as visdom, and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption. iv. 7. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

The systems of error now mentioned are very comprehensive and to them may be reduced all the modifications of false religion, which have prevailed in the world.

But in opposition to such delusive and soul-ruining schemes, true Christianity, as it is represented in the Bible, and agreeably to the Bible, in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, is the only religion, which gives all the perfections of God their due glory; which exhibits the person of Christ and his finished work as the only ground of our justification and salvation; and which makes ample provision for our sanctification and our comfort. It will be found to be the glory of these churches to retain the purity of that religion in the doctrine of their ministers and in the profession of their members. But is not this glory, in a great measure, departed from most of the Reformed Churches at this day? Indeed there appears to be a decline in respect of the purity of doctrine even amongst those who still make a general profession of adherence to the reformation-cause. Of this decline the opinions of Mr. Bellamy considered in the preceding letters, are instances. To these it is proposed in this letter to add a few more, which claim the serious attention of our Christian brethren.

I. Some, who acknowledge, that there are three persons in the Godhead, deny the eternal and incom

prehensible generation of the second Person, or that he is called the Son of God on that account, alledging, that this appellation is founded in his Mediatorial office, in his incarnation, or in a senseless fiction about the existence of his human soul long before any other created being. This opinion contradicts the most explicit profession both of the ancient churches against the Arians, and of the Reformed Churches against the Socinians : which profession is well expressed in the following words of the Synod of Dort: "We believe, that Jesus "Christ, with regard to his Divine nature, is the only "begotten Son of God; begotten from eternity, not "made or created (for thus he would be a creature ;) " but of the same essence with the Father, coeternal, "the express image of the Father's person, and the "brightness of his glory; in all things his equal. Who " is indeed the Son of God not only from the time in "which he assumed our nature, but from all eternity, "as the following testimonies, compared together, teach "us: Moses declares, that God created the world; and "saint John, that all things were made by the Word, "whom he also calls God; and the apostle, that God "made the worlds by his Son ; likewise that God created "all things by Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, necessary "to admit, that he who is called God, the Word, the "Son and Jesus Christ was then existing, since all "things were created by him: and therefore the pro"phet Micah says, His goings forth were of old from the "days of eternity, and the apostle, He is without begin"ning of days, and without end of life. He is therefore "the true, eternal and almighty God, whom we invoke, "adore and worship*".

* Credimus Jesum Christum, secundum naturam suam Divinam, Unigenitum Dei Filium esse; ab æterno genitum,

The Sonship of Christ, if it were founded in his Mediatorial office, would imply inferiority to the Father; for, in respect of that office, he is the Father's servant, Isai: xlii. 1. and xlix. 6. and therefore the Father is said to be greater than he, John xiv. 28. But it is plain, that the scripture teaches us to consider the Sonship of Christ as a title not implying any sort of inferiority, but expressing his equality with the Father, as being one in essence with the Father. When Christ called God his own Father, the Jews understood him as meaning such a claim of Sonship, as was the same with a claim of equality with God, a claim of being God: and this construction of our Saviour's claim is not denied, but confirmed by his answer, John v. 18, 19. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he had not only broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his own Father,* making himself equal with God. 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: for what things soever he doth, these also doth the Son likewise. The Son can do nothing of

But does this

himself or separately from the Father? imply any inferiority of the Son to the Father? By no means. For the Father can as little do any thing but what the Son does likewise the reason is, that the Father and the Son are one and the same infinite Being; and the relation between these persons is such as necessarily supposes that they possess the same nature and perfections, John x. 30. and therefore they can do nothing without, or separately from, one another.

non factum aut creatum, [ita enim facet creatura;] sed ejusdem cum Patre essentiæ, &c. Acta Synodi Nationalis Dordechtanæ.

*The Greek words, Patera idion, signify his own Father.

The eternal generation of the Son is very plainly revealed in Scripture. Psal. ii. 7. I will declare the defree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. The matter of the decree, mentioned in the first part of this verse, is evidently set forth in the next two verses relating to the future enlargement of Christ's kingdom. But the Sonship is evidently set forth as the ground upon which that decree proceeds. The Sonship must therefore have been as ancient as the decree, that is, from everlasting. By this day in the text we are not to understand any one of man's days, but God's day, the day of eternity which, with God, is all one permanent day, or a perpetual now; in which there is neither past nor future. Prov. viii. 24, 25. When there were no depths I was brought forth: before the moun tains were settled; before the hills was I brought forth. There is no reason to doubt, whether by wisdom, introduced as the party speaking here, we are to understand the Son of God. The passage now quoted and several others in this chapter are such as it would be manifestly absurd to understand literally of God's attribute of wisdom, or figuratively of any other person than the second Person of the Godhead. This was never questioned in the ancient church, no, not by the Arians themselves. The expression I was brought forth, cannot well be understood of Christ's mediatorial office. For if it be so understood, it must denote either his appointment to that office, or his actual execution of it. But this bringing forth cannot be understood of the latter, which was not from eternity, but in time. Nor can it be understood of the former; till it be shewn, that, in the sacred scriptures, to bring forth signifies to decree ar appoint to an office.

Wisheart's Theologia, p. 748.

If the Sonship of Christ were founded in his office of Mediator; then it would be most proper to say, that God sent the Mediator, that he might be his only begotten Son whereas the constant language of scripture is that he sent his only begotten Son to be our Mediator, 1 John iv. 10, 14. Christ's bearing the office of our Mediator proceeded from his Father's call and his own voluntary undertaking, Isai, xlii. 6. Heb. v. 4, 5. Psal. xl. 7. But both these suppose the Sonship of Christ; and therefore they could not be the cause or occasion of it.

But the deadly poison of this erroneous notion lies in its inconsistency with the scripture-doctrine of the Trinity. When the eternal Sonship of Christ, which is the primary and necessary distinction between the first and second Persons in the Godhead is denied, how can the doctrine of the Trinity be maintained? For if the pri mary and necessary distinction between the first and second persons (on which the distinction between them and the third person depends) be once set aside, any other distinction will either be a mere external denomination, in respect of offices or works, like the title of Creator and Redeemer, such as the Sabellians of old allowed, while they denied, that there was any real distinction of persons in the Godhead ;- or such as will be inconsistent with the unity of the Divine nature, and implying a plurality of Gods, according to the heretical schemes of the ancient Arians and Macedonians.

It is not enough, to believe, that there is a distinction in the Deity. It is necessary also to believe, that this distinction lies in certain personal properties revealed in the holy Scriptures; namely, that it is the personal property of the Father to beget the Son, that of the Son to be begotten of the Father, and that of the