Do you not believe also that this same Supreme Deity is united to proper man, the man Christ Jesus ?-Should you endeavor to evade the question by saying you believe that the second person in the Trinity is united to the man Jesus, you will permit me to ask whether you believe that the second person in the Trinity is the Supreme Deity? Your answer must be either negative, or affirmative. if you should deny that the second person in the Trinity is the Supreme Deity, you surely will not plead that the man Christ Jesus, is in his highest character, the Supreme Deity. The Supreme Deity then, who is but One, is united, according to your own theory, if I understand it, to a real or proper man-a creature who began to exist in the reign of Cesar Augustus. But did this union produce any change or alteration in the nature or character of the man? Or were the two natures or characters in any degree blended or intermixed? Did the Divinity, in any degree, become humanitu? or did humanity, in any degree, become Divinity? In a word, did not Divinity and humanity, or the Supreme Deity and the proper man remain the same precisely, as to nature or character efter, as before the union took place? All this I am persuaded you ought, as you probably do, admit. What then, do you mean by the highest character of Christ? Do you mean any thing more than the One Supreme Deity, as united to the man Jesus? If this be your meaning, (and I see not but it must be,) in what does the difference in sentiment between us, respecting what you call the highest character of Christ, consist? I confess that I can discover none but that which consists

in difference of words, or mode of representation. If it be proper to say that Jesus Christ in his highest character, is the Supreme Deity, because the Supreme Deity is united to him, I am as firm a believer in the Divinity of Christ, or that in his highest character he is the Supreme Deity, as you are or possibly can be. I do think, however, that this mode of representation is highly improper, as it has a tendency greatly to confuse and mislead the mind, and, as I think, to cherish a fondness and superstitious reverence for that kind of mystery, which, I am persuaded, has the approbation neither of enlightened reason. nor of the pure unadulterated revelation of God. What would you say, sir, were 1 to represent the christian as possessing two natures, human and Divine; as being properly a man, and yet the Supreme Deity? But are not Christians" partakers of the Divine Nature? Is it not also the prayer of Christ, to his Father, "that" they may may be one in us?"-united both to himself and to his Father? Were I to assert that the christian is as well the Supreme Deity, as a man, because the Supreme Deity is united to him, you would consider the assertion, I presume, very unreasonable, and even highly impious.

66

But have I not precisely the same reason for making this assertion, which you have, for asserting that Christ, being properly a man, is also the Supreme Deity, because the Supreme Deity is united to him? I can see no reason, I confess, why one good man should not as well become Divinity, by virtue of the union under consideration, as another good man. If you can assign a reason which possesses any weight, why this should not be the case, I will sincerely thank you, if you will do it. But until I shall be favored with such a reason, I must consider your highest character of Christ, as existing only in imagination and human device, or in a highly figurative and mysterious

99

sense.

As it is solely on account of the ground I have taken with relation to Christ and the Holy Spirit, that you have been constrained to suspend exchanges with me, " I pray you very seriously and carefully to review that ground, and your conduct "on account" of it-You do not refuse to exchange with me on account of any real or supposed difference in opinion, which may exist between us with respect to the character of the One God, the Father of Christ. Am I then to attribute this your refusal,to my belief that the "Holy Spirit" is self-existent, eternal,&c. and that this same Spirit is not a being distinct from the One God? This my belief, if I am to credit your assertion is, in part, the ground or reason of your rejecting me as erroneous in sentiment, even to the subversion of the gospel of Christ. The other part of that ground or reason for this is, that I believe Jesus Christ possesses no lower character than that which the highest titles and attributes ascribed to him in the Bible import, and that the One God, the Supreme Jehovah, is as intimately united to him, as you can suppose him to be united to a creature, whose existence can be traced but a few centuries back.-The only real difference, Sir, which I can perceive between your views and mine, "with respect to Christ, is this-your view makes him a holy man― a creature of moderate antiquity, and nothing more; whereas my view carries back his antiquity before creation, representing his dignity and glory as great beyond expression-beyond conception. 1 well know, you will not admit that you thus degrade the character of Jesus, the Lord of glory. But that you really do, is my settled belief. And that it is utterly beyond your power to make it appear otherwise, I am fully persua ded. The recourse which you may have to mystery, in relation to this subject, will be unavailable to your purpose with men of reflection, who are not under the influence of strong prepossessions, and who like the Apostle, duly appreciate words spoken with the understanding. Nor will this same word mystery retain, I am persuaded, for any considerable length of

Time, its sacred character, its vast importance, and its convenient use.

If I have not fairly exhibited the ground, on account of which you have set me at nought as a minister of Christ, it is not for want of disposition, but ability. And you will permit me to add, that if you have ever represented me to "your people, or others," as maintaining sentiments "with respect to Christ and the Holy Spirit," discordant with those which I have now stated, you have most injuriously misrepresented me; and you will, I am persuaded, if you possess that charity, as you ought, which is "kind" and "rejoiceth in the truth, do every thing in your power, with promptitude and cheerfulness, to remove the injury. As you have an understanding to reflect, so, I hope you have conscience to feel, and a disposition to do, whatever the nature of the case may require.

39

But you have, perhaps, other reasons aside from, or rather branches of, the sole reason you mention, on account of which you have been "constrained to suspend exchanges with me." I will suggest then, whether the following considerations have not had some influence in deciding you to act the part, which you have done, in relation to your brother, viz.-My neglect to use unscriptural ascriptions or doxologies at the close of my publie prayers-my neglect to use with approbation the unscriptural word, Trinity—my neglect thus to use the unscriptural expression, three persons with respect to the One God-my neglect to use the unscriptural declaration,

""

these three are One God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory"-my neglect to use the following unscriptuval expressions respecting Christ-" being the eternal Son of God, became man" yet being the Son of God, "was, and eoutinues to be God and man, and one person forever ;—and yet, notwithstanding he is both the Son of God, and God himself, he was "conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, and born of a virgin!"-These unscriptural, and as it appears to me, anti-seriptural words and phrases, I do neglect, I frankly acknowledge, to use with approbation; some of which I do not hesitate to say appear to my understanding utterly repugnant to every dictate of sober reason, and highly dishonorable to the character of a venerable assembly of divines.-I will add, Sir, that I do not advocate the sentiment, that the self-existent, unchangeable and blessed God, tabernacled in flesh for more than thirty years; that he passed through a series of poverty and sufferings, and then died upon the cross to make an infinite atonement for sin; nor do I teach or believe the doctrine, that such an atonement was made, or could have been made by the sufferings of a man, whose existence had measured the short space of but a few years; neither do I teach that God and mau

united, so as to constitute one complex being, suffered and died to make an infinite atonement; for, so far as I can see, if such a complex being, or person suffered and died, God as well as man, or, divinity as well as humanity, must, at the same time, have passed through suffering and death-Whether these things are included in your general reason for suspending exchanges with me, or whether I am to consider them as auxiliary reasons, you, sir, "best can tell.”

Permit me now, to solicit your attention to several things in which I consider you and others as deeply concerned; and let me entreat you very seriously to examine, and reflect upon them. You" verily believe, that those who deny the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, however exalted a being they may suppose him to be, are in a great and dangerous error.” From this declaration I am undoubtedly to infer, that you verily believe, that Jesus Christ is indeed the Supreme Deity. But what, sir, am I to understand by this your belief? that the man Christ, a creature, is Supreme Deity! If not, I would ask whether you consider this creature as constituting any part or portion of the Divine Essence or Supreme Deity? This I presume you will not admit. In speaking of Jesus Christ, then, as the Supreme Deity, you can consistently have no reference to what you call the humanity or created nature of Christ. I cannot suppose that you are so destitute of discernment as to believe that a created being is an uncreated being, or that a creature is the Creator? When, therefore, you speak of Jesus Christ as Supreme Deity, you do not mean the man Jesus Christ; but the Creator of the man Jesus Christ. Although I consider this mode of representation as very incongruous; yet the idea, which I understand as conveyed by it, has my full and unwav ering credence. And that you should ever have supposed or insinuated, that I do not believe, that the Creator of the man Jesus Christ is the Supreme Deity, is not a little astonishing!-But perhaps you will say, that by the Supreme Deity of Jesus Christ you mean the second person in the Trinity. Should you resort to this expedient as an explanation of your meaning, I would ask, what do you mean by the second person in the Trinity, but that One God aside from whom there is none else? Is there more than One"Supreme Deity " If not, and if the second person in the Trinity be that One Supreme Deity, then surely neither the first nor the third person in the Trinity can have any claim to the character of Supreme Deity. I see not, sir, but you completely annihilate the existence of the God and Father of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, by advocating the sentiment that Christ is the Supreme Deity; unless you admit the existence of three such Deities! And that you really do advocate this tritheistical and shocking absurdity (but I presume without designing it) I know not how to disbelieve. Do you not believe, sir, that the

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is "the Supreme Dety?" Do you not also believe that the Holy Spirit, as a person distinguished from God the Father, and the Son, is "the Supreme Deity "Are there not then three Supreme Deities, according to your theory? I well know that you will deny this consequence; but I certainly do not know any reason, either weighty or intelligible, which you can assign for this your de nial. If three Supreme Deities are not three Supreme Gods, words, so far as I can see, must cease to be correct signs of ideas. Or if three Supreme Deities constitute but one Supreme Deity, or one Supreme God, how I desire to know am I to believe, or can I believe the more than mysterious doctrine? If I have recourse to reason, reason denies the doctrine. If I have recourse to the Bible, the Bible seems very emphatically to deny it.

But perhaps you will say that you do not mean to advocate the doctrine that there are three distinct Supreme Deities; but three conjoint Supreme Deities. Should you say this, you but rse words without knowledge, at least with respect to myself. You will, probably, however, say that your meaning is, that "there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory." But be not offended if I ask, what do you mean by persons? I do not ask the question with a captious spirit, or, so far as I know my own heart, from any improper design. I ask the question because I really do not know what is meant by the Trinitarian word persons; nor do I think I should be uncharitable were I to say that I am strongly apprehensive that Trinitarians themselves do not know. How can I think otherwise, when for persons I find substituted by way of explanation, agents or agenius, distinct persons in a philosophical sense-divine natures-names-officesunderstanding, willling, loving; or wisdom, power, and love, eternal spirits, or intelligent hypostacies-equal and distinet independencies--modal distinctions--three somethings, &c. pray you, sir, to tell me what am I to understand by these strange explications of persons" if it be in your power. But if you cannot, why do you use them or any of them, but to render "confusion worse confounded!" Are not these "subtleties of expression studied by their inventors, rather to conceal, than explain their sentiments!" But whether these expressions are calculated to elucidate or "darken counsel," or whatever may be meant by "three persons in the Godhead," yet you admit and advocate the sentiment that they are equal" to each ether, in power and glory."-Here, then, let me ask, what are the power and glory of the person of the Father? Do they not consist in all possible, and infinite perfections both natural and moral? Must you not admit then, that the person of the Son

I