered, and began to write on the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, in a great measure conformable t-o the views of 
 Dr. Watts. Nearly two years my mind was absorbed in 
 these inquiries, and my mind employed in writing on the fprruu 
 subject. 1 wrote pretty largely, and thought I had pro- 
 duced something which might be useful to the public. 
 
 But while writing for the press, it frequently occurred 
 to my mind that the dejinitwe and eniphatical langusi^t used 
 in Scripture respecting the Son of God, did import a high-- 
 cr character than is implied in Watts's theory— -that the^ . 
 
 * I. Cor. viii. 6. 
 
6 On the Unity of God. 
 
 terms OWN Son, ovly begotten Son, &g. did import that 
 Christ was the Son of God in the mpst strict and proper 
 sense of the terms. After I had written what I intended 
 for the press, that idea became more and more impressed 
 on my mind as the natural meaning of the word of God, 
 But though I could not find tliat an}^ person had ventured 
 to advance the idea, 1 viewed it to be my duty to examine 
 the point with the utmost care. This I have attempted to 
 do ; and the result of my inquiries on that point is this, 
 that Jesus Christ is as truly the Son of God, as Isaac vvas 
 the son of Abraham ; and that this view of the matter is 
 essential to a due estimation of the love of God as display- 
 ed in the Gospel of his Grace. It is also my real belief, 
 that this view of the subject will be found much better to 
 harmonize with the Scriptures, and unspeakably more 
 HONORARY to the Father and to the Son, than any other 
 hypothesis which has been advanced. 
 
 Having, therefore, experienced such a revolution in my 
 own views, I have occasion to wr'te anew on the subject* 
 I have concluded to write in the form of Letters, and to 
 address theni to you, as to a candid l^riend and Brother 
 in Christ. 
 
 While writing on my former ground, I derived some 
 consolation from the thought that my views harmonized 
 with the theory of Dr. Watts. I am now in a measure de-- 
 prived of that source of consolation ; but I have another 
 which I esteem much more important, viz. that my views 
 now harmonize with the most obvious and natural meaning 
 of the language cf God, of Christ, and his Apostles j 
 and that if I am in an error, my error has not resulted from 
 departing from the natural import of Scripture language, 
 but irom prefer ring that \.o a meaning which i^foreign^fig- 
 urative^ or mystical. 
 
 There is one formidable objection to my views, which I 
 have to meet in the verv threshold of my communications 
 on this subject. I may therefore now state and answer it, 
 that the way may be opened for a candid hearing. 
 
 It is said, that my views imply a departure from a great 
 and important article of the orthodox faith, which has for 
 jnan)^ centuries been admitted by the great body of 
 the most pious Christians, and has been advocated by 
 great numbers of learned and pious Divines ; that it has 
 ^on^ been admitted as .an article of Christian faith, thaj 
 
On the Unity of God. t 
 
 there are three distinct, co-equal, and self-existent Per^ 
 sons in the one God ; and that it would be reproachful to 
 the Great Head of the Church, to suppose that he would 
 suffer his most faithful friends to be so long in an error on 
 a point of so great importance. 
 
 This, I confess, has appeared to me the most weighty 
 objection which has ever been stated against the theory I 
 have adopted. I shall therefore attempt a serious and can- 
 did reph'. 
 
 1. I have no inclination to doubt either the piety or the 
 learning of those D vines who have advocated the doctrine 
 of three distinct Persons in one God. Many such, I doubt 
 not, have already been admitted into the realms of bliss, 
 and others I believe are in the way which leads to the same 
 state. Some of this class of Divines with whom I am ac- 
 quainted, I esteem as the excellent of the earth, and as 
 vastly my superiors in piety, learning, and discernment. 
 'But fallibility has been the common lot of Christians, as 
 long, at least, as the Athanasian theory has been received as 
 the orthodox faith. And among all the great and good 
 Divines, I cannot find one who has ever given evidence of 
 infallibility. Great and good Divines, like other good 
 people, have been liable to err. And I cannot find, that 
 Christ ever promised that he would not suffer his church, 
 to fall into any error in sentiment respecting the character 
 of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Therefore, 
 however improbable it may appear to you that there is any 
 incorrectness in the doctrine which has been so long and 
 So generally received, and so ably and abundantly advo- 
 cated, the possibility that there may be incorrectness must 
 be admitted. An investigation, therefore, may be highly 
 proper and useful. 
 
 2. I would ask. Is it not a truth, that, for many cen- 
 turies, the doctrine before us has ht^n popular — so popu- 
 lar that a man must run the hazard of losing h-.s reputation 
 for piety, if he should call in question its correctness I 
 And would not such a state of things naturally preclude 
 any general, thorough, and impartial examination of the 
 subject t Would not many, even among good people and 
 good Ministers, be likely to choose to take it for granted 
 that the popular doctrine is true, and content themselves 
 with searching the Scriptures for texts to support it I Such 
 ^ course of proceeding, I confess^ I adopted for a number 
 
$ On the Unity of God, 
 
 of years. Such was my veneration for the characters of 
 those writers \- ho had defended the theory, that it seemed 
 to me safe to follow them. My objeit, therefore, in study- 
 ing on the subject, was merely to support the doctrine. I 
 do not know that others have been so deficient ; but if they 
 have, this may be one reason vvhy the doctrine has been so 
 long ?nd so generally admitted. 
 
 The proposition, which affirms that there are three dis- 
 tinct Persons in one God, is surely not a Bible propositton 
 —I am willing to admit it as a proposition formed by good 
 men to express their mews of the meaning of God's word. 
 But we have the Bible before us, as well as those \> ho 
 formed the proposition, and it is our duty to bring the 
 doctrine to the Bible for examination^ and not merely for 
 support. 
 
 3. Do not your peculiar sentiments, as a Hopkinsian, 
 imply a departure from doctrines which have been con- 
 sidered as highly importa-t, which have been generally 
 received ior several centuries by the most pious Christians, 
 and which have been advocated by multitudes of great 
 and good Divines ? Why were you not afraid of im- 
 peaching the character of the Great Head of the Church, 
 by adopting sentiments in a manner which, in your own 
 view, wou^d imply that he had suffered his most faithful 
 friends for a long time to be in an error on some impor- 
 tant points ? Why were you not contented to receive for 
 truth the theories of our pious forefathers, and thus have 
 saved yourself the trouble of laborious investigation, and 
 from the reproa hes of those who have viewed you as de- 
 parting from doctrines which have long been received by 
 the pious and faithful friends of Christ ? It does not, Sir, 
 appear, that our Hopkinsian brethren have been much 
 afraid of impeaching the character of Christ, by preaching 
 and writing what they have thought to be the truth, altho', 
 in some respects, they contradicted theories which have 
 long been received as essential doctrines of the Gospel. 
 
 4. I willingly admit, that the great body of Christ's 
 faithful friends have been so far united, as to adopt, as an 
 article of faith, a proposition which affirms three distinct 
 Persons in one God. But is it not a solemn truth, that nine- 
 teen twentieths of those, who have professed to believe the 
 article, have never examined the terms of the proposition 
 so as to be able to tell in what sense they believed it to be 
 
t)n the Unity of God. ^ 
 
 tnie ? Arid liave tiot the great and pious Divines in every 
 age, since the proposition was adopted, been greatly divid- 
 ed as to its real import f 
 
 Mr* Jofles, and some others, have informed us, that by 
 the THREE Persons they mean three distinct Agents. 
 But Dr. Hopkins says, '' It must be carefully observed, 
 that when this word is applied to the Father, the Son, and 
 the Holy Ghost, as three distinct Persons, it does not im- 
 port the same distinction as when applied to men." But 
 he does not pretend to be able to tell what the word does 
 import^ as applied to the Godhead* There are other Min- 
 isters who frankly own that they know not what is intended 
 by Persons in the proposition. 
 
 Dr. Watts, in his day, said, " The common or scholas- 
 tic explication of the Trinity, which has been long and 
 universally received, and been called orthodox, is, that 
 God is but one simple, infinite, and eternal Spirit : Hence 
 it follows, that the Divine essence, powers, and essential 
 properties of the Father, the Son^ and the Spirit, in the 
 Godhead, are numer." call v the very same: that it is the 
 same numerical consciousness, understanding, will, and 
 power, which belongs to the Father, that also belongs to 
 the Son and to the Holy Spirit : and that the sacred Threfe 
 are distinguished only by the super added^ relative propers- 
 ties of paternity^ jiliation^ and precession*"* 
 
 Perhaps the v^oxA procession should have been used, in- 
 stead of " precession /' but I have given the word as I 
 found it in Memoirs of Dr. Watts, page 98. 
 
 If Dr. Watts gave a true account of what had " been 
 long and universally received" as ihe orthodox faith, Mr* 
 Jones and those who agree with him in sentiment have 
 greatly departed from the orthodox faith. The orthodox 
 faith, according to Dr. Watts, implied no more than one 
 infinite, self-existent Agent ; the terms Father^ Son^ and 
 Holy Ghost^ denoted " superadded, relative properties." 
 But Mr. Jones supposes three distinct Agents. 
 
 Some, by the three distinct Persons, have understood 
 no more than one Being acting in three distinct offices. The 
 same Person or Being is Father as Creator^ Son as Re^ 
 deemer^ and Holy Ghost as Sanctifier, This may har- 
 monize with t!\e doctrine of " superadded, relative prop^ 
 
 •rtie^. 
 
 B 
 
10 On the Unity of God, 
 
 In the conclusion of the " Memoirs of Dr. Watts," the 
 tvriter says, " If I understand the greatj Reform-r Calvin 
 aright, he in like manner conceived of the Word and 
 Spirit as the Wisdom and Power of Deity personified. 
 The pious Mr. Baxter adopted a like personification." — 
 The same writer quotes from Mr. Baxter a passage,\vhich 
 shows that there had been other methods still of explaining 
 the personality of the Trinity. 
 
 " Abundance of heretics," says Mr. Baxter, " have 
 troubled the church with their self-devised opinions about 
 the Trinity, and the Person and nature of Christ. And I 
 am loth to say how much many of the orthodox have 
 troubled it also, with their self-conceited, misguided and 
 uncharitable zeal against those they judged heretics. I 
 would advise the reader to be none of them that shall charge 
 ■with heresy all those who say that the three Persons are 
 Dcus seipsinn inteUigens^ Dcics a seipso mtcllectus^ ct Deiis- 
 a seipso A?nafus^ (though I am not one) nor yet those ho- 
 ly men whom I have cited, and many others, who expressly 
 say that Potentia^ Sapientia^ et Amor^ Power, Wisdom, 
 and Love, are the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 
 
 Thus, Sir, we may see how the great and pious Divines, 
 "with which God has blessed his church, have been divided 
 in their real opinions of the meaning of a proposition which 
 they all had adopted as an article of faith. One class out 
 of six has agreed with you in sentiment, that by the thre^e 
 Persons are intended three distinct Agents ; a second class 
 uses the term Persons in an indefinite sense, without ex- 
 planation ; a third, by three Persons, understands three 
 offices ; the fourth supposes one proper Person, and His 
 Wisdom and Power personified for the other to Persons ; 
 the fifth supposes the three Persons to be three principal 
 attributes of God^ Power ^ Wisdom^ and Love ; the other 
 supposes the personality to mean no more than this, God 
 understanding himself God understood by himself and God 
 loving himself 
 
 Of what use, Sir, to Christianity, can that proposition 
 be, which is thus variously understood by the best Divines ? 
 While there is so great a variety of real opinion about the 
 import of the artic.e, their agreeing to adopt it as an article 
 of faith can be no evidence of its correctness. But is not 
 the disagreement as to the import of the word Person^ in 
 ilie proposition, some evidence that the word is improper 
 
 A 
 
On the Unity of God. 11 
 
 ly used ? You cannot justly accuse me of diiTering more in 
 real opinion from those who have adopted this article, than 
 thev differ from each other. And I would suggest it for 
 your serious consideration, whether your departure from 
 the ancient orthodox faith is not infinitely greater than, 
 mine — yea, greater by two infinities ? You suppose three 
 self-existent, infinite Agents; I suppbse but one; and if 
 Dr. Watts fairly stated the explication of the Trinity, 
 which had " been long and imiversally received," as ortho- 
 dox, the ancient orthodoxy implied but one infinite Agent. 
 And with his statement agre* s all but one of the several 
 explanations v/hich have been enumerated ; the personality 
 v/as evidently understood as figurative. 
 
 The evidence we have before us, that great and good 
 men have been greatly divided on the subject of the person- 
 ality of the Trinity, may serve to evince the propriety of 
 the caution given by Mr. Baxter against induginga cen> 
 sorious spirit one towards another. The more deep and 
 mysterious the subject, the more occasion we have for self- 
 diffidence, and the more room for the exercise of Christian 
 candor towards those who may d flfer from us in opinion. 
 
 The experience I have had of my own fallibility may be 
 considered as an admonition to me against indulging a se'f- 
 confident spirit respecting the correctness of my present 
 views. I have indeed been long searching and laboring, 
 by night and by day, to ascertain the truth, and to bring 
 my views to harmonize with the meaning of the word of 
 God. But I am yet far from any claim to ir;faliibility. I 
 can hardly expect that I shal be free from m stakes in ex- 
 plaining the numerous passages of Scripture which will 
 naturally come under consideration. But this I know, that 
 I have no interest to serve by perverting or misapplying the 
 Scriptures. It is, I hope, my aim, to act faithfully for 
 Christ in attempting to explain his word ; and with him I 
 may safely leave the event. 
 
 I am not insensible that I expose to peril the little share 
 of reputation which I have hitherto possessed, by taking 
 ground so singular and unpopular. Nor am I at all indif- 
 ferent as to the esteem and good will of my fathers and 
 brethren with whom I have been in fellowship. My esteem 
 for them is not at all abated by any change in my own sen- 
 timents ; and it is my wish to give them no occasion of of- 
 fence in my manner of writing. It will be my duty to ex- 
 
li2J On the Unity ofG^d. 
 
 pose wKat T esteem to be erroneous in their sentfments ; hue 
 I hope to do it in the spirit of meekness, of candor, and of 
 love. Mv dissenting from them in opiilion is surely no 
 reason why I should be offended with them ; and I am not 
 sensible that it is a reason why they should be offended with 
 me. But should they view my dissent as ground of offence, 
 I hope they will deal with me in a Gospel temper^ and on 
 Gospel principles^ duly bearing in mind that bitter revilings 
 and sound reasonings are things of a very different nature. 
 
 Thiee principal propositions I shall attempt to illustrate 
 and support, in the course or my Letters to you — viz. 
 
 I. That the self-ex stent God is only one Person. 
 
 II. That Jesus Christ is God's own Son, his only be- 
 gotten. 
 
 III. That by the Holy Ghost is intended the fulness of 
 God^ or the efficient, productive emanations of Divine ful- 
 ness. 
 
 In support of the first proposition, I shall, in my next Let- 
 ter, distinctly consider what is meant by the word Person^ 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Personality defined and illustrated^ 
 REV SIR, 
 
 IT has been supposed to be a very difficult thing to as-, 
 certain in what personality consists, or what constitutes 
 personality. It may, however, be found an easy thing to 
 tell what is meant by the word Person^ as it is used in 
 Scripture, and in common discourse. I will exhibit a few 
 instances of the use of the term in the Scriptures. 
 
 '^Noah the eighth Person." "Joseph was a goodly 
 Person." *^ No uncircumcised Person shall eat thereof." 
 *^ Whosoever hath killed any Person." " Goest to battle 
 in thine own Person." " A righteous Person." " A 
 wicked Person." " Thy Person." " His Person." 
 
 Such a manner of using the term is common in all writ- 
 ings with which I am acquainted. We apply the term 
 Person to any man, or woman, to an Angel, to Jesus Christ, 
 and to God. But we do not apply it to any class of beings 
 b^low the human race. Personal pronouus, as he or shc^ 
 
0?i the Uniti/ cj God, 13 
 
 Sec, we apply to the brutal creation ; but it would be thought 
 an impropriety ot speech to apply the term Person to the 
 most sagacious horse or dog. By careful observation, it 
 will be found that we use the personal pronouns in refer- 
 ance to anv beings which are supposed to possess animal 
 life ; but the word Perscm is properly applied only to intel- 
 ligent Beings, Inanimate objects, in figurative language, 
 are often personified ; but the very idea and mode of per- 
 sonification implies what is intended by the word Person^ 
 viz. an intelligent Being. 
 
 What is meant by the word Person^ is just as obvious 
 to common people as what is meant by the moon. And we 
 have no more occasion to inquire what constitutes person- 
 ality in order to tell what is meant by the word Person, 
 than we liave to ascertain the essence of the moon in order 
 to tell what object is called by that name. And it is no 
 more difficult to ascertain what constitutes personality, than 
 to ascertain what constitutes inteligent existence. 
 
 It may be objected, that there is no part or property of a 
 man but what is spoken of in the possessive case, as though 
 it were something distinct from personality. Wc say, his 
 hands^ his feet^ his head^ his intellects^ his hearty his body^ 
 his souly as though personality were something distinct from 
 any of these. 
 
 This is al! granted ; but in the same manner we use the 
 word Person itself ; we say his Person, And thus the term 
 is used in the Bible, ^' the express image of his PersonP 
 But it does not hence follow, that personality consists in 
 something distinct from Person. 
 
 As one Person is one intelligent Beings so two or three 
 Persons are two or three intelligent Beings. Sa obvious is 
 this to the common sense of mankind, that it may be doubts 
 ed whether any man can form any other idea of two Per- 
 sons than that of two intelligent Beings. If it be under-^ 
 stood, that we are speaking of human Beings, and mention 
 is made of two Persons^ it as tlearly conveys the idea of 
 two intelligent Beings, as if we should say two men. The 
 same observation will apply to angels. • 
 
 Some writers of eminence have suggested, or asserted, 
 that Person and Being are not terms of the same import ; 
 and, therefore, it may imply no contradiction to say three 
 Persons in one Being or one God. But I have not foimd 
 t^^-^.^ they have attempted to explain the difference betweeiv 
 
14 On the Uiiitij of God. 
 
 Person and Being, I shall not pretend that these terms 
 are uniformly cf synonymous import, for the term Being 
 may be applied to any object which Exists, but the term 
 Person is applicable only to intelligent existence. But the 
 phrases, an intelligent Person and an intelligent Beings may 
 properly be considered as synonymous. If you think oth- 
 erwise, be pleased to explain the difference. 
 
 la writing on Divinity, it is highly important that we 
 should use language according to its common acceptation. 
 To make use of terms, of which we can give no intelligi- 
 ble explanation, has no tendency to communicate light. 
 Those who make use of terms in relation to God, or to 
 Christ, ought, at least, to be able and willing to tell their 
 oxvn ineamng in the use of those terms. If I say that the 
 Father and the Son are two distinct Persons, I oi?ght to he 
 willing to tell what I mean by the word Person. And if I 
 have any definite meaning to the term, it may be expected 
 that, in some way, I q^n make it known. But if I have 
 no definite meaning to the term, how is it possible that 
 another person can tell whether he agrees or disagrees with 
 me in sentiment ? 
 
 If I only state, that I believe that the Father and the 
 So are two distinct Persons, there is, perhaps, no Chris- 
 tian but will say he believes the same. But as soon as I 
 explain what I mean by the word Person, many will dissent 
 and avow their disagreement. Having thus, exposed my- 
 self to their disapprobation, by explaining my meaning, may 
 I not be permitted to ask what they mean by the term, that 
 I may be able to compare the two opinions \ And ought I 
 to receive it as a satisfactory answer, if I am told that Per- 
 son and Being- are not the same, and that personality is 
 something which cannot be defined ? 
 
 As you. Sir, profess to believe that the Father and the 
 Son are two Persons, and yet but one intelligent Being, I 
 would ask whether the Father is not o e intelligent Being ? 
 And is not the Son also an intelligent Being ? Was he not 
 an intelligent Being who came into the world to die for our 
 sins I And was he who came and he who sent him one and 
 the same intelligent Being ? 
 
 As you also deny the human personality of Christ, or 
 that, as a derived Being, he was a Person, and still admit 
 that he was, in respect to his human nature, tru'y a Man, 
 I would ask what addition would have been necessary to 
 
On the Unity of Goct \^ 
 
 f:6nstitute that Man a proper Person ? If we deny that, as 
 a derived Intelligence, he was a Person, will it not be dif- 
 ficult to make it appear that there is any such thing as per- 
 sonality in Man \ Sin excepted, what do we find in our- 
 selves which was not found in the Man Christ Jesus ? If 
 we take ground respecting personality, on which it cannot 
 be proved that there is any such thing as a human Person^ 
 how shall we be able to show that there is any propriety in 
 applying the term Person to the Godhead ? It is a clear 
 case, that so long as we remain ignorant of the import of 
 the term, we can never be sure that it is properly applied. 
 
 I have not. Sir, pursued this inquiry with any desire to 
 perplex the minds of others, or to mu'tiply or widen the 
 breaches which exist among professed Christians, but, if 
 possible, to do something which may contribute to greater 
 imanimity. Nothing, perhaps, has contributed more to 
 Iceep the subject of the Trinity involved in obscurity, than 
 an mdcjimte and unmeaning use of the term Person* I will 
 not affirm, that the definition I have given is perfect ; but 
 I will hope, that by frankly avowing my own views, and 
 exposing myself to the censure of others, I may, at least, 
 be the occasion of further inquiry and further light on the 
 subject. 
 
 Permit me now. Sir, to appeal from your theory to your 
 enlightened common sense. Did you ever conceive of the 
 Father and the Son as one and the same intelligent Being ? 
 When you thank God for the gift of his Son to die for us, 
 do you not uniformly conceive of the Father as one intelli- 
 gent Being, and of the Son as another ? From my own 
 past experience, I may presume, that, according to your 
 common sense, the Father and the Son are as distinctly 
 two intelligent Beings, as Abraham and Isaac. Cf what 
 importance then can it be to Christianity, to attempt to 
 support a theory of personality which is undefinable and 
 ineffable, which does not accord with the common accepta- 
 tion of the term Person, nor with the practical views even 
 of those who adopt it ? Scarcely any thing is more obvi- 
 ous to the common understanding of men, than what is 
 usualh^ intended by the word Person ; but where the term 
 is applied to the Godhead, they must be told that it means 
 something which cannot be explained. But if the expla- 
 nation I have given of the meaning of the ' word Person 
 shall be found to accord with the common sense of mankindr 
 
16 On the Unity of God, 
 
 and witli the practical views of Christians in relation to th** 
 Father and Son, nmay I not hope to escape the censure of 
 those who profess not td know what is 'meant by Person a« 
 applied to the Godhead ? 
 
 It will probably be urged, that God is incomprehensible, 
 and that the doctrine which affirms three Persons in one 
 God or one Beings is no more above our comprehension 
 than the eternity iLnd. self-existence of Jehovah. 
 
 It will readily be granted, that God is to us incomprehen- 
 sible in his Bf'ing and all his attributes ; yet in respect to 
 any of his attributes, we can expl:iin what we mean by the 
 terms in which they are expressed. We can so explain 
 as to make each other understand what we mean by th<5 
 terms eternity and sefexistence* Let it, then, be as intel- 
 ligibly explained what is meant by Person^ when we say that 
 there are three Persons in one Goa^ or one intelligent Being* 
 
 The incomprehensibleness of an object is no reason why 
 %ve should use terms without any definite meaning. God 
 is an incomprehensible object ; but in using the term, we 
 may have an intelligible ar.d definite meaning. We ought, 
 at least) to have so much meaning to the terms we use, 
 that we can explain our oxvn meaning* 
 
 By some good writers it has been supposed, that the 
 proposition which affirms 2i. plurality of Persons in one in- 
 telligent Beings implies no contradiction. But I would 
 ask, how is it known that it does not imply a contradiction I 
 Can we affirm any thing of a proposition any farther than 
 we understand the terms ? Let the terms be explained, and 
 then we stand on fair ground to judge whether the proposi- 
 tion does or does not imply a contradiction. But until this be 
 done, it would be very improper, at least for me, to affirm 
 any thing concerning it, one way or another. Until we 
 understand the term Person^ we kno vnot what is affirmed 
 m the proposition. And if there be no definite meaning to 
 the term,he who states the proposition either affirms nothings 
 or he affirms he knows not what. If we think to give 
 instruction by using terms in an indefinite and undefinable 
 fiense, we most certainlv miss our aim. For no person 
 can be enlightened by any proposition any farther than he 
 understands the meaning of the terms. If then, in writing 
 *jn Divinity, we use terms which are undefinable in our 
 own application of them, what do we better than to dark'= 
 rx\ counsel by words without knowledge ? 
 
Bn the Unity of Go^. tf 
 
 The proposition supposed to be apostolic is this, " There 
 are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the 
 Word, and the Holv Ghost." Neithj-r the term Persons^ 
 tior the name God^ is to be found in the text. And if we 
 know not the import of the term Persons, was it not very 
 unsafe to insert it in a proposition intended to express the 
 apostle's meaning ? It was probably with a view to ren- 
 der the apostle's proposition more explicit, that the term 
 Person was inserted. But however inexplicit or indefinite 
 the proposition may be, as it stands in the Bible, it surely 
 could not be amended by inserting an undefinable term, or 
 by using a definite term in an undi^nohle sense. 
 
 As to the improper use of the term Person, I consider 
 myself as having been culpable as well as others. And 
 while I frantly place myself on this ground, I do it in hope 
 that the preceding remarks will not be viewed as designed- 
 ly reproachful to any class of Christians or Divines. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have attempted to establish one point in 
 favor of the proposition, that the Supreme Being, or self- 
 existent God, is only one Person. If the account which has 
 been given of the word Person be correct, to say that the 
 one self-existent God is three sef-existent Persons^ is the 
 same as to say that the self-existent God is three self-ex- 
 istent intelligent Beings, And if there be a propriety in 
 saying that the one God is but one supreme Being, there 
 can be no propriety in saying that the one God is three 
 SELF-EXISTENT Persons. — But there are still other con- 
 siderations which may be brought into view in subsequent 
 Letters, 
 
 LETTER IIL 
 
 The Scripture use of pronouns and verbs in relation to God* 
 
 REV SIR, 
 
 ALTHOUGH the definition which has been given of 
 the term Person should be admitted as correct, still it may 
 be thought that a definition may be given of the term God, 
 which will render it consistent to say three Persons in one 
 God. And such a definition has been given by Mr. 
 William Jones in his celebrated performance on ** The 
 C 
 
18 Vn the Unity ofQ^^, 
 
 Catholic doctrine of the Trinity." In page 9, he saysr^ 
 " Thtj Word God, though of the singuhir number, is of 
 plural comprehension^'* In proof of thij idra he has writ- 
 ten a distinct chapter, in which he has evidenced both labor 
 and i- genuity. And it will be admitted, that if, in the 
 Scriptures, the term God be intended to import three self- 
 existent Persons^ there is no more contradiction in affirm- 
 ing that there are three Persons in one God, than there 
 V'ould lie in affirming that there are three Persons in one 
 Council^ or one Senate^ or one Trhinrohate, 
 
 In support of his idea, Mr. Jones h;is not only mention- 
 ed some nouns which are plural in the Hebrew, which are 
 in English translated God ; but he has stated that there are 
 also pronouns and verbs of the plural number agrecifig with 
 the term God. And it must be acknowledged that, at first 
 view, these things appear much in favor of a pluralitv of 
 Persons in the Godhead. For according to the establish»-d 
 principles of Grammar, pronouns and verbs should agree 
 with their nouns in number, I c then birhoves us to examine 
 the subject with care and with candor. 
 
 Mr. Jones has exhibited several instances in which, in 
 our translation, the pronnuris us and our are used, as he 
 supposes, as proper pronouns for God only, and as denoting 
 a plurality of Persons in the one God. 
 
 The first text which he mentions is Gen. i. 26. " And 
 God said. Let us make man in our image, and after our 
 likeness." — In reference to this text, it mav be observed, 
 that these, pronouns do not necessarily imply more than 
 two Persons, nor do they necessarily imply that both of 
 them were self- existent. The representation is, that God 
 sp'ike to some other Person. And as he created all things 
 b his Son Jesus Christ, the Son was probably the Person 
 to whom God spake. And all the piural pronouns which 
 ]VTr. Jones has relied on may be accounted for in the same 
 Haanner. 
 
 In respect to the plural nouns which Mr. Jones has men- 
 tioned, I shall only say, that they go as far to prove a 
 pUir ility of Gods^ as they do to prove a plurality of self- 
 existent Persons, 
 
 But besides nouns and pronouns^ he has suggested, that, 
 in the Hebrew, several plural verbs and adjectives are found 
 agreeing with the noun God. '1 his he also considers as 
 evidence that the word God implies a plurality of Persons. 
 
^ fir 
 
 / On the Unity of Cod. 1^ 
 
 Being wholly unacquainted with the Hebrew language, I 
 cannot pretend to dispute the correctness of his statt- mtnrs. 
 Some' things, h<nvever, mav possibly be sugg^'Sted, which 
 ina\ bt' sufficient ground on which to doubt the correctness 
 of his infi-n-nce. 
 
 1. I think we have no evidence, that the sacred writers 
 were perO^ctlv acquainted with the rules of Grammar, n(^r 
 that the Divine Spirit, bv which they wrote, secured th tin 
 from everv departure from the rules of Grammar in the 
 construction of sentences. Hut, 
 
 2. If it were certain that the inspired penmen never de- 
 viated from the rules of Grammar, it would still be possib e 
 that as many :\s Jive or six mistakes, in regard to the num- 
 5er of verbs^ might be made in copving the Old Testament 
 five or six thous.ind rimes. For though we have evidence 
 that great car^:' was taken in copying the Scriptures, we have 
 no evidence that the scribes were intallilile. And ii, in the 
 innumerable copyings of the Old Testament prior to the 
 art of Fruiting, not more than five or six verbs were chang- 
 ed from the singular to the plural number, we have great 
 reason to acknowledge a suprrintending Providence. 
 
 Thus, Sir, I have endeavored candidly to reph to Mr. 
 •Jones's arguments from \^\\x?^. pronouns and verbs. Let it 
 now be supposed, that mstead oi Jive or six \\\\X2\ pronouns 
 of doubtful relation, he had found ji^t;^ ox six thousund plu- 
 ral pronouns which obviously stand as suhtitiUes lor the 
 names God^ Lord^ or Jehovah ; wou d not his argument 
 have been at least a thousand times more forcible than it 
 is on the ground he has produced ? Yea, let it be supposed 
 that, on the most careful examination, he had found in the 
 Bible oxAy five or six pronowis for Ciod of the singular num- 
 bery and those, too, of doubtful impon ; and that, on the 
 other hand, he had found all the pronouns for God, of the 
 plural number^ excepting the five or six doubtful instances ; 
 would not his argument have been invincible in favor of a 
 plurality of Persons in the Godhead ? Would any man of 
 sense, after such an exhibition, ever have called in ques- 
 tion the doctrine of three self-existent Persons? Confident 
 I am, that such an argument would have had more weighty 
 in my mind than all the arguments I have seen or heard in 
 favor of that doctrine. 
 
 Permit me then, Sir, to retort the argument from the 
 use oi pronouns and verbs in the Bible, l^xcepting those 
 
^0 On the Unity of God, 
 
 doubtful instances of plural pronouns mentioned by Mr. 
 Jones, are not the pronouns for God uxitformly of the sin-' 
 gular number ? Instead of Ji'oe or six doubtful cases, do 
 we not im6.Jive or sloe thousand instances in which personal 
 pronouns of the singular number are unquestionably used 
 as substitutes for the nouns God, Lord, or Jehovah ? — 
 And setting aside IMr. Jones's exceptions, do w^ not fiud 
 the verbs^ agreeing with the noun God, uniformly of the 
 singular number P 
 
 When God speaks of himself in the first Person, he uses 
 thr pronouns 7, Ml/ or Mine, Me. When he is addressed 
 in the second Person, the pronouns are Thou^ Thy or 
 Thine^ Thee, When he is spoken of in the third Person, 
 the pronouns are He^ His,, Him. — This, you must be sen- 
 sible, is the general and uniform use of the pronouns for 
 God, in the Old Testament and the New. It may be add- 
 ed, that Myself^ Thyself^ and Himself^ are also used as 
 pronouns for God. 
 
 If God were three co-equal Persons, it would be very 
 Siatural to expect that we should find explicit evidence of 
 this in the manner of giving the law, and in the prayers of 
 saints. But when the law was given on Mount Sinai, God 
 spake in the singular number, " /am the Lord thy God— 
 thou shalt have no other Gods before me." And is it not. 
 Sir, a solemn fact, that in all the prayers throughout the 
 Bible, in which God is addressed, that he is addressed as 
 cne individual Person ? 
 
 Moses, David, and Daniel, may be considered as well 
 acquainted with God. Each of them addressed God as 
 one Person only, 
 
 Moses said, " Yet now if thou wilt, forgive my sin j 
 and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book." 
 
 David said, '' O God, to whom vengeance belongs, shew 
 thyself," — not yourselves, " Lift up thyself, thou 
 Judge of the earth." 
 
 Daniel said, " O Lord, hear ; O Lord, forgive ; O 
 Lord, hearken and do ; defer not, for thine own sake, 
 O my God : for thy city and thy people are called by thy 
 name." 
 
 We may here add, that Christ, v/ho must be supposed 
 to be better acquainted with God than any ancient Prophet 
 or any modern Divine, addressed the Father not only as 
 ^ne Person^ but as the " only true God." As the Son, 
 
fjn the Unity ofGod^ 21 
 
 he addressed the Father, and in his prayer he had these 
 words, " And this is Hfe eternal, that they might know" 
 
 THEE, THE ONLY TRUE GoD, and JesUS ChRIST whoHl 
 
 THOU hast st-nt." 
 
 I think. Sir, I may say, without hazard, that there is 
 no intimat on in the Bible of three self-existent Persons in 
 one God, either in the manner in which Divine commands 
 were communicated, or in the prayers of saints. But in 
 giving commands, God uniformly made himself known as 
 one individual Person ; and as to an individual Person, the 
 Prophets and Saints addressed their prayers to God. 
 
 Moreover, in all the remarkable manifestations of him- 
 self to mankind, God made himself known as one Person 
 ONLY. — When he appeared to Adam alter the fall, he man- 
 ifested himself as one Person. And in pronouncing the 
 curse upon the serpent, as one Person he spake, " / will 
 put enmity between thee and the woman. And unto the 
 woman he said, /will greatly multiplv thy sorrow," &c. 
 
 As one Person, God manifested himself to Noah. "And 
 God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come up be- 
 fore ME. And behold, /, even / do bring a flood upon the 
 earth. But with thee w'li /estabhsh my covenant." 
 
 In his various appearances to Abraham, he revealed 
 himself as only one Person.— " / am thy shield and thy ex- 
 ceeding great reward^ — I vvill make thy seed as the dust of 
 the earth — /am the Almighty God, walk before me, and 
 be thou perfect.'' 
 
 Similar to this, was the style and manner adopted by 
 God in all his appearances to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. 
 
 In all the manifestations which God made of himself to 
 Moses and the people of Israel, he uniformly represented 
 himself as one Person, And thus he represented himself 
 in his communications to the Prophets. It may also be 
 observed, that in several instances God adopted forms of 
 speech which not only implied a denial of the existence of 
 any other God, but also of the existence of any other self- 
 existent Person. — " See now that /, even /am he, and 
 there is no God wkh me ; / kill, and / make alive ; / 
 
 wound, and / heal." Deut. xxxii. 39 " And there is no 
 
 god else besides me ; a just God, and a Savior ; there is 
 none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all ye 
 ends of the earth ; for /am God, and there is none else." 
 Isa* xlv. Slj 23,--" Remember the former things of old ; 
 
22 6)1 the Unity of God, 
 
 for /am God, and there is none else ; /am God, and there 
 is none like me." j 
 
 When God reveals himself under the title of the Holt 
 One, or the Holy Oni: of Israel, he represents himself 
 not only as one God, but as one Person. '^ Thus saith 
 the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask 
 3IE of things to come concerning my sons ^ and concerning 
 the work of my hands, command ye me." 
 
 In conformity to the idea which God gave of himself, as 
 being one Person only, all the sacred writers, in speaking 
 of God, speak of him as one Person, by using a personal 
 pronoun of the singular number, as He^ Hh^ Him^ togeth- 
 er with corresponding verbs. 
 
 The Sun of God, in the course of his ministry, spake of 
 God as one Person. " God so loved the world, that he 
 
 gave HIS only begotten Son," &c And the apostles 
 
 uniformly spake of God as one Person only. — The Scribe 
 who came to Christ, and received his approbation as not 
 far from the kingdom of God, in the course of the conver- 
 sation, and in reply to Christ, said, " There is one God, 
 and there is none other but He." And his remark was 
 approved by Christ. 
 
 Nouns of " plural comprehension," such as Mr. Jones 
 supposes the word God to be, admit the article the before 
 them, as, the Council, the Senate ; and the pronouns, to 
 agree with them, must be either neuter pronouns of the 
 singular number^ or personal pronouns of the plural num-^ 
 her. Speaking of a Council, we either say /? adjourned, 
 or They adjourned — Of a Senate, It passed an act, or They 
 passed an act. We do not say of a Council, He adjourn- 
 ed ; nor of a Senate, He passed an act^— Nor does a Sen- 
 ate or a Council, speaking in the first person, say /will. 
 
 In view of these observations. Sir, suffer me to present 
 to your notice some of the foregoing passages of Scrip- 
 ture, in a manner conformable to the Athanasian theory. 
 I will begin with the passage in Genesis, so much quoted 
 by Athanasian writers, and connect with it the following 
 verse. The passage, to agree with your views, should 
 read thus :...." And the God said. Let us make man in our 
 image, and after our likeness. So the God creaced man in 
 their own image, and after their likeness -, in the image 
 of the God created they him." 
 
On the Unity of God, m 
 
 If the pronouns us and our are pronouns for God only^ 
 theJbUovving pronouns should be also of the plural number- 
 
 tJp on the same principl^^ the first commandment would 
 read as follows :...." Thou shah have no other gods before" 
 us. 
 
 When God said, "/am God, and there is none like 
 ME," would not vour theory have required the following 
 form ?....We are the God, and there is none like us. 
 
 Would not the words of Christ, to have corresponded 
 with your views, have stood thus ?...." The God so lovtd 
 the world, that they gave their only begotten Son," &c. 
 
 The words of the Scribe, " There is one God, and there 
 is none other but them" — or but it. 
 
 A remarkable variation would also be requisite in the 
 passage before quoted, in which God speaks of himself as 
 the Holy One. " Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One 
 ©f Israel, and his Maker, Ask us of things to come, con- 
 cerning OUR sons ; and concerning the work of our hands, 
 command ye us." 
 
 I would further suggest, whether another variation in 
 this text would not render it still more conformable to Mr. 
 Jones' scheme, and even to the language of Athanasians ia 
 general ? " Thus saith the Lord, the Holy three of Is- 
 rael !" This, I conceive, would have been a correct ex- 
 pression of your doctrine of the Trinity in Unit)'. Under 
 the term Lord, or Jehovah, the Unity would have been 
 implied ; and under the terms Holy ThrEe, the Trinitif 
 w^ould have been expressed. 
 
 Will you. Sir, be pleased now to consider what a great 
 and surprizing change must be made throughout the Bible, 
 in respect to the pronouns and verbs agreeing with God, 
 to have the language of the Bible conformable to the Atha- 
 nasion doctrine ? You cannot be insensible, that, in every 
 instance in which a personal pronoun of the singular num- 
 ber is used as a substitute for the noun God, something is 
 implied contrary to that doctrine. Of course, a very great 
 portion both of the Old Testament and the New, is, accord- 
 ing to the natural import of language, opposed to that the- 
 ory- If the doctrine of three self-existent Persons m one 
 God were true, and of such infinite importance as seems to 
 be supposed by our good brethren, how can it be accounted 
 for, that God himself, and all the sacred writers, should so 
 uniformly adopt such forms of speech as would nati/ralh^ 
 
24 On the Unity ofGoa* 
 
 lead to the conclusion, that the one self-existcnt God Is but 
 Che self-existent Person ? 
 
 Mr. Jr nes has indeed suggested th^ idea, that the sin^ 
 gular proDf.ims and verbs are most commonly used as 
 agreeing with God, to guard mankind against the idea of 
 more Gc ds than one. But may I not, with as much pro- 
 priety, suggest, that they are thus used to guard us against 
 the idea of more than one self-existent Person ? or that 
 they were thus used, that in case any should adopt the 
 opinion of a plurality of self-existent Persons, the error 
 might be detected by the current and uniform language of 
 Scripture t 
 
 If it be a truth, that there are three self-existent Persons 
 in one God, it is doubdess a very important truth. Nor 
 is it to be admitted, that God should constantly speak in a 
 manner which tended to impress the contrary idea, to pre- 
 vent our falling into the error of a plurality of Gods. Had 
 it been a truth that there is but one God, and that this term 
 is of " plural comprehension," comprizing three co-eternal 
 Persons, it would certainly have been a very easy thing 
 with God to have adopted language conformable to both 
 parts of the proposition. The suggestion of Mr. Jones 
 amounts to noth^'ng less than this, that God made use of 
 language whirh was calculated to lead us into one errors 
 lest we should fall into another. 
 
 Would it not. Sir, shock the feelings of a Christian audi- 
 ence, if a minister, in his prayers and preaching, should 
 conform his language to the Athanasian theory, and the es- 
 tablished rules of grammar ? But if the theory be true, 
 ought you not to adapt your current language, in prayer 
 and preaching, to your theory ? You cannot be insensible, 
 that to use pronouns and verbs of the s'lngul r number, in 
 relation to God, has a direct tendency to impress the minds 
 of your hearers with the idea that God is but one Person. 
 And if you believe the contrary, ought you not to avoid 
 such forms of spee*"h as naturally tend to mislead the minds 
 of your hearers ? You will probably retort the question, 
 and ask, why I did not avoid such forms of speech while 
 I was an Athanasian ? I answer, I was not aware of the 
 inconsistency between my common forms of speech and the 
 theory I had adopted. If this be your case, you may pos- 
 sibly be excused in respect to what is past j but what will 
 you do in time to come ? 
 
On the Unity of God, ,jf,i^,,i^ 25" 
 
 To evade tlie argument resulting from the use of singular 
 pronouns and verbs, some will probably say, that each Per- 
 son in the Trinity is God^ and may say / am God ; and that 
 when a singular pronoun is used for God, one Person only 
 is intended. 
 
 In reply, the following questions may be asked. 
 
 1. If each Person, as a distinct Person, may say /am 
 God^ will it not follow that there are as many Gods as Per- 
 sons ? 
 
 2. If the term God be intended to imply three distinct 
 Persons^ and each of those three, as a distinct Person, may 
 say /am God^ will it not follow that there are as manv as 
 niJie Persons in the Godhead ? If the term God do really 
 imply three Persons^ then any one who affirms that he is 
 God^ affirms that he is three Persons ; and three times three 
 are nine» 
 
 3. If there be three self-existent and co-equal Persons 
 in the Godhead, can it be proper for either of the three to 
 say /am God, and there is no God besides me? Whea 
 any one Person adopts this language, does he not naturally 
 exclude every othei Person from the dignity which he 
 claims for himself? Suppose three Persons to be united 
 as co-equal in one Govt-mment, under the title of Kir.g^ 
 would it be consistent for either of those Persons to say / 
 am King^ and there is no King besides Mt f If any one 
 of the three should say thus, would it not be untrue in it- 
 self, and a contempt of the othtr Persons ? 
 
 Supposing that you are of the number of Divines who 
 venture to tell what is to be understood by the word Pcrsoa 
 as applied to the Godhead, and that by three Persons vou 
 mean '-'- three Agents^"* I would here suggest some thoughts 
 for your consideration. 
 
 Those who avow, that, by three Persons, they under- 
 stand three distinct Ageids^ allow to each of these Agents 
 self-existence, independence, infinite intellig^rnce, and al- 
 mighty power, as distinct Persons. Of course, the three 
 Persons are three infinite Agents. I would now wish to 
 be informed, what more wou d be necessary to constitute 
 three infinite Beings. And I would ask you seriously to 
 consider whether it be possible for you to form anv idea of 
 three infinite Agents^ which does not involve the precis© 
 idea of three infinite intelligent Beings^ 
 D 
 
5S On the Unity of God, 
 
 I will next bring into view a text, in which the Fatiif.h 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are exhibited, that voa 
 may see to what the representation in the text would amount 
 on your hs pothesis. 
 
 The text we find, Acts-x. 38. " How God anointed 
 Jesus of Nazarlth with the Holy Ghost and with 
 Power ; who vvent about doing ejood, and healing all that 
 Were oppressed of the dtvil : for God was with him." 
 
 Here, Sir, we have the Trinity fairly exhibited. But 
 what would he the representation, if bv the: three be in- 
 tended three injimte Agents ? Would not the rcjjresenta- 
 tion be distinctly this, that the first jsFJSTTk AotNT gave 
 the THIRD it^FisiT; Agist to enable th^ slcond jnfimie 
 AglNT \.o perform miracles ? 
 
 LETTER IV, 
 
 The Language of good Writers in favor ofxvhat they mean 
 
 to deny* 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 FOR the support of the doctrine, that the self-existent 
 Cod is but one self-existent Person, my reliance is placed 
 on the most obvious and natural import of Scripture lan- 
 guage. It is, however, hoped, that it will not be deemed 
 improper or unfriendly^ should I avail m\ self of the reason- 
 ings, concessions, and language, of Athanasian writers, 
 for a farther illustration and confirmation of what I esteem 
 to be the truth. The authors, whose writings I shall quote, 
 a/e, in my opinion, deservedly in high estimation, as 
 learned, discerning, and correct writers. And no author 
 will be quoted or named with the least desire to provoke 
 controversy, or in any respect to detract from his reputa- 
 tion. 
 
 I would now solicit your Attention to some passages fronf 
 Dr. Hopkins. In his chapter on the Unity of God, ancf 
 the Trinity, to prove the Unity of God, or that there i» 
 but ONE God, he has made use of some arguments, which^; 
 if I mistake not, are of the same weight against the doc- 
 trine of a plurality of self-existent Persons, that they are 
 against the doctrine of a plurality of seU-existcnt Gods.— i- 
 Thus he reasons*... 
 
On the Unify of God 27 
 
 <^ There can be but one First Cause who exists necessa- 
 niv, and without beginning ; for there' can be but one in- 
 iinlte Being, To suppose another, or a second, necessarily 
 exclude s ^he first ; and to suppose the first, necessar-ly 
 excludes the second, and any other infinite Being. The 
 same is evident from the consideration of the Divine per- 
 fections. God is infinite Po er, infinite Wisdom. Bat 
 there cannot bt- two infinite Wisdoms, &c. for this impUes 
 a x>ntradicti(>n." 
 
 Yet, Sir, your theorv supposes that there are three dis- 
 tinct self-existent and independent Persons, which, if I 
 mistake not, as fully implies three " infinite Wisdoms," &c. 
 as the supposition of three infinite Beings, 
 
 The Doctor proceeds....'* Moreover, if we make the im- 
 possible supposition that there are two or more infinite Be- 
 ings, they must be perfect'y alike in all respects, or not. 
 If not perfectly alike, and vvithout any difference, in any 
 resp'-ct, then one or thf other must be imperfect ; for ab- 
 sohite infinite perfection admits of no variation or differ- 
 ence : so that if any two Brings differ in any respect, they 
 cannot be both absolutely perfect ; therefore cannot both be 
 God. But if they are perfect y alike in every respect and 
 every thing, then they are perfectly one and the same ; and 
 the supposition destroys itself, being a direct contradic- 
 tion." 
 
 If this rea^on^ng he conclusive, will it not apply, in the 
 most direct manner, to invalidate the theorv of three self- 
 existent and infinite Persons f The three Persons must be 
 perfecth alike in all respects, or not. If not perfectly 
 alike, one or the other must be imperfect, and therefore 
 cannot be God : " But if perfectl}' alike in every respect, 
 then they are perfectly one and the same." 
 
 Those who admit the Doctor's reasoning as conclusive 
 against three infinite Beings, must, I suspect, to be con- 
 sistent, reject the theory of three infinite, independent Per- 
 sons. 
 
 Dr. Emmons, in his Discourse on the Trinity, has made 
 th's concession...." Did the Scripture do trine of the Trini- 
 ty imply that three Persons are one Person, or three Gods 
 one God, it wou^d necessarily involve a contradiction."— 
 Yet this correct writer has adoped forms of speech which 
 evidently imply that one Person is three Persons. Such are 
 the loUowing...." God can, with propriety, say, I, Thou, 
 
2S On the Zfnltt/ of God* 
 
 and He, and mean only Himself.'* — " Notliing sliort of 
 three distiiict Pt^rsons in the one undivided Deity, can 
 Tender it proper for Him to speak of HAvisi lf in the first, 
 second, and third Persons, I, Thou, and He." — "And so 
 there is a certain somithing in the Divine Being, which 
 i-endrrs it equa ly ne. essary that He should exist in three 
 Persons." 
 
 In these passives, H»^., Him, and Himsrlf, are used 
 as pnnoiins for God or D'-ity. And each of these pro-^ 
 nouns strictly conveys the idea of one Person onlv. Yet the 
 Dortor supposed that this one He, or Him, might speak 
 
 of HiMSF.LF as THREE DISTINCT PeRSONS. 
 
 Dr. Spring, in his Sermon on the self-existence of Christ, 
 gives the folh^wing exhortation...." Let iis then not deny 
 the self-existence <»1 God, nor the univtrsalitv of His ex- 
 istence, nor that His indivisible essence comprises three 
 DISTINCT Persons." 
 
 By the pronoun His, God is, in the first place, clearly 
 considered as but one Person ; a et we are fervently exhort* 
 ed not to denv that " His indivisible essence comprises 
 three distinct Persons." 
 
 Mr. Jones stands on s'milar ground. He says, *' No 
 sensible reason can be given, whV God, should speak of 
 HiMSFLF :n the plural number, unless He consists of more 
 Persons than one." 
 
 And thus says Dr. Hopkins, " If there be a God, He 
 does exist without bejj^mning or succession ; and this is as 
 TOuch above our comprehension, as that He exists in three 
 Persons." 
 
 To what. Sir, are we to attribute these solecisms ? Not 
 to the want of mental ent-rgy ; nor to the want of piety ; 
 uor to the want of scientific or grammatical knowledge. 
 But these worthv men had been conversant with the Bible, 
 and from that source had insensibly formed the habit of 
 usually speakmg of God as only one Perst^n j but this be- 
 ing contrary to the doctrine which they v^ ished to support, 
 they naturally involved inconsistency in their forms of 
 speech. 
 
 A volume, probably, might be filled with such sole- 
 cisms from Athanasian writers. And indeed. Sir, I very 
 much doubt whether you ever preached a Gospel sermon, 
 or ever praved five minutes, without using pronouns in di- 
 rect contradiction to your theory . 
 
On the Unity of God, 2& 
 
 LETTER V. 
 The Mystery of the Trinity in Unity unfolded. 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 IN a former Letter, T obser\''e(l to you, that Mr. Jones 
 considered the term God as of" plural comprehension." I 
 therefore classed ihe noun God With other nouns of" plural 
 comprehension," such as. Council^ Senate^ Triumvirate^ 
 &c. — But since that time I again perused Mr. Jones' per- 
 formance, and find that I did iiot fully comprehend his 
 meaning. As I was readin,^ his remarks on 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
 *' But to us there is but one God, the Father," I noticed 
 this idea, " the one God^ the Father^ is the name of a na^ 
 tiire under which Christ, as God, is comprehended." I 
 was at first wholly at a loss for his meaning ; it however 
 soon occurred to me, that he considered the term God, in. 
 this case, ^s sl general or generic term^ comprehending a 
 plurality of Persons, of one coTnmon nature; as Man is 
 sometimes used for all mankind, I therefore pursued the 
 inquiry, to ascertain, if possible, his real meamng. When 
 I came to the part of his book, entitled, the " Conclusion," 
 iny apprehension was fully confirmed. 
 
 In page 80, he says, " That the Persons of God are 
 three in number, precisely distinguished, on some occa- 
 sions, by the personal names Father, the Word or Son, and 
 Jloly Spirit ; and also by different offices. That the same 
 terra is not always peculiar and proper to the same Person ; 
 because the words God^ Lord^ Jehovah^ and Father^ are 
 sometimes applied to one Person and sometimes to anoth- 
 er ; while at other times they are not personal^ but general 
 names of the Divine nature."*^ 
 
 In page 81, he observes, " There can be no real Unity 
 in God but that of his nature^ essence^ or substance^ all of 
 which are synonymous terms." 
 
 That the three Persons are of the same nature or essence^ 
 he considers as proved on this ground, " Because they par- 
 take in common of the name Jehovah^ virhich being inter- 
 preted, means the Divine essence ; and what it signifies in 
 one, Person it must also signify in the others, as truly as 
 the singular name Adam^ in its appellative capacity, ex- 
 presses the common nature of all mankind*'* 
 
30 071 the Unity of God, 
 
 If tbis be the true Athanasian theory of the Trhiity, it 
 IS not so mysterious as has been generally supposed ; and 
 I suspect, it will be a much less difficult task to explain it, 
 than it \v\V to reconcile it to the sacred Scriptures. 
 
 It is obvious, from the passages quoted, that Mr. Jones 
 considers the term God, as somt times used, as a general 
 or generic name, comprising a plurality of Persons of one 
 common n ture/]\xst as we use the term Man^ as comprising 
 the whale species* And he also supposes, that God is used 
 in this sense as meaning the Divine nature^ when it is said, 
 *' But to us there is but one God." 
 
 And as he has given us plainly to understand, that " there 
 can be no real Un tv in God but that of his nature^ it is 
 manifest that, on this theory, the Unity of God is the same 
 as the unity of 3Ian. Mr. Jones supposes, that the three 
 Persons in the Godhead are all of one nature^ that is, of a 
 Divine nature. So all the individual Persons of the human 
 race are, in the same sense, one^ they are of one nature^ 
 that is, human nature* 
 
 The whole mystery of the Trinity in Unity, according 
 to this theory, results from the ambiguous use of the terms 
 GoJ, Lord, Jehovah, &c. these terms being " sometimes 
 applied to one Person, and sometimes to another ; while 
 at other times they are -not personal^ but general names of 
 the Divine nature J*"* When it is said, there are three Persons 
 in one God, the word God is used " as the name of a na- 
 ture ;" and the import is simply this, that there are three 
 Persons of the same Divine nature. 
 
 On this theory of the Trinity in Unit>% I would suggest 
 the following inquiries :.... 
 
 1. Whether there can be any reasonable objections to 
 the proposition, which affirms that there are as man) self- 
 existent Beings as there are self-existent Persons \ While 
 it has been maintained that there are three selt-existent 
 Persons^ it has been affirmed that there is but one self-ex- 
 istent Being. But if the Unity is no more than a unity of 
 nature^ why miy not each of the* Persons be considered as 
 a distinct intelligent Being, according to the natural im- 
 port of the word Person ? When the word Man is used 
 *' as the name of a nature," it comprises many intelligent 
 Beings ; as many as it does of intelligent Persons. Why 
 is it not thus with regard to that order of Persons in- 
 cluded under the *' general name" God ? 
 
Gn the Unity of God, 3i 
 
 2. If it be admitted, that, when It is stated in the 
 Scriptures that to us there is but onf God^ that the term 
 God ;s used '* as the name of a nature'''* comprising a plu- 
 rality of Persons, what evidence can we hav^e that the num- 
 ber of Persons is limited to three ? Why may not that 
 order of Persons, which is denominated by the " general 
 name" God, be as great as the number characterized by 
 the general name Man ? — The advocates for the theory 
 will doubtless say, that the Scriptures mention but thres 
 Persons ; but do the Scriptures say that there are no more 
 than three Persons in the Godhead ? The Scriptures teach 
 us, that there is one God, and that there is none other but 
 He. And if such declarations do not limit the number of 
 self-existent Persons, the limits are not ascertained in the 
 Bible by any thing, with which I am acquainted. 
 
 3. Will it not foUow, from this hypothesis, that in the. 
 sense that each of three Persons is called God^ there are as 
 many distinct Gods as there are distinct Persons ? — When 
 the terra God is used as " the name of a nature," or as " a 
 general name for the Divine nature^"* it is easy enough to 
 see, that in this sense there may be no more Cods than 
 one ; but Mr. Jones does not suppose that it is always used 
 in this sense ; he supposes the same name is sometimes 
 used person lly^ and applied " sometimes to one of the 
 three Persons, and sometimes to another." This is pre- 
 cisely the case with the word Man* It is somet mes used 
 *' as the name of a nature," comprehending the whole spe- 
 cies ; yet at other times it is applied in a personal manner, 
 sometimes to one Person, and sometimes to another.— 
 John is a ma/z, Jaines is a man^ and Peter is a man^ &c* 
 And when it is used in this sense, it admits of the plural 
 number ; and we may say three men^ or three hundred mem 
 yea, in this sense there may be as many Men as Persons — 
 And in the sense in which the Father is God^ and Christ 
 is God^ and the Holy Spirit is God^ why are there not as 
 many Gods as Persons ? It is a clear case, that if each of 
 three Persons is one Man^ those three Persons are three 
 Men, And analogy will teach us, that if there are three 
 Divine Persons, each of whom is one God, then those 
 three Persons are three Gods. 
 
 I am well aware, that this conclusion is not admitted by 
 our Athanasian brethren j but if it do not fairly result from 
 
32 On the Unity oj God. 
 
 Mr. Jones' premises, I shall rejoice to see the fallacy of 
 
 the reasoning detected. 
 
 On the whole, the hypothesis of MV. Jones precludes 
 the necessity of any distinction between Person and Beings 
 or intelligent Person and intelligent Being ; and under the 
 generic or general name God, it exhibits an order of su- 
 preme and SELF' EXISTENT INTELLIGENCES, tO each of 
 
 whom the name God may be properly applied ; the num- 
 her of this order of divine iNTELLiGENCEShe supposes 
 to be but THRF.E ; this, however, is only supposition ; there 
 is no certainty in the case. The Dimne nature is doubtless 
 as extensive as human nature ; and if it include more than 
 one self-txistent Person, it may be impossible for us to see 
 •why it may not comprise as many Persons as human nature* 
 And as Mr. Jones supposed that not only the word God, 
 but also the word Lord, was used both as an " appellative''* 
 or general name, and also in a personal manner as applica- 
 ble to each of the Divine Persons, the h\pothesis seems to 
 open the way lor the re-admission oi Lords manij and Gods 
 many. 
 
 In speaking of the three Persons in the Trinity^ Dr. Em- 
 mons says, >**• There is a certain something in the Divine 
 nature which lays a proper foundation for these personal 
 distinctions. But what that something is, can neither be 
 described nor conceived. Here lies the whole mystery of 
 the Trinity." 
 
 Had the good Doctor understanding^ and believinglt/ 
 read Mr. Jones on the su!)ject, he would doubtless have 
 been able to describe that '^ certain somethtnc^^^ as well as 
 Mr. Jones has done. For the " somethtsg^^ appears from 
 Mr. Jones to be simply this, the Divine nature^ like human 
 nature^ may comprise a plurality of Persons. 
 
 Thus 1 have endeavored to unfold the Atbanasian mys- 
 tery of the Trinity ; the business of reconciling it with the 
 Bible, I shall not undertake. 
 
PART II. 
 
 ^N THE REAL DIVINITT AND GLORT OF 
 CHRIS T. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Jesus Christ truly the Sou of God, 
 ' REV SIR, 
 
 THE first proposition which I proposed to establish was 
 this, That the Supreme Being, or self-existent God, is 
 bnly one Person, And it is believed, that, in proof of this 
 proposition, something has already been done. 
 
 My second proposition is. 
 
 That Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. — If the 
 second proposition should be supported, additional evidence 
 will appear in favor of the first. For according to your 
 theory, Jesus Christ is one of the three self-existent Per- 
 sons, and is personally the self-existent God. But should 
 it appear that he is personally and truly the Son of God, it 
 will also appear that he is neither the self-existent God, nor 
 a self-existent Person. For, to a discerning and unpreju- 
 diced mind, it must be obvious, that it is a natural impos- 
 sibility that the same Person should be truly the sclf-exist- 
 cnt G'^d and truly the Son of the self-existent God* And 
 so far as the natural import of language is to be regarded, 
 the terms a self-existent Son imply a real and palpable con- 
 tradiction. The term self existent is perfectly opposed to 
 the term Son^ and the term Son is perfectly opposed to self 
 existence. If there be any term in our language which nat- 
 urally implies derived existence^ the term Son is of this im- 
 port. And to affirm that a Person is a derived self existent 
 Being implies no greater contradiction than to affirm tha- a 
 Person is a self existent Son, And to aflSrm that Jesus 
 Christ is personally the self-existent God, and at the same 
 E 
 
34 On the real Dtvtmty and Glory of Christ 
 
 time truly the Son of God, is percisely the same contradie-' 
 tion that it would be to affirm that the Prince of Woles is 
 truly Kinpr George the Third^ and also triily the Son of King 
 George the Third. 
 
 These things I have stated on the ground of the natural 
 meaning of terms. That the things I have stated are true, 
 according to the natural import of language, will not, it is 
 believed, be denied by any person of good discernment and 
 candor. 
 
 The proposition, that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of 
 God, is so obvious in its natural import, and so plainly 
 scriptural, that many may suppose it requires neither ex- 
 p'anation nor proof. Yet such is the state of things in the 
 Christian world, that both explanation and proof are neces- 
 sary. For although there is, perhaps, no one point in which 
 Christians are more universally agreed l\\2iX\ in calling Christ 
 the Son of God, there is scarcelv any thing about which 
 they are more divided than that of the intended import of 
 those terms. But amidst the variety of opinions which 
 have been formed on the subject, the natural import of the 
 words has been pretty uniformly rejected ; and almost 
 «Ver\ other possible meaning has been affixed to them, in 
 preference to that which the terms naturally excite. In- 
 deed, it seems to have been generally taken for granted, 
 that it is impossible -with God to have a Son. Athanasians 
 appear to have taken tnis lor granted ; and find ng that di- 
 vine titles, divine attributes, divine works, and divine hon- 
 ors, are ascribed to him in the Scriptures, they have set it 
 down as an unquestionable truth, that Christ is so far from 
 being the Son of God, in the natural sense of the terms^ 
 that he is the very self-existent God ; yea, that very God 
 of whom the Scriptures declare that he is the Son. Other 
 denominations, taking for granted the same principle, have 
 proTK)Mnced the Saviour to be "x mere creature^ more or ess 
 dignified and endued. And thus, on the one hand or the 
 other, almost every possible grade of intelligent existence 
 and dignity has been allowed him, excepting that which is 
 naturally imported by his title the Son of God. 
 
 Two ideas are naturally suggested by the title the Son 
 of God, viz. Divine Origin and Divine Dignity. 
 
 By D vine Origin, 1 do not mean that the Son of Crod is 
 a created intelligent Being ; but a Being who properly de- 
 rived his existence and his nature from God. It has not^ 
 
On the real Divinity and Glorif ofChrtsC $S 
 
 perhaps, been common, to make any distinction between 
 derived existence and created existence ; but in the present 
 Case the distinction appears vtiy important. Adam was a 
 created being , Seth derivedYX^ ex'stence from the created 
 iiature of Adam ; and therefore it is said " Adam begat a 
 ijon in his own likeness." And as Seth derived his exist- 
 ence from the created nature of Adam, so, it is believed, 
 
 thr^tthe ONLT BKCOTTTN OF THE FaTHER DERIVED HIS ex- 
 istence from the self-existent nature of God. In tliis sense 
 onlv do I mean to prove that the Son of God is a derived 
 intelligence. 
 
 The hypothesis, that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, 
 bv properly deriving his existence and natuic from God, 
 will probably, by manv, be pronounced a very great absur-; 
 ditv. And as, in my view, very much is depending on this 
 pomt, vou v/ill suffer me to be particular in the examina^ 
 tion. — That the terms the Son of God, as applic-d to Christ, 
 do most naturallv denote that his existence and nature were 
 derived from God, will, it is believed, be granted by all ju- 
 dicious and impartial inquirers. And it does not discover 
 the greatest reverence for the Scriptures, nt)r the greatest 
 sense of our own fal'ibiHty, hastily to reject, as absurd, the 
 natural import of inspired language. If there be any 
 ground on which the h\ pothesis may be pronounced absurd^ 
 it must be found either in the -works «¥^ the ivord of God. cn^ 
 
 But what do we find in the ivorks of God, by which it 
 may appear, that it is absurd to suppose that God has a Son 
 who has truly derived his existence and nature from the 
 Father ? In examining the works of God, we find reason 
 to suppose that God has given existence to various tribes 
 of beings, with natures distinct from his own. And is it 
 not quite as difficult to conceive, that God should give ex- 
 istence to beings by proper creation^ with nature distinct 
 from his own, as that he should give existence to a Son truly 
 deriving his nature from the Father \ 
 
 We also find, that God has endued the various tribes of 
 creatures with a power oi procreation^ by which they pro- 
 duce offspring in their own likeness. Why is it not as 
 possible that God should possess the power of producing a 
 Son in his own likeness, or with his own nature, as that he 
 should be able to endue his creatures with such a power ? 
 May it not, then, be presumed, that no shadow of evidence 
 <;>m be produced from the works of God, to iavalidats the 
 
3S On the real Divinity and Glory ofCh irht* 
 
 hvpothesis that Christ, as the Son of God, possesses di* 
 vine nature by derived existence ? 
 
 What then saith the Scripture ? Wt may, in reply to 
 this question, notice several things. 
 
 1. Dr. Hopkins has said, " The Redeemer is the Son of 
 God in a peculiar and appropriated sense, and by which he 
 is distinguished from evry other person in the universe." 
 —The Doctor adds, " He is mentioned as the Son of God 
 more than an hundred times in the New Testament ; and 
 the Father of Jesus Christ the Son, is mentioned above two 
 hundred and twenty times." 
 
 The correctness of these statements is not doubted ; and 
 on the ground of thrm I mav sav, that, according to the 
 natural import of words, Jesus Christ is, in the New Testa- 
 ment, more than three hundn^d and t ■ entv timrs mention- 
 ed as a DFRIVFD iNTFLLiGENcr, an intelligence who has 
 property der ved his existeryce and nature from God. For 
 in contradistinction to angels and men, and to all w\\o may 
 be cilled Sons of God bv crration^ or adoption^ Jesus Christ 
 is definttzvely called th e Son of God, 
 
 2. It is to be observed, that several epithets are used as 
 with explicit design to prec'ude all mistake, and to give us 
 unequivocal evidence that Jesus Christ is the Son of God 
 in the most strict sense of the term. He is emphatically 
 called God's *' OWN Son." And to denote that God has no 
 other Son in the sense in which Christ is his Son, he is call- 
 ed God's ONLY Son. And more fully to express the idea 
 that he, and he only, properly derived his existence and na- 
 t rr from God, he is called *^'the only begotten Son of 
 God," "the only begotten of the Fathkr." 
 
 I ^ouldhere ask, whether \th(t possible to find terms 
 which would more clearly and more emphatically express 
 the verv thing which I undertook to prove? If no further 
 evidence could be produced in favor of the hypothesis, it 
 would ct^rtainly require something very substantial and 
 positive to invalidate what has been already exhibited. 
 But additional evidence is yet to come. What has been 
 produced, is from the general and current language of the 
 New Testament. — We may add, 
 
 3. It appears to have been one particular design of the 
 miracles which were wrought by Christ, to prove that he 
 ■was the Son of God ; and that, as the Son, was sent of the 
 Father iato the world. 
 
On the real Divimty and Glory ofChrhu S7. 
 
 Christ said to the Jews, '' Ye sent unto John, and he 
 hare witness of the truth. But I have greater witness than 
 that of John: for the W(9ri* which the Father hath giv<;n 
 me to finish, the same works which I do, bear witness of 
 me, that the Father hath sent me." John v. 33....o6. 
 
 The account that the Jews sent unto John, and the tes- - 
 timony he gave, we have recorded in the first chapter of 
 the same Gospel. The testimony is this, •■' But he that_ 
 sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me. 
 Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and re- 
 maining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the 
 Holv Ghost. And I saw and bare record that this is the 
 SoN^God." 
 
 This was the truth to which John testified ; but Christ 
 stated, that the works which he did were of greater weight 
 than the testimony of John. And it is observable, that, as 
 it was one design of his miracles to prove that he was the 
 Son of God, so this conviction was produced in the m>nds 
 of many upon seeing the miracles which he performed. 
 And though many of the Jews rejected this testimony, yet 
 reluctant devils were constrained to acknowledge his digni- 
 ty and power as the Soi^ of God. 
 
 4. Jesus Christ is the Faithful and True Witness,and he 
 repeatedly affirmed, " I am the So v of God :" and he also 
 ^abundantly affi: med that God was his Father. 
 
 I am not insensible, that, ob th s ground, some have . 
 supposed that Christ meant to affirm his self-existence, in- 
 dependence, and co-eternity with the Father. But surely 
 I can think of no words which would have been less calcu- 
 lated to impress such an idea on an unprejudiced mind. 
 And had it been his design to affirm his self-existence, and 
 at the same time to mislead the minds of his hearers, I know 
 jiot of any language which would have been more adapted 
 to such a purpose. Would any person of common dis- 
 cernment and common honesty ever think of asserting that 
 he is General Washington, or that he personally existed 
 as earlij as Genera Washington, by saying, I am the Sow 
 of General Washington, and General Washington is my 
 Father ? — But if Christ meant to assert that he derived 
 his existence and his nature from God as a Son from a 
 Father, what language could have been more to his pur- 
 pose than that which he adopted I 
 
 5. The awful display^ of Divine majesty and power 
 which were concomitants of the crucifixion of Christ, pro- 
 
38 On the real Dhmkt/ and Glory of Christ, 
 
 diiced a conviction in the minds of the Centurion and others 
 that Jesus was the Son ot God. " Now when the C^-n* 
 turion, and they that were vv th him, Kvatch-ng Jesus, saw 
 the earth quake, and those things that were done, they 
 frared greatlv, saying, Truly this was the Son of God." 
 And according to the opinion of Saint Paul, he was "■ de» 
 clared to be the Son of God with power, according to the 
 spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."— 
 Kom. i. 4. 
 
 6. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, was a prin- 
 cipal article of primitive Christian faith, and a principal 
 doctrine of apostolic preachi g, 
 
 Christ questioned his disciples thus, " Whom do men 
 say that 1, the Son of m >n^ am ? They said, Some say 
 thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jere- 
 mias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But 
 whom say ye that I am I And Simon Peter answered and 
 said. Thou art the Christ, tht Son of the living God." 
 
 Nathaniel, on becoming acquainted with Christ, said 
 tmto him, *•'• Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God." 
 
 When Christ questioned Martha respecting her faith in 
 him, she replied, " I believe that thou art the Christ, the 
 Son of God." 
 
 After the ascension, when the Eunuch manifested a de- 
 sire to be baptized, Philip answered, " If thou believest 
 with all thine heart, thou mayest." The Eunuch then ex- 
 hibited his confession of faith, " I believe that Jesus Christ 
 is the Son of God," And on the ground of this professioii 
 he was baptized. 
 
 Saint Paul havmg been converted and commissioned for 
 the Gospel ministry, " straightway he preached Christ in 
 the Synagogues, that he is the Son of God." 
 
 And the same doctrine he abundantly inculcated in his 
 Epistles. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins has noticed, that the Apostle John *' men- 
 tioned Christ as the Son of God, fifty times — and the Fa- 
 ther of Jesus Christ the Son, more than one hundred and 
 thirty times," in his Gospel and Epistles. And this same 
 Apostle has spoken of faith in Christ, that he is the Son 
 of God, as though it were indeed of the highest importance. 
 *^ Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, 
 God dwelleth in him, and he in God. He that believeth 
 
0n the real Dhhiity and Glory of Christ SSI 
 
 on the Son oi God, hath the witness in himself. Whoso- 
 ever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. Who 
 is he that overcometh the world, but he that belitveth that 
 Jesus Christ is the Sns of God I 
 
 Here I would take the liberty to propose a few questions. 
 Is believing that Jesus Christ is a mere man or a mere crea- 
 ture^ bv-lieving that he is the Son of God, God's ow>i Sov^ 
 the ONLY B iGOTT h N oi the Father? Again, Is believing 
 that Jesus Christ is personally the self-ixistfwt God^ be- 
 lieving that he is truly the aS*^ .v of God ? Does it not ap- 
 pear, that be ieving that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, 
 was the orthodox faith in the first age of Christianity ? But 
 is this the faith of those who call themselves the orthodox 
 at the present day ? 
 
 To believe that Christ \s personally the self-existent Gcd^ 
 and to believe that Christ is trulif the Son of G( d^ are, in 
 Diy view, ver\ distinct things ; and I cannot but be amaz- 
 ed that ideas so perfectly distinct should ever have been 
 admitted as one and the same. 
 
 7. The self-existent and supreme Majesty, by an 
 audible voice from Heaven, did repeatedly confirm the 
 truth which I have aimed to support. 
 
 '•• And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight- 
 way out of the water : and lo, the Heavens were opened 
 Vmto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a 
 dove, and lighting upon him : and lo ! a voice from Heaven^ 
 saying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
 pleased." 
 
 Again, at the time of the transfiguration, " Behold, a 
 br ght cloud overshadowed them ; and, behold, a voice 
 out of the cloud, which said. This is my beloved Son, io 
 whom I am well pleased ; hear ye him." 
 
 Is it possible. Sir, that any man can attend for a moment 
 to the natural import of these words from Heaven, and 
 then believe that God meant to be understood as saying. 
 This Person, who has been baptized, and transfigured, is 
 the self-existent God, co-eternal with myself, and the self^ 
 same Being t 
 
 8. The avowed design of St. John, in writing the hisf 
 tory of Jesus Christ, is a proof that in his view Jesus was 
 truly the Son of God. At the close of the 20th chapter^ 
 he says, ** And many other signs truly did Jesus in the 
 presence of his discijples, which are not written in t\m 
 
4lO On the real Divmlty and Glory of Chris f. 
 
 book. But these are written that ye might believe that 
 Jesiis is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing, 
 ye might have life through his name.'' 
 
 It has often been supposed^ and urged^ that John wrote 
 his Gospel at the request of the Bishops of Asia, in sup- 
 port of the Divinity of Christ, and in opposition to the her- 
 esy of Cerinthus, and the Ebionites, who held, that Christ 
 was a mere man. This may be verv true ; but it does not 
 hence follow, that John wrote in suppt/rt oi your views of 
 the Divinity of Christ ; nor that your sentiments accord 
 with his. And since John has himself told us his object 
 in writing, we have no occasion to resoit to the supposi- 
 tion of others to determine the point. And he tells us, ia 
 the most unequivocal manner, that his object in writmg 
 was, that his readers might believe that Je^sus is the Christ, 
 the So\ of God. And if Jesus Christ was the Son of God 
 in the proper sense of the terms, he vi^as truly a divine 
 PrKsoN, in opposition to the opinions of Ebion and Cerin- 
 thus. 
 
 You w'll probably urge, that in the verv first verse of 
 his Gospel, John says, " The Word was God." This is 
 true ; and it is also true, that in the same verse, and in 
 th'-^ next, he savs, " The Word was with God." The 
 God whnm the Word was xvith^ v/as doubt'ess one God; 
 and unless e are to suppose that John meant to affirm a 
 plura'ity of self-existent Gods, he did not mean to affirm 
 that the Word was God in a sense which implied personal 
 seit-existtnce. Besides, the title, the Word, or the Word 
 of God, probably denotes that the Son was the Mkdium 
 of Divine manifestation ; and hence we may easily inter, 
 that it was on the ground of a c^NSTiruriD char^cti-R that 
 th;' Son is called God. John proceeds to sa^•, that all 
 things were made by him ; and Paul tells us how^ that God 
 " created all things by Jesus CuRibT,^^ 
 
 In some future Letters, I shall more particularly show in 
 what sense Christ is ca'led God. But I may here observe, 
 that the general current of John's Gospel corresponds with 
 what he sa\ s was his object in writing, viz. " That ye might 
 believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God j and 
 that believing, ye might have life through his name,'' 
 
 In my next Letter, you may expect still further evidence 
 that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. 
 
^n the real Divinity and Glory ofChrish 41 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 'Additional Evidence that Christ is truly the Son of God, 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 AS introducton' to the arguments whicti I am about to 
 large, I would suggest to your mind the following suppo- 
 sitions. 
 
 1. Suppose that God, in giving the ten commandments 
 on tables of stone, instead of writing the word sabbath-day 
 ih the fourth commandment, had left a blank ; and in giv- 
 ing the fifth, he left a blank instead of writing the terms 
 father and mother, 
 
 2. Suppose he wrote a second time, and filled up those 
 blanks with characters or words which had never before 
 been seen or heard of by men. 
 
 3. Suppose he vs^rote a third time, and instead of leav- 
 ing bla»ks for those words, or filling them with unknown 
 characters or terms, he, for sabbath-day^ wrote birth-day ; 
 and instead oi father and mother^ wrote son and daughter : 
 suppose also, that these words had never been undergtood 
 by men to mean any thing different from their common ac- 
 ceptation at the present day* 
 
 Permit me now to ask, whether either of these modes of 
 writing those commands could be considered as a revela- 
 tion of the Divine Will \ And would not the mode of 
 writing birth-day for sabbath-day^ and son and daughter 
 for father and mother^ be as likely to mislead the minds of 
 men, as writing in unknown characters^ or even as leaving* 
 klank spaces to be filled up by conjecture ? 
 
 But wfiat, you may ask, is the object of these extraordi- 
 nary statements ? My object. Sir, is this, to evince, that 
 in his communications to us, God must make use of lan- 
 guage in a sense which agrees with some analogy, or his 
 communications can be of no use to mankind, any more 
 than unknown characters^ or blanks to be filled by conjee* 
 ture. 
 
 In a connexion as deeply interesting as that of giving the 
 law, God has made use of the terms the Son oj God^ my 
 SoN^ GoD*s OWN Son, the only begotten Son of God* He 
 has represented his love to us as being exceedingly ^eat, 
 
 F 
 
i2 On the teal Divinity and Glory of Christ 
 
 on the following ground, " God so loved the world, that he 
 gave his only bkgotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 
 him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." " He 
 thctt spared not his own Son, but dtlivered him up for us 
 all/' 
 
 Surh, you know, is the common representation in the 
 New Testament, And being well arquainttd with the 
 natural import of the terms an own vSon, an only bkgot- 
 Tkn Son ; and having an idea of the love of a lather to an 
 own and only son ; the scriptural representations of the 
 ipve of God towards us become deeply interesting and af- 
 fecting. 
 
 But the Athanasian theory represents the Son of God a$ 
 personally the self-existent God, and the very saml Beings 
 of whom he is abundantlv declared to be the Son. And 
 on this ground, the term Son is used in a st-nse foreign to 
 every analogy with which the htiman mind is acquainted; 
 as foreign as it woiild be to use birth-diy for sabbath-day^ 
 or son and duughttfr (or ft thtr ainl mofhrr. On this ground, 
 the representations of Clod's love, and the scheme of salva- 
 tion, are involved in unintt I'lgiSle metaphor ; and we need 
 an inspired Daniel to interpret the import of the term Son, 
 as much as Belshazzar did to interpret the enigmatical 
 hand-writing on the wall. And until this interpretation be 
 given, we have no definite ground on which to estimate the 
 love of God ill the atonement made for the sins of the 
 world. 
 
 What has been now exhibited, is viewed as a very 
 weighty argument against your theory, and in favor of the 
 hypothesis that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. — But 
 there is another argument which, if possible, is still more 
 weighty, to which we may now attend. 
 
 You cannot be insensible, that it is plainlv and abundant- 
 ly represented in the Scriptures, that the Son of God did 
 really and ptrsonally suffer and die for us. And that on 
 this ground, both the love of God and the love of his Soir 
 arc represented as having been manifested in a very extra- 
 ordinary manner. And if the Son of God be truly the Sna 
 of God, a derived intelligence, these representations may 
 be strictly and affectingly true. For on this hypothesis, 
 the Son of God may be the same intelligent Being as the 
 aoui of the Man Christ Jesus who suffered on the cross* 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of ChrtsU -4(3 
 
 But vour theory will not, I suspect, he found to admit, 
 or support, anv thing more than the shadow of the siiff'erin^ 
 and dentil of the ^^-^v of Gro, 
 
 Writers and preacheis on vour side of the question, do, 
 indeed, often speak of the ab \sement^ the suffrrinprs^ and 
 deaths of the Sow of God, as though they believed these 
 things to he affecting realities. linf, after all, what is the 
 amount of these representations, upon your hypothesis ? 
 You do not conceive th.it the Son of (iod became united 
 to flesh and hhx.d as the soul of Jrsus Christ. So far from 
 this, you supp<»se the Sonf of CioD was personally the self- 
 cxistentGod , and instead of becom ng the soul of a human 
 bodv^ you suppose he became m\ slerionsly united to a 
 proper Man, who, as distinct from the Son of God, had at 
 true body and reasonable soul. And I think. Sir, it will 
 be found, that on thi«i Mm xour theory lays the iniquities 
 of us all ; — ^thar this J/.7/, and not the Son of God, en- 
 du]e<l the stripes by v\ hi( h we have healing. For while 
 you maintain that the Son was personally Uie only liv^- 
 ing and truf God, ) ou very consistently affirm that " he 
 did not sufft-r in the least in H s Divine nature, but 
 altogether in his human nature.*' And what is this but af- 
 firming that he d d not suffer at a'l as the Son of God, but 
 on'y the Man jfesus suffered, to whom the Son w^^Siimited? 
 As, on the Athanasian hxpotbesis, the Alan C4«-ist Jesus 
 and the human nature arc the same, io the Son or self-eX" 
 istent God and the Divine nature of Christ are the same» 
 You suppose the Son as incapable of suffering as the Fa- 
 ther, and he did not in reality personally suffer on the 
 cross any more than the Father did ; nor any more than 
 either of them suffered while Cranmer was burning at the 
 stake. How then does it appear, that" God spared not 
 HIS OWN Son" I 
 
 You will probably plead, that the Man Jesus was united 
 to the Person of the Son of God, and that Person suffered 
 in his human nature. But, Sir, as you predicate person- 
 ality on the Son or Divine nature, and do not allow per- 
 sonality to the human nature^ it will, I suspect, be difficult 
 for you to prove that a72z/ Person suffered on the cross: 
 for the sufferings fell simply on a nature to which you do 
 not allow personality. ' As, in your view, the Son was the 
 self-existent God, and could not suffer in his Divine nature^ 
 UE Qbnld not si/Jlr in any^ nature. The man was only an 
 
44 On the real Dtvinity and Glory ofChrisu 
 
 appendage to his Person, mysteriously connected ; and yet 
 so far was the union from being very intimate or essential, 
 that the appendage or the Mm mightj suffer the severest 
 agonies, and the Soi^ or Ti< al Person be at the same time 
 J in a state of infinite felicity. 
 
 Abraham's offering his son Isaac, has long been consid- 
 ered as typical of the conduct of God in giving his Son to 
 die for us. Suppose we should add to the scriptural ac- 
 count the following ideas — That Abraham knew before- 
 hand that his son was incapable of suffering, and that all 
 the sufferings would fall on another man, to whom his son 
 was mysteriously united ; and that Isaac also understood 
 the matter in the same light when he consented to be bound 
 and laid upon the altar. Would not this additional account, 
 if believed, depreciate, in our estimation, the conduct of 
 Abraham, and Isaac at the rate of ninety-nine per cent. ? 
 This illustration may serve to show how much your 
 hypothesis, when understood, tends to lower down our 
 ideas of the greatness of the love of God in giving his Son 
 to die for us ; and also the love and submission of the Son 
 in consentmg to make his life an offering for our sin. — I 
 w^ould, however, by no means intimate, that you, and 
 others, view the love of God in this depreciated light. 
 For I think it probable that it is with you, as I am sensi- 
 ble it was with myself-r— the plain ^presentations of Scrip- 
 ture, by the help of analogy, superseded the force of 
 theory. 
 
 It has been, and I think justly, supposed, that the dignity 
 of the Son of God gave value to the sufferings of the cross. 
 And if we consider the Son of God to be what his title 
 imports, a derived Intelligence of Divine origin and dig- 
 nity, the one by whom (jod created the world, by whooi 
 or in whom he appeared to the ancient Patriarchs, by 
 •whom he conducted the children of Israel from Eg^ pt 
 to Canaan ; if we consider this se f-samc Intelligence 
 a^ «»• personally and really suffering the death of the cross, 
 we may perceive something, in view of v^ hich we may 
 well exclaim, " Behold what manner of love !" 
 
 But if the sufferings of the cross did not really fall on 
 that very Son, who had sustained pre existent glory in the 
 *' FORM OF God," but on a man who had existed less than 
 forty )'ears, who had a ted in public character not more 
 than four or five ; how small the degree of condescension on 
 the part of the sufferer^ how small the display of the love of 
 
 J\ 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory cf Christ, 45 
 
 God, and ot what diminished value are the sufferings of the 
 cross ! In the Assembly's Catechism we are taught, that 
 ".Christ's humiliation consisted in his being born, and that 
 in a low condition, being made under the law ; undergoing 
 the miseries of this life, the wrath of GoJ, and the cursed 
 death of the cross ; in being buried, and continuing undet 
 the power of death for a time." 
 
 Yet this same Catechism teaches us to be'iex^e, that Je- 
 sus Christ was personally co-eternal with the Father, and 
 the self-existent God. I will tht*n ask, whether there be 
 one particular, of what is said respecting the humiliation of 
 Christ, which csin possibly be true? Was the self-existent 
 God ever born ? Was he ever in a low condition t Was 
 he ever made under the law f Did he ever suffer the 
 wrath of God, or the cursed death of che cross t Was 
 God ever buried ? — If the self-existent God has not passed 
 through such scenes, then the Son of God has not, accord- 
 ing to your doctrine respecting the Son. Therefore, ac- 
 cording to your theor}', all the abasement^ v. hich can be 
 supported, faLs on the Man to which the Son was united : 
 And this Man you suppose had no existence until he was 
 conceived in the womb of the virgin Marv ; of course, he 
 had no glory to leave, or lay aside, when he came into the 
 world. As he never had been rkh^ it was impossible for 
 him to become poor for our sakes. He had no opportuni- 
 ty to say, " Lo, I come to do thy will, O God ;" and so far 
 as his humiliation consisted in ^' being born, and that in a 
 low condition," there was nothing voluntary in it ; and it 
 could be no evidence of any love or condescension in 
 him. 
 
 To make out your theory of the humiliation and abase- 
 ment of the Son of God, you have to take into view two 
 distinct intelligent Beings ; one of which you affirm to be 
 the self-existent God, and the other a proper Man. This 
 God, or Son of God, you find had been in a state of pre- 
 existent dignity and glory ; and he, as you suppose, was 
 united mysteriously to a Man j tliis Man was born in low 
 circumstances, endured the m series of this life, and suf- 
 fered death on the cross ; and by virtue of his union to 
 the Son of God, iie was enabled to bear a vastly greater 
 w^eight of suffering than he could otherwise have endured. 
 
 But, Sir, is this all that is intended by God's sparing 
 ^OT ms OWN Son l Is this the way in which the So*v of 
 
45 On the real Dhinhy and Glory ofChrtsU 
 
 God BARE our sins in his own body on the tree ? What, 
 Sir, was the real condition of the Son of God,the sclf-exist- 
 cnt God, from the birth of the Man Jfsiis till this Man 
 rose again from the dead ? Accord ng to your theory, the 
 Son of God, during tlie whole of that |x*riod, was in a state 
 of infinite glory and felicity ; and as incapable of suffering 
 the agonies of death, as the Father. How then can it be 
 true, that " Though a Son, yet learned he obedience by 
 ffui things which he sufferfd ?*' As it respects the real char- 
 acter of the suffering Savior, what is yoar theory bet- 
 ter than Sociuianism enveloped in mystery ? 
 
 lette;r III. 
 
 M? Ahsicrdity in the Hypothesis that Christ is truly the Soi^ 
 
 of God. 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 WHAT has been exhibited in the preceding Letters, 
 it is hoped, will be sufficient to satisfy impartial minds that 
 the Scriptures afford abundant evidence that Jesus Christ 
 is truly the Son of God. But a contrary belief has been 
 so long and so generally prevalent, th^t it may be necessary 
 to say something farther on the subject, with a view to 
 show that the natural i?nport of the terms the Son of God, 
 or God's own Son, implies no contradiction or absurdity. 
 
 That God is a self-existent Being, is acknowledged by 
 all Christians ; and I shall freely admit, that it is impossi- 
 ble with God to beget or produce a self-existent Son. 
 But what have we to do with the 7node of God's existence, 
 in determining whether it be possible with him to produce 
 a Son ? What have we to do with the mode of Adam's ex- 
 istence, in determining whether Beth could be his Sen t 
 Respecting Adam, it is said, "The Lord God formed 
 man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nos- 
 trils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." And 
 probably Adam was a man in size or stature at his first ex- 
 istence. Could not Seth be the son of Adam, unless the 
 mode of his haying existence was the same with Adam's I 
 
On the real Dlvlniiy and Glory of Christ. 45? 
 
 Wben Adam was in existence, he had a nature by which 
 he was distinguished from God and from Angels. Such a 
 nature Seth derived from Adam. Self-existence may b^ 
 esst ntial to the Divine nature in God, and proper creation 
 might be essentia! to the human nature in Adam. And as 
 human nature in Seih liiight be derived from the created na- 
 ture of Ad:»m, why mav it not be true that Divine nature m 
 the Son was derived trf>m the aelfrexiatent nature of God ? 
 
 We often speak oi' Divine nature^ angelic nature^2Lnd hu- 
 -^an nature ; bat w hat do we know of either, excepting 
 certain prop* rtics, attributes, or qualities ? Are we not 
 unable to tell \\hat is the radical difference between an An- 
 gel and a human soul ? Yet we believe there is some rad- 
 ical distinction. So wc may b^ unable to ascertain the 
 radical distinction between the Divi?ie nature^ and human 
 nature^ exclusive of the different modes of existence. 
 Yet, aside from those attributes which simply ¥ej««t xhcr^J/f 
 inc)des of existence, there may be some radical difference 
 between those natures. If we suppose this diversity of 
 natures to result Irom the diversity of attributes or qualities 
 united, yet there may be some property, attribute, or qual- 
 ity, by which one nature is distinguished from another^ 
 and the distinguishing property of nature may be wholly un- 
 known to us. 
 
 Are we not. Sir, too ignorant of the nature of God, to 
 pronounce that there is nothing in his nature which may be 
 properly derived in the existence of an own Son ? It may 
 fiot be necessary that every attribute of Deity should be 
 communicable or derivable in order that he may have an 
 OWN Son. Among the children of men, it is not necessa- 
 ry to the existence or the idea of a son^ that he should pos- 
 sess all the attributes, properties, or qualities of his father. 
 Nor is it necessary that he should possess no other attri- 
 butes but such as were possessed by his father. Among 
 the seventy sons of Gideon, perhaps, there were no two 
 that perfectly resembled each other in their attributes, prop- 
 erties, or qualities ; and probably no one who was the per" 
 feet likeness of his father. So Jesus Christ may have tru- 
 ly derived his existence and nature from God, and yet not 
 possess every attribute of the Father. 
 
 Jesus Christ was the Son of David, according to the flesh ; 
 yet we believe his body was not produced by ordinary 
 gc.neration.j but as Mary was of the seed of David, and as 
 
4^ On the real Dimnity and Glory ofCIirlsL 
 
 the body of Christ was derived from her, Christ is called 
 David's Son. Had he not properly derij^ed anv properties 
 from David, he could not with proprietv be called the Son 
 of David. And if his spirit or soul had not been as prop- 
 erly derived from God, as his body was from David, it is 
 difficult to see whv he should be called the Sun of God, or 
 God's OWN and only S >n. 
 
 It has been said by a respectable writer, that " it is total- 
 ly incon eivable that a derived, dependent nature, should 
 really possess any of those Divine perfections which es- 
 sentially belong to an underived, independent, self-existent 
 Bei:g." 
 
 H »d the word exclusively been used instead of the word 
 " essentiallif^'^ the observation would have been unexcep- 
 tionable. SelJ-existence and independence belong to God, . 
 not only '^ essentially ^"^ but exchisivfly. But knoivledge^ 
 power ^ and holiness^ are essential attributes in God, and yet 
 knowledge, power, and holiness, may be communicated, 
 not only to a derived but to a created intelligence. God 
 may, indeed, possess these attr butes in an unlimited ex- 
 tent, while in other beings they may be limittd ; but thes& 
 attributes may be of the saine nature in men that they are 
 in God. 
 
 That God does communicate knowledge, power, and ho- 
 liness, will, it is believed, be granted by most Christians. 
 Nor may we set any limits to the drgree in which they 
 may be communicated, unless we may limit the Divine 
 Power of communication. 
 
 However, I have no occasion to maintain that Christ did, 
 with his existence as a Son, derive any attribute of Deity 
 in the extent in which it is possessed bv God. Had he 
 been personally self-svfficient and all-siifficient^ he would 
 have had no occasion for God's giving him the Spirit with* 
 out measure. He might, w ith his existence, derive so much 
 of the Divine nature as to be truly the Son of God ; and 
 yet he might be the Almighty, and the Searcher oF 
 HEARTS, by the indwelling ot the Father, or the Jullness of 
 the Godhead. 
 
 When men are renewed in the temper of their minds, 
 they are said to be ^' born of God," to have the image of 
 God on their hearts ; and on this ground they are denomi- 
 nated Sons of God. For that which is begotten, or produ- 
 ced, in them, is truly of a Divine nature. It is that holiness 
 
t)n the real t)hmity and Glory of Christ* 49 
 
 t>]f heart which is the glory of the Divine character. There 
 is nothing more essential, or more excel'ent, in God, than 
 holiness ; this we see may be derived as the attribute of a 
 dependent being. And this holiness is precisely of the , 
 same nature in men that it is in God. Its nature is not 
 changed by being derived or communicated. As that 
 which is born of the flesh is flesh, so that which is born of 
 the spirit is spirit — it is of the same holy nature as the 
 spirit by which it is produced. 
 
 Will it be denied, that holiness is the excellence of all ex- 
 cellences in the Divne existence and character? And if 
 that which is essential to the Divine existence may be com- 
 municated or produced as the attribute of a dependent 
 agent, by what principles of revelation, or philosophy, can 
 it be affirmed, that it is impossible with God to produce 
 an intelhgent existence from his own nature ? If God, 
 from his own nature, may produce his moral image^ why 
 may he not produce his natural image f And why may 
 not Jesus Christ be as truly the "image of the invisible 
 God," as Setb was the likeness of Adam \ 
 
 Holiness -tt as self -existent in God, as any attribute of 
 the Divine nature ; yet holiness may be produced as the 
 attribute of a dependent agent. And if one attribute, which 
 is self-existent in Deity, may be produced or derived^ as 
 the attribute of a dependent agent, without any change in 
 its nature, what evidence can we have that other attributes, 
 properties, or qualities, which are self-existent in God, 
 may not be properly derived ? Yea, by what evidence can 
 it be made to appear, that all the radical and essential prin- 
 ciples or properties of intelligent existence, may not have 
 been properly derived from the Divine nature in the per- 
 son of God's own Son ? 
 
 From the circumstance, that holiness is of the same na- 
 ture in angels and men that it is in God, we may easily 
 discern that the term self existence ought not to be used as 
 expressive of the nature of Divine attributes, but only to 
 express the mode of their existence. And the same may 
 be said of the terms eternity^ independence^ and infinity* 
 In God, holiness is self existent^ eternal^ independent^ and 
 infinite. But considered as the attribute of a dependent, 
 created agent, an angel or a man, neither of these epithets 
 can be applied. Yet holiness may be of the same nature 
 in men, in angels, and in God* Why may not the same 
 G 
 
so On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 
 
 be true respecting other attributes or qualities of the Di- 
 vine nature ? 
 
 Some additional light may possibly be obtained, by at- 
 tending to the idea of supernaturil or superhuman powers, 
 with which God, at some times, endued human beings.— 
 Sampson, at some seasons, was weak like another man ; 
 but when the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, he was 
 able to perform prodigies. This supernatural strength, it 
 appears, was immediately derived from God, Yet while 
 Sampson possessed this strength, it was truly his strength ; 
 and he was no more dependent on God for the strength by 
 which he^performed the wonderful things recorded of him, 
 than I am for the strength by which I move my pen. 
 
 The prophets were endued with supernatural foreknowl- 
 edge, by which they were enabled to unfold the vol-ume of 
 futurity, and predict events not only hundreds but thousands 
 of years before the time in which the predictions were to 
 be fulfilled. 
 
 By a baptism of the same Spirit, the apostles were in- 
 stantaneously endued, and enabled to speak in foreign lan- 
 guages which they had never studied. 
 
 These supernatural powers were but occasfo/za/ properties 
 or attributes of the several persons who possessed them. 
 But while they were possessed^ they were personal proper- 
 ties or attributes. Those persons were truly endued zuitk 
 power from on high. The prophets foresaw as the Spirit 
 gave them foreknowledge ; and the apostles s^mke as the 
 Spirit gave them utterance* This Spirit was the Spirit of 
 God ; and when it was given in an extraordinary manner^ 
 men were enabled to do extraordinary things. When men 
 have been thus endued, they have possessed extraordinaiy 
 portions of Divine sufficiency ; and these portions of suf- 
 ficiency, it appears, they possessed by a co^yzmz/nfcYzfiow of 
 Divine fulness. Nor is there any evidence that God might 
 not, if he pleased, endue every individual of the human 
 race with the streftgth of Sampson, the foreknowledge of 
 Daniel, and th^ gift of speaking all hiiman languages : and 
 these, if he pleased, niight be, continued as permanent at- 
 tributes of character. 
 
 From what has been exhibited, it is pretty evident, that 
 created intelligences may, by the pleasure o^ God, possess 
 holiness, knowledge, and power, which are truly of a Di- 
 irine nature. May we not properly say, that Sampson 
 
On the real Dhmity and Glory ofChrisU Si 
 
 possessed an extraordinary measure of Divine power, and 
 that the prophets and apostles possessed an extraordinary 
 measure of Divine knowledge ; and that all holy beings do 
 partake of that attribute which is the glory of the Divine 
 nature ? 
 
 If the attributes of holiness, knowledge, and power, may 
 be properly communicated from God to dependent agents, 
 and in such a manner as to become personal properties or 
 attributes of these agents, what properties of intelligent ex-^ 
 istence may not be properly derwed irom Deity, as a stream 
 from 2i fountain^ or as a Son from a Father f 
 
 The communication of these atti ibutes, from a self-exist- 
 ent to a derived agent, seems to imply something distinct 
 from these attributes as the Being who is the recipient of 
 these communications. But what that is virhich constitutes 
 Being, distinct from such properties or attributes, is per- 
 haps beyond the reach of mortal discernment. I have not, 
 however, made this remark with a view to deny the exist- 
 ence of Being, as distinct from all we know of attributes 
 or properties. The language we use, and the language of 
 the Bible, naturally imply a recipient or receiver of Divine 
 communications ; and that Being does imply something 
 more than all we know of properties, attributes, or quali- 
 ties. If any thing be communicated from one agent to 
 another, there must be an agent or capacity to receive such 
 communications. 
 
 But if, from his own self-existent nature, or fulness, 
 God may communicate the attributes of knowledge, power, 
 and holiness, to created intelligences, so that they shall 
 possess, in measure, these attributes as derived excellences^ 
 what evidence can be found to invalidate the hypothesis 
 that the existence of the Son of God was properly derived 
 from the Divine nature I 
 
 Angels and saints are called sons of God ; yet Christ is 
 God's OWN and only Son, the only begotten of the Fa« 
 ther. The primary and radical distinction may possibly 
 be this : angels and saints, as created intelligences, may 
 derive h-om the Divine nature some attributes or properties.; 
 while God's own Son may derive not only some attributes, 
 but his very Being or Existence^ from the Divine nature. 
 
 Some may imagine, that I have labored hard, in this in- 
 vestigation, to support a self-invented theory. But this is 
 not the case \ I have been laboring tj support the primitive 
 
S2 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 
 
 Christian faithy that Jesus Christ is trvly the Son of 
 GoD^ God's OWN and only Son; and tp rescue the plain, 
 abundant, and emphatical language of Scripture, from the 
 strong prepossessions of my fellow Christians. 
 
 Dr. Spring stys, " The Scriptures were inspired, to in- 
 struct common readers, by using words according to their 
 common acceptation, and not to confound them by an abuse 
 of language."* 
 
 Had the principle advanced in this excellent remark been 
 understood and duly regarded, I should have had no oc- 
 casion for a labored discussion to prove that Jesus Christ 
 is truly the Son of God. But the plain meaning of the terms 
 has been so involved in the labyrinth of controversy^ and 
 the mists oi prepossession^ that it has required some forti- 
 tude to assert^ and some labor to prove^ that the concurrent 
 testimony of God, of Christ, and the Apostles, is to 
 be regarded as a correct expression of the truth. Yea, I 
 have been laboring to prove, that these Witnesses used 
 *' words according to their common acceptation," and that 
 they did not mean *'to confound us by an abuse oj language. '''* 
 
 Had the plain and natural import of language been here- 
 tpfore duly regarded, an attempt to prove that Christ is 
 truly the Son of God, would have been as needless, as an 
 attempt to prove th^t Isaac was truly the son of Abraham, 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 THERE are some who predicate the Sonship of Christ 
 simpl}' on the ground stated by the Angel to Mary, " The 
 Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
 Highest shall overshadow thee : therefore that holy thing 
 which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." 
 
 That this text contains a reason why Christ, in his in^ 
 carnate state, should be called the Son of God, I will not 
 denv ; and if I were in the habit of believing that the soul 
 or spirit of Christ had no pre-existence, I should readily 
 admit this as the only ground on which he is called the 
 Son of God. But even on such an ' hypothes s, nothing 
 could be made to appear against the supposition that his 
 existence was truly derived from God, in a sense by which 
 he is distinguished from every other Intelligent being. 
 But I as fully believe that the Son of God, as an intelligent 
 
 * Sermon on the Self-existence of Christ, 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 53 
 
 Being, existed before the world, as I believe that he now 
 exists. 
 
 Some will probably object, that it is unaccountable and 
 inconceivable how God should have a Son. But you, Sir, 
 I trust,will not make the incomprehensibleness of the mode 
 of Divine operation an objection to the theory. For this 
 hypothesis is far more consistent with all we do know^ than 
 the supposition of three infinite Persons in one intelligent 
 Being. The hypothesis which I have proposed contra- 
 dicts nothing which \fizknotv of Person, of Being, or of 
 God. It is doubtless repugnant to what some men have 
 thought ; but it may be presumed that it is not repugnantto 
 what is known by any man. Nor does the hypothesis im- 
 ply anv thing more inconceivable, unaccountable, or incom- 
 prehensible, than what is implied in the existence of ever^ 
 other intelligent being in the universe. How God exists 
 without any cause, and how he could give existence to an- 
 gels, or to men, are as perfectly inconce vable to us, as hoiv 
 he could give existence to an own Son. And I may ask 
 the objector, whether it be more inconceivable to us how 
 God could have an own Son, than it is to conceive how or 
 •why such a thing should be impossible with Him I If we 
 are to draw our conclusions from all we know of God by 
 his works and by his word^ we have surely as much ground 
 to say that such a thing is possible^ as we have to say it is 
 impossible* 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The Divine Dignity of the Son of God. 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 WHATEVER may be the apprehensions of others, 
 ^respecting my attempt to prove that Jesus Christ is truly 
 the Son of God, you may be assured. Sir, that it has been 
 no part of my object to degrade his character. If it did not 
 seem a " light thing" to iJavid to be 2i^*- King'* s son-in-law ^^ 
 it surely ought not to be viewed by us degrading to Christ, 
 to consider him as God*s own and oniy Son. — And I shall 
 now attempt to show, 
 
 Tha^ the Son ofQod is truly a Person of Divine Dignity^ 
 
S4> On the real Dwimtij and Glory of Christ, 
 
 No principle, perhaps, has been more universallv ad- 
 mitted, than this, that a son derives dignity from illustrious 
 parentage. ' 
 
 The Jews, to whom Christ made his appearance in the 
 flesh, were well accfuainted with this principle ; and though 
 many generations had intervened, they still gloried in the 
 idea that they were the descendants of the illustrious Pa- 
 triarch Abraham. 
 
 There is, perhaps, no nation, whether barbarous, civil- 
 ized, or christianized, in which the principle is not admit- 
 ted. The sons of Emperors, Kings, and Noblemen, are 
 considered as deriving dignity from their respective fa- 
 thers. And the derived dignity of each is according to the 
 acknowledged dignity of his father. — But raore especially 
 is the^ Jirst-born or only son of a King, or Emperor, con- 
 sidered as deriving royal or imperial dignity by royal or 
 imperial descent. It is indeed true, that a son of the most 
 renowned and worthy King may, by vicious or disobedient 
 conduct, forfeit his derived d'gnity, and subject himself to 
 the displeasure of his father, and to general infamy ; but 
 this forms no ground of objection to the principle of deriv- 
 ed dignity. And on the same principle that a worthy son 
 of a worthy King derives royal dignity, the Son of God 
 derives Divine dignity. And on the same principle that 
 the most worth)^ son of the most renowned King derives 
 higher dignity than the son of a common peasant^ the de- 
 rived dignity of the Son of God will appear to be infinite. 
 For his Father is infinitely illustrious. This must certain- 
 ly be the case, unless the Son has done something by which 
 he has forfeited his claim. But that he has not, we have 
 the highest ground of assurance ; twice by an audible voice 
 from Heaven, God has proclaimed his perfect satisfaction 
 in his Son, by saying, '' This is my beloved Son^ in -whom 
 I am well pleased,'''^ And we have still farther assurance of 
 the same thing, by the high and important offices with 
 which God has invested his beloved Soh\ 
 
 It has sometimes been the case in earthly governments, 
 that a King's son, who was well beloved of the father, has 
 been admitted, during the father's life, to a joint partici- 
 pation in the government, and invested by the father with 
 kingly authority. Such was the case with Solomon, the 
 son of David. Solomon derived his authority from David, 
 and by the pleasure of David he was crowned King -, but 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory ofChrisU ■ 55 
 
 Solomon was as truly the King of Israel as though he had 
 possessed the same authority by self-existence. 
 
 If it be true, tViat God has an own and only Son, ia 
 whom he is well pleased, it would be natural to expect that 
 he would delight to honor him in the highest possible man- 
 ner. 
 
 Moreover, any wise and benevolent King, being about 
 to invest his son with kingly authority, would, were it in 
 his power, endue his son with every qualification or attri- 
 bute which Would be requisite to the most perfect and hon- 
 orable execution of the office which he was to sustain. And 
 such we may suppose would be the pleasure of God respect- 
 ing his Son. Nor may we suppose any insufficiency in 
 God, in respect to communicating of his own infinite ful- 
 ness to the Son, in whom he is ever well pleased. 
 
 Let us now examine the sacred Oracles, to see whether 
 these reasonable expectations are justified by revealed 
 facts. 
 
 In respect to communicated fulness or sufficiency, we 
 have the follow ng declarations...." He whom God hath 
 sent, speaketh the words of God ; for God givcth not the 
 Spirit by measure unto him." John iii. 34. 
 
 " For it pleased the Father, that in him all fulness should 
 dwell." Col. i. 19. 
 
 " In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." 
 Col. ii. 9. 
 
 Such then has been the pleasure of God in respect to en- 
 duing his Son with Divine sufficiency. If by a portion or 
 measure of the Divine Spirit, the apostles were instantane- 
 ously endued to speak a number of languages which they 
 had never learned, what may not the Son of God be able 
 to do, who has the Spirit without measure ? And if it hath 
 pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell in his 
 Son, we can with no more propriety set bounds to the suf- 
 ficiency of Christ, than to the fulness of the Godhead. 
 
 Thus we find one of the reasonable expectations justifi- 
 ed by plain and positive declarations of Scripture. 
 
 We have next to show, that God has manifested a dis- 
 position to honor his Son in t4^e highest possible manner. 
 
 As the first token ot this disposition in God, we may no- 
 tice that God CONSTITUTED his Son the Creator of the 
 world. In this great and astonishing work, a surprizing 
 display was made of the power, the wisdom, and the good- 
 
56 'On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 ness of God. But in this work, it appears that the Sow 
 was honored as the constituted Creator ; for we are 
 expressl\ told, that God " created gll things by Jesus 
 Christ." Eph. iii. 9. 
 
 The work of creation is sometimes expressly attributed 
 to God, and sometimes as expressly attributed to the 
 Word or Son of God : and from these representations 
 many have argued that the Son and God are the same Be- 
 ing. But it is thought that this conclusion has been too 
 hastily adopted. V or li God created all things by Jvsus 
 Ci RiST^ the work of creation may, with great propriety, 
 be attributed to either the Father or the Son ; and yet they 
 may be two distinct intelligent Beings. — God spake by the 
 Prophets ; and what the Prophets said, may, vn ith pro- 
 priety, be attributed to either GoD or the Prophets : but 
 it will not hence follow that God and the Prophets are but 
 one and the same intelligent Being. As the Prophets were 
 CONSTITUTED MEDIUMS and Aglnts in foretelling events, 
 so Christ was the constituted Creator of all things in 
 Heaven and earth. 
 
 In the next place, we mav observe, that the Son was 
 gonstituted the Angel of God's Presence, or the Me- 
 dium by which God appeared or manifested himself to the 
 ancient Patriarchs. 
 
 We have many accounts of God's appeartJig to Abra- 
 ham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Moses ; and seeing these 
 Tisible manifestations, is several times represented as see- 
 ing God. Yet the matter is so explained in the New Tes- 
 tament, as to give us reason to suppose, that all these visJ- 
 ble manifestations of God's Presence were made in the 
 Person of the Son of God, For it is said, " No man hath 
 seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, who is iii 
 the bosom of the Father, he hath declared h'lm^''* or mani- 
 fested him. The Son, in those appearances, was usually 
 denominated the Angel of the Lord. And when this 
 Angel vvas employed by God, as the Conductor and Guar- 
 dian of the people of Israel in their journey fn^m Egypt to 
 Canaan, God gave this solemn caution to the people, •■' Be- 
 ware of him, and obey his Voice ; provoke him not : for 
 he will not pardon your transgression ; for my Name is in 
 him." By Name here may be understood, dignity^ Jul- 
 7iess^ and authority. And as God thus dwelt in the Son, 
 and manifested his dignity, fulness, and authority, througli 
 
On the real Dkinity and Glory of Christ* 57 
 
 tire Son, Isaiah denbninates the Son the Angel of God's 
 Presence — " And the Angel of his Presence saved them." 
 Accordingly those visible manifestations are sometimes 
 represented as the appearance of God, and sometimes as 
 the appearance of the Angel of the Lord, or the Angel 
 of God: And what was spoken on those occasions is 
 sometimes represented as spoken by God, and sometimes 
 as spoken by the Angel ; just as the work of creation is 
 sometimes attributed to God, and sometimes to the Son of 
 God. And as God manifested himself thus in the Person 
 of his Son, so the Patriarchs considered God as present in 
 those visible manifestations. 
 
 And as all the covenant transactions with Abraham,Isaac, 
 and Jacob, were performed on God's part through the me- 
 dium of the Son as the Angel of his Presence^ so the Pro- 
 phet Malachi stiles him the Messenger or Angel of the 
 covenant. 
 
 There is, however, another ground on which Christ 
 may be called the Messenger of the covenant. He was 
 eminently the Seed promised in the covenant with Abra- 
 ham, in whom all the families of the earth were to be 
 blessed. And he was the Messiah ; and as the Messiah 
 was included in the promises of the covenant, so Christ 
 may be called the Messenger or Angel of the covenant, as 
 he was sent by God in the flesh according to covenant. 
 
 I am not, Sir, alone, nor an original, in considering the 
 ' Son of God as the Medium of Divine manifestations. — 
 Athanasian writers have done the same. But is it not a 
 manifest impropriety to consider a Being as the Medium of 
 • his own manifestations ? If Chrst be truly the Son of God, 
 he may be truly the Medium through which God manifests 
 himself; and may thus be in the '•'•form of God^ But if 
 he be persona ly the self-existent God, he can, with no pro- 
 priety, be considered as the Medium of Divine manifes- 
 tations. 
 
 Although God had, in various ways, manifested his love 
 to his Son prior to the incarnation, yet such was his love to 
 mankind, and so important was our salvation in the view 
 of God, that he was d sposed to give his only begot i en 
 Son as a sacrifice for our redemption. And although the 
 Son of God had been highly honored and exalted by his 
 Father, and had often appeared in the '•''form of God^^ to 
 transact aifairs of high importance, yet such was the benev- 
 H 
 
S8 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 olence and condescension of this Son, that he freely coil' 
 curred in the Father's proposal for the redemption of man, 
 and said, " Lo, I come to do thy wiB, O God." But to 
 accomplish this great purpose, the Son must lay aside the 
 form ofGod^ and take on himself the y^^rw of a strvarit-^ 
 he must become incarnate, be united to a human body, 
 aiid be the " Son of David according to the fieM'' Thus 
 he who was rich, for our sakes became poor, that we, 
 through his poverty, might be made rich. And being found 
 in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obe- 
 dient unto death. 
 
 But such voluntary and deep abasement in the Son, was 
 not to pass unnoticed nor unrewarded by the Father. And 
 we have the most plain and unequivocal testimony, that 
 God did honor his Son by constituting him a Princf and 
 a Savior, the Lord of all, and the Supreme Judge of 
 the quick and the dead. 
 
 That it is as the fruit of the Father's love to the Son, and 
 on the ground of a constituted character^ that Christ bears 
 those and other Diyine names and titles, 1 shall endeavor 
 clearly to pr-^ve. 
 
 John the Baptist, in his testimony concerning the Son, 
 not only said, •■' God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto 
 him ;" but added, " the Father loveth the Son, and hath 
 GIVEN all things into his handy.,.,^oh\\ iii. 35. 
 
 When the Son was about to leave his disciples and as- 
 cend into heaven, he proclaimed in their ears, " All power 
 is GIVEN unto me in heaven and earth.".... Matt, xxviii. 18. 
 
 Peter, in his impressive sermon on the day of Pentecost, 
 having stated many things from the Scriptures, to prove 
 that Jesus was the Christ, addressed the audience in these 
 "Words, " Therefore let all the house of Israel know assured- 
 ly, that God hath made that same Jesus^ whom ye have 
 crucified, both Lord and Chrsst" Acts ii. 36. 
 
 In the same sermon, Peter also said, " This Jesus hath 
 God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore 
 being by the right hand of God exalted^ and having received 
 of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed 
 forth this which ye now see and hear.".... Acts ii. 32, 3^, 
 
 In another address, Peter said, '*- The God of Abraham, 
 and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath 
 GLQRIFIED his SoN jESUS."....Acts iii. 13» 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 5$ 
 
 And again, " The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, 
 ■whom ye sle\v and hrnged on a tree : Him hath God ex- 
 ALTFD, with his OWN RIGHT HAND, to be a Prince and a 
 SaVxOR, for to give repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness 
 of sins.";... Acts V. 30, 31. 
 
 The same views of the constituted character of the 
 Son as Lord of all, are, if possible, more forcibly ex- 
 pressed bv Sa nt Pau'. 
 
 Speaking of the astonishing displays of the grace and 
 power of God, he says, " Which he wrought in Christ, 
 when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own 
 right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, 
 and power, and might, and dominion, and every name 
 which is named, not only in this world, but also In that 
 which is to come : And hath put all things under his feety 
 and gave him to be the Head over all things to the 
 Church."....Eph. i. 20—22. 
 
 The same Aposth , having in a most striking manner 
 represented the astonishing condescens'on and deep abase- 
 ment of Chrst, proceeds to state the rew'(rd given to him 
 by God — ''Wherefore God also hath highly exaltfi) 
 HIM, and GIVEN him a name which is above every name, 
 that at the name of Jesus evt rv knee should bow, of things 
 in Heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; 
 and that evtry tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 
 Lord, to the glory ot God the Father.".... Phil. ii. 9 — 11. 
 
 To unprejudiced mmds, the passages of Scripture, al- 
 ready adduced, mav be sufficient to prove, that it is by the 
 QiFT and PLEASURE of God, that his Son sustains the of- 
 fi es and bears the Divine names of Savior and Lord, 
 Much more of the same import might be produced; but 
 4©» those who can resist, evade, or set aside such plain and 
 unambiguous testimony as has been already exhibited, 
 might do the sam^. by a volume of the same kind. 
 
 I have 5^et, however, distinctly to show, that God has 
 constituted his Son the Supreme Judge of the quick 
 and the dead. In proof of the point now before us, we 
 may begin with the testimony of Christ himself. As he is 
 the faithful and true Witness, and well acquainted with his 
 own character, much reliance may be placed on his testi- 
 mony. 
 
 It will be needless here to introduce the numerous dec- 
 lar^Uons which Christ made of his authority as the Judge 
 
60 Oji the real Dhlmtij and Glory of Chris f» 
 
 of the world. All we have to do is to show how he came 
 by this authority ; whether he possesses it as the self-ixist- 
 ent God, or whether he hath been invested with this 
 authority by the Father. •• 
 
 When Christ had healed the impotent man, the Jcv/s 
 accused him of profaning the Sabbath day. In reply to 
 their accusation, Jesus said, " Mv Father worketh hither- 
 to, and I work." His calling God his Father, the J ws 
 considered as blasphemy, and sought the more to kill him. 
 It appears probable, that the Jews well understood the 
 principle of derived dignity, and that they understood 
 Christ as claiming divine dignity by professing to be the 
 Son of God. They evidently understood Christ, as cal'ing 
 God his Father, in the pe-uliar and proper sense. For 
 while they gloried in having " one Father, even God," 
 they considered Chiist as guilty of blasphemy in claiming 
 the title of the Son of God. 
 
 In reply to their accusations, Christ gave them a more 
 full account of his character and dignity, and said, '' Ve- 
 rily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of 
 himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things 
 soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For 
 the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that 
 himself doeth : and he will shew him greater works than 
 these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up 
 the dead, and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth 
 ■whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath 
 
 COMMITTED ALL JUDGMTNT UNTO THE SoN ; that all men 
 
 should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father."..... 
 John V. 
 
 If God hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the Son, then 
 he has constituted the Son as Judge. But Christ gives 
 a further account — ^' Verily, verily, I say unto you, The 
 hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the 
 voice of the Son or God : and they that hear shall live. 
 For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given 
 TO THL Son to have life in himsElf ; and hath given him 
 authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son 
 of man. — I can of mine own self do nothing : As I hear, I 
 judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine 
 own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." 
 
 To those who place full confidence in Christ as a faith- 
 ful and true Witness, his testimony may be sufficieDt. 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 6X 
 
 But for the conviction of those who mav think th^it two or 
 three witnesses are needful in the present case, we may add 
 the testimonies of Peter and PauU 
 
 Peter, in his sermon at the house of Cornelius, after 
 statmg that he and others did eat and drink with Christ 
 after his resurrection, said, "■ And he commanded us to 
 preach unto the people, and to testify that it is HE which is 
 ORDAINED OF God to be the Judge of the quick and the 
 dead.'' 
 
 Paul, in his discourse to the people of Athens, said, 
 *' And the times of this ignorance G»'d winked at, but now 
 commanrjeth all men everv where to repent ; Because he 
 hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world 
 in righteousness, by that Man whom he hath ordained, 
 whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in thac he 
 hath raised him from the dead." 
 
 I see no rational way in v hich these testimonies can be 
 invalidated, without impeaching the characters of the wit- 
 nesses. 
 
 An earthV sovereign, whose will is the law of the Em- 
 pire, can, at pleasure, advance an otvn and only Son to any < 
 rank or office, which does not involve a ooiitradiction. 
 
 The father cannot cause his son to rank with himself 
 as to age^ nor can he render the son independent of himself 
 in respect to existence^ dignity^ or ojffice. / But it is in the 
 power of a King or Emperor to confer on his son any office 
 in the army, from an ensign to that of commander in chief. 
 He may also, at pleasure, make his son the governor of a 
 province, chief judge, or sole judge in the highest court of 
 justice, or viceroy of half the Empire, or even a copartner 
 with himself on the throne ; and in testimony of the high 
 esteem he has for his son, he may place the son at his own 
 right hand. 
 
 Such a course of conduct in an earthly sovereign towards 
 an only son may indeed be the result of caprice or partiali- 
 ty ; but it may a'so be the result of consummate wisdom 
 and benevolence. For the good of the Empire may be in 
 the best manner promoted by such measures. 
 
 As an earthly sovereign may advance his son to any of- 
 fice he pleases, so he may confer on him whatever title of 
 dignity he may think proper. He may dignify his son with 
 the title of lord, or arch-chancellor of the Empire, lord 
 chief Justice, Prince of Peace^ President of the Princes^ 
 
62 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 or he may confer on him his own royal or imperial title, as 
 King or Emperor. And in respect to several relations, he 
 mav at the same time have various titles tf dignity. 
 
 These observations present to our view something anal- 
 ogous to the representations given in Scripture in regard 
 to God's conduct in dignif\ Ing his only and well-beloved 
 Son. The titles Lord, Savior, and Judge, are titles 
 which properly belong to (k)d. But God had a right to 
 confer the same titles on his beloved Son, and to invest 
 him with the authority and •st^f-sufficiency imported by 
 these titles. And if we may safely rely on the testimony 
 of Christ and his Apostles as proof, God has actually thus 
 dignified his Son.... He hath *' exaltfd him to be a Prince 
 
 and a Savior" " made him to be both Lord and 
 
 Christ"....'" given him all power in heaven and earth".... 
 "ordained him to be the Judge of the quick and the dead" 
 ^.." COMMITTED a'l judgment unto the Son, and given 
 him a Name which is above every Name." And the Scrip- 
 tures afford no more evidence that Solomon sat on the 
 throne of Israel, by the appointment and pleasure of David, 
 than they do that the Son of God sits on the Throne of the 
 Universe by the appointment and pleasure of God his Fa- 
 ther. There are other titles that belong to God, which 
 by his pleasure are given to his Son. 
 
 God often styles himself tht Holy One, or the Holy One 
 of Israel. The title of Holy One is a so gven to the Son, 
 But the Son is plainly distinguished from the self-existent 
 Holy One, by being represented as God's Holy One, or 
 the " Holy One of God."-^— To the truth, in this case, sa- 
 tan himself was constrained to bear witness. " 1 know thee 
 who thou art, the Holy One of God," The words of Da- 
 vid, quoted by Peter, are to the same purpose...." Neither 
 wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." 
 
 The name Jehovah, which is often translated Lord in 
 the Old Testament, is a name which belongs to God ; but 
 by the pleasure of God this name with some addition is 
 given to the Son. " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
 that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch ; and a 
 King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment 
 and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved 
 and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is the name where- 
 by he shall be called, The Lord [or Jehovah] our 
 Righteousness." 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 43 
 
 That the Messiah, the Son of God, in his incarnate 
 State, is intendtd in this prophecy, there can be no reason- 
 able doubt. And that it is on the ground of a constitut- 
 1ED CHARACTER, and by the pleasure of God his Father, 
 that he btars the name Jehovah our Righteousnfss, 
 is sufficiently plain from the passage quoted. It is God 
 himself who gives the information in the text ; and this 
 one God tells us of a Person or Character vvh'ch he 
 ^ovXd raise up^ and the name by which this Son should be 
 callt-d. 
 
 The name Jehovah being given to the Son, is considered 
 by Mr. Jones as evidence that the Son is personally the 
 self-existent God. But had he compared one of his own 
 remarks with the words of an Apostle, he might have seea 
 his own mistake. Mr. Jones suggests, that the name 
 Lord, in the New Testament, which is given to Christ,, 
 is of the same import as Jehovah in the O d Testament. 
 The Apostle Peter says, " Let all the house of Israel knoii} 
 assuredly^ that God hath MAUh that same Jesus, whom ye 
 have crucified, both Lord and Christ." If, then, Mr. 
 Jones be correct in affirming that Lord and Jehovah are 
 terms of the same import, and the Apostle be correct in 
 the text just quoted ; am I not authorized to say that God^ 
 hath madey or constiti^^f his Son Jlhovau our righteous-' 
 ness f 
 
 On similar ground, and by the same Divine pleasure, 
 the Son has his name called Emmanuel — Wonderful, 
 Counsellor, the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, and 
 the Prince of Peace. On the very face of the prophesies, 
 in which these names are brought into view, it is clearly 
 intimated, that it is by the pleasure of God that the Soa 
 bears these titles. The Son is manifestly the subject of the 
 predictions, and God the Author, And God says respect- 
 ing his Son, His name shall be called Emmanuel liis 
 
 name shall be called Wonderful^ &c. 
 
 That it is by inheritance as a Son, and by the pleasure 
 of the Father, that Christ bears the name God, is plainly 
 revealed in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 — As the chapter was evidently designed to give us a cor- 
 rect and exalted view of the Son of God, and the ground 
 on which he possesses such an exalted character and such 
 Divine titles, I shall quote nine verses :.... 
 
64 On the real Dimnity and Glory ofChrhU 
 
 *' God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, 
 spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath 
 in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he 
 h^th appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made 
 the worlds ; who being the brightness of his glorv; and the 
 express image of his Person, and upholding all things; by 
 the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our 
 sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high : 
 b.ing made so much better than the angels, as he hath by 
 inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." 
 
 Before I proceed farther in the quotations, I may make 
 a few re mirks. ^jAe'^t^riJ^ 
 
 1. God in this passage is tvmidcifuUj^ spoken of as one 
 distinct Person or intelligent Being, accordingly the pro-, 
 nouns for God are he^ his. 
 
 2. The Son of God is spoken of as a Person or Being, 
 as distinct from God as an) son is distinct from his father ; 
 and as distinct from God as are prophets or angels.... God 
 spake by the proph€U,,„so God spake by his Son* 
 
 3. As a son is the image of his father, so the Son of 
 God is represented as the express image of the Person of 
 God. 
 
 4. The Son is heir of all things by the appointment of 
 God. 
 
 5. The Son is so distinct from God, that he can sit on 
 God's right hand. 
 
 6. By being truly the Son of God, and by inherit- 
 ance, Christ hath a better name than the Angels... Being 
 MADE so much better than the ange's, as he hath by inher- 
 itance a more ex(iellent name than they... .Being truly 
 God's OWN Son, he inherits his Father's Dignity. 
 
 In proof that tht Son hath a more excellent name than 
 the angels, the Apostle proceeds to state from the Old Tes- 
 tament what had been said respecting the Son, and what 
 had been said respecting the Angels :.... 
 
 " For unto which of the Angels said he at any time. 
 Thou art my Son, this dav have I begotten thee ? And 
 again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a 
 Son. — And again, when he bringeth in the first begot- 
 ten into the world, he saith. And let all the Angels of God 
 worship him. And of the Angels, he saith. Who maketh 
 his Ange's spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But 
 unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ* 65 
 
 ever : a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy king- 
 dom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; 
 therefore God, Even thy God, hath anointed thee with 
 the oil of gladness, above thy fellows." 
 
 Here we find the Name which the Son of God has by in- 
 heritance, which is better than the name given to An- 
 gels. The self-existent God has been pleast?d to dignify 
 his OWN and only Son with his own Divine Name. And 
 we find also a reason assigned for this Divine honor :...» 
 " Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity ; there- 
 fore GoD^ EVEN THY GoD^ hath anointed T a b.E with the cil 
 of gladness above thy fellows." 
 
 If we consider Christ as truly the Son of God, in the 
 sense which has been exp-ained, and by inheritance and the 
 pleasure of the Father possessing Divine dignity an 1 Di- 
 vine titles, the whole passage appears perfectly natural. 
 But if we consider the Son as personally the sflf-existent 
 and independent God, most serious difficulties immediate- 
 ly arise.... Why is he called God's Son l Why is he uni- 
 formly spoken of in contradistinction to the self-existent 
 God ? Why is he spoken of as having n God who hath 
 anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellows ? 
 What God could thus anoint the self-existent God ? 
 
 The passage under considerat'on is not the only one in 
 which the name God is applied to the Son. Nor is this 
 the only passage in which the Son of God is represented as 
 having a God as well as a Father. Christ said to his dis- 
 ciples, " I go to my Father and to your Father^ to my 
 God and to your Go d"^"^ — And in the Epistles we several 
 times read of " the God and Father of our Lord jftsus 
 Christ''^ — and " the God of our Lord Jesus Christ J*^ As 
 Solomon, after he was crowned, had 3. father and a King ; 
 so Christ, on the Throne of the Universe, had a Father 
 and a God. If Christ had been the self existent God, it 
 would have been just as proper to speak of the God of the 
 Father^ as the God of the Son. But if he be truly the Sok 
 of God, and as such sustains Divine offices and bears Di- 
 vine titles, then no difficulty results from his being ca \itd 
 Lord, Savior, or even God. For these tides, as borne 
 by the Son, do not import personal self-existence, but what 
 he is as the Son of God, and by the pleasure of his Fa- 
 ther. 
 
66 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ* 
 
 After Solomon had been anointed King bv order of Da» 
 v*d, Jonathan reportt-d the matter to Ajionljah, and said, 
 *' Verily our Lord, King David, hath made Solomon King,"^ 
 And it is not improbable that this event was typical of the 
 conduct of God in anointing and exalting his Son. And 
 as truly as David constituted his son Solomon to be Kirig^ 
 so truly hath our heavenly Father constituted ins Son to be 
 Savior, Lord, and God. He hath invested him with 
 Divine fulness and Divine authority, and conferred on him 
 his own Divine names and titles. If th« Son of God did 
 not possess a fulness adequate to his authorit}^, we might 
 view tiie Divine names, as applied to him, as h'gh sound- 
 ing and empty tides ; but while we are assured that all 
 power, or authority, is given unto him in heaven and 
 earth, we are also assured that " it hath pleased the Father 
 that in him al! fulness should dwell ; and that in him dwell- 
 eth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.^' 
 
 When, therefore, I speak or the Son as called Savior, 
 Lord, and God, on the ground of a constituted charactt-rj 
 I wish to be understood as mplying not m<"rely ojficial cha- 
 racter^ but such a perfect union of the Son with the Father, 
 that in him properly dwel's the infinite fulness and all-suf- 
 ficitncy of God, so that in respect to fulness as well as 
 authority he is one with the Father. 
 
 We must suppose, that God is the best judge of the 
 ground on which he styled his Son God. And we know, 
 from the Scriptures, that anointing with oil was an ap- 
 pointed ceremony of induction to office. Thus Prophets, 
 Priests, and Kings, w^re inaugurated by the command of 
 God. T\\Q Oil was an instituted type or emblem of the 
 Spirit ; and these ancient inaugurations were probably typ- 
 ical of the 'nauguration of Oirist as the promised Messiah ; 
 on which occasion the Holy Spirit^ \vhich had been typifi- 
 ed by the holy oil^ descended and abodje upon him. And 
 in the address of the Father to the^Son, in which the Son 
 is distinctly called God, the ceremony of anointing is dis- 
 tinctly brought into view, to show that it is en the ground 
 of a constituted character that the Son is called God— 
 " Therefore God, even THY God, hath anointed thee with 
 the oil of gladness above thy fellows." Thus the Son, be- 
 ing ?nade or constituted so much better than the Angels, hath 
 by inheritance a more excellent name than they* 
 
On the real Drjinxtij and Glory of Christ, €7 
 
 John the Baptist, in his testimony concerning the Son of 
 Cyod, savs, " He whom God hath sent, speaketh the words 
 ©f God;" and gives this as the reason whv the words that 
 he speaketh are the words of God, " For God giveth not the 
 Spirit _bu measure unto him y — And Peter, in his discourse 
 at the house of Cornelias, mertions ^' How God anointt d 
 J'Siis of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with Power i"*^ 
 bv which wc mav understand, that in this anointings the 
 Son was endued with Divine fulness^ and invested with Di' 
 vine authority. 
 
 In expressing Dlv ne commands, in foretelling events, 
 and in performing miracles, the Son of Gud adopted a st\ le 
 of speaking, very different from that of the Prophets. He 
 did not preface '^vhat he uttered with a " Thus ^aith the 
 Lord ;" but his usual strle was, " I say unto you" — " I 
 will, be thou clean," &c. On this ground, an argument 
 has often bee : form :d, in proof of the Inpothesis that Christ 
 was personally the independent God. In leference to this 
 argument, I would ask, 
 
 1. Was it not to he expected that God's own Son would 
 adopt a style corrcspondmg with his dignity- as the Son 
 OF God I Would you not expect that a King's son should 
 adopt a style in speaking, different from an ordinary am- 
 bassador ?-^-But, 
 
 2. I wou d ask, vrhether justice has been done in urging 
 the above argument? It is indeed a truth, that Christ 
 spake in a style different from the Prophets ; but it is also 
 true, that no Prophet was ever more particular and careful 
 than Christ was, to let it be known that he cime not in his 
 own name^ but in the name of God the Father j that the 
 wdrds which he spake, he spake not of himself; and that 
 the Father in him did the work. How Qften did he de- 
 clare, in the most unequivoca manner, to this effect, " I 
 came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but 
 the will of the Father that sent me." — '' I proceeded forth 
 and came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent 
 me" — "• The words that I speak, I speak not of myself." 
 
 If John has given us a true account, Christ distinctly 
 mentioned his ht'm^ sent of the Father, nearly forty times. 
 How, Sir, has it come to pass, that these ideas have been 
 so much kept out of view in urging the argument from 
 Christ's peculiar style in speaking? I would by no mtaus 
 
68 On the real Dtvimtif and Glory of Christ, 
 
 suggest a suspicion of dishonesty ; but is there not evidence 
 of a strong prepossession^ by which good men have been 
 led to overlook some things which are of weight, and to 
 form their arguments without due consideration ? 
 
 LETTER V, 
 
 How the Son of God Income the Son of Man, 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 ACCORDING to 3^our theorv, the Son of God be- 
 came the Son of Man '-'■ by taking to himself a true body 
 and a reasonable soul," or a proper Man. It is mv object 
 to prove, that the Son of God became thf Son of Man 
 by becoming himself the soul of a human body. 
 
 It has been supposed, that the Son of God could not, 
 "with any propriety, be called a man on the hypothesis I 
 have stated. But cou d he not with much more propriety 
 be called a man, if he became the soul of a human body^ 
 than on the hypothesis that he became united to a proper 
 human soul and body or a proper Man ? If the Son of 
 God became united to a proper Man, the Son and the 
 ]VIan were two distinct inteVigences, and the union would 
 be propeily a union of two Persons. 
 
 Besides, you say th"t this union does not imply that the 
 Divine nature became Human nature^ nor that the Human 
 nature became Divine nature^ nor that these two Natures 
 •were mixed or blended. These positions, if I mistake not, 
 are precisely of the same import a? the follow^ing — The 
 Son of God did not become Man, nor did the Man be- 
 come the Son of Goti, noi were the Son of God and the 
 Man mixed or blended. For so far as I can discern any 
 meaning to your -anguage, the Son of God is the same as 
 the Divine Nature of Christ, and the Man the same as 
 the Human Nature. It will hence appear, that the Son 
 OF God did not become Man, but only became united to a 
 Man. 
 
 There are a multitude of considerations and passages of 
 Scripture, which may be adduced in support of the hypoth- 
 esis that the Son of God became Man, or the Son of Man^ 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 69 
 
 by becoming the soul of a human body. Out of many, I 
 select the following :.... 
 
 1. If the Man Christ Jesus had been united to a second 
 Divine and self-existent Person, we might reasonably ex- 
 pect to find, that, in som(^ of bis discourses, he had men- 
 tioned that union. But in no instance did he intimate that 
 he was united to any Divine Person but the Father. His 
 union with the Father he often mentioned, and he affirmed 
 that it was the Father in him that did the work. 
 
 2. Had the Son of God become Man in no other sense 
 than " by taking to himself a true body and reasonable soul," 
 and had he been, as you suppose, personally the independ- 
 ent God, he could not with any propriety have asserted his 
 personal dependence. For however dependent his human 
 nature might be, as 3. person be would have been independ- 
 ent and self-siifficient. Yet, it is believed, we have no ac- 
 count of any other person in the Scriptures, who said so 
 much o£hs per s'onal dependence^ as did Jesus Christ the 
 Son of God. In the most personal and most tmphaticnl 
 manner he declared, " /canofM/ATf own self do no «/^G." 
 It is remarkable, that any of the friends of Christ should 
 think it dishonorary to him to say that he was dependent, 
 whi'e he himself so constantly affirmed his dependence on 
 the Father. Not only did Christ abundantly assert his p( r- 
 sonal dependence on the Father, but, as a Person, and as 
 a Son, he prayed to the Father yir himself as the Son of 
 God. See his solemn prayer, John xvii. 
 
 3. When Angeis have appeared " in the likeness of men," 
 they have been denominated either Angels or 3fen^ just as 
 the Lord Jesus is sometimes called the Son of God and 
 sometimes the Son of Mati.-^The Angels who appeared to 
 Lot, in Sodom, are, in the same narrative, several times 
 called Angels^ and several times called Men. — The prophet 
 Daniel, in speaking of the Angel who appeared to him, 
 savs, ".The Man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vis- 
 ion." 
 
 Shall we. Sir, accuse Moses and Danielof great impro- 
 priety, in speaking of those personages sometimes as An- 
 gels and sometimes as 3Ien P They were called men, 
 because they appeared " in the likeness ofmen^'^ that is, in 
 an embodied state. If a transient or an occasional residence 
 in bodies of human form might be sufficient ground on 
 which to denominate Angels Men, a /7^rwa?ze«? residence 
 
70 0?i the real Dhhiity and Glory ofChrisU 
 
 in a human body might be sufficient ground on which to 
 denominate the Son of God the Son of Man, 
 
 4. The Scripture accounts of the inc motion of the Son 
 of God contains no intimation that he took " to himself a 
 true body and a reasonable soul j" but the contrarv is plain- 
 ly suggested. — " The Word was made flesh." John i. 14. 
 *• (jod had sworn to David, that of the fruit of his loins, 
 according to the Jicsh^ he would raise up Christ to sit upon 
 his tlirone." Acts ii. 30. — '* Concerning his Son Jesus 
 ^ Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David, ac- 
 cording to th^'JleshJ*'^ Rom, i. 3 — " Whose are the Fa- 
 thers, and of whom, as concerning the Jlcsh^ Christ came.'* 
 Rom. ix. 5. 
 
 Why wt-re these phrases inserted, according to the fiC^h^ 
 or concerning the jieah^ but to tea h us that our Lord is of 
 the seed of Abraham, and David omY according to the 
 jiesh^ or in respect to the flesh P 
 
 In the first chapter of toe Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
 writer gives us a most exalted character of the Son of God; 
 and in the second, he represents his incarnation. "■ For 
 as much then as the children are partakers of flesh and 
 blood, he also himself ikewise took part of the sam«.."— 
 Again, '*• Wherefore, in all things, it behoved him to be 
 made like unto his brethren, that he might h^. a merciful 
 and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, 
 to make reconciliation for the sins of the People ; 
 For in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he ^s 
 able to succor them that are tempted." 
 
 How, Sir, are the children partakers of flesh and blood ? 
 Is it by taking to themselves true bodies and reasonal:»Ie 
 souls ? Is it not rather by being reasonable souls of human 
 bodies ? Or by being in an embodied state, in union with 
 fesh and blood f If so, then for Christ to become like his 
 brethren^ a partaker of flesh and blood, he must become 
 in an embodied state, or become the soul of a human body. 
 Before his incarnation, he was not like to the seed of 
 Abraham in respect to partaking of flesh and blood ; 
 but it behoved him so to be, that he tnight be a merciful 
 High Priest ; and that bv being himself subject to those 
 temptations which resu't from a uni(m with flesh and blood, 
 he might know how to s}mpatize with us, and to succor 
 those who are tempted. But if his incarnation implied no 
 more than his becoming united to a Man, how was he pre- 
 
On the real Dvomiti} and Glory ofChrzsU 71 
 
 pared by this to be " touched with the feelings of our in- 
 iirmities V 
 
 In the tenth chapter of the same Epistle, it is represent- 
 ed, that when the Son was about to come into the world, 
 he said to his Father, "' Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst 
 not, but a Body hast thou prepared me." The Son did 
 not say, *' a true bodv and reasonable soul" hast thou pre- 
 pared me ; nor, a 3fan hast thou prepared me ; but " a 
 Body hast thou prepared me." And does not his language' 
 plainly suggest, that he himself was to be the Soul oi thzt 
 Body which God had prepared ? Let common sense de- 
 cide the question. 
 
 5. Thi re is abundant evidence, that the Person, who 
 called himself the Son of Man, had pre-existence ; but 
 there is no ev dence that he pre-existed otherwise than as 
 the Son of God, or the Angel of God. 
 
 That the Son of God had pre-existence, is not doubted 
 by you ; and it is amazing, that it should be denied by 
 any man who professes a respect for the Oraches of God- 
 In addition to all that is said of the Son of God as the Cre- 
 ator, or the one by whom God created all things ; and all 
 that is said of him as the Angel of God ; and a I that is 
 said of the glory which he had with the Father before the 
 "world was ; and all that is said of his incarnation ; there 
 are a multitude of texts which naturally import his pre-ex- 
 istence. 
 
 His pre-existence is naturally implied in the numerous 
 passages which speak of God's sending his Son into the 
 world, and of God's giving his Son. The same idea is 
 implied in all that Christ said of his coming forth from the 
 Father^ and coming down from Heaven^ and earning forth 
 from God, Such representations naturally import that he 
 had existed with the Father, with God, and in heaven, be- 
 fore he was sent^ or before he came into the world. 
 
 To the unbelieving Jews Christ said, " If God were 
 your Father, ye would love me : for I proceeded forth 
 and came from God ; neither came I of myself, but he 
 sent me." To his disciples he said, " For the Father 
 himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have 
 believed that I came out from God : I came forth from the 
 Father, and am come into the world : again I leave the 
 world, and go to the Father." 
 
72 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 These passages Christ spake as the Son of God ; and 
 they plainly import two things.... j 
 
 1. That the Son is a being distinct from God, so dis- 
 tinct that he could proceed for rh and come from God 
 
 2. That the Son existed with God before he came into 
 the world. 
 
 Similar things Christ spake of himself as the Son of 
 Man. On another occasion he said much of his being the 
 Bread of God which cometh down from heaven. John vi. 
 In this discourse he styled himself the Son of Man. Some 
 of his disciples were displeased with what he said on this 
 occasion. " When Jesus knew in himself that his disci- 
 ples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend 
 yoii ? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend 
 up where Hi was before .^" 
 
 These several passages, compared together, plainly im- 
 port not only the pre-existence of Jesus Christ, but the iden- 
 tity of the Son of God and the Son of Man. 
 
 6. The personal identity of the Son of God and the 
 Son of Man is plainly implied in the declaration of St. 
 Paul, Eph. iv. 10. Speaking of the ascension of Christ, 
 he says, " He that descended is the same also that ascended 
 up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things." — 
 You will, Sir, it is believed, admit that it was the Son of 
 God who descended^ and the Son of Man who ascended. 
 And if he that descended is the same who ascended^ then the 
 Son of God and the Son of Man are the same. Of course, 
 the Son of God became the Son of Man by becoming the 
 soul of a human body. 
 
 7* You will grant that it was the Son of Man, or the 
 Man Christ Jesus, who died on the cross, who was ra sed 
 from the dead, and exalted at the right hand of God. But 
 all these things are distinctly and abundantly affirmed of 
 Christ as the Son of God, or as our Lord and Savior. 
 I have no occasion to produce ar.y passages of Scripture to 
 prove that these things are said of Christ as the Son of Man ^ 
 but I may produce some passages to show that these same 
 things are affirmed of God's own Son, by whom he made 
 the worlds, and the one who is now our Lord and Sav- 
 ior. 
 
 " He that spared not his own Son." Rom. viii. 32. 
 " Concerning his Soii fi-sus C rist our Lord^ which was 
 made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, and de- 
 
iin the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 73 
 
 tlared to be the Son of God with power, according to the 
 spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the deadP 
 Rom. i. 3, 4.—" Who raised up Jesvs oVr L^RDfrom the 
 ce-'d^** Rom. iv. 24. — " And God hath both raised up the 
 LoRDy and wiU also raise us up by his own power." 1 Cor. 
 vi. 14. — ^*' Wait for his Son from hf aven, whom he raised 
 Jromihe dead^ 1 Thes. i. 10- — " Now the God of peace, 
 i}[\2it brought again from the dead our Lord Jisus^ that 
 Great Shepherd of the sheep." Heb. xiii. 20. 
 
 In these passages it is plainly repreist-nted, that it was 
 in truth that Being, who is called the Son of God, our 
 Lord, and the Great Shepherd of the sheep, who per^ 
 sonally died on the cross, and was raised from the dead by 
 the power of God. 
 
 In the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, and 
 in the very connexion in which the work of creation is at- 
 tributed to Christ, he is styled the " first born from the 
 dead, that in all things he might hnve the pre-eminence.'* 
 '' Respecting ihis same Son our Lord, David said, " The 
 Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I 
 inake thy foes thy footstool." Of the same Son of God it is 
 said," When he had by himself purged our s'ms^sat down on ^ 
 the right hand of the Majbs y on high." Heb. i. 3. — But 
 after this Son had become united to the Body which God 
 had prepared, he was often called a Man, or the Son ot 
 Man. Therefore the same writer says, '' But this Man^ 
 aftel* he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down 
 on the right hand of God." Heb. x. 12. 
 
 8. Additional evidence of the identity of the Son of 
 God and the Son of Man, may appear from what is said 
 of Christ as the Lord and the Son, the Root and the 
 Offspring of David. 
 
 It was the belief of the JeWs, founded on prophecy, that 
 the Messiah should be the Son of David. " While the 
 Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, say- 
 ing. What think ye of Christ ? Whose son is he ? They 
 say unto him. The son of David. He *saith unto thern^ 
 How' then doth David in spirit call him Lord, sayings 
 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on m} right hand 
 till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? If David then 
 call him Lord, how is he his son ?" Matt. xxii. 41—4-5. 
 
 This, Sir, was lo the Pharisees an unanswerable qiK s* 
 tion ; nor do I see that any rational answer can be ^iven 
 K I 
 
74 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ,- 
 
 to it on your theory. For the question plainly supposed 
 the Lord of David and the Son of David to ht but one in- 
 telligent Being. But your hypothesis would be, th?t the 
 L.ORD of David w^as united to a Man who was the Son of 
 JDiviD. But could the Lord of David be thus the Son of 
 David ? No, Sir, the Lord of David v^rould be one Per- 
 son, and the son of David another. But if the Lord of 
 David became the soul of a body which was of the seed oi 
 l)avid, then would Christ be both David's Son and David's 
 Lord. 
 
 The other text to be considered, is this, " I am the 
 KooT and the Offspring of David.*' 
 
 You will observe, that in this passage, Christ speaks in 
 a personal manner, and as one individual intelligence. He 
 does not say, / am the Roqj of David, and the Man united 
 to me is the Offspring of David. But as one, and only 
 one intelligence, he says, " /am the Root and the Off* 
 SPRING of David." 
 
 9. In exhibiting a contrast between Adam and Christ, 
 the Apostle Paul says, "The first Man is of the earth earthy, 
 the second Man is the Lord from Heaven." What is 
 here asserted of Christ, accords with his numerous decla- 
 rations that he came down from heaven, and came forth 
 from God. The Apostle does not say that the Second 
 Man was unitd to the Lord from Heaven ; but, the Sec- 
 ond Man IS the Lord from Heaven. Suppose, Sir, that 
 Daniel had said in some of his writings. The Man whom 
 I saw in the vision was Gabriel from heaven ; what idea 
 ■would his words have suggested \ Would you not have 
 supposed that Gabriel appeared in an embodied state, or in 
 the likeness of a Man ? You will be pleased to answer the 
 question, and make the application. 
 
 10. Christ stated to his disciples this question, "Whom 
 do men say that /, the Son of Man^ am ?" They answer- 
 ed. He then stated another, *' Whom say ye that /am ?" 
 Peter replied, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the liv- 
 ing God." — This answer Christ approved in the most de- 
 cided manner. And yow will be pleased, Sir, to notice 
 the definite manner in which the question was proposed 
 and answered. — Christ, calling himself the Son or Man, 
 demands^heir opinion concerning him. The answer is as 
 definite as the question, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of 
 the LIVING God." Therefore the Son or Man is the Soj« 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ* 75 
 
 OF THE LIVING GoD. The Son of God was not united to 
 the Son of Man ; but the Son of God became the Son of 
 Man by becomin;^ the soul of a human body. Thus the 
 Second Man was the Lord from Heaven. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 MR. Caleb Alexander, in his remarks on Mr. Emlyti, 
 has taken ground different from yours. He says, " Christ 
 is properly a complex Person, He has a distinct human 
 personality and a distinct Divine personality — and yet so 
 united as to make a cow j&Z^j^ Person. Christ has a proper 
 Divine intelligence and a proper human intelligence.'*'^ p. 57. 
 He a^so states, that Christ is called the Son of God m refer- 
 ence to his humanity — " his lowest capae ty and character** 
 —That be is called the Son of God, because his " human 
 nature was created by an immediate act." • p. 43, 44. 
 
 These positions are contradicted by Dr. Hopkins, in a 
 very decided manner. And, if I mistake not, they are 
 contradicted by the general tenor of the Gospel. Those 
 who may have adopted the hypothesis of Mr. Alexander, 
 will be likely to suppose that my labor has been in vain in 
 attempting to prove that the Son of God and the Son of 
 Man mean the same intelligence. For this they would 
 have admitted without proof. 
 
 Though I respect Mrf Alexander, I cannot say that I 
 am any better pleased with his theory than I am with yours. 
 But as I do not learn that his views have been generally 
 adopted, I shall only state some questions respecting them. 
 
 In respect to personality^ I must think that he takes 
 more correct ground than Dr. Hopkins : For if it be true, 
 that in Christ a Divine Person is united to a proper Man, 
 no reason can be given why they should not be considered 
 as two Persons. But will it not plainly result from Mr. 
 Alexander's theory, that He who died for our offences was 
 strictly a huinan Person^ and no more than a man ? That 
 Person might indeed be the Son of God in his sense of the 
 terms ; for in his view the Son of God was no more than a 
 Man — a Man united to a Divine Person. But why is 
 this Man called God's own and only Son, the only begotten 
 of the Father ? — He was " created by an immediate act,'" 
 says Mr. Alexander. And so was Adam ; and so, prob- 
 ably, wer^ the Angels. How then is Christ God's QNX..y 
 
7Q On the real Dlvinhy and Glory ofChrtsU 
 
 Son ? Why is it represented as so great a display of God's 
 love, to give such a Son to die for us ?^ If there be any 
 great display of Divine ^ove on h's theors% must it not be 
 found in this, that God accepted the obedience unto death, 
 of one man, as an atonement for the sins of the v/hole 
 world ? As much might, perhaps, be said, had Moses 
 died for the sins of the world. 
 
 But if Christ b^ called the Son of God in respect to his 
 *' lowest capacity and character," why did he never speak 
 of his having a higher character than that of the Son of 
 God ? How came the Jews to accuse Christ of blasphemy^ 
 for saying that he was the Son of God ? Wo\ild the Jews 
 ever have thought of accus ng him with blasphemy for say- 
 ing that he was " created by an immediate act" ? or for say- 
 ing, In the same sense that Adam was, I am the Son of 
 God t Christ received worship as the Son of God ; was 
 it on the ground that he was '•'• created by an immediate act" ? 
 
 LETTER VI, 
 
 The preceding Doctrines all implied in PhiUppiins ii. 5 — «11. 
 . REV SIR, 
 
 NO portion of Scripture has, perhaps, been more abun- 
 dant'y quoted, nor more fully relied on, by Athanasian 
 writers, than Philippians ii. 6. This text, therefore, with 
 six other verses in connexion, I shall attempt to examine. 
 And I flatter myself that you will be convinced that the 
 Athanasian theorv can have no support from this passage ; 
 and that, in it, is fairly impled several of the propositions 
 which I have aimed to establish. 
 
 The verses to be considered are the fo lowing :— 
 
 5 '' Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ 
 Jesus ; 
 
 6 Who being ^n the form of God, thought it not robbery 
 to be equal with God : 
 
 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him 
 the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men : 
 
 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled 
 himself, and became obedient unto death, even tne death 
 of the cross* 
 
On the real Dimnity and Glory of Christ. 7/ 
 
 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and 
 given him a name which is above every name : 
 
 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, 
 of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under 
 the earth ; 
 
 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 
 
 In the preceding verses, the Apostle had, in the most 
 affectionate manner, exhorted Christians to humility, con- 
 dt'scension, and benevolence. To enforce his exhortation, 
 he urgeci the example of Jesus Christ, who was rich, and 
 yet for our sakes became poor ; and the glorious reward 
 which God bestowed on him for what he had done and suf- 
 fered. To exhibit the example of Christ in a just and 
 striking light, he distinctly brought into view his state of 
 Godlike splendor and Majesty before his incarnation ; who 
 being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God. 
 
 The Son's being in the form of God, most probably re- 
 fers to the glory he had with the Father before the 
 world was, the glory that he had in God's creating all 
 things by him, and the glory that he had as the Angel of 
 God's presence. 
 
 But as this verse is so much relied on in support of the 
 doctrine that the Son is personally the self»exi stent God, 
 it behoves me to be the more particular in the exam nation. 
 It is not, for me, easy to discern any thing in the sixth 
 verse, nor in the whole connexion, which has the least ap- 
 pearance of favoring that idea, unless it be found in th^ 
 import of the word equal— ^''^ thought it not robbery to be 
 equal with God." The argument is simply this, No Per- 
 son but the self-existent God can be equal with the self- ex- 
 istent God ; therefore the Son is the self-existent God.—? 
 And the utmost that can possibly be meant, in any case, 
 by the word equals is insisted on as the only possible 
 meaning of the term ; and that too in the face of the natu- 
 ral import both of the text itself and the connexion. For 
 it is ure^ed that the Son is absolutely^ essentially^ and inde-^ 
 fendently J Q^v AL with God. And this construction of the 
 term seems to be urged with as much confidence as though 
 the word had never been, and never could be, used in s 
 <)ua^ified sense. 
 
7S On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 But, Sir, is it a truth that the wordiequal always implies 
 absolute equality in the persons or things which are said 
 to be equal ? Does it always imply equality in every re- 
 spect f — And do we not often use the term in respect to 
 two Persons who are supposed to be unequal in seveial 
 respects t When we say of a ^o;?, that he is equal with his 
 Father^ do we ever mean that he has existed as long as 
 his Father ? or that he and his Father are but one Being ? 
 May not a son be as rich as his Father, and yet have de- 
 rived all his riches from his Father ? Might not Solomon 
 be equal to David in authority^ though he derived all his 
 authority from David ? 
 
 It is, Sir, no robbery for a King*s son to think of him- 
 self according to the authority or dignity which his Father 
 has given him.— David said, as it is supposed, respecting 
 Ahithophel his councillor, " But it was thou, a man, mine 
 equaly my guide, and my acquaintance." Do you. Sir, 
 suppose, that these words imply that Ahithophel was, in 
 ell respects^ David's equal ? If David had said, " a man 
 my companion^^ would not this term have expressed about 
 the same idea as the word equal ? Why then should you 
 be so very positive, that the term equals as used by the 
 Apostle, must mean an absolute e^u^lity, even a co-eterni- 
 ty of God and his Son ? 
 
 Let us notice another text which evidently respects Je- 
 sus Christ : " Awake, O sword, against my shepherd^ and 
 against the Man that is my fellow.'*^ May it not be reason- 
 ably supposed, th^LtJellow in this text means the same as 
 equal in the other ? 
 
 But the very text itself, in dispute, may perhaps be found 
 to contain sufficient evidence that Christ is not the self-ex- 
 istent God ; and that God and Christ are as distinctly tii^ 
 Beinge as any other father and son. 
 
 " \Vho being in thtfonnoi God" — -Is not Christ evi-. 
 dently spoken of in contradistinction to God ? If he be a 
 Person in contradistinction to the self-existent God, he is 
 certainly not the self-existent God, unless there be more 
 Gods than one. If the Apostle had been speaking of the 
 Father, and had said of him, " Who being in th^ form of 
 God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God," would 
 not such a representation of the Father have been a mani- 
 fest impropriety ? But if the Son be the self-existent God^ 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory ofChrisU ItU 
 
 auch language with respect to the Father would be as prop- 
 er as in respect to the Son. 
 
 By the form of God, we may understand the same as 
 the similitude or image of God — Christ is declared to be 
 *' the image of the invisible God*' — " the express image of 
 his Person." But does not every body know that a Persou 
 and the image of his Person are distinct objects ? and that 
 It is impossible that any Person should be the image of him- 
 self ? Seth was the image of Adam ; but he was not Adam, 
 nor was Adam and Seth the same Being. — It is, however, 
 true, that an image often bears the name of the Person rep- 
 resented. So Christ, -by the pleasure of God, often bears 
 the Divine Names of his Father. 
 
 If, by the term God, be intended three Persons, as Mr. 
 Jones suggests, then for Christ to be in the form ofGody 
 he must be in the form of three Persons. 
 
 The terms, also, equal with God^ plainly import that 
 Christ is a Person distinct from God. Two Persons are 
 here compared together, one of them is God, the other is 
 the SofJ of God ; and of the Son it is asserted, in some 
 sense, that he is equal with God, If I were to say that 
 Solomon thought it no robbery to be equal with David, 
 would you suppose that I meant to assert that Solomon and 
 David were but one and the same Being ?* 
 
 Besides, in the connexion of the text, the Son is repre- 
 sented as a Being so distinct from God, that he could obey 
 and die^ ' and after that be exalted by God^ and have a name 
 given him, which is above every name. Now, Sir, if there 
 be no more Gods than one, as you readily admit, and if 
 Christ be personally the self-existent God, I wish to be in- 
 formed by what God Christ was exalted P Or, on what 
 ground it can be said that God exalted him ? 
 
 May I not safely conclude, that this text is so far from 
 Supporting the Athanasian doctrine, that it fairly implies 
 that God is only one Person, and that Christ is truly God's 
 Son? 
 
 * Since writing these remarks, 1 examined Dr. Doddridge's 
 Fainily Expositor. The phrase *' equal with God,'* he does not 
 admit as a correct translation. According to him, the text should 
 be read, '* thought it not robbery to be as God.'* The Greek 
 phrase is isa Theo ; and the Doctor says, " the proper Greek 
 phrase for equal nvith God, is ison to Theo." And these are the 
 words used by John, in stating the accusation of the Jews against 
 ♦Chrioi— John v. 18, " making hijnself ejrwa/ 7i'/?A QodL,'* 
 
 *> 
 
60 On the red! Divinity and Glory of Chrtsii 
 
 My next business will be to sbow how the passage of 
 Scripture, which has been quoted, supports the doctrine 
 that the Son of God became Man, by becoming the soul 
 of a human body. 
 
 Th^• p-^ssage teaches us, that Jesus Christ, who was in 
 the FORM OF God, made himsklf of no reputation, and 
 took on HIM thitform of a servant, and was made in the 
 likeness of men ^ and was found mjashion ns a man. 
 
 Be pleasf'd. Sir, to observe the correspondence between 
 this representation and other passages of Scripture — " The 
 Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" — " God 
 sending his own Son in the lik( ness of sinful flesh" — '"-In all 
 things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren"— 
 *' Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of fii sh and 
 blood, he also himself took part of the same." Does not 
 the natural import of all these passages, whether severally 
 or collectively considered, convey the idea that the Son of 
 God became Man b\ becoming the soul of a human body ? 
 Can you perceive the least intimation in any of these pas- 
 sages, of any soul but that of the Son of God ? 
 
 Had it been recorded in the Bible, that satan, or the 
 Ange: Gabriel, for a number of years, was made in the 
 likeness of men, and was found in fashion as a man, what 
 idea would such a representation excite in your mind ? If 
 satan were the Person, should you imagine that he dwelt 
 in a Man ? or, that he merely assumed a human body ? 
 
 You will be pleased to observe, that the text does not 
 say that the Son of God was united to a Man; but was 
 ** made in the likeness ofmen^^ — It does not say the Son of 
 God was found in a man^ but was '•'•found in fashion as a 
 Man^"* And what can be intended by an unembodied 
 spirit's being made in the likeness ofmen^ but his becoming 
 in an embodied state t And what is it to be found mfash^* 
 ton as a man^ but to be found like a man with soul and body 
 imited t If it were common among mtn to have two intel- 
 ligent^spirits united to one body, then might the Son of God 
 be made in the likeness of men ^ by '' taking to himself a true 
 body and reasonable soul." But if it has never been known 
 among men that two intelligent spirts were united to one 
 body, then for the Son of God to be made in the likeness of 
 vien^ and to be found in fashion as a Man^ he must become 
 the soul of a human bodv. And I would propose it lor 
 your most serious consideration, whether the Athanasian 
 
iBn the real Dhinzty and Glory of Christ, 81 
 
 theory, of the incarnation of the Son of God, does not come 
 nearer to the scriptural view of possession^ than it does to 
 the scriptural view of incarnation^ excepting so far as re- 
 gards the character of the Person ? 
 
 I do not. Sir, mention this comparison with any view to 
 make light of the subject, or to ridicule your theory ; but 
 to enforce an examination. And is there not much more 
 evidence, that, in a case of possession^ satan took '* to him- 
 self a true body and a reasonable sou ," than that Christ didl 
 so by incarnation P Besides, in a case of possession^ it is 
 easy to conceive that the Man might suffer, and even die, 
 and yet satan be not at all affected by the sufferings andt ^ 
 death of the Man : and just so you suppose that the Man 
 Christ Jesus might suffer and die without any pain to the 
 Son of God. 
 
 In respect to what constitutes a Man in the present state, 
 what more do we know than this, that an intelligent spirit 
 is united to a human body, so as to constitute one Person ? 
 While one affirms that the souls of men are properly pro- 
 duced by ordinary generation, the same as the body, an- 
 other will affirm that the soul or spirit is the immediate 
 work of God, and united to the body in a state of embryo. 
 And these t vo, perhaps, will unite in confidently affirm- 
 ing, that Christ cou d, with no propriety, be called a Man, 
 if his soul had pre-existed as the Son of God. But if at 
 true body and reasonable soul united, will constitute a man, 
 is it not unsafe for us to affirm that the Son of God could 
 not become a Man by becoming the rational soul of a hw 
 man body P 
 
 If I have not misunderstood him. Dr. Emmons differs 
 from Dr. Hopkins, and supposes that the souls of men are 
 not propagated like their bodies ; but are the immediate 
 work of God, and by him united to bodies. To this hy- 
 pothesis I do not object ; I am ignorant on the subject* 
 But I do not see how the Doctor, or any who agree with 
 him, can reasonably say that, on my hypothesis, Mary 
 was not properly the mother of a son. For if the Son of 
 God were united to a body in the womb of Mary, and bom 
 of her, he was, according to Dr, Emmons' hypothesis, as 
 truly the son of Mary, as Seth was the son of Eve. And it 
 is just as conceivable that a pre-existent spirit should be 
 united to an infant body, as a spirit formed at the very mo- 
 ment of union. 
 
62 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ 
 
 The portion of Scripture, which we have under consid- 
 eration, fairly supports another idea upon which I have in- 
 sisted, viz. That the S^n of God was ijhe real sufferer on 
 the cross. He who had been m the form of God^ when 
 found m fashion as a Man, humbled himself, and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 
 
 On your hypothesis, the Son of God was truly and per- 
 sonally the self-existent God. I ask then. Did the self- 
 existent God bfcome obedient unto death, eve?! the death of 
 the cross P If he did, who supported the universe during 
 that event ? And who raised htm from the deod P 
 
 But you will say, that it was the Man Jesus, to whom 
 the Son was united, who became obedient unto death. But 
 does the Apostle say any such thing ? The obedience unto 
 death he attributes to the self-same Intelligence who had 
 been in the form of God. For the So . of God to suffer^ 
 and for a Man to suffer to whom the Son was united, are 
 as distinct ideas as any two which can be named. And 
 what trace of the latter idea do you find in the Apostle's 
 description \ 
 
 The idea, that it was truly the Son of God who obeyed^ 
 suffered, and died, and not another intelligent being to 
 whom he was united, is plainly asserted in other passages 
 of Scripture — " Though a Son, yet learned he obedience 
 by the things which he suffered" — " Who his own self 
 bare our sins in his own body on the tree" — " We were re- 
 conciled to God, by the death of his Son''^ — " But now once 
 in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin 
 by the sacrifice of himself ^ 
 
 A -vast multitude of texts of similar import might be pro- 
 duced. And can you, Sir, pretend that these texts do not 
 support the idea that the Son of God, as such, did really 
 suffer ? Can you find any language which could more fair- 
 ly or more fully express the idea that the Son of God was 
 the real sufferer P And shall we still be told that this same 
 Son was personally the self-existent God, and incapable of 
 death or suffering P 
 
 I cannot. Sir, but feel most deeply interested, when I 
 happen to touch on this point ; and I hardly know when, 
 where, or how to dismiss it. It cannot be admitted, that 
 God is chargeable with any imposition on mankind. And 
 yet, what, short of an imposition, would it be for him to 
 pretend that h^ has so loved the world as to give his okly 
 
t)n the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, &3 
 
 BEGOTTEN Son to suffer an ignominious death for our re- 
 demption, if at the same time this Son was so spired^ as 
 your theory implies ? So spared^ that all the sufferings of 
 the cross were endured by a Man to whom the Son was 
 united ; and the Son hmself as free from pain and death 
 as though there were no such thing as suffering and death 
 in the universe. No possible union between the Son of 
 God and a Man could render it proper to call the sufferings 
 and death of the Man the sufferings and death of the Son^ 
 if it be true that the Son did not suffer nor die. And on 
 this hypothesis, the sufferings of the Man might as well be 
 called the sufferings of G br'iel^ or the sufferings of God the 
 Father^ as the sufferings of the Son of God. Must the sun 
 be darkened, must the rocks be rent, must the earth quake, 
 and nature be thrown into convulsions, while the Son of 
 God suffers and dies on the cross ? Must the Angels show 
 so deep an interest in thht scene, and must all the world be 
 called on to behold with wonder and astonishment, the 
 height, and depth, the length, and the breadth, of the love 
 of God, as displayed in that event ? Must all the redeem- 
 ed of the Lord unite in songs of everlasting praise to the 
 So^ ofGoD^ because he hvith loved them and redeemed them 
 to God by his own blood t And can it,after all, be made 
 to appear that the Son of God suffered not at all, unless it 
 were by proxy or substitute P 
 
 May it not. Sir, be fairly inferred from your theory, that 
 instead of the Son of God's dying for us, that the Man 
 Christ di&d for the Son of God P If the Son of God had 
 covenanted with the Father to lay down his life for us, but 
 instead of bearing the suffering himself, united himself to 
 another intelligent being, and caused the sufferings wholly 
 to fall on that Man, did not the Man die for him P And 
 to whom. Sir, are we indebted for the redemption pur- 
 chased on the cross ? To the real sufferer^ or to the one 
 who " suffered not in the least ?" To the Man Jesus^ or 
 to the Son of God ? 
 
 Most gladly, Sir, would I recall every syllable I ever ut- 
 tered in support of a theory so opposite to the natural im- 
 port of Scripture language, so degrading to the love of God, 
 and so dishonorary to the Lord of glort. 
 
 There is another point stated in the passage, viz. that 
 the high official character which the Son of God sustains as- 
 Lord of the universe, is the result of God'^s pleasure^ and 
 
84 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 
 
 not any thing which the Son possessed as a self- ex I stent 
 or independtnt Being. Having stated the abasement of 
 the Son, his obedience unto death, the Apostle says, 
 
 "Wherefore GoD hath highly exalted hi M^2md given him 
 a name which is above every name ; that at the name of 
 Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the 
 glory of God the Father.'* 
 
 Is it, Sir, in the power of language to give a more full 
 idea of a constituted character, or of delegated 
 AUTHORITY, than is given in these words of the Apostle ? 
 Is not the representation perfect and unequivocal^ that the 
 same Being who was once in the form of God, then in 
 fashion as a man^ who humbled himself and became obedi- 
 ent unto death, was, in consequence of that abasement, ex- 
 alted by the self-existent God, to supreme and universal 
 dominion ? Did not the Apostle menn to be understood as 
 TCi.'^rkL^tXiKWi^^ extraordinary and real changes of condition 
 in Jesus Christ the Son of God ? Did he not mean to rep- 
 resent that the first change of condition was a voluntary 
 act on the part of Jesus Christ, that he voluntarily descend- 
 ed from the form of God to the form of a servant^ and 
 voluntarilv became obedient unto death I If this change 
 of condition was not real and voluntary on the part of the 
 Son of God, whv is he exhibited as an example of humili^ 
 ty, condescension, and benevolence ? Why are we requir- 
 ed to let this mind be in us which was also in Christ Jesus ? 
 But if the Son of God was realhj the subject of this change 
 of condition, if he did really and truly suffer and die^ can 
 he be the Son of God in your sense of the terms ? In other 
 words, can he be the sflf-existent God ? 
 
 In regard to the second great change of condition — Did 
 not the Apostle mean to represent, that for the suffering of 
 deaths the Son of God was rewarded by his Father with 
 transcendent dignity and glory ? Did he not mean to rep« 
 resent, that the very identical intelligent Being, who hung 
 in agony, who prayed, who bled and died On the cioss, was 
 exalted by God as Lord of all t But if the real sifferer on 
 the cross ^ as thus exalted by God, then, according to your 
 own views, he could not be the self-existent God ; for you 
 cannot admit that a self-existent Person may be either the 
 
I 
 
 Off the real DiviniiT/ and Glorij of^hrhu SSf 
 
 subject of deaths or of delegated authority. The self-exist- 
 ent God could no more be raised to the throne of the uni- 
 verse, than he could suffer death on the cross. 
 
 As Athanasian writers have found it necessary, or con- 
 venient, on their theory, to attribute all that is said of the 
 obedience, the suffering and death, of the Son of God, to the 
 human nature, or the man Jesus, to whom they suppose the 
 Son of God was united ; so, on the other hand, they have 
 found it convenient, or necessary, to attribute what is stated 
 in the Scriptures respecting the exaltation of the S^n of 
 God, to the same Man or human nature. As they have 
 perceived that it must be improper to attribute real abase' 
 ment, suffering, and death, to the self-existent God, so it 
 appears they have perceived that it is equally improper to 
 suppose a self-existent Person should be capable oi deriving 
 or receiving either Jichiess or authority from any other Per- 
 son. And as they have supposed the P^-rson who is called 
 the Son of God, to be personally the self-existent God, so 
 they have found it necessary to the support of that theory 
 to attach to this Person a proper IVIan, capable of obed ence, 
 suffering, and death, and also of receiving communicated 
 Julness and authority. 
 
 According to Mr. Jones, and other writers, it was the 
 Man Jesus, in contradistinction to the Son or God, who 
 received the Spirit without measure — to the Man was 
 given the name which is above every name — it viras the 
 Man who was ordained of God to be the Judge of the 
 quick and the dead — and the Man who was anointed with 
 the oil of gladness above his fellows. 
 
 In view of these representations, I would propose to your 
 consideration the following inquiries : — 
 
 1. If the Son of God were self-existent and independent, 
 and the Man or human nature but an appendage to a self- 
 existent Person, what occasion could there be of any com- 
 munications from the Father to that Man or human nature ? 
 If, as a Son, that Person were the independent God, as a 
 Person he possessed independent fulness and authority ; 
 and no addition or accession to his fulness or authority 
 could possibly be made by the Father. 
 
 2. If the Son of God, as such, were possessed of inde- 
 pendent and infinite fulness and authority, and in addition 
 to this the Father gave the human nature of the Son the 
 Spirit without measure, and all power in heaven and earthy 
 
86 On the real Dvomity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 will it not appear that the same Person was possessed, in a 
 two-fold sense, of infinite fu'ness and authority ? 
 
 3. If the Son of God were united tb a proper Man, and 
 that Man, in contradistinction to the Son of God, was en- 
 dued by the Father with all the fulness of the Godhead, 
 and invested vvith all power in heaven and earth, what is 
 the cffce or business of your supposed second self-existent 
 Person ? It is believed, Sir, that you cannot make it ap- 
 pear that the Man Christ Jesus received any support^ ful- 
 ness^ or authority^ or even benejit from any Divine Per* 
 son but the Father — As a derived intelligence^ all he re-* 
 ceived was from the Father, But, 
 
 4. If the Man Christ Jesus may be the recipient of the Spirit 
 without measure^ of all the fulness of the Godhead; if he 
 may be exalted with God's own right hand, and made a 
 Prince and a Savior, and the Judge of the quick and 
 the dead ; I wou'd ask what evidence you have of the ex^ 
 istence of a second Person in union with the Godhead, dis- 
 tinct from the soul of that Man who was the Lord irom 
 heaven ? 
 
 5. If it was in fact the Man Jesus Christ who was the 
 subject of all the abasement^ sufferings and deaths which 
 was endured for our sakeS j and f it was the Man who has 
 been the subject ol all the exa tation which is in the Scrip* 
 tures attributed to the Son of God ; is there not abundant 
 evidence that the Man Christ Jesus and the Son of God are 
 identically the same intelligent Being? And that the Son 
 of God became the Man Christ Jesus by becoming the soul 
 of a human body ? 
 
 You may think, Sir, that I ought to notice that all Atha- 
 nasian writers do not agree with Mr. Jones, that it was the 
 human nature of Christ, or the Man merely, who is repre- 
 sented as receiving fulness and authority from the Father. 
 I am sensible, indeed, that there is another opinion ad- 
 vanced by some writers of great respectability ; and it is 
 to me a wiatter of regret, that I have occasion to bring it 
 into view : for, if it be possible, it is to me more inconsist- 
 ent than the opinion of Mr. Jones. — The opinion referred 
 to is of this import, 1 hat the representations in Scripture, 
 respecting the derived fulness and authority of the Son, re- 
 sult from the covenant of redemption, in which a mutual 
 agreement was entered into by the Three self existent ^xid 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, Hf 
 
 to-eternal Persons, respecting the part which each should) 
 perform in the work of redemption. 
 
 Dr. Hopkins gives the following view of these covenant 
 transactions : — 
 
 " The second Person was engaged to become incarnate, 
 to do and to suffer all that was necessary for the salvation 
 of men. The Father promised, that on his consenting to 
 take upon him the character and work of a Mediator and 
 Redeemer, he should be every way furnished and assisted 
 to go through with the work ; that he should have power 
 to save an elect number of mankind, and form a Church 
 and Kingdom most perfect and glorious : In order to ac- 
 complish this, all things, all power in heaven and earthy 
 should be given to him, till the work of redemption is 
 completed." 
 
 The Doctor observes again, 
 
 *' The blessed Trinity, in the one God, may be consid- 
 ered as a most exalted, happy, and glorious society oip 
 family, uniting in the plan of Divine operations, especially 
 an accomplishing the work of redemption. In this, each 
 one has his part to perform, according to a most wise, 
 mutual regulation or agreement, which may be called a 
 covenant.- In performing these several parts of this work,, 
 one acts as superior^ and another as inferior ; or one acts 
 •under another^ and by his authority, as appointed or sent 
 by him. This, by Divines, is called the economy of the 
 work of Redemption. Ac ording to this economy, the 
 Son, the Redeemer, acts under the Father, and by his will 
 and appointment, and in this respect takes an inferior part ; 
 and in this sense he is supposed to speak, when he says, 
 the Father is greater than /." 
 
 I confess to you. Sir, that I cannot but be amazed and 
 grieved to find such representations in the writings of so 
 great and so good a man as Dr. Hopkins. I am amazed, 
 because I must suppose that he was so blinded by theory 
 as not to pay due attention to the import of what he wrote* 
 And I am grieved, that a man so eminent should do so 
 much to expose Christianity to the ridicule of unbelievers* 
 
 *' A glorious society or fa?nily /" — A family of what I 
 Not of Men ; not of Angels, What then t A family of. 
 selfeo^istent and independent Persons^ each of whom, as a 
 distinct Person^ the Doctor supposed to be God. And if 
 we pay any regard to the natural import of language, what 
 
88 On the real Divinity and blory ofChrhU 
 
 are we to denominate this family, short of a family of Gods ? 
 I verv well know that the Doctor denied the idea of a plu- 
 ralitv of Gods ; nor would I intimate the contrary ; and I 
 jnnst sincerely wish that all his reasonings and representa- 
 tions had been consistent with that denial. But, far from 
 this, he has not only undertaken to prove that each of these 
 self-existent Persons is God, hut in the very passages un- 
 der consideration he represents these Persons as properly 
 distinct Beings^ as distinct Beings as any three Angels in 
 heaven. They can enter into covenant with each other- 
 each can hav^e a distinct part assigned him— one can be su" 
 perior^ and another act under him^ or by his order — one 
 can send the other on the most important business ; and 
 what more than all this, I beseech you, would be requisite 
 to constitute them three as distinct Beings as Peter, James, 
 and John. 
 
 But the most extraordinary of all these representations 
 are the engagements of the Father to the Son — " The Fa- 
 ther promised, that on his consenting to take upon him the 
 character and work of a Mediatoi and Redeemer, he should 
 be everv w2iy furnished and assisted to go through the 
 w^ork ; that he should have power to save an elect number 
 of mankinrl — In order to accomplish this, all things^ all 
 power in heaven and earthy should be given to him, until 
 redemption is completed." 
 
 Be pleased. Sir, to keep in mind, that the Doctor was 
 writing about two self-existent, independent, and all-suf- 
 ficient Persons. Was it possible that he should suppose, 
 that an independent Person ever became dependent ? Did 
 the independent God ever cease for a moment to be inde- 
 pendent f If the supposed self-existent Son did not become 
 a dependent agent by incarnation^ what could be the ground 
 or occasion of the Father's promises that he should h^ifur* 
 nished and assisted, and have all things^ all power in heaven 
 and earth, given to him ? I am not. Sir, meaning to de- 
 ny, or to doubt, the fact respecting the existence of these 
 promises of the Father to the Son. The Doctor has prov- 
 ed the existence of these promises oi assistance 2iXid>. support 
 in the connexion of the paragraphs quoted. But my ques- 
 tion is. Why were these promises made f They were either 
 needful, or they were not. To say they were made, and 
 yet not needful, would be imputing to God a kind of trifling 
 which would be de^jrading to a wise and good man. But 
 
Un the real Divinity and Glory ofChrhf. 89 
 
 if they were needful^ it must be on one or other of these 
 grounds, riz. either the Son was originally dependent on 
 the Father, or he became dependent by incarnation. That 
 he was origina'ly dependent, you and the Doctor positive- 
 ly deny. What ground then have you left but this, that a 
 self-existent and independent Person became dependent by 
 incarnation ? I see no possible ground but this which you 
 can take, unless you prefer to reduce the solemn transac- 
 tions in the covenant of redemption to a mere show. 
 
 But can you, Sir, believe that an independent Person 
 ever became dependent ? If you maintain this position, it 
 must be at the expense of another which you have wished 
 to maintatn, viz. the absolute immutability of the Son of 
 God. 
 
 *: For an independent Person to become dependent^ is, I 
 suspect, as great a change as was ever experienced by any 
 creature ; and as great as for a Man to be changed from. 
 ENTITY to NON-ENTITY. But this is not all— If you sup- 
 port the hypothesis that the Son became dependent by 
 incarnation^ you must do it at the expense of the imrnuta- 
 ^ hility of the Godhead, If it be, as you suppose, that the 
 Godhead consists of three Persons, and one of those Per- 
 sons has become a dependent agent, the Godhead itsel£ 
 must have been changed by the change in one of its Per- 
 sons. It is no longer a Godhead of tlirte independent 
 Persons* 
 
 Will you. Sir, think of evading these objections, or 
 solving these difficulties, by saying that the Son did not 
 really become dependent, but only apparently^ by becom- 
 ing united to a dependent^ nature f This, my friend, \^ ill 
 increase the difficulties, by representing the part acted by 
 the Son as farcical, as well -as the part acted by the Father. 
 On this hypothesis, the Son would put on the appGirance. 
 of needing his Father's support, when in fact he did not 
 need it — he would put on the appearance of obeying the 
 Father, when in fact he did not obey ; and of sii^ering smd 
 dyingy when in fact he did neither die nor suffer. 
 
 Will you say that the engagements of the Father to the 
 Son were of thife tenor, that he would support the human, 
 nature to which the Son should be united ? If so, I ask 
 what need had the Son of this ? Was he not personally 
 sufficient for the support of his human nature ? Again, I 
 ask, If the engagements of the Father to the Son were, that 
 
 M 
 
90 On the real Divinity and Glory ofChri»t» 
 
 he would support the 3Ian to whom the Son should b« 
 united, what part had the Son to perform? Was it not 
 simply this, that he should appear to beiome dependt-nt b)'- 
 becoming united to the Man^ and the Father wouldyz/r/«^A, 
 assist^-and enable the Man to do the whole business of obey- 
 inrr aiid suffering P And is this, Sir, the ground of our 
 obligations to the Son of God ? Is this the ground on 
 which th<^ redeemed of the Lord sing " Worthy is the Lamb 
 that zvas slain .^" 
 
 It is. Sir, painful to me thus to expose the theory I once 
 maintained, or attempted to maintain, and the theory 
 which has been advocated by some of the greatest and best 
 of men. But I view it to be a duty which I owe to God, 
 and to his Son who has given himself for us. /\.nd while 
 I sincerely lament that the representations of Dr. Hopkins, 
 on which I have remarked, are to be found in the writings 
 of a man so justly esteemed, it affords me pbundant joy 
 that the Bible itself is not chargeable with such inconsistent 
 representations. 
 
 As I understand the Scriptures, the promises of the Fa- 
 ther were made to one who was in truth and reality the 
 Son of God — to one who ever was dependent on the Fathtr, 
 who ttvtv felt his dependence, and was ever willing to ac* 
 knoiuledge it — one who could pray with propriety and sin- 
 cerity while in the flesh ; and in view of his dependence^ 
 in view of the covenant of redemption^ and in view of the 
 sufferings he was about to endure, he could lift up his eyes 
 to heaven and say, " Father, the hour is come, glorify 
 THY Son, that thy Son may also glorify thee ; as thou 
 hast GIVEN niM power over all flesh, that he should give 
 eternal life to as many as thou hast given him : And this 
 is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and 
 Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent, I have glorified 
 thee on the earth ; I have finished the work which thou 
 gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me 
 tuith thine own self with the glory which I had with thee 
 before the world zvasJ*^ 
 
 To a Son who could, in sincerity, make such a prayer, 
 the Father might with perfect propriety and sincerity make 
 promises of assistance^ of support^ of power ^ and exaltation. 
 On this ground, the covenant transactions between the Fa- 
 ther and the Son may appear solemn and affecting realities; 
 and likewise aU the subsequent proceedings on the part of 
 
 J 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 91 
 
 the Father, and on the part of the Son. With this view, 
 also, agree all the predj tions respecting what the Son 
 should do and suffer ; all the promises of Divine assistance 
 and support ; all that is said by Christ of himself, of his 
 dependence, his derived fulness and authority ; and all 
 that is said by the Apostles respecting the fulness of the 
 Go Ihead dwelling in him ; and of the power and authority 
 which Christ received of God as Savior^ Judge^ and Lord 
 of all. We have no occasion for 2C(\y forced or unnatural 
 construction of any of these numerous passages of Scrip- 
 ture ; nor have we any occasion to frame and invent hy- 
 potheses which contradict the plain import of Scripture lan- 
 guage, and finally involve us in contradiction and ab- 
 surdity. 
 
 Is it not. Sir, a truth, that the personal self existence of 
 the So^ of "God has been too hastily established as an arti- 
 cle of Christian faith ? — established as an article of such 
 unquestion hie truth and infmte importance^ that every op« 
 posing passage of Scripture must be made to bend to it, or 
 bre k before it ? And that too wh le the general tenor of 
 Scripture language and Scripture representations are, ac- 
 cording to the most natural import of words, d rectly op- 
 posed to the idea ? Yea, with a view to glorify Christ 
 with the attributes o^ personal self -existence and independ- 
 ence^ hav-e not hypothest s been formed which imply a sac- 
 rifice of the solemn realities of the covenant of red«emption, 
 and of the obedience and death of the S^N of God ? And 
 in attempting to support this one doctrine, have not the 
 plainest and most simple representations of Scripture, and 
 even the whole Gospel scheme, been involved in mystery 
 and obscurity ? Surely, Sir, before we allow any doctrine 
 such a share of importance, we ought, at least, seriously 
 to inquire whether it be founded in the word of G^d. 
 
 As the doctrine of the personal self-existence of the Son 
 of God has long been a popular doctrine, have we not on 
 that ground received it as true, and made it our business 
 to support the doctrine before we examined it by the light 
 of God's word ? And instead of making the Scriptures a 
 STANDARD by which to measure the doctrine^ have v^e hot 
 been in the habit of making the doctrine a standard by 
 which to measure the Scriptures P 
 
 Will you. Sir, still urge that Christ cannot be a Divine 
 Person unless he be self-existent ? By what authority^ or 
 \ 
 
92 On the real Dhinity and Glory of Christ* 
 
 by what analogy, will you be able to support such an ob^ec* 
 tion I Nothing more was necessary to constitute Seth a 
 human Person^ than being the saw of ^ human Person, 
 And if God be a Dhrne Person^ his ov;n Son must be a 
 jphine Person* According to everv analogy in nature, to 
 affirm that Jesus Christ is God's own Son implies that he is 
 a Person truly Divine. 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Thoughts on the Majesty of the Son of God ; his simple 
 and his complex character. 
 
 REV SIR, 
 
 WE may view Jesus Christ as originally the Son of God, 
 having derived his existence truly from the Father. Yet 
 at the period when this world v as created, the Son, as a 
 Son, and without any special indwelling of the Father,, 
 might possess powers far transcending all human concep- 
 tion. Should it be supposed, that at his first existence as 
 the Son of God, he was but an infant in knowledge and 
 Tnight^ yet, prior to the f reation of the world, he might 
 have existed a portion of duration equal to millions of such 
 periods as that from the commencement of time to the 
 present day. If then we should, for the present, set aside 
 the consideration of his having derived his nature and ca- 
 pacity from God as a Son from a Father, and suppose that 
 he possessed no greater capacity or advantages for acquir- 
 ing knowledge than were possessed by Sir Isaac Newton, 
 and also that his progress in knowledge during that immense 
 term of duration was in exact proportion to the progress of 
 Newton during the period of his life, the knowledge of 
 the Son of God, at the time of creation, would be as far 
 above our conceptions as the heavens ar^ higher than the 
 earth. 
 
 To this inconceivable fund of knowledge we may add 
 all which would naturally result from his derivmg his na- 
 ture and capacity from God as a Son from a Father ; and 
 all which would result from his being all that term of du- 
 ration under the immediate tuition of an omniscient Fa- 
 ther, " as one brought up with him-y'* a Father who '' lov- 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 95 
 
 eth the Son, and shozvethh\m. all 'hings thathimself doeth.'^ 
 These consldt rations might be allowed to increase the suni 
 of knowledge ten thousand fold. Let it further be adnnitted, 
 that the strength or might of the Son increased in exact 
 proportion to his knowledge ; then, by his own natural 
 sufficiency, he might, at the time of creation, have been 
 able to move and manage such a globe as we inhabit, with 
 as much ease as we can move an orange or ?ifoot-halL And 
 if it may be admitted, that the real or influential presence 
 of an unembodied spirit may, at pleasure, be expanded or 
 extended in proportion to his knowledge, the Son of God 
 might be omnipresent with respect to every portion of cre- 
 ated existence. 
 
 Such amazing majesty we may rationally suppose the 
 Son of God possessed prior to creation, considered simply 
 as the Son of God. But this inconceivable greatness, it 
 appears, was notsuffi ient to constitute the Son the Cr»- 
 ATOR without the addition of the fulness of the Godhead :' 
 For " God created all things by Jt-sus Christ ;" and for 
 this purpose, as well as others, we may suppose that God 
 dwelt in his Son by his own infinite fulness or all-sufficien- 
 cy. By this indwelling of Divine fu'ness, the Son was 
 constituted all-sufficient, but not independent. The 
 Father in him did the work. And it is just as easy to con- 
 ceive that God should manifest his creative sufficiency 
 through the Son as a Medium of display, as in any other 
 possible manner. 
 
 But by the indwelling of the fulness of the Godhead, the 
 Son may be considered as possessing a complex character. 
 To the derived existence and natural fulness of the Son, is 
 united the self-existent fulness of the Godhead, 
 
 "When the Son of God became incarnate, he became ^c?d?r 
 for our sakes ; he in a sense began his existence ane v : he 
 laid aside the form of God^ and became the Son of man in 
 an infant state. By becoming incarnate, it appears that 
 the Son of God was, for a time, divested not only of the 
 fulness of the Godhead^ but of his own natural fulness as the 
 Son of God : so that the treasures which he lost by incar- 
 nation were to be re-acquired or re-communicated. And on 
 this ground, wc may account for what is said of his in- 
 creasing in wisdom, and for all that is recorded which 
 'mplied any defect in his knowledge. 
 
94; On the real Divinity and Glory- of Christ, 
 
 What has been published and circulated through this 
 country, of the Rev. William Tennant, respecting his re- 
 vival from a state of apparent death,! and having to re-learn 
 what he had learned before his supposed decease, may in 
 some measure illustrate my idea of what was the conse- 
 quence of the incarnation of the Son of God. 
 
 Now, Sir, if the Son of God did possess such a state of 
 pre-existent g ory and dignity as has been described, and 
 from that state did voluntarily consent to such a scene of 
 abasement as is implied in his incarnation^ st/Jfering^ and 
 deaths is it possible for us to conceive of greater love and 
 condescension than has been displayed in opening the way 
 for our salvation ? And what more than a mere show of 
 such affecting realities does your theory support ? It is iijy . 
 prevailing expectation, that more persons will reject the 
 theory contained in these Letters, on the ground of the 
 greatness and reality of the abasement implied in it, than 
 on any other ground whatever. But we ought not to for- 
 get, that in proportion to the greatness of the real abase- 
 ment^ is the greatness of Divine love as displayed in our 
 redemption — If the degree of real abdse?nent was small^ so 
 small was the display of Divine love. And if there were 
 only a show of the abasement of the Son of God, there was 
 no more than a show of Divine condescension and love. 
 
 The Son of God, in union with a human body, was tru- 
 ly a complex object ; in which two natures were united in 
 one Person* He possessed Divine nature as the Son ot 
 God, and human nature as the Son of man. Thus the Me- 
 diator between God and Men was a Son to both parties. 
 
 But the character of Christ in his incarnate state, was 
 not only complex by reason of the union of that paturc 
 •which he derived from God as a Son, with that which he 
 derived as the Son of man ; but, while in the flesh, he was 
 supernaturally endued by the indwelling of the Father or 
 the Holy Spirit. For to the indwelling of the Father he 
 ascribed the mighty works which he performed. And as 
 God dwelt in him while he dwelt in the flesh, " God was. 
 manifested in the flesh." 
 
 We may moreover observe, that the character of the 
 Son of God was officially complex. As the son of a King 
 possesses royal dignity by royal descent^ prior to the con- 
 sideration of any particular office, so we may consider the 
 Son of God as possessing Divine dignity by Divifie descent^ 
 
On the real Dhinity and Glory of Christ, Op 
 
 ant-ecedently to his being invested with any particular office* 
 But when he was invest*^ d with offices, his character be- 
 came complex by reason of his offices. And as his offices 
 were numerous, his official character was very complex* 
 
 On the ground of the complex character of Christ, we 
 may rationally account for the numerous names and titles 
 which are g'ven to him in the Scriptures. This extraor- 
 dinary Person is called The Son of God, The First Begot- 
 ten, The Only Begotten Son, The Heir of all things. The 
 First-born of every creature. The Branch, The Beginning 
 of the creation of God, A Man, The Son of Man, David^ 
 The Son of David, The Stem of Jesse, The Root and the 
 Offspring of David, The bright and morning Star, The 
 Angel of the Lord, The Angel of God's Presence, The 
 Messengei of the Covenant, The Archangel, Shi oh, Mi- 
 chael, Messiah, Wisdom, The Word of God, Jesus Christ, 
 A Prophet, The High Priest, King, Lord, King of kings, 
 Lord of lords, God^s Servant, The Lamb of God, The 
 Amen, The faithful and true Witness, The Alpha and Ome- 
 ga, The Sun of Righteousness, The Light of the Wcrld, 
 The Bread of Life, The Chief Corner Stone, The Holy 
 One of God, The Lion of the tribe of Judah, Shepherd, 
 Bridegroom, Mediator, Redeemer, Savior, Advocate, Em- 
 manuel, God, The Prince of Peace, The Image of the in- 
 visible God, The Lord our Righteousness. 
 
 These and many more names and titles are given to the 
 Son of God, to one individual Person. Several of these 
 names may be of the same or nearly the same impK)rt ; yet 
 such a diversity of ideas are naturally suggested by these 
 various names, that if there be any propriety in their ap- 
 plication, they must denote that the character of the Person" 
 was, in a high degree, complex. . For while it is admitted 
 that several of these names or titles- may be classed together,, 
 as importing about the same thing, it must be observed of 
 the most of them, that each contains some idea distinct 
 from any other^ And between some of these titles and 
 others, there is such a perfect contrast, as can be account- 
 ed for on no other ground than that of a complex character^ 
 together with the supposition that the same Person has 
 been in different situations and conditions. And it may 
 be presumed, that there is no other Person in the universe, 
 to whom all these names and titles may be applied, but to 
 one who is trulv the Son of God* 
 
96 On the real Dhinkt/ and Ctory of Christ* 
 
 They cannot be applied to the self-ex'stent God : Foi* 
 the self-existent God cannot be the Son of God, nor the 
 servant of God— Nor is it to be admitted, that the self-ex- 
 istent God ever bf came a Man, or the Son of man. Nor 
 can the self-existent God be the Angel of God. — Nor can 
 these names and tit'es be properly applied to such a Man^ 
 as yod, and the Socinians, suppose the M'^ Christ Jesus to 
 be. How could such a Man be God's Only Son, his 
 FiRST-BFGOTTEN ? How coulcl such a Man have been the 
 Angel of God, the Angel of his Presence, two thousand 
 years before he had any existence I 
 
 To pretend to account for these various names and titles, 
 by supposing that the selt-existent God became unitt d to a 
 proper Man, in such a manner that the two imelligences be- 
 came one Person^ is only to involve one difficulty to get rid 
 of another : For the Scriptures give no intimation that 
 Christ is two intelligent Bfings in one Person ; and the 
 * hypothesis is a plain contradiction to everv analogy with 
 which we are acquamted. And one oA equal ground with 
 Dr. Emmons might perhaps say of this hypothesis, as he 
 has said of the doctrine of " eterna generation," that t is 
 such a mystery as cannot be distinguished from a real ab^ 
 surdity. 
 
 But if we suppose Christ to be truV the Son of God, 
 then every title and name given to him in the Scriptures 
 may be justified by Scripture testimony or analogy. His 
 titles of Gofl^, Man^ the Son of Man^ will perhaps be the 
 most difficult to account for and reconcile. But the plain 
 Scripture account of his incarnation will readily show us 
 "why he is called a Man^ and the Son of Man, And though 
 we have no analogy which can justify calling a self-exist- 
 ent Person the Son of God, we have plain analogies to jus- 
 tify g ving the Father's names and titles to the Son o^ 
 God. 
 
 In the present age, it is the delight of parents to give 
 their own proper names to their children. And when a 
 father sustains any honorable office, it is no unusual thing 
 for him to wish that his son may be advanced to the same 
 office ; and we have already noted, that it is in the power 
 of a King to advance his son to the highest offices in the 
 government ; and that it is not an unheard-of thing, that 
 a King should confer on his own son his own royal title. 
 Besides, so far as we can learn any thing from Gc'^-''' '»d- 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 9T 
 
 dress to his Son, in which the Son is caMed God, it must 
 appear that the Son possesses this title by the Father's 
 pleasure, and not by personal self-existence. — See Part H. 
 Letter IV. 
 
 LETTER VIIL 
 
 Divine Honors due to the Son of God* 
 
 ReV sir, 
 
 THAT the Son of God is to be regarded as an object 
 of Divine honors, is so plain from the Scriptures, that 
 it seems extraordinary that it should ever have been denied 
 by any one who has admitted the Bible as a rule of faith 
 and practice. — In support of the idea, we may note sever- 
 al things — 
 
 1. We have express declarations of the will of God, 
 *' 1 he Father judgeth no man, but hath committed alljudg' 
 merit to the Son, that all men should honor the Son even as 
 they honor the Father." This is a sufficient warrant for 
 vien to give Divine honors to the Son of God. — Angers 
 have their warrant also ; for " When he bringeth in his 
 pNLY BEGOTTEN iuto the world, he saith. Let all the An- 
 gels of God WORSHIP HIM."— And we have another pas- 
 sage which amounts to a wirrant both for men and. An- 
 gels : " Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given 
 him a name which is above evtrry name, that at the name 
 OF Jesus every knee should bow^ of things in heaven, and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth." 
 
 2. We have the example of saints on earth and saints 
 in heaven. In respect to saints nn earth, we not only have 
 many individual instances recorded, but the great bodv of 
 Christians in the apostolic age were characterized as ''those 
 who call on the name of the Lord fesusJ^ That both angels 
 and saints in gory pay Divine honors to the Son of God, 
 is represented by John in the account he gives of his visions : 
 *' And I beheld, and I heard the voi e of many angels 
 round about the throne, and the beasts and the elders ; and 
 the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, 
 and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, 
 
 N 
 
98 On the real Divinity and Glory ofChrht, 
 
 Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive povr-^ 
 er, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and 
 glory, and blessing : And every creature which is in 
 heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such 
 as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I, saying. 
 Blessings and ^o^ior, and^/orz/, 2i\\d power ^ be unto him 
 that sitteth on the thro le, and unto the Lamb, forever 
 and ever." 
 
 To those who regard the Scriptures as of Divine authori- 
 ty, the things which have already been noted may be con- 
 sidered as suffi lent to authorize us to pay Divine honors 
 to the Son of God ; even if we should be una'ile to invest- 
 igate the grounds of the Divine directions, and of the ex- 
 amples of saints and ange's. It mav, however, be desirable 
 that we should obtain a clear view of the masons why such 
 honors are to be given to Jesus Christ. — We may therefore 
 observe, 
 
 1. That Divine honors are due to the Son of God, on 
 the principle of derived dignity. He is God's orvn Son^ his 
 First'begotten^ his only begotten Son ; and he h^th, by in- 
 heritance^ a more excellent name than the Angels. On the 
 same principle that an own and only son of a rightful Kin^ 
 is to be regarded and honored as a royal person, Divine 
 honors are due to the Son of God. 
 
 2. The Son of God is worthy of Divine honors^ on the 
 ground of his Divine fulness : for it hath pleased the Father 
 that in him all fulness should dwell. That fulness which 
 Christ possesses by the pleasure of the Father, is really 
 Christ* s fulness ; ad it is as excellent considered as the 
 
 fulness oj Christy as it is considered as the fulness of the 
 Father, The self-existence of God does not imply that he 
 was the cause of his own existence or his own fulness. And 
 God is, in truth, no more the c use of his ownfidness than 
 Christ is the C'Use of the Divine fulness which dwells in 
 him by the pleasure of God. If, therefore, the fulness 
 there is in God be a proper ground on which to give him 
 Divine honors^ the fulness there is in Christ is a reason why 
 we should honor the Son even as we honor the Father- 
 that is, so far as Divine fulness is the ground of Divine 
 honors, 
 
 3. The Son of God is worthy of Divine honors^ on the 
 ground of his Divine offices. It is a dictate of reason and 
 revelation, that official character should be respected and 
 
On the real Divinity aM^O^Qry^f^thrUi:. • .' 99 
 
 honored. And the higher t;h'd qfjioe a^y* ^per^^i ss^sgains 
 by right, the greater are the'holTr)r%.\\^Hicfi,are*d&i; Vrf'the 
 ground of ofEcial character. The official character of a 
 General demands higher honors than that of a corporal— 
 the official character of the President of the United States 
 demands higher honors than that of an ordinary civil magis- 
 trate. And on the same principle. Divine honors s^re duQ 
 to the Son of God : for his offices are truly Divine, The 
 offices of Savior, Judge, and Lord of all, are as truly 
 Divine offices as any offices sustained hy God the Father. 
 And if there be any reason to give Divine honors to God 
 in view of his Divine offices, there is the same reason to 
 give Divine honors to the Son of God : for the Son has not 
 obtained these offices by violence or usurpation, but by the 
 pleasure of God, who had an unquestionable right to bestow 
 them. And if he truly possess those offices by the gift of the 
 Father, so far as official character may be a ground of Di- 
 vine HONORS, Christ is as worthy of Divine honors as 
 though he had possessed the same offices by self-existence. 
 Therefore, on the ground of official character,, we may 
 honor the Son even as zve honor the Father. 
 
 4. The Son of God is worty of Divine honors, on the 
 ground of Divine works. Creation is a Divine work ; 
 and by him were all things created. Upholding and gov- 
 erning the world is a Divine work ; and he upholdeth all 
 things by the word of his power ;* and he is Lord of all. 
 Salvation is a Divine work ; and God hath exalted him. 
 to be a Prince and a Savior — The price of redemption 
 he has personally paid ; and he is made Head over all 
 things to the church. Judging the world is a Divine work j 
 and the Father hath committed all judgment unto the Son. 
 It is indeed a truth, that God does all these things by his 
 Son ; but the Son is the real agent or doer of these things, 
 astru y as Paul was the author of the Epistles to Timothy. 
 
 It is a principle of reason and common sense, as well as 
 of revelation, that great and excellent works are a proper 
 ground of honor. When the Elders of the Jews came to 
 
 * Heb. i. 3. In his Family Expositor, Dr. Doddridge expresi- 
 es the opinion, that the phrase '* /lis /lowtr" intends the fiower 
 <\f the Father ; and the construction of tiie seiaence is in favor of 
 Ins opinion. But this is no objection to the idea, that the power, 
 by which the world is uplicld, is also truly Christ's fiovjer. It is 
 t\\Q fio^iuer of God, originally and independently, and thc/iOWtT 
 a/ Christ by the pieasuie of the Father. 
 
100 On the req^ Divihtfy and Glory of Christ, 
 
 Chri?t to rftqueat fayor in behalf of the Centurion, whose 
 s^rv'antr y/ti^ sric^.^' in coifipepdation of the Centurion rhe 
 Elders said. That " he is worthy for wHom he should do 
 this ; for he loveth our nation, and hath built us a syna- 
 gogue." What honors have been paid to Washington^ on 
 the ground not only of the important offices he sustained, 
 but on the ground of the important xvorks he performed \ 
 Now, if more honor has been due to Washington on the 
 grou2id of his works, than has been due to the m<-anest 
 soldier in his arjny, or the m-:;anest peasant in community, 
 Divine honors are due to Christ on the ground of his Divine 
 Tvorks, A greater than Washington is here ; one uho has 
 done greater things ; one who hath 'oved our race, and 
 huilt us a world, and filled it with the fruits of his kind- 
 ness ; yea, one who hath so loved us as t<i give himself his 
 07VJI life^ for our redemption. But God raise(*l him from 
 the dead, and '•• exalted him wHh his own rght hand." — - 
 God viewed him worthv of Divine honors^ on the ground 
 of what he had done, *•'• wherefore God hath highly exalted 
 him, and given him a name above every name, that at the 
 name of Jesus every knee should bow^"* If it was not im- 
 proper for G )d to place the Son on his own right hand^ it 
 is not improper for us to pay Divine honors to his name. 
 
 From the evidence we have in the sacred writings, that 
 Divine honors are to be paid to the Son of God, it has been 
 inferred, that the Son is personally the self existent God. 
 And so confident have some been that this interence is in- 
 fallibly correct, that they have ventured, on the supposition 
 it be not so, to implicate the Christian world in a charge of 
 gross idolatry, and the God of truth in a charge of self- 
 contradiction and inconsistency. Is not this. Sir, for fal- 
 lible creatures, carrying things to a great length? And 
 does it not imply such a degree of confidence in the correct- 
 ness of their own understandings, as none should possess 
 until they arrive to that state where they shall see as they 
 shall be seen, and know as they shall be known ? 
 
 But what, S r, is the ground on which th!s extraordina- 
 l^v confidence rests ? Is it not a principle^ taken for grant" 
 ed^ which has no real foundation in reason, analogy, or the 
 "Word of God ? Yea, a principle which is contradicted by 
 analogy, and by as plain representations as are contained in 
 the Oracles of truth ? The principle taken for granted is 
 this, That it is impossible with God to constitute a charac^ 
 
On the real Dhimty and G lor if fifChrkU^> 101. >^ 
 
 TFR which shall b3 worth v of Divine honors ; therefore, if 
 Jesus Christ be not personally the svif-j^xlbtpiii G!;>,d,;h«? c^xr 
 not be an object of Divine honors. 
 
 But, Sir, be pleased to admit, for one moment, the pos^ 
 sibility that Christ is just su h a Pc-rson and character as I 
 have supposed him to be — truly the Son of the living God, 
 God's OWN and only Son — a Son in whom it hath pleased 
 the Father that all fulness should dwell — one trulv united to 
 Deity, and by God Invested with the Divine offices of Sa* 
 vior^ Lord^ and Judge : What but Divine honors are due 
 to his name I 
 
 What says analogy ? — By David's pleasure, we behold 
 Solomon placed on the throne of Israel ; and we see the 
 friends of David and of Solomon giving him the honors 
 which were due to the son of David and King of Israel — - 
 We also see the So}i of God^ " for the suffering of drath^ 
 crowned with glory and honor," seated on the right hand 
 of the Majesty on high, exacted by God, as L;>rd of all; 
 and sh^U we pronounce it idolatry to pay him Divine- horiors 
 as the Son of God^ and the constituted Lord of the universe ? 
 Or sha'l we arraign the conduct of God, and pronounce it 
 absurd for him thus to exalt his ows S'^N ? 
 
 But what saith the Scriptun^s ? When they represent 
 Christ as an object of Divine honors, do they not uniform- 
 ly represent him as a Person as distinct from God as he is 
 from the Father? Is there one instance in which he is 
 represented as the self-existent God, and on that ground 
 worshipped ? — In regard to those declarations of the Di- 
 vine will respecting the honoring of Christ, or the worship- 
 ping of Christ, is he not in the plainest manner distinguish- 
 ed from the self-existent God ? All judgment was com- 
 mitted unto HIM by the Father, that all men should 
 honor the Son even as they honor the Father. Was he 
 not a Being distinct from the one who committed all judg- 
 ment unto him ? In the connexion, he calls that Being his 
 Father ; and Peter says, that Christ commanded his dis- 
 ciples to preach and to testify that it is He who is ord in- 
 ed of God to be the Judge of the quick and the dead. There- 
 fore, when he is honored as the Judge, he is honored as 
 one ordained of God. He is then, in this case, plainly 
 distinguished from God. It was God also who brought 
 him into the world, as the only begotten, and said, " Let 
 all the Angels of God -worship hijm," It wus God also 
 
102 '^Oii this re^ii pwihity and Glory of Christ* 
 
 W>\o:" EX^j.TED-^tiM;;" anii'God gave him the name which 
 is 'aho^eeN^cry name^ ^Hat at the name pf Jesus every knee 
 SHOULD BOW. In all these cases, the Son is as c'earlv dis- 
 tinguished from God, as Solomon is, in any place, distin- 
 guished from David. 
 
 As there is no declaration importing that Christ should 
 be worshipped or honored as being personally the self-ex- 
 istent God, we may perhaps find, that, in the examples of 
 \irorshipping Christ, he was honored or worshipped as 
 a Being distinct from God. When he had stilled 
 the tempest, they that were in the ship came and wor- 
 shipped him, saying, " Of a truth thou art the Son of 
 God.'* And in several instances he was worshipped under 
 this title. By the woman of Canaan he was worshipped as 
 the Lord, the Son of David. Can any person of candor 
 and discernment suppose, that in either of these cases he 
 was considered as personally the self-existent God ? The 
 terms they used certainly import no such thing. To be the 
 Son of God, and to be the self-existent God, are ideas as 
 distinct as David and the Son of David. The Angels 
 were notrequ red to worship him as the self-existent God ; 
 but the self-existent God required them to worship Christ 
 as the ONLY begotten Son of God. When John, in the 
 Revelations, gives us such a striking representation of the 
 worship or Divine honors paid by all the Angels and Saints 
 to Christ as the Lamb of God, the Lamb, in the represent 
 tations, is clearly distingu shed from God as another intel- 
 ligent Being — as one who had been slain — as one who 
 bad redeemed us to God by his blood. No one, it is hoped, 
 will pretend, that God, the self-existent, was ever slatn ; 
 yet when Divine honors were paid the Lamb, the Angels 
 and the redeemed of the Lord said, " Worthy is the Lamb 
 that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, 
 and strength, and h<-»nor, and glory, and blessing." 
 
 There is not, perhaps, a more striking representation of 
 Divine honors paid to the Son of God, in any part of the 
 Bible, than those which are given by John in the Revela- 
 tions ; yet all those honors were paid to one who could say, 
 *' I am He that Uveth, and xvas dead, and, behold, I live 
 forevermore ;" and to one whom the worshippers consider- 
 ed as having been slain. Then, as true as it is that God 
 was never personally dead, so true it is that Jesus Christ 
 may receive Divine honors as an intelligent Being, person- 
 ally distinct from God. 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory ofChrkt. tOZ 
 
 It may not be amiss here to notice an extraordinary idea 
 feiiggested by Mr. Jones, in regard to the Lamb. Speak- 
 ing upon these words, " Thou wast slain, and hast redeem- 
 ed us to God by thy blood," and feeling the impropriety of 
 supposing that God suffered and died^ he informs us that by 
 the Lamb is intended "' the Measiati^s hu7nanity.^* [p. 32.] 
 That the title LamB includes the Messiah's humanity, is not 
 denied ; but that the term Lamb means the Messiah'is 
 humanity in contradistinction to his own proper nature as 
 the Son of God, may not be admitted. If the name Lamb 
 mean the *' Messiah's humanity" in the sense suggested by 
 Mr. Jones, we may properly substitute the terms the 
 *' Messiah^s humanity^^ whenever the word Lamb is used as 
 denoting Christ. 
 
 Let us then m.ake use of the substitute in the connexion 
 from which Mr. Jones ^elected the text. 
 
 " And I beheld, and lo, 'n the midst of the throne— stood 
 the " Messiali's humanity^'* as it had been slain^ having 
 seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of 
 God : And he came and took the book — And when he had 
 taken the book, the four beasts and the four and twenty 
 elders fell down before the " Messiah^s humanity'*'^ — and 
 thev sung a new song, saying. Thou art worthy to take the 
 book, and to open the seals thereof ; for thou wast slain, 
 &rc. — worthy is the " Messiali's humanity'^'* that was slain, 
 to receive power, &c. — Blessing, and honor, and power, 
 unto him that sitteth on the throne, and to the " Messiah's 
 humanity^* forever and ever." Rev. ch. v. 
 
 To such absurdity, Sir, are great and good men some- 
 times reduced, in attempting to support a theory in op- 
 position to the plain import of Scripture language. Had 
 Mr. Jones duly regarded the natural meaning of the terms 
 the Son ofGod^ and believed that he was made in the like- 
 ness of men by becoming the soul of a human body, that he 
 really svffered diXid. died on the cross as the antitype of the 
 paschal Lamb, he might then have considered the Lamb, 
 seen by John, as the Messiah himself and not the ^'•Messiah'^s 
 humanity,^"* — But if an Athanasian writer may so construe 
 the names of the Son of God, as implicitly to represent all 
 the heavenly hosts as worshipping the " Messiah's humani- 
 ty y^ may I not escape censure in regard to the hypothesis 
 that God hath exalted his oivn Son and constkutsd him. an 
 object of Divine honors f 
 
104 On the real Dhlnlty and Glory of Christ. 
 
 What ! vou mav say, are we to have two Gods ? No, 
 Sir; my objVct is to prove that we have but one self-existent 
 God, by proving that, in the view df God, of angels, and 
 of saints in glorv, the Son of God is an object of Divine 
 •war ''hip ; not, indeed, on the ground of self- existence, but 
 on the ground of his dignitv as God^s own and onhj Soriy 
 and the constituted Lord^nd Savior of the world. 
 
 But, Sir, let it be distinctly understood, and never for- 
 gotten, that whi e we thus honor the Son rf God, we honor 
 the Father a'so. Christ taught his disciples this doctr ne. 
 He that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me ; and he 
 that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. And when 
 he taught the Jews that the *' Father hath committed all 
 judgment unto the Son, that all men may honor the Son 
 even as they honor the Father," he subjoined, " He that 
 honoreth not the Son^ honoreth not the Father that sent 
 him." And when Paul stated to the Phi^ippians how God 
 had exnlted his Son^ and given him a name above every 
 name, that every knee should bow to the name of Jesus, he 
 let them know that tht- Divine honors to be paid to Christ 
 were " to the glory of God the Father^"* 
 
 On whichsoever of the grounds that have been stated, we 
 pav Divine honors to the Son of God, the same are, at the 
 same t'me, paid to the Fnther. 
 
 If we honor the Son on the ground of the Father's r<?- 
 quirement^ we thus honor the Father. 
 
 If we honor the Son on the principle o{ derived dignity 
 as the Son of God, the character of the Father is the 
 primary ground of the honors paid to the Son, 
 
 If we pav Divine honors to Christ c/U this ground, that 
 ** in him dwelleth a 1 the fulness of the Godhead," we honor 
 the fulness of the Father, as truly as when the Person of 
 the Father is immediately honored. 
 
 It we honor the Son on the ground of his official charac" 
 ter and the Divine authority he possesses by the pleasure 
 of the Father, as the constituted Savior, Lord, and Judge 
 of the world, it is not only the authority of the Son, but the 
 Father's authority in him, which we honor and adore. 
 
 If we honor him on the ground of his Divine works as 
 Creator and Lord, the Father in him does the work. 
 
 If we honor the Son on the ground of his abasement^ suf 
 fering^ and deaths for our sakes, we are at the same time 
 to remember, that " God so loved the world, tl he 
 
On the real JDivimty and Glory of Christ 105 
 
 GAVE his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son" — atid that it is " UNTO 
 God" that the Son hath redeemed us by his blood. 
 
 Therefore, in every point of view, and on every ground, 
 the Divine honors which are paid to the Son are " to the 
 glory of God the Father, ^^ 
 
 Is it not, Sir, surprizing, that Christian writers should 
 have been so unguarded as to assert, that if Jesus Christ 
 be not personally and truly the self-existent God, then the 
 Christian church in all ages have been guilty of " gross 
 idolatry ;" and that the religion of Christ " is so far from. 
 destroying idolatry, that it is only a more refined and dan* 
 gerous species of it ?" If such writers have incautiously 
 implicated themselves in a charge of idolatry^ it is hoped 
 they will not blame me for that. To accuse them of 
 idolatry, or to view them as guilty of it, ii far from me* 
 For though the correctness of their views, in respect to the 
 ground on which Divine honors are due to the Son of God, 
 is doubted, yet in my view they have not given him more 
 honor than is due to his name. They ma}' have, indeed, 
 in support of their theory, said things respecting the per- 
 sonal self-existence and independence of the Son of God, 
 which are more than are true j but it is doubted whether 
 any Christian on earth, in his devotional views and feel- 
 ings, ever ascribed so much real excellency and glory to 
 Christ, as are properly due to his name. 
 
 If you, Sir, entertain the idea, that my views of the 
 real excellency^ glory ^ and love of Christ, have been lower- 
 ed down by adopting the present theory, be assured that 
 the very reverse of your apprehensions is the truth. While 
 supporting your theory, and speaking conformably to it, 
 my language imported ideas respecting Christ which now 
 appear incorrect. But it is one thing to adopt forms of 
 speech of high itnport^ and another to have distinct and 
 impressive ideas of real majesty^ dignity^ and glory. And 
 while . formerly using language which imported the self- 
 existence and independence of Christ, my ideas respecting 
 his greatness and glory, as a distinct Person from the 
 Father, were very confused and indistinct. For it was 
 impossible for me to form a definite idea of what could be 
 meant by Person^ on the theory of three Persons in one God 
 or one Being, The Son of God, as united to the man or 
 human nature of Christ, was to me a certain scmethi?7g^ 
 'xbout which the terms self-existence and independence vrere 
 O 
 
106 On the real Divinity and Glory ofChrlsU 
 
 used by me as by others, but of which no definite idea wa« 
 conceived, an}' more than of that in bodies which is called 
 the principle or power of attraction; excepting, when, by 
 the aid of analogy, the Son of God was viewed as a distinct 
 inteHigent Being. But as this was contrary to the theory, 
 when that occurred my mind was necessarily confused. 
 But on the present theory, the natural import of Scripture 
 language, in view of analogies, affords me ideas of the 
 Majesty, the Glory, the Dignity, and the Love of Christ, 
 far more distinct^ exalted^ and impressive^ than any vvhich 
 ever entered my mind on Athanasian ground. 
 
 It is not, however, Sir, my intention to intimate that 
 your views, and the views of other Athanasians, respecting 
 Christ, are not greater, and in some respects much more 
 clear, than my own preseiit viexus. My object has been 
 simply to state the effect of the present theory on my own 
 ■mind. And for this reason — it is perceived that some 
 have apprehended that the character of the Son of God 
 must have been depreciated in my own view. 
 
 Here it may be proper to notice more particularly the 
 self-contradiction and inconsistency, in which it has been 
 supposed God must be involved if his Son be not self- 
 existent — The parts of the supposed contradiction are of 
 the following tenor, viz. 
 
 On the one hand, God has positively prohibited the 
 worship of idols, or any god but himself. He has said, 
 *' I am God, and there is none else. Thou shalt have no 
 other gods before me." " I am the Lord, that is my 
 name, and my glory I will not give to another, neither my 
 praise to graven images." 
 
 On the other hand, God said respecting his Son, " Let 
 all the angels of God worship him" — And he has given 
 him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow. 
 
 In view of such passages, it has been inferred that Christ 
 is personally the same God who has made these declara- 
 tions,, or there must be a contradiction. — To show that 
 nfcitl;jer of these inferences is correct, is the design of the 
 following observations. 
 
 1. If Jesus Christ be truly the Son of the self-existent 
 God, he is neither a graven vnage^ an idol, nor a false god- 
 Hence, 
 
On the real Dhiiiity and Glorij ofChrhu 107 
 
 2. A prohibition respecting the worship oi graven im- 
 ages^ or idols^ or false gods, amounts to no prohibition of 
 paying Divine honors to the Son of God, as the So7i of God, 
 or the constituted Lord oi the universe. — Therefore, 
 
 3. Consistently with all that God has said in the Bible 
 against the worship of grave:n images^ oi idols, or oi false 
 gods, he might excdt his San, and require men and angels 
 to pay Divine honors to his name. 
 
 It may still be thought, . that if the Son be not the self- 
 existent God, but has been exalted by the self-existent God 
 as an object of Divine honors, then God has given his glory 
 to another, contrary to his own word. It may therefore be 
 observed, 
 
 4. For God to give his glory to another, in the sense 
 of the text alluded to, must imply doing something respect- 
 ing another or authorizing something to be done respecting 
 another, which is dishonorary to himself. To glorify 
 another, or to cause another to be glorified, in a manner 
 "which contributes to his own glory, is perfectly consistent 
 with his declaration that he will not give his glory to another* 
 To make out, then, that there is so much as the shadotv of 
 a contradiction in the case, it must be made to appear, that 
 to pay Divine honors to the Son of God, as the Son of 
 GoD^ and the one in whom the Father is ever well pleased, 
 is dishonorary to the Father. But to prove this, will be 
 a task which probably very few will venture to undertake. 
 
 By those who have urged this supposed contradiction, 
 has it not been taken for granted, that the Son of God may 
 be a distinct Person from God the Father, and yet the self- 
 same Being ? And should this. Sir, be taken for granted ? 
 But if it be, still the texts which they rely upon for the sup- 
 port of the supposed contradiction, do as fully import a 
 prohibition of Divine honors to any other Person but the 
 one who made the declarations, as to any other Being, — 
 In those texts God does not represent himself as three Per- 
 sons, but as one individual Person-— ^'' /am God, and there 
 is none else — Thou shalt have no other gods before me—^ 
 I am the Lord, and my glory /will not give to another." 
 Therefore, if these passages amount to a prohibition of 
 paying Divine honors to the Son of God, as being truly the 
 Son of God, they equally prohibit paying Divine honors to 
 the Son considered as a distinct Person from the Father,, 
 ■whether self-existent or not* The self-same Person is repr.e- 
 
108 On the real Dhm'iiy and Glory ofChrhu 
 
 sented as saying at one time, /am the Lor J, and my glory I 
 will not give to another... At another time he says respecting 
 the Person who is called his only begotten Son^ " Let all 
 the Angels of God worship him." And, if these passages 
 would involve a contradiction on the hypothesis that the 
 Son is a Person truly derivid from the Father, they in- 
 volve precisely the same contradiction on the hypothesis 
 that the So7i is a self-existent Person distinct from the 
 Father. 
 
 Having thus endeavored to show, from the Scriptures, 
 that Divine honors are due to the Son of God, and the 
 grounds on which they are due, and also to obviate what 
 has been viewed by some as insurmountable objections to 
 the theory, you will suffer me now to appeal to your own 
 conscience, and ask, whether my views of the honors due 
 to the Son of God do not harmonize with your own prac- 
 tical views andjeelings^ and with your usual forms of speech 
 in prayer and praise P Reflections on my own former 
 views and feelings, and observations in regard to the pray- 
 ers of my Aihanasian brethren, encourage me to do this. 
 
 In respect to my own experience, adopting the present 
 theory has given no occasion to vary my forms of speech 
 from what was natural and usual with me before, in regard 
 to the Son of God. And it is observed, that the prayers of 
 my Athanasian brethren, so far as the Son is mentioned, 
 agree with my present views ; excepting when they appear 
 to wish to introduce some particular expressions to commu- 
 nicate or support their particular theory. It may not then 
 ibe amiss to class myself with you and them, and observe 
 how we pray* 
 
 We occasionally address petitions to Christ as the Son 
 of God, the Lord of all, the Redeemer of our souls, or the 
 Mead of the church. We sometimes distinctly thank him 
 for his kindness and mercy in laying down his life for our 
 redemption ; and for the benefits we receive through his 
 mediation and atonement. But in this particular, perhaps 
 we are generally deficient ; and much less frequently bring 
 the Son into view in our prayers than would be proper. In 
 our ascriptions of praise, at the close of our prayers, we 
 frequently and properly mention the Father and the Son as 
 two distinct Persons, or intelligent Beings. 
 
 But in general^ we address our prayers to God as one 
 distinct Person and Being. We bless the name of this one 
 
On the real Divinity end Glory of Christ, ^09 
 
 God for his kindness and love in giving his own Son to die 
 for our offences. And the forms of speech which we use 
 clearly convey the idea that God is one distinct intelligent 
 Being, and his Son another ; as distinct as any other father 
 and son. We beseech God to bestow favors through the 
 mediation and atonement of his Sun. We plead with God 
 on the ground of what his Son has done and suffered for 
 us. We adore God for having exalted his Son as Lord of 
 all, and makmg him Head over all things to the church. 
 And, in conformity to the langiiage of Scripture, we make 
 use of thousands of expressions which denote as clear a dis- 
 tinction between GoD and His Son, as are ever made be- 
 tween Abraham and Isaac. 
 
 And, however inconsistent such a distinction may be 
 with the Athanasian theory, it is a distinction to which we 
 are naturally led by our intimacy with the language of the 
 Bible. And these forms of speech are, it is thought, a 
 correct expression of the habitual and practical views even 
 of Athanasians themselves, in their devotional exercises.— 
 Believing this to be the case, and that it is consistent with 
 the manner in which Divine honors are paid to the Son of 
 God by saints and angels in heaven, who can believe that 
 the Christian church have been guilty of " idolatry'*'* in the 
 homage they have paid to the " Lamb of God V* 
 
 In considering him as the self-existent God, it is thought 
 my brethren have been under a mistake ; but not in con- 
 sidering him as an object of Divine honors ; nor is it ap- 
 prehended that in their habitual and devotional feelings they 
 have ascribed more honor than is due to his name. And 
 so far as tbey have fallen short of believing^ feelings and ac^ 
 knowledging the awful realities of the personal abasement^ 
 sufferings and deaths of the Son of God, so far they have, 
 in my opinion, in one particular, fallen short of giving him 
 due praise. 
 
 The ten times ten thousand, and the thousands of thou- 
 sands, who were observed by John as paying honors to the 
 Son of God, did not say, Worthy is the Lamb who united 
 himself to a man that was slain; nor did they say, Worthy 
 is the " Messi'.'h\^ humanity'*^ that was slain : but, " Wor-t 
 thy is the Lamb, that was slazn^ to receive," &c. 
 
 In a preceding verse, the Redeemed do not say, Thou 
 art worthy to take the book, and to loose the seven seals 
 thereof J for the man to xvhom thou xvast united wsis slain: 
 
lld^ On the teal Dimnity and Glcrry of Christ. 
 
 but, " Thou art worthy — for thou wast slain, and hast 
 redeemed us to God by thy blood," . 
 
 Must it not, Sir, appear on your hypothesis, either that 
 Divine honors were paid to the " MessioJi^s humanity^^ or 
 that the self-existent God was pers^nallif slain f As you 
 will deny both these positions, let me ask, how can you 
 consistently join the song of the redeemed, till you renounce 
 3'our theory ? Can you ever, consistently, say, Worthy is 
 the Lamb that was slain t 
 
 POSTSCRIPT TO LETTER VIIL 
 
 SO far as I have had opportunity to be acquainted with 
 the views of others, it has been, in general, professedly 
 conceded by Athanasians, by Arians, and by Socinians, 
 that there can be but one object of Divine honors ; and 
 that if Christ be not personally the self-existent God, to 
 •worship, or to pray to him, must be idolatry. 
 
 But, Sir, are not God, and the Soif at his right hand^ 
 two distinct objects ? Are net God, and the Lamb, two 
 distinct objects ? When God said respecting his Son, 
 " Let all the angels of God worship him^"* is the meaning 
 the same as though he had said. Let all the angels of God 
 worship ME ? Suppose an earthly King should exalt his 
 own son, and give him the right hand as a co-partner with 
 him on the throne, and require all his subjects to " bow the 
 knee'"' and pay royal honors to the son ; woutd not the fa- 
 ther and the son be still two distinct objects ? And have 
 ive not reason to believe, that it is in allusion to such events 
 that we have it represented in the Scripture, that God hath 
 exalted his Son with his own right hand? 
 
 If God has, in very deed, given all things into the hands 
 of the Son, and exalted him to be Lord of all, can it be 
 idolatry to worship him according to the rank assigned him 
 by God ? Can it be improper or criminal to pray to him 
 who is thus able to help us, and to praise and thank him 
 for what he is, and for what he has done for our sakes ? 
 
 W^hen you say that it must be idolatry to worship or 
 pray to Christ, unless he be the self- existent God, do you 
 not implicitly accuse God of establishing id?latry ? For the 
 Divine honors to be paid to the Son are instituted by God. 
 Besides, do you not arbitrarily attach ideas to the terms 
 worship and prayer^ which do not necessarily or naturally 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 111 
 
 belong to them ? viz. That zuorship and prayer imply, that 
 the object worshipped and addressed is acknowledged to 
 be personally the self-existent God, by him who worships 
 or prays. 
 
 But by what authority do you attach such ideas to the 
 words worship and prayer ? May not a child bow the 
 knee to his father, and ask forgiveness for an offence, or 
 pray for favors which the father can bestow ? May not a 
 subject do the same before a worthy King ? The word 
 worship is used to express the reverence or respect paid by 
 an inferior to a superior ; and in proportion to the degree 
 of disparity, is the degree of homage and respect which is 
 due. 
 
 Shall it, Sir, be deemed consistent for a poor malefactor 
 to bow the knee to one whom the people have exalted as 
 President of the United States, and supplicate favor ? 
 And shall it be deemed a crime to make supplication to Him 
 whom God hath exalted with his own right hand, to be a '* 
 Prince and a Savior^ to give repentance and remission of 
 sins ? It is not indeed proper to pray to the President as 
 to the self-existent God ; but it is proper to address peti- 
 tions to him, and to pay homage to him according to his 
 rank or dignity. Nor is it in my view proper, in address- 
 ing prayers to Christ, to consider him as personally the 
 self-existent God. Yet it is proper to pay- to hirn^ and to jTr^a^u 
 Tvorship him as Lord of all ; as a Being whom God hath -^ 
 seen fit to " exalt with his own right hand j" and as one 
 in whom God, by all his fulness, dwells. 
 
 And how. Sir, can we be in subjection to God, unless we 
 cheerfully " bow the knee*'* to the Son, and acknowledge 
 him to be " Lord^ to the glory of God the Father T"* The 
 "worship paid to the Son is called Divine ; not because it is 
 divinely required ; but because in my view the Son is a 
 Divine Person ; a Person of Divine Origin and Dignity^ 
 of Divine Fulness and Authority. 
 
 If you. Sir, are surprized to find me thus approving the 
 idea of paying Divine honors to two distinct objects^ will 
 you not be still more surprized, should it be demonstrated, 
 that, on your theory. Divine honors mu3t be paid to three 
 distinct objects ? 
 
 Your theory supposes throe self-existent Persons ; and 
 these three distinct Persons you consider as three distinct 
 Agents ; and each of these three distinct Agents you con- 
 
112 On the real Divinity and Glory ofChri^, 
 
 sider as an object of Divine worship. As you disavow the 
 idea of three Gods, it would be ungenerous to accuse you 
 of worshipping three distinct Gods, But, that you profess to 
 worship three distinct objects, as God, how can vou in truth de- 
 ny? Is not every distinct Person or Agent a distinct object of 
 contemplation ? And are not three distinct Persons as 
 clearly three distinct objects as three trees f Is it possible 
 for you, or any other man, to form an idea of three distinct 
 Persons which does not include three distinct objects P 
 
 It has, Sir, been urged, on your side of the question, 
 that we can easily conceive of the FiTHf R as one distinct 
 Person, of the.S'Oiv ?is another distinct Person, and of the 
 Holy Ghost as a third distinct Person ; and the difficulty 
 is, to conceive how these three distinct Persons can be but 
 one Being, or one God, This part of the hypothesis is ac- 
 knowledged to be mysterious ^nd totally inconceivable,^^ 
 Your worship, therefore, must be paid to the three Persons 
 as to three distinct objects ; for if you worship the three 
 Persons at all, you must worship them according to youi' 
 conceptions, and not according to what you do not conceive*- 
 If you have no conception of the three, otherwise than as 
 three distinct Persons, you can have no conception of them 
 otherwise than as three distinct objtcts. 
 
 From my own experience as an Athanasian, suffer me 
 to appeal. Sir, to your conscience, whether you ever did 
 conceive of the i^flM^r and the -S'o/z otherwise than as two 
 distinct objects. When you address the Father, and ask 
 favors through the mediation of his Son, do you not con^* 
 ceive of the Father and the Son as two distinct objects t 
 And do you not consider yourself as addressing one of the 
 distinct objects, and not the other ? When you address a 
 prayer directly to the Son, as the Head of the church, do 
 you not conceive of fiiM as an object distinct from the Fa- 
 ther ? And when you consider the three Persons as one 
 God, do you not consider them as being as disti?ictly thr' E 
 
 OBJECTS as THREE MEMBERS of ONE CoUNCIL ? MorCOVer, 
 
 do you not love the Son of God as a distinct object from the 
 Father, and the Father as a distinct object from the Son ? 
 If ybu speaA of the thrte Persons as three objects, if you 
 Conceive of them as three objects^ and if you love them as 
 three distinct objects, is it not undeniable. that you worship 
 them as three objects P 
 
On the real Dkinky and Glory ofChrlsU 113 
 
 if you say that worshipping one of the three 13 Wor- 
 shipping the whole, why are you not satisfied with the wor- 
 ship of Socinians ? They profess to worship one of the 
 three^ as possessing all possible perfection. But with this 
 you are not satisfied. And why not ? Because, in your 
 view, the other two Persons are neglected and treated with 
 dishonor. The other two Persons, you say, are worthy of 
 the same honors as the Father. And does it not appear from 
 this, that you consider three distinct objects as worthy of 
 Divine honors ? Besides, is it not a common thing for 
 writers and preachers to take pains to prove that each of 
 the three Persons are worthy of equal honors ? And are 
 they not fond of using expressions of this import in prayer ? 
 Is it not, then, evident, that they do consider the three 
 distinct Persons as three distinct objects P When we have 
 but one object in view, we do not say equal honors are due 
 to that object ; it is, then, in view of three distinct objects 
 that they say that e<7?/a/ honors are due to the Father^ the 
 Son^ and the Holy Ghost. And jvery time they say this, 
 they implicitly say there are three distinct objects equullt/ 
 worthy of Divine honors. 
 
 On due reflection. Sir, must you not be sensible, that as 
 often as you worship three distinct Persons^ you worship 
 three distinct objects V And that it is impossible for a hu- 
 man mind to conceive of three distinct Persons^ otherwise 
 than as three distinct objects P l 
 
 Now, Sir, is it not clearly evinced that your theory does 
 imply the worsTiip of three distinct objects as God P Yet to 
 fix upon you the charge of worshippuig three Gods, is not 
 in my heart ; doubtless while you worship the three distinct 
 objects, you do it conscientiously, believing that, in some 
 mysterious, inconceivable manner, these three distinct ob- 
 jects are so united as to be but one God. Such was the case 
 with me, and such it is believed is the case with you. 
 
 Suppose a venerable council, composed of A, B, and C, 
 by whose benevolence you have been benefitted — You ad- 
 dress to them a letter of gratitude — In the first place you 
 address them as one body or council; then you distinctly 
 thank A, as moderator, for proposing the plan ; you thank 
 S, as an advocate^ who has exposed himself to insults for 
 your sake ; you thank C, for some special agency in carry- 
 ing into effect the result of counc 1 — You then conclude 
 with an ascription of efj^ical thanks to Ay B, and C, as on© 
 P 
 
114 Oti the real Divinity and Glory of Christ* 
 
 council. Let me ask, have you not distinctly addressed 
 three distinct objects ? 1 
 
 Is it not, then, in vain to pretend that you worship but 
 one object^ while you, in your prayers, distinctly name itiREEy 
 and thank each for some distinct agency ? 
 
 LETTER IX, 
 
 The two Theories compared^ in respect to Christy considered 
 as a SuFFiRhR on the Cross, as the Savior of the World, 
 and the Lord of the Universe, 
 
 REV SIR, 
 
 PERHAPS it may be useful to enter into a more criti- 
 cal examination of your theory, as it respects the character 
 of HIM by whom the atonement was made for the sins of 
 the world. 
 
 For the purpose of exam'nation, let it be admitted as 
 true, that the Father and the Son are two self-existent and 
 co-equal Persons, and that the incarnation of the Son im- 
 plies his union to such a proper Man as vqu suppose Jesus 
 of Nazareth to have been. L^t us in the next place make 
 the supposition, that the Man Jesus had been united to the 
 Father instead of the Son, in as strict a manner as it is pos- 
 sible that God and Man should be united. If the Father 
 be equal to the Son, a union of the Man to the Father wou'd 
 imply precisely the same dign"ty as a union with the Son, 
 Then suppose, that in that state of union with the Father, 
 the Man Jesus had suffered on the cross ; would not his 
 sufferings have been of precisely the same value as an atone- 
 ment^ as in the case of his suffering in union with the second 
 Person ? This, it is presumed, you wil not deny. 
 
 Permit me now to ask, whether the sufferings and death 
 o^ t\\iA.t Mail, could, with any propriety, be ':alled the 5Z(/^ 
 ferings and death of God the Father ? — Moreover, as on 
 your theory the value of the sufferings of the cross results 
 not from the dignity of the real sufferer, but from the dig- 
 nity of the Person to whom the Man was united, we will 
 further suppose, that this Man, in a state of union with the 
 Father, was called the Son of God ; would not the atone- 
 ment for the sins of the world have been precisely the same 
 
On the real Dvoinity and Glory of Christ* 115 
 
 that it IS on your hypothesis ? The sufferer would be 
 precisely the same, and the Person with whom the Man 
 was united would be of precisely the same dignity. And, 
 on this supposition, wou'd there not be a far greater pro- 
 priety in saying that the Son of God died for us, than there 
 is on vours ? If that Man united with the Father shou d 
 be called the So7i of God, and did i jally lay down his life 
 for us, it might then be a truth that a Son of God did die 
 for us. But on your theory, what propriety could there 
 be in such a representation, any farther than the 3Ian is 
 considered as the Son of God t But as you consider the 
 Son of God as having complete existence^ and even self- 
 existence^ distinct from the Man^ the incarnation implied 
 a union of two intelligent Beings, as properly so as Gabriel 
 and Adnm. The first of these '^ suffered not in the least,'* 
 but on the Man was laid the iniquities of us all. 
 
 What then. Sir, is the differen^^e in the character of him 
 who really bore our sins in his own body on the tree, con- 
 sidered on your theory, or on the Socinian theory ? You 
 may indeed suppose the Man to be more intimately united 
 to God, than is supposed by Socinians. But a second self- 
 existent Person, or even a pre-existent Son of God, suffer- 
 ed no more according to your theory than according to 
 theirs. The sufferings, on both theories, Ivere all really 
 enduredhy an intelligent be ng, a proper M:n^ whose first 
 existence began less than forty years before his death ; a 
 man who never had possessed even the shadow of pre- 
 ex^tent dignity, riches, or glory, and who was in no higher 
 sense the Son of God, than Abraham or Moses. You may 
 indeed say, that " the Man Jesus was united to the Person 
 of the Son of God ;" but this very assertion implies that 
 the Son and the 3Ian were two distinct intelligences ; and 
 that the Man was not truly the Son of God, but another 
 intelligent being united to the Person of the Son of God. 
 
 Suffer me now. Sir, in an impartial manner, to exhibit 
 ill contrast, the different theories we have adopted, as they 
 respect the character of Him who was really slain for us, 
 and who bore our sins in his own body on the tree. 
 
 On your part, the case stands thus. The sufferings of 
 the cross were wholly endured by a Man^ who was some- 
 how mysteriously united to 2 second self-existent Person, 
 whom you call the Son of God. Yet this Person you call 
 the Sou of Godj endured no share in the sufferings of the 
 
116 On the real Dhinztt/ and Glory of Christ^ 
 
 cross ; the Man only suffered and died. This re 'I suff'erer' 
 had never enjoyed one moment of pre-existent dignity or 
 glorv. He knew nothing what it was to^be in the Father's 
 bosom ; and as he never had been rich, he knew nothii^g 
 what it was to become poor ^ in any other sense than is known 
 by other poor children who are born into the world. His 
 ^' being born, and that in a low condition,'* was a matter 
 to which he had never consented. He lived, indeed, a life 
 perfectlv ex;emplar\', and died a death truly distressing. 
 But ths Son^ to whom you suppose this Man was united, 
 was so far from sharing a part in the suffering of the cross, 
 that he only enabled the Man to hear a greater portion of 
 sufferings than he would otherwise have been able to endure. 
 But can this circumstance be considered as any real favor 
 to the Man ? And indeed. Sir, can you see that this Man 
 ever received the least benefit from a union with your sup' 
 ^o-yc"^ self-existent Sr;n, from the time he was born in the 
 manger, to the moment he expired on the cross ? So far 
 as the inspired writings have informed me, this Man de- 
 rived all the benefits v/hich he did derive, from God the 
 Father. And why should it be thought to contribute great- 
 ly to the dignity of this Man to be united to a Person from 
 whom he derived no manner of assistance, or support, un- 
 less it were to enable him to endure a greater portion of 
 real s^iffi- rings ? 
 
 On the other hypothesis, the sufferer on the cross was a 
 very different character — He was truly the Son of the liv' 
 ^ing God^ had long been in the bosom of the Father be#jre 
 the foundations of the earth were laid, " as one brought up 
 with him, and was daily his delight." He was highly hon- 
 ored by the Father in the great work of creation ; for God 
 created all things by him.. In him it pleased the Father 
 that all fulness should dvveU. He was as intimately united 
 to the Father, as it is possible the Man Jesus should be, on 
 your theory, to a second self-existent Person. He wa? 
 honored by the Father as the Angel of his Presence on the 
 most solemn and interesting occasions, and was tru y in the 
 lORM OF God : for he was the " image of the invisible 
 God." But while in this state of pre-existent glory, he be- 
 h^'ld our perishing state ; he saw that the blood of bulls and 
 of g'^ats was not sufficient to take away sin ; and he said to 
 his Father, " Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a 
 :body hast thou prepared me"— ^* Lo I come to do thy ^s\\\ 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 117 
 
 O God." He laid aside the form or God, and volunta- 
 rily became united to the body which God had prepared, 
 and was thus " made in the likeness of men*''' '' And being 
 found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became 
 obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Such, 
 Sir, is the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the 
 world. This is the character, in view of which, ten thou- 
 sand times ten thousand tongues sing, Worthy is the Lamb 
 that zvas slain* 
 
 Having thus carried out the two accounts, let us cast 
 them up, that we may clearly see the disparity. And as 
 you cannot deny that as much dignity may be derived from 
 a union with the one God^ the Father, as from a union with 
 a second self-existent Person ; in respect to the character 
 of the real sufftrer^ the case will stand thus : 
 
 On your part, the sufferer is a Man with such dignity as 
 he may derive from a union with a second self existent Per^ 
 son. 
 
 On my part, the sufferer is that glorious Son, by whom 
 God created all things in heaven and earth, possessing all 
 the dignity which can result from the most perfect union 
 with the one God, the Father, 
 
 The difference, then, in the character of the sufferer, is, 
 at least, as great as all the difference between the constitute' 
 ed Creator of heaven and earth, and the mere Man or hu' 
 pian nature of your Messiah. 
 
 You have. Sir, too much candor to deny, that the real 
 sufferer is a character of unspeakably greater importance on 
 this theory, than on yours. But still you may think, that 
 Christ, considered as a complex object, or character, as the 
 Savior and Lord of all, is greater on your hypothesis than 
 he is on mine. 1 his, however, may appear to be only 
 imagination. 
 
 We are perfectly agreed In one point, viz. That there is 
 but one infnite self existent God, In your view, this infi' 
 nite God consists of three self existent Persons ; in my view, 
 the one infinite God is but one self existent Person, The 
 one Person, then, on my theory, must be equal to the 
 three Persons of your theory, in regard io fulness and suf- 
 ficiency. In your view, o^ze of the ?Ar^^ self-existent Per- 
 sons is united to the Man or human nature, and this self- 
 existent Person and the Man are the Savior and Lord of all 
 r-In my view, the Savior and Lord of all is the Son of the 
 
118 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ, 
 
 living God^ and by nature " the brightness of the Father'*s 
 glory, and the express image of his Person ;'* so united to 
 the one injimte God^ that in him dwel^, not merely one of 
 three Persons, but all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 
 
 As, in your view, the Godhead consists of three distinct 
 Persons, each possessing independent fulness ; and as but 
 one of these Persons is supposed to be united to the Man 
 Jesus ; inquiry might be made, whether your the«-;ry does 
 not naturally suggest the idea, that there is but one third o£ 
 the fulness of the Godhead implied in the complex character 
 of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, But it is needless to 
 urge th^s. And on the ground already stated, the matter 
 is submitted to every impartial mind, whether the character 
 of the Lord Jesus does not appear vastly more impressive 
 and glorious on the theory now proposed, than on the 
 Athanasian hypothesis. 
 
 It may possibly be urged by some, that if Christ derived 
 his existence from God, as a Son from a Father^ he must 
 be as incapable of suffering as the Father. This conclusion 
 is not admitted as resulting from the premises. But it 
 would sooner be admitted that it is possible with God to 
 render himself C2c^^h\^ of suffering by union with a human 
 bodv, than that the Son of God did not sufftr on the cross. 
 IVIy knowledge of the Nature of God and his Son is all de- 
 rived from the Bible. This informs me, that Christ is 
 God's own Son ; and that " though he were a Son, yet 
 learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.'* 
 And who is so well skilled in the philosophy of Divine Na- 
 ture^ as to be able to contradict this testimony in either 
 particular ? Is it not more safe for us to receive the Divine 
 testimony as stated in the Scriptures, than to reject it by 
 philosophizing on unrevealed properties of Divine Na-? 
 
 TURE? 
 
 How often. Sir, have our brethren, on your side, urged 
 our ignorance of the Divine Nature, as a reason why we 
 should not reject revealed doctrines concerning God and his 
 Son ? And yet, have not the same brethren, on the ground 
 of their supposed knowledge of the Divine Nature, im- 
 plicitly denied and explained away two of the plainest truths 
 which are contained in the Bible ? Are there, Sir, any two 
 propositions more clearly affirmed in the Scriptures, than 
 these, viz. That Jesus Christ is God's Son j and, that the 
 Son of God suffered and died on the cross I Yet how ma- 
 
On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ 11& 
 
 jiy millions of pages have been written, and how many 
 millions of sermons have been preached, to prove that Je- 
 sus Christ is so far from being properly the Son of God, 
 that he is the very God, the vf.ry Being, whose Son the 
 Scriptures declare him to be ! Yea, the vfry Being who 
 proclaimed from heaven, " This is 7ny beloved Son /'* And 
 have not the numerous, plain, and unequivocal representa- 
 tions of Scripture, respecting the sufferings and denth of 
 the Son of God, been so explained away as to imply no 
 more than that a Man or mere human nature suff'ered 2Xi(i 
 diedy to whom the Son of God was mysteriously united ? 
 And what is all this. Sir, short oi philosophizing upon Di- 
 vine Nature, and drawing conclusions at an extraordi- 
 nary rate ? Would Gabriel himself pretend to so much 
 knowledge of Divine Nature as thus to contradict Di- 
 vine Revelation? 
 
 Though I may have been accused of being " too mathe^ 
 tnatical for the Bible," yet it is my desire never to be so 
 philosophical as to prefer my own deductions from Ja?icied 
 properties of the Divine Nature, to the most explicit de- 
 clarations of the Word of God. But whi'e thus disapproving 
 the conduct of my brethren, the Monitor w-thin whispers. 
 Such has been thy own inconsistency ; and, perhaps, as 
 great inconsisten y, in some other point, still lurks undis- 
 covered — " Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed 
 lest he fall.'' * 
 
 * Either while asleep, or awake, the following scene has some- 
 times been presented to my imagination— 
 
 The writer of these Letters is called before an Ecclesiastical 
 Council to answer to a charge of heresy. The accusers, with 
 solemn formality^ present against him the following ajTticles of 
 charge : 
 
 1. He has publicly taught, That Jesus Christ is the Son of 
 God, God's OWN Son. 
 
 2. He has also taught. That the Son of God did really suffer 
 on the cross, for the sins of the world. 
 
 The Council inquire of the accused in what sense he under- 
 stands those propositions. 
 
 He replies. According to the common acceptation and most 
 natural meaning of the words. t 
 
 The result follows 
 
 • This Council are of opinion, that the said accused is guilty of 
 heresy. For though in some mysterious sense^ Christ is called 
 the Son of God, yet he is not the Son of God according to the 
 common acceptation of the term Son : so far from this, he is per- 
 sonally the only true Gods yea,,**jKsus w that GoDy besides whom 
 
120 On the real Divinity and Glory of Chrkt: 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 SINCE writing the foregoing Lettfcr, it has occurred td 
 me, that there is one mode of illustrating and supporting 
 the dignity of the sufferer^ which has been adopted by some 
 Athanasians, that has not been partxularly considered.— 
 Asa woman of low rank is exalted by marriage to a worthy 
 Prince or Potentate, so it has been supposed that the 3Ian 
 jfesus or the human nature was exalted by union with the 
 Son of God. Upon this hypothesis, let it be observed, 
 
 1. When this ground is taken, the dign ty of the real 
 sufferer is supposed to result simply from union with a 
 Person of infinite dignity. The Queen, after marriage, 
 takes rank from her Royal Husband : so it is supposed 
 that the Man Jesus is exalted by union with the Son of 
 Gnn. It is true, that the King and Queen, in a certain 
 sense, are one ; but not in such a sense that the obedience 
 or the death of the Queen might be properly considered as 
 the obedience or the death of the King. And if a King, 
 for a cert^iin purpose, had engaged to obey and to die, his 
 becomng married to a woman of low rank, and causing 
 her to die instead of himself, would not be esteemed very 
 honorable conduct. 
 
 there is no other.'"* And though it be represented in the Scrip- 
 tures, that the Son of God suffered ; yet as he is personally the 
 immutable God, it was imjioasible that He should really suffer. 
 The Man or human nature suffered, which was united to the 
 Person of the Son of God : Tiie sufferings, therefore, are called 
 the sufferings of the Son of God. It is in our view infinitely de- 
 grading to Christ, to say, thathe is//ro/2<?7-/z/ and tridy the Son 
 of God ; or to say, that He did really suffer the death of the 
 cross.' .. Thus far the result. 
 
 It has, however, been intimated to me, that some of our breth* 
 Ten are prepared to evade all I have written on the sufferings of 
 the Son of God, by saying, that they ever professed to believe 
 that Christ is the Son of God, and that he suffered on the cross. 
 I have. Sir, aimeci honestly to state the real difference of senti- 
 ment between us on those two points. If, in any respect, I have 
 misapprehended your theory, I shall rejoice in being corrected. 
 And if indeed yoii do believe that Christ i« truly the Son of God, 
 and that he really suffered on tlie cross, I shall be happy in be- 
 ing informed that there is no ground of controversy between us. 
 But if I have not mistaken your theory, it is believed that yoa 
 have too much generosity of soul and uprightness of heart, to 
 attempt to evade the force of truth by a mere quibble upon words. 
 
 * Mr, Jones— jiage 2. 
 
On the real Divmity and Glory of Christ* X2l 
 
 2. The Scripture representation is, that the Son o? 
 Cod did really abase himself, and become poor, for our 
 sakes. But on the hypothesis now before us, the scene is 
 changed — Instead of abasing himself, and taking on him 
 th^form of a servant^ he took to himself one who was nai» 
 urally in the form of a servant, and exalted the Man instead 
 of abasii.g himself — Instead of bt ing *^ made in the likeness 
 of men, he raise! a man to the likeness or dign ty of God 
 —Instead of dying himself he caused the Man to die to 
 whoiii he was united. 
 
 It seems to have been the general idea, that the Son ot 
 God became united to the Man or human nature, that he 
 might be in a situation to obey and to suffer. And yet, on 
 your theory, it was just as impossible that he should obey 
 and suffer after the union as it was before. Dr. Hopkins 
 expressly says, that " this persona] union of the Divine na- 
 ture, or of God the second Person in the Godhead, with 
 the human nature, does not cause or suppose any change 
 in the former ; all the change^ or that is changeable^ is in 
 the human natureJ^"* [System, vol. I. p. 411.] — By " the 
 Divine nature^ or God the second Person in the Godhead^* 
 the Doctor meant the Son of God, The Son of God, there- 
 fore, experienced no change, either in becoming unted to 
 the Man or human nature, nor in consequence of this union 
 - — He was then in precisely the same situation in regard to 
 obedience and suffering after the union, that he was before. 
 What, then, Sir, has the Son of God either done or suf 
 fered for our salvation ? And why wilt you pretend that 
 he became united to a Man that he nqtight obey and suffer I 
 
 3. If a mere Man, by virtue ol a union with the Son of 
 God, might derive such dignity as to atone for the sins of 
 the world, it is evident that the same dignity might result 
 from the same mysterious union between the s.^me Mirt 
 and the Father, And as the Man Christ Jesus never spake 
 of his union with a second D vine Person, but often spake 
 of his union with the Father, the probability would be mu. h 
 in favor of the idea that his union was with the Father.— 
 If, then, the Socinians would only add to their theory the 
 idea of a mysterious union between the Man Christ jfesus 
 and God the Father, what would be the difference between 
 your Savior a* d theirs ? It is not in my power to discern 
 that there would be so much as one shade of difference.-^ 
 The Man Jesus, considered separately from his union with 
 
122 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ* 
 
 the Godhead, is perhaps as great on their theory as on 
 yours ; Hor will you pretend that the Son is greater thau 
 the Father. If the Socinians would ohly annex that one 
 idea to their theory, it does not appear that you would have 
 the least ground to dispute with them about the greatness 
 of the Savior, however much you might dispute about 
 the number of self-existejjt Persons. — Be not, Sir, of- 
 fended at this comparison : my aim here is simply to 
 urge you to inquiry, and to a thorough examination of your 
 own theory. 
 
PART III. 
 
 ON THE CHARACTER OF THE HOLT SPIRIT. 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 By the Holy Spirit i9 intended the same as the Fulness of the 
 
 Godhead, 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 HAVING stated to you my views of the Father and 
 the Son, the Character of the Holy Ghost will now be con- 
 sidered. On this point the Oracles of God are our only 
 guide ; and to their dictates it behoves us to submit with 
 reverence. 
 
 You will not consider me insensible of my accountability 
 to God in regard to all my writings : nor can you reason- 
 ably view me as haying any interest to promote, aside from 
 the promotion of Truth. 
 
 If your views of the Holy Ghost are according to truth, 
 certainly there can be nothing for me to gain by advancing 
 and advocating a different hypothesis ; unless it may be for 
 my advantage to expose myself to censure and reproach. 
 
 On the other hand, if my views are according to truth, 
 it is as important for you, as it is for me, to understand and 
 admit them. 
 
 Your having so great a majority of the Christian world 
 on your side, is not sufficient to secure to you the approba- - 
 tion of God.— Be entreated to keep these things in mind, 
 while you read and reflect on the important subject now 
 before us. 
 
 From what you have already seen on the character of 
 God and his Son, you have doubtless concluded, that in my 
 view the Holy Spirit is not a self-existent Person. You 
 
124 On the Character of the Hcly SpiriU 
 
 •will now see, that in mv view the Haly Spirit is comprc-. 
 h'-ndi-d in the self-existi-nce of Jehovah, J3ut xvithout distinct 
 personality. The terms Holy Spirit, or Holv Ghost, as 
 used in Scripture, do not appear to me intended to express 
 another Person besides the Father and the Son ; yet, to my 
 understanding, tht se terms convey an dea of that which is 
 of no li'ss estimation. It is that in God, by which he is able 
 to do good and communicate, either immediateIy,or through 
 the instrumenta ity of other agents. 
 
 -By the Holv Ghost, radically considered, the same is 
 
 tmderstood as by the phrase, the fulness of the Godhead. Yet 
 
 the terms Holy Spirit^ ire, it is thaught, most commonly 
 
 app'ied to the productive, e^cient emanations of Divine 
 
 fulness. 
 
 The following phrases appear to be perfectly svnoRV-. 
 jnous — The Holy Ghost — the Holy Spirit — the Spirit of 
 God — the Spirit of the Lord — the Spirit of the Lord God — 
 the Spirit of the Father. That these are synonymous, will 
 probably not be denied by any person well acquainted with 
 the Scriptures. And should any one be disposed to deny 
 3t, the idea may be fairly established by comparing Scrips 
 ture with Scripture. 
 
 My ideas of the Spirit may be better understood by a 
 little attention to some Scripture metaphors — God is rep- 
 resentcd bv the metaphor of the natural Sun. " The Lord 
 God is a Sun." Tin n the rays of light and heat, which 
 emaciate or proceed from the sun, are an emblem of the 
 *'• tJoly Spirit zvhichproceedeth from the Father, ^^ Like the 
 rays of the sun, these Divine emanations of the fulness of 
 God, illuminate^ quicken^ vivigorate, 2ini\ fructify. 
 
 God is also represented as a Fountain of living waters. 
 If we consider the Fountain as in the earth, then the effu- 
 sions or streams which proceed from the Fountain may 
 represent the Holy Spirit, But if \^^ consider the Foun- 
 tain as. a launtain of vapor in the air, then the showers of 
 •rain or dew will properly represent the emanations of Di' 
 vine fulness. 
 
 Bv the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, is not, in my 
 view, intended any one attribute merely, but all those at- 
 tributes which are implied in the FULNESS or ALL-SUFFI- 
 CxENCY of the Godhead. 
 
 Beibre an attempt to explain those texts pf Scripture 
 which have been supposed to import that tne Spirit of God 
 
On the Character t)fthe Holy Spirrt. 133r : 
 
 is a distinct Person from the Father and the Son, it may 
 b^ well to exhibit a part of the considerations which have 
 had influence on my mind in favor of giving up that opin- 
 ion. 
 
 1, It has appeared to me inconsistent to suppose that 
 the Spirit should be both a self-existent Person and the 
 Spirit of a Person ; yet the Spirit is perhaps spoken of as 
 the Spirit of a Person twentv times to its bein^ once spok* 
 en of as though it were a distinct Person. There are in- 
 deed several instances in which the Holy Spirit is personi- 
 fied or spoken of as it would be natural to speak of a Per- 
 son ; but the number of these instances is much less than 
 was expected previous to inquiry. And it is observable 
 that the spirit or soul of man is also several times pttrsoni- 
 fied in the Bible, and spoken of as though it were some- 
 thing distinct from the man ; or as though the man and his 
 spirit were two persons. Instances ot this are perhaps 
 nearly as numerous as the instances in which the Spirit of 
 God is personified. But it ought to be distinctiv noted, 
 that when we have become habituated to the idea that by 
 the Holy Spirit is intended a Person^ the idea of a Person 
 will immediately arise in our minds^ upon hearing or see- 
 ing the words Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. So if we had 
 been taught from our infancy that the natural sun is a per- 
 son, then we should think of it as such whenever it should 
 come into view. This may account for its having been 
 supposed that there is much in the Scriptures in favor of 
 the distinct personalitN' of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 In general, throughout the Bible, the Holy Spirit is 
 spoken of as the spirit of a person, just as we speak of the 
 spirit of man as the spirit of a person ; and in the same 
 inanner as the sacred writers speak of the attributes of God ; 
 not as distmct Persons, but as something o/'a Person, or 
 in a Person, or belonging to a Person. The inspired wri- 
 ters speak of the Spirit of Man, the Spirit of God, the 
 Spirit of the Lord, the Wisdom of God, the Power of 
 God, the Goodness of God, and the Will of God. 
 
 We may also observe, that when God speaks of the 
 Spirit, he says, " 7ny Spirit," just as he says, " my Power,'* 
 " my Goodness," &c. These and similar forms of speech^ 
 respecting the Holy Spirit, are very numerous in the Bi- 
 ble, and they naturally convey the idea that the Spirit of 
 God is not a distinct Person, but the Spirit of a Person j 
 
^26 On the Character of the Holy Spirit* 
 
 as naturally as the forms of speech respecting Wisdom, 
 Power, and Goodness, convey the idea that they are at* 
 tributes of a Person, and not so many^dist'nct Persons. 
 
 If it were admitted, that the term God means three self- 
 existent Persons^ even on that supposition the phrase, the 
 Spirit ofGod^ would not imply that the Spirit is one of those 
 Persons, but it would be the Spirit of three Persons. 
 
 If the Holy Spirit be a self-existent Person distinct 
 from the Father, it is doubdess an important truth, and one 
 l^hich we should not expect would have been unrevealed 
 ut\til the taking place of the Gospel dispensation. Yet may 
 it not be said with safety', that there is no more evidence 
 in the Old Testament of the distinct personality of the Ho- 
 ly Spirit, than there is of the distinct personality of the 
 Power of God, or the Knowledge of God, or the Goodness 
 ^ffir^ of God t %n foK as before observed, the Spirit is uniform- 
 ly spoken of as something belonging to God, and not as a 
 distinct Person. 
 
 The phrases " the Spirit of God," " the Spirit of the 
 Lord," " my Spirit," " thy Spirit," " his Spirit," are the 
 usual phrases by which the H.jly Ghost is represented in 
 the Old Testament. The terms, " the Holy Ghost," are 
 not, I think, to be found in it. The terms. Holy Spirit, 
 are found three times ; and in each of those instances it is 
 spoken of as the spirit of a person, and not as being a self- 
 existent Person. " Take not thy Holy Spirit from me." 
 *' And vexed his Holy Spirit'^ — " And put his Holy Spirit 
 within him." Unless, then, the saints under the Old Tes- 
 tament had some evidence which has not come to us, was 
 it possible that they shou d believe that by the Spirit of God, 
 or the Holy Spirit, was intended an independent Person 
 co-eternal with the Father ? 
 
 The manner of representing the Holy Ghost in the Old 
 Testament is common in the New. — We often read, in the 
 New Testament, of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the 
 Lord ; we also read of the Spirit of the Father, and his 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 Some writers, if I have not misunderstood them, have 
 been disposed to make a distinction between what they call 
 " the personal Spirit," and the Spirit of God or the ema-* 
 nations of Divine fulness ; but I have not been able to find 
 any ground for this distinction. That which is called the 
 Spirit of God, or the Spirit of the Lord, in one place, is 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit. l2f 
 
 called the Holy Ghost in another. In the prophecy of 
 Isaiah, we have several predictions respecting the Son of 
 God, and his being endued with the Spirit of the Lord— 
 *' I have put my Spirit upon him" — "The Spirit of the Lord 
 God is upon me," &c. These predictions were fulfilled 
 on the day of Christ's baptism, when the Holy Ghost 
 descended upon him. Matthew says, '* the Spirit of God 
 descended :" Mark and John simply say, " the Spirit 
 descended ;" but Luke, in giving the same account, says, 
 " the Holy Ghost descended." From these passages it is 
 evident, that " the Spirit," " the Spirit of the Lord," " the 
 Spirit of God," and " the Holy Ghost," mean the same 
 thing. Moreover, when the Holy Ghost was given to th^ 
 Apostles in such an extraordinary manner, on the day of 
 Pentecost, Peter in his sermon said, " This is that which 
 tras spoken of by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to 
 pass in the last days, saith God, that I will pour out of my 
 Spirit upon all flesh." 
 
 There is another class of parallel texts which may help 
 us to some correct ideas of the Holy Ghost. When Christ 
 sent forth his disciples to preach, he forewarned them that 
 they should be brought before Governors and Kings for his 
 sake. " But," said he, " when they deliver you up, take 
 no thought how or what ye shall speak ; for it shall be giv- 
 en you in that same hour what ye shall speak : for it is not 
 ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh 
 in you." [Matt. x. 19, 20.] This is Matthew's represen- 
 tation.— Mark expresses the same thing thus, " For it is 
 not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost." [Mark xiii. 11.]— 
 Luke says, " For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the 
 \ Same hour what ye ought to say." [xii. 12.] And Luke, 
 in another place, repeats this, or a similar promise of 
 ^rist, in these words, " For I will give you a mouth, 
 and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able 
 to gansay nor resist." [ch. xxi. 15.] From these several 
 passages compared, it clearly appears, that the Spirit of the 
 Father, and the Holy Ghost, are the same thing ; that the 
 Spirit of the Father speaking in them, the Holy Ghost's 
 speaking, the Holy Ghost's teaching them what they ought 
 , to speak, and Christ's giving them a mouth and wisdom, 
 are all of the same import ; and that the sum of the 
 promise to the Apostles was, that they should be eAdued 
 
^28 On the Character of the Holy Spirit* 
 
 Vrith supernatural stifficiency or assistance on such 
 occasions. 
 
 2. That the Holy Spirit, or the Snirit of God, is not a 
 distinct Person, may appear from a number of other terms 
 ivhich are used as svnonymous. 
 
 The breath of the Lord is used as synonymous with the 
 Spirit of the Lord. The wicked are rt presented as con- 
 srmed both bv the " breath of the Lord," and by the 
 ♦* Spirit of the Lord" — " By the blast of God they perish, 
 and by the breath of his mouth are they consumed" — " And 
 then shall that wicked be revealed whom the Lord shall 
 consume with the Spirit of his mouthJ*'^ Moreover, as an 
 emblem of giving the Spirit^ Christ breathed on his dis- 
 ciples, and said, " Receive ye the Holy Ghost." 
 
 The HAND of the Lord and the Spirit of the Lord are 
 used as synonymous. *' So the Spirit of th>.- Lord lifted 
 me up, and took me away — but the hand of the Lord was 
 Strong upon me" — ^' B'' his Spirit he hath garnished the 
 heavens ; his hand hath formt-d the crooked serpent"-^— 
 *' The heavens are the work of thv hand'''' — "• And the hand 
 of the Lord was with the-m, and a great multitude believed 
 and tnr- ed to the Lord." 
 
 Thfi finger of Gf)d and the Spirit of God arc synony- 
 tnous. " Bv his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens" — 
 ** I consider the heavens the work of thy fingers''* — " But if 
 1 cast out devils by the Spirit of God^ then the Kingdom 
 of Gfid is come unto you" — " But if I with the finger of 
 God cast out devils, no doubt the Kingdom of God is come 
 upon vou." 
 
 Can it be viewed as proper or respectful to speak of one 
 self-existent P< rson as the breath, the handy or the finger^ 
 of another co-equal Person ? 
 
 As the arm^ the hand, or xhv finger of a person, is sub- 
 ordinate to his will, so the Spirit of God is uniformly 
 represented as subordinate to the will of God. And as 
 any thing which is done bv the hand of 2l man, is done by 
 the ma7i, so any thing which is done bv the Spirit of God, 
 is done by God, Accordingly, in the SViptures, the same 
 things are at one time attributed to God, and at another to 
 the Spirit of God, or the Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. The metaphors made use of in Scripture to repre- 
 sent the Spirit, the act of giving or sending the Spirit, and 
 the descent oi the Spirit, are clearly against the opinion that 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit. 129 
 
 tlie Spirit is a distinct Person. Water is the metaphor 
 most frequently used to represent the Spirit ; and the act 
 of sending or giving the Spirit is represented by pouring 
 out, shedding forth, sprinkling, washing, or baptizing ; 
 and the descent of the Spirit is compared to the descent of 
 rain and dew* 
 
 Giving the Spirit is also compared to giving water to 
 drink, and to anointing with oil. And in reference to the 
 impression the Spirit makes on the hearts of saints, it is 
 compared to ink. 
 
 Can you. Sir, suppose, that these metaphors and repre- 
 sentations properly apply to a Person, or to the act of send- 
 ing a self-existent Person ? Pouring out and sprinkling 
 are perhaps the most common metaphors to represent the 
 act of sending the Holy Spirit ; and what metaphors could 
 you invent more improper to represent the act of sending 
 a Person ? It is God who says, " I will pour out my 
 Spirit." And if you say by God is meant only one of three 
 self-existent Persons, will you also say that one self-exist- 
 ent Person promises that he will pour out another self- 
 existent Person ? 
 
 Permit me, Sir, to ask, what do you mean when you 
 pray to God to pour out his Spirit? Do you mean to ask 
 one self-existent Person to pour ow^ another ? Do you not 
 mean to ask God to make a gracious display of his fulness 
 for the production of some important effects ? 
 
 When you speak of a great out-pouring of the Spirit of 
 God, do you mean to represent that one self-existent Per- 
 son has made a great out-pouring of another co-equal Per- 
 son ? Do you not mean that God has made a great display 
 of his power, wisdom, and goodness, upon the hearts and 
 minds of men ? It is presumed you wnll admit that the 
 latter is your meaning. And it is a comforting thought 
 that my views of the Spirit not only accord with the natural 
 import of Scripture language, but with what appears to 
 be the real views of God's people in their prayers for the 
 Spirit. 
 
 3. The Spirit of God is spoken of in the Scriptures as 
 something which may be given by tneasure, or without 
 measure ; and when communicated or displayed by meas" 
 ure, we may speak of a residue. 
 
 After John the Baptist had seen the emblem of the 
 descent of the Holy Ghost upon^the Son of God, be not 
 R 
 
130 On the Character of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 only bare record that He is the Son of God, but also that 
 *' He V hom Gcd hath sent, speaketh the words of God ; 
 for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.^^ In 
 this verse, the Son's having the Spirit ^^ithout measure, is 
 given as the reason why the woi'ds which he speaketh are 
 the words of God. 
 
 As the Son of God had the Spirit not by measure, so he 
 had it in a manner that he could commimicate it to others ; 
 therefore John further test'fied, " This is He, or the same 
 is He, v«7hich hxptizeth -with the Holy GhostJ*^ But while 
 the Son had the Spirit without measure, the Apostles and 
 isaints had it by measure* 
 
 The prophet Malachi, in leaving testimony against the 
 conduct of the Jews in putting away their wives, brings 
 into view the wise conduct of God in creation, in making 
 but one ivoman for one man — *^ And did not he make one ? 
 yet had he the residue of the Spirit,"* The idea intended 
 to be communicated appears to be this, that God did not 
 neg'ect to make more than one woman for one man through 
 any defect of wisdom, power, or goodness. Had it been 
 best, he was all-siifficient to have made more, and would 
 have done it. Does not, then, this text plainly suggest, 
 that by the Spirit is intended ih^ fulness or alUsvffciency of 
 God ? And do not the phrases, the Spirit by measure^ 
 and the residue of the Spirit^ naturally oj^pose the opinion 
 that by the Spirit is intended a distinct and independent 
 Person ? 
 
 As infinite wisdom saw fit not to place me on a level 
 with you, and most of my brethren in the ministry, in 
 respect to the advantages of a learned education, you may 
 think it improper for me to suggest any argument from 
 the Greek language respecting the Holy Spirit. But not 
 pretending to much knowledge of that language, permit 
 me to ask a few questions. Are not the articles and pro- 
 nouns in the Greek language, agreeing with the terms Holy 
 Spirit, uniformly of the neuter gender ? And are not the 
 articles and pronouns agreeing with the Father and Son, 
 of the masculine gender ? TAnd what is the ground of this 
 distinction, if the Spirit be a proper Person ? 
 
 In reply to these questions, it has been said, that the 
 noun, Spirit, is of the neuter gender ; and the genius of 
 the Greek language requires, of course, that the articles 
 and pronouns should be of the neuter gender. All this is 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit* 131 
 
 easVy believed ; not seeing that, in this respect, the genius 
 of the Greek language differs from our own. But why. 
 Sir, is the noun neuter ? And how did you know that it 
 ■was neuter, but by the neuter articles and pronouns ? Had 
 masculine articles and pronouns been uniformly used 
 throughout the New Testament, as agreeing with the noun. 
 Spirit, would you ever have known or thought that the 
 noun was of the neuter gender I 
 
 In some instances, the translators gave us the pronouns, 
 agreeing with the Spirit, in the neuter gender, according 
 to the Greek — '' The Spirit zVi-e^ beareth witness with our 
 Spirt." — '* The Spirit f^se^maketh intercession for us." — ^ 
 Instead of zV.s-6'^ they might have said himself^ as well as 
 to have given us he^ his^ him^ for i/, its^ &c. And if they 
 had as uniformly given us the pronouns in the neuter, as 
 they are so in the Greek, the appearance of the Spirit's 
 being a distinct Person would have been nearly excluded 
 from the Bible. And we should have as much reason to 
 suppose that by '' our Spirits" are intended Persons distinct 
 from ourselves, as that by ;:he " Spirit of God" is intendv^d 
 a Person distinct from the Father. This probably would 
 have been completeK the case, unless we should have had 
 some source of information, by which we should have'been 
 ablf to correct the natural import of inspired language. 
 
 This subject of the pronouns is not introduced as having 
 had any influence in forming mv opinion of the Holy Spirit. 
 It was formed previous to any information on this particu'^ 
 Jar. Yet, in my view, this circumstance corroborates that 
 opinion, and is worthy of the mos- serious attention. 
 
 No person, in conversation with pie, has pretended to 
 deny the fact, that the pronouns in Greek for the Spirit 
 are of the neuter gender ; and no one has given me any 
 satisfactory reason why they should be translated as per- 
 sonal pronouns of the masculine gender. It is, however, 
 possible, that you, or some other person, may yet do it ; 
 but until it is done, you will allow me to consider the ar- 
 gument in view, as of great weight against the personality 
 p^' the Holy Spirit. 
 
1 32 On the Character of the Holy Splr It* 
 
 LETTER IL ^ 
 
 Some Passages considered^ which have been supposed to sup^ 
 port the Personality of the Holy Spirit* 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 IT may be proper now to pay some attention to those 
 passagea of Scripture, which have been supposed most cer- 
 tainly to imply the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 1 Cor. ii. 10. " The Spirit searcheth all things, yea the 
 deep things of God." 
 
 This passage has much of the appearance of favoring the 
 personality of the Spirit. But if we candidly attend to the 
 following verse, this appearance may disappear — " For what 
 man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man 
 that is in him ? Even so, the things of God knoweth na 
 man, but the Spirit of God." It is obvious, that the Spirit 
 of God is here represented as bearing the same relation to 
 God, as the spirit of a man does to the man. But as a man 
 and his spirit are but one person, so God and his Spirit are 
 Tepresented as one Person. 
 
 Mr. Jones has quoted the last of these verses, to prove, 
 in opposition to Arians, that the Spirit of God is essential- 
 ly God, as truly so as the spirit of man is essentially man.. 
 This text does indeed afford a conclusive argument against 
 the Arian hypothesis ; but it also affords an argument 
 equally conclusive against the hypothesis of Mr. Jones, It 
 is on the ground of the comparison or parallel QJihWAitd in 
 the text, that Mr. Jones shows this text to be opposed to 
 the Arian scheme ; and on the same ground it is as clearly 
 opposed to his own, unless he would undertake to say that 
 a man and his spirit are two persons. If he could make 
 this appear to be true, then he might well argue that God, 
 and his Spirit are also two Persons. 
 
 Acts v. 3. '-^ But Peter said, Ananias, why hath satan 
 £lled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost ?" 
 
 Peter and other apostles had been filled with the Holy 
 Ghost in a remarkable manner ; and it was doubtless by 
 the Spirit of God that Peter was enabled to discern the de- 
 ceit and falsehood of Ananias. His lying, therefore, was 
 really lying tQ the Holy GhQst* Ananias had doubtless 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit* 1S3 
 
 been a witness of the wonderful things which God had 
 done, and that the apostles had done, by the Holy Ghost^ 
 or in consequence of being " endued with power from on 
 high," and for him, in the face of those manifestations of 
 Divine goodness, wisdom, and power, to come forward 
 with a lie or deceitful pretence to the apostles, was truly to 
 *' tempt the Spirit of the Lord," or to tempt the Lord to 
 display the same power in his destruction, that had been 
 displayed for the salvation of others. 
 
 Hei). iii. 7. " Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost scnth^ To- 
 day if ye wi'l hear his voice." 
 
 We have many instances in Scripture, in which it is rep- 
 resented that the Hoy Ghost spake ^ said^ &c. The words 
 of Peter will explain the matter — *' Holy men of Qod-spake 
 as they were moved bv the Holy Ghost." [2 Peter i. 21.] 
 God by his Spirit or fulness taught them what " they ought 
 to speak." 
 
 2 Cor. xiii. 14. '' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christy 
 and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy 
 Ghost, be with you all. Amen." 
 
 Thi^ passage has often been urged with considerable con- 
 fidence as a proof that there are three self-existent Persons 
 in the Godhead, and that the Holy Ghost is one of those 
 Persons. But a little attention to the natural import of the 
 passage may be sufficient to show that neither of the^ ideas 
 are implied. We may note — 
 
 1. God is here named as a Person distinct from the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is named as a Per* 
 son distinct from the self-existent God. 
 
 2. The text does not say, " communion -with the Holy 
 Ghost," as though the Spirit were a Person ; but " com* 
 munion o/'the Holy Ghost," as though the Spirit were 
 something to be received. We have a similar phraseology, 
 1 Cor. X. 16. " The cup of blessing wh ch we bless, is it 
 not the communion of the blood of Christ .^'' Neither the 
 cup nor the blood of Christ is a person ; but a benefit^ of 
 which we may be the thankful partakers. The import of 
 the benediction may be this. May you experience the grace 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, by being made 
 thankful partakers of the Holy Spirit^ to sanctify, to teach, 
 to support, and to comfort you forever. 
 
 The phrase " fellowship of the Spirit," is the same in the 
 original as communion of the Spirit. This by Poole's Con- 
 
134 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 
 
 tinuators is explained to mean, communion among saints 
 in the ''grace of the Spirit." [Phil, ii! 1.] 
 
 In our Savior's affectionate discourse with his disciples 
 before his passion, for their comfort and support, he prom- 
 ised them the Holy Spirit under the title of the Comforter. 
 The substance of what he said in that discourse, respecting 
 the character of the Spirit shall here be brought into view. 
 
 " And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you 
 another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever, 
 even the Spirit of Truth." [John xiv. 16, IT.] 
 
 " But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom 
 the Father will send jn my name, he shall teach you all 
 thin^, and bring to your remembrance all things what- 
 soever I have said unto you." [John xiv. 26.] 
 
 " But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send 
 unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth 
 which pr6ceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.'* 
 [John SLvf^e:] 
 
 " If I go not away, the Comforter wil! not come unto 
 you ; but if I depart, I will send him^unto you ; and when 
 he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, of righteous- 
 ness, and of judgment." [John xvi. 7, 8.] 
 
 " When he, the spirit of truth, is come, he will guide 
 you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself ; but 
 whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speal^ : And he will 
 ^hovv you things to come. He shall glorify me, for he shall 
 receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." [John xvi, 13.] 
 
 Had we no other passages of Scripture, by which to der 
 termine the character of the Holy Spirit, we should most 
 naturclly be led to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a 
 distinct Person. Yet, it niay be asked, should we conclude 
 that the Spirit is a Person independent^ and equal with the 
 Father t For throughout the whole description, is not the 
 Spirit represented as subordinate to the will of the Father? 
 
 In these passages, Sir, we may contemplate the Holy 
 Spirit as properly personified under another name, for the 
 same reason that we personify the natural sun ^^ hen we 
 wish to give a striking and impressive view of its glory, 
 utility, and importance. And yet there seems to have 
 been particular care taken that our minds should not be 
 misled by the personification. If you. Sir, will be at the 
 trouble of removing from these verses the personal pro^ 
 nouns, and write neuter j^ronouns in their room, so far as 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 13S» 
 
 the original will justify such a change, you may find the 
 personification far less strong than it is in our translation. 
 After you have made this change in the pronouns, you will 
 not find the Spirit more strongly personified, or spoken of 
 as a distinct Person from the Father, than the spirit or soul 
 of man is often personified, or spoken of, ?s a distinct per- 
 son from the man. Thus the Psalmist addresses his soul, 
 *' Why art thou cast down, O my soul ? Why art thou 
 disquieted within me ? Hope thou in God," &c. — ^The 
 rich fool is represented as addressing his soul as it would 
 be natural to address another person — " I will say to my 
 sou , Soul, thou hast goods laid up for many years, take 
 thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." 
 
 Moreover, there are several things said of the Com-' 
 forter, which naturally suggest the idea that it is not a 
 Person^ but an emanation of the Divine fulness^ which is 
 intended. When Christ had named the Comforter, he 
 immediately explained — the Spirit of truth ; which natural- 
 ly suggests the idea, that what he was speaking of was aa 
 efficient influence or emanation from that God who is 
 truth. Besides, he said, '•' The Holy Ghost which pro- 
 ceedeth from the Father ;" and this is the precise idea of 
 emanation. But it does not comport with the idea, that 
 the Spirit is an independent Person, co-equal with the 
 Father. 1 here is, however, still more decisive evidence 
 to be produced. 
 
 These gracious promises of Christ, of the Comforter, 
 were renewed to the Apostles after Christ had risen from 
 the dead ; and in renewing the promises, the personifca- 
 iion was wholly omitted. 
 
 In giving an account of what Christ said to his Apostles 
 between the resurrection and ascension, Luke in his Gos- 
 pel states, that Christ said to them, " And behold, I send 
 tke PROMISE of my Father upon you ; but tarr}^ ye at Je- 
 rusalem until ye be endued with power from on high.** 
 [Luke xxiv. 49.} 
 
 In the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, Luke 
 brings the same thing again into view, but in a different 
 form. After mentioning that Christ " showed himself 
 alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs, being 
 seen of the Apostles forty days, and speaking of things per- 
 taining to the Kingdom of God," he adds, " And being 
 assembled together with them, commanded them that the/ 
 
136 On the Character of the Holy Spirit 
 
 should not depart fi*om Jerusalem, but wait for the promiae 
 of the Father, which, saith he^ ye have heard of me. For 
 John truly baptized with ivater^ but ^e shall bd baptized 
 with the Holy Ghost not manv days hence." 
 
 The Apostles were inquisitive, and asked, saying, " Lord, 
 wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? 
 And he said unto them. It is not for you to know the times 
 or the seasons which the Father hath put in his own power* 
 But ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come 
 upon you?"* 
 
 In these several accounts there is an obvious reference 
 to the prior promise of the Comforter ; and these passages 
 serve to explain the import of that promise. To be endued 
 with power from on high^ to be baptized with the Holy 
 Ghost J and to have the Comforter sent unto them are all the 
 same thing. The substance of the whole was this, that 
 they shoul be endued with supernatural powers^ supernatu* 
 ral fortitude^ supernatural support^ assistance., and comfort i 
 and thus be prepared to go forth in the name of Christ to 
 preach the Gospel, and to confirm their doctrines by signs 
 and wonders or incontestible viiracles. 
 
 And it may be worthy of particular notice, that the Holy 
 Ghost is represented as someth ng 7(;i^/z which the Apostles 
 should be baptized^ as John baptized with water. " John 
 truly baptized with water ^ but ye shall be baptized with the 
 Holy Ghost.'*^ The Holy Ghost, in the baptism which the 
 Apostles were to receive,ansvvers to the water in the bap- 
 tism administered by John. And unless we may suppose 
 that the water in John's baptism was an agents we may not 
 suppose the Holy Ghost to be an agent in the baptism re- 
 ceived by the apostles.* 
 
 The promise of Christ was fulfilled ; for " when the day 
 of Pentecost was fully come, the Apostles were all with 
 one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound 
 from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all 
 the house where they were sitting. And there appeared 
 unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat on each 
 
 * As the metaphor of ivater is abundantly used to represent 
 the Holy Spirit, hafitiziiig wifn the Holt GHOsr harmon- 
 izes with that metaphor ; the same as fiouring out, shedding 
 forth, sfiri^ikling, &c. In the NewTestament, six times, we hax e 
 the representation of bafitizing wiTH the Holt Ghosi'. But 
 "Where shall we find one instance in wliich the Holy Spirit is rep- 
 resented as an Jgent or Administrator in baptizing ? 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 137 
 
 df them. And they were all filed with the Holy Ghost^ 
 and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave 
 them utter ance* 
 
 Thus, Sir, was Christ's promise of the Comforter fulfil- 
 led; the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost; 
 they were endued with power from on high ; and as the 
 first fruits of this power they spake languages that they had 
 nttver studied or learned ; and they spake as the Spirit 
 gave them utterance. 
 
 Let us now attend to Peter's account of the fulfilment of 
 the promise of the Comforter, which he gave in his ser- 
 mon on that memorable occasion. 
 
 *' This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are 
 "Witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God ex- 
 alted, and having received of the VdiXhtr the. promise of the 
 Holy Ghosty he hath shed forth this which ye now see 
 and hear." 
 
 As the Holy Spirit in this baptism answered to the water 
 in John's baptism, arid as Christ himself had become the 
 administrator of this baptism, Peter with great propriety 
 said, " Ht hath shed forth this which ye now see and heara"* 
 
 Thus evident it is, that, in Peter's view, the Holy Ghost 
 is something which may be shed forth by the Son of God, 
 to whom the Spirit had been given not by measure ; by 
 him, in whom it had pleased the Father that o/l fulness 
 should dwell. The. same view of the Holy Spirit is given 
 by Paul, in his epistle to Titus — *' According to his inercy, 
 he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing 
 of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly 
 through Jesus Christ our Savior." [Titus iii. 5, 6.] 
 
 If by the Holy Spirit be meant the fulness of the God- 
 head, or an efficient emanation of Divine fulness, the word 
 shed may very properly be used to express the manner of 
 its being given or sent. But who will say that this is a 
 proper term by which to express the act of giving or send- 
 ing a Person ? And if we may beHeve that the Apostles 
 understood the promise of the Comforter, which is the 
 Holy Ghost, may we not believe that the Holy Spirit is 
 not a Person distinct from the Father and the Son f 
 
 Thus, Sir, it has been my endeavor to explain what 
 Christ intended by the Comforter, by making the Scrip- 
 tures their own interpreter. You will not, it is hoped, see 
 any sophistry in my reasonings upon this particular* An4 
 S 
 
138 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 
 
 if not, it is believed that you must, at least, ver}^ strongly 
 doubt the correctness of any theory which supposes the 
 Holy Spirit to be a Person. For in li*^ other instance is 
 the Spirit so strongly personified as under the name of the 
 Comforter. 
 
 There are two other texts which deserve very particular 
 attention, viz. Matthew xxviii. 19. and 1 John v. 7. But 
 my views in relation to these texts will lead me to some 
 discussions which would be, in this place, rather an inter- 
 ruption to the mind in regard to the main inquiry. They 
 shall, therefore, be considered separately in Part IV. — 
 But this may now be premised, that those two texts should 
 unquestionably be understood in a sense which is consist- 
 ent with the general tenor of the Gospel in respect to the 
 Holy Spirit, 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Other Considerations^ to shotv^ that by the Holy Spirit is not 
 intended a distinct Person* 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 HAVING endeavored faithfully to examine most of 
 those passages of Scripture which have the greatest appear- 
 ance of favoring your views of the Holy Ghost, and believ- 
 ing it has been shown that they are perfectly consistent 
 with my own without any forced construction, some far- 
 ther considerations, which have had great weight on my 
 mind against the hypothesis, that the Spirit is a distinct 
 and self-existent Person, will now be added. 
 1. Much is said in the Scriptures of the mutuallove between 
 the Father and the Son, and the disposition of each to 
 honor the other ; but where shall we find the least inti- 
 mation of any love on the part of the Father or the Son 
 towards the Holy Spirit as a Ptrson I or on the part 
 of the Holy Spirit towards either the Father or the 
 Son ? Yet if the Spirit be a Person, as distinct from the 
 Father and the Son, as the Son is from the Father, 
 should we not have reason to expect the same evidence of 
 mutual love in the one case as in the other ? And since the 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 139 
 
 evidence of mutual love between the Father and the Son is 
 so abundant in the Scriptures, and no mention is made of 
 any love between the Father and the Spirit, nor between 
 thc'Son and the Spirit, have v^^e not strong ground to be- 
 lieve that ihe Spirit is not a distinct Person ? 
 
 2. We have much said in the Scriptures of the love of 
 the Father towards mankind,and also ofthe !ove of tlie Son; 
 but what is said of the love ofthe Spirit towards oui ruined 
 race ? 
 
 3. We are require d to love the Father, and to love the 
 Son, as two distinct Persons ; but where do you find any 
 requirement to love the Spirit as a Person distinct from the 
 ■father or the Son ? Not in the Bible. 
 
 \ 4. We have both precept and example for worshipping 
 the Father and the Son, as two distinct Persons ; but have 
 we either precept or example in the Scriptures for paying 
 Divine homage to the Spirit as a Person t 
 
 5. We have an account, in the visions of John, of the 
 Throne of God and ofthe Lamb ; but does John make any* 
 mention of the Tlirone of the Holy Ghost ? Or is there 
 any intimation in the Bible, that the Spirit, as a Person^ 
 has a Throne in Heaven ? 
 
 Now, Sir, on the supposition that the Spirit is a Person *' 
 coequal with God the Father, how will you be able to ac- 
 count for these dhtinctions^ or these omissions^ in the ,sa- 
 crt d Striptures ? If we could find the same evidence of 
 mutual love between the Father and the Holy Spirit, as be- 
 tween the Father and the Son ; and the same evidence that 
 the Spirit, as a Person, loves mankind, as that the Father 
 and the Son do ;* or if we could find such evidence in favor 
 of loving and honoring the Spirit as a distinct Person, as for 
 loving and honoring the Father and the Son ; it might 
 seem presumptuous to call in question the personality of the 
 Spirit. But since the Scriptures are silent in all these im- 
 portant respects, suffer me to dissent from your opinion ; 
 
 * It may be said, that «Hhe love of the Spirit'* is once men- 
 tioned by St. Paul, Rom. 15, 30. Bat it is needless to give an ex- 
 position of my own, to show that the passage does i ot represent 
 the Spirit as a Person loving. It may suffice to copy the exposi- 
 tion of Mr. Poole's Continuators, who were Athanasian writers— 
 •* And for the lo\ e of the Spirit"— q. d. " If you love the Spirit of 
 God ; or rather if the grace of love be wrought in you by the 
 ^ipirit, show it in this thing." 
 
140 On the Character of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 and to talce the Scriptures for my guide in preference to 
 any human theory. I 
 
 6. Though St. John had no vision of the Holy Spirit 
 as personally seated on the Throne, he had a vision of the 
 enthroned Lamb of God^ as having sevfn horns and seven 
 eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God These seven 
 Spirits of God have been understood by some Athanasian 
 Expositors to be the same as the Holy Spirit. This ap- 
 pears to be correct. But that an individual Person should 
 be called the seven Spirits of God^ must appea^r very unnatu- 
 ral ; but if by the Holy Spirit be intended the Divine ful- 
 ness or sufficiency, this may well enough be called the seven 
 Spirits of God in reference to its perfection and manifold 
 operation. In a text, several times quoted, we read, with 
 respect to the Son, that " God giveth not the Spirit by 
 measure unto him ;" and, in the passage now before us, 
 w^ find Christ represented as having seven horns and 
 seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God. Horr^s 
 are understood to be an emblem of power^ and eyes of 
 -ipisdom. Then the seven horiis and seven eyes denote the 
 perfect fulness of Christ, and his all-sufficiency to open the 
 ()Ook, and to loose the seals, or to direct and govern the af- 
 fairs of the universe. In view of this plenitude of wisdom 
 and power, with which the Son was endued, and his tak- 
 ing the book and opening the seals, all that stood about the 
 Throne " sung a new song, saying. Thou art worthy to 
 take the book, and to open the seals thereof ;ycr thou ivast 
 ^lain^ an \ hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of 
 every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." — Let 
 us, my dear brother, go and do likewise. 
 
 Such a Trinity in unity as appears to be represented in 
 the Scriptures, may be illustrated by the following simile- 
 Suppose a Fountain of living waters, a necessary 
 Medium of effusion, or display, and an abundant Stream 
 proceeding trom the Fountain through the Medium, and 
 spreading far and wide, producing the most beneficial ef- 
 fects- 
 Let this Fountain be supposed to represent the " One 
 God, the Father, of whom are all thingsJ''' In this 
 fountain we may contemplate infinite intelligence, almighty 
 power, and unbounded benevolence — 
 
 Let the Medium represent the " one Lord Jesus 
 Christ, by whom are all things," Let this Mcdiuii) bf 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 141 
 
 considered as an intelligent Being truly derived from God 
 before the worlds, in one view properly distinct from the 
 Father, and in another view perfectly united by the indwell- 
 ing of Divine fulness- 
 Let the Stream, proceeding from the Fountain through 
 the Medium, represent the Holy SpaRit, which proceed^ 
 ethfrom the Father^ through the Son, and operates through 
 the universe. 
 
 Does not this illustration preserve the most perfect 
 unity in God, exalt the Son as Lord of all, and help us to 
 an easy and natural construction of all that is said in the 
 Scriptures of the Holy Spirit ? I 
 
 In this view of the Trinity, may we not properly ascribe 
 the attributes of Deity either to the Father, the Son, or the 
 Holy Spirit, and yet avoid even the appearance of having 
 more Gods than one, or more than one self-existent Person? 
 The Father who is God in the Fountain, is God in the 
 Medium, and God in the Stream ; or to drop the meta- 
 phor, God the Father is God in the Son and God in the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 This view of the subject will readily account for what 
 has been noted by many writers, viz. that the self-same 
 works are, in Scripture, attributed to God, to the Son of 
 God, and to the Holy Ghost. God creates, governs, and 
 judges by his Son ; and the Son creates, governs, and 
 judges by the fulness of God or the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Perhaps, Sir, the above simile may be justified by St. 
 John's vision, [Rev. xxii. i.] " And he shewed me a pure 
 River of Water of life, clear as crystvi\, proceeding out of 
 the Throne of God and of the Lamb," 
 
 Here you will observe, that distinct mention is made of 
 the Throne of God and of the Lamb ; but no mention of 
 the Throne of the Holy Spirit. We have, however, an 
 account of a River of water of life which proceedeth out 
 of the Throne^ first of God, then of the Lamb — -And what 
 is this River, but a stream emanating from the Fountain of 
 living waters, or those abundant effusions of the Divine ful- 
 ness which proceed from God through Christ, and give 
 life and felicity to the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem ? 
 And what are these effusions, different from that Holy 
 Spirit which '■^proceedeth from the Father ?" The River's 
 proceeding from God, and from the Lamb, perfectly accords 
 ^ith our Savior's account of the Comforter. 
 
142 On the Character of the Holy Spirit, 
 
 Here it may not be apiiss to suggest some serious ques- 
 tions for your consideration, with a reaucst that you would 
 weigh them in an even balance. 
 
 1. If the Holy Spirit be a distinct Person, co-equal with 
 the Father, is he ijot in the Scriptures exhibited in a man- 
 ner which appears degrading, and truly unaccountable ; as 
 bearing the same relation to God as an attribute ; or as the 
 hand or finger of God ; as being constantly subject to the 
 control or the will of another Person ; never exhibited as a 
 distinct oh^itcX oi worship ov oi love; never addressed in 
 prayer as a Person, either by the saints, or by Jegus Christ, 
 though the Father was often addressed ? 
 
 2. If you, and those with you n sentiment, do really 
 view the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person equal with the 
 Father, are you not justly chargeable with want of respect, 
 yea with disrespect^ towards the Holy Spirit ? How sel- 
 dom do we hear the Spirit mentioned in prayer, otherwise 
 than as something which is subordinate to the will of God, 
 which may be given, sent, or poured out, for our benefit ? 
 At the c^ose of your prayers, you often mention the Spirit, 
 as though you thought it to be a Person ; but this is fre- 
 quently the only instance in which, through the whole 
 course of a prayer, there is the least intimation that the 
 Spirit is viewed as a Person. But if, in your view, the 
 Scr?]3tures do really authorize the belief that the Holy 
 Spirit is a distinct Person, and of equal dignity with the 
 Father, how will you be able to answer for your inconsis- 
 tency in treating the Father with so much more respect 
 than you do the Holy Ghost I Has not the Holy Spirit 
 reason to accuse you of p'^rtiality f But in vindication of 
 your conduct, you may say, and that with great propriety, 
 that the Holy Spirit is not so much as named as a Person in 
 any prayer recorded in the Bible ; and that we are not re- 
 quired to address prayers to the Spirit as a distinct Person. 
 But, Sir, if you have such ample ground on which you may 
 Justify your apparent neglect of the Spirit, have you not 
 reason to examine the grounds of your faith ? Does not 
 the very ground on which you would justify your conduit, 
 afford reason to doubt the correctness of your theory ? 
 
 3. Do not your habitual^ practical^ and devotional views of 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, harmonize much 
 better with my present theory, than they do with your 
 
On the Character of the Holy Spirit. 14b 
 
 own ? This may seem to you an extraordinary question ; 
 but it is proposed, Sir, with considerable confidence, that, 
 on due reflection, if you answer it at all, it must be in the 
 affirmative. My confidence in this matter results partly 
 from experience, and partly from observation. When you 
 approach the Throi e of grace, and paur out your hi art be- 
 fore God without any studied respect to theory^ do you rtot 
 address God as one Person only f Do you not use the 
 tt rms God, and Father, as perfectly synonymous ? When 
 you thank God for the manifestation oi his love, in sending 
 his dear Son to die for our offences, do you not naturally 
 consider the Son as a Being properly distinct from the Fa- 
 ther, naturally subordinate to the Father, but exalted 
 with the Father's right hand? When you pray to God 
 that he would pour out His Holy Spirit^ is not this 
 your real prayer, that God would make a disp'ay of his 
 power, wisdom, and Irve, for the production of some 
 desirable effect ? Do you not mean to ask for some effi- 
 cient, productive emanation of his fulness ? If, in your 
 habitual and devotional views, the Spirit were a distinct 
 Person, co-tqual with the Father, would it nvt be more 
 mtural for you, in praying for the Spirit, to address your 
 petitions directly to the Holy Ghost, than to pray the Fa- 
 ther to send or pour out his Sptrit P Does it not then ap- 
 pear tha^ your devotional and habitual views are conforma- 
 ble to the theory I have adopted, and in opposition to your 
 own ? How then will you be able to vindicate your con- 
 duct before God, from a charge of inconsistency, in sup- 
 porting a theory which is repugnant to your own habitual 
 and devotional views or, in indulgng habitual and devo- 
 tional views which are repugnant to the theory which you 
 profess to believe ? And permit me to ask, which does 
 God consider the real sentiments of your hearty those which 
 you express in advocating your theory, or those which you 
 habitually and naturally express in your daily prayers to 
 him ? 
 
 It is. Sir, most sensibly fe't, that the theories, prepos- 
 sessiot s, and learning, of the Christian world, are at present 
 not on my side. But no small consolation is derived, by 
 considering the general ftenor and natural import of Bible 
 language very clearly in favor of each part of the theory 
 set forth in the foregoing Letters. It is also consoling to 
 consider the language of Christian devotion in such agree- 
 
144 On the Character of the lloly Spirit* 
 
 ment with my views, that whatever may be objected against 
 them, may, with equal propriety, be objected against the 
 most devout feelings and language o^ my Brethren. And 
 so long as these things shall appear so much on my 
 side, nothing can deprive me of the pleasing expecta- 
 tion that the theory, now exposed to public view, will 
 be found substantially correct, approved of God, and 
 that which the whole family of Christ will ultimately re- 
 ceive, and rejoice in forever. 
 
^^k 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 A]!ir EXAMINATION OF DIFFICULT PASSAGES 
 OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Rules of Interpretation stated and applied. 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 IN the precedirig Letters, my views of many passaged 
 6f Scripture, which have been supposed to favor the Atha- 
 nasian theory, have been occasionally, given. But there 
 are others to which no distinct attention has been paid. It 
 is my wish to have error dete(^ted, if there be any in my 
 views. Suffer me, therefore, to lay before you my adopt- 
 ed Rules of interpretation, and give you a specimen of 
 their application. 
 
 Rule L " The Scriptures were inspired, to instruct 
 Common readers, by using words according to their com- 
 mon acceptation, and not to confound them by an abuse of 
 language." 
 
 The language in which this Rule is expressed, is bor- 
 rowed from Dr. Spring'^ sermon on the self-existence of 
 Christ, and is applied to the many thousands of texts in 
 which personal pronouns of the singular number are used 
 as substitutes for the nouns God, Lord God, &c. and 
 the inference is, that God is one Person only. 
 
 The same Rule is applied to the numerous texts in which 
 Christ is represented as the Son of God, God's own and 
 ONLY Son ; and the inference is, that Christ is not the self- 
 existent God, but the Son of the self-existent God. 
 
 Rule IL The terms used in Revelation must be- un- 
 derstood in a sense corresponding with some analo|fy known 
 to men. 
 
146 An Exatnlnation of difficult Passages of Scripture. 
 (J 
 
 According to this Rule, also, it is inferred, that the Son 
 of God cannot be a self-existent Person. It is likewise con- 
 cluded, that there are no passages of S(?ripture which were 
 designed to teach us that three Persons are but one intelli- 
 gent Being; nor that there may be two intelligent Beings in 
 one Person. As extraordinary as it may seem, both of 
 these contradictory hypotheses pertain to your theory. God 
 you suppose to be three distinct Persons ; and yet but one 
 intelligent Being. You also suppose that Christ is both 
 God and a Man united in one Person. This, it is thought, 
 amounts precisely to the hypothesis of two intelligent Be- 
 ings in one Person. Is it not, Sir, extraordinary, that 
 great and good men should adopt two hypotheses so mani- 
 festly contradictory, while neither of them can be support- 
 ed by Scriptuie, nor illustrated by any anology in nature ? 
 But did not Christ say, /and my Father are one ? 
 Yes, Sir ; but he never said, I and my Father are but one 
 intelligent Being* Nor have we any analogy which can 
 justify such an interpretation of the words. There are 
 many senses in which a Father and a Son may be one, be- 
 sides that of one Being. And in no other case, in which 
 the words are used by a Son, should we have the least sus- 
 picion that this is the intended import. God and Christ 
 may be of one nature as a Father and Son ; they may be 
 one in affection, in interest, and in operation ; they may also 
 be one in respect to fulness and authority, as has been al- 
 ready noted and explained. 
 
 When Christ made this declaration, the Jews accused 
 him of blasphemy, and of "making himself God." But 
 Christ in his answer, distinctly let them know that his 
 words imported no more than that be was truly the Son of 
 God, and as such united with the Father — " Say ye of 
 Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the 
 world. Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son 
 of Gpd V 
 
 Rule III. So far as the Scriptures may interpret them- 
 selves, by comparing Scripture with Scripture, such inter- 
 pretation is to be preferred to any human h}'pothesis. 
 
 This Rule has been found of extensive application. The 
 Divine names and titles given to the Son of God ; the Di- 
 vine works and honors ascribed to him, and his Divine 
 fulness, are all distinctly accounted for in the Scriptures, 
 on the ground of the Father's love and pleasure. There- 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture, 147 
 
 fore these titles, these works, these honors, or this fulness, 
 may not be considered as evidence of the personal self-ex- 
 istence of the Son of God. 
 
 Rile IV. In many instances, it is necessary to take 
 into view the customs of the people to whom the Scriptures 
 were originally communicated, and to consider in what 
 light they would most naturally understand particular pass- 
 ages. 
 
 The prophecies respecting the Messiah were probably 
 originally written for the comfort and benefit of the good 
 people among the Israelites or Jews ; at least, this may be 
 supposec^to be one principal object of the predictions. In 
 the prophecies, the promised Messiah was called by vari- 
 ous names, and some of them were Divine names,or names 
 of Divine import. He was not only called David, and 
 David the. King, but it was predicted that his name should 
 be called Emmanuel, Wonderful, Counsellor, the 
 Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince 
 OF Peace. 
 
 If we would know how a Jew would be likely to under- 
 stand these names or titles, we should consider a custom 
 which was common among the Jews, viz. that of giving 
 significant names to persons, places, altars, &c. At the 
 close of our great Bibles we have a table of the names 
 used in the Old Testament, with their several significations. 
 If you will examine this table, you will find that other Per- 
 sons had Divine names, besides the Messiah. — See a few 
 of these names, with their signification — Eliashib^ the God 
 of conversion — Elijah^ God the Lord, or the strong Lord — 
 Eliphalet^ the God of deliverance — Elisha, the salvation 
 of God — Letnuely God with them, or him. They also 
 gave Divine names, or names of Divine import, to places 
 and altars — jfehovah-jireh^ the Lord will see or provide — 
 Jehovah-Nisri^ the Lord my Banner — El-elohe- Israel^ God, 
 the God of Israel. 
 
 Now, Sir, imagine yourself to have been a Jew, living 
 in the days of the Prophets, and perfectly acquainted with 
 the custom of giving significant names ; then consider what 
 ideas you would naturally have taken from the various 
 names given to the promised Messiah. If you had heard 
 him called Damd^ or David the King^ would you have sup- 
 posed that the Man who killed Goliah was to appear again 
 as the promised Savior? If you had heard the Prophet 
 
 V 
 
148 An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture, 
 
 sav, respecting the promised Son, They shall call his name 
 Emmanuel,, would you have supposed that God himself was 
 to come as the promised Messiah t Would you not rather 
 have supposed the Son to be one in whom God would make 
 some gracious manifestations of himself to men ? If you 
 had heard h'm called the Mighty God,, and Everlasting Fa- 
 ther^ would it not have been natural for you to suppose that 
 the Son was to be one in whom the Mighty God and Ever- 
 lasting Father would make surprizing manifestations of his 
 power and his kindness ? If you had heard him called, 
 *' The Lord our Righteousness,^'^'* what would have been 
 m re natural than for you to have supposed, that the Mes- 
 siah was to be one in whom Jehovah would display his 
 righteousness^ or one through whose righteousness men 
 should be benefited by Jehovah ? 
 
 Accustomed as the Jevi^s were to believe in one God 
 only, and to speak of that God as only one Person ; ac- 
 customed as they were to the use of significant names of 
 high import ; would it not have been unspeakably more 
 natural for them to understand the names of the Messiah 
 as significant, importing some such ideas as I have men- 
 tioned, than to suppose that the SoiJ to be born was the 
 VERY God who had proinised to send him into the world ? 
 
 The Prophet did not say the Son shall be Emmanuel, 
 but " they shall call his name Emmanual." He did not 
 say, the Son shall be the Mighty God and Everlasting 
 Father, but " his name shall be called^'* &c. And this 
 phraseology Avas probably used with direct reference to the 
 custom of the Jews in giving significant names. And the 
 Sun's having the Divine names thus given him by the spirit 
 of prophecy, is no proof that he is personally the self-exist- 
 ent God, any more than his being called David, or David 
 the King, is a proof that he was personally David the son 
 of Jesse. 
 
 It may be useful, in this connexion, to consider what ex- 
 pectations were in fact excited among the Jews, by the Di- 
 vine names given to the promised Messiah. And is there. 
 Sir, any evidence, that any Jew, whether learned or un- 
 learned, good or bad, ever understood the Divine names 
 given to the Messiah, as importing that He should be the 
 6elf-cxistent God ? If no such idea was excited in the 
 minds of pious Jews, by the use of those names, we may 
 reasonably suppose that no such idea was intended in the 
 predictions. 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* 149 
 
 LETTER II, 
 
 A fifth Rule of Interpretation stated and applied^ 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 PERMIT me now to state and apply another Rule of 
 interpretation. 
 
 Rule V. Particular phrases, terms, and epithets, are 
 to be understood in a sense which is consistent with the 
 general tenor of the Qospel, and the character of the ob- 
 jects to which th^y are applied. 
 
 There are two things respecting Jesus Christ,, which are, 
 in my view, supported by the general tenor of the Gospel, 
 viz. 
 
 1. That he is trul)' the Son of God. 
 
 2. That he obeyed, suffered, and died, to open the 
 way for our salvation. 
 
 These two points are not only supported by the general 
 tenor of the Gospel, but they appear to be essential to the 
 Gospel plan of salvation. If we deny these, do we not in 
 effect deny the Gospel t If we deny these, do we not 
 make God a liar P 
 
 If these are points unquestionably revealed, and sup- 
 ported by the general tenor of the Gospel, then all the 
 particular phrases, terms, and epithets, used in respect to 
 the Son of God, are to be understood in a sense which' is 
 consistent with these leading truths of the Gospel. 
 
 There are several texts of Scripture which have been 
 understood as supporting the idea that the Son of God is 
 absolutely self-existent, independent, and immutable. But 
 as this doctrine is, in my view, inconsistent with what have 
 been stated as truths supported by the general tenor of the 
 Gospel, let us examine those texts, and see whether they 
 do necessarily import what you and others have imagined. 
 
 John X. 18. "I have power to lay it down, and I have 
 power to take it again. This commandment have I re- 
 ceived of my Father." 
 
 If, in any instance, the Son of God said any thing which 
 imported that he had independent po-wer^ this is the instance 
 ' — But Christ did not say, " I have independent ^oiver^^^ 
 
150 An Examinaticn cf difficult Passages of Scripture. 
 
 Besides, it is believed, that in this case the word power is 
 the same as authority. And this authority or this com- 
 mandment Christ says he received of his Father. We may- 
 add, the resurrection of Christ from the dead is abundant- 
 ly and explicitly attributed to God in distinction from the 
 Son — " God raised him from the dead." 
 
 Micah V. 2. " Whose goings forth have been from of 
 old^ from ever lasting, '''^ 
 
 Whatever existed before the world, may be said to be 
 of old^ from everlasting. In the viii. chapter of Proverbs, 
 Wisdom, or Christ under the name of Wisdom, is repre- 
 sented as using language similar to that in the text before 
 us — " The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, 
 before his works of old : I was set up from everlastings from 
 the beginnings or ever the earth was." But Wisdom adds, 
 *' When there were no depths, Iwas brought forth'''* — Be- 
 fore the hills, was I brought forth-^^'' Then I was by him 
 as one brought up xvith hiiUs and I was daily his delight" — 
 Brought up with him as a Son with a Father ; and as a Son^ 
 was daily his delight. The Son was from everlasting, as 
 he was brought forth before there were either depths or 
 hills. 
 
 Rev. i. ir. "I am the First and the Last.^'* 
 
 In the xliv. chapter of Isaiah, the Lord of Hosts adopts 
 this title, and says, " I am the First and the Last^ and be- 
 sides me there is no God." 
 
 In view of these^texts, Mr. Jones forms this argument 
 — " There is no God besides him who is the First and the 
 Last ; but Jesus Christ is the First and the Last : there- 
 fore, besides Jesus Christ there is no God." If this be 
 fair reasoning, we may draw another conclusion, viz. 
 *' The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," is 
 not God, — Is it not amazing, that Mr. Jones should reason 
 in such a manner ? In several instances, his conclusions 
 as fully exclude the Father from being God, as it is pos- 
 sible that language should do it. 
 
 In Isaiah, God did not say, Besides us there is no God ; 
 but, " Besides me there is no God." His words therefore 
 as fully exclude every other Person as every other Being. 
 
 When Christ said, " I am the First and the Last," he 
 immediately added, " I am he that liveth, and was dead,'*'^ 
 He is therefore to be considered as the First and the Last 
 in a sense which is consistent with his having been deai>. 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture. 151 
 
 There are several senses in which Christ may style himself 
 *' the First and the Last" — He may be so called as the cou" 
 stituted Head 2ind Chief of creation ; and as in his glory, as 
 well as the glory of the Father, all things will terminate — 
 He may be so called as the Author and Finisher of faith ; 
 or, as a Son, he may bear the Divine titles of his Father. 
 
 Heb. xiii. 8. " Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and 
 to-dav, and forever." 
 
 This text, on which so much reliance has been placed, 
 has no verb in it ; and, therefore, considered by itself, it 
 contains no affirmation. For the beginning of the sentence, 
 and the sense of the text, we have to look back to the pre- 
 ceding verse, " Remember them who have the rule over 
 you, who have spoken unto. you the word of God ; whose 
 faith follow, considering the End of their conversation, 
 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for- 
 ever." 
 
 It is evident, that it is as the End of Christian conver- 
 sation that Christ is here brought into view. And by fe^ 
 sus Christy we may understand not merely his Person, but 
 his interest and glory. This End of our conversation is 
 of imputable and perpetual importance — the same yester- 
 day, to-day, and forever. 
 
 Heb. i. 12. " But thou art the same, and thy years 
 shall not fail." 
 
 This text was quoted from the cii. Psalm, and there 
 was used in an address to God. This circumstance is wor- 
 thy of note, and in my view, is the only difficulty present- 
 ed by the text. Why were words, which were first ad- 
 dressed to God, quoted and applied to the Son ? Perhaps 
 you will not find me able to answer the question ; but if 
 so, it will not hence follow that it is unanswerable. 
 
 In the 5th verse, the Apostle quoted a passage from the 
 Old Testament, and applied it to Christ, which was origin- 
 ally used in respect to Solomon — " I will be to him a Fa- 
 ther, and he shall be to me a Son." These words are to 
 be found three times in the Old Testament, and'each time 
 they are contained in a gracious promise of God to David 
 respecting his son Solomon. Why then did the Apostle 
 quote these words and apply them to Christ, as though 
 they had been originally used in respect to him ? The an- 
 swer must probably be this, that Solomon was a type of 
 Christ. May we not then suppose, that the words, which 
 
1 52 An Exaniination of difficult passages ofScrtptu, c . 
 
 were first addressed to God, were quoted bv the Apostle 
 and applied to Christ as the Son and " image of the invisi- 
 ble God ?" 1 
 
 Let us now attend to the import of the text : " But thou 
 art tjie same, and thy years shall not fail." Here we have 
 exhibited a contrast between the material world oxidi its con- 
 stituted Creator, And what is the contrast ? One waxes 
 old and is liable to perish, and the other will remain the 
 same without end. This, it is conceived, is the most 
 which can be supposed to be necessarily implied in the text. 
 And what is here affirmed of Christ, agrees with what he 
 said of himself, " I am the First and the Last. I am he 
 that liveth and was dead ; and, behold, I live forevermore." 
 
 You suppose the text imports absolute immutability. 
 But, Sir, was it no change in the Son of God to pass from 
 the form of God to the form of a servant ? Was it no 
 change to die, and to be raised again from the dead ? Is 
 he now, at the Father's right hand, in all respects the same 
 that he was when he cried with a loud voice, " My God, 
 my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" 
 
 Permit me, Sir, to ask, whether the Greek word autos^ 
 "whkh in the text is translated same^ is any where in the 
 New Testament used as importing absolute immutabilitv, 
 unless it be in the two texts which I have been last consid- 
 ering ? If the clause had been translated " But thou art 
 He^'' meaning he with peculiar emphasis and distinction, 
 would it not have been a literal and correct translation ? 
 
 But let the translation be as it is, only let the word same be 
 understood in a sense which will not contradict the Gospel 
 of Divine Love. — It is my choice to believe that God has 
 spared not his own Son ; and not to believe that he made a 
 mere show of so loving the world, when he did not in re- 
 ality. It affords me far greater satisfaction to believe that 
 the Son of God was capable of personally doing and suffer- 
 ing according to the representations of Scripture, than I 
 could find in believing that there is a want of strict truth 
 and simplicity in the Gospel representations of Divine 
 Love. 
 
An Examination ofdtff^cult Passages ofScriptute* 153 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 Other Texts considered* 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 SOME texts, on which Mr. William Jones has placed 
 great reliance, may now be introduced. 
 
 John iii. 2, 9. " He that hath the Bride, is the Bride- 
 groom." 
 
 Isaiah liv. 5. " Thy Maker is thy husband, the Lord 
 of Hosts is his name." 
 
 Mr. Jones says, '* The church, which is the Bride, can 
 no more have two Husbands, than Christ csm have two 
 churches." 
 
 Whatever difficulty may be involved in the idea of two 
 Husbands to the church, the difficulty cannot be diminished 
 by supposing a greater number. Yet Mr. Jones' theory 
 plainly supposes three distinct Persons or agents, tach of 
 >vhom is the Husband of the church. 
 
 The truth is, that there is in no other sense two HuS" 
 hands to the church, than there are two Creators, Saviors^ 
 or Lords, As God creates and saves by his Son, so by his 
 Son he shows the kindness of a Husband to the Church. 
 The Son is the constituted Creator, Savior, and Lord; so 
 he is the constituted Head and Bridegroom of the church. 
 Accordingly, " The Kingdom of heaven is like unto a cer- 
 tain King, who m?de a marriage for his Son." 
 
 Rom. ix. 5. " Whose are the Fathers, and of whom, 
 as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God 
 blessed for ever. Amen." 
 
 That Christ is, in this text, called God, will not be de- 
 nied. But if he be, we may reasonably suppose that it is 
 in the same sense that the Father calls him God, in his ad- 
 dress, Heb. i. 8, 9 — that is, on the ground of a constituted 
 character. See Part II. Letter IV. — But it is my prevail- 
 ing opinion, that the latter clause of this text ought to be 
 understood as an expression of gratitude and praise to God, 
 the Father, for giving his Son to come in the fl'^sh, and 
 exalting him as Lord over all ; and that the verb be is -|^« 
 derstood in the original, and should be supplied in the 
 translation, so as to have the clause read, " God be bless- 
 
 U 
 
154 An Examination of diffcidt Passages of Scrlpturt^ 
 
 ed forever. Amen." The verb be^ you know, is often 
 understoodin the Greek, »nd often supplied in the trans- 
 lation ; and it is so several times betvve|;;n the words blessed 
 and God, By comparing the Greek word in this text, with 
 other texts in which it is translated blessed^ it appears to me 
 clearlv to import gratitude and praise ; * and such excla- 
 mations of gratitude and praise to God, are commort in the 
 writings of the apostle Paul. You will be pleased to ex- 
 amine and judge for yourself. As it respects the point in 
 question, it is to me a matter of perfect indifFerenCy in 
 which of the two senses the text is understood. 
 
 2 Cor. V. 19. " God was in Christ, reconciling the 
 tvorld to himself." 
 
 Mr. Jones savs, '' Were there no other passage of Scrip- 
 ture to be found, this alone is suffic"ent to overthrow the 
 whole doctrine of Aria^l^srn^''-^')^ov^^v^ r true this observa- 
 tion may be as it respects Arianism^ the text will be found 
 perfectly harmonious with my views. God is evidently 
 spoken of as one Person only ; and Christ as another Person 
 distinct from God. " God was in Christy reconciling the 
 world to HiMSFLF." Himself is a proper pronoun for oner 
 Person^ and God is the antecedent. This one Person call- 
 ed God, was in another Person called Christ. If Christ 
 Were himself God, and, as Mr. Jones affirms, the only 
 true God^ let me be informed zvhat God was in Christ, 
 
 In remarking on this very text, Mr. Jones says, " thcr 
 word God, though of the singular number, is of plural com- 
 prehension ;" and he explains himself to mean that it com- 
 prizes three Persons. The import of the text would then 
 be, that three Persons called God, vcre in Christ, recon- 
 ciling the world to himself It may be asked, ought not 
 the pronoun to be themselves ? Besides, if by God be 
 meant three Persons^ Christ is 2i fourth Person^ and not one 
 of the three \nz\\x&td in the name God. The same would 
 be true of the phrase, the Son of God. 
 
 1 John V. 20. '' And we are in him that is true, even in 
 bis Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal 
 life." 
 
 » „0, 
 
 * Was not our word eulogize, from the Greek word, i" this 
 text, which is translated blessed ? And if it were cornmon ta 
 speak of eulogizing God, might not the sense of the text be thus- 
 expressed, Whose are the Fathers, and of whom, as concerning 
 the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God he eulogized fov; 
 tver. Amen ? 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture, 155 
 
 With great confidence, this text has been urged as an 
 infallible proof that Jesus Christ is personally the true and 
 self-existent God. But let us, Sir, examine impartially, and 
 take the connexion into view — '* And we know that we are 
 of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. And 
 we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us 
 an understanding that we may know him that is true ; 
 and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus 
 Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." 
 
 Sometimes the sense of a passage is rendered obscure by 
 the repartition of /jro?7^W72.9,* and it is ever safe to substitute 
 the nouns for the pronouns. Let us do so in regard to this 
 20th verse. The apostle had mentioned God, in the pre- 
 ced ng verse. He goes on to say, **■ And we know that 
 •the Son of God is come,and hath given us an understand- 
 ing, that we may know God that is true ; and we are in" 
 God that is true^ even in God's Son Jesus Christ. This 
 is the TRUE God, and eternal life." 
 
 Now, it may be asked, which of the two is called the 
 *' TRur God" in the last sentence, he that is represented as 
 the TRUE God repeatedly in the preceding part of the 
 verse, or the Soi^ of the true God who had come to give 
 us an understandmg that we might know God that/* true^ 
 Unless we are to believe that John meint to teach us that 
 there are more true Gods than one, we must suppose the 
 TRUE God in the last sentence is the sojne Person as the 
 TRUE God in the preceding sentence, of whom Christ 
 was th.; Son. 
 
 Christ, in his praver to the Father, whom he styled the^ 
 ONLY TRUE GoD, said, " I have manifested thy name to 
 the men thou gavest me out of the world." This perfect- 
 ly agrees with John's account, that "the Son of God is come, 
 and hath given us an understandings that we may know Him. 
 that is truey As Christ was in the flesh ; as the only true 
 ' God was in Christ; and as the business of the Son was to 
 give us an understanding of him that is true^ or to manifest 
 the TRUE God ; so God was manifested in the flesh. 
 [iTim. iii. 16.] 
 
 Isa. viii. 13, 14. " Sanctify the Lord of Hosts him- 
 self; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. 
 And He shall be for a Sanctuary ; but for a stone of stum-^ 
 bling and for a ruck of offence to both the houses of IsraeL'* 
 
156 An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* 
 
 1 Peter ii. 7. 8. " The Stone which the builders dis» 
 allowed, the same is made the head <)f the corner, and a 
 stone of stumblings and a rock of off^ence*'^ 
 
 From these two texts, compared, Mr. Jones draws this 
 Conclusion, " Christ is the Lord of Hosts himself." 
 
 That by the Lord of Hosts is here meant the self-existent 
 God, is adm'tted. It is a'so admitted, that, in the text 
 quoted from Peter, Christ is called the stone of stumbling 
 and rock of offence. Isaiah says of the Lord of Hosts, that 
 *' he shall be for a stone of stumbling ^^^ &c. But how shall 
 he be thus ? By some act of his providence^ or some man^ 
 ifestation of hiynself. The event proved that the act ox 
 manifestation predicted was that of sending his Son in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh* As God thus manifested himself in 
 the Person of his Son^ He became a stone of stumblings that 
 is, he did that at which his people stumbled. And at the 
 same time, his Son was a stumbling block or stone of stum- 
 bling. Accordingly, by the same prophet God said, " Be- 
 hold I LAY in Zion a Stone, a tried Stone, a precious 
 CORNER Stone." [Isa. xxviii. 16.] This text is also quoted 
 an the New Testament, and applied to Christ. T\ns pre- 
 cious corner stone was a stone of stumbling and rock of of- 
 fence : This Stone was laid in Zion by the Lord of 
 Hosts Himself ; and by this act of his providence, he 
 became a stone of stumbling to the unbelieving of " both 
 the houses of Israel." 
 
 Psalm Ixxviii. 56. " They tempted and provoked the 
 Most High God." 
 
 1 Cor. X. 9. " Neither let us tempt Christ^ as some of 
 them also tempted,'''* 
 
 '*• Therefore," says Mr. Jones, " Christ is the Most 
 High God." 
 
 Christ said to his disciples, " He that despiseth me, de- 
 spiseth HIM that sent me." On the same ground we may 
 say, he that tempted Christ, or the Angel ofGod'^s Pre- 
 sences tempted God. But if we must hence infer, that 
 God and Christ are the same Person or Beings what will be 
 the inference from these words of Christ, " He that despiseth 
 YOU, despiseth me ?" Must we not infer, that Christ and 
 his Apostles are the same Person or Being ? 
 
 In Rom. X. 19...21. We read, " First, Moses saith, I 
 will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people. 
 But Esaias is very bold and saith, I was faund of them that 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture, iSf 
 
 sought me not. But to Israel he saith. All day long have 
 I stretched forth my hands to a disobedi<"nt and gainsaying 
 people." But if we look into the Old Testament, we find 
 that all these things were said by Jehovah, the God oi? 
 Israel. Moreover, we read, *' As for Saul, he made 
 havock of the church, entering into every house, and haK 
 ing men and women, committed them to prison." But 
 Christ considered this as persecuting himself; and said to 
 him, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me T' Now, Sir, 
 if it were safe to follow Mr. Jones in his method of draw- 
 ing conclusions, it might be inferred that 3foses and Isaiak 
 were the God of Israel, yea, '•'the Lord of Hosts 
 HIMSELF,'' and that the men and women, persecuted by- 
 Saul, were Christ HiMsrxF. 
 
 If a King has an own Son, whom he delights to honor, 
 and who is united with him in government, whatever the 
 King does by his S^>n^ may be properly attributed to either 
 the Father, or the Sou : And the disrespect shown to the 
 Son may be considered as disrespect to both the Father and 
 the Son. Had these ideas been duly considered and ap- 
 plied by Mr, Jones, a great part of his inferences and con* 
 c'usions would probably have never appeared in print. But 
 by disregarding such analogies, he compelled the Bible to 
 speak his mind. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Son of God not the same Person as the God of Israel. ^ 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 MUCH time and labor have been expended, and much 
 ingenuity displayed, in attempts to prove that Jesus Christ 
 is the very Person who is called the God of Abraham, and 
 the God of Israel, in the Old Testament. That he was 
 the Angel oi G(»d, and the 3Iediwn of Divine manifestations y 
 has been already admitted ; but that the Angel of God and 
 ihit God of Israel vi\c?ir\ the same Person, is not admitted. 
 For the phrase the Angel of God 2is clearly presents to the 
 mind two distinct Beings^ one of which is sent by the other^ 
 as the phrase the Messenger of Divid. Besides, the God 
 of Israel said respecting this Angel, " B,eware of him, pro- 
 
158 A?t Examinatton ofSfficult Passages of Scripture* 
 
 ♦• 
 
 voice bim not, for he w^ll not pardon vour transgressions ; 
 for MY name is in him." In these worcts, the God of Is- 
 rael is, in the most decided manner, distinguished from 
 '\»fttt/^ih^ Angel of his Presence^ as an - y t uhei > Being or Agent. 
 
 1 hat the Son of God is not the same Person as the God 
 of Abraham, or the God of Israel, may appear from the 
 following considerations : 
 
 1. It was the God of Israel who gave the promise of the 
 Messiah. He never promised that he would be the Mes- 
 siah ; but the Messiah was to be a Son whom the God of 
 Israel was to raiae up, 
 
 2. The title given to Christ as the Son of God, will 
 naturally lead us to the same conclusion. It was the God 
 of Israel who proclaimed from heaven respecting the Mes- 
 siah, " This is mij beloved Son^ As Christ was made 
 JfBown to the Jews as the Son of God, would they not 
 jjaturaliy be led to conclude, that if he were the Son of any 
 God^ he was th€ Son of the God of Israel? And if you. 
 Sir, suppose that he is the very Person who was called the 
 God of Israel^ please to inform me o^rvhat God he was the 
 Sof7, Will it not follow inevitably from your hypothesis, 
 either that Christ was not the ^^^^ v of God^ or that the God 
 of Israel was the Son ©f some othir God P 
 
 3. We have the most decided testimony, both of Christ 
 and his Apostles, that the Person who is called the God of 
 Abraham and the God of Israel^ was the Father of Christ. 
 In John viii. 54. we have the testimony of Christ himself — 
 " Jesus answered. If I honor myself, my honor is nothing ; 
 it is my Fathf^R that honoreth nie^ of whom ye say th^t 
 He is YOUR G<^D." What God, Sir, did the Jews say was 
 their God ^ Was it not the God of Israel P If so, then 
 the God of Israel was the Father of Christ. And is not this 
 testimony of Christ sufficient to overbalance all the argu- 
 ments on your side of the question? And unless you can 
 persuade yourself, that Christ might be both the Father and 
 the Son of himself, must you not either relinquish your 
 hypothesis, or call in question his veracity P 
 
 Moreover, from this portion of Christ's testimony, we 
 may learn, that when he spake of God, he meant his Fa- 
 ther ; and when he spake of his Father, he meant the 
 God of Israel. Therefore, whenever he spake ot God, 
 or his Father, his language implied that he himself was 
 Qot the Person who had been called the God of Israel. 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages cf Scripture* i5^ 
 
 Let us now listen to the language of Peter, Acts iii. 13» 
 " The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the 
 God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus,^"* This 
 testimony is too plain to need any comment. 
 
 Paul, in his address to the dispersed Israelites, whom 
 he found at Antioch in Pisidia, said, " The God of this 
 people of Isr: el chose our fathers, and exalted the people 
 where they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt." He 
 then rehearsed a number of events between that period and 
 the days of David ; and having mentioned David as a man 
 *' after God's own heart," he added, "Of this man's seed 
 hath God, according to his promise^ raised unto Israel a 
 Savior, Jesus." [Acts xiii. 23.] 
 
 In the first verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we read 
 that " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners^ 
 spake in time past unto the fathers, bi/ the prophets^ hatti 
 in these last days spoken to us by his Son." Was it not 
 the God of Israel who spake by the prophets ? If so, Christ 
 was the Son of the God of Israel. 
 
 In support of the idea now before us, a very considera- 
 ble part of the New Testament might be quoted ; for at 
 the very foundation of the Gospel, this idea is laid. That 
 Jesus Christ is the5oN of the God of Israel ; and this idea 
 runs through the writings of the Evangelists, and the ser- 
 mons and Epistles of the Apostles. The matter is so clear- 
 ly and so abundantly expressed, that it is amazing that any 
 one, either myself or others, acquamted \yith the Scrip- 
 tures, should ever entertain the idea that Jesus Christ 
 was the very Person who had been called the God of Israel, 
 
 In regard to the texts which have been relied on to prove 
 that Christ is the very Person who was called the 
 God of Israel, it may be observed, that the most of them 
 would be easily explained, and the argument set aside, by 
 only making a proper distinction between the Angel of 
 God as the Medium of Divine manifestation^ and the God 
 who was manifested through that INIedium ; or, by only 
 observing that whatever God does, by Christ, may be 
 properly attributed either to God or his Son. Many of 
 the principal texts of this class have been already examin- 
 ed ; and it is hoped enough has been said to convince you^ 
 that the hypothesis that Christ is the Person who is called 
 the God of Israel, is without any solid foundation in 
 the Bible. Bu^ the circumstance, that this hypothesis has 
 
160 An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* 
 
 been so long and so generally admitted by pious Christians, 
 may be considered as evidence that it has had advocates 
 who were esteemed eminent for pietij and ability^ For it 
 is difficult to conceive, how any thing short of distinguish'- 
 ed eminence of character^ in its advocates^ could ever have 
 given currency and popularity to an opinion so manift stly 
 repugnant to the ^^j&rd?*5 declarations of Christ and his 
 Apostles, and to the general tenor of the Gospel. 
 
 If you, Sir, should be disposed to say, that you never 
 implicitly denied that Christ is the Son of God, let me ask. 
 Is not 2(n attempt to pry^e th'dt Christ is the very Person 
 who is called the God of Israt-l, an implicit denial that he 
 is the Son of God ? Would nut a serious attempt to prove 
 that Isaac was the very person who was called Abraham, 
 imply a denial that Isaac was the Son of Abraham I 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 The Import of 1 John V. 7. 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 IT is now proposed to consider that much disputed 
 text, \ John v. 7 — " There are three that bear record iri 
 heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and 
 these three are one." 
 
 You are not insensible that the genuineness of this text 
 has been denied by some, and doubtt-d by many. How- 
 ever, nothing is perceived in it which gives me occasion, or 
 inclination, to avail myself of these circumstances to get 
 rid of the text. Nothing in it appears at all inconsistent 
 with other parts of the Scripture. 
 
 But you will be pleased. Sir, to note, that the Apostle 
 does not say. There are three Persons who bear record— 
 And we ought to be cautious in affirming more than he 
 affirms. In the very next verse it is added, " And there 
 are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit^ the W.ter, 
 and the Blood; and these three agree in one." 
 
 Bearing witness and bearing record are the same thing. 
 The last three bear witness as well as the first three ; but 
 no one supposes that Persons are intended by the Water 
 and the Blood, 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* 161 
 
 The Holy Ghost in the first three^ and the Spirit in the 
 second three^ may be the same, only referring to different 
 testimonies or evidences of the truth* In the frst three^ 
 the Spirit is connected with two Persons ; in the last three^ 
 it is connected with two objects which are not Persons, Its 
 connexion, therefore, leaves the matter oi personality whol- 
 ly undetermined ; for the evidence resulting from con- 
 nexion is perfectly equal yor and against the supposition. 
 
 If you shall ask. How can the Holy Ghost be said to 
 bear witness^ unless it be a Person ? It may be asked. 
 How can the Water and the Blood bear witness, unless they 
 are Persons f And both questions may be answered in 
 this manner — They bear witness in the same sense that the 
 works of Christ bore witness that he was the Son of God, 
 a.?d sent of the Father. " The same works that I do, bear 
 •witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." We know 
 that actions and facts speak as loud as words, and are as 
 proper evidei>ce for the support of truth. 
 
 It will further be observed, that, respecting the Father, 
 the Word, and the Holy Ghost, it is said these three are 
 one. But it is not said that these three are one Being or 
 one God. Nor is any such idea naturally implied or sug- 
 gested. How then are they one P They are one, as any 
 three witnesses, whether persons or things, are one^ which 
 unite in bearing testimony to the same truth. 
 
 The observations already made may be sufficient to show 
 that this text contains nothing in favor of the supposition of 
 three self-existent Persons in one God^ and nothing against 
 the theory which I have adopted. It may, however, be 
 useful to make some further remarks. 
 
 If the two verses, which have been under consideration, 
 were written by John, the truth of which is very willingly 
 admitted, the object of the Apostle in them was, to show 
 what abundant evidence had been given for the confirma- 
 tion of these truths, viz. That Jesus Christ is truly the 
 Son of God : that " God has given to us eternal life, and 
 that this life is in his Son." This will clearly appear to any 
 judicious person, who will be at the pains of examining 
 the connexion, beginning with the 4th verse and ending 
 with the 11th. After having mentioned the thrt^e that bear 
 record in heaven, and the three that bear witress in earth, 
 the Apostle says in the 11th verse," And this is ther^cord^^ 
 that is, the thing testified by these witnesses, " This is the 
 W 
 
162 An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* 
 
 record, that God hath given to us eternal life ; and this 
 life is in his Son." 1 
 
 The things which have been done in confirmation of 
 these truths, are the things intended by bearing witness or 
 record. 
 
 Among all the events which have excited the attention 
 or astonished the minds of angels and men, there are none 
 more extraordinary in their nature, or more interesting in 
 their consequences, than the incrirnation^ x\\t public minis- 
 try^ the death and resurrection^ of the Son of God. It 
 appears highly important, that events of so extraordinary 
 a nature should be the subjects of prior promises and pre- 
 dictions, that they should be accompanied by signs and 
 wonders, and that some public memorials should be insti- 
 tuted to perpetuate the memory of those events to the end 
 of time. 
 
 Accordingly we find that those events were not only the 
 subject of promises, but of numerous and circumstantial 
 predictions, by which a general expectation of the coming 
 of the Messiah was excited. His birth was announced not 
 only by the appearance of a supernatural Star, but by An- 
 gelic Envoys from the Court of Heaven. According to 
 prophecy, John the Baptist came " to prepare the way of 
 the Lord," by preaching and administering the baptism of 
 repentance for the remission of sins. He understood his 
 business as the Herald of the Lord. A token was given 
 him beforehand, by which he was to know the Son of God 
 when he should come to be baptized, or inaugurated 2iS 
 the Teacher sent from Heaven. At length the Savior 
 came to John to be baptized. And after his baptism, in an- 
 swer to his prayer, the Heaven was opened, and " the 
 Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon 
 him, and a voice came from Heaven which said, Thou ^rt 
 MY Br LOVED SoN^ in thee lam well pleased.''^ [Luke iii. 22.] 
 
 Our Savior, being thus inaugurated, endued, and an- 
 nounced to the world as the Son of God, proceeded to the 
 work of his public ministry. In the course of his ministry, 
 he abundantly testified with his own lips, that he was the 
 Son of God, that he was sent into the world by the Father 
 to save sinners. In support of such declarations, he wrought 
 innumerable miracles by the HoLT Spirit which he had 
 received o£ tht Father. 
 
An Examination ofdtficult Passages &f Scripture. 163 
 
 As a farther confirmation of these truths, while he was 
 on a mountain with Peter, James, and John, he was trans- 
 figured before them, and his face did shine as the sun, and 
 his raiment was white as the light. And behold, there ap- 
 peared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. And 
 a bright cloud overshadowed them ; and beho'd, a voice 
 out of the cloud, whsch said, " This is my beloved Son, 
 in whom I am well pleased ; hear ye him." 
 
 Moreover, at the time of his crucifixion, farther evidence 
 was given^ by supernatural tokens, that he was the Son of 
 God — " Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over 
 all the land unto the ninth hour." While the inhuman 
 rabble were insulting him, and calling on him for some 
 miracle to prove that he was the Son of God, Jesus cried 
 with a loud voice, " My God, my God, why hast thou 
 forsaken me ?" And as he expired, behold the vail of the 
 temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and 
 the earth did quake, and the rocks rent, and the graves of 
 the dead were opened. Such events produced conviction 
 in the minds of the Centurion and others with him — they 
 feared greatly, saying, " Truly this was the Son of God." 
 
 As Christ had not only foretold his death, but also his 
 resurrection from the dead, this event was necessary to 
 confirm the truth that he was the Son of God. Accord- 
 inglv he was " declared to be the Son of God with power, 
 according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from 
 the dead." And after he, through the Holy Ghost, had 
 given commandment to the Apostles, while they beheld, 
 he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their 
 sight. 
 
 Thus, Sir, it is conceived, the Father, the Word, and 
 the Holy Spirit, have testified to confirm the truth, that Je- 
 sus is the Son of God, that God has given to us eternal life, 
 and that this life is in his Son. And these three are one, as 
 the several modes of testifying all unite to prove the self- 
 same truths. 
 
 In the passage under consideration, there is a difficulty 
 resulting from the distinction of heaven and earth, which 
 it may now be proper to note. The testimony in both 
 cases seems to have been given to men on earth : and yet 
 the first triad is represented as bearing record in heaven 
 and the other 2« ^f7r^A. This difficulty you will perceive 
 is not peculiar to my views of the Trinity j it is equally a 
 
164 An Examination of drffcuk Passages of Scripture^ 
 
 difficulty on vour theory. You will not understand me as 
 expressing mv views with great confidence in this case, bi?t 
 only as stating what appears to me most jjrobable. 
 
 In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Mosaic state of the 
 church appears to be called heaven^ ch. xii. verse 26. The 
 Apostle was aiming to prove to the Hebrews the abolition 
 of the Mosaic rituals, by the coming and death of the Son 
 of God. For this purpose he quoted a prophecy, *'' Yet 
 once more I shake not the earth only^ but also heaven^"* 
 Upon which he observes, *' And this word yet once more 
 signifieib the removing of those things that are shaken^"* &c. 
 
 The word heaven is here evidently used in reference to 
 that external state or order of the church which was estab- 
 lished by the ministry of Moses. That state was to be 
 shaken and removed by the coming and death of the Son of 
 God. And if we may suppose that John used the word 
 heaven in the same sense, will it not solve the difficulty, 
 and afford us a proper dividing line, as to time, between 
 the testifying of the frst three and the second three ? What 
 has already been brought into view of the testifying of the 
 Father^ the Word., and the Holy Spirit^ was during the 
 Mosaic state of the church, and ended with the abolition 
 of the Mosaic rites. These were the things which weire 
 concomitant vvith Christ's residence on earth, and necessa- 
 ry, at that period, to prove that he was the Son of God, 
 and had been sent into the world by God for the redemp- 
 tion of sinners. But when Christ had finished the work 
 which he was sent to do in this world, he ascended to glo- 
 ry, and sat down on the right hand of God. The door was 
 then open for the spread of the Gospel throughout all the 
 earthy and from that period the second triad of witnesses: 
 may be supposed to bear witness. 
 
 The Father no more announces with an audible voice 
 from heaven, *' This is my beloved Son." The Son no 
 more goes about personally announcing his own character. 
 But the Spirit of God still continues to testify., and was one 
 of the second triad., as well as of the^r,9^. As this had been 
 given without measure to Christ, as a testimony that he 
 was the Son of God ; so it was given to the Apostles by 
 measure^ to prove the same thing ; and to prove, also, that 
 they were as really sent by Clirist as He had been sent by 
 the Father, And thus having the Spirit of God to perform 
 miracles, the Apostles were enabled to produce conviction 
 
Jin Examination ofdificult Passages of Scripture, 16S' 
 
 of the truth and reality of the things which thev testified 
 coJicerning Josus. And thus they were prepared to extend 
 the Gospel, and the church of God, among the heathen 
 Rations. And not only was the Holy Spirit granted for 
 the purpose of miracles, but to convince the world of sin, 
 of righteousness, and of judgment ; and to extend the con- 
 quests of the Redeemer over the hearts of men, and to en- 
 large his Kingdom in the world. Miracles have, indeed, 
 ceased to be common in the church ; but the Holy Spirit 
 has, in other respects, been granted to the church from 
 age to age ; and l)y it, the church is continued and kept 
 alive ; and will be so to the end of the world. And what 
 is done by the Sfjint from age to age, is of the nauire of a 
 testimony that '*- Jesus is the Son of God," " that God has 
 given to us eternal iife, and that this Ufe is in his Son." 
 
 But what ai-e intended by the other two witnesses, the 
 TVater and the Blood ? 
 
 In the verse immediately preceding those vmder consid- 
 eration, John said of the Son of God, " This is he that 
 came by Water and Blood /" not by Water only^ but by 
 Water and Blood. By the Blood, in this instance, is 
 undoubtedly intended his .siifftrings and death. And by 
 Water, may be intended the baptism of John, by which 
 the way of the Lord was prepared, and by which Christ 
 was solemnly inaugurated as the Great High Priest, and 
 the Envoy of Heaven to a sinful world. 
 
 On this important occas'on we have noted, that two ex- 
 traordinary events took place to confirm the truth that he 
 was the Son of God — The voice from heaven^ and the de- 
 scent of the Spirit of God. 
 
 By the Water and the Blood which bear xvitness^ we 
 may then naturally understand the two sacraments of the 
 New Testament, Baptism and the Lord's Supper ; the 
 one as a memorial that the Son of God came by Water^ 
 ad the other as a memorial that he came by Blood ; or, in 
 other words, the one as a memorial of the solemn and pub- 
 lic inauguration^ enduement^ and annunciation of the Mf^s^ 
 siiH ; and the other as a memorial of H/5 death^ with the 
 concomitant events, by which it was evinced that he was 
 the Son of God and the Savior of the world. 
 
 Monnments or institutions^ as tnemorials of extraordinary 
 events, are properly of the nature oi witnesses^ and are so 
 considered in the Scripture ; and they may be as propcriy 
 
166 An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture, 
 
 adduced to prove the existence of the events of which they 
 are jnemorials^ as the official records of a town clerk or of 
 a secretary of state. 1 
 
 It is a common custom imong nations to erect monu- 
 wents^ or to establish institutions^ to perpetuate the memo- 
 r)^ of interesting events ; and this custom probably origin- 
 ated from Divine Example. 
 
 The Sabbath was first instituted as a memori^ of God's 
 resting on the seventh day from the wor4c of creation. In 
 the days of Moses, it was re-instituted not onlv as a memo- 
 rial of God's rest, but of the deliverance of the people of 
 Israel from their servitude in Egypt. 
 
 From the days of the Apostles to the present time, the 
 first d?y of the week has been kept as a memorial oi the reS' 
 nrrection of the Son of God, 
 
 The Passover was instituted as a memorial of one of the 
 most extraordinary events by which God delivered Israel 
 from the oppression of Pharaoh. The paschal Lamb was 
 a type of the Lamb of God which was to come and be slain 
 for the sins of the world. The Israelites, therefore, while 
 duly attending on the Passover, naturally looked backward 
 to their redemption from Egyptian slavery, and forward 
 to the great Propitiation for the sins of the world. But 
 when the Savior had actually appeared, and had, by the 
 sacrifice of himself made atonement for our sins, the Pass- 
 over was of course set aside, to give place to a memorial of 
 the antett/pe. Accordingly, the Lord\ Supper was insti- 
 tuted as a memorial of the sufferings and death of the Mes- 
 siah, or of the Blood that was shed for the remission of 
 sins. This Sacrament is now a -wituifss to the church, and 
 to the world, that God has given to us eternal life, and 
 that this life is in his Son, who died for our offences, and 
 was raised again for our justification. 
 
 As the Passover was an institution which connected the 
 redemption from Egypt with the death of the Messiah ; so 
 the Lord's Supper connects that period when Christ made 
 his soul an offering for sin, with that event when he shall 
 " come a second time without sin unto salvation"—" As oft 
 as ye do this, ye do show forth the Lord^s death till he come, ^"^ 
 
 God made a covenant with Abraham, in which he prom- 
 ised that in him and in his seed all the families of the earth 
 should be blessed. This seed was Christ. The event 
 of that covenant transaction was an extraordinary cvent^ 
 and one which required a memorial* As a token or me?no- 
 
JLn Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture. 167 
 
 rial of this event, God instituted circumcision. This instil 
 tutioD was not only calculated for a memorial of the past 
 event, but it was peculiarly adapted to tne purpose of keep- 
 ing alive, in the minds of Abraham's posterity, that the 
 Messiah was to be of the seed of Abraham according to the 
 flesh. At length the prot?*ised Messiah was born into the 
 world, and in due time he was publicly and solemnly in* 
 augurated ; and God himself attended thv ordination ; en- 
 dued him with his own Spirit, and by an audible voire from 
 his excellttnt glory proclaimed, *^ This is my belovc-d Son^ 
 in whom I am well pi teased." No event, prior to this, had 
 been more worthy of a perpetual memoria'. Circumcision, 
 as it had respect to the coming of the Messiah according to 
 the fleshy became improper to be continued in the churr.h 
 after it had been, in this solemn manner, announced to the 
 world, that the promised seed had come, and had en- 
 tered on his arduous w^rk ; at least, after he had come and 
 fnished\{\^ ^ork on earth, it appears altogether suitable 
 that an institution, which had a particular reference to his 
 coming in the fleshy should be set aside, and give place to 
 a memorial oi his having come by IVater^ or his having been 
 PUBLICLY INAUGURATED and ENDUED as the Messiah, 
 and publicly acknowledged by God as his Son, in whom 
 he was well pleased. Therefore, before the ascension of 
 our Lord, he instituted the ordinance of Baptism^ to be 
 regarded as a public memorial in the church, and a stand- 
 ing witness to the world, that God hath given to us eter- 
 nal life, and that this life is in his Son. Thus We have to 
 this day three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, the 
 Water, and the Blood. 
 
 These remarks. Sir, are not intended to imply any thing 
 against the hypothesis that circumcision in the flesh denot- 
 ed the necessity of the circumcision of the heart, nor that 
 baptism is an emblem of the washing of regeneration by the 
 Spirit of God. The theory now advanced, respecting bap- 
 tism, will rather support that hypothesis than militate 
 against it. For on that solemn occasion, of which it is 
 supposed baptism is the memorial^ the Son of God was 
 endued with the Spirit, that he might baptize rvith the Ho- 
 ly Ghost, and that he might give repentance and remission 
 of sins unto Israel. 
 
 A part of what is contained in this Letter is design»-^d to 
 prepare the way for the solution of a difficulty, which has 
 
168 An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* 
 
 been supposed to arise from the language used in the Apos- 
 tles' commission ; to which some attention mav be paid in 
 the next Letter. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 It may be worthy of special noti-e, that the Sabbath, cir- 
 cumcision, the Passover, the Lord's day, and the Lord's 
 Sapper, have all been regarded as instituted mt- morials of 
 interesting events. Is it not then reasonable to suppose 
 that baptism is a memorial of some extraordinary event I 
 And what event is so likely to be the one^ as that in which 
 the long expected Messiah was inaugurated and announced 
 to the world t If this h} pothesis be correct, I do not see 
 how we could well spare the controverted texts. 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Th^ Apostles'* Cornmissio?! considered. 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 AS was proposed in mv last Letter, the language of the 
 Aposdes' commission, Matt, xxviii. 18, 19. shall now be 
 considered. 
 
 " And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying. All 
 power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, 
 therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 This text. Sir, has occasioned me more inquiry than 
 aiy other text in the Bible. And it becomes me not to be 
 confident that all m\ inquiry has issued m obtaining the 
 ideas which Christ meant to express. But if there be no 
 ftiiUire in the attempt to prove that by the Holy Ghost is 
 not intended a distinct Ptrson, it concerns you and others, 
 as much as it does me, to endeavor to obtain some mean- 
 ing to the text now before us, consistent v. ith that idea of 
 the Spirit. — Believing that point is established by the gen» 
 eral tenor of Scripture language, the result of my inquiries 
 respecting this text will now be submitted, hoping that if it 
 be erroneous, you may be able to detect my error. 
 
An Examination of dificult Passages of Scripture* 169 
 
 That the text, as it stands in our translation, does very 
 naturally suggest the idea of baptizing by the authority of 
 three Persons^ is admitted ; and of course it suggests the 
 idea that the Holy Spirit is a Person. But when this view 
 of the text is urged, with great confidence, as the only pos^ 
 sible meanings there r& perhaps one thing overlooked^ which 
 ought to be considered ; and some things taken for granted^ 
 which require proof ih^t is not easily obtained. 
 
 In the verse already quoted, immediately preceding the 
 one so much relied on, Christ had said, " All power is 
 given unto me in heaven and earth." And what is here 
 asserted appears to be overlooked. It was. Sir, on this very 
 ground, that he added, " Go ye, therefore^ into all the 
 world," &c. Now, if Christ had a// «z/?//d?r?Yy in heaven 
 and earth, his authority must have been sufficient for bap- 
 tizing in his own name, without connecting any other.— 
 Nor does it appear very natural to suppose that Christ 
 would say to this effect, I have all authority ; go ye, there" 
 fore^ and baptize by the joint authority of myself and txvo 
 other Persons. And has it not been also too much over- 
 looked, that we have no example for baptizing in an) other 
 name than that of the Lord Jesus ? If it be a matter of so 
 much moment as has been supposed, that baptism should 
 be adm nistered in the name of three Persons^ is it not 
 somewhat extraordinary that we are not able co find so 
 much as orie example of the Apostles to support the prac- 
 tice t 
 
 But perhaps some things are taken for granted as well 
 as overlooked. The things which seem to have been taken 
 for granted, that require proof, are these — 
 
 1. That the preposition^ which is translated z/z, does 
 not mean into^ to^ or for — 
 
 2. That the word name^ unquestionably means au- 
 thority — 
 
 3. That the design of Christ, in the passage, was to 
 show the authority by xvhich baptism is to be administered^ 
 and not the end for -which it is to be administered. 
 
 Respecting the Greek preposition eis^ you are doubtless 
 sensible that this is much more frequently translated inio^ 
 tOj or for^ than it is in. And had either of those words 
 been used in the text instead of in^ this would have entire- 
 ly precluded the idea of baptizing by the authority of three 
 Persons. 
 
170 An Examination ofdipcuh Passages of Scripfure^, 
 
 And the word name is abundantly used in the Scriptures, 
 as of the same import as the word character r it is also used 
 for renozvn^ g^ory^ or praise ; and it is^ sometimes used as 
 of similar import with the word memorial. In one or other 
 of these senses, the word is used much more frequently 
 than as importing authority. 
 
 It is, Sir, my present opinion of the words in dispute, 
 that it was the design of Christ to express the object or 
 END /or xvhich^ and not the authority by rvhich^ baptism 
 is to be administered ; and that the preposition would be 
 more properly translated so as to read " to the name," or 
 "ybr the name," than " in the name." 
 
 Some reasons or analogies, to justify this explanation or 
 construction of the text^ may now be stated. 
 
 1. This construction agrees with the character of the 
 Holy Spirit, as already illustrated from the general and 
 natural import of Scripture language* 
 
 2. This construction corresponds with the idea that bap- 
 tism is a standing witness and memorial in the church, that 
 the Son of God came by xvater^ and was publicly inaugu- 
 rated, endued, and announced, as the promised Messiah, 
 the Son of God. 
 
 3. it agrees with the frequent use of the word name^ 
 as signifying renown, glor}^, praise, or memorial. 
 
 When monuments are erected, or memorials instituted,^ 
 to perpetuate the memory of illustrious characters or illus- 
 trious events, renown, glory, and praise, are the object of 
 these memorials* When memorials are instituted to per- 
 petuate the memory of remarkable and distinguishingevents 
 of divine providence, they are designed for the renown, 
 glory, and praise of God. 
 
 4. When, in the New Testament, any thing is said to 
 be done, or required to be done, for a witness, for a sign, 
 for a testimony, for a memorial, or to the glory, or to the 
 praise of God,, this same preposition, eis^ is used, and 
 translatedyir or to. And can one instance to the contrary 
 be found in the New Testament I Some instances of each 
 will now be exhibited. 
 
 " There was a man came from God, whose name was> 
 John ; the same came /or a witness*^ — ^'^ And the Gospel 
 of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world for p. 
 witness to all nations." 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture, 171 
 
 *' Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall 
 be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that 
 this woman hath done, be told for a meinorial of her." 
 *' Thy prayers and thine alms are co«ie up. for a memoriat 
 before God.^ 
 
 "^ And whosoever will not receive you, nor hear you, 
 shake off the dust from under your feet, as a testimony 
 against them. And it shall turn to you for a testimony*^"* 
 *' Offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testi?nony 
 unto them." 
 
 " Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children 
 by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure 
 of his will, to tht praise of the glory of his grace." "And 
 that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
 Xo the glory of God the Father." 
 
 5. When any thing is represented as done in the 7iame 
 of another, (and in the name certainly means by the au' 
 thority) a different preposition is usually, if not uniformly, 
 used in the Greek. 
 
 When Christ says, " I am come in my Father's name^** 
 and " the works that I do in my Father's name^"* the Greek 
 preposition en^ not eis^ is used. So likewise in this text, 
 " In my name they shall cast out devils," &r. 
 
 Accordingly the apostles performed miracles in the name 
 of Jesus* Thus said Peter to the impotent man, " In the 
 name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." 
 Thus Paul said to the spirit of divination, with which the 
 woman was possessed, ''^ I command thee, in the name of 
 Jesus Christ, to come out of her." 
 
 In the following instances, eis is used, " Where two or 
 three are gathered together in my name''* — " Baptized in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus" — " Lest any should say, I 
 baptized in my own name^ But in all these instances, 
 name may mean glory ^ and the translation might have been 
 for the nam€^ that is, for the glory or honor. 
 
 No reasonable objection, it is presumed, can be stated 
 against thus construing the text relative to the saints meet- 
 ing or gathering in Christ's name, Meetingyor his name^ 
 or for his glory ^ would undoubtedly be as correct and as 
 striking an idea. 
 
 Nor is it at all unnatural to suppose, that Paul's fear wa?, 
 that it should be thought that he was seeking his own glorify 
 gn4 not the glory of Christ. And is it not to be feared. 
 
1 72 An Examination of dijicult Passages of Scripture. 
 
 that some at this day do reallv h^c^ixx^for their own name^, 
 or their own glorij or praise P 
 
 It has indeed been observed, that we have no example 
 of the apostles' baptizing in any other name than that of the 
 Lord Jesus. And now it is not doubted, that thev baptized 
 by the authority of the Lord Jesus ; yet that might not be 
 the meaning of th& phrase which is translated ?« the name 
 of the Lord Jesus, It might as naturally be ybr the name^ 
 for the glory of the Lord Jesus, And to baptize for the 
 glory of the Lord Jesus^ would amount to the same as bap- 
 tizingy^r a TWf-worirt/of what was done by the Father, the 
 S<^n^ and the Holy Spirit, to prove that he is the Son of 
 God and the Savior of the world. 
 
 In this text, " There are three that bear witness in the 
 earth, the Spirit^ the Water, and the Blood, and thf se 
 three agree in one," the same preposition eis is used. To 
 express the sense, the translators have inserted the verb 
 cgree^ which has no place in the original ; but had they 
 strictly regarded analogy, they might have expressed the 
 same idea as correctly, and perhaps more forcibly, by the 
 preposition only, " these three are^or one," that is, for 
 one end:, as testimony to prove that " God has given to us 
 eternal life, and this life is in his Son.'* 
 
 Thus, Sir, you have before you some of the analogies which 
 at least seem to justify me in supposing, that it was the 
 design of Christ, in the apostles' commission, to express 
 the END for which^ and not merely the authority by 
 which, baptism is to be administered. The authority by 
 Tvhich, is indeed expressed in the introductory words, "All 
 power is given unto me in heaven and earth ; go ye, 
 therefore ;" but the clause in dispute appears to me not de- 
 signed to re-express the authority, but to show the end for 
 which baptism w^as instituted. 
 
 Can you. Sir, produce such analogies in support of the 
 common construction of this passage ? Can you produce 
 one analogy from the Bible which will justify you in saying 
 that this text' requires us to baptize by the authority of the 
 Holy Spirit as a distinct Person ? 
 
 If the construction now given of the passage should be 
 admitted and adopted, it v ould occasion no change in the 
 form of words to be used in baptizing, but simply that of 
 using to or for instead oi in. The adoption would, how- 
 ever, open a door for much to be pertinentl;^ and profitably 
 
An Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture* IT'S 
 
 said, respecting that momentous event in which the prom- 
 ised Messiah was publicly inaugurated^ endued^ and aU' 
 nounced to the world as the Son of God ; and the grace 
 and glory which was displayed on that memorable occa- 
 sion. 
 
 In this inauguration we may contemplate a fulfilment of 
 what had been promised -And predicted^ and also of what had 
 been typified in the manner in which Prophets, Priests, 
 and Kings, had been invested with their respective offices, 
 T\\t holy oil \\?LS poured on the heads of Prophets and 
 Kings, as an emblem of the Holy Spirit^ with which the 
 M ssiah was to be endued. And Aaron was first -washed 
 with water, and then had the oil of consecration poured on 
 his head, as the Son of God was first washed or baptized^ 
 2C(\A\}tvtXi endued vi\\k\\k\^ Spirit of God, And if we may ^ 
 connect, in one view, the Old and the New Testament 
 forms of inauguration or ordination ; in that event we may , 
 behold the Messiah condescending to come to John, his 
 herald, to be -washed with water as Aaron was ; then we 
 behold him making his own ordination prayer ; and what 
 is still more august, we may behold the Eternal Father 
 performing the solemn rites oi laying on of hands ^znd giving 
 the Right Hand of Fellowship — He first sent down his Ho- 
 ly Spirit^ which is often represented as his Hand ; this 
 abode on the Son ; then, with an audible voice, God pro- 
 claimed, in the ears of attending angels and men, " This* 
 
 IS MY BELOVED SoN, IN WHOM I AM WELL PLEASED." 
 
 A scene more august, and more expressive of grace and, 
 C/LORY, had perhaps never been seen in heaven nor earth. 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 LET it be distinctly understood, that the opinion, that 
 baptism was instituted as a memorial of the inauguration of 
 the Messiah, is not viewed by me as essential to the main 
 theory respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The 
 opinion resulted from a serious inquiry into the meaning 
 of Chrisfs coming by Wuter^ and of the JVater^s bearing 
 •witness. It is proposed, for examination, as that which 
 appears to me probably true. But the main things had in 
 view do not depend on the correctness of that opinion. Va- 
 rious reasons may be given for the use of the terms Holy 
 Spirit^ in the apostles' commission, which do not imply the 
 
174 An Examination of dtffici^lt Passages of Scripture, 
 
 personality of the Spirit. But what, Sir, if no such reason 
 could be given by Ine, or by yourself ?I Shall one clause 
 of a text, of doubtful import^ be admitted as prvofoi -Afact^ 
 in opposition to the general tenor oi plain and inspired rep- 
 resentations P IV! ore, it is believed, than two hundred 
 times, the Holy Spirit of God is brought into view in the 
 Scriptures,in a manner which clearly conveys the idea,that, 
 b}' the Spirit, a self-existent Person is not intended. And 
 shall one^ txvo, or three texts, which seem to favor your opin- 
 ion, be allowed inore zveight than two hundred others which 
 are clearly in opposition f Suppose, Sir, that after long 
 and laborious inquiry, I could obtain no satisfactory expo- 
 sition of the disputed clause in the apostles' commission, 
 which would accord with my present views of the Holy 
 Spirit ; and on that ground should give up the whole theo- 
 ry, and return to ?/(7wr doctrine of the Trinity ; what then 
 would be my situation ? I must cease to reflect, or must 
 take into view the numerous texts which naturally oppose 
 your idea of the Spirit, with the multitude which are op- 
 posed to the self existence of the Son of God, and the many 
 thousands which distinctly represent Gpd as one Person 
 only* On the whole, then, instead oi one perplexing text^ 
 I should have to encounter many thousands, each of which, 
 according to the natural import of language, would be op- 
 posed to the doctrine that I should profess to believe. If 
 you will show me how those numerous classes of texts can 
 be fairly reconc'led to your doctrine, and how the repre- 
 sentations of Divine love in the Gospel can be consistent 
 with your views of the Son of God, you will easily reclaim 
 me from my supposed error. For whatever may have been 
 your views of my feelings or my motives^ this is a fact, that 
 it is far from being a pleasant thing to me to be obliged to 
 dissent in opinion from such a muitityde of vToithy charac- 
 ters. 
 
 There is one consideration which will probably have in* 
 fluence against the admission of the sentiments of these 
 Letters, viz. That the writer is a person obscurely situated^ 
 oi private education^ and unpromising advantages. All this 
 inay, in truth, be said. But sometimes God has " chosen" 
 %veak and unpromising instruments to carry on his work, 
 ^^ that no flesh should glory in his presence*"* Besides, if 
 f' the Scriptures were inspired to instruct common readers^ 
 by using words according to their common acceptation^"* it 
 
CONCLUSION lis 
 
 is j&(?55z^/e that a person, under all my disadvantages, may- 
 investigate the truth, by making the Scriptures his only 
 guide. It has been no part of my object to invent a new- 
 theory. My aim has been to investigate, represent, and 
 support, such sentiments as are revealed in the Bible, ad- 
 mitting words to be used " according to their common ac- 
 ceptation," comparing Scripture with Scripture. If, on 
 due examination, it shall be found that any sentiment, in 
 these Letters, may be properly ascribed to me as the au- 
 thor, let it be rejected. But you will allow, that senti- 
 ments, of which God is the Author, should not be reject- 
 ed, whoever may be the writer. '^ Can there any good 
 thing come out ot Nazareth ?" This, you will remember, 
 was a question which once arose in the mind of an" Israelite 
 indeed j" and, perhaps, on the same ground, thousands 
 of others, to their own ruin, rejected thQ Savior of the 
 WORLD. On no better ground, it may be, that thousands 
 will reject the sentiments contained in these Letters, even 
 if they are sanctioned by the Oracles of God. 
 
 LETTER VIIL 
 
 CONCLUSIOK 
 
 REV. SIR, 
 
 THIS series of Letters has already been extended be- 
 yond my original design. It shall now be closed. I am 
 not insensible, that publishing mv views exposes me to at- 
 tacks from every denomination of professing Christians. 
 Yet you will not doubt my sincerity in saying, that no man 
 can have less desire to be engaged in public controversy.— 
 But being not my own, it would be wrong to suppress what 
 to me appears honorary to Christ, for the sake of private 
 ease, quiet, or popularity. 
 
 Freedom has been used in examining your opinions, and 
 the opinions of others ; but, at the same time, it has been 
 an object of my rare to cultivate, in my heart, feelings of 
 tenderness and respect for my fellow Christians of different 
 opinions. In writing, it has been my aim not to w^ound 
 your feelings, or the feelings of any other man. While 
 writing this last Letter of the series, my conscience bears 
 
iriS CONCLUSION-. 
 
 me witness, that not one sentence in the whole has been 
 dictated by the feelhigs of displeasure against any one of 
 my ff How creatures. 
 
 These Letters are addressed to you, in hope, that if 
 there must be an opponent^ it may be one who is able and 
 Tvilling to mve<st7gate ; and one who has learned of Him 
 who was meek and lowly in heart. This being your cha- 
 racter, should vou see cause to answer my Letters, you 
 w ill look thoroughly and prayerfully into the subject, and 
 not write at random. You will not shelter yourself under 
 xhv popularity of your own theory, and on that ground think 
 yourself justified in treating with contempt the views of 
 your friend. You will not ^/?e^r at arguments which you 
 cannot refute by fair reasoning ; nor substitute sarcastic 
 and censorious declamation, for argument. You will not 
 misrepresent vay real views ^ for the sake oi hiiv'm^ something 
 before you which you can easily refute,-— lint if you view 
 me in an error, you will pity and pray for me ; and, in the 
 spirit of meekness and love, you will endeavor to show me 
 my mistakes and errors. And you will write as one who 
 expects to give account. And if I am in pn error, be as- 
 sured, Sir, that it is my cordial desire that you may be 
 enabled to detect it, and to set it before me, and before 
 the world, in a convincing light. 
 
 You will readily perceive, that there may be mistakes in 
 explaining some particular texts, and yet the theory may 
 be correct. In attempting to explain so many texts, it is 
 very possible that there are instances of incorrectness. For 
 one so fallib e, it is enough to say, that my labor has been 
 to investigate the real truth, -wxthovxt perverting or misap- 
 plying the Scriptures ; and that it has been my sincere de- 
 sire to make the theory square with the Scriptures as a 
 Divine Standard, and not to make the Scriptures bend 
 to the theory. 
 
 Should you think it to be your duty to express your dis- 
 approbation of the theory, by way of a Review in some 
 periodical work, you will give an impartial representation 
 xii vciW real sentiments^ that those who read the Review 
 may have some opportunity to judge as to the correctness 
 of the opinion you may express. 
 
 After you shal< have written your objections by way of 
 Review, be pleased to turn to John xvii. and review the 
 prayer of the Son of God ; examine the natural import of 
 
C0NCLUSI02r. 177 
 
 every sentence distinctly : then ask yourself these questions 
 — Does not every sentence in this yraytr perfectly harmonize 
 with the sentiments against whlcn I have been writing ?— 
 Yea, does not this prayer clearly contain th^^ principal sen- 
 timents which the writer of the Letters has aimed to estab- 
 lish ? — If he had forged a prayer for the Son of God, in 
 support of his own theory, could he have written any thing 
 more to his purpose than that which really proceeded from 
 the lips of Christ ? — Are not, then, my objections to his 
 views as really objections to the sentiments contained ia 
 the prayer of the Son of God t 
 
 And may that Divine Lord, in whom is our hope^ 
 lead us to a more perfect knowledge of himself; and grant, 
 that not only you and I, but all who may read these Letters, 
 may experience the truth of the declaration which he made 
 in his prayer to the Father, " And this is life eternal, to 
 know THEE the only true God, and Jrsus Christ whom 
 thou hast sent." And while it shall be our lot to differ in 
 sentiment, let us daily unite in the prayer of Christy that 
 yjue all may be one^ even as He and the Father are one. 
 Adieu. 
 
 NOAH WORCESTER. 
 
 ►<©>• 
 
ERRATA, 
 
 Page 5, /i?ie 36, y^r mind rpflfi^ hand.lft^ ^-a-' 
 S5^ Ihie 25, for are read or. 
 44, /i/ze 36, for sa r^^fl? as. 
 
 46, line 9, /or by things read by the things, 8j;C», 
 
 47, /me 1 7", /or reject read respect. 
 49, line 21^ for as read is. 
 
 59, /i/2e 32, dele the word to. 
 Ill, line 25^ for pay rea^ pray. 
 126, line 16^ for So far read For. 
 133, /irie 25, for there rca;^ these. 
 158, line % for any other r^a<^ anothei:. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 On the Unity of God. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 introductory Statements and Observations, - page ^ 
 
 LETTER IL 
 Personality dejined and illustrated^ ----- 12 
 
 LETTER IIL 
 The Scripture use of Pronouns and Verbs in relation 
 to God. - - .. . ir 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The Language of good Writers in favor ofxvhat they 
 7nean to deny, ----------- 26 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 The Mystery of the Trinity in Unity unfolded, - - 29 
 
 PART IL 
 
 On the real Divinity and Glory of Christ. 
 
 LETTER L 
 Jesus Christ truly the Son of God, , - - - - 33 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Additional Evidence that Christ is truly the Son of God, 41 
 
 LETTER IIL 
 No Absurdity in the Hypothesis that Christ is truly 
 
 the Son of God. --.--.---- 46 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 The Divine Dignity of the Son of God, - - * - 53 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 How the Son of God became the Son of Man. - - 68 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 The preceding Doctrines all implied in Phil. ii. 5 — 1 1 . 76 
 
 LETTER VIL 
 
 Thoughts on the Majesty of the Son of God; his sim- 
 ple and his complex Character. ------ 93 
 
TABLE OF COT^TENTS. 
 
 LETTER Vlir. 
 
 Diviife Honors due to, the Son of God. - - . . 9^ 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 The two Theories compared, in respect td Christ, con- 
 sidered as a Sufferer on the Cross, as the Savior of 
 the World, and the Lord of the Universe. - - - 114 
 
 PART Hi. 
 
 0/? tbe Character of the Holy Spirit. 
 LETTER L 
 By the Holy Spirit is intended the same as the Ful- 
 ness of the Godhead, -_,. 123 
 
 LETTER IL 
 
 Some Passages considered, which have been supposed 
 to support the Personality of the Holy Spirit, - - 132 
 LETTER in. 
 
 Other Considerations, to shozv, that by the Holy Spirit 
 is not intended a distinct Person. - - - - - isg 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 ^n Examination of difficult Passages of Scripture. 
 
 LETTER L 
 
 Pides of Interpretation stated and applied, - - - 145 
 
 LETTER n. 
 A fifth Rule of Interpretation stated and applied. - l49 
 
 LETTER in. 
 
 Other Texts considered, --------1^3 
 
 LETTER V. 
 The Son of God not the same Person as the God of 
 Israel, - - I5- 
 
 LETTER VL 
 
 The Import of 1 John F. 7. ------- 160 
 
 LETTER Vn. 
 
 The Apostles'' Commission considered, - - - - 168 
 
 LETTER VIIL 
 Conclusion, ----" 175 
 
TRIBUTE TO THE MEMORY 
 
 REV. NOAH WORCESTER, D. D. 
 
 A DISCOURSE 
 
 DELIVERED IN BOSTOJN, 
 
 NOVEMBER 12, 1837, 
 
 BY U^ILLIAM E. (HANKING. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY JOSEPH DOWE. 
 
 1837. 
 
CHRISTIAN REGISTER OFFICE: MINOT PRATT, PRINTER. 
 
The circumstances, under which the following discourse has 
 been requested for the press, forbid the author to withhold it ; 
 and yet he is aware, that it must disappoint those who may look 
 to it for some extended notice of the life and character of the ex- 
 cellent man, by whose death it was occasioned. In preparing it, 
 the author had time to give only his first recollections and impres- 
 sions ; nor does he think it worth his while to make additions 
 now, as he trusts, that an autobiography, left by Dr Worcester, 
 will be given to the pubhc, in which case all other notices will be 
 of little value. 
 
DISCOURSE 
 
 JOHN XIII. 34. 
 
 A NEW COMMANDMEJVT 1 GIVE XJNTO YOU, THAT YE LOVE ONK ANOTH- 
 ER ; AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, THAT YE ALSO LOVE ONE ANOTHER. 
 
 It was the great purpose of Christ to create the world 
 anew, to make a deep, broad, enduring change in hu- 
 man beings. He came to breathe his own soul into 
 men, to bring them through faith into a connexion and 
 sympathy with himself, by which they would receive 
 his divine virtue, as the branches receive quickening in- 
 fluences from the vine in which they abide, and the 
 limbs from the head to which they are vitally bound. 
 
 It was especially the purpose of Jesus Christ, to re- 
 deem men from the slavery of selfishness, to raise them 
 to a divine, disinterested love. By this he intended 
 that^is followers should be known, that his religion 
 should be broadly divided from all former institutions. 
 He meant that this should be worn as a frontlet on the 
 brow, should beam as a light from the countenance, 
 should shed a grace over the manners, should give tones 
 of sympathy to the voice, and especially should give en- 
 ergy to the will, energy to do and suffer for others' 
 good. Here is one of the grand distinctions of Christi- 
 anity, incomparably grander than all the mysteries which 
 
6 
 
 have borne its name. Our knowledge of Christianity 
 is to be measured, not by the laboriousness with which 
 we have dived into the depths of theological systems, 
 but by our comprehension of the nature, extent, energy 
 and glory of that disinterested principle, which Christ 
 enjoined as our likeness to God, and as the perfection 
 of human nature. 
 
 This disinterestedness of Christianity is to be learned 
 from Christ himself, and from no other. It had dawn- 
 ed on the world before in illustrious men, in prophets, 
 sages and legislators. But its full orb rose at Bethlehem. 
 All the preceding history of the world gives but broken 
 hints of the love which shone forth from Christ. Nor 
 can this be learned from his precepts alone. We must 
 go to his life, especially to his cross. His cross was the 
 throne of his love. There it reigned, there it triumph- 
 ed. On the countenance of the crucified Savior there 
 was one expression stronger than of dying agony, — the 
 expression of calm, meek, unconquered, boundless love. 
 I repeat it, the cross alone can teach us the energy 
 and grandeur of the love, which Christ came to impart. 
 There we see its illimitableness ; for he died for the 
 whole world. There we learn its inexhaustible alaca- 
 bility ; for he died for the very enemies whose hands 
 w^ere reeking with his blood. There we learn its self-im- 
 molating strength; for he resigned every good of life, and 
 endured intensest pains, in the cause of our race. There 
 we learn its spiritual elevation ; for he died not to en- 
 rich men with outward and w^orldly goods, but to breathe 
 new life, health, purity, into the soul. There we learn 
 its far-reaching aim ; for he died to give immortality of 
 happiness. There we learn its tenderness and sympa- 
 
thy ; for amidst his cares for the world, his heart over- 
 flowed with gratitude and love for his honored mother. 
 There, in a word, we learn its Divinity ; for he suffered 
 through his participation of the spirit and his devotion 
 to the purposes of God, through unity of heart and will 
 with his Heavenly Father. 
 
 It is one of our chief privileges, as Christians, that we 
 have in Jesus Christ a revelation of Perfect Love. This 
 great idea comes ibrth to us from his life and teaching, 
 as a distinct and bright reality. To understand this is 
 to understand Christianity. To call forth in us a cor- 
 responding energy of disinterested affection, is the mis- 
 sion which Christianity has to accomplish on the earth. 
 
 There is one characteristic of the love of Christ, to 
 which the Christian world are now waking up as from 
 long sleep, and which is to do more than all things for 
 the renovation of the world. He loved individual man. 
 Before his time, the most admired form of goodness was 
 patriotism. Men loved their country, but cared noth- 
 ing for their fellow-creatures beyond the limits of coun- 
 try, and cared little for the individual within those lim- 
 its, devoting themselves to public interests and especial- 
 ly to what was called the glory of the State. The leg- 
 islator, seeking by his institutions to exalt his country 
 above its rivals, and the warrior, fastening its yoke on its 
 foes and crowning it with bloody laurels, were the 
 great natnes of earlier times. Christ loved man, not 
 masses of men ; loved each and all, and not a particular 
 country and class. The human being was dear to him 
 for his own sake ; not for the spot of earth on which he 
 lived, not for the language he spoke, not for his rank in 
 life, but for his humanity, for his spiritual nature, for the 
 
8 
 
 image of God in which he was m^de. Nothing out- 
 ward in human condition engrossed the notice, or nar- 
 rowed the sympathies of Jesus. He looked to the hu- 
 man soul. That he loved. That divine spark he de- 
 sired to cherish, no matter where it dwelt, no matter 
 how it was dimmed. He loved man for his own sake, 
 and all men without exclusion or exception. His min- 
 istry was not confined to a church, a chosen congrega- 
 tion. On the mount he opened his mouth and spake 
 to the promiscuous multitude. From the hosom of the 
 lake he delivered his parables to the throng which lin- 
 ed its shores. His church was nature, the unconfined 
 air and earth ; and his truths, like the blessed influences 
 of nature's sunshine and rain, fell on each and all. He 
 lived in the highway, the street, the places of concourse, 
 and welcomed the eager crowds which gathered round 
 him from every sphere and rank of life. Nor was it to 
 crowds that his sympathy was confined. He did not 
 need a multitude to excite him. The humblest individ- 
 ual drew his regards. He took the little child into his 
 arms, and blessed it ; he heard the beggar crying to him 
 by the wayside where he sat for alms ; and in the an- 
 guish of death, he administered consolation to a male- 
 factor expiring at his side. In this shone forth the di- 
 vine wisdom as well as love of Jesus, that he understood 
 the worth of a human being. So truly did he compre- 
 hend it, that, as I think, he would have counted himself 
 repaid for all his teachings and mighty works, for all his 
 toils, and sufferings, and bitter death, by the redemption 
 of a single soul. His love to every human being sur- 
 passed that of a parent to an only child. Jesus was 
 great in all things, but in nothing greater than in his 
 
comprehension of the worth of a human spirit. Before 
 his time no one dreamed of it. The many had been 
 vsacrificed to the few. The mass of men had been trod- 
 den under foot. History had been but a record cf strug- 
 gles and institutions, which breathed nothing so strongly 
 as contempt of the huhian race. 
 
 Jesus was the first philanthropist. He brought with' 
 him a new era, the era of philanthropy ; and from his 
 time a new spirit has moved over the troubled waters 
 of society, and will move until it has brought order and 
 beauty out of darkness and confusion. The men, whom 
 he trained and into whom he had poured most largely 
 his own spirit, were signs, proofs, that a new kingdom 
 had come. They consecrated themselves to a work at 
 that time without precedent, wholly original, such as 
 had not entered human thought. They left home, pos- 
 sessions, country, went abroad into strange lands, and 
 not only put life in peril, but laid it down, to spread the 
 truth whicii they had received from their Lord, to make 
 the true God, even the Father, known to his blinded 
 children, to make the Savior known to the sinner, to 
 make life and immortality known to the dying, to give 
 a new impulse to the human soul. We read of the mis- 
 sion of the apostles as if it were a thing of course. The 
 thought perhaps never comes to us, that they entered 
 on a sphere of action until that time wholly unexplored; 
 that not a track had previously marked their path ; that 
 the great conception,which inspired them, of converting 
 a world, had never dawned on the sublimest intellect ; 
 that the spiritual love for every human being, which car- 
 ried them over oceans and through deserts, amid scourg- 
 ings and fastings and imprisonments and death, was a 
 
10 
 
 new light from heaven breaking out on earth, a new 
 revelation of the divinity in human nature. Then it 
 was, that man began to yearn for man with a Godlike 
 love. Then a new voice was heard on earth, the voice 
 of prayer for the recovery, pardon, happiness of a world. 
 It was most strange, it was a miracle more worthy of 
 ^admiration than the raising of the dead, that from Judea, 
 the most exclusive, narrow country under heaven,which 
 hated and scorned all other nations and shrunk from 
 their touch as pollution, should go forth men to proclaim 
 the doctrine of human brotherhood, to give to every hu- 
 man being, however fallen or despised, assurances of 
 God's infinite love, to break down the barriers of nation 
 and rank, to pour out their blood like water in the work 
 of diffusing the spirit of universal love. Thus mightily 
 did the character of Jesus act on the spirits of the men 
 with whom he had lived. Since that time the civiliz- 
 ed world has been overwhelmed by floods of barbarians, 
 and ages of darkness have passed. But some rays of 
 this divine light break on us through the thickest dark- 
 ness. The new impulse given by Christianity was nev- 
 er wholly spent. The rude sculpture of the dark ages 
 represented Jesus hanging from his cross; and however 
 this image was abused to purposes of superstition, it still 
 spoke to men of a philanthropy stronger than death, , 
 which felt and suffered for every human being; and a 
 softening, humanizing virtue went from it which even 
 the barbarian could not wholly resist. In our own times 
 the character of Jesus is exerting more conspicuously 
 its true and glorious power. We have indeed little 
 cause for boasting. The great features of society are 
 still hard and selfish. The worth of a human being is 
 
11 
 
 a mystery still hid from an immense majority, and the 
 most enlightened among us have not looked beneath the 
 surface of this great truth. Still there is at this moment 
 an interest in human nature, a sympathy with human 
 suffering, a sensibility to the abases and evils which de- 
 form society, a faith in man's capacity of progress, a 
 desire of human progress, a desire to carry to every hu- 
 man being the means of rising to a better condition and 
 a higher virtue, such as has never been witnessed be- 
 fore. " Amidst the mercenariness which would degrade 
 men into tools, and the ambition which would tread 
 them down in its march toward power, there is still a 
 respect for man as man, a recognition of his rights, a 
 thirst for his elevation, which is the surest proof of a ^ 
 higher comprehension of Jesus Christ, and the surest 
 augury of a happier state of human affairs. Humanity 
 and justice are crying out in more and more piercing 
 tones for the suffering, the enslaved, the ignorant, the 
 poor, the prisoner, the orphan, the long-neglected sea- 
 man, the benighted heathen. I do not refer merely to 
 new institutions for humanity, for these are not the most 
 unambiguous proofs of progress. We see in the com- 
 mon consciousness of society, in the general feelings of 
 individuals, traces of a more generous recognition of 
 what man owes to man. The glare of outward distinc- 
 tion is somewhat dimmed. The prejudices of caste and 
 rank are abated. A man is seen to be worth more than 
 his wardrobe or his title. It begins to be understood 
 that a Christian is to be a philanthropist, and that in 
 truth, the essence of Christianity is a spirit of martyr- 
 dom in the cause of mankind. 
 
 This subject has been brought to my mind at the 
 
12 
 
 present moment, by an event in this vicinity, which has 
 drawn little attention, but which I ^could not, without 
 self-reproach, suffer to pass unnoticed. Within a few 
 days, a great and good man, a singular example of the 
 philanthropy which Jesus Christ came to breathe into the 
 world, has been taken away ; and as it was my happi- 
 ness to know him more intimately than most among us, 
 I feel as if I were called to bear a testimony to his rare 
 goodness, and to hold up his example as a manifestation 
 of what Christianity can accomplish in the human mind. 
 I refer to the Rev. Noah Worcester, who has been just- 
 ly called the Apostle of Peace, who finished his course 
 at Brighton during the last week. His great age, for 
 he was almost eighty, and the long, and entire seclusion 
 to which debility had compelled him, have probably 
 made his name a strange one to some who hear me. 
 In truth, it is common in the present age, for eminent 
 men to be forgotten during their lives, if their lives are 
 much prolonged. Society is now a quick-shifting pa- 
 geant. New actors hurry the old ones from the stage. 
 The former stability of things is strikingly impaired. 
 The authority which gathered round the aged, has de- 
 clined. The young seize impatiently the prizes of life. 
 The hurried, bustling, tumultuous, feverish Present, 
 swallows up men's thoughts, so that he who retires from 
 active pursuits, is as little known to the rising genera- 
 tion as if he were dead. It is not wonderful then, that 
 Dr Worcester was so far forgotten by his contempora- 
 ries. But the future will redress the wrongs of the 
 present ; and in the progress of civilization, history will 
 guard more and more sacredly the memories of men, 
 who have advanced before their age, and devoted 
 
13 
 
 themselves to great, but neglected interests of human- 
 
 Dr Worcester's efforts in relation to war, or in the 
 cause of peace, made him eminently a public man and 
 constitute his chief claim to public consideration; and 
 these were not founded on accidental circumstances or 
 foreign influences, but wholly on the strong and peculiar 
 tendencies of his mind. He was distinguished above all 
 whom I have known by his comprehension and deep feel- 
 ing of the spirit of Christianity, by the sympathy with 
 which he seized on the character of Jesus Christ as a 
 manifestation of Perfect Love, by the honor in which he 
 held the mild, humble, forgiving, disinterested virtues of 
 our reli«j[ion. This distinffuishins^ trait of his mind was 
 embodied and brought out in his whole life and conduct. 
 He especially expressed it in his labors for the promotion 
 of Universal Peace on the earth. He was struck, as no 
 other man within my acquaintance has been, with the 
 monstrous incongruity between the spirit of Christian- 
 ity and the spirit of Christian communities, between 
 Christ's teaching of peace, mercy, forgiveness, and the 
 wars which divide and desolate the church and the world. 
 Every man has particular impressions which rule over 
 and give a hue to his mind. Every man is struck by 
 some evils rather than others. The excellent individu- 
 al of whom I speak was shocked, heart-smitten, by 
 nothing so much, as by seeing, that man hates man, 
 that man destroys his brother, that man has drenched 
 the earth with his brother's blood, that man in his in- 
 sanity has crowned the murderer of his race with the 
 highest honors; and, still worse, that Christian hates 
 Christian, that church wars against church, that differ- 
 
14 
 
 ences of forms and opinions array against each other 
 those whom Christ died to join together in closest broth- 
 erhood, and that Christian zeal is spent in building up 
 sects, rather than in spreading the spirit of Christ and 
 enlarging and binding together the universal church. 
 The great evil on which his mind and heart fixed was 
 War, Discord, Intolerance, the substitution of force for 
 Reason and Love. To spread peace on earth became 
 the object of his life. Under this impulse he gave birth 
 and impulse to Peace Societies. This new movement 
 is to be traced to him above all other men, and his name, 
 I doubt not, will be handed down to future time with 
 increasing veneration as the ' Friend of Peace,' as hav- 
 ing given new force to the principles which are grad- 
 ually to abate the horrors and ultimately extinguish 
 the spirit of war. 
 
 The history of the good man, as far as I have learn- 
 ed it, is singularly instructive and encouraging. He 
 was self-taught, self-formed. He was born in narrow 
 circumstances, and to the age of tw^enty-one was a la- 
 borious farmer, not only deprived of a collegiate educa- 
 tion, but of the advantages which may be enjoyed in a 
 more prosperous family. An early marriage brought on 
 him the cares of a growing family. Still he found or 
 rather made time for sufficient improvements to intro- 
 duce him into the ministry before his thirtieth year. 
 He was first settled in a parish too poor to give him 
 even a scanty support ; and he was compelled to take a 
 farm on which he toiled by day, whilst in the evening 
 he was often obliged to use a mechanical art for the 
 benefit of his family. He made their shoes, an occu- 
 pation of which Coleridge has somewhere remarked, 
 
15 
 
 that it has been followed by a greater number of emi- 
 nent men than anj other trade. By the side of his 
 work-bench he kept ink and paper, that he might write 
 down the interesting thoughts, which he traced out or 
 which rushed on him amidst his humble labors. I take 
 pleasure in stating this part of his history. The preju- 
 dice against manual labor as inconsistent with personal 
 dignity is one of the most irrational and pernicious, es- 
 pecially in a free country. It shows how little we com- 
 prehend the spirit of our institutions and how deeply 
 we are tainted with the narrow maxims of the old 
 aristocracies of Europe. Here was a man, uniting great 
 intellectual improvement with refinement of manners, 
 who had been trained under unusual severity of toil. 
 This country has lost much physical and moral strength, 
 and its prosperity is at this moment depressed, by the 
 common propensity to forsake the plough for less manly 
 pursuits, which are thought however to promise greater 
 dignity as well as ease. 
 
 His first book was a series of letters to a Baptist min- 
 ister, and in this he gave promise of the direction 
 which the efforts of his life were to assume. The great 
 object of these letters, was not to settle the controver- 
 sies about baptism, about the mode of administering it 
 whether by immersion or sprinkling, or about the proper 
 subjects of it whether children or adults alone. His 
 aim was, to show that these were inferior questions, 
 that dilferences about these ought not to divide Christ- 
 ians, that the 'close communion' as it is called of ihe 
 Baptists was inconsistent with the liberal sf)irit of Christ- 
 ianity, and that this obstruction to Christian unity 
 ought to be removed. 
 
16 . / 
 
 His next publication was what brought him into no- 
 tice and gave him an important place in our theological 
 history. It was a publication on the Trinity, and what 
 is worthy of remark, it preceded the animated contro- 
 versy on that point which a few years after agitated 
 this city and commonwealth. The mind of Dr Worces- 
 ter was turned to this topic not by foreign impulses but 
 by its own workings. He had been brought up in the 
 strictest sect, that is as a Calvinist. His first doubts 
 as to the Trinity arose from the confusion, the perplex- 
 ity, into which his mind was thrown by this doctrine in 
 his acts of devotion. To worship three persons as one 
 and the same God, as one and the same being, seemed 
 to him difficult if not impossible. He accordingly re- 
 solved to read and examine the Scriptures from begin- 
 ning to end, for the purpose of ascertaining the true doc- 
 trine respecting God and the true rank of Jesus Christ. 
 The views at which he arrived were so different from 
 what prevailed around him, and some of them so pecu- 
 liar that he communicated them to the public under the 
 rather quaint title of * Bible News relating to the Fath- 
 er, Son and Holy Sjnrit.' His great aim was to prove, 
 that the Supreme God was one person, even the Fath- 
 er, and that Jesus Christ was not the Supreme God but 
 his Son in a strict and peculiar sense. This idea of ' the 
 peculiar and natural sonship' of Christ, by which he 
 meant that Jesus was derived from the very substance 
 of the Father, had taken a strong hold on his mind, and 
 he insisted on it with as much confidence as was con- 
 sistent with his deep sense of fallibility. But, as might 
 be expected in so wise and spiritual a man, it faded more 
 and more from his mind, in proportion as he became 
 
17 
 
 acquainted with and assimilated to the true glory of his 
 Master. In one of his unpublished manuscripts, he 
 gives an account of his change of view in this particu- 
 lar, and, without disclaiming expressly the doctrine which 
 had formerly seemed so precious, he informs us that it 
 had lost its importance in his sight. The Moral, Spir- 
 itual dignity of Christ, had risen on his mind in such 
 splendor as to dim his old idea of 'natural sonship.' In 
 one place he affirms, ' I do not recollect an instance [in 
 the scriptures] in which Christ is spoken of as loved, 
 honored, or praised on any other ground than his Moral 
 dignity.' This moral greatness he declares to be the 
 highest with which Jesus was clothed, and expresses 
 his conviction, ' that the controversies of Christians 
 about his natural dignity, had tended very little to 
 the honor of their Master, or to their own advantage.' 
 The manuscript to which I refer was written after his 
 seventieth year, and is very illustrative of his character. 
 It shows, that his love of truth was stronger than the 
 tenacity with which age commonly clings to old ideas. 
 It shows him superior to the theory, which more than 
 any other he had considered his own, and which had 
 been the fruit of very laborious study. It shows how 
 strongly he felt, that Progress was the law and . end of 
 his being, and how he continued to make progress to 
 the last hour. The w^ork called ' Bible News' drew 
 much attention, and converted not a few to the doctrine 
 of the proper unity of God. Its calm, benignant spirit 
 had no small influence in disarming prejudice and un- 
 kindness. He found however that his defection from 
 his original faith had exposed him to much suspicion 
 and reproach ; and he became at length so painfully ira- 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 pressed with the intolerance which l)is work had excit- 
 ed, that he published another shorter work called 
 * Letters to Trinitarians,' a work breathing the very 
 spirit of Jesus, and intended to teach, that diversities of 
 opinion, on subjects the most mysterious and perplexing, 
 ought not to sever friends, to dissolve the Christian 
 tie, to divide the church, to fasten on the dissenter from 
 the common faith the charge of heresy, to array the 
 disciples of the Prince of Peace in hostile bands. These 
 works obtained such favor, that he was solicited to leave 
 the obscure town in which he ministered, and to take 
 charge, in this place, of a periodical called at iirst the 
 Christian Disciple, and now better known as the Chris- 
 tian Examiner. At that time, (about twenty-five years 
 ago,) I first saw him. Long and severe toil, and a 
 most painful disease, had left their traces on his once 
 athletic frame ; but his countenance beamed with a be- 
 nignity which at once attracted confidence and affection. 
 For several years he consulted me habitually in the con- 
 duct of the work which he edited. I recollect with ad- 
 miration the gentleness, humility, and sweetness of tem- 
 per, with which he endured freedoms, corrections, re- 
 trenchments, some of which I feel now to have been 
 unwarranted, and which no other man would so kindly 
 have borne. This work was commenced very much for 
 doctrinal discussions ; but his spirit could not brook such 
 limitations, and he used its pages more and more for the 
 dissemination of his principles of philanthropy and peace. 
 At length he gave these principles to the world, in a 
 form which did much to decide his future career. He 
 published a pamphlet calleJ * A Solemn Review of the 
 Custom of War.' It bore no name, and appeared with- 
 
19 
 
 out recommendation, but it immediately seized on at- 
 tention. It was read by multitudes in this country, then 
 published in England, and translated, as I have heard, 
 into several languages of Europe. Such was the im- 
 pression made by this work, that a new association, 
 called the Peace Society of Massachusetts, was institut- 
 ed in this place. I well recollect the day of its forma- 
 tion in yonder house, then the parsonage of this parish, 
 and if there was a happy man that day on earth, it was 
 the founder of this institution. This society gave birth 
 to all the kindred ones in this country, and its influence 
 was felt abroad. Dr Worcester assumed the charge of 
 its periodical, and devoted himself for years to this 
 cause, with unabating faith and zeal ; and it may be 
 doubted, whether any man, who ever lived, contributed 
 more than he, to spread just sentiments on the subject 
 of War, and to hasten the era of universal peace. He 
 began his efforts in the darkest day, when the whole 
 civilized world was shaken by conflict, and threatened 
 with military despotism. He lived to see more than 
 twenty years of general peace, and to see through these 
 years, a multiplication of national ties, an extension of 
 commercial communications, an establishment of new 
 connections between Christians and learned men through 
 the world, and a growing reciprocity of friendly and be- 
 neficent influence among different states, all giving aid 
 to the principles of peace, and encouraging hopes which 
 a century ago would have been deemed insane. 
 
 The abolition of war, to which this good man devoted 
 himself, is no longer to be set down as a creation of fan- 
 cy, a dream of enthusiastic philanthropy. War rests on 
 opinion, and opinion is more and more withdrawing its 
 
20 
 
 support. War rests on contempt of -human nature, on 
 the long, mournful habit of regarding the mass of human 
 beings as machines, or as animals having no higher use 
 than to be shot at and murdered, for the glory of a chief, 
 for the seating of this or that family on a throne, for the 
 petty interests or selfish rivalries which have inflamed 
 states to conflict. Let the worth of a human being be 
 felt ; let the mass of a people be elevated ; let it be un- 
 derstood that a man was made to enjoy unalienable 
 right, to improve lofty powers, to secure a vast happi- 
 ness; and a main pillar of war will fall. And is it not 
 plain that these views are taking place of the contempt 
 in which man has so long been held ? War finds 
 another support in the prejudices and partialities of a 
 narrow patriotism. Let the great Christian principle 
 of human brotherhood be comprehended, let the Chris- 
 tian spirit of universal love gain ground, and just so fast 
 the custom of war, so long the pride of men, will become 
 their abhorrence and execration. It is encouraging to 
 see how outward events are concurring with the influ- 
 ences of Christianity in promoting peace, how an exclu- 
 sive nationality is yielding to growing intercourse, how 
 different nations by mutual visits, by the interchange of 
 thoughts and products, by studying one another's lan- 
 guage and literature, by union of efforts in the cause of 
 religion and humanity, are growing up to the conscious- 
 ness of belonging to one great family. Every rail road 
 connecting distant regions, may be regarded as accom- 
 plishing a ministry of peace. Every year which passes 
 w^ithout war, by interweaving more various ties of in- 
 terest and friendship, is a pledge of coming years of 
 peace. The prophetic faith, with which Dr Worcester, 
 
21 
 
 in the midst of universal war, looked forward to a hap- 
 pier era, and which was smiled at as enthusiasm or 
 credulity, has already received a sanction beyond his 
 fondest hopes by the wonderful progress of human af- 
 fairs. 
 
 On the subject of War, Dr Worcester adopted opin- 
 ions which are thought by some to be extreme. He 
 interpreted literally the precept, Resist not evil ; and 
 he believed that nations as well as individuals would 
 find safety as well as ' fulfill righteousness ' in yielding 
 it literal obedience. One of the most striking traits of 
 his character, was his confidence in the powder of love, I 
 might say, in its omnipotence. He believed, that the 
 surest way to subdue a foe, was to become his friend ; 
 that a true benevolence was a surer defence than 
 swords, or artillery, or walls of adamant. He believed, 
 that no mightier man ever trod the soil of America than 
 William Penn, when entering the wilderness unarmed, 
 and stretching out to the savage a hand which refused 
 all earthly weapons, in token of brotherhood and peace. 
 There was something grand in the calm confidence, with 
 which he expressed his conviction of the superiority of 
 moral to physical force. Armies, fiery passions, quick 
 resentments, and the spirit of vengeance miscalled hon- 
 or, seemed to him weak, low instruments, inviting, and 
 often hastening the ruin which they are used to avert. 
 Many will think him in error ; but if so, it was a grand 
 thought which led him astray. 
 
 At the age of seventy, he felt as if he had discharged 
 his mission as a preacher of peace, and resigned his of- 
 fice as Secretary to the Society, to which he had given 
 the strength of many years. He did not, however, re- 
 
22 
 
 tire to unfruitful repose. Bodily infirmity had increased, 
 so that he was very much confined to nis house ; but he 
 returned with zeal to the studies of his early life, and 
 produced two theological works, one on the atonement, 
 the other on human depravity or the moral state of man 
 by nature, which I regard as among the most useful 
 books on these long agitated subjects. These writings, 
 particularly the last, have failed of the popularity which 
 they merit, in consequence of a defect of style, which 
 may be traced to his defective education, and which 
 naturally increased witb years. I refer to his diffuse- 
 ness, to his inability to condense his thoughts. His 
 writings, however, are not wanting in merits of style. 
 They are simple and clear. They abound to a remark- 
 able degree in ingenious illustration, and they have often 
 the charm which original thinking always gives to com- 
 position. He was truly an original writer, not in the 
 sense of making great discoveries, but in the sense of 
 writing from his own mind, and not from books, or tradi- 
 tion. What he wrote, had perhaps been written before ; 
 but in consequence of his limited reading, it was new to 
 himself, and came to him with the freshness of discove- 
 ry. Sometimes great thoughts flashed on his mind, as 
 if they had been inspirations ; and in writing his last 
 book, he seems to have felt as if some extraordinary 
 light had been imparted from above. After his seventy- 
 fifth year he ceased to write books, but his mind lost 
 nothing of its activity. He was so enfeebled by a dis- 
 tressing disease, that he could converse but for a few 
 moments at a time ; yet he entered into all the great 
 movements of the age, with an interest distinguished 
 from the fervor of youth, only by its mildness and its se- 
 
23 
 
 rene trust. The attempts made, in some of our cities, 
 to propagate atheistical principles, gave him much con- 
 cern, and he applied himself to fresh inquiries into the 
 proofs of the existence and perfections of God, hoping 
 to turn his labors to the account of his erring fellow- 
 creatures. With this view, he entered on the study of 
 nature as a glorious testimony to its almighty author. 
 I shall never forget the dehght which illumined his coun- 
 tenance a short time ago, as he told me, that he had just 
 been reading the history of the coral, the insect which 
 raises islands in the sea. ' How wonderfully,' he ex- 
 claimed, ' is God's providence revealed in these little 
 creatures.' The last subject to which he devoted his 
 thoughts, was slavery. His mild spirit could never rec- 
 oncile itself to the methods in which this evil is often 
 assailed ; but the greatness of the evil he deeply felt, 
 and he left several essays on this as on the preceding 
 subject, which, if they shall be found unfit for publication, 
 will still bear witness to the intense, unfaltering interest 
 with which he bound himself to the cause of mankind. 
 I have thus given a sketch of the history of a good 
 man who lived and died the lover of his kind and the 
 admiration of his friends. Two views of him particu- 
 larly impressed me. The first was the unity, the har- 
 mony of his character. He had no jarring elements. 
 His whole nature had been blended and melted into 
 one strong, serene love. His mission was to preach 
 peace, and he preached it not on set occasions, or by 
 separate efforts, but in his whole life. It breathed in his 
 tones. It beamed from his venerable countenance. 
 He carried it, where it is least apt to be found, into the 
 religious controversies, which raged around him with 
 
24 
 
 great vehemence, but which never excited him to a 
 word of anger or intolerance. All \ny impressions of 
 him are harmonious. I recollect no discord in his beau- 
 tiful life ; and this serenitj was not the result of torpid- 
 ness or tameness ; for his whole life was a conflict with 
 what he thought error. He made no compromise with 
 the world, and jet he loved it as deeply and constantly 
 as if it had responded in shouts to all his views and 
 feelings. 
 
 The next great impression which I received from him, 
 was that of the sufficiency of the mind to its own hap- 
 piness, or of its independence on outward things. He 
 was for years debilitated and often a great sufferer; and 
 his circumstances were very narrow, compelling him to 
 so strict an economy, that he was sometimes represent- 
 ed, though falsely, as wanting the common comforts of 
 life. In this tried and narrow condition, he was among 
 the most contented of men. He spoke of his old age 
 as among the happiest portions if not the very happiest 
 in his life. In conversation his religion manifested itself 
 in gratitude more frequently than in any other form. 
 When I have visited him in his last years, and looked on 
 his serene countenance, and heard his cheerful voice, and 
 seen the youthful earnestness with which he. was read- 
 ing a variety of books, and studying the great interests 
 of humanity, I have felt how little of this outward world 
 is needed to our happiness. I have felt the greatness of 
 the human spirit, which could create to itself such joy 
 from its own resources. I have felt the folly, the insan- 
 ity of that prevailing worldliness, which, in accumulating 
 outward good, neglects the imperishable soul. On leav- 
 ing his house and turning my face toward this city, I 
 
25 
 
 have said to myself, how much richer is this poor 
 man than the richest who dwell yonder. I have been 
 ashamed of my own dependence on outward good. 
 I am always happy to express my obligations to the 
 benefactors of my mind ; and I owe it to Dr Wor- 
 cester to say, that my acquaintance with him gave me 
 clearer comprehension of the spirit of Christ, and of 
 the dignity of a man. 
 
 And he has gone to his reward. He has gone to 
 that world, of which he carried in his own breast so 
 rich an earnest and pledge, to a world of Peace. He 
 has gone to Jesus Christ, whose spirit he so deeply 
 comprehended and so freely imbibed ; and to God, 
 whose universal, all-suifering, all-embracing love he 
 adored and in a humble measure made manifest in 
 his own life. But he is not wholly gone ; not gone 
 in heart, for I am sure that a better world has height- 
 ened, not extinguished, his affection for his race ; and 
 not gone in influence, for his thoughts remain in his 
 works, and his memory is laid up as a sacred treas- 
 ure in many minds. A spirit so beautiful ought to 
 multiply itself in those to whom it is made known. 
 May we all be incited by it to a more grateful, cheer- 
 ful love of God, and a serener, gentler, nobler love of 
 our fellow-creatures. 
 4 
 
NOTE. 
 
 I cannot resist the desire to insert heie a few extracts from two letters relat- 
 ing to Dr Worcester, the first from one of his children, whose filial virtue con- 
 tributed largely to the comfort and happiness of his last years, and the second 
 from the Rev. Mr Austin, of Brighton. 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE FIRST LETTER. 
 
 ' My father was blessed with pious ancestors. His grandfather was reputed 
 a devoted minister. Both his grand-parents took a deep interest in his welfare, 
 and, with his pious parents, no doubt, offered fervent supplication that he might 
 early devote himself to the service of God. He often remarked that he could 
 not remember, when he had not a love for divine things. A few days previous 
 to his death, he mentioned a circumstance which deeply interested me. He 
 said, that, in the absence of his father, his mother and grandmother were in the 
 habit of conducting family worship, until he arrived to the age ef twelve. From 
 that period, he said, th»t he, being the oldest child, was called upon to perform 
 this service. The sacredness, which, from early life, he attached to the observ- 
 ance of this delightful duty, may thus be accounted for. Even when there 
 were strong indications of mental aberration, as there often were in the lethargic 
 turns with vihich he was afflicted (or several years previous to his death, he 
 would call the family together at the customary hour, and address the throne 
 of grace in an affectionate and collected manner. 
 
 ' He had no advantages for an education, excepting what the common public 
 schools of that day afforded. He was industrious, and very econoinical of time, 
 and having a thirst for knowledge, improved all his moments to some good pur- 
 pose. At the age of twenty-one he was married, and removed to Thornton, 
 N. H. At what time he made a profession of religion, I cannot tell ; but the 
 deep interest which he look in the spiritual welfare of the people, and the af- 
 fection manifested on their part, suggested to their aged minister the idea, that 
 his own services could be spared, and that my father should prepare himself to 
 be his successor. With the care of a family, dependent entirely upon his labor 
 for support, and with few books except his Bible, he commenced. The minis- 
 ter above alluded to, I think, afforded him such assistance as he was able; but 
 it was very evident, that the Great Teacher was his principal instructor, as he 
 possessed much of his spirit. 
 
 * He was in the habit of speaking of his death with perfect composure for 
 iTiany years, and calculated to have all his affairs arranged and settled daily, aod 
 
27 
 
 appeared to be constantly waiting for the coming of the Bridegroom. If there 
 was one grace, which shone more conspicuously in his character than another, 
 I think it was gratitude; and surely no family have greater reason for gratitude 
 than we have had. The debt is great to earthly benefactors, but how immense 
 our obligations to our Divine benefactor. During my dear father's last illness, 
 when he was relieved from distress, or after refreshing sleep, he would exclaim, 
 * Give God the praise ; help me to praise him.' For the last few weeks of his 
 life, he was too weak to converse much. He appeared to take great delight in 
 hearing the Scriptures read, and in uniting with Christians in prayer. His pre- 
 cious spirit returned to God who gave it, twenty minutes past nine in the eve- 
 ning of Oct. 31, 1837. When the clock struck seven he inquired the time, and 
 whether it was seven in the morning or evening. On being told, he expressed 
 his surprise that it was no later, and said, ' I hope that I shall be in Heaven be- 
 fore seven in the morning.' A friend replied, ' I trust you will.' He was ask- 
 ed if he should like to have prayer again. He answered very cheerfully, and 
 with a smile upon his countenance turned to a friend present, and said, '0 yes, 
 do.' A little before nine he requested that the death of Christ might be read 
 to him. He was asked where. He replied in Matthew. A turn of distress 
 prevented this request being complied with for some minutes, after which he 
 was asked if he could now listen ; he said • Yes,' and appeared to attend with 
 interest. This was his last request, ai;d these were his last words.' 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM THE SECOND LETTER. 
 
 ' In reply to my question, whether for the most part of his life, though then 
 so feeble, he had not enjoyed good health, he confessed that he had ; but stated 
 that an abscess, at about the age of seventeen, reducing him for a long period to 
 almost total weakness, and a dropsical affection of the legs in after life, from 
 which with great difficulty he recovered, had each nearly proved fatal to him. 
 In connection with these reminiscences, and while my thoughts were pursuing 
 the lamentable consequences to the community, of the death of such a man at 
 such a time, he added in substance the following anecdote. 
 
 ' Soon after his marriage with his first wife, which took place on his 2lst an- 
 niversary birth-day, Nov. 25, 1779, important business called him to cross Mad 
 River, a branch of the Merrimack. Sudden severe frosts, and alternate thaws 
 had encumbered the river with huge masses of ice, high piled above a dam. 
 Over this dangerous sort of bridge it was necessary to pass, and with the reso- 
 lution and promptitude, or rather rashness, as he termed it, of incipient man- 
 hood, it was passed, and in safety. His business successfully transacted, in the 
 afternoon he atten)pted to return; but the river, swoln in the interim, present- 
 ed a greater obstacle than before. However, remembering his duties at home, 
 imagining the anxiety of his new bride and his friends, should he remain till 
 next day on that side the river, and committing himself to God, he commenced 
 clambering over the ice ridges, now rendered so frightfully insecure as to make 
 him heartily regret, in the middle of the passage, that he had ever attempted it. 
 Habitual trust in God revived his drooping courage, and pressing on at .xtreme 
 hazard, he at length stood upon the shore, and hardly had he reached it, when. 
 
28 
 
 looking back on his perilous path, he beheld with consternation, the whole body 
 orice give way, and with tremendous noise, rush as in an instant down the 
 stream. Never was his consciousness of the divine goodness so intense, or his 
 grateful heart so full. He had well nigh fainted with excess of emotion, and 
 his friends found him scarcely in a condition to recotint his deliverance. 
 
 « The venerable Dr Worcester lived to see the fourth generation, and died 
 at^ed 79. A few days before his death, he told me that his religious views 
 were unchan^^^d, and that he derived from them peculiar comfort ; and to the 
 Rev. Mr Lamson, who also prayed with him more than once, he said, '♦ Pray 
 ibat 1 may have no will of my own/' ' 
 
14 DAY USE, 
 
 j^^nJRN TO DESK PKOM WHICH BORROWBD 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 REC 
 
 LD 2lA-60m-3,*65 
 (F2336sl0)476B 
 
 General L»brar7 
 
 University of CaUfornia 
 
 Berkeley 
 
YB 7236 
 
 ivil28819 
 
 BTU3 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA UBRARY 
 
 .' . . V 
 
 ■; »-■; 
 
 
 '^:.;u. ^'r*.i:**