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