If the attributes of holiness, knowledge, and power, may be properly communicated from God to dependent agents, and in such a manner as to become personal properties or attributes of these agents, what properties of intelligent existence may not be properly derived from Deity, as a stream from a fountain, or as a SON from a FATHER?

The communication of these attributes, from a selfexistent to a derived agent, seems to imply something as distinct from these attributes as the BEING who is the recipient of these communications. But what that is which constitutes BEING, distinct from such properties or attributes, is perhaps beyond the reach of mortal discernment. I have not, however, made this remark with a view to deny the existence of Being, as distinct from all we know of attributes or properties. The language we use, and the language of the Bible, naturally imply a recipient or receiver of Divine communications; and that BEING does imply something more than all we know of properties, attributes, or qualities. If any thing be communicated from one agent to another, there must be an agent or capacity to receive such communications.

But if, from his own self-existent nature, or fulness, God may communicate the attributes of knowledge, power, and holiness, to created intelligence, so that they shall possess, in measure, these attributes as derived excellences, what evidence can be found to invalidate the hypothesis that the existence of the SON of God was properly derived from the Divine nature ?

Angels and saints are called sons of God; yet Christ is God's own and ONLY SON, the ONLY BEGOTTEN Of the Father. The primary aud radical distinction may possibly be this: angels and saints, as created intelli

gences, may derive from the Divine nature some attributes or properties: while God's OWN SON may derive not only some attributes, but his very Being or Existence from the Divine nature. Some may imagine, that I have labored hard, in this investigation, to support a self-invented theory. But this is not the case ; I have been laboring to support the primitive Christian faith, that Jesus Christ is TRULY THE SON OF God, God's own and ONLY SON! and to rescue the plain, abundant, and emphatical language of Scripture, from the strong prepossession of my fellow Christians.

Dr. Spring says, "The Scriptures were inspired, to instruct common readers, by using words according to their common acceptation, and not to confound them by an abuse of language."*

Had the principle advanced in this excellent remark been understood and duly regarded, I should have had no occasion for a labored discussion to prove that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God. But the plain meaning of the terms has been so involved in the labyrinth of controversy, and the mists of prepossession, that it has required some fortitude to assert and some labor to prove, that the concurrent testimony of God, of CHRIST, and the APOSTLES, is to be regarded as a correct expression of the truth. Yea, I have been laboring to prove, that these witnesses used "words accor-ding to their common acceptation," and that they did not mean "to confound us by an abuse of language."

Had the plain and natural import of language been heretofore duly regarded, an attempt to prove that Christ is truly the Son of God, would have been as needless, as an attempt to prove that Isaac was truly the son of Abraham.

* Sermon on the Self-existence of Christ.

POSTSCRIPT.

THERE are some who predicate the Sonship of Christ simply on the ground stated by the angel to Mary, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God."

That this text contains a reason why Christ, in his incarnate state, should be called the Son of God, I will not deny; and if I were in the habit of believing that the soul or spirit of Christ had no pre-existence, I should readily admit this as the primary ground on which he is called the Son of God. But even on such an hypothesis, nothing could be made to appear against the snpposition that his existence was truly derived from God, in a sense by which he is distinguished from every ther intelligent being. But I as fully believe that the Son of God, as an intelligent Being, existed before the world, as I believe that he now exists.

Some will probably object, that it is unaccountable and inconceivable how God should have a Son. But, you, sir, I trust, will not make the incomprehensibleness of the mode of Divine operation an objection to the theory. For this hypothesis is far more consistent with all we do know, than the supposition of THREE infinite Persons in ONE intelligent BEING. The hypothesis which I have proposed contradicts nothing which we know of PERSON, of BEING, or of GOD. It is doubtless repugnant to what some men have thought; but it may be presumed that it is not repugnant to what is known by any man. Nor does the hypothesis imply any thing more inconceivable, unaccountable, or incomprehensible, than what is im

or ve

plied in the existence of every other intelligent being in the universe. How God exists without any cause, and how he could give existence to angels, or to men, are as perfectly inconceivable to us, as how he could give existence to an owN SON. And I may ask the objector, whether it be more inconceivable to us how God could have an owN SON, than it is to conceive how or why such a thing should be impossible with HIM? If we are to draw our conclusions from all we know of God by his works and by his word, we have surely as much ground to say that such a thing is possible, as we have to say it is impossible.

LETTER IV.

The Divine Dignity of the Son of God.

REV. SIR,

WHATEVER may be the apprehensions of others, respecting my attempt to prove that Jesus Christ is truly the Son of God, you may be assured, sir, that it has been no part of my object to degrade his character. If it did not seem a "light thing” to David to be a "king's son-in-law," it surely ought not to be viewed by us degrading to Christ, to consider him as GOD'S OWN AND ONLY SON.-And I shall now attempt to show,

That the Son of God is truly a Person of Divine Dignity.

No principle, perhaps, has been more universally admitted, than this, that a son derives dignity from illustrious parentage.

The Jews, to whom Christ made his appearance in the flesh, were all acquainted with this principle; and though many generations had intervened, they still gloried in the idea that they were the descendants of the illustrious patriarch Abraham.

There is, perhaps, no nation, whether barbarous, eivilized, or christianized, in which the principle is not admitted. The sons of emperors, kings, and noblemen, are considered as deriving dignity from their respective fathers. And the derived dignity of each is according to the acknowledged dignity of his father. But more especially is the first-born or only son of a king or emperor, considered as deriving royal or imperial dignity by royal or imperial descent. It is indeed true, that a son of the most renowned and worthy king may, by vicious or disobedient conduct, forfeit his derived dignity, and subject himself to the displeasure of his father, and to general infamy; but this forms no ground of objection to the principle of derived dignity. And on the same principle that a worthy son of a worthy king derives royal dignity, the Son of God derives Divine dignity. And on the same principle that the most worthy son of the most renowned king derives higher dignity than the son of a common peasant, the derived dignity of the Son of God will appear to be infinite. For his Father is infinitely illustrious. This must certainly be the case, unless the Son has done something by which he has forfeited his claim. But that he has not, we have the highest ground of assurance; twice by an audible voice from heaven, God has proclaimed his perfect satisfaction in his Son, by saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we have still farther assurance of the same thing, by the high