A scriptural defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, or, A check to modern Arianism as taught by Unitarians, Hicksites, New Lights, Universalists and Mormons, and especially by a sect calling themselves "Christians"

Front matter

OF THE

U N IVER5 ITY OF I LLI N O I S From the Library of the

Diocese of Springfield Protestant Episcopal Church

Preface

The subject to which the following pages are devoted, has, perhaps, elicited as much inquiry and investigation, first and last, as any one subject in the whole range of Theology. It was among the first doctrinal points that seemed to engage the attention of the church generally, after the Apostolic age ; and it still continues to be discussed, more or less, in all parts of Christendom. The parties in this controversy are divided into two general classes : Trinitarians, who hold to a plurality of persons in unity of the Godhead ; and Unitarians, who deny this doctrine. The Trinitarian class embraces what are usually called the orthodox and evangelical churches, such as Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Reformed Dutch, Lutherans, &c.; while the Unitarians claim about the same number of religious orders as belonging to their ranks. There is, however, this difference in the two classes named : The Trinitarian churches are decidedly of “ one faith” in regard to the mode of the Divine existence, and the character of Christ; but with the Unitarians it is far otherwise. Of these there are at least three distinct subdivisions, distinguished by a wide difference of opinion upon the very subject respecting which they are at issue with Trinitarians. They are, first, the Arians ; who regard Christ as an exalted creature , and the Holy Ghost as an attribute or “ emanation” from the Father ; secondly, the Soctnians, who believe Christ to be a mere man ; and thirdly the Sabellians, who teach that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are merely three names for one person ; instead of signifying three distinct persons in one being.

As before said, these all agree in opposing Trinitarianism, and are hence called Unitarians ; though as yet they have not been able to agree upon a substitute for the orthodox belief.

As to the comparative strength of these classes respectively,

IV

Fur face.

it is impossible to speak with any degree of certainty. It is believed, however, that there are more Anti-Trinitarians in this country, who would come under the head of Arians, than of either of the other classes. Hence the prominence given to this class in our title-page.

But the Arianism of the present age is not the Arianism of the fourth, nor yet of the seventeenth century. Though in its principal features it may be little changed, it is, nevertheless, greatly modified and transformed in many respects ; so that we feel justified in speaking of it as an old error modernized.

As we have named several distinct sects, as the abettors of Arianism, it may be important to glance for a moment at their respective tenets. In so doing, however, it will not be expedient to go beyond the limits of our main subject.

The term Unitarian, when used generically, is very properly applied to all who deny the doctrine of the Trinity ; but when used in a specific sense, it denotes only the Socinian branch of the Unitarian family. In this sense the Socinians of Boston and vicinity are called Unitarians, though they constitute only one of several Unitarian denominations. Although this sect are not, strictly speaking, Arians, we implicate them in our title-page, not only because there are Arians among them, but because the arguments of the following pages are as conclusive against Socinianism as against Arianism itself.*

The Hicksites are a body of seceders from the Orthodox Friends, or Quakers. In their ranks they embody almost every species of Unitarianism. Elias Hicks, their founder, was a Socinian, and was often heard to say during his public ministry, that the blood of Christ had no more virtue to atone for sin than the blood of a beast. But it is charitably believed that his grossest blasphemies were never generally endorsed by his followers. Still they embraced most of his notions; and especially what he taught and wrote respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, and the character of Christ. They are, therefore, fully entitled to the appellation of Modern Arians.

The New Lights are little known, except in some of the

* In the first three editions of this work, the “ Campbellites” or “ Disciples” were mentioned in the preface, and included in this list, as Arians in sentiment. Of this classification, however, Mr. Campbell complains, and denies that either himself or his followers are justly chargeable with that heresy. It gives us pleasure, therefore, to record his disavowal of so pernicious a doctrine, though we are certain that many of the early expositors of Mr. Campbell’s views, were decidedly Arian. We should like to read something upon this subject from the pen of Mr. Campbell himself.

PREFACE.

V

Western states, and are probably not very numerous any where. They are said to be Arians in sentiment, and aro classed here with their brethren, on account of their family likeness, as we wish to follow out the one great error in all its relationships.

The Uni vers a lists are perhaps too well known to require any particular description. Among them may be found Socinians and Sabellians ; though a majority hold to a modified Arianism. We hope, therefore, to do something to check its progress in this direction also.

The Mormons are strong advocates of Arianism with its modern phases. They believe that Christ was a super-angelic, but created being — that God has a body like man, and that the Spirit of God is the soul of the Father ; analogous to the spirit of man within him. They therefore oppose the doctrine that God is without body or parts, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity in general.

The sect designated as “ Christians,” are known by different names in different parts of the country. They are sometimes called “ Christians ,” (pronouncing the first i long,) while in other localities they are distinguished as Arians , merely, or as Unitarians. Not unfrequently they are so identified with some prominent preacher of their doctrines, as to bear his name; hence the Laneites, the Plummerites, &c. But their sentiments are not materially affected by the title they bear. Whether as “Christians” or “New Lights,” “ Arians,” or “ Plummerites,” they still disseminate the same dangerous errors. They have never given their views to the world in the form of a Confession of Faith, though they have several small volumes in which their views are set forth in a condensed form, and which amount, in fact, to a creed. Of these, Kinkade’s “ Bible Doctrine,” Millard’s “True Messiah,” and Morgridge’s “ True Believer’s Defence,” may be considered as specimens. These works are generally spoken of by the order as containing their sentiments, though they profess to repudiate all creeds but the Bible. They are industriously circulated by their ministers, and are not unfrequently boasted of as orthodox and unanswerable productions. Mr. Kinkade’s work, which was written many years since, has been republished within a few years past, by two preachers of this sect, and recommended by them as expressing their views better than they themselves could express them. Moreover, the “ Christian Palladium ,” the periodical organ of the denomination, commends this new edition in the strongest possible terms. We name these things to show that in discussing Arianism, as found in the above-mentioned volumes, we have

Vi

PREFACE.

not been beating the air. These books are, in fact, the exponents of the views of the order, as much so as if they were publicly set forth as Confessions of Faith.

From the above remarks, the reader will readily understand what is meant by “ Modern Arianism,” and why so many different sects are implicated as its advocates. Though it is proposed to consider only one specific and general error, still, as this error runs out into several different bodies of professed Christians, and is more or less modified by each, respectively ; it is thought proper to name these several bodies, and to class them where they legitimately belong in the controversy.

Though this volume is devoted mainly to the Arian phase of Unitarianism, it is hoped that it will not be found wanting in adaptation to other types of this great error. As a Defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, it is as well suited to a Socinian or Sabellian, as to an Arian community.

In preparing this work for the press, the writer has been particularly desirous to secure for it the following characteristics :

1. A clear and natural method , or arrangement of its parts. The plan adopted is original, and, it is thought, possesses several important advantages.

2. Brevity , and by consequence, cheapness. The mass of readers have neither means to pay for, nor time to read, expensive and voluminous publications.

3. Though concise and brief, it was intended to be complete ; that is, to embrace all that really belongs to the subject. In this respect it differs materially from a treatise on the Divinity of Christ, or upon any other single feature of Trinitarianism.

4. It discusses Arianism, not as it was a century ago, or in the days of Arius, but as it now is in our own country. This is considered one of its most valuable peculiarities.

5. The style of the work is adapted to the class of readers for whom it was mainly intended. It is neither superficial on the one hand, nor metaphysical and tedious on the other. Neither has it been thought best to employ technical and difficult theological terms, when others could be found equally expressive, and more easily understood.

These are features not always to be met with in works of the kind, and such, it is thought, as will favor the circulation and promote the usefulness of the present volume. With an earnest desire to serve the cause of truth among all orders of Christians, and in hope of the Divine approval and blessing, it is now sent forth to the world. May it be to the glory of God.

New York, September, 1846.

Chapter I. Importance Of The Subject

Page

Section I. — The Doctrine of the Trinity has always been considered important by the Church of God, 2

II. — It essentially affects our views of God as an object of worship , .....

III. — It is intimately connected with morals ,

IV. — It influences our love to God,

V. — The doctrine of Atonement depends upon

the doctrine of the Trinity, ... 7

VI. — The evil of sin can be fully estimated only

in connection with this doctrine, . . 8

VII. — Supreme love to Christ can never be innocently indulged, but by admitting his proper Divinity, 8

VIII. — Trust , Hope, and Joy in Christ, are based

upon the doctrine of the Trinity, . . 9

IX. — The denial of this doctrine affects the credit of the Holy Scriptures, as a revelation from God, 9

Chapter IV. Two Natures Of Christ

Doctrine stated, 20

Proved I. — From Isa. ix. 6 — “ Unto us a child is born,” 21

II. — From Mic. v. 2 — “ But thou, Bethlehem,” &c. 22

III. — From Heb. x. 5 — “ A body hast thou pre-

pared me,” 22

IV. — From 1 Peter iii. 18 — “ Put to death in the

flesh,” 22

V. — From Rom. ix. 5 — “ Of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came,” 22

VI. — From Phil. ii. 5 — “ Form of God” — “ form of

a servant,” 23

VII. — From Heb. ii. 14-17 — “Took part” of “flesh

and blood,” 24

VIII. — From Matt. xxii. 41 — “ David’s God and

IX. — From Rev. xxii. 16 — “Root and offspring of

David,” 25

X. — From John xvii. 11, compared with xiv.

23 — “ I am no more in the world” — makes his abode with us, 25

XI. — From Mark xiv. 7, with Matt, xxviii. 20 —

“I am with you alway” — “me ye have not always,” • 25

XII. — Arianism the “spirit of Antichrist” mention-

ed 1 John iv. 3, and 2 John 6, 7. — Why not fellowship or commune with Arians, 26, 27

CONTENTS. ix

Chapter V. Humanity Op Christ

Page

Section I. — Christ was man corporeally , . ♦ . 30 II. — He was man mentally , .... 31

III. — He was man morally , .... 33

IV. — “His relationships imply his humanity, . 33

V. — Was known as man by his cotemporaries, 34

VI. — Is called man by the Prophets and Apostles, 34

VII. — Christ asserts his own humanity, . . 35

VIII. — Proper humanity was essential to an atonement, 35

IX.— Christ must be our “ kinsman11 or relative, to

become our “ Redeemer.” Lev. xxv. 25, 35

X. — Was tempted “in all points” like man, 35

XI. — Is adduced by the Apostle Paul as a specimen of human resurrection, . . .36

XII. — Christ is our Mediator — pattern, . . 37

Recapitulation of arguments, ... 37

Chapter VI. Deity Op Christ

Doctrine stated at length, 38, 39

Arian notions of Divinity— what they mean by “divine,” as applied to Christ, 40

Christ not a il creature”-*- Col. i, 15, and Rev. iii. 15, considered, 41

Basis of the argument — attributes, ... 42, 43

Section I.— God a spirit without body or parts, . . 44

II. — God is the real and only Creator , . . 47

Christ created all things, . . 48

Agency and Delegation scheme, . 48 — 51

III. — Christ the Eternal Being, ... 52

IV. — Christ the Omnipotent Being, ... 54

V. — Christ is Omniscient, .... 56

Consideration of Matt. xxiv. 36, . . 57

VI. — Christ is Omnipresent, ... 62

VII. — He is the proper object of religious worship, 64

Arian doctrine of subordinate worship,

considered at length and refuted, 65, 73

VIII. — Scriptures implying the Deity of Christ, 73

IX.— The titles of Christ are proofs of his supreme

Divinity, 74

X

CONTENTS.

Page

Sec. X. — The Deity of Christ follows from the fact that

h e forgives sins, 79

Arian and Papal notion of pardon by proxy, 80 Recapitulation of arguments, 81

Chapter VII. Deity Of The Holy Spirit

Section I. — Of the nature of God as “ a spirit,” . . 83

II. — Doctrines proved from 2 Cor. iii. 16, 17, .84

III. — From Acts xxviii. 25, .... 85

IV. — The Holy Spirit is the Creator, . . .85

V. — His Divinity is implied, Matt. xii. 31 — sin

against the Holy Ghost, . . .85

VI. — The Holy Spirit is Omniscient, . . 86

VII. — He is Omnipresent, . . . . .86

VIII. — He is Eternal , 86

IX. — The terms “ Holy Ghost ” and “ God ” are used

synonymously in the Scriptures, 86

X. — He is the God who called the Apostles to the

Ministry, &c. 87

XL — Has absolute authority over the Church, 87 Recapitulation of arguments, 88

Chapter VIII

the holy ghost a distinct person from the father.

Section I. — He is a mind or intelligence, 89

II. — The Spirit has intelligence or knowledge, 90

III. — The Holy Ghost has will, 90

IV. — Is distinguished from the Father in the

Scriptures, in the same manner that the Son is, 90-92

V. — The Arian arguments for Christ’s sepa-

rate existence from the Father, proves the Spirit at least to be a distinct person, 92

VI. — The Holy Spirit is subject to the Son as

well as the Father, 92

VII. — The personal acts of the Spirit prove his

distinct personality, 93

CONTENTS.

xi

Chapter IX. Three Persons In One God

Page

Summary of points established, 96

Section I— Plurality of the term “ Godhead” . . 97

II. — Of the term “ Elohim” Gen. i. 1, . .97

III. — “ Let us make man in our image,” Gen. i. 26, 98

IV. — “The man is become as one of us” Gen.

V. — “ Go to, let us go down,” &c. xi. 7, .99

VI. — Proved from Isa. vi. 8, .... 99

VII. — From 1 John v. 7. “ There are three that

bear record in heaven,” &c. — text vindicated at length as genuine, 101 — 108

Its true doctrine set forth, 108

Arian proof-texts considered, viz. John xvii.

VIII. — A trinity of persons proven from Matt, xxiii.

9 — “ Go ye therefore and teach,” 113

IX. — From the Apostolic benediction, 2 Corinthians xiii. 14, 113-114

Chapter X. Objections To The Doctrine Of The Trinity Answered

Section I. — That it is “ of human origin,” . . 115

II. — “ An invention of Popery,” . . . 116

III. — That “ it is unscriptural,” . . . 118

IV. — “ It is a mystery,” . . . . 119

V. — “ It is unreasonable,” .... 120

VI. — “ It represents Christ as two persons,” and

thus makes out four persons in the Godhead, 121

VII. — “ Allows us only a human sacrifice in the

atonement,” 122

VlII. — “Goes to say that the Son of God never died,” 124

IX. — “It declares, in substance, that God died,” 125

X. — “Admits no humiliation in the advent of

Christ,” 126

XI. — “ Allows of no Mediator between God

and us,” 126

XII. — “ Represents Christ as sending himself into

the world, praying to himself,” &c., 127 xii

CONTENTS.

Page

Sec. XIII.— “ It makes the sufferings of Christ on the

cross to be comparatively nothing,” 128

Chapter XI. Objections To Arianism Stated And Urged

Section I. — Arianism is of suspicious origin, 133

II. — Is a system of unbelief rather than a system of faith, 134

III. — It shuns investigation, or “ hateth the light,” 134

IV. — It recognizes at least three distinct Gods, 135

V. — It acknowledges two distinct Saviours, 135

VI. — It endorses some of the worst features of Popery — worship of creatures — pardon by proxy — intolerance, 136 — 141

VII. — It is pointedly reprobated in the Holy Scriptures, 142

VIII.— Modern Arianism destroys the personality

of God, angels, and disembodied Spirits, 143

IX. — It destroys all ground of trust in the Lord

Jesus Christ, 143

X. — It denies the doctrine of Atonement by

Christ, 145

XI. — It takes away the strongest proofs of human

resurrection, 147

XII. — It robs God of the honor of Creation and providence, and wholly excludes him from participation in the affairs of this world, 148

XIII. — It keeps bad company, and has a strange af-

finity to other forms of error, 149

XIV. — It has never been received as truth by the

Church of God, 149

XV. — It has never been blessed of God as an instrument of extensive reformation, 152

XVI. — In the absence of the Divine blessing, it resorts to unjustifiable and wicked means tosustain itself, 153

XVII. — Modern Arianism outrages philosophy, reason, revelation, consistency, and common sense, 155

XVIII. — It wholly excludes God and Christ from the

Church, and from the world, 157

General Summary of arguments — conclusion, 159

A SCRIPTURAL DEFENCE, ETC.

Chapter I. Importance Of The Subject

Before entering upon our main design, we invite attention for a few moments to the importance and general bearing of the subject. From the days of Arius it has been a chosen scheme with his disciples to represent the doctrine of the Trinity as a matter of mere speculation, and consequently of little importance. The first step in almost every effort to disseminate Arianism, is, if possible, to induce the belief that the opposite doctrine has no practical bearing, that we may believe or disbelieve it, without in the least affecting our Christian experience, or impeding our progress in the way to heaven.

If such is the nature of the subject, the production of the following pages is a criminal waste of time and paper ; and no person should participate in our guilt, by reading what we have written. But should the reader conclude to proceed, the attentive perusal of these pages will be expected of those only who have proper views of the nature and importance of the subject ; as no wise man will spend much time or thought on a matter of little or no consequence. This question, then, should be 1

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

settled at the outset. If, as has been alleged, the doctrine of the Trinity is of little importance, and has no necessary connection with our present or future happiness, this work should be thrown aside at the close of the first chapter; and the whole subject consigned to forgetfulness. On the other hand, should it be made to appear that this doctrine is so far fundamental in Christianity, and so interwoven with its whole frame-work, as to involve in its rejection the rejection of the saving truth of God, and the blood of atonement, and consequently the hope of salvation by Jesus Christ, no reasonable man will dismiss the subject with a superficial examination ; or rest contented till he has learned the truth as it is in Christ.

I. That this doctrine has been considered and defended as a doctrine of vital importance, by a majority of Christians in all ages, few will deny. It is impossible to account for the long and earnest controversies that have been kept up from the time of Arius, upon this subject, without supposing that one party, at least, considered the point in dispute a matter of great interest. It would be an invidious reflection upon the Church, to suppose that she has contended thus long and earnestly about nothing. It is too late now, after centuries of polemic warfare, to throw this doctrine aside as a matter of mere speculation. Besides the general sentiment of the Church for eighteen hundred years, it is a consideration of no small weight, as it respects this point, that nine-tenths of all the professed Christians in the land consider it a doctrine of vital importance, and as lying at the very foundation of the Christian system. So deeply are they impressed with this belief, that they not only discard the opposite error as false, and ruinous in its tendencies,

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

but they even refuse to fellowship those who understandingly embrace it; or to admit that they have built upon the rock Christ Jesus. Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Orthodox Quakers. Episcopalians, Reformed Dutch, and Lutherans, all agree that the doctrine of the Trinity is an essential doctrine of Revelation. Now were the above churches Romanists — were they grossly ignorant or corrupt, or even if they all belonged to the same ecclesiastical organization, the case would be different. But this is not the fact. They are all Protestants and students of the Holy Scriptures, and have learning and ability to understand them ; and as to their piety, the most conscientious Arians themselves will readily fellowship them as the children of God. Besides, each church has its peculiarities in doctrine and government, and its separate interests ; and yet, on the point in hand they unite in a common verdict, not only that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, but that those who understandingly reject it, “deny the Lord that bought them.”

But allowing that this doctrine has no intrinsic importance ; does not the fact that it is generally believed by the Church of Christ, invest it with an importance that should secure for it a candid and prayerful consideration ? If it is considered fundamental, by any body of Christians, must they not in consistency reject all from their communion who deny it ? and ought we to complain of their exclusiveness, till we have inquired whether or not they have sufficient warrant for their course. If they are wrong in proscribing the opposite sentiment, then indeed the Arians have cause to complain ; but if, on the other hand, they are justifiable in so doing, we should not only cease to brand them

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

as bigots and persecutors, but commend their prudence and caution, in rearing up effectual barriers against the encroachments of error.

But let us look at the merits of the doctrine itself. The Christian religion stands pre-eminently above every other religion, as furnishing correct knowledge of the true God. This knowledge lies at the root of every man’s theology, and must, consequently, affect his whole creed, his practice, and his eternal condition. The present, then, must be a question of great magnitude. Unlike many fruitless controversies that disturb the peace of Zion, this question involves the great first principles of the Christian faith. It relates to Jehovah — his nature and mode of being ; to the character of Jesus Christ, and the whole plan of remedy and salvation by His atonement. How then can it be a subject of little importance ? and what Christian can be indifferent, in respect to matters so vitally connected with his hope of heaven ? Let us approach the subject, then, with seriousness and with candor ; and let us bestow upon it that time and attention which its importance demands.

The following remarks, chiefly from Mr. Watson, will serve more fully to illustrate the point under consideration.

II. It essentially affects our views of God as the object of our worship , whether we regard him as one in essence, and one in person, or admit that in the unity of this Godhead there are three equally Divine persons. These are two very different conceptions. Both cannot be true. The God of those who deny the Trinity, is not the God of those who worship the Trinity in unity, nor on the contrary ; so that one or the other worships what is “ nothing in the world and, for any reality in the object of

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

worship, might as well worship a pagan idol. If God be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the duties owing to God will be duties owing to that Triune distinction, which must be paid accordingly; and whoever leaves any of these out of his idea of God, comes so far short of honoring God- perfectly, and of serving him in proportion to the manifestations he has made of himself. As the object of our worship is affected by our respective views on this great subject, so also its character . We are between the extremes of pure and acceptable devotion, and gross and offensive idolatry, and must run to one or the other. If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, then those who deny it do not worship the God of the Scriptures, but a fiction of their own framing ; if it be false, the Trinitarian, by paying Divine honors to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, is equally guilty of idolatry, though in another mode. It is as important then to know the truth on this subject, as it is to know whether we are idolaters, or the worshippers of the true God.

III. The connection of this doctrine with morals , is also obvious and striking. The Trinitarian scheme is essentially connected with the doctrine of Atonement, while the Unitarian theory necessarily excludes it. From this arise opposite views of God, as the Governor of the world — of the law under which we are placed — of the nature and consequences of sin, the violation of that law — points which have an essential relation to morals, because they affect the nature of the sanctions which accompany the law of God. He who denies the Doctrine of the Trinity, and its necessary adjunct, the Atonement, makes sin a matter of comparatively trifling moment : God is not strict to punish it ; and if punishment follow, it is not eternal. Whether, under 1*

IMPORTANCE OF THE SUBJECT.

these soft and easy views of the law of God, and of its transgression by sin, morals can have an equal sanction, or human conduct be equally restrained, are points too obvious to be argued.

IV. Our love to God, which is the sum of every duty, its sanctifying motive, and consequently a compendium of all true religion, is most intimately, and even essentially connected with the doctrine in question. God’s love to us is the ground of our love to him ; and by our views of that, it must be heightened or diminished. The love of God to man in the gift of his Son, is that manifestation of it on which the Scriptures most emphatically and frequently dwell, and on which they establish our duty of loving God and one another. Now the estimate which we are to take of the love of God, must be the value of his gifts to us. His greatest gift is the gift of his Son, through whom alone we have the promise of everlasting life ; but our estimate of the love which gives must be widely different, according as we regard the gift bestowed, as a creature , or as a divine person, — as merely a son of man, or as the Son of God. If the former only, it is difficult to conceive in what this love, constantly represented as u unspeakable ” and astonishing, could consist. Indeed, if we suppose Christ to be a man only, on the Socinian scheme, or as an exalted creature, according to the Arians, God might be rather said to have “ so loved his Son ” than us, as to send him into the world, on a service so honorable, and which was to be followed by so high and vast a reward, that he, a creature , should be advanced to universal dominion, and receive universal homage as the price only of temporary sufferings, which, upon either the Socinian or Arian scheme, were not greater than those which many of his disciples en-