Chapter VIII

Containing remarks on the connection of the scriptural testimony of the character of the Son of God with the other doctrines of revealed truth.

It is alleged by Trinitarians, as a confirmation of the correctness of their views, that those views only can be made to harmonize with all the important truths of the gospel. I was once of the opinion that the doctrine of Jesus Christ's supreme Deity, was essential to several important doctrines revealed in the word of God. But I always felt a difficulty in attempting to reconcile it with the divine unity. And I may confidently appeal to every candid reader to determine, whether the views advocated in these pages, or the views of Trinitarians best accord with the important truth "To us, there is but one God, the Father." Without reference to any particular system, let any christian candidly consider, whether he can possibly conceive of three equal persons, without conceiving of three equal beings? Can we conceive of three equal persons, each of which is God, without conceiving of three equal Gods? Or can we conceive of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as together constituting the only true God, without conceiving that the Father alone is not the one God? Far be it, that we should pry into those "secret things" which belong to God; but "the things which are revealed" are for us and for our children to understand. And what is more plainly revealed than the truth, that "there is but one God the Father?"

It is indeed observed, that the word person is used "merely from the poverty of language," and that, "we speak of persons in the Godhead, to express that which in some respect or other corresponds to persons as applied to men." It is admitted, that the word "persons as applied to men" always signifies distinct beings. Can we then, have an idea of three equal divine persons, without having an idea, which, in some respect supposes three equal Gods? If we have an idea analogous to three equal persons, we must certainly have an idea analogous to three equal beings, which is to have an idea analogous to the greatest error in the world. If we use "the language of approximation," let it be that which approximates to truth and not to error. When it is said, "God is angry with the wicked," (although we know that the mind of the Deity cannot be affected with the passion of anger as we are,) no idea is conveyed to the mind which is contrary to any revealed truth, but an idea perfectly harmonious with that truth. The expression impresses the mind with an idea of God's holy opposition to sin. But the proposition, that there are three persons in the Deity, if it convey any idea at all, must certainly impress the mind with an idea opposed to the revealed truth of the divine unity.

The efficacy of "the Atonement" is supposed by many to depend on the union of the Deity with the man Christ Jesus in one person. It must be conceded, that the necessity of such a union is no where expressly revealed in the scriptures. The necessity of it is inferred by the following mode of reasoning: Sin is an infinite evil. Justice requires infinite satisfaction. No finite being can render it. An adequate mediator must therefore be an infinite being. It is obvious, that, according to this statement, there must be two infinite beings, or the infinite Jehovah must himself mediate between himself and fallen man, or all mankind must perish. The two first suppositions are unscriptural and absurd. The latter, the infinite love of God hath prevented. It must be admitted that sin is an infinite evil in this sense, that it is opposed to infinite benevolence, and in its own nature tends to produce general disorder in the universe. But it is not an infinite evil, because it is the act of an infinite being. Now, if sin is to be viewed as an infinite evil, though not the act of an infinite being, because of its nature and tendency; must not the atonement of the Son of God, on the very same principle, be considered as an infinite atonement, though not the act of an infinite being, because its nature and tendency is to honour the infinite perfections of Jehovah, and produce infinite order and blessedness in the universe.

It is also argued, "if the most exalted creature be dependent on God, for his existence and faculties, it is obvious that he is bound to love and serve him, with all these faculties; and if, when he has served his Maker to the extent of his power, he has done no more than his duty, it is evident, that he can make no proper satisfaction for the offences of others." It must be admitted, that the Son of God, "who is the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature," was ever under obligation to "do always those things which please" God. But it was not his duty to humble himself, and suffer and die on his own account. The tenor of that law of love by which the Infinite governs all intelligences appears to be, Obey and live. Disobey and die. But the sinner's friend knew no sin himself. Justice required no tear of sorrow, no suffering of the holy and well beloved Son of God, much less that unspeakable grief, and those overwhelming agonies which he endured when "the chastisement of our peace was upon him." His humiliation, suffering, and death, were a voluntary sacrifice for the most glorious end, even to manifest the harmony of the perfections of God in the salvation of men. "To declare — his righteousness, that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." What a glorious view of the perfection and immutability of the holy law of God was exhibited to the powers in the heavenly places, when they heard their Lord and Maker say, "Lo, I come,"etc. What a view of the love of God to man, when they saw his beloved Son expire on the cross!

And now we ask, since he who is the most glorious being in the universe, God only excepted, hath magnified and honoured the law by his own real humiliation and obedience unto death; what has reason to allege against God having mercy "on whom he will have mercy," and pardoning every penitent, believing sinner? Who shall limit the creative power of Jehovah, (before whom the nations of the earth are as a drop of the bucket) and say, that it is impossible for him to create a being of such vast dignity and glory, whose voluntary humiliation and obedience and sufferings, shall be adequate to display his justice in pardoning the penitent sinner? How precious is the following testimony: "After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:4—7. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved; in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace." Eph. 1:3—7.

It is admitted by our Trinitarian brethren, that according to their views, all the real obedience, and sufferings, and death of the Son of God, were only human. Indeed, it is absurd to suppose that the supreme Deity is capable of actual suffering. Where then, we ask, is that peculiar love of God in the gift of his Son, to suffer and die for us, of which the scriptures speak? Where that glorious dignity of the real sufferer, which the scriptural representation excites us to behold and admire? Does not the divine testimony represent that the great love of God to us was manifested by the greatness of the gift? "Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift." "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he first loved us, and gave his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." "The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." "We have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God." "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son," etc. Does not the opinion that the term Son of God, signifies only human nature miraculously begotten, divest all these passages of their peculiar force and beauty? Does it not diminish the love of God in the gift of his Son in an unspeakable degree? Can any unbiased mind avoid perceiving that the scriptures of truth plainly teach us, that it was the very same glorious character that was with the Father before the world was, that "came down from heaven" who really and actually humbled himself, and suffered and died on the cross?

Another serious objection to the views of our Trinitarian brethren may now be considered. After the most diligent and prayerful examination of this important subject, it does appear to me, that the doctrine of the Trinity, presents no adequate "Mediator between God and man." I am fully aware that the impressions of Trinitarians on this subject are just the reverse. But the cause of this, I apprehend is, that they have not sufficiently considered that a Mediator, must be viewed in distinction from both parties at variance. They consider the Mediator as the supreme God himself, united to the man Jesus. But this is repugnant to all just ideas of mediatorship; for a mediator is one that intervenes between other persons. So the scriptures represent that there is "one Mediator between God and men." A person cannot mediate or intercede for himself. The Mediator between God and men, therefore, whoever he is, must be viewed as distinct from both. The Mediator, consequently, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, is a mere man, and all his humiliation and sufferings, his death, and his intercession, can have no other virtue or merit than that of simple holy humanity. And can such a mediator be adequate to the important purpose of saving rebel man consistently with the holy perfections of God? Can the offering of simple humanity, the offering of a single man, be a competent "propitiation for the sins of the whole world?" Was this all the displeasure manifested against sin by Infinite holiness, when darkness overshadowed the mount of Calvary, and the rending rocks proclaimed that Jesus had expired? Nay, verily, for "surely this was the Son of God." This was "the image of the invisible God, the first born of every creature," "by whom also he made the worlds."

The best writers on Atonement, consider it an essential principle, that the sufferings and death of the Mediator, must exhibit to the universe, the evil nature of sin, and the perfection of the law of God, as clearly and fully, as the execution of the penalty of the law on all transgressors would have done. Now, can any person capable of reflection, suppose that the most acute sufferings of a single holy man, for a few years, can manifest the holiness of the law, the evil of sin, and the divine displeasure against it, as much as the interminable sufferings of the whole human race? It is easy, indeed, to say, that the union of Deity with humanity gave virtue to his sufferings. But whatever union we imagine to exist between Deity and humanity, unless we suppose a union, by which Deity should be really humbled and actually suffer; it is obvious, that the whole suffering, which is the ground of atonement, is merely human; and thus it is demonstrated that there can be no more virtue or efficacy in the atonement, than that of simple humanity. It is indeed an important truth, that dignity of character, rather than quantity of suffering, gives efficacy to atonement; but, it is important to remember, that it is the dignity of him who really suffers. When the Grecian king Zaleucus, required his own son to lose one of his eyes for transgressing the law against adultery, the king manifested his inflexible regard to righteousness: but if, instead of this, he had caused the eye of a fly to be put out, and spared his son, he would have rendered his law and authority contemptible throughout his whole kingdom. So, when the holy intelligences beheld the Eternal Majesty giving his own Son, his best beloved, "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person:" — when they saw him really and voluntarily divest himself of the glory he had with the Father before the world was; — when they saw the very same glorious Spirit actually suffering during the period of his humiliation; in the garden of Gethsemane, and on the cross when his God withdrew his consolation, — then they saw the glorious fulfillment of the prophetic word, "He will magnify the law, and make it honourable." But if, instead of this, they had seen a mere man suffer and die, and the Word or Son of God (with whom that man was supposed to be in some mysterious manner united) neither humble himself or suffer at all, they must surely have had vastly lower conceptions of the glory of the law, the evil of sin, and of the determination of Jehovah to maintain his holy authority in the universe.

It is the inconceivable dignity and perfection of the real sufferer, that gives value and efficacy to the atonement. And in the perfect obedience of the only begotten Son of God, even to the death of the cross, we behold an adequate expression of the divine displeasure against sin, and of the righteousness and immutability of that law of which it is the transgression. Thus, in our precious Redeemer, "mercy and truth meet together;" "righteousness and peace embrace each other."

Who then, may I be permitted to ask, has the most scriptural and exalted views of the "one Mediator between God and men?" He who views the real sufferings and death of the Lamb of God, as merely human; or he who views these as the great sacrifice of that only begotten Son of God who was with him before the world was, and is the brightness of his glory and express image of his person? Can any reflecting mind fail of perceiving that the real atonement in the latter case must reflect far more honour on the justice of God in pardoning sinners for the sake of his dear Son, than in the former?

Among all the various objects in the universe the mind is capable of contemplating, there is none on which the renewed soul loves to fasten with such intensity, as on the Cross. At Calvary she delights to linger, to admire the concentration of the glory of God in his expiring Son. On this astonishing spectacle, indeed, do all holy beings fix their minds with the most solicitous desire and ardent praise, from the exalted seraph, who burns with increasing rapture, to the babe in Christ, out of whose mouth God hath perfected his praise. And such is the increasing delight my soul hath enjoyed in the contemplation of this subject, since the Lord has favoured me with a more correct knowledge of his only begotten and well beloved Son, that I feel it to be an ample remuneration for all that deeply regretted loss of fellowship, the manifestation of these views will occasion. My heart's desire and prayer to God for my brethren is, that they may behold this glory: that they may see the vast difference between the real and actual humiliation, and sufferings and death of the Son of God who made the worlds; and the sufferings and death of simple humanity: and that they may perceive how totally inadequate the latter must be to answer the purpose of divine wisdom in manifesting the righteousness of God in the salvation of millions of men; and how completely the former exhibits to us that God can "be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus."

It has been also considered, that the doctrine of the total moral depravity of man, is connected with Trinitarian views of the Saviour. If the above remarks on the scriptural doctrine of atonement are correct, it is evident that no such connection exists. Indeed, it is obvious, that the Trinitarian sentiment is far more difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of man's entire guilt, pollution, and ruin, than the sentiments advocated in these pages: because the former exhibits a far inferior sacrifice for sin than the latter. In the former case we behold the real sufferer on the cross as man only: in the latter, we view him as the matchless Son of God united to the body prepared for him. It may be said that those who disbelieve the doctrine of the Trinity, generally deny the scriptural doctrines of total depravity, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, personal election according to the sovereign pleasure of God, who will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, the perseverance of the saints in holiness, etc. Suppose it is so. Is it not a fact also, that many Trinitarians deny these doctrines? Are not some Arminians, and others Universalists? If the character of the doctrine of the Trinity is to be determined by the character of those who have avowed it, what shall we think of it, when we find the Beast himself, the Pope of Rome, and thousands who bear his image, among its most zealous advocates? May we not as well argue that the doctrine cannot be true, because it was connected with all the false doctrine and superstitions of the most anti-christian community that ever existed, as to argue that the opposite doctrine cannot be true, because many, or most of its advocates are in some important points erroneous? The most erroneous may be convinced of some truth. Satan himself acknowledged Jesus to be the "holy one of God." Are we to deny it, because he confessed it? I cannot speak concerning others; but I know that, notwithstanding I have had doubts of the truth of the Trinitarian sentiment for many years, these doubts have produced no change of mind respecting the doctrines of God's holy sovereignty in personal election, total depravity, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification by grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, the perseverance of all saints, and the "everlasting destruction" of those who know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And since my mind has been established in my present views, by a diligent and prayerful examination of the divine testimony; I have experienced a precious enlargement of soul in the contemplation of the love of God in the gift of his Son, and in the view of the efficacy of the atonement, and the honour done thereby to all the holy perfections of Jehovah in the salvation of lost man. Many passages of divine truth, which were before unintelligible to me, now appear clear, and beautifully harmonizing with the general truth of the gospel.

Without being justly chargeable with want of candor or charity, we have certainly scriptural reason to believe that the views which many cherish and avow concerning the Son of God, are such as tend to "frustrate the grace of God," and entirely pervert the gospel of Christ. With such as substitute human virtue in the place of the great sacrifice, and refuse to unite with the heavenly host in worshipping the Lamb, my mind can never harmonize. Let us pray for such that they may behold "the glory of God as it shines in the face of Jesus Christ," and no longer reject his counsel against themselves; solemnly considering that it is impossible to escape the wrath of Almighty God, "if we neglect so great salvation."