7

tween the same Man and the Father. And as the Man Christ Jesus never spake of his union with a second Divine Person, but often spake of his union with the Father, the probability would be much in favor of the idea that his union was with the Father.-If, then, the Socinians would only add to their theory the idea of a mysterious union between the Man Christ Jesus and God the Father, what would be the difference between your, Savior and theirs? It is not in my power to discern that there would be so much as one shade of difference. The Man Jesus, considered separately from his union with the Deity, is perhaps as great on their theory as on yours; nor will you pretend that the Son is greater than the Father. If the Socinians would only annex that one idea to their theory, it does not appear that you would have the least ground to dispute with them about the greatness of the SAVIOR, however much you might dispute about the number of SELF-EXISTENT PERSONS.-Be not, sir, offended at this comparison: my aim here is simply to urge you to inquiry, and to a thorough examination of your own theory.

LETTER IX.

On modern Trinitarian views of the Son of God, with the general dissonance respecting three Persons in one God.

REV, SIR,

SINCE the publication of the preceeding letters, I have found that a great portion of our Trinitarian brethren entertain an opinion very different from yours,

and from what has, for ages, been called the orthodox faith. They indeed agree with you that God is three Persons; yet they say, that the second Person in the Trinity was not originally or by nature, the Son of God; but that he is called the Son of God on the ❝ground of a constituted character," or that he became the Son of God by incarnation, &c. &c. This, you know, is a flat contradiction to the opinion of those who were reputed orthodox in former ages. Yet these modern Trinitarians claim to be considered as the orthodox of the present day; nor have I been able to discover much inclination in you, or those who agree with you, to dispute their claim. Before I published my letters to you, I was aware that this novel opinion had been adopted by some of our brethren ; but I supposed the number not to be great. So far as it respects the Sonship of Christ, they make the same objections to your views that they do to mine; and if their objections to my views are of any weight, they are of equal weight against yours. Nearly a year ago I addressed a private letter to one of the most respectable of our brethren who had taken that ground. It is possible that the letter might have miscarried; it is certain I have received no reply. Report says, it was the opinion of that brother, that it was best for the Clergy to let the sentiments I addressed to you "die of themselves a natural death," rather than to be at the trouble of refuting them. He might think the same in regard to what was contained in my letter to him. I shall, therefore, give you a copy of the letter that the whole may live or "die" together. The person to whom the letter was addressed is one for whom I have entertained a great respect, and I addressed him accordingly, in the following manner :

"REV. SIR, "THE high rank you sustain in the Christian world, involves a proportionate degree of responsibility, and renders it exceedingly important that the sentiments you publish should accord with the unerring standard. Although we entertain different opinions of the character of Christ, in this, I presume, we are agreed, that no sentiments can be of higher importance in divinity than those which represent his character in a true light. If, therefore, I am in an error in my views of Christ, it is of great importance that I should be convinced. And if you are in an error, it is of much greater importance that you should be convinced, as your influence is more extensive than mine. As it respects us, individually considered, the importance may be equal; but as it respects the public, the disparity is great.

"Lately I have re-examined your discourses on the "Trinity," and "On the testimony of Christ to his own Divinity." I shall now submit some things to your serious consideration; hoping that, if I have mistaken your views, you will kindly correct my mistakes; and, on the other hand, if I shall show that your theory is dishonorary to Christ, that you will candidly retract what is erroneous. For I consider it as a fact, that it was not your design to degrade the character of Christ, and that you have too much regard to his glory to sacrifice it to your own.

"In your sermon on the "Testimony of Christ to his own Divinity," you say, that "he called himself the Son of God," and also called "God his Father," and that by each of these he meant "to assert his Divinity." This I esteem as correct; for if he was properly the Son of God, he was properly a Divine Person

But in your sermon "on the Trinity," have you not given up this testimony in favor of the Divinity of Christ? You say that "each of the Divine Persons takes his peculiar name from the peculiar office he sustains in the economy of redemption. The first Person assumes the name of Father, because he is by office the Creator, or Author of all things, and especially of the human nature of Christ. The second Person assumes the name of Son and Word, by virtue of his incarnation and mediatorial conduct." Hence you infer that "there seems to be no just foundation for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son," and "to suppose that the Son, in respect to his Divine nature, was begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the concurrence of the Father and the Son, is to suppose that a Trinity of persons is not founded in the Divine nature, but merely in the Divine Will.” You add, “This opinion sets the Son as far below the Father as a creature is below the Creator."

"According to these passages God is the Father only of the human nature of Christ, and the human nature of Christ only is the Son of God.

"We have next to consider what you mean hy the "humanity of Christ." You say "he asserted his humanity on the just foundation of having a true body and a reasonable soul united in the same manner as the soul and body are united in other men.” By the "reasonable soul" you mean a human soul. Accordingly you add, "If he had a human soul united with a human body, then he may be as properly denominated a man as any of his progenitors whose names are mentioned in the first chapter of Matthew."

"Thus, for the human nature of Christ we have as proper a man as Abraham. Of this man God was

the "Creator or Author" by a miraculous conception. On this ground only is God the Father of Christ. Of this man God is the Father, and this man only is the Son of God.

"But you suppose that this man was united to the second Person in the Trinity, which Person was not by nature the Son of God. But how united ? You observe, "It is easy to say what is not meant by it. It does not mean that the human nature was made Divine nature-Nor, on the other hand, that his Divine nature was made human nature"-nor "that his two. natures were mixt or blended together."

"Still then we have nothing but a mere man for the Son of God. For God was the Father of the human nature only. The second Divine Person, who was God, was not the Son of God; nor was he made human nature or even "mixt or blended" with the man of which God was the Father. Consequently, the Son of God was originally of no higher nature than. David; nor did he become of Divine nature by his union with the second Person, nor were the two natures so much as "mixt or blended together." As, on your hypothesis, the two natures are God and man, and as it is the man only of which you suppose God to be the Father, we can have as distinct a view of your Son of God as we can of Adam or David. And he is a being of precisely the same nature. What then has become of Christ's "Testimony to his own Divinity ?" You have taught that he meant to assert his Divinity by calling himself the Son of God; but could he have so meant with your views of his own Sonship? Did he mean to assert his Divinity by aserting that his humanity was the Son of God? If ́ the Jews had supposed that he meant that God was