Chapter X

Containing concluding remarks.

It is truly lamentable that so many professed christians are contented to believe what they have been taught from their earliest days, and what their pious ancestors believed, without diligently searching the scriptures to know the truth. I do not make this observation with particular reference to any one denomination of christians. Alas! it is too applicable to us all. It is a solemn consideration, that if we embrace any sentiment, true or false, merely because we have been taught it "by man," our faith cannot be acceptable to God; for it stands in the wisdom of men, and not in the power of God. It is indeed an affecting thought, that the faith of many respecting the most interesting subjects, "is taught by the precept of men." Let us imitate the noble Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily," to ascertain whether what Paul preached was according to the word of God. As the disciples of Jesus are to be sanctified "through the truth," how can their holy union be effected, without a diligent and prayerful study of the word of the Lord, independently of all the systems of men? It is to the "more sure word of prophecy," and to "the testimony of Jesus," which is its spirit or substance, that we do well to take heed, "as unto a light that shineth in a dark place."

The opposition which many pious persons feel to several revealed truths, arises from a misconception of those truths, and from the consequent false inferences which flow from that misconception. Thus many object to the doctrines of election, and the immutability of the divine purposes. And thus many object to the scriptural character of the Son of God. It is necessary to suspend our judgment until we have diligently compared the whole of the divine testimony, on any particular subject, and not hastily adopt an opinion on the examination of a few detached passages, and thus sacrifice the truth to our own slothfulness or popularity. Is it worthy a rational man to cry out heresy against any sentiment, when he has not even once taken his bible and compared all the passages which relate to that sentiment? Yet how often is this done by professed christians!

As many persons appear to be confirmed in the belief of the doctrine of the Trinity, and are deterred from a diligent examination of the subject, by the supposition that almost all pious christians in every age have believed it, it is desirable that such a mistake should be corrected. The following quotations will serve to show that many of the primitive christians did not believe that the Son of God was either self-existent or eternal.

Irenaeus who was but second from John says, "John, declaring the one God Almighty, and the only begotten, Christ Jesus by whom all things were made," etc.¹ He exhibited a creed which embraced the general belief of Christians in that age. He says, "The church, which is dispersed through the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles, and their immediate successors, the belief in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, made flesh for our salvation, etc. That to Christ Jesus our Lord, and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee shall bow," etc.²

How evident it is from this creed, that "the general belief of christians" in the primitive ages, agreed with that of the apostle Paul, "to us there is but one God, the Father." How evident it is that they believed that the Son was begotten, and that all his dignity and exaltation was "according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father."

Ignatius who lived in the first century, says, "If any one says there is one God, and doth not confess Jesus Christ, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only begotten God, the wisdom and word, etc., he is a serpent," etc.³ "In the Shepherd of Hermas, a writer cotemporary with Clemens Romanus," is the following passage: "God," says he, "placed that holy Spirit, which was created first of all, in the body in which he might dwell," etc.⁴ Justin Martyr, who lived about the middle of the second century, says, "God in the beginning, before any thing was created, begat a Rational Power, from himself; which is called by the Holy Ghost, Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, Wisdom, Angel, God, Lord, Logos. —All the above names he bears, because he ministers to the will of the Father, and was begotten by the will of the Father."⁵ Clemens Alexandrinus says, "There is one unbegotten being, the Almighty God. And there is one begotten before all things, by whom all things were made." He also calls the Logos "the first created wisdom;" and he "who approximates the nearest to the only Almighty." "The older by birth," etc.⁶

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, a little after the middle of the second century, says, "The Son of God is created and made—and as he is a created being, he existed not before he was made." Again; "God was not always Father; the Son was not always: but the supreme God was once without the Logos, and the Son was not, before he was begotten; for he is not eternal, but came into being afterwards." ⁷ Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch at the close of the third century, asserts that he was begotten before all ages, (or worlds,) and that he was "the first born of every creature."⁸ Methodius, bishop of Tyre about the end of the third century, calls the Logos "the first begotten of God."⁹ Novatian says, "God the Father—creator—unoriginated, invisible, immense, immortal, eternal, the only God—from whom, when he pleased, the Word his Son was born."¹⁰

Is it possible for language to express more fully, that these primitive christians did not believe that the one Almighty God consists of a trinity of persons? Is it possible for words to declare more explicitly, that the Word or Son, is, in his highest nature, a distinct being from the Father, and dependent on him for all things? "The first born of every creature," and most glorious of all dependent intelligences.

The piety of Mr. Isaac Watts, "whose praise is in the churches," will not be doubted. Few persons have studied the important and interesting subject discussed in these pages with the humility, diligence and prayer which he did. In his researches after truth, he clearly perceived that the word of God teaches that our dear Saviour existed in a glorious state, but inferior to the Father, before he "was made flesh." To reconcile this truth with the supreme deity of Jesus Christ, he adopted the theory of the pre-existence of Christ's human soul. On further examination, it appears he was convinced that the doctrine of Christ's supreme deity is unscriptural; for in his last letter to Mr. Colman of Boston, dated Feb. 11, 1747, he says; "I think I have said every thing concerning the Son of God, which scripture says; but I could not go so far as to say with some of our orthodox divines, that the Son is equal with the Father; because our Lord himself expressly says, "My Father is greater than I."¹¹ About the same period, some pious christians in England believed what was called the " indwelling scheme;" which is, that the Son is supreme Deity by the union or indwelling of the Father, who is the only true God, with the man Christ Jesus; and that there are no distinct persons in the Godhead. This scheme implies that the Word or Son had no existence whatever, distinct from the Father, before he appeared on earth, and is, consequently, opposed to innumerable passages of scripture.

Few men have been more justly esteemed for correct views, and perspicuous illustration of divine truth, than Andrew Fuller. In mature age, he wrote a very convincing essay on the Sonship of Christ: in which, I think, he clearly proves, that the terms Son of God, only begotten Son, are expressive of the highest nature, and most glorious character of the "Word." He indeed considered these terms as importing supreme Deity and perfect equality, one thing excepted. This will unavoidably follow from his views. He says, " in the order of nature, the Father must have existed before the Son."¹² Here, then, is a striking proof that it is impossible for the greatest minds to avoid falling into inconsistency, when they embrace error. If, as Mr. Fuller says, "the Father and the Son are properly eternal;" we may as well say, that in the order of nature, the Son must have existed before the Father, as to say, that the Father must have existed before the Son. Nothing could have existed, in any sense, before that which is properly eternal, because that which is properly eternal can have no beginning. Besides, if the Son is eternal as the Father, there must be two eternal Spirits, which is contrary to scripture and reason.

Mr. Stuart, whose talents command our respect, and whose piety and candor excite our affection and esteem, has furnished us with a similar example. After all he has written, he is obliged to acknowledge that the Son, in respect to his highest nature, is not "in all respects" the same being as the Father. He must, consequently, in one respect at least, be a distinct being from the Father; and as certainly dependent upon him, as that there cannot be two distinct independent beings. I apprehend that one principal cause why many pious persons do not perceive the revealed truth on this subject is, an impression that the more firmly they believe, and the more positively they affirm, that Jesus Christ is the supreme Deity, the more they manifest their love to him. Let our Lord's answer to Peter, when he said, "Be it far from thee," be seriously and candidly considered. Peter undoubtedly felt a sincere regard for his Saviour, and was influenced by this very regard, to wish that he might escape from those sufferings he spoke of. But as Peter's zeal was "not according to knowledge," and his affectionate feelings were expressed in a manner inconsistent with truth, he received the severe rebuke of his Master. Now, I solemnly ask, if we follow the example of Peter, and affirm any thing of Jesus Christ which is contrary to truth; is not the answer of our Lord, as applicable, in some degree, to us, as it was to him? If, to the declaration of the Son of God, "My Father is greater than I," we reply, "Be it far from thee, Lord," must not our erroneous zeal be "an offence" to the holy mind of him who assures us, "I honour my Father, — I seek not mine own glory?" And if the sincerity and affection of the apostle, (which surely was not less than ours,) did not screen him from the severe rebuke of our Lord, can we expect to escape his censure?

In concluding, let us review a few of the passages discussed in the preceding pages, and contrast them with Trinitarian sentiments. I am sensible that error as well as truth may receive apparent support by this method; but this is only when the most obvious and literal import of a passage is not according to the general analogy of the scriptures. Whether that is the case or not with the following, the candid reader will judge.

The fact that our divine Redeemer is called by some of the names of the Father, is considered by many as evidence that he is that very Being whose Son he is declared to be. They appear to have forgotten, that it was a common Hebrew custom to give significant names both to persons and places. Jesus Christ was called by the name of David. Was he therefore the identical son of Jesse? John the Baptist was called Elijah. Mal. 4:5. Was he therefore the very same being? If it was proper that the forerunner of our Lord should be called by this name, (which signifies God the Lord) because he came "in the spirit and power of Elias," surely, it was proper that our blessed Lord himself should be called by some of the names of the invisible Father, in whose spirit and power he came down from heaven, and of whom he is by nature "the express image."

1 John 5:20 is considered by Mr. Wardlaw, as proof of the supreme deity of the Son of God, because "Jesus Christ" is the immediate antecedent to the words, "This is the true God." He acknowledges, however, that the immediate antecedent is not always the proper one; and notices as proof, Acts 4:10, 11, where the immediate antecedent to the words, "This is the Stone," is the healed man, who certainly was not the Stone spoken of. If the word God is read in the passage, as the sense requires, and as Macknight translates it, it will be as follows: And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is the true God; and we are in the true God, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. It must be conceded that the words in our translation, "him that is true," do, in both cases, refer to the Father. Is it not then, most agreeable to the connection, to consider the words, "This is the true God," as referring to the same? And does not the declaration of Christ himself, that the Father is "the only true God," John 17:3, require this construction?

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Rom. 8:32. How forcible is the argument! how consolatory the truth, which the inspired apostle addresses to his holy brethren in this passage, if we understand it agreeably to the views I advocate! It is presumed that none will deny that the terms "spared not," "delivered him up," signify real suffering. But what does the apostle mean, if humanity only suffered? How does it follow that God will give us all things, because he has given a single man to suffer for us? What proportionate value does a single holy man bear to the all things, which an infinite God is capable of imparting? Such a sentiment entirely invalidates the apostle's argument, and deprives the church of the most precious proof of God's everlasting love! Surely, the apostle must have had very different conceptions of the dying Saviour, when he exclaimed, "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift!" O my brethren, had we seen the affecting spectacle on Mount Calvary! had we witnessed Nature's convulsions, the heavens gathering blackness, the rocks rending, and the veil of the holy Temple rent in twain! should we not have been convinced with the astonished Centurion, that something more than humanity had expired?

I object then, to the doctrine of three persons in the Godhead: First, Because it is not revealed in the scriptures of truth. There is not a single passage in the whole volume of divine revelation that declares either expressly or implicitly, that there are three persons in one God. There is not a single passage which reveals that the one God consists of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I object to the doctrine, Secondly, Because it is not only not revealed, but the contrary is most plainly declared in the divine testimony. We are therein assured, not only that there is but one God, but that this one God is the Father. The Father, as "the only true God" is as plainly distinguished from the Son as from all other beings.

I object to the doctrine, Thirdly, Because I find the divine testimony of the Father, the Son, the Prophets and the Apostles, unitedly declaring the inferiority of the Son in his highest nature and character.

I object to the doctrine, Fourthly, Because, it is not simply above reason, but contrary to every rational faculty I possess. It is impossible for me to conceive of three persons in any sense, without conceiving of three beings. It is impossible for me to think of one glorious Spirit on the Throne of the Universe, and of one glorious Spirit at the right hand of him who sitteth on the Throne, without thinking of two distinct glorious Spirits.

I object to the doctrine, Fifthly, Because, it presents no adequate mediator between God and man. All those sufferings which constitute the ground of atonement, are according to this doctrine merely human.

I object to this doctrine, Finally, Because, it excludes from the universe the most glorious of all beings, God only excepted. If we should admit that the immutable Jehovah, at a certain period added to his being human nature, which is to be united with him "in one person for ever;" after all that can be said, we can have no idea of the Son of God in distinction from the Father: certainly none, except that of a mere perfect man. Thus the most mighty and glorious works of Jehovah, "the image of the invisible God; the first-born of every creature; the well beloved and only begotten of the Father, the joy of earth, and the glory of heaven is blotted out of existence. And for this mighty loss, what is substituted? Nothing. For, beyond all controversy, there can be but one supreme God. "They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him." I cast my anxious eye around the universe, and most solicitously enquire, where is he who is "the beginning of the creation of God;" "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person?" Where is "the Word of God," who "was with God," and enjoyed glory with him "before the world was?" And where is he to whom every knee is commanded to bow, and whom the thousands of thousands of the heavenly hosts do actually worship in distinction from him that sitteth on the Throne? Rev. 5:13. To this interesting enquiry, the system I am opposing gives me no satisfactory answer. In that system, the Sun of Righteousness, by which the Infinite generates, illumines, and blesses the whole intelligent universe, has no place. I reject it, therefore, because, in addition to other insuperable objections, it involves a loss of being in the universe, more to be dreaded than the loss of all other created intelligences.

In closing this imperfect essay, I can sincerely adopt the language of Mr. Stuart, though with an important difference of views. " With all this subject fully before me, I do not hesitate; I cannot doubt respecting it." A flood of evidence has flowed into my mind from the sacred pages, which is irresistible and overwhelming. I have a humble confidence that what I have written is conformable to "the first principles of the oracles of God." In view of the whole of the divine testimony, I am constrained to say, with the inspired apostle, "There is but one God, the Father." Such, however, are my views of my divine Saviour, that "when my departing spirit shall quit these mortal scenes, and wing its way to the world unknown; with my latest breath I desire to pray, as the expiring martyr did, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'"

I feel in some measure the awful responsibility I am under, while offering these pages to the public. It is indeed a small thing to be judged of man's judgment. It is comparatively, of little importance to receive the commendation or displeasure of "a man that shall die." But it is a solemn and important truth, that, for what I have written I am accountable to Him who holds the eternal destinies of all his intelligent creatures in his hands, and who "will bring every work into judgment, whether it be good or whether it be evil." If, while I have sincerely desired to know the truth, I have erred, I pray for forgiveness, for the sake of that precious Saviour, who, I hope, hath loved me and given himself for me. Could I imagine that what I have written is displeasing in his holy sight, the commendation of the whole world, could not in the least degree, alleviate the grief such an apprehension would occasion. I think I can on mature reflection say, death would be preferable to publishing erroneous doctrine concerning my Lord. If any person will prove from "the word of the Lord," that I have misunderstood the divine testimony, on this important and highly interesting subject; I hope, by the grace of God, that I shall cheerfully retract what I have written.

And now, dear reader, permit me for the truth's sake, to entreat you to examine seriously, diligently, impartially and prayerfully, the word of eternal truth. Beware lest you reject the counsel of God. God forbid that any should trifle with this subject, and make it the theme of mere speculation. It is lamentable indeed to observe the little interest many precious souls feel respecting truths of infinite importance. The attention of many to these truths, alas! is nothing more than what is excited by a vain curiosity and carnal speculation. May divine grace save us from this condemnation. Let us solemnly remember that the glorious Saviour whose character is imperfectly delineated in these pages, will soon appear in the clouds of heaven; we shall soon behold him coming in all his glorious majesty to judge us. Oh, may we now so believe in him, love and obey him, that we may then lift up our heads with joy, knowing that our redemption draweth nigh.

"Unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen."