LIBRARY

OF THE

Theo

logical Seminary,

'

PRINCETON, N.J.

Case,,__
Shelf,

Divisi.

Section \

Book,

No

777f4r%^'''^^

Digitized by tine Internet Arciiive

in 2011 witii funding from

Princeton Tineological Seminary Library

littp://www.archive.org/details/bibledoctrineofgOOkink

THE

OF

GOD, JESUS CHRIST, THE HOLY SPIRIT.

ATONEMENT, FAITH, AND ELECTION:

to WHICH IS PREFIXED

S0]SrE THOUGHTS ON NATURAL THEOLOGY

TRUTH OF REVEZiATZON:

BY WILLIAM KIXKADE,

A rompauion of all them that fear God, and keep his Cornmandm^n'-

H. R. Piercy, Printer, 265 Eoimh/.

is-:9.

Southern Disirict of Xew-Yoyk, ss :

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the Iwenly-sjxtli Jay of June, A. D.
1829, in the fifty-third yt-ar of the Independence of the United States ot*
Amtrica, William Kiukade, of the said district, hath deposited in this offics
the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as author in the words fol-
?Gwine, to wit :

"The Bible Doctrine of God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Atonement.
Faith, and Election : to which is prefixed some thoughts on Natural The-
ology, and the Truth of Revelation. By William Kinkade, Companion of
all them that fear God, and keep his Commandments "

In conformity to the act of Congress of the United States, entitled, " An act
fbr the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts,
and books, to the siuthors and proprietors of such copies, during the time?
therein mentioned," and also, to an act, entitled, "An act supplementary to
an act, entitled, an act for the i-ncouragement of learning, by securing the
copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such
copies, during the time therein mentioned, and extending the benefits thereof
Jo the arts of designing, engraving, and etcliing historical and other prints '"

FRED. J. BETTS.'
ClerlJ of the Southern District of New- York-
-■-Yew- York, June 30, 1S29.

PREFACE

To THE Reader,

The reader may wish to know how I got in posse^j-
sion of my present views of reUgion. I was born ir^
what was then called the back- woods, in western PensyU
vania. BIy parents moved to Kentucky, when I vva?
not more than three, or four years old. I received my
first ideas of religion, from my mother, and I have no
doubt but that her prayers and instructions, were the
principle means which made me a christian.

She told me there was a God and a devil, a heaven
and a hell, and I believed her. She taught me the differ-
ence between righteousness and sin, told me that a
virtuous life would secure the favor of God, and that
a vicious course would not fail to draw on me his fier
est displeasure. She learnt me the Mother's Catecb"
and taught me that unless I would pray to God, T -
not be righteous in his sight. A belief of the&
made me religious, and when I was not more thv
years old, I frequently went into the woods, or son.
other secret place, and kneeled by myself in prayer
God, when at the same time I did not know that anj
other person ever did so, for although my mother had
taught me to say my prayers, when I went to bed at
night, and when I got up in the morning, she had never
told me to go into secret, and pray by myself. I wa?-
raised in the Presbyterian Church, and still think the}

IV PREFACE.

are the best religious sect I know, except the Quakels :
and in some respects, they excel them. I learned the
Presbyterian Catechisms, but never believed near all
of them.

The Bible was my school-book, and I still think it is
the best school-book in the world. In learning my les-
sons in the New Testament, I took up the idea that
God was the greatest, and oldest person in existence,
and that Jesus Christ was the next greatest ; but I was
just as far from thinking that he was as old, or as great
as his Father, as I was from thinking that I was as old,,
or as great as my father.

I was under conviction for sin, almost all my life, and
spent my days in sinning and repenting, till the great
revival took place in the Piesbyterian Church in 1800,
and 1801, when I was brought under still deeper con-
viction for my sins, and my trouble of mind increased
till the 26th, day of September 1802, and then at a large
camp-raeeting, God converted my soul ; he removed
the burden of guilt from my mind, shed abroad his love
in my heart, and filled me with joy unspeakable and
full of glory.

I then refused to call myself by any name but that

of Christiany bore a public testimony against all party

names, and declared that I would take no other book

.i my standard but the Bible. I did not then know that

J other per.son would unite with me to have no name
but Christiany and take no standard but the Bible, but
I thought it was right, and therefore determined to pur-
sue it, let the consequmce be what it might. 1 could
have been a Baptist, a Methodist, >r a Presbyterian
preacher. The two latter sects both strongly solicited
me to be a preacher among them, but I utterly refused,
bQcause I thought it would be better for me to go alone

PEEFACE. V

on the word of God, than to put myself under obhgation
to beUeve, and preach any system that could be framed
by fallible men. About that time the Presbytery where
I lived, licensed near thirty preachers, that had not a
liberal education, but this has since caused a division
among them, and given rise to a new sect, who call
themselves Cumberland Presbyterians.

I have since ascertained that in different parts of
America, there were hundreds who started about the
same time that I did, and although they were generally
unknown to each other, they took the same ground, and
were actuated by the same Spirit. According to the
best of my recollection it was about three years after 1
took this stand before I heard of Marshall, Thompson,
Stone, or any other member of the Springfield Pres-^
bytery.

I was raise.d on the frontiers of Kentucky, in the midst
of the Indian war, where men were only respected in
proportion to their valor and skill in fighting Indians,
and killing wild beasts ; and I verily thought that to be
a brave skilful warrior: and a good hunter was the
greatest honor to which any man could attain.

When I got religion I had but httle learning, I could
barely read and write, and that but very indifferently.
I then thought, and yet think, that God then called me
by his Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel.

On this occasion I had to make a great sacrifice. I
laid aside my leather hunting-shirt, my rifle-gun, and
butcher-knife, and left my father's house and my beloved
woods to travel and preach the Gospel. But before
I started to preach, I thought it was necessary to buy a
bible, and as I had no money, I agreed to work to a
Presbyterian man for one. He let me have it for five
^ays work, and although I had to grub bushes in a brier
1*

VI PREFACE.

patch, I think it was the best bargain I ever made ; 1
have it yet. It is a httle pocket bible without note, com-
ment, or marginal reference. By reading it, I formed
my present views of religion, which I committed to
writing in all their essential points, without the assist-
ance of commentators, and before I had seen a concor-
dance, nor had I at that time ever read a word from the
pen of a Unitarian. After I had preached a while I went
to school to Doctor Stubs, who taught an academy in
the neighborhood of Newport, Kentucky : there I got
some more learning. Boarding and schooling were
both very high, and I paid my way by working day's
works.

Although I have been a scholar in several schools,
have travelled and preached more than twenty years,
read several books, conversed with many men famed
for wisdom, had many private and pubHc disputes on
various doctrines of religion ; still all I have learned has
only confirmed me in the great and leading truths of
religion, which I first learned by reading the little bible
that I earned by grubbing in a brier patch. I now feel
thankful to God that the independence of mind which
grew up with me in my native woods has never forsaken
Tiie. I have at all times dared to oppose any thing that
I did not think was right. Although this course has
ilways created me enemies, and rendered me unpopular,
ill I glory in it, because I think it is the course pursu-
ed by the ancient prophets, and by Christ and his apostles.
I disown all party names. I do not profess to belong
■to any sect of Christians. I fellow hip all good people
01 every name without "?gar^ lo how much they may
differ froT* me in cl:)C* > , 1 have written this book
as the senti >ct, nor denomination of peo-

ple. It is a s^'c .. v* my own views. If you are a

PREFACE. yu

Christian, or a sincere seeker of religion, I remain youi
brother, in the patience, tribulation, and hope of the
kingdom of Jesus Christ.

WILLIAM KINKADE,
Ji Stranger, and Pilgrim on Earth,
May God guide us into all necessary truth.

J\m'-YorJc, Julij 1, 1829.

■9*,

PART I.

THOUGHTS ON WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED NATURAL THEOLOGT.

There is not one inch of rational ground between
Christianity and Atheism. Independently of the Bible,
or some supernatural revelation, we could never ascer-
tain the existence of God.

Many christians contend that the existence of God
may be learnt from the works of nature, but I believe
they all confess that they cannot teach any correct
knowledge of his attributes. Then I contend that if
nature can give us no certain knowledge of his attri-
butes, she can give us no assurance of his present ex-
istence, because if she cannot assure us that he pos-
sesses the attribute of immortality, she cannot assure
us that he now lives. We never could ascertain from
the works of nature that God is immortal ; but on the
contrary, reasoning from effect to cause, and seeing all
his works perishable, we shbuld naturally be led to think
that the author would also die, because it is a maxmi in
the laws of nature, that like produces like ; and if God
is like the things he has produced, he must be mortal ;
therefore, for any thing that nature teaches to the con-
trary, he may have died long ago. The great regular-
ity with which nature seems to move, is no proof that
its author still Uves ; he might have created the machine
so perfect, that it would run several thousand years
without his interference. If a man can make a clock,
that will run eight days without being wound np, its
fanning the eighth day, is no proof that the man, who

U NATURAL THEOLOGV.

made it, is still living. It is well kno\vn that a persoii^-
who could not make a clock, could keep one in opera-
Hon fifty years after the one that made it was dead. —
Just so, for all that nature can teach to the contrary,
the Creator may have died thousands of years since,
and the system of nature may now be proceeding of its
own accord, or else carried on by iiilerior agents, that
have succeeded him in the government of the Universe.
But even if we should admit that the regularity with
which nature moves, is a proof of God's present exis-
tence, it can be no proof that he will continue to exist;
).hat my lungs uiove, and my blood circulates to-day, is
iio proof that they will to-morrow ; so we may say of
God, for all that nature teaches to the contrary, he may
die to-morrow. If we reason from nature, his great
age, instead of proving that he will never die, would
rather go to prove that he must soon die, because every
living being that we see under the dominion of nature,
sinks into death under the weight of time.

We cannot tell by the study of nature, how long the
world has stood ; if nature cannot tell us when she was
made, how can she inform us who made her 1 Al-
though we cannot tell precisely the age of a machine by
looking at it, we can tell whether it is new or old, but
we never can, by looking at it, find out >vho made it«

The study of nature does not, nor cannot teach us^
*hat God is unchangable ; but on the contrary, reason-
ing from effect to cause, and seeing all his works muta-
hle, v.-e are more naturally led to think, that he himseli
>3 also subject to change. If the works of nature can*
not assure us that God possesses the attribute of im-
mutability, we cannot by nature be sure, that he exists :
because every mutable being may die, or be essential*
\y changed.

If we should admit that our Creator exists, and tha*
lie is wise and merciful, still, if we have no assurance
that he is immutable, there can be no certainty that he
will exist in future, or that if he should, he will then be
wise and merciful.

That man, without revelation, could form no correct
(leas of the Oivine attributes, is clearly proved by the
jKiathen. Although they had somo knowledge of Go^\

:jfATURAL THEOLOGY. 11

by tradition from their ancestors, yet being destitute oi"
the scriptures, they could form no very correct ideas of
his attributes ; hence they always have, and still do, as-
cribe to their Gods the most malignant passions, and
abominable conduct. As it is certain that we cannot^
by nature obtain any certain knowledge of God's attri-
butes, so it is equally certain that we cannot prove from
nature, that he noiv exists. ^

Romans i. 20. has been quoted to prove that a >\
linowledge of God may be derived from the works ol
creation. " For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
God-head." It is hardly probable that Paul intended
to hold out the idea, that the people of whom he then
spake, had received their first knowledge of God from
the works of nature, because he must have known that
they received it from their parents ; of course he only
intended to hold out the idea, that to people, who knew
that God made the world, creation is a great display ot
his eternal power and God-head. If they got their first
ideas of God by viewing creation, they could not have
lost these ideas while they kept it in view. If all my
knowledge of an artist is derived from viewing his works,
I cannot lose that knowledge while I continue to be>
hold those works. If the knowledge of God flows from
the works of nature, as a stream from a fountain, the
stream cannot diy up while the fountain continues the
same. But the apostle informs us, that those people
did lose the knowledge of God ; that they became
vain in their imaginations, and that their foolish hearts
were darkened, and that as they did not like to retain
God in their knowledge. He gave them over to a re-
probate mind. The following text shows that Paul did
not think that men, by the wisdom of this world, could
know God. " For after that in the wisdom of God,
the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by
the foolishness of preaching to save them that be-
Jieve." I Cor. i. 21. Although it is self evident thai
there can be but one supreme being, yet to me, if I was ' -j ^
unaided by scripture, it would appear just as reasona- '
ble to suppose there are a thousand miUion of Qods, as

12 JfATUBAL THEOLOGY.

that there Is but one. Those nations, that are the far-
thest removed from the hght of Revelation, are the most
apt to worship a multipUcity of Gods. Reasoning from
effect to cause, they conclude that the same being cannot
be the author of so many things opposite in their nature
to each other ; hence they ascribe each of the different
elements, species of animals, vegetables, &c. to a dif-^
ferent God.

If the book of nature could teach the knowledge of
God correctly, then all the heathen, drawing their
knowledge from the same source, would think of him
alike, and would all believe in but one God. But we
find they are all polytheists, and differ widely relative to
the number, and attributes of their Gods. This diver-
sity has, no doubt, obtained among them by corruption
of the knowledge, handed down from their ancestors.

We have no account that any nation, having lost the
knowledge of the trne God, ever recovered it without
the aid of Revelation : therefore, there is no evidence
that nature has ever taught her children the knowledge
of God.

By the powers of nature we can think of nothing but
what has submitted to one, or more of our exter-
nal senses. It is true we may form in our minds an
image, the precise archetype of which we have never
seen ; we may suppose an animal with the head of a
man, the wings of a fowl, the body of a fish, and the
feet of a beast ; but although we have never seen such
a creature, we have seen those ofwhich it is compound-
ed. But it is a^ impossible for us, by our natural pow-
ers, to conceive an idea independently of our bodily
senses, as it is to create a principle in the Mathema-
tics. I therefore conclude, that if we had not heard
of, nor seen God, we never could have formed an idea
of his existence. This is in accordance with the opin-
ion of Paul. He says, " Faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God." Rom. x. 17. Nature
has not a spark of spiritual light in her, nor did she ever
tell any person that there is a God.

I have never talked with a person, who would testify
that his first ideas of God were formed from the study
of nature ; but on the contrary, I have uniformly found

NATURAL THEOLOGV. iS

that mankind, whether savage or civilized, receive their
first ideas of the Deity from their ancestors. If a man
m possession of all the senses of mature age, who had
never seen nor heard of a creature like himself, should,
in five minutes after he got his existence, see a water-
mill, he would be as unable to account for it, as he
would be to account for the stream that propelled it :
but after he would get acquainted with men, and learn
trom them that a certain man made the mill, that infor-
mation would enable him to discover in the machine,
the skill of the artist. Just so, after we are informed
by Revelation that there is a God, and that he made
the worlds, that information gives the works of nature
a voice to display to us the wisdom of the Creator ; and
every trace of intelligence, we discover in the mechan-
ism of nature, is a corroborating proof of his wisdom. —
If a man, who had never seen nor heard of a book,
ahould find the history of the Arabs containing the Al-
^joran, written in Arabic, it would not inform him that
there was such a man as Mahomet, or that there is
such a nation as the Arabs. And if he should keep it
his life time, and never meet with a person who had seen
any other book except it, and never conie in contact with
a person who had seen or heard of Mahomet, or of
the Arabs, and should never see nor hear them himself,
lie would die, not only without the knowledge of their
religion and laws, but also without the knowledge of
their existence. So we may have the volume of nature
before us till we die, and unless the author should re-
veal himself to us directly, or through prophets, it
could never teach us his existence, much less his attri-
butes and laws. If the man, who found this book,
should meet with an Arabian who would teach him to
read Arabic perfectly, then that knowledge would en-
able him to learn from the book, the existence, reli-
gion, laws, and customs of those people. Just so, af-
ter God had revealed himself to us by the prophets, and
informed us that he made all things, then through that
mformation, "The heavens declare the glory ofGod^,
and the firaiament showeth his handy work."

It is true that the heathen, without the written word,
have some ideas of God, but no doubt all their correct

2

14 >rATXniAL THEOLOGTi

ideas of him are either traditions handed down fiom
their father Noah, who was a prophet, and a preacher of
righteousness, or else information received from Jews.
or Christians.

I will now illustrate the subject by a simple compari-
son. Suppose I should find a machine of the most
complicated and exquisite workmanship, made by a man
whom I had never seen, nor heard, nor thought of:
surely, that machine could never inform me what par-
ticular man made it. It might have been made by a
Spaniard, of a certain age, size, and complexion, Hving
in a cottage in old Spain, but the machine could never
inform me that such a Spaniard exists ; it could give
me no more information of him, than could a machine,
he never saw, because I would not know that a Span-
iard made it ; and if I were as ignorant of all human
beings as I am of him, the machine could not teach me
that any humans exist. If I should view the said ma-
chine ten years, it would not suggest to me the idea
that any Hottentot is a good mechanic, but if it was
proved to me that a Hottentot made it, then through
that testimony I could discover in the workmanship ev-
idence to convince me, that there is, at least, one skill-
ful Hottentot. Just so I think of the material universe;
it has no tongue to inform us of its Creator ; but after
we are informed that there is a God, and that he made
the worlds, that Revelation gives them a voice to dis-
play to us his wisdom and power.

Although there is nothing in the Bible contrary to
reason, yet its truths never could have been discovered
by reason, because men cannot reason without some-
thing to reason on : the best mechanic cannot construct
a machine without materials ; the blind man, who never
saw, cannot reason on colors, nor can the deaf man,
who never heard, reason on sounds. Just so I think of
those, who never heard of God by Revelation, they
could reason nothing about him.

The reason why nature cannot impart to us thfc
knowledge of God is, because she does not possess it
herself Neither the earth, the water, nor the air, knows
God ; they know nothing. How then can they com-
municate to us the most sublime of all knowledge ?

'tsatural theology. 15

To say that a monkey can teach astronomy, would be
less absurd than to say, that dead matter can teach the
knowledge of God, because a monkey evinces more
sio-ns of inteUigence than do rocks and trees.

But it will be asked if we may not receive the knowl-
edge of God by internal illumination, independently of
the bodily senses. To this I answer yes, but at the
same time it should be remembered, that knowledg-ethus
received, is not acquired by contemplating the works of
nature, it is a direct Revelation, given by an act of
God.

If I should find in a ship twenty different kinds of
plants, and twenty different machines, all very unUke
any thing I ever saw before, it would not teach me that
this earth is a hollov/ sphere, inhabited in the interior
by human beings, ikit'if the ship's crew would inform
me that these are facts, that they had been in that coun-
try, conversed with the inhabitants, and brought out of
it those plants and machines as specimens of its
growth and maiuiiactures, then that information would
not only teach me the existence of such a place, but it
would enable nie to form, by examining the plants and
machinery, some ideas of its soil and inhabitants. Just
so, the works of nature could not teach me the being of
God, nor a future existence beyond this life, but when
the prophets taught me these things, that information
enabled me to learn by the study of nature something
of his wisdom and power.

If we knew that God and the Devil both exist, that
the one is the best, and the other the worst being in the
imiverse, but at the same time we had never been in-
formed which of the two is the greater, nor which of them
made the world, we never co'ild by the study of nature de-
termine either of these difRc ilties. It is well known that
many of the ancient philosophers, and also the Manichees,
a numerous sect of ancient Christians, believed that the
1)ad spirit was self-existent, and that he created all the
matter in the universe. If nature could not inform us,
which of the two made the world, how could she teach
us that either of them did it ? Or, what is still harder,
how could she teach us the being and attributes of a

16 NATURAL THEOLOGY.

person, that had never been presented to any ofour ex-
ternal senses in any respect whatever ?

As by the help of glasses the naturahst discovers
things too distant, or too minute for the naked eye, so
by Revelation the believer is enabled to obtain knowl-
edge too high, and too abstruse for rea.son unaided by
Revelation to have reached. But as these glasses show
nothing in contradiction to our sight, so the scriptures
reveal nothing in opposition to reason.

Independent of Revelation, it is altogether as rea-
sonable to suppose that the sun, moon, and stars, are
self-existent as that Cod is.

If the fact that the solar system exists, is a proof that
there must have been a God. who made it, then the fact
that God exists is a proof that there must have been a
God, who made him. If the great state of perfection
and order, in which iiature exists, is a proof that there
must have been a God, who made it, the greater state
of perfection, in which God exists, must prove more
firmly that he had a Creator.

Without the Christian scriptures, we never could as-
certain that God is holy, because there is nothing in
the empire of nature, that proves him to be just or mer-
ciful.

If the fact, that he gives hfe and pleasure to multi-
tudes, is brought as a proof of his goodness, then the
fact that he afflicts just the same number with misery
and death, mav be urged with equal force to prove that
he is malignant.

If God made this world and all its inhabitants, reason
would say he claims them as his own, and exercises a
particular providence over them : but from every thing
that can be learnt independently of the Bible, his provi-
dence appears to be more in favor of vice than of virtue.
He has perniitted more vicious men to rule over man-
kind than he has virtuous ones. He has generally
given the wicked more wealth, ease, and earthly plea-
sure, than he has the righteous. x\lthough the virtuous
part of mankind have never contemplated injury to the
rest, but have always sousfht to do them good, still God
has, in every age, permitted them to be oppressed, tor-
tured, or otherwise imposed on by the wicked.

NATURAL THEOLOGY. 17

The nations, destitute of the Bible, have mostly re-
garded the ruling deities, as the most vicious beings in
the universe : and if we had no idea of rewards and
punishments beyond the grave, and should suppose
that God orders and controls all that happens in this
world, we would probably be led to the same conclu-
sion, because it is evident, that if he orders all the
vicious actions of all men, he must be more vicious
than any one man. To suppose that he does not order,
but barely permits, the wickedness of mankind, would
scarcely reflect on him a more amiable character, be-
cause it would at least make him accessary to all the
wickedness in the world. Such a supposition w^oiild
not only hold out the idea, that he refuses to exert his
power to suppress vice, or protect virtue, but it would
also represent him as a being who supports the wicked,
while they are oppressing and torturing the righteous.

If God exists, but takes no care of, nor exercises no
providence over mankind in any respect whatever, then
he is exactly as good to us as no God, because we
could do just as well without him as with him. On the
other hand, if he exists, and governs this world just as
it is governed, without any respect to future rewards and
punishments, he must be worse than none, because he
has generally been more favorable to the wicked (in
this world) than to the righteous, a id is himself the au-
thor of all the misery in the world. Surely a cruel ty-
rant is worse than no ruler. Nature cannot teach us a
future existence, and it is plain that if our existence is
limited to the present life, the virtuous must be more
unhappy than the wicked, because although the suffer-
ing Christian in the depths of poverty, frequently has
more happiness than is felt by pampered vice in the
midst of affluence, yet that happiness is derived from
the hope of enjoyments in the next life, and of course if
that prospect were cut off, the comforts flov/ing from
it would cease. A conviction of this truth, no doubt,
made Paul say, " If in this life only we have hope in
Christ, we are of all men most miserable." I Cor.
XV. 19.

Before the light of Revelation all these difficulties
disappear. The Bible informs us that all wicked ac-
2* r

IS NATURAL THEOLOGY,

tions originate in the persons who perpetrate thern-
and are the abuse of liberty, the choicest gift of heaven;
and that in the next hfe God will reward the righteous
with endless happiness, and inflict on the wicked ever-
lasting punishment according to their crimes. And
that inestimable book does not only hold out to the
worst of sinners an offer of pardon and eternal happi-
ness on no harder conditions, than just to forsake their
evil practices and lead a virtuous life, but it also in-
forms us all, that if we will ask of God he will give us
his spirit to change our hearts, dnect us in the way of
life, and enable us to surmount every difficulty in our
road to heaven.

The advocates of natural theology, in trying to prove
the existence of God from the works of nature, gener-
ally proceed on the assumption that the world must
have been created, and thence conclude that it must
have had a Creator : thus, instead of proving, they as-
sume the very point in controversy, and then argue
from it as though it were an admitted or self-evident
fact. If in trying to prove that the earth is not self-ex-
istent, they would proceed on the assumption, that there
is a God who created all things, and thence conclude,
that of course this world must have been created, the
argument would be just as conclusive in the one case
as in the other. In the former case the disputant says,
•' The world was created, therefore there must have
been a God." In the latter case he says, " There w^as
a God, therefore the world must have been created." —
it is easy to see that the existence of this world is no
proof that there is a God : and it is equally easy to see
that the existence of a God is no proof that this world
was created ; and if we should even'admit that this
world was created, still it would remain to be proved
that God created it, because, for any thing that nature
•teaches to the contrary, it might have been created by
.?ome other being.

Suppose I should assert that this earth is a hollow-
sphere, thickly inhabited by people on the inside, and
some person would say to me, *' How do you know
that this earth is hollow ?' I would answer, because
many people live in the interior world., and therefore it

NATURAL THEOLOGY. 19

must be hollow. He would then ask me, how I know
that people live m this supposed concave ; I would an-
swer, because the earth is a hollow sphere, and there-
tore must be inhabited on both sides : surely no man in
his senses would say, I had proved nly assertions to be
true ; and yet it would be just as good a proof that
Symmes' theory is correct, as the advocates of natural
theology have to prove the existence of a God. The
two very points, that are accused at the bar of reason
with being false, are admitted by these arguers to prove
each other true. If the Court would admit two men
who stood indicted for perjury to prove each other
clear, it would not act more inconsistently.

If a Missouri Indian, at the foot of the Rocky
Mountain, who had never seen nor heard of a
book, should find Ferguson's astronomy, with a com-
plete set of matiiematical instruments, they could not
inform him that such a man as Ferguson had lived,
much less could they teach him the science of astrono-
my. Just so with blind nature, she cannot teach us the
existence of God, much less his attributes and laws :
but as the book and instruments might be useful in the
hands of a living teacher to instruct the savage ; so na-
ture, by the means of Revelation, may be useful to
impress on our minds some important lessons, relative
to the wisdom and povrer of the Deitv.

PART II.

CHAPTER I.

THE TUUTH OF REVELATION.

As it is impossible for men by the powers of nature
to discover the existence of God, so it would be equalh
impossible for them, without a previous revelation to
report that he exists ; for it would be as difficult, without
the means of mental conception, to conceive a false-
hood, as a truth. Although in depraved nature, error
may flourish better than truth, still it cannot spring up
without a seed ; therefore the fact, that mankind believe
there is a God, is a sufficient proof of his existence,
because, if there was no reality in it, they could not
have invented the report.

As in the dommion of nature nothing can grow
without a seed, so in the empire of mind, ideas cannot
spring from nothing. The seed of mental conception,
is knowledge, which must be received through our ex-
ternal senses, or by divine influx. The means of this
conception is reflection. By our outward senses we
receive simple ideas, and by reflecting on them, we con-
ceive, or form complex ones, and so combining thoughts,
we reason and draw conclusions. Mental conception
is an act of the mind, but the mind cannot act without
something to act on : it can no more conceive an idea
of God, or of any other being without previous informa-
tion, than nature can bring forth fruit without a seed.
Hence it would be as impossible for man to fabricate
the Scripture doctrine of God, his attributes and laws,
as it would be to grow large quantities of grain, ancii
breed numerous flocks and herds, without any seed to
grow, or breed them from. The richest ^il, undei

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION, 2J

the best climate, and in the most favorable season,
cultivated to the greatest perfection, will yield no fruit
uithout seed. So it may be said of man, if the seeds oi"
knowledge are not sowed in his mind, he cannot bring
forth the fruits of wisdom.

As the ground that never received seed cannot pro-
duce it, so the man that never received the knowledge
of God, cannot communicate it ; and as we are neither
born with this knowledge, nor can obtain it by the study
of nature, it follows with moral certainty that the first
w ho possessed it, must have received it by revelation
from God.

When a child gives us a long, and connected account
of some extraordinary circumstance, tells the names of
several per-;ons that were present of whom we know if
had never heard before, and repeats several of their
learned expressions, which we know are entirely above
its capacity, we conclude the substance of the narrative
must be true, because we say, the child could not invent
such a story : so I conclude the Scriptures must be
true, because ignorant nature was unable to forge such
a book.

If the inhabitants of a remote island, who from time
immemorial had never seen nor heard of a living crea-
ture, except those that lived on their own spot of ground,
should all tell me that their island had tormerly been
inhabited by buffaloes, that although they had never seen
them, their ancestors had, and also accurately describe
the animals,! should consider the tradition true, because
I should suppose they were incapable of giving an ac-
curate description of those beasts, without some infor-
mation on the subject. So I think the bare tradition
that there is a God is a proof of the fact, because such
a tradition could not have started from nothing.

The fact that some Indians on the Columbia, who
had never seen the sea, nor a ship, believed that ships
had been at the mouth of that river, was considered by
Lewis and Clark as a proof that those seas had been
navigated with ships, because they rationally concluded
that savages, who never could have heard of the sea,
nor of a ship from any other quarter, could not invent
fhe tale ; but when they saw among those people, seve-

t^

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION*

ral articles of European manufacture, said to be bough<
from other Indians, who got them from the ships, they
were confirmed in the opinion, because they knew those
people could not make such articles, and they knew no
other means by which they could have obtained them.
So when I find that mankind believe there is a God, I
take that belief as a proof of the fact, because I think
they wore unable to forge the doctrine ; but when I find
in the Scriptures, a beautitul and sublime description of
his attributes and laws, I am confirmed in the opinion,
because I know these ideas and doctrines did not grow
out of human nature, and I know no way they could
have received them, but by revelation from God.

I invite every Deist to reflect, and inquire, whether
he, or any person, he ever saw obtained his first know-
ledge of God from the study of nature, or from human
teachers ; if he, nor no person he ever saw, received
his first knowledge of the Deity from nature, he cannot
be sure that it can be obtained in that way. Such
evidence as that on which the Deist rests the being of
God, would not be admitted before a justice of the peace
to collect a constable's fee. It is a mere opinion des-
titute of proof.

In order to place this subject in a clear point of view,
I will state a case, accompanied with evidence in every
respect similar to that, by which the Deist tries to prove
the extisence of God.

A, sues B, for trespass ; the trial being set, and the
suit called —

A comes forward and
accuses B of having, some
time prior to the year of
our Lord, 1650, entered
on the lands of xV, and dug
some deep holes, and cast
up a number of mounds,
by which the said land was
injured ; but B does not
appear at the trial, and A
being called upon to prove

The Deist comes into
court to prove there is a
God that made the world,
and the lollowing dialogue-
takes place between him.
and the court.

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION.

^^

the ehaige, the following
dialogue takes place be-
t\veen him and the court.

Court. How do you know-
that B injured your land ?

A. Because I found those
heights and hollows in it,
therefore I know B must
have made them.

Court. Did you see B
injure your land 1

Jl. No, it was done before
I was born.

Court. Can you bring any
evidence that saw him do
It?

A. No, it was done before
any of my witnesses were
born.

Court. How do you know,
but that some other person
injured your land?

J^, I know B must have
done it, because no other
person was capable.

Court. Perhaps these
heights and hollows in your
land are natural ; how do
you know that any person
made them 1.

A. Because they could
not have made themselves,
and of course B must have
done it.

Court. Did you ever see
B?
A No.

Court. Can you produce
any person competent to

Court. How do you kno-\y
there is a God ?

Deist. Because I find
the Solar system existing,
therefore I know, there
must have been a God
who made it.

Court. Did you see God
make the worlds ?

Deist. I'-.o, they were
made before I was in ex-
istence.

Court. Can you bring
any evidence that saw him
make the worlds ?

Deist. No, they were
made before any man ex-
isted.

Court. How do you
know but that some other
being made the worlds ?

Deist. I know it must
have been God, because
no oth^r being could have
done it.

Court. How do you
know but that matter is
self existent, and not cre-
ated by any being 1

Deist. Because it could
not exist of itself, and
therefore God must have
made it.

Coin-t. Did you ever
see God ?

Deist. No.

Court. Can you produce
one frood witness, that has

24

THE TRUTH OF EEVELATION-

give evidence, that has
seen him ?

^. No.
Co«r^ Where does B hve?

A. I do not know, but
I beheve he is every where
at the same time, yet can-
not be seen personally at
any place.

Court. How do you
know that there is such a
man as B ]

^B., Because he tres-
passed on my ground.

Being dismissed, and
walking into the court
yard, A meets one of his
friends with whom he has
the following talk.

Friend. How did you
first come to know, that
there is such a man as B,
who injured your land?

A. The first I recollect
of hearing about him, my fa-
ther told me, and he said
he learned it from an old
book of records, that used
to belong to his Grand-fa-
ther.

Friend. Have you that
book now 1

A. Yes.

Friend. Why did you
not take it into court, as
evidence against B ?

A. Because it teaches
customs, and enjoins mo-
ral obligations that do not
accord with my notions of
happiness.

seen him 1

Deist. No.
Coifr/. Where does he live?

Deist. 1 do not know,
but I believe his centre is
every where, and his cir-
cumference no where.

Court. How do you
know that such a being as
God exists I

Deist. Because he made
the world.

Then being dismissed,
and walking out into the
court yard, the Deist meets
one of his friends, with
whom he holds the follow-
ing conversation.

Friend. Mr. Deist, ho^\
did you first get the
opinion that there is a
God, who made the worlds?

Deist. Weil friend to be
candid, I acknowledge
that the first ideas I had of
God, or of creation,! learn-
ed from my parents, and
they said they got them
from the Bible.

Friend. Have you the
Bible now ?

Deist. Yes.

Friend. Why did you
not take it into court to
prove there is a God ?

Deist. Its doctrines con-
demn my practice, and
cross my appetite, and
therefore I wish to have
nothing to do with it.

THE TRUTH or REVELATION. 25

Although I learned none of the preceding arguments
iVom books, I am dependant on writers for most of these
Ml the next t-.v o chapters, but as more than eighteen
years have passed since I read them. I have no perfect
recollection of their manner of treating the subject.

CHAPTER II.

We can establish Christianity by testimony thai
•«. ould be received as evidence in a court of justice. — -
The Bible proves as positively that Moses, the Proph-
^^ts, Christ and the Apostles, wrought the miracles and
u rote the books that are ascribed to them, as the his-
tory of England, France, or Rome, proves that the
Kings, or Emperors, v^hose names are therein record-
ed, ever lived and transa.cted the public business, that
is ascribed to them. It is well known that charters of
real estate are subjects of historical record, and that in
law suits about land these records are always read in
court as evidence. In one land suit in Louisiana, it
frequently happens that part of the history of Spain, of
France, and of the United States, is read as evidence,
because the land has been held under all these govern-
inents. The old Testament exhibits to the Jews a
clear charter for the land of Canaan, under which they
held it by metes and bounds, near two thousand years; so
that we have as good evidence to prove that the five
books of Moses, and the book of Joshua are true, ac-
any freeholder m an old country has to prove that he
has a legal right to his land.

The miracles by which the Jews were put in posses-
sion of Canaan, proved at once the truth of their religion^
and their right to the soil. When they had their law-
suits about land, they, no doubt, frequently referred to
the crossing of Jordan, the settling of two and a half of
their tribes in the land of the Amorites, the demohshing
of Jericho, and the big hail stones that were thrown on
ihe Amorites at the battle of Gibeon, because out ol
3

26 THE TRUTH OP REVELATIO?,'.

these miracles grew the titles to their lands, and ther
frequently found both registered in the same page.

Time cannot invalidate this evidence, although the
Jews have lost their land, the evidence that proves
they once had a right to it, is as clear now as it was
when Boaz bought of Naomi and Ruth the land that
had descended on them from a warrior, who walked
through Jordan diy shod, shouted to the sound of Ram's
horns under the walls of Jericho, and fought the Amo-
rites when the sun stood vstill upon Gibeon, and the moon
in the valley of Ajalon.

To reject Christianity, because the evidences that es-
tablish it are mostly historical, is as absurd as it would
be for a farmer to forsake his land because it descended
from his ancestors, and the title had become a matter
of historical record. When talking against religion the
Deist says, " I read of these prophecies and miracles
in books that are said to be as old as Christianity and
"^Judaism, but as 1 never saw those miracles, and did
not Uve from the times that those prophecies were de-
livered till they were fulfilled, they are all nothing to
me but hearsay, and therefore it is not worth my while
to cultivate religion, nor try to obtain any of its advan-
tages." And with just as much reason the farmer might
say, " The evidences by which the title of my land is
established are historical records, as ancient as the go-
vernment under which it was first owned, but as I only
read these evidences in old books, and never saw the
land sui*veyed, registered, nor purchased, it is all to me
nothing but hearsay, and therefore it is not worth my
while to cultivate, or try to derive any benefit from my
estate."

It is utterly impossible that the Jews would, or could
have received the books of Moses, and the book of
Joshua, as a genuine history of their nation if they had
not been true ; because the miracles which they say
■were wrought in Egypt, at the Red Sea, at Mount Si-
nai, in the wilderness, at Jordan, Jericho, &c., were so
stupendous, and done in the presence of so many hun-
dred thousand people in open day, that they never
would have been believed if they had not been true. —
Vet we find the Jews have always believed them, noi

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION. 27

kave I ever heard of a Jewish historian, that contradict-
ed them. And besides, we should recollect, that these
things were not mere opinions, or doubtful conclusions.
drawn from abstruse premises, but they were matters
of sense -, and every Jew, who had eyes and ears, was
capable of contradicting them, and detecting the impos-
ture if it was one. It is as certain that the books of
Moses and the book of Joshua are true, as it is that the
Jews ever had a political existence in the land of Ca-
naan ; because in these books their civd code, and their
religion are identified, and if they are not true, we have
no authority to believe that those people ever had a po-
litical existence, priests, or religious ceremonies : the
truth of their religion, and the reality of their national
and political existence must stand or fall together, the
same evidences support both.

If all miracles were excluded from the book of Exo-
dus, it would appear ten times as unreasonable to me
as it now does. That between two and three millions
of slaves, consisting of men, women, and children,
should be allowed to leave their masters, who were per-
haps the most powerful and warlike people on earth,
and march off in one body with all their flocks and herds
without a drop of blood being shed ; that they should
be able to escape from the Egyptian arnjy, cross the
Red Sea, subsist in such a multitude (that must neces-
sarily travel very slow,) long enough to march clear
through the barren desert of A.rabia, invade Canaan,
and establish themselves there under such civil and re-
ligious institutions as those by which the Jews were
governed, without any miraculou: interposition of God,
would appear to me altogether incredible.

If it is hard to believe that Pharoah and his subjects
were scourged with ten plagues, it is harder to believe
that they would let their slaves go for nothing. If it is
difficult to believe that God parted the Red Sea to let
the Jews walk through dry shod, it is more difficult to
believe that such a multitude could have crossed that
sea Nvithout any natural means, while the Egyptian
monarch, with his powerful army, was pressing on their
rear. If it appears improbable that they were fed with
manna ia the wilderness, it will appear still more improb-

2S THE TRUTH OF REVELATION,

able tliat they could march tlu'ough that extensive bar-
ren desert without any thing to eat. To admit that the
substance of the history is true, and then exclude all
miracles from it, would be making it still more mirac-
ulous, because it would be affirming that a great and
astonishing revolution has been effected without any
adequate means.

The unbelievers in religion are like infidels in as-
stronoiiiy ; for fear of believing one subhme truth be-
cause it appears to them miraculous, they run into the
necessity of believing things that are ten times more
incredible. To the man who denies the modern sys-
tem of astronomy, it appears impossible that this big
earth should turn round on its axes every twenty-four
hours, but he thinks it nothing strange that the sun,
which is vastly larger, should at the distance of many
millions of miles from the earth travel clear round it
every twenty-four hours. So the Deist cannot believe
that God has enabled prophets and apostles to effect,
by miracles, the -e great revolutions, which are, m fact,
quite out of the re^ch of any natural means ; out it ap-
pears to him altogether reasonable, that ignorant im-
postors, without the assistance of wealth, literature, re-
ligious prejudices, civil or military establishments, or
even truth, but with all these things agamst theai, and
without any help from God, but when they knew they
were rebelling against him, could effect the most stu-
pendous revolution that ever was achieved on earth*
and give to mankind a system of morals by which the
civilized world has ever since endeavored to frame
their civd institutions and regulate their judicial pro-
ceedings. The testimony of more than two millions ol
people that were present when the Almighty opened the
Red Sea, and when he rained manna from heaven, is not
sufficient to enable the Deist to believe that God
wrought these miracles : yet, at the same time, he can
believe, aid that without any testimony, that God made
the sea, the whole globe, and all the planets in the uni-
verse out of nothing. Although the apostles and
prophets are the most creditable witnesses that ever
bore testimony, and have accompanied their evidence
with greater signs of truth, than any others ever did :

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION. 29

the Deist cannot believe that God has by them reveal-
ed a system of morality for the government of mankind;
and yet, .strai. ^e as it may appear, he can believe, with-
out any evidence at all, that the Almighty has ordained
all the wickedness in the world, and that every thing
in this world is going on just as God designed it should.
When a man rejects the Bible as the Deist does, he
has no better evidence than his own opinion to prove
that there is a God, who made and governs the world.

We must acknowledge the miracles of Moses, Joshua,
&c., or else deny that the old Testament contains
the history, religion, and laws, of the Jewish nation, and
to deny this, would be as inconsistent as to deny that
the history, laws, and rehgion of the Romans, English,
or French, are to be found in Latin, Enghsh, or French
books. The man who denies that the old Testament
is a genuine history of the Jewish nation, might as well
deny that there ever was such a nation, but if he should
deny this, several millions of living Jews would rise up
w ith their old Hebrew Bibles in their hands, and con-
tradict him.

The objection that has been raised against Moses
and Joshua for invading Canaan, and destroying its in-
habitants, will disappear as soon as they can show their
authority from God for so doing ; for then the Israelites
will only appear as agents, executing the judgments of
God on those whom he had condemned for their wick-
edness, just as the sheriff executes the law on a con-
demned criminal. No one can deny but that God has
as good a right to destroy nations, old and young, by
the sword, as he has to destroy them by earthquakes,
famine, or pestilence.

.3*

30 THE TRUTH OF REVELATI05.

CHAPTER III.

The miracles wrought by Christ and the Apostles
were so many, so great, so various, and performed in
the presence of such vast multitudes, that they never
could have gained credit if they had not been true. —
Yet we find they did gain credit, and there in Jeru-
salem, the principal theatre of Christ's miracles, where
he was publicly crucified between two thieves, the very
place where the imposture, if it was one, might be most
easily detected, in less than two months from his cruci-
fixion, we find no less than five thousand people openly
profess to be his disciples. And it should be re-
membered that they were not induced to make this pro-
fession for the sake of wealth or worldly honors, be-
cause Christ had promised them neither, but told them
that they should be hated of all men for his name-sake,
and that he himself was not as well off* in worldly goods
as a fox or a bird. He told them plainly, that to be his
disciples would cost them their lives ; therefore no-
thing but the clearest conviction of his divine mission
could have induced them to become his followers. It
is utterly impossible for the apostles and their associ-
ates to have been deceived, because the things on
which they rest their testimony are matters of sense, not
matters of opinion ; besides it is impossible that they
should be deceived respecting the miracles they
wrought themselves. It is equally impossible that they
could have been deceivers, because there is not one
«iark of deception in their characters. They always did
good, and never did harm ; they persevered all their
days in preaching and practising the purest morality,
and at last laid down their lives in support of the same.
if they were impostors I v/ould inquire, what are the
marks of truth and honesty 1

Either God or man must be the author of the Bible,
this position is too plain to admit of dispute. And it
is equally certain that if men are the authors of it, they
must be either good men, or bad men. The prophet's

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION. 31

and apostles, who recorded the truths of the Bible,
could not have been bad men, for the following reasons.
1. Because in their characters, there is not one
trait of bad men; they never spoke nor acted wickedly
in all their lives, after they became prophets or apos-
tles. 2. Because the histories of their lives, exhibit
every characteristic of good men; they unremittingl}-
taught aiid practised righteousness, and labored all
their days, and at last laid down their hves to support
virtue. To say they were bad men, would be an out-
rage on common sense ; it would be the same as to say
that very good men are very bad men.

It is impossible that bad men could have been the
authors of the Bible, because it teaches all men to be
good, and threatens bad ones with the wrath of God.
and the torments of hell for ever and ever. If the apos-
tles and prophets were impostors, they did not beheve
what they preached, and if so, then undeceived, wilful
impostors, must have invented the purest system ol'
morals that ever was preached on earth, denied them-
selves of nearly all the comforts of this life, and volun-
tarily submitted to the most ignominious and painful
deaths, all in support of virtue ; when, at the sa'me time,
they hated it in their hearts, and did not believe, that
chher God or raan required them to do so, or that they
would receive the least benefit by so doing.

It is equally clear that good men could not be the
authors of the Bible ; the men who wrote it constantly
and unequivocally declare, they were not the authors
of it, but that they only spoke and wrote what the Lord
revealed to them; therefore if they did not receive these
things by divine inspiration, they must have been con-
stantly in the practice of lying wilfully and knowingly,
and therefore could not have been good men. If then,
neither bad nor good men, were the authors of the Bi-
ble, the conclusion is irresistible, that it cannot be
a human production, but must have come from God.

If the evidences of Christianity, and the divine pow-
er attending it, had not been irresistible, it could not
have prevailed at the time, and in the places where it
was first preached. Its author neither accommodated
the prejudices, customs, appetites, ambition, nor

32 THE TRUTH OF REVELATION.

worldly interest of those to whom it was addressed, but
required them to take up a cross against all these
things ; and told them plainly, that unless they would
forsake parents, wives, children, houses, lands, and
even their own lives, they should have no part in him ;
while at the same time all the prejudices, customs, su-
perstitions, learning, and civil authorities of those coun-
tries, were arrayed agaii.st it; so that every one knew
that to profess Christianity, was certain disgrace,
end suffering, and aliuost certain death. Yet
under all these disadvantages it triumphed ; and not by
military force, and in the regions of the greatest igno-
rance, and barbarism as Mahometanism did, but by the
spirit of truth, and in the precincts of science and civi-
lization, so that in a short time it became the prevailing
rehgion of scientitic Greece, and political Rome ; and
has ever since held its empire over civilized man.
There was no train of natural causes sufficient to pro-
duce this great change in the moral condition of man-
kind, but on the contrary every thing in the dominion
of nature, and in the state of society stood in opposi-
tion to it ; therefore to deny that it was effected by su-
pernatural agency, would be the same as to say that
great eflects have arisen from no cause.

If the miracles said to be wrought by Christ and the
apostles were false, v.hy were they not then detected?
Learning, the prejudices of the age, numbers, and ci-
vil authority were all on the side of their enemies,
and if they were impostors, nothing could have
been easier, than for those enemies to defeat them ;
and by murdering Christ, and more than a hundred
thousand of his followers, they proved that they were
disposed to suppress both hini and his religion.

If a man should be arraigned at the bar ibr forgery,
and his enemies should have every advantage over him,
that the enemies of Christ and the apostles had over
them, and when the trial would come on, his accusers
would assert that they had more than a thousand living
witnesses who saw him commit the crime, and then af-
ter manifesting the greatest zeal and rancor, so com-
pletely fail to bring one proof against him, either posi-
tive or ciicumstantialj that the judge M'ould declare of

THE TRUTH OF REVELATION. 33

him, as Pilot did of Christ, that he found no fault in the
man, surely common sense would pronounce him inno-
cent. Similar to this was the trial of Jesus Christ, and
if his enemies with every facility failed to convict him
of forgery then, how can they expect to do it now, after
his gospel has stood the test of eighteen centuries, and
has always proved itself to be the nurse of science, and
the promoter of every thing that accords with the best
interest of man?

The Bible informs us, that if we will repent of our
sins, take up our cross, and persevere in praying
to God, he will give us his holy spirit to change our
hearts, cleanse us from sin, and fill us with joy un-
speakable and full of glory : and the Christians who
have complied with these conditions, have found the
promise true ; therefore, with them Christianity is not
merely a matter of opinion; it is a subject of experience,
and there are among us tens of thousands of living
witnesses, that have felt this supernatural change,
whose lives and conversation corroborate their tes-
timony.

No man in the world is naturally disposed to love
his enemies, and to do good to them that injure him ;
but all men acting under the influence of nature, return
good for good, and evil for evil. Therefore this reli-
gion, which teaches and disposes us to love our ene-
mies, and return good for evil, must bo superhuman,
must be divine. I have long thought that the gospel
contams internal evidence of its own divinity.

It was as impossible for this anti-sinfui gospel to origi-
nate from fraud, as it is for anti-republican principles to
proceed from republicanism, or anti-scriptural doctrines
to grow out yji liic Bible. That, which is opposite to
corruption, cannot grow out of it. That, vhich comes
against the current of corrupt nature, cha-tens it, and
turns it into the path of rectitude, must be «6oi'e nature.

PART III.
THOUGHTS ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITl

CHAPTER I.

THE UNITY OF GOD.

i shall first attempt to prove that there is but one
self-existing independent God.

*' Thou shalt have no other God before me." Ex.
XX. 3, " Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest
Imow, that the Lord he is God ; there is none else
besides him." Deut. iv. 35 — 39. " Know therefore,
this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he
is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath :
there is none else." " Thou art God alone." Psal.
Ixxxvi. 10. " Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel,
and his Redeemer the Lord of hosts, I am the first, and
I am the last ; and besides me there is no God." Isa.
xliv. 6. '' I am the Lord, and there is none else."
Chap. xlv. 6 — 22. Some people argue that, because
this God is called the Redeemer of Israel, he is there-
fore Christ, and hence infer that Christ is all the God
in the universe. But this conclusion is certainly un-
warranted, because the title of Redeemer must be as
applicable to the Father, as it is to the Son. "Have we
not all one Father? Hath not one God created us ?"
Mai. ii. 10. " Hear, 0 Israel ; the Lord our God is
one Lord." Deut. vi. 4. He did not say the Lords,
our Gods, are three Lords. In the New Testament,
Christ repeats this text in the same words, but if ho

i::fiTY OF GOD. . 35

knew that God existed in a Trinity of persons, and thai
it is essential to our salvation for us to believe so, he
certainly would not have deceived us, but would have
told us plainly that God exists in three persons. " God
is one." Gal. iii. 20. " Thou believest that there is
one God, thou doest well." Jam. ii. 19. One of the
scribes asked the Saviour, '' which is the first com-
mandment of all ?" and Jesus answered him, '' The
first of all the commandments is, hear, 0 Israel; the
Lord our God is one Lord." " And the scribe said
unto him, well Master, thou hast said the truth ; for
there is one God ; and there is none other but he."
Mark xii. 29—32. There can be no doubt but that
Christ and the scribe, in this passage, both intended to
assert that God is personally, numerically, and essen-
tially but one being.

I will now show from scripture that this one God is*
the Father. " There is one body ; and one sspirit, even
as ye are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord,
one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who
is above all, and through all, and in you all." Eph. iv.
4 — 6. Here the apostle asserts that this one God and
Father oj all is above all. Now it is plain that if the
one Spirit, and the one Lord, that are mentioned in the
same passage, are both God in the same sense that the
Father is, and are in all respects as great as he is, the
apostle has told two falsehoods : first, he has said that
there is but one God and Father of all, when at the
same time he knew that the one Spirit, and the one Lord,
were just as much God, as the Father is. And in the
second place, he has affirmed that this one God and
Father is above all, when at the same time, he knew
as well as he knew he had a head, that the one spirit,
and one Lord, that he had just mentioned in contradis-
tinction from the Father, and from each other, were both
coequal, coessential, and coeternal with the Father.
If a preacher in a Trinitarian church in the present day
should affirm that neither the Lord, nor the Spirit is
God, and that there is no God but the Father, and that
he is above all the beings in the universe, they would
charge him with heresy : and no doubt if the Ephesians
had b?en strong Trinitarians, they would have had Paul

36 UNITY OF GOD.

up about it. Well for old Paul, that the doctrine of the
Trinity was not known in the church at that day, or per-
haps he would have shared the fate of ^lithael Survetus.,
whom John Calvin caused to be burnt ahve for believ-
ing that the Father was greater than the Son.

Paul says, " We know that an idol is nothing in the
world, and that there is none other God but one. For
though there be, that are called Gods, whether in heav-
en or in eartn, (as there be Gods many, and Lords ma-
ny.) But to u- there is but one God the Father, of
whom are all thmgs, and we in him ; and one Lord Je-
sus Christ, by whom are all tilings, and we by him.*'
I Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. Here Paul declares that there is
but one God, and that this one God is the t ather ; and
by mentioning him in contradistinction from the Lord
Jesus Christ, he most unequivocally denies that the
Lord Jesus Christ is the one God of the Christians. —
If I should say there are a great many people in the
state, but in this house there is but one man, and one
little boy, it would I e clearly denying that the boy is a
man. From this passage it appears that all things are
of, that is, they all originated trom God, and were made
and consist by Christ ; which proves God to be the
prime, and Christ the instrumental cause of creation,
redemption, and providence.

If in writing a letter to your friend in England, rela-
tive to our government, you would say, '' There is but
one President in this country, for though there be that
are called Presidents, whether in church or in state,
[as there are ;• an inferior sense, Presidents many,
and Secretaries many,) but to us, the American people,
there is but one President, viz. John Quincy Adams,
from whom all executive power originates, and one
Secretary of State, viz. Henry Clay, by whom the
whole department of State is regulated ;" by such
writing you would not only deny that the Secretary is the
chief ruler, but you would plainly affirm that his power
is derived from the President ; and certaiily no person
of CO' mon sense could gather from such statements,
that this government has a triumvirate of three persons
in the Presidency. How could Paul, consistently with
truth, declare that the Father is the one God of whom

CNITY OP GOD. 07

five all tilings, ^ud that too in contradistinction from
«he one Lord Jesus Christ, if, at the same time, he
knew the son was as great a God as the father, and had
as much original power as he had ?

In teaching Timothy the knowledge of God, Paul
says, ^^ For there is one God, and one Mediator be-
tween God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I Tim.
ii. 5. Here the writer draws as clear a distinction be-
tween the one God and the one Mediator, as he does
between the one God and men. If 1 should say there
is one British King, and one mediator between the Brit-
ish King and the United States, viz. the Emperor of
Russia, would not the distinction be as clearly marked
between the King and the Emperor as it would be be-
tween the King and the U. States ? Then who could be
condemned as a fool and as an enemy to his country,
tor taking up the idea from such an expression, that tlie
British King and the Russian Emperor are two distinct
persons ? So I think no person should be treated as a
fool, or as a heretic, for believing that God and the
3Iediator are two distinct beings.

If I should say there was one man very angry witli
me, and that there was one mediator stepped in between
him and me, viz. a woman, the distinction would not be
more clearly marked between the man and the woman,
than Paul has marked it in this text between the one
God and the one JMcdiator ; nor would this form of speech
more clearly show that the woman was not a man than
the above text proves, that the man, Christ Jesus, is not
the supreme God. But if I knew that this Mediator,,
who stepped in between me and the angry man, was
also as really and properly a man as he was, and yet, at
the same time, should report that he was a woman, I
should be guilty of falsehood : and if Paul knew that
the Mediator was as really and properly God, as the
tather was ; and yet, at the same time, asserted that he
was the man Christ Jesus, in contradistinction from the
one God, he has used language adapted to deceive all
his readers.

If the blessed Jesus is the supreme God, he cannot
he the Mediator between God and men, because a me-
diator is not a mediator of one, but must be a third per-
4

38 rxixr OF gov,

son interposing between two contending parties. An
offended God, and offending sinners are these two par-
ties, and if Christ is the supreme God, then he is one of
the parties, and therefore cannot be a third person to
mediate between himself and the other.

Once, a long time ago, a Trinitarian reproached me
for denying the divinity of Christ, and I asked him if he
believed Jesus Christ was the self-existent supreme
God, and he answered yes. 1 then asked him if he be-
lieved there was any mediator between Jesus Christ and
sinners, and he said no ; then said I, you do not be-
lieve there is any Mediator bet^veen the self-existent
s upreme God and sinners. I then saw clearly, that
Trinitarianism takes the IMediator to make a God of,
and as I did not feel willing to risk the chance of get-
ting to heaven without a Mediator, I concluded that our
heavenly Father would do for my God, and I would
cling to Jesus Christ as a mediator between him and
me, and trust in God to save me through the blessed
Jesus, according to the plan laid down in the Gospel.
I know many good people teach that Christ's human
nature is the Mediator between his divinity and men ;
but as they have never proved, nor never can prove,
that he is both a finite and an infinite being, that he has
an infinite nature, which stands opposed and needs to
be reconciled to the salvation of men, and also a finite
or human nature, which is disposed to favor them, I see
no authority to trust in such a mediation ; besides if all
my hopes of salvation were bottomed on the exertions
ofa mere human being, who has to plead niy cause
against an infinite unchangeable God, that feels dispos-
ed to damn me, I should think my chance is but slim.
-But when I consider that the Mediator is ten thousand
times greater than all the men on earth and all the an-
gels in heaven, and the next greatest being in the uni-
verse to God the Father ; and when I regard God as a
being, altogether as forgiving and compasssionate as
Christ is, and reflect that all the Mediator has to do in
order to save my soul, is to cleanse me from sin, and
reconcile me to God ; and when the scripture informs
rae, that all power in heaven and in earth is given to
him, and that he is able save to the uttermost all who

TRINITY. 39

Will come to God by him, I can feel no hesitation in
trusting my soul to his care. And if there is any far-
ther encouragement necessary to enable us to trust in
Christ, it is furnished by those passages of scripture,
which inform us that he has conquered death, and that
God has committed all judgment to him, and engaged
to make good to tlie Christians every promise which he
has made in the Gospel.

The difterence between us and the Trinitarians on
the subject of redemption, appears tome to be this:
we hold that the Father is engaged to reconcile sinners
to himself, through the instrumentality of his Son, who
is the next greatest being in the universe to God ; while
Ihey teach that his human nature, which they say is a
mere man, is engaged to reconcile an unchangeable
God to sinners. And which of these views gives the
greater encouragement to sinners the reader will judge.

CHAPTER He

THE DOCTRIXE OF THE TRINITY EXAMINED.

Many good people believe that in God there is a
trinity of three coequal, coessential, and coeternal per-
sons, v/hom they call God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost. They also affirm, that the
Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and that the
Holy Ghost is eternally proceeding from the Father and
the Son. These doctrines are plainly stated in the
Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and may also be found
in several standard books that have been adopted as
systems of faith by the different religious sects.

If these phrases were in the Bible, I would not say
a word against them ; but as neither the word trinity^
coequal, coessential, nor coeternal, nor the phrase, three
persons in the Godhead, nor eternally begotten, nor eter-
noJ.hj proceedings nor eternal son of God, is in the holy

A

40 TRINITY.

scriptures, but are all mere human inventions ; no per-
son who takes the Bible for a standard will consider me
erroneous for rejecting them, and making them sub-
jects of animadversion, rt. The idea of a person and the
idea of a being are inseparable, they are both one idea.
We cannot possibly conceive of a person without hav-
ing the idea of a being formed in our minds. The mo-
ment we conceive of three persons, who are equally
God, that moment we conceive of three beings, who
are equally God. If any Trinitarian should dispute this,
let him ask himself whether he believes either of the
three persons is a real being or not, and his own con-
science will convince him that I am correct. If I
should state that there are three equal persons in the
room, and that each of them is really and properly a
man, it would be most clearly affirming that there are
three men in the room ; and if I say there are three co-
eternal persons, each of whom is really and properly
God, it is as plain a declaration that there are three co-
eternal G >ds, as can be made in human language.

Each of these persons must be a being, or a nonen-
tity. If you believe they are three beings, and each
one eternally God, then you believe there are three
eternal Gods : but if you deny that either of them is a
real being, then you deny that there are three persons
in the Godhead, because you have asserted that neither
of th se persons is a real being. If God exists in three
persons, and neither of these three persons is a real be-
ing, then God is not a real bemg, because three nonen-
tities cannot make a being.

Trinitarianism runs me into a dilemma between
Tritheism and Atheism. If there are three persons,
each of whom is a real being, and really and properly
God, then there must be three Gods ; but if neither of
them is a being who is really God, then there is no be-
ing that is really a God, because if neither Father, Son,
nor Holy Ghost, is a real being, and properly a God.
there can be no God in the universe.

Equality implies plurality ; a lone being must be
compared with some other being before it can be said
of him that he is equal, therefore if the word equal is
applicable to the persons in the trinity, they must be a

' TRINITY. 4^1

plurality of beings, equal with each'other by comparison.
But if there be three persons or beings, that are equal-
ly and eternally Goc], then there can be no supreme
being, because no being can be supreme, who is in com-
pany with two others, that are in every respect equal
to himself.

If these three persons are not three beings, but all
compose only one being, then God must exist in three
component parts. This runs into Atheism, because if
each of the three persons is but the third part of a God,
there is not a whole God among them, because three
Unite parts cannot make one infinite whole.

There is no truth more clearly taught in the Bible,
than that Christ is the Son of God. If God from all
eternity existed in three persons, then Christ must be
the Son of three persons ; if so, he must be the fourth
person in the Godhead. If Christ is the eternal Son of
God, and was eternally begotten of three persons, then
he must have been one of the three persons that eter-
nally begot himself. But if he was begotten by his
Father alone, then he could not be as old as his Father,
nor an eternal Son. If Jesus Christ and his Father are
one and the same being, that is, if he is the self-existent
God and Father of all, and yet was eternally begotten,
then the self-existent Father and God over all, was
eternally begotten, and is an eternal Son. If to escape
the absurdity of believing that the Father v.-as eternally
begotten, we should conclude that he and the Son arc
two distinct beings, then vve must either suppose that
they are both self-existent, and so believe in two self-
existent Gods ; or else we must fall in with the scriptur-
al doctrine that Jesus Christ derived his existence from
God.

If Christ is the self-existent God and at the same time
the Son of the same God, then he must be the Son of
himselt^. If he h the self-existent God, and if that very
self-existent God is the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, then he is the Father of himself. And if he is
the Father of that being whose Son he is, then he must
be his own Grandfather.

To say that Christ is self-existent, is the same as to
sav he is not the Son of God, because that being, who
4^^

42 TRINITY.

derived existence from no one, but independently ex-
isted of himself from all eternity, cannot be a Son, can-
not have a Father ; because the terms Father and Son
are inseparable from the ideas of predecessor and suc-
cessor, and elder and younger. If the phrase Son oj
God does not prove that he derived his existence from
God, it does not prove that he is any how related to him.
Many people in the present day deny a trinity of per-
sons, but contend for a trinity of offices in God. They
say, that as one man may at the same time be a judge
of the court, a justice of the peace, and a captain of the
militia, so by the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
God reveals himself to us in the three offices of Creator.
Hedeemer, and Sanctifier. If these men mean what
they say, they do not believe that Christ is a person, or
a rational being, but that he is nothing but an office. —
They may truly speak of Judge Good, Esquire Good,
and Captain Good, and still mean the same person, but
they cannot in truth, apply such language to him as
the holy scriptures do to Christ and his Father. —
They cannot say, in truth, that Captain Good stands
at Esquire Good's right hand, nor that Esquire Good
proceeded and came forth from Captain Good, and
that he did not come to do his own will, but the will
of the Captain who sent him.

It is not a little strange that in many of the Trinitarian
Churches a majority of the members are of this faith ;
and although they flatly deny that there is more than one
person in the Godhead, yet they are considered ortho-
dox ; and notwithstanding they are downright Unitari-
ans themselves, they cordially unite with the Trinita-
rians to persecute every man who acknowledges him-
self a Unitarian, or that believes Christ derived his ex-
istence from the Father.

Although the doctrine of three persons in the trinity
is a leading article m the creeds of all the Trinitarian
Churches, yet but few of their members will acknowledge
that there are three coequal, coeternal persons, each
one of whom is really and properly God. Notwith-
standing the most of them acknowledge the trinity in
i-^ome form or other, they diffi^r widely among them-
selves on the subject. The first class teach that there

TRLMTV. 43

arc three persons in the Godhead. Asecond class believe
that God has a trinity of offices, as above stated. There
is a third sort of Trinitarians, who contend for three
modes of existence ; they say that, as rain, snow, and
ice, are not three elements, but are only three modes,
in which the one element of water exists, so Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are not three persons, each one
of whom is a real God, but only three modes, in which
the one God exists. A fourth class beheve in a trinity
of attributes ; they argue, that as light, color, and heat are
three distinct properties of the one natural sun, so Fa-
ther, Son, and Holy Ghost are nothing more than three
attributes, or pertections of the one God. There is a
fifth sort of Trinitarians, who deny that there are in the
true sense of the words, three persons in God, and yet
contend for three distinctions in Deity ; but what they
mean by these three distinctions I have never been able
to learn. A sixth description of Trinitarians with whom
I have been acquainted, openly deny that there are
three coeternal self existent persons, each of whom is
God, in the highest sense of the word ; but they con-
tend for a trinity of faculties in the Almighty. They
say, that as soul, body, and spirit make but one man.
and as will, memory, and understanding form but one
mind, so Father, Son, and Holy Ghost compose but
one God. I have known a seventh class who say that
all they mean by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is
three operations of the Divine Being. The eighth
division in the Trinitarian phalanx declare that by three
persons, they only mean three relations in Deity, ilnd
those people who argue, that all we should understand
by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is three manitesta-
tions of God to his creatures, bring up the ninth divi-
sion of this great Trinitarian army.

Notwithstanding eight divisions out of nine in this
mighty host, deny that there is more than one person,
who is God in the highest sense, yet for professing to
believe in a trinity, they are all allowed to be orthodox.

It is not common for logicians to dispute much about
words, when they agree in the idea;but as it is impossible
to form any distinct idea of how God can be but one
undivided mtional bemgjand yet, at the same time^ be

44 TRINITY.

three distinct rational persons, the abettors of the sys-.
tern appear to have conckided that ideas have nothing
to do with it, and have therefore mutually agreed not to
trouble themselves about the idea, but just contend for
the word, and extend the hand of fellowship to all who
ascribe a trinity to God; whether they mean a
trinity of persons, offices, attributes, modifications, re-
lations, manifestations, faculties, operations, distinc-
tions, or what not. If all this is orthodox trinitarian-
ism, it appears to me that no r.eliever in a God can be
unsound in the faiih of the trinity ; because we all be-
lieve God is a Creator, a Lawgiver, and a Judge, or
that he has at least three attributes, or that we have
three manifestations of God in the works of creation,
providence, and redemption.

But some of us cannot conscientiously call Jesus
Christ a mere attribute, nor a mere operation, nor can
we believe that the unchangeable God has goneVnrough
three modifications as water does, when it is alternate-
ly changed into rain, snow, and ice.

If these people who oppose the doctrine of three
persons in the trinity, believe as they say, they are all
strictly Unitarians ; that is, they believe there is but]one
person who is a self existent God. I am truly glad that
the march of intellect in the present day is so great, that
the anti-scriptural, unreasonable doctrine of three co-
eternal persons in the Godhead, is becoming almost
universally unpopular.

It is not probable that Christians will long contend
that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are nothing but
three attributes, modes of existence or the like, be-
cause they must soon see that if any one of these sys-
tems be true, a great part of the scriptures must be
nonsense. If the person of God consists of three at-
tributes, or three modes of existence, and Christ and
the Holy Spirit compose two thirds of them, then
Christ must be a mere attribute, or a mode of exist-
ence, and the Son of three attributes, or of three modes
of existence, and at the same time, one of those very
attributes, or modes, whose Son he is. The same mav
be said of the Holy Spirit. If this doctrine be true,
it is nothing but an attribute, or a mode of existence.

TRINITY. 45

and proceeds from three attributes or from three
modes of existence, and is, at the same time, one of
those very attributes, or modes of existence, from
which it proceeds.

Every reflecting man must see that these trinities of
attributes, manifestations, &c. cannot bear the rela-
tions to each other, nor sustain the offices, that the
scriptures ascribe to the Father and the Son. It is
not true that one manifestation, or one mode of exist-
ence is the only begotten son of another. Nor would
it accord with truth or good sense, to say that one attri-
bute stands at another attribute's right hand. Christ
says that he proceeded and came forth from God, and
that he did not come to do his own will, but the will of
his Father, that ?ent him : but the idea of one mode of
existence, or so forth, proceeding and coming forth from
another, and not coming to do its own will, but the will
of the other that sent it, is too absurd to need refutation.

It would not be scriptural to say that a relation^
a manifestation, or a distinction^ created the world, is the
Judge of the world, or the Mediator between God and
men; but to say these things of the F'ather and the Son,
is to speak the very language of the Bible.

These various speculations on the trinity, prove that
the religious sects who profess to believe in that doc-
trine, are far from being satisfied on the subject. I doubt
whether any rational man ever believed the doctrine,
because faith is a relying on evidence, and evidence im-
plies understanding ; that which we do not understand
can be no evidence to us. And we certainly cannot
understand how a son can be as old as his father, nor
how three persons can be but one being.

When evidence is brought both for, and against a
doctrine, we are apt to believe that which appears to
us the stronger. In support of the trinity we have the
opinions of men accompanied with their comments on
certain passages of scripture, from which they think
the doctrine rnay be fairly inferred, but there is not one
text in the Bible >• hich states the doctnne unequivo-
cally, or in language that can mean nothing t*lse. Nor
is there any thing in nature, which teaches us that three
^atignal persons are but one being, or that a son is 3§

'46" TRiXITV.

old as his father, but on the contrary, all we hear, i^ee],
or see, teach the reverse.

To say that lead is not heavy, or that ice is not cold,
is not more false than to say that a son is as old as his
father. To say that five hundred persons are but one
being, is just as true, as to say that three persons are
but one being. No evidence can estabhsh a self-evi-
dent falsehood, nor overthrow a self-evident truth. If
I should say that heavy had is not heavy, the assertion
would go as pointedly to prove that it is heavy, as that
it is not, because by such a contradictoiy expression 1
should assert the one as much as the other. So if we
should find it stated in scripture words.that Jesus .Christ
is the eternally begotten Son of God, such a statement
■would just furnish as strong evidence that he derived
his existence trom God, and is younger than his Fa-
ther, as that he existed from all eternity, because the
word So/2, when used to distinguish him from his Father,
and the word beo-otten, when appUed to him as a son,
as clearly indicate that he is younger than his Father,
and derived his existence from him, as the word eter-
nally implies that he existed from all eternity. But
happily for the credit of the Bible, these contradictory
expressions are corruptions of CTiristianity, and cannot
be found in the holy scriptures.

It is very d'»ui)tful wh'-'her those who framed the doc-
trine of the trinity, did themselves believe that Jesus
Christ was as old, and m all respects as great, as his
Father. It is true that they have plainly said so, but it
is also true that they have at the same time, as plainly
ascribed to the Father, greater age, dignity, and power,
than they have to the Son. They have called him the
first person in the trinity. They have said he is Christ's
Father, and that the Father sent the Son. They no
doubt thought that to say the Son is the first person in
the trinity, or that he begat the Father, or sent the
Father, w^ould be di idnishiuji the real dignity of the
Father ; but if they believed that thev could apply such
language to the Son without detracting from his char-
acter, they irust have regarded him as a less dignified
person than his Father. If we are to understand them
according to the true and common import of the terms

TRINlTr. 47

they use, ^re must suppose they believed that God wa.'r
older than Christ, because they call him Christ's Father,
and that he was greater than Christ, because they say
he sent Christ : and that the Son derived his existence
from God, because they say that God begat him. But
if their words are not to be understood accordmg to their
common and true import, then we do not know what
they believed. It is true they have said that there
are three coeternal, coequal persons in the Godhead,
but il^ they are not to be understood Hterally, they may
by such expressions mean that tiiere are ten, or but two,
persons in the Godhead. If by the word persons, they
do not mean rational beings, they may mean trees. If
by the word tliree, they do not mean three, perhaps they
mean five hundred. If by the ',\urd coequal, they do not
mean equal, they may mean unequal. If by the word
Godhead, they do not mean a self-existent God, they
may mean the world, and finally, when they say there
are three coequal persons in the Godhead, they may
only mean that there are five hundred unequal trees in
the world, or they may mean something else : but if
they mean what they say, they beheve that there are
three self-existent eternal Gods.

If the three persons in the Godhead are in all respects
equal to each other, they must all three be finite, be-
cause when one being is equal with another in size, age,
understanding, or in any other respect, it is by measure-
ment or computation ; and that which is infinite cannot
be equalled, because it cannot be measured, nor com-
puted. If God consists of three finite persons, he must
himself be finite, because three finite persons cannot
make one mfinite being. By investing a son with au-
thority, a father may make him equal to himself in trans-
acting business, but cannot make him equal to himself
in age 5 so by the authority that God conferred on Christ,
he was made equal to him in the work that he gave him
to do, JLtst as an agent is equal to his employer in exe-
cuting the business he is empowered to transact ; but
that does not prove that he was equal to God in every
respect.

If God exists in three persons, and Jesus Christ is
the Son of God, it is altogether as proper to call liim the

.48 TRINlTr.

"the Son of the Holy Ghost, or the Son of hlmSelt* as it
is to call him the Son of the Father.

The arguments that are advanced in the present day
against the trinity, will appear to future generations as
the arguments of the prophets against the heathen
Gods do to us now ; that is, efforts to disprove self-evi-
dent falsehoods. It appears to us strange, that the
people in that day should have been so ignorant as to
need whole chapters of argumentation to prove to them
that wood, or metal, made into the shape of a man, was
not a proper object of worship; or that such an image
could not deliver them from their enemies, till their
houses with riches, nor save their lives.

So it will appear strange to future generations, tliat
professors of Christianity in the nineteenth century,
should need long arguments to convince them that three
distinct persons are not one being, or that a son is not
as old as his father, or what is still more absurd, that a
son is not his own father.

I have long thought that as far as Christians have
distinct ideas on the Godhead, their faith is nearly the
same ; and that our principal difference is on certain
unscriptural propositions, which present no distinct
ideas to our minds. For instance, when we say, " There
is one God, and one J\Iediator between God and men^
file man Christ Jesus,'''' the proposition conveys distinct
ideas to our minds, and we all agree that it is literally
trU3. But when it is affirmed that three coeternal per-
sons are but one God, the former clause of the pro-
position presents to our minds the idea of three coeternal
beings, but the latter clause contradicts it, and asserts
that they are but one being. Thus the two ideas being
blended in our minds, neither of them is distinct from
the other, and hence become a subject of disputation.
They are like the figure 3, written right on the figure 1,
thus, (B). It becomes a subject of disputation, one calls
it three, another calls it one, a third says it is the letter
B, and the fourth argues that it is nothing but a blot.
But if they had been written distinct and legible, there
would have been no dispute about them.

We all agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of Go^,
because the proposition is clearly taught in the sciip-

tnrs-nr. 4.&

hirfes, and conveys distinct ideas to our niinds. But
when it is stated that he is the eternal Son of God, the
ideas are no longer distinct : the word e/er«fl/ holds him
Up as self-existent, but the word Son clearly indicates
that his existence is derived ; so the two ideas being
blended in our minds, we are thrown into confusion-,
and begin to dispute on the subject. These unscrip-
tural, contradictory propositions among christians, like
an uncertain sound of a trumpet in the field of battle,
throw the whole ranks into confusion. That ministers
uf religion should divide the church of God, and induce
one part of it to persecute the other, merely to keep in
credit these inconsistent propositions, which they them-
selves acknov/ledge are not in the Bible, appears very
astonishing to, and is the cause of great grief among
the lovers of truth and virtue.

I will now propose a plan of reconciliation between
the disputers on this subject. The plan is this : — Let
us believe every word relative to Father, Son, and Ho-
ly Spirit, which we find clearly stated in the scriptures :
and never contend for, nor dispute about any word,
.sentence, or form of speech, relative to either of them,
but what we find, word tor word, in the Bible. It seems
to me that those who prefer the word of God to all human
writings, and v/ish to follow after peace with all men,
can have no objection to this plan : yet I know that
bigoted Trinitarians will not agree to it, because that
moment they consent to it they give up the doctrine of
the trinity ; for they know that not one of the leading-
phrases, which they use to express that system, is in
the Bible. It would be well for every member of the
Christian Church to propose this plan to his Trinitarian
neighbor; if it be acceded to, there will be an end to
the disagreeable controversy; but if the Trinitarian
should reject it, he, by so doing, will fairly acknowledge
that his doctrine of trinity is not tlie language of the
Bible.

Although the pious Trinitarians admit in theory, that
Jesus Christ is the supreme and only God, yet thev
tleny it in practice, because when they attempt to wor-
ship God, they describe him in their prayers as the su-
preme Judge, and Jesus as a Mediator betv.een liim
5

30 TRIXITV.

and men, praving to his Father for sinners. I shall
conclude this chapter with a short address to Trinita-
rians.

Dear Brethren : — If by the phrase, three persons in
the Godhead, you do not mean three beings, three offi-
ces, three attributes, three modes of existence, nor any
other three such things, what do you mean ] If you
can give no definition of the terms by which you ex-
press your faith, you do not know what you express
when you use those terms. If the doctrine of the trin-
ity is an inexphcable mystery that you cannot possibly
understand, and if you cannot explain the terms by
which you attempt to express it, then you neither know
^vhat you speak, nor whereof you affirm. JS'ow in the
name of common sense, I a.-k why do you make those
expressions, which you acknowledge are unintelligi-
ble to yourselves, essential articles of religion, Vvhen^
at the same time, you know they are not in the Bible?
And in the name of Christian charity, I ask Vv hy do
you reject from your fellowship pious Christians, whose
morals are irreproachable, and stigmatize them as in-
fidels and enemies of the cross, merely because their
minds are not capable of receiving a doctrine, that
you say is incomprehensible to your own minds, or
because they refuse to express their faith in certain un-
scriptural terms, the meaning of which you confess you
do not understand yourselves 1 And in the presence
of Jesus Christ, before whose judgment seat we must
all stand, I ask when did he authorize any set of men
to go into all the world, and teach all nations that it"
they did not believe in a trinity of three self-existent
coequal, coessential, coeternal persons, each one of
whom is God in the highest sense of the word, that they
should all be damned 1

Now, brethren, as I propose these questions in
love, I hope you will attend to them with candor, and
■investigate the subject with that diligence and hon-
esty, which become rational beings inquiring into the
things that belong to their eternal state. As error
never can profit us, we should in all our religious in-
quiries make truth our aim, and the Bible our guide.—
-Maj God, by his holy spirit, guide us into all truth.

TR15ITV. 5J

CHAPTER III.

\-HE EVIDENCES THAT HATE BEEN BROUGHT TO PROVE HIE DOC-
TRINE OF THE TRINITY E."iAMINED.

The following passage has frequently been brought
to prove the doctrine of trinity. " Jesus also being
baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened. Antl
the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove
upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said,
th >'i art my beloved Son ; in thee 1 am well pleased.*'
Luke iii. 21, 22. They suppose that, because the
Father spoke from heaven, and the Spirit descended on
Christ in the likeness of a dove, that therefore there
mu.-t be a trinity of three coequal, coessential, coeternal
persons in the Godhead. But i think this a most uri-
warra: liable conclusion, because the text says nothing
about equality, nor eternity : for all it teaches to the con-
^rarw, Christ n^^v he no "T^iiter thsn Mo3S3, S.nd th**
Holy Ghost, if it is a person may be as much inferior to
the Father as a dove is to a man.

This text proves that the Father and the Son are two
distinct persons, that Christ is the Son of God, that he
was baptized, that God sent the Holy Spirit upon him,
and wa> well pleased with him, but it by no means
proves any thing relative to his equality with the Father.
If this passage is urged to prove that the Holy Spirit is
a distinct being from God, it will not prove that it is a
distinct person, but will only prove that it is a dove.

If I should assert that a dolphin is a sea-fowl, and
then to prove my assertion bring forward a witness, who
would testify that he had seen a dolphin, and that it had
a bodily shape like a tish, surely no man in his senses
would say that by this testimony I had proved n)y as-
sertion ; yet it would prove that a dolphin is a sea-fowl,
just about as much as the above text proves that the
Holy Spirit is a person.

If the fact that G <d's Spirit has appeared in a bodily
shape, wiJlprove thatitis a person, coequal, coessential,

52 IRINrTT,

and coeteriial with God, then there must be at least ten
persons in the Godhead ; because in Rev. iv. 5, Johii
says, " And thei^e were seven lamps of fire burning be-
fore the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.''
In this text it is as positively asserted that God ha^
seven Spirits, and that they all appeared in a bodily
shape, as the record of Christ's baptism proves that the
Spirit of God appeared in the shape of a dove. These
seven, and the Father, and Son, and the Holy Ghost,
that appeared in the shape of a dove, viill make ten.

Jotin says, the Lamb has " seven horns, and seven
eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into
all the "earth." Rev. v. 6. If the Spirit of God that
appeared in a bodily shape like a dove, is a distinct per-
son in the Godhead, then these seven horns, and sever?,
eyes must also be distinct persons in the Godhead, be-
cause they are as much called the Spirits of God, as that
which appeared in the shape of a dove is called the
Spirit of God. These seven with the other ten would
make seventeen persons in the Godhead.

When the Holy Ghost fell on the apostles, " there

. ,1 „„*^ *1-^v^. ^l^,.nr> trxna-MPSi \\\^q ^S of firO. aud

it sat upon each of them.'^ Acts ii. 3. Here the Holy
Ghost is represented as being seen in twelve distinct
bodily appearances : and if its being seen in the appear-
ance of a dove will prove that it is one distinct person,
then its being seen in the appearance of twelve cloven
tongues will prove that it is twelve distinct persons.
These tv/elve added to the other seventeen will make
twenty-nine persons in the Godhead. I wish to take
no undue advantage in this argument. I ask all my
readers to say, whether it does not appear as reasonable
to suppose that God is in the shape of a lamp of fire, or
a cloven tongue of fire, as a feathered fowl 1

God's ordinary way of teaching his creatures is by
hearing, but in these instances he added that of seeing.
The appearance of the Spirit descending on Jesus in
the hkeness of a dove was, no doubt, designed to show
his innocence and qualify him to perform the work of a.
Mediator. The seven lamps of fire, and the seven eyes
were probably intended to represent seven communica=
Mq perfections of God displayed ia tlie gospel j and qa-

TRINITY. 5^

graved on Christ the chief corner stone of God's spiri-
tual building, and called by a prophet, " The eyes ol
the Lord, which run to and fro through the whole earth.'*
Zech. iii. 9. chap. iv. 10.

The apostles' commission to baptize, has been often
quoted to prove the trinity doctrine. " Go ye therefore
and teach ail nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mat.
xxvhi. 19. The Greek word eis, uhich is here rendered
in, would be more literally rendered into. Being bap-
tized in or into the name of a/iy person, or into any
thing, is no proof that such person or thing is a God.
or an object of worship, but it simply signilies that the
pers )ns so baptized protessed their belief in the person,
or thing into which they were baptized ; which will ap-
pear from the following passages of scripture. " And
lie said unto thenijUnto what then were ye baptized ] And
they said unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John
verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying,
unto the people that they should believe on him which
should come after him, that is on Christ Jesus. When
they heard this^ they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus." Act. xxi. 3, 4, 5. The word rendered
unto John's baptism, in the third verse of this chapter
is the same Greek word, which in the fifth verse is ren-
dered in the name of the Lord Jesus. By being bap-
tized unto John's baptism, those persons did not mean
that it was a God, they only meant that by receiving
baptism at the hand of John, they had professed their
belief on one that should come after him, that is on
Christ Jesus. And when they were baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus, they professed their behef that
he had come, and conferred the Holy Spirit on his dis-
ciples.

Paul says, " Know ye not that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his
•death?" Rom. vi. 4. By being baptized into his death,
Paul did not mean to convey the idea that his death
was a God. He only meant that by baptism they had pro-
fessed their belief in the death and resurrection of
Christ.

34 TRINITT.

The Jews ihat came out of Egypt " Were ali bap-
tized unto Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." 1 Cor.
X. 2. The Greek word which is translated unto in
this text is the same Greek word, which in Mat. xxviii.
19, is rendered t?i. Being baptized w?i/o Moses does*
not prove that he is a God, coequal and coeternal w'ith
the Father, but it simply proves that the persons
who were so baptized, professed their belief in his doc-
trine and authority.

In teaching that Christians are all different members
of Christ's body, Paul says, " For by one spirit are we
all baptized into one body." 1. Cor. xii. 13. By being
baptized into one body, the apostle did not mean that
this body was a God, but he meant that by baptism
they professed the faith, and were brought into the fel-
lowship of the one spiritual body of Christ, which is his
church.

That being baptized into a person, or thing, only
means that by baptism, those who were so baptized
made a profession of faith in that person or thing, ap-
pears t>om the following text. " For ye are all the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many
of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on
Christ." Gal. iii. 26, 27. In all these passages the
words in, into, and unto, are the same in the Greek,
From these scriptures it is evident that by being bap-
tized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
we should only understand that in submitting to the or-
dinance of baptism, people took on them the profession
of that religion, which was originated by the Father,
communicated through the Son, and impressed on their
hearts by God's Holy Spirit : or in other wordF, that
they protessed to believe in the religion of the Father.
Son, and Holy Spirit. The baptismal commission proves
nothing about three coeternal persons intheGodhead.

The conclusion of Paul's second epistle to the Co-
rinthians has beeu urged in support of the trinity doc-
trine. " The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the
love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost,
be with you all." This does not prove that Christ is
coequal, oi' coeternal with the Father ; nor does it
prove that the Holy Ghost is a distinct person from
God» If all three of these are equally God, why is but

TRINITV, OO

one of them called God 1 If the bare mention ot
Christ, and the Holy Ghost in connexion with God will
prove them to be persons, coeternal with the Father,
then Paul's love must be a person coeternal with
Christ, because in concluding his first letter to the Co-
rinthians, he says, " The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be whh you. My love be with you all in Christ
Jesus."

Paul concludes his epistle to the Romans in these
words, " To God only wise, be glory through Jesus
Christ for ever. Amen.'' Here he mentions Christ in
contradistinction from the only wiseGod : but if Christ
was the infiniteGod, and possessed Vvisdom of himself
independently, he could not in truth be distinguished
from the oiily wise God. If Christ were the only wise
God, the sense of this text would be this, " To God
only wise, be glory, through God only wise forever.
Amen."

^' For there are three that bear record in Heaven, the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost : and these
three are one." 1 John v. 7. I have no doubt but that
this verse is an interpolation ; but even if it be genuine,
it will by no means establish the common system of
the trinity. It will prove that the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost, are one in some sense or other,
but it will not prove that they are three distinct co-
equal, coessential, coeternal persons. The word equal,
nor the word eternal, is not in the text. If the Hoi}
Ghost is nothing more than the spirit of God, then ii
cannot be a dstinct person from God, any more than
the spirit of a man is a distinct person from him, but as
a man and his spirit are but one being, so God and his
spirit are not two beings. If the Holy Ghost is not
simply God's spirit, but is a distinct being from the Fa-
ther, and if the word is Jesus Christ, another distinct
being i>om the Father, then I will conclude that the)
are one in the same sense that Christ and his Father
are one, and this the Saviour himself explains in the
following passage : " Neither pray I for these alone ;
but for them also which shall believe on me through
their word : that they all may be one ; as thou, Father.
art in ro?j £rn4 I in thee, that they also may be one in

Oij TRINITY.

US : that the world may beheve that thou hast sevd uic,
And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given
thein ; that they may be one, even as we are one ; I in
them, and thou in me, that they may be perfect in one :
and that the world may know that thou hast sent me,
and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." John xvii.
20. — 23. From this text it appears that Christ, and his
Father are one in the same sense that. Christians are
one with him, and with each other ; hence it is evident
that their being one d* es not prove that they are in
every respect equal with each other, because it is well
known that although Christians are one in Christ, and
in union and fellowship with each other even as, that is,
in the same sense, that Christ and his Father are one,
still they are not as great as Christ, nor in every res-
pect equal with one another. I will now state my rea-
sons for believing that this disputed text is a forgery.

Adam Clarke, the great Blethodist comm.entator, who
is perhaps the foremost Trinitarian Critick in Biblical
literature of the present age, and whose means of in-
formation on the subject no one doubts, says " It is
wanting in every manuscript of this epistle written before
the invention of printing, one excepted, the Codex
Montfortii, in Trinity College, Dublm : the others whicii
omit this verse, amount to or.e hundred and twelve."
lie concludes his note on the text in these words:
*' Though a conscientious believer in the doctrine of the
ever blessed, holy, and undivided Trinity, and in the
proper and essential Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ,
which doctrines I have defended by many, and even new-
arguments in the course ^of this work, I cannot help
doubting the authenticity of the text in question." See
Clarke's Commentary on 1 John, v. 7.

Mr. Buchanan in his researches among the Assyrean
Christians in the East says, that this text is wanting in
all their ancient manuscripts. In the new translation
by Campbell, Doddridge, and McNight, which has
been recently reprinted by Alexander Campbell, ol"
BuflUlo, Virginia, this text is rejected as spurious. —
Two considerations give this testimony great weight in
my mind. The first is, that the men who made the
ti:anslationj and the one that printed it in tills couiiliy.

TRINITV, 5y

iiave all been famed, and I think justly, for learning and
talents of the first order. The second is, that, as the)
Ivere all Trinitarians, nothing but the clearest conviction
of its being an interpolation could have induced them
to expunge a text which had been so universally rehed
on to prove that doctrine.

In the improved version of the New Testament, we
find the following note on this disputed passage. — -
■" This text, concerning the heavenly witnesses, is not
contained in any Greek manuscript which was written
earlier than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin,
manuscript earlier than the ninth century: 3. It is
not found in any of the ancient version?, 4. It is not
cited by any of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though
to prove the doctrine of the trinity they have cited the
words both before and after this text. 5. It is not cited,
by any of the early Latin fathers, even when the subject
on which they treat would naturally have led them to
appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by Vigilius
Tapsensis, a Latm writer of no credit, in the latter end
of the fifth century, and by whom it is suspected to
have been forged. 7. It has been omitted as spuri-
ous in many editions of the ISew Testament, since tiilT
Reformation : in the two first of Erasmus, in those oi
Aldus, Colinaeus, Zwinglius, and lately of Griesbach.
8. It was omitted by Luther m his German version. — -
In the old English Bibles of Henry YIII., Edward YI.,
and Elizabeth; it was printed in small types, or includ-
ed in brackets ; but between the years 1566 and 1580,
it began to be printed as it now stands ; by whose au-
thority it is not known."

The following text has been urged to prove the exis-
tence of a trinity. " That their hearts might be com.-
forted, being knit together in love, and unto ail riches
of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowl-
edgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and
of Christ." Col. ii. 2. Trinitarians think that as the Fa-
dier and Son are each mentioned separately in this text,
that therefore the word God must refer to the Holy
Ghost, and hence conch^de that there are three coequal,
roessential, and coeternal persons in the Godhead. 1
»jo HQt think this text proves that there are three pe.V-

.?8- TEIMTY.

sons in the Godliead, but even if it does, it proves vn^-.
thing about their dignity, equality, nor eternity. Fox
all this text teaches to the contrary, they may all three
be of different ages and dignity.

But how do ihey know that the word God in this text
refers to the Holy Ghost ? The Scripture does not
say so. And it appears to me that there is as much evi-
dence to prove that it refer?^ to Moses, as there is to
prove that it refers to the Holy Ghost. Moses is call-
ed a God and a Mediator in the Bible. I think the word
God in the above text alludes to the Father. A mys-
tery is a secret. And the my-^tery of God, spoken of in
the text is, no doubt, the tailing of the Gentiles and the
revelation of God and I hrist, in the relation they bear
to each other as Fathe^'• and Son, which had been a
mystery, or secret, trom the foundation of the world,
but as the whole Gospel plan was hottomed on that
relation, it had no.v become necessary that it should be
revealed. Hence it is first called the mystery of God,
to show that the whole plan originated in him. Se-
condly it is called the mystery of tht^ Father, to show
that God bears the relation to Christ that a father does
to a son. And, thirdly, it is called the mystery of
Christ, because he is the Mediator through whom it in
revealed.

Although the trinity doctrine is now popular, and a
large majority of the Christians call God by the name
of trinity, and triune, yet when the Jews shall be re-
stored to their own country, and the Millennium es-
stablished, " The Lord shall l)e King over all the
earth : in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name
one." Zech. xiv. 9. If God's name shall be one, it
will not be three. A«?ne is generally significant of
character, and if God is really a trinity of three persons,
and if it is essential t » the salvation of men so to be-
lieve of him, why did the prophet say that his name
^^hall be one ?

tRiNITY, • ^^

CHAPTER IV

ARGL'MENTS IN' FAVOR OF A TRINITY EXAMINED,

The Trinitarians try to prove the doctrine of trinity
rom the Hebrew word Elohiin, or as it is written with-
out points, Aleim, which is the first word of the Hebrew
Bible that is tanslated God. They think, that as Aleini
lias a plural termination, there must be a plurality of
persons in God. But if we allow this argument, all the
weight that Trinitarians append to it, it will by no
means prove their system, because it may be the dual
number, and of course only refer to the Father and
the Son, or if it is plural, it may only mean two ; be-
sides let it be what number it may, it proves nothing
about equality, nor eternity of persons.

Every scholar knows, and no Christian will deny,
that Aleim is a scriptural nanie of God ; therefore if
the word Aleim means a plurality, it must signify a plu-
rality of Gods. If the word man is the right name of
one male person of m.ature age, then the word men,
which is the plural of man, must signity a plurality of
such person ; so if the word AI, in the singular, signi-
lies one self-existent God, then Aleim, which is the plu-
ral of c5/, must denote a plurality of self-existent Gods,
and, for any thin** the uord Aleim teaches to the con-
trary, that plurality of Gods may be two, three, or fiy^
thousand. But, as no pious Trinitarian will acknowl-
edge that he believes in m.ore than one self-existent
God, they certainly must see that the argument proves
too much for them, and therefore proves nothing to their
purpose.

It is easy to see that this Trinitarian criticism gots
as much to support the heathen Polytheism as th6
Romish trinity, because if there is a plurality of Gods,
there may as well be thirty thousand as but three.

If God exists in three persons, and Aleim is the
name of those three persons taken collectively, then it.

60 TRINlTV.

cannot be the name of either of them falven separately.
Of course the whole triumvirate, or Aleim, did not send
their Son to save sinners, it was only the first person of
the Aleim, or trinity, that did so ; nor did the Aleim,
that is the trinity, die for sinners, it was only the second
person of the Aleim, or trinity, that did so. If it takes
the whole trinity to constitute the supreme God, then
Christ, the second person, who died for sinners, must
have lacked two thirds of being the supreme God.

In the Hebrew, as well as in all other languages, a
King, an Emperor, or any other person of great dignity,
is frequently mentioned in the plural number. Thus the
King of Spain says, " JVe, Ferdinand the seventh.^^ —
The King of France says, " IVe^ Charles the tenth.'''
The Emperors of Russia say, '• JVe, Aiexander,^^ or
" We, JVicholas." Artaxerxes, the King of Babylon,,
speaks of himself in the plural, thus, " The letter
which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before
me." Ezra. iv. 18. King Zedekiah speaks of him,-
self in the plural, thus, " As the Lord liveth, that made
us this soul, I will not put thee to death.'' Jer. xxxviii.
16. Christ speaks of himself in the plural, thus,
" Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we do
know, and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive
not our witness. If I have told you earthly things, and
ye beheve not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of
heavenly things?' I have never heard an advocate of
this doctrine affirm that Jesus Christ separately consid-
ered, is the v.hole trinity ; but on the contrary, they all
assert that he is the second person of the trinity. If,
then, Christ can speak of himself in the plural number,
and still be one individual person, and not a whole trin-
ity, why may not God the Father speak of himself in
the plural, and at the same time be only one single per-
son? In Wilson's Hebrew grammar we have the fol-
lowing rule relative to Hebrew nouns: — " Words that
express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put
in the plural." Therefore the word Jileim being applied
to any being of great dignity, is no proof that such be-
ing contains in himself a plurahty of persons. The
Lord applies this word to Moses, hence he says, <* See
1 have made thee a God [Heb. Aleim] to Pharoah."'—

TRINITY. bi

JExod. vii. 1. Surely Moses did not consist of three
persons. Tiie children of Heih gave the same title
to Abraham ; when he applied to them for a burying
place, they said, *' Thou art a mighty prince among us."
Gen. xxiii. 6. In the Hebrew it reads, a mighty Aleim
among us : notwithstanding this, Abraham wjxs but one
person.

The golden calf that Aaron made is mentioned in
the plural number. " And they said these be thy God&,
O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of
Egypt." Exod. xxxii. 4, 8, 31. I now ask, were
there three persons in the golden calf?

" Then the Lords of the Philistines gathered them
together for to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their
God, and to rejoice ; for they said, our God hath de-
livered Samson, our enemy, into our hand. And when
the people saw him they praised their God ; for they
said our God hath delivered unto our hands our enemy."
Judg. xvi. 23, 24. In every place where Dagon is
called God in this passage, the Hebrew is Aleim. Al-
though Dagon is called Aleim, there is no probability
that his worshippers regarded him as a triune God, or as
a being that consisted of three coequal persons.

Because that they have forsaken me, and have worship-
ped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh
the God of the Moabites, and Milchom the God of the
children of Ammon." I King. xi. 33. In each of
these places, where God occurs in the Enghsh, the
Hebrew is Aleim. Although the heathen believed in
many Gods, we have no evidence that they thought each
of them was three persons. Each of these Gods, that
is here called an Aleim, was, no doubt, believed by its
worshippers to be a demon, that is, the ghost of one man,
or one woman.

In the above text the original is not Aleim, but Alei^
i he mem being dropped, because in each place it stands
in regimine, or construction, with the following noun,
but still it is the same word, and if it was not placed
in regimine with the Zidonians, the Moabites, nor
the children of Ammon, the Hebrew word would be
literally Aleim. Although this is well known to eveiy
6

62 TRINiTT.

tyro hebrean, I mention it to take away occasion fioni
them who may desire occasion to cavil.

That the word Aleim does not mean a pkirality
of persons, is evident from the following text, "Hear,
O Israel : the Lord our God [Heb. Aleim] is one
Lord." Deut. vi. 4. If it is essentially necessary
for us to believe that the Lord our Aleim is three
persons, why did Moses tell us that he is one Lord ?
It is worthy of remark, that our Lord quotes this very
text, and mentions the word God, by a singular noun in
the Greek, thus : " Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God
(Gr. Theos) is one Lord." Mark. xii. 29. If the
word Aleim had been designed to express a plurality of
persons in God, surely Christ uould not have translat-
ed it by a singular noun. If it is a truth that God was
six days making the heavens and the earth, Christ
would not translate it three days. If Jonah was in tho
belly of the fish three days, the blessed Saviour would
not say that he was in u but one day. If the word Aleim
in the above text had been placed there to teach that
there are a trinity of person^ in God, Christ, who came
to bear witness t the truth, mstead of explaining it to
the people, has wholly misrepresented it. A Trinita-
rian minister, if he would undertake to explain the text
at all, would tell the people that the word Aleim signi-
fies three persons m the Godhead, coequal, coessential,
and coeternal ; but Christ says, that Aleim is Theos,
God in the singular, that is, •' one Lord."

If it be argued that Christ spoke in Hebrew, and
therefore did not translate Aleim by Theos ; I answer,
that his biographer, Mark, who certainly understood the
Hebrew language, and his master's meaning, has so
rendered the word as quoted by Christ : therefore it re-
mains a fact, that i^ Aleim implies a plurality of persons
in God, Christ has misinterpreted the ward, or else
Mark has misrepresented his master's speech.

If the word Aleim signifies three coeternal persons,
there must be at least six such persons in the Godhead,
because in the following passage Christ is called Aleim
ift contradistinction from another person, who is also
called Aleim. " Thy throne, 0 God [Heb. Aleim] is
forgvei and ever : the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right

TRINITY. 6k3

sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wick-
edness : therefore Gcjd, thy God, [Heb. Aleim, thy
Aleim] hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy fellows." Psal. xlv. 6, 7. If the word Aleim
signifies a trinity, then in the above text we have one
trinity anointuig another trinity with the oil of gladness
above their fellows, that is, I suppose. above then- fellow
trinities, because if they are all uncreated persons, it
cannot mean above their lellow creatures. But if one
of these trinities is anointed above the others, how can
they all be equal i

Saint Paul, who was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, an
excellent Hebrew and Greek scholar , well acquainted
w^ith the Hebrew scriptures, and also divinely inspired,
translates the above text into Greek by the singular
nouu Theos, God. Thus he says, " Thy throne, 0
God, [Gr. Theos] is forever and ever ; a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom : Thou
hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; therefore
God, even ihy C^nr\. [Gr. O' Theos, O'Tlieos sow.] hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fel-
lows." Heb. i. 8, 9.

If Paul knew that the word Aleim signified a plurality
of persons in the Godhead, ai'd that it is essential to
our salvation that we believe so, he has handled the
word of God deceitfully, and wilfully changed the truth
into a lie, he has translated a plural noun, which signi-
jfies three, by a singular one, -■'■ hich only signifies one.

In addition to the above evidence I would observe,
that in the septuagent the Hebrew Aleim is generally
translated by the singular noun Theos ; and is never, as
I know of in that version, translated by any word that
implies a plurality of persons. This proves beyond all
reasonable contradiction, that the Jews did not think
that Aleim represented a plurahiy of persons in God. —
If the seventy Jewish interpreters. Saint Paul, Jesus
Christ, and his biographer, Saint 3Iark, all render the
word Aleim in the singular, what authority have we to
say, that it signifies a plurality of persons in God ?

Because the plural [)ronoun tis is three or four times
applied to G jd in the old Testament, some people have
concluded that there must be three coequal, coessen-

6i TRINITY,

tial, coGternal persons, in the Godhead : but I thiiik ik>
such conclusion can be fairly drawn from the fact, be-
cause he might say us with regard to himself, his son^
and the rest of his spiritual family, while, at the same
time, they are every one dependant on him.

If a father, who has the whole control of his family and
estate, speaking in allusion to his household, should
say, *' We will pitch our crop," or " We will sell our
produce," it would by no means prove that he thinks
any members of his family are as great as himself. It
a head workman says to his hands, let us do this, or
that work, he does not mean by such language, that
each of the hands is equal in authority to himself. —
Christ called h:mself and his Father us and ive. Pray-
ing to his Father for his disciples, he says, *' That
they may be one in us." And that " They may be
one as we are one." If Christ uses plural pronouns with
regard to the Father, why may not the Father use them
■with regard to the Son, and yet at the same time mean
to express no equality by the phrase ]

When he said, " Let US make man ;'^ Gen. i. 26.
he probably spoke to his Son, because the scripture in-
form us, that God created all things by Jesus Christ.
When he said, " Let us go down and there confound
their language ;" Gen. xi. 7, and when he said, "Whom
shall I send, and who will go for us." Isai. vi. 8. He
probably ;.lluded to his Son and other heavenly messen-
gers, whom he employs to execute his purposes ; for
at the time he spoke the last of these passages, he was
surrounded with the seraphims of glory. And after all
I am not certain but that Christ himself made these ex-
pressions.

From the evidence I have brought, it is clear that
the application of plural pronouns to God was never de-
signed to teach that he consists of three persons.

Here it sh(mld be observed, that although there is
not one plural pronoun applied to God in the New
Testament, and perhaps not more than four in the old j
yet he is pointed out in the holy Bible by more than ten
thousand singular ones. Therefore if the proof of three
persons in God must rest on the numbers of the pro-
nouns that are applied to him in the scripture, the eyi-

TRINITY. 65

uence will be against it in a proportion of more than two
thousand to one.

If the trinity doctrine is an essential article of the
Jewish religion, why is it not mentioned in the old Tes-
tament ? And why has it happened that not one Jew-
ish writer of any age can be produced, that has advanced
or advocated the doctrine ? It is certain that manv
Jewish writings of great antiquity are extant, and it is
equally certain that ever since the doctrine of the trini-
ty was invented, its believers have had access to thos^
writings ; and yet, notwhhstanding all this, they, as far
as I am informed, have never been able to produce one
book written by a Jew in favor of the trinity. If the
Jews had believed the doctrine, they surely would have
taught it in their writings. Ever since the trinity doc-
trine was generally received among Christians, its ad-
vocates have taught it more or less in nearly all their
religious books. Is it not reasonable to suppose that
if the Jews were Trinitarians, they would have express-
ed it some where in their writings 1 The supposition
that they would for many centuries be engaged in writ-
ing books on religion, and uniformly leave out of all
their writings an important doctrine, the belief of which
they thought was essential to salvation, defies cre-
dulity.

If God is a trinity of three persons, and Jesus Christ
is the supreme God, he of course must be three persons.
If God the Father exists in a trinity of three persons,
and the Son and Holy Spirit are both God in the same
sense that the Father is, then each of them must also
consist of three persons, and if so, there must be nine
persons in the Godhead, because three times three are
nine. If to escape the absurdity of nine persons in the
Godhead, it be argued that the Son and Holy Spirit are
each but one person ; I will then ask if God, our heav-
enly Father, is also but one person ? If you answer
yes, I shall conclude that you have renounced the doc-
trine of three persons in God the Father, but if you say
the Father consists of three persons, but that the Sou
and Holy Ghost are each but one person, then you
jnust believe that the Father is three times as great as
either of the Other two. This destroys the equaUty of
6*

66 TRINITY.

the Father and Son, and runs into the doctrine of five
persons in the Godhead, because three in the Father,and
one in the Son, and one in the Holy Ghost, make
five. If it be argued that either Father, Son, or
Holy Ghost, taken separately, is but one person, and
that when they are taken collectively they are three per-
sons, then if no one of them consists of three persons,
the conclusion is irresistible that neither of them is
identically the same with either of the other two, but
must all be distinct from each other. If the supreme
God consists of three persons, and Jesus Christ is but
one person, he is but the third part of the supreme God.
The same may be said of the Father and Holy Spirit ;
if the Almighty God is three persons, and each of them
but one person, then each of them is two thirds less
than the Almighty God. But if Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, each one separately considered is three persons,
then there must be nine persons in the Godhead. Let
Trinitarians take hold of which horn of this dilemma
they choose, it will oblige them to deny that God is ei-
ther supreme or infinite, because no being can be su-
preme who has two equals, nor infinite who consist? of
either three or nine equal part?,

PART IV.

THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST.

CHAPTER I.

TO PROVE THAT CHRIST IS A DISTINCT BEING FROM GOD, ^t
THAT HIS POWER IS DERIVED FROM THE FATHER.

The blessed Jesus says, '' All things are delivered
unto me of my Father." Mat. xi. 27. Luke x. 22.
If he was the supreme Being, and the original owner of
all things, how could he say in truth, " All things are
delivered to me of my father]" He did not say, all
things are delivered to me of myself, nor did he say that
one of his natures had delivered all things to another of
his natures: but he spoke as the Son of God, and if it is
certain that the Son of God spoke those words, it i^
equally certain that he is dependant on the Father fcQ"
all things.

*' No man hath seen God at any time ; the only be-
gotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hatli
declared him." John i. 18. If Christ was the eter-
nal Father and the supreme God, then every one had
seen the eternal Father and supreme God, that had seen
Christ. This shows that they are two distinct beings,
because if Father and Son were only different names
for the same being, it would be impossible to see one
^vithout seeing tlie other. If your name i-s John- Adams-i

68 OF CHRIST.

I cannot see John without seeing Adams, because John
is Adams. If God's name is both Father and Son. then
I cannot see the Son without seeing the Father, because
the So 1 is the Father.

As John the Baptist was sent to announce the coming
of Christ, and prepare the way before him, it would be
•well for us to attend to his testimony in the following
verses : " He that cometh from above, is above all :
he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the
earth: he that cometh trom heaven is above all." John
iii. 31. I think John here clearly shows that Christ ex-
isted in heaven before he came into this world; because,
if by coming from above, and from heaven he onl)
meant, that the Saviour was commissioned and sent by
God, he might have said the same of liimself, for he was
as really commissioned and sent by God, as Christ
was. But contrastirio himself with his Lord, he said
that he was of the arth, and earthly, but that Christ
came from above, from heaven, and was therefore above
all. Verse 34. " For he whom God hath sent speak-
eth the words of God ; for God giveth not the Spirit by
measure unto /?/m." As sure as this text is true, Christ
is not the supreme God : because, how could the su-
preme God send himself? or give the Spirit to himself ?
The idea of giving the Spirit of God to the supreme
Being, is too absurd to need refutation.

In verse 35th of the same chapter, John says, " the
Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into
his hand." As sure as John has told the truth, ail the
power the Son of God has, was given to him of liis
Father. It will not do to say that it was Christ's human
nature to whom the Spirit was given, and into whose
hand all things were given, because Jolin says, they
were given to that Son of God, who came from above,
from heaven ; and it is evident that Christ's human
body did not conie from above ; that is, from heaven,
any more than John did. In these verses John was
teaching his disciples what they should beheve respect-
ing his Master: and I now ask the reader, whether he
thinks that John's disciples took up the idea from this
discourse that Christ was the supreme self-q^xist^nt-
God?

OF CHRIST. 69

When Trinitarians attempt to prove what they call
the supreme deity of Jesus Christ, they always proceed
on the assumption that he is both the supreme God and
a real man ; thus instead of proving they assume the
main point in dispute, and then argue trom it as though
it were an admitted, or a self-evident fact. When they
have taken this position, they refer all the passages
which represent him as a bemg inferior to, or distinct
from God, to his human nature, and still persist in their
unproved opinion that he is the supreme Being. A little
comparison will illustrate the course they take. If I
should assert that in the late war. General Harrison was
both commander of the North-Western Army, and Presi-
dent of the United States, and you, in order to disprove
this assertion, would show a number of "fficial docu-
ments, written both by the President and the General,
which not only represent them to be distmct per-
sons, but also affirm that the General was in-
ferior to tho President, and received all his power
from him ; and then to obviate thi> evidence, I should
assert that as General Harrison he was inferior to the
President, and distinct from him, but as. President he
was m all re-pects equal t" the President, I would argue
exactly as the Trinitarians do in this controversy. I
can bring from the history of the war, and fr<jm the offi-
cial documents in the war office, just as g >od evidence
to prove that General [iarri>on wms president of the
United States, as the Trinitarians can bring from the
Bible to prove that Jesus Christ is the supreme God.

To prove that Christ is God. they quote those pas.*
sages of scripture, which ascribe the same offices, at-
tributes and works to him that are in other parts of the
book ascribed to God, and hence conclude that he must
be God. And to prove that (leneral Harrison was
President, I can bring forward documents that ascribe
the same office attributes, a d ^vorks to him, which
Other parts of those documents ascribe to the President,
and hence conclude that he was undoubtedly the Pre-
sident of the United States. The history of the late
war, and the official documents in the war office show
that the President was commander in chief of all the
armies of the United States, and those documents as-*
cribe to him the attributes of wisdom and fortitnde, ami

70 OF CHRIST*

also show that he whipped the British at the battle of the
Thames ; but as the same writings affirm that General
Harrison commanded the North Western army, that he
possessed the attribute^ of wisdom and tbrtitude, and
beat the iiritish at the battle of the Thames, I might
therefore contend that he must ha e been tiie President.

And if any one should oppose to this argument a lettei
written i)y Harrison, in which iie iickn(.wledged that he
received all his power fro.i the President, and that he
was inferior to him, 1 couhi reply that he spoke this in
reference to his interior (office, that as General Harrison
this was ti^e, but as Ptesident Hanison it was not true.

Most Tiinitarians affirm tiiat the Godhead and man-
hood neing united in the person oi Lhrist, he was, there-
fore, b -ih God and man uj thi^ highest and fullest sense
of these words. The Presbyteiian Confession of iaith
says, thrtt when the Godhead and manhood were united
in the person of Christ they never were to be separated ;
but it apprars to me that when he died, they mu.-t have
been separated, or else the diviniiy must have died as
well as the humanity.

If this doctrine be true, then that very individual per-
son, who is the supreme God, is in reality a man. If I
should say of a human being that he is a large man six
feet high, and sixty years old, and yet, at the same time,
but a little infant three days old. it would not be si^ wide
of the truth, as to say that the upreme God is really and
properly a man ; because there is a greater disparity
between God and a man, than there can be between any
two finite beings.

G-od is a being, and a man is a being, and if Jesus
Christ is very G<jd, and, at the same time, very man,
then he must be two distinct beings, one of whom, is
infinitely superior to the other. To say of an animal
that it is really and properly a gnat, and at the same
time really and properly an elephant, iu the fullest and
highest sense .f these words, would not be more un-
reasonable, nor so far from the truth; because the small-
est insect is not so much inferior to the largest animal,
as any creature is to the infinite God.

This doctrine i^ <qually opposed to reason and scrip-
ture. The scripture says, " God is not a man that he
nhoiikl lie ; neither tlie sou of man that he should re-

OF CHRIST. Tl

pent." Num. xxiii. 19. " The strength of Israel will
not he, nor repent, for he is not a man." 1 Sam. xv.
29. " I will not return to cie&troy Ephraim, for 1 am
God, and not man." Hos. xi. 9. If Christ is the su-
preme God, and is as reaii) aiid properly a man as he
is a God, then it is just as untrue to .<ay he is God and
not man, as it would be to say that he is a man and not
God.

If it be argued that as these passages were vvrittcu
before the incarnation of Christ, they were then true,
but that he has become a man since they were written ;
then it will follow that the supreme being has changed,
and since the days of Augustus Caesar assumed a na-
ture, and become a being inliniteiy inferior to what he
was before. Previous to that tiiue he was simply and
purely God, intinite in all hi> pertections ; but since then,
he has become as really a created tiiiite man, as he is
an uncreated infinite God. If Je.-us Christ is but one
being, he cannot be a God and a man both, because they
are two as distinct beings as ever existed. If it be ar-
gued that he is not really both Gud and a man, but that
he only has the nature of them b'^th, then I answer that
every human being, who has receiv ed the Spirit of God,
and has the diviiie lav written on hi.- heart, has the na-
ture of both God and man. Peter says, " Whereby are
given unto us exceeding great and precious promises ;
that by those ye might be partakers of the divine na-
ture." 2 Pet. i. 4. But the divine and human nature
both being united in the Christian, does not make him
both God and a man.

If Christ is really and properly the supreme God, and
at the same time, really and properly a man, and yet but
one individual being, then he must be both a created
and an uncreated being. He must know all things but
not know all things. He must be in every sense of the
word an independent being, and, at the same time, in
every sense of the word, a dependant one. He must,
independently of all other beings in the universe, be able
to do every thing he pleases, and at the same time not
be able of his own self to do any thing. If Christ is the
supreme God, he is the Creator : if he is a man, he is
not the Creator. If he is a man he is a finite beins: ; if

T2 OF CHRIST.

he is the supreme God, he is not a finite being. If he
is both God and man, and yet but one person, then he
is what he is not, and is not the being that he is.

If a certain person is a man, and at the same time a
Turk, then a Turk must be a man ; so if Christ is God
in the highest sense of the word, and, at the same time,
a real man, then a man must be God.

Christians may, without examining into this subject,
admit that Christ is God and man, both in one person,
but as soon as they attentively consider the subject, they
must see that it is just as impossible for one person to be
God and a man both, at the same time, as it is for an
animal to be an ant and an ox both at once.

It is impossible to believe the testimony that say3
Christ is both God and man in one person, because it
furnishes as much evidence to prove that he is neither
God nor man, as it does to prove that he is both : be-
cause when I say that a person is a man, las clearly
affirm that he is not God, as if I should state in direct
words that he is not God ; and when I say of the Al-
mighty that he is the supreme God, it is as clear a de-
nial that he is a man, as can be made in human speech.
Testimony, which flatly contradicts itself, never can
be relied on as evidence by rational beings.

If a man should swear that although he was not born
till after the Revolutionary war was over, yet he had
served in that war five years, as a soldier under Wash-
ington, such te:^timony instead of proving that he has
a right to a pension as a soldier of the Revolution, would
only prove that he is unwerthy of credit. Just so the
testimony, which affirms that the individual person of
Jesus Christ is the uncreated, infinite, independent
God, and, at the same time, a created, finite, dependant
man, only proves itself unworthy of belief.

We receive the Bible as God's word, because it con-
tains the evidences of truth, and we reject the Alcoran,
because it lacks them ; but if all the contradictory pro-
positions involved in trinitarianism were literally stated
in the New Testament, it would be almost as incredible
as the Koran. To say that the individual person of
Christ is the supreme independent God, who existed^
from all eternity, and at the same time a real man that

OF CHRIST. 73

«ievev existed till the reign of Augustus C^sar, is as palp-
able a contradiction as I recollect to have seen in the
writings of Mahomet. A wise and just God never can
require his creatures to believe both sides of a proposi-
tion which appears to them to contradict itself; because,
if he does, he requires them to believe that to be true,
which at the same time they are obliged to believe is
false. If God should require me to believe that the in-
dividual person of Christ is an uncreated, self-existent,
independent being, and also require me to believe, at
the same time, that the same person is a created depezi-
dant behig, he might as well require me to be in New
Vork and in London at the same time. It would be
requiring me to believe and disbelieve the same propo-
sition at the same instant. Such a requisition would
lay me under as much obligation to believe that Christ
is neither God nor man, as to believe the one or the
other, because if he should bid mc to believe that Christ
is a created dependant person, it vrould be most posi-
tively forbidding me to believe that he is an uncreated
independentperson. To tell me Imust believe that Christ
is a self-existent uncreated God, is clearly telling me
that I must not believe that he is a created dependant
man. To order me to believe any thing, is the same
as to order me not to believe the reverse of it. If
God should order me to travel clue Xorth and due South,
at the same instant of time, and then send me to hell
because I did not continue to travel both these courses
every moment of my life, it would just about be as rea-
sonable, as to send me to hell for not behoving, at the
same instant of time, that Christ is an uncreated, self-
existent person, and a created dependant person. But
as I have already observed, these contradictions are
corruptions of Christianity, and cannot be found in the
Bible.

It has been said that the tv/o most incredible things
recorded in the Nev/ Testament are the miraculous
conception of Christ, when considered with a view to
his pre-existence, and the resurrection of the human
body : but it appears to me that there is nothing more
unreasonable, contradictory, or incredible in either of
them, than th^re is in any other miracle. It is just as
" 7

74 OF CHRIST.

easy for God to make a woman conceive a child witli-
out a natural father as with one. And it was quite as
easy for God to prepare a body for the pre-existent
Christ, and clothe him with it, as it would have been for
him to invest the human body of Christ, with a spirit
that got its existence at the same time the body did.
And it is altogether as reasonable that God should raise
our bodies from the grave, as that he could make
Adam's body out of the dust of the earth, or Eve's out
of Adam's rib.

Here I think it proper to state, that although I firmly
believe in the miraculous conception, and the pre-ex-
istence of Christ, and the resurrection of the human
body, still I do not think that a belief of either or all of
them is essential to salvation. Although I regard them
as important truths, I think a man might be so far mis-
taken as to reject them all, and still be a christian. The
essentials of Christianity are comprised in a small com-
pass. I think we should extend our christian fellowship
to every one that takes Christ for a Saviour, and is
moral and harmless in his behavior, and kind to his
fellow creatures. And the people who do so should be
treated as Christians without regard to how they may
explain any text of scripture, or to what convictions or
comforts they may have felt in their own minds : because
no matter how great an experience a person may have,
it will not do to depend on it for salvation.

As faith and obedience are the conditions of salvation,
the man who professes faith and obeys the gospel ac-
cording to the best of his knowledge, should always be
treated as a Christian.

I know some Christians think that this would be
opening the door of the church too wide, but I think it
would be making it narrower than many professors
make it in our days, because if none but harmless,
moral, benevolent people were admitted to church mem-
bership, a great many that are now in churches would
have to be excluded.

or cHRiSTv 75

CHAPTER II.

[The same subject continued.)

As Christ is the " faithful and true ivitness,'' his own
testimony must be the surest guide to a correct know-
ledge of his person and dignity. "

According to the eighteenth verse of the fifth chapter
of John's testimony, it appears that the Jews were so
full of prejudice and hatred against Christ, that they ac-
cused him with making himself equal with God, and
wanted to kill him, merely because he said he was the
Son of God. But in the next two verses he positively
denies the charge in the following words, " Then an-
swered Jesus, and said unto them, verily, 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 likev/ise. For the Father loveth
the Son, and showeth him all things, that himself doeth :
and he will show him greater works than these, that ye
inay marvel."

If Christ had been equal with God in the fullest sense
of the word, he would not have denied it, because it is
not likely that the supreme Being would deny his own
power and dignity, for fear the Jews would throw stones
at him. It is probable that the Saviour had two motives
in correcting their mistake ; one was to keep them from
thinking that he claimed equality with God, and the
other was to escape out of their hands ; because the
proper time for him to lay down his life had not then
come. If the Son could do every thing of liimself, he
would not have said that he coidd do nothing of himself .
If he was infinite in wisdom, he would have had too
much regard for the truth, to have said that his Father
wonld show him greater things than he then kriew. In
the 22d and 23d verses of the same chapteF'Ke says,
'' For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed
all judgement unto the Son ; that all men should honor
the Son, even as they honor the Father, he that honor-

76 OF CHRIST.

eth not the Son, honorelh not the Father, which hatlJ
sent him." If I should say that the President of the
United States judgeth no man in Michigan 'territory,
but that he has committed all judgement, in that coun-
try to a supreme Judge, and ordered that all the people in
that jurisdiction should honor the Judge while he is act-
ing in his official capacity, even as they honor the Pre-
sident, and also assert that such as refuse to honor him,
refuse to honor the President who appointed hmj, it i?
not probable that any rational man would take up the
idea from such a statement, that the Judge was either
the President, or a person in all respects equal to him.
As sure as the Son of God has power to judge the world,
he received it from his Father, because he says so, and
he would not tell a falsehood.

In verses 26 and 27, he says, " For as the Father
hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have
life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute
judgement also, because he is the son of man." Here
the blessed Saviour does not draw a distinction between
a divine and a human nature in himself, and say as my
divine nature has life in itself, so it has given to my hu-
man nature to have life in itself, but he draws the dis-
tinction between the Son and the Father ; and as sure as
he told the truth, both the life and the authority of the
Son of God were given to him by his Father. Besides,
that being to whom all judgement was committed, who
is able to quicken whom he will, and has authority tc»
judge the world, cannot be nothing but Christ's human
body, but must be the Son of God in his most dignified
character, yet in that very character he received his life,
and his authority to execute judgement, from his Father.
If those passages do not prove that he derived his ex-
istence and authority from God, they do not prove that
he is a person of dignity, or that he has any existence
at all.

In the 30lh verse he says, '' I can of mine own self
do nothing : as I hear, I judge : and my judgement is
just ; because, I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father, which hath sent me." Trinitarians may
call me an infidel for saying Christ is a dependant be-
ing, but I have a better opinion of my blessed Lord.

OF CHRIST. 77

than to think he would say, " / of mine oiun self can do
nothingj'^ if he knew at the same time tliat he could, of
his own self do every thing he pleased. It will not do
to say that in this text he only spoke of his human body,
because he was speaking of himself in his most dignified
character as judge of the world ; hence he says in the
same verse, " As I hear, I judge, and my judgement is
just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father, which hath sent me." From this passage
we learn the following things : 1. That Jesus Christ as
judge of the world, can of his own self do nothing. 2.
That he was sent by God the Father. 3. That he has
a will distinct from the Father's. The supreme God
could not send himself, nor could he have a will distinct
from his own will.

Peter says, " God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with
the Holy Ghost, and with power ; who went about doing
good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil :
for God was with him." Acts x. 38. This text shows
that he is a distinct being from God the Father, because
it says, '' God ivas witliJiim.-^ If any person should as-
sert that Moses uas the Angel of the covenant, I would
bring a text that says, he uas with the Angel in the
mount, at the time he received the covenant, and that
would prove that he and the Angel were two distinet
beings : so when Peter says that God was v/ith Christ,
it proves that they are two distinct beings.

In this text Peter does not scruple to say, that God
anointed the Saviour Vvith that holy spirit and power by
which he wrought his miracles. If a preacher in a Tri-
nitarian church in the present day, should state in as
plain terms as Peter has done, that Christ derived all his
power to work miracles from God, he would, no doubt,
he charged with heresy.

7*

ANCIENT OPINIONS OF CHRIST.

CHAPTER III.

ANCIENT OPINIONS OF CHRIST.

The people, who Uved contemporary with Christ-
heard his discourses, saw his miracles, and conversed
with him, had the best opportunity to form correct ideas
of his person and dignity : therefore it will be well for
us to attend to their testimony on the subject. Nico-
demus said unto him, " Rabbi, we know that thou art a
teacher come from God ; for no man can do these mi-
racles that thou doest, except God be with him." John
iii. 2. No doubt, Nicodemus felt disposed to ascribe
to his Master all the honor he thought was due to him :
yet he only called him a man, and a teacher sent from
God ; and plainly shows that in his opinion Christ's
power to work miracles was derived from God ; hence
he says, " For no man can do these miracles that thou
doest, except God be with him." "When the Jews ac-
cused him of making himself equal with God, he flatly
denied it, and said that the Son could do nothing of him-
self, but when Nicodemus said he was a man, and a
teacher come from God, he just let it go so. By say-
ing that God was with him, and that he came from God,
it is evident that the Ruler thought he was a distinct per-
son from God. If the Saviour knew that to believe in
a trinity, and that Christ is the supreme God, were es-
sential to salvation, he, no doubt, would have told Ni-
codemus so ; but he did not say to him, verily, verily, I
say unto thee, except a man believe in a trinity of three
coequal persons in the Godhead, he cannot see the
kingdom of God. But he promptly told him that,
*' Except a man be born again, he cannot see the king-
dom of God." If a person like Nicodemus, under deep
concern about his salvation, should enquire of an honest
hearted Trinitarian preacher what he should do to be
saved, and like Nicodemus say he believed that Christ
was a man who derived all his power from God, would
not the preacher feel conscience bound to correct the

ANCIENT OPINIONS OF CHRIST. 79

supposed error? especially if he knew he could doit
with a word ? Christ was not regardless of what Nico-
demus should believe concerning him, because in the
saine conversation he informed him that he (the Son of
man) came down from heaven.'

The man whose eyes Christ had opened gave it as
his opinion, that he was a prophet ; and after the Jews
cast him out of the synagogue for that beUef, Christ in-
formed him that he was the Son of God. See Joh. ix.
17, 35, 36,37. Now, if the Saviour knew that it was es-
,-ential to that poor man's salvation to believe that he
was the supreme God, why did he not tell him so ? He
well knew, that the man did not beheve that he was
the supreme God, because he had just before told the
Jews that he believed the man who opened his eyes
was a good man and a prophet. I suppose if almost
any Trinitarian preacher would undertake to instruct a
new convert in what he should believe concerning
Christ, he would tell him that he must believe some-
thing about him more than that he is just simply the Son
of God.

"VMien Jesus fell in with the two disciples on their
way to Emmaus, and asked them what manner of com-
n:iunication they had as they walked, and were sad ; they
frankly told him their opinion of Jesus of Nazareth, viz.
that he luas a prophet mighty in deed, and ivord, before
God and all the people. When Trinitarians undertake
to tell an inquiring stranger, who Christ is, their con-
sciences oblige them to say that he is the supreme God.
but the doctrine that the Jews murdered the supreme
God was not at that time believed among the disciples
of Jesus.

If those disciples knew that Christ was the supreme
God, they must have misrepresented him wilfully, be-
cause when they told the supposed stranger that he was
a prophet mighty in deed and in word, they knew that
it would convey the idea that he was a man and not
God.

" When Jesus came into the coasts of Cesarea
Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, whom do men
say that I, the son of man, am? And they said, some
say that thou art John the Baptist : some, Elias ; and

so ANCIENT OPINIONS OF CHRIST.

Others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saitii.
unto them, but who say ye that I am ? And Simon
Peter answered and said, thou art the Christ, the Son
of the hving God. And Jesus answered, and said un-
to him, blessed art thoiT Simon Barjona, for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven." Mat. xvi. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.—
Here the Saviour pronounces Peter blessed, because
he believed that Jesus was the Christy the Son of the
living God. I now ask what authority have Trinita-
rians to pronounce us unsound in the faith respecting
Christ, when we believe of him exactly as Peter did 1 —
There is hardly a Trinitarian Church in all my knowl-
edge, but would turn a man out of meeting unless he
believed something more respecting Christ than Peter
did. In the above passagf^, Christ w^as settling amon^-
his disciples the disputed question about ^cho he was,
and if it had been proper for them to believe in a trinity,
or to believe that he was coeternal with his Father, or
that he was the supreme God, he would, no doubt, have
told them so. While we have that faith, for which Je-
sus blessed Peter, let men condemn us for not believ-
ing more, but our business is to pray for them, and go
on our way rejoicing.

That Peter was sound in the faith respecting the Sa-
viour, appears fruii the following testimony of John:
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this book ; but
these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye
might have life through his name." John. xx. 30, 31.
John does not say, " These are written that ye might
believe there are three persons in the Godhead." Nor
does he say, " These are written that ye might believe
that Jesus is the supreme God." But he says, "These
are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God :" therefore all who beheve
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, are sound in
the faith respecting Christ ; they believe of him the
very things that John's testimony was ^mtten to make
them believe.

81

' This text proves that faith is the act of the creature,
and that it is the privilege and duty of every one who
hears the gospel, to so believe in the Saviour as thereby
to have life through his name. But if it is impossible for
men to believe till after God quickens them, imparts to
them this eternal life, and gives them faith directly from
heaven, then God has missed his aim. He inspired
J ohn to write this book that men might believe, but if
it is not sufficient to enable them to believe, it does not
answer the purpose for which it was written.

Christ says, " I proceeded forth, and came from God:
neither came I of myself, but he sent me." John viii.
42. If Jesus Christ was the supreme God this text
would be the same as to say, " I proceeded forth, and
came from myself; neither came I of myself, but I sent
myself."

" Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things
into his hands, and that he was come from God, and
went to God." This text shows that he and God are
two distinct beings, because no being can come from
himself, nor go to himself. It also proves that he is
dependant on God for all his riches and glory, because
if he had been the supreme God, nothing could have
been given to him but what was already his own. It
will not do to say, that he spoke all this in allusion to
his human nature, because it was the very person that
proceeded forth and came from God, into whose hands
the Father had given all things. His humanity was
made of a womeui, and did not proceed forth from
God.

Jesus said to his disciples, " I came out from God.
I came forth from the Father, and am come into the
world : again I leave the world, and go unto the Fa-
ther." This text proves at once Christ's pre-existence
with God, and his distinct existence from him. It
proves his pre-existence, because it shows that he came
into the world when he came from God, in the same
sense that he went out of the world when he went to
God : and if it will not prove that he existed personall)
with God before he came into the world, it will not
prove that he has a real existence with him now, since
lie has left the world. It proves his distinct existence

S2 ANCIENT OPINIONS OF CHRIST.

from God, because, if he was that very God, he could
neither come out from him, nor go back to him. It will
not do to say that this distinct being was his humanity,
for the person here spoken of, was with God before he
came into the world, and consequently before the hu-
manity existed.

In a solemn prayer to his Father, Jesus said, "This
is hfe eternal, that they might know thee, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." John
xvii. .3. Here the blessed Jesus has asserted that his
Father is the only true God, in contradistinction from
Jesus Christ, whom he had sent. If it was the only
true God that was praying to himself in this text, the
sense or rather the nonsense of the text would be about
this, " This is life eternal, that they might know my-
self, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, who is also
myself, and likewise the only true God, whom myself
hath sent." Were I to say, " This is the happiness of
the British subjects, that they know, and obey George
the fourth, the only true King of Great Britain, and the
Prime Minister whom he hath appointed," I would not.
by such form of speech, more clearly deny that the
Prime Minister is the only true King of Great Britain,
than Christ has in the above passage denied that he is
the only true God.

In the fii\h verse of this chapter he says, " And now,
O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the
glory which I had with thee before the world was." If
the Saviour never existed till he vvas born of the Virgin,
he could have had no glory with his Father before the
world was. Some people say, that as many a child
had an estate with his father, that is, in his father's
hands, before he was born, so all that Christ meant in
this prayer was, that the Father should give him that
glory which was laid up for hi/rj with God, before he or
the world existed. This interpretation seems to me to
be forced and unnatural ; because when he says to the
Father, " Glonfy thou me with thine own self,^' he cer-
tainly expresses a wish to be associated with God's per-
Bon : for the phrase, thine own self, must mean thy per-
son : it cannot mean thy property, thy riches, or th>
bles.'sings, "When this prayer was answered, he way

ANCIENT OriNiONS OF CHRIST. 83

seated with his Father in his throne, he was taken into
personal association with God ; therefore he must have
enjoyed that personal glory with the Father before the
world was. It would hardly be proper for a child to ask
tor that enjoyment of his father's company which he had
before he was born.

This text proves, that Christ is distinct from, and de-
pendant on God ; because if he was not, he could not
pray to God, nor receive any glory from him. It will
not do to say, that it was the human nature that prayed
10 the divine nature, and depended on it for glory, be-
cause it was that Being that existed with God before the
world was, that prayed to God as a dependant, and his
human body did not exist before the world was.

If Christ is the supreme Being, and the only God in
the universe, the sense, or rather the folly of the above
passage, would be about this, " O myself, glorify thou
me with mine own self, with the glory which I had with
myself before the world was." In the eighth verse of
this chapter, he says to his Father, '' I came out from
ihee :" and in the thirteenth verse he says, " And now
come I to thee.^^

These texts shew that he came from the Father, in
the same sense that he went back to him. If he had no
personal existence with the Father before he came, ho
has none now, since he went back to him. If his earn-
ing out from the Father only means that God gave him
an existence and commissioned him, then his going
hack to the Father must mean that God has taken him
out of commission and out of existence.

S4 CHRIST >'0T SO GREAT AS GOB,

CHAPTER IV,

TASSiGES OF SCRIPTURE THAT PROVE THE SON IS KOT 60
GREAT AS HIS FATHER.

'' Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ." Ephes. i. 3. We all think it would be im-
proper to say the supreme Being has a God and a Fa-
ther. " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Father of glory ; Ephes. i. 17. If Christ is the su-
preme Being, he can have no God, but must, himself,
be the Father of all glory ,* In this text his God is, in
contradistinction from him, mentioned as the Father of
all glory, therefore he cannot be the supreme Being. —
'' I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my
God, and your God." Joh. xx. 17. Every person is
inferior to, and dependant on his God ; and so was he
who had just conquered death, and was then about to
ascend in triumph to his God.

*' Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Je-
sus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all
comforts-" 2 Cor. i. 3. Here the Father is men-
tioned as the origmal source of all mercies and comfort,
and that too in contradistinction from our Lord Jesus
Christ. But if Christ is the supreme God he must be
the original source of all mercies and comfort. " The
God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is
blessed forever more." 2 Cor. xi. 31. Blessed be
the God, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 1
Pet. i. 3.

The following passages show that Christ's authority
is derived from his Father. *' According to the work-
ing of his mighty power, 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 that is named, not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come ; and hath put all things

CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOD. 85

under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things
to the church." Eph. i. 19, 20, 21, 22. Here Christ
is described in his most dignified state ; yet Paul af-
firms that all this dignity was conferred on him by his
God, whom he mentions in the seventeenth verse of
the same chapter. It would be very improper to say
God raised the supreme Being from the dead, gave him
might, dominion, &c. &c. If this text does not prove
that Christ's greatest power lind dignity were given to
him, it will not prove that he has any power or dig-
nity.

That Christ is a dependant Being, is as clearly prov-
«5d from scripture, as that he is a person of great powei
and dignity : the two doctrines must stand or fall to-
gether, the same scriptures support both.

*' I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
appointed unto me." Luk. xx. 29. Here he shows,
that he was as much dependant on God for his king-
dom, as his disciples were on him for their kingdom. — -
Christ says, " And he that overcometh, and keepeth my
works unto the end, to him will I give power over the
nations: (And he shall rule them with a rod of iron ;
as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shiv-
ers :) even as I received of my Father." Rev. ii. 26,
27. This text shows that his disciples will receive
from him power over the nations, even as he received
it of his Father. The same language is used to show
his dependance on the Father, that is used to show the
dependance of his disciples on him. Peter says, " He
[Christ] commanded us to preach unto the people, and
to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be
the judge of quick and dead." Act. x. 42. If this
text does not prove that he derived his authority to
judge the quick and dead from God, it does not prove
that he has any such authority.

" Because he hath appointed a day, in which he will
judge the world in righteousness, by^hat man whom he
hath ordained ; w;/iereo/'he hath given assurance unto
all men in that he hath raised him from the dead." —
Act. xvii. 31. " In the day when God shall judge the
.secrets of men, by Jesus Christ, according to my Gos-
pel.'' Rona. ii. 16. "He which raised up the Lord
8

$6 CHEIST NOT SO GREAI^ AS G0I7.

Jesus, shall raise us up also by Jesus." 2 Cor. iv.
14. In all these passages the Saviour is mentioned as
an instrument through, or by whom God will raise the
dead and judge the world.

Christ says, '' I lay down my life that I might take
it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down
of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This commandment have I
received of my Father." Joh. x. 17, 18. The person
who spoke this could not be the supreme God, because
the idea of the supreme God having a Father, being
commanded, and laying down his life, is too absurd to
need refutation. In the last mentioned text, Chris*
frankly acknowledges that his authority or power to lay
down his life and take it again, was received from his
Father.

Christ speaking of his sheep says, " My Father,
which gave them me is greater than all." John x.
29. If the Saviour had been in all respects as great as
his Father, he could not have spoken these words in
truth.

" Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, i{ thou hadst
been here, my brother had not died. But I know that
even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will
give it thee." John xi. 21, 22.

If Martha had thought her Lord had unlimited power
of himself, she would not have requested him to ask
God to raise Lazarus. In the 27th verse of this chap-
ter, she said unto him, " Yea, Lord, I believe that thou
art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into
the world." Here Martha undertook to tell what she
believed about Christ, and it is exactly what I believe.
She did not say he was the supreme God, but still she
was sound in the faith. When the blessed Jesus came
to the grave of Lazarus, he addressed his Father in lan-
guage well calculated to make the spectators believe
Siat he was sent by his Father,and dependant on him for
that power by which he wrought his miracles. " Jesus
lifted up his eyes and said. Father, I thank thee that
thou hast heard me. And I know that thou hearest me
always : but because of the people 'which stand by I

CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOD. 6<

Sui(i it, that they may beUeve that thou hast sent me.''
Johnxi. 41, 42.

When he fed the muUitude with loaves and fishes, he
showed his dependance on God by lookmg up to heaven
when he blessed, and brake them." Mat. xiv. 19.
Markvi. 41. Luke ix. 16.

*' Christ says, the word which ye hear is not mine, but
the Father's which sent me." John xiv. 24. The su-
preme God would speak his own word ; he could not
be sent to speak the words of his Father, because he
has no Father, nor is it possible for him to be sent. —
'^' And as the Father gave me commandment, even so I
do." John xiv. 31. Now I ask, how could the infi-
nite God obey commandments ? " If ye loved me, ye
would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father ;
for my Father is greater than I." John xiv. 28. Here
he does not distinguish between two natures in himself,
and say one of them is greater than the other, but he-
draws a distinction between himself and his Father, and
says, '* My Father is greater than /." If the blessed
Jesus had known that he was coeternal, coequal,
and coessential w-ith his Father, he would have had
more regard for truth than to have said his Father was
greater than he.

Some good people think they honor the blessed Jesus
by saymg that he is as great as his Father, but I think
it would be more honor to him, and ourselves too, to be-
lieve and obey him, than to contradict him.

When God delivered the law on Mount Sinai, the
Jews were afraid and said to Moses, "Speak thou with
us, and we will hear : but let not God speak with us*
lest we die." Exod. xx. 19. When Moses prophe-
cied of Christ, he reminded the Jews of their desire not
to hear God speak. He said " The Lord thy God
will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee
of thy brethren, like unto rne ; unto hirn ye shall heark-
en ; according to all that thou desirest of the Lord thy
God in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, let
me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nei-
ther let me see this great fire any more, that I die not
And the Lord said unto me, they have well spoken. I
^'ill raise them up a prophet from among their brethreik

88 CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOB,

like unto thee, and will put my words in his month -
and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command
him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever wiD
not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my
name, I will require it of him." Deut. xviii. 15, 16, 17,
18, 19. Here notice, the Jews had expressed their de-
sire that God shoidd not speak personally to them,
and their lawgiver in the above text told them that God
had granted that desire, and would, instead of speaking
to them in his own person, raise them up a prophet like
Moses, into whose mouth he would put his words, and
whom he would command what to speak. Saint Ste-
phen and the Apostle Peter, both affirm that this prophet
is Jesus Christ. Hence the conclusion is irresistible,
that Christ is not the supreme Being, but a prophet like
jMoses, sent to speak God's word to mankind, and be
a Mediator between him and them, as Moses was be-
tween him and the Jews. Although this scripture af-
firms, that Christ is a prophet like Moses, it by no
means proves that he is no greater than Moses. An-
other text informs us, that he is as much greater than
Moses as a man is greater than a house which he has
built.

After our blessed Lord was raised from the dead, he
said to his disciples, "All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth." Mat. xxviii. 18. If this text
does not prove that all his power is derived, it does not
prove that he has all power. The very passages that
ascribe to him the greatest power and dignity, prove
that he is dependant on God for the same.

" And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in
favor with God and man." Luke ii. 52. The infinite
God cannot increase in wisdom, nor in the favor of God:
but a dependant being can do both.

If the blessed Saviour had known as much as his Fa-
ther, he would have known when the day of judgement
is to be ; he says, " But of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my
Father only." Mat. xxiv. 36. " But of that day, and
Ihctt hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which
are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mark
xiii. .33. Some commentators affirm that this passagi>

CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOD. 89

should be understood thus : " Of that day, and that
hour, no man maketh you to know, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.'*
If this interpretation be correct, then the Father has
made us to know when the day of judgement will be. —
But as the text does not say so, and as the Father has not
made us to know when that day will be, I must regard
the explanation as an evasion of the truth : and it, in
my opinion, requires a good deal of charity to believe
(hat such an explanation would satisfy a well informed
christian.

Some people say he spoke this in allusion to his hu-
man nature, but it seems to me that if the Son of God
has a finite and an infinite nature, and by the former
cannot discover the day of judgement, but in virtue ot
the latter is equal in knowledge to his Father, and
knows when that day will be as well as he knows,
he has been guilty of a shameful prevarication, be-
cause he has asserted, unequivocally, that he does not
know it. If one of my eyes was too weak to see a let*
ter, and the other sufficiently strong to read the small-
est print, and I should, without any reserve, assert that
I cannot see to read, it would be a falsehood : and if
I should say, I only meant that I could not see to read
with my weak eye, it would still be a prevarication, be-
cause if I can read, I ought not to deny it. If the Son
of God knew when the day of judgement will be,
v.hether he obtained that knowledge by a human or a di-
vine faculty, he could not tell the truth when he said he
did not know it.

I have been accused of holding doctrines dishonoring
to the Son of God, but I think the best way to honor
the blessed Saviour is to believe and obey him. It can
be no honor to Christ to disbelieve his words, and re-
present him as a much greater and older person than
he is.

If I have erred in saying he is inferior to, and do
pendant on God, that his wisdom is hmited, and his
power derived, he has led me into those errors ; be-
cause he has said, " / can of mine own self do nothing.''''
*-* My Father is greater than I. ^^ He has denied that
he kneAv when the day of judgement will be, and as--
8*

90 CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOD^

serted that all poiver in heaven and earth was given i'^
him.

His very name proves that he is a subordinate be-
ing. He is called the Christ, which signifies the anoint-
ed ; and certainly it would be very improper to say that
the supreme God was anointed.

*' 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 hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he
made the worlds, who being the brightness of his glory,
and the express image of his person, &c." Heb. i.
1, 2, 3. We are always dependant on ancestors, or
benefactors, for what we possess by heirship. If Christ
had been the original Creator and owner of all things.
he could not have been appointed heir of all things : the
infinite God cannot be an heir, nor receive appoint-
ments.

Every one knows that the image of a person is noi
the person's self. From this text, it is as clear that the
person of Christ is not the person of God, as that the
image or statue of Washington is not Washington.

*' I saw in the night visions, and behold one like the
Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came
to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before
ihim. And there was given him dominion and glory,
and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages
should serve him : his dominion is an everlasting do-
minion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom
that which shall not be destroyed." Dan. vii. 13, 14.
From this passage it appears that Christ received his
kingdom from God ; and the following text proves that
he will give it back to him. " Then cometh the end,
when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God,
even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule,
and all authority and power. For he hath put all things
under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put
under him ; it is manifest that he is excepted, which
did put all things under him. And when all things shall
be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself
be subject unto him, that put all things under him, that
God may be all in all." 1 Cor. xv, 24, 27^ 2^. Thes.o

CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOT), 91

passages show, beyond doubt, that Christ is dependant
on God, and distinct from him ; because the supreme,
infinite God, could not receive the kingdom from God,
nor give it back to God, nor be subject to God. When
it is said of Christ that all things are put under him, it is
manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things
under him, that is, the Father who put all things under
Christ is not also under him. As Pharaoh set Joseph
over all Egypt, but not over himself, but told him, " I
only in the throne will be greater than thou," so the
Father has put all things under Christ, while he himself
is over him.

"And now, saith the Lord that formed me from
the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him,
though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in
the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.
And he said it is a light thing that thou shouldest be my
servant, to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore
the preserved of Israel : I will also give thee for a light
to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto
the ends of the earth." Isa. xlix. 5,6. Here observe,
the person speaking acknowledges that the Lord formed
him to be his servant, and then exclaims, " My God
shall be my strength." That tliis person is Jesus Christ,
appears from the following scripture ; " For so hath the
Lord commanded us saying, I have set thee to be a
light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salva-
tion unto the ends of the earth." Acts xiii. 47. I now
ask if it is any how probable that from such prophecies
as these, relative to their Messiah, the Jews would form
the idea that he was coequal, coessential, and coeternal
with the supreme God ?

The Holy Scriptures ascribe to the Saviour, humility,
prayer, tears, fear, obedience, and sufferings ; no one
of which is applicable to the infinite, self-existent God,
" Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up
prayers, and supplications, with strong crying and tears,
unto him that was able to save him from death, and was
heard in that he feared ; though he were a Son, yet
learned he obedience by the tilings which he suffered ;
and being made perfect, he became the author of eter-
nal Salvation unto all them that obey him." Heb. v. 7,
8,9. It will not do to say that the apostle here allud.es

-92 CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS COD.

to nothing but his human flesh, because the text clearly
shows that the very being, who prayed, cried, shed
tears, feared, learned obedience, and was made perfect,
has under God, become the author of eternal Salvation
to all them that obey him. How could the infinite God
cry, and shed tears, or to whom could he pray and
make supplications t Whom could he obey, or how is it
possible that he could suffer ? yet Christ, in his most
illustrious character as the author of eternal salvation,
has done all these. " And he took with him Peter, and
the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful
and very heavy. Then said he my soul is exceeding
sorrowful even unto death." Mat. xxvi. 37, 38. This
text shows that it was not merely his human flesh that
was subject to sorrow and death, because he says, '' JMij
soul is exceeding sorroxi'jul even itnto death.^^ " Learn
of me : for I am meek and lowly in heart." Mat. xi.
29. " Now I, Paul, myself beseech you by the meek-
ness and gentleness of Christ." 2 Cor. x. 1. " Be-
hold thy king cometh unto thee : he is just and having
salvation lowly, and riding upon an ass." Zech. ix. 9.
** Behold thy king cometh unto thee meek and sitting
upon an ass." Mat. xxi. 5.

Meekness, and lowliness are not applicable to the
supreme Ruler of the universe.

When the prophets foretold of Christ, they always
mentioned him as a being inferior to, and dependant on
God. " And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem
of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots :
and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit
of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and
might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the
Lord ; and shall make him of quick understanding in
the fear of the Lord." Isa. xi. 1, 2.

These words are inapplicable to the infinite God, be-
cause he could not be dependant on the spirit of another
being to make him of quick understanding, nor is it pos-
sible that he should have the fear of God in him.

*' Behold my servant whom I uphold ; mine elect in
whom my soul delighteth : I have put my spirit upon
him ; he shall bring forth judgement unto the Gentiles."
Isa. xlii. 1 — 3. '' A bruised reed shall he not break,
and the smoking flax shall he not quench : he shall bring

CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOD. 93

forth judgement to truth." Here the Saviour is repre-
sented as Gud's servant, upheld by him, and on him de-
pendant for his holy spirit. Such language is not ap-
plicable to the supreme God; he needs no one to uphold
him. The following pas^agf in the same chapter from
the fifth to the eigth verse inclusive, sets the subject in
a clear point of view. " Thus saith God the Lord, he
that created the heavens, and stretched them out, he
that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out
of it : he that giveth breath to the people upon it. and
spirit to them that walk therein ; I the Lord have called
thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will
keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people,
for a light of the Gentiles : to open the blind eyes,
to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them
that sit in darkness out of the prison-house. 1 arw the
Lord : that is my name ; and my glorv will I not give to
another, neither my praise to graven images :" That
the person here described is Jesus Chri-t. appears from
the following texts where the same >criptures are ap-
plied to him in the New Testament. " Behold my
servant whom I have chc^sen : my beloved ; in whom
my soul is well pleased ; I will put my spirit upon him,
and he shall show judgement to the Gentiles. A bruis-
ed reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he
not quench." Mat. xii. 18—20. Luke ii. 32.

Here God the Lord, tlip Creator of the universe, is
represented as calling, upholding, and disposing of
Christ as his own servant, to make him answer his pur-
pose as an instrument to enlighten the Gentiles : and
then adds, " I am the Lord, that i> my name, and my
glory will I not give to an<jther." Now, if I should as-
cribe to any other being, Jesus Christ not excepted, the
glory, which the supreme being has claiuied to himself.
I should expect by so doing to incur his severe dis-
pleasure.

There is nothing said in the scriptures of his relation
to the Father inconsistent with the idea of his being an
heir, an agent, and an inferior. The following compa-
rison will elucidate my view of the subject. If a rich
merchant of New York should send his son to do busi-
ness for him as his agent, with people in London^ he

94 CHRIST NOT SO GREAT AS GOD.

Plight address them in the following language, " Yoit
need not fear to deal with me : for whosoever deals with
me, deals with my father ; every bond I give, I give in
his name, and he will pay it. True it is, that none of
you has at any time seen my father ; but I am come to
declare him to you, and whosoever believes me, believes
my father who sent me ; for 1 just speak his words as he
directed me. I and my father are one in our views, dis-
position, and business. 1 act by his authority : he has
given rae power over his whole estate, and in all the
transactions of his businesf^ he and I are equal : I con-
tinually obey him, and the bargains I make, and the
prices I offer, I neither make nor offer of myself, but as
my father commanded me, so I do, and so I speak ;
because my father is greater than I, and 1 have come in
his name to do his busmess." In such a discourse the
son would claim altogether as much oneness and equa-
lity with his earthly lather, as Jesus Christ has in the
gospel claitued with his heavenly Father : yet it would
be very improper to draw the conclusion, from such a
discourse as this, that he is either as old, or in every
respect as great as his mther : and it would be still more
absurd to conclude that he and his father are the very
same identical being.

^' ^Vhen they were come from Bethany, he was hun-
gry ; and seeing a tig-tree afar off, having leaves, he
came, if haply he might tind any thing thereon : and
when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves ; foi"
the time of figs was not yet." Mark xi. 12, 13. If he
had been infinitely wise, he could not have made such
a mistake as this. Hf went to the fig-tree for two rea-
sons ; first, he was hungry, and secondly, " If haply he
might find any thing thereon." If the Lord did not
make a mistake in this case, his biographer has misre-
presented it. If a historian should state such a circum-
stance about any other person in the world, every reader
would regard it as the hi-^tory of a mistake.

The angel Gabriel addressed the Virgin Mary in the
following words, " Behold thou shalt conceive in thy
womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name
Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of
the Highest : and the Lord God shall give unto him th^

Objections answered, 59

throne of his father David : and he shall reign over the
house of Jacob forever ; and of his kingdom there shall
be no end." Luke i. 31, 32, 33. If Gabriel did know
that Christ was the self-existent, independent God, he
would not have represented him as a person dependant
on the Lord God for the throne of David. If the angel
knew that he was the supreme God, and that it was es-
sential to the salvation of men that they should believe
so, he, no doubt, would have told it. If a Trinitarian
minister would undertake to tell what he believes of
Christ's greatness, and go no farther than Gabriel did,
he would be suspected of heresy ; because if he would
not say that Christ is the eternal God, or the eternal
Son of God, or something else, that no apostle nor pro-
phet ever said, they would pronounce him unsound in
the faith.

CHAPTER IV.

ARGU.MET3 AGAINST THE ABOVE DOCTRIXE COKSIDEREP.

Argument 1. Christ says, "/ and my Father are
o»e." John x. 30. Therefore he must be the supreme
God.

Answer. It is very possible for two or more persons
to be one in spirit and disposition, and yet distinct be-
ings widely differing from each other in age, authority,
and mental endowments.

Paul says, " I have planted, Apollos watered." 1
Cor. iii. 6 — 8. *' Now he that planteth, and he that
watereth are one." Although Paul and Apollos were
distinct persons, and might differ widely in age and
gifts, still they were one in religion. " There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither, bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus." Gal. iii. 28. " And the multitude of them
that believed were of one heart, and one soul." Acts

96 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

iv. 32. This multitude were not one being, nor had
they all souls of equal capacity. The man and his wife
are said to be one flesh. Gen. ii. 24. Mat. xix. 5.
Yet they are two distinct persons, the one inferior to
the other. "Both he that sanctifieth, and they who
are sanctified are all of one." Heb. ii. 11. Yet chris-
tians are not Christ nor equal to him. " But I would
have you to know that the head of every man is Christ :
and the head of the woman is the man ; and the head of
Christ is God." 1 Cor. xi. 3. If this text does not
prove that God is superior to Christ, it does not prove
that men are inferior to him, or superior to women ; be-
cause all three of these propositions are expressed in
the same terms.

In the following passage Jesus has explained in what
sense he and his Father are one. " Neither pray I for
these alone, but for them, also, which shall believe on
me through their word ; that they all may be one ; as
thou Father art in me, and I in thee ; that they also
may be one in us : that the world may believe that thou
hast sent me. And the glory which thou hast given
me, I have given them ; that they may be one, even as
we are one : I in them, and thou in me, that they may
be made perfect in one." John xvii. 20, 21, 22, 23.
If we can find out in what sense two Christians are one,
then we can tell in what sense Christ and his Father
are one. This is explained by the following scriptures:
** He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit." 1 Cor.
vi. 17. " For by one spirit are we all baptized into

one body and have all been made to drink into one

spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 13. If, because Christ and his
Father are one, they are therefore equal to each other,
then Christ must have prayed that all the Christians
might be equal to God, because he prayed that they
might be one in him, and in his Father.

Two Christians are not one being, yet they are one,
even as Christ and his Father are one.

Argument 2. Christ is called God, therefore he miisl
be the supreme Being.

Jlns. This does not prove him to be the supreme
Being, because the scriptures give this name to angels.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 9?

lo men, to dumb idols, and to the Devil. Satan is call-
*3d God, " The God of this world hath blinded the
minds of them who believe not." 2 Cor. iv. 4. The
man of sin is called God. *'So that he, as God, sitteth
^n the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."
2 Thes. ii. 4.

Moses was called God. "And the Lord said unto
Moses, see I have made thee a God to Pharoah." —
Exod. vii. 1. " Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among
the Gods?" Exod. xv. 11. " Thou shalt not revile
the Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people." Exod.
xxii. 28. " For the Lord your God, is God of Gods."
Deut. X. 17. " Thou hast made him a Httle lovvcr than
the angels." [Hebrew, than the Gods.] Psal. viii. 5.
In the Hebrew Bible this is the 6th verse. " God
standethin the congregation of the mighty ; he judgeth
among the Gods." Psal. Ixxxii. 1. Verse 6, " I have
said ye are Gods." " Among the Gods there is none
like unto thee, O Lord." Psal. Ixxxvi. 8. " Worship
him all ye Gods." Psal. xcvii. 7. Verse 9, " For
thou. Lord, art high above all the earth ; thou art ex-
alted far above all Gods."

The Jews said to Christ, for a good work we stone
thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou be-
ing a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered then*
is it not written in your law, I said ye are Gods ? If
he called them Gods unto whom the word of God came,
and the scripture cannot be broken, say ye of him whom
the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, tliou
blasphemest ; because I said I am the Son of God ?"
Job. X. 33, 34, 35, 36. Here Christ argues that it is
as proper to call him the Son of God, as it was to call
them Gods to whom the word of God came ; but in
this discourse he was so far from claiming equal digni-
ty with God, that he acknowledges his dependance on
him by saying that his Father had sanctified him, and
sent him into the world. I now ask the question, who
sanctified the infinite God, and sent him into the
v/orld ?

This text furnishes an argument in favor of his pre-
existence, because it holds out the idea that he was
sanctified before he was sent into the world.
9

9S -OBJECTIONS ANSVvEREF,

It is not certain that the Jews were right in accui*
ing Christ of making himself God, merely because he.
said he was God's Son, but if they were, he must have
meant that he was God in a subordinate sense, or else
he would not have referred to the text that called the
children of Israel Gods, to justify himself in so doing :
for we all know they were not Gods in the highest sense.
It is not at all probable that the supreme Being would
make such an apology as this for calling himself God.
If Jesus Christ had a right to be called God, because
he was the supreme Being, he could have told the Jews
so, as easily as to tell them what he did.

If he is the infinite God, he has in the above passage
used language adapted to deceive his hearers, because
he has bottomed his right to the title of God, on the
fact that his Father had sanctified him, and sent him
into the world, when, at the same time, he knew that
his right to that title arose from his being the supreme
God, and independent of every being in the universe.

Jlrgument 3. *' Aivake^ O sicordf against my Shep-
herd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the
Lord of Hosts. Zech. xiii. 7. " Here Chi^ist is called
the Lord- s fellow, therejore he must be equal with the
Lord of Hosts.''

Ans. The word fellow does not in every case prove
equality. There are school fellows, work fellows, fel-
low heirs, &c.^ that are inferior and superior to each
other. " Hear now, 0 Joshua, the high priest, thou
and thy fellows, that sit before thee. Zech. iii. 8. — •
If Joshua was the high priest, he must have been great-
er than his fellow priests. Paul calls Andronicus and
Junia his fellow prisoners. Rom. xvi. 7. Yet he was
no doubt superior in gifts to either of them. "There sa-
lute thee, Epaphras, my fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus;
Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellow-labor-
ers." Philem. 23, 24. All these were Paul's fellows,
yet he was superior to any of them. He calls Titus
his fellow-helper. 2 Cor. viii. 23. Philemon a fellow-
laborer ; Apphia, Archippus, and Epaphroditus, fellow-
soldiers. Philem. 1. 2. Phil. ii. 25; Others of his
brethren he claims as yoke-fellows, and fellow-laborers;
Phil: iv. 3. 1 Thes. iii, 2. The Gentiles are fellow-

OSJECTIONS ANSWERED. ^$

'Citizens with the saints and fellow-heirs of the same
body, Ephes. ii. 19. Chap. iii. 6. Yet among all these
fellows, Paul informs us there was a great diversity of
gifts, some greater and some smaller, and that they
will differ from each other, as one star differeth from
another in glory. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
were Daniel's fellows. Dan. ii. 13, 18. But in the
last of the same chapter we are informed that Daniel
was greater than either of them. The word fellow
proves no kind of equality.

The following passage has frequently been brought
to prove that Christ is the supreme God. "But unto
the Son he saith thy throne, O God, is forever and
ever : a sceptre of riahteousness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom : Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity ; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed
thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows : And,
thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundations of
the earth ; and the heavens are the works of thy
hands." Heb. i. 8, 9, 10.

God is the highest title given to Christ in the holy
scriptures ; yet, under that title, he is said to have a
God on whom he is dependant foi that anointing, which
raises him above his fellows. If the Father and the
Holy Ghost are his fellows, here alluded to, then Christ
must be greater than both of them, because the text
says, that he is anomted with the oil of gladness above
his fellows. It will not do to say that it was nothing but
his human nature that was anointed above his fellowsj
because the text calls the person, who was so anointed,
God, and says, he was that Lord who in the beginning
laid the foundations of the earth, and that the heavens
were the work of his hands : and those works could
not in truth be ascribed to that human nature which got
its existence in the reign of Augustus Caesar.

This passage puts the question relative to his pre-
existence beyond dispute, because if he never existed
till the days of John the Baptist, he could not have been
in the beginning to lay the foundations of the earth and
form the heavens.

That he is distinct from, and dependant on God, ap-
pears from this, that be was spoken to by God, and by

100 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED,

him anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows ^
The supreme God cannot be anointed, nor made glady
nor promoted above his fellows, because he was alwayi-
infinitely above every other being in the universe.

His fellovv's, above whom he is said to be anointed,
are, no doubt, the angels, or heavenly messengers, with
whom he is contrasted in the preceding part of this
chapter.

When h^ laid the foundations of the earth, he, no
doubt, acted as God's agent, and did the work by that
power which God gave him. In the second verse of
this chapter he is mentioned as the instrument by
(Greek, clia, through) whom God made the worlds.
When, in the third verse of this chap^(r, he is said to
uphold all things by the word of his power, it is evident
that he exercises a power derived from his Father, be-
cause it was impossible for him to have more than all
the power in heaven and earth, and that much his Father
had given him.

In the next verse he is mentioned in the passive
voice ; " Bein^ made so much belter than the angels,
as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent
name than they." This language is not app'^<"pb^e to the
supreme Being, because he could not be made better.
nor could he be made at all in any sense of the wordj
nor was it possible for him to obtain by inheritance a
name ^rom a Father.

But this language is very applicable to Christ, for he
was capable of being promoted to higher dignity by his
Father. Hence Peter ^^ays, "Therefore let all the
house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made
that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and
Christ." Acts ii. 36.

As Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel a great man, by
making him ruler over the whole province of Babylon,
and chief of the governors over the wise men of Baby-
lon : Dan. ii. 48, so God has made Jesus both Lord
and Christ by giving him all the pov/er in heaven and
earth, and anointing him with the Holy Spirit.

The first of John has been frequently quoted to prove
the eternal generation, or the eternal existence of
r-hrist. " In the beginning was the word, and the word,

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. IQl

was with God, and the word was God. The same wa?
in the beginning with God. All things were made by
him, and without him was not any thing made that was
made." Joh. i. 1, 2, 3—10. "The world was made
by him." From this passage it appears that in the be-
ginning there was a God with a God : therefore there
must have been two beings that were called God, but
as there can be but one supreme God, Christ must have
been called God in a subordinate sense : and this is
very possible, because Paul says, " There be that are
called Gods, whether in heaven, or in earlh, (as there
be Gods many and Lords many,") 1 Cor. viii. 5. From
the fourteenth verse it appears that this icord, that was
called God, " v/as made flesh and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only-be-
gotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." This
language is not applicable to God the Father, because
he could not be passive in being made iiesh, nor is it
possible for him to be passive in being made in any
sense of the word : besides, the glory of the only-begot-
ten of the Father, cannot be the glory of a self-existent
infinite God. But m the thirty-fourth verse of this
chapter, John decides Vvho this person is ; he says, " I
saw and bare record that this is the Son of God."
AYhen it is said that all things were made by him, the
meaning is, that God made all things by him as an in-
strument, because the Greek word, which in this text is
rendered by, is used to denote an instrument in the fol-
lowing places. John i. 7. " That all men through
him might believe." Luke i. 70. "As he spake by
the mouth of his holy prophets." Rom. v. H. "We
also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
we have now received the atonement." Rom. iii. 24.
" Being justified freely by his his grace." Acts viii.
18. " When Simon saw that through laying on of the
apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given." In these
passages the words through and by, are the same Greek
word which is rendered by in the text that says, " dll
things were made by him.^^

The following passage proves tliat the Father is the
prime, and Christ the instrumental cause of every thing.
'' To us there is but one God the Father, of whom are
9*

102 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.'

all things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus ChHs^,
by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Cor. viii.
6. " And to make all men see what is the fellowship
of the mystery, v/hich fi'om the beginning of the world
hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus
Christ." Ephes.iii. 9. From these passages it is evident
that God created all things by Christ as an instrument :
and the following text shows that God will use him as an
instrument in judging the world. "In the day when
God shall judge the secrets of all men, by Jesus Christ
according to my gospel." Rom. ii. 16.

Being in the beginning, is no proof that he was from
all eternity, because a beginning implies a time ; and to
prove that he existed at some particular time, no matter
how long ago it was, is no proof that he existed from all
eternity.

This text proves the pre-existen.ce of Christ, because
it shows that he was with God under the character of
the icord before he v/as made flesh. If the world was
made by him, and if v/ithout him nothing was made, that
was made, he must have existed before he was con-
ceived by the Virgin Mary. It cannot be the beginning
of the gospel dispensation that is alluded to in this text,
because if ail things were made by him, he must have
existed before that time.

Some people who deny the pre-existence of Christ
say that the world vrhich was made by him, but did no?
know him, was the gospel church, but this is a mistake,
because every member of that church did know him.
And it will not do to say the icorld mentioned in this
text means a dispensation, because it would not make
good sense to talk about a dispensation not knowing him.
Besides, I recollect of no place in the Greek Testa-
ment where the word kosmos, which is here translated
2uorld, is used to denote the christian church, but, on the
contrary, it generally denotes the material world, or its
inhabitants, as in Mat. iv. 8, where Satan showed Christ
all the kingdoms of the world, (gr. kosmou) Matt. xiii.
38. " The tield is the world." (gr. kosmos) 1 Cor. vii.
31. " They that use this world, (gr. kosmo) as not
abusing it." In the following passages the world is
mentioned, as being in opposition to Christ and his

OEJECTiOXS ANSWERED. 103

people. "The world cannot hate you, but me it
hateth." Johnvii. 7. "If the world hate you, ye know^
that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the
world the world would love his own : but because ye
are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
Avorld, therefore the world hateth you." Joh. xv. 18,
19. In every place where the word world occurs in
these passages, the Greek i^ kosmos, viz. the world that
was made by Jesus Christ.

The second verse of the first chapter of Hebrews
proves, that God made the worlds by Christ as an in-
strument. " By whom also he made the worlds." 1
know some people think that this phrase means, that
by Chiiit, God appointed the dispensations; but I"think
they are mistaken ; for although the word aionas, or
aionioon, which in this text is rendered worlds,'ma}-
sometimes mean dispensations, or ages, it is used in
the following passage by the same writer to denote the
material words. " Through faith we understand that
the worlds (Gr. aionas) were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen were not made of things
which do appear." Heb. xi. 3. And as the writer in
the tenth verse of this chapter refers to the hundred,
and second Psalm, where the Lord is represented as
the one who formed the natural earth, and heavens, and
who will finally fold them up, and change them as a
garment, it is altogether probable that the true meaning
of the text is. that God made the natural worlds by the
instrumentality of his Son. And I am the more con-
firmed in this (^pinion from the consideration that the
Greek word epoiesen, which, in the above text, is ren-
<lered made, is frequently used to signify create, as in
the following passages : " Lord, thou art God, which
hast made the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and
all that in them is." Act. iv. 24. " God, who made
heaven and earth, and spa." Act. xiv. 15. "God,
that made the world, and all things therein." Act. xvii.
24. Where the word made occurs in each of these
passages, the Greek is epoiesen. But if the phrase
" iiy iL'lioiii also he made the u-orlds,^^ means that by
Christ, God appointed or regulated the different ages or
dispensations, it does act effect the argument^ becaus/.^

104 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

whether God made the natural worlds, or regulated the
difterent dispensations of this world by Christ, he must
have used him as an instrument, and of course Christ
must have existed before he came in the flesh.

If God has spoken to us by his Son, has appointed
him heir of all things, made the worlds oy him, made
him better than the angels, given him by inheritance a
more excellent name than they, and told him to sit on
his right hand till he would make his enemies his foot
.stool, the conclusion is irresitible that the Son is a be-
ing distinct from, and dependant on God ; because the
infinite God does not need, nor cannot have a protec-
tor to say to him, sit thou on my right hand until I make
thine enemies thy foot-stool. It will not do to refer
these passages to two different natures in the one person
of Christ, because a nature is not a person, nor a ra-
tional being, and it would not accord with truth, nor
good sense to represent one nature as saying to anoth-
er, '^ Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies
thij foot-stool.''^

A mere nature is no mere capable of making, or un-
derstanding a speech than is a rock, or a tree. Hoa\
can one nature anoint another nature with the oil of
gladness 1 As a nature^ abstractedly considered, is a
mere quality, or disposition, it v.ould be folly to ascribe
to it actions, or gladness.

If one of Christ's natures anointed another above it^
fellows, then he must have at least three natures, be-
cause the anointing and anointed natures make two,
and its fellows, above which it was anointed, must be at
least two. If it w^as a nature that was anointed, it could
not have been anointed above its fellow persons, be-
cause a nature is not a fellow to a person. If Christ's
human was anointed above his divine nature, then his
humanity must be greater than his divinity.

Argument 4. The same attributes are in scripture
/jscribed to Christ that are ascribed to the Father, there-
fore he must be the supreme God.

Ans. It is true that some divine qualities are attri-
buted to both the Father and the Son ; such as wis-
fhm, holiness, (ruth,, mcrcv. &c. But it is also friK.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 105

iiiat these qualities are by the scriptures ascribed to
good men, yet that does not prove every good man is
the supreme God. Besides I have ah-eady proved by
the scriptures that Christ's hie. his wisdom, and all he
has, were given to him by his Father.

The scriptures say several things of the Father that
they do not say of the Son. They say that he gave the
Son life, that he gave him all power in heaven and
earth, committed all judgement to him, that he is
Christ's Father, is greater than he. and sent him to save
sinners. But the holy scripture- do not say that Christ
is God's Father, that he is greater than the Father, and
gave him all power in heaven and earth, nor do they
say that the Son knows some particular things that the
Father does not kn 'W.

The inspired writins^s ascribe to Christ humility, fear,
obedience, sorrow, pain and death, neither of which
can, in truth, be attributed to the supreme Being. —
Hence if we judge by the attributes of the two persons,
they cannot be the same.

Argument 5. The scriptures ascribe the same works
to Christ that they do to the Father, therefore ht
must be the supreme God.

Ans. If this argument be eon-ect, then Moses must
be the supreme God, because the same works are as-
cribed to him that are ascribed to God. Thus we read,
^'I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." —
Exod. XX. 2. Deut. v. 6. " And the Lord said unto
Moses, go, get thee down, for thy people, which thou
broughtest out of the land of Egypt have corrupted
themselves." Exod. xxxii. 7. Chap, xxxiii. I. —
Here it is first asserted that God brought them out of
Egypt, and then it is asserted that Moses did it.

There is nothing more common than to ascribe the
works of an agent to both him and his employer. If a
planter should say, " I have raised a hundred acres of
cotton," and then in the same conversation tell us that
his overseer did it, it would not prove that he and his
overseer are the same person. If a merchant should
my he sold a large quantity of goods in Ne^y-york last

i06 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

year, and then inform us that his agent sold them, it
would not prove that he and his agent are the same
man.

The scripture says, Moses made the tabernacle, 3
Chron. xxi. 29. Heb. viii. 5. Again we are infbrnied
that Bezaleel, Aholiab, and other wise men made it.
Exod. XXXI. 1 — 6. But that will not prove that they
and Moses were the same being. In the fourth chapter
of second Chronicles, it is affirmed that king Huram
made the brazen things of the Pemple, and the same
chapter informs us that Solomon made those things : but
stiil we do not beUeve that these two kings u ere the
same man, because we read that the one employed the
other.

If because the same works are ascribed to both the
Father and the Son, they are but one and the same be-
mg, then Satan and God -ust both be one and the
same being, because some of the »ame works are as-
cribed to both of them. i hus we read, " The anger of
the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved
David against them to say, go number Israel and Ju-
dah." 2 Sam. xxiv. i. " And Satan stood up against
Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." 1
Chron. xxi. I. From the first chapter of Job, it ap-
pears that Satan destroyed all his property, and killed
his children ; but in the same chapter Job ascribes it all
to God. In the second chapter of that book we are
informed that Satan smote hnn with sore boils ; and in
the tenth verse of the same chapter Job ascribes thai
also to God. If we regard those persons as God's
agents the whole difficulty disappears. There is as
much scripture to prove that Christ is God's agent and
servant, as there is to prove that Moses was : and there
is a good deal more scripture to prove it. than there is
to nrove that the Devil is God's agent.

OEJECTIOXS ANSWERfin. 107

CHAPTER V.

, The same subject continued.)

^IrgUiiient 6. TJie scriptures say that Christ is equal
icith God, therefore he must be the infinite God.

Answer. It is very possible for him to be equal with
God in some things, and at the same time inferior to
him in some other things. An agent is equal to his em-
ployer in transacting the business that belongsto his agen-
cy, while at the same time he is dependant on his em-
ployer for the appointment, and accountable to him for
the performance of his duty. That Christ received his
appointment from God, appears from the following pas-
sage. " Consider the Apostle and high priest of our
profession, Christ Jesus : who was faithful to him that
appointed him, as also Moses xvas faithful in all his
house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory
than Moses, in as much as he who builded the house
hath more honor than the house. For every house is
builded by some man ; but he that built all things is
God. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house,
as a servant. — But Christ as a Son over his own house,
whose house are we." Heb. iii. 1 — 6.

This passage as clearly shows that Christ received
his appointment from God, and was accountable to him
for the faithful performance of his duty, as that Moses
was appointed by God, and to hi u accountable for the
performance of his duty. Thn difference between
Moses and Christ is this, Moses was a servant placed
over the Jewish church, or house, which Christ in his
pre-existent state had built, but Christ as a Son, and
heir of all things, was faithful to God in his own house,
that is, in the Christian church, which he has himself,
under the authority of his Father, built up in the world,
and over which his Father has made him the head.

I have heard some argue from this text, that if Christ
built the hous^e, and if he that built all things is Godt

801 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED,

therefore Christ must be God. If this argument be
correct, then every man that ever built a house is God;
because tlie text as plainly says, that every house is
builded by some man, as that Christ built his own house.
Thus I might argue ; if every house is builded by some
man, and if he that built all things is God, then every
some man, that ever built a house, is God. The obvious
meaning of the text is, that Christ, and Moses, and
every other rational being are by God appointed to their
respective duties, and whatever they may be enabled to
do, or to build up in obedience to God, is done, or built
up by God through them as instruments.

I will now notice the two passages that say Chiist is
equal to God. " Therefore the Jews sought the more to
kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath,
but said also that God was his Father, making himself
equal with God." Joh. v. 18. Thus the ignorant,
murderous Jews thought, or pretended to think, that by
calling God his Father, he had made himself equal to
God ; but in the next verse he positively denies the
charge. " Then answered Jesus and said unto them,
verily, 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 hke-
wise." Here instead of claiming equality with God, he
expresses himself in terms as humble as any person
can. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do
nothing of himself.^' None of us can come lower than
this. I have often thought it strange that although this
speech of the Saviour convinced the murderous Jews
that he had not claimed equahty with God, still it does
not convince some of the Trinitarians of the present day.
I now ask every candid reader, whether he would have
drawn the same inference from this expression that the
Jews did ? Do you think that when one person calls
another his father, he thereby makes himself equal to
him ? I always thought that to call a man father, was to
acknowledge him as a superior. If the Jews were
correct in saying that Christ by calling God his Father
made himself equal with God, then every christian in
the world must he equal with God, because the scrip-
ture authorizes them all to call God their Father. I

OKJ^ECTIONS ANSWERED^ 109

Jiclieve that if the illnatured Jews had not drawn this
inference from the Saviours expression, that none of
the good natured Trinitarian doctors of the present day
would have thought of it. My reason for so thinking
is, that out of the numerous texts where he calls God his
Father this is the only one from which they have tried
'0 prove that he is equal with God.

In the other place where he is called equal with God.
the translation is incorrect, which perhaps will appear
from attentively reading the connexion. " Let nothing-
be done through strife or vain^^glory ; but in lowliness
of mind let each esteem other better than them-
selves. Look not every man on his own things, but
every man also on the things of others. Let this mind
be in you which was also hi Christ Jesus ; who being in
the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God ; but made himself of no reputation, and took on
him the form of a servant." Phil. 2, 3 — 7. The sense
of the translation amounts to this, " Now, in order to
be humble, you must have the same mind, which was
also in Christ Jesus, that is, because you are created in
the image or form of God, you must think it no robbery
to be equal with him. But at the same time you must
make yourselves of no reputation, and put on the garb
of a servant ; and so at the very time when you think in
your heart that it is no robbery for you to be equal with
God Almighty, you must wear the external appearance
of humility.

Archbishop Tillotson, who was a strong Trinitarian
has translated the text thus, " He did not eagerly covet to
be (as he was of old) equal, in all his appearances, with
the Deity." The learned Parkhurst in his Greek Lexi-
con on this passage, contends for the present transla-
tion, but at the same time acknowledges that many
great and good men, as well as others inclined to de-
grade the Son of God, have rendered the Greek words
by, *' He did not arrogate to himself to be equal with
God, i. e. he made no ostentation of his dignity." But
although Parkhurst when explaining the Greek word
arpagrnon, which is here rendered robbery, contends
that it is translated right, yet when he comes to explain
rsa theo, which king James's translators have rendered
- 10

110 OBJECTIONS ANSWEREF.

f.qual with God, he acknowledges the phrase Is fratis-
lated wrong, and says it should be rendered as, or lilie
God. There is one thing certain, and that is, that the
phrase, which is here rendered equal with God, is not
the same, neither in the Greek nor Latin Testament that
is so rendered in John v. 18. If we admit Parkhmst's
definition of both words, the literal rendering would bo
this, " who being in the form of God thought it not rob-
bery to be as, or like God." Let the former part of this
passage be rendered as it may, I can see nothing to jus-
tify the rendering ofisa by the word equal. The literal
meaning oHsa, is as or like. We all believe that Christ
tB as, or like God.

But I still maintain my first position, that if he is
equal to God, it must be in a qualified sense, and can^
not prove him to be the supreme Being, because, as I
said before, it is very possible for him to be equal with
God in some respects, and inferior to him in other re-
spects. Besides no one being can be equal to himself:
therefore if Christ is in all respects equal to his father,
then they must be two distinct self-existent beings, in-
dependent of each other. But at the same time, neither
of them can be supreme, nor infinite, because he cannot
be supreme, who has a contemporary as great as him-
self, nor can he be infinite, who has been equalled.

Paul's expressions in the verses immediately after the
above passage, are perhaps sufficient to convince any
unprejudiced mind that he did not regard Christ as a
being in all respects equal to God. " And being found
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given
him a name, which is above every name ; that at the
name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in hea-
ven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ;
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ
is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Phil. ii. S,
9,10,11.

This passage does not only prove that the Saviour is
dependant on God for his most exalted station and dig-
nified name, but it also proves, that the Father's object
in exalting him, and giving him this great name. wa« hi*

OBJECTIONS ANSWEREt). Ill

»5tt-ii glory. It is vain for Trinitarians to say that no-
t-hing but his humanity is dependant on God for exalta-
tion and a name ; because they call his human nature «
man, and that is not a name above every name.

It is plain from the above text, that Christ under his
most exalted state, is dependant on God for his exalta-
tion, and his name. He cannot have a name higher
than the name which is above every name, and that was
given to him by his Father ; if, therefore, he is depen-
dant on God for the highest character he sustains, he
must be dependant on him, in every respect.

Some people say that if Christ is a dependant being,
they would be afraid to depend on him for salvation, and
pardon; but Peter in the following pas,«;age shows that
the very person who is our Prince, and Saviour, was by
God exalted to those high offices in virtue of which, he
is enabled to forgive sins. " Him hath God exalted
with his right hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to
give repentance to Israel, aud forgi\eness of sins.'"
Acts v. 31. As the scriptures plainly say that God has
given Christ the power to forgive our sins, those who
refuse to trust in him, because his power is delegated,
refuse to have their sins forgiven in that way which God
has appointed.

The following text has been quoted to prove that
Christ and his Father are the same being. '• Have I
been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not
known me, Philip 1 He that hath seen me hath seen
the Father ; and how sayest thou then, show us the
Father ? Joh. xiv. 9. There can be no doubt but
that all Christ meant in this passage v. as, that in, and
through him the perfections and will of his Father were
displayed, and seen : b;*cause all that Philip could see
of Christ with his natural eyes, was his human body,
and the Trinitarians them-elves do not believe that it
was the infinite God. And all that Philip could see in
Christ with his mental eyes, was the will and perfec-
tions of the Father. The above text is, I think, well
explained by the following testimony of John: "No
man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten
Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath de-
clared him." Joh. 1. IS. John meant that Christ harj

112 OBJECTIONS ANSWEREFr

declared God in the same sense that Paul in the follow-
ing verse declared him to the Athenians : *' As I pass-
ed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with
this inscription : TO THE UNKOWN GOD ; whom,
therefore, ignoranily ye worship, him declare I unto
y«u." Act. xvii. 23. In this same conversation with,
Philip, the Saviour sufficiently explains himself. Thus
he says in the next verse, " Believest thou not, that J.
am in the Father, and the Father in me I The words
that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself ; but the
Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." If it
was the Father himself, that was talking to Philip in his
own person, he could not in truth have said, " The
words that I speak, I speak not of myself." In the
twelfm verse of thit^ chapter he says : "Verily, verily,
I say unto you, he that beheveth on me, the works that
I do, shall he do also ; and greater u'orks than these
shall he do ; becaus;e I go unto the Father. If that
person that was talking to Philip and the other disci-
ples was the Father in his own person, then every one
that believes on him can do greater works than the
Father can do, and that because the Father has gone
to the Father. If that person who was talking with
Philip had been the Father, he would not have said, as
he does in the 16th verse : "I will pray the Father, and
he shall give you another comforter." In the twenti-
eth verse of this chapter he says : " At that day ye shall
know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in
you." And in the 28th verse he says, " My Father is
greater than I."

From the 20th verse it is evident that the Father
dwells in, and speaks through Christ in the same sense
that he dwells in and speaks through every Christian :
with this difference, that as Christ is, perhaps, man)
thousand millions of times more capacious than the
greatest saint, so he can contain that much more of
God than can any other dependant being.

That the Father does speak through Christians, ap-
pears from the following text : " For it is not ye that
speak, but the spirit of vour Father which speakethin
vou." Mat. X. 20.

OBJECT IONS ANSWERED. 113

^lrgiimcnl7. The scriptures say, God is (he Judge
oftJu world, and theij also say that Clirist is the Judge
of the world ; therefore Christ must be God.

Alls. We will now see what Jesus Christ says on
this subject. "The Father judgeth uo man, but hath
committed all judgement unto the Son." Again he says,
*' As the Father hath lile in himself, so hath he given to
the Son to have lite in himselt^; and hath given him au-
thority to execute judgement also, because he is the Son
of man." Job. v. 22, 26, 27. Now we will get old
brother Paul to explain it to us. " Li the day when
God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ,
according to my gospel.'- Rom. ii. 16. Paul taught
this same doctrine to the Athenians, \ hen he preached
in Mars' Hill. He said to them : " The times of this
ignorance God winked at, but now comtnandeth all
men every where to repent : because he hath appointed
a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness,
by that man whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath
given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised
iiira from the dead." Act. xvii. 30, 31. That Christ
will judge the world as an agent acting under the au-
thority given to him by his Father, is taught by himself
and his Apostles, in language too plain to be misunder-
stood.

I have often thought strange that die following text
should be pressed into the Trinitarian cause. " Of
whom as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed for ever." Rom. ix. 5. If in this
text the word God was placed before the word over,
then it would read that he is God over all ; or if the
comma was placed after the word God, it might be con-
strued to mean the same thing ; but as it now stand?
in the scripture, it does not say that he is God over all,
nor does it say that he is over all God, but it says, •' Ae
is over all, God blessed for erer." You see by the
punctuation that the word God does not stand with that
member of the sentence which says, he is over all, but
with that member which says he is blessed forever. I
have no doubt but that the true meaning of the text is.
that he is over all, blessed of God for ever. But let
what may be its meaning, it certainly does not say, that
10*

114 OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED.

he is God over all. If the text did say, he is God over
all, verbatim, it would furnish a plausible argument in
favor, but by no means a decisive proof of his supreme
Deity, because the word all is frequently used in scrip-
ture in a restricted sense, and as the title God is given
to many beings in a subordinate sense ; it is very pos-
sible for Christ to be God over all, that is to be " made
head over all things to the CJmrch.^' And have all pow-
er in heaven, and in earth givoi to him ; and after all
tell the truth when he says, ^^ JMy Father is greater
than /.■' But if this text must be tortured by altering
the punctuation, so as to make it say, he is God over all.
and if the word all means every being in the universe,
then it will prove too much tor the Trinitarian, because
it will prove that he is over the Father and the Holy
Ghost. And if you so restrict the word all as to prevent
it from making him higher than the other two persons
of the supposed trinity, that very restriction will be ru-
inous to the doctrine of his supreme Deity, because no
one can be a supremo God, who is not over all, but has
■wo equals.

CHAPTER IV

1 will now attend to a few more passages of scripture
that have been brought forward to prove that Christ i*
the supreme God.

'• Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he
laid down his life for us.'- 1 Joh. iii. 16. This text
will not prove that the supreme God died. As the love
of God is displayed to us in the death of his Son, there
can be no doubt but that he is the one that died for us.
because the supreme God cannot die.

The next passage I shall notice is, 1 Joh. v. 20 :
''And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath
^iven us an understanding, that we may know him that
is true, and we are in him that is true ; even in hi§ Son

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 115

Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.''
I have no doubt but that the pronoun this refers to him
that is tnie, because he is the person chiefly spoken of
in the sentence, and is mentioned in contradistinction
from the Son of God, who came to give us an under-
standing that vve may know him that is true. It is jusi
as grammatical to make the pronoun agree with him that
is true, as to make it agree with Jesus Christ. Thf
only argument that can be brought in favor of the latter
construction, is that Jesus Christ is the last antecedent
noun. But if this construction be adopted to prove
Christ is the true God, in the above text, then it will in
the fo; lowing text prove him to be a deceiver, and an
antichn n . " For many deceivers are entered into
the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in
the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." 2
Joh. 7. >This is precisely the same construction as
that of the former text : and Jesus Clirisi is the last an-
tecedent noun before the pronoun this. And it just a^
clearly and positively proves, that he is a deceiver, and
an antichrist, as the other proves that he is the true
God. '' This is the stone which was set at nought of
you builders, which is become the head of the corner."
Act. iv. 11. If in this sentence the pronoun which y^-
must agree with its nighest antecedent noun builders,
then the persecuting Pharisees, and priests, who mur-
dered the Lord, must be the head of the corner in his
spiritual house ; and this text proves as pointedly that
they are, as that one in John, v. 20, proves that Christ
is the true God.

If it is essential to the salvation of men to behevo
that Christ is the supreme God, surely the proof of ii
would have been abundant and clear, it would not have
been left to depf^nd on the agreement of a pronoun
with its antecedent, which is at best equivocal, and capa-
i)le of being grammatically parsed two or three differer-
ent ways. Desperate indeed must be that cause hi
support of which a majority of the wisest and most
learned men in the world can find no better testimony.

As the text I am examining seems to be chiefly re-
lied on by the Trinitarians, to prove that Christ is the
true Qod, and as the whole force of the evidence de-

116 OBJECTIONS ANSV.ERED.

pends on making the pronoun agree with its nighesf
antecedent noun, I will bring one more example out of
the many, which might be brought to prove that this
rule will not always hold good. " And then shall that
"Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
■with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the
brightness of his coming : even him, whose coming is
after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs,
and lying wonders. And with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness." 2 Thes. ii. 8, 9, 10. Here the
Lord is the nighest antecedent noun to the pronoun
him and whose, by which the writer points out the Man
of sin with all his satanic working, and lying wonders.
The Shakers frequently bring this text to prove that
Christ in his second coming will appear to the world as
the J\Icm of sin. Certain I am that this text is as well
adapted to prove that he is the JMan of sin, as the former
is to prove that he is the true God. In a solemn ad-
dress to his Father, Christ said : '• This is life eternal,
that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent." Here he mentions his
Father as the only true God in contradistinction from
liimself ; but if he is, as the Trinitarians say, the onl)
true God, then he has told a falsehood, for he pointedly
said his Father was the only true God. Christ is not
represented in the scriptures as the original source of
eternal life, but as the IMediator through whom it is
communicated to men. Hence Paul says : " The gift
of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.'-
Rom. vi. 23.

The following text has been brought to prove that
Chiist is the supreme God : " Feed the Church of
God which he has purchased with his own blood." Act.
XX. 28. Some eminent critics say, t)jis reading is in-
correct, and that the ancient manuscripts afford more
evidence for reading it, " The Church of the Lord.^^ —
I think the last mentioned reading is most probably cor-
rect ; but as it respects the present controversy, I
would just as leave it should stand as it is. because it
only proves that Christ is called God, and that the
Church belongs to him, neither of which is denied by
any Christian preacher ; but take notice, wc believe

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 117

that the blessed Saviour, who bled and died for the
Church, was God in a subordinate sense. We do not
think that the supreme God could shed his blood ; be-
cause the scripture informs us that he is a spirit, and
we do not know that he has any blood, nor do we beHeve
that he ever could die, or suffer.

The following text has been brought to prove the
supreme deity of Christ : " And he is before all things,
and by him all things consist." Col. i. 17. It is very
possible for him to be before all things, and at the same
time not before, nor even as old as his Father, because
God the Father is not a thing. In what sense he is
before all things is explained to us in the 15th verse ;
" Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born
of every creature." This shows that he is the first crea-
ture that was born into existence. It would not be
proper to say of God the Father, that he is the first
born of every creature ; because he is not a creaturej
nor was he ever bom. It will not do to apply it to
Christ's human body, for many millions of creatures
were born before it was. JMor will it do to apply it to
his resurrection from the dead, because that is quite an-
other thing, and is mentioned in the 18th verse. The
former says : " He is the first b ;rn of every creature ;"
the latter says : '' He is the first-born from the dead."
The two sentences are of very different meaning. —
The plain truth is, that the pre-existent Christ was the
first creature that was born into existence, and in this
sense he is before all things. But if the phrase, all
things, means every being in the universe, then he must
have existed before the Father, for he is a being, and
if the Holy Ghost is another being, he must have
existed before it did, and if so, he existed without
the spirit of God. The 16th verse of this chapter says^
for by him all things were created that are in heaven,
and that are in earth ; but this is not more true than the
preceding verse, which calls him a creature. And if he
is a creature, he cannot be the source from whom all
things came, but must be the instrument by, or through
whom all things were created. Hence the next verse
shows, that he was dependant on God for all this ful-
ness. " For it pleased the Father that in him should
all fulness dwell."

lis OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

And then the 20th verse holds him out as an instrumeii^
in the hand of that God, who created him and gave him
to be head over all things to the church. " i\.nd having
made peace through the blood of his cross ; by him to
reconcile all things unto himself; by him I say, whether
ihey be things in earth, or things in heaven." If, when
it is said that Christ is before all things, it means that he-
is before every being in the universe, then when it is
said that by iiini God created all things, it must mean
that by him God created every being in the universe ;
and if so, he must have created himself by Jesus Christ.

If I should say you are the oldes*: of all the men in
the house, it would be faniy calling you a man : and
when Paul says Christ is the first born of every crea-
ture, he, as fairly calls him a creature ; because if he
never was born till the reign of Augustus Caesar, he
cannot be the first born of every creature, and he can
neither be first nor last born of every creature, if he is
no creature at all.

The exclamation of Thomas, when he said to Christ,
'' my Lord and my God,^' has bee-i brought to prove
the supreme divinity of Christ. But this does not prove
him to be the supreme God ; nor does it prove that
Thomas thought he was, because 1 conscientiously call
him my Lord, and niy God, and yet I firmly believe that
he is a created being, nor is there any thing in the words
of Thomas to prove that he beheved otherwise.

There is no probability that Thomas believed Christ
was the supreme God, because previous to then, he did
not believe that the Saviour was aUve, and affirmed that
he would nut believe it, unless he should thrust his hand
into his side, and his finger into the pnnt of the nails ;
iind it is not likely that he would be instai;ianeously,con-
verted into the opinion that the person whom he had
seen crucified, and whom till that mf>ment he had
thought was dead, was the supreme God, and had just
come to life, and now appeared to him with all these
grievous wounds by which he had been murdered.

My opinion is, that Thomas's words are nothing more
than an exclamation on seeing such an unexpected
sight. Many persons will cry out, my God, my God !
or, my Lord, God! on seeing a person killed by acci-
dent, or on unexpectedly meeting a friend whom the}

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 119

thought was dead ; but this is no proof that they think
iheir friend is the supreme God. The law of Moses
called the judges of Israel Gods ; and Thomas might
have meant by this expression to acknowledge him as
his ruler and his judge.

One thing is certain, and that is, that this exclama-
tion of Thomas was never written to make us believe
that Jesus Christ is the supreme God ; because in the
next verse after Christ's reply to Thomas, John says,
** And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this book : But
these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the
Christ the Son of God." Therefore, if we believe that
Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, we believe all John
designed to make us believe, when he wrote the ex-
clamation of Thomas.

I will now notice Isaiah ix. 6, 7 : " For unto us a
child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the go-
vernment shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall
be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the in-
crease of his government and peace, there shall be no
end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom,
to order it, and to establish it with judgement, and with
justice from henceforth, even for ever. The zeal ot'
<he Lord of hosts will perform this."

There is nothing in this passage inapplicable to Christ
as a subordinate being. First, he is called a child born,
and a son given ; if he is a gift, he must be subordinate
to the one who had power to give him. It would be
very improper to say that any one could give us the su-
preme God. If it was the supreme God that Isaiah was
speaking of, where would be the propriety of foretelling
that the government would be upon his shoulder, and
that his name should be " the 3Iighty God ?" Surely the
government was then on his shoulder, nor was there
any probability that the unchangeable God would change
his name. Christ is mighty, because all might or
power, in heaven, and upon earth is given to him, and
as I have already proved that the title God, is frequently
given to creatures, it is evident that he could be the
migh!y God, and yet a subordinate being. The judges of

120 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED*

Israel v.ere called Gods. " Thou shalt not revile tlie
Gods, nor curse the ruler of thy^people." Exod.xxii. 28.

" Then his master shall bring him unto the judges.''
;Heb. to the Gods.) Exod. xxi. 6. The Father has
committed all judgement unto Christ, and by him ^vill
judge the secrets ot all men ; hence the propriety of pre-
fixing the definite ariicie to his title, the mighty God,
that is, the mighty Judge. The point in dispute is not
whether he is, or is not called God, but whether he is so
called in ihe highest sense.

Christ is called the Bridegroom. Joh. iii. 29. The
church is called the Bride the Lamb's wife. Rev. xxi.
2 — 9. Hence Paul says to the church, " I have es-
poused you to one husband, that I may present you as
a chaste Virgin to Christ." 2 Cor. xi. 2. If Christ
and the church are married, he, as the second Adam,
must be the Father ot' the spiritual children, as the first
Adam is the father of the natural ones. Hence Isaiah,
personating Christ says, " Behold I and the children
whom the Lord hath given me." Isa. viii. 18. The
New Testament applies this to Christ ; " And again,
behold I and the children which God hath given me."
Heb. ii. 13. Thus we find in what sense he is a Fa-
ther. He is the everlasting Father, because he will last
forever, but that is no proof that he existed from all eter-
nity ; because many things that had a beginning are
called everlasting. Thus Jacob said to Joseph, " the
blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings
of my progenitors unto the utmost bounds of the ever-
lasting hills." Gen. xlix. 26. " Their anointing shall
surely be an everlasting priesthood." Exod. Ix. 15.
•' And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the
covenantof an everlasting priesthood." Num. xxv. 13.
If, because he is called everlasting he existed from all
eternity, then the hills, the Levitical priesthood, and the
covenant that was made at Horeb, must each have ex-
isted from all eternity, for they are all called everlasting.

If in the above text Isaiah had been speaking of the
supreme God, he would hardly have said that " Of the
increase of his government, and peace, there shall be no
end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom ;"
because it is not probable Isaiah thought that the

O'BJECTIONS ANSWERED. 121

infinite God was David's successor, and derived his
throne from him. In fact the idea of the infinite God
increasing in government and peace, and inheriting
David's throne, is rather too absurd to need refutation.
The last sentence of this passage says, <' The zeal of the
Lord of hosts will perform this." Therefore we must
regard the Lord of hosts as the great donor, who gave
Christ as an unspeakable gift to mankind, set him on
the throne of David, and superintends all the economy
of his reign.

Some people argue, that if Christ can be with his peo-
ple in every part of the world at the same time, he must
be the supreme God ; but the argument is inconclusive,
because whatever capacity he has, is derived from God,
who gave him all the power in heaven and earth. Be-
sides, Christians generally believe, and I think not with-
out scripture authority, that the Devil can influence
wicked people in every part of the world at the same
lime, but that does not prove that he is the supreme
God. It is as easy for God to endue his creatures with
great capacities, as with small ones.

I will now examine the passage where Christ is called
Alpha, and Omega : " I aai Alpha, and Omega, the
beginning and the ending saith the Lord, which is, and
which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Rev.
i. 8. Many wise people think this text alludes to the
supreme Being, and if it does, all it proves about Christ
is, that one of the same appellations is given to him, that
is given to the Father. I am not certain in my mind,
but I think, however, it most probably alludes to Christ :
because the phraseology seems to refer to his states of
humiliation and exaltation, and his second coming : be-
sides, I cannot see the propriety of saying the Father is
to come. It is very possible for him to be the Almighty,
and still not be the independent God, because, he can-
not have more than dl the might, or power in heaven
and earth, and that much he himself acknowledges God
gave him.

" In the eleventh verse of this chapter, the Saviour
says, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last."
This cannot mean that he is the first being that ever ex-
isted, because if it does, it must sueail that he will he
11

122 OBJECTIONS ANSWEREO,

the last being that will exist ; and if that should be iht*
case, then there will be a time, when every being in the
universe except Jesus Christ will be out of existence ~
if so, God the Father with all the saints and angels must
be annihilated. Again, if he is the first being in exist-
ence either, as it respects time, or dignity, he must be
older, or greater, than the Father ; and if the Holy
Spirit is another person, he must be older than he. But
if this text means that Christ is the first in dignity, it
must also mean that he is the last in dignity, that is.
that he is the meanest being in the universe.

The most probable meaning of this text is, that he is
the beginning, and ending of divine revelation to man-
kind. As Alpha is the beginning, or first, and Omega
the ending, or last letter of the Greek Alphabet, so
Christ, under the direction of God, is the beginning and
the end, the first and the last of religious knowledge and
comfort to us. Hence he is called " The author and
finisher of our faith." Heb. xii. 2. "\Miatever may be
the true meaning of Alpha and Omega, it is certain that
the person, who in the eleventh verse gives himself this
appellation, cannot be the supreme Being ; because in
the same interview, he said to John, " Fear not ; I am
the first and the last : I am he that liveth and was dead.'*
Verses 17, 18. It is not true that the supreme God has
been dead.

If in Rev. xxi. 6, the appellation Alpha and Omega.
is given to the Father, it proves nothing relative to the
dignity of his Son ; but if it is given to the Son, it is
given to a person, who under that title said he had beeis
dead.

fJBJECTIONS ANSWERED,. 123

CHAPTER YII,

[The same subject continued.)

'Ihis expression of Peter, " Lord thou knoivest all
f^tmo-5," has been brought to prove that Christ is the
omniscient God. If by the phrase cdl things, Peter
meant every thing in the universe, he contradicted his
Lord, who had pointedly said that he did not know when
the day of Judgement would be : and I would much
rather believe Jesus Ch'ist than Peter. I think all that
Peter meant was, that the blessed Saviour knew all
things respecting him, and the question he then answer-
ed. John says to the Christians, " But ye have an unc-
tion from the Holy One, and ye know all things."- 1 Joh.
ii. 20 — 27. '* The same anointing teacheth you of all
things." If Peter's expression proves that Christ is the
omniscient God, Saint John's will prove that every
Christian is the omniscient God.

That God and Christ are two distinct beings, is plain
from the following text : " I charge thee before God,
and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect Angels, that
thou observe these things." 1 Tim. v. 21. Here there
is as clear a distinction drawn between God, and the
Lord Jesus Christ, as there is between him and the elect
Angels.

But, says one, if Christ is a dependant being, would
it not be idolatry to worship him ?

Answer. The word worship^ signifies adoration, res-
pect, honor, &c. And it is perfectly right to worship
earthly rulers each in his proper place. Thus when we
call a judge, his worship, or the court the worshipful
court, all we mean by it is that they should be honored,
and obeyed. One part of the marriage ceremony in the
old church of England prayer book is, " With my body
I do thee worship." When the Lord says, " Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve." The meaning is that we must worship and

124 OBJECTIONS ANSWEREJD,

seiTG, that is, honor and obey him, and him alone as the
supreme God. He does not mean that we should no?
worship, and serve our magistrates and parents in their
proper places. The above text as much forbids us to
serve any other being but God, as it does to worship any
other than he. It does not mean that we should not
serve our rulers nor parents. It only means that we
should not give to any other being that honor and ser-
vice which we owe to the divine being. The Jews
•worshipped their king. " And all the congregation
blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down
their heads, and worshipped the Lord, and the king/"
\ Chro. xxix. 20.

Christ says, " When thou art bidden of any man to a
wedding, go and sit down in the lowe.>t room ; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee friend^
go up higher ; then shalt thou have w rship in the pre-
sence K>i liic;.) that sit at meat with thee." Luke xiv.
10. If it was wrong to worship creatures, Christ would
not have directed us to use means to get our neighbors
to worship us.

I worship the Father as the supreme Being, and I
worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Mediator
between God and men, the only way of salvation, and
the next greatest being to God in the universe : and if
the>e are not proper views ol divine worship, I do not
thiuK my Maker will condemn me for them, because
they are the i»est I can learn from the !!5criptures. Christ
has said, " My Father is greater than I," and I beheve
him.

But says one, when Joiin fell down to worship an an-
gel, he forbade him, and told him to wr ship God ; there-
fore it must be wrong to worship any created being. I
think the reasoi; the Angel talked so to John, was that
he saw John was about to offer him undue worship, that
is, John was going to worship him as the supreme Being,
which would have been improper.

I will now give a few reasons for thinking tha:t the
very angel, who forbade John to worship him was Jesus
Christ. In the first place, it is necessary to observe
that all the things which John saw in this vision, are
'' the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 125

iiim to show unto his servants, things which must shortly
come to pass ; and he (God) sent and signified it by his
Angel, (that is, by Jesus Christ,) unto his servant John.'^
Rev. i. 1. That Christ was the Angel, that is, the
Messenger, who in person dehvered this revelation to
John, appears from the following verses of the same
chapter. " I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and
heard behind me a great voice as of a trumpet, saying :
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last : and what
thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven

churches, And I turned to see the voice that

spake with me. And being turned I saw seven golden
candlesticks ; and in the midst of the seven candlesticks

one like unto the Son of man, — And when I saw

him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right
iiand upon me, saying unto me, fear not ; I am the
first and the last : 1 am he that liveth and was dead :
and behold, I am alive forever more, amen ; and have
the keys of hell and of death. Write the things which
thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things
which shall be hereafter." Verses 10, 11, 12, 13, 17,
18, 19. That John calls Christ an Angel appears from
the following text. " And I looked and behold a white
cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of
man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand
a sharp sickle." Rev. xiv. 14 — 18. " And cried with
a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying,
thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the
vine of the earth ; for her grapes are fully ripe."
Verse 19th. " And the Angel thrust in his sickle
into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and
cast it into the great wine-press of the wrath of God."
Here John describes the Son of man with a golden
crown, and a sharp sickle : and then says, " The
Angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered
the vine of the earth, and cast it]into the great wine-press
of the wrath of God. And the wine-press was trodden
without the city." And in the 15th verse of the 19th
chapter it is said of Christ that he treadeth the vjine-press
of the fierceness and icrath of Almighty God. John
wrote every thing in this book by the authority, and as
the words of that person who appeared to him walking
11*

126 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks ; and that
this was the same person that forbade John to worship
him, appears from the follovving text : " And he said
unto me, these sayings are faithful and true : and the
Lord God of the holy prophets sent his Angel to show
unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
Behold I come quickly, blessed is he that keepeth the
sa}angs of the prophecy of this book. And I, John, saw
these things and heard them. And when I had heard
and seen, I fell down to wo ship before the feet of
the Angel, which showed me these things. And he
saith unto me, see thou do it not : for I am thy fellow ser-
vant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which
keep the sayings of this book : worship God. And he
saith unto me, seal not the sayings of the prophecy of
this book : for the time is at hand. He that is unjust,
let him be unjust still : and he which is filthy, let him be
filthy still : and he that is righteous, let him be righte-
ous still : and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And
behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to
give every man according as his work shall be. I am
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first
and the last. Blessed are they that do his (that is,
God's) commandments, that they may have right to the
tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the
city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whore-
mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever
loveth and maketh a lie. I Jesus have sent mine Angel
to testify unto you these things in the churches." Rev.
xxii. 6 — 16. In this last clause he does not say, " I
Jesus have sent mine Angel to testily these things to
my servant John;" but he says, *' I have sent mine An-
gel to testify unto you these things in the churches.'^
Therefore that Angel or Messenger, who preached and
testified these things in the churches, must have been
John. And there is just as much propriety in calling
him an Angel, as there is in calling the ministers of the
seven churches in Asia, Angels. If you read this pas*;
sage over five hundred times, you will find every time,
that the person who fo bade John to worship him is the
one, who pronounces judgement upon mankind, saying,
^' jffe that isjilthijj let him be filthy siillf and he that is

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 127

iigliieous, let him be righteous still " and who represents
himself as coming quickly to reward every man accord-
ing as his work shall be : and who calls himself Alpha
and Omega, and rinaliy asserts that he is Jesus. The
book of Revelation both opens and closes with an in-
terview with Jesus.

I have heard some people say, that if they thought
Christ was a dependant bemg, they would be afraid to
trust in him for salvation, but 1 thhik such objections
are unreasonable : it is our duty to believe on him, and
trust in him as he is revealed to us in the scriptures.
Besides, although I firriily believe the Saviour spoke
the truth literally, when he said, " lean of mine own self
ch nothing !^^ and when he said, " JSIij Father is gi^eater
than /;" still I have the same God, the same divinity,
to trust in for salvation, that the trinitarians have. 1
trust in one infinite God, and they do not profess to
trust in more than one. I hope that infinite Being will
save me through the blessed Jesus, and they hope the
same. I pray for, and trust I have received the holy
spirit to cleanse my heart, and enhghten my mind ; and
they profess to have received the same.

The following text is frequently brought to prove the
supreme divinity of Christ : " For in him dwelleth all
the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Col. ii. 9. If this
text proves Christ to be the supreme God, the follow-
ing one will prove every Christian to be the supreme
God. And to know the love of Christ, which passeth
knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness
of God." Ephes. iii. 19 The one passage states as
clearly, that the Christians may be filled with all the
fulness of God, as the other does that the fulness of the
Godhead dwells in Christ bodily. The Greek Soma-
tikos, which is here rendered bodily, signifies cor-
poreal, material, as in 1 Tim. iv. 8, '• Bodily exer-
cise profiteth httle." And Luk. iii. 22. "The
Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape." Gr. So-
matiko. Joh. ii. 21. " He spake of the temple of his
body." Gr. Somatos. I find no fault with the trans=
lation, but mention the original merely to show the
meaning of the word. Some people thmk that the
word bodily means ^Yholly, or entirely, whereas the true

128 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

meaning of the text is, that all the communicable per-
fections of God dwelt in Christ while he was here in his
body." If I did believe that God's person fills all
space, I could not for a moment think that his bound-
less essence could be circumscribed to the person of
Christ. If he is God because God dwelt in him, then
it must be his body that is God, for it was in a bodily
sense that the Godhead dwelt in him. When a mighty
rushing wind filled all the house where the disciples
were sitting, that did not make the h>use a mighty
rushing wind ; and when they were all filled with the
Holy Ghost, that did not make them the Holy Ghost ;
so when the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Chi'ist in a
bodily sense, that did not make his body the supreme
God. One thing is certain, and that is, that he is de-
pendant on God for his life, for the holy spirit, and all
the power he has. Hence he says : " As the Father
hath hfe in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have
life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute
judgement also." Peter says: " Therefore being at
the right hand of God exalted, and having received of
the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed
forth this which you now see and hear." Act. ii. 33.

It has been supposed that Christ is spoken of in the
8th chapter of Proverbs, under the character of wis-
dom. Accordingly it is quoted by Trinitarians to
prove his supreme Deity; while the Anti-Trinitarians ar-
gue from the same chapter, that he was God's property,
that God possessed or owned him m the beginning of
his ways, brought him forth, and set him up ; and that
he must therefore be a dependant being. They think
it would be very improper to say the infinite God was
possessed, brought forth, or set up by any one.

My opinion is, that we have no authority to say that
ivisdom, which is personified in the 8th and 9th chap-
ters of Proverbs, is Jesus Christ.

My first reason is, because there is no text in the
Bible that applies it to him : therefore, to say the best
of it, it is only an opinion destitute of scripture proof. —
I know Christ is made unto us wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification and redemption, but that does not prove
r-hat he is either of these abstractedly, because, if he is;

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 129

dienhe is not a person, but a mere attribute, or quality.
3Iy next reason is, that wisdom is called she and ha^
all through those chapters, and it is both ridiculous and
palpably false to call Jesus Christ a female. The
Trinitarians take the Sth chapter of Proverbs to prove
that Christ is the supreme God, and I think their com-
ment on it is rather too ridiculous to be ridiculed, be-
cause, according to their comment, the supreme God
and Father of all must be a she. In some languages I
know that wisdoui is in the feminine jiender, but I know
of no rule in any language to call Je-us Christ, or any
other male person, a she, except it is the rule of lying.
In the twelfth verse he says : " I wisdom dwell with
prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions."
From this it appears that if wi-dom is a Deity she has
an associate Goddess, called Prudence, by the advan-
tage of whose society she finds out knowledge of witty
inventions. But ('hnstiatis do not generally think this
is very applicable to the supreme Being, because they
think he is incapable of improving in knowledge, and
witty inventions. In the fourteenth verse he says : —
*' Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom." If Christ is
the person here speaking, these last words will amount
to this, " Counsel is mine, and suund Jesus Christ is
mme." In the next clause of this verse, Solomon
makes wisdom tell us who she is. She says, " I am
understanding." She did not say, " I am the supreme
God," nor did she say, " I am Jesus Christ." There-
fore, for us to say so, is not only an assertion without
proof, but it is flat contradiction of Solomon's own
words, unless it cai. be proved that the words under-
standing and Jesus Christ are synonymous. We know
that wisdom, and understanding are sufficiently synony°
mous to be explained one by the other. The writer
continues to personify wisdom, and hold it up in the
character of an amiable female till he comes to the
11th verse of the 9th chapter. And in the 10th verse
he says : " The fear of the Lord is the beginning oi
wisdom, and the knowledge of the holy is understand-
ing." Here he mentions, the fear of the Lord, wisdom,
the knowledge of the holy, and understanding, as being
all four synonymous. But if wisdom is Jesus Christy

130 bBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

tlienthe fear of the Lord is the beginning of JesU:^
Christ.

Solomon personifies other things besides wisdom ;
he says : " Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.'-
Prov. XX. 1. *' Jealousy is cruel as the grave." Song,
viii. 6. Wine, and jealousy of themselves unconnect-
ed with any person, can no more mock, rage, or exer-
cise cruelty, than wisdom separate from any person,
can rejoice, or take delights. David says ; *' Let not
the foot of pride come against me." Psal. xxxvi. 11,
Solomon personifies folly and madness. Hence he
speaks of the " Wickedness of folly, even the foolish-
ness of madness." Eccle. vii. 25. I think all he
meant in the 8th chapter was to set forth the excellency
of wisdom by showing that God possessed it in the be-
ginning of his ways, that he brought it forth, displayed,
or set it up from everlasting in all his works of creation,
and providence. Hence speaking of wisdom in the
third chapter of Proverbs, he says : " The Lord, by
wisdom, hath tounded the earth ; by understanding
hath he established the heavens : by his knowledge
the depths are br ken up, and the clouds drop down the
dew." Here wisdom, understanding, and knowledge,
are all mentioned as synonymous : but in the verses
immediately preceding, '.\ isdom is called it, she and her;
and IS represented as hoidmg length of days in her right
hand, and in her leit, richp-^ and honor.

If Paul had believed that Jesus Christ is wisdom, he
would hardly have said, that " The world by wisdom
knew not God."

Some people say, that if Christ had not been the su-
preme God, he could not have fasted forty days ; but I
think that if he had been the supreme God, fasting forty
days would not have made him hungry. Both Mose«
and Elijah fasted forty days.

ORIGIN AND n'BSTANCE OF CHRIST, '131

CHAPTER VIII.

6s THE ORIGIN ASD SUBSTANCE OF JESUS CHrIST,

' I will now offer a few reasons for believing that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God by creation, and not by de-
rivation ; or that he is God's Son not in the sense that
Isaac was the son of Abrahc
Adam was the Son of God.

Some people contend that Christ is dependant on
God for all he has, but still they think he is uncreated :
they say he is God's Son in the proper sense of the
word : that as he derived his existence from God, he is
therefore of the same specific substance as the Father.
I beheve that Barten VV. Stone, and Xoah Worcester,
have both advocated this sentiment. I never read the
second edition of brother Stone's address to the
Christian Church, nor his letters to Doctor Blythe, but
I read his letter to Moreland, and his letter to Spencer
Clark, in both of which he advocates the doctrine. I
have read none of brother U'orcester's writings, except
two or three letters in his Bil?le news, where he attempts
to prove that Christ is the Son of God, in a proper
•sense ; that is, that he is the Son of God in the same
sense that Isaac was the Son ot Abraham.

Although I highly esteem those brethren, I can by n^
means fall in with them on this point. Though I have
seen some of brother Millard's writings, I cannot re-
collect of having ever read a whole page from his pen
respecting the Son of God, of course I know not which
side of the question he has taken. I read some in one of
brother James Miller's books, but cannot at present re-
collect a word of it.

It is impossible for God to have a Son m the natural
or proper sense of the word, unless he is changeable :
because according to all the knowledge we have of na-
tural generation it implies change.

If Christ is uacrentecl, and derived his being from

132 ORIGIN AND SUBSTANCE OP CHHIST,

the substance of his Father, then God's substance
must have been diminished in proportion to the quantity
of it, that was derived from him to form his Son. If
that substance of which the Son was formed, was, at
the time it was derived, or separated from the Father,
inactive, uninteihgent, and unorganized, then he is of
no more dignity than if he had been made of any other
inactive, unmtelhgent, unorganized substance. If a part
of God's substance became disorganized, inactive, un-
inteihgent, and was separated from him to form his Son
of, he has changed and become less than he was, and
therefore cannot be au^immutable, nor an infinite Being.
If that substance of which Christ consisted in his pre-ex-
istent state, always existed, and was from all eternity
an intelligent, active, organized being, then Christ
must have existed a distict person \\ith his Father
from all eternity, because organization, activity, and
intelligence constitute person.

There can be no mistake in this reasoning. Jesus
Christ is either a being or a nonentity. If he is a be-
ing, his substance is either created, or uncreated. If
the substance of his being is uncreated, it either eternal-
ly existed as a distinct being from God, or else was in-
corporated in, identified with, and was a part of the sub-
stance of God's person. If Christ was a part of the sub-
stance of God's person, and has become a distinct per-
son, and a distinct being from God, then the essence of
the Father's being must be just as much less than it
once was, as the uncreated substance of Christ is
large.

If all of Christ, except his human body, is uncreated,
and the same substance of the Father, he is no more
derived from the Father than the Father is from him ;
because if you divide a fraction from a large substance,
which is not of itself changeable, such as glass, the
smaller part is no more derived from the larger, than
the larger is from the smaller. This is not the case with
the human family in propagating their species ; as their
whole bodies are continually changing, the substance
of which their offspring is propagated has but a tran-
sient existence in them. But God is unchangeable in
his essence : all the substance that ever existed in his

SUBSTANCE AND ORIGIN OF CHRIST. 133

-"crsoii is there yet. We do not believe that his person
»:an be diminished by evacuations, and recruited by
eating ; therefore it is impossible that a part of God's
substance should be separated from him to form anoth-
er Being.

If Christ is God's Son in the same sense that Isaac
was the Son of Abraham, God must have had a wife,
for Abraham had one. But, says one, is it not possi-
ble for God to have a Son formed of his own substance
without that son having a mother 1 To this I answer,
that if Christ is God's Soi without a mother, he is not
the Son of God in the sense that Isaac was Abraham's
Son, for he had a mother.

If God of his own substance brought forth Christ
without the instrumentality of a mother, then he must
be a female, and the mother of Christ, because bearing
a child, or bringing forth young, is an infallible mark of
;i female.

Man has no choice whether his offspring will be wise
or foolish, male or female, weak or strong, perfect or
jm^ierfect, but v.'hen God brought his Son into exis-
? ence, none of these things were contingent with him :
therefore he could not have a Son in the same sense
that man has.

I think Christ is a created Being, and those passage?
that say he was begotten always allude either to his
miraculous conception, or his resurrection from the
dead. The word begott n^ m its proper sense, that is,
according to the common acceptation of the term, im-
plies plurality; to beget, is this the united a.ct of tv/o :
therefore the pre-existent Christ could not have been
begotten in the proper sense of the word unless he had
a mother as well as a father.

That Christ is a created being, appears from the fol-
lowing texts : " Who is the image of the invisible
(rod, the first born of every creature." Col. i. 15.—
Here he is called a creature, and as all creatures are
• ■reated, of course he must have been created. This
text cannot mean that his human body was the first
horn of every creature, because the bodies of all the
people, that had lived from the creation till then, wer j
born before his bod v. Then it must mean that glori-
12

134 SUBSTANCE AXD ORIGIN OF CHRIST.

ous Son of God^>ho was with the Father before th-'
world was. As sure as this text is true, Jesus Christ i'-r
a created being. " And unto the angel of the Church
of the Laodiceans write ; these things saith the Amen.
the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the crea^
tion of God." Rev. iii. 14. Some people say the com-
mon translation of this text is not right, and that the
Greek word arche. which is here rendered beginning,
should be rendered principal, or greatest ; but although
it is so rendered in some passages of the new testament?
it is frequently rendered beginning as in the above text;
the true meaning of which is in my opinion, that Christ
is the first being that God created. That arche signi-.
fies beginning in point of time, appears from the follow-
ing texts : "In the beginning vras the word, — —The
same was in the beginning with God." Joh. i. 1,2.
" Have ye not read, that he, which made them at the
beginning made them male, and female?" Mat. xix.
4. " All these are the beginning of sorrows." Mat,
xxiv. 8. "How shall we escape if we neglect so great
salvation, which at the first began (Gr. archen) to be
spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by
them that heard him?" Heb. ii. 3. " Then said they
unto him, who art thou ? And Jesus said unto them,
even the same that I said unto you from the begin-
ning.^^ Joh. viii. 25. " I am Alpha, and Omega, the
beginning and the ending," Rev. i. 8. " I am Alpha
and Omega, the beginning and the end." Rev. xxi. 6.
" I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end,
the first and the last." Chap. xxii. 13. Wherever the
word beginning occurs in these passages, the Greek is
arche, the same that is rendered beginning in the text
which says, Christ is the beginning of the creation oj
God. But even if the word should be rendered princi-
pal, or chief, it would not effect the argument, because;
he would still be one of the creation of God.

Some people contend that this text means, that he is
the beginner of the creation of God, but if they would
read the above passages, and change the word begin-
ning into beginner every where it occurs, I think they
would be convinced of their mistake. For instance t
" In the beginner \Vd.s the word." " The same was if>

SUBSTANCE AND ORIGIN OP CHRIST. 13B

liie beginner with God." Joh. i. 1, 2. *' Have ye not
read that at the beginner God made them male and fe-
male?' Mat. xix. 4. " They said unto him, who art
thou? And he said unto them, even the same that I
said unto you from the beginner.-^ Joh. viii. 25.

Another reason I have for thinking that the text under
consideration does not mean that Jesus is the beginner
of the creation of God, is, that it does not say so, but
isays the reverse, viz., that he is the beginning of the
creation of God. When Jacob said, Reuben was the
begitming of his strength, he did not mean that Reuben
was the beo-inner of his strenoth. If Christ was the
beginner, that is the prime, or original cause of crea-
tion, then the creation must belong to Christ and not to
God ; but the creation is every where in scripture ca]l-
ed God's, and Paul informs us that the Father is the
prime cause of all things. Hence he says : " To us
there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things, and we by him."

When it is said, that Alpha is the beginning of the Al-
phabet, it does not mean that it was the beginner of it,
nor does it mean that Alpha is the first thing that ever
existed, the style, or the pen with which it was made,
existed before it did ; but it means that in writing the
Alphabet, Alpha is the iirst letter we make, and most
probably the first that the Greeks ever did make : so
Christ is not the first being that ever existed, nor the
bes^nner of creation, but he is the first creature that
God ever made. The above text cannot mean that his
body was the beginning of the creation of God, because
it was neither the first nor the greatest being that God
ever created. It is probable that the least immortal
spirit that ever was created, is greater than his human
body would be without a soul. As sure as this text is
true, Jesus Christ is the first creature that God ever
created.

Paul says : " And so it is written, the first man Ad-
am was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a
quickening spirit." 1 Cor. 15 — 45. This text as posi-
tively says, that the last Adam was made, as that the
iirst one was. If it does not mean that the last Adam

136 SUBSTANCE AND ORIGO OF CHRisT

was created, it cannot mean that the first one was ; [n-
same language is applied to both. It cannot mean hip
body, because it does not say he was made a living
body, but it says he was made a qaickening spirit. It
is true the words icas made, whert they occur last m
this text are a supply, but it is certain that they do nor
change the sense. Christ's spirit was created as sme
as Adam was created.

" As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given
to the Son to have life in himself ' Joh. v. 26. I*
Christ is uncreated, his substance must have existed in
the living Father from all eternity ; if so, how could the
Father give to the Son to have lii- in himself? It
would be giving life to himself, or to some of his owi?
substance. If the substance of Christ existed alive
from all eternity, he never could have received life. —
That night the Saviour was betrayed, he said : " My
soul is exceedingly sorrowful unto dea ii." Mark. xiv.
34. If, as some people contend, the :>re-existent Sou
of God, is the soul of Christ, and the s oe specific sub-
stance of the Father, how could his sowl be exceeding
sorrowful unto death ? Could the uncreated substance
of God be subject to sorrow and death?

If God is an undivided, indivisible spirit, how could
a being distinct from himself, be formed of his sub-
stance ? If God is a spirit, thai is, i{ sjnrit is the sub-
stance of his being, and if Christ's soul, vir spirit is a
part of that very uncreated substance, t';en where is
the propriety of his receiving the Holy Spiat, or being
anointed with the Holy Spirit ? It would be one part
of the spirit or substance of God receiving another part
of it. It would be anointing God's spirit with the spirit
of God. It would be like taking a gallon oi oil out oi
a cask, and then anointing that gallon with some more
oil from the same cask. Adding oil to other oil of the
same specific substance, does not give it any properties
of oil, v.'hichit had not before; so if Christ's soul, or spirit.,
is the same specific substance of God, ana if God's
spirit is the same substance of himself; then anoint-
ing with God's spirit could not impart to him any wis-
dom, holiness, or other quahty of God which he did not
nossess before. It is said of Christ that he '' Grew.

SUBSTANCE AND ORIGIN OF CHRIST. 137

and waxed strong in spirit." Luke ii. 40. If his spirii
is the same specific substance of the Father, how could
it wax strong ? Can the uncreated substance of God
wrow stronger ?

When it is said that Christ was made of a woman,
the meaning is that some of her substance was modi-
fied, or changed into his infant body. If his soul was
uncreated, but derived from his Father, then a part of
God's substance must have been formed into the soul-
or pre-existent person of Christ ; if so, the substance
of God's person has as truly changed and become les?,
as Mary's person changed in bearing Christ. This
doctrine appears to me equally as absurd, and unscrip-
tural, as that which teaches that Christ is a distinct per-
son, coequal, coessential, and coeternal with God.

The passages that say he is the first begotten, and
the only begotten, have been brought to prove that he
derived his substance from God, and is uncreated.

When he is called the first begotten, it may mean
that he is the first one that was raised from the dead ;
because he is called, " The first born from the dead."
Col. i. IS. And " The first begotten of the dead."—
Rev. i. 5. This will appear more probable, by com-
paring the following texts : " Thou art my son; this
day have I begotten thee." Psal. ii. 7. " He raised
up Jesus again ; as it is also written in the second
Psalm : *' Thou art my Son ; this day have I begot-
ten thee." Act. xiii. 33. The phrase, first begotten,
naturally implies that there were others begotten besides
him ; therefore if it means that he was formed of God's
substance, and is uncreated, it must mean that he is the
oldest of other beings that have been formed in th^
same way.

His being called the only begotten of the Father,
proves that he is the Son of God in a peculiar sense.
but does by no means prove that he is an uncreated be-
ing ; because it is probable, if not certain, that the
phrase only begotten, refers to his miraculous rconcep-
tion, seeing it is particularly connected with the cir-
cumstance of his being made flesh ; hence, John says :
^' And the word was made flesh, and dwelt amonc-
.us. and we beheld his glory, the glory as of tlie only be-
12*

13S SUBSTANCE AND ORIGIN OF CHRIST,

gotten of the Father." Joh. i. 14. The angel saia U*
Mary : " The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, an€4
the power of the highest shall overshadow thee ; there-
fore, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee,
shall be called the Son V God." Luk. i. 35. The
words only begoiten may mean the only heir, as in Heb.
xi. 17, " Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac;
and he that had received the promises, offered up his
only begotten Son." Abraham had before that time
begotten Ishmael by Hager, and perhaps some others
by Keturah : but Isaac was his only heir ; so God has
appointed Christ " heir of all things." And as the
Jews were heirs of the promise made to Abraham, in
virtue of their descent from Isaac, so we heir the bless-
ings of the gospel in virtue of our union with Christ.

That Christ is called God's own Son, his first begot-
ten, and his only begotten, is a proof that he is the Sou
of God in a particular sense, but it by no means proves
that he is an uncreated being ; because the words begoi-
ten and created, at least sometimes signify the same
thing, which will appear from the following passages oi
scripture. " For we are his workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus unto good works." Ephes. ii. 10.—
" And that ye put on the new man, which, after God, is
created in righteousness, and true holiness." Chap. iv.
24. "Create in me a clean heart, O God ; and renew
a right spirit within me." Psal. li. 10. In each of
these passages the words created and create refer to the
new birth ; and in the following texts the same thing is
expressed by the word begotten. Blessed be the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, wliich, according
to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto u
lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead." 1 Pet. i. 3. "Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ, is born of God : and every one that loveth
him that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him."
" We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not :
but he that is begotten of God keepethhimselt^, and thai
wicked one toucheth him not." 1 Joh. v. 1 — 18.
That creation and generation are sometimes synony-
mous, appears still more evident from the following
scriptures : '' This shall be ^^•l■ittcn for the generation

SUBSTANCE AND ORIGIN OF CHRIST. 139

to come ; and the people, which shall be created, shall
praise the Lord." Psal. cii. 18. '" These are the
generations of the heavens and the earth, when the}-
were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens. Gen. ii. 4.

I think Christ is pre-eminently the Son of God in
four respects. 1. He is the oldest Son of God. 2.
He is, perhaps the only being that God ever made with-
out doing it through an agent, or instrument. 3. He is
the only one that ever was conceived by the miraculous
interposition of God without the means of a natural
tather. And 4. He is the first born from, or first be-
gotten of the dead. All these marks of distinction have
l>een conferred on him by his Father, from whom he has
received all power in heaven and earth ; and by whom
he is made head over all things to the church.

Paul says that Christ, in his times, shall show •' TMio
is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings,
and liord of lords ; who only hath immortality, dwelling
in the light ; which no man can approach unto ; whom
no man hath seen, nor can see." 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16.
It is impossible that this only Potentate was Jesus
Christ, because he is a person whom Jesus Christ is to
show : besides Paul would not say of Christ that no man
liath seen, nor can see him.

If the soul of Christ is uncreated, and of the same
specific substance of the Father, how could it be said
of the Father, that he only hath immortality ? If Christ's
substance is uncreated, and the same of the Father's,
he n-just have immortality in the same sense that thf
Father has.

140 tTHRIST AN AXGEL OR MESSENGER.

CHAPTER IX.

A FEW REASONS FOR BELIEVING THAT CHRIST IS MEKTIOKED IN'
THE SCRIPTURES UNDER THE CHARACTER OF AN ANGEL.

'* Behold I send my messenger, and he shall prepare
the way before me : and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall
suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the
covenant, whom ye delight in : behold he shall come,
saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of
his coming ? and who shall stand when he appeareth ?
for he is like a refiners fire, and like fuller's soap 1 And
he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver. Mai. iii.
1,2, 3. The Hebrew JSlalacha, which is here ren-
dered messenger, is the Hebrew word that is mostly, iV
not always translated angel in the old testament. Al-
though this prophecy was delivered, perhaps three hun-
dred and ninety seven years before the coming of Christ.
it speaks of him as the Lord whom the Jews sought,
and the Angel, or Messenger who delivered to Moser^
the covenant that God made with them at Horeb, and
represents him as the owner of the Jewish temple. This
in my opinion establishes the question of his pre-exist-
ence beyond dispute. The phraseology of the above
passage proves that Christ existed before John the
Baptist did. " Behold I send my messenger, and he
shall prepare the way before me." It appears from the
first chapter of Luke, that John the Baptist was born
into the world six months before Christ. Xow, if Christ
never, existed till he was born in the flesh, how could ho
send^John the Baptist before him ? Can a nonentity send
a messenger to prepare the way before it ? It will not-
do to say that Christ talked to John in person, and sent
him to preach after they were both born, because John
never knew Christ till he baptized him. He says, " 1-
knew him not : but he that sent me to baptize with
water, the same said unto me. Upon whom thou shall
'see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, fhe

CHRIST AN ANGEL OR MESSENGER. 141

same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.'*
Joh. i. 33.

Malachi in this prophecy, speaks of two messengers.
One was, " The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly
come to his temple, even the messenger of the cove-
nant whom ye delight in," who was, no doubt, Jesus
Christ. And the other was the Messenger, that was
sent before him, viz. John the Baptist, as will appear
from the following scriptures. <' Behold I will send
you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great
and dreadful day of the Lord." In the following textS;
Christ applies both these predictions to the Baptist.—
'^ For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send
my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy
way before thee.^' Mat. xi, 10, verse 14. " And if
ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to came."

This Angel of the Covenant was to be as a refiner's
fire, and a purifier of silver, which character John ap-
plies to Christ in these words, " I indeed baptize you
with water unto repentance : but he that cometh
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not
worthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy
Ghost and with fire : whose fan is in his hand and he will
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the
garner ; but he will burn up the chaff* with unquenchable
fire." Mat. iii. 11, 12. See Mark i. 2. *' And thou
child shalt be called the prophet of the Highest ; for thou
shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his way.''
Luke i. 76. Chap. vii. 27. When Malachi called
Christ the Messenger, or Angel of the Covenant, he,
no doubt, meant the covenant made at Horeb, because
he uses the definite article, the covenant, showing that it
was one well known to the Jews. It is not probable
that they could understand him to mean any other co-
venant than the one made at Horeb, because it was all
the one that existed between them and the Lord, and
they knew of no other.

The person of the supreme God has always been in-
visible to mortal men. The Lord said to Moses,
••' Thou canst not see my face ; for there shall no man
f^ee me and five." Exod. xxxiii. 20. Paul says he is
•' The blessed and onlv Potentate, the King of kings,

l42 CHRIST AN ANGEL OR MESSENGER,

and Lord of lords ; who only hath immortality dwell-
ing in the light which no man can approach unto ; whom
no man hath seen, nor can see." 1 Tim. vi. 15, 16.
But we find that Abraham, Moses, and many others saw
a person whom they called God. All the way I have
to keep these texts Irom contradicting each other, is to
suppose that those which say no man hath seen, nor can
see God, allude to the Father, and those which say men
have seen him, refer to the Son. I think John the
Baptist has explained it in the following text ; " No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him.'' Joh. i. 18.

Abraham did certainly see those three men that called
at his tent in the plain of Mamre, washed their feet, and
eat with him, on their way to destroy Sodom, yet one of
them is called the Lord, and Abraham called him God.
He promised Abraham that Sarah should bear a son,
and told him that he was going down to destroy Sodom ;
but when talking on that subject, he speaks as a Being
limited in knowledge, hence he says, " Because the cry
of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin
is very grievous ; I will go down now, and see whether
they have done altogether according to the cry of it,
which is come unto me, find if not, I will know." Gen.
xviii. 20, 21. I can hardly ascribe this language to the
supreme Deity, because it is not likely that he needed
to seek farther information respecting the wickedness
of those cities. "V^'hen Ha^er fled from her mistress,
^' the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water.
— And the angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multi-
ply thy seed exceedingly. And she called the name of
the Lord that spake unto her, thou God seest me.'" Gen,
xvi. 7. 10. 13. Here the Angel whom the text calls the
Lord, and whom Hager calls God, promised to multiply
her seed, viz : Ishmael, exceedingly. And in Gen.
xvii. 20. God said to Abraham, " And as for Ishmael,
I have heard thee ; behold I nave blessed him ; and will
make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly.''
Hence it appears that the Angel whom Hagar called
God, is the same God that spoke to Abraham.

CHRIST AN ANGEL OR MESSENGER, 143

1 have three reasons for thinking that this person was
Christ, and not the supreme God. 1. Because the
supreme God is not hmited in knowledge, as this per-
son seems to have been.

2. Because no man hath at any time seen the Fa-
ther, who is the supreme God.

3. It appears to me improper to call the supreme
God, the angel, or messenger of God.

When Moses led the fiock of Jethro to the mountain
of God, " The angel of the Lord appeared unto him in
a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush." " And
when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God
called unto him out of the midst of the bush." " More-
over he said I am the God of thy Father, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." — -
" Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pha-
raoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people, the chil-
dren of Israel, out of Egypt." Exod. iii. 2, 4, 6, 10. — -
For obeying this person, that appeared to him in the
bush, Moses lost his inheritance in the house of Pha^
roah, and suffered reproach. But Paul intimates that
Moses suffered the reproach of Christ. He says,
*' Moses, v.'hen he was come to years, refused to be
called the son of Pharoah's daughter ; Choosing rather
to suffer affliction v»'ith the people of God, than to en-
joy the pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in
Egypt." Heb. xi. 24, 25, 26. Moses did not suffer
reproach for believing that Christ would be born into
the world, but for believing and obeying that person,
who appeared to him in the bush.

God said to Moses, " Behold I send an angel before
thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the
place which I have prepared ; beware of him, and obey
liis voice, provoke him not ; for he will not pardon your
transgressions, for my name is in him. But if thou
shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak,
then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies." Exod.
xxiii. 20, 21, 22. This angel or messenger, who took
the Jews into Canaan, is frequently called the Lord,
i}w} God; and it is said of him that he spake unto Mo.-

;44 CHRIST AN" ANGEL OR MESSENGER.

ses, face to face, as a man speaketh with liis friend.—
Exod. xxxiii. 11. Deut. xxxiv. 10.

The Lord said to Aaron and 3Iiriam : " If there be
a prophet among you, 1, the Lord, will make myself
known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in
a dream. My servant, Moses, is not so, who is faithful
in all my house. With him will I speak, mouth to
mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches ; and
the similitude of the Lord shall he behold." jVura. xii. 6,
7, 8. This person cannot be the same that refused to
let Moses see his face, and told him that no man could
see it and live, yet he was the angel who was called
God, and whom God had sent to conduct the Jews
through the wilderness into Canaan : and is probably
the angel of God's presence, of whom Isaiah speaks
in the 9th verse of his 63d chapter : "In all their af-
flictions he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence
saved them ; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them ;
and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.
But they rebelled and vexed his Holy Spiiit : therefore
he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against
them." Paul intimates that this very person that sup-
ported them in the wilderness, and then destroyed
them with serpents, for their rebelhon, was Christ. —
Hence he says : " And did all drink the same spiritual
drink ; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that fol-
lowed them : and that Rock was Christ." 1 Cor. x. 4.
verse 9. " Neither let us tempt Christ as some of
them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents."

That the Lord who made the covenant with Abra-
ham, and brought the Jews out of Egypt, is called an
angel, appears from the following passage : *' And an
angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and
said, I made you to fro up out of Egypt, and have
brought you into the land which I sware unto your Fa-
thers ; and I said I will never break my covenant with
you, and ye shall make no league with the inhabitants
of this land: ye shall throw down their alters : but ye
have not obeyed my voice ; why have ye done this ?—
Wherefore I also said I will not drive them from before
vou." Judg. ii. 1, 2, 3. When Jacob was blessing
Joseph and his sons, he said : " The God who fed me

CHRIST AN ANGEL, OR MESSENGER. 145

uli my life long unto this day ; the angel who redeemed
me from all evil bless the lads." Gen. xlviii. 15, 16,
Here Jacob calls his redeemer and supporter an angel,
and then prays to that angel to bless his grand-sons.

The following passages affirm that no one has ever
counselled or instructed the Lord : " TVTio hath direct-
ed the spirit of the Lord, or, being his counsellor, hath
taught him ? With whom took he counsel, and ivho
instructed him, and taught him in the path of judge-
ment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him
the way of understanding ?" Isa. xl. 13, 14. Paul
says: " For who hath known the mind of the Lord?
or who hath been his counsellor T' Rom. xi. 34. The
following passage shows that the Lord whom Isaiah
saw, asked counsel, and was advised. " Also I heard
the voice of the Lord, saying, whom shall I send, and
Avho will go for us ? Then said I, here am I ; send me.
And he said, go and tell this people, hear ye indeed, but
understand not." Isa. vi. 8 — 9.

Micaiah said : " I saw the Lord sitting upon his
throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right
hand and on his left. And the Lord said, who shall
entice Ahab, kingo^'Israel, that he may go up and fall
at Ramoth-gilcad ? And one spake saying after this
manner, and another saying alitor that manner." Then
there came out a spirit and stood before the Lord, and
said, I will entice him. And the Lord said unto him,
Wherewith ? And he said, I v>iil go out and be a ly-
ing spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And the
Lord said, thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also
•prevail : go out, and do even so." 2 Chro. xviii. 18,
19, 20.

According to this scripture, the Lord held a counsel,
asked advice, heard different opinions, and after enquir-
ing into the means by which one of the schemes was to
be effected, agreed to the proposal.

Now if those texts which say that the Lord God
never has been seen, never has taken counsel, nor re-
ceived advice of any one, nor never did change, nor
repent, allude to God the Father ; and those passa-
ges, which say the Lord has been seen, has asked
cx)unsel, and taken advice, and has repented, allude to
13

146 CHRIST AN ANGEL, OR MESSENGEKr

the Lord Jesus, who is a created being, that can, oditf^
own self, do nothing, and changeable, and capable of
repentance, the whole difficulty is cleared up. This
is my opinion, and I think it will be hard to prove that
it is not true.

" And Jacob was left alone ; and there wrestled a
man with him until the breaking of the day : And when
he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched
the hollow of his thigh ; and the hollow of Jacob's
thigh was out of joint as he wrestled with him. And
he said, let me go, lor the day breaketh. And he said,
{ will not let thee go except thou bless me. And he
said unto him, what is thy name, and he said Jacob. — ■
And he said thy name shall be called no more Jacob,
but Israel : for as a Prince, hast thou power with God,
and with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked
Jiim, and said tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he
said, wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name l
And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name
of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face,
and my life is preserved.*' Gen. xxxii. 24 — 30. This
person, with whom Jacob wrestled, is called a man, and
Jacob calls him God : but it is no how probable that he
was the supreme Being, because they are represented
as wrestling in personal contact with each other, Jacob
having hold of him, and he saying let me go ; and when
he saw that he prevailed not against Jacob, he touched
the hollow of his thigh, and put it out of joint, and af-
ter all Jacob would not let him go till he blessed him ;
and besides it would, perhaps, be improper to call the
infinite God a man, nor is it likely that Jacob could
have opposed his personal strength to that of the su-
preme Being with so much success. I believe the su-
preme God could throw Jacob down faster than ten
men could pick him up ; and of course could have had
no difficulty in breaking loose from him^ However, it
is certain that Jacob called this person God, prayed to
him for a blessing, and received one from him.

If this wrestling was not literal, but only a wrestling
by prayer, then this man that Jacob called God must
have prayed to him, because, Moses says, '* Jacob was
feft alone ; and there xcrestled a man with him until tht

CHRIST AN ANGEL, OR MESSENGER, 147

^'leaking of the da}'." In metaphorical language it will
do to say, that Jacob v/reytled with God by prayer ; biU
it will not do to say that God wrestled with Jacob by
prayer. There can be no doubt but that Jacob prayed
on this occasion to that personage with whom he wres-
tled, but still there is no doubt but that they wrestled
literally.

That the Lord of Hosts did so'.uetmies appear to the
ancients under the character of an angel, appears from
the following scripture : <'He took his brother by the
heel in the womb, and by his strength had power with
God : yea, he had power over tlis angel, and prevailed :
he wept and made supplication unto him : he found him
in Bethel, and there he spake with us : even the Lord
frod of Hosts ; the Lord is his memorial." Hos. xii.
3,4,5.

Moses informs us, that God delivered them from
Egypt by the instrumentality of an angel ; he says :
**When we cried unto the Lord, he heard our voice, and
•sent an angel, and hath brought us forth out of Egypt."
Num. XX. 16. Paul says, the law v/as ordained by
angels in the hand of a Mediator. Gal. in. 19. Mo-
ses was the Mediator of the first covenant, and that
person, who wTote the law with his own .finger on the
tables of stone, and gave it to I\Jhoses, was the principal
angel, [that is] messenger, that ordained, or appointed
the covenant with the Jews. Saint Stephen speaks of
the angel that appeared to Moses in the bush, as a per-
son distinct from God ; he says : " This Moses, whom
they refused, saying, who made thee a ruler and a
judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a de-
liver by the hands of the angel, which appeared to him
in the bush." Act. vii. 35. In verse 38, he says,
" This is he that was in the church in the wilderness
with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina,
and with our Fathers : who received the lively oracles
to give unto us." And in the 53d verse he tells the
Jews that they had received the law by the disposition
of angels, and had not kept it. From the above pas-
sages it appears that the angel who appeared to Moses
in the bush, and with whom he spake in the mount, and
from whom he received the law, was not the supreme

148 CHRIST AN ANGEL, OR MESSENGER.

Being, but an angel sent by God to establish the cove-
nant with the Jews. And in the third chapter of Ma-
lachi we are informed that the angel, or messenger ot
that covenant, is the Lord whose forerunner was John
the Baptist. And in the third chapter of Matthew we
are explicitly told that this messenger of the covenant
is Jesus Christ.

Again the above evidence proves, that their spiritual
guide, who supported them, and against whom they re-
belled, was some times called God, at other times call-
ed an angel, and sometimes called a man. And Samt
Paul tells us, that they drank of that spiritual Rock tha^
followed them, and that Rock was Christ. And that
when they rebelled against that person, they tempted
Christ. I have no doubt but that the supreme God fre-
quently spoke to the patriarchs, and prophets, but I
suppose they only heard his voice, but did not see his
person. The one that said to Moses; ^'A prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you," &c. And
the one that said, " No man can see my face and live,'*
was no doubt God the Father. But that Lord who
counselled with, and was advised by creatures, who was
capable of repentance, was called a man, and an angel,
whose person the patriarchs and prophets frequentl\
saw, and who literally wrestled with Jacob, was mos^.
probably the Lord Jesus Christ.

MICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL. 149

CHAPTER X.

A FEW REASONS FOR THINKING THAT MICHAEL, THE ARCHAK"
GEL, IS JESUS CHRIST.

The word JMichael signifies that Mhich is Ulie, or m
God. The word ^-irchangel is composed of two Greek
words, viz., arche, ahead ; and angelos, a messenger.
The title Michael, the Archangel, hterally signifies the
head messenger thai is like God. This must be Jesus
Christ, because we all acknowledge that he is the im-
age of God, and the head messenger that was ever sent
into our world.

I have often heard preachers speaking of Archangels
in the plural, but in scripture the vv'ord is always men-
tioned in the -singular with the definite article the before
it, by which one particular personage is denoted. In
fact there can be but one Archangel, that is, one head
messenger, and who dare to say that Jesus Christ is not
the head messenger ?

If Christ is a messenger, he is an angel. If he is the
head messenger, he is the Archangel. If he is like
God, he is Michael ; therefore he must be Michael, the
Archangel. I think every candid person that knows
the meaning of these words will agree with me on this
point.

The new testament informs us, that Jesus Christ
will preside at the judgement of the last day. Thus
we read : " 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 that he hath raised him from
the dead." Act. xvii. 31. " The Father judgeth no
man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son.''
Joh. V. 22. See also Mat. xxv. 31—34. But the fol-
lowing passage shows that Michael will preside in the
day of Judgement. " And at that time shall Michael
.stand up the great Prince which standeth for the chil-
13*

150 MICHAEL-, THE ARCHANGEL.

dren of thy people : and there shall be a time of trouble,
such as never was since there was a nation even to
that same time : and at that time thy people shall be de-
livered, every one that shall be found written in the
book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake ; some to everlasting life, and some
to shame, and everlasting contempt." Dan. xii. 1, 2.
Some people have argued that this text does not refer
to the day of judgement, because it says : " Many of
them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake." —
This text might be more literally translated. " The
multitudes that sleep in the dust of the earth shall av:ahe."'
But as it stands, it sufficiently proves that Michael will
stand up to deliver all God's people, who are written in
the book, at the time when those who sleep in the dust
of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting' life, and
some to shame, and everlasting contempt. The angel
Gabriel said to Daniel : "I will show thee that which
is noted in the scriptures of truth : and there is nonf
that holdeth with me in these things but Michael, your
Prince." Dan. x. 21. In the thirteenth verse of this
chapter Gabriel says ; " The prince of the kingdom of
Persia withstood me one and twenty days : but lo, Mi-
chael, one [Heb. ahed, the first] of the chief Princes,
came to help me." The word which is here rendered
one^ is the same Hebrew word which is translated first
in the first chapter of Genesis, where he says the eve-
ning and the morning were the first day.

Some people contend that Michael w^as a temporal
Prince, viz., Cyrus, but I think they are mistaken, be-
cause Michael was not his proper name, and I do not
think he was enough like God to deserve that name as
an honorary title ; besides it appears that this 3Iichael
w^as an associate of the angel Gabriel ; and there is no
probability that Cyrus will stand up to deliver God's
people, when the rnuliitndes, or even many of them
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to
everlasting hfe, and some to everlasting shame and con-
tempt.

"VVe are informed in Deut. xxxiv. 5. 6, that " 3Ioses,
the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab,.
according to the word of the Lord. Aud he buried birri

MICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL. 151

in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor,
but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.'-
Jude says, " Michael the archangel, when contending
with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses,
durst not bring against him a raihng accusation, but
said, the Lord rebuke thee." Jude ix. Now, if the
Lord buried the body of Moses, and if Michael the Arch-
angel took care of the body of Moses, then the titles
Lord, and JMicliael the archangel are only different titles,
or names given to the same person. In this dispute,
Michael said to the Devil, " The Lord rebuke thee."
Which are the same words the Lord used to rebuke
him in the third chapter of Zechariah, from the first to
the fourth verse. " And he shov/ed me Joshua the high
priest, standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan
standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord
said unto Satan, the Lord rebuke thee, 0 Satan, even
the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem, rebuke thee : is
not this a brand plucked out of the fire ? Now Joshua
was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the
angel. And he answered and spake unto those that
stood before him, saying, take away the filthy garment?;
from him. And unto him he said, behold I have caused
thine iniquity to pass from thee." Here the very Lord
that cleansed Joshua from miquity, is called an Angel.

If this Lord-angel is not the Lord Jesus, who can he
be?

That Jesus Christ commands the armies of heaven,
appears from the following scripture : " And he was
clothed in a vesture dipped in blood : and his name is
called, the ^Vord of God. And the armies which were
in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine
linen, white and clean. ***** And he hath on his
vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF
KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS." Rev. xix. 13,
14. 16. But it appears from Rev. xii. 7, that Michael com-
mands the armies of heaven. "And there was war in hea-
ven : Michael and his angels fought against the dragon ;
and the dragon fought and his angels." In the ninth

CO O

verse of this chapter we are informed that the dragon is
the Devil, and Satan, and that Michael and his angels
cast him, and bis angels out of heaven : and in the tenth

152 MICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL.

verse this victory is ascribed to Christ ; hence the ex-
clamation, " Now is come salvation and strength, and
the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ :
for the accuser of our brethren is cast down." To me
this evidence proves beyond reasonable dispute, that
Michael is one of the names of Christ ; because if the
Church is the seat of this war, and if Christ is the Cap-
tain of our salvation, and the leader of his people, he
must be the person who is here mentioned under the
the name of ^lichael.

Paul says, " For the Lord himself shall descend from
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel,
and with the trump of God : and the dead in Christ
shall rise first." 1 Thes. iv. 16. From this text it ap-
pears that when the Lord shall descend with a shout,
his voice will be that of the Archangel, or head Mes-
senger ; therefore the Lord must be that head Mes-
senger.

This text says the dead shall rise at the voice of the
Archangel ; and Christ affirms that the dead shall be
raised by his voice. He says, " Verily, verily, I say
unto you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they
that hear shall live." " Marvel not at this : for the hour
is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall
hear his voice, and shall come f^rth ; they that have
done good unto the resurrection of life ; and they that
have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Job. V. 25. 28, 29.

I am not alone in this opinion ; most of the principal
writers of the Trinitarian school have advocated the
same doctrine. Brown's dictionary of the Bible on the
words Michael, and Anord says, that both these words
do sometimes refer to Christ ; and also affirms that
Christ is the Archangel. Wood's Spiritual Dictionary
teaches nearly, if not exactly, the same on this subject
that Brown's does. The former was a Calvinist, the
latter a Methodist. Buck, in his Theological Diction-
ary, under the article Angel, asserts that Christ is in
scripture frequently called an Angel. Butterworth,
Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that
Michael and Angel are both names of Christ. Doctor

MICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL. 153

Coke, a Methodist bishop, in his notes on the Bible,
acknowledges that Christ is sometimes called an AngeL
See his notes on that passage where the Angel of the
Lord spake to the people at Bochim. TVinches-
ter has taught the same doctrme in the 152 page of
the first volume of his lectures on the prophecies.
Whitefield, in his sermon on the bush that burnt and
was not consumed, says that the Angel that appeared to
Moses in the bush was Christ. Pool, in his Annota-
tions, explains those passages where the Lord appeared
to the Patriarchs under the character of an Angel, as
referring to Jesus Christ. Bunyan makes his pilgrim
ascribe his deliverance from Apollyon to Michael. He
says, " Blessed Michael helped me." Pilgrim's Pro-
gress, Cincinnatti edition, page 54. Guyse in his Pa-
raphrase on the New-Testament, on Rev. xii. 7. ac-
knowledges that many good expositors think that Christ
is signified by Michael ; and also gives it as his opinion.

Doctor Watts in his glories of Christ, page 200, 201,
202, 218, 223, and 224, teaches the same doctrine.
Watts, Dodridge and some others have called this
Angel of the covenant, or Angel of God's presence,
Christ's human soul, whom they think was the first Be-
ing that God ever created. I agree with them that
Christ is the first Being that God created, but I cannot
see the propriety of caUing the pre-existent Christ a
human soul, seeing he did not descend from human's,
but existed before the human family was created.

Thomas Scott, in his notes on the Bible, says the
Angel that appeared to Hager when she fled from her
mistress, one of the three Angels that appeared to Abra-
ham in the plains of Mamre, the Angel that appeared
to Moses in the bush, and the Angel that spoke to the
Jews at Bochim, was Jesus Christ : and also asserts
that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. See Scott's
Bible on Gen. xvi. 9, 10. Chap, xviii. throughout.
Exod. iii. 2—7. Judg. ii. 1—5. Dan. x. 13. 21, Chap,
xii. 1. Rev. xii. 7.

I could mention many other writers who have advo-
cated this doctrine, but these are sufficient to prove that
it has long been believed among the most eminent Tri=
nitarians, I forbear to quote the w^ords of all these au-

154 IMICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL.

thors on the subject, because it would swell this woij-
unnecessarily ; and as those books are very common,
the reader can examine them for himself.

Little did many of these great and good men thinK
that when they were teaching that Christ is an Angel,
that he is the Angel of che covenant, the Angel of God's
presence, and Michael the Archangel, they were thereby
undermining Trinitarianism ; yet they actually were,
because, if he was the Angel of God, and as Moses
says, the Angel that God sent to bring the Jews out of
Egypt, he cannot be God in the highest sense of the
word.

As the text which says Melchisedec ivas the Priest of
the most high God, proves that Melchisedec was not
the most high God, so the passages which say Christ is
the Angel of God, prove that he cannot be that God,
whose Angel or Messenger he is. It will not do to say
that Christ in his pre-existent state, \n as only distinct
from, and inferior to God in his humanity, while in his
divinity he was equal with him, because his humanity
was not then in existence. Thi> doctrine is as fatal to
Socinianism, as it is to Trinjtiuianism, because, if
Christ is the Angel of the covenant, who spoke with
Moses in the Mount, and buried him when he died, he
must have existed before he was born of the Virgin
Mary.

I have heard but two texts of scripture brought to dis-
prove this doctrine. One is, for verily he took not on
him the nature of Angels ; but he took on him the seed
of Abraham.." Heb. ii. 16. As the word nature in
this text is wanting in the Greek, it proves nothing about
the nature of Christ. In fact the word Angel simply
signifies a messenger, and never denotes nature,
but is always significant of office. Every messenger
that ever existed in heaven, earth, or hell, was an Angel.
Christ is called a Messenger in Isa. xlii. 19. "Who
is blind but my servant ? or deaf, as my Messenger
that I sent?" also, Mai. iii. 1, 2.

The other text that I have heard urged to prove that
Christ never was an Angel, is Heb. i. 5. " For unto
which of the Angels said he at any time, thou art my
Son, this day have I besfotten thee." Although this

MICHAEL, THE ARCHANGEL. 155

lext abundantly proves that Christ is exalted above all
other Messengers, it by no means proves that he never
was a Messenger himself. If I should say of General
Washington that he was made superior to all the officers
of the Revolutionary army : for to which of the officers
said Congress at any time, thou shalt be commander-in-
chief, and again when they brought him into the army,
they said, let all the officers obey him, and of the officers
it is said that the government gave them commissions
and appointed them wages, but to Washington it said,
thou hast loved thy country, and hated treacher}', there-
fore the government, even thy government, hath exalted
thee to honor and office, above thy fellows ; such con-
versation would go just about as far to prove that I
thought Washington never was an officer in the army of
the Revolution, as the first chapter of Hebrews goes to
prove that Christ never was a Messenger of God. In
fact the above text taken in its connexion goes rather
to prove, than to disprove, that he is one of God's An-
gels, or Messengers, because the writer, after speaking
of him in connexion with the Angels several times,
finally asserts that he was anointed vvith the oil of glad-
ness above his fellows, by which he must mean his fel-
low messengers, for there are no others mentioned in
the connexion.

The drift of the writer in the first chapter of Hebrews,
was not to show that Christ was no Messenger, but to
show that he was made greater than all the Messengers
of God : therefore, when the above text is brought to
prove that Christ never was an Angel, that is, a 3Ies-
senger of God it is pressed into a service for which it
was never designed bv the writer.

156 GOD, A REAL PERSON,

CHAPTER XI.

IHOUGHTS OX THE PERSONAL, OR REAL EXISTENCE OF GOt'-

As all our knowledge of God must be received by
revelation, it is important that we should believe of him
as he is set forth in the inspired writings.

I think many Christians have been led astray from the
simple doctrine of the Bible, relative to the person of
God, our heavenly Father. Many have taught, and
more have believed, that his person fills all immensity.
That is, they believe that the very essence of his being
exists as much in one place as it does in another, or that
he personally exists in all places at the same time.
Hence we frequently hear preachers assert that his cen-
tre is every where, and his circumference no where ;
and that he is as essentially here, and in hell, as he is in
the heaven of heavens.

In my view this very much resembles the doctrine of
the ancient heathen, who held that matter is self-ex-
istent, and that God is the soul of matter. Alexander
Pope, who professed to be a christian appears to have
literally believed this doctrine. He expresses himself
tlms :

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole,
Whose body nature is, and God the soul;
Spreads through all space, extends through all extent,
Spreads undivided, operates unspent.
Warms in the Sun, refreshes in the breeze, &c."

If this doctrine be true, God must be the origin, and
container of Ctll the evil in the universe. Hell, the
Devil, all natural corruption, and moral turpitude must
be incorporated in his person : for all these things are
contained in immensity, and if his essence fills all im-
mensity, then they must originate, and be contained in
the essence of God. According to this doctrine there
can be nothing in the universe in opposition to God.

t?OD, A REAL PERSON. 157

biBCause every thing that originates, and is contained in
God must be agreeable to him.

This theory confounds the colors of good and evil,
removes the land-marks between vice and virtue, divests
God of his agency as Governor of the universe, and
makes him to be that very universe itself, governed by
the laws of matter. It confounds the colors of good
and evil by ascribing to them the same origin, and a
common habitation. It is a scriptural fact, that if they
both proceed from the same fountain, they cannot be
contrary to each other ; because a good tree cannot bear
evil fruit, nor can a fountain at the same place send
forth bitter water and sv. eet. Every one must acknow-
ledge that as soon as good and evil are blended toge-
ther, the distinction between vice and virtue is removed.

This doctrine deprives God of his agency, for if his
essence fills immensity, he cannot be an active Being,
because there could be no room for him to act in, un-
less he could act beyond immensity, which is impossi-
ble. He cannot even turn round unless there is some
space outside of him, and if there is, he does not fill all
immensity. It will not do to say that God will move,
or turn infinite space, because space is not Being, and
therefore cannot be turned, nor moved, besides there
could be no space to turn it in, nor move it to. We can
imagine no space, beyond immensity.

If his essence fills all boundless space, he cannot act,
nor operate, without acting or operating on himself, be-
cause, let him strike or operate in whatsoever part of
immensity he might, he would strike or operate on
himself.

Boundless space cannot move from place to place.
Therefore if he fills all immensity, he cannot have the
power of locomotion, unless he contracts and dilates his
person, and if he does, he is changeable in his essence.

Acting on himself would not be governing the world,
unless the world is himself.

If the world is God, or a part of God, he is very frail,
very changeable, and very much under the contiol of
man.

The Bible represents God as a real person. It holds
him out as the Monarch of the universe, and ascribes to
14

159 GOD, 1 REAL PERSON".

him nearly all the members of the human body. The
Lord said to Moses, " I will put thee in a cleft of the
rock ; and will cover thee with my hand while I pass
by : and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see
my back parts : but my face shall not be seen." Exod.
xxxiii. 22, 23. If God's person fills all boundless
space, how could he pass by Moses ? Or how could
Moses see his back parts ? Did Moses stand outside
of infinite space ? If God's person fills immensity there
cannot be room in space for Christ to stand at his right
hand. ^

If God's person fills immensity, how could he gather
all nations before him ? They would all be in him.
Christ says, " I proceeded and came forth from God.'*
Joh. viii. 42. He says, '* I came forth from the Father,
and am come into the world : again I leave the world,
and go to the Father." Joh. xvi. 28. If God's person
is as much in one place as another, how could Christ
proceed forth and come from him 1 If the Father was
as much in the place where Christ then stood as he was
in any part of the universe, why was it necessary for him
to leave the world, in order to go to the Father ? If
God's person is in every place at the same time, Christ
eould not come forth from him without leaving all infi-
nite space, and that he could not do without going out
of existence.

This text must not be understood in a moral sense,
because to go from God in a moral sense, is to become
wicked, which cannot be true of Jesus ; he never was
wicked.

Paul says, " Whilst we are at home in the body, we
are absent from the Lord : we are confident I say, and
willing rather to be absent from the body, and present
with the Lord. Wherefore we labor that whether pre-
sent or absent, we may be accepted of him." 2 Cor. v.
6. 8, 9. If God's person is every where at once, how
can a christian be absent from him ? If Paul alluded to
Christ, it effects not the argument, for he is at the right
hand of God. To be morally absent from God, is to
be alienated from him in the spirit of our minds, of course
Paul should not be understood in that sense, because-
h§ could nol be in a strait to know whether that^ or the-

GOD, A REAL PERSON'. 159

|>re5eivce of God was the better. Besides, he says,
<* we labor that whether present or absent we may be
accepted of him." And he could not expect to be ac-
cepted of God while he was absent from, him in a moral
point of view.

That God is a real person, appears from the following
beautiful passage in Daniel : " I beheld till the thrones
were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose
garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head hke
the pure wool ; his throne was like the fiery flame, and
his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and
came forth from before him : thousand thousands mi-
nistered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand
^tood before him : the judgement was set, and the books
were opened." " I saw in the night visions, and be-
hold one like the Son of man came with the clouds of
heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they
brought him near before him. And there was given him
dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people,
nations, and languages should serve him, his dominion
is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom that which ^hall not be destroyed."
Dan. vii. 9, 10. 13, 14. If God's personal essence
iills all boundless space, this passage must be false.
How could boundless space be clothed? or sit on a
throne 1 or ride on wheels ? how could a fiery stream
issue and come forth from before boundless space? or
how could Jesus Christ come to, or be brought near
before boundless space? Surely tne clothes, the throne,
the wheels, the fiery stream, the multitude, and Jesus
Christ, must all be in space ; then if God fills all space,
how could they be around him ? under him ? come forth
from before him ? stand before him I or be brought near
before him ?

Gabriel explains the four beasts, the ten horns, and
the little horn in this vision as an allegorical represen-
tation of the four great empires that should rule the
world, and the anti-christian power that should make
war aorainst the saints. As all these, and the Son of
man. and the great multitude that stood before the An-
cient of days have shape and local habitations, and as
•shape and locality are as much ascribed to him as they

160 GOD, A REAL PERSON',

are to theni, by what analogy are we to conclude tha*
he has no shape, nor local habitation 1

If God's person fills all space, he can have no shape-
because shape always implies superficies, and that which
is unbounded, has no surface. Whatever is too subtile
to have any shape, must be quality, and a quality, or
attribute has no existence separate from the being that
possesses it, therefore, if God is nothing but a quality,
he cannot be an agent, nor an intelligent being ; hence
the conclusion is irresistible, that if he has no shape, he
has no real existence, because the beiftg that exists in-
no shape, exists not at all.

The Presbyterian confession of faith says, " God is
without body, parts, or passions." In my view this is
equal to Atheism ; because if we divest him of tbesCy
there is nothing left that would constitute being, or that
would be perceptible to the mind.

Ears, hands, and eyes are parts of an intelligent
ruler, and if God has none of these, he cannot heary
handle, nor see us. If he is without passions, he has no
mercy, love, nor anger, and therefore cannot forgive uSy
love us, nor be angry with us, because if he has not
these passions, he cannot exercise them. If it were
possible for the divine Being to exist without body,
parts, or passions, he would be to us neither desirable*
dreadful, nor useful.

It is only from the Bible that we learn the existence
of God, and that book ascribes to him nearly all the
members of the human body, and represents him to be
in the shape of a man. That various members of the
human body are ascribed to him, appears from the fol-
lowing texts. " The eyes of the Lord are upon the
righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry. The
face of the Lord is against them that do evil. PsaL
xxxiv. 15, 16. "He shall gather the lambs with his
arm, and carry them in his bosom." Isa. xl. 11. "I
will turn my hand upon thee." Isa. i. 25. " The Lord
is a man of war, the Lord is his name." Exod. xv. 3.
" And God said let us make man in our image, after
our likeness." " So God created man in his owu
image, in the image of God created he him." Gen, i.
26, 27.

GOD, A REAL PERSON. 161

Some suppose that Being created in the image of
God, only means that man was made holy ; but I think
we should not restrict the word to the quality, it cer-
tainly extends to the personal appearance of the man ;
because in scripture the words image and likeness, are
most generally used to represent the bodily appearance.
Thus in the fourth commandment we read, "Thou shalt
not m.ake unto thee any graven image, or any likeness
of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
Exod. XX. 4. Here the words imager and likeness are
used to represent the appearance of any thing in the
heavens above, or on the earth beneath, or in the waters
under the earth. The Jews did not understand ihe
words image, and likeness to mean moral perfections,
Ihey could not think, that their God forbid them to copy
the moral perfections of birds, beasts, or fishes, but thev
well knev,-, that when they made gold into the shape of
a calf, they broke this commandment. That the image
of God, in which man was made, respects the shape of
his person, is evident from his being made of the dust
of the ground, because if he was made of the dust of the
ground, and at the same time made in the image of God.
that image must consist in the miodification, or fashion-
ing of that dust. That this image of God in which man
was created, signifies the configuration of his person, is
still more evident from this consideration, that he pos-
sessed it before he was endowed with any moral per-
fections, or the breath of life was breathed into his nos-
trils ; which apj)ears from the following text : "And the
Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, — and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life ; and man
became a hving soul." Gen. ii. 7. James, speaking
cf the tongue says, " Therewith bless we God, even the
Father ; and therewith curse we men, which are made
in the similitude of God." Jam. iii. 9. The Apostle
here says not that men icere, but that they are made
after the similitude of God. This most probably re-
spects their personal appearance, because their minds,
in their present fallen state, are not similar to God.

Paul intimates that a man bears that resemblance to
Godj which a woman does to a man, beoce he savs.

162 GOD, A REAL PERSON.

" For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, for aif
^luch as he is the image and glory of God, but the
woman is the glory of the man." 1 Cor. xi. 7. As
Paul speaks of man in general, and that in his present
fallen state, he must mean that he has the image of God
in the shape of his person, because in a moral point of
view, man is not in that divine image. Besides he must
mean, that man is the image and glory of God in the
same sense that the woman is the glory of the man. and
all will acknowledge that to be her person.

There is no truth in scripture more plainly declared,
than that Jesus Christ in his pre-existent state, and iii
his states of humiliation and exaltation, has always been
in the shape of a man. Paul says, he is the brightnes?^
of his Father's glory, and the express image of his per-
son [Greek hujoostaseos, substance.) This text shows
beyond doubt that God's person, or substance is in the
shape of a man. It does not say, that he was the im-
age of God's moral perfections, but it says he was the
express image of his person. Heb. i. 3. Paul to the
CoUossians, says of Christ that he is the image of the
invisible God. Col. i. 15. God's moral perfections
have been revealed, and are visible to every believer^
therefore it must be his person, that is called the invisi-
ble God, then Jesus Christ is the image or shape of that
person.

Paul says : *' Let this mind be in you, which was
also in Christ Jesus : Who being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God." Philip,
ii. 5, 6. Form is distinct from quality, and always re-
lates to arrangement or shape. This shows that Christ
was in the form, or shape of God before he emptied
iiimself of that glory, he had with the Father in his pre-
existent state. And we all know that in all his earl)
appearances to the patriarchs, and prophets, he appear-
ed in the shape of a man, and was frequently called a
man. If he was in the form of God, and that form was
the shape of a man, then God is in the shape of a
man. It is not probable that by taking on him the
torm of a servant, Christ materially changed the shape
of his person ; the more probable meaning is, that he
•emptied himself of his lustre, and glory, and was chang-^

GOD, A REAL PERSON. 163

cd tVom the condition of a great king to that of a ser-
vant. When Mark says of Christ, that he appeared in
another form unto two of his disciples, he does not
mean that the Saviour appeared in the shape of some
animal entirely different from a man, but that he was so
changed in his external appearance, that they did not
know him. If the word form means moral perfections,
then it follows that he emptied himself of God's moral
perfections, and took on himself the form, that is, the
moral perfections of a servant. Whether the torm of
God that he had before he took the form of a servant,
was the shape of man or not, it was the form or shape
of God, therefore it remains a tact that God has a
shape.

CHAPTER XII.

1 will now attempt to answer the principal objection?-
that I have heard against the personal, or real existence
of God.

Objection 1. If we worship God ascribing to him the
human shape, will we not violate the second commandment
which forbids us to make and worship any graven im-
age, or any likeness of any thing ?

Answer. It can break no commandment of God to
believe of, and worship him, as he has revealed himself
to us in his word : and although we ascribe to God the
shape of a man, still he is not the image of a man,
but man is the image of him, and God is the prototype :
besides we do not make this image, it is formed in om-
minds by the holy scripture, and believing the Bible is
not making nor worshiping graven images.

Object. 2. Christ speaking of his Father, says ;
'' Ye have neither heard his voice at wiy time, nor seoi
his shape,-^ Joh. v. 37,

16 i GOD, A REAL PERSON.

Ans. Some of the best critics read this in tlie
shape of a question, thus : "Have you not heard hi?
voice, and seen his shape ]" I think it is probable that
this is the true reading, because the multitude did
hear the Father's voice when his Son was baptized, and
as they had all seen Christ, who was the express image
of his person, they must have seen his shape. But if
the common reading is correct, this text shows as plainly
that God has a shape, as that he has a voice. If it will
prove that he has mo shape, it will prove that he has no
voice. When Jacob wanted his sons to go into Egypt,
and buy corn, Judah told him, if he would not send
Benjamin, they would not go : " For the man said un-
to us, ye shall not see my face, except your brother be
with you." Gen. xliii. 5. Would any one take this as
a proof that Joseph had no face ? Yet it proves it
about as much as the above text proves that God has
no shape.

In this text Christ has ascribed shape to the Father,
but if the Father is shapeless, then the Son has misre-
presented him.

Object. 3. God is a spirit, and how shall we, consis-
lently with truth, ascribe shape to a spirit ?

Jias. All the spirits that the scripture gives an ac-
count of being seen, were seen in the shape of men. —
The three men that appeared to Abraham in the plains
of Mamre, as recorded in the 18th chapter of Genesis,
were, no doubt, spirits, one of them is called the Lord,
he was the God of Abraham, yet he, and the two that
were with him appeared in the shape of men. In the
thirteenth chapter of Judges we have an account of an
angel, that appeared to 3Ianoah and his wife, in the
shape of a man, and they called him a man, but when
they otTered a burnt offering, and the flame Went up
towards heaven from off the altar, he ascended up with
the flame of the altar. In the 6th chapter of Judges,
we have an account of an angel that appeared to Gideon
in the shape of a man, who is also called the Lord. —
The angel Gabriel is called the rnan Gabriel. Dan.
ix. 21. The fourth person that was seen walking with
th^ three children in the midst of the fiery furnace, wbs.

GOD, A REAL PERSON. 165

uo doubt, a spirit, yet he appeared in the shape of a
man. After the rich man's body was buried, he- is re-
presented as a man lifting I'p his eyes in torment.—
There appeared two men, which were Moses and Elias.
talking with Christ in the Mount. Moses' body had
not then been raised from the dead, yet Moses was a
man. When the disciples saw Christ walking on the
water they thought they had seen a spirit. On another
occasion he said : " Handle me, and see, for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Luk.
xxiv. 39. It is plain from these texts, that the differ-
ence between the people in the spiritual, and natural
world, is not in shape. If the Saints in heaven exist,
they must exist in some shape, and no doubt but that it
is the human shape. We read of men in heaven, on
earth, and under the earth. Rev. v. 3.

Object. 4. Habakkuk said, God had horns coming
out of his hand. Isaiah says, he has measured the wa-
ters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with
a span. Habakkuk. iii. 4. Isa. xl. 12. If these and
similar passages are to be understood metaphorically,
■why not understand all the passages that ascribe shape
to him in the same way ?

Ajis. 1 think both these passages allude to Christ,
and if they do, they cannot prove that he has no shape ;
but whether they do or not, he is represented as a Vine, a
Lamb, a Door, a Rock, a Lion, &c. John said his voice
was as the sound of many waters, he had in his right
hand seven stars, and out of his mouth went a sharp
two-edged sword. Rev. i. 15, 16. But all these
metaphorical representations do not prove that Jesus is
not a real person, possessed of shape.

The king of Babylon is called Lucifer, son of the
morning. Isa. xiv. 12. Ephraim is called a heifer.
Hos. X. 11. Wicked people are called dogs, and
swine. Papal Rome is represented as a beast with
seven heads, and ten horns. Jacob said, " Judah is a
lion's whelp ; Issachar is a strong ass ; Dan shall be a
serpent by the way. Naphtali is a hind let loose : Jo-
seph is a fruitful bough." Gen. xlix. 9, 14, 17, 21, 22.
This metaphorical descrintion does not nrove that those

166 GOD, A REAL PERSON."

beings possessed no shape. The text that says he
measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, will
just go as far to prove that water has no real existence, as
it will to prove that God has no hand. That the hands
and eyes of the Lord are sometimes aientioned in scrip-
ture to represent his power and wisdom, is no proof
that he has no hands nor eyes : because the hands of
men are sometimes mentioned to represent their power.
Thus : " Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of sil-
ver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the
kingdom in his hand." 2 Kin:-, xv. 19. When the
wise woman intreated David to recal Absalom, " The
king said, is not the hand of Joab with thee in all
this?" 2 Sam. xiv. 19. Thevvoman acknowledged,
that she acted under the advice of Joab. Now will
any one suppose that because Pul's and Joab's hands
in the above texts relate to the po\ver of the one, and
the advice of the other, that, thtM-efore, thev had no
hands ? Eyes are ascribed to people sometimes to re-
present their menial light, as in Luk. xi. 34. " The
light of the body is the eye, &c." And Ephes. i. 18,
" The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.'"
In the following text, arm, and ritikt eye. ar- as-
cribed to the idle shepherd, to represent his moral
strength, and spiritual light : " Wo to th'^ idol shep-
herd that leaveth the flock: the sword shall be upon his
arm, and upon his riq;ht eye : his arm shall be clean
dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened."
Zech. xi. 17. Ann, is so netimes ascribed to men to
represent their trust, or dependance ; hence, the proph-
et says : "Cursed be the man, that trustelh in man,
and maketh flesh his arm." Jer. xvii. 5. But all this-
does not prove that the persons here spoken of have no
eyes nor arms.

Object. 5. Does not the scriptures say, that God
/t//s heaven, and earth, and that he is every ivhere pre-
sent, beholding the evil and the good 1

Ans. When I conte^nplate God as infinite in all his
perfections, I can easily -onceive how he c m sit m the
circle of the earth, and with one glance of his all-
seeing eye behold every being in the universe ; but it

GOD, A REAL PERSOX. " 167

his person fills immensity, his sight does not extend one
inch from him. The sight of an ant extends but a few-
inches around it, while that of a man extends as many
miles. As God surpasses us infinitely more than we
do the smallest insect ; we must suppose he can sit on
his throne in heaven, and see, and control every being
in the universe without being with them in person.

The text that says, God fills heaven and earth, does
not prove that he is not a real person of shape, because
it is said of Christ that he ascended up far above all
heavens, that he might fill all things ; and we all ac-
knowledge that he is a real person in the shape of a
man. It is very possible for God to fill heaven and
earth without doing it with his person. A great king
may fill a country with his armies, military stores, laws,
and officers, while his person will not rill one house. —
So God can fill heaven and earth w ith his armies, his
power, his infinite riches, and perfections, till they are
lightened with his glory, while at the same time his
blessed person is seated on his glorious throne w ith his
Son at his right hand. The inspired waiters have ex-
plained how God fills heaven and earth. " His glory
is above the earth and heaven." Psal. cxlviii. 13. —
"All the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord."
Num. xiv. 21. " For the earth shall be filled with the
knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover
the sea. Hab. ii. 14. The earth is full of thy riches."
Psal. civ. 24. " The whole earth is full of his glorv.
Isa. vi. 3.

Object. 6. To represent God as sitting on a throne
locally^ and literally surrounded with saints and angels,
is too gross for spiritual worship.

Ans. To contemplate God, as the Sovereign of the
universe, seated on his glorious throne, surrounded by
the ministers of his government, with Jesus Christ, his
prime minister, at his right hand, is the natural conse-
quence of believing the holy scriptures. If it is wrong,
the error must be charged to the inspired writers. — -
Michaiah says : '* I saw the Lord sitting on his throne,
and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right
hand, and on his left," 1 King. xxii. 19. Isaiah say.s;.

168 GOD, A REAL PERSON.

** I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and
lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it
stood the seraphims, &c." Isa. vi. 1, 2, 3. I have
already quoted Daniel's vision of the Ancient of days
sitting on his throne with the multitude before him, and
committing to his Son the mediatorial dominion and
glory. Just before Stephen was murdered, he said :
" Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of
man standing on the right hand of God.'^ Act. vii. 56,
57. On hearing this expression the Jews stopped their
ears, and ran on Stephen with great fury : and I would
not be surprised if the spirit which then influenced
bigots to murder him for preaching this doctrine, should
now induce them to call me a fanatic for believing it.

If Stephen spoke this metaphorically, then by the
word heavens he must have meant the gospel, and by the
right hand of God, the favor of God, if so, his expres-
sion would amount to this, " I now see into the gospel,
and am convinced that the Son of man is in the favor of
God." Surely Saint Stephen was convinced of this
before that time of his life. There can be no doubt but
that he saw it literally, because, " He being full of the
Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and
saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right
hand of God, and said, behold I see the heavens open-
ed, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of
God." He took the most effectual method to make the
people believe that he then saw it with his natural eyes,
and if he did not, he was an impostor. If any one should
object t-; this on the supposition that Stephen could not
see so far, I answer, that it was as easy for God to enable
him to see a hundred millions of miles, as fifty yards.

John says, " I was in the Spirit, and behold a throne
was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne, and he
that sat, was to look upon like a jasper, and a sardine
stone, and there was a rainbow round about the throne
in sight like unto an emerald. And round about the
throne were four and twenty seats, anil upon the seats I
saw four and twenty elders sitting clothed in v.hite."
Rev. iv. 2, 3, 4. " And I saw in the right hand of him
that sat upon the throne, a book written within, and on
the back side sealed with seven seals. And I beheld.

GOD, A REAL PERSON. 169

vind Ic, in the midst of the throne, and of the four beasts,
greek, living creatures,) and in the midst of the elders
stood a Lamb, as it had been slain. — And he came and
took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon
fhe throne." Chap. v. 6. 7. If on this subject I am
wrong, I err in good company. If God is shapeless,
without body, parts, or passions, with his centre every
^vhere, and his circumference no where, all the inspired
writers have misrepresented him. It is not probable
that every thing in these symbolical representations
should be understood literally, but as the host of heaven,
the seraphim, the great multitude, the twenty-four elders,
the four living creatures, and the Lamb as it had been
slain are all real persons, and as shape and place are as
much ascribed to God, as to them, the visions go as far
to prove that he has a shape, and a local habitation, as
that they have.

Object. 7. .Yearly all the Christians believe iJiat God
is shapeless, and that his person fdls all space.

Ans. Although many good people admit this doc«
trine, it is probable that they merely receive it as an
opinion of the head, but at the same time do not firmly
believe it in their hearts, because all sincere Christians,
when they worship God, express the faith of their hearts,
and we know that when these people pray to him, they
describe him on a throne, with his Son at his right hand,
or pleading before him, and surrounded by angels and
eiders who veil their laces before him, and cast their
crowns at his ^eet.

If God's person fills all space, how can the v.icked
depart from him into everlasting fire ? They cannot de-
part from him in a moral sense, because in that sense
they are not nigh iiim : nor would he command them to
depart from him in that sense, for that v/ould be com-
manding them to be wicked, and God is not the author
of wickedness. To assert that it is from Christ, and
not from the Father that sinners must depart, will not
lielp Trinitarians out of the difnculty, for they think thai
he and his Father are one being. Nor will it assist any
'•>ne who believes the plain truth on the subject, because
16

ITO ''66D, A REAL fEtLSOJf,

the scripture says Christ has ascended up to God, bXlS
has set down with him in his throne.

If Christ is with the Father in his throne, the wicked
cannot depart from him without departing from his
Father. In fact the idea of the wicked being banished
from the Son, but not from the Father is too absurd to
need refutation. If God's person fills all space, the
wicked will have to be banished from him, to him. And
if his centre is every where, they will have to depart
from his centre, to his centre, and that in a local sense,
because persons that are already ahenated from God in
the spirit of their minds, cannot depart from him in a
moral sense.

If God is as much in hell as he is any where else, the
wicked could not depart from him to go there. The
phrase, *' depart from me into everlasting fire^''^ prove??
that God, and hell fire are not in the same place.

PART V.

THOUGHTS ON THE HOLY SPIRIT,
CHAPTER I.

rO PROVE THAT THE HOLT SPIRIT IS NOT A DISTINCT PERSON
FROM GOD.

The Spirit of God is not a distinct person from him.
any more than my spirit is a distinct person from me.
God's Spirit bears tiie same relation to God, that the
spirit of man does to man. Hence Paul says, " For
what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit
of man which is in him 1 Even so the things of God
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

The spirit of a person is frequently mentioned to ex-
press the person, as in the foil » wing text : " I am glad
oi^ the coming of Stephanas, and Fortunatus, and Achai-
cus : for that which was lacking on your part, they have
supplied. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours :
therefore acknowledge ye them that are such." 1 Cor.
16, 17, 18. By havmg his spirit, and the spirit of his
brethren refreshed, he no doubt meant that he and they
were refreshed.

In concluding his letter to the Galations, and his
letter to Philemon, Paul says. "The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, be with your spirit." By the word spirit
In both these letters, he most probably intended to ex-
press the persons, because in concluding most of his

Ii2 THE HOLY SPIR5T,

Other epistles lie says, " The grace of our Lord Jesuit
Chiist be with you," or words to that amount.

David says, " Whither shall I go from thy Spirit ?
or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? If I ascend
up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell,
behold thou art there^ Psal. cxxxix. 7, 8. Here
the Psalmist clearly shows, that 'by God's Spirit he
means God himself. Also in the following text God's
Spirit is mentioned to signify God's self. " The Spirit
of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty
hath given me life." Job. xxxiii. 4. "But they re-
belled, and vexed his Holy Spirit : therefore he was
turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them.''
Isa. Ixiii. 10. This text is to the point ; by vexing the
Lord's Holy Spirit, they vexed the Lord, therefore the
Lord's Spirit was the Lord, and not an intelligent per-
son distinct from him. " But Peter said, Ananias, why
hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to
keep back par^ of the price of the land ? while it re-
mained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold^
was it not in thine own power ? why hast thou conceived
this thing in thine heart ? Thou hast not bed unto men.
but unto God." Acts iii. 3, 4. It is impossible to di-
vide between any being and his spirit, so as to make
two distmct persons of them. If you refresh my spirit,
you refresh me, and if you vex my spirit, you vex me :
just so when they vexed the Lord's Holy Spirit, they
vexed the Lord ; and when they lied to his Holy Spirit,
they lied to him. That God and his Holy Spirit are
the same person, will appear by comparing the follow-
ing passages in the Old and New Testaments. " Also
I heard the voice of the Lord saying, whom shall I send,
and who will go for us ? Then I said here am I ; send
me. And he said go and tell this people, hear ye in-
deed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but per-
ceive not. Make the heart of this people fat and make
their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with
their eyes, and hear %\ith their ears, and understand with
their heart, and convert and be healed." Isa. vi. 8, 9,
10. Here it is said that God sent Isaiah to speak these
things ; bnt in the New Testament Paul ascribes this
fspeech to the Holv Ghost. " Well spake the Hol\

THE HOLY SPIRIT. ItTS

Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying,
go unto this people and say, hearing ye shall hear, and
shall not understand ; and seeing ye shall see, and not
perceive, &c." Acts xxviii. 25, 26, 27. That the
Holy Ghost is sometimes mentioned to express God
himself, is still more evident by comparing the following
passages. " Whereof, the Holy Gho.«-t also is a wit-
ness to us : for after that he had said before, this is the
covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their hearts, and
in their minds will I write them ; and their sins and ini-
quities will I remember no more." Heb. x. 15, 16, 17.
" But this shall he the covenant that 1 will make with
the house of Israel ; after those days, saith the Lord, I
will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts, &c." Jer. xxxi. 33. Paul says, this
promise was made by the Holy Ghost, and Jeremiah
says God made it, I suppose the meaning of both is that
God by his Spirit spoke through the prophet.

In the following text the Psalmist represents God as
speaking to the people. " Harden not your hearts as
in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in
the wilderness : when your fathers tempted me, proved
me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved
with this generation." Psal. xcv. 8, 9, 10. Paul as-
cribes this speech to the Holy Ghost. " Wherefore,
(as the Holy Ghost saith, to-day, if ye will hear his
voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in
the day of temptation in the wilderness ; when your
fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty
years." Heb. iii. 7, 8, 9. By these passages of scrip-
ture it is evident that the Holy Spirit is frequently men-
tioned to express the person of God.

It is plain from the Old Testament that God sent the
prophets, and spoke by them, because whenever they
delivered a prophecy, they began with saying, " Thus
saith the Lord ;" or by saying some other words of that
meaning. But Peter ascribes their prophecies to th/i
dictation of the Holy Ghost, he says, " For the prophe-
cy came not in old time by the will of man : but holy
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost." 2 Pet. i. 21. Paul says, " God at sundry
15*

174 THE HOLY spirit/

times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets." Heb. i. 1. If God spoke b}
the prophets, and at the same time those very speeches
were dictated by the Holy Ghost, then God and the
Holy Ghost must be the same being ; unless it can be
proved that the Spirit is a distinct being from God, and
acted as his agent or instrument, and if it is God's in-
strument or agent, it cannot be a person coequal, nor
coeternal with kim.

When one person acts as the instrument or agent of
another, the same actions and works can with propriety
be ascribed to them both. But in that case, the instru-
ment or agent is always inferior to his employer, there-
fore the above passages of scripture will oblige us to
either acknowledge that God and the Holy Ghost are
the same being, or else t^iat the Holy Ghost is a being
distinct from, and inferior to God.

That the Spirit of God is sometimes mentioned to
signify God himself, appears from the following pas-
sage : " But there are diversities of operations ; but it
is the same God which worketh all in all. For to one
is given by the Spirit, the word of wisdom ; to another
the word of knowledge by the same spirit ; to another
faith by the same spirit ; to another the gifts of healing
by the same spirit ; to another the working of miracles ;
to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits ; to
another diverse kinds of tongues ; to another the inter-
pretation of tongues : but all these worketh that one, and
the self-same spirit." 1 Cor. xii. 6 — 11. In this pas-
sage you will observe that it is first asserted that God
distributes these gifts, and works these miracles; and
then it is affirmed that the Spirit distributes these gifts,
and w^orks these miracles. And in the ISth verse the
distribution of these gifts is again ascribed to God thus :
" But now hath God set the members, every one of
them in the body, as it hath pleased him." From these
texts it is evident that the w^ords God, and Holy Sjnrii.
are at least sometimes synonymous, of which, if there
is any farther evidence needed, it is furnished by Paul
in the following text : "Now the Lord is that Spirit, and
where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But
^.ve all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory

IHE HOLY spirit/ 175

of the Lord, are changed into the same image from
glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." 2
Cor. iii. 17, 18. Here the apostle shows that because
the Ijord is that Spirit, we are by the operations of it
changed into his image. If //le Lord is that Spirit, thal
Spirit is not a distinct person from the Lord.

The Holy Spirit is sometimes used to express the
power of God, which will appear by comparing the fol-
lowing texts : " But if I with the finger of God cast out
devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon
you." Luk. xi. 20. " But if I cast out devils by the
spirit of God, then the kmgdom of God is come unto
you." Mat. xii. 28. By this it appears that the same
thing is ascribed to God's spirit, and to his finger. I
now ask is God's finger a distinct person from himself?
But it will be answered that God's finger represents his
power. To this I agree ; but then I ask, is God's
power a distinct person from himself?

That the Holy Spirit is sometimes mentioned to ex-
press the power of God, may be seen by comparing the
following verses : " And behold, I send the promise
of my Father upon you : but tarry ye in the city of Je-
rusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.'*
Luk. xxiv. 49. This promise of being endued with
power from on high, was no doubt the gift of the Holy
Ghost, which appears from the words he spoke to them
after his resurrection. " And being assembled togeth-
er with them, commanded them that they should not de-
part from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the
Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me ; for John
truly baptized with water ; but you shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Act. i.
4, 5 — 8. " But ye shall receive power after that the
Holy Ghost is come upon you."

As God is infinite in all his perfections, he can com-
municate his spirit to his creatures, and influence them
by it in every part of the universe at his pleasure. And
when his Spirit is mentioned as a witness, a teacher, or
a comforter, the meaning is that he bears witness to the
truth, or teaches, or comforts his people, by his Spirit.
When we receive his Spirit we do not literally receive
ais person, so as to have it incorporated in our persons--

X*t6' THE HOLT SPIRIT/

but we partake of his nature, and become the wllhug
subjects of his government. I think, however, that the
Holy Spirit is something more than a mere quahty, it is
real being, and yet not a distinct person from the Fa-
ther. It is represented under the figure of water, of
wine, and of oil, and was proimbly typified by the sweet
anointing oil that was kept in the temple to anoint the
high priests, to counterfeit which was death by the law.
Our knowledge of the divine essence is extremely lim-
ited ; but Ehhu indicates that God's Spirit is his breath:
hence he says : "The Spirit of God made me, and the
breath of the Almighty hath given me life." Job. xxxiii.
4. David holds out the idea that the host of heaven
was made by God's breath. " By the word of the
Lord were the heavens made : and all the host of them
by the breath of his mouth." Psal. xxxiii. 6. Job
says : " By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens."
Job. xxvi. 13. Isaiah says of Christ, that " He shall
smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the
breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked." Isa. xi. 4.
Paul says : " And then shall that Wicked be revealed,
whom the Lord shall consume "with the spirit of his
mouth." 2 Thes. ii. 8. Eliphaz. says : " By the blast
of God they perish, and by the breath of his nostrils are
tliey consumed." Job. iv. 9. " Tophet is ordained of
old ; yea, for the King it is prepared ; he hath made it
deep and large; the pile thereof 75 fire, and much wood :
the breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone doth
kindle it." Isa. xxx. 33. From these passages it ap-
pears that God's breath, and his Spirit, at least some-
times, mean the same thing. The Hebrew Rooh, and
and the Greek Pneiima, which are the names of the
spirit of God in the original scriptures, are the same
words that we have translated wind and air. Although
my breath has a real existence, still it is not a distinct
person from me ; and notwithstanding it is nothing but
natural air, yet its connexion with me is essential to
my natural life. As God is a Spirit, and infinite in all
his perfections, his breath must be as much superior to
our breath, as he is to us. It was by his breath that a
rational soul was breathed into Adam. The miracu-
Tous efFiLsions of his spirit is represented as a refino•^^

THE HOLY SPIRIT, 177

tire, which is generally accompanied with a blast oi
wind : hence it is in the third chapter of Matthew call-
ed a fan, by which the chaff is separated from the wheat.
And when it was poured out on the day of Pentecost,
it came like a mighty rushing wind. And when Jesus
had received the Holy Ghost to give to his disciples,
he communicated it to them by breathing on them. —
Hence it is said, " He breathed on them, and saith un-
to them, receive ye the Holy Ghost." Job. xx. 22.

Christ ascribes the new birth to the Holy Spirit, and
illustrates its operation by comparing it to the natural
wind. Thus he says : " That which is born of the
flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel n>t that I said unto thee, ye must be born again.
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth : so is every one that is born of the
Spirit." Job. iii. 6, 7, 8.

As the natural wind or air is too thin for us to see
with our natural eyes, so the Spirit of God cannot be
fully comprehended by the eyes of our understanding;
but as we can feel the former blow on our bodies, so we
can feel the latter operate on our minds ; and as draw-
ing breath in the natural air is necessary to natural life,
so a constant supply of the Holy Spirit is essential to
spiritual life, or the life of God in the soul ; and as the
natural wind drives mists, and noxious vapors, from our
atmosphere ; so God's Holy Spirit dispels the mists of
error, and unbelief, and removes evil aftections from
our minds.

But still I do not pretend to say, that God's Spirit in
its substance has the least resemblance of natural wind,
because as I cannot see the particles of the natural
wind so as to describe them, I am, of course, still more
disqualified to define the substance of the Holy Spirit.
But as it is altogether probable that the natural wind is
more useful to us than it would be if we could see it
as plain as we see trees and stones. So it is quite
probable that our inability to describe the substance oi
the Holy Spirit, and the precise manner of its operations^
is in our present mortal state, a blessing instead of ar^
evil

178 THE HOLY SPIRIT.

When I blow a horn, I make a loud noise with my
i)reath ; when I blow on a flute, I make a melodious
sound with my breath ; when I blow out a candle, I
extinguish a light with my breath ; when I blow the fire,
I kindle a flame with my breath ; I can blow warm, or
I can blow cold with my breath, and when I wish to do
it, I can speak, bear witness, or teach, with my breath :
and yet all these actions may be, with truth and pro-
priety, ascribed to me, or to my breath, or to my power,
or to my understanding. So I think God can teach, in-
struct, comfort, bear witness, kill and make alive, or do
any thing else that he pleases by his Spirit, and yet his
Spirit not be a distinct person from himself.

Although I have quoted some passages which seem
to prove that the breath of the Lord is sometimes men-
tioned to represent his Spirit, yet I do not pretend to
say, that God's breath is his Spirit, because I do not
know. I do not understand the .-ub.-tance of my own
spirit, much less that of the divine Being. But I have
used the above illustration to show that all the language
used in scripture relative to God and his Holy Spirit*
may be consistently understood without making him»
and it. to be two distinct persons.

THE HOLY SPIRit, '179

CHAPTER II.

{Tlie same subject continued.

Some suppose that because the Holy Spirit is called a
witness, that it must therefore be a person. But many
things are mentioned in scripture as witnesses, as well
as persons. Works are called a witness; hence, Christ
says : '' But I have greater vime-s than that of John ;
for the works which the Father hath given me to finish
the same works that I do, bear witness of me." Joh. v.
36. Chap. X. 25. " The works that I do in my Fa-
ther's name, they bear witne.-> of me."

The gospel is called a witness. *' And this gospel
of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for
a witness unto all nations ; and then shall the end
come." Mat. xxiv. 14. Surely the gospel is not a
person.

The Psalniist intimates that the moon is a witness.^ —
Speaking of the covenant made with David, he says :
*' His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the
sun before me. It shall be established forever as the
moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." Psa?.
Ixxxix. 36, 37.

A covenant is called a witness. Laban said to Ja-
cob : " Now, therefore, come thou, let us make a cove-
nant, I and thou ; and let it be for a witness between
me and thee." A heap of stones is called a witness,
which appears from the following verses ; " And Jacob
took a stone, and set it up for a pillar. And Jacob said
unto his brethren, gather stones : and they took stones
and made a heap. And Laban said, this heap is a wit-
ness between me and thee this day. This heap be a
witness, and this pillar be a witness, that I will not pass
over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over
this heap, and this pillar unto me, for harm. Gen-. xxxl>
44, 45, 46, 48, 52.

180 THE liOLY SPIRIT,

God anointed Christ with the Holy Spirit. Hence he
says ; " The spirit of the Lord God is upon me ; be-
cause the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings
unto the meek." Isa. Ixi. i. Luk. iv. 18. Psal. xlv.
7. "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom
thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with
the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered
together.-' Act. iv. 27. " How God anointed Jesus
of ^Vazareth Nvith the Holy Ghost, and with power ; who
went about doing good, and healing all that v.ere op^
pressed of the devil ; for God was with him." Act.
X. 38. If Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are three co-
equal persons, each of whom is God in the highest
sense of the word, then in these passages we have the
first person anointing the second person with the third
person. But if the Holy Ghost is God in the highest
sense, how could he be used as an instrument in the
hand of the first person to anoint the second person,
when the second person was, from all eternity, as great
as he was ?

Saint Peter says : " This Jesus hath God raised up,
whereof we all 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
torth this, which ye now see and hear." Act. ii. 32,
33. If Trinitarianism be true, then according to this
text the first person gave the third person to the second
person, and then he shed him forth on the people. But
if the Holy Ghost is an intelligent person, and God in
the highest sense of the word, how could he be confer-
red as a gift by another person ? The giver is always
supposed to have power over the gift ; but if the Holy
Ghost is the supreme God, who could have power over
him to dispose of him ? The receiver is always de-
pendant on the giver, and enriched by the gift, if it is a
vakiable one ; but if Jesus Christ is the self-existent,
self-dependant, supreme God, how could he be depend-
ant on God for, or be enriched by, the gift of the Holy
Ghost 1 No doubt the people who received the Holy
Ghost at that time felt themselves dependant for it, and
-enriched by it.

It is as plainly said that it was given to Christj a^

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 181

iliat it was given to them, and that almost in the same
language.

If the Holy Spirit was given to Christ, there must
liave been a time when it was given, and therefore a
time before it was given. If God from all eternity ex-
isted in, or consisted of, three persons, how could there
have been a time when the third person was given to
the second? If the divine essence consists of three
persons, how could the first person give the third to the
second, if at the same time they were all but one ration-
al, indivisible Being ? It would be God giving himself
to himself.

If Jesus is equal and eternal with the Father, he
must have been from all eternity in possession of as
much Holy Ghost as the Father was.

I can easily conceive how God could communicate
his Spirit to his Son, or to any other rational, obedient
'•reature ; but to say, that the supreme, rational, indi-
visible God gave himself to himself, or what is still
worse, gave one part of himself to another part of him-
self, appears to me to be downright nonsense.

I know it will be said, that the divine nature gave the
Holy Ghost to the human nature, but if that was the
fact, then there must have been a time when Jesus
Christ had no divinity in him. If he was at every mo-
ment of his life as really and properly God as he was
a man, it would have been as impossible to give him the
Holy Ghost as to give it to the Father, because if he
was the supreme God, and already possessed all the
Holy Spirit there was in the universe, how could it be
given to him ?

Some people suppose, that because the Holy Spirit
is sometimes mentioned in the mascuhne gender by the
))ronouns he and his, that it therefore must be a person.
Hui this argument is inconclusive, because many inani-
mate things are in scripture put in the masculine and
feminine genders, which will appear from the follow-
lowing texts : " The wind hath bound her up in her
wings." Hos. iv. 19. " The wind returneth again
according to his circuit." Eccles. i. 6. " And he
made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the
<rther : it icas round all about, and his height was five
16

182 THE H6LY SFiniT.

cubits." 1 King. vii. 23. " Thou shalt also make 3
laver of brass, and his foot also of brass." Exod. xxx,
18. And the table and his furniture, and the pure can-
dlestick with all his furniture, and the altar of incense.
And the altar of burnt-offering with all his furniture, and
the laver, and his foot." Exod. xxxi. 8, 9. Jerusa-
lem is called she. Jer. xxxiii. 16. And Wisdom is
called she. Prov. ix. 1.

In the Greek Testament the pronoun of the Holy
Spirit is generally expressed by a particle, which prop-
erly answers to the English pronoun it, and is but a
very few times mentioned by the Greek word, which,
in EngHsh, is properly rendered he : accordingly in the
translation by Campbell, McNight, and Dodridge^
the Holy Spirit is, I think, generally, if not always ren-
dered in the neuter gender. And so it sometimes is in
the common translation, as in the following texts : —
"' The Spirit itself beareth witness with our Spirit."
Rom. viii. 17. " And John bare record, saying, I saw
the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it
abode upori him. Job. i. 32. In 1 Joh. ii. 27, the
Holy Spirit is called an anointing-, and is mentioned in
the neuter gender. But the anointing which ye have
received of him abideth in you : and ye need not that
any man teach you : but as the same anointing teach-
eth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and
even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." — -
The unction and theanointing spoken of in this chapter.
1X0 doubt signify a portion of God's Holy Spirit.

" I will pray the Father, and he shall give you anoth-
ei- Comforter, that he may abide with you forever. Even
the spirit of truth." <'But the Comforter, ivhich is the
Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name,
he shall teach you all things." Joh. xiv. 16, 17, 26.
Here the Holy Ghost is said to be sent by the Falhei*.
If the Holy Ghost is the supreme God, I do not see
how he could send himself; but I can easily conceive
how he can send, or communicate his Holy Spirit to
his creatures.

" But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send
Lii]to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which
proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." —
Joh,.xvi. 2^. If the Holy Spirit is a person, he must

tllE HOLY SPIRIT. 183

he inferior to Christ, because he had power to send
liim. If the Holy Spirit and the Father are one, and
the self-same Being, I cannot see how he, as a person,
could proceed from himself I never knew any per-
son to proceed from himself. Nor can I, for the life oi
me, see how Christ could send the self-existent su-
preme God. If he is inferior to God, he could have
no power to send him. And if he is the very God, and
all the God there is in the universe, he could not send
himself He could not be active in sending, and pas-
sive in being sent at the same time.

But if the Holy Ghost is nothing but the Spirit of
God, I can easily conceive how it could proceed from
the Father, as a stream from a fountain, or as heat
from a firo, or light from the sun, and so be communi-
cated to Christ, and by him sent, or infused, into the
hearts of his people.

"When Christians receive the Holy Spirit, they receive
God in a spiritual sense ; they partake of his nature,
are conformed to his will, his law is written on their
hearts, and he dwells in them by his Spirit. Hence,
Paul says : " Know ye not that ye are the temple of
God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you ?" 1
Cor. iii. 16. Chap. vi. 19. *' Know ye not that your
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, ivhich is in you,
which ye have of God 1" Again he says : " In whom
ye also are buiWed together for a habitation of God
through the Spirit." Ephes. ii. 22.

The following passage has been brought to prove
that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from God : —
^' Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities ; for
we know not what we should pray for as we ought :
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings that cannot be uttered. And he that search-
eth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit,
because he maketh intercession for the Saints accord?^
ing to the will of God." Rom. viii. 26, 27. If the
Spirit, which is mentioned in this text, is a person dis-
tinct from the Father, he must be inferior to God, and
a Being capable of the deepest sorrow. If he was not
inferior to God, and dependant on him, he would not
intercede with, nor pray to him for the Saints. And if

l&i THE HOLY SriRIT.

he was not susccptiljle of grief, he would be iiicapabiV
of those unutterable groans.

That the self-existent, self-dependant, supreme God
-should pray to himself, or to another person, Nvho is
also a supreme God, in such an agony with such unut-
terable groans, appears very unreasonable to me. In
this case Trinitarians cannot resort to their common
expedient to evade the force of the argument : they
cannot say it was his human nature praying to his divint
nature ; and that it was his human nature which was
susceptible of these unutterable groans ; because they
do not hold that the third person of the trinity ever had
a human nature.

I think the true meaning of the above text is this,
God, by his Spirit, enlightens our minds, shows us our
moral condition, teaches us what we need, promotes in
us a spirit of prayer, fills us with humility, and a godl v
sorrow for sin, and by dictating suitable words to us,
enables us to pray to him with contrition of soul, and
groanings that cannot be uttered. Paul says : "Though
there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in
earth, (as there be Gods many, and Lords many,) but
to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him ; and one Lord Jesus Christ,
j^y whom are all things, and we by him." Here Paul
is distinguishing the proper objects of worship from the
Lords many, and Gods many, that are mentioned in
the preceding verse, and if he knew that the Holy
Spirit is an intelligent person, in all respects equal to
the Father and the Son, why did he not mention him 1
And if Paul knew that a third person, viz. the Holy
S^pirit, was as much the author of all things as the Fa-
ther was, why did he ascribe all things to the Father ?
In this text the Apostle restricts us to the worship oi
tAvo persons, viz. the Father and the Son.
^. "Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of Mercies, and the God of all com-
fort ; who comforteth us in all our tribulation."' 2 Cor.
i. 3, 4. If the Holy Spirit is an intelligent person, co-
equal, and coeternal with the Father, how could the
Father be the God of a// comfort ? If the trinity doc-
trine be true, each one of the three persons is equally
the God of all comfort. But this text says, the Father

THE HOLY SPIRIT. 185

j-s the God of all comfort, therefore the trinity doctrine
cannot be true.

*' But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from
the dead, dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the
dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit
that dwelleth in you." Rom. viii. 11. " For Christ
also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,
that he'might bring us to God, being put to death in the
flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Pet. iii. 18. In
these passages the Spirit is mentioned as an instrument
in the hand of God, by which he raised Christ, and
will hereafter raise Christians from the dead. If the
Holy Spirit is a person distinct from the Father, and
really God in the highest sense of the word, I cannot
see how he could be used as an instrumenfin the hand
of another person. But if the Holy Ghost is nothing
but the Spirit of God, and not a distinct person from
him, I can easily understand these passages ; because,
as God is a Spirit, if he can quicken people, and raise
them from the dead at all, he can do it by his Spirit. If
a man should say that he founded a society, or accumu-
lated a fortune by his wisdom, we would not under-
stand from such expressions, that his wisdom was a dis-
tinct person from himself, even so when God says_,
chat he teaches, enlightens, quickens us, or raises us
from the dead by his Spirit, we should not take up the
notion that his Spirit is a distinct Being from himoclf.

Paul says, that Christ must reign till all things arc
put under him ; and then observes : " But when he
saith, all things are put under him ; it is manifest that
he is excepted, which did put all things under him." 1
Cor. XV. 27. Now if the Holy Spirit is a distinct per-
son, equal with th§ Father, it appears to me that he, as
well as the Father, should have been excepted from be-
ing put under Christ. According to the trinity doctrine
this text would have been more properly written : —
" Theij are excepted ichich did put all things under

Speaking of the day of judgement, Christ says : <'But
of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the an-
gels of heaven, but my Father only." Mat. xxiv. 36.
•♦ But of that day, and that hour knoweth no man, no;
16*

iSG THE HOLY SPIRIT.

not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, buf
the Father." Mark. xih. 32. If the Holy Ghost is u
real person, equal in knowledge to the Father, Christ-
no doubt, would have excepted him as well as the Fa-
ther from being ignorant of Avhen the day of judgement
will be. If the Holy Spirit is an intelligent person dis-
tinct from the Father, and equal to him in knowledge-
then these passages are not true. In this case Trini-
tarians cannot say of the Holy Spirit as they do of Christ.
viz., that as man he did not know, but as God he did
know, because they do not hold that the Holy Ghost
has any manhood.

There is not one example in the scripture of prayer,
praise, or thanks, being offered up to the Holy Spirit :
therefore those who worship it as a distinct person from
the Father, do it without any scripture authority.

If the Holy Spirit is a person in the same sense thar
the Father is, and in all respects equal to him, surely
Jesus Christ and his Apostles would have prayed to
him, and in all respects praised him, and thaiiked him
a§ much as they did the Father.

PART yi,

ATONEMENT.

CHAPTER I.

THE SCRlPirRE DOCTRINE OF AT0XE3IEKT-

There is perhaps no doctrine in the Christian scrip-
lures, more interesting to us than atonement. The
word atonement occurs but once in the common trans-
lation of the New Testament, but is frequently found in
the Old. The doctrine of atonement was first preached
by God to Moses, in Mount Sinai ; therefore, in ordei
to get the true meaning of the word, we should try to
find out how God himself applies it in the law that he
gave to the Jews.

It has generally been preached by all the prevailing
denominations in this country, that when an atonemeni
is made, the design of it is to reconcile God ; hence they
■say that when Christ made an atonement for sinners, he
suffered the penalty of the law in their room and steady
and by bearing the wrath of God in their stead, recon-
ciled him to them. But I hope to show that this doc-
trine is a mistake.

The primary meaning of the word atonement is to
joleanse, or purify ; and the secondary meaning of it, is
to reconcile, or appease, which will appear from the fol-

fowin^ p^sagQS of scriDiure, where ther^ was an atj?n-p-

ISS ATONEMEKT.

ment made for the purification of a woman after chiid>
birth. " She shall bring a lamb of the first year for a
burnt-ofTering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle dove, for
a sin-offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation, unto the priest ; who shall offer it before
the Lord, and make an atonement for her, and she shall
be cleansed." *' And if she be not able to bring a lamb,
then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons :
the one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offer-
ing : and the priest shall make an atonement for her,
and she shall be clean."- Lev. xii. 6, 7, 8. The ex-
press design of this atonement was to cleanse. It could
not have been designed to appease the wrath of God,
because he never was wroth with a woman for having a
legitimate child.

There was an atonement made for the leper, to
cleanse him from the uncleanness of his leprosy. " And
the priest shall offer the sin-offering, and make an atone-
ment for him that is to be cleansed from his unclean-
ness; and afterward he shall kill the burnt-offering.
And the priest shall ofTer the burnt-offering, and the
meat-offering, upon the altar : and the priest shall make
an atonement for him, and he shall be clean." Lev.
xiv. 19, 20. "And the rest of the oil that is in the
priest's hand he shall put upon the head of him that is to
be cleansed, to make an atonement for him before the
Lord." Verse 29. Here the atonement was made by
putting oil on the man's head: of course it could not have
been designed to appease the wrath of God, because it
is not at all probable that God could be v.Toth with a
man for having the leprosy, any more than he would be
with us now for having the consumption, or the palsy : and
it is still more improbable that he would pour out his
wrath on a little oil, in order to reconcile himself to
the man on whose head it was poured. In the 30th and
31st verses of this chapter it is said, " He shall offer
the one of the turtle-doves, or of the young pigeons,
such as he can get ; even such as he is able to get, the
one for a sin-offering, and the other /or a burnt- offering,
with the meat-offering : and the priest shall make an
-^tonemeot for him thjit is to be cleansed before the

ATONEMENT. 189

Lord." In all these cases the atonement was designed
to cleanse the persons for whom it was made.

To make an atonement for a house that had the
leprosy in it, the law required the following process.
" And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and
cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop : and he shall kill
one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:
and he shall take the cedar-wood, and the hyssop, and
the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood
of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle
the house seven times : and he shall cleanse the house
with the blood of the bird, and wiih the running water,
and with the living bird, and with tne cedar-wood, and
with the hyssop, and with the scarier : but he shall let go
the living bird out of the city mto the open lields, and
make an atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.''
Lev. xiv. 49 — 53. The sole object of this atonement
certainly waa to cleanse the hoiu-^e, because it is impos-
sible that the supreme being could be wroth with a house,
and if possible, it is still more improbable that he would
pour out his wrath on water, the blocd of a dead bird,
cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet, in order to reconcile
himself to the walls of a house. As for the hving bird
he did not pour his wrath on it, because it was let go.
and never hurt.

That God used the word atonement to signify o
cleansing, is plain from his direction to Closes in the fol-
lowing passage. " Then shall he kill the goat of the
sin-offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood
within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the
blood of the bullock, and sprmkle it upon the mercy-
seat, and before the mercy-seat. And he shall make
an atonement for the ho]y place, because of the unclean-
ness of the children of Israel, and because of their trans-
gressions in all their sins : and so shall he do for the
tabernacle of the congregation that remaineth among
them in the midst of their uncleanness. And there
shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation
when he goeth in to make an atonement in the hoh-
place, until he come out, and have made an atonemeni
lor himself, and for his household, and for all the con-
gregation of Israel. And he shall go out unto the altai

190 ATOXEMEXT.

that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for i( :
and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of thr
blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altai
round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upor*
it with his finger seven times, and clean.se it and hallow
it from the uncleanness of the children of I^irael. And
v;hen he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place.
and the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, he
shall bring the living goat ; and Aaron shall lay both hie
hands upon the head of the living goat, and confess over
him all the iniquities oi the children of Israel, and all
their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon
the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the
hand of a fit man into the wilderness. And the goat
shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not
mhabited." Lev. xvi. 15 — 22.

Here there v/as an atonement made for the taberna-
cle, the holy place, tho altar, the piicst, and the congre-
gation, for the expres.^ purpo-e of cleansing them.

As the tabernacle, the holy place and altar never were
objects of God's wrath, the atonement made for them
could not have been designed to appease him. But
when the priest finished mak.ng an atonement for these
things, it is said that he made an end of reconciling
them ; hence I conclude that a secondary meaning of
the word atonement is to rec ncile. "When the taber-
nacle, the holy place, and the altar were unclean, they
were not what the law required them to be, but were in
a state of opposition, or irreconciliation to it ; and when
they were cleansed, they were reconciled to the law.
that is, they were conformed to its requirements.

Here it should be observed that the atonement was
not designed to reconcile the law to these things, nor to
the people, but to reconcile them to it.

When there was an atonement made for sin, the de-
sign of it was to cleanse the people from sin, which will
appear from God's own expressions in the 30th verse
of this chapter. " For on that day shall the jwiest make
an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be
clean from all your sins before the Lord." I think these
quotations must be sufficient to convince every man
who believes the Bible, that God's definition of atonf>

ATONEMENT. \91

Qient, and the original use of it was first to cleanse, and
secondly to reconcile.

We all agree that Christ came to make an atonement
lor sinners, but we differ about the design of the atone-
ment, and the persons whom it was intended to affect.

Many professors of religion say that Christ in making
an atonement appeased divine justice, bore the wrath of
God that was due to sinners, fulfilled the law of God
and suffer its penalty in their stead, and so reconcile
him to mankind.

But this doctrine is not in the Bible. There is no
lext in that book which says, he made satisfaction toJKS-
lice for sinners, or that he bore the wrath of God that
ivas due to sinners, or that h.Q fulfilled the law, or suffered
its penally instead of sinners ; nor is there any text that
says he reconciled God to nun.

It is impossible that the atonement of Christ could
apply to God, or have any effect on him ; because the
primary meaning of the word is to cleanse, and, as God
never was unclean in any sense of the word, it is impoc-
hible that he could be cleansed.

The secondary meaning of the word atonement, is to
reconcile. This is equally inapphcable to the Divine
Being, because reconciliation nnplies change, and it is
impossible for him to change. He says, '' For I am
the Lord, I change not ; therefore ye sons of Jacob are
not consumed. Mai. iii. 6. The advocates of surety
righteousness think differently from this text; they think
that because God has changed, and become reconciled
to sinners, is the very reason v.hy they are not con-
sumed. To say that a wrathful being is propitiated,
appeased, or reconciled, and at the same time not
changed, is the same as to say that he is changed, but
not changed, or that he is reconciled but not reconciled.

James says, " Every good gift, and every perfect
'^ift is from above and cometh down from the Father of
lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of
turning." Jam. i. 17. Just as sure as these scriptures
jire true, that say God is unchangeable, so sure that-
idoctrine which says Christ appeased his wrath, and re-
conciled him to sinners, is false^

192 ATONEMENT.

As the atonements under the law were never designed
to affect God, but always intended to cleanse those for
whom they were made from disease, pollution, or sin,
and reconcile them to the law of God, so the atonement
made by Christ was never designed to affect the un-
changeable God, but was intended to cleanse us from
sin, and reconcile us to him.

David speaking in the person of Christ, says, " 0 my
^ouly thou hast said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord :
my goodness extendeth not to thee ; but to the saints
that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all
my delight. If Christ by his righteousness in sufferings
for|mankind has appeased the wrath of God, and recon-
ciled him to sinners, then his righteousness has extended
to God in the fullest sense imaginable. That the
person of whom David was here speaking is Christ, ap-
pears from the succeeding verse of the same Psalm,
where he says, " Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ;
neither wilt thou suffer thv holy one to see corruption."
Psal. xvi. 2, 3. 10.

Christ makes an atonement for sinners by means of
The gospel. By preaching, working miracles, suffer-
ing, dying, rising from the dead, and conferingthe Holy
Spirit on his followers, he has established that system
of religion, by means of which we may be cleansed from
our sins, and reconciled to God. Hence the apostle
says, " For if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the
ijshes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to
the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered
himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from
dead works to serve the living God 1" Heb. ix. 13, 14.
Here the contrast is drawn between the law and tlie
gospel. The atonement made under the law sanctified
to the purifying of the flesh, but the gospel atonement
serves to purge the conscience. Because God's law
required the Jews to offer the blood of bulls, and goats,
it was said of that blood that it was offered to God : and
because God taught Christ by his eternal Spirit that it
was his duty to suffer and die for sinners, it is therefore
said of him that he through the eternal Spirit offered
himself without spot to God ; but in neither of thes.e

ATONEMENT. 193

rases did tlie blood work any change iii God ; in the
former case it purified the flesh of men, in the latter it
purges their consciences.

John says, " If we walk in the light as he is in the
light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood
of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." 1
Joh. i. 7. Here John clearly teaches us that our Chris-
tian fellowship, and cleansing from all sin, are only to
be obtained on the condition that we walk in the light of
the gospel. In this text, John does not tell us that the
blood of Christ serves to reconcile God, but on the con-
frary he says it cleanseth us from all sin.

This cleansing from sin is in the gospel called rege-
neration, and can only be effected by the operation of
the Holy Spirit ; hence Paul says, " Not by works of
Wghteousness that v,e have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abun-
dantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." Tit. iii. 5,
6. But as this Spirit is received through faith in the
gospel, of course all the atonement, that is to say, all the
cleansing from sin, and reconciling to God, that we ex-
perience by its operations, should be ascribed to the
fjlood of Christ, because it was by shedding his preciou?
blood that the gospel plan was established.

That the Spirit is received by hearing the gospel m
faith, appears from the second and fifth verses of the
third chapter of Galations : '< This only would I learn
of you, received ye the Spirit oy the works of the law,
or by the hearing of faith?" " He therefore that minis-
tereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among
you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hear-
ing of faith ]"

As the atonement under the law cleansed the people
from sin and pollution, so the means of grace under the
g-ospel are adapted to purify our souls from iniquity r
hence Peter says, " Seeing ye have purified your souls
in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned
love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a
pure heart fervently : being born again, not of corrupt-
ible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God>
which livetTi ^nd abideth forever." i Pet. i. ^2. 23—

194 ATONEMENT,

25. " And tills is the word, which by the gospel i~
preached unto you." Here the apostle informs us that
the new birth consists in purifying our souls by obeying
the truth through the Spirit ; and as this purifying is ef-
fected by obeying the truth, he hence concludes that the
persons who are thus purified, are born again of the
word of God, and then informs us that this word is the
gospel.

This abundantly proves that the atonement of Christ
15 accomphshed in believers by means of the gospel.

There is no text in the Bible that says God was re-
conciled to sinners, but on the contrary wherever the
word occurs in the scriptures, it is applied to the crea-
ture.

The following passage places the doctrine of recon-
ciliation in a clear point of view. " And all things are
of God, who hath reconciled us unto himself hy Jesus
Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconcilia-
tion ; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the
world unto himself, not imputmg their trespasses unto
them ; and hath committed unto us the word of reconcili-
ation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ ; as
though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in
Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath
made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin ; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.'^ 2
Cor. V. 18, 19, 20, 21. By being made sin for us, the
apostle no doubt meant that he was made a sin offering :
as it is said of him in Isaiah liii. 10. " Thou shalt make
his soul an offering for sin."' He was made a sin-offer-
ing for the very same purpose that the sacrifices under
the law were, that is, that we, for whom he was offered^
might be cleansed from sin, and made the righteousness
of God in him. Sin is the sole cause of our enmity
against God, and when we are cleansed from it, then wq
are reconciled to him.

In the ninth chapter of Hebrews, Paul explains the
atonement made by the sacrifice of Christ, by compar-
ing it with the atonement, or purifying that was"made by
the blood of the legal sacrifices. He says, *' Almost
all things are by the law purged with blood ; and without
shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore iie-»

ATONEMENT* 195

ccssary that the patterns of things in the heavens should
be purified with these ; but the heavenly things them-
selves with better sacrifices than these." Here we are
clearly informed that the sacrifice of Christ was design-
ed to purify the heavenly things. And if so, it could not
have been intended to purify God, nor his law, nor the
justice of God, because they were always holy, and
never could be purified. No doubt, the heavenly things
here spoken of are the Christians, whom God has trans-
lated into the kingdom of his dear Son ; and we can
easily understand how Christ can purify them ; because
the 2oth verse of the same chapter says, *' But now
once in the end of the world hath he appeared, to pu(
away sin by the sacrifice of himself." And the scrip-
ture says, " He gave himself for us, that he might re-
deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a pe-
culiar people, zealous of good works." Tit. ii. 14. If
Paul knew that Christ died to redeem us from divine
iiistice, fulfill the law in our room and stead, and recon-
cile God to us, and that it is essential to our salvation
that we should believe so, he certainly would have told
lis these things in plain words.

The great point of dispute in this controversy is, whe-
ther God or man receives the atonement made by
Christ. The following passage decides this question as
plain as it can be done in human speech : " For if when
we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall
be saved by his life.

And not only so, but we also joy in God, through om-
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the
atonement." Rom. v. 10, ]1.

Thus it is decided by the holy scripture that by the
sacrifice of Christ, man receives the atonement, aad is
reconciled to God.

i96 0r CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW.-

CHAPTER II.

OF CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW.

^ Many professors of religion say that Christ became
the surety of sinners, and as such fulfilled the law of
God in their room and stead, and so redeemed them
from under the law.

I do not think that Christ redeemed us from under
any law of God. He could not have redeemed us from
under the ceremonial law, because we were never
under it. None but the Jews were under that law ; and
it was abolished long bef )re we came into existence.

The moral law consists often commandments written
on two tables : the first of which teaches our duty to
God, and the second teaches our duty to men. Christ
sums them all up under two general commandments :
" Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heai1.
and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the
prophets." Mat. xxii. 37, 38, 39, 40.

Now if Christ redeemed us from under this law, he
has redeemed us from under obligation to love God and
one another ; and if he has done so, he must be the mi-
nister of sin, and the enemy of all righteousness.

The moral law is a copy of God's will and a trans-
cript of his nature ; therefore if Christ redeemed us
from under the moral law, he has redeemed us from the
will and nature of God. The moral law is the princi-
ple, yea the very system of the divine government. It
13 that eternal, unchangeable rule of righteousness, by
which he governs all his obedient rational creatures.
And if Christ has redeemed us from under it, he has re-
deemed us from under the government of God ; and ha^
done us more injury than ever the Devil did. Th^

OP CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 197

Devil has induced us to rebel against the government
of our heavenly Father; but, thank God, he never got u?
clear from under it.

Many good people preach that God placed Adam
under an infinite law, the penalty of which was also m-
finite, and consisted of a three fold death, viz : death
temporal, spiritual, and eternal ; that all his posterity
stood in him, and with him fell under this dreadful pe-
nalty : and then they tell us that Christ, as a surety foi
Adam and his posterity, stepped into their law-place,
and by suffering all the penalty in their room and stead,
made satisfaction to God and his law for original sin. I
will now give a few reasons for not believing this doc-
trine.

There is no scripture to prove that God gave Adam
an infinite law. A good and wise ruler will always
adapt his laws to the capacity of his subjects. An infi-
nite law must be infinite in the number, or nature of its
demands, it must require its subjects to perform an in-
finite number of duties, or else it must require them to
execute v.orks of an infinite nature, such as could not
be done without the exertion of infinite power. Adam
was a finite being, and therefore not able to obey, nor
even comprehend an infinite law. If a parent would
give his little children commands that they could neither
understand nor obey, and then burn them to death for
not fulfilling them, he would act the part of an ignorant,
cruel tyrant. And if God gave finite man an infinite
law, and then bound him over to be tortured in hell fire
to endless duration for not obeying it, he must be just
such a t\Tant,

It is impossible that Christ could have suffered thl«
three fold death in the room and stead of Adam and his
posterity. Because if he as our surety had suffered a tem-
poral death in our room and stead, neither law nor jus-
tice could require us to suffer it again ; yet we find all
mankind have to suffer a temporal death. The best
Christians, who have the greatest interest in Jesus
Christ, and even little infants, who never committed an
actual sin, have to die a temporal death.

Spiritual death is to be dead in trespasses and sins.
It is impossible for any being to be sniritiially d^*(^

i9S OF CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW,

without being wicked; therefore if Christ suffered a spirit-
ual death, he must have been wicked. But the scrip-
ture says he was holy ; that he did no sin, neither ivas
guile found in his mouth. So you see it was impossi-
ble for Christ to suffer a spiritual death for sinners.

There is nothing eternal but what is so in duration.
therefore if Christ suffered an eternal death, he must be
still dead, and dead he must remain to all eternity, be-
cause if he ever should be restored to life, he will not
suffer an eternal death. The advocates of surety
righteousness frequently tell us that the penalty of the
law, which was due to sinners for their actual and orig-
inal sins, was damnation in hell to all eternity under
the wrath of God, and then they tell us that Christ hat
suffered that penalty in our stead. Now if this doctrine
be true, Christ must be damned in hell to all eternity
under the wrath of God. But the scripture informs us.
that he is happy in heaven at the right hand of God. —
So you see it is impossible that Christ could have suf-
fered the penalty of the law instead of sinners.

We will now examine the law that God gave to Adam,
and try to ascertain the sufferings of which its penalty
consisted. " And the Lord God commanded the man,
saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely
eat : But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, thou shalt not eat of it : for in the day that thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. ii. 16, 17.
This does not look like an infinite law. It was a mere
prohibition to eat of a certain tree, which a child of tea
years old could understand and obey.

Here it is necessary to observe that there was no pro-
vision made in this law for a substitute to suffer the
penalty of it instead of the transgressor. He did not
say : '^ Be it remembered, however, that if a person ot
sufficient dignity will enter surety for you, and die in
your stead, you shall not die, even if you should eat the
forbidden fruit." But he said, without any condition :
^^ In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die " The devil contradicted God, and told Eve that
if she would eat the fruit, she should not surely die. —
The advocates of surety rightegusness agree with th-r

or CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 19-9

Devil on this subject ; they say that man did not die that
death of which this penalty consisted, but that Christ
stepped into their law-place, and suffered it in their room
and stead. I now ask who told the truth, God or the
Devil ? I conclude God told the truth, the Devil told a
lie, and they who agree with him on that subject are
very much mistaken. But I do not think they lie, char-
ity always makes a distinction between lies and mis-
takes.

"When God threatened Adam with death, he did not
tell what kind of a death it should be, but by inflicting
it on him, he has pointed it out sufficiently plain.

When a man says to his son : " If you eat the fruit
of a certain tree I will whip you," the boy may be at a
loss to know what kind of a whipping his father intends,
but when he commits the crime, and gets the whipping,
then he knows to his hearts content. So after our first
parents eat the forbidden fruit, God explained the kind
of death they should die, by pronouncing the penalty on
them in the tollowing words : "Unto the woman he
said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy concep-
tion : in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children, and thy
desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
' And unto Adam he said, because thou hast hearkened
unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of
which I commanded thee, saying, thou shalt not eat of
it : cursed is the ground for thy sake ; in sorrow shalt
thou eat of it all the days of thy life : thorns, also, and
thistles shall it bring forth to thee ; and thou shalt eat
the herb of the field: In the sweat of thy face shalt
thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground ; for out
of it v.ast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return.-' Gen. iii. 16, 17, 18, 19. Here is
all that God said should come on man in consequence
of Adams' sin. He died to much of that hohness, and
happiness he possessed in his primordial state, was
made subject to a temporal death, and liable to all the
miseries consequent on a state of mortality. The earth
was cursed with thorns and thistles ; the woman had
her sorrow and conception greatly multiplied, and was
doomed to bear her children in pain.

That doctrine which say?, that Christ, as the surefv

S60 OF CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW:

of mankind, suffered the penalty due for Adams' sin in
the room and stead of him and his posterity, contradicts
the experience of every man and woman in the world.
Every person who has sense enough to put on his
clothes, and wear them when they are on, knows that
this doctrine is false. The women bear their children
in sorrow. Man eats his bread in the sweat of his face.
The earth brings forth thorns and thistles ; and we all
have to return to the dust in death.

If Jesus Christ had m.ade satisfaction to divine jus-
tice, and borne the penalty of the law that was due to
Adam for his sin, a just God would not have required
him to suffer it over again. Adam and his wife, on the
ground of strict justice, would have remained in their
primitive state, their native Eden.

I think the miseries that have come on the world iu
consequence of Ada(n's fall, are natural evils, and that
God never could impute Adam's sin to any of his pos-
terity, because they could not help nhat Adam did be-
fore they were born. Sin is an act, it is the trangres-
sion of the law. To impute, is to charge, and if J
should be charged with any action that happened before
I was in existence, it would be a false charge.

We frequently inherit weakness of body, or of mind,
from our parents. There are many hereditary diseas-
es, such as consumption, &c. that descend from gener-
ation to generation : and it is well known that parents
may impart to their posterity, diseases which they have
contracted by crime : and yet no guilt can be charged to
^he offspring. But in all these cases if the unfortunate
children will faithfully serve God, he will no doubt bless
them, and make them as happy in the end, as if their
parents had been healthy and holy. Just so I think of
the evils that have come on us by Adam's fall ; if we
serve God faithfully, they will all work for our good ;
and God will make them blessings to us in the end.

The following passage sufficiently proves, that Gorl
never imputes the sins of the parents to their children :
" The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The Son shalfnot
bear the iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father
bear the iniquity of the Son ; the righteousness of the
righteous shall be upon liim, ?ind the wickedness of the

op CHRIST -FULFaLUTG THE LAW. 201

wicked shall be upon him." Ezek. xviii. 20. It is
certain that if the law of God did not charge any guilt
on Adam's posterity for his sin, then Christ could not
have suffered the penalty of the law to clear them
from it.

CHAPTER III.

[The same subject continued.

'■' The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake:
he will magnify the law, and make it honorable." Isa,
xlii. 21. I have often heard this text named to prove
that Christ suffered the penalty of the law in the room
and stead of sinners, but it by no means proves that
doctrine. The word mao^iiify signifies to honor. Paul
says : " Now, also, Christ shall be magnified in my
body, whether it be by life, or by death." Phil. i. 20.
" Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord." Luk,
i. 46. " And the Lord said in to Joshua, this day will
I begin to magnify thee in the sight of all Israel, that
they may know that as I was with jVI oses, so I w ill be
with thee." Josh. iii. 7. " And the liord magnified
Solomon exceedingly, in the sight of all Israel, and be-
stowed upon him such royal majesty, as had not been
on any King before him in Israel." 1 Chron. xxix. 25.
David says : " I will praise the name of God with a
song, I will magnify him with thanksgiving." Psal.
Ixix. 30.

If a great Emperor should make his son King over
a nation of his rebelhous subjects, the best way for him
to honor the laws of his Father, and make them honora-
ble among the subjects, would be to obey them himself,
and use the most effectual means to make the people
obey them. But if he should enter himself as geeurity

202 OF CHRIST FULFILLING THE LA\V.

to his Father for the good behavior of all the subjects.
and agree to suffer the penalty of the law in the room
and stead of its transgressors, that is, agree to be whip-
ped, cropped, branded, or hung, as the case might be.
in the room and stead of every felon, who might de-
serve to be thus punished, it would be the same as to
repeal the law, because whenever subjects are assured
that they are released from the penalty of a law, they feel
no longer bound by its precepts. So if Christ has re-
leased sinners from the penalty of God's law by suffer-
ing it in their room and stead, he has in effect repealed
the law of God, and put it out of ail credit ; because,
as soon as a law is repealed it is no longer honored by
the subjects.

There is not one text in the Bible that says, Christ
fulfilled the law for us. But the scripture says, he ful-
fills the law in us. " For what the law could not do, in
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his
own Son in the hkeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, con-
demned sin in the flesh : that the righteousness of the
law .night be fulfilled IN US, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the spirit." Rom. viii. 3, 4. From this
text we learn two things. First, that the law of Moses
was too weak to keep human nature under proper su-
bordination to God : and, secondly, that Christ has
come int(^ the world to estaldish a religion by which
the righteousness of God's law may be fulfilled in us.
Jesus Christ explains the righteousness of the law to con-
sist in lovino; God with all our hearts, and our neiorhbors.
as ourselves. And Paul says : '• All the law is fulfilled
in one word, even in this, thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself." Gal. v. 14. And again he informs us
that, *' The end of the commandment is charity,
out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and
of faith unfeigned." 1 Tim. i. 5. By the word
end, in this text, he no doubt means design, that
is, he means that the design of the commandment
was to promote charity, out of a pure heart, a good con-
science, and faith unfeigned. But as the diverse wash-
ings, and carnal ordinances of the first covenant, were
not sufficient to promote in the worshippers this pure
fQYe to God and men, thev were taken out of the wav.

or C5HRIST FULriLliNG THE LAiV. 203

in order to establish the gospel, through which it might
be implanted in the human heart.

With regard to this change, Paul makes the following
statement : " But now hath he obtained a more excel-
lent ministry, by how much, also, he is the Mediator of
a better covenant, which was established upon better
promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless^
then should no place have been sought for the second.
For, finding fault with them, he saith, behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah ; not
according to the covenant that I made with their Fa-
thers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead
them out of the land of Egypt : because they continued
not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the
Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with
the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; 1
will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their
hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall
be to me a people : And they shall not teach every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying;
know the Lord : for all shall know me from the least
to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their un-
righteousness, and their sins, and their iniquities will I
remember no more.^' Heb. viii. 6 — 12.

Here the Apostle is shewing the difference between
the old and the new covenants ; betueen the ministry
of the law, and the more excellent ministry of Christ. —
Lender the former, the law was written on tables of
stone; under the latter, he says: "I will put my
laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts." —
Under the law, none but the High Priest could enter in-
to the holiest of ail, have access to^he merc-yseat, and
directly commune with the God of Israel ; and the peo-
ple had to get the knowledge of God from him second-
handedly, under that dispensation the priest and the
prophet could have experimental knowledge of God,
and they had to teach every man his neighbor, and his
brother, saying, know the Lord. But when Christ suf-
fered, the vail was rent, and the way thrown open into
the holiest of holies, so that the whole multitude might
have access to the mercy-seat ; and now under the gos-

204 OP CliRIgT TVVeiLUSG THE LAW.

pel it is not for the priests alone to approach the merCy"
seat, and get experimental knowledge of God, and then
teach that knowledge every one to his neighbor, and his
brother, but all with whom the new covenant is made,
io come to the mercy-seat, that is to the throne of
^ace, and each one of them, from the least to the great-
est, knows the Lord experimentally. Under the fint
covenant every one that transgressed, died without
mercy under two or three witnesses ; but under the
second, he will be merciful to our unrighteousness, and
our sins, and iniquities, he will remember no more.

In the above passage the apostle undertakes to tell
the principal things that are effected by Christ's minis-
try, and if he had known that the main object of it was
to reconcile God to sinners, and fulfill the law in their
room and stead, and that it is essential for us to be-
live so, he no doubt would have told it. But he informs
us that God's main object in the new covenant was to
put his laws into the mind, and write them on the hearts
of his people. When Christ writes this law in our
hearts, he fulfills it in us.

Man was created in the image of God, but by sin liB
has, in a moral sense, lost that image. The moral law
is a transcript of God's moral image, and when it is
written in our hearts, that image is restored to our souls ;
we then put on the new man, which is renewed in know-
ledge after the image of him that created him.

When this holy law is written on our hearts, then,
perhaps, is that scripture fulfilled, that says, the seed of
the woman shall bruise the serpent's head. By the holy
law of God the serpentine nature is destroyed out of our
hearts.

"VMien this law is written in our hearts, then is ful-
filled that scripture, which says, " Mercy and truth are
met together ; righteousness and peace have kissed each
other.''^ Psal. Ixxxv. 10. Mercy and truth, and right-
eousness and peace are attributes of God ; and the
question arises, '* where have they met ?" but another
question arises, where were they parted ? They never*
were parted in God, he never lost righteousness and
peace, and became wicked and unhappy, nor did he ever
Become cruel and false by losing mercy and 'tnjM-

OF CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 205

>Iercy and truth, righteousness and peace were promi-
nent features of the human mind in its pritnordial state.
By sin, man lost mercy, and became cruel; he lost truth,
and became ignorant and deceptive ; he lost righteous-
ness and'peace, and so became wicked and unhappy*
But when the law of God, which is a transcript of his
nature, is written on the heart of man, it restores to his
mind these heavenly features ; then mercy and truth
have met together, and righteousness and peace have
kissed each other in the new born souls. The man re-
ceives mercy from his God, and becomes merciful to
all around him ; the truth which makes him free is im-
planted in his heart, and it disposes him to speak no-
thing but the truth with his neighbors.

Righteousness and peace being implanted in his soul,
liis heart is divorced from sin, and his mind from dis-
quietude. And in him is fulfilled the scripture, that
says, " Then I restored that which I took not away.'^
Christ did not take from man these heavenly qualities,
he lost them by sin, and they are restored to him by the
Saviour. And now he experiences the truth of David's
song, which says, " Great peace have they which
love thy law : and nothing shall offend them."

18

20^ OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

CHAPTER IV.

THE DOCTRINE OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS CONSlDEREt>,

The ministers of the most popular denominations in
the present day, preach that Christ is the surety of sin-
ners, that he made satisfaction to divine justice for them,
fulfilled the law for them, answering all its demands, in
their room and stead, and by bearing the wrath of God
that was due to sinners, reconciled him to them.

I think this doctrine contradicts the experience of
every Christian in the world.

In order to place this subject in a clear point of view,
I will ask the reader a few plain questions.

Before you felt the comforts of religion did you not
feel some severe conviction, or distress of mind, on
account of your sins ] Do you not think you were
laid under these convictions by the word and Spirit of
God? When you were under convinction did you not
think and feel that divine justice condemned you ? Did
you not think and feel that the law of God condemned
you ? Did you not feel that God was angry with youj
and that you were in danger of going to hell for your
sins ? To all these questions I know you will answer
in the affirmative.

Now you can easily see that if the above doctrine be
true, all your conviction was a mistake, according to
the doctrine of surety righteousness, the law nor justice
of God had nothing against you ; your surety had made
satisfaction to the one, and fulfilled the other in your
room and stead ; God had poured out all the wrath
that was due to you, on his Son, and could not possibly
be angry with you, but was perfectly reconciled to you.
If you act consistently, you must renounce your
Christian experience, or else renounce surety right-
eousness ; they are in direct opposition to'each other,
and therefore not both cannot be true.

I will now make a small comparison to illustrate the
sitbject. Suppose I owe you a thousand doUajrg. f^S;'

OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 2Q*

tne payment of which my neighbor stands security ;
and suppose you, at a time when 1 am absent from the
country, sue my security, and obhge him to pay the
whole debt, principal, interest, and cost, according to
the strict letter of the law ; then, after acknowledging
that you were fully satisfied, and well pleased with the
payment, would it be right for you to demand of me to
pay you that debt over again ? Or could you collect it
of me by law? And if you would send your agent, or
come to me yourself, and tell nie that I still owe you
that whole debt, on account of which you are much dis-
satisfied with me, and also tell me that I am in dancrer
of the severest punishment for not paying you, would it
not be false ? And if I should believe that I still owe
you the debt, would I not believe a lalsehood ?

If Jesus Christ, as our surety, has paid to law and
justice, our debt of (obedience and of suffering, and
also reconciled God to us, surely the God of truth
w^ouid not send his agent, the Spnit of truth, to tell us
that we owe the whole debt yet, and that he is very an-
gry with us for our delinquency.

The doctrine of surety righteousness teaches, that
either before the foundation of the world, or else imme-
diately after Adam fell, there was a covenant of redemp-
tion made between the Father and the S< n. in which
the Son entered into recognisance to the Father to an-
swer all the demands of law and justice, which then
were, or ever would be, against Adam and his posterity ;
and that pursuant to this engagement, he, in the fulness
of time, came into the world, was made of a wonrittn,
made under the law, and by obeying it> precepts, and
suffering on the cross, made full satisfaction for sin,
reconciled God to sinners, and for them paid up all the
debt of obedience, and of suffering that law and justice
could demand.

The advocates of surety righteousness, however, dif-
fer among themselves on the extent of this satisfaction,
some say he paid the debt for all, while others say he
only paid it for a part, to wit, the elect.

Now if this doctrine be true, either as it respects the
whole, or a part of mankind, it appears to me that the
prophets and apostles must have all been false teach-

208 OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

crs, because they all testify that the law of God coil"
dems sinners ; that God is angry with the \vicked even
day ; Paul says : *' The wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold the tmth in unrighteousness." And
that God will recompense indignation and wrath, tri-
bulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth
evil. Rom. i. 18. Chap. ii. 9. Christ says : " He
that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the
-wrath of God abideth on him." Joh. iii. 36. The
wrath of God is upon the children of disobedience. —
Ephes. V. 6. Col. iii. 6. Paul says, that he and his
Ephesian brethren were children of wrath even as oth-
ers. Ephes. ii. 3, If Christ had borne the wrath of
God for, and reconciled him to, every person, that ever
did, or ever will get to heaven, hov»' could Paul and his
brethren have ever been children of wrath even as ,
others ?

If the main object of Christ's errand into the world
was to appease the wrath of God, and reconcile him to
sinners, why did he not tell it when he undertook to tell
what he came into the world to do ? He says to Pilate.
'• To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into
the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." Jjh.
xviii. 37. When the teachers of surety righteousness
undertake to tell what the Saviour came to do, theii
conscience obliges them to say that he came to appease
the wrath of God, or make satisfaction to law, and jus- .
tice for sinners.

When a witness is legally called on to give testimony.
he is bound by law, and every principle of righteous-
ness, to tell the truth, and the ivhole truth, and if he
should keep any truth back, which he knows is essen-
tial to the case, he becomes a false witness to all intents
and purposes. So, if Christ knew that an essential
point to be gained by his sufferings was to reconcile
God to sinners, and purchase salvation for them, and
also knew that for them to believe so was essential to
their salvation, he could not keep it back without being
a false witness.

If Christ knew that he stood bound to bear the wrath
of God instead of sinners, in consequence of which God

OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 20^9

was reconciled to them, why did he say of the unbeliev-
er, that the ivraih of God abideth on him 1 Thousands
(hat were unbelievers at the time Christ spoke these
words, afterwards became believers, and were no doubt
saved. If all the wrath of God that was due to them
had been turned on Christ, who had undertaken to bear
it instead of them, how could it be on them ? And if
the wrath of God falls on the sinners, and their surety
both, what good does the sureti.^hip do?

Just before Christ departed out of this world, he told
his disciples why it was expedient for him to leave
them, that is, why it was expedient for liim to die. —
*' ]\evertheless I tell you the truth ; it is expedient for
you, that I go away : for if I go not away, the Com-
forter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will
send him unto you." Joh. xvi. 7. If his main object
in dying was to make satisfaction to the law, why did he
not tell it 1

After his resurrection he appeared to his disciples
and plainly told them why it was necessary for him to
die. " Then opened he their understandings, that they
might understand the scriptures, and said unto them,
thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer,
and to rise from the dead the third day : and that re-
pentance and remission of sins should be preached in
liis name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem.'-
Luk. xxiv. 45, 46, 47. In the next verse he adds :
^^ And ye are my witnesses of these things."

Now if he wanted those witnesses to testify, that it
behoved him to die, in order to appease the wrath of
God, and make satisfaction to law and justice for sin-
ners, why did he not tell them so ? Rut instead of say*
ing that he suffered to purchase their justification, he
told them that the design of his sufferings was, thai
^^remission of sins should he preached in his name among
all nations." Remission or forgiveness is always op-
posed to purchase and pay.
IS*

210 or SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS-

CHAPTER V.

{7'he same subject continued.

" By so m\ich was Jesus made a surety of a bettei
testament." Heb. vii. 22. This text has often been
brought to prove the doctrine of surety righteousness.
But there is, perhaps, no text in the Bible farther from
it. The better testament is the gospel, and of this.
Christ is the surety. There is a great difference be-
tween being surety for the gospel, and being surety for
sinners. A surety to a bond always stands bound with
the party that gives the bond. The gospel was given
by God to sinners, and Jesus, as its surety, stands
bound for the faithful performance of all its promises.
Hence, Paul says : " Now I say that Jesus Christ was
a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God to
confirm the promises made unto the Fathers." Rom.
XV. 8. As a minister of the circumcision for the truth of
God, Jesus came to fulfill, and by fulfilling, to confirm
the many great and precious promises made by the
prophets to the Fathers, relative to the coming of
Christ, and the gloiy that should follow.

The 122nd verse of the 119tli Psalm has been press-
ed into the service of surety righteousness. " Be
surety for thy servant for good : let not the proud oppress
me." This text by no means proves that Christ stands
as surety to God for the good behavior of sinners, be-
cause it cannot be proved, nor is it at all probable, that
David was in this text praying to Christ: and if he was
asking the Father to be his surety for good, that does not
prove that Christ is the surety of sinners. If in this
text Da\ud was praying to Chi-ist to be his surety, in
order to screen him from the wrath of God, he must
have regarded God as a proud oppressor ; because he
says : "Be surety for thy servant for good ; let not the
proud oppress me." It is evident that he was only
waving to God to secure him against his proud ene-

OF SURETY RIGIITEOrsXESS. 211

mies, ^vuo "were trying to oppress him. In the next
verse before this. David pleads his own righteousnesss
as a reason why God should be his surety : he says.
" I have done judgement and justice ; leave me not to
mine oppressors. Be surety for thy servant ; let not
the proud oppress me." If he had spoken in accor-
dance with the modern system of surety righteousness,
he would probably have said : " I have been guilty of
fraud and injustice, therefore be my surety, and pre-
serve me from that wrath and punishment of the Al-
mighty, which I justly deserve."

" The advocates of surety righteousness teach, that
Christ purchased the fa\or of God, and that the grace,
which comes to us in the gospel, was purchased from
God, and paid for by Christ when he suffered on the
cross. This doctrine is incorrect, because God never
was an unmerciful, unforgiving Being. The writings
of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, all repre-
sent him as a raercilul God, that could forgive sin
without being paid for it.

Ezekiel teaches the doctrine of forgiveness on the
sole condition of reformation. " But if the wicked will
turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep
all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right,,
he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgres-
sions that he haih committed, they shall not be men-
tioned unto him : in his righteousness that he hath done
he shall live." Ezek. xviii. 21, 22. Here there is no
mention made of a substitute suffering instead of the
.sinner.

In the following text, God shows on v,hat account he
will forgive sin : " For my name's sake will I defer
mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee,
that I cut thee not off." " For mine own sake, even
for mine own sake, will I do H : for hovv- should m}
name be polluted ? and I will not give my glory unto
another." Isa. xlviii. 9. 11. If God never forgives
sin, nor dcfels his anger only for the sake of Jesus
Christ, this text is false. The reason he assigns why
he will defer his anger and forgive sin for his own sake
alone, is, because he will not give his glory unto another.
If he never forgives sin but always takes vengeance on

2lS OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS^

the sinner, or his surety instead of him, he could not be
glorified for pardoning sinners; all the glory would be
given to the surety.

When the legal sacrifices proved insufficient to pro-
cure the favor and mercy of God, the Jews were not
informed that he would be propitiated, and his blessings
obtained from them by the sufferings of Christ, but good
works were recommended, as the only means to obtain
his favor and blessings. This is sufficiently proved by
the following passage : " Bring no more vain oblations ;
incense is an abomination unto me ; the new Moons,
and Sabbaths, the caUing of assemblies, I cannot away
with : it is iniquity even the solemn meeting. Your new
Moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth ; they
are a trouble unto me ; I am weary to bear them. And
when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes
from you ; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not
hear : your hands are full of blood.

Wash you, make you clean ; put away the evil of your
doings from before mine eyes ; cease to do evil ; learn
to do well; seek judgement, relieve the oppressed:
judge the fatherless ; plead for the widow. Come now
and let us reason together saith the Lord : though your
sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow:
though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of
the land : but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured
with the sword : for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken
it.'' Isa. i. 13—20.

If the surety righteousness of Christ is the only means
of obtaining God's favor and blessings, he told the Jews
wrong in the above passage, because he tells them that
good works will do it.

Solomon taught that the favor of God is obtained on
the condition of obedience and good works. He says,
" Turn you at my reproof; behold, I will pour out my
Spirit unto you, I will make known ray words unto you.^'
Prov. i. 23. ^' The backslider in heart shall be filled
with his own ways ; and a good man shall be satisfied
from himself." Chap. xiv. 14. " He that covereth his
sins shall not prosper : but whoso confesseth and for^
jssdieth them shall have mercy." Chap, xxviii. 13. Ti^

CiF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 213

wise man does not tell us that the mercy of God is con-
ferred on us because it was purchased for us by Christ.
David says, " The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow
to anger, and plenteous in mercy. He will not always
chide ; neither will he keep his anger forever." Psal.
ciii. 8, 9. If David had believed that the Lord never
would forgive at all, but would for eveiy crime wreak
his vengeance, either on the transgressor, or else on
Christ instead of him, he surely would not have written
these lines.

The following passage shows that David had no idea
of surety righteousness : " The Lord rewarded me ac-
cording to my righteousness : according to the clean-
ness of my hands hath he recompensed me. For I
have kept the ways o^ the Lord, and have not wickedly
departed from my God. For all his judgements were
before me . and as for his statutes, I did not depart from
them. I was also upright before him, and have kept
myself from mine iniquity.

Therefore the Lord hath recompensed me according
to my righteousness ; according to my cleanness in his
eye-sight. With the merciful thou wilt show thy-
self merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt show
thyself upright. With the pure thou wilt show thyself
pure ; and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsa-
vory." 2 Sam. xxii. 21 — 27. No man that believes
in imputed righteousness, and has a strict regard to
truth, can use such language as this. The believers in
imputed righteousness dare not say that God blesses
them according to their righteousness and cleanness in
his sight, because they think all their blessings come
through the righteousness of Christ.

lu the fifteenth Psalm, David shows what sort of
righteousness is necessary to save the soul. He asks
the question, " Lord who shall abide in thy tabernacle t
who shall dwell in thy holy hill. He then gives the an-
swer in the following language : " He that walketh up-
rightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the
truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not vrith his
tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbor, nor taketh up a
reproach against his neighbor," &c. Here the Psalm-
ist does not mention surety righteousness as the essen

214 OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESSt

tial means of salvation. He does not say that a satis-
faction made by Christ to law and justice in the room
and stead of sinners, is the real cause why any person
shall be saved, !)ut he ascribes their salvation to inno-
cence and good works.

In the third and fourth verses of the 24th Psalm, he
asks and answer- the same question : *' AVho shall as-
cend into the hill of the Lord i and who shall stand in
his holy place 1 He that hath clean hands and a pure
heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor
sworn deceitfully.-' He does not say, he to whom the
righteousnes.-s of Christ i. imputed.

David informs iis that it is not by sacrifice, but by
repentance and siucerity that the favor of God is ob-
tained. " For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I
give it; thou delightest not in burnt-offermg. The sa-
crifices of God are a broken spirit : a broken and a con-
trite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Psal. h.
16, 17.

There never was any need of reconciling God, or
purchasing his favor, -ecause from the beginning of the
Bible he has revealed himself to man as a merciful God.

" And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaim-
ed, the Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long
suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping
mercy for th )usands, tbrgiviug iniquity, and transgres-
sion and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.''
Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. Chap. xx. 6. God was repre-
sented to the Jews as dwelhng on the mercy-seat, by
which he manifested himself to be a God of mercy,
•' The faithful God, uhich keepeth covenant and mercy
with them that love him and keep his commandments to
a thousand generations." Dent. vii. 9.

God did not authorise Mo-es to tell the Jews that
his favor would be conferred on them in consequence
of the righteousness of Christ, but he told him to inform
them that it depended entirely on their own obedience.
" Now therefore if ye will obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, then'ye shall be a peculiar treasure
unto me above all people : for all the earth is mine.
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a

OF StJEETY RICTHTEOUSJfESS^. 213

holy nation. These are the words which thou shait
speak unto the children of Israel." Exod. xix. 5, 6.

God told the Jews that if they should disobey him, he
would curse them, sell them into the hands of their ene-
mies, and disperse them among the nations : but if they
would return to the Lord with all their hearts and souls,
that then the Lord their God would turn their captivity,
and have compassion upon them, and would return and
gather them from all the nations, whither the Lord their
God iiad scattered them, Deut. xxx. 1, 2, 3. Here
he gives not the slightest intimation that his compassion
towards them depended on the righteousness of a surety,
but told them plainly th;it it was altogether owing to
their own conduct. In the tbllowing text God taught
them the same doctrine. Atler telling them that they
should be dispersed among the nations for their sins, he
says, " But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy
God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy
heart and with ail thy soul." " For the Lord thy God
is a merciful God ;" Deut. iv. 29. 3L Here he tells
them that the mercy of God is the cause of their salva-
tion, and that seeking him with all their heart and soul,
was the only condition on which they could receive it.
He did not tell them that a satisfaction made to God by
Jesus Christ, was the cause, and faith in that satisfac-
tion the condition of their salvation.

Enoch was translated for being righteous. Gen. y.
24. Noah was saved because he was righteous.
" And the Lord said unto Noah, come thou and all thy
house into the ark : for thee have I seen righteous before
me in this generation." Gen. vii. 1. God did not tell
Noah that he and his family should be saved because he
had imputed the righteousness of the Messiah to them.
But if the imputed righteousness of Christ was the real
cause of their salvation, the God of truth told Noah a
falsehood, for he never mentioned the Messiah's right-
eousness, but told Noah that he should be saved be-
cause that he was righteous himself.

God blessed Abraham because he was obedient.
■^By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord ; for because
thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy
iion, thine only Son ; that in blessing I will bless thee.

216 OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the start
of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-
shore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his ene-
mies : and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed ; because thou hast obeyed my voice." Gen.
xxii. 16, 17, 18.

This proves as clear as noon day that God blesses
his people because they are obedient, and holy ; and not
because some other person is obedient and holy instead
of them.

Moses said he had set life and death before the
Jews : but if life and the favor of God are only conferred
on account of Christ's righteousness, Moses never
taught them the way of hfe. He never told them that
the mercy, and favor of God would be given them for
the sake of Christ ; but he always pointed to the mercy
of God as the cause of divine favor, and their obedience,
as the only condition on which they should receive it.

When Daniel prayed for the Jews under the Baby-
lonish captivity, he plead nothing but the mercy of God
as a ground of forgiveness. He said, " We do not
present our supplications before thee for our righteous-
iiess but for thy great mercies. O Lord, hear ; 0 Lord,
forgive ; O Lord, hearken and do ; defer not, for thine
own sake, 0 my God : for thy city and thy people are
called by thy name." Dan. ix. 18, 19. If Daniel had
known that Christ had reconciled God to the Jews, and
purchased his favor tor them by entering into a covenant
with God to make satisfaction to law and justice in their
stead, he no doubt, would have availed himself of that
plea.

If the prophets and apostles did know that Christ
purchased the grace of God, and that every blessing
that men receive from God is on account of his sureti-
ship, why'did they not refer to it in their prayers ? and
make it a plea at the throne of grace 1 The men who
believe in surety-righteousness in the present day, are
compelled by their conscience to ask of God every
blessing for Christ sake.

The Roman Catholics believe that they receive many
blessings by means of the Virgin Mary, and therefore
frequently pray to her to intercede for them.

OF SURETY RIGHTEOUSXESSi 217

^rhei'e is no account in scripture of any of the pro-
',jhets or apostles asking any blessing for Christ^s sake.
But if they knew that all blessings were purchased by
Christ, and are conferred for his sake, honesty and
piety would have constrained them to teach it to their
hearers, and acknowledge it to their God.

Ephes. iv. 32, has been brought to prove that God
forgives sin for Christ's sake. " And be ye kind one
to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even
as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." This text
is wrong translated, the Greek enchristt\ which is here
rendered ybr Clirisfs sake, is in every other place in the
N^ew Testament rendered in Christ. If this rendering
is to be understood according to the common system of
surety righteousness, it destroys the doctrine of forgive-
ness altogether. Surety righteousness teaches that
God poured out his wrath on his Son in our room and
stead, in consequence of which he forgives us, so ac-
rordin;; to this doctrine we must never forgive our bro-
ther till we take vengeance on s-ome innocent person
instead of him. If this is the way God forgives, and it
we must imitate him, then we must never forgive our
guilty enemies till we wreak our vengeance on some
one of our innocent friends, that is, on a beloved son, if
v,€ have one.

I now ask, is it possible that such conduct would be
:?leasing to God ? Then let us not charge him v.ith it,

19

318 J3IPUTED RIGHTEOUSXESr

CHAPTER YI,

ox IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Imputed righteousness, and surety righteousness are
uearly the same. If Christ, as our surety, was righte^
ous instead of us, then God will account, or impute that
righteousness to us.

The righteousness of Christ consisted in his righteou?
disposition, and his righteous acts : he was holy, harm-
less, undetiled and separate from sinners. JVow if God
should impute that character to any sinner in the world,
it would be a false imputation. It would be the same
as to say, a very unholy, mischievous, corrupt person.
IS holy, harmless, undetiled, and separate from sinners.
To impute the temper of the gentlest lamb to the most
ferocious tiger, would not be more false. To impute
ihe color of the whitest man in Europe to the blackest
one in Africa, would not be farther from the truth.
Christ's righteousness consists in the sum of his right-
eous deeds. He preached, \n-ought miracles, and died
for the salvation of m.en. Now, if all this was imputed
to a sinner born in the eighteenth century, would it be
true ? Could it be said in truth that any one of us per-
tbrmed those miracles, and died on the cross ? Again,
if these righteous doings of the Saviour were imputed
10 us, what good would it do us 1 Holiness is moral
health, and unholiness is moral disease ; and it would
do no more good to impute the holiness of one person
to another, than it would to impute the health of one
person to another.

Christ represents himself as a physician ; hence he say^,
** They that are whole need not a physician ; but they
that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sin-
ners to repentance." Luk. v. 31. 32. Mat. ix. 12.
\Now if we should be sick, and send for a physician,
what would we want of him ? would we want him to be
a weil man in our stead 1 o? would we want him to

l!uPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 215

nppiy his means and make us weH 1 If* all the men on
■earth, and God himself should impute the well man's
health to me, it would do me no good.

Heaven is holy, and God has said, " Be ye holy, for
I am holy." 1 Pet. i. 16. Levit. xi. 44. And again
he has said, " Follow peace with all men, and holiness,
without which no man shall see the Lord." Heb. xii.
14. If then we cannot see God without we are holy
ourselves, what good would it do us to account, or im-
pute the holiness of some other person to us ?

Christ did not come to be righteous instead of us, but
he came to make us righteous : hence the Angel said
to Joseph, " Thou shalt call his name JESUS, for he
shall save his people from their sins. Mat. i. 21.

When Christ was on earth he never once told the
people that they should be saved by imputed righteous-
ness ; but on the contrary, when they inquired of him
the way of salvation, he always told them that they must
be righteous themselves. The answer of Christ to the
man that inquired of him vvhat he should do to be saved,
sufficfently proves this. " There came one running,
and kneeled to him, and asked him, good Master what
shall I do that I may inherit eternal life 1" Thy blessed
Jesus did not tell this inquiring soul that he must put
his whole trust in imputed righteousness : but hear his
answer : " Thou knowest the commandments, do noi
commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear
ialse witness, defraud not, honor thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these
have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus behold-
ing him, loved hini, and said uato him, one thing thou
lackest : go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give
to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven : and
come, take up thy cross and follow me." Mark x. 17.
19, 20, 21. If Jesus had known that a firm belief in
the imputed righteousness of Christ was essential to
this man's salvation, he surely would have told him so.
1 will quote a few more passages to show how Christ
taught the way of salvation. " And behold, a certain
lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master,
what shall I do to inherit eternal life ? He said unto
him, what is v,ritten in the law ? how rcadest thou ?

220 DIFUTED PvIGHTEOUSrsES^^

nnd he ansvreiing said, thou shalt love the Lord ih)
God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and witii
all thy strength, and with all thy mind ; and thy neigh-
bor as thyself. And he said unto him, thou hast an-
swered right : this do, and thou shalt live." Luk. x.
25, 26, 27, 28. Jesus did not tell the lawyer that he
would inherit eternal lite by the righteousness of Christ
being imputed to him, but he told him that he must be a
good man himself.

It is natural for us to suppose that Christ, in his ser-
mon on the Mount, would teach the true way of salva-
tion, but m that sermon he has taught nothing about
imputed righteousness. He commences his sermon by
pronouncing blessings on certain characters : he says.
^' Blessed are the meek. Blessed are the pure in heart.
Blessed are the peace-makers, &c." But he never
says, *' Blessed are the persons who firmly depend on
the imputed righteousness of Christ for their justifica-
tion before God." If such a dependance is essential
to the salvation of sinners, Christ has never taught them
enough to save their souls, because we are in no part of
• he holy scriptures taught to depend on the righteous-
ness of Christ being imputed to us.

The whole of his sermon on the Mount consists in
teaching our duties to God and each other, and in ex-
horting us to abstain from vile and evil passions : and
at the conclusion of the sermon he makes the following
remarkable observation : " Therefore v.hosoever hear-
eth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken
him unto a wise man which built his house upon a rock :
A.nd the rain descended, and the floods came, and the
winds blew, and beat upon that house and it fell not, for
it was founded upon a rock." Here the Saviour closes
his sermon without teaching his hearers any other means
or condition of salvation, but that of obedience.

By the parable of the prodigal son, Christ shows thr-
principle on which God will receive repenting sinners :
but in that case there is no account that the father re-
quired any substitute to suffer instead of the prodigal,
in order to appease his wrath, nor is there the slightest
intimation that he imputed the righteousness of any
other person to his profligate son : all that was neces-

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 221

sary for the son, in order to be remstated in the affee-
lions and house of his father, was to forsake his folly,
return to his father, and confess his faults. If God will
receive sinners on no other condition but that of suret}
righteousness, this parable does not fairly illustrate the
case ; he should have said that the father whipped the
elder son in the room and stead of the prodigal ; and
then imputed the obedience of the elder son to the
younger one.

By the parable of the sovrcr, Christ explains on what
principle we may expect to be saved. Speaking of the
seed, he says, " but that on the good ground are they,
which in an honest and good heart, having heard the
v/ord, keep if, and bring forth fruit with patience. Luk.
viii. 15. Here he clearly shovrs that salvation depends
on obedience, and says nothing about imputed righte-
ousness. I now ask what good would it do the stony,
or thorny ground, to impute the crop of the good ground
to it 1 Would not the stones, or the thorns still be there '
Besides if it were imputed, it would be a false imputa-
tion, because the good crop v»o«ld be standing on the
;^ood ground, while on the other there would be nothing
but thorns, or stones.

To impute, is to ascribe, to charge, or to account, Ii
>oems to me that no honest man should want any right-
eousness imputed to him but his own.

What would we think of a preacher that would im-
pute or ascribe to his preaching, great revivals of reli-
gion that took place before he professed religion ? what
v/ould we think of a statesman that would try to have
imputed to him, great and popular measures which he
had no hand in framing, or to whieh he was opposed ?
And what would we tliink of an old tory that would im-
pute to himself the services of Green, of Lee, or ol
Washington ?

To impute health, learning, or riches to me, that I do
not possess, may serve to deceive the ignorant, and
make them think better of me than I deserve, but it can
do me no real good : so I think to impute righteousness
to me, whether it be righteous principles, righteous dis-
position, or righteous actions, which do not belong to
.lie, can do me no good. To impute the righteousneg.?
19*

222 IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.

of Christ to me, cannot raise me in God's esteem ; he-
knows how good and how bad I am : and it is impossi-
ble that he can esteem me to be any better than I really
am.

In the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, Christ by the
parable of the talents, shows the grounds on which men
will be justified in the day of judgement. " And so he
that had received five talents came and brought other
five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five
talents ; behold, I have gained besides them five talents
more. His lord said unto him, well done thou good
and faithful servant : thou hast been faithful over a few
things, I will make thee ruler over many things : enter
thou into the joy of thy lord." If there can be no jus-
tification before God but on the ground of imputed
righteousness, this pai-able does not give a fair repre-
sentation of the case, because it holds out the idea that
each one will be judged according to his own works.
To suit the plan of imputed righteousness, the lord's
answer to the servant would have been better written
thus : " 0 you ill doing unfaithful servant, although you
have occupied your talents and gained as many more,
yet you were very faulty, and I never would have for-
given you, had it not been that your surety has, in your
stead, suffered all the punishment that was due to you.
and has thereby appeased my wrath, and be it known
that I impute his righteousness to you, and on that ac-
count, and no other, you stand justified."

In the following parable, Jesus shows on what ground
his Father will forgive sins : " Therefore is the king-
dom of heaven hkened unto a certain king, which
would take account of his servants. And when he had
begun to reckon, one was brought unto him which owed
him ten thousand talents : but for as much as he had
not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his
wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to
be made. The servant therefore fell down, and wor-
shipped him, saying. Lord have patience with me, and
I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was
moved with compassion, and loosed him and forgave
iiim the debt." Here Christ does not say, that there
was a surety stepped in and paid the debt instead oi

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 223

ilie servant. If a surety had paid this debt, his lord
could not have made him pay it over again : but be-^
cause he refused to have compassion on his fellow-ser-
vant, his lord made him pay the whole debt. And
Christ says, " So, likewise, shall my heavenly Father
do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not
every one his brother their trespasses." Mat. xvhi.
23—27. 35. If it is a fact that God the Father never
does forgive without the debt is paid by a surety, Christ
has, in this parable, misrepresented him, because he
has said as plainly as human speech will admit of, that
he forgives without having the debt paid.

" Even as David also describeth the blessedness of
flic man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without
works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are for-
given, and whose sins are covered." Rom. iv. 6, 7,
This text has often been brought to proTC that the right-
eousnesss of Christ is imputed to sinners, but it only
pro ves that their own faith is imputed to them for righteous-
ness. The 7th verse seems to have been designed by
the writer, as an explanation of the Cth. Thus he says^
'* Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the
man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without
works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered." He does not
say, blessed are they whose iniquities have been paid
for by the blood of Christ. In the third verse of this
chapter it is said, that " Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness." And in
the 11th verse it is said, that " He received the sign of
circumcision; a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had, being yet uncircumcised ; that he might
be the Father of all them that believe, though they be
not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed
to them also." That is, that righteousness might be
imputed to them, in the same way that it was imputed
to Abraham. His faith was counted to him for right-
eousness, and their faith will be imputed to them for
righteousness. But it is not said in this chapter, nor in
the Bible, that the righteousness of Chiist is imputed to
any person.

'-^ And this is his name whereby he sbiill be called;

^24 IJIPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS*

THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Jei.
\xiii. 6. If this text will prove that his righteousness
is imputed to us, then the following text will prove that
the righteousness of Jerusalem is also imputed to us.
'' In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem
shall dwell safely : and this is the name wherewith she
shalfbe called, the Lord our righteousness." Jer. xxxiii.
16. If because he is called our righteousness, his right-
eousness is imputed to us, then his peace must also be
imputed to us, for in the following text he is called our
peace : " For he is our peace, who hath made both
one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition
between us," Ephes. ii. 14. He is called our life.
** When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall
yo also appear with him in glory." Col. iii. 4. V/e
iiave just as good evidence to prove that his life and
peace are imputed to us, as that his righteousness is. —
To impute his peace to us while we are in distress, or
to impute his life to us, while we are in a state of spirit-
ual death, would do us just as much good as it would do
us to impute his righteousness to us, while we are in sin.
He is our peace by reconciling us to God, and filling
our souls with peace ; by imparting to us eternal life,
ho becomes our life ; and by writing the law of God on
our hearts, and implanting his righteousness there, he
becomes the Lord our rto-JiieGUsness.

The following text has been often quoted to prove
the doctrine of imputed righteousness : " But of him
a^.-e ye in Christ Jesus, who, of God, is made unto us
wisdom and righteousness, and sanctificaiion and re-
demption." 1 Cor. i. 30. If this text will prove that
his righteousness is imputed to us, it vvill also prove that
his wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, arc imputed
to us. That is, it proves that if he was righteous in our
room and stead, then he was icise in our room and
stead, sanctified in our room and stead, and experienced
redemption in our room and stead. Now if all this be
true, what good can it do us 1 But for him to be wise,
to be sanctified, or redeemed instead of us, would do
us just as much good as it would do us for him to be
righteous instead of us. He is, no doubt, made unto
■.i.« righteousness the same way he is made uuto us ms-

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 225

ncniy &c. He is made unto us wisdom by teaching us,
and making us wise; he is made unto us sanctification by
sanctifying us ; he is made unto us redemption by re-
deeaiing us from sin, misery, and death ; and he is made
unto us righteousness by making us righteous.

If men are to be justified, and finally saved by the
righteousness of Christ imputed to them, then they will
not be judged, nor rewarded, according to their own
works, but according to the righteousness of Christ,
which he wrought out for them. This doctrine flatly
contradicts the Bible : that holy book abundantly proves
that every one will be judged according to his own
works. David says, " x\lso unto thee, 0 Lord, be-
hngeth mercy ; for thou renderest to every man ac-
cordincj to his works." Psal. Ixii. 12. Solomon says.
'' xVnd shall not he render to every man accordinoj to his
works'?" Prov. xxiv. 12. Paul says, God will render
to every man according to his deeds. Rom. ii, 6. —
Jeremiah says of God, that his " Eyes are open upon
all the ways of the sons of men ; to give every one
according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his
doings." Jer. xxxii. 19. God himself says, " I, the
Lord, search the heart, / try the reins, even to give
every man according to his ways, and according to the
fruit of his doings." Jer. xvii. 10. Jesus Christ says,
•' All the churches shall know that I am he which
searcheth the reins and hearts ; and I will give unto
every one of you according to your works." Rev. ii. 23,
Again he says, " Behold, I come quickly ; and my re-
ward is with me, to give every man according as his
work shall be." Rev. xxii. 12. And again the blessed
Jesus says, " For the Son of man shall come in the
glory of his Father with his angels ; and then he shall
reward every man according to his works." Matt,
xvi. 27.

People may impute the righteousness of Christ to
themselves now, and solace themselves ^vith the hope
tliat he as their surety has been righteous in their room
and stead, but when the day of judgement comes they
will find their mistake. In the great day, when God
shall judge the secrets of all men by Jesus Christ, ac-
i-'ording to the gospel, then those who shall have obeyed

226 IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS.

that gospel ; that is, repented of their sins, and done t<^
ull their fellow-creatures all things whatsoever the\
■^voLild that others should do to them, and continued till
death loving God with all their hearts, and their neigh-
bors as themselves, will be honorably and gloriousl}
Welcomed into eternal happiness. The judge will not
say, " Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world: For I have fulfilled the law, and made satisfac-
tion to divine justice in your stead, reconciled God to
you, and for you purchased his favor, and now unto
you impute all my righteousness, for the sake of which,
and for no other cause, I welcome you into the kingdom
prepared for you from the toundation of the world." —
O no, neither surety, nor imputed righteousness will
Chen be taken into the account. IMen may rest their
souls on those doctrines now, but as sure as Jesus
Christ is a true teacher, they will do no good in the day
of judgement.

But at that day the blessed Saviour will say to the
good people, " Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit
the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation ol
the world : for I was an hungered, and ye gave mc
meat : I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink : I was a
stranger, and ye took me in : naked, and ye clothed
me : I was sick, and ye visited me : I was in prison,
and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous an-
swer him, saying. Lord, when saw we thee a hungered,
and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? &c. —
And the King shall answer, and say unto them, verilj I
say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one oi
the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto
me." Mat. xxv. 34—40.

Here it is necessary to observe that we will not
be judged by our opinions; he will not welcome us
into everlasting life for being Trinitarians, nor Unita-
rians, nor will he welcome us into heaven because we
believe that Christ purchased the grace of God for
men, nor v»'ill we be saved for believing in the doctrint
of free grace without any purchase. In that day the
pass-word will not be ^'\ Veil believed'^ nor " iVell said,-"
l#ut it v.'ill be " Well done good and faithful servant.- -

" ijJPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. 227

There is ouc thing more that we should carefully ob-
serve relative to the final judgement, and that is that no
acts of the human family will be rewarded in that day,
but acts of benevolence or kindness to our fellow-crea-
tures ; of course our prayers, our songs, and our
preaching, will only be taken into the account so far as
they are really acts of benevolence. When religious
exercises are prompted by a principle of gain, of popu-
larity, or of partyism, they are an abomination to the
Lord. *' But to do good, and to communicate, forget
not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." —
Heb. xiii. 16. Jesus says, 'SSell that ye have, and
give alms ; provide yourselves bags which wax not old,
a treasure in the heavens, that faileth not, where no
thief approachelh, neither moth corrupteth.*' Luk.
xii. 33.

In that great day, those on the left hand will not be
condemned for Adam's sin. The judge will not say tu
them, " Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared
for the Devil and his angels, because old Adam com-
mitted a sin, and I imputed it to you." ]S'or will he
drive them down to hell for their erroneous opinions. ^ —
He will not tell them that they must be damned for be-
ing Calvinists, Unitarians, Universalists, JevvS, Ma-
hometants, or any other denomination ; but their un-
kindness to their fellow-creatures, is all the crime that
will be charged against them.

3^fi IMPTJIIXG SIN TO CHRIST

CHAPTER VII,

OP IMPUTING SIN TO CHRIST.

*' Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 Joh. iii. 4.
To impute sin to any person is to charge him with
a wicked action. Clirist could not, in truth, be charged
with any wicked action, because he did no sin, neither
was guile found in his mouth. Sin is sometimes taken
for depravity of mind, or naughtiness of disposition, but
no such depravity could, in truth, be imp.ited to the im-
maculate Jesus, he was holy and undeiiled. Neither
righteousness nor sin is transferable, because they both
respect practice and character, and it is impossible that
the actions of one person can become the actions of
another person. It is just as impossible for two people
to transfer their actions to each other, as it is for theni
to transfer their persons to each other. And if we im-
pute the actions of one person to another, it is altogeth-
er as false as if we should say that the one person is the
other. If we say that Napoleon was the author
of the Newtonian system, and that Isaac Nev/ton
commanded the French at the battle of Moscow, it
fs quite as untrue as it would be to say that Nev,ton v/as
Napoleon, and Napoleon was Newton. Just so if we
impute the sins of a wicked man to Christ, or the right-
eousness of Christ to a wicked man, it is altogether as
untrue as it would be to say that Christ is a certain
wicked man, or that some certain wicked man is Christ.

It is equally untrue to say that the guilt of sin was
imputed to the Saviour, because it is impossible for a
person that never committed sin to feel guilty. To im-
pute guilt to a person, is to charge him with being guilty
of sin. God would not charge Christ with guilt, be-
cause he knew that he was not guilty. If he had been
tiharged with guilt, the charge would have been false;
and the Holy God would not make a false imputation.

The advocates of imputed sin commonly believe .that

IIhPL'TING sin to CHRIST. 229

Christ is God in every respect equal -vvith tlie Father :
i now ask if it would be proper to impute sin to the
supreme God? If God imputed sin to Christ, while
ut the same time Christ was the supreme God, then the
supreme God has imputed sin to himself. If God
knows that he is not the author of sin, it is impossible
ihat he could impute, or charge it to himself: but if he
has imputed it to Christ, and Christ is not a distinct be-
ing from God, but is only one of the three persons o(
whom he consists, or in whom he exists, then he has
imputed sin to himself, or at least to one third part of
his own essence.

If it be contended that Christ is not merely the third
part of God's essence, but that he is the whole supreme-
God, then if sin is imputed to him, it is imputed to the
whole supreme God. If so, God has cleared man*
kind of sin, and taken all the blame on himself. And,
in fact, if he has ordained all things whatsoever conies
to pass, he ought to impute all sin and guilt to himself.

The advocates of this doctrine say, that sin w^as im-
puted to Christ in order that he might siuTer the penaltv
of the law, which was the wrath of God, in the room oi
sinners, and that accordingly the wrath of God was
poured out on him in our stead. But it appears to me
impossible that God ever could have been angry with
iiis Son. We cannot possibly conceive how any beinir
can be angry or ^^roth with another, without ^ihe other
has offended him, or is in some way offensive to liim.
Surely Christ in his conduct never offended God, and
as he is the brightness of his Father's glory, and the ex-
press image of his person, he never could in his nature,
or disposition, be offensive to his Father. - If Christ
never offended God, bow could God, in reality, be an-
gty with him 1 To say that God poured out his'wrath on
his Son, but never was the least offernJed with him, is
?he same as to say that God was very wroth with his
Son, but, at the same time, not the least angry with
him. But one will say, that as Christ took it upon him
to die for sinners, then he legally incurred all the wrath
of God that was due to them for their sins. Now I
ask, was his offering himself up as a sacriiice to God
for our salvation, au act of rebellion against hi:; Father's
20

230 IMPUTING SIN TO CHRIST/'

•will ? If it was not, then his Father could not be air-
gry with him for doing it. The scriptures abundantly
prove that he suffered in obedience to his Father ; of
course his Father, instead of being wroth with him on
that account, must have loved him the better. This
appears to have been Christ's own opinion : hence he
says, therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay
down my life that I might take it again. Joh. x. 17.

The Son of God is the brightness of his Father's
glory, and the express image of his person. If God
was wroth with Christ, he was angry with the bright-
ness of his own glory, and the express image of his own
person, which is the same as to be angry with himself.
The believers in imputed sin commonly hold that Christ
is the supreme God. If Christ is the supreme God,
and if his Father did pour out his wrath on him instead
of sinners, then the supreme God must have poured out
his wrath on the supreme God, that is, he must have
poured out his wrath on himself, in order to reconcile
himself to sinners.

But it will be said that God only poured out his
wrath on the humanity of Christ. This seems impos-
sible, because if (as the Presbyterian Confession of Faith
says) his Godhead and manhood were joined together,
never to be separated, but to continue two distinct na-
tures, and one person forever, I cannot perceive how
one part of his person could be punished without the
s\hole person being conscious of pain. If one member
suffers, the whole body suffers. A person is one indi-
vidual conscious being. If the human nature really
and properly belongs to Christ's person, whenever it
suffered his whole person must have been conscious of
pain. If the human nature of his person suffered, and
the divine nature of his person suffered not, then his
person must have been afflicted with severe pain, and at
the same time felt no pain at all.

If, as the Confession of Faith says, his human and
divine natures were never to be separated, then they
must have suffered together, and died together. But
then we ask, if his divinity was the supreme God, how
could it die ? And again, if nothing but the humanity
died^f, how could it pay an infinite penalty ? or rnak^ as.

IMPUTING SIN TO CHRIST. 231

infinite satisfaction to an infinite law, and pay an infi-
nite debt 1 If the divinity of Christ is the supreme God.
and if his human nature really belongs to his person,
then, according to this doctrine, God must have imput-
ed the sins of mankind to his own person, and also
poured out his wrath on his own person.

If the supreme God has taken on him human na-
ture, he has changed, and is not now what he once was :
anterior to the conception of Christ he was simply a
divine person, but since that time his person has been
as really human as it is divine. The scripture says.
God is unchangeable, but this doctrine says, that ever
since the days of Augustus Csezar he has had a nature
added to his person that he never had before. Trinita-
rians must admit this difficulty, or else make Christ's
human nature without beginning. And if that is a fact,
-then he never took on him human nature, because he
always had it on him from all eternity.

■Vy2 CHRIST BiiARIXG THE WKATH OF GOr

CHAPTER VIII,

OF CHRIST BEARING THE 1VR.»TH OF GOD.

1 now aslv llie candid reader, do you believe that God
ever did hate Jesus Christ 1 Do you think he ever was
in his heart raigry, or wroth with the blessed Jesus '
To both these questions every pious mind will, proba-
bly, answer no. Then if God never was wroth with hi^^
,Son, how could he pour his wroth out on him in the
room and stead of sinners ? If we should admit tha'
the divine Being did pour out his wrath on his Son.
what good could it do mankind ? Certainly it could nor
make the Almighty love us any better than he would
have done. All rational beings love others according
us they appear to them more or less lovely. And if God
was angry with his Son, and did kill him, it could not
change iiis opinion of us. If it \yas a meritorious act
for Christ to die ; and if it was a meritorious act in God
to kill him, still he knows it was no act of ours. Tht
sufierings of Christ have not deceived God respecting
us, so as to raise us in his esteem above what we de-
serve. He knows exactly how bad, and hov/ good v/e
arcj and what the Saviour has done for us can raise us
in his esteem and favor only as it graciously affects
our hearts, and makes us better people.

As it is impossible that the sufferings cf Christ couki
'Icceive God, and make him think of us better than W(
deserve, so it is equally impossible that they could hav(
reconciled him to sin, or made him more disposed to
approbate our wickedness than he otherwise v;ould
have been. He is as much opposed to sin now as he
was before the corning of Christ ; and instead of being
more indulgent to sinners, he is more strict with them
under the gospel than he was under the law ; because
*liey have more light now than they had then. Hence.
Christ says, "If I had not come and spoken unto
Ihem, thev had not had sin : but nov.- they have no clcaK

CHRIST BEARING THE WRATH OP GOD, 233

for their sin." Joh. xv. 22. The advocates of imputed
righteousness think very differently from Christ on this
subject. They think that if he had not come, they
would have had a great deal of sin, for which they
would have all been damned, but now that he has come,
and suffered as a surety in their room and stead, he has
wrought out a complete righteousness, which being im-
puted to them, will serve as a cloak or covering for all
their sins.

The difference between him and them on the subject
is this ; he holds out the idea that in consequence of
what he has done, they have no cloak for their sin, while
on the other hand they affirm that in virtue of what he
has done for them, they are furnished with a cloak of
imputed righteousness, which will completely cover all
their sins.

Speaking of the former dark ages of the world, Paul
says, " The times of this ignorance God winked at.
but now commandeth all men every where to repent.'-
Act. xvii. 30. And Jesus says, it shall be more tolera-
ble for Tyre and Sidon, and Sodom and Gomorrah,
in the day of judgement, than for those who have slight-
ed his gospel, and that the queen of the south, and the
inhabitants of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgement
and condemn gospel sUghters.

Some people say that God was not really angry with
his Son as an individual, but being angry with mankind,
and Christ having become their surety, he poured out
his wrath on him in their stead. If this be true, the
sufferings of Christ must have been a most exemplary
display of God's indignation, and wrath against the hu-
man family. But the scriptures represent his sufferings
as a manifestation of God's love to us. Paul says,
*' But God commendeth his love towards us, in that
while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom.
v. 8. John says, Herein is love, not that we loved
God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the
propitiation for our sins." 1 Joh. iv. 10. If God
poured his wrath on his Son instead of us, these pas-
sages must be false ; if that doctrine be true, they
would have been more properly ^vritte^ thus : *' But
Ood display eth his wrath towards us, in that while we
20*

;-!34 CHKIST BEAr.INC; THE T>T.ATn or GOD

were yet sinners, he killed his Son instead of us.-' And
if it is a fact that God poured out his wrath on Christ,
and killed him instead of sinners, because he was an-
gry widi them ; then the passage in 1 Joh.^iv. 10, woulci
have expressed the cause of his sufferings much better
if it had been written thus : *' Herein is wrath, not thai
we were wroth with God, because we were not then ii^
existence, but that he was wroth v.ith us, and killed his
own Son to reconcile himself to us."

Christ did not come into this world to procure thf
Jove of God to the human family : but on the contrary.
it w^as the love that God had to mankind, which caused
?iim to send Christ to be their Saviour. This is evident
from the words of Christ himself. He says, '' For God
so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son.
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, bu*
liave everlasting life." Joh. iii. 16. He does not sa\
ihat God was so angry with the v\oild, that he poured
out his wrath on his own Son instead of it.

Speaking of the sufferings of Christ, John says,
•• Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid
down his life for us." 1 Joh. iii. 16. Again he says.
'• In this was manifested the love of God toward us, be-
i!ause that God sent his only begotten Son into the world
jhat we might Uve through him." Chap. iv. 9. If the
death of Christ was occasioned by the N'iTath of God
oeing poured out on him in the room and stead of sin-
ners, it is not at all probable that John would have men-
tioned it as a manifestation of God's love to us ; but on
the contrary he would have been more naturally led to
say, '• In this was manifested the wrath of God toward
iis, because that he poured it out on his Son instead of
as."

It Christ drank the cup of God's wrath, his disciples
must have drunken it also, for, " Jesus said unto them,
ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with."
Mark x. 39, That he here alludes to his sufferings
there can be no doubt, because the same night he was
betrayed, when his soul was exceedingly sorrowful even
\mto death ; he prayed, saying, " O my Father, if it be
j>ossible. let thi? cup pass from mc" Mut. ^cxyi^ 3r».

JURIST BEARING WITInE?.-, iSo

\gain he says, '• I have a baptism to be baptized with :
imd how am I straitened till it be accomplished !" Luk,
xii. 50. Paul was willing to suffer the loss oi" all things
that he might know the " fello^vship of his sufferings,
being made conformable to his death." Phil. iii. 10.
That Paul suffered the same kind of afflictions that
Christ did, is plain from Col. i. 24. '" Who now re-
joice in my sutierings for you, and fill up that which i.s
behind of the afflictions oi^ Christ in my flesh lor his
body's sake, which is the church." Paul and Timothy
hold out the idea that they experienced the same kind
of sutTering that Christ did ; they say, " For as the suf-
ferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also
aboundelh by Christ. And whether we be afflicted, 2/
is for your consolation and salvation." 2 Cor. i. 5, 6.
If the sufferings of Ciiiist were occasioned by the wrath
of God, Paul and Timothy must iiave borne the wrath
of God, because they, in their measure, bore the samt
affliction? that Christ borr-

136 PURCHASED GRACE.

CHAPTER IX.

THOUGHTS ON THE DOCTRINE OF PURCHASED GRACL.

It is believed and preached by many good people thai
ihe blessed Jesus purchased the grace, or favor of God
for mankind, that is, that all the blessings, both tempo-
ral and spiritual, which we receive from God, were
purchased by Jesus Christ, and that they are now con-
ferred on us as so many blessings merited by him.

If this doctrine be true, God has never given any
blessings to mankind, they have all been purchased,
and paid for, by Christ. I have several reasons for not
believing this doctrine. The first reason I have for not
believing it, is, because it is not in the Bible. It is
no where said in that holy book that Christ purchased
any favor or blessing from God, for mankmd. My se-
cond reason is, because it is impossible that Christ
could purchase any thing from'^God : for if he is a created
and dependant being, he could purchase nothing from
his Father, because he and all he had belonged to him
already : and if he is the uncreated self-existent God,
he certainly could purchase nothing from himself.

The third objection I have to this doctrine is, it stripes
God of grace and mercy altogether, because, if pardon
and every other blessing are paid for by Jesus Christ,
none of them can be given to us by the Father. But
the scripture represents the Father as a God of grace
and mercy.

Paul says, '^ But God, who is rich in mercy, for his
great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were
dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christy
(by grace ye are saved.") Ephes. ii. 4, 5. He doe^
not say that God is rich in wrath, and would bestow no
mercy, and that by the merits of Christ we are saved.
Paul says, God is not worshipped with men's hands, as
though he needed any thing ; " seeing he giveth to all,
life, £ind breath, and all things. Act. .xvii. 25. Be

PURCHASED GRACE, 137

Aid not say that God sold to Christ, life, and breath, and
all things, and then Christ ga\ ■: ihem lo us. " By grace-
are ye saved through faith :,and that not of yourselves ;
it is the gift of God." Ephe.-:. ii. S. As sure as this
text is true, the grace which saves us was not pur-
chased, but was the gift of God. *' For the wages oi
sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life, through
Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. vi. 23. He does not
nay that eternal life was purchased from God by Jesus
Christ our Lord. But if that is the v/ay that we receive
eternal life, Paul has entirely misrepresented it.

James says, " Every good gift, and every perfec?
gift, is from abave, and cometh down from the Father
of lights, with Avhom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning." Jam. i. 17^ This text abundantly proves
that no goody nor. perfect gift that we receive \vas pur-
chased by Christ, because the. Apostle says, they all
came dov.n from the Father of lights. It cannot be-
that the Father of lights bestows these blessings on us
because lie has been reconciled to us by the sufferings
of Christ, for if that was the case, then the sufferings of
Christ must have changed him: but the text says he
knows '' no variableness, neither shadow oi turning. '^^

Paul ascribes our justiiication to the free grace of
God. " Being justified freely by his grace, through the
redemption that is in Jesus Christ." Rom. iii. 24.
He does not say we are justified by the imputed right-
eousness of Christ. '• Xov/ we have received, not the
.spirit of the v.orid, but the Spirit which is of God ; that
wc might Imow the things that are freely given to us of
God." 1 Cor. ii. 12. As sure as this text is the truth,
the blessings of the gospel were not purchased b\
Christ, but were freely given to us of God. God ha^
said, " I will give unto him that is athirst, of the foun-
tain of the water of life freely." Rev. xxi. 6. *' And
God, even our Father which hath loved us, and hath
given ^s everlasting consolation and good hope through
grace." 2 Thess. ii. 16. He does not say that this
consolation was purchased by the merits of Christ, but
lie says our heavenly Father gave it to us through grace.
''Thanks 6e unto God for his unspeakable gift." 2
Cor, ix. 1-5, If the blessings of the gospel had boeii

13s PURCHASED GRACE.

purchased by Christ, they would not have been called
(God's gift. If a man should buy a thing of you, and
pay you the full price for it, you could not in truth sa\
that you gave it to him.

If Christ purchased our pardon from God by suffer-
ing the demands of law and justice in our room and
stead, then the Father has never forgiven sin, but has
taken vengeance on our surety, and made him pay up
the last mite of sufferings that was due to us for our
sins.

If this doctrine be true, almost the whole scripture is
false, because both the Old and ^e\v Testaments abun-
dantly prove that God forgives sin. Isaiah says, ''Let
the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man
his thoughts : and let him return unto the Lord, and he
will have niercy upon him ; and to our God, for he will
abundantly pardon." Isa. Iv. 7. Chap, xxxlii. 24. I
will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sins
no more." Jer. xxxi. 34. '' And I will pardon all their
iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they
have transgressed against me." Jer. xxxiii. 8. " It
may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil
which I purpose to do unto them ; that they may return
every man from his evil way, that I may forgive their
iniquity and their sin." Jer. xxxvi. 3. " Blessed is
he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is cover-
ed." Psal. xxxii. 1. " T31ess the Lord, 0 my soul,
and forget not all his benefits : who forgiveth all thine
iniquities." Psal. ciii. 2, 3. " But there ?5 forgiveness
with thee, that thou mayest be feared." Psal. cxxx. 4.
'' If my people, which are called by my name, shall
humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and
turn from their wicked ways ; then I will hear from hea-
ven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."
2 Chron. vii. 14. " But thou art a God ready to par-
don, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great
kindness. Neh. ix. 17. Christ says, " All manner of
sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven
unto men." Mat. xii. 31. "■ If we confess our sins,
he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and ta
tJeanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 Joh. i. ?.

Purchased grace, 139

These are only a few of a great many passages, which
might be brought to prove that God forgives sin ; but if
the doctrine of purchasing pardon, or of making satis-
faction to God for sin be true, then all these passages
must be false.

If the Father and Son are one and the same being, or
if they are one in disposition and spirit, the Father must
be altogether as merciful, and forgiving, as the Son is ;
and the Son must be as just, and quite as much disposed
to punish sinners, as the Father is.

Christ says, " At that day ye shall ask in my name :
and I say not unto you that I will pray the Father for
you ; for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have
loved me, and have beheved that I came out from
God." Joh. xvi. 26, 27. Here he shows that there
was no need of purchasing grace from the father be-
'•ause the father loves men as well as the Son does.

'40 VITISFACTIOX TO JUSTICE

CHAPTER X.

OF CimiST MASIXC SATISFACTION TO DIVINE JC^TICE FOR SiMN'tK

The justice of God requires that we should all be
just, and love God with all our hearts, and our neighbor
as ourselves. Just so far as Christ makes us just and
holy, 6o far divine justice is satisfied with us, and no
farther. If we justly owe service to God, his justice
never will be saiistied while we are rebelUng against
hira. If we have transgressed the law of God, his
Justice never would require his innocent Soil to suffer
its penalty in our room : because justice never did re-
quire the innocent to be punished instead of the guilty.
Solomon says, '• // is not good to accept the person of
the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgement."
Prov. xviii. 5. Again he says, '* He that justifieth thu
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they
both are an abomination to the Lord." Prov. xvii. 15,
Cf God did condemn the innocent Saviour to bear his
wrath instead of the wicked, and does now justify those
wicked persons, because Christ was punished instead
of them, lie has done two things that are an abomhiation
to himself. God says, " Keep thee far from a false
matter ; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not ;
for I will not justify the wicked." Exod. xxiii. 7. —
Those who think Christ made satisfaction to justice for
sinners, think that God will justify the wicked by imput-
ing Christ's righteousness to them ; but in this text he
says he will not justifjj the wicked.

I do not think Christ ever made any satisfaction to
God tor sin. To say that satisfaction has been made
lo God, is the same as to say that he has been injured,
and then compensated for the injury. But it is impos-
sible for any being in the universe, either to injure or
compensate the Almighty. Elihu said to Job, " If thou
sinnest, what doest thou against him ? or if thy trans-
gressions be multinlied. what doest thou unto him ? If

OF SATISFYING JUSTICE. 2-i 1

■iiou be ligbteoLis, what givest thou him 1 or what re'-
ceiveth he of thy hand t Thy wickedness may hurt a
man as thou art, and thy righteousness may profit the
Son of man." Job. xxxv. 6, 7, 8; David speaking
in aUusion to Christ, says, '' 0 my soul, thou hast said
unto the Lord, thou art my Lord : my goodness extend-
eth not to thee ; but to the Saints that are in the earth.'*
Psal. xvi. 2, 3.

The doctrine of purchased grace is inconsistent with
all the conditional promises in the Bible ; because our
complying with, or rejecting those conditions, can have
no effect on the purchase. If Christ made satisfaction
.to law and justice for all my sins, both original and ac»
tual, and if I stand justified from them all in conse-
quence of his active and passive obedience imputed to
me, I am sure of heaven whether I live a virtuous or a
wicked life. It will not do to say he paid the debt for
me on condition that I w ill believe it, because my be-
lieving, or disbelieving, can have no effect on the fact.
[fit is false, believing it will not make it true ; and if it is
true, disbelieving it will not make it false. This doctrine
makes faith, and good works, if not useless, at least su-
perfluous, according to it our justification before God
does not depend on faith, nor good works, but wholly
on the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. This
doctrine strikes at the foundation of all morality, if it h^:
true, the favor of God, and a place at his right hand
Cannot be obtained by faith and good works, but de-
pend entirely on things beyond our control ; things that
happened long before we came into existence.

If divine justice required Christ to be killed instead
' 'f sinners, it certainly could not condemn the men who
put him to death, seeing they only did what justice re-
quired to be done. But Peter charged the murder of
Christ upon the Jews as a very wicked action.

If Christ made satisfaction to law and justice for all
ihe sins of the whole human family, by sufTering as?
their surety all that they deserve to suffer for their sins,
then the. whole human family must^be saved ; none of
ihem can ever be punished by law or justice for their
-ins ; because justice never can require a debt, that has
oeen paid, to be paid over again. This contradicts the
21

212 OF satisfVing justici:.

scripture ; that book abundantly teaches that those -who
die in their sins will be punished in hell according to
their crimes. Some people to evade this difficulty as-
sevt that the Saviour only died to purchase salvation for
apart of mankind, and that those who go to hell are the
reprobates for whom no purchase was made : but the
scripture is against them ; that book plainly proves that
he died for all, and that too in the same sense.

Some, to evade the difficulty of universal salvation,
say that although Christ, as our surety, paid the debt to
the Father, v/e now owe it to the surety, and if we do
not believe, love, and obey him, he will send us to hell.
If this be so, I ask, what good has his suretiship done
us ? If he requires us to obey the law, or suffer the pen-
alty, the debt might as well have remained in the hand
of the original creditor. In fact, on the principles ot
Trinitarianism, I can see no valuable purpose that could
be effected by Christ's suffering as a substitute instead
of sinners ; they think God is so just that he could not
forgive sinners without taking vengeance on an inno-
cent person instead of them : and that Christ, as our
surety, redeemed us from under the stroke of God's
justice, and has taken us into his own protection : and
then they inform us that although he is in every respect
exactly like his Father, and altogether as great and just
as he is, and still there is no Mediator between us and
him. If the Father and the Son are the same identical
"Being, then the purchase is all a farce, there has no Me-
diator interfered between, God and us, the whole tragedy
of Christ's sufferings was nothing but God acting on
himself. But if Christ is a distinct Being from the
Father, and coequal, coessential, and coeternal with
liim, and in every respect exactly like him, then there is
just as much need of a Mediator between him and us-,
as there can be for one between God and us.

That God is just, can be no reason why he should
not forgive sin. It is no violation of justice for the
Governor to extend mercy to the guilty, when he can do
it agreeably to law, and without injuring any person.
IS the Governor should pardon a murderer, that he knew
would continue to commit murder, it might be an act-
of inj^stke to the conjmunitVj but if he oould cliange

OF SATISFYIXG JUSTICE. 243

biffl, and make him a useful citizen, then it would be
no act of injustice to extend mercy to him. When God
changes a sinner, and writes his law on his heart, and
makes him love God with all his heart, and his neighbor
as himself, every attribute of the divine Being har-
monizes in his pardon and salvation. Justice is satis-
fied, because the man is made just, and renders to God
and man the service that justice requires of him. —
Mercy is satisfied, because the man has received
mercy from God, has the principles of mercy planted in
his own heart, and has become merciful to all his fellow-
creatures. Truth, that was trampled on by the sinner,
is pleased with his conversion, because she has gained
a complete ascendency over his mind- Hohness ac-
cords with this change, because by it the man is cleansed
from sin, and made holy. And the attribute of divine
power shines far more conspicuously in the plan of free
grace, than it possibly can on the principle of purchas-
ed grace, because it must be a greater display of God's
power to bind the strong man of sin, spoil his armor,
and deliver the captive soul from the powers of dark-
ness than it would be for him to kill an innocent unre-
sisting person instead of the guilty.

That a just God can forgive sin without taking ven-
geance on a substitute, appears from this, that Jesus
Christ, who is called that just one, does forgive sinners
without requiring any surety to suffer his vengeance in
their room and stead.

Jesus did not purchase the power to forgive sin from
his Father: God gave it to him. He says, "Father,
the hour is come : glorify thy Son, that thy Son also
may glorify thee : As thou hast given him power over
all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as
thou hast given him." Job xvii. 2. The following
passage shows that the people who believed on him
while he was here on earth, regarded his power to for-
give sin as a gift, that he had received from God. " But
that ye may know that the son of man hath power on
earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the
palsy,) arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.
And he arose and departed to his house. But when the
multitude saw ?/, they marvelled, and glorified God.

'244 OF SATISFlINf, JUSTICE.

which had given such power unto men." Mat. ix. 6, 7.
8. Here Saint Matthew does not say that God sold
the power to forgive sins ; but says he gave it.

If Christ is in every respect as great as the Father,
he did not need to purchase any grace, nor blessing
from him, because he had as much of every thing as the
Father had independently, and from all eternity. If
Triiiitarianism be true, it is quite as absurd to say, the
Son purchased grace from the Father, as it would be to
say that the Father purchased grace from the Son, see-
ing they are [both equal in power, Wisdom, essence,
and eternity.

If Christ is the supreme God, and infinitely rich in
grace, I do not see how he could increase his stock, by
a purchase from the Father.

The doctrine of surety righteousness teaches that
Christ purchased eternal life for us ; but Saint Paul
affirms, that " The gift of God is eternal life through.
Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. vi. 23,

SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS,. 235

CHAPTER XI.

fHC EVLDEN'CES INT FAVOR OF SURETY RIGHTEOrSNESS, £:j:.;
COXSIDERED.

I will now proceed to examine the principal argu-
ments, and scriptures, that are most commonly brought
tbrward to prove the doctrine of surety righteousness,,
proxy suffering, purchased grace, &c. &c. The fol-
lowing passage is frequently quoted to prove these doc-
trines : " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried
our sorrows : yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten
of God, and atflicted." Isa. hii. 4. This text doe?;
not prove that he, as ouv surety, suffered the punish-
ment that was due to our sins. It only means jhat he
suffered for our sakes in order to reform us from sin,
and make us good people, but as it is quoted and ex-
plained in the New Testament, I will refer to the pas-
sage. " When tlie even was come, they brought unto
him^ many that were possessed with devils : and he
cast out the spirits with his words, and healed all that
were sick : that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by Esaias the prophet, saying, himself took our infirmi-
ties, and bore our sicknesses:" Mat. vhi. 16, 17. —
Tliis is the way that Christ bears our maladies, both
temporal and spiritual, by cleansing us from iniquity,
and pai^oning our sins, he bears them away from us,
as the scape-goat figuratively bore the sins of the Is-
raelites away into a land not inhabited. David says*
" As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he re-
moved our transgressions from us." Psal. ciii. 12.
•' But he ivas wounded for our transgressions, he was
bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace
was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed. All
we, like sheep, have gone astray ; we have turned every
one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of as all." Isa. hii. 5, 6. This t^xt proves tfet
21*

24:0 SURETY RIGIITEOUSXESS.

God laid our sins on Christ, and required him to suffer
for us ; but it by no means proves that he suffered as
our surety to reconcile God to us, and fulfill his law in-
stead of us. When, in scripture, the guilty are said to
bear their own sins, they were commonly charged with
'.he guilt of liiem, and punished accordingly : but when
the innocent were said to bear the sins of the guilty, the
the meaning is, that they labored, or suffered to cleanse
them from sin and turn them to God. In th^s sense
Aaron bore the iniquities of the holy things. ''And ii
shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear
the iniquity ot the holy things, which the children oi
Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts ; and it shall be
always upon his forehead, that they may be acceptet]
before the Lord." Exod.- xxviii. 38. In this case
Aaron bore the iniquities of the holy gifts not to affect
the mind of God, and reconcile him to them, but that thr
children of Israel might be accepted before the Lord :
and although he bore iniquity, he v/as not charged with
guilt, nor was he punished as a substitute instead of the
offenders. In the following passage God laid on Ezc
kiel, and made him bear the iniquity of the house of th(
israel, and of Judah. " Lie thou also upon thy left side,
and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it : ac-
cording to the number of the days that thou shalt li(
upon it, thou shalt bear their iniquity. For I have laid
upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the
number of the days, three hundred and ninety days : so
shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And
when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy
dght side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house
of Judah forty days : I have appointed thee effth day
for a year." Ezek. iv. 4, 5, 6. There is no proof
that the prophet in this case suffered as a substitute, to
bear- the wrath of God instead of the Jews, nor that he
as a surety had undertaken to be righteous in their room
and stead : yet the scripture as plainly says that God
laid their iniquity on Ezekiel, and that he bore it, as it;
says that our iniquities were laid on Christ, and that he
bore our sins. No doubt but Ezekiel v/as made to
suffer all this hardship for the Jews, and bear their sins.
ia order to reform them, aad make them better people

SITRETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 24*

\nd ill this sense, no doubt, Christ bore our sins.—
The text does not say, that the Almighty laid on him
the wrath of God, that was due to us for our sins, and
Ihat by his stripes, satisfaction was n:iade to divine jus-
tice for us : but it says that our iniquities ^vere laid
Upon him, and that by his stripes we are healed.
I I will now use a. simple comparison to elucidate the
subject. Suppose a man, living on the frontier in the
lime of Indian war, had ten children, nine of whom were
young, ignorant, and disobedient, but the oldest was a
son twenty five years old, strong, intelligent, and per-
fectly obedient. The father told all the children to sta\
in the fort, and that if they should go into the woods thr
Indians would catch them ; but the nine young children,
in disobedience to theii- father, strayed off into the
woods, and v*ere caught by the savages, who took them
to their towns, and adopted them into Indian famihes.
where they soon contracted the habits, learnt the speech,
and conformed to the customs of those barbarous peo~
pie. x\fter peace v/as made with the Indians, and the}
no longer had power to keep the children by force, theii
father sent his oldest son away to the Indian towns to
reclaim those children from the savages, and bring them
home to himself. The young man, after enduring the
hardships of a long journey through a trackless deseif
arrived in the Indian tov/n, and delivered his message
to the children, but they were so alienated from the
manners, and ignorant of the language of white people,
that they did not know him, but accused him of being
an impostor. He then, in order to convince them that
he was not an Indian, but belonged to a superior race
of people, wrote several letters, made a v.atch, con-
structed several musical instruments of the most exqui-
site workmanship, and played on them most skilfully,
besides performing several other works entirely above
the capacity of Indians ; but still neither his words nor
his works would convince the children, a majority of
them continued to call him an impostor, and told him
that if he would not recant the profession he had made,
of being their oldest brother, and sent by their father,
they would kill him. But as he well knew that if he
^•hoiild make such a recaatationj he would, by so doing.

24S SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS,

make himself an impostor in reality, disobey his father
tell a falsehood, and relinquish the only means his father
had devised to reclaim the children ; and knowing that
by submitting to death he could accomplish their re-
covery, he voluntarily submitted to be killed : and by
means of his death, and the circumstances connected
with it, he destroyed the influence that the Indians had
over the children, reformed them from heathenism, and
reconciled them to their father. Now, if before tiie
young man started on his mission both he and his father
knew it would cost him his life, it might be said witli
great propriety that he offered up his life as a sacrificf
to his father, because he suffered in obedience to him.
And as the sin of disobedience to their father first
brought the children into captivity ; and as their sinful
conduct to him caused him to sufier death, it might be
said that he suffered for, or on account of their sins.
And as his father required him thus to sufler, it might
be said in truth that the father laid on him the iniquities
of all the children, and that he suffered tor their sins.
and that by his stripes they were recovered from bondage
and misery. But it could not be said in truth that ho
suffered as a substitute instead of them, nor that he boro
the wrath of his father in order to reconcile him to them.

It might be said with great propriety, that the son-
gave his lite for the children that he redeemed them with,
his blood ; and that he redeemed them from their ene-
mies to their father : but it would be very improper to
say that he redeemed them from their father's justice,
or that he fulfilled his father's commandments in their
stead, and so released them from obligation to their fa-
ther's laws. And it would be very improper to say that
tills son bore bis father's wrath, or sufTered his father's
vengeance to induce him to love those alien children,
because it was the father's love to the children that in-
duced him to send the son, and nothing that the son did,
or suffered, was intended to afiect the father, but was
entirely designed to defeat the Indians, and reclaim the
children.

But says one is it not unjust for God to require Yds
Son to drink this dreadful cup of afflictions, in order tc
redeem .sinners, and reconcile thQm to Gecl ? I answer

SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 249

5iO, It is neither unjust nor cruel for God to require any
of his creatures to do, or suffer any thing that he enables
ihem to do, or suffer, provided he justly rewards them
for the same. I hope Trinitarians will not be offended
with me for calling the suffering Jesus a creature, be-
cause they themselves do not believe that the creator
ever could suffer. As God required his Son to do, and
suffer more than he required of any other person, so he
gave him greater strength, and a richer reward than he
ever gave to any other person. And when Christ was
suffering, he had a view to this reward. Hence Paul
says, " Let us run with patience the race set before us,
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith,
who for the joy that was set before him, endured the
cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right
hand of the throne of God." Heb. xii. 1 , 2. The fol^
lowing passage shows that God rewarded Christ for his
sufferings : " But made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant, and was 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. Wherefore God
also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name
which is above every name ; that at the name of JesuK
every knee should bow, o^ things in heaven, and things
in earth, and things under the earth; and that ever}
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the
glory of God the Father." Phil. ii. 7—11.

As the advocates of purchased grace commonly cite
the three last verses of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah,
to support their system, I will state those verses separ-
ately, and show that no such doctrine can be fairly
proved by them. " Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise
liim ; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make
his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall
prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall
prosper in his hand." I have already proved, and ever}
candid man must acknowledge, that it is very possible
for a father to put his Son to grief, and cause him to en-
dure severe afflictions without either pouring his wrath
on him, or making him suffer as a substitute to bear the
penalty of the law instead of the suiltv. If the fact thai

250 SURETY niGIITEOUSNES^*

God afflicted Christ is a proof that his sufferings v»'ere vt-
carious, then the sufferings of every human being in the
world must be vicarious, because God afflicts us alL
The scripture says, " Whom the Lord loveth he chas-
teneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.-'
Heb. xii. 6. If God did scourge his only begotten Son,
he, no doubt did it for his own glory, the salvation ot
sinners, and the good of Christ himself. In conse-
quence of his sufferings he was better qualified to be a
Mediator. Hence it is said, " For it became him, for
whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in
bringing many sons io glory, to make the Captain ot
their salvation perfect through sufferings." Heb. ii.
10. V. IS, " For m that he himself hath suffered being
tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.'-
If there is any more evidence necessary to prove that
the sufferings of Christ tended to qualify him for the
great work he had undertaken, it is furnished in the fol-
lowing passage : " Who in the days of his flesh, when
he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong
crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him
from death, and was heard in that he feared, tliough he
were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which
he suffered ; and being made perfect, he became the
author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him.''
Heb. V. 7, 8, 9. This text proves, beyond reasonable
contradiction, three things: 1. That the Saviour felt
himself weak and dependant. 2. That by his suffer-
ings he learnt obedience, and was made perfect. And
3. That in consequence of his obedience and perfect-
ness he became the author of eternal salvation to all
them that obey him.

That the soul of Jesus was made an offering for sin.
i5 no proof that he suffered to expiate the wrath of God,
or to make satisfaction to divine justice for sinners ;
because the sacrifices under the law never were intended
for that purpose, but were always designed to heal.,
cleanse, or reconcile the things or persons for which, or
for whom they were offered.

The use of the sacrifices under the law, and the de-
sign of Christ's sacrifice, are both explained in the fol-
JQwing text : '' For if the blood of bulls and of goa{s%

SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 2ol

\m] the ashes of a heifer sprinkhng the unclean, sancti-
Heth to the purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall
the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit of-
fered himself without spot to God, purge your con-
science from dead works to serve the living God?'
Heb. ix. 13, 14. This text shows, beyond dispute,
that the sacrifice of Christ was intended to purge us
trom sin, and make us holy, and never was designed to
change the mind of the unchangeable God. Isaiah
does not say that by making his soul an offering for sin
he should appease the wrath of God, but he says^
" When thou shalt make his soul an oftering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." And
in the next verse he says, " He shall see of the travail
of his soul, o?id shall be satisfied: by his knowledge
shall my righteous servant justify many ; for he shall
bear their iniquities." This text does not say a word
of justifying us by imputed righteousness, nor of bear-
ing the wrath of God in our room and stead. The way
he justifies people by his knowledge, is by making them
wise unto salvation. The last verse of this chapter re-
fers to the reward that God was to confer on the Sa-
viour for his sufferings. " Therefore will I divide him
a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil
with the strong ; because he hath poured out his soul
unto death, and he was numbered with the transgres-
s'ors : and he bare the sin of many, and made interces-
sion for the transgressors." There is a wide difi^erence^
between bearing the sins of many, and bearing the
wrath of God, the scape-goat bore the sins of the Israel-
ites, and Ezekiel bore the sins of the Jews, but neitheii
*?f them by so doing bore the wrath of God.

152

EWISH SACRIFICES-

CHAPTER XII.

OF THE JEWISH SACRIFICES,

The Jewish sacrifices were not substitutes (a beat
the penalty of the law instead of the persons for whom
Ihey were offered, but were themselves the penalties
which the law required. Their government was both
})olitical and religious : and the sacrifices were fines,
taxes, free-will offerings, and offerings to purge from
disease, and external pollutions. When a fine, the va-
lue of the sacrifice was proportioned to the magnitude
of the crime for which it was offered ; and when the of-
fender fulfilled the requisitions of the law, he stood ac-
quitted, as when our law fines a man for a crime, and
he pays the fine, the law accounts him honest. When
a sacrifice was required as a tax, it was levied accord-
ing to their polls and property. They had to pay for,
or redeem every male child with a kid, or a lamb if able,
if not able, with a pair of turtle doves, or two young
pigeons. They also had to offer the first fruits of their
ground, and the firstlings of their flocks ; and redeem
an ass colt with a lamb. Exod. xiii. 12, 13.

These sacrifices went to support their government ;
"because the Levites, who for the most part administered
it, had no inheritance of land among the other tribes,
but were allowed to live on those offerings.

If the sacrifices under the law were designed to bear
^he wrath of God in the room of the ones for whoni
they were offered, then God must have^been so angry
at a child, or an ass colt, for being born, that he pour-
ed out his wrath on a lamb instead of it. The hea-
then frequently boasted of appeasing the wrath of their
gods by sacritices ; but it is impossible that the sacrifi-
ces under the law ever could have been designed to
change the mind or disposition of the unchangeabfe
God.

Jewish SACRincES. io^

Some people say that the sacrifices under the laM'
'ere all types of Christ, and that the people who offered
them could not be profited, unless they offered them with
iaith, that Christ the great antitype would at some future
day be sacrificed as the surety of sinners to appease the
wrath of God, an.d make satisfaction to law and justice
in their room and stead. One reason I have for not be-
lieving that these sacrifices were types of Christ bearing
tlie wrath of God, is, that they were frequently offered
for things that were not objects of divine wrath. Sacri-
fices of atonement were made for the plague of lepros}',
for child-bearing, for the tabernacle, the holy place and
the altar, and for a leprous-house. We have no autho-
rity to believe that the Jews regarded their sacrifices
as typical of the death of their Messiah, because thev
did not believe that he would die. When Christ signi-
fied to the Jews what death he should die ; *' The peo-
pie answered him, we have heard out of the law tha;
Christ abideth for ever : and how sayest thou, the Son
of man must be lifted up ? Who is this Son of man V
Joh. xii. 34. Moses never told them that Christ should
die. If they did not believe he would die, they could
not have offered their sacrifices with a view to his death ;
and it is still more improbable that they regarded theiii
as types of Christ bearing the wrath of God m the room
and stead of a wicked world. In Exod. xiii. 14, 15,
Moses directed the Jews to explain the sacrifices to
their children : he says, " And it shall be, when thy Son
Ksketh thee in time to come, saying, what meaneth this i
that thou shalt say unto him, by strength of hand the
Lord brought us out irom Egypt, from the house of
bondage : and it came to pass, when Pharaoh would
hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first born iix
the house of Egypt, both the first born of man, and the
iirst born of beasts : therefore I sacrifice to the Lord all
that openeth the matrix, being males ; but all the first
horn of my children I redeem." If the sacrifices were
really designed to lead the Jews into a belief that Jesu?
tJhrist would die as a substitute, to suffer the divine veu"
^eance in their room and, stead, is it not reasonable to
:^upposG that proses would have- told them so I

254 JEWISH SACRIFICES*

Every advocate of surety righteousness in the pre-
sent day, if he treats on the Jewish sacrifices at all, feek
conscience bound to inform his hearers that they were
types of Christ bearing the wrath of God in the room
and stead of sinners.

When we administer the Lord's supper, we are care-
ful to tell the communicants what the bread and wine
represent. Tjiere can be no doubt but that Moses
gave the Jews all the instruction they needed relative
to the use and signification of their sacrifices, yet he
never once told them that they were typical of the suf-
ferings of Christ : and he was, if possible, still farther
from telling them that those offerings represented the
outpouring of God's wrath on his own Son instead of
the law-breakers. " Moses truly said unto the fathers,
a prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of
your brethren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear in all
things, whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall
come to pass, thai every soul which will not hear that
prophet shall be destroyed from among the people."
Acts iii. 22, 23. It seems to me that if the principal
object of Christ's coming into the world was to die as a
substitute, in order to bear the wrath of God in the law-
place of sinners, the latter part of this passage would have
(Expressed the design of his coming better, if it had
been written thus : " And it shall come to pass that God
will pour out his wrath on that prophet, and kill him in
the room and stead of the people." Or, if it is essen-
tially necessary for us to believe that doctrine, such a
declaration certainly would have been made by some
one of the inspired writers.

The Paschal lamb was, no doubt, a type of Christ ;
but it is impossible that it could have been intended as
a figure of his bearing the wrath of God in the room and
:^ead of sinners, because it was not a sin-offering ; it
•>vas neither killed by a priest, nor burnt on an altar. It
•u'as designed for a feast, and was killed, cooked, and
eaten by the people themselves.

The feast of the passover was not intended to make
an atonement for sin, but was one of the means by
>vhich God delivered the Jews from bondage, and it is
>v^ll known that their bondage never was charged upOT>

JEWISH SACRIFICES. 255

Them as a sin. God himself explains the use of this
feast in the following words : " And it shall come to
pass, when your children shall say unto you, what mean
you by this service] that ye shall sa>, it is the sacrifice
of the Lord's passover, who jpassed over the houses of
the children of Israel in Egypt, wi»en he smote the
Egyptians, and delivered our houses." Exod. xii. 26,
27. If God had wanted the Jews to believe that
the Paschal lamb was a fisure of Christ suffering as a
substitute in the law-place of sinners, he certainly would
have told them so, especially if he kn^;w that a belief in
that doctrine was essential to salvation : but as he did
not tell them so, and as the doctrine is no where taught
in the Bible, we, of course, have no authority from God
to believe it. It would have been as easy for the Lord
to have told them, to tell their chiidreii that this lamb
was a figure of Christ bearing the wrath of God in the
room of shiners, as it was for him to tell them what he
did.

256 SUJRETY RIGHTEt)rsNBSJ?>

CHAPTER XII,

{TJie same subject coniinued.'j

Some people try to prove the doctrine of surety righc-
eousness by the relation that Christ bears to his church -
ihey think that as he bears the relation to his people o1
a husband to his wile, he of course was bound by law
and justice to pay their debts ; and therefore they con-
clude that he suffered the penalty of the law in theii'
room and stead. This argument is inconclusive, be-
cause there is no law in this country, nor is there any
just law in any country, to punish a man with corporeal
punishment, or with death for the crimes of his wife. If
a wife should commit theft, the law would neither whip-,
nor imprison her husband for it. And if she should
commit a crime worthy of death, it would be illegal to
hang her husband instead of her.

If the husband should be ever so wilhng to die in tht*
loom of his wife, it would neither alter the law, nor the
principle of justice : if he should be hung instead of her,
both the judge, who passed the sentence, and the sher-
iff that executed it would be condemned by the law as
jBurderers. The abettors of proxy suffering, and suret\
righteousness, tell us that Jesus Christ is the supreme,
self-existent God : if this be true, he could not have in-
volved himself in any debt by marrying the church, see-
ing she owed nothing to any other person but himself.
It was nothing more than a creditor marrying his debtor ;
m consequence of the union he would be bound to for-
give a debt, but not to pay one.

The advocates of this doctrine tell us that the law ol"
God is infinite, that the penalty annexed to it is also infin-
ite, and that because sin is the transgression of that infin-
ite law, it is an infinite evil, deserving an infinite punish-
ment : and that to rescue sinners from under the infinite
penalty of this infinite law, it was necessary that an in-
iiuit? being should undertake, as their surety, to suffer

SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 257

this infinite penalty in their stead ; and that Christ being
both an infinite God, and a finite man, became their
surety, and paid that infinite debt for them, by suffering
the infinite penahy in their room and stead.

I have several reasons for not believing these no-
tions— sin cannot be infinite, because, it is the trans-
gression of the law, and is an act of a creature ; and no
finite being can put forth an infinite act. Whether we
explain sin as an act, or, as a quality of the mind, it is
of creature origin, and no finite being can produce that
Mhich is infinite.

It is true that Ehphaz the Temanite said to Job, " h
not thy wickedness great ? and thine iniquities infinite V-
Job xxii. 5. I think this was a hyperbolical expres-
sion, and that by it the Temanite only meant that Job's
iniquities were very numerous. Such expressions are
common in the present day, but are never designed to
be understood in the strictest sense of their import. In
the official accounts of campaigns, battles, &c. we hear
it said of officers that they rendered infinite service :
and we frequently hear it said of very rich people, that
they are infinitely rich : no doubt, but the meaning of
these expressions is~ that those services, or riches are
very great ; and undefined, or incalculable : and in this
sense we speak of the infinite mood in grammar, be-
cause it is used to express things indefinitely, or in an
unlimited sense.

This expression of Eliphaz by itself, will not do to
establish an important doctrine, because v,e have no
proof that he spoke by the inspiration of God. I am
far from thinking that every word that passed between
Job and his friends in this dispute, should be taken for
the word of God, because when they were contradicting
one another, we know they could not all be right. Go5
ended their dispute by saying to Job, " Who is this that
darkeneth counsel with words without knowledge i'*
Job. xxxviii. 2. To this charge Job pleads guilty m
the following confession : " Who is he thathideth coun-
sel without knowledge ? therefore have I uttered that 1
understood not ; things too wonderful for me, which I
knew not." Chap. Ixii. 3. The following address of
the Lord to Eliphaz, shows how much credit ;s due to
22*

2o& SfREXV RIGHTEOUSNESS*

the opinions he advanced in this argument : '• The Lor^
said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled
against thee, and against thy two Iriends : for ye have
not spoken of me the thing that is right as my servant
Job hath.-' Job xhi. 7. Now, if Job uttered word;*
without knowledge, and if Eliphaz was still farther froru
ilie truth than he was, I cannot see the propriety of
quoting him to prove any doctrine, unless there were
other texts to agree with what he says. In this dispute
Job said he was innocent, and Eliphaz said his iniqui-
ties were infinite ; and God decided that Job spoke the
more correctly, therefore I conclude that sin is not in-
iinite.

Paul says, " But where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound." Rom. v. 20. If sin is infinite^
grace must be ranch more than infinite. If sin were in-
finite, it could not be expiated. We cannot possibly
conceive how Christ, by the sacrifice of himself, could
put away that which is infinite.

It is impossible that Christ could sufier an infinite
penalty, or pay aniniinite debt, because, if he is a crea-
ture, and a dependant being, it was his duty to serve
God with all the powers he had, and of course he could
do no works of supererogation to be imputed to others.
If he is a finite being, he could not pay an infinite debt,
nor sufier an infinite penalty. And if he is the infinite
God, he could not suffer at all, nor could he pay any
debt, because every thing in the universe was his own.
and he was the creditor to whom the whole debt was
due. How could the same person be both debtor and
crcditor, plaintiff' and defendant in the same suit ?

If Christ is the infinite God, and did become the
surety of sinners, and sufier that infinite penalty in their
i'oom and stead, then the infinite God must have entered
as. surety of sinners to himself and then killed himself
in their room and stead, m order to pay himself the debt"
which they owed him.

If his humanity was too weak to suffer an infinite pe-^
*ialty, and if his divinity]could not suffer at all, how could
416 pay it 1 Some people, to avoid this difiiculty, say.
that his divinity was the altar on which his humanity
^vas sacrificed, and, as the altar sanctilieth the gift, so
-fhe divine sanctilieth Uie humaa uatcre, and made i^

s:frety righteousness. 259

equal to that infinite penalty. As this appears to be thr-
last shift with the advocates of surety righteousness, 1
will show its fallacy. To sanctify, is to cleanse, purge.
t)r make holy any person or thing in its kind ; but the
thing so sanctified is not thereby changed to something
of another kind. When they offered a lamb on the altar
it was changed from a common to a holy use, but not
from a lamb to an ox. If the law required a heifer, it
would not be satisfied with a kid, though it were offerexl
on the best altar in the Temple. The divinity of Christ
might sanctify his humanity, and change it t\om a com-
mon to a most holy and important use, but could never
make it an uncreated, infinite, self-existent being ;
therefore the humanity never could pay that infinite pe-
nalty. "When Christ was on the cross he cried, " My
God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" If the divine nature
forsook him before he died, how could the human nature
alone pay that infinite penalty ? — I wish the reader to
understand that I do not believe that Christ is God in
the highest sense of the word, but I am now arguing on
the supposition that Trinitarianism is true, and my ob-
ject is to show that surety righteousness is inconsistent
with the Trinity doctrine.

The advocates of Purchased Grace say, it took th€
\\\i(j\e of the Divinity to support him under the infinite
sufferings that he had to endure, in order to pay that in-
finite debt, which sinners had contracted by the infinite
evil of sin. If this be true, there could have been none
of the Divinity engaged in punishing him : and if so, he
has suffered nothing from the hand of God on account
-of sinners.

According to the system that I am opposing, it mus!
have been the gift that sanctified the ahar instead of the
altar sanctifying the gift ; because the advocates of this
system say that his humanity, w hich was the gift, being
sacrificed on his Divinity, which was the altar, appeas-
ed the divine Being, mad« satisfaction to his justice,
and rendered him propitious to the human family.

I have often heard the advocates of surety righteous-
ness preach, and have also seen it stated in some of
their wrhings, that the fall of Adam caused a jar, or as
Isaac Anibiose states it^ a holy contsatiQa among tH^

260 SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

attributes of God. Truth said, cut the sinner down. —
Mercij said, spare him. Justice said, the sinner must,
die, or the law is dishonored. Then Wisdom proposed
a plan to satisfy Truth, please JMercy, appease Justice,
honor the Law, and save the sinner ; and Poiver exe-
cuted it. The substance of this plan is, that Christ
suffered the penalty of the law instead of sinners.

It appears to me, that nothing but folly could devise,
or cruelty execute such a plan as this. According tu
it, Trw^/i, which said man must die, was satisfied to
see him not die : JSIercy, who always protects the in-
nocent, was pleased to see him suffer instead cf th(,=
guilty : Justice, that called for the death of the sinner,
\va3 pleased to see him escape v»ith impunity : the law-
was honored by acquitting the person it condemned,
and condemning the innocent Jesus, who never trans-
gressed it.

According to this system, some of God's attributes
must have been wrong, for we all know that when two
are entirely opposed to each other in any thing, they
cannot both be right. It certainly is very improper to
say, that the attributes of God ever were opposed to
each other, because if Gcd ever was divided against
himself, according to Christ's own maxim, he could not
have stood, but must have had an end. He says,
" Everv kingdom divided airainst itself is brouoht to
desolation ; and every city, or house, divided against
itself shall not stand." " And if Satan rise up against
himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an.
end." Mat. xii. 25. Mark. iii. 26. If God exists iu
three persons, and one of those persons was wroth with
the other, and pom'ed out his wrath on him till he suf-
fered an innnite degree of punishment, then God was
cenainly divided against himself. If God felt a mer-
ciful disposition towards sinners, and at the same time
a wrathful disposition, Vvhich would punish them with-
out mercy, he must have been divided in his own mind
on the subject. And if the plan of surety righteous-
ness has settled his mind, then his mind has changed
twice ; first, when he got angry at man for sinning ;
and, secondly, when he was reconciled to him by the
sufferings of Christ.

St^HETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 261

2ecli. xiii. 7, is frequently brought to prove that God
\)unished Christ as a substitute in the room of sinners*
^' Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against
the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts i
smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered ;
and I will turn my hand upon the little ones." This
text shows, that Christ suffered by the order of God,
that is, that God gave him up to die for the world, but
if that is a proof that he suffered as a surety, then each
of his disciples must have suffered as a surety, because
the same text says, " I will turn my hand upon the lit-
tle ones." And as I have before observed, if the bare
fact that he suffered by the order of heaven is a proof
that his sufferings were vicarious, then the sufferings of
the whole human family must be vicarious, because we
all suffer by the appointment of heaven. It has been
asserted that the sword mentioned in this text was the
sword of God's justice ; but I do not think that the
blessed Jesus fell under the sword of justice.

I think his death was a most unjust murder. Peter
accused the Jews of killing him with wicked hands.
No doubt but the sword alluded to in the above text
was the wicked people, who murdered the Lord : hence
David says, " Arise, 0 Lord, disappoint him, cast him
down : deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy
sword." PsaL xvii. 13.

On that night in which Christ was betrayed into the
hands of sinners this prophecy was fulfilled. " And
Jesus said unto them, all ye shall be offended because
of me this night : for it is written, I will smite the Shep-
herd, and the sheep shall be scattered." Mark, xiv. 27.
Mat. xxvi. 31. Thus Christ himself explains this
s^vord to be wicked men ; and it was not till he fell into
their hands that his Httle flock was scattered from him.
"When David was foretelling the sufferings of Christ in
the twenty-second Psalm, he, no doubt, alluded to the
same sword where he says, " Deliver my soul from the
sword ; my darling from the power of the dog." From
this text it appears, that to dehver him from the sword,
by which he was put to death, was to deliver him from
the power of the dog ; therefore if Christ died by the
.■^word of God's justice, God must be a dog.

262 SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The following passage has been much relied on io
prove the doctrine of surety righteousness. *' Christ
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us : for it is written cursed is every
one that hatigeth on a tree : that the blessing of Abra-
ham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ;
that we might receive the promise of the spirit through
faith." Gal. iii. 13, 14. If the bare fact that Christ
was hung on a tree is a proof that he was cursed with
the wrath of God in the room and stead of sinners,
then the two thieves must have borne his wrath in the
law-place of sinners, because they both suffered in the
same manner that he did. Historians inform us that
Saint Peter was crucified, but that is no proof that he
was cursed by divine justice in the law- place of sin-
ners. If the above text means that every individual hi
the world, that might he hung on a tree, should be
cursed by God and die under his wrath, then thousands
of innocent people, and hundreds of the holy martyr.s
must have died under the wrath of God ; because
many of them have been put to death by hanging on a
tree. I suppose that by the apostle's expression in the
above text, he only meant that Christ by being hung on
a tree, was made a curse, or an execration, in the popu-
lar sense of the word. Whatever was cursed under
the law, was unclean, and unfit to be sacrificed ; and if
Christ was cursed properly by the law of God, it
would not accept him as a sacrifice. They who say
that Jesus was cursed by God, do not speak in the
spirit, for Paul says, " Wherefore I give you to under-
stand, that no man speaking by the spirit of God call-
eth Jesus accursed." 1 Cor. xii. 3. The law curses
us for sin, and when Christ redeems us from sin, he
redeems us from being cursed by the law. The text
does not say he was made a curse for us, in order to
make satisfaction to law and justice for us. But it
says, he was made a curse for us to redeem us from the
curse of the law, and that the blessing of Abraham
might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; thai
we might receive the promise of the spirit through faith.

HRIST^S PURCHASE, 260

CHAPTER XIII.

OF THE PURCHASE MADE BY CHRIST.

Paul says, " For ye are bought with a price ; there-
fore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which
are Gods." 1 Cor. vi. 20. Again he says, " Feed
the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood." Act. xx. 2S.

That Christ purchased us we all agree ; but we dif-
fer both respecting the means by which we are purchas-
ed, and the power from which we are redeemed. The
advocates of Purchased Grace think that he bought us
trom under the stroke of divine justice ; and that he did it
by bearing the wrath of God. and suffering the penalty of
the law, as our surety instead of us. On the other
hand, the advocates of Free Grace deny that he is our
surety. They think that God the Father is altogether
as merciful to the human Family, and as httle disposed
to be wroth with them, as Jesus Christ : hence, they
conclude, that the Saviour did not bear the wrath of God
instead of us, nor redeem us from under his justice, nor
iiis law. But they hold, that he redeems his people
trom sin, and misery, and from the power of Satan, and
also from the grave : and that the means which he
employs to effect this redemption are, the Gospel, the
Holy Spirit, and divine Power, by which he saves them
from sin, and will raise them from the dead.

The fact that Christ purchased us, is no proof that he
.suffered the penalty of the law, as a surety instead of us ;
because the word purchase, in its most extensive signi-
tication, means to acquire, get, or obtain any thing by
©ne's own exertion, and does not always signify the
paying of an equivalent : hence, Paul says, " They
that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to
themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the
faith which is in Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. iii. 13. The
deacons, who purchase this good degree, neither suffcy

■264 Christ's pttrchasSj,

as substitutes, nor pay an equivalent for it. David
says God purchased the Jews, and redeemed them, —
'« Remember thy congregation, ivhich thou hast pur-
chased of old ; the rod of thine ^inheritance, which thou
has redeemed ; this mount Sion, wherein thou hast
dwelt." Psal. Ixxiv. 2. " Thou in thy mercy hast
led forth thy people which thou hast redeemed." — " By
the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a
stone ; till thy people pass over, O Lord, till the people
pass over ivhich thou hast purchased." Exod. xv. 13,
16. By redeeming and purchasing the Jews from
Egypt, we are not to understand that God became theii-
surety and suffered the penalty of the law in their room
and stead, nor that he gave the Egyptians any equiva-
lent for them.

I will bring a few more texts to prove, that to pur-
»:hase, to buy, or to redeem, according to the import of"
these phrases in the scripture, does not always mean
that the purchaser, or redeemer, paid an equivalent, op
suffered the penalty of the law as a surety, instead of
the persons whom he redeemed. " The Lord brought
you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of
the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharoah, King
of Egypt." Deut. vii. 8. " Do ye thus requite the
Lord 1 0 foolish people, and unwise I is not he thy
Father that hath bought thee ?" Deut. xxxii. 6. Here
the Lord redeemed, and bought the Jews from Pharoali,
yet he did not become their surety, nor suffer the pen-
alty of any law for them.

God says, " Come ye, buy and eat ; yea, come,
buy wine and milk without money, and without price."
Isa. Iv. 1. Jesus Christ says, " I counsel thee to boy
<if me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich :
and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed." Rev.
iii. 18. Solomon says, "Buy the truth and sell it not ;
also, wisdom and instruction, and understanding." —
Prov. xxiii. 23. In each of these purchases the thing
is obtained without paying God any price for it. God
said to his people, "Ye have sold yourselves for noughi;i
and ye shall be redeemed without money. Isa. Iii. 3.
By reading this chapter through, it is easily seen that
ihe Piord in this text alhides to th& rede;nptiou made by

CHRIST'S PURCHASE* 565

Cimst, That he can redeem his Church without be«
coming a surety to suffer the penahy of the law instead
of them, appears from the following text : '* Zion shall
be redeemed with judgement, and her converts with
righteousness. And the destruction of the transgress*
ors, and of the sinners, shall be together, and they that
forsake the Lord shall be consumed." Isa. i. 27, 28.

Christ says he gave his life a ransom for many. Mat.
XX. 28. But that does not prove that he died as a sub-
stitute to bear the wrath of God instead of sinners, be-
cause the word ransom sometnnes only means a deliv-
erance ; as in Jer. xxxi. 11, "For the Lord hath re-
deemed Jacob and ransomed him from the hand of him
that was stronger than he." And in Hos. xiii. 14, I
will ransom them from the power of the grave ; I will
redeem them from death." By ransoming his people
from their enemies, and from the power of the grave,
we are not to understand that the Almighty suffered as
a surety in their room and stead, nor that he paid to their
enemies, and to the grave, an equivalent for them. In
both these passages the word random, simply signifies a
deliverance. Solomon says, '• The wicked shall be a
ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the
tlpright." Prov. xxi. IS. The wise man did not mean
that the wicked should fulfil the law in the room and
.stead of the righteous.

"When God delivered his people from their enemies,
he was said to purchase, redeem, or ransom them ;
and when he gave their enemies power over them, it
was said of him that he sold them. " And the anger of
the Lord was hot against Israel, and he delivered them
uito the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold
them into the hands of their enemies round about."
Judg. ii. 14. " The anger of the Lord was hot against
Israel, and he sold ihem into the band of Cushan-risha-
ihaim, king of Mesopotamia." Chap. iii. 8. Moses
says, " How should one chase a thousand, and two put.
ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold
jhem ]" Deut. xxxii. 30. It is said of the Jews that
ihey sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord.
2 Kings xvii. 17, And Paul says of himself, while in
23

266 Christ's purchase,

a natural state, that he was carnal, sold under sin.
Rom. vii. 14.

These passages sufficiently prove that no conclusive
argument can be brought in favor of surety righteous--
iiess from those texts that say Christ puchased, re-
deemed, or bought us ; seeing those phrases frequently
occur where no surety righteousness could have been
intended.

I will now bring some passages to show what he re-
deems his people from : " In whom we have redemption
through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." Col.
i. 14. Here redemption is explained to be the forgive-
ness of sins. The apostle does not tell us that it con-
sists in making satisfaction to God for our sins. '' In
whom we have redemption through his blood, the for-
giveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.'-
Ephes. i. 7. If this redemption, or forgiveness of sins,
had been purchased from God, Paul would not have
said it was according to the riches of his grace : he, no
doubt, would have said that Christ purchased it by bear-
ing his [the Father's] wrath. Peter inform.s us what he
redeems us from. " Ye were not redeemed with cor-
ruptible things, as silver and gold from your vain con-
versation received by tradition from your fathers ; but
with the precious blood of Christ." 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.
In the following text the propliet informs us what was to
be effected by the blood of Christ. " As for thcc also,
by the blood of thy covenant I have sent forth thy
prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water." Zech.
ix. 11. If the prophet had known that the main object
TO be effected by the blood of Christ was to make satis-
faction to law and justice instead of sinners, he would
have told it. '• U'herefore Jesus also, that he might
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without":
rhe gate." Heb. xiii. 12. Here vre are informed that
:he object of shedding his blood was to sanctify the peo-
ple. The four living creatures, and the four and twenty
elders whom John saw round about the throne of God,
did not say that Christ had redeemed them from GocK
nor from his justice ; but " They sang a new song, say-
ing, thou art worthy to take the book, and to open th^
seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and has^ redeemed

REDEMPTION. 26*1

>is to God with thy blood, out of every kindred, and
tongue, and people, and nation." Rev. v. 9. Thus
we see those dignified, and highly exalted personages,
who sit nighest to the throne of God, give Christ no
praise for vicarious sufferings nor surety righteousness.
If a satisfaction made by him to law and justice in their
room and stead was the real cause of their salvation,
they would, no doubt, have told it ; but instead of saying
that Christ redeemed them/rom God's justice^ they say
he redeemed them to God.

In Heb. ii. 14, 15, the writer undertakes to tell us for
what purpose Christ took on him human nature. " For-
asmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh
and blood, he also himself likevWse took part of the
same ; that through death he might destroy him that had
the power of death, that is the devii ; and dehver them-
who through fear of death were all their life-time sub-
ject to bondage." Here we are not told that he died as
our surety to suffer the penalty of the law instead of us.
but we are expressly informed that his death was de-
signed to destroy our spiritual enemy, the devil, and
deliver us from subjection to bondage through fear of
death.

In the 14th and 15th verses of the third chapter of
John, Christ explains the design of his death. " And
as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Sen of man be Hfted up ; that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
The brazen serpent was not intended to bear the wrath
of God, nor suffer the penalty of the law instead of the
Jews, who were then suffering it for their own disobe-
dience : but it was lifted up to cure them of the bite of
the fiery serpent. Even so must the Son of man be
lifted up. The phrase, even so, implies that Christ was
to be lifted up on the cross for a similar purpose ; that
is, to cure us of sin, the moral poison, which we received
from that old serpent the devil. Hence the Saviour
tells us that the design of his being lifted up on the
Gross w^as '' that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have eternal life." If the main object of
his death was to appease the wiath of God, or to suffer
the penalty of his law instead of sinner,?, it would have

26S SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS,

been as easy for him to have told it, as it was for him
to say what he did say. But if that had been the case,
the hfting up of Christ on the cross would have beeri
designed for a purpose very dissimilar to that for which
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness. That
serpent was not lifted up to procure the mercy of God
to the Jews, but it was his mercy that procured it, and
caused it to be lifted up to deliver them from misery
and death. Even so, the sufferings of Christ were not
intended to procure the love of God to the human fami-
ly, but on the contrary it was the love which he had for
them, that caused him to give his Son to die for the'-r
salvation. This is proved by the words of Christ in the
very next verse, where he says, *' For God so loved the
world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoso-
ever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever-
lasting life."

1 Pet. ii. 24, has frequently been brought to prove the
doctrine of surety righteousness. " Who his own self
bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being
dead to sins, should hve unto righteousness : by whose
stripes ye were healed." This text does not establish
the doctrine, because, I have already proved from scrip-
ture that many innocent persons have borne the sins of
the wicked without either being charged with the guilt
of their crimes, or suffering the penalty of the law in
their room and stead. Besides, it appears from the
text that he bore our sins, not to affect God, nor to fulfil
Iiis law instead of us ; but that we being dead to sins,
should live unto righteousness; and that by his stripes
2ve might be healed. If the doctrine of surety righteous-
ness be true, Peter would have expressed the design of
his sufferings much better by writing it thus : " Who
his own self bare the wrath of God, that was due to our
sins, in his own body on the tree, that God being dead
to wrath, should live unto mercy : by whose stripes the
breach, or jar, that had been made among the attributes
of God by the fall of man, was healed."

The following texts, with several others of the same
import have been brought to prove the doctrine of surety
righteousness : " Because Christ also suffered for us."
1 Pet. ii. 21 . " Forasmuch then as Christ hath sufferei*

SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. " 269

for us in the flesh, arm yourselves hkewise with the
same mind." Chap. iv. 1. Some of the advocates ol'
this doctrine have argued that the word /or, as it is ap-
phed in the above texts, means w the room and stead oj]
and hence conclude, that when it is said that Christ suf-
fered for lis, it means that he suffered as our surety,
instead of us : but this argument is inconclusive, be-
cause the word for is frequently applied in the same
manner, where no proxy sufferings, nor surety righte-
ousness could have been intended, which is evident from
the following passages : " Greet Priscilla and Aquila,
ray helpers in Christ Jesus ; who have for my life laid
down their own necks." Rom. xvi. 3, 4. " There-
fore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in ne-
cessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake."
2 Cor. xii. 10. Although Priscilla and Aquila laid dovrn
their necks for Paul's life, and he suffered for Christ's
sake, it is no proof that they were beheaded in his room
and stead, nor that he suffered as a surety instead oi'
Christ. " For unto you it is given in the behalf of
Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for
his sake." Phil. i. 29. To suffer for his sake in this
text, cannot mean to suffer as a surety instead of him.
" Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake.'-
2 Tim. ii. 10. Paul did not mean by this, that he en-
dured God'g wrath as a surety instead of the elect, ** 1
desire that ye faint not at my tribulations for you.''
Ephes. iii. 13. "Who now rejoice in my sufferings
for you." Col. i. 24. " For I will show him how-
great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Acts
ix. 16. " I am. ready not to be bound only, but also
to die at Jerusalem for the nam.e of the Lord Jesus.'-
Acts xxi. 13. On this point I could cite many more
passages, but these are sufficient to prove that when it
is said of Christ that he died for lis, it does not mean
that he died as a surety instead of us.

I have frequently heard the following passnge quoted
to prove that Christ bore the wrath of God instead of
sinners. " Who is this that cometh from Edom, with
dyed garments from Bozrah 1 this that is glorious in his
apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength ? I
that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. Wherefore
23*

270 SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him
that treadeth in the wine-fat 1 I have trodden the wine-
press alone ; and of the people there was none with me :
for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them
in my fury ; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon m\
garments, and I will stain all my raiment. For the day
of vengeance is in my heart, and the year of my re-
deemed is come. And I looked, and there was none to
help ; and I wondered that there was none to uphold ;
therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me, and
my fury, it upheld me. And I will tread down the peo-
ple in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury,
and I will bring down thek strength to the earth." Isa.
Jxiii. 1—6.

I do not think that this alludes to the sufferings of
Christ at all. In this place it appears he was coming
from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah: but
Christ suifered in Judea, ai Jerusalem. In this passage
he was glorious in his apparel, travelling in the great-
ness of his strength : but when he suffered, he first
wore a purple robe, and a crown of thorns, and was then
nailed to the cross quite naked ; nor did he appear in
the greatness of his strength, but as a feeble lamb dumb
before the shearer, he was led to the slaughter, and cru-
cified through weakness. In this text he trod the wine-
press, and trampled down the people, and -stained his
garments with their blood. When he suflered, he was
mangled and abused by his enemies, and his 'garments
were stained with his own blood. In the above pas-
sage, he says, " The day of vengeance is in mine heart,
and the year of my redeemed has come. The day he
suffered was not a day of vengeance in which he trod
down the people in his anger, trampled them in his fury.
and brought down their strength to the earth, nor had
the year to deliver his redeemed from all their troubles
then come.

I think this text alludes to the time when Christ will
appear as the destroyer of his enemies : when he will
sit on a cloud whh a golden crown on his head, and a
sharp sickle in his hand, with which he will reap the
vine of the earth, when her grapes are fully ripe,
and cast it into the great wine-press of the wrath o\

SURETY RIGHTEOUSNESS. 27J

God. Rev. xiv. 14. 19. All the Lord's enemies are
represented under the character of Edom ; and Bozrah
was the metropolis of Edom. This country was inha-
bited by the descendants of Esau, and is sometimes
called Idumea. And when Christ shall tread the wine-
press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, till
blood shall come out of it to the horse-bridles, by the
space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs, ^wilfbe the
time when the indignation of the Lord shall be upon all
nations, and his fury upon all their armies. And the
mountains shall be melted with their blood : for the
sword of the Lord shall be bathed in heaven, and it shall
come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of his
curse to judgement. For then he will have a sacrifice
at Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.
Isa. xxxiv. 2. 5. 6.

It is not a little strange that those passages which
say he trod, and that he treadeth, the wine-press of the
fierceness and wrath of Almighty God, should be
brouorht to prove, that instead of treading, he was trod-
den in the wine-press of God's wrath. If they had
brought the text that says, Moses slew the Egyptian to
prove by it that the Egyptian killed Moses, it would
have been fully as much to the point. Yet these scrip-
tures are quite as well adapted to the purpose as any
which can be brought to prove that Jesus Christ appeas-
ed, reconciled, or in any other respect changed the un-
changeable God.

I have heard those who believe in surety righteous-
ness ask the following question. If we do not regard
Christ as our surety, and trust to his righteousness be-
ing imputed to us, how are we to understand those
scriptures, that speak of trusting in Christ, and believ-
ing in Christ ? In answer to this question, I will just
observe, that to beUeve, or trust in Christ, does not ne-
cessarily imply that we must regard him as a surety to
be righteous instead of us. The Jews professed to be-
lieve in Moses : and Christ says, they trusted in him ;
and were accused by him. Joh. v. 45, 46. And the
Apostles said, that "Moses of old time hath in every city
them that preach him." Act. xv. 21. By these pas-
sages we understand, that they believed hh trusted in,

272 SURETY RIGIITEOUSNESS^

were accused by, or preached, the law of Moses. So
I think that to believe in Christ, and trust in him, is to
believe in his gospel, and trust in its promises.

I do not think, however, that the difference between
the pious advocates of purchased grace and free grace
is essential, or even so great as some people suppose :
they agree in all the essential points. They both be-
lieve that Christ is the only way of salvation, and that
in border to be saved by him, they must believe, and
obey his gospel ; but they differ in this ; the advocates
of purchased grace teach that Christ purchased grace
from God for sinners by suffering the penalty of the law
in their room and stead : while those who believe in
free grace affirm that it is freely given to us by GotI
through Christ.

The former think that although they are very unwor-
thy, yet they arc justified by works, not their own, bu?
the works of their surety, which he performed instead of
them : while the latter believe that God, for his own
name's sake, freely justifies them by his grace. The
former think that Christ purchased heaven for them,
and that they can therefore claim of God the Father an
inheritance in glory on the ground of merit, the full
price having been paid to him for it by their surety in
their room and stead : while those who believe in frec^
grace think that they will in time and eternity, ascribe
all their happiness to the free unmerited grace of God.

But at the same time those who believe in purchased
grace must feel as much beholding to Christ for their
happiness, as the others do to God. And as they gen-
erally think Christ is the supreme God, and do not be-
lieve that any person purchased the favor of Christ for
them, it amounts to nearly the same thing, both parties
expect to be saved by the unmerited grace of the su-
preme God.

273

There is one error in the preface of this book ■whici.i
I wish the reader to correct. In page 6th, line 6th
from the top, omit the following words : and before I
had seen a concordance. The mistake escaped my at^
tention till the first form was worked off. The fact is,
I never did see a concordance till some years after I
professed rehgion, nor had I the use of <jne till after I
got in possession of my present views, but still I had
seen one before I wrote them for the press.

There is one more error in the book that I wish to
correct, and that is respecting the copy right. I at
first had no intention to have it secured, but as some
of my friends insisted on it, I with reluctance, gave my
consent. Since that time I have been fully convinced
that it would be wrong for me to prevent any person
from printing this, or any other good book. I, there-
fore, avail myself of this opportunity to inform the public
that any person may print the book that pleases. 1
hereby renounce all my claim to the copy right, and
wish the public to consider the book the same as if the
copy right had never been secured.

July 29, 1839. WILLIAM KINKADE.

VART Vil

OF FAiTIJ.

tllAPTEK I.

A FEW REMARKS ON THE DOCTRISE OF FAITH,

. Faith is a rclyinj-on evidenoe. On the doctrine oi
taith there are two opinions among Christians. The
advocates of one opinion teach that it is the immediate^
or direct gift of God, wrought in the creature by tho
operation of the Holy Spirit. The others also believe
that Faith is the gift of God, but they think he gives ii
to them mediately, or indirectly ; that is, they think he
gives it to them through the means of evidence. The
former teach, that no person can act, saving faith, tiii
ufter he is quickened, and renevved by the Holy Spirit :
while the latter affirm, that God has given sufficient evi-
dence in his gospel to enable all rational persons, who
hear it, to believe to the salvation of their souls.

If we cannot believe till after we are changed by the
Spirit, all our seeking previous to that time must be
sin, because Paul says, " Whatsoever is not of faith^
is sin." Rom. xiv. 23. We must have faith before
we can be benefitted by the word of God, because the
scripture says, " The word preached did not profit them,
not beinij mixed with faith in them that heard it." Hcb,

276 or FAITH.

iv. 2. If we must be converted by the Spirit before \vc
can act faith, then the Holy Spirit must dwell in us be-
fore we believe there is any Holy Spirit ; because if
we do not believe the gospel, we do not believe in Fa-
ther, Son, nor Spirit. Some preachers teach that faith
is the immediate gift of God, wrought in us by Almighty
power, and that until this gift is bestowed by an act of
God, it is as impossible for us to believe, as it is to^make
a world, and then, as if they thought we have power to
l)eheve the \vord whenever we hear it, they quote scrip-
ture to make us believe their doctrine.

Christ says, '* He that believeth on him is not con-
demned : but he that beheveth not is condemned al-
ready, because he hath jiot believed in the name of the
only-begotten Son of God." Job. iii. 18. The Sa-
viour makes faith the condition of salvation, but if we
say, he has given all who hear the gospel power to be-
lieve it, those preachers accuse us of heresy : so the
gospel condemns us for not believing, and they condemn
us for believing that we can believe. ^Vhen Christ was
on earth, some bigotted professors agreed among them-
selves that if any maa believed on him, he should be
cast out of the synagogue, and some very strenuous
professors in the present day, are in the habit of expel-
ing, and debarring from church privileges, all who say
they can believe in him : and at the same time that they
deny us the power of believing God, they require us to
believe their system, or else be excommunicated. Christ
nor his apostles never told their hearers, that it was as
impossible to beUeve them as to make a world.

If an ambassador from England to America, after
delivering a very important message to the heads of our
Government, would tell them that it is impossible for
them to believe him, they would think he knew what he
said was untrue, or else they would think he was a fool.
(Some people say the word of God is a dead letter, and
of no more use to us till after we are converted than a
«;ommon history : but Christ says, " The words that I
speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Job.
vi. 63. Is not my word like as a fire, saith the Lord,
and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces 1"
Jer. xxiii. 29. In Rom. iii. 30, faith is represented ^s

01^ FAITH. 377

being tlie ins{?umental cause of justification : hence,
Paul says, " Seeing it is one God, which shall justifylthe
circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through
faith." As every cause precedes its effect, faith must
precede justification, because it would be impossible
for us to be justified by faith, if we had none ; besides
Christ says of the unbeliever, that he is condemned aU
readiji of course he cannot be justified.

The scripture says, we are born of the word. " Be-
ing born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor-
ruptible, by the word of God, which liveth, and abideth
forever." 1 Pet. i. 23. That this ivord, of which the
saints are said to be born again, is the written testimo-
ny, appears from the 25th verse of the same chapter,
'"* And this is the word which by the gospel is preached
unto you." This shows that faith must be exercised
before we can experience regeneration, because it is
evident that we must believe the word before we can be
born of it. Paul says, the gospel is the power of God
to salvation to every one that believeth. Rom. i. 16.
David says, " The law of the Lord is perfect, convert-
ing the soul, the testimony of the Lord is sure, making-
wise the simple." Psal. xix. 7. This proves that we
must believe before we are converted, because if we are
converted and enlightened by the Spirit before we can
believe the law and the testimony, tliey neither convert.,
Hor make us wise.

Faith is the condition of the New Covenant, and if it be
out of our power to act faith, the New Covenant is more
grievous than the old ; because it condemns us for
not doing an impossibility. When the jailor asked
Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved, they an*
Bwered : " Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
shalt be saved." Acts xvi. 30, 31, 34. The jailor
believed, and was baptized the same hour. If they had
told him that it was as impossible for him to believe in
Christ as it was to make a world, but that he must wait
God's good time, and that if he was one of the elect
number, God would, when his ov»'n time come, send the
Holy Spirit, and change his heart, and then, and not
,titt then, be would be able to believe in Chiist, it is nor,^

2.^

27S OF FAITH.

at all probable that he would have got religion thai
night.

Any one that is born again, knows, loves, and fear?
God. If we must be bom again before we can act
faith, then we .nust know, love, and fear God, before
we believe in him. " But without faith it is impossible
to please him : for he that cometh to God must believe
that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that dili-
gently seek him." Heb. xi. 6. To be converted be-
fore we act faith, is to get religion when we are neither
coming to, pleasing, nor obeying God, for without faith
it is impossible to do either. If we cannot believe till
after we are changed by the spirit, all our seeking pre-
vious to that time must be sin, " For whatsoever is not
of faith is sin." Rom. xiv. 23. Therefore, according
to this doctrine, if we tell a sinner to seek, and he shall
find, it is the same as to say, " Sin, and you shall be
saved."

The advocates of this doctrine argue, that if sinners
are dead in trespasses and sins, that it is therefore im-
possible for them to act faith till they are made alive,
and renewed by the Holy Spirit ; for, say they, how can
a dead man put forth a living act ? To this I answer,
that although sinners are dead, in a moral point of view,
yet they are not dead in an intellectual sense : they arc
still rational and accountable beings, capable of believ-
ing evidence, and of obeying God, or rebelling against
him. If they were too dead to believe, they would be
too dead to disbelieve. It is as much of a living act
to reject testimony, when it is offered, as it is to receive
it. It frequently requires greater mental exertion to
reject than to receive testimony ; because, when it is
offered to us, we are furnished with the evidence ready
made up, and presented to our minds, but in order to
disbelieve, we have have to exert our minds in collect-
ing evidence, to refute that which is to be discredited.

That persons who are dead in sin are not too dead
io beheve the gospel, appears from the v/ords of Christ
in the following passage . " Jesus said unto her, I am
the resurrection and the life : he that beheveth in me,
though he were dead, yet shall he live." John xi. 25.

REGENERATION THROUGH FAITH. 27^

If ihey who hold that sinners cannot come to Jesus
oy faith until they are renewed by the Holy Ghost, be
right, then Jesus is not the Saviour of sinners, because
the Holy Ghost, who they say is a distinct person, saves
them before they come to him.

CHAPTER II.

TO 5E0M" THAT REGENERATION IS EFFECTED BY THE HOLT
SPIRIT THROUGH THE MEANS OF FAITH.

Among those who think it is the duty and privilege ot
all who hear the gospel, to "*.believe and obey it, there
are two opinions on the subject. Some of them think
that faith is the efficient cause of regeneration ; while
others believe that it is only an instrumental cause, and
that the efficient cause of the new birth is the operation
of the Holy Spirit on the heart, which they think is re-
ceived through faith The former teach that regenera-
tion is a moral persuasion, and that the opinions they
receive in believing the gospel deeply affi^ct their hearts,
and produce the most salutary effects on their temper,
and conduct. The latter believe all this, and more
too: they think the new birth is not only a change of
opinion, followed by a correspondent change of temper
and conduct, bat that it is a real change of heart, effect-
ed in us by a supernatural energy.

That the new birth i. effected by a direct act of God,
appears from the following text : " Marvel not that 1
said unto thee, ye must be born again. The wind
bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound
thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whith-
er it goeth : so is every one that is born of the Spirit.'-
John iii. 7, 8. Now, if regeneration consists in nothing
more than our belief, and the effect it has on our tern-

280 UEGENERATION THROUGH FAITH^

per and conduct, why did not Christ tell Nicodemu-^
so ? If that was all which was necessary for him to
believe on the subject, why did the Saviour in explain-
ing it to him ascribe the new birth to the Holy Spirit ?
and compare it to the wind blowing where it listeth ^
Surely our act of believing has no resemblance to the
blowing of wind.

Some Christians think tlmt although the new birtli
might have been effected by, or at least accompanied
with the direct operations of the Holy Spirit in the apos-
tolic age, that the case is very different now : they
assert that the Spirit is now confined to the word, and
that since the days of the apostles there is no present
outpouring of the spirit from heaven. If this doctrine
be true, I do not see the use of praying for the Spirit,
nor for any Spiritual blessing ; seeing all the Spirit that
we are to expect is in the Bible, and it we have already.
If I believed that the Spirit is confined to the word, anci
should under that belief pray for the Spirit at all, I
would either pray to the Bible to give it to me, oi' else I
would pray to God to give me more Bibles.

If God will not pour out of his Spirit on us in the
present day, we must be in a dispensation very differ-
ent from that of the primitive Christians : for the Holy
Spirit was frequently poured out on them. God says»
by Joel. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that I will
pour out my Spirit on all fiesh.'^ Acts ii. 16. Christ
says, " Your heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit
to them that ask him." Luke xi» 13. James says,
*'If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God, that
giveth to all men, liberally, EUid upbraideth not ; and
it shall be given him." Jam. i. 5. It appears frcn'ir.
tlais and similar passages, that we may pray to God for.
and expect to receive supernatual aid from him.

The Bible did not give me religion, but it was the
means through which I got it. The holy scriptures
gave me the knowledge of God, and taught me that I
was a sinner, and that the Lord would have mercy on
me if I would seek him. I then sought him, and he
gave me religion, which I think was a special gift from
himself. As we are liable to take the suggestions of thf
devil for the operations of the spirit ; it i^, therefarc,.

REGENERATION THROUGH FAITH. 281

necessary that we should take the Bible for our standard,
by which to try the spirits. But if there be no opera-
lion of the spirit, it is most probable that God, instead
of telling us to try the spirits, would have told us to re-
ject them all.

Were I to believe that the word is a dead letter, and
that I must be entirely guided by the spirit, I would be
liable to mistake the impulses of my own mind, and the
temptations of the devil for the teachings of the spirit :
and so run into all manner of delusions. And I sup-
pose this error has produced many of the delusions that
are in the world. On the other hand, if I should be-
lieve that God will not pour out his spirit on us in the
present day to fire our hearts with his love, nor to dispel
the clouds of darkness from our minds, I think it would
destroy the spirit of prayer out of my heart altogether,
and of course I would lose the spirit of religion: be-
cause I can see no use in praying to God for blessings,
when I believe he will give me none.

Although the spirit does not teach any thing contrary
to the word, yet it teaches things that the word does not
teach. The word points out the qualifications of
preachers, and christians ; and the spirit by giving those -
quaUfications, points out the persons.

The part that faith has in the conversion of a soul, is,
I think, clearly pointed out in the following narrative of
the woman that had the issue of blood, vvho, " When she
had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and
touched his garment : for she said, if I may but touch
his clothes, I shall be whole. And straightway the
fountain of her blood was dried up ; and she felt in her
>ody that she was healed of that plague. And Jesus,
immediately knovv-::ig in himself that virtue had gone out
of him, turned hini about in the press, and said, who
touched my clothes 1 And he said unto her, daughter,
thy faith hath made thee whole." Mark v. 27, 2S, 29.i
30,^34. Thus we see that although Christ said her
faith had made her whole, still it is evident that her faith
was not the efficient ca'ise of her cure, it was the virtue
which went out of him t'lat cured the woman, and faith
was the means by which she obtained that virtue. But
if she had had as much faith in touching the clothes of
2-4*

2S2 REGENERATION- THROUGH FAlTm'

any other person in the world, it would have done he:t
no good, because no matter how strong faith is, it can=
not draw virtue from that which has none.

Neither the promise, nor faith in it, is the thing prom-
ised, but the promise is the means through which it i?
conveyed, and faith is the hand reached out to receive
it, and the spirit, which is the thing promised, is a gif?
right from God. Hence, Paul says, " In whom, also,
after that ye behoved, ye were sealed with that Hoi}'
Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheri-
tance." Eph. i. 13, 14. It is well known that earnest
money is part of a price paid in order to confirm a bar-
gain, and that the party v>'ho pays it, by so doing, obli-
gates himself to pay the whole stipulated sum. Whei;
we enter into the new covenant, God promises us an
inheritance in heaven incorruptible, undefiled, and that
fadeth not away; and when he gives us his Holy Spirit,
it is something more than a promise ; it is part of the
inheritance, given as an earnest of the balance : and
by it we are assured that God v/ill faithfully perform to
us every promise he has made in the gospel.

The scriptures require us to believe with our heartS;
which is very different from believing with our heads.
Thousands that are not born of God profess to believe
in Christ : but John says, " Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." 1 John v. 1. —
Of course I conclude that the faith of those unregen-
erate believers is nothing more than an opinion of the
head: but Paul says, ''With the heart man believetli
imto righteousness." Rom. x. 10, The heart in scrip-
ture signifies the soul, and all its affections. And un-
til all the desires of the heart are placed on Christ,
some of them must be placed on other objects, which
the heart loves better than it does him. The Jews pro-
fessed to believe Moses, and so strenuous were they
for the law of Moses, that they wanted to murder Christ
feecause he healed a man on the Sabbath day; but Christ^
said to them, " For had ye believed Moses, ye would
Imve believed me : for he wrote of me. But if ye be-
lieve not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?'*
^ohn V. 46, 47. They had a system of opinions iii.
'£h.eij>k,eatls, and honored the Lord with their Itpsj^ biix^-

KEGEKERA.TION OF FAITH. 2S3

itieir hearts were far from him. When the eunuch said,
here is water ; " What doth hinder me to be baptized ?
Phihp said if thou behevest with all thine heart thoTi
mayest." Acts viii. 36, 37. God says, " Ye shall
seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with
all your heart." Jer. xxix. 13. It is impossible to
believe in God with all our hearts without loving him
with all our hearts. And if we love him, we will keep
his commandments. Faith and obedience are so nigh
akin that the one cannot hve without the other ; " For
as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith withou'^
works is dead also." Jam. ii. 26.

God is as willing for sinners to come to him and re-
ceive pardon now, as he ever was, or ever will be. J
should think myself guilty of treason against God, if I
were to tell his creatures that they can neither believe
nor obey hun.

Every argument used to convince sinners that God
has not yet given them power to believe, and obey him,,
is an argument to persuade them to do neither the one.
nor the other ; because there is no way more effectual
to stop any person from doing a thing, than to make
him beheve he cannot do it.

Were I to tell those who are rebelling against God.
that he, having ordained whatsoever comes to pass, has
put it out of their power to do otherwise ; and that the
time wliich he has appointed for them to cease rebellion
has not yet come, that he has ordained that they shall
rebel till that time does come; and that he w ill then
cause any of them, who may be of the elect number, to
believe and obey him, and that although the greater part
of them will never have it in their power to turn to God.
yet he will punish them to all eternity for not turning, 1
do not think such preaching would consist with the glory
of God, or the good of men : yet this kind of preaching
is very common in the present day. Some preachers^
instead of preaching the gospel to sinners, and persuad-
ing them to repent, and believe in Christ, spend much
of their time in persuading them that they can neither
believe in Christ, nor turn to him now, but that they
inust wait till God's tirae comeSj which is the game as

284 riEGENERATIOxN THROUGH FAITH. ^

0 say that God is not willing for them to turn to him
!0W, but that he wants them to sin a while longer.

That the Lord is willing for sinners to come to him
low, appears from the following texts : '' To-day, if ye
will hear his voice, harden not your hearts." Heb. iii.
7, S. " Behold, now is the accepted time : behold, uow
is the day of salvation." 2 Cor. vi. 2. Jesus Christ
says, " Come ; for all things are now ready." Liik(i
xiv. 17.

The following text has been brought to prove that wo
cannot have faith until it is wrought, in us l3y the opera-
tion of the Spirit. " Buried with him in baptism,
vherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of
le operation of God, who hath raised him from the
lead." Col. ii. 12. This text does not prove the doc-
trine ; because, as we in the ordinance of baptism are
raised to newness of life by faith in Christ's resurrec-
tion, which was effected by the operation of God's
power, it is evident that the operation of God spoken of
in the text, was the resurrection of Christ, and the object
of our faith.

Paul says, *' Faith comes by hearing." Rom. x. 17.
He also says, that the spirit is received through faith.
»' Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by
the hearing of faith?" '' He therefore that ministereth
to you the Spirit, and worketh »niracles among you,
doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of
faith 1" Gal. iii. 2. 5. Jesus says, the saints are sancti-
fied through faith. " Them which are sanctified by faith
that is in me." Acts xxvi. 18. Just before Christ left
this world he prayed to his Father for his disciples say-
ing, '•' Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also
sent them into the world. And fjr their sakes I sanc-
tify myself, that they also might be sanctified through
the truth." John xvii. 17, 18, 19.

Some people have said that faith is no how dependant
on the will, nor affections, but that it depends entirely
on evidence. In this I think they are mistaken. Al-
though faith is the effect that evidence has on the mind,
the will frequently decides whether the evidence shall
he admitted or rejected. And when the evidence is?

admitted, it is nourished, or suppressed by the affec*
tions, according as it agrees with, or opposes them. It
the doctrine beheved agrees with the affections, they
promote every mental exertion to brighten the evidence
in its favor : but if it opposes them, they will oppose it,
and directly set the mind on search of conflicting evi-
dence to enable it to doubt. Hence the great neceSr-
sity of training up children to rehgion, and cultivating
good affection in their minds from their infancy.

We are naturally inclined to believe things are as we
wish them to be. A majority of the people are aptesi
to believe that doubtful popular elections will end agree-
ably to their wishes.

Prejudice has a deleterious effect on the understand*-
ing. I have known some people so prejudiced againsi
a preacher, or his congregation, that the clearest evi-
dence could make no impression on their minds, al-
though they sometimes gave accurate attention to the
best of sermons. Again I have known those same per-
sons, (after having their prejudices against the people
removed,) to be convinced by much less convincuag
evidence.

Nearly nine 'tenths of the people in this gospel land,
have faith enough to save their souls, if they would only
put it into practice. If every one would do all he be-
lieves is right, and leave undone all he believes is wrong,
no doubt but that the most of them would be saved.

Faith without works is dead, and cannot save the
soul, but a living faith always produces good works, and
is accompanied with salvation. The heathen who
never heard the gospel, have no choice whether they
"will or will not believe it : but those who were raised in
a gospel land have their choice whether they will have
a living or a dead faith, that is, they may either do the
things they believe they ought to do, or they may neg'
lect them, and pursue the course which they believe is
wrong.

If faith were no how dependant on the will, nor affec-
tions, unbelief could be no crime, because nothing can
be a crime to us that has no connection with our wills,
nor affections : but Jesus Christ charges unbelief on
those who reject his gospQl as a condemning sin. H^

286 rAiTH.

says, '^ He that believeth not is condemned already, he
cause he hath not beheved in the name of the only-be-
gotten Son of God." John iii. 18.

It has been argued by some people, that all persons
act at all times according to their faith, that is, that they
invariably pursue the greatest apparent good : but I
think this is a mistake. If all people would always do
what they believe is best, no person could have a guilty
conscience. We see mankind generally act according
to their inclinations, when at the same time they believe
and acknowledge that such a course of conduct is not
right, nor not the best for themselves. This again ar-
gues the necessity of training up children in the habits
of virtue.

PART YIII.

OF ELECTION.

The following discourse on election was first piib-
lished in Vincennes in 1818. It has gone through se-
eral editions in the Western States, but has never
:irculated much east of the mountains. I now offer to
?.he public the present edition, with some improve-
ments.

SER3IOX

ON

ELECTION,

BY

WILLIAM KIAKADE,

A MINISTER OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION,

i have not written this sermon as the system of any
sect, nor was I employed by any to write it. I wrote
it of my own accord, and send it into the world as a
sketch of my own sentiments ; and for it I alone am ac-
countable.

As this sermon was not written to support any par-
ticular sect, I hope no person will be afraid to read it. '

All pious, sensible people, know that truth cannot suf-
fer from investigation. In this sermon I have but once
disputed the translation. In other parts of it I have re-
ferred to the original, merely to explain the English
scriptures. If I have named Calvinism, it was only to
expose the doctrine. I love the Calvinists as well as
F do any christians. — May the Lord guide Us into all
-luth.

ON

From Romans Tiii, S3.
■^ ^VHO SHALL LAY AXY THING TO THE CHARGE OF &0D*«

I have always regarded election as one of the mosr
important doctrines of Christianity, and have been no
little surprised to hear some christians say •.' away with
election !" As election is plainly taught in the Bible, 1
shall attempt, not to explode, but to explain the doctrine.
In doing this I shall have occasion frequently to hold
up to view that system of election which is believed b\
my Calvinistic brethren, and by so doing I do not ex-
pect to offend pious and sensible Calvinists, because
all my sensible readers must discover that it is my in-
tention neither to deceive nor ridicule, but in humilit}
and love to instruct them. Although this text would
naturally lead me to speak, not only of the elect, bui
also of the charges that might be brought against them,
and of the principle on which they are cleared of those
charges ; yet as I design the sermon shall be entireh
an election, I shall neglect the two last propositions^

29^ JHE ilLECT.

and confine myself to the first, in discussing which, t
shall endeavor to show,

1. TVTio the elect are,

2. WTien and how they were elected. And

3. Answer the objections that are most commonly
brought against the doctrine, which I shall advance.

SECTION I.

TO SHOW WHO THE ELECT ARE.

Agreeable to the method proposed, the first question
that arises, is, " who are God's elect ?" I answer, the
elect of God are, first, Jesus Christ, and secondly, every
christian. That Christ is called God's elect, appears
from Isa. xlii. 1, 2, 3. " Behold my servant, whom I
uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth : I have
put my Spirit upon him : he shall bring forth judgement
to the Gentiles. He shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause
his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed
shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not
quench : he shall bring forth judgement unto truth.'*
That the person here described is Christ, is evident
from; Mat. xii. 18, 19, 20. *' Behold my servant,
whom I have chosen : my beloved, in whom my soul
is well pleased : I will put my Spirit upon him, and he
shall show judgement to the Gentiles. He shall not
strive, nor cry, neither shall any man hear his voice in
the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and
smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth
judgement unto victory." But this is not the only place
where Christ is called the elect of God ; he is mentioned
under that character in 1 Pet. ii. 6. '' Behold I lay in
Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious : and he that
bclieveth in him shall not be confounded.

To elect, is to choose, and that Christ was chosen of
Clod, is clear from the following texts : *' I have made

THE ELECT.- 29*3

a covenant with my chosen." Psal. Ixxxix. 3. No
person, who will read this psalm throughout, will den}
that the person here mentioned is Christ. " If so be
ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious : To whom
coming as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed ol
men, but chosen of God, and precious." 1 Pet. ii. 3.
4. " Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and
saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have
exalted one chosen out of the people." Psal. Ixxxix.
19. From these passages it appears that Christ is the
great elect head, and of course e^ ery christian must be
un elect member, for the church is the body of Christ,
and of this body every believer is a member. " ISow
ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
i Cor. xii. 27.'

" And gave him to be head over all things to the
church, which is his body." Ephes. i. 22, 23.

" And he is the head of the body, the church." Col.
i. 18. " So we being many, are one body in Christ,
and every one m.cmbers one of another." Rom. xii. 6.

As Christ is the elect head, and the church his elect
body. v%'e may safely conclude that all christians are
elect miCmbers of this body ; and consequently there
must be a great difference between God's chosen, or
elect ones, and the vrorld ; hence Christ says, " If ye
were of the world, the world would love his own, but
because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you
out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Job.
XV. 19. Christ, who speaks as man never spoke, give?>
an excellent trait of the elect character in his parable of
the unjust judge. " Shall not God avenge his own
elect, ?t'/io cnj clay and nio'ht imto him V Luke xviii.
7. Saint Paul more fully delineates the character of
the elect in Col. iii. 12, 13. " Put on therefore, as the
elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kind-
ness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering.
Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, it'
any man have a quarrel against any : even as Chrisi
forgave you, so also do ye."

It is not necessary for you to ascend to the third hea-
ven, and there search the secret book of fate in order
to -discQYcr whether vou are of the elect or jiot. Theiv
25*

294 THE ELECT.

character is here clearly described, and you need not
the knowledge of a prophet, nor an apostle, nor even a
liberal education to know whether you are, or are not of
that character. Do you cry to God day and night ]
Are you holy and beloved 1 Have you put on bowels of
mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness and
long suffering 1 Do you possess that forbearing and for-
giving spirit which was in Christ ? If you do not, you
may rest assured that you are not of the elect number.

As the elect members have a union with Christ their
elect head, they must be elected, or chosen in him, hence
the apostle says, " He hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love." Eph. i. 4. The
apostle in this text tells us for what purpose we were
chosen, viz. — " That we might be holy and without
blame before him in love." It also appears from the
same passage, that we are chosen, not out of Christ, but
in him ; and the same apostle says, " If any man be in
Christ he is a new creature ; old things are passed
away ; behold all things are become new." 2 Cor. v.
17. Now I think if we are new creatures, and holy, and
without blame before him in love, we must be christians ;
and therefore this passage will not prove that God has
chosen us while we were wicked. The most probable
meaning of the text is, that God, from before the foun-
daiion of the world, chose the character that he knew
would on gospel principles, unite with, and be in Christ.
And now, if we sustain that character, we may with pro-
priety say, " He hath chosen us in him from before the
foundation of the \vorld." Yet he has certainly left it to
our free will, whether to be, or not to be of that cha-
racter.

So!iie people are at a great loss to know whether they
are of the elect, or reprobate number ; but I can tell you,
if Christ is in you, you are of the elect number, but if he
is not. you are reprobates. Because the apostle says,
" Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith; prove
your ownselves ; know ye not your ownselves, how that
Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates ?" 2
Cor. xiii. 5. That the elect are Christ's people, I sup-
pose no person will deny ; and it is evident frpm scrip-

WHEN AND HOW WE ARE ELECTED. 295

ture, that no person, destitute of Christ's spirit, can be
one of his people, because the apostle says, " Now if
any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his."
Rom. viii. 9.

It is impossible that we could have been of the elect
number from all eternity, because we all recollect a
time when we had not Christ in us, and were therefore
not of the elect, but of the reprobate number. We all
know there was a time when we had not the spirit of
Christ, and were on that account none of his.

SECTION II.

TO SHOW WHEX AX'D HOW GOD S PEOPLE ARE ELECTED.

Having thus shown who the elect are, I now come,
according to the second proposition, to show when and
how they are elected. Among christians I know two
parties who differ on this subject; one says election
takes place in this life, the other affirms that it was from
all eternity. Those who beheve the latter sentiment
are mostly Presbyterians and Baptists. I will state
their sentiments in their own words : "By the decree
of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men
and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and
others fore-ordained to everlasting death. Those angels
and men thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are par-
ticularly and unchangeably designed ; and their number
is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increas-
ed or diminished." — (See Confession of Faith, chap,
iii. sec. 3. 12. The Confession of Faith of the regular
Baptists, is, in this doctrine, precisely that of the Pres-
byterians ; and it appears to me that if their system be
true, we are so bound down by the cords of fatality that
no person, by any thing he can do, can make any alter-
ation in hxs fate.

WHEN AKO HOW WE ARE ELECTED; ^i

Some say that the saints were elected from all eter-
nity. This I do not believe for the following reason :

Election signifies a choosing, and implies action ;
every action has a time when it takes place, and oi'
course there must have been a time before it took place >
and therefore cannot be from all eternity. The same
may be said of justification from all eternity ; the thing
js impossible, because, to justify, is cither to absolve
from gailt, or from a charge of it, or to declare one to
be just ; and in either of these senses it cannot be from
all eternity, because the guilt, or the charge of guilt from
which the act of justification acquits, must be anterior
to that acquittal. Justification in every sense of the.
word implies action, and every action, has a time when
it takes place, and for that reason cannot be from all
eternity, therefore seeing these truths are self-evident.
I hope we will hear no more of election, or justification
iTom all eternity.

But there are some people who do not think election
was from all eternity, yet they think it took place before
the tbundation of the world : with these I agree in part.
First, I believe, that, from before the foundation of the
world, God chose, or elected Jesus Christ to be the great
head of the church. And, secondly, I believe that God
at the same time chose the character, that every one of
his members should sustain ; yet I do not think that he
at that time elected us personally, but left it to our free,
will, whether to be, or to not be of that character. Saint
Paul says of himself, and the Ephesian church, thatthev
" were by nature the children of wrath even as others.'"
Ephes. ii. 3. Now if they had been elected, and their
salvation made sure before the foundation of the world,
I do not see how at any time of their lives they could
have been children of wrath even as others.

When we were under conviction, we were under the
teachings of the Holy Ghost, and certainly he taught us
the truth, and well do we remember that the spirit then
made us beheve, we were in danger of the pains of hell,
and^the wrath of God forever. It is plain that if we
were elected, and made completely safe from before the
foundation of the world, our conviction must have been
a mistake, because according to that principle, we cdu1<?

W&EN AND HOW WE ARE ELECTED. 297

hot at any time of our lives have been in danger either
of hell, or the wrath of God. It is easy to see that this
system contradicts the experience of every christian in
the world ; therefore every christian who acts rationally
will reject it, or try to get a new experience. If it be
true, that God has, as the Confession of Faith says, in
chap. iii. sec. 5, according to an eternal purpose of his
own, from before the foundation of the world, elected a
part of mankind, and that not on account of any good
works which he foresaw in them, and at the same time
passed by the rest of mankind, and ordained them to eter-
nal destruction, it must follow with moral certainty, that
he is a respecter of persons. But the following passa-
ges of scripture sufficiently prove the reverse : " There
is no respect of persons with God." Rom. ii. 11. —
" And ye masters do the same things unto them, for-
bearing threatening : knowing that your master also is
in heaven : neither is there respect of persons with him."
Eph. vi. 9. " But he that doeth wrong shall receive
for the wrong which he hath done : and there is no res-
pect of persons." Col. iii. 25. It is probable that
St. Peter once thought God was a respecter of persons,
and that his spiritual blessings were confined to the Jews.
But the Lord showed him a vision, which convinced
him of his errror, and made him willing to go and preach
in the house of Cornelius an uncircumcised Gentile,
and as soon as Peter had entered into his house, and
heard how the Lord had been dealing with him, he ex-
claimed, " Of a truth I.perceive that God is no respec-
ter oj persons : but in every nation, he that feareth him
and worketh righteousnesss, is accepted with him." —
Acts X. 34, 35.

It is impossible that God could have been a respecter
of persons toward the human family before the fall of
man, for then they were all holy, they being all in
Adam's loins, and Adam in God's image, and if God
had then passed a decree of reprobation against any of
them, he would have reprobated his own image.

He could have been no respecter of persons toward
them after the fall, because then they were all fallen. —
As we all fell equally in Adam, would it not comport
with justice, and mercy, and the principles' of equality

WHEN AND KOW WE ARE ELECTED. 29&

16 give us all an equal chance to rise in ChristJ Cer-
tainly every benevolent mind must agree, that this is'
reasonable and right, and I am happy in affirming to my
readers that it is no less scriptural, than reasonable, be-
cause Saint Paul says, " Therefore, as by the offence
of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation.:
even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came
upon all men unto justification of life." Rom. v. 18.
The plaster is as wide as the sore. The grace display-
ed in the second Adam embraces all, who fell in the first.-
Therefore with Paul, " We thus judge, that if one died
for all, then were all dead, and that he died for all, that
Ihey, who live should not henceforth live unto them*.
^selves, but unto him, who died for them, and rose
again." 2 Cor. v. 14, 15.

The following passages of scripture, which prove that
Christ died equally for all men, are sufficient to convince
us, that he did not elect a part, and reprobate the rest
from before the foundation of the world. " I exhort.,
therefore, that first of all, supplications, prayers, inter-
cessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men :
for kings, and for all that are in authority ; that we
may lead a quiet, and peaceable life in all godhness,
and honesty ; for this is good ; and acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all men to be
saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. — •
For there is one God, and one Mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave him-
self a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 1
Tim. ii. 1 — 6. The word all occurs three times in this
passage, and it is each time of equal extent. First.
Paul will have us to pray for all men, and the reason
he gives is, because, " It is good, and acceptable in the
sight of God our Saviour ; who will have all men to
be saved." And the consequence of that willingness
is, that the Mediator has given " himself a ransom for
all to be testified in due time."

John says, " He is the propitiation for our sins ; and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole
world " 1 Joh. ii. 2. Paul says, " We see Jesus, who
was made a little lower than the Angels for the suffer-
ing of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he^

WHEN AND HOW WE AJIE ELECTED. 299

by the grace of God, should taste death for every man/'
Heb. ii. 9. Jesus Christ says, " God so loved the
world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoso-
ever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever-
lasting life." Joh. iii. 16. God himself says, " Look
unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, for I
am God and there is none else." Isa. xlv. 22. When
the angel announced the birth of Christ to the shep-
lierds, he said, *•' Behold, I bring you good tidings of
great joy, which shall be to all peopled Luk. ii. 10^
A.S the gospel signifies good news, and shews the wil«
lingness of God to save all men, so Christ made it the
duty of his ministers to preach the gospel to all.-—
•' And he said unto them, go ye into all the' worlds and
preach the gospel to every creature. He that beheveth
and is baptized shall be saved." Mark xvi. 15, 16. ^

If God from eternity, according to an eternal purpose
of his own, had passed by a part of mankind, and or-
dained them to wrath even before either they, or their
parents sinned, it would prove that he had some pleasure
in their destruction ; but hear him swear the reverse :
" As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in
the death of the wicked ; but that the wicked turn from
his way and live." Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

Having gone thus far in proving that we were not
elected from all eternity, nor even from before the foun-
dation of the world, I now come more particularly to
show when and how we were elected.

Saint Peter says, that those to whom he addressed his
iirst epistle, were " Elect according to the foreknowl-
edge of God the Father, through sanctification of the
spirit unto obedience, and the sprinkling of the- blood of
Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. i. 2.

If we can remember when we were sanctified by tlie
spirit unto obedience, and had our hearts sprinkled from
an evil conscience by the blood of Christ, that was the
time, and the sanctification of the spirit, and the sprink-
ling of the blood of Christ, were the means, of our eleC"
tion.

If a man can be of the elect number while he is in un-
belief, then a blaspheming infidel may be an heir of
glory, yea if it be so that a man is elected before tie

300 WHEN AND HOW WE ARE ELECTED.

is regenerated, then he may be an heir of heaven, and
an heir of hell both at the same time, because all will
acknowledge that the elect are heirs of heaven, and
Christ says of unbelievers, '* he that beheveth not is
condemned already. Job. iii. 18.

But Saint Paul tells us very plainly how we were
elected : *' But we are bound to give thanks always to
God for you brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God
hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through
sanctification of the spirit, and belief of the truth."
2 Thes. ii. 13. Surely we were not sanctified by the
spirit, nor was it possible for us to believe the truth be-
fore the world began, and of course we could not have
been chosen before the world began, because these
were the means through which we were chosen.

The fact is, when our souls were converted, then
we were elected, before that time we were " children of
wrath even as others." And the apostle shows that there
is a very great difference between the state we were in
before our conversion, and that in which we are at pre-
sent. " At that time ye were without Christ, being
aliens fi'om the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers
from the covenants of promise, having no hope and
without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus,
ye who some time were far off, are made nigh by the
blood of Christ." Eph. ii. 12, 13.

I now ask the strongest advocate of election from
eternity, that may ever read my book, if it is not pretty
hard to believe that a man can be one of God's elect, and
consequently an heir of glory, and at the same time
be without Christ, an alien from the commonwealth of
Israel, a stranger from the covenants of promise, hav-
ing no hope, and without God in the world ? Yet hard
as all this is to believe, every one, who believes the
scripture, and holds that the Saints were elected before
the world began, must believe it. Certainly the elect
of God are his heirs, but we cannot conceive how that
which has no being can be an heir, or in other words we
cannot understand how a child can be an heir before it
is adopted, born, or even conceived. But when we
were born again, we received the adoption of sons,
were united with the great family in heaven, and wer9
made elect members of Christ our great elect head ^

FOREKxN'OWLEBGE AND DECREE, 301

SECTION III,

OF FOREKNOWLEDGE AXD DECREE.

Some people suppose that God, from all eternity, de-
creed all things whatsoever comes to pass, and there-
fore they conclude that God from all eternity fixed the
fate of every man. I will here state their sentiments
in their own words : " God's decrees, are the wise,
free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby
from all eternity, he hath for his own glory, unchange-
ably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass in time,
especially concerning angels and men.*' See Larger
Catechism, question 12th.

Now if this doctrine be true, I will acknowledge that
'flection was from "all eternity, but the doctrine appears
to carry its own refutation in it. The authors tell us.
that the decrees of God are the acts of his will, they
then say, that by these acts, he has from all eternity
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, but everv
plain man knows it to be a self-evident truth, that every
act must have a time when it takes place, and for that
very good reason no act can be from all eternity.

If God has, by the acts of his will, fore-ordained all
mings whatsoever comes to pass, then it will follow that
(•very thing comes to pass just as he. wills it; and of
<;ourse no being can, ever could, or ever will do any
thing contrary to his will. I cannot see any difference
between this doctrine and Deism. The Deists say,

' Every thing comes to pass just as God wants it," and
rhe Calvinists say, " God ordains whatsoever comes
to pass." Now where is the difference 1 I can see
none. If ideas are to be drawn from words, this doc-
trine makes God the author of every sin in the universe,
Sccause all sins come to pass, and it says, " God or-

lained whatsoever comes to pass." Certainly if this
doctrine be true, the idea of sin is a mere elusion, all
angels and men are doing that which God, from eterni-

V, decreed thev should do. and which he bv the same de-
26

ao2

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND DECREE*

Oree put cut of their power to not do. But the Lord
says, " They have built the high places of Tophetj
which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burii
their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I com-
manded them not, neither came it into my heart." Jer.
vii. 31. Here is a thing, that came to pass, which it
never entered into God's heart to ordain.

The decrees of any Sovereign are his laws, so I con-
clude the decrees of God are God's laws, and as these
are the effects of his own will, every one who trans»
gresses them, acts contrary to the will of God.

The advocates of this doctrine commonly try to prove
it by the foreknowledge of God. They think that as
God foreknew every thing, he consequently foreordain-
ed every thing, for they say they can see no difference
between God's foreknowledge and his decree. Now if
God's foreknowledge and his decree be one and the
same thing, must -lot our first parents have been placed
in a most desperate situation, when they were put in the
garden ? God foreknew they would eat the forbidden
fruit, and therefore according to this doctrine, he had
decreed they should eat it. He then made a law, that
in the day they eat thereof they should surely die, so it
they refrained from eating, they would break God's de-
cree, and if they eat, they would break God's law. It
is easy to see, that according to this doctrine, it was im-
possible for our first parents to please their Maker.

The same may be said of all the sinful actions of
rnen. God foreknew them, and therefore decreed
them, and then, after decreeing them, made a law to
punish those who commit them with eternal destruction.
Surely every benevolent mind must abhor that doctrine
which represents God as punishing his creatures in hell-
iire to all eternity for doing those things which he him«
self had decreed they should do.

God has decreed many things, that never came to
pass, and if his foreknowledge and decree be the same,
this would prove that he foreknew many things which
he never foreknew, or it would prove that he was fre-
quently mistaken in his foreknowledge.

That God has decreed some things, that never did
come to pass, and that some things have happened con-

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND DECREE. 303

(laiy to his decrees, are evident from the following pas-
sages of scripture. The Lord said to Hezekiah, " Sei
thine house in order, for thou shalt die, and not live."
2 Kings, XX. 1. Although this was a firm decree, yet
on Hezekiah's repenting, God revoked it, and added to
iiis days fifteen years.

God spoke by the mouth of Jonah, saying, *' Yet
forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Jonah
iii. 4. This was a firm decree, yet on repentance the
city was spared, and the decree was never executed.

God decreed that our first parents should not eat the
forbidden fruit, but they violated the decree. He also
passed decrees to govern men, sayings "Thou shalt not
kill ; thou shall not steal, &c." But still we see men
break through all these decrees. I have mentioned
these passages to show that God's decree and fore-
knowledge cannot be the same thing, because God's
foreknowledge is perfect, and cannot be thus frus-
trated, nor violated.

The Lord certainly foreknew all sin, and if his fore-
knowledge be the same as his decree, then he must have
decreed all sin. Now sin is the transgression of the
law, and that law which it transgresses is not only the
system of God^s government, but also a transcript of
his nature, therefore that decree, which occasions sin,
operates against both the government and nature of
God. This doctrine would prove that God is divided
against himself, and if he be, according to Christ's own
maxim, his kingdom must come to an end. But this
doctrine may not appear so en-oneous to some people
as it does to others, and for that reason we ought to
have a great deal of charity for one another.

Can we not easily conceive how God could foreknow
all things without decreeing them ? Or is it not possi-
ble for him to foreknow that an event will fall out in a
certain way on certain conditions, and at the same time
foreknow that we, by the free determination of our own
wills in acceding to, or rejecting those conditions, may
cause the event to fall out in another way ?

1 think the following narrative respecting David when
lie was at Keilah is fully to the point. He was afraid
that Saul and his army would come down to Keilah, and
^hat the men of the city would give him and his men up

•^04 FOREKNOVvLCDGE AND DECREE-

to them ; and he enquired of the Lord, and said :
*' Will Saul come down as thy servant hath heard ; O t
Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee tell thy servant. —
And the Lord said, he will come down. Then said
David, will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men
to Saul ? And the Lord said they will deliver thee up
Then David and his men, who were about six hundred,
arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whitherso-
ever they could go. And it was told Saul, that David
was escaped from Keilah ; and he forbore to go forth.'"
I Sam. xxiii. 11, 12, 13.

In this case God foreknew that if David and his
men would continue in Keilah, Saul and his army
would go down to that place, and that the men of Kei-
lah would deliver David and his men into their hands,
■'ivA yet at the same time he knew that if David would
make his escape from that place, neither of those things
would happen.

God^s tbreknowledge and his decree, are two very
difterent things. Foreknowledge is a perfection of his
nature ; decree is an act of his will. To say that God's
foreknowledge and his decrees are the same thing, is
the same as to say that wisdom and actions are the
same thing. If his decrees originated from his fore-
knowledge, then there is all the difference between the
former and the latter, that there is between a cause and
its effect. But I think his decrees are caused neither
by his wisdom, nor his power, but by his disposition. —
He does not decree because he knows how to do it, noi
because he has power to do it, but he makes his decrees
because he is disposed to do so.

As God's decrees are distinct from, and w^ere not oc-
casioned by, his foreknowledge, of course the whole
system of unalterable decrees, that has been built on
the foreknowledge of God, must fall to the ground. —
If his foreknowledge is not a decree at all, nor even
the cause of a decree, then his foreknowing every thing
can be no proof that he has decreed every thing. It ap-
pears to me that we might as well try to prove that God
is the author of sin from his power, as from his wisdom.
To say that because God is omnipotent, he is therefore
the perpetrator of every wicked action in the universe, is

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND DECREE. 305

\\iii as reasonable as to say, that because he is all-wise.
Uierefore he has ordained ail the wickedness that ever
iiappened. Any of us would think hard to be con-
demned for murder, or forgery, merely because it was:
proved that we have ability to commit those crimes.

The Legislature of this state foreknew that felonies
would be committed, but that is no proof that they de-
creed them. If we allow God to be as free as an earthly
law-giver, we can easily conceive how he can foreknow
the crimes of his subjects without decreeing them.

Some people argue, that, although finite beings may
ioreknow things without ordaining them; it is not so
with God, that as he is infinite in wisdom, holiness, and
power, he, therefore, could not foreknow that any thing
would come to pass, nor would not suffer any thing to
iiappen, unless he had decreed it. With many, this ar-
gument is insurmountable, but with me it has no weight
at all. The conclusion is certainly at war with the
premises. The premises are, that God is a Being of
infinite wisdom, holiness, and power ; and the conclu-
sion is, that, therefore, he must have decreed all the folly
and wickedness in the universe.

But one will say, if God did not want sin committed,
why did he not exert his infinite power to prevent it ?
To this I answer, that as God is infinitely good and
wise, he certainly knows his own business, and it does
not become ignorant, corrupt mortals to charge the wise
and Holy God with all the crimes in the world, merely
because he does not do every thing that they think he
ought to do.

I have no doubt but that God has used all the means
to prevent wickedness that are consistent with the hap-
piness of his intellective creatures.

liiberly and happiness are inseparable, and if we
were not left free to choose between right and wTong.
our actions would not be the result of choice, but of
necessity. If we were irresistibly compelled by God
to do all we do, it woulsl be as absurd to praise or
blame, and as impossible to punish or reward, us for
our actions, as it would be to praise, or blame, or pun-
ish, or reward, a tool for being used by a workman.
^ Holiness and happpiness are inseparable. Hohness
26*

30G FOREKNOWLEDGE AInD DECREE.

consists in conformity to God, who does good io aii iii?v
creatures, therel^jie he that never does good is not holy,
aor happy. If God, by an irresistible decree, forces us
to all our actions, then in reality we never do good, nor
evil, because all we do must be ascribed to that Being
who compels us. If we are not free, we cannot do
£?ood. If we do not good, we cannot be holy : and if
we are not holy, we cannot be happy. So it is evident-
that if God had made it impossible ibr us to do bad, he,
by 3 0 doing, would have made it impossible for us to
do good, and therefore impossible for us to be holy ov
happy.

The v.ill that acts not freely, acts not at all, because
every action to which I am lorced must be ascribed not
to me, but to the one who forced me. If we have no
free will, v>^e have no will at all, !)ecause freedom is es-
sential to the existence of a will, and a will is essential
to the existence of a rational being. If we were not
free, and therefore capable of sinning, we would not be
men, nor women. For a person to ask the question-
why did not God make me incapable of committing
sin ? is about as good sense, as to say, why did not
God make me a rock, or a dumb beast ? It is impious
for the being that is formed, to say to the one v.ho form-
ed him, why hast thou made me thus ? But it is not
impious for me to try to justify the ways of God to
Tnen.

TVe cannot possibly will, without willing freely, be-
■:ausc whatever we are forced to do, is not done by our
will, but in opposition to it.

The ad/ocates of fatal necessity both think and act
m opposition to their theory. When they sin they arc
sorry for it, and their compunction must arise from a
consciousness that they might not have done so, be-
cause if they fully believed that they were impelled into
it by the irresistible decree of God, they could not
blame themselves; nor could they feel conscious of
having offended their INIaker, when at the same time
they feel conscious that they have only done his will. —
Thus their inward thoughts are contrary to their outward
profession. If I believed that every thing which comes
to pass was unalterably decreed to happen precisely as
it does, I would not, I could not, try to control the paiss-

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND DECREE. 307

uig events, because I would feel conscious that any
thing I might do could have no effect on them. Bui
we find the tatalists are as prudent, and industrious in
trying to manage the passing events as other men :
hence I conclude that they act contrary to theii
system. I never knew one of them to try to control
the winds, nor the clouds, although they, as well as
other men, frequently feel deeply interested in the
weather. If any rational man believed that all the ac-
tions of men are unalterably decreed by God, he would
be as far from trying to over-rule them as he would be
from trying to manage the winds and the clouds.

It would not consist with the happiness of the people
in this country to prohibit them from owning houses, or
horses, yet if our rulers had never suffered a house to
be built, nor a horse to live in the state, the crime oi"
house-burning nor horse-stealing never would have
been committed among us . so it would be inconsistent
Avith our happiness for God to have withheld from us
free agency, and yet every one must acknowledge tha?
if we were not tree agents, we never could have sin-
ned.

To blame God with the sins of mankind, is intinitely
more absurd than to blame an earthly law-givev ^vith
the crimes of his subjects.

308 OBJECTIOXS ANSWERED,

SECTION IV

OBJECTIONS TO THE PRECEDI^-G DOCTPvl^-E A.NSWERLU.

Having shown who the elect are, and when and how
they are elected, I now come to the thhd proposition,,
which is to answer the principal objections that have
been most commonly brought against the doctrines
which I have advanced. In doing this I need only com-
ment on a few of those passages that are most frequently
pressed to prove the doctrine of eternal election. Some-
suppose that Paul was elected before he got religion, and
their reason for so thinking is, that while he was blind
m Damascus, Annanias said to him, '' the God of our
fathers hath chosen thee." Acts xxii. 14. And because
Annanias spoke in the past tense, they conclude that Paul
was elected from all eternity. But as Annanias calls him
brother Saul, might we not as well suppose his election
took place but three days before on the road to Damas-
cus at the time he had the falling exercise? HoM-ever, let
us hear what Paul himself says on the subject. " Sa-
lute Andronicus, and Junia my kinsmen, and my fellow
prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also
were in Christ before me." Rom. xvi. 7. Now it is
plain that if Paul had been in Christ from all eternity,
Andronicus and Junia could not have gotten in before
him.

Acts xiii. 48, is sometimes brought to prove that elec-
tion precedes regeneration, " and as many as were or-
dained to eternal life believed." Here I will just remark
that this passage is rather unhappily translated ; the more
literal rendering of it would be, " and as many as be-
lieved were ordained to eternal life." In this transla-
tion I am supported, not only by Wesley and many
other pious and learned divines, but also by the general
tenor of scripture. The scriptures no where teach that
any person is set apart to eternal hfe before he beheve;?.
Jesus Christ says, " he that believeth not is condemned
alicadv, because he has not beheved in the name of the

OF PREDESTINATION. 309

only begotten Son of God." Joh. iii. 18. "VVe can
nardly conceive how a person can be ordained to eternal
iife, and at the same time a condemned unbeliever.

Of Predestinaiion.

The next passage I shall notice is, Rom. viii. 29, 30.
31. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predes-
tinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he
might be the first-born among many brethren. More-
over, whom he did predestinate, them he also called :
and whom he called, ttiem he also justiiied ; and whom
he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we
then say to these things 1 If God be for us, who can be
against us ?" I have heard many persons quote this text
erroneously; instead of putting the i:>redestination, call-
ing, justification, and glorifying all in the past tense as
they really are, I have heard them put the justification
in the present, and the glorification in the future, and
thus they have read it : " whom he justifieth, them he
also will glorify ;" as if the glorification were yet to
come ; whereas in reality the persons of whom Paul was
speaking, had all been, not only predestinated and
called, but also justified and glorified before he wrote
on the subject. Therefore it is certain that this passage
did not respect one person that lived on the earth at the
time it was written, or that should live on it afterwards.
Certainly the Lord never foreknew the wicked to be his
people, because he will say to them, " depart from me
ye workers of iniquity, I never kneiv you." Then the
question is, whom did he foreknosv ? Or in other words,
may ^^^e not say ? Whom did he formerly know ? I be-
lieve the persons whom he is here said to have fore-
known, were no other than the prophets, patriarchs, and
all his saints of old. And as they were the people whom
he tormerly knew, he predestinated them to be con-
formed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first
horn amonjr many brethren. That i«j he predestinated

310 ESAU AND JACOB.

Ihem to a happy resurrection, in which their bodie?
should be fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body, so
that Christ should not be the only one that should be
born from the dead, but that he might he the first bora
among many brethren. And having thus predestinated
his old saints, he called them to serve him in their va-
rious offices, justified them in their righteous conduct,
and glorified them when they died. Now, what shall
we say to these things ? That is, what inference, or
conclusion shall we draw from these things ? The con-
clusion is this, " If God be for us, who can be against
us ?" That is, if God was so good to his saints, whom
he foreknew, he will be good to his saints whom he now
knows. *' Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God's elect ? it is God that justifieth." If God has of
old glorified his saints, whom he then justified, we may
comfortably hope that he will henceforth glorify his
saints, whom he now justifieth.

Of Esau and Jacob.

The next passage I shall notice is, that in the nintfi
of Romans, respecting Esau and Jacob, which I have
frequently heard quoted in the following erroneous man-
ner : " for the children being not yet born, neither hav-
ing done any good or evil, that the purpose of God ac-
cording to election might stand, not of works but of him
that calleth, it was said, Jacob have I loved, but Esau
have I hated." But this reading is essentially different
from the text. By quoting the passage correctly, we can
easily discover, there is nothing in it of God's hating
Esau before he was born: " For the children being not
yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not
of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her,
the elder shall serve the younger." This is what was
said of them before they were born. But in the nexi
verse the apostle quotes another text which ^vas spoleeu

ESAU AKD JACOB. 3l 1

fif them, ov rather of their posterity, long after they were
both dead. *' As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but:
Esau have I hated." We will now go to Genesis and
see what was said of them before they were bora: '* And
Rebekah his wife conceived, and the children struggled
together within her; and she said, if it be so, why am I
thus ? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the
Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb, and
two manner of people shall be separated from thy
" bowels : and the one people shall be stronger than the
other people ; and the elder shall serve the younger.''
Gen. XXV. 21, 22, 23. Certainly there is nothing in this
about God's hating the one and loving the other. Yet
Paul says it is so written, and so it is, but not in Gen-
esis before the children were born, but in Malachi, long
after they were both dead. *' I have loved you, saith
the Lord : yet ye say, wherein hast thou loved us ? Was
not Esau Jacob's brother ? saith the Lord : yet I loved
Jacob, and hated Esau, and laid his mountains, and his
heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness :
whereas Edom saith, we are impoverished, but we will
return, and build the desolate places." Mai. i. 2, 3.
It is plain that the Lord here speaks of the nation of
Esau, whom he hated for being wicked, and for the
same reason he might have said, " 3Ioab have I hated,
or Amnion, or Egypt, have I hated." I have cited
these passages to show that the great God of infinite
goodness, who holds the winds in his fists, handles the
forked lightnings, and rules the universe, does not place
his hatred on a poor little unborn infant. To do so
would be beneath the character of a man, much mor
that of the supreme Being ; yea, to hate an unborn in
fant, is only worthy the character of a devil. It is evi
dent that the prophecy which said, '' the elder shoul.
serve the younger^^ did not respect the two men, bu
the two nations, that descended from them, because i
was never fulfilled in the two men. And indeed it was
not said that " the one man should be stronger than the
other »na?i," but that *' the one people should be strongei
^.han the other people, and the elder shall serve th<
younger."

312 ESAU AND JACOB,

As for Esau himself, it is certain that -when he sorj
his birth-right, he was wicked, because the apostle calls
him a profane person for so doing. It is also pretty
cvident that he was wicked about the time his father
died, for then he wanted to kill his brother, but that he
continued wicked till he died, is by no means certain.
True it is, that the apostle says, '' He found no place
for repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.''
But I would here remark, that it was repentance itself,
and not a place for it, that Esau was seeking. Be-
cause the Greek word auteen, which is here rendered ifj
being a pronoun feminine cannot agree with the mascu-
line noun topon, which is here rendered p/oce, but must
agree with the feminine noun metanoias, which answers
to the English word repentance. As it was repentance
he was seeking, it is not probable he was seeking it in
himself, for it was then m hiii), and seemed to influence
liis conduct. And as repentance signifies a change of
mind, I rather think with the learned Raphelius, and the
(Celebrated Parkhurst, that the change of mind, which
Esau sought, was in his father ; and inasmuch as Isaac
would not recall the blessing which he had conferred on
Jacob, it might be said with propriety that although Esau
sought repentance carefully with tears, he found no place
for it.

Although Esau by his sin in selling his birth-right,
might forever forfeit his father's estate which was pro-
bably annexed to it, yet perhaps it was not a sin of such
magnitude as would eternally prevent his reconciliation
to God. The testimony of saint Paul, who says, '' By
faith Isaac blessed Esau and Jacob,'' the spirit of for-
giveness Esau manifested towards his brother, when he
met him returning from Padanaram, the circumstance
of Jacob's having seen Esau's face as though he had
seen the face of God, are all arguments to prove that
Esau did regain the favor of his 3Iaker. Therefore I
conclude it is very probable, though I do not say it is
certain, that these children who once struggled together
in their mother's womb, are now singing together in
heaven.

I will explain a few more verses of the same chapter:
Verse 15, "for he saith to Moses, I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion

E3AU AND JACOB. 313

on whom I will have compassion." The character of
the persons on whom the Lord will have mercy and
compassion is clearly pointed out in the following texts i
'*' Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous
man his thoughts ; and let him return unto the Lord, and
he will have mercy upon him ; and to our God, for he
will abundantly pardon." Isa. Iv. 7. Come unto me alJ
ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest." Mat. xi. 28. " He that covereth his sins shall
not prosper : but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them
ihall have mercy." Prov. xxviii. 13. " God is no re*
specter of persons ; but in every nation, he that feareth
him and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
Acts x. 34, 35. These passages leave us in no doubt,
respecting the persons on whom the Lord will have
mercy and compassion. But the 16th verse next calls
our attention : " So then it is not of him that willeth, nor
o^ him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."
This text shows that willing and running are not the
causes of salvation, but only the conditions on which it
(s received. A little comparison will elucidate the sub-
ject. A rich man, who has his table spread with plenty
of the most wholesome and palatable diet, tells a number
of starving persons, who are not able to procure food
for themselves, that if they will eat, they may have as
tnuch as they need for nothing ; now it is certain that
neither their willingness to eat, nor their eating, either
procures or pays for the victuals, yet both of these are
necessary as conditions, but the food is of the rich man
who shows mercy. And it is evident that if these poor
people starve, it will be their own fault. So all the pro-
visions of the gospel were made for us before we came
into the world, and are now offered to us on the condi-
tions of faith and obedience, and although both of these
together cannot merit salvation, yet the want of either
^f 4hem'is sufficient to ruin our souls.

27

314 HARDENING PHAROAH^S irEART '

Of hardening PharoaWs Heart.

' We now come to the 17th verse. <' For the scrip-
ture saith unto Pharoah, even for this same purpose
have I raised thee up, that I might show my power io
Ihee, and that my name might be declared throughout
all the earth." From the express words of this text it
is plain that God raised up Moses and all the rest of us
for the same purpose that he raised up Pharoah, that is.
that he might show his power in us, and that his name
might be declared throughout all the earth. Now if
Pharaoh had obeyed God, and let his people go, God
would probably have shown the power of his grace, in
converting and saving his soul, and the children of Israel
could have been taken to the land of promise, and all
God's purposes accomplished as well without Pharaoh's
sins as with them. Yet as Pharoah would rebel, God
overruled that rebellion to his own glory, and so if we
obey God, he will show forth the power of his grace in
us, by making us completely happy, but if we continue
in rebellion against him till death, he will, by punishing
us for that rebellion, show forth the power of his justice
in us. Thus God can carry on his plans in defiance of
sin without making it any part of them.

But says one, " is it not said that God hardened Pha-
roah's heart ? I acknowledge the scripture says so, but
1 cannot think the Lord ever intended that v/e, from
1his text, should take up the idea that he promoted a
spirit of wickedness in the heart of Pharaoh, because
God is not the author of sin, and " Let no man say
when he is tempted, I am tempted of God, for God can»
not be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.''
Jam. i. 13. It is likely that the Lord, when he said he
would harden Pharaoh's heart, only meant that, on ac-
count of Pharoah's wickedness, he would refuse to af-
ford him the softening influences of divine grace. Such
judgements and mercies as God sent on Pharaoh wh^n
abused, tend to harden the hearts of those on whom they
-are sent ; and in this indirect sense, we should probably
•uifct^rataild the Lord, when he said he would har.dea

HARDENING SINNERSi 315

^haroah's heart. These judgements and mercies would
not have hardened Pharoah's heart, if he had not abused
them, theretbre it is sa.id that Pharoah hardened his
own heart. " And Pharoah hardened his heart at this
time also, neither would he let the people go." Exod.
viii. 32. " And when Pharoah saw that the rain and
hail, and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more,
and hardened his heart, he and his servants." Exod.
ix. 34. So it may be said of Christ, that he by the
gospel indirectly hardens the hearts of those who reject
it, for the apostle says, " For we are unto God a sweet
savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them
that perish. To the one we are the savour of death
unti death ; and to the other the savour of life unto
life." Thus we frequently say that sinners are gospel
hardened. But when we say that sinners are hardened
by the gospel, we only mean that they have hardened
themselves by the rebelling against it. And when it
was said that Pharaoh's heart was hardened by the
Lord, I think the meaning is that Pharoah hardened his
own heart by rebeUing against him.

The persons on lohom God will have mercy, and whom
he will harden.

The next objection that deserves notice is commonly
raised from the eighteenth verse of the same chapter.
" Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he hardeneth." As I have already
pointed out the character of those on whom the Lord
will have mercy, it only remains for me to show whom
he will harden. According to the definition of the doc-
trine as given above, he will harden all that will continue
to the end rebelling against him. Perhaps the follow-
ing passages will give full satisfaction on the subject.
*' Because that when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful ; but became vain in
their imaginations, and their foolish heart was dai'kened

316 HARDENING SINNERS,

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fool^ ;
and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore
God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts
of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies be-
tween themselves ; who changed the truth of God into
a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the creator, who is blessed forever and ever. Amen.
*' For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections,
&c." Rom. i. 21 — 25. It appears from this passage,
that God gave them up to uncleanness and vile affections,,
not because he had predestinated them to be wicked,
but because of their own wilful rebellion against him.

Paul says, the man of sin will come ; <' With ail
power and signs, and lying wonders, and with all de-
ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish ;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send
them strong delusions, that they should believe a lie ;
that they all might be damned, who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thes,
ii. 9, 10, 11. Thus it appears, that not because God had
predestinated men to wickedness or destruction, but
because they received not the love of the truth, that
Ihey might be saved, he sent them strong delusions.
And although these delusions of error and infidelity have
ruined many, yet as they brought the delusions on them-
selves by their own wickedness, their destruction ought
to be ascribed to themselves, and not to the Divine
Being.

The next difficulty that I shall notice, arises from a
misunderstanding of Rom. xi. 8. " According as it is
written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes
that they should not see, and ears that they should not
hear unto this day."

To get the right understanding of this text, it is neces-
sary first to read it in the Old Testament where it was
originally written, and then compare it with those
passages where it is quoted and explained in the New.
The Lord first used these words in his charge to Isaiah
when he sent him to preach to the Jews : " Go and tel!

HARDENING SINNERS. '3*17

ihis people, hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and
see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of
this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut
their eyes, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and convert and be healed." Isa. vi. 9, 10.
On this text it is necessary to remark, that the Lord
does not say, he will either make their hearts gross,
their ears heavy, or shut their eyes, but tells Isaiah to
go and do these things. Yet I do not think we ought
to take up the notion iTi-om this, that God sends his pro-
phets and ministers into the world, either to harden the
hearts, stop the ears, or blind the eyes of his creatures.
Because frequently when the prophets are in scripture
said to make things happen, or cause them to take place,
there is nothing more meant, than that they prophecied
that such things should come to pass. For the Lord
says to Jeremiah : " Take the wine cup of this fury at
my hand, and cause all the nations to v/hom I send thee
to drink it. Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand,
and made all the nations to drink unto whom the Lord
sent me ; To ivit : Jerusalem and the cities of Judah,
and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make
them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing and a
curse, as it is this day." Jer. xxv. 15. 17, 18. Cer-
tainly Jeremiah did not pour God's wrath on the na-
tions, nor desolate Jerusalem, nor the cities of Judah.
all that is here meant is that he foretold that these things
would be done. Again the Lord says to the same pro-
phet : •' See I have this day set thee over the nations,
and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down,
and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build, and to
plant." Jer. i. 10. Surely all that is here meant is'
that Jeremiah was to prophecy of these things. So I
think that when Isaiah was told to make their hearts'
fat, their ears heavy, and shut their eyes, all that waff
meant was that the prophet should foretell that they
themselves would do these things.

But let us hear what he, who speaks as man never
spake, says on this passage : ** Therefore speak I to
them in parables, because they seeing, see not ; and
hearing, they hear not; neither do they understantjo
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Is^as, wtofe
57*

318 >'A3IES IX THE BOOK OF LIFE»

saith, by hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand ;
and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive ; for thi?^
people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull ot
hearing, and their eyes they have closed ; lest at any
time they should see with their eyes, and hear with theii
ears, and understand with their hearts, and should be
converted, and I should heal them." 3Iat. xiii. 13, 14,
15. It is evident that the blessed Jesus does not only
relate this as a mere prophecy, but also pointedly says,
their eyes have tliey closed.''^ Saint Paul gave the same
exposition of this text, when he repeated it to the Jews
at Rome : " Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the
prophet to our fathers, saying go unto this people, and
say hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand :
and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive : For the
heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are
dull of hearing, and their eyes have iheij closed; lest
they should see with their eyes, and hear with their
ears, and understand with their hearts, and should be
converted, and I should heal them," Acts xxviii. 25>
26, 27.

Of names written in the Lamb^s Book of Life,

■^ The advocates of eternal election, some times try to
prove their doctrine from Rev. xvii. 8 : " And they
that dwell on the earth shall wonder, (whose name.^
were not written in the book of life from the foundation
of the world,) when they behold the beast, that was,
and is not, and yet is." From this they infer that the-
names of some people were not written in the book of
life from the foundation of the world. In this I agree
with them, but perhaps we may differ in explaining
what these names are. They seem to think they ar&
the names, which their parents gave them, such as John,
Thomas, Elizabeth, &c, But if this be so, then the
parents of every child must be infallibly inspired to give
it the same name that was recorded for it in thg book o^

In AMES IN THE BOOK OF LIFE. 31$

life from the foundation of the world ; yes and it may
be added that the grand parents, uncles, and aunts, and
sometimes a few of the neighbors must also be inspired,
for frequently the name of the child depends on the no
tions of some of them, as well as those of the parents.
But as these relations are frequently very wicked and
notionate, and often change the name several times.
I rather think there is nothing of divine inspiration in
the business. It is probable that the names which were
recorded in the book of life from the foundation of the
world, were nothing more than the characters, which
God had determined to save. And now we are left to
our own choice, whether we will or will not be that cha-
lacter or name.

That the word name does, in scripture, sometime."^
signify character, is plain from the following passages :
"In Judah is God known ; his name is great in Israel.'-
Psa. Ixxvi. 1. God used the word in this sense, when
he spoke to David by Nathan the prophet : " And 1
was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and I have
cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have
made thee a great 7iame, like unto the name of the great
men that are in the earth." 2 Sam. vii. 9. " Where-
fore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name, which is above every name." Phil. ii. 9. "Proud
and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud
wrath." Prov. xxi. 24. In Exod. xxxiii. 18. Moses
said to the Lord, *' I beseech thee show me thy glory."
And in the next verse God said, " I will proclaim the
name of the Lord before thee." And in the 5th, 6th
and 7th verses of the 34th chapter, we find this name is
no more nor less than the Lord's character : " And the
Lord descended in the cloud, and stood with him there,
and proclaimed the 7iame of the Lord. And the Lord
passed by before him, and proclaimed, the LORD, the
LORD, GOD, merciful and gracious? long siiffer'
ing, &c."

B20 THE POTTER AND THE CLAY^

Of the Potter and the Clay.

The next difficult text that remains to be explained..
IS that respecting the potter and the clay : " Hath not
the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dis-
honor ?" As the Bible is the best, and safest interpreter
of itself, in order to understand this text, we must read
what the Lord himself has said on this subject : '' The
word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying,
arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will
cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the
potter's house ; and behold he wrought a work on the
wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was mar-
red in the hand of the potter ? so he made it again an-
other vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O
house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter ?
saith the Lord. Behold, as the clav is in the potter's
hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. A*
what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and
concerning a kingdom to pluck up, and pull down^
and to destroy it. If that nation against whom I have
pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the
evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what in-
stant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning
a kingdom, to build and to plant it : If it do evil in my
sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the
good wherewith I said I would benefit them." Jer. xviii.
1 — 10. I hope my readers will understand this alle-
gory. Every body knows that a potter's vessel, when
he is forming it on the wheel, is very tender. This pot-
ter had his vessel marred in his hand, and then it would
not answer the purpose for which he first designed it, so
he changed it to another vessel. Perhaps he first in-
tended it for a jug, or ajar, but after it was marred, it
was omy nt for a platter ; *' So he made it into another
vessel as seemed good to the potter to make it." Just
so God does with his creatures . " Behold as the clay
js in^the potter's hand, so are ye in mine iiand, 0 house

THE POTTER AND THE CLAT, 32i

of Israel." " At what instant the Lord speaks con-
cerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck
up, and to pull down, and to destroy it," then he has it
on the wheels for a vessel of wrath.

But the Lord says : " If that nation against whonri
I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of
the evil that I thought to do unto them." Now we see
that by repenting, that nation so marred itself in God's
hand, that he no longer esteemed it fit for a vessel of
wrath, but by repenting of the evil, which he thought
to have done unto it, he changed it to a vessel of mercy.
Again, " At what instant the Lord speaks concerning a
nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build, and to plant
it," then he has it on the wheels for a vessel of mercy ;
but hear what the Lord says in the next verse respect-
ing that nation : " If it do evil in my sight, that it obey
not my voice, then I will repent of the good wherewith
I said I would benefit them."

Thus we see, that, by doing evil in God's sight, that
nation so marred itself in his hand, that he no longer
esteemed it fit for a vessel of mercy, but by repenting
of the good wherewith he had said he would benefit
them, he changed them into a vessel of wrath. Thus we
see from this allegory, that although God has as much
power over men as the potter has over the clay, yet
he does not exercise that power without respect to theii
free agency. I suppose no person will deny that the
parable of the potter and the clay is as applicable to indi-
viduals as it is to nations, because Isaiah says, "O Lord,
thou art our Father : we are the clay, and thou our pot-
ter, and we all are the work of thy hand." Isa. Ixiv. 8.

Now, when God says of an unbeliever, "he thatbe°
lieveth not is condemned already," and when he says
of a wicked man, that on him " The Lord shall reign
snares, fire, and brimstone, and an honible tempest."
Joh. iii. 18, Psal. xi. 6, then he has them on the wheels
for vessels of wrath, but if they repent of their sins, and
believe the gospel, they will,by so doing, be so marred in
the hand of the potter, that according to God's plan, as
revealed in the gospel, they will be no longer fit for ves"
sels of wrath, because God says to repenting sinners*
'i Come unto me all ye that labor, and are heavy laden^

32"2 THE POTTER AND THE CLAT^

and I will give you rest." I suppose there are very
i^ew christians, and indeed I have never seen any, but
can recollect the time when they felt themselves to be
vessels of wrath ; and in this the apostle agrees with
them, for he says, " We were by nature the children of
wrath even as others , Eph. ii. 3. but now we know by
experience that God has changed us to vessels of mercy.
We know from scripture that every wicked person is a
vessel of wrath, because the Psalmist says, "God is an-
gry with the wicked every day." Psal. vii. 11. And
the apostle says, " The wrath of G.^d is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness, and unrishteousness of
men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Rom. i.
18. But still we are happy in believing that as God
has changed many of these vessels of wrath into ves-
sels of mercy, he is yet wilhng, and able to change all
that will come to him by faith and repentance. And
here it is worthy of remark that God has graciously en-
abled all sinners, that hear the gospel to repent ; and
it is also worthy to be remarked, that although they by
repentance may so mar themselves as, in God's view,
to unfit them for vess;ds of wrath, yet they are not able
to change themselves to vessels of mercy : none but
the great potter is able to do this. The Lord has all
christians on the wheels for vessels of mercy, and there-
fore he promises mercy to them, saving, " Blessed are
the merciful : for they shall o'tain mercy. Blessed are
the pure in heart : for they shall see God. Blessed are
the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children
of God." Mat. v. 7, 8, 9. Again the Lord says of
the righteous, that he will never forsake them, and that
his grace is sufficient for them. But when the righteous
man turns to be wicked, he, by so doing, so mars him-
self in the hands of the potter that he is no longer fit for
a vessel of mercy, and on that account God will, by re-
penting of the good wherewith he said he would benefit
him, cifjange him to a vessel of wrath.

That it is possible f )r a person to be changed from a
vessel of mercy to a vessel of wrath, appears from a
great many passages of God's word, but here I shall
only mention a few of them. " But when the righteous
jfloan turneth away from his righteousnessj and commit-

THE POTTER AND THE CLAY. 323

ieth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abomina-
tions that the wicked man doeth, shall he live ? All his
righteousness that he hath done shall not be mention-
ed ; in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his
sin that he hath sinned in them shall he die." Ezek,
xviii. 24. Some people affirm that it is self-righteous-
ness, which is here meant, but it is plain that it is a
righteousness sufficient to save the man if he do not
forsake it ; and indeed we can hardly think a man can
be lost for turning away from self-righteousness. —
Others have acknowledged that the righteousness is
good, but they say the death we incur by forsaking it is
temporal. To these I answer, whether we forsake our
righteousness or not, we will die a temporal death. Saint
Paul comparing the Jews to tame, and the Gentiles to
wild Olive branches, says, "Well because of unbeliei
they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be
not high-minded, but fear : for if God spared not the
natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. — -
Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God,
on them who fell, severity ; but toward the goodness,
if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise " thou also
shaltbe cut ojf." Rom. xi. 20, 21, 22. When the
apostle found the Galatians were turning back to the
law, he said, " I stand in doubt of you ;" and then he
plainly told them, " Whosoever of you are justified by
the law ; ije are fallen from grace.^'' Gal. iv. 20. Chap.
V. 4. Paul did not only stand in doubt of the Galatians,
for fear they would fall from grace, but also appeared r
little apprehensive that he mio;ht fall himself, for he says,
" I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection :
lest that by any means, when I have preached to others
I myself should be a cast-av>ay." 1 Cor. ix. 27. When
David exhorted his son Solomon to be faithful in God's
service, he said, " If thou seek him, he will be found
of thee ; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off
forever." 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. And thus the prophet
speaks to the Jews and their King : "The Lord is with
you while ye be with him : and if ye seek him, he will
be found of you ; but if ye forsake him he will forsake
you." 2 Chron. xv. 2. In this doctrine Saint Paul
•agriees \nth the Psalmist and the prophetj for he says fo

324 THE POTTER AND THE CLAY,

Timothy, " If we deny him, he also will deny us. 2
Tim. ii. 12.

Those who believe that it is impossible to fall from
grace commonly bring Rom. viii. 28, 29, to prove theii
doctrine : <' For I am persuaded, that neither death,
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, northings^to come, nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Although this text is a glorious encouragement to
christians, and assures them that their enemies cannot
separate them from the love of God, yet it does not
prove that they cannot lose his favor by straying away
from him. A small comparison may serve to illustrate
Ihe subject. A woman loves her husband, and is loved
oy him ; neither her relations, neighbors, acquaintances,
nor any other person, is able to separate her from him •
but still she may prove unfaithful and leave him. Again
we are members of, and enjoy the protection, and fa-
vor of the United States' government ; and althougli
neither the British, Spanish, French, nor any other na-
iion, is able to separate us from our union with it, yet
fhis very government may condemn us to death for
transgressing its laws. Although no creature is able
to separate us from God, yet God the creator is able to
punish us for our sins, and will do it if we rebel against
him.

The following passages of scripture abundantly prove
?hat God will, for certain offences, cut off some who
are united with him, and disinherit others that are heirs
oi glory. Jesus says, '' I am the true vine, and my
Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that
beareth not fruit he taketh aiuaij.^^ Joh. xv. 1,2. A
more intimate connexion cannot be imagined, than that
which the branch has with the vine ; and although our
imion with Christ is equally as intimate, yet, for being
barren, God, the great husbandman, will cut us off. —
In the third verse he says, "Now ye are clean through
the word, which I have spoken unto you." And in the
sixth verse he says, " If a man abide not in me, he is
^5ast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and men gather
Ihem, and c^st them into the fire, and they are burned.^

THE POTTER AND THE CLAV. 32j?

Perhaps the following parable will set the subject in
^ fair point of view : "Who then is that faithful and
wise steward, whom his Lord shall make ruler over his
household, to give them their portion of meat in due
season ? I31essed is that servant whom his Lord, when
he Cometh, shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto yoUy
that he will make him ruler over all that he h&th. But,
and if that servant say in his heart, my Lord delayeth
his coming ; and shall begin to beat the men servants,
and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken ;
the Lord of that servant v/ill come in a day when he
looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not
aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him
his portion with the unbelievers." Luke xii. 42 — 46.
Here notice particularly, that this is a faithful and wise
steward, and if he will continue to be so till his Lord
shall come, he will make him ruler over all that he hath,
but if he prove unfaithful, his Lord will cut him in sun-
der, and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.
When the children of Israel made the golden calf, Mo-
ses prayed for them, sa^ang, "If thou wilt forgive, their
sin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy booky
which thou hast written. And the Lord said unto Mo-
ses, whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot
out of my book." Exod. xxxii. 32, 33. With this
compare Rev. iii. 5 : " He that overcometh, the same
shall be clothed in white raiment ; and I will not blot
out his name out of the book of life." Take both these
passages in connexion with Rev. xxii. 19. " And if
any man shall take away from the words of the book of
*his prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the
hook of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things
which are written in this book."

Surely those who are written in the book which God
wrote, and those who have a part in the book of life, and
the holy city, are vessels of mercy, yet by sin they may
so mar themselves that God will change them to vessels
of wrath. Certainly the angels in glory, and our first
parents in Paradise, were vessels of mercy, and we
know that for sin they were cast out of heaven, and
changed to vessels of wrath. Thus we see the scriptur-
al principle, by which the great potter works, when he,
28

Bi26 THE POTTER AND THE C^AT,

out of the same lump, makes one vessel to honor, anti
another to dishonor.

Here it becomes us to remark, particularly, that these
vessels are all made out of the same lump. If God from
eternity has elected some to happiness, and made their
number so definite that it cannot be increased, nor di-
minished, then they must be an elect lump, and it would
be impossible to make a reprobate vessel out of them.
Again if God has, from eternity, passed by a part of
mankind, ordained them to wrath, and fixed their num-
ber so definite that it cannot be increased, then they
must be a reprobate lump, and it is impossible for God to
make an elect vessel out of them, because he has al-
ready fixed their number so definite that it cannot be
diminished.

Having taken this view of the subject I think we may
safely conclude, that no person is under a fatal neces-
sity to be a vessel of wrath ; but if any poor sinner,
Avho feels himself such, will forsake his sins, and turn
to the Lord, he will change him to a vessel of honor.
Because the apostle Paul says, " But in a great house
there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also
of wood and of earth, and some to honor and some to
dishonor. If a man therefore purge himself from these,
he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for
the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.''
2Tim. ii. 20, 21.

OJ God creating Evil

I have heard some try to prove that God makes peo-
ple wicked from the fourth verse of the sixteenth chap-
ter of Proverbs : " The Lord hath made all things for
himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." On
this text I will just observe, that the Hebrew word j?o/e,
which is here rendered made, does not signify to create^
but to work, opejate, prepare, or contrive,and Ipmoneoo,

APPLICATION, 32'<

Vviiich is rendered /or himself, more properly signifies ia
miswer his jjurpose, and the learned Mr. Parkhurst thus
translates the sentence : " Jehovah hath prepared all
ihiiigs to answer his purposes, even the wicked for the
day of evil, i. e. to inflict evil or punishment on others."
See Parkhurst's He rew Lexicon under o-ne. In this
sense the Lord prepared wicked nations to bring tem-
poral evil on the Jews for their sins ; and to these evils
the Lord, no doubt, alluded, when he said : " I form
the light, and create darkness : I make peace and cre-
ate evil. I, the Lord, do all these things." Isa. xlv.
7. I have heard some people, in quoting this text,
leave out the word these, and then read it, "I, the Lord,
do all things ;" but this entirely changes the meaning,
because God cannot be the author of moral evd. That
the word evil does frequently signify temporal calam-
ities, is plain from the following texts : When Job was
■under great temporal alflictiou he said to his wife, <'Shall
"we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not
receive eviH" Job ii. 10. When Judah was afraid
that his Father would die of grief he said, "Lest perad-
venture I see the evil that shall come on my Father.'^
Gen. xiiv. 34. W^hen the Lord threatened the Jews
with the calamity of war, he said, " Shall a trumpet be
blown in the city, and the people not be afraid ? Shall
there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?"
Amos. iii. 6. So the Lord prepares wicked people
against the day of temporal evil, and frequently
ficourges one nation with another.

The Application,

Having shown, according to the first and second pro-
positions, who the elect are, and when, and how they
were elected, and then in the third place answered the
principal objections, that are most commonly brought
against the doctrine, which I have advanced ; nothing
more remains for me, but to apply the subject-

328 APPLicATiorf.

And now I shall begin the application with the ienfii
verse of the first chapter of Peter's second epistle '
«« Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to
2Tiake your calling and election sure ; for if ye do these
things, ye shall never fall." If our election has beer-
imalterably fixed from eternity, it cannot be made surt
by any diligence that we can give.

From what has been said it is plain that no person it
under any fatal necessity to be a reprobate. And I
now, by the authority of God, proclaim that every sin-
ner in the world, is, on certain conditions, eligible foi
this election. And I also announce by the same au-
thority, that no person, who knows right from wrong, car?
be elected unless he will offer as a candidate, and com-
ply with the conditions of the gospel. If any persoi-
should inquire what the design of this election is, I an-
swer, it is not to make us members of congress, nor oi
the state assembly, but of the general assembly and
(Church of the first born, which are written in heaven.
To that happy company we will be joined, not to repre-
sent our country, but to be eternal monuments of the
power and. love of God. Now let every candidate foi
ihis election set listening at the feet of Christ the great
judge, while he proclaims the following conditions .
■^^ If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,
and take up his cross daily, and follow me." Luke ix.
23. " He that taketh not his cross and followeth aftei
me, is not worthy of me." Mat. x. SS. " Ask, and
it shall be given you ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock,
and it shall be opened unto you. For every one tha:
asketh, receiveth ; and he that seeketh, findeth ; and tc
him that knocketh, it shall be opened." liuk. xi. 9, 10„

God in his infinite goodness, and wisdom, has giver*
us power to comply with these conditions, but if wti
wilfully abuse this power, and refuse to comply with
these conditions, we will lose our election. And now*
O Sinner, I set life and death before you. If you choose
life, you will, to all eternity, esteem it as an inestimable
gift, freely bestowed on a poor, helpless, unworthy sin-
ner. But if you choose the way to death, you will have
an eternity, in which to lament the wretched choice ; and
while you will be mingling your cries with the gro?,ns c^

AlPPLICATIOJf:, ^29

the damned, this bitter reflection will forever rcnU
through your mind : " I once had the opportunity of
l)eing elected to eternal happiness ; but, alas ! for me.
1 have willingly and knowingly, brought myself to this
doleful region of despair."

Every person who hears the gospel has great encour-
agement to offer as a candidate for this election, be-
cause no one who continued a sincere seeker until
death, has ever yet lost it.

And now, 0 Sinner ! you are a candidate for eternity,
and if you sincerely, and perseveringly serve the Lord,
you will be elected for the assembly of the blessed,
where you shall forever enjoy the sweet company, and
participate the sublime pleasures of the patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, and all the blood-washed millions,
that will eternally love, and praise the Divine Redeem-
er. And then with them, and all the angels of glory,
you shall be ever delighted with the sweet company of
Jesus, conformed to his image, and perpetually trans-
ported with the heart-cheering smiles of the supreme
Being, v^^hile new glories will be eternally unfolding to
your happy soul.

Poor Sinner, unworthy as you are, if you, agreeably
to the conditions of the gospel, offer as a candidate,
you will have many, and some very powerful, friends to
promote your election. If you sincerely seek the Lord,
every holy being in the universe will be in your favor.
To prove your Maker is willing to save you, I need only
write the following passage : *' As I live, saith the Lord
God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked ;
but that the wicked turn from his way, and Hve." —
Ezek. xxxiii. 11. God manifests his wilhngness to
save you by his works, as well as his word. He did
not only make you a rational being, and give you all
common blessings richly to enjoy, but also gave up his
only and well beloved Son to die for you. Christ has
shown his willingness to elect you by suffering the most
excruciating tortures, and submitting to the most igno-
minious death to open the way of your salvation. If
you would repent of your sins, it would rejoice even the
angels in heaven. All the saints on the earth are pray-
ing for you, God's ministers are eatreating you to for^
28*

330 APPLICATION.

sake your sins, your conscience is admonishing yoov
and the Holy Spirit is striving with you.

If you inquire what quahfications are necessary to
make you ehgible for this election, I answer ; all that i?
necessary is, that you should be a lost sinner : " For
the son of man is come to seek, and to save that which
was lost." Luke xix. 10. And the blessed Jesus says
" I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to re-
pentance." Mat. ix. 13. If you ask what are the
conditions of this election, I answer in the words of
Paul and Silas to the jailor : " Believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." Acts xvi. 31.

It is not by torturing your body, burning your chil-
dren, or offering sacrifices of great value, that you can
make God propitious. He demands of you no blood
of bulls, nor fat of rams, nor pilgrimage to Jerusalem
to obtain his favor. All he requires of you to secure
your election, are faith and repentance. Faith signifies
that confidence in the gospel, which induces believers
to obey its precepts. Repentance implies a sorrow for.,
a hatred of, and a turning from sin.

O, Sinner ! although you derived your being from
God, have walked on his earth, breathed in his air, and
lived by his bounty, yet, till now, you have waded
through his mercies m repeated acts of rebellion agains:
him. And if you thus continue to transgress till pak
death puts his cold arms around you, then you will never
have another mercy to slight, but must bear the wrath oi
that Almighty God, against whom you have dared to
rebel.

But now. Sinner, God is on treating terms, the white
flag of peace is displayed throughout the borders of fair
Zion, the silver trumpet of the gospel is sounding good
tidings of great joy to all people, the sceptre of mercy
rs waved over the ramparts of rebellion; and every
rebel is invited to touch it and live.

FART IX.

RESTORATION OF TPIE ANCIENT ORDER OF THING:

When I speak of the ancient order, I mean the order
of the New Testament ; one inch short of that will not
satisfy me. In that book the church is called the body
of Christ. " And gave him to be head over all thing-^
to the church, which is his body." Ephes. i, 22, 23,
<' Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in par-
ticular." 1 Cor. xii. 27. Of this body Christ is tho
head ; the members in particular, are the various mem-
bers of the church, possessing different spiritual gifts ;
its principle of life is the Holy Spirit, by which the whole
body was brought into existence, is regulated and kept
in action. Hence Paul says, " For to one is given by
the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of
knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the
same Spirit : to another the gifts of heahng by the same
Spirit ; to another the working of miracles ; to another
prophecy ; to another discernmg of spirits ; to another
divers kinds of tongues ; to another the interpretation of
tongues. But all these worketh that one and the self-
same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and
all the members of that one body being many, are one
body, so also is Christ." 1 Cor. xii. 8 — 12. Paul
'Considers these different spiritual gifts as being each in

3S^ ANCIENT ORDEk^

its place, as necessary and useful to the church, as tjie
different members of the human body are to a man.
Hence he says, '' If the whole body were an eye, where
were the hearing ? If the whole were hearing, where
were the smelling 1 And if they were all one member,
where were the body?" Verses 17. 19. The govern-
ment, or discipline of the church, was among the prim-
itive Christians, administered by divinely inspired men.
whom God placed in the church, each one in his proper
order. Hence Paul says, " And he hath set some
in the church ; first, apostles ; secondarily, prophets ;
thirdly, teachers ; after that, miracles ; then gifts of heal-
ings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." —
Verse 28.

This is the ancient order of things; every one op-
posed to this, is opposed to primitive Christianity. To
say God caused these gifts to cease, is the same as to
-say, God has abolished the order of the New Testament
church. To say it is not the privilege of Christians in
the present day to belong to such a church, is the same
as to say it is not our privilege to be members of Christ's
spiritual body, because the church here described, " is
ike body of Christ.'^ To divest the church of all these
spiritual gifts, would be to take from the body of Christ
tire senses of hearing, smelling, seeing, &c. To say
these miraculous gifts are not necessary nor useful to
the church in the present day, would be as absurd as to
say, eyes, ears, hands, &:c. are not useful to a man. To
say, we only need one of these gifts, viz. faith, would
be to reduce all the members to one. Then, " If all
were one member, where were the body ?"

In Ephesians iv. 1 1 — 16. Paul describes the church
thus : " And he gave some apostles ; and some, pro-
phets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and
teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work
of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ :
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, &c." From this pas-
sage we learn two things relative to the primitive church ;
first, that their ministers were the special gifts of God :
and secondly, that those ministers were parts of Christ's
T}odvj were given to unite the saints in faith and love.

ANCIENT ORDER. 333

^uaid them against wavering, and enable them to edifv
themselves in love; If infinite wisdom saw these gift^
were necessary to make the church perfect in that day.
who has authority to say the church can be perfect with-
out them in the present day? Surely the church has as
great need of being united, built up, and estabhshed in
the present day, as it then had. These gifts constitute
the ancient order of things ; if the church is perfect with-
out them, she must have been very imperfect with them,
because they were members of Christ's spiritual body:
and if that body is perfect without them, they must have
been redundant; and superfluous members always render
body imperfect. If a child should be born with twT»
heads and four legs, we would call it an imperfect child.
We have not such a church as the primitive Christians
had ; they had too many spiritual gifts, or else we have
not enough.

Some say these gifts were temporary ; were onl}-
given to introduce Christianity before Revelation was
complete, and that God designed they should be super-
seded by the scripture.

This appears to me incorrect, because these gifts, as
they are laid down in the scripture, compose the gospel
ministry ; and as this ministry is a part of the gospel
plan, to say it was superseded by the gospel, would be
the same as to say, the gospel has abolished the gospeL
To say we must not look for such a ministiy as the
primitive Christians had, is the same as to say, we must
not look for such a ministry as the New Testament di»
rects us to, because it directs us to no other ministry
than that of the apostolical church.

Some say that the phrase, till loe all come in theuniiij
of the faith, limits these gifts to that event, v*hich the}'
think took place as soon as the scriptures were all writ-
ten. Their argument is, that when any thing in scrip-
ture is said to continue till something else happens,
then as soon as that thing happens, it must cease. Thu.>
;hey say, the Jewish ceremonies, which were imposed
on them until the time of reformation, ceased as soon as
^hat reformation came.

Althpugh this rule holds good in some passages g1'

3,34 ArfClENT ORDER.

iscripture, tbe following examples will prove that it can-
not be applied to all : " Till I come give attendance to
reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the
gift that is in thee." 1 Tim. iv. 13, 14. Surely Paul
did not mean by this, that on his return, Timothy should
cease from all his ministerial duties. " From the dayt
of John the Baptist iintil now, the kingdom of heaven
sufTereth violence, and the violent take it by force.''
Mat. xi. 12. It is plain from this text, that the kingdom
still suffered violence at the time this was spoken ; of
course the word until does not show that the violence
had then ceased. " Sow to yourselves in righteous-
ness, reap in mercy ; break up your fallow ground : tor
it is time to seek the Lord till he come, and rain righte-
ousness upon you." Hos. X. 12. Surely this text does
not mean, that as soon as the Lord rains righteousness
on the people, they shall quit serving him. *' The Lord
said unto my Lord, sit thoi: on my right hand till I make
thine enemies thy footstool." Mat. xxii. 44. Psal.
ex. 1 . We are not to understand by this, that as soon
Christ's enemies are subjected to him, he is then to be
rejected from the right hand of God.

Those who oppose an apostolical ministry, a divine
inspiration, and the restoration of miracles to the church,
argue that because these gifts were given to the church
before all the scripture was written ; therefore God did
not intend them to be permanent. If this reasoning be
correct, neither Baptism, the Lord's Supper, nor the
Church itself, was designed to be permanent, because
they were all instituted before any of the New Testa-
ment was written.

The commission for an apostoHcal ministry, is found
in the same text from which ministers derive their au-
thority to baptize. '• Go ye, therefore, teach all nations,
baptizing them, &c. And lo, I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world." There are sundry
texts in the New Testament, where people are exhorted
10 be baptized, but I believe none but those passages,
that contain the apostles' commission, giv; authority
to any one to administer the ordinance. And as this
authority is only given to an order of ministers acting

ANCIENT ORDER. 3^,^

nidev the apostles' commission, of course tliose preach"
ors, who say they do not act under that commission,
have no authority to baptize ; because there is no text
that authorizes any person, who may please, to admi-
nister baptism.

This text proves, that Christ intended this order of
ministers to continue till the end of the gospel dispen-
sation : but the opposers of an apostohcal ministry, in
order to evade the tbrce of it, tell us, that by the end of
the world mentioned in this commission, Christ only
meant the end of the Jewish state. This could not
have been his meaning, because if it was, the commis-
sion of several of the apostles was out before they
died. Paul said of the Jews, " Now all these things
happened unto them for ensamples ; and they are written
for our admonition, on whom the ends of the world have
come." 1 Cor. x. 11. Paul could not here have
meant the end of the natural world, nor of the Gospel
dispensation, because they still continue ; of course he
must have meant the end of the Jewish state. Now if
Christ only promised to be with his ministers till the end
of the Jewish state, and that state ended before Paul
wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, it follows of
course that the most if not all of Paul's writings were
written atlcr his commission had expired. The gospel
dispensation could not commence till the legal dispensa-
tion ended, because the church could not be married to
Christ till the law was dead, but that happened before
Paul wrote to the Romans. Hence he says " a woman
is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth ;
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law
of her husband." " But now we are delivered from the
law, that being dead wherein we were held ; that we
should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness
of the letter. Rom. vu. 2. 6. The main drift of the
epistle to the Hebrews, is to prove that the Jewish dis-
pensation had ceased. Hence the writer contrasting
the law with the gospel, saith, " He taketh away the
first that he may establish the second." Heb. x. 9.
•• Christ blotted out the hand writing of ordinances that
was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to
his cross.'' Col. ii. 14. " Having abolished in his

336 Ax\CIEXT ORDER*

flesh the enmity, even the law of commandmenls, cOxt-'
tained in ordinances." Ephes. ii, 15. Christ is the
great Antitype, to which all the types and ceremonies
of the Jewish dispensation pointed, and when he died,
rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and poured out
the Holy Spirit on his disciples, that dispensation or
world, (as it is called in our translation) ended. Hence
Paul says, " but now once in the end of the world, hath
he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."
Heb. ix. 26. From this text it appears that Christ suf-
fered exactly in the end of some world, and as no one
will argue that it was either in the end of the antediluvian^
or the gospel world, the conclusion is irresistible, that
lie suffered at the end of the Jewish world. Then he
could not have alluded to it, when he promised his dis-
ciples to be with them always, even to the end of the
world, because if he meant a world, that had already
ended, it was no promise at all. If when Christ pro-
mised the apostles to be with them unto the end of the'
world, he only meant the destruction of Jerusalem, then
the promise was out 26 years before John v.rote his
Revelation, and 27 before he wrote his Gospel, of
course these books cannot be of divine authority, be-
cause John wrote them many years after he had ceased
to act under a divine commission. According to our
chronology, Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70,
and these books were written in 96 and 97. From what
has been said, it is evident, that by the end of the world,
mentioned in the apostles' commission, Christ did not-
mean the end of the Jewish economy, but must have
meant the end of the Gospel dispensation ; and if so, it
follows without the possibility of a doubt, that Christ
intended that order of ministers to continue till the end
of that dispensation ; of course it must be the privilege
and duty of his ministers, in the present day, to look to
him for the same holy Spirit and supernatural power,
with which his primitive ministers were blessed.

James, after directing us to pray for the sick, anoint
them with oil, ^:c. in order to strengthen our faith, re-
fers to the case of Elias : " Elias was a man subject to
like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it
might not rain, and it rained not on the earth by tjie

ANCIENT ORDER. •337

^pacc of three years and six months. And he prayed
again and the heaven gave raui, and the earth brought
i.brth her tVuit." Jas. v. 17, 18. Here an inquiry na°
uirally rises, why was God more wilhng to answer the
prayers of Ehas, than he is to answer our prayers 1 Was
he of a superior v>rder of beings ? No, he was a man
subject to hke passions as we are. Was God more
merciful then, than he is now ? No, he is always the
same unchangeable God. Did Elias live in a more fa-
vored dispensation than we ? No, he lived under tne law,
and we live under the gospel, and Paul contrastmg the
the two, says, " the law had no glory in this respect by
reason of the glory that excelleth." Again the question
recurs, why may we not approach Elijah's God with the
.same success that he did ? To this question there can
be bat one answer, and that is this ; unbelief and sin
alone prevent us from enjoying all the divine power and
hoiiaess that the worshippers of God enjoyed in any age
of tiia world.

The following passage is freqiieiitly quoted to provCj
?hat God designed miracles to cease in the church,
** Whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether
there be tongues, they shall cease ; whether there be
knowledge It shall vanish away." But by attention to
the next verses, you can easily see that the time, in
v.'hich these gifts were to cease, was to be when the
saints should arrive in heaven; hence Paul says, " for
v/e know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when
♦hat which is perfect is come, then that which is in part
shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a
child, I thought as a child ; but when I became a rnanj
I put away childish things. For now we see through a
glass darkly ; but then face to face ; now I know in part ;
but then shall I know even as also I am known." 1 Cor,
xii. 8 — 12. If we suppose Paul was here contrasting
the church, such as it then was with the church trium-
phant, the whole passage is natural and plain ; but if we
suppose he was comparing it, as it then was in posses-
sion of all the miraculous gifts, with any state it has ex-
perienced since it was stripped of those gifts, common
sense revolts at the contrast, and the whole passage ap-
l^ears a (is^ie of falsehood. Can any church |i the
^9

odB ANCIENT OHDEH-

present day draw such a comparison between iiieni-^
selves and the primitive church i Can we say, the apos-
tolical church knew m part and prophecied in part, but
we having attained to complete perfection, have no use
for their partial knowledge, and thereiore partial know-
ledge is done away. Can we say the apostolic church
"<vas a mere child, spake as a child, and thought as a
child, but we having grown to the &taiure of a man in
Christ have put auay the childish things of the apostolic
age ? Can we say that they saw through a glass darkly^
but that we now see face to face, that they then only
knew in part, but now we know even as also we are
known 1 The glass through which they saw darkly, was
no doubt the gospel ; but can we now say, we see the
Lord face to lace, and have n<» need of the gospel 1

There is not a text in the Bible that says God in-
tended to take those spiritual gifts from the church. On
the contrary that book exhorts us to " covet earnestly
the best gifts." To, " covet to prophesy, and forbid
not to speak with tongm-s." To " follow after charity,
and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may pro-
phesy." 1 Cor. xii. 31. Chap. xiv. 1.39. Would
God exhort us to follow after, covet, and earnestly seek
these gifts, if he did not intend them for us ? James
says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God^
who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and
it shall be given him." If ye then bemg evil know how
to give good gifts unto your children, how much more
shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them
that ask him V^ If God allows no person to be Divinely
inspired with wisdom, nor to receive the Holy Spirit m
the present day, why do James and Jesus Christ exhort
US to ask God for these inestimable blessings ? Woukl
the blessed Jesus hold out a false hope to his people ?
To say these texts were confined to people in the apos-
tles' days, and are net applicable to us in the present
day, would be the same as to say, there can be no
Christians in the present day, because if we do not fol-
low after charity, seek wisdom of God, and pray to him
f jr Ms Holy Spirit, we certainly cannot be Christians :
then so sure as it is our privilege to be Christians in the
pr'e^Ot day, just so sure it is our privilege to ?-njoy a

AT^CIEXT ORDER. 33^

'dvine inspiration and spiritual gifts. The two privileges
must stand or fall together, the same scriptures promise
^nd support both.

I will now try to answer such objections as are most
commonly brought against a restoration of the ancient
order of things.

Objection I. JSIirachs are not necessanj in the 'pre-
sent day ; they were only wrought to confirm the gospel,
ixnd as soon as that was effected, their use ivas at an end.

Answer. If mu*acles, and the inspu-ation of the
Holy Ghost, were necessary to confirm the gospel
among the Heathen in the apostles' days, they are ne-
cessary to confirm it among them in the present day ;
because it is well known, that at least tv.o thirds of
mankind are still under Heaihenirfm. It appears to me
Impossible, that partyisni can be destroyed, prejudice
and persecution exterminated, slavery abolished, wars
done away, and th ; Jev/s, Mahometans, and Pagans,
converted to the gospel, without divine inspiration and
the gift of miracles. There are as many evil spirits to
dispossess, and as many sick peopk^ who need healing
in the present day, as there were in the days of the
ap 'Sties. As we have the same spiritual enemies to
combat that they had, we need the same spiritual aid,
that they needed. And as the world labors under the
same moral diseases nov/ that it then did, the same
remedies are necessary to remove them. Professors
of Christianity at present are but poorly qualified to
Christianize the world. The primitive church in pos-
session of miracles and divine inspiration, did more to-
wards evangelizing mankind in two centuries, than the
church has done withoui these gifts in sixteen.

Objection 2. Jf these miracles were contiuued, they
ivould become so common that they u'ou-d lose their use.

Answer. We might as well say, that if we continue
the ordinances of the gospel, they will become so com-
mon, that they will l:'~e their use. To say that a con-
tinual inspiration of the Holy Ghost, enlightening the
minds, and graciousK affecting the hearts of Christians,
«voiild render such inspiration useless, would be as ah-

340

a2scie:^t order.

surd as to say, that a continuation of the sun shinir/i'
daily on the earth, would render him useless to the
world. It is as useful to a sinner to be regenerated, or
to a sick person to be healed now, as it was at any for-
mer age of the world. If miracles were frequently
wrought in the present day, and that by none but Christ-
ians, it would, no doubt, establish the public mind in
the faith of the gospel, and go far towards destroying
partyism.

From the days of Abraham till a short time before
the coming of Christ, the Jews had their divinely in-
spired prophets, prophetesses, *and priests, who foretold
futiire events and wrought miracles. Some of these
prophets were seers, who could see into the spiritual
world, and converse with spiiits, which i.^ probably the
gift Paul alludes to, when he speaks oi discerning
spirits. And from the history of the Jews, we find
their days of inspiration and ri iracles were always their
best days.

If God does not allow any of the spnitual gifts t©
his church in the present day, he does not admit his
w^orshippers under the gospel to as great an intimacy
with himself, nor afford them so much of his spirit, as he
did those under the law. If this be so, how can it be
said of the gospel, that it excels the law in glory 1 The
Christian church at present has less and fewer displays
of divine glory and power, and m< re partvism than the
Jews had in the days of their prophets, but hardly as
much piety.

Ohjp.ciion 2. If you he correct, there are no true
Christian riiinisiers, nor true believers in the world, 6e*
cause there are none divinely inspired in the present
day.

Answer. I have no doubt but there are hundreds ot
true Christian preacliers in the present day, who have
fceen called, and are assisted by the Holy Spirit, to
preach the gospel. Many of them have entered apos-
tolic ground, prayed to God for, and from him received
a divine inspiration, wliich enabled them to speak with
wisdom and power, more than their own : and while
they have been in the preciucts of primitive Christia^iity,

AXCiEXT ORDER. 341

tiiey have not only experienced the divine light and su-
per-human power themselves, hut have frequently been
the means of conveying the same to their hearers.

Since the revival commenced in the beginning of thi^
century, there have been, under the preaching of the
gospel, many miraculous displays of supernatural power
on congregations and individuals. V»e have seen hun-
dreds struck down, and lay under the great power of
God, unable to move hand or foot, and to all human ap-
pearance breathless for several hours, and then rise
praising God, and speaking widi a wisdom and power,
of which they were no more capable the day betxjre.
than the most illiterate man is capable of delivering a
well ordered discourse on Astronomy. The JerJiS is a
great miracle : I have seen people jerked by an invisi-
ble power with such velocity, that if it had been done by
any external force, it would have killed them in a minute,
and still they received no injury.

Besides all this, thore have been in the bounds of
my acquaintance many miraculous cures performed in
answer to prayer. I have been acquainted with several
of the people who were healed, conversed on the sub-
ject with the persons who were present at the time :
and some of these cures I have seen myself I as
lirmly believe that Elder David Haggard had the gift of
healing, as that the apostles had. He has fallen asleep,
but there are many alive who saw him perform cures,
and what I saw myself puts the matter beyond doubt
with me. I state thes.e facts in honor to God, who, in
every age of the world, has shown a willingness to bles^
his creatures in proportion to their faith and obedience.
Those who oppose an apostolical ministry, frequently
challenge us to confirm our special call by miracles. —
To this I answer, that every sermon and exhortation
delivered in the power of the spirit is itself a miracle,
because it is superhuman ; the man could not have done
it of himself; besides, these discourses frequently have
miraculous effects: they are often the means of making
those do good who had' been long accustomed to do
evil, which is as hard as for an Ethiopian to change bis
skin, or the leopard his spots. Jer. xiii. 23.

Mv object is to establish my brethren in the rellglcui
2.9.^

342, AXCIENT ORPEE.

they have experienced, and exhort them to press for-
ward for more of the same. All that is necessary to
retrieve primitive Christianity, is, enough of the same
spirit we have received.

I also think Christ has a true chm-ch on earth, but its
members are scattered among the various denomina-
tions, and are all more or less under the influence of
MYSTERY BABYLON, and her daughters ; but
now there is a "Voice heard from heaven, saying come
out of her my people, that ye be not partakers of her
sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev.
sviii. 4. 0, v.here is the Christian that will rebel against
this kind and powerful voice? Surely the lovers of
Zion, who have long wept by the rivers Babylon with
their harps on the willows, would now rejoice to learn
the way that leads from that land of bondage. To such
inquiring souls, I will venture to give a little advice.
The first word of the inscription on Babyloh's forehead
is MYSTERY; therefore let us cease to contend for?n?/.s-
feries, and spend the remainder of our days in practis-
ing the plain precepts of the go?;pel. I think if all
Christians would do this, contention about doctrine
would soon come to an end. In Babylon v.as found
slaves and souls of men : then cease from enslaving }our
fellow-creatures. Remember the dealers in human
flesh, who continually oppress their fellow-creatures in
both soul and body, must themselves continue in spirit-
ual bf)ndage. ^'Li her was fGund the blood of Saints ;■'
let this caution us against prejudice and party ism, be-
cause that spirit led her to murder Christians. By con-
formity to the spirit of the world, joining church and
state together, getting her religion established by law^ •
and framing the government of the church after that of
'Pagan Rome, she commiiiedfornicaiion uith the Kings
of the earth. Therefore let us renounce her jurisdic-
tion, guard against the spirit of the world, make no at-.
tempt to have our meeting-houses incorporated, nor the
snpport of our ministers collected by law, and be carefU
not to frame the government of the church after that of
the state, but continually aim at, and pray to God for a
restoration of the ancient order^ laid down in the New
Testament. Babylon xuas dressed in red, y\UQh shows

A5CIENT ORLCEt 34^

jshe was in the spirit of war, but let us put away that
spirit from among us, and follow after peace with all
men, and hohne.-s, without which none can see the
Lord. The inhtioitants of the earth have been made
drunk with the wine of her fornication, and she herself
is drunk with the blood of saints. Thirsting for the
blood of saints, and intoxicated with her success in
^shedding it, she has infused the same spirit into the
kingdoms of this world, by which they have been so be-
wildered as to think all temporal power is derived from
the Pope, and that it was their duty to butcher thou-
sands of their best subjects to support Babylonish
mysteries. In her drunkenness she has mistaken water
baptism for regeneration, and a little bread and wine,
that would not weigh an ounce, for the whole real body
and blood of Jesus Christ : she has conceited that the
Son of God is as old as his Father, and that he is the
very uncreated, self- existent God, thus making him to
be both the Father and Son of himself. In her drunken
freaks, she has asserted that although Jesus Christ was
the setf-exisfent God, yet God killed him in the room of
sinners ; thus declaring in the face of common sense,,
that God poured out his wrath on God, because he was
angry with the devil and sinners : and now, like other
drunkards, elated with her own folly, she condemns
every man for a heretic or a fool, that dares to contra-
dict her.

" But let us come out of her spirit and practices too..
The track of our Saviour keep constant in view,
'I'he pure Testimony will bring us safe through;''

^4 OF DEALING IN ARDENT SPIRIT*.

On making and selling Intoxicating Liquors.

Making, or selling intoxicating liquors, is contrary id
the will of God, because, being not nutritious, they will
not support human life, of course all the labor spent on
them is lost, and it cannot be God's will that we should
waste our time. God wills that every man should ibl-
low some business useful to himself, and calculated to
pnjmote the happiness of his fellow creatures. But
those who make and sell ardent spirits are worse than
idle : they live by destroying the blessings of God.

By distilling grain, fruit, molasses, &c. they destroy
of these blessings to the amount of many millions oi"
dollars every year. If the people in the United States
spend in ardent spirits only a half a dollar for each per-
son in a year, it will amount to more than five millions
of dollars per annum. It cannot be the will of God that
so much wealth should l.e wasted. This sum appro-
priated annually to internal improvements and literature,
would make our country almost a Paradise, but being
applied to intemperance, it has a deleterious effect, and
rather tends to convert the country into a Sodom.

Christians should live honestly, but those who sell
spirituous liquors live by cheating their neighbors. They
designedly obtain money for that which is of no value.
Let no one say intoxicating spirits are useful, every
person of sense knows they are not. The natives of
this continent are healthier and happier without ardent
spirits than v.ith them ; and the Turks, Arabs and Hin-
doos, who never use them, are healthier, stronger, and
live longer than those nations that drink them. The
man who sells spirituous liquors, poisons his fellow-
creatures for the sake of money. Intoxicating liquors
are physical, intellectual, and moral poison : they des-
troy the health, derange the minds, and ruin the morals
of the wretches who drink them. And is it possible
that a Christian will poison his neighbors for the sake
of money? The willingness of fools to buy the poison
cannot in the least extenuate the crime of selling it to
them. What should we think of a doctor who would
sell poison when he knew it would ruin the persons that
bought it ? In the United States alone, more than t\yo

ON ©EALING IN ARDENX SPIRITS. 345

iljousand, perhaps ten thousand people lose their lives
every year by drinking ardent spirits. If one man
should kill so many, he would be considered a great
murderer, but every luan of common sense knows that
if ten, or ten thousand unite in the murder, they are all
guilty. The dealers in ardent spirits are chargeable
with all the deaths that are occasioned by intemperance,
because, if there were no inflammatory spirits made nor
sold, no person would get drunk.

He who makes a man drunk, is the cause of every
excess which that drunkenness leads him to commit.
He that makes his neighbor drunk turns loose a mad-
man to disturb the peace of society ; he does worse, he
turns a civil citizen into a madman.

Drunkenness opens the door to every vice. Can a
Christian knowingly follow an employment in which he
can only succeed by multiplymg crimes, and increasing
the number of transgressors m the land? Six cents
worth of spirits will make a man drunk : and is it possi-
ble that for the pitif il bribe of six cents, a Christian will
promote rebellion against his Master, and assist in des-
troying the souls for whom Christ died ? That man can
have but little regard for the law of God, who would
have it broke for six cents.

Every vender of ardent spirits promotes swearing,
lying, cheating, stealing, whoring, gambhng, quarrel-
ing, fighting, and murdering ; because, it is well known
that all these abominations are occasioned by drunken-
ness. They who sell spirits by large quantities, are as
guilty as the retailers, because they all know that intem-
perance creates the market. Certainly no Christian
will knowingly promote intemperance for the sake of
money. All the dealers in ardent spirits from the dis-
tiller down to the retailer, do intentionally promote
drunkenness, and every crime which it leads to, for the
3iike of money.

Some of the best physicians have said that distilled
,-pirits are not good for any thing, and their warmest ad-
vocates affirm that they are only useful as medicine ;
ratsbane, and calomel may be good for medicine, but
that will not justify any person in giving them out so ?3
t9 destroy liis feIlow=creatures.

^46' ON DEALING IN ARDENT SPIRITS."

There is much talk in the world about damnable he-
resies, but I think there are no damnable heresies except
those which lead to damnable practices. A belief that
it is right to make and .sell inioxicating liquors, leads to
the practice, and the practice leads to almost every
crime forbidden in the scriptures. I therefore conclude
that every distiller of ardent spirits, and every person who
makes a business of selung the;ii either by wholesale,
or retail, is in practice an enemy of Jesus Christ, and
ought to be excommunicated from the Christian church.
If there be any so very ignorant a.-; to think it is no harm
to keep distilleries or tippling shops, they should be in-
structed on the subject, and if they will persist, they
have no business m the church. We cannot prosper
while we keep thieves and Miiuderers in ourcommunion.
Every house for retailing ardent -pirits is a hot-bed of
iniquity, and every wholesale dealer in those spirits is
an upholder of br thels a d gambling houses. If there
were no inflammatory spirits m America, it is believed
there would be few -uch houses kept, and if there should
be any kept without imflajumatory spirits, they certainly
would be far less injurious to the country than they now
are.

Let ev^ery instigator of drunkenness think of this
scripture, " Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor
drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him
drunken." Hab. ii. 15. "All the law is fulfilled in
one word, even in this, thou shait love thy neighbor as
thyself." Gal. v. 14. But it is plain that they who
cheat and poison their neio^hbors for the sake of money,
cannot love nor pray for them. I believe it is pretty
well known that distillers and retailers of spirituous li-
quors do not pray much for themselves, nor any body
else. Good people may differ from m.e about the hein-
ousness of this crime, but I insist that if it is a crime at
all, it should not oe allowed in the church. Surely the
gospel gives no liberty to sin. A Christian is a follower
of Christ who always went aitout doing good, but the
vender of inflammatory spirits spends all his days in
doing harm.

The most temperate and pious do not escape all the
evils of drunlienness. Those evils assail them thi-ough

ON DEALING IN ARDENT SPIRITS.

34*r

tiieii drunken friends and neighbors. Thus intemper-
ance is an enemy to the »\hole human family : its evils
pervade all ranks, and enter all the walks of life, im-
bittering the cup, and plantmg thorns in the path of
every individual. While the aged drunkard is bending
under the weight of guilt and disease which he has
brought on himself by untemperance, his faithful wife
is dying of a broken heart, and ins mnocent children
are reduced to poverty and wretchedness by the same
means.

Intemperance fills the prisons, crowds the almS'
houses, takes thousands to the gallows, and milUons to
hell. It is well known, that makmg and sellmg ardent
spirits is the real cause of all these evils. I now ask, is i%
possible that a christian will knowingly chose, and fol-
low an employment that is the cause of so much sin
and misery ?

As christians have long deplored this evil, I will now
propose a plan to check its ravages. The plan is this,
let us put away disiilled spirit- from among us alto-
gether; let all professors of rehgion do like the Quakers,
neither make, sell, nor use them. Surely, Christians
should be as temperate as Turks and Arabs. At any
rate let us no longer suffer our members to keep still-
houses and tippling-shops. If all protessed christians
had put away slavery and distilled spirits at the time
the Quakers did, in all probability these evils would
have been by this time nearly,if not quite, banished from
Christendom. Among the Jews, if any one was con-
victed of enticing others to idolatry, he was stoned to
death, but we keep people in our church who make
their living by enticing their fellow-creatures to sin. If
Christ called the speculators, who sold and bought, and
changed money in the Temple, a den of thieves, and cast
them out, surely these promoters of wickedness should
not be allowed to stay in the church. I greatly desire
to call the attention of christians to the subject. T
want to see it made a theme for the pulpit, a question in
church meeting, and a subject of discussion in. con-
ference.

wm^m^^

Page.
The Preface-. 3

PART 1.

Thoughts on Natural Theology, 9

PART 11,

The Truth of Revelation, 20

Riconsistency of Deists, 2S

PART m.—OF TRINITY.

The Unity of God, 34

The Doctrine of Trinity Examined, 39
Of John V. 7. For there are three that bear record

in heaven, &c. 55

Of the Hebrew £/o/i?//], 59

PART lY.— OF CHRIST.

That Christ is a distinct Being from God, and that

his power is derived from the Father ?o

Ancient Opinions of Christ, VS

"Passages of Scripture that prove the Sob is not so

great as his Father, 84

Argum<fTit5 against the above Doctrine coasider^cK 95'

INDEX.

Chribt being called God is no proof that he is the

Supreme Being, 96

Of Christ being called the Lord's fellow. Zech.

xiii. 7. 9S

The same attributes ascribed to Christ and his

Father, 1 04

The same works being ascribed to Christ and his

Father is no proof that he is the Supreme God, 105
Of Christ being equal with God. 107

Christ the Judge of the world, 113

Passages, of Scripture that have been brought to

prove Christ is the Supreme God considered, 114
Of worshipping Christ as a dependant Being, 123

JVisdom, mentioned in the Sth chapter of Proverbs

is not Christ, 12S

On the Origin and Substance of Christ, 131

Christ mentioned in Scripture under the character

of an Angel, 14Q

Of Michael the Archangel, 149-

The personal, or real Existence of God, 156.

Objections against the personal Existence of God

answered, 163

PART v. OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

To prove that the Holy Sjjirit is not a distinct per-
son from God, 171
The Holy Spirit a Witness, 179-
Personal Pronouns applied to the Holy Spirit, 181

PART YI. ATONEMENT.

The Scripture Doctrine of Atonement, 1S7

Of Christ Fulfilling the Law, 196

The Doctrine of Surety Rightconsnefs crn.sid€red,2Cf

IXDEX. '

Paih
t Imputed Righteousness, 218

Of Imputing Sin to Christ, 22S

Of Christ bearing the ^Trath of God, 232

The Doctrine of Purchased Grace, 236

Of Christ making satisfaction to Divine Justice

for Sinners, 340
Evidences in favor of Surety Righteousness, &c.

considered, 245

Of the Jewish Sacrifices, 2o2-
Of Christ paying the debts of his Church in the

sense that a husband pays the debts contracted

by his wife, 25G

Of Christ being made a Curse for us, 262

Of the Purchase made by Christ, 263

Of Christ treading the wine-press of God's Wrath, 269

Renunciation of Copy Right, 273.

PART YIL— OF FAITH.

Remarks on Faith, 275-

Regeneration by the Spirit through Faith-, ^ 279

PART YIIL— OF ELECTION, ;

To show who the Elect are, 292

To show when and hov/ God's people are elected, 295

Of Foreknowledge and Decree, 301

Of Predestination, 30^

or Esau and Jacob, 310
The persons on whom God will have mercy, and

on ^ horn he will harden, 315

Of ]y mes written in the Lamb's Book of Life, 316

Of t 3 Potter and the Clay, 320

Of ( od Creating Evil, 326.

Thr Application. 32?"

PART 1%.

Pk Restoration of the Ancient- Order of T}uii|s, 8Bl
Objections ©fa Restoration of the Ancient ©r^ejj

•f Things Ans^vered, 330

Of Mciklng and Selling Int.oxipatmg Liquors?.* 3i54