DEAR SIR,

      I come, now, in order, to the simple question, whether he who created the universe, is really and truly divine; whether he is God, in the true and supreme sense, or not? This is the fundamental question between us. In this discussion you will not require of me to enumerate and examine at length every text in the Bible, that I may suppose to have a connection with the subject before us. If the book is divine, a few passages, the language of which appears to be genuine, and above the condemnation of textual criticism; and such as appear to contain the best and most decisive proof of the point to be examined, will answer in the place of ten thousand. Nor will you be surprised if, in this selection of proofs for the proper divinity of the Saviour, I adduce some passages, which seem to have found no place in your writings. They are very positive and inflexible; so much so, that all attempts hitherto, to destroy their testimony by Unitarian critics, have only served to discover more than ever their entire nakedness.

      John 1. 1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made [46] by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." verse 10,--"and the world was made by him." All known manuscripts, it is not denied, agree in the text here. And only some conjectural readings are recorded by Griesbach which are so entirely gratuitous and unfounded, that it is a matter of surprise why he should condescend to notice them. Mr. Smith has been more bold and adventurous than you, in attempting an explanation of this passage; but had he been as prudent as you in saying not a word about it, he would certainly have been commended for preventing the exposure of his weakness. He thinks "it not likely that John should have inculcated at his first setting out, the eternal Godhead of the Son, seeing he has furnished the most explicit evidence against it in the following part of his gospel." In support of this assertion, a few passages are cited which only apply to Christ's humanity and delegated office as Mediator and Messiahship, which by no means can tax the apostle with inconsistency and contradiction in asserting his Godhead. The above assertion, therefore, is without ground, or if of any account, must lead us back to the question, Is the book divine? If it contradicts itself, it cannot be.

      "In the beginning was the Word," the Logos. The phrase en arhe, in the beginning, we will admit does not of itself simply signify from eternity, though I believe that the Logos did exist from eternity, as I have before shewn; and that his existence from eternity, is implied, though not directly proved by the expression may be safely and properly admitted. All that Mr. Smith can learn from the expression, in the beginning was the Word, is, that the Logos existed before creation; which we admit. But the Logos WAS GOD. The Unitarian Improved Version of the New Testament, proposes to render the word Theos, a god. "Does then," says Professor Stuart, "the Christian Revelation admit of gods superior and inferior? And if so, to what class of inferior gods does the Logos belong? And how much would such a theory of divine natures, differ from that which admits a Jupiter Optimus Maximus, and gods greater and less?" Mr. Smith, instead of telling us plainly what the apostle meant when he says, the Logos was God, evades it, by adroitly slipping it in among [47] Trinitarian differences and discrepancies, as he pretends to make out. But not satisfied with this as sufficient to scuffle the text out of view, he very officiously turns in to reason for them, and furnishes them with two supreme Gods; while he, happy man! having got rid of that stubborn thing, "The Logos was God," gently slides off into a happy illustration of the phrase, "the Word was with God," by introducing the sophistry of some "eminent writer," respecting the supposed identity of Luke and Sylvanus, "We may," says he, "consider the question being settled in the following manner: Suppose we were to find in any part of the New Testament this expression, Luke was with Sylvanus. We should immediately conclude that Luke was not Sylvanus, but a different being from him. The application is easy." p. 30. Yes, the application is easy enough on the Unitarian plan, which denies the three personal distinctions in the Godhead; which denies a distinct existence of the Father and the Son in the same essence. The application is easy; it denies that Luke and Sylvanus were the same individual; it acknowledges they were in company; but says nothing about their equality, or whether one was older than the other. All it can tell us is, that Luke was not Sylvanus, and Sylvanus was not Luke, but they were in company. Indeed, if the question is settled by this "simple example," as it is called, the Trinitarian has nothing to fear from the imbecile attacks of those who deny the proper divinity of his Saviour.

      But the question still comes up; what can John mean, when he affirms that the Logos was God, and yet was with God? I answer, that I understand him to mean, that he was truly divine, but still divine in such a manner, as to involve no contradiction in a distinction of existence between him and the Father. The word God in the first instance, I take to mean, God as Father, as it does in a great many cases; in the second instance, the Word was God, I consider it a description of divine being, of the Divinity, without reference to the distinction of Father; a use which is very common. That the word Theos, God without the article, does designate the Divine Being, who is the Supreme God, you cannot deny upon the principles of Greek syntax, or the usage of the Greek writers; see the [48] chapter in question, ver. 6, 13, 18; also Matt. 19. 26. Luke 16. 13. John 9. 33, and 16. 30. Rom. 8. 8. Eph. 2. 8. Heb. 9. 14, &c. &c. Many instances might be adduced, were it necessary, but I see no difficulty in supposing that God as Father is meant in the first instance in the text, and the divinity without reference to the distinction of Father in the second.

      Still, what is meant by the Logos being with God? It indicates union, conjunction, communion, and familiarity, as might be shewn in many places. In John 1. 18. the only begotten Son in said to be "in the bosom (eis ton kolpon,) of the Father," which may amount to the assertion that he was conjunctissimus deo, most intimately connected with him. And this might be illustrated by comparing those cases where christians are promised, as the summit of their felicity, that they shall be with God and Christ, and be where they are. But if it be inquired, how this connection between the Logos and God is? I answer, without hesitation or fear, that I cannot tell. The fact is asserted by the Evangelist, but he says not one word about the modus. If we could explain this, then perhaps we might be able to define the distinction, which we believe to exist in the Godhead.

      If such be the difficulty and mystery of this connection, why, you may ask, was it ever asserted? I answer, in the days of the apostle, there were heretics, who maintained that Christ was a being not only distinct from God, but an emanation from him. The apostle's asseveration, that the Logos was with God--was from the beginning most intimately connected with him, and was divine, would, of course, contradict such an opinion.

      I have no hesitation, then, in asserting that this passage in which, beyond all reasonable doubt, Christ is called God, in the full meaning of that word, as the context will support; has plainly and unequivocally taught us that this God, Theos, who was the Logos, created the universe. Will you tell me here that the creation of the universe can be performed by an inferior and subordinate Being. I ask how? You will answer, by delegation. What can be meant by infinite wisdom, and omnipotence (which must belong to a Creator,) being delegated? Can God delegate his [49] perfections? If the act of creating the universe, the worlds material and immaterial, which no finite or secondary being can perform, does not designate the absolute, supreme, omnipotent, and omniscient Being; then no proof that such a Being exists can possibly be adduced. The Arian hypothesis therefore, which ascribes both the first formation, and the perpetual government of the universe, not to the Deity, but to an inferior being, deserves to be filed away among the fabulous legends of the heathen dii minores, or lesser gods. "Can any power or wisdom, less than the Supreme, be a sufficient ground for the trust we are required to place in Providence? Make the wisdom and the power of our ruler what you please; still, upon the Arian principle, it is the wisdom and the power of a creature: where then will be the certainty, that the evil which we find in the world, hath not crept in through some imperfection in the original contrivance, or in the present management; since every intellect, below the first, may be liable to error, and any power, short of the Supreme, may be inadequate to purposes of a certain magnitude? But if evil may have thus crept in, what assurance can we have, that it will ever be extirpated?" (Dr. Horseley.) But the Trinitarian is at home on this subject, quietly and comfortably listening to John teaching him, and declaring of the Divine Logos, that ta panta, all things, were made by him; and to Paul, saying, "He that built all things is GOD." Heb. 3. 4.

      That the Bible every where appeals to creative power, as the peculiar and distinguishing prerogative of the Supreme God, and attributes it solely to Jehovah, cannot be denied, without denying the divine authority of the Bible itself. (See Gen. 2. 2, 3. Ex. 20. 11. Isa. 44. 24. Jer. 10. 12. Ps. 8. 3, 4.) If these passages make it plain, that creative power is the appropriate and peculiar attribute of the Supreme God, how can they attribute the creation of ta panta, the universe, to a subordinate agent, or to a finite spirit? And most of all, how could Paul say (Rom. 1. 20.) that the heathen were without excuse, for not acknowledging the eternal power and GODHEAD from the evidence which has CREATING power afforded--from considering the THINGS THAT WERE MADE, if the Supreme Divinity, who [50] possesses eternal power and Godhead, did not exhibit it in his creating energy when all things were made? But it is said of Christ, that all things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1. 3. What stronger proof do we want of the Godhead or Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ?

      But another text which you and your co-adjutor, Mr. Smith, were willing to let pass without trouble, and one which was given more uneasiness and created more difficulty in the way of Arian and Socinian criticism that probably any other, in Rom. 9. 5. "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, WHO IS OVER ALL, GOD BLESSED FOREVER. AMEN." I have no doubt but you have looked with an anxious eye at this text. You have quite likely opened your favorite Griesbach, and finding his margin here filled with conjectural and other readings, to which he himself has attributed no considerable weight; and likewise learning that all the collated manuscripts of the Epistle to the Romans contain the text as it stands; as do all the ancient versions, and nearly all the Fathers; you have despaired of getting its vote in your favor, and therefore passed it by with silent neglect. Epi panton Theos is, literally, "over-all God." And if this does not describe him as the head, or the ruler of the universe; yea, if it can mean any thing less than, supreme God, pray, what does it mean? Will you substitute a conjectural reading, originating from theological speculation, against the plain and incontrovertible evidence of the integrity of the text? That were to introduce a principle fundamentally subversive of all interpretation and criticism; and we would have nothing more to do, but to reject the scriptures entirely, or mould them according to every man's own wishes. I aver then, that you cannot, without departing from Greek usage, and doing violence to the custom of language, devise a method whereby you can avoid the assertion, that Christ is God over all, or Supreme God. The expressions in the text are so full, and the contrast between the human and divine natures of the Redeemer so strong, that no honest arts are able to evade their force. "I must," says Dr. Doddridge, "render, and paraphrase, and improve this memorable text, as a proof of Christ's Deity, which, I think, [51] the opposers of that doctrine have never been able, nor will ever be able, to answer." (Fam. Expositor on the place.)

      Another passage I adduce to prove the Supreme Divinity of Jesus Christ is, Heb. 1. 8, 9. "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

      It is objected to our view of this passage, "That the Son here, under the appellation God, is said to have a God who anointed him. If he who is called God is the Supreme God, it follows that that God who was his God was more than supreme, which is impossible." (Smith's ser. p. 28.) The fact that the person called God here, calls another being his God, I readily admit; but the conclusion, i. e. that he cannot be supreme, I must be permitted to deny. The text is a quotation from the 45th Psalm; where Christ is described as a king trampling upon his enemies. As the Messiah, the anointed King; and so to be considered as incarnate, and of course subordinate, sustaining a delegated office, he might, with the greatest propriety, call Jehovah his God. "It is still a matter of wonder, that the same person could at any one time be called God, and have everlasting dominion ascribed to him, who, the next moment, calls Jehovah his God? It is a wonder of the same nature, as that which perplexed the Jews, when Christ asked them how David could call the Messiah Lord, while at the same time he was his Son. It is a wonder, which no ground but that of the Trinitarians can ever explain. I mean the ground, that the divine and the human natures co-existed in Christ, and that in the same sentence, he could with propriety speak of himself as human and divine."

      On this subject, the sacred writers thought it not necessary or expedient, on every occasion, to attempt a distinctive separation of the divine and human natures of our Saviour, no more than we, when we say, Abraham is dead, or Abraham is alive, think it necessary to add, as to his body, in one case, or as to his soul, in the other. [52]

      1 John, 5. 20. "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."

      Such is the conclusion of this most divine Epistle, which the author had opened with a declaration of the complex person of our Redeemer as God-man, and now closes all his cautions and observations with another solemn declaration of the real and proper deity of the Son of God, of whom the whole context requires that these words should be understood. The common laws of grammar require it. Christ is the immediate antecedent. The apostle, who before asserted that Christ was God, and to have created all things, would find no scruple in calling him the true God, which is confirmed by the other adjunct standing with it,--"and the ETERNAL LIFE." This is an expression familiar to John, which he applies to Christ as the author of spiritual and eternal life. And as it is no where found in his writings applied thus to the Father, the rules of exegesis compel us to construe both expression, the true God, and eternal life, of Jesus Christ. And if the true God be not really divine, who is?

      Acts 7. 59. "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

      That the blessed Stephen, commonly called the first christian martyr, died a martyr to the Deity of Christ, I think there can be little doubt. He ascribed divinity to one who had suffered publicly as a malefactor. That this was his crime none can doubt, who attends to the conclusion of the story. He "looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God," (the splendour of the Shechinah, for that is what is meant, when the glory of God is mentioned as something that may be seen,) "and Jesus standing on the right hand of God."--He saw the man, Jesus, standing on the right hand of God. His declaring what he saw, the Jewish rabble understood as an assertion of the divinity of Jesus: they stopped their ears; they overpowered his voice with their clamours; and they hurried him out of the city, to inflict upon him the death, which the law appointed for blasphemers. They [53] stoned Stephen, calling upon God, saying, Lord Jesus, &c. I know the word God, is not in the original text, which might be better understood thus; they stoned Stephen, invocating and saying, &c. Jesus therefore was the God, whom the dying martyr invocated in his last agonies; when men are apt to pray, with the utmost seriousness, to him whom they conceive the mightiest to save.

      The story of St. Paul's conversion, which is twice related by himself, and in which Jesus is deified in the highest terms, is another instance of our Lord's divinity. To adopt the language of Dr. Horseley; "I know not, Sir, in what light this transaction may appear to you; to me, I confess, it appears to have been a repetition of the scene at the bush, heightened in terror and solemnity.--Instead of a lambent flame, appearing to a solitary shepherd, amid the thickets of the wilderness; the full effulgence of the Shechinah, overpowering the splendour of the mid-day sun, bursts upon the commissioners of the Sanhedrim, on the public road to Damascus, within a small distance of the city: Jesus speaks, and is spoken to, as the Divinity inhabiting that glorious light; nothing can exceed the tone of authority on the one side, the submission and religious dread on the other: the recital of this story, seems to have been the usual prelude to the apostle's public apologies; but it only proved the means of heightening the resentment of his incredulous countrymen."

      John 20. 28. "And Thomas answered and said unto him, MY LORD AND MY GOD." This is Thomas's confession of faith, accepted and approved of by his master.--Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. But surely, if he had not been really God, he would rather have instantly corrected the apostle, than accepted of his confession. Shall we be told that these words of Thomas contain an exclamation or form of admiration? The grammatical construction will not admit of it, as the words Lord and God are in the nominative case. There was no such usage among the Jews; no phrase of this kind can be produced, by which they were accustomed to express surprise or astonishment. Nor is there any evidence that such a phrase, with the sense alleged, belongs to this language. But the matter is put out of question by the evangelist, who [54] tells us that Thomas addressed himself to Jesus; and said to him (eipen auto;) he did not therefore merely exclaim. He made a declaration that every lover of the Saviour's eternal Divinity, will ever admire and delight to adopt.

      Isa. 44. 6. "Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD OF HOSTS, I am THE FIRST, and I am THE LAST, and BESIDES ME, there is NO GOD." This passage ascribes the titles first and last to him alone, besides whom there is no God. If therefore, there is no God, besides him who is the first and the last, and it can be made appear that these titles belong to Jesus Christ, then the conclusion will be fair, that, besides him there is no other God: Now for the proof: Rev. 22. 13. "I (Jesus) am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, THE FIRST and THE LAST." This last passage calls up another important testimony in favor of the point in hand, and at once shews that it applies to Jesus Christ alone. "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY." Rev. 1. 8. No words can express more strongly, the eternal power and Godhead, than these do. Nor can the least appearance of reason be assigned why the text should be understood of the Father personally. The whole vision related to Christ, from whom immediately the revelation was given; and most of the expressions here used, or others equivalent to them, are afterwards spoken by him, and concerning himself:--(ver. 11.) "I (Jesus) am Alpha and Omega." And again:--"I am the first and the last." (v. 17.) That these titles, Alpha and Omega, first and last, should be repeated so soon, in a connection which demonstrates they are given to Christ, will appear very remarkable, whatever sense be given to the eighth verse. "And I cannot forbear," says the great and good Dr. Doddridge, "recording it, that this text has done more than any other in the Bible, toward preventing me from giving into that scheme, which would make our Lord Jesus Christ no more than a deified creature."

      The reason, you assign for these titles being given to the Son of God, are scarcely deserving of notice. "Between the Alpha and Omega are all the letters, by which are formed words, and sentences; and by these words and [55] sentences are conveyed ideas and information. He is therefore called the Alpha and Omega, because from him we have received all the information, and revelations that divine wisdom saw needful." p. 23. The first part of this quotation is merely the invention of fancy, and might be answered in the same manner; but we forbear, and shall attempt to give a more substantial reason why Jesus Christ is called the Alpha and Omega, which are the names of the first and last letters in the Greek alphabet, the language in which the apostle wrote. They imply; "That he is the first Cause and the last End, the Author and Finisher of all things, in creation, providence and redemption: the Beginning and the Ending, the Source of existence, of life and holiness, and of felicity, and the completion of them, in every sense, and in all respects." Dr. Scott.

      But to "apply this text," you say, "as is generally done, to the being of the Son of God, as the first being, and therefore eternally God, is gloomy in the extreme. For if he is the first being, he is also the last; and if the last being, there must be an end of all other beings--therefore, the life of all the redeemed must come to a perpetual end." It is a wonder you did not add, horesco referens!! There is no need to replying to such sophistry as this; and I barely quoted the passage, after what has been said, that it may be seen how easily it carries its own confutation with it. Is it argument? Is it reasoning? Did you think so yourself when you wrote it?

      But let us proceed to further evidence. "Sanctify the LORD OF HOSTS HIMSELF, and let HIM be your fear, and let HIM be your dread; but for a STONE OF STUMBLING and ROCK OF OFFENCE to both houses of Israel." (Isa. 8. 13, 14.) 1 Pet. 2. 7, 8. "The stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a STONE OF STUMBLING and ROCK OF OFFENCE." There can be no question as to the application of both these passages expressly to the person of Christ. "If the Scripture, thus compared with itself, be drawn up into an argument, the conclusion may indeed be denied, and so may the whole Bible, but it cannot be answered. For example, The stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, as the first text affirms, is the Lord of hosts himself; a name which can be applied to no other [56] but the one, only, true, and supreme God. But, this stone of stumbling and rock of offence, as it appears from the latter text, is no other than Christ, the same stone the builders refused; therefore, Christ is the LORD OF HOSTS HIMSELF:" and who dares to deny it.

      Isa. 6. 5. "Mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." There can be no mistake in the application of this passage. John 12. 41. "These things said Esaias, when he saw his (Christ's) glory, and spake of him." Jesus is the person here spoken of by John; whose glory Esaias is declared to have seen, upon that occasion, where the prophet affirms of himself, that his eyes had seen the Lord of hosts: therefore, Jesus is the LORD OF HOSTS." For this, and the above, see Jones on the Trinity, a very valuable work for a Trinitarian, and likewise deserving of your candid perusal.

      The Psalmist, speaking of the Israelites in the wilderness, says; "they tempted and provoked the Most High God." (Ps. 78.56.) But the Apostle, warning the Corinthians, refers to that same circumstance, and therefore says; "Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted." (1 Cor. 10. 9.) As these texts both relate to the same rebellious acts of the people of Israel, in the former of which, the person they tempted is called the most high God, and in the latter he is called Christ; the conclusion comes out fair and full, that Christ is the most high God. Can this mean a deified creature? Is it any thing short of supreme divinity?

      Col. 2. 8. 9. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men--and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Says the excellent writer last mentioned, "The apostle foresaw, that a thing calling itself philosophy would set all its engines at work to destroy the notion of Christ's true and absolute divinity.--For in him (says he) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; philosophy will dispute this, and undertake to demonstrate the contrary. But if you listen to such vain deceit, it will overthrow your faith, and spoil you for a disciple of Jesus Christ; therefore beware."

      But this passage, with many other texts of the same [57] import, you admit, establish "the divinity of Jesus undeniably;" and in your comment, say, "In him dwelleth, not a part, but all the fulness of Godhead, or divinity, bodily." It is natural to inquire here; did that "soul or spirit of the man Christ Jesus;" that being "that was created or brought forth by God himself, the first of all," possess all the fulness of Godhead, before it had a body! This is not the language of the text, which evidently denies your notion of created pre-existence, which supposes that all the Divine Attributes, all the fulness of the Godhead pan to pleroma tes Theotetos, were conveyed entire into a "pre-existent soul," which you now call the Son of God. Can the capacity of a mere man, or any createdbeing contain all the fulness of the Godhead? You acknowledge it is a great mystery, as before noted. Yes, it is; and greater upon your plan, than any Trinitarian mystery that ever you have ridiculed.

      But because of this fulness of Godhead in "the soul of the man Christ Jesus," you ascribe to him the titles of "mighty God--everlasting Father--great God,--true God, and even Jehovah;" a name never yet given to any created intelligent being in the universe;--an incommunicable name, belonging essentially to the unoriginated, eternal Divinity. But in this created being, of separate and distinct existence from its Creator, into whom is conveyed all the plenitude of the Divine Essence, "centres all the glory of God and man--of heaven and earth--all the perfections of God," &c. p. 26. But how is this possible? How can all the glory of God and man centre in a being who is neither God nor man? Not God! for he was in his highest nature a produced, finite being, existing before time, yet not from eternity;--not man, for it was only a fleshly body, without that part of human nature called a soul, that was, greeably to your latest account, (Lett. to Moreland, p. 7.) assumed, or united to that being you call "the Son of God himself, who, as you aver, was the very soul of that body." The Trinitarian finds no difficulty in centering all the glory of God and man in the person of Immanuel, who is perfect God and perfect man, in the union of the divine and human natures, as I have before shewn, I hope plainly and abundantly. But to ascribe "all the [58] perfections of God," to an inferior being, of created, separate and distinct existence, I say, is robbing God of his glory; and in the management of it, by an inaptitude of phraseology in your ascription of perfections and other divine names and titles to such a being, well calculated to deceive the people; who give you more credit that you deserve, respecting your high views of the Saviour, while they suppose you are really misrepresented by Trinitarians.

      You acknowledge there "are two texts of scripture, which directly speak of the equality of the Son with the Father." Now one would suppose that, by the mouth of two such direct witnesses, the point ought to rest as sufficiently established; but this will not answer your purpose. These witnesses must either die by the barbarous hand of criticism, or their testimony must be set aside by sophistry. We will, however, call them up again, and re-examine their testimony.

      The first you have had before you, and which was quickly despatched, (p. 28) is, John 5. 8. "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he ---- said also that God was his Father,"--Patra idion--his own proper Father.--"making himself EQUAL WITH GOD." That the Jews understood him to assume an equality, not of power or authority only, but of nature, is evident, because their charge is founded upon his calling God his own proper Father. This you admit yourself: "The Jews concluded, that because Jesus said that God was his Father, that he was making himself equal with God." But you set aside their judgment here, as fallaciously grounded, equally as much so, as when "they at another time concluded he had a devil and was mad." My dear sir, are you not afraid to reason so? Do you suppose the evidence on which their conclusions were founded to be about equal in the one case as the other? "Many of them said, he hath a devil and is mad; why hear ye him? Others said, these are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?" (John 10. 20, 21.) Here we see, "there was a division among the Jews," because of the Saviour's doctrines. Some of them, as unwilling to acknowledge his divine mission as you are his divine nature, cried out with heated animosity, He hath a devil [59] and is made, while others; yes, mark it,--while others said, these are not the words of him that hath a devil; and they appeal to evidence:--Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

      In the case before us there is no division. Jesus had healed a man on the Sabbath day, for which he had as much power and authority as the Father; for in the preceding verse he says, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. It was on this declaration they founded their charge of making himself equal with God; in which it seems, they were all agreed. But this will not do for you. "This of making himself equal with God, was undoubtedly wrong; for Jesus labors in the following verses to convince them of it." Well let us see how: "Then answered Jesus, and said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." Here you stop with an "&c." and exclaim, "Surely if Jesus had been equal to the Father, he would not have used such language as this, directly calculated to mislead the people." But why did you not let the Saviour speak on, by fairly quoting out the whole verse, which goes on thus? "For what things soever he doth, these also doth the Son likewise." Here is equality still, and such expressions were very unlikely to operate to the conviction of the Jews as to their improper conclusion. (v. 20.) "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For (v. 21.) as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them: even so the Son quickeneth whom he will." This part of the Saviour's vindication you skipt over, and likewise the two following verses, which flatly contradict your assertion respecting the mistake of the Jews. "For the Father judgeth no man; but hath committed all judgment to the Son: THAT ALL MEN SHOULD HONOUR THE SON, EVEN AS THEY HONOUR THE FATHER. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." Why did you make quotations before and after this passage, to confirm your declaration respecting the error of the Jews, while such a testimony was loudly contradicting you, and might complain of ill treatment, while your pen was entering others on your list of evidence, and these were silently neglected [60] or rudely passed by? Is this, Sir, fair and honest conduct in argumentative and controversial writing? Can you expect the intelligent to sanction it; and is not calculated to mislead the ignorant? Here we have seen the Saviour's vindication against the cavillation of the Jews. He claims God for his own proper Father--assumes a right of operating on the Sabbath--a power of imitating God in his works of providence--of quickening whomsoever he will, of those that are dead--the privilege of judging the world, and of being honored like as his heavenly Father is honored. That these are the pretensions of Jesus is evident from the whole context; and it clearly appears, that with something of a subordination of the part of the Son, they assert the most perfect identity of nature, the most entire unity of will, and consent of intellect, and an incessant co-operation in the exertion of common powers to a common purpose. He is either the true, proper, natural Son of God; or it is impossible to vindicate him from the most insolent and consummate imposture.

      If the Jews misunderstood the Saviour, as ascribing that to himself which belonged to Deity only, he must have egregiously failed. In his attempts to convince them of their mistake, when on another occasion we find them taking up stones to stone him for asserting, "I and my Father are one." This, in their estimation was blasphemy, and they assign it as a reason for their determination to stone him, "Because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." This charge is not evaded, and it must be admitted to be true, or acknowledged that Christ dealt very disingenuously with his accusers, in suffering them to continue in their error. If he had been a mere creature, according to his external appearance, he had nothing to do but to tell them so, and all would have been easy. "I and my Father are ONE." In the original text, it is not eis, (one person,) in the masculine gender, but hen, in the neuter, one thing, or, to Theion, one Divinity. "If we attend," says Dr. Doddridge, "not only to the obvious meaning of these words, in comparison with other passages of Scripture, but to the connection of this celebrated text, it so plainly demonstrates the deity of our blessed Redeemer, that I think it may be left to speak for itself, without any [61] labored comment. How widely different that sense is, in which Christians are said to be one with God, (John 17. 21.) will sufficiently appear, by considering, how flagrantly absurd and blasphemous it would be, to draw that inference from their union with God, which Christ does from his."

      The next direct testimony in favour of the Son's equality with the Father, is Phil. 2. 6. "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: v. 7, 8. But made himself of no reputation, and took on him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself," &c.

      "They who are acquainted with the Greek, (you say) are well assured that our translation of this text is not the best." This I will readily admit; and hope we shall be able to get a better before we leave the subject. Professor Stuart, of Andover, in his valuable letters to Channing, pp. 88-92, has given the best translation of this passage, that I believe is to be found; and which he has, in my opinion, fully established in his accompanying critical remarks, which are too lengthy and learned for popular use, and therefore I must deny myself the pleasure of inserting the whole of them here, but admit only a few extracts. His rendering is as follows: (v. 5-8) "Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus; who, being in the condition of God, did not regard his equality with God as an object of solicitous desire, but humbled himself, (assumed an inferior or humble station) taking the condition of a servant, being made after the similitude of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he exhibited his humility by obedience, even to the death of the cross." The Greek of this passage not only admits, but demands such a rendering. This will appear from an examination of the word morphe, form, as it is in the common version. Schleusner, one of the best critics in the world, has, in his Lexicon, afforded amble evidence, that this word is not unfrequently synonymous with phusis (nature) and ousia (being.) In the passage before us, the meaning of it is too plain to be easily mistaken. "If you say, morphe Theou, the form of God, in the common rendering, means only a similitude or resemblance of God in moral qualities, as we speak of [62] Christians resembling God; then I ask, whether his humiliation consisted in depressing, or subjecting to a lower station, the moral qualities which Christ possessed?"

      Will you say the phrase means, then, "a resemblance to God in respect to office; as magistrates are called gods? But, on the supposition that Christ was only a finite being, what office did he lay aside in order to become incarnate? If Christ be only a created being; who were his subjects, and what was his dominion, before his mediatorial kingdom commenced by the event of his incarnation?"

      "But this is not all. If morphe mean only similitude, then what is the sense of the next clause, where Christ is said to have taken upon him the morphen doulou, (the form of a servant?) That he bore merely a resemblance to a servant, i. e. to one who obeys, or is in a humble station; or that he did actually take the condition of one who was in a humble, and depressed state, and persevered in it to the very death of the cross? The latter must be admitted, unless we hearken to the doctrine of the DOCETÆ, who taught Christ was a man in appearance only, and not in reality. If morphe doulou then means the condition or state of one who is humbled or depressed, and subjected to the command of others; does not morphe Theou mean the condition or state of one, who is truly divine?"

      This is certainly much plainer and easier of comprehension than the common version, which seems to render a part of the apostle's reasoning in the passage nugatory, or at least irrelevant. In order to urge in the most effectual manner, the principle of Christian humility upon the Philippians, he proposes to them the example of Christ; "Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ." What was this; or how was it manifested? By the fact, that though essentially divine, (en morphe Theou,) he did not eagerly retain his divine condition, but assumed the station or condition of a servant, (morphen doulou). Here the relevancy of his reasoning is sufficiently plain. But how was it any proof or example of humility, that he did not think it robbery to be equal with God?" Nor will the Greek fairly bear this construction of our common version. The word arpagmos, translated robbery, does not seem here to signify an act of robbery, but "something which is eagerly to be [63] seized and appropriated." Moreover, our translators have placed the word arpagmos, next to the verb egesato, which by the rules of syntax does not belong there. The Greek syntax would place the words thus, as to their sense; ouk egesato to einai isa Theo (kata) arpagmos; literally, "he regarded not the being equal to God (as) arpagmos, as a thing to be eagerly sought or appropriated;" which, in my opinion, makes the apostle's meaning plain and forcible.

      But you will tell me, that "the person spoken of in the text cannot be the only living and true God; for God cannot be emptied, humbled and exalted without a change." Pray, what do you mean by the word "emptied," when applied to Christ upon your own plan? Was the "pre-existent soul of Christ," or, if you will, the Son of God, filled with all the fulness of the Godhead before he came into the world; and was this emptied, or poured out, or left behind, upon his assumption of flesh? Why so fond of using a word that plunges yourself into such difficulties? But you will still press, and ask, how could "the only living and true God be humbled, and exalted without a change?" I answer; this long title, we Trinitarians apply to the Divine Essence or Godhead: The Son of God, as we have told you again and again, is the second person (don't forget our explanation of the term) in the Divine Nature. To him belonged the Morphe Theou, before he humbled himself by taking the station or condition of a servant. In occupying, indeed, such an inferior humble station as that of a servant, consisted his humiliation; (ekenouse eauton) "made himself of no reputation," as we translate it. "Yet how incompetent must these translations be! So far as Christ is the immutable God, he cannot change; that is, he cannot divest himself of his essential perfections. He cannot cease to be omnipotent, omniscient, &c. But he may veil the brightness of his glories for a time, by assuming to himself a union with the human nature, and making this the organ through which he displays his perfections, during the time of the incarnation. Does the sun cease to shine--are his beams extinguished, when an intervening cloud obscures, for a while, his lustre? Or is the sun in any measure changed?"

      Before I quit this point, I must note one thing more. [64] It is the disingenuous manner in which you have treated Dr. Doddridge, whose translation of the passage before us, you say, is certainly the most literal: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be as God." This reading, you say, is confirmed by Whitby. It may be so. It is true likewise, that he has been censured for yielding here too much to the enemy, without any necessity. But what is your object in making Dr. Doddridge speak as though Christ were only as God, that is, having the similitude or resemblance of God, and not an equality with him? Did you think thereby to get his vote, in your attempt to destroy this strong text in favour of Christ's divinity? This I am sure you cannot do by fair dealing. Dr. Doddridge shall speak for himself. In paraphrasing on the text, he uses the following very definite and expressive language: "Being in the form of God, and having been from eternal ages possessed of divine perfections and glories--thought it not robbery and usurpation to be, and appear as God--assuming the highest divine names, titles and attributes, by which the Supreme Being has made himself known." Now, Sir, what good will this great man's testimony do you, when fairly stated? He has not more strongly and forcibly avowed the proper divinity of Christ in all his writings than here. Why did you garble his expressions, or give such a partial quotation of them as to make him speak what he did not intend; namely, that Christ was not equal with God, but only like him? Candour, truth and honesty, forbid such conduct. You would not like to be treated so yourself. But, as we have already seen, in the case of our Lord's vindication of himself against the Jews, this is not the first instance of unfair dealing of this kind in your book.

      But suppose your point gained; suppose the phrase, as God, which is to mean, like God, be granted; and then admit that the expression, form of God, means resemblance of God; will it be a sensible declaration, or will it sound like the apostle Paul, to make him say of his master that, being in resemblance or likeness of God, he thought it not robbery to be like to God? But, says Mr. Smith, in his very lucid comment on this text, "the form of any being is not that being whose form it is." (p. 33.) The same [65] logic appeared in your former production, but is prudently left out in the present edition; your expressions were: "Now the form of a thing, is not the thing itself." Such logic as this restores at once the reign of chaos, where every thing is without form and void. I used to think the form of a being designated the manner in which that being exists. But as there is now a great deal of New Light in the world, probably it is found to be a mistake. Let us try how the logic will work. Mr. Smith believes he is a human being; a human being cannot exist without form; but the form of a being is not that being whose form it is;--therefore, Mr. Smith is not a human being. So, also, a well formed horse is not a horse. And in Mark 16. 12. when Jesus appeared en etera morphe, in another form, it is to be understood, that it was not Jesus. So when he took "the form of a servant and the fashion of a man," he was neither a servant nor a man. May not such philosophy be the means of sending souls to perdition! Is there not some danger of being spoiled "through philosophy and vain deceit," so current in this day, and so industriously employed in simplifying and accommodating the great truths of Christianity to the standard of human demonstration, and the fickleness of human reason? Will you now permit me to repeat, that the version, which would correspond best with the real meaning of the passage in question, must express the following ideas: "Who being of divine nature, or condition, did not eagerly seek to retain his equality with God, but took on himself a humble condition," &c.

      I have been the particular on those two last passages, because of their importance, as being to the very point; and because it was necessary to vindicate their character from the clamours of false philosophy and criticism, which have been employed to set aside their evidence; tho' it is admitted they speak "directly of the equality of the Son with the Father." But it is also admitted, that "there is a sense in which Jesus may be said to be equal to God; as in 1 Cor. 15. 24, 28.--If in the end, the Son is to be subject to God, it implies that now, he is not subject; but he is not superior--therefore, he must be equal;--not in essence, being or eternity--but equal in the great work of [66] redemption; all power in heaven and earth being delivered to him," &c. p. 30.

      Is not this an enormous tax upon credulity itself? A finite, created, produced being equal to God, in the great work of man's redemption!! Existing too, independently of him, for he is not now subject to God. How can such a being occupy such a station? You again reply, by delegation; "all power in heaven, &c. being delivered to him." But I again ask; can God delegate his nature, or transfer his divine attributes to a being of limited existence, or created nature? And can any power, short of omnipotent, operate to the effectuating of man's redemption. Withdraw omnipotent power from the work of redemption, and it must cease. If the Son possess not the same nature of the Father in the unity of the Godhead, it is admitted readily, that he cannot be equal in essence, being or eternity, with the Father; but surely then he cannot exercise an omnipotent agency, without which, neither the creation nor redemption of man, is predictable of him. There is no sense whatever, in which a finite being, can be equal to Jehovah. You must take the ground of the honest Trinitarian here, or turn infidel; there is no medium.

      You think we "are egregiously mistaken," if we expect to confute you by proving the divinity of Christ by ascribing the divine names, titles, attributes, &c. to him, that are ascribed to Deity. These you also ascribe to him, as well as we; but the difference, you aver, is this; the Trinitarian "ascribes these attributes and names to the Son, as in him from eternity. But you ascribe them to him, because the Father dwells in him." And does not God dwell in every saint, male and female? "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us." (John 4. 12.) "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." (v. 15.) "He that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him." (v. 16.) Agreeably to your theory of communicated divinity, can any good reason be assigned why we should not ascribe divine titles and honors to the saints, and worship the Father in them because he dwelleth in them? If they are partakers of the divine nature, (2 Pet. 1. 4.) and if filled with all the fulness of God, (Eph. 3. 19) I cannot see why it might not be; [67] nor can I discover why we might not as consistently talk of a divine Paul, or a divine Peter, or a divine any body else, if a saint; as a divine Jesus, having only a derived nature, a created existence, and a communicated divinity.

      I do hold mostly firmly, the divine nature of Jesus Christ from the ascription of the incommunicable attributes of Godhead to him so frequently in the holy Scriptures; and it seems you are willing to "acknowledge he was eternally divine," if we can "prove that he was eternal." This, I think I have done. I have shewn that, to exist before the beginning of the world, can mean nothing less than to exist from eternity. What life was manifested and seen, by John, but "that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us?" (1 John 1. 2.) He had glory with the Father, before the world was, and was loved by him "before the foundation of the world" (John 17. 5, 24.) "He was set up, or anointed from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was--then was I by him as one brought up with him; and was daily his delight, rejoicing ALWAYS before him." (Prov. 8. 23, 30.)

      These strong terms, which ascribe eternity to the Son of God, you have attempted to criticise away. "The Hebrew word olem, translated from everlasting, is much more frequently used for an indefinite, than for infinite time." (p. 21.) What is the difference? That which is indefinite, is certainly unlimited, as well as infinite, in this connection. What is infinite time? But admit olem to express a definite, instead of an infinite duration, as I suppose you intended; what then will it make of the existence of God himself? "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth or the world, even from everlasting to everlasting thou art God." (Ps. 90. 2.) "Thy throne is established of old--thou art from everlasting. (Ps. 93. 2.) "O Lord, thou art our Father, our Redeemer, thy name is from everlasting." (Isa. 63. 16.) Here we find a similar phraseology in expressing the eternity of Jehovah. Let your criticism be applied and it makes bad worse, if possible. It not only destroys the eternity of the Son, but of the Father also. A little learning is a dangerous thing. "Who hath ascended up into [68] heaven, or descended? Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the waters in a garment? Who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his Son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Prov. 30. 4.) Here is the Divine Creator spoken of as having a Son. They are of distinct personality, yet so incomprehensibly united as ONE in divine nature and perfections, as to challenge the whole world of intelligences to comprehend, or find out to perfection, either the name of the Father or the Son. Surely our Redeemer must be omnipotent and eternal, or words have no meaning.

      I will make one effort more to put this matter beyond fair debate, and demand your redemption of the pledge of acknowledgment. Rev. 22. 13, is decisive on this subject of the eternity of Jesus Christ. "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." There is no possibility of mistake here as to the speaker; it is Christ. In the preceding verse he says, "Behold I come quickly." And in the 16th verse, the same person says, "I, Jesus, have sent mine angel," &c. Now, the same description that is here applied to Christ is given of the eternity of God, in chap. 21. 5, 6. "And he that sat upon the throne said--I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." Who is the speaker? "God himself." (ver. 3.) And (v. 7.) "I will be his God and he shall be my Son." To know still more fully, what this form of expression means, we must recur to the old Testament, where we find it, divested of its peculiar shape. In Isa. 44. 6. Jehovah says, "I am the first and I am the last; and beside me there is no God;" i. e. eternity distinguishes me from all that are falsely called gods. So in Isa. 48. 12; after declaring that he will not suffer his name to be polluted, nor give his glory to another, he adds, "I am he, (i. e. the true God) I am the first; and I also am the last." Now if the same things be asserted of Christ, (as plainly they are in the texts under consideration) how can we avoid the conclusion, that the holy apostle meant to assert his external existence?

      Now, Sir, let the holy Scriptures be interpreted according to the universal laws of explaining human language, if the writers of them, (the New Testament especially) have not ascribed to Christ CREATIVE power, omniscience, omnipotence, [69] omnipresence, divine worship, divine honors, and eternal existence, I will turn Unitarian at once. Never tell me any more that these attributes of Jehovah are imparted. How can omniscience be imparted? I can as soon believe that omnipotence, or self-existence, can be imparted to a finite being. A second omniscient and omnipotent being (omniscient or omnipotent simply by knowledge or power imparted) would at once establish all the absurdities of polytheism.

      That divine honors and worship are ascribed to Christ, there is no doubt. (John 3. 23. Heb. 1. 6. Phil. 2. 10, 11. Rom. 10. 9-14. Rev. 5, 8-14. Acts 7. 59, 60. 1 Cor. 1. 2. &c.) Shall I be told here, that "the word worship signifies respect, reverence paid by an inferior to a superior;" and that the "divine writers never intended by the word worship, supreme respect was always to be understood?" Mr. Smith does not say so; and to this I readily subscribe. But shall I therefore admit no distinction between that kind of worship or reverence called obeisance paid to creatures, and spiritual homage or worship paid to the Deity only? Is not the worship of angels spiritual? And what can be meant by things in heaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant? What other worship can heaven render? But shall I be told it was God's command, "that the Angels should worship his Son," and that had they not done it, they would have been rebellious?" Here I again most readily concur with Mr. Smith. But did ever God command his creatures to worship any being, not God? Never: "For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve." (Luke 4. 8.) For the Lord thy God is a jealous God. (Deut. 6. 15.) "I am JEHOVAH, that is my name, and my glory will I not give to another." (Isa. 42. 8.) But "the degree of reverence due, depends upon the object," and here Mr. Smith has fairly come out with the Latreia and Doulia of the Roman Catholics, a famed distinction between supreme and inferior worship. In this he has followed his "Great Emlyn," who expressed the same sentiment in his Vindication of the Worship of Christ. That the Son may be an object of worship as well as the Father, Mr. Smith attempts to illustrate by an earthly king exalting his son, to "give him [70] the right hand as a co-partner with him in the throne," and commanding "his subjects to bow the knee and pay royal honors to him." p. 24. Here God and his Son are represented as co-partners in divine honours, &c. But we are naturally led to ask how; if we are not to honour the Son even as we honour the Father? "Co-partners!" Is it not strange that this phrase should appear in his book, after that witty declaration. p. 10. which says, "No person ever yet saw one of these coes in the Bible." It is my established belief that no theological controversialists are more unfair and disingenuous towards their opponents than the impugners of our Lord's essential and proper divinity.

      This same sermonizer, in order to evade the charge of worshipping two distinct beings, not only resorts to the papistical and unscriptural distinction of supreme and subordinate worship; but immediately turns upon the Trinitarian in the usual style of false reasoning and misrepresentation, and charges him with the absurdity of worshipping "three distinct persons, as clearly three distinct objects, as three trees." How often must we be under the necessity of explaining ourselves here, to avoid misrepresentation? From the hint just given, I will venture a little further to illustrate our meaning respecting the triune object of our worship. I have seen a tree, whose body for a short distance, was a perfect unit, having but one set of roots, and the production I have no doubt of a single germ; a few feet up, regularly and distinctly dividing into three, with apparent equality in length and proportion; they were co-existent and co-equal; it was fairly (to use a technical phrase) a trinity tree; three in one and one in three; of the same substance, and operating together in the production of the same kind of fruit. Is not this a very different object, than three trees, which may be entirely distinct not only in their separate existence, but also in their respective species and fruits.

      A similar representation every man can make with his hand; supposing it to have only the first three fingers. Here the same substance, the hand, exists in three ways, called three fingers; which co-exist, and are consubstantial; the one is prior to the other, not as to time, but in [71] numerical order only. Suppose the middle one were to assume a covering of clay for some special purpose; there would be no diminution of its essence, or its essential dignity; which, to be sure, would sustain a temporary eclipse, and in its assumed station, a temporary subordination, until the purpose for which that assumption was made, was accomplished.

      Such representations are not novel. The most remarkable one probably ever known, is to be seen in the cavern of Elephanta, one of the most ancient and venerable temples in the world. It is very large, and composed of three heads united to one body, dedicated to the Creator, Preserver, and Regenerator of mankind. A plate of this image may be seen in Maurice's Indian Antiquities, with some account of it in the same work.

      I wish it to be distinctly understood, that I do not introduce these things to explain the modus existendi of the sacred three in one, which no terms, no representations, no object in nature can do; but simply to illustrate my views in a way of approximation to that grand object; and to show how easily we may be represented, by the introduction of objects and similes, entirely inapplicable, and as foreign from our views as polytheism is supposed to be from yours. That there is a threefold, personal distinction in the Godhead, is a fact that I believe, but, like every other facts revealed, I receive it simply on the credit of divine revelation. I can define it, when I shall be able to define underived existence, and divine Unity affirmatively.

      I know that you and your party can press Trinitarians with many questions and unreasonable demands without first removing your own difficulties; but it should be sacredly remembered, that on such a subject, human language--language of finite and mutable beings, made up of terms to express their ideas, is of course incompetent, fully to designate the mode of union between the divine and human natures. That these two natures were united in the Saviour, the Scriptures fully decide; as when Jehovah styles him, "The man that is my Fellow." (Zech. 13. 7.) He is Jehovah our righteousness, and also a Branch raised unto David, (Jer. 23. 5, 6.) David's Root or origin, and yet his offspring--David's Lord, and yet his Son--The Mighty [72] God, yet a child born, a son given--Emmanuel, or God with us, and yet born of a Virgin--over all, God blessed for ever, yet descended from the fathers according to the flesh--the second man, yet the Lord from heaven. The Word was God, yet the Word was made flesh. (Rev. 22. 16. Matt. 22. 45. Isa. 9. 6 and 7. 14. Rom. 9. 5. 1 Cor. 15. 47. John 1. 1, 14.) These and many other texts that might be produced, as plainly prove Christ to be man as they do that he is God. And now, passing over many texts that might be adduced further to prove his proper divinity, for the want of time, I shall, in a brief manner, notice some of those passages that are thought to be against us. The most prominent shall be selected.

      1 Cor. 8. 6. Unto us there is but one God the Father,--and one Lord Jesus Christ, &c. This passage simply denies polytheism, the gods many and lords many in the verse immediately preceding. There is nothing in it asserted contrary to the catholic faith. Whether the Mediator is a person in the divine substance, is neither asserted nor denied. If the word God is used in an exclusive sense it will prove too much; for we may as well say, there is but one Lord, as that there is but one God. And may not the one God the Father, be the name of a nature, under which Christ himself, as God, is also comprehended?

      Eph. 4. 5, 6. There is one Lord, and one God, and Father of all, who is above all, &c. This is similar to the preceding. God's being called one God, no more excludes Christ from the high title, than Christ's being called the one Lord, excludes the Father from the same appellation and dominion. My Lord and my God, is an excellent confession, which every pious Trinitarian loves.

      John 17. 3. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. To turn from all false gods to serve the one true God, and to believe that Jesus was the Christ, were two grand points, which all that were converted to the Christian faith were to learn. This, and no other, is the lesson conveyed in these words. They assert nothing more. The true God is used in opposition to false gods; and Jesus Christ opposition to all other Saviours. St. Austin says, "the order in which these words are to be understood, is this-- [73] That they might know thee, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent, to be the only true God. It is worthy of notice, that there is a wide difference between saying, "the Father is the only true God," and "the Father only is the true God." The former is our Lord's declaration, the latter is the meaning Socinians put upon it, which would exclude John's testimony of Christ, whom he calls "the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5. 20.) As for the inference, making him inferior, to the Father, because he was sent into the world; it is an old hackneyed Arian argument, repeated a thousand times, but is now too contemptible to merit serious confutation. To say that Christ was sent, and yet that he came himself, is no more contradictory than John 3. 16. and Eph. 5. 25. In the former passage it is said, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son;" and yet in the latter, "Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."

      John 5. 19. The Son can do nothing of himself. This is certainly true of the Son, acting as a Saviour, under the delegated office of Mediator, and the servant of the Godhead, by his own consent. But in other respects there is the most perfect equality in counsel and co-operation, as the latter part of the verse declares: "For what things soever he (the Father) doth, these also doth the Son likewise." Doth the Father raise the dead? So doth the Son likewise. (v. 21.) Doth the Father forgive sins? So doth the Son also. "Forgiving one another, even as God, for Christ's sake, hath forgiven you." (Eph. 4. 32.) In Col. 3. 13. "Forgiving one another--even as Christ forgave you." "He said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee." But "who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2. 5, 7.)

      Mat. 20. 23. "To sit on my right hand and on my left, is not mine to give, but (it shall be given) to them for whom it is prepared of my Father." The word in the parenthesis are not in the original text, but supplied by the translators. Let these be omitted, and then the text will affirm what it now seems to deny. "It is not mine to give but to them for whom it is prepared." This is the plain rendering from the Greek, which reserves to Christ that act of power and authority, which he has elsewhere expressed in the fullest terms, as his own right:--"To him [74] that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me on my throne." (Rev. 3, 21.)

      Mark 13. 32. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." The common interpretation of this passage is, that Christ as God knew all things, but as man he knew not the day of judgment, which, I confess, never appeared to me very satisfactory. But Dr. Macknight and others, have proved, that the most correct translation of this passage obviates the difficulty. It should be rendered thus: "But that day, and that hour no one maketh known; no, not the angels which are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father." Whether the criticism will hold good or not, it is evidently the most natural meaning, and fully answers the design of the place; and the fact has proved it to be true, that it was no part of the Messiah's commission to make known the day of judgment to the children of men; that they might be always in the posture of vigilant expectation.

      John 14. 28. "My Father is greater than I." We can infer no other inferiority here, than what is necessarily implied in the relation of a Son, and as the incarnate Messiah sustaining the mediatorial character. The expression in the text would have been a declaration of the utmost impudence, on a supposition that Christ was no more than a mere man or created being. But admitting that he was the eternal Son of God, then en morphe doulou, in the condition of a servant, and acting under him as mediator and delegate, to say, my Father is greater than I, is highly proper, and a sentiment worthy of his piety. "It is indeed hard to say," says Mr. Jones, "which of the two heresies is the most unreasonable and unscriptural, that of the Socinians, which never considers Christ as any thing but a mere man; or that of the Arians, who never look upon him as any thing but a suppositious God. Between these two gross errors lies the true catholic faith, which, as it allows him to be perfect God and perfect man, is never offended, or put to its shifts, by any thing the Scripture may have said about him in either capacity.

      Mat. 19. 17. "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." The literal rendering of this [75] passage will be thus:--There is none good, ei mo eis o Theos, but the one God; that is, in common English, but God only. And this is put beyond dispute, by the occurrence of the same Greek phraseology, word for word, in Mark 2. 7.--Who can forgive sins--ei me eis O Theos, but God only? In a collateral passage, (Luke 5. 21.) the expression is varied so as to make it is plainer: "Who can forgive sins, but God (monos) alone?" But why did Christ put this question to this young ruler, "why callest thou me good?" For the very same reason that he asked the Pharisees, why David in spirit called him Lord; and that was to try whether they could account for it. The Psalmist had said long ago, there is none that doeth good, no not one. How therefore could this young Pharisee call him good, were he not God, seeing no mere man since the fall could set up a claim to that character. The text rather establishes the proper divinity of Christ, than otherwise.

      1 Cor. 15. 24-28. "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father--then shall the Son also be subject unto him,--that God may be all in all." This is a fort for every Arian and Socinian that ever wrote or preached against the Deity of the Saviour. It is much relied on by yourself; and your brother Smith has kept this text as a reserve to cover all his forces,--"to confirm," as he says, "all his former arguments." Upon a close examination, perhaps it will not be found as strong as he expected. We shall endeavor to pay to it a particular attention.

      The difficulty of this portion of Scripture does not arise from any thing in itself, but because it is an imperfect revelation. It is a hint thrown out concerning a great event which is to take place in the world of glory, but not pursued to any length. The force of it seems to lie in this circumstance, that when all the purposes for which Christ undertook the mediatorial office shall have been answered, that office shall cease, as being no longer necessary, and absolute Deity shall alone continue. The Son now occupies the station of dependence in a new, limited, mere temporary constitution of things, which we call the mediatorial kingdom. That kingdom, be it remembered, has all its primary references to this world, and not to the [76] universe at large; when its ends are accomplished, it will be fully and finally dissolved; things will revert to their old and universal channel; the Son will then deliver up his delegated dominion, under the temporary constitution, to his Father. All the offices belonging to that dominion will be resigned, because then there will be no further occasion for them. Thus, when a powerful prince sends his only son to some province of his realm, which is seditious, tumultuary, and rebellious, the son goes with command and strong force; but when he has quieted the commotions, and subdued the rebels, he returns conqueror to his father, triumphs, and delivers up the province in peace to his father, no longer uses the military command, dismisses his legions, resigns his temporary authority, and resigns "as co-partner," or joint-sovereign, in the throne with his father.

      When the second person in the Godhead accepted an office in the new constitution of things, which the mercy of God set up for the salvation of sinners, it matters not how high or how low it was; what has the acceptance of that office, or the assumption of its duties, in the mediatorial kingdom, to do with his essential character, his essential nature, and his essential rights, which may and do subsist quite independently of that whole concern. He had a glory with the Father's OWN SELF, before the world was, from eternity; his natural and essential kingdom will have no end. But his mediatorial dignity and office will cease through eternity, as being no longer necessary. This view seems calculated to reconcile this passage with that other of St. Luke, where he says, He (Jesus) shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be NO END. (Luk. 1. 53.) It shall stand forever--an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,--a kingdom which shall not be destroyed,--a throne which is forever and ever; and he shall reign forever and ever. (See Dan. 2. 44 and 7. 14. Heb. 1. 8. Rev. 11. 15.)

      Christ, in his exalted, glorified human nature, will wear the honours of his office, and of all his mediatorial performances, and of their secure and abiding effects and consequences; and will continue in a state of superior honour and glory, and sustain a blessed relation to the church as her Head forever and ever; and therefore, in [77] these respects also, his throne and kingdom shall never pass away or be destroyed. But the present administration of affairs, which Christ in his official capacity, according to a settled economy for a season, received from God, even the Father, personally, shall be surrendered or given up to God absolutely, (without personal restriction) as all in all, the immediate fountain of dominion, and blessedness; to rule and manage the affairs of the heavenly kingdom in a more immediate way, from thenceforth forever.

      Once more: "The distinction in this case between the God and man in the joint person of Christ Jesus, is warranted by another part of this chapter, wherein the apostle has given us a key to his own meaning. "Since by man (says he) came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Here it is evident, he is drawing a contrast between the man Adam and the man Christ; so that unless it be done on purpose, no reader can easily mistake the meaning of what follows.--Then cometh the end, when HE (that is the man Christ, the second Adam) shall deliver up the kingdom, &c. for so it must be, according to the tenor of the apostle's discourse." Jones on the Trinity, Chap. 1. Sec. 25.

      2 Cor. 8. 9. "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor." It is objected that, "the person spoken of in the text cannot be very God, for God is unchangeable, He cannot, from being rich, become poor." (p. 22.) I reply: "He was rich," in eternal pre-existent glory and felicity;--was from all eternity in the bosom of the Father;--was daily his delight;--had a communion with the Father in all that he knew, (Mat. 11. 27.) in all that he did, (John 5. 19) in all that he enjoyed, (John 17. 10.) He had a most perfect Oneness with the Father, possessing in himself all the fulness of the Godhead, and receiving together with him the adoration of all the angels in heaven. He was originally possessed of all the riches, glory and blessedness of the Deity, (Rom. 9. 5. and Col. 2. 9) and as the former of the world, by whom and for whom, all things were created, (Col. 1. 16) he was the rightful Lord and Proprietor of all the riches in the universe. Such was the glory he had with the Father before the world was [78] brought into existence. "He was rich:" but for our sakes he assumed our nature, and in that nature veiled his glory, and divested himself, as it were, of all his riches, as to his own use of them, and submitted in (morphe doulou) the form or condition of a servant, to the deepest poverty, so that in respect of his humiliation, in every respect he became poor, though in his official capacity, according to appointment, he was Lord and Heir of all things. What I have said on Phil. 2. 6. might have sufficed for our answer to the objection drawn from this text.

      Col. 1. 15. "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature." It is objected that, "as the one only true God was never begotten, nor born--then these expressions cannot apply to the Son as very God." The word protokos, rendered first born, first begotten, may be applied to Christ three ways: 1. His divine generation, which I have before attended to. 2. His title and office, as head of the church, that he might be the first born among many brethren, (Rom. 8. 29) consequently the original Lord and Heir of all, according to the ancient rights of the first born in Israel. (Deut. 21. 17. 2 Chron. 21. 3, 16.) 3. The word is sometimes used to signify, not passively, and first begotten; but actively, the first begetter, the author or former of all things, as Christ really is, for by him all things were made. At any rate the word cannot be rendered so as to signify created, made, or a begun existence, as you wish to make out respecting the pre-existence of Christ.

      Rev. 3. 14.--The beginning of the creation of God. This does not prove that Christ was the first being ever made or begun. It is one of his assumed title, as the "Alpha and Omega, the BEGINNING and the ENDING--the ALMIGHTY." (Chap. 1. 3.) The Origin, Author and Ruler of the creation of God. The word beginning is sometimes used actively, signifying the first actor, agent, or the cause of a thing; thus it is said of Lachish, in Micah 1. 13. "She is the beginning of the sin to the daughter of Zion." This may suffice: on this subject I add no more.

      I have thus summarily touched upon the principal texts which are employed by you, and your Unitarian fraternity, in opposing those doctrines which I have endeavoured to defend. It is possible, that nothing I have said will [79] afford conviction or satisfaction either to your mind of their I have honestly endeavoured to search after the truth, and meet every objection in its strongest force. I acknowledge unhesitatingly, that the doctrines I have attempted to defend, are attended with circumstances of the most palpable incomprehensibility to the present confined and limited powers of man. But when once a doctrine is firmly established upon a scriptural foundation, the difficulties attending a full comprehension of it must give way in every case short of contradiction. The great question at present between you and me, is, What does the Bible teach on the subjects under consideration? It makes no difference what public symbols and individual authors have set forth on these subjects. Does the Bible teach them; and is that book divine? As ministers of the Gospel, and interpreters of God's word, you and I are placed under an awful responsibility, being accountable to the Judge of quick and dead. The faith that I avow, in which I am more and more established, the more I investigate the subjects, I never former from human creeds or tradition. The sentiments advanced by you are not new, though they may appear so to a great man in this western country. With the views that I possess, I cannot forbear expressing my sincere regret, that such sentiments should be propagated. They are becoming however more prominent, as recently more explicit declarations have been made by you and your friends, so that you are better understood. I hope I shall always be ready to applaud that ingenuousness which openly avow sentiments, that are more privately inculcated, though I abhor the sentiments propagated. It is not hard to predict the event of the present course of things here, from what has happened in other sections of Christendom. "A short time since, almost all the Unitarians of New England were simple Arians. Now, it is said, there are scarcely any of the younger preachers of Unitarian sentiments, who are not simple Humanitarians;" that is, in plain terms, Socinians. These sentiments have been, and still are, propagated with boldness in England, by Priestly, Belsham, Carpenter, Yates, Lindsey, and others. Such was the course pursued in German. The divinity of Christ was early assailed; inspiration was next doubted [80] and impugned. May not this soon be the case here, and as unlikely as it may now appear, yet it is very possible the divinity of the new German school, headed by Semler, and De Wette, and Eichhorn, and Paulus and Henke, and Herder, and Eckerman, and others, may, in a few years, be plentifully disseminated in our country. The question at issue may soon be in substance, whether natural or revealed religion is our guide and our hope. And the sooner it comes to this the better, as the contest will then be more speedily terminated. The line of demarkation will be more definitely drawn. The parties will understand each other better; and the public will understand the subject of dispute, and be less liable to deception and imposition. You and your party are at present only in the rudiments of the more advanced and finished schools of England and Germany. You have only to abandon your unscriptural and inconsistent notion of a created, pre-existent instrumental Creator, and learn of Dr. Priestly that, "a derived, pre-existent being, supposed to animate the body of Jesus, who is not also the maker of the world, is a mere creature of the imagination, whose existence is not to be inferred, with the least colorable pretext from the Scripture." As you are not opposed to research, you might know, if you do not already, the road you are travelling from an acquaintance with the present history of the church. You have brought up Nicholson to tell Mr. Moreland that he was "following the footsteps of the Presbyterians in Great Britain, who are now generally Unitarians." This same Nicholson had told you a few lines before your quotation, that the Presbyterians, "continue to be one of the most numerous and respectable sects of Protestant Dissenters in England," and likewise says, "they acknowledge the unity and equality of three persons in the Godhead." This is his affirmation immediately preceding your quotation.

      But you and your author ought to know that "the appellation Presbyterian, is, in England, appropriated to a large denomination of dissenters, who have no attachment to the Scotch mode of church government, any more than to Episcopacy; and therefore, to this body of Christians, the term Presbyterian, in its original sense, is improperly applied. How this misapplication came to pass, cannot be easily [81] determined; but it has occasioned many wrong notions, and should therefore be rectified." (Religious World Displayed. vol. 3. p. 48.) "It may also be remarked here," (says the same author, vol. 2. p. 301.) "that though many Unitarians are nominally Presbyterians in regard to Church Government, yet none of them are Calvinists, nor do they admit the Presbyterian standard of faith."

      I know that Presbyterians are fallible beings. It is not the name that preserves from error. We have known some of the clergy themselves fall first into Arianism, and then into Shakerism; and one at this time, who industriously propagates the notions of High Arianism, under the imposing, self-created title of Elder of the Christian Church, was once a minister of the Presbyterian denomination. It is painful to record these things. They are true, and the world ought to know it. I solemnly disavow any intention to reproach or misrepresent. The true state of things ought and shall be known, as far as I can do it. I honestly believe what I declare, and can pledge myself, that when thoroughly convinced of the contrary, I will most willingly retract, and rejoice to find myself mistaken. But with your book before my eyes, the sacred volume in my hand, together with the ample and almost unanimous details of ecclesiastical history, how is conviction to be expected?

[LBWS 46-82]